Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

that prominence; and the position of eorrós after it is required by the very same law of the Greek language which governs all the examples that have been alleged against the doxological construction of the passage. This thought of God as the Ruler over All re-appears in the doxology at the end of the eleventh chapter (xi. 36), where the Apostle concludes his grand Theodicy: "For from Him, and through Him, and to Him, are ALL THINGS: to Him is the glory for ever! Amen." Compare also Eph. i. 11, cited by Mr. Beet: "foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh ALL THINGS after the counsel of his will;" and so in another doxology (1 Tim. i. 17) suggested by the mention of Christ, the ascription is τῷ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων, “to the King OF THE AGES.

[ocr errors]

I prefer, on the whole, to take návrov as neuter; but much might be said in favor of the view of Fritzsche, whose note on this passage is especially valuable. He, with many other scholars, regards it as masculine: "Qui omnibus praeest hominibus (i. e. qui et Judaeis et gentilibus consulit Deus, der ueber allen Menschen waltende Gott) sit celebratus perpetuo, amen." (C. F. A. Fritzsche, Pauli ad Rom. Epist., tom. ii. [1839], p. 272.) He refers for their to Rom. X. 12; xi. 32; iii. 29.

We may note here, that while the Apostle says of narépes, he does not say, but v óyptorós. He could not forget the thought, which pervades the Epistle, that the Messiah was for all men alike. Nor does he forget that while by natural descent, zarà cápza, Christ was "from the Jews," he was zarà ñveðμa, and in all that constituted him the Messiah, "from GOD," who "anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power," who "made him both Lord and Christ," who marked him out as his "Son" by raising him from the dead (Acts xiii. 33; Rom. i. 4) and setting him at his right hand in the heavenly places, and giving him to be the head over all things to the Church (Eph. i. 20-22), that Church in which there is no distinction. of "Greek and Jew," "but Christ is all, and in all."

That such words as ευλογητός, εὐλογημένος, μακάριος, and έπιzarápatos should usually stand first in the sentence in expressions of benediction, macarism, and malediction, is natural in Greek for the

* This seems to me the true rendering, rather than "to the King eternal," though eternity is implied. Comp. Rev. xv. 3 Westc. and Hort; Sir. xxxvi. 22 (al. xxxiii. 19); Tob. xiii. 6, 10; Ps. cxliv. (cxlv.) 13; Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. cc. 35, 3; 55, 6; 61, 2; Const. Apost. vii. 34; Lit. S. Jac. c. 13. So Exod. xν. 18, κύριος βασιλεύων τῶν αἰώνων, as cited by Philo, De Plant. Noë, c. 12 bis (Opp. i. 336, 337 ed. Mang.), De Mundo c. 7 (Opp. ii. 608), and read in many cursive MSS.; Joseph. Ant. i. 18, 6, dénota navròs al@vos. Contra, Test. xii Patr., Ruben, c. 6.

same reason that it is natural in English to give the first place to such words as "blessed," "happy," "cursed." It makes no difference, as a study of the examples will show, whether the expression be oplative, as is usually the case with eloquéos, with the ellipsis of en or ear, or declarative, as in the case of pazáptor, and usually, I believe, of borrós, art being understood.* The ellipsis of the substantive verb gives rapidity and force to the expression, indicating a certain glow of feeling. But in Greek as in English, if the subject is more prominent in the mind of the writer, and is not overweighted with descriptive appendages, there is nothing to hinder a change of order, but the genius of the language rather requires it.

The example commonly adduced of this variation in the case of εὐλογητός is Ps. lxvii. (Heb. lxviii.) 20, Κύριος ὁ θεὸς εὐλογητός, εὐλογητὸς κύριος ἡμέραν καθ' ἡμέραν, where we find εὐλογητός in both positions. This peculiarity is the result of a misconstruction and perhaps also of a false reading (Meyer) of the Hebrew. The example shows that the position of hornós after the subject violates no law of the Greek language; but on account of the repetition of hoyyós I do not urge it as a parallel to Rom. ix. 5. (See above, p. 32 f.). On the other hand, the passage cited by Grimm (see above, p. 34) from the apocryphal Psalms of Solomon, viii. 41, 42, written probably about 48 B. C., seems to me quite to the purpose:

αἰνετὸς κύριος ἐν τοῖς κρίμασιν αὐτοῦ ἐν στόματι ὁσίων,

καὶ σὺ εὐλογημένος, Ισραήλ, ὑπὸ κυρίου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. † Here, in the first line, avós precedes, because the predicate is emphatic; but in the second, the subject ó precedes, because it is meant to receive the emphasis. I perceive no antithesis or studied chiasmus here. The sentence is no more a "double" or "compound" one than Gen. xiv. 19, 20; 1 Sam. xxv. 32, 33; Ps. lxxi.

*I believe that εὐλογητός in doxologies is distinguished from εὐλογημένος as laudandus is from laudatus; and that the doxology in Rom. ix. 5 is therefore strictly a declarative, not an optative one. The most literal and exact rendering into Latin would be something like this: "Ille qui est super omnia Deus laudandus (est) in aeternum!" Where the verb is expressed with ευλογητός (as very often in the formula εὐλογητὸς εἰ it is always, I believe, in the indicative. Here I must express my surprise that Canon Farrar (The Expositor, vol. ix. p. 402; vol. x. p. 238) should deny that Rom. i. 25 and 2 Cor. xi. 31 are 'doxologies." What is a doxology but a pious ascription of glory or praise? If & arty εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν, Rom. i. 25, is “not a doxology at all" on account of the or, then Matt. vi. 13 (text rec.) and 1 Pet. iv. II are, for the same reason, not doxologies.

[ocr errors]

See O. F. Fritzsche, Libri apoc. V. T. Gr. (1871), p. 579, or Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeorum (1869), p. 14.

(lxxii.) 18, 19; Tob. xi. 13, and 16 (Sin.); Judith xiii. 18; Orat. Azar. 2; and I see no reason why the fact that the clauses are connected by zaí should affect the position of sorts here more than in those passages-no reason why it should affect it at all.

Another example in which the subject precedes ntzaraparos and εὐλογημένος in an optative or possibly a predictive sentence is Gen. xxvii. 29, ὁ καταρώμενός σε ἐπικατάρατος, ὁ δὲ εὐλογῶν σε εὐλογημένος. Here the Greek follows the order of the Hebrew, and the reason for the unusual position in both I suppose to be the fact that the contrast between ὁ καταρώμενος and ὁ εὐλογῶν naturally brought the subjects into the foreground. It is true that in Rom. ix. 5, as I understand the passage (though others take a different view), there is no antithesis, as there is here; but the example shows that when for any reason the writer wishes to make the subject prominent, there is no law of the Greek language which imprisons such a predicate as ευλογημένος at the beginning of the sentence.

Another example, in a declarative sentence, but not the less pertinent on that account (the verb not being expressed), is Gen. xxvi. 29, according to what I believe to be the true reading, zaì võy đù εὐλογητὸς ὑπὸ κυρίου, where the σύ being emphatic, as is shown by the corresponding order in Hebrew, stands before orós. Contrast Gen. iii. 14; iv. 11; Josh. ix. 29 (al. 23). This reading is supported by all the uncial MSS. that contain the passage, viz., I. Cod. Cotton. (cent. v.), III. Alex. (v.), X. Coislin. (VII.), and Bodl. (VIII. or IX.) ed. Tisch. Mon. Sacr. Ined. vol. ii. (1857), p. 234, with at least 25 cursives, and the Aldine edition, also by all the ancient versions except the Ethiopic, and the Latin, which translates freely, against the καὶ νῦν εὐλογημένος σύ of the Roman edition, which has very little authority here.

Still another case where in a declarative sentence the usual order of subject and predicate is reversed, both in the Greek and the Hebrew, is 1 Kings ii. 45 (al. 46), καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς Σαλωμὼν εὐλογημένος, the ellipsis being probably erat. Here I suppose the reason for the ἔσται. exceptional order to be the contrast between Solomon and Shimei (ver. 44).

It is a curious fact that pazaporós, a word perfectly analogous to ebkortós, and which would naturally stand first in the predicate, happens to follow the subject in the only instances of its use in the Septuagint which come into comparison here, viz.: Prov. xiv. 21; xvi. 20; xxix. 18. The reason seems to be the same as in the case we have just considered; there is a contrast of subjects. For the same reason Entzaraparo follows the subject in Wisd. xiv. 8 (comp. ver. 7).

These examples go to confirm Winer's statement in respect to contrasted subjects. And I must here remark, in respect to certain passages which have been alleged in opposition (see above, p. 36), that I can perceive no contrast of subjects in Gen. xiv. 19, 20; 1 Sam. XXV. 32, 33; and still less in Ps. lxxxviii. (lxxxix.) 53, where the doxology appears to have no relation to what precedes, but to be rather the formal doxology, appended by the compiler, which concludes the Third Book of the Psalms (comp. Ps. xl. (xli.) 14).

