GIFT OF THE THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR. Edited by the REV. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D., Editor of" The Expositor" REV. WILLIAM HENRY SIMCOX'S THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, NEW YORK: THOMAS WHITTAKER, 2 AND 3, BIBLE HOUSE., 1890. THE THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR. EDITED BY THE REV. W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, LL.D., M.A. Foolscap 8vo, 2s. 6J. each. A Manual of Christian Evidences. By the Rev. C. A. Row, M.A., Prebendary of St. Paul's. Fourth Edition. An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Fv the Rev. Prof. B. B. WAR FIKLD, D.D. Second Edition. A Hebrew Grammar. Bv the Rev. W. H. LOWE, M. A., Joint-Author of ' A Commentary on the Psalms," etc., etc. ; He rew Lecturer. Christ's College, Cambridge. In Two Parts. Part II. preparing. Second Edition. The Prayer- Book. By the Rev. CHARLES HOLE, B.A , King's College, London. A Manual of Church History. In Two Parts. By the Rev. A. C. JENNINGS, M.A., Author of " Ecclesia Anglicana," etc. An Exposition of the Apostles' Creed. 'By the Rev. J. E. YONGE, M.A., late Fellow of King's I, College, Cambridge ; and Assistant Master in Eton College. An Introduction to the New Testament. By j the Rev. Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D. Third Edition. The Language of the New Testament. By the Rev. WILLIAM HKNRY SIMCOX, M.A., late Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford, etc. Outlines of Christian Doctrine. By the Rev. H. C. G. MOUI.E, M.A., Principal of Ridley Hall, Cambridge. Third Edition. An Introduction to the Old Testament. By th" Rev. C. H. H. Wright, D.D., late Bampton Lec- turer, etc. Preparing. THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY THE I. ATE REV. WILLIAM HENRY SIMCOX, M.A., t* Rector of Harlaxton. NEW YORK: THOMAS WHITTAKER, 2 AND 3, BIBLE HOUSE. 1890. PREFACE. rr^HIS little book does not profess to be a complete -*- grammar of New Testament Greek. It may be a question whether the great works of Winer on a large scale and Buttman on a smaller leave room for a competitor. What is attempted here is both some- thing less and something more : to indicate, not ex- haustively but representatively, the points wherein the language of the New Testament differs from classical and even post-classical usage : to classify such differences according to their origin : and thus to vivify the study of purely verbal grammar, and bring it into connection with wider intellectual interests and sympathies. Moreover, while it is true that we can talk about New Testament Greek, as one form of the language which has a real existence, and while the Greek Testament, or even the whole Greek Bible, forms but a small body of literature, it is true at the same time that every biblical writer at least every New Testament writer has a style of his own, and often 360200 vi PREFACE. grammatical peculiarities of his own, so that the works of one biblical writer may differ from the rest quite as much as from those of secular writers. The study of these individualities brings us, more perhaps than the study of the Hellenistic language generally, into contact with the minds of the evangelical writers, and so gives real assistance to the comprehension of their writings. An attempt has been made to distin- guish how far each writer (or each school or group of writers) shares in the special characteristics of Hellenistic or biblical Greek, how far he has marked linguistic features of his own, and thus to give the student some notion of the extent and importance of purely grammatical questions in dealing with the New Testament. It is hoped that, if he desires to pursue the study of pure grammar further, he may here find an introduction to the subject that will relieve its apparent aridity and want of interest ; and that if he does not, he will gain a just notion of the amount of deference due to grammatical specialists, and will be able to judge on what questions this decision must be accepted as final, and on what questions any careful and sensible reader has a right to think for himself. It will appear that I take a large view of this liberty of the non-grammarian, that I look for little gain to theology, and hardly any to devotion, from the minute verbal study of the language of the New Testament. Even were it otherwise, a book like this is intended, of course, neither as a theological nor a PREFACE. vii devotional manual. Yet it would be wrong to treat, or to encourage students to treat, even a study subsidiary to theology otherwise than reverently : and it is impossible, and hardly desirable, to form a judg- ment on points of verbal criticism that shall not be coloured by the opinions and feelings on deeper subjects of the person forming it. While I had no call to enter on controversial topics, I have not been careful to avoid expressing an opinion where one seemed called for, even if it had a controversial bear- ing, or rested on grounds open to controversy. The books that I have made most practical use of, and had most constantly in my hands, were Winer's "Grammar of New Testament Greek," in Dr. Moulton's Translation, and Grimm's " Lexicon of the New Testament" in Professor Thayer's version. Winer has never been superseded, though his work is, to some extent, obsolete in form, as when he first wrote, it was necessary to prove that the Greek of the New Testament was a real language that had a grammar, not a jargon in which any construction, any case or tense, any particle or preposition might be used instead of any other. I have found more use in Professor Thayer's own Indices, than in what the Lexicon, as such, adds to ordinary Greek Lexicons on the one hand, and to a concordance on the other. But I have given, as a rule, greater proportional attention to points that struck me in my own reading, than to such as T only noticed when my attention viii PREFACE. was called to them by grammarians. I believe this to be right in principle, especially when it was less my object to expound the subject exhaustively than to rouse a living interest in it. The student will know grammar best who does most to construct a grammar for himself ; and it was by doing this that I could best help others to do it. For this reason, among others, I have rarely quoted authorities. I will ask critical readers to believe that it was neither because I spared the labour of consulting them, nor because I desired to conceal obligations to them ; but, apart from the necessity of economising space, I sometimes made out from my own notes what I could have taken ready-made from a pre-existing work, and sometimes could ill distinguish how much was taken from one and how much from the other. On the other hand, I have not the advantage of an idiomatic knowledge of modern Greek. When, therefore, I have occasion to make a statement about modern usage, unless it be something quite obvious and notorious, I generally refer to my authority. I ought perhaps to apologise for an inequality in different parts of the bcok, in the fulness with which illustrative references and quotations have been supplied. There are subjects where a complete enumeration of all relevant passages seems essential ; there are others where a few typical examples will suffice: and in the latter case, if much more than the sufficient minimum be supplied, there is a risk PREFACE. ix that any but the most painstaking students will feel that they cannot see the wood for the trees. I have therefore, deliberately, sometimes tried to give ex- haustive lists, and sometimes left it to painstaking students to find parallels to one or two typical passages. But I feel no confidence that my judgment has always been right, or my practice consistent with itself in treating a subject by one or other method. The above was written by my brother, but not finally revised for press, at the time when the MS. was sent to the publishers. It has been necessary to make one or two verbal alterations and omissions. One or two sentences on p. vi refer to a Second Part, describing the characteristics of New Testament writers and comparing specimen passages of New Testament and Hellenistic Greek, which, though completed for press, was reserved for subsequent publication, as it exceeded the limits of the series. At the time of his death the author had passed two sheets for press; he had also practically completed the revision of four more; for the remainder I am responsible. The very few alterations and additions I have ventured to make are almost all marked by square brackets. It only remains to acknowledge with thanks the valuable assistance received from the kindness of Mr. F. E. Thompson, M.A., of Marlborough College, who has found time to read every sheet carefully. G. A. SIMCOX. September 1889. CONTENTS. PAGE PREFACE . . . . . . . .V INTRODUCTION. THE GREEK NATION AND LANGUAGE AFTER ALEXANDER 1 CHAP. I. THE LANGUAGE OF THE JEWISH HELLENISTS 11 II. CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK IN THE FORMS OR INFLEXIONS OF (i) NOUNS (A) PROPER . 23 (B) APPELLATIVE . . .30 (C) ADJECTIVE . . . .32 (ii) VERBS 33 (ill) PARTICLES, AND COMPOSITION OF VERBS 42 III. CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK IN THE SYNTACTICAL USE OF ARTICLES AND PRONOUNS 45 IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK IN THE SYNTACTICAL USE OF NOUNS (A) SUBSTANTIVE . . . .74 (B) ADJECTIVE . . . .91 xii CONTENTS. PAGE CHAP. V. CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK IN THE SYNTACTICAL USE OF VERBS AND PARTICIPLES (A) THE VOICES , . . .95 (B) THE TENSES OP THE INDICATIVE . 97 (C) THE SUBJUNCTIVE AND OPTATIVE MOODS, AND THE INDICATIVE IN RELATIVE SENTENCES . . 106 (D) THE IMPERATIVE AND INFINITIVE MOODS ..... 114 (E) THE PARTICIPLES . . . 122 VI. USES AND MEANINGS, CHARACTERISTIC OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, OF PARTICLES (A) PREPOSITIONS .... 136 (B) CONJUNCTIONS . . . .160 (C) RELATIVE ADVERBS CONDITIONAL, FINAL, ETC. .... 169 (I)) NEGATIVE AND INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES . . . .181 ,, VII. MISCELLANEOUS FEATURES OF NEW TESTA- MENT GREEK 194 INDEX OF TEXTS CITED ... . 205 INTRODUCTION. THE GREEK NATION AND LANGUAGE AFTER ALEXANDER. opinion was divided, and pos- terity has disputed, whether the conquests of Alexander the Great are to be regarded as the ruin of Greece or as the triumph of Greece. The answer will depend on what we understand by " Greece "-- whether we regard the true glory of the Greek nation as lying in its civic liberties, or in its intellectual influence on the world. The " victory at Chseronea " 9vas no doubt " fatal to liberty '' in ohe sense : but it is not therefore self-evident that it must have. been a " dishonest victory " one that the world, or even an enlightened Greek patriot, ought to regret or lament. In the eyes of contemporaries, the character of the Macedonian conquest turned, to a great extent, on the right of the conquerors to be regarded as Greeks themselves. A modern historian is tempted to treat this question as a meaningless piece of superstition : but so far as it has a meaning, the true answer is that the Macedonian kings were Greeks, though the Macedonian people were not. Whether the legends of the Temenids Caranus and Perdiccas be at bottom historical or no, the fact that they were told and 1 TESTAMENT. believed was a real historical influence. There is no appeal from the judges at Olympia (Hdt. Y. xxii) to* modern criticism, but Philip must be allowed to be a Greek by descent, for three generations if for no more. Philip was inde3d, like Peter the Great, the king of a barbarous people ; and, like Peter, he was a brutal barbarian in his personal habits. But he was as far-sighted a statesman as Peter, and as sincere in his appreciation of the culture of his civilised neighbours. Having spent much of his youth as a hostage at Thebes, he may be called a Greek by education as well as by blood : and he earned by war and diplomacy a title to the most sacred privileges of a Greek, .when, after the so-called Sacred War against the Phocians, he was admitted to their forfeited place in the Amphictyonic Synod of Delphi and Thermopy- lae. It was the possession of these common sanc- tuaries, the right of common worship there for Dorians, lonians, Achseans, Thessalians and the rest, that gave to all Greeks a centre and a sanction for the sense of a common nationality, though they belonged to independent and often hostile states. If there ever was a king of all Greece after the time of Agamemnon, it was the Delphian Apollo. A human " king of Grecia " (Dan. viii. 21) only became possible, when an earthly king was able to enlist on his side the loyalty of Greeks to their god. In Alexander's character, barbarism and high genius were even more strangely mixed than in his father's. Scratch the Macedonian, and you found the Thracian : but the overlaying was of gold as pure as adorned the image of Olympian Zeus. The man was as extraor- EFFECTS OF ALEXANDER'S CAREER. 3 diiiary as his deeds. A hero of romance, he was one of the three or four greatest generals of history ; an adventurer, and by no means an unselfish one, he was the devoted champion of the cause of human progress; a conqueror in the name of a national fanaticism, he was the first of men to conceive the unity of the civilised world as something higher than nationality. From different points of view, we may compare him with Mahomet and with Charlemagne : and it would be hard to deny that the armed apostle of Hellenic culture was as sincerely devoted to his cause as the armed apostles of monotheism a thousand years later. We are told by contemporaries (Aesch. de Fals. Ley. 42. 47, etc.) that Philip, with all his brutality, exer- cised a singular charm over men who came into personal contact with him. Alexander's personal charm is so much greater, that it has almost won condonation for his faults and crimes, which were not slight, from every generation for two thousand years. Worn out between the violent exertions of his active life, and the intemperance which was more and more his chief relaxation from them, Alexander died at Babylon in the twelfth year of his reign. As an empire, his empire all but died with him. His half-brother and his infant sons were mere puppets in the hands of his generals, arid were before long mur- dered, and the royal family exterminated. But his twelve years' reign had sufficed to change the face of the world, and to modify the inner spirit of its life, more than any other equal period in history, unless it be that from the Edict of Milan to the Council of Nice.* * Posterity must judge, if the period from the meeting of 4 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Henceforth, Greek political life had no longer the interest that it had had for the world. Agis and Cleomenes, Aratus arid Philopceinen, were not neces- sarily inferior men to Pericles or Epaminondas ; but they had no longer a chance of such great careers. What political life there was flourished mostly in the cities whose past history had been least conspicuous : and there it was a necessary and difficult condition of political success, to secure the non-intervention, or if possible the friendliness, of the dominant Macedonian dynasty of the moment. It was a century and a half before, under Roman pressure, the politics of Greece became merely municipal : but, from the end of the Lamian war, the vital interest of Greek history lie.s elsewhere. For the literary greatness of Athens hardly outlasted its political greatness. The last eminent Athenian writers Menander, Epicurus, Demetrius of Phalerum belong to the generation that were children at the time of Chaeronea or of Cr^nnon. For more than twenty years after Alexander's death for eight or nine after the extinction of his dynasty a confused and purposeless struggle went on between the various Macedonians who had gained distinction or influence, either as officers in his army, as satraps in his empire, or as regents, more or less legitimately authorised, for his heirs. At the battle of Ipsus in Phrygia, B.C. 301, Antigonus, who alone of these pre- tenders appeared to have any chance of securing the the States General to the establishment of the Consulate be worthy to be ranked with these. The changes of the Renais- sance and the Reformation, certainly, were spread over a greater length of time. PARTITION OF ALEXANDER'S EMPIRE, o united empire, was* defeated and slain ; and a parti- tion was agreed upon among the victors, which made some approach to a permanent settlement. Ptolemy the son of Lagus or, as some said, an illegitimate son of the great Philip became king of Egypt. Lysi- machus reigned in Thrace and the north-western part of Asia Minor, and for a time occupied Macedonia itself ; but he did not found a dynasty of any per- manence : Macedonia soon passed into the hands of the descendants of Antigonus. The greater part of the Asiatic territory the main body of the conquered Persian empire was held by Seleucus, the son of Antiochus and Laodice, the seat of his rule lying first at Babylon, afterwards in Syria. Asia Minor partly belonged to the Seleucid empire, but in it were various kingdoms of lower rank, under princes Greek or Macedonian, native or even Persian. And while none of these could rank as co-ordinate with the kings of Macedonia, Egypt, and Syria, a fourth power of still greater extent and longer endurance grew up in the further East. At first, there existed a Greek kingdom in Bactria ; but this was first isolated and at last overthrown, and the eastern half of the Seleucid kingdom detached, by the independence and growth of the Parthians under the native dynasty of Arsaces. Arid in each of these more or less Hellenised kingdoms there was a continuation, if not of the vigour of political life, at least of the civilisation and literary cultivation which in " Greece proper " had run its course. It seems that the native language of Mace- donia itself, which, though very likely cognate with Greek, was never recognised as a Greek dialect, now died out more or less rapidly and completely, and was 6 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. replaced by Greek.* The Macedonian kings, at any rate, could no longer be regarded as mere barbarians, as had been not unreasonable when Perdiccas aspired to hold the balance between Sparta and Athens, and not impossible when Demosthenes confronted Philip. In Egypt, the able -kings of Ptolemy's race and name had on the one hand succeeded in identifying them- selves in the popular mind with the ancient religion and the ancient national monarchy : on the other hand, they made their Greek capital Alexandria the home of Greek learning of a piogressive Greek science, such as had hardly existed before, as well as of a Greek literary revival, which holds a respectable place among renaissance literatures. In the kingdom of Asia or Syria, in like manner, though native languages continued in use, they were overspread by a stratum of Greek culture. The numerous cities named Antiochia, Seleucia, Laodicea or the like, over- shadowed or rivalled the older capitals : and Greek proper names became common, at least as duplicates, even among men who kept their old language and a good deal of their old national spirit, f Even among the Parthians, though the strength of the monarchy and the origin of the dynasty itself were barbarian, Hellenic influence was by no means absent. Its * It is doubtful whether Polybius would hare considered the Macedonians a Greek people, in a sense that the Latins were not. But certainly the diplomacy of his day regarded them as a Greek power: and Liv. XXXI. xxix. 15 shows what was the character of the people in the historian's day at any rate, if not at the time he writes of. f An extreme instance is furnished by the Hyrcauus, Aristobulus, Alexander, etc., whom we find in the Hashmonean dynasty, of which the very rafaon d'etre wa& the champion- ship of the national spirit against Hellenism. MODIFICATION OF GREEK LANGUAGE, 1 existence, and at the same time its shallowness, is well indicated by the grim story of the performance of Euripides' Bacchse at the wedding-feast of Pacorus. And thus the Greek language, which had been a group of dialects spoken, and sometimes written, in the cities and districts on the two sides of the ^Egsean and Ionian seas, became henceforth the language of at least half the civilised world the language of govern- ment, commerce, and literature throughout the eastern half of the Mediterranean basin. A change like this could not take place without a certain amount of change in the Greek language itself. Until now, the literary Greek of every community had been, as a rule, the spoken dialect of that community itself ; or if not, then the dialect of the community in which that form of literature had first flourished. But the mere existence of a literature tends to fix and stereo- type the hitherto plastic usages of language, and to render obsolete, or to brand as incorrect, the diver- gences of dialect. Only four or five * of the Greek dialects had been used, to any important extent, for literary purposes; and only one of these, the Attic, had been used for a variety of purposes, both in prose and poetry, and had continued in active literary use down to the time we speak of, the time of the world- wide diffusion of Greek influence. In consequence, it was a modified form of the Attic dialect which became the prevalent Greek of the new period. Some of th'e most distinctively local Atticisms * Besides the Attic and the Ionic of Asia Minor, we have the ./Eolic of the early lyric poetry, the Doric of that form of choral poetry known to us by the chorus of the Attic drama, and the Boeotian of Pindar, which is hardly quite identical with the last of these, and still less with the third. 8 LANGUAGE OF THE NKW TESTAMENT. were dropped more or less completely. Certain words varied more or less from the Attic standard in pro- nunciation or in meaning : tendencies to the simplifi- cation and softening of the sound of words, and of grammatical forms, which had declared themselves in the later Attic itself, were carried further, or became universal : while a few forms and usages characteristic of other dialects were more or less widely adopted. Still the " common " or " universal dialect," the literary language of the new Greece coextensive with the Alexandrine empire, is substantially a form of Attic. But while this conventional language came into universal use as the language of prose literature, and of intercourse among educated men, it was impossible but that, in a language so widely spread, a tendency to dialectical variation should assert itself afresh. There are some traces of such a tendency even among purely Greek communities: for instance, of distinctively Alexandrian grammatical forms, which are not likely to have been native, and are not proved to have existed, in any of the Greek or Macedonian communi- iiities from which the citizens of Alexandria were derived/-' But still wider variations necessarily arose, when Greek came into use as an official or commercial language among nations still using their native lan- guages languages often of quite different genius and structure from Greek. The Lingita Franca of the Levant, the Pigeon English of the Chinese ports, and the dialects of English and French spoken by negroes * The 3rd pi. of preterites in -ovav was said to be originally Boeotian or Chalcidian, though inscriptions fail to prove it. Anyhow, it was probably from other causes than Boeotian or Chalcidian settlement that it waspopu'ariscd at Alexandria: see pp. 36-7. ESPECIALLY AS rSED BY BARBARIANS. 9 in the West Indies, show how utterly a language may be disguised and disintegrated when it comes to l:e used under such circumstances.* In these instances, no doubt, the transformation of the language is carried further, because those who use it are uneducated men, and acquire it only for worldly purposes, without any intellectual interest. But liberal education and intellectual purpose will not always suffice to secure to men a perfect and sympathetic insight into the spirit and usage of a language not their own. It is doubtful; but it is from the nature of the case impossible to ascertain, whether the purest Latin of an elegant modern .scholar would have passed muster in a Roman literary circle. But there is no doubt that what is called " Baboo English " the English spoken or written by the first generation of natives of India well trained in British literature has sometimes been almost as grotesque as the colloquial dialects begotten between uneducated Englishmen and uneducated foreigners. We may suspect that there were in ancient times Hellenised Orientals whose language, though it seems fairly correct to us, was felt by contemporaries to be either incorrect, or pedantic in its correctness. There are one or two extant writers, t on whose * One may guess that it was from the observation of similar cases, that grammarians thought it plausible to derive o-6Xot/cos (a word in tolerably esrly use) from the name of the town of Soli in Cilicia. There had been an early Greek settlement there, far from Greece in the geographical sense ; and it seemed natural to suppose accordingly, that that must have been an early home of bad Greek. f It may have been this kind of pedantry that prevented Josepus, despite his laboured classicalisni of style, from gaining the attention of the classical world ; though even 10 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. style we should be glad to have the judgment of a competent contemporary critic. These circumstances -the modernising tendencies of the Greek language itself, the stiffening of literary Greek into something distinct from the spoken lan- guage, and the greater or less modifications of its form, when it came to be spoken and written by " barbarians " are real justifications, apart from the prejudice of a narrow " classical " education, for our regarding the Greek writers after Alexander as less " classical " in style than those of earlier date. But it does not follow that their matter is of less value. Certainly there is one form of the post- Alexandrine cr post-classical Greek, and that one in which the non-Hellenic element is largest, which deserves and will repay careful verbal study, from the unique intrinsic importance of the writings embodied in it. pre-Christian historians were not able to ignore his subject. Dr. Abbott has suggested (in three papers in the Expositor, 2nd Series, vol. iii ), that the Second Epistle of St. Peter is written in " Baboo Greek : " and as Professor Salmon has pointed out, the view is rather favourable than otherwise to its genuineness. CHAPTER I. THE LANGUAGE OF THE JEWISH HELLENISTS. ON the frontier between the empires of the Ptole- mies and of the Seleucidse lay one or two * small communities, whose national religion had enough internal vigour at once to resist assimilation or fusion with the common Hellenic polytheism, and to inspire its adherents with energy and genius that prevented their forcible extinction or dissolution. Yet while maintaining an unbroken national life in their own country, they already were diffused or dis- persed in, at least, all the adjoining lands. In Egypt, especially, they had a large and important colony. Various legends, incredible as they stand, yet point to the fact that the early Ptolemies regarded the Jews as loyal and valuable subjects, and granted * We know very little of the real religious life of the Samaritans: but, from what seems to be authentic in our accounts of the teaching and career of Simon Magus, it would seem that religious thought with them had a history of its own, quite distinct from that of the Jews, and by no means without intellectual interest. In the curious description of Alexandria ascribed to Hadrian (ap. Vopisc. Saturn.} Samari- tans are mentioned with Jews, Christians, and worshippers of Serapis, among the proselytising sects of the city. If (as the best authorities hold) the letter is spurious, its evidence of the vitality of Samaritan religion is even stronger, as its statements will apply to a later date. 12 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. them exceptional privileges.* It is generally admitted as credible, though the story comes to us in an unlbrust worthy form, that about B.C. 280 the reigning king of Egypt took sufficient interest in the nation and its national or religious life, to desire a Greek translation to be made of their sacred law. Our accounts differ as to whether this is to be ascribed to the first or the second Ptolemy; if there be any truth in the story that it was done by the advice of Demetrius of Phalerum, the first is likelier. But whatever the date, the royal patronage proves thus much, that in Egypt at least the Jews were not treated as enemies of the human race, but, like the native Egyptians,! as a nation of respectable antiquity, whose origins had an. interest for Gieeks. In the course of the next century and a half, the whole of the bcoks i reckoned as sacred or canonical by the Jews of Palestine had been translated into Greek, probably at Alexandria. So w r ere other works which did not secure a permanent place in the Hebrew canon ; and some originally composed in Greek were regarded with equal or nearly equal honour. Hence * See Mommsen's History of Howe, Book VIII. c. xi ad iriit. (vol. vi. pp. 162-5, English translation). f It was certainly under Ptolemy II. (Philadelphia) that Manetho wrote his Greek chronicle of Egyptian history. J Whenever the Book of Daniel was written, it was certainly translated after the event of its predictions about Autiochus Epiphanes. It is held by some authorities, that the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach was at one time regarded as canonical, even in Palestine. Jt is implied in the Prologue, that the translator knew of the whole of what he regarded as the Hebrew Bible as existing in a Greek translation at his date probably soon after B.C. 182, though the meaning of his language is dis- puted. HELLENISTIC JEWISH LITERATURE. 13 arose a literature, mainly if not exclusively religious, of Hellenists or Greek-speaking Jews : of men sin- cerely and thoroughly loyal sometimes if not always thoroughly consistent in their faith and obedience to the Jewish religion, but Greek, often exclusively Greek, in language, and often more or less influenced by Greek thought. And though this Hellenistic literature was mainly of Alexandrian origin, its influence was by no means confined to Egypt. The same century and a half that witnessed its growth witnessed also a great extension of the Jewish " Dispersion." The effect of the Maccabean wars of independence was not to make Judaism again, what it had been in the days before the Captivity, the religion of a single nation inhabit- ing Palestine. Rather, the freedom of Jerusalem served to furnish a centre of loyalty, and a title of national legitimacy, to the Jews who carried their religion throughout the world. If may be true, as commentators on the Prophecies are wont to say, that the case of the Jewish Dispersion since Titus and Hadrian is absolutely unique a nation without a country, but kept alive by a religion. But if it is since the Roman conquest that they have come into this state, in the interval between Ptolemy and Titus they had reached a state like that of the Armenians of modern times a nation more attached to their religion than to their country, never forsaking the first, but thriving best away from the other. In every large city from Mesopotamia to Italy, there were large organised Jewish communities : in every country from Mesopotamia to Greece, and at some points both further east and further west, the smaller towns had 14 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. smaller Jewish communities, generally organised like the larger. These Jewish communities were mostly poor, often turbulent, and increasingly unpopular : but they were so far assimilated to the population they lived among, that everywhere to the west of their own land they spoke and understood Greek. Many of them never, except for ritual purposes, spoke any other language. These Hellenistic Jews of the Dispersion were very possibly affected by the tendency already mentioned to dialectical variation in the neo-Hellenic language : Cilician and Alexandrian Jews might talk more like other Cilicians and other Alexandrians than like each other. And at Alexandria, at least, there arose a school of what may in the widest sense be called Hellenistic literature, but of which the literary cha- racter is far more Alexandrian than Jewish a school of which the Wisdom of Solomon, the works of Philo, and the Epistle to the Hebrews are specimens. Still, all Jewish writers at least if they wrote, as almost all did, on subjects connected with the Jewish religion were subject to one common influ- ence, which could not but give their style a common character. It could not but affect their language, that the writings which they treated as of the highest authority which even a- diligent classicist like Philo is compelled to take as text for his comments were not native Greek works, thought out in Greek, but translations, and mostly slavishly literal ones, from a language of a totally different genius. In later times, all the languages of Christian Europe have had their phraseology, sometimes even their grammar, affected by that of the Latin or Greek Bibles with BIBLICAL AND MODERN INFLUENCES. 