THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES GIFT OF Santa Monica Public Library >: /^A^ 7' ^^f ^ /'a.oT^t/- ^'Ac'^ ne^T^^ A TREATISE UN llIK GRAMMAR OF NEA\^ TESTAMENT GREEK. REGARDED As A SURE BASIS FOR NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS. PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, ROBERTSON AND CO. NEW YORK, .... SORIBNER AND WELFORD. A TREATISE ox THE GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK, REGARDED AS A SURE BASIS FOR NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS. BY DR. G. B. WINER. S^ranslakb from il^t Airman, bit^ l^arge ^bbitions anb ^ixil |itbias. BY REV. W. F. MOULTON, MA., D.D. THIRD EDITION, REVISED. (NINTH ENGLISH EDITION.) EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 1882. TO THE RIGHT REVEREND C J KLLICOTT, D.D., LORD BtSHOP OK GLOUCE.STEU AND BPaSTOI^ Tins WORK IS DEDICATED BY THE EDITOR, IN EXrilESSION OF UlS KEVERENT ESTEEM AND LASTING GRATITUDE. -t /TV A i-^r^ ..■s rf-v PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. I HAD hoped that I might be able to show my gratitude for the unexpected kindness of the welcome accorded to this work, by seeking to render it much more worthy of the acceptance of students ; but the extreme pressure of other duties has compelled me to relinquish this hope for the pre- sent. It will be found that this edition is in the main a reprint of the first. The chief point of difference is the intro- duction into the text of all the new matter left by Winer for the seventh edition of the original work. A few paragi'aphs which I had previously abridged (see below, p. xiii.) are now given in full. Whilst, however, but few substantial changes have been made, both text and notes have been carefully revised. In the notes on Part II. (the Accidence) many slight alterations have been found necessary in order to bring the statements into accord with the best critical texts of the New Testament, Here, especially, I have to express my very great obligations to Professor Westcott and Dr. Ilort for theii kindness in allowing me the. free use of their (in my judgment invaluable) edition of the text — soon, I trust, to be given to the world. The very frequent references to Alexander Euttmann's Grammar of the New Testament Greek are in this edition adapted to the excellent translation by Professor Thayer, xii PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. whose careful edition of Winer's Grammar has also been of much service. As great care has been taken to avoid, as far as possible, any interference with the paging of the book, almost all references to the former edition will still be found correct. WILLIAM F. MOULTON. Cambridge, 215/ October 1S76. PREFACE TO THE FIEST EDITION. The merits of Winer's Grwmmatih des neutestamientlichen Sprachidionhs are =!0 well known and so freely acknowledged, that it would be unbecoming in me to detain- tlie reader by any lengthened remarks on the work, or on the subject of which it so fully treats, I shall therefore confine myself to a brief statement of the objects which have been kept in view in the present translation, and of the way in which I have sought to attain them. When I was requested by Messrs, Clark to undertake tliis work, the translation published by them in 1859 was placed at my disposal. I have without hesitation availed myself of the liberty thus accorded, as the existence of common matter in the two editions will show ; but the present is, in the most literal sense, a new translation, in the execution of which all accessible sources of help have been freely resorted to. Besides the edition just specified, the American translation by Messrs. Agnew and Ebbeke (Philadelphia, 1840) has sometimes been of service. Perhaps an apology is necessary for what will seem to some an excessive adherence to German structure and phraseo- logy in certain paragraphs. If I have erred in this respect, it has been from a conviction that the nature of the book required unusual literalness of rendering, and that in some instances it was almost impossible to depart from the original form and at the same time preserve the meaning with technical exactness. In deference to a strongly expressed opinion on the part of some whose judgment deserved respect, I have in a few instances ventured on a slight abridgment of the original, and have omitted a few references of little or no importance. At the foot of the page will be found a detailed statement of all the omissions I have made.* 1 Winer's account of the New Testament Grammars of Pasor aud Haab, and his relation of the disputes between the Purists and the Hebraists, I have con- densed about one-half. I have not thought it necessary to retain all the references to certain authors who engaged in the Purist controversy, viz. , Georgi {Vijidicice and Hierocriticus Sace?-}, Schwarz {Comrnentp,ru and ad (Jlaarhun), Xiv PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. All references to passages in the Old and JS'ew Testaments have boen carefully verified. In each case, whether the passage is quoted at length, or merely indicated by chapter and verse, I have examined the reading. Variations which do not touch the question under consideration I have not thouglit it neces- sary to notice; but I trust that all instances in which a difference of reading ahects the appositeness of the quotation are pointed out in my notes. Much labour would have been .saved had it been possible to follow Winer's example, and abide (in the mam) by the text of some particular edition of the Greek Testament As this could not be done, the only alternative was to follow the readmg which appeared to be most generally received hy recent editors, referring expressly to contiicting opinions only in cases of special diiliculty or importance, f liave given most weight to Tischendorf, a^ Winer had done, and, wherever it was possible, have quoted from his eighth edition, now in course of publication. Before the completion of the Gospels in this edition, my references were made to his Si/nopsi$ Evamjelica (ed. 2, 1864), which gave the only indication of his judgment as modified by the Codex Sinaiticus. U this MS, has in other parts of the New Testament confirmed the reading of his seventh edition (1859), I have sometimes ventured to quote this reading as Tischendorf 's, without further qualification: otherwise, the edition is expressly stated, A considerable portion of this book was already in type when the fourth and fifth parts of his eighth edition and the fourth part of Tregelles' Greek Testament appeared. I need hardly say that Scrivener s collations of the texts of Lachmann and Tischendorf and of the Codex Sinaiticus have proved of essen- tial service in this portion of my work.^ In quotations from the Septuagint I have used Tischendorfs text (ed. 3, 1860) as the standard of comparison ; when the readings of the leading Mss. differ in such a way as to affect the quotation, I have noted the variation, I may add, that in the numbering of the Psalms the Septuagint is followed throughout, unless the Hebrew text is under notice . Winer's practice was not uni- form. In instances such as that just specified, and in many othors Avhere a correction was obviously needed, I have altered Winer's figures without calling attention to the change. 1 L has not been in my power to carry the work of verifica- tion as far as 1 could have wished. A marked characteristic of Winer's Grammar is the number of its references to com- I'Hliiirct, Pforhuii, Solaims, Fischer {ad I.eusden. Dial), or taPasor's Orammar. In oiie pluLC (p. 123, note 3) a note is abridged, and the titles of works quoted are sli-jlitly ciirtaih'd. With these exceptions, the whole of the original is reproduced. MVhen the 'received text' which Winer quotes diHers from the text of Stephens. I have referred to it as ' Elz. ;' otherwise, as ' Htc' PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION xv mentaries on classical writers. To many of the works cited I could not obtain access ; and I confess that, judging from those quotations which I was able to verify, I cannot feel that I should have conferred much benefit on the student if I had succeeded in examining the whole : in most instances I have removed such references from the text into the notes, for the convenience of tlie reader. On the other hand, it has been my aim to secure all possible accuracy and completeness where standard grammatical authorities are cited. Every reference to the Greek Grammars of Buttmann (Jusf. Sprachlehrr), Bernhardy, Matthiae, and Madvig, Zumpt's Latin Grammar, Hermann's edition of Viger, Lobeck on Phrynichus, Lobeck's Paralipomena, and Klotz's Commentary on Devarins, has been carefully examined. The references to Host's Grammatik aiid to K. W. Kriiger's Sprachlchrc have been altered so as to suit the most recent editions. In the case of Madvig, Matthiae, and Zumpt, it seemed best to substitute sections for pages, that the reference might hold good both for the original works and for the English translations. In the sections on irregular and defective verbs, I have usually given references to Fishlake's translation of Buttmann, in the place of tliose which Winer gives to the original work : where the matter was not the same (i.e., where Lobeck's observations were important), I have given both. In the additions T have made to the German work — which, independently of Indices, etc., constitute about one-sixth of this book — my main objects have been the following : — (1.) To supplement the author's, statements, and bring them into accordance with the present state of our knowledge. (2.) To show under the diflerent heads of the subject how much may be regarded as settled, and how much is still dis- puted border-land. (3.) By means of continuous references to English writers on Greek grammar and on New Testament Greek, to place the English reader in the position occupied by one who uses the original (4.) To call further attention to the many striking coincidences between Modern Greek and the language in which the New Testament is written. No one can feel more keenly than myself that I have not fully succeeded in my endeavours ; but 1 have spared no pains or effort to attain success, so far as it lay within my reacK To assert that the original work is in many particulars below the standard of our present knowledge, is no more than to say that the last ten or tweiity years, distinguished as they have been by so much zealous and accurate study of the Greek Testament, have not passed without yielding some fruit The German scholars to whom we owe so heavy a ivi PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. debt of gratitude for th^it persistent and successful effort to obtain for New Testament Greek the scientific treatment which was its due, have left worthy successors both in their own country and in England. Of my deep obligations to some of our English scholars I shall subsequently speak in detail. The "edition of this Grammar which appeared in Germany in 1867, under the editorship of Dr. G. Lunemann of GtJttin- aen, differs very shghtly from the sixth edition, which is the basis of the present translation. The very scanty additions relate entirely to points of detail. As I was not at liberty to make use of these additions, I have carefiilly abstained from seeking any assistance from them: in many instances, however, they were already included in the matter I had myself supplied 1 canndt part from this edition without expressing my surprise that a scholar of Dr, Liinemann's reputation should have left so many mistakes in the text, and should have contributed so little to the improvement of the great work with the care of which he had been entrusted. By far the most important work on the grammar of New Testament Greek which has appeared during the last fourteen years is the GrammaMk des nmtestamentlichen Sprachgehrauchs by Alexander Buttmann (Berlin, 1859). The form which the author has chosen for his work is that of an appendix to his father's (Philip Buttmann's) Griechische Grammatik. The theoretical advantages of this plan cannot be doubted, as the crammarian is no longer required to concern himself with the usages of ordinary Greek, but is at liberty to confine his atten- tion to what is peculiar in Hellenistic usage On the other hand, the inconveniences which beset the practical use of the book, in the case of those who are unfamiliar with the particular Grammar chosen as the standard, are sufficiently great to detract seriously from the usefulness of a most valuable work. As this peculiarity of plan seemed to render it unlikely that A. })uttraann's Grammar would be translated, I have been the more anxious to place the most important of its contents within the reach of the Engbsh reader. There is a difference between the general tendencies shown by the writers of the two Grammars, which makes it especially useful to compare their treatment of the same subject. Winer, never perhaps entirely free from the influence of the period in which he began to write, when it was above all things necessary to convince the world that New Testament Greek had a right to claim scientific investigation, seems inclined at times to extenuate the difference between New Testament usage and that of classical writers His successor, coming forward when, on the main question, the victory is already won, is able to IPREPACE TO THE FIRST EDITION xyii concede much that once it seemed important to dispute ; and indeed, unless I am mistaken, frequently goes to an extreme in this kind of {^ener. jsity. For this and other reasons, I have sometimes exhiloited in detail Buttmann's general treatment of an important point, believing that a comparison of the two writers would do more than anything else to illustrate the real character of the question. My notes will show that I have made great use of A. . Buttmann's work ; but I have frequently received suggestions wliere I have not had to acknowledge direct assistance. I am bound, however, in justice to myself, to say that, unless the writer's words are distinctly quoted, the statement made in my note rests ou my owu responsibility, Buttmann's observations having merely served as the basis of my own investigation. I wish I could join in the commendation which has been bestowed on Schirlitz's Gruvdzugc der ncutcst. G-rdcitdt (Giessen, 1861) ; but I would gladly save others the disappointment which the study of this work caused myself. To represent it as an independent work is really to do it the greatest injustice, For the most part, Schirlitz servilely follows Winer — in many instances copying the very order of his examples and remarks, and sometimes even reproducing obvious mistakes. There is very little evidence of independent Judgment or research. The general arrangement of the book, however, is clear and useful : unfortunately, the advantage which is gained by presenting received results, disentangled from the arguments by which they have been sustained, is to a great extent sacrificed by the introduction of irrelevant matter (e.g., on the meanings of Hebrew proper names, etc.) belonging to the lexicon, and r\ot tp a treatise on grammar. I have further consulted Beelen's Latin version of the 5th edition of Winer's Grammar (Louvain, 1857), but not with much advantage. My obligations to K. H. A. Lipsius' Gramrnat. Uiitersiichungeii (Leipsic, 1863) are acknowh'dged in the following pages. Of German commentators, Meyer has justly received the largest share of my attention ; partly on account of the general merits of his masterly Commentary, and partly because his successive editions take up and discuss every fresh contribution to the grammatical study of the language of the New Testa- ■ment. I have, of course, made but few refei-ences to the writers already laid under contribution by Winer himself, as De Wette and others : where, however, new editions have been issued, I. have often availed myself of their assistance. In cases where Winer quotes from a German work, or from a book which is not readily accessible, I have frequently sought to help the reader by supplying the pith of the quotation, h xviii PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. especially where Winer has chosen this mode of indicating his own opinion of a passage. My aim has been to make myself acquainted with everytliing of importance which has lately appeared in Germany in connexion with the subject of this book ; and I trust the reader will not discover any omissions of a serious character. To English works I have referred much more freely, as it has been a leading object with me to provide English readers with all the helps supplied by Winer to his countrymen. Whilst occasional references are made to a number of Grammars, Jelfs and Donaldson's are quoted systematically, as our leading English authorities. I may here observe that, with the ex- ception of an occasional citation of Liddell and Scott or Rost and Palm in the place of Passow, these references to Jelf and Donaldson are the only additions of my own which are incorporated with the text. My regular practice has been to distinguish added matter by square brackets, — thus [ ] ; but in the instances just specified the convenience of the reader seemed best served by a departure from strict uniformity. It is not necessary for me here to mention ail the works of English scholars which are quoted in my notes. I have attached most importance to references to works of a distinctively grammatical character ; but have striven to show my high sense of the value which belongs to many recent English editions of classical authors, by Irequentiy directing the reader to their pages. I fear it will be held that I ought either to have done more, or not to have made the attempt; I could not, however, refrain from giving this kind of practical expression to the interest with which I have studied the notes of Shilleto, Paley J ebb, RiddeU, Sandys, and others. Every page of this book will show how greatly I am indebted to our foremost English writers on New Testament Greek. The excellent treatises expressly devoted to the subject by Mr. Green and Mr. Webster I have used extensively ; the latter, from the nature of its plan, is less frequently quoted than the former. I have very rarely neglected an opportunity of making use of the Commentaries of Professor Lightfoot and Dean Alford ; and most gratefully do I acknowledge the assistance I have received from them throughout ray work. My hearty thanks are due to the Rev, Dr. Dickson, Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of Glasgow, and to the Rev. B. Hellier of Headingley, for the kind interest they have dis- played in my undertaking, and for some useful suggestions. I have left until the last the name which is, and must remain, the first in my thoughts, whether they are resting on the present work or on my Greek Testament studies in general. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xix The measure of my obligation to the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, who has generously permitted me to associate his name ■with this book, it is altogether out of my power to express. I feel sensitively that whatever I have done is unworthy of such an association ; but if this book succeed in accomplishing anything for the accurate study of the Greek Testament, it will be through what I have learned from Bishop Ellicott's wise counsels, and from his noble Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles. I trust that the plan upon which I have made use of the various authorities now specified will commend itself to the judgment of my readers. I may perhaps anticipate an objec- tion which may be raised, to the effect that the quotation of many opinions upon any subject tends to produce confusion, whereas the usefulness of a Grammar depends much on the directness and uniformity of its teaching. I am so far alive to the force of this objection, that I am inclined to think au amount of dogmatism and indifference to the views of others may for a time increase the teacher's power, and thus prove beneficial to the student. But, to say nothing of the effect which may be produced by the discovery that the teacher had spoken with equal confidence of the certain and of the question- able, the decisive tone of an independent work would have been strangely out of place if here assumed by me. My desire is to show where those scholars who best represent the present state of knowledge and opinion are in accord, and what points are still under discussion. I should be sorry to lie under the imputation of indefiniteness of opinion, when I have felt compelled to present conflicting views. I am convinced that clearly to state the amount of divergence which exists is to do something towards the removal of it. I have tried to bear in mind that this book may fall into the hands of different classes of readers, and have sometimes ventured to add an explanation which to many will seem superfluous, for the sake of inexperienced students. Where the author makes a state- ment which appears to me erroneous, in regard to matters of greater importance than details of language, I have usually appended a reference to some standard work containing an adequate answer or correction. The only other subject requiring comment in connexion with the notes to this edition is the prominence which I have given to Modern Greek. I am persuaded that English scholars will not consider that I have gone too far in calling attention to its peculiarities in a work on New Testament Greek :^ if I were commencing my task anew, I should attempt ■ See an interesting article in the current number of the Journal of Philology (yol. ii. pp. 161-196). XX PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. to do much more in this way than I have done. The Grammars referred to are those of Mullach {Grammatik dcr gricchisclien Vulgarsprache in historischer Entwicklung : Berlin, 1856), J. Donaldson (Edinburgh, 1853), Sophocles (Boston, 1860), and occasionally LUdemann's Lekrhuch (Leipsic, 1826). Much labour has been spent upon the Indices. To the three contained in the German work (each of which is more than doubled in size) I have added a fourth, containing the principal passages from the Old Testament noticed in the book. The fulness of the Index of Subjects will, it is hoped, supply the want of more frequent references between the various parts of the work. . . A Table of Authors cited, with dates, seemed especially desirable in a work like the present, which contains quotations from so wide a range of writers, flourishing at periods 2000 years apart. I have taken pains to secure accuracy in the dates. As a general rule, I have chosen for the ' floruit ' of an author a point about mid-way between his entrance on manhood and the close of his life. I am here most largely indebted to Mliller and Donaldson's History of the Literature of Greece, Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Biography, and Engelmann's BiUiotheca Scriptorum Classicorum. The notices contained in Liddell and Scott's Lexicon have been compared throughout : I must, however, confess myself unable to understand on what principle some of the dates are assigned. Through various circumstances, I have been placed at a disadvantage in the correction of the proofs, and must beg the indulgence of the reader for the mistakes which will be found. Most of these, I trust, are noticed in the table of Errata; but it did not seem necessary to swell that list by including those errors (e.g., in the division of words) which are merely blemishes, and cannot lead any one astray. I have extended these introductory remarks beyond the limit I had assigned myself. I will only add the expression of my earnest prayer, that He who can use for His glory the feeblest work of man may grant that mine may be instru- mental in leading some to a fuller knowledge of His inspired Word. WILLIAM F. MOULTON. Richmond, January 7, 1870. AUTnOR'S PREFACE When this Grammar first appeared, in 1822, the object pro- posed was, to check the unbgunded arbitrariness with which the language of the New Testament had so long been handled in Commentaries and exegctical prelections, and, so far as the case admitted, to apply the results of the rational philology, as obtained and diffused by Hermann and his school, to the Greek of the Xew Testament. It was in truth needful that some voice should be raised which miglit call to account the deep- rooted empiricism of the expositors, and might strive to rescue the Kew Testament writers from the bondage of a perverted philology, wliich, while it styled itself sacred, showed not the slightest respect for the sacred authors and their well-considered phraseology. The fundamental error — 'the irpwrov ^/revStj? — of this biblical philology, and consequently of the exegesis which was based upon it, really consisted in this, that neither the Hebrew language nor the Greek of the Xew Testament was regarded as a living idiom (Hermann, Eurip. Med. p. 401), designed for a medium of human intercourse. Had they been so regarded, — had scholars always asked themselves whether the deviations from the established laws of language, Avhich were assumed to exist in the Bible to so enormous an extent, were compatible with the destination of a human language for the practical uses of life, they would not have so arbitrarily considered everything allowable, and taken pleasure in ascribing to the apostles in nearly every verse an enallage, or use of the wrong form, in the place of the right. If we read certain Commentaries still current of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries — for the older works of the period of the Reformation are almost entirely free from such perverseness — we must conclude that xxu AUTHOR'S PREFACE. the peculiar characteristic of the New Testament language is an utter want of definiteness and regularity. For the expositors are continually pointing out instances of the use of a wrong tense, or a wrong case, or the comparative instead of the posi- tive, — of o for Tte vitiis Lexicor. N. T.) had previously collpcttd much that is serviceable. Abundant material for philological observations on "Grjecitas fatiscens " has more recently been furnished by the corrected texts of the Byzantine writers and the Indices appended to most of them in the Bonn edition, though these Indices are very unequal in their merit; by Boissonade's notes in the Anecdota Graeca (Paris, 1829, &c., 5 vols.), and in his editions of Marinus, Philostratus, Nicetas Eugenianus, Babrius, al. ; and lastly by MuUach's edition of Hierocles (Berlin, 1853). Lobeck also constantly pays due attention to the later Greek element in his ParaUpomena Grammaticce Gr. (Lips. 1837, 2 parts); Patholngim strmonis Gr. Prokg. (Lips. 1843), and Pathol. Grceci serm. Elementa (Konigsb. 1853, I.); 'PnuxTixiv mve verbor. Gr. et nomi' num verball. Technologia (Konigsb. 1846). [The 2nd volume of Lobeck's Pathol. Elementa appeared in 1862. In 1856 Mullach j>ublished a GruMmatik der grieckischtn Vulgarsprache (Berlin).] * Schleiennacher's remarks on the lexical treatment of Hebraisms (//erm^n, p. 65) are worthy of attention. 4 INTRODUCTIOX. inveterate and stubborn prejudices or errors revived anew, may gradually disappear : at present it is still necessary to vindicate the true character of the N. T, diction on this negative side also. For even very recently we have seen in the works of well-known com- mentators — as Kiihnol, Flatt, Klausen in his commentary on the Gospels — how deeply rooted was the old grammatical empiricism by which ultra Fischerum (or ultra Storrium) sapere was held in horror. The notion of special grammars for the writings of different authors, as John or Paul, cannot be entertained. - What is distinctive in the diction of particular writers, especially of those just named, has seldom any connexion with grammar. It consists almost entirely in a preference for certain words and phrases, or belongs to the rhetori- cal element, as indeed Blackwall's observations ^ show. Tlie same may be said of most of the peculiarities in the arrangement of words. Honce Schulze and Schulz ^ have, on the whole, formed a more cor- rect estimate of such specialities than Gersdorf, whose well-known work contributes even to verbal criticism no large store of cer/«w results, and must have almost proved its own refutation, if it had been continued on its own principles. § 3. Although the study of the language of the N. T. is the fundamental condition of all true exegesis, Biblical philolo- gers have until lately almost excluded N. T. grammar from the range of their scientific inquiries. The lexicography of the N. T. was the subject of repeated investigation ; but the grammar was at most noticed only so far as it stood connected with the doc- trine of the Hebraisms of the N. T.'^ Gasp. Wyss (1650) and G. Pasor (1655) alone apprehended more completely the idea of N, T. grammar, but they were unable to obtain for it recogni- tion as a distinct branch of exegetical. study. After them, 160 yeats later, Haab was the first who handled the subject in a special treatise ; but, apart from the fact that he confined his attention to the Hebraistic element, his somewhat uncritical ' Sacred Cla-t^ks, I. p. 385 sqq. (London, 1727). - His remarks on N. T. diction are contained in his dissertations on the Parahle of the .Stewanl (Bresl. 1821) and on the Lord's Supper (Leips. 1824, second iinprovtid ed. 1831), and in vaiious reviews in Wachler's Theol. Annalen. Both dissertations are of an exegetiivtl character, and hence the remarks (which are usually acute) are out of place, since they throw but little light on. the exegesis. Textual criticism ntight turn his observations to good ueeount, had but the distinguished writer been pleased to give them to us in a complete form. Compare also Srhleiermacher, Mermen, p. 129. * An lionourable exception among the earlier commentators is the row nearly forgotten G. F. Heupel, who, in his copious and almost purely philological coin- mentaiy on the Gospel of Mark (Strassburg, 1716), makes many good gram- ronticai ob^'.ervations. The Greek scholarship of J. F. Hombergk in hia Parerga Sacra (Amstel. 1719), ard of IL Heisen in his Novce Ih/pot/uKf^ InlerpretandiB /elicias Ep. Jacohl ^Biem. 1739), is more lexical than grammatical. HISTORY OF N. T. GllAMMAR. 5 work was fitted rather to retard than to promote the progress of the science. The first who in some degree collected and explained the gram- matical peoidiarities of the N. T. diction was the well-known Sal. Glass (f 1656), the 3rd and 4th books of whose Philologia Sacra are entitled Grammaiica sacra and Gramm. sacrce Appendix.^ As however he makes Hebrew his point of departure throughout, and touches the N. T. language oiily so far as it agrees with Hebrew, his work — to say nothing of its incompleteness — can be mentioned in the history of N. T. grammar only as a feeble attempt. < -ii the other hand, the historian must revive the memory of the two above-named writers, whose names are almost unknown, as indeed their works on this subject are forgotten. The first, Casp. Wyss, Professor of Greek in the Gymnasium of Ziirich (| 1659), published his Dlalectologia Sacra'^ in 1650. In this work all the peculiarities of tlie N. T, diction, grammatically considered, are classified under the heads, Diahctus Attica, lonica, Doric'a, yEolica, Bceoika, Fo'etica, 'Fjj3pai^ovcra, — certainly a most inconvenient arrangement, since kindred subjects are thus separated, and in many cases are noticed in four diff"erent parts of the work. The author too was not in advance of his age in acquaintance with the Greek dialects, as is proved by the very men- tion of a special diakctus poetica, and as an examination of what he calls Attic will show still more clearly. As a collection of examples, however, in many sections absolutely complete, the work is merito- rious ; and the writer's moderation in regard to the grammatical Hebraisms of the N. T. deserved the imitation of his contemporaries. George Pasor, Professor of Greek at Franeker (f 1637), is well known as the author of a small N. T. Lexicon, which has been fre- quently republished, last of all by J. F. Fischer. He left amongst his papers a ^J. T, Grammar, which was published, with some additions and corrections of his own, by his son Matthias Pasor, Prof, of Theo- logy at Groningen (| 1658), under the title, G. Pasoris Grammaiica Grceca sacra N. T. in ires lihros distrihuta (Groning. 1655, pp. 787). This work is now a literary rarity,^ though far better fitted than the lexicon to preserve the author's name in the memory of posterity. As the title indicates, the volume is divided into three books, of which the first contains the Accidence, the second (pp. 244-530) the Syntax, and the third seven appendices, — de nominibus N. T., de verbis N. T., de verbis anomalis, de dialectis N. T., de acce-niibus, de ^ In Dathe's edition this Grammafka sacra constitutes the first book. * Dialectoloyia sacra, in qua quicquid per universum iST. F. contex/um in apostolica et voce et phrasi a comvmni C4racor. lingua eoqne grammatica ana- logia discrepat, mtfkodo congrua disponiiur, accurate de.findur et omnium sucri contexlus exernplorum inductione illustratar. Tigur. 1650, pp. 324 (without the Appendix). * Even Foppen {Bibliotheca belgica, Tom. I. p. 342), who enumerates Pasor's other writings, does not mention this work. Its great rarity is attested by Saltheu, Cat. biblioth. llhr. rar. (Eegiom. 1751), p. 470 ; and by D. Gerdesius, Floriltg. hist. crit. libr. var. (Groning. 1763), p. 272. 6 INTRODUCTION. praxl grammatkcr, de numeris s. ariihviefica Gra'ca. The most y.-iluable parts of the work are the second book and the fourth appendix ;^ for in the first book and in most of the appendices the writer treats of well-known subjects belonging to general Greek grammar, and, for example, most needlessly gives full paradigms of Greek nouns and verbs. The Syntax is accurate and exhaustive. The author points out what is Hebraistic, but does not often adduce ]>avallels from Greek authors. This useful book suffers from the want of a com- plete index. In the interval between Pasor and llaab N. T. grammar received only incidental notice, in works on the style of the N. T., as in those of Leusden (De diahdis N. T.) and Oiearius (De stylo N. T., pp. 257-271). These writers, however, limited their attention almo.st entirely to Hebraisms ; and by including amongst these mnch that is pure Greek they threw back into confusion the whole question of the grammatical structure of the N. T. Georgi was the fir8t to sliow that many constructions usually regarded as Hebraisms belonged to genuine Greek usage, but he also sometimes falls into extremes. His Aviitings passed into almost total neglect. Meanwhile Fischer gave currency anew to the works of Vorst and Leusden, and during many years Storr's well-known bo.ok^ was able to exercise without restraint its pernicious influence on the exegesis of the N. T. From the school of Storr now came forward Ph. H. Haab. Rentpr of Schweigern in the kingdom of Wurtemberg (-j- 1833), with his " Hebrew-Greek Grammar for the N. T., v.dth a preface by F. G. vou Siiskind " (Tubing. 1815). Disregarding the genuine Greek element in the diction of the N. T., he confined his attention to the gram- matical Hebraisms, and in the arrangement of his materials followed the works of Storr and Weckherlin.'^ If we are to bt^lieve a reviewer in Eengel's Archiv (vol. i. p. 406 sqq.), " the diligence, judgment, accuracy, nice and comprehensive philological knowledge, with which the author has accomplished his task, must secure for his work the approval of all friends of the thorough exegesis of the N. T," A different and almost directly opposite verdict is given by two .scholars'* who must in this field be regarded as thoroughly competent (and impartial) judges ; and after long and manifold use of the book we an; coinpelled to agree with these critics in all points. The great defect of the work consists in this, — that the author has not rightly understood the difference between the pure Greek and the Hebraistic ^ This appendix hnd .already been added by Tasor himself to the fnst edition of his Syllabus Orceco-Laiinut omnium N. T. vocum (Am.stel. 1632), under the title, Jdca {ai/llahioi hrcvw) Gnrca/niin jS\ T. dialectorum. At the close he promises the above i^ojiiplete OramnuUica X. T. ' Olh<:i;ri'aU. oil analog, et sj/niaxin Ih'br. (Stutt. 1779). Some acute gram- nuitical observations, especially on cnatlage tcmporum, jHirticnlorum, retatione pnruni curent et, si scriptoris cujusdam verba grammatice i. e. ex legibus linguaj explicatasententiam . . . ab ipsorum opinione alienam prodarit, nullam illarum legura ratiouem habeant, sed propria verboruin vi neglecta scriptorcm dixisse contendant, qucr t'aHbun verbis nemo nayia meute pra,ditus dicere unqtiam potuit." Hermann's sarcasm ( Vig. 788) was quite just. *r prefer "rational" to "philosophical," because the latter word may easilj' bft niiKUuderstood. All philological inquiry that is merely empirical is irrational : it deals with language as something merely external, arid not as bearing the imj)ress of thought. Compare Tittmann, Syn. p. 205 sq. * G. Boinhardy, WissaischaftUche Syntax dcr gr. jSjjrache (Berlin, 1820). HISTORY OF N. T. GRAMMAR. 9 Greek nation, is exactly seized, and all the various uses of the form are deduced from this primary signification : by this means number- less ellipses have been demolished, and enullage has been confined within its natural (i.e., narrow) limits. (b) When the established laws of the language are violated, either in expressions of general currency, or in the usage of individual writers, the grammarian is at pains to show how the irregularity originated in the mind of the speaker or writer, — by aiiacoluthon, confusio duanun structurarum, attraction, constructio ad eeusum, brachylogy, etc. Thf^ language is thus presented as bearing the direct impress of Greek thought, and appears as a living idiom. The gramraariau is not content with merely notioing the phenomena : he traced each form and turn of speech back into the thought of the speaker, and endeavours to lay hold of it as it comes into existence withiu the speaker's mind. Tims everything which is impossible in thoaght is rejected as impossible in language; as, for instance, that a writer could use the future tense when he wished to reler to the punt } could say to for /row; could call a man tciser when he wished to call him wise; could indicate a cause by consegtinitly ; could say, / saw ike man, when he wished to express, / saw a man. For a long time, however, these elucidations of Greek grammar (and lexicography) remained altogether unnoticed by Biblical scholars. They adhered to the old Viger and to Storr, and thus separated themselves entirely from classical philologers, in the belief— which however no recent writer has distinctly expressed— that the N. T. Greek, as being Hebraistic, could not be subjected to such philosophical investigation. They would not see that Hebrew itself, like every other human language, both admits and requires rational treatment. Through Ewald's reiterated eflforts this fact has now been made patent to all. All are convinced that, even in the Hebrew language, tlie ultimate explanation of phenomena must be sought in the national modes of thought, and that a nation characterised by simplicity could least of all be cap.able of transgressing the laws of all human language.^ It is not now considered sufficient to assign to a preposition, for instance, the most different meanings, just as a siipurfioially examined ^ Rational investigation must be founded on historical. The whole field of the language must be historically surveyed, before we can discover the causes of the individual phenomena. The simpler the Hebrew language is, the easier is this process of discovery, for a simple language presupposes simple modes of thought. In the rational investigation of Hebrew the problem assigned us is, to reproduce the course of the Hebrew's thought ; to conceive in our minds everj^ tiansition from one meaning of a word to another, every construction and idiom of the language, as he conceived it ; and thus discover how each of these grew up in his mind, for the spoken words are but the impress of the thouglit, — as indeed in this very language thbiklng is regarded as an iiwinrd speaking [e.g.. Gen. xvii. 17, Ps. x. 6]. To think of oAnslructing a ^anoj-j the laws of a langiiagu is absurd. It ma}' te readily admitted that this rational system of investigation may be misused by individuals, as even the Greek philologers sometimes deal in subtleties ; but to persovere in insipid empiricism from the apprehension of such danger is disgraceful. 1 INTRODUCTION. context may require : pains are taken to trace the transition from the fundamental signification of every particle to each of its secondary meanings, and the admission of meanings without such a process of derivation is regarded as an unscientific assumption. Nor is any one satisfied now wnth vaguely remarking that non omnis (by which no man of sense could mean anything but not every one) was used by the Hebrews as equivalent to omnis non, that is, nullus ; he rather indicates in every instance the exact point on which the eye should be fixed. Hence the object which grammar must in any case strive after is the rational treatment of the N. T. language : thus, and thus only, grammar obtains for itself a scientific basis, and in turn furnishes the same for exegesis. The materials offered by Greek philology must be carefully used ; but in using them we must by all means keep in mind that wo cannot regard as established all the nice distinctions which scholars have laid down (so as, for instance, even to correct the text in accordance with them), and also that classical philology itself ia progressive : indeed it has already been found necessary to modify many theories (e.g. the doctrine of d with the conjunctive), au«l other points are still under discussion even amongst the best scholars — some of the constructions of av, for example. Since 1824, N. T. grammar has received very valuable contri- butions from Fritzsche, in particular, in his Dissertt. in 2. Epist. ad Coi: (Lips. 1824), his Commentaries on Matthew and Mark, his (Jon- jectan. in iV. T. (Lips. 1825, 2 &pec.), and especially in his Commen- tar;/ on the Ep. to the Ilomans (Hal. 183G). Here should also be mentioned the treatises by Gieseler and Bornemann in Kosenm tiller's Excgct. Repert. (2nd vol.), Bornemann's Hdiolia in Lucm Evamj. (Lips. 1830), and in part his edition of the Acts of the Apostles.^ Lastly, many grammatical problems have been discussed in the controversial correspondence between Fritzsche and Tholuck.'"^ The philological investigation of the N. T. language has exerted more or less influence on all the numerous N. T. commentaries which have recently appeared,^ whether emanating from the critical, the evan- gelical, or the philosophical school ; though only a few of the writers (as Van Hengel Liicke, Bleek, Meyer) have given full attention to the grammatical element, or treated it with independent judgment. ^ Acta Apost. ad Cod. Cantabrig. Jidem rec. tt interpret, est (Grosseiiliain, 184><, ].). '^ Fiitzschi;, rd>er die Verdienste D. Tholiu\h<> urn die Schrifterkliirv rnj (H.illc, 1831), 'n\o\wk, Beitragezur Spracherkldr ling des N. T. (Halle, 1832). Fritzsche, Pruliminariea zur Abhitle und Ehrenerkldruiuj, die icfi gem dem D. Tholuck tjewahren mOchte (Halle, 1832). 'I'liohick, J^'och ein ernstes Wort an D. Fritzsche (Halle, 1832). In his Cornmeatanj on the Ep. to the Hebrews (Uamb. 1836, 1840, 1850), Tholuck laid more stress on iiliilological investigation. The severe censure passed in an anonymous work, JJeitrdge zur Erkldruug den Br. an die Hebr. (Leipz. 1840), has h;ss reference to grammar than to Tholuck 's treatmen-t of the subject matter of tbo Epistle. ^ Even on the commentaries of the excellent Ikunigarten-Crusius, the weakest side of which is certainly tu>- puilological. HISTORY OF N. T. GRAMMAK. 1 1 A sensible estimate of the better philological principles in their appli- cation to the N. T. has been given by A. G. Holemauu, in his Comment da intcrprdatione sacra cum inofarai feJlciter ccnjungcnda (Lips. 1832). N. T. grammar has recently niaJe its way from Germariy to Eng- land and North America, partly in a translation of the 4th edition of the present work* (London, 1840), partly in a distinct (indepen- dent?) treatise by W. TroUope {Greek Grammar of the Ntw Testameid ■ London, 1842). An earlier work on this subject by Moses Stuart {Grammar of the Neiv Testament Dialect: Andover, 1841), I have not yet seen. 2 The special grammatical charact3ristics of particular writers have begun to form a subject of inquiry (yet see above, p. 4) : G. P. C. Kaiser, Diss, de speciali Joa. J p. grammatica culpa, ncgligentifv libe- randa (Erlang. 1824, IL). and De sjjeciali I'etri Ap. gr. culpa, dx. (Erlang. 1843). 1 [TranskU-il by Agnew ami Ebbeke (I'Iula(leli>hia, 1810). An earlier edition of Winer's ('rnmimur had been transliiteil in liS2.v by M. Stuart and Robinson. In 1834 Prot. Huiart published a N. T. Grammar, part of which appeared in the Biblical Vahinet, vol. x.] * [To this list the following works may be added : A. Buttinann, Gram- matik des ncutest. Spraclujcbruurlis : iin An!e. an Ph. Buttutann'ti (jrlech. Grammatik [Yii^rliw^ 1859); Scliiilitz, Gruiidziu/e der ncufest. Grdciidt {G'nissnn, 1861) ; K. H. A. Lipsius, Grammatitiche UntersuchurKjen iihfr die bibli.schf Grd- citdt ; Ueber die Le.se'zeichen (Leipzig, 1863) ; T. S. Gieen, T/rati.sc on the Gram- viarofthcN. T. (Bagster, 1842; 2d edition, ccnsiderably alter.d, 18(52); W. Webster, Syntax and Synonyms of the Greek TeM. (Rivingtons, 1804). In the later (the 3d and 4th) ed' ions of Jelf's Greek Grammar ton.sidenible attention is given to the constructions of the Greek Testament. The Grammars of Winer and A. Biittmann have recently found a very able and careful trnnslator in Pro- fessor Thayer, of Andover, Massachusetts. Another useful work, of a more elementary character, is Dr. S. G. Green's Jlandbvok to the Grammar, o/ the JV. T. (1870, Rel. Tr. Society).] PART I. ON THE GENERAL CHAEACTER OF N. T. DICTION, ESPECIALLY IN REGARD TO GRAMMAR. Section L various opinions respecting the character of the n. t. diction. 1. Though the character of the N. T. diction is in itself tolerably distinct, erro .eous or at any rate incomplete and one- sided opinions respecting it were for a long time entertained by Biblical philologers. These opinions arose in part from want of acquaintance with thelateiGreek dialectology, but also from dog- matic considerations, through which, as is always the case, even clear intellects became incapable of discerning the line of exact exegesis^/^Trom the beginning of the 1 7th century the attempt j-^ad been repeatedly made by certain scholars (the Purists) to / claim clabsic purity and elegance in every respect for the N. T. style ; whilst by others (the Hebraists) the Hebrew colouring was not only recognised, but in some instances greatly exag- gerated. The views of the Hebraists held the ascendancy about the close of the 1 7th century, though without having entirely superseded those of their rivals, some of whom were men of considerable learning. Half a century later the Purist party entirely died out, and the principles of the Hebraists, a little softened here and there, obtained general acceptance. It is only very lately that scholars have begun to see that these principles also are one-sided, and have rightly inclined towards the middle path, which had been generally indicated long before by Beza and H. Stephens, The history of the various theories which were successively main- tained, not without vehemence and considerable party bias, is given in brief by Moras, Acroas. acad. sv]). ILnneveut. K, T. (ed. Eichstadt) yol. I. p. 216 sqq. ; by Meyer, Gesch. der SSdiriJterUdr. III. 342 sqq. SECT. I.] OPINIONS ON THE CHARACTER OF N. T. DICTION. 13 (comp. Eichstirdt. Pr. f^enfevftar. de dicUone scripfor. N. T. hrevis Cen- tura: Jen. 184-3) ; and, with some important inaccuracies, by G. J. Planck, in his EinUit. in d. theol. IFmtnscJwfi, IL 43 sqq. : ^ compare Stange, Theol. Symmikta, II. 29.5 scjq. On the literature connected with this subject see Walch, Blhlioth. Theol IV. 276 sqq.- The following outline of the controversy, in which the statements of the above-named writers are here and there corrected, will be sufficient for our purpose. Erasmus had spoken of an " apostolorum sermo non solum impo- litus et inconditus verum etiam imperfectus et perturbatus, aliquoties plane solcBcissans." In reply to this, Beza, in a Digressio de dono Unguarum etapostol. sermone (on Acts x. 46), pointed out the simplicity and force of N. T. diction, and in particular placed the Hebraisms (which, as is well known, he was far from denying) in a very favoifr able light, as "ejusmodi, ut nullo alio ius, though of little unportance m comparison with their size, should have been inserted in these collections ; and the editors wore wrong in admitting only one of Junge's treatises, tha Sfntentice doct. vir. de nt.ylo N. T. Compare further Blessig, PrcB^idia interprd. N. T. ex aiicforlhwi Clra'C. (Argent. 1778), und Mittenzwey, Locorum quoruvdam e Jlut- chi drj\ N. -. Tlfol. 1. 2.'^3sqq.), 1 have not seen. - Some of the points are noticed by Mittenzwey in the essay mentioned in the last note. . 3 Hebrew, and therefore Hebraic Greek, possesses the qualities of simplicity and vividness in common with the language of Homer ; but the particular expressions cannot be called Hebraisms in the one case or Graecisms in the other. Laiicuages in general have many jioints of contact, especially its popularly spoken, for the popular language is always simple and graphic : in the scientific diction, framed by scholars, tliere is more divergencie. Jlence, for instance, most of the so-called Germanisms in L>atin belong to the style of comedies, letters, etc. , r^ , . * Seo on the other hand Krebs, Ohsnrv. Pr4isop L39. 1, epi^os ctti Ttj/o? 8wfMiTo<; ecTToW. Such superfluous and indeed absurd observa- tions abound in Tfochen's work. (b) That KOLfjLaa-OaL signifies mori is proved from Iliad IL 241, KOLfjLrja-aTo x^aXKiov virvov (Georgi, Vind. p. 122 sqq.), and from Soph. Eleclr. 510 ; that crirep/ia is used by the Greeks also in the sense of jiroles is shown by passages mainly taken from the poets, as K)urip. Iph. Aul. 524, IpK Taur. 987, Hec. 254, and Soph. Medr. 150S (Georgi p. 87 sqq.) ; that rroifxaCvuv means regere is proved from Anacr. 57. 8 ; that iZuv or Ocoipelv Odvarov is good Greek, from Soph. ^ This applies also to J. E. Ostermann, wliose Positioner pkilologicce Grcecum -AT. T. contexlum concementes are reprinted in Crenii Exercitatt. fasc. I.I. p. 485 sqq " Coinparc aLso Mori Acroaa. I. c. p. 222 sqq; 2 18 OPI^'IONS ON THE CHARACTER OF N. T. DICTION. [PAKT T. Eledr. 205 (Schwarz, Comiu. p. 410), or from BepKea6ai. KTvirovy cTKOTov, in the tragedians. For Trorijptov -jrivuv in a figurative sense (Mt. XX. 22), Schwarz quotes .^schyl. Again. 1397. The use of TTiTj-reiv in the sense of irritum esse, which is one of the regular mean- ings of the corresponding Hebrew word, Schwarz defends by the figurative phrase in Plat. Phileb. 22 e, Sokei rj^ovrj croi imfTtoKivai KoBairepti TrXrjyeicra vtto tu)V vvv 8r] Aoyajv. (c) We may safely regard the phrase yivuxTKciv SivSpa — though not unknown to the Greeks, see Jacobs cvd Philostrat. Imagg. p. 583 — as immediately derived by the N. T. writers from the very com- mon E'''K vy •• in the N. T., therefore, it is a Hebraism. Similarly, a-ir\uy)(ya compassion, ^rjpd land as opposed to water (Fischer ad ■ Leusd. Dial. 31), x^i^o? shore, crro/xa as used of tiie sword, edge,^ ■7ra^vv£iv to he stupid, foolish, Ki'pio? KvpioiV, «isep^ecr^at cts tov Kocrfjuov, were probably formed in the first instance on the model of Hebrew words and phrases, and cannot be proved to be genuine Greek by parallels from Herodotus, ^lian, Xenophon, Diodorus Siculus. Philostratus, and others. (d) (a) That iv is used by Greek writers to denote the instru- ment (which within certain limits is true), Pfochen proves from such passages as ttAcwv iv rats vavn-L (Xen.), ^\6e . . iv vrfi fiiXoLvri (Hesiod) ! That good Greek authors use prfpa. for res is shown from Plat. Legg. 79 i C, tovtov tov re pr)p.a.ro<; Koi TOV Soy/xttTos ov< tivai ^rj/xiav pd'Coi, where prjixa may be rendered exp>ression. asser- tion. Xoprd^eiv Jill, feed (of men), is supported by Plat. Hep. 2. 372, where the word is used of swine. ^ That t,rjTfiv ipvx^v nvos is good Greek is shown from Eur. Ion 1112, Thuc. 6. 27, al., where t,ijTilv is used alone, in the sense of insidiari, or rather search for (in order to kill) ! That ncji€i\tip.a signifies dii in pure Greek, Schwarz professes to prove from Plat. Crati/l. 400 c, where however 6oo<;, is supported (Georgi, Find. p. 304) by passages in which Kaprro? is used by itself of human offspring. That Svo 8vo, two and two, is pure Greek, does not follow from TrXiov irXiov, more and more (Aristoph. Nub.) : instances must be produced in which the repeated cardinal stands for dva SJo, dva rpm, k.t.X. (§ 37. 3). That n^tVat «15 Ta WTtt is pure Greek, is not proved by oa-cra S' dnovaas eL^e9efj.r]v (Callim.) : the latter phrase is of an entirely different character. These examples might be multiplied indefinitely, Georgi's defence (Find. p. 25) of the use of 6 aSeA^os for alter from Arrian and Epictetus is especially ridiculous. (e) Schwarz (p. 1245) quotes Nicetas, to prove that a-rr}pi^(tv to yrp6<;u>irov and iv(i}TL^€TTov Aa/xySavc/c, (rap^ kox uT/ia, vlos etpvvrp, e^epp^ecr^ai e^ oo-^uo? Tivos, noif7v eXeos (x^piv) p-erd rti-o?, aTroKpivicrOai when no proper question precedes, e^opoXoyetcrBuL OeiZ yive Ihaaks to God. There are many others : see below § 3. After Salmasius, whose work Be Lingua Hellenistica had been entirely forgotten by later scholars, Sturz' first led the way to an accurate estimate of the N. T. language, especially in regard to its Greek biisis. Hence Keil (Lchrb. der Hermen. p. 11 sq.), Bertholdt {Einl. in d. Bib. 1 Th. p. 155 sq.), Eichhorn {Einl. ins N. T. IV, p. 96 sqq.^, and Schott {higoge in K T. p. 497 sqq.), have treated this subject more satisfactorily than many earlier writers, though by no means exhaustively or with the necessary scientific precision. In both respects H. Planck has surpassed his predecessors, in his De wra natura atque indole orationis Grcecve N. T. Commentat. (Gott. 1810) : 2 avoiding a fundamental error into which Sturz had fallen, he was the first who clearly, and in the main accurately, unfolded the character of the N. T. diction. * 1 F. W. Sturz, De Dialecto A/eranurina (Lips. 1784, Ger. 17SS-1793 ; 2nd edition, enlarged, Lips. 1809). Valuable remarks on this work may be found in the fleidelh. Jahrh. 1810, Heft xviii. p. 266 sqq. [Sturz 'a treati.se may also be foniid in Valpy's edition of Steph. Thesaurus, vol. L p. cliii. sqq.] ^ This treatise is included in Rosenmiillcr's €onimtntat tones Theoloijica;, I. i. p. 112 sqq. [It is trau.slated in the Liiiitkal Cabinet, vol. I. pp. 91-188.] 2 Compare also his Pr. Obsematt. LaXrj {^UX-q), 6Xri6av (Lob. p. 151),^ yrpvfjiva (Trpvfx.vrj, Lob. p. 331), tAews (uVaos). (■J) Doric : Trta^w (Trte'^w; K\i^avov(o in an intransi- tive sense, H. xii. 15, comp. Babr. 64.^ The^ grammarians note as Macedonian Trapep.J3o\i] camp (Lob. p. 377, comp. Sohwarz, Solmc Ap. 66), pvp.rj street ; as of Cyrensean origin,' (iowos hill (Lob. p. 355) j^ aS Syracusan, the imperative tlirov (Fritz. Mark, p. 515). {b) Words which existed in the older language now received new meanings ; as -n-opaKakdv and ipwrdv * intreat, -Kai^cvuv chastise,^ ibX^dpiQrriiv thank (Lob. p. 18), dj/aKXtvetv [dva>cXtv€cr^at], avaTTLivrsiv, avaiceicrOtu recHnc at table (Lob, p. 216), aTroKpi6rjvai answer (Lob. p. 108), dvrtAeyetv oppose,^ airoTdcra-ea-OaL valere juhere, reimntiare (Lob. p. 23"), P'^'^%^''», wliich in Greek authors is not applied to persons, (Against Pfochen see Solanus in Rhenferd, p. 297.) It is uncertain whether 'iixahvn for Si/Sjxa belongs to the later spoken language, or whether it was coined by the LXX : the former supposition seems to me more probable, since "b'.^aix.a. is nearer thau 'hiKohd to the Hebrew niK^y DTlti' [See Lightfoot's note on G. i. 18, quoted below, § 37.] " '• ■■ " = * [Without any dependent genitive, as in Mt. xxiv. 28 ; see Lidd. and Scott 8. v., and comp. Paley, iEsch. Suppl. 647 (662). j 24 BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. [PART I. frnges (Lob. p. 286), o-xoXt; school (Lob. p. 401), ^upco? Zar^'e (door- shaped) shield (Lob. p. 366), Zoip.a roof, \oL/3rj sacrifice (Babr. 23. 5),^ pvjxrj street (Lob. j), 404), irapprfa-La assurance, confidence, AoAtd speech {dialect), Xa/A7ras lamp,^ KaTaa-ToX-rj long robe,* ^ vvvi now (in Attic, at this very moment, see Fritz. Bo7n. I. 182), cTTom.vo<: not, as in classical Greek, a vessel for holding liquids merely (Babr. 108. 18). A special peculiarity is the use of neuter verbs in a transitive * or causative sense, as ixaO-qxtvuv (Mt. xxviii. 19), OpiafjifSevuv (2 C ii. 14?— see however Meyer in loc.)." The LXX so use even ^rjv, ySacrtXeveiv, and many other verbs (oomp. particularly Ps. xl. 3, cxviii. 50, cxxxvii. 7, al.), com p. § 32. 1 : see Lydius, de Be Mil. 6. 3, and especially Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 382. Me'^vo-os, used by earlier writers of women only, was now applied to both sexes (Lob. p. 151, Sohaefer, Ind. ad /Esop. p. 144). (c) Certain words and forms which in ancient Greek were rare, or were used only in poetry and in the higher style of composition, now came into ordinary use, and were indeed preferred, even in prose ; as avOevTeiv to have authority' over (Lob. p. 120), fieo-ovvKTiov (Th. M. p. 609, Lob. p. 53), dAaAr?ros(?), Oeoa-Tvyr'i^ (Pollux I 21), eaO-qaK; (Th. M. p. 370), oXiKTfjtp {a\iKTpv(Lv, Lob. p. 229), jBpix^iv irrigare (Lob. p. 291), ta-dio (for ia-OM, Irr. V. s. v.). To this head Eichhorn {Einl. ins N. T. IV. 127) refers Oia-Oai n eV ttj KapSia, on the ground that this phrase, which belongs to the stately language of the poets (especially the tragedians), is used by the N. T. writers in the plainest prose. But the Homeric iv ^ptcrt 6t..o//3>)v ?ra^a!y;^sr» ; but Laohiiiiinn reads Xoitov. The word does uot occur iu the Greek Bible. ] ^ [This ineauing is given in Stepli.. Thesauf. (ed. Hase) and in Rost and Palm's Lex., but Mt. xxv is the only cxamjjle quoted. In the LXX Xa^wa's is the regular equivalent of n^Q^ torch ; Quce, in Dan. v. 5 (Theodot.), it stands for Xntjn33 candelabrum. In Mt. xxv, Trench (Syn. s. v.), Olshausen, Jahn (Arch. B. § 40), and others suppose that a kind of torch is referred to : A. xx. 8 is siuiiliir. ] ^ [See Ellic. on 1 Tim. ii. 9.] * Transitive verbs can be handled in construction more conveniently than intransitive. In later Greek we find even TpasTcirTiDf nvd {Acta Apocr. p. 172), and in German "etwas widersprechen " is becoming more and more common. In mercantile language we l)ear "das Riibol ist yefragt." ■^ [Meyer renders this, " Who ever triumphs over us : " see Alf. in 100."^ ' [It was formerly used only "in familiari sermone de puellis inferioris sor- tis, cuui eiri/./ff^f quodam :" Lob. I. <:.] ■ See Schsefer, Flutarch V. p. 11, [and Ellicott and Lightfoot on G. i. S]. SECT. 11.] BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 25 aoKOfxov (yXwo'cro/co/x.etov, Lob, p. 98), ocTraAai (TrcLAai, Lob. p. 45), e)(6i t^ciTTiva [i^airtyrj';), olttjixu (aiTT^cris),' \j/€vcrfjia (i/'€B8l»'5, Sallier ad T/l. M. p. 927), aTidvTrjai<; {airavT-qfJia), ^y?/(rts {rjy^fjLOvla), Xvxyta [Xvxvtov, Lob. p. 314), vikos {vtK-q, Lob. p. G47), oIkoSo/jl^ {oiKo^oix.rjcTL'i^'^ Lob. p. 490), 6v€i8icr/xos (Lob. p. 512, oveihwi, ovei^iarfxa Her. 2. 133), oTrraala (oi^ts), 17 opKoyfioaui (to. opKwfiuaia), fxtoOairoooaLa (fiicrOoSocrLa), (rvyKvpla (^(TvyKvprjcn<;), a-Troaraata (aTrdo-Tacris, Lob. J). 528), vov6e(ria {yovdf.T-q(TLv(rav) be pvffed up (used figur. Babr. 114), drcvi^cii/ since Polybius for dTevt^eo-6'ai (Rost and Palm s. v.), iK)(vveLv (iK)(€eLv, Lob. p. 72G), rrr/jKoj (from l(Try]Ka stand, Buttm. II. 3G), d/ayo's as an adj. of three terminations (Lob. p. 105), TTct^os, vocraoi and voacnu. (veo(raroL veoaatd, Th. M. p. 626, Lob. ]). 20G), ireTa.op.aL (TriroiJiaL, Lob. p. 581), dTTcXTTi^en' (d7royivco(TK€iv), e^v7ri't'^€t»' (d(/)i;7n/i^eti/, Lob. p. 224), pavTi^fLV (paiueiv), heKarovv (8eKaT€veLv), dporpiav {apovv, Lob. p. 254), ^t/3Aapt8iov * (/?t^At8iov, fSi^XiBdpLou), xj/L^^LOV (xj/ii), rap.€Lov (ra/xietov, Lob, p. 493), Kara- TovTc^eiv (xttrtXTrovTOW, Lob. p. 361), irapaffipovia (Trapn^f>) .seeks to prove from tlie phrase ^ouXrir Tifiyai, arguing that a classical author would have said /3. •rportfivai. But the two expressions prob.ably have clilfercnt meanings : see Kapliel on A. xxvii. 12. More probable examples would be two verbs quoted below under (e), lu-yfixTtZu* and haTflZ^nM — for whicli the written language has ■rafKhiiyf^i.xTiZ^iiv and ixhuTpi^iiv, — and raprapouv for Kararccprapovv. Simi- larly the Prussian law style uses Fuhrung for Aufiuhrung. [See Ti.s<;h. Prol(<). N.' T. p. 59 (ed. 7), where .several additional examples are given. The following are from the N. T. : ipuTciv Mk. viii. 5, xpu-^Tny Mt. xi. 25, apvvirairiai L. ix. 2'i, aipoiXi'f L. xxiv. 33, for which the more familiar I'Tiparav, a'jroKpv-rrnv, tt.-7ra.}Mr,opTiov.^ Lastly, many substantives received a change in gender, wliich was sometimes accompanied by a change of termination : see § 8. liem. and § 9. Rem. 2. ^ (c) Entirely new words and expressions ^ were framed, espe- cially by composition, — mainly in order to meet new wants : as OiWoTpLoeiria-KOTros,* dv6p(DTrdpe(TKO<; (Lob. p. 621), oX.OKXrjpo'S, dyevca- Aoyr^roSj* alfjiaT€K)(vaia* hiKaioKpiala, a-LTOfxerpLov, vvxOijpLipov (Sturz p. 186), TrXr}poiovia (Lob. p. 229), aTTOKC^aA/^cii/ (Lob. p. 341), avTaTTOKpivea-OaL (^sop. 272, ed. De Fur.), i^nvOerciv (Lob, p. 182, fSchsef. Ind. ad yEsop. p. 135), eKKa/ccIv,** euSo/cta (Sturz p. 1G8, rritz. Rom. II. 370), OfiOid^etv* dyaOovpy^v, nyaOoicrvvTj, ^laaKoprrL- t,uv (Lob. p. 218), (Trprji'idv {rpvcfidv. Lob. p. 381), lyKpaTivofxai* (Lob. p. 442), oiKoSeo-TTOTT/^and oiKoSto-TroTctf/ (Lob. p. 373), XiOoftvXav, irpos^aytov {oxpov, Sturz p. 191), Xoyia, Kpdftftaro<; ((TKiuTTOvi, Lob. p. 63, Sturz p. 175), -ireiroidrjcrL^ (Lob, p. 295), cnrlXo'i (kyjXU, Lob. p. 28), fidfifjir} (TrjO-q, Lob. p. 133), pa(/)ts {fieXovij. Lob. p. 90), ay/3teAato9 (kotivos, JVlojris p. 68), dyvoTr}?* dyiorr]';,* iirevSvTrj^, (KTevux; and iKTevcia (Lob. p. 311), aTrapu^aros (Lob. p. 313). Under the last two heads, (d) and (e), certain classes of words deserve special mention. Later Greek was particularly rich in (1) Substantives in /ma, as KaToXvfxa, duraTroSofxa, KaTopOuifxa, pdiria-fia, yewrj/xa, eKxpay/xa (Lob. p. 209), •jSdTTTicrp.a,* ej/ToA/ia, [e- po(TvXr]fji.a :* see P^asor, Gram., pp. 571-574. (2) Substantives compounded with a-vv. as o-vfi/xaSrjT-q'i, a-vfnro- At'rr?? (Lob. p. 471).^ (3) Adjectives in tvo<;, as opOpivos (Sturz p. 186), TrpwiVos, KaO-qixtpL- v'<<:, ocTTpa/civo?, 8epii.dTivo. constant [Q\xv xiyu, and the use of ««L« in 1 C. iv. 3. See Schirlitz, Gruiidz. p. 26 ; Mulhich, Vnl;/. p. 17]. ■* Herein lies an argument, hitherto little noticed, against regarding the N. T. text as a translation from the Aiamaic, — a translation, too, for the most part unskilfully executed. RECT.III.] HEBREW-ARAMAIC COLOURING OF THE N. T. DICTION. 29 with Hebrew analogy, to correspond with Hebrew words simi- larly formed. Thus arose a Jewish Greek, which was in paet unintelligible to native Greeks/ and which they sometimes treated with contempt. AH the nations which after Alexander's death were subject to tlie Crinco-Macodonian rule, and gradually accustomed themselves to tJie Greek language of their conquprors even in the ordiaary intercoursH of life,— and especially the Syrians and Hebrews, — spoke Greek. less purely than native Greeks, imparting to it more or less the impress of their mother-tongue : see Salraas. De ling. Hell. p. 121, and com- pare Joseph. Ant. 20. 9.^ As the Greek-speaking Jews are usually denominated Hellenists, this oriental dialect of Greek, known by us only from the writings of Jews, is not unsuitably called Hdlenidic ; sec Buttm. I. G.^ By this name therefore, —first introduced by Sca- liger (Animadv. in Eus. p. 134), not by Drusius (ad Act. vi. 6) — the language of the LXX and N. T. (with the lAbri Pseudepigraphi and the apocryphal book?; of the N. T.) is specially designated. The Hebraisms of the N. T. (for it is to these, and not to the oriental tone which is manifest in the structure of sentences and the arrange- ' Though L. de Dieu's opinion (Prcef. ad Grammat. Orient.), " facilius Eiiro- Kaeis foret Platonis Ari.stntelisqiie elegantiam iniitari, quam Platoui Aristotelive [. T. nobis interpretari," is ilecidedly an exaggeration. The abovt-inijiitionod circumstances, however, serve to explain in general the liberty whieh learneil Greek transcribers or possessors of MSS. often allowed, themselves to inako cor- rections for the sake of briuf^ing the diction nearer to Grecian elegance: see Hug, [ntrod. I. § 2 J. II. [Tregelles, Home IV. p. 54.] * It is well known that Greek subsequently became Latinhpd to a certain extent, when the Romans began to write in that language. The Latin colour- ing, however, is not very marked before the time of the Byzantine writers, even in translations of Latin authors, — such as that of Eutropius by Pifianius, of Cicero's Cato Maj. and Somn. Sclj>. by Theodorus (edited by Gotz : Niirnb. 1801), —partly because Greek and Latin are much more nearly allied in stnioture than Hebrew and Greek and partly because these writers had studied Greek. [Spe<;imens of Latinising are given by Mullach, p. 51 sq.] 3 This designation is entirely appropriate, and shotild be resumed as a technical term, for ixXtttivTr,; in the N. T. (A. vi. 1) denotes a Greek-.speaking Jew. (Examples, of tx? fin'^jiii rather than of i>.\nvnrT7i}, may be found in Wetstein IJ. 400, Lob. p. 379 sq.) The opinion of Salmasius, that in the N. T. a Hellenist means a proselyte to Judaism out of the Greek nation, is a hasty inference from 'A. vi. 5, and ICichstadt (u,i Mori Acrom. Herni. 1. 227) should not have adopted it. The controversy between D. Heinsius {Exercit. de ling. HelleniM. : Leyden, 1643) and Salmasius (IfrflenisUca, and Funus ling. Hell.., and OssUffjium limj. Hell. : Leyden, 1643) on the name dialectus Hellenistica, related even more to the word dialertuH than to Hellenistica : for the former word Salmasius (de HelleniM. p. 2.50) wislied to substitute character or 8tylv.s uUoticm. Compare also Tittm. Syn. I. 259 sij. Yet dialect {ha-XiKj-t! totik^) is not inadmissible as a name for the Greek spoken by the Hellenistic Jews, especially if the \vide meaning of the verb liaxiytirieu {e.fj. Strabo 8. 514) be taken into consideration. Other writings on this title {dial. Hellen.) may be seen in VfaXoh, Bihlioth. Theol. IV. 278 sq.. Fabric. Biblioth. Or. IV. 893 sq. (ed. Harles). Thiersch and Rost have begun to call the language of the Greek Rible the "ecclesiastical dialect," but this name is too narrow for the Jewish Greek of which we are speaking : the word dialect, too, is not suitable. [See Mullach, p. 14 ; Roberts, Discussions on the Gospels, pp. 156-176.] 30 HEBREW-AIIAMAIC COLOURING OF THE N. T, DICTION. [PART l. ment of words, that attention }ias ixsaally been directed) have been frequently and copiously coTleoted, especially by Vorst, Leusden, and Olearius ; ^ but no one has executed the work with sufficient critical precision. 2 Almost all writers on the subject are more or less charge- able with the following faults : — (a) Too little attention is paid to the Aramaic element in N. T. diction.^ It is well known that the language ordinarily spoken by the Jews of Palestine in the timeof Jesus was not the ancient Hebrew, but the Syro-chaldaic ; and hence Jewish Greek would necessarily receive from this dialect many of the most common expressions of ordinary life.* Olearius, however, of the older writers, has a special section de Chaldceo-Syriasmis N. T. (p. 345 sqq.) ; corap, also Georgi, Hierocr. I. 187 sqq. More recently much relating to this subject has been collected by Boysen, Agrell, and Hartmann.^ Some earlier writers had occasionally directed attention to Aramaisms : sfo Michaelis, Introd. 1. 135 sqq, (Trans!), Fischer, ad Leiisd. p. 140, Bertholdt, Einleii. Part I. p. 158.— Under this head come also the (few) Rabbinisms ^— rmostly school-terms, such as may have been current amongst Jewish doctors as early as the time of Jesus. For illustrating these very much material may still be extracted from Schoettgen's IIorcB Hebraicce. (b) The diflFerence between the styles of different authors was almost entirely lost sight of. To judge from the collections of these writers, every part of the N. T. would seem to be equally pervaded * Leusden, Phllol. Hebr., from which the Dissertat. de dialectis N. T. sing, dc ejus Ilebr. was reprinteil in a separate form by .1. F. Fischer (Lip.s. 1754, 1792). Olearius, Z)e s^/yto iV. jT. p. 2:52 sqq. Coniparealso Hartunann, Linguist, Einl. in das Stud, des A. T. p. 382 sqq. Anm. '■^ A complete work on this subject, executed with critical accuracy and on rational principles, is therefore greatly needed. Meanwhile, our thajiks are due for the commencement recently made by?). E. F. Bockel, De Hcbraisttiis N. r. Spec. I. (Lips. 1840). •' Many of the peculiarities adduced by the Hebraists might be either Hebi'aisms or Aramaisms : e.g. iJ; as indef. iirticle, the frequent use of tiva.t ivith the partic. in the place of a finite verb. It is better, however, to regard these and similar expressions as Aramaisms, since they occur much more frequently ajid regularly in Aramaic, and in Hebrew are almost confined to those later writings whose style approaclics the Aramaic. The N. T. alone is directly referred to in what has Just been said, for there are but few Aramaisms in the LXX ; comp. Olear. p. 308, Gesenius, Isaiah I. 63. * To such ex[>ressions the Aramaic element in N. T. Greek is substantially confined. The religious expressions w?ere derived from the ancient Hebrew, the sacred language, either directly or (in the case of most of the Jews out of Palestine) through the medium of the LXX. To the former category belongs also the use of SataTo; * for pestilence^ Rev. vi. 8, xviii. 8 (j^niD V n^n ):corop. Ewald, Covun. in Apoc. p. 122 [p. 139]. ' '" '•' Boysen, Krit. Eilduterungm des Grundiextes d, N. T. atts der sf/r. Ueber- seUung (Qucdlinb. 1761) : Agrell, Oratio de diet. N. T. (Wexion. 1798), and Odcla S^r. pp. 53-58 (Lund. 1816) ; Hartmanh, I.e. p. 382 sqq. * Sue bleaiius, I.e. p. 360 sqq. ; Georgi, I.e. p. 221 sqq. " To fn»aTixet, in popular living Greek, is the ordinary term for the plague. E. M. SECT. III.] HEBKEW-AKAMAIC COLOURING OF THE N. T. DICTION. 31 by Hebraisms. Such uniformity is far from existing in fact ; and in tbis inquiry Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, James, and the author of the Ep, to the Hebrews, cannot possibly be considered together.^ Another question left unnoticed is the relation between the diction of the N. T. and that of the LXX. With all their similarity they have also many points of difference ; and, in general, the language of the N. T. is less Hebraistic than that of the LXX, which was a direct, and, in part, a literal translation from the Hebrew. (c) They included in their lists of Hebraisms much that was not foreign to Greek prose, or is the common property of many lan- guages ; and, in general, had nd clear definition of " Hebraism " to start from. 2 In fact, this word was used in three senses, to denote — (1) Words, phrases, and constructions, which are peculiar to Hebrew or Aramaic, nothing corresponding to them being found in Greek prose ; as a-TrXayxyt^eadaL, 6Trov Aa/i- pdvfLV, otKoSofiiiv (in a figurative sense), TrXarvveiv rr/v KapSiav, Trop€V€(r6aL ottiVw, ov . . . ttSs (for ovSet's), iiofj-oXoyetcrOaL tivl and iy TlVl, &C. (2) Words, phrases, and constructions, which are occasionally met with in Greek writers, but which were in the first instance sug- gested to the N. T. writers by their native language : as a-Trepfia for proles (Schwarz, Comm. p. 1235), Hebr. y")T ; dvdyKr] distress (comp. Diod. Sic. 4. 43, Schwarz I.e. p. 81), Hobr. pivo, ni^^^Tp, nif^ mV; ipdyrdv request, as ^Xti' denotes both request and interrogate, comp. the Latin rogare (Babr. 97. 3, Apollon. Synt. p. 289) ; ctV dTrdvTrja-Lv (Diod. Sic. 8. 59, Polyb. 5. 26. 8), comp. nsnpfj ; vepara t^s y^s (Thuc. L 69, Xen. A(/cs. 9, 4, Dio Chr. 62. 587), comp. yyi 'vXd(r(Teiu v6[j.ov, alp.a ccedes, dv-qp with appella- tives (dvip ^ovevs), Trats slave, p.€yaXvveLv pi'aise, Slwkuv strive after (a virtue).^ (4) Lastly, it must be owned that Hebraisms (Aramaisms) were "• The style even of the same writer is not always uniform. Tims Luke in his Gospel, where he was dependent on the Go.spel paradosis, has more Hebraisms than in the Acts ; and the falling off in the diction after the preface to his Gospel was long ago pointed out. The hymns and discourses also are more Hebraistic than the narrative portions : comp. e.tj. L. i. 13-20, 42-55, 68-79. The relation in which Luke stands to Matthew and Mark, as regards language and style, has not vet been clearly shown. 2 See Tittmann, Syn. I. p. 269 sqq. ; DeWette, A. L. Z. 1816, No. 39, p. 306. ' Many of the grammatical pTi(snomena adduced in Haab's grammar are of this kind. 32 IIEBREW-AKAMAIG COLOURING OF THE N. T. DICTION. [PART I. introduced into very many passages by the commentators themselves. Thus E. V. 26, tV pmian tva, nt^'S "i^'H'^V, see Koppe ; Mt. xxv. 23, Xapa eonrnvluin, after the Aram, nnn (see Fisch. ad Leusd. Dial. p. 52), or the Hebr. nnjpt:^ Esth. ix. 17, al. (Eichhorn, Einl. ins N. T. I. 528) ; Mt. vi. 1, Waioa-vvr} abns, after the Chald. nj?"!^ ; Mt. xxi. 13, Xrja-Tai traders (Fisch. I.e. p. 48). Connected with this was considerable misuse of the LXX ; e.g. L. xi. 22, €T;y6rv airo TrposioTTOv tivos, iypatiXr)ixa peccatum, from the Aram. 2in ; vv{ji(^rf (bride, also) daughter-in-law, Mt. x. 35, as n'jQ has both these meanings (Gen. xxxviii. 11, LXX); els for primus in certain cases, like "inx ; i^ofxoXoyiLo-daCTiyL to praise (giving thanks), like ^ nnin (Ps. cv. 47, cxxi. 4, al., LXX); ivXoyeZv bless, i.e. make happy, like ?j"i3 ; ktio-is that which is created, creature, compare the Chaldee nna ; 8o^a in the sense of hightness, splendour, like *7i33 ; 8wa/xeis miracles, ni"i^33. The transference of a figurative sense is most frequent ; as -n-oT^piov sors,portio, Mt. xx. 22 (Dia); a-KovZaXov 3 34 HEBTIEW-AEAMAIC COLOURING OF THE N. T. DICTION. [PART I. stumbling block, in a moral sense (i'iK'sp) ; yXwao-a for nation (j\'^7) ; XetAos for language (nob*); ivdi-mov tov Oeov (nin^ ''JD^) according to God's judgment ; KapBia evOeia (pif'') ; TrcpL-rraTelv walk, of a course of life ; 68os (^"I'n), comp. Schsefer, Trod ac? j^sop. p. 148 ; dva^ejaa, not merely what is consecrated to God, but (like the Hebrew D^n) what is devoted to destruction, Eom. ix. 3, Dt. vii. 26. Jos. vi. 17, al. ; \v€iv, Mt. xvi. 19, declare lawful, from the Rabbinical -|"'rin, (b) Certain very common vernacular phrases are literally translated into Greek : as Trpo'swTroi' XafiftdvcLv from D"'J3 t^b'J ; CoTiiv ^Iroxw ^^^^^ C'SJ C'l^a- TTOieli' eXcos (xapti') /tAcra Tivos from DJ? SdH Plb^J?; dvotyetVTOvs 64>6a\fJLOvcap7ros KoiXtas from Jtsa ""IS; eiipx£(TOaL Ik Tr]<; 6(rvos rivds from 'd ''V^n'O NV^ ; e/c KOtAtas p.-qTp6<; from ias p2D-^ 6(^ctA77/Aa ct^teVat from xniH p^C' (Talm.) ; also a-Trjpi^civ TTposw-n-ov avTOV from V3S D'^bn • Tracra (rap^ from ~IK^II~73. (c) Reflexion and contrivance are more apparent in the formation of Greek derivatives, that vernacular words which belong to the same root may be similarly expressed in Greek : as oXoKavTw/xa (from oXoKavTOVv, Lob. p. 524) for npy ; o-TrAayxviCeo"^^' from o-TrAdyxva, as Dm is connected with D^Oni • aKavSaXi^etv, crKavSaXt^ecrdat, like b^'^i, ^'•K'an ; lyKaiv[t,f.iV from iyKaivta, as "^^n is connected with n3j3n ; avaOefjMTileiv like D"'nnn ; opOptt^iv like D-SK'n ; and perhaps ivtDTL^e- tr6aL like pTKH, comp. Fisch. ad Leus. Dia/. p. 27. This is carried still farther in TrposcoTroAiyTTTetv, for which the Hebrew itself has no single corresponding word. All this easily accounts for the Hebrew- Aramaic colouring which is so distinctly apparent in the style of the N. T. writers, who were not (like Philo and Josephus^) acquainted with Greek literature, and who did not strive after a correct Greek style. The whole cast of their composition, and in particular the want of connexion (especially in narrative), could not but offend a cnltivated Greek ear; and many expressions — such as dcfuivai oxfatXrjfjiaTa,^ irpo-io-xov Xafifidvetv, Aoyt- ^ A similar Graecism in Latin is " a teneris unguiculis" (Cic. Fam. 1. 6. 3), wliich the Romans certainly understood, as KapTos x^'^'^'^h ^o^ instance, would undoubtedly be understood by the Greeks, though it might seem a somewhat strange expression ; comp. xaprros (ppitajr, Pind. Nem. 10. 22. Still less diffi- culty would be occasioned by xapvot xoixieti, since fruit was used absolutely for offspring by the Greeks (Aristot. Polit. 7. 16, Eurip. Bacch. 1305) and others, where the meaning was made clear by the context : comp. Ruhnk. ad Horn, in Cerer. 23. [In Eurip. Bacch. 1305 (1307) the word in 'ipvn : this word and ^aXej are not unfrequently used in this sense. On Kxp-rot, see Her- mann and Paley on Eurip. Ion 475 {Kap-jriiTp'o7 sq., 138 sq. In the region of history, Troo-xav sriffer and TrapaSiBocrOaL be delivered up (used absolutely) became established as technical expressions for the closing scenes of the life of Jesus on earth.* Grammatical Hebraisms will be discussed in the next section. ^ How easily tlo even we, who never hear Latin spoken by native Romans, attain the faculty of at once conceiving in Latin " dixit verum esse," or "quain virtutem denionstravit aliis pracstare," and the like, without first mentally con- struing dlcit quod verum sit, or de qua virtute devi., quod en etc. Thinking in conformity with the genius of the mother-tongue shows itself particularly in phrases and figures which have become habitual, and which are unconsciously introduced into the foreign language. It was so with the Apostles, who regularly use, along with many Hebraistic expressions, numerous Greek idioms which are entirely foreign to the genius of Hebrew. 2 See Olearius, De stylo N. T. p. 380 sqq. (ed. Schwarz}, Eckard, Technka Sacra (Quedlinb. 1716). 3 To attempt to explain such expressions of the apostolical terminology by quotations from Greek authors (comp. Krebs, Observ. PrcBf. p. 4) is highly absurd. But, on the other hand, it is necessary to distinguish between the language of the Apostles, which fitill moved rather in th(! spjiere of 0. T. expres- sions, and the terminology of the Greek Church, which continually became more and more special in its meaning. * [On the Christian element see Westcott in Smith's Diet, of Bible, ii. p. 533 ; Fa.irbairn, Mermen. Manual, pp. 39 -AT) ; Schirlitz, Orxmdzii.ge, pp. 36-42; Webster, Syntax, p. 6 sq. ; also Crcnier, JSiblisdi-tfieolog. WOrterbiich der SECT. IV.] GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. 37 Section IV. THE GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. In examining the grammatical characteristics of the N. T. diction, the two elements of IST. T. Greek must be carefully dis- tinguished. In grammar, as in vocabulary, the peculiarities of tlie later common Greek are the basis ; these however consist rather in certain forms of inflexion than in syntactical construcr tions. Mingled with these we find, but in very small proportion, Hebraistic expressions and constructions in connexion with all the parts of speech ; tlie main peculiarity being a predilection for prepositions, where the Greeks would have used cases alone. On the whole, K T. Greek obeys the ordinary laws of Greek grammar. Many peculiarly Greek idioms are familiarly used by the K T. writers (e.g. the attraction of the relative and of prepositions), and several distinctions whicli are entirely alien to Hebrew — as that l)et\v'een the negatives ov and firj, etc. — are strictly observed, though by mere instinct. 'The grammatical structure of a language is much less affected by time than the use and meaning of its words. This may be verified in the case of almost every language whose development we can trace historically ; compare, for instance, the German of Luther's translation with that spoken at the present day.^ Greek is no excep- tion to this rule : the later common language is distinguished by few grammatical peculiarities, and these belong almost entirely to the accidence. We find in it especially a number of inflexions of nouns and verbs, which either did not exist at all in the earlier language, beingformed later by shorteningor lengthening the original inflexions, or which formerly belonged to particular dialects. The following are examples of the latter class : — (a) Attic inflexions : -t^eWt, ri/3ov\i]6r]v, i]aeXX.€, /Sov'Aci- (fiovXy), OlJ/€l. (b) Doric: -^ Ai/xos (for 6 X.), -^to) (Icttw), dc^eWrat (dt^eivrai). (c) -^olic : the 1 aor. opt. in eta, — which however was early admitted into Attic. (tZ) Ionic : yi^pei, (nr^ipr] tui, yS/VeTTCti' airo slbi cavere a, irpor,ua.Ta rtjs Z,uris ravrv; for tccutx ra pr/j.. r. tu^s. [See § 27. 3, § 29." Rem., g 36. 2 and 3, § 34. 3. Rem. 1, § 34. 3. b.] * The more minute niceties of written Attic, it is true, are not found in the N. T. , partly because they were unknown in the popular spoken langunge, whii-h the N. T. writers always heard, partly because there was no place for tliL-se niceties in the siuiple style in which the N. T, is written. SECT. IV.] PxEAMMATIOAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. 41 shall not be inclined to join in the outcry respecting the innumerable grammatical Hebraisms of the N. T. We may naturally expect to find the diction of the N. T. much less Hebraistic grammatically than that of the LXX and the Palestinian Apocrypha. That this really is the case will clearly appear, if we mark in the LXX the constructions which have just been mentioned as Hebraistic, remembering at the same time that many HebreAV idioms retained in the LXX do not occur at all in the N. T., and others — as the expression of a wish by a question — only in isolated instances, in impassioned language, .Such a periphrasis for the future as ca-o/xtti Stoovai, Tob. v. 14, is nowhere found in the N. T., nor is a siibstantive ever doubled to indicate each, every, as in Num. ix. 10, 2 K. xvii. 29, 1 Chr. ix. 27. ^ Of the peculiarities of particular N. T. writers very few are purely grammatical; the Apocalypse alone requires special (though not exceptional) notice in a N. T. Granmiar. It is evident that in the whole investigation of the grammatical character of the N. T. language differences of reading must be care- fully considered. Conversely, a thorough knowledge of the various lexical peculiarities of individual writers is an indispensable requisite for successful textual criticism. ■•^■ ^ Yet in the better translated portions of the 0. T. and in the Palestinian Apocrj'pha we sometimes find Greek constructions where a N. T. writer would use a Hebraism : tlius in 3 (1) Esiir. vi. 10, Tob. iii. 8, the genitive is used with strict Grecian propriety. See farther Thiersch, Dc Pent. Alex. p. 95 .sq. ^ [On the general character of N. T. Greek, see Ellicott, Aids to Faith, p. 457 sqq. ^ Westcott in Smith's Did. of Bible, [I. p. 531 sqq., and Introd. to Gospels, pp. 38-40 ; J. Donaldson in Kitto's Vi/clopcedia, II. p. 170 sq. (ed. 3); Scrivener, Criticism of N. T. c. viii. ; Green, Gram. c. i. ; Davidson, Bibl. Crit. p. 447 sq

