βαδίζοιμεν ; ὁ δ ̓ ἔφασκεν εἰς τὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ ἐμοῦLysias, contr. Eratosth. p. 392, ed. Stephan.; non d' evσa μéσov Kaт' ȧμаξιτόν ἃ τὰ Λύκωνος, Εἶδον Δέλφιν-Theocritus, Idyl. ii. v. 76. More to our present purpose are the instances of this usage from the LXX. and Josephus. In Gen. xli. 51 the Hebrew

is rendered in the LXX. by πάντων τῶν τοῦ πατρός μου, but as "house" here means not the dwelling, but the family or household, this may be held as not an instance fairly in point. The following instances, however, cannot be disputed :—Esth. vii. 9, for the Heb. n the LXX. has ev Toîs 'Apav. Esth. viii. 2, ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν ̓Αμάν. Job xviii. 20, ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ ζήσονται ἕτεροι. Joseph. contr. Apion. i. 18, τὸν τὲ χρυσοῦν κίονα τὸν ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Διὸς ἀνέθηκεν ; Antig. v. i. 26, πανταχοῦ δ ̓ ἐν τοῖς τούτου (sc. θεοῦ) ἐστε; Antig. xvi. x. 1, ἦν δ ̓ αὐτῷ καταγωγὴ ἐν τοῖς ̓Αντιπάτρου. Sometimes a plural adjective is used instead of the noun, to denote the person whose house it is. Thus Sirac. xlii. 9, καὶ ἐν τοῖς πατρικοῖς αὐτῆς ἔγκυος γένηται. Analogous to this is the use of dia in the N. T. Comp. John i. 11; xvi. 32; Acts xxi. 6. In the N. T., however, the construction with the noun very rarely occurs in this sense; indeed it may be questioned if a single unexceptionable instance can be found. Such phrases as ek тwv Xλons, 1 Cor. i. 11; τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ̓Αριστοβύλου, and τοὺς ἐκ των Ναρκίσσου, Rom. xvi. 10, 11, cannot be held as in point, for there the phrase means "those of the family" or "people of Chloe," etc.

2. The phrase Tà Tivòs is used in the sense of "the things belonging to or characterising one," the qualities, affairs, business, interests of one. Thus ᾧ τὰ τῆς τύχης κρατεῖ, Soph. Ocd. Tyr. 977, the qualities constituting Fortune Fortune herself; vooei Tà Tôv Oewv, the things belonging to, the affairs and interests of, the gods are in disorder, Eur. Troad. 27; τοιοῦτοι μὲν εἰσὶν δὲ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὰ τοῦ πατρὸς τιμῶντες, "they who honour the Father and the things of the Father," i.e. the Father's commands and claims (=the Father's business), Philo, De Temulent. p. 250 E.; "Seest thou how he teaches them not to murmur? inasmuch as murmuring is the part of ignorant and senseless slaves. For what son, tell me, 1 The same idiom is found in the Latin. Thus Ter. Adelph. iv. 2. 43, "Ubi ad Dianae veneris, ito ad dextram ;" Hor. Sat. i. 9. 35, "Ventum erat ad Vestae." In English also we say, at least colloquially, "He is at his father's," "I called at yours to-day," and such like.

labouring in his father's business (ev TOIS TOû TATρòs πоvŵν), and labouring for himself, murmurs?" Chrysost. Hom. vii. in Ep. i. ad Corinthios. This passage, it is true, may be cited as favouring the other rendering of the phrase under consideration, and has indeed been so cited. But the connection, and especially the identifying of the labouring ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός with the labouring of the son for himself, seem to fix the meaning of the phrase to the rendering above given. In the N. T. this is the usual, we might say the invariable, meaning of the phrase; comp. τὰ Καίσαρος, τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, Matt. xxii. 21 ; τὰ τῆς σαρκός, τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, Rom. viii. 5 ; τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης, είν. 9 ; τὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, 1 Cor. ii. 11 ; τὰ τοῦ Κυρίου, τὰ τοῦ KÓμov, 1 Cor. vii. 32, 33, etc. So also with the article in the singular, τὸ ἑαυτοῦ τὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου, 1 Cor. x. 24; τὸ τῆς αὔριον, James iv. 14; To Ts Taрopías, 2 Pet. ii. 22.

