The one instance in which a Greek term of this character is introdnced and adhered to in the
NT, is ffi'i-a'Sijiris or conscience. It is cnee used by the LXX in the OT (Ec UP), where it is also introduced liy our translators on the margin, but obviously rather with the moaning 'consciousness' than 'conscience.' The force of it in Wis 17" ('a witness within,' RV) is more nearly our own. To trace the advance of the term from its literal meaning of 'self-consciousness' to ils full ethical import, would take us outside of biblical matter altogether. Its clear and full recognition in pagan literature is significant. Lightfoot speaka in somewhat strong terms of this word as the 'crowning triumph of ethical nomenclature,' which ' if not struck in the mint ;of the Stoics, at all events became current coin through tlieii influence.' He cites it as a special instance of ' the extent to which Stoic philosophy had leavened the moral vocabulary of the civilized world at the time of the Christian era.' Now its use in the NT precisely corresponds to this estimate. It does not occur in the Gospels except in Jn 8', a passage which the best scholarship does not hold to be genuine. It occurs twice in the addresses of St. Paul recorded in Acts ; plentifully in the Epistles of Paul and of Peter and in the Ejiistle to the Hebrews, and in all these places its force is equi- valent to that which it still bears in modern speech. Were we to bring it into line with the older biblical usage, it might be reckoned a function of TTfei'/ia so far as it signifies 'self-consciousness'; and of Kapdia >\hen regarded as moral approval or disapproval. In confirmation of this it is to be noted that St. John u.ses KapSla (1 Jn 3""-') in a conne.xion where St. Paul would have used fovs or iri'rffSijffis. The use of conscience, however, is so definite and consistent as to force us to the con- clusion that it was introduced into the NT as a full-fledged idea. See CONSCIENCE.
The .system of thought thus sketched belongs essentially to the OT. It is what Continental writers call a 'psychology of the Hebrews.' In our outline, this fact is rather concealed by the almost disproportionate attention given to the important modifications made on it by the Apostle Paul. But the system itself is the ruling one, not only tliroughout the OT but in the writings of the older apostles in the NT. The Greek terms supplied by the Septuagint are taken up in their 01 meanings, ami from these the writers seldom or never depart. The leading psychological notions are those attached to the simple terms spirit, soul, flesh, heart. These four are the vores .si(jnatce of the entire Scripture view of man's nature and con- stitution. They are all grouped round the idea of life, or of a living being. The first two — soul and spirit — represent in ditlcrent ways, or, from dillerent points of view, the life itself. The last two — flesh and heart — denote respectively the life-environ- ment and the life-org.an, — the former, that in which life inheres ; the latter, that through which it acts. So much for their simjile and primary meaning. In their secondary meaning they are groujied as follows : spirit, soul, flesh are ex^iressions for man's whole nature viewed from dillerent points. They are not three natures. Man's one nature is really expressed by each of them, so that each alone may liesignate the human being. Thus man \s flesh as an embodied perishable creature. 'All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof as the flower of the field' (Is 40"). Man again is »■««/, as a living being, an individual responsible creature, 'All souls are mine' (Ezk 18*). Once more, man is spirit. More commonly, however, he is said to have or possess ' spirit as his life - principle. 'Heart' stands outside this triad, because man is never called a 'hcu',' or men collectively spoken of as ' hearts.' ' Heart ' never denotes the personal subject, but always the organ of the personality.
PSYCHOLOGY
PTOLEMAIS
1C9
Again, the four terms may he thus jjrouped : 'sjiiiil,' 'soul,' 'heart' may be used to denote, eaih of them, one side ot man's doulde-sided nature, viz. his inner or higher life. Over a^'ainst any one of these may stand ' flesh ' ; as representing his nature on its outer or lower side, so that the combination will express in familiar duality the whole of man as ' tiesh and spirit,' ' Hesh and soul,' or ' flesh and lieart.' The two latter combinations are the ruling ones in the OT. Thus ' soul ' and ' Mesh ' occur. ' My soul thirsteth for tliee, and my Hesh longeth for thee' (I's 63'). 'My flesh in my teeth, and my life (soul) in my hanil' (Job 13"). 'His flesh hath pain, and liis soul mourneth ' (Job H'"). A land entirelj' stripped of itj* trees and of its crops is said be 'consumed soul and body' (Is 10" Heb. 'from the soul and even to the flesh'). Equally characteristic is the conjunction of 'flesh' with 'heart' for the whole human being. Aliens wholly unht for God's ser- vice are described as ' uncircmncised in heart and flesh' (Ezk 44"-'). The man whose whole being is given to pleasure ' searches in his heart how to cheer his flesh ' (Ec 2' liV). ' Remove sorrow from thy heart and put awaj' evil from thy flesh ' ( Ec 11'"). T\\e summum Imnum of human life is when a 'sound heart is the life of the flesh' (Pr 14^), an expression which reminds one of the classic jnens Sana in carport sano. This dualism of the OT is clinched in the memorable description of its final form, when 'the dust returns to the earth aa it was, and the spirit to Uod who gave it' (Ec 12').