Jude, when its diminutive extent is considered, is quite as characteristic as James in its termin- ology. Such words and phrases as ἀποδιορίζω, ἅπταιστος, ἐκπορνεύω, ἐπαγωνίζομαι, ἐπαφρίζω, μεμψί- μοιρος, παρεισδύω, σπιλάς, φθινοπωρινός, πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος, θαυμάζοντες πρόσωπα, sufficiently mark its individuality.
The vocabulary of the Petrine Epistles presents the phenomenon that of the one hundred and twenty-one words found in them and nowhere else in the NT, only one (ἀπόθεσις) is common to both Epistles, while each Epistle exhibits about the same number of peculiar terms,—viz. the first some sixty- 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 ἡμέοα, μεσουράνημα, ὅπου. . . ἐκεῖ, πελεκίζω, ποταμοφόρη "“ος, τὸ σιρικόν. στρηνιάω, τιμιότης, are peculiar to it—as to its intrepid disregard of the
LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.
conventionalities of Gr. grammar, of which ὁ ἀμήν, ἀπὸ ὁ ὧν καὶ 6 ἣν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ava els ἕκαστος, δὲ μυριάδες, ὅμοιον υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου, φωνὴ λέγων, ἡ οὐαί, oval followed by the accusative (8! 1213), ἐδόθη μοι κάλαμος... λέγων, ete., are specimens; and to them may be added a Si to lapse into the use of the nominative, although this case is thus left suspended in mid-air (cf. 1° 2! 319 74 gis 14114194), 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 confi- dently over-pressing slight variations in phrase- ology 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 cireum- stances 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. Simeox, The Writers of the New Testament, p. 37) that Panl to express ‘in every thing’ uses ἐν παντί in the Epistles to the Thess. and Cor. (twelve times), but in the Pastoral Epistles ἐν πᾶσιν (six [five] times), while in that to the Philippians (4%) he unites the two: ἐν παντὶ καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν (ef. 2 Co 11%). 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 ot Luke and the Ep..to the Heb.) present a problem which this is not the place to discuss. Sutlice it here to say, that they suggest the earl
rowth of a distinctive religious terminology whic argely 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 ditferences 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. PropLems.—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 ignor- ance should not be exaggerated. It is not such as to throw uncertainty over the general tenor of biblical teaching. Novatel 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 matters clouded in uncertainty by reasua of our scanty historical knowledge—such as ‘ baptism for the dead’ (1 Co 15%), ‘the gift of tongues’ (1 Co 14, ete.), the apostle’s ‘thorn in the flesh’ (2 Co 12%), ete.—there are points both οἱ lexico- graphy and of grammar respecting which unanimity has not yet been reached by leading expovitors, and which consequently appeal invitingly to the enterprising student.
Among the former may be enumerated ἁρπαγμός (Ph 2°; how far, if at all, is the distinction between verbal nouns in -μα, -μος, and -σις obliter- ated or obscured in NT Greek’), τὴν ἀρχήν (Jn 8%), ἐμβριμάομαι (Mk 1%, Jn 1138 ete.), ἐξουσία (1 Co 1119), ἐπερώτημα (1 P 37), ἐπιβαλών (Mk 147%), ἐπιούσιον (Mt 6", Lk 118), εὐπερίστατος (He 121), κατοπτρίζομαι (2 Co 38), κεφαλιόω (Mk 124), κοσμικός (H= 91). ὁδὸν ποιεῖν (Or ὁδοποιεῖν, Mk 2”), παραρυῶμεν {H~ 2),
LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TEST.
LANTERN 43
προεχόμεθα (Ro 3°), σπιλάδες (Jude™), συναλίζομαι (Ac Ts ete.), συνκρίνοντες (1 Co 2"), τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα (Ja 117), τροχὸς γενέσεως (Ja 3°). urther, what is the distinction, or how far is it regarded by the NT writers, between ἄλλος and ἕτερος (e.g. Gal. 1%); Βούλομαι and θέλω (e.g. Mt 17), εἰμέ and ὑπάρχω (e.g. Ph 2°), ete. ? How far do the uses of els and ἐν tend to approximate, and the difference in the classics between the several cases after prepositions (6.6. πρός) grow indistinct? Does els τό with the infin.