ειναι

3. The phrase evai év Tivi may mean either to be in any place or condition, or to be engaged in any occupation. The former is the common and proper meaning of the phrase, and of it no illustration is needed; but the latter is also in usage, and examples of it may be abundantly produced. Thus Aelian, Var. Hist. i. 31, ἅτε δὴ ὄντες ἐν γεωργία καὶ περὶ γῆν TOVOUμEvoL, "inasmuch as they were engaged in agriculture and tilled the ground;" Philo, De Migr. Abrahami, p. 421 D., ĚTɩ ov ev Tois TÓVOLS, "being still engaged in labours" (quoted by Loesner, p. 98); Herod. iii. 27, οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι . . . ἦσαν ἐν barino, “The Egyptians were engaged in festivities;" viii. 99, αὐτοὶ ἦσαν ἐν θυσίῃσι, “ They were occupied with sacrifices ;” Thucyd. i. 22, ή μέλλοντες πολεμήσειν, ἢ ἐν αὐτῷ ἤδη ὄντες, "either being about to make war or already engaged in it;" vii. 11, "Now it is time to take counsel since you know in what condition we are (év éopév);" Soph. Oed. Tyr. 562, Was this soothsayer at that time occupied with his art (v Ev Tŷ TÉXvŋ)?” Eurip. Hip. 452, "They who are always occupied with poetry (αὐτοί τ ̓ εἰσὶν ἐν μούσαις ἀεὶ);” Xenoph. Cyr. iii. 1. 1, Ὁ μὲν δὴ Κύρος ἐν τούτοις ἦν, " Cyrus was occupied with these things;” iv. 3. 23, οἱ μὲν δὴ ἐν τούτοις τοῖς Aoyous hoav, "They were engaged in these discourses;" Plutarch, Vit. Pomp. [Plut. Parallela, ed. Bryan, vol. iii. p. 499], év τούτοις μὲν οὖν ὁ Καίσαρ ἦν, dum haec agit Caesar, “whilst Caesar was thus occupied," or "was about this business." Of

46

these examples some have reference to the person's usual employment or occupation, but the majority respect his occupation at the time referred to; but this is of no importance as regards the meaning of the phrase, the point at present in question. In the N. T. the phrase is found only in the passage we are considering, and in 1 Tim. iv. 15, év ToÚTOLS Lodi, of which "give thyself wholly to them," is perhaps too strong a rendering, as the phrase only means " be occupied with them."

The result of this inquiry is the conclusion that either A or B is a legitimate rendering of the passage, and that there is a slight preponderance in favour of B from the usage of the N. T., where Tà Tivòs has invariably the meaning of "the things belonging to one," "the affairs or business of one," never "the house of one."

In further support of this conclusion it may be observed that in other cases where St. Luke has occasion to mention "father's house" as the place in which any one is or anything is done, he uses olxos. Thus xvi. 27, “I pray thee, therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house (εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου);” Acts vii. 20, "nourished up in his father's house (ev Te olx T. π.)" St. John also reports our Lord as saying of the temple, "Make not my Father's house (τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός μου) a house of merchandise;" and when speaking of the heavenly state He uses oixía, "in my Father's house (èv Tŷ oikią T. π. μ.).” This renders it probable that had our Lord meant to say, "Wist ye not that I must be in my Father's house?" St. Luke would have reported Him as saying, ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ πατρός μου, and not ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου.

In fine, the use by our Lord of deî here is strongly in favour of the rendering in the Authorised Version. This verb always conveys the idea of necessity or obligation, and is properly rendered in English by must or ought. Now there was no necessity, physical or moral, for our Lord's being in the temple rather than in any other house; nor was it so likely that He should be there as that He should be in the house where He had stayed with Joseph and Mary when they were in Jerusalem. Even had He been in the habit of spending His time in the temple (of which, however, there is no evidence), though He might have said, "You should have expected to find me

Ordinary reading preferable.

113

in my Father's house," He could hardly have said, "Wist ye not that I ought to be in my Father's house?" As, however, He had come to do the work of God on the earth, and as it was his meat and his drink to do the will of his Father, He was under a moral necessity to be engaged in his Father's business. With perfect propriety, therefore, might He say to his parents, "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"

Notwithstanding, then, that the majority of interpreters are in favour of the other rendering, and though a very high authority has recently declared that this "is, as Dr. Field has shown, the almost certainly true rendering of ev Tols Toû TаTρós μov," I venture to assert that something may still be said for the other rendering, and probably my readers may join with me in regretting that in the Revised Version there has not been retained the rendering which has hitherto appeared in all the English Versions from the time of Wiclif downwards.

W. LINDSAY ALEXANDER.

ART. VIII-Some Difficulties of Modern Materialism.2

2

ABOUT half a generation ago the leaders of advanced thought appeared in the philosophical and theological wilderness, announcing that the kingdom of science was at hand. Of course the way had to be prepared for the new kingdom by uprooting old views, and the aforesaid leaders were very efficient in this work. Armed with a logic variously described as rigorous, unsparing, relentless, etc., they pushed in all directions as effectually as the beast of Daniel's vision. They pointed out the incoherences of received views so clearly as to make it plain that no honest man with the least ability could retain them longer. So well was this work done, that the bystander could hardly help thinking that nothing but

The Dean of Peterborough, in the Contemporary for July 1881. The work of Dr. Field, to which the Dean refers, is a treatise on this verse replete with learning, and marked by that exact scholarship and perspicuous argumentation which characterises all Dr. Field's writings. Though differing from Dr. Field as to the meaning of the passage, the author of this paper has been much indebted to Dr. Field's essay in the preparation of it.

From the Princeton Review.

VOL. XXXI.-NO. CXIX.

H

mental dishonesty would explain the tenacity with which apparently intelligent persons clung to old beliefs. Indeed the prophets of the new era did not fail to hint with great plainness that the old views derived not a little support from unworthy motives. But this necessity of incessantly attacking and exploding old views has been a disadvantage to the new. The advanced thinkers have been so absorbed in attack and negation, as to give little attention to unfolding their own solution of the perennial problems of thought and life. As yet the new philosophy has not attained to proper self-knowledge, though it can hardly be said to be lacking in self-consciousness; but it only vaguely perceives its own implications. One resulting evil is, that advanced thought does not succeed much better with logic than the unprogressive thought of the past. It is indeed logical enough in dealing with other systems; but it clings to the old theological method of instinct, compromise, and half-way measures in general, in adjusting itself to thought and life. This is doubtless due to its militant history. It cannot be that the brave men who have put to flight so many armies of theological and illogical aliens in the name of logic are in the least afraid to follow logic whithersoever it may lead. They have simply had too much on their hands to attend to it. But the lack of this self-knowledge is a defect nevertheless. The chief demand upon advanced thinkers at present is that they leave the theologians for a time, and set their own house in the true order of logic. To help on this good work we propose to discuss the nature and difficulties of modern materialism, especially in its bearing on the problem of knowledge. By materialism we mean any doctrine which makes mind the product or result of organisation.

But the simple statement that mind is the product of organisation does not give a clear conception of materialism. Indeed the materialists themselves have hardly cleared up their own thought on this point. The difficulty is not merely to know how mind can be a product, but in what sense mind is a product. Of course it is not held that the elements create a substantial mind, but only that mind is the sum of mental states which are produced by organisation. But the sense of this production is unclear. For a time the formula