frames many of his sentences ; generally speaking they are short and simple, which points, perhaps, to a natural habit of forming them on the Hebrew or Aramaic pattern; indirect statement is never expressed by the infinitive, but only by ὅτι with the indicative; the simple structure will be seen from the following instances: i. 3, γινώσκοντες ὅτι. . - κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν. i. 7, μὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω. .. ὅτι λήμψεται . . - ii. 20, θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι. . . ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ἀργή ἐστιν; ii. 24, ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος. ii. 19, σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι εἷς θεός ἐστιν. ii, 22, βλέπεις ὅτι ἡ πίστις συνήργει .. . iii, 1, . . . εἰδότες ὅτι μεῖζον κρίμα λημψόμεθα. iv. 5, δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γραφὴ λέγει. « «2 Ve 11, . .. εἴδετε ὅτι πολύσπλαγχνός ἐστιν ὃ Κύριος. This fact of there being no subordination of sentences, but only co- ordination is very suggestive of the simple Hebrew construction of sentences. Mention should also be made of the entire absence of the optative mood in the Epistle. On the other hand, we have in- stances of the prophetic perfect, in v. 2, σέσηπεν and γέγονεν, in v. 3, κατίωται ; and also of the gnomic aorist, ἐ.6., 1. 2, ἀνέτειλεν, where the Hebrew idiom 4s imitated, see lea! εἰ. δν πα πο ανα Further, the extended use of the word ποιεῖν is extremely sug- gestive of Hebrew usage, ¢.g., 11, 13, ἡ γὰρ κρίσις ἀνέλεος TO μὴ
ποιήσαντι ἔλεος, the phrase sounds more natural in Hebrew: .. .. Son mynd rind; 1. 22, γίνεσθε δὲ ποιηταὶ λόγου, Hebrew: 11 wy YT, of. i 25; ji, 8, καλῶς ποιεῖτε, Hebrew: My YON, cf. ii. 19: iii, 12, μὴ δύναται συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι, Hebrew : Ὁ mivyd rst yy ποτ; iii. 18, τοῖς ποιοῦσιν εἰρήνην Hebrew: ody ὗν; iv. 19, . .. καὶ ποιήσομεν ἐκεῖ ἐνιαυτὸν. . .. Hebrew: MW OW Mwy... And, once more, the extended use of διδόναι in v. 18, is also in accordance with the Hebrew idiom, Lastly, there are a few other minor points which seem to betray greater familiarity with Hebrew than with Greek idiom; among these are; the use of the genitive of quality, ¢.g., 1. 15, ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς, ii. 4, κριταὶ διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν, iii. 6, κόσμος τῆς ἀδικίας
(See Vorst, Hebr. . . . pp. 244 ff.); the lax use of number, 6.6., ii. 15, ἐὰν ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ γυμνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν . . . ; ili. 14, εἰ ἐριθίαν ἔχετε ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν... ; tii, 10, ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ στόματος ἐξέρχεται εὐλογία
καὶ κατάρα; the use of the article is inconsistent; and the disregard of cases is, in some instances, irregular, ¢.g., iii. 9, καταρώμεθα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους (acc. instead of dat.), v. 6, κατεδικάσατε τὸν δίκαιον (acc. instead of gen.) cf. Mayor in loc. While allowing due weight to “international vulgarisms,” one cannot help feeling that many of these features