15 whose use their intellectual cultivation was inseparably connected. Still more, the modern English and per- haps the modern German language has been modified by the vernacular translations of the Bible that supplied them with their earliest classics. But to a Jew the received text of the Bible was more than to a Catholic, more than to any but the most fanatical Protestant, the one source of truth, wisdom, and en- lightenment : and the influence of that text on the forms of thought and language was proportionately greater. Thus it is that there came to exist a Hellenistic dialect, having real though variable differ- ences from the Common or Hellenic : a dialect in which any Greek-speaking Jew would naturally think and talk, and in which he would naturally write, unless, like Philo or Josepus, be could by a self- conscious effort or acquired habit eliminate the Hebraising element from his style. But besides this Hebraising element, introduced from without, the Hellenistic dialect shows certain characteristics of the later Greek in a higher degree than more purely Hellenic writers of the same date. " Modern Greek," said Mr. Geldart, " is ancient Greek made easy : " and late Greek is, in general, " easier " to a modern reader than earlier Greek. It is very natural that it should be so, because the Greek language, in the course of time and of events, began to assume the character of a modern language. From the age of Thucydides to the age of St. Chrysostom, Greek style was more moulded by rhetorical art than is the case in most modern languages : but from the age of Plato onward it had been realised that rhetoric defeats its own end if it overrides grammar : and so, 16 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. as in modern languages, and as increasingly in their most modern periods, it had been felt to be of the first necessity to write clearly to write forcibly, or even elegantly, was an object secondary to this. And if the comparatively pure literary Greek of the post-classical period showed this tendency to value simplicity and lucidity above all other qualities of style, this was likely to be still more the case with the language of less educated men, or with half -foreign idioms like the Hellenistic. Here the influence of rhetorical art and education, which as we have said was strong among pure Greeks, was almost entirely absent. Oratory had been the latest form of literary art in which independent Greece had displayed genius : it was the one in which it was hardest to draw the line between the old works of genius and the artificial productions of their imitators. But the Jews had never been orators nor men swayed by oratory : * the desire to be telling, which moulded, the antitheti- cal periods of* the early sophists, and of their pupil "Thucydides, had* little or no weight with them : and they had only this in common with Demosthenes and his contemporaries, that they wished to make sure of being understood by men who heard their words once. Thus the tendency of later Greek to simplification of construction and idiom was intensified when the * The only passages in the Old Testament which can be called orations addresses to assemblies on secular topics with a view to persuasion are Isa. xxxvi. 13-20, and Neh. v. 8-11. The second passage is earnest and effective, but it is Nehemiah's deeds rather than his words that are eloquent. The first (which is not the work of a Jew) is clever enough : but we see that it fell utterly flat on the Hebrew mind, in contrast with the two words of "the king's commandment." LESSENED FREEDOM OF IDIOM. 17 language was used by Jews : most especially was this the case, when the Jews, though able to speak and write in Greek, retained their own Semitic language in more or less habitual use. It is not very hard to learn to speak or write in a language not one's own. But to learn to think indifferently in either of two languages is much harder : and it is perhaps impossible so to think, as not to have the form of thought modified by the language in which it is natural to embody it. Now if you think in one language and translate your thoughts into another, your mastery of the second language is, almost ex hypothesi, incom- plete : at any rate, your command of its idiom will be limited by your acquired knowledge of it you have not the instinct that will enable you to speak or write freely and boldly, knowing that your words will be in harmony with the genius of the language, even if you do not know of precedents or technical rules to justify them. Therefore the man who can speak or write in a language, but cannot think in it, is obliged to confine himself to constructions and idioms for which the rules are few and simple.* And as with an individual, so with a community who adopt a language not their own : only in this case they will be aided by one another in adapting thought and language to each other, and the result will be completer and more systematic. When there are alternative ways in which a thought can be expressed, one will be selected either as the easiest intrinsically, or as likest to the native language and the other will drop out of use. And thoughts for * Compare Westcott on St. John's Gospel, Introduction, II. 5. b, c. 18 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. which the native language supplies expression, but the acquired one does not, will find utterance either by importations from the native language, by imita- tions of it from the unused resources of the new one, or by modifications in the use of some words native to the latter. The biblical uses of 'A/^v, Trpoo-wTro- A?7/xi/aa, dprjvr] are illustrations of these three methods respectively. Thus we are able to describe the language of Hellenistic Jews, spoken and to a less extent written in the first century of our era, as a form of the post- Alexandrine or " common dialect " of Greek, modified partly by the local or dialectical peculiarities of Alexandria and its neighbourhood, but more exten- sively by a simplification of grammar and idiom, by an abandonment of the antithetical and rhetorical form of sentence usual in classical Greek, and by some adoption or imitation of Semitic idioms, or at least the choice of such Greek idioms as resembled the Semitic most. It is in this language, whose origin and charac- teristics we have been tracing, that the books of the New Testament were written. And if there be any point in which the designs of Providence are obvious to man, it is that this language, with all its charac- teristics and with all the historical events that gave rise to them, was specially designed as an instrument for making the New Testament known to the world. It is generally recognised, how the purely political effects of Macedonian and Roman conquest had pre- pared the world for the reception of the Gospel. Alexander had raised the Hellenic spirit from the mere national pride of a gifted nation into the sense FITNESS OF HELLENISTIC GREEK 19 of an intellectual culture and civilisation which might be, and which tended to become, world-wide. On the other hand, he had failed to embrace the civilised world in one empire : and his successors had failed to make the common world-wide civilisation include the confession of Hellenic or syncretist Paganism as the common world- wide religion. The Romans, in their turn, first made their way into the world of Hellenic culture, and then took possession as heirs to Greece of its remaining intellectual life : and at the same time they succeeded where Alexander had failed, in embracing in one imperial polity the world of social and intellectual enlightenment. They too, like the Seleucida3, felt their empire imperfect unless it ex- tended into the regions of the soul and of the con- science : and against them, no doubt, it would have been, humanly speaking, impossible for one nation to maintain the cause of spiritual liberty, even had it had as worthy champions as the sons of Mattathias. But Rome did not precipitate the conflict with the People of the God of Israel, until His People had grown from the one nation of Israel into a Catholic Church. The Stone that was hewn without hands did not smite the feet of the image of the world- empire, until it was ready itself to become a mountain that should fill the whole earth. Arid subordinate to this historical preparation of the world for the Gospel, but not unconnected with it, nor of too little importance to be worthily coupled with it, was the formation of the language in which the Gospel was to be conveyed to the world. Just as Greek is superior to most if not all other languages as a vehicle for poetry, so, Christian Hebraists tell us, 20 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Hebrew is superior to other languages as a vehicle for devotion. Just as one gains by reading Homer in the original, so one gains by reading the Psalter in the original, though the nature of the gain be different. Still, even the Old Testament probably loses less in translation than most other literatures of high rank or influence; and when the Hebrew outline of religious language was copied in a Greek framework, the result can be reproduced without loss for every nation under heaven in their own tongue wherein they were born. Thus we see the true answer, on the one hand to the sneers of half -pagan classicists who despised the New Testament as " bad Greek," on the other to the theories of Christian scholars, who held themselves bound to defend the purity of its language, because they felt the language not to be unworthy of its subject-matter. It is true that the half-Hebraised Greek of the New Testament is neither a very elegant nor a very ex- pressive language ; but it is a many-sided language, an eminently translatable language. It may be called, in the words of one of those who used it, " rude in speech, but not in knowledge " : like Him Whom it reveals, it " hath no form nor comeliness, no beauty that we should desire it." But this very plainness fits it for conveying a plain message to plain men. " It was not God's pleasure to save the world by logic ; " neither was it His pleasure to save the world by eloquence or poetry. The Gospel, starting from the meeting-point of East and West, was so expressed from the first as to be able to travel both eastward and westward. All round its earliest home it was intelligible as it stood : its Semitic base made it easy FOR DIFFUSION AND FOR TRANSLATION. 21 to introduce it to the nations of the further East : its superficial Greek structure made it equally easy to reproduce it in the kindred tongue of the great West. It reached the capital of the world in its original form ; perhaps in Italy and Gaul, certainly in Africa, it was translated in a form closely resembling the original, for the Italian or Latinised population of the empire. Then, in modern times, the fact that it belongs to a late stage of language has made it easy to reproduce it in languages which themselves are in a late state : as Tyndale truly said, there are some characteristics of Greek which it is far easier to express in EngMsh than in Latin. This characteristic of the language of the New Testament, that it is an eminently translatable lan- guage, may warn us not to expect too much from the minute study of New Testament grammar. Just as there is hardly any grammar in English as com- pared with other languages, so there is very little grammar in New Testament Greek compared with other Greek. There is something that the diligent scholar can learn from study of the Gospel in the original : but he must beware of overrating its importance, which is but slight compared with what any diligent reader can learn from study of any decently faithful translation. There are cases, though few, where a passage has its beauty and signifi- cance heightened by a shade of language that vanishes in translation : one may instance the use of tXetv and ayairav in the last chapter of St. John. Again, there are cases where Greek idiom defines what another language gives no means of defining without cumbrousness : e.g., a Latin version cannot 22 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. express the force of an article, nor can an English one express (at least elegantly) a present participle passive like o-a>o/xe]/ooy/,ei/o9*) nor "such as should be saved" (a-^Brja-o- /xei/os) is a real equivalent. For things like these, those who are not Greek scholars must depend for guidance and control in interpretation on those who are : and those who are will have a greater freshness, perhaps a greater keenness of insight into the processes of the minds of the inspired writers. This, and not any new or transforming light on the general teaching of the New Testament, is what may be gained from the study which we are approaching. * St. Paul however is not afraid to say ear creffcoo-^voi (Eph. ii. 5, 8) : so that even here our lesson is only one of grammar or at most of exegesis, not of general theology. CHAPTER II. CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK IN THE FORMS OR INFLEXIONS. I. NOUNS. (a) Proper. TTERODOTUS observes (I. cxxxix. 2), that all J L Persian proper names of men ended in the letter s. This was true of all such names as known to the Greeks, but in the native Persian forms, known to us from contemporary inscriptions, while some end in a sibilant, others end in a short vowel. Now to a Greek it seemed impossible that a masculine name should end in a vowel : so while names of the former class were transliterated with approximate fidelity, those of the latter were Grecised by adding the ter- mination -as, -775, or -09 ; the choice of a vowel being determined partly by euphony, partly perhaps by an instinctive sense of philological analogy, just as Greeks and Eomans saw the equivalence of -os and -ov with -us and -urn, when they had occasion to transliterate proper names or other words from one language into the other. Thus, from the earliest days of Greek prose litera- ture, a precedent was established for the Grecising of Oriental proper names, and this precedent was 24 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. extended, in time, to names belonging to languages which had not, like the Persian, any affinity or analogy to Greek declensions. Herodotus himself has several pure Phoenician names with Greek ter- minations : two are recognisable as compounds of Baal, and a third is apparently the same as the Biblical Hiram (VII. xcviii). Several non-Hellenic or non-Aryan names, however, were accepted by Greek writers for use as they stood. If their terminations made them capable of Greek declension, they were declined, at least in some cases ; Plato has (Pkcedr. 274, D, E), a/x-ov and //,ow as gen. and ace. of a/x,o9s. On the other hand, he uses (ibid.) v@ as indeclinable : and so Herodotus had done with the Arabian divine names OporaX and AXtXar (III. viii. 4). Similarly Clearchus (ap. Josep. c. Ap. i. 22) gave the accurate transliteration Iepovcra/\ry/x * for the city whose name was usually supplied with a Greek termination and a Greek ety- mology in the form 'lepoo-oAv/xa. Of course in the LXX. there was more frequent need than in any purely Greek work for the insertion of "barbarian" proper names. And as a rule, the names of persons and cities are not supplied with Greek terminations, but simply transliterated, and used as indeclinable. A certain number, however, lent themselves to Greek declension as they stood. Both in Hebrew and in Greek a long a (followed, it * In discussing the form of these " barbarian " proper nouns, it seems best to omit the breathing. The MSS. tha't mark it are too late to embody a tradition of any value ; words like HXias, Htraias. as to which one would think ecclesiastical use must have embodied a tradition, are among the forms as to which MS. use is most variable. GREEK DECLENSION OF FOREIGN NAMES. 25 is true, in Hebrew by a mute /-), is a common ter- mination of fern, names ; and so we find E9a, ]$apa or %dppa, ^7ra regularly declined in the LXX. Now not a few masc. names have the same termina- tion : in particular, the many compounds of the Divine Name, which in the older biblical language ended in -jahu, were in later Hebrew apocopated to -jah. These and other names of the same ending were treated as analogous to the fern, names in -ah, and were represented by names in -as of the first de- clension : sometimes barytone, as lovSas, HAeias,* but oftener with a circumflex on the last syllable, which regularly had the accent in Hebrew. And for these names in -as representing -a/*, the late Greek had a suitable declension ready. Pure Greek nouns in -as formed their genitives in -ao (Homeric), -eta (Ionic), or -ov (Attic) : but there had arisen a large class of pr. nn., including the Persian ones already mentioned, for which the only gen. in use was the (originally Doric) form in -a. We get OtStTToSa in the tragedians for the Homeric OiSiTroSao, r, besides the Syracusan Two-La (Hell. I. i. 29) : Herodotus himself has ^Ua in VII. xcviii, and the verses (apparently not new in Plato's time) in P/wedr., 264 D, have MiSa. And if this was a recognised declension for names either purely Greek or naturalised in the best Greek period, there were two influences that made such names commoner in later Greek. Roman masc. * In the Books of Kings, what seems to be the oldest text of the LXX. has the indeclinable form HXtotf to represent Eli j aim. 26 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. names in -a were represented by names of this form, e.g., ^vAAas, gen. ^vXXa, for Sulla, -as : and names in common use of pure Greek derivation had colloquial abbreviations, such as Z^ras for Z^i/oSoros or Z>7i/oSa>pos, A?7//,as for Ar/^rpto?. Every one will remember that these names occur in the N. T. : in circles where they were familiar, we see there was an analogy ready for the treatment of Hebrew names like looms, or Aramaic ones like o>/xas. Words in -as pure however (and therefore the large class in -uzs), generally but not universally take -ov in the gen., e.g., Ovpiov, Matt, i. 6; Ho-aiov, iii. 3; but HXeta, Luke i. 17, is the better attested form. But the usage of the LXX., and even of the New Testament, does not proceed quite consistently, in deciding what names are or are not capable of Greek inflexion. Several names, both personal and local, are treated as indeclinable, though they have ter minations admissible in Greek nominatives : we have ~B7j0(f>ayf), not -yfjv in Matt. xxi. 1 ; Kara, not Karas or Karon/ in John xxi. 2 ; Aapoov, not Aapwvos, in Heb. vii. 11, ix. 4. In the LXX. 2aA.a)/xw is indeclinable, though the final v, not existing in Hebrew, looks as if it were added- to Grecise the word.* But in the N. T. we have the dialectical variant 2oA.o/*,oV, which is declined the gen. being, according to the best MSS., SoXo/AcoFos not -poi/Tos, except in the two places where it occurs in the Acts (iii. 11, and perhaps v. 12). Comparatively few names are Grecised in the N. T. by simply sticking on the termination -os, as Josepus does to all names e.g., his own which could take * Apparently, however, the N really belongs to names in kindred languages supposed to be identical with this. ANOMALIES OF NEW TESTAMENT USE. 27 no Greek inflexion otherwise.* We have, however, 'IctKoo/Sos very often, 'laeipos in two parallel passages of the Gospels (St. Matthew, though having the story, omits the name), and ^cu5Aos usually of St. Paul %aov\ only in our Lord's words at his conversion, which we are expressly told were spoken in Hebrew, and in those of Ananias, which presumably were so likewise. In all these cases, the inflected forms are used only of contemporaries. The patriarch is always 'IaKoj/2, the king of Israel SaovA : similarly we have Aaapos of the two N. T. characters, but EA.eao/> in Matt. i. 15 (note the MS. reading Alazarus . . . Lazarum in Tac. Hist. V. xiii. 4, 5). But the prophet is EAicratos (so, with one cr, the best MSS.), in Luke iv. 27. 'Aya/3oT, AA. Here we have an assimilation to the already described declension of names in -as : we get something of the * He almost apologises for the practice, Ant. I. vi. 1 fin. As to the way that we should write his name, it seems fair to follow his own usage in spelling it with a TT not a . 28 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. sort too in the case of the contracted name ' which is all but indecl., having 'ATroAAw even for ace., Acts xix. 1 . And lastly, some names seemed capable of inflexion in some cases but not in all. To this class we may almost refer the name Irjcrovs, which in the riom. and the ace. Irjo-ovv is fairly regular, but has always in the N. T. Ir)}A,os, eXcos, perhaps ^o in Luke xxi. 25 (but not Heb. xii. 19 ; else- where the word occurs only in the nom.), as well as O-KOTOS, where the neut. form occurs in classical if not in Attic writers. The declension of the contracted substantives vovs and TrAoOs is, by a false analogy, assimilated to that of fiovs. The dual number has altogether disappeared : even the word a/^^cu has been superseded by d/x^oVe/ooi. Thus Svo is left without any word analogous to it, except the higher numerals, and tends to become, like them, indecl. It serves for gen., as well as nom. and ace. : but the dat. is Svcri[v], like r/atcrtV, reo'crapo'iv. (In this word the omission and insertion of the final v appear to be equally frequent : in most dat. pi. forms in -criv, and in the similar 3rd pi. of verbs, it is, according to MS. evidence, general but not universal.) Lastly, the tendency shows itself which has pre- vailed more widely in modern Greek, to make all sing. ace. forms (except of course neuters) end in v. Thus ^etpav, do-repay, and again (rvyytvfjv and the like, are in some places very strongly attested. Conversely, we twice (Acts xxiv. 27, Jude 4) have ^dp LTa instead of the usual x L P LV : one -^^ nas * ne same in Acts xxv. 9. 32 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. (c) Adjective. It is not worth while to discuss the cases where usage varies, in the N. T. as in other Greek, as to whether an adj. belonging to a fern, subst. shall receive a distinctive fern, termination, or retain that of the masc. Both classical and late usage being variable, the details of variation can hardly be signi- ficant, even where, according to the evidence now known, they varied in different directions. For instance, d/ayo?, " idle," is in the classical period of two terminations ; but the fern, form is found as early as Aristotle. In the IS". T. we have it in Tit. i. 12 as well as in 1 Tim. v. 13 : and though St. Paul was not a critic of Epimenides' text, it would be rash to say that Epimenides did not write apyaL Again, 6'o-ios is usually of three terminations, but of two, not only in 1 Tim. ii. 8, but as early as Plato. In the comparison of adjectives there is little divergence from classical use. Of course the later forms, which are usually the more regular, are found : e.g. the adv. " quicker " is always rvyiov, not Oacro-ov.* But /x,eioTpaK in 3 John 4 is the only case wl.ere we have a double comp. termination, such as becomes common in the later stage of a language, where forms of expression are losing their force, and have to be accumulated if it is to be retained. In the eA.a^icTTorepa) of Eph. iii. 8, of course the sup. and comp. terminations have each their proper meaning : the formation of the word is a licence, but not a symptom of decay. * rie/>i<70-Te/9ws, used by St. Paul and in Heb., has classical precedent (at least, Isocr. ad Nicocl. p. 35 fin. has Tre/otrro- FORMS VARIABLE FROM RARITY. 33 II. VERBS. In the rich and varied inflexions of the Greek verb, there are many forms as to which literary usage was, perhaps, at no period of the language strictly uni- form. There are some that occur so rarely, that there never were precedents enough to fix usage : * there are others whose formation is so exceptional that, when its history was forgotten, the impulse was at once felt to assimilate them to more regular types : others, again, that were familiar enough to be noted as anomalies, so that it was felt as a solecism to assimilate them. E.g., the pluperfect active of most verbs was a cumbrous form, and the cases where the aorist did not sufficiently express its sense were few : no ear therefore learnt to be shocked at the omission of the augment,! while many ears were shocked in- stinctively by the stuttering noise of an erer. or eTreTr. Again, to-/x,ev, tore ij: gave place to otSa/xev, -re, as people learnt Greek grammar without learning comparative repws) : though according to rule the comp. adv. would be irepuffforepov. * One may illustrate by an example in another language. Cicero declined to pronounce whether " Pompey in his third consulship " should be described as Consul Tertium or Tertio. Down to his time, a third consulship was all but unknown except in the unique case of Marius : but in the reign of Augustus, people were forced to decide in favour of tertiuw, as every one knows who has seen the Pantheon or a picture of it. f 'E/St/SA-tyTo in Luke xvi. 20, ffwereOeivro in John ix. 22, are the most certain cases of an augmented plupf. in the N. T., these being forms to which there is no euphonic objection. It may have counted for something, that in the oldest Greek the Z augment could always be omitted. J "Icr/mtv never occurs in the N. T. at all; tare as an imper. in the probable texts of Eph. v. 5, James i. 19 ; but as an indie, in Heb. xii. 17 only, where it, like to-curt in Acts xxvi. 4, may be a conscious classicism. 34 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. philology ; and double augments were in some cases eliminated, though in others they were introduced, or either retained or omitted as might happen.* We must not forget that we have to do, not with doctrinaire purists correcting the usages of a language by its supposed principles (like the revisers of the American Prayer Book, who in the Lord's Prayer wrote not only "who" for "which," but "those who" for "them that "), but with writers whose familiarity with usage was limited, and who therefore sometimes followed usages that were not the best, and sometimes sub- stituted deduction for usage as their guide. With respect to the " temporal augment " of verbs beginning with a vowel or diphthong, N. T. usage seems to differ from classical in some details, with- out any consistent rule or principle. Certain com- pound verbs have even a short vowel unaugmented 7rpoopo>/x//7v seems to be certain both in the LXX. of Psalm xv. (xvi.) 8, and in the quotation of it in Acts ii. 25. Still commoner is the omission of aug- ment in verbs beginning with a diphthong, especially 01 : e.g. 7raicrxvi/6rj in 2 Tim. i. 16 is practically certain ; otKoSo/^o-ei/ in Acts vii. 47 has the authority of BD, followed by Westcott and Hort, who doubt if the latter verb ever forms oj/coS. except in two places in the Gospels. Eu- is oftener augmented into rjv- than in classical Greek : evidence sometimes (e.g. Mark xiv. * We have (in the best texts) d^ecrxo/x^ in Acts xviii. 14, dveixeaOe in 2 Cor. xi. 1, and perhaps 4, instead of the classical ^ecrx-. jjmx., which the T. K. substitutes. But dTre/carecrrd^Ty is certain in Matt. xii. ]3=Markiii. 5=Luke vi. 10. And we get side by side in the same writer ^ve^d^aa.v and ave^ev (John ix. 10, 14), and -^ve^y^vri and ijvoi^tv (Rev. iv. 1, vi. 1 etc.) ; besides ihe altogether anomalous dpe^x ( ^ l/cu ( as it were assimilated to Q.V cx#cu) f Luke iii. 21. FORMATION OF PRETERITE TENSES. 35 55) predominates even for rjvpiorKov. There are scarcely any signs in the N. T. of the tendency, apparent in mediaeval and dominant in modern Greek, to put the augment at the very beginning of compound verbs, instead of after the prep. It is no exception that the correct forms are always * cTrpo^revoj/, -rcvcra, not Trpoec/). : the prep, being already incorporated in the subst. Trpo^rr/s forms part of the stem of the denominative verb. On the same principle we ought to get tbicuKovovv : but in fact we always have St^K. Irregularities in reduplication are few. Probably in Luke i. 27, almost certainly in ii. 5, we should read the classical e/AFT/crreu/xe^]/, -vrj, not /xc/xv. with the T. R. But in Heb. x. 22 we have the exceptional pepavrter/xeVot (as the second p is not doubled, editors hesitate to aspirate the first), and in Rev. xix. 13 we should probably read that or a similar form.f There was naturally a nearer approach made to symmetry and uniformity in the inflexion of particular tenses than in the formation of the stem of each tense. In the larger class of Greek verbs, indeed, the inflexion of each tense was regular enough in the classical lan- guage ; but there were three tenses, the two aorists and the perf., between which there either was no distinction of sense, or the distinction was tending to disappear. The consequence is, that we find three points in which 2nd aorists and perfects are assimilated to 1st aorists. The vowels o and e that introduce the longer 2nd * Except perhaps Jude 14 : even there B has e?r/oo0., tf Trpoe. The latter form is actually quoted from a Byzantine writer : but here it is unlikely that the scribe deliberately intended the double augment. He had it in one place in his copy, in the other in his head : unluckily we cannot tell which was which. f We are reminded of the Homeric pepvTrw/jisva. 36 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. aor. terminations are changed into a almost * con- stantly in the indie, of Treo-eu/, where indeed 7reo-a (Acts xxii. 7, Rev. xix. 10), makes a fairly regular 1st aor., but very frequently also in forms like eA$aTo> (Matt. vi. 10), etXaro (2 Thess. ii. 13), efya/xevos (Heb. ix. 12); not to speak of eiTra, (Acts xxvi. 15) which existed in classical times and, in some persons, was the usual Attic form in the N. T. eiTrav is, by MS. evidence, much commoner than etTrov, but not to the exclusion of the latter. t The 3rd person pi. of the perf. is several times made to end in -a*/, like that of the 1st aor. Luke ix. 36, John xvii. 6, 7, Acts xvi. 36, Rom. xvi. 7, Col. ii. 1, James v. 4, Rev. xix. 3, xxi. 6. (The true reading is hardly doubtful in any of these places : even the T. R. retains the form in -KCLV in John xvii. 7, Rev. xix. 3. Perhaps this is significant : in both places we get perfects and aorists approximating to each other in sense or form : and the approximation may have had its influence on the writers, as well as on the scribes who here only tolerated the excep- tional forms.) Again, the 3rd person pi. of both the impf. and the 2nd aor. takes the termination -ocrav often in the LXX., and sometimes (John xv. 22, 24, 2 Thess. iii. * The passage where the MS. evidence is least decidedly in favour of the a form is the virtually identical one in Luke xxiii. 30, Rev. vi. 16. Evidence is also doubtful in the LXX. of Hos. x. 8, whence the words are derived. Tischeiidorf reads wito/xi/in Luke xi. 4, (rwtovo-w in Matt. xiii. 13, besides more doubtful cases : and there is no question about the still more anomalous rjffritv in Mark i. 34, xi. 16. The same principle appears in the assimilation, though the vowel-change is the converse one, of e^eSoro to e^eSero in Matt. xxi. 33 = Mark xii. 1 = Luke xx. 9 ;* so efc/cpe/xcro in Luke xix. 48. 'A^eWrai, which cer- tainly occurs in St. Luke (v. 20, 23, vii. 47-8) and John (xx. 23, 1 Ep. ii. 12), though critical texts reject it elsewhere, is a little less strange : we get di/eWrat in Herodotus, and other analogous forms. We may mention here the preference of a for rj in the 1st aor. of verbs in -atVw : in Luke i. 79, we have even [e7n,]av?7, not anrJ, as the accentuation in Rev. viii. 12, xviii. 23. Of verbs confessedly irregular, the most important N. T. variations from the usual inflexion are in certain parts of the verb eti/at. In the impf. T^V is usual, and the pi. rj/xe&x seems to occur (Matt, xxiii. 30 bis, Acts xxvii. 37, perhaps Gal. iv. 3, Eph. ii. 3). About * Perhaps the fact that this irregular form, like dTreK (p. 34 n.), runs through all three Gospels is to be ranked as evidence (though one such case, or even two, is far short of proof) of a written Greek document used by the authors of all. Of the two words cited, e^Sero proves most, as there is less evidence of its frequent use. VOWELS IN CONTRACTED VERBS. 39 equally frequent is 77? for the 2nd sing. (Matt. xxv. 21, 23, John xi. 21, 32, xxi. 18, Rev. iii. 15). Less common, and with less ground in analogy, is the 3rd imper. r/ra> (1 Cor. xvi. 22, James v. 12). The last of these anomalies that we need notice is the formation of persons other than the 1st, and of participles and infinitives, of contracted verbs. Verbs in -ao> regularly make, by a sort of return to first prin- ciples, -ao-at in the 2nd sing. med. (Luke xvi. 25, Rom. ii. 17, etc.): cf. always make the inf. in -olv not -ow, except irXrjpovv in Luke ix. 31. Certain other forms from stems in o raise syntactical questions, for which see below (p. 107-8). But we may notice here the Si&o which in Rev. iii. 9 seems to stand for Si'Soyu, and the (not unnatural) formation aTroStSow which is not improbable in xxii. 2. In all these points, it is hard to draw the line between questions of inflexion and questions of orthography the latter of which we do not think it needful to discuss. And in nearly all, the question is complicated with that of uncertainties of reading. For a full discussion of these, we must refer to Westcott and Hort's Appendix II. We can only say, as a summary of the conclusions there arrived at, what were the general habits of the chief groups of MSS. in re- producing or disguising what we may regard as the spelling of the N. T. writers.* Apparently, those MSS. which transmit the text with least modifi- cation transmit the spelling with least modification too; though here we have to allow a good deal for * We must remember, when we use this phrase, that in the case of St. Paul at least, the most that we can arrive at is the practice, not of the Apostle, but of his various amanuenses. VARIATIONS OF SPELLING. 41 individualism^ e.g. Cod. B is a great deal too fond of the diphthong t in place of the simple t, while K has the reverse tendency. But spellings (or grammatical forms) diverging from the classical type were intro- duced (as substantive various readings were) very freely by the second- century transcribers or editors with whom the so-called " Western text " arose. On the other hand, mediaeval scribes (at least those of Constantinople : those of Southern Italy had not the requisite scholarship) made a conscience of suppressing such forms ; as one can see by comparing the letters inked over by the "third hand" of B (in the 10th century ?) with the original. It is very frequent to find the v I^XKVO-TLKOV before consonants elaborately scratched out by the Stoptfomjs in cursive MSS., which inserted it most frequently when they were reproduc- ing an ancient text.* * The twelfth century Cod. Ev. 604, which has a very ancient and interesting element in its text very unequally distributed, has the v (erased or otherwise) 102 times in. the first 12 cc. of St. Luke, and only 15 times in the last 12: the difference in the proportion o substantive " pre- Syrian " readings being even larger. 42 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. III. PARTICLES, AND COMPOSITION OF VERBS. In the late stages of a language it is common for words to have their distinctive force lost or weakened by frequent use, so that it is felt necessary, if that force is to be recalled, to emphasise it by an accumulation of synonymous words. We are familiar with this phenomenon in the Romance languages compared with Latin : when e.g., ipse came to mean little more than " he," [se]me or [se]ip8um did not seem clearly or emphatically to express " himself," and people said \se\metipsissimum, whence medesimo and meme. In the same way, some words in modern Greek have had their senses weakened e.g. Treptcra-o- repos has come to mean simply " more " (it is hardly so vague anywhere in the !N. T., but see Dan. iv. 33 Theod.) : * and so some words (particles espe- cially) have to be combined, to give them any distinctive meaning. We get beginnings, but not more than beginnings, of this tendency in the Greek of the N. T., in words like TrapeKTOS, ^TrepeKTrepwro-oG, Karei/wTrtov, /carei/ai/rt, aTreVavrt, eTravcot words, for the most part, peculiar to biblical Greek. They are in fact less like anything in Attic than such Homeric forms as 7rape' wroc, K.r.X. * " Theodotion " must be accepted as a conventional name for the received Greek text of Daniel, though doubt has been thrown on its being really his : just as the Chigi text is con- ventionally cited as " LXX." f Perhaps eirdvu always means more than the simple tirl. Comparing Kev. vi. 8 with ibid. 2, 4, 5, we may think that, while the riders in human form sat " on " their horses and managed them, the last demon or spectre only appeared " over " or " atop of " his horse. NON-SIGNIFICANT COMPOUND FORMS. 43 With these compounded or emphasised particles we may compare the cases where verbs are com- pounded with two prepositions instead of one, or even where a compound verb is used instead of a simple, without anything being contributed by the composition or re-composition, (here again we have Homeric parallels) except some measure of emphasis. This is the case with a7re/a/co?7, correlative to irapaKotieLV in its biblical, non-classical sense) should rather be reckoned among words formed on classical lines to express Christian thoughts. t fag. in St. Luke i. 1 avaTaaT%)OS as indicating two Persons, though only the former word has the art. The gen. ^i o-7retpctv GLVTOV (Matt. xiii. 4), we see a characteristically Hellenistic use of the pron. as well as of the prep., the whole constr. being equivalent to a common Hebrew one. Not less characteristically Hellenistic is the use of the enclitic gen. of the personal pronouns, to the almost complete exclusion of the adjectival possessives. The latter are never used unless emphatic : when used, they always have the art. (Matt, xviii. 20, Mark viii. 38, etc.), except where they stand as predicates (Matt. xx. 23 Mark x. 40, John xiii. 35, xiv. 24, xv. 8, xvi. 15, xvii. 10, 2 Cor. viii. 23; Luke xv. 31, John xvii. 6, 9, 10, Luke vi. 20; John iv. 34, Phil. iii. 9 really come under this principle, * Modern Greek has an enclitic pron. of the 8rd person, TOV, TOV, etc. : apparently rather apocopated from avrbv, CLVTOV, etc., than a revival of the pronominal use of the art. USE OF POSSESSIVE GENITIVE. 55 though the predication is less direct). St. Paul some- times writes 6 {yxoii/ instead of 6 {yx-e'repos (Rom. xvi. 19, 1 Cor. vii. 35, ix. 12, xvi. 18, 2 Cor. i. 6, vii. 7, 15, viii. 14, xii. 19, xiii. 9, Phil. i. 19, 25, ii. 30, Col. i. 8, 1 Thess. iii. 7) : but this usage is confined to his writings, and in them to the pron. of the 2nd person pi. (To e*iVw 7re/o\oi. Again, it is equally regular, when in ver. 32 we have a gen. abs. introducing the next incident, avruv Se e^cp^o/xo/wv iSov TrpocrrjveyKav avro) KOX^OJ/ 8aijU,oi/ioju,ei/oi/ But in v. 1 we have (according to the more probable text) a sentence constructed on the latter type where grammatical rule calls for the former, /cafliVai/To? avrov 7rpocrr)X.6av aura) * ot fiaOrp-al avrov : so viii. 1,* 5,* 28,* xxi. 23,* xxiv. 3, xxvi. 6, 7, and nearly so xvii. 22. One may see a little more reason for the use of the two cases in i. 18, 20, xxii. 41 : and in general, the gen. abs. may be defended where the second mention of its subject does rxot come till far on in the sentence, or where (as in Mark v. 21) its case is not constructed in relation to the main sentence, but depends upon a * In the first passage there is high but limited authority for omitting the pron.. and in the next four there is some, some- times much, for assimilating the constr. to that of viii. 2!>. 58 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. prep. But what can be said of a constr. like that which occurs as a variant in some of these places, and without variation in Matt. viii. 23 ? e/x/Savri aura) ets TrXoiov rjKo\.ov0rj(rav avraS ot fJiaOrjTal avrov. Plainly here the second aura) is in the strictest sense redund- ant : and the use of the first in the dat. shows that we are not hypercritical, in saying that that case would have been more correct than the gen. abs. in sentences like that cited from v. 1. This irregularity, in one form or the other, is somewhat more frequent in Matt, than elsewhere ; chiefly because, as in the instances cited, St. Matthew's favourite formula Trpoo-^A^ei/ or TrpocreXOw avra> lends itself so easily to it. But it is in fact common to all the historical books, except St. John's Gospel : he does not misuse the gen. abs., because he makes rare use of it, as of other idiomatic Greek constructions. In St. Luke's Gospel the irregularity is rare, for a similar reason : with him the gen. abs. is almost superseded by the Hebraistic tv TW c. infin. But even there xxii. 53, xxiv. 41 perhaps xxiv. 5 and one or two more are instances though not harsh ones : xx. 1 has not the redundant pron. in the second clause, but has the irregular gen. abs. in the first. And in Acts there are several cases as decided as any in Matt, or Mark iv. 1, x. 19,* xvi. 16, xix. 30, xxi. 17, xxv. 7 : while xxii. 17 is a compound instance, and perhaps the harshest in the whole New Testament, except Mark vi. 22. In the last cited passage, no one can doubt that any correct Greek * Here, as in Matt. v. 1, B is " subsingular " in omitting the pron. In several of the other passages there are variants, but not of much authority. IN RELATIVE AND OTHER SENTENCES. 59 author would have written yevo/xeV^s i^epas CVK., ore . . . raAiAatas, tier \0 over a rj Ovydrrjp . . . /cat op^cra/xeV?/, ypeo-tv K.T.X, 2 Cor. iv. 18 is perhaps the only example of this irregularity in St. Paul : there the pron. is ^u,as, not aura's, but the gen. abs. is redundant in just the same way. Another redundant use of the oblique cases of auros is in relative sentences ; which may perhaps be thought to have furnished the type to which Matt, viii. 23 is conformed. In Hebrew, the relative is an indecl. particle in late Hebrew hardly more than an inseparable prefix so that, to define its constr., it is necessary to insert a pron. or pronominal adv. at the proper place in the sentence : just as in modern Greek or in vulgar modern English we get Trpay/xa OTTOV Sei/ TO voo-Ti/JLevofjiaL* " a thing which I don't like it." The reproduction of this constr., not unknown in Hellenistic Greek generally,f is carried very far in the Apoc. : see iii. 8, vii. 2, 9, xii. 6, 14, xiii. 12, xvii. 9, xx. 8. Mark xiii. 19, OXtyis oca ov ytyovw TOiavTr), is similar to Rev. xvi. 18, otos OVK eyeVero . . . TT/Xt/covros crewr/xos oimo /xeyas : but while in the latter the last clause is no doubt redundant as it stands (even apart from the fact that scarcely more than a mere equivalent to even there, and much more in Mark 1. c., the demonstr. may be held to be rather transposed than to be * Sophocles' Romaic' Grammar, 164. 1. He says the constr. can be used, even if the rel. is inflected. f There is only one unmistakable instance in the N. T. outside the Apoc., Mark i. 7 = Luke iii. 16. In all other cases, either the pron. has another constr. to legitimate it, or there is authority for its omission. But there is little doubt that it should stand in Mark vii. 25, and there if retained it is certainly redundant. 60 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. exactly redundant. ^Utoyxos eyeVero yue'yas, T oto? ov K eyeVero K.r.X. would be quite grammatical Greek : and (waiving the question of the peculiar coDstr. of the first words in St. Mark), co-rat OXtyis Toiavrrj ota ov yeyovev would be not only grammatical but easy perhaps more elegant than if ota stood alone. We have thus far spoken of avros when used as a personal pron., as it confessedly is in all Greek, in its oblique cases. But we have to consider the question, Is the word used in the New Testament as a mere personal pron. in the nom. also 1 It is no proof to the contrary, that it " never occurs without a certain degree of emphasis " (Winer) ; for this is true of the nom. of all personal pronouns : the question we have to consider is, whether it is not used where the only thing to be emphasised is the mention of the person. Now where avros is used of the principal agent, as distinguished from other persons (Mark ii. 25, avros KOL ol fj.T avrovj etc.), of course the use is strictly classical. It is not incorrect even in sentences like Matt. i. 2 1 , where avros yap trwo-et means more than o-oxret yap,* or Mark iv. 38, where auros means, " He, the principal person of the story," as distinguished from the disciples named in ver. 34, who have been spoken of since by pronouns and 3rd persons of verbs : though the use in sentences like one or other of these is relatively more frequent than in classical Greek. In Matt. iii. 11, xi. 14, xii. 50, and elsewhere, e^ai/os, * Best translated with the R. V., " it is He that shall save." Even if there be a reference to the etymology of the Name recorded in Ninm. xiii. 10, anything that suggested that reference would be a gloss rather than a translation. IN RELATIVE AND OTHER SENTENCES. 61 or sometimes OUTOS, would be more natural or more elegant, though we might not say that avrds is im- possible. The same might be said of some passages in St. Paul and John, Eph. ii. 14, Col. i. 17, John Ep. I. iii. 24, iv. 13, 15, being the most marked. But the most certainly unhellenic use of the word is one confined to the Apocalypse (xiv. 10, xix. 15 not only iii. 20, but xiv. 17, and prob. xvii. 11 are different) and St. Luke's Gospel ; which in this as in other points is more Hebraistic than the others in the method of introducing narratives, though some- times more classical in their substance. Kat avrds in Luke i. 22, ii. 28, v. 1, 17, viii. 1, 22, xvii. 11, xix. 2, Kat avrrj in ii. 37, Kat avroi in xiv. 1, xxiv. 14 are plainly as Hebraistic as the Kat eyeVero ei/ rw . . . or Kat l$ov that usually precede them : and these are only the clearest cases, shading off through passages like iv. 15, v. 14, xv. 14, into others like v. 16, vi. 20, etc., where avros often stands without Kat, and in any case does not go beyond the usage of the other Gospels. With regard to the use of the accented or the enclitic forms of the oblique cases of the personal pronouns, it is only in the case of the 1st person (e/tie, e/xor, C/AOI as distinct from /xe K-r.A.) that we have direct evidence. In modern Greek, the rule is stated as absolute (Soph., Rom. 6rV., 160-2) that enclitic pronouns are not used after prepositions: and modern usage is the more worth attending to, because here we have facts, not the theories of grammarians transmitted by scribes or printers. But in the 1ST. T. there is one frequent exception to this rule, in the combination Trpos /xe, which we find often, even when the pron. has no small emphasis. In John 62 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. vi. 44, 45, the reading varies between TT/OOS /x arid - c/xe: in ver. 35-7 we get the two side by side, and are not surprised at the unemphatic form being used when the emphatic precedes it. But in ver. 65, and in v. 40, vii. 37, we have TT/OOS /AC standing by itself: so Matt. iii. 14, xi. 28, xix. 14 ( = Mark x. 14= Luke xviii. 16), xxv. 36, Mark ix. 19, Luke i. 43? vi. 47, xi. 6, xiv. 26, Acts xi. 11, xxii. 10, 21, xxvi. 14 (xxii. 8, xxiii. 22, xxiv. 19 T. R). Not all of these are emphatic, but many are : one fails to trace any principle that should tell us whether to write or pronounce Trpos o-e or Trpos Se, a not uncommon N. T. word), and where ravry would be more appropriate. Besides this passage, the N. T. uses of the word are two only : once virtually in- definite, Jas. iv. 13, a sense hardly known to classical Greek, but of which we see the beginnings in Aristotle ; * and occasionally in reference to a speech or letter about to be recited; Acts xxi. 11 (and xv. 23, T. R.), and in Apoc. ii., iii., before each of the Epp. to the Seven Churches. (In 2 Cor. xii. 19, of course we should read read TO, Se as two words.) OVTOS and eKetVos are used much as in earlier Greek, except in the greater relative frequency of what may be called their epexegetical use where they * Pint. Symp. I. vi. 1 is quoted as a parallel. There Plutarch says, as a proof of Alexander's intemperance, that in his official journal eK Tov TTGTOv tKaSevdev. But there the words introduced by OTL are, no doubt, given as a verbatim extract from the journal. Still, though not a parallel to the one in St. James, this passage is a sort of illustration of the way that that use arose. 66 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. stand in app. to a foregoing noun, or more frequently to a participial or equivalent cause, accentuating and calling attention to the thing designated by that word or clause as the subject, or less often the object, of the sentence. We have real instances of this construction in classical writers, beginning with Xen. Ages. iv. 4, ol TrpotKa tv TreTroi/^ore?, OVTOL del ^Sew? VTrrjpeTovo'i ro> evepyer^, Id. Symp. viii. 33, and we have approximations to it still earlier : but it is never so common in pure Greek as in the N. T. To show its frequency there, we can only refer to the passages marked * * (or in some oblique cases * * *) in Bruder's Concordance, s.vv. OVTOS and cKeu/os; instead of enumerating these, we can only call attention to John xii. 48, Horn. vii. 10 (prob.), where the preceding word is a subst. ; Matt xiii. 38, (John xvi. 13), where it is a subst. different in gender and number from the pron. ; John xiv. 26, Acts ii. 22-3, vii. 35, where it is a group of substantives already in app., and relative clauses; Acts iv. 10, 1 Cor. vii. 20, where it is a subst. depending on a prep., which is ' repeated with the pron. ; Rom. ix. 6, Gal. iii. 7, where there is no ptcp., and it is hardly necessary to supply one ; and 1 Cor. viii. 3, 2 Thess. iii. 14, James iii. 2, where et ns c. indie, takes the place of the ptcp. with art. This last is hardly distinguishable from conditional sentences like John ix. 31, or relative ones like Matt. v. 19, where ovros is no longer epexegetical, but stands naturally in the apodosis. Avro TOVTO {TOVTO avro in 2 Cor. ii. 3) is peculiar to St. Paul, except for 2 Peter i. 5. The most marked irregularity in the use of the rel. pron., the use of a personal or demonstr. pron. RELATIVES AND INTERROG ATIVES. 67 in a kind of remote apposition with it, has already been noticed (p. 59). But, besides this comparatively rare Hebraism, there are other signs in the use of the rel. of the late stage of the language, signs less conspicuous, but more significant of internal change. In English, the originally interrogative pronouns " who " and " which" have encroached largely on the use of the primitive relative " that " which as in Greek was identical in form, though not in accent, with the demonstr. pron. that became a definite art. In Greek, we are able to trace the process by which the boundary between rel. and interrog. sentences is liable to be obliterated. In 1 Tim. i. 7 we have the two used side by side, and see that the use of one or other makes hardly any difference to the sense : * the sentence may be conceived as either relative or (in a wide sense of the term) interrogative, in such phrases as " I know who . . . ," " He told him who it was," and the like. Now in Greek there existed a pron. combining in form the rel. and the interrog., and having among its uses that of serving for cases like those that lie on the borders of the two senses : but this word carts, though not un- common in the 1ST. T. in other usages, is, curiously enough, never, or only once, there employed in this. But it, as well as the separate os and TI'S, each usurp some functions for which one of the others might be thought more proper, For it appears on the whole to be proved, that in late Greek 6Wis, at least its neut. cm, is occasionally though rarely used in direct questions : and hence * Even if 5iaj3e/3cuoOj/rcu be a deliberative subj. (see p. 107 n.), the difference, though real, is slight. 68 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. there is no necessity, hardly any probability, for denying that it is so used in the N. T. No passage indeed in which it is so used is quite free from question as to reading or sense. If we read on in Matt. vii. 14, it seems certainly easiest to translate it "Because." In Mark ix. 11, on the contrary " Why . . . ? " is the natural and obvious sense : it is only if we have an a priori scruple against ad- mitting it, that we shall reflect that it makes a sort of sense to translate, " They questioned Him, saying, 1 The scribes say . . . ; ' " the statement of fact, that the scribes said so, suggesting the question " What do they mean by it ? " or " In what sense is it true ? " But when we see that the passage does not stand alone, that in ver. 28 it is even more difficult to explain the word as otherwise than interrog., that moreover in 1 Paral. xvii. 6 on stands for " Why " in the LXX., or at least can only be taken otherwise by another far-fetched explanation we can hardly fail to admit the use as established : the only question that remains is as to the limits of its rarity. In Mark ii. 16 there is hardly any doubt that on with- out n is the true reading ; but the categorical or the interrogative sentence will make almost equally good sense. In John viii. 25, the question is a very difficult one, but it is one of exegesis not of grammar : as grammarians we can only report, that the words can be taken as interrogative, if exegetically that view seems best. Are we to say that in Matt. xxvi. 50, the simple o is used interrogatively ? If not, we have to sup- pose a rather harsh ellipsis : but no such use of o OeXu, aXXa TL cry, and perhaps in Acts xiii. 25, TL (v. 1. rtVa) e/xe vTroi/oetre eu/ai OVK elpl eyw. In the latter place indeed it is perhaps better to punctuate and translate as the A. Y. the gloss 6 XC. after cyw, old enough to have crept into the text, shows that this punctuation was a natural one : and in the other it may be argued that the use of the interrog. suggests a modification of the sense, " the question is not what I will, but what Thou." But one cannot deny that the transition of meaning is almost made; and one can only question how far it goes further than is possible in pure Greek : see Soph. El. 316, IcrTopcL TL croL . 72 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. of ets and ere/oos (each sometimes with and sometimes without the art.) which we get in Matt. vi. 24 Luke xvi. 13; Luke vii. 41, xvii. 34, xviii. 10; Acts xxiii. 6 1 Cor. iv. 6. This does not however differ in principle from the classical ets aw . . . 6 Se . . ., of which we have something like an instance in Gal. iv. 24. More serious is the deviation from Greek usage where the word is used reciprocally, as 1 Thess. v. 11, or distributively in the phrases KCL&' ets and its modifications (Mark xiv. 19, ps. John viii. 9, Rom. xii. 5), or ava cts cicaerros (Apoc. xxi. 21). The first is said to be an Aramaism : *a$' els, though con- demned as bad Greek, seems to be a native Greek growth. But when we compare ets Kara els of Mark xiv. 19 with 8Yo Bvo vi. 7 (Ecclus. xxxiii. (xxxvi.) 15 : Luke x. 1 6.va Bvo or ava oYo Su'o),* and this with vi. 39, 40, cru/XTrocria o"u/x,7roVitt . . . 7rpa(rial Trpavial Kara c/carov KOL Kara Trevny/coi/ra, we seem to feel that there is a foreign as well as a native element in the change of idiom. Another word, not commonly called a pronoun but used as equivalent to one, is tStos : see Matt. xxii. 5, 1 Cor. vii. 2, for cases where it is coupled with a pronominal gen. with apparently no distinction in sense. Lastly we may mention under this head the Hebraistic use of ov (or more rarely UTJ) . . . TTOS as * While speaking of these Hebraistic uses of numerals, we may mention in passing the frequent fjiia vafi&aTuv. That here, pla is "used for" an ordinal may be admitted, in view of the TrpuTf] wv?;v d/covcu/ in xxii. 9 ; this is a grammatical question to be answered on grammatical grounds : though the best answer will here also be arrived at by examination of usage, not by deduction from the supposed nature of the gen. or ace. Still more plainly, the grammarian has a right to speak where the writer himself calls attention to a constr. or to a particle : e.g., in passages like Rom. xi. 36, 1 Cor. viii. 6, Eph. iv. 6, we have to consider the grammatical question of the force of the prepositions, before we can settle the exegetical or theological question, what ets avrov or ev iracnv can mean in these particular contexts : The Greek language has even to the present day retained the primitive case-inflexions of the noun to an extent very unusual among modern languages : * though the dat. Las become almost obsolete. But it has shared the tendency common to all modern languages to become more analytical to supplement or supersede inflexion by the use of particles : and we see this tendency to some extent at work in the N. T. Any tendency that there was in this direction * How rapidly such forms may disappear can be seen in the case of the Celtic languages. As known from inscriptions down to at least the first century A.D., they have a full declension of case-endings, closely akin to the Latin and in some respects more primitive : but in the oldest Irish and Welsh literature (of perhaps the fifth and sixth centuries respectively) their terminations have all disappeared, except that in Irish there are traces of the dat. pi. The non-specialist can trace the disintegration in such a book as Prof. Khys' Celtic Britain. 76 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. in the popular Greek language of the age would be sure to be reinforced in Hellenistic Greek, by Mie imitation of Semitic idioms, where case-inflexion hardly exists, and where prepositions (or at least inseparable particles which may be fairly so called) are used very extensively. But apart from this tendency (for instances of which see pp. 137 sqq.\ there is not very much that is peculiar in the N. T. use of the cases themselves. We have, however, two or three irregular uses of the nom. With the art., it stands very often for the voc. ; * as Matt. xi. 26, where 6 Ilcmyp is exactly parallel to Hdrtp in the pre- ceding verse ; Mark xiv. 36, Rom. viii. 15, Gal. iv. 6 all which show that 6 HOLTYJP was the recognised, quasi-liturgical " interpret a tion j> for the yXwo-o-a *A/3/3a of inspired prayer. Perhaps we may illustrate this usage by the way that the 3rd person is used in German as more contemptuous, and in Italian as more respectful than the 2nd : you talk to equals, but of superiors and at inferiors. Not that the use or omis- sion of the art. conesponds with the tone being reverential or objurgatory. We get 17 Treu? in Luke viii. 54 (cf. Mark v. 4), TO jjuKpov TTOL^VLOV in xii. 32, where the tone, though kindly, is condescending : the nearest classical parallel is the use of 6 Trats in Ar. Ran. 40, which seems to have been only colloquial, and apparently always curt. Somewhat different * It is a mistake to note as unclassical the use of the voc. without & at the beginning of speeches, as with the phrase cLfdpes d5eA0oi in Acts i. 16 ct passim, or "Ai>8pes 'Ad-rjvaloi, 'E06rtof, in the more classicalibing passages, xvii. 22, xix. 35. This is a transgi-ession of the usage, not of classical orators but of late rhetoricians and grammarians : according to the best MS. evidence, Demosthenes habitually, at least in some speeches, said tivdpes 'AOijvatoi without tD. EXCEPTIONAL USER OF NOMINATIVE. 77 is the use of the iiom. without the art. in Luke xii. 20, '1 Cor. xv. 36 : there one may say we have simply cases of non-use of the distinctive vocative inflexion. Moreover, though ap(oi/ appears to be decidedly the true text in both passages, we must remember that confusion between o and o> was one of the earliest forms of error or irregularity to appear in Greek spelling, so that even the best MSS. are less absolutely to be trusted on this point than on others. A more serious irregularity is found in the usage of the Apoc,, where, of two nouns in appos., the second is regularly put in the nom., whatever be the case of the former i. 5, ii. 20, etc. In such a crude form as this, the usage is confined to this one book, and might be reckoned rather as one of its peculiar anomalies of language than as representing a tendency of Hellenistic Greek generally. But when we look at Mark xii. 38-40 in the light of these passages, it is hard to avoid thinking that we have a parallel case : the force of the sentence is weakened, if we put a pause before ot /careo-^ovre?, or do away with that after Trpoo-ev^o/xevot : see also Luke xx. 27, and even Acts x. 37. 2 Cor. xi. 28 ; James hi. 8 are not parallel cases there is there a real break in the sentence : but in Phil. iii. 18, 19 it is hard to make ot ra cTrtyeia of Acts vii. 20, we get it used very vaguely, where one can only gloss it " in relation to " e.g. Rom. vi. 20, eXev^epot rrj (Wcuocrw?/, which would hardly have been intelligible but for &ov\.o)QrjT. rrj SIK. in ver. 18 : 2 Cor. x. 4 Swara ru> eo) (different, of course, in sense even more than in constr. from Matt. xix. 26 and para^els) : James ii. 5 (true text) TOVS TTTW^OVS TU> KOCT/XW. Unclei this head fall also sentences su^h as Rom. vi. 10, already referred to as needing theological rather than grammatical study for their adequate exposition. It is questionable how far the dat. acquires, in N. T. Greek, the sense of motion to a place, which it rarely has in classical, though the modern use of the prep, to obscures the distinction. It seems need- less to avoid so understanding ep^o/W crot in Rev. ii. 5, 16, for however incorrect the use may be, such an error would be more in the manner of that book than a refinement like the ethical dat. or dativus incom- modi. And if this be taken locally, it helps us with the still harder dat. TCUS Tr/Doo-ct^ais in viii. 4 ; which indeed could hardly have been written, but for the wa Sojo-et rats Trp. in the preceding verse, but when coupled with that is intelligible in Hellenistic Greek as in English : " there was given- him much incense, 6 82 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. that he should put it to the prayers . . . and the smoke of the incense went up to the prayers." But in Acts ii. 33, v. 31 it seems better to take TTJ Seia as instrumental, or if it has any local sense, to render it rather " exalted at the right hand " than " to." In Acts xxi. 16, the first dat. that occurs is the quite regular one o> after -rapd, and the others owe their case to the attraction of this : the constr. is not ayoi/res MVatrcovt, whether the sense be ayoi/rcs Mvaorcora or ayovT9 [^as] Trapa Mvacrwra. In Mark xiv. 53, if crvvcpxovTai cd/ro) be right, it can be translated " the chief priests . . . come [into the judgment hall] with him " [Caiaphas] : but if the pron. be retained, it no doubt would be more natural to understand it " come together to him " [i.e. prob. to Jesus]. The reading here however is too uncertain to prove anything : and in John xi. 33 TOVS (rvvcXOovras avrfj is certainly " that came with her " see ver. 31. One can hardly say whether, in Mark x. 33 ( = Matt. xx. 18 si vera .), KaraKpivov&iv CLVTOV $avara), the dat. is one of destination (and so comparable to the more or less local datives we have been consider- ing), or is, in a wide sense, instrumental. The former view is supported, not only by the fact that modern languages have an analogous idiom, but by the v. 1. ets Odvarov of Cod. X in Matt., adopted by Tischendorf (in Mark, Cod. D has -rov) : the other, by i/o? Oavdrov Kara/ce/c/oi/xe'i/oi/ in Eur. Andr. 496. The phrase Ka,TaSiKaecr0ai $ai/aTa>, implying a constr. of KaraSt/ca etv like that of '/cara/cptVctv here, is late but not biblical : and the supposed phrase is in fact hardly found in the act. Still more peculiar is the dat. rot? Soy/xacru' in Col. ii; 14. The constr. must be virtually the same as USES OF DATIVE AND GENITIVE. 83 that of ei/ Sdy/xao-ti/ in the parallel passage, Eph. ii. 1 5 ; and grammatically the easiest course is to take the dat., with or without cv, as instrumental, in con- nexion with KaTapyrjo-as and eaAei'i/fas respectively in the two places. But here again higher exegetical considerations come in : and the A. V. is probably substantially right. We must notice one distinct use of the dat. of manner when the dat. of an abstract verbal noun is used as a representative of the Hebrew " absolute infinitive," and joined with a finite part of the cognate verb, to emphasise the statement of its action. So Luke xxii. 15 eVttftyxta CTrc^u/ftpra, John iii. 29 xpa x a *P l > ^ cts ( 1V - 1>jr , T - R -)> v - 28 > xxiii - 14 , James v. 17 ; besides Matt. xiii. 14 etc., xv. 4, which are quotations (in the latter, note that the subst. and verb are not formally cognate : in the LXX. of Ex. xxi. 15 OavaTu 9ava.Tov(T0u>, they are). Commoner in the LXX., but rarer in the N. T., is an equivalent use of the ptcp. : see p. 130. The gen. in its commonest use, where it is depen- dent on another subst., is in the N. T. almost always put after the governing word not before it, as generally in Latin and always (if the inflected gen. is used at all) in English. We have it much less often than in Attic placed like an attribute between the art. and the governing subst. Thus we may think that, in a sentence like Matt. ix. 14= Mark ii. 18= Luke v. 33, a classical writer would have pre- ferred ot [TOV] * ludvov juaO^rai : certainly it would not be safe to say of such a writer, as we may of St. Paul, that OLTTO KY I1NC in 2 Cor. iii. 18 cannot mean " from the Spirit of the Lord." Or to take a less 84 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. imaginary case : where St. Luke is writing Hellenis- tically (Ev. i. 10) he has -rrav TO irXfjOos ryv TOV Xaov (T. E. TOV Xaov yv) : so ii. 13, v. 6, vi. 17, viii. 37, xix. 37, xxiii. 27, Acts iv. 32, v. 14, 16, vi 2. But when we come to more Hellenic passages, we have 'EAA/^i/on/ TTO\V TrXfjOos in xiv. 1, xvii. 4 cf. xxviii. 3; yet the other order as often xiv. 4, xxi. 36, xxv. 24.* The fact is, for the governed word to precede the governing is the common order in Greek, but is liable to be modified by the use of the art. and other considerations : while in the Hebrew (what we should consider) the governing word always stands first. Of other irregularities in the use of this case, the chief is the very wide extension of the independent use of what may be called a partitive gen., or a gen. with or without a prep., depending on rive'? or some case of it, which is not expressed. We get such a gen. standing as subject to a verb often Acts xxi. 16, etc., and for this there is classical precedent, though not with such frequency : but hardly for its carrying a ptcp. as well as a verb, as it does in John vii. 40, where it is subject, and in 2 John 4, where it is object. An irregularity in that of the gen. abs. has already been noted (p. 57-8). Of other uses of the gen. the most distinctively Hellenistic is the quasi-adjectival gen. of quality. Unmistakable instances of this are found in Luke xvi. 8, 9, xviii. 6, Eev. xiii. 3, and probably James i. 25 : nor need we refuse to see the influence of this Hebraistic idiom in theological phrases, such * Where two genitives depend, not one upon another, but in different relations on the same word, one is put before and the other after it. So (Acts v. 32, T. E.,) 2 Cor. v. 1, Phil. ii. 30, 1 Thess. i. 3. This principle perhaps explains what seems the strangeness of order in Rev. vii. 1 7, farjs iryyas vddrwi*. HELLENISTIC USES OF GENITIVE. 