/nt. c. 1 ; Tregelles in Home's Introd. IV. pp. 8-23 : Fairbairn, 7/p. 12-45; Bieek, Introd. to N. T. I. pp. 58-83 (Trans!.). To the Gcnnan references may be added, A. Buttmann, Gr. p. xi, 1 sq. ; Schirlitz, Grundz. Part I. The differences of opinion chiefly relate to the rela- tive importance of the various elements which enter into the composition of N. T. Greek. Amongst the questions raised are the following : how much stress should be laid on the direct influence of the LXX (comp. Westcott in Diet, of B., I. c), — whether some of the peculiarities commonly called Hebra- istic should not rather be considered characteristics of the ordinary spoken language (see especially J. Donaldson I. c. ), — M'hether we may admit that the N. T. «y»tax betrays' the influence of the Latin (A. Buttm. I. c.). ilany of the coincidences between Moderu Greek and the Greek of the N. T. will be referred to in the following pages.] PART 11. ACCIDENCE. Section V. OKTHOGRA.PHY AND OKTHOGRAPHICAL PRINCIPLES. 1. The best MSS. of the N. T., like those of Greek authors generally,^ exhibit extraordinary variations of orthography, especially in particular words and forms ; and there are not always clear grounds for deciding which mode of spelling is correct. Editors of the text have to adopt some definite rule, and consistently adhere to it. On several points, however, though the work of collation has of late been executed with greater diplomatic exactness, a still more careful investigation of the MS. evidence is yet to be desired. To proceed to details : — (a) The use of the apostrophe to prevent hiatus is, in general, nmch less frequent in the MSS. of the N. T. and of the LXX than in the texts of native Greek authors (especially the orators'^). " Ay^a, apa, apa, ye, ifxe, ere, iva, mre, are never elided ; Be (before av) ^ and ovhe very seldom : Mt. xxiii. 16, 18, xxiv. 21,Eom. ix. 7,lC.xiv. 21, H. viii. 4, L. x. 10, 2 C.iii. 16, xi. 21, Ph. ii. 18, 1 Jo. ii. 5, iii. 17. Only the prepositions airo, Btd, eVt, irapd, /xerd, and the conjunction dWd, regularly suffer elision; the prepositions especially before pronouns and in phrases of frequent occurrence, such as qir dpyfi'i, — dvrl only in dv6' wv. Even here however MSS. vary, sometimes even the best, especially in regard to dWd. Thus we find in A and • See Poppo, Thxic. I. p. 214, Matth. 42. * Comp. Beiiseler, De hiatu in Script. Or. (Pt. I. : Friberg, 1841) ; De hiatii in Demosth. (ib. 1847). 3 [At is always elided before av in the N. T., and not, I believe, before any other word ; for in Ph. ii. 18 we should probably read to l\ aura.] SECT, v.] ORTHOGEAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHICAL PRINCIPLES. 43 several other MSS., aX\a aX7}$eia ^"^ particular, see Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 479. According to the grammarians f^^XP'' ^^^^ ^XP'' ^^^ ^^^^ 1 Tisch. Prcef. ad N^. T. p. 23 (eJ. 2) : [p. 53, ed. 7.] ^ [Of recent editors Tregelles and Alford adhere to the principle of writing cItk; before consonants : Tregelles invariably, Alford except in Mt. vii. 17. Lachmann followed the evidence presented in each passage, but was often led astray bv imperfect collations : he admitted outu in A. xxiii. 11, Ph. iii. 17, H. xii. 21, Kev. xvi. 18, Rom. i. 15, vi. 19, 1 C. vii. 40. Tischendorf in ed. 7 admitted outu once only (Rev. xvi. 18), but in ed. 8 agrees with Lachmann in the first four of the passages quoted above. Westcott and Hort omit the ; ten times ; viz. in Mt. iii. 15, vii. 17, Mk. ii. 7, A. xiii. 47, xxiii. H, Rom. i. 15, vi. 19, Ph. iii. 17, II. xii. 21, Rev. xvi. 18. In A. xxiii. 11 and in Ph. iv. 1 this word is followed by j*a»Ta indeed has the support of all the uncial MSS.] 6 [Tisch, in ed. 7 received 'tKxhp. in Mt. viii. 3, Mk. i. 42, L. iv. 27, A. x. 15 ; in the first two passages he retains this reading in ed. 8. See his notes on L. iv. 27, A. X. 15. K never has this form ; B in these two places only. — Tisch. receives TitrrtpaK. (on very strong authority) and Tirirtpa. throughout, but never riirfipts or Ti(r(ripa.(. In ed. 7 he admitted the latter form in Rev. iv. 4, vii. 1.] \ [In the N. T. *pa/3«TT»y is now generally received. J SECT, v.] ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHICAL PRINCIPLES. 47 derived from the adverb avco, the latter from avd (Fritz. Mark, p. 611) j see also Lob. p. 297.^ 6. UavoiKi, A. xvi. 34 (comp. Plat. Erycc. 392 c, Msch. Dial. 2, 1, Joseph. Ant. 4. 4. 4, 3 Mace. iii. 27), is the only word in the N. T, connected with the well-known dispute respecting the adverbial ending i or ei : see Herm. Soph. Aj. p. 183, Sturz, Opiisc. p. 229' sqq. Perhaps Blomfield (Glossar. in -^sch. From. p. 131 eq.) is right in adopting i for such adverbs, when derived jfrom nouns in OS, — hence vavoiKL (properly iravoiKoi, which is the reading of some MSS. in this passage).^ Yet the MSS. are almost always in favour of €1 ; see Poppo, Thuc. II. i. 1540, Lob. p.. 515. 7. Should we write AautS or AayffiSI See Gersdorf, Sprachch. p. 44, who leaves the question Undecided, but is in favour of Aa^i8. The abbreviation AaS is the most common form in the MSS. : where however the word is written in full, the eldest and best MSS. have AartS (AaveiS), and this orthography — which was long ago preferred by Montfaucon {Palceogr. Gr. 5. 1) — -has been received by Knapp, Schulz, Fritzsche, and Tischendorf. Lachm. always writes Aav«'8. Compare further Bleek on H. iv. 7.^ 8. The name Moses is written Miovarjs in the best MSS. of the N. T., as in the LXX. and Josephus ; and this form has been adopted •by Knapp, Schulz, Lachm.,'* and Tischendorf. Still it may be a question whether this properly Coptic form, which is naturally found in the LXX, should not in the N. T. give place to Mwcr^s (Scholz), which comes nearer to the Hebrew and was at all events the more usual form, which also passed over to the Greeks (Strabo 16. 760 sq.) and Romans. On the diaeresis in Monxrrj'i, which Lachm. omitfe, see Fritz. Rom. II. 313. 9. As to KoAooro-at and KoXaao-at see the commentators on Col. i. 1. The first of these forms is found not only on the coins of this town (Eckhel, Dodr. numor. veif. I. iii. 147), but also in the best MSS. of classical authors (comp. Xen. Anah. 1. 2. 6) ; hence Valckenaer (on Her. 7. 30) declared himself in favour of it. In the N. T., however, KoAaoro-at is better attested, and is received by Lachm. and Tisch. : it probably represents the popular pronunciation.^ ^ [The evidence which is now before us is strongly in favour of xviyaiot, which is received by most recent editors. Comp. Mullach, Vulg. p. 21.] * [Compare Kiihner, I. 726 (Jelf 342. 2). In A', xvi. Lachm. and Treg. write .*( ; Tisch., Westc. and Hort, -xs/.] 3 [For a full statement of the MS. evidence see Tisch. on Mt. i. 1 (ed. 8). Aat/siS is adopted by Tisch., Tregelles,- ilford, Westcott and Hort; see Alford, Vol. I. Proleg. p. 95.] * [Except in Rom. ix. 15. Most of the best MSS. have i^iuffn; occasionally, but the fonn with v (or v) seems now generally received. Fritz, writes ca'u be- cause the Coptic original is a trisyllable, and tuItp, iavrov, &c. , are not really parallel : Tisch, {Proleg. p. 62, ed. 7) quotes MS. authority on the same side. See also Lipsius, p. 1 40. ] * [We now know that in Col. i. 2 B has KoXe(r(recT! a prima manu, so that S and B agree in this form here. In the title and subscription there is consider- able authority for KaXainraiTs. See Tischendorf s note, and especially Liglitloot on Colossians, pp. 16-18.] 48 ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHICAL PRINCIPLES. [PART IL 10. For evi'cos, A. ix. 7, it is better to write iveos (comp. avew?), according to the best MSS, 11. The nn-Attic form ovOet?, ovOiv, is found in the N. T. in a few good MSS. only, L. xxiii. 14, 1 C. xiii. 2, 3, 2 C. xi. 8, A. xv. 9, xix. 27 ; firjOiuA. xxiii. 14, xxvii. 33 : see Lob. p. 181 [and Path. El. IL 344]. lb is also found in the LXX (Bornem. Act. p. 115), and on Greek papyrus rolls. 12. 'WvOr], 1 C. V. 7 {Elz.), for which all the better MSS. have Irvd-q (Buttm. L 78, Jelf 31), is unusual, but rests on an unexcep- tionable retention of the radical ^' where there is no reduplication, like XiOoiOrivaL, KaOopOTjvai [1 KaOapOrjvaL] ; though both Oveiv and delvai, the only verbal stems that begin Avith 6 and form a 1 aor., change the radical $ into r in this tense (Lob. Parol, p. 45). The partic. 0v9€Li8e A. iv. 29, and d.rf)tSu> Ph. ii. 23, is received by Lachm. on MS. authority. Other examples of a similar kind are icft' cXttlSl 1 C. ix. 10, dinvca 1 Th. V. 19 (Tisch. ed. 7, comp. Shilleto, Dem. Fals. Leg. p. 130), (ra*«^a^£a and -fjLupia, L. xix. 4 (see Tisch. in loc), vnipdxioi (not -Xids), im^ds Mk. xi. 8. On »«a(raj L. ii. 24, veriricv Mt. xxiii. 37, h voiraid L. xiii. 34, see Sturz p. 183, Lidd. and Scott s.vv. For a-yrvpU the collateral form aifvpU is a constant v. I. in one or more of the most ancient MSS. ; it is received by Lachm. in Mt. xvi. 10, Mk. viiL 8, and always by Westcott and '' ort. There is good authority for ipavida Jo. V. 39, al., -rp'o'ifj.o; Ja. v. 7, ft.a.iTdafji,a.t Rev. xvi. 10, 'S.to'ix.'o; a. Xvii. 18, Tarpo- and (/.vrpoXuas 1 Tim. i. 9, ffipix.iv Rev. x-^nii. 12 ; Lachmann reads pdxKOf in Mk. ii. 21. On Xiyiu^, Xtyiuv, see Tisch. Proleg. p. 50 (ed. 7) and note on Mt. xxvi. 53 (ed. 8), AU'ord I.e. p. 96; ou uXni;, aXuTt, Tisch. Proleg. I.e., note on Mk. i. 16 (ed. 8), Alford I.e. p. 94 : Tisch. reads Xiyivv and kXnTi in ed. 8. For an example of the extreme fluctuation of the MSS. in certain proper names see the note on "Nazareth" in Alford I.e. p. 97, Scrivener, Critic. p. 488. It should be added tliat editors frequently differ in regard to the use of the diaeresis, especially in proper names : thus we find Tdio; and Ya.ios, Kaidtpas and Kaidfcis, Otc] 50 ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHICAL PRINCIPLES. [PART IL Many inconveniences, however, might arise from adopting either mode exclusively; and as the oldest and best N". T. MSS. are written continuously, and therefore give us no help here, the most prudent plan would be regularly to unite the words in the N". T. text in the following cases : — (a) Where the language supplies an obvious analogy ; thus ovKerc as in}KerL, roir/dp as Toivvv, o'^Ti'i compare orov. (b) Where one of the words is not in use uncombined (in prose) ; hence etTrep, KaiTrep. (c) Where an enclitic follows a word of one or two syllables, in combination with which it usually expresses a single notion, as €tT€, etiye, apa/ye; but not Siajye rrjv avaiZeuLv, L. xi. 8 (Lachm. hid ye). (d) Where the two modes of writing are used to express two different meanings : thus o^n^ovv quicumque, but o? rL}] (E. v. 12), Dor. Kpv(^a — comp. Xen. Conv. 5. 8, — and elKrj (Buttm. II. 342) are now the received forms in the N, T. ; comp. Poppo, Thuc. II. i. 150. Lachmann still writes \ddpa, thoiigh XciOpa is probably more correct.^ ' [The last of these lias surely no place here.] * Comp. Vig. p. 220 ; see also Gregor. Choerobosc. Dictata (ed. Gaisford), vol. ii. p. 721. See on the other side Herm. Vig. p. 748. ^ Reiz, Lucian iv. p. 393 sq. (ed. Bip. ) ; Elnisley, Eurip. Med. v. 69, and, PriKf. ad Soph. CEdip. Ji. p. 9 sq. ; EUendt, Arrian Al. i. p. 14 sq. * [A. Buttm. remarks (p. 44) that such forms as xaTaa-xjivsrc, Mt. xiii. 32, may lead us to prefer kyoL-Trat, etc., in the N. T. See also Lipsius p. 6.] * Schneider, Plat. (jiv. I. p. 61 Prce.f. ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 3 sq. [Lachmann and Westcott and Hort insert / in jipvipii, ilxri, -ra.tTo.x,^, as well as in 5ra»T», X(k6p% (comp. Don. pp. 25, 149, Cobet, N. T. Vatic, p. xii) ; Tregelles rejects the < in xpv^n, tlxH, Xa^fa ; Tisch. and Alford in all these words. No SECT, v.] ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHICAL PRINCIPLES. 53 (/) In Mt. xxvii. 4, 24, Lachm. and subsequent editors have written ddu>ov {aOooiov, Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 1267)/ but contrary to all grammatical traditions : Lob. Path. I. 440," [and.II. 377]. After the example of Bekker and others, Lachmann in his larger edition dropped the breathings over pp, as useless ; but he has no followers.^ That the Romans heard an aspiration with p in the middle (as at the beginning) of words, is shown by the orthography of Fyrrhiis, Tyrrkenus, etc. (Buttm. I. 28). Still less can the initial p be written without the aspirate, as is done by many : see Kost, ar. p. 13. (Don. p. 16.) The Alexandrians had, as is generally admitted (Sturz p. 116 sqq.), a special orthography of their own. They not only interchanged letters — as at and «, e and rj, i and et (comp. etSea Mt. xxviii. 3),* y and K, — but even added superfluous letters, to strengthen the forms of words, as iK^^Ois, (iacrtXiav, vvktov, <^6a.vvuv, iK)(yvv6/Jievov, Icro-Tretpe, ava/^aivvov, ■^X.Xaro (A. xiv. 10, vii. 26, Comp. Poppo, jfVtWC. I. 210) ; and rejected others that were really necessary (when a con- sonant was doubled), as 8v(re/3i^<;, craySao-t, uvTctAay/xtt, . 318) inclines to the same side : see also Klihner, I. 728 (ed. 2).] ' Corap. also Weber, Dew,, p. 231, [who defends aluoi ; Paley, Eurip. Med. 1300 ; Lipsius p. 8 sq. Treg. wiites aiZo;.'\ ^ There will be no disposition to introduce the forms uov (Wessel on Her. 2. 68) and ^fav (recently received by Jacobs in ^1. Anim. on the authority of a good MS.)— still less a-^'^s/v — into the N. T. text. Comp. Lob. Path. I. p. 442, [and II. p. 378, No editor (apparently) receives r4'C,iiv ; but Lachm. and Cobet write ^oTan, u'ov, and Tisch. h of Tischen- dorPs atcanrf edition (1849). — Happily we now possess a trustworthy edition of Cod. B. Many details respecting its pecnliarities of orthography (so far as these were known from Mai's edition) will be found in the preface to Kuenen and Cobet's N. T. Vaticanum. ] * In several words, as uXi.iytn, o-uyxaXu*, ffutr-ravpov», lyxaXiTy, it is noted only in isolated instances. [lufcTitrrtit occurs in the N, T, once only, in the form o2vl^ (see Buttm. I. 167) : this Lachmann has done/ {d) For TTow, which is found in most of the older editions of the N. T., Knapp introduced ttoi;?, because the penult, of the genitive ttoSo? is short: 8ee Lob. Phryn. p. 765, Paral. p. 93. {e) Griesbach and others wrongly write XatXa^lr : it must be \aTkay\r, since the a is short. Similarly, OXl^a is adopted by Schulz (though not invariably) and by Lachmann, because the vowel in the first syllable is long by nature and not by position, just as in X^i/rt? .- so also KXip,a, Kplfxa, -^pLa/xa, fiiy/j,a, ■^v')(^oo? (following M.S. authority), see his note on 1 Tim. ii. 7 (ed. 7) ; also ,p«,»/|, JPs. xci. 13. See Lidd. aud Scott, s. vv.j SECT. VI.] ACCENTUATION. 57 ar. Crit. Ja. i. 26.^ (/) As the termination ai is considered short in reference to accentuation (Buttm. I. 54, Jelf 46), we must write 6vfMtdaac L. i. 9, and KrjpO^at L. iv. 19, A. x. 42, for Ovfiidcrai and Kr/pv^ai, as the words are still written by Knapp : comp. Poppo, Thiic. II. i. 151, Bornem. Schol. p. 4. 'Ea-rdvai, A. xii. 14 (Griesb., Knapp), is wrong, as the a is short. In IMk. v, 4 avvTerpl^Oai, is already placed in the text. {g) In' older editions (and in Knapp's) ipiOeia is written eplOeia : as the word is derived from epiOevecv, it is necessarily paroxytone (Buttm. I. 141, II. 401, Jelf 55). But for the same reason we must write dpeaKeia : as the word is derived from dpecr/ceveiv, not from dpecrKeiv, dpeaKeia (Lachmann, and with him Tischendorf [in earlier editions]) is incorrect. (h) KTiarf), 1 P. iv. 19 (Knapp, Griesb.), has already been changed by Lachmann into KTiarri, in accordance with the very VLob. Phryv. p. 107 : comp. Diudorf, Pro'f. ad Aristoph. Acliarn. p. 15. " [Lipsius {Gr. Unt. pp. Sl-46) examines most of these words and many- others of a similar kind which occur in the LXX, dividing thein into two classes, as the «, /, or v, is or is not long by position. He shows that in the N. T. Sxl^n, l^'iyfjca, ;^;^/a-,aa, Krtpv^ai, are to be preferred. *' Lobeck (Paral. p. 400 sqq. ) proves that it is not always safe to infer the quantity of derivatives from that of the root, and collects passages from the old grammarians which teach that the doubtful vowels were shortened before double consonants, especially before (rra.(a.Ku-^a.i, uvaKv-^ai, are generally received in the N. T. Treg. writes vxdxa. L. xi. 22, and T^/,3oy L. ix. 39 ; some editors still write xpcc^ov G. iv. 6.] ' [Tischendorf writes ^puirxe; (see his note, ed. 7) ; also Westcott and Hort. J 68 ACCENTUATION. [PART IL clear analogy presented by yv(oaTT)yo<;, Mt. xi. 19, L. vii. 34, is paroxytone in the K T., — and not in the >I. T. only, see Lob. Phryn. p. 434. Analogy would lead us to expect ar/6(;: see Lob. Paral. p. 135, where Fritzsche's opinion^ {Mark p. 790) is rejected. {k) That the 1 aor. imper. of direiv (A. xxviiL 26) should be written elirov, not eiirov, is maintained by Lobeck {Phryn. p. 348) and Buttmann {Exc. 1. ad. Plat. Menon)\ but the counter- arguments of Wex {Jahrb. fiir Philol. VL 169) deserve consideration. The accentuation el-rrov can only be claimed for Attic Greek : in favour of elirov in the Greek Bible we have the express testimony of Charax (see Buttmann ?.c.), who calls this accentuation Syracusan.^ Recent editors have adopted elirov: see further Bornem. Act. p. 234 sq. (/) Personal names which were- originally oxy tone adjectives or appellatives throw back the accent, for the sake of distinction. Thus Tiy)(tico^ not Tv^lk6<;, ^EiraiveTO'i not ^EiraLverot; (Lob. Pa- ral. p. 481), ^i\r]To<; not ^Ckqro^ (see Bengel, App. Crit. 2 Tim. ii. l7)/Epa(rTooporn, to. the former list i FJruxit to this.] SECT, VI.] ACCENTUATIOaSr. 59 brouglit under the rule.^ See in general Keiz, De inclin. ace. p. 116, Schaefer, Dion. H. p. 265, Funkhanel, Demosth. Androt. p. ] 08 sq., and especially Lebrs, De Aristarchi studiis Homer, p. 276 sqq. On a similar piinciple the adverbs €Ve'Aceti'a,emTaSe,i'7re/3e/ceti/a (from iir ixeiva, etc.), have undergone a change of accent. (m) Indeclinable oriental names have the accent, as a rule, on the last syllable ; compare however 'Iov8a, Od/xap, Zopo^d- /5eX, 'IcodOafi, 'EXed^ap, and the segholate forms 'EXU^ep L. iii. 29, 'Ieta/9e\ Eev. ii. 20 (according to good MSS.j, Ma^ou- adXa L. iii. 37. This accent is usually the acute, even when the vowel is long : as 'laaaK, 'lapaijX, 'laKw^, TevvT^odp, BrjOcaCBd, BrjOeaSd, 'Ep,fuiovay7J: comp. also Ncvevf}.^ Words which in the Greek Bible are indeclinable and oxytone have their accent drawn back in Josephus, who usually prefers inflected forms : e.g. 'A^la, in the N. T. 'A^td.^ The oldest MSS. are said to have TltXaTOf, not iltXarov, as the word is written by most editors and by Lachmaun * (also by Cardwell in his edition of Joseph. Bell. Jud.): see Tisch. Proleg. p. 36 (ed. 2). Yet even recent editors write, on MS. authority, KopioXdvoi/^a>ii', Btjffayn : Hivtvv (L. xi. 32) is no longer in his text. ] " [Josephus in Ant. 6. 3. 2 has *A/3/« (indecl.) as the name of Samuel's son ; but for 'Afitd, Mt. L 7, he has 'A/3/«s, genit. 'A/3/«.] * [In his smaller edition: in the larger he uniformly writes UiXaros. Tischen- dorf in ed. 7 has njASr«< (see note on Mt. xxvii. 13) ; in ed. 8, nukaras.] ' [On T/V«; see Lipsiua p. 42 : on *«Xi| see Tisch. on A. xxiv. 3, Lipsius p. 37 ; Laohm. writes *r,>tt With Tira comp. A/vof, which Tisoh. and others read in 2 Tim. iv. 21, for a7,o, (R.c , Alf.).] CO ACCENTUATION. [PART II. 20 sqq.) belongs to Tonic and early Attic Greek, and which e.g. Bekker follows, is certainly not to be introduced even into Attic prose,! still less into the K. T. On the other hand, we must invariably write tcros; comp. Borncm. Luc. p. 4, Fritz. Mark p. 649. The N. T. MSS. have uniformly tcrw for tto-o), though they have always ek, never «? ; vice versa, Thucydides, who mostly uses k, has etcrco 1. 134; see Poppo, I. 212. Kecent editors reject Icrto in Attic prose.' As to uTroKvet or aTroKvei in Ja. i. 15, see below, § 15. On the accentuation of the diminutive tckvioi/ as a paroxytone see Buttm. II. 441 (Jelf 56) ; comp. tcxviov Athen. 2. 55, though recent editors prefer T€xyiov both here and in Plat. Bep. 6. 495 d : of TeKviov, TEKVia is the only part that occurs in the N. T.^ ITot^viov (contracted from ■Koi}x.iviov) should certamly be preferred to ttoiia-vlov. On a^poTri<;, ^paSvT-q<;, as oxytones, see Buttm. 11. 417 : this, accord- ing to the grammarians, is Ihe old accentuation, an exception to the rule. Lachmann however writes aSpor-ijri 2 C. viii. 20, but ftpaBvrrJTa 2 P. iii. 9.* In later Greek these words seem to have been paroxy- tone, according to rule ; see Reiz, De incl. ace. p. 109.^ On ovKovv and ovkovv, apa and apa, see §§ 57 and 61. 2. It is well known that many words were distinguished from one another solely by difference of accent : thus et/xt sum and €LfXL CO (ixupiot ten thousand and fivptot inmanerable, Buttm. I. 278). In such cases the accentuated MSS. and even the editors of the N. T. sometimes waver between the two modes of accentuation. Thus for fievet, 1 C. iii. 14, the future fievei is read by Chrys., Theod., the Vulgate, etc., and this reading has been received into the text by Knapp and Lachmann ; comp. 1 C. v. 13, H. i. 11. For rivk, H. iii. 16, several authorities have Tiye?, and recent critics have almost unanimously accepted this reading. In 1 C. xv. 8 Knapp needlessly changed the article raJ into Tw ( = Tivi), which is the reading of some MSS.: there is however but little authority for tw, and it is certainly a cor- ' Poppo, Thuc. I. 213, II. i. 150, Buttm. I. 5S. - Scluicider, Pint. Civ. I. Praf. p. 53 : as to the poets, see Elmsley, Eunp. Med. p. 84 sq. (Lips.). ^ See Jansoii, in Jahns Archiv VII. 487 ; and on -rcifivlov ib. p. 507. * [Similarly Tischendorf, Alford, and others.] * [The following words also are variously accentuated by the N. T. editors : a A. xxvii. 41, see above (p. 50); Ki'a 1 Tim. ii. 13 Lach., Tisch., Eja Ellic., TfUtfO, Alt. ; in Mt. xiii. 30 Tisch. has the less usuul 2£S. authority), for -reaj; a«S£»T«5 1 Tim. ii. 3 Tisch., ah, k-n-oliKrhi Ellic, Alf. ; in L. viii. 26 the accentuated MSS. are divided between avT/'ri^« (Lach., Trep;.) and uyTivif^a. (Tisch., Westc), see Lob. Path. 11. 206; oiu Mk. xv. 29 Tisch., for oU ; ffufTii A. xxvii. 17 Lachni., for cufn;. Griesbach and others have (lafyafi-rai Kev. xxi. 21, for -Irui ; Itr^Zn E. vi. 14 (o? in 1 C. xiv. 7j ■ttpuitotoko's for irpuiTOTOKo^ in Col. L 15 (see Meyer), and even «^a»ra>v for f^wrwv in Ja. i. 17 (■n-aTTjp Twv «^.)— originated either in dogmatic prepossessions or in ignorance of the language. The last is altogether absurd. 3, It is still a disputed question whether in prose (for to poetry peculiar considerations apply, coniip. e.g. EUendt, Lex. Soph. T. 476) the pronoun should be joined as an enclitic to a preposition, where no emphasis is intended ; that is, whether we should write Trapd aov, ev fiot, eU fie, rather than Trapa aov, €P ip,ot, K.rX. In. the editions 9f the N, T, (Lachmann's in- cluded), as. in those of Greek authors in general, we regularly find TT/ao? fie, Trp6v, which are defended by Hermann {De eimnd. gr. Gr. I. 71, 73). Lachraann^ introduced the accent in the last two cases, and also wrote ttoO Io-tiv Mt. ii. 2, jlict avTiov Io-tlv Mk. ii. 19, but left TToZs fwv unchanged : he has been followed by Tisch. (ed. 2). Compare however the cautious opinion of Buttmann (1. 65 sq.)-* Section VII. PUNCTUATION.* 1. In the editions of the N. T. down to that of Griesbach inclu- sive, the punctuation was not only wanting in consistency, but was also excessive. To make the meaning clearer editors intro- duced a profusion of stops, espetially commas ; and in doing this often intruded on the text their own interpretation of it." Knapp was the first who bestowed closer attention on the subject, and attempted to reduce it to fixed principles. Schulz, Lacbmann, and Tischendorf (who usually agiees with Lach- mann), have followed in the same track,® but with stiU greater reserve : no one of these^ however, has given a general exposi- tion of his principles.^ * [Most editors 6i thd N. T. write -rfit fit, fi, in ordinary cases. In Tischen- dorPs 7 th ed. we find regularly -rfif fci, ri ; but in ed. 8 he retains the accent ttf the pronoun (in this case) only when the pronoun is emphatic (aa Mt. iii. 14). See further Lipsius pp. 5^-67, Jelf 64, Don. p. 44.] * Yet Lachm. writes Wl thui A., xxvii. 44, iay t<»«» Jo. xx. 23. 3 [This sulyect is examined by Lipsius in detail, as regards the asage of the TiXX and the N. T. -The principal departure from the ordinary rules is in the case of two enclitics, the first of which has one syllable, the second two ; here, in editions of the LXX and the N. T., the second enclitic almost always retains its accent, as iirx^fonpis fuu ivrlt. Tischendorf usually follows this role. He also writes '(on MS.* authority) ij-4'»Ta fitv ris, not n-^. f*»u •nt, and (once, Mk. xiv. 14) *aZ 'nrrit. See his Proleg. p. 62 (ed. 7). Lipsius pp. 49-59, Jelf 64, Don. p. 43 sq. On ^' interpunctio cum enclisi conjuncta,' see Lobeck, Path. II. 321-332, Lipsius p. 55 sq.] * Corap. especially Poppo in the Ally. LU. Zeit. 1826, I. 506 sqq., and, Matth. 59. ' Oomp. also Buttm. I. 68, Schleierm. Hermen. p. 76. 8 Among editors oY Greek authors, I. Bekker has. begun to punctuate with greater moderation and consistency, W. Dindorf with still more reserve : both however seem to carry the exclusion of th,e comma foo far. ' Riiick has proposed {Stvd. u. Krit. 1842, p. 554 sq.) that in punctuation 64 PUNCTUATION. [PAKT II. There is a scientific necessity for punctuation, since any representation of oral discourse would manifestly be incomplete without it. It was however originally devised for a practical purpose — to aid the reader, especially in reading aloud, by marking the various pauses for the voice. And such its main object must still be, — ^to enable the reader to perceive at once what words are to be connected together, and, so far, to guide him to the correct perception of the meaning.^ Punctuation must therefore be founded on an examination of the logical, or rather (since the thought is already clothed in language) of the grammatical and rhetoricar relations of the words to one another. Hence it would be asking too much to require that an editor should in no degree whatever indicate his own inter- pretation of the passage by the punctuation, since he has to insert not merely commas but also the colon and the note of interrogation. With respect to the proper use of the colon or of the full stop in the N. T. text there can scarcely be any doubt. Lachmann and Tischendorf ^ indeed have dropped the colon before a direct quotation, preferring to indicate the commencement of the quotation by a capital letter; but we can see no sufficient reason for this innovation. There is much less uniformity in the use of the comma. So much as this is clear — that only a sentence which is itself gram- matically complete,^ and which also stands in close connexion with another sentence, should be marked off by a comma ; and that the comma was, strictly speaking, invented for this pur- pose. But a grammatically complete sentence comprehends not merely subject, predicate, and copula (each of wliich three ele- ments may be either expressed or understood), but also all qua- lifying words which are introduced into the sentence to define we should return to the principles of the ancient Greek grammarians (Villoison, Ariecd. II. 138 sqq.). This however would be hardly practicable. ^ Buttmann, loc. cit. * [In his 8th ed. Tisch. has returned to the old practice.] ' The grammatical sentence will, as a rule, coincide with the logical, but not always. In L. xii. 17, Jo. vi. 29 (see p. 65), for example, there are logi- cally two sentences, but by means of the relative the second is incorporated in the first, so that the two form grammatically one whole. This is the case in every instance of breviloquence, where two sentences are contracted into one. Also in 1 Tim. vi. 3, i" tj; trtpoOiiarxaXir xa) firi -rfogip^irai vyiainouri Xiysn, we have two logical propositions, but in this construction the two form one grammatical sentence : see below, p. 6(5, SECT. VII.] rUNCTUATION. 65 these main elements more precisely, and without wliich the sense would be imperfect, Hence Griesbach, for instance, was wrong in separating the verb from its subject by a comma whenever the subject was accompanied by a participle, or consisted of a par- ticiple with its adjuncts; as in Mk vii. 8,x. 49, Eom. viii. 5, 1 Jo! ii. 4, iii. 1 5. The comma is also wrongly inserted in 1 Th. iv. 9, Trepl Se jrjs Supd/j.efla tw $€U) uvra'TroBovvai irepl vfidp, iirX Trdatj rrj X^P?" ^ C. vii. 1 , KaXov dvOpoiiru), yvvaiKO^ fiT) uTrreadai' A. v. 2 [?J,/cat €vda(ptcraTO drrb tt}? TLfxriq^a-vveibvlij^ Kal T?}? 'yvvaiKO'i. But the notion of a complete sentence is still more comprehensive. Even a relative clause must be con- sidered a part of the precedinr,^ sentence, vdien the rehitive (whether pronoun or adverb) includes the demonstrative, as Jo. vi. 29, iW 7n(TTevar]T€ eh au drrecrreLKev eKelvoC "va . . . ttoiw. iyelpeade K.rX., and ovhev cOOC 'Iva . . . TToico, eyeipeade k.t.X. It is impossible to avoid varia- tions of this kind, if the N. T. text is punctuated at all. Compare further Eom. iii. 9, v. 16, vi. 21, viii. 33, ix. 5,xi. 31, 1 C.i. 13, vi. 4, xvi. 3, A. V. 35 (.see Kiihnol), H. iii. 2, Ja. ii. 1, 4, 18, V. 3, 4. The same reluctance to engage the reader in favour of any par- ticular interpretation of the text is probably the main cause which has led to the entire disuse of the parenthesis (once so much abused) on the part of some recent editors, e.g. Tis^hendorf. It was retained by Lachmann. See below, § 62. Section VIII. UNUSUA.L forms IN THE FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS. 1. Masculine proper names in a? of the 1st decl. — mostly oriental, but formed in accordance with a familiar Greek ana- logy — always make the genit. .sing, in a: 'Icoavva L. iii. 27, *Io)vd Mt. xii. 39, Jo. i. 43, ah, KXwira Jo. xix. 25, XTe(^ava 1 C. i. 16, xvi. 15, SK€va A. xix. 14, Krjcpa 1 C. i. 12, Xarava Mk. i. 13, 2 Th, ii, 9, ^Eiracjipa Col. i. 7 : ^ [comp. fiaixoiva L. xvi. 9]. Those also which end in unaccented ax<>t). Conip. Tovapxo; Ms.ch. ChoHjih. 662 ; but yv/uvaa-iapxis niust be retained in .^schin. 7'm. I. 23 (ed. Bremi). * That apxt^s was the usual termination in the apostolic age also seems a legitimate inference from the fact that the Romans, in translating these words into Latin, used this or a similar form, though it would have been as easy to use -archus. Thus we find Tetrarches, Hirt. Bell. Al. r. 67, Liv. Epit. 94, Horat. Senn. 1. 3. 12, Lucan 7. 227 ; Alaharches, Cic. Attic. 2. 17, Juvcn. Sat. 1. 130 ; Topareha, Spartian. in Hadriai}. 13 ; Patrtarcha, Tertull. de Anlm. c. 7. .'55, al. : comp. Schajf. Demosth. II. 151. At a later period, we have the testi- mony of the Byzantine writers for the preponderance of this form. SECT. VIII.] UNUSUAL FORMS IN THE FIRST DECLENSION, 71 tKaToi'Tap;^w, as ill Joseph. B. J. 2. 4. 3 iKarovrapxav IS read besides eKaTovTdp)0i'. But £KaTovTajo;(os occuis almost without any variant in Mt. viii. 5, 8, L. vii. 6, A. xxii. 25 : iKarovTapxov, L. vii. 2, may come from iKaTovTo.px'']^ ; so also may the gen. plur. A. xxiii. 23, if we write €KaTovTapxC!)v for -dpxuiv.^ Lastly, for a-TpaTOTreSdpxrj A. xxviii. 16 (Const. Man. 4412, a!.) the better MSS. have -apxw. The following additional instanceti of the form -a/sx'?? ^^Y be adduced from the Greek Bible and from writers of the first centuries after Christ : yevea-idpxTTi Wis. xiii. 3,^ KV7rpidpxy)s 2 Macc. xii. 2, Tcnrapx'*?? Gen. xli. 34, Dan. iii. 2, 3, vi. 7, Euseb. H. E. 1. 13. 3, OLaa-dpxrj^ Lucian, Peregr. 11, jxepdpxr}'; Arrian, Tact. p. 30, ip>n><.v'tns 1 S. xxv. 20, x.uii>yi.ulns Ex. viii. 21, 24 : see his Proleg. p. 54 (ed. 7).] * [We have uipUs in Jo. xi, 1 : comp, 'A»»« 1 S. L 2, 5, A<;JW (Jelf 78. Obs.).] 72 UNUSUAL FORMS IN THE SECOND DECLENSION. [PAKT IT. 2. In the 2ud declension we find the following forms : — (a) ^AttoWco, accus. sing, of '^TroXXw? (A. xviii. 24) A. xix. 1, 1 C. iv. 6 [?], instead of AiroXkcov, comp. Buttm. I. 155, 199 (Jelf 86) : the genitive is ^AiroWoi, according to rule, 1 C. iii. 4, xvi. 12. In A. xxi. 1 we find in good MSS. ti]v Kw (1 Mace. XV. 23, Joseph. Ant. 14. 7. 2), see Buttm. I. 155. Kriig. p. 46 : the common reading rrjv Kflw is very weakly supported. For Kw^tirt) a dative plural from this form, aa.^- P>i-Tmif 1 Chr. xxiii 31, 2 Chr. ii. 4, viii. ];5, Ez. xlvi; 3, as in Joseph. Ant. 16. 6. 4. In the N T. ca.f,Ca.Ti,r, is occasionrtily found amongst the various read- ings, as Mt. xii. 1, 12, in good MSS. [2a/3^a:T«/( does not seem to occur in tlie uncial MSS., except in Mt. xii. 1, 12, in B alone. With ira'/3/3a(r/ compare o»e/^a<7^(, TTfosuvaai (Jelf 117).] * [From (TTolitu, ffToilioi L. xxiv. 13, Rev. xxi. 16; irTaiia. Jo. vi. 19 (Tisch. ed. 8) is doubtful : see Kriig.'p. 58.] * [See also § 59. 4. h, on this word and on Anvo'j.] * [Frit?, quotes t« v. from some early editions of the N. T., but adds : "Cdd. Til vuTOM." Neither Griesb. nor Tischendorf cites ri v. from any MS.] ' [For TO Xi^aiiairei, Eev. viii. 5 Rec., the true reading is t«» X. : for aa-fhioi. Rev. xxi. 20 Rec, we should read the usual form (rdfiioy. In Mk. xiv. 3 Rec. has TO a.xipia.aTff^i ; Lachm., Fritz., and Tisch. (ed. 8) -rh a. ; Treg., Westcottand Hort, T7\i u. ; in other places there is nothing to show the gender : the Attic form is aX^v H. vi. 19 (A, C, D), TToSrjpriv Rev. i. 13 (A). Such forms are met with in the Byzantine writers (see the index to Leo Gramm. p. 532, Boisson. Anccd. V. 102), and in the apocryphal writers (Tisch. de Ev. Apocr. p. 137) : in the Apocalypse Lachm. has admitted the above-men- tioned forms into the text.^ This subjoined v is probably to be considered, not (as by Ross) as an original ending propagated in the popular spoken language, but as an arbitrary extension of the familiar accusative ending (Matth. 73. 2) beyond its proper limits ^ [The ojenitive is always -jet^tiTou; the dative does not occur in the N, T. St, Paul uses both forms ; the othor N. T. writers o ttx. only. Recent editors read TO fX. in all tiie above passages, and in 2 0. viii. 2, E. i. 7, Col. i. 27 : see EllicottonE. i. 7, A. Ruttm. p. 22.J ^ [T-i ^. is probal)ly the true reading in both passages.] ' L'o iix."^ occurs H. xii. 19.] * On this word see Hase, Lto Diac. p. 239 ; Schaef. Ind. Msop. pp. 128, 163; IJoissou. llcrod, Epim. p. 22, Anecd. I. ^>\. [It is a v.l. in Rev. xix. 9, 17.J * [In this passage ^oi^* is now generally received for trKirtu.] * f'o ixto; is a variant in one or two other passages, but ta ik. is now generally received in all instances.] ' Comp. Sturz, .Dial. Al. p. 127 ; Lob. Pared, p. 142. " f lixcept in Rev, i. 13 (^■roit^pyiv). In his larger edition Lachm. reads iiripaXo'v in H. vi. 1 9, receiving the ►, but regarding the word as inflected according to the 1st deal. (ineta2Jla.imus) : see A. Buttm. p. 14 (Thayer's note).] SECT. X.] FOREIGN WORDS : INDECLINABLE NOUNS. 77 (Lobeck I.e.). In adjectives of two terminations in rj? this form of the accus. is said to be ^olic (Matth. 113. Eem. 2) : ^ see further Bornem. on A. xiv. 12.2 Section X, DECLENSION OF FOREIGN WORDS : INDECLINABLE NOUNS. 1, A simple mode of declining certain Graecised oriental names was introduced by the LXX and the N. T. writers. In this, the genitive, dative, and vocative have usually one common form, and the accusative ends in v. Thus ^Irjaov^;, genitive 'Irjaov Mt. xxvi. 69 ; dative 'Irjaov Mt. xxvi. 17;^ vocative ^Irjaov Mk. i 24; accusative 'Irjaovv Mt. xxvi. 4, A. xx. 21 : — AevL or A€vt<; (L. v. 29), accusative Aeviv Mk, ii. 14: — 'Ia)cT?79, genitive 'Iwcr?} Mt. xxvii. 50, L. iii. 29, al., — but in Mark B, D, L have always 'I&)o-7}to9 : * see Buttm. I. 199. The inflexion of the Egyptian word ©afiovvoi;^ see Wetst. I. 228. This latter inflexion, which is according to analogy, and is the received form in Josephus (ed. Ha- vercamp), should therefore be admitted into the text : -wv, -wvto^, would imply derivation from a participle (Buttm. I. 169, Lob. Paralip. p. 347). The nominative must then, in accordance with the best authorities,* be written SoAoyLtcov,"^ like 'RaftvXuiv, &c., — not SoXo/awi', as by Lachmann and others : lIoo-ciSwj/ (-wvos) is not analogous, since it is a contraction of IToo-etSawv. In the LXX this name is indeclinable : 5 see 1 K. iv. 7, 29 (25), v. 12, 15, 16, vi. 18 [1 V. 18], al. 2. Many Hebrew proper names which might have been in- flected according to the 3rd decl. are treated as indeclinable in the LXX and the N". T. ;^ as '.4a/j(wi', genitive H. vii. 11, ix. 4, dative Ex. vii. 9, A. vii. 40, accusative Ex. vii. 8. Compare in particular Mt. i. and L. iii. 23 sqq. : also ^v/jL6'j}v L. iii. 30, SaX- 1 [These two reff. are incorrect : perhaps Matth. pp. 198, 220 (§ 70, 78 a), Bnttra. I. 221.] 2 [That is, uHually : -uvrm is well supported in A. iii. 11, v. 12.] 3 Comp. also P.ippelb. Cod. Diez. p. 9. [The accentuated MSS. are strongly in favour of "S.eXa/j.u*, see Tisch. on Mt. vi. 29. Tisch., Treg., \yestc. and Hort, write SaXo^aiv ; except in A. vii. 47, ^oXofiZv, or (Tisch.) ^xkaftuv.] * In Glycas, Bekker still (in the new edition) writes loXofiZyros, -uvto. ; but in the noinin. loXofioiv. * [Not always ; e.g. Prov. xxv. 1, "S.xXtafiutroi {laXofiutm; Alex.).'\ ^ [Sometimes we find two forms, one declined, the other not ; as Maplx, Mapidfi; similarly, SarS* 2 C. xii. 7 (Rec, Meyer), 2ara>a; L. xiii. 16, al. (Fcclus. xxi. 27, — not found in the LXX).] SECT. X.] FOREIGN WORDS : INDECLINABLE NOUNS. 79 ^i(iiv L. iii. 32, KeSpcov Jo. xviii. 1 v. I. Similarly 'lepc'^to} genit. Dt. xxxii. 49, Mt. xx. 29, H. xi. 30, accus. L. x. 30, xviii. 35 (Glyc, p. 304);" 'lepovaaXrjjj,, — for which however the Graecised form 'lepoaokvjxa should probably be preferred (on the authority of the MSS.) in Matthew, Mark, and John.^ ' lepoaoXvfia is usually inflected as a neuter plural, as Mt. iv. 25, Mk. iii. 8, L, xxiii. 7, Jo. ii. 2 3 ; it is feminine in Mt. ii. 3 (iii. 5 ?) only.* In the LXX we find ' lepovaaXtj/j, always ; Josephus has 'lepoao- \vfia. Similarly, to frdcrxa L. ii. 41, Jo. ii. 23, as in the LXX :* (to) is : — (//) From 'UpinaZ; (Ptol. 5. 16. 7), genit. 'ItpixoZvTBi Strabo 16. 763, accus. 'lipixoZvra 16. 760, and usually in Josephus. ^ [In Mt. xxiii. 37 all the MSS. have 'UpovraXii/i ; tliis is the only form of the word used in the Apocalypse. In St. Luke's Gospel 'lipoiroXv/ia occurs only 3 or 4 times, 'itpouirxXi^fz. nearly 30 times ; see the Preface to this Gospel in Bp. Wordsworth's Greek Testament. In the Acts (setting aside xv. 4 as somewhat doubtful) the inflected form occurs 24 times, the indeclinable 36. St. Paul has 'UpovvaXrif/., except in Gal. i. 17, 18, ii. 1 (see Lightfooton Gal. iv. 26) ; thesame form is used in Heb. xii. 22. ] * [A. Buttmann (p. 18) maintains that the word is here treated as indeclinable, and supposes an ellipsis of h toXis.] * So also in the Fathers ; see Suicer, Thes. II. 607 sqq. Epiphanius (Hcer. II. 19) inflects even the plural tx •yriaxa. * Most of these are declined in Josephus, who, in conformity with the genius of the Greek language, gives Greek terminations and inflexions to almost all ])ersonal names, as "ASa^a;, 'la-^aSXoj, N»;^(J5, 'Ivaxm, al. The instances of un- declined foreign names which Georgi {Hkrocr. I. 138) produces from Plato and Pausanias are not all in point, and can prove nothing against the tendency to inflexion. Even Ptolemy has some indeclinable names of places, by the side of a multitude of inflected names : see Nobbe, Sched. Ptol. I. 23 sq. (Lips. 1841). [In A. xvi. 11 the best MSS. have s.'s Nsav uiXn (Rec. Nsa^aXo), see Cobet, N. T. Vatic, p. xiii, Lob. p. 604 : in Col. iv. 13 we should read 'lipi HoAi/.] '[The LXX have sometimes »/' Xipovlilfi (-/^s/v), Ex. xxv. 19, al.' ; Josephus, «J and al Xipot/[iu< ; Philo always ra Xipav^lfi : see Delitzsch on H. ix. 5. In this passage Lachra. and Tisch. read Xipou^ilv.'\ 80 DECLENSION AND COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES. [pART II. always « tov evos, Iv tuJ cvt, in the writings of Proclus edited by Creuzer. Compare also tov 6 huva Schsef. ^e??i. III. 282. Section XT. DECLENSION AND COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES. 1. Adjectives of three terminations, particularly those in toy, /u,to9, 6to9, aLo occurs* 16 times : Rec: has tlVox.. once only, Lachm. 12 times, Treg. 8, Tisch. 9, Westc. and Hort TO. This diversity shows the difficulty of decision. The imperfect also is doubtful (1 Th. ii. 8). In iiXeyiu the augment should probably be rejected throughout. In Rom. ii^. 3 we must read nvx<>f^*i>', but A. xxvii. 29 is doubtful. 'Elipipninv is the true reading in L. xii. 16 ; ihxti- (0U1 in Mk. vi. 31, but r,vK. in A. xvii. 21. In A. vii. 41 we have iii(pfa.lio'»ro ; in A. xvi. 11, Mt. xix. 12, tv^'j^'po/xio) and ivvavx'Z'^ reject the augment. From x.a.6ivia we have only ixa^sutfov in the N. T. hJ/jov and nv^iinyi are not unfre- quently v. 11.^ but the evidence is against the augm. in this verb, except in TiupiifKov, tiupnT-Ko/Lifiv. Ilpas'-^'Z'."''" ftlwajs has the augment, but -lu- is often a variant. See Veitch, GV. F. s. vv.] 84 AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION OF REGULAR VERBS. [PART II. in past tenses/ has the regular augment, not indeed without V. II. but on greatly preponderating authority ; as wKohofirjcre Mt. vii. 24, xxi. 33, mKoBofirjTo L. iv. 29, wkoSo/xow L. xvii. 28, ipKohoixTjOr) Jo. ii. 20 : only in A. vii. 47 have good MSS. oiKoSc/ji7]cr€, on which later form see Lob. p. 153 (J elf 173. 6). 5. In the verb Trpocj^rjTeveiv the augment is usually inserted after the preposition (Buttui. 1.335, Don. p. 199),and in Jude 14 the best reading is Trpoecprjreva-e ; but in all other passages in the N. T. the better MSS. have eirpo^.: thus i7rpo<^r]revaav'Mt. xi. 13, inrpoiprjrevaafiev Mt. vii. 22, i-Trpo^rjrevcre Mt. xv. 7> Mk. vii. 6, L. i. 67, Jo. xi. 51, iirpocpi^revou A. xix. 6 (corap, Num. xi. 25, 26, Ecclus, xlviii. 13). Schulz (on Mt. vii. 22) urged that this form should be received into the text in every case, and this has been done by Lachm. and Tisch, In later writers the augm. is often put before the prepos., as irrrpo^O-qKei', eavpu^ovXevov (see the Index to Ducas, to Jo. Cananus, al., in the Bonn ed.), iKarrj-^ovv Epiphan. Mon. 3 3. 1 6 :^ in Trpocprjreveiv, however, this is less strange, since there is no simple verb v Leo Granim. pp. 33, S.*}, 36, sKaTtirxiuafKv Canan. 462, lauMifjia.pTupivv ib. 478, i\ A. xii. 1 0, Kev. xi. 1 9, xv. 5j — as in the LXX and later writers (Irr. Fl /. c, Lob. p. 157); and with a threefold augment, rjveM^^^dija-av Mt. ix. 30, Jo. ix. 10, A. xvi. 26, Eev. xx. 12 v. I (Gen. vii. 11, Dan. vii. li)),rjve(c'yfievov A. ix. 8, Eev. xix. 11 (Nicet. Eugen. 2. 84, 128, V. i:),rjve(p^e Jo. ix. 14 v. I. (Gen. viii. 6, 3 Mace. vi. 18): comp. T\i\\o, Apocr. I. 669.^ [Jelf l73, 297,Veitch, Gr. Verbs, pp. 66, 67.] (c) In ■qvei'xeade 2 C. xi. 1 {Elz), xi. 4 {Rec.) — compare Thuc. 5. 45, Herodian 8. 5. 9, — and r)ve(y^6fir}v A. xviii. 14, for avecry^. (comp. Her. 7. 159, Thuc. 3. 28): this is in exact conformity with classical usage, to which the forms with the single augment are almost unknown, see Irr. V. s. v. [Jelf 181, comp. Veitch, Gr. Verbs, s. v.] In 2 C. xi. 1, 4, however, the best MSS. have aveix^aOe!^ 8. From epyd^o/xat we sometimes find in the MSS. ^/ry., in- stead of elpy., as in Mt. xxv. 16, xxvi. 1 0, Mk. xiv. 6, L. xix. 1 6, A. xviii. 3 (Ex. xxxvi. 4) : this form occurs in a good MS. of Demosthenes (Schaef. Appar. V. 553), comp. Sturz p. 125.'^ Conversely, in L. xvi. 20 good MSS. have eikKa3fievo<; (Lach., Tisch.) from k\Kovv : comp. also Clem. Al. p. 348 (Sylb.). 9. The augment is usually omitted in the pluperfect, as he- hooKet, Mk. xiv. 44, xv. 10, Jo. xi. 57, ireTrof^Keia-av Mk. xv. 7, (iK^€^\r]K€i xvi. 9); TeOe/xeXieoTO L. vi. 48, fiefieviJKeicrav 1 Jo. ii. 19,7r€pi7re'7raTi]K€iA.xiv. 8 (see Yalcken.in loc.),7re7ri(TrevK€La-au xiv. 23 ; and in the N. T. these forms should probably be pre- ferred throuohout.* In this tense the augment is often omitted by Ionic (Her. 1. 122, 3. 42, 9. 22) and Attic prose writers (e.g. '^ [Some of these examples are doubtful, but all the forms given above are very well attested in some part of the N. T. : the following forms of this verb are also found, imi^u Mt. xiii. 35 (LXX), avtwya 1 C. xvi. 9, dvcMyfiivm A. x. 11, '^invmyfiivof A. vii. 56 (avx^'^^zVa/ta/ L. xi. 10), avaiyjifl-a^ai Mt. vii. 7.— Ajaxavfw has alway.s S<»jxen)t;» in the N. T.] * [In 2 C. xi. 4 we must read either dnixif^t or a*ixtdyafi€v xix. 42, eXddrco Esth. v. 4 (Pr. ix. 5, Am. vi. 2, 2 Chr. xxix. 17), etc. In -the N. T. recent editors have placed these forms in the text, following the best MSS.:^ riXOare, e^-qkOare Mt. xxv. 36, xxvi. 55, TrapeXedrto Mt. xxvi. 39, eiXaro 2 Th. ii.l3, i^elXaro A. vii. 10,xii. ll,aretXaTO vii. 21, e^eiriaaTe G. v. 4, eirecrav Eev. vii. 11 (H. iii. 17, Jo. ' See Georgi, Hi^rocr. I. 179 ; Poppo, Thuc. I. 228 ; Boniem. Xen. Anah. p. 272 ; Jacob, Luc. Tox. p. 68 ; Ellendt, Arr. Al. 1. pp. 265, 284 ; [Shilleto, Dem. F. Leg. p. 38. Compare Don. p. 201]. "^ [Mt. vii, 25 is more certain than L. vi. 48 ; in A. xiv. 8 the aorist la the best reading. Comp. l>ihuKin 2 S. xviii. 11, icr//J£/3»)x£/ Num. xxii. 22, and see Tisch. Prohg. p. 56 (ed. 7).] ^ [Similar examples are -irpaefufinv A. ii 25 (from LXX), Inpftnnvi* or -vivnt L. xxiv. 27, and (with less authority) pfioiu6niJi.t* Rom. ix. 29, 'iitytifiro Jo. vi. 18, inpofioiuf/.'iMos H. vii. 3 ; see also 2 Chr. xxxv. 10, and Is. i. 9 in Alex.'\ * Sec Sturz p. 61 ; Valcken. Herod, p. 649, 91 ; D'Orville, Charit. p. 402 ; Wolf, Demosth. Lept. p. 216. * On the MSS. which have this fonri see Hng, Introd. § 50 sqq. ; Scholz, Curm Crit. p. 40 ; Rinck, Lucubratt. p. 37 ; Tisch. Prolegg. ad Cod. Ephraemi p. 21. [Scrivener, Critic, p. 489, Cod. kin. p. liv.j SECT. Xin,] TENSES AND PERSONS OF REGULAR VERBS. 87 xviii. 6), averreaav Jo. vi. 10, cvpdfievo^ H. ix. 12,Epipli. Opjp. I. 619, Theodoret, Ojop. II. 837 (Hal). Comp. A. ii. 23,xvii. 6 [?], xii. 7, xvi. 37, xxii. 7, xxviii. 16, Mt. vii. 13, 25, xi. 7, 8, xvii. 6, xxii. 22, L. ii. 16, xi. 52, xxii. 52, Kom. xv. 3, 1 C. x. 8, 2 C. vi. 17, 1 Jo. ii. 19, Eev. v. 8, 14, vi. 13. These is indeed no consistency in the MSS., as regards either writers or words ; ^ and in many passages, where such forms have the support of but few MSS., they may be due to tran- scribers,^ particularly if similar inflexions in a precede or follow: see Elmsley, Eur. 31ed^^p. 232 (Lips.), Eritz. Marh,^. 638 sqq. It is in the plural and in the Istpers. sing, of the indie, that we usually meet with these forms; in the 2d cing. indie, the imper.,^ and the participle, they occur very rarely. On the instances of such aorists in Greek authors (e.g. Orpheus) see Buttra. I. 404. In Eurip. Troad. 293, Seidler has changed irpo^kirecra into -arov ; and in Alcest. 4t77 (Trecrete), irkcTov is certainly the true reading, see Herm. in loc} On the other hand, we find eireaav Theophan. p. 283,/caTe7r€(ra,uei' Achill. Tat. 3. 17 ,'irepi€7re found in the best MSS. -with a. single p (conip. § 5) : as (pa^^icrOqv 2 Cxi. 25, epavritre 11. ix. 19 (ipavrtap^ivvt x. 22), epd-Kurav Mt. xxvi. G7, epvaaro 2 Tim. iii. 11 (in A, D), cpvaOr] iy. 17 (A, C) : comp. 2 K xxiii. 18, Ex. v. 23, vii. 10, Lev. xiv. 7, 51, Num. viii. 7. Such forms are recognised in poetry (Buttm. I. 84, Mattb, 40, Jelf 176. 1), but also occur frequently in tlie MSS. of prose writers ; see Bast, Conim. Crit. p. 788. In H. x. 22 the reduplicated perfect pepavTio-fiivoi is found in A. and C, compare pepvTray/xeva Hom. Odyss. 6. 69 ; some examples of a similar kind are met with in late writers (Lob. Paral. p, 13). In Mt. ix. 36 also Lachm. reads pepcp^evoi [rather pepi^/M.'\ on the authority of D.^ (e) The futures of verbs in tfw are sometimes found (with but slight variation in the MSS.) in the contracted form; as fMCToiKiM A. vii. 43, d(f)opi6l Mt. xxv. 32, a(f)opiovaL Mt. xiii. 49,'yuu}piou(rL Col. iv. 9,Ka0apL€l H. ix. 1*4, BtaKadaptei Mt. iii. 12, iXirtovo-t, Mt. xii. 21, /.laKapiovat L. i. 48, etc. This is an Atticism, though such forms are also found in Ionic Greek ; comp. Georgi, Hier. L 29, Fischer, JVeller 11. 355,Matth. 181. 2 (Jelf 203, Don. p. 182). From ^aTrri^co we find only the common form ^a-mia-ei Mt. iii. 11: on anqpi^w see § 15. In the LXX verbs in al^co also form the future in the same way; as epydrat Lev. xxv. 40, dpira xix. 13, etc. Some have considered yewCrai Mt. ii. 4, Oetopelre Jo. xvi. ] 7 (since oyfreaOe follows), iroic!) j\It. xxvi. 18, as similar Attic futures, from contracted verbs ; but these are all present forms are iVsa-a Rt;v. i. 17, xix. 10, al., ■.!?« (or I'Sa) Rev. xvii. 6 (iVEo-aj 2 S, iii. ^4), a.-jrr,x(a. Rev. X. 9 ; and the iiiipeilect.s tlrt^av JFk. viii. 7 (Rev. ix. 8), -Trafux^a* A. xxviii. 2, Tpostlxa-^ A. viii. 10 in X- These fonns are said to Lave been originally Cilician. See Jflf 192, Mullacli p. 17 sq., 226, A. Bnttin. p. 39 sq.] ' [Augmented IVrisea. X lia.s the single ^ in thft passages quoted in the text (except 2 Tim. iii. 11). In 2 C. xi. 25, Ii. ix. 19, 21, Mt. xxvi. 67, ipx. i.s uo dnubt coiTeet : piTru occur.s twice (Mt. xv. 30, A. xxvii. 19), and pvofim five tiine.s (2 C. i. 10, Col. i. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 11, iv. 17, 2 P. ii. 7) with the augment, and in each case we should probably reject the double j>. From pr,tffu (and com- ]>ound.s) we find both forms : ipp. Mt. xxvi. 65, L. ix. 42, ip. L. v. 6, vi. 48, .49. Simiiaily after ;i ]irepositi()u, j^-p/rlavT-s,- L. xix. 35 (1 T. v. 7, A. xxvii. 43), iTnpccfuuy,iv H. ii. I, iiKpr,, how- ever, is probably xf^''^'^ (H x. 37). On irr^piX,u, 82. * [In 1 C. xiii. 3 the oldest ilSS. have xaux'ho'oua.i ; Tisch. and Meyer kolv^y,- itofiai: Alford and Treg. {Printed Text p. 191) with Htc. Kav^ritruum., : comp. Scriv. Introd. p. 547. In 1 P. iii. 1, 1 Tim. vi. 8, A. xxi. 24, Eev. xviii. 14 the fut indie, is certainly the true reading ; in Rev. ix. 6 the oldest MSS. liavo either fut. indie, or 2 aor. subj. : even in Jo. xvii," "2 we should ]>robably read the lut. indie. See below, p. 95 : A. Buttm. p. 36 ; Lightfoot, Clem. 7?. pp. 188, ir>0.] 90 TENSES AND PERSONS OF REGULAR VERBS. [PART II. is the form always used by Attic writers (Buttro. I. 348, Jelf 196); in others it is of rare occurrence and is almost confined to the poets : ^ even in Attic prose, however, it is found in good MSS., see Buttmaun I. c, but compare Schneidei*, Plat. Civ. I. 49 sqq. Frce/.^ (b) The original uncontracted form of the 2 pers.' sing, is retained in Bvuacrai (Mt. v. 36, viii. 2, Mk. i. 40), as usually in classical Greek (Buttm. 1. 502): Bwrj—Mk. ix. 22, Rev. ii. 2, and L. xvi. 2 v. I? — was used by poets alone of earlier writers, but is found in later prose, as Polyb, 7. 11. 5, ^lian 13. 32 ; see Lob. p. 359. In the N. T. this ending appears also in con- tracted verbs; as ohvvaaai L. xvi. 25 (^schyl. Choeph. 354*), Kav')(aaai Eom. ii. 17, 1 C. iv. 7, and KaraKav')(a(Tai Rom. xi. 18: comp. Georgi, Hier. I. 184, Buttm. I. 347, Boisson. Anted. IV. 479 (Jelf 196). See § 15, s. v. trlvio. (c) In the 3 pers. plur. of the perfect, av (from the old ending avrC) instead of aai\ as 6'yvwKav Jo. xvii. 7, rertjprjKav xvii. 6, el'prjKav Rev. xix. 3, eiopaKav (in very good MSS.) L. ix. 36, Col. ii. 1, — similarly Rev. xxi. 6, Ja. v. 4 : so also in the LXX, as Dt. xi. 7, Judith vii. 1 {Ad. Apocr. p. 235). This form belongs to the Alexandrian dialect (comp. Sext. Empir. 1. 10. p. 261, and the Papyri Taurin. p. 24, K€KvpUvKav), but occurs also in Lycophrou (252, TrejyptKav), in inscriptions, and often in the Byzantine writers (comp. Index to Ducas p. 639, to Codiuus, and to Leo Graram.) : see Buttm. 1. 345 (Jelf 191, Don. p. 253). Tisch. has received it in aU the above N. T. passages :^ in Rev. ii. 3, however, he has rejected /ce/coTTiWe? (Ex. v. 22 Alex.), the reading of A and C. {d) The originally ^olic termination eta (eta?, ete) instead of atpbt, in the 1 aor. opt. ; as ■y^rfka^rjaetav A. xvii. 27, 'jrocija-eiav 1 Comp. Valcken. Eur. Pkoen. p. 216 sq. (261) ; Fischer, Wellerl. 119, II. 399; Georgi, Hier. I. 34 ; Schwarz, ad Olear. p. 225. * [L. xx.ii. 42 is the only passage in which this form is well supported.] ' Uu this fonn, for which some would substitute Si/'vn:, .see Porson, Eur. *ifec. 257 ; Schajf. and Harm. Soph. Phil. 787 ; Oudend. ad 'Thorn. 31. p. 252 ; Lob. p. 359. [ Veitch, G7: V. s. v, SJva/ta/. lu all these passages, and in Mk. ix. 23, dvvn is probably the true reading.] * [\iiuvx(rai here is regarded as corrupt : Miiller conjectured aL ^vvae-oci, Herm. ivvarai. This form is in I'egular use in modern Greek : Mullach p. 229.] * [In editions 7 and 8 he rightly retains these Readings : A. xvi. 36, Rom. xvi. 7 may be added. He also receives the ending a for as in the 2 pers. sing. in Rev. ii. 3, ii. 4 (ajtyiKii), and in the latter passage he has the support of 6< ; in Jo. xvii. 7, 8, B has 'i'Saxtf.] SECT. XIII.] TENSES AND PERSONS OF REGULAB VERBS. 9 1 L. vi. 11.^ This form was very frequently used (in the 2 and 3 pars. sing, and 3 pers. plur.) in Attic Greek, as Thuc. 6. 19, 8. 6, Aristoph. Plut. 95, Plat. Rep. I. 337 c, Gorg. 500 c, Xen. An. 7. 7. 30, al. (Georgi, Hier. I. 150 sq., Buttm. I. 354 sq., Jelf 194), and still more frequently by later writers: see Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 353. (e) The 3 pers. plur. of the imperative in Twcav occurs re- peatedly in the N. T. ; as pivyufti, a-fi'ivii'jfii, {a/xpi'cvvvf/.i). On (fiopiu see Veitch, Gr. V' s. v. J ■* [Tlie present inlin. of verbs in iai sometimes ends in »rv in good MSS. Tisch. receives this form in ilt. xiii. 32, II. vii. 5 : Westcottand Ilort read -o/» in these passages, and in Mk. iv. 32, 1 P. ii. 15. On the occasional neglect of contrac- tion see § 6. 3.] SECT. XIV.] • VEBBS IX /it AND IRREGULAR VERBS. 93 Section XIV. UNUSUAL inflexions OF VERBS IN /it AND IRREGULAR VERBS. 1. Verbs in fii : — (a) Pluperf. active eaTrmeaav Rev. vii. 1 1 v. I., for earrJKet- aav} comp. ^vvear/jKecrav Time. 1. 15, i(pe(rTt]Keaav Xen. An. 1. 4. 4, ewKecrav Heliod. 4. 16, and see especially Jacobs, Achill. Tat. pp. 400, 622, Ellendt, Arr. Al. II. 77. (b) The 3 pers. plur. present ndeaai (for TiddaC) Mt. v. 15, 'jreptTideaa-L Mk. xv. 17, iirirideaat Mt. xxiii. 4. This is the better and more usual form, comp. Thuc. 2. 34, Aristot. Mdaph. 11. 1, Theophr. Plant. 2. 6 : see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 145 sq., where many examples are given, and Matth. 210, Schneider, Plat. Civ. XL 250 (Jelf 274). Similarly, StSoaci Ptev. xvii. 13, in the best MSS. ; comp. Her. 1. 93, Thuc. 1. 42. The con- tracted forms TiOetat and (more especially) BiBovai belong to later Greek : see Lob. p. 244. (c) The 3 pers. plur. imperf. of (a compound of) SiScofjit is iBiSovv, instead of ehihoaav, A. iv. 33, xxvii. 1, after the analogy of contracted verbs;" compare Hes. ep'y. 123. In the singular ehihovv is more common (Buttm. I. 509, Jelf 276). {d) On the perf. infin. active earavat 1 C. x. 1 2 (a shortened form for earr^Kevai, but very common, and perhaps the only form in use), see Irr. V. s. v. ; comp. Georgi, Hier. 1. 1 8 2 sq. (Jelf 3 9).^ («) The imperative pres. passive Trepuaraa-o is found in several MSS. in 2 Tim. ii. 16, Tit. iii. 9 ; dcfiiaraao 1 Tim. vi. 5 v. I. ; irepita-ra), k.t.X., were more usual, see Thom. M. p. 75, Matth. 213.^ (/) There is weighty authority for some forms from a present lardo) (Her. 4. 103, as d(f)iaTd(o Joa. Cinnam. p. 121, icpca-rdto p. 65, KaOia-rda) p. 104) ; as ia-Toy^iev Eomi iii 31, crvvto-ToJvTe'i ' [No uncial MS. reads -i7ri7rX.aw) A. xiv. 17 ; comp. efiirnrpoiv Leo Diac. 2. 1.^ [See Veitch p. 299.] {g) The opt. pres. hcoi) for 80/77, Rom. xv. 5, 2 Tim. i. 16, 18 (ii. 7), E. i. 17, iii. 16,' Jo. xv. 16 ; airo^r) 2 Tim. iv. 14 ;' see Gen. xxvii. 28, xxviii. 4, Num. v. 21, xi. 29, al., Themist. Or. 8. p. 174 d, Philostr. Apoll. 1. 34, Dio Chr. 20. 267,Aristeas p. 120 (Haverc), al. This is a later form, rejected by the old gram- marians (Phryn. p. 345, Moeris p. 117). In Plat. Gorg. 481 a, Lysias, c. Andoc. p. 215, t. iv, recent editors have restored htp; and in Xen. Cyr. 3. 1. 35, Schneider changed 80)77? into 80/779: comp. Lob. p. 346, Sturz p. 52, Buttm. in Mus. Antiq. Stud. I. 238.' {h) The 2 aor. imper. "of ^alvco occurs in a contracted form ; avd^a Eev. iv. 1, KardjSa Mk. xv. 30 v.L; comp. Eurip. El. 113, Aristoph. Ach. 262, Vesp. 979, and see Georgi, Eier. I. 153, Irr. V. s. V. The longer form is also found, as Kard^rjOi Mt. xivii. 40, Jo. iv. 49, fjL€Td^'r]0t vii. 3 : comp. Th. IVI: p. 495 and Guden- dorp in loc. Quite analogous is dvaaja A. xii. 7, E. v. 14, comp. Theocrit. 24. 36, Menand. p. 48 (Mein.), ^.?op. 62 (De Furia),— also diTocxra Frotev. Jac. 2, irapda-ra Act. Apocr. 5 1 : on the other hand,a2/ao-T77^tA.ix.6,34,eV/o-T77^t 2Tim.iv.2.' (Jelf 302,274.) (i) The K T. MSS. vary as to the form of the neuter perf. partic. of Xcrr^fit, but karo'i {e4n)- In E i 17 2 Tim. ii. 25, Laclim. writes SaJ^, (for S*'"). as a subjunctive; so also Tisch. (ed. 7) in Jo. xv. 16. Sec Yvltz.' Rom. III. 230, A. Buttm. p. 46, in favour of 8*»i in these passages ; on the other side, Meyer on E. i. 17, and below § 41. b. 1. On these forms see Veitch p. 168, Jelf 274.] * This form in the N. T. is the more peculiar, since, wherever it occurs, ordinary N. T. u.sage would require the conjunctive. •♦ [Mtra/Sa Mt. xvii. 20 ; xxTadxTu Mk. xiii. 16, al., ivdjixTi Rev. xi. 12,] SECT. XIV.] VERBS IN /At AND IRREGULAR VERBS. 9 5 Don. p. 124) and it is adopted by Bekker in Plato throughout. The uncontracted forms of this participle also occur not unfre- quently in good MSS. of the N. T.; as iarrjKoTtov Mt. xxvii. 47, Mk. ix, 1, XL 5, karrjKm Jo. iii. 29, vi. 22, TrapecrrrjKoacv Mk. xiv. 6 9 : these forms have been for the most part received into the text.^ The conjunctive S0J077 is fairly .supported in Jo. xvii. 2, Rev. viii. 3, (8wo-u)o-iv xiii. 1 6). This according to some is a Doric form ; it is found in Theoor. 27. 21, but has long been replaced there by the correction Bwa-eu^ la later Greek, however, this form occurs fre- quently (Lob. p. 721, comp. Thilo, Apocr. I. 871, Index to Theo- phanes), and may probably have been one of the corrupt forms of the popular spoken language.^ [Veitch, Gr, V. p. 169.] 2, From et/it we find (a) The imperat. r/ro) for ea-roi (the usual form in the N. T., as elsewhere) 1 C. xvi. 22, Ja. v. 12, Ps. ciii. 31, 1 Mace. x. 31, comp, Clem. Al. Strom. 6. 275, Acta Thorn. 3, 7 ; once only in Plato {Rep. 2.361 d), see Schneider in loc, — also Irr. V. s. v. eifii (Jelf 286, Don. p. 229). According to Heraclides (in Eustath. p. 1411.22) this is a Doric inflexion. The other imperative form laOi occurs Mt. ii. 13, v. 25, Mk. v. 34, L. xix. 17, 1 Tim. iv. 15 (Buttm. I. 527).^^ Q)) "H/uTjv, 1 pers. sing, imperf. middle {Irr. V. I. c, Jelf 286), is rejected by the Atticists, and is common in later writers only (who use it especially in conjunction with civ); see Lob. p. 152, Schief. Long. 423, Valcken. m iV. r. L 478. In the N. T. it is the usual form ; see Mt. xxv. 35, Jo. xi. 15, A. x. 30, xi. 5, 17, 1 C. xiii, 11, al., and comp. Thilo, Acta Thorn, p. 3: with av it ^ {^Etrrif IS Well attested in Mt. I.e., Rev. xiv. 1, tut iimus has not much authority anjrwhere : iu Mk. xiii. 14 we should probably read 'nrrtucora, and itrrnxof is generally received in Rev. v. 6 (-»ms H). The uncontracted forms of this partic. (in the simple verb and its compounds) occur frequently, though much les-s frequently than the contracted: in Mk. xiv. 69 vafurTunv is the best reading.] ^ [Tisch. still (but see § 13. 1. e) reads ^uf}. Others, e. g. Hero- dian, the Etym. Mag., and Suidas, more correctly take it as the perfect indie, (for a<^eivTat). According to the Etym. Mag. it is ^ [In all these passages X has iii/.iea, : tlie other form nutv is also found (Rom. vii, 5, al.). On ?^>iv see Veitch p. 199.] ^ [^Hs occurs several times, as Mt. xxv. 21, 23, al., sometimes without any V. I. ; rtrSa, Mt. xxvi. 69, Mk. xiv. 67. The "MSS. of little weight " are some o'f the most important of the cursive MSS.] ^ [Now generally received. See Ellicott and Lightfoot on G. iii. 28.] * Tlie Etym. Maij. (p. 357) regards tvi, not as a contraction for imrn, but as used elliptically, the proper person of tTvai being supplied. — Whether iv is ever used for 'in is doubtful (Ilerm. Soph. Trnch. 1020). * [111 Matthew and Mark a:fi!iyrcci is probably the true reading.] SECT. XTV] VERBS IN fii AN'D IRREGULAR VERBS. 97 an Attic form, Init Suidas i:=? certainly right in ascribing it ta the Doric dialect : ^ this perfect passive follows the analogy of tlie perf act. a^eaiKa. Conip. Fischer, (Zt; Vitiis Lex. p. 646 sqi^., Irr. V. p. 145 (Jelf 284). (V) "Hcpie, :Mk. i. 34, xi. 16 (Philo, Lg. ad Cajam \\ 1021), is the inipT?rfect (for aeOTjcrav in Kom. iv. 7 ^ (from Ps. xxxi. 1) as 1 aor. pass, of ucfinjfii: in some jMSS. however (of N. T. and LXX) we find the augmented form a(f)ei07]aav, which is most commonly used by Greek authors (Irr.- V. p. 146). 'A<;/)£u (from a root a<^Lo) is now received into the text in Rev. ii. 20 (Ex. xxxii. 32). on the autliority of good MSS. ; comp. Tt^eK for Tt'^/;s (Buttm. I. 50G, J<-lf 27li).^ From a-vvLi]fiL we have a-wiova-i. Mt. xiii. 13 {3 pers. phir.), 2 C. X. 12 (3 plur. or dative partic). and the partio. crvvtcuv Mt. xin. 2.'> V. I. (Kom. iii. 11, from LXX. fmrtwr). instead of o-vrut? which Lachra. and Tisoh. havo received into the text [in Mt. xiii. 23]. The first form (,rvyu>vcn) belongs to a root o-uvtco), from which we also find an intin. o-riicuin Theogn. 565 : the participle, which is particu- larly common in the LXX (1 Chr. xxv. 7, 2 Chr. xxxiv. 12, Ps. xl. 2, Jer. XX. 12). is perhaps mori' correctly written ctl'vlidv, from crvi'iu) ; see above [on rifpie]. and P>attm. I. 523. Lachmann accordingly writes crwiova-i in Mt. xiii. 13: see on the whole Fritz. Bom. L 1 74 sq.» ^ ["A Dorism not confiued to the X. T. but somewhat widely ditlused, mid received even bv Attic writers : see Ahivns, Dial. Dor. p. 344 ; Bredow, Di>il. Herod . p. 39.'..'"' A. liuttm. p. 49. Veitch (p. 293) tiuotes a>:ie\(a^), is rare, see Buttm. II. 100; it is found however in Agath 269. 5, and frequently in the LXX, as Ex. v. 8, Num. xi. 17, Dt. xii. 32, Job xxxvi. 7; conip. also Menand. Byz. p. 316. Against Reisig,^ who claims this form for Aristophanes and Sophocles, see Herm. (Ed. Col. 1454, and Eurip, Rel. p. 127. '''cLKovay. Fut. aKovaco (for uKovaofiai) Mt. xii. 19, xiii. 14, Rom. X. 14 [Bee], Jo. xvL 13 :• aKovcro/xai, however, is the more common future in the N. T., especially in Luke, see A. iii. 22 (vii. 37), xvii. 32, xxv. 22, xxviii. 28 (Jo. v. 28). 'AKovaco occurs not only in poets (Jacobs, Anthol. Gr. III. 134, Orac. Sibyll. 8. 206, 345), but occasionally also in prose authors of the KOLvri, as Dion. H. 980. 4 (Reiske).^ In the LXX comp. Is. vi. 9, 2 S. xiv. 16. dXkofjuic varies in the aorist between rjkd^'qv and rjXofirjv {Irr. V. s. v.). In A. xiv. 10 both these forms are found in the MSS. (and even with \ doubled), but rjKaro has most authority.* dfjLaprdvoy, d/^capreco. The 1 aor. r/fidpT-qa-a for 2 aor. rjfMap- jov, Eom. V. 14, 16, Mt. xviii 15, L. xviL 4, Rom. vi. 15 (IS. xix. 4, Lam. iii. 41),^ Th. M. p. 420, Lob. p. 732 ; see however Diod. S. 2. 14 dfiapT7]aa^, Agath. 167. 18.** The fut. active also, dfMaprijao) (Mt. xviii. 21, Ecclus. \ii. 36, xxiv. 22, Dio C. 1 [L. xii. 18 Kcchk^, 2 Til. ii. S iy.Kir; see Dion. H. Ant. 9. 26, Diod. S. 2. 25 (Veitch s. v.). On avaXoT, the reading of K in ^ Th. ii. 8, see Veitch, p. 61.] * Comm. Crit. in Soph. (Ed. Col. p. 365. 3 Comp. Scfiaef. Dem. ] I. 232, Wurm, Dhiarch. p. 153, Bachmann, Lye. I. 92. [Mt. xii. 19, xiii. 14, A. iii. 22, xxviii. 26, are from the Old Testament. The best texts have -fa, in John (v. 25, 28, x. V6), -y»^a; in Acts (xvii. 32, xxi. 22, xxv. 22, xxviii. 28.] * [In A. xix. 16 the best texts have i^aXo/uiiios.] * Still the 2 aor. niu^proo prclomiuatea in the LXX : see especially 1 K. viii. 4/, fiaaprsfA-v, tiviiju-nra/iciVj r,oix,7!C'au.:\-. ' ["la the N. T. we find witiiout exception the second aorist in the indie, theyim aorist partic. j in the coiij, both forms occur;" A. Buttm. p. 54.] 100 DEFECTIVE VERBS. [PART II. 59. 20), is not very common: compare Monk, Eur. Air. 159, Poppo, Thuc. III. iv. 361.1 *dve-^ofj,ai. Fut. dve^ofxat Mt. xvii. 17, Mk. ix. 19, L. ix. 41, 2 Tim. iv. 3, — for which Moeris from pure caprice would have dvaa')(riaofiaL : dve^ofiai occurs very frequently, com|>. e.g. Soph, Uledr. 1017, Xen. Ci/r. 5. 1. 26, Plat. Fha:dr. 239 a. dvoiyco. 1 aor. rjvoi^a Jo. ix. 17 [i?er.], 21, al., for dverp^a (but comp. Xen. Hdl. 1. 5. 13) : 2 aor. pass, rjvoi'yqv Rev. xv. 5. See § 12. 7. diravrdu). Put. diravn^aii) (for d'7ravrr](T0fj.ai) Mk. xiv. 13 (Diod. S. 18. 15) : see Irr. F". p. 33, Matth. Eur. Siipp. 774. diroKreiVQ). The 1 aor. direicrdvOr}, diroKravOrivat, Rev. ii. 13, ix. 18, 20, xi. 13, xiii. 10, xix. 21, Mt. xvi. 21, L. ix. 22, al.; comp. 1 Mace. ii. 9, 2 Mace. iv. 36. This form occurs indeed in Homer,^ but belongs peculiarly to later prose, as Pio 0. 65. c. 4, Menander, Hist. pp. 284, 304 (ed. Bonn) ; see Buttm. II. 227, Lob. pp. 36, 757.^ The un- Attic perf aTreKra^Ka occurs 2 S. iv. 11 {Irr. F. p. 200). aTToWv/jLi: Put. diroXeato Mt. xxi. 41, Mk. viii. 35, Jo. vi. 39, xii. 25 [i^ec] ; comp. Lucian, Asin. 33, Long. Pastor. 3. 17 (Buttm. IL 254, Irr. V. p. 238) ; but see Lob. p. 746. In 1 C. i. 19 we find the ordinary form dirokoi.^ 1 ['A^ipisvvu^/. In L. xii. 28 good MSS. have a.y.(piiZ,u (Plut. C. Gracch. 2) for -ivvvm. Lachmann, Westcott and Hort read auipidl^ii with B ; comp. i-rvfcfiaXs riut. Alor. 340, Job xxix. 14, xl. 5 : see A. Buttm. p. 49, Veitch p. 58.] ^ [Not in Homer, see Lobeck on Buttmann I. c, Lidd. and Scott .s. v. : see also Vfitch, Gr. Verbs, i)p. 79, 349. In 2 Mace. l. c. we find the perfect, ' In Kev. vi. 11 we find a.^oKTiv^iaSai {v. I. aTaxTsntr^xi), and in 2 C. iii. 6 (Rev. xiii. 10) aToxriwu {v. I. i-raKTmi). Tiiis form is considered ^Eolic, since the Jilolians were accustomed to change e/ into 6 before X, ft, v, p, tr, doubling the following consonant, e.g. KTcttu for KTilto), tr'^ippu for ff-rnpu ; .see Koen, Gregor. Cor. pp. 587, 597 (ed. Scha-f. ), Matth. 14. 6, and comp. Dindorf, Pnef. ad Ariftoph. XII. p. 14. In Tob. i. 18 and Wis. xvi. 14 also we find this form amongst the variants. We must not (with Wahl) assume the existence of a present a.^roKrita for Mt. x. 28, L. xii. 4, xiii. 34 : aVaxTsvovTa/v (if we do not regard it as an aorist partic, see Fritz. Matt. p. 383) may be a corruption of a-rcxrtvvcuTiuv, which is the reading of a few good MSS., and which is received by Lacbm. and in part by Tisch. See further Borliem. Liic. p. 81. [The form -iviiM is received by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Alford, in Mt. x. 28, Mk. xii. 5, }j. xii. 4, 2 0. iii. 6, Kev. vi. 11 (except 2 C. iii. 6, Lachm.). In Rev. vi. 11 AVe.stcott and Hort receive -twu, but in Mk. xii. 5 they have the strange form i-rexTinvvTii. None of the.se editors receive -/y«. In 2 C. iii. 6, Rev. xiii. 10, Lachm. adopts ("de conjectura," Tiscli. II. cc.) ivoxranu, on which see A. Buttm. p. 61.] ' [1 (". i. 19 is from the LXX. In Jo. vi. 39 a^roxUeo is 1 aor. subj., but this future often occurs in the N. T. Tlie fut. mid.a.rTa., Mk. iv. 27, from a cognate fonn fiXarrau, another example of which is hardly to be found ; comp. Schol. find. Py. (d-XXu xui p,-^.a.KafM€v 1 Th. iv. 2, iBcoKare Mt. xxv. 35, G. iv. 15, al., as in Demos- thenes. On Bcoo-r) see § 14. 1. Eem.^ *Bia)Kco, Fut. Btco^oi (for Bi(il)^o/xai) Mt. xxiii. 34, L. xxi. 12 {Irr. V. p. 89) : comp. however Dem. Nausim. 633 c, Xen. An. 1. 4. 8 (and Kriig. in loc), Cyr. G. o. 13. Zvvaixat. It is only necessary to remark that, beside eSu- vr)B7]v, the Ionic form rjhwdadr^v (with augment t]) is given amongst the variants in Mt. xvii. 16, as found in B ; see Buttm. II. 155.* hv(o, hvvio. In Mk. i. 32 some good MSS. have the 1 aor. etvca, which in earlier Greek has only a causative signification {Irr. V. p. 92).^ Another form of the 1 aor. is found L. iv. 40 {ZvvavToerfcct ihnlTt, L. viii. 38 in Lachmann's text ; on this form (which is not well attested) see A. Buttm. p. 55.] _ ^ '3 [A. Buttm. remarks (p. 46) that the 2 aor. is only found once in the inclic. (L. i. 2), but that the other moods are regularly formed from the 2 aor. Veitch quotes i^JjK«.fi.iy trora Eur. Cycl. 296, Xen. An. 3. 2. 5, Hell. 6. 3. 6, al.] * [Buttm. /. c. remarks that this form (with the augm. ji) is confined to Hel- lenistic Greek : Tisch. now receives this form in Mk. vii. 24 (.Jos. xv. 63). It is a v.l. in Her. 7. 106 (Veitch s. v.).] '[B has ■rupuiihCniia.)^ in Judo 4. The present form WbidurKu, Mk. xr. 17, L. xvi. 19 (L. viii. 27, Lachm.), 2 S. xiii. 18, al., is unknown in earlier Greek : see Fritz. Mark, p. 681.] 6 ['ErfsXw : in the X. T. we have always aVa->., yJ'iXti!», but Meyer, 104 DEFECTIVE VERBS. [PART II. writers, and here and there in Attic (Lob. p. 447), — but not in Plato, see Schneider, Plat. Civ. II. 5 sq. [Veitch, Gr. V. p. 509.] iKx^w: later form eKxvvco^ (Lob. p. 726). The future is €KX€(o for eKxevao) (Buttm. I. 396, Irr. F. p. 336) : see § 13. 3. (iXedco for iXeeco occurs in certain good MSS. in several passages of the N. T., as i\e(ovTo. Fut. eTratveaco 1 C. xi. 22, for tiraiviaofiai (Buttm. L 388); comp. however Xen. ^w. 5. 5. 8,Himer. 20 : in this verb indeed the fut. active is not uncommon. See Brunck, Gnom. pp. 10, 64, Schsef. Bern. II. 465, Stallb. Plat. Symp. p. 1 3 9. [Veitch, Gr. F. p. 2 2 6 : comp. Shilleto, Dem. F. Z. p. 31.] ''^iiTLopKew. Fut. eiTLopKrjaco for eTriopKrjcrofiai Mt. v. 33 : see Buttm. IL 85. ^PX'^H'^^- The fut. ikevaojxat, both in the simple verb and in its compounds, is of frequent occurrence in the N. T. ; it is Tisch., Westcott and Hort adopt Vf'fiinv, which N and B have in eyery instance (except Mt. v. 21 in B). The partic. is uniformly f.nhU, without a variant.] ^ [The best MSS. double the v in the present, as iKxuyyopuviv Mt. xxiii. '6b, al., and this form is now generally received : comp. a-roKriitvu above. 1 L J^t.iu Kara, fA.lv rov; Attikcvs ■^rfwryii rvl,vyias tui •xifta^uf/.fviDi, sXee/;, . . . 2 ['EXia'a is very strongly supported in Eom. ix. 16, but not in ver. 18. In ed. 7, Tisch. received -«« in both verses ; Lachm., Treg., Alford (doubtfully), Tisch. (ed. 8), Westcott and Hort, read ixttrin ver. 18. Fritzsche and Meyer retain -iu in both verses, urging that diflerent forms would not be used in tlie same passage : see, however, page 107, note ^ In favour of IWoyav (Phil. 18, and probably Rom. v. 13) see Meyer and Ellicott on Phil. 18. Some instances of the substitution of -to. for,-a'/u are found in good MSS. Tisch. and others receive r^fUTov, Mt. xv. 23 (Mli. iv. 10) ; and the participle of »-*£a. in Kev. ii. 17 (see also ii. 7, xv. 2). Compare Mullach, Vulg. p. 252, and (A. Buttm. in) Htud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 188.] SECT. XV.] DEFECTIVE VEllBS. 105 principally met with in later prose (Arr. Al. 6. 12, Philostr. ApolL 4. 4, Dio Chr. 33. 410, Max. Tyr. 24. p. 295), elfit being used instead in Attic Greek (Pliryn. p. 37, Th. M. pp. 88, 336). In earlier writers, however, iXevao^ai is not at all uncommon, as Her. 1. 142, 5. 125, Lys. Danlan. 12 (p. 233, Bremi). See in general Lob. p. 37 sq., Sclisef. Soph. II. 323, and comp. Elmsl. Eur. Heracl. 210. For rjpxofi-nv'^ (Mk. i. 45, ii. 13, Jo, iv. 30, vi. 17, al.), Attic writers commonly use the iniperf, of e7/At {Irr. F. p. 134) — but see Bornem. Luc. p. 106, and comp. Thuc. 4. 120, 121, Xen. An. 4. 6. 22 ; and for epxov, epxecrOe, Jo. i. 47, the imper. of e7/j,t (lOi, ire). The partic. cpx) avaKco. From this we have the fut. iTriipavaet E. v, 14; comp. Gen. xliv. 3, Jud. xvi. 2, 1 S. xiv. 36, Judith xiv. 2. Tiiis form does not occur in Greek writers, but is support<;d by the analogy of the subst. virocpavcri^; ; see Irr. V. p. 318. *(})€pco. Aor. partic. ive'yKa6aK€. vr]v, ^ue/?, L. viii. 6, 7, 8, — very common from the time of Hippocrates : for this Attic writers use the 2 aor. active €(f>vv, (f)vvfi (conj. aor. passive) for eKcpvr/, and this may be the preferable reading ; see Fritz. Mark, p. 578 sq.^ '^aipo). Fut. '^apijaofiai for '^acpija-co, L. i. 14, Jo. xvi. 20,22, Ph. 118 (Hab. i. 16, Zach. x. 7, Ps. xcv. 12, and often) ; see Moer. p. 120, Th. M. p. 910, Lob. 740,' Buttm. II. 322: it also occurs in Diod. Uxc. Vat. p. 95. ''^■^apl^o/jLac. Fut. '^aplcrofxai, Horn. viii. 32, is the non- Attic form for ')(apLovfxaL. wdeco. Aor. cnrwaaTo^ A. vii. 27, 39 (Mic. iv. 6, Lam. ii. 7, and often, — Dion. H. II. 759), for which the better writers used iuxraro with the syllabic augment (Th. M. p. 403, Pol. 2. 69. 9, 15. .31. 12). 1 aor. pass. d7ro>aOrjv Ps. Ixxxvii. 6,comp. Xen. Hell. 4. 3. 12, Dio C. 37. 47. Also aor. act. t^wo-ej/ ^ A. vii. 45, for which some MSS. have i^ecoaev (Eilendt, Arr. AL I. 181). Strictly speaking, the rule for the use of the syllabic augment ^ ["The partic. heyKuv is in the N. T. entire!}' displaced by h/yxat, whilst conversely, tyiyxuv has taken the place of Ulyuai, which occurs once only." A. Buttm. p. 68. Ti.sch. reads lysyKii (not on in 1 P. ii. 5, but also) in L. xxii. 42. On these aorists see especially Veitch. Or. V. pp. 592-4.] 2 [The accentuated MSS. are divided between tKifv^ (Lachm., Treg., Alf., Fritz., A. Buttm.) and ix(p6n (Tisch., Meyer, "Westc. and Hort) : the latter may be either 2 aor. act. intransitive, or (Meyer) present and transitive.] ^ [Lob. D. 740 refers to ix«-''P^:<'a solely. In Eev. xi. 10, Rec. has the fut, Xa.pDvtri)i ; tilis seeras the only example of this form found in any writer.] * From the fut. u(ru (from uij). The aorist form from the other future ai^iru occurs ouly in later authors ; e.g. partic. i\s ufirfem Cinnam. p. 193. [SeeYeitch, Gr. F. p. 614.] * [Accentuated i'^aa-jv by Tischendorf and Meyer. ] 112 FORMATION OF DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WORDS, [PART II. in this verb applies to Attic writers only : see Poppo, Thuc. III. ii. 407. '''u)veofiai. 1 aor. oovrjadfirjv A. vii. 1 6, as frequently in Nvriters oi the Koivrj, e.g. Plntarch, Pausanias (Lob. p. 139). Attte V riters prefer eTrpid/xr]v. Eem. The later verbal forms are not always found in the N. T. where they might be expected. We have, for instance, rrto/uiai (not Tnovfxai) as the 2 fut. of ttiVo), Rev. xiv. 10, see Buttm. I. 395 ; aor. Kotvwo-ai^ Mk. vii. 15, 18, Moeris p. 434 (<'d. Piers.), Locella, Xe7i. Ephes. p. 254 ; fut. <^£i;^oyu,at, ^avyutacro/xai, not ^ev'fo), Oavfid(ro} (Buttm. II. 85). In H. iv. 15, wefind amongst the various readings Trcrretpafxevov from the older TTupdo} (instead of Tre-n-eLpaix/xevov from Tretpd^wi), and Tisch. has received this into the text.- That the same forms are sometimes produced from different verbs by inflexion is well known : we shall only specify i$ev€va-e Jo. v. 13, which (grammatically) may belong equally well to c/cveo (Irr. V. p. 230) and to eKvevw. Section XVI. FORMATION OF DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WORDS.^ The N.T. contains anumber of words not used by Greek authors, which were either derived from the popular spoken language, or were newly coined : we find most examples of the latter class in the writings of Paul. The more numerous such words are, the more necessary is it to compare the established laws of derivation in Greek with these formationspeculiarto the N.T. In connexion with this it will be useful to notice the analogies which, though not unknown to ordinary Greek, yet appear more prominently in the N. T. language. The following observations are based 1 [For which later writers use(' KoiruKrittriat (Moeris l.c.).'\ * [Most editors (including Tifch. in ed. 8) read iri')riipitirftivi»i, since (1) this has more external support, and (2) the ordinary meaning of -ri'Ttipaiz., "experienced," is unsuitable here. Winer (apparently) and Tisch. (in ed. 7) considered the two equivalent in meaning ; and Tisch. argued that there could be no motive lor altering ■n-rnfairfi.. (comp. H. ii. 18), but the ambiguous rriTUfafA. would naturally be changed into the more familiar word. See Delitzsch. 1 3 See Ph. Cattieri Gazophylacmm Orcecor. (1651, 1708), ed. F. L. Abresoh (Utr. 1757, Leyd. 1809) ; but especially Buttmann, Ausf. Or. II. 382 sqq. (with Lobeck's additions), Lobeck, Faren/a to Phrynichu^, and Lobeck's other works quoted above p. 3. Amongst commentaries, Selecta e scholis Valchenarii chiefly refers to this subject. Examples of the later formations are to be found in the Byzantine writers especially. SECT. XVI. j DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WORDS. 113 on Buttmann, M'hose lucid treatment of the subject {Ausfuhrl. Sprachl. § 1 1 8 sqq.) embraces all points of importance. Comp. Kriiger § 41 sq.^ A. DERIVATION BY TERMINATIONS. 1. VERBS. The derivative verbs in oa> and t^&> (mostly but not entirely from nouns) are peculiarly frequent. In some instances verbs in oco superseded others in even or tfo> ; as heicarow {BeKarevio Xen. An. 5. 3. 9, al.), i^ovBevoo) ' (i^ouBevl^o) in Plutarch), crap6(o (for craipco, Lob. p. 89), Kec^akaiooi ^ (^KecpaXi^o), Lob. p. 95), BvvafioQ) and ivBvvafioco (Lob. p. 605 note), a(f>v7rv6, H. xi. 28, some good MSS. have , Ixiipivu (from eXidpos) ; Lachm. and mth him, Tisch. have received this form into the text. I am not aware that the latter form of this Alexandrian word has been preserved elsewhere. [Recent editors receive i^oXiipiiu in A. iii. 23, with most of the uncial MSS. We find the same form in the Alex. MS. of the LXX (both in the simple verb and in the compound), as Ex. xii. 23, Jos. xxiii. 4, 5, al. In H. xi. Tisch. now reads ixoipivuv.l * ['SxKnpim is very rare : ffKXnpvvo) is not uncommon in the LXX and in medical writers (Hippocr., al.).] * [To these verbs derived from adj. or subst. should be added ivitpasutrlu G. vi. 12 ("not used by any earlier writer: " EUic), aKcufiaiFh. iv. 10 (Diod. S. HJxc. Vat. p. 30).] ^ [On verbs in ef« Papyri Taurvti. 7. line 7. To derivative verbs in cuw belongs also Trapa/SoXevfa-Oat Ph. ii. 30, which Griesb., Lachm., al., have received into the text, in accordance with the weightiest critical authorities. From Tiapd- ^oAo9 a verb Trapa^oX^Za-Oai might certainly have been formed directly ; but the ending cuco is chosen to express the meaning Tra- pd^oXov elvai, as in later Greek eTrtcr/coTrevcti/ is used for iTria-Koirov ctmt (Lob. p. 591), and, to give a still closer parallel, as we find irep-TrepevecrOaL from Tre'pTrtpos. It would not be riglit to make the admission of Trapa^oXeveadat depend on the assumption that there existed a verb ftoXevearOai, which certainly is not to be found in anv Greek writer.^ 2. SUBSTAIfTIVES.* a. From Vcrhs.^ Of nouns in /io<; (Buttra. II. 398) from verbs in a^w, we have to mention dyiaajj,6<{, which does not occur in Greek authors, as also jreipaafio^ from ireipd^o), ivra- (f)t,aafjL6^ from ivracpid^o).^ From verbs in i^co we find fiaKa- pt(j>povLcr/j,6'?, direXeyp^o'i. The most numerous formations, however, are those in fia (Lob. Paral. p. 391 sqq.) and (tl have some- times collateral forms in iva>, as uipiXiiai by the side of uinxiu ; and compares * Compare G. Curtius, De rt-omin. Gr. formatione linguar, cognat. ratione habita: Berlin 1842 (Zeitschr. fiir Alterth. 1846, No. 68 sq.). "^ Comp. Lobeck, Paral. p. 397 sqq., and especially Technol. lib. 8, p. 253 sqq. ' [On the rare noun apTxy/ios see Ellicott and Lightfoot on Ph. ii. 6, Donalds. New Crat. p. 451.] 116 DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WORDS. [PART IL f/ &Kiao-jJ,a, 7rpo<;KOfjbfia, airavyaa/iia, rjTTijfia, acTtifia, Karop- 6(op,a, o-repeco/xa (from contracted verbs, like (j>p6v7)/jLa, etc.).^ These nouns mostly denote a product or state ; only avTXrj/xa denotes an instrument (a meaning which nouns in ^09 often have) ; and KaraXvfjca, the place of KaraXveiv (Eustath, Odyss. p. 146. 33). The nouns in cn(ni»i^£/v has the general meaning to deport oneself as a Greek (Diog. L. I. 102). It is most frequently applied to speaking Greek, and especially to the use of the Greek language by foreigners (Strabo 14. 662) ; and in this case it is SECT. XVI.] DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WORDS. 1 1 7 where : only in the case of KoXKvl3caTri<; (which however is not peculiar to the K T.) there exists no intermediate verb koWv- iSi'^etv} From TeXeiovv we have re\€L(or7]<;, comp. ^tjXcot?;? and XvTpcoTijii: from irpo^Kvvelv, irpo6rrj<;, /j,eyak€toTr]<;, KvpLort)'^, at'trp^oT?^?, iTLOTT)'^ (dyadoTrjf;, LXX), see Lob. p. 350 sqq.: dKaddpTr}^, Eev. xvii. 4, is not well attested. often used without implying disparagement, e.g. in Xen. Anab. 7. 3. 25, Strabo 2. 98: De Wette's assertion {Bibel p. 17, — reprinted from the flail. Encycl.) is incorrect. Hence the substantive \x\rni/. ] - [In Rev. xii. 10 recent editors receive from A the strange form tcarriyiup, for KoiTKyopof, "This form of the word is Hebraic =")"i;''t3p. A complete parallel is presented by the Rabbinical designation of Michael, the Tii^JD; ° (ruvnyup, i.e. (Tvtriyopos (comp. Schottg.). Similarly in later Greek S(a«wv for Sjaxovaj ; comp. Wetstein." Dlisterd. m /oc] * [The Hebrew noun (riDTin) which the LXX render by xardwln in Is. xxix. T ■•• : - 10 (from- whicli Rom. xi. 8 is freely quoted) is derived from the verb (D'H'lj) which Theodotion fenders by xnTavvinrai in Dan. x. 9.] * [Tx/iiTav is certainly the true reading in Mt. xxiv. 26, L. xii. 3, 24, and most probably in Mt. vi. 6.] 118 DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WORDS. [PART II. (2) Those in arvvr}, denoting non-material qualities : as iXerj- fioavvT] and da'^Tj/jLoavvi] (from iXerjfKov and ao-'^rjfxojv, comp. (Tux^poavvrj from aoxfypcov) ; or dyicoavvr], ayaOaxrvvr}, lepcoavvrj, fieyaXcoavvTj, with (o, since derived from adjectives with short penultimate;^ — all later forms, found only in Hellenistic writers: see in general Lob. Frol. Path. p. 235 sqq. Amongst nouns in m also, derived from adjectives in 09, popoavvr}? Lastly, the neuter of many adjectives in to? is used as a sub- stantive ; as vTTo^vyiov, fieOopiov, virok-qvcov, c] in Glycas (p. 11), even in the later edition. That nearly all the nouns in u/rvvv belong to the later language, is shown by Buttm. (II. 420). On the termination -;*/>v\aKnqpiov. Thig termination became more common in the later language : e. g, avaKoXvTrTrjpiov Niceph. Gregor. p. 667, Serfnjpiov Cedrea II. 377, Bavarrjpiov ib. I. 679, lajxaTrjpLov ih. I. 190, al. 4>i'A.aKT7;pios, formed immediately from 4>vXa.KTy]p, has like it an active meaning, guarding, p-ofecling. 'lAa- aT7]pLov is [)roperly something that propitiates, but can be specially applied to the place where the propitiation is accomplished (as (fivXdKTi'jpLov denotes a guardhouse, outpod), and hence to the covering of the ark of the covenant. For Rom. iii. '25 the signification propitiatory offerivg (Index to Theophan. cont.) is equally suitable : Philippi has lately denied this, but without sufficient reason. Zeu- KTi/pt'a is a femin. subst. of the same kind ; comp. a-rvTrrrjpia. SwTTypia is immediately connected with ctwtt^p ; besides this, crurr-qpLov also occurs as a substantive. 'Y-Trepwov, i.e. virep '^'"^^)> "bread for the future world." In a second Appendix Bp. Lightfoot discusses 1 They have this especial peculiarity, that words usualh', applied to persons only are transferred to articles of merchandise : compare the German flau, properly weak, feeble [but used for dull, heavy, in respect of sale], and such notices as "Sugar inactive, wheat unasked." Lobeck [Paral. p. 31) defends Scaliger's view, that -rtaTiKoi is derived from •jTriairu (Fritz. Mark, p. 595), since euphony leads to the omission of t after •r and in some other cases : comp. TTifvil, -jripvil, but especially vrlrvpev and the Latin pisso. Meyer still adheres to the rendering genuine. [For other explanations see Alford on Mk. xiv. 3. J 122 DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WORDS. [PART II. to add the epithet Tna-TiKi] as to speak of Jluid nard. The vaphoTeiv6^pu'rin>s) ; see Fritz. Bom. II. 47, Tholuck, Hehr. p. 301 sq. Somewhat similar in German is the use of das Iiiwendige (of a man) for das Inntre : the former had at one time a more limited meaning. Since, however, aripxiKo; had beyond doubt already established itself for the language of the N. T., there is no ground for such an assumption in this case. [Comp. Delitzsch on H. vii. 16 ; also Tiseh. on 1 C. iii. 1, who maintains that the two words are synonymous in the N. T.] 2 [It also occurs in Plutarch {Alex. 25). For xipafA-ixo; see Plato, Polit. 288 a.] 3 That is, if (with the Etym. Ha(\. ) we derive this word from p^X^u, P>vuj. This derivation has been recently controverted by Fritzsche {Rom. I. 136), on the ground that fivu does not seem to have the meaning tegere (as this etymology assumes), and that the word, so derived, would contain no reference to any part of the body in particular, and would therefore be unintelligible from its vague- 1,24 DEEIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WORDS. [PART II, Xorpio€7ri(TK07ro^ ^ (comp. aXkoTpioTrpwy/jbocrvvri Plat. Hej). 4. 444 b), avOpwrrdpeaKo^; (Lob. p. 621), irorafio^op'qro'i (comp. vSaTO(j)6p7]To<; Const. Man. 409), KapBioyvcocrTr)'; (KapSi67r\r)KTo,<;,[ S.'iraL<;, and may have been chosen for its resemblance in sound to eXeo? in the same clause. Buttmann (II. 467) maintains that the initial a of drevl^eiv (from the adj. dT€V')]<;) is the so-called " a in- ness. The former argument seems to me to have more force than the latter. I am inclined however to think that axpofiva-ria is not an unintentional corruption of kKfovotrfiot, but a euphemistic alteration of this word, made designedly in such a way that the latter part would convey the meaning refertus, turgena (fitju). It is in the nature of euphemistic expressions to be vague and general : those among whom they are current easily come to au understanding about their meaning. * [Recent editors receive the more correct form ixXorpitvifxn'ros. ] * Comp. avi'pai'TiiXdTpvs Ephraem. p. 743, irvptroXciTpni Pachym. 134, Geo. Pisid. Heracl. 1. 14. 182, •^iuioxdrpr,; Theodos. Acroas. 2. 73 ; also ;t/>«rTaA.rtpiir7rifp(^yii), vel alia parte orationis (craXt;;^a:»»9f, tunv^s), quarum ubi nulla couveniebat, decuisum est ad prfepositionem loquelareni d, quae, quia per se nihil signifieat, ideo ad formandum aptissima est. Curtius {Gr. Etym. pp. 195, 217) takes aTsm'f, i(r-rtpx,'^s, as standing for a»-Ti»>if, a.v-ifrifx,U. In Curtius, Studien, vol. viii, will be found a full investigation of the subject by Clemm, who arranges all examples of prefixed a. under the four head-s, a. protheticum, copulativum, privatlvum, prcBposUionale, agi'eeing with Curtius in connecting the two words (and also ajvoowpo5, JlvOa^ for nu^oSwpo?, MerpSs (Euseb. H. E. 6. 41).i Many names in as not circumflexed are abbreviated forms ; as 'A/x7rAtas for Ampliatus (Rom. xvi. 8),^ AvrtTras for AvrtVarpos (Rev. ii. 13), KAeoTras for KAcoTrarpos (L. xxiv. 18), and perhaps ^t'Aas for SiAouai/o?, see Heumann, Pcecile III. 314. If 'Xw-n-arpo'; (A. XX. 4) is for Xioa-LTrarpos, which is found in some MSS., the contraction is nearer the commencement of the word, but is also very bold : SwTrarpos may however be an uncontracted name. On the other hand, those proper names which are com- pounds of Aao?, and which by the Dorians (Matth. 49) — and probably by others also — were contracted into Xa?, appear in the N. T. in their uncontracted form, as JS^iKoAaos, 'Apx^'Aao?. That at an earlier period also the Greeks contracted personal names on euphonic grounds is shown by examples in K. Keil's Spec. Onomatolog. Gr. p. 52 sqq. (Lips. 1840). In German there are numerous examples of similar abbreviations and con- tractions, sometimes very harsh ; as Klaus from Nikolaus, Kathe (Kathi) from Katharina. Several of these have become indepen- dent names, occurring even in the written language ; as Fritz (Friedrich), Heinz (Heinrich), Hans, Max : comp. Lobeck, Prolegg. Path. p. 504 sqcj.^ Rem. 2. The Latin words taken np into the Greek of the N. T. . — almost without exception substantives,'' denoting Roman judicial institutions, coins, articles of clothing — have nothingpeculiar in their form. Latin verbs ia a Greek dress first appear at a later period, in the Greek of the Lihri Pseudepigraphi, the Byzantine writers, etc. See Thilo, Ada App. Petri d Pauli I. 10 sq. (Hal. 1837). in Bbckli. [Lachm. writes Nu^^«y as the name of a woman (reading alrl^i for avreu) : SO Westcott and Hort. See Liglitfoot's note.] ' [See Mullacli, Vulg. pp. 22, 165.] * [In this passage ' Af^-zXia-ms (Tisch.,- ' AfcxxiarDc) is well supported.] ^ On Greek personal names in general, see Sturz, Progr. de Nominib. Grcecor. (included in his Opuscula : Lips. 1825), W. Pape, Worierb, der griech. Eigen- namen (Brschw. 1842), {Hall. L. Z. 1843, No. 106-108), and Keil, Beitragt zur Onomatologie, in Sclineidewin, Fhilologus Vol. 2 and 3. * [The only exception appears to be (ppayiXXou. The remark here made as to t}\& m failing of these substantives is hardly correct ; see an article by Prof. Potwin in Bibliotheca Sacra 1875, pp. 703-714 (also 1880, p. 503). See further MuUach, Vulg. pp. 52, 54.] PART III. SYNTAX. SIGNIFICATION AND USE OF THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF SPEECH. CHAPTER FIRST. THE ARTICLRi Section XVII. THE ARTICLE AS A PRONOUN. 1. The Article 6, rj, to, was originally a demonstrative pronoun, and in epic poetry (to which belongs the quotation from Aratus in A. xvii 28, rov jap yevo<; eafjuev) it is regularly used as such. Compare Soph. (Ed. R. 1082, tt}? jap -rre^vKa fjL7]Tp6<; (Matth. 28G) : for prose compare Athen. 2. p. 37. (Jelf 444, Don. p. 345.) This use of the article is not usual in prose, except — ' A. Kluit, . Vindicice -Artie, in N. T. (Traj. et Alcmar. 1768-1771 ; the book itself is written in Dutch) ; G. Middleton, The Doctrine of the Greek Ar- ticle applied to the criticism and the illustration of the N. T. (London 1808). Compare Schulthess in the Theol. Atinal. 1808, p. 56 sqq. ; E. Valpy, A short treatise on the doctrine of the Greek Article, according to Middleton; He, briefly and compendiously explained as applicable to the criticism of the N. T., — prefixed to his Greek Testament icith English notes (3 vols. : ed. 3, Lond. 1834). Emmer- ling's Einige Bemerk. ilber den Artikel im N. T. (in Keil and Tzschirner'a Analekt. I. ii. 147 sqq.) are of no importance. On the other hand, Bengel has some brief but striking remarks on the subject in his note on Mt. xviii. 17. fSee also A. Buttmann, Gr. pp. 85-103, Webster, Syntax, pp. 26-44, and especially Green, Gr. pp. 5-82, where the subject is v^ry carefully treated. The references to Middleton in the following pages are made to the edition by Rose (Cambridge, 1841).] 130 THE AETICLE AS A PRONOUN. [P ART III. (a) In the very common formulas o fikv . . . 6 Be, ol fiev , ... 01 Se/ — sometimes standing in relation to a subject pre- viously mentioned, the one . ... the other, as in A. xiv. 4, xvii. 32, xxviii. 24, G. iv. 23 [?], H. vii. 20, 21 (Schsef. Dion. 421) ; sometimes simply partitive, without any such reference, as in E. iv. 11, eBco/cev Toix; ixev airoar6\ov. ' On the accentuation see Herm. Vig. p. 700, and on the Other side Kriiger p. 97. [Jelf 444. Obs. 6, Lidd. and Scott s. v.] 2 [A mistake : perhape Jo. xxi. 6. In Jo. v. 11 we find Ss H without S; /ti*.] ' [Als^ ' f^'"- • • ""^ '^^^*' ^^^- i^- ^> ^- ^- Biittmann (p. 102) remarks that 0, h, »;, at, are the only forms of the article which are used with fiio and ii in the N. T., if we except E. iv. 11. j SECT. XYin.] THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 131 applied to a part only of the mockers. Compare Xen. Hell. 1. 2. 14, ol al^QjLoXcJTOL . . . wr^ovro e? AeKe\ei,av, ol 8' e? Mejapa' Cyr. 3. 2. 12; and see Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 292, Bremi, Demosth. p. 273 (Jelf 767. 2). Similarly, in Mt. xxviii. 17 we have first the general statement, ol evoeKa fxaOrjral .... lB6vT€ecially Green, Gr. ch. II., sections 1 and 2.] * [The article should probably be rejected in these two verses : comp. L. xxiv. 30, 1 0. xi. 25.] 133 THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. [PART III. dvTJXOei/ ei€\o(; eav TriaTiv Xeyr] Ti? e^eiv, the advantage (to be expected), 1 G. XV. 32 ; 1 C. ix. 18, ti^ fioi iaTiv 6 fxia66<; (Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 212). In all these cases the article denotes that * [The Vienna MS. reads o7; Ton?.] • ^ [" Something is assumed as belonging to the subject, and a quality is then predicated of that something." Clyde, Syntax p. 22. We must use the personal pronoun, or change the construction of the sentence : e.g. in H. vii. 24, He hath Jfis jyriesHiood unchangeable, or The priesthood which lie hath is unchauyeable. See Don. p. 528, Green, Gr. p. 50 sq.] SECT. XVIII.] THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. l35 which is due, requisite (Krlig. p. 98, Jelf 477. 1). And thus the article is often found where we should use a personal pronoun ; as Eom. iv. 4, Ta> ipja^ofievo) 6 fiiaOo^ ov Xoyi^erav his reiuard, ix. 2 2, L. xviii. 1 5 ; compare Fritzsche, Aristot. Amic. pp. 46, 99. No example occurs of the use of the article in appellations (Matth. 268, Rost p. 428, Scha?f. Dcm. IV. 365) ; for in Rev. vi. 8, ovofia avTi2 6 Odvaros' viii. 11, to ovo/jia tov do-Tcpos Acycrat o ai/'iv^os" ^ xix. 13, KCuX-qraL to ovo/xa avrov 6 Xoyos tov deov, a name is in each case mentioned which belongs individually and exclusively to the object spoken of. 3. Adjectives and participles when used as substantives are, like substantives, made definite by the article : 1 C. i. 27, ol a-o. 237. 136 THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. [PART III. is due to Cccsar} In 1 P. iv. 14, Hufcher (in ed. 1) wrongly takes TO t^? Bo^t]^ as a mere periphrasis for 17 So^a : such a use of the neuter article is not found in the N. T. The neuter t6 is sometimes prefixed to nouns in order to designate them materially, as sounds or combinations of sounds : G. iv. 25, to yap^Ayap k.t.X., the word Hagar.^ The substantivised participle with the article Occurs in several combinations in which our idiom will not allow the article ; viz. as a definite predicate of an indefinite subject, e.g. G. i. 7, rtve's da-iv ot rapacrcrovTe? v/u,as* Col. ii. 8, firf ns vjxa.}y,/- . o'o/tevo? ovhe\<; ecTTar Thuc. 3. 83, ovk ^v 6 SloXvo-wV Porphyr. Abst, 4. 18, ovSeU ecTTLv 6 KoXda-wv Gen. xl. 8, xli. 8, Dt. xxii. 27, 1 S. xiv. 39 : see Bernh. p. 318 sq. (Jelf 451. 2).^ In A. ii. 47, 6 Krptos 7rpo-t with a unity (Rom. xii. 5, ol -rroWol ev o-w/xd ia-fiev 1 C. x. 17) or with a particular individual (Rom. v. 15, 19), or, without such con- trast, the rindtitude, the great mass, vulgus (with the exceptiou of a few individuals), Mt. xxiv. 12 : compare Schsef. Meht. pp. 3, 65. 4. A noun defined by ovto^, e'/ceti/o?, as attributives,^ always takes the article, as denoting a particular individual singled out from a class ; in this respect the Greek idiom differs from our own : L. ii. 25 6 avdpa>7roafe. Leg. pp. 49, 100.] ^["The article with reioums denotes a known person or thing, or the whole class of such, but not an undefined individual out of the class ; as in that case raiaurcs is anartluous : see Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem. I. 5. 2, and Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. 4. 6." Ellicott (on G. v. 21). Compare Buttm. Griech. Gr. p. 337, Jelf 4.53. A.] * Orelli, Isocr. Ardid. p. 255 (9). SECT. XVIII.] THE ARTICLE BEFORE XOUNS. 139 Xen. ^n. p. 69). In Greek authors the article is not uncommon ; see Stallb. Plat. Fhileb. p. 93, Hipp. Maj. 164 (Jelf 454. 2, Don. p. 354). To avTO TnevfJLa is the same 6pirit ; airo TO TTvevfjia, He Himself (of Himself) the Spirit (Krlig. p. 125). For the former, comp. Rom. ix. 21, Ph. i. 30, L. vi. 38 [Jlec], xxiii. 40, 2 0. iv. 13 ; for the latter, Rom. viii. 26, 1 C. xv. 28, 2 C. xi. 14, Jo. xvi. 27. In both cases the article is always inserted in the N. T. with appellatives.^ In Greek authors it is sometimes omitted ; in the former case chiefly in epic poetry (Herm. Opusc. I. 332 sqq.) and later prose (Index to Agath. p. 411, Bonn ed.) ; in the latter, in the better prose writers also.^ 5. Proper names, as they already denote definite individuals, do not need the article, but they frequently receive it as the existing symbol of definiteness. First, in regard to geographical names : ^ — (a) The names of countries (and rivers) take the article more frequently than those of cities : comp. in German die Schweiz, die Lausitz, die Lomhardei, das Elsass, das Tyrol, etc. [in English, the Tyrol, the Morea]. The article is never or very seldom omitted with ^lovhala, ^A')(ata, ^lopZdvrj'^, 'IraXia, Ta- 'KtX.aia, Mvaia, ^Aaia (A. ii. 9, yet see vi. 9, 1 P. i, 1), Hafidpeia (L. xvii. 11), Svpia (A. xxi. 3), Kp^rrj (yet see Tit. i. 5). Acyvirro^ never takes the article ;* in regard to ManeSovia the usage varies. (h) "With names of cities the omission of the article is most common when a preposition precedes (Locella, Xeti. Fph.'p'p. 223, 242), especially tV, ek, or e'/c ; see the Concordance under the words AajMacrKO'i, 'lepovaaXrifM, 'lepoaokvp-a, Tdpao^, "E(f)€(ro^, 'AvTio'^eca, Kairepvaovp.: only Tupo?^ and'Pw/i?; vary strangely. (c) Sometimes a geographical name, when it first occurs in the narration, is without the article, but takes it on renewed mention. Thus we find ecu? 'AOtjvmv in A. xviL 15, on the first mention of the city, but in ver. 16 and in xviii. 1 the article is ' Hence L. xx. 42, xxiv. 15 [where the article is omitted with proper names], are not exceptional instances : see Bornem. Schol. p. 158. In Mt. xii. 50 it is quite unnecessary (with Fritzsche) to take ecvTis for i avri{. ^ Kriig. Dion. Id. 454 sq., Bornem. Xen. An. p. 61, Poppo, Ind. ad Cyr. s. v. 3 [Jelf 450. 2, Don. p. 347, Green p. 29, Middleton p. 82. In the N. T. names of rivers always have the article, except perhaps in Rev. xvi. 12.] * [Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, accept the article in A. vii. 36.] * [rCpos never has the article in the N. T. In the 7th edition Winer substi- tutes for Tvfos Kaiira.fi:x and Tpudi. ] 140 THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. [faRT HI. inserted ; et9 Bepoiav A, xvii. 10, but Iv ry B. ver. 13 ; Bia/Saf eh MaKehoviav A. xvi. 9, and then t) MaK. six times, the article being omitted in xx. 3 only ;^ rfKdojxev eh MlXtjtov A. xx. 15, diro T% Ml\. ver. 17. 'IcpovcroAry/i has the article only four times, G. iv. 25, 26, Rev. iii, 12 (in which passages it is accompanied by an attributive), and A. v. 28 (rrjv 1., — contrast with this L. xxiv. 18, A. i. 19, al.). With 'lepo- (ToXvfia the article is used by John only, — in v. 2, x. 22, xi. 18 [and ii. 23] ; in each instance the word is in an oblique case. 6. 'the use of the article with names of persons can hardly be reduced to any rule ; see Bernh. p. 317, Madv. 13 (Don. p. 347, Jelf 450. 1) : a comparison of passages will readily show that the practice of the writers in this respect is very irregular.^ The rule ^ that a proper name has not the article when first introduced, but receives it oti repeated mention, will not go far in explaining the actual usage : comp. Matt, xxvii. 24, 58, with ver. 62 ; Mk. xv. 1, 14, 15, with ver. 43 ; L. xxiii. 1 sqq. with verses 6 and 13 ; Jo. xviii. 2 with ver. 5; A. vi. 5 with ver. 8 sq.; viii. 1 with ver. 3 and ix. 8; viii. 5 with verses 6, 12.'* The same may be said of the remark of Thilo (Apocr. I. 163 sq.), that proper names are usually without the article in the nominative, but often take it in oblique casea.^ Hence the authority of the best MSS. must in the main decide whether the article shall be inserted or not.^ Proper names which are rendered definite by ^ [Tlie best texts omit the article in A. xvi. 10, 12, xx. 1.] ^ It is well known that in German the use of the article with names of persons is peculiar to certain provinces; Dei- Lehmann, which is the regular form in the youth of Germany, would in the North be considered incorrect. ? Jlerm. Prcrf. ad /ph. Aid. p. 16, Fritz. Matt. p. 797, Weber, Dem. p. 414. * A person mentioned for the first time may take the article as being well known to the reader, or as being in some other way suflicientlj'^ particularised. [A combination of these rules (Middleton p. 80) will perhaps explain most cases. We mary at least say (with A. Buttmann, p. 86) that when a writer wishes simply to name a person he may omit the article ; but he may use it to imlieate notoriety or previous mention, or for tlie sake of perspicuity, e. g. to point out tlie case of an indeclinable noun : see further Green p. 29. In the exaui{)le3 which follow Winer sometimes quotes readings which are now doubtful, but the fluctuation is quite sufficient to establish the truth of his remarks. ] ^ Compare especially the want of uniformity in the use of the article with riuvXof and wirpo; in the Acts of the Apostles. n/XaVa; always has the article in John [except (probably) in xviii. 31], and almost always in Matthew and Mark ; but in the Ai^ts never. Tiro; never takes the article. *• That in the superscriptions of letters the names of persons are without the article, may be seen from the (iollections of Greek letters, from Diog. L. (e.g., 3. 22, S. 49, 80, 9. 13), from Plutarch, Apophth. Lac. p. 191, from Lucian, Parasit. 2, al. Compare 2 Jo. 1. To this rule we should probably refer the superscript SECT. XVIIL] the ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 141 explanatory appositions-, denoting kindred or office, do not usually take the article, since it is only by means of the apposition that they are made definite : the practice of Greek authors agrees with this (EUendt, Arr. Al. I. 154, — see however Schoem. Tsceus p. 417 sq., Diod. S. Fxc. Vat. p. 37). Thus we find ^Id/cco^ov rov ahe\(^ov rov Kvpiov Gr. i. 19, louBwi o ^IcrKapicoT7j. Both expres- sions are correct : with the article the words mean when ye see the dovd (which appears in the sky) rising from the west, — wl^en the course of the cloud is from the west. In Col. i. 1 6, iv avrm eKTia-Or] ra Trdvra, the meaning of ra Trdvra is the (existing) all, the totality of creation, the universe: irdvTa would mean all things, whatever exists. The article but slightly affects the sense, yet the two expressions are differently conceived : comp. Col. iii. 8, where the two are combined. In Mt. xxvi. 26 [Bee.'] we have Xa^cbv 6 'Irjaov^ rov aprov (which lay before him); but in Mk. xiv. 22, L. xxii. 19, 1 C. xi. 23, the best MSS. have dprov, Iread, or a loaf. Compare further :Mt. xii. 1 with Mk. ii. 23 and L. vi.'l ; Mt. xix. 3 with Mk. x. 2 ; L. ix. 28 with Mk. ix. 2. So also in parallel members : L. xviii. 2, rov 6eov fir) (f)ol3ovfievo^ KaX dvdpooTTov JjLt] evrpeTTOfxevor xviii. 27, rd d^vvara irapa dvOpoiiroi^; Sward eart, irapd tm Oew' xvii. 34, ecrovrai Svo eirX Kkivr}^ fiidr €49^ irapa\T)j>6r]a-ejaL Kal 6 eVepo? dcfyeOijaerai (one . . . the other; contrast Mt. vi. 24, xxiv. 40 sq.); 1 Jo. iii. 18, firj dya-n-Mfjiev Xojtp fi^^e rfj is y. and h olp. in con-' trasted clauses. In xxviii. 18 the reading fs uncertain.] SECT. XVIII.] THE ARTICLE BEFORE NQTJNS. 145 or insertion of the article in L. ix. 13, ovk ela-lv r^fxlv irXctov 17 Trevre apToi Kat l)(Ov€'i 8vo* and ver. 16, \a8u)V tovs tt. aprov; /cai tovS 0. l)(dva^. Also in Rom. v. 7, fj-pXis virip S'.Kaiov Tis airoOave^Tat, virkp yap Tov ayadov Ta^o. rts /cat ToX/Aa d-jro^avetv, for a righteous man (one who is upright, without reproach), for Me kind man (i.e., for the man who has shown himself such to him, — for his benefactor) ; Riickert has unquestionably misunderstood the passage. In Col. iil 5 we find four nouns in apposition without the article, and then a fifth, TrAcovc^m, marked by the article as a notorious immorality, especially to be avoided, ^ further characterised by the Apostle in the words which follow, — for I cannot regard 17x65 K.t.A. as referring to all the preceding nouns. In 2 C. xi. 18 there is no doubt yhat Paul designedly wrote (/cav;^a>vTat) Kara, rrjv crdpKa, as differing from Kara ardpKa (a kind of adverb), though all recent commentators con- sider the two expressions identical in meaning. See also. Jo. xviii. 20, Rev. iii. 17 ; also Rom. viii. 23, where a noun which has the article stands in apposition to an anarthrous noun, vloOea-iav d7rc*c8e;^o/i,ei'oi, Ti}v aTToXvTpwcrtv TOV trwytiaTo?, tvait'mg foT adoption (namely) the redemption of the body. 9. The indefinite article (for which, where it seemed necessary to express it, the Greeks used rt?) is in particular instances expressed by the (weakened) numeral eU : this usage is found mainly in later Greek.^ In the N. T., see Mt. viii. 1 9, 7rpGv, Mk. xiv. 47, is like the Latin wmts adstaritium: compare Mt. xviii. 28, Mk. xiii. 1, L. xv. 26 (Herod. 7. 5. 10, Plutarch, Arat. 5, Cleom. 7, ^^schin. Dial. 2. 2,^ Schoem. Iscem p. 249). The numeral retains its proper meaning in Ja. iv. 13 \^Rec.\ iviavrov eva ; and still more distinctly in 2 C. xi. 2, Mt. xviii. 14, Jo. vii. 21. See, in general, Boisson. Eunap. 345. Ast, Plat. Legg, 219, Jacobs, AcMll. Tat. p. 398, Schaef. Long. ^ Weber, Dem. p. 327. Another case, in which, of several connected nouns the last only has the article, for the sake of emphasis, is discupscd by Jacobitz, Luc. Pise. p. 209 (ed. min.). * So also sometimes the Hebrew ^riK. see Gesen, Lg. p. 655, [ZTefe. Lex. s. v., Ewald, Ausf. L. p. 693]. The use of ifj in this .sense arises from that love of expressiveness which has already been noticed as a peculiarity of later Greek. ^ Ttt Tu* -rxD. might indeed have been used instead (compare L. \'ii. 36, xi. 1, al.), a's in Latin STwrum aliquis, etc. Both expressions are logically correct, but they are not identical, dnus adstantium, really suggests a numerical unity, — one out of several. [Meyer (on Mt. viii. 19) denies that ui is ever used in the N. T. in the sense of t',; -. on the other .side see A. Buttm. p. 85.] 10 14G THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. [PART III. 390.^ — An antithesis is probably designed in Mt. xviii. 24, ei9 ocpetXeTtjf; fivpicov raXdvTwv. In et9 Tt? also, umis cdiquis (Mk. xiv. 51 V. L, and, in a partitive sense, Mk, xiv. 47,^ L. xxii. 50, Jo. xi. 49), rk does not destroy the arithmetical force of eU.^ Rem. 1. In some few instances the use or omission of the article is also a mark of the distinctive style of thp writer. Thus Gersdorf has fchown {Sprachchar. pp. 39, 272 sqq.,) that the four evangelists almost ahrays write 6 Xptcrrds — the expected Messiah, like 6 ipxo/j^evos, — while Paul and Peter write Xptoros, when this appellation had become more of a proper name. In the Epistles of Paul and Peter, however, those cases are to be excepted in which Xpio-ros is dependent on a preceding noun [which has the article],* as to tuayyeAioi/ rov Xpurrov, rj v-KOjxovr} rov XpicTTov, Tw ai/xart rov Xpi.TTov, for in these Xpio-ros always receives the article : see Rom. vii. 4. xv, 19, xvi, 16, 1 C. i. 6, 17, vi. 15, x. . 16, 2 C. iv. 4, ix. 13, xii. 9, G. i. 7, E. ii. 13, 2 Th. id. 5, al. But besides these instances, the article is not unfrequently used by Paul with this word, not only after prepositions, but even in the nomina- tive, e.g. Rom. XV. 3, 7, 1 C. i. 13, x. 4, xi. 3, al. There is no less variation in the Epistle to the Hebrews : see Bleek on H. v. 5. Rem. 2. MSS. vary extremely in regard to the article, especially where its insertion or omission is a matter of little consequence ; and critics must be guided more by the value of the MSS. than by any supposed peculiarity of a writer's style. Compare Mt. Xii. 1, o-raxvas • Mk. vi. 17, £r (f>vXaKfj (better attested than ev rfj cf>.), vii. 37, oAaAous- X. 2, ^api(ra7oL' x. 46. mos* xi. 4, -ttwXov' xii. 33, Ovaiwv xiv. 33. ' Bretsf'hneider makes an unfortunate attempt to bring under this head 1 Tim. ili. 2, 12. Tit. i. 6, /i/as yuvaiKos dvYip- translating, He rmcst be the husband of a wife, !.c. he must be married. But, not to mention that 1 Tim. iii. 4 sq. would not assign a sufficient reason for an injunction that only married men should be admitted to the office of sTifKe'ro;, no careful writer could use ih for the indefinite article where his doing so would give rise to any ambiguity, for we speak and write that we may be understood by others. It is true that in the expression " there came a man " numerical uuity is implied, and homo aliquis suirgests to every one hoino unns; but fi'txv yuvalxa. 'ixfi" cannot be used for y-jvaTtKo. 'ix^'*, as it is possible for a man to have several wives (at the same time or successively), and hence the expression necessarily conveys the notion of nuiiiprical unity. Besides, one who wished to say a bishop must be married, would hardly say, a bishop must be husband of a wife. - [Quoted above without rU, which is omitted by some recent editors.] 3 Heindorf, Plat. Soph, 42, Ast I. c, and on Plat. Po?j<. 532, Boisson.- Marin. p. 15. * [I have inserted these words from the 5th edition of the German work ; in the. (jth and 7th they are omitted, no doubt by accident. In a single Epistle for instance, 2 Corinthians, we find ten examples of toZ Xpia-roiJ after a noun with the article, and ;iearly as many of 'Xpurrov after an anarthrous noun. Such instances as Kt(paXri roZ Xp. 1 C. xi. 3 (Col. i. 7), or to 'ipyoi Xpirrou Ph. ii. 30 Laclim. (1 P. i. 11), are very rare. The copious tables given by Rose in his edition of Middleton (pp. 486-496) cannot be fully relied on, as in mauy in- stances doubtful readings are followed. ] SECT. XIX.] OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 147 'la.K(i)^Qv xiv. 60, €15 ixiaov L. ii. 12, cv cfxirvr)' iv. 9, 6 vto?- iv. 29, €ojs 6(^pvo<; rov opovs' vi. 35, vyicrrov Jo. V. 1, Rom, x. 15, xj. 19, G. iv. 24, 2 P. iL 8, al. Rem. 3. It is sini>ular that commentators (with the exception indeed of Bengel), when, contrary to their usual practice, they have noticed the article in any passage, have in most instances explained it wrongly. Thu£ Kiihnol, after Krause (a very poor authority), sup- poses that the use of the article with. cKKXrjcriq. in A. vii. 38 requires us to understand this word as meaning certa populi concio. The context may indeed render this probable, but in point of mere grammar it is just as correct to render rj ckkA, (with Grotius and others) the con- gregation, p^-)^"^ bi}p, and this would be as regular an example as any other of the use of the article. Nor are Kuhnol's remarks on A. viii. 26 more than half true. Luke must have written 17 epr)ixo<; (oSos), if he had wished to distinguish one particular road, well known to his readers, from the other road : if however he meant to say, this (road) is (now) desert, unfrequented, lies. waste, the article would be as inad- missible in Greek as in our own language. In 2 Th. iii. 14 also (hui TT/s eVto-ToA^s) the commentators have noticed the article, and have maintained that its presence makes it impossible to join this clause ■with the following verb a-rjfxeLovaOe. This may perhaps afford an ex- planation of the omission of the article in two MSS. But Paul might very well say Sia r>}s eVto-roXys- o-rjpiLova-de, if he at that time assumed an answer on the part of the Thessalonians : " Note him to me. in ^Ae letter,"— that which I hope to receive from you, or which you have then to send to me. See however Liinemann.i Rem. 4. The article properly stands immediately before the noun to which it belongs. Those conjunctions however which cannot stand first in a sentence are regularly placed between the article and the noun : Mt. xi. 30, 6 yap t,vy6^ p.ov iii. 4, -q 8e rpocfyq- Jo. vi. 14, 01 ovv dvOpoiTTOL, etc. This is a well-known rule, which needs no further illustration by examples. See Rost p. 427, and compare Herm. Soph. Antig. p. 146. Section XIX. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 1. Appellatives which, as denoting definite objects, should naturally have the article, are in certain cases used without it, not only in the N. T., but also iu the best Greek writers : see Schsefer, Ifelet. p. 4. Such an omissioti, however, takes place ^ (Most commentators connect these words with >.'.yM : see Ellicott and iwett. l Jowett 148 OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. [PART III. only when it occasions no ambiguity, and does not leave the reader in doubt whethiei' lie is to regard the word as definite or indefinite. Hence (a) The article is omitted before words which denote objects of which there is but one in existence, and which therefore are nearly equivalent to proper names.^ Thus ^\io^ is almost as common as o ^Xto9, and yrj is not unfrequently used for 17 7^, in the sense of the earth (Poppo, Thuc. III. iii. 46). Hence also abstract nouns denoting virtues, vices, etc.,^ as aperiq, (xa^poa-vvTj, xaKia, and the names of the members of the animal body/ very often dispense with the article. The same may be said of a number of other appellatives — as rroXiq, aa-Tv, aypo'j, heiTTvov^ and even irarrjp, firjrrip, aSeX^o?,* — when the context leaves no room for doubt as to the particular town, field, etc., intended. This omission, however, is more frequent in poetry than in prose (Scha^fer, Deinosth. I. 329), and is again more common in Greek prose generally than in the N. T.^ Of anarthrous abstracts ® in the N. T., 1 Tim. vi. 11, Rom. i. ' [.Telf 447. 2, Don. p. 348, Green p. 42 sq.] 2 To which must be added the names of sciences and arts (as i-rrnxv, see Jacob on Lucian, Toxar. p. 98), of magistracies and offices of state (Scha-f DemoAth. II. 112, Held, Pint. Mm. P. p. 138), of seasons of the year, of corpo- rations (Held I. c. p. 238), with many other names (Schoem. Isceus, p. 303, and on Plutarch, Cleom. p. 199). See also Kriig. p. 101 sq. As to abstract nouns, see Schsef. Demosth. I. 329, Bornem. Xen. Conv. p. 52, Kriig. p. 101. » Held, Plut. Jim. P. p. 248. On fix.,;, ikvTv, see Schaf. Plviarch, p. 416, Poppo, Thuc. III. i. Ill, Weber, Dem. p. 235.; on oiyfii, Schaef. Soph. (Ed. R. 630 ; and on Str^vov, Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 490, Bornem. Xen. Cmv. p. 57. * Schsef. Melet. p. 4, Demosth. 1. 328, Eur. Hec. p. 121, Plutarch I. c, Stallb. Plat. Crit. p 134. * Thus in Greek authors we usually find yitu by nation, vX^hi, etc. ; in the K. T. always r* yyn, A. iv. 36, xviii. 2, 24 : also r* ^Xii^u, H. xi. 12. In Greek authors the omission of the article with the nominative case of the noun is not uncommon, e.g. i}x„s l^vtra, Xen. An. 1. 10. 15, Lucian, Scyth. 4: with this contrast Mk. i. 32, on 'ilu i JlXiar L. iy. 40, SuvavTof toZ iixiov E. iv. 26, o Hxto? (/.h iriiuiru. "XiXrun also and other similar words always have the article in the N. T. , when they are in the nominative case. " Harless {Ephea. p. 320) maintains that the article is not omitted with abstracts unless they denote virtues, vices, etc., as properties of a subject : but this aaseition has not been proved, and cannot be proved on rational principles. Compare also Kriiger in Jahn's Jahrb. 1838. I. 47. [Middleton (p. 91) saj's that the article is usually omitted with an abstract noun, except in the following cases : (1) When the noun is used in its most abstract sense (see Ellicott on Phil. 9, E. iv. 14); (2) When the attribute, etc., is personified (Rom, vi. 12); (3) When the article is employed in the sense of a possessive pronoun (G. v. 13) ; (4) Where there is reference of any kind (E. ii. 8, comp. ver. 5). Of special omissions of the article with these nouns, that with the adverbial dative (E. ii. 5) is the mo.st important. See further Green p. 16 sq., Jelf 448, Ellicott on G. ii. 5, Ph. ii. 3.] SECT, XJX.j OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 149 29, and Col. iii. 8 will serve as general examples. Passing to particular words, we have SiKacoavi^, Mt. v. 10, A. x. 35, Kom. viiL 1 0, H. xi. 33, al,; uyaTrr}, (Jr. v. 6, 2 C. ii. 8 ; iriari^, A. vi. 5, Rom. i. 5, iii. 28, 2 C. v. 7, 1 Th. v. 8, al. ; KaKta, 1 C. v. 8, Tit. iii. 3, Ja. i. 2 1 ; irXeove^ia, 1 Th. ii. 5, 2 P. ii. 3 ; a^aprla, G. ii. 17, 1 P. iv. 1, Rom. iii. 9,vi. 14, al.; 5s rjXtu'' r,unliffht, Rev, xxil 5 v. I. (Plat. Eep, 5. 473 e), 86ia rjXiov sun-glari/, 1 C. xv. 41 ; or where the sun is men- tioned in an enumeration '^ (in connexion with moon and stars), L. XXI. 25, Icrrat (rrj/xeia iv rjXio} Koi a-eXqvr) kol a(rTpnL<;., in SUn, moon, and stars, A. xxvii. 20 (^sch. jDial. 3. 17,' Plat. Cnd. 397 d). y^ (Earth), 2 P. iii. 5, 10, A. xvii. 24 ; i-n^l 7179, L. ii. 14, 1 C. viii. 5, E. iii. 15, (H. viii. 4) ; dir' oKpov yijs, Mk. xiii. 27.^ In this signi- fication, however, yrj usually has the article : when used for country it is anarthrous, as a rule, if the name of the country follows : e. g. Mt. xi. 24, yrf "^o^ofJMiV A. vii. 29, ev yfi Ma8td/A- vii. 36, ev yrj Aiyvirrov' xiii. 19, iv y^ Xai/adv, al. ; but in Mi xiv. 34, cis -njv yrjv T€vvr}(Tap€T.* See below, (b). Van Hengel's observations (1 Cor. zv. p. 199) are not to the point. oupavos (ovpavoi) is seldom anarthrous.' In the Gospels the article ^ Kluit II. 377, Heindorf, Plat. Gorg. p. 265. ^[This is an example of irregularity noticed by Bp. Middleton (p. 99),— that nouns coupled together by conjunctions very frequently reject the article though they would require it if they stood, singly : he refers to this under the name of omission " in Enumeration," and gives Mt. vi. 19, x, 28, 1 C. iv. 9, al., as examples. See also Kriig. p. 100, Jelf 447. 2. b. Green p. 45.] '^ Compare Jacobs, Philostr. Imag. p. 266, Ellendt on Arrian, Al. I. 91, Stallb. Plat. Gory. p. 257. * [In A. vii. 36 we should probably read iv rri Alyioints, e. g. Rev. xxi 13, diro dyoToXCiV, dirb jSoppa, aTrb vorov, d-rro SvafiMV ; .similarly frp(io? v6rov Plat. Crit 112 c. (Compare Mt. xii. 42, l^aa-iXia-a-a voroi;; here however kotos is a kind of proper name.) The same may be said of the words which denote the divisions of the day : see L. xxiv. 29, A. xxviii. 23 (Kriig, p. 99). dyopd . ^ Mk. vii. 4, Koi d-rr dyopas, idv /ir] fiaTTTLoroyvTai, ovk iaOiovai.^ This word is often anarthrous in Greek authors (Her. 7. 223, 3. 104, Lys. Agar. 2, Dion. H. IV. 2117. 6, 2230. 2, Theophr. Ch. 19, Plat. Gorg. 447 a,. Lucian, adv. Lid. 4, Eunuch. 1), especially in the phrase TrX-qOova-q--; dyopd^, Her. 4. 181, Xen. ilfm. 1. 1. 10, ^n. 1. 8. 1, ^lian 12. 30, Diod. S. 13. 48, al. aypos : Mk. XV. 21, ipxo/ievov Att' dypov (L. xxiii. 26), L, XV. 25, ^v o vios iv dypuK Here however there is no reference to any particular Held (aTTo Tov dypov) ; the expression is general, fr&m the country (as opposed to the town, etc.). Similarly, ets aypw Mk. xvi. 12, Jud. ix. 27, i$ dypoZ Gen. XXX. 16, 1 S. xi. 5, al., Plat. Theivt. 143 a, Legg. 8. 844 c. Oeo-i is frequently anarthrous,'' — most frequently by far in the ' [Add 1<> these u-r' e-jp. L. xvii. 29, xxi. 11, u«r' ovpativ L. xvii. 24, "ai ;',. Mt. xi. 23, L. X. 15, 'lui xxpou nip. Mk. xiii. 27; a.-r axpu* oip. Mt. xxiv. 31.] * 'Ek tov avp. (Van Hengel, 1 Cor. xv. p. 199) is not used by Paul, [After t» the articl(^ is as frequently inserted as omitted,] ' [Rec, wrou,i;cly omits the article in vi. 14 : xxi. 1 is of course no exception.] * [The two words-have a common article in Rev. xiv. 7.] ^ Compare Bremi, Lys. p. 9,Sintenis, Plut. PericL p. 80. * [Tlii.s and L. vii. 3'j are the only certain examples oi nyopd anarthrous.] ^Compare Herm. Arist. Nnb. 816, Borneni. Xen. Conv,i p. 142, Jacob on Lucian, Tuxar. n. 121. SECT. XIX.] OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 151 Epistles.i In the following cases especially the article is omitted witli this word : — (1) WliPii the genitive Oeov is dependent on another (anarthrous) noun : L. iii. 2, Rom. iii. 5, viii. 9, xv. 7, 8, 32 [Eec.']. 1 C. iii. 16, xi. 7, 2 C. i. 12, viii. 5, E. v. 5, 1 Th. ii. 13.2 (2) In the phrases Oeos ^a-njp, 1 C. i. 3, 2 C. i. 2, G. i. 1, Ph. i. 2, ii. 11, 1 P. i. 2 ; vlul or TtKva Oeov, Mt. v. 9, Rom. viii. 14, 16, G. iii. 26, Ph. ii. 15, 1 Jo. iii. 1, 2 (where these governing nouns also are without the article ^). (3) With prepositions : as aTro 6eov, Jo. iii. 2, xvi. 30, Rom. xiii. 1 [Rec], 1 C. i. 30, vi. 19 ; cV 6e<2, Jo. iii. 21, Rom. ii. 17 ; ck 6eov, A. y. 39, 2 C. V. 1, Ph. iii. 9 ; Kark 6^6v, Rom. viii. 27 ; Trapa ^ew, 2 Th. i. 6, 1 P. ii. 4. Similarly with an adjective in 1 Th. i. 9, df.Q t,uiVTL KoX aX-qdivw. — In Jo. i. 1 (^€os rjv 6 Aoyos), the article could not have been omitted if John had wislied to designate the Adyos as 6 deos, because in such a connexion ^eds without the article would, be ambiguous. It is clear, however, both from the distinct antithesis Trpos Tov 6e6v, ver. 1, 2, and from the whole description (Churaderi- sirung) of the A.dyo5, that John wrote ^cds designedly.* Similarly, in 1 P. iv. 19 we find Trtorros ktio-tt;? without the article. Trvf.vfj.a ayiov (rarely TTvevfxa $€ov), A. viii. 15, 17, R;om. viii. 9, 14, H, vi. 4, 2 P. i. 21,1 C. xii. 3 ; rrvevfUL Ph. ii. 1 ; also eV irvev/xart E. ii. 22, vL 18, Col. i. 8 ; iv TrvevfiaTi ayto) Jude 20. (The baptismal formula, els to 6vofj.a tov Trarpos k. tov viov k. tov oyLov TrvevfjLUTO';, is thus quoted in Acta Barn. p. 74, eh ovo^ta Trarpos k. vlov k. ayiov TTVeVfJM.TOsJ') iran^p : H. xii. 7, i;t09 oy ov TratOcijet TcaTrjp' Jo. i. 14, /xovoycvovs ■n-apa —aTpos ; ** also in the phrase 6e6<; iraT-qp (rjp.wv). With P-tJttjp ' [That is,^ the article is much more frequently omitted in the Epistles than elsewhere in the N. T. : even in the Epistles the instances in which the article is used with this word are twice as numerous as those in which it is omitted.] ^ [E. V. 5 is remarkable on other grounds (toZ x^. xal hoZ), but has no place here since the governing noun has the article. In Rom. xv. 7 t«u ^. is the best readijig : in 2 C. i. 12 6iau is used both with and without the article after an anarthrous noun. In 1 Th. i. 9, 1 P. iv. 19 (quoted below), the renderings a living and trne God, a faithful Creator, are clearly to be preferred.] ^ [So that this case coincides with that first mentioned. ] * [" Even u'^iirroi, which, when it is used for God, ought as an adjective to have the article, is anarthrous in L. i. 32, 35, 76, vi. 35." (A. Buttm. p. 89.)] ' [Middleton's canon is, that the article is never omitted when the Person of the Holy Spirit is signified, "except indeed in cases where other terms, con- fessedly the most definite, lose the article " — i.e., according to his theory, after a preposition or an anarthrous noun. Similarly Westcott (on Jo. Wi. 39) : ".When the term occurs in this form " (i.e., without the article), " it marks an operation, or manifestation, or gift of the Spirit, and not the personal Spirit." See also Vaughan's note on Rom. v. 5. In favour of Winer's view .see Fritzsche and Meyer on Rom. viii. 4, EUicott on G. v, 5, Alford on Mt. i. 18, G. v. 16.] ' [If St. John's usage be examined, it will appear very doubtful whether we have a right to take vaTpis as simply e.quivalent to raZ -raTfU in this passage. The true rendering must surely be : " as of an only son from a father." See "Westcott in loo. ] 152 OMISSION OF TH:E article before MOUNS. [part III. the article is omitted only in the phrase €k KoiXias /i-Tjf/oos (Mt. xix. 12).i av-^p {htisband) : 1 Tim. ii. 12, yvvaiKl StSao-xeiv ovk cViTpeTra), ovhl av6evT€7v dvSp6v (both worv, Mt. xiv. 2, XXvii. 64, xxviii. 7. Elsewhere vacpoC denotes dead ■persons (L. vii. 22, 1 C. XV. 15, 29, 32, also 1 P. iv. 6, al.), but ol veKpoi the dead, as a definitely conceived whole (Jo. v. 21, 1 C. xv. 52, 2 C. i. 9, CoL i. 18).^ Greek authors, too, regularly omit the article with this word.^ /icVov, in the phrases (la-njo-tv) iv picric Jo. viii. 3 (Schoem. Plut. Agis p. 126), ci? pi.i? (Spa? ivvaTr/s Mk. XV. 33, ciTro €kt7]^ wpas Mt. xxvii. 45, etc. ; compare Diod. S. 4. 15, Held, Plut. ^m. P. p. 229. (So also in a different sense, wpa x^/^ep^os .^lian 7. 13, w/aa Xovrpov Polysen. 6. 7.) The article is however omitted with other words when they have an ordinal numeral joined with them ; as TTpdiTTi (jivXaK-q Heliod. 1. 6, Polysen. 2. 35 (com-p. Ellendt, Arr. Al. I- 152), and otto Trpuyrrj^ rjfj.ipa'i Ph. i. 5 [it^t'.J. Katpos : in the phrases Trpo Kaipov hefwe the time, Mt. viii. 29, 1 C. iv. 5, Kara Kaipov Eom. V. 6 (Lucian, Philops. 21), and cV KaipQ L. XX. 101 (Xen. Cyr. 8. 5. 5, Polyb. 2. 45, 9. 12, al.); also eV KaipQ icrxo-rtji 1 P. i. 5, like Iv i.dxa.Tai'i rj/xepuLS 2 Tim. iii. 1, Ja. V. 3. dpxrj : - especially in the common phrases oltt a/ax?}? Mt. xix. 8, A. xxvi. 4, 2 Th. ii. 13, 1 Jo. i. I, ii. 7, ah (Her. 2. 113, Xen. Cyr 5. 4. 12, .^lidn 2. 4), H dpxvs Jo. vi. 64, xvi. 4 (Theophr. Ch. 28, Lucian, Dial. Mart. 19. 2, Merc. Cond, I), and Iv dpxa Jo. i. 2, A. xi. 15 (Plat. Fhcedr. 245 d, Lucian, Gall. 7). The same is of regular occurrence in the LXX. KvpLo<; — which in the Gospels is commonly used for God (the Lord of the 0. T."^), but which in the Epistles (especially those of Paul) most frequently denotes Christ, tliu Lard (Ph. ii. 11, comp. 1 C. XV. 24 sqq.f Krehl, N. T. Warterb. p. 360), in accordance with the progress of Christian phraseology — is, like Oeos, often used without the article. This is the case particularly where Kvpio-s is governed by a preposition (especially in frequently recurring phrases, such as iv KvpLo)), or when it is in the genitive case (1 C. vii. 22, 25, X. 21, xvi. 10, 2 C. iii. 18, xii, 1), or when it precedes 'Irja-ov's Xpio-Tos, as in Rom. i. 7, 1 C. i. 3, G. i. 3, E. vi. 23, Ph. ii. 11,* iii. 20 : the word had already become almost a proper name. It has been erroneously maintained ^ that the meaning of Kuptos depends on the insertion or omission of the article : it was to Christ, the Lord, whom all knew as Lord, and who so often received this ap- pellation, that the Apostles could most easily give the name Kvptos, just as (9€os is nowhere more frequently anarthrous than in the Bible.6 Still the use of the article with Ku'ptos is more common than its omission^ even in Paul. Sid/SoAos {the devil) usually has the article : 1 P. v. 8, o ai'Ti- ' [The best reading is Kaipx, without U. ] * Schor;f. Demosth. III. 240. '■ Compare Thilo, Apocr. I. 169. * [Ph. ii. 11 has no place in this list : xipio; is the predicate.] * By Gabler in his JVeuest. Theol. Jouni. IV. pp. 11-24. '^ Compare my Profjr. de sensu vocum kCoio; et o xupia; in Actis ef Episl. Apostolor. (Erlang. 1828). SECT. XIX.] OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS, • 155 SiKos vfiCyv Sta/SoAos (where this word is in apposition), and A. xiii. 10, Die Sia^oAou/ are the only exceptions. ^ Tiiat in titles and superscriptions' appellatives (especially when in the nominative case) dispense iivith the article, may be easily ex- plained : compare Mt. L 1, f3ift\n tt}? 7%; contrast Mt. xxvi. G7, et? to rrp6<;Q)TT0v avrov' Rev vii. 11), "L. i. 51, iv ^pa')(^iovt avrov' Rom. i. 1, et? evayyeXiov 0€ov (where Riickert still raises needless difficulties), E. i, 20, iv Se^ia avrov fH. i, 3, Mt. xx. 21), L. xix. 42, eKpv/Br} otto O(f)0a\fj,a)p aov 1 C. ii. 16, rt? yap eyvw vovv Kvplov /' 1 P. iii. [Compare Rev. xii. 9, o xixXnufitirot iix(iiXca) i ffarava.; ' a.nd xx. 2, 5'$ l/rn 'iiix/ioXoi xai (raTnixt (the most probable reading). 'S.a.Tot.-.as always has the article, except in Mk. iii. 23, L. xxii. -3.] ■-* "Kyy'.Xof does not belong to this cla.ss of word.s. When it is used without the article, the singular always signifies an angel (one of the 7i«iny\ and the plural ayytXii, angels, e.g. in 1 Tim. iii. 16, G. iii. 19, al. : on the other hand, ol iyyiysi denotes the angels, as an order of beings. Hence 1 C- vi. 3, JV/ iyyikoui Kfifoufitv, must be rendered, that we shall judge angels, — not the angelsi the whole community of angels, but all angels for whom the xpins is reserved. On v'lohirix Horn. viii. 23, see Fritz, against Riickert. That, the word in apposition sometimes has the article, when the principal noun is anarthrous, has beei- remarked by Gee! (Dio Chr. Ohjmp. p. 70). ' Thus in Jo. v. 1, lepTh tuv 'UvIxiui could not be rendered the feast of the Jeim (the Passover) : there is however much authority for the article, and Tisch. has received it into the text. [Tisch. received h in his 2d edition, and again in ed. 8. By most editors (and by Tisch. in ed. 7) the article is rejected : see Alf. in he, Ellicott, Hist. L. p. 136.] * Schaef. Soph. dkl. C. 1468, Bomem. Xen. Cyr. p. 219, Schoem. Isceus p. 421, and Plut. Ayia^. 105, Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 277, Herm. Luc. Conscr. Hist. p. 290. — In Hebrew, as is well known, the governing noun has no article in this construction. On this Hengstenberg (Christol. II. 565) founded a new discover}^ which Liicke (on Jo. v. 1) has estimated as it deserves. [In his 2d edition Hengst. omitted the observations to which Winer here refers.] ® [Take Ja. i. 26, Kapilay sayou, as an example. Kaplia, denotes an object Avhich exists .singly in the case of any particular individual : the genitive Ittvrav })oint.3 out this individual ; hence xa^'ia ixureu is (Wine- maintains) as defi- nite as a proper name, and may therefore dispense with the article.] ® [The above rule is more questionable than any other given by Winer ; certainly none of his rules differ so widely as this from those which apply to classical Greek. In some of the examples which he quotes from the N. T. (as L. xix. 13, 1 Th. V. 8, al.) most will admit that the governing noun is really indefinite in meaning. If we analyse the remainder (to which LUnemann adds Mt. xvi. 18, TJia; a'Soi/) We shall find that they are represeutfd by the following t\'pes : (1) uTi "Trposa-rou rnu xvpiiv (2 Th. i. 9); (2) if-Tiv a.'Ta.p^r, tt^s ' Ay^alxf (1 0. xvi. 15) ; {i) voZ, xvfnu (1 V. ii. 16) ; (4) xxfVixi XauroZ (Ja. i. 26). The 156 OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. [PART III. 12, 20, Ja. i. 26, Mk. viii. 3, xiii. 27, Eom. i. 20, ii. 5, L. i. 5, ii. 4, 11,- xiii. 19, xix. 13, H. xii. 2, 1 C. x. 21, xii. 27, xvL 15, Ph. ii. 16, iv. 3, E. i. 4, 6, 12, iv. 30, 1 Th. v. 8, 2 Th. i. 9, 2 Th. ii. 2,^ 2 P. ii. 6, iii. 10, Jiide 6 (A. viii. 5), al. This is a very com- mon usage in the LXX: 1 S. i. 3, 7, iv. 6, v. 2, Ex. iii. 11, ix. 22, xvii. 1, Cant. v. 1, viii. 2, Judith ii. 7, 14> iii 3, 9, iv^. 11, v. 8, vi. 20, 1 Mace. ii. 50, v. 66, 3 (1) Esdr. i. 26. But in 1 C. iv. 1 4, (U9 TeKva ixov ayaTrtjTa, the article was necessarily omitted, since the Corinthians were not the only beloved children of Paul : in L. XV. 29, ovf^iirore ivroXrjv aov iraprfkOov, the meaning is a Command of thine ; and A. i. 8, XijyfreaOe Bvva/juip i7rek66vTO<; rov dyiov 7rv€VfjLaT0<;. must be rendered, Ye shall receive power when the Holy Ghost shall have come down? The article is also sometimes omitted when a noun is defined bya numeral: A. xii. 10,Ste\^oi'TevXaKr}v kuX Zevrkpav Mk. XV. 25, TjV &pa rpiTr} koX earavpoxrav avrov ?cv. 33, ea)? wpa ap^. r. h., with- out any support from the MSS. {MaM. p. 774).''' In Greek authors such an omission of the article is by no means rare, especially if the noun is preceded by a preposition : compare Xen Cyr. 6. 1. 13, Trcpi KaToAuoreajs. t^s (TTpaTiav Apol. Socr. 30, ev KaToXxxrei tov ^iov Mem. 1. 5. 2, cVi tcAcwtt] tov (3tov 4. 3. 16, Plat. Phcedr. 237. c. Lys. Agorat. 2, €7rt KaroAwet toG S17/U.0W TOV v//,eT£/JOD- and farther on, Trarpt'^a (r^erepav avruiv /caraAtTrovTCS' Lucian, Scyth. 4, yStov airwi'- Dio. Cbr. 38. 471, vTrcp ycveo-cw? avTrj irarpl rj rfj firjrpr Mk, iv. 21, vrro rov fiohiov ?) viro rr)v kXlvtjv Eev. xiii. 17, When the connected nouns do not agree in number, the repetition of the article was natural, and in point of grammar is almost indis- pensable : as Col. ii. 13, ev rots 7ra^a7rTto/ia(ri Kal ttJ aKpofSva-Tia.' E. ii. 3, Ta OeXyj/jiara Trj<; crapKOS Kal twv SiavoiQyv 1 Tim. V, 23, Tit. ii. 12, A. XV. 4, 20,2 xxviii. 17,, Mt. v. 17, Rev. ii. 19. Com- pare Plat. Crito 47 C, rrjv So^av Kal TOU9 eVatvovs* Dion. H. IV. 2238. 1 , vv6 TTj^ TrapOevov Kal rwv trepl airrjv yvvaiKCJv ; on tlie other hand, Xen. An. 2. 1. 7, tTno-TTq/JUuv twV irepl ra? rafeis Ti Kal OTrAoyu.a^iav Agath, 14, 12, ras Sijva/xcts Kal iroXefJiov. — 1 C. iv. 9, ~ -^ ■— — ■ ■■ ■ ' ' ■■■■ -— I ■ y . -.-..■■■ — ._■■ - I ■■ — — —■-—.. - ■■ ■ ■ , 1 Compare also Kriig. Dion. p. 140, and Xen. Anab. p. 92, Bornem. Cyr. p. 668. - fTho article before "t^.ktoZ should probably be omitted.] SECT. XIX,] OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 159 Oiarpov iyev-^Orjfxev t(3 Kooryttu) kol dyyeAois kul avOpwTroi?, does not come under this head : the two anarthrous nouns specialise t<3 Koa-fnp, the world, as well angels as men. 4. (d) If the nouns connected by kul agree in gender, tlie article is not repeated, (1) If the nouns are regarded only as parts of one whole, or members of one community :^ Mk. xv. 1, crv/x^ov\iov iroirjaavre'} oi ap^cepeU [lera raw Trpecr^vrepav Kol ypa/x/jLarewv (where the elders and scribes, as distinguished from the chief priests, are indicated as a single class of individuals), L. xiv. 3, 21, Col. ii. 8, 19,=* E. ii. 20, V. 5, Ph. i. 7, ii. 17, A. xxiii. 7, 2 P. i. 10 ; Xen. An. 2. 2. 5, 3. 1. 29, Plat. Phil. 28 e, Dion. H. IV. 2235. 5, Plut. Aiod. Poet. 1. in., 12. in. (2) When a genitive or some other attributive belonging to both nouns is inserted between the first nonn and its article : 1 Th. ii. 12, €t9 rr]v eavrov ^aaiXelav kol ho^av iii. 7, tifl Trdcrrj ttj OXls^ei koI dvciyKr) rjfiwv Rom. i. 20, 77, re diBio<> avrov Svva/xi,pr)yiiii : in ed. 5 Winer had taken the satiie view. In Meyer's later editions (1859, 1865) the absence of the article is differently explained, viz. as arising from the manner in wiiich Wixap. is conceived, — "supply, not the supply." Winer gives another explanation below— see 5 {b), and with this Ellicott agi-ees. Ali'ord and A. Buttmann join Ivix,"?- with v/iui.~\ * [This article should be omitti'd, but the passage still illustrates the rule, Jo. V. 3, however, is of a different kind. 1 160 OMISSION OF THE AHTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. [PART III. compare Her. 4. 71, OairTovtrt /col tov oivoxoov k. fid.y€ip6v K. hnroKOfiov K. SiijKovov K. ayyeXirj(f>6pav k.t.X., Plat. Euihyph. p. 7 c. For examples of proper names thus connected, see A. i. 13, xv. 23. 5. On the other hand, it is usual to repeat the article (a) Where each of the nouns is to be regarded as having an independent existence :^ 1 C. iii. 8, o ^vrevwv koI 6 ttoti^cov ev elr}<;), 3. 48, 5. 29.,. 17. 52, Plut. Virt. Mill. p. 214 (eTre/xi/re r?;!/ 'yvvaiKU kuI tt)v Ovyaripa), JEl. Anim. 7. 29, Diog. L. 5. 52,^ Weber, Demostk. p. 395. This rule holds particularly when the two nouns are connected by T€ . . . Kai, or kuI . . . kuI, and in this way are still more prominently exhibited as independent :* see L. xxiii. 12,sA. v. 24, xvii. 10, 14, xviii. 5, Ph. iii. 10 [Bee], H. ix. 2, and compare ^1. Anim. 7. 29, Theophr. Char. 25 (16), Thuc. 5. 72, Xer rfyr. 7. 5. 41, Mem. 1.1.4, Aristot. Pol. 3. 5, Isocr. Demon, pp. 1, 1 2, Permut. 738, Diod. S. 1. 69, 4. 46, Lucian, Fiig. 4, Arrian, Ind. 34. 5, al. Even in this case, however, the article is sometimes omitted in (good MSS. of) Greek authors, where there is no proper anti- 1 Schaef. Dem. V. 501, Weber, Dem. p. 268. ^ [Recent editors read tat (pi\as xai yuTova.; ; contrast ver. 6.] ' We find the article both inserted and omitted before nouns of the same gender in Arrian, Epict. 1. 18. 6, -Thy o^i* rrm iitcxptriKriv tuv Xiuxai* x-ai fitxdvuv .... Tuy ayaSaiv Koi Twy KKxur. The case Is ?oniewhat different in A. VI. 9, rivif T»» ix rris rvyaywynt tUs i.iyof/.iytis Ajfiiprlytuv xeu Kvptiy. xai 'A>i|avS^., xa'i Tuy aTo KiXixiai xai 'Arias : here two parties are intended, each pos.ses8ing a common synagogue ; Kvpny. and 'AAsg. combineil with A'lfitpr. con- stitute tli£ first, the .Jews of Cilicia and Asia the second. [See Meyer, -who suppo.ses that Jtve synagogues were referred to. See also Alford in loc. for a good explanation of the second Tuy.] * Sch&f. Deraosth. III. 255, iV. (58. SECT. XIX.] OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 161 thesis : ' compare Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 19, ra re "keyofieva Ka\ Trpar- rofiF.va (where there immediately follows, as an antithesis to these two participles, kuI ra criyfj ^ovXevofieva), Thuc. 5, 37, Plat. Rep. 6. 510 c, Fhaxl. 78 b, Dion. H. IV. 2242. 2, Diod. S. 1. 50, 2. 30, Arrian, Ind. 5. 1, Dio Chr. 7. 1 19, Marc. Ant. 5. 1 ; see also Matth, 268. Rem. 1. A disjunctive particle obviously requires the repetition of the article: L. xi. 51, /xerafu toO OvatacrTypiov koX rov oI'kov Mt. xxiii. SC)j 1 C. xiv. 7, ttw? yvu>a6i]c-€rai to avXovixevov rj to KcOapi^op^vop ; Mt. X. 14, xvii. 25, xxiii. 17, 19, Mk. xiii. 32, \i. xiii. 15, xxii. 27, Jo. iii. 19, A. xxviii. 17, Rom. iv. 0, 1 C. xiv. 5. Compare Isocr. Permut. p. 746. (Jj) When the first noun is followed by a genitive, and the second is thus annexed to a completed group of words ; as in 1 C. i. 28, ra dyevfj rod Koafiov koI ra e^ov0eifT]fji,iva' v. 10. If each of the nouns has its own genitive, they are already suffi- ciently disjoined, and therefore the repetition of the article is not necessary : Ph. i. 19, Bia rrjtiou. For 2. (c) he t^uotes 1 Th. iii. 11, —also 2 Th. i. 12, Tit. ii. 13, 2 C. i. 3. In applying these rules we must alwav.s bear in inind that regard for per- sipicuity will often influence the writer's cfioice ; and also that the i-epetition of the article gives emphasis and weight (Green p. 74, Fllicott on E. iii. 10, Tit. iii. 4).] 11 162 OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. [PART IIL view shall be taken of tlie mutual relation of the connected nouns, so that the choice is left entirely to the writer's preference : in 1 Th, i. 7, for instance, we read iv tt} MaKcSov. /cat ir rfj 'Axata ; but in ver 8, »cai 'Axa/a. Hence tliere are passages in which the reader would not feel the want of the article if it Aveie omitted (e. g. 1 Tim. v. 5^), and others in which it might perhaps have been inserted, a?- E. ii. 20 (see Meyer in he. ). See, in general, Engelhardt on Plat. Menex. p. 253, Poppo, Thvc. III. i. 395. In Tit. ii. 13, cVicjixivcta t^s 80^5 rov fJnyaXov Oeov koi (roj-njpo^ y/uiCov 'hja-ov Xpiarov, considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to believe that o-ojr^pos is not a second predicate, co-ordinate Avith deov, — Christ being first called o /xeya? deos, and then o-wTT/p. The article is omitted before crwnjpo<;, because this word is defined by the genitive -fjixtLv, and because the apposition precedes the proper name : of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.^ Similarly in 2 P. i. 1, where there is not even a pronoun Avith crwr^pos. So also in Jude 4 we might suppose two different subjects to be referred to, for KvpLos, being defined by ^fjiC>v, does not need the article : Kvp. rjfJLuyv 'It/ct. Xp. is equivalent to 'I-qcx. Xp. os ia-n /ci'pios -qfJiwv. (In 2 Th. i. 12 we have simply an instance of Kuptos for u Kupio?.^) ' As the words stand, ^pcsiA,'nti TaT; iir.tmn x.xi to-T; Trposiu^a.';, prayer is sub- divided into its two kinds il' the artid'i were not repeated, prayer and intcr- cessiou ■would be taken together as forming one wliole. ^ In the above remarks it was not my intention to deny that, in point of grainmur, : hf^t^v may be regarded as a seco)id predicate, jointly depend- ing on the article tov ; bur tlie dogmatic eonviction deiived from Paul's writings that this apostle cannot have called Christ tht great God induced me to show that there is no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause xu) trmi. . . . Xfia-ToZ by itself, as referring to a second subject. As the anonymous Avriter in Tholuck's Lit. Anz. (1837, No.' 5) has not proved that my explanation of this passage would require a second article before ruT^poi (the parallels adduced are moreover dissimilar, .see Fritz. Rom. II. 268), and still Jess that to call Christ //.iya; hi( would harmonise with Paul's view of the relation of Christ to God, 1 adhere to the opinion expressed above. Any unprejudiced mi^rd will at once perceive that such examples as are adduced in § 19. 2 prove that the article was not required with eartipos, and the question whether a-ior-^.p is elsewhere applied to God is nothing to the purpose. It is suftlcieut that awrrip hff-a't, our Saviour, is a perfectly definite predicate,— as truly so as " his /arc .• " -rpitafrtv indeed is applied to many more individuals than a-urifip is! The words on p. 38, "If truTr,p hfiuv were used in the N. T. of one delinite individual only, etc.," contain an arbitrary assumption. Matthies has contributed nothing decisive towards the. settlement of the disjmte. [This pas.sage is very carefully examined by EllJcott and Alford in he. ; and though these writers come to diffierent con- clusions (the latter agreeing with Winer, the Ibrmer rendering the words, " of our great ioi 'F.pxroxktiisu (Poppo, Thuc. I. 195), Thilo, Act. Thorn, p. 3 : comp. Herm. Vig. p. 701. In L. xxiv. 10, however, we must certainly read Mxpia. v 'iKKur^ov, with the best ilSS. See further Fritz. Mark, p. 696 Sep Such a collocation of words as tv-js iopuvLui N/6/;^? (Pausan. 2. 22. 6) is not found in the N. T. * [It is omitted by recent editors.] SECT. XX.] THE ARTICLE WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 165 consist of genitives or prepositional adjuncts, the article may be repeated ; as in L. i. 70, 8ia aTOfiaTOi; roiv a) al^yios (in this order and without article) 20 times, but when- ever the article comes in we find either r, al %. (Jo. xvii. 3), or ri ?. ^ «'. (1 Jo. i. 2, ii. 25), see A. P.uttm. p. 91— it is far preferable to consider Korf^iKo, as an apposition, or even as a substantive (Middl. p. 414, Green p. 53), than to render, "/./^e worldlii sanctuary." The word, however, is best taken as predicative (comp. Delitxsch in lor.). In Jo. xii. 9 Tisch. and Westcott and Hort read i HxMi -roXvi : this is a simpler case, since the two words easily coalesce to express one idea ] SECT. XX.] THE ARTICLE WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 167 clauses with the article: 1 Th. i. 8, r) ttlctti^; vficov rj tt/jo? rw Qeov 2 C. viii. 4, T^9 hiaKovla xvi. 12, xix. 14, XX. 13. (There are variants in A. xx. 21, K v. 7; Jo. xix. 38, Rom. x. 1.) Every page of Greek prose furnishes illustrations of this usage : examples from Arrian are given by Ellendt (Arr. AL I. 62). This mode of attaching such attribu- tives to the substantive (by which, strictly speaking, that which defines the noun is brought in afterwards as a supplement) is, from its greater simplicity, much more common in the N.T, than the insertion of the prepositional clause between the article and the noun. — That the LX.X regularly insert the article in this case, a very slight examination will show. c. Participles, as attributives, do not here stand on exactly the same footing as adjectives, inasmuch as they have not entirely laid aside the notion of time. They receive the article only where reference is made to some relation which is already kiiown, o}' which is especially worthy of remark (is qui, quippe qui), and where consequently the participial notion is to. be brought into greater prominence:^ 1 P. v. 10, o 6e6evov belongs to the predicate. In G. iii. 1, 'Jrja-oyi Xp. 7rpo€ypa.cl>r] iv vplv ea-Tavpwfj.evo';, we must translate, Jesus Christ as cruciju'd, compare 1 C. i. 23 ; it is otherwise in Mt. xxviii. 5. The passage first quoted, 1 P. v. 10, 6 6^eo5, 6 /caAeo-a? ■fip.a.'i ... . oXivov iraOovra';- is an instructive illustration of the use of the participle with and without the article. Sometimes the insertion or omission of the article with the participle depends entirely on the aspect under which the writer chooses to regard the subject. Thus in Hom. viii. 1, Tots ej' Xfi. 'IrycroD, /xi] Kara adoKa inpLTraTovcnv k.t.X. (with a comma after 'hjo-ui), would be, to those who are in- Christ, since they walk not according to tbejiesh: roTs /u-^ k. iria-rtv vulwv iv Xp. J. Kal rrjv dydmjv rr]v ei? 7rdvral. 110, Stallb. Plat. Euthyj^hr. p. 12, Apol. p. 70. *• [Several of the instances quoted in this section are examples of the rule given on p. 166, note 3, the prepositional clause being connected with a noun wliich already has an attrilmtive (prefixed or subjoined) : comp. Thuc. 1. IS, ftiTo. T-nv rav rupavyuf KtcraXufftn Ik Tni 'KXXaSoj. See Krug. p. 121, A. Buttin. p. 91. j 1 70 THE ARTICLE WITH ATTRIBUTIVES [PART III. are 1 Th. i. 1, 2 Th. i. 1, rfj cKKXyjcr QeacraXov. iv 6ia> irarpl Kal Kvplu> K.rX.: in 1 Tim. vi. 17, also, the words to?? rrXovciois €v Tu> vvv alSivu must be connected together.* Compare further A. xxvi. 4, Rom. xvi. 3, 8, 10, E. ii. 15, Ph. i. 1. {h) When the verb from which the substantive is derived is construed with a particular preposition, (.t when the appended clause forms the natural complement to the meaning of the sub stantive^ (Held, Plut. Timol. p. 419, Kriig. p. 121J ■ E. iil A, hvvaaQe vofjaai T7]v avveaiv pov iv rio fMvaTrjpiO) (Jos. i. 7, 2 Ohr xxxiv. 12, 1 Esdr.-i. 31), compare Dan. i. 4, avvuvre'i tv Truar) (Tocpla; Rom. vi. 4, cuvT'p hca lod /3a7rrLcrfjiaro^ ei9 rov Odvarov (ver. 3, ijSaiTricFOrifjtev els tou davarov avTov) ; Ph. i. 26, hca Tri<; efirj^ irapova la^ ttuXov irpos vfxd?v z"-!"^ Ta.6rr.v would be no obstacle to our connecting this clause wdth rn tiVts( (which words, however, are omitted by Lachra. and Tisch. ) ; but there are other difficulties. [Tii^ch. retains the words in his last edition.] SECT. XX.] THE ARTICLE WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 171 T^9 dOXTJaeax;' Sext. Emp. Hypol. 3. 26, i^7)Tovfiev irepl rov roirov Trp6 avrov aifiarc (see Fritz, and l)e Wette in loc.) ; Eom. viii. 2, o vofio^ rov TTvevp.aro^ t^9 f]Ik Ka Oapa^ Kaphla^- Tit. i. 6, rtKva ep^toy iria-rd, /mi} tv KarfjyopLa d(royTia- ros 6pyr)v eh ydfxov dStKovfiivov} Compare Stallb. Plal. Rep I. 91, 110, 152, Kriig. p. 118. Not unfiequently however such attributives have the ar- ticle though the noun is anarthrous ; and that not merely when the noun belongs to the class noticed in § 19. 1 (e. g. 1 P. L 21), but plso in other cases, — though never without sufficient reason. Thus 1 P. i. 7, to SoKip,iop vp,oiv Tf]<; mri- o-rect)? 7i'oXvri/j.6Tepou ^ P ^ ^ ^^ ^> "t o v d ir oXXv p.i v ov, must be resolved into, is more precious than gold, which is perishable ; A. xjcvi. 18, Triaret rfj eh i/xe, through faith^ namely that iii me; 2 Tim. i. 13, iv dydnrj rfj iv Xpiarat 'Irjaov Tit. iii. b,ovK i^ epycov twv iv BiKaLocrvvT]- Rom. iL 14, eOvn rd fir} vljjbov exot^ra. gentiles, those that have not the law, see Fritz, in ioc. (contrast 1 Th. iv. 5) ; Rom. ix. 30, G. iii. 21 (comp Liban Oratt. }.. 201 h), H. vi. 7. Ph. iii. 9. In such cases the noun (strictly speaking) is first conceived indefinitely," and is then more closely defined by the attributive, whose, import receives special prominence in this construction.^ See also A. X. 41, xix. 11, 17, xxvi. 22, Ph. i. 11, iii. G, 1 Tim. ' So KXiirrm U hukt'i might signify a nocturnal thief ; but in 1 Th. v. 2 after is MX. (> ». wo mast supply 'p;^'''''" '"'"on- what follows, that the day of the Lord, as a thief {coaiiith) in the niijhl, no comcth Even adverbs are joined (i. e. pvu- fixed) without the article to Riich anari.hron.s nouns ; as fiiXa ;f k/<«., Xen. HeU, 6. 4. li^ a Revere tointcr S.ie Krug. in Jahns ./ohrb. 183S, I. 57. * This appears most plainly in such sentences as Mk. xv. 41, £xxa. TaXXai a! ^ [''The anarthrous position of the noun may be regarded as empJoyod to give a prominence to the peculiar meaning of the word without the interferenee of any other idea, while the words to which the article is prefixed limit by tlieir fuJler and more precise de.scrii)tion the general notion ot the anarthrous noun and thereby introduce the determinate idea intended." (Green p. 34.) .Setr also Ellicott on G. iii. 21, 1 Tim. iii. 13.j SECT. XX.] THE ARTICLE WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 175 i. 4, iii. 13, iv. 8, 2 Tim. i. 14, ii. lO," H. ix. 2, 2 Jo. 7, Jude 4, Ja. i. 25, iv. 14 [Reel, 1 P. v. 1. Compare Her. 2. 114, €9 yrji/ rr^v crrfv Xen. Merti. 2. 1. 32, apOpatirots to?? a. 8. 545 a, Z?^^. 8. 849 b, Demosth. Mcer. 517 b, Theophr. Ch. 15, Schneid Isocr. Paneg. c. 24, Arr. /?i£?. 34. 1, Xen. Ephes. 2. 5, 4. 3, Heliod. 7. 2, 8. 5, Strabo 7. 302, Luciau, Asin. 25, 44, /S'c^/^/t. 1, Philostr. Apol. 7. 30 ' (Madvig 9). Ill Ph. ii. 9 Reo. we read, ovo/xa to virlp ivav ovofta, a name, 'ichich is ah/ije every name: good MSS. however have to ovo/xa, iJie name (which he now possesses), which etc., — the (well known) dig- nity, which etc. 2 * Compare Held, Pint. Timol. p 400, Hermann on Luc. Conscr. Hist p. 106, Ellendt. Lex. Soph. II. 241, Sdioem. Plut. Cleom. p. 22(5. '■^ [On mcst of the points discussed in tbLs ami the preceding sections the best writers on the N T. are iu the main agreed Tlie chief differences of opinion relate to the extent to which the following principles are to bi; carried, (1) The laws of "correlation " (Aliddleton pp. 36, 48 sq.) :— (a) "As a eeiicral rule, if a noun in the genitive is dependent on another • noun, and if the main noun lias the article, the genitive has it like- wise " (Don. p. 351); see liernhardy p. 321; Ellicott on Col. ii 22. Alford on .Jo, iii. 10. (p) If the governed noun is anarthrous, the governing noun is not unfre (^uently anarthrous also, and vice versd ; see Bemhardy I. c, Ellicott on, E. iv. 12, V. 8, and comp. Green p. 4G. Winer mentions some jiarticular examples which illustrate both parts of this rule (for a, see p. 146, Rern. 1 ; for iS, his observations on vlfxn; Hnd doi, — compare also p. 1,57) ; but lays down no general ruhs ot this kind. (2) The omission of the article after a )>reposition. Middleton carries this principle nmch farther than Winer (see above pp. 157, 149), and indeed to a perilous extent, maintaining that the ab.u> cttiotoAt/v, ev al? K.T.X., where Svo is implied in Bevripav. I do not know any exact parallel to this, but we may compare with it the converse Travres o^tk, which is not at all uncommon (Rost p. 460. Jelf 819. 2. /i, Don. p. 362). ^ [A mistake. We may substitute Judith v. 3, 7, or Wis. xvi. 3, 20.] * Some commentators (e.g. Reiche) thus explain Kom. vi. 21, tIvx zap-rav si- P(^ir; roTi if o'l; (i.e. Kctfroli) yur tvcniri^uyi aKovTo}A.^e, Kol Bia T?59 a/jLapTLa<; 6 ddvaro^ ; or in Jo. x. 29, 7raT)]p fxov, 09 8e8o)K€ ^ot, fxel^oiv TrdvTcov iari koX ovBel^ Cvvarai dpTrd^eiv eic t^? ■^ecpo'i rov TTarpo'i jxov : compare also A. iii. 16. vSee ^ Qb. In A. X. 7 the better MSS. have the personal pronoun (see Kiihtiol in loc), and tw KopvrjXti^ is evidently a gloss. The passages which Bomemann (Xen. An. p. 190) quotes from Greek authors are not all of the same description, nor is the reading certain in every case. It is not altogether correct to say ^ that the use of the noun in the place of aiT6<: or cKecvos is a special peculiarity of Mark'.s style. In Mk. ii. 18 the nouns could not be dispensed with, for the writer could not put into the mouth of the inquirers an cxetvoi which would point back to his oiim words. In vi. 41, and also in xiv. 67, the pronoun would have been very inconvenient. In ii. 27 the nouns are used for the sake of antithesis : i. 34, iii. '24, v. 9, x. 46, are instances of circumstantiality in expression (so common in Caesar), and not pro- perly of the substitution of nouns for pronouns ; comp. EUendt loc. cit. 3. Through some negligence on the part of the writer, tlie pronoun avTO'i'^ is not unfreqnently used when the sentences im- mediately preceding contain no noun to which it can be directly referred. Such cases may be arranged in four classes : — (1) Most frequently the plural of this pronoun is used in reference to a collective noun, — particularly the name of a place or country (compare § 21. 3), in which the notion of the inhabitants is implied: Mt. iv. 23, eV ral^ avva'yccyal'i avrOiVj i.e. TaXCKamv (implied iu oXrjv rrjv TdXikaiav), ix. 35 (L. iv. 15), Mt. xi. 1, 1 Th. i. 9 (compare ver. 8), A. viii. 5, xx. 2 ; 2 0. ii. 12, 13, iX6a)v €t9 rrjv TpcodBa . , . dTroTa^dfievo'i avroTs' V. 19, ^€09 rjv iv Xpicrrw Kocrp.ov KaraWucratov eavrw, firj Xoyi- ^6/j.€vo^eva-Trj<} earl Kol 6 TTUTrjp avrov (ylrev8ov vXr.iria : on this .see § 21. 3. On Col. iv. 15, with the reading ecuri/v, see ;Me3'e). [See also Alford, who adopts this reading on good authority, aud Lightfoot, -ol. pp. 309, 322.] * The other explanation, father of the liar, appears to te neither simpler in 182 PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. [PART III. ii. 2 6, iav rj aKpo^varia ra BiKaiw/MiTa rov vo/jLOV ^vkdaar), ov^l 1] aKp. avTOv (of such an aKpo^vcxTOS:) eh TrepirofiTjv Xoyia-dtjae- rai ; coinp. Theodoret I. 914, tovto rr). 608, a.-riKaXo^'a. Tn y-UittviTioi hrnrovi, eJ; (Xavavaioi;) I'lTTiy o (•£»; fit) a-TOKaXC^ai. Comjiarc also the passage cited from an old poet by Cicero (Ora^ 2. 46. 193): neque paUrnvm adspectum es veritus, qvan (jtatrem) letate exacta indigeiu Liberum lacerasti ; and Gell. 2. 30. 6. ■-' (That is, the subject of o-ItZv must be supplied either fiom o KaKuiraiv in ver. 13, or 5ra(r;^«cr'. in ver. 14.] ' Othenvise in I'^piphan. II. 368 a : tt^a.i ft-ai, •zdnp, o-ru; iyia'ivu' . . . Tiimui, •Tix.\:i>}i, Tcf iaraufbjfi'i-t-u, xai i^n; rauTnti [i/yiiKv). * [Winer gives a somewhat diliVrent explanation on p. 177 : Meyer and Ellicott refer the pronoun to tovs uloli tS; a,T. in ver. 6.] SECT. XXII.] PEKSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 183 before the Messiah ^ (see Kiihnol in loc), avT6) cTr/yeios rjfjiiav oiKta tou (tktjvovs ; but it is much simpler to supply aK-qvei (ver. 4). That however the Greeks did use the demonstrative as well as avros with some looseness of reference is well known; compare Matzner, Antiph. p. 200 : A. x. 10 would be an instance of this, if the reading c/cetvwv for avraiv were correct. 4. {a) When the principal noun is followed by several other words, we often find ayro? and the other personal pronouns in- troduced into the same sentence, for the sake of perspicuity : Mk. V. 2, i^eXdovTi avTa> eK rov ttXolov evOeco'i aTrrjvrrjcrev avrat' ix. 28, Mt. iv. 16, v. 40, viii. 1, xxvi. 71, A. vii. 21,^ Ja. iv. 17, E.ev. vi. 4 ; Col. ii. 13, koI vfid<; ouTUf iv rol-q iv vfXLV {in tmhnis vestris) eWavpoj/AeVos (Lev. XV. 16, xxi. 20, xxii. 4, Ruth ii. 2) ; Rev. xvii. 9, ottov rj ywij Ka.Or]Tat tV avTwv xiii. 12 ; compare Gen. xxiv. .3, 37, Jud. vi. 10, Ex. xxxvi. 1, Lev. xvi. 32, Judith ix. 2. Likewise in G. ii. 10, o koI tcnrovSacra avro tovto iroLya-ui, the emphasis which is given by the annexed avro, strengthened by tovto, is unmistakeable ^ (Bornem. Luc. p. liv). 1 P. ii. 24, OS Ttts d/xapTia^ r^p-wv avTX><; dv7jveyK€v k.t.X., certainly cannot be brought in here : it is obvious that avros must be taken by itself, and that it brings out more forcibly the antithesis with afiapr. rjp.Q}v. In Mt. iii. 1 2, ov to tttvov eV TTJ x€tpi avrov, the relative serves instead of tovtov to connect this sentence with the preceding one, and the two pronouns are to be taken separately, — as if the words ran, Be Ims his winmnving shovel in his hand. In E. ii. 10, however, ofs 1 See Gesen. Lg. p. 734. [Gesen. Hebr. Gr. p. 200 (Bagst.), Kalisch, Hebr. Gr. I. 226.] 2 Gottling, CalUm. p. 19 sq., Ast, Plat. Folit. p. 550. 3 In Avistoph. Av. 1238, the Cod. l?av. has oTs ^vtU* auTeTs, for the ordinary reading eJs Suriev aurovs. On another accumulation of the pronoun see § 23. 3. * See also Herm. Soph. Pkiloct. p. 58, Ve. Fritzsche, Quoest. Lucian p. 109 sq. Jelf 833. Obs. 2, Green p. 121.] * [" Which, namely this very thing : " EUicott in loc.} 186 PERSONAL AND TOSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. [PART ITI, TTporjTOLfjiarrev is for a TrporjTOtfiacTiv, by attractioii. Lastly, iv Kvpiu} in E. ii. 21 pj-obably belongs to cts vaw ayiov. We sometimes find airos repeated within a brief space, tiiough different objects are referred to : Mk. viii. 22, (jjepovcnv airS (Xptcrrw) TvcfiXov K. TrapaKoXoxxTiv avrov (Xpicrrov), tva avrov {rixjikov) ail/rjrai Mk. ix. 27, 28 : so also ovto's in Jo. xi, 37. Compare § 67. After a relative sentence, "where we might expect a repetition of os or a cor. inuance of the relative construction, Greek writers not uu- frequently, indeed almost regularly (Bernh. p. 304, Jelf 833. 2), change the structure of the sentence and substitute koI avrds (outos).^ From the N. T. may be quoted 2 P. ii. 3, ol's to Kptfj.a tK-n-aXat ovk apyel, kqI y aTrcaAeta avrwv uv vv. 707, Ast, Plat. Lecjg. p. 449, Boissoii. iV/c. p. 32, Bornein. Xen. Conv. p. 19G, .Stallh. Plat. Protag." p. 68, J^ep. I. 197, Foertsch, Obs. in Lyxiam, p. 67, Weber, Dem. p. 355; Teipel, Srripiorfs OraiC., Germ., Lat. a relathm verbor. condrtut. Hitpe veque injuria stnipcr di!>ces>iisse (Coesfeld 1841): compare Grotefeml, Lat. Oram. § 143. 5, Kritz, SaUunt II. 540. - [Here the true reading is ccitaiiily <«i o'uti; : hence Ave must read xa.) aurri in the preceding ver.'ie.] ^ According to Thiersch (De Pentat. Vers. Alex. p. 98), the LXX use the masc. avTo; for the sinij)le pronoun (he), but not ui^n or a.vro, the demonstrative being regularly used instead of these. As regards the Apocrypha, Wahl denies this u.sage altogether {Clav. p. 80). [In the Is". T. passages editors are divided between avr>i and auTv (as in L. ii. 37, vii. 12) : L. xi. 14 niiglit be an example of ai/ro so used, if the words xxi auro ^v were genuine. See A. Buttm. p. 109, — also Mullach, Vul^j. p. 192 sq.] SECT. XXII.] PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PEONOUNS. 187 frequently (compare especially L. v. 16, 17, xix. 2), it never occurs without a certain degree of emphasis. It denotes a. Self, in antitheses of various kinds, and for all three persons : Mk. ii. 25, iireCvaa-ev avros Koi ol /xer avruv' A. xviii. 19, CKeivovs KareXiTrev avro? Si dcreXOiLv k.t.A., L. v. 37, X. 1, xviii. 39, 1 C. iii. 15, Mk. i. 8, Jo. iv, 2, vi. 6, ix. 21, L. vi. 42, Trois SiVaorat Ae'ycii/ . . . avros Tr]v iv tw 6(f)$aXfxw (tov Sokov ov fSXeTrutv' H. xi. 11, TricrTCt koi avTTj Sappa Svvafj.iv cis KarafSoXrjv o-7rep/x,aTos tXa/Sev, even Sarah her- self (who had been unbelieving), Jo. xvi. 27. avros o Trarr/p <^iXiivfxa.<;, He himself, of himself (without entreaty on my part, ver. 26), Kom. viii, 23. Avros is thus used by the disciples in speaking of Christ (compare the familiar avros €a), Mk. iv. 38, L. v. 16, ix. 51 (xxiv. 15), xxiv. 36 ; compare Fischer, Lid. TJieophan, s. v. avros. See the lexicons. b. He, with emphasis, — he and no other: Mt. i. 21, KaAccrcts to ovofjia avTov 'Irjaovv' avros yap oruicrei tov Aaov' xii. 50, Col. i. 17. Avros does not stand for the unemphatic Ae in L. i. 22 {he himself, as contrasted with the others : iTreyvwa-ar), ii. 28 (he, Simeon, as con- trasted with the parents of Jesus, ver. 27), iv. 15, vii. 5 {he by him- self, at his own exi^ense), A. xiv. 12 {he, Paul, as the principal person, ver. ll),i Mk. vii. 36 [Jiec.].- (On th<> antithesis avrol . . . cv tav- Tois, Rom. A'iii. 23, see Fritz, in loc.) 5. The reflexive pronoun eavrov, which, as compounded of e and auro?, naturally belongs to the third person, is regularly so used in the N. T., — not unfrequently in antithesis and with emphasis (1 C. x. 29, xiv. 4, E. v. 28, al.). Where however no ambiguity is to be apprehended, it is used for the other persons : — a. In the plural. For the 1st person : Rom. viii. 23 (vfieW) avrol iv eavrol'i a-Tevd^o/j,ev 1 C. xi. 31, 2 C. 1. 9, x. 12, A. xxiii. 14, al. For the 2d person : Jo. xii. 8, toi/? irrw)(ov'^ 7rdvroT€ ep^ere fieO^ eavrwv Ph. ii. 12, rrjv eavToiiv crwTTjpiav ' [Lunemann adds 1 Th. iii. 11, iv. 16, v. 23, 2 Tli. ii. 16, iii. 16 ; but these should rather come under (a). ] * [The same view of the N. T. use of the nominative of avTos is taken by Fritzsche, Meyer, Liinemann, and others. On the other .side see A. Buttnianu (G'r. p. 106 sqq.), who maintains, (l)that, even if AViner's assertions are correct, they do not prove that N. T. usage agi-ees in this point with that of the classic writers : (2) that there are not a few passages in which avTH is used though there is neither emphasis nor contrast. Compare also Ellicott on Col. i. 17 : " Though auTOi appears both in this and the great majority of passages in the N. T. to have its ])roper classical force ('ut lem abaliis rebus discernendana esse indicet,' Hermann, Dissert. aLris, 1), the use of the corresponding Aramaic pro- noun should make us cautious in pressing it in every case." Similarly Gi'een, Gr. p. 117. On the classical usage see Don. pp. 37.5, 4C2, and Jelf 6.54. 1, 656 ; and as to modern Greek (in which the uomin. of airs; is used for he) see MuUacli 1>. 317.] 188 PERSONA.L AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. [ PART III. Karepyd^6cr6e' Mt. iii. 9, xxiii. 31, A. xiii. 46, H. iii. 13, x. 25, al. (Jelf 654. 2. b.) h. In the singular, — though far less frequently (Bernh. p. 272). For the 2d person : Jo. xviii. 34, a^' iavrov , i(f>\ etc., when they come before avrov; from which we might conclude with Bleek {Hebr. II. 69) that the N. T. writers were not acquainted with the form avToO, but always used iavrov instead where the reflexive pronoun was needed. And as those uncial MSS. of the K. T. and the LXX which possess diacritical marks have for the most l)art avrov exclusively,'^ — though, it is true, these MSS. are not older than the eighth century, and the ''fere constanter" leaves us to w^sh for a more accurate collation, — recent editors almost always write ovrov. In most of the passages there is no need whatever of a re- flexive pronoun ; but it is difficult to believe that in Rom. iii. 25 Paul wrote €1? evSei^LV Trj<; SiKaioa~vv7]'i avrov (over against €v alfxari avrov), or that John wrote avro? irepl avrov in ix. 21 : compare also E. i, 9, Rom. xiv. 14, L. xix. 15, xiii. 34, Mk. viii. 35, Rev. xi. 7, xiii. 2. For these reasons, the decision between avrov and avrov in the N. T. must (as in classical Greek) be left to the cauiims judgment of editors.^ rules may be easily and safely laid down, but there are cases in which the decision between the two words will always remain doubtful, and it is much more difficult to hit the mark in Greek than in Latin .... When in the mind of the writer the reference to the subject predominates, the reflexive is used ; when the subject is viewed as more remote, the 3d personal pronoun. In Greek one must give oneself up to his own personal feeling, — to the mood of the moment, it you will." On reciprocation in general, see some good observations by Holimann in the Jahrb. der Philol. VIL p. 38 sqcj. [Jelf 653, Frost, Thuqid. pp. 269, 296, 317.] > [Even if the question were not decided here by the preceding st (not tip). To the prepositions mentioned below Liinemann adds avri.] » Tischend. PrcFf. A'. T. p. 26 sq., [p. 58, ed. 7]. . " [A. Buttmann (Gr. p. Ill) urges the following additional reasons in favour of the opinion that ia.uToZ is almost always the form used by the N. T. writers when they wish to employ the refle.Kive pron. of the 3d pers., and that therefore awraZ must ill most cases be written without the aspirate. (1) In the 2d person we always find e/xadov ev oh ^tfu avrapKr]^ elvac' Jo. ii. 10, 7ra0aXfj.uL /SAcVoi/tcs a /SActtctc are, properly speaking, none other than those of whom the /SAeVere is predicated. Compare 2 C. xi. 29, t6s do-Oevet koL ovk aa-OevCj ; rt's cTKavSoAt^erai koI ovk iyco Trvpovfxai : ^ here we must not overlook the fact that in the second member 7rvpovfj.ai (which the apostle attributes to himself) is a stronger word than aKav^aXtCeaOai. In 1 C. xiii. 12, TOTc iinyvuxTOfjiaL Ka^w? kol iv^yvuicrO-qv, some authorities add c'yw to the latter ver?j, but improperly, since the contrast is expressed by the voice of the verb. It may be remarked in passing that, in some books of the O. T., the expressive "ais with a verb is rendered in the LXX by e'yw eijui, accompanied by the 1st person of the verb; e.g. Jud. xi. 27, TIXtDn N^ '3:N1, »cai vvv iyu) el/xL oi^ rijjMpTOV '. compare V. -3, vi. 18, 1 K.h. 2. " On avTo? eyw (in A. X. 26, e'yw avrds) see Fritz. Rom. II. T-^. 7. The possessive pronouns are sometimes to be taken object- ively : L. xxii. 19, ?; eV^ dvdfiv7]crtl be xv. 9 (or 11).] 3 [Jelf 652. Ob$. 6 : for the N. T. .see Green, Gr. p. 124, where the limited use of possessive pronouns in the N. T. is also noticed.] * See for example the Indices to Agathias, Petr. Patrii.ius, Prisons, Dexippus, Glycas, and Theophanes, in the Bonn edition. [MuUach, Vitl[/. p. 53.] 192 PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. [PART III, a7rrj\6€v et<; rov iStov aypov, though there is no emphasis, i.e., no contrast with koiv6<; or dWorpcof; ; the parallel words in the second member are eVt r. ifnropiap avrov' Mt. xxv. 14, eKoXeae roi/q tS/of? Bov\ov<;' Tit. ii. 9, Jo. i. 42. Similarly, oi lBiol av- 3/36? is used for husbands in E. v. 22, Tit. ii. 5, 1 P. iii. 1,5; where ol dvBp€S'. II. 9. By the Fathers, however, l'3to? is certainly sometimes used for a per- sonal pronoun; compare Epiphan. 0pp. II. 622 a. In by far the greater number of passages there is an anti- thesis, open or latent: Jo. x. 3, v. 18, Mt. xxv. 15, A. ii. 6, Eom. viii. 32, xi. 24, xiv. 4, 5, 1 Th. ii. 14, H. ix. 12, xiii. 12, also Mt. ix. 1. The parallel clauses in 1 C. vii. 2, eKaaro^; rrjv eavTov yvvatKa i-^eTco, kol eKaarr] rov iStov avhpa e)(€rco, we may render. Let every man have his wife, and let every woman have her oivn husbaiid: Isocr. Demon, p. 18, aKo-wei irpMrov, ttw? vTTep Tcov avTov Stu)K7]cr6v' 6 yap KaKOiriT'qv oikoSo/x-^s" xiii. 9, i. 6) occurs on the whole but rarely.^ Compare, in general, Kriiger on Xen. Anab. 5. 6. 16. When an attributive precedes the noun, the prefixed '- The usual order in the N. T., as elsewhere, is Tarnf fiou, ul'os /xou ayarriTOi. The genitive of alTos also is, as a rule, placed after the noun : ste however Rost p. 453 (Jelf 652. 3). * Where this order was not adopted, the pronoun wax necessarily repeated foi the sake of perspicuity : A. iv. 28, oax h ^^'P "'"' *«' ^ /3«tj ;(7; entirely without meaning, any more than L''B3 in the O. T., — see my edition of Simonis. It signifies the soul (tlie spiritual principle on which the influence of Christianity is exerted, 1 P. i. 9) in such expressions as iKSairavrjOrjaofJiat virep rwv if/vx(iiv vfjiwv 2 C xii. 15, i-n-ia-KOTTo^ twv x^vx^v vfxwv 1 P. ii. 25, H. xiiL 17; — or the heart (the seat of the feelings and desires), as Rev. xviii. 14, iTTLOvfiLai r^s ^vxr}<: crov' Mt. xxvi. 38, TreptAuTTOS itrTiv r} vj/vxi] p-oV A. ii. 43, eytvcro Trda-rj 4'^XV i^o/Sos. Nor is kI/'"XV redundant in Rom. ii. 9 ; it denotes that in man which /i?t^/s the ^Att^ts and the a-rfvoxoipM, even though these may affect the body. In Rom. xiii. 1, Trdcra if^vxrj e^oi;o-tais virepexovcrai^ wTTorao-creo-^w, the simple TrScra ^Irvxrj (compare 1 p. iii. 20) may be every sold, i.e. every one; but even in estimates of population "so many souls" (in Latin capita) is not precisely identical with "so many men." Compare also A. iii. 23 (from the LXX). Hence the use of ij/vxi] must in every instance be referred to vividness or to circumstantiality of language, which is altogether ditferent from pleonasm. It is not at all uncommon to find this use of the word ^ Buttm. Gr. 120. 2, and on Dem. Midias p. 9 ; Jacob, Luc. Toxar. p. 138. In German the dative is used in exactly the same way, as das war dir tichonf [See Donahls. p. 495 sq., Jelf 600. 2 ; and as to English, Latham, EtKj. Lang. II. 341, Craik, Enijl. of Shakesp. p. 113 (ed. 3), Clyrle, Greek Synt. p. 38, Farrar, Gr. Synt. p. 74.] ^ On the similar phrase ^kcd apLv refers to lirayyiXfJiaTa. The relative also is supposed sometimes to refer to a remote subject (compare Bernh. p. 297).^ Thus in 1 C. i. 8 (see Pott in loc.) it has been maintained that os relates to ^cos in ver. 4, as the principal subject, though 'l-qa; Xpto-T. immediately precedes. This however is not necessary, either on account of tov Kvpcov rj/xwv ^Irja-cv Xp. at the end of this vei^se (compare Col. ii. 11, E. iv. 12), or on account of TTio-To? 6 Oca's which immediately follows ; for that which is here ascribed to God, the calling ci? kolvwvmv 'I. Xp., is at the same time a calling to the ^cfSaicva-dai through Christ, which (/8c/3aiovo-^ai) in- deed can only be effected in the fellowship of Christ. This canon has been applied to H. ix. 4 (see Kiihnol in loc), to evade antiquarian diflSculties, and to Rom. v. 12 (c^' w) on dogmatic grounds; in both instances quite erroneously. There is no difficulty in H. v. 7 and 2 Th. ii, 9, In 3 P, iii. 12 8i' ^v may very well be referred to the nearest word 17/xcpas ; in 1 P. iv, 1 1 e Pace 388, Pint. Virt. Mid. p. 202, Xen. ^?r. 1. 9. 25, Deraosth. Ep. 5. m., Olynth. I. p. 2, al., and Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 368 :— but also (h) Where the case of the demonstrative would have been different, as in Jo. xiii. 29, tv^opaaov mv y^peiav e-^o^ev (for ravra bjv), Eom. vi. 16, Mt. xix. 11, A. viii. 19, xiii. 37, 1 C. xv. 36, 2 P. i. 9 ; compare Xen. Ci/r. 6. 2, 1, d'rrr)> with ner/uiTv, ver. 9. The former meaning would have been more distinctly expressed by iv Z TfiTu. ^ Reiche evidently goes too far when he says that, in all other examples, it is only the demonstrative which would have been governed by the rerft that is omitted, and never one governed by a noun (compare Jo. xviii. 26, L. xxiii. 41) : even if the remark were true, it would not set aside the above explanation, see Tritzsche. — Perhaps also we miglit give to if Jj the meaning which is discussed 198 DEMONSTKATIVE PRONOUNS. [PART HI. LXX), L. V. 25, 2 P. ii. 12;' Soph, riiil. 957, Aristot. Rhd. 2. .1. 7, Demon, p. 2 : — or h. To the -demonstrative understood: Jo. vi. 29, Xva TncrTev- (Ti]Te et9 ov aTria-retkev e/ceti^o?" xvii. 9, Rom. xiv. 22, 2 C. v. 10, xii. 6, G. i. 8 sq., H. v. 8 (Num. vi. 21). In H. ii. 18 also, eV to ireirovOev avTO<; ireipaadeC'i, Bvvarai toI<; Treipa^Ofieuoif I3orj07]crai,, should probably be resolved into ev tovtw o TreirovOei' .... Bvvarat . . . ^orjOfjaaL. Compare Xen. Mevi. 2. 6. 34, €77/- ryveTat evvoia 7rpo. 363 ; and on the attraction of adverbs Jelf i-l-l. Ob>>. 10.] . SECT. XXIII.] DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS. 199 42 [jB^c], ov^ o5to9 iartv 'It^ctou? o vc6<; ^laxrrjcj) .... ttw? o3y A-eyet outo9 ac.t.X.' Amongst other passages, Bornemauu quotes as parallel Xen. Mem. 4. 2. 28, koI o'l re a7roTuy^dvovT€9 TovTO, on k.tX., A. xxiv. 14, ojxoXo'ySi rovro aoi, OTi k.tX, Rom. vi. 6,' 1 C. i. 12, xv. 50, 2 C. v. 15, x. .7, 11, 2 Th. iii. 10, Ph. i. 6, 25, Jo. xvii. 3, 2 P. i. 20, 1 Jo. i. 5, iii 11, 23, iv. 9, 10, v. 3, 11, 14, 2 Jo. G ; compare Plat. Soph. 234 b. So 6tou. p. 362, Green p. 120 sqq.] ^"Osri; occurs in the N. T. in no other case than the nominative, [the neuter accusative, aiid the contracted genitive, — the last only in im; omu (p. 75).] SECT. XXIV.] RELATIVE PRONOUNS. 203 verb to stand in the accusative, is so attracted by tlie oblique case (the genitive or dative) of the preceding noun with which it is logically connected (as secondary clause with principal) that it itself assumes this case. This peculiarity, which gives to the sentences a closer internal connexion and a certain roundness, was quite familiar to the LXX, and is of regular occurrence in the N. T. (though variants are sometimes found) : L. ii. 20, eVt -jraa-iv oh rjKovaav Jo. ii. 22 (iv. 50), e-niarevaav Tft> \6'^(o c5 el-jrev A. iii. 21, 25, vii. 17, x. 39,xvii. 31, xx. 38, xxii. 10, Ja. ii. 5, 1 P. iv. 11, Jo. vii. 31, 39, xv. 20, xvii. 5, Mk. vii. 13, L. v. 9, xix. 37, Mt. xviii. 19, 1 C. vi. 19, 2 C. x. 13,xii. 21, 2 Th. i. 4, Tit. iii. G, H. vi. 10 (ix. 20), x. 1,^E. i. 8, ii. 10, Eev. xviii. G, al. Here the comma before the relative is in every case to be struck out ; see § 7. 1. Jude 15, Trepi Trdvrwv io)v epyrop dae^eia^ avroiv o)v r}(Te/377craj', deserves special notice : see § 32. 1. There are passages however in which this usage is neglected, as H. viii. 2, t^9 aKr^vi)^ rrj<{ aXrjOivrj^, rjv etrrj^ev o Kvpio<;' and according to good MSS. Mk. xiii. 9, Jo. vii. 39, iv. 50, Tit. iii. 5 : ^ compare also the variants in Jo. xvii. 11, H. vi. 10, A. vii. IG, Kev. i. 20. Similar instances are frequently met with in the LXX and the Apocrypha : ^ for examples from Greek writers see Bornem. Xen. .^?t. p. 30, Weber, Dc?/?. p. 543,Krug. p. 142 (Jelf 822. Ohs. 9). Some passages appear to go beyond the rule as laid dowi- :ibove : thus in E. i. 6, rijs x^-P'-'^^'^ 1'^ ex°-f'^'^^'^^'' i^-^- *'' v)^ ^'^- ^' "^^'^ k\-<](t€o}^ Tj'; iKXjjOrjTe' 2 C. i. 4, 8ta t>}? 7ra/jaKA»ycrews 175 TrapaKaXuvfj-eOa,* the genitive ^s seems to stand for the dative ^. But all these passages may be explained by reference to the well-known phrases kXtjo-lv Kokeiv, 7rapa.K\r}cnv irapaKoXcLV, X'^P^^ x^'-P'-''''^^^^ aydTrrjv dyaTrav (§ 32. -), and to the equally familiar coii^^truction of the passive.^ In A. xxiv. 21 also, <^ojv^s -^s iKpa$a eoToW k.t.X., 7;s probably is not put for r/ {(f>u,vy KpdCeiv, Mt. xxvii. 50, Mk. i. '26, liev. vi. 10, al.) :" .«;v' iyio T^; 'Cfipico; h vSip',Z,oft.ci,i, is probably to be explained in the same way. * Compare Boisson. Nicet. p. o-J. 204 RELATIVE PEONOUNS. [PART III. used in the sense of cry, exclamation (loud utterance), so that the construction resolves itself into ^twvrjv Kpd^civ (Rev. vi. 10 v. l), — an unusual, but not an inadmissible expression : compare Is. vi. 4, (f>wvri<; lys iKCKpayov. — In E. i. 8, -^s cTTcptVcrcvcrcv, the verb is to be taken transitively, as is shown by yi^wpto-a?, ver. 9. That however attraction may affect the dative of the relative, so as to change it into a genitive, is shown by G. Krtiger I.e. p. 274 sq. : ^ thus in 1 Tim. iv. 6, A has r^s /coA^s SiSaa-KaXias ry? 7rapyjKoXov6r}Ka<;. In Kom. iv. 17 also many commentators (and recently Fritzsche) resolve KarivavTL ov cTTtcTTEvcrev Oeov into KarevavTi d^ov (5 eTri'cTTeuorev,^ but this explanation is not necessary : see below, no. 2.^ On the other hand, Mt. xxiv. 38, ■^a-av . . . ya/Aov;/T€S /cat eKyayu.t^oiTS^ "X/^' ^s ri/jiepa iSoOr} iroXv, iroXv ^tjtt)- 1 Comp. Heinichen, Euseb. II. 98 sq. [Jelf 822. Obs. 8, Madvig 103, Kriig. p. 142.] 2 [So also Tholuck, A. Buttm. (p. 287), Jowett, Yaughan, Webster and Wilkinson. Meyer and Allord agree with Winer : see also Ellicott on E. i. 8. On A. xxvi. 16 see § 39. 3. Eeni. 1. In 2 Th. i. 4, aJs aiix^ah, some consider at; to stand for J», as in the N. T. avix^uiau governs the genitive in every other instance. Such an attraction as this, however, would be unexampled : see Jelf 822. Ohs. 8, and Ellicott in loc. — From the LXX, Thiersch quotes Gen; xxiv. 7 as an example of ri? for j? {De Pent. Al. p. 105}.] ^ Compare Schmid in 'the Tubing. Zeitschr. /. Theol. 1831. II. 137 sqq. ■* [" Axf ris rtft. (comp. It^pis ov, 'ia/g ov, las oTou) occurs Mt. xxiv. 38, li. i. 20, xvii. 27, A. i. 2 : aif'rT; fi/x. (comp. i(p' ov). Col. i. 6, 9 ; a.(p' ?is (scil. h/^tpas ov upas, see § 64. 5), L. vii. 45, 2 P. iii. 4 ; in A. xxiv: 11, ri//.ipas may be supplied from the preceding vfiipai. In A. xx. 18, a' n; is most simply explained in the same way ; Jelf (822. Obs. 5) considers this an example of the repetition of the prepos. which belongs to the antecedent (Thuc. 3. 64). With these examples compare Dem. De Cor. 233. 27, olx a^' «; ufioa-oiTi iiftipa;, aXX' a.^9r'i(ra'rt X.T.K., Xen. An. 5. 10. 12, «^£/>a ?xr>» a) TV7r(pStoa^t] ^6vi(r0d)fiep Mvdcrcopi, is explained by some as an example of attraction, — d'yoPT6/3a9 {'xoipap r}<; dp^ot), Soph. (^d. Col. 907, El. 1029, Eurip. Orest. 63, Electr. 860, Rec. 986, Plat. Tim. 49 e, De- mosth. Ep. 4. p. 118 c, Plut. Coriol. 9 {Evang. Apocr. p. 414, • Comp, Gieseler I. c. p. 126, Kiiig. 224 sq. * On v-ruKoviiv us, especially in Josephus, see Kypke, Obnervqtt. II. 167, though exception may be taken to some of his examples. 206 RELATIVE PKONOUXS, [PAET III. Ada Apocr.'^. 69): compare Liv. 9. 2, Terent. Aiidr. prol. 3 (Jelf 824. II.). — On the whole subject see Matth. 474, Lob. AJax p. 354, To (h) would also belong Eom. iv. 17, /careVavri ov iirLo-Tcvo-e 6€ov, "if resolved into KareVai/n Oeov, <3 eVtcrrei^o-e. On this sup- position, the law of attraction (so familiar had the construction become) is here extended so as to include the dative. Instances of this kind certainly do occur here and there (Kriig. 247 sq., Jelf 822. Obs. 8), e.g. Xen. Cy?: 5. 4.. 39, rjyero rwv iavrov Twv Tc 7rtv (i.e. tovtoh' ot?) rjir^crreL iroWovs : see Fritz. lioni. I. 237. Still, KarivavTi O^ov, KarevavTL ov iTTicTTevcre (see above, 1) is a simpler resoluti' wv tiraOe, i.e. d-Ko TovTiov a (wv) eiraOe- Rom. X. 14, Jo. vi. 29, xvii. 9, 1 C. vii. 1 ; Demosth. Euerg. 684 b, dyavanTrja-arra i(fi ols e'yw iireTTOvOeiv' Plat. Cratyl. 386 a, Xen. An. 1. 9. 25, Arrian, Al. 4. 10. 3, Lysias II. 242 (ed. Auger.): see § 23. 2. b. Without a preposition : Rom. xv. 18, ov toX/xtjo-o} XaXciv tl Stv OV /careipyao-aTo k.t.X., A. viii. 24, xxvi. 16 ; Soph. Fhil. 1227, QJd. li. 855. On this, and on attraction with a local adverb (G. Kriig. 302 sqq.), see § 23. 2. 3. The noun which forms the predicate in a relative sentence, annexed for the purpose of explanation (09 — earl), sometimes gives its own gender and number to the relative, by a kind of attraction (Herm. Vi(/. p. 708, Jelf 821. 3, Don. p. 362) : Mk. XV. 16, T-^? avXrj ahrou afnyyiiXiv, compare especially Plat. Tim. 67, S/ «',- alria,; to. vipi ocvra. ^vfi^ctU'.i 'xa.iyiii.a.Ta., Xikt'iov. See Madvig 198 b, Jelf 877. 06s. 3 sq., A. Buttm. p. 250.] ^ [Similarly Alford, Lightfoot, and others : against Fritz., Meyer urges that an exclamation would naturally have been expressed in an interrogative form. A. Buttm. (p. 253) agrees with Fritz. : comp. Vulg. (Cod. Amiat.), " ad quod venisti ? " (Cfcm. ; "ad quid venisti ? "). Most of those who read oti in Mt. vii, 14 (on t/ see § 53. 8. c) take the word in the sense of because : A. Buttm. is inclined to regard the clause as an exclamation, but it is doubtful whether he is justified in quoting Jer. ii. 36 (where oV< corresponds to the Hebrew no) as a parallel case.] * ["On (a,T/) is received by almost all editors in Mk. ix. 11, 28 : it is taken in the sense of why ? by Meyer, De Wette, A. Buttm., Alford, Webster and Wilk.,— either as being the pronoun S',t/ used for t! (Meyer, A. Buttm., Alf.), or through an ellipsis (as in ti on, De W., Jelf 905 8. k). In Mk. ii. 16, en (o',Ti) is received by Tisch., Treg., A. Buttm., who also regard the word as interrogative. Tisch. quotes Bamab. Up. 10. 1, on Se Muucr»s upnKi* ; (Hilgenf. upriKiv-), rendered in the Vet. interp., " Quare autem Moyses dicit?" See also Barnab. Ep. 7. 9, 8. 5. In 1 Chr. xvii. 6 (cited by A. Buttm. p, 254) we find on corresponding with nD? ii^ the Hebrew : comp. Jer. ii. 36. T T Lachniann {Fraef. p. 43) compares this use of 'i,n with the introduction of a direct question by t\ (§ 57. 2). See Tisch. on Mk. ii. 16, Meyer on Mk. ix. 11, SECT. XXIV.] RELATIVE PRONOUNS. 209 If on were the true reading, it might rather be taken as ore because: see § 53. 8, 10. Rem. 1. It is pecuHar to Paul to connect sometimes two, three, or more sentences by the repetiuion of the relative pronoun, even when it refers to different subjects: Col. i. 24 sq., 28, 29, E. iii. 11, 12, 1 C. ii. 7 ; compare 1 P. ii. 22. — In other passages the singular relative has been supposed, to refer to a series of nouns, and to ha^ <•, as it were, a collective force : e.g. E. v. 5, on ttSs Tropvos 77 oKaOapro^ rj TrXfoveKTTj'i, os eo-rii/ clSoiXoXdrpr}^ k.t.X.^ But this is arbitrary, and would presuppose a similar forced explanation of Col. iii. 5 (see above, p. 207). Rem. 2. The relative clause beginning with os or osrts commonly follows the clause containing the noun, Vjut takes the first place if it is to be brought into prominence (Kriig. p. 144) : 1 C. xiv. 37, a ypa(f>(o v/juv oti Kvpiov Icttlv H. xii. 6, ov dyaTra Kvpto<; TratSevet' Rom. vi. 2, oiTtve? air (6 6.vop.€v rfj ajxapTia, ttws In t,rj(Top.ev ev avr'ri ; Mk. viii. 34, al. With a demonstrative in the second clause: Ph. iii. 7, anva rjv /xot KepBr], Tavra riyrip.ai k.t.X., Ja. ii. 10,^ Jo. xxi. 25, xi. 45, Mt. V. 39, L. ix. 50, A. xxv. 1«, 1 C. iv. 2, H. xiii. 11 (Jelf 817. Obs. 10). Rem, 3. The neuter 6 is prefixed to a wliole sentence in the sense of as concerns, as regards, etc. (as qnod in Latin) : Rom. ^i. 1 0, o 8c ^Tj, ^fj T k.t.X. ; compare Matth. 478 (Jell 579. 6). In both these passages, however, o may be taken as the object, quod vivit, — vita quam vivit. See Fritz. Bern. I. 393. (Jelf 905. 7.) Rem. 4. That os is used in prose for the demonstrative (i. e. in other cases than those which are familiar to all, Matth. 288 sq.) was believed by many commentators during the reign of empiricism. Now every beginner knows how to take the passages which were so explained ; e.^. 2 C. IV. 6, 6 6eo<; o elirMV Ik o-kotous ^wS Xa^ai//ai, OS ^Xafxij/ev iv rais Kap8iacs k.t.X. In 1 C. ii. 9, Rom. xvL 27, there is an anacoluthon.^ A. Buttm. I. c, priTOm's Clavis s. v. As regards these three passages of St. Mark, however, it seerns probable that er/ should rather be taken as the con- jmiction, introducing an assertion or exclamation (so Alford in ii. 16) : see § 53. 10. 5.] - Compare Fritzsche, De Conformat. Crit. p. 46. 2 [In Ja. ii. 10, L. ix. 50, there is no demonstrative : indeed none of the following examples, except Mt. v. 39, H. xiii. 11, are really in point.] 3 [On the distinction between 0; and the indefinite relative osn;, see Krii- ger p. 139 (who calls « objective, «VTi; qualitative and generic), Jelf 816, Madvig 105, Clyde, -^yniaa; p. 58; for the N. T., A. Euttm. p. 115, Green p. 122 sq., Webster, Gr. p. 55, Lightfoot, Gal. pp. 177 sq., 207, and especially Ellicott on G. iv. 24. "OfT/f properly indicates th^ cla.? The trans- ition to this use of tI is formed by such a construction as tL (f>d- yaaiv ovk exovaL, Mk. vi. 36 (Mt. xv. 32), for which 6,tl (fxi^co- a-tv OVK exovac might be substituted with but slight change of meaning ; just as in Latin both " non habent qiiid comedant " and " non habent quod comedant " are correct (Eamshorn, Zat. Gnwim. 368).^ In the latter formula, e'xety and habere simply V. 38, oiTis ^poSiuKiv), as in Col. iii. 5, " covetousness, a thiug which is idolatry " = "seeing it is idolatry,"— the reader at once perceiving that St. Paul introduces this statement of the quality of « -rXian^lx, that he may enforce his exhortation. See also Jo. viii. 53, H. x. 35, E. iii. 13, Ph. iv. 3. On the use of osT,; to denote "that which is to be regarded as the especial attribute of tlie individual" (1 C. v. 1, L. ii. 4), see Jelf 816. 6. The two pronouns were con- founded in late Greek (see Lidd. and Sc. s. v., Ellic. I.e.) : but in the N. T. the distinctive use of each is almost always, if not always, maintained. See Fritz. Opusc. p. 182, Grimm's Clavis s. v., A. Biittm. I.e. In modern Greek csr,; (which is commonly used in the nominative only) almost always has^ the meaning qui; as is extremely rare in the popular language : see MuUach, Vulij. p. 201.— "0 ri (f)(o : see on the whole Heindorf, Cic. JVat. D. p. 347. The relative and interrogative are combined in 1 Tim. i. 7, //,/; voovvre^ fMijre a Xeyovcri firjre Trepl rlvoiv hca^e^atovvraL, non intdligentes nee quod dicunt nee quid asserant. Similarly in Greek writers we find tl and 6,Ti in. parallel clauses : compare Stallb. Plat. Rep. I. 248, II. 261, Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 641.' Schleusner, Haab (p. 82 sq.), and others refer to this head many examples which are of an entirely different kind : — (a) In some of these t/s retains its meaning as an interrogative pronoun, and nmst be rendered in Latin by quis or quid .• Mt. vii. 9, Ti's tcnai \l(TTLv\ ii v/awv a.i'Opayiro's k.t.X., quls erit ifltei' Vos hoiHO, etc. j compare Mt. xii. 11, L. xiv. 5, xi. 5 sq. {b) In otliers tl<; is not an interrogative at all, but the pronoim aliquis: 1 i'. vii. 18, Trtptrer/xTj/xc'i os rts iKXr'jOr], fii] iTTLcnrda-Ooj, some one who is eircunicised is called (1 suppose the case), /el him vol become imcircumcised : Ja. v. 13, KUKOTraOa. ri%, ■7rpo^ev)((.cr0w (.K'lf 860. 8), It is not correct to say that here rts stands for ei ns, see § G4. 5. Rem., [and § 60. 4]. Ja. iii. 13 should be thus punctuated (as by Pott, Schott, al.) : rts (to(}>o^ . . . ev v/juv ; Sci^aro) k.t.X. Ill A. xni. 25 also we might write nVa /tf v-rrovoetre elycu ] ovk elfxl e'yco" though I do not consider the ordinary view (that riva is for ovriva) inadmis- sible t^ compare Soph. IJl. 1167, Callim. Ejngr. 30. 2. Tt"j is sometimes used where only tAvo persons or things are spoken of, in the place of the more precise Trdrepo? (which never occurs as an adjective in the N. T.) : Mt. ix. 5, t/ yap ia-Tiv ivK07n!jTep. xxv). See Jftbb, Soph. Eh-cir. pp. 32, 116.] " Stallb. Phlltb. p. 16S (Jelf 874. Obs. 4). 212 INTERROGATIVE AND INDEFINITE PRONOUN Ti?. [PART III. the distinctive use of t/? and irorepo? as the Romans are in regard to their quis and titer, — though even in Latin the distinction is not always observed.^ It is a mistake to say that the singular of the interrogative is used for the plural in such expressions as n' etrj ravra L. -xv. 26, Jo. vi. 9, A. xvii. 20. Here the various objects referred to (Tavra) are included under one general expression (ti), what (of what kind) are these things (hence also quid sibi volunt) ; whereas in nVa la-TL k.t.A. (compare H. V. 12) there is definite reference to the plurality, qum (qualia) sunt. compare Plat. Thecet. 154 e, 195 c.^ The interrogative ti sometimes stands at the end of the sentence, as in Jo. xxi. 21, oStos 81 tL; in the orators ttujs is often so placed (Weber, Dem. p. 180 sq., Jelf 872). Both in the N. T, and in the LXX we meet with tva tl, for what purpose, wherefore, as a formula of interrogation : Mt. ix. 4, ha ri v/jLCis ivdvfxeio-Oe ■jrovrjpd ; xxvii. 46, L. xiii, 7, al. This expression is elliptical, like the Latin ut quid, and stands for ivd ri yevrjraL (or yevotTo, after a past tense) ; See Herm. Vig. p. 849, Lob. Ajaz p. 107 (Jelf 882) : it is not uncommon in Greek writers, particularly the later; see Plat. Apol. 26 d, Aristoph. Ecdes. 718, Arrian, Epict. 1. 24, al., and compare Ruth i, 11, 21, Ecclus. xiv. 3, 1 Mace, ii. 7. 2. The indefinite pronoun rt?, ri, is joined (a) To abstract nouns, for the purpose (inter alia) of soften- ing their meaning in some degree; as in Xen. Cyr. 8. 1. 16, rovTovi 7] irdv kolvov Eev. ix. 4 (Jud. xiii. 4, Sus. 27). On the other hand, when ov {jii]) and 7ra9 are joined together, without an intervening word, the meaning is not every (like 71071 ortinis) : 1 C. xv. 39, ov irdaa adp^ t] avrrj adp^' Mt. vii. 21, ov Trd'i 6 Xiywp' Kvpie, Kvpie, el^sekevaerai et? tjjv ^aa. . , . dW* 6 'TTotwv K.T.X., Not every one who (willingly) calh me Lord, hut (amongst those who do this) only he who does the will, etc.,^ — it is not the (mere) saying " Lord " that gives an entrance into the kingdom of heaven, but, etc. • A. x. 4 1 is similar. So also ov 'n-dvT€<; is nonomnes: Mt. xix. 11, Eom. ix. 6, x. 16. This distinction has its foundation in the nature of the case. In ov . . . 7ra9, ov negatives the notion of the verb, — a negative assertion being made in reference to ird^ : thus in Eom. iii. 20, every onan shall not-be-justified, the "not-being-justified" is asserted of every man, and hence the meaning is, no 7nan shall he justified^ In ov Tra?, it is Tra? that is negatived.-^On the whole, however, the fonnula ov . , . 7rd<; occurs but rarely : in ' Leusden, BlaH. p. 107, Vorst, Bfbr. p. 529 sq., Gesen. Lg. 831 [Gesen. Hehr. Gt. p. 236 (Bagst.), Kalisch, Hebr. Gr. I. 236. For the N. T., see Green, Gr. ]>. 190, Jelf 905. Oh^. 9.] - ] cnnnot agree with Fritzsche (see also Prdl'tm. p. 72 sq.) in joining eh with the verb and rendering the words "no Lord-saver." The "saying Lord, Lord," is by no means excluded by the second member of the verse faXX' i -rotut) ; indeed 'jronlv to ('o.nfjLa toZ varfii ft-ov involves the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Lord. ^ Gesenins I. c. merely mentions this peculiarity of the Hebrew language, without making any effort to explain it : P^wald, on the other hand (p. 657) [Lehrb. p. 7nO : ed. 7], has at least indicated the correct explanation. See Dni- sius on (i. ii. 16. and Beza on Mt. xxiv. 22, Kom. iii. 20. I have never been able to see what Gesenins means hv his distinction between el to.; and //r Ta;. SECT. XXVI.] HEBRAISTIC MODES OF EXPRESSING PRONOUNS. 215 the examples quoted above (which are for the most part sen- tences of a proverbial character) it seems to have been used designedly, as being more expressive. The N. T. use of this construction is almost confined to those passages in which the O. T. phrase '^V'T^t is introduced : in the LXX, as a trans- lation, the idiom is of frequent occurrence.^ All Georgi's quo- tations ( Viiid. p. 3 1 7) to prove that this construction is pure Greek, are beside the mark : in every instance Tra? belongs to the noun, signifying either whole (as in fj,r}8e rov a-rravTa xpovov), or full, complete (as in iracra avd'yKrf)? This Hebraism should in strictness be limited to the expression OX) (firj) . . . Tra? ; for in sentences with Tra? . . . ov (fj^r/)^ there is usually nothing that is alien to Greek usage,* or else the writer's reason for choosing this particular mode of expression is evident of itself 1 Jo. ii. 21, ttuv '^evSo<; eK t^9 oX'qdeia^ ovK eariv, all fnlschood {cverij lie) is not of the truth, is a sentence which any Greek might have written: Jo. iii. 16, iva 7ra<; 6 iria-Teucov etV avrbv fMt} diroXTjTai,, a\X e-xj) k.tX. (v. l.)^ that every believer in Him may not perish, hut, etc. In E. v. 5, 7ra9 vopvo'i rj aKdOapTo^; rf TfKeoveicrr)^ . . . ovk e^et KXrjpovofxiav ev TTJ ^aaCkeia rov Xptarov, the apostle may have had an ^ For instance, Ex. xii. 16, 44, xx. 10, Dt. v. 14, xx. 16, Jnd. xiii. 4, 2 S. XV. 11, Fs. xxxiii. 11, cxlii. 2, Ex. xxxi. 14 (Tob. iv. 7, 19, xii. 11). Yet they just as frequently use tli'' classical ai . . . evliis or oi/liv (see Ex. x. 15, Dt. viii. 9, .Jos. X. 8, Pr. vi. 35, xii. 21), or even the simple oulti; (Jos. xxiii. 9). * If Schleusner means to prove from Cic. Bosc. Amer. 27, and ad Famil. 2. 12, that " non omnis " is used for " nullus," he cannot have looked at these passages. ^ That is, in the singular ; when tS; is plural (e. g. all men love not death), that is the ordinary mode of expression in Greek. Of this kind is the passage quoted by Weiske (Pleon. p. 58) in illustration of this Hebraism, Plat. Phced. 91 e, 'jroTip^v, i^n, vxura; Tohi 'iuTfiffiit Xiyivi tivx xToVipf^KrSi, » robs u'ty, rou; V au ; "is it all . . . that you do not receive, or do you receive part and reject part?" In what other way could this have been (simply) expressed? In the LXX compare Num. xiv. 23, .Jos. xi. 13, Ez. xxxi. 14, Dan. xi. 37. * If a writer joins the negative to the verb at the beginning of the sen- tence (oh "iiKeciuiritrtTai), it may be supposed that he has the subject already before his mind (-ra.-,), and therefore might say ovo-U. If however he begins with -ras, either he has not yet decided whether he will use an affirmative or a negative verb, or else it seems to him more appropriate to make a negative assertion in reference to every one {tx; » vnrrsuaDi . . . ait /ah a-ri'/^yirai), than to make au affirmative assertion in reference to no one. Such an assur- ance as " no believer shall perish " would seem to presuppose that there existed some apprehension which it was the object of the assurance to remove. = [This is a v. I. in ver. 15, but in ver. 16 there is no doubt about the reading. ] 21G HEBBAISTIC MODES OF EXPRESSING PRONOUNS. [PART III. affirmative predicate before his mind when he began the sen- tence (Ez. xliv. 9). Only in E. iv. 29, Eev. xviii. 22, and perhaps in Rev. xxii. 3, ovSiv would have been more pleasing to a Grecian ear. In Mt. X. 29 (L. xii. 6), we find iv ii airwv oi irea-fxTai, iyel) unum non, ne unum qiiidem (in contrast with 8vo, " two for an assarion, and not even one, etc.") ; similarly in Mt. v. 18. Such expressions (with a negative) are also found in Greek writers : Dion, H. Camp. 18 (V. 122), fxiav ovK av evpoi Tts o-eA.i8a' Antiqq. II. 980. 10, /At'a re ov xaTcActVeTo (according to Schaefer's emendation), Plutarch, Gracch. 9 : ^ in Hebrew compare Ex. x. 19, Is. xxxiv. 16. This construction cannot be called either a Graecism or a Hebraism ; in every cas'e the writer aims at greater emphasis than would be conveyed by ovSet's, — which properly expresses the same thing, but had become weakened by usage. ^ L. i. 37, OVK d8i;vaT>?o-ei Trapa [tw] OciS ttolv p^fjt.a ^ — nothing^ no thing (compare "in'n, and in Greek tTros) — is probably taken from Gen. xviii. 14 (LXX). Mt. xv. 23, ovk a-n-^KpiO-q air^ Xoyov, is simply. He answered her not a word : there Avas no need of tva here, — we also say "a word," not ''one word." ^ The Greeks could use the same expression, and its occurrence in 1 K. xviii. 21 does not make it a Hebraism. 2i The one, the other, is sometimes expressed by the repetition of eU : — (a) In antithetical clauses, etv . . . kol eh : Mt. xx. 21, xxiv. 40, xxvii. 38, xvii. 4,Mk. x. 37, Jo. xx. 12,G.iv. 22, — but in L. xvii. 34, 6 eh . . , [kuI] 6 erepo^J" compare xvi. 13, xviii. 10, ^sop 119 (De Fur.): so in Hebrew nriK, Ex. xvii. 12, Lev. xii. 8, ' See Schael'er on Plutarch I. c, and on Dionys. Compos, p. 247, Erfurdt, Soph. Antig. p. 121. [Jelf 738. 06s. 3.] ^ Hence also the combination . evil ilj nemo quitsquam, nemo units, Mt. xxvii. 14, ovTi 'it ptifia ne unum quidern, Jo. i. 3, Rom. iii. 10, 1 C. vi. 5 [Bee] : see Herm. Vi(j. p. 4C7, Weber, Dem. p. 501 (Xeu. Cyr. 2. 3. 9, 4. 1. 14). This is frequently found in the LXX (especially as a rendering of inS K^)> as T V Ex. xiv. 28, Num. xxxi. 49. Compare also au . , . ^ori, 2 P. i. 21. ^ [This passage is quoted above with the reading ^a.pa toZ doZ, which is received by recent editors. In favour of taking frtiJ.a. as word (not thing), see Meyer and Alford in loc, Ellic. Hist. L. p. 49.] * No one who has learnt to make distinctions in language will require ?»« here, on the ground that il; is expressed elsewhere (Mt. xxi. 24, Ifoirruru v/Aa; xayai Xiyay iva). * [Besides these two forms of expression, we find the following in the N. T. : ih . . . KOii 'inpo; (Mt. vi. 24, L. xvi. 13), o iTs . . . i ?£ 'ir. (L. vii. 41, A. xxiii. 6), iJ; ... oil IT. (L. xvii. 35, Tisch. ed. 7), i tTt . . . i aXXos (Rev. xvii. 10). In L. xvii. 34, xviii. 10 (quoted above), it is doubtful whether we should read i^s or o iT;. In G. iv. 24 we find fiia. /^U, not followed by a second clause. In Mk. ix. 5, Mt. xvii. 4, L. ix. 33, there are three members {i7s . . . >ca,'i iU . . . ««• ui). See A. jButtm. p. 102. J SECT. XXVII.] NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 217 XV. 15, 1 S. X. 3, al. The Greek said eh fiev . . . eh Be, or eh fiev . . . 6 he;^ for the examples which Georgi and Schwarz "^ liave quoted as parallel to the N. T. formula are rather enumerations proper, reckonings of a sum total (e.g. eirjlit in till, o'ue .... one .... one .... etc.). {h) With a reciprocal meaning : 1 Th. v. 11, oiKoBofxetTe eh rov eva- 1 C. iv. 6. This would rather be an Aramaisin ^ (hence 7 the Peshito repeats ,_k» to express aXKr]\., e.g. in Mt. xxiv. 1 0, Jo. xiii. 35), but is not in discordance with Greek syntax ; see Her. 4. 50, ev 7rp6<; ev (xvn^uXKeiV Lucian, Conscr. Hist. 2, ft)? ovv ev, (f)a(Tiv, evl iraoa^akelv Asin. 54. Compare also the phrase ev av6' evo^ (Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 339, Bernhardy, Dionys. Perieg. p. 853), and Kypke II. 339. Mt. xii. 26, o o-aravas rov (raravav e/c/JoAAei, IS rendered by some (on the principle of cuneus cuneum trudit), " the one Satan casts out the other Satan ; " but the true translation is, Satan uists out Satan. Compare, on the other hand, L. xi. 17. The Hebrew idiom, the man . ... to his friend, or brother, is retained by the LXX (Gen. xi. 3, xiii. 11, Jud. vi 29, Ruth iii. 14,. Jer. ix. 20, al), but does not occur in the N. T. : compare however H. viii. 11 (a quotation from the LXX), oi fxr] 8t8a^a>o-tv eKaaros tov TrX-qcriov (or better iroXi-rqv) avTOV koX CKacTTOS tov dScAc^ov avTov. On a Hebraistic mode of expressing every, by repeating the noun, e.g. rjjx^pa Koi yjfjitpa, see § 54. 1. CHAPTER THIRD. THE NOUN. Section XXVII. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 1. The singular of a masculine noun, with the article, is-not nnfrequently used in a collective sense to denote the whole class : Ja. ii. 6, r/TifidaaTe rov irTwyov (in 1 C. xi. 22 we find the plural), Ja. v-. 6, Eom. xiv. 1, 1 P. iv. 18, Mt. xii. 35. This usage is especially common in the case of national names, as 1 See Fischer ad Leusden. Diall. p. 35, Matth. 288. Rem. 6. 2 Georgi, Vind. p. 159 sq., Schwarz, Comment, p. 421. » Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr. p. 330. [Cowper, Syr. Or. p. 112.] 218 NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. [PART III. 6 ^IovBaco<; Rom. iii. 1 ; so Romanus often stands for Bomani (Markland, Eur. Suppl. 659). This quality is brought out more purely and sharply by the singular than by the plural, which points to the multitude of the individuals [§ 18. 1]. Akin to this is the use of the singular in reference to a plurality of objects, to denote something which belongs to each of the objects : 1 C. vi. 19, otl to aoifxa vfioiv vao<; r. ay. Tri/evfiaro'i (the reading of the best MSS.) ; Mk. viii. 17, Treircopwfxevrjv €)(eTe rrjv KapBlav (Ja. iii. 14, L. i. 66, 2 P. ii. 14, al.) ; Mt. xvii. 6, eireaav iirl irpo'^wjrov avrcov (Jj ii. 31, 2 C iii. 18, viii. 24) i^ Rev. vi. 11, iS607} avroi^ aTo\rj XevK-q (L. xxiv. 4, A. i. 10?); E. vi. 14, "Trepi^cocrd/jLevoL t?]v 6a ^vv vjjlmu k.t.X. (Jelf 354). This distributive singular, as it may be called, is common in Greek writers: Xen. An. 4t. 7. 16, et%oi/ KV7)/ju8aov (Gen. xxiii. 15), or toiv a8eX.yrai.<; (Jo. vi. 45), we havo merely a general furm of quotation (A. vii. 42, iu (SljSXiw ruiv TTpo^firiTMv), just as we ourselves say " in Paul's Epistles," etc., when we either do not wish or are not able to give the exact reference. Mt. xxiv. 26, iv Tot? T(i/Actot? (opposed to iv rfj ipr,p(^) is essentially of the same kind : compare Liv. 1. 3, Silvius casu qiiodam in sUvis natus. In Mt. xxi. 7, eVavw airStv probably refers to the Ipdrta ; but there would be nothing absurd in the words even if they refeired to the two animals, any more than in eTnyScyST^Kw? ivl ovov koI ttCjXov, ver. 5. We ourselves say loosely, " he sprang from the horses," although only one of the team, the saddle-horse, is meant. It is quite erroneous to suppose that in 1 C. xvL 3 the plural iiTLarToXal is used for the singular (Heumann in loc). Though i-ma-ToXaL may be used of a single letter,^ yet in this passage the words 8l tTTto-T, must certainly be joined with Trepyj/oi, and it is in itself not at all improbable that Paul might send several letters to different persons. 3. Not a few nouns which in German [and English] are used in the singular are either always or usually plural in the N. T. These nouns denote objects which — from a general, or a Grecian, or a Biblical point of view — pre.sent to the senses or to the mind something plural or comprehensive (Kriig. p. 12, Jelf 356, Don. p. 367). Thus we find aldves H. i. 2, the world 1 IV.r.son, Eur. Phoen 36, Reisig, Conject. in Arisfoph. p. 58, and C. L. Roth, Grammat. Qucesf. e O. TacUo (Noriml). Iri29), § 1. [Green, Gr. p. 83 sq.] 2 [On tlie other side, see Smith, Diet, of Bib! c III. 1488 ; Lange, Life of Christ IV. 397 (Transl.) ; Farrar, Life of Chrid, p. 410 sq., and note on L. xxiii. S9. Compare Green p. 84.] ■■' Schaif. Plutarch V. 446, Poppo on Time. 1. 132. 220 NUMBER AKD GENDER OF NOUNS. [PAUT 111. (D^pp^y) ; ovpavoC ccdi} compare 2 C. xii. 2 ; ta aryia the sanc- tuary, H. viii. 2, ix. 8, 12, al. ; dvaroXal, Svafial, the regions of the East, West, Mt. viii. 1 1, xxiv. 27 (Plat. Def. 411b, Epin. 990 a, Diod. S. 2. 43, Dio C. 987. 32, Lucian, Ptfr(?^r. 39); Ta Be^id, dpicrrepd, ev(ovv/j,a, the right, left side (frequently) ; Bvpai fores, folding doors (so also irvXat in Greek writers), A. V. 19, Jo. XX. 19, — but not A. xvi. 26 sq., Mt. xxiv. 33, for here Bvpau is a real plural ; koXttol hosom, L. xvi. 2 3 {koX'tto'; in ver. 22), compare Paus. 6. 1. 2, ^1. 13. 31 ; rd l/xdrLa of the (single) upper-garment, Jo. xix. 23, xviii. 4, A. x. 6 ; ^ the names of the festivals iTr} ttuvtcov (for iracroiv, which is a correction). Here however nrdvr oyv stands without any generic relation to the noun which precedes, for the general expression omnium {rcrnm) : '^ corap. Liician, Piscat. 13, ixla iravrcov rjye dXijOij'i ^iXoao(fjLa (according to the common text ; al. irdvTw'i), Thuc. 4. 52, Td. 263 -'266.] - We ourselves say, Er Icprvb ncinen Todijn. [Tlml is, Il't biirifd bis dead, — the last word beir.g uiiusculiiie.1 ^ See Gesenius in Rosenm. Repertor. I. ]39, Tlioluck on Eom. L c. ; ami on the other side Fritz. Rvm. II. 442. ■• [K agrees with A and B in omitting /ufl.A;^' »«'. ""fi ^'^^^ testimony of these MSS. is rightly followed by recent editors. See Alford's note for a good defence of Theile's view.] nSee above §18. 3.] 224 THE CASES IN GENERAL. [PART III. Section XXVIII. THE CASES IN GENERAL.^ 1. It was not difficult for foreigners to understand the ge- neral import of the Greek cases. Even in the language of the Jews the ordinary case-relations are exhibited clearly enough, though they are not marked by special terminations ; and, in particular, the Aramaic approaches the Western languages in the mode of expressing the genitive. To learn to feel, as a Greek would feel, the force of the oblique cases in all their varied applications, remote as some of these applications were, was a matter of great difficulty ; and in this particular Greek usage did not accord with the vivid and expressive style of the Oriental tongues. Hence we find that the K T. writers, in accordance with the Oriental idiom, and partly in direct imitatiou of it, not unfrequently use a preposition where a Greek writer, even in prose, would have used the case alone. Thus we have hihovac eK, eaOiuv cltto, ^lerex'^iv ck, in the place of BcBoi^ac,, iadtetv, fxere'xetv riv6 yevei and 'Aaavpic^ TO 7e«'0?, irpo'iKvvelv rwi. to show reverence to, and irpo'iKvveiv Tivd to Tf.Oi'.rence, KaXm iroieiv nvd and rtvC (Thilo, Act. Thorn. 38), €voxo<: rii/i and riva (Fritz. Matt. p. 223)/ oixoU)^ tivo^ and Tivi, TTK-qpovadai two'; {from or of something) and rtw {with, hy mecms of). So also (MtfivrjaKeadal ri and tw/o? (like recordari rei and rem); in the former case {jiifiv. n, to remember a thing) I regard the remembrance as directed, (transitively) on the object ; in the latter (fjkifMv. rtvo^;, to bethink oneself of a thing, meminisse rei) the remembrance is regarded as proceeding from the object (Jelf 473). Hence we cannot say that the dative or accusative is ever used for the genitive or vice versd : logically, both cases are equally correct, and we have only to observe which of the construc- tions was more commonly used in the language, or whether any one of them may have especially belonged to the later language (or to some particular writer), as evayyeXi^ecrOai Tiva, TTpo'iKVveiv rivC. Perhaps the most absurd instance of this kind of enallage would be 2 C. vi. 4, o"wvtcrTaivT€s lavTOvs ws O^ov Sia/covoi, if StaKovot stood for StuKovovs. Here either the nominative or the accusative might be used, but thfly wovdd express different relations. / recommend myself as a teacher (nominative) means, " I, in the office of teacher under- taken by me, recommend myself : " I recommend myself as a teacher (objective) is, " I recommend myself as one who wishes or who is able to be a teacher." 3. Every case, as such, stands according to its nature in a necessary connexion with the construction of the sentence to which it belongs. The nominative and accusative cases, denot- ing respectively the subject and the object, have the most direct connexion with the sentence ; the genitive and dative express secondary relations. There are however casus absoluti, i. e cases which are not interwoven with the grammatical texture of the sentence, — which, so to speak, hover near the grammatical ^ The distinction which SchiP.fer makes between these two constructions {Dem. V. 323) receives no confirmation irom the N. T. Compare further Mattii. 370. Rem. 4. 15 226 NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. [PART ITI. sentence, and are only connected logically with the proposition it expresses. . Of these the most frequent and the most decided examples are the uominaiiol ahsoluii (Bengel on Mt. xii. 36). Eeal accusdtivi absohoH (§ 63. I. 2. d) ^ are more rare; for what is called an accusative absolute is often dependent, though loosely, on the eoustiiietion of the sentence. The genitivi and dativi absohiti are more regular members, of the sentence, as a consideration of the meaning of these cases will show.^ The whole subject of the nominative absolute, however, must be treated in connexion with the structure of sentences [see §63]. Section XXIX. NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 1. A noun considered directly and purely in itself is repre- sented by the nominative, either as subject or as predicate, according to the structure of the sentence : Jo. i, 1, iv apxf} yp o Xoyo'i' E. ii. 14, avTO<; ccttlv y elp'>]vr) yfjuiov. Sometimes, however, we meet with a nominative which is not comprised in the structure of the sentence to which it belongs ; but either (a) Stands at the head of a sentence, as a kind of thema (nominativus absolutus), as in A. vii. 40, o Mcovarrjf; ovroo/xa Tco Sov\a> Md\)(p'i' Kev. vi. 8, viii. 1 1, xix. 13 {DQiwo^ih. Macart . 669 b), L. xix. 29, tt^o? to 6po<; to KaXovixevov ^EXaitiop :'^ ^ Compare Fritz. Iio?n. III. 11 sq. 2 See on the whole A. de Wannowski, Syntaxeos anomalce Grcecxs pars de construcUone, qua (licit ui\ ahsoluta etc. (Lips. 1835) ; F. W. Hoffmann, Ob- servata et monita de casihiis absol. apud Gra'cos et Lat. ita positis ut videantur non posse locum kabem (QnAv^s. 1836), — the author treats only of the genitive and dative absolute ; also J. Geislor, De Grcfcurum nominutlvis absol. (Vratisl. 1845) ; and E. Wentzel, De .oyiZ,iff6a.i, is of a different kind (Jelf 625. 3. c). 6 Zurapt, Gr. § 664. Note 1. fMadvig, Lat. Or. 249, Roby, Lat. Gr. II. xxv-lvi.] 230 THE GENITIVE. [PAUT III. b. 'El' with the dative, as an imitation of the Hebrew Beth essentia;,^ in the following passages : Mk. v. 25, ywrj rt? ovra cv pvcru ai/iaro5; Rev. i. 10, iycvoixrjv cv Trvci'/iari ev rfj KvpiaKTJ yjlJ-ipa. (Glass I. 31); E. V. 9, 6 KapTTos Tov <^a)Tos ev Trda-r] dyaOoycrvvri (Hartmann, Linguist. Einl. 384) ; and Jo. ix. 30, Iv rovria Oavf^aa-rov Io-tl (Schleusner, s. v. cv). But in Mk, v. etvai iv pva-ei is to be in the condiium or stat^ of an issue ; in Rev. i. ytveo-^at iv Tnevixari. means in the spirit^ to be present somewhere ; in E. v. etvai ev is equivalent to contineoi, posiium esse in (see the commentators) ; and Jo. ix. may be very appropriately rendered, herein is this marvellous, etc. Gesenius has attributed the same construction to Latin and Greek writers, but without reason ; c'vat cv crot^ois, in magnis viris (haben- dum) esse, cannot be brought in here, for this combination is perfectly natural, and must be rendered to belong to the number of. If iv a-o(^(S or in sapienti vivo were used for aotfios or sapiens, then and then only could cV or in be said to represent a Beth cssentice. But no rational being could use words thus, and indeed the whole doctrine of the Hebrew Beth essentlce is a mere figment, an invention of empirical grammarians :^ see my edition of Simonis p. 109, and Fritz. Mark, p. 291 sq.* Section XXX. THE GENITIVE. 1. The genitive is unquestionably the whence-case, the case 0^ proceeding /ram or o-ut of:^ it is most clearly recognised as such when joined with words which denote an activity, conse- quently with verbs. Its most common and familiar application in prose, however, is in connecting two substantives, where (with a gradually increased latitude of meaning) it denotes any ' Gesen. Lgb. p. 838, Knobel on Is. xxviii. 16. [Gesen. Hebr. Gr. p. 241, Thesmir. p. 174, Kaliscli, Hebr. Gr. II. 296.] '^ [Or in ihe Spirit. Winer connects iyi.fiu.yiv with sv t? Kvpitx^ ^z*'/"?, pro- bably in the sense, ' ' Diem judicii vidi in spiritu. " Against this, see Diisterdieck and Alford in loc] * With the entirely misunderstood XIH J^"13, Ex. xxxii. 22, compare Ml. T ; 10. 11, tcvo^aviTv IV xaku 'nrriv: should this too be taken for xaXov ta-Tir'? [Winer renders Ex. I. c, "in malo (in wickedness) est, h. e. mulus est ;" similarly Ewald.] * Haab's other examples (p. 337 sq.) are so manifestly untenable that we cannot give them a moment's notice. * ) ; viii. 7, r} avv€iBi]a-is rov elSooXov, their consciousness of the idol ; i. 18, o X6jo<; 6 tov oravpov; Mt. xxiv. 6, uKoal iroXepwv wnr-rumo^:rs {vvimo\\v5 about wars), compare Mattli. 342. 1 ; A. iv. 9, evepyeaia avOpcoirou, towards or to a man (Thuc. 1. 129, 7. 57, Plat. Legg. 8. 850 b) ; Jo. vii. 13, XX. 19, (fio/Sa 'lovZaiuiv, fear of the Jews (Eur. Andr. 1059) ; xvii. 2, e^ovala Trdarj^; aapKos, over all flesh (Mt. x. 1, 1 C. ix. 12); 2 P. ii. 13, 15, /ito-^6? ahiKia<;, reward for un- righteousness ; Rom. x. 2, ^rfko<; deov, zeal for God (Jo. ii. 17, 1 Mace. ii. 58, — otherwise in 2 C. xi. 2); H. ix. 15, d7ro\vTpo)cri<; tcov irapa^daecov, sin-redemption, i.e. redemption from, sins (Plat. Rep. 1. 329 c). Compare also Mt. xiv. 1 (Joseph. Antt. 8. 6. 5), L. vi. 12 (Eurip. Troad. 895), E. ii. 20 [?], Rom. XV. 8, 2 P. i. 9, Ja. ii. 4," 1 C. xv. 15, H. x. 24.'^ ^ If we consider the genitive with reference to its abstract meanin;^ rather than to its origin, its nature may be thus defined (Herm. Opusc. I. 175, and Vig. p. 877) : " Genitivi proprium est id indicare, cujus quid aliquo quocumque mode accidens est ; " compare De Emend. Bat. p. 1-39. Similarly Madvig, § 46. See further Schneider on fesar. Bell. Gall. 1. 21. 2. [Eost's definition resembles Hermann's : Jelf regards the genitive as the case which expresses " the ante- ctdent notion'" (471, 460).] - Schsefer, Eurip. Or. 48. 3 [On the genitive of quality see Don. p. 482, .Telf 435 ; on ih^ partitive geni- tive, Don. p. 470 sq., .Jelf 583 and 542. vi. : on the objective genitive in the N. T. , Green, Gr. p. 87 sq., Webster, Syntax-^. 72.] * [This passage is also noticed below, p. 23.3. In ed. 5 Winer maintained the simpler view that ^laX. is a genitive of quality ("ill-bethinking judges," Green p. 91) ; .see Alford, Webster and Wilk. , in loc] ^ For examples from Greek authors see Markland, Eur. Suppl. 838, D"Orville, 232 THE GENITIVE. [PART Ul. The following phrases are of frequent recurrence in the N T. : ayairt} rov Oeov or Xpcarov, love to God, to Christ, Jo. v 42, 1 Jo. ii. 5, 15, iii. 17, 2 Th. iii. 5 (but not Rom. v. 5, viii. 35, 2 C. V. 14, E. iii, 19 ^) ; <^o/3o9 Beov or Kvplov, A. ix. 31^ Rom. iii. 18, 2 C. V. 11, vii. 1 , E. v. 2 1 ; 'jricms rov deou, XpLarov, or 'I'qaov, Mk. xi. 22, Rom. iii. 22, G. ii. 16, iii. 22, E. iii. 12, Ph. iii. 9, Ja. ii. 1, Rev. xiv. 12 (TrtcrTt? aXrfdeias, 2 Th. ii. 13) ; xmaKorj rov Xpiarov or t^9 7r/9 /c.r.X., 2 C. x. 5, Rom. i. 5 xvi. 26, 1 P. i. 22 (2 C. ix. 13). But tcKaioa-vvr) Oeov in the dogmatic language of Paul (Rom. i. 17, iii. 21 sq., x. 3, al.) is, in accordance with his doctrine of 0€o<; 6 hiKaimv (compare iii. 30, iv. 5), GocVs righteousness, i.e. righteousness which God bestows (on man) ; and, the meaning once fixed, hiKaioavvq deov could even be used (in 2 C. v. 21) as a predicate of the believers themselves. Others, with Luther, understand the phrase to mean righteousness which avails before God (quae Deo satis- facit, Fritz. Bom. I. 47), Bmaioavvr] Trapa tm Oew. The possi- bility of this interpretation is implied in BUaiov Sat/xovajV Philo II. 259, Opriv Oiwv, (yj tov Oeov XaTpn'a, I.'iat. Jipol. 23. C). In 1 Tim. iv. 1 Satyxoi/iojc is certainly a subjective genitive : in H. vi. 2 however, /JaTrrwr/xwi' SiSa;(^s, if the latter be regarded as the principal noun (see below, 3. Rem. 4), /3a7rrio-yu,wi/ can only be the object of the StSa;^');. In Rom. viii. 23 it seems better, according to the mode in which Paul prescmts the subject, to regard dTroAvrpwo-ts tov crw)u.aTo$ as liberation of the body (namely from the SovXela t^s <}>6opa<; spoken of in ver. 21), than as liberation from the body. Likewise in H. i. 3, 2 P. i. 9, KaSapi.a fxov (in ver. 11, fiea-rov l')(6vo)v), and even dyeXn) -^oipcof Mt. viii. 30, and eKarov fidrot iXaiov L. xvi. 6. On this genitive of content, see Kilig. p. 37 sq. (Don. p. 468, Jelf 542. vii.) In no passage of the N, T. is avda-racn^ veKpCov equivalent to avda-r. iK v(Kpu)v : even in Roin. i. 4 it signifies the resurrectio7i of the dead absolutely and generically, though this resurrection is actually realised in one individual only. Philippi's dogmatic inference from this expression is mere trifling. /8. The genitive is used^ especially by John and Paul, to ex- press an inner reference of a remoter kind : Jo. v. 29, avda-raaif; fo)?}?, Kpia€(o<;, resurrection of life, resurrection of judgment, i. e. resurrection to life, to judgment (genitive of destination, Theodor. IV. 1140, Upwavvrj^ ^(eipoTovia to the priesthood; compare Koni. viii. 36, from the LXX, irpo^ara a^ayrj^;) ; Kom. V. 18, BiKaicoaL'i ^a)rj<;, Justification to life; Mk. i. 4, ^d- TTTia-fia pLeravoia} , In E. lii. 1, 2 Tim. i. 8, Phil. i. 9, Seo-p-ios Xpfo-ToC is a 2')nsoner of Christ, i. e. one whom Christ (the cause of Christ) has brought into captivity and retains in it ; 3 compare Wis. xvii. 2. In Ja. ii. 5, oi -TTTdixol TOV Kocr/xov (if thc reading is correct) signifies the poor of the world, i. e. those who in their position towards the koo-/aos are poor, hence ^oor in earthly goods (though it does not follow from this that Koa-fio^ itself denotes earthly goods). In Jo. vi. 45, StSaKToi tov 6eov means God's instructed ones, i.e. instructed by God, like 01 tvKoyrjfxivoi TOV TraTpo? Mt. XXV. 34, the Father's blessed ones, i.e. those blessed by the Father (Jelf 483. Ohs. 3). In E. vi. 4, 11, 13, Kvpiov and O^ov are genitivi audoris, as also toV ypa^Hiv Eom. xv. 4. Likewise in Ph. 1. 8, eV o-;rAay_<(vots XpicrTov 'I., the genitive is to be taken as sub- '[I venture to substitute "Riist-tag" day of preparation, for "Euhetag" day of rest, as this latter word— though found in four editions of the German work— must sur.'ly be a misprint. In his JiWB. (II. 341), Winer renders rapa:/x.iuh TOV ■jrdr:^a. " Kusttag auf Ostern," preparation-day for the passover (" 14th of Nisan"), and on p. 205 of the same work says that this is the only meaning which the words could of themselves convey to a Greek reader . similarly in his tract on the 2£/Vv»v of Jo. xiii. (p. 12). The object of the remarks in the text seems to be to show that, whilst this is the meaning, roZ 9a.iT^a. is simply a possessive genitive.] *f " Lt seems now generally agreed that by ra. ifura. here is meant the heavenly bodies, and by Tarripthe creator, originator : " Alford in loc] As in Phil. 13 lit/^oi toZ liayyiX'iou means bonds which the Gospel has brought. Without reference to this parallel passage, ViCf^.os Xp, might be rendered a prisoner who belongs to Christ. Others render, a prisoner for Christ's sake: this mode of resolving the genitive (Matth. 371 c, Krug. p. 37, Jelf 481) has been applied to many N, T. passages, but in every case incorrectly. In H. xiii 13, TOV Ivtihffiiv Xpurmv (fifovrn means, bearing the reproach which Christ bore (and still beai^). So also in 2 C. i. 5, -irifirinii, t« Ta(r,/jt.aTa ni Xf. lis r.fiis, the S'ufferings which Christ had to endure, namelv, from the enemies of the Divijie truth, abundantly come (anew) on vs j for the sulfeiings which believers endure (for the sake of the Divine trath) are essentially one with the sutlerings of Christ, and but a conttniiatidn of them : compare Ph lii. 10. Col. i, 24, al i>,i4its t»u XfurTov, and 2 C. iv. 10, are probably to be explained in the same way. On the former passage, which has been very variously explained, see Liicke, Progr. in loc. Col. i. 24 (Gbtting. 1833) p. 12 sq., also Huthtr and IVteyer in loc. [Liicke takes Xpta-'rod here as genii, auctoris ; Meyer and Liglitfoot consider the genitive possessive, in the sense explained above. Ellicott and Alford agree with De Wette and Olshausen in explaining ilw. ajliclion^ of Christ to mean, the afflictions which he endures in His Church. ] SECT. XXX.] THE GENIHVB. 237 jective, though opinions may differ as to the more precise nature of the relation. Compare also E. vi. 4, and Meyer in loc} In 1 P. iii. 21 the coiTect explanation does not depend so much on the genitive (Tui/ctSy/crews dya^s as on the meaning of iirepwrtj/jia : ^ the rendering sponsio may suit the context very well, but neither De Wette nor Huther has shown that it is philologically admissible. On H. ix. 11 see Bleek.^ In 1 C. i. 27 tov Koa-fi-ov is a subjective genitive : see Meyer. In 1 C. x. 16 to ttottiplov t. €v\oyi'.a6'i. Such a designation raiglit arise in the apostolic circle from the circumstance that James, the brother of Judas, was better known or of higher position than the father of Judas.'"' Accordingly ot XAo?;?, 1 C. i. 11, are those who are connected taith Chloe, like oi 'ApLo-To^ovXov, oi NapKi'o-frou, Itom. xvi. 10, a more definite explanation the history alone could supply. Perhaps, with most interpreters, we should understand the households of these persons : others suppose the slaves to be referred to. To the original readers of the Epistles the expression was clear. See further Valcken, I. c. (Don. pp. 356, 468, Jelf 436). Rem. 1. Not unfrequently, especially in Paul's style, three geni- tives ai"e found connected together, one governed grammatically by another. In this case one of the substantives often represents an adjectival notion : 2 C. iv. 4, tov (^uiTLcrixov tov evayyeXiov T>ys Sd^7/5 Tov XpicTTOv' E. i. 6, ets eiraLVov 8u^rj<; r^s ^^ufitTO'i avrov' iv. 13, ets /xiTpov T^AiKtas TOV TrAr^pw/AttTos TOV XptoTov (where the last two geni- tives are connected together), i. 19, Rom. ii. 4, Col. i. 20, ii. 12, 18, 1 Th. i. 3, 2 Th. i. 9, Rev. xviii. 3, xxi. 6, H. v. 12, 2 P. iii. 2.3 In Rev. xiv. 10 (xix. 15), otvoi tov Bvjxov must be closely joined together, — ivrath-wine, wine of burning, according to an 0. T. figure. Four genitives are thus connected in Rev. xiv. 8, ck toi) oli/ov tov Ovfjiov r>7s TTopvctas awr^s" xvi. 19, xix. 15 (Judith ix. 8, x. 3, xiii. IS, Wis. xiii. 5, al.). But in 2 C. iii. 6, StaKovo^? KatrJ}? Sta^r/K-r/s ov ypdfx- fjLaToiv pyixdruiv tovtioV 2 C V. 1, 7; cTTtyeios 7/jUaii' ULKia Tov aKyjuov;' Ph. ii. 30, to vjxwv vtJTipi)p.a ttj^ XtiTovpyia'i 2 P. ILL 2, tt/s tojv d7roo"ToA.wr ifxCji' tiToA^s tov Kvpuiv' H. xiiu 7.^ Compare Her. 6". 2, ryv 'Iwviav ttjv ip^eixovlrjv roC tt/sos Aapuov 7ro)\.ifxov' Thuc. 3. 12, ryv lKf.iV(jiv fXiXXqaiv tuiv ti? I'fp.a.'i ^eii'w;'' G. 18, rj Nt»cto» tC}V Xoywr air pay p-oamnq' Plat. Legg. 3. 690 b, T7)i' TO? I'o/jtou tKOVTOiv ap')(r>v' Hep. 1. 329 b, rus twv oIk(iu>v irpo- TrqXaKLtrvs ret; yr/pois" Diog. L. 3. 37, and Plat. Apol. 40 C, p.eroiKT]aL^ TTj'; 4't'X'^i'i To*^ toVou Toii cVi^c'i Of (a Very harsh instance). See Beruh. p. 1G2, xMatth. 380. Kern. 1 (Jeif 466).=" We ma}'^ also bring in here 1 P. iii. 21, crapKo Tt/?. are a gloss is too hasty. Paulus understands the words to mean that Jesus crossed ovevfrom Tibrrias; but this is at variance, if not with CJreek prose usage, yet certainly with that of the N. T. writers (compare Bornem. Acta p. 149), who in such instances insert a preposition, as expressing the meaning more vividly than the simple case. The genitive Ti/3. cannot be made to depend on the uir6 iu aTrrjkOev. Eem. 4. When the genitive stands before the governing noun, either (a) Tt belongs equally to two nouns as in A. iii. 7 [lice'], airov at ^avpd' Jo. xi. 48 : — or (b) It is emphatic : * 1 C. iii. 9, dcov yap iafxev a-vvepyoi, 6eov yewpytot', $iov OiKoSofxy iare' A. xiii. 23, tovtov (Aavld) 6 Oeo^ exTro Tou cr7rcpp.aT0l, Fiitz. (JtuesL Luc. p. ill sq. (Kritz, Sallusl II. 170). * Stallb. Plat, rrotaj. p. 118, Madvig 10. 240 THE GENITIVE. [PART III. phasis not unfrequently arises from an express antithesis : Ph. ii. 25, Tov arvcTTpaTnIynjv fiov, v/xotv 8e airoaroXov fiai Xeirovpybv t-^s ^j^peias IJ.OV Mt. i. 18, H. vii. 12, 1 P. iii. 21, E. il 10, vi. 9, G. iii. 15, iv. 28, 1 C. vi. 15, Rom. iii 29, xiii. 4. Most commonly, however, the genitive contains the principal notion : Rom. xi. IS, iBvCyv u.Troa-ToXo'i, apostle of Gentiles ; 1 Tim. vi. 17, trrl yrXovrnv a^korrp-i,, on riches, which yet are fleeting ; Tit, i. 7, H. vi. 16, 2 P. ii. 14. That this position of the genitive may belong to the pecnliarities of a writer's style (Gersdorf p. 296 sqq,) is not in itself impossible (since particular writers use even emphatic combinations with a weakened force), but at all events cannot be made probable. 8ee further Poppo, Th'i.ic. III. L 243. There Ls difficulty in H, vi. 2, ^aTtna-fjLwv 8i8ax^s (in dependence on Bifjilkiov), — for, though some commentators, and recently Ebrard,^ strangtly detach Sioapci^s from jBa-m., making it the governing noun for the four genitives, these two words, must certainly be taken together. The only question is, whether (with most recent writers) we shouM assume a trajectioo, and take ySaTrr. 8(8. as put for St8a;(i7« /SaiTTKTfjLiov. Such a trajection, however, would disturb the whole structure of the verse. If on the other hand we render /3a7mcr/xol 8t8a;!^s bappisms of doctrine or instruction, as distinguished from the legal ■ baptisms (washings) of Judaism, we find a support for this designation, as characteristically Christian, in Mt, xxviii. 19, /Sairri- o-avT€s ^ avrovs .... 8t8acrKovT€s avrous : Ebrard's objection, that that which distinguishes Christian baptism from mere lustrations is not doctrine but forgiveness of sins and. the new birth, is of no weight whatever, for in Mt. xxviii. 19 nothing is said respecting forgiveness of sins. As regards the writer's use of the word /SaTmcr/xds here, and that in the plural, what Tholuck has already remarked may alao be employed in favour of the above explanation. Rem. 5. In Mk. iv. 19, ai irepl to. Xonra iinOvfjxai, Kiihnol and others regard Trepi with the accusative as a periphrasis for the genitive. But though Mark might very well have written at tu)v Xonrwv IttlO., the other form of expression not only is more definite but also preserves the proper meaning of Trept, cupiditates quae circa reliqua (reliquas res) versantur (Heliod. 1. 23, 45, iTnOv/xta Trepl -njv ^aptKXciav' Aristot. Rhet. 2. 12, aX Trepl TO cw/xa i-TnOvfiiai), jusfe as fully as the meaning of Trept with the genitive is preserved in Jo. XV. 22. The instances in Greek authors in which Trepl with the accu- sative forms a periphrasis for the genitive of the object to which a ^ [So also Delitzsch and Alfonl : Bleek considers fia-rr. and i^i^. as go- verned by Si^ct^Hs, but is undecided in regard to- the other genitives. Wiuer's objections are examined by Delitzsch (p. 214), who argues that teaching could not be assigned as the characteristic of Christian baptism, inaamuch as the Jewish baptism of proselytes was accompanied by instruction. Besides, the point of Mt. xxviii. 20 surely lies in Tdtrtt JVa IviTuXaftnn, not in lt^av viKa>fi€voia^ tjBt) yeyvfivaa-fievov y see Boisson Philostr. Her. \>. 451.^ In German [and English] we resolve the genitive in all these instances by means of a preposition, taught hy the Holy Spirit, talked in the Ocean, practised on sea, etc. And perliaps in the simple language of ancient times the genitive in combinations of this kind was conceived as the wAcwce-case : see Hartung, Casus, p. 17 (J elf 540. Ohs). The two following passages also may be easily explained on the same principle: H. iii. 1 2, KapBla irovqpa d'Triaria^, a heart evil in respect of unbelief, where it is aTrtcTta that proves the fromjpia; if the substantive were used, Trovrjpla d7ni,\oTi^ov ^evLTeia<} irapia^e^: see Monk, Eur. Ale. 751, Matth. 339, 345. The second passage is Ja. i. 13, where most commentators render direipaaTO'i Kaxaiv untcmpted — incapableof beingtempted 1 [The reading of Rec, !r>.e»»s|/a/s, is found in no uncial MS.] * [Compare Jell" 483. Oba. 3, Green, Gr. p. 96 sq. 1 SECT, XXX.] THE GENITIVE. 243 — hy evil (compare Sopli. Ant. 847, aK\.avToc\(ov' ^schyl. Tkeb. 875, Kaicdov arpufMover and Schwenck, ^schyl. Eumen. 96); but Schulthess, unversed in evil} The parallelism with Tretpa^et is unfavourable to the latter explanation. The active meaning given to the word in the ^thiopic version, not temptincj to evil, is inadmissible, but rather because it would render the following words Treipd^et Se avro^; ov^eva tautological (whereas the use of he shows that the apostle wished to make some new assertion, and not merely to repeat aireipaaro^), and also because aireipaa-TO'; does not occur in an active sense, than (as Schulthess thinks) because of the genitive KaKdv? The genitive is used, at all events by poets and by writers whose language has to some extent a poetic or rhetorical colouring, with great latitude of meaning : aTreipacrTo? KaKOiV, in the sense of not tcnt'pting in reference to evil, would be as correct an expression as Soph. Aj. 1405, XovrpMV oatcov iTriKaipof, co7ivenient foi' holy washings, or Her. 1. 196, TrapOevot yufxcof (apalai,, ripe for mar- riage. ' (Don. 478, Jelf 518. 4.) The Pauline expression kAt^toi 'Irja-ov Xpurrov, Rom. i. 6, cannot he brought under the above rule (as is still done by Thiersch) ; in accordance with the view of the kAt}o-is Avhich the apostles take in other places, the words must be rendered Christ's called ones, i.e. men cnlJed (by God), who arc Christ's, — who belong to Christ. On the other hand, we may bring in here nfLoios rti/os, Jo. viii. 55 (o/xotds Tivt being the regular construction),'' and also lyyvs with the genitive, Jo. xi. 18, Rom. x- 8, xiii. 11, H. vi. 8, viii. 13, al With iyyv^ thh is the ordinary construction, but eyyus nvt also occurs, see Uleek, Hebr. II. ii L'Oi), Matth. 339 (Jelf .592. 2). Even adjectives com- pounded Avith (Tvv sometimes take the genitive, as (rvfjLiJ.opu<; t>}? eiKoj/os Rom. viii. 29 (Matth. 379. Rem. 2, Jelf 507). 5. Most closely akin to the simple genitive of dependence with nouns, and in fact only a resolution of this genitive into a sentence, is the very common construction elvai or yiveadac Tivo^, which is used in Greek prose (Kriig. p. 34 sq., Madvig 54, ' [So De W., Bruckner, Huthef, Alford (see hi.s note in loc.). A. Buttmann (p. 170) defends the rendering untempted by eri/.] * On rhe active and passive meaning of verbals see Wex Soph. Ant. I. 162 (Jelf 3.^6. Ohs. 2, Don. p. 191.') » See Matth. 386 Rem 2, Schneider, Plat. Civ. II. 104, III. 46 (Jelf 507). On similis aUcv.j as and similar expressions, .see Zumpt, Lat. Gr. § 411. [Comp. Madvig, Lat Or. § 247. Obi. 2, Don. Lut. Gr. p. 287 In Jo. viii. 55, we should probably read i//*/V (Lachm., Treg., Westcott), not lft!Lv (Tisch., Liinem.).] 244 THE GENITIVE. [PART III. Ast, Lex. Plat. I. 621, Don. p. 473 sq.) with yet greater variety of meaning than in the N. T. This construction was formerly explained, as arising from the ellipsis either of a preposition or of a substantive. In the N. T. we may distinguish (a) The genitive of the whole, of the dans (plural), and of the sj^lure (singular); to which a man belongs: 1 Tim. i. 20, wv iarlv 'T/j,evaio<;, of whom is (to whom belongs) Ilymenmus ; 2 Tim. i. 15, A. xxiii. 6 (1 Mace. ii. 18, Plat. Protag. 342 e, Xen. An.l. 2. 3) ; 1 Th. v. 5, 8, ovk iafxev vvkto^ ovBe ctkotov^ »7A4et9 i7/^e/3a9 6Vt69, helonging to the night, to the day ;^ A. ix. 2. (Jelf 533.) (h) The genitive of the rider, lord, possessor, etc. : Mt. xxii. 28, Tivoai' Rom. viii. 9 (similarly in 1 C. i. 12 of the heads of parties, iyo) el/xi TIavXov compare Diog. L. 6. 82). Akin to this are A. i. 7, ov^ v/jtcov iarl .t/VavT/ is strongly supported, and is received by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westoott and Hort With Kecfapo? a.vl> compare ar-nxai avo, Ja. i. 27 (A. Buttm.); unless ivi here belongs to ■Tnpi7y (De W., Alford). — In modern Gieek VKvhs-oi llbfratimj, etc., are always followed by iTo (Mullach p. 324).] * \^ AMara.vi^a/ -rplt t9» Kufm a-xttt «. t. >.. (A. viii. 24).] * This very passage clearly shows the distinction between the genitive and the accusative, as ««< luiau i^Hpet Xivkt.v immediately follows : compare Heliod. 2. 23. 100, Wiffi^ivf i fiiv Tiu v»a,Te;, a Si »(c< aiiat. 248 THE GENITIVE. [PART III. (c) Verbs oi enjoying or partaking : 7rpo'i\a/ii^dvea0aL rpo(f)7]c<^p^iv] is a characteristic example. They also have the accusative when there is merely a general refer- aiice to the food which a nian (ordinarily) takes, on which he supports himSelf : Mk. 1. 6, riv 'luxvtus .... itr^iuv axfita,; xa.) (/.iXi uypiov' Rom. xiv. 21, Mt. XV. 2 1 0. viii. 7, X. 3, 4 (Jo. vi. 58) ; compare Diog. I.. 6. 45. Probably in no instance would yfai^ n (compare also 2 Th. iii. 12; be entirely indefensible, and •* It is otlierwise in 1 C. x. 4, eV/vov U ■^ytu/^a.Tixrn uKoXov^cvo'n; viTfai : Flatt's explanation is a complete failure. SECT. XXX.] TUE GENITIVE. 249 1 Jo. iv. 13, e/c Toif Trvev/xaro^ avTou BiSojKev rjfuv. But H. xiii. 10, (fiayecv €K dvcnaaTqpCov, is not an example of this kind, as if the words were tantamount to , — with t-ux> genitives, of ])erson and thing. — -He remarks that all other verbs of this ela&s have in the N. T. an accusative of the object, and take 3-a or oL-ro before the genitive of the person. ] 250 THE GENITIVE. [PART III. whole object is referred to. This verb always takes the genitive in the N. T.i (L. XX. 35, A. xxiv. 3, xxvii. 3, al.).: on the accusative see Herm. Vif/. p. 762, Benih. p. 176 (Jelf 512. Obs.). In the same way earlier wi'iters almost always construe KX-qpovofx-elv (inherit, also jiarticijKcfe in) with a genitive (Kypke 11. 381) ; in the later writers and in the N. T. it takes the accusative of the thing, e. g. in Mt. v. 4 [v. 5 Rcc], xix. 29, G. v. 21 (Polyb. 15. 22. 3) : see Fischer, JFell. in. i. 368, Lob. p. 129, Matth. 329. A.ny)(di€iv has an accus. in A. i. 17, and in 2 P, i. 1, irroT'/xoi/ rjfuv Xc)^ov(r'. iTLcmv (where iruTTi<; is not the faith, in the ideal sense, in which every Christian participates through his personal conviction, but the subjective faith belonging to the Christians immediately addressed) ; see Matth. 328. Hem. In L. i. 9 this verb (in the sense of ohtdin hy lot) is joined with a genitive.'^ (Jelf 512.) 8. In the foregoing examples we have already perceived the jiotion o^ proceeding from glide into that of participation in : this partitive signification of the genitive is still more distinctly apparent in such combinations as ficTe^etv rtro?, TrXripovv riv6da\/xol fxecTTol fiof)(akLhov, we must not take \x TT,? etfjLTi; as .Standing for a genitive ; these words indicate that out of whirk the filling of the house arose, — it V)as filled (with fragrance) from (by) tlie odour of the ointment. ' [Liinemann rightly points to TXnfiiZirieti xafxit (Ph. i. 11) as a similar con- struction. See below, p. 287.] 252 THE GENITIVE. [PART IH. fiijBevl ^apia-fiaTL, it is easy to perceive the writer's conception and meaning: compare Plat. Bej). 6. 484 d.^ (c) Verbs of touching (Matth. 330, Jelf 586 '^), inasmuch as the touching affects only depart of the object : Mk, v. 30, 7]-^aro Twv IfjLariwv (vi. 56, I4. xxii. 51, Jo. xx. 17, 2 0. vi. 17, al.), H. xii. 20, Kuv Orjpiov 6Lyr) rov 6pov9 (xL 28). The construc- tion ^diTTeiv i/SaT09, L. xvi. 24, comes under the same head.^ (fl) Verbs of taldng hold of, where the action is limited to apart of the whole object: Mt. xiv. 31, eKreiva^ rrjv X'^lpa- eireXd^ero avrov, compare Theophr. Ch. 4 (with the hand He could grasp the sinking man only by a part of the body, 4)09- sibly by the arm), L. ix, 47: — somewhat differently in*Mk* ix. 27 [RecJ], Kparrj<7a^ avrov rr](; ■^etpo'i' A. iii. 7, it tdcrau)V Tf Trpos £KeiVovs koX eVttVwv Trpos avroi's, and of them (some) hold inter- course with the Persians, and (some) of the Persians tviih tliem ; Thuc. 1. 115 (Theophan. I. 77). An example from the N. T. is A. xxi. 16, avOpoaira) tovtm alrtov oiv KaTrjyopetTe KUT avToO. (On the other hand, we find Trepl rtj/o? de. aliqua re, A. xxiii. 29, xxiv. 13,^ compare Xen. IMl. 1. 7. 2 ; as also Kpivea-Oai irept t., A, xxiii. 6, xxiv. 21.) Yet it must not be concealed that the two verbs just mentioned have commonly a different construction in Greek authors, viz. KaTtjjopeii/ rivof re (of which construction Mk. xv. 3 cannot well be considered an example, compare Lucian, JSfecijom. 19), and iyKaXetu rivc rv (Matth. 370, Jelf 589, 3).'' [h) KaraKav-^aadai, to glory in a thing (derive glory /row a thing), Ja. ]i. 13. The combmation eTracvelv nvd riva (4 Mace. i. 10, iv. 4, Poppo, T/mc. III. i. 661) does not occur in the N. T. ; for in L. xvi. 8 tt}? aoiKia<; must undoubtedly be joined with oiKovofio'^, and the object of iiratvelv is only ex- pressed in the clause on ^povip,o).uv T/v/ (licclus. xlvi. 19) we find in Rom. viii. 33 lyxaki^v xara. Tim;, which is as easily explained as xarnyo^jrv us Tiva Maetzn. Antiph. 207. ['ZyxxXiTv t/h' occurs in the N. T. also, A. xix. 38, xxiii. 28.] " On this construction see (Sintenis, in ihe) Leipz. L. Z. 1833, I. 1135. SECT. XXX.] THE GENITIVE. 255 The only N. T. example is one in which the verb is used figura- tively, vi/. A. ix. 1, €fjb7rv€(ov a7ret\^6voO, hreatkim/ of threa/rnuKj and murder: compare Aristoph. Uq. 437, ovrot '^Stj /caKLa^ Kut avKO(fiovr/ao?u ivldcli the feeling proceeds, i.e. from which it is excited. Yet most of these ve.rbs Lake the accusative, the relation being difl'ercntly conceived : see § 32. 1, and Ilartung p. -20 (Jelf 488). {h) Verbs of longing and desiring (Matth. 350, Jelf 498^), With these verbs we commonly exj)reas the o1)ject towards or an which the desire is fixed. But in iiriOufxeiu rti/o?. as conceived by the Greeks (if we except those combinations in which the genitive may be considered partitive, as eiridufielv cro(f)ia'i, to desire of wisdom), the longing and the desire were regarded as proceeding from the object desired, the object sending forth from itself to the subject the incitement to desire. In the N. T. eTTidvfieiv always takes the genitive (a variant being noted in Mt. V. 28 only '"*), as A. xx. 33, apyvplov i) -^pvaiov'i) ip,aTiafjLov ovB6i>o Sea,; (A. xviii. 17,' Plut. Pmlag. 17. 22), Tit. iii. 8, "iva (^povTL^aKTL KoXwv epycov ^ 1 Tim. v. 8, twp ISuov x)V irpovoel' 1 Tim. iv. 14, firj d/u-eXei rov iv a-ol ')^aptafia.ro<; (H. ii. 3), H. xii. 5, p; 6\ty(op€i iraiBcLaq /cvptov. To this head belongs also ^el^eaOai* (Matth. 348, Jelf ^. c)'. A. xx. 29, fxr) <^etZ6pevoL rov irov/xviov, not sparing the flock ; 1 C. vii. 28, 2 P. ii. 4, al. But /AcXei is also used with irepC, Mt. xxii. 16, Jo. x. 13, xii. 6, al. (Her. 6. 101,Xen. Cyr. 4. 5. 17, Hiero 9. 10, al.. Wis. xii. 13, 1 Mace. xiv. 43).* (e) Lastly, verbs of ruling (Matth. 359, Don. p. 476, Jelf 505) take the genitive, as the simple case of dependence, — for the notion oi going before or leading (Hartung p. 14) reduces itself to this : Mk. x. 42, ol i;, Mt. vi. 34.] * In Latin, parcere alicui. In the Greek (puiiirSai, if we may judge from the construction, there is rather the notion of restraining oneself/rom, aibi temperare a. In the LXX, however, this verb is also construed with the dative and with prepositions. ^ Compare Strange in Jahns Archiv IT. 400. * [In A. xviii. 12, just quoted, the preferable reading is io&wra.Tov Stroi.'] ' [In Alt. ii. 22 we should probably read fiaypd(f)€iv t/ Tivc (2 C. ii. 3), evajyeXi^eaOat tivl ti (L. ii. 10, 2 C. xi. 7), 6j>eL\eiv rtvi rt (Mt. xviii. 28, Rom. xiii. 8, compare Eom. i. 14, viii. 12, but contrast xv. 27), 6p,oio.vv rivd tlvl (Mt. vii. 24, xi. 16), KaraXkaaaeLv tlvcl tlvv (2 C v. 18), iyelpeiv dXiyjnv rol^ heapML^ (Ph. i. 17), all which instances are entirely free from difficulty; — and especially as joined with intransitive verbs and adjectives allied to these. The force of the dative is more or less clear.^ (a) In ciKoXoi/Oelv rivi, ejjl^eiv, KoWaadat, cnoL-^elv (Rom. iv. 12, al.), heheadai (Rom. yii. 2, 1 C. vii. 27), evTV'y)(av€Lv rtvi, etc.; also in €v')(eadal run, A. xxvi. 29. (Jelf 522 sq.) (6) In fxcpi/jtvav rivi^ (Mt. vi. 25), opyi^eadaL (Mt. v. 22), fi€Tpio7ra9€ii> rivL (H. v. 2), p^efi^eadai (H. viii. 8,* see Krlig, p. 25, Jelf 589), ^dovelv G. v. 26. (Jelf 596, 601.) (c) In iriareveLV rove, rreTroLOevai^ dTriareiv, aTreidelv, xma- Koveuv, v'jrrjKo6yx,ayin, see 589 ; havrioi, 601 ; l^lviXie-iat, 607 ; xoivun7v, 588 ; c/xiki7y, 590. In Donaldson's classification, c, d, e (with ivx,--fSai, but not iyavTios), would comc under the "dative of the recipient" (pp. 498-495); x.?^iiia.i, "instrumental dative" (p. 491^; most of the other words under the '" dative of coincidence or contingency " (p. 486. sqq.).] ^ [Also /jLifiiiiYtcu TO. fTipl iifi'Zv, Ph. ii. 20 (1 C. vii. 32) ; fnpiuv^fn lavTns, Mt. vi. 34, like (ppcv-rlluv t,v'o;, § 30. 10. (A. Buttra. p. 186.)] * [Here avrov; is strongly supported ; some (e. g. Bleek, Kurtz) who read etlroli join it with Xiyn. — The dative is similarly used with £a-(T//iav, \yxtt.f.i.h, lfi.^p,[/.a(r(ai : A. Buttih. p. 177.] * [The dative with IX't/^e.v in Mt. xii. 21 either follows the analogy of these verbs (A. Buttm. p. 176), or belongs to No. 6 c (so Meyer).] 262 THE DATIVE. [PAllT III. (e) In ape) be retained, it is probably a dative of reference to (no. 6), see EUicott in loc. : similarly in 2 C. i. 24 (Meyer). In Rom. xiv. 4 the dative appears rather to come under no. 4. b. than to stand in close connexion with the verb. ] * [On the dative with compound verb.s, see § 52. ] ^ [Excluding 0. T. quotations (with which A. vii. 43 may be reckoned, for the words -rpcsxi/viTv auToi;, though not found in Am. v. 26, seem to be a reminiscence of other familiar passages), we find 56 examples T)f this word in the N. T. In 16 the word is used absolutely; in two (Jo. iv. 22) the omission of the demon- strative makes the construction doubtful. In the remaining pa.ssages, the dative (probably) occurs 28, the accusative 10 times. Hence in the N. T., as in the LXX, the dative construction is the more common. Uf>i>s kwiT* occurs most frequently in St. Matthew's Gospel and the Revelation. In the former book we find the dative only ; in the latter the dative seems to occur 13, the accusative 6 times. The remaining examples are Mk. xv. 19, Jo. iv. 21, 23, ix. 38, 1 C. xiv. 25 (dative) ; Mk. 'v. 6, L. xxiv. 52, Jo. iv. 23, 24 (accusative). It seems almost impossible to believe that in a single verse (Jo. iv. 23) this word can have both constructions without any variation of meaning : at all events we may recognise that the accusative expresses a connexion between verb and object closer than that expressed by the dative construction. Compare p. 248, note ', p. 263, note ^.] •■* Compare Bos, Exercitatt. Philol. p. 1 sqq. , Kypke, Obs. I. 7 sq. * [Perhaps intended for 1 P. iv. 6 : the reference is wrong as it .stands, j * [That is "condemned them to overthrow " (Huther, Alford, al.).] 264 THE DATIVK [PART III. struction is not found in Greek writers, -who use KaraKptveiv tlvu Oavdrov, or edvarov (Matth. 370. 'Rem, 3, Heupel, Mart 285), or KaraKp. TLvl Gdvarov, Her. 6. 85 (to adjudge death to).^ An analogous phrase is /caraSiKa^cti/ Tiva ^avctro) (Lob. p. 485). Compare also homo's ry Kpto-ct, Mt. V. 21, 22, subject to the judgment (§ 30. 8): compare Bleek, Hebr. II. i. 340. J J \>! i v 2. Most closely connected with this is the dative which is dependent on elvat (vTrdp'^eiv) and ylveaOat, — not on any pre- dicate joined with these verbs ; for iarl or ylverai fioi vim tov avOpwirov what luas written for Him (that it should be fulfilled in Him);^ Mt. xiii. 14, Jude 14 : compare also Mt. xiii. 52, Ph. i. 27, 1 Tim. i. 9, Rev. xxi. 2. Especially deserving of notice are (a) The dative of opinion or judgment (compare above, no. 2), as in Plat. Fkcvd. 101 d, ei aoc aXX.TJXoL'i ^vfxipoivel r) hia^wvd ; Soph. CEd. Col, 1446. So in the phrases acrTeto9 rcjj Oecp A. vii. 20, and hvvara ray 6eu) 2 C. x. 4;* see also 1 C. ix. 2. Compare Krug. p. 71 sq." (Don. p. 495, Jelf 600). (h) The dative of interest, — 2 C. v. 13, etre i^earrj/j-ev, dew' €iT€ aci)(f)povov/Mev, vfiiv (Rom. xiv. 6, 1 C. xiv. 22), — or more definitely, the daiivus commodi and incommodi : Jo. iii. 26, c5 av fjLe/jiaprvpr]Ka>i, for ivhom, in favour of whom (L. iv. 22, Rom. X. 2, 2 C. ii. 1, comp. Xen. Meyu. 1. 2. 21) ; on the other hand, Mt. xxiii. 31, fiaprvpeiTC eavrol<;, on vloi eeyre k.tX., against yourseloes (compare Ja. v. 3). Compare further H. vi. 6, Jude 1, Rom. xiii. 2 : *^ on Rev. viii. 3 see Ewald. In E. v. 19, however, ' Buttm. Philoct. p. 102 sq., Boisson. Nic. p. 271, Ast, Plat. Polit. 451, 519, and Legg. p. 9. [Comp. Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 126 sq. ] ^ See Schoem. Isoeus p. 264, Kriig. p. 80. * [Jelf (583. 2) refers this to the construction of verbs •which denote that " something is allotted to any. one, awaits any one, etc." (Green p. 100): A. Butt- mann (p. 178) joins the dative with both verbs: "if the word belonged to ytypa-fjL. oulv, We should have had l-jrl tu vlii, as in Jo. xii. 16." Bleek, Meyer, and others agree with Winer. ] * We should liave a sinailar example in Ja. ii. 5, if (with Lachniann and Tischendorf) we read Toy? ^Ta^ovg toT Kocr//.ai. 5 Compare Wyttenb. Phced. I. c, Erfu'rdt, Soph. (Ed. R. 615. « [Jelf 598, 601, Don. p. 494.] 266 THE DATIVE. [PART III. XaXovvTcs eavTOLS (aXX^^Xot?) '\^aXfiol? where Greek writers would have been content with the simple dativus commodi or * In modem Greek the accusative with «/j very commonly serves as a peri- phrasis for the dative, even in its simplest relations ; as >.iyu th t« (plKav ftav, dico amico me.o (towards my friend) : see Von Liidemann, Lehrh. p. 90. [Sophocles, Gr. p. 151, Mullach, Vulg. p. 332. The dative has in great measure disappeared from modern Greek: see Mullach pp. 151, 327 sq., Clyde, p. 30 sq.] * See Schulz, Parah. v. Verwalt. p. 38. [I have substituted "former" for " latter, " which is a manifest mistake. The use of Tpis with the accus. after xiyiiii and other verbs of speaking is very common in St. Luke and St. John : see Gersdorf pp. 180, 186, Davidson, Introd. p, 194.] ^ [On -^eu^tir^eti riya {" actual deception by falsehood ") and ^. rm (" address directed to a person in terms of falsehood ") see Green, Gr. p. 100.] * Col. i. 20, a^oKaTucXX. us, would be on analogous exaraple, if this were not a pregnant construction, used designedly : see Meyer in loc. ■' [And in 2 Thess. ii. 12, according to the best MSS.] ' Thus besides -ra.fafia.Wuv rl nvi (Her. 4. 198) we also find -rttf. ti t^o? ti (Joseph. Ap. 2. 15). Different still is Mk. iv. 30, e» vaia. cra.fot.^oX^ •yra.^a.- fixXafiiy rrir /iafiXiixv rav tioZ (see Fritz.), but the readings vary. ['Ev t/w auTTjv -prafictlioX^ ffaifiiv is adopted by Fritz, and by recent editors.] SECT. XXXI.] THE DATIVE. 267 incommodi : A. xxiv. 1 7, iX€r)ixoavva<; 'TVOLrjo-wv et? to e6vovaet 6pyf]6apT0tA. xii. 2, Rom. i. 20, iii. 24, Tit. iii. 7, E. V. 19, al. H. xii. 18, opof; KCKavfievov irvpi, igni ardens, turning in fire, with fire (Ex. iiL 2, Dt. iv. 11, ix. 15, compare Lob. Paral. p. 523 sq.), may also be brought in here. In Rom. xii. 12 t^ iXTrlBi ■)(aipovrew as dependent on -rioinnuouiru. (ver. 12), and consequently as parallel with the prepositional clause ota. tc. ihx,. : so AlfoiJ. Meyer takes xai avTut . . . iti-ttoS. as a genitive ab.solute, lur.im as a mortal dative ; Stanley takes a similar view.] 272 THE DATIVE. [PART III. in parallelism with the instrumental dative : see Rom. xv. 18, 2 C. xi. 23, 26 sq. The ablative is also to be recognised in the construction fi^Ov- (TKecrdaL OLVio, E. V. 18 (Pr, iv. 17), and TtX-qpovaQal Ttj/t, Rom. i. 29,1 2 C. vii. 4, Eurip. Here. Fur. 372 ; compare irX-qpy]'^ tivl Eurip. Bacch. 18 (though this word more frequently takes a genitive), and see Bernh. p. 168. In later Greek compare ■n-Xrja-dii'Te'i dyvota Malal. p. 54. (In E. iri. 19 eis with the accusative does not stand for an ablative : this preposition rather expresses, be filled up to the fulness etc.) 8. All these relations however are not un frequently (in some cases, more frequently) expressed by means of prepositions, with or without a modification of the meaning. This remark applies to Greek prose generally, but is especially illustrated by N. T. Greek. Thus we find For (a), eV : 1 P. iv. 1 , iv aapKi ttuBcov ^ (in connexion with aapKi iraOdtv), Tit. i. 13, compare ii. 2 ; hia(^epei,if ev tlvl 1 C. XV. 41, Soph. CEd. Col. 1112, Dion. H. Ep. p. 225 (Kriig.). For (h), Kara : as almost always Kara to edos: eloiSo^, L. iv. 16, A, xvii. 2. For (c), hid with the accusative : see § 49. c. For {d),Bid or fV. — also fxerd. Thus for ^airrL^eadat vSutl we commonly ^ find fia-nril^euBaL ev vButc (in water), Mt. iii. 11, Jo. i. 26, 31 (but also ev irvevfia-ri) ; for jSia, always fiera ^iaiav X.aXovp.ev iv rot? reXctots, is we set forth wisdom amongst — or with, before (coram, Plat. Symp. 175' e, as often in the orators, see § 48. a) — tlie perfect, that is, when we have to do with the perfect, compare ■Judith VL 2. 2 C. iv. 3, iv rots aTroAAv/AeVois ig-rl KCKoAu/AfteVov, is in the main rightly explained by Baumgarten, — is hidden in (amongst, with) those who are lost. On 6"/xoAoyetv ev tlvl see § 33. 3. b. A. xiii. 15 and Col. ii. 13 need no explanation; and E. ii. 5, vcxpovs tois TrapaTTT&i/xacri, is not grammatically parallel to the latter passage. In E. i. 20, ivTJpyrjacv iv XpuxTia is quite regular, (power) which He manifested on Christ (in raising Him from the dead). In Mt. xvii. 12, irroirja-av iv avr<3 o(ra r)di\r)(Tav (in Mk. ix. 13, iTroLr}crav auraJ) means, they did, perpetrated, on him; compare Mk. xiv. 6, Jo. xiv. 30, L. xxiii. 31, 1 C. ix. 15 (Gen. xl. U, Judith vii. 24). Equally correct is 2 C. x. 12, /xcr/aetv iavrovs iv tairrot?, measure tJiemselves on themselves, though Greek writers use the simple dative (Ajistot., Rhet. 2. 12, Herod. 1. 6. 2). 9. Time, as the substratum connected with actions in general^ is expressed in the dative, in answer to the question vjhen. This temporal dative denotes a. A space of time: L. viii. 29, TvoX\olhrj6{3io A. ix. 31, xiv. 16, Pr. xxviii. 26, 2 S, xv. 11,- 1 Mace. vi. 23, Bar. i 18, ii. 10, iv. 13, Tob. i. 2, iv. 5 (also iropeu- ea-Oai cr 1 P. iv. 3, al.), and even irepnraTeiv rots eOeo-'. A. xxj. 21, 2 C. xii. 18, G. v, 16, Rom. xiii. 13. In Greek prose generally the use of the dativus loadls is very limited ; see Madviir 45, Poppo on Thuc. 1. 143. (Jelf 605.) 10. Sometimes, though rarely, the dative (of a person) ac- companies a passive verb (usually in the perfect tense), instead of i/TTo, irapd, etc., with the genitive: L. xxiiL 15, ovBev d^tov Bavdrov eVrt ireirpa'-fpbkvov ahrfo (Isocr. Paneg. c. 18). Yet there is some difference between these constructions: the dative does not indicate hy whom something is done, but to whom that which is done belongs (Mad v. 38. g, Kriig. p. 84'''). This con- struction is found with evpiaKeadai especially, as 2 C. xii. 20, 2 P. iii. 14,^ Rom. x. 20 (from the LXX) : compare also L. * [liCmemann adds Mt. xiv. 6. On this see p. 276.] " [This is surely not an example. Many of these examples may well be referred to 6. b, above. For 2 Pet. ii. 15 above rt^nd Jude 11.] » Benseler, Isocr. Evag. p. 13 (Don. p. 492, Jell 611). * [In ed. 5 Winer, regarded the dative in these two passages as a dative of opinion or judgment (no. 4. a) : so Meyer in 2 C. i. c, and Alford, Huther, A. Buttmann, in 2 P. iii. 14. J SECT. XXXI.] THE DATIVE. 2 / 5 xxiy. 35 (Ja. iii. 18), Ph. iv. 5 (A. xxiv. 14 [Mec.]), and 2 P. ii. 19, where ro rt? i]TTT]TaL means, to ivhom any one -is inferior, succumbs (like r^TTaadal rivog in Greek writers). But in A. xvL 9 6j(f)6r] opafxa rm IlavXq) signifies became visible to him, as 6^6rjval nvt often means to appear to some one. In Ja. iii. 7, t>? (pvaet rfj avdpcoTrtvrj is rather through the nature of man, ingeniis homimim. In general, the dative of the tiling with passive verbs (as probably in Ebm. xii. 16, see Fritz, in Iog}) is less strange, as it coincides with the dative of the means. In H. iv. 2, Tot? aKovaa(nv probably indicates the persons in whose case the /x^ cvyKeK. rfj iria-rei existed. Lastly, in Mt. v. 2 1 sqq. ipprjOr] rot? upy^aioif; signifies was said to the ancients : see Tholuck in loc? This dative (of the person) is similarly used in Greek prose, but is especially common after a participle : compare Dem. Olynth. 3. p. 12 c, Theocrin. 507 c, Coron. 324 a, Conon 731 b, Diog. L. 8. 6, Philostr. Her. 4. 2. Rem. 1. The dative in Col. ii. 14, c^oXeii/^as to Kaff rifxwv ■)(^eLp6ypaov rots Soy/iatri, 13 worthy of notice. The explanation given by some of the commentators, o ?]f iv rots Soy/iao-i, quod con- stabat placitis (Mas.) — in accordance with E. ii. 15, tw vofxov tZv €VTo\u>v ev Soyfiacri Karapyja-as, — is correct indeed as regards the sense, but ungrammatical : to express this Paul mu.st have written )(CLp6ypa(f>ov TO iv Tois Soy/oacrt. To take E. ii. 15 first : Twi' ifToXwv iv ooyfiatri must certainly be regarded as expressing a single notion, the commandments in (particular) rfecree.s/^ compare § 20. 2. In Col. ii. 14 however, all things being considered, we cannot but join Boyfiacri closely with to Ka6' ^fx. x^^Pm the bond (in force) against us through the decrees ; and perhaps Paul chose this position for Boy/xaat in order to give the word prominence. Meyer's explanation, (hat which was tcritten tvith the cominundnnents (the dative being used as in the phrase ivriUen with letters), is the more harsh as x^poypcK^o" has so completely established itself in usage as an independent word that it is hardly capable of governing (like ytypap.p.ivov) such a dative as this. Rera. 2. Kiihnol's remark in his note on Mt. viii. 1, that datives absolute sometimes take the place of absolute genitives (e.g., Kara/BavTi * [Fritzsche takes t»7; Ta-rin'Tti as neuter, and renders par miseram rem.] * [Se»i AJi'ord i?i toe. for h clear summary of the arguments on this side.] 3 [Th\3 is more fully exnioined in ed. 5. "If, in accordance with CTarama- tioiil rule, ir }iyftv(ri be connectwl with KaTapynro'.;, we must either understand 'ityfttrTo. to mean Chr'iHt'ian doctrinea (which would stand in the same relation to ivToTkul as ^i'">'^ It is otherwise with the double datives in E. iii. 5, Rom. vii. 25, II. iv. 2, Rev. iv. 3 ; these need no remark. Rem. 4 TV e meet with a very singular dative in 2 C. vi. 14, ju,^ yivi-a-Oe. Ircpo^vyowres aTrt'cTTois : here some would even supply avv, whilst others seek for the same meaning in the dative itself. The dative may indeed be sometimes resolved by with (Reitz, Lucian 1 Fischer, Well. III. a. p. 391, Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. II. 804, Heupel, Mark. p. 79. ^ [With Mt. xiv. 6, yivKxlois ytvoftUois, compare the examples C[Uote(J by Kiihner II. .371 («d. 2) : see also Jelf 699, A. Buttm. p. 317.] ^ [There is a great difference of opinion as to the reading in the four passages quoted in this paragraph. The MSS. are divided, and internal arguments may- be adduced 'on both sides, since both constructions are grammatically inexact (on the ledundancy of the pronoun see § 22. 4, and on the combination of genitive and dative § 30. Rem.), and yet the transcribers were certainly familiar with both. Tischendorf receives the dative in Mt. viii. 1, but the genitive in Mt. viii. 28, xxi. 23, Mk. v. 2. Westcott and Hort have the genitive in each ca.se. ] * [So Alford, referring to G. iv. 14 ; Meyer prefers to connect Tjf rapKi closely with fKoXe^', « thorn for dhe flesh. As regards the meaning of irx'oXo^, see Meyer and Alford in loc. in defence of "thorn," and on the other side Stanley p. 539 8(|. (ed. 3).] * Reisig, Soph. (Ed. Col. 266, Elmsley, Eur. Bacch. pp. 49, 80 (ed. Lips), Bomem., Xen. Conv. p. 214, Jacobs, AchilL Tat. p. 811, Ast, Plat, Legg. p. 278, SECT. XXXII.] THE ACCUSATIVE. 277 VI. 599. Bip., Matth. 405, compare Polyaen. 8. 28), bub this is quite a different case. The apostle's language seems abbreviated, and the dative appears to be adapted rather to the thoughts than to the words. His meaning obviously is : fjurj yiV. €T€/)o^ir)/owT€s /cat ovVoj? ofto^vyovvTes (cru^iryovi'Tcs) aTrtcTToi?, do not lei paur selves be yoked in a .strange yoke, i.e., in the same yoke with unbelievers. Section XXXIl. THE ACCUSATIVE, 1. The accusative appears in connexion with transitive verbs^ a,ctive, middle, and deponent, as the proper object-case : Koirreiv rr)v Ovpav, KOTTrecrdai rrju K€dX,r]v, (pvXda-creiv rov Krjirov, os (ed. 5), see Jelf 510.] 278 THE ACCUSATIVE. [PART IH. 1. 2. 31) ; XoiZopeiv rivd, Jo. ix. 28 (Matth. 384. Rem. 2, Jelf 566. 2) ; j^Xaaii ofici(rOai, 1 [The LXX text (Ps. xxxix. 7) has not siSoxu. at all : H. x. 6, 8 are rather examples of liilaKiTt ti, but we probably have «iS. rtna. in Mt. xii. 18.] - Schaef. Long. p. 353. ^ [In ver. 35, iuvuny n'j.] * See Schaef. Plutarch V. 22. 280 THE ACCUSATIVE. [PART III. to he afraid in reference to something, to fear something (for one- self), is usually found with an accusative, but sometimes with airo (sibi ab al. timere), as Mt. X. 28, fjurj (f>oj3eLcr6€ diro twv dTroKTevovrwv ^ TO o^€io-6ai, drro is an imitation of the Hebrew p (or ^:ap) NT, Jer. i. 8. The same analogy is followed by ySAeVetv diTo (a pregnant expression) Mk. viii. 15, xii. 38, and by irposix^Lv drro Mt. xvi. 6.^ But in Ph. iiL 2 /JAeTrerc t^v KaTaTO/xi^v is look at, observe the concision, and here beimre of is only a derived meaning : the use of ySAeVfiv n in such a sense (beware of) would receive no confirmation from (pyXda-a-eaOac n, since the middle voice is here essential.- $firy€iv governs the accusative, 1 C. vi. 18, 2 Tim. ii. 22, in a figurative sense (to flee i.e. to shun a vice) ; ^ but is once followed by OTTO, in 1 C. X, 14, (jievyire diro rijs ciScjAoAarpfias. This latter construction is otherwise very common in the N. T. (as in the LXX), and (fievyeiv diro to/o's means either to flee away from some one, in different senses (Jo. x. 5, Rev. ix; 6, Mk. xiv. 52, Ja. iv. 7), or — including the result of the fleeing — to escape frem some one (Mt. xxiii. 33). In Greek writers ^evyciv uTro is only used in a strictly local sense, as Xen. Cyr. 7. 2. 4, Mem. 2. 6. 31, Plat. Fh(jed. 62 d, Pol. 26. 5. 2. On xpw^°-^ Ti see § 31. 1. i.* The accusative of the place to which after verbs of motion was, after the full development of the prepositions, mostly con- fined to poetry: Matth. p. 747 [? § 409]. In the K T. the general character of the language would lead us to expect that a preposition would be always used in such cases. A. xxvii. 2, fjLeWovTt TrXeiv tov<; Kara rrjv ^Aaiav rorrov^ (where however some good MSS. prefix et?), is no exception : the words must be rendered, to sail hy the places along the coast of Asia ^ and in this signification the best authors use TrXelv as a pure verb transitive, with the accusative (sometimes the accus. of the coast-regions^). Compare Poppo on Thuc. 6. 36 (Jelf 559). 2. A neuter verb which expresses a feeling or an action is J [On this form see above, p. 100.} * [(."onipare also a'tffxini(r6ai etTo, 1 Jo. ii. 28.] •* [.And once in the sense oi escaping, H. xi. 34. (A. Buttm. p. 146.)] * [" The LXX once use i(m/)i7* with the accusative, in the sense of the imper- sonal Js7 (Ps. xxii. 1, av^iv f/.i IffTifriiTii) , and some of the oldest MSS. have the same constructioii in Mk. x. 21, t'v en ia-Tipi7:" A. Buttm. p. 169.] * Wahl's parallels (Xen. BeU. 4. 8. 6, Pol. 3. 4. 10) only support the con- struction ttXuv rhy iixaeaat or rk -ynxiyn \ of this, however, 1 ilacc. xiii. 29 and. Ecclus. xliii. 24 will serve as examples. SECT. XXXIL] the ACCUSATIVE. 281 frequently followed by an accusative of its cognate noun (nomen conjugatum), or of the noun which is cognate to a verb of similar meaning ; such nouns being in fact arlready included in the v6rb, since they merely express its notion in a substantival form. This combination, however, is only used when the nation of the verb is to be extended,^ — either by an (objective ^) genitive, as in IP. iii. 14, Tov (f)6^ov avTCdv firj ^7}(^iXea6ai, ap^prd- veiv afiapTuiv (1 Jo. v, 16), for make a covmmnt, bear a testimony, etc. (Ewald, Gr. 595). Here the nouns do not absolutely need to be supported by adjectives, etc. (as alcrxpav apapriav ap,ap- TOLveiv Soph. Phil. 1249, Plat. Phoid. 113 e, Lucian, Tm. 112, Dio Clir. 32, 361) : compare E. iv. 8 (from the LXX), ??%/*«- \coT€vatiJ aixi^akfoo-iav Jud. v. 12, 2 Ohr. xxviii. 17, Deniosth. Stcph. 2; 621 b. Yet it is only in connexion with relative clauses that these expressions are usually foimd : Jo. v. 32, rj p,apTvpia, rjv p.ap'Tvpel irepl e/xov' 1 Jo. V. 10, H. viii. 10, avrr) ■i) Bta07]Kv, rjv Bia67](TOfxai, (x. 16,-^but in viii. 9 hiaOi^icriv iroieiv), A. iii. 25, L. i. 73, 1 Jo. ii. 25, Mk. iii. 28 : compare Isocr. jEgin. 936, Lucian, Paras. 5. It cannot however be denied that such combinations in Hebrew and Greek have greater fulness and vividness than our general expressions make a, covenant, hear testimony. Lastly, we must entirely exclude the cases in which the sub- stantive denotes something objective and material which exists apart from the action of the verb, as ^vkdcraeiv [The reading SrVar* ih I. {Rtc. Tisch. ed. 8) is strongly supported.] ^ [Noticed in the preceding paragraph.] SECT. XXXII.]' THE ACCUSATIVE. 283 raosth. Apat 579 c), piow xp^^^^^ 1 P- i^"- 2 (^^i/ ^filov. DioAi.yas, to which is further joined an accusative of the person (compare L. xii. 47) : see Wnnder /. c. p. 86. L. ii. 44, ij\6ov r/fxcpas 686y, they tvent a day's jmiruey, and A. viii. 39, eVopcvcro ttjv o8ov uvtov (compare oSw /SaSi^civ Plut. Coriol. 9, and in tiie LXX 1 S. vi. 9. Num. xxi. 33, Ex. xiii. 17), scarcely need any remark ; yet see Wunder p. 41 sq. (Jelf 558). The dative-construction is analogous : i^mvciv (jxavrj fteyaXy A. xvi. 28, and jSoav or Kpa^ctv ^wifj /xcy. Mk. xv. 34, Mt. xxvii. 50, A. vii. 60, opKio o/j.vvvai A. iL 30, x^P?- x"'V^^*' 1 '^^- ^^*- ^ ^ (dyaA- XiacrOai X'^P^ dve/cAaAT^Ta) 1 P. i. 8), Kijpvcra-CLv ij}vy ficydXy Rev. V. 2 [AVc] ; also TTOt'w Oavdrw ^/icAAcv aTro^vvJo-Ketv Jo. xii. 33, xviii. 32. Compare Aristot. Pol. 3. 9, Plut. Coriol. 3 (Jon. i. 16, Act. A]). 4), Kriig. p. 18 (Bengel on Rev. xviii. 2) : compare § 54. 3. 3. It has been maintained that in several places, in accord- ance with the Hebrew idiom, a- preposition, iv (3), takes the place of the accusative of the object ; but when the passages are more closely examined, we soon find that the preposition was admissible in its proper meaning. a. A. XV. 7, 6eo<; iv y/Miv e^eXe^aro Bia rov nn. The meaning is, amongst us (the apostles) ; for, in the first place, the singular /toy is used by Peter immediately afterwards ; and, secondly, we must have regard to the mention of ra eOvrj (as the apostolic sphere of operation) : " God has made the choice amongst us, that the Gentiles should be instructed through me." See also Olshausen in loc. On the Hebrew 3 nna, some- times rendered in the LXX by eVXe'y. iv, 1 S. xvi. 9, 1 K. viii. 16, 1 Chr. xxviii. 4, Neh. ix. 7 (which however Gesenius did not even feel it necessary to explain), see Ewald, Gr. 605.^ h. 'OfxoXoyeiv iv, Mt. x. 32, L. xii. 8, to 7nake a c&nfcssion on some one, i.e., with another turn of the phrase, respecting some 07ie. Bengel gives a different explanation. The Hebrew ?y nnin^ Ps. xxxii. 5, has not quite the same meaning. ^ [Here ? x'^'f'f^^* ™ay be for >!» x-t % attraction : see Ellic. and Alf. in loc."] * [Ewald compares this with the use of 3 after verbs of clinging to, taking hold oj, the fundamental notion being that of " immediate proximity " {Lehrh. p, 556 sq.) : Geseniiis's view(y/t€A'. s. v. 3) is substantially the same.] " [The German preposition here usfd (Uher) means both over and respecting. — Bengel says " 1», in : i.e. quum de me qureritur." Similarly Fritzsche : " tes- timonium edere in aliquo, i.e. in alicujus causa." Meyer's explanation resembles Winer's: compare Cremer. But see AVestcott, Canon p. 301 ; also Godet in loc] 284 THE ACCUSATIVE. [PART III. 4. Double AecKsatwe. a. Two accusatives, one of the person and the other of the thing (Matth. 417 sq., Jelf 582 sq., Don. p. 500), are fomid, as a rule, with verbs of dothing and unclotJdng, Jo. xix. 2, Mt." xxvii- 28,' 31, Mkj XV. 17, Eev, xvii. 4 ; of {giving to eat and) givhuj to drink, Mk. ix. 41, 1 0. iii. 2 ; ^ of anointing, Eev. iii. 1 8 (H. 1. 9) ; of loading, L. xi. 46 ; of adjuring (by), A. xix. 13, 1 Th. v, 27 ; oi reminding of {avafXiiivrjCTKeiv), 1 C. iv. 17, Xen. Cyr. 3. 3. 37, Her. 6. 140 (but ava^iv. -riva rivo^ Xen. Cyr. 6. 4. 13) ; of teaching, Jo. xiv. 26 ; of asking (either requesting or inquiring), Mt. vii. 9, Jo. xvi. 23, 1 P. iii. 15 {ahelv), Mt. xxi. 24 (Lob. Fa- ral. p. 522), Mk. iv. 10 (epwrat/). EvayyeXi^eaOai is only once construed with a double accusative, in A. xiii. 3 2 ; compare Heliod. 2. 10, Alciphr. 3. 12, Euseb. II. E. 3. 4 v. 1 For Kpi- trretv rivd ri (Matth. 421) Kpinrreiv rt, airo Tivo i-ivd ti we meet with alreiv n irapd or aTro Ttw?, A. iii. 2, ix. 2, Mt. xx. 20 (Xen. An. 1. 3. 16). Xpleiv rivd is joined with a dative of the material in A. x. 38, as dXei- ^€tv uniformly is (Mk. yi. 13, Jo. xi. 2, al.). We also find inro* fiifjLvf](TK€iv riva Trepl Tivof]fioaryop€vovx(nXi7 trftipi*, see EUendt in Inc. ^ [There is some mistake in the last reference. — All these passages illustrate the construction witli tit : the pleonastic use of us with these verbs need not be considered Hebraistic, see § 65. 1.] SBCT, XXXII.] THE ACCUSATIVE. 287 L. xli. 48, Sapr/rrerat oXiyai; (compare Bipeiu jiva TrXrjjd^) Mk. X. '.iS, TO /3dirTi,(Tfj,a o iyay ^SaTTTi'l^ofiai, ^aTniaOrjvac Rev. xvi. 9 (compare Lucian, Tox. 61, Dion. Hal. IV. 2162. 8). The acoiisative of the predicate passes into a nominative in H. v. 10, Trposa^yopf.vdelf; .... dp'^iepetx;- Mt. v. 9, avTol viol deov kXtj- drjcfovTac Ja. iv. 4, i')(0pof ra. hvifuzTa, TO. a.»ii.6a.fTa,. In modem Greek words of fuhiess may take an accus., see Mulkch p. 331. For 2 C. vi. 13 .see below, ^66. 1 . h. — It will be observed that vXnfoZtxiai, like fnfiftvav, is found in the N. T. witlt all three ca.ses.] •* [" Mirafifip^ovii, though often construed with ii;, yet, as a verb of deueloj'ing into a certain form, has a right to take a simple accusative " (i. e. of the state info which) : "this accus. (of the thing) remaius unchanged when the verb is }>assive :" Meyer in lof. "The compounds of ^£t« which denote change gene- rally take an accus. of the new state or position : " Jelf (336. Obs.] * [That is, the rule that vutiCu tiA n may pass into itaniiral n.] 288 THE ACCUSATIVE. [PART III we are compelled to resolve by prepositions, etc.: in these the N. T. participates to a moderate extent only. First of all, in definitions of time and space we ourselves can still apprehend the accusative as the case of the object : L. xxii. 41 , aTrecnraaBij air avTwv co<;el \i6ov ^oXrjv, he withdi'cw a ston$'^ cast (as if it were, by his withdrawing he accomplished the distance of a stone's cast) ; Jo. vi. 19, iXoKijKOTe^ u)v(rLv. For Towov TOV rpoTTov even Greek prose writers more fre- quently use Kara t. t. rpoTrov. We have a very singular ex,pression in Mt. iv. 15, 6oov da- Xd(Tcrr}<; (from Isaiah), usually rendered by the toaii. Such ])assages as 1 S, vi. 9, €6 6S6v vpiwv avr^'j TTopevo'CTai,- Num. xxi. 33, Kx. xiii. 17 (compare L. ii. 44) do not justify this use of an accusative .side by side with vocatives in an address, without any government (by a verb) : this would lie altogether beyond the limits of a prose style (Bernh. p. 114 sq.). Thiersch's remarks (p. 145 sq.) do not decide the point. Can it be that we ought to read ol 686v 6aX. (oiKowTcs), according to the LXX % ^ Meyer supplies tl^e (from ver. 16) as the governing verb, ))ut this is harsh.'* The toi)ogra- phical difficulties of the ordinary translation are not insuperable ; ^ [This passage is taken differently below, § 154. 2. If it comes in liere, t* xttr Ifii is parenthetical, "as far as ! am conocrned, there is readiness" (Meyer, ed. 3). Ill § 34 Winer joins rt, with ^po^uf^ov, taking xar if^'t as an attributive: so Fritzsohe (propensio ad me attincns), Meyer (ed. 4), al. Bengel and others take T« Kier ifii as the subject, Tf,if. as the predicate ("my part is ready," Vaughan) : that the phrase tj xar' ifii is elsewhere used adverbially (Fritzsohe) is no sufficient objection to this. ] * Wunder on Lobeck, Ajax 41 sq. ^ [It is hardly correct to speak of reading el «S. faX. "according to the LXX.' The Vat. and Sin. MSS. agree in ... . Nt^^. xai ol Xmrei el rn* ■TxfiXiei {Vat. ->./«►) *«< T'%px> T. 'la^S. k. t. X. After Nsip^., Alex, inserts iiov ieiXtt.crcni ; and after TafiXttn, xaTeixeZfTif : in both these additions it has the support of one of the correctors of Sin., — the one whom Tisch. indicates by C (about the 7th century). In no reading therefore does «S»» taX. occur in connection with oL] * [Meyer took this view in his Lstand 2nd editions, but in edd. 3, 4, 5, he regards eS<» as an adverbial accus., "sea-wards:" similarly De W. , Bleek, A. Buttm., Grimm. In the LXX see especially ] K. viii. 4S, 2 Chr. vi. 38, Dt. xi. 30 (quoted by Meyer and Thiersch), where e2«» is not under the govemment of a verb, but answers to the Hebrew 7j"n, used absolutely in the sense of vtrsus. Meyer and Bleek take rs^a» c. 'I. as an independent clause indicating a new region, Percea.] 19 290 THE ACCUSATIVE. [PART III. only iripav T. lopS. must not be regarded (as in Isaiah) as an inde- pendent member, for with such a clause Matthew has here no direct concern, 7. It has been maintained that in certain passages the accusa- tive is altogether absoluva ; but a closer exaii^j^nfrtion will show the gra^muiatical renson for this casse in tt>e stmcturo of the sentence. Thus Rom, viii. 3, to uBvvarov rev vo/jlov . . . . 6 0609 Tov iavTOV vlov 7re/x,-\Jra<; .... KareKpLve rr]v afiaprtav, is really equivalent to to aBvvuTov tov vo/xov iiroh^aev o 6eoai : see § 63. 2. a.} * Compare further Matthlw, Eur. Med. p. 501, Hartung p. 54, Wannowski, Syntax. Atwm. p. 128 sqq. .SECT, XXXIII.J VERBS FOLLOWED BY PTtEPOSITlONS. 291 Section XXXIII. VERBS (neuter) CONNECTED BY MEANS OF A PREPOSITION WITH A DEPENDENT NOUN. A considerable number of verbs, especially such as denote an emotion or a tendency of the mind, are joined to their predicate by means of a preposition. In this point N. T usage sometimes agrees with that of classic writers, sometimes rather betrays a Hebrew-Oriental colouring. a. Verbs of rejoixing or fjrieving, which often take a simple dative in Greek authors (Fritz, Horn. III. 78 sq), are in the N. T. usually followed by etri with the dative:^ as %fl/))ft?^, Mt, xviii. 13, L. i. 14, A. xv. 31, 1 C. xiii. 6, Rev. xi. 10 (compare Xen. Cyr. 8. 4. 12, Diod. S. 19. 55;isocr. Permvt. 738, Arrian, Ind. 35. 8); ^vjjpiiLveaOat, Kev. xviii. 20 (Ecclus, xvi. 1, 1 Mace, xi. 44, Xen. Co7w, li 5): (TvXKvireta'Oat Mk. lih 5 TXsn Mem. 3. 9. 8, compare ^otXeTrfT)? (pepetv itri rtw Xen. HdL'1. 4, 21). Sometime?! however these verbs take ev (.\inr^lv av, Jacobs, Achill. Tat p, 814) : as ;;^;a//jciz/. 1. x. 20, Ph. i. 1 3 (Oel. i. 24, compare Soph. Tnich. 1119); €u and in later Greek opyi^eoOai, Kara tiv6<;, as Malal. pp. 43, 1 02, 1 6 5,a]. The opposite, evhoKtiv like the Hebrew i- K??0 and atter ihe example of the LXX, is construed with kv {to have pleasure in), whether the reference is to persons (Mt. iii. 17, L. iii. 22, 1 C. x. 5}^ of to things, 2 C. xii. 10, 2 Th. ii. 12 (dkXeiv iv Col. is. IS, compare 1 S. xviii. 22 ? ^): Greek writers would be content v/ith the simple dative. ' Compare Wurm, Dinnrch. p. 40 sq. * [The objections to this interpretation are. (^^ that ihis harsh Hebraijnn :3 not found elsewhere in the N. T. ; (2) that in the 0, T. this construction ocf;ui s only in connexion with a personal object (Ellicott, Mever, A. Buttm. p. 37<)J ; the latter objection is overstated, see . Bs. cxi. 1. cxlvi. 10. On t'\c othor explanations see Ellicott and Alford tn Ibc The former supplies HaTa;:ti9>'-ui'v after 6't\uv{so Meyer, A. Buttm,) , by Alford. Wordsworth, and others, **?.«» is 292 VERBS FOLLOWED BY PREPOSITIONS. [pART TIL ^ApKelaOai, which usually takes a. dative (L. iii, 14, H. xiii. 5), is once construed with iirl (3 Jo. 10). 1). Ver.|)S signifying to wonder, he amazed, are followed by ctti with the dative, as they very frequently are in Greek writers . davfid^etv, Mk. xii. 17, L. xx. 26 ; eKTrXrjcraecrdai,, Mt. xxii. 33, Mk. i. 22, xi. 18, L. iv. 32, A. xiii. 12 We lind also davfjud^eiv irepi rivo ^^^V " ««^'?'] ' f'ompare Sclloeniann, Isceus p. 244. 2 [A Bultiiiaun:(p. 175) adds TtT. •/$, G. v. 10, considering u{ i5^as as express- ing the o^>tt- of thfj trust so Meyer, De Wette, Liinemann. Others, " with regard to you • " see Ellicott in loc There is the same uncertainty in 2 Th iii'. 4.] 3 [This should be 1 Tim. iv. 10.] < [(hi the constructions of iX/riZ,u in the N. T. see Ellicott on 1 Tim. iv. 10. See also § 31. 1. c. note.] SECT. XXXIV.] ADJECTIVES. 293 not Kara in 2 C. xi. 1 8 (see Meyer in loc), or virep in 2 C. vii. 14, — comp. ix. 2. e. Of verbs which signify to sin, a/xaprdveiv is connected by ei? with the object sinned against, Mt. xviii. 21, L. xvii, 4, 1 C. vi. 18, al. ; compare Soph. CEd. C. 972, Her. 1. 