It is by this use of the imperfect, that either through urbanity or modesty, or whatever may have been the motive of his backwardness, Agrippa hesitatingly intimates to Festus his desire to hear Paul himself, when he says (Acts xxv. 22), 'I could wish (Bouλóuny) myself also to hear the man.' The like unwillingness on the part of Paul, when grieving over the declensions which he feared extensively existed in the churches of Galatia, fully to express a rising desire (probably from motives of delicacy) to be personally among them, is similarly expressed when, using the imperfect, he says (Gal. iv. 20), I could desire (exov) to be present with you.' 'I could wish' (Bovλóμny), says the son in Lucian's Abdicatus (cap. 1), who, being by profession a physician, was commanded by his father to cure his stepmother, and, failing, was disinherited, 'I could wish that the art of medicine was acquainted with some drug, whereby not the insane only might be cured, but those also who are angry without reason, that by its means I might cure the distemper of my father.' 'I could wish' (heeλov), says Epictetus (Arr. Epict. i. 19), with reference to one who in consequence of some petty promotion had more deference and respect shown to him than he would otherwise have received,‘I could wish him turned out of his office that he might again appear to you the fool he is.' These instances (to which the references given by Winer have enabled me to turn) are, I should hope, quite sufficient to establish this idiomatic usage of the imperfect, and to vindicate the common translation of the verb in question; which though it appears to translate the imperfect indicative as if it were a potential, does not really do so, inasmuch as it does not so translate it in a potential sense. Though not strictly literal, it is as literal as the translation from one language into another of an idiomatic usage would admit; and is perhaps the only one which could so well, or, since it gives for the Greek idiom an idiom of our own, so literally, express the hesitancy expressed in the original. RECONSIDERED TEXTS. No. II. 'But without faith it is impossible to please Him; for he that cometh to God must believe that He is and [that He] is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. (ὅτι ἐστὶ καὶ τοῖς ἐκζητοῦσιν αὐτὸν μισθαποδότης γίνεται).—Heb. xi. 6. THAT a belief in God as a rewarder aptly illustrates the nature and character of that faith under the influence of which, men, renouncing present advantages, are strengthened to live to God, and whereby God is said to be well pleased, will doubtless be readily acknowledged. But that a belief in the being of a God, though of necessity preliminary to a belief in God as a rewarder, can be similarly regarded, is by no means so obvious. Indeed it may be doubted whether the man ever lived who really disbelieved in the existence of a God. If even it were true that some such might possibly be found, yet even then the belief in the being of a God is so general, that it seems strange that it should be adduced by the Apostle as an exemplification of the faith of which he speaks; to say nothing of the difficulty of supposing that the Apostle designs to give grave utterance to so very obvious a truism, as that he that cometh must believe in the existence of him to whom he comes. Upon these accounts the accuracy of the common translation, even prior to examination, seems suspicious and doubtful. A critical reexamination of the original text, will, I trust, confirm the doubt, and render it not improbable that the Apostle, making no mention whatever of the necessity of a belief in the existence of a God, as being in any respect respect or in any degree an act of that faith whereby the believer pleases God, speaks only of that act of faith whereby God is believed to be and become a Rewarder. In vindication of this opinion, it will be necessary, in the first place, to bear in mind that there is an important difference of meaning between εἶναι and γίνεσθαι; for it is only to a certain extent that these verbs can be regarded as synonymous. Elvai (to be), used absolutely, merely indicates that a thing or being simply and actually is; as, I am, Thou art, He is; or with a substantive or adjective subjoined, that a thing or being simply is that which that substantive or adjective expresses; as, when it is said, He is a man; He is a king; He is good. Whereas the latter of these verbs, yivɛodai, not only declares that a thing is, but that it so is, that it is seen to be; expressing not merely existence, but recognized and manifested reality. Hence the proper and well known meaning of this verb, as contra-distinguished from siva (to be), is not to be, but to become; to become, either in the sense of to begin to be; or, if used in reference to a hitherto unrecognized fact, to become, in the sense of to be seen to be. To endeavour to prove that elva in connection with an adjective or substantive merely indicates that which an individual or a thing simply and actually is, seems needless. No one will dispute it. Nor, indeed, will any one who may be at the pains of investigating the matter, dispute that yivera with the like adjuncts, expresses that an individual or thing not is merely, but becomes, or is manifested to be, that which is expressed by the substantive or adjective subjoined. Nevertheless, for the removal of all doubt, as being important for the establishment of the interpretation of the present text, that is about to be proposed, it will perhaps be as well to give a few instances in proof. Many might be given, but the following, taken from the New Testament, and therefore easily verified, will be sufficient, in all of which the verb is not ɛlvaι, but yivɛoda; and in all of which it may be clearly seen that the idea expressed is not merely that a thing or being is, but that it becomes, or begins to be.-I retain the words of the common translation. Matt. iv. 3.-That these stones be made bread. viii. 26.—And there was a great calm. ix. 16.-And the rent is made worse. xii. 45.-The last state of that man is worse. xiii. 21.-When tribulation or persecution ariseth. 22. And he becometh unfruitful. See also Mar. i. 17; iv. 10; vi. 2, &c.; Luke i. 38; ii. 2, 42; iv. 25, &c.; John i. 3, 14; ii. 9; iii. 9, 25, &c. &c. In St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians there is a passage, the latter part of which, in consequence of yivɛodai being translated be, instead of become, seems to be somewhat at variance with the former, which variance is at once rectified if for be we substitute the more literal rendering become. It is Art thou called being a servant? care not for it; but if thou mayst be free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman; likewise also 6 also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye (μǹ yivɛode) the servants of men.' (1 Cor. vii. 21-23.) Now unless the latter portion of this passage be translated 'become not,' it would seem to direct that the converted slave should henceforth refuse obedience to his master; whereas if so translated, as it ought to be, it is and becomesa simply a direction that they who had heretofore been free, should not voluntarily become subject to a restraint, especially to a heathen master, from which, up to the period of their conversion, they had been exempt. In the following passages both verbs occur, the difference between them, therefore, will perhaps be yet more strongly shown : Mark iv. 31, 32.—It is like a grain of mustard-seed, which is (ɛ.) less than, etc.; but it groweth up and becometh (y.) greater than all herbs. Mark xiii. 28.-When her branch is (y.) yet tender (literally, When now her branch becometh tender) and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is (ɛ.) nigh. Luke vi. 36. Be ye therefore (i. e., become, or show yourselves, y.) merciful, even as your Father also is (ɛ.) merciful. Luke xii. 54, 55.-Straightway ye say, There cometh a shower, and so it is (7.); there will be (ɛ.) heat, and it cometh to pass (y.). Additional instances seem to be altogether needless. Now when two verbs whose signification is nearly but not altoget!.er the same, stand in close juxtaposition to each other (as in the passage under consideration), the probability is that the writer employs them advisedly, and according to the strictness of their proper and respective meanings; especially if, as in the present instance, the idea of the second verb is simply an amplification of the idea presented by the first. Any translation, therefore, which fails to express their characteristic difference, cannot but be regarded as defective. How far a departure from strict accuracy may or may not in any instance be of importance, depends of course upon circumstances. In the present case the sentiment of the verse is, I conceive, very materially affected by such departure. In our common English version, the two verbs elvai and yívɛodaι being alike translated is, and their respective difference of meaning unexpressed, a belief in the being of God is represented as being as much an instance of that faith whereby God is said to be well pleased, as the belief that God is a rewarder. I do not believe that the original makes any such assertion. If indeed there were in the Greek a second orɩ (as in the common version there is a second that), in such a case (the juxtaposition being broken), these two verbs might perhaps without impropriety be alike translated 'is.' But here again we have in the common translation of the verse, a yet further deviation from the strict letter of the original. In the Greek the őr (that) occurs but once-in the common version we have this conjunction twice-the translation of the common a The writer's motive for making use of this expression will, he hopes, be, obvious. version version rendering it desirable that the conjunction should be inserted before each of the two verbs, in order that credenda so distinct as, first, that there is a God, and secondly, that he is