It may be said that none of the examples we have been considering is precisely similar to Rom. ix. 5. But they all illustrate the fact that there is nothing to hinder a Greek writer from changing the ordinary position of borrós and kindred words when from any cause the subject is naturally more prominent in his mind. They show that the principle of the rule which governs the position may authorize or require a deviation from the common order. I must further agree with Meyer and Ellicott on Eph. i. 3, and Fritzsche on Rom. ix. 5, in regarding as not altogether irrelevant such passages as Ps. cxii. (cxiii.) 2, εἴη τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου ευλογημένον, where, though εἴη precedes, as a copula it can have no emphasis, and the position of o is determined by the fact that the subject rather than the predicate here naturally presents itself first to the mind. The difference between such a sentence and εὐλογημένον τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου is like that in English between "May the name of the Lord be blessed" and Blessed be the name of the Lord." It is evident, I think, that in the latter sentence the predicate is made more prominent, and in the former the subject; but if a person does not feel this, it cannot be proved. Other examples of this kind are Ruth ii. 19; 1 Kings x. 9; 2 Chron. ix. 8; Job i. 21; Dan. ii. 20; Lit. S. Jac. c. 19; Lit. S. Marci, c. 20, a. (Hammond, pp. 52, 192.) In Ps. cxii. (cxiii.) 2 and Job i. 21 the prominence given to the subject is suggested by what precedes.

I will give one example of the fallacy of merely empirical rules respecting the position of words. Looking at Young's Analytical Concordance, there are, if I have counted right, 138 instances in which, in sentences like "Blessed be God," "Blessed are the meek,” the word "blessed" precedes the subject in the common English Bible. There is no exception to this usage in the Old Testament or the New. "Here," exclaims the empiric, "is a law of the language. To say 'God be blessed' is not English." But if we look into the Apocrypha, we find that our translators have said it, namely in Tobit xi. 17, and so it stands also in the Genevan version, though the Greek reads εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεός. Why the translators changed the

order must be a matter of conjecture; perhaps it was to make a contrast with the last clause of the sentence.

There is a homely but important maxim which has been forgotten in many discussions of the passage before us, that "circumstances alter cases." I have carefully examined all the examples of doxology or benediction in the New Testament and the Septuagint, and in other ancient writings, as the Liturgies, in which eλorzós or εὐλογημένος precedes the subject; and there is not one among them which, so far as I can judge, justifies the assumption that because korós precedes the subject there, it would probably have done so here, had it been the purpose of Paul to introduce a doxology. The cases in which a doxology begins without a previous enumeration of blessings, but in which the thought of the blessing prompts an exclamation of praise or thanksgiving,-"Blessed be God, who" or "for he" has done this or that, -are evidently not parallel. All the New Testament doxologies with eborrós, and most of those in the Septuagint, are of this character. * In all these cases, we perceive at once that any other order would be strange. The expression of the feeling, which requires but one word, naturally precedes the mention of the ground of the feeling, which often requires very many. But there is a difference between εύλογητός and εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Where it would be natural for the former to precede the subject, it might be more natural for the latter to follow. In the example adduced by Dr. Dwight in his criticism of Winer (see above, pp. 36, 37), it is evident that soλorrós more naturally stands first in the sentence; at the end it would be abrupt and unrhythmical. But I cannot think that a Greek scholar would find anything hard or unnatural in the sentence if it read, ὁ διατηρήσας τὸν ἑαυτοῦ τόπον αμίαντον εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, αμήν.

To make the argument from usage a rational one, examples sufficient in number to form the basis of an induction should be produced in which in passages like the present cùλornós precedes the subject. Suppose we should read here εὐλογητὸς ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὺς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, we instantly see that the reference of εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας becomes, to say the least, ambiguous, the "for ever" grammatically connecting itself with the phrase "he who is God over all" rather than with "blessed." If to avoid this we read, εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ὁ ὢν

*See Luke i. 68; 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 3; 1 Pet. i. 3.-Gen. xiv. 20; xxiv. 27; Ex. xviii. to; Ruth iv. 14; 1 Sam. xxv. 32, 39; 2 Sam. xviii. 28; 1 Kings i. 48; v. 7; viii. 15, 56; 2 Chr. ii. 12; vi. 4; Ezr. vii. 27; Ps. xxvii. (Sept.) 6; xxx. 22; lxv. 20; lxxi. 18; cxxiii. 6; cxxxiv. 21; cxliii. 1; Dan. iii. 28 Theodot., 95 Sept.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »