PA 
 
 
 844- 
 T<3 
 
 •«- c *' c«r< r **•£. 
 
 <«: <r«^ «| 
 
 & <«c < «ac< <«r tc< c 5v V 
 
 C(« 
 
 «*£«« 
 
 RtB'v 
 
 •C C.« 
 
 
 [if* «^CT 
 
 5^ 
 
 
 S-5 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 :*£< 
 
 inaLC.cc 
 
 
 
 W m: 
 
 
 
 :(CC < 
 
 
 
 
 . C<SL« 
 
 
 ayr 
 
 ^M! 
 
 P^t*^"** . 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 cc *ci* <f 
 
 
 c « 
 
 25 
 
 rr,,< 
 
 
 
 3 <<£< 
 
1 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I 
 
 m 
 
 GTIfap. 
 •Xo. 
 
 .fa 
 
 fc3 
 
 & : 
 
 RUXITED STATES OF AMERICA.! 
 
WHAT IS THE POWER 
 
 OF 
 
 THE GREEK ARTICLE, 
 
 AND 
 
 HOW MAY IT BE EXPRESSED 
 
 Ww ^Bngltsf) Ferefon 
 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT? 
 
 BY JOHN TAYLOK, 
 
 LONDON: 
 PRINTED FOR TAYLOR AND WALTON, 
 
 UPPER GOWER STREET. 
 
 1842. 
 

PREFACE. 
 
 It was from no wish to enter into competition 
 with others on a difficult question of grammar, that 
 I was led to the composition of the following pages. 
 Having read with much attention, about seven 
 years ago, Dr. Middleton's work on the Greek 
 article, in the hope that it would throw a clearer 
 light on some of the more difficult passages in 
 New Testament, I was concerned to find that, 
 if his theory were to be considered true, cer- 
 tain inferences must be drawn, which seemed to 
 me to contaminate the truth by an admixture of 
 error. Reflecting further on this, I began to doubt 
 whether his view of the Greek article was correct, 
 and whether it might not be represented with 
 greater fidelity in another and very different cha- 
 racter. I was gratified to find that no error seemed 
 likely to be created by this change ; and that, when 
 the principle was applied to the English version, it 
 appeared to recommend itself by the improvement 
 which it introduced into that version. To try 
 whether any imperfection could lurk under the 
 system, I applied it subsequently, by appropriate 
 
2 PREFACE. 
 
 signs, to the whole of the English New Testament; 
 and the result was, a conviction that not only had 
 the Greek article the power which I supposed it 
 to possess, but also that the transfer of that power 
 to the English version formed as satisfactory a proof 
 as could be desired of the truth of the theory in 
 the Greek language. 
 
 I am encouraged by these considerations to offer 
 this little essay to the notice of the public. To 
 those who are critically acquainted with the original 
 text I trust it will, recommend itself, if it fulfils in 
 every particular those requirements which Dr. Mid- 
 dleton discovered to be inherent in the power of 
 the Greek article ; while, to the common English 
 reader, it will not fail, I hope, to be equally ac- 
 ceptable, if it brings out with greater effect those 
 */ secret meanings of the text, which his judgment 
 teaches him he might expect to find, but which 
 he cannot without some authority presume to im- 
 pute to it. 
 
 30. Upper Gower Street, Oct, 1842. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Pago. 
 
 I. Objections to the existing Theory of the Greek Article 5 
 
 II. A new Theory of the Greek Article proposed - 30 
 
 III. Application of the new Theory to the English Ver- 
 sion of the New Testament - - -43 
 
 IV. Rules and Illustrations, for improving the English 
 Version of the New Testament - - -55 
 
 V. Cases of Emphasis arising from the relative Position of 
 
 Greek Words - - - - - 78 
 
 VI. Comparison of the Hebrew Article with the Greek - 85 
 
 VII. Origin of the Greek Article - - - 89 
 
 B 2 
 
WHAT IS THE POWER 
 
 OF 
 
 THE GREEK ARTICLE? 
 
 ETC. 
 
 I. OBJECTIONS TO THE EXISTING THEORY OF THE 
 GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 J. he authorised English version of the New Testament is 
 perhaps the most faithful, and at the same time the most 
 idiomatic, translation that has ever appeared of any work : 
 but, on comparing it with the original, it must be ac- 
 knowledged that there is a peculiar power in the Greek 
 Article which has not been adequately represented. Of 
 this defect, the many instances where the demonstrative 
 pronoun that has been inserted, in order to complete the 
 sense, may be regarded as sufficient proof. For example : 
 when the Jews sent priests and Levites to ask John the 
 Baptist, " Art thou Elias ? And he saith, I am not. 
 Art thou that prophet ? And he answered, No. . . . Why 
 baptizest thou, then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, 
 neither that prophet ? " John, i. 19. — it is evident that, in 
 each of these cases, the article a or the would have been 
 deemed sufficient, had it not appeared to the translators 
 that some greater stress was necessary to be laid on the 
 expression, than these less important words were able to 
 
 b 3 
 
6 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 convey. It is the consciousness of this defect which has 
 given rise also to such renderings as the following : — 
 " Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed," John, 
 viii. 31.; "While Peter doubted in himself what this 
 vision which he had seen should mean," Acts, x. 17. ; 
 " Let them, therefore, said he, which among you are able, 
 go down with me, and accuse this man," Acts, xxv. 5. 
 
 The practice complained of may be thought a trivial 
 evil ; and if this method of representing the power of the 
 Greek article had subjected the English reader to no 
 greater disadvantage than is found in the last three quota- 
 tions, it would indeed have been unnecessary to say a word 
 on the subject; but when erroneous interpretations are 
 created or encouraged by the means thus taken to fill up 
 the sense, it becomes a duty to have them, if possible, cor- 
 rected. To' an unlearned person, who had not been put 
 on his guard against such a construction, the enquiry, 
 "Art thou Elias?" followed by, "Art thou that pro- 
 phet ? " might naturally convey the idea that the second 
 question was no more than a repetition of the first in an- 
 other form. But, to say nothing of this misconception, 
 which he would perhaps be warned against, or might 
 remedy for himself on further reflection, the sense in which 
 the learned take the question, " Art thou that prophet ? " 
 meaning, as Dr. Hammond suggests, " some special pro- 
 phet, perhaps Jeremy, which had been among them, the 
 return of whom the Jews expected before Elias, as him 
 before the Messias," is probably as indefensible as the 
 other. It may be very reasonably doubted whether any 
 such expectation of another special prophet besides Elias 
 was common among the Jews at any time, and whether 
 this assumption may not have been made solely for the 
 purpose of meeting that exigency which an erroneous 
 interpretation of the Greek article originally produced. 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 7 
 
 If we adopt the translation which is given in the margin 
 of our English version, "Art thou a prophet?" this as- 
 sumption is rendered unnecessary : but if we are entitled 
 to read " a prophet," instead of " that prophet " in the 
 former case, so we may read in the second instance, 
 " Why baptizest thou, then, if thou be not the Christ, nor 
 Elias, neither a prophet ? " The change of that to the and 
 a is a reading which, it must be admitted, alters the sense 
 considerably ; but it has this advantage, that it gives rise 
 to no misconception on the part of either the learned or 
 unlearned ; and unless there be something in the Greek 
 article which forbids this mode of rendering, it would 
 therefore seem the best that could be chosen. 
 
 Let us take another instance. — When the Jews who fol- 
 lowed Jesus across the sea of Galilee, in the hope of wit- 
 nessing a repetition of the miracle by which the five 
 thousand were fed, said to him, " Our fathers did eat 
 manna in the desert, as it is written, He gave them bread 
 from Heaven to eat ; " and our Lord replies, " Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from 
 Heaven;" the ordinary inference drawn from the word 
 that would be, that Jesus meant them to understand that 
 this manna, the bread of which they were speaking, was 
 not sent from Heaven, but was a product of the earth, 
 thus miraculously accumulated on the spot where it was 
 gathered. The reply, however, properly understood, 
 leaves this part of the subject untouched, and is evidently 
 intended to carry their minds onward to another subject 
 of far higher importance, viz., the bread that was really 
 from Heaven — our Lord himself. " Verily, verily, I say 
 unto you, Moses gave you not the bread which is from 
 Heaven ; but my Father giveth you the true bread from 
 Heaven. For the bread of God is He which cometh down 
 from Heaven, and giveth life unto the world. I am the 
 
 b 4 
 
8 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 bread of life." John, vi. 31. But if this be the proper 
 rendering of the words, it must be confessed that the 
 reading which is contained in our English version is 
 liable to the charge of engendering error in the minds of 
 the unlearned. This last sentence, again, when it is 
 repeated three verses further on, exhibits another instance 
 of the substitution of that for the, " I am that bread of 
 life ; " though why it should differ from the former cannot 
 be conjectured, except the translators thought that they 
 might safely recur, in the latter example, to that method 
 of representing the supposed power of the Greek article 
 which they were afraid to adopt on the first occasion, 
 because it had not there the same obvious antecedent. 
 
 But whence, it may be asked, has arisen this solicitude 
 to express the Greek article by the pronoun that, if it be 
 a less safe and satisfactory rendering ? It springs from a 
 conviction that the Greek article contains in itself a 
 power greater than that which is possessed by the English 
 article, though what that power is, and how it ought to be 
 represented in English, hardly any one is able to define. 
 The work of greatest authority on the subject is one 
 which was written about forty years ago by the late 
 Dr. Middleton, Bishop of Calcutta, entitled " The Doc- 
 trine of the Greek Article applied to the Criticism and 
 Illustration of the New Testament." The learned author 
 sets forth with great distinctness the several occasions in 
 which the Greek article is employed by Greek writers, 
 arfd lays down rules drawn from these instances which 
 would enable a modern scholar writing Greek to make use 
 of the Greek article much in the same way that the 
 ancients did ; but when he applies his rules to the illus- 
 tration of the New Testament, a suspicion will frequently 
 arise that there is something unsound in them at bottom. 
 This is especially the case when he attempts to express 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 9 
 
 the power of the Greek article in English, for then he is 
 reduced to the same necessity of employing the demon- 
 strative pronoun that which our translators were subject 
 to ; or, if the English article be substituted, it is the definite, 
 to the exclusion of the indefinite, in all such cases as those 
 which have been quoted. In the question put to John, 
 for instance, he approves the reading of " Art thou the 
 prophet?" meaning thereby some prophet expected by the 
 Jews, and appeals to the answer of John for a confirm- 
 ation of the truth of this reading, adding, " for else how 
 could John have answered in the negative? Does not 
 Christ declare of John (Matt. xi. 9.), that he was a prophet, 
 and even more than a prophet?" (329.) To this objection 
 it may be sufficient to reply, that this is Christ's declara- 
 tion, and not John's, and, therefore, John is not bound 
 by it. But there was another question put to John 
 at the same time, which did not occur to Dr. Middleton, 
 
 — a question which is exposed to the same objection, but 
 which John equally answered in the negative : " Art thou 
 Elias ? And he saith, I am not." If it was impossible for 
 John, with truth, to have said he was not A prophet, 
 
 — because our Lord said he was " a prophet, and more 
 than a prophet," in Matthew, xi. 9. — how is it that he 
 could say he was not Elias, when our Lord's declara- 
 tion in the 14th verse of the same chapter of Matthew is, 
 " If ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to 
 come?" The argument is overthrown which imputes 
 to John that he could not, consistently with truth, have 
 denied that which Christ affirmed of him in the one case, 
 when we see that he actually did deny it in the other. We 
 find, then, in this reply, nothing to support the reading 
 for which Dr. Middleton contends, to the exclusion of that 
 which is proposed in the margin of our English version. 
 
 But if Dr. Middleton's argument is in this case mi- 
 
10 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 founded, then does he also fail to prove that the prophet 
 promised in Deut. xviii. 15 — 19. was not our saviour. 
 It may excite surprise in the English reader to hear that 
 any doubt could have existed on this head ; and probably 
 none would have been heard of, had it not happened that 
 the received theory of the Greek article required a dif- 
 ferent fulfilment : for, when the question put to John was 
 suj>posed to have reference to some expected prophet, yet 
 not Elias, it then became necessary to show, if possible, 
 that Christ was not referred to in the above-mentioned 
 prophecy. " The reference," says Dr. Middleton, " is, I 
 believe, properly explained in the Anmerkungen of Mi- 
 chaelis, who says, ( Namely, the Prophet promised in Deut. 
 xviii. 15 — 1 9. The Jews understood these words of an in- 
 dividual resembling Moses in greatness and in miracles : I 
 am of a different opinion, and understand them of all and 
 singular the true prophets whom God, from time to time, 
 was to send to the people of Israel : the question, how- 
 ever, is put to John according to the then prevailing in- 
 terpretation.'" (329.) But who, according to that interpret- 
 ation, could possibly be meant, when he was spoken of as 
 the prophet that should come, but the Messias ? After 
 the people had seen the miracle which Jesus performed in 
 feeding the five thousand with five loaves and two fishes, 
 they said, " This is of a truth that prophet that should 
 come into the world." Whom did they then allude to ? 
 Dr. Hammond replies, " the Messias, known by the title 
 of 6 spxo/jLsvos, him that conieth." For, as he observes on 
 Matt. xi. 3., " the prophecies of Christ, as the Messias of 
 the Jews, by them expected (and also of the Gentiles, 
 though not by them so discerned), were so plain in the 
 Old Testament, under the title of Shiloh coming, &c, and 
 yet the person and name of him so unknown, that he was 
 by them wont to be expressed by some circumlocutions, 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 11 
 
 particularly by this of 6 ep^o^isvos, he that cometh." But, 
 if the reference be in this place to the Messias, or Christ, 
 as Dr. Hammond says (and we cannot doubt that he is 
 right), why should the Jews, after asking John, " Why 
 baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias," 
 immediately add, " neither that prophet," if they meant 
 again the Messias, or Christ ? The explanation given by 
 Michaelis, as to his own way of understanding these words, 
 is of no moment. His opinion of the meaning may, or 
 may not, be correct ; but, when he supposes that the Jews 
 made their enquiry with reference to the Messias, or 
 Christ, for that was " the then prevailing interpretation," 
 their previous question put to John concerning the Christ 
 shows that he must have been mistaken. 
 
 With regard, however, to the opinion, " that the Jews 
 were in error when they entertained the then prevailing 
 interpretation of this prophecy, and that the words of 
 Moses had reference to all and singular the true prophets 
 whom God from time to time was to send to the people of 
 Israel," it may be sufficient to observe, that the Apostle 
 Peter quotes these words as applicable only to one 
 prophet, Jesus Christ. "For Moses truly said unto 
 the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up 
 unto you of your brethren like unto me ; him shall ye 
 hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And 
 it shall come to pass that every soul which will not hear 
 that prophet shall be destroyed from among the 
 people," Acts, iii. 22. This application of the same pro- 
 phecy to Jesus Christ is made also by Stephen, Acts, vii. 
 37. With such authorities against him, Michaelis was 
 certainly bold in giving it as his opinion that these words 
 of Moses were not intended to have any reference to 
 Christ. If the received theory of the Greek article had 
 not seemed to require this, he would probably have 
 
12 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 avoided it. Dr. Middleton himself appears subsequently 
 to have had some doubts of the accuracy of Michaelis's 
 judgment, in the quotation which he had made from the 
 Anmerkungen ; and seems to think (351.) that this may 
 be one of the prophecies of the Old Testament which has 
 received a double fulfilment: first, in all the prophets 
 after Moses ; and secondly, in Christ. But the dilemma 
 in which this admission places him is no less embarrassing ; 
 for the point to be determined is, What did the Jews 
 mean when they said to John, " Art thou that prophet ?" 
 or " the Prophet ? " It is the third of three consecutive 
 questions : the two former being, " Art thou the Christ ? " 
 " Art thou Elias ? " They could not have intended to ask 
 John the third time whether he were the prophet that was 
 expected to appear, when both they and he understood the 
 question as having reference to the Messias, which question 
 had been already asked and answered ; neither did they 
 intend to ask him again whether he were Elias. What, 
 then, could have been passing in their minds but this : If 
 thou art not the Christ (the prophet who should come), nor 
 Elias (who was expected to appear before the prophet that 
 should come), art thou a prophet ? speaking, at last, gene- 
 rally, and descending in their enquiry from the greater to 
 the less. u Lightfoot supposes 6 7rpo(fyr}rr)9, to mean one of 
 the ancient prophets spoken of in Luke, ix. 8, 9 ; but this," 
 says Dr. Middleton, " is inconsistent with the presence of 
 the article." p. 330. According to the rule he lays down, 
 (i there is no such thing as an indefinite sense of the article, 
 that which has sometimes been so denominated being no 
 other than its hypothetic use: "(211.) and that this use does 
 not countenance the notion of Dr. Lightfoot, or the mar- 
 ginal reading of our English version, we learn from the fol- 
 lowing remark of Dr. Middleton : " the article, even with 
 the aid of its predicate, does not carry back the mind to any 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 13 
 
 object with which it has been recently, or is frequently 
 conversant." But is not Dr. Middleton in error here 
 rather than Dr. Lightfoot ? 
 
 In commenting on John, ix. 17., " He said, he is a 
 prophet," Dr. Middleton again refers to the prophecy in 
 Deuteronomy. "Wolfius is of opinion that the man 
 cured of blindness does not here speak of Christ merely 
 as a 'prophet, but as the one prophet foretold by Moses. . . . 
 The argument of Wolfius proceeds on the supposition that 
 the prophet promised in Deut. xviii. 15. is the Messiah. 
 I have already had occasion on i. 21., to advert to this 
 subject : it may be useful in this place to consider it 
 somewhat further. The principal reason for confining the 
 promise to the coming of Christ is founded on the ap- 
 parent application of the passage to our Saviour by 
 St. Peter, Acts, iii. 23. and by St. Stephen, vii. 37. 
 On the former of these places, Michaelis (Anmerk.) has 
 the following observations : — ' The prophet, like unto 
 Moses, whom God would raise up unto the Israelites from 
 among their brethren, and whom they were to hear, many 
 Christians have understood to be Christ himself : in which 
 case they will have it, that the passage is adduced by 
 Peter as a prophecy respecting the Messiah. But this opinion 
 appears to be improbable. The phrase, — a prophet like 
 myself, — used of Christ, would, in the mouth "of Moses, 
 seem very indecorous and offensive ; and, to judge from the 
 context, the discourse is not of one, but of several true 
 prophets, whom God, from time to time, would oppose to 
 soothsayers and diviners : to these impostors, set up by 
 superstition, the Israelites were not to give ear, but only 
 to the true prophets, resembling Moses, whom God would 
 occasionally send them. Many of the Jews, it is true, in 
 the time of Peter, interpreted the promise of an extra- 
 ordinary prophet, in greatness rivalling Moses, but not 
 Christ ; for they distinguish this prophet from Christ, 
 
14 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 calling the former simply the prophet. (John, i. 21 — 25.; 
 vii. 40, 41.) I understand Peter, then, to mean : Moses 
 says, God will raise up to the people of Israel prophets to 
 whom they must give ear ; and whosoever will not hear 
 them, him will God call to an account : all the prophets 
 bear witness of Jesus ; what answer, then, shall he be able 
 to give, who is disobedient to all the prophets?" (350.) 
 
 To this reasoning of Michaelis it will be sufficient to 
 oppose the plain and strong declaration of St. Peter already 
 quoted. And perhaps we may be allowed to add, that 
 a theory which requires that we should deny the most 
 obvious meaning of certain words used by the Evangelists, 
 and attribute to others a sense contrary to that which the 
 Apostles attributed to them, is one which cannot be said 
 to carry with it any peculiar claim to favour. 
 
 But lest we should be thought to have pronounced too 
 hasty a condemnation of Dr. Middleton's theory, we will 
 add another instance of the erroneous conclusions to 
 which we think it leads. In John, xviii. 15., we 
 read that " Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did an- 
 other disciple :" thus it stands in the English version. 
 Dr. Middleton, in conformity with his rule already quoted, 
 that " there is no such thing as an indefinite sense of the 
 article," contends that the proper translation of the Greek 
 form, 6 aWos fjLaOrjTrjs, ought to be "the other disciple." 
 But, as no other disciple than Simon Peter had pre- 
 viously been mentioned, an opportunity is here offered for 
 the introduction of a great deal of clever reasoning, to 
 which we cannot do justice without making a somewhat 
 copious extract. 
 
 " f O aXkos fia6r]T7]s. Grotius says, ( it is certain that in 
 these as well as in other writings, the article is frequently 
 redundant.' Schleusner too adduces some other instances 
 besides the present, in proof of the same assertion (see 
 Lex. voce 6, rj, to) : in the principal, however, of which it 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 15 
 
 has already been shown that the assertion is wholly 
 groundless ; and it is to be considered as the refuge of 
 ignorance, though of the ignorance of learned men. I am 
 indeed ready to confess that the article, in this place, is a 
 subject of some difficulty ; of greater, perhaps, than in any 
 other in the whole New Testament : yet, though it should 
 be altogether impossible to assign its use with absolute 
 certainty, it is surely more reasonable to impute the 
 obscurity to our own want of knowledge, than to attempt 
 to subvert the whole analogy of language ; for, to say that 
 6 aXkos and aXkos may be used indifferently, is an assertion 
 which is contradicted alike by experience and by common 
 sense. It is better to understand phrases according to their 
 obvious import, even though we should be compelled to 
 leave the proof of their fitness to more diligent or more 
 fortunate enquiry. Thus to ifKolov, Matt. xiii. 2. and else- 
 where, has always been regarded as merely a certain ship : I 
 should not, however, have acquiesced in this vague in- 
 terpretation, even if I had found it impossible to account 
 for the article in a satisfactory way. I entertain the same 
 feeling with respect to the present passage." (358.) 
 
