have: ompby ο 91 vise which the R.V. renders (incorrectly) : ‘‘which are called by my name,” it should be: ‘‘Over whom my name was called,” as rendered by the Septuagint, excepting that it repeats itself unneces- sarily, ἐφ᾽ οὓς ἐπικέκληται τὸ ὄνομά pov ἐπ᾿ αὐτούς. The Peshitta, too, has,
SAPS T NIM NOW so that the
R.V. rendering here is incorrect, though the margin has ‘‘which was called upon you”. The idea which the phrase expresses is very ancient; a possession was known by the name of the pos- sessor (originally always a god), this was the name which was pronounced over, or concerning, the land; in the same way, a slave was known under the name of his master, it was the name under whose protection he stood. And
440
h.
w Matt.xxii. ὑμᾶς ; 8. el μέντοι νόμον τελεῖτε " βασιλικὸν κατὰ τὴν * γραφήν"
38; John » τῇ xiii.34; ᾿ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν,; 7 καλῶς ποιεῖτε. cf. Gal. 2>Qiz a 3 « , > , 3 , reer vi.2. 9. εἰ δὲ” προσωπολημπτεῖτε, ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε, ἐλεγχόμενοι ὑπὸ x Cf. ii. 23. y—y Quoted τὴν from Lev. xix. 18; οὐ. Rom. Xiil. 9. z Deut. i. 17. 1 βασιλικον τελειτε C, Syrhk; τον Bac. P.
25 σαντον B; ws εαντον 4, 25, 28, 31, 30, ΤῊ]. ; ws εαντους a.
ὃ-ληπτειτε KLP.
so also different peoples were ranged under the names of special gods; this usage was the same among the Israelites, who stood under the protection of Jahwe —the name and the bearer were of course not differentiated. This, too, is the mean- ing here; it does not mean the name that they bore, or were called by, but the name under whose protection they stood, and to which they belonged Parallel to it was the marking of cattle to denote ownership. (See, in reference to what has been said, Deut. xxviii. 10; 2 Sam. xii. 28; Jer. vii. 10). In the passage be- fore us there is not necessarily any refer- ence to Baptism, though it is extremely probable that this is so; Mayor quotes Hermas, Sim. ix. 16, πρὶν φορέσαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ νεκρός ἐστιν’ ὅταν δὲ λάβῃ τὴν σφραγ- ἴδα (baptism) ἀποτίθεται τὴν νέκρωσιν καὶ. ἀναλαμβάνει τὴν ζωήν. Resch (op cit. p. 193) quotes a very interesting pass- age from Agathangelus, chap. 73, in which these words occur: . . . καὶ εἰπὼν ὅτι τὸ ὄνομά pov ἐπικέκληται ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ ναὸς τῆς θεότητός μου. In the passage before us, the omission of all mention of the name, which would have come in very naturally, betrays Jewish usage; as Taylor truly remarks (Pirge Aboth., p. 66): “A feeling of reverence leads the Jews to avoid, as far as possible, all mention of the Names οἱ God. This feeling is manifested . . . in their post-canonical literature, even with regard to less sacred, and not incom- municable Divine names. Inthe Talmud and Midrash, and (with the exception of the Prayer Books) in the Rabbinic writ- ings generally, it is the custom to abstain from using the Biblical names of God, excepting in citations from the Bible ; and even when Elohim is necessarily brought in, it is often intentionally mis- spelt...” It should be noted that this phrase only occurs once elsewhere in the N.T., and there in a quotation from the O.T., quoted by St. James in Acts xv.
bu
Ver. 8. μέντοι : “nevertheless” there is a duty due to all men, even the rich are to be regarded as “ neighbours,” for the precept of the Law, ‘‘ Thou shait love thy neighbour as thyself” (Lev. xix. 18), applies to all men.—_vépov βασι- λικόν: ‘There is no difficulty in the anarthrous νόμος being used (as below, iv. 11) for the law of Christ or of Moses on the same principle that βασιλεύς could be used for the King of Persia, but the addi- tion of an anarthrous epithet should not have been passed over without comment, as it has been by the editors generally” (Mayor). The reference is to the Torah, as is obvious from the quotation from Lev. xix. 18, and therefore BaowAtkdv—if this was the original reading—must refer