6 top, ἔντευξις petition, ἐντροπή ‘shame,” ἐρεύγομαι Many verbs, moreover, which in the earlier lan- (B) But this brings to our attention the Grammatical peculiarities which the language of the NT exhibits in common with later Greek. Peculiarities of this class, whether relating to form or to construction, are much less numerous than those which, agreeably to the general law of growth in language, affect its vocabulary. a. The peculiarities of form are some of them common to the different dialects of the earlier Greek; as, βούλει, ὄψει, διδύασι, τιθέασι, εδαφιοῦσιν, ǹdvváμny, hμe\λe, nouλnony, to the Attic; dat. ype, gen. and dat. in -ns, -7, from nouns in -pă (as μάχαιρα, πρώρα, πλήμμυρα, σπεῖρα), the presents γίνομαι, γινώσκω, also εἶτεν (εἶτα), after the Ionic; αφέωνται (for ἀφεῖνται), ἔτω (for ἔστω), ἔρνιξ (ζρνις), held to be Doric; ἐδυνάσθην, collat. form of ἠδυνήθην, ἐκάμμυσα (καμμύω), ῥήσσω (ράσσω), Epic; ἀποκτέννω (-κτείνω), Eolic. Others may be traced to the popular preference for regularity of inflection: e.g. the change of verbs in into verbs in w; the termination gai in the 2nd pers. sing., as dúvaσai, kavxâσai; the inflection oda, das, dare, etc.; the aorists čowra, ἔζησα, ἡμάρτησα, ήξα from ἄγω, ήξα (?) from ἥκω, and the like. There is also a propensity to omit the augment of the pluperfect, and especially to give the 2nd aor. the endings of the first, as εἴδαμεν, -αν, εἶπαν, ἔπεσα, -αν, ἦλθαν, ἐλθάτω, etc.; and in the imperfect of exw we find eixar and εἴχοσαν (50 ἐδίδοσαν, ἐδολιοῦσαν), due doubtless to the love of assimilation in form. Sundry nouns have varying genders, as ó and ʼn Báros, λnves, λuis; ὁ and τὸ ἔλεος, ζῆλος, ἦχος (?), θεμέλιος -λιον, πλοῦτος, σκότος; ή νίκη and τὸ νίκος; and even a twofold declension, as δεσμός plur. -μοί and -μά, ἔλεος του and -ous, σKOTOS -ou and -ous, also nouns ending in -αρχος, -άρχης (as ἑκατόνταρχος and ἑκατοντάρχης); others show a preference at times for the uncontracted forms, as doréa, doréwv. The same tendency to assimilate explains, probably, the fondness for terminal v :-both in nouns, as ἄρσεναν, μῆναν, ἀσεβήν, ảo paλýy, σvyyev, xeîpar; and in verbs, as 3rd pers. plur. of the perfect, yeyovav, čyvwkav, elpηkav, ἑώρακαν (εύρακαν), πέπτωκαν (πέπωκαν). Here it was favoured by the gradual obscuration of the distinction between the perfect and the aorist (see in b below), to which cause also may be due the occasional appearance of the ending -Kes for -Kas in the 2nd pers. sing. of the perfect. The dual number has disappeared, and the word dúo itself tends to become indeclinable. Particles of rest (TOû, ÖTOυ, etc.) have superseded those of motion (ποῖ, ὅποι, etc.); εἰς has encroached largely upon the province of τιs, and πότερος (-ρον, except in Jn 717) has disappeared. Negligent or variant pronunciation appears in irregularities of spelling; such as the retention of μ in sundry forms and derivatives of λαμβάνω (as Anuyeolai, áváλnμfis, etc.); the neglect of assimilation in compounds of ev and our; the doubling or non-doubling of v, p, and some other letters, e.g. γένημα ; inconsistency respecting r movable, elision, and the final s in ἄχρις, μέχρις, οὕτως. The interchange of sundry letters, as in uaor's and μασθός, βέννυμι and σβέννυμι, σφυρίς and σπυρίς, οὐθείς and οὐδείς, ποταπός and ποδαπός; and especially in the case of the vowels a, e, n,, as well as a, e, a tendency to that obliteration of distinctions which culminated in itacism and the pronunciation of modern Greek. Many of these irregularities, and others both of form and pronunciation, have been adopted by the editors of the text of the NT in conformity with the usage of the oldest extant MSS; but how far, in any given case, they are to be set down to the account of the original authors or of later scribes, is a question to be settled only after the other nearly contemporary writings have been edited with equal attention to such details, and in the light of the accumulating testimony of inscriptions, papyri, and other relics. b. The Syntactical peculiarities which the NT shares in common with later and spoken Greek, though less numerous than the formal, are not less noteworthy. They appear particularly in the constructions of the verb. Besides those alluded to in the opening paragraph of this article, may be mentioned:-the general disuse of the optative in dependent sentences; the weakening of constructions with ra (a particle which had nearly supplanted ows), which often have the force merely of the classic infinitive; the interchange of ἐάν and ἄν; the use of ὅταν with the indicative (Rev 8'), and in dependent clauses to denote indefinite frequency; an extended use of ὅτι, and also of