 This reference to the case of " the ship" and to the 
 satisfactory manner in which the learned author had suc- 
 ceeded in explaining, on that occasion, the power of the 
 Greek article, carries us for a moment out of our way, and 
 requires us to observe concerning it, that Dr. Middleton 
 adopted the suggestion of Mr. Gilbert Wakefield, who says, 
 in his New Testament, (< a particular vessel is uniformly 
 specified. It seems to have been kept on the lake for the 
 use of Jesus and the Apostles. It probably belonged to 
 some of the fishermen (see Matt. iv. 22.), who, I should 
 think, occasionally, at least, continued to follow their for- 
 mer occupation : (see John, xxi. 3.)." This " solution," 
 says Dr. Middleton, " carries with it an air of strong pro- 
 
16 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 bability ; and, when we look at Mark, iii. 9., which 
 appears to have escaped him, his conjecture becomes 
 absolute certainty ; for there our Saviour is said to have 
 directed that a small vessel should constantly be in waiting 
 for him, irpoaKaprspy avro). Moreover, I think we may 
 discover to whom the vessel belonged. In one Evangelist, 
 Luke, v. 3., we find a ship, used by our Saviour for the 
 very purpose here mentioned, declared expressly to be 
 Simon's ; and afterwards, in the same Evangelist, viii. 22., 
 we have to ifkolov [the ship] definitely, as if it were in- 
 tended that the reader should understand it of the ship 
 already spoken of. It is, therefore, not improbable, that, in 
 the other Evangelists also, the vessel so frequently used by 
 our Saviour was that belonging to Peter and Andrew." (212.) 
 The discovery of all these several circumstances did not 
 require much ingenuity to make it ; since we learn from the 
 New Testament the following particulars. That on the 
 Sea of Galilee, or Lake of Gennesareth as it was also 
 called, were two ships or large boats belonging to two 
 families of fishermen, who were partners, all together, in 
 their calling : that one ship belonged to Simon Peter and 
 his brother Andrew ; the other to Zebedee with his tAvo 
 sons, John and James. That before our Lord called the 
 four younger men to follow him and become thenceforth 
 his disciples, they were seen by him all alike engaged in 
 washing and mending their nets. That he entered into 
 Simon's ship, and prayed him to thrust out a little 
 from the land. That he then sat down and taught the 
 people out of the ship ; that is, all the people who had 
 come together there and were standing on the shore. That 
 when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, " Launch 
 out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught : " 
 the result was the miraculous draught of fishes, on seeing 
 which, Simon Peter fell down at Jesus's knees, saying, 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 17 
 
 " Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord ! " — 
 Simon had previously been told by his brother Andrew 
 that Jesus was the Messiah, for that he himself and John 
 the son of Zebedee had heard the declaration to that effect 
 made by John the Baptist ; and as a consequence of that 
 communication he had brought Simon to Jesus. But this 
 was the first time that Simon appears to have been 
 thoroughly impressed with the conviction that Jesus was 
 that mighty being which he was reported to be, and this 
 miracle was the cause of that conviction. The call im- 
 mediately followed : " Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not, 
 from henceforth thou shalt catch men : and they forsook 
 all and followed him." 
 
 The ships, however, remained on the lake in the charge 
 of Zebedee, who, with " hired servants " only, instead 
 of his sons and partners (see Mark, i. 20.), followed 
 still the occupation of a fisherman. But though the disci- 
 ples do not appear to have resumed their former labours till 
 after our Saviour's death, and then for a short time only, 
 what was more natural than that one of these ships, and 
 especially that of Simon Peter, should be employed, as 
 occasion required, in conveying Jesus and his disciples from 
 one side of the lake to the other ? We learn from Scrip- 
 ture that this was done : what need then is there to try to 
 make more out of the facts, by saying that " a particular 
 vessel is uniformly specified ; " that " it seems to have been 
 kept on the lake for the use of Jesus and the Apostles;" that 
 " it probably belonged to some of the fishermen ; " and, " I 
 think we may discover to whom it belonged ? " Why make 
 a mystery, and affect a discovery, where there is no room 
 for either ? When our Lord " spake to his disciples, that 
 a small boat should wait on him, because of the multitude, 
 lest they should throng him," (Mark, iii. 9.) it was doubt- 
 less a small boat QirXoLapiov) belonging to one of these two 
 
 c 
 
18 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 ships, see John, xxi. 8. ; and, with respect to the infe- 
 rence drawn from the example in Luke, viii. 22., of to 
 7r\olov " the ship definitely, as if it were intended that 
 the reader should understand it of the ship already spoken 
 of," it is sufficient to say that neither in the received 
 text, nor that of Mill, nor in the oldest MS. extant, the 
 Vat. 1206, is the article prefixed to ifkolov. Every in- 
 ference, therefore, which is raised on the supposed presence 
 and definite meaning of the Greek article in this case falls 
 to the ground ; and all that " air of strong probability," 
 which the imagination of the writer had converted into 
 " absolute certainty," is found at last to shrink down into 
 the compass of the simple facts as they are recorded in 
 the narratives of the Evangelists. 
 
 But to return to Dr. Middleton's statement of what is 
 to be understood as deducible from the use of the article 
 in 6 aXkos fjLadrjrr)?, " the OTHER disciple," according to 
 his theory : — 
 
 " Commentators," he says, " have generally admitted 
 that, by the other disciple here mentioned, St. John 
 means himself; and Michaelis (in his Anmerkungen) well 
 observes, that ( John has never named himself in the whole 
 Gospel, nor has ever said i"; and yet the occurrences 
 which took place in the hall of Annas, as well as St. Peter's 
 denial of Christ, he has described so circumstantially, 
 and has thrown so much light on the dark and seemingly 
 contradictory narratives of the other Evangelists, that we 
 cannot but conclude that he was present.' Supposing, then, 
 that St. John himself is meant by 6 aX\o9 juuaOijrr]^ it may 
 not be impossible to assign something like a plausible reason 
 why he should call himself the other disciple. This phrase 
 obviously implies the remaining one of two persons, who 
 not only were, in common with many others, disciples of 
 Christ, but between whom some still closer relation may 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 19 
 
 be recognised to exist ; and, if it could be shown that 
 Peter and John stood toward each other in any such rela- 
 tion, the term the other disciple might not unfitly be used, 
 immediately after the mention of Peter, to designate 
 John ; especially if, from any cause whatever, John was 
 not to be spoken of by name. Now, it does appear that 
 a particular, and even exclusive, friendship existed between 
 Peter and John : the circumstance has been noticed in 
 that admirable manual of Christian piety, the Companion 
 for the Fasts and Festivals. e Upon the news of our Sa- 
 viour's resurrection, they two hasted together to the 
 sepulchre. It was to Peter that John gave the notice of 
 Christ's appearing at the Sea of Tiberias in the habit of a 
 stranger ; and it was for St. John that St. Peter was solici- 
 tous what should become of him. See John, xxi. 21. After 
 the ascension of our Lord, we find them both together 
 going up to the Temple at the hour of prayer ; both 
 preaching to the people, and both apprehended and thrown 
 into prison, and the next day brought forth to plead their 
 cause before the Sanhedrim. And both were sent down by 
 the Apostles to Samaria to settle the plantations Philip had 
 made in those parts, where they baffled Simon Magus. — 
 See p. 77.' It might have been added," continues Dr. 
 Middleton, " that the same two were sent by Christ to 
 prepare the last passover, Luke, xxii. 8. It is, more- 
 over, to be observed, that the same expression of 6 aWo? 
 /jba07]T7]s, with some addition indeed, occurs in this Evan- 
 gelist, xx. 2., where, however, I do not perceive that the 
 addition affects the question : it is repeated also in verses 
 3, 4. and 8. of the same chapter, in a manner which to the 
 modern reader will appear extraordinary, but which, com- 
 bined with the circumstances already related, leads me to 
 infer that this phrase, when accompanied with the mention 
 of Peter, was readily, in the earliest period of Christianity, 
 
 c 2 
 
20 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 understood to signify John ; and it is not impossible that 
 the Evangelist may have employed this expression, in order 
 to remind his readers that, of the Twelve Apostles, two 
 zoere distinguished from the rest by their closer friendship and 
 connexion. If this be a reasonable solution of the diffi- 
 culty (and I cannot help thinking it preferable to the 
 bungling expedient uniformly adopted *), the article ought 
 to be expressed in all future translations : by the omission 
 of it we withhold from the reader's notice a circumstance 
 of considerable interest and beauty" (360.) 
 
 The questions here raised are, 1. Whether John be the 
 person meant by " the other disciple?" 2. Whether, being 
 that person, he meant it to be inferred, by his using the ex- 
 pression 6 aXkos fia07)T7)9, that he and Peter were most 
 
 INTIMATE FRIENDS ? 
 
 Many commentators have certainly admitted that by 
 the other disciple here mentioned, John means himself; 
 though there have not been wanting some of great anti- 
 quity and authority who have expressed a contrary 
 opinion. Nonnus, who flourished, according to Cave, 
 about the year 410, wrote in Greek a paraphrase of 
 St. John's Gospel, still extant, in which he describes thi; 
 person as vsos aXkos kraipos, " another new (or young) 
 companion," a description not likely to have been applied 
 by John to himself. This paraphrase of Nonnus is re- 
 markable for omitting the history of the woman taken in 
 adultery, in which it is supported by all the earliest MSS., 
 and for stating exclusively, but agreeably to the text of all 
 the other Evangelists, that the events which are recorded 
 in John as having taken place about the sixth hour, 
 occurred about the third, (xix. 14.) These circumstances 
 give it some claim to attention beyond that which belongs 
 to it on the ground of antiquity. 
 
 * That of supposing the article to he redundant. 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 21 
 
 The judicious Lardncr thinks " it may be questioned 
 whether John hereby intends himself. Chrysostom sup- 
 poseth him to be meant, and that John concealeth his name 
 out of humility and modesty. To the like purpose, also, 
 Theophylact. Nor had Jerom any doubts here. But 
 Augustine was cautious in saying who it was, though he 
 thought it might be John. Let us now observe the 
 sentiments of the moderns. Whitby, upon this place, says, 
 ( He seems not to be John, for he being a Galilean as 
 well as Peter, they might equally have suspected him on 
 that account.' However, to this it might be answered, 
 e But John being known to the high-priest, he was safe.' 
 But, then, another difficulty will arise, for it may be said, 
 ' How came John to be so well known to the high-priest 
 and his family, so as to be able to direct their servants to 
 admit a stranger, as Peter was, and at that time of night ? ' 
 Grotius likewise thought that this other disciple could not 
 be John, or any one of the twelve, but rather some believer, 
 an inhabitant of Jerusalem, and possibly the person at 
 whose house our Lord had eaten the Paschal supper. 
 Lampe hesitates ; and at length allegeth the sentiment of 
 a learned writer, who conjectured that this other disciple 
 was Judas the traitor. For Judas, he thinks, was soon 
 touched with remorse for what he had done, and he might 
 follow Jesus to the high-priest's house, hoping that by 
 some means he might escape out of the hands of those to 
 whom he had betrayed him. Judas, being there himself, 
 might be very willing to let in Peter. Whether this con- 
 jecture be specious or no I cannot say ; but it does not 
 seem to me very likely that St. John should characterise 
 Judas by the title of ( another disciple,' after he had be- 
 trayed his Lord and master. After all, / am not able to 
 determine this point. At first reading the place of St. John, 
 we are naturally enough led to think that by ( the other 
 
 c 3 
 
22 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 disciple' should be meant himself; but upon further con- 
 sideration there arise difficulties that may induce us to 
 hesitate." {Lardner's Works, 8vo, vol. iii. p. 406.) 
 
 In answer to the remark of Michaelis, that John has 
 never named himself in the whole gospel, nor ever said 
 " I," it may be observed, that the same may be said of the 
 other three Evangelists, except that Luke, in his intro- 
 ductory letter to Theophilus, uses the first person, which 
 is a case where it could not be avoided — a case, also, 
 without parallel in the other gospels ; and that Matthew 
 twice names himself in the third person, once when he 
 was called, and the second time when all the apostles are 
 enumerated — cases, again, without exact parallel in the 
 other Evangelists ; essentially, therefore, the same thing 
 may be said of all. How John came to a knowledge of 
 all the particulars of the treatment of Christ, and the 
 conduct of Peter, in the hall of the high-priest, may be 
 explained by the supposition that Peter himself would 
 communicate what happened to him, and would be able to 
 relate some of the circumstances attending the examination 
 of Jesus; and that the other disciple, whoever he were, 
 might have communicated the rest. But, if the question 
 is to be raised, "How did the Evangelists individually 
 acquire their knowledge of all that they relate ? " it might 
 be asked on many other occasions where it would be 
 answered with greater difficulty. 
 
 The point of real interest in this discussion is, whether 
 the phrase, 6 aXKos fjLaOrjrr)?, when it first occurs, must 
 mean " the other disciple," to the exclusion of the in- 
 definite form which our translators have adopted, "an- 
 other disciple." Reasons have been assigned in the 
 preceding pages why this latter interpretation may be held 
 to be equally valid with the former, if the sense seems to 
 require it ; but, waving this for the present, let us see by 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE ? 23 
 
 what evidence the opinion of Dr. Middleton is supported. 
 First, he says that, in John, xx. 2, 3, 4. and 8., " the same 
 expression of 6 aXkos fjuadrfrr)?, with some addition, indeed, 
 occurs," but that he does not " perceive that the addition 
 affects the question" Would any one, from these words, 
 believe that the addition, which does not affect the ques- 
 tion in a case where the person meant is doubtful, is that 
 descriptive title given to John by which he was commonly 
 known, and by which he has been indisputably recognised 
 by all Christians from that hour to this ? " Then she run- 
 neth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple 
 whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have 
 taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know 
 not where they have laid him." There can be no doubt 
 here who is the person meant. This is said in chapter 
 xx. verse 2. ; and in verses 3, 4, and 8. we read, " Peter 
 went, therefore, ' and the other disciple, and came to the 
 sepulchre. So they ran both together, and the other dis- 
 ciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre, &c. 
 Then went in also the other disciple, which came first to the 
 sepulchre." But is there anything extraordinary in this 
 form of speech, " the other disciple," applied to so well- 
 defined an antecedent ? " Yes," says Dr. Middleton, " it 
 is repeated in a manner which to a modern reader will 
 appear extraordinary" But what else could have been 
 said ? On such an occasion, what other words could have 
 been used? This Dr. Middleton does not explain, nor 
 can any one suggest for him. On the contrary, with- 
 out noticing in the slightest degree the addition in the 
 second verse, which determines that he who is meant by 
 " the other disciple " is " the disciple whom Jesus 
 loved," he concludes with the strange declaration : " it is 
 not impossible that the evangelist may have employed this 
 expression (the other disciple), to remind his readers that, 
 
 C 4 
 
24 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 of the twelve apostles, two were distinguished from the 
 rest by their closer friendship and connexion." Supposing 
 him even to be correct in his first position, that by " the 
 other disciple," in chapter xviii., John intended to refer to 
 himself as the friend of Peter, it was hardly possible for 
 him to conceive that John could have had the same object 
 in view in the 19th chapter, when he refers to himself as 
 the beloved of Jesus. Yet this is the statement. 
 
 Had not Dr. Middleton's partiality for his own theory 
 so blinded his better judgment, as to lead him to invent 
 this notion of an exclusive friendship between Peter and 
 John during the Saviour's abode on earth, he would, with 
 his usual discernment, have been the first to perceive that 
 such a friendship would be utterly inconsistent with that 
 high and all absorbing attachment of the disciples to the 
 Saviour which allowed of no human rivalry. In and 
 through Christ their hearts might be knit together by 
 love to each other, or it was the infirmity of their nature 
 if this were not the case ; but, in comparison with him, 
 they, as all others, were alike required to forsake father 
 and mother, and every other earthly tie, and this they did. 
 Peter says, " Lo ! we have left all and followed thee." Let 
 us make the case our own, let us imagine ourselves in 
 their stead, and then ask our own hearts w r hether it were 
 possible that Peter and John could have cultivated an 
 exclusive friendship for each other while Jesus was with 
 them ? The thought is painful. Would John, who pos- 
 sessed the highest title ever conferred on man, next to that 
 of Abraham, the friend of God; would he, "whom Jesus 
 loved" be willing to forego that glorious distinction, that 
 he might be thought the exclusive friend of Peter ! at the 
 very time, too, when that Apostle had unhappily denied all 
 knowledge of him on whose bosom John was privileged to 
 recline ? Could John think, even if it were true, of his 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE V 25 
 
 own partiality for Peter, at the moment when he was 
 writing the account of the most momentous event that had 
 ever occurred in the history of the world, the unmerited 
 and cruel death of his God and Saviour ? Had the pro- 
 fession, at such a time, of any friendship for Peter been 
 possible, few there are that could have regarded it as " a 
 circumstance of considerable interest and beauty ! " Nor 
 would Dr. Middleton have been among the number, had 
 not his zeal for the cause in which he was engaged biassed 
 his better judgment. 
 
 That he who brought in Peter was not John, but some 
 other disciple, is placed beyond all doubt by the reading of 
 the Vatican MS., the oldest and best of all authorities. 
 In the 15th verse of the 18th chapter, where 6 aXKos 
 /uLa6r)T?]s first occurs, we may read, as in the English 
 version " that disciple was known unto the high-priest : " 
 but in the 16th verse the expression is made stronger by 
 the article ; " Then went out the other disciple, who was 
 AN ACQUAINTANCE (6$ rjv 6 <yv(D&Tos) of the high-priest," 
 — a description by which it was impossible for John 
 to have designated himself, but which was applicable 
 enough to some secret favourer of Christ, as Grotius sug- 
 gests, of whom there were many in the city. That John, 
 who three years before was an obscure fisherman on the 
 Sea of Galilee, and from the time he was called was the 
 most constant companion of our Lord, should have had 
 the opportunity of cultivating an intimacy with the high- 
 priest, a man of the greatest rank and proudest family of 
 any in Jerusalem, and be known personally to his servants ; 
 that those servants could see that Peter was a Galilean, 
 one that was with Jesus, and yet not discern the same 
 things in John ; are suppositions in the highest degree im- 
 probable, and such as, if they were true, would be most 
 injurious to the memory of the beloved disciple. 
 
26 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 Who, then, can be fixed on for this " other disciple ? " 
 The words of Nonnus, and the circumstances of the case, 
 not unaptly accord with what might be expected to be the 
 conduct of the " young man " mentioned in Mark x. and 
 Matthew xix., of whom Luke says, " A certain ruler 
 asked him, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal 
 life ?" (xvii. 18.) All describe him as " very rich." Mark 
 says, that " Jesus beholding him loved him ; " and though 
 he adds that " the young man went away grieved, for he 
 had great possessions," and did not therefore immediately 
 follow Jesus, it can hardly be doubted that the surrender 
 of all for Christ, which without God is impossible, but 
 " with God all things are possible," would ultimately take 
 place even in him ; for, doubtless, the wealth of one for 
 whom Christ felt so much affection would not for ever 
 stand in the way of his conversion. This was probably 
 the same " young man " who was in the garden when our 
 Lord was seized. He was then muffled up in a sindon, 
 a large square garment, which was wrapped round the 
 body like a plaid, and worn only by persons of superior 
 station, a dress which favoured his incognito if he was still, 
 as we may suppose him to have been, a secret follower of 
 our Lord. When he fled, having left his robe in the 
 hands of those who laid hold of him, he would doubtless 
 return in his usual habiliments, and enter into the high- 
 priest's house to see the end of the business ; and at that 
 time he would be likely to speak to her that kept the door, 
 that he might bring in Peter. These opinions are offered 
 with great diffidence, merely as conjectures, and the 
 reader will give what credence he pleases to them. 
 
 With one more example from Dr. Middleton's illustra- 
 tions, we shall close this notice of his theory. " Art thou 
 a master of Israel, and knowest not these things ? " On 
 this passage the learned author observes : " To determine 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 27 
 
 the precise meaning of the appellation is a task which I 
 believe no commentator pretends to have accomplished. 
 We know that Nicodemus was a person of high consider- 
 ation, and a member of the Sanhedrim ; and some suppose 
 him, and not without reason, to have been the same Nico- 
 demus who is frequently mentioned in the Talmud ; in 
 which case he was not in wealth and consequence inferior 
 to any Jew of that time. Still, it will be asked, Why did 
 our Saviour say to Nicodemus, c Art thou the teacher 
 of Israel?' I have only conjecture to offer; but even 
 this may be tolerated where nothing certain is known, 
 and where even conjecture has scarcely been attempted. 
 It has been observed that the JeAVs gave their Doctors 
 high and sounding titles ; Splendidis valde nominibus doc- 
 tores suos Judcei orndrunt vel potius onerdrunt, says -Danz, 
 apud Meuschen, N. T. ex Talm. illustr., p. 579. ; in the 
 same manner, probably, as, among the schoolmen in the 
 Middle Ages, one was called the Angelic Doctor, another 
 the Admirable, and a third the Irrefragable. Might not, 
 then, Nicodemus have been styled by his followers 6 8l~ 
 SacncaXo? rov laparjX ? On this supposition, nothing is 
 more probable than that our Saviour should have taken 
 occasion to reprove the folly of those who had conferred 
 the appellation, and the vanity of him who had accepted 
 it ; and no occasion could have been more opportune than 
 the present, when Nicodemus betrayed his ignorance on a 
 very important subject. . . . Besides, the reproof is more 
 severe in the present form of expression, since it seems to 
 signify, not only that the followers of Nicodemus distin- 
 guished him by this appellation, but also that he thought 
 himself not unworthy of it." (331.) 
 
