CHAPTER XXII
FIGURES OF SPEECH ( GORGIEIA SCHMATA)
I. Rhetorical, not Grammatical. Strictly speaking there is no need to go further in the discussion of the points of syntax. There are various matters that the grammars usually discuss because there is no N. T. rhetoric. These points belong to language in general, though in some of them the Greek has turns of its own. Each writer has, besides, his own style of thought and speech. See discussion in chapter IV. Under The Sentence we have a ready discussed the ellipsis (of subject, predicate or copula), matters of concord, apposition, the position of words (emphasis, euphony, rhythm, poetry, prolepsis, u[steron pro,teron, postpositive wards, hyperbaton, order of clauses), simple and compound sentences, connection between words (polysyndeton and asyndeton), connection between clauses and sentences (paratactic and hypotactic) and asyndeton again, running and periodic style, parenthesis, anacoluthon, oratio variata, connection between paragraphs. These matters call for no further comment. They could have been treated at this point, but they seemed rather to belong to the discussion of sentences in a more vital way than the remaining rhetorical figures. For attraction and incorporation see Cases and Relative Pronouns. The points now to be discussed have not so much to do with the orderly arrangement ( su,nqesij)1 as with the expression and the thought.
II. Style in the N. T. The characteristics of the N. T. writers received treatment in chapter IV. The precise question here is whether the writers of the N. T. show any marks of rhetorical study. We have seen already (The Sentence, Rhythm) that the scholars are divided into two camps on this subject. Blass2 $but not Debrunner) argues that Paul's writings and the Epistle to the Hebrews show the influence of the rules of rhythm of the literary prose of Asia (Asianism) and Rome (Pausanias, Cicero,
FIGURES OF SPEECH ( GORGIEIASCHMATA) 1195
Curtius, Apuleius). Deissmann3 will have none of it. It is a pretty quarrel and, as usual, there is truth in both views. One must get his bearings. We can all agree with Blass4 at once that the N.T. writers are not to be compared on this point with the literary masters of Attic prose, but with writers like Polybius. We are surely of to look for the antithetic style of the Attic orators (Isocrates, Lysias, Demosthenes).5 If there is aesthetic beauty in 1 Cor. 13 or Heb. 11, , it may be the natural aesthetic of Homer's rhapsodies, not the artificialities of Isocrates. Blass6 admits the poverty of the Oriental languages in the matter of periods and particles and does not claim that the N. T. writers rose above the O. T. or rose to the level of Plato. And yet Norden in his Antike Kunstprosa claims that in his best diction Paul rises to the height of Plato in the Phaedrus. WilamowitzMollendorff likewise calls Paul "a classic of Hellenism." Sir W. M. Ramsay is a stout advocate for the real Hellenic influence on Paul's life.7 But Ramsay scouts the word "rhetoric" in connection with Paul: "I can hardly imagine that one who had ever experienced the spell of Paul could use the word rhetoric about the two examples which he mentions from First Corinthians, and Romans."8 There was in Paul's time artificial rhetoric with which Paul evilently had no connection, nor did any of the writers of the N. T. One cannot believe that Paul, for instance, studied at one of the famous schools of rhetoric nor that he studied the writings of the current rhetoricians. This much may be freely admitted about all of the N. T. writers, who wrote in the language the people, not of the schools. Deissmann9correctly says: "The history of Christianity, with all its wealth of incident, has been treated much too often as the history of the Christian literary upper class, the history of theologians and ecclesiastics, schools, councils and parties, whereas Christianity itself has often been most truly alive in quarters remote
1196 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
fro councils." This is all pre-eminently true and we must never forget that Jesus was a carpenter, John a fisherman and Paul a tentmaker. And yet Deissmann10 himself will say of John: "St. John has no liking for progress along an unending straight road; he loves the circling flight, like his symbol, the eagle. There is something hovering and brooding about his production; repetitions are in no wise abnormal with him, but the marks of a contemplation which he cherishes as a precious inheritance from St. Paul and further intensifies." There is a perfection of form in the Parables of Jesus that surpasses all the rules of the grammarians and rhetoricians. The eagle flight of John makes the cawing of the syntactical crows pitiful. The passion of Paul broke through all the traditional forms of speech. He lacked the punctilious refinements11 of the Stoic rhetoricians, but he had the cyclonic power of Demosthenes and the elevation of Plato. Even Blass12 sees that "the studied employment of the so-called Gorgian assonances is necessarily foreign to the style of the N. T., all the more because they were comparatively foreign to the whole period; accident, however, of course produces occasional instances of them, and the writer often did not decline to make use of any that suggested themselves." This would seem modest enough to satisfy Deissmann. In particular Blass13 notes "the absence of rhetorical artifice in the Johannine speeches." He finds little of that nature in Mark and Luke. "But in Matthew there really is same artistic sense of style," but it is "mainly drawn from Hebrew and not from Greek." The many quotations in this Gospel show a close use of the LXX and the Hebrew O. T. And yet, on the whole, the Greek runs smoothly enough. Konig has a valuable article on "Style of Scripture" in the Extra Volume of Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, but he deals mainly with the 0. T. There is in truth little that is distinctive in the style of the N.T. apart from the naturalness, simplicity, elevation and pass on of the writers. It is only in the Epistle to the Hebrews that Blass14 finds "the care and dexterity of an artistic writer" as shown by his occasional avoidance of hiatus, but even here Blass has to strain a point to make it stick. Bultmann15 draws a definite parallel between the style of Paul and the Cynic-Stoic
