mibuin ο war ovduin . Ὁ; the same may be said of the following: 1. 12, . . . τὸν στέφανον τῆς [ωῆς, Ὁ ΠΠ Sd Oy > i. 19... βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν, ον ΓΙ. sa πον: ii. 12, οὕτως λαλεῖτε καὶ οὕτως ποιεῖτε, WY (aad 195) ii, 23, ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἷς δικαιοσύνην, ἜΑΡ, sS-a¥inn ; i τς, καρπὸς δικαιοσύνης, MATT D> iv. 10, ταπεινώθητε ἐνώπιον Κυρίου, TT? sp sbawin
iv. 13, dye νῦν ot λέγοντες. .. , Υ. 1, Gye νῦν ot πλούσιοι, for this mode of address cf. Am. vi. 1, 33 DIINWTA NW: v. 3 6 ἰὸς αὐτῶν εἰς μαρτύριον ὑμῖν ἔσται, γπν 5353 onxbn πι νης was; στηρίξατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, osa55 WON; v. 10, 14, ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου, TTT OW]; ν. 17, προσηύξατο τοῦ μὴ βρέξαι, “Δ ΓΛ ιν νο It is not suggested that in these, as well as in a number of other cases, the Greek is a translation from the Hebrew; but it will not be denied that the form of the Greek does suggest the Hebrew idiom, and therefore that the writer was a Jew.!
(ii.) Secondly, the well-known predilection for assonance on the part of Hebrew writers appears in this Epistle, and is further illustrative of the “ Hebraic” colouring of it ; this is noticeable both in the repetition of the same words or roots, as well as in the tendency to alliteration ; so marked a feature of the Epistle is this that it is met with in almost every verse, and therefore only a few examples need be given: i. 4, ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω ἵνα ἦτε τέλειοι. i. 19; μηδεὶς πειραζόμενος λεγέτω ὅτι ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πειράζομαι-" ὃ γὰρ Θεὸς ἀπείραστός ἐστιν κακῶν. i. 19, ... βραδὺς eis τὸ λαλῆσαι βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν. iii. 6, καὶ φλογίξουσα τὸν τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως καὶ φλογιζομένη ὑπὸ τῆς γεέννης. iil. 7, πᾶσα γὰρ φύσις... δαμάζεται. . . τῇ φύσει. iii. 18,. . ἐν εἰρήνῃ σπείρεται τοῖς ποι- οὔσιν εἰρήνην ἰἷν. 8, ἐγγίσατε τῷ Θεῷ καὶ ἐγγίσει ὑμῖν. iv. 11. μὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλήλων ἀδελφοί: ὁ καταλαλῶν ἀδελφοῦ ἢ κρίνων τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ καταλαλεῖ νόμου καὶ κρίνει νόμον" εἰ δὲ νόμον κρίνεις οὐκ εἶ ποιητὴς νόμου ἀλλὰ Κρ τίς πὴ: 7-8, μακροθυμήσατε οὖν ἀδελφοί
1 We are not forgetting Deissmann’s very true words: ‘‘ We have come to recog- nise that we had greatly over-estimated the number of Hebraisms and Aramaisms in: the Bible. Many features that are non-Attic and bear some resemblance to the Semitic and were therefore regarded as Semiticisms, belong really to the great class of international vulgarisms, and are found in vulgar papyri and inscriptions as well as in the Bible” (The Philology of the Greek Bible, pp. 62 {., 1908); but it is not the language so much as the mode of thought, which, when expressed in Hebrew, is so~ often reminiscent of O. T. phraseology, to which we refer.