 This word hihao-icaXos, which in our Saviour's reply to 
 Nicodemus is rendered " master," ought more properly to 
 be translated " teacher." The same expression is used by 
 
2 8 WHAT IS THE POWBB OF 
 
 Nicodemus when he says to Jesus, " We know that thou 
 art a teacher come from God." Our Lord's remark, there- 
 fore, will be " Art thou a teacher of Israel, and knowest not 
 these things?" Nicodemus professed to believe that' 
 Jesus was a teacher come from God, and yet he doubted 
 and questioned the nature of the revelations which Jesus 
 made to him. Our Lord's reply is apparently intended to 
 make him sensible of the limited extent of his own know- 
 ledge ; to show him that there are earthly things of the 
 origin and operation of which he knows nothing, though 
 of the facts connected with their manifestation he can 
 have no doubt : what wonder, therefore, that when he was 
 told of heavenly things he should not be able fully to com- 
 prehend them? Our Lord's object was, to convince Nico- 
 demus of his own absolute want of knoicledge in matters 
 of every-day occurrence, that when he was humbled, 
 under a sense of his defectiveness, into the condition of a 
 " little child," his mind might be fitted to receive the 
 things of the kingdom of Heaven. This is the way in 
 which all men, especially those who deem themselves pos- 
 sessed of superior knowledge — men of genius, of great 
 learning, of scientific attainments — must still be brought 
 into the state of learners in the school of Christ. But, if 
 the object which our Lord had in view was to teach Nico- 
 demus humility, it is not to be supposed that he would 
 condescend to criticise ironically the appellation by which 
 he addressed him ; to reprove the folly of those who 
 had conferred, and the vanity of him who had accepted 
 it. These are, indeed, practices usual among men, 
 but not with Christ, whose mind is never tinged with 
 human passions. Even the mention of Nicodemus by 
 his customary designation, supposing that he was here 
 intended to be styled " the master of Israel," is not ne- 
 cessarily to be understood as uttered in a tone of irony or 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 29 
 
 reproof ; any more than the words, " Art thou the Lord 
 Chancellor of England, and knowest not these things ? " 
 would imply that the folly of those who conferred and the 
 vanity of him who accepted the title, were the subjects of 
 reproof, instead of that state of mind which made the pos- 
 sessor fancy himself too wise and too well informed to 
 need such instruction as Christ was able to give him. As 
 for the assertion that Nicodemus deserved censure because 
 he " betrayed his ignorance on a very important subject," 
 there can be no foundation for such a charge ; for how was 
 it possible for him, previously, to have been acquainted with 
 it ? In the whole compass of the Old Testament no men- 
 tion is made of this wonderful mystery, the second birth ; 
 how, then, could Nicodemus justly be blamed for not 
 being acquainted with it before ? He could not, apparently, 
 comprehend it, even when he heard our Lord speak of 
 it, and in all probability went away as ignorant as he 
 came. It was a hard saying, like that concerning the 
 bread of life in John, vi. 52., when the Jews strove 
 among themselves, saying, " How can this man give us his 
 flesh to eat ? " from which time " many of his disciples 
 went back, and walked no more with him." And are 
 there not many now, of equal pretensions to knowledge 
 and learning with Nicodemus, and with equal if not 
 greater opportunities of acquiring proper views on the sub- 
 ject, who listen to discourses on " the new birth " with as 
 much incredulity as Nicodemus, and manifest no less unwil- 
 lingness to receive its humiliating truth into their hearts ? 
 In all that has been said in opposition to Dr. Middle- 
 ton's views and arguments, the writer desires he may be 
 understood as not impugning the justness of that learned 
 man's views respecting the Greek usage of the article ; he 
 contends only against that interpretation of it so generally 
 by the English definite the, which has led to so many 
 
30 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 errors in its application, with reference to the instances 
 which have been brought nnder the reader's notice ; and 
 he thinks he may now consider himself justified in con- 
 cluding that Dr. Middleton has failed in his endeavours 
 to substantiate his theory. 
 
 II. A NEW THEORY OP THE GREEK ARTICLE 
 PROPOSED. 
 
 Shall we, then, give up all attempts to explain the na- 
 ture of the Greek article, and to represent its power in 
 the English language ? By no means : even as a sign it 
 may be made to serve some most valuable uses. Dr. 
 Bentley, on the text Rom. v. 15., says, in his sermon on 
 Popery *, " Who would not wish that our translators had 
 kept the articles in the version, which they saw in the 
 original ? Thus : s If through the offence of the one (that 
 is, Adam) the many have died; much more the grace of 
 God and the gift by grace, which is by the one man, Jesus 
 Christ, hath abounded unto the many.'' By this accurate 
 version, some hurtful mistakes about partial redemption 
 and absolute reprobation had been happily prevented." — 
 Again, the word vofxos, law, is used in two senses by the 
 Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, sometimes 
 as the rule of moral obedience or virtue, sometimes as the 
 rule contained in the law of Moses ; and the article assists 
 us, it is said, in understanding which law is meant. " It 
 had, indeed, been very early remarked," observes Doctor 
 Middleton, " that where the law, as promulged in the 
 Pentateuch, is spoken of, and even where the whole body 
 of the Jewish Scriptures is meant, there vofjio?, for the most 
 part, though not without exception, has the article pre- 
 fixed. See Macknight on Rom. ii. 12. and on vii. 1. Now 
 it is obvious, that, were this rule without exception, an 
 
 * See Dr. Bloomfield's N. T. Rom. v. 15. note. 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 31 
 
 important step would be gained ; for, at least, we should 
 know when the Jewish law is meant by the Apostle, which 
 is now so often, even among the best commentators, a 
 subject of dispute : but if there be exceptions, and these 
 have no certain character, then plainly they destroy the 
 rule ; and it is on account of these exceptions that the 
 rule seems now to be pretty generally abandoned. My 
 observation, however, has led me to conclude, that the 
 rule is liable to no other exceptions than those by which 
 words the most definite are frequently affected. . . . It is 
 scarcely necessary to observe that our English version, by 
 having almost constantly said the laio, whatever may be 
 the meaning of vofjuos in the original, has made this most 
 difficult Epistle still more obscure ; for the English reader 
 is accustomed to understand the term of ( the Law of 
 Moses,' as in the Evangelists." (419.) — But a still more 
 important use of the Greek article, which has been noticed 
 by Dr. Middleton, is, that it enables the reader to distin- 
 guish between the personality and the influence of the Holy 
 Spirit: when it is prefixed to the words which we render 
 Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, it denotes the personality ; 
 when it is omitted, the influence only. (165.) Now it 
 is not possible for the English reader to be aware of this 
 difference, if it is to be indicated by the presence or ab- 
 sence of the definite English article the, or the substitution, 
 in its absence, of the indefinite a; for the words are al- 
 ways preceded by the definite article in the English ver- 
 sion, as the genius of our language requires. — The definite 
 English article, moreover, is unfitted for a general repre- 
 sentation of the Greek in this respect, that it is used only 
 in connexion with substantives, and through them (ex- 
 pressed or understood) with adjectives ; whereas the Greek 
 article precedes substantives, adjectives, pronouns adjective, 
 verbs, participles, adverbs, and sentences. To answer so 
 many different requirements, it is evident, therefore, that 
 
32 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 it must be something very different from the English^ 
 article, whether definite or indefinite. — For these various 
 reasons, it would be desirable that some method of uni- 
 versally denoting the presence of the Greek article, through 
 the medium of the English translation, should be devised 
 and adopted ; but, if that sign could also be made to convey 
 some proper notion of the effect of the Greek article, it 
 would be of far greater utility. 
 
 This effect, whatever it may be, is probably capable of 
 some representation in the English language, for almost all 
 languages are modified by the same general necessities. 
 In what respects then can the English language be sup- 
 posed to possess a power at all analogous to that of the 
 Greek article ? — Can it be that of conferring Emphasis ? 
 
 We will assume that the article was made use of by the 
 Greeks for the purpose of calling particular attention to 
 the word which followed ; conferring upon such word, 
 when written, the same sort of distinction which the voice 
 would have conferred upon it by a more emphatic utter- 
 ance, had the composition in which it is found been oral 
 instead of written. 
 
 It is certain that we possess, in the English language, 
 a means of conferring that sort of distinction on written 
 words, by the usage, common till within the last fifty years 
 in printed books, of commencing such emphatic word with 
 a Capital Letter ; or, if that is already there (as is the 
 case with proper names, and the words which begin a sen- 
 tence, speech, or quotation), then by the employment of 
 Small Capitals in addition. 
 
 Now, comparing this method with the theory of Dr. 
 Middleton, we can shew that it meets every case provided 
 for in his rules ; while, from examples taken from Dr. 
 Middleton's printed work, we can demonstrate that every 
 one of the conditions which he has laid down for the use 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE ? 33 
 
 of the article in the Greek language, is fulfilled by his 
 own habitual employment of the English Emphatic Sign. 
 
 But in addition to this representation of the power of 
 the Greek article in English, we would make some re- 
 marks on the importance of giving greater expression, 
 in our English version of the New Testament, to those 
 pronouns which, in the Greek text, are intended to 
 have peculiar stress laid upon them. On all common 
 occasions the Greek verb supplies its own nominative case, 
 that being understood, as the phrase is, or included in its 
 personal ending ; but, when a stronger utterance than 
 usual is designed to fall upon the nominative pronoun, it 
 is then customary with the Greek writers to supply a 
 distinct pronoun for the purpose. In the English version 
 we blend all alike in one indiscriminate form of printing 
 the words. To the right understanding of the Scriptures, 
 however, it is indispensable that this great distinction 
 should be made manifest in our translation, and be uni- 
 formly preserved. This is one unquestionable means by 
 which the Greeks attempted to bring out a particular sense 
 which otherwise might have been disregarded ; and it is 
 our bounden duty, if possible, to represent it, when we 
 profess to give unlearned persons a faithful translation of 
 the original text. 
 
 It can hardly be imagined that the Greeks were alto- 
 gether devoid of the power of expressing emphasis in 
 written compositions, though it is certain that most of the 
 means which we possess were unknown to them. They 
 had nothing like Italic letters to which they could have 
 recourse in cases of emergency ; they had not even the 
 common aid of capitals commencing a word, and we know 
 from their MSS. that they did not customarily underline 
 any part to render the sense more prominent. They may, 
 indeed, have used occasionally a larger kind of character, to 
 
 D 
 
3-i WHAT IS THE POWER OE 
 
 confer distinction on particular phrases or sentences ; as 
 St. Paul may be supposed to have done, when he says, 
 ISe-re, irrfkiKOis v/jliv ypa/ULfiacnv sypayfra ry s/jltj %££/m, " Be- 
 hold in how large letters I have written unto you with mine 
 own hand, as many as desire," &c. ; that which follows 
 being the substance of his Epistle, which he took this 
 method of enforcing on their attention. (Gal. vi. 11.) 
 But it was seldom that this means of denoting; the greater 
 importance of one portion, than another, of a discourse 
 could have been resorted to ; and single words, even then, 
 would be undistinguished. All their letters were of the 
 same height, all were alike capitals, as we should now call 
 them, and the words were not even separated by spaces or 
 blanks. St. Paul's MSS. were written in some such form 
 as the following : — " beholdinhowlargecharactersi 
 
 HAVEWRITTENUNTOYOUWITHMINEOWNHAND AS MANY 
 
 ASDESIRE," &c. Some means of laying a stress on 
 particular words they would at times want ; but what op- 
 portunity does an even row of such letters afford? The 
 probability is, that some WORD would be introduced which 
 should have the effect, which should arrest the attention 
 of the reader like a nota bene, and this word was the 
 Greek article. If we trace it through all its various 
 phases, we shall see that on every occasion it performs a 
 function similar to that which, in our language, is on the 
 same occasion performed by an Initial Capital, or by the 
 use of Small Capitals in addition. 
 
 Suppose, then, that the passages which have been 
 already commented upon, as furnishing illustrations of the 
 theory of Dr. Middleton, were to be represented by the 
 means here proposed, the first advantage gained would be, 
 that either of the English articles, the definite or indefinite, 
 might be used, as the context seemed most to require : hence 
 this fruitful source of embarrassment and vexation, in 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 35 
 
 Dr. Middleton's theory, would be for ever prevented from 
 troubling us. The second would be, that no instance of the 
 'presence of the Greek article could occur, without the English 
 reader being apprised of it in the English translation, in 
 which desideratum Dr. Middleton's plan is altogether defi- 
 cient. Thirdly, instead of all the emphasis being thrown 
 on the little words that and the in the English New Tes- 
 tament, which is a case of rare occurrence in other English 
 books, these words, that is to say, the English article a or 
 the, Avould be always passed over lightly, and the weight 
 of expression left to devolve on those greater words which 
 in infinite variety immediately follow. We should then 
 read, in the examples first brought under notice : — t( This 
 is the Record of John, when the Jews sent priests and 
 Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou ? And 
 he confessed, and denied not ; but confessed, I" am not 
 the Christ. And they asked him, What then ? Art thou 
 Elias ? and he saith, I 'am not. Art thou a Prophet ? 
 and he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who 
 art thou ? that we may give an answer to Them that sent 
 us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I" am the 
 voice of one crying in the Wilderness, Make straight the 
 Way of the Lord, as said the Prophet Esaias. And They 
 which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked 
 him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if 
 thou be not the Christ, nor Elias, neither a Prophet ? 
 John answered them, saying, I" baptize with water ; but 
 there standeth among you one whom YE know not, HE 
 it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose 
 Shoe's Latchet I" am not worthy to unloose." Johni. 19. 
 There is something so plain and simple in this manner 
 of understanding and representing the questions put to 
 John, — something so natural and easy in this manner of 
 throwing the emphasis on particular words, as to bespeak 
 
 D 2 
 
36 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 our favour for it at first sight. But, on maturer con- 
 sideration, it will be found that this good opinion is well- 
 deserved ; that there are certain rules of invariable applica- 
 tion, to justify every shade of meaning which is here 
 given to any of the words, making us sure, while we read 
 them, that the same kind of expression was intended to be 
 conferred on them by the writers who first recorded them. 
 Thus, while we read, and place the emphasis where the 
 respective signs show it ought to fall, we have the supreme 
 satisfaction of hearing the words of our Lord himself, and 
 his inspired Apostles, uttered with all the significancy 
 which a preference of one word to another in ordinary speech 
 is able to confer ; and, when we gain this advantage, we 
 have the comfort to know also, that by immutable laws, 
 these words of eternal life are so firmly fixed to the sense 
 thus given them, that it is impossible to warp them to a 
 different end. 
 
 It is interesting, in this little narrative, wherein the 
 Jews question John, to see the precision which the dis- 
 tinction of the emphatic pronoun introduces. Nothing is 
 more common than to witness, in the reading of the Scrip- 
 tures, all sorts of fancied meanings forced upon plain words, 
 by the ingenious efforts of some reader to make the \)vo- 
 nouns tell upon his hearers in that particular way which 
 to him seems right. He would probably say, " Who art 
 thou ? " in the first question put to John, and reverse it in 
 the second, " Who art thou ? " Many would say, " Art 
 thou Elias ? art thou a prophet ? " and but few would 
 think of reading, with the Greek text, u Art thou Elias ? 
 art thou a prophet ? " On those occasions, even, when 
 good feeling and good taste would lead a reader, in gene- 
 ral, to place the emphasis correctly, it would still be a 
 great gratification to him to find that he was supported by 
 the original text; and it would incline him to give the 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 37 
 
 passage a more decided tone of expression. In words of 
 so much importance as those which our Lord addresses 
 to the persons around him, every accent is valuable : — 
 " Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the 
 Truth. But I" receive not Testimony from man : but 
 these things I say, that ye might be saved. He was a 
 Burning and a a Shining Light : and ye were willing for a 
 season to rejoice in his Light. But I" have greater 
 Witness than that of John : for the Works which the 
 Father hath given me to finish, the same Works that I" 
 do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me." 
 (John, v. 33.) In the last clause but two, the celebrated 
 Vatican MS. reads, " the same Works that I do," with- 
 out the emphatic pronoun, and the change suggests to 
 the mind some reasons why it may be thought for the 
 better. But every word is of weight ; and if, instead of 
 repeating such declarations as these and many other parts 
 of the New Testament with comparative rapidity, we were 
 to pause at each sentence, and consider why the emphatic 
 sign was introduced, and what would have been the effect 
 had it not been there, we should rise up from the study of 
 the Divine Word with greater insight than we usually 
 obtain into the depths of its teaching. Continuing by 
 this emphatic method to represent the rest of the quota- 
 tions before given, we should read : " Then said Jesus to 
 the Jews which believed : " — " While Peter doubted in 
 himself what the Vision which he had seen should mean : " 
 — " Let Them, therefore, said he, which among you are 
 able, go down with me, and accuse the Man." — Expres- 
 sions as satisfactory as " those Jews," " this vision," " this 
 man." Are they not even more so ? For if we say " this 
 vision," the sense is complete, without any addition, being- 
 equal of itself to " the vision which he had seen ; " but 
 when these qualifying words are subjoined, it becomes a 
 
 d 3 
 
38 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 redundancy which a correct writer would always wish to 
 avoid. So, " the Man," is a more pointed and forcible 
 expression than " this man ; " it carries us personally to 
 the scene, and makes us living auditors of Festus. In 
 the same manner the qualifying clause after " Jews," in 
 the first quotation, renders " those " unnecessary, the 
 whole sentence being properly rendered as follows : — 
 " Then said Jesus to the Jews which believed on him, 
 If YE continue in My Word, ye are my disciples indeed." 
 " The Jews which believed" completes the description 
 without saying " those" The rest is as follows : " What 
 sign showest thou then, that we may see and believe 
 thee ? What dost thou work ? Our Fathers did eat Manna 
 in the Desert ; as it is written, He gave them bread from 
 Heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not the Bread from 
 Heaven ; but my Father giveth you the True Bread from 
 Heaven. For the Bread of God is He which cometh down 
 from Heaven and giveth life unto the World. Then said 
 they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this Bread. And 
 Jesus said unto them, I" am the Bread of Life." That 
 meaning which has been already attributed to this answer 
 of our Lord is by the present method of notation only 
 rendered more certain. By the emphasis laid on the word 
 Heaven, it is clear that the Jews thought the manna 
 came from thence ; and by the qualifying clauses which 
 are inserted after the word Bread in the reply, " the 
 Bread from Heaven," " the True Bread from Heaven," it 
 is equally clear that our Lord said nothing about the 
 manna, but directed their minds to another kind of bread, 
 on which he observes, further, when he repeats the last 
 sentence (v. 48, &c), " I" am the Bread of Life. Your 
 Fathers did eat Manna in the Wilderness, and are dead. 
 This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven, that a 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 39 
 
 man may eat thereof, and not die. I" am the Living Bread 
 which came down from Heaven. If any man eat of this 
 Bread, he shall live for Ever : and the Bread that I" will 
 give is my Flesh, which I" will give for the Life of the 
 World." It is hardly possible to read these words thus 
 marked for emphasis, without feeling that they are the 
 true expression of the profound truths which they were 
 designed to inculcate. 
 
 One most valuable class of doctrines to which the reader 
 of Greek is introduced by his knowledge of the article, 
 but from which every mere English reader has been 
 hitherto excluded, is that which is found in convert- 
 ible propositions. Many great truths are enun- 
 ciated by our Lord in that form, all of which remain, 
 in some respect, a dead letter to him who reads only the 
 English New Testament. By means of the emphatic 
 sign, these truths may now be understood as well by 
 the unlearned as the learned. By the same means 
 also, convertible may be distinguished from incon- 
 vertible propositions, a knowledge not less useful, 
 though for making this distinction we have no guide in 
 the present mode of stating either kind of proposition in 
 the English language. 
 
 Convertible propositions are those in which the article 
 in Greek (and the emphatic sign in English) is prefixed 
 to each term of the proposition : as, 6 Xvyyos rov awfjiaros 
 earvv 6 o^daXfJbos, "the Light of the Body is the Eye; " 
 or, "the Eye is the Light of the Body." Matt. vi. 22. 
 
 Inconvertible propositions are those in which the article 
 in Greek (and the emphatic sign in English) is prefixed to 
 the subject, but not to the predicate : as, iTvzv\xa 6 ®sos, 
 " God is a spirit." John, iv. 24. Here the converse is 
 not equally true. 
 
 d4 
 
40 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 The following passage contains four convertible propo- 
 sitions, and two which are inconvertible : — " The Field 
 is the World ; the Good Seed are the Children of the 
 Kingdom, but the Tares are the Children of the Wicked 
 one ; the Enemy that sowed them is the Devil. The 
 Harvest is the end of the World, and the Reapers are 
 angels." (Matt. xiii. 38, &c.) The Vatican MS. reads 
 with apparently greater propriety, "the end of the 
 world," omitting the article before " world." We learn, 
 from these examples, that we cannot universally affirm of 
 the latter two that which we can affirm of the four 
 former. We cannot say that all the Angels are Reapers, 
 though we may say that all the Reapers are Angels: 
 but, with regard to the former, we may affirm, universally, 
 that all the Good Seed are the Children of the Kingdom, 
 and all the Children of the Kingdom are the Good Seed. 
 Dr. Middleton, however, gives it as his opinion, that we 
 ought to read the word angels with the article (ol ayysXot), 
 which would make this a convertible proposition also : but, 
 not to plead that such reading is opposed by all good 
 MSS., the very sense of the proposition should lead to its 
 rejection ; for it is not so probable that all the Angels 
 would be Reapers, as it is that all the Reapers would be 
 Angels. 
 