the final infin., the genitival infin., and the infin. with ev and eis; the scanty employment of interrogative particles, and the use of el in direct questions (perhaps a Hebraism); the ordinary substitution of the present participle for the future, and in general a fondness for the present tense (especially λέγει, ἔρχεται, etc.) agreeably to the love of vivid. ness and directness; a lax use of the aorist participle, in fact a tendency to blur the distinction between the aor. tense and the perfect; the use of pelor as a particle of wishing; the prefixing of apes to the hortatory subjunctive, and the pleonastic use of the imperatives of ὁρᾶν, βλέπειν (as opâre ßλéñeтe áñó, etc. Mk 85); the tendency of μý to encroach on the province of où, especially with infinitives and participles, and to prevent a hiatus ; the use of the compound negative οὐ μή; employment of eiui with the participle as a periphrasis for the simple verb; and the freq. omission of the copula εἰμί ; carelessness in placing particles (e.g. ἄρα Lk 1120. 48, ye Lk 118, Toivuv He 1313, oμws Gal 315). The popular striving after emphasis which appears in many of these usages shows itself, further, in the use of the active voice with the reflexive pronoun instead of the middle; of idtos instead of the simple possessive pronoun; of els for the indefinite Tis, and, in general, a needless multiplica tion of pronouns; of devices for strengthening the forms of comparison, e.g. ελαχιστότερος, μειζότερος, μᾶλλον περισσότερον, and the use of παρά and ὑπέρ with comparatives instead of ἤ (yet ή alone is at times used with comparative force, e.g. Mt 189, Lk 157, 1 Co 14"); of prepositions to reinforce the simple cases. The use of the neut. sing. of an adjective with the art. as a substitute for the abstract noun, though not unusual in the classics, is more common in Paul and Hebrews, and in the later Gr. writers became a striking literary mannerism. II. THE ARAMAIC AND HEBREW ELEMENT.It is usual to distribute the Hebraisms of the NT into two classes: perfect or pure Hebraisms, which consist of such words, phrases, and constructions as have no precedent or analogue in extant Gr., and hence are held to be directly transferred to the NT from the mother tongue of the Jews; and imperfect' Hebraisins, consisting of Hebraistic expressions to be found, indeed, for substance in Gr., but the use of which by the NT writers is most naturally traced to the influence of their native language. The limits of this latter class, however, our scanty knowledge of the history of the later Gr. language makes it difficult to fix; and for our present purpose it will be more convenient to follow the classification adopted by us hitherto. A just impression, moreover, of this element of the NT language requires that our presentation of facts should be liberal and inclusive, rather than rigorously restricted. For example, the word orépua with the meaning progeny may be traced as far back as Eschylus and Pindar; but the more than thirty instances of its use in this sense in the NT fairly entitle it to be enrolled as a Hebraism. (A) Lexical Hebraisms:-not all of which, be it remembered, first make their appearance in the NT. a. New words. Of these, some are (1) Semitic words simply transliterated; as, áßßá, áλ\n\ová, ἀμήν, γαββαθά, γολγοθά, κοράν, πάσχα, ῥαββεί etc., μακά, σαβαώθ, σατάν, σίκερα, ταλειθά, χερουβείν ; others are (2) Grecized by some slight change, generally of termination; as, ẞáros, yéevva, šišáviov, (and as is commonly thought) κάμηλος, κιννάμωμον (to which may prob. be added the names of several other plants and spices, as well as of precious stones; 28, κύμινον, λίβανος, συκάμινος, ἴσσωπος, σάπφειρος), κύρος, μαμωνᾶς, μάννα, σάτον, σάββατον. b. Far more numerous are the words and phrases, Gr. in form, which under Heb. influence have taken on a new meaning; as, ayyeλos (ápxáyyeλos), ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος (ἐκεῖνος, ὁ μέλλων), ἀνάθεμα (-τίζειν), γλώσσα ‘a people, δέειν and λύειν ' to forbid and permit,' o diáẞolos, 85a brightness' (Toû pwrós, Ac 221), durauis Toû ouparoû (of the stars), evrov TOU BEOû in the judgment of God,' oμoλoyeîobai give praise,' oрKLOTs an exorcist,' Tokomý of the divine visitation, uakpoovuéw 'be long-suffering, vuon 'daughter-in-law, olkodoμer in trop. sense (?), Τνομα ‘authority, ̓ ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός of envy, όφει. λέτης (-λήματα, in reference to sin), περιπατείν and oobs in a technical sense, of a course of life, (Tov νόμον in classic Greek to make a law ') ποιεῖν τὸν So to do, keep, the law,' Topeveσa 'to die,' also π. ὀπίσω τινός to become one's follower, πορνεύειν (-νεία) of idolatry, πρόσωπον θαυμάζειν and Xaußáver, also eis #powπov λérew, etc., of externals, σkávõaλov (-New) in a fig. sense, σrépua off spring, owricw of spiritual enlightenment. Not a few are due to national institutions, usages, historic incidents, and the like; as, ȧxpoβυστία, ἀποδεκατίω, ἀποσυνάγωγος (αρχισυνάγωγος, etc.), οἱ ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως, γραμματεύς, διαθήκη, διασπορά, δωδεκάφυλον, ἐνκαίνια (-νίζω), ἐπιγαμβρεύω, ευνουχίζω, θυσιαστήριον, τὸ ἱλαστήριον, καθαρίζω and κοινόω levitically, κληρονομέω in its technical use, | Xarpeia the ritual service, AvTpów in its theocratic sense, μοσχοποιέω, νομοδιδάσκαλος, ὁλοκαύτωμα, πατριάρχης, πεντηκοστή, πρεσβυτέριον, προσήλυτος, προφήτης, πρωτοκαθεδρία, πρωτοτόκια, σκηνοπηγία, υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (τοῦ θεοῦ), φυλακτήριον. There are indications, however, that some of these terms (e.g. καθαρίζω, πρεσβυτέριον, προφήτης) were known to heathen usage in a religious reference (Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, Marburg, 1897). Others spring from the Oriental love of pictorialness and circumstantiality; as, ἀπερίτμητος τῇ καρ δίᾳ, ἐν καρδίᾳ λέγειν, ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν πεπλάτυνται, ἐν γεννητοῖς γυναικῶν, ἐν ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου, ἐνωτίζεσθαι, ἔσκαψε καὶ ἐβάθυνε, ζητεῖν τὴν ψυχήν τινος, καρπὸς τῶν XEXÉWV, TOTÝρLov in a fig. application, σàpš kai alμa, σπλαγχνίζεσθαι, στηρίζειν τὸ πρόσωπον, στόμα μαχαίρης, viós or Tékvov with the gen. especially of an abstract leg. εἰρήνης, βροντῆς, φωτός, ὀργῆς, ὑπακοῆς, etc.), Xellos Tŷs aláσons. But some of these phrases may with equal propriety be ranked with (B) Grammatical Hebraisms. The great dissimilarity in structure between the Heb. and the Gr. operated as a barrier to the free introduction of the characteristic idioms of the former language into the latter. The grammatical influence of their native tongue shows itself in the NT writers rather in their general style of expression; in particular, a marked inaptness in the use of moods (even as compared with contemporary Gr. authors), simplicity of construction, and a coordination of clauses which would have seemed monotonous if not illogical to a Greek. Still, usages are not wanting which distinctly recall the Hebrew. Among them are the following:-An extended use of prepositions; for instance, ev (cf. ): not only in construction with verbs, as evôokeiv, duvée, etc., but particularly with instrumental force, as κράζειν ἐν φωνῇ μεγάλη (Rev 1415), ποιεῖν κpáros év ẞpaxion (Lk 151), moleμeîv év τy poμpala тoû σтóμATOS (Rev 216).—eis (cf. }): in such phrases as γίνεσθαι εἰς οὐδέν (Ac 53), λαμβάνειν εἰς κληρονομίαν (He 11%), λογίζεσθαι εἰς περιτομήν (Ro 2); and in general, its insertion before the second accusative after verbs signifying 'make,' 'hold,' etc., as, eis προφήτην αὐτὸν εἶχον (Mt 2146) ἀπό (ef. 7): as, peye άπs, etc. (Mt 37, Jn 105).—éπi (cf. Sy): as, ἐλπίζειν ἐπί, etc.—μετά (cf. Dy): μεγαλύνειν, ποιεῖν, ἔλεος μετά, etc. (Lk 158. 72). Periphrastic expansions of prepositions:-by the use of opaλubs (cf. a) Mt 214, Lk 1942;-πσwπov (cf. ) Ac 5", Mk 12, Ac 134;-σrua (cf. p) Mt 4*, Lk 17o, ( ) 2 Co 13', Mt 1816;—xeip (cf. 7) Jn 109, Gal 319, Ac 223 735. The employment of ἔμπροσθεν (Mt 112 1814), ἐνώπιον (Ac 65), κατενώπιον (Eph 14), κατέναντι (Ro 417), Tiow (Lk 1427), as prepositions.-The pleonastic use of pronouns (see above, I. B. b, sub fin.), especially air's (e.g. Rev 27.17), which is even added in a relative sentence (Mt 312, Mk 725, Rev 72-9 etc.).— The use of a limiting genitive to express quality (Lk 186, Ja 21 125).—The use of (a superfluous) kai ἐγένετο (or ἐγένετο δέ) before a specification of time or occurrence.-An imitation of the Heb. infinite absolute by a cognate dative prefixed to the verb (as ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα Lk 2015, χαρι χαίρει Jn 32), or (in quotations) by a prefixed participle (as BXÉTOVTES βλέψετε Mt 1314, cf. the pictorial ἀναστάς or πορευθείς before a verb).—ei (cf. Heb. o) in sentences with suppressed apodosis as a formula of swearing or to express emphatic negation (He 4.5, Mk 812).