Maury, Histoire des Religions de la Grece ancienne ; Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, i. and ii. 1896 (sequel not ready in 1902); Foucart, Recherches sur Vorigine et la nature des Mysteres W@Eleusis, 1895, etc.; Preller-Robert, Griechische Mythologie4, 1887 ; A. Mommsen, Feste der Athener (new edition of Heortologie); E. Curtius, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, ete. ; Dieterich, Nekyia; Diels, Sibyllinische Bldtter, 1890; Bouché-Leclerceq, Histoire de la Divination ; Usener, Religions- geschichtliche Untersuchungen, 1889, Griechische Gotternamen, etc.; Gruppe, Die griech. Kulte u. Mythen ; Ridgeway, Early Age of Greece, 1901; many articles and other works by these writers, and also by 8. Reinach, Miss J. E. Harrison, Wernicke, Wilamowitz, Robert, Maass, Kuhnert, Korte, Bloch, Drexler, Vitry, Perdrizet, Berard, Cumont, Studniczka, Rohde, Tumpel, Marillier, Beurlier, Miss A. Walton, Krause, Keller, Stengel, Weinhold, Crusius, Hoffmann, Reichel, Thraemer, Toepffer, von Fritze, Ziebarth, Ziemann, Buresch, Diimmler, etc. Anrich, Das Antike Mysterienwesen, 1894; Wobbermin, Religions- gesch, Studien, 1896; Gardner, Origin of the Lord's Supper, 1894, etc., treat of the relation of the Mysteries to early Chris- tianity ; Anvich is the least imaginative ; Gardner takes a more subjective view. Cf. also 8. Cheatham, The Mysteries (Huls. Lect. 1896-97). : . f
On the origin of rites and their relation to savage ritual, Botticher, Bawnkultus ; A. B. Cook, Animal-Worship in the Mycencean Age ; Frazer, Golden Bough® (nominally on Italian, really more on Greek), 1900; Mannhardt, Wald- und Feld- Kulie, etc. ; Jevons, Introduction to the History of Religion, 1896 (totemistic). In Bursian’s Jahresbericht from time to time reviews ot the entire literature can be found.
* Juv. Sat. vi. 553; Strab. xvii. p. 1168; Plutarch, de Defectu
Oraculorum. Pe ; + Cedrenus, i. p. 532, has preserved the oracle, which is per- haps the work of a triumphant Christian or of one of the last
pagan philosophers.
156 STYLE OF SCRIPTURE
STYLE OF SCRIPTURE
On the religious ideas in the Greek poets and philosophers : Zeller, ‘Entwickelung des Monotheismus bei den Griechen’ in his Vortrdge und Abhandlungen Geschichtl. Imhalts, 1865, Ueber das Wesen der Religion, Tiibingen, 1845 ; Trendelenburg, ‘Nothwendigkeit und Freiheit in der griech. Philosophie’ in the second volume of his Historische Beitrdge zur Philosophie ; and many scattered references and discussions in the com- mentaries on the leading authors, and in the Histories of Literature and Philosophy. Verrall, Huripides the Rationalist, states well some of the difficulties which are caused by a too superficial view of the thought of Euripides ; but the solution suggested suffers from the want of any attempt to estimate the place of that poet in the development of Greek thought, and the failure to emphasize that Euripides must be studied in relation to the preceding and succeeding writers.
W. M. RAMSAY. STYLE OF SCRIPTURE.—
i. Historical introduction. : ii. Characteristics of Biblical style due to earliness of date or to the Semitic idiosyncrasy of the Hebrews. iii. Peculiarities of style purposely adopted upon occasion by ail classes of Scripture writers. iv. Peculiarities of style for which a preference is shown by particular classes of Scripture writers. ; vy. Conclusion. Observations on the eritical and doctrinal significance of differences of style on the part of Scripture writers. Literature.
i. HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.—The question of the style of Scripture has formed the subject of discussion from a very early period. The diversity of forms in which prophecy, e.g., makes its appear- ance was a point of too much interest to escape the notice of the scribes. Hence we already encounter in the Talmud a saying which contains an ex- cellent illustration of the formal differences that exist between prophecies. We refer to the words : ‘Everything that Ezekiel saw, Isaiah also saw ; but Ezekiel with the eyes of a rustic who has seen the king, Isaiah with the eyes of a citizen who has seen him’ (Hdgiga, 13b). The meaning is, that the descriptions found in the Book of Ezekiel are elaborated in much greater detail and sometimes developed at greater length than is the ease in the Book of Isaiah (cf., eg., Ezk 1°-23 with Is 6"). It may have been simply this diversity which marks the prophetical literature that gave rise to the judgment pronounced in Sanhedrin, 89a: ‘No two prophets prophesy in the same style’ (ns p3xD2), although this remark primarily concerned the differences disclosed by a comparison between Ob ® and Jer 4916, In the former of these passages we read ‘The pride of thine heart (725 ji!) hath deceived thee,’ but in the parallel passage we find ‘ Thy terribleness (anyban) hath deceived thee.’ Such differences between parallel passages of the OT as affect especially their linguistic colouring were not upon the whole unnoticed in antiquity. This may be seen from the Massora magna to Ex 20" etc., or from the tractate Sdphérim, 8, ete. (ef. Ed. Konig, Ein- leitung ins AT, § 16).
Among early Christian writers no one has treated the question of the style of Holy Scripture in more detail than Adrianos in his Eloaywyh els Tus Oelas ypagdds (aus neuaufgefundenen Hand- schriften herausgegeben, tbersetzt wnd erliutert, von Friedr, Goessling, Berlin, 1887). His whole book is devoted to the subject of the present article. He points out stylistic peculiarities of particular parts of the OT, ¢.g. the Psalter (S$ 99, 105). He also drew already the distinction be- tween prose and poetry in Scripture. Taking the word ‘prophecy’ in the wider sense which it assumed in later times (cf. Ed. Konig, Einlett. p. 457), he remarked in the final paragraph of his work : ‘It ought also to be known to the initiated that one kind of prophecy is composed in prose, like the writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah and their contemporaries, but another kind in regular measure adapted for singing (# 6¢ per’ wdss ev vérpy), like the Psalms of the blessed David, and