 By these signs therefore in English, the same as by the 
 article in Greek, the two kinds of propositions may now 
 be distinguished from each other ; but, where no difference 
 of type is observed, the distinction is impossible : yet such 
 knowledge would be very serviceable to every man who 
 reads his Bible with an enquiring mind. The case, how- 
 ever, is worse than a mere omission of what is right ; there 
 is the insertion of that which might lead to error: for, 
 while the Greek text tells us only " God is a spirit," 
 by a proposition inconvertible, — the English version 
 
THE GKEEK ARTICLE? 41 
 
 teaches us more than this, by stating the proposition as 
 convertible, " God is a Spirit." The two terms are re- 
 presented as equal; and we are thus taught to under- 
 stand that, whatever may be affirmed or denied of God 
 may also be affirmed or denied of a Spirit. Again, the in- 
 convertible proposition, " God is love," (1 John, iv. 16.), 
 is stated as if it were convertible ; neither the subject 
 nor the predicate having the emphatic sign. Thus it allows 
 us to read, simply and equally, " God is love," or " love 
 is God ; " though the Greek text says very differently, 
 6 ®so9 ayairy sari, " God is love," and that the converse 
 is not true. Again, the Greek says, inconvertible/, that 
 " the Word was God," Ssos rjv 6 Xoyos (John, i. 1.); but 
 the English version renders this convertible/, according 
 to the use it makes of capital letters, as if " whatever 
 may be affirmed or denied of God, the Father, may also 
 be affirmed or denied of the Logos ; a position," as Dr. 
 Middleton observes, " which would as little accord with 
 the Trinitarian as with the Socinian hypothesis." (328.) 
 Lastly, in 1 Tim. vi. 5., we read of some who suppose 
 that " gain is godliness," — thus printed without capitals 
 in all copies ; so that no one can tell, from these English 
 words, which is intended to be the subject, and which the 
 predicate ; or whether it be not intended for a convertible 
 proposition ; that, "as " Godliness is Gain," so " Gain is 
 Godliness." But the Greek words remove all doubt, and 
 make the meaning of the Apostle clear at a glance ; vofu- 
 fyvTcov TTopia/jiov scvac tt)v svaeftstav, " supposing that 
 Godliness is gain : " nor would the English order of the 
 words, " supposing that gain is Godliness," though more 
 liable to misconstruction, make any essential difference 
 in the proposition. 
 
 Before proceeding to detail the rules by which the 
 
42 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 writer has been guided in applying these signs of emphasis 
 to the authorised English version of the New Testament, 
 it may be as well to show how completely every rule laid 
 down by Dr. Middleton for the insertion of the Greek 
 article is met by his own use of these emphatic signs in 
 the printed copy of his own book. The heads are briefly 
 specified, but those who have read his work will easily 
 recognise all his classes. 
 
 Retrospective Reference. 
 
 1. Renewed Mention. — "In the last Chapter it was 
 my endeavour to produce evidence in favour of each dis- 
 tinct head of the Hypothesis." (p. 44.) 
 
 2. Kar z%oyr)v. — " The German Critic appears indeed 
 to have been alarmed by some untractable examples." (15.) 
 
 3. Monadic Nouns. — " The obligations which I owe to 
 a Patron and Friend." (vii.) 
 
 4. The Article as a Possessive Pronoun. — " In French, 
 however, the laws respecting their Articles [or "the 
 Articles "] are rigorously observed." (2.) 
 
 5. Great Objects of Nature. — " The Great Desert of 
 Arabia," (173.); "the width of the Lake," (192.); "the 
 kingdom of Heaven." (203.) 
 
 6. Neuter Adjectives indicating some Attribute or Quality 
 in its general and abstract Idea. — " If the Singular be ex- 
 ceptionable, the Plural would not be less so." (20.) 
 
 7. Correlatives. — " An individual is at once a Member 
 of Parliament and the Colonel of a Regiment." (87.) 
 
 8. Partitives (these have not the article). — "Homer 
 prefixes articles to few of his Nouns." (16.) " Few" is the 
 partitive. 
 
 Hypothetic Reference. 
 1. Assumption. — "I cannot suppose that here Associ- 
 ation will suspend its wonted influence." (xi.) 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE ? 43 
 
 2. Whole Classes of Persons and Things. — " The 
 Apostles and Prophets are said to be the foundation." 
 (235.) This last example would be perhaps more in point 
 if the article were omitted : " Apostles and Prophets are 
 said to be the foundation." 
 
 Thus, in every instance of the various classes or heads 
 under which Dr. Middleton has ranged his doctrine of the 
 Greek article, he has furnished an illustration, from his 
 own work, in support of a theory the opposite of that which 
 his treatise was written to maintain. 
 
 III. APPLICATION OF THE NEW THEORY TO THE 
 ENGLISH VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 1. Substantives. 
 
 1. Every common noun substantive, to which in Greek 
 the article is prefixed, should commence in English with a 
 Capital Letter, as 6 irar^p, the Father ; 6 vlos, the Son ; 
 to 7rvev/jLa, the Spirit ; rj irapdevos, a Virgin ; 6 avOpwnros, 
 a Man. 
 
 Note. — When two or more English words are required 
 to represent one Greek noun, each word should commence 
 with a capital letter : as, 6 fiayos, a Wise-Man ; to irauhiov, 
 the Young-Child; to tsXwviov, the Peceipt-of- Custom. 
 But, when the Greek noun is properly expressed by one 
 word in English, any additional word which may be found 
 in the English version should not have the capital pre- 
 fixed to it : as, Sabbath-day, Sea-side. 
 
 2. When any eminent title, or proper name, or common 
 noun commencing a sentence, speech, &c, has the Greek 
 article prefixed to it, such word should be in English 
 represented by the addition of small capitals : as 6 &eo$, 
 God ; 6 Kvpios, the Lord ; 6 Xpco-To?, Christ ; 6 acoT^p, 
 
44 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 the Saviour; 6 lrjaovs, Jesus; rj ttclis sysipov, "Maid, 
 arise." 
 
 Note. — In the case of Titles, the application of this 
 rule should be restricted, in the Emphatic notation of the 
 New Testament, to the words, God, Lord, Christ, and 
 Saviour. 
 
 3. When substantives are in apposition, or in agreement 
 of case connected by a conjunction, and the Greek article 
 is prefixed to the first in order, those which follow are 
 entitled to the same emphatic distinction in English as 
 the first noun, though the Greek article be not repeated : 
 as, 6 ircuri)p rjiJbODv Kftpaafju, " our Father, a ABRAHAM ; " 
 rr) airoXojia Kai /3s/3acco(Tsi rov evayysXiov, " for the De- 
 fence and a Confirmation of the Gospel." 
 
 Note. — To mark this second substantive as being in 
 apposition or agreement of case, &c, with the first, a 
 small a may be prefixed to the English word. It would 
 not, in general, be necessary, if the distinction had been 
 uniformly made in our English version, both of omitting 
 the repetition of the article in these instances, and of in- 
 serting it always where the second substantive has the 
 article in Greek : but, since this rule has not been observed, 
 as we find from such examples as the following, rrj htha^r) 
 tcdv aTToaroXcov kcli ry Kovvcovta, " in the Apostles' Doctrine 
 and Fellowship," it becomes necessary to devise some 
 other means of indicating the extension of the power of 
 the Greek article to the second substantive; and the 
 small a will effect this purpose. 
 
 4. When the article preceding a substantive is repre- 
 sented by a pronoun in English, it is then to be considered 
 as properly a pronoun of the third person. The emphatic 
 power is, in such cases, inherent in the pronoun, and 
 therefore the pronoun, and not the following substantive, 
 is entitled to the emphatic sign: as, itocw fxaXXov tovs 
 
THE GEBEK ARTICLE? 45 
 
 olklclkovs civTov, " how much more Them of his house- 
 hold." Matt. x. 25. If the artielc were to be repre- 
 sented by the emphatic sign in English, and not by a 
 pronoun, the same phrase would be, " how much more 
 his Household." 
 
 2. Adjectives. 
 
 1. When the adjective follows its substantive in Greek, 
 and has the article prefixed to it, a capital letter should 
 commence the English word : as, to ttvsvjjlcl to arytov, " the 
 Holy Spirit." 
 
 2. But when the adjective precedes its substantive in 
 Greek, and is also preceded by the article, which properly 
 applies to both, then the adjective, being by position con- 
 sidered more emphatical than its substantive, should be ex- 
 pressed by small capitals in addition : as, to cuycov irvzvyba, 
 " the Holy Spirit." 
 
 Note. — A single adjective in Greek sometimes requires 
 the addition of a substantive in English to complete the 
 sense. In that case, the adjective alone in English should 
 have the capital prefixed : as, 6 tv^Xos, the Blind-man. 
 
 3. Articles which, preceding an adjective, are repre- 
 sented by a pronoun, do not confer the emphasis of an 
 initial capital on the following word, but retain it in them- 
 selves : as, ol iravTSs, They all ; ol Svo, They twain ; 6 
 huccuos, He that is righteous ; 6 cuyios, He that is holy. 
 The article in this case is properly a pronoun of the third 
 person, both in Greek and English ; and, in connexion with 
 the adjective, is as emphatic a form as, All, the Twain, 
 the Righteous, the Holy. 
 
 4. When two or more adjectives come together, in 
 agreement with one substantive, and the first adjective 
 only has the article prefixed, those which follow assume 
 the emphatic sign in like manner as substantives in appo- 
 sition or agreement of case, and should be distinguished like 
 
46 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 them by a small letter a before the initial capital : as, 
 6 /jLdfcaptos feat fiovos Svvaarr)?, "the Blessed and a ONLY 
 Potentate." But in 6 ttlcttos hovkos kcli fypoviyios, "a Faith- 
 ful and Wise Servant," the latter adjective has the initial 
 capital only, in consequence of being in the position of 
 an unemphatic adjective, that is, following its substantive. 
 Except for the presence of the Greek article before the 
 former adjective, it would have remained in English with- 
 out any distinction. 
 
 5. When the article comes between the word iras and a 
 participle, the English pronominal form of " Every-one," 
 or " Whosoever," receives the emphatic sign : as, iras 
 6 opyi&fj,svo9, " Whosoever is angry," Matt. v. 22. ; 
 ttclvtcls tov9 kclkws s')(pvTa9 ) " All that were sick." 
 Matt. viii. 16. 
 
 3. Pronouns. 
 
 1. Pronouns adjective follow the rule of other adjec- 
 tives : as, 7] x a p a V £ M> My Joy ; ^ sfMrj BcSa^r}, My Doc- 
 trine. 
 
 2. Possessive pronouns, when they are found in the 
 position of the more emphatic adjective, become equally 
 emphatic : as, ray avrcov 7rapa7rrco/jLaTL, " by Their Fall." 
 
 3. Those pronouns which, in Greek, are the nominative 
 cases of verbs, or are peculiarly emphatic, may be repre- 
 sented in English by a pronoun with a double acute accent, 
 or by being printed in small capitals without an initial 
 capital : as, syco si/m rj afiirskos, vfjusis ra kXtj/jlcltci, " I" 
 am the Vine, YE are the Branches." 
 
 4. Verbs. 
 1. When the Greek article precedes a verb in the in- 
 finitive mood, it renders it emphatic. To represent this the 
 corresponding English word, and its prefix, should both 
 commence with a capital : as, E//,ot yap to %tjv, yiptaros' icai 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 47 
 
 to airodaveiv, K£pBo9 f " For me To Live, is Christ ; and 
 To Die, is gain." 
 
 2. When two or more verbs in the infinitive mood come 
 together, and the first only has the article prefixed, the 
 others assume it with the small letter a before their initial 
 capital : as, tov hihaaiceLV icai fcrjpvcraeiv, " To Teach and 
 a To Preach." 
 
 Note. — In these cases, the small a might be omitted, if 
 it had been the uniform practice of our translators to 
 omit the sign of the infinitive mood before the second 
 verb, as, To Teach and Preach ; inserting it only where 
 each verb has a separate article. 
 
 3. But Greek infinitives, preceded by the article, are 
 often represented in the English version of the New Tes- 
 tament by the pronoun that and the finite verb. In all 
 such instances, the emphasis will fall on the word That : 
 as, tov hovvai. tj/mv, " That he would grant to us ;" tov 
 acvcao-ac a>9 tov ctltov, " That he may sift you as Wheat." 
 
 4. When the article precedes a finite verb, to which it 
 stands in the relation of a nominative, it is -properly a pro- 
 noun of the third person, and essentially emphatic; and must 
 therefore be represented in English by an initial capital : 
 as, ol 8s sittov clvtw, " and They said unto him," Matt. ii. 
 5. ; 6 Ss airoKpiOeis £L7rs, " but He answered and said." 
 iv. 4. Dr. Middleton, in his own writing, gives us an 
 example of this mode of denoting emphasis : " I am of 
 opinion that in like manner He sometimes refers," &c, 
 alluding to our Saviour. (232.) 
 
 5. Participles. 
 
 1. When the article is prefixed to a participle in the 
 Greek language, which participle is represented by a sub- 
 stantive in the English, that substantive follows the rule 
 of other substantives, in being commenced with a capital 
 
48 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 letter : as, 6 irsipa^wv, the Tempter ; 6 (Saim^M, the Bap- 
 tizer or Baptist. 
 
 2. But when the article is treated as a pronoun in 
 English, and the participle follows in its own character, the 
 article, then become a pronoun, should begin with a capi- 
 tal, and not the participle. The presence of the article is thus 
 rendered no less evident in the English than in the Greek 
 language, and its power made equally manifest : for this 
 pronoun with its participle constitutes one term of a pro- 
 position, a form of speech essentially of an emphatic kind ; 
 since " He that tempts " is equally emphatic with " the 
 Tempter," and " He that baptizes " with " the Baptizer." 
 
 3. The article before participles, like the article before 
 substantives, adjectives, and infinitives, is not always re- 
 peated when two or more are in agreement, and coupled 
 by a conjunction ; as 6 £%<wv ras svtoXcls fiov kcli rijpcov 
 clvtcls, " He that hath my Commandments and keepeth 
 them ; " 6 rov \o<yov /jlov clkovwv kcli ttlgtsvoov tw irzy^avri 
 fMS, " He that heareth my Word and believeth on Him that 
 sent me." But the reason is obvious : the two participles 
 go together to complete one idea, and have, in general, 
 reference to one person. When there are two participles, 
 and each has the article, the English as well as the Greek 
 participles represent two separate and complete ideas, and 
 refer to two different persons, or may refer to them, 
 which the two separate pronouns sufficiently intimate : as, 
 Iva Kai 6 airsipcov 6/jlov x ai PV KCLL ° ^spi^cov, " that both He 
 that soweth, and He that reapeth, may rejoice together." 
 
 4. When the article preceding a participle may be 
 deemed also to precede a substantive immediately follow- 
 ing, which is in apposition or agreement with it, that 
 substantive will properly receive the emphatic sign : as, 
 Tlov zgtiv 6 ts^Osls (BaaCksvs rcov lovBaLcov, " where is He 
 that is born a King of the Jews ?" 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 49 
 
 6. Adverbs. 
 
 1. The article before adverbs, or in adverbial phrases, 
 requires the initial capital to be prefixed in English to 
 the adverb : as, aypi tov vvv, " until Now ; " sls to <ys- 
 vsaOai avrov irarspa, " That he might be the father ;" sv 
 tw airstpsiv, " When he sowed," " As he sowed ; " sv tw 
 KaOsvhsiv, " While men slept." Sometimes this adverbial 
 form is omitted in the English version, and then the 
 emphasis falls on the verb : as, sts to laaOai avTovs, " To 
 Heal them." 
 
 2. When the adverb is found in the position of the 
 more emphatic adjective, it becomes equally emphatic, and 
 must be rendered by the addition of small capitals : as, 
 KaTa tov £ao) avOpcoTToy, " after the Inward Man." 
 
 3. Other examples of emphatic adverbs preceding an 
 infinitive mood are the following : — /uusTa to syspdrjvac, 
 « After I am risen again ; " irpo tov <ysvso~6at,, " Before 
 it come to pass ; " hia to /jlsvsiv ovtov sis tov accova, " Be- 
 cause he continueth Ever ; " irpos to /jltj S7rij3apr}aac two- 
 vfjbwv, " Because he would not be chargeable unto any 
 of you," &c. 
 
 4. The following, also, are emphatic adverbs : — to ttws, 
 How ; to TrpoTspov, Before ; to SsvTspov, Afterward ; to 
 fcaO' rj/uLspav, Daily ; to \onrov, Finally, Hereafter ; els tov 
 ai(ova } for Ever. 
 
 7. Sentences, or Members of Sentences. 
 
 1. When the article is prefixed to a sentence or member 
 of a sentence, it renders the whole of that to which it 
 applies emphatic, and requires every word to be printed in 
 small capitals ; as, ti so-ti to sk vsKpcov avaaTiqvai, Ci what 
 The risinc from the dead should mean ; " To, so Swy ; 
 " If thou canst?" as it is found in the Vatican MS. 
 (but according to the received Greek text it would be only 
 
50 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 rendered by the emphatic adverb, To si Svvaacu iriarsvo-at, 
 " If thou canst believe"): to 8s avsfiy, " Now, That he 
 ascended." These emphatic sentences, or members of 
 sentences, are, in general, words which have been recently 
 made use of, and are specially referred to again. 
 
 General Remarks. 
 
 From all that has been stated in the preceding rules 
 concerning the Greek article, it will be seen that when it 
 is prefixed to substantives, adjectives, verbs, participles, 
 adverbs, and sentences, it is always to be considered in 
 English a sign of emphasis, which takes effect on the 
 word which follows : but, when it admits of being ren- 
 dered by a Pronoun of the Third Person, it contains the 
 principle of emphasis within itself, which is set forth in 
 English by the emphatic sign heading the pronoun. 
 
 The use of the article before nouns substantive is sup- 
 posed by some critics to have been unknown to Homer. 
 Dr. Middleton quotes Heyne to this effect : " that Homer 
 knew nothing of the article, and that 6 is with him equi- 
 valent to avros or skslvos, has been frequently remarked ; 
 and the remark has been confirmed by the inquiries of 
 many learned men : " (9.) yet, when we meet with such in- 
 stances as the following, ra 8' airoiva 8s%scr6s, " receive ye 
 the Ransoms ; " s88smtsv 6 yspcov, " the Old-Man was 
 afraid ; " 6 yspato?, " the Aged-one ; " it is difficult to con- 
 ceive how this remark can be justified. These are certainly 
 examples of the proper use of the emphatic sign. 
 
 With regard to Homer's use of the article as a Pro- 
 noun, there can be no difference of opinion, such instances 
 as the following being very frequent : 6 yap rfkOs, " for 
 He came ; " rrjv o° syco ov Xvcrco, " but I" will not liberate 
 Her ; " rov 8" stcXvs <&ol$os AttoWcdv, " and Him heard 
 Phoebus Apollo." Of this use of the article examples 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 51 
 
 are very frequent in the New Testament : ol Bs rjpgavro 
 XvirsiaOai, " and They began to be sorrowful," Mark, xiv. 
 19. ; 6 8s Xsysc, "but He saith unto them," John, v. 20. ; 
 rov <yap Kai rysvos sa/jusv, " for we are also His offspring," 
 a verse quoted from Aratus by St. Paul, Acts, xvii. 28. 
 
 Eustathius has given it as his opinion, that, " when the 
 articles throw away their nouns, and thus become pro- 
 nouns, they are pronounced with a greater vehemence of 
 tone?* This observation is correct, as the foregoing exam- 
 ples prove, and it helps to sustain the view we have taken. 
 