-A lax use of droκpivoμai (cf. ;) when no proper question has preceded. —#poσriðŋμi (cf. 79;) with an infin. to express repetition (e.g. poréεTO TρÍTOV TÉμαι Lk 2001) 12). A superfluous use of ὄνομα (Mt 1", Lk 221; found in papyri as early as B.C. 260). The repetition of a numeral to give it distributive force (e.g. δύο δύο Mk 67; cf. συμπόσια συμπόσια, πρασιαὶ πρασιαί Mk 639, (and probably) ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ 2 Co 416. ου . . . πᾶς equivalent to οὐδείς. Such phrases as τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί (Mk 1, Jn 24), περὶ ἁμαρτίας, 80. θυσία (Ro 83 ?). The majority of these Hebraistic forms and constructions appear in the LXX also, which as a tr. -in parts servile, and made by persons some of whom evidently had but an imperfect acquaintance with the Gr. language-is far more Hebraistic in its cast than the NT. But it would be a mistake to assume that this tr. in its peculiarities represents a type of Gr. established and in actual currency at the time. Such an assumption would reverse the historical process. While its language reproduces fundamentally, no doubt, the popular Gr. of the Ptolemaic period, its distinctive character is due rather to the translators' exaggerated deference to the Heb. sacred text, and their mechanical reproduction of it. Yet beyond all question the idioms of this Gr. reproduction of the earlier Scriptures, made familiar as they were by the religious use of the version for generations among the Jews of the Dispersion, must have had great influence in forming the type of Gr. current among people of Jewish stock. Indeed, owing to the cosmopolitan relations of that race during the time intervening between the origin of the two bodies of literature, it need not surprise us to encounter idioms having a distinctly Hebraistic flavour even in native Gr. circles. Consequently our classifications here, as elsewhere, are more a matter of convenience than of rigorous historical accuracy. We must not forget the uncertainty arising from our present defective knowledge. We must not interpret the fact of prior occurrence into clear proof either of primary origin on the one hand, or direct derivation on the other. We must not overlook the truth that coincidences of popular expression are to be found in many widely separated and unrelated tongues. But, notwithstanding all uncertainties and abatements, the general influence of the LXX upon NT Greek was indubitably great. (See Schmiedel's Winer, § 4. 16. A good Lexicon and Grammar of the LXX are pressing needs of the student of Biblical Greek, and are now made possible by Swete's edition of the text, and Hatch and Redpath's Concordance. Help on one minor point may be found in C. W. Votaw's comprehensive lists of The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical Greek, pp. 5, 9. Chicago, 1896. See Viteau as mentioned in the Bibliography, VII. below). But not all the influence on the language of the NT writers came from Hebrew and Aramaic or from the LXX. Other languages foreign to the Gr. had left their traces on that language by the 1st cent. of our era, some of which can with tolerable assurance be pointed out. III. OTHER FOREIGN ELEMENTS. (4) The supremacy of Rome, and its multifarious official relations with the populations under its sway, in which relations it naturally employed its vernacular (see LATIN LANGUAGE), would prepare us to expect to find not a few traces of Latin in the popular language of the apostolic period. a. The Lexical Latinisms in NT consist chiefly of judicial and military terms, names of coins, articles of apparel, utensils, etc.; as, doσápiov, δηνάριον, ἔχω @stimo, κεντυρίων, κῆνσος, κοδράντης, κολωνία, κουστωδία, λεγεών, λέντιον, λιβερτίνος, λίτρα (Lat. libra ?), μάκελλον, μεμβράνα, μίλιον, μύδιος, ξέστης, πραιτώριον, σικάριος, σιμικίνθιον, σουδάριον, σπεκουλάτωρ, αἱ ταβέρναι, τίτλος, φελύνης, φόρον, φραγέλλιον (-λύω), χάρτης, χώρος. More than two score Lat. names of persons and places occur, as well as the technical terms ὁ ZeBaor's (Augustus), and Kaioap. Latin phrases reappear in έργασίαν δοῦναι (operam dare), τὸ ἱκανὸν λαμβάνειν (satis accipere), τὸ ἱκανὸν ποιεῖν (satis facere), συμβούλιον λαμβάνειν (consilium capere). Notice also où öŋ (Mt 27' tu videris), ὄψεσθε αὐτοί (Ac 1815). b. The influence of the Lat. language upon the Grammar of NT Gr. is much more difficult to trace with confidence than in the case of the Heb., owing to the closer structural affinity between the Lat. language and the Greek. Traces of that influence, however, may be detected, it is thought, with more or less distinctness in the following constructions: -The preference for őr and iva over the accusative and infinitive (cf. the growing use of ut after impero, rogo, etc., æquum est, mos est, etc.); the encroachment of the subjunctive on the optative after an historic tense; the tendency to obscure the distinction between the perfect and the aorist; the use of amó before the genitive after puλáoσeiv and other verbs of fearing (cf. cavere ab); the exclusive use of the infinitive (even of the inf. passive) after Keλeve; the use of the accusative after