LANGUAGE. Finally, the language of the New Testament has certain
especially in the book of Proverbs. It may be either simple (Prov. 14:34, Ps. 30:6); or compound (Isa. 1:3, 19, 20).
c. Synthetic parallelism, also called constructive and epithetic. In it the second member adds something new to the first, or explains it. This may be either correspondent, when the first line corresponds with the third, and the second with the fourth (Ps. 27:1; 35:26, 27); or cumulative, with a cumulation of successive ideas, sometimes leading up to a climax (Ps. 1:1, 2; Isa. 55:6, 7; Heb. 3:17).
d. Introverted or chiastic parallelism, defined as parallelism in reverse order, in which the hemistichs of the members are chiastically arranged (Prov. 23:15, 16; 10:4, 5; 13:24).
5. CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF NEW TESTAMENT LANGUAGE. Finally, the language of the New Testament has certain characteristic features. It is not the pure Greek of the classical period, but Hellenistic Greek, often called the koine, or common language. For a long time the position was maintained that the language of the New Testament was strongly influenced by the Greek of the Septuagint, and through it, by the Hebrew or Aramaic. The correctness of this position was called in question by such scholars as Deissmann, Moulton and Milligan, Robertson, and Goodspeed. Under their influence the opinion prevailed for a while that the Greek of the New Testament contains scarcely any real Hebraisms. Today, however, the pendulum is swinging somewhat in the other direction again. Due to the investigations of C. C. Torrey and his school, the earlier view, which recognized a rather strong influence of Aramaic on the koine of the New Testament, is once more gaining adherents. The issue has not yet been definitely settled, and therefore one can hardly speak with assurance as to the relative importance of various factors in shaping the language of the New Testament.
QUESTIONS: How does the style of the historical differ from that of the prophetical and poetical books? What characteristic differences are there between the style of Mark and Luke? Why is the style of
John called Hebraistic? What characteristic contrasts are there in the writings of John? Which, in the Epistles of Paul?
LITERATURE: Girdlestone, Foundations of the Bible, pp. 89–98; Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, and the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Articles, "Language of the Old Testament"; and "Language of the New Testament"; Simcox, The Writers of the New Testament; Davidson, Old Testament Prophecy, pp. 159–192; Girdlestone, The Grammar of Prophecy; Immer. Hermeneutics, pp. 125–144; Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East; Ibid., Biblical Studies.
E. The Exegetical Standpoint of the Interpreter—The Relation of the Interpreter to the Object of His Study
In distinction from the Church of Rome, the Churches of the Reformation accepted the important principle that every individual has the right to investigate and to interpret the Word of God for himself. It is true, they also held that the Church, in virtue of her potestas doctrinae, was entrusted with the important task of preserving, interpreting, and defending the Word of God, and was qualified for this paramount duty by the Holy Spirit. But they repudiated the idea that any ecclesiastical interpretation is per se infallible and binding on the conscience. The interpretations of the Church have divine authority only insofar as they are in harmony with the teachings of the Bible as a whole. And every individual must judge of this for himself. Protestants deny that God ever constituted the Church, in her appointed organs, as the special interpreter of the divine Word, and maintain the prerogative of every Christian to study and interpret Scripture. They base their position (1) on such passages as Deut. 13:1–3; John 5:39 (if the verb be indicative); and Gal. 1:8, 9; (2) from the fact that God holds every man responsible for his faith and conduct; and (3) from the additional fact that the Scriptures do not address themselves exclusively, nor even primarily, to the office-bearers in the Church, but to the people that constitute the Church of God.
This principle also implies that the attitude of the interpreter to the object of his study must be one of perfect freedom. The Church of Rome restricted this freedom successively (1) by an ecclesiastical translation; (2) by tradition, especially in the form of the consensus omnium patrum; (3) by the decisions of the councils; and (4) by the infallible dicta of the pope. Protestants never accepted such a theory in principle, though in practice they occasionally revealed a tendency to let Dogmatics or Confessional Standards lord it over the interpretation of the Bible. It goes without saying that every interpreter ought to take account of the exegetical labors of former ages that crystallized in the creeds, and should not lightly depart from what became a communis opinio. But he may never permit that which is the fruit of exegesis to become its norm. He cannot, consistently and legitimately, allow the Church to dominate in matters of interpretation.
But though it be true that the interpreter must be perfectly free in his labors, he should not confuse his freedom with licentiousness. He is indeed, free from all external restrictions and authority, but he is not free from the laws inherent in the object of his interpretation. In all his expositions he is bound by that which is written, and has no right to ascribe his thoughts to the authors. This principle is generally recognized today. It is quite different, however, when the position is maintained that the freedom of the interpreter is also limited by the fact that the Bible is the inspired, and therefore self-consistent, Word of God. And yet this principle must be honored by all Reformed interpreters.
QUESTIONS: Who was the first to defend the right of private judgment? How did the Reformers propose to settle differences of interpretation? Has the interpreter, who subscribed to a certain creed, the right to deviate from it in his expositions? To what measures should he resort in case of a conflict between his interpretation of the Bible and the creed?