 Whether the article before proper names should, in 
 Homer, be rendered by a Pronoun of the Third Person, 
 or by the emphatic sign, is a question on which different 
 opinions may be formed, since it is capable of being 
 represented either way; as, ovvstca rov Xpvarjv rjrcfjbrjcr 
 aprjrrjpa ArpsiSr]?, " because Atreides dishonoured Him, 
 e Chryses, the a Priest ; " or, "because Atreides dishonoured 
 Chryses the a Priest: "but, in the New Testament, there 
 can be no doubt that the emphatic sign is preferable ; as, 
 " Abraham begat (rov lcraaic) Isaac," &c. In the genea- 
 logy given by St. Luke, all depends on the manner in 
 which the article is understood. Our translators have 
 taken it for the relative pronoun, and have accordingly 
 treated it as such in English ; 6 lrjaovs . . . wv a>s svofMi^sro 
 vlo9 I(oar]^> rov f H?u rov Mardar ..." Jesus . . . being 
 (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son 
 of Heli, which was the son of Matthat," &c. Dr. Light* 
 foot suggests " that vlos, and not vlov, should be supplied 
 throughout, so that the sense may be f the son of Joseph, 
 consequently the son of Heli, and therefore ultimately the 
 son of Adam and of God.'" But Dr. Middleton objects that 
 " this is to suppose that the article rov is every where, not 
 an ellipsis of rov vlov, but the article of the proper name 
 
 * Reizius, Pros. Graec , quoted by Dr. Middleton, p. 17. 
 
 e 2 
 
52 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 subjoined ; " (300.), which he would interpret as our trans- 
 lators have done, making tov a relative pronoun, and 
 thereby contradicting his own previous declaration that it 
 was before proper names a pronoun of the third person. 
 " But in that case," he adds, " we should certainly have 
 found tov prefixed to Ia)cr7}(f>, for no reason can be imagined 
 why it was not as necessary there as elsewhere ; and fur- 
 ther on, in the genealogy, we actually meet with tov 
 Icocrncj) twice." (300.) To this objection, however, 
 it may be replied, that the other Josephs mentioned 
 were really the fathers, respectively, of Janna, and 
 Shimei, and Judah ; but the first Joseph was not really 
 the father of Jesus, being only his reputed father; and 
 hence the article, or emphatic sign, was not required in 
 his case. But whether we regard this genealogy as that 
 of Joseph or of Mary, and many consider it to be that of 
 the latter, it becomes necessary to affix the article, or em- 
 phatic sign, to Heli, Matthat, and the rest ; for Heli 
 was as actually the father of Mary or of Joseph, as Matthat 
 was of Heli. Thus a reason may be assigned, which did 
 not occur to Dr. Middleton, why tov was not affixed to 
 the first Icoarjcj). It accords, also, with that sense which is 
 conveyed by the Evangelist's expression, cav <b? svojjliQto, 
 " being, as was supposed" &c. In fact, without some 
 such intimation of a difference between the case of Joseph 
 and that of Heli, the words, as they stand in the received 
 text, would admit of a construction the opposite of that 
 which we know they must have been intended to bear ; 
 and such false construction may, in like manner, be put on 
 our English version, which says, " being (as was supposed) 
 the son of Joseph," — words which may be held to affirm 
 that Jesus was actually the son of Joseph, and so the 
 contrary of that which they are in general understood to 
 mean. The most ancient MS., the Vatican, has the 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 53 
 
 article before IcDarjcj), but arranges the words differently, 
 tov vlos coy svofiL^sro tov Ia)(T7](j) tov ' H.Xi, " being the son (as 
 he was supposed of Joseph) of Heli," &c. The article 
 is here properly added to Joseph, because it is expressly 
 said that Jesus was only supposed to be the actual son of 
 Joseph, as Joseph was the actual son of Heli, &c. 
 
 This use of the pronoun, in connexion with proper 
 names, was not unknown to the Anglo-Saxon language : 
 " Se Johannes," " thaene Herodem," are " he John," " him 
 Herod." Se, seo, that, are the same as Is, ea, id, of the 
 Latins ; equivalent to which, also, is the personal pro- 
 noun, He, heo, hit, of the Anglo-Saxons.* Se is called the 
 demonstrative pronoun : it is also considered the article, but 
 it is often used personally as, " sy gebletsod se the com ; " 
 " blessed be he that came f :" thane or thone is the accusa- 
 tive case of se. " Se, seo, thaet," says Bosworth, " denotes 
 not only the, but also he, she, it," Se is also Low German 
 for he. 
 
 But the most remarkable proof of this use of the 
 article with proper names, and the propriety of calling it, 
 in these instances, a pronoun of the third person, is to be 
 found in our own language, in comparatively recent times. 
 Witness the following quotations from Chaucer : — 
 
 " Save that He Moises and King Salomon 
 
 Hadden a name of cunning." The Squiere's Tale. 
 
 Moses had not been mentioned before, therefore the pro- 
 noun could have had no retrospective reference. 
 
 " At every cours in came loud minstralcie, 
 That never Joab tromped for to here, 
 Nor He Theodomas yet halfe so clere 
 At Thebes." The Merchaunte's Tale. 
 
 * Raske's Gram., p. 56. f Raske's Gram., p. 58. 
 
 E 3 
 
54 WHAT 18 THE POWER OF 
 
 " Hold thou thy pees, thou pcet Marcian, 
 That writest us that ilke wedding rnery 
 Of Hire Philologie and Him Mercury, 
 And of the songes that the Muses songe." 77'<t same. 
 
 " Lo Judith, as the story eke tell can. 
 By good conseil she Goddes peple kept, 
 And slow Him Holofernes while he slept." The same. 
 
 " and made Him Mardochee 
 
 Of Assuere enhaunsed for to be . "' The same. 
 
 Tyrwhitt, in his notes to the " Canterbury Tales." says. 
 " He. proji. Sax., is often prefixed, in all its eases, to 
 proper names emphatic ally, according to the Saxon 
 usage." * 
 
 This. then, was our old English way of marking EMPHA- 
 SIS, according to Mr. Tyrwhitt : and how completely it 
 illustrates and confirms what has been advanced in the 
 preceding pages, concerning the nature of the Greek 
 article, we need not observe. It calls particular attention 
 to the following word. In what manner this end was 
 afterward thought to be quite as well, if not better, ac- 
 complished by printing the words in small capitals, instead 
 of prefixing the emphatic sign of the pronoun, may be 
 easily understood. 
 
 The discovery of the art of printing led to great 
 changes, and among others to this. Before that event, 
 the copyists were constrained to make faithful and un- 
 deviating representations of the text of the author, with 
 such ornamental changes only in the initial letters at the 
 heads of books, chapters, and sections, as the taste of the 
 age approved. In the written character they could intro- 
 duce no innovations, even had they wished it : for copyists 
 were generally mechanical labourers, who had no con- 
 ception of the merits of the works they were employed in 
 
 * Vol. ii. p. 580. 
 
THE GREEK AETICLE ? 55 
 
 transcribing, and could therefore make no alterations in 
 the appearance, by underlining particular words, adding 
 capital letters, or otherwise improving the text, as they 
 might have thought. But no sooner was the art of 
 printing brought to bear on the production and multipli- 
 cation of copies, under the eye of intelligent and experi- 
 enced editors, than changes of type began to be introduced ; 
 and signs of emphasis, or capital letters, italics, and small 
 capitals, became of frequent occurrence. Poetry, however, 
 would still retain its former appearance : the use of the 
 article before proper names could not be avoided by any 
 refinement of after ages, as the above quotations from 
 Chaucer show ; and, even in the most modern copies, no 
 introduction of small capitals can supersede the ancient 
 form. In prose works it was otherwise ; but poets also 
 subsequently wrote as the improved means of marking 
 emphasis gave them liberty, so that by degrees these 
 older signs fell into disuse, and the new took their place. 
 These, however, have now given way to an aversion to 
 the use of any signs ; and the fashion of the present day is 
 to render the appearance of all the words in a page as 
 uniform and level as possible, regardless of the advantage 
 to be derived, especially by foreigners, from a difference 
 of type, which renders the author's meaning more easily 
 understood. 
 
 IV. RULES AND ILLUSTRATIONS, FOR IMPROVING THE 
 ENGLISH VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 The production of the New Testament is itself, per- 
 haps, as great a miracle, properly considered, as any it 
 records. Whether we adopt the notion of plenary in- 
 spiration, or reduce its origin to the lower standard of 
 those who attribute the several parts of which the Gospels 
 
 E 4 
 
56 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 are composed, especially Luke's, to the labours of many 
 different hands, all engaged, as they had opportunity and 
 ability, in preserving a record of the divine words and 
 works, it is an extraordinary instance of the adaptation of 
 the most perfect means to a most wonderful end. But 
 the over-ruling power of Providence has not been more 
 evident in the direction of men's minds to the original 
 composition of this work, than it has been in the selection 
 of the language in which it should be written. To per- 
 sons possessed of the gift of tongues, the Hebrew, the 
 Syriac, the Latin, and many others, would have been a 
 task of no greater difficulty. Happily the Greek was 
 chosen, a language capable of expressing every pecu- 
 liarity of oral discourse with a distinctness and precision 
 without parallel, perhaps, in any other. Next to this, in 
 modern times, may be classed the English, which seems to 
 possess an astonishing facility of accommodating itself to 
 the every-day demands of new discoveries in sciences and 
 arts : but its greatest merit is, its capability of giving 
 due utterance to the sublime truths of religion, in which 
 it is allowed to come as near as possible to the standard 
 of the Hebrew and the Greek, as our authorised transla- 
 tions of the Scriptures testify. The following rules relating 
 to some of the more minute shades of difference per- 
 ceptible in the Greek New Testament will show that the 
 powers of representation which the English version pos- 
 sesses might be carried, if need were, to a greater degree 
 of verisimilitude even than they are : — 
 
 1. When the Greek Article is in connexion with Common 
 Nouns, Names of Persons and Places, Class Names, or 
 Titles, coupled by a Conjunction. 
 
 1. When two or more nouns are coupled by a conjunc- 
 tion, and to each noun the Greek article is prefixed, the 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 57 
 
 corresponding English nouns should each be preceded by 
 the English article, or by any preposition that may happen 
 to govern the first noun. See the following Illustrations, 
 
 A, C, E, G, I. 
 
 2. But when, under similar circumstances, the Greek 
 article is prefixed only to the first noun, then the English 
 article or preposition should also be omitted before each 
 noun after the first. See Illustrations, B, D, F, H, K. 
 
 2. When the Possessive Pronoun and Greek Article are in 
 connexion with Nouns coupled by a Conjunction. 
 
 1. When two or more nouns, having each the Greek 
 article, are coupled by a conjunction, and a possessive 
 pronoun is attached to the first noun, the pronoun should 
 not be repeated with each noun in the English version. 
 See Illustrations, L. 
 
 2. When, under similar circumstances, the pronoun is 
 attached to the last noun in Greek, the pronoun in English 
 should precede the first noun, and may also be repeated in 
 italics with each noun afterward. See Illustrations, M. 
 
 3. When two or more nouns are coupled by a conjunc- 
 tion, and to the first noun only is attached both the pos- 
 sessive pronoun and the article, the pronoun need not 
 be repeated in English (being sufficiently understood with- 
 out), but the sign of the article should be repeated with 
 each successive noun. See Illustrations, N, Q. 
 
 4. When two or more nouns are coupled by a conjunc- 
 tion, and the possessive pronoun is attached to the last 
 noun, while the article is prefixed to the first only, the 
 pronoun, in English, should precede the first noun, with- 
 out any repetition, but the sign of the article should be 
 repeated with each successive noun. See Illustrations, o, R. 
 
 Note. — The difference in the two cases mentioned in 
 Rules 3. and 4. is, that, where the pronoun is attached to 
 
58 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 the Jirst noun, a comma cuts it off from the second ; but 
 where the pronoun is attached to the last noun no comma 
 is required. 
 
 5. When a possessive pronoun is attached to each noun, 
 and to each the article is prefixed, there can, of course, be 
 no difficulty : the pronoun must be repeated with each 
 successive noun in English as in Greek. See Illustrations, 
 P, u. 
 
 6. When a possessive pronoun is attached to each noun, 
 and to the first noun only the article is prefixed, the pro- 
 noun must of course be represented each time in English ; 
 and the emphatic sign must be repeated with each suc- 
 cessive noun. See Illustrations, s. 
 
 7. When different possessive pronouns are attached to 
 one and the same series of nouns, and to the first noun 
 only of the series the article is prefixed, the rule is the 
 same as the third and fourth conjoined. See Illustra- 
 tions, T. 
 
 8. It is a general rule in all these cases, that the influ- 
 ence of the possessive pronoun always goes back to the 
 word to which the Greek article is prefixed, and that a 
 comma cuts it off from the words which follow the pro- 
 noun. 
 
 (1.) ILLUSTRATIONS RELATING TO COMMON NOUNS, PROPER 
 NAMES, CLASS NAMES, AND TITLES, WHEN THEY ARE SE- 
 VERALLY COUPLED BY A CONJUNCTION. 
 
 (a) When Tivo or more Common Nouns have the 
 Article prefixed to each Noun. 
 
 7r) StSaxp twv airocrToXcov kch Ty koi- in the Apostles' Doctrine, and in 
 voovia Fellowship. Acts, ii. 33. 
 
 r) viodeaia, Kai r) 8o|ct, Kai al Sia9r]Kai, the Adoption, and the Glory, and 
 kcu fj vo/j.o9eaia, Kai t\ Karpeia, nai the Covenants, and the Giving-of- 
 
 al eirayysAtai the- Law, and the Service-of-God, 
 
 and the Promises. Rom. ix< 4. 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 59 
 
 (b) When Two or more Common Nouns have the Arti- 
 cle prefixed to the First only. 
 
 ry cnroKoyia Hat fitgcuwaei rov evayye- for the Defence and a Confirmation 
 
 Aiow of the Gospel. Phil. i. 7. 
 
 tt? Suoia. Kai Aeiroupyia, rt\s iritxrews upon the Sacrifice and a Service of 
 
 vixwu your Faith. ii. 1 7. 
 
 tt? wpKr/xevr) f$ov\r) k<xl irpoyvwou rov by the Determinate Counsel and 
 
 freov a Foreknow' edge, &c. Acts, ii. 23 
 
 (c) Wlien Two or more Names of Places have the 
 Article prefixed to each Name. 
 
 €V tt? Ma/ceSwta icai tt? A%a'a in Macedonia, and in Achaia. 
 
 (Rec. Text, and Alex. MS.) 
 
 1 Thes. i. 7. 
 
 ra KAifxara ttjs Svpias Kai ttjs KiAi- the Regions of Syria, and of Ci- 
 
 Kias licia. Gal. i. 21. 
 
 (d) When Two or more Names of Places have the 
 Article prefixed to the First only. 
 
 ev Traar) tt? lovdaia Kai ^afxapeia in all Judvea and a Samaria. 
 
 Acts, i. 8. 
 
 Kara ras x w P as T7 ? s lovdaias /cot throughout the Regions of Judjea 
 
 lafxapeias and a SAMARiA. viii. 1. 
 
 Kaff oatjs TT?? lovdouas Kai TaAiAaias throughout all Judaea and a Galilee 
 
 Kai ~2,ap.apeias and Samaria. ix. 31. 
 
 €is tw Avarpav Kai licovtov Kai Av- to Lystra and & Iconium and a AN- 
 
 tioxsmv tioch. xiv. 21^ 
 
 to ireAayos ro Kara rr\v KiAiKiau Kai the Sea of Cilicia and s Pamphylia. 
 
 Hafi(pvAiav xxvii. 5. 
 
 ev tt? MaKeSovia Kai Axaia. in Macedonia and a Achaia. (Vat. 
 
 MS.) 1 Thes. i. 7. 
 
 ov fxovov *u tj? MaKedovia, Kai Axaia not only in Macedonia and a Achaia. 
 
 (Rec. Text, and Vat. MS.) i. 8. 
 
 (e) When Two or more Names of Persons have the 
 Article prefixed to each Name. 
 
 t]KoXovQr](rav . . . rep UavAcp Kai rep followed Paul, and Barnabas. 
 
 BapvaSa. Acts, xiii. 43. 
 
 Hap^rjcriaaaixevoi 8e 6 UavAos Kai 6 Then Paul, and Barnabas, waxed 
 
 BapvaSas enrow bold and said. xiii 46. 
 
60 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 (f) When Two or more Names of Persons have the 
 Article "prefixed to the First Name only. 
 
 aw rcf) TluvXa) /cot BapvaSa, with Paul and s Barnabas. 
 
 Acts, xv. 22. 
 tt\v Toullerpou Trapprjaiay Kailwavvov the Boldness of Peter and a JoHN. 
 
 iv. 13. 
 'O 5e Tlerpos Kai Iwavvrjs aTroKpidevres But Peter and a JoHX answered. 
 
 iv. 19. 
 
 (g) When Two or more Classes OF Persons have the 
 Article prefixed to each Class. 
 
 ol apx&peis Kat, ol irpearGvrepoi rov the Chief- Priests, and the Elders of 
 Xaov the People. Matt. xxi. 23. 
 
 ol reXowai Kai at iropvai the Publicans, and the Harlots. 31. 
 
 ol ypafxjxareis Kai ol tpapiaaioi the Scribes, and the Pharisees. 
 
 xxiii. 2. 
 ol apxiepeis Kai ol (papiaaioi the Chief- Priests, and the Pharisees. 
 
 xxi. 45. 
 ol cnroaToAoi Kai ol ade\<poi the Apostles, and the Brethren. 
 
 Acts, xi. i. 
 ol (pappiaKoi Kai ol iropvoi the Enchanters, and the Fornicators. 
 
 Rev. xxii. 15. 
 twv a.fj.aprwXwv Kai twc tcXwpwv with the Sinners, and the Publicans. 
 
 (Vat. MS.) Mark, ii. 16. 
 
 (h) When Two or more CLASSES OF PERSONS have the 
 Article prefixed to the First Class only. 
 
 irpoaeXQovTts ol (papiaaioi Kai craSSou- the Pharisees and a Sadducees came, 
 Kaioi &c. Matt. xvi. 1. 
 
 twv TeXwvwv Kai afxaprwXwv with Publicans and a Sinners. ( Rer\ 
 
 Text.) Mark, ii. 16. 
 
 tois x i ^ ia PX 0LS Kai avdpa(Tt tois /cot' with the Chief- Captains and prin- 
 efaxw cipal a Men. Acts, xxv. 23. 
 
 eis TasirXareias Kai bvfias rr\s noXews, into the Streets and a Lanes of the 
 Kai rovs tttwx° vs Kai avanr)povs Kai City, and bring in hither the Poor 
 
 XwXovs Kai TvcpXovs eaayaye wSe and a Mahned and a Halt and 
 
 a Blind. Luke, xiv. xxi. 
 
 (i) When Two or more Titles have the Article prefixed 
 to each Title. 
 
 b /3a<rtAeus Kai 6 -qy^p-wv the King, and the Governor. 
 
 Acts, xxvi. 30. 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 
 
 61 
 
 tov freov Kat tov Kvpiov \t)(Tov Xpiarov of God, and of the Loiir>, a Jksus 
 tov fieWovTos Kptvetv a CHiusT, who shall judge. (Rec. 
 
 Text). 2 Tim. iv. 1. 
 
 tov irarepa kcu tov vlov the Father, and the Son. 
 
 2 John, ii. 22. 
 Tcp Ku€epvrjTr] Kai Tip vavKAypcp the Master-of-the-Sbip, and the 
 
 Owner-of-the-Ship. Acts,xxvii. 11. 
 
 (k) When Two or more Titles have the Article prefixed 
 to the First Title only. 
 
 tov aytov Kat Sikcuov 
 
 tou uvpiov Kai acaTTjpos 
 
 tov &eov Kai iraTepa tov Kvpiov fj/xcov 
 
 Irjaov Xpio'Tov 
 rep &ecp Kat irarpi tov Kvpiov tjjxoov 
 
 T(p bt<p irarpi tov Kvpiov rjfioov 
 
 tov Xptarrov Kai &eov 
 
 Tcp &ecp Kai iraTpi Si* avTov 
 
 Tcp beep irarpi di avrov 
 
 5 irarrjp rwv oiKTipfiwv Kai &eos iracrrjs 
 
 frapaKArjcrews 
 tov &eov Kai irarpos Kai tov Xptffrov 
 
 tov &eov XpiCTTOV 
 
 tov vlov tov &eov tov ayairrjo'avros 
 
 fxe 
 tov 3-eou Kai Xptarov tov ayairrjo-avTos 
 
 fie 
 tov freov Kai Kvpiov lycrov Xpio'Tov Kai 
 
 rwv eKXeKTwv ayyeAwv 
 
 tov &eov Kai Xpiarov Itjaov Kai rwv 
 €k\€KT(i>v ayyeKwv 
 
 tov &eov Kai XpiOTov Irjarov tov jUeA.- 
 Xovros Kptvetv 
 
 tov iroifxeva icai eirio-Kotrov rwv tyvxw 
 
 VfXUlV 
 
 tov airoaroXov Kai apx i6 P ea T7 ?s d/xo' 
 \oyias rjixoov Xptarov Irjaovv 
 
 the Holy-one and a Just. Acts, iii. 14. 
 the Lord and Saviour. 2 Pet. iii. 2. 
 the Gon and a Father of our Lord, 
 
 a Jesus a CHRisT. Rom. xv. 6. 
 
 to the God and a Father of our 
 
 Lord. (Rec. Text.) Col. i. 3. 
 to God the a Father of our Lord. 
 
 (Vat. MS.) Col. i. 3. 
 
 of the Christ and a GoD. Eph. v. 5. 
 to the God and a Father by him. 
 
 (Rec. Text.) Col. iii. 17. 
 
 to God the a Father by him. (Vat. 
 
 MS.) Col. iii. 17. 
 
 the Father of Mercies and h God of 
 
 a ALL a Comfort. 2 Cor. i. 3. 
 
 of the God and a Father, and of 
 
 Christ. ( Rec. Text. ) Col. ii. 2. 
 of the God Christ. (Vat. MS.)ii. 2. 
 of the Son of God who loved me. 
 
 (Rec. Text.) Gal. ii. 20. 
 
 of the God and a CHRisT who loved 
 
 me. (Vat. MS.) ii. 20. 
 
 of the God and a LoRD 3 Jesus 
 
 a CHRisT, and of the Elect Angels. 
 
 (Rec. Text.) 1 Tim. v. 21. 
 
 of the God and a CHRisT a jEsus, and 
 
 of the Elect Angels. (Alex. 
 
 MS.) v. 21. 
 
 of the God and a CHRisT a jEsus, who 
 
 shall judge. (Alex. MS.) 
 
 2 Tim. iv. 1. 
 the Shepherd and a Bishop of your 
 
 Souls. 1 Pet. ii. 25. 
 
 the Apostle and a High- Priest of our 
 
 Confession, a Christ a jESus. 
 