πроéрxeσ@ai (cf. præire aliquem), of the dative after yauéw (cf. nubere alicui), of ex after vików (cf. victoriam ferre ex); the continuative os equivalent to Kai OUTOS (cf. qui et hic) in a co-ordinate clause; the anticipatory position of άw and wрó in specifications of time and place; the general omission of the interjection (ŵ) before the vocative, the use of the preposition oúv as tantamount to Kai. (B) But the current Gr. of our Lord's day had appropriated other foreign elements from the languages spoken in the various provinces of the empire. These, again, were chiefly names of local objects or usages. Among such are reckoned the following:βαΐον, βίβλος (βύβλος), σίναπι, σινδών (yet cf. Ivdós, Sind), recognized as Egyptian; kpáẞATTOS (cf. Lat. grabatus), wapeμßoλń, púμn?, as Macedonian; άyyapeów (yet see Esch. Agam. 282), yáša, oavdálov (-daλov), as Persian; appaßúv as Phoenician; péon (-da) as Gallic or Celtic; Bouvós as Cyrenaic and Sicilian. Several of these words, however, had long before become naturalized in Greek. Both IV. But the element which most conspicuously distinguishes the Gr. of the NT is the RELIGIOUS ELEMENT. Here we come to the very centre and soul of our subject. For the NT language is no mere medley of miscellaneous linguistic survivals, no mechanical mingling of diverse ingredients; its vitality resides in the spirit that quickens it. This discloses itself on every page. It ushers a reader into a new realm of thought, and introduces him to a new type of life. had their natural effect on the speech of the first believers. Yet just because the essence of the language consists in its new spirit, it escapes anatomical dissection. It is as pervasive as the atmosphere, but as intangible as a perfume. Hence it is most inadequately exhibited by any catalogue of specifications. The few particulars that can here be set down will serve, at the best, as mere suggestions of its character. (A) The religious element in its Lexical aspects. Many of the NT words denoting concrete objects or external institutions and relations were inherited from Judaism, and have been illustrated under II. A. a and b above. We will here, therefore, confine ourselves mainly to those of a more internal or spiritual character. a. The words wholly new are, from the nature of the case, comparatively few, and any list of them that may be attempted is subject to doubt and revision by reason of present imperfect knowledge. But among the more distinctive the following may perhaps be mentioned: ȧyaboπoita, alσxpokЄpôŵs, ἀκατάκριτος, ἀλίσγημα, ἀνακαινύω (-καίνωσις), ἀντιμισθία, ἀντίχριστος, ἀπέκδυσις, ἀπελεγμός, αὐτοκατάκριτος, ἀφιλάγαθος, ἀφιλάργυρος, βαττολογέω, δαιμονιώδης, δικαιοκρισία, δίλογος, διώκτης, δοκιμή, εγκομβύομαι, ἐθελοθρησκία, εἰδωλολατρία etc., ἐπιούσιος, ἑτεροδιδασκαλέω, εὐαγγελιστής, εὐμετάδοτος, εὐπροσωπέω, Θεοδίδακτος, ἰσάγγελος, καλοδιδάσκαλος, καρδιογνώστης, καταθεματίζω, κενοφωνία, λογομαχέω (-χία), ὀλιγόπιστος (-πιστία), ὀρθοποδίω, ὀφθαλμοδουλία, πληροφορία, πολύσπλαγχνος, προσωπολήμπτης (-λημπτέω, - λημψία), πρωτοκαθεδρία, συνζωοποιέω, συνκακοπαθέω, συνκακουχέω, συνσταυρόω, σύνψυχος, φρεναπατάω (-πάτης), φυσιόω (-σίωσις), χρηστεύομαι, ψευδάδελφος, ψευδαπόστολος (and other compounds of ψευδο). Incomparably more noteworthy are b. The New Meanings with which the new faith has freighted the old terms. A few of these meanings are of a technical or ritual character; as, ἀδελφός of fellow-Christians, τὸ ἀντίτυπον (τύπος), ἀποστολή (-λos, in the official sense), ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, etc. of angels, βάπτισμα, γλώσσα of the gift of tongues,” διάκονος, ἐκκλησία (cf. ἐκλεκτοί, κλητοί), ἐπίσκοπος, εὐαγγέλιον (-λιστής), ἱερεῖς of Christians, παράδεισος (2 Co 124), ό παράκλητος, προφητεύω (-φήτης) of a Christian function (ef. II. A. b. above), ὁ χριστύς. But the aggregate influence of Christianity is shown in modifying, more or less, the mass of the NT vocabulary. It has elevated, spiritualized, transfigured words previously current. It has set old terms in new relations. It has added lustre to conceptions already radiant. It has made substantial, and clothed with divine majesty, ex pressions embodying the instinctive judgments and aspirations of men. Its transforming power, being diffused and a matter of degree, cannot (as has been already said be adequately exhibited in isolated particulars. The attempt, furthermore, | to illustrate it would require space not here at command. Only a few terms, therefore, will be set down, the study of which, it is believed, will more than verify the statements just made: such words as ἀγάπη, εἰρήνη, ζωή, πίστις, συνείδησις, σωτηρία, χάρις