85 as dvacrracris anJ9, KpT9, John v. 29, 8iKaiooo-t9 00779, Rom. v. 18, o-w/xa TT}? a/x,u/oTias, ib. vi. 6, and even e/c TOI) croj/xaros rot Oavdrov rovrov, ib. vii. 24, though TOT/TOV is probably rather to be taken with Oavdrov than crw/xaros. But in these last passages, though the gen. is one of quality, it would be wrong or impossible to translate it by an adj. : and still more in such places as Col. i. 13, 1 Thess. i. 3, 2 Thess. i. 7, Heb. i. 3, 2 Peter ii. 10 in the last, indeed, /uacr/u,oi) seems to depend quite regularly on l-n-tOvfjita. Not always clearly distinguish- able from this is the use of the gen. for epexegesis sometimes called the gen. of apposition : of which we have instances in Rom. iv. 11 (best text, but we have apposition as a v. .), 1 Cor. v. 5 : so no doubt John ii. 21, though here as the governing word is also a gen., it is just possible to take it as in apposition. This is hardly to be treated as a Hebraism, but it is carried further in Hellenistic than in pure Greek : there it would hardly go beyond cases like 2 Peter ii. 6. Its relation to the gen. of quality may be illustrated by Luke xxii. 1, where we cannot say that the meaning is not "the feast characterised by unleavened bread" : but that the classical constr. by apposition (which we get in John vii. 2) did pass in Hellenistic Greek into phrases like this is shown in 2 Mace. vi. 7, TT}S AiovucriW eop-n}?, where the art. and the order exclude apposition. But this constr. also is sometimes pressed beyond its legitimate limits. Here we have points where the instinct of the cultivated man will be sounder than that of the mere " scholar." Biblical Greek, like biblical and even modern English, has been brought under Hebraising influence through translations of the 0. T. : but as a rule each language has only assimilated as 86 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. much Hebraism as was in harmony with its own nature : it is only in such writings as the Apocalypse, and parts of St. Luke's Gospel, that we get anything more. In 1 Cor. xiv. 33, Heb. x. 39, we get what may be called genitives of quality, but these would be quite intelligible would even appear idiomatic to a reader accustomed to classical Greek. But in 1 Thess. v. 5 we get genitives just like these coupled with the utterly Hebraistic TCKVO, wvfjs and CJXDVIJV 1 So far as there is any distinction between the two con- structions with verbs of sense generally, it seems to be that the gen. represents the matter as one affecting the subjective consciousness, and the ace. as a discovery 90 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. of external fact compare Soph. EL 79 with Id. Phil. 445. But the distinction is hardly consistently main- tained, even in pure Attic Greek : in the N. T. the two cases seem to be used indifferently as regards the sense. In the special instance before referred to of Acts ix. 7 and xxii. 9, it would be meaningless to say that Saul's companions " were conscious of the voice speaking " still more, that they " hearkened to the voice " but that they " did not hear that there was a voice " : if we had had the cases reversed in the two passages, it would be possible, though even then far- fetched, to say that they " heard that a voice spake," but did not " hearken to it " in the sense that Saul did. We have examined this constr. at perhaps dispro- portionate length, as a sample of the way that evidence of usage can be accumulated, and its value for exegeti- cal purposes estimated. The student may examine for himself how far usage is similar with the rarer compounds CMT-, CTT-, and TrapaKovtw, and how it differs more extensively with VTTCHK. Equally impossible does it appear, to trace a distinction in sense between jjLVTjimovevcLv c. gen. and c. ace. : see esp. 1 Thess. i. 3, ii. 9. That 7nAai/$ai/eo-#ai has a gen. in Heb. vi. 10, xiii. 2, 16, but an ace. in Phil. iii. 13, is less of a mere accident not that the sense is different, but that the more cultivated writer uses the constr. commoner in literary Greek : such verbs generally take the geri. in classical writers, though the ace. is found even in good Attic. 'Avafjufjivrjo-Kto-Oai has always the ace. in the N. T. (even in Mark xiv. 72, true text). Similar in principle to these verbs of consciousness is the use of evTrveW c. gen. in Acts. ix. 1 though meta- phorical, the constr. is the same as that of o^etv. Of CASES USED WITH VERBS OF TOUGH. 91 words of touching or grasping, where the gen. may be regarded as either an object of sense or as partitive, the constr. generally but not always coincides with the classical use. *A7rreo-0eu has always the gen. some- times a double gen., though, as in similar cases already noted, the gen, of the person may be conceived as possessive : so e^earOai and dvre^ecr^at : avi^crOai too gets this constr., as it began to do in late Attic. Aa/x/Sai/ecr^ai is never used, but avTiAa/u,/?. has, as always, a gen., so IviX. generally, but comparing Acts XA^i. 19, xviii. 17 with xvii. 19, xxi. 30, 33, it appears that St. Luke sometimes allowed himself to use it in the ace., in places where Kparetv would be so used. In Matt. v. 28 Tri0v[Aiv probably has an ace. : this is said to be found as early as Menander. In Matt. v. 6, also, a gen. of the thing hungered and thirsted for would have been more classical. MeXeti/ (TLVI) has its classical constr. with the simple gen. only in 1 Cor. ix. 9 elsewhere it has 7re/ot c. gen. (b) Adjectives. As a rule, there is no difference between the N. T. constr. of adjectives and that of earlier Greek, in such respects as their concord with substantives, their use absolutely or as predicates, and the like. Perhaps the absolute or substantival use of neut. adjectives with the art., both sing, and pi., is commoner than in earlier Greek : so (as already mentioned, p. 45), is the position of the adj. after its subst., the art. being used with both : at least this order seems to imply a less degree of emphasis on the adj. : see e.g. Rev. xii. 14, and the solecistic xiv. 19. But except in the Apocalypse, the dif- ference is hardly appreciable : it is at most one of degree. 92 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. It is otherwise, when we compare the N. T. use with the classical of the degrees of comparison. Here we seem to find N. T. Greek suffering from both its common sources of corruption, the internal decay of Greek grammatical usage, and the influence of Semitic languages which, in this as in other respects, were less highly organised than the Greek. The piling up of emphasis, till expressions originally emphatic become commonplace, shows itself in the more frequent use of comparatives and superlatives " of eminence " : and partly perhaps from this cause, more certainly from the native tendency of the later language to become " analytical," and multiply little words partly also from the fact that tins tendency would be encouraged by assimilation to Hebrew idiom we get the pos., comp., and sup. degrees each used in places where one of the others would seem more appropriate. The pos., indeed, is never used absolutely in a comp. sense. In Matt, xviii. 8, 9, KaXov croi COTIV (or in the parallel Mark ix. 43-5 KaXov lariv ere) is not exactly equivalent to KaXXiov CTOL ICTTIV : rather, there is an omission of paXXov before the rj, so that the case is like the third parallel, Luke xvii. 2, A/uo-ireXet . . . % : cf. XV. 7, xapa co-rat ...?/, also xviii. 14, if y] eVcu'os or j) jap e/ceu/os be read. In all these phrases, T} is treated as of itself expressing a comparison an extension of such idioms as Oi\u . . . rj, which we get in 1 Cor. xiv. 19. Within limits, this use is quite classical (e.g. even II. i. 117): and perhaps the extension of it is rather characteristic of colloquial than of late Greek : at least the extreme instance of it, KaXov io-nv . . . r/ has a parallel to it quoted from Menander. But the use of Trapd and v-rrep after adjectives to MODE W OF COMPARISON IN LATE GREEK. 93 express comparison is more certainly a symptom of decay. In some sentences, of course, the use of these prepositions in comparisons is legitimate. In a verbal phrase like /career/ OVTOS SeSiKaia>//,evos . . . Trap e/ceu/ov (Luke xviii. 14, best text) we have a genuine Greek idiom, or at most an extension of one : and similarly djU-aprooA-oi or o^etXerat eyei/cnro Trapa TrdVras (xiii. 2, 4) would be defensible. But in xvi. 8 (i/, or /xaAAov. It may not be easy to say exactly where the bounds of pure Greek were passed : Heb. ii. 7 (from LXX.), iii. 3 are intermediate cases : but already we are on the road to the usage of modern Greek, in which Trapa is the ordinary word for " than " after a comp., and even loses its constr. as a prep., being followed by the nom. The extension of this use of the prep, in later usage almost amounts to a proof that it was the result of a tendency native to the Greek language itself. But that it showed itself earlier in biblical than in other Greek (both Trapa and vTrep are often used in the LXX.) may be partly due to the fact that in Hebrew there are no degrees of comparison, and that the sense of them has to be expressed by the help of prepositions. Certainly we find a vagueness in the use of the degrees in certain passages of the Gospels, which seems to have a Hebraistic origin. It is paradoxical to deny that the pos. fjiya\.rj * in Matt. xxii. 36, the comp. /u/cpoYcpos * We may notice in passing the anomalous ctroXr; TT&VTUV of the parallel, Mark xii. 28 (true text). 94 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. in Matt. xi. 11 = Luke vii. 28, /xeifajv in Matt, xviii. 1 (hardly in 1 Cor. xiii. 13) are practically equivalent to superlatives; even in Mark ix. 34, Luke xxii. 24 the distinction of comp. and sup. is not kept clear. In John i. 15, 30, and perhaps even xv. 18, there may well be a reason why TT/OGJTOS is used rather than Trporepos. St. John wants to express an absolute First, not a mere priority in degree ; and there are signs that in the Gospel, as still more in the Apocalypse, he does not mind straining the rules of language, if it fails to suggest such thoughts as this- without straining. The use of the comp. where there is no comparison, as a sort of milder sup. of eminence, is of course a genuine Greek idiom : any one might have written the KOiivorepov or SctcrtSat/xoveo-re/Dovs (whatever be the exact shade of meaning of the latter) which we get in Acts xvii. 21, 22. Yet we may doubt whether a purer classical writer would have used the two in adjacent sentences : and when we come to TOL^LOV in John xiii. 27, 1 Tim. iii. 14 (si vera I.), or KaAAiov in Acts xxv. 10, /SeXnov 2 Tim. i. 18, it seems as though the comp. were losing its distinctive force. CHAPTER V. CHARACTERISTICS OF N. T. GREEK IN THE SYNTACTICAL USE OF VERBS AND PARTICIPLES. (a) Of the Voices. THE idiomatic use of the middle voice esp. the transitive use, where the active might for the most part have stood, but the middle introduces a modifica- tion of the sense is one of the refinements in Greek idiom, which is perhaps beginning to be blurred in some of the N. T. writers, but is preserved to a greater or less extent in most. Thus atreu/ and aiTtlo-Oai are used quite interchangeably in James iv. 2, 3, 1 John v. 14, 15, 16. But in Mark vi. 23-5, though there is no difference of sense, the difference of voice corresponds to that of constr. with the single or double ace. : so x. 35 (true text), 38 ; while in the parallel passage, Matt. xx. 20, 22, it seems to correspond with a difference of sense the mother asks for her sons, but the family for itself as a whole. In the use of vo-repctv, -eto-0ai, there seems to be no correspondence between the variations of voice and those either of sense or of constr. : the act. in Heb. iv. 1, xii. 15 means exactly the same as the mid. in Rom. iii. 23, and in 2 Cor. xi. 5, xii. 11 it has the same general sense, and exactly the same constr. The most of a distinction traceable is, that where the 96 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. sense is " wanting " a possession, riot "coming short of" a standard, the act. is used c. gen., the mid. absolutely. So far as the use of the middle shows signs of decay, it is that it is simply disused, not that it is used incorrectly. HXypovfjievov in Eph. i. 23 is perhaps the only case where the sense seems to be merely the same as the act. (the Attic usage of the middle for " manning " a ship is no real parallel). But vpiorKo-9oLi " to get " as distinct from evpto-Keiv " to find " has all but disappeared, though, if the verb is to stand in Rom. iv. 1 at all, the middle would be just in place: in fact, we find it in Heb. ix. 12 only. The act. is common throughout the N. T., whether in its plain and classical sense, as Matt. ii. 8, or in Hebraistic phrases like Luke i. 30. More interesting are such points as these. St. Paul (the rule would also hold good of James v. 16, but not of M.att. xiv. 2 = Mark vi. 14) uses Ivepytlv with a personal subj. (1 Cor. xii. 6, 11,* Gal. ii. 8 bis, iii. 5, Eph. i. 11, 20, ii. 2,* Phil, ii, 13), Ivpyicr6ai with an impersonal (Rom. vii. 5, 2 Cor. i. 6, iv. 12, Gal. v. 6, Eph. iii. 20, Col. i. 29, 1 Thess. ii. 13,t 2 Thess. ii. 7). Again, "to be baptized " is naturally expressed as a rule as a pass. : of course it is only in the fut. or aor. that this is distinct in form from the mid., but in those tenses as in others it is the rule. We have however the mid. in Acts xxii. 16, and perhaps (authorities are very evenly balanced) in 1 Cor. x. 2. In view of 1 Cor. i. 14 sqq., we cannot say that the person * We note that irvev^a, good or evil, ranks as a personal agent, f Here however we might take Beou, not \6yov, as ante- cedent to os. USE OF INDICATIVE TENSES. 97 of the baptizer was, in the apostolic Church, a question of no importance, or that the ego te baptizo of Western ecclesiastical usage implies a change from the apostolic point of view : but we do see that the convert in " getting baptized " was conceived as doing something, not merely having something done to or for him. (1)} The N. T. Use of the Tenses of the Indicative. The Greek verb possesses, in its large variety of inflected forms, a very full apparatus for the ex- pression of all time relations; and most of the languages of modern Europe are able to express the same relations, by means either of such inflexions as survive in them, or of auxiliary verbs. In the N. T., the modern student finds that hardly any of the classical Greek inflexions of the verb have fallen out of use, and that as a rule each of them retains the force that it had in classical Greek. Yet it would be over hasty for him to assume without enquiry, that the writers of the N. T. regarded the temporal conditions of action from exactly the same point of view as classical Greek writers : we have to ask, How far does the Greek of the N. T. preserve unimpaired the classical use of the various tenses? is there a tendency either to confound some of them among themselves, or to limit or extend the use of some, according to Hebraic analogies ? Perhaps the latter influence is traceable to some extent, but if so it is only within narrow limits. The Semitic tense system (if indeed the word Tense be properly applicable to it) was so utterly different from the Greek that assimilation of one to the other 7 98 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. was impossible, unless by downright solecism. One solecism probably traceable to this source we have in Rev. x. 7, where /cat ereAe'o-^ seems to mean practically TtXeo-Orja-eTai, like a so-called " preterite with 1 conversive " in Hebrew. It is indeed said that, except that the apodosis is introduced by /cat, we have here only a parallel to John xv. 6, 1 Cor. vii. 28, where an aor. stands in the apodosis to a con- ditional sentence as here to a temporal : but this seems to be a stronger case of non-Hellenic constr. Perhaps also the transition from futures through presents t:> preterites in Rev. xi. 7-11 (cf. xx. 7-9), may be partly ascribed to Hebraic habits of ex- pression, though the psychological condition of a " seer of visions " is probably explanation enough. Nowhere however in the N. T. outside the Apocalypse do we get any confusion about the straightforward use of the Greek tenses to indicate past, present, and future time. If there be any change in their use due to foreign influence, it is confined to a certain slight extension of the use of the pres., the tense which may be considered the most general, and most capable of having its use extended without violence to the language. The historical pres. is very much com- moner in the N. T. than in ordinary Greek; and though this is in no sense a Hebraism, it does appear to be a Hellenistic peculiarity. In the LXX. it has been observed that, while historical presents as a rule are rare, they are very common in the case of two verbs Aeyet and bpa. In the N. T. opav is not a very common word /3Ae7mv is much oftener used, and OeacrOai and 0e(opti/ each nearly as often; as a hist. pres. opa occurs only in Luke xvi. 23. But Xeyet LIMITS OF USE OF HISTORICAL PRESENT. 99 is very common in all the historical books, except St. Luke, most so in St. John, who has Aeyet some 113 times, and Xtyovorw 7. In Matt, they occur 49 and 16 times respectively, in Mark 54 and 12, in Luke never in the narrative of the Gospel, and only twice (xvi. 29, xix. 22) in parables, once (xxi. 37) in"Xcts. Now the difference of proportion between the sing, and pi. is prob. only an accident, the sing, being more common etTrev, which is practically the preterite of Aeyet,* occurs in St Matthew about 119 times, etTrav or -TTW 21. But that the pres. of this verb is more frequently used than that of others can be roughly shown by this calculation. The passages from the Gospels containing enretv and Aeyeii/ occupy 36 columns in Bruder's Concordance, those containing and eAfleti/ about 9|. Now cp^erat and are used as historical presents only 4 times in St. Matthew, 23 times in St. Mark, only once (viii. 49) in St. Luke, 15 times in St. John. We may say then that the idiom is (1) specially common with the particular verb Aeyeiv,t (2) specially common with other verbs in the crudest and least literary of the N. T. writings. More interesting and suggestive are the cases where the sense of the pres. tense seems to shade off into that of the fut. This sometimes arises, in part at least, from the nature of the verb's meaning : as in * In the rather numerous caseS'Where one is a v. 1. for the other, the one for which M 8. evidence decidedly preponderates is counted : if there be fair room for doubt, it is reckoned to neither side. f One may compare the use of ^irjaiv in classical Greek : also inquam and " quoth he," though defective, may be called presents. 100 LANGUAGE OF THE MEW TESTAMENT. classical Greek the pres. et/u " I am going " is said to hav r e a fut. sense, so in the N". T. ep^o/xat may be said to have one, with perhaps better right. Not only does the ptcp. ipxpftcvos practically mean " future " in such phrases as 6 'Ep^o/xei/os of the Messiah, still more ei/ TO> alwvi TO> ep^o/ieVa), and 6*12i/ Kal 6 T Hi/ Kal 6 'Ep^o/^ei/os of the Eternal : the indie, has more or less of a future sense in Matt. xvii. 11,* xxiv. 42-3-4 (xxv. 6, T.E.), Mark i. 7, xiii. 35, Luke xii. 39, 40, 54, xvii. 20 bis, xxiii. 29, John i. 3D, iv, 21, 23, 25, 35, v. 24, 25, 28, vii. 41-2, ix. 4, xi. 20, xii. 15 (fr. 0. T.), xiv. 3,* 18,* 28,t 30, xvi. 2, 25, 32, xvii. 11, 13, xxi. 3,f Acts xiii. 25, J 1 Cor. xv. 35, 2 Cor. xiii. 1, Eph. v. 6, Col. iii. 6, 1 Thess. v. 2, Heb. viii. 8 (fr. LXX.), 1 John ii. 18, iv. 3, Rev. i. 7,* ii. 5,* 16,* iii. 11, ix. 12, xi. 14, xvi. 15, xxii. 7, 12, 20 ; in by no means all of which is a supernatural visitation spoken of : in several (e.g. John xxi. 3) the sense is merely " (some one or some event) is coming. " Yet even in some of these passages, e.y. Luke xxiii. 29, John xvi. 32, the pres. seems to have a deeper significance than this one that can be traced where the pres. of other verbs, less akin in meaning * In these passages the word is actually co-ordinated with futur.es. f Here, and in John vii. 33, viii. 21-2, xiii. 3, 33, 36, xiv. 4-5, xvi. 5, 10, 17 virdyw is used as exactly correlative to tpXOfJLcu : cf. also iii. 8, viii. 14. In the other three Gospels, vwdyeiv is rare except in the imperative. J This passage, and others parallel with some previously cited, are not grouped with them as forming only one instance : because it is characteristic, if one reproducer of a saying .avoids an idiom which another retains. Cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 5, Maicedovfav yap diepx ^ - 1 ' which has been misunderstood (in the subscription to the Ep.) " I am pas.nny through M.," while it really means " I do pass through M.," that is the way I am going. TKXXEX UO II- i'^\ '/' I t#? 'V. ' >' V> r /. Y -/ "<#/). 101 to futurity, is used in a sense that may be called not only prophetical, but strictly predictive. In Matt, xx vi. 2, ywcrai is parallel to e/j^erat in its most secular sense, " The Passover is coming on : " but TrapaSiSorat surely means, like vTrayet in ver. 24, that His delivery and departure were part of the eternal counsel, and while yet future were as sure as if actual. So Matt, ii. 4, and John vii. 52 probably. Any deviation from classical usage, then, that there may be in the use of the pres. tense is trace- able, partly perhaps to the merely linguistic influence of Hebraised Greek, but more unquestionably, and perhaps more largely, to the special requirements of the Scriptural order of thought. So far, there are no traces of mere linguistic decay, of loss of accuracy in the use of Greek grammatical forms. It is hard, however, to be equally confident that the same may be said of the use of the different past tenses. But we must keep the question separate, "Are the uses of the perf. and the aor. confounded in N. T. Greek ? " from the question, which it is much easier and safer to answer with a decided affirmative, " Is not the aor. often used in N. T. Greek, where in English we should use the compound perf. ? arid conversely the perf. (sometimes though more rarely) where we should use the simple preterite ? " Even in languages so similar in their syntax as English and French, the occasions where we should say " he did it " or " he has done it " are not respectively identical with those where one would say " il le fit " * or " il V a fait" still less does "he was doing it" coincide exactly with * Not to mention that this tense is tending to drop out of u^c in elegant and modern French. 102 LAN'UJAdV OF TUtt JEW TESTAMENT. " il 1% faisait" Much less then can we expect the use of the two Greek inflected tenses to be so abso- lutely identical with those of our inflected and com- pound ones, as to be mechanically interchangeable with them. Before approaching this question, however, it may be as well to state the case of the other past tenses, the impf. and plupf. With neither of these, on the whole, is there any real deviation from classical usage. The first is used oftener, the second less often, than its distinctive meaning can be traced, or than the corresponding English tense would be used in translation : but the same is equally the case in the purest Greek, and the fact is due, partly to the smallness of the distinction, and partly perhaps to euphony. The plupf. was always a rare form, perhaps because (see p. 33) it was a cacophonous form, and so the aor. is often used where the plupf. would suit the sense : on the other hand, the impf. is often used where the aor. might have been, be.-ause the sense it is desired to give is that of a simple preterite, and neither impf. nor aor. is this and nothing more, for while the one represents the action as continuous or habitual, the other represents it as individual or instantaneous. Esp. it has been noticed that eKeXevei/ is used where we should have expected eKeAewev : and perhaps the same will be found to hold good with vowel verbs as a class that their impf. is often used in what we may call the sense, not of an aor. but of a simple pret. It may be a converse process that leads to the use of the impf. dr^/cei/, KaOrjKtv in appa- rently a pres. sense in Acts xxii. 22, Eph. v. 4 (true text), Col. iii. 18 : the word looks like an aor. or perf. DISTINCTION OF PERFECT AND AORIST 103 But perhaps we may rather illustrate by the English use of " ought " (strictly the preterite of " owe " : " shall " and " should " have a similar etymology). As this sense of the verb is late, we have no direct illus- tration from classical usage. Coming now to the comparison of the perf. and aor., there is no question at all that each is often correctly used in its distinctive sense : sometimes indeed they occur side by side, and are correctly distinguished. Thus in the LXX. of Isa. Ixi. 1, quoted in Luke iv. 18, e^pto-ei/ /xe is " He anointed Me " He did it once ; but dbrearaA.*^/ /AC " He kathsent Me " and here I am now. Or in Luke xiii. 2, apapTuXol .... eyeVovro, on TOLVTO. TrtTrovOacriv \ * may be trans- lated either "Did it make these Galileans sinners . . . ., that they have [now] suffered these things ? " or " Were these Galileans [at the time of their life's end] sinners 1 are you entitled to say so on the evidence of the fact that they Jiave so suffered ? " the former being the stricter and more logical interpretation, the latter the simpler and more natural, though involving some extension of the force of on. Even in passages where the aor. might easily have been substituted for the perf. or conversely, this does not prove that the tense actually used has not its proper force. In 1 Cor. xv. 4, it would have been more natural to write fjytpOrj, like dtrc&atft' and Ird^rf before, and &cf>0r] afterwards : but the very fact that * Though it is a matter of exegesis, not of grammar, I can- not pass this verse without a protest against a popular optimist misapplication of it. The argument is not. " They suffered, but that does not prove that they sinned : " it is, <% They suffered for their sins, but they were no worse sinners than you : " " except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." 104 LANGUAGE OF THE X FAY TESTAMENT. St. Paul has not done what was most natural, shows that he intends to couple things that happened once for all and are over, and the thing that has happened, and its result is eternally present : the contrast is stated more emphatically in the eyei/o/xr/v and efyu of Rev. i. 18. (In Rom. xiv. 9, where there are aorists only, the point of view is somewhat different.) In Mark xv. 44, there is hardly a difference of sense, but an intelligible difference of treatment of the same sense. Pilate may have said to St. Joseph Mi) r/S?? rtQvrjKtv ; and to the centurion, 9 Apa TraXaa reOvrjKev ; but the second is, and the first is not, thrown into the past tense, because the second is more obviously a case of oratio oUiqua : thus airtOavzv is more nearly equivalent to a plupf. than a perf. In 2 Cor. xi. 25, the perf. in the midst of aorists gees quite naturally into English. Ibid. xii. 9 (to come to instances where the perf. stands alone, and it is not its association with aorists, but the prima facie sense, that makes us doubt if it retains its proper force), el-rev would be merely, " He said," and would leave room for a reply of the Apostle's : while etp^/cei/ intimates, " I have had my answer, and the matter is at an end." Even in i. 9 we can feel what is the effect of the perf. eo-^r/^a^ei/, though it may be harder to express its force in an English gloss. On the other hand, ibid. ii. 13, the force of the perf. is surely evanescent, if not quite vanished. And no one but a doctrinaire special pleader is likely to deny that in Rev. v. 7, viii. 5 eiAr;lvai, coupled with the aor. KareA>7/x$r/y, the perf. form being in the pass, rarer and perhaps more cumbrous. Or to take instances from one Ep. only, are not the aorists equivalent to perfects in Horn. iii. 23, 27 (^na/oro^, efeKAeto-07/), vdii. 15 (eAa/2ere bis], xi. 1, 4, 7 (aTrwo-aro, KareAiTroi/, er) ? In iii. 23, viii. 15 they are coupled with * The form also may help to explain the use of the perf. eupaKCLv in Luke ix. 36. There the sense is plainly plupf. but no one would be surprised at an aor. being used : and eupaKav looltn like an aor., though really a (late) form of the perf. 106 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. presents : in xi. 1, 4 we not'ce that the tense is St. Paul's own choice, for in both places the parallel passages of the LXX. have t^e fut. But perhaps as convincing an instance as any in the N. T. is John xi. 14, where Aa^apos a.7re#avev can only mean " Lazarus is dead." On the whole then it seems necessary to admit that the distinction between aor. and perf. is begin- ning to be obliterated in the N. T., whether we ascribe the fact to spontaneous loss of accuracy among Greek speaking people, or to the influence of languages, Semitic and perhaps Latin, that had not this distinction of tense. But the obliteration has not proceeded very far hardly beyond the avoiding of the use of either tense when the form of it, in a particular verb, was rare, doubtful, or cacophonous.* The student ought, in every case, to look for a reason for one tense being used rather than the other : though he must not expect always to find one, still less, even when he does, to be able to represent the point in idiomatic translation. (c) The Subjunctive and Optative Moods, and the Indicative in Relative Sentences. We have nothing more to say of the expression, in the N. T., of merely temporal relations. Any irregularities that there are in the use of the fut. are not in its use as a real direct indie, tense, but in its relation to other moods and types of sentence : so also of the hypothetical and kindred uses of past tenses. In other moods than the indie., the distinc- * In Heb. xi. 17, it is likely enough that irpocrevrivoxw was used as more sonorous than OPTATIVE DISUSED IN FINAL CLA USES. 107 tion between the pres. and aor. is not so much that between present and past time, as between continued and instantaneous action : and for this purpose the tenses appear to be used quite regularly, on exactly the same principles as in classical Greek. The independent uses, moreover, of the different moods are equally correct. We get the deliberative or cohortative subj. rather often, the opt. in the strictly optative sense not seldom. It is otherwise, when we come to the use of the moods in subordinate sentences with various relations to the principal one : here we find some vagueness of constr. and relaxa- tion of rule, and still more change in the propor- tionate frequency of modes of expression, compared with classical Greek. The most important of these changes is, that the opt. mood is rapidly tending to become obsolete, as it has become in the modern language. Its most frequent use in ordinary literary Greek that in final sentences dependent on a past tense is com- pletely obsolete : the subj. being used, probably, in all such cases. The only ones where it can be argued that the opt. is retained are in certain cases where verbs are used whose stems end in o : e.g. Sot in Mark viii. 37, and compounds elsewhere, yvol ibid. ix. 30 etc. These are undoubtedly the best attested forms (the T. R. substitutes more regular ones), and they have an optative look : but they probably are really meant for subjunctives, formed on the analogy of 877X01 from SrjXou -ovv * : when we have a real * On the other hand, ^vaiovade in 1 Cor. iv. ^, fyXovre in Gal. iv. 17 are in all probability subjunctives. This suggests the possibility that Sia/Se/ScuoOircu in 1 Tim. i. 7 may be one : 108 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. opt. aor. from SiSoVcu, as in Rom. xv. 5, 2 Thess. iii. 16, 2 Tim. i. 16, 18, we find Sofy. But where we find AOH the bestj attested form in Eph. i. 17, 2 Tim. ii. 25, have we the right to say that here it is not opt., and write SGJT/ instead of 80)17, ^ ne onr y P os ~ sible form in the former passages ( ( (It must be remembered that the oldest N. T. MSS. are without the i subscript or adscript to either vowel.) Perhaps the truest answer is, that the N. T. writers always meant (so far as they were conscious about the matter at all) to use the subj. : but that, owing to the exceptional form of words of this type, and to the fact that there had been an idiom admitting or requiring the opt., words like these that were really of opt. origin wei-e allowed to be used Or, to put the matter differently, we may say that the regular forms of the opt. in -OLJJLL or,-oirjv were felt to have an exclusively optative meaning: but that Swr/, though it could be used optatively, " sounded right " when used in final sentences also. Yet there is a want felt by the N". T. writers of a distinction corresponding to that between subj. and opt. in final sentences, where this was not a mere matter of grammatical sequence, the one after primary and the other after historical tenses, but where the one suggests, more forcibly than the other, the notion that the purpose was a certain or actual result. In such cases, the N. T. writers use the fut. indie, where classical writers would put the subj., and the subj. where they would put the opt. \vc then get a more distinctive sense for the two clauses, "knowing neither what the things are that they say, nor about ?iJiv) the use of i c. subj. is not an irregularity but a refinement. In the former place, the subj. is deliberative : the sense is " unless we are to buy," or perhaps "unless are we to buy?" in the latter, the verbs in the protasis are, quite cor- rectly, attracted into the mood of the apodosis. But we note that here too the opt. has all but passed out of use : except for the phrase cl rvyoi twice in St. Paul (1 Cor. xiv. 10, xv. 37) the only instances are in the last chapters of Acts and in 1 Pet. iii. 14, 17 (true text). Hypothetical sentences are, however, only a parti- cular case of rekitive sentences, and come under the same rule with them, that the subj. will be used if the relative (pron. or particle) that introduces the protasis has av with it, and not otherwise. And this rule is broken in the N. T. rarely in hypothetical sentences, oftener in temporal, perhaps only once (James ii. 10) with a rel. pron. The use of et c. subj. in 1 Cor. xiv. 5 has parallels even in Attic, and is quite exceptional in the N. T., as in Attic : but the lav oiSa/xei/ of 1 John v. 15 would be impossible in classical Greek, while in the N. T. it is only the extremest case of four or five. In the other cases, however (Matt, xviii. 19 [?],. Luke xix. 40, Acts viii. 31, MOODS USED IN TEMPORAL SENTENCES. Ill 1 Thess. iii. 8) ; the verbs being presents or futures, the difference of form from the subj. is slight, and it appears as a v. I. In Mark vi. 56, Acts ii. 45, iv. 35, 1 Cor. xii. 2, we have a rel. with av joined to an impf. indie., in a frequentative sense. Of temporal sentences, there are a few where orai/ is used with the indie. : but perhaps they are confined to the two least correct of the N. T. writers, St. Mark (iii. 11, xi. 19, 25) and Apoc. (iv. 9, viii. 1). The only other case where there is much evidence for the constr. is Luke xiii. 28, and there it is not decisive (as indeed it hardly is in the other cases cited, except the first) : if it be admitted there, we have another case where the fut. ind. approximates in usage as in form to the aor. subj. The converse case, of the use of the subj. without oV, i> confined to the case of words meaning " until " (Luke xiii. 35 comes under this principle, even if we omit oV, which is uncertain, and retain y^ei ore, which is improbable), and this is much commoner. But this is not to be called incorrect, hardly even post-classi- cal : with uypi and /xe^pt it is at most non- Attic, with ecu? it is, in good Attic, confined to poetry. We note, towever, that Luke ii. 26 is unique in the N. T. as an instance (if it be indeed one *) of the classical constr. of irplv av c. subj. after a negative : unique likewise is the undoubted irpiv c. opt. in Acts xxv. 16, where a sentence of this type is spoken of hypothetically we can hardly say in oratio obliqua. * Perhaps the best attested text is -n-plv ?