 Heb. iii. 1. 
 
62 
 
 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 rov Tt)s iricrrews apxwyov /cat TeAeiamji/ 
 
 llf)(JOVV 
 
 6 [xa.Ka.pios Kai jiovos Swaanqs 6 )8a- 
 (ri\evs ruv fiaaiXevovrw «at Kvpios 
 
 TOiV KVplSVOVTCtiV 
 
 Tvxlkos 6 ayaiT7]Tos ade\<pos Kai m- 
 0~TOS SiaKOVOS cv Kvptcp 
 
 the Author and a Finisher of Faith, 
 a Jesus, xii. 2. 
 
 the Blessed and s Only Potentate, 
 the King of Kings and a Lord of 
 Lords. 1 Tim. vi. 16. 
 
 Tychicus, a Beloved Brother and 
 
 a FAiTHFUL a Deacon in the Lord. 
 
 Eph. vi. 21. 
 
 (2.) ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUN AND GREEK 
 ARTICLE, IN CONNEXION WITH COMMON NOUNS COUPLED 
 BY A CONJUNCTION. 
 
 (l) When the Pronoun is attached to the First Common 
 Noun, and each Noun has the Article. 
 
 oi ravpoi fxov kcu ra fftriaru 
 
 fir] rovs TroSas jxov fiovov a\Ka Kai ras 
 
 X* l P a s K°" TV* KS<pa\l)V 
 fxov rr} 8i8ao~KaAiq, rr\ ayayrj, rrj 
 
 irpoOecrei, rr] iricrrei, rr) na.Kpodvfj.ia. 
 
 rov trarepa aov Kai rrjv fxrjrepa 
 
 tov irarepa avrov Kai rt]v firjrepa 
 
 rov fiovv avrov 7] tov ovov 
 kavrov Tas x^'pos /coi tovs -rroBas 
 
 tois fieyiarao'iv avrov Kai rots X l ^ l ~ 
 
 apxois koi rois irpwrois 
 7) 8o£a r)fj.cov /cat r) x a P a 
 
 my Oxen, and Fatlings. 
 
 Matt. xxii. iv. 
 not my Feet only, but also Hands, 
 and Head. John, xiii. 9. 
 
 my Doctrine, Manner of Life, Pur- 
 pose, Faith, Long-suffering. 
 
 2 Tim. iii. 10. 
 thy Father, and Mother. 
 
 Matt. xv. 4. Mark, x. 1 9. Eph. 
 vi. 2. Matt. xix. 19. 
 his Father, and Mother. 
 
 Mark,x. 7. Eph. v. 31. 
 his Ox, or Ass. Luke, xiii. 15. 
 his own Hands, and Feet. 
 
 Acts, xxi. 11. 
 
 his Lords, and High- Captains, and 
 
 Chief- Estates. Mark, vi. 21. 
 
 our Glory, and Joy. 1 Thes. ii. 20. 
 
 (m) When the Pronoun is attached to the Last Common 
 Noun, and each Noun has the Article. 
 
 ol adehcpoi nai r) fxrjrrjp avrov his Brethren and his Mother. 
 
 Mark, iii. 31. 
 V Wnp Kai ol adehcpoi avrov his Mother and his Brethren. 
 
 Luke, viii. 19. 
 tos x €l P as Kai T V V ntevpav avrov his Hands and his Side. John, xx. 20. 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE ? 63 
 
 rrjv 8vvap.iv nai ti)v f£ovoiav eavrov their own Power and their own 
 
 Strength. Rev. xvii. 3. 
 
 ttji/ 8o£av kcu tt\v rifj.r}u avrwv their Glory and their Honour, xxi. 24. 
 
 (n) When the Pronoun is- attached to the First Common 
 Noun, and the First only has the Article. 
 
 tov frpovov avrov /cot e£ov(Tiav fxeya- his Throne, and great a Authority. 
 
 \t)v Rev. xiii. 2. 
 
 Tt)v vfMtiu irpoKotrqv kcu x a P au T7 ? s f° r Your Furtherance, and a Joy of 
 
 iruTTeus Faith. Phil. i. 25. 
 
 ttji/ airiaTiav avrcav kcu aK\r)poKap8iav their Unbelief, and a Hardness-of- 
 
 Heart. Mark, xvi. 14. 
 
 (o) When the Pronoun is attached to the Last Common 
 Noun, and the First only has the Article. 
 
 iraar) rr) 3Au//et kcu avayKy r,p.(av in all our Affliction and a Distress. 
 
 1 Thes. iii. 7. 
 TTjf anoicapadoKiav /cat e\7n5a p.ov my Earnest- Expectation and a Hope. 
 
 Phil. i. 2. 
 
 (p) When a Pronoun is attached to each Common Noun, 
 and each Noun has the Article. 
 
 7) /J.r)Tr)p o~ov kcu oi ddeAcpoi o~ov thy Mother, and thy Brethren. 
 
 Luke, viii. 20. 
 Toy x ei P a s H-ov nai rovs irodas fiov my Hands, and my Feet. xxiv. 39. 
 
 (3.) ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUN AND GREEK 
 ARTICLE, IN CONNEXION WITH TITLES COUPLED BY A 
 CONJUNCTION. 
 
 (q) When the Pronoun is attached to the First Title, and 
 the First Title only has the Article. 
 
 top aSe\<pov f)/xwv /cat Suxkovov tov our Brother, and a Minister of Gon, 
 &eov /cot avvepyov rip.<av ev Tcp euo7~ and our a Fellow- Labourer in the 
 
 7eA.t<2* Gospel. (Rec. Text.) 
 
 1 Thes. iii. 2. 
 tov a$e\(pov ripnov kcu avvepyov ev Top our Brother, and a Fellow- Labourer 
 evayyeMcp in the Gospel. (Vat. MS.) iii. 2. 
 
 tov crcoTTjpos rjjxuv deov of our Saviour, 3 God. 
 
 1 Tim. ii. 3. Tit. iii. 4. 
 
64 
 
 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 tov Kvpiov -i]fx<t)v Kai (TcoTrjpos Irjcrov 
 Xpiarov 
 
 TOV &eOV 7]/J.(i)V Kai <XUT7]pOS IfjTOV 
 XpHTTOV 
 
 tov &eou Tjjxup Kai Kvpiov I-qaov Xpi- 
 
 crrov 
 Autos 8e 6 Kvpios rjficav Irjcrovs Xpiaros 
 
 Kai 6 Seos Kai irar-qp i)p.wv 6 07071-77- 
 
 o~as rjfxas 
 
 Avros 8e 6 Kvpios rifiow Xpiaros li}o~ovs 
 Kai 3-eos 6 iraTTjp rifxcov 6 ayairrjcras 
 Vitas 
 
 of our Lord, and Saviour, a jE.sus 
 a CHRisT. 2 Pet. i. 11. & iii. 18. 
 
 of our God, and a SAViouR, 3 Jesus 
 a Christ. 2 Pet. i. 1. 
 
 of our God, and a LoRD, a jESUS 
 Christ. 2 Thes. i. 12. 
 
 Now our Lord himself, a Jesus 
 a Christ, and our God and a Fa- 
 ther, who loved us. ( Rec. Text. ) 
 2 Thes. ii. 16. 
 
 Now our Lord himself, h Christ 
 a Jesus, and a GoD, our Father, who 
 loved us. (Vat. MS.) ii. 16. 
 
 (r) Where the Pronoun is attached to the Last Title, and 
 the First Title only has the Article. 
 
 tov &eov Kai iraTpos 7]/uaav 
 
 rep ayaTrriTcp Kai avvepyw 7]p.cov 
 
 tu> &ecp Kai irarpi avrov 
 
 tov peyaXov &eov Kai acorrjpos tjiicav 
 
 Irjcrov XpicrTov 
 TOV fMOVOV Seo-7roTT]v 3-eoz/ Kai Kvpiov 
 
 7)flU)V 17}(T0VV Xpto-Tov 
 
 TOV fJLOVOV Se0~7T0T7IV Kai KVpiOV T](XU>V 
 
 Irjcrovv XpicrTov 
 
 T(p . . . (MOVCf) aOCpCf &€(p 0~WTT]pi Tj/XtoV 
 
 Tcp . . . fiovcp bey awTripi r)jj.wv 
 
 of our God and a Father. Gal. i. 4. 
 to our Dearly-beloved and a Fellow- 
 
 labourer. Phile. 1. 
 
 to his God and a Father. Rev. i. 6. 
 of our Great God and a SAVjouR, 
 
 a Jesus Christ. Titus, ii. 13 
 
 our Only Sovereign the a GoD and 
 
 a LoRD, a Jesus a Christ. (Rec. 
 
 Text.) Jude, 4. 
 
 our Only Sovereign and a LoRD, 
 
 & Jesus s Christ. (Vat. MS.) 
 
 Jude, 4. 
 our Only Wise God the a SAviouR. 
 
 (Rec. Text.) Jude, 25. 
 
 our Only God the a SAviouR. (Vat. 
 
 MS.) Jude, 25. 
 
 (s) When a Pronoun is attached to each Title, and the 
 First Title only has the Article. 
 
 tov Trarepa piov Kai iraTepa vp.wv Kai 
 &eov fiov Kai &eov vfiwv 
 
 to my Father, and your a Father, and 
 my a GoD, and your a GoD. 
 
 John, xx. 17. 
 
 (t) When different Pronouns are employed, and the First 
 Title only has the Article. 
 
 tov adeXcpov Kai avvepyov Kai avo~Tpa- 
 TIWTT]V (XOV, vp-cov 8e a-KoffToKov Kai 
 XsiTOvpyov 
 
 my Brother and a Companion and 
 a Fellow-Labourer, but your a Apo- 
 stle, and a Minister. 
 
 Phil, ii 25. 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 65 
 
 (u) When a Pronoun is attached to each Title, and each 
 has the Article, 
 
 5 Kvpios fiou Ktxi 6 &eoy /xov my Loud, and my God. 
 
 John, xx. 28. 
 
 Avtos Se 6 &eo? Kai Trarrfp r]^(av Kai 6 Now our God and a Father himself, 
 Kvpios V/J.WV Jrjaous Xpiaros Karev- and our Lord, h Jesus a Christ, 
 
 Qvvai rrjv boov rjfj.wv direct our way. 1 Thes. iii. 11. 
 
 The Vatican MS. omits Xpiaros in this passage. 
 
 Some of the preceding forms are very different from 
 those which are found in our English translation ; but not 
 a few of the latter are inconsistent with each other, and 
 many of them are considered incorrect by our best com- 
 mentators. The phrase which is rightly rendered, in the 
 authorised version, Eph. i. 3., " the God and Father," is, 
 in other places of that same version, translated, " God, 
 even the Father," Rom. xv. 6. ; 1 Cor. xv. 24. ; 2 Cor. 
 i. 3. ; James, iii. 9. ; and " God and the Father," as if they 
 were two distinct persons, Eph. v. 20. ; Col. i. 3. ; Col. iii. 
 17.; Jas. 1. 27. That which should be rendered "our 
 God and Father," is translated " God and our Father," 
 Gal. i. 4.; Phil. iv. 20.; 1 Thes. i. 3., iii. 11., and 
 "God, even our Father," 1 Thes. iii. 13.; 2 Thes. ii. 16. 
 That which should be " his God and Father," is " God 
 and his Father," Rev. i. 6. That which is rendered by 
 Dr. Hammond, "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," 
 is translated "the great God and our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ," Tit. ii. 13. That which we render "our only 
 Sovereign the God and Lord, Jesus Christ," and Dr. 
 Hammond, " our only Master, God, and Lord Jesus 
 Christ," is translated " the only Lord God, and our Lord 
 Jesus Christ," Jude, 4. That which we render " our 
 God, and Saviour, Jesus Christ," and Dr. Hammond para- 
 phrases by " Christ, our God and Saviour," is translated 
 "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ," 2 Pet. i. 1. Our 
 
66 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 English version says, in Eph. v. 5., "the kingdom of 
 Christ and of God ;" on which Dr. Middleton observes, 
 " The article of our language, not being a pronoun, has 
 little resemblance to that of the Greeks ; and the proper 
 rendering of tov ~Kpt,aTov kcli Osov is, of Him (being, or) 
 who is the Christ and God." (p. 501.) In Col. ii. 2. the 
 
 WOrds TOV jJLVaTTJpLOV TOV dsOV KCLI TTCLTpOS KCLI TOV XplGTOV 
 
 are rendered " the mystery of God, and of the Father, and 
 of Christ;" an unsatisfactory manner of translating the 
 passage. Griesbach considers the words after Osov as not 
 genuine, which gets rid of the difficulty in the Greek 
 form, but is wanting in authority. The Vatican MS. alone 
 supplies a reading which is perfectly unexceptionable, tov 
 Osov XpiaTov "the God, a CHRiST." Griesbach's emenda- 
 tion would not justify the use of the word " mystery," 
 which is thus vindicated by the earliest of all texts. 
 
 Two objections are made by Dr. Middleton to the ren- 
 dering tov Osov rjfjLcov kcli Kvpiov Irjaov XpiaTov, 2 Thes. 
 i. 12., " of our God, and s Lord, e Jesus a CHRiST." 
 1. That Kvpios " so far partakes of the nature of proper 
 names that it sometimes dispenses with the article where 
 other words would require it. Thus, for example, had we, 
 in the present instance, instead of Kvpiov, read atoTTjpos, 
 no reasonable doubt could have been entertained that 
 identity was here intended ; there being no reason, derived 
 either from theory or from practice, for omitting the article 
 before acoTTjpos, if different persons be meant. So 2 Pet. 
 iii. 2., no one will deny that tov Kvpiov kcli o-coT7)pos are 
 spoken of one person. But Kvpios Itjctov? XptaTos col- 
 lectively is a title of our Lord familiar to the writers of 
 the epistles. We have, repeatedly, cltto Osov TraTpos tj/jlcov 
 kcli KvpLov Irjcrov XptcrTou. Rom. i. 7. ; 1 Cor. i. 3. ; 2 Cor. 
 i. 2. ; Gal. i. 3. et passim. We have, also, Phil. iii. 20. 
 Kvpiov Irjaovv XpcaTov. Hence it is manifest, that, in the 
 
THE CHEEK ARTICLE ? 67 
 
 present passage, there is no absolute necessity for detaching 
 Kvptov from Irjaov Xpiarov, in order to couple it with 6 sou." 
 2. "Another, however, and a much stronger doubt may- 
 arise from the little notice which the Fathers have taken 
 of this text." (525.) 
 
 As for the last objection, no valid argument can be 
 raised concerning it ; an equally fair inference being, that, 
 if the Fathers took but little notice of this text, they saw 
 nothing in the expression to give it peculiar interest. The 
 former objection has reference to the canon laid down by 
 Dr. Middleton, that, "when two or more attributives, 
 joined by a copulative or copulatives, are assumed of the 
 same person or thing, before the first attributive the article 
 is inserted; before the remaining ones it is omitted." (77.) 
 Now, if the phrase in question does not come within the 
 scope of this rule, it may be that Dr. Middleton was 
 wrong in laying it down with too strict a limitation; for 
 his canon requires that the attributives, or titles, as we 
 have called them, shall be understood to belong, of neces- 
 sity, to the same person, whereas the rule ought properly 
 to be a grammatical one, having no respect to any kind of 
 doctrine. Let this be understood to be the case in the 
 example before us, and we shall find no difficulty but 
 that which is inherent in the circumstances, and which no 
 rule of grammar can determine. We need not, therefore, 
 raise the speculative question, whether the word icvpios be, 
 in this instance, more a proper name than in others, which 
 is a very unsatisfactory mode of evading the requirements 
 of a canon professing to constitute a strict grammatical 
 rule. We have only to attend to the meaning of the 
 words which form the phrase, and suffer them to possess 
 their proper signification, regardless of any doctrine. 
 
 But to this objection, that the word Kvpios is, in the 
 above form of words, part of a proper name, and not a 
 
 F 2 
 
68 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 title as elsewhere, it may be replied, that this is not likely ; 
 for, under such circumstances, not two common nouns, nor 
 two titles, nor two proper names, but a title and a proper 
 name, to the first of which the article is prefixed, would 
 appear to be coupled together by a conjunction, which is 
 without parallel, except in one questionable instance, in 
 the whole of the New Testament. That instance is, sv sttl- 
 <yvwo~zi tov 0sov icai \rjaov tov Kvpiov rj/ncov, " through the 
 knowledge of God, and Jesus, our Lord," 2 Pet. i. 2. ; 
 yet two excellent authorities, the Yat. 367. and Havn. 1., 
 besides the marginal reading of Stephens's Greek Testa- 
 ment, 1550, which is the foundation of our received text, 
 exhibit, even in this instance, tov 6sov Kau XpLarov Irjcrov 
 rov tcvpiov fjfjucov, " of the God and e Christ, & Jesus, our 
 Lord," thus coupling two titles : so that, admitting this 
 text to be one wherein the ordinary rule has been departed 
 from, it cannot be held to constitute a valid exception. 
 
 Are, then, the two titles " God and Lord " to be 
 considered in all cases attributives of the same Being, 
 Jesus Christ ? Let every one determine for himself, by 
 attending to the context, and by making a comparison of 
 parallel passages. If Dr. Middleton sees no difficulty in 
 admitting that tov 6sov rj^wv icai acoTrjpos Itjo-ov XpiaTOV, 
 " of our God, and a SAViouR, a Jesus Christ," 2 Pet. 
 i. 2., and tov Kvpiov rj/ncov /cat aa)Tr]p09 lr)aov Xpio~TOV, " of 
 our Lord, and a SAViouR, a jESUS Christ," 2 Pet. i. 11. 
 and iii. 18., have reference to one and the same person, 
 he cannot from analogy find just cause to object to the 
 same conclusion in respect to the passage in 2 Thes. i. 12., 
 tov 6sov rji^wv K.ai Kvpiov Irjaov ^KpiaTOv, (i of our God, and 
 a LoRD, a Jesus Christ." In this English translation no 
 more is implied than is stated in the Greek original ; and 
 the difficulty, if there be any, is one which can only be 
 solved by a reference to parallel cases. 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE ? 69 
 
 To deduce from the Greek article proofs of the divinity 
 of our Lord was the purport of Mr. Granville Sharpe's 
 well known essay. But his rule contains the same defect 
 which was afterwards contained in that of Dr. Mid- 
 dleton, of which we have just observed that it assumes too 
 much. It is thus described and improved on by Mr. 
 Hugh Stuart Boyd : — "When two or more personal nouns 
 (of the same gender, number, and case) are coupled to- 
 gether by the conjunction kcli, and the article is prefixed 
 to the first, but not to the second, third, &c, those two or 
 more nouns, whether they be substantives or adjectives, 
 denote one and the same person. This also is the case 
 when two participles are thus coupled together. 
 
 " I have given the rule," says Mr. Boyd, " nearly as it is 
 laid down by Mr. Sharpe : it is however subject to 
 certain limitations. Wherever we meet, in a Greek writer, 
 with a sentence constructed according to this rule, if the 
 substantives, adjectives, or participles, be indicatory of 
 qualities and properties which are inconsistent and contra- 
 dictory, in that case two different persons may be intended, 
 though the article is not prefixed to the latter. The reason 
 of this is obvious. When a Greek writer was speaking 
 of two persons, whom he designated by terms which were 
 opposite and irreconcilable to one another, it was not ne- 
 cessary that he should prefix the article to the second, 
 though he had placed it before the first. Every reader 
 would see at once that the same person could not be both 
 sober and drunken, both virtuous and wicked, both hand- 
 some and ugly, &c. It is manifest that all proper names 
 must, for the same reason, be excepted. Everybody 
 knows that Paul and Peter cannot be the same person ; 
 therefore the article may be placed before Paul, but omitted 
 before Peter. But if a Greek writer was speaking of two 
 different persons, and the substantives, &a, which he em- 
 
 f 3 
 
70 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 ployed were indicatory of qualities and attributes which 
 might harmonise and coalesce in one person, it then 
 became necessary that the article, if prefixed to the first, 
 should be placed before the second also, for otherwise the 
 reader might be misled. It follows from hence, that, 
 wherever we meet with a passage constructed according 
 to our rule, if the substantives, &c, indicate qualities and 
 properties which are not contradictory, but may be united 
 in one person, we may then be absolutely certain that one 
 person only is intended. 
 
 " Corollary. It follows, that, when two personal nouns 
 are connected by the conjunction kcli, and those nouns are 
 descriptive of two different persons, but imply qualities 
 which might meet in the same person, the article must be 
 prefixed to both, or prefixed to the last only, or prefixed to 
 neither." 
 
 Mr. Boyd then applies his canon to the passage in 
 Ephesians, v. 5., sv ry (SaaCkuq tov Xpio-rov kcli ®eov, and to 
 that in Titus, ii. 13., tov /jisyaXov Ssov kcli awrn^pos rj/icov 
 Irjaov Xpcarov ; and contends that it proves, that, in both 
 instances, one and the same person is spoken of as " the 
 Christ and God," and " the great God and Saviour of us." 
 To this it was objected by one of his opponents : — 
 
 1. That XpMTTos and ®sos may be "opposite and irre- 
 concilable terms," and then " the passage in Ephesians is 
 an exception." But Mr. Boyd shows that they are not 
 opposite and irreconcilable by the opening of John's Gos- 
 pel, where it is stated that the word was God, and the 
 word means Christ : also from the passage in Titus where 
 Ssov and acorrjpo? are united by a conjunction. 
 