138, tsocr. Panath. p. 644, Permnt. p. 7oO, .^fjin. pp. 920, 934, Marc. Anton. 7. 26, Wetstein I. 443 : this verb is also foHowed by 'iTp6<; TLva Joseph, Antt. 14. 15. 2, irepL riva Isocr. Permute 754 (a/ia/)T. Tti;t 1 S. xiv. 33, 1 K. viii. 31, 33, Jud. x. 10). /. The verbs apiaKecv please and ^avrjvai appear do not take the dative of the person to whom something gives pleasure or appears in a certain light, but are follo"wed by the Hellenistic preposition evcoinov. A. vi. 5, rjpecrev 6 'Koyo'i evuiTnov 7ravTo9el Xr}po<; ra pjjfxara. In the LXX dpeo-Keiv is also joined with evavriov Tiv6a(Tfjia 1) Rev. xviii. 12, o cro, to Trio-TW t^s 7roAtT€tas' 2. 71, to dcr^cve? r^s yvw/ATjs' Galen, Protrejit. 2, to rijs ri)(y'q (Pr. xxix. 23) by Plutarcli (Afor. p. o36. e) ; uxpeyuvixToi occurs in Is. xxviii. 16. J * Fritzsche {Bom. I. 367 sq.)lias raided objoci ions ;.gainst tliis liistiniition ; ha seems however to have misunderstood it In the passages vi'luch belong to the ■-econd class the language is merely logical ; in those of the hr.st class, rhetorical. When we say to live according to the truth of the (lonpel, wo use the proper and natural expression, — the triilh of the Gospel is the rule of the life. But when we say corvi stupor ingemuit, the language is figurative, just as in His blood called for vengeance. Cic Nat. D. 2. [tO. 127 [" multa> etiam (bestise) insectantes odoris intolerabili fo-ditate depelluTit "'j belongs to the second class, Hsidj'ado odore would be a less accurate expression. SECT. XXXIV.] ADJECTIVES. 297 the laying out of the loaves ; and in 1 P. i. 2, as a glance at the con- text will show, dytao-/Lios Trve.vjxa.TO'; IS not synonymous witll wvtvfxa fxyiov. The phrase XafJi/Sdyeiv TYjV eVayyeXtav row irvevjxaros, A. ii, 3.3, G. iil 14, signifies to receive, attam, the promise of the Spirit ; this takes place when we receive the promised blessing itself (KOfii^ea-Oai TYfv hrayyeXiav), when promise passes into fulfilment. k Much more frequently, that substantive which expresses the notion of a (mostly non-material) quality stands in the genitive : L. iv. 2'Z,X6yoi t?}? ■^dpiTo, 6 Aoyos r^s anoTrjpta^ rairn;?, this doctrine of salvation; Kom. vii 24, €k toD (rto/xaros Tov OavaTov toutov, compare the Peshito IZoiDj Ijot 1h*-2) ^ But this canon (which even Beneel follows) is purely imaginary. In Rom. vii 24, Paul himself may nave joined tovtov with o-co/iaro?, hut if the pronoun is connected with Oavdrov it is not without meaning : the apostle had already spoken repeatedly of 6dvaTo Ps. Ixxxijf, 21 — which is required by rule, but which is also iia.ich more natural, since the two words are -really one— is not thus literally rendered by the LXX (compare Is. /, c. ra /iSeAvy/^&ra dirrou ra apyvpa- I)t. i. 41, to. edience having become tJieir nature, their predominjlnt dis- position : compare in Hebrew Dt, iii. 18, xxv. 2, 2 S. xii. 5. Va. Ixxxix. 23. (The expressions vratSts iarpwv, Svcrrrivwv^ — ^used especially by Lucian — grammatically rather resemble viol tC>v avOpdi-nfuv ; neiihc^r Schwarz nor Georgi lias been able to find in Greek prose an ejfample of TTats or rfKj'OK combined with an ahstrad noun, as in the above quotations. From ecclesiastical WTiters compare Epiphan. Ofp. I. 380 b, ol viol rys aXT]6iyrj% ■numw's. In German [or English] we cannot really expect to find parallels, for such a jjhrase as " child of death " is derived from l^ibje language ; in the more elevated style, however, we sometimes meet with similar pj^irases, as for instance, " every man is a child of his agu,"- Of a difftjrent kind is 2 Th. li- 3, 6 av^pwTTOs Twi? u/xofrna';, — not equivalent te '> oiiapsuiXo^ — tlic man of sin, i.e., the man who pre-eminently belongs to sin, the representative of sin, in whom sin is personified.) Rem. 3. E. vi. 12, to. TrvevfLarud T7/S TTonrjpia^, is peculiar. The Greek idiom , with which this is compared by th e commenta- tors,^ TTopOevLKoi for irapBivot (Lobeck, Parnl p. 305 sq.), was in the better ages merely poetical,, and besides is not entirely analo- gous. In the Byzantines, however, we find e.g. tj i-rnnK-q for ij iVTros (Ducas p. 18). Ta haLpMvia also, vv'hich was originally an adjective, and which is used as a substantive in latei reek by the bide of 8aipLov€<;, presents on the whole a true analogy j a genitive in combination with this word, as to. 8aip.6via tov aepo^, would present no difficulty. In this passage thti abstract would be used designedly, in antithesis to Trpos alp.a Ka\ aapKu, — "not against material, but against spiritual opposing poweis, ye have to maintain your struggle." If however Trvevp-ariKd be not taken as equivalent to -rrvevp.ara, the only alternative will be to regard it as a collective plural, — similar in kind to to. Xrjo-rpiKo. Polyaen 5 14 (robber-hurdes, from to XijcrrpLKov robbery, Lob. Phryn. p. 242), and to translate, the spiritual com- munities of wickedness, the evil spirit-powers. See Meyer in loc. 1 Schajf. Dion. 313. 2 See on the whole Steiger on 1 P. i. 14, Gurlitt in Stud, u Kni. 1829, p. 728 sq. 3 See Koppe ia loc, Fischer, Wdlcr III. i. 295. 300 THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. [PAET IIL Section XXXV. THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE.^ 1. The comparative degree is usvially expressed in the N. T. in exactly the same manner as in classical Greek, viz. by what is known as the comparative form of, the adjective, — the thing witli which the comparison is made being placed in the genitive, or (especially where it is a complete sentence) preceded by the connective ij.^ See Jo. iv. 12, fxrj av fiel^wv el rov irarpo<; Vfi^u ; I 51, xiii. 16, Mk. xii. 31, 1 C. i. 25, 1 Tim. v. 8, H. xi. 26 ; Jo. iv. 1, 7rXeiova<; jja9r)ra<; iroiel r) 'I(odvvT]^' 1 C. xiv. 5, 1 Jo. iv. 4; Eom. xiii. 11, iyyvTepov rjfxcbv r} acoTrjpia rj ore iTTLaTeuaafiev 2 P. ii. 21, 1 C. 'i\. 15 (Klotz, Devar. p. 583). After TrXeiwv and iXdrTOiv, r} is often emitted when a numeral follows (Matth. 455. IJem. 4, Jelf 780, Don.D. 393) : A. xxiv. 11, ov 7rA.etov9 etVi /AOt rjfiepat SeKuhvo' iv 22, xxiii. 13, XXV. '^ (compare Tej. Ad. 2. 1. 46, plus quingen'os colaphos infregit mihi ).*• In L. ix. 1 3 ?; is inserted. It is sometimes doubtful whether a genitive that follows a com- parative contains the second member of the comparison, or is in- < impendent of the comparison. In H. iii. 3, -n-Xdova Tijj.rjv ^x^i tox oIkov k.tA. , we must probably consider o'lkov as dependent on irXuova ; h ut in 1 C. xiii. 1 3, fiei^iov rovroiv rj ayaTrr] may mean grfaier (t)ie greatest) of (among) these., see no. 3. Compare also 1 C. xii. 23, L. vii. 42 (Lucian, Fnrj. 6). The comparative is sometimes strengthened by fxaXXov,^ as in '?. 0. vii. 13, Treptrro-oTcpo)? fxaXXov (Plat. Legg. 6. 781 a), Ph. i, 23, TToAA'p piAAoj/ Kpeiaa-ov {very far better), — so in reference to another comparative, ]Mk. vii. 36, oaov airois Sua-TeXXero, avrol fjioXXov jtepiatioTcpov €KrjpviO(o-Ta indicates the degree of the Kavx,a.<'6xi, f/aXXov marks the antithesis to what has gone before. * [Fritzsche renders this, quantum autem ipse Us imperabat (sell, ne portenti SECT. XXXV.] THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. 301 Tre/}tcro-ortpoi/ trt KaTd8rj\ov (still rtwe manifest), Ph. i. 9 ; and lastly by -iroXij, 2 C. viii. 22, ttoXv cnrovBatoTepov, All this is very common in Greek writers (Kriig. p. 91 sq.). On /xoAAov see Wyttenb Plut I. 238, Ast, Plat. Fhcedr. p. 395, Legg. p. 44, Bdisson. Aristcpn p. 430 sqq. (in Latin compare Cic Pis. 14,.milu .... quavis luga polius quam nlla provincia esset optatior) ; as to en, compare Flat, Pol 298 e, Xen. Mem. 1. 5. fi, Cjr. 5. 4. 20, An. 1, 9. 10; as to TToXv, Xen Mem. 2. 10. 2, Lucian, Tim. 50 : sometimes Irt and TroAr^ are combined, Xen. Mem. 2. 1. 27. C>ir. 1. 6. 17, ^h. 7; 5. In. (Don. p. 392, Jelf 784, 2.) So also when the comparative is followed by prepositions whicTi denote excess — as in L. xvi. 8, (fipovcfj-uiTepov iinrep rows v'lqvs tov cfxiyro^- H. iv. 12, Jud. xi. 25, xv. 2, xviii. 26 :" H. ix. 23, KpdTTom Ovcrtai'i Ttapa ravras- i. 4, iii. 3, xi. 4, xii. 24, L. iii. 13— the design is to obtain greater expressiveness. For Trapd. compare Thuc. 1 23, irvKvoTepov Trapu tu ck tov Trplv xpuvov fjivrj/xovevofjieva- Dio C. 38. 9 i .^ See Herm. P^. p. 862 (Don. p. 393, Jelf 637). 2. Instead of the comparative form the positive is occasionally used : — «. With /jLoXkov, — sometimes because the comparative form appeared unpleasing, sometimes from the wish to write more expressively (Kriig. p. 91) : A. xx. 35, ^aKapiov ia-ri fxaXXou BtBovai T) \afi(3dv€LV 1 C. xii. 22, G. iv. 27' b. Followed by a preposition which conveys the notion o1 excess, as in Philostr, Ap. 3, 19, Trap a 'ndvra<: 'Axatovi fieyw;. ' So in L. xiii. 2, dfjbaprcjXol rrdpd ■7rdvTa<; Tov'i raXiXalov; (though it is true dfiapT(oX6<; has no comparative), H, iii. o." In the LXX irapd and virep are frequently thus used : Ex, xviii. 11, Num. xii. 3, Hag. ii. 9, Eccl. iv. 9, ix. 4, 1 S. i. 8. c. Followed by rj: Aristot. Frobl. 29. 6, irapaKaTaOijKijv alcrypov diTocrreprjaac fiiKpov ?) ttoXv Saveta-dfievov (Held, Plut. Timol. 317 sq.). This is rare on the whole, but the kindred expression ^ovXofiai or deXw yj (malle) had become a common formula ; see Her. 3. 40, Polyb. 13. 5. 3, Plut. Alex. 7, Sulla 3. famam disseminarent), magis impensius prtxdicabant, hoc est, magis impennius rein divulgabant, ad quern modum valde iis iviperabpt.] 1 [This use of ^ra/ia. is common in modern Greek (Mullach, Vulfj. p. 333, J. Donalds. Gr. p. 34). — As to the meaning of the preposition, compare liiddell, Plat. Ap. p. 181.] * [Meyer, Ellicott, and Alford take ^eXXa. ^Sxx»» as " not simply equivalent to TXilovx », but implying that both should have many, but the desolate one mare than the other" (Ellicott in loc). In the other examples also /^aXXo, is rather connected with the sentence than directly ivith the adjective.] 3 [In H. iii. 3 !raf« follows a comparative, not a positive.] 302 THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. [PART III. The simplest explanation of this is, that (from its use with comparatives) ij had come to be regarded as a particle of pro- portion, which presupposed or in some measure brought with it a comparison:^ compare Plaut, Eud. 4, 4. 70, tacita bona est mulier semper quam loquens, and Tac. Ann. 3. 17. In the K T. we find — not only deXco ^ (1 C. xiv. 19) and XvcnreXel rj, satius est qiiam (L. xvii. 2, Tob. iii. 6), but also — an extension of this construction on other sides (as in Greek writers, see Lys. Affext Tyr, 1) : L. xv. 7 Xf'p^ ea-rat iirl hi &fjMprw the adjective by means of the ])rcposition ip. From Greek writers, compare with L. xvii. 2, i^rw aTapd^mq (TVfKpepet Tf TO rpv(J3av /c.t.A, ^sop, 121 (ed. 1)0 Furia), Tob. vi. 13; and as regards adjective and adverb, Thuc. C, 21, ala^(pov ^ia(T0€vra'i atreXQelv rf varepov eTrifieraTrefjiTretTdaf Plut. Pelop. 4 rovrov; tw 6p6(ori/tl» ».T.X., OV Bis ACCUS. 11, Of at fityaXe^ajvonpes avrut nv xa) fpatiripoi' Her. 2. 46, al. (Heusing. Plut. Educ. p. 3). Compare also Heinichen, Eiiseb. Hifit, Ec. I. 210 sq., Herm. Luc. Conscrih. H'uit. p. 284. 304 THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. [pART IIL 2 Tim. i. 18, ^eXnov av .jvvoiitJKeL^, thou knowest it better, i.e. better than T (Lucian, Pise. 20, afietvov crv olada ravra) ) A. XXV. 10, W9 ical crv KoXktov iirtyivaxTKetf;, better than thou wishest to appear to know (according to the supposition of ver. 9, that he is guilty); 2 C. viii. 17,, rrjv fiev TrapdKXrjcr'tv iU^aro, a-TTOvhaiojepo'^ hk inrdpx^'''y ^'^o'"^ zealous, i.e. than to have re- quired an exhortation ; vii..7, w^re n-e fxaXKov x^^V^cll more than for the (mere) arrival of Titus (ver. 6), compare ver. 13 ; A, xxvii. 1 3, acra-ov irapekeyovTo ryv Kpr}r7)v, 7iearcr than had before been possible (ver. 8) ; Ph. ii. 28, aTrovSaioTep(o' more (rather) to the furtherance than, as was to be feared to the hindrance ; Jo. xiii. 27, o iroiel'i iToiria-ov -rdxtov, 7nere (pvickly than thou appearest to intend to do, hasten the execution of the design, see Liicke in lac. Compare Senec. Agam,. 96G, dtius interea mihi edisseire, ubi sit gnatus ; also odUs,Nixg.J^jn. 8. 554. (in 1 Tim. iii. 14, eXiri^ayv iXOelv irpo'; ere rdxtov, most render rdxtov as a positive (Lachmann's reading, iv rdxei, is a con'ection) ; some as if it were &>? Ta^to-ra. The words mean : thu J lorite to thee, hoping (although 1 hope) to come to thee more quickli/, sooner, than thou wilt need these instructions. The reason why he writes, notwithstanding this hope, is given by the words ei-v 8e ^paSuvM k.tX ; compare ver. 15. H. xiii. 19 is, that I maij he restored to you sooner (than I should be without your prayers *) ; xiii. 23, if he come sopner (than the date of my departure) ; Rom. XV. 15, roX/jLvpcrepov eypa-^a v/mv, more boldly (more freely), i.e. than was necessary considering your Christian excellence (ver. 14). On Mk. ix. 42 see Fritz, in loc : ^ A. xviii. 26 does not require explanation. In 1 C. vii. 38, the relation between the positive KoXm Trotet and the comparative Kpeiaaov Troiei is clear from ver. 3 6 sq. IIepi.(T(TOTep(t>opwrcpov KfKXrjpov6/xrjK€v ovofia, (x. 25). Compare Xen. Cyr. 7, 5. 7, Mem. 1. 4. 10, Plat. ApoL 39 d. Of two comparatives connected by ■^ (Kriig. p. 90, Don. p. 390, Jelf 782) there is no example in the N. T. ; but we find positives ' Compare Jacobs on jfllian, Avim. II. 36. 2 On Kurip. Med. p. 343 (ed. Elmsley). ^ [Meyer's view, "first in comparison with 7ne," is simpler, and suits Jo. xv. 18 better.] * ['J'he true reading is probably a^rn a-roypafri (without !>).] * Udicr den zur Zeit der Oi^buri J. Chr. (jehalt^nen Ctnsua (Bresl. 1840). * (.rlauhwardiyk. der evang. Geschichte -p. 184. 3ECT. XXXV.] THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. 307 with fjLoWov similarly joined in 2 Tim. iii. i, <^tAr)Sovoi fxaXkov rf 5. In comparative sentences we sometimes find a part com- pared, not with the corresponding part, but with the whole (Bernh. p. 432, Jelf 781 d): Jo. v. 36, /laprvpiav fjLgl^o) tov loidvvov, a tesl'miony greater tlmn John, i.e. than that of John ; as in Her. 2. 134, rrvpa/xiSa koI ovros honourable title, and was by the people regarded and honoured as npi^. On the other hand, 1 C. i. 25, to fxwpov rov 6eov cro- fpcorepoi/ TMV dvOpcoirtov, means (without the usual — but forced — resolution *), the foolishness of God is wiser tlian men (are) ; i.e., what appears foolishness in God's arrangements is not only wisdom, but is even wiser than men, — outshines men in wisdom, ' Only when several parallel sentences of this kind follow one another the article is omitted in the last : Plat. Oorg. 45.5 e, h tuy ^•fx.ijwv xararxiuii I* irjui'-f'py^v- Compar»i Si«helis, Pauian. IV. 291 ^ - Ikrm. Viq. y. IVi, Sch;jef. Melet. 127, Matth. 453. 3 Fianke, Devui^tji. p. 90, Weber, Dem. p. 399, Fritz. Conjtctan. I. 1 sqq., and Marl: p. 1 47 * Pott, Hcydenreicli, Flatt in loc o 08 THE SUPERLATIVE. [PA.RT III. Section XXXVI. THE SUPERLATIVE. 1. We meet witli one instance (in elevated style) in which the positive, followed by a substantive denoting a class, takes the place of the superlative : L. i. 42, evXayrj/xevr] vofiw, which hind, of command is greaL in tlie lavj ? so that others appear insignificant in comparison, — hence not ex- actly the greatest : see Baumg.-Crusius in loc. In L. x. 42 also the positive is not put for the superlative ; rrfv dyaOrjv fiepiSa i^eXe^aro means, " she has chosen the good part," in reference to the kingdom of heaven, — that which alone really deserves the name of the good part : Fritzsche is wrong (Conj'ecL I. 1 9). Mt. V. 19, 09 S' av TToirjar) .... ovTO? fie.ya<; KXrjOijaerai, means shall be called great, a great one,— not exactly the greatest (as opposed to the eXdxiaro. 726), pro)>'Tly, Utile how very, how very! It is found in Greek authors with a substitutive annexed, as in Aristoph. Vesp. 213, oVav cVav a-T('x>!v, as big (i. e. as small) as a drop, and hence it came to be used as = qiiantUlum : we also find the simple eVov with a defining genitive, Arrian, Indic. 29. 15, tr-riipoutny JVov tjj; ^-w^jjs. The parallels adduced by Wetstein and Losuer do not sup))orr the phrase ora* ifoy, but the simple fnxpev 'iaoi. Compare however Is. xxvi. 20. 310 THE SUPERLATIVE. [p ART III. also in Eev xxi. 11, 7ro\t9 e^ovaa rr)v Bo^av rov Oeou, not "f/reat glory," but strictly " the glory (glorious brightness) of (lod," see Ewald in loc ; 1 Th. iv. 16, adXin'y^ 6eov, not "great ov fat- bounding trumpet " {ad\7riprj 6eu>) ; ^ only this use -of the dative is not in itself a Hebraism.* Haab (p. 162) most erroneously maintains that even the wonl Xpio-To? is sometimes joined to a substantive merely to intensify its ordinary meaning : e.g. in Rom. ix. 1, 2 C, xi. 10, aXy'jBaa Xpurrov, iv Xpwrr<3, the most unquestionaUe truth. Some have interpieted $p7)(TK€ta tC)v ayyikiav, Col. ii. 18, on the Same principle, as mean- ing cidtus perfectissiiTMS : compare 2 S, xiv. 20, o-oc^/a dyytXov. Rem. Of the superlative strengthened by ndvTwv ^ we find only one example in the N. T., viz. Mk. xii. 28, irpuiTrj TrdvTwv. Compare Aristoph. Av, 473. ^ Compare also Slurz, Zonarcb glonsai sacrcR, P. IT. p. 12 sqq. (Oriminse 1820). - Gcsen. Lehrg. j). 695. [Kalisch, Hebr. Gr. T. 199.] " See Fischer, Proluss. 231 sqq., Wolle, De usu. ft. abunu eculrtatwi nomi- nuvt divinor. sacrce, in his Comment, de Parentktsi sacra, p. 143 sqq. < Compare Heind. Plat. Noph. 336, Ast, Plat. Leyg. p. 479 a. '' Weber, Dcmoslh. p. 548. SECT. XXXVII.] THE NUMERAJLS. 311 Section XXXVII. THE NUMERALS. I. In expressing the day of the week ds is ragularly used in the place of the ordinal 7r/>wTOs : ' Mt. xxviii. 1, et? fxlav cra^f3aT0)v Alk xvi. 2,'7rpo)'l' r7]<; fMLa<; cralB/Sarrav' L. xxiv. 1^ Jo. XX. 1, 19. A. XX 7, 1 C. xvi. 2. The examples which have been citfed from Greek authors as analogous to this merely prove that el? is used to denote the Jirst member in partitionfi and enumerations,^ some such word as Bevrepo-i or aXXos folio vis- ing, e. g. Her. 4. 1 61, Thuc. 4. 115, Herod. -sage.s of this kind. On Oiog. L. 8. 20 see Lobcck, Aglaopfoani. p. 429. ■* In ChisluiU, Antiq. Asiat. p. 159, /*tailiiiarH X. .xxvii. 27, 33 (for the more usual TKfra.fy.K'j.i'i.^, see Lob. -p. 409, where Dion. H. VII. 12. 103S, Plut. Vlt. Cot. III. 46, ah, Hve.qiiotftd: compare also the Ionic T£ ■ V) >^ ' « ^ >■ > [Cowper, Syr. Gr. p. 102.] In Acta Apocr. 92 we find ava Ho Ivo. •*. [KaT« luo also occurs : 1 C. xiv. 27.] ^SpeOf-sen. Lehrg. p. 703: compare Gen. vii. 3, 9, and Leo Gramm. p. 11 (a quotation fromCien. I. c). [Geseu. H^r. Or. p. 19G (Bagster), Kalisch 1, 276. This nsai.''' is found in modern Greek : see Mullacli, Vulg. p. 331, Sopliocles Gr. p. 142.] '•> Fr. de Brachi/lojla Serm. Gr. el Lat.fi; 10 (Erlang. 1831). SECT. XXXVII.] THE NUMERALS. .313 4. The well-known rule that in combinations' of numbers Kai is commonly inserted when the smaller number precedes, and not otherwise^ (compare 1 C. x. 8, Jo. vi. 19, A. i. 15r vii. 14, xxvii, 37, Rev. iv. 4, xix. 4^), must not be too rigidly pressed^ — at all events as regards the latter part of it.^ Kx- ceptions are met with everywhere ; in the N. T., at any rate, there are some which admit of no doubt, as Jo-ii. 20, reaaapd- icovro, KoX €^ eTeaiv (without any variant), v. 5, rpiaKovra koI oKroD €Ti) /^on prepondeiant authority), G. iii. 1 7, L. xLii. 11,* 16, A. xiii 20, L'ev. xi. 2 Similar examples occur occasionally in Greek writers, as Her 8. 1, eiKoat kuI eTrrd- Thuc. 1. 29, e^do- fMy]K0VTa Kal Trevre' Dion. Hal TV. 2090, 6ySo->]KovTa Kal rpecv' 1 C. xv. 6, fJi^drj iirdvoi vevra/foaLOif; dBek(f)ol( :),iiine. ] '■' [On ItKavitTt, G, i, 18, Lightfoct remarks : " ITjis and the analogous forms of numerals occur frequently in tlie MSS. of (ireok author-s of the post-cla.'-sicu] age, but in many cases are doubtless due to the transcribers writing out tlie words at length, where they had only the numeia! letters beloie them. The frequent occuirencu of these forms however m the Talmhr Hiro.dffnsts is a decisive testimony to their use, at least in some diale.ecs, much before the Christian era. They are found often in the LXX." This is tlie regular form in modern Greek for the numbers from 13 to 19 (Mullach p. 179).] ^ T^ut compare Sturz, Lex. Xeti. II. 68. ' See Lob. p. 410 sq.. Gieseler in Kosenmuller, Heperi. II. 139 sqq., Somrner in the AlUj. Schulzelt. 1831, p. 903. S14 THE ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. [PART III. liominiim millibus quattuor" (Cses. Bell. Gall. 2. 33), in tlie historians, are sufficiently familiar. (Jelf 780. Ohs.) Rem. I. That the neuters Seurcpor, rpiTov, sometimes .signify for the seaml lime, third time, it is unnecessary to observe. Tlieae are o<;ca,sionally combined with toCto. as in 2 C. xiii. 1, tiutov rovro epxofML, this is t/ie third time that Income, or I ara naiv corn'mt) J or the third tims ; compare Her. 5. 76 Tiraprov tovto. Kcm. 2. The numeral adverb tTrraKts is once replaced by the cardinal, in the phrase cW ifiSofirfKovTaKis i-n-Ta, Mi. xviii. 22, seventy times seven (times; ., compare Geu iv. 24 (LXX) and ]}2\i? in Ps, cxix. 164 (instead of D'-lpys V^^), and see Ewald p. 498. The strict meaning of this phrase would be seventy times (and) seven, i.e. seventy-seven times, which would not suit tlie passage. That we inust not construe cws with tTrra but with £/3So/i,r/K. is shown by tlie preceding Iws cVtokis.! How variously the LXX express the numeral adverbs, the fol- lowing passages will show : Ex. xxxiv. 23, Dt. xvi. 16, 2 K. vi. 10, Neh. vi. 4,2 2 S. xix. 43, CHAPTER FOURTH. THE VERB. Section XXXVIIL the active and middle voices. 1. As . transitive verbs in the active voice not unfrequently assume an intransitive (apparently a reflexive) meaning, so, con- versely, we find transitive (causative) verbs formed from in- transitives; — sometimes as a result of composition (e.g. hiatal- veiv H.xi. 29, Trapep'xeaOai L.xi. 42), sometimes by simple trans- ference, as fjbaOT}T€ueiv rivd ^ Mt. xxviii. 1 9 (OpiafMjSeveiv nvd 2 C. ii. 14 ?). ^acTiXevetv Ttvd 1 S. viii. 22, 1 K. I 43, Is. vii. 6, ^ [This is against Fritzsehe, wliOde explanation ii«9y'Taxi; i-TTa occurs Gen. iv. 24 (LXX) as a rendering of ny^tiT D'yUti' which can only mean "77 times:" this certainly seems a more weighty argu- ment than the mere probability that £ very high number would be used On the same side are Origen, (Augustine, j 'Bengel, and Ewald: in favour of "seventy times seven " see De Wette In loc, Bleek, Syn. Erkl. II. 93.] * [In this passage the numeral is omitted by the LXX.] Compare also rfcsrxTTitv nvd to commission some one. Act. A poor. p. 172. • ^ SECT. XXXVIII.] THE ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 315 1 Mace, viii 13 (Lob. Ajao: 38G) : see § 32. 1.^ The transitive verbs which are often or mainly used intransitively belong in meaning to certain classes of ideas, which n)ay easily be learned from the following examples ; ayew (ayayfiev let us go), irapdyew Mt XX. 30, 1 C vii. 31, Treptdyeiv A. xiii. 11, ^dXkeiv A. xxvii. 14 {to throw oneself, to rush), iin^dWeLv Mk. iv, 3 7 {to hetU in), dimppLirreiv A. xxvii. 43 (io throvj oneself off), K\iveiv L. ix. 12 {to decline), €kk\lv€iv Rom. xvi. 17, dpareWetv, fi\aard- veiv, av^dvetv (Lob. Ajatc p. 89 sq., 382 sqq.) ; arpe^eiv A. vii. 42, dvaa-Tpe(f)eiu A. v. 22 (to return), and especially iiriaTpe- (fieci/ ; iKrperrecv^ irapadtBovai Mk. iv. 29, 1 P. ii. 23 (to offer or give up oneself), dire-^eiv to he distant, iiri'^eiv A. xix. 22 (to detain oneself, i. e. revuiin), vTrepk^^Lv, aTrevheiv. In the N. T. dvaKapiTneiv and TTpoKOTrrecv are always intransitive.^ In these examples (mainly of verbs denoting motion), as conceived by a Greek,.there was no ellipsis of any word (not even of iavroi/); the verb denotes the action absolutely, he ;plunyes into the sea, he turns roimd, but as theie is no object named, the reader can only refer the action back to the subject.* We must not bring iu hero Jo. xiii. 2, toC 8ta/3dAou /SeySA?? ivoto? €is Tr)v KupSiav, whether we follow the received text, or the reatliiig adopted by Laclmiann and Tiscliendorf. In any case ^aWav lias an active meaning ; see Kypke. Several verbs have a transitive (causative) meaning in some of their tenses, an intran.sitive in others. To this number belongs larrjfit with its compounds (Buttm. II. 207), of which verb we need only say that the 1 aor. passive a? Mk. vi. 6 (Mt. ii. 9, Ph. iv. 7).] . * See on the whole Bos, ElUps. p. 127 sqq. , Matth. 495, Bernh. p. ;539 sq„ Kriig. p. 154 sq., Poppo, Thuc. I. 186, Fritz. Mark p. 138 [Jelf 359, Don. p. 425 sqq., Green, Gr. .p. 18f< ; and see below § 64. 5]. On liiivcu and its compounds in particular see Jacobs, Ph'doslr. p. 363 ; on Trap'-x-'^t -^st. Plat. Polit. p. 470, Wyttenb. Pint. Mor. I, 40.5. * [Should we Tiot rather refer ihid to § 64. 5, supplying t>i» ictZ* ? See 316 THE ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. [PART HI. vuiiiZff6cu seems not to occur iu any author.] 2 ivXaaaiffSoLi as a middle verb has also the meaning aibi (aliqtdd) custo- dire, see Heind. Plat. Gorg. p. 323 [Shilleto, Dem. F. L. p. 151] ; and we find it used as early as Hesiod ((>p. 263, 561) in reference to something which a man keeps in his mind. In the sense of (legem) sibi observare — as, in several MSS., L. xviii. 21, rxuTtt -ratTn. i(pv>^a^a/i>iv ix usirriTos' — it seems not to occur in classical Greek, but is common in the LXX. In this passage, however, i€Xov kui aivoKoy^ov- rai ol avaararovure'i vfiaa.ssive (Vulgate, EUicott) ; Bengel and Alford consider it middle : see Alford's note. J ' In Jo. V. 4, «» atffoiTas , . . TfiecK. xai ixru irri ix'^' '" ''» afhti'ia, We cannot say that ixa* stands for ix<>f^i"f ; rather would fx->* '^* icrhtiia be equivalent to ix^" '^'^^''^s {KUKut). The following verse however shows that (X'^' is to be connected as a transitive with it-ji. 2 For an example in which the distinction between the active and the middle Ls distinctly marked, see Dion. H IV 2088, t«» n atro* avioanrafi^yj, ««) t»» ' Thus along with Ka.Tii.>.a.fi^a.*i(T^a.i TcXit, g. r. A., (take, occupy;, nara'Ka.ft.lia.nif irekiv is also in use ; compare Schweighauser, Lexic Polyb. p. 330. * In Mic. xiv. 47 we WwAff'ta.rd.fino; tru fiax'^'P'^'' ', but in Mt. xxvi 51, cfrifrtiff'. ecrdai, ia.Z,u, uTixXu, occur, but not in Attic prose : see Veitch, Gr, Verbs s. vv.] 2 [f/luficitrixi does not belong to this class, but should come in under c : it is a middle deponent (2 C. viii. 20, — /Esch. Ag. 277), with a rare aorist pas- sive (2 C vi. 3) in a pas'^ive sense. — The aor. mid. of i'TifitKiTiriai occurs, but only in late Greek.] * [" In Epic poetry and Ionic prose the aorist middle alone is used ; in classic Attic, with the exception of one instance in Euripides, two in ^schines, and one in Hyperides, the aorist passive. Buttmann and Matthia? wrongly confine the aorist middle to poetry. " Veitch s, v. ] * Compare Poppo, Thuc. III. i. 594 sq. ^ [The best reading is •rapi^ix^t^ff-ar] SECT. XXXVm.j THE ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 325 L viii. 40, A. xviii. 27 ; Traprjrijfievo^ L. xiv. 19, aor. middle H. xii. 19, 25 ; eppvaOrju 2 Tim.'iv. 17, aor. middle Col. i. 13, 2 P. ii. 7, al. ; exapiadriv 1 C. ii. 12, Ph l 29 (pluperf Her. 8. 5), aor- middle often in the N. T. See on the whole Rest p. 577 (Don. p. 274). (/. The future passive of Xoyi^ofiai, with passive meaning, oecurs liom. ii. 26 ; similarly laOrjaeTat, Mt. viii. 8, and airapvrf- Otja-ofxai, L. xii. 9.^ Of XoyL^o/xat even the present tense is used in a passive sense in Eom. iv. 5, comp Ecclus. xl. 19 (not in 2 C. X. 2) ; so also of ^tdteadai, Mt. xi. 12: compare Poppo, TAuc. L 184, III. i. 31 (Don. p. 275, Jelf 368. 3. c). e. The perfect passive ecpyaa-fjuat is sometimes active in mean ing (2 Jo. 8/ Demosth Conon 728 a, Xen. Mem. 2 6. 6 Lucian, Fujjit. 2), sometimes passive, as in Jo. iii. 21, Xen. Mem 3. 10 9, Plat. Rep 8 566 a (Rost l. c, Don. I. c). On the other hand, rjpvqp-ai, 1 Tim v 8, ivTiraXfiat A. xiii. 47 (Herod. 1. 9 23, Pol 17 2. 1, 1 S. xxi. 2, Tob. v. 1, al.) and SeSeyp^at A. viii 1 4, have an active meaning only. See on the whole Buttm. II. 51, Bernh, p. 341 ; but especially Poppo in the above-cited Progr., and Rost, Granim. p. 264 sqq. That amongst the verbs usually called deponent there are very many which should rather be considered middle verbs, is remarked by Rost (p. 263) and Mehlhoiu {I. c. p. 39). This is already admitted in regard to ■noXirf.viijdai. But KTaofuiL to acquire for ones(df, dyw- vi^Ofxai (Rost p. 575), fStdCta-daL, fXiyaXav)(ju(r6ai^ and perhaps 8e- ;^o/Aai, dcrira^o/Aai (a middle deponent, according to Passow), should also be regarded as middle, as in all of them the reflexive meaning 18 more or less apparent.^ Meyer calls TrXrjpovcrOai in E. i. 23 a deponent, but improperly.^ In the N. T. ia-Tepelcrdai is always used in the same sense as the active io-repdv. Lastly, r/TTaofxai and iJi.aivop.ai must be considered passives, according to the Greek cou- cpption of these verbs . see Sommer /. c 36. ^ [Add x'^h'^^'^"'!^" Y\iS\ 22. Compare also iinfivlrii A. x. 31, Rev. xvi. 19 (Ea. xviii. 24), \-rt\tXi\ffiJt.\tn ia-Ti* L. xii. 6 (Is. xxiii. 16) : A. Battni. p. 52.] * [In 2 Jo. 8 we have the 1 aor., not the perfect, of tpya^afi, but ' presupposes the phrase iria-reveLV Xpocrrov ; just as iinaTevOr} to fiaprvpiov rjfiwV; 2 Th. i. 10, is founded on 7na-T€veiv ti (1 Jo. iv. 16). Other examples of the same construction are A xxi. 3, dva- ^avevTe<; ^ t7}v KvTrpov, when Cyj)TUS heca^ne visible to theTn, i.e dva(^aveiT£}, with Rec], SECT. XXXIX J THE PASSIVE VOICE. 327 alone is thus used: Mt. xxvii. 12, ev tm KarTryopeiaOao avrov VIVO TMV apx^epewV A. xxii. 30, to ri KaTrjyopeiTaL vtto (irapa) rcov 'lovhaiccv 2 Mace. x. 13.^ — (1 can find no sufficient reason for supposing;, nith Meyer, tliat Ke'^apKr/xai is passive in 2 C. n. 10.^'} Ill Uoni. vi. 17, v7rrjKovo0.r( . . . . cts ok -jrapiSoOrp-e tvttov Si ^uY^s, we have perhaps tins construction in combination with attract.l')n (for vTr-qK. eis tvttov 6i6., ov TrapeSoO-qn, i. e. irapahoOivTo. %-)(€T()i yet see above § 24. 2. In H vii. 11, 6 Aaos i-rr a.vTr^<; ([epoffrvvTys) fevop.o6iTr]Tai, the construction may very well be founded on voixodtTelv tlvl, the peoph has r^i'xived the law (based, resting) on ihc priesthoud , compare viii. <) The parallels for I'o/to^cTctv Vtvai (ti) quoted from the LXX cannot be brought in here, since in this construction the verb al- ways lueans to lead some one according to the lavj : as Ps. cxviii. 33, vop.oOeTr](Tov fxe t^v oSov twv 8tKatuj/i.ara)v crov XXIV. 8, vofj.o6eTr](Tei a^afjTixvovra'i iv o^uJ. In the Byzantines, however, we find vofxadeTeiv Tico (in reference to a country or a people), as Malal. pp. 72, 194. The regular construction of the passive occurs in Dt. xvii. 10, ocra ai' vofx.o6cT7)6jj aoi. 2. In many verbs whicli in ancient Greek have regularly the 1 aor. middle, in the middle sensn., the N. T. writers use instead the, 1 aor. passive (com p. § 38. 4). Thus we usually find oTTeKpiOrjf especially in the participle uiroKpLOei^ : '' the aor. middle drreKpivaro occurs Mk. xiv, 61, L. iii. 16, xxiii. 9, Jo. v. 19, xli. 23, A. iil 12, and more frequently as a variant, e.g. in Jo. i. 26, xii. 34, xviii. 34.'' Similarly ocefcpidrj, Mt. xxi. 21, Mk xi. 23, Eom. iv. 20 ; but i/ipi.67] is passive in A. xxvii. 1.^ In other examples of aor. passive for aor. middle which have been quoted from the N T„ tt po^eKkiOrj A. v. 36, €peouvap,o)6r) Rom. iv. 20, Trapehodrjri: vi. 17, raTretvcoOrjre 1 P. v. 6, Ja. iv. 1 0, the aorist is from the Greek (and also the N. T.) point of * [Add ■*tat (A xxiii. 1 ) might according to Poppo's theory (since the active is in actual use as an intransitive verb) be regarded as a de ponent ; but see above, page 325. In Rom. xiv. 23 there can be no doubt that the apostle used KaraKeKpLrai in a passive sense The perfect passive is said to stand for the perfect active in A. XX. 13, ovT(xi yap 7ji' (6 riaSAos) Siareray/u-e'vos* and in 2 P. 1. 3, T^s 6eias Si!va/xeojs .... to, Trpos ^wt/j/ 8e8ajpr;/A£rr/s." But in the fir.st passage 8iar. is middle (as in Polyten. 6. 1 5, Jos. Antt. 4. 2. 3, al.), so had he arranged it ; and in 2 P. i. 3 ScSw/o. is from the deponent Stupeoyu-at.^ Compare further Poppo, Thuc. 1. i. 179 sqq. ^ The use of the aor. middle of such verbs is conainonly restricted to the cases in which an accusative follows, in the reflexive sense mentioned above, § 38. 2. Thus iaiij6>iy is me servuvi (servatus sum), but (i* re rufiu is used for corpus nicmn (niihi) se.rvavi '^ Compare .Jensii Le.ctt Lvcian. p. 247. ^ Markland (ExpUcatt veU. aliquot hconim, In the Leipsic reprint of his editioiT of Eurip. Huppiic p. 324 s<\.) brings in here A. xiii. 48, so famous in the SECT. XXXIX.] THE PASSIVE VOICE. 329 Rem. 1 The future passive is used in a very peculiar manner in A. XXvi. 16, eis tovto a>Or]v (rot, TrpO)(^£ipicraa6aL at vTrtjpeTTjv Koi /xdprvpa, u)V re etSes, wv re 6(f>dyn-oiJ.a( aou Following the parallelism, we might render this whcit thou hast seen and what ' I mil cause thee to see, 6cf>$rj(rop.ai being taken in a causative aense.^ The other explanation (which in the maia is adopted by Schott, Kiihnol, Heinrichs, Meyer, and De Wette), de quibiis — in reference to which — or quorum caussa tihi porro apparebo, would on the whole suit the context better, and is probably the simpler of the two. On wi' for a, by attraction, see § 24. 2.^ Rem. 2. Since several verbs which in classic Greek are neuter are used as transitives in Hellenistic Greek (see above, § 38. 1), commentators ocoasioually take the passive (in accordance with this causal signification of tlie active) as equivalent to the Hebrew Hophai. Of such a usage, however, tliere is no certain or even probable example. In G. iv. 0, yi-orres Oeov, fxaXXov Se yvwo-^evres vtt' avTov, the antitheses ol' itself requires us to translate, knowdnff God, ratlier however hwwn (recognised) by God see my note in loc. 1 C vm. 3, €1 Tis nyaTTo. tov dtov, ovtos iyvuxTrat xm avrov, must not be rendered,^ i.s veram intelligentiatn consecuMis est The meaning is, vihoever imagines that he hiows anylhmg (in whom therefore there exists a yvwo-is <^woriovcra), such a one has 'not yet known, as a man imght to know , if however a man loves God (com- pare the preceding words -f) aydirrj oi/codo/Ael), he— has not only known as a man ought to know, but — is known by IJim (God), is himself the object of the highest and truest knowledge, the Divine. In J C. xiii. 12, dpn yivwo-Ko) e/< fxepov;, rort. 8e eTriyi'tocro/xat »ca^u>s xaX iTr(yvu)(r$r)v, the last word certainly refers to God's know- ledge, and the true meaning of the words was given by Nosselt ; " then shall we know all perfectly (not eV /xepovs, not as iv alvlyp-aTi), as perfectly as God knows us " ^ That yii'wo-Aceu' signifies coijnoscere facere, edocere has not yet been proved from Biblical Greek, and Pott cannot have understood what he was doing when he quoted .)o. v. 42, Piom. ii. 18. On the other hand, this meaning does certainly meet us in Demosth CW. p. 345 c (already cited by Stephanus in his T/iesaurus), wfJ-oXoyr^Ke vvv y vfxa •nra.y/^t.ivoi, lis Zun* aiuriot, and translating, "et tidern professi sunt, quotquot (tenipus, diem) constituerant, in vitam a?ternam." This exposition is likely to tind as little favour with an unhias.sed exegete as most of the expositions given hy English philologers, though certainly more attention is given to the N. T. by these than by the philologer.s of Germany. ' See Doderlein, Soph. CEd. C p 492,' Borncm. in Kosenm Rep. II. 289. * [Meyer compares Soph. OSd. Re.c 788, um fiu iKofinv -=- Tcirmy 3/' a.. There is good authority for //.i after ulis (Weatcott and Hort) ; with this reading the two relatives agree in construction.] ^ As it is by Erasmus, Beza, Nosselt, Pott, Heydenreich, al. * Ph iii. 12 sq. is similar, as regards the combination of the active and the passive verb Compare Arrian, Ejtict. 3. 23. 8. 'eina.Ta'i ti; u(ft/.r,va., xaJ «/.x«t/i nn aires uft.t7s in MSS. sec Scrivener, Jntrod. p. 11 : for exaniplo"ve, p. 328 : of i-?n»axiw both passive and middle are tbimd in the N. T.. but when the passive is combined with Sve/^a it is in a different construction from that found in 1 C i. 2. On E. iv. 23, vi. 10, see EUicott on 2 C. ii. 10 (Meyer) see p. 327.] •^ Compare Bertholdt, Einleit. VI. 3151 '■ it is well known that m the use •p consideied exactly alike, even in point of grammar. The abuse of parallelisn) in exegesis deserves a special investigation. ■" The Greeks regtirded the ]irpsent, the perfect, and the future, as the three iirincipal tenses : Pint. Isid. c. 9, lyu ilui to yiyovi; kc/.\ o» ««< iaouivo: Oomjjare Odysn. IC. -137. ^ besides the well known grammatical works — especially Herm. Enicii'i Ral,. p 180 sqq., Schneider, Vorles. iiher gnexh. GrammaC. I. 239 sqq., Kriig p. 170 .sqq.--c()n.ipure L. G. Dissen, De temporibus et modis vtrid Grm-i {Gott 1^08), H. Schmidt, Doctrince Icmpor. vcrhi Or. ".t Lat. cxpositw hMor. (Ha!. 183G-i842. four part.s). — An earlier treatise by G. W. Ocder, Chronol. Grnin mat. (Gou. 1743, —iiicluiicd in Pott's iS'?///o.7e, Vil. 133 sqq.), is less serviceable. The e/ialiar/c icm-porvm had been ii'ready conibated by A. zum Felde in his /)« SECT. XL.] THE TENSES. 331 simple occurrence of an event at some past time, considered as a Dioraentary act), and is the ordinary tense of narration; the imperfect and the pluperfect always have reference to tubor dinate events which stood related, in respect of time, with the principal event (as relative tense.s) ; and lastly, the perfect brings the past into connexion with the present lime, and represents an action as a completed one, in relation to the present time Strictly and properly speaking, no one of these tenses can ever stand for another, as the commentators Iiave in so many ways maintained : ^ where such an interchange seems to exist,'' either it exists in appearance only, there l)eing in point of fact some assignable reason (especially of a rhetorical kind) why this tense is used and no other ; or else it must be ascribed to a ceitain inexactness belonging to the popular language, tiirough whioh the relation of time was not conceived and expressed with perfect jjrcci.sion (Kriig. p. 182 sq.). The latter ca.se is chiefly exemplified in ihe interchange (or combination) of tenses which express the same main relation of time. e.g. the past tenses 2. Hence the present tense — which expresses present time in all its relations (and e-specially in rules, maxims, and dogma.*; of permanent validity^ compare Jo. vii, 52)— ft. Is used for the futiiic in appearance only, when an action still future i.s to be represented as being as good as already present, either because it is already firmly resolved on, or be- cause it mu.'it ensue in virtue of some unalterable law (exactly as in Latin, German, etc.) : ^ Mt. xxvi, 2, oiBare, on fiera hvo yjfiepa^ to irdir^a jiveTai, (that the Passover is) koi 6 vl6<; tov enall. pra-.s. temp, in S. S. usu (Kil. 1711), and by Wokeu in the work mentioned above (p. 7, note 1) : compare aLso the opinion of Aristides in Georc^, Vind p- 252. [Don. p. 404 .sqq. ; Jelf 394 si^q. ; Clyde, Or. Syntax pp. 71-85 ; Goodwin, Moods and Tnuiea pp i-fi4; F.irrar, 6V. Synt. pp. 110-127, QT-x-.a, Gr. p. 127 .Sqq., Webi^ter, Synta/x, p. 8(i .soq, | ' Tht; arbitrary 'nt /'jicaage of tf-n.ses (cnallage teuiponun) is reckoned aniongsi the Hebraisms, on tin. .S'lppositioji that in Hebrew the preterite i.s used for the futuift and the future for tiie pieterite promincue. How incorrect this represen- tation IS, has been already shown "by Gesenius' {Lehryth. p. 760 sqq. ), and still uiore thoroughly by Ewald (Krit Gr p. 523 sqq.). ^ Compare Georgi, Vlnd. p. 252 sqq., Hierocrit. I. 58 si\. * [Don. p 405, Jtlf 397, Green p. 131 sq., Ellicott on G. iii. 8. A Buttraann (p. 204) divides the examples of present for future into two classe.s, those in which the signification yii the verb includes a future idea (as ifx^t,ijt.a.i — compare the Attic use of sT^i, not lound in the N. T. ,- — 'i-.riyc. -rotivc/io,,^ yitofixt) ; and those in which the future sense ioUows from the context. Several of his exainples' however (especially of the former kind) seeni doubtful.] 332 THE TENSES. [PART III. avdp. TTapahihorav et'9 to aravptoOrjvai, (is delivered, — this, as a J)ivine decree, is firmly fixed) ; Jo. xiv. 3, iav 'TropevdSi . . . rrraktv ep'^ofxai Kal TrapaX-qyfroiMac (xxi. 23); Mt.xvii, 1 1, 'JJXtas fih epy^erat, (this was a point of the Jewish Christology) koI u7roKaravLov might very well be said of one who, though not as yet in the actual enjoyment of the eternal life, yet in his certain hope already has it as a possession belonging to him.^ Tlie same applies to Jo. v. 26. Mt. v. 4G is rightly ex- ^ Compare Poppo, Thuc, I. i. 153, Kiiig. p. 171 ; as to Latin, RamShom p. 401. - Henri. Vig. p. 746, and on Soph. (Ed. C. 91, Bekker, Specim,. PhUostr, p. 73 sq., Sclioemann, hceus, p. 202. * "O Totui^ 'Tfoinvov ra-xio^, quod (jam) facis, quo jam occupatua es, id (fac) perfice ocius. Comp. Arrian, Epict. 4. 9. 18, ■ttohi a. -reiiif' 3. 23. 1, aud Senec. jBenef. 2. 5, fac, si quid facis . see Wetstein I 931. "What is here commanded, recommended, lie.s not in the verb, but in the adverb annexed. * See on the whole Held, Plut. Timol. p. 335 sq. ,^ In the words which immediately follow, ovk o^i-rai ^a/5]», the apostle very accurately diatinguishcs the future from the present. SROT. XL.] THE TENSES. 333 plained by Fritzsche ; ^ but I cannot agree with him in regarding Mt. iii. 10 as a general maxim, every tree which does not bear good fruit is hewn down (it is customary to hew down such trees). These words are connected by ovv with -f] a$lvr) Trpos rrjv pL^av twv 8eV 8/30)1/ Ketrai, and they require a special explanation which shall have reference to the SevSpa before mentioned, the axe is already lying af the root of the trees, accordingly every tree . . . is (will be) without fail hewn doiim : that is, from the fact that the axe is al- ready laid we may infer what fate awaits the worthless trees. In I C, XV. 35, TTw? iy e ( pov Tai ot vcKpot, the resuiTection is not spoken of as an event (of future time), but as a dogma : how does th€ resurrection of the dead take place (according to thy teaching) ] com- pare ver 42. In the same way we can say, Christ i? the Judge, the punishments of the lost are eternal, etc. Similarly in Mt. ii. 4, TTov 6 XpicTTos yewaTai (as if, where is the birthplace of the Mes- siah ?), and Jo. vii. 52. — In 2 C. v. 1, oi8a/x.ev ort, iav rj iiriyeLo^; rj/xiav oiKia tov CTKrjvous KaToXvOfj, otKo^op.-qv Ik O^ov I ^o p. iv, the future €^o/A€v would be less precise : the words are designed to in- dicate the instantaneous acquisition of a new habitation, as soon as the KaTaXv(.(T6ai has taken place. In Mt. vii* 8, the present (of that which regularly occurs, Kriig. p. 170) is combined with the future in a maxim of general application : compare Rom. vi. 16, G. ii. 16. On the other hand, in Mt. iii. 11 the present and the future (of one who is to come) are purposely distinguished ; the former relates to the personality proclaimed, which is permanent (and even now ex- isting), the future ^aTrria-et to a particular function which he will discharge. Of two parallel passages in the Synoptic CTOspels, one has the present 6 eh irapaXap-fidveTai (Mt xxiv, 40), the other the future €1? TrapaArj(f>dTJ(reTaL (L. xvii. 34) : in the former, the fact which has been introduced by a future (to-ovrat) is vividly conceived as present (see below) ; in the latter, it is described in all its parts as future. Compare also Jo. xvi. 14, 15, H. i. 11. b. The present is used for the aorist, as an historical tense, only when the narrator wishes to bring a past event vividly be- fore us, as if it were taking place at the present moment (Lon- gin. c. 25 ^) : Jo. i 29, rfj eiravpiov /SXeTret . , . Kal Xiyei (in ver. 32, Kal e/iapTvprjaev) ; i. 44, eu/a/cr/cet ^iXi'Tnrov KaWiyec (above^ r^OeX-qaev), compare ver. 46, xiii. 4 sq. ; Mt. xxvi. 40, ep- ')(€Tai 7rpo) ^ea-fxCjv TT p a cr (T ei, the reference is not to Paul's previous life, but to his conduct generally, this vmn (as if, so simple an enthusiast) does nothing bad. See Bengel in loc. . Kiihnol is wrong. Compare Jo. vii, 51. — In H.ii. 16 the more recent commentators have perceived that iiriXafji^dveTaL is not to be taken as a preterite . * in ix. 6 also €l<;La(TLv is a pure present. Bengel rightly renders Koi/iwrai in 1 C. xi, 30 by obdormiunt .■ all recent commentators have either rendered ^ [Mt. xxi. 13 should be xxi. 23 ; in Mk. xi. 28 the best reading is tkcyoy.] • [Thiersch remarks that tbe historic, present is scarcely ever nsed by the ]>XX (who found nothing in tb< Hebrew that, exactly answered to it), except in the two verbs ipa and kiyn, but that in these verbs it is very cormuon (Gen. xxxvii. 29, Ex. xiv 10, xxxii. 17 18, 19, al.). See also Gen. xxxiii. 17 (a^aipu), ami XXxix. 16 {KarocXi/x-rdm} ] * Jacobs, Xen. Ephes. 5. 12. p. 113 ; compare Abresch, Aristcen. p. 11 sr^., Ast, Plat. Phcedr. p. 335, EUendt, Arr. AL 11, 68. ' Georgi, Vind. 25, Palairet 479, &F.CT. XL.] THE TENSES. 335 it b)' a preterite or passed it without remarlc ; but even in the By zautine writers Koifjia/rOai means only lo fall asleep, die, not f.o be dead.^ On Trapayerai, 1 Jo. ii- 8, see Liicke.^ That cVti is used for Yjv in Jo. v. 2, no intelligent expositor will allow to be even possible : on the other hand, however, the present tense is not ne- f;es.sarily an evidence that at the time when John wrote the locality still remained as here described.^ hi dependent, sentences the present might seem to stand for the lUiperfcct, as in Jo. ii. 9, ovk iJSci, iroOev i o-t tv' iv. 1, TjKOva-av ol rfiapirru'uH, OTl'h)Aos w L. viii. 53, Mt. xxvii. 18, A. iv 13. (Jelf 886.) 3. The imperfeqt tense is used, as in Greek prose (Bernli. p. 372 sq., Knig. p. 172 sqq., Don. p. 409, Jelf 398), n When a past action is to be indicated in relation to another siranltaneous action, as continuing at the time when the latter took place : ** Jo. iv. 31, iv ru> fiera^u ypcoroyv avrov (viii. 6, 8) , \j. xiv. 1 ,e\e eXaXet -qpZv iv rj) oha>' A. viii. 36, u)1. viii. 17 [? vii. 17], — as indeed in MSS. of classical authors the fonus of these two tenses arc frequently interchanged,^ and the tenses soiiietimes differ but little in meaning.*' It is often left to the writer's choice whether he shall regard the action as transient (moiaeutary) or as lasting, as a point or as an extension in time: Kiihner II. 71 [II. 114, ed. 2]. Thus compare Mt. xxvi. 59, i^-jrow {j/evBofiapTvpiuv .... koI ovx^ evpov, with Mk. xiv. .5.5, koL ovx evpio-Kof ; also Mt. xix. 13 >vith Mk. x. 13. Hence, especially in the case of the verbs say, go, send, the (later) Greeks not unfrequently use the imperfect where the aorist seems to be required :" compart Mk. ii. 27, iv. 10, v. 18, vii. 17, X. 17, L. iii. 7, vii. 3G, viii. 9, 41, x. 2, A. iii. 3, ix, 21. For examples . of the combination of imperfects and aorists, each tense ^reserving its distinct meaning, see L. viii. 23, Karifi-q AaiAai^ .... i:('i •TvvfTr\y]povvTO koll ckivSuvcvov XV. 2S, Mk. vii. 35, xi. 18, Ja ii. 22, Mt. x.\i. 8 sq., Jo. vii. 14, xii. 13, 17, xx. 3, A. xi. 6 sq., xxi. 3 (Jon. i. 5), Phil. 13, 14, l.C. xi. 23 (in 1 C.xiii. 11 the aorist and porfecl are similarly combined): compare Thuc. 7. 20, 41, Xen. Art. 3 4. 31, h. 4, 24, Plutarch^ ^i//',? 19, Arrian, Al 2. 20. 3.^ ^ Compare .Jacobs, Ac/all. Tat. p. 620. ^ CJompare Herin. Soph. CEd. C. p. 76, and Soph. Aj. p. 139, Poppo, T/mr. I. i. 155, Kllendt, Arr. Al. I. 225, Schoem. Plut. Agis pp. 84, 142, Matth. 505, IJernh. p. 370. [Matthiae and Bemhardy mention xtXiuM as a verb whose imper- fect is often used where we should expect an aorist. So also Kriiger, p. 172.] , * On the other hand, see Poppo /. c, P»orneni. Xea. An. p. 5, Kviigcr, Dion. II. p. 304. ,* [Fritzsche receives rtpt^fan (on slender authoBity), but explains tipniro, nei/ahat, — quum ancilla argueret. Westcott, with greater Y>rQbability, takes the word as implying "a repeated denial " {St. John, p. 266).] '' (.Compare Boisson. Eunap. p. 431, and on Philostr. Her., p. 530, * Schief. Plutarch IV. 346, Siebelis, Pmisan. IV. 290. . • Poppo, Thuc. III. i. 570 sq., Held, Plut. Tlin. p. 484 sn. ^ Specially instructive is Diod. S. Exc. Vat. p. 25. 9 s(p[., i K^«>«; •^rtTn Ss KOLi 2oX«»x ».T.^. Compare also Plat. Parnien. 126 c., rxura, zivivm 22 338 THE TENSES. [PART III. The imperfect might seem to stand for the present ^ in Col. iii. 18, vTroraa-crecrOe tois dvSpdcnv, u)S dv^Kcv, cv Kvpiw, ut par ed, and E. v. 4 v. I. (ixr] ovo/uxt^co-^w iv ifjuv) alr) ^Aapuv Ko.) a.'Tifia.viv .... ' Aapei/v r,» Tfiuv xai uxeai xa,i IxccTov iruv, ort a.-riivttffx.iK — See Keisig, Soph. (Ed. G. p. 264 sq., Stallb. Plat PhoEd. p. 29, Ellendt, Arr. Al. II. 67 sq. 1 See however Mehlhorn, Anacr. p. 235 sq. ; compare F.uhr, Diccearch. p. 156 sq. 2 See Matth. 505. Rem., Bornem. ScJiol. p. 181 (Don. p. 411, Jelf 398. 4). ^ To take avS«6» (with Huther) as a perfect with present meaning is as nnnecessary as it is grammatically inadmissible. Are xa^^Kiv and w^afjjxev per- fects also ? Are we then to suppose that the rare perfect ««« maintained itself just in these particular formulas, even in Attic Greek ? No example can be found in which we are compelled to give these words a present signification, provided we have attained the power of realising the Greek conception, and keeping that of our own language in the background. * Herm. Emend. Rat. p. 186 : yiyfa(pa. tempus significat prseteritum termi- natum prjesenti tempore ita, ut res, quae perfecto exprimitur, nunc peracta di- (.atur, illudque jam, peractam rem esse, praisens sit. Poppo in his Progr. Emen- danda et supplenda ad Matthicei Gramm. Gr. ^Frankf. on Oder, 1832), p. 6, thus defines the nature of the perfect : actionem plane prseteritam, quae aut nunc ipsum sen modo finita est aut per effectus suos divrat, notat. [Don. p. 408, Jelf 3S9, Green, Gr. p. 138, Webfster, Synt. p. 85.] SECT. XL.] THE TENSES. 339 whether the possession of it was still retained or not; L. v. 32, ovK iXr'jXvOa KcCkkaai hiKaiov^, I am not here, (on earth) in order to etc. (Mt. ix. 1 3 simply narrates, ovk tjXOov I came not, I was not sent), compare vii. 20, 50 ; Eom. vii. 2, rj v-wavhpo'i yvv'i) T<^ ^covTt dvSpl SeSerac vofirp, is hound to (and hence bclonge to) ; G. ii. 7, ireiriaTev^at to evayyeXcov, concrcditiLin ni.ilii ItAibeo etc. (his apostolic vocation still continues, he is now in the exercise of it), and similarly 1 Th. ii, 4, KaOoaq BeBoKi.fj.d~ a/j,e6a vnb rov Oeou iriarevdrivaL to evay^eXiov; 1 C.xi.l 5,?; KOfiif) avrl Trepi^oXalov B eh or at (yvvatKc), she has (by a permanent arrangement of nature) Jocr hair instead of etc. ; H. x. 14, fiia irpo^^opa rereXeiuiKev eU to BirjveKe^ tou? ay(M^ofj,evov), where there is no variant, and in liev. viii. 5. This purely aoristic sense of the perfect is found especially in later writers (particularly the Scholiasts, Poppo, Thuc. III. ii. 763), see Bernh. p. 379.'' Less singular are 2 C. xi. 25, . . . . ekadov, eppafihicrOriv .... eXtOd c^iv rov at- fiaros (preceded and followed by simple aoiists) ; compare also ver. 17. In such enumerations of particular facts it was of no consequence whether the aorist or the pei iect was used •, both are equally suitable, — 1 was stonetl, I suffered shipwreck, I have spent a day, etc. In Mk. iii. 26 no one will suppose that fie/tU- picrraL after dvearrj is used as an aorist because the aorist fiepiaOf/ occurs in ver. 25. The perfect is useu a. For the present, only in so far as the perfect denotes an action or a state the commencenietit and establishment of which belong, as completed events,. to past time (Herm. Viff. p. 748, Jelf 399. 3): Jo. xx. 29, ore kcapaK^^ /te, rreTria-revKafi, where ' Compare Lucian, Dial, D. 19. 1, i,^avX:ti-a; aurot xa.) ttslxriKiti. 2 ["'Afp/iWTai, bccorae remitted (by God) ; xtupiirmrai, are retained (by God) . here the perfect is used, because the word indicates no new act on the part of God." Similarly Bcngel : " illud praesens, hoc pnetea-itum. Mundus est sub peccato." The true readin<^, however, is probably anpiuvrai.] 3 Schaef. Demosth. I. 4G8, Wyttenbach, Plut. Ilor. I. 321 sq. (Lips.), Lelirs, Qua'stion. Epic. p. 274, Index to Petr. Patric. in the Bonn edition, p. 647. [A. Buttmann (pp. 196-7) remarks that the use of the present in hi.storic;:) narration was the foundation of this usage : he suggests that the influence of the Latin perfect may perhaps be traced here. The most plausible examples of the u.se of a perfect in the sense of the aorist (besides those given in the text) are Rl-v. vii. 14, 2 C. ii. 13, i. 9 : A. Huttmann (who does not mention these) quotes 2 C. xi. 25, L. iv. 18, H. xi. 17, J a, i. 24. As however it is admitted by all that the N.'^T. writers ordinarily use this tense with complete accuracy, the proper meaning cannot be given up in any passage without the clearest necessity ; and we may doubt whether there is any passage (except perhaps those quoted from the Apocalypse) in which tliis necessity has been shown to exist. On the perfects in H. vii., xi., see (rreen, Or. p. 142. The perfect yiya^x is frequently (but wrongly) assumed to have an aoristic meaning : see AJford on 1 C. xiii." 11, 1 Th. ii. "l, 1 Tim. ii. 14.] SECT. XL.] THE TENSES. 341 the words point to tbe commencement of the (still existing) faith, iii. 18, xi. 27 ; v. 45, Moyvarjs, eli.a(ry.ov TeTi]pr]K€v avTO. Here rerqp. must be taken as a real perfect (she has reserved it, and therefore uses it now); Jesus wishes figuratively to represent this anointing as that which prepares him for the tomb. But the reading is uncertain. That the perfects (and aorists) of a number of verbs have in themselves and in accordance with established usage the signification of a present, is well known, and is a natural consequence of the (inchoative) primary meaning of these verbs.^ Such are •KCKTT;/u,at / possess,'^ from Kraofxai I acquire; KiKoifxiq fiai (I have fallen asleep) / sleep, from KOLfxaopuaL I fall asleep ; otSa / hnow, from ci8a> 1 sec ; ea-TTjKa I stand, from Lo-T-qp-i J place, properly I have placed myself, — hence also 2 Th. ii. 2, evia-rqK^v -q r)p.€pa tov Xp. (compare Palairet in loc), Rom. ik. 19 rt? avdia-rqKc, who resists him? compare xiii. 2, 2 Tim. iv. 6 ifftea-rfjKe : also toi/ca Ja. i. 6, 23. The pluperfect of such verbs naturally takes the place of an imperfect, as ela-rJKeiaav Mt. xii. 46, yB^Lv Jo. ii. 9, xx. 9, al. K^Kpaya also (Jo. i. 15), from Kpd((x), has a present meaning ^ (Buttm. II. 57, Bernh. p. 279, Jelf /. c), and cwpaxa sometimes signifies / (have obtained a view of and) see, Jo. ix. 37, 1 Jo. iv. 20. In Ph. iii. 7, however, yjyr]' ' Fritz. Jiom. I. 254, FJengel on Eom. iii. 23 ^Don. p. 273 sq., Jelf 399). •^ This meaning has been wrongly given to other tenses of this verb in some passages of the N. T. L. xviii. 12 is, of all that J acquire, quae mihi redouut -. L. x.\i. ]9, through endurance acquire for yourselves, ovyevnll acquire, your souls, — they will then, and not till then, become your real, inalienable property, Schott is now right. On 1 Th. iv. 4 see De Wette, [or EUicott and Alford]. Yet Kruf/.ai stems to stand ior possideo in ^Esop. 142. 2. On xat/^aiiiTai 1 V. xi. 30, which is commonly taken for xixoifinvTat, see above, 2 (f). •' [In classical v/riters, who very rarely use the present Kf%Z,a. In Jo. i. 15, liath cried seems the more probable meaning. ] SECT, XL.] THE TENSES. 34:3 /Attt (Matth. 505) must be taken as a true preterite, in antithesis to rjyovfjLM, ver. 8. — Conversely, the present ^/cw denotes / a/n come, I am here (Matth. 504. 2), Jo. ii. 4, iv. 47, 1 Jo. v. 20. So also aKov(o may sometimes be used in the sense of aiidisse, as in 1 C. xi. 18 (Xen. An. 5. 5. 8, Mem. 3. 5. 9, Plat. Gorg. 503 c, Philostr. Apoll. 2. 8, see Lucian, Fag. 7 ^), but only when the hearing con- tinues (in its efficacy), — as we also say / hear that you are sick ; compare 2 Th. iii 11 and Schoem, Plut. Cleom. p. 246 r^ to express an act of hearing completed in past time, a Greek must say aKr^Koa. In like manner airixia may be translated by accepisse in Mt. vi. 2, 5, 16, Ph. iv. 18; this word however is properly like the German vseghaben (to have in full, to have already received ^). 5, The aorlst.'* a. In narration the aorist is used for the pluperfect'' a. In temporal subordinate sentences : A. v. 24, o)? riicovarav Toveen pTfviously mentioned by Mark, and we cannot take John's account (i. 43) and import it into Mark's narrative. In A. vii. 5 also IhrnK^v Joes not stand for a pluperfect, as the antithesis itself shows, He did nof- give .... but hf jrro- mised ; equally needless is such a supposition in A. iv. 4, viii. 2, XX. 12.* On Mk. xvi. 1, as compared with L. xxiii. 56, see Fritz. in loc.^ There is no passage in which it can be certainly proved that the aorist stands for the perfect. L. i. 1. linSrjTr^p ttoXXoi iTr€)^up-q- //,at" Jo. Xvii, 4, iyio ae iBo^aaa cttI rrjs y^9, to Ipyov ereAcioxra k.t.A, But in all these instances the action is merely represented as having occurred, as filling a point of past time, as simply and absolutely past (in L, xiv. in antithesis to a present act), — I bought a field, a yoke of oxen, etc. : in Ph. iii. the tXafiov seems merely to indicate reaching the goal as an illustrious fact, whilst TercXftWai denotes the con- sequence of this. So also in Kom. xiv. 9, Rev. ii. 8, the aorists simply narrate, and here it v/as not even possible to use the perfect in reference to the death of Christ. In Mk. xi. 17 the perfect noAV stands in the text, but the aorist would also have been in place.: see Fritz, in he. As to classical usage comp. Bockh, Pwd. III. 185, Sch^f. Eurip. Flmn. p. 15, Matth. 497. Rem. (Jelf 404). It is often left entirely to the writer's choice which of these two tenses he will use, sinco the distinction between them is in itself sometimes but small: compare Xen. Mem. 1. 6. 14, Dion. H. IV. 2320, Alciphr. 3. 4(T.i Here an.l thero the. MSS. of the N. T. (as also those of (Jreek authors, see for instance Jacobs, Achill. Tat. ijp. 434, 5G6) vary between the aorist and the perfect : -^ e. g. in Jo. vi. 32, 1 C. ix. 15.'^ b. It is only in appearance that the aorist stands for the future (Herm. Vig, p. 747, compare above, 4. h)^ ia Jo. xv. 6, iav [ir] Tt,^ fieivp iv €/xoi, eB\rj&t] efw 6t)9 ro' KXrj/na : in such a case (supposing this to have occurred) he v;as cud out, not he becomes cast o"i ; the " not-rcniaimng " has this as its instanta- ^ [" The relation of time expressed by tiie jierfe<-t is as it were coinpounded of the relations? denoted by the pre.st nt and tlie aorist, since the action has its comriienc«iiiei)t in the past but extends into the present, either in il..->eif or in its effects. \Vc must not supjtose that the aorist in the cases we are consider- ing is dfcsif^ned to express hotli. these aspects of the perfect, but that the writer drops for the nionieut all connexion with the present, and takes the nairator's point of view This point of view is more familiar to a writer than any other, and hence tbc^c lesiilts as a natural consequence, if not a distaste for the per- fect tense, yet a preference for t)ie aorist: A. Bnttni. p. 171 (197). Compare Clyde, SyM. p. 80. — See further Green p. 134, Ellicott on Col. i. 21 ; and on the necessity of rendering the aorist in some cases by the Enqli^h i)evfect, see Ellicott on i Th. ii 16 {Trans.).] *[ Especially between i'S^x-x and Ss5a)*« (A. Buttroann p. 199). Of this one variation there are nearly thirty examples in St. John's Gospel alone.] ^ In Mt. xxi. 20, if we take vreZt as an exclamation (/niam, we should ex- pect {5nVa»cra/ (a.s Mk. xj. 21, iu good MSS.) instead of »£»/>«»#»: the latter .passage however is not entirely ])aral!e], and Mt. xxi. 20 should probably be rendered how did the fig tree, ■■nddcnlij wither '■ They wish to liave it ex- plained how the withering, which (according to this Evangelist) took place before their eyes, haw, in reference to the very letter which is now being written, exactly as saipsi in Latin. In the same way a writer uses (.irefuf/a misi, looking at the fact that for the receiver of the letter the irt/iTrw has changed itself into an tTrefiiJ/a. For examples of the latter in the N. T., see A. xxiii. 30, Ph. ii. 28 («7re/ii/^a), Phil. 1 1 (drcVe/At/'a), and probably also (TweTrifji^afiev 2 C. viii. 18 (Demosth. JtJp. 3, Alciphr. 3. 30, 41) : similarly rjfiovXiqSr^v 2 Jo. 12. For iypaif/a, however, we cannot even quote 1 C. V. 1 1 : this aorist refers in every case either to an earlier letter (1 C. v. 9, 2 C. iL 3, 4, 9, vii. 12, 3 Jo. 9), or to a whole epistle now concluded (Rom. xv. 15, Phil. 19, G. vi. 11^ 1 P v. 12), or to a group of verses just completed (1 C. ix. 15, 1 Jo. ii. 21, 26, ^ Bornem. Xen. Jpol. p. 53. ^ [Compare the following observations from A. Buttm. p. 17.5 (202). " Winer's assertion that in tije N. T. the aor. never expresses what is habitual, is so tar true that the word ' habitual ' but imperfectly indicates the peculiar character of this aorist ; but it cannot be denied that the gnomic aorist occurs in the N. T. The objection that the use of this idiom would imply too nicje an observance of the laws of classical Greek, and greater. acquaintance with it than can be assumed in the case of the N. T. writers, may be decisive in regard to some of these, but not alL Rather is the use of the aorist, as the most Usual histo- rical tense, perfectly in harmony with the character of the popular mode of ex- pression, which 60 readily breaks loose from the form of abstract representation, and involuntarily falls into the tone of narration." He quotes Ja. i. 11, 24, 1 P. i. 24, as the clearest instances. — Kriiger alao and Cuitius (p. 278, Transl.) Tirefer the name gnomic aoYist : Jelf, iterative aorist. ] 348 THE TENSES. [PART III. V. 13).* The present y/oat^o) is commonly used when reference is made to a letter now being written, see 1 Jo. ii. 12, 13, 1 C. iv. 14, xiv. 37, 2 C. xiii. 10, al. : on 1 Jo. ii. 13 sq. see Liicke.- The Greeks themselves did not strictly observe this use of the aorist (or perfect) for the present ; compare Diog. L. 7. 9.^ 3. Lastly, the aorist is not used de conata '^ (Kiihnol) in Mk^ ix. 1 7, yivtjKo. Tov vlov fjLov ; the words mean, / brmght my son to thee (and here place him before thee). That there is no need to take i^rjXOe, Jo. xi. 44, in this sense, is perceived by Kiihnol himself; and Tholuck acts rightly in not even mentioning thi.s interpretation. On Mt. xxv, 1 see Meyer. 6, The future tense* does not always indica,te pure actual futurity, but sometimes possibility (as indeed the future and the possible are closely allied), and expresses what caii or sliould or must take place (ethical possibility); see Herm. Vig. p. 747, Jacob, Luc. Tox. p. 134, Kiiig. p. 179 (Don. p. 407, Jelf 406) This is particularly the case in questions. (Some passages, it is true, are not to be fully depended upon, through the great similarity between the forms of the future and the aorist conjunc- tive, and the variation in the readings of the MSS.) L. xxii. 49, o^, time (I foresee) will fail me, dejiciet me tern pus: compare Philostr. He?: p. 686, iiriXei^ei fie rj o)V7i also " longum es^narrare," for the Germanised- Latin, " longum esset narrare."^ In L. xi, 5 also, Ti? e| v/jlmv e^et ^iKov kol ' It is a different case when the thouglit is expressed by the optative with iv, as in Dion. H. 10. 2086, itiXuvoi Hi /j.- i rvi i^:^af xf'''"''- 350 THE TENSES. [PART III. 'TTOpevaerai Trpo? avrov fiecovvKTiov, the future is quite in place : take away the interrogation and we have the ordinary future, " No one of you will go to his friend at midnight," — such an instance of importunity will never occur. Lastly, in Mt. v. o9, 41, xxiii. 12, the notion of possibility attaches itself rather to 09Tt9 than to the futui e : in J a. ii. 1 the better MSS. have the conjunctive. — To take the luture as expressing simply a toish in Eom. xvi. 20 Ph. iii. 15, iv. 7, 9, 19, Mt. xvi. 22, would be a great blunder. On the use of the future for the imperative see § 43. 5. Some have most perversely taken the future as used for the pre- terite in Rev. iv. 9, orav Swcrovo-i TO.' ^wa So^av . . . . t<5 KaOrjfXfvta €7rl ToO Opovov .... irecrovvTai ol ccKocrt T€(T. 77. * Klotz, Devar. 11. 104 : Optativus modus per se non tarn optationis vim in KC continet, quara cogitationis omuino, unde proficiscitur etiam omuis optatio. Herm. Partic. at p. 77 : Optativus est cogitantis quid fieri, neque an fiat neque an possit fieri quaerentis. ^ p. 77 : Apertum est, in indicativo veritatem facti ut exploratam respici, in conjunctivo rem sumi experientia comprobandam, in optativo Veritas rationem liaberi nullum, sed cogitationem tantunTmodo indicari. How Kiihner has com- bined this distinction between the conj. and the optat. with a temporal meaning originally possessed by these moods (Gne'h. Gr. II. 87 sq.), cannot be further explained here. [See Kiihner II. 179 sqq. (ed. 2); also Don. p. 546 sq., New Vrat. p. 621 sqq.] * Dilferent views from the above are maintained by W. Scheuerlein, (Progr.) Ueber den Charakter des Modus in der gr. Sprache (Halle 1842) ; W. Baumlein, Ueber die gr. Modi und die Partikeln xiv und «» (Heilbronn 1846), — see Jahn, Jahrb. vol. 47, p. 353 sq., and Zeitschr. f. Alter tkumswiss. 1848, pp. 104-106, 1849, pp. 30-33 ; Aken, GrutidzQge der Lehrevon Tempus u. Modu» im Griech. (Giistrow 1850). Compare also Dod^rlein, Ueber Modi u. Conjunctionen, in his Reden u. Aufsatze (Erlangen 1S43, no. 9). [Liinemann adds another work by Aken, Die Grundziige der Lehre vom Tempus und Modus im Griech. hint, und vergleichend aii/gestcUt. (Rost, 1861.)] 352 THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. [PART III. theory, as it does not appear that anything decidedly better has yet been proposed, — least of all by Madvig. The N. T. use of these moods is in the main points perfectly regular/ except that we observe the' optative (as in tlie later G-reek writers who did not strive' after ancient refinemont) already reireating more into the background (even more than in Josephus ^), and replaced in some constructions by the con- junctive.^ a, IN INDEPENDENT SENTENCES. 2. The use of the indicative in independent sentences is very simple in Greek, and in reference to N. T. usage we have only two points to notice : — a. The imperfect indicative is sometimes found (as in Latin*) where in German the conjunctive would be used : 2 C. xii. 11, e7ft) cii(f>ei\ov vKevai TTjv oBov Ttj^ BcKacoavv7)s' (Aristoph. JVub. 12X5, Xen. An. 7. 7. 40, Philostr. Apoll 7. 30, Lucian, Dial. Mort. 27. 9, Diog. L 1. fi4); A xxii. 22, ov yap Ka6rjK€v avTov ^rjv, he ought not to luLve lived, Le. he ought to have been put to death long ago, nan debcbat or dchuerat vivere.^ Here the Greeks and Romans simply indicate that, apart from any condition, Something was good, that it was necessary that something should happen (or not happen) ; and the reader, by comparing this assertion with the actual fact, may infer the disapproval of the latter. In Ger- man we set out from the present state of things, and by using ' This against Hwiid, whom Kiihnol {ad Aria p. 777) quotes with approval. 2 [Compare Green, Gr. p. 153: "In Josephus the use of the optative mood is affected and over-acted.' ] * In modern Greek, as is well known, the optative has entirely disappeaied ; and it is still a question how far the use of this mood ex<-ended in the ancient popular language. We not unfrequeniiy find that forms and expressions on which certain niceties of a written language are based, are persistently avoided by the common people. ♦ Zumpt § 519 sq. [Madvig § 348 e]. "^ Compare Mat th. 505. 2. Rem., Stallb. Plat. Sipnp. p. 74. [Don. pp. 411 541, Jelf 398. 3, 858. 3, Jebb, Soph. Ajax p, 183. j SECT. XLI.] THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. 353 the conjunctive express our disapproval of this in its origin. Hence both moods are correctly conceived. We must not sup- pose that in the examples quoted above there is an ellipsis of liv ; for, in the mind of the Greek, all such sentences shut out any thought of a condition under which " something would have been good," " must have taken place." ^ A somewhat different explanation must be given of e/3ovX6fMT]v etc. (without ap) in the sense of vellem, as in A. xxv, 22, i^ovXo/nrjv Koi avro'i rov avOpoiirov aKovaat, I should wish (being made curious by your statement) also to hear the man ; Aristoph. Ran. 866, ^schin. (Jte.sipJu 274 b, Arrian, Epict. 1. 19. 18, Lucian, Dial. Mort. 20. 4, Ahdic. 1, C/tar. 6, al. Here the speaker does not refer merely to a wish that was previously excited — at the same time with some other action (volebam), but to a wish now felt : the M'ifcth however is not expressed directly (volo), because this is ad- missible only when the accomplishment is viewed as dependent entirely on the will (1 Tim. ii. 8, 1 C. xvi. 7, Rom. xvi. 19, al.), — or by €/3ov\6fi7]v dv, because this involves the antithesis hut I do not vrish (Herm. Partic. ay p. 66 sq.), — or by the far weaker ^ovXoifirjv dv (Xen, 6E'c. 6. 12, Krlig. p. 186) velim, I might wish ; — but definitely, / wished, ie. if the thing were possible, if you would permit it (and therefore / do wish it, on this sup- position) : see Bernk p. 374, Kiihner II. eS.*'' ^ In such expres- sions therefore a conditional clause is implied.' So also in Rom. ix. 3, Tjvy^ofjiTjv m patticula etiam conditiojiis notio nulla subintelligitur, sed hoc potius indicutur, vere nos illud voluisse, etiamsi omittenda fuerit voluntas, scilicet quod frustra nos velle cognovimus." This subtle distinction, however, would hardly apidy iu all passages. * [" Vetl&m autera advsse, quod nunc quidem fieri non potest : " Winer I. c] oc» 354 THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. [PAKT III. actual fact. On the other hand, in H, ix. 26, cVct cSct airov TroAAttKts iraOeLv, we sliould have expected a»', as the writer is speaking of soinethini; which on a certain suppodikm would nece.-.- sarily have taken place : the MSS. however do not supply the pa)ticle, and it wa? as allowable to omit it as it is for us to say, /or (otherwise,— if this were the design) it was necesaary ^ that he should often suffer; compare Herm. Eur. Bacch. p. 152, Bernh, p. 390, and see § 42. 2, It has also been usual in Horn, xi, G. 1 C. vii. 14, V. 10, to render the indicative present after eVei' {other mso, alicquin) by the conjunctive. The first two passages however simply mean, /w (in the case supposed, if i^ epywv) grace is no lomjej grace, — for (supposing that the husband is not sanctified in the wife) ijour chUdrru are, unclean. In 1 C, v. 10 almost all the better MSS. read In 1 C. vii. 7, ^ e A w Travras a.vdp(l)irov<: elvuL ws Kat ifxavTOV, Ave must not (with Pott) take OcX(d for dikoL/xi or ^OeXou. Paul actually has this wish, fixing his eye merely on the advantage which would thus accrue to men (Christians), not on the obstacles : had he referred to the^e, he mus5 have said / could idsh, velim: or vellem. The passage wa3 correctly explained by Baumgarten. The same remark applies to 1 G. vii. 28, where Pott takes ^etSo/xcit for cfyeiSoiixrjv av. 2 C. xii. 9, (Jp.vc? crot r/ x"-P'-'^ H-^^'f inaccurately rendered by Luther be content ivitk my graa\ is correctly exi)lainedby all recent commentators. In 1 C. v. 7, KoOws i(TTe aCvfxoi, some have given a different point to this mood, rendering eVrf by esse debetis ; this is erroneous, see Meyer 3. h. The present indicative is sometimes found in direct questions, where in Latin the conjunctive would be used, in (]rerman the auxiliary sollcn : ^ e. g., Jo, xi. 47, rl 7roiov^€v ; ori ovro, (jnoled below.] 356 THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. [PART III. 1 5, Ja. iv. 1 3 : in the first two passages, however, the conjunctive is best attested,^ Z>. In questions of doubt or uncertainty, co'njunctivu& delibera* iivus (Matth. 516. 2, Bernh. p. 396, Kiihner II. 102 sq., Jelf 417, Don. /. c.) : Mk. xii. 1 4, hoifiev rj fir} hwfiev ; sliould we give or not give ? Eom. vi. 1, eTn/Jbivcofiev rjj d/xaprLo, ; 1 C. xi. 22, So also in the 2nd and 3rd persons : L. xxiii. 31, et iv tm vypat |u\'i> TavTa irotovaiv, iv rat ^rjpat rcyivrjTai ; Mt. xxvi. 54, ttwj ttXiJ" p(o6ci)(Tcv at fM€v ; JEBch. Ciesiph. 297 c, Lucian, i>m/. if. 20. 3. See also Mt. vii, 4, a^e? ' eK^dXca ro Kdpj>opovTL8oi\ov koL "TTopevcreTat Trpos avrov .... koI €lv7] aur<3 • see Matth. 516. 3, Herm. Be Partk. av p. 87.2 On Ja. iv. 15, eav 6 Kvpio? Bek-qa-rj kol ^tjaio/xev (tj/cro^Jtiv) koX ttoitj- cra)/A€v {TTOLrjcroixev) tovto r} iKeivo, a learned controversy has been carried on between Fritzsche ^ and Bornemann.* The former reads TTOLrja-ofiev, the latter Trotj/o-w/xev : according to Fritzsche the conse- quent clause begins with koX ttoitJo-o/aci/, according to Bornemann with Koi lrj(T(Dix€v. The former renders the verse, if the Lwd ivill and we live, then ivill loe also do this or that ; the latter, if it please God, let us seek our sustenance, let us do this or tJuit. Every one roust feel that there is something awkward in, If God will, ice will live ; and Bornemann has himself felt this, as he translates t^rjo-. we will use our life. But this explanation lacks simplicity, and is not supported by Biblical usage. The occurrence of KaC at the com- mencement of the apodosis cannot in itself excite question (2 C. xi. 12). On this point therefore I must agree with Fritzsche. On the other hand, he was wrong in maintaining that iToiri [So Griesbach ; De W. also reads ^r^a/^sn (on exegetical grounds) and inclines towards Toir,irufe.iv, making the apodosis begin at xal -rairKraifitv. Tre- gelles, Tisch., Lachm., Huther, A. Buttmann (p. 362), Wordsworth, Alford, Westcott and Hort, read the future in both clauses. Of these, Tregelles and Tischendorf divide the verse thus, tiv o k. hx. xai Z'^rofi'.v, no.) rr. r. ri U., mainly influenced perhaps by the authority of ancient versions ; e.g. the Vulgate has .si dominus voluerit el si (Cod. Amiat. omits si) vixerinius, faciemus, etc. : on la» with the future indicative, see below § 41. h. 2. The rest commence the apodosis with ko.) Z,naofjt.ii. The ancient testimony is the same in the case of both futures : that of the best known cursives is given by Alford hi loc. ] 358 THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OITATIVE MOODS. [PART lU. 2 P. i. 2, 1 Th. iii. 11 sq., v. 23, 2 Th. iii. 5. (In 2 C. ix. 10, 2 Thn.ii. 7, we must rend the future,and in A.i. 20 the imperative Xa^€T(o.) As to the LXX see some remarks in Thiersch, Eent. p. 1 1 . Compare 1 K. viii. 5 7, Ps. xl. 3, Tob. v. 1 4, x. 1 2, xi. 1 6. In Hebrew a question is frequently used for the optative to express a wish, as in 2 S. xv. 4 rts fie KaracrTryo-ci KpiT-qv, utinura qv.is me con- slitvoi I This idiom however occurs in Greek poets (Fritz. Rom. II. 70), Rom. vii. 24- ns /*€ pva-eraL k.t.X. has been tlms explained, but without sufficient reason: the question of perplexity, of conscious helplessness, is, as such, peculiarly appropriate here, and there is no need to suppose a /xt-a/JaTi? eis aAAo yevos. h. IN DEPENDENT SENTENCES. 1. Since every purpose has reference to the future, con- sequently to something yet to be carried into effect, the, two particles of design tW and 07r&)9 (both primarily signifying qiio modo, ut, — as to /i.17 see § 56) are naturally construed with the conjunctive and optative, these moods being distinguished as above. The future is the only tense of the indicative that can be used with these particle'^, so long as the writer's conception is correct.^ a. In the N. T. tm and Sttw? at-e commonly followed by the conjunctive, — not only («) After a present tense, as in Mt. vi. 2, iroiovaiv ... otto)*? Bo^aaObXTiv vTvb rc)v dvdpooTrcoW 2 Tim. ii. 4, ovSeh crrpa- revofievo'i ef^TrXeKerat ratt rov ^lov Trpwyixareiat^, 'iva rw arpa- ro\oyi'}(TavTt, apicrrf' ii. 10, iravra virofievoi Sta rov<; e/cXe/cTOf?, iva KaX avroi (To)T7jpi'a aarava, 'iva iraiZevd 6)cr i /xr; (3Xaa(pi]fX€tV Tit. i. 5, KariXiirov a-e iv KprjTr), iva ra XeiTrovra imhiopOcoarj' ii. 14, o Herm. F/t/. p. 86(". 2 Tor where a perfect is used in the sense of a present the connexion of '/»« or oTui with thb conjunctive can excite no surprise ; see Jo. vi. 38, L. xvi. 26, A. ix 17, 1 Jo. V. 2u [Rec.\ ■* (Jomj)are Gayler, Departlc. Or. Hcrraon. rw.gat. p. 176 sq. * Wbx, in his Epht. crit. ad Ge>ieniam p. 22 s'jq. (Lips. 1831), distinguishes several other cases. But the question is whether such tine distinctions are in harmony with the character of a living language. * Henn. Vhj. p. 850 and on ?:ur. Htc. p. 7, Heind. Plat. Protnff. § 29, Stallb. Plat. Cnt. p. 103, Ast, Plat. Lpf,!^. P- 93, Klotz, Devar. II. 618. [See Jelf SOfJ : compare Shilleto, Dem. F. L. p. ":j4, PadJcll, Plat. Apol. p. 152 sq.] 360 THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. [PART III. avTa> TraiBuXj iva dylrtjTai avTcov, are perhaps to be explained on the principle that the Greeks sometimes express the thoughts of another person in the direct form, or as if the person were still present, and hence use. the moods which he would have used : ^ so here, that he may lay, for that he might lay (the optative). By this means the scene described is more vividly brought before the reader's view (Klotz I.e. p. 6 1 8 sq., 6 8 2). Compare Jo. xviii 28, Mt. xii. 14. As however in all the multitude of examples which the N. T. furnishes of tva after a past tense we do not find a single one in which the optative is used,^ this nice distinction can by no means be attributed to the sacred writers. It would rather seem that the optative — a mood which in later Greek fell more and more into disuse, and which in the language of ordinary inter- course may perhaps never have been subject to the laws of written Attic Greek — was unconsciously avoided by them, even where a more refined grammatical instinct would certainly have preferred it (e.g., in Jo. iv. 8, vii. 32, L. vi. 7, xix. 4, 2 C. viii. 6, H. iL 14, xi. 2>b, Ph. ii. 27, al.). Even Plutarch commonly uses the conjunctive in this case;^ and in Hellenistic Greek it is throughout the predominant mood, as may be seen from any page of the LXX, the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigraphic writers, etc. (Thilo, Acta TJwm. p. 47). b. The future indicative (after the present and the perfect, compare Herm. Vig. p. 851); Kev. xxii. 14 [^ec], fiaKapiot oi 1 Heind. Plat. Prctag. pp. 502, 504, Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 189 sq., Time. I. i. 141 8q. (Jelf 806). 2 [Unless indeed we suppose that the verbs in Mk. xiv. 10 a.T7iX6i .... '/v« tdfetiol, Mk. ix. 30 olx. iih>(v 'ivec rii yvo? (see also Mk. V. 43, L. xix. 15, Jo. xiii. 2), are in the optative mood : this is the opinion of Tischendorf, — at all events .so far as yvoT is concerned {Pfble;/. p. 57, ed. 7). There are however strong reasons for regarding these forms as subjunctives, formed after the model of verbs in eu : (1) '/»« is certfiinly not followed by the optative of any other verbs (on E. i. 17, iii. 16, see below) ; (2) iiiufii borrows several forms from verbs in ea (sec above, p. 95) ; <3) the same form is found after iVav (compare Jelf 843) aud in connexion with a present tense in Mark iv. 29; compare 1 C. xv. 24 (Lachm., Tisch., Treg.). Sfee also 1 Th. v. 15 (Tisch.), ipin fir, n; u-ral<,7 ; Mk. viii. 37, T< yap ^o7. This view is taken by A. Buttm. (pp. 46, 233) and by Meyer (on 1 C. XV. 24).] * Even in the older writers the conjunctive with particles of design after a past tense is more common than grainnianans were formtrly willing to admit. See Bremi, Lys. Exc. 1, p. 435 pqq. SECT. XLI.] THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. 361 TTotovvre^ Ta<; evr6\,a<; aurov, Xva ea-rac rj e^ovald avroju ac.t.X. (immediately followed by the conjunctive), iii. 9, vi. 4,'ll,xiv. 13 V. I., Jo. xvii. 2 eBcoKa^ avrw i^ovai'av . . . I'va . . . Soicret avrol<; (al. Bcoa-T)), 1 P. iii. 1, 1 C. xiii. 3 v:L, G. ii. 4 v. I. : compare also the variants in Kev. viii. 3, ix. 20, xiii. 16.^ In E. vi, 3 how- ever (a quotation from the O. T.) ^ there is at eVi/ a change to the direct construction, and this future is not to be considered dependent on iva : in the same way might be explained the variants i^avao-TTja-ei and KadiaeaOe in Mk. xii. 19, L. xxii. 30. ''Ottoj? is not found with the future in the N. T. (for in Mk. v. 23 07r6)9 .... ^rjcreTaL is but weakly supported),^ though in Greek writers this construction is not uncommon (Xen. An. 3. 1. 18, Theophr. Char. 22, Isocr. Perm. 74G, Dera. Mid. 398 b, Soph. Philod. 5 5 ^) : the future then usually denotes a lasting state,* whilst the aorist conjunctive is used of something which rapidly passes. Elmsley (Eurip. Bacch. p. 1 G4) does not hesitate to admit this conatniction with iva, as well as with 07r&)9. Against this see Herm. Soph. CEd. Col. 155, De Partic. az/p. 134, Klotz, Devar. II. 630 : in all the passages quoted for tW with a future, Xva may be very well rendered ubi or in ivhich case. Ileal ex- amples however are found in the later writers (Cedren. II. 136), the Fathers (Epiphan. II. 332 b), and the Apocryphal writers {Evamj. Apocr. p. 437, Thilo, Apocr. 68^. Comp. Schfefer, Denu IV. 273). This construction is tolerably well supported in the N. T., as the. above examples will show, though the forms of the in- dicative and conjunctive might easily be interchanged byitacism. c. Very peculiar is the connexion of tW with a present in- ' [There can be little doubt that we must read the future in Rev. xxii. 14, iii. 9, viii. 3, ix. 20, xiv. 13, 1 P. iii. 1, G. ii. 4 (L. xxii. 30 is doubtful) ; and the subjunctive in Rev. xiii. 16, Mk. xii. \% In Jo. xvii. 2, Tieg., Meyer, Tisch. read luar,, Alford, Scrivener, Westcott and Hort, J^«/ : see Scriv. Introd. p. 548. In 1 C. xiii. 3 we must read either Vva x.avx.-faiiiia.i or 7va icav6ri. vii with the present indicative. [The standing rule in modern Greek is th.it yti or iia »d expressing a imrpose is followed by the subjunctive or (as in classical Greek) by a past tense of the indicative. See Mullach, Vulg. p. 364 sq.] * In Xen. Athen. 1. 11, '/va Xaf^^dvuv ftlv Tpami (which even Sturz quotes in his Lexic. Xenoph.) was long ago changed into ^af/.iidvi>j/u.iv Tpdrru: see Schneider in loc. [Meyer mentions an earlier example than those quoted in the text, Barnab. Bj). 7. 11,'Vva . . . luavrov ■TrahTv ; but Hilgenfcld and Miiller, with Cod. wSiii and the Latin Interp. {(piia), read on for 'Iva. See also Tisch. Proley. p. .53 (erl, 7), where Ign. ad Eph. 4, Basilic. T, VII. p. 147 B, are quoted.] SECT, XLI.] THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. 3t>3 another passage, Jo. xvii. 3, wliere good JNISS. read iva .... "yivdoaicovai. P^ither then Paul actually wrote thus (see however Bengel on 1 C. iv. 6 ^), or else mistakes of transcription estal?- lislied themselves in these passages at an early period : in any case it is worthy of remark that both instances of this con- struction are found in verbs in oda? Where 7.va is joined with the optativo (after a present), as in E. iii. 16, Ka/JLTTTM TO. yovaTOi fiov 7rpo9 Tov iraripa tov Kvpiov I'va 8(pr; vfj2v K.T.A. (where however very good MSS.' have S«I>), E. i. 17, Tva is not, strictly speaking, a particle of design : the sentence which u'a commences expresses the object of the wish and prayer (fhat-^ he viinj (jivc), and the optative is used as being the modus optandi: see Harkvss on E. i. 17. Yet even with the meaning in wder that Iva and oTTOJs are found with the optative when they are dependent on a clause which contains a wish, Soph, Phil. 325, Jjax 1200: see Herm. on the latter passage, and We.x, Eiyist. Crit. p. 33 (Jelf 807. 8). —It is unnecessary to read Swr; in Eph. //. cc, with Lachmann and Fritzsche {B/m. 111. 230) : there is no sufficient warrant for mtro- ducing this Ionic conjunctive into the N. T, 2. In hypothetical sentences we find a fourfold construction'* (Herm. Virj. pp. 834, 902,^ Don. p. 5^7 sqq., Jelf 850 sqq.) . — ' [Bengel says, " Subjnnctivus ; .... singiilaris ratio contractionis." Simi- larly Green, Or. p. 171 : "In two places tlie Indicative of the Present apfiear^, which may still be no more than an anomalous form of the Subjunctive iu verbs of that termination." xVlford (on 1 C. iv. 6) inclines towards the same view: compare also Ellicott on G. iv. 17. A. Buttmann (pp. 38, 235) thinks that familiarity with the Attic future insensibly led the N. T. writers to use the pre- sent for the future in contracted verbs more freely than in other veibs. — For a curious illustration see Ex. i. 16, oVav fittioZtrh .... xa] Zn.] - [This construction was received by Tisch. (ed. 7) in 1 Jo. v. 20, Tit. ii. 4, Jo. xvii. 3, G. vi. 12, Jo. iv. 15, 1 Th. iv. 13, Rev. xiii. 17 ; but in cd. 8 he ha.s returned to the subjunctive in all these passages except the first four. The indicative is strongly supported in 1 Jo. v. 20 (Treg., Alf., Westcott and Hort): it is also received by Tregelles in Tit. ii. 4, Jo. xvii. 3, iv. 15. See A. Buttm. p. 235. In 2 P. i. 10 Lachm. reads '/y« -roiuaS:, but on slender authority.] * [Not in order that, but the simple objective that. In E. iii. 16 the best MSS. and texts have 1-2 : 'ivx lohlr., E. vi. 19 Rec, has very little support. In Jo. XV. 16, Tisch. reads S« in ed. 8, for ^ui^ (ed. 7). On Ba-'jj and lun see p. 94.] * [The theory of hypothetical sentences given (after Hermann) iu the text is in the main adopted by most grammarians (including Kiihner, ed. 2). Its correct- n"ss (especially as regards the secoi>d and third classes, h and c) is impugned by Professor Goodwin. See his articles in the Proceedings of the American Academy, vol. vi, Journal of Philology, v. 186-205, viii. 18-38 ; also Moodx and Tenses pp. 87 sqq., Elan. Greek Grammar, pp. 263 sqq.] ^ See also ad Soph. Antij. 706, ad Soph. CEd. C. 1445, ad Eurip. Bacch. 200, Klossmann, Dt ratione et usu emintlatorum hypothet. lingiice Or. (Vratisl. 1830); Kiesling, 2 Programm. de enuvciatis hypothet. in lingua Gr. et Lat. (C'izce, 1835, 1845) ; Eecknagel, Zur Lehre von den hypothetischen Sdtzen mit TiUchsicht auf die (Jrundformen derselben in der griech. Sprache (Niirnberg, 1843 etc., III.). — We may easily conceive that in many sentences tl aud lit 364 THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. [PART IIL a. Condition piirel}'^ and simply : if i/our /intend comes, salute him, — the case being put as an actual fact. Here we lind the indicative with el, *' quse particula per se nihil sigiiificat prieter conditionem :" Klotz, Devar. p. 455, compare p. 487. h. Condition with assumption of objective possibility, wh'ere experience will decide whether the thing is really so or not : if your friend should come (I do'not know whether he will come or not, but the event will show). Here we have idv (el av, see Hermann, Partic. av p. 95 sqq.) with the conjunctive. c. Condition with assumption of szibjeetive possibility, a con- dition merely supposed in thought : if your friend were to come (the case is conceivable and credible), / should like to greet him. Here we have el with' the optative. d. Condition with the belief that the thing is not really so J if there were a God, he would govern (which implies, hut there is not) ; if God had existed from eternity, he ivoidd have jji^evented evil (implying, hut he has not so existed). Here we find el with the indicative, — the imperfect indicative in the former case, and in the latter the aorist or (much more rarely) the pluperfect (Kviig. p. 195) : in the apodosis also one of these two tenses is employed. Why a preterite is used in this case is explained by Hermann {Vig. p. 821) : compare with this Stallbaum on Plat. Euthyphr. p. 51 sq. On the whole subject see Klotz, Devar. p. 450 sqq. For lav we sometimes find av in good MSS. (especially B), as in Jo. xii. 32, xvi. 33,^ xx. 23, L. iv. 7 (where however Tisch. makes no remark) : on this see Herm. Vig. pp. 812, 822 (Jelf 851. Obs.). It is not uncommon in Greek writers, even the Attic ; though these prefer the form y]v, which does not occur in the N. T. These rules are regularly used in the N. T., as the following examples will show : — a. (a) Mt. xix. 10, el ovT(oepei jafi^jaaf 1 C. vi. 2, ix. 17, Rom. viii. 25, Col. ii. 5, — present followed by present. Mt. xix. 1 7, el 6e\ei<; el'ieX- 6elv elt TTjv ^o)r]v, T-qpei, rm lvro\deL\ov' xv. 20,^ — aorist followed by future. ^ [This does not come in here, as the protasis has ia'v.] ^ The only correct rendering of u Ifil iiiu^ay, kx'i vua,s iia^ouffi' tl rot xiyat fieu tTr'^Jio-ar, xai ri* ifiirtpeif Tnfr.aovai, is, if they persecuted me they will also persecute you, etc. I consider the words to be merely a special amplification of the thought which precedes, euK iim Ssj/Xa; fmXu* toZ KupUu airau : your lot will be what mine has been, and persecution and acceptance are the only possible issues. The words themselves leave it for the moment undetermined which of these Jesus himself had experienced : what follov^s shows how he wished his words to be understood. It must not be overlooked that Jesus is looking at the conduct of the Jews as a whole, and in the yross, without any reference to individual exceptions. In a new exposition of the passage by Kector Lehmann (in the Progr. Lncuhrationum sacrar. et prof an.. Part I. : Liibben, 3 828), a vis proportionalis is attributed to •/ : quewadmodum me per- secuti sunt, ita et vos persequentur ; quemadraodum (prout) meam doctrinara amplexi observamnt, ita et vestram, etc. But this signification of the particle should have been established by decisive examples : in Jo. xiii. 14, 32, it clearly has not this meaning. The writer seems to have confounded the simply com- parative M< , . . ita (coordinating two propositions between which there is 366 THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. ["PART in (B) Mt. xxvi. 33, el '7rdvT€<; CKavZakiaOrjaovTat ev aol, ejoo ovheTTore aKavBakLo-d/jao/jiac, — future followed bj future (as in Isocr. Archid. p. 280, Porphyi\ Ahstin. 