a rewarder, might be more clearly pointed out, as separate and distinct ideas. But if, with reference to the insertion of a second that, the common translation correctly expressed the sense of the original, the probability is, that in the Greek, no less than in the English, the conjunction would have been similarly inserted before each of the two verbs-it being usual in the Greek language, no less than in our own, to repeat this conjunction before separate and independent propositions. But if these verbs be understood according to their strict and proper meaning, and if we regard the concluding portion of the verse, viz., ‘a rewarder of them that diligently seek him,' as being equally connected with each of them (a supposition which the absence of a second or in the Greek would seem to demand), then, that respecting which it is here said, that he that cometh must believe it, is not, first, that there is a God, and secondly, that he is a rewarder; but simply that God is and becomes a rewarder to them that diligently seek him. It need only be added that if this be the sentiment of the Apostle's words, the two ideas of the verse, viz., that God is a rewarder, and that sooner or later he is found to be such (or, more literally, that he is and becomes a rewarder), are so closely connected, that taken in combination, they express but one idea, viz., that God rewards. 6 Upon critical grounds then, if not upon theological, there seems to be good reason for asserting that the declaration of the Apostle respects that faith only which believes in God as a rewarder; and, inasmuch as the faith insisted on in Scripture is an act not of the mere intellect-for it is with the heart' that 'man believeth,' and his faith is unto righteousness,'--which moreover so believes in him as such, as deliberately to choose and prefer his service in spite of every privation which that service may entail. No other faith can give to a promised and unseen future that influence and power over the seductions of that which is palpable and present, which shall 'please God;' nor will any other support under the many trials, self-denials, and privations to which a man's religion, if genuine, will frequently and undoubtedly expose him; nor is any other worthy of the name. I have only to add that if the sense in which the verse in question is understood in these remarks be just, it may be translated somewhat thus:-' But without faith it is impossible to please Him; for he that cometh to God must believe that He is (viz., in disposition and in will, or readiness) and becomes (viz., in positive act) a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.' British Museum. J. C. K. MISCELLANEA. MISCELLANEA. OBSERVATIONS ON THE VERB 77 BÂREK, ACCORDING to the adopted arrangement of the Hebrew verb, the leading signification of Kal, is to kneel: hence it has been inferred that, as in the Pihel form it signifies to bless, it has acquired this meaning from the circumstance of persons kneeling in presenting their adorations to the Almighty. But unless it could be shown that the word, as signifying to kneel, had been used in that sense previously to its use as signifying to bless, that inference must be considered as groundless. Having no data for ascertaining the primary use of the word, we can determine nothing respecting the origin of its several forms, and consequently have no other means of knowing its signification in any of those forms but that of its general use. It is well known that the word Pihel, which is generally rendered to bless, is, in six places in our common version, rendered to curse or to blaspheme. The following are the passages in which this rendering occurs: 1 Kings xxi. 10, 13; Job i. 5, 11, and ii. 5, 9. Gesenius, in his explanation of the word as occurring in these passages, says, 'Est hoc verbum e vocabulis mediis.' Of the few other words which are used in opposite acceptations, may be noticed some of the derivatives of p; and as the radical signification of this word is to separate, or set apart for a special purpose, there is no difficulty in perceiving how nouns derived from it may be used as descriptive terms for subjects of a directly opposite character. With a view to assistance in our inquiry respecting the verb 77, we briefly advert to some of the different forms, and their acceptations, of nouns derived from IR. · ,holiness ,מִקְדָשׁ קָדוֹשׁ קֹדֶשׁ The frequent use of In Isai. xiii. 3, the warriors appointed by Divine Providence for the destruction of Babylon are termed Dp separated, or prepared ones. holy, sanctuary, etc., is well known as applying to persons and things set apart for sacred purposes; and the Hebrew student is aware that the terms and are applied to persons devoted to impure practices; Deut. xxiii. 18, 1 Kings xiv. 24. Some forms of the word are also applied to idolatrous worship: 2 Kings x. 20; Isai. xvi. 12, lxvi. 17; Amos vii. 13. If words having two directly opposite acceptations may be termed VOL. VI.NO. XII. 2 G |