} SLV I8y : the most widely attested is -rrplv Idy or irplv ?) i'fty : -rrplv &v 'idy is found in B, and was found in F, only, irplv ?) iv is never found in good Greek : but irplv and irplv ij with the subj. are, though the rule is to use &v. 112 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. It is only in St. Luke, moreover, that we get the opt. in indirect questions : with him it is fairly frequent, both with av (Ev. vi. 11, Acts v. 24, x. 17 not xvii. 20, true text), and without it (Ev. i. 29, iii. 15, viii. 9, xxii. 23, Acts xvii. 11, xxi. 33, xxv. 24). In Acts viii. 31 * (not ii. 12, nor in John xiii. 24, true text), we have the opt. with av in a direct question. We get the subj. in indirect questions (including instances of tytw TL . . ., etSeVat TL . . ., and the like), in Matt. viii. 20, xv. 32 - Mark viii. 2, Mark vi. 36, viii. 1, Luke xii. 5, John xii. 49, etc. : and this even after past tenses Mark ix. 6, xiv. 1, 11, 40; also Luke xxii. 2, 4, Acts iv. 21, preceded by TO. We have not included here Matt. vi. 25 = Luke xii. 22, Matt. x. 19 = Mark xiii. 11, Luke xii. 29, where the subj. may be explained as having a deliberative sense. One use of the opt. that tends to disappear from N. T. Greek is that with av where it does not form an apodosis to an actual conditional sentence, but is used categorically, only with a suggestion of* hypo- thetical tone. E.g. in Mark iv. 13, Horn. v. 7 we should probably in classical Greek have had the opt. with ai/, whereas in the N. T. we find the fut. indie. The use of ov prj is decidedly commoner in the N. T. than in earlier Greek. Though we may ascribe this to the tendency (p. 42, etc.) of a declining lan- guage to heap up emphatic words till emphasis is lost, the combination always retains more or less of real * The sequence of moods here is remarkable, but not meaningless. The eunuch first asks in despair, " How is it possible that I should?" then comes the afterthought, "unless some man will guide me." The fut, indie, thus improves the sense, though with edit it is an irregularity. /.\ r DENIALS AND HOPELESS WISHES. 113 emphatic force. As usual in constructions where either the fut. iridic. or the aor. subj. may be used, the one constant!} 7 appears as a v. 1. for the other : but there is no doubt of the fut. in Matt. xv. 5, xvi. 22, and not much in xxvi. 35, John iv. 14, x. 5, Gal. iv. 30. In Luke x. 19 the reading is doubtful : elsewhere, the subj. should generally stand. There seems to be no distinction of sense between the two : it is always (unless possibly in Matt. xv. 5) predictive, not prohibitory. In John vi. 35, if we follow MS. evidence, we get -jrtwdcrri and Sii/^o-ei side by side. With this we may compare the more anomalous use of the aor. subj. in Luke xi. 5, eei. . . . KOL Tropevo-ertu . . . KOI eiTn?, where there is no negative preceding, but a question equivalent to one. There seems to be no deviation from classical usage in the employment of past tenses of the indie, to express the unreal and unattainable, either in con- ditional sentences strictly so called, or with verbs of hypothetical meaning, such as rjvxo^rjv (Horn. ix. 3), v)0\ov (Gal. iv. 20), c/3ov\dfjLrjv (Acts xxv. 22), rjSvvaro (Mark xiv. 5) : perhaps one may add eSct (Matt. xxv. 27), though there the process of thought that leads to the use of the tense is clearer, " it was thy duty," at the past time when thou couldest have done it, and didst not : cf. the use of the imperfects O.VJJKW and KaOfJKtv noted 011 p. 102. This constr. serves to explain one occurring several times in the N". T. the use of o.) is used c. inf. : but here we have it with past indie, tenses (1 Cor. iv. 8, 2 Cor. xi. 1. Rev. iii. 15 true text) in a wish which is not realised, with a fut. intlic. (Gal. v. 12) in one 8 114 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. that is conceived as attainable. The former constr. is found in late but not bad Greek, the latter is condemned as a solecism. The same half -hypothetical use of past tenses illus- trates a constr. like that of Matt. xxvi. 24, KO\OV ty aura) ei OVK iycvvrjOr] (in Mark xiv. 21 ^v should prob. be omitted). Here however, being a formally hypothe- tical sentence, it would have been more regular to have put av in the apodosis : so Acts xxvi. 32 (eSiWro). But this type of sentence serves to illustrate the omission of av in John ix. 33, xv. 22, perhaps viii. 39, xix. 11 : also Gal. iv. 15, perhaps 2 Cor. xi. 4. Different from these, and less defensible grammati- cally, is the use of past tenses of the indie, with ^ in Gal. ii. 2, iv. 11, 1 Thess. iii. 5. One may almost say that in these places St. Paul feels the want of a perf . subj. ; that he does not remember that there was a rare but recognised form for it, and that he does not choose to use the cumbrous periphrasis with the ptcp. and (o. (d) The Imperative and Infinitive Moods. The use of the Imperative Mood in the 1ST. T. pre- serves all the refinements of the classical language. For the distinction of sense between the aor. and pres. tense, note Acts xii. 8, co(Tai . . . vTroftrjo-ac . . . 7re/oi- fiaXov . . ., but oiKohovOti : also John ii. 16, apart " take them away and have done with it," . . . //T) Troietrc " cease to make." . . . Even in 1 Pet. ii. 17, though we should not have expected a distinction between TLfjLjjo-are and rt/xare, the fact of the juxtaposition of the two forms shows that the author meant something by it : and we can see why varying acts of " honour FORMS OF BIDDING AND FORBIDDING. 1 1 5 to all men," whom one may meet at different times, and who have different characters and positions, are called for; but a constant habit of "honour to the king," whose position and relation to his subjects is permanent. After jjirj the distinction of the tenses appears some- times to be the same e.g. Luke x. 4, " do riot [habit- ually] carry " ..." do not salute" [if you meet any one, as you occasionally may]. But generally ^ with the pres. indie, has the sense " Do not [go on doing so and so, as you are doing now] : " so John ii. 16 already cited, Luke vii. 13, viii. 50, 52, etc. All this is quite regular. So too is the use after ^ of the pres. imper., but of the aor. subj. always in the second person : in Attic as in the 1ST. T., the aor. imper. is occasionally found in the 3rd. What deviation there is from classical usage is not in the use of the imper. itself, but of certain equivalent constructions. The indignant ou iravcrrj . . .; of Acts xiii. 10 ought not to be watered down into such an equivalent. But there seems no doubt that OVK ZcrtcrOe in Matt. vi. 5 is just equivalent to the /XT) yiVecr^e of ver. 16 : so constantly where the Commandments are quoted. The reason of this is no doubt, that in Hebrew the fut. is regularly used after a uegative ; though there is a prohibitive particle, distinct from the categorical negative as firj from ov. We get the fut., however, without a negative in what at least approaches an imperative sense, in Matt. v. 48 : we note that the LXX. has likewise futures in the pas- sages of the old Law which this recalls Lev. xi. 44, Deut. xviii. 13. Not a Hebraism, but a post- classical constr., is the use of iva c. subj. in an imperative, or perhaps rather 116 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. precatory sense Mark v. 23, 2 Cor. viii. 7, Eph. v. 33. This is exactly equivalent to the, classical use of OTTOS, usually c. fufc. indie. Another idiom of the late language is seen in the beginning of the use of a<^cv, aes /c/3aA.a>is no more than "Let me cast out : " like aes or as in modern Greek, the word has sunk into a mere auxiliary. Such, no doubt, is its use also in Matt, xxvii. 49 = Mark xv. 36 : though the two accounts differ as to the speaker, and consequently as to the use of sing, or pi., both mean to convey the same general sense of ironical scepticism.* Lastly, we may note under this head tLe few N. T. instances of infinitives used in a sense more or less close to the imper. If in Luke xxii. 42 we read Trapei/ey/cai or 7rapevey/<:ea/,t we have aa instance of the classical (and mostly poetical) use of the inf. in prayers. It is hardly of any use to discuss how nearly the use of the inf. in Rom. xii. 15, Phil. iii. 16 is * The discrepancy of sense therefore disappears which is supposed by Dr. Abbott (Encycl. Brit., art. "Gospels"), who takes the words in Matt, to mean " Desist from giving the drink," in Mark " Desist from mocking." f Hapfreyice, however, has the high authority of BDT, though TrapeveyKOii comes nearest to the character of a reading that will account for both the others. That -/ce in D at least is a mere itacism. is made likelier by the fact that d, the parallel Latin version, has the inf. EXTENDED USE OF I'm AND 5. 117 identical with this : it is at any rate analogous to the quite classical epistolary use of ^-atpetv or vyiaiVeiv we remember we have the former of these in Acts xv. 23, xxiii. 26, James i. 1. This use of the inf., in fact, is only a slight exten- sion of one of its proper uses, which we get in Acts xxi. 4, 21, Tit. ii. 2. Here we must not say that Aeyai/ still less \a\tiv has the sense of commanding : we have simply the common inf. of oratio obliqua, only it represents an original imper., not an indie. e.y., the Tyrian disciples TO> flauAo) e'Aeyov " Mr/ cTri/Jcuve," which St. Luke reports by eAeyoi/ . . . //,r/ 7ri/3aiViv. Already in the N". T. we see the beginning of the tendency which has prevailed in modern Greek, to use tVa c. subj. as a substitute for the inf., in almost all its relations except that of simple oratio obliqua, and for that to use on c. indie., which the classical language always offered as an equivalent. Opinions may differ as to the number of cases in which Iva. is thus to be explained: see this question discussed below, p. 176. As to on, it is probably relatively more frequent than in earlier Greek * especially before a speech given otherwise in oratio recta, so that the ort is almost Greek for inverted commas : notice Luke vii. 16, where the repeated OTL serves to mark that we have two sayings of the people, not one saying in two clauses. In Horn. iii. 8 we have 6Vt as a quotation mark to a cohortative subj., in John ix. 11 (true text), 2 Thess. iii. 10 to imperatives : with the last cf. Epict. Diss. I. ii. 18, TL ovv JJLOI Aeyeis OTL 'E^o/xotw^ri rots * The anacoluthon in Acts xxvii. 10, where OTL stands redundantly before an ace. and inf., is not without classical precedent. 118 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Nevertheless, there is no sign in the 1ST. T. of the inf. tending to become obsolete : it is used very freely, and on the whole quite correctly : if there be any deviation from classical usage, it is rather in the extension than in the restriction of its use.* Phil, iv. 10, where TO vtrep e/xo9 (fipovelv stands as a sort of cognate ace. after dve^aXere, is hardly to be called such an extension : it is simply a looseness of constr. such as a writer who is no grammatical purist, but is at home in the language he is using, will allow himself occasionally but rarely. But the inf. in a final, con- secutive, or epexegetical sense is more frequent, and is found in a larger class of cases in biblical than in classical Greek. No one would be surprised at a use like Matt. ii. 2, rjXOofjiev Trpoo-KWTJorai, or Mark iii. 14, Iva a.7rocrTeAA.77 O.UTOVS KrjpvcrKora), still less of course " I beheld him falling " (10. TriVroi/ra). In * A suggestive and instructive discussion on this point, if not always convincing, is to be found in a paper in the JEvpoxitor (2nd Series, vol. iii. pp. 161 sqq.) by Dr. T. S. Evans. f [Except that participles express time only in relation to the verbs on which they depend. ] 124 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Acts ix. 12, Ananias is told that Saul " saw a man by name A. : the man in his vision came in and put his hands on him." If it be worth while in translation to be more accurate than the A. V., which substitutes present participles for aorist, we might put a relative clause, as in xi. 13, where (so far as there is a right and wrong in such niceties) the A. Y. is right and the 11. Y. wrong : if it was worth while to make the constr. the same as in the parallel passage x. 3, the assimilation ought to have been the other way. We have perf. and aor. participles set side by side, each with its proper sense, in 2 Cor. xii. 21, where the Trpo emphasises the force of the perf. ; and still more pointedly in 1 Pet, ii. 10, where both forms belong to the same verb, and where the choice of tense is the more clearly seen to be deliberate, be- cause there is nothing corresponding to it in the LXX. of Hosea. In translating either passage, we can hardly express the distinction better than the A. Y. does in the latter representing the perf. by (what we call) a plupf., and the aor. by a perf. : " who had sinned, and have not repented," " who had not obtained mercy, but now have" But if we desire to analyse what was in the Apostles' mind that led them to vary the tense, we may say that they speak of an act of repentance, an act of God's mercy (whether the latter be that shown in redemp- tion or in conversion) as contrasted with the state that men were in before it. An angel or other watcher of those to whom St. Peter writes might have said of their former state OVK ^Xe^vrat, "they have not obtained rneicy : " of their entrance into their present state, Nw ^Ao^rjo-ai/, " now mercy was AORIST PARTICIPLE AND TIME. 125 shown to them." Similarly, in Gal. iii. 13, 17, yevd/xei/05 and yeyovws are correctly distinguished : they are correlative respectively to the historical tense tfrjyopacrtv and the pres. d/cvpot with which they are associated. And (to pass from cases where both tenses are used to a case where one is used and the other might have been) in Acts xiii. 12 we learn that what astonished and convinced the avrjp orweros was not TO ycvo/xerov " the event," but TO yeyoi/os " the state of things produced." Elyrnas was not only frightened into thinking he was blinded, but was left blind, though (as we understand) only a\pi Kcupov. But the aor. ptcp., though not perfect in sense, is distinctly preterite : in pure Greek, when it is used with a verb, we may assume that the action expressed tjy the ptcp. precedes that of the verb in the order of time or thought. In N. T. Greek it seems that the constr. can be used if the two are contemporary some- time even when, if we resolved it into two co-ordinate verbs, that expressed by the ptcp. would necessarily come first. In Horn. iv. 20 sq., Phil. ii. 7, the adoring confidence, the assumption cf the servant's form, did not precede the vigorous faith or the /ceVoxris, but was what it consisted in. Perhaps we may say the same of Heb. ii. 10, translating ayayovra "when He brought : " " in bringing " would necessarily be ayoi'Ta * But we are somewhat surprised at Acts i 24, Trpocreufa/x.ei'oi etTrai/, if it means " they prayed and said," so as to be equivalent to TTpoo-v\6^voi " they said in their prayer : " and we almost * It hardly makes any differen. c as to the difficulty or the proper force of the tense, whether we connect it with the subject or the object of reXcDf ' OF IMPF. INDIC. ) T./T j.j or, Matt. xxiv. 32. ? 53 ? John i. 9. ? 28. ? ii. 6. iii. 23. John iii. 24. ? x. 40. xi. 1. [41 T. R.] xii. 16. ? xiii. 23. xiii. 5. xviii. 18,* 25.* John xix. 11. 19,20. [xx. 19 T. R.] Acts i. 10. 13. 14. Acts i. 17. ii. 5. ii. 2 * 42. viii. 1. iv. 31. 13. viii. 16. 28. ix. 9. 28. ix. 33. x. 24. 30. ? xi. 5. xii. 5. 6. ? xii. 12. 20. xiii. 48. xiv. 7. xiv. 26. ? xvi. 12. xviii. 7. xviii. 25. xix. 14(nonT.R.) Acts xix. 32. xx. 8. Acts xxi. 3. 13. xxii. 19. xxi. 29. xxii. 20.* 29. ? 2 Cor. v. 19. Gal. i. 22. Gal. ii. 11. 23. iv. 3. Phil. ii. 26. ? Eph. ii. 12. Rev. xvii. 4 (non T. R.). * Perfects in form but pres. in sense. COMPOUND PARTICIPIAL PHRASES. 135 In many of these cases (those with perf . pass, partici- ples especially) the phrase is a mere periphrasis for a mood or tense rarely used or ill sounding. But as a rule it will be seen that there is a sense of permanent, or habitual action implied by the use of it : note e.g. Mark ii. 18, xiii. 25, Luke xxi. 24, Gal. i. 23, of cases with the pres. ptcp., and Matt. x. 30, Luke xx. 6, Gal. iv. 3, with the perf. It will be observed that the impf . is the tense oftenest associated with both par- ticiples : and the resemblance of the resulting phrase with the perf. to the Latin compound tenses of passive and deponent verbs is a real one. But that of the impf. with the pres. ptcp. to the English so-called impf. must not be exaggerated. In Mark ii. 18 the sense is prob. as the A. V., not " were keeping a fast,' 7 which called their attention to the diversity of practice : in Matt. vii. 29 and parallels, Luke ii. 51, we see that the sense is of habitual action rather than continued, and that the English idiom would be quite out of place. Besides this verbal use of the ptcp. we should notice the substantival use of the aor. ptcp. with the art., which we get substituted for a verb, e.g. in Luke viii. 45 compared with Mark v. 30, Luke xx. 2 with Matt. xxi. 23, Markxi. 28. See also Matt. xxvi. 68 = Luke xxii. 64, John v. 12, 15, Acts vii. 38, ix. 21; though here there is more intentional insistence on the person of the doer, so that the notion is less purely verbal. We have present participles used like these in John iv. 10, 37, v. 32, 45, xiv. 21, xxi. 20; perhaps one or two more : a fut. in John vi. 64, and a perf. in Luke xxii. 28, Acts x. 42. We may conclude by noticing the curious way that the ptcp. is made to agree with an attracted rel. in Acts xxvi. 22, Rev. xvii. 8. CHAPTER VI. USES AND MEANINGS, CHARACTERISTIC OF THE N. T., OF PARTICLES. (a) Prepositions. A S already mentioned (p. 75-76), the N. T. language XA- often uses prepositions where in classical Greek simple cases would have sufficed : and this is in part through the influence of a foreign language, but partly perhaps more largely from an internal ten- dency in the Greek language itself, which might be called rather a development than a corruption, as it would lead to a gain in accuracy greater than any possible loss in brevity and vigour. But we perceive a process of corruption going on at the same time : if prepositions are used to define more exactly the force of the cases with which they are associated, there is a counter tendency to obscure the distinction of the prepositions among themselves, and between their meaning associated with various cases. In modern Greek ets c. ace. has almost superseded lv c. dat., while retaining its old classical sense too : /xera for " with " still takes a gen., but is apocopated into /xe c. ace. : and in the vulgar language all prepositions can be used with that case.* In view of these facts, it is * Gcldart's Guide to Modern Greek^ p. 247. PREPOSITIONS: avd, fort, d'. 137 needless to look for classical accuracy in the use of prepositions and cases in the N. T., when the simple and natural sense of a passage is that which supposes the tendency dominant in later times to have already begun. Of the eighteen Greek prepositions strictly so called, d//,(/>i does not occur in the N. T. except in two or three compounds.* 'Ava is rare, being confined to the phrase ava JJLGTOV (which is pure but late Greek, and receives a Hebraistic extension of usage : 1 Cor. vi. 5 is an extreme case), and the distrib. use with numerals. The adverbial use c. nom., which we get in Rev. xxi. 21, ava el? fjcaoros, though late seems not to be exclu- sively Hellenistic ; but there is no classical parallel to this exact phrase. 'Ai/rt has none but classical uses : but we note as Hellenistic (oftener in LXX. than N. T.) the relative frequency of avO ' wi/ ; though it is quite classical both in the sense of " because " (Luke i. 20) and of " where- fore" (Luke xii. 3). 'Avrt TOV c. inf. is peculiar to James iv. 15. The remarkable use of the woid in John i. 16 is clearly explained in the passage of Philo quoted as a parallel (I. 254, De Post. Cain, 43.) Xaptrtts aet . . . veas avri TraXatorepcoi/ . . . eTrtScScocrt. The earlier parallel alleged, Theogn. 344, is doubtful : reading Sofyv (with Bergck) the sense will be the plain one, " unless I give pain for pain" avenge myself. 'ATTO gives special illustrations of the double ten- dency to define more accurately than is done by the use of simple cases, and to obscure distinctions be- tween prepositions. On the one hand it is used * It is hardly necessary to say that the rare use of ws as a prep, does not occur at all. 138 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. where in earlier Greek the simple gen. would have been held to suffice : on the other, it is often used interchangeably with e/c, where there ought to be a distinction between them. Thus we get atfwos airo in Matt, xxvii. 24, lo-OUw diro, xv. 27 = Mark vii. 28, SiSdrai aTrd, Luke xx. 10: bat side by side with the two last phrases we have StS. e in Matt. xxv. 8, 1 John iv. 13, and ' 'Ie/o. Perhaps the word, though bearing quite its commonest sense, is used with rather unusual freedom of constr. in Acts xvi. 33, Horn. ix. 3, 2 Cor. xi. 3, Col. ii. 20 (where ajroOavtlv awo seems to be a clearer equivalent to the aTroOaveiv c. dat. of Rom. vi. 2 etc.). If we decline to rank Heb. v. 7 with these, it is on account of the limitations of N. T. use of e^Xa^eta, not of aVo. Ata c. gen. in a local sense is used of extension or motion through, not of the limits of intervals. Of time, on the contrary, it has the latter sense in Mark ii. 1, Acts xxiv. 17, Gal. ii. 1 : so Matt. xxvi. 61 = Mark xiv. 58, " at an interval of three days," i.e. * In Plut. Timol. c. 27 we have ffvvoirrov ovdev 3\v OLTTO r&v Tro\/jLiwv : but further on in the same c. read viro T&V ap . . . els "Xjeipas eXdelv rots KapXT/Scw'ocs ov 140 LANGUAGE OF TEE NEW TESTAMENT. practically " after three days " ; equivalent to the tv rpioiv fjjjLtpais of Matt, xxvii. 40=Mark xv. 29, John ii. 19.* It also is used of time passed through, in Luke v. 5, Heb. ii. 15, and so no doubt in Acts i. 3 : if it be the fact that the Lord did not stay with the Apostles through the forty days, but was seen by them at intervals during forty days, that fact is inferred from the Gospels, not stated in this place. But this use is comparatively rare, except in almost adverbial phrases Sta VVKTOS " by night " four times in Acts (v. 19, xvi. 9, xvii. 10, xxiii. 31) and 8ia Trai/ros constantly. One knows not whether to refer to this sense of " passing through," or to the instrumental one, the exclusively Pauline use of 8ta to denote the state in which a thing is done: Rom. iv. 11, xiv. 20, 2 Cor. ii. 4 : in iii. 11 we see that 810, 80^779 must be almost but not quite equivalent to ei/ SO^T/. Rom. viii. 25, 2 Cor. v. 10 (hardly 7), Gal. v. 13, seem to bridge the interval between this use and the instrumental : a few passages, like Rom. ii. 27, may be assigned to either : but in Heb. ix. 12, 1 John v. 6, it seems quite a mistake to bring in this sense. It is different from the Attic use of 8ta SI'KT/S, 8ta p-a^s teVat, 8t' opyr/s e^eiF, etc., " to come into " or " to have some one in, a relation of ... ," to have that as the medium through which you deal with him : but 8ta trevOovs TO y%)as Siayetv in Xen. Cyr. IV. vi. 6 comes very near to it. It is a question whether we can give this meaning to 8t' ato-$eVeiav in Gal. iv. 13 : it certainly seems a little rash to get, as modern commentators do, an interesting biographical fact out of a grammatical * There is some authority in St. Mark, and rather better in St. John, for the omission of eV. PREPOSITIONS: Sicu 141 refinement of this sort, and say that it must mean that St. Paul was detained in Galatia by illness. We need not dwell on the strictly instrumental sense of the word, which is often as clearly and definitely used as in Aristotle : but we must remember that, though the N". T, writers know what this usage is, they are less careful than Aristotle to use words with technical accuracy, and less apt to assume (of course they have better reason for not assuming) that words are adequate to the accurate expression of their meaning. Thus in Gal. i. 1 we get OLTTO and 8ia distinguished, and expect, but do not get, OLTTO Y distinguished from Sia lY XY: in iv. 7 the T. R. actually glosses Y~ Sia XY. for oia Y of the primitive text. In Ueb. ii. 10 Si* ov ra Trdvra KOL Si* ov TO. irdvra refers to a different Person from the Si' ov of i. 2, the Si' avrov of John i. 3, or the Si' avrov KOLL 15 avrov of Col. i. 16, but in all probability the same as e avrov Kol 01 avrov KCU eis avrov in Rom. xi. 36. We should here notice in passing the Hebraistic use of Sio, x t pos, o. oro/xaTo?, the former at least hardly being more than equivalent to the simple 8ia. Aia c. ace. is used just as in classical Greek sometimes meaning "for" of the final cause, some- times " because of " in a more general sense : which may approximate to, or rather be exchangeable with 8ia c. gen. Thus in John xv. 3 Sia rov \6yov is " because of the word," not " by the word : " but if they were clean because of it, the phrase proves that they must have been cleansed by it. In the Apoc. we should not be surprised if there were a confusion between the cases : but in fact iv. 1 1 is "for Thy will" (A. V, is an excellent gloss), xiii. 142 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 14 "by reason of the signs:" even xii. 11 ascribes the victors' strength to the cause they fought for, not to the arms they fought with. In Luke xvii. 11, but nowhere else, Sta in a local sense has the ace., if, with the best critical editors, we feel bound to bow to the consent of B K L. supported, in some measure, by two good groups of cursives. If this be right, the constr. is an inadvertence, rather than a revival of a classical but only poetical use. Ets and er/ are best considered in connection with each other, being originally connected etymologically, and tending, as they do, to approximate more in usage in the late language. The approximation is however on one side only : as in modern Greek ets can be used for " in," but ei/ cannot be used for " into," so in N. T. Greek there is, to say the least, better reason to doubt whether the proper sense of ets is remembered than whether that of lv is, in the cases where they appear to be " used for " each other. Probably on the whole, each does retain something of its proper form. Ets, when immediately depending on a verb of action done in a place, is sometimes actually explained by a verb of motion standing co-ordinately with that on which it depends, so that the sense of the one colours the other, e.g. Luke xxi. 37, where yvXi&ro as belong together, but the sense is e^c/o^o/xcvos ets . . . rjvXi^ro & TO) opei. So Matt. ii. 23, iv. 13, and from this the transition is easy to Heb. xi. 9, and not difficult even to Acts viii. 40. Acts (xviii. 21 T. R) xxi. 13, similarly may be held to imply a journey, though speaking only of what is to be done at its end. We should certainly read Krjpvo-o-w ets T&S o-tu/ctyioyas in Mark L 39, and almost certainly in Luke iv* 44 : in PREPOSITIONS: efc, eV. 143 the former passage the best text has wXOtv K., in the other we may, if we please, say that the sense " preaching to the synagogues " is included. In John ix. 7 we may either look to viraye. as explaining eis, or may say that, in washing, he would dip his hand, perhaps his face : into the pool, cf. Mark i. 9. But it is best not to look for far-fetched justifications in places like Mark xiii. 9, Acts xix. 22, xxv. 4; as it is certain that in late writers (Lilian is the earliest quoted) ets means no more than "in," we are prepared to admit that it may be so in the N. T. See esp. the parallel passages Matt. xxiv. 18 eV ro> aypw, Mark xiii. 16 ei? rov dypoV. We have one use of et? which may fairly be called Hebraistic, the constr. ytVeo-^at eis n which we get in Luke xiii. 19. That this is its nature is proved by the fact, that while it is common in the Apoc. (viii. 11 etc.) and in quotations from the 0. T. (Matt. xxi. 42 and many parallels, Heb. i. 5 etc.), it is decidedly rare elsewhere. Yet the constr. had roots in the Greek language itself. Apart from the plainly Hebraic passages, Luke 1. c. is perhaps the only one where we feel the phrase to be Hebraistic. Twea-0ai is ovSeV (Acts v. 36), or even et? KCVOV (1 Thess. iii. 5), seem quite possible Greek, and John xvi. 20 17 \virrj v^w et? x a P^ v yei/T/crerat, has a perfect precedent in Theogn. 162, ots TO KOLKOV SOKCOV yiyi/Teu ets ayaOov. It is pos- sible too that this use of ets was commended to late generations of Greek-speaking people by its analogy with the Latin double dat. : 2 Sam. vii. 14 ap. Heb. i. 5 is exactly ille mihifilio erit. J Ev has a wider range of non-classical and mainly Hebraistic use. Both cfc and 6/, it is true, are used 144 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. often to express spiritual relations, e.g. in the phrases /BaTTTi&iv t5, eV (Acts x. 48), or eVt (ii. 38 si vera l.\ 7n c. inf., not only where it means " in the course of " the action (which would be classical) but where it is " at the moment " of it, afia r<3. (Notice this specially Lucan constr. in Luke ix. 36, where the Greek aor. is used correctly, denning the use of the prep, as not pure Greek.) Still further from classical use is the instrumental eV, where in pure Greek we should have the simple dat.,* common esp. in the Apoc. (e.g. ii. 16 etc.), but not very rare in the Gospels (Matt. v. 13 etc.). This shades off, no doubt, into the local meaning e.g. /?a7TTio> iv v&m, Matt. iii. 11 (which well illustrates one of the starting-points of a spiritual use of the prep. see the end of the verse), Heb. ix. 22 ; and, where the local meaning remains, we get eV even in classical Greek with an instrumental sense at least suggested. 'Ei/ of price (Rev. v. 9, and prob. i. 5, reading Xvcravrt, as we should) is only a special case of this use : lv x L P^ ^^ e ^ X L P* noticed above, is a still more Hebraic form of it. Akin to it, but not quite identical, is the sense of accompaniment, 1 Cor. iv. 21, 1 Thess. iv. 16, Heb. ix. 25. This may be * [This idiom is an extension beyond all classical precedent of a construction as old as Homer.] PREPOSITIONS: eV, #. 145 illustrated by the physical* use of the word of gar- ments, Matt. vii. 15 etc.; or we may compare Luke idv. 31, which we must translate " toit/i 10,000," with Enoch ap. Jud. 14; which quite possibly means "among." In 1 Cor. vi. 2, xiv. 11 the sense seems to be apucl vos, apud me: ib. iv. 6, ix. 15, "in my case," which is quite classical. A Hebraistic use, apparently independent of the instrumental, is that of o//Weti/ ets or /, Matt. v. 35, .34-6, xxiii. 16 sqq. ; with which cf. oftoXoyetv ei/ in Matt. x. 32, Luke xii. 8. 'E and atro are, as noted above, used more promis- cuously in the N. T. than they should be : it is noticeable how often they appear as variant readings. In Matt. vii. 4 the e/c of the critical texts is, one would have thought, obviously more appropriate than the OLTTO of the T. R. : in xvii. 9 the reverse is the case : in Mark xvi. 3 (XTTO is old, and seems more appropriate, but c/c is better attested, and has remained more popular. The thoroughly causal sense of IK, rare but not unknown in classical Greek, is in the N. T. confined to St. John's writings perhaps indeed to the Apoc. (viii. 13, xvi. 10, 11), but many so take Ev. vi. 66, xix. 12, though in the former place at least the temporal meaning seems more natural. The only important use of ef that can be considered Hellenistic is an extension of what may be called its partitive use. John iii. 1, vii. 48, IK rdw ^aptcratW, dp^oi/rwv, do not go beyond IK rwv Swaftcww ewriV, " are of the number of the powerful," in Plat. Gorg. 525 e: but in xvi. 17, perhaps iii. 25, we feel the constr. to be harsh : even Ep. II. 4, Rev. ii. 10, seem to give a non-Hellenic force to the prep. And often it seems 10 146 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. to add nothing to the force of the simple gen. We have already noticed that OLTTO is used interchangeably with e in this sense among others. Perhaps it is a development from Greek germs, but it is hardly a Greek usage, when we have c used for "at the rate of . . . " (Matt. xx. 2, cf. the simple gen. in ver. 13), or " at the price of" (ib. xxvii. 7, Acts i. 18 : so still more directly Ep. Jer. [Bar. vi.] 24). The mental process leading to this use is illus- trated by Lukexvi. 9, where the mammon is conceived almost as raw material, at any rate as means and starting-point, for " making friends : " also by com- paring the use of ef in Matt, xxvii. 7 with that of ets (as apparently understood by the Evangelist) in ver. 10 : they get the field out of the money, by a process correlative to that of (as we say) sinking the money in the field. Unique is the use of VIKOLV e in Rev. xv. 2. Some suggest that it may be a Latinism, equivalent to triumpkare de, or still more exactly to the victoriam ferre ex of Liv. VIII. viii. 15. But perhaps the sense is more comparable with the N. T. construc- tions, themselves natural enough, of /xeravoeu/ e*, fj "so as to overthrow." In Phil. ii. 27, however, the Xvirrjv l-rrl Xvirr] of the T. R. is better Greek than Iwl XVTTTJV of the critical text. Perhaps the chief divergence from classical use with this prep, is, that it has apparently ceased to bear the sense " towards " c. gen. And the use is post-classical of eTTi c. ace. to indicate a point of time, as it apparently does in Luke x. 35, Acts iv. 5, perh. iii. 1 (not Mark xv. 1, true text). BomAeveti/ em c. ace., "to reign over" (Luke i. 33, xix. 14, 27, Rom. v. 14), is not a classical constr., though the- prep, has in classics the sense implied. In Matt. ii. 22 the best text has the simple gen. after /^omAeueti/, which is classical, instead of /3. ITTL c. gen. of the T. R. : in Rev. v. 10 7n rfjs y?