1. 24): in Ja. ii. 1 1, how- ever, where in Jiec. the perfect follows the future, tlie verbs in the conditional clause should probably be read in the present tense. When the future is thus used, we have the nearest ap- proach to the construction with idv (Kriig. p. 19G) ; but if all shall he offended in th^^e, is a more decided expression than if all should he offejidcd. In the latter case there is, in general, uncertainty whether all will be offended ; in the former, this is assumed as an impending fact (Christ had distinctly assured his disciples of this) : compare Herm. Vig.-^. 900. (Jelf. 854. Obs. 7.) /;. *Edv, — where objective possibility with the prospect oi' decision is to be expressed ; here there is necessarily a reference to something future in every instance (Herm. Vig. p. 884) : Jo. vii. 17, edv TL^ diXrj to deXrifia avrou Troielv, yvcocrerai k.t.X., Mt. xxviii. 14, eat" aKovaOf) tovto eVl rov '^ye/xovo^, yfielf; ttci- (xofjbev avTov. Hence the consequent clause commonly contains a future (Mt.v. 13,Ptom.ii. 26, 1 C.viii. 10,1 Tim.ii.15) or— what is tantamount — an aorist with ov fxr] (A.xiii, 41, Jo. viii. 51 sq.j, or an imperative (Jo. vii. 37, Mt. x. 13, xviii. 17, Eom. xii. 20, siii. 4). More rarely the verb in the consequent clause is in the present tense, used either in a future sense (Xen. Ati. 3. 2. 20), or of something enduring (Mt. xviii 13, 2 C. v. 1),^ or in a general maxim (MJv. iii. 27, 1 C. ix. 16, Jo. viii. 16, 54, A. XV. 1, Diog. L. 6, 44, 10, 152). Perfects in the apodosis have the meaning of a present,Rom. ii. 25, vii. 2, Jo. xx. 23 : on Rom. xiv. 23 and Jo. xv. 6 see § 40. 4 5, 5 &. We find an aorist in the apodosis in 1 C. vii. 28, edv Be Kal y^fjif]^, ov^ "j/xapre^, thou hast not sinned, thou art not in this case a sinner. Compare Matth. 523. 2, Klotz, Dcvar. II. 451 sq. Tlie conjunctive after edv may be either present or aorist : the latter, which on tlie a necessary reciprocal action) with the proportioDal prout, hi so far ns. These two are quite distinct ; tlie former may in a free tranhlation be used to repie- aeiit e'l, but the latter expresses aii idea whicli lies beyond the limits of both £1 and si. It ie easy to see that Lehniauii really gives two meanings to ct in this passage, first that of vt, and then that of prout. See further Liicke in loc. ^ [The present in 2 C. v. 1 is differently explained in § iO. 2. a.] SECT. XLI.] THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. 3G7 whole is more common, is usually rendered in Latin by the Juturum exadum. That in 1 C. vii. 11 idv refers to a case which (possibly) has already occurred (as Riickert maintains) is incorrect ; compare Meyer in loc. In 2 (/. x. 8 Kiickert takes idv in a concessive sense ; tliis also is corrected by Meyer. c. El with the optative, of siibjcctive possibility (Herm. Partic. ay ^. 97) : — a. Where a condition is conceived as frequently recurring (JKlotv^p. 492,Krug. p. 197,Don.p. 539,Jelf 855): 1 P.iii.l4,^ el Kol Traff^ofcxe Sea SiKaioavvrjv, fiuKapioc, even if ye should mj/'er. Here the vda^eiv is not represented as something which will occur in the future, but is simply conceived in the mind as something which may very possibly take place, without any reference to determinate time (and as often as it may take place). Elsewhere only in parenthetical clauses, but with the same reference: 1 C. xv. 37, aTreipei^ . . . yvfivov kokkov, el rv-^oi {if possibly it should so happen) alrov, — Dem. Aristocr. 436 c, Lucian, Navig. 4:4:, Amor. 42, Toxar. 4 ;^ IP. iii. 17, KpelTrov dyaOoTTOLovura';, el OiXoc ro diXrjfMa tov Oeou, trda-^eLV com- pare Isocr. Nicocl. p. 52. /3. After a preterite, where the condition is represented as the subjective view of the agent: A. xxvii. 39, koKttov rivd Kare- voovv e'^ovra alyrSKov el ^aatXel inelv (comp. Engelhardt, Plat. Apcl. p. 156). See alse no. 5, below. (After idv in the ' [CoPipare Green p. 162, wliare this passage aud ver. 17 are quoted as instances ^vhicli •'illustrate the preference given to tliis cunstruction when the hypothciichl ciroiirnstance is of an unwelcome sort : as in tJie expression ti U T( ■>ni0o,. Xvr\: Anah. V. iii. 6."] * See Jacob on thit, passage and Wetstein on I C. xv. 37. ' [Th? optative u>j IS received by Lachii»., Treg., Alford, V/estcott and Hort, ou very ycod authority. In A. xxvii. 39 the more probable rendering appears to be., Uiey look cvanaiJ whether tJuy could, etu.J '668 THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS, [PART III. oratio oUiqica no one will expect to find the optative in the N. T. ; see A. ix. 2, Jo. ix. 22, xi. 57, Buttm. § 126. 8. Com- pare, however, Herra. Vig. p. 822.) For examples of (d) see § 42. The N. T. text presents very few exceptions to these rules, and these are for the most part confined to particular MSS. (a) Et is joined with the conjunctive^ in 1 C. ix. 11 ct ■rjfxe'i<: vfjiwu TO. a-apKLKa 6epta-(x)/x€v (the reading of good MSS.), xiv. 5, iKT6 uutm %riaiufiiv, — where (after a preterite iu the principal sentence) a more exact writer would have used the optative in both cases : compare Xen. An. 2. 1. 14. Here however "va. takes the conjunc- tive in accordance with b. 1 ('/vas , . , Z,-nrufiiy), and in conformity with this the verbs in the dependent clauses with tiVs are also put in the conjunctive. * See Herm. Soph. Aj. 491, Dc Partic. «» p. 96, Poppo, Cyrop. p. 209, and Einendanda ad Matth. Oramm. (Frankf. on O. 1832), p. 17, Schoem. Isceus p. 463, Klotz, Devar. II. 500 sqq. [Green, Gr. p. 158 sq. ; Jelf S54. j * De Partic. «» p. 97, and on Soph. (Ed. R. p. 52 sq. ; compare Klotz I. c. p. 501. ^Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 681, and Athen. p. 146, Looella, Xen. Ephes. p. 185; Jacob, Luc. Tox. p. 53, Jacobivz, Index p. 473, Schtef. Ind. ad JSsop. p. 131. SECT. XLI.] THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. 369 Greek ^), and hence it remains doubtful whether this nicety was present to Paul's mind. (6) 'Eav is joined with the indicative (Klotz p. 468), — not merely (a) With the present indicative (Lev. I 14, Jda Jpocr. 259), as in Eom. xiv. 8 (in good MSS.), iav dvoOvvcrKoiiev, tw Kvpioi a-n-o- Ovrjo-KOfjLcv, — a general maxim, cum morimur (without reference to the fact that the event will decide whether we die or not), — and in 1 Til. iil 8 (in G. i. 8 the indicative has not much support '^) ; or the future, as Jo. viii. 36, iav 6 vi6<; v/xSs iX.€v&epu)cr€L- A. viii. 31, v>'here however the conjunctive is better supported, L. xi. 12, iav al-r^a-ei tiov (according to many uncial MSS., — cum pete f, not petierit), and vi. 34,3 see Klotz pp. 470, 472 sq. : this is of frequent occurrence,* see Ex viii. 21 (Lev. iv. 3), Malalas 5, p. 136, Cantacuz. 1. 6. p. 30," 1. 54. p. 273 (Basilic. 1. 175, Thilo, Act Thorn, p. 23, Schaef. Ind. ad JEsop. p. 131), though in these passages the forms differ so little as hardly to allow a positive decision : — but also (/3) With a preterite indicative, in 1 Jo. v. 15 iav olBafxev (without variant), compare Ephraemius 6298. So even when the tense is in meaning a true preterite, as Job xxii. 3, Theodoret IIL 267, MalaJas 4. p. 71, €av KaKiLVY} rjjSovXfTo- Nili Ep. 3. 56, eav etScs* Epliraem. 5251.5 Sometimes we find idv and et in two parallel clauses : as A. v. 38 sq., iav 77 i$ dvOpwiroyv rj jSovXrj avrrj rj to epyov tovto, Kara- XvBrja-tTOii (if it should be of men, a point which the result will decide), ei 8t « O^ov ia-riv^ ov SvvacrOe KaraXvcrox avro {if it is fvoia Godf a case which I put) ; L. xiii. 9, kSlv fxlv Troi^o-rj KapTrov d hk fi^ye .... iKK6ij/eL<;- si fructus tulerit ; . . . . siu minus (si non fert) etc., Plat. Bep. 7. 5'40 d ; G. i. 8 sq.^ Com_pare Her. 3. 36, Xen. Ci/r. 4. 1. 15, Plat. Fhml. 93 b, Isocr. Evarj, p. 462, Lucian, Dud. M. G. 3, Dio Chr. 69. 621. In most passages of this kind ct or idv might just as well have been used twice, though the choice of the one 1 Rost p. 637 ; compare Matth. p. 525 b. * In all these passages, it is true, the form might easily be introduced through an error of transcription (Fritz. Bom. l\\. 179); but Klotz (p. 471 sqq.) has adduced examples from ^ood writers to which this would not apply. 3 [This should have been quoted above : Tisch. (in ed. 7) and Treg. receive the present, but quote no MS. as containing the future. Tlie indicative is received by Tisch. and Treg. in A. viii. 31, Mt. xviiL 19, L. xix. 40 (future), and 1 Th. iii. 8 (present) : Westcott and Hort retain the subjunctive in Mt. xviii. 19, but read the indicative in the three other passages. In L. xi, 12 i«y should probably be omitted.] * Compare Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 678, 687. * See Jacobs, Act. Monac. I. 147 ; compare Hasc, Leo Diac. p. 143, Sehajf. ad Bastii Ep. Crit. p. Ii6, Poppo, Thuc. III. i. 31;J, III. ii. 172. When such examples occur in early writers, it has been usual to correct the text (see also Bernhardy, Dionys. p. 851), sometimes without any MS. authority (Arist. Anim. 7. '4. p. 210, Sylb.). In Dinarch. c. Philocl. 2, however, Bekker retains ia> . . itkn(pt. which after Elotz's remarks must be left unaltered. " • See Herm. Vi(/. p. 834, Jacob, Luc. Tox. p. 143, Welier, Dern. p. 473. 24 370 THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. [PART III. conjunction or the other manifestly proceeds from a different concep- tion of the relation; see Fritz. Conjed. I, 25. Ei and c(Scv are used distinctively in two mutually subordinate clauses in Jo. xiii. 17, d Tavra otSdre, /xaKapiot core, eav TTOirJTe avrd (if ye know . . . in case y& do them), and 1 C' vii. 36, ct ns acrxr}fiov€LV ctti rrjv TzapBevav avTov vo/xL^f-L, iav ^ w€/>aK/x,os k.t.X., liev. ii. 5. Compare Kriig; p 197 (Jelf 860. 10}.' 3. Particles of time (Kriig. p. 201, Don. p: 578 sq-i., Jelf 8,40 sqq.) :— 1. Those which in narration denote a definite past event (as, when, etc.) are naturally construed with the preterite or the historical present of the indicative : ore Mt. vii. 28, ix. 25, Mk. xi. 1, xiv. 12, L. iv. 25, 1 C. xiii. 11 ; (u? Mt. xxviii. 9, L. i. 23, vii. 12, Jo. iv. 40, A. xvi. 4, al. ; o-rrore L. vi. 3 ; -^vUa 2 C. iii. 15 (Lachm.,^ Tisch.) : conipare Klotz p. 613. So also eft)9 and em ov^ Mt. i. 25, ii. 9, Jo. ix. 18, A. xxi. 26, al. (Matth. 522. 1). 2. Those which express a future event (lohen, as soon as, until) a. Are joined with the indicative (future) when they refer to a fact which is quite definitely conceived; as in Jo. iv. 21, ep- ^erat u>pa, ore .... irpo TrarpL' L. xvii. 22, eke^u- crovrat Tjfj,epai, ore €'m6v/Mi]a-eTe' xiii. 35, Jo. v. 25, xvi. 25. See Herm. Vig. p. 915. With eox? we sometimes find the present indicative instead of the future^ (§ 40. 2), as in Jo. sTxi. 22, 1 Tim; iv. 13, eitu? ep^ofxat,, like etw? irrdveta-tv Plut. Lycurg. c. 29.* The ^ [Lachmann (in both editions) has hyUa. a». avayin>jiTai. In L. vi. 3 we should probably read an : orirt does not occur elsewhere in the N, T.] * This formula, the German bis dass [the English until that, Jud. v.' 7], is mainly but (without «►) not entirely confined to the later prose writers. As early as Her. 2. 143 we find lui a5 a-rtSs^ay, and fi'txpn oZ in Xen. An. 1. 7. 6, b. 4. 16, al. : the same in Plutarch 'frequently,' — more fully ^£;i^^< Tuvnu, ta; eS, Palaeph. 4. 2. [In one of the passages quoted above, Jo. ix. 18, we have iW oTou, not iu; au ; the N. T. writers also use fiixf^ ""■> '^XP'f *"» ^^^ °XP' ^* hftifti in the sense until; see A. Buttm, p. 230 sq. Besides lus, las flVat/ (Mt. v. 25) and ccxp't »u (H. iii. 13) are used with the meaning as long as; see the note below. Similar combinations are U i^ whilst {Wa. ii. 19, al., — used in L. xix. 13 with 'ipx'f^'^' ill the same sense as Xco; ii>xoft.ai 1 Tim. iv. 13), and «^* oS since (Rev. xvi. 18, al.). "Av is very seldom found in the N. T. with any of these compound conjunctions : perhaps the only examples in the best texts are axp* 00 ecv Rev. ii. 25, i(p' o5 av L. xiii. 25. There is not much authority for £» in Alt. xxvi. 36, 1 C. xi. 26, xv. 25.] * [There are only two examples of the future indicative with a particle .■signifying until, viz. L. xiii. 35 (but see below, p. 372, note^), and Rev. xvii. 17, * "Eas naturally takes the indicative when used in the sense as long as, of SECT. XLl.] THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. 371 use of the present indicative witli ore is of a different kind. This construction we find in sentences and maxims of altogether general application, as in Jo. ix. 4, ep'^erai vv^ ore (i. e. iv y) ovhu'i Suvarac ipyd^etrOac H. ix. 1 7, eVet fj^ijirore ia^vet {Bia- 6t]ici]), ore ^fj 6 8ia6efji,ei>o<: ; see Herni. L c. p. 915. h. If however the future event is only (objectively) possible, and yet ia regarded as one which under certain circumstances must actually take place, the conjunctive is commonly used with the particles compounded with av {orav, iirdv, rjvUa av) : see § 42. Similarly when the particle of time expresses duration or repetition in the future {orav, 6/jLai, until I shall have 'prayed ; 2 P. i. 19, Ka\oiVTat avTov<;' L. xix. 48, xxii. 2, Mk. iii. 6, cv^^ovXiov iiroiovv . . . oVo)? avTov aTro\ed<;, £t e^oi ravra ovrax;, whether it was so, xxv. 20 ; compare Her. 1. 46, 3. 28, 64, Xen.^w. 1. 8. 15, 2. 1. 15, Ci/r. 1. 4. 6, and Hermann /. c, p. 742. See also A. xvii. 27, eTroirjcre . . . ttuv ' [Under this head come il KxraXd^u Ph. iii. 12, t" iruf xccTnyrriiru Ph. iii. 11 (Rom. xi. 14), I'l vu! iv^u6riirof/.ai Rom. i. 10. Of the dubitative ^b one example (L. iii. l.'i uri'TOTi ur) is quoted in the text : 2 Tim. ii. 25, furi'TBTi Ja'»> (tu^ Lachm., see §14. 1) is somewhat irregular ; on this optative >see EUic. in loc;, Jelf 814. c. In this example, as in seTeral quoted above, the indirect question depends on a verb implied, not expressed. L. xi. 35, e-xoTu /art to ^Z; .... itr^'m, seems to come in here most naturally (A. Buttra. p. 243, Meyer in loc), not in connexion with verbs of fearing (§ 56. 2), though indeed their construc- tion is very possibly nn appUoation of the indirect question (Don. p. 560 sq., Best and Palm s. v. ftri). On G. ii. 2 and 1 Th. iii. 5 see below § 56. 2. See A. Buttra. p. 256, and compare Green, Or. p. 174 sq.] * Hermann, Eurip. Ion p. 155 : ubique in conjunct! vo inest futuri notatio, cnjus i!le cumque temporis sit ; compare Baumlein 106 sq. •'' [Tisch. now (ed. 8) reads Sifa.'riuii, which is probably the true reading in L. vi. 7*] * See StaUbaum, Plat. Gorg. p. 249. SECT. XLI.] THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. 375 e6vo<; . . . ^rjrelv rov 6e6v, el apaye ■\{rrj\aav€p6v e\^i/ (where B and L have o ov iMTj yvoxrOfj koI cts . (XOrj ^) ; see below, § 42. 3. h. In the example quoted by Lobeck {PImjn. p. 736) from Josephus, Antt. 13. 6, there is similar uncertainty. On the meaning of this conjunctive see below,' § 42. 3. h. In Jo. vii. 35 the future indicative is quite in order, rrov optos /xcXXct "TTOpevearOai (Ac'ywv), on ly/Acts ov;( evprJtro/ACJ' airrov ; whither will he (JO, since we (according to his assertion, ver. 34) shall not find him?*' In ovx evp-^(rop.€v the words spoken by Jesus (ver. 34) are repeated in the tense and mood which he had actually used. Xor is there any inaccuracy in A. vii. 40 (from the LXX), Trotrycrov r//xtv 6eov<;, o't TrpoTTopevcrovTaL rj/xuyv, qui antecedant (see Matth. 507. I. 1), Ph. ii. 20, 1 C. ii. 16 ; compare Demosth. Polycl 711 b, Plat. Gwg. 513 a, Xen. Hell 2. 3. 2, Aristot. Nic. 9. 11. ' The use of the future indicative with £t or d apa in such cases as * [On such fornis as -rapa^oT (sometimes found in an indirect question, e.g. Mk. xiy. 11) see above, p. 360.] ^ [Recent editors omit av, following the oldest MSS.] ^ [Lachin., Treg., Tisch., Westcott and Hort, adopt tliis reading, with NBLR, 33.] * [Two explanations seem intermingled here. In ed. 5 Winer supplied Xsywv, liut took on in the sense of that; " whither will he go (saying) that we etc." In this edition he gives to en its causal meaning (with Meyer), but still retains xiyu*. Probably this word is found here by accidental transference from the former edition.] 376 THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. [PAET III. the following is also worthy of notice : A. viii. 22, oerjOrp-i tov deov, et apa d9 TrepLTrarelv, actually existent as a Christian duty ; look to it i7i what tray you carry into effect the aKpLl3wiXoy dva- X^o-Oe ixov pLLKpov, that you ivould have patience with me a little ; — or with the future, as in G. v. 12. With the former construction of offieXov compare Arrian, Epidet. 2. 18. 15, o^^Xov ns /xem rairn;? i Koi/ji-^Of}- Gregor. Grat. 28 (Ex. xvi. 3, Num. xiv. 2, xx. 3*). When once it had become customary to regard 6vXa.\x;.~\ 378 THE CONJUNCTION ciif WITH THE THREE MOODS. [PAKT III. Others ^9 :^ both readings give equally good sense. (Jelf 856. Obs. 2, Don. p. 549.) Section XLII. THE conjunction dv WITH THE THREE MOODS." 1. The particle dv gives to the expression in' which it. stands a general impress of dependence upon circumstances (a fortuita quadam conditione), and consequently represents the matter as conditioned and contingent,^ — forte, si res ita ferat, perhaps, possibly (if it should so happen).'* It may be joined with any of the three moods, either in an independent or in a dependent sentence. In the N". T. however, as in later Greek generally, it is used with far less freedom and variety. than in (Attic) Greek writers ; ^ in particular, it never occurs in com- bination with participles. In an independent and simple sentejice, dv is used by the N. T. writers a. with the aorist indicative, to indicate that, on a certain con- dition, somethiugtt?ow^c^ have taken place (a hypothetical sentence being implied in the context) ; ^ as in L. xix. 23, Btd re ovk eSco- ' [Recent editors read «,- : the optative has not much support.] ^ On the use" of this particle see the following monof^naphs : Poppo, .Pr. de usu partic. «v apiid Gr(f(o.« (Frankf. on Oder 1816), also included in Seebode's MUcell. Crit. I. 1 ; Keisig, Dt vi et usu av partkuUe, in his edition of Aristoph. Nubes (Leipz. 1820), pp. 97-140. I have in the main followed Hermann's theory, from which Buttmann diverges to some extent, and Thiersch {Acta Monac. II. 101 sqq. ) still more. This theory is most fully developed in the Libb. 4 de Partic. av, incorporated in the London edition of Steph. Thesaurus, and in Hermann's 0//aACM/. Tom. lY., and also published separately (Lips. 1831). In all the main points Klotz {Devar. II. 99) agrees with Hermann : Hartung's XnaXment (Par t'lk. II. 218 sq.) differs considerably. B. Matthiii (Z/ea;ic. .Ewrip. I. 189 sqij. ) entirely reverses the view hitherto held respecting the meaning of a» : he maintains that it is a particle of confirmation and assertion, and gives us to understand that his exposition is a " divina et qua nihil unquam verius cxstitit descriptio." — Compare further Baundein, Ueber die gr. Modi (referred to above, § 41. 1), and Mollerin Schneidewin, Philolog. VI. 719 sqq. [Donalds. New Gr. p. 349 sqq., Gr. p. 537 etc., Jelf 424 etc.] 3 Herm. Vig. pp. 903, 820, De Partic. «v p. 10 sq. (Jelf 424.) * We may perhaps also compare the South-German halt. ""Av is not found more rarely in the LXX than in the N. T. (Bretschneider, Lexic. p. '22, says " multo rarius") : in particular, we always find it in hypo- thetical sentences where it is required. It is sometimes joined to the optative (Gen. xix. 8, xxxiii. 10, xliv. 8), and to the participle (2 Mace. i. 11, 3 Mace. iv. 1). Indeed we find it on almost every page. On &,» in the Apocrypha see Wahl, CloA). Apocr. p. 34 sqq. «* Matth. 509, Rost p. 611 sqq. (Jelf 424, Don. p. 539 sqq.) SECT. XLII.] THE CONJUNCTION dv WITH THE THREE MOODS. 379 Ka<; TO apyvpiov /xov €7rl rrjv rpdnre^av ; koX iyco iXOwv crvv tokw av errpa^a avTo, I should (if this hihovai to dpyvpiov eirl Tr]v Tpdire^av had taken place) have exacted it ivith interest. Here the omitted antecedent clause is easily supplied from the inter- rogation Bid TL . . . Tpajre^av. Similarly in the parallel pas- .^age, Mt. XXV. 27, eSei o-e ^aXelv to dpjvpcop fioii T049 TpuTre^i- Ta49, Kal e\6(ov €<'/ui eKOfxiadfirjv av to i/xou cvv tokw' and also in H. X. 2, iireX ovk dv iiravaavTO •7rpo<;(f)ep6/u,€vai, where we may supply from ver. 1, had these sacrijices for ever perfected — -completely cleared from sin — those who offered them. Com- pare Xen. An. 4. 2. 10, Thuc. 1. 11, Plat. Si/mp. 175 d, Hep. 8, 554 b, Aristot. FJiet. 2. 2. 11, Diog. L. 2. 75. In the LXX, see Gen. xxvi. 10, Job iii. 10, 13, and (with the pluperfect) 2 S. xviii. 11. h. With the optative, where subjective possibility is con- nected with a condition (opinio de eo, quod ex aliqua conditione pendet, Herm. Partic. dv p. 164 sqq.-^) ; A. xxvi. 29, ei/^ai'^rjv dv TM deep, I shoidd pray to God (if I were simply to follow my thoughts, i.e. the wish of my heart). We find the same formula (parallel with ^ovXoifirjv dv) in Dio C. 36. 10, also ei;- ^atr' dv Tt9 Xen. Hip2Jarch. 8. 6, &>? dv eyoi} ev^ai/xrjv Diog. L. 2. 76': similarly d^iooaai/jL dv, Liban. -Ora^^. p. 200 b. So in a direct question: A. ii. 12, 'Ke'yovTe<; rt dv 6e\ot.^ TovTo elvac ; what may this intend, to signify (I assume that it is to signify something) ; A. xvii. 18, Tidv Qk\ov 6 cr7repfio\6 cri av ■f]8ew<; fiioTcvoLfiL ; ^ Klotz p. 104 : Adjecta ad optativ\im i'?ta particula hoc dicitur : nos rem ita aniiiio cogitare, si quando fiat, h. e. rem, si liat, ita fieri oportere ex cogitatione quidem nostra. Compare Madvig 136. ^ [Recent editors read ri fi\ii.'\ ^ [Ttiis passage comes in below, no. 4.] 880 THE CONJUNCTION aV WITH THE THREE MOODS. [PAKT III. In one passage av stands witliout any mood (Herm. Par/ic dv p. 187), according to most MSS, : 1 C. vii. 5, fxij dTroarepctTe dXAi^Aous, ct [xy Ti av CK crvfx4>wvov, unJess jjerhaps (unless if perhaps this. can be done) with mutual consent.^ 2. Alter conditional clauses with ei we find av in the apodosis with the indicative, to denote hypothetical reality (East p. 635 Matth. 508, Don. p. 539 sqq., Jelf 856) : — a. With the imperfect indicative (the most common case), when the writer wishes to express / should do it. The ante- cedent clause may contain either an imperfect or an aorist. (a) Imperfect : L. vii. 39, ovtos; el rjv nrpoijitjrr}^, ijlvcoaKep av K.r.X., if he were a j^^^ojjhet, he would perceive, xvii. 6,^ Mt. xxiii. 30 (see Fritzsche), Jo. v. 46 (viii. 19), viii. 42, ix. 41, xv. 19, xviii. 36, G. i. 10, H. viii. 4, 7, 1 C. xi. 31, A. xviii. 14. Compare 2 Mace. iv. 47, Valckenaer on L. xvii. 6.^ (/3) Aorist : H. iv. 8, el /yap avrov<: 'Ir]aov^ Kareirava-ev, ovk av Trepl aX\7] (the principle on which some similar oases in the Greek poets must be explained), we depart entirely' from Paul's uhis loquendi. Hence we must supply either the indicative (2 C. xiii. 5) or the conjunctive (L. ix. 13), and combine «► with the restrictive particle £(' jLcriri, so as to form one whole. There is another possible assumption, in which there is nothing opposed to the character of N. T. ellipses or of Paul's style, vi/.. that (XV here stands for lav, the predicate being i-rarTtpUTt or yivftrai, implied in the previous words. The only objection to this view is the extremely rare occurrence of av for !«» in the N. T." (See abv^e, § 41. 2, — also Jelf 860. 7% 861. Obs. 4.)] * [Here i'^^trt is probably the true reading : see below. Mt. xxiii. ov;» is thus explained by Fritzsche : si in (impia) majorum aetate viveremus, quani noa aliter, ac patres, in prophetas consuleremus, nos, qui vel mortuorum nunc pie revereamur sepulcraNl] 3 [Both A. xviii. 14 and 2 Mace. iv. 47 have an aorist in the apodosis, an imperfect in the protasis.] * [In Qeu. xxxi. 42, Jud. xiii. 23, an impLiiect stands in the conditional clauss. ] SECT. XLII.] THE CONJUNCTION av WITH THE THREE MOODS. 381 xliii. 9, Jud. xiii. 23, xiv. 18, Is. i. 9, xlviii. 18, Ps. 1. 18, liv, 13, Judith xi. 2, al.- — where the conditional clause also contains an aorist: Jo, xiv. 28, el rjoth expressions are correct, according as the writer conceived the fact as in every respect definite or not. The former m.ust be have a condensation of two sentences into one, the hypothesis to which the apodosis really corresponds being suppressed. Thus in Jo. viii. 39 : *' if ye are, as ye say, Abraham's children (and in a natural sense ye certainly are), ye would (if ye were his children in the trao sense of the word) do Abraham's works : " contrast with this ver. 42, where the truth of the hypothesis is at once denied. He quotes Aristoph. Av. 792 sqq. (compare 785) as another parallel instance. For a different example of the same combination of tenses see Jud. xiii. 2B Al.j 1 Klotz p, 145 : In his locis quum res ipsa, qure facta esse dicatur, certa sit, pertinet iUud, jjuod habet in se particula «v incerti, magis ad notionem rela- tivam, sive pronomem, siva particula est. [Comparfe Jelf 827. c, 424. 3. H, (Treen, Gr. p. 164.] • [The best texts now have J'^avra : in some of the passages of the LXX quoted in the next sentence, we have the aorist, not the imperfect.] 3 [In Rev. xiv. 4 we should probably read o-rev av y-ray . The reading of Fr. i. 22 is uncertain ; Lev. xxv. 16 is inserted by mistake.] SECT. XLII.] THE CONJUNCTION az/ WITH THE THREE MOODS. 383 rendered, all icho (as many as) touched km, of the persons who were surrounding him at that time (ver. 35). Mark's narration does not refer to any particular plaice (as is shown by orrov iav tUe~ TTopevero) ; he says generally, all who at any time touched him. Com- pare Hermann, Partic. av p. 26. b. With the cronjunctive, when the matter referred to is objectively possible, i.e., when something' whose occurrence is regarded as only conditional is spoken of. (a) The aorist conjunctive (the tense which occurs most fre- quently) is used of that which may possibly happen in the future, and corresponds to the Ijaiin futuruvi exadum : Mt. x« 1 1, eU fjv S' av TToXiv rj KQ)/Mr)v el6'? OaXivr] K.r.\., h. ix. 57, Jo. ii. 5, V. 19, 1 C. xvi. 2, Ja. iii. 4,' CoL iii. 23, On the whole see Hermann, Partic. ay p. 113 sqq., Vifj. p. 819 From the LXX, compare Gen. vi. 1 7, xi. 6, 1 S. xiv, 7, Lev. xv. 1 9, Ex. xxii. 9 ; this tense however is much less common than the aorist. In 2 C. viii. 12 we find a combination of two constructions, d rj 7rpo6vfx.ta TrpoKetrat, KfxOo iav f-XV-< ^vTrpo'iBeKTos, ov kuOo ovk «^et. The distinction is clear : the positive tx^i-v might be variously con- ' [In Rom. xvi. 2 the tense is the present.] ^ [We have this construction in Mk viii. 35, A. vii. 7, in the best texts.] ■^ [In the better reading, us iav t/>. idx-rri, it seems probable that iav is the conjuQction (Vulg. tamquam si foveat), — The best attested reading in Mk. iy. 26, u; a. Iia.\rt. is Very irregular.] * [We should here read evev fioCxirai. In Gen. xi. 6, quoted below, we find the aorist, not the present.] 25 386 rm conjunction dv with the three moods, [part hi. ceived in regard to degree (Ka$6}, according to what he may happtn to have; the negative ovk e^tiv is .single and altogether definite. Compare Lev xxiv. 20, xxv. 10, xxvii. 12; xi. 34, irav ftput/xa, In Attic prose relatives joined with the conjunctive mood are usually accompanied by ay ; there are however well-attested examples of the omission of this particle (liost p. 669 sq. ), and Hermann {Pariic av p. 113) has pointed out the case in which this omis.sion was necessary."' As re^^aids the N. T,, the reading of good MSS. in I* viii. 17 is ov 'yap iari .... airoKpvcfiov, 3 oi yvwaO^ (al. yvwoOrfcreriu) kol eJn ; with the other reading we have the ordinary con.structiou of ol /^n.] ^ [The use of relative sentences to express purpose or destination must not be left unnoticed. In this sense the relative is usually followed by the futuie in- dicative in Greek prose (Madvig 115 a, Kriig. p. 180) ; in Epic poetry we find the subjunctive, which also occurs occasionally in prose (Thuc. 7. 25, 1), see Jelf 836 4. In the N, T. see A. xxi. 16, H. viii. 8 (subj.), Mt. xxi. 41. L, vii 4 (future). See A. Buttm. p. 229, Green p. 177.] SECT. XLII.] THE CONJUNCTION a'j/ WITH THE THREE MOODS. 387 Similarly Jo. xiii. 24, with the reading vcvei tovtm Hi/jlcov U. TTvOiadai rk av ecr) irepl ov Xeyet (vjlio he might he, vA'hom they should possibly suppose him to be) ; but the better reading is vevei .... Kal Xeyei avrm elire tI<; iariv -rrepl ov Xeyei. See Klotz p. 509 : compare Esth. iii. 13. (Jelf 425, 879.) 5, The particles of time are followed by the conjunctive with UP (Matth. 521), when ti)o reference is to an (objectively possible) action, a case which may or will occur, but in regard to which there is no certainty uhen, i^liow often) it will occur (Hermann, Parik. av p 95 sqq., Doii. p. 581, Jelf 842). a. orav (i.e., or av) : Mt. xv. 2, virfrrovrat Ta<; yelpa'i, 6rav ciprov €cr6ia)«? dv, as soon as, Rom. xv. 24, 1 C. xi. 34, Ph. ii. 23.' h. The conjunctions which answer to until: ^w? dv,^ Mt X. 11, iKel fieivare, e(o belongs to the verb, in the sense of at any time : compare Seha;f. SECT. XLII.] THE CONJUNCTION av "WITH THE THREE MOODS. 389 11, Num. xi. 9, 1 Sam. xvii. 34, Ps. cxix. 7, Thiersch, Pent. p. 100 (so with {]VLKa ay Gen. xxx. 42, Ex, xxxiii. 8, xxxiv, 34, xl. 3G, oTTOTc -idv Tob. vii. 11, idv Jud. vi, 3, — where also a frequently repeated action of past time is referred to) ; also Polyb. 4. 32. 5, 13. 7. 10 (see Schweigh. on the latter passage), Aristid.Lept. §3. 6 : compare Poppo, Time. III. i. 313.^ In the Byzantine MTiters orav is joined with the aorist indicative even when it signifies when (in re- ference to a single event of past time), Ephraem. 7119, 5386, 5732, Theophan. pp. 499, 503. Compare also Tischendorf in the Verhandel. p. 142.2 When the final particle ottw? is joined with av, it indicates a pur]3ose the possibility of attaining which is still doubtful, or the attainment of which is viewed as depending upon cir- cumstances; nt sit, si sit^ — ut, si fieri possit, id forte} See Isocr. Ep. 8. p. 1016, Xen. Cyr. 5. 2. 21, Plat. Gorg. 481 a, Conv. 187 e, Legg. 5. 738 d, al., Demosth. Halon. 32 c; also Stallbaum, Plat. Lack. p. 24, Kriig. p. 192.^ In the K T. we liave only two examples of this construction (for A. xv. 17 and Piom. iij- 4 are quotations from the 0. T., and in Mt. vi. 5 av has been removed from the text in accordance with many authori- ties), but the explanation just given is applicable to these : A. iii. 19, 0770)9 av ekdwo-iv Kaipol ava'^v^eco';, ict forte (si mese admo- nitioni fMeravo^cruTe kuI eTTLTpe^ylrare parueritis) vcniant tempora etc. , L. ii. 35. So also in the two quotations from the LXX, especially in A. xv. 17, the meaning is clear. Compare further Gen. xii. 13,xviii. 19,1. 20, Ex. xx. 20, 2G, xxxiii. 13, Kun). XV. 40, xvi. 40, xxvii.. 20, Dt. viii. 2, xvii. 20, 2 S. xvii. 14, Ps lix. 7, Hos. ii. 3, Jer. xlii. 7, Dan. ii. 18, 1 Mace. x. 32. In the N. T. av is never found with the optative after con- junctions and relatives ; in the LXX however see Gen. xix. 8 J)em. III. 192. See however Klotz, Devar. p. 688 sq. [Compare Jelf 424. 3. /3, 841. Oba. 2.] 1 The LXX use even ui a.i with a preterite indicative, when speaking of a single definite past action; e. g., Gen. vi. 4, xxvii. 30, m «» i%^>'^iv 'la- xeaS K.7. X. ^ [There are in the N. T. two well-attested examples of oV«v with the .lorist indicative : Mk. xi. 19, era* i^i iyiyire (probably meaning, whenever evenhnj came), Rev. viii. 1, aVav nvoili. In modern Greek ot«v is freely used with the indicative, see MuUach, Vulg. p. 368.] ' See Henu. Eur Bacch. 593, 1232, Partic. £» p. 120 sq. * Compare Bengol on A. iii. 19, Eom. iii. 4. ^ [So Don, p. 600 : " When the final sentence expresses an eventual con- clusion, i. e. one in which an additional hypothesis is virtually contaiued, we may subjoin «» to ii; or axi*; ; thus Soph. Electr. 1495 sq., 'in order tliat you may, as hy going there you ivill, etc' " Compare Jelf 810, Green p. 1C9.] 390 THE IMPERATIVE MOOD. [PART 111, (but compare xvi. 6), xxxui. 10, 2 Mace. xv. 21. With the infinitive it occurs once, in 2 C. X. 9, tva jiy) ho^u} J)V ia. v i Kfft o ^ tlv v/ms;, that I may not appear perchance to terrify ijoil In the oratio reda (Hermann, Partic. av p. 179, Kriig. p. 348, Jell 429) this would be is av iKtpoftolfXL v/x5s, tamquain qui velim vos terrere.^ After relatives we frequently find idv in the place of aj' -in the N. T. text (as in the LXX and Apocrypha,- and occasionally in the Byzantine writers, e. g., Malalas 5. pp. 94, 144), according to the best and most numerous authorities : see Mt. v. 19 (not vii. 9), viii. 19, x. 42, xi. 27, Jo. XV. 7, L. xvii. 33, 1 C. vi. 18, xvi. 3* G. vi. 7, E. vi. 8, al.^ This is not uncommon in the MSb. of Greek writers, even the Attic : recent philologers,* however, uniformly substitute ui'.^ This the N. T. editors have not yet ventured to do, and the use of idv for dv may have been really a peculiarity of the later (if not indeed "of the earlier) popular language.*^ Compare L. x. 8. Section XLIIT. THE IMPERATIVE MOOT). 1. The imperative mood regularly expresses a summons or comrniind, sometimes liowever merely a permission (imperoti.viis pennissivus) a consent or acquiescenoe' (Kriig. p. 1 88, Jelf 420) : 1 0. vJi. 15, el 6 aTnaTd j^topi^erai^yoopi^ecrOco , he, may separate kimae/f (there can and should be no hindrance on the part of the Christian spou.se,j;xiv. 38 [J\ec.],€t ti,<; djvoei,d v/jlCjv (ver. 8), E. V. 14 (from the LXX "), dvdaTa £K Twv viKplliv, Ka\ €TrLcf>ava-€i (Toi 6 Xpto-Tos" may certainly be resolved in the same way as two imperatives connected by /cat, — if ye resist the devil, he vill etc. This however needs no remark from the grammarian, as the imperative is here used altogether in its usual sense (as a summons) ; and the conformation of these sentences may ^ [Meyer makes this assertion in reference to two imperatives which are con- nected hji x.tt.1 : in Winer's example and in Jer. x. 24 the conjunction is hut not anO. "The following interpretation seems the most simple : hoth imperatives a-VQ jusnive ; as however the second imperative is used with jK»', its jussive force is thereby enhanced, while the atlinnative command is by juxta-position so much obscured, as to be in effect little more than a participial member, though its intrinsic jussive force is not to be' denied ; " Ellicott in loc. Similarly Meyer, Alford, Eadie.] * ["From the LXX " is out of place here, as the words do not occur in the LXX, and in Is. Ix. 1 the construction is different. On this use of the im- perative as the protasis to a future see Don. p. 549, Jelf 420. Obs. 2.] SECT. XLIII.] THE IMPEKATFvT: MOOD. 393 — nay 'imisf, as being incomparably more forcible, — be retained in our own language. Comp. Lucian, Iiidoct. 29, tois Kovpea'i tovtovs iiriaKiyj/at koL o\p(.C Dial. D. 2. 2, evpv6/Jia fiaZv^ koX 6\p(.L' Plat. Thecd. 149 b, Rep. 5. -4G7 c, and see Fritzsche, Matt. p. 187. To consider the imperatives in Jo. ii. 19 and xx. 2'2 simple substitutes for the future, as even recent commentators have done (appealing to the Hebrew of such passages as Gen. xx. 7, xlv. 18), is prepos- terous. ^ Inasmuch as every command belongs to future time, the future tense, as the general expression of futurity, may sometimes take the place of tlie imperative (see below, no. 5) ; but the special form, of the imperative cannot be used vice versa in the place of the more general (the future). This would throw language into con- fusion ; indeed the above canon, like so many others, had its origin in the study of the scholar, not in observation of language as actually used by men. Olshausen has rightly declared himself against Tholuck (and Kiihnul) on Jo. xx. 22, and Tholuck has now corrected his error. In L. xxi. 19 the future is the better reading, see Meyer in loc.'^ 3. The distinction between the aorist and present impera- tive " is in general observed by the K T. writers, as may easily be perceived. For a. The aorist imperative (compare § 40. IJem. 2) is used in refer- ence either to an action which rapidly passes and should take place at once,* or at any rate to an action which is to be undertaken once only: Mk. i. 44, aeavrov hei^ov r

o^€i- aOat Tr]v i^ovcriau ; ro dya66v iro tei' Ja. ii. 12, ovTco XaXeire KOI ovT(o TToielre, eo? Sea vufiov eKevQepia'i k.t.X., 1 Tim. iv. 7, TOvyvvr) iva ^o^rjrai rov avBpa (an imperative precedes). In the Greek poets, however, we find Iva itself in this construction : see Soph. CEd. C. 155.^ At a later period it appears in prose, as Epict. 23, av 'ma)')(ov vTroKplveadai ae diXrj (o StSa<7/caA.09), iva Koi TovTov €K(pvcov vTroKplvj]' Arrian, Epict. 4. 1. 41 ; in the P>yzantine writers, indeed, it is even found with the present indicative (Malal. 13. p. 334, 16. p. 404). In Latin, compare Cic. Fam. 14. 20, ibi ut sint omnia parata. h. A negative question with the future (Herm. Vig. p. 740, Host. p. 090), will you not come at once, ? Aristoph. Niib. 1296, ovK d7roSi(t)^€i<; aeavrov cltto tt}? olKia■«'£>», as arising out of a variatio striiciurce (§ 63. li. 1). Fritzsche, Alford; Yaughan, take the infinitive as used for the imperative. Ellicott says of Ph. iii, 16 ; "This is perhaps the only certain instance of a pure imperatival infinitive in the N. T 398 THE IMPERATIVE MOOD. [PART III. instances tlie regular grammatical connexion has been mis- understood : in Rev. x. 9 Bovvai certainly belongs to Xeycov, and in Col. iv. 6 elhevav is an explanatory infinitive appended to the preceding predicates of the \6yo'i. In one passage only, Ph. iii. 16, irXrjv .... tgJ auro) crroi^etv, it seems simplest to regard the infinitive as used for the imperative : here it marks well the unchangeable law for the development of the Cliristian life. Compare Stallbaum, Plat. Gorg. 447 b. With the imperatival use of 'Iva. (5. a) Gieseler' connects a con- struction employed by John and others, e.g., Jo. i. 8, ovk ^y Ikclvov rb CKa h mo,pk\a^ov tcparetv (ohservanda ac- ce/penmi) I Mt. xxviL 34, e.hwKav avTo> TTielv o^o^' E. iii. 1 6, Thuc. 2. 27, 4. 36, Lucian Ann. 43, Diog. L. 2. 51. (h) I C. ix". 5, k-^ojxfv e^ovcTinv ^/waiKa Trepidr/eiv ix. 4, L. viii. 8, 6 ex^oiy- ojtu d/(ovetv dKoverco' ih 1, A. xiv. 5, E, iii. 8, H. xi. 1 5, tca-Lphs avaicdfiy^at; iv 1 (Plat. Tim. 38 b, ^'Isch. Dial. 3. 2)\ see ^latth. 532. d, e (Jelf 669). Here the infinitive may even have a subject jeined wil b it, as in Kom. xiii. 11.^ The infinitive is also attached to a?i adjective : 2 Tim. i. 1 2, ^waro'i ttjv irapa- O^'iK-qv (XOV (jwXdlat (Tbuc. 1. 139),H. xi. 6, vi. 10, ovk dSiKOf 6 BeU eiT/MiOsoOac k.t.X., i P. iv. 3, 1 C. vii. 39, Mk. i. 7, 2 C. iii. 5. L. YV-. 19 A xiii. 25, II. v. 11, 2 Tim. ii. 2, L. xxii. 33.* 2. But the infinitive may also appear in a sentence as an in- tegral member of it, and then its nature as a noun may be per- ceived with more or le.ss clearness : in such cases it takes tlie place sometimes of the subject, sometimes of the object. It ap- pears as the subject (Matth. 534 a, Jelf 663) in such sentences as the following: Mt. xii. 10, et e^eari Tot<; ad^^aai Oepaireveiv, i» it allowed to heal on- tlte Sahhath (is healing .... allowed) ? XV. 26, OVK ecrrt /caXov Xa^elv tov dprov TOiv reKvcov' 1 Th. iv. 3, ^ [On ui with infinitive expressing jjwr^jose, see Don. p. 597, Kiiig. p. 289, Rost p. 666, Madv. 166. Bern. 2.] * As by those who, in the example quoted under (6), "ix'!^^* l^outriav ■ripiayw, held that tou was omitted before the infinitive (Haitinger in Aci. Monac. III. 301). The infinitive has toZ when it is definitely conceived as a genitive (noun) ; without toZ it is the epexegetic infinitive. The two constructions are .somewhat differently conceived (Matth. 532. e). So in Latin : Cic. Tusr.. 1. 41, terapvis est dbire (compare Ramshom p. 423), elsewhere abeundi. On the whole see Stall baum, Plat. Phil. p. 213, 3ut/iyphr. p. 107. (As in L. i. 9 we find 'ixax* TOV ivfiixroit, so in Demosth. NefMr. 517 c. Xayx'*-*^' fiov^tvui).) '•> Com.pare Schoem. Plut. C'leom. 187. ♦ Compare Ast, Plat. Legg. p. 117, Stallb. Plat. Euihyd. 204, Weber, Demosth 261, Bemh. p. 36L 26 402 THE INFINITIVE. [PART lit rovTO ean ueXrjfia rov BeoO . . . , aTre^ecr^at .... otto tv/5 Trop- i/e/a? (preceded by o dyLaa-fjLO'i vfitou, which might also have been expressed hy an infinitive), A. xx. 16, ottcd? firj yevrjTat avru Xpovorpi,^f,em. 213), Mt. xix. 10, E. v. 12, Ph. i. 7, G. vi. 14, Ja. i. 21, Eom. xiii. 5, 1 C. xi. 20 [see p. 403], H. vi. 6, ix. 27, 1 P. ii 1 5^ Rev. xiii. 7. If in such a case the infini- tive itself has a subject expressed, whether a substantive, an ad- jective, or a participle, this subject usually stands in the accusa- tive case, in close grammaticnl union with the infinitive : Mt. xvii. 4, KoXov iarriv rjixd^i wSe elvaf Mt. xix. 24, Jo. xviii. 14, 1 a xi. 13, 1 P. ii. 1^, A. XXV. 27, L, ix. 33, xviii. 25.^ If this suTjject is brought, into the principal clause (as in Ph. i. 7, SUaiov e/xoi rov' o ^povew /c.t.X-.), the attributives which are constnied with the infinitive stand either in the accusative (Mt. xviii. 8, kaXov € Solcec. Di.icip. Chr. p. 88 sq. (Jelf 675). * [Other examples of tliis kind are A. xxvii. 3 (with the reading 'n-opi-Jivri), xvi. 21. With H. ii. 10 compare L. i. 74, A. xxv. 27 : in A. xi. 12, xxvi. 20, Mt. xviii. 8, the transition from dative to accusative is less remarkable, since the I)articiple stands after the infinitive. See A. Buttni. p. 305 sq., Alford on H, ii. 10.] » Znmpt 600. [Madvig, Lat. Gr. 393.] * [A. Buttmann remarks that vrpi-rn {-rpirav Irri) has four constructions in the N, T. : (1) with dative and infinitive, Mt. iii. 15 ; (2) with dative, followed by the accusative and infinitive, H. ii. 10 ; (3) with accusative and infinitive, ; C. xi. 13 ; (4) it is also used personally (H. vii 26). "ES.cfrt, which usually lias the first of these constructions, is occasionally followed by the accusative and infinitive, viz. in L. vi. 4, xx. 22, Mk. ii. 26. With Ssr we find the accusative and infinitive, or the infinitive alone: xf^ occurs once only (Ja. iii. 10), with' accusative and infinitive. See A. Buttm. pp. 278, 147, Jelf 674.] ^ [This should be ix. 47 : hero however there is good authority for «■?.] SECT. XLIV.] THE INFINITIVE. 403 (Tirovo^v' Ph. i. 21, — in which the finite verb with its adjuncts forms a complete predicate ; but also in connexion with the impersonal for- mulas, KaXov, aiaxpov iari, etc. (Rost p. 692), if the idea expressed by the infinitive is to be brought out with greater force, as in 1 C. vii. 26, KciXov avOpuvrta to ovtoj^ ftJ'af G. iv. 18, Kokov to ^rjXovaOai iv Ka\<^ •n-civTore- Rom. xiv. 21, 1 C. xi. 6. In the passages first quoted the article could not well have been left out ; in 1 C. Vii. 26 the expression would have lost in force had there been no article, koXov AvOpuyn-iu ovrws ctmt. it is good for man to he so (compare 1 C. vii. 1, xiv. 35).^ Ph. i. 29 also may be referred to the second category : in 1 Th. iv. 6 we find an infinitive of this kind -vvith the article annexed to another without it, — compare Plat. Gorg. 467 d, Xen. Cyr. 7. 5. 76 : in Rom. iv, 13, however, the infinitival clause to Kk-qpovofiov cTi/at is a kind of apposition to rj cVuyyeAta. With the above examples compare Plat. Phted 62 d, G€peL v/jllv, iva cyw aTreXOto. (On iva See below, no. 8.) This is to be referred m part to the general character of the (later) popular language, which' has a preference for circum- stantiality, in part to tlie Hellenistic colouring of the N. T. language. Yet we find similar instances in Greek authors (Isocr. Nicocl. pp. 40, 46). The infinitive is the subject when it is joined with cctti in the sense it is lawful, or it is possible, etc., as in H. ix. 5.'^ 1 C. xi. 20, how- ever, may also (against Walil and Meyer) be rendered, if ye come together, it is not a celebration of the hoard's Supper : the genitive abso- lute can be taken up thus without the aid of tovto. 3. The infinitive denotes the object (predicate) wherever it appears as a necessary complement of a verbal notion; not merely after deXeiv, SvvacrOai, ToXpuav, eTTL^eipelv, aTrovSd^etv, ^^^rety,^ etc., but also after the verbs of believing, hopinfj (I hope to come, ^tc), saying, maintaining (I maintain that I was present). It is not necessary to quote from the N. T. examples of the regular construction : we need only remark * We certainly cannot assume any distinction in meaning between the infini- tive with, and the intinitive without the article. In Geraiaa also we say, Das Beten iat segensreich, and beten ist segensreich, without any difference in tlie sense. But the infinitive has more weight in the sentence when made substan- tival by the article. [See EUicott on 1 Th. iii. 3, Jelf 670.— In G. iv. 18, quoted above, to is very doubtful.] * Ast, Lextc. Plat. I. 622 a. ' Against Bornemann, Scliol. p. 40, see Fritzsche, Horn. II. 376, and compare Blume, Lycurg. p. 151. [The point proved by Fritzsche is the frequent uae of the infinitive with ^nnTr in classical Greek : see also Liddell and Scott, s. v.] 404 THE INFINITIVE. [pART 111. a. If in sucTi a case the infinitive lias a subject of its own, different from that of the principal verb, this with all il s adjuncts is put in the accusative {accus. cum infin.)-. 1 Tim. ii S, (iovkoixai 7rpo^€a-6ai tou? ayBpau. On this infinitive — which even modem scholars explain by an ellipsis of Belv (against, this see Herm. Vig. p. 745) — see Lob. Phryn. p. 753 sqq., Bemh. p. 371."* Too many K. T. passages, however, have been thus ex- plained. In Pom. xiv. 2, o? fiev Triarevet (paryelv vavra means ih': one has confidence to cat, and the notion of lawfulness is contained in Trta-reveiv. In Kom. xv. 9, So^da-at expresses not what the Gentiles ought to do, but what they actually do ; see Fritz. 171 loc. In Eom. ii. 21 sq. and E. iv. 22 sq. (see above) the verbs preach and he taught, on which the infinitives depend, may from their nature denote either that which is (and must be ^ Compare Heiniclien, Euseb. H.E. 1. 118. 2 See also Elmsley, Soph. CEd. T. p. 80, Matth. 531. ' [The clause is omitted by recent editors.] 4 Buttm. Demosth. Mid. p. 131, Engelhardt, Plat. Lack. p. 81, Jen. Lit.-Zeit. 1816, No. 231. [Against supposing an ellipsis see Jelf 884. 4, Kiddell, Plat. Apol. p. 148, Kriig. 212, Madvig 146. The last two grammarians explain this usage by reference to the meaning of the governing verb, as implying a com- mand or requirement : compare Liddell and Scott, s. v. /.iyu.'\ 406 THE INFINITIVE. [PART IIL believed), or that which should be (should be done) ; and we say in like manner, i/iej/ preached not to steal, ye have heen taught to put off. In A. X. 22 the verb is ;!^/97;/iaTt^co-^af, which is used almost regularly of a directing oracle, a divine injunction. Lastly, if the infinitive must be translated by " may " after verbs of requesting, this meaning is already contained in the significa- tion of the governing verb itself in the particular context ; as in 2 C. X. 2, hkofjbaL TO firj irapoiv Bapprjcrat, rff 7reTroi,d)jcr£i, as if, / beg of you my not heing bold, i.e., I beseech you to take care that I may not be bold.^ c. The article stands before an object-infinitive to make it a substantive, and thus give it greater prominence (Rost p. 693, Jelf 670), Rom. xiii. 8, xiv. 13 (L. vii. 21 v. /.), 1 C. iv. 6 [Reel 2 C. ii. 1, viii. 10, Ph. iv. 10 (compare above, no. 1) ;'' especially at the commencement of a sentence (Thuc. 2. 53, Xen. Mem. 4. 3. 1), as in 1 C. xiv. 39, to Xakeiv 'y\ci)o-aai'? /j,t] kcoXvctc (com- pare Soph. J^hil. 1241, 09 ae KioXva-ei to Bpdv). In Phil. ii. 6, ov^ dpTrajfiov riyT^aaTO to elvat I'aa Oeo). the infinitive with the article forms the direct object of rijijcraTo, and dpTrayfiov is the predicate ; compare Thuc. 2. 8 7, ov^^l hiKaiav ty^^i TeK/xapaiu TO iK(f)o^7]a-ai, and.Bernh. p. 316 [p. 356]. Deserving of special mention is the accusative with infinitive after eycVcTo,^ — -a construction particularly common in Luke's writings. See Mk. ii. 23, cyeVero TrapaTropeveaOai avroV, accidit, ut tratisiret ; A. xvi. 16, iyivero tzaihiUK-qv riva .... aTravTrjaraL rj/xtv' XIX. 1, iyivero Hav\ov SieXOovTo. .... iXOeiv cis 'Ec^ccrov iv. 5, ix. 3, 32, 37, 43, xi. 26, xiv. 1, xxi. 1, 5, xxii. 6, xxvii. 44, xxviii. 8, 17, L. iii. 21 sq., vi. 1, 6, xvi. 22, al.* Here the infinitive clause is to be regarded as the (enlarged) subject of iyevero, just as after awift-q (see below), and in Latin after aquum est, apcrtum est, etc.,^ — there came to pass Jesus' s ^ In 2 C. ii. 7, also, the infinitives usn .... ^afUx(rfai xa) TapaxAXtifa denote not what is but what should If. We must not however supply oi7y. The influence of the clause with lx.(tvev extends, as it wore, to these infinitives iJiC censure in evfficiail .... in order now on the contrary to forgive him, ete. '■^ Herm. Soph. AJ. 114. ^ [On the various constructions found in the N. T. after »«< iyintt, or \yivirt Vi, see below, § 65. 4. e. ] *,"We have the same construction in A. xxii. 17, lyivtrl) fta u'r«9-r/>i«/'a»r/ i]c 'itfovaaXr.fi, .... yin •vpotii/Jt'A*'*'^ fA.ov iv rw /f^ (Jelf 674. Oba. ?,). ■ [In A. xi. 26, q^uoted above we should read fcCrois, not xuroif : Compare xxii. 6] ^ Zumpt. Gr <500. [Madvig, Lat. Gr. 398 a ] SECT. XLIV] THE INFINITIVE. 407 passing by, etc. Hence tlie construction is correctly conceived in Greek, though the frequent use of cyeVtro with the infinitive in the place of the historic tense of the main verb is in the first instance due to an imitation of the Hebrew %"1''1. Grammatically parallel with tliis is the use of arvve/Sr] by Greek writers ; e. g., a-vvi^yj rrjv ttoXiv .... eTmi KvpLe.voviit gekommen " is in the popular language resolved into " er sagte, dans ich zu spat gekommen warci" * [The best MSS. omit rov in this verse.] 408 THE INFINITIVE. [PART III, 1 Mace. V. 39), L. i. 9, eXa^e rou Ov^iaaai (1 8. xiv. 47), 2 C- i. 8, w KaTka-rrjcxev o Kvptoq eVt t*;? OiKereCa'^ avrov rov hovvat avro?,<; rr)v rpo7]v' iii. 13, 'jrapaycverai eVt rov ^lopBdvrjv rov ^arrri- a-Orjvai- xiii. 3, L. ii. 27, v. 7, xxi. 22, xxii. 31, A. iii. 2, xxvi. 18, 1 C. X. 13, H. X. 7, G. iii. 10 ; with a negative, A. xxi. 12, irapeKaXovfjbev .... rov fih uva^aiveci' avrov €t9 'lepovaaXrjfx' Ja. v. 17, H. xi. 5. This construction is principally used by Luke (and Paul). We find parallel examples however in Greek prose, especially from the time of Demosthenes ; and this use of the genitive arises so certainly out of the fundamental notion of this case (Bernh. p. 174 sq.^) that therfe is no ground for assuming ^ [" Free from the law, from beinj^, etc. : " Fritzsche takes the same view. (On the negative ^n' see § 65. 2/3.) But both here and in 1 C. -x. 13 the clause is usually taken as expressing purpose (Meyer).] ^ [Scholz inserts mu before adiK^irm on insuffiuient authority.] ^ See Valcken. Eurip. Hippol. 48, Ast, Plat, Legg. p. 56, Schsef. Demosth. 1 1 161, V. 368, Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 338, Matth. 540, [Don. pp. 480, 598, Jelf 492, 678. 2. b, Madv. 170 c. Rem., EUicott on G. iii. 10, A. Buttm. p. 266 sqo. J * [Benih. connects this usage with the genitive which follows words denoting SECT. XHV.J THE INFINITIVE. 409 the existence of either ellipsis or Hebraism. Compare Xen. Cyr. 1. 6. 40,To{) he ^r,K ivrevQev oia(l>€vj€iv.c-ico7rov^ rov jiyvo/j.evov Ka6la-r7j<;- Plat. Gorg. 457 e, (f)ofiov^ai ovv BieXiy^eiv av€<; yevia-Oai. K.rX., Strabo 15. 7l7, Demosth. Fhorm. 603 b, Isocr. ^-Egin. 932, Thuc. 1. 23, 2. 22, Heliod. 2. 8. 88, 1. 24. 46, Dion. H. IV. 2109, Arrian, Al 2. 21. 13, 3. 25. 4, 3. 28. 12. In L. ii. 22, 24, we find the infinitive with and without rod in the same principal sentence. If the infinitive in this construction is accompanied by a subject, this stands in the accusative (L. v. 7). In Ph. iii. 10 also this infinite expresses design; tov yswai is connected with ver. 8, and is a resumption of the thought there expressed. In the LXX this infinitive occurs on every page. Compare Gou. i. 14, xxiv. 21, xxxviii. 9, xhii. 17, Jud. v. 16, ix. 1-5, .52, x. 1, vi 12, XV. 12, xvi. 5, xix. 3, xx. 4, Ruth i. 1, 7, ii. 15, iv. 10, Neh. i. 6, 1 S. ix. 13, 14, XV. 27, 2 S. vi. 2, xix. 11. Jon. i. 3, Joel iii. 12, Judith XV. 8, I Mace. iii. 20, 39, 52, v. 9, 20, 48, vi. 15, 26. Different from this, and more closely connected with the notion of the genitive, — and therefon; to be brought under the head of 4. a, — is the use of the infinitive with tou after verbs which express distance, detention, or frcvcrdion from ; for these verbs have of them- selves the power of directly governing the genitive, and are regularly followed by the genitive of nouns : llcm. xv. 22, iveKmrro/jirjv TOV iXdeiV J_i. iv. 42, Kol KaT€L)^ov avTov TOV fir] iropzvvrdiu, (c(^mpare Isocr. /?/>. 7. 1012, a-n-i-xiiv T o u Tti'as airoKTilvfiv' Xen. Mt-in. 2. 1. 16. An. 3. 5 11). With pleonastic negative (§ 65) ; A. xiv. IB, iJ.o\'i KaTeravrrav tovs o)(A.oi;s tou jxt] Ovuv avrots (com.pare -rravav Ttvd Ttvo-;, and 7rav€(rOat. followed by the infinitive with tov in Diod. S. 3. 3.'*, Phalar. Ep. 35, also lycruxo-^civ tov ttouiv Malalas 17. p. 417), A. xx. 2y, ov^ V7ri(rT€iXdfi.r)v tov fj.7] avayy^tXai vfxlv tratrav T17V /^ouAr/v tov Oeov (compare ver. 20), i P. iii. 10, rrava-aTW r^i^ yAwo-crav avTOv utto kukov KOL X^^'^V 0.VTOV TOV fj.}j \a\rjo'ai Sokov' L.xxiv. 1 6,ot 6(fidaX/x'j' IxfjaTovvT" TOV ^7} eVtyvwvai avroV (Xen. Laced. 4. 6), Rom. vi. 6,^ A. x. 47, Sus. 9, 3 (1) Esdr. ii. 24, v. 69, 70, Gen. xvi. 2, Ad. Tham.-§ 19, Protev. Jac. 2, al. Perhaps also ^cxryetv and iKffmryeiv t o v -n- o tr} a- a i should in strictness be thus explained (as the Greeks said (pevynv tivos), Xen An. 1.3. 2. Compare Bernh. p. 356, Buttmann, Demosth. Mid. Exc 2. p. 143. aiming at, alriving aftr.r (Jelf 510). By Donaldson and Jelf it is directly con- nected with the ca»w«/ genitive : " When the genitive after these V(;rb3 appears in the form of an infinitive with the article, the cause generally assumes the character of a motive of action." (Don. p. 4S0.)] ' [la not this a clause oi purpose '/] 410 THE INFINITIVE. [p ART III. In Rom. L 24, rrape^oiKtv avrov^ o $e.o£LXtTrjv. in accordance with the regular phrase oKJxiXerrjv iivai TIV09 : see Fritz, jyutt. p. 844. In L. i. 74 also tov SoDvat is most simply taken in connection with SpKov ; compare Jer. xi. 5. It soon became usual, however, to employ this construction in a looser sense, — not only (t. After verbs which contain in themselves the notion of (requesting), ^ commandijuf^ revolving, and which therefore mediately express design : e. g., A. xv. 2 0, Kpiuco . . . iTrcarelXac avTolf; rou diri'^ecrOai, to send them an injunction to abstain ; L, iv. 10 (from the LXX), T0t9 a>yq ireTroLTjKoat. TOV irepiTraTeiv avTov (1 K. xvi. 19). lu both these passages Fritzsche's explanation {Matt. p. 846) must certainly be rejected: Conip. Malalas 14. 357, jJtwo-bto « hSyovrTit t«v (attfiX'tK, toZ )ia,r iX i iVv its reus iyitv; ro-rovi' 17. 422, Tuttyu; 'iyfcipi Tcii; a.br»7? TUTfixUii tcv ipfovTi- c 1 71 V a, I fm ?r«X<»' 18. 440, jietXti/«'aj t tZ itainvai aliruls X^f'^ •jrpcixoi itx XfClOV XlTfUf lIKBirt X.T.X., 18. 461. " A construction parallel to xfAii^w* 'iya. SECT. XL! v.] THE INFINITIVE. 411 if his principles were followed, many passages of the LXX could not be explained .it all, or only in a very forced manner. Com- pare especially Jos. xxii. 26, eiTraixev iroirjo-au ovrco rov oIkoBo- jj>r]crai' 1 K. xiii. 16,0^ fiij 8vv(o fiat rov i7riaTpe\(rat (1 Macc. vi. 27), xvi. IdjVirep zon> a/jiapTioyv avrov,o)V i'iroi.7}a€ rov Trotijaai TO TTovTjpov k.t\., Juditli xiii. 20, Troiritray am avra 6 ^eo9 eiS {/•\^o9 aicoviov rov eiTiaK€-\^aa6at - tations- It would seem that the infinitive with toO had come to be regarded by the Hellenists at the representative of the Hebrew infini- tive with 7 in its manifold relations j and, as usually happens in the case of established formulas, the proper signification of the genitive was no longer thought of.^ An analogou.s ca.se is the Byzantine use of wsTc with the infinitive after .«inch verbs as ^ovXeveaOai, SoKilv, etc.; see the index to Malalas in the Bonn edition. ^ Compare above, no. 3. In Eew xii. 7, eycVcro noXcfiO'? iv tw ovpavfS, 6 MixurjX Koi ol ayycXoi uorowTov sroAc/ji ijo-ai (where the liec. has the conection tVoXe/ATja^ai'), we have a construction which I am not able to explain (and Liicke says the same in regard to himself*),' — unless it be admissible to ^[As to the LXX see Tliiersch, Penf. pp. 173-175.] * In yEsop/ 172 (I'c Fur.) we find '^/nXXtv alro; toZ KaTaiZait r. Hort ; that Mixa-nX . . . tiv Tiksfi^irai Js.T.x, is explanatory of Tixiftm, some participle (e. g., going, frpxTivo- /uitoi) being suj)plied in the mind before red freXifj.rKra.i.] * [The use of p nTI in the sense in eo erat ut (Gen. xv. 12) : see note *.] ; TT T ^ Comp. Acta Apocr. p. %Q, ms kyinre roZ nXia'ai tturovi ^didirxBiirecf x.r.X. A, ii. 1 would be an example of the same kind, if we were to read [with D] xai lyttira i» rais rifiipeiis iKiivais rm avfu'jrXnfoZiiia.i. ® [Meyer takes avevSsxTav .substantivally, "impossibility of the not-coming exists." — No uncial MS. omits Tat/.] 7 Matth. 541, Schsef. Demosth. II. 163, Stallb. Plat. Tim. p. 203. [Jelf 678. 3. c, Madv. 155.] SECT. XLIV.] THE INFINITIVE. 413 2 C. ii. 13, ovK ecr^rjKa dvecnv tco irvev^arl fiov toJ fj,rf evpetv Tirov, hecause I found not. Compare Xen. Cyr. 4. 5. 9, De- mosth. Pac. 21 c, Fimebr. 156 b, j^p. 4. p. 119 b, Acbill. Tat. 5. 24, Lucian, Abdic. 5, Diog. L. 10. 27, Liban. Ep. 8, Atben. 9. 375, Joseph. Antt. 14, 10. 1, Simplic. in Epict EncJdr. c. 38. p. 385, Sch weigh. Agath. 5. 16. This infinitive has been taken as an expression of design in 1 Th. iii. 3, no /jujBeva traivea-dac iv Tat? 6\v>j/ecn, that no one. Tnay he shaken, as if, for the not-being- shaken (Sehott in loc.) : the clause is thus subordinate to etecw. p. 343).'' Here the present infinitive would have respect to the duration of the action, or represent it as -occurring at tliis present time; and the future infinitive (after verbs oi hoping and promis- ing)!^ used of that which will not occur until some uncertain time in the future.^ Of these three tenses the aorist is the only one used with iXTrl^ay in the N. T.,^ and there is no example which presents any difficulty, especially as the particular mode oi' re- garding the subject frequently depends entire!}^ on Uie writer's preference : L. vi. 34 Trap' ojv eXTri^ere aTroka^elv Ph. ii. 23 Not present, but second aorist.] Here the best MSS. have the present.] 3 Lob. Phryn. p. 751 sq., Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 153, Ast, Theophr. CJimt. p. 50 sn., Jacobs, Ackill. Tat. pp. 525, 719, Weber, Dem. p. 343, and especially Scblosser, Vhulk. N. T. locor. adv. Marcland (Hamb. 1742), p. 20 sqq. [Jeif 405. 7. Bidden, Plat, Apal. p. 147.] * It is less probable that the aorist infinitive is used here to indicate thnt tho action is one which quickly passes by (Herm. Soph. Aj. p. 160, Kriig. ///.m. H. p. 101, and others) • this point hardly comes into consideration in tha expies* .sion of a hope or command. ^ Held, Pbit. Timol. p. 215 sq. ; compare Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 138, Pllugk Eur. Heracl. p. 54 sq. * [Liinemann remarks that the future is a variant once, A. xxvi. 7 (in B).] SECT. XLIV.] THE INFINITIVE. ill rovTov iXiritoy irefi^ai, w? av aTrlBoj ic.rX., ii. 19, 2 Jo. 12, iXiri^co y€v€(T6ac 7rpo<; vfiar 3 Jo. 14, A. xxvi. 7, Rom. .x:v. 24, 1 Tim. iii. 14, 1 C. xvi. 7, 2 C. x. 15.^ 'E7rayye\\€ hovvav A. iii. 18, vii. 5 ; similarly ofjbvvfii, A. ii. oO/opfcm wfioaev uvtm 6 d€0<; ix Kapirov Tr]^avr6<; /ic viL 17, idu rc^ $ekr} TO BeKrjjjM avTov nroielv' xvi. 12, ov Bvvacrde ^aard^eiv &pTt' iii. SO, A. xvi. 21, xix. 33, G. vi. 13, 1 C. xv. 25, 1 Tim. ii. 8, Tit i. 1 1, Ph. i. 1 2. Hence it is used in general maxims : L xvi, 13, ovBelf; olK€Tr)<; Bvvarat Sval Kvpioi^ hovXeynlv Mk. ii. 19, A. V. 29, Mt. xii. 2, 10, Ja. iii. 10, al. Verbs a^ thinking, hduvivxfj are joined with the present infinitive when the reference is to something which already exists, or at least has already com- menced,^ as in 1 Oi vii. 36, Ph. i 17 ri6). As to KeXeveiv with the present infinitive, see above. If this distinction is not invariahly observed where it might have been expected, this is explained by the fact that in many cases it depends entirely on the writer whether an action shall he represented as enduring, or as rapidly passing and filling but a single point of past time (compare L. xix, 5^ Mt.xxii. 17) ; and also that it is not every writer who is sufficiently careful in such points. Hence we sometimes find the two tenses used in parallel passages, though the reference is the same in both, cases ; com- pare Mt. xxiv. 24 and Mk, xiii. 22, Mt. xiii. 3 and L. viii. 5, — also Jude 3. Instances of the same kind are met with even in the hetter Greek authors : e.g., Xen, Cyr. 1. 4. 1, et rt tov /SaaiXeo}^ SeoivTO^ Tovf 7ralha<; eKeXevov tov Kvpov SeicrOat StaTTpd^acrdai cfpta-c' 6 Be Kvpa, el BeocvTO avTov ol iralBe^i, nrepl iravTOm. pp. 195.. 492. In the N. T. compare Mt. xiv. 92, rjvdyicaae tov? fia67}Ta<; 1 Herm. Sot>h. (Ed. C. 91.— See Ast, Plat. Legg. p. 204. * Compare Poppo in lo<\ SECT. XLIV.] THE INTINITIVE. 419 ':ft^rjvat eh ro 7r\o7ov (an action which rapidly passes) xal r^'podyeiv (a continued action) avrdv k.t.X, L. xiv. 30, Ph. i 21. On the whole see Maetzner, Antiphon. p. 153 sq. Where it is a matter of indifference which of the two tenses shall be used, the aorist infinitive (as being less precise in its meaning) is on the whole more common than the present, especially after Ix'^ possxim} Zvvaijya hwaro^ elfxi, 6ik^o^ai, non comprehensiinim esse, where some would unnecessarily introduce ui/. Compare Isocr. Trapez. 862, Demosth. Timoth. 702 a, Thuc. 7. 28, Plat. Protag. 316 c,— in some of which passages, however, d with the optative has preceded.^ The omission of av gives greater confidence to the expression ; see Stallb. Plat, Protag. p. 43, and compare Losner, Obs. p. 162 sq. The use of the future infinitive (also without av, compare Herm. Partic. av,-p. 187) is not singular in such a connexion; see Isocr. £p. 3. p. 984. As regards the construction of fx-iXXeiv with the infinitive, this verb h in Greek writers most frequently followed by the future infinitive.* More rarely is it joined with the present infinitive (compare Dion. H. IV. 2226. 8, Arrian, Al. 1. 20. 13, 5. 21, 1, and Kriig. DioTi. p. 498), though there is nothing very strange in this combination, as the notion of futurity is already contained in /xiWeLv itself, and an analogy is presented by the construction of ikm^eiv. Still more rarely do we find fiiXXetv with an aorist infinitive (Plat Apol. 30 b, Isocr. Callim. p. 908, Thuc, 5. 98, Paus. 8. 28, 3,^ ^1. 3. 27), and indeed this construction is pronounced by some ancient grammarians (e.g,, Phrynich. p. 336) to be un-Greek, or at all events un-Attic ; it has however been sufiiciently vindicated by a fair number of well- attested examples.* In the N. T,, fieXXeiv is followed (a) most fre- quently, in the Gospels always, by the present infinitive : — (b) occasionally by the aorist, usually in reference to actions which rapidly pass by, as in Rev. iil 2, fxikXei airodavelv iii, 16, /x. tftcVai* xiL 4, ft. TCKctv G. iii. 23, ttjv ,aeAAo'jo-a»' iricmv a.'rroKaXv with the moat ancient of oi!r MSS. See Jelf405. 7,1 8 Compare also EUendt, Arr. AL IL 206 sq. * See Bbckh, Rnd. Olymp. 8. 82, Elmsley, Eur, Htrad. p. 117, Bremi, Lys. p. 745 sqq. : compaje also Henn. Soph, Aj. p. 149 (J elf 408). 420 THE INFINITIVE. [PART III. future,^ in A. xi. 28, Xtfibv fxiyav /xt'AAetv ecrecrOaL' zxiv, 15, avdcTTaoiv fi.e\\€Lv icrecrOai veKpwV xxviL 10 (xxiv. 25). The perfect infinitive is frequently used, especially in nar- ration, to denote some event altogether past in its relation to present time: A. xvi. 27, e/jueWev eavrov avaipelv, vofMi^oyv iic7r€(f>euy€vaL Tov '/►« Jo, xvii. 24, et similia), tamea multo frequentius in N. T. post ilia verba '/va precantis consilium declarat.] •'* On the other hand, Tittmann (Synon. II. 46 sqq.), Wahl (also in his Clav. Apocr. p. 272), and Bretschneider agree with me in the view maintained above. Compare also Robinson, A Or eek aiid English Lexicon of the N. T. (New York, 1850) p. 352 sq. (Edinburgh, 1857 : p. 374 sq.). [Meyer still maintains that iW always expresses pui-pose. He takes the same view of u; to and mZ with infinitive : indeed these three constructions should certainly be considered together, see Jelf 803. Ohs. 1. In Bp. Ellicott's note on E. i. 17, he states that the uses of "►« in the N. T. are three, final, siihfinal (" especially after verbs of entreaty, not of commatid "), eventual ( ' ' apparently in a few cases ") : compare his note on Col. iv. 16, which seems to go beyond this statement. -See also Alford on 1 C. xiv. 13. A. Buttmann's classification is nearly the same as in the case of j/'f ri (see above, p. 41 4^ note^): (1) '/v« oi purpose ; (2) "vet after verbs whose meaning is akin to purpose (wish, request, command) ; (3) '/»a after such verbs as make, persuade, permit, etc., to indicate an effect as designed by the subject (here '/»« is essentially equivalent to ui-n with infinitive) ; (4) the cases in which the notion of purpose has disappeared, and in which "va merely indicates a reference to something stiU future, the dependent sentence fre- quently completing the incomplete notion of the verb : here 7va represents the infinitive (with or without i'jTs), especially the future infinitive, so seldom used SECT. XUV.] THE INFINITIVE. 421 Mt. iv. 3, elire, Xva ol \i6ot ovtoi apTOi jevcovTat' xvi. 20, BiecrTei*- Xaro roi etVe Kaa-iyvyrrj KparepoiK! tva Orjpa^ H^ipv' Malal. 3. p. 64, Basilic. I.' 147; KcXeveiv and Oeanri^etv 'iva, 3 (1) Esdr. vi. 31, Malal. 10. p. 264 ; eTnTpeireiv iva, Malal. 10. p. 264; BiSdaKecv iva. Acta Petri ei Pauli 7.^ So also in the N. T. we may translate such passages as the following without rigorously pressing iva, by command, her that, I implored the Lord that, she hesought him that, like the Latin prcocfvpc, rogavit, impLoravit ut, etc.: L. x. 40, etVoi' avry iva /jlol cvvavTCkdfirjTai (iv. 3, Mk. iii. 9, Jo. xi. 57, xiil 34, xv. l7), 2 C. xii 8, rov Kvpiov ^rape/caXea-a iva airoarr^ air e'/ioO (Mk. v. 18, viii. 22, L. viii. 31, 1 C. i. 10, xvi. 1 2, 2 C. ix. 5), Mk. vii. 26, r)pii>ra avrov iva ro Baifioviov eK^aXr} (Jo. iv. 47, xvii. 15, L. vii 36), L. ix. 40, iBet^Orjv rcov pLaOr^TMV aov iva eK^aXcoa-tv (xxii. 32), Ph, i. 9, nrpo'tev^ofxai iva t) dydirT} vfi&v .... Trepia-aevrj. h. Moreover BeXeiv iva will also simply stand for our wish that.^ Compare Arrian, Ep. 1.18.14, Macar. Horn. 32.11, Cod. ^ In the Acts Luke never uses this construction, but always joins ifurxv and 'Ka.fo.K.a.xily with the infinitive, see viii. 31, xi. 23, xvi. 39, xix. 31, xxvii. 33 : in his Gospel, too, i^airSr is once followed by the infinitive (v. 3), a construction which also occurs in Jo. iv. 40, 1 Th. v. 12. In Matthew, •jta.ftf.Ka.y.uv is com- monly followed by the direct words of the suppliant. [These statements require qualification. In the Acts we also find Xfiwra.t 'iirui, vraftKnaXii* e-x-us (xxiii. 20, XXV. 2) : in ix. 38 vafaxctXi7v is followed by the oratio directd, in xxi. 12 by the infinitive with tsu. Uxf^xxXtTy is followed by xiyuv and the oratio directa three times in Matthew, and twice by "»« or eVa»f. — 'EpinvZv with the infinitive occurs also in L. viii. 37.] '^ K'.xivii» is never construed with (W in the N. T. [A. Buttmann (p. 275) notices ' ' the unclassical use of this verb with the passive infinitive and accusa- tive" (Mt. xviii. 26, and often), and sees in this the influence of the Latin jubere (Roby II. 142). This construction is found in the N. T. with .some siniilar words (Mk. vi. 27, al.). The. tense of the infinitive is usually the aorist.] * Analogous to this is the use of the infinitive with toZ after verbs of intreat' ing, exhoi-ti?ig, commanding : Malal. 17. 422, tukvus %ypii.(pi a\'hv ^Iwdvvov, by / wish, in order that thou may est give me? What then is the proper object of the wish ? I.s it not the obtaining of John's head ? Then why this roundabout mode of expressing it ? In Mk. ix. 30 also, if ovk rj&eXev Xva Ti» — which is found as early as the Byzantine writers, e. g. in Cananus (compare also Boissonade, Anecd.YV. 367)— is carried in modem Greek, may be shown by a few examples from the Gmifemo Orthod. : p. 20 (ed. Korraann), ■^pitrti to. iTiffrsvtiifiiv (pp. 24, 30) ; p. 36, Xiyirai »a kutcixx- p. 43, l(pt>liiTTa v« JavX£<;i» (/t€ hesitated, compare Mt. i. 20), p. 113, iiffrsptT •/«. itx^^- p. 211. fix.ti, t^t^uft^ IX i^exrr.ff)!' p. 235, iz'"^' XP'^"' •* vov6iriiZlp€i avTco Kpefjiacr6i)vav fivXov ovlkov . . . .. Xva KaTairovricrdy K.T.X. (by an attraction), will generally be considered harsh : Meyer's expedient here is too manifest a shift. See further L. xvii. 2, xi. 50/ Jo. xvi. 7, 1 C. iv. 2, 3, Ph. ii. 2 ; also L. i. 43, TToOev fioc TOVTo, Iva €\6t} Tj /xijTtjp Tov Kvpiov k.tX.^ — on which passage Hermann remarks {Partic. civ p. 135), "fuit haec labantis linguae quasdam incuria, ut pro infinitivo ista constructione utere- tur." In fact, to an unprejudiced reader all these sentences with Tifo. will convey exactly what a Greek writer would have ex- pressed by the simple infinitive (Matth. 5 3 2 e) ; and the change is the same in principle as the use oi (cquuvi est ut,mos est ut. expedit ut, in Latin (eBpecially of the silver age), where the simple infinitive (in the place of tlie subject) would have been sufficient.^ Sometimes we find this mode of expression and the infinitive construction combined, — as in 1 C. ix. 15, koKov yap fioi ^XXov airoOavelv, rj rb Kav')(7]/id jjlov iva rt? KevaxTrj, where it is not difficult to see what led the apostle to change the con- struction : in this passage, however, it is not certain that iva is genuine.^ — Hence that which in the examples quoted under (a), and even under (h), still called to mind the old function of the particle of design, disappeared entirely at a later period in the examples last illustrated ; and now it is easy to explain how modern Greek, extending this usage more and more, now ex- presses everi/ infinitive by means of vd.^ But how low the populaj language had sunk even in the second century, is shown here and there by Phrynichus, especially p 15 sq. (ed. Lobeck). The examples quoted by Wyttenbach® from Greek writers, in support of this lax use of lya for jSsre, are not all to the point. In ^ [No doubt this should be Jo. xi. 50.] 2 Analogous to this is Arrian, Epi^tet. 1 10. 8, -rfun'ot lan^, ha. iyu Kaiftneu Compare further Acta Apocr. pp. 8, 15, 29. 3 See Zumpt 623. * [There is strong evidence for elliit Kivum.] * [In all ordinary cases this periphrasis is used, see Mullach, Vulg. pp. 221, 373, J. Donalds. Gi: p. 32, Sophocles, 6V. p. 173. It is held by some that certain forms used with the auxiliary verbs are infinitives (J. Donalds, p. 23, Soph. p. SI) : against this see Mullach p. 241 sqq. , where it is maintained that these also are conjunctive fonns. 1 * riiitari.];, Mor. I ^109 (ed. Lips.>, p. 517 (ed. Oxon.). SECT. XLIV.] THE INFINITIVE. 425 TTft'Odv iva, Plut. ApopMh. 183 a, the clause with Tm is not a com- plement of the verb, to effect by persuasion that, etc. ; tt^.W^iv is used absolutely, to speak persuasively to some one in order that. Plut. Fort. Alex. p. 333 a, rt fioi roiovro crvviyvo)^, iva rotauVai? /xc KoXa- Kevaj/s rySovai?, means what of this kind have you perceived in me, in order to /latter ? i. e., in brief, what could induce you to Hatter me] In Adv. Golol. p. 1115 a (240, ed. Tauchnitz), ttou t^s dot/ci^rov to l3i/3\{ov €ypacv, iva . . . firj Tois €K€lvov (rin'Tay/tacrti/ ivTV)(r)<;, that which in strictness was merely a consequence is attributed to the writer of the book as a, purpose / just as we also say, In what desert then did he write his book, that you might not meet with it ? Liban. Decl. 17. p. 472, ovSet's eoriv oikct^;? Trovv^pos, iva Kpidrj rrfi MaKcSovwv hovXtias oiio<;, means no slave is had in order to he conr demned ; here ha does not stand for ws after an intensive word {so had tlwi), but expresses the purpose which might bring into existence the nov-qpia of the slaves : see § 53. 10. These passages are not strictly parallel to the N. T. examples quoted above, but we see in them the gradual transition to the construction of which we are speaking. — The construction opa ottojs has no connexion whatever with this subject ; and the use of ottw? after verbs of requesting, com- manding, etc. (Mt. viii. 34, ix. 38, L, vii. 3, x. 2, xi. '37, A, xxv. 3, Phil. G, al.), which is not uncommon in Greek writers,^ is usually explained otherwise : - see however Tittmann, Syn. II. 59. John's use of this particle-^ deserves still further notice, and particularly the case in which ha appears as the complement of a demonstrative pronoun. These instances are of two kinds :^- a. 1 Jo. iii. 11, avTTj icTTiV r) dyyeXt'a, ha dyaTTw/xtr', that Ice snould love, iii. 23 ; compare Jo. vi, 40. Here the notion oi purpose which belongs to ha is still perceptible (in the manner explained above, p. 420 sq.) ; as it also is in Jo. iv. 34, ip.ov jSpw/xd ia-nv ha iroioi to BtXrj^a Tov ■jrip.ipavTO';, that I should do (should strive to do), vi. 29 No one will maintain that here ha is equivalent to oTt. b. In Jo. XV. 8, however, cV tovtu) iSo^daOr} 6 Trarrjp fiuv, ha Kapirov iroXvv ip7}Te, the clause with Tva certainly stands for an infinitive, cV T KapTTov TToKvv 4>ep€tv v/xSs. Similar to this are Jo. xvii. 3, avrrj t(TTLV f] alijJvio<; ^wt;, ha yivujaKwaiv k.t.A.,^ XV. 13, 1 Jo. iv. 17, 3 Jo. 4 ; also L. i. 43, TroOev fiot rovro, ha (XOrj, for to eX6(lv tt/v fxrJTipa (see above). The same may be said of the phrase xp^^"^^ *X***' '^^^' 1 Schaef. DemoMh. ill. 416, Held, Plut. Tmol. p. 439, Holwerda, Emendatt. Flav. p. 96 sq. * Matth. 531. Rem. 2, Rost p. 662. [Viz., by reference to tlie original mean- ing of iViwf, in %chat way. Host's words however do not seem to be intended to apply to these particular verbs. Compare Jelf 664. Obs. 3.] * Compare Liicke L 603, II. 632 sq., 667 sq. [See especially Westcott, Introd. to Gospels p. 270, and St. John p Iii. ; also his notes on Jo. vi. 29, xvii. 3. ] * Arrian, Epict. 2. 1. 1 is wTongly adduced by Schweighauser {Lexic. Epktet. p. 'il&) as an example of this particular coiistructioa. 426 THE INFINITIVE. [PART III. Jo. ii. 25, xvi. 30, 1 Jo. ii. 27 {Ev. Apocr. p. Ill), and also of Jo. xyiii. 39. But in Jo. viii. 56, rp/aXkiaa-aTQ Iva Tdr), the meaning is not lie rejoiced in order that he might see, and still less he rejoiced that (otl) he saw, but he rejoiced that he should see:'^ this meaning, how- ever, could hardly have been expressed by a Greek author by means of the simple Iva, though the notion of destination (design) is con- tained in the particle. In Jo. xi. 15 tva is simply a particle of design. Lastly, the phrases ipx^rai or iX-jXvdcv rj wpa, Iva 8o$aar6y (xil 23, xiii. 1, xvi. 2, 32) mean, the time is come in order iimt, etc., i. e., the time appointed for the purpose that, etc. A Greek writer, it is true, would have expressed this meaning by the infinitive, iXijX.vO€v ^ ^pa (tov) 8o^aa-67jvai, Or perhaps by wst€ Bo$a(r&TJvaL" Compare Ev. Apocfi; p. 127. On Rom. ix. 6, ovx oXov Sc on cKTreTrTWKev 6 Xoyos tov 6iOV, where the infinitive seems to be replaced by a clause with oTi, see § 64. I. 6. Rem. 1. It might seem that the infinitive active is sometimes used in the place of the infinitive passive (D'Orvilie, Charit. p. 626) : e. g., compare 1 TL iv. 9, Trepl r^s <^tAa8€A<^wxs ov xpeiW ^X^t€ ypa.4>eLV vjXLV (H. V. 12 3), with 1 Th. v. 1, ov )(peLav Ixere v/xtv ypa^eirOai (also with H. vi. 6). Both expressions, however, are equally correct ; that with the active infinitive meaning ye have no need for ivriting to you, i. e., that any one, or thai I, shotdd write to you, — q. d., ye do not need the writing. Indeed the active infinitive is probably the form more commonly used by Greek authors in such combinations.* Compare especially Theodoret IL 1528, IV. 566. Rem. 2. "On is joined with the infinitive in A. xxvii. 10, detupS) OTL fjiCTo. TToX.Xrj'i ^r]fxca<; ov fxovov tov fjiopriov Kol tov ttXoiov, dAAa kul Toiv {frv)(£iB6fX€vo^ vfiojv ovK 7]\6ov' 1 C. vii. 31, H. ii. 3, L. xxi. 4, ix. 32, al. (2) It regularly retains the power of expressing the relation of time ; and the participle can indicate this relation more com- pletely in Greek, a language rich in participial forms, than in Latin or German. The temporal meaning of the participles corresponds with what has been said above (§ 40) respecting the various tenses. The following examples will illustrate the simple and ordinary usage : — a. Present : A. xx. 2 3, to Trvev/xa biafiaprvperai /xoi "Kiyov k.tX., Rom. viiL 24, iXrrrU ^errofxkvr) ovk earcv iXTrir 1 Th. ii. 4, ^eo3 toS SoKifxa^ovTi ra^ Kap8lar)jj.ov. Compare Aristot. BJief. 2. 10. 13, ■7rpo\b^ wv apri fikeTTOi probably means whereas I am a -blind man (from in- fancy), as a blind man ; only, inasmuch as apn implies a reference to a previous state, the words might perhaps be rendered u-hereas I vas blind. This participle is decidedly present in 1 C. ix. 1 9, ikevdepo^ o)v €K vdvTwv TTaa-Lv ipavTov iSovXoxra, whereas (although) I am f re'', I made myself servant; the apostle's iXevdepia was something per- manent. On the other hand, in Rev. vii. 2, ctSov . , . . ayyeXov dva- (iaivovra (which Eichhorn strangely enough declared a solecism), I saw him ascend (whilst he was ascending), an imperfect participle is quite in place, since the reference is to something which is not com- pleted in a moment. But a.TroOyrj(TKovT€<;, Eev. xiv. ] 3, can only be a present participle. The present participle has been too often taken for a future, in cases where the present-signification is for the most part quite sufficient : — a. In combination with a present tense or an imperative mood : Rom. XV. 25, 7ropevo/zai 8taKovu)v Tois dytois (the BiaKovcLv commences with the journey), 1 P. i. 9, dyoAAtacr^c .... KOfiL^ofjuvoi, as receivers (such they already are in the certainty of their iaith), Ja. ii. 9, On 2 P. ii. 9 see Huther.^ b. Joined with an aorist : ^ 2 P. iL 4, TrapiBwKev ds KpCcnv TTjpovpJ- vov?, as those who are reserved (from the stand-point of the present time), A. ^xi. 2, evpovres ttXolov Sia-n-epiov cts ^otvLKfjv, which sailed, was on her passage (Xen. Eph. 3. 6. init.), L. ii. 45, vTreWpci/rav eis 'Ifpova-aXrjfx. uva^T/Tovj'Te? avrov, seehiug him (the seeking began on their journey back), Mk. viii. 11, x. 2. Compare A. xxiv. 17, xxv. 13, where the future participle is used of actions which are only intended. c. Joined with a perfect : A. xv. 27, dTreo-ToiAKa/iev 'lovSav koL SiA-ar .... dTrayye'AXoi'Tas Tu avra, as anuouncers, with the announcement 1 [Inserted by mistake.] 2 See Liicke and Baumgarteii-Crusius in loc. 3 'o Z> i» T* oupava, wath the meaning "qui era! in caalo," would alnriost coincide in sense with o ix tou elpavau xarafnis : evidently, however, it is in- tended to express something special and more emphatic, and the climax in these predicates is not to be mistaken. Still i uv does not form a third predi- cate, co-ordinate with the two others, but is, as Liicke rightly remarks, an exposition of the predicate o uHi roZ ayfpurov. * [" KiXaX'f^ivav; must be taken as a time present : the reference is to the punishment which they suffer b-^fore the list judgment, for which (ver. 4) they are reserved." Huther in he] ' Lobeck, Soph. Aj. p. 234. 430 THE PARTICIPLE. [PART III. (as soon as they set out they appeared in the character of announcers), 1 C. ii. 1, Demosth. Dlonys. 739 c, Pol. 28. 10. 7.-— In 2 P. iii. 11, TovTvav TrdvTtav Xvofiivwv means si7ice all this is dissolved, i. e., is in its nature destined to dissolution, — the lot of dissolution is, as it were, already inherent in these things : KvOrja-o/jiivoiv would merely have ex- pressed the simple future, since dissolution loill at some time take place. The apostolic (Pauline) terms ol SivoXXvfKvot, ol o-w^o/ievot (used as substantives), denote those who are lost (not merely will be lost at some future time, but are already lost, inasmuch as they have turned away from the faith and thus incurred eternal death), those ivho are saved. On A. xxi. 3 see. below, no, 5. d. Joined with the conjunctivus exhortatimis : H. xiii. 1 3, iiepx^tf^-fOa .... Tov ovetSicr/juov avTov epovTe^, where the participial clause {beo,r- ing, etc.) is in immediate connexion with c^cpx^V^^a ; the future participle would have removed the action into some indefinite future time. Compare also 1 C. iv. 14. Still less pan the present participle stand for the aorist. In 2 C. x. 1 4, ov yap a)9 /xi) itfuKvovfxevoi €ts v/ias VTrep^KTUvopjev lavrovs cKrjkvdora aTro r?}? ^IraXia^' H. ii, 9, Rev. ix. 1. ^ [In each of these passages Meyer takes the. present participle as denoting an action in progress, a process now going on,] * [A mistake : perhaps for E. iv. 8.-E. i. 4 so., below, shonld probably be E. i. 3, 5.] 3 [The best texts have Wo-rnucyTu.] SECT. XLV.] THE PAHTTCIPLE. 431 The aorist participle never stands for the future participle. Not in Jo. xi. 2 (the event which had happened long before presents itself to the writer's mind as a past event, though it is not narrated by him until ch. xii.), or in H. ii. 10, where ayayovra refers to Christ living in the flesh, who in this personal manifestation itself led many to glory (this work began with his very advent).^ On H. ix. 12 see below. 2 It is an abuse of parallelism to render Mk. xvi. 2, ava- Tei'AavTos rov TjXiov, as the sun rose (so Ebrard still), on the ground that in Jo. xx. 1 (compare L. xxiv. 1) we find o-Korias In ov, does the &or\st participle occur.] * ["When John makes the descent of the bread of God from heaven the essential, inherent predicate of the iaea expressed, he uses the present ; when the descent from heaven is regarded as a definite fact in the manifestation of Christ, the aorist. " Liicke in loc. ] * Kcr.riytia(rfi.'iyoi vv is Strictly the pluperfect middle, — had condemned him- self, stood seif-comlemned. Paul merely pointed out the flagrant inconsistency of Peter, by contrasting Peter's present with his previous proceedings and expressed viewa. E. M. ^ [In the LXX {Alex.) this is Ixinau rhi «t» ^x«>»as»ij».] 432 THE PARTICIPLE. [PART III. an event. On 1 Jo, v, 16 see Liicke : comp. Ellendt, Arr. ALL 129. The combination of the present and the aorist participle in one sentence (Jo. xxi. 24, H. vi. 7, 10), or of the perfect and the present participle (Col. ii. 7), hardly requires meption. 2. As regards the grammatical construction of the participle, either a. It belongs to the principal sentence as a complement e. g., Mt. xix. 22, aTrrjXOev Xv7rovfievo7cr€T€ /3peoi p.av6dvov(rLv,'- and frequently BiSda-Kuv nva a-o4>ov), which does not, like the participle, include the notion of time and mood.^ This explanation — which is adopted by Beza, Piscator, al., and has recently been approved by Huther — is supported by the fact that dpyai is taken up again in the fullowing clause as the principal word, and the strengthened epithets 4>^vapoi Kal TTcpUpyoi are in like manner accompanied by a participle, XakovaaL to. fjur] ^(ovra. The combination of a verb belonging to class (a) with an adjec- tive * can excite no surprise : the only N. T. example is A. xxvii. 33, Ttcrcrap€9Kat8€/caT7^v cnqfiepov r]fji.epav TrposooKtoVTCS, acriTOi (outo) 6ia- T eA. 6 r T £. Compare Xen. Cyr. 1. 5. 10, dmywrto-Tos StarcAci' Hell. 2. 3. 25 (Jelf 682. 3). Some have wrongly supposed that the participle stands for the infinitive in 1 Tim. i. 12, ttlcttov /ac ryyTjo-aro $ip.f.vo% €ts SiaKOviW. The meaning is, He counted me faifhfid, in that he appointed me for the ministry : by this very act he gave the proof that he considered me faithful. In another sense, indeed, the writer might have said OeaOai «ts SiaKOVLav. 5. The present participle is frequently found (in the histori- cal style) in combination with the verb elvac, especially with '^v or ^aav, though also with the future. Sometimes this combi- nation appears to be a simple substitute for the corresponding person of the finite verb (Aristot. MetaphA. 7, Bernh. p. 334,*^ Jelf 375): e. g., in Mk. xiii. 2b, ol acnepew7. Mar. C. 2), Mk. v. 6, 11, 4i. 6, L. ii. 8, xxiv. 53; Mk. xiv, 4, r]advrLve<; a'yavaKrovvre<;, there were some (present) loho were angry: or else the participle has rather assumed the nature of an adjective, as in Mt. xix, 22, fjv ep^wy icrrjtiara, he was wealthy, ix. 3 6, L. i. 2 0." Perhaps also in some Cases the verb was thus resolved into participle and substantive verb in order that the verbal notion, appearing in the form of a noun, might receive more attention (Mad v. 1 80 d) : e. g.; 2 C. v. 19 (see Meyer in loc), 1 C. xiv. 9, Col. ii. 23. In L. vii 8, 670) avOpwrros el/j,i vrrb i^ovaiav raacr6/j,evo<;, the participle does not directly depend on el/xt, but is an epithet belonging to a aub- ^ What StalltKUim (Plat. Bcp. II. 34) says abovit the distinction between this constrnction and the finite verb, amounts to the same tiling. ^ Tt belongs to the character of the popular language to resolve more concisa forma of .speech, for the sake of attaining greater clearness or expressivene.ss • see p. 407. ^ •' Hcrm; Soph. Philoct. p. 219. * Comimre Stallb. Plat. Rep. II. 34. SECT. XLV.] THE PARTICIPI.E. 439 stantive. In Jo. i. 9, ^v and ip'^^o/mevov must not be joined together : the latter is an attributive belonging to avdpwirov (see Meyer), This use of the participle is by no means foreign to Greek writers ; in these indeed, especially in Herodotus, we find not merely the present but also the other participles thus used.^ Compare Eurip. Here. F. 312 sq., el fiev adevovrcop zmv i/j,o)u ^pa'^Lovcov rjv Tt9 a v^pi^MV Her. 3. 99, uTrcCpveoixevos icTTLV Xen. An. 2. 2, 13, r]v ?; arpaTrj'yia ovBev aWo Swafieviy Herod. 1. 3. 12, Kparrjaaf; ^v Tot9 ottXoi? (where Trpo'^Trydyero has preceded), Lucian, Uumtch. 2, BiKaaral -^rj^opovvre'^ ^aav 01 lipLo-TOL? In late writers (e. g., Agath. 126. 7, 135. 5, 175. 14, 279. 7, al., Ephraemius — see Index s. v. dvai) and in the LXX this construction is much more common, though in the case of the LXX it was but seldom suggested by the Hebrew. In Aramaic however, as is well known, the use of the participle and verb substantive as a j)eriphrasi3 for the finite verb had become established, and thus in Palestinian writers there may have existed a national preference for this mode of expression. A. XXL 3, CKCio-e rjv to -rrXoiov airn^opTi'C,6fxtvov tov yofiov, cannot be rendered (as by Grotius, Valcken., aL) eo navis merces expositura erat . it means, thither the shij) unloaded her cargo, i. e., if expressed in detail, was going thither in order to unload. (It is not necessary to take cVftrre for eKci.