 2. That " Xpccrros and ®sos are proper names, and con- 
 sequently an exception." But Mr. Boyd shows that they 
 are not proper names, but appellations of Jehovah and 
 Jesus, which are the two proper names ; and he quotes 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE ? 71 
 
 Michaelis, who says, " In the time of the Apostles, the 
 word Christ was never used as the proper name of a person, 
 but as an epithet expressive of the ministry of Jesus." 
 Intr., vol. i. p. 337. 
 
 3. It was objected, with reference to John, xx. 28., 6 
 Kvpio9 fjuov kcli 6 ®so9 fjuov, and Rev. xxii. 13., sya) ziyn to 
 
 A KCLL TO D,, dp^T) KCLI TfiXo?, 6 TTpWTOS KCLI 6 SO")(aTOS } " If 
 
 the rule you contend for was real and genuine, the article 
 ought not to have been repeated before the second noun, 
 insomuch as one person only is intended." To this Mr. 
 Boyd replies : (e It is well known to every mathematician, 
 that the converse of a proposition does not necessarily 
 hold. It does not follow from the rule, that, when one 
 person only is intended, the article must be prefixed to 
 the first but not to the second. It may be affixed to 
 neither ; or it may be affixed to both, as in the example 
 above quoted, for the purpose of giving greater force or 
 energy." 
 
 We believe this last reason — the giving greater force 
 or energy — to be alone sufficient, and would rather, as 
 we have already said, leave the doctrinal inference to be 
 gathered from the text and context. 
 
 From a review of the preceding examples, classed as 
 they are, it would appear that, wherever two or more 
 common nouns, proper names, class names, or titles, are 
 coupled by a conjunction, and the article in Greek is pre- 
 fixed to each noun, the several objects are intended to 
 present each a distinct idea ; but that, when the article is 
 prefixed only to the first noun of the series, the whole 
 series is then intended to present one compound idea. Of 
 the former kind are, " The Adoption, and the Glory, and 
 the Covenant, &c. ; " of the latter, " the Defence and 
 
 f 4 
 
72 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 Confirmation of the Gospel." Of the former, " In the 
 Regions of Syria, and of Cilicia ; " of the latter, 
 " Throughout the Regions of Jud^a and a SAMARiA." 
 Of the former, " Then Paul, and Barnabas, waxed bold 
 and said ; " of the latter, " The boldness of Peter and 
 a JOHN." Of the former, "The Chief-Priests, and the 
 Elders of the People, came to him as he was teaching ; " 
 of the latter, " The Pharisees and a Sadducees came." Of 
 the former, " The Father, and the Son ; " of the latter, 
 "The Lord and Saviour," "the God and a Father," 
 " the God and a LoRD," " the God and a CrmiST." Of 
 the former, " For ye are our Glory, and Joy," " liis 
 Mother and his Brethren;" of the latter, " Their Unbelief 
 and a Hardness-of-Heart," " my Earnest-Expectation and 
 a Hope." Of the former, " Thy Mother, and thy Brethren ; " 
 of the latter, " Our Brother, and a Fellow- Labourer in 
 the Gospel," " our God, and a LoRD, & Jesus a CHRiST," 
 "our God and a Father." Of the former, "My Lord, 
 and my God ; " of the latter, " My Father, and your 
 a Father, and my a GoD, and your a GoD." In the one class, 
 the subjects are made stand out separate from each other ; 
 in the other, they are as it were incorporated together. 
 
 It is the same with participles as with nouns : when 
 two participles are coupled by a conjunction, and the 
 Greek article precedes each, they are to be regarded as 
 presenting each a complete and separate idea ; but, when 
 the article precedes the first only, the two are to be con- 
 sidered as forming together one compouud idea. With 
 reference to this rule, Dr. Middleton says, on the phrase 6 
 TTLarsvaas kcli ftamTiadus, Mark, xvi. 16.: "In the Com- 
 plutensian edition, the second participle also has the article, 
 which would materially alter the sense. It would imply 
 that he who believeth, as well as he who has been baptized, 
 shall be saved ; whereas the reading of the MSS. insists on 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 73 
 
 the fulfilment of both conditions in every individual." (276.) 
 The text here quoted is not of sufficient authority to be 
 brought forward as conclusive evidence in favour of any 
 opinion. It is not confirmed by any parallel passage ; and 
 it is wholly wanting in that oldest MS., the Vatican, 
 which omits all the verses from 9 to the end of the 
 chapter ; as do the next two in point of age and authority, 
 the Alexandrian MS., and the Paris or Ephrem Rescript. 
 These verses (9 to the end) are also considered spurious 
 both by Griesbach and Scholz. Examples of an unexcep- 
 tionable kind, however, abound in the New Testament. Of 
 the first class is the following, Iva kcli 6 aTrstpcov ofiov X ai PV 
 kcli 6 Ospc^cov, " that both He that soweth and He that 
 reapeth may rejoice together," John, iv. 36. ; of the 
 second, Iva iras 6 Oscopcov tov vlov kcli tucttsvcdv eis avrov 
 sxo fyorjv auovLov, " that Every-one which seeth the Son, 
 and believeth on him, may have everlasting life," John, 
 vi. 40. But what is the doctrine which flows from 
 this ? Certainly not that which is drawn from it by Dr. 
 Middleton, " that the reading of the MSS. insists on the 
 fulfilment of both conditions in every individual." It 
 cannot be understood to declare that none can be saved, 
 but those who have both seen the Son and believed on him. 
 It simply affirms that they who have fulfilled both con- 
 ditions may have everlasting life ; but it pronounces no 
 sentence of condemnation against those who have not ful- 
 filled both conditions : nor could it, for, as we read in 
 John, xx. 29., "Blessed are They that have not seen, and 
 yet have believed." 
 
 The impropriety of attempting to limit the sense in 
 such cases, by a rule having reference to the establishment 
 of any doctrine, may be seen in the following example : 
 " Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out Them 
 that sold and bought in the Temple," rovs irwXovvTas 
 
74 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 kcli ayopa^ovTas, Mark, xi. 15. ; which must mean, if 
 Dr. Middleton's rule hold good, only them who both sold 
 and bought ; whereas the sense of the passage assures us 
 that they who did either were intended. The above is the 
 general reading, and as such is retained by both Gries- 
 bach and Scholz. The Vatican MS., however, more cor- 
 rectly, reads tovs ircoXovvras kcli tovs cuyopatpvras, " Them 
 that sold, and Them that bought:" — more correctly, we 
 repeat, because the sense is thereby rendered less likely to 
 be misunderstood ; though a common English reader would 
 hardly misconceive the meaning, if he read, as it is in the 
 English version, " Them that sold and bought." 
 
 With regard to the emphasis which we have attributed 
 to adjectives when \he,j precede their substantives, Dr. Mid- 
 dleton was of oj)inion that, between the two forms of the 
 adjective following or preceding, there could not " be any 
 difference in respect of the sense. A most acute critic/' 
 he proceeds to say, " makes 6 a<ya6os TroXirrjs to be the 
 suitable expression where goodness is the idea with which 
 the mind is chiefly occupied; while 6 7ro\trr)s 6 asyaOos 
 implies that the principal stress is to be laid on citizen.'''' 
 But against this opinion of Hermann, that there is a 
 difference in respect of the sense, Dr. Middleton rejoins: 
 " That instances may be found which seem to favour this 
 distinction I will not deny ; but to affirm that such a distinc- 
 tion is usually observable, would, I think, be an erroneous 
 conclusion. f O fisyas jSacrikevs and 6 (Baaiksvs 6 fjusya?, are, 
 I believe, strictly equivalent ; so also are to ayiov Trvsv/ia 
 and to 7rvsv/jia to arycov in the New Testament. ... I do not, 
 however, mean that it is a matter of indifference, in all cases, 
 which of the two forms be used. The former, as it is 
 the more simple and natural, is in all the Greek writers 
 by far the more common. In the latter, in which the ad- 
 jective is placed last, we may generally, I think, observe 
 
THE GREEK AllTICLE ? 75 
 
 one of these two things : namely, either that the substan- 
 tive might of itself reasonably be presumed to signify the 
 particular person or thing intended, though by the addi- 
 tion of the adjective the substantive is absolutely restricted 
 to the object meant, in which case the addition is a kind 
 of after-thought ; or else that the adjective has been pur- 
 posely reserved by the speaker to mark an emphasis or 
 opposition. Thus, in the former case, to irvsvjjia cannot 
 easily be misapplied, yet the addition of to ayiov absolutely 
 limits the sense. . . . Our Saviour has said (John, x. 11.), 
 syo) si/jll 6 7roi/jL7}v f O KAAOX, as opposed to him who is 
 fMo-0G)Tos. I am, therefore, of opinion that 6 vroXirris 6 
 ayaOos would not, in all cases, be admissible. I should 
 expect to find it only where a good citizen had recently 
 been mentioned, and where, consequently, o ttoXlttjs alone 
 might, in some measure, be understood of the same citizen ; 
 or else where the good citizen was to be opposed to another 
 of a different character ; though, in the latter case, the other 
 form is not unfrequently employed." (147.) Here, then, 
 with the exception of the final saving clause, Dr. Middleton 
 determines that the adjective which follows the substan- 
 tive enjoys the greater degree of emphasis. 
 
 But if the common sense of an unlearned English reader 
 were appealed to, and it were left for him to decide, from 
 the English examples in the New Testament, to which 
 class of instances the greater degree of emphasis belongs, 
 he would certainly say (with reference to Matt. xii. 35., 
 and John, ii. 10.) that " the good man out of the good 
 treasure," and " the bad man out of the bad treasure ;" 
 " Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, . . . 
 but thou hast kept the good wine until now ;" appear to 
 him to be the more emphatic forms ; grounding his opinion 
 on the fact, that, to lay the greater stress on the sub- 
 stantives man and treasure in the one case, and on loine 
 
WHAT IS THE TOWEll OF 
 
 and wine in the other, would not enable the speaker to 
 mark any opposition. But it may be urged that, in 
 the case of " the good shepherd" as is remarked by 
 Bishop Middleton, the opposition against the hireling 
 (y^jbio-OwTos) is intended ; and, therefore, the inference must 
 be, that either form will, in that case, answer the purpose 
 equally well. This argument, however, is not so forcible 
 as it appears to be. It is not the word good on which the 
 stress in this last case lies : to form a proper contrast with 
 the good shepherd, we should have had the bad shep- 
 herd mentioned; but we have the hireling. Now, our 
 Lord's purpose is to show, not the contrast between good 
 and bad, as applied to shepherds, but the contrast between 
 a shepherd and a hireling ; but, as shepherds may be bad as 
 well as good, he adds the necessary qualification, good, and 
 so brings into opposition the two ideas of a good shep- 
 herd and a hireling. To give due effect to the former, 
 since the Greek adjective follows its substantive, we must 
 pronounce the words good shepherd with nearly equal em- 
 phasis, or with a little preference to the substantive. The 
 same distinction is observable in the Parable of the Sower, 
 where (( good ground " ttjv 7771/ rrjv ayadrjv (Luke, viii. 8.) 
 is opposed, not to bad ground, but to the wayside, the 
 rock, thorny places, and stony places ; and, therefore, the 
 emphasis is equally laid on both words, or with a preference 
 to the substantive. But when, on the contrary, the 
 adjective demands, as in English, the preference — as in 
 the comparison of a good man to an evil man, good treasure 
 to evil treasure, and good wine to that which is worse — and 
 we find in Greek that in all such cases the adjective pre- 
 cedes its substantive, as 6 ayados avOpwTros, &c, we can 
 then entertain no reasonable doubt that this is properly 
 the position of greater emphasis, and that by this position 
 it was so intended to be marked. 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 77 
 
 In the case of adverbs, a phrase is often rendered by 
 one word, in the English translation, which in the ori- 
 ginal is composed of a preposition and the article witli a 
 substantive understood: as, sv tg> \%pov(f\, When, While, 
 instead of " at the Time" &c. But this brief mode of re- 
 presenting the phrase is not always so satisfactory as the 
 detailed form would be. Thus, we read, in Luke iii. 21., 
 " Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass 
 that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the Heaven 
 was opened," &c. : from which words it might be inferred, 
 that Jesus waited till all the people had been baptized ; 
 whereas the real meaning is, that he was baptized at the 
 same time they were : " Now at the Time all the people 
 were baptized." This meaning is in some degree conveyed 
 by making the adverb emphatic : " Now When all the 
 people," &c, but is, perhaps, not so fully expressed as the 
 Greek phrase requires. — Dr. Middleton again supplies us 
 with an example from his own printed work, in illustration 
 of this method of marking the emphasis of adverbs as well 
 as of adjectives, by observing, " that When any of the 
 words, which in the First Part of this work I have de- 
 nominated Attributives, is placed in apposition with a 
 Personal Pronoun, that Attributive has the Article pre- 
 fixed." (316.) 
 
 The article being used as a sign of emphasis, calling 
 attention to the word which follows, it results as a matter of 
 course that such verbs as possess that power in themselves, 
 viz., verbs of naming, appointing, choosing, &c, supersede 
 the use of the article : — for instance, ovros sarac /jusyas 
 /cat vlo9 vy\ncrTov Kk^Orjasrai, " He shall be great, and shall 
 be called the son of the highest," Luke, i. 32. Here 
 the whole of the words governed by the verb are placed 
 in a condition of natural emphasis by the peculiar sense of 
 the verb. 
 
78 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 V. CASES OF EMPHASIS ARISING FROM THE RELATIVE 
 POSITION OF GREEK WORDS. 
 
 A great peculiarity of the Greek language, when com- 
 pared with the English, consists in its ability to render 
 certain words emphatic by a change of their position re- 
 latively to other words in the same sentence. We can and 
 do effect something of the kind by the arrangement of 
 English words, but it is accomplished chiefly by bringing 
 them into a situation where the naturally recurring force 
 of utterance, arising from a necessary effluence of the voice 
 at certain intervals, will so fall in with the design of the 
 writer, that the speaker when uttering the words cannot 
 well fail to bring out the sense in the manner which was 
 intended. With the Greeks a different principle prevailed 
 in the administration of emphasis. In their language, 
 generally speaking, the word which precedes another, which 
 it might follow, is in the more emphatic position of the two, 
 as will appear from the following examples : — 
 
 1. In the case of the Demonstrative Pronouns, avros, this, 
 e/ceivos, that, and SSs, such. 
 
 These words are remarkable in this respect, — that they 
 are never found in combination with any nouns substan- 
 tive but those to which the article is prefixed; for though 
 Dr. Middleton mentions an instance or two to the con- 
 trary, they may be regarded as casual exceptions to the 
 general rule : and that whenever they precede the noun they 
 precede the article also. But the peculiarity which brings 
 them under our present notice is, that when they precede 
 their substantive they are the more emphatic of the two 
 words, and, when they follow, the less so. 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 
 
 79 
 
 Of the former class are the 
 
 Outos 6 Aaos rois x ei tecrt /*e Ti/xa 
 Sti ovtos 6 avQpwiros rjp^aTO outob*o- 
 
 fltlV 
 
 Kai us ovtos b tg\uvt)s 
 
 Ovdeirore ovtws eXaArjcrev avdpunos us 
 
 ovtos 6 audpuiros 
 ovtos 6 lrjaovs 6 ava\r)(pdeis atf v/xuv 
 
 Ovtos yap 6 MeAx^eSe/c 
 
 eav tis (payy €K tovtov tov aprov, 
 
 fyaeTat eis tov aiuva 
 ovdeis yap Tama Ta trrificia Swarai 
 
 Tromv 
 tot6 vrjo~Tevo~ovaip ev vteivais Tais 
 
 fj/AGpaiS 
 
 XaipeTe eu €Ketvr] tt) rjfiepa 
 'SirovBao'ufji.ev ovv eicreXdeiv sis cKeivrjv 
 
 tt)v KaTairavaiv 
 €K€ivos Se 6 SovXos yvovs to ^cArjfxa 
 
 tov Kvpiov kavrov 
 Tropevau/xeQa €is TTjvSe T7ji/ iroXiv 
 
 following instances : — 
 
 This" People honoureth me with 
 their Lips. Mark, vii. 6. 
 
 that this" Man hegan to build. 
 
 Luke, xiv. 30. 
 or even as this" Publican. 
 
 xviii. 1 1 . 
 Never man spake like this" Man. 
 
 John, vii. 46. 
 
 this" Jesus which is taken up from 
 
 you. Acts, i. 11. 
 
 For this" Melchisedec. Heb. vii. 1 . 
 
 if any man eat of this" Bread, he 
 
 shall live for Ever. John, vi. 51. 
 
 for no man can do these" Miracles. 
 
 iii. 2. 
 
 and then shall they fast in those" 
 
 Days. Luke, v. 35. 
 
 Rejoice ye in that" Day. vi. 23. 
 
 Let us labour to enter into that" 
 
 Rest. Heb. iv. 11. 
 
 and that" Servant which knew his 
 
 Lord's Will. Luke, xii. 47. 
 
 we will go into such" a City. 
 
 James, iv. 13. 
 
 Of the second class, where the substantive is the more 
 emphatic, because the pronoun follows, are these ex- 
 amples : — 
 
 AArjOws 5 avBpuiros ovtos vios t\v Qeov 
 
 ei fir] 6 aWoyeuTjs ovtos 
 
 7?|et Kvpios tov SovAov zkcivov 
 
 Kai eyeveTO to p"r)y/j.a rrjs oiKias eKtivrjs 
 fieya 
 
 Truly this Man was the son of God. 
 
 Mark, xv. 39. 
 
 save this Stranger. Luke, xvii. 18. 
 
 the Lord of that Servant will come. 
 
 xii. 46. 
 
 and the Ruin of that House was 
 
 great. vi. 49. 
 
 On this peculiarity in the case of the nouns stcsivos and 
 ovtos Dr. Hammond makes the following observations : — 
 " Luke, i. 39. In those days. — The phrase sv ravrais 
 rais i)[jLspais, in these days, hath for the most part a pecu- 
 liar signification, differing from sv rj/juspacs sfceivais, in those 
 
80 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 days. The latter signifies an indefinite time, sometimes a 
 good way off, but the former generally denotes a certain 
 time then present, instantly, then, at that time ; so, here, 
 that which is said of Mary's going to Elizabeth was surely 
 immediately after the departing of the angel from her, and 
 therefore she rose up fxsra airovh-qs, very hastily. So, verse 
 24., /jisra ravras ras r^puspas, that is, immediately, Elizabeth 
 conceived ; so vi. 12., sv rats ypuspacs ravrais, that is, 
 then, at that point of time, he went out to the mountain. See 
 xxiii. 7., xxiv. 18. ; Acts, i. 5., xi. 27., and xxi. 15." 
 
 This remark of Dr. Hammond's is true to a certain 
 degree, but it is not sufficiently discriminating. There is 
 all the difference he speaks of between sv ravrats raus 
 rjfispats, " in these" Days," and sv [rats'] rjfispais SKSivaat, 
 " in those Days : " but when he adds that sv rats rjpuspais 
 ravTais also means then, at that point of time, he has evi- 
 dently mistaken the reason of the difference in the two 
 phrases, which does not consist in the opposition of ravTais 
 to sicswais, but in the circumstance of the pronoun in one 
 case preceding and in the other following its substantive. 
 Whether it be rendered by " these" or (i those" is a cir- 
 cumstance of no moment. That Dr. Hammond is in error 
 will appear from the examples he has selected, and to 
 which he refers us in support of his argument ; for when 
 Luke relates, vi. 12., that " it came to pass in those Days," 
 (or, more correctly, " in these Days," sv rats rjpLspais 
 ravraus) " that Jesus went out into a Mountain to pray," 
 he could not mean it to be understood that our Lord did 
 this at that point of time particularly, for no point of time 
 had been previously mentioned ; but he intended to state 
 generally that during that period of our Lord's abode in 
 Galilee, he went out into a mountain to pray ; and after 
 he had been all night in prayer, he called to him his twelve 
 disciples, &c. So, also, when Cleophas answers (Luke, 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 81 
 
 xxiv. 18.), " Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and 
 hast not known the things which are come to pass there in 
 these Days ? " (sv rats rjfjuspais ravravs), he alludes not only 
 to the Crucifixion, but to a number of other events which 
 had taken place during a lengthened period. The same 
 meaning is observable in the third example, Acts, xxi. 15., 
 " After those Days we took up our Carriages," /jusra 8s ras 
 7]fjispas Tavras. But when, as in the remaining examples, 
 we may suppose that a particular point of time was intended 
 to be specified, we then find the pronoun precede the sub- 
 stantive, by which means the expression becomes instantly 
 more definitive of a precise period : as when Luke (xxiii. 
 7.) says that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod, " who himself 
 also was at Jerusalem at that" Time," or, more properly, 
 " in these" Days," sv ravrats rats rjfispcus. And so, again, 
 in Acts, xi. 27., "In these'' Days came prophets from 
 Jerusalem unto Antioch," sv tclvtclis rats rjfispais. The 
 reference to Acts, i. 5., "not many days hence," makes 
 nothing either way. 
 
 2. In the case of the Pronominal Adjective iras, all, or 
 every one. 
 
 This word is found in connection with nouns which have 
 not the article as well as those which have it ; but when- 
 ever it precedes the substantive, which has an article, it 
 precedes the article also, with few exceptions ; and when 
 it thus takes precedence, it is peculiarly emphatic. For 
 example : — 
 
 €(reia6r) iratxa r) iro\is all" the City was moved. 
 
 Matt. xxi. 10. 
 iracra r\ \ov8cua kcu iracra r/ irepix^pos all" Judaea, and all" the Region 
 
 round about. iii. 5. 
 
 avei\e iravras tovs iroiSos tovs ev slew all" the Children which were in 
 
 Brid\eefx km €u iraai rois bpiois Bethlehem, and in all" the Coasts 
 
 avrqs thereof. Matt. ii. 16. 
 
82 WHAT IS THE POWER OP 
 
 a>pixr)ae iraaa r) ayz\r) the whole" Herd-of- Swine rushed. 
 
 Matt. viii. 32. 
 iravres yap oi irpo<p7]Tai kcu 6 vojjlos for all" the Prophets and the Law. 
 
 xi. 13. 
 itacrav rr)v o<pzi\t)v eKeiurjv acprjKa croi I forgave thee all" that Debt. 
 
 xviii. 32. 
 
 6 fAiKporepov i*sv ecxri ttclvtow rcav crirep- which indeed is the least of all" 
 
 naTow Seeds. xiii. 32. 
 
 In the following examples we have the word ttcls follow- 
 ing its noun and article, and therefore not emphatic. 
 
 kcu ecu/ ex« irpo<pr}TGiau kcu et8o» ra and though I have the gift of pro- 
 /avottjoux icavra phecy, and understand all Mys- 
 
 teries. 1 Cor. xiii. 2. 
 
 kcu nepiriyev 6 lyaovs ras noAeis irav- and Jesus went about all the Cities, 
 Tas kcu ras Koojxas and Villages. Matt. ix. 35. 
 
 When 7ras is preceded by the article it is to be taken 
 substantively, and of course emphatically : as, rjaav Bs oi 
 iravrss avhpss, " and the Whole of the men." Acts, xix. ■ . 
 
 3. In the case of the Pronominal Adjective 6\os, the 
 whole. 
 
 This word is found both before and after the noun with 
 which it is connected, and the noun is found both with and 
 without the article; but wherever (with very few ex- 
 ceptions) bXos precedes the article, it precedes the noun, 
 and in all such cases it is peculiarly emphatic. For 
 example : — 
 
 kcu to ayairav avrov e| 6\r)s vr\s Kap- 
 has kcu e£ 6\t)s ttjs avveaews kcu e| 
 
 5\7)S TTJS tyvXVS KCU €| oA?JS TTJS 
 
 tcrxvos 
 
 f)V 6\r) r) Acria kcu r) oiKOt/jitevTj cre€erai 
 
 kcu fir} faov to ace/la ctov fS\r}6i) eis 
 
 ysevvav 
 kcu 1*7} 6\ov to edvos airoArjrcu 
 
 and To Love him with all" the 
 Heart, and with all" the Under- 
 standing, and with all" the Soul, 
 and with all" the Strength. 
 
 Mark, xii. 33. 
 
 whom all" Asia and the World wor- 
 shipped. Acts, xix. 27. 
 
 and not that thy whole" Body should 
 be cast into hell. Matt. v. 29. 
 
 that the whole" Nation perish not. 
 John, xi. 50. 
 
Mil. GREEK ARTICLE? 83 
 
 On the contrary, when the same word follows a noun 
 which has the article, it is manifestly less emphatic than 
 the noun with which it is connected ; as in the following 
 instances : — 
 
 ckivtjOt] Te 7) ttoAis 6\r) and all the City was moved. 
 
 Acts, xxi. 30. 
 kcu ttjs eKK\7)<rias 6\t]s and of the whole Church. 
 
 Rom. xvi. 23. 
 Kat emaTevcrev avros nat i) oiKia avrov and himself believed and his whole 
 oAtj House. John, iv. 53. 
 
 •Eai> rov Koa/xov 6\ov Kepf>7]o-r] if he shall gain the whole World. 
 
 Matt. xvi. 26. 
 
 4. In the case of Pronouns Possessive. 
 These, when they precede their nouns, generally precede 
 the article also, if there be one. But whenever they thus 
 precede, they are more emphatic than when they follow the 
 noun. 
 
 6 rpcayow fxou ttjv oaptta Kai irtuwv whoso eateth my" Flesh and drink- 
 fxov to aifxa eth my" Blood. John, vi. 54. 
 
 Kvpte, av /xov vnrreis rovs ttoSos Lord, dost thou wash my" Feet. 
 
 xiii. 6. 
 avTov yap ea/xev iroi7]ixa for we are his" Workmanship. 
 
 Eph. ii. 10. 
 brav TrKrfpcaOr) v/xow t) viraKorj when your'' Obedience is fulfilled. 
 
 2 Cor. x. 6. 
 
 On the contrary — 
 
 Ov fir] vvtyrjs rovs TroSas /xov eis top Thou shalt Never wash my Feet. 
 
 aiwua John, xiii. 8. 
 
 Kvpie, /XT] tovs iroSas /xov /xovov, aA\a Lord, not my Feet only, but also my 
 
 Kai ras x el P as Kal Tr }i / Ke<pa\7\v Hands and my Head. xiii. 9. 
 
 'T7ra7€, (pwvrjcrov rov avSpa aov Go, call thy Husband. iv. 16. 
 
 'H yap Kavxyvis '/j/xow avry] ea-n For our Rejoicing is this. 
 
 2 Cor. i. 12. 
 
 5. In the case of Adjectives. 
 
 Generally speaking, all adjectives which precede their 
 substantives have a more emphatic signification than when 
 they follow, even ivhen there is no article , as, 
 
 G 2 
 
84 
 
 WHAT IS THE POWEK OF 
 
 Ev ayaOe SovXe 
 
 Trov7)pe 8ovAe 
 Kai fieyaAy Swa/xei 
 
 KaiSeaaafievos on xo\vs ox^os epx^rat 
 ■wpos avrov 
 
 On the contrary — 
 
 Kai r]Ko\ov9ei avrcp ox^os iro\vs 
 
 Well done, thou good" servant. 
 
 Luke, xix. IT. 
 
 thou wicked" servant. xix. 22. 
 
 and with great" power. Acts, iv. 23. 
 
 and saw a great" company come 
 
 unto him. John, vi. 5. 
 
 and a great multitude" followed him. 
 vi. 2. 
 
 6. In the case of Nouns and Pronouns governed by 
 Verbs. 
 It will be found generally true, that all nouns and pro- 
 nouns governed by verbs, even where the article is not 
 present, are more emphatic than the verb when they pre- 
 cede it, and less emphatic than the verb when they follow 
 it ; and that adverbs obey the same rule. For example : — 
 
 OuTe efie oibare ovre rov trarepa fiov 
 ei efxs r/Setre Kai rov irarepa fiov 
 rjdc-ire av 
 
 Ev oXiyu) fie - neideis Xpurriavov ye- 
 
 vecrdai 
 wcpre op-q fieOicrraveiv, ayxTrrjv oe fir] 
 
 ex<»y ov5ev eifii 
 
 Kai fyrrjaeTe fie, Kai ev rr) afiapria 
 
 vfMV arcoQaveidOe 
 \xt\ri atroKrevei eavrov 
 Kai yvuoeaQe tt)v aXrideiav 
 'O iriaTevcav eis efie ex« &VV aiooviov 
 
 Ovk ex« avb*pa 
 
 KaKws eiiras, oti avSpa ovk ex&' "Rev-re 
 yap avdpas eo~x €S ' Kai vvv bv €%ets 
 ovk ear i gov avqp' tovto aXrjOes 
 eiprjKas 
 
 Ye neither know me", nor my Fa- 
 ther ; if ye had known me", ye 
 would have known my Father" 
 also. John, viii. 19. 
 
 Almost thou persuadest me" to be 
 a Christian". Acts, xxvi. 28. 
 
 so that I could remove mountains" 
 and have not charity", I am no- 
 thing". 1 Cor. xiii. 2. 
 
 and ye shall seek" me, and shall die 
 in your Sins". John, viii. 21. 
 
 will he kill" himself. 22/ 
 
 and ye shall know" the Truth. 32. 
 
 He that believeth" on me hath" eter- 
 nal life". vi. 47. 
 
 I have" no husband. iv. 17. 
 
 Thou hast well" said, I have no 
 husband" : for thou hast had five" 
 husbands"; and he whom thou now" 
 hast is not thy" husband : that" 
 saidst thou truly". 
 
 To quote further instances will be unnecessary. Every 
 line of every page of the New Testament is fraught with 
 examples of some one or more of these various methods of 
 expressing emphasis in the Greek language. The only 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE ? 85 
 
 important point to be determined is, how far it may be de- 
 sirable to attempt the representation of the several kinds 
 in the English version ; and it is our opinion that to carry 
 the principle out to its full extent would be to embarrass 
 the English reader with a multitude of signs, and perplex 
 more than benefit him. Our authorised version is con- 
 structed with some regard to English emphasis, and very 
 frequently this natural stress on certain words would be 
 found to be interfered with, if not even counteracted, by 
 the introduction of the Greek emphasis, so that the effect 
 on the whole would be unsatisfactory. We shall content 
 ourselves, therefore, with recommending a reference, in all 
 cases of difficulty or of importance, to the Greek original, 
 and, except in the instances ©f pronominal adjectives, and 
 pronouns possessive, when they precede the article, prefer 
 leaving the English translation free from the notation of 
 what may be called relative emphasis. 
 
 VI. COMPARISON OF THE HEBREW ARTICLE WITH THE 
 
 GREEK. 
 
 It was the opinion of Dr. Middleton that " the Hebrew 
 n, though it corresponds, in some of its uses, with the 6 of 
 the Greeks, is yet, on the whole, so dissimilar, that he who 
 should translate a portion of the Hebrew Scriptures into 
 Greek, inserting the Greek article where he found the 
 Hebrew one, and nowhere else, would write a language 
 almost as unlike Greek as is the Hebrew itself." (155.) 
 But that this opinion is somewhat too strongly expressed 
 will appear from the following comparison of the articles 
 in the Hebrew text with those which have been introduced 
 into the Greek version of the Septuagint. The small 
 superior + denotes in both the presence of the article. 
 
 G 3 
 
S6 
 
 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 Hebrew Text. 
 
 In the beginning God created the 
 "•"Heaven and the + Earth. And the 
 "•"Earth was without form and void ; 
 and Darkness was upon the Face of 
 the Deep. And the Spirit of God 
 moved upon the Face of the "'"Wa- 
 ters. And God said, Let there be 
 Light ; and there was Light. And 
 God saw the + Light, that it was 
 good : and God divided the + Light 
 from the + Darkness. And God 
 called the Light Day and the Dark- 
 ness he called Night. And the 
 Evening and the Morning were the 
 first Day. 
 
 And God said, Let there be a 
 Firmament in the midst of the "•"Wa- 
 ters, and let it divide the Waters 
 from the Waters. And God made* 
 the + Firmament, and divided the 
 "•"Waters which were under the Fir- 
 mament from the + Waters which 
 were above the Firmament : and it 
 was so. And God called the Fir- 
 mament Heaven. And the Evening 
 and the Morning were the second 
 Day. 
 
 And God said, Let the + Waters 
 under the + Heaven be gathered to- 
 gether unto one place, and let the 
 + Dry land appear : and it was so. 
 And God called the Dry land Earth ; 
 and the Gathering-together of the 
 "•"Waters called he Seas : and God 
 saw that it was good. And God 
 said, Let the + Earth bring forth 
 Grass, the Herb yielding Seed, and 
 the Fruit Tree yielding Fruit after 
 his kind, whose Seed is in itself, upon 
 the + Earth : and it was so. And 
 the + Earth brought forth Grass and 
 Herb yielding seed after his kind, 
 and the Tree yielding Fruit, whose 
 Seed was in itself after his kind : and 
 God saw that it ivas good. And the 
 Evening and the Morning were the 
 third Day. 
 
 And God said, Let there be Lights 
 
 Septuagint Version. 
 
 In the beginning + God created the 
 + Heaven and the + Earth. And the 
 + Earth was without form and void, 
 and Darkness was upon the Face of 
 the +Deep. And the Spirit of God 
 moved upon the Face of the + Wa- 
 ters. And +God said, Let there be 
 Light : and there was Light. And 
 + God saw the + Light, that it was 
 good : and + God divided the + Light 
 from the + Darkness. And + Gor> 
 called the + Light Day and the + Dark- 
 ness he called Night. And the 
 Evening and the Morning were the 
 first Day. 
 
 And + God said, Let there be a 
 Firmament in the midst of the "'"Wa- 
 ters, and let it divide the Waters 
 from the Waters. And + God made 
 tbe + Firmament, and divided the 
 "•"Waters which were under the "'"Fir- 
 mament from the + Water3 which 
 were above the + Firmament : and it 
 was so. And + GoD called the """Fir- 
 mament Heaven. And the Evening 
 and the Morning were the second 
 Day. 
 
 And + God said, Let the + Waters- 
 under the + Heaven be gathered to- 
 gether unto one place, and let the 
 "•"Dry land appear : and it was so. 
 And + Gon called the + Dry land 
 Earth; and the + Gathering-together 
 of the "•" Waters called he Seas : and 
 + Gon saw that it was good. And 
 + God said, Let the "'"Earth bring forth 
 Grass, the Herb yielding Seed, and 
 the Fruit Tree yielding Fruit after 
 his kind, whose + Seed is in itself, upon 
 the + Earth : and it was so. And 
 the + Earth brought forth Grass, and 
 Herb yielding Seed after his kind, 
 and the Tree yielding Fruit, whose 
 "•"Seed teas in itself after his kind : 
 and + God saw that it ivas good. And 
 the Evening and the Morning were 
 the third Day. 
 
 And + Gonsaid, Let there be Lights 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE t 87 
 
 Hebrew Text. Septuagint Version. 
 
 in the Firmament of the + Heaven in the + Firmament of the + Heaven 
 
 to divide the + Day from the + Night ; to divide the + Day from the + Night ; 
 
 and let them be for signs, and for and let them be for signs, and for 
 
 seasons, and for days, and for years : seasons, and for days, and for years : 
 
 and let them be for Lights in the and let them be for Lights in the 
 
 Firmament of the + Heaven to give + Firmament of the +Heaven to give 
 
 light upon the + Earth : and it was light upon the + Earth : and it was 
 
 so. And . God made two + Great so. And + Gon made two + Great 
 
 + Lights; the + Greater + Light to rule +Lights; the + Greater +Lightto rule 
 
 the + Day, and the +Lesser +Light to the + Day, and the +Lesser + Light to 
 
 rule the + Night : he made the + Stars rule the + Night : he made the + Stars 
 
 also. And God set them in the also. And + God set them in the 
 
 Firmament of the + Heaven to give +Firmament of the + Heaven to give 
 
 Light upon the + Earth, and to rule Light upon the + Earth, and to rule 
 
 over the Day and over the Night, over the + Day and over the + Night, 
 
 and to divide the + Light from the and to divide the + Light from the 
 
 + Darkness : and God saw that it was + Darkness : and + God saw thaiit was 
 
 good. And the Evening and the good. And the Evening and the 
 Morning were the fourth Day. " Morning were the fourth Day. 
 
 It appears from these parallel columns, that the only 
 difference between the Hebrew and the Greek use of the 
 article ( + ) lies in the more frequent application of it by the 
 Greek translator ; so far as the article is expressly inserted 
 in the Hebrew text : — if we were to include the article 
 as it is provided for by the vowel points, and by the 
 casus constructus, we should have almost the same in- 
 stances of its use in the Hebrew text as we have in the 
 Greek translation. But waiving this, and taking only the 
 cases of positive insertion, the use of the article in the 
 Hebrew is at least as common in the sacred text as it is in 
 the Greek of Homer. A point, however, of greater im- 
 portance than this is established by the comparison, and 
 that is, the evident employment of the article by the 
 Hebrews as a sign or emphasis. This circumstance 
 will throw light on a passage which, according to Dr. 
 Middleton's theory, remains without any chance of elu- 
 cidation : — JSov, 7) 7rap6svos sv yaarpt e%si, ie Behold, a 
 virgin shall be with child," Matt. i. 23. These words are 
 
88 WHAT IS THE POWER OF 
 
 a close translation of the original phrase in Isaiah, which 
 thus distinguishes " the Virgin" by prefixing the Hebrew 
 article to the name, nppyn, hd-almah. That the Sept. 
 translators " did well in expressing the article," says Dr. 
 Middleton, " may be inferred from its having been re- 
 tained in the subsequent versions of Aquila, Symmachus, 
 and Theodotion, notwithstanding the readiness of the two 
 former at least, on most occasions, to differ from the LXX. 
 Here, indeed, they all three render 17 vsavis." (168.) But 
 what is the conclusion to which Dr. Middleton's theory 
 compels him to come in the face of these admissions ? It 
 is, that " the force of the article in this place can be sought 
 only from the Hebrew of Isaiah, vii. 14;" but what that 
 force is, and how it may be expressed in English, we 
 are not told : we are informed, only, that " the article, in 
 this place as in many other, appeared to our English trans- 
 lators to be without meaning ; accordingly, they render it 
 a virgin." But it is added : " that the article is never 
 without meaning in the Greek, though it may not always 
 be possible in a version adequately to express its force, has 
 already been demonstrated." (168.) Now it is certainly a 
 remarkable circumstance that this force could not even be 
 described, — that to this instance of the use of the Greek 
 article, or of the Hebrew article from which it is derived, 
 Dr. Middleton could find nothing applicable in all the rules 
 he had laid down — that he could imagine no reason which 
 might support a definite sense in this case, as of " The 
 Virgin," though he disapproved of the indefinite which our 
 translators adopted. We are therefore obliged to conclude 
 that it was inexplicable according to Dr. Middleton's theory, 
 and are forced back upon that interpretation which we have 
 found to be uniformly sustained in every other instance, 
 viz., that the article, both in Greek and Hebrew, was in- 
 
THE GREEK ARTICLE? 89 
 
 tended to make the following word emphatic : "a Virgin 
 shall conceive." 
 
 Having freely opposed Dr. Middleton's opinions where- 
 ever we have thought them incorrect, we feel bound in 
 justice to admit, that without his assistance in first clearing 
 the ground, and placing the subject in a distinct point of 
 view, this essay would probably not have been written ; 
 and that, if we have been successful in showing what the 
 Greek article is, it is chiefly because he had previously 
 reduced the question to its narrowest limits, by describing 
 what it ought to be. 
 
 VII. ORIGIN OF THE GREEK ARTICLE. 
 
 In conclusion, we would offer a few words on the origin 
 of the Greek article. For this we must ascend to the 
 earliest ages. Its most ancient form was ros, rrj, to, and 
 as the r (tan) was the only unchangeable element in the 
 word, in that letter its peculiar character must have 
 essentially resided. The name of this letter in Greek is 
 the same as that of the Hebrew word Ifi, than, signum, as 
 in Job, xxxi. 35. : " Behold my sign [so in the margin] 
 is, that the Almighty will answer me." And in Ezek. ix. 
 4. : " Mark a mark upon the foreheads of the men," &c. 
 This letter also is the essential element in nn ath (Chaldee) 
 and rritf oth (Heb.) signum, quod eventurum aliquid por- 
 tendit, vel aliquid in mentem vel memoriam venire facit 
 (Buxtorf), which word is used in Gen. ix. 15. for a mark: 
 " And the Lord set a mark upon Cain." M. Gebelin, the 
 learned author of Le Monde Primitif, informs us that teu is, 
 in the Chinese language, used for a sign to make anything 
 known by. This letter (t) is also the tau of the Egyptians, 
 which, doubled, is the name of Thoth, to whom they 
 attributed the invention of the zodiacal signs, and whose 
 
90 WHAT IS THE POWER OF THE GREEK ARTICLE? 
 
 emblem was a figure called tau $ , combining 1 ' e two 
 letters which compose the Greek article (to). It is pro- 
 bable the Greek article had its source in this letter, or 
 word, or sign. One of the earliest forms of the Greek t 
 was a cross -f , which is still used by us as a mark or sign 
 of any thing to which attention is wished to be drawn ; 
 and so well does this mark answer the purpose of 
 the Greek article, that it might be substituted for it 
 throughout the English version : as, " Moses gave you not 
 that + bread from + heaven ; but my + Father giveth you 
 the + true + bread from + heaven. For the + bread of + God 
 is + he which cometh down from + heaven, and giveth life 
 unto the + world." (John, vi. 32.) But the more 
 natural and consistent way. would be to employ in our. 
 own language those common signs of emphasis which be- 
 long to it as properly as that used by the Greeks belongs 
 to their language ; or, if instead of these, in the English 
 version of the New Testament, an acute accent were placed 
 after those words in English to which in Greek the article is 
 prefixed, and a double acute accent after the emphatic pro- 
 ?wuns i every useful purpose would perhaps be answered. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 London : 
 
 Printed by A. Spottiswoodf., 
 
 New- Street- Square. 
 
• ) 
 

 ~>»:» 
 
 2? v 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 003 000 423 1 
 
 
 
 las 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > r> 
 
 » ^ 
 
 
 zm 
 
 
 V«5 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 .*>>"! 
 
 B 
 
 ► I 
 
 * 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 i»y;> >^0»> > 
 
 
 >.4»^ -S* 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 !S»»> •' 
 
 
 
 >3£a£*S* ->- 
 
 
 
 
 
 im&^> 
 
 i*>>"Sp*3 
 
 eiisa^$sSb j^3p> 
 
 Ta*>:5Ka8i 
 
 ^ ■!» »>j» >:jk»» ;> > 
 
 > -3>^^a 
 
 ■ 
 
 ^fsSs^^v^ 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 m> 
 
 ■^»v>J»>1Pk- 
 
 . c - 5i-.« 
 
 *am*\