are monuments of its power to raise language to a new level Words of secular reference like κόσμος, of national application like οἱ ἅγιοι, ὁ λαὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (He 4), Ισραήλ (Ro 9), of everyday life like οδός, παγίς, πρόσκομμα, φορτίον, even the very component parts of man's being -- σάρξ, ψυχή, πνεῦμα, take on an ethical significance, of which in this last case the later philosophic use furnishes but a foregleam. A servile word like ταπεινοφροσύνη | is ennobled; a term like σταυρός, suggestive of infamy, is crowned with a halo of glory. The emphasis given to other words has made them the cardinal terms of doctrinal discussion through the Christian centuries: witness dikaw and its cognates, ἀπολύτρωσις, ἀπώλεια, επιστρέφεσθαι, ἔργα, θάνατος, μετάνοια, etc. (B) Even the Grammatical influence of the new religious thought bears witness to its fertilizing power. Take as an instance πιστεύω with its half a dozen different constructions in the NT (viz. absol. ; with the dat. ; with eis and the accus. ; with ἐπί and the accus. or the dat. ; with ev and the dat.; with an object accus.). Ελπίζειν, ὁμολογεῖν, and other words experienced a similar enlargement of construction under Christian conceptions (see A. Buttmann, Gram. of NT Greek, § 133, 4 sq., Eng. tr. p. 173f); and the wealth of suggestion made to reside in such phrases as ἐν Χριστῷ, ἐν κυρίῳ, is full of instruction (cf. G. A. Deissmann, Die neutest. Formel • in Christo Jesu untersucht, Marburg, 1892). | | | from the literature that immediately preceded and followed it, and, on the other hand, to unify it unwarrantably. It is a library comprising the works of, perhaps, ten or more different authors. The statement that they all use the same language' requires at once the qualification but they do not all use it in the same way.' The first three Gospels, for instance, with all their indications of a common basis, exhibit in their present form indubitable marks of the individuality of their several authors. The frequent use of τότε (ἀπὸ τύτε some 90 times), ή βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (some 33 times), ἵνα (ὅπως) πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθέν, etc., some 12 times), ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν (τοῖς) οὐρανοῖς or ὁ οὐράνιος (20 times), προσέρχεσθαι (51 tines), συνάγειν (24 times), ἀναχωρεῖν (10 times), etc., mark distinctly the personality of Matthew. The use of εὐθύς (some two score times), of the pictorial participle, of diminutives and Latinisms, and, notwithstanding his terseness, a proneness to emphasize by the repetition of equivalent phrases (e.g. διαπαντός νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, 55; ἔσωθεν ἐκ τῆς καρδίας, 72; νῦν ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ, 100; σήμερον ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί, 143), etc., are some of the traits that characterize no less distinctly the second Evangelist. A comparison of the sections common to Luke with the other two shows the distinctively literary cast of his phraseology. The identity of topic but throws the difference in language into greater relief. He distinguishes himself from the other Synoptists by his fondness for infinitives (ἐν τῷ with the inf. 37 times, τοῦ with the inf. 25 times), for καὶ ἐγένετο οι έγενετο δέ (43 times), δὲ καί (29 times), καὶ αὐτός (28 times), σύν (25 times), πορεύομαι (50 times), ὑποστρέφειν (22 times), ενώπιον (20 times), ἔμπροσθεν (10 times). The strikingly Semitic complexion of his first chapter, and the variations between his language in the Gospel and in the Acts, are doubtless attributable in large measure to his sources. The terms λόγος, σκοτία (σκύτος), φῶς, ζωή (αἰώνιος), ἀλήθεια, δύξα, κρίσις, κόσμος, μαρτυρέω (-ρία), γινώσκω, πιστεύω, the phrases ἀμὴν ἀμήν, ἁμαρτίαν ἔχειν, γεννηθῆναι ἐκ (τοῦ θεοῦ (or πνεύματος), εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, etc.), ἡ ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα, ὁ υἱός, ὁ πατήρ, etc., are at once recognized as characteristic of John; and not less so are his short and simple sentences and their asyndetic collocation, his co-ordinateness and parallelism of construction (note ἀπεκρίθη καὶ εἶπεν), his verbal reiterations, his Hebraisms (χαρα χαίρει 3, υἱοὶ φωτός 123, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας 177), his emphatic demonstratives, his combined particles (καίτοιγε, ὅμως μέντοι), his weakened ἵνα, and especially his recurrent ov, which often marks mere transition instead of logical sequence. The distinctive vocabulary of the creative Paul is too salient and well known to be dwelt upon :his abstracts: ἀγαθωσύνη, ἁγιωσύνη, ἁγνύτης, ἁπλότης, δικαιοκρισία, δικαίωσις, δοκιμή, ενέργεια, ἑνύτης, ἐξανάστασις, επιπόθησις, εὐσχημοσύνη, ἱκανότης, ἱλαρότης, καινότης, κενοδοξία, μεθοδία, μωρολογία, ὀφθαλμοδουλία, πεποίθησις, πιθανολογία, πιύτης, προσαγωγή, σκληρύτης, υἱοθεσία ;—his compounds : ἀκατακάλυπτος, ἀλάλητος, ἀμεταμέλητος, ἀμετανόητος, ἀναπολόγητος, ἀνεκδιήγητος, ἀνεξερεύνητος, ἀνεξιχνίαστος, ἀνθρωπάρεσκος, ἀνταναπληρίω, ἀπαρασκεύαστος, ἀποκαραδοκία, ἀπορφανίζω, ἀποτολμάω, ἐθελοθρησκία, ἐπαναμιμνήσκω, ἑτεροδιδασ καλέω, ετεροζυγέω, εὐπροσωπέω, θηριομαχέω, ἰσόψυχος, ὀλιγόψυχος, καταβραβεύω, κατοπτρίζομαι, κενοδοξία, κοσμοκράτωρ, μετασχηματίζω, ὀρθοποδέω, παρεισέρχομαι, προενάρχομαι, προσαναπληρύω, συνυπουργέω, συνυπο V. But the circumstance that the NT forms a κρίνομαι, ὑπερεντυγχάνω ;—his particles: ἀλλὰ μενbody of literature having its own distinct linguistic | ονγε, ἄρα οὖν, ἐάν τε γάρ, ἐκτὸς εἰ μή, οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀλλὰ peculiarities, must not make us overlook the fact | καί, τὲ γὰρ . ὁμοίως δὲ καί, ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ, ὡσπερεί, that it contains within itself considerable diversities ὡς ὅτι. Not less familiar are the characteristics of language as well as of style. The uniqueness of his style:-his long and sometimes involved of the volume, and the practice of using it as the sentences, his participial appendages and amplifi one authoritative source and test of Christian cations, the irrepressible crowding of his thoughts, truth, tend to make us isolate it unhistorically his imperial disregard for niceties of construction in his determination to wreak his meaning on expression.' Very different is the studied rhetorical periodicity of the writer to the Hebrews. The nature of his theme, indeed, leads him to use many words and constructions found in the LXX; but the general air of his vocabulary, no less than of his style, is literary. Reminiscences of classic phraseology meet us in his ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν and ἔμαθεν ἀφ ̓ ὧν ἔπαθεν. His varied use of particles- dýπov, ¿ávπe?, καθώσπερ, καίπερ, καίτοι, μετέπειτα, τε (τε γάρ), and the affectedly indefinite rov (26, 44)-further attests his culture. So do the periphrastic phrases ȧpxǹy λαμβάνειν (ἰ.χ. ἄρχεσθαι), πεῖραν λαμβάνειν (yet cf. ióμvηow λ. 2 Ti 13, λhoŋv λ. 2 P 19, etc.), and such terns as αἰσθητήριον, ἀπαύγασμα, ἔγγυος, ἔλεγχος, ἕξις, εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, πρόσφατος, τραχηλίζειν, χαρακτήρ. Still, he betrays conspicuously the later Gr. fondness for sonorous words (see p. 37 above); as, ἀγενεαλόγητος, αἱματεκχυσία, ἀκατάλυτος, ἀμετάθετος, ἀνασταυρόω, ἀντικαθίστημι, ἀπαράβατος, ἀφομοιοῦσθαι, δυσερμήνευτος, ἐπεισαγωγή, εὐπερίστατος, καταγωνίζεσθαι, μετριοπαθεῖν, μισθαποδοσία, ορκωμοσία, συνεπιμaρrupei, etc., bear witness. One of the noteworthy grammatical peculiarities of the Epistle is its use of the perfect tense as nearly tantamount to the aorist (e.g. 1117. 28; note the co-ordination of the two in the former passage), in accordance with the laxity of the late and less cultivated writers (cf. e.g. Rev 57, 85 etc.). In some respects the Ep. of James shares the characteristics of that to the Hebrews. In style, to be sure, it is very different: terse, abrupt, vivid, incisive, at times picturesque, not to say poetic. But its vocabulary exhibits a similar variety and amplitude; and in the skilful use of the Gr. language its author is inferior to no NT writer. Peculiar to him are the compounds ȧdiáкpiтos, ἀκατάστατος, ἀνέλεος, ἀπείραστος, ἀποκυέω, ἀφυστερέω, δαιμονιώδης, θανατηφόρος, κακοπαθία, κατιύομαι, νομοθέτης, πολύσπλαγχνος, σητόβρωτος, χρυσοδακτύλιος, the | bookish terms ἀποσκίασμα, βρύω, ἔμφυτος, ἐνάλιος, κατήφεια, ὄψιμος, παραλλαγή, ρυπαρία, τροπή, τροχός, τρυφάω, and the pictorial ἀνεμίζω, αὐχέω, δίψυχος, | εὐπρέπεια, ὀλολύζω, ριπίζω, σήπω, φλογίζω, φρίσσω, Xalivaywyśw. His Ep. contains some seventy words that are peculiar to him; while the Ep. to the Heb., nearly three times as long, exceeds that number by scarcely one hundred; and 1 P, nearly identical in length with James, falls short by some ten in the number of its peculiar terms. Some of James's words, e.g. πo\úσrλayxvos, Xpvoodakтúλos, are thought to be of his own coinage. Jude, when its diminutive extent is considered, is quite as characteristic as James in its terminology. Such words and phrases as amodiopigw, ἄπταιστος, ἐκπορνεύω, ἐπαγωνίζομαι, ἐπαφρίζω, μεμψιμοιρος, παρεισδύω, σπιλάς, φθινοπωρινός, πρὸ παντὸς | τοῦ αἰῶνος, θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα, sufficiently mark | its individuality. conventionalities of Gr. grammar, of which ỏ áμýv, ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ἀνὰ εἰς ἕκαστος, δὶς μυριάδες, ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου, φωνὴ λέγων, ἡ οὐαί, oval followed by the accusative (813 1212), éôúðŋ μọc κáλaμos .. Néywv, etc., are specimens; and to them may be added a propensity to lapse into the use of the nominative, although this case is thus left suspended in mid-air (cf. 15 218 312 74 944 1412 14 194). Its deviations from the ordinary laws of Greek construction are at times so bold and capricious as to start the query whether the work, in parts at least, is not the mechanical reproduction of an Aramaic original. The undeniable individuality of the several NT writers may put us on our guard against too confidently over-pressing slight variations in phraseology into proof of difference in authorship or of substantial difference of thought. Changes in a writer's vocabulary, even in his style, may be due to the topic treated, or the character and circumstances of the persons addressed; or may be nothing more than those varying mannerisms which temporarily bear sway with all writers except the most practised. For example, it has been noticed (see W. H. Simcox, The Writers of the New Testament, p. 37) that Paul to express in every thing' uses év Tavri in the Epistles to the Thess. and Cor. (twelve times), but in the Pastoral Epistles év mâow (six [five] times), while in that to the Philippians (412) he unites the two: ev Tavri Kai év mâσiv (cf. 2 Co 11o). On the other hand, the similarities, even coincidences, in language to be noted at times in different NT writings (on comparing, for instance, the Pauline Epistles and 1 P, or 1 P and Ja, or the writings of Luke and the Ep. to the Heb.) present a problem which this is not the place to discuss. Suffice it here to say, that they suggest the early growth of a distinctive religious terminology which largely became the common possession of the brotherhood of believers ; and remind us also that not all the reciprocal influence of the Christian leaders upon one another was exerted through their writings. Moreover, as well coincidences as differences in vocabulary may admonish us afresh that NT Greek is not an isolated language, but can be correctly appreciated only by being studied in its relation to the written and spoken Greek of the apostolic period. VI. PROBLEMS.-It has been intimated more than once already in the course of this article that considerable ignorance still exists respecting sundry details belonging to the NT language. This ignorance should not be exaggerated. It is not such as to throw uncertainty over the general tenor of biblical teaching. Nevertheless, the student and the Christian are alike concerned in its removal. The frank recognition of it is an indispensable preliminary to the patient study and research by which alone it can be diminished. Over and above The vocabulary of the Petrine Epistles presents matters clouded in uncertainty by reason of our the phenomenon that of the one hundred and scanty historical knowledge-such as baptism twenty-one words found in them and nowhere else for the dead' (1 Co 15), the gift of tongues' in the NT, only one (ά0€σis) is common to both (1 Co 14, etc.), the apostle's thorn in the flesh' Epistles, while each Epistle exhibits about the same (2 Co 127), etc.-there are points both of lexiconumber of peculiar terms,-viz. the first some sixty-graphy and of grammar respecting which unanimity three, the second fifty-seven, while in length their relation is nearly seven to five. The Apocalypse, the most distinctly Hebraistic and Oriental specimen of literature in the NT, owes its linguistic individuality not so much to its vocabulary-although such words and phrases as βασανισμός, δράκων (of the devil), ἐγχρίω, ἐνδώμησις, ζηλεύω, ἡμίωρον, ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος, θειώδης, τὸ ἱππι· κόν, κατάθεμα, κατήγωρ, κολλούριον, κρυσταλλίζω, ἡ κυριακὴ ἡμέρα, μεσουράνημα, ὅπου . ἐκεῖ, πελεκίζω, ποταμοφόρητος, τὸ σιρικόν, στρηνιάω, τιμιότης, are peculiar to itas to its intrepid disregard of the has not yet been reached by leading expositors, and which consequently appeal invitingly to the enterprising student. Among the former may be enumerated ȧprayμbs (Ph 26; how far, if at all, is the distinction between verbal nouns in ua, -μos, and -ois obliterated or obscured in NT Greek ?), τὴν ἀρχήν (Jn 825), ἐμβριμάομαι (Mk 143, Jn 113 etc.), εξουσία (1 Co 111), ἐπερώτημα (1 P 321), ἐπιβαλών (ΜΚ 147), επιούσιος (Με 6', Lk 113), εὐπερίστατος (He 121), κατοπτρίζομαι (2 Co 318), κεφαλιόω (ΜΚ 124), κοσμικός (He 9'), ὁδὸν ποιεῖν (or ὁδοποιεῖν, ΜΚ 2), παραρνῶμεν (He 2'), |