^) The use of this construction r/v aTro(fiopTLC6iM€vov in reference to that which was actually in course of performance, must not be overlooked. In L. iii. 23 rjv and dpxopePo^ are not to be taken together : -^t irwv TpiaKovra forms the main predicate, and apxopivnfi€vot. does not stand in such parallelism with a-coOrjcro/jLeda that we should necessarily look for Kairxdifj,e6a (v. I.) : the meaning appears to be, but not merely shall we be saved (simply and actually), but glm^ying, — so saved that we glory (the joyful consciousness of those who are saved). In 2 C. viii. 20 areWoixevoi is connected in sense with avv^- 'n-€/j,yfrafiev, ver. 18. In H, vi. 8, iK(f)epovaa does not stand for €K(fiepec, but this participle is parallel to ircova-a and riKTovaa in ver, 7, and by he is placed in antithesis to these two words ; with uhoKtp.o'i and Kardpaaxfi as grammatically parenthetical ; Alfori assumes an anacoluthon.] 442 THE PARTICIPLE. [PART III. joined with the preceding imperative, ver. 6. IP. iii. 1 refers baick to ii. 18, where the participle is connected with the imperatives of ver. 1 7 ; just as in 2 Th. iii. 8 ipya^ofxevot is parallel wdth iv Koirtp koI fi6')(6w, and this with Bcopedv, as an adjunct to the verb dprov icpdyo/jiev. In H, x. 8 Xiyav belongs to the following verb elprjKev, ver. 9 : in x. 16 8fSou(i3vr}v dKovcavraj/) ; ^ but it is also allowable to suppose an anacoluthon (Fritz. Diss. II. p. 49), as if Paul had written in the former part of the sentence ovBe'p^iav dveaiv ea^riKafxev rfi crapKi r}p.a)v. In 2 C. v. 1 2 d(f)opp,r]v BiB6vt€%- is to be regarded as a true participle, but we must take the previous clause as if the words ran ov yap ypd(f)op£v ravra irdXiv eavrov^ uvviardvov' re? ; or — what comes to the same thing — we must supply from avvLardvofiev the more general word Xiyofiev or ypd. ^ Quoted by EichJioni \E'inhit. N. T. II. 378) as a strange use of tlie present participle. 5 Foppo, Thuc. 1. i. 152, Schsef. Eurip. OnH. p. 70, Demosth. V. 120, 127, Poet. Gnom. 228 aq_., and FiutarchY. 211 sq., Weber, Demosth. p. 180, Bcrnem. ^dioL p. 10, Jacob, Luc. Alex. p. 22, Maetzner, Antiphon p. 182. SECT. XLV.] THE PARTICIPLE. 445 distinct reference to past time, we find the aorist participle used as a substantive: e, g., Jo. v. 29, A. ix. 2 1, 2 C. vii. 1 2, al. Com- pare o cKeivov T€Ko)v, Eurip. Electr. 335; ol roiv Iovtwv reKovrei;, ^schyl. Fers. 245 (Aristoph. Uccl. 1126 ^ ifirj KeKTijuevr)- Lucian, Tijn. 56). Such present participles with the article appear entirely in the character of substantives where they are joined with a genitive, as in 1 C. vii. 35, irpo? TO u/Awv avToiv €pov^ (Demosth. Cor. 316 c, ra fjLiKpa avixcfiepovTa Trj<; irdA,€0)s).^ 8. In quotations from the 0, T. we sometimes find a parti- ciple joined with a person of the same verb, the participle standing first. See A. vii. 34, IBtov elSov, from Ex. iii. 7 (compare Lucian, Dial. Mar. 4. 3), H. vi. 14, euXoycov eiiXoyijaay ae koI ttXtjOuucov TfXriOvvo) ere (from Gen. xxii. 1 7), Mt.xiii. 14, ^Xeirovre'^ ^Xey^ere (from Is. vi. 9). This combination is extraordinarily common in the T.XX — see Jud. i. 28, iv. 9, vii. 19, xi. 25, xv. 16, Gen. xxvi. 28,xxxvii. 8, 10,xliii.6,Ex.iii. 7, 1 S.i. 10,iii. 21,xiv. 28, 1 K. \i. 11, Job vi, 2, Euth ii. 16, 1 Mace. v.40, Judith ii. 13,^— and is an imitation in Greek of the Hebrew absolute infinitive ;* though the LXX, once accustomed to the construction, sometimes use it where in the Hebrew tlierc is no absolute infinitive (e.g., Ex. xxiii. 26). This mode of expression was however well chosen, though, with the exception of tlie isolated example in Lucian {Ihcov dZov), no completely parallel instance can be found in Greek prose. Georgi ( Viiid. p. 1 9 6 sq.) has mingled together expres- sions of different kinds.® In the examples which are apparently parallel the participle has a special relation of its own ; as in Her. 5. 95, (fyevyojv eKcpevyei, fuga cvadit (Diod. S. l7. 83), and still more clearly in Xen. Cyr. 8. 4. 9, vvaKovwv a-xoXfj virrjKovaa^ Lucian, Parasit. 43, (Pevycov eKelOev .... ek tt)v Tavpeov ira- > [The reading of the best texts is pi>v. ] » See Lob. Soph. Aj. 238 sq., Held, Plut. ^m. p. 252. 3 See Thiersch, Pent. Al. p. 164 sqq. ♦ Ewald, Krit. Gr. 560 sqq. [Gesen. Heb. Gr. p. 213 (Bagst.), Kalisch, Beb. Ot. I. 294.] * Some passages are cited according to false readings. Plat. Tim. 30 c mns thus : TiVi Tii/v ^uu/y avTO* lis ifieiirrira, a \vvtcra,; ^vm'ktthiti. Plat. LcLCh. 185 d, v/ii>. Here however the strangeness lies rather in the combination of active and middle. ' It is scarcely necessary to say that the phrase i5» oISiz (scio me vidisse) Athen. 6. 2'26, Arrian, Ind. 4. 15, cannot be brought in here : compare also axeiKras sTSa, Lucian, Dioi. Mort. 28. 1. 446 THE PA-ETICIPLE. [PART III. Xaicrrpav Kark^xr^e ; see Gataker, De Stylo c. 9/ Lob. Parol. p. 522 [532]. The imitations of this construction appear in the later writers, e. g., Anna, Alex. 3. 80, Euseb. S. E. 6. 45. Originally the participle thus used carried emphasis, though in- deed at a later period it may have lost its force. This empliasis may be perceived in the three passages quoted above : we mark, it either by the voice and the arrangement of the words, or by corresponding adverbs etc., — / have indeed seen, I ivill ccrtamly (richly ?) Uess thee, with your own eyes shall ye see, etc, A. xiii. 45, oi ^lovBatoc dvreXejov rol<3. This separation of one (logi cal)' sentence into two grammatical sentences is a peculiarity of the oriental languages, and is of frequent occurrence : see ^ %h. 7. (Jelf 752.) Rem. 3. Luke and Paul — but still more the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews — are peculiarly fond of the participial construction, and Paul accumulates participles on participles : compare 1 Th. il 15 sq.. Tit. ii. 12, 13, 2 C. iv. 8, 9, 10. In historical narration, how- ever, the use of participles in the N. T. is, in general, less frequent and less varied than in the Greek historians. The historical style of the N. T. runs rather in simple sentences (mainly connected by 1 Gataker rightly set aside iEschyl. Prom. 447, Lut was finally constrained to admit Lucian, Dial. Mai: I. c. as a true exanii>le. This example, looked at from a linguistic point of view, approaches the Hebrew mode of expression : Thiersch doubts this without reason. * [Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort omit the words i-triXiyi^ra ««/'.] SECT XLVL] the particles IN GENERAL. 447 the oft-recurring koC), and disregards the periodic structure, used by thb Greeks with so much skill. Compare however Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 4G5. [§ 60. 8 sq.] CHAPTER FIFTH. THE PARTICLES. Section XLVL the particles in general. 1. Tlioiigh the inflexions of the noun and verb, which have been syntactically examined in the preceding sections, enable us to construct sentences, either simple or complex (the former chiefly by means of the cases, so mdely used in Greek, the latter by means of the infinitive, participle, etc.), yet these inflexions are not 8nfficient by themselves to express the great variety of relations out of which sentences grow. Hence the language has a large store of so called jpa?'^wZes, which render possible the for- mation of all conceivable sentences, in any conceivable connexion with one another. These particles are divided into prepositions, adverbs, and conjunctions (Host p. 725); though grammarians have not yet been able to agree amongst themselves on the lines of demarcation which separate these classes. See especially Hermann, Emend. Hat. p. 149 sqq. Interjections are not words but sounds, and lie beyond the borders of syntax and of grammar generally. 2. Without attempting to settle the dispute of the gram- marians on the definition of these three classes of particles, we may assume so nnich as this: — (1) That the distinction nmst be made according to meaning, not according to words : as it was long ago perceived that e. g. prepositions frequently assume the nature of adverbs and vice versa (Herm. I.e., p. 161), and indeed that prepositions were originally adverbs. (2) That all particles either have for their proper office the completion of a simple sentence, and hence are confined within its limits, or are designed to link sentence to sentence. Particles of the latter kind are rightly called conjunctions ; and if in grammar we consider rather speech (thinking in words) than (pure). thought, we may reckon with these the particle of com- 448 THE PAHTICLES IN GENERAL. [PART III. parison to? (co^Trep), the particles of time (eVfit, ore, ottotc, etc.), the negative particle of design ^.tj, etc., — these words having also a connective power. Hence these particles belong, accord iuif to their nature, to two classes, adverbs and conjunctions. Witliin the boundaries of the simple sentence, and seiving to complete its structure, we find the adverbs and the prepositions ; the latter of these denoting merely relations (of substantives), the former inherent attributes of words which denote a quality or a state, i.e., of adjectives and verbs, since verbs are really compounded of the copula and a word denoting quality or state. See especially Herm. I. c, p. 1 5 2 sqq. An entirely satisfactory classification of the particles will perhaps xiever be effected, for here the empirical principles of language do not altogether run parallel with the rational principles of pure thought. On the relation of particles to the structure of sentences many good remarks will be found in Grotefend, Grundzuge einer neuen Satztheorie (Hannover, 1827), Kriiger, Eraiierung der grammat. Eiti- tlieilung u. grammat. Vtrhdltn. der Sdtze (Frankf: on M. 1826). Com- pare also Werner in the Neu. Jahrb.fur Philol. 1834, p. 85 sqq. 3. The N. T. language has but partially appropriated the wealth of Greek particles, as it is displayed in the refined lan- guage of the Attic writers. Not merely was the (later) popular language of the Greeks in general more sparing in the use of particles, but the N. T. writers, transferring the Jewish colouring to their Greek style, felt under no obligation to give the nicer shades to the relations between their sentences. From the nature of the case, however, they could least easily dispense with the prepositio7is, etnd most easily with the conjunctions in all their manifold variety. N. T. Grammar, if it would not encroach on the province of Lexicography, must not take each individual particle and lay open the whole mass of its significations, but must distinctly classify and carefully examine all the directions of thought in the indication of which the particles are employed, showing at every point to vjhat extent the N. T, writers in . expressing these have made use of the store of Greek particles. Besides this, however, in the present state of N. T. lexicography and exegesis, it is necessary to exhibit in outline the organism of the meanings of the principal particles, and to pr.otest most em- phatically against the arbitrary doctrine of a (so-called) enallage particularum. SECT. XLVII.] THE PRErOSITIONS IN GENERAL. 449 Up to the most recent period the Greek particles in general had not received any examination even of an empirical kind (particularly with regard to the different periods of the language), still less any rational examination, which could be considered at all exhaustive. The works of Matt. Devarius ^ and H. Hoocreveen '^ are no lontrer found satisfactory, especially as they entirely exclude the prepositions. On the other hand, J. A. Hartung's treatise (Lehre von den Partikeln der grieckischen Sprache : Erlangen, 1832-33) deserves acknowledg- ment ; and still more useful are the acute researches with which R. Klotz has enriched his edition of Devarius (Lips. 1835, 1842). Schraut's work ^ is too fanciful. E. A. Fritzsch has pursued the com- parative method in his Kergleichende Bearheitung der grieckischen und late'mischen. Partikeln (Giessen, 1856). As regards Biblical Greek, a Lexicon particularum for the LXX and the Apocrypha is still a desideratum, as in the concordances and even in Schleusner's Thesaurus Philologico-criticus these words are entirely passed over In Bruder's N. T. concordance the particles are carefully inserted. Tittmann's treatment of the N. T. particles * is not altogether satis- factory : the work, moreover, was broken off by the death of the writer — an. acute scholar, but one who had not given sufficient attention to the actual usage of the language. Section XLVII. THE PREPOSITIONS IN OENERAL,^ AND THOSE WHICH GOVERN THE GENITIVE IN PARTICULAR. 1. The prepositions run parallel with the cases of the language, and hence each, according to its significations, is combined with some particular cai>e, that case namely, whose fundamental meaning agrees with th(; fundamental meaning of the prepo- sition. The prepositions are employed where the cases are insufficient to express a relation (for these relations are in the highest degree diversified), — occasionally also where the simple case might have sufficed, but did not appear to the speaker ^ Edited by Reusmann (Lips. 1793). ^ Ainsterdaru 1769. — An epitome by Schiitz ^Lips. 1806). * Din ffrierh. Partik. im Ztisanvnenhanrjc mil den dlteslen Stdmmen der Sprache (Neuss, 1848). * Z>e uRv, ■particularum N. T. Cap. 1, 2 (Lips. 1831) : also in his Synonyma N ^ T. 11. 42 sqq. ^ Compare Herm. De Emend. Rat. p. 161 sqq. ; B. G. Weiske, Deprceposition. Gr. Comvitnl. (Gorlic. 1809-10) ; K.. G. Schmidt, Qucestion. grammat. dn prce- ■position. Gr. (Berlin 1829) ; Dbderlein, Reden u. Au/s. 11. No. 3 ; Bernh. p. 195 Kqq. ; Schneider, Varies, p. 181 sqq. [Donalds. OV. p. 503 sqq., New Graf. p. 312 sqq. ; Jelf 472, 6J4 sqq ; Clyde, Synt. pp. 41, 121, 184-202; Farrar, Bynt. p, 86 sqq. j A. Buttm. pp 321-344 ; Webster, Synt. pp. 149-185 ; Green, Gr, p. 203 sqq. Compare Curtius, Elucidations c. xix. ] 29 450 THE PKEPUSITIONS.H< GENERAL. [P ART III. sufficiently marked for his purpose, on account of the great variety in its uses. Prepositions are proportionally used with greater frequency in the K T. than in Greek prose, because the apostles had not that inherent sensitiveness to the force of the cases in their extended applications which was possessed by edu- cated native Greeks ; and because the Oriental loves vividness of expression, — as indeed the Hebrew- Aramaic language uses prepositions to express almost all the relations which were in Greek indicated by the case alone. 2. In examining apreposition,it is important, in the first place, to obtain a clear and distinct conception of its true primary mean- ing, from which all its significations proceed, as rays from a centre ; and to trace back to this all its varieties of meaning, — i. e' , to see clearly how the transition to any given application was effected in the mind of the speaker or writer : and, secondly, to apprehend the necessity of the choice of this or that particular case to accompany the preposition (either generally, or for a certain cycle of its meanings),^ and to use the knowledge we thus obtain for the purpose of marking the boundary lines which separate the meanings of the various prepositions. The former investigation, viz. the discovery of the primary meaning — which presents itself to view sometimes in the construction with the genitive, sometimes in that with the dative or with the accusative — will show in its true light the interchange of the prepositions amongst themselves, which has been supposed to exist in the N.T. to an unlimited extent. The latter must be pursued without seeking for subtleties ; and we must bear in mind throughout that in expressing one and the same relation (especially if it be metaphysical) a preposition maybe joined with different case.s. according to the conception which the particular writer has formed of this relation, and the degree of clearness with which the relation is conceived : compare 'Kenuann,£!me7id. Bat.p.lGS . In dealing with the N. T. language, it is only necessary further 1. To consider how far the later Greek, particularly the popular spoken language, enlarged the use of the prepositions, obliterated the nicer distinctions, or ever, fell into a misuse of these particles. 1 Beinhardi, Allg. Sprachl. I. 164 sq. (Don. p, 503 sq., Jelf 472, 617.) SECT. XLVII.] THE PEFPORITIONS IN GENERAL. 451 2. To have constant regard to the Hebrew- Aramaic language, which delights in the use of prepositions, and which differs from Greek in the aspect under which it views a number of relations (compare e. g. o^oaai ev tivl, airoKTeiveiv iv f)OfM(f>ala). 3, Lastly, not to neglect the peculiarly Christian mode of thought which lies at the root of the use of several prepositions (as iv Xpiaro), iv Kvpiw)} Until a recent period the abuse of the prepositions by the N. T. pnilologers in lexicons and commentaries (see e. g. Koppe's N. T.) was truly horrible : '^ it had however at once its model and its sup- port in the purely empirical treatment of the Hebrew prepositions which prevailed until the time of Ewald ; see my Ejxget. Studien I. 27 sqq. Wahl was the first to take a better course, and now almost all have begun to be ashamed of such wild license. In considering the relation between the Greek and the Hebrew- Aramaic elements in the use of prepositions, we must not fail to notice — (1) That to many turns of expression which the mother- tongue had rendered familiar to the N. T, writers parallels may be found in Greek poetry and later prose, so varied are the applications of the Greek prepositions : — (2) That, if in the more Hebraistic por- tions of the N. T. (in the Apocalypse especially) an explanation may naturally be sought for in Hebrew usage, it does not follow that in all books without distinction the Greek prepositions, with which the apostles had received the power of expressing a multitude of special relations, are to be referred back to the Hebrew prepositions ; for careful observation shows that the apostles had already become accustomed to conceive prepositional relations in the Greek manner : — (3) That, especially in Paul (and John), the use of several prepo- sitions (e. g., cv) in a mode unknown to Greek writers stood in a close relation to the language of dogma, and belongs to the apostolic (Christian) colouring of the N. T. diction. 3. First of all, the proper and the derived meanings of each preposition must be accurately distinguished. The former always have immediate reference to local relations (Bernhardi I. 290) ; if these are contemplated in great variety by any nation, there will also arise a great variety of prepositions in the lan- guage of that nation. There are only two simple local relations, — that of rest and that of motion (including direction, which is regarded more or less as motion). Motion is either motion ^ [Compare EUicott, Aids to Faith p. 465 sq., Green, Gr. p. 226 sq.] 2 Tittmann, Be Scriptor. N. T. diliyentia gramm. p. 12 (Synon. I. 207): nulla e8t, ne repugnans quidem signiiicatio, quin quaecunque praepositio earn in N. T. habere dicatur. 452 THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL. [PART III. towards or motion from. The dative corresponds to the notion of rest, the accusative to that of motion towards, the genitive to that of motion /rom. (Don. p. 503, Jelf 614 sqq.) Local designations having particular prepositions corresponding to them arc the following : — («.) Of rest : in, iv ; by, irapd ; on, liri ; over, vwip ; under (vtto) ; betmen (with), fj-erd ; before, irpo ; behind^ fjitTo. ; upon {up\ vTrep and irepl rwv d/iiapTiow, as^covt^eadai Trepl and xnrep tivo<;, iKXejeaOac airo and e'/c tS)V fiadrjTuyv.'^ This cannot be called an enallage of prepositions. On the other hand, especially in expressing local relations, the wider prepo- sition may be used for the narrower (compare L. xxiv. 2, anro- ^ [So in English, serve on hire, on these terms.] 2 [Evidently this should be " W! with the dative."] 3 Thus Paul sometimes uses two different prepositions in parallel clauses, for the sake of variety: e. g. , Rom. iii. 30, Sf hxaniau -riptroftiif t» trivnas ««* axpifiufTiav iiec rjjf triffntis' E. iii. 8 sq. [? ii. 8 sq. ] * Different languages sometimes express the same relation by means of directly opposite prepositions, because the relation was looked at differently. Thus we say " zitr Kechten " ["to the right "] ; the Romans, Greeks, and Hebrews, " a dextra," etc. Even the same language may express a relation, especially if of a metaphysical kind, by opposite prepositions. We say " aw/ die Bedingung" and " unter der Bedingung" [to which our own "on" and "under the condi- tion " nearly correspond]. In South Germany they speak of a relative or friend to (zu) some one ; in Saxony, of a relative or friend of (von) some one. How ridiculous would it be to maintain in such cases that of (von) is sometimes equivalent to to (zu), — on (auf) to under (unter) ! 454 THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL. [PART III. KvXieiu TOP \idov cLTTo Tov iivrjfxeiov with Mk. xvi. 3, eV rr)? 6vpaif dvrl p^aptT09, grace upo7i grace (Theoguis, Sent. 344, dvT dviCjv dvias:), properly grace over against grace, grace for grace, — in the place of grace (new) grace ; hence, unintermitting grace, grace continually renewed.^ (Don. p. 504, Jelf 618.) b. ^Atto, €k, irapa, and vtto, collectively express that which the genitive indicates in the most general way, the idea of pro- cessio7i from ; they differ in regard to the relation in which the objects previously stood to one another. '£/c unquestionably points to the most intimate connexion, viro to one less intimate ; a still more remote association is expressed by irapd (de chez moi, ^V'O), and especially by cltto.^ Hence, if we arrange these prepositions according to the closeness of the connexion implied by them, beginning with that which indicates, the closest con- * [In Gen. ii. 24 avr/ is not found.] * [The most interesting parallel is given by Wetstein from Philo : S<« ra; vrpcura} au ;^;a^iTaf, irpiv xepierfivras i^uPipiffai Teh; Xa^o\iTa.i, fTir^tuy xai Ta/aiiv- ffii/iivos, ucauh; iTtpa; avri ixtituv, Kai rfirai avTi Tut eiUTifuf, xai aii Mia; atrt ^raXaioTipuv .... iTiiiluffi {De Post. Caini i. 254).] ■'' The distinction between a-ro and U is perceptible in L. ii. 4 (comp. also A. xxiii. 34), but the two prepositions are used synonymously in Jo. xi. 1 (see Liicke in loc), Rev. ix. 18. Compare also L. xxi. 18 with A. xxvii. 34. In Mk. xvi. 3, L. xxiv. 2, a^ro and tx are parallel to each other : one is the more precise (and suitable), " oat of the door ; " the other the looser, " {away) from tiie grave. " Seep, 454. SECT, XLVII.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 457 nexion, their order will be, e/c, vtro, Trapd, airo. Further, if we are thinking simply of procession from an object, we use airo ; if definitely of procession from a personal object, Tcapa or vtzo. If the personal object is merely indicated generally as the starting point, we use irapa ; if as the true efficient producing principle, uTTo; hence vivo is the preposition which regularly follows passive verbs. Lastly, a-Ko has attached to it the signification oi distance and separation, and both aTro and ix express the notion of dividing, severing, which is not directly conveyed by either irapd or inro. JJapd is properly used in relation to objects which come from the neighbourhood of a person, — come out of his sphere : thus it is opposed to Trpo? with the accusative in Lucian, Tim. 53. Thus in Mk.xiv. 43, Trapaylverai ox^o^ TToXvi; . . . irapa rdv dp-)(jLepkaiv,from the chief priests (men whom the chief priests had about them, with thera, as their servants, — compare Lucian, Fhilops. 5, Demosth. Polycl. 710 b) ; Mk. xii. 2, tW irapa rwv yecopyayi^ XdjSrj diro Tov Kapirov, a part of the produce, which was in the hands of the vine-dresscrs ; Jo. xvi. 27, ore eyod irapa tov 0eov i^XOov (compare i. 1, o \0709 ^v Trpo? tov Oeov) ; Jo. v, 41 (Plat. Rep. 10. 612 d), xv. 26, E. vi. 8, L. ii. 1, 2 P. i. 17. Hence irapd is joined with verbs of inquiring and requesting, Mt. ii. 4, 16, Mk. viii, 11, Jo. iv. ^ ; of Imrning, 2 Tim. iii. 14, A. xxiv. 8 (Xen. Cyr. 2. 2. 6, V\Q.t.Euth. 12 e) ; the matter to be learned etc. being regarded as existing in some one's (intellectual) possession. (This relation is more loosely expressed by diro in ■ Mk. XV. 45, G. iii. 2 : by e/c TLvo6a\fxov (it was iv tm 6(f)6a\fXQi) ; Mt. viii. 28, €K TMv fMvrjfieiQiv i^epxo/J^evoc- A. ix. 3, 'Kepirjo-rpay^ev avrbv ^W9 e'/c TOV ovpavov- Mt. i. 1 6, e| ^9 {MapCa<;) er^evvT]6t) 'Irja-ov^' 1. 3, 1 P. i. 23. L. V. 3, ihiBa!i» Ik tov optui, stands by itself in the N. T. (Ex. xix. 14, xxxii. 1) : elsewhere we find xaraliai'itii/ k-xl mv Spavs, Mt. viii. 1, Mk. ix. 9, L. ix. 37. . . 3 The N. T. passages formerly quoted to show that l« has also the meaning staiim post, fail to prove this. L. xi. 6 means come in from a journey ; L. xii. 36, return from the wedding ; Jo. iv. 6, wearied from his journey ; 2 C. iv. 6, out of darkness light, etc. In several of these passages the rendering hnm^d'iatdy after would be altogether unsuitable ; in others it would drag in a note of time where nothing was directly present to the writer's mind but from, oxd of, specifying state or condition. Least of all can H. xi. 35 be an example of this meaning. [In L. xxiii. 8, quoted above ^n the text, i|/xa»a» xi'""'' is no doubt the true reading.] 460 PKEPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. [PART III. but as a surface out ofwliicli something extends (as in e^ rjixipa loc., and § 51. 1.] * [On this preposition see Don. p. 506 sq., Jelf 621. Green p. 204, Webster, p. 154 sq.] ® Tlie transition would be exemplified by 2 P. ii. 7, i^o tTi; rut ii'trftuv avasTfoipns Vpfia-xro, if we Were thus to group the words Cout of the power of the evil conduct, under the influence of which Lot had fallen) : compare Iliad 9. 248, IpCiffSai ii-ri ipcLuv IpvuayloZ- 23. 86. On the whole see Herm. Eurip. Hec. p. 11. In this passage, however, the ordinary arrangement of the words, 462 PRErOSITIONS with the genitive. [part III. dicate the subject from whom the action proceeds, in whose, 'power it was, therefore, to do it or to leave it undone. It is also joined with neuter verbs the meaning of which can receive a passive burn ; 1 C. x. 9, vivo tmv 64>ecou aTrcoXoi/ro- Mt. xvii. 12, 1 Th. ii. 14, 2 C. xi. 24: compare Demosth. Oli/nth. 3. p. 10 c, Lucian, Peregr. 19, Xen. Cyr. 1, 6. 45, An. 7, 2. 22, Lysias, in TJuomncst. 4, Pausan. 9, 7. 2, Plat. Apol 17 a, Conv. 222 e, Philostr. Apoll. 1. 28, Polyasu. 5. 2. 15 (Porson, Eur. Med. p. 97, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 880). The power which has produced death, destruction, etc., is here looked upon as actively efficient, " and the expressions are equivalent to he hilled hy, he destroyed hy, etc.: had airo been used (compare iraOelv airo Mt. xvi. 21), this power would merely be represented as that from which a result proceeded. In the former case the writer might have substituted the active construction, the serpents destroyed, etc., without any change of meaning ; in the latter such an expres- sion would be inaccurate. Compare ^XdirreaOai airo nva, as differing from ^XdiTTea-dat vtto Tiva, Xen. Cyr. 5. 3. 30, ^schin. Dial. 2. 11.^ — 'Ttto is not restricted to persons or to animate beings, but is also used of inanimate agencies ; see 1 C. vi. 12, Col. ii. 18, Ja. i. 14, al. (Don. p. 526, Jelf 639). 2 P. i. 1 7, i/ epyoov Eev. xviii. 1 4 (com- pare also aTTOicpvTrTelv, nTapaKa'Kvnieiv diro, Mt. xi. 25, L. ix. 45, and the pregnant phrases iu Col. ii. 20, Rom. ix, 3, 2 Th. ii. 2, A viii. 22, 2 C xi. 3, and the like) : consequently of re- moteness from, Jo. xxi. 8 (Kev. xii 14, — compare Xen. An. 3. 3. 9, Soph. CEd. Col. 900). h. Mnch more frequently oi procession from, in any manner and under any aspect. It is specially used in a temporal sense to indicate the starting point or the commencement of a period {from, since), as Mt. ix. 22, xxv. 34, 2 Tim. iii. 15, A. iii. 24^ — or the starting point of a series, Mt. ii. 16, L. xxiv. 27, Jude 14 (diro . . . eW Mt. i. 17, xi. 12, A. viii. 10, a-zro . . . ei? 2 C. iii 18). Hence diro indicates the source, material, mass, or hody from which anything comes ; as in Mt. iii. 4 (Lucian, Dial. Deor. 7. 4, Her. 7. 6 5), A. ii. 1 7, €/f;j^ea> diro rov irvevp^a- t6<; puov (from the LXX), L. vi. 13, xv. 16, Jo. xxi. 10, Mt. vii. 16. Further diro denotes, with great variety of application, the origi7i (Jude 23), extraction (from a people or country), hence place of abode, sect, Mt. xxi. 11, xxvii. 57, Jo. xi 1, xii. 21, A. ii. 5, XV. 5, H. vii. 13 (Polyb. 5. 70. 8, Plut. Brut. c. 2, Her. 8. 114) ; and is especially used concretely, to express the ^er- soual origin of an action — regarded simply as origin, not as a poAver consciously self-acting, in which sense irapd is used with neuter verbs (Schulz, Abendm. p. 215 sqq.') and vtto with pas- * When a'To follows verbs of receiving, borroioing, etc., it is simply a general iiidicatiou of whence. Thus in Mt. ivii. 25, a-rl) -r/nav XttiA^a^ouut tiXn ; it is kings who are the Xa^w/SavovTs; : ^rapa would express iraynediate procession from, and would be used here if the ta'x-(Htthfrers were .the Aof/^/SayoyTtf, In xafifoaniv -rs-pi 'rtyoi the ris is always vicweii as acting (as giving and ofiJering), iu ■ka.ij.fia^iit kilo rive; simply as po.ssessing. In -3 Jo. 7 we should have had uni'iD A^/t/S'iiivi-f:,- rrapa. ruy ihuv if the writer had wished to say. that the tV»n had proffered an acknowledgment. Col. iii. 2i, aTJ xufUv airoX^uli c^v «>- ■ra-xUdtiffiv, mcan:3, it shall proceed from the Lord : Tafa. xuplov, which Paul might liere have used instead, would represent the Lord as the (direct) giver. On the other hand, frapx is strictly in place in Christ's words in Jo. x. 18, T«i/Va» 464 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. [PART III. sive,^ both in Greek writers and in the N. T. ■} A. xxiii. 21, t^i/ a-Ko aov iirayyeXiav (see above, § 30. 3. Rem. 5), Rom. xiii. 1 [^Rec.~\,ov yap icTTcv i^ovaia el /xr) anro Oeou (followed immediately by al oe ovcrai vtto rov 6eov reTayfjiivai elaiv), Mt. xvi. 21, iradelv airo rSiv irpea^vrepcov (Lucian, Dial. Deor. 6. 5, Plat. Fhced. 83 b), Mk. XV. 45, *e heZ ■riifaZ,iifii,ai, which would be identical with iios ■ritpa.'C,ii fjut. The following words, vrnpaXu it aiiif oulita, merely show that the apostle has also in his mind the conoeption of a direct temptation by God (compare Herm. Soph. (Ed. Col. 1531, Schoemanii, Plut. Cleom p. 237) : a^o 6ioZ i.s very frequently a kind of adverb, divinittis. In L. yi. 18, by ^viv/naruv axa^dprcdv is intended the affliction or diserise itself, and no one would find any difficulty in such a phrase as ix^sufntitii aori v«r„,.. In L. Lx. 22, xvii. 25, aTohiKiu-at^nr^at i-jr'o is merely to be rejected on the part of the elders. It is easy to see that in A. XJi. 20, S;a ro Tpi^Kr^ai ahrut tw ^uipuy aro -rrii /Sair^Xix^s (Arist. fol. i. 6) this preposition does not stand for J^ro : SVhneckeii- bnrger {ad Ja. i. 13) maintaijis this, but he is not sufficiently careful m hia distinctions. As to Mt. xi. 19, see Fritz, m loc., and Lehmann, Lucian VI. 544. 2 C. vii. 13 certainly does not come in here ; a-ri is from. In A. x. 17 flee, el a.'Trnrra.Xu.'uoi airo roij KepvnXiou (Arriau, Epkt. 3. 22, 23) means simply thoie sent, from him ; a.'ntrr. ior'o (a conection found in some MSS.) would be more definite, whom he had (directly) sent: compare 1 Th. iii. 6, 'oJovrss Tif^oftou rrpcs rifias a^' if^a/n'— they had not sent him. In 1 C. i. 30, Us \yi\n6r, eatpia. hfiiv a.ro hov, who became wisdom unto us from God, Cto is certainly not required ; compare Her. 5. 125, see also Stallb. Plat. Bep. I. 103. Lastly, in Ja. v. 4, « f/,iir^os a.TKX'ripnfx.ivo; afi' ijf/.Mv, this preposition is probably used designedly,— on your part, not (or not merely) that which has been held back directly by you. — The two prepositions occur together in manifestly diflerent senses in L. v. 15 (in some MSS.) and in Rom. xiii. 1 : compare Euseb. //. L\ 2. 6. p. 115 (Hei- nifhen). [In L. vi. 18 i.-ri miiy very well be joined with ihpartuotra (Meyer) : in Mt. xi. 19 tlie best texts have «^y«» for rixyuy. In Ja. v. 4 some join aip' u/uH' with xpci'(ii (Huther, Alford).] SECT. XLVII.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 465 Xofiev aiTo aov (rijfielov IBeiV A. ix. 13, G. i. 1, 1 C. iv. 5, 2 C. vii. 13, 1 Jo. ii. 20, iv. 21, Col. iii. 24, 2 Th. i. 9. Also in an abstract sense, the e^cietU force itself (so that we may render the preposition by through), A. xx. 9, Kareve^OeU utto tov virvov Rev. ix. 18 ; the occasion (A. xi. 19),^ and the motive, Mt. xiv. 26, airo ToO (f)6/3ov expa^av, for fear, xiii. 44, L. xxi. 26, xxii. 46, xxiv. 41, A. xii. 14 (Plutarch, Lysancl 23, Vig. p. 581); the objective cause, propter, M.i. xviii. 7, and according to some H. V. 7 (see Bleek), — or p'rce (in negative combinations), A. xxii. WyOVK ivepXeTTov airb tt;? B6^rj<; tov (fycoro'i, on ciccount of (for) tJie brightness, — their not seeing arose from the brightness, L. xix. 3, Jo. xxi. 6 (see Kypke), A. xxviii. 3 v.l.^ Compare Held, Plut Tim. 314 (Judith ii. 20, Gen. xxxvi. 7, al.. Her. 2. 64). The preposition is used in a pregnant sense in A. xvi. 33, eXovcrev iiTTo TOiv TrXijycou, he washed and cleansed them from the stripes, i.e., from the blood with which they were besprinkled in con- sequence of the stripes. Mt. vii. 1 6 is easily explained : from tJifi fruits (objectively) the knowledge will be derived (Arrian, Epict. 4. 8. 10). The case is different in L. xxi. 30, acf kaviMv ^cvdiCTKiTe and 2 0. x. 7,^ where airo indicates the subjective power from which the knowledge proceeds, as indeed d(f eavrov often means sponte^ According to Sclileusoer and Kiihnol iItto also denotes (1) m.- A. XV. 38, TOV aTToa-TavTa o-tt avrwv airo Ilafji.(f>vXLa<;, who had de- serted them in Famphylia. But it is easy to see that the meaning is, who had deserted them (going off) oid of Pamphylia : this is very different from Iv II., which might signify that Mark remained iii Pamphylia, though no longer connected with Paul : compare xiii. 13. — (2) de A. xvii. 2, SifAeyero ar'roT? airo tCjv ypa(fiu>v. But thlS means, starting (in his discourses) from the Scriptures, or drawing from them his proofs (compare Epiphau. Ojp. 11. 340 d) : compare A. xxviii. 23. Nor is the meaning de sustained by Her. 4, 53, 195. Schweigh. Lex. Her. I. 77. — (3) per ■ A. xi. 19, hiacrirapivTe'? airo Trji, which denotes inclos- ing on .both sides : hence Trepl differs from irapd, which merely indicates that one object is near (by the side of) another. When joined with a genitive, this preposition is almost invariably used by prose writers in a figurative sense (compare however Odyss. 5. 68),^ to denote the object which is the centre of an action, around which, so to speak, the action moves, — e.g., to fight, draw lots, care about something (Mt. vi. 28, Mk. xiii. 32,^ Jo. x. 13, xix. 24 *) ; and then, very commonly, decide, Tcnow, hear, speak of or concerning something (de, super) : see above, p. 452. In other places we render 'rrepi by for (e-. g., intercede for some ^ [Bernliardy considers forwards from (Jelf 619. 1. c), as in the Homeric 'iXtih vpo, to be the original meaning. Compare however Curtius, Elucida- tions, p. 200 sq. •' As adverbs the prepositions could primarily take the geni- tive, as the case of. connexion. The genitive depends on a»T/ in precisely the same manner as in the Geiraan Angesicht, Laut, Kraft. With ^pi, also, ... the case is no doubt the same .... Tlie most decisive confirmation of this view is found in the fact that all the improper prepositions, i. e., the prepositions which still continue tohave more of the nature of adverbs, take the genitive,"] 2 That the local meaning around, about, is not vrithout example in (later) prose is shown by Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 269 ; compare Schsef. Dion. Comp. 351. Thus in A. xxv. 18 ;rsfi ov might be joined with rraeivris (Meyer) : compare ver. ^ [This example belongs to the next line . the verb is know.] * Verbs of caring, etc. , are also construed with v^ip ; see p. 478. The distinc- tion is thus explained by "Weber, Dem. p. 130 ■ -rtpi solam mentis circumsper- tionem vel respectum rei, i-rip simul animi propensionem .... significal. This twofold construction is also found with verbs of contending {about or for something), and hence -npi and iivrlp are sometimes found contrasted in the same passage ; see Franke, Dem. p. 6 sq. , [who quotes Jischin. 3. 10, Dem. 19. 214.] SECT. XLVII.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 467 one), as in Jo. xvL 26, A. viii. 15, H. xiii. 18, L. xix. 37, 1 Tb. i. 2 ; on account of, on hehalf of, Jo. xv. 22, A. xv. 2, xxv. 15, 1 P. iii. 1 8, — though here our um [about] comes in in various ways; or as regards, concerning, Mt. iv. 6, Roni. xv. 14, 1 C. xii. 1, Jo. vii. 17, Demosth. 0^, 1. § 11. In this last sense we find irepC with its substantive placed at the head of a complete sen- tence, as an absolute phrase, — an exponendum ; ^ e.g., 1 C. xvi. 1 irepl rrj'i 'Koyia'i K.rX., quod ad pecunias attinet, though these words are grammatically in direct connexion with w^Trep Sie- ra^a. A still clearer example is 1 C. xvi. 12, irepl ^AiroWoi, TToWa TrapeKoKea-a avrov, iva eXdrj tt/do? vfid<; k.t.X. (compare Papyri Taur. 1. 6. 31): we find a similar use oi dc, e.g., Cic. Fam. 3. 12. Sometimes Tre/jt appears to signify ohovc, and hence prce, as in the Homeric itepX iravruiv e^ifievai aXKwv (Bernh p, 260).^ Some (as Beza) have taken it in this sense in 3 Jo. 2, irepl trdvroiv evj(pfiaL ae k.t.X., before all things (Soliott) ; Liicke supports this rendering by a passage from Dion. H. II. 1142 (where however Trepl dirairiov means in regard to, in relation to, etc.). It does not appear to me, however, that the impossibility of connecting irepl Trdvroav with the following infinitives (Bengel and Baumg.-Crusius in loc.) has yet been clearly proved.' (Don. p. 515, Jelf 632.) f. 11/309. The meaning which agrees with the primary force of the genitive, viz., from something, is shown by the local use of this preposition (Herm. Vig. p. 863), and is also clear in such examples as to Troievfi^vov irph^ tuiv AaKehaL^iovloiv^Rev.l .20^)^ TTua^ofMev TTpb'i avTTJ/ on all sides. [Compare Donalds. New Crat'. p. 334 sqq.] ^ [In his second edition Liicke takes the same view as Winer : so also Huther, De W., and Alford.] 468 PREPOSITIONS WITH, THE GENITIVE. [PAKT III. conduces to your deliverance, — properly, stands, so to speak, on the side o/your deliverance. Another example of a similar kind is Thuc. 3.59, ov 7rpo ai) ^ TToXt? aiiTwv wkoBo/jltjto, up from which (on which v/p- wards) it was built (Diod. S. 3. 47, Polyb. 10. 10. 5;. 'Ett/ usually denotes being ^lpon., over a place (a point or a surface), whether the object is regarded as at rest or as moving to and fro.^ , So in Mt. X. 27, Kripv^are irrl rwv BcofiaTcov' xxiv, 30, Sp'^ofxepov irrl roov vejyeKmv ix. 2, 6, A. v. 15, viii, 28, Rev. xiii. 1, 1 C. xi. 10, L. xxii. 21 ; and especially eVt rr}? 77)9 (opposed to iv Tft) ovpavu)), compare Xen. An. 3. 2. 19, Arrian, Al. 1. 18. 15. When applied to waters it denotes not merely the surface, as in llev. V. 1 3 67rt t??? OaXdcar]^^ but also the bank or shore (compare Arrian, AL 1. 18. 10), as Jo. xxi. 1, eTrl tt)^ 6a\d(Ta-7]<;, hy the sea (Polyb. 1. 44. 4, Xm.An. 4. 3. 28, 2 K.ii. 7,— compare the Hebrew ^V). Next it is applied to raised, elevated objects on which something is set up, e. g., on the cross, A. v. 30, Jo. xix. 19. . The N. T. Lexicons give also the local meaning h/, nea-y, beside,^ but of this there is no sufficient evidence. In L. xxii. 40, totto? i)s to be understood of a mountain (though we also say on the spot); in Mt. xxi. 19, eVt Trjq oBov means on the road ;^ A. xx. 9, ' Wittraann, De natura et potest, prcep. Wi (Schweinf. 1846). In most CBses the Latin language uses^ in ; but our own auf [npoji] answers to l/rl in many of its applications, and is used not merely of heights, tut also of level surfaces. 'E^r' ipnfiixs (Mk. viii. 4) is in its conception exactly like our "aw/'dem Felde " [literally, on the field, — compare on the/arm, on the estate], though we do not use auf in this particular phrase. Comp. Mt. iv. 1, ivvx^^ "s "^^f '^piM'*- 2 We must also tring in here Jo. vi. 19, rrtpi'raruy W) rrn (a.\a.ir<;ni, walk on the sea (in Mt. xiv. 25, 'fri rhy (i.>.a.ffca.v seems to be the true reading) ; compare Lucian, Philops. 13, ^abiXm ■ Itp" v'ia.res' Vera Hist, 2. 4, t-r) roZ ■ziXdyous "hia- fiotTtt (Job ix. 8). In iise^/" indeed W) rri; idXatam might also be rendered hy the sea : this Fritzsche {Matt. p. 502) certainly did not intend to deny. * Even in the case of objects which are on the same level the Greeks spoke of an upper part, in accordarice with a conventional or ethical view which in most instances we are able to folloAV. Thus a man may be said to staud above the door (Her. 5. 92) if he stands by the door inside the room, whilst a man who stands outside by the door may be said to stand under the door. Compare Bernh. p. 248, on the' kindred preposition u^ip. Languages diifer very gieatly in the yicw which is taken of the relation. * [Alford renders hj the road-side, quoting Meyer. Meyer now translates over t/i€ road, adding that we tiaay cither suppose that the tree simply projected SECT. XLVII.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 469 eVt T^9 Oupldof, upon the window. In Jo. vi. 21, to TrXotov eyii/ero errl rfj'i 77)9 is said of a vessel coming 10 land, and errt relates to the ascendincf beach : see however what is said above. The figurative uses of eVt are very clear. It is applied to (a) Rule or superintendence over : yit. ii. 22, ^acnXeveiv tVi ^ 'lovhaiar Rev. xi. 6, A. viii. 27, elvai errl 7rdarj. 7*^, Elleiidt, Arrian I. 436. * [Liineruaiiii (idd.s Mk. xiii. 9.] ^ In Sit. xviii. 1*5, 2 C. xiii. 1, tjii.s formula i,s enlargeii, 'm'l ivif^anvf i^ f^Lo-cTvoui (afttr the Hebrew "S'pj;^. Kvn here It/ is really nothing more than \nj. iciih,—ioifh (on) the testimony of . . . v;'d)ip>is''s. ' « See Wefst. 1. 443, .^.62, Scha-f. Afefet. p. 105. ' Brem J)p.m. y. 105, .«i:liwciglu LeK. Her. 1. 243, Sturz, J-er. Bion. 0. p. 148. 470 "PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. [paRT IIT. tial persons, as L. iv. 27, tVt 'EXcaaatov (Xen. Cyr. 1. 6. 31, Tlat.Bep. 10. 599 e, CnY. 112 a,Alciphr. 1..5,€7rt rwy 7rpo7oi'&)i;' Aman, Epid. 3.23,2 7). Then we find cttl thus used with nouns denoting a state or event (Xen. Ci/r. 8. 7. 1, Herod. 2. 9. 7),Mt. i. 11, eVt T^9 fieTOLKeo-Lav veKpwV Mk. i. 13 : hence it denotes with (together with), L. v. 30, fxerd twv reXwvwv icdlere Jo. xx. 7. It is thus applied to personal association (Jo. iii. 22, xviii. 22," A. ix. ^9, Mt. xii. 42, H. xi. 9 '), and l^Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. 258, Ellendt, Arr. Al. 1. 339. WittmUnn it. s. (see p. * The distinction was already felt by Bengal (on H. vi. 7). « [See however Curtius, Or. Etym. I. 258 (Transl.).] * [A mistake, probably for xviii. 2, or 18.] * Under this head conies also the Hebraistic phrase rrXvpucus fn iltppatCym fittn Tiu ^fofuTou ccv, A. ii. 28, from the LXX (^j'^iSTlN),— wliich cannot be taken in a merely local sense. SECT. XLVII.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE, 471 mutual action, as Jo. iv. 27, \a\eiv jieTo, riuo^' vi. 43, yoyyv^eip fxer aWrj\(ov' Mt. xviii.23, awaipecv Xoyov fierd rivOf;: compare Rev. ii. 16/ 22, L. xii. 13. So especially in the expression of metaphysical (particularly of ethical) relations, as Mt. xx, 2, avfi(f)o)veLv fMCTo, Tcvo'i' ii. 3,L. xxiii. 12, A. vii. 9, Rom, xii. 15, 1 Jo. i. 6 {ehai fierd Ttj'O^jMt. xii. 30, compare Xen. Cyr. 2. 4. 7). Sometimes we find fj.erd used where we say wi or tovxirds (erga), as in L, x, 37, o 7ron]aa<; to eX^09 fier avrov' i.72^(SV, — probably not in A, xiv. 2Y), the person affected being regarded by us, not as associated in the action, but as its object. But yitera is also applied to things, as in L. xiii. 1, wv rb atfia efii^ev fiera rS)v Gvcnwv avrdov Mt. xxvii. 34, — usually to express that with which one is furnished, accompanied, surrounded, as L. xxii. 52, e^ekrfKvdare fierd fiw^atpcav Jo. xviii. 3, Mt. xxiv, 31 (Dem. Pantccn. p. 628 c, Herod. 5. 6. 19). It is then used of attendant actions and circumstances, especially states of mind (Bernh. p. 255), as H. xii. 17, fierd BaKpvcov eK^rfr-qo-w; (Herod. 1. 16. 10), 1 Tim. iv. 14, Mt. xiv. 7, Mk. x. 30, A. v. 26, xvii. 11, iSi^avro rov \6yov fierd Trda-ijf; irpoOvfila^' Mt. xiii. 20, xxviii. 8, 2 C. vii. 15 (Eurip. Hipp. 205, Soph. (Ed. Col. 1636, Alciphr. 3. 38, Aristot. Magn. Mor. 2. 6, Herod. 1. 5. 19) ; and, lastly, of the inner union of non-material things, as E. vi. 23, d/ydinj fxera rricrecof;. The instrument, 2i5 such (Kypke I. 143 ^), is never expressed by fierd in good prose. In 1 Tim, iv, 14, fierd emdececa rwv '^eipcov is ivith, amid imposition of hands (conjointly with the act of imposition) ; and in Mt. xiv, 7, fieO' opKov is interpoqito jure- jurando (H. vii. 21). Yet it borders on this meaning in L. xvii. 15, fiera nirt //.tr avrui (A. XV. 4) is, however, quite distinct, and correctly expresses the conspiring agency of God with his servants by his miraculous interposi- tions." Green p. 218.] 3 Msra xCx^ynu, Fabric. Pseudepigr. II. 143, meAus vnth a light, i. e., furnished with it, carrying it with him, — cum lumine, not lumine. On the other^ hand, compare Leo Gramm. p. 260, iitf)(^a\(Kii i-rKpipiTai P>ov>.ofi'.vos u-viXuv c. fjnr auTcv' p. 275, al. [Similarly in modem Greek ; see MuUach p. 382.] 472 PEEPOSIT^IONS WITH THE GENITIVE. [ PART JIT. (f>(ov^ fie^yiiKr) or iv (fxovfj ueyaXr]), and perhaps in A. xiii. 17 : ^ compare Polyb. 1. 49. ^,i]0poi,^€ fx.€Ta K7]pvyfiaTo<;- Lucian, Fhi- lops. 8, l3ori6eiv nvt fiera rr}^ Tex^V^, and the similar use of c-vi>, — at all events in the poets (Bernh. p. 214), As to Mt. xxvii. 66, see Fritzsche in loc.'^ Meru with the genitive never has the meaning after : ^ in Mk. X. 30, ixera hi(oyfjLO)v is amid ■persemtions, as /xera kcvBvvcov is amidst dangers (Thuc. 1. 18,al.). In Mt. xii. 41 /uera with the genitive is wrongly rendered contra by Ktihnol and Baumg.- Crusius. The words run thus : the Ninevites will at the last judgment appear loiih this generation, — i. e., when the men of this generation appear before the judgment-seat, the Ninevites will appear with them ; for what purpose (against)^ is first expressed by th^ following words. The use of the genitive with this preposition is explained by the fact, that whatever accompanies or surrounds a person is in a certain sense dependent on him. (Don. p. 520, Jelf 636.) i. ^id. The primary meaning is through, 1 C. xiii. 1 2 (Plat. I*/ued. 109 c) : the idea of going through however, in a local sense, always has attached to it that of coming forth or out. (In Hebrew and Arabic indeed IP is the only preposition for the local through; compare also Fabric. Psevdepigr. I. 191, eK^evyeiv Bi' aloovo^- Mt. iv. 4, itcrropeveKjOai Bid, from Dt. viii. 3, and Bie^ep'^taOai, Plat. Bep. 10. 621 a."*) For this reason Bid go- verns the genitive. It occurs in a local sense in simple combi- nations : as L. iv. 30, auro? SiekOwv Bia fjiiaov avr(ov inopeveTo (Herod. 2. 1. 3); 1 C. iii. 15, crcodyja-erai . . . «9 Bia Trvpor Rom. XV. 28, aTrekevao/jiai 5t' v/xwv €i<; Siraviav, i. e., throtigh your city (Thuc. 5. 4, Pint. Virt. Mul. p. 192 Lips.) ; A. xiii. 49, oigcpipeTo 6 \6yo^ Bi' 5Xi]<; r^? '^copa^i, from one end to the other {throughout,^ Odyss. 12. 335, Plat. Symp. p. 220 b); 2 C. viii. ' Yet here we should probably take f^-iTu. as expressing accompaniment, — with vpraised arm,, holding uj) his arm over them (for protection). - [FritXsclie considers this an example of brachylogy, the lull expression being — firniarutit monumentum ctobsignato lapide U eustodibus appositis : our Auth. Vers, agrees with tliis. Meyer joins fitra. with riff^aX. ■; Bieek, al., with ir^^a- yi^nvrti. See Green p. 218.] ** In Fahric. Fseudtp. II. 693 ptra tcZ XxSuv is certainly a mistake of tran- scription for lAiTo. TO ix^u*. The passages collected by Kaphel (oi]i Mk. I. c.) iirove nothing. * Compare Kiihner II.. 281 [II. 416, in eJ. 2], and my 5th Progr. de Verbis tompusif. p. 3. .(Jelf 627. I. a. ) '• IJelf C27. I. b, Kiddell, Plat. Apol. p. I6l.] SECT. XL VII.] PRErOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 473 18, ov 6 e7ratvo<; . . , Bia Traacbv rtou ifCKXrjcncov. In Greek, as in all languages, there is an easy transition from this local throiiyh to the (animate or inanimate) instniment, as that through which the result effected passes, as it were (compare especially 1 P. i. 7), — that which lies between the will and the act : e. g., 3 Jo. 13, oi) 6eK(a 8ia fiiXavof Kai KoXdfiov ypdcpeiv 2 Jo. 12 (Plut. Vit Solon, p. 87 e), 2 C. vi. 7, 1 C. xiv. 9, 2 Th. ii. 2 8ca Xoyov, 81* €7rto-ToX?79, orally, hij letter, H. xiii. 22 8ia ^pa^kwv eTreareCka vfxtv, paucis scripsi vohis (see § 64). Thence it is applied to non-material objects, as L C. vi. 14, r]nu<; e^eyepei 8ia TTj'i 8vvdp'€(av ivoffrixav iyinTi, for the true Worker viu.< G"d (A. ii. 22, xv. 12) ; compare S/i ^tipuv, A. V. 12, xiv. 3. The fact that thi.'; more exact mode of expression is ! lot adhered to in all passages and hy til writfrs. proves nothing against this explanation. 474 TRErOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. [PART III. here to b^ synonymous with viro or irapd. Even in such cases however hid does not indicate the author as such, i. e., as the source from which something projceeds, but in strictness only as the person through whose labour, favour, etc., something is received (compare G. L 1) ; the question whether this comes from him directly or indirectly is not touched.^ We may also add with Fritzsche (Mom. I. p. 15): " est autem hie usus ibi tantum admissus, ubi nuUam sententise ambiguitatem crearet." Thus in G. i, 1, after Paul has used diro and Bid distinctively, he sums up with Bid alone — also standing in reference to God. Very many passages have been wrongly referred to this category In Jo. i. 3, 17, the per of niediate agency is justified by the doc trine of the Logos ; compare Origen in loc. (Tom. I. 108, Lorn- matzsch), AC ox) in Eom. i. 5 is explained by xv. 15 j in Kom. xi. 36, the presence of e« and eU of itself renders this explana- tion of Bid necessary ; on G. iii. 1 9 see my note in loc. ' As to Rom, V. 2, no one will allow himself to be misled by Fritzsche's remark. In H. ii. 3, Christ is regarded as commissioned by God to proclaim salvation : on 1 P. ii. 1 4 ^ see Steiger.' To the idea of medium we may also refer the use of Bid to denote the mental state in which one does something ; e. g., BC inrofJbovri^ d7r€KBe^€(rdai, rpi-x^etv, Rom. viii. 25, H. xii. 1, Plut. Udue. 5. 3,'* — probably also 2 C. v. 7, Bid Trtcrrew? TrepiTraTovfiev, Hence Bid serves as a periphrasis for an adjective, as in 2 C. iii. 11, el TO Karapjov/xevov (Jring in an extra- neous thought), sipce these words were clearly intended to be parallel to « tov dvSpds : the distinction between the prepositions Ik and Sia is obvious at once. In 2 C. viii. 8 (Schott), 8ta t^s irtpojv cnrovBrj during three days : .see also Winer on G. ii. 1.] ' [This reading 13 adopted by Lachni., Tisch., T:eg., Alford: West< ott and Hort TOlain the received text. ] SECT. XLVII.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 477 Nor is there any foundation for the rendering per (Schott) in exhortations and adjurations {hy), Eom. xii. 1, xv. 30, 1 C. i. 10, 2 C. X. 1, 2 Th. iiL 12.'^ To exhort or conjure through the mercy of God, through the name of Christ, means, to exhort etc. referring to, reminding of . . . . : Sia indicates the motive which the writer presents to add strength to his exhortation, k. ■ Kara has for its primary meaning cloivn (down upon, down from), de, — compare Karo) (Xen. A7b. 4. 2. 17, a\\6/j,evot Kara T^f irerpa'i' 1. 5. 8, rpe^eiv Kara 7rpavov<; yTjXocpov' Her. 8. 53) : Mt. viii. 32, Mp/jurjae irdaa r) uyeXTj Kara rov Kprjfivov (Galen, Froirept. 2, Kara Kpiqp,vSiV Dio Chr. 7. 99, Porphyr. Ahsiin. 4. 15, ^iian 7. 14, Pausan. 10. 2. 2) ; 1 C. xi. 4, avrjp Ka-rh, K€(f)a\rj(i e^av, having (a veil hanging) dovjn from the head ; compare also the figurative usage in 2 C. viii. 2, ^ Kara ^dOovt "TTTOi-^eLa, poverty reachiiifj down into the depth? It is next applied to the surface over (through) which something extends, and hence differs essentially from the local eV (with which it is frequently interchanged by later writers, — compare Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 355): L. iv. 14, e^rfkdev Ka& ok7j<; rrj^ Trepix^^poy A. ix. 31, 42, x. 37 ;'^ compare Arrian, ^/, 5. 7. 1, Indic. 13. 6. In its figurative use Kara denotes hostile direction fif/ni7ist something, Mt. x. 35, xxvii. 1, A. vi. 13, 1 0. iv, C. kv, IS,'* Rom. viii, 33 : it is the antithesis of vvep, see Rom. xi. 2 compared with viii. 34, and 2 C. xiii. 8. Kara is the preposition usually employed to express this relation : it seems however, like our gcfjen, strictly to imply no more than motion on or to,- whereas avri, like contra, has the notion of hostility included even in its local meaning. In oaths and adjurations (Mt. xxvi. ' [Here we should probably read, Iv xv/ia 'lriu Xpurra!.] ^ To this head belongs A. xxvii. 14, 'iliaki xitr auryjs oivifisf tvJiuvikos : the tem- pestuous wind rushed (from above) down upon the island. In Mk. xiv. 3, xari^im avrov xarcc rri; nKpaXrig (holding the box of ointment over his head), good MSS. leave out the preposition. For xxraxtut xara rtvos see Plat. Hep. 3. SQ'S a, Apollod. 2. 7. 6. [In A. xxvii. 14 the rendering dovmfrom Crete (Over- beok, Aliord, and others) seems best to suit the circumstances of the case. See Alford's note, Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul II. p. 401, Smith, Diet, of iiihle, II. 757. In ed'. 6 Winer's rendering was "down upon the ship." In Mk. xiv. 3 Ka.ri is omitted in the best texts.] « [L. xxiii. 5 is the only other example in the N. T., so that this usage is peculiar to St. Luke : it is singular that in each case the phrase is xaff oXns r?j . , , Other examples given in the Lexicons are Polyb. 1. 17. 10, ia-xiiafffiitai KXTci rrtt x'^f^^' 3- ^^- '" ' Odys8. 6. 102 also is quoted by Kost and Palm, but Nitzsch .(II. 102), Ameis, and others with more reason retain the meaning doum from.J * [Here many give xard its othermeaning, in regard to (Jelf 628. I. 8. c).] 478 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE, [PAUT III. 63, H. vi. 13, 16) Kara Oeov^ probably means down from God, — God being called down, as it were, as witness or avenger (Kriig. p. 330). Ktihner (II. 284 2) takes a different view. (Don. p. 511, Jelf 628.) 1. 'Tirep has the local meaning of being on the ujjper part of (over) a place, — properly, without immediate contact, see Xen. Mem. 3. 8. 9, o rjXwi rov &e.povh. Blemwid. p. 29 sqq. * [These two examples would come in better in the next sentence.] SEOT. XLVIII.] PREPOSITIONS GOVERNING THE DATIVE. 481 Krebs, Ohs. 26), Mt. vii. 15, Mk. xii. 38, 'Jo. xx. 12 (^EUan 9. 34, Her. 2. 159, Callim. nia7i. 241, Mattk. 577. 2). More generally. ev is applied to that with which any one is furnished, which lie carries with him: H. ix. 25, ekipx^rai iv aXfiarf 1 C. iv. 21 V. 8, 2 C. X. 14, Eom. xv. 29 (Xen. Cyr. 2. 3. 14). c. By a further extension of meaning, ev denotes at, on, — sometimes of immediate connexion, as in Jo. xv. 4, K\fj/j,a iav /xr) fieivji iv r^ afitrkXro, sometimes of mere proximity (hy, nrapd), as Kadlt^eiv (elvat) iv Se^ta 6eov, on the right ha7id, H. i. 3, viii. 1, £. i. 20, Plutarch Lysaud. 436 b, Dio C. 216. 50. This usage is much more common in Greek authors : see Xen. Cyr. 7. 1.45, Isocr. Panatli. p. 646, PJtilipp. p. 216, Plat. Charm. 153 b, Diod. S. 4. 78, 17. 10 ; and compare the commentators on Lucian VI. 640 (Lehm.), Jacob, Luc. Alex. p. 123.^ But in Jo. x. 23 and L. ii. 7 iv signifies in ; as it probably does in Jo. viii. 20 (where ya^otpvXdKiQv denotes tlie treasury as a locality ^), and in L. xiii. 4, as it was usual to say in Siloam because the fountain M'as sur- rounded with buildings ; perhaps also in Mt. xxvii. 5, see Meyer m loc. It is obvious that the rendering in must be retained in formulas of quotation, e. g., iv AavtB, H. iv. 7, Pom. ix. 25 {in, Cic. Or. 71, Quint. 9. 4. 8), and even Kom. xi. 2, eV 'HXia (see Van Marie and Frit/., in loc.,^ and compare Diog. L. 6. 104). d. Before, apud, Mram (see Isocr. Archid. p. 276, Lysias, Fro Mil. 11, Arriau, Epict. 3. 22. 8, Ast, Plat. Legg. 285). This meaning is not needed in 1 Tim. iv. 15 (where however TTuotv — not ev vda-iv — is the true reading) ; but 1 C. ii. 6 (xiv. 11) mnst he referred to this head, see above § 31. 8 ; compare Dem. JB(«ot p. 030 a, Polyb. 17. 6.1,5.29.6, Appian, Civ. ^ Te render Ir f) in II. ix. 4 hy juxta quam is a mere archaeological make.shift. — Where the local U is joined with personal names (in the plural), it is not so jnuch with as amongst (a number, company, etc.). In 1 P. v. 2, we might (with Pott) render to U Ifj-lt -ro'ifiviov the flock which ix in your lands (compare S/a, Rom. XV. 28). Grammatically, it would also be possible to join tj Iv v/^Tv to -Tr^iftatari, quantum in vohis est, according to your power ; or (though this is certainly remote) to render to i» i^r» rroifmoy, the church committed to you, as uvai oi xilvSa.! iv rivi means rely, depend on some one. * [Winer regards yttZ.'xpvXoDiioi as here denoting that part of the court in which the treHsure-chests were placed. Meyer maintains that there is no authority for this meaning, and renders h hy or near. In Mt. x.^i. 5, Meyer's rendering (referred to in the text) is "in the temple-building, ?. e., the holy place." See Trench, Syn. p. 11, EUicott, Hist. L. p. 340. The true reading is, no doubt, 1/5 Tov va«».] ^ [" In narratione de Elia, quo loco libri sacri de Elia exponunt." Fritzsche.] 31 482 PEEPOSITIONS GOVERNING TffE DATIVE. [PART IH. 2. 137.^ So also in 1 C. vi. 2, iv vfilv K^iverat 6 fc6(Xfio evayyeXicp), 1 C. vii. 15. It is used ethically in 2 C. iv. 2, 7rept,7raTovvre'opter strictly means near ; and the German vjeil {becausel is properly a par- ticle of time {'whilst). 'Ev is never joined with names of persons in the sense of projjter (see my note on G. i. 24,^ and compare Ex. xiv. 4) ; '^ and in general this meaning of iv has been intro- ' In H. xi. 2 iv TOLurn {rr, -riimi) does not express the ground or reason, but the (spiritual) possession, in h.ac {constittiti) ; compare 1 Tim. v. 10 fJo. viii. 21). In H. it. 18, iv u -rivovhn x.r.x. is certainly to be resolved into t» tout« 0, in eo quod; see above, p. 198. 'Ev u lias exactly the same meaning ia 1 P. ii. 12, In H. vi. 17, i> ^ may be referred to the preceding Jf ««? ; hut the rendering quapropter, quare (iu which sense i^' J w sometimes u.ged), •would not be unsuitable. In Rom. ii. 1, Iv J may be translated dum^ or rather— with the Vulgate — in quo (in qua re) judicas, eta, -which gives an appropriate sense ; see Fritzsche. In L. x. 20, it raurM .... e-n means (rejoice) in this, that etc. ; compare Ph. i. 18. I do not know of any clear examjple in Greek authors of the use of h rovfu, 8»jJ, with the meaning tha-efore, hecaimi. The examples cited by Sturz {'Lexic. Xenoph. IT, 162) admit of a diflferent explanation ; and in Xen, An. 1. 3. 1, which Kypke (II. 194) brings in here, the better editions have Im Twru. Plat. j?ep. 6. '45.5 b also, where Ast renders iv f projjterea quod, may be otherwise explained ; see Stallb. in loc. '^["Celebrant Deum, ut qui in me xnven'n^cnt celebrationis itiateriem." Winer l. c. ] . ^ In 2 C. xiii. 4, the words iirhvevf/tv h aii-r!^ — as frequently \v Tiftar^ (so variously explained by commentators) — must be understood of fellowship with Christ, the relation sTvat fk X^wr* (see below, p. 486 sq.). The apostje is not k vSee Buttm. Philoct. p. G9, Boeckh,. Find. III. 487, Toppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 195 ; and the uncritical Collections in Schwarz, Comment, p. 476, Georgi, VimL p. 153 sq. [See, Ellicott on 1 Th. iv. 18, Jelf 622. 3. a. J - It would be wrong to give i» an instinmental sense in E. ii. 15 (p. 275) and E. vi 4 ; in the latter passage -rtuliia, xai noi/hc-ia Kvfiou constitute the sphere in. which the children are trained (comp. Polyb. 1. 65. 7). In the phrase axxdir- irtit ri 'it Tivi, Ptom. i. 23, I cannot agree with Fritzsche in taking b as per, nor do I believe that the Hebrew a in 3 TDH is to be thus explained Toehanijf. something in fjold is either an example of brachylogy, or else the gold ia regarded as that in which the exchange is accomplished. Akiu to this is the i» of price ; se*; above, and p. '487. ' Many p;;ssa^es which might be quoted from Greek writers as exam]>les of this usage are to be otherwise explained : e. g. , hat iv iif!6't;, Lucian, Phalar. 1. 5 ; it 'if^iar.cit u-rofix'iTrut, Lucian, Amor. 29 (compare Wex, Antig. I. 270) ; PorphyT. de Antra Nymjiluir. p. 261, afi^ofiut, \t aJf . . . ifvofitSa..; Lucian, Asia. 44, u; TiStriKu; it ra,7f -rXtiyaT; (in or amid the blows) ; Plat. Tim. 81 c, ri6pafifjt.itris It yaXxxrt, brought up 071 milk (compare Jacobs, Athfin, p. 57). In Lucian, Conser. Hint. 12, U axotrlii iponvut, the recent eiiitors read iti for it, on MS. authority. In Lucian, Dial. Mort. 23. 3, however, all MSS. but one liave KoJiK'ofi.iti>t it T^ fdliSaj '(not exactly so in .£lian 2. 6) ; yet even here Lehmann regards the preposition as suspicions (compare Lucian, Lapith. c. 26). See also Engelh., Plat. .>f&«ex. p. 261, Disseti, Find. p. 487. 486 PREPOSITIONS GOVERNING THE DATIVE, [PART III. joined with personal names, as in Mt. ix. 34, iv Ta> ap^ovTi rfov Sai,/xoviQ}v €KJ3aXX,ei,v ra Saifiovta' A. xvii. 3 1 , Kpiveiv ev avhpi} in a man (compare Thuc. 7. 8. 2, Matth. 577. 2) ; but not in Jo. xvii. 10, 2 Th, i. 10, and certainly not in A, xvii, 28.^. The phrase o^ioaac ev tlvl, Mt. v. 3 4 sqq., does not mean jurare per (see Fritz, in loc), but, more simply, swear hy {near, on) some- thing. In other passages also iv is not properly through In 1 C. vii. 1 4, rjiylaarai 6 avrjp 6 airuaro'i iv ry yvvaiKL means he is sanctified in the wife, — the basis rather than the means of the sanctification being indicated. In Kom. xv. 1 6, iv Trvevfiari afyiw (not hia TTvevfiaro'i djiov) is used designedly, in the Holy Ghost — an inward principle. Akin to 1 C. vii. 14 are 1 C. xv. 22, iv rui ^ ABafi '7rdvTe? vTUKori tTis aXtihlx; iia. Tviv/mTo;' H. X. 10. Lastly, passages in which h and S;a are used in one sentence 6f material objects, as Col. i. 16 [?], 2 C. vi. 4-^, 1 C. xiv. 19 [Hec], only show that the two prepositions are as regards sense of the same kind. In Mt. iV. 4 also iv V*vt/ pri/j,ari does not seem to be in meaning perfectly parallel to t^r' apru fiiveu ; but as Wt indicates the basis, so iv indicates the (spiritual) element of the life ; in any case through or hy means q/" would here be an inexact rendering; ^ As the Christian abides in a most living (most intimate, hence iv) fellow- ship with Christ (through faith), he will do everj'thing in the consciousness of this fellowship, and by means of powers resulting from this fellowship, — i. e., in SECT. XLVIII.j PREPOSITIONS GOVERNING THE DATIVE. 487 \aXcov has the strict meaning " speakingin the spirit of God," as the principle in which he lives (Rom, ix. 1, xiv, 17, Col. i. 8). e. 'Ev is used (Hebraistically) of the jprice, in Rev. v. 9, dyopd^eLv iv rw aifj,aTt (1 Chr. xxi. 24). Tlie value of the thing purchased is contained in the price (to this answei's the e/c of price). (Don. p. 508, Jelf 622.) Even the most recent lexicographers have unduly multiplied the meanings of this preposition, or have wrongly applied its true mean- ings to N T. passages. Especially Proteus-like have been the expla- nations of eV opofxaTt Tivos. Here however iv presents no difficulty, but simply signifies in. A thing comes to pass " in a person's name " when it is comprehended or inclosed in his name, is set to the account of his personal agency (compare A. iv. 7), and not to that of the man who is the nearest, the direct subject (compare Jo. v. 43). Only the various verbs which are defined by iv 6v6[xaTL demand attention from the commentator, that he may in all cases most simply trace back the varied senses to the literal meaning of the formula. This require- ment has not yet been satisfactorily met,^ even by Meyer. Ph. ii. 10 seems to need separate treatment. Here oi/o/ia points back to nyofjLa in ver. 9, and iv ovo/xarc denotes the name into which those who how the knee are united, united into which all (-n-av yow) offer wor- ship : the name which Jesus has received unites them all to bow the knee. 'Ev does not indicate the finis or consilium in Tit. iii. 5 ; epya TO. iv SiKaiocrvvrj are works done in the spirit of a SiWios : on L. L 17, 1 C. vii. 15, see below [§ 50. 5], Nor do we need erga for Mk. ix. 50, €lp7jV€V€Te iv dXXrjXoL^, for we also use amongst here. Still less tenable are the following interpretations : — (ffl) £,X : ^ H. xiii, 9, iv ols ovk dxfieXyjdrjaav ol TrepnraTqcravTK, iinde (Schott) nihil commodi perceperunt (compare di^ikfidOaL a-rro, ^schin. Dial. 2. 11). If we joined cv ols with icfyeXyO-qaav the preposition would denote the advantage which would have been founded in them, Christ, in the Lord: the renderings frequently given, as a Christian, in a Christian spirit, etc., express much less than the pregnant phrase in Christ. So in Rom. xvi. 12, who labour in the Lord, conscious of their fellowship with the Lord (no worldly xa*/a» is meant) ; 1 C. xv. 18, who fell asleep in Christ, ' in conscious, enduring fellowship with Christ (compare 1 Th. iv. 16, Rev. xiv. 13) ; Rom. ix. 1 (which even Bengel misunderstood), speak truth in Christ (as one living in Christ) ; xiv. 14, persuaded in the Lord (in reference to a truth of which in his living union with Christ he is convinced). On 1 C. iv. 15 see Meyer. ECpiffKio-fai Iv XpiirTu, Ph. iii. 9, is evidently to b*' thus explained : see also Rom. xv. 17, xvi. 2, 22, 1 C. \'ii. 39, Ph. iv. 1 (E. vi. 1), 1 P. v. 10. Fritzsche {Bom. II. 82 sqq. ) maintains substantially the right view, V)ut not without misapprehensions and the introduction of unnecessary matter. See also Van Hengel, Vor. p. 81. ' Yet better by Hariess (Eph. p. 484) than by Van Hengel (Phil. p. 161 sq.). ^ Fischer {Well. p. 141) gives this meaning to Iv m such phrases as t/vei* i» apyupui, XP"'^ (Isocr. Paneg. c. 30, Diog. L. 1. 104, bibere in ossibus Flor. 3. 4. 2). On this fashion we might say that our avf {on^ means von {/rcrm) ; for we speak of eating on {avf) silver plates, which, according to the analogy of "drinking out o/ silver cups," is equivalent to from {von) silver plates. 488 PREPOSITIONS GOVERNING THE DATIVE. [PART TIL or have clung to them (Xen. Ath. Rep. 1. 3, Dena. Pantmn. 631 a) ; but fi/ ols belongs to TrcptTrarTjcraj'TC?. In Mt. i. 20, to ev avT-^ ycvvTrjOiv means tJmt which is begotten in her [in ejus titero). (b) Pro, loco : Rom. xi. 17 (Schott), ercKCvrpib-^i^s eV aurois (KXd.Soiv eirl rfj -rrpwrr) ScaOtJKij irapa- ^daewv,vnth (under) the first covenant, during the continuance of the first covenant. It is thus applied -to persons in II. x. 28 (from the LXX), eVt rpial fidpTva-i, with (before) three loit- nesses, adhihitis testibus. 'Eiri is also used of that which (in point of time) is directly -annexed to, which follows 7'pon, as in Xen. Cyr. 2. 3. 7, dpearrj ctt avroy ^epavXa^, immediately after (Appian, Civ. 5. 3, Pausan, 7. 25. 6, Dio 0. 325. 89, 519.-^99°). Some have thus explained A. xi. 19, dnro rfjq 0\cyp'€Ci)<; T^9 >yevopievrjn(rci*TU'> (as in A. V.), not with mii6n in Ph. iii. 12, to which {for which). f. According to, — of the norm or rule: L. i. 59, Koketv eVt rtp ovoixart, after the name (Neh. vii. 63). Under this head probably comes liom. v. 1 4, eTri ra> ofiotby/jiaTi rrjf; irapa^dcrea)^ Ahdfi, ad (Vulg. in) simMitudinem peccati Adami ; for other explanations see Meyer in loc. 2 C. ix. 6, however, cannot be taken thus (as by Philippi, Rom. Br. p. 172) ; see above, p. 489. (Don. p. 518, Jelf 634.) When cVt with the dative, in the local sense, is joined with a verb of direction or motion (Mt. ix. 16, Jo. viii. 7, — but not Mt. xvi. 18, A. iii. 11), the notion oi remaining and resting at is impHed, d. TLapd, by (i. e., properly, heside, hy the side of, in a local sense), is found pnce only with a dative of the thing, in Jo. xix. 25 (Soph. (Ed. C. 1160, Plat. Ion b'd^ b). Elsewhere it is always joined with the dative of the person (Kriig. p. 335), and a. Sometimes denotes the external hy, beside (L. ix. 47), or in some one's vicinity, cu-cle, or care : 2 Tim. iv. 13, (^ekovqi/ dTriXiTTOv Trapa Kapirq)' 1 0. xvi. 2 (Aristot. Pol. 1. 7), L. xix. 7 (where Trapa dfiaprcoXM belongs to fcara\doo,c), Col, iv. 16, Eev. ii. 13, A. x. 6, xviii. 3. h. Sometimes, and more frequently, it refers to that which is hy or with some one in a metaphysical sense, that which is in the possession, power, etc., of some one (penes). See Mt. xix, 26, nraph dv0p(o7rQC<; rovro dBvvarov eariv, Trapd 8e 6ea> irdvTa Bvvard' Eom. ii. 1 1, ov yap ecn irpo, ivith, before God, from the point of view of God's judgment. That irapd with the dative can directly signify direction towards^ is not proved (Wahl in Clavis) by L. ix. 47, and still less by L. xix. 7 (see above, p. 492). (Don. p. 5 21, Jelf G370 e. ITpo? has the same primary meaning, but in the X. T. is used only in its local sense, hy, at, ooi, in tJie (immediate) neir/hhonrhood of; e. g., Jo. xviii. 16, Trpo? ij} dvpa- xx. 11, 12, Mk. V. 1 1. No illustration from Greek authors is needed here.' So also in Kev. i, 13, irepte^coo fievo^ tt/jo? roo<; fiacnol^; ^lovrjv, gi7i at the hrcastvnth a girdle, (Xen. Cyr. 7. 1. 33), L. xix. 37, i ^ [We should probably read -rpis in Mk. iii. 7.] 2 Likewise in 1 C. xiv. 36, 2 C. x. 14, ih is a more choice expressioii than ^•/jos, since in all these passages it is a metaphysical reaching to some one (iato the knowledge of him, or into intercourse with him) that is spoken of. * [No uncial MS, : Tischendorf says that Hec. has tis "cum minusciilis ut videtur paucis."] * See Valcken. in loc. : compare Fischer, Well. III. ii. p. 150, Schoem. Iscens 363, and on Plut. Agis. $. 124 (Jelf 625, 1. a). ^ In this sense the more expressive 'iui (or f^ixp') is more commonly iised j and several passages quoted by the lexicographers for the meaning usque ad are not purely temporal, but contain the lU of destination or aim, as U, iii. ]7[wit)i the reading th "iipitrTo*], iii. 23, E. iv. 30. SECT. XLIX.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 495 aroTTov et9 avrov ,xdr'ritv -TToii cfva, are founded on tlie same conception. [Compare Ellicott on Col. I. c.\ ' . ^ Likewise Ifzo/rai sU ' UfitirriZ,tiv iU (below) sec Ellicott on G. iii. 27.] * In Jo. iv. 14, however, aXXoiAvov il; Z'^h alcj'^wj is 'probably (against: Baumg.-Crusins) to bo rendevcil inio. 3 Compare Iloind. Protag. 471, Stallb. Plat. Symp. p. 43 sq. * Herm. De Partic. civ j>. 6 : Primum ac proprium usuxn habet in iis, quee ill al. rei superficie ab imo Rd summuni eqiido couapiciantur : motus euim sig- nifirationem ei adharere quum ex eo intelligitur, quod non est apta visa qua cum verbo iTvai compnneretnr, turn docet usns ejus adverbialis, ut «.\x' aw« 1^ Ihpiiia-K Compare also Spitzner, De vi el nsu jn-oepositmnim ava. et xarx (Viteb. 1831). SECT. XLIX.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 497 ')((i)pov06vou, frorr^ envy, E. ii. 4, Bca rrjv ttoWtjv dyd- Trrjv (Diod. S. 19. 54, 8t^ rvv 7rpoa<; e^rja-e' Plut. Alex. 6 6 8 e. Here, however, the proper meaning is, / live hy reason of the Father, i. e., because the Father lives. Compare Plat. Conv. 283 e; and see Fritz. Ro7ri. I. 197, who quotes as parallel Cic. Rose. Am. 22. 63, ut, propter q_iws hanc suavissimam lucem adspexerit, eos indignissime luce privarit. More or less similar are Demosth. Zcnoth. 576 a, Aristoph. Plat. 470, ^schin. Dial. 1. 2, Dion. H. III. 1579.^ H. v. 14 ^nd vi. 7, however, certainly have no place here. The same may be said (against Ewald and De Wette) of Eev. xii. 11, evUrjo-av ^la to al/ia: compare vii. 14, and the words which immediately follow, Kat ovk tfr^dirrja-av ri]v "^vx^v K.T.X. As to Kom. viii. 11 (where it is true the reading is uncertain), see Fritzsche ; ^ and as to Jo. xv. 3, Meyer in loo. In 2 Cor. iv. 5, H. ii. 9, 2 P. ii. 2 (where Schott still renders Bui by per, which even gives a false sense, — see on the other hand Bengel in loe.), and in Rev. iv. 11, on account of is altogether suitable. The same may be said of Rom. viii. 20 (where Schott still has per):'^ in Rom. xv. 15, Sta ttjv p^;a/3ti/ rrjv hodeladv fjoi, it will not be supposed that hid denotes the means because we find in xii. 3 Sta rrjepeiv kuto,^ ra^ TrXareia'?, through the streets, along the streets; A. viii. 36 (Xen. An. 4. 6. 11), L. ix. 6, xiii. 22, A. xi. 1, xxvii. 2 (Xen. Cyr. 8. 1. 6, Kaphel on Acts I. c.)? In all cases it is applied to levels and extended surfaces. So also in A. xxvi. 3, ra kuto. ram ^lovZaiov^ edt] Kal ^rjTijfjbara, the customs . . . which extend through (are usual amongst) the Jews.^ h. Motion upon or towards, as Ph. iii. 14 (Kara (tkottov, towards the mark), A. viii. 26, xvi. 7, L. x. 32 (^sop 88. 4, !^en. Cyr. 8. 5. 17); also mere direction towards (geographical situation, versus), A. ii. 10, tt}? AL^vr]OrivaL, compared vjith, — as if, held to, or hy. Bar. iii. 36 (Thuc. 6. 31, Plat. Gorg. 471 e, Hipp. Maj. 281 d, Isocr. Big. p. 842, Aristot. Pol. 2. 9. 1, Demosth. Ep. 4, 119 a.^ (Don. p. 523, Jelf 638.) ^ [Probably "below," — referring to what is said of iie'i with accusative.'\ 2 This meaning (against) is but rarely found with verbs which do not them- selves contain the notion of hostility, as Sext. Empir. 3. 2 (Dio C. 250. 92). This is added in qualiiication of what is said in my Observationes in episf. Jac. p. 16. [Winer loc. cit. had denied that vpc; itsel/evev has the meaning contra. Compare Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 272 sq.] ^ Compare Wolf, Leptln. p. 251, Jacobs, JEA. Anim. II. 340. 506 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. [PART III. That in Such phrases as Stari^ccr^at BiaOrJKrjv Trpds nva, hiaKpLvea-OaL irpo^ riva, elprjvqv ^x^*-^ irpo? rwa (Rom. V. 1), Koivcuvia Trpos ti, 2 C. vi. 14 (comp. Philo, ad Caj. 1007, Himer. Eclog. 18. 3), etc.,i irpos does not signify cum,^ but has the simple meaning " towards," has been already admitted by Bretschneider and by Wahl. In H, iv. 13 also, Trpos ov rifuv 6 Xoyos, the preposition expresses direction, and Kiihuol might have spared his remark " Trpo's significat cum " (compare Eisner in loc). — Schleusner's explanation of the phrase evx^o-dat Trpos Ocov, precari a deo, only deserves notice as a striking example 'of unlimited empiricism. i. Hepl, about {round about), is used in the first instance of place : as A. xxii, 6, TrepLaarpdyfrai, ^covv, about the loins (encircling them). Then of time : Mk. vi. 48 'rrepl Terdprrjv v\aKrjv, abo2tt the fourth night- watch {circa in Latin), Mt. xx. 3 (-^schin. £Jp. 1. 121 b), A. xxii. 6. Lastly, of the object around which an action or a state moves, so to speak: A. xix. 25, ot irepl ra roiavra ipyaTat (Xen. Vectig. 4. 28), L. x. 40 (Lucian, Indoct. 6), 1 Tim. vi. 4, voa&v Trepl ^rjrija-eif; (Plat. Pha;dr. 228 e). Hence it is some- times equivalent to in regard to^ as Tit. ii. 7, 1 Tim. i. 19, 2 Tim. iii. 8, Xen. Mem. 4. 3. 2, Isocr. Evag. 4 ; compare errorem circa literas habuit, and the like, in Quintilian and Suetonius. See above, § 30. 3. Rem. 5, and Ast, Plat. Legg. p. 37, but espe- cially Glossar. Theodoret. p. 317 sqq. The phrase oi irepl rov UavKov, Paid and his companions, A. xiii. 13,* is worthy of note: compare oi irepX ^evo(f>a)vra, Xen. An. 7. 4. 16, oi Trepl Ki/cporra, Xen. Mem. 3. 5. 10. In later writers this formula is also used to denote the principal person alone (Herm. Vig. p. 700); and it is probable that Jo. xi. 19, ai Trepl MdpOav Kal Mapiav, should be thus understood, for 1 See Alberti, Observ. p. 303, Fritz. Jiom. I. 252. '^ The Greeks also use fura in such phrases, but apparently it was rather in the later language that this became common : Malal. 2. 52, ivoXififKran fjnr aXXr.Xuv- 13. p. 317, 337, 18. p. 457. [See above, s. v. inra. (with genitive).! » [Ellicotton 1 Tim. i. 19.] * Greek writers, as is well known, form a similar periphrasis with i^^/, but in plain prose -nfi is much more common. The fact that ol -rif) to* liavXov denotes, not merely those surrounding Paul (companions, etc.), but together with these the principal person himself, probably arises from the graphic, power of the preposition : -jripi indicates that which incloses, and hence the phrase means the Paul-company, so to speak. Somewhat analogous is tlic German Miillers (genitive), in the sense of JUidler and his Iiousehold : in Fran- conia they say instead die MiilUrschen, — still including the head of the family. SECT. XIiIX.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 507 the following avTat<; can only refer to the two sisters.^ Ex- amples, not however clearly distinguished, may he found in Wetstein I. 916 sq., Schwarz, Covimentar. p. 1074, Schweigh. Lexic. Folyk.'p. 463. See also Bernh. p. 263. (Don. p. 516, Jelf 632.) k. 'Ttto primarily denotes local motion under: Mt. viii. 8, Iva fiov irnro rr]v (Treyi-jv €L'ie\6r}ernh. p. 267, Boissonade, Nic. p. 56. * See Alberti, Observ. p. 224, Ellendt, Arr. Al. T. 146, Schweigh, Lexic. Folyb. ]>. 633. ^ [Here, and also A. xvii. 26, recent editors receire the genitive,] 508 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSA.TIVE. [PART III. also denotes generally tlie mark or aim towards, on, to which (one goes, strives, comes, etc.) : L. xv. 4, xxii. 52, A. viii. 36, Ph. iii. 14 v.L, Xen. Cyr. 1. 6. 39, An. 6. 2. 2 (Kypke in lac). It is seldom merely to (of persons), Mk. v. 21, A. i. 21.^ From the primary meaning may easily be explained A. x, 10, etrecrev eV avrov eKcrracn^ (v. 5), A. i. 26, eireaev 6 K\r]po' oaov, Mt. ix. 15, 2 P. i. 13 (Polygen.6. 22), as long as. More rarely eVt indicates the point of time towards or about which something happens, as in A. iii. 1 (see Alberti in loc). 3. In a figurative sense, eVt denotes {a) The number and the degree up to which something comes : Eev. xxi. 16, eVl arahlovi hcoheKa ^iXmStwy^ (Her, 4, 198, Xen. Cyr. 7. 5. 8, Polyb. 4. 39. 4), Pom. xi. 1Z,1<^' oaov, in quantum, i. e., quatenus. (6) Superintendence and power over : Eev. xiii. 7, iZoOiq avrw i^ovaia eVt Traaav (puS-rju' H. iii. 6, x. 21 (Xen. Cyr. 4. 5. 58). Compare L. ii. 8, xii. 14, ^aaiXeveti/ eTrt riva, L. i. 33, Pom. v. 14, also Malal. 5. p. 143. (c) The direction of the mind (feeling), — hence towards,^ erga and contra : Mt. x. 21, L. vi. 35, 2 C. x. 2, Pom. ix. 23 (but not 1 P. iii. 12), Sturz, Ind. to Dio Cass. -p. 151. Hence with verbs of trusting, setting Iwpe upon, Mt. xxvii. 43, 2 C. ii. 3, 1 Tim. V. o, 1 P. i. 13 ; also aTrXwy^^vi^eadat eVi Ttva, to have comiMssion upon (towards), Mt. xv. 32, Mk. viii. 2. (d) The direction of thought and of discourse, as Mk. ix. 12, H. vii. 1 3 (Pom. iv. 9 ^). Direction of will : hence we find eVt where design and aim are expressed, L. xxiii. 48 (Plat. Crito 52 b), Mt. iii. 7 (Xen. Afem. 2. 3. 13, Cyr. 7. 2. 14, Fischer, Ind. ad Palwph. s. v. eVt), Mt. xxvi. 50, e>' 6' (Plat. Gorg. 447 b) ; and also where aim and result coincide, as H. xii. 10. Lastly, the preposition assumes an entirely general sense, in regard to, as Mt. XXV. 40, 45 : for Pom. xi. 13, see above, (a). As to inaro'i e-rri rt, Mt. xxv. 21, see Fritz, in loc.'^ ^ Here we al.so saj' an, auf. "^ Franke, Demosth. 127. 5 [That is, if xiytTo., be supplied (§ 64. 2, Fritz., Alford).] ^ [" Rarior est constructio tivtIv iivai W, n. Noli autem putare, arrtissime cohferere ItI cum voce TurTis, sed significat fidelem esse railone rei hubita." Fritz. /. c] 510 interchange, accumulation, and [j>art iii. Section L. interchange, accumulation, and repetition of prepositions. 1. The same preposition may be found in the same sentence, or in parallel passages (especially of the synoptical Gospels), joined with different cases and expressing different relations ; 5. ii. 10, ^tov TairavTa koI St ov tu Trdvra' E,ev. v. l,xi. 10, xiv. 6 ; compare 1 C. xi. 9, 12, ovk avrjp Sid rrjv yvuaiKa, . avTjp Std Tr}<; lyvvaLKo^. Compare Demostli. Philip}). 2. p. 25 c. A more remote example of this kind is H. xi. 29, Sie^rjaav r-qv epvdpdv ddXaaaav a)«? Bed ^r)pd<;; where the compound 8/ a^atVeiv is followed by the accusative, and then Bed itself by the genitive. Compare Jos. xxiv. 17, ou? 7rap7]\9o/j,ev Bi avrcov ; Wis. x. 18. A nice distinction between the meanings of a preposition when thus joined to different cases sometimes almost entirely disap- pears in usage: Mt. xix. 28, orau KaOta-rj . . iiri Opovov B6^r}<; avrov, Kadiaeade Kalvfxeir] eVt T

evra^ viro rotovroLr]Twv .... OTTO TTjs y€V€a5 ravTTjs aTro tov at/Ltaros 'A/JcA k.t.A. ; Rom. XV. 1 3, eis TO TrepKrcreveLV v/j.a<; ev tt] eXiriSL iv Sui^a/tci irvevfjiaTO'i ayiov J Jo. ii. 23, rjv iv toi? 'l€pocroXvfjiOi<; iv tw Tracr^^a iv rfj ioprrj ; 2 C. vii. 16, \a.ip(a OTL iv ttuvtI OappC) iv vplv ; xii. 12, 1 C. iii. 18, Kom. i. 9, E. i. 3, 14. ii. 3, 7, iv. 22, vi. 18, Ph. i. 2G, ii. 16, 1 Th. ii. U, 2 Th. i. 4, Col. i. 29, ii. 2, iv. 2, H. v. 3, ix. 11 sq., Jo. iv. 45 (xvii. 15^), A. xvii. 31, 2 P. i. 4 (Philostr. Her. 4. 1, Arrian, Epid. 4, 13. 1). 2. The two different prepositions in the same sentence in Phil. 5, uKovwv GOV rr)v dydinjv koi. rrjv irLcrriv, f)v €%et9 7rp6<; tov Kvpcov ^Irjcrovv koI el'i 7rdvTaevdvi)r6cti Tpioioyn is to be caught with a trident (like t? x,-'?' wri? irpo^ara iv fiiao) \vko)V Jo. v. 4, ayy€\o<; Kare^aivev iv rfj KoXvfi^rjOpa' L. vii. 17, i^rjXdev o X0709 iv oXtj rfj 'lovSaia' Mk. v. 30, i7ri(Trpa(f>el<; iv tm 6-)(\w' Itom. v. 5, r) uyairr) rov deov iKKC'^vraL iv Tatcai iv (pt/X«K^ a-r't^iro (We.stcott and Hort, — also Lachm. and Treg., with addition of rj?}.] 516 INTERCHANGE, ACCUMULATION, AND [PART III. may be in doubt how to take eV v^uv (see Liicke), but there is no doubt that iv does not stand for et?. On Ja. v. 5 see De Wette.^ In Mt. xxvii. 5, iv tw vaoi is in the temple. In J?om. v. 5 the use of the perfect tense might of itself have led to the true explanation: compare Poppo on Thuc, 4. 14.^ b. The passages quoted as examples of the use of eh for ev are more singular. In Greek authors, however, etv eh rov koXttov (although here said in reference to God), must probably be traced back to the originally local meaning of the phrase, — " who rests placed on or against the bosom." ^ In Jo. ix. 7, eh rrjv KoXvfifSrjOpav belongs, as regards the sense, to vira/ye as well as to viyjrac (compare ver. 11), go down and wash into the pool (compare L. xxi. 37), see Liicke; though in itself vLTneaOai eh v8(i)p is as correct an expression as in aquam macerare (Cato, R. rust. 156. 5) or our sich in ein Bechen waschen (Arrian, Epict. 3. 22. 71).'* Still easier is Mk. i. 9, i^ainiaOr) eh rov ^lophdvqv. In L. viii. 34, dTnjyyetXav eh rrjv ttoXiv k.t.X. means theg carried word of it into the city : Mt. viii. 33 is more circumstantial, d7reX6ovTe(; eh Trjv ttoXiv aTr^yjeiXav irdvra k.t.X, Xot unlike , this is Mk. i. 39 ;. compare Jo. viii. 26. In Mk. xiii. 9, koX eh ?Te eivav (^/xa?) iv dyiaap,a>.^ In the same way might 1 C. vii. 1 5 and E. iv. 4 be explained : others however understand iv as specifying the ethical character of the Kkrja-L.T](TTpov cts rrjv 6dXaff$at'TixuTifov ihioa avvicrrriKev is explanatory of et"? avrov. E. iv. 6, el? 6eov X^'P'^ ifioXeyautrae, airauvTas 2f T>lv iTii-ric -rpofirihiay, ai/Tu 01 XP'" **' ''■'" Vfefr,»oura.v avaTtftTliy ^i>P'.Xtyia.t>. ^ [So Scholz : Hec. iu7y. The pronoun is omitted in the best texts.] 522 INTERCHANGE, ACCUMULATION, AND [PART III. working through all, dwelling in all (filling them with his Spirit). 2 P. iii. 5, jr) e^ uSaro? kuI Bt v8aT0(; avvea-rSiaa tm 6eov Xoyq) : out of water (as the matter in which it lay in- closed) and through water, — i. e., through the agency of the water, which partly retired into the lower parts,' and partly formed the clouds in the sky. In 1 C. xii. 8 sq, the prepositions Bed, Kara, iv, in parallel members, refer the Spirit's gifts to the irvevfia from whom they are all derived : hid indicates the Spirit as the medium, Kard as the disposer (ver. 11), ev as the continens. It is easy to understand the antithesis of e'/c (or aTro) and €19 — starting point and goal, Rom. i. 17, 2 C. iii. 18 (com- pare in a local sense Mt. xxiii. 34). In 1 C. viii. 6, where the parallel prepositions are referred to different subjects, Oecx: i^ ov, and Kupio<; ^Irjaoijq Xpiaros 8i ov, there cannot be a moment's doubt respecting the choice of the prepositions and their meaning. The following parallels may be quoted fi-om Greek writers : Marc. Anton. 4. 23, ck v/xCjv, to. Se fieO' v/xiov, to, Se Si v/xci^, to. 8* iirip vfxlhv' jtcta Ignat. p. 368, 8i' ov koI /xe^' ov tw Trarpt r) ^o^a. Other passages may be found in Wetstein II. 77, and Fritz. Bom. IT. 556. 7. If two or more nouns depending on the same preposition are directly joined together by a copula, the preposition is most naturally rejX'.ated when these nouns denote objects which are to be taken by themselves, as independent,^ and not repeated when these reduce themselves to a single main idea, or (if they are proper names) to one common class ; a.^ L. xxiv. 27, dp^dfievo^ aTro Ma)(rea)i]Topia iroW^' Jo. xx. 2,^ 2 Tim. iii. 11, A. xxviii. 2, Mk. vi. 4, x. 29, xii. 33, Rev. vi. 9. Hence the prepo- sition is almost always repeated when two nouns are connected 1 Weber, Demosih. p. 189 (Jelf 650) : as to Latin see Kritz, Sallust, I. 226, Zumpt, Gr. 745. [Madvig, Lat. Or. 470.] * [There are some mistakes iu the examples quoted in this paragraph. A. xv. 4 and xxv. 23 are instances of the non-repetition of tlie preposition ; in 2 Tim. iii. 11 there is no copula ; A. xvii. 9 does not contain ko.) . . . xxl, — in ed. 5 it is quoted under (b), with A. xvii. 15.] ^ On this passage Bengel remarks : Ex prrepositione repetita coUigi potest, non una fuisse utrumque discipulum. SECT. L.J REPETITION OF PREPOSITIONS. 523 by Kal .... Kal\ or re Kai: A. xxvi. 29, kuX iu oXija) koI eV, TToXXft) (two circumstances which cannot coexist), L. xxii. 33, 1 C. ii. 3, Phil. 16, A. xvii. 9 (compare Xen. Ifier. 1. 5, but con- trast Soph. Track. 379) ; Ph. i. 7, ev re rot;,^ before words in apposition,^ and in answers.'* In the N. T., on the other hand, the omission of the preposition is even singular in A. xxvi. 18, etTLcrrpe-^ai airo aKorovi et? . II. 291. SECT. L.] REPETITION OF PREPOSITIONS. 525 afbopia-are . . . €ts to ifr/ov, o TrposKe'/cAiy/tai avrov's* L. i. 25, xii. 46, Mt. xxiv. 50, Rev, ii. 13 ^ (not 1 C. vii. 20) ; but not in Jo. iv. 53,' iv iKCLvr} rfj o)pa, cy rj ctTreV A. vii. 4, XX. 18 (Jon. iv. 10). With the latter examples compare Demosth. Timoth. 705 h, kv tol% vpofots ev ols yiypaTTTat -n/v ti/a^v twi' (f>La\C}v u(f>etXo)v' Aristot. Anim. '5. 30, Plat. Soph. 257 d, Xen. Cyr. 1. 2. 4, Diog. L. 8. 68,^ Heinich. JEtiseb. II. 252. As to Latin, see Ramshorn p. 378.^ If antecedent and relative are separated by several words, the Greek writers also prefer to repeat the preposition : Her. 1. 47, Xen. Fectig. 4. 13, Lucian, Necyam. 9, Dio Chr. 17. 247. In Greek writers, and especially the poets, a preposition which belongs to two successive nouns is sometimes expressed before the second only ; see Herm. Vig. p. 854, Lob. Soph. Aj. v. 397 sq., the comritentators on Anacr. 9. 22, Kiihner IL 320 [477 : ed. 2] al. (Jelf 650. 2.) It was supposed that an example of this kind had been dis- covered in the N. T. (Heinich. Ettseb. IL 252) : Ph. ii. 22, on, ws TraTplreKvov, (rvv ifiol iSovXeva-ev k.t.X. Here however there is rather a variatio strudurce : Paul says a.Tra$ Rom. vi. 10, al. (Dio Cass. 1091. 91, 1156. 13, analogous to esaTra^ Franke, De- mosth. p. 30, Trpos aira^ Malal. 7. p. 178), iirl rpi? A. X, 16, xi. 10 ; the examples cited by Kypke (Vol. IL p. 48) have the similar cts rpts, which occurs as early as Her. 1. 86, Xen. Cyr. 7. 1. 4, — com- pare Herm. Vig. p. 857. Many of these compounds are only to be found in writers later than Alexander,^ some only in the Scho- liasts ; ^ others, as airb Tripvcn (for which was used TrpoTripvcn or ' [Here the reading is doubtful. — In Jo. iv. 53, quoted immediately below, the Jirst iv is doubtful.] 2 Beier, Cic. Offic. I. 123. [Madvig, Lot. Gr. 322, Obs. 1, Zumpt 778.] ^[Liiuemann adds Mt. xvi. 21, L. xvi. 16.] * Compare in German, ohen auf dem Dache. * Yet Is all, U t-ruTa, if oyf^'i, and the like, occur in Thucydides (1. 129, 130, 4. 63, 8. 23). On a^ro fiaxpohv and similar expressions see § 65. 2. * Lob. Phryn. p. 46 sqq. : compare however Kiihner II. 315 [468 : ed. 2]. 526 USE OF PREPOSITIONS TO FORM PERIPHRASES. [PAKT III . iKTrepvcri) are not to be met with even there. Compare also in the LXX dTTo oTTLcrOev (nnso), 1 S. xii. 20, and Thilo, Act. Th(m. p. 25. — In the orthography of these compounds, whether connected (Kriig. p. 300) or separate, even the most recent N. T. editors observe no consistency.^ Rem. 2. The ancient use of (the simple) prepositions without case for adverbs maintained itself, with certain restrictions, in the prose of all periods (Bernh. p. 196, Jelf. 640). In the N. T. we find but one example of this :" 2 C. xi. 23, hiaKovoi Xpia-Tov ela-iv ; — V TT e p iyu), I more. The examples adduced by Kypke in loc. are not all of the same kind. In prose, the preposition when thus used is commonly supported by Sc or yc (Bernh. p. 198, Jelf .640) : /xcra Se is particularly common. The example just quoted (2 Cor. xi.) may perhaps be best compared with the use of Trpos for besides, e. g., Demosth. 1. Jphob. .556 a, Franke, Demosth. p. 94.^ The form Ivt with accent thrown back, for ivi (cv), including the verb substantive, occurs sometimes in the N. T. ; see p. 96. Bornemann ^ wished to introduce airo, far from (Buttm. II. 378), into Mt. xxiv. 1, but on insufficient grounds. Section LT. use of prepositions to form periphrases. 1. When prepositions in oombination with nouns serve as periphrases for adverbs or (mostly with the aid of the article) for adjectives, the admissibility of this usage must be shown from the fundamental meanings of the preposition,^ lest a merely empirical procedure should lead to errors. We notice therefore : — a. 'Atto : as airo fiipov^;, Eom. xi. 25, 2 C. i. 14, in part, — (looked at) from the j^art ; anro fxiaa\ela 6(Tov, eVt TToXv, have no difficulty. ff. Kard. The phrase r) kutu ^d6ov Until very lately translators and expositors of the N. T. appeared to vie with one another in diluting 2 the compound verbs. ^ In order to restrict this arbitrariness, I have opened a new inquiry into the subject: De verhorum cum' prcepositionibus compositorum in N. T. nsu (Lips. 1834-1843 : 5 Commentationes).^ As to Greek in general compare Gattier, GazojjJnjlacium sect. 10, p. 60 sqq.(ed. Abresch), C. F. Hachenbercj, De sigmfication'e pnepositionum Grcecarum in com- positis (Traj. ad Rh. 1771). 2. In this case we find a threefold construction of compound verbs. a. The preposition with which the verb is compounded is repeated before the noun ; as Mt, vii. 23, aTro-^^oipetre air ifiov' H. iii, 16, oi i^e\d6vT€<; i^ Al-yvrrrov!' b. The noun is governed by a different preposition substan- tially the same in meaning; as Mt. xiv. 19, ava^\e\}ra<} eh Tov ovpavov Mk. xv. 46, irpo'^eKvKLo-e XiOov iirX ttjv Ovpav, c. Without the intervention of a second preposition, the verb takes that case which in signification suits the notion of the verb, and which therefore is usually the case governed by the preposition contained in the verb; as Mk. iii. 10, eimri'iTTeiv avTO), L. XV. 2, ep€iv Tivl used of persons, offerre alicui (aliquid), but tt/jo?- €p€iv eirl Ta<; crvvajco'yd'i, to bring before the (authorities of the) synagogues, L. xii. 11 [Rec.'\.^ Compare also irpo'iepxea-dal rtvi, adire aliquem, and irpoqep-^ea-Oat irpo^ top Xpio-Tov, 1 P. li. 4 ; e<^i(ndvat, tivl (of a person), A. iv. 1, and i(f)caTdvat, iirl TTjv OLKiav, A. xi. 11. See in general my 2. Progr. de verb, compp. p. 10 sq. 4. The details of the N. T. usage are as follows : — 1. ^Atto. The verbs compounded with utto (a) Usually repeat the preposition.* Thus we find diro after an€p-yea9ai (where a personal noun follows.^), Mk. i. 42, L. i. 38, ii. 15 Rev. xviii. 14 {lAxcion, Salt. 81); after dnroiriirreLv, A. ix. 18 (In a material sense, compare Her. 3. 130 and Polyb. 11. 21. 3, — in a figurative sense the verb does not occur in the N. T.) ; dipiardvai desistcre a, or to witlidraw oneself from some one, A. v. 38, L. ii. 37,^ xiii. 27, 2 C. xii. 8, 1 Tim. vi. 5 [Bee], al. (Polyb. 1. 16. 3), — but not in 1 Tim. iv. 1, see below; dirop- ^aviXeaOac, 1 Th. ii. 17; aTroairaadaL, L. xxii. 41, A. xxi. 1 (Polyb. 1. 84. 1, Dion. H. Judic, Thuc. 28. 5); d^iiTfai, are in prose usually joined with nV in a local sense (e. g. , th T>iy olxiat) ; with Tivd Of tivi, like incessere aliquem, when the verbs are used of desires, tlionghts, etc. (Demosth. Aristocr. 446 b, Herod. 8. 8. 4, al.) : yet see Valcken. Eurip. Phcen. 1099. Oi\\Uif>x^aSai, in particular, see my 2, Progr. de verb, corupp. p. 11 sq. * So also aTi^nrSai absfinere usually takes a genitive in Greek authors : in the N. T. it is sometimes followed by i-ri, A. xv. 20 [Rec.], 1 Th. iv. 3, v. 22. ^ Compare t^oj TcTi irra's Tf/i^iXixi Tpostiprnvro, Polyb. 8, 6. 5, 8. 46. 8, but (figuratively) 9. 20. 5, ■rposaprat ■roXXa T/vat 7-? crrpaTtiyia. * Compare in general Erturdt, Soph. (Ed. Ji. p. 225. * [But see also Mk. v. 17, A. xvi. 39.] ^ [In this passage and in L. x. 42 (quoted below) i^a should i)robably be omitted. These passages will therefore come under (c).] 532 VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. [PART III. A. xix. 12 ; aTroKpvTTretv, Mt. xi. 25 ;^ a7roo-Tpe(f>€iv, Rom. xi. 26 (from the LXX) ; also once, Col. ii. 20, after the figurative aTroOvrjCFKeiv (compare Porphyr. Ahstin. 1. 41), — which else- where, viewed as expressing one single notion {to die off), is followed by the dative : see below, {d). (b) "" ATToXa/jb^dveLv is followed by Trapd (with a personal noun^) in L. vi. 34 [Bee.]; compare Diod. S. 13. 31,.Lucian, Fisc. 7. (By uTTo, in the sense of taking away forcibly, Polyb. 22. 26. 8.) (c) The genitive follows d-TTocfyevyecv, 2 P. i. 4 (but not in 2 P. ii. 20) ; dTraXkorptow, E. ii. 12, iv, 18 (Polyb. 3. 77. 7) ; d^Krrdvat, deficere a, 1 Tim. iv. 1 (Polyb. 2. 39. 7, 14. 12. 3); diroarepdaOaL (figurative), 1 Tim. vi. 5. {d) The dative is joined with diroOvrjo-KUv, to die to a thing, G. ii. 19, Rom. vi. 2 : in Rom, vi. 10 the dative is to be explained differently. Similarly, dTrojiveaOai raU d/jiapriai<;, 1 P. ii. 24.^ 2. 'Avd. Verbs compounded with dvd, in which the pre- position expresses the local iip (to), are construed (a) With et?, when the place is indicated towards which the action is directed: dva/datvecv, travel up to, L. xix. 28, Mk. x. 32 (Her. 9. 113), or go up {upon a mountain, into heaven, etc.), Mt. V. 1, xiv. 23, Mk. iii. 13 (Herod. 1. 12. 16, Plat. Alcih. 1. 117 b,Dio C. 89. 97) ; dva^Xiiruv, Mt. xiv. 19 (Mk. vii. 34, L. ix. 16), A. xxii. 13 ; dvd^eiv, Mt. iv. 1, L, ii. 22, A. xx. 3 (Herod. 7. 10. 15) ; dvaXaix^dvecOai, Mk. xvi. 19 ; avarrrLTneiv, L. xiv. 10; dva(j>epeiv, Mt. xvii. 1, L. xxiv. 51; dva-^mpelv, Mt. ii. 14, iv. 12, al. ; dvkpy&orQai, Jo. vi. 3, G. i. 18.'* (5) With TT/jo?, — chiefly wheii the motion is directed towards a person : as dva^alvetv Trpo'; top irarepa, Jo. xx. 17; dva- Kd/j,rrT€Lu,^ Mt. ii. 12; dvairiixtretv, L. xxiii. 7 (avaySXeVety Trpo? nva. Plat. Flimd. 116 d, Arrian, Epict. 2. 16. 41). Yet in ' [The probable reading here is 'ifipu^pas. We may substitute L. x. 21.] * [Also by esro, Col. iii. 24. Compare Mk. vii. 33. ] 3 [To the list of verbs followed by iTo in the N. T. should be added x^aiTiTv, airi\ctu>iii/, a'jri^eiy (Mt. XV. 8, al.), aTOKuXiiiv, aTaXviff^at, a.'XocrXavciff^ai^ a,xovyelv in rod o'Ikov (compare Ecclus. xxvii. 20).* 5. ^Ev. Verbs compounded with iv have a very simple con- struction. When they denote direction into (to) something, they are followed by 64? ; when rest in or on a place, by ev. Thus we have ifi^alveiv et?, Mt. viii. 23, xiv. 22, Jo. v' 17 (Her. 2. 29, Plat. Cm^.,397 a)'; e/x^dXkeiu et?, L. xii. 5 (Dio C. p. 288, 79, Plat. Tim. 91c, Lucian, Tim. 21); i/x^dirTeLi/ eh, Mk. xiv. 2 (but ifi/SaTrreiv iv,dip in the dish,yL\j. xxvi. 23) ; ifji^eirecu el<;, Mt. vi. 26, A. i. 11 ;' ifiTriTrreiv ek, L. x. 36 (Her. 7. 43, Plat. Tim. 84 c, Lucian, Hermot. 59), 1 Tim. iii. 6; qxTrrueiv els, Mt. xxvi. 67, xxvii. 30. ^EvSrjfieiv iv, 2 C. v. 6; ipoifcelv iv, 2 C, vi. 16, Col. iii. 16 (with accusative. Her. 2. 178); ivepyeiv iv, Ph. ii. 13, E. i. 20, al.; iyypd (L. ix. 5, al.) is not mentioned in the text. ''Exipipuv i^a> is probably the true reading in Mk. viii. 23.] * ['K» is also found in the N. T. after ildytiv, l^aycpd^uii, i^aXilpnv, t^oX'Jpiuuv, iKTitarirtiv (Mt. X. 14, Lachm., Tisch. ). "Ato follows ixf^aimiv, ix^vTiiv, ix.x.a6aipiiv, jxfrX8£/v, i^7i^t7.i(riniy, ivTVTouff^ui, IrTvy^anii, if^cfipif/artai, itt^^iv, lyKaXiTv, iyxpiviiv, ivtiuiiy (IiteX- \iiT&ai^ tA.A«7«», ifj.(puti^iii>). 'EtihiiMovirtai has all three constructions (2 C. viii. 24, 1 Tim. i. 16, 2 Tim. iv. 14).] ^ [This verb is also followed by iv in L. ix. 46, and perhaps in Kev. xi. 11 (see § 50. 4; ; by uiri n, Mt viii. 8 ; by i-ri rua., A. i. 21 (.see §66.' 3, — so also ils(pip:i¥ Wirt, L. xii. 11); in Rev. xi. 11 some. MSS. have tUnXiiv othmTs. Vihipx^'^f*-', tlsfrcfiunriai, I'liiivai, are also followed by Tpii nvct, in the sense oiviaitinrj, gmmj Into the house of some one.] ^ As to iTrifiaXXiiv rrjr x^^f^ '-'"'' '^""* ^^^ '^"" (Lucian, Tim. 10), in particular, see Fritz. Mark, p. 637. — We find, in a material sense, Polyeen. 5. 2. 12, »»/« •7r/>Xii fiouXoiro iTTirrX'.Zaat. 536 VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. [PART III. person, Mk. iii. 10, A. xx. 10 (Polyb. 1. 24. 4)- eirLpplTnetv iirl Ti, 1 P. V. 7 ; iTTiTidevai enl rt, Mk. iv. 21, Mt. xxiii. 4, A ix. 17, al., — or with a dative, usually of the person (L. xxiii. 26, Mk vii. 32, A. ix. 12, 1 Tim. v. 22, al.), rarely of the thing, Jo. xix. 2 (Lucian, Tim. 41, 122); eTrepxeadai i-Tri ri, L. i. 35, A. viii. 24, xiil 40 [Eec], or with the dative of the thing, L. xxi. 26 ; irraipeLv i-Tri or el? rt, Jo. xiii. 18,^ L. xviii. 13; eTrot/co- hofietv eVt Tt, 1 C. iii. 12, or eV/ tlvl, E. ii. 20, — but also with iv. Col. ii. 7 ; iinheiv eVt ri, A. iv, 29 ; €indWea6ac eVt riva, A. xix. 16 (1 S. x. 6, xi. 6), On the other hand, iiriypd^eiv is followed by iv in 2 C. iii. 2,^ — compare Plut. J)e Lucri Cupid, p. 229, al., Pakeph. 47. 5 (not so in Num. xvii. 2, Pr, vii. 3). The following verbs take the dative only : iireKTeivea-dai,, Ph. iii. 14 (to stretch out tovmrds); iirKpatvetv and iirccpavecv [? eintpavaKeiv], when these Verbs are joined with names of persons, E. v. 14, L. i. 79, — compare Gen. xxxv. 7 [Alex.] ; also iTTupepeiv in the sense of adding one thing to another. Ph. i. 17. ^E'mo-Ktd^eiv sometimes takes a dative of the person, A. v. 15 and probably Mk. ix. 7 (provide a sheltering shade for some one, compare Ps. xc. 4) ; sometimes an accusa- tive, Mt. xvii. 5, L. ix. 34 (to overshadow, envelop, as a transitive verb). In the LXX we also find eTnaKtd^eiv iiri riva, Ex. xl, 82,'^ Ps. cxxxix. 8.^ ^ [Here the best reading is nff^. 'E'rinfiyai is also followed by et/ tivos, 'iv rai (Mt. xxvii. 29, in the best texts), lra>v&> tiv'os ^Mt. xxvii. 37).] '^ ['ETxlpitr^ai Kdira, tivos, 2 C. X. 5 : ill A. xxvii. 40 a dative follows, but this may be a dfitiims commodi. — ETo/xoSa^jrv t/v/, Jude 20.] ^ [Here lytipno is now generally received : there is no other example of ifriKi7v, iTanoXovdlt, i'lriirnXXiHf, tTTiTXirs'tn, iTiTiftav, i-riTpi-rnv). 'ETri/u-'iniv is followed by TiV(, t'y T/VJ, W/»«5 riva {Wi or lather ■rapa Tivi, A. xxviii. 14) ; Ino-Tpiipiit by It/ and -rpii with accusative, and by ii( {i", L. i. 17, see § 50. 4) ; l^/^-raiai by tivi, Wi n (or Tna), and tira»i.'\ ^ [Similarly liaipipiiv lia. too hpoZ, Mk. xi. 16. These verbs are not unlre- quently followed by the distributive xaTo. (e. g., L. viii. 1). In several passages compounds of S/a are joined with other prepositions in a pregnant sense. See Winer, 5. Progr. de verb, compp. p. 9 ; and below, § Q6. 2.] 2 [Also s^c, Mt. xi. 23, L. x. 1.5.] ' As we find elsewhere xaTafipitr^ai ils vtvov or i*' vtviu, see Kiihnol in loc. : uTvu might also be taken as an ablative. [On Mt. xx. 18 .see above, p. 263.] * [The simple genitive is also found after Kafi7y &eQ p. 254.] ' {^lUTafiopipoZv is used absolutely in the N. T. except in 2 C. iii.- 18, where the passive is followed by an accusative (see p. 287) : the following lU Volav is correlative with a^ri Veins (p. 463). Uiravoilv is not found in the N. T. with lU in this sense ; on Mt. xii. 41, L. xi. 32, seep. 495. In Ph. iii. 21 furairx'^f^'^'ri- %ii* is followed by a proleptic adjective (§ 66. 3).] ''[In ver. 16 we find ««■«, not l|.] ^ [Compounds in which -rapi means beside, near, govern a dative (see EUicott on Ph. i. 25) : ■ruptTtai, Tapayivia-^ai, •rapKrrdnii (also IveiTiiv, x,a,T%vuVi'i>v tivo;), ■rapa.rJiva.1 (also lU), *apixfii]inv (also Tpof ritcc, see p. 504), "rupixti^, 'ra.pa. Some of ftese examples (also Trapoixuv ils, H. xi. 9) really eome under § 66. 2. d. ] ■* [Also "jripiTifivcci, and probably Ttpilicixxtiv in L. xix. 43 {^■rrtpifli^Xr)fjt.ivas I't) yufivv Mk. xiv. 51). nipirriTTiiv lU, A. xxvii. 41.] ^ [Westcott and Hort read £KU'r/a». Xlpo is repeated with three verbs in which its force is temporal : roaxitpviriruv (A. xiii. 24), Tpoopil^ity (1 C. ii. 7), Tpiyivanrxtiv (1 P. i. 20;. With L. i. 17 compare -rpotipaffiai Ivu-rir/, A. ii. 25. Xlpoxyuv Itti SECT..LII.] VERB COMPOUNDED •WITH PREPOSITIONS. 539 followed by ivwiTLov (Ps. Ixxxiv. 14 \_Alex.\ xcvi. 3 ^) and efiirpoaOev (Gen. xxxii. 16, Is. Iviii. 8). So in L. i. 17, irpoeKevcrerat ivcoiriov avTov ; but in xxii. 47, rrpoTjp-^ero avTovvdv Tivi, to call to, Mt. xi. 16, A. xxii. 2, compare Diod. S. 4 48 (but vpo^cpcDvecv rivd, to call some one to oneself L. vi. 13). On the other hand, the dative is almost invariably used when the object approached is a person, as irpo'iTTi'KTeiv tlvI (to fall down before some one), Mk. iii. 11, v. 33, A. xvi. 29, irpo<;<^epeLV TLvi (Philostr. ^^. 5. 22\ 'rrpo<;ep')(ea 6 ai tlvl, to accost some one ; or when the approach itself is to be taken in a figurative sense, as 7rpo<;cuy€LV tm deu), to bring to God, 1 P. iii. 18 (7rpoe2v), xvii. 3 (a-vWdXelv), Mk. xiv. 54.- Most frequently they are followed by the simple dative. The examples of this construction (amongst which are 1 C. xiii. 6, Ja. ii. 22, but not Rom. vii. 22^) are to be found on almost every page of the N. T. : iu Greek authors, also, these verbs are almost invariably so construed, A. i. 26, (TvyKare-\lrj]] fxera rcov evheKa diroaroXoiv is a pregnant expression. 16. 'Ttto. None of the verbs compounded with vtto repeat the preposition.^ When they expres.s direction towards (yirdjeiv, viroa-rpe(^€Lv, al.) they are followed by et? or tt^o? ; when viro signifies under, as in viroTrXdv, they are treated as transitives. 17. 'Tire p. The verbs compounded with xnrep are for the most part used absolutely. Only vTrepeprvyx^dveiv repeats vTrep, Rom. viii. 26 v. I. (compare Judith v. 21, Ecclus. xxxvi. 27) ; and in Rom. xii. 3 virep^povelv is joined with Trapd. 'TTrep^aiveiv in 1 Th. iv. 6 and virepcdew in A. xvii. 30 are used transitively in a figurative sense.*' Rem. In Greek authors it is not uncommon for the preposition of i compound verb to continue in force for a second verb ^ (Franke, Demosth. p. 30). Of this usage the N. T. contains no clear example. ^ {rifoi also occurs after irfostpx^trfai (1 P. ii. 4), ^^.-xa-rTs/v (Mt. iv. 6, — with Iv in Rom. xiv. 21) : in H. v. 7 -rpis «. t.x. probably belongs to the nouns, not to Vpoitviyxizs (see Delitzsch in loc). 'K-ri n follows TposnuXmy and ■x-pi>;(pipiiv (L. xii. 11 Bee, Mt. v. 23): Jv follows vfosxapr-p'Si in A. ii. 46. The simple dative is joined with vposavaXirxuv, vpoiXvaTihrSai, )Tirv, iruXXayiZ,tevy€ ao(3T^0r}crav rov ox^ov' 1 Th. ii. 18, rj6€\T]a-afi€v IkOuv TT/oos vfias . . . Kat iveKO\j/€v 17/i.as 6 craravas' Jo. vii. 28, 1 Jo. V. 19, the author probably had in his thought two clauses in simple juxta- position, whereas we are more inclined to bring the oppositwn into prominence. In A. x. 28, Mt. xx. 10 (tfie first thought that they would receive wwv;, and received also each a denarius)^ we ourselves use and to bring out the startling result : see above. No one then will think it strange that in 1 C. xii. 4, 5, 6, U and Kat should alternate. Lastly, in 1 C. xvi 9 Paul connects together two circumstances (one favourable, the other unfavourable) which detain him in Ephesus; and hence koI is the simple copula.^ (Jelf 759. 3.) (c) The epexegetic Kat — the Kat of more exact definition, namely^ is in strictness merely and {and indeed) : Jo. i. 16, out of his (2nd *«»)• 1° s"*^^ ^ ^^^ *^^^ particle is not adversative, as often asserted, but copulative and contrasting ; the opposition arises merely from the juxtaposition of clauses involving opposing or dissimilar sentiments. These seven heads ap- parently include all the more common uses of *«< in the N. T. ; for further examples see the well arranged list in Bruder, Concord, a. v. ««/." Ellicott on Ph. iv. 12.— See also Webster, Syntax, p. 132.]^ 1 Hoogeveen, Doctr. Partic. I. 538 sqq., Hartnng I. 148 (Jelf 759. 4.) * Even in Hoogeveen's time it was seen that but is not really a meaning of xa! : seiant non ex se sed ex oppositorum membrorum natura banc (notionem) nactam esse **/ particulatn (Hoogeveen, Doctr. Partk. I. 533). 8 Herm. Philoct. 1408, Bremi, Demosth. p. 179. Compare Volcm. Fritzsche, Qvffst. Lucian. p. 9, Jacob, Luc. Alex. p. 33 sq., Weber, Demosth. p. 438. [On Jo. i. 16 see Westcott's note.] 35 546 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PART lit fahiess h'fve all we received, namehj grcu'e for grace; 1. C. iii. 5. XV. 38, E. vi. 18, G. vi. 16, H. xi. 17, A. xxiii. 6. But this meaning bas been introduced into too many passages. In Mt. jdii. 41, xvii. 2, xxi. 5, Kai is and; in Mk. xi. 28 the correct reading is probably ^7. In !RIt. iii. 5, Kal 17 irepixw/uos tov 'lopha-vov, if rendered " that is to say, the Jordan-country^" would be an incor- rect adjunct to 17 'lorSaia ; for neither do the two geographical notions absolutely coincide, nor is the former included in the latter. It is such a combination as, all Hesse and. the Rhins-coiwtry, all Badeti a'nd the Breisgau : compare Kriig. p. 357. In th^ phrase Om^ liai narrfp^ Kai is simply and {at the same time), not noAnehf, that is. (d) The signification especially may be questioned altogether (Bornem. Luc. p. 78, Fritz. Mark, p. 11) in those cases in which to a general there is added a special designation, which was really included in tlie former. Thus in Mk. i. 5, i^eTropevtro waaa r) 'loiiSat'a X^opa Kttt oi 'Upoa-oXvfjuTat Travrcs (xvi. 7), the special statement is made prominent by its very position, but Kai is simply and. Com- pare H. vi. 10. Sometimes, on the other hand, the special terms come first, and nai is placed immediately before the general word under which these are included : e. g., Mt. xxvi. 59, ol apxifp^h ^ai oi Trpea-^yrepoi Kal Toa-vviSpiovoXov, and (in One WOfd) the whole SanhedrinJ In H. iii. 19 Kai stands at the close of an entire exposi tion (before the final result) : so also in 1 C. v. 13 in some MSS. (c) When Kai signifies also (which is not the case in E. V. 2, for instance),- it may sometimes be rendered hy indeed, just.^ See H. viL 2(5, Totcwros yap TjfMV Kal hrptirtv ap)(iepev, Stallb. Plat. Oorg. p. 83 nnii Rep. II. 212. * Ou xai also after relatives (H. i. 2, 1 C. xi. 23, al.) sec Klotz, Devar. II. 636,; ami on the whole subject see Khig. p. 359. The correct esiilanatiuu of this " also" must in every case be obtained from the conte.xt. In 1 C. xv. ] sq. we find xo-/ several times repeated, forming a climax. 3 Herm. Vi(j. p. 83-7, Poppo, Time. III. ii. 419. [See also Klllcott on E. i. 1], Allbrd ou 2 ('. iii. 6, Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 168 sq., Liddell and Scott s. v ««.' B. II. 1. With relatives, this xa/ answers to the L,atin qui idem : seo Klotz II. 636. — The Kai in naycu, Eom. iii. 7, is thus explained by some: see Meyei, (Jrimra s. v. — In several of the passages cited above for th use of xxl some of the best cooimentators with reason prefer the simple oiso, seeking the explanation in the context : see e. g. Bleek and Delitzsch on H. vii. 26, 5ieyer am) Ellicott on Col. iii. 1.5.] * [That is, there is a mixture of two constructions : see § 65. 3 ] SECT. Liri.] THE CONJUNCTIONS. 547 o-0T](Tav Sf -rj/xepai . . . kol (.kXi^Otj, rp/ytae rfj TrvXr] . , . kol c^cko/ai'^cto.^ In .lo. i. 19, however, we must not (with Baumg.-Crusius) thus con- nect OT€ aTria-TeiXav . . . with K-at w/xoAoyj^cre ; the clause OTi o-iricrTU- Xav K.7.X. attaches itself to avrr) ia-rlv i) jxapTvpia k.t.X. : see Liicke in loc. As to Kai commencing a parenthesis, as in Kom. i. 13 (Fritz. in he), see § 62. 1. On Kai yap see no. 8 ; on Ka\ Se, no, 7. Kat ye, et quldem, occurs in 1^. xix. 42,- A. ii. 18, — in both places without any intervening word, contrary to the usage of the earlier written language : as to later writers see Klotz, Devar. II. 318. 4. This connexion assumes the form of correlation when two words or clauses are, by means of /cat . . . Kai (re . . . re, A. xxvi. 16) or re . . . Kai, joined together as corresponding to each other.^ Kai . . . Kai (or re . . . re) is used when the members are presented to the writer's mind from the first as co- ordinate, ft . . . et, both . . . and, as tcell . . . as : re . . . Kai, when to the first member he annexes a second, ct . . . que, not only . . . hvt also (Klotz, Ikvar. IT. 740). See Mt. x. 28,6 hv- vdjuevo<: Kai ■>jrv)(}-iv Kai acofia aTroXiaaf 1 C. x. 32, a7rp6?«o7rot Kai 'lovSatoi^ Kal'EXXrjcnv Ka\ rfi CKKXriaia' Ph. iii. 10, iv. 3 ; A. xxi. 12, •TTapeKaXovfj.ev rj/xei'i re Kai 'ol evroTriof L. ii. 10, avevpov rrjit re MapiafA, kol rov 'Icorrrjcf) Kai to ^p6(f)o<; k.t.X. (Krlig. p. 367). In the former case the members m\ist be regarded as combined into one whole (one completed group) ; in the latter the second member is added to the first. The latter combination, however, does not in itself convey any expression fSimilavly in Rev. x. 7 .§ 40. !>. h), — possibly A. xiii. 19, — ami frequently after xa/ iysvET-a (§ 65. 4. <';. — Wiiii^r oiily incidentally refers to other case.s ill wliicli *»i commences the ap'idosis (§ 41. a. 4). It stands thu.s after ii or Uy in 2 ('. ii. 2, Ja. iv. 15, Ih'V. iii. 20 Tiiicli. {tcai ii;i>..), IW. xiv. 10, and perhaps in Pli. i. 22 : iu Ja. ii. 4 ««/ is very doubUiil. Compare 2 C. xi. 12. See Ellieolt and Alford on Ph. i. 22 for an explanation of the true force of ««< (aho) in this case : see also Hartung, Portik. I. 130, Lij^htfoot on Ph. /. r., A. Buttni. p. 3t)2 (Jelf 759. Ohs. 3). Compare no. 7 (h) on the similar use of Si (Jelf 770).] '■' [Kai ys here is doubtful, but is probably the true reading in A. xxvii. 27 : compare ««< •^iXay y<, ] C. iv. 8. — "There is a diflerence between this ca.se" (xai . . , yi) " and that in which «ai and y« stand together, so that y. affects " not an intervening word, but " *«-' itself. Lucian has some examjihs of this combination, in which ««/ y- dev'>tcs and indeed, and truly {fmnij. 11, Trai/o/>. 251) It is said not to occur in older and better writers, thougli in llippoer. p 258. 11 we read xat y. in the sense and even, and Lysias (in Theomn. 2. i; 7) uses Kui y. in the sense of ««/ t»< : Hesychius may have had this latter passage in mind when he gave xa/' t«< as the exjtlanation of xai ye." Host u. Palm, Lex. 1. 541. See also Klotz, Dew II. 319, Borneni. Luc. p. 122 (Jelf 735).] ' Such cases as Mk. ii. 2u tt/joc^t/twi^- 1 C. i. 30, H. vi. 2, A. ii. 9, 10, Ph. i. 7. By Kttt . . . Kai are connected not only similar but also contrasted clauses : Jo. vi. 36, Kal cwpaKarc fxe kol oi incrTevere, — both seeing and not-believing exist. So also in Jo. xv. 24, and probably in xvii. 25 (Jelf 757. 2). In 1 Cor. vii. 38 the parallelism of the contraria is disturbed by the pre-eminence given to the second member. On tc and 8e in correspondence, — the latter particle com- bining opposition (" lenis oppositio," Klotz II. 741) with connexion, as in A. xxii. 28 [i^ec], arid the chiliarch answered . . . Paul on the other hand said, and in A. xix. 3, — see Stallb. Plat. Phileb. p. 36, Hep. II. 350, Herm. Eur. Med. p. 362 sq., Klotz I. c. (Jelf 754. 5). Tc and Kat are either placed together, between the two words which they connect into one group (as in L. xxL 11, tfyofirjTpd tc Kal o-^/AcTa' A. ix. 18 2), or are separated by one or two of these words, as L. xxiii. 12, ore IliAaTOS Kat 6 'HpciS?;?* Jo. ii. 15, A. ii. 43, 7roXAa-T€ ripara Koi a-rj/xeia- X. 39, ev re rfj X^P^ ''''^^ 'lovSatwv Kat 'lepova-aX-q/J.' Eom. i. 20, A. xxviii. 23, al. : here the article, preposition, or adjective in the first member, serves for the second also. It is otherwise in Ph. i. 7, €V TC Tols 8€o-/i,ots /xou Kat €v T'fj aTToAoyta K.T.X. In A. xix. 27 and xxi. 28 we find re kol in one and the same clause, in the sense of que etiam .• ^ this is unusual in Greek writers, if indeed it is not inadmissible. 5. Correlation appears in its sharpest form as comparison : CO? {w^Trep, Ka9(i)/3t9 twv epytov veKpdiariv Jo. v. 21, Eom. v. 18, 21, 1 C. x v. 22, 2 C. i. 7, E. V. 24, H. v. 3, 2 P. ii. 12 * (Jelf 760. 3). Sometimes ' [Here Rost maintains that the second member is usually the more impor- tant (Don. p. 573, Jelf 758). See Ellicott on 1 Tim. iv. 10.] * [These passages illustrate an ambiguity of which we have a few examples in the N. T. (see L. xii. 45, A. xiii. 1), for n may here be independent of *ai', and may simply annex the clause (and) : see A. ix. 29, xv. 32, xix. 6. Compare Xen. Anab. 7. 6. 3, and Kixhner II. 787.] 3 [" Here te belongs to the sentence, xai to the particular word : in the con- verse case, A. xxvi. 10, xa/ ^aXXay? t£x.t./.., xa! belongs to the sentence, « to the word." A. Buttm. p. 360 sq.] * [Ka^d, Mt. xxvii. 10 ; xagd-rip, I Th. ii. 11, al. ; Kaiui-rip, H. v. 4 ; xa.6'o, Rom. viii. 26, al. ; Kaiin, A. ii. 45, al. See Ellicott on G. iii. 6, 1 Th. ii. 11, E. i. 4. On ui see Grimm, Clavis s. v.] ^ [Here alirtus is not expressed.] SECT. LIII.] THE CONJUNCTIONS. 549 indeed Kal even takes the place of the particle of comparison ^ in the second member : Mt. vi. 10, jcvijOijtco to BiXrjfid aov 6i<; €v ovpavS Kal eirl 77}?" Jo. vi. 57, x. 15, xiii. 33, xvil 18, A. vii. 51. See Bornemann, Zuc. p. 71. The popular language is fond of introducing Kai into comparisons in other cases besides these, though the "also " is already contained in the particle of comparison ; as 1 C. vii. 7, OiXto Traj/ras avOpwrrovs ctvai is Kai i/jLavrov L. xi. !, A. vii. 51, XV. 8, xxvi. 29. Thus we find Kttt in both members -.^ Rom. i. 13, tva tlvo. Kapiroy o-xui Kal h vfitv Ka^u)5 Kal iv toi? XotTrots e$v€(nv' Mt. xviii. 33, Col. iii. 13, Rom. xi. 30 v. I. See Stallb. Plat. J?e^. I. 372, Klotz, Devar. II. 635, Fritz. Bom. I. 37, II. 538 sq. 6. Next in order comes disjunction. Simple disjunction is effected by ij, — which, especially in impassioned language, is often repeated several times (Rom. viii. 35) : ^ /cat, or also, or even, Mt. vii 10, L. xviil 11, Rom. ii. 15, xiv. 10, 1 C. xvi. 6 (compare Fritzsche, Eom. I. 122 ^). Correlative disjunction is expressed by ^ . . . ^, etre . . . ehe, sive , . . sive, whether single words or entire clauses are opposed to one another : Mt. vi 24, 1 C. xiv. 6 (ijrot* . . . ^, Rom. vi. 16), Rom. xii. 6, 1 C. xii. 13, 1 P. iv. 15," al. (Don. p. 673, Jelf 777.) "H never stands for Kal in the N. T., as koi never stands for ^ (Marie, Floril. 124, 195, — compare Schsefer, Demosth. IV. 33);' but ^ ["It is more correct to say that cutus is omitted before the *«/, and that xat, retaining its proper meaning {also), takes on itself in addition the relation which ovrus would have expressed." A. Buttm. p. 362.] * [" In sentences thus composed of correlative members, when the enuncia- tion assumes its most complete form, Koi appears in both members, e. g., Kom. i. IS; compare Kiihner, Xen. Mem. I. 1. 6. Frequently it appears only in the demonstrative, or only in the relative member ; see Hartung, Partik. \o\. I. p. 126. In all these cases however the particle x.al preserves its proper force. In the former case, ' per aliquam cogitandi celeritatem,' a double and reciprocal comparison is instituted between the two words to each of which *«/ is an- nexed ; see Fritz. Rom. vol. I. p. 37 : in the two latter cases a single comparison only is enunciated between the word qualified by »«/ and some other, whether expressed or understood." EUicott on E. v. 23.] ' According to the nature of the ideas, the second, annexed by n xa!, may either be a supplementary addition (Bengel on Rom. ii. 15), inferior in weight to the first, or may have its force enhanced by the *«/ (as in 1 C. xvi. 6). See Klotz, Devar. II. 592. * [By Klotz (II. 609), Host u. Palm, Fritzsche, Meyer (on Rom. I. c), ^rot (aut sane) is regarded as giving special emphasis to the former altprnative ; compare Don. p. 573, Jelf 777. 5. Hartung (II. 356) assigns it an exclusive force, ' ' either only .... or : " so De Wette, Alford. ] * [An example of simple disjunction. On tlie comparative v, which really belongs to this class (Don. p. 575, Jelf 779), see § 35, In one passage, Jo. xii. 43, the negative force of H is increased by vif {n-rif) : see Jelf 779. Obs. 5.] * On aut for et see Hand, 2'ursellin. I. 5iG. Ou the other hand, disjunction 550 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PART III. there are cases in which either particle might be used with equal correctness, each in its proper meaning (Poppo, Time. III. ii. 146) ; e.g., 1 C. xiii. 1, 2 C xiii. 1 (compare Mt. xviii. 16), and also the passage from Heraclides quoted by Marie. ^ Where dissimilia arc connected by Kat (Col. iii. 11), they are merely joined to one another as distinct objects, not expressly indicated as different or opposed In Mt. vii, 10 Kat idv brings in a second case, to which the speaker proceeds (further) ; but the best reading is probably r} kuL In L. xii. 2 the true completion of the sentence is Kat ovBiu KpuTrrdr. lu Mt. xii. 27 Schott rightly renders Kat by j^orru. Arranged as the clauses are in Mt. xii. 37, ^ would be altogether out of place : the same may be said of Rom. xiv. 7. It has been urged on polemic grounds, on the Protestant side, that ■^ is used for Kat in 1 C xi. 27, os av ia-OL-ij t6v aprov TovTOV t) TTLvr] TO TTor^piov Tov Kvpiov. But — uot to mentiou that here some good MSB. have Kttt (as in ver. 26, 28, 29) — •^ may be very easily explained from the primitive mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper,'^ without lending any support to the Romish dogma of the communio sub una : see Bengel and Baumgarten in loc.^ If however we were disposed to refer ^ to a real distinction in the administration of the sacrament, more indeed would follow from this passage (grammatically consi- dered) than the Romish expositors can wish to deduce, — naniely, the possibility of communicating by means of the cup alone ! In A. i. 7 (x. 14 4), xi. 8, xvii. 29, xxiv. 12, Rom. iv. 13, ix. 11, E. v. 3, -q stands in a negative sentence (Thuc. 1. 122, ^lian, Anirn. 16. 39, Sext. Empir. Hypot. 1, 69^), where the Romans also use aut for et (Cic. Tusc. 5. 17, Catil. 1. 6. 15, Tac. Annul. 3. 54, al.*=). In o^x V^i' ecTTiv yvuivai -)^p6vov' may to a crrtain extent include connexion by *«/. If we say, "He who iriwjfier.s father or mctlier deserves the severest jninishment," we naturally mean at the sai!ie time that he who murders both parents is not less liable to punish- ment. The whtus includes the majus. ' Oji xit't . . . xx!, vpI . . . vel, see Schoem. Jfiopus p. 307 (Jelf 757. Ohs. 2). ^ fSiiK;e " the bread was partaken of in the course ot the meal, the wine at its close." Sfeyer. ] ^ Evi'ii in our mode of communicating it is conceivable that one might Jtce.ivc the breitil devoutly, but the cup in a state of sensuous (perhaps even suifiil) distraction. Ht nee we also could say, "He who receives the broad vr the cup uuwoithily. " * [lit*re th»> best texts have xa/. 1 "" Kritz. Rom. III. 191 sij., .Jacobs, Philostr. Imag. p. i57-i, and yElian, Anim. p. 457. « Hand, TurselL I. 534, [iladvig, Lat. Gr. 45S. c] SECT. LIII.] THE CONJUNCTION?. 551 (Jo. viii. 14, A. X. 14, 1 C. xiii. 1, al., Miitzner, Antiph. p. 97). Compare also Fritzsche, Mark, p. 275 sq., Jacob, Luc. Alex. p. 11. Tholuck, Bergpred. p. 132 sq., obtains no very clear result.^ 7. Oppusiiion finds its expression partly in the simple adversa- tive form (Se, uWd), partly in the concessive sentence (fievrot, o/ia>9, aWd 7c). Mev . . . Be originally expressed a mutual relation between the opposed members, and therefore a grouping of contrasted elauses (1 P. iii. 18, iv. 6). This relation, how- ever, has become weakened into simple correspondence (Rom. viii, 17, 1 C. i. 23), and has, logically, even sunk down below parallelism by means of kul . . . Kai (Hartung II. 403 sqq.).' The distinction between nXXd. anJ oe i>;, in general, the same as t>iat between the Latin sed and auiem (wto-^). The former (the neuter plural of oAAos with altered accent, Klotz, Dev. II. 1 sq.) — which may frequentlj'' be rendered noiwltJtstanding, nevertheless, iiTW — expresses proper and sharp opposition, annuUing something which has gone before, ur indicating that no attention is to be paid to it. Ac, a weakened form of 8r? (Klotz /. c. p. 355), coimects whilst it opposes, i. a, it adds something different, distinct, from thai which precedes (Schneider, Fwles. I. 220). After a negative uAAa i.s used (ovk . . . oAAa, not . . . hut) ; but we also find ov (-.irj) . . . Se, 7cQt . . , however {not . . . rather), as in A. xii. 9, 14, H. iv. 13. vi. 12, Ja. V. 12, Rom. iii. 4,— oi5^w . . . 8i, H. il 8 (Thuc. 4. 86, X'^n. Cyr. 4. 3. 13*). More particularly, (a) AWd is used when a train of thought is broken off or inter- rupted ( Jelf 774) ; either by an objection, as Kom. x. 19, 1 C xv. 35, Jo. vii. 27 (see Klotz, Devar. II. 11, and compare Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 9, 4. 2. 16, Cyr. 1. 6. 9),— or by a correction, Mk. xiv. 36, 2 C. xi. 1, — or by a question, H. iii. 16 (compare Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. 11, Klotz IL 13), — or by a command, encouragement, or entreaty, A. X 20, xxvi- 16, Mt. ix. 18, Mk. ix. 22, L. vii. 7, Jo. xii. 27 (compare Xen. Cyr. 1. 5. 13, 2. 2. 4, 5. 5. 24, Arrian, Al. 5. 26. 3^). In all these cases that which has preceded is opposed (and annulled) by ^ [1 C ix. 15, xaXet lyap fiai fteiXXm araiayiTii, r, ro KaC^^ruM /aov eih.i; xtturti {b.3 ttie oldest MSS. read), is variou.sly explained. Meyer takes H as alioquia (Jelf 777. Ubs. 8) ; but it i.s much more probalde tli:it there is an aposioj^esis after >?. See AU'ord aiid Stanley m loc. Frofc. Evau.s {Spnik. C'omm. III. 303) holds that the change of readiTig does not essentially alter the con-stiniction : "After V supply 'hn . >,• After ^5xX«» H the negative in ivitn logically vani-shes, and ovliii is equivalent to r^s." Such a construction ^even if possible) seems much less easy and natural than the aposio{>esi.s. ] - [Don. p. 675 sqq., Jelf 764-774. See also Webster, Syntax, p. 133, 119.J 3 See Hand. Twrsell. 1. 559,— compare 425. [Madvig, Lat. Or. 4ii7, Zumpt S48, Donalds. Lat. Or. p. 196, Ellicott on G. iii. 22.] ^ Compare Hartung, Partik. 1. 171, Klotz, Devar. II. S60[*'. . . ut in par- ticula quidem Si non respici videatur ppsecedens negatio, sed per sirapliceia adtirmationeni illud ponatyr, quod est contrarium rei pr«ecedenti. " Klotz p. 361. See also Ellicott on E. iv. 15, Ph. iii. 12.1 * See.Palairet p. 298, Krebs p. 208, Klotz, Dtvar. II. 5 (Jelf 774).- 552 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PART III. something else. Compare also Jo. viii. 26, and Liicke in loe. When dAAci stands in the apodosis, after conditional particles, it brings out the clause antithetically and therefore with greater force, like the Latin at. See 1 C. iv. 15, lav ixvpiov)m. uii eCv y.- in Ph. iii. 8. Thi! rend-Ting given by Bornemann in L. xxiv. 21 {^Schol p. 160), " at sane," " ;it nim-rum," seems more suitable than that given above (compare however § 61. 5) : it expres.ses better the mixture of opposition and aflirmatien Avhich belongs to this combination. (" Hinc factum est, ut particnlae luiani fere notionem .... exprimere videantur, qua cum aliqua adfirmatione vel poiiua exceptione aliqnid opponatur antecedentibus : " Klotz II. 25.) Similarly in 1 C. ix. 2, yet certain/if. yet at all events. See Meyer U cc] * [Also in L. xi. 8. On this use of y. (at an,;, rate, at all events) in the apodosis see Liddell and Scott, Lex. s. v. II. 3. a, Hartung I. 380. On the poNition of yi in the sentence, see § 61. 5.— Fs very rarely oceura in the N T., except iu connexion with othor particles («««/, xairti dJixd. e^a, iftt. ci, «» h firi, fiiv SUV, //.riri) : {ii'ol)ably the only examph'S besides those lust quoted are 1 0. iv. 8 (where yi stien^thens o^sXsv) and liom.viii. 32 «& yt,— see no 8 (Fl yi, L. xix. 17.) . See Don. p. 568, Jelf 73.5, Webster p, 1%%'^ * [Practiually this ii. eludes two cases, which in Rriiglish require different renderinp-s. (1) Where tiiat which the aentence exprt Sfs, is (in the writer's bplief) an actual fact : here tl ««/' is though (L. xviii. 4, C. xii. 1.). (2; Where the writer concedes or assumes that the supposition is oontjct (I C. iv. 7. 2X. iv. 3). Here We »re not always able to express xc^i in translation, Sotnotanaea however its "asceu.sive" force (placing iu relict' either the whole clause or some SECT. LIII.] THE CONJUNCTIONS. 555 si (merely putting something as a supposed case ^) : compare Herm. Vu/. p. 832, Klut , Dentr. 11. 519 sq. (Jelf 861. 2.) 8. The tcmj^oral relation of sentences is expressed by } expresses generally an affirmation or assent (yt) which stands in relation to what precedes (a/i/a !),' — sane ig'Uur, c&rte igiCur, sane pro rebus coviparatis (enim in its rirst signification). It is from this primary meaning' of the particle that its power to express a reason is derived. In conformity with this primary meaning, yap (to pass over familiar details) is used (a) First, and very naturally, to introduce explanator}^ clauses; whether these appear as supplementary additions (or, in some in- stances, parenthesps), as Mk. y. 42, xvi. i, 1 C. xvi. 5, Rom. vii. 1 ; or whether they fall into the regular course of the writing, as in 2 C. iv. 11, Eom. vii. 2. Ja. i. 24, ii. 2, H. ix. 2, G. ii. 12. Here yap is to be rendered by in fact, iiuleecl, that is (Klotz, p. 23 i sq.). Explanation in t'ue wider sense, however, includes every argument or demonstration (even H. ii. 8). which we introduce with "for" (denn) , the German jd, however, comes nearer to the primary sig- nificance of yap (Hartung I. 463 sqq.).^ This is especially illus trated by thosn passages in which it was at one time supposed that something must be supplied ^ before yap, /c/r .• Mt. ii. 2, Wh^^reis- the king of the Jews thai has been born ? fhe fact is, loe have seen hi.'^ star-.- ]Mt. xxii 28, 1 C. iv 9, 2 C. xi, 5, Ph. iii. 20, 1 P. iv. 15. 2 P. iii. 5. Klots's words (p 240) are here in point : " Nihil supplen- dum est ante enuntiationem earn, quae infertur per particulam yap. sed ut omnis constet oratio, postea demum aliquid tacita cogitatione adsumendura exit, sed nihil tamen alieni, verum id ipsum, quod ea ii. 16"). In modem Greek yip has disappeared, Itin (and l-rn^ii) having taken its place : Miillach, Vit!;j. p. 395 ] I See Hartung I. 457 sq.p, Schneid£r VorUs. 1. 219, KloU, Dcvar. II. 232 sq. " Si sequimur originera ipsam ac na turam particulae ydp, hoc dicitur coji» junctis istis jiarticulis : Sane j/ro rebus comparalis, ac priraiim adfirmatur res pro potcstate particular y., deiiide refertur eadem ad aiitccedeiitia per vim par- tiouliB af,a." (Klotz p. 232.) [Compare Don. p. 605; "The particle yi~ 'verily' combined with a/;* =^ ' therefore ' or 'further,' is written yap. This combination does not difler very much in signification from y<>Zt = yf cZ^. Vda signifies 'the fact is,' 'in fact,' 'as the case stands ;' it uiay often Ive rendered ' for,' but this English particle is much less extensiye in its ap])ii(:ations." (Jelf 786, Webster p. 123.) On the explicative yup see EUicott on G. ii. 6, 1 Tiu ii. 20 ; and on the particular case in which it follows a parenthesis (G, ii. 6, according to Ellicott and Lif;htfoot) see ShiDeto, Dern. Fain. Jy-g. p. 60 sq.-i' It will be seen that our "for" may be used in tfiany of the examples quoted below, for which another rendering is suggested.] As in Mt. ii. 20, Gehe ins Land Israel, es sind ja gestorben {Go into tJie land of Israel ; they are in /art dead, etc.). ^ Tliis piactice lias been carried even to a ipedautic extent ; e. g. , in Mt. iv. 18, xxvi. 1 1, Mk. iv. 25, v. 42, 2 C. ix. 7. In the sentence " He makes clothes, for he is a tailor," if we were to supply between the clauses, ''One cannot wonder at this," it would appear ridiculous to every body. ,As to the Latin nam see Hand, Tursell. IV. 12 sq(|. FECT. LIII.] THE CONJUNCTIONS. 559 sententia quas praecedit ydp particulie eniintiavit ; " the fact is, we have seen his star, — therefore he must liave been born somewheie (JVIt. ii. 2). (b) Jn answers and rejoinders (Klotz p. 240 sq.). Here the same primary meaning displays itself; for in Jo. ix. 30, iv yap tovtio OaviLnorSv icrriv k.t.X., the answerer first of all makes reference to the words of the P'harisees related in ver. 29 (apa), and then adds an asseveration (ye) ; sane quidem mirura est etc., in tlti:, then it is certoAnly, truly, indeed ivandcrful. So also in 1 C. viii. 11, ix. 9, 10, xiv. 9, 1 Th. ii. 20; in none of these passages is there anything lo be supplied before ydp.^ Equally unnecessary are .such supple- ments in the case of adinoniticms (Klotz p. 242), e. g., Ja. i. 7, Let not then that man indeed think etc. ; apa here points back to 6 yap SiaKpi- vo/xevos and yf joins a corroboration with the inference. (c) In questions. Here ydp seems to have wandered farthest from its primary meaning. Indeed the origin of this usage may have been afterwards lost sight of, and ydp merely regarded as the .sign of an urgent question, — urgent, because justified by the connexion in which it stands- (Klotz p. 247). In many passages, however, the essentially inferential force of ydp (apa !), igitur rebus ita compara- fis, adeo, may still be perceived. In Mt. xxvii. 23 Pilate's ques- tion, Tt yap KaKov iiroiyja-fv, refers back to the demand of the Jews in ver. 22, a-TavpoyOr'jTO). From this Pilate deduces what in his question he ex])resses as the opinion of the Jews : quid igitur (since ye demand his crucifixion) putatis euni mail fecisse ? So also in Jo. \\\. 41 : docs then the Messiah amv mt of Galilee? num igitur j)vfn- tis, Messiam., etc. When yup is thus used, the reference to what precedes is clear in every case, — not excepting A. xix. 35, viii. 31. Here also the usual practice has been to supply something before the question, M'ere it but a ncscio or a miroi' -^ against this see Klotz p. 234, 247. Lastly, Klotz (p. 236, 238) appears to be right in denying the trutli of the common assertion, that even prose writers (as Hero- ' A. xvi. 37, HaZXci -itpr' Jt/^osvTSf r^«; irifiixria aKxraxpirov;, avifftiTous mediately answers the question liiniself : «u y "^ p, aXXx . . . ai/rol zuas ilv.yayirara.y, tiov i^nni' pro rehus comjKiratis. Tn the a^n element yip looks biick to the circumstances described in the preceding woi-ds, and by the yt adds 8. corroboration based on this, — "conlinet " (as Klotz says, p. 242) " cum adfir- TDHtione conelusionein, quie ex rebus ita coniparatis farienda sit." ' The peculiar force of such qnesLions with yip results from their being sug- gested liy the very words of the ether person, or by the circumstances : hence tlitre' exists a right to require an answer. See e. g. 1 C. xi. 22. [On ti yap-. Ph. I. 18 (Korn. iii. 3^, see Ellicott's full note on the former jia^sage (Don. p. 605, 38.1).] 3 Herm. ^■/;/. p. 829, and ad Aristopli. Nuh. 192, Wahl, Clav. 79 sq. [Com- pare also Alford on 11. xii. 3. Donaldson's explanation ("With the inter- rogative yap expresses the etfect of something observed : " p. 605) is substan- tially the same as that given by Klotz.J 560 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PART III. dotus 1) not unfrequently, in the liveliness of their thought, place the causal clause ^yith yap before the sentence which it confirms.^ In the N. T.3 there is certainly no need of this canon. Of Jo. iv. 44, Meyer's explanation ^ is no doubt correct. In H. ii. 8, the clause ev yap t(3 vTrora^at ra Travra gives the proof that there is nothing which was not made subject to him by God's decree ; and hence, indirectly, that (ver. 5) the world to come also has been made subject to him. The words vw 8e ovtto) k.t.X. show that already the subjec- tion has at least commenced. We must distinguish the promise of Scripture from the actual fulfilment, which however has already begun. 2 C, ix. 1 stands in obvious connexion with viii. 24, 1 C. iv. 4, oiSl if^avTOV avaKpivw ovScv yap ifiavriS avvoiSa a\\* ovK iv TovTcti SeSiKoidifxai, is to be rendered, / am indeed conscious of nothing, bv,t etc. (d) Tap is repeated several times, changing its reference : see Rom. ii. 11-14, iv. 13-15, v. 6, 7, viii. 5 sq., x. 2-5, xvi. 18 sq., Ja. i. 6, 7, ii. 10, iv. 14, 1 C. iii. 35 [iii. 3 sq.l], ix. 16 sq., H. vii. 12-14 (Lycurg. 24. 1, 32. 3).5 In such passages yap is often used to establish a series of thoughts subordinated to one another (Ja. i. 6, 1 C. xi. 8, Rom. viii. 5 sqq.) : see Fritz. Boin. II. 1 1 1.*5 In some instances, however, we find the same words repeated with yap, that some further statement may be annexed : e. g., ia Rom. XV. 27 (but not 2 C. v. 4). Kai yap is either etmim (simply connecting} or imm eh'am (giving prominence) : see Klotz, Devar. II. 642 sq. This latter meaning (which has frequently been passed over by the commentators, those on the N. T. included 7) is found in Jo. iv. 23, A. xix. 40, Rom. ' See Kiihner II. 453 (Jelf 736. Ohs. S). 2 See Matthia?, Eurip. Ph. 371, Stallb. Plat. Pkced. p. 207, Rost, Gr. p. 744. Hermann, Euiip. Iph. Taur. 70 : saspe in ratione reddenda invertunt Grseci ordinem sententiaruni, caussam praemittentes : quo genere loqueiuli ssepis- sime USU3 est Herodotus. Compare also Hoogeveen I, 252. [Klotz, L c, attacks the notion that there is a transposition of clauses : this stands or falls with the rendering of yap. If ydp be rendered " the fact is," or " profe'to " (Donaldson, Klotz I. c. ), there is no transposition.] ^ Fritzsche, 2. Diss, in 2 Cor. p. 18 sq., Tholuck on Jo. iv. 44 and H. ii. 8. * [Namely, that Jesus did not hesitate to return into Galilee, because a prophet has no honour in his own county, but must acquire his honour abroad, and this Jesus liad done. Briickner's objection to this seems very just,— that it supposes the Evangelist to have left out that part of the statement which was really essential. See Ellicott, Hist. Led. p. 133, Alford in he. There is much to be said for Origen's view, that by rf ;S. v. is meant Judoea : see especially West- cott in loc. ] * See Engelhardt, Plat. Apol. p. 225, Fritzsche, Qticest. Luc. 183 sq. _ ^ ["Whether successive clauses beginning with (the argumentative) yap are ever (in the N. T.) co-ordinate, assigning reasons for the same statement, is a disputed point. The affirmation is usually maintained : see Grimm, IVilkii C'lavUi s. v., Fritzsche and Alford on Mt. *i. 32. Meyer (on Mt. I. c, Rom. viii. 6, xvi. 19) rejects this usage for the N. T., maintaining that in the passages which appear to exemplify it the second yap is explicative.] 7 Weber, Demosth. p. 271, Fritzsche, Bom. II. p. 433. [On xa) yap aee Elli- cott on Ph. ii. 27, 2 Th. iii. 10. Once (Jo. iv. 45) zai and ydp are separat-cd.] SECT. LIII.] THE CONJUNCTIONS. 561 xi. 1, XV. 3, xvi. 2, 1 C. v. 7, 2 C. ii. 10, al. : in several of these passages even Wahl renders koI yap by etenini. Te yap, Rom. vii. 7, is f&r also or for indeed : ^ in H. ii. 1 1 (Rom. i. 26 2), however, re and KaC correspond, and in 2 C. x. 8 there is probably an anacoluthon (Klotz II. 749). ^iret, from a particle of time, has become a causal particle, like our zveil and the La,tin quando? 'EttciSt; entirely answers to the Latin quoniam, formed from quom (quum) and jam. 'FiiriCircp since indeed (Herm. Vig. p. 786) occurs once only, Rom. iii. 30 (and here not without variant ■*) ; see Fritzsche in loc. (Jelf 849, Don. p. 605.) KaOu>s and ws in appended clauses furnish illustration rather than strict proof, and are to be considered equivalent to the Latin {quoniam) quippe, siquidem, and our obsolete si/j/e//ia/. On <»)• Objective clauses ^ — which, as they express the nhjfct of the principal sentence in the form of a perception or judgment, are merely exponents of its predicate, and hence strictly take the place of the objective case in the simple sen- tence '^ {I see that this is good, I say that he is rich) — are introduced by on or w?. Yet for clauses of both kinds con- junctions are less indispensable, as the infinitive presents a convenient means of expression (§ 44). "On is the proper objective particle, hke quod and that. It is used in this sense when e. g. it follows forms of asseveration, as in 2 C. xi. 10, (.fTTiv akrjO^La Xpurrov iv e/Xor G. 1. 20,' iSov cvouttiov tou Oeov- 2 C. 1. 18, TTLOTTO'; 6 6t6<;- Rom. xiv. 11, — for in all these forms there is implied " I declare." Compare Fritzsche, Rom. 11. 242 sq. When OTL introduces the oratio recta., it is to be taken in exactly the same way; see Madvig 192, and compare Weber, Demosth. p. 346. [See Jelf 802. Obs. 8 : and below, p. 683.] 'fis, the adverb of the pronoun os (Klotz, Devar. IT. 757), retains the meaning how, ut, Avhen it follows verbs of knowing, saying, etc. (Klotz p. 765) : A. X. 28, liriaTaaBe iLs aOe^iTov ianv av6f>l 'louSatu), i/c know how it is not lawful for a Jew.'^ Thus on and Jjs, when used in an objective clause, proceed from different conceptions on the part of the speaker, but agree in sense. "Orrws, like ut (quo), is properly an adverb, haw, ttws (Klotz, Devar. II. 681, — compare L. xxiv. 20), but has also come into us« as a conjunction. 'Iva was originally a relative adverb, where, whither (Klotz /. c. p. 616) : from local direction it was transferred to direc- tion of will (design), and thus may be compared with the Latin quo (Don. p. 570). — 'fis denoting design (Klotz p. 760) does not occur in the N. T., except in the well-known phrase ws Ittos dveLv, H. vii. 9 ; compare Matth. 545. Recent grammarians are inclined to give a different explanation of this formula ; see Klotz II. 765,* Madvig 151. — On the N. T. use of Iva for the infinitive, see p. 420 sqq. 1 0. The use of all these con jiinctions,devised for theexpression ' Weller, Ueber Subjects- und OhjecUndlze etc. (Mwiningen, 1845). '^ Thiersch, Gr. Grammat. p. fi05 (bon. p. f.84, Jelf 800). '•' [Lightloot (comparing 1h In, Ps. cxviii. 159, Larn. i. 20) inclines towards taking i^oii here as a %Krh (i;).J ■* [It may be questioned wiiether iu such passages as this »; does not mean huw in the stricter sense, qualifying some particular word, " how unlawftd, etc." (Meyer). See Ellicott on Ph. i. 8, Meyer on Rom. i. 9, A. Buttm. p. 245.] * [Klotz considers the clause rather consecutive than final : similarly Jelf 864. 1, Kiihner II. 1008 (ed. 2). Compare however Donaldson, p. 5yy, K'jby Lai. Gr. 11. 282. On us with infinitive see above, p. 400 slj.] 564 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PART III. of the various relations of sentences, would be set aside again in its regularity, if it were really the practice of the N. T. writers — according to the doctrine long assumed as true by the exegetes (following indeed the scholiasts ^ and the earlier philologers), and taught in hernieneutics (Keil, Hermen. p. 67) — to use one conjunction for another, so as frequently to make Se equivalent to 'yap, lyap to ovv "va to &)9T6, etc.^ But in every case such confusion of conjunctions exists in appearance only. The appearance of interchange sometimes arises from the possibility of conceiving the general relation of two sentences to each other in various ways,^ so that the precise logical connexion in any particular passage is the result of some mode of thought characteristic of the writer (or of his nation — see below, s. v. Xva), and therefore not familiar to the reader ; in other in- stances it is to be explained by a conciseness of expression which is foreign to the genius of our own language. Wherever the apostles write 8e, they had in some way or other " but " in their thought ; and it is the duty of the com- mentator to reproduce in his own mind this very connexion of thought, and not, for the sake of convenience, to dream of an * Fischer ad PrtZccp^. , p. 6. — This j)rinciple is assumed by Pott, Heinrichs, Flatt, Kiihnol, Schott, and even by D. Schulz. 2 Even better expositors are not free from this arbitrariness : thus Beza takes aXXa for itaque in 2 C. viii. 7. In opposition to such. procedure see my Progr. Conjunctiomim, inN. T. accuratius explicandarum catissce et exempla {Erlangen, 1826). It is strange indeed to see how the commentators (up to a recent period) take the apostles to task again and again, and almost always supply them with a different conjunction irom that which actually stands in the text. If a calculation were made, we should certainly find that in Paul's Epistles, for instance, there are not more than six or eight passages in which the apostle has hit upon the right pai-ticle, and does not need the commentator to help him out. This has introduced great arbitrariness into N. T. exegesis. Are we to suppose that Paul and Luke knew Greek no better than many of thciv censors? The Hebrew usage cannot be appealed to here by any who do not take a wholly irrational view of the Hebrew language : indeed such an arbitrary use of quid pro quo is not possible in any human speech. The arbitrariness of the N. T. interpreters was rendered the more obvious by the fact that different commentators often assigned entirely different meanings to a conjunction in the same passage. Thus in '2 C. vili. 7 aXXa is used for ydp according to some, according to others for ovv, etc. : in H. v. 11 some take xul as used for uXxd, whilst others give it the meaning licet: in H. iii. 10 Kiihnol leaves it to our choice whether we will take li as standing for xal, or as used in the sense of navi. Thus the mere subjective judgment had the most unmeasured scope. — The translators of the N. T. books (not excepting even the excellent Schulz in the Epistle to the Hebrews) are also deserving of censui'e, since they render the conjunctions in the most arbitrary manner. •' On such a caae compare Klotz II. p. 5, and what is remarked below (after the paragraph on «w»). SECT. LIII.] THE CONJUNCTIONS. 565 interchange of conjunctions, perhaps directly opposite in mean- ing. For how absurd would it be to think that the apostles could actually write " for " where they intended " but/' or " but" where they should have written "for." Any child can distinguish such relations as these. How imbecile then must they have been if they wrote " for " when they intended the very opposite — " therefore." Those interpreters only who have never accustomed themselves to think of the language of the N. T. as a living language, or who shun the labour of following with exactness a writer's thought, could imagine anything of the kind ; and- it is no honour to Biblical exegesis that such principles should have long remained in favour. In the mind of man, like always joins itself to like. If then a conjunction is apparently used in a strange signification, we must first of all labour to show how in his thought the writer was led from the primary to the unusual meaning of the word. This however was never thought of : had it been seriously considered, the chimera would at once have vanished into air. As purely fictitious as this canon of " unlimited interchange" is the doctrine of the " weakening " of conjunctions, which teaches that even particles with a sharply defined meaning, such as for, but, are in many cases altogether redundant, or are mere particles of transition. (See c. g. no. 3, below.) The more recent commentators indeed have abandoned this arbitrary but convenient canon ; and lience we shall merely pick out some peculiarly specious examples, in which the true meaning of a conjunction long remained unrecognised, or in which the better commientators are not agreed as to the connexion of thought. 1. 'AWd never stands (a) For ovv. In 2 C. viii. 7 aXXd means simply but (at). From Titus, to whom he had given a commission, Paul turns to the readers of the Epistle, cahing upon them on their side to do that which he desires ; for the clause with tva is to be taken in an imperatival sense. — E. v. 24 is not an inference from ver. 23. The proposition of ver. 22, that wives ought to be subject to their husbands ws tuJ Kvpiio, is proved in the 23rd and 24th verses, — first from t\iQ position held by Christ and by the husband (both are K€<^aAat), hut secondly (and this is the main point) from the claim (on obedience) which — as for Christ, so also for the husband — results from this relative position. The 24th verse, far from merely repeating the contents of ver. 22, is that which gives the conclusion of the argument, and explains the words virorraa-fx. ToUdvbfHvcnv is tu Kvpito. The significant apposition 566 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PART III. auTos (TOiTrip Tov crwfji.aTo, Green, Gr. p. 230 sq. There is no sufficient reason for believing that this interchange exists in the N. T. See Meyer II. cc. ; Fritz. Rom. III. 195, Malt. p. 421 ; Winer, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Ead'ie, on G. i. 7. On G. i. 19 Lightfoot remarks : " The question is not whether il (j.r\ retains its exceptive force or not, for this it seems always to do (see note on i. 7), but whether the exception refers to the whole clause or to the verb alone." Similarly Winer (on G. fi/ 16) : " Sunt dii?e sententife invicem conflat;e : non consequitur quisquam Sixaie- gu9*iv ex operibus legis, et : non consequitur quisquam Sixa; conjunctions coincide: di annexes anew proposition which is to be .idded to what precedes ; the clause introduced by ydp appears as an SECT. LIII.] THE CONJUNCTIONS. 567 yap : some good MSS., however (which Lachmann follows), have yap in the place of 8c. Similarly in Jo. vi. 10 the words r;v,^£ ;^opTos K.T.X. are a supplementary explanation : see above. In 1 Th. ii. 16 tcfiOaa-e 8e k.t.X. presents a contrast to tlie purpose of tho. Jews expressed in cis to avaTrXrjpwcrai avTOjv Tas d/xapTias, Bid (as. by their actions, they would have it so) the punishment has cmm upon them for this. In Mt. xxiii. 5 the words irXarvvovu-i 8e k.t.X. contain the details of the general statement which precedes, Trdyra ra epya. avTwu 'TTOLovcTL TTpos TO df.a6rjvai : the yap which recent editors have received was probably introduced by some who stumbled at Se. In 1 Tim. iii. 5 ct S4 ns k.t.X. signiiies, But if any ane etc. : if ver. 6 be taken into consideration, these words form a parenthetical clause, contrasted with tov ISlov olkov 7rp6i(TT(ip.evov. 1 C iv. 7 is, ^who separates thee (declares thee pre-eminent) 1 But what hast thou which thou didst not receive ?■ — that is, " But if thou appealest to the -pre- eminence which thou possessest, I ask thee, Hast thou not received it 1" In 1 C. vii. 7 (Flatt, Schott) 8i signifies potins. In 1 C. x. 1 1 the words €ypa.<^r] f)i form an antithesis to what precedes, as is bhown by the very position of the verb, at the head of its clause : all this happened . /,, but it. was recwded etc. In 1 C. xv. 13 Se is really adversative. If Christ is risen, then the resurrection of the dead is a reality ; but if the resurrection of the dead is not a reality then (reasoning backwards) Christ also is not risen. Ver. 14 contains a further inference, But if Christ is not risen, then etc. The one pro- position of necessity establishes or annuls the other. In 2 P. i. 13 Se introduces a sentence antithetical to KfuVep ciSoras (ver.' 12). On Ph. iv. 18 see Meyer. (c) Nor is ^e ever a mere copula ^ or particle of transition. Mt. xxi. 3 (Schott) is, Sojj, The Lurd hath need of them, but immediately -he will let them go : i.e., these words will not remain without effect, rather will he immediately, etc. In A. xxiv. 17 the narration pro- ceeds by means of 8e to another event. In 1 C. xiv. 1- 81 is but : but the SiwKetv TTjv ayuuKijv must not hinder you from ^t/Xowto. irvf-vpaTLKu.. Meyer's view of 2 C. ii. 12 is more correct than De Wette's : Paul e;oes back to ver. 4. In 1 C. xi. 2 it would be a mistake to consider Se (as Kiickert does) a mere indication that the writer proceeds to a new subject (thus Luther has left the word untranslated, Schott renders it by quidem) : the words attach themselves without any break to the exhortation which immediately precedes, jjupiqTal fiov ytVtcr^e, — yet (in this exhortation I intend no blame) 1 praise you, etc. In Rom. iv. 3, also, Luther and many others have in translation omitted' 8i (at the commencement of a quotation, in which the. LXX have Kul.) ; but neither here by Paul, nor by James in ch. ii, 23, is the explanation coiiGrmiiig what precedes. In the main the l>vo_ modes of ex- pression often amount to the same thing, see Herm. V'ig. p. S45. , (Jelf 768. 3.) ' [And yet must frequently be rendered a)ul, as our but is often far too strong. In Mt. xxi. 3 it is easy to trace the amount of oppo.sition implied by the connective "ii without resorting to Winer's somewhat forced explanation.] 568 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PART III. adversative particle inserted arbitrarily or without thought : it brings out the £TrL(rT€v(Tc more forcibly, and as it were autithetically. 3. Tap has been wrongly taken for (a) The adversative buO 2 C. xii. 20 means, All this I say fen- your edification, for I fear etc, : this is the very reason of my saying what I have said. In Rom. iv. 13 the clause with yap gives the proof of the last words of ver. 12, t^s iv aKpo^va-TLo. ttlo-tcws tov Trarpo's k.t.X. In Rom. v. 6 sq. the first ydp simply points to the fact in which the love of God (ver. 5) manifested itself, the death of Christ for ungodly men ; the second ydp explains a contrario how the death (of the innocent) for an unrighteous man is a display of surpassing love ; the third ydp justifies the assertion /ndAts vTrlp hiKaiov K.T.X. 1 C. V. 3 : " And you have not felt compelled to exclude the man ? For I (on my part), absent in body, . . . have already determined etc. That you, therefore, who have the man before your eyes, would inflict the (milder) punishment of exclusion, might surely have been expected." Pott here takes ydp for alias /• On 1 C. iv. 9 see above, p. 558. 2 C. xii. 6 : Of myself I tvill not boast, for if I should wish to boast I shall not be a fool (and hence I could boast). In Ph. iii. 20 rjfxwv ydp k.t.X. stands in most direct relation to oi ra Imyeia povowT€v buicl>eptT€ vjiqU, but is a re- sumption and continuation of the main thought (ver. 27), Krjpviare . , . . Koi y.r) o(3u(j9€ : Fritzsche takes a different view.^ In the parallel passage, L. xii. 8 Af'yu) Se vfi^y ttSs os av ofioXoyrjcrrj K.T.X., the 8e is not essentially different, but it gives more promi- nence to the sentence. In 1 C. iii. 5 rt's ovv icrrlv 'AttoXXws; WIw then (in accordance with this partisanship) is Apollo.'^ ? In 1 C. vii. 26 ovv introduces the yvcjpj) which the apostle has just said (ver. 25) that he will give. (c) A mere copula, or as being altogether redundant. Rom. xv. 17 (Kollner) becomes plain at once by a reference to ver. 15, 16 (5ta TT/v x'^P'-^ K.T.X.). In Mt. V. 23 even Schott passes over ovv entirely; but without doubt it introduces a practical inference (a warning) from ver. 22, which speaks of the guilt of anger, etc. In Mt. vii. 12 it is more difficult to define the connexion, and even the more recent commentators are widely apart : Tholuck has pro- bably pointed out the right view,^ but his survey of the different expositions is far from being complete. In Jo. viii. 38, *cai vpei<: ovv a rjKovo yap and Se would be equally correct ; see above, 10. 2. b (p. 5G6 sq.). In Jo. vi. 10 the evangelist writes : "Jesus said, Make the men sit down : 7iow there was much grass in the place." He might have written, " For there was much grass etc." In the latter case, the circumstance would have been repre- sented as the occasion of the direction given, whereas in the former the clause is simply explanatory : see Klotz 11. 362, and compare Herra. Vig. p. 845 sq. Hence the two forms differ in their con- ception. For this reason no one has a right to adduce passages from the Synoptic Gospels, — e. g. L. xiii, 35 as compared with Mt. xxiii. 39 — to prove tht; complete identity of 8c and ydp. But even if 8c and ovv, Se and ydp, aie in such cases nearly equivalent, still it does not follow that they can be interchanged in all their meanings, even those which are most sharply defined. As for ydp and aXkd, these particles are far too strongly marked to be inter- changeable at will, or to be used as expletives. There is considerable variation of reading even in the oldest MSS. (and versions ^) in respect of these conjunctions. For hi and yap see Mt. xxiii. 5, Mk. v. 42, xii. 2,^ xiv. 2, L. x. 42, xii. 30, xx. 40, Jo. ix. 11, xi. 30, al, Rom. iv. 15 (Fritz. Rom. IT. 47(5). For 8c and ovv, L. x. 37, xiii. 18, xv. 28, Jo. vi. 3, ix. 2G, x. 20, xii. 44, xix. 16, A. xxviii. 9, al. For ovv and yap, A. xxv. 11, liom. iii. 28. 5. "On is never equivalent to {a) Ato, wherefore, in which sense the Hebrew ^3 is sometimes taken, but incorrectly. ^ In L. vii. 47 nothing but a blind opposition ' Hence, when a conjunction i.s in question, the versions should not without great caution be cited as authotities iu the critical apparatus. Yet in nothing have the earlier critics shown such negligence as iu dealing with the ancient versions : even those which are moiv familiar, and which are most easily accessible, are cited incorrectly ten times to one,— cited, that is, in cases v/here, either from the character of the language or from the principles of the trans- lator, they cannot give, and did not intend to give, any evidence respecting a variant. It is to be regretted that this critical apparatus remains unsifted, even in the most recent editions of the Greek Testament. ^ [This should no doubt be L. xii. 2. Jo. ix. 11 is out of place : it illustrates the inierchauge of 5t and cuv.^ •' See Winer, Simonis s. v. : see however Passow s. v. an. [In the latest works founded on Passow, as the Lexicons of Rost u. Palm, Liddell and Scott (ed. 5), 572 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PART III. to Romanists (see Grotius and Calovias in loc.) could misinterpret oTt : see Meyer in loc.^ On 2 C. xi. 10 see above, no. 9 (p. 563). — Nor does this particle stand for the direct interrogative 8ta ti - in Mk. ix. 11, as De Wette and others maintain. De Wette adduces in support of his view the passages cited by Krebs from Josephus;- not considering that in these passages o tl (o,ti, as Lachmann writes) appears as a pronoun in an indirect question, -^a usage which does not. need the authority of Josephus (Kypke I. 178). On this passage however see above, p. 208. Fritzsche, on very slight authority, reads rt ovv (from Matthew) ; but this is undoubtedly a correction. In Mk. ix. 28 the better MSS. (even A) have 8ta Tt,^ as in Mt. xvii. 19. In Mk. ii. 16, also, D at least has Sta Tt : Lachmann reads rt on. If however on be received, it will not of necessity be an interrogative. On Jo. viii. 25 (Liicke) see § 54. 1. (h) Quanquam. Kiihnol renders L. xi. 48, though they killed them., hut ye etc. : this verse was correctly explained long ago by Beza. Kiihnol himself has (in ed. 4) given up this signification as regards Mt. xi. 25 : Jo. viii. 45 also is correctly explained by him in his 3rd edition. (c) "Ore. On 1 Jo. iii. 14 see Baumg.-Crusius. In 1 C. iii. 13 (Pott) it is evident that on specifies more exactly why rj v.^ipa 8r}k(i)(X€L K.T.X. Everyone knows that the transcribers have often confounded on and ore* (compare Jo. xii. 41, 1 C xii. 2, 1 P. iii. 20, al.); and hence in those passages of the LXX in which on appears to mean wheji (IK. viii 37 included), we must without hesitation read ore. In all the passages cited by Pott (on 1 C. iii. 13) the editions of the LXX actually have ore, on good MS. authority. (d) Profecto. In Mt. xxvi. 74 on is recitative : in 2 C. xi. 10 it signifies that (as after formulas of swearing), — see above, no. 9. In Rom. xiv. 11, cited from Is. xlv. 23, the meaning is, By my life I swear, that etc. It has been maintained that on is sometimes — e.g., in Mt. v. 45 — equivalent to o? ; against this see Fritzsche on Mt. /. c. This verse explains and proves from the treatment of iroi'yjpoi by the heavenly Father, that by dyuTrav tovs ixOpovs k.t.A. they become children of this Father. 6. "Iva, in order that (sometimes preceded by a preparatory Sio. Touro, -Jo. xviii. 37, A. ix. 21, Rom. xiv. 9, ai.), is said to be fre- the meaning therefo7-e does not occur. In ed. 4 of Liddell and Scott's Lexicon this signification is received for II. 16. 35, al.] 1 [Who agrees with Bengal : "Reniissio peccatorum prohatur a fructu."] 2 Palairet, Ohserv. 125, Albcrti Ob-ferv. 151, Krebs, Observ. 50, Griesbach, Commentar. Crit. II. 138, Schweigh. Lezic. Herod. II. 161. ^ [The only uncials quoted for this reading are ADKIl : all recent ftditors read on (a Ti). — On these passages sec p. 208 scj.] * See Sehfef. (7re.dris, and the remark on the next page will remove all difficulty from Aristoph. Vesp. 313. In Marc. Anton. 7. 25, also, "va is certainly telic. What short and easy work Tittmann makes with the N. T., in order to carry through his canon, is shown by the mode in which he deals with Jo. i. 7 (p. 45), where really no unbiassed expositor v/ill take the second 'iva as ecbatic. Even Kiihnol has not done this. [There is still controversy upon this subject, but the field of disputed passages is now greatly narrowed. In mo.st of the examples noticed below, few perhaps will hesitate to accept Winer's exposition ; but fewer s+ill will attempt to press the full telic meaning in every case. With Winer agree Grimm {C'lavis, s. v.). Beeleii (Gramm. N. T. p. 479 sq. ), Schirlitz {Grundz. p. 351 sq.), — also EUicott, Alford (see notes on 1 C. xiv. 13, 1 Th. v. 4), and Eadie. Ellicott distinctly recogni.ses the " eventual " use of iW (" appa- rently in a few cases, and due perhaps more to what is called Hebrew teleology than gTammatical depravation ") ; and in such examples as 1 Th. v. 4 (see also Ph. i. 9, Col. iv. 16) modifies the final sense. More favour is shown to the ecbatic meaning by lyightfoot (on G. i. 17) and A. Buttmann (p. 239), Green {Gr. ]i. 172 sq.), and Jowett (on 1 Th. v. 4). If however we are at liberty to render '/va vfn7s iavfiaf^nn in Jo. v. 20 "so that ye will wonder" (A. Buttmann I. c), and in G. v. 17 take 'iva. as denoting simply the result, it is hard to see how the final meaning can be maintained in a multitude of other passages. Surely, whilst allowing that the particle has lost sorae part of its. strict force in some examples cited above (though not in Jo. v. 20, I J. v. 17), we must hold that the final meaning is "never to be given up except on the most distinct counter-arguments" (Ellicott). See Westcott,- Jntrod. to Gospds, p. 270 : also Winer's remarks on '/va in § 44 (pp. 420-426).] 574 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PART III. vi. 10 and Knobel m loc, and compare Rom. xi. 11 ') ; and that for tliis reason ii'a may often be used in Bible language where we, in accordance with our view of the Divine government of the world, should have used wsre. In other passages a more accurate examina- tion would have shown that, even according to ordinary modes of thouglit, (Va is perfectly correct. In other cases, again, it has escaped observation that we sometimes use a conjunction of purpose on rheto- rical grounds, by a kind of hyperbole : e. g., ' I must needs then go there that I might catch an illness !" compare Is. xxxvi. 12, Ps. ]i. (1.) 6, Liv. 3. 10, Plin. Paneg. 6. 4 ; — "I have built the house then in order to see it burnt down ! " Lastly, it has not been noticed tbat Xva simply expresses what (in the established course of nature and life) is the necessary result, — the result therefore which is, so to speak, unconsciously designed by the jjerson who does the act :^ see below, on Jo. ix. 2. Passing over those examples which to any attentive reader are self- explanatory (e.g., 1 P. i. 7, where Pott— from mere force of habit, as it were — takes Iva for wstc), Ave select some in which Iva has been explained de eventu by expositors of the better class. In L. ix. 45 Iva indicates (the Divine) purpose, compare Mt. xi. 25 : it was intended that they should not as yet understand it, — otherwise they would have been perplexed with regard to Jesus. In L. xiv. 10 LVa is parallel Avith the firprore of ver. 8, and most obviously expresses design (not without reference to the application of the jiarable), — " be humble, in order that thou mayest be accounted worthy of his heavenly kingdom :" it is in the following clause, tot€ Itrrat k.t.X., that the result is expressed. On Mk. iv. 12 (Schott) see Fritzsche and Olshausen ; also below, p. 577. Compare also L. xi. 50, Mt. xxiii. 34 sq.- Jo. iv. 3G means : this is so ordered, to the end that etc. In Jo. vii. 23 (Steudel) the words iva /jt-rj XvOfj 6 vo/jlos Mwi}orews express the purpose which lies at the root of the custom ircpiro/x^v Xafji^dvei av6pu)7ropa Ivu., peculiar to John, Xva has its final meaning. Thus Jo. xii. 23 : Tim hour has (according to the Divine decree) come — and therefore is here — in order that I etc. : compare xiii. 1, xvi. 2, 32. Inaccurate interpreters have taken tva in these passages (as also in 1 C. iv. 3, vii 29) as used for ore or orav. 2 C. vii. 9 (Riickert, Schott) : ye were brought into sorrow, in order that (God's purpose) ye might be spared a mare severe punishment. 1 C. v. 2 : Ye did not ratlier mourn, in order that . . . might be put away ? Here indeed wsre might have been used, if the aipea-Oai had been regarded as the natui-al consequence of the TrtvOqa-ai : Paul however regards it as the object in view, — "Ye should rather have mourned, in order to put him away." In 2 C. xiii. 7 the double Iva indicates, first negatively, then positively, Paul's design in praying thus. The true explanation of Rom. iii. 19 may probably now be considered settled^ (see also Philippi) : only Baumg.-Crusius still wavers. On Rom. viii. 17 see p. 574. In 2 C. i. 17 Iva retains its proper meaning, whether we render the verse, IVhat I resolve, do I resolve according to the flesh, that (with the design that) with me yea may be (unalterably) yea, and nay nay (i. e., merely to show myself consistent) 1 — or thus . . . in order that with me there may be the Yea yea and the Nay nay (that both should be found with me at the same time, — that what I had affirmed I should deny again) 1 In 2 C. iv. 7, Iva rj Itr^pjioXri K.T.X. points to God's purpose in the fact that Ixofx-^v tov Orjcravpov rovTov iv oa-TpaKLvoa cr/ceuccrtv. In H, xi. 35 the words Iva Kpe.LTTovo'i dvaorao-cojs TV)(yicnv declare the purpose for which theae persons refused the d7roA.wpa)o-is-. On H. xii. 27 see Bleek and De Wette.2 In Rev. xiv. 13 (Schott) we should probably supply (xtto- 6vi](TKov(ri, from the preceding airoOvT^crKovTe^, before iva dva-rrav- troivrat. A different view is taken by Ewald and De Wette ; compare above, § 43. 5. In the formula ti/a, ottws, TrXrjp'aOfj to pr]6iv (Matthew), or r/ ypa(f>i], 6 A.oyos (John), it was for a long time customary to dilute mi into ita ut. There can however be no doubt that, in the mouth, as of the Jewish teachers, so also of Jesus and the apostles, this formula (used in reference to an event whtck has already taken place) has the stricter sense, that it might be fulfilled. Compare also Olshausen and Meyer on Mt. i. 22. The words were not indeed intended to signify that God had caused an event to take place, or had irresistibly impelled men to act in a certain way, in ord'^r that the prophecies might be fulfilled (Tittm. Synon. II. 44) : the formula is tar from expressing anything fatalistic (Liicke, Joh. II. 536).^ To ^ [It is given very clearly in Alford's note.] ■•' [Who I'egard Vv« as dependent on . iii. 16, wstc pi^suit," the remark is indeed correct, but must not be understood to mean that John used Tva forwsrc without distinction. The cause of the rare occurrence of wst6 in John's writings is to be found ])artly in their dogmatic character, partljan the fact that he indicates consequence by other turns of expression. 'Iva has been taken as used for on in Mk. ix. 1 2, yeypaTrrai cTrt Tov VLov ToC avOptoTTOV, Lva TToXXa irdOr] Kai i^ovSevoiO'^. But these WOrds probably mean, in order (hat he nuiy suffer ; and they are to be taken as the answer to the question,"^ Ipxerai or fXcva-t-Tai being supplied before iva. No one will be led astray by the example which Palairet {Obs. 127) quotes from 8oi>h. Aj. 385, ov^ opa9, Iv el KaKov ; where lva is an adverb. ("Ottoji has been taken as used lor on, u>s, in Xen. C^Jr. 3. 3. 20, 8. 7. 20 : see Poppo //. cc.) non mo'lo talem, qui formuke ciripiam veteri respondeat, sed plane talem, qui propter veritatem divinam non potnerlt non subsequi ineunte N. T." ' [See Ah"ord in loc, and on iMt xiii. 12.] ^ [ Wint-i- evidently inr-^ads to foll(jvv Lachmann's punctuation of the verse, in which a note of interrogation is pi.iotcd at a.vhc!iluia erat, ideo pati debuit. "j O, 7 578 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [pART III, In the sa-rae way ottcds, in order that, has been erroneously taken by many as used for ita uty In L. ii. o5 (Baumg.-Crusius 1) we hardly need to liave recourse to the Hebrew teleology in order to understand the conjunction, A. iii. 1 9 is plain, if, as ver. 2 1 requires, we understand oTTws aTToa-TcikT] rov Xpicrrov (ver. 20) of the opening of the heavenly kingdom. What has been said above in reference to tva (p. 574 sq. ) will make Mt. xxiii. 35 clear. Phil. 6 is connected with ver. 4, / make mention of thee in mij prayers, in order that, etc. : Meyer's ob jections to this view are groundless. H. ii. 9 (Kiihnol) receives so much light from ver. 10, that hardly any other commentator will now explain ottws by ita ut. On ottws TrkrjpwOfj see above. In the N. T., as elsewhere, w? as a particle of comparison always means as, never so (for ovT(ii<;) ; this Pott (1 P. iiL 6) might have learned from Bengel. Nor is there any reason for writing ws any- where in the N. T. : indeed this form is very rare in prose writers, with the exception of the lonic.^ In H. iii. II, iv. 3 (from the LXX), tos may be rendered that (so that), in which signification it is some- times found with the indicative in good Greek writers (Her. 1. 163, 2. 135 ^). On Mk. xiii. 34 and similar passages see Fritzsche :* to assume an anacoluthon (in Mk. /. c). as Meyer does, is altogether unnecessary.^ 1 Kiihnol, Act. 129, Tittm. Sijnon. II. 55, 58. * Heiudorf and Stallbauni on Plat. Protacj. c. 15. ^ [These exam))les from Hftiodotus differ fron-i the passage in question in one important point, — in e:>i;h ease there is alnu in the pre'.'ious clause : f5ee also Xen. C'onv. 4. 37. It is ver'y doubtful whether ui with the indicative, not preceded by ovra;, is ever used in classical Greek with the meaning so that. In Ps. xcv. (xciv.) 11, from which the quotation is taken, the Hebrew ijj^jt may bear this meaning (DeKtzscb, Hupfr Id, Perownc) ; but in the example usually quoted as parallel, Gen. xi. 7, it seems clear that the conjunction signiiie.s in order that (Winer, Gesenius, Kalisch, al.). In Ps. xcv. 11 Ewald s rendering is "where:" compare ver. 9. Most proViably, therefore, we should (with Bleek, Liinemann, Alford'l keep to the .simple meaning "as,'" " according as '' ( Vulg.. "sicut"), in H. iii , iv.] * [Fritzsche's rendering is : quo inodo (i. e. si paullo latius dicis rts ita habet, vt. . . .) homo, qui _. . . e.tiaTn S'-'rvo atriensi prreccpit ut vigilaret. Meyer (who also takes »ai' as etiam) supplies a suppressed apodosis (§ 63. 1, 64. I. 7), 60 I aluo command you. Watch. Compare Mt. xxv. 14, and see Green, C'r, Notes, p. 41.] _^[A few particles of various kinds, not noticed elsewhere, may be conve- niently brought together here. — A-^ (Curtius. Grii.itd.z. p. 581, Don. Neic Crat. p. 376 sq.) is rare in the N. T. In most instances it is joined to an imperative or conjunctivus adhortativus, adding urgency to the command, etc. (Jelf 720. 2). Once, in Mt. xiii. 23, it is found with oV, and gives exactness to the relativ,'. (Jelf 721. 2, Klotz, Devar. II. 404), "and this now is the man who etc. : " see Meyer m loc, who quotes from Erasmus, " ut intelligas ceteros omnes infmgi" feros, hunc demum reddere fractum." In 2 C. xii. 1 the received text iuis Ir \sane, profecto), but the true reading is hi. On S»iV«w, H. ii. 16, sar^itf, T suppose, of course, see Klotz p. 427 s-i. and Aiford's note in toe. (compare .J ebb, Soph. Aj. p. 85). Aricron (cwif/w, K'.otz p. 425, Jelf 160. b) is joined to «,- in Jo. V. 4 Jiec. : Lachmann reads c'ly^ffroTouv. — llou is almost always the in- definite adverb of place: once, Rom. iv. 19, it is used with a numeral ad jcctive, ahout. {'ii; and ami are similarly used with numerals : see L. viii. 42, ix. 14, al.) In A. xxvii. 29'the true reading is ,«« ■ttov {/inrou, Tiscbendorf; ; SECT, LIV.] THE ADVERBS. 579 Section LIV. THE ADVERBS. ] . The more indispensable adverbs are for the exact expres- sion of circumstantial relations, the more easily can we under- stand how the N. T. writers, though inferior to Greek prose authors in the use of the conjunctions, should have in great measure appropriated to themselves the large store of Greek adverbii^ throughout its whple extent. It is only in respect of intension, i. e., in regard to thoso finer shades of meaning which are expressed by many of the simple adverbs (e. g., av) or by adverbial combinations, that their use of these words betrays the foreigner, who could not feel the need of these niceties of language. The derivative (adjectival) adverbs are the more numerous in the N". T., because in the case of not a few adjectives later Greek hadprovided special adverbial forms;^ andotheradverbs,whichat an earlier period were confined to poetry, had now found their way into ordinary prose. Thus compare aKaipa)<; (Ecclus. xxxii. 4), ava^i(o<; (2 Macc. xiv. 42), dvofico^ (2 Mace. viii. 17), oTroTO/Lto)? (from Polybius onwards). eKTevwt^iir^Ti, the particle has its temporal force (compare also ^S>» ■ro-ri, Ph. iv. 10, tandem alujuando), hut in jiTiTart it is almost always pos- sibly, haply. In eu-ru, ouii-ra and finli-rcu, -tcu is always yet. — The temporal adverbs »«», vuv/' (used in the N. T. without the distinction observed in Attic Greek, — see Fritz. Row. I. 18'2), are frequently argumentative, "then," "things being so : " see EUicott on 1 Th. iii. 8, 2 Th. ii. 6 (Jelf 719, Grimm, Glavis s. vv. ). There is a similar change of application in the case of «3») (1 C. vi. 7, Meyer), sVi (Rom. iii. 7, al.), olx.'iri (G. iii. 18, Rom. vii. 17). — The particle of asseveration v»), common in Attic Greek, occurs once in the N. T., in 1 C. xv. 31 (Don. p. 570, Jelf 7-33) : on the (elliptical) accusative see Jelf 566. 2. Akin to vjj is »«/ (Shilleto, Dem. F. L. p. 205-7), which occurs not unfrequently in the N. T. as a pivticle of afhnnation and confinnation : see Ellicott on Ph. iv. 3, Don. p. 570, Jelf 733. The N. T. word a^»)» is somewhat similar. Of the inter- jections in the N. T. the most noticeable are i'a, oha, olai, on which see Schirlitz, Grundz. p. 373 sq. , Grimm s. vv.] ' [Instead of using the neuter adjective, etc. (p. 580).] 580 THE ADVERBS. [PART III. K€vov), 7r/30?<^aT&)9, TeXe/ciJs", 7roXuT/>o7ra)4«f, ^^sch. Sicppl. 75, Xen. An. 2. 5. 2, Thuc. 1. 80; tv66fiu; (Plat. Axioch. 365 b), ^Esch. Ag. 1592 (1570) ; rsXsiV, Isocr. c. Soph. p. 294 e, Ai-ist. Meta2Jh. 4. 16, 9. 4. 'E'crvui is used by Mocho (ap. Athen. 579 e) : if tvccpirrus is not fouiid in early autiiors, ilapiffvi-rifu; occurs in Xen. Mem. 3. 5. 5. Lobeck's note (PItryn. p. 389) does not relate to iffx<>^rui, which is used by Xenophnn (An. 2. 6. 1), but to the phrase icxt'-rus ^x^'^-^ * [This word is used by Homer and Hesiod, but not by the earlier prose Avriters. 1 ^ Yet n-hat Hermann (Eur. Hel. p, 30 s<]. ) has said in illustration of this use of the neuter deserves consideration. [Hermann's observation is to the effect that the adjective does not here stand for an adverb, but has its jvvoper force (e. g., tcKfavra. Iffxav = attfaiTo, ■jrfa.Tnii icftuiTtc), thc verb OQ which the accusa- tive depends always denoting some action.] * Herm. Vlg. p. 706, Van Marie, Floriierj. p. 232 sq. [Sef, also Ellicott on G. vi. 17. — "In affirmative prepositions ro 'mitov is asypi ; in negative rou XeivcZ." Shilleto, Dem. F. L. p. 84.] * ['E««u7i« is perhaps doubtful: see Buttmann, Dim, .^Tid § 12 c. The nearest parallel (in any early writer) to xara iKoiinov seems to \ie aaS iKovs-ixt Thuc. 8. 27. Sfc Liglitfoot on Phil. 14.] SECT. LIV.] THE ADVERBS. 581 place of actually existing adverbs is more common in the N. T. than in Greek writers, in accordance with the national colouring of the Hebrew-Aramaean language. Thus we have iv aKT^dela, Mt. xxii. 16; eV a\.r)6eia — (a) T^v apxyi', throvijhout, altogether (Herm. Vig. p. 723). In this sense t^v apx'*?'' ^^ probably to be taken in Jo. viii. 25 (see Liicke's careful examination of tiie passage) ; altogether ivhat I also say unto you, — (I am) altogether that which in my words I represent myself as being.3 Not the slightp«;t occasion is presented by the context for * See Vorst, He.hr. 307 sq., Ewald, Kr. Gr. p. 638. Compare n/jLtpa rv hfi'px, Georg. Phrantz. 4. 4, ji. 356. [For the Hebrew idiom see Gesen. Gr. p. 183, Kalisch I. 97. Meyer t^kcs hf-taa *a< riu-ifo. as a "pure Hebraism, — whicli is not even found in the LX X."] * [" Tav %\ (rKOTit aad iy.a.:.u-yit : qUOd Compositum est ex his, Tov Si (TKore; iKaXv^tf, et raZ S< oVjrs o-xotoj ma'Ku^iv. Ssepe in his freqiiens nsus fecit, ut nomina pene adverbiormn vim nanc.iscerentur, ut » o^Xts azft-rv iiifiaivt, quum maxinie, — ipx'>* ^' ^»p^v ei vrfiTu Tiu.r;;i^a*cc, omnino. Nempe hcec proprie sic mente coucipiebantur, o 'dx.^'' ax/aifiv u^i ^la^x'tvut, au -rp'frit euh\ ap^^v crcnh StipuiTa. tec a.fi.r^x'^iai.J" Hermann, p. 882.] ^ [The great objection to this view is, that a.px^<^ seems never to have the meaning omnino unless tlie sentence in which it occurs is either formally or virtually nefjatire. Liieke (JoJi. II. 304 sq.) passes in review a number of examples adduced by Lennep (I'halar. Ep. p. 82 sqq., p. 251 sq.), and arrives at the conclusion that there are a few — though very few — exceptional instance.s to which this canon will not apply. The exceptions he specifies arc examined and (I think) satisfactorily set aside by Briickner, in hi.s edition of De Wette's 582 THE ADVERBS. [pART III. making the sentence interrogative instead of categorical. Meyer's explanation seems to me the least satisfactory, on account of its complicated character. (6) 'Ak^^i', used in later Greek for en (Mt. xv. 16). See Lob. Phryn, p, 123 sq. Adverbs may be joined not only to verbs but also, to nouns : as in 1 C. xii. 31, Ka^' iirep^oXrjv 686v vfxlv SeiKw/xL (see no. 2), and 1 C vii. 35, Trpos TO €VTrdpe8pov t<3 Kvp'na aTrepL or ipxvv (the article being either inserted or omitted as in the case of TtXej) without a negative invariably means from the heyinning, from the very first : for tjjv uf^.'^v in this sense see Plat, tiymp. p. 190 b, Eryx. 398 b, Arrian, An. III. 11. 1, Lucian I. 669 (ed. Reitz),— for ufixrif, Her. 1. 9. In negative sentences also it may have this meaning, see Xen. Cyr, I. 2. 3. When however the word ineanB omnino, there is aiways a negative present, or the thought of the sentence is negative." If this conclusion be accepted — unless we venture to suppose, without any evideiice (see Gieen, Crit. Uotes, p. 74), that the word was at a later period used in the sense " alto- gether " in all sentences without distinction (in which case no objection can be urged against Winer's rendering of the verse) — we must either give up this meaning here, or (following high ancient authorities, as Chrysostom, Cyril, al.) give the sentence a negative cast by reading it as