FIGURES OF SPEECH ( GORGIEIASCHMATA) 1197
Diatribe and Makes his point, but even so one wonders if after all Paul uses question and answer so skilfully by reason of definite study of the subject or because of his dialectical training as a rabbi and his native genius in such matters. It is per se, however, entirely possible that Paul knew the common Stoic dialectic also as he did the tenets of current Stoicism (cf. Paul's work in Athens). The examples of figures of speech in the N. T. are due to the nature of speech in general, to the occasional passion16 of the writer, to the play of his fancy, to unconscious expression of genius, to mere accident. We must not make the mistake of rating men like Luke, Paul, James and the author of Hebrews as boorish and unintellectual. They lived in an age of great culture and they were saturated with the noblest ideas that ever filled the human brain. As men of genius they were bound to respond to such a situation. They do show a distinct literary flavour as Heinrici17 has so well shown. In 1 Cor. 13 we have finish of form and thought. Even John, called avgra,mmatoj kai. ivdiw,thj (Ac. 4:13), rose to the highest planes of thought in his Gospel. Deissmann in his St. Paul goes to the extreme of making Paul a mere man of affairs devoid of theological culture, - an untenable position in view of Acts and Paul's Epistles when he says: "His place is with Amos, the herdsman of Tekoa, and Tersteegen, the ribbon-weaver of Mulheim" (p. 6). We may brush aside the artificial rules of Gorgias as too studied efforts for the N. T. Indeed, the men of the time had larger refused to follow the lead of Gorgias of Sicily, though his name clung to the figures of speech. His mannerisms were not free from affectation and pedantry.18 The Attic orators of the fourth century B.C. had their own rules for easy and flexible practical speech. The writers and speakers of the later time modified these in their own way. We are not concerned here to follow Blass19 in his effort to prove that Paul and the writer of Hebrews were students of the current rhetoricians. This we fail to see, but we do see that the language of the N. T. was a living organism and exhibits many of the peculiarities of human speech which the rhetoricians have discussed. For convenience, therefore, we adopt their terminology.
1198 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
III. Figures of Idea or Thought ( sch,mata dianoi,aj). Blass20 observes that these figures of thought belong more to the later peiod of Attic oratory. Some of them are distinctly rhetorical in character, as the rhetorical question of which Paul makes abundant use, especially in the Epistle to the Romans. Blass21 makes a good critique of such questions as showing dialectical liveliness and perspicuity, as in Ro. 3:1 ti, ou=n to. perisso.n tou/ vIoudai,ou;grk grk(4:10) pw/j ou=n evlogi,sqh* evn peritomh|/ o;nti h' evn avkrobusti,a|; This is quite like the diatribe in Epictetus and other koinh, writers (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 182). Cf. 1 Cor. 7:18 ff. Other questions are quite emotional, as in 2 Cor. 11:22. In Ro. 8:31-35 we have a "brilliant oratorical passage," worthy of any orator in the world. There are others almost equal to it, Ro. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11; 1 Cor. 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15; 2 Cor. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13. Here we have oratory of the highest kind with the soul all ablaze with great ideas. The words respond to this high environment and are all aglow with beauty and light. Certainly the Epistle to Hebrews is oratory of the highest order, as are the addresses in Acts. Blass22 thinks that Luke is distinctly "unprofessional (idiotisch)" in his manner of presenting the great speeches in Acts, ivdiwtikh. fra,sij, not tecnikh. fra,sij. That is true, but one would have a martinet spirit to cavil at the word eloquence here. The discourses of Jesus in Matthew, Luke and John are above all praise in content and spirit. One cannot think that Jesus was a technical student of rhetoric, but he sang with the woodrobin's note, and that far surpasses the highest achievement of the best trained voice whose highest praise is that she approaches the woodrobin or the nightingale. There is perfection of form in the thoughts of Jesus whether we turn to the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, the Parables in Luke 15, , or the Discourses in the Upper Room and On the Way to Gethsemane in John 14-17. The style of the reporters does not conceal the consummate skill of Christ as the "Master Preacher" of the ages.
There is undoubted use of irony ( eivrwnei,a) in the N. T. We see it in the words of Jesus. See the high scorn in kai. u`mei/j plhrw,sate to. me,tron tw/n pate,rwn u`mw/n (Mt. 23:32). This is the correct text, not plhrw,sete. So also kalw/j avqetei/te th.n evntolh.n tou/ qeou/ (Mk. 7:9) and o[ti ouvk evnde,cetai profh,thn avpole,sqai e;xw vIerousalh,m (Lu. 13:33).
FIGURES OF SPEECH ( GORGIEIASCHMATA) 1199
There is more of it in Paul's writings. Cf. 1 Cor. 4: 8; 2 Cor. 11:19 f.; 12:13; Ro. 11:20. There was never a more nimble mind than that of Paul, and he knew how to adapt himself to every mood of his readers or hearers without any sacrifice of principle. It was no declaimer's tricks, but love for the souls of men that made him become all things to all men (1 Cor. 9:22). He could change his tone because he loved the Galatians even when they had been led astray (Gal. 4:20). The rhetoricians call it prodiorthosis, as in 2 Cor. 11:21, evn avfrosu,nh| le,gw (cf. also 11: 1f., 16 f., 23) and epidiorthosis as in Ro. 3:5, kata. a;nqrwpon le,gw. Cf. also 1 Cor. 7:6; 12:11; Ro. 8:34; Gal. 4:9. So Paul uses paraleipsis, as 2 Cor. 9:4, mh, pwj kataiscunqw/men h`mei/jà i[na mh. le,gwmen u`mei/j, instead of mh, pote kataiscunqh/te. As Blass23 suggests, Paul's innate celicacy of feeling makes him take the reproach on himself. Cf. also Phil. 1:19, i[na mh. le,gw o[ti kai. seauto,n moi prosoÄ fei,leij. So in Ro. 7:4 Paul says kai. u`mei/j evqanatw,qhte tw|/ no,mw| frather than bluntly assert kai. o` no,moj avpe,qanen (or evqanatw,qh). There is sometimes
V. Figures of Expression ( sch,mata le,xewj). What Winer24 calls "Broken and Heterogeneous Structure" (anacoluthon, oratio varicaata) has had sufficient discussion under The Sentence. So as to asyndeton. There remain a number of other points which may be grouped for convenience.
(a) PARALLELS AND CONTRASTS (Parallelismus membrorum). There are many illustrations of this idiom in the N. T., both in the Gospels and, Epistles. The O. T. is full of such words and phrases, particularly in the Psalms. One who read these hymns much would naturally have his eye and ear trained to this form of rhythm. We do not need to see conscious effort at poetry, though in 1 Tin. 3:16 we probably have a fragment of an early Christian hymn. The Hebrew parallelism is manifest in Lu. 1: 42-45 (the song of Elizabeth), 46-56 (the song of Mary), and 68-79 (the son, of Zacharias), 2 : 29-32 (the song of Simeon). One does not have to go to the Greek rhetoricians. The spirit of rhapsody here shown is due to the Spirit of God moving the heart and stirring the highest impulses of the soul. There are other examples of primitive Christian song in the N. T., as in Eph. 5:
1200 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
14; Jude 1:24 f.; Rev. 5:12-14, and often in this book. There is the perfection of poetic form in the noble prose in 1 Cor. 13; 15: 54-7; Col. 1:10-12. One hesitates to think that this use of antithesis or parallelism is artificial even if it is conscious. This parallelism may be synonymous (Mt. 10:26; Jo. 1:17; Ro. 11:33) or antithetic (Jo. 3:6; Ro. 2:7).25 There are also examples of Chiasm or Reverted Parallelism (from the letter X) as in Philemon 5, <, th.n avga,phn kai. th.n pi,stin ha}n e;ceij eivj to.n ku,rion vIhsou/n kai. eivj pa,ntaj tou.j a`gi,ouj. So Mt. 7:6; Ph. 1:15 f.; 1 Th. 5:6; Ph. 3:10.26 I doubt very much if Paul was at all conscious of the stilted parallelism that Blass27 sees in 1 Cor. 1:25 with anaphora (the first words alike) as in ouv polloi,ÄÄouv poloi,, or antistrophe (the last words alike) as in tou/ qeou/- tou/ qeou/ÄÄtw/n avnqrw,pwn- tw/n avnqrw,pwn, or symploce (both alike) as in evxele,xato o` qeo.j i[na kataiscu,nh|Ã evxele,xato o` qeo.j i[na kataiscu,nh|. Cf. Heb. 2:16. The manuscripts vary a deal in 1 Cor. 1:25 ff., and Blass has to juggle the text in order to make it come out in "rounded periods of three sections." What if this finesse was praised by dilettante rhetoricians when they found it in Demosthenes or Cicero? Surely Paul was not a "stylist" of the fashion of Cicero nor even of Demosthenes. Perhaps no orator "would have regarded the eloquence of this passage with other feelings than those of the highest admiration." Doubtless so, but for the passion and force, not for the mere word-play. Just so the three poetical quotations (Ac. 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Tit. 1:12) do not justify straining after accidental lines in Ac. 23:5; Jas. 1:17; Heb. 12:12 f., or elsewhere. Blass28 is so fond of finding poetic parallelism in the Gospels that he actually makes it tilt the scales against the best manuscripts in some passages as in Mt. 5:45; 7:13 f.; 25:35. This seems much like eisegesis.
(b) CONTRASTS IN WORDS. There is the solemn repetition of a word with powerful effect (the epanadiplosis of the rhetoricians), but Blass does not claim this as a rhetorical device in the N. T. It is natural to strong emotion. Cf. evpista,ta evpista,ta (Lu. 8:24); ku,rie ku,rie (Mt. 25:11); stau,rwson stau,rwson (Jo. 19:6); Rev. 18:2, e;pesen e;pesen. See Ph. 3:2. Cf. also the two hours of shouting in Ac. 19:34. Climax is as old as Homer. This is again a perfectly natural method of emphasis. Cf. the links in the list of virtues in 2 Pet. 1:5-7. See also Ro. 5:3-5; 10:14. There is a cumulative force in the repetition. Per contra, zeugma puts together
FIGURES OF SPEECH ( GORGIEIASCHMATA) 1201
words that do not properly go together, as in 1 Cor. 3:2, ga,la u`ma/j evpo,tisaà ouv brw/ma) So also Lu. 1:64, avnew|,cqh to. sto,ma auvtou/ paracrh/ma kai. h` glw/ssa auvtou/. Cf. 1 Tim. 4:3. This construction is usually explained as elliptical, one verb (as above) being used where two are necessary for the full statement. KuhnerGerth29 treat it as a species of brachylogy. The use of synonyms is not absent in the N. T., though not in the richness of the classic idiom. Cf. Lu. 8:15, evn kardi,a| kalh|/ kai. avgaqh|/, and the use of avgaÄ pa,w and file,w side by side in Jo. 21:15-17 where Peter makes a point of using file,w. See chapter on Formation of Words.30 The play on words takes many turns. The onomatopoetic words like goggu,zw (cf. our "murmur ") are very simple. Cf. Jo. 6:41. Examples of initial alliteration occur, like ponhri,a|à pleonexi,a| (Ro. 1: 29); u`brista,jà u`perhfa,noujgrk grk(1:30); avpeiqei/jà avsune,toujà avsunqe,toujà avsto,rgoujà avneleh,monajgrk grk(1:30 f.). It is hard to tell whether this is conscious or unconscious. There are also instances of paronomasia and annominatio. Paronomasia is rather loosely applied in the books. Winer31 uses it only for words of similar sound, while Blass32 confines it to the recurrence of the same word or wordstem, like kakou.j kakw/j (Mt. 21:41); evn panti. pa,ntote pa/san (2 Cor. 9:8); o` no,moj nomi,mwj (1 Tim. 1:8), and uses parechesis for different words of similar sound, like limoi. kai. loimoi, (Lu. 21:11); e;maqen avf v w=n e;paqen (Heb. 5:8); fqo,nou fo,nou Ro. 1:29); avsune,touj avsunÄ qe,toujgrk grk(1:31). See also 2 Cor. 10:12; Ro. 11:17. The point is a fine one and need not be pressed. But annominatio deals with the sense as well as the sound. Thus Pe,troj and pe,tra in Mt. 16:18; ginw,skeij aa} avnaginw,skeij (Ac. 8:30); u`perfronei/n- fronei/n ÄÄswfronei/n (Ro. 12:3); mhde.n evrgazome,noujà avlla. periergazome,nouj (2 Th. 3:11). Cf. also Mt. 27:9; Lu. 9:60; Ac. 23 :3; 2 Cor. 3:2; 1 Cor. 11:29 ff.; Ph. 3:2 f.; 2 Cor. 4:8 f.; Ro. 1:20; 5: 19; 12:15; Eph. 4:1. Even so there is a certain amount of overlapping in the two figures. The ancients did not smile because a pun was made. It was merely a neat turn of speech and was very common. So Jesus says to Thomas, mh. gi,nou a;pistoj avlla. pisto,j (Jo. 20:27).
(c) CONTRACTION AND EXPANSION. It is difficult to draw lines between groups among these figures of speech. Zeugma, as we have seen, can very well come in here as a sort of ellipsis. The ellipsis of subject or predicate came up for discussion under
1202 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
The Sentence. But a few more words are needed here. Cf. pisto.j o` qeo,j (2 Cor. 1:18); o` ku,rioj evggu,j (Ph. 4:5) as samples of the absence of the copula. So Jo. 14 : 11; Ac. 19 :28, 34; 2 Cor. 11:6. It is not always clear what verb is to be supplied, though eivm, and gi,nomai are the most common. Cf. fwnh. pa,lin evk deute,rou pro.j auvto,nà Ac. 10:15; ouvk evn lo,gw| h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/à avll v evn duna,mei, 1 Cor. 4:20. Cf. Jo. 21:21; 1 Cor. 5:12. Usually the context makes clear what verb is wanting, as in Mt. 27:25; Ac. 18:6; Ro. 4:9; 5:18; 2 Cor. 9:7; Gal. 2:9; Rev. 1:4. In 2 Cor. 8:15 the participle e;cwn must be supplied with o` according to a common Greek idiom. Cf. also Ro. 13:7, tw|/ to.n fo,ron, where Winer33 supplies avpodido,nai keleu,onti. Cf. also 1 Cor. 4: 6. It is easy to supply o` qeo,j in passages like Heb. 1:7 le, geià 4:3 ei;rhke. The context supplies the noun in a case like Ac. 21:31, zhtou,twn te auvto.n avpoktei/nai. Cf. Jo. 20:2, h=ran to. ku,rion ('people took away'). In Ac. 21:16, sunh/lqon kai. tw/n maqhÄ tw/n, supply tine,j as in Lu. 11:49, tina,j. Many verbs are considered clear enough without the object. So dia,gw (sc. bi,on) in Tit. 3:3; prose,cw (sc. nou/n) in Lu. 17:3, evpe,cw in 14:7, evne,cw (sc. co,lon) in Mk. 6:19; sumba,llw (sc. lo,gouj) as in Ac. 4:15 (cf. Lu. 24:17, avntiba,llete with object); sullamba,nw in Lu. 1:31. It is unnecessary (see Adjectives) to recount again the many instances of the adjective without a substantive where the gender and number and context make it clear. A few common examples suffice. For the absence of h`me,ra note th|/ tri,th| (Lu. 13:32); h` au;rion (Mt. 6:34); th/j sh,meron (Mt. 27:8); th|/ evcome,nh| (Lu. 13:33); th|/ evpiou,sh| (Ac. 16:11); h` e`xh/jgrk grk(21:1); th|/ e`te,ra| (Ac. 20:15). Gh/ is easily supplied in Mt. 23:15, h` xhra,, and in Heb. 11:26, evn Aivgu,pÄ tou) Supply glw/ssa in Rev. 9:11, evn th|/ `Ellhnikh|/. So with o`do,j in Lu. 5:19, poi,aj; 19:4, evkei,nhj. We miss i`ma,tion in Jo. 20:12, evn leukoi/j, and u[dwr in Mt. 10:42, yucro,n. So with cei,r in Mt. 6: 3, h` dexia,à h` avristera, and cw,ra in Lu. 17:24, evk th/j - eivj th,n. Much more serious is the ellipsis in Mt. 26:5, and Gal. 5:13, where the context must supply both verb and subject. Cf. also ouvc o[ti ÄÄÄ avll v in Jo. 7:22. In a case like 2 Th. 2:3 f., o[ti eva,n- o[tià there is no apodosis expressed. These are but samples of the ellipses common to Greek (cf. eiv de. mh,) as to all languages more or less. It is not worth while to try to bring under this rhetorical figure all the lapses and turns of style in each writer. Cf. the absence of the verb with i[na in 1 Cor. 1:31, with to. mh, in 4:6, with e[n de, in Ph. 3:13, with tou/to de, in 2 Cor. 9:6, with i[na
FIGURES OF SPEECH ( GORGIEIASCHMATA) 1203
again in Gal. 2: 9. Cf. also Mk. 14:29; 1 Cor. 10:24; 2 Cor. 5:13.
Aposiopesis stands to itself since it is a conscious suppression of part of a sentence under the influence of a strong emotion like anger, fear, pity. Curiously enough Blass,34 who sees so many rhetorical tropes in the N. T., denies that any instances of aposiopesis occur in the N. T. I do not consider his objections well founded. We may dismiss Mk.7:11 and Lu. 22:42 because of the true text (see W. H.), and need not quibble over o[ra mh, in. Rev. 22:9. We may agree with Winer35 that we have simply anacolutha in 2 Th. 2:3 ff. But we have left others like Mk. 11:32, avlla. ei;pwmen\ evx avnqrw,pwn*ÄÄevfobou/nto to.n o;clon. See also Lu. 13:9, ka'n me.n poih,sh| karpo,n eivj to. me,llon- eiv de, mh,geà evkko,yeij auth,n) So again 19:42, eiv e;gnwj kai. su,) So Jo. 6:62, eva.n ou-n qewrh/te to.n ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw,pou avnabai,nonta o[pou h=n to. pro,teron; Then again Ac. 23:9, eiv de. pneu/ma evla,lhsen auvtw|/ h' a;ggelojÄÄ. It is possible to regard Ro. 7:24 as aposiopesis. What differentiates these passages from ellipses or abbreviations of other clauses (cf. Mt. 25: 14; Mk. 13:34; 2 Cor. 3:13) is the passion. One can almost see the gesture and the flash of the eye in aposiopesis.
We need not follow minutely the various sorts of breviloquence or brachylogy that are possible. Thought moves more rapidly than expression and the words often crowd together in a compressed way that may be not only terse, but at first obscure. A good illustration occurs in Mt. 9:6, i[na de. eivdh/te o[ti evxousi,an e;cei o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou evpi. th/j gh/j avfie,nai a`marti,aj- to,te le,gei tw|/ paraÄlutikw|/ ;Egeire a=ro,n sou th.n kli,nhnà ktl. Here the Evangelist has inserted to,te le,gei tw|/ par. before the conclusion to make it clearer. The same thing is done in the parallel passages in Mk. 2:10; Lu. 5:24 (an incidental argument for a common document for this paragraph). Cf. also Mk. 14:49, avll v i[na plhrwqw/sin ai` grafai,. So Jo. 13:18; 15:25. Cf. Ac. 1:1, where h;rxato implies kai. dieÄ te,lei before poiei/n te kai. dida,skein a;cri h-j h`me,rajà ktl. See a similar use of avrxa,menoj in Mt. 20:8, Lu. 23:5. A case like Lu. 24:47, avrxa,menoi, amounts to anacoluthon or the use of the participle as a principal verb. Cf. also kaqari,zwn in Mk. 7:19. Various examples of ellipsis-like zeugma are also instances of brachylogy. No clear line of distinction appears. So in comparisons we sometimes have to fill out the sense. Cf. Rev. 13:11, ei=ce ke,rata du,o o[moia avrni,w|, i.e. ke,rasin avrni,ou. Cf. 1 Jo. 3:11 f.; 2 Pet. 2:1. Other instances of brachylogy may be seen in Lu. 4:26 f.; Jo.
1204 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
5:36; 15:11; Ac. 27:22; Gal. 2:16. The so-called constructio praegnans belongs here also. Cf. 2 Tim. 4:18, sw,sei eivj th.n basilei,an, though eivj of itself does not mean 'into.' But note diaÄ sw,swsi pro.j Fh,lika (Ac. 23:24) where the notion is that of taking to Felix and so saving Paul. Cf. also evka,qhto para. th.n o`do,n (Mk. 10:46). See also Lu. 11:13 o` path.r o` evx ouvranou/, (Col. 4:16) th.n evk Laodiki,aj. Blass36 distinguishes brachylogy from ellipsis in that brachylogy affects the thought rather than the grammatical form, but both ideas are usually present. Cf. Ro. 11:18. It would be wearisome to endeavour to put a name or tag upon every structure that seems defective from the standpoint of formal grammar or rhetoric. "It will be seen that many of them are due to that agility and acuteness of the Greek intellect which enables the Hellene or Hellenist readily to sacrifice the grammar of a sentence to its logic, or in other words its form to its meaning. Hence arose the many forms of the sense-figure ( sch/ma pro.j to. shmaino,menon, constructio ad sensum)."37 We have seen illustrations of this construction kata. su,nesin under Concord (The Sentence) and only a few further are called for here. Indeed, this section is largely an illustration of this principle. In Jo. 15:6 auvta, refers to to. klh/ma; in Ac. 17:16 auvtou/ points to Christ, who has not been mentioned; in 7: 24, to.n Aivgu,ption, though no Egyptian had been mentioned; in 1 Cor. 7:36, gamei,twsan, the subject being drawn from the context (the two young people). Winer38 was glad to note a decline in emphasis on these overrefinements in his day. These supposed abnormalities were called hypallage. From the present standpoint Winer himself yielded entirely too much to the very thing that he condemned. What is the use in figuring out the various ways that Paul could have expressed himself in 2 Cor. 3:7, for instance? The papyri have taught us to be chary about charging John with being ungrammatical in plh,rhj ca,ritoj (Jo. 1:14). These matters simply show that the N. T. writers used a live language and were not automata.39 It is doubtless true that no other writer used repetition of word and phrase as did the author of the Fourth Gospel, but no one will deny that he did it with consummate skill and marvellous vividness and dramatic power.40
FIGURES OF SPEECH ( GORGIEIASCHMATA) 1205
There are many instances of pleonasm in the N. T. as in all vernacular speech. It is of many sorts. The same word may be repeated for clearness as in u`ma/j - u`ma/j (Col. 2:13); spou,dason- tace,wj (2 Tim. 4:9). This redundancy is usually due to the custom of the language with no thought of the repetition,41 as in h-j ÄÄauvth/j (Mk. 7:25); perissote,rwj ma/llon (2 Cor. 7:13); ovu - mh, (Ac. 20:20, 27); evkto.j eiv mh, (1 Cor. 15:2); avpekri,qh le,gwn (Mk. 15:9); avna,sthqi kai. poreu,ou (Ac. 8:26); tw|/ oivkodespo,th| th/j oivki,aj like our "church-house" (Lu. 22:11); e;peita meta. tou/to (Jo. 11:7); prodramw/n e;mprosqen (Lu. 19:4); evxa,gein e;xw Rec. Rec.(24:50); o[rkw| w;mosen (Ac. 2:30); avrnou,menoj o[ti ouvk e;stin (1 Jo. 2:22); pa,lin evk deute,rou (Ac. 10:15), etc. Cf. also the cognate accusative. Redundances like these examples are not linguistic vices. They seem pleonastic to the technical student who is unwilling to allow for the growth of the language. Emphatic words have the constant tendency to become less so and to need re-enforcement. This love of emphasis in the N. T. is natural to conversation and to a certain extent has the Oriental richness and wealth of colour.42 We see the same thing in. the O. T. and in the papyri letters. It is a sign of life and in particular life in the East. These vivid details give life and beauty to the picture. Cf. evktei,naj th.n cei/ra (Mt. 26:51); e;rcetai vIhsou/j kai. lamba,nei (Jo. 21:13); gra,yantej dia. ceiro.j auvtw/n (Ac. 15:23); w`molo,ghse kai. ouvk hvrnh,sato (Jo. 1:20). Epexegetical clauses arc common. Cf. th.n logikh.n latrei,an u`mw/n (Ro. 12:1), in apposition with the infinitive clause, parasth/saià ktl. So 1 Cor. 7:26, o[ti kalo.n avnqrw,pw|, as an expansion of tou/to kalo.n u`pa,rcein. In Jo. 7:35 o[ti is probably causal.
We meet hyperbole in Jo. 21:25, ouvd v auvto.n oi=mai to.n ko,smon cwrh,sein ta. grafo,mena bibli,a. Cf. also Mt. 13:32. Litotes is common enough, as in Ac. 1:5, ouv meta. polla.j tau,taj h`me,raj; 14: 28, cro,non ouvk ovli,gon. See also 15:2; 19:11, 23 f.; 21:39; 27: 14, 20; 28:2. Meiosis is, of course, only a species of hyperbole by understatement. Cf. Paul's use43 of it in 1 Th. 2:15; 2 Th. 3:2, 7. We may put together two remarks of Milligan.44 "St. Paul had evidently not the pen of a ready writer, and when he had once found an expression suited to his purpose found it very difficult to vary it." "St. Paul had evidently that highest gift of a great writer, the instinctive feeling for the right word, and even when writing, as he does here, in his most 'normal
1206 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
style, and with an almost complete absence of the rhetorical figures, so largely practised in his day, he does not hesitate to avail himself of the more popular methods of adding point or emphasis to what he wants to say." There is no necessary inconsistency in these two statements. Add another from Milligan45 which will help to reconcile them. "We readily recognise that the arresting charm of the Apostle's style is principally due to 'the man behind,' and that the highest form of all eloquence, 'the rhetoric of the heart,' is speaking to us." So it is with all the N. T. writers more or less. They are men of genius, of varying degrees of culture, and men of love for Christ and man. Language with these men is not an end in itself. They do not say "pretty" things and toy with them. As the words of Jesus are spirit and life, for they throb and pulse to-day (Jo. 6:63), so the Letters of Paul are barei/ai kai. ivscurai,, as even his enemies admit (2 Cor. 10: 10). The Judaizers at Corinth did not discuss the rhetorical niceties of these Letters. They felt the power of the ideas in them even when they resisted Paul's authority. Paul used tropes,46 but he smote hearts with them and did not merely tickle the fancy of the lovers of sophistry.47 Paul denied that he spoke evn piqoi/j sofi,aj lo,goij, though his words seem to the lover of Christ to be full of the highest appeal to the soul of man. One must discount this disclaimer not merely by Paul's natural modesty, but by contrast with the Corinthian's conception of piqo,j. They loved the rhetorical flights of the artificial orators of the time.
(d) METAPHORS AND SIMILAR TROPES. We need not tarry over antiphrasis, ambiguity, hendiadys, hypokorisma, oxymoron, periphrasis, polyptoton, syllepsis, and the hundred and one distinctions in verbal anatomy. Most of it is the rattle of dry bones and the joy of dissection is gone. We may pause over Metaphor ( metafora,%, since little progress could be made in speech without the picture of the literal and physical carried over to the moral and spiritual as in o` poimh,n o` kalo,j (Jo. 10:11). Cf. the greatest metaphor in the N. T., Paul's use of sw/ma for the church (Eph. 1:22 f.). The Simile is just a bit more formal, as is seen in the use of o[moioj in Mt. 13:52, pa/j grammateu.j o[moio,j evstin avnqrw,pw| oivkodespo,th|. Parables are but special forms of the metaphor or simile and form the most characteristic feature of the teaching of Jesus in so far as form is concerned. The parable ( parabolh,%
FIGURES OF SPEECH ( GORGIEIASCHMATA) 1207
draws a comparison between the natural and the moral or implies it. It may be a crisp proverb (Lu. 4:23) or a narrative illustration of much length, as in the Sower (Mt. 13). The Allegory ( avllhgori,a) is a parable of a special sort that calls for no explanation, a speaking parable (cf. the Good Shepherd in Jo. 10 and the Prodigal Son in Lu. 15). Metonymy ( metwnumi,a) and Synecdoche ( sunekdoch,) are so much matters of exegesis that they must be passed by without further comment.
It is certain that no words known to man are comparable in value with those contained in the N. T. Despite all the variety of diction on the part of the reporters, probably partly because of this very fact, the words of Jesus still fascinate the mind and win men to God as of old. Kai. evge,neto o[te evte,lesen o` vIhsou/j tou.j lo,gouj tou,toujà evxeplh,ssonto oi` o;cloi evpi. th|/ didach|/ auvtou/\ h=n ga.r dida,skwn auvtou.j w`j evxousi,an e;cwn kai. ouvc w`j oi` grammatei/j auvtw/n 7:28 f.). It is the constant peril of scribes and grammarians48 to strain out the gnat and to swallow the camel. I may have fallen a victim, like the rest, but at least I may be permitted to say at the end of the long road which I have travelled for so many years, that I joyfully recognise that grammar is nothing unless it reveals the thought and emotion hidden in language. It is just because Jesus is greater than Socrates and Plato and all the Greek thinkers and poets that we care so much what Luke and Paul and John have to tell about him. Plato and Xenophon hold us because of their own message as well as because they are the interpreters of Socrates. It matters not if Jesus spoke chiefly in the Aramaic. The spirit and heart of his message are enshrined in the Greek of the N. T. and interpreted for us in living speech by men of the people whose very diction is now speaking to us again from the rubbish-heaps of Egypt. The papyri and the ostraca tell the story of struggle on the part of the very class of people who first responded to the appeal of Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 1: 26 ff.). Christianity is not buried in a book. It existed before the N. T. was written. It made the N. T. It is just because Christianity is of the great democracy that it is able to make universal appeal to all ages and all lands and all classes. The chief treasure of the Greek tongue is the N. T. No toil is too great if by means of it men are enabled to understand more exactly the
1208 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
mind of Christ. If one is disposed to think less of the N. T. because it stands in the vernacular koinh,, let him remember that the speech of these Christians was rich beyond measure, since out of it came the words of Jesus. These were carried in the common tradition of the period and written down from time to time (Lu. 1:1-4). Paul was not a rhetorician, though a man of culture, but he cared much for the talk of the Christians that it should be worthy. `O lo,goj u`mw/n pa,ntote evn ca,riti a[lati hvrtume,nojà eivde,nai pw/j dei/ u`ma/j e`ni. e`ka,stw| avpokri,nesqai (Col. 4:6). That was good advice for the Colossians and for all speakers and writers, grammarians included, and makes a fitting bon mot to leave with the rhetoricians who might care to quibble further over niceties of language.
Tau/ta mele,taà evn tou,toij i;sqi)
1 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 295.
2 Die Rhythmen der asianischen and romischen Kunstprosa, 1905.
3 Theol. Lit., 1906, p. 434; The Expositor, 1908, p. 74. See also his St. Paul (1912).
4 Hermeneutik und Kritik, 1S02, p. 198. The true grammarian is but too willing to see the ether point of view. Cf. Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 266.
5 Hahne, Zur sprachl. Asthetik der Griech., 1896, p. 4.
6 Hermeneutik und Kritik, p. 19S.
7 Cf. the controversy between him and Principal Garvie in The Expositor for 1911 anent Garvie's book, Studies of Paul and His Gospel (1911).
8 The Expositor, Aug., 1911, p. 157.
9 Light from the Ancient East, p. 404.
10 Light from the Anc. East, p. 410.
11 J. Weiss, Beitr. zur paulinischen Rhetorik, 1897, p. 168.
12 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 298.
13 Ib., p. 302.
14 Ib., p. 296.
15 Der Stil der paulinische Predigt and die kynisch-stoische Diatribe, 1910.
16 Norden (Die ant. Kunstprosa, Bd. II, p. 508) speaks of Paul's use of rhetorical figures as die to his "Ton." Heinrici (Zum Hellen. d. Paulus, Komm. zu II Kor.) sees Paul's "Eigenart."
17 Der literarische Charakter d. neut. Schriften, 1908.
18 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 295.
19 Die Rhythmen der asianischen and romischen Kunstprosa, 1905.
20 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 304.
21 Ib. The "Terminology of Grammar" is not fixed like the laws of the Medes and Persians. Cf. Rep. of the Joint Com. on Gr. Terminol., 1911.
22 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 305.
23 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 304.
24 W.-Th., p. 566.
25 W.-Th., p. 639.
26 Green, Handb. to N. T. Gk., p. 355.
27 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 300 f.
28 Ib., p. 302.
29 I II, p. 570.
30 Cf. Trench, N. T. Synonyms; Heine, Synonymik d. neut. Griech.
31 W.-Th., p. 636.
32 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 298.
33 W.-Th., p. 590.
34 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 294.
35 W.-Th., p. 600.
36 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 294.
37 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 202.
38 W.-Th., p. 634.
39 Cf. Emil Heinrich, Die sogenannte polare Ausdrucksweise im Griech., 1899, p. 26.
40 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 401-465.
41 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 295.
42 Cf. A. J. Wilson, Emphasis in the N. T., Jour. of Theol. Stu., VIII, pp. 75
43 Milligan, Comm. on. Thess. Epistles, p. lvii.
44 Ib., p. lvi f.
45 Comm. on Thess. Epistles, p. lvi f.
46 Cf. Heinrici, Zum Hellen. des Paulus, Komm. zu 2 Igor.
48 Gildersl. is scornful of those who fear "that anthropology is going to invade the sacrosanct realm of syntax, which belongs, strictly speaking, to the microtomists and statisticians - otherwise known as Dead Sea Apes." Am. Jour. of Philol., 1907, p. 235.