}? prob. has a merely local sense, and does not depend on (3. We notice that, while twl TO> ovopan (in its ^ distinctive Biblical sense) is apparently interchangeable with iv TO> oV. (see Acts iv. 10, 17), we do not get CTTI TO ovofjia to correspond with ets TO 6'y. though iv and eis are as nearly synonymous as in Acts x. 48, xix. 5. But we get Trio-Teveti/ eVt c. dat. in 1 Tim. i. 16, as well as in the quotation in Rom. ix. 33, x. 11 where it is worth remembering that 148 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. the Vatican text of the LXX. omits ITT curro) , by the side of the commoner TT. ITU c. ace. In Luke xxiv. 25 the constr. is no doubt different, " to believe in view of" . . . : Rom. iv. 16 is even plainer. Notice the frequency of this phrase ITT oV7rt8i (or ' eA.?r.). Kara is used upon the same lines as in classical Greek, but its use has in some respects become more vague as well as more extensive. In some respects, the change is less than one might expect. In the best ages, the quasi-adverbial phrases /ca0' oXou and Kara TTCIVTOS were the only ones in which Kara c. gen. seemed to have the sense " throughout," as c. ace. : but in Poly bins (I. xvii. 10, III. xix. 7, Ixxvi. 10) one constr. seems quite equivalent to the other. Now in the N. T. we never get the gen. in this sense, except in St. Luke (iv. 14, xxiii. 5, Acts ix. 31, 42, x. 37), and in him always with the adj. 0X05; the phrase seeming to " sound right," because the adv. KaOoXov (also peculiar to him in the N. T., Acts iv. 18) had become so common since Aristotle. 'O/xWvat Kara ru/os is quite classical, but is used of the objects sworn on, or pledged to execration by the oath, not of the God sworn by, as in Matt. xxvi. 63, Heb. vi. 13, 16. In James v. 12 we have the classical ojjivvtLv c. ace. : in the Gospels, as already noted, the Hebraistic 6. Iv or et?. 'Ey/cttA.eu/ Kara in Rom. viii. 33 is a familiar classical sense of the prep., but the classical constr. of the verb is c. dat., as Acts xix. 38, xxiii. 28. Kara c. ace. perhaps goes a little beyond classical precedent in its local use : any Greek writer might have written Kara Kvpyvyv in Acts ii. 10, perhaps Kara rov TOTTOV in Luke x. 32, but one may doubt KO.T PREPOSITIONS: Kara, jura. 149 OJVTGV in the next verse. Kara TT/OOO-OJTTOV is good Greek (see Polyb. III. xix. 7, where curiously we have TOJI/ pa/ Kara irpovwirov TOJK Se Kara I/OJTOU), but there is a Hellenistic element in its sense in Luke ii. 31, Acts iii. 13, and even Gal. ii. 11. More decided is the extension of its vaguest and most general use, " in relation to," though often we may render " according to," " by way of," and so bring it within recognised meanings of the word. Teoi/ Kaff v^as TTOL^T^V in Acts xvii. 28 is literary, even elegant, Greek, but of a late period : and the use of TOLS KO.T i^o^v in xxv. 23 is, so far as we know, unique, the phrase itself being anyhow late. Still more may one doubt whether Kara -rrao-av airtav - (Matt. xix. 3), or even /cara ayvoiav (Acts iii. 17) is quite good Greek. But of St. Paul's Kara eoi/, Kara yapw and the like, we may say that it is the thought rather than the word that is beyond the limits of Hellenism. Mera has for its primary meaning " among," whether it be etymologically cognate with /*eVos or not : and this sense survives more or less in some N. T. passages, Luke xxii. 37 (the LXX. has lv rot? di/o/xots : the quotation is not genuine in Mark xv. 28), xxiv. 5 being perhaps those ones where " with " is most inadequate to translate it; but Mark i. 13 and several other places admit or require the sense to be more or less present. But in general the word means no more than " with," and it seems useless to try to elaborate a distinction between it and o-w : some tell us that it implies a much closer union than it, some say just the reverse.* The fact is, that while in the * If there be any definable distinction, I should rather s^y it is that avv sets the tilings connected more on a level, while 150 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. earliest Greek crvv is the ordinary word for " with," as time went 011 /xera began to supplant it, and became far commoner than it, even in Attic : vid. Liddell & Scott, s. v. In the N. T. avv is rare, except in SS. Luke and Paul and perhaps we should add some of the Catholic Epp., which are too short to have frequent occasion for either. As o-w, though never used like our " with " to express the instru- mental relation, yet is occasionally used of things that might have been regarded as instruments, so we may say //.era is used in Luke xvii. 15, perhaps Acts xiii. 17. In Rev. ii. 16, xii. 7, xiii. 4, xvii. 14 we find TToXeftetr /xera used like our " to make war with," i.e. against. This is exactly the Hebrew &V &n?? of Judges v. 20, 1 Sam. xvii. 33, etc. : in pure Greek the phrase could only mean " to make war in alliance with." Some have actually so taken the Hebrew in Judges 1. c., as though the stars fought for Sisera and the river against him : but in most of the 0. T. passages, and all those in the Apocrypha, the sense is unmistakable. Perhaps we may rank also as a He- braism the religious sense of the word, which we find in Matt. i. 23 (cf. Is. viii. 8 in vii. 14 the LXX. leave the pr. n. untranslated), Luke i. 28, John iii. 2, etc. Mera c. ace. is found only in the regular sense " after" /x,erd regards the noun dependent on it as an accompaniment to the other. E.g. in Phil. i. 1 the address is to the whole Church and its officers they being sufficiently important to be considered as co-ordinate with the whole body. Mer' e-jrujKOTTuv Kdl ^ia.Kovwv would have treated them as mere appendages to it. Yet in the LXX. of Judges i. 3, 2 (4) Kings x. 15 we have /zera, though the object is to express association in exactly equal and reciprocal terms. * [Where vvv is confined to special phrases in prose except in Xenophon.] PREPOSITIONS: /W, Trapa'. 151 always of time except Heb. ix. 3, when it is of place, or perhaps rather of order. The only irregu- larity to be noticed is the Latinism in Acts i. 5, cor- responding to that noticed below s. v. Trpo. Ilapa is, generally speaking, used correctly with all three cases. C. gen. there are a few phrases where, though the case has its proper force, its point is apt to be missed. If we read the gen. in Luke i. 37 (no one reads it in Gen. xviii. 14) it must mean "no word on God's part, no word spoken by God," whether or no we give to aSui/a/reu/ its classical instead of its Hellenistic sense. In Mark iii. 21, ot Trap* avrov are " they of his own house," and similarly the neut. in v. 26, " all the substance of her house," all that (literally) came from the place where she was : so Luke x. 7, " what the household supplies/' though the A.Y. gives a suitable sense. Ilapa c. gen. is in Greek prose always used exclu- sively of persons, so it is in the 1ST. T. c. dat. also, with the one exception of Trapa ro> o-ravpu in John xix. 25. Among many idiomatic usages we get an ethical one, for which there is hardly classical precedent, though it is quite in harmony with the meaning of the word Trap' Ipoi 2 Cor. i. 17, "with me," i.e. "in my character " or " habits : " so oftener Trapa ra> a>, Rom. ii. 11, ix. 14, Eph. vi. 9, James i. 17. (Dif- ferent and commoner is Trapa TO> u> in Horn. ii. 13, " before God," " in His judgment") C. ace., the chief point to notice is the extension of its sense in comparison, causing it to be used (see pp. 92-3) after comparative degrees, and in other ways for which the sense "beyond" or "above," which it has no doubt in classical Greek (in Plat. Thecet. p. 144 a, we even 152 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. get it with an adj., ai/Spetov Trap' 6vr/oiV, " braver than any one "), gives a starting-point, but hardly a full justification. Of particular phrases, Rom. i. 25 is naturally translated " beyond " or " above," i.e. " more than the Creator," for which it is quite good Greek. Some try to make it mean " passing by the Creator" more possible would be lt in contravention of His rights : " but without a verbal phrase defining one of these senses it seems hardly possible to get either out of the prep. In xiv. 5 rj^pav Trap' r]fjipav is certainly good Greek for " one day above another : " one might hesitate a little about the use of Kpivew, but it is so used in pure Greek with Trpo, if not with -n-apd. Ilept c. gen. goes some way beyond classical usage towards becoming* synonymous with vTrep, the two being often interchanged as vv. 11., e.g. Mark xiv. 24. It is sometimes doubtful which is really best attested, and at any rate it cannot be said that the later texts have any consistent tendency to substitute either for the other. In Eph. vi. 18, 19, they stand side by side in the same constr., as almost synonymous. One may derive this sense of acting on behalf of a thing from a combination of the common sense, of telling or thinking about it, and the equally classical sense of striving for the thing, i.e. to get or save it. (Luke iv. 38 shows how easy the transition is from the former sense.) It does not mean, quite as distinctly as vTre/o, in the interest, for the benefit of the dependent noun : e.g. the characteristically Hellenistic phrase Trepl d/mprias means that, by the sin-offering, there is a remembrance made of sin ; but it is that sin may be abolished, not retained. At the same time we have Trepi, KaOapto-fJiov (Mark i. 44= Luke v. 14), which is PREPOSITIONS: wpt, irp6. 153 the same in principle. See also 1 Pet. iii. 18, where Trepi and virip have distinguishable senses. If there be a difference between the two in Eph. 1. c., it pro- bably is " making mention of all God's people, and working for my aid " making the most of what they are to do for himself, partly from the sense of his need under trial, and of his helplessness in imprison- ment, and partly as a delicate recognition of their dignity as his intercessors. But John xvi. 26, xvii. 9, 20 show that the most exalted intercession may be worthily expressed by irepL Hardly classical is the use of Trepi in John x. 33, where it appears as practi- cally equivalent to Sia of ver. 32 : but Acts xxvi. 7 explains how this sense is reached. (That constr. is classical, except for the pass, use of ey/i/ CTTI TO o-rfjOos is PREPOSITIONS: Trpo's, V, faip. 155 more than dyaKet^ui/o? iv ra> KO\TT, or more rarely {>7re/xxvto, c. gen. being available for this purpose. As already mentioned, it tends to approximate to and become confused with Trepi; and indeed vwzp has the better right to approximate to the ether, for the sense " con- cerning," found e.g. Rom. ix. 27, 2 Cor. i. 8 (?), viii. 23, is a legitimate and classical one, though rarer in good Attic than in earlier or later Greek. (See Plat. Leg. p. 776 e, where the language has a half epic colouring.) 156 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Uses like 2 Cor. i. 6, 7, 2 Thess. ii. 1 are modifica- tions of this meaning ; 2 Cor. xii. 8 may be held to mark a transition to the next. The commonest N". T. sense of the word, and a common one in all Greek, is " on behalf of," sometimes " on the side of," as Mark ix. 40 = Luke ix. 50, Rom. viii. 31. To this we must refer Rom. xv. 8 (=n"by His ministry it was secured that God should be true"), Phil. ii. 13 where, taking virep TT/S evS. with o evepyw, as is usual, it is " in order to carry out His gracious will : " if we connect it rather with the two infinitives, it will, be " that your will and action may be on the side of His gracious will." 1 Cor. iv. 6 is no doubt used of men boasting of their party leaders or their party following, and so is like 2 Cor. vii. 4 etc. : but some take it " that ye be riot puffed up one over another " which would be natural Greek enough, but unique in the 1ST. T., as well as less suitable to the context. It is a question how near virep in this sense, " on behalf of," approximates to the meaning of O.VTL " instead of." Of the many passages where virip is used of the Atonement, Gal. iii. 13 is almost the only one that suggests the equivalence. If we desire to approach the theological question on its grammatical side, we had better start from Philem. 13, where virlp (Tov " as your representative " comes practically to the same thing as avrl crov " as your substitute," but is not quite the same. And 2 Cor. v. 14 illustrates the extent of the difference, corresponding to that between the true translation of the aor. and that of the A.V. 'YTrep c. ace. has only the sense, in the N. T., of " beyond " or " above," of measure or degree. Besides its classical uses in this sense, it is used like PREPOSITIONS: vTrtp, foro. 157 a (as already mentioned, pp. 92-3) in comparative sentences where a prep, cannot be considered classical : in fact, there is less classical precedent for so using vTrlp than for Trapa. The adverbial use in 2 Cor. xi. 23 is unique : but vTTtpXiav in xi. 5, xii. 11, though we know of no precedents, has as good a right to exist as vwcpdyav (whether we write either as one word or two). 'YTTO c. gen. is only usod of agency, its commonest classical sense. There is nothing to surprise us in its use with neut. verbs, as in Matt. xvii. 12 etc., hardly in 2 Cor. xi. 24. But the use receives an extension which is hardly gocd Greek in Rev. vi. 8, though there we see the reason for using vwo of the living- agents, as distinct from the instrumental lv of lifeless causes. Hdt. VII. xxii. 2, Ivi. 1, 6/ovWcu/, Sia/fruWv VTTO ncurriyw, are not really parallel to this rather to id. I. xvii. 3, with perhaps a sarcastic reminiscence of that use. The poetical use of VTTO c. dat. of course is not found in the 1ST. T. That c. ace. is comparatively rare, and does not differ from the classical. We may conclude with one or two general remarks about the use of prepositions. Besides the compo- sitions for the sake of redundant emphasis, noted on p. 42, we find combinations of a prep, and an adv. of time very much commoner in late Greek than in classical, and prob. in biblical Greek commoner than in secular. A few such phrases, e.g. ets aet, TrapaW/ca, are quite classical, and even approached or assumed the character of compound adverbs : but a-n-dpTi (in the sense of " henceforth" in a different sense aTraprt 158 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. is older), et, CCTTO Trepixri (which is unique, 2 Cor. viii. 10, ix. 2), eWaAcu. When a prep, has more nouns than one depending on it, the prep, is repeated with each of them more frequently in the N. T. than in pure Greek. In Luke xxiv. 27, the second O-TTO almost spoils the sense of the first the sense is " going on through all the prophets," and perhaps the repetition adds the idea of drawing from each, but it would not have occurred in a pure Greek writer. In 1 Thess. i. 5, the second lv was of course required after dAAa, but the third and (si vera I.) fourth have at most a rhe- torical value. Mark xiii. 32 (true text), 1 Tim. ii. 9, v. 19, Heb. x. 28, are said to be the only cases where nouns separated by disjunctive conjunctions have only one prep, between them; and every one will see that in all these cases in the two last especially the repetition would have been impossible, or have altered the sense. In clauses where there is a comparison (e.g. Actsxi. 15 CTT' avrovs . . . okrTrep <' Tj/xas) the prep, is always repeated : always after an adversative, except sometimes where (as 1 Pet. i. 23) it is adjectives belonging to one subst. that are distinguished (so ibid. ver. 1 1 after a disjunctive). In Acts vii. 4, xx. 18 we get the prep, repeated with the rel., though by no means the most suitable prep, to its place in the sentence, by a curious extension of the principle of attraction. In xiii. 2, 39 we have, far more classically, the prep, omitted with the rel., being understood from the antecedent clause. In PREPOSITIONS AND ADVERBS. 159 vii. 38, tRere is perha.ps a point in the omission of //.era before TWI/ TT. ^/xou/ the privilege of " our fathers " is heightened, when one may speak of being " with the Angel and them." But in xxvi. 18, 1 Cor. x. 28, Heb. vii. 27 the repetition of the prep, would have been more natural : in the two former places, there is just enough MS. testimony for it, to show that early scribes felt it so. Besides these prepositions commonly recognised as such, the N. T. makes very extensive use of the adverbs and other words that take the constr. of prepositions ; including some peculiar to late Greek, or even to the Hellenistic dialect. Thus besides the classical aVriKpvs and ei/ai/rt'ov, we get eravrt, d-Trevavrt, KarevavTi, ei/ojTrioi/, /carei/wTrioi/ : of which a-rrevavTi alone is found in pure if late Greek, as is the adj. ei/wTuos, but not the adverbial neut. Being common in the LXX., it looks as though it were conceived as a literal translation of 'Otf?. Besides e/^Trpocr^ei/ and O7rio-#i/, we find OTTIO-W c. gen. : besides ^TreWva, with which we may couple Trepctv and di/rtVepa, which is late only in form, vTrepe/ceiFo, : besides e/cros and l^co^ev, Trape/cros : besides the simple ews c. gen., we get such phrases not only as e (John ii. 7), ecos /carw (Matt, xxvii. 51 = Mark xv. 38), ew? ecrco et? (Mark xiv. 54), ecos efo) c. gen. (Acts xxi. 5), with a numeral, coos e7rra/as (Matt, xviii. 21-2), and with prepositions, eo>s ets, ews eTTt. 'ETTUI/W and (the late) vTrepdvw have received extensions of meaning, as well as become relatively more frequent. e Y7repeK7repio-o-oi), which is used 160 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. adverbially in 1 Thess. iii. 10, v. 13 (?), is perhaps hardly quite prepositional in Eph. iii. 20 : but arep, eyyu?, ej/ros, /xera'v, 7r\r)v, TrXrjcrLov, VTTOKOLT^, ^copt's are all found in the N. T. as virtual prepositions c. gen. : so are the less local eVe/ca and x ( )tv : TO : but in Mark 1. c. the point is not "such an hour came, and then something happened : '' we have been told in ver. 24 aravpoucriv avTov, and now what we learn is, when this was done. St. Mark's sentence is a non-Hellenic way of saying " It was the third hour when they crucified Him : " St. Luke's is a vivid and perfectly Hellenic way of following the day through its course, and noting its events as they came. CONJUNCTIONS: KCU, re. 163 presse dictis," and D. " KO.L initio apodoseos positum." But generally it will be right to translate it simply " and," even in passages like Mark xii. 12, Rom. i. 13, 1 Thess. ii. 18, where the English sentence would be clearer with " but." The Greek conjunctions, copula- tive and adversative, correspond fairly enough to the English : and it is a fact which we have to acknow- ledge, that in Hellenistic Greek the copulative not the adversative are here used. Of course this will not apply to the other case, where there is a real Hebraism or anacoluthon in the structure of the sentence : there no one disputes that we must trans- late " And it came to pass that . . ." " For if I grieve you, who then is he, etc." (2 Cor. ii. 2), and the like. The use of TC, in the books that do use it, does not materially differ from the classical. Only it may be thought that some writers are too fond of it, and put it in where, if not redundant, it suggests a false view of the structure of the sentence. Thus in Acts xix. 27, xxi. 28 re KCU are not correlative, but mean " and that she should even be deposed," " and further hath brought Greeks also : " while in xxvi. 10 we get Kal TfoXAWs re together, as though KCU ... re stood like KCU . . . 8e for "and . . . also," whereas really TroAAovs re ... KaTK\Lcra is co-ordinate with dvcupov/xeVouv re . . . i/r?ov. And whereas in classical Greek re KCU often serve to mark a slight opposition, of the same sort as pas . . . Se though milder (nearly like the English " as well ... as ... "), in the N. T. it does not seem to have this force a double KCU sometimes comes nearer to it, as Rom. xiv. 9, 1 Cor. vi. 14, Phil. iv. 12 etc. So perhaps in John xvii. 25 the 164 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. first /cat is correlative, not to the immediately following Se but to the second /cat' : the effect being something like, "While the world knew Thee not, though I knew Thee, these T>n their part knew. . . ." There is not much to be said of what may almost be called the adverbial use of /cat that which we represent by the words " also," " even," or the like. Perhaps the most distinctive type of this use is where it occurs in comparisons sometimes in the relative clause, as 1 Cor. vii. 7, sometimes in both, as Rom. i. 13 (last two clauses), more commonly in the ante- cedent clause, either emphasising an adv., as Matt, vii. 12, or alone as in Matt. vi. 10. For all of these, however, there are classical parallels. Of disjunctive conjunctions, we need only notice the correct use of rjrot in Rom. vi. 16. The word is regularly used with the first of two or more alterna tives, which it is desired to emphasise sometimes as the more desirable, sometimes, as here, as the more probable. The negatives ovSe and /x^Se, oirre and /XT/TC, though commonly ranked as disjunctives, have almost more affinity in use with copulatives. We are here con- cerned with the difference, not between the negative particles, but with that between the conjunctions com- bined with them, the rules for the use of each pair being much the same. Of course in the case of words so similar both in form and meaning, confusion of reading between them is common : but according to the best textual evidence it appears that OVTC and /xryre are indeed sometimes used beyond the limits allowed in pure Greek, but that such cases are rarer in the original than in the later texts of the N. T. CONJUNCTIONS: ore, pjre, dAAa'. 165 The single ovre in James iii. 12, and the /XT/ ... JUT/TC . . . juT/re of Acts xxiii. 8 are perhaps the only certain cases of incorrect use ; for the latter is not parallel to Matt. v. 34-6, 1 Tim. i. 7, etc., where we have a general case stated with pj, and then broken up into a number of subordinate alternatives with perhaps //^re tli/ai avdo'Tacrw fjLrjrz ayyeXov /x^Se " that there is neither resurrection nor angel or spirit," would have expressed most correctly the writer's meaning. For the use of ov (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10 best text) or ouSc in the last clause after one or more oure 's there is classical precedent, though mostly in poetry, e.y. ^Esch. Prom. 450-1 : ouSc in Luke xx. 35, 36, Acts xxiv. 12 needs no justification. Oure . . . /cat in John iv. 11, 3 John 10 is late (at least, the only classical instance cited, Eur. I. 1\ 591-2, is doubtful) : but it is just equivalent to the classical ourc ... re. In James iii. 14 we have, as in Hebrew, two verbs joined by the simple /cat, and the negative that goes with the former applying to both /cat in fact being used where ///^Se would be more obvious. Here the change of conjunction perhaps modifies the meaning a little, but it may be really due to the influence of Hebrew idiom : it is different in 2 Cor. xii. 21, where we have verbs connected with /cat after o/3oi)/>tat /xry, and in the passages where Isa. vi. 9, 10 are quoted. Of adversatives, the simple and common use of oAAa is most frequent, at least in the Gospels, after negatives Matt. v. 15, 17, etc. : but we also get it before negatives, as in Mark x. 27, or in other relations, as in Mark xiii. 24, 1 Pet. iii. 15 : occa- sionally after //,eV, as (Mark ix. 13?), Acts iv. 16. Besides this, we have to note its use (1) in pathetic 166 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. appeals (not however, in the N. T., where a strictly adversative force is excluded), Matt. ix. 18, Mark ix. 22 : (2) in stating or meeting an objection, Lat. at, Rom. x. 16, 18, 19, xi. 4, etc. : (3) in St. Paul only, in the apodosis to concessive or even hypothetical sentences, Rom. vi. 5, 1 Cor. ix. 2, 2 Cor. v. 16, (xiii. 4, T. R.), Col. ii. 5 ; and this sometimes after another aXXd, 2 Cor. iv. 16, or before one, xi. 6 : (4) in answering one rhetorical question by another, Heb. iii. 16 : (5) where the adversative form almost disappears, the point being a climax, Phil. i. 18. We notice with this word the tendency of the declining language to combine and accumulate particles: we get twice (Luke xii. 51, 2 Cor. i. 13 not 1 Cor. iii. 5) dXX' 77, one or other particle being redundant; twice (Luke xxiv. 21, 1 Cor. ix. 2) dAAa ye ; once (Phil. iii. 8) dXXa plv ovv [ye], as well as the frequent and natural dAAa /cat. Ae' by itself is something between a copulative and an adversative conj., or at least its natural English equivalent is almost equally often " and " and " but." Perhaps it stands oftener in the N. T. than in classical Greek for a mere note of transition, at the beginning of a sentence, where we in English should put no conj. at all, or at most the particle " Now." Its use is somewhat freer in the writers whose style is more nearly classical, but it can hardly be said to be markedly more or less frequent in one than in another. At least, if we think its greater rarity in St. John's Epp. and in the Apoc. not to be accidental, it yet is due less to want of familiarity with the particle than to deeper characteristics of their style. St. Luke's substitution of eyeVero Se for CONJUNCTIONS: /xeV, Se'. 167 the more purely Hebraic KOL eyevero is perhaps the most important point to be noticed under this head. The combination io>s . . . ot Se avOpwTToi : see also p. 187, on 1 Pet. i. 8. Other- wise, we have little variation from classical usage, 168 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. and much variety in harmony with it. MeV is occa- sionally answered, not by Se but by other particles (Mark ix. 12, Acts iv. 16 dAAa, Luke xxii. 22 TrX^v, John xi. 6, etc. eTretra : even /cat in Acts xxvii. 21) : occasionally also it stands absolutely, not only in the combination /xev ovv (which itself passes by im- perceptible degrees from a combination of the two independent particles to become itself an adversative particle), but of the simple /x,eV, having lost its second clause by an aposiopesis or anacoluthon (Acts i. 1, iii. 21, xxviii. 22, and several times in St. Paul).* Me/ ovv is used quite in the classical manner by St. Luke, esp. in Acts, and now and then by St. Paul (1 Cor. vi. 4, 7 : in Rom. xi. 13 it is perhaps questionable if it has exactly the classic force) and in Hebrews (vii. 11, ix. 1). But it is peculiar to the N. T. to use jjivovvy (Luke xi. 28, Rom. ix. 20, x. 18) at the beginning of a sentence whether we write it as one word, or as two, or three. MeVrot is not very frequent, but is used correctly oftenest by St. John, who once (xii. 42) has the somewhat redundant O/XGJS /xeVrot. KatVot is correctly used, as an adversative conj. in Acts xiv. 17, as a concessive particle (rarer, but not unknown, in good Greek) in Heb. iv. 3. The use of KatVoiye in John iv. 2, and those of Katye in (Luke xix. 42?) Acts ii. 18 (from 0. T., but not in LXX.), xvii. 27 (true text) are further from classical use. Of /caiye without an intervening word the only good Attic instance cited is Lysias in Theomn. ii. 7 ; and that is not really parallel to any of these most nearly to Acts ii. 18. * Kom. i. 8, iii. 2, vi. 21, (. /.), x. 1, xi. 13 (T. K.), 1 Cor. xi. 18, 2 Cor. xi. 4. xii. 12, Col. ii. 23, 1 Thess. ii. 18. ADVERBS: ? and its compounds, and 6rt, most obviously, but also u/a, and even et, whether this be a mere phonetic variant of 77, or represent another relative root. In view of this principle, we have been able to say above as much as seems needful, for the purposes of this work, of the way that these (in the widest sense) relative particles modify the structure of sentences, and how far N. T. usage deviates in tl-is respect from classical. But the present will be the proper place to mention what particles have in the N. T. a new or an extended sense, and how their use there affects not merely the form but the meaning of the sentences that they serve to introduce. In the chapter referred to, we noted the chief deviations from classical usage in the choice of moods and tenses associated with av and particles embody- ing it. While these deviations are not unimportant as regards its use in relative clauses, there is hardly any irregularity in its use in the apodosis to con- ditional sentences. Only, whereas the use of the plupf. indie, with av, of the result possible from an unrealised hypothesis, is classical though rare, in 170 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Attic the tense is not used without a reason * : while in the only certain N. T. case, 1 John ii. 19, there can be no meaning in the plupf. as distinct from the aor. even the impf. would not have been quite inappropriate. (The only other instances of the constr. are also in St. John xi. 21, xiv. 7 : in neither is the reading certain, and though in the latter it may be probable, nothing can be said of ^Setre being treated as an aor.). The rhetorical omission of av in sentences like Rom. vii. 7, Gal. iv. 15 (ii. 21 is some- what different : that XC aTreOavtv is a certain fact it is only His Death being So)pedV that depends on the hypothesis) does not go beyond classical precedent. We observe also, that av is never used with infini- tives or with participles. On 0)9 av see below, p. 175. The redundant use of Kav "if it be [were] but . . ." in Mark vi. 56 (cf. v. 28), Acts v. 15, 2 Cor. xi. 16 should be noticed, but is not unclassical : see e.g. Soph. El. 1483. 'EdV, which in pure Greek was always a conditional particle, is in Hellenistic Greek (according to the best critics, not in even late secular writers, at least till Byzantine times) used inter- changeably with av after rel. pronouns or adverbs. This is a mere matter of form, and readings often vary between the two : as sometimes in the converse case, where av if read has its (late Attic) sense, as a shorter form of ecu/.t Bub the fact that lav is not strictly confined to a conditional use has some bearing * E.g. in Plat. Eutliypli'r. 14 c. i/cavws ch> 'fjdrj wapa aov rty offioTyra e/xeytia^/o?, TJd-r} explains the plupf. : it is not only " I should be sure to have learnt ; " but " I should Aatv.been sure to have learnt before now." t The older fy, which still survives in Attic, never occurs in the N. T. ADVERBS: ci, &v. 171 upon the exegetical question, whether it ever is used as a temporal particle. It is argued that this* sense is required in certain passages of the LXX. (Isa. xxiv. 13, Amos vii. 2, Tobit iv. 3, vi. 17, perhaps Ps. xcv. 7 (xciv. 8) quoted in Heb. iii. 7, 15), and of St. John's writings Ev. xii. 32, xiv. 3, 1 Ep. ii. 28* (true text), iii. 2). We cannot here examine all these in detail ; but it seems on the whole that they are too small a foundation to establish the exceptional sense of the word. In the 0. T. passages it is likeliest that the translator, rightly or wrongly, meant the sense " if : " in the former passage (at least) from Tobit, and in those from St. John, that sense seems equally, if not more, appropriate; in some the con- ditional form need not imply uncertainty, and in others there is no reason why it should not. Besides the simple d and eai/, we get in the N. T. the compound conditional particles ctye (Rom. v. 6 ? ?, 2 Cor. v. 3?, Gal. iii. 4, Eph. iii. 2, iv. 21, Col. i. 23), L7Tp (Rom. iii. 30, viii. 9, 17, 1 Cor. viii. 5, xv. 15, 2 Cor. v. 3 ?, 2 Thess. i. 6, 1 Pet. ii. 3 T. R.), and eai/Trcp (Heb. iii. 6, T. R. 14, vi. 3). It is plain that L7Tp has its proper force, " if, as is the fact," so that it approximates to the sense of eTretVep (which appears as a v. I. in Rom. iii. 30), in most of these passages ; and we can see the reason for its use in the others. Rom. viii. 17 gains in pathos, when we see that the share of the disciples in the Master's sufferings was felt to be a fact of which there was no question. 1 Cor. xv. 15 is more forcible, when * The v. I. orav in these places is evidence, no doubt, of what transcribers felt to be the easiest sense and not to be the sense of edi>. 172 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. the Apostle throws himself so fully into his opponents' point' of view as to say " If, as is admitted, the dead rise not " : though at the same time he half corrects the admission by apa, " if we find the unexpected result, that the dead rise not." Etye seems to have the same force as eurep in the two passages of Eph., and in 2 Cor. if it be read there so too in Eom., for if we read it with Westcott and Hort, we must punctuate as they do. But in Gal. it is used of a supposition which the Apostle is loth to believe possible, and in Col. of one which, he apparently means to intimate, is not certain. We see therefore that the force of this word varies a good deal, though its primary meaning "if at least " or " if indeed " covers all its uses. Et TTWS is used, as in pure Greek, for " to see if . . . " " in hopes that " c. fut. ind. in Eom. i. 10, xi. 14, Phil. iii. 11 (unless we prefer to regard t":e two latter as aor. subj.), c. opt. in Acts xxvdi. 12, where the hopes and the action prompted by them are only related historically. 'Evret and eTreiS'/f, arid St. Luke's eTreiS^Vep, are used just as in classical Greek the first having the sense " else " ("for, if it were not so ") several times in St. Paul and Heb. (Eom. iii. 6, xi. 6, 22, 1 Cor. v. 10, vii. 14, xiv. 16, xv. 29, Heb. ix. 26, x. 2). Tap also pre- serves its idiomatic uses epexegetical in Matt. i. 18 [T. E.] connecting and so enlivening the progress of a dialogue in Matt, xxvii. 23, John vii. 42, Acts viii. 31, xvi. 37, xix. 35, 1 Cor. xi. 22, Phil. i. 18, where we represent it by the interjectional " What ? " or " Why " the latter showing * that we also feel that * We are helped in the analysis of our own instincts in the nsj of: this word, by the fa 't that the old English " Forwhy " ADVERBS: ye, y dp. 173 there is something of causality in the connexion. Perhaps in all other places it is a mistake to look for more than its common sense, as giving a reason for what precedes ; though the way in which it accounts for it is sometimes no doubt obscure, as in John iv. 44. In some places the connexion is at first obscure, not from subtlety of thought but from conciseness of expression : e.g. in Mark v. 42 (she walked, for, though we call her Ovydrpiov and TratoYov, she was not a mere infant), xvi. 4 (the greatness of the stone explains both the expressed anxiety of the women about its removal, and their implied emotions at the sight of it). T is rare in the N. T. We have os ye in a causal sense (like quippe qui] in Rom. viii. 32, Sia ye c. ace., " yet because of . . ."in Luke xi. 8, xviii. 5 : else- where it is only used to emphasise or modify other particles. There is not much to be said of the ET. T. use of Stori, which from its primary sense " for this cause, that . . ." sinks into that of our " because," but is just as far above a mere equivalent to yap as "because" is above " for." Of the simple on the use is more varied. As we have said (p. 117), its use in introducing an oratio obliqua is somewhat more extensive than in older Greek ; and no very sharp line can be drawn between this use, and that in which we translate it " because " instead of " that." One can hardly say which translation is more appro- almost exactly equivalent to the Latin quippe is now usually written and read as if it were a translation of rl ydp ; without material injury to the sense of passages where it occurs. 174 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. priate in 2 Thess. iii. 7 the sense is " how ye ought to imitate us, in our conduct of orderly behaviour." Similarly in John ii. 18, ix. 17, on is " in relation to the fact that . . ." or at least in these places, and also vii. 35, the word is used to express a very vaguely conceived relation between the main sentence and that which accounts for or explains what is said in it. A more definitely explicable use of the same sort is Rom. v. 8, where on is "6^ the fact that. . . ." We do not get in the N. T. the classical but colloquial on TL ; " because why ? " like wa TL ; but in (Mark ii. 16?) Luke ii. 49, Acts v. 4, 9 we have (as often in the LXX.) TL on . . . " why is it that . . . 1 " explained by TL -yeyovei/ ort, John xiv. 22, or 7-19 6 A.oyo9 ouros ort, Luke iv. 36 cf. Matt, viii. 27 = Mark iv. 4L Ov X OTL " not that," in John vi. 46, vii. 22, 2 Cor. i. 24, iii. 5, Phil. iii. 12, iv. 11, is a distinctively 1ST. T. phrase : for the classical sense of ovx rt " n t on ly/' or i n Plato " not but that . . ." is quite different. Ov X olov on, " not as though," in Rom. ix. 6 is nearly but not quite the same. The transposition into an object of the subject of the clause introduced by OTL (e.g. Matt. xxv. 24), is very common in the N. T., and not rare in Attic. But the constr. is worth mentioning, as its principle serves to explain the rather harsher constr. of Acts v. 26, Gal. iv. 11, and even Rev. iii. 9. Of 0)9, the most remarkable uses are ws &v c. inf. in 2 Cor. x. 9, the sense of o/3oLr}v - with this cf. a)9 lav c. subj. in 1 Thess. ii. 7 : and s, av, OUTWS. 175 explain the second passage, as we might the first arid third, as a fusion of u)j OFTOS and ort ^v, of a>? ei/ecrrojros and on eve'orT/Kej/. The temporal use of o>s, very common in SS. Luke and John, is perhaps confined to them : in Matt, xxviii. 9, we must omit the clause, and in Mark ix. 21 the reading is not certain. St. Paul however has o>? oV for " whensoever " in Rom. xv. 24, 1 Cor. xi. 34, Phil. ii. 23. c Os av c. impf. ind. in 1 Cor. xii. 2 has been men- tioned already (p. 111). e Os is used c. inf. in doubtful but not impossible readings in Luke ix. 52, Acts xx. 24, and in the phrase o>s en-os eureti/ in Heb. vii. 9 only : c. ptcp. fairly often in SS. Peter (both Epp.), Paul, Luke, and Heb., but elsewhere only Matt. vii. 29 = Mark i. 22, James ii. 12. Perhaps this may be the best place to notice the use of OVTCOS, the correlative to (Ls, almost in the sense quw cum ita, sint (essent) : Acts vii. 8, xxviii. 14 ? 1 Cor. xiv. 25, 1 Thess. iv. 17 possibly also 1 Cor. ix. 24, compare the use in Acts xx. 11. "Oo-re has the same constructions as in classical Greek. But the constr. c. indie. " so that (the result) is or was (at- tained) " is become rare (John iii. 16, Gal. ii. 13 only), compared with the case where (Scrre comes at the beginning of a sentence, virtually meaning " where- fore," and often followed by an imper. Moreover the constr. c. inf., properly consecutive, though differ- ing from that c. indie, as our "so as to . . . " from " so that ..." approximates to a final sense in a few places Matt, xxvii. 1, and still more Luke iv. 29 (true text) being the clearest instances. In both these places there is a v. I., showing that early scribes felt the final sense to be intended, and Luke ix. 52 176 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. may be a similar case : xx. 20 hardly, for tliough wore is the right text, the final sense has already been expressed by !W, and a consecutive wo-rc is in place after it. "OTTOOS is only used in final sentences (taking, it must be said, a wide view of what are such : for it shares the lax use of u/a) except in Luke xxiv. 20, where it is " how," introducing an oratio obliqua. We have referred already (p. 117) to the extension in the IN". T. of the use of ??/a : we now have to examine the nature and the limits of that extension. We note that the classical usage with past tenses of the inclic., of an object now hopeless, has disappeared : and it is doubtful (see p. 109) whether the corrupt use with the present indie., found in the less educated Greek ecclesiastical writers, has yet come in. The regular constr. is c. subj., occasionally c. fut. indie., which in form and meaning is akin thereto : the main question is, how far has Iva advanced towards its use in modern Greek, where (in the apocopated form va) this word c. subj. has superseded the infin. ? Certainly it cannot be contended that it can be used in all cases where it might in modern Greek, where the English that or the French que might represent it. The limits of its use would far more nearly coincide with those of the Latin ut : but as ut c. subj. can be used in a consecutive or ecbatic sense, we have still to ask whether Iva can. Yery often, we have it where the final sense is obviously unimpaired : very often, where the final sense is not obvious, but where to deny its existence is only a piece of exegetical laziness, or incapacity to conceive ADVERBS: Iva. 177 things from a point of view not natural to us, perhaps because too spiritual for us. Of this sort is St. Matthew's Iva TrXrjpuOr) TO pyOev, and the correspond- ing phrases of St. John : so too is surely Luke ix. 45, which presents less difficulty than John xii. 40 : and with which cf . 1 Thess. v. 4. But sometimes, beyond doubt, Iva is used where the final element in the sense is very much weakened sometimes where it is hard to deny that it has altogether vanished. In the first place, it is not unnatural that verbs of desiring both $e'Aa), and such as express entreaty, or even command should have their " object " ex- pressed by the same constr. as the " object " of the action of other verbs. In Matt. iv. 3 ct-n-e, Iva . . . yevwvrai, is strictly " Speak, that these stones may become bread : " it practically means, " Command them to become . . . but as these are equivalent, we can understand xvi. 20 Stco-retXaro (or eTrcrt^o-ev) . . . Iva ///tySevt etTroxrti/. In vii. 12 we might translate " whatsoever things ye desire, that men may do them to you : " this in the same way prepares us for Mark vi. 25, and even for Matt, xviii. 14. Almost easier is it to see the final sense in TrotetV Iva. In Rev. xiii. 15, " to cause that they be killed " is, in regard to the agent's attitude, much the same as to order that they be killed, or to contrive that they may be : and again it may be uncertain, and is indifferent, whether Troitlv Iva or OiXtiv Iva is the constr. of Matt. xx. 33 = Mark x. 51 = Luke xviii. 41. So in 1 Cor. iv. 2, " that a man be found faithful " is the " object " of the seeking. Arid then it is impossible to draw a line between cases like these, and constructions like that with 12 178 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. o-vfjufrepci in Matt. -V. 29, 30, t/cavos et/xt viii. 8, apKtrov x. 25 (cf. John v. 7), etc. : see the series of passages marked * in Bruder s. v. So then one might almost as fitly add a few more e.g. 1 John v. 20, 2 John 6, and the many cases of Sowai [Va, more or less like TToteti/ tra, in the Apoc. : Acts viii. 19 again connects itself with these. We observe that iva is very frequent in (all) St. John's writings ; he only uses OTTOOS and wore once each, (Ev. xi. 57, iii. 16), while this word has with him some peculiar extensions of use, both as to form and sense. He often has the elliptical oAA' Iva (i. 8, ix. 3, xi. 52, xiii. 18, xiv. 31, xv. 25), to which the only complete parallel elsewhere is Mark xiv. 49, and perhaps Eph. v. 27.* Notice other elliptic uses of the word, marked (as these are) * * in Bruder : also Gal. ii. 10 (as well as 9) should be included. Philem. 19 may be explained as a Latinism the sense is just ne dicam : but 2 Cor. ii. 5 is just the same constr. We may distinguish one class of cases as epexegetical of which we may take as subordinate types (1) cases like Luke i. 43, John xv. 8, where we get TOVTO Iva directly connected (unde hoc mihi ut veniat . . . Yulg. Luc. 1. c.). (2) John iv. 34, and others where the clause with Iva serves to explain the nature of a subst. : 3 John 4, is no doubt a (somewhat elliptical) example of this. (3) Intermediate are cases like John vi. 29, 2 John 6, where TOVTO stands so to speak in apposition to the Iva clause, to enable it to stand as subject to the sentence identifying it with a subst. * 2 Thess. iii. 9 is quite normal, "not because . . . but in order that . . . , giving a wrong and a ri^ht way of account- ing for the fact stated just before. ADVERBS: Iva. 179 Now that we have recognised that Iva can be used in other than a strictly final sense, we can consider on their merits alternative schemes of interpretation : e.g. in 1 John iv. 17 we see that grammatically Iva . . . Kjoicrewg may be epexeg. of ev TOVTO>, though if we prefer to take Iva in its final sense, TOVTO), may refer to what goes before, or to on . . . rovro) in the next clause. So with John viii. 56, Rev. xiv. 13. For the special use of Iva in entreaties, like the classical OTTWS, see p. 109. The use in 1 Cor. i. 31 is curious but intelligible : it is of course to be explained as an ellipsis. ''Iva is not really followed by an imper. instead of a subj., but the sense is " that (things may be) as the Scripture says they ought to be," and then follows the quotation, telling how that is. Of relative adverbs of place, and their correlatives, one whole series had disappeared, viz. those relating to motion to a place, ot, oVot K.T.\. : just as in modern, or at least in colloquial English, it is an affectation to say " whither " instead of " where." The disuse is however less consistent in Greek : wSe * and the rarer ivOa&e serve for both " hither " and " here," while IvravOa has disappeared, but evrevOei/ not : ZvOev is used twice demonstratively (Matt. xvii. 20, Luke xvi. 26, true text). 'E*et can have the sense of "thither" (Matt. ii. 22, xvii. 20, etc.); but e^etcre occurs twice in Acts once (xxi. 3) with something of * *fiSe in the N. T. has never its oldest sense of "thus." The sense " hither " is first found in Sophocles (and that in passages where something of a colloquial use would not be out of place) : " here " not before Theocritus. In 1 Cor. iv. 2, Rev. xiii. 10, 18, xiv. 12, xvii. 9. the sense seems to be " herein " a metaphorical extension of the latest local mean- ing* 180 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. its proper force, but in xxii. 5 this cannot be traced even eKet$ei/ would have been more appropriate. The pregnant use of this last word with the art. is found in Luke xvi. 26 only, and there is at least doubtful. "QOsv is used both in a local sense (Matt, xii. 44 = Luke xi. 24, Matt. xxv. 24, 26, Acts xiv. 26, xxviii. 13, Heb. xi. 19), and in an illative, "from which " coming to mean " for which cause " so Matt. xiv. 7, nearly so 1 John ii. 18, and so five times in Heb. Of other illatives, Sio (twice in 1 Cor. SioTrep) alone is a rel. in form : of it we have only to note its rarity in the Gospels (Matt, xxvii. 8, Luke i. 35, vii. 7 only), and its total absence from St. John. But we may mention in this connexion the other N. T. illatives ovv (once, John xviii. 37, ov/cow), apa, TOIVW, roiyapow. As regards the first, it is impossible to draw a very sharp line between its strictly illative use, and that where it is merely continuative, like our " then " or " so." It is this latter use that is so frequent in St. John ; perhaps elsewhere the passage where it is most fully developed is Luke xx. 29 (for in several places in St. Luke ow disappears from critical texts) : while we have transitional cases in Matt, xxvii. 17, Mark xii. 6, etc. And this continuative use passes, through sentences like Luke iii. 7, into what may be called the resumptive, of which we have an instance in Rom. xii. 1, still more plainly in 1 Cor. viii. 4, where the thread of ver. 1 is resumed after a digres- sion, whether we make it an actual parenthesis or not. The sense of apa, as in classical Greek, is at least as much that of discovery (often of surprise) as of ADVERBS: apa. 181 inference : see on the one hand Matt. vii. 20 (where it is emphasised by ye), 2 Cor. v. 15, on the other Matt. xii. 28= Luke xi. 20. Luke xi. 48, Acts xi. 18, show how one passes into the other, " it follows, little as you may think it," or " little as we had expected it." So where apa stands after an interrogative (Matt. xix. 25, Mark iv. 41, Luke i. 66, and, in an indirect question, xxii. 23) it gives a tone of surprise or anxiety : and so in hypothetical sentences, as Acts viii. 22, xvii. 27 (where d apa is practically = si forte, but it is utterly misleading to say that apa means forte}. All these modifications of sense are classical ; but not so the N. T. usage of putting the illative apa at the beginning of a sentence, still less the way that St. Paul emphasises it by the combination op ovv (often in Romans, and in Gal. vi. 10, Eph. ii. 19, 1 Thess. v. 6, 2 Thess. ii. 15). Heb. xiii. 13 has no known precedent except in the LXX. for roivvv at the beginning of a sentence ; but in late secular Greek it was allowed there : for roi-yapovv it is the correct place. (c/) Negative and Interrogative Particles. The two negative particles ov and /^, and the whole series of their compounds and derivatives (ovSet's, /x7/8ets /c.r.X.), are in use in the N. T. as in classical Greek, and are used, generally speaking, upon the same principles. But there is much more laxity in the observance of the rules for their use, and the rules that are or tend to be observed are not absolutely the same : there are larger classes of cases where either negative can be used with little or no difference to the sense ; and there are uses for which 182 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. one particle only was appropriate, on which we find that the other has encroached. Thus in Mark xii. 14 the use of the two particles is quite clear and correct. The difference of mood in the verb corresponds to the difference of the nega- tive : "Is it lawful ... or [is it] not 2 are we to give, or are we not to give ? " So in 1 John v. 16, " a sin not unto death " is part of the supposition : in the next verse, the existence of such a sin is cate- gorically affirmed : and so we have /JLTJ in the former clause, and ov in the latter. But when we compare John iii. 18 with 1 John v. 10, we fail to see any reason, either in the grammar or in the sense, why we should have ore /AT) 7rtrrreuKCj> in the former, and on ov TreTnVreuKev in the latter. And in fact it is a mistake to look to any difference of sense to explain the choice of different particles : the true explanation is simply, that whereas in a classical writer we should certainly have had on OVK, in late [e.g., Lucian] (not only in Hellenistic) Greek the tendency prevailed to use JJLIJ after causal par- ticles. In the N. T. it is still exceptional : but we get it in Heb. ix. 17. after eVei, as well as in John O T * 1. c. after on. On the other hand, it is an all but universal rule in pure Greek, that in conditional sentences the nega- tive shall be pr}. The only recognised exceptions are, where the et is virtually equivalent to a non- conditional particle (e.g. in the phrase $aiy/,aa> et, where OVK is sometimes but not always used), or where the negative is inseparably connected with a single word, and belongs to it rather than to the sentence; e.g. Soph. Aj. 1131, d TOVS Oavovras OVK eas NEGATIVES: oi, /4 183 v, " if thou forbid to bury." We get no clear instance (though John x. 35, Heb. xii. 25, 2 Pet. ii. 4 might pass for such) of the former sort in the N". T., but Luke xii. 26, et ovSe eXaxwrrov Supacrdc, 2 Cor. xii. 11, et Kol ovoev ct/u, fall under the latter. So in the use of participles with the art, rj ov rtWovcra, fj OVK (oS&owa in Isa. liv. 1, quoted in Gal. iv. 27, and T^V OVK -YjyaTr^^v^v in Rom. ix. 25 : similarly ol OVK yjXerjfJitvoL in 1 Pet. ii. 10. Perhaps we ought to distinguish from this, as another case in which OVK is admissible, even in the purest Greek, that where, though the negative does not coalesce with any one word into a privative phrase, it is placed, for rhetorical or other reasons, in close association with the word which it denies, and at considerable distance from the conditional particle, or equivalent form. Thus in Thuc. III. Iv. 4, et 6 avrocrnji/cu 'A^r/vatW OVK ?7$eX?ycra//,i/, it is a ques- tion whether we say that ov 0e'Xetv coalesce into one idea, nolle, like OVK lav : if the order had been different, even without separating the negative from the verb, we should probably have had et Se //,?) ^$eX?J- (ra/xei/ car' 'AOrjvaiwv a,7roaT7}vai. On this principle we may justify the use of OVK in Luke xiv. 26, xvi. 11, 12, 31, John iii. 12, v. 47, x. 35, Rom. viii. 9, xi. 21, 1 Tim iii. 5, v. 8, 2 Pet. ii. 4, 2 John 10. And in other passages one might find some other plea: e.g. in 1 Cor. xv. 13 et Se " 'Ai/ao-Tcurts veKpaii/ OVK eo-rtv " gives a quotation, or at least what is treated as one, of what some among the Corinthians said (ver. 12) : and the principle might, with a little stretching, cover the repeated instances of et ov that follow. 184 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Again, it seems to be the use of late but pure Greek writers to use ov where there is a marked antithesis with the apodosis, or with a positive clause balancing the negative one " if not one thing, then another," or " if not one thing but the other, then." . . . This would explain Luke xi. 8, xviii. 4, 1 Cor. ix. 2, James ii. 11, besides applying to several of the passages given above. Similarly where a negative clause, equivalent to a ptcp., comes after the art. in Rom. iv. 12, rots OVK CK 7re/HTo//,?}s /xdi/ov, aXXa K.T.A. : here but for the antithesis, we should certainly have had fjurj. (In Eph. v. 4 TO, OVK avrj- KOVTCL is a/". I. : and even that is in a negative clause followed by aXXd.) We believe that in all these cases there is a real reason for the use of ov : but it is hardly the right way to regard them, to treat them (as we must treat such parallel cases as we find in classical Greek) as exceptions to the general rule requiring et /JLTJ. For if we did so, the exceptions to the rule would out- number the examples of it. Et pr) is used very freely in the N. T. more extensively than in pure Greek : but its general use is as a compound particle used after negatives, almost =7rX^i/, "except:" sometimes in St. Paul helped out by CKTOS (1 Cor. xiv. 5, xv. 2, 1 Tim. v. 19). As introducing a real conditional sentence, we meet it only in Matt. xxiv. 22 = Mark xiii. 20, John ix. 33, xv. 22, 24, xviii. 30, xix. 11, Rom. vii. 7, ix. 29 (from LXX.), 2 Cor. xii. 13, 1 Tim. vi. 3. On the other hand, we have d ov, besides the cases above enumerated, and without any of the reasons given for those applying, in Matt. xxvi. 24 (=Mark xiv. 21), 42, Mark xi. 26 [T.R.], John NEGATIVES: et or, et /w}. 185 x. 37,. Acts xxv. 11 (ovSeV), 1 Cor. vii. 9, xi. 6, xvi. 22, 2 Thess. iii. 10, 14. Can we trace any principle here ? If not, it might be worth while to remark that about half the instances of et ^ are in a single writer : and we might say that et OVK is the rule, and et ^ the ex- ception, in all N. T. writers but St. John. But on examining the instances, we shall see that in all the places where ^ is used except the last, it is used with a past tense of the indie, of an unrealised sup- position : in all where OVK is used, either the verb is in a primary tense of the indie., or the sense is "if, as was the fact " (Rom. xi. 21, Heb. xii. 25, 2 Pet. ii. 4), or one of the reasons stated above applies (Luke xvi. 11, 12). This then appears to be the rule of N. T. usage that et with the indie, almost always takes ov, except with a past tense in the sense specified. 'Eav however always takes /AT; c. pres. as well as c. aor. subj. And though ct OVK is a deviation from classical usage, it may admit of justification on the principles of the classical language. If we resolve the conditional particle into a relative one, et will be " in the case in which," . . . and lav " in any case in which " . . . : and of these relative sentences, the one would regu- larly take OVK and the other py. In practice, how- ever, we must not expect always to find an assignable difference of meaning between et OVK and lav p,rj, any more than between the simple et and lav : compare Matt. vi. 15, lav pi] dc^re, with Mark xi. 26, et Se {yxets OVK atere which, though not part of the genuine text of St. Mark, belongs to the oldest form of the " Western Text," and shows what were the \W LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. natural variants of language among people who still possessed evangelical sayings in a plastic form. On the other hand, we may notice Matt. xxvi. 42, where we get d ov and cav /XT; in the same sentence. Here there is a real difference between the two, illustrated by the necessary difference in a Latin or English translation. In the elliptical sense "if not," "otherwise," we always have ei Se /XT; (or ei Se /XT; ye, everywhere except in SS. Mark and John). It is noticeable, that in most of the passages (7 or 8 as against Luke x. 6, xiii. 9, John xiv. 2, 11, Rev. ii. 5, 16: Luke xiv. 32 is ambiguous), the supposition which /XT; excludes is itself a negative one. Except in this case of et c. indie., the tendency of late Greek is certainly to extend the use of /XT; rather than to contract it. We may say that in classical Greek OVK is used where there is a categorical nega- tion, even in dependent clauses in relative sentences, with participles, or the like : only that /XT; can be used where there is any special reason, e.g. to give a conditional or (sometimes) a causal sense. In later Greek, the rule and the exception are the other way : the rule is, in fact, almost the same as in modern Greek, where we are told that /XT; is the particle ordinarily used with subjunctives and participles (Geldart's Guide to Modern Greek, p. 254) : while in relative sentences /XT; can be used, even with the indie. Tit. i. 11, 2 Pet. i. 9. The general practice, how- ever, in relative sentences is to use ov c. indie., and /XT; when the verb is in the subj. with av : cf. Matt, xiii. 12, Mark iv. 25 with Luke viii. 18. We have always OVK in the relative sentence that expresses ov, w, WITH PARTICIPLES. 187 universality by a double negative ovSets ooris ov, and the like : so Acts xix. 35, Heb. xii. 7. Notice how- ever the double ov //,?/ in Mark xiii. 2 not Matt. xxiv. 2 true text, though Luke xxi. 6 alone has the normal constr. With participles, we may say that ^ is always used when the ptcp. is equivalent to a con- ditional clause, almost always when it is causal, and mostly when it is equivalent to a mere relative : but ov sometimes in the last case, and generally where the sense is concessive. So in modern Greek o^i (=ov^t or ov) Swa/xevos is " though he could not," but py oWa/xevos " because he could not " (Geldart, p. 73). We have instances of ov with participles in Matt, xxii. 11 (cf. 12), Gal. iv. 8, Col. ii. 19, Heb. xi. 1, 35, where it seems to be used simply as being the natural negative. In Luke vii. 6, ov /x,a/cpai/, in Acts xxvii. 20 OVK 6\tyov, are virtually one word we have /jirjTe . . . e/vK/xui/oVruv just before the latter. In 1 Cor. ix. 26 we may say something of the same sort the sense is, "I box, as striking not the air (but my enemy) : " or the parallelism with o>s OVK d&jAws may be explanation enough. In Luke vi. 42, Acts vii. 5, xxviii. 17, there may be the difference of sense required by the modern rule : so in Acts xvii. 27, where the concessive sense of the ptcp. is put beyond question by Katye : In 1 Pet. i. 8 we get both ov and pr} with participles, and cannot doubt the differ- ence of meaning : ov OVK tSovres is " whom though ye have not seen," ets ov . . . Trio-revovTcs " in whom because ye believe." But instead of leaving these three last words alone, the Apostle expands them into an antithesis, which in classical Greek (see p. 167) would have been expressed by something like 188 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. /*,!/ a/on, TTLO-TCVOVTCS 6V i and as the negative introduces, not merely the opoWcs but the whole antithesis, it takes the form suitable to the sense of Trio-revoi/res, its more emphatic member. In John x. 12, 1 Cor. iv. 14, 2 Cor. iv. 8, 9, Phil. iii. 3, ov may be explained by the existence of an antithesis such as was noted above in hypothetical sentences. But we get p.rj [and compounds] even in antithesis, as Mark v. 26, Acts ix. 7, 2 Cor. vi. 9, 10 where there seems no differ- ence of principle or even of tone from iv. 8, 9 and constantly elsewhere (e.g. Luke xviii. 2), where it is not possible to trace anything causal in the sense, as no doubt we may in Matt, xviii. 25, xxii. 25, 29, Acts v. 7, ix. 26, xii. 19, xvii. 6. The rule seems a sound one, that where we get ^ with a ptcp. it does not need accounting for, but that where we get ov with one we ought to look for some reason for its use; though it is too much to say that there must always be some assignable reason to be found. It agrees with this principle that jjirj is used with a ptcp. where ov would be with a verb that when we have a ptcp. constructed with the verb substantive, the negative is OVK or ju^, according as it belongs to the verb or the ptcp. See on the one hand Luke vi. 43, xii. 6, xxiii. 53, John iii. 24, Rom. iii. 12, 2 Cor. ii. 17, James iii. 15; on the other Luke i. 20, xiii. 11, Acts ix. 9. The last passage is especially noticeable, be- cause ov follows immediately, with verbs. As in pure Greek, the ptcp. with the art. regularly takes //,?7 : what exceptions there are have been ex- plained above. Even in Rom. iv. 12 we should prob. have had py, had ovo-t been expressed. Where the ptcp. depends upon a final clause (e.g. 1 Cor. vii. NEGATIVES WITH INFINITIVE. 189 29), JJLTJ is equally necessary. Yet we get ov^ in con- nexion not, it is true, immediate with an imper. in 1 Pet. iii. 3, and ovSe with a final sentence in Rev. ix. 4. These are, of course, irregular. For the inf. also is associated with ^ in the N. T. even where it would not be in classical Greek. When it serves to express an or. obi., we should expect, in general, the same negative to be used as would be in the or. recta OVK in categorical speeches, ^77 in pro- hibitory. M?7 therefore is necessary in Matt. ii. 12, Luke v. 14, 1 Cor. v. 9, 11, etc; but is hardly classical in Luke ii. 26, xx. 7, Acts iv. 20, xxiii. 8, Heb. ix. 8. Where the inf. has the art., a negative between them is regularly JAYJ : we find it too in 2 Pet. ii. 21, where the inf., without art., is subject of the sentence. In Acts xix. 27, Rom. vii. 6, Heb. vii. 11, we should hardly have had ov (or ovOev) except in the second member of an antithesis. In 2 Tim. ii. 14 we have ovSev, but should prob. have had CTT! TO fjirj ^p., had the simple negative been used. In John xxi. fin., the negative belongs not to the infin. but to avrov rov KO&fJiOV. Of /X^TTOTC in Heb. ix. 17 we have given above (p. 182) what seems the most probable account: though it is possible to explain its use as a rhetorical question. It is used in a direct question in John vii. 26, in an indirect in Luke iii. 15. The tendency in late Greek to the extended use of this form in particular may have been encouraged by its Aristotelian use in the sense of " perhaps ; " of which we have something like an example in Matt. xxv. 9 ; though perhaps it is not wrong to supply (we must not insert) an ov before it. In 2 Tim. ii. 25 /xr/Trore is of course not 190 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. " lest," but " in case," " if haply," and so allied to the Aristotelian sense. M^TTWS in Rom. xi. 21 would be just equivalent to that use perhaps half dependent on the o/3ov preceding : but it is a " Western and Syrian " reading that cannot be regarded as original. For the use of /X^TTCOS c. indie, (twice coupled with a subj.) in Gal. ii* 2, iv. 11, 1 Thess. iii. 5, see p. 114. Notice also the use of opav, /^AeTreiv, O-KOTTCLV pq sometimes c. indie., p. 109, on the analogy of v in the same sense is not found. We may notice the use of fjLTJ several times in St. John, where the expectation of a negative answer is ironical or hypo- critical, and the askers mean to suggest as possible what they profess to reject as incredible vii. 47, 52, viii. 22 (ji^Ti). The use of ov where an affirmative answer is expected needs no remark, being just analogous to the practice in English and Latin : only in the latter non may seldom be used for nonne, and in English we vary the order of words "is he not?" interrogatively, but a he is not" categorically. In Greek, there is not necessarily in the N. T. not usually any differ- ence in form between the two : but it is seldom that the sense fails to make it clear which is intended. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. 191 Where ambiguity might arise (e.g. 1 Cor. v. 12) it is avoided, not, as in classical Greek, by the use of op 9 ov, for this combination is not found in the 1ST. T., but of OV^L a form appropriated exclusively to questions (Matt, always 9 or 10 times : Luke vi. 39, xii. 6, xiv. 28, 31, xv. 8 the two last in questions beginning with TI'S, xvii. 8, 17, xxii. 27, xxiv. 32, xi. 9,* Acts v. 4, vii. 50 (fr. O. T.), Rom. ii. 26, iii. 29, viii. 32 after mos, 1 Cor. i. 20, iii. 3, v. 12, vi. 7 bis, viii. 10, ix. 1, x. 16 bis, 2 Cor. iii. 8 after TTWS, 1 Thess. 11. 19 with r;, Heb. i. 14, iii. 17), answers (always followed by dXXa Luke i. 60, virtually, xii. 51, xiii. 3, 5, xvi. 30, John ix. 9 (true text), Rom. iii. 27), and antitheses (John xiii. 10, which explains the use in 11, xiv. 22, 1 Cor. v. 2, vi. 1). This restriction of the use of the form is not classical ; in Attic it seems to be admissible whenever the negative is emphatic, though there are also several examples of its use in questions, in answers, or after dAAa. Direct questions, when not suggesting their own answer, seem to have been less often introduced by a distinct interrogative particle in popular language than in literary : and the N. T. follows the popular use: see e.g. John v. 6, ix. 19, 1 Cor. ix. 11, 2 Cor. iii. 1, where the form of the sentence does not show it to be interrogative at all. We find apa only twice, (Luke xviii. 8, Acts viii. 30 apd ye) : at least in Gal. ii. 17 apa, however we accent it, is certainly illative and not merely interrogative, though the sentence is rightly taken as a question (" is He there- fore. . . .?" "does it follow that He is. ...?") * Also vii. 42 T. R., and several times besides where the best texts have the simple otf. 192 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. "H (though no one proposes to write it jj) seems to have an interrogative force, not a disjunctive, in Matt. xxvi. 53, Rom. iii. 29, vii. 1, xi. 2, 1 Cor. vi. 2, 9, x. 22, xiv. 36, 2 Cor. xi. 7, James iv. 5 : in all these places (for one can hardly correlate 1 Cor. vi. 9 with ver. 2) it stands as the first word of the question. In 1 Thess. ii. 19, also, we have the use in " such direct questions as follow a general question and suggest the answer " (L. & Sc. s. v. A. ii. 1). And we have an unclassical use of et to introduce direct questions, often in St. Luke, besides only in Matt. xii. 10, xix. 3, xx. 15, Mark viii. 23 (best text). St. Luke seems not to use et, however, before a direct double question, when the texts of vi. 9, xiv. 3 are amended. As a rule, the first clause in such questions stands without a particle, the second being introduced by 77. On the use of ei and 77 in indirect questions we have nothing to remark : Trdrepov occurs only in John vii. 17. We find, however, another peculiar use of et, which may be mentioned here, though prob. connected rather with the hypothetical than with the interro- gative use of the word. There is a Hebrew idiom, literally reproduced in the LXX., according to which DK " if " is used as equivalent to a negative in oaths : e.g. Ps. xcv. (xciv.) fin., quoted in Heb. iii. 11 sqq. The origin of this is, no doubt, the aposiopesis of an imprecation one may guess, that of the biblical oath, " God do so to me and more also, if . . . : " but it comes to be, in Hellenistic language, simply a very emphatic and solemn negative. In this sense, we get it in Mark viii. 12. It seems moreover to be connected with this use, that we get et /JLTJV in an affirmative oath, in what ADVERBS: % /^V, d w 193 seems to be unquestionably the true text of Heb. vi. 14. The same spelling is found in the best extant MSS. of the LXX. in the passage quoted, and in several others : so the evidence is too early and too widespread for it to be a simple itacism : 77 did not get confounded with nearly as early as t. We may suppose that the classical formula of oath rj prjv was assimilated to or confounded with the Hebraic cl //,?/, and that a mixture of the two got established in Hellenistic usage. 13 CHAPTER VII. MISCELLANEOUS FEATURES OF NEW TESTAMENT GRAMMAR AND IDIOM. WE meet with a good deal of inconsistency of practice, in the observance or non-observance of the Greek syntactical rule, that a neut. pi. is followed by a verb in the sing., unless the subject, though formally neuter, really represents living agents persons, or at least animals. Thus e.g. Matt. vi. 33, Tavra 7rdvTa TrpocrTtOrjcrcTcii, ib. 32, Trdvra yap ravra TO, WVK] 7ri?7Town/, ib. 26, TO, Treretva . . . ov cnrzipovcnv K.T.X., are all quite regular. But ib. 28 we have TO, Kpiva . . . avdvov(rw ov KOTrtojcrtv ovSc vrjOovcnv : and so Luke xxiv. 11,* John vi. 13, 1 Tim. v. 25, Rev. iii. 2 (?), (si v.l) xvi. 20.* In (Matt. xiii. 4 v.l.) John x. 4, 16, xix. 31,* Rev. i. 19 both sing, and pi. verbs are used in the same sentence. In most of these we trace no principle : in John xix. 31 any reason there is for insisting on cr/ccX^ implying two or three persons (ver. 32) would apply with greater force to o-co/^ara. In c. x. however, there is a delicate shade of meaning in the change : the sing, is used where the figure is adhered to, without admixture of the thing signified [* Marks the passages where T. R. does not consistently insert the singular.] VERBS WITH NEUTER PLURAL. 195 (read IOTIV in ver. 12); but the pi. where it is distinctly intimated that " the flock of His pasture are men " (vv. 14, 27-8 : read d/covovortv in ver. 27), or where the literal sheep are described as acting intelligently, " like Christians," vv. 4, 5, 16. There may be a touch of similar feeling in the personification of the lilies in St. Matthew. On the other hand the neut. pi. of living agents has a singular verb in Matt. xii. 45 Luke xi. 26, Matt. xiii. 4 (once at least) = Mark iv. 4=Luke viii. 5, Mark iv. 10 (?) cf. Luke viii. 30 (but not 33, true text), Luke (iv. 41?) viii. 2, xiii. 19, Rom. ix. 8, 1 Cor. vii. 14, 1 John iii. 10, iv. 1.* In Rom. iii. 2 St. Chrysostom considered it grammatically an open question, whether TO. Aoyia were subject or object to cTTia-TtvOrjo-av : but on exegetical grounds there is no doubt that it is object, so that the pi. is regular. Akin to this variety of use in a special Greek idiom is that common to all languages in the use of a sing, or pi. verb when its subject is either a noun of multitude or a number of individuals coupled by conjunctions. The sing, is commoner with a collec- tive in the N. T. as in classical Greek in the LXX. it is the other way : but often a verb less directly, though inf erentially, connected with the singular subj . will be pi. e.g. Luke i. 21, John vi. 2 : so 1 Tim. ii. 15, where the sing, preceding is not a collective, but a representative. The order of the words has not a little to do with * Here it may be a question whether the irveij^ara are conceived as personal. This will not apply to the instances in the Gospels where dai/jLovia. is the subject : but it may be a question (esp. in Mark iv. 10) how far their action is ascribed to the demoniac. 196 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. determining the constr. in this point : compare the two clauses with o^Xos in Mark iv. 1, John vi. 22 (best text), 24, xii. 9, 12. So it affects the gender and number of a ptcp. standing as a secondary predi- cate : compare Acts xxi. 3G (true text) with Luke xxiii. 1. An adj. or ptcp. forming a primary pre- dicate would naturally be sing. (Luke i. 10, 21) : yet we get the pi., and that before the pi. copula, in John vii. 49. With a compound subject, the verb can only be sing, if it stand first (Matt. xvii. 2, John ii. 2, Acts xx. 4), so that it is intelligible as constructed with the first only of the nouns, and is supplied with the rest. We notice a slight irregularity in the use of a sing, verb with a pi. ptcp. as primary predicate in Luke ii. 33, and as secondary in Matt. xvii. 2. In general, the want of clear and straightforward connexion between subject and predicate is the rarest of faults in the style of the N. T. : the simplicity of most of the sentences is a security for their correct- ness and intelligibility. In the more periodic style of the Acts, however, we get some entanglement : in xvii. 2 it is hardly Greek to leave the subject to be inferred from mention in an oblique case. Of viii. 7 we could at best say the same, if the T. K. were right ; but as we must certainly read TroXXot, the only choice is between saying that we have a mixture of two constructions (TroXXoi ran/ c^. TTJ/. CLK. lOcpairevOrj- o-av, and TroXXwv TTV. OLK. fto^vra <. /xey. c^p^ovro), and taking cypx- i* 1 a peculiar quasi-transitive sense, " had spirits come out of them." A converse case to this is the trajection of the subject of clause to the beginning of the sentence, for ABSOLUTE NOMINATIVE. 197 the sake of emphasis. 1 Cor. xi. 14, where avyp and yvvrf are put each at the beginning of its own clause, are quite natural Greek : so is even John viii. 45 : but Luke xxi. 6, John x. 29 (if we read the neut.), still more 1 John ii. 27, or even 24, go beyond what a classical author would be likely to write. Sentences like these, in fact, though they have a place in their framework into which the nom. can be fitted, really approximate to those in which we get the so-called nom. abs., to designate the subject of the sentence in the popular sense, when it is not the " subject " in the grammatical e.g. Ex. xxxii. 1 quoted (loosely) ap. Acts vii. 40. So Matt. x. 32, Luke xii. 10, Horn. ix. 10 : Luke vi. 47 may be regarded as an instance either of this constr. or of that last mentioned. In John vi. 39, TTOLV may be regarded either as nom. or as ace., being (if the latter) originally intended to serve as object to aTroXea-w and cU'acrTTycra), but being replaced with the former by c OLVTOV, which makes the statement more absolute : but sentences like Luke xii. 10 tend to show that here too irav is really nom. There is something of a Hellenistic tone in sentences like these. In Exod. or Acts I.e., a classical writer would have been likelier to put an ace., in some sort of dependence on OVK otSaftev, " We know not about this M. what is become of him." But though a nom. thus used is a sort of slight anacoluthon John xv. 5 shows how possible it is to have a noun or pron. that cannot, without recasting the whole sentence for the worse, be intro- duced in any other way. Similar in principle to this use of the nom. is that of a relative clause without any definite antecedent, 198 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Matt. x. 14, Luke ix. 5. But sentences of this sort shade off into such as Luke x. 8, where the rel. clause has, if not a definite place in the sentence, a coherent construction of its own, and from this into such as ver. 10, where it even gets an antecedent clause at last. In general, when we meet with anacolutha more considerable than these, they are too closely connected with the individual style of the writer to rank as . characteristics of Hellenistic New Testament Greek. We may however here notice the change of constr. in Mark vi. 8, 9 from IW to the inf., and this through a ptcp., which seems to presuppose an earlier inf., and in its absence has no proper constr. at all. This case is not unlike the common one (esp. common in St. Luke), where a report of a speech begun in or. obi. slides into or. recta : so indeed a v. I. here. We have a solitary instance of the opposite transition from or. recta to obi. in Acts xxiii. 23-4. Somewhat similar to this, again, is the case of Horn, ii. 7, 8, xi. 22, where the change from ace. to nom. cannot be explained, like most of St. Paul's anacolutha, either by his losing his way in a long or involved sentence, or by his wanting, before he had finished saying one thing, to bring something else into relation to it. See also p. 77, on Phil. iii. 18, 19. But we throw no light on slight irregularities like these, by correlating them with the mixtures of cases that we get in the Apoc., e.g. vii. 9, xviii. 12, 13. Of course no difficulty is presented by a sentence where generally with a rhetorical purpose the constr. is not changed, but left incomplete : e.g. Acts xxiv. 19, where the "Jews of Asia who ought to be here " never get a predicate the Apostle, instead USE OF PARENTHESIS. 199 of challenging them, challenges those who are here to say the worst they can of him. A familiar case is that where the apodosis of a conditional sentence is suppressed, as Acts xxiii. 9 (true text), Rom. ix. 22. With the true reading in Luke xiii. 9, it becomes doubtful if we have there an instance : cts TO /AeAAov may be, not merely "if it bear fruit for the future" but a suggestion of an apodosis, "if it bear fruit, we can leave the question for another day." The question how far parenthesis is used in the N. T. is partly one of exegesis, partly of definition : but as a rule one may say that it is commoner in the Epp. than in the historical books. In St. Paul the line is not always clearly drawn between parenthesis and anacoluthon : when he has made a digression and returns to his first subject, he very often makes a fresh start, leaving the first sentence unfinished. So apparently Rom. v. 12, 18; and very likely 1 Cor. viii. 1, 4. In Rom. ix. 11 we have a nearer approach to a real parenthesis, though the nom. PC/SCKKCI . . . exovcra is succeeded by the dat. avrfj : but we seldom get in him as consistent a resumption of the inter- rupted sentence as e.g. Heb. xii. 18-22, at least if the parenthesis is of any length. 1 Cor. xvi. 5 runs smoothly : but an equally unargumentative and hardly more impassioned passage like Rom. xv. 23-8 gets into confusion. In the historical books, on the other hand, a paren- thesis as long as that in Luke xxiii. 51 is exceptional. We get indeed shorter notes inserted in a sentence, in a way more like parenthesis than anything for which there is a grammatical term ; such as the notes of names in John i. 6, iii. 1 (compare, but distinguish 200 LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Luke xix. 2, as well as viii. 41), or of time in Matt, xv. 32 (true text), Luke ix. 28. And we get occa- sional glosses on foreign words (Mark vii. 11, John i. 39, etc.), and more rarely comments on what is related or reported (Matt. xxv. 15 = Mark xii. 14, and prob. Mark vii. 19). But in general, notes like these, if not incorporated in the main sentence, are brought in as separate sentences after it (e.g. John vi. 59, viii. 20; or again vii. 39, xii. 33, etc). It is characteristic of Hellenistic narrative to proceed without such breaks : even the single words rjr] are rarely inserted between the words quoted (only in Matt. xiv. 8, Luke vii. 40 (true text), Acts xxiii. 35, xxv. 5, 22, xxvi. 25, 1 Cor. vi. 16, 2 Cor. x. 10, Heb. viii. 5). One may notice that in the three last passages Qrjo-w (if that be the true reading in 2 Cor.) is used with a vaguely conceived subject : one hardly thinks the Apostle definitely understood 6 C, rather fj ypavj (Rom. xi. 2 etc.) or 6 x/o>7/xcmoy>ios (ib. 4). There are a good many elliptical adverbial phrases found in the N. T., formed by the use of certain parts of adjectives without their substantives. The adver- bial use of the neut. does not indeed go beyond what was usual in late but pure Greek : and of the phrases (mostly fern.) that employ a more definite ellipsis, Kara /xoi/as is quite classical, KOLT iSiai/ as early as Polybius. But we nowhere find in secular Greek OTTO /^tas (it is hard to say what the subst. understood is), as in Luke xiv. 18. In pure Greek we have rj o-^/xepov, 17 avpiov, but not rfj e^s (Acts xxi. 1, xxv. 17, xxvii. 18 prob. not Luke vii. 11). C H eTrtovo-a, however, and 77 e^o/xev^ are used as early as Polybius : so lavT7Js 9 which is found much earlier in poets. But HEBREW AND GREEK IDIOMS. 201 we find no precedent for d<' r)s (Luke vii. 45, Acts xxiv. 11 here no doubt the context helps it out 2 Pet. iii. 4), instead of the common d<' ov (Luke xiii. 25). In James v. 7 it perhaps is better not to under- stand VCTOI/, but /ca/o7rov, which is readily supplied from the context. We may conclude with the notice of two points one of Hebrew idiom toned down through the medium of the LXX., and one of Greek idiom, perhaps imperfectly mastered. We get in Hebrew phrases like Gen. xxv. 1, lit. " And Abraham added and took," LXX. irpoo-Oi^vo^ Sc A/Spadf* cAa/^cv ; xxvi. 18, lit. " and Isaac returned and digged," LXX. KOL TToXlV lo-OLOLK WpV&V \ HOS. L 6, lit. " for I [will] not add further I [will] have mercy," LXX, ov prj Trpocr^o-oj ert eXc^crat ; Dan. x. 18, Theodot. here literally KCU, 7rpoo~@eTo KO! ^\j/ar6 JJLOV. So with other verbs, e.g. Judges xiii. 10, LXX. literally erd\wv rj yvvri KOL [e^JeSpa/xev ; 1 Sam. i. 12, lit. "as she multi- plied to pray," LXX. ore eirXrjOvvev 7rpocrv^ofJLi/rj ; ii. 3, lit. "Multiply not, talk (not)," LXX. ^ Kav X a4 122 175 i. 7 9 13 MARK. . 59 n, 100 . 143 149 15 22 34 39 44 ii. 1 2 16 18 25 26 iii. 5 11 14 21 iv. 1 3 4 8 10 . ' . 144 . 175 . 38 . 142 . 152 . 139 . 154 . G8, 174 83, 135 Ing . 60 . 47 34% . Ill . 118 . 151 . 154, 196 . 119 . 195 71 n . 39, 153, 195 n 61 . 63 , . 139 . 148 208 INDEX. MAEK (continued} MAEK (continued} CHAP. VER. PAGE CHAP. VEE. PAGE iv. r 112 ix, 43-15 . 92 20 . 71 n x, 14 . . 62, 116 25 . . 186 17 . . 71 34, 38 . 60 27 . . 165 41 . . 174, 181 33 . . 82 v, 4 . 76 35,38 . 95 11 . . 154 40 . . 54 21 . . 57 51 .' .. 177 23 . . 116 xi, 1 . 29 26 . . 151 188 4 . 154 28 . . 170 15 . . 50 30 . . 135 16 . . 38 42 . . 173 19 . . Ill vi, 3 . . 154 22 . . 86 7 . . 72 25 . . Ill 8 . . 122 26 . . 184, 5 8,9 . . 198 28 . . 135 14 . . 96 xii, 5 . . 52 15 . . 71 6 . . 180 22 . . 58 12 . . 163 23-25 . 95 14 . . 182, 190, 200 25 . . 197 28 . 93 n 36 . . 69, 112 32 . . 171 56 . . Ill, 170 38-40 . 77 vii, 11, 19 . 200 xiii, 2 . 147,187 27 . . 116 9 . . 143 28 . . 138 11 . . 70, 112 viii, 1 . 69, 112 13 . . 147 2 69, 78, 112 16 . . 143 12 . . 192 19 . . 59 23 . . 192 20 . . 73, 184 37 . . 107 24 . . 165 38 . . 54 25 . . 135 ix. 6 . . 69, 112 29 . . 147 11 . . 68 32 . . 158 12 . . 168 35 . . 100 13 . . 165 xiv, 1 . 112 17 . . 71 2 . 109 19 . . 62, 154 5 . 39, 113 21 . . 175 8 . . 56 22 . . 166 11 . . 112 24 . . 56 19 . 72 Ms 30 . . 107 21 . . 114, 184 34 . . 94 24 . . 127, 152 40 . . 156 25 . , 202 INDEX. 209 MARK (continued) LUKE (continued) CHAP. VER. PAGE CHAP. VER. PAGE xiv, 36 . . 70, 76 ii. 10 . . . . 79 40 . . 112 13 . .. . .84 49 . . 178 21 . . . 162 53 . . 82 26 . . 111,189 54 154, 159 28 . 61 55 . ! . 34 31 .. . . 149 58 . . 139 33 . . 196 64 . . 88 37 . . 61 72 . . 90 49 . . 147 XV, 1 . . 147 -51 . . 135 23 . . 53 iii.7 . . 180 25 . . 162 15 . . 112 28 149 16 , 59 a 29 140 18 . 79 36 .' .* 116 21 . 34 n 38 . . 159 24, 29 . . 29 40 . . 27 iv. 10 . . 195 44 . . 104 14 . . 148 47 . . 27 15 . . 61 xvi. 3 . 145 18 . . 79, 103, 105 9 72 n 27 . .27 29 . . 175 LUKE. 36 . . 174 38 . . 152 i. 1 44 n 41 . . 195 5 . 47 43 . . 79 10 . . 84, 196 44 . . 142 17 . . 26 v, 1 . 61 11) . . 79 5 . 61, 140 20 . . 137, 188 6 . 84 21 . . 195, 196 12 . . . 71 22 . . 61 14 . . 61, 152, 189 27 . . 35 16 . . 61 28 . , 150 17 . 61, 71 29 . . 52, 112 20,23 . 38 30 . . 96 33 . . 82 33 . . 147 47 . . 62 35 . . 180 vi. 9 . 192 37 . , 73, 151 10 . 34 n 43 . . 62, 178 11 . . 112 60 . . 191 12 . . 87 66 . . 181 17 . .. 84 79 - . . 38 18 . . 138 ii. 4 . < 138 20 . 54, 61 5 . . 28, 35 39 . . 72, 191 14 210 INDEX. LUKE (continued ) LUKE (continued)* CHAP. VER. PAGE CHAP. VER. PAGE vi, 40 . . 72 x. 7 . . 151 42 . . 116, 187 8 . . 197 43 188 10 1QQ 47 . . 88, 197 18 '. . . J-t7O . 123 48 . . 201 19 . . 113 vii. 4 . 109 32 . . 148 6 . . 187 35 . . 147 7 . 180 39 . . 65 11 . . 200 xi. 4 . 38 13 . . 115 5 . 113 16 . . 117 6 . 62 25 . 59 n 8 . 173, 184 28 . . 94 20 . . 181 35 . . 138 24 . . 180 40 . . 200 26 . . 195 41 . . 72 28 . . 168 44 . . 56 35 . . 109 45 . . 56, 201 48 . , 181 46 . . 56 xii, 3 . . 137 47, 48 . 38 5 . 129 viii, 1 61, 79 6 . 188, 191 2 . . 186 8 . . 145 5 . . 195 10 . . 197 biff 9 . 112 18 . . 56 18 . . 186 20 . . 77 22 . . 61, 79 22 . . 112 30 . . 195 26 . 183 37 . . 84 29 . . 112 41 . . 200 30 . 55 45 . . 135 32 . . 76 50, 52 . 115 39,40 . 100 54 . . 76 42 . . 119 ix. 5 . . 198 50 . . 56 13 . . 110 51 . . 166, 191 28 . . 78, 200 53 . . 147 31 . . 40 54 . . 100 36 . . 36, 105 M, 144 xiii, 2 . . 93, 103 41 . . 154 3 . 191 45 . . 87, 177 4 . 93 50 . . 156 5 . 191 52 , 119, 154, 175 bis 9 . 186, 199 60 . . 116 11 . . 188 x, 1 . 72, 154 19 . . 143, 195 4 . . 115 25 . . 201 6 . 186 28, 35 . Ill INDEX. 211 LUKE (continued) LUKE (continued) CHAP. VER. PAGE CHAP. VEE. PAGE xiv. 1 . 61 xviii, 36 . 88 3 . . 192 40 . 122 18 . . 200 41 . 177 24 . . 56 xix. 2 . 61, 129, 200 26 56, 62, 183 3 . 139 27 '. . 56 11 . 202 28 . . 191 14 . 147 31 . . 145, 191 22 . 99 32 . . 186 27 . 147 49 . . 154 37 . 84, 154 xv. 7 . 92 40 . 110 8 . . 191 42 . 168 14 . . 61 43 . 162 25 . . 88 48 . 38 31 . . 54 XX, 1 . 58 xvi, 2 . 39 2 fi . 135 8 . 84, 93 7 . 189 9 . . 84, 146 9 . 38 11, 12 . 183, 185 10 . 138 13 . . 72 11, 12 ... 202 16 . . 79, 158 20 . 121, 176 20 . 33 n 27 . 77 23 . ... 98 29 . 180 25 . . 39 35, 36 ... 165 26 . . 179, 180 xxi. 6 . 147, 187, 197 29 . . 27, 99 24 . 135 30 . . 191 25 . 31 31 . . 183 37 . 142 xvii 1 . 119 xxii* 1 . 85 2 . . 92 2,4 . 112 8 . 39, 70, 191 15 . 83, 130 11 . . 61, 142 20 . 127 ,15 . .56, 150 22 . 168 17 . . 191 23 . 42. 181 20 . . 100 24 . 94 25 . . 138 27 . 191 34 . . 72 28 135 xviii, 2 . 188 37 . 149, 202 4 . . 184 42 . 116 5 . . 173 49 . 153 6 . 84 53 55, 58 8 . 191 56 . 154 10 . . 72 64 . 135 14 . . 92, 93 76 53 n 16 . . 62, 116 xxiii. 1 . 169 212 INDEX. LUKE (continued} JOHN (continued} CHAP, VEB. PAGE CHAP. VEB. PAGE xxiii. 5 . 148, 159 iii, 2 . . . 150 18 . . 46 8 89, 100 n 19 . . 130 12 . . 183 27 . . 84 13 . . 128 29 , . 100 Us 15 . . 73, 144 30 . . 36 n 16 . .. 73, 175, 178 32 . . 202 .18 .. . 182 44 . 162 n 19 . . . 167 51 . . 199 24 . . .188 53 . 188 25 145 xxiv, 5 . 58, 149 29 . . 83, 130 11 . . 194 iv. 2 . . 168 14 . . 61 10 . . 135 18 . . 122 11 . . 165 20 . . LJ6 14 . . 113 ,21 . . 78, 121, 166 15 . . 109 25 . . 148 21 . . 100 27 . . 158 23 . . 80, 100 ,32 , . 191 25 . . 100 41 , . . 58 34 . . 54, 178 35 100 JOHN. 37 . . 135 44 . . 173 . i. 1 . 48, 154 v. 6 . 191 3 . 141 7 . 178 5 . . 182 11 . . 52 6 . 78, 199 12 . . 135 8 . .178 15 . 135 10 . ..182 16 . . 182 15 . . 94 24 . . 100 16 . . 137 25, 28 . 89, 100 18 . . 154 29 . . 85 30 . . 94 32 . . 135 32 . . 129 37 . . .89 39 . . 200 40 . . 62 40 . . 87 42 . . 86 47 . . 122 45 . . 135 ii, 2 . . 196 47 . . 183 7 . 159 vi. 2 . 195 16 . . 114, 115 9 . 71 18 . . 174 13 . . 194 19 . . 140 22 . . 195 21 . . 85 24 . . 197 24 . . 64 26 . . 138 iii. 1 . 78, 145, 199 29 . . 178 INDEX. 213 JOHN (cionti-nui'd) JOHN (continued} CHAP. VER. PAGE CHAP. VER. PAGE vi. 32 . 46 viii, 45 . . .197 35 . 62, 113 56 . . ' . .179 37 . . .62 ix, 3 . 178 39 . . 73, 197 4 . . 100 44 . 62 7 - . . 143 45 . 62, 87 9 . . . 191 46 . 174 10 . 34 n 50 . 122, 138 11 . . 117 51 . 138 14 . 34 n 54-56 . 56 17 . . . . 174 59 200 19 . . . . 191 64 . . .135 21 . . 64 65 . . .62 22 . 33 n 66 . . .145 25 . . .128 70 . . .51 31 . . 66 vii. 2 . . . . .85 33&fc . .114 4 . . . . .122 x, 3 . .89 12 52 4 194, 5 17 . . 71, 192 5 . 113^195 22 . 174 12 . . 188, 195 26 . 189 14 . . 195 32 . 88 16 . 89, 194, 5 33 100 n 27, 28 . 89, 195 35 . 174 29 . . 197 37 62 32, 33 . 153 39 . 200 35 . . 1Mb is 40 84, 88 37 . . 184 41 . 100 xi, 1 . - . .138 42 100, 172, 191 n 6 . 168 47 ... 190 9 . . .191 48 . . . . 145 14 . . 106 49 . . . . 196 18 . . 139 51 . 87 19 . . 153 52 . 101, 190 20 . . .100 viii, 6, 8 . 43 21 . . . 39, 170 9 . 72 31 . - . . . . 82 14 100 n 32 . ... 39 20 . 200 33 . .-."'. 82 21 100 n 38 . . 39 22 100 , 190 44 . . 116 25 . 68 49 . ... 127 38 . 87 52 . . - . . 178 39 . . . .114 57 ...... .178 40 . 87 j xii, 1 . . 153 44 . . . . 46 1 9, 12 . . . 46, 196 214 INDEX. JOHN (continued*) JOHN (continued ) CHAP. VEB. PAGE CHAP. VER. PAGE xii, 15 . . 100 xvi, 26 . . 153 33 . . 200 32 . . 100 Us 40 . . 177 xvii, 2, 3 . . 109 42 . . 168 6 36, 54 46 . . 73 7 36 Ms 47 . SK, 89 9 . 54, 153 48 . . 66 10 . 54 bis 49 . . 112 11, l:-j . . 100 xiii. 3 100 n 20 . . 153 10,11 . 191 25 . . 163 18 . . 178 xviii, 16 . . 154 23 . . 154 21 . . 65 24 . . 112 30 . . 184 25 . . 154 34 . . 53 n, 63 27 . . 94 37 . . 89, 180 33 . 100 n 40 . . 46 35 . . 54 xix, 11 . . 114, 184 36 . 100 n 12 . . 145 xiv, 2 . 186 13 . . 88 3 . 100, 171 17 . . 64 4, 5 . 100 n 25 . . 161 7 . 170 27,28 . 195 11 . . 186 31 . 194, 5 18 . . 100 32 . . 195 21 . . 135 42 . 64 n 22 . . 174, 191 xx, 11, 12 . 154 24 . . 54 22 . . 49 26 . 66 2^ . 38 28, 30 . 100 xxi, 2 . 26 31 . . 178 3 . 100 Us xv, 3 . 141 6 . 139 5 . 129, 197 18 . . 39 6 . 98 20 . . 135 8 . 54, 178 25 . . 189 18 . . 94 22 . 24 . . 36, 114, 184 . 36, 184 ACTS. 25 . . 178 xvi. 2 . 100 i. 1 . . 168 5, 10 100 n 3 . . 140 13 . . 66 4 . . 87 15 . . 54 5 . . . 151 17 . 100 n, 145 6 . . 52 20 . . 143 14 . . 28 25 . . 100 16 . 76 n INDEX. 215 ACTS (continued ) ACTS (continued^) CHAP. VEE. PAGE CHAP. VEB. PAGE i. 18 . . 146 vi, 2 . . 84 24 . . 125 vii. 4 . . 158 ii, 10 . . 148 5 . . 187 12 . . 112 8 . . 175 18 . . 168 bis 20 . . 81 22 . . 66, 138 21 . . 80 23 . . 66 34 . . 88, 130 25 . . 34 35 . . 66 30 . . 121 38 . . 135, 159 33 . 82 40 . . 197 38 . . 144 42 . . 201 45 . . Ill 47 . . 34 iii, 1 . . 147 50 . . 191 2 . 37 viii. 4 . . 79 11 . . 26 7 . . 196 13, 17 . 149 12 . 79 21 . .168 17, 18 . 49 iv, 1 . . 58 19 . . 49, 178 5 . . 78, 147 22 . . 181 10 . 65, 66, 147 25 . . 79 11 . . 65 27 . . 126 16 . . 165, 168 30 . . 191 17 , . 83, 130, 147 31 . . 110,112,172 18 . 148 35 . 79 20 . ! . .189 40 . . 79, 142 21 . . 112 ix. 1 . . 90 32 . . 84 A . 89 33 . . 37 6 . 69, 70 35 . . 37, 111 i 7 . 75, 89. 90, 188 v, 4 . . 130, 174, 191 9 . . 188 7 . . 162, 188 12 . . 124 9 . . 147, 174 13 . . 88 12 26 21 135 14 ! ! . 84 26 . . 188 15 . . 170 31, 42 . 148 16 . . 84 x, 3 . . 124 19 . . 140 14 . . 73 23 . . 147 17 . . 112 24 . . 112 19 . . 58 26 . . 174 22 . . 87 28 . . 83, 130 25 . . 119 bis 31 . . 118 28 . . 119 32 . 84 n ! 36 . . 79 bis 36 . . 143 37 . . 77, 148 42 . .79 42 . . 135 216 INDEX. ACTS (continued*) ACTS (continued') - CHAP. VEB. PAGE CHAP. VER. PAGE x, 44, 47 . 49 xvi, 37 . 172 48 . . 142, 144, 147 xvii, 2 . " . .196 xi, 7 . . 89 4 . 84 11 . . 62 6 . 188 13 . . 124 10 . . .140 15 . . 158 11 . 112 18 . . 181 13 . 127 20 . . 79 18 . 79 28 . . .120 19 . 91 xii. 3 . . 202 20 . 112 8 . . 114 21 . 94 14 . . 139 22 . 76 ??, 94 19 . . 122, 188 23 . 48 xiii, 2 . . 158 27 . 80, 168, 181, 187 10 . . 115 28 52 n, 149 12 . . 125 xviii, 14 . . 34 n 13 . . 153 17 . 91 17 . . 150 21 . 142 22 . 80 xix, 1 . . 28 24 '. . 154 2 . 49 25 . . 70, 100 5 . . . . 147 32 . . 78, 79 6 . .49 39 158 22 143 45 . . 130 27 ! 163, 189 47 . . 80 30 . 58 xiv, 14 . . 84 35 . 76 n, 172, 187 15 79 38 . 148 17 . 37, 64, 168 xx, 4 . 196 21 . . 79 9 . 139 26 . 180 11 175 xv, 5 43 n 18 . . . 158 6 . . 50 22 126 n 11 . . 118 24 . . . 119, 175 16 . . 201 xxi, 1 . . .200 21 . . . . 126 3 . 179 23 . . 65, 117 4 . 117 27 . . .127 5 .159 35 . . . 99 11 . . .65 xvi, 4 . . 50, 173 13 . 142 9 . . 140 16 82, 84 10 . . 79 17 . 58 16 . . 58 21 . 117 19 . . 91 28 . . .163 33 . . . . 139 30 91 36 . . . 36 ! 33 . 91, 112, 122 INDEX. 217 ACTS (continued} ACTS (continued ) CHAP. VEB. PAGU CHAP. VEB. PAGE xxi. 34 . 122 XXV 11 185 36 . 84, 196 13 . 126 bis 37 . 99 16 . Ill xxii. 1 . 88 17 . 122, 200 5 . 180 21 . . . .122 7 36, 89 22 . 113, 200 8 . 62 23 . 149 9 75, 89, 90 24 . . .84, 112 10 . 62 xxvi, 3 . 78 11 . 139 4 33% 14 . 89 7 . 120, 121, 153 16 . 96 10 . 163 17 . . . . ... 68 14 . . 62, 89 21 . 62 15 . 36 22 . 102 18 . 159 24 . 122 22 . 135 25 30 25 . 200 xxiii. 3 . 122 32 . 114 4 . 198 xxvii. 1 . 37 6 . 72 10 . . 117 n, 120 8 . 165, 189 12 . 172 9 . 199 18 . 200 14 . 83, 130 20 . 187 22 . 62 21 . 168 26 . . . . 117 22 . . 80 28 . 148 34 154 SO . 120 37 38 SI 140 44 147 34 . 138 xxviii. 3 . 84 35 . 122,200 13 180 xxiv. 5 . 129 14 . 175 11 . 126,201 16 30 n 12 . . . . .165 17 . . . .187 15 . 120 22 . 87,168 17 . . . 126, 139 19 . . .62, 198 KOMANS. 25 . 120 26 . 121 i, 5 . . . .-86 27 , ... . . .31 8 168 n xxv, 4 . 143 10 . 172 5 . 200 12 . 55 6 . 122 13 163, 4 7 . 58 15 . 79 9 . 31 17 . 86 10 . . .94 25 . 152 218 INDEX. ROMANS (continued ) ROMANS (continued ) CHAP. YEB. P4.GE ! CHAP. VER. PAGE i. 26 . , 160 vii, 1 . 192 ii, 7, 8 . 198 5 96 11, 13 . 151 6 . . 189 17 . . 39 7 50, 160, 170, 184 19 . . 121 10 . . 66 23 . . 50 18 . . 120 26 . . 80, 191 24 . . 85 27 . . 50, 140 viii 3 78 iii. 2 . 168 n, 195 9 . 171, 183 4 . 109 15 . 76, 105 Us 6 . 172 17 . . 171 Us 8 . . 117 18 . . 120 12 . . 188 25 . . 140 13 . . 37 31 . . 156 20 . . 73 32 . . 173, 191 23 . 95, 105 bis 33 148 25, 26 . 155 39 . . 86 27 . . 105, 191 ix, 3 . 113, 139 29 . 191, 2 6 . 66, 174 30 . 47, 171 bin 8 . 80, 195 iv. 1 . 96 10 . . 197 2 . 154 11 . . 199 11 . . 85, 140 14 . . 151 12 . 184, 8 16, 18 . 39 13 86 20 168 16 . , 148 22 '. ! 199 18 . . 120 25 . . 183 20 . . 125 27 . . 155 v, 5 . 86 29 . . 184 (5 . 171 33 . . 73, 147 7 . 47, 112 x, 1 168 n 8 . 174 11 . . 147 11 . . 129 14 . . 88 12 . . 199 15 . . 79 13 . . . 40 16 . . 166 14 . . 147 18 . 166, 8 18 . . 85, 199 19 . . . .166 vi. 2 . 139 xi, 1 . . 105, 106 5 . 166 2 . . 192,200 6 . . 85 4 105, 106, 166, 200 10 . . 74, 81 6 . 172 16 . . 164 7 . .105 17 . . 167 13 . 168, 168 n 18, 20 . 81 14 . . 172 21 . 168 n 21 . 183, 5, 190 INDEX. 219 ROMANS (continwd) 1 CORINTHIANS (conti nncd) CHAP. VER. PAGE CHAP. VER. PAGE xi. 22 . . 172, 198 vi. 14 ... . 163 36 . . 75, 141 16 ... . 200 xii, 1 . 180 vii. 2 . . 72 5 . . 72 7 ... . 164 6-19 129 9 ... . 185 15 . . 116 13 ... . 129 xiii 12 . 105 14 ... 172, 195 xiv, 5 . 152 20 ... . 66 9 . 104, 163 28 ... . 98 13 . . 120 29 ... . 88 20 . . 140 31 . . 78 xv, 5 . 108 35 ... 55, 62 8 . . 87, 156 37 ... 120, 129 23-28 . 199 viii. 1 ... . 199 24 . . 175 3 ... . 66 25 . . 127 4 ... 180, 199 xvi. 7 . 36 5 ... . 171 13, 19 . 55 6 ... . 75 10 ... . 191 1 CORINTHIANS. ix. 1 . 191 2 . . 166 bis, 184 i, H . . 96 9 ... . 91 20 . .191 11 ... . 191 29 . ... 73 12 ... . 55 31 . . 179 15 . . 145 iii, 3 . . 191 24 . . 175 5 . 166 26 ... . 187 iv. 2 . 177, 179 n x. 2 . 96 6 72, 107 w, 145, 156 6 ... . 120 8 . 113 7 ... . 118 14 . . 188 16 ... . 191 21 . . 144, 160 22 ... . 192 v. 2 . 191 28 . . 159 5 . 85 xi, 6 . 185 9 . 189 14 ... . 197 10 . . 172 18 ... 168 n 11 . . 189 22 ... . 172 12 . . 191 Us 24 ... . 127 vi. 1 . 191 34 ... . 175 2 . . 145, 192 xii. 2 ... 111, 175 3 . 137 6, 11 . . 96 4 . 168 xiii-. 3 ... . 109 7 . 168, 191 13 ... . 94 9 . 165, 192 Ms xiv. 5 ... 110, 184 10 . . 165 10 ... . 110 220 INDEX. 1 CORINTHIANS (continued ) 2 CORINTHIANS (continued} CHAP. VEB. I AGE CHAP. VEB. PAGE xiv, 11 .... 145 iv. 12 . . 96 16 .... 172 16 . . 166 19 .... 92 18 . . . .59 25 . ... 175 v. 1 84 n 33 86 3 171 bis 36 .... 192 6 . . 129 XV. 1 79 10 . . 140 2 .... 184 11 . . 121 4 .... 103 14 . . 156 12, 13 ... 183 15 . . 181 15 ... 171 bis 16 . . 166 29 . 172 17 . . 74 35 . 100 19 . . 174 36 77 vi, 9 129, 188 37 . . . 110, 126 10 . .' 188 39 73 13 78 xvi. 5 . 100 , 199 vii, 4 . 156 6, 7 . 154 5 . 129 18 .. 55 7 . 55 22 . . . 39, 185 12 . . 119 15 . . 55 2 CORINTHIANS. viii. 7 . . 116 9 . . 128 i, 6 . . 55, 96, 156 10 . . 158 7 .... 156 14 . 55 bis 8 .... 155 23 . . 54, 155 13 ... 121, 166 ix. 2 . 158 17 .... 151 x. 4 . 81 24 .... 174 8 . 160 ii, 1 . 120 9 . 174 2 ... 114, 163 10 . . 200 3 . . 66 13,16 . 118 4 . . 140 xi. 1 ... 34 n, 113 5 .... 178 2 . 118 13 .... 104 3 . 139 17. . . . 188 4 34 )i, 114, 168 n iii, 1 . .38, 191 . 5 . 95, 157 5 .... 174 6 . 166 8 .... 191 7 . 79, 192 11 . 140 16 . . 170 13 .... 120 21 . . 174 15 .... 159 23 . . .157 18 .... 83 24 . 157 iv. 8, 9 . . . 188 bis 25 . . 104 11 ... 114 28 . ... .77 INDEX. 221 2 CORINTHIANS (continued ) GALATIANS (continued*) CHAP. TEE. PAGE CHAP. TER. P1GE xii. 1, 3 . . 184 iv, 13 ... 79, 140 7 . 45 15 ... 114, 170 8 . . 156 17 . 107 n 9 . 104 20 ... . 113 11 . 95, 157, 183 24 . . . 72 12 . 165, 168 n 27 . . 183 19 . 55, 65 30 . . 113 21 . . 124, 165 v, 6 . 74, 96 xiii. 1 . . . 100 12 . . 113 4 166 13 140 5 63 n vi. 10 . . 181 6 . 121 12 . . . 109 Q 55 V . . EPHESIANS. GALATIANS. i, 11 . . 96 13 . . 88 i. 1 . . 141 17 ... . 108 8,9,11, 16 . 79 20 . 96, 129 18 . . 154 23 .. . 96 23 . 79, 128 n, 135 ii, 2 . 96 ii, 1 . . . 139 3 ... . 38 2 114, 149, 190 5, 8 . 22 4 . 109 10 . . 55 5 . 154 13 ... . 128 8 . 96 14 . . 61 9, 10 . . 178 15 ... . 83 11 . . 129, 149 17 ... . 79 13 . 175 19 ... ' 181 16 . 73 iii, 2 ... . 171 17 . . 191 8 . . 32 , 79, 120 20 . . 86 19 . . 160 21 . . 170 20 . 96, 160 iii. 2 . 49 iv. 6 . 75 4 . 171 11 ... . 52 5 . . 96 12 ... . 155 7 . 66 21 ... 88, 171 13 . . 125, 156 22, 25 . 121 17 . . 125 29 ... . 73 23 . . 120 v, 4 102, 184 28 . . 74 5 ... 33 n, 73 iv. 3 . 38, 135 6 ... . 100 6 . 76 27 ... . 178 7 . 141 33 ... . 116 8 . 187 vi.9 . 151 11 . 114, 174, 190 18, 19 . 152 222 INDEX. PHILIPPIANS. COLOSSIANS (continued} CHAP. VEB. i, 1 PAGE 150 n CHA.P. VE iii. 15 H. PAG-E . 87 18 ... 166,1172 18 . 102 19 ... . 55 iv, 6 . 118 22 ... 25 ... . 119 . 55 1 THESSALONIANS. 29 . . 120 i. 3 r . . 84, 5, 90 ii, 7 . . 125 5 . 158 13 ... 96, 156 ii. 7 . 174 23 ... . 175 9 . 90 27 ... . 147 11 ,12 . . .129 30 . ... 55, 84 n 13 . 96 iii, 3 ... . 188 18 163, 168 n 8 ... . 166 19 191, 2 9 ... . 54 iii, 5 . 114, 143, 190 11 ... . 172 6 . . .79 12 ... 105, 174 7 . 55, 174 13 ... 90, 121 8 . Ill 1(5 ... . 116 10 . 160 18, 19 77, 198 iv. 3, 4, 6 . . .120 20 ... . 55 16 . 144 iv. 7 . 87 17 . 175 10 ... . 118 v. 2 . 100 11 ... . 174 4 . 177 12 ... . 163 5 . 86 6 . 181 COLOSSIANS. 10 . . . .110 11 . . . .72 i. 8 . . 55 13 . 130, 160 13 85 2 THESSALONIAKS. 16 ... . 141 17 ... . 61 i, 4 . 62 21 ... . 128 6 . 171 22 ... . 118 7 . 85 23 ... 88, 171 ii, 1 . 43 n, 156 26 . . 129 2 . 174 29 ... . 96 7 . 96 ii. 1 . 36 13 36, 86 5 ... . 166 15 . 181 8 ... . 109 iii, 6 . 36 U . . 82 9 178 n 19 ... . 187 10 . 117, 122, 185 20 ... . 139 12 . 122 23 ... 168 n 14 . 66, 185 iii, 6 ... . 100 16 . . . .108 INDEX. 223 1 TIMOTHY. nsii&JU. CHAP. VER. HAP. VEB PAGE ii. 7 i, 7 . 67, 107 >/, 165 10 13 . 128 15 16 . 147 iii, 3 ii. 8 . 32 6 9 . 158 7 15 . 195 11 iii, 5 . 183 12 14 . 94 15 v, 7 . 122 16 8 . 183 17 13 . 32 18 19 . 158, 184 iv. 1 25 . 194 2 vi, 3 . 184 3 5 . 43 6 7 2 TIMOTHY. 12 i. 13 87 Ms v, 5 16 . 34, 108 7 18 . 94, 108 vi. 3 ii, 2 . 87 4, 5 14 . 147, 189 10 25 . 108, 189 13 14 TITUS. 16 i, 11 . 186 vii. 1 12 . 32 5 ii, 2 . 117 9 4 . 109 11 13 . 50 27 viii. 5 PHILEMON. 8 5 . 87, 155 10 10 . 78 ix, 1 13 . 156 3 18 . 40 4 19 . 178 8 22 . 121 12 17 HEBREWS. 22 i. 2 .141 25 3 . 85 26 5 . 143 Ms x. 2 14 . 191 16 PAGE . 93 . 125, 141 . 140 . 93 . 171 .88,9, 171 . 192 . 109 88, 9, 171 . 166 . 191 . 121 . 95 . 79 . 168 . 79 88, 9 . 93 . 118 . 139 . 171 . 87 . 90, 118 . 148 . 130, 193 . 148 . 129 . 29 29, 119, 175 26, 168, 189 . 159 . 200 . 100, 162 . 129 . 168 . 151 . 26 . 189 36, 96, 140 . 182, 189 . 144 . 146 . 172 . 172 . 129 224 INDEX. CHAP. VER. x, 22 25 28 34 39 xi, 1 4 9 17 19 28 35 xii, 7 15 17 18 19 24 25 xiii. 2 5 13 16 17 JAMES. i, 1 13 . 17 . 19 . 24 . 25 . 27 . ii, 5 10 . 11 . 12 . iii, 2 8 12, 14 15 . iv> 2, 3 . 5 13 . 15 mic.d) JAMES (continued) PAGE CHAP. VER. PAGE . 35 V. 4 . 36, 138 43% 7 . 201 . 158 12 . . 39, 148 35 n 16 . . 96 . 86 17 . 83, 130 .. . 187 . 93 1 PETER. . 142 i. 8 , . 167, 187 104, 106 n 11 . . 158 . 180 12 . . 79 . 104 2S . 187 25 . . 79 . 187 ii, 3 . . 171 . 95 10 . . 124, 183 33 n 14 . . 167 . 129, 199 17 . . 114 , 31, 89 18 . . 129 . 93 iii. 1 . 129 183, 5 3 . 189 . 90 8, 9 . . 129 . 129 14 . . 110 . 181 15 . . 165 . 90 17 . . 110 . 126 18 . . 153 iv, 6 . 79 8, 10 .129 117 . 138 2 PETER. . 151 i. 1 . 50 33 n 5 66 . 104 9 . 186 . 84 18 . , 89 . 120 ii. 4 . 183 bis, 185 . 81 6, 10. . 85 . 110 21 . . 189 . 184 iii. 2 . 118 . 175 4 . 201 66 ! 77 1 JOHN. . 165 i. 2 . 154 . 188 3, 4 . ... 49 . 95 5 . . 88 . 192 ii. 1 . 154 . 65 12 . . 38 . 137 18 . . 100, 180 INDEX. 225 1 JOHN (continued) REVELATION (continued) CHAP. VEE. PAGE CHAP. VER. PAGE ii. 19 ... . 170 i. 19 . . 194 21 ... . 73 ii. 2 . 129 24 ... . 197 3, 4 . . 37 25 ... . 78 5 37, 81, 100, 186 27 ... . 197 7 . 39, 138 28 ... . 171 9 . 121, 129 iii. 2 ... . 171 10 . . 145 10 ... . 195 13 . . 54 15 ... . 73 14 . . 80 21 ... . 61 16 81, 100, 144, 150, 186 iv. 1 , 195 17 . . 39 3 ... . 100 18 . .129 13 ... 61, 138 20 . 38, 77 15 ... . 61 iii. 2 . 120, 194 17 ... . 179 8 . . 59 v, 6 . 140 9 . . 40, 174 14, 16 . 95 11 . . 100 15 ... 95, 110 15 . . 39, 113 20 ... 109, 178 16 . . .120 20 . 61, 89, 147 2 JOHN. iv. 1 . 34 n, 89 2 . 1?9 2 . 147 4 6 ... 10 ... 84, 145 178 bi* . 183 9 10 . 11 . . Ill, 147 . 147 . 141 v. 7 .104 3 JOHN. 9 . 144 10 . . 147 2, 3 . . 55 n, 56 11 . . 89 4 ... 32, 178 vi. 1 34 n 6 55 n 2, 4, 5 42 /* 10 ... . 165 6, 7 . . 89 JUDE. 8 16 . . 42^,51,157 ' . 36 n 4 ... . 31 vii. 2 . 59 14 ... 35 n 7 . 29 22, 23 . 39 9 . 59, 198 REVELATION. 14 . 17 . . 104 84^ i. 5 77, 144 viii. 1 . Ill 7 ... , 100 4 . 81 10 ... . 89 5 . 104 13 ... . 154 6 . 64 14-16 . 54 11 . . 51, 143 18 ... . 104 12 . . 38 15 226 INDEX, RKVELATION (continvcdy REVELATION (continued ) CHAP. VER. PAGE CHAP. VEK. PAG-K viii. 13 . . 71, 145 xvi. 10, 11 . 145 ix. 4 . 73, 189 15 . . 100 11 . . 64 18 . . 59 12 . . 100 20 . . 194 IP) 89 xvii. 7 64 x. 4 . 89 8 ! . ! 135 7 79, 98, 161 9 59, 179 n xi. 7-11 . . 98 11 . . 61 . . .38 14 . . - . 150 12 . . 89 xviii. 4 . 89 14 . . 100 12, 13 . 198 xii. 4 . 121 21 . . 71 (i . 59, 139 ' 23 . . 38 7 . 119, 150 xix. 1 . 89 '.* . 51 'A . 36 10 . . 89 6 . 89 11 . . 142 10 . . 36 14 . . 59, 91 11 . . 147 84 13 35, 51 4 . 80, 150 14 ! . 147 8 . 80 15 . ,. 61 10 . 179 n 17 . . 71 12 . . 59 18, 20 . . .147 14 . . v . .142 xx, 2 51 Us 15 . . 177 7-9 . . 98 18 . 179 n 8 . . . .59 xiv. 2 89 UK xxi. 3 . 89 (') . 79 6 . 36 9 . . .147 8 . 128 10 . . 61, 162 21 . . 72, 137 12 . 179 n xxii, 2 . 40 1:5 . . 89, 179 7 . 100 n . . 61 8 . 89 19 . . 91 12 . . 100 xv. 2 . 39, 146 18 .' . 89 xvi. 1 . 89 20 . . 100 Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY, BERKELEY THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 50c per volume after the third day overdue, increasing to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in demand may be renewed if application is made before expiration of loan period. NOV 24 RE -& 2'69-UAV! 3G0200 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY