Καὶ ἅπαξ ϰαὶ δίς

ΚαὶἅπαξϰαὶδίςAuthor(s): Leon MorrisSource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 1, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1956), pp. 205-208Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560288 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 12:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.72.154 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:54:06 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560288?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


KAI AIIAE KAI AIS

BY

LEON MORRIS

This expression occurs twice in the New Testament, namely in Phil. iv I6; I Th. ii I8, and in exactly this form it is found nowhere else (except in a variant reading in Ne. xiii 20. The true reading is 7ocIx xocL 8ic). Without the first xacL it occurs in the LXX of Dt. iv I3; I K. xvii 39; Ne. xiii 20; I Macc. iii 30, and in I Clement liii 3, quoting the Deuteronomy passage. The expression does not appear to be classical, although we might notice a rather similar idiom in xcxl 8S xol TpiS (PLAT., Phaed. 63D, 63E, Gorg. 498E).

I am indebted to Mr. GODFREY TANNER of the Classics De-

partment of the University of Melbourne for the information that the expression is not classical, and for the interesting suggestion that it may possibly be a Latinism, for it would be the literal translation of the very common phrase semel iterumque. He points out that examples occur of Greek with a definite Latin tinge (as the Monumentum Ancyranum), that Latinisms are to be found in the New Testament, that Paul was a Roman citizen and probably knew Latin, that Greek was not his native tongue and thus he might transfer a Roman idiom to that language (as an English- man returning from Rome might in Paris slip into a literal rendering of an Italian idiom into French).

There seems little reason to doubt that Paul knew Latin, and he may even have used it on occasion 1). But this is not to say that his style contained marked Latinisms. A. T. ROBERTSON lists thirty-one Latin words taken over into the Greek New Testa- ment 2), but of these we find in the Pauline corpus only OpLoqpeuito (Col. ii 15; 2 Cor. ii I4), pzxs?XXov (I Cor. x 25), [z[Leppvaoc (2 Tim. iv

I3), rpocLTdplov (Phil. i I3), (pX6vqS (2 Tim. iv I3), and cp6poq (Ro. xiii 6, 7). This is not a very impressive list, and might be even further diminished, for cppoS seems to be derived from cpepco and not

1) See A. T. ROBERTSON, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. IIo, n. 5.

2) Op. cit., p. I09.



206 L. MORRIS

to be a genuine Latinism, while I question whether OpLOapeu3o derives from the Latin. LIDDELL and SCOTT maintain that the reverse is the case, suggesting that the Latin triumphus is bor- rowed from the Greek Opcatppos through Etruscan 1). idaixXXov is genuine Greek, and probably the source of the corresponding Latin term 2). This leaves us with two examples in the Pastorals, and one in all the rest of the Pauline epistles.

Nor are we in any better case when we turn to the taking over of Latin constructions. C. F. D. MOULE in his Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, p. I92 lists fifteen passages of "idioms which are familiar in Latin but alien to Greek" (like 86os pyacaocv --da operam), but not one of them occurs in Paul.

Paul's Greek, though at times more forceful than grammatically correct, is idiomatic, and not markedly coloured by words and expressions drawn from other languages. His habitual freedom from Latin influence makes it unlikely that he is using a Latinism here. The most that we can allow to the idea of a Latinism is that the apostle was probably not unaware of the Latin expression, and this would have made it easier from him to accept the corresponding Greek.

This is all the more likely in that we find the expression (minus the initial xoa) in the LXX. Only once, in Ne. xiii 20, is there an underlying Hebrew expression, namely 1h3i nQ_, the meaning of which, according to the Oxford Lexicon (and the RV), is "once or twice". The reference is to traders lodging near the gates of the city on the sabbath, and RV seems to give the sense of it. The expression is indefinite 3), but it does not convey the impression of a large number of occasions.

Since the Greek aocra xxt 6qc, is the translation of this Hebrew it must have a similar meaning. Some authorities suggest "repeatedly" as its significance 4), but the improbability of the energetic Nehemiah permitting the practice to continue for any length of time makes such a rendering rather too strong. Perhaps "more than once" is as near as we can get to it in English.

1) So BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 5.5; TWNT sub voce. 2) Cf. TWNT iv, p. 373. 3) So most agree, but Prof. M. D. GOLDMAN tells me that he thinks it

means "twice". 4) So FRAME (I. C. C.) and NEIL (Moffatt Commentary) on I Th. ii I8.

BAUER'S lexicon and STAHLIN in TWNT sub voce accept "wiederholt".



KAI AIIAE KAI AIS

More or less the same remarks would apply to the use of the expression in I K. xvii 39, where the stripling David tries to move clad in Saul's armour. Again "repeatedly" seems a trifle strong, and "more than once" is the sense of it.

In Dt. ix 13 "And the Lord spoke to me, saying, I have spoken to thee &arcx xoaL 8S "the meaning "repeatedly" would be very much in place. But here, too, "more than once" would fit the context, and there seems no reason to disturb the conclusion to which the previous examples have pointed us. The quotation of this verse in I Clement liii 3 sheds no additional light on the meaning of the expression.

In all of these passages the expression is indefinite and can hardly mean "twice". It is simply a way of denoting a plurality of occasions, with no attempt at exact specification. It may be twice, or it may be more. The expression does not say.

The final passage is I Macc. iii 30, where RV renders "as at other times", the full passage reading "and he feared that he should not have enough as at other times for the charges and gifts". The expression here seems to have a slightly different meaning from the other passages, but the basic idea of a plurality of occasions with no attempt at exact specification seems to remain.

It may be well to notice at this point the use of the somewhat similar expression xaroci xac &ocwa, which is found in Jud. xvi 20 1), xx 30, 3I; I K. iii o0, xx 25. In each case it is the translation of the Hebrew Qs7__ n_?_, which according to the Oxford Lexicon

means "as time on time, i. e. as formerly, as usual". This meaning is seen in Nu. xxiv I where the LXX renders xaro To lo60o64. The use of ara,o in this expression to denote time succeeding to time fits in with the meaning that we have seen attaching to the other expression aaiao xcal 8is.

The RV renders both New Testament occurrences of our phrase "once and again" which appears to mean "twice", a meaning which is accepted by ALFORD, FINDLAY, PLUMMER, DENNEY, MILLIGAN, VINCENT and others. Our examination of the expression in the LXX prepares us rather for a meaning like "more than once". At the outset there is a further point to consider. Is the xoc which precedes in both the New Testament occurrences to be taken as part of the expression or is it a connective? The fact that the

1) So B. A reads xao;0 q ai.

207



MORRIS, KAI AIIA3 KAI AIS

expression four times in the LXX and once in I Clement lacks the initial xao seems to indicate that the idiomatic expression is simply aTrXoci xaL aLq. This is reinforced by the absence of initial xoc from the similar expression xrca E xal a7rca in any of its occurrences.

MILLIGAN thinks that in the LXX the expression means "repeatedly", but that the prefixing of the xaoL alters it to "twice". This, however, seems difficult to sustain. If rcaioc xoct Sq means "repeatedly" I see no reason why the prefixing of xoc should subtract some of that meaning and reduce it to "twice". xao does not seem to have such a reducing or limiting force, and it is better to reject the contention and see &7rca xaocl Sc as the idiomatic ex- expression.

If this can be accepted then in I Th. ii I8 the xaoc before a7rac will be ascensive, and the meaning "Because we wished to come to you, I Paul, and that more than once" 1). It seems impossible to understand the expression as meaning "twice", and this makes it improbable that it will have that meaning in Philippians.

In Phil. iv I6 the xaoc before ar7cx will then be taken as corre- lative to that before Ev ?aoorcXovlx', and the meaning will be "Both (when I was) in Thessalonica and more than once (in other places)". This is of importance for the determination of the length of the Apostle's ministry in Thessalonica. If this passage means that the Philippians sent aid to Paul twice (or several times) while he was in Thessalonica, then his ministry there must have been rather pro- tracted. But if he is referring to one gift only as having been received while he was in that city his stay may well have been quite short, something in the nature of an intensive evangelistic campaign rather than a prolonged piece of missionary witness. Our linguistics do not require this of course, for the Philippians may have sent to Paul once only in a long stay, but they do open the way for it.

1) MOFFATT renders the expression here "more than once" and LIGHTFOOT gives " 'more than once', 'again and again' " as the meaning. RSV renders "again and again" (though the same expression is translated "once and again" in Phil. iv I6).

208



Καὶ ἅπαξ ϰαὶ δίς

Documents

Transcript of Καὶ ἅπαξ ϰαὶ δίς