lxviii. 20, which I waive), or of my argument that, if we take the last clause as a doxology, the position of choynrós after the subject is not only fully accounted for, but is rather required by the very same law of the Greek language which governs all the examples that have been alleged against the doxological construction. (Journal, pp. 103-111.) As this view is supported by so eminent a grammarian as Winer, to say nothing of Meyer, Fritzsche, and other scholars, it seems. to me that it deserved consideration.

DIFFERENT SENSES OF εὐλογητός.

On p. 56 of Dr. Gifford's Letter, he gives as examples of the use and meaning of the word ekoynrós the expressions "Blessed be God" and "Blessed be thou of the Lord," and remarks that "Dr. Abbot 'overlooks the fact' that, whatever difference there may be, it lies not in the sense of the word evλoyntós, but in the different relations of the persons blessing and blessed." I must confess that I have overlooked the fact, if it be a fact; and must also confess my belief that not a few of Dr. Gifford's readers will be surprised at the proposition that there is no difference in the sense of the word evoynrós when, applied to God, it means "praised" or "worthy to be praised," and when, applied to men, it means "prospered" or "blessed" by God. The fact on which Dr. Gifford seems to lay great stress, that vonós in these different senses represents the same Hebrew word, will not weigh much with those who consider that many words in common use have several very different meanings in Hebrew as well as in other languages. The two meanings are as distinct as those of evñoyia in the sense of laus, laudatio, celebratio (Grimm, Lex. s.v. evoyia, No. 1), and of bonum, beneficium (Grimm, ibid., No. 5).

The very common use of evλoynró in doxologies to God seems to have led the Septuagint translators to restrict its application in the sense of "praised," or rather "worthy to be praised," to the Supreme Being. To this perhaps the only exception is in the expression εὐλογητὸς ὁ τρόπος σου in

I Sam. xxv. 33. In the New Testament, apart from the passage in debate, its application is restricted to God, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." My point is that whatever force there may be in the argument from this extensive usage in favor of its application to God rather than to Christ in Rom. ix. 5, it is not diminished in the slightest degree by the fact that in a few passages of the LXX the word is applied to men in the very different sense of “prospered" or "recipients of blessings." i.e. benefits, from God.

I have now, I believe, taken notice of all the points of im portance in which Dr. Gifford has criticised my statements, or statements which he has ascribed to me. I am not without hope that in a future edition of his pamphlet he may see reason for modifying some of his remarks, and for giving more fully the context of some of his quotations.

XVIII.

ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF TITUS II. 13.

[From the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1881.]

The Greek reads as follows: προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης του μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (ον Χριστοῦ ̓Ιησοῦ).

Shall we translate, "the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ"? or, "the appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"?

It was formerly contended by Granville Sharp, and afterwards by Bishop Middleton, that the absence of the Greek article before aripos in Tit. ii. 13 and 2 Pet. i. 1, and before ɛov in Eph. v. 5, is alone sufficient to prove that the two appellatives connected by Kai belong to one subject.* "It is impossible," says Middleton in his note on Tit. ii. 13, "to understand cou and awripos otherwise than of one person." This ground is now generally abandoned, and it is admitted that, grammatically, either construction is possible. I need

Sharp applied his famous rule also to 2 Thess. i. 12, but Middleton thinks that this text affords no certain evidence in his favor. Winer disposes of it summarily as merely a case in which Kiptoç is used for ó kípioç, the word kúptog taking, in a measure, the character of a proper name. In 2 Thess. i. 11, ó Оɛòç jμʊv denotes God in distinction from "our Lord Jesus" (ver. 1); it is therefore unnatural in the extreme to take this title in the last clause of the very same sentence (ver. 12) as a designation of Christ. We may then reject without hesitation Granville Sharp's construction, which in fact has the support of but few respectable scholars.

I

As to 1 Tim. v. 21 and 2 Tim. iv. 1, it is enough to refer to the notes of Bishop Middleton and Bishop Ellicott on the former passage. Compare the remarkable various reading in Gal. ii. 20, adopted by Lachmann and Tregel.es (text), but not by Tischendorf or Westcott and Hort,— ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ.

In Erh. v. 5, ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ, the Χριστοῦ and θεοῦ are regarded as denoting distinct subjects by a large majority of the best commentators, as De Wette, Meyer, Olshausen, Meier, Holzhausen, Flatt, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Ewald, Schenkel, Braune and Riddle (in Lange's Comm.. Amer. trans.), Conybeare, Bloomfield, Ellicott, Eadie, Alford, Canon Barry in Ellicott's N. T. Comm., and Prebendary Meyrick in "the Speaker's Commentary" (1881).

In the Revised New Testament, the construction contended for so strenuously by Middleton in Eph. v. 5, and by Sharp in 2 Thess. i. 12, has not been deemed worthy of notice.

only refer to Winer, Stuart, Buttmann, T. S. Green, and S. G. Green among the grammarians, and to Alford, Ellicott, Bishop Jackson, and other recent commentators.* It will be most convenient to assume, provisionally, that this view is correct; and to consider first the exegetical grounds for preferring one construction to the other. But as some still think that the omission of the article, though not decisive of the question, affords a presumption in favor of the construction which makes rov peуáhov Orov a designation of Christ, a few remarks upon this point will be made in Note A, at the end of this paper. It may be enough to say here that eo has already an attributive, so that the mind naturally rests for a moment upon Tòv μɛɣážov bɛov as a subject by itself; and that the addition of Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ to σωτῆρος ἡμῶν distinguishes the person so clearly from rov uɛyázov Beov, according to Paul's constant use of language, that there was no need of the article for that purpose.

The question presented derives additional interest from the fact that, in the recent Revision of the English translation of the New Testament, the English Company have adopted in the text the first of the constructions mentioned above, placing the other in the margin; while the American Company, by a large majority, preferred to reverse these positions

I will first examine the arguments of Bishop Ellicott for the construction which makes тоv μɛɣáhov bɛov an appellation of Christ. They are as follows:

“(a) émigáveia is a term specially and peculiarly applied to the Son, and never to the Father." The facts are these. In one passage (2 Tim. i. 10) the word pávia is applied to Christ's first advent; in four to his second advent (2 Thess. ii. 8; 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. I, 8); and as impávea denotes a visible manifestation, it may be thought that an imidáveia of

* See Winer, Gram. § 19, 5, Anm. 1, p. 123, 7te Aufl. (p. 130 Thayer's trans., p. 162 Moulton): Stuart, Bibl. Repos. April, 1834, vol. iv. p. 322 f.; A. Buttmann, Gram. § 125, 14-17, pp. 97-10, Thayer's trans.; T. S. Green, Gram, of the N. T. Dialect (1842), pp. 205-219, or new ed. (1962), pp. 67-75; S. G. Green, Handbook to the Gram. of the Greek Test., p. 216; and Alford on Tit. ii. 13. Alford has some good remarks on the passage. but I find no suficient proof of his statement that σωτήρ had become in the N. T. "a quasi proper name."

God, the Father, "whom no man hath seen nor can see," could not be spoken of.

But this argument is founded on a misstatement of the question. The expression here is not "the appearing of the great God," but "the appearing of the glory of the great God," which is a very different thing. When our Saviour himself had said, "The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels" (Matt. xvi. 27, comp. Mark viii. 38), or as Luke expresses it, "in his own glory, and the glory of the Father, and of the holy angels" (ch. ix. 26), can we doubt that Paul, who had probably often heard Luke's report of these words, might speak of "the appearing of the glory" of the Father, as well as of Christ, at the second advent? *

This view is confirmed by the representations of the second advent given elsewhere in the New Testament, and particularly by 1 Tim. vi. 14-16. The future migáveia of Christ was not conceived of by Paul as independent of God, the Father, any more than his first expávea or advent, but as one "which in his own time the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable, whom no man hath seen nor can see, shall show" (Seige). The reference is to the joint manifestation of the glory of God and of Christ at the time when, to use the language of the writer to the Hebrews (i. 6), "he again bringeth [or shall have brought] the first-begotten into the world, and saith, Let all the angels of God pay him homage." That God and Christ should be associated in the references to the second advent,

Even if the false assumption on which the argument is founded were correct, that is, if the expression here used were τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Xprazo, the argument would have little or no weight. The fact that έiáveia is used four times of Christ in relation to the second advent would be very far from proving that it might not be so used of God, the Father, also. Abundant examples may be adduced from Jewish writers to show that any extraordinary display of divine power, whether exercised directly and known only by its effects, or through an intermediate visible agent, as an angel, might be called an έigáveiα, an "appearing" or "manifestation" of God. The word is used in the same way in heathen literature to denote any supposed divine interposition in human affairs, whether accompanied by a visible appearance of the particular deity concerned, or not. See Note B.

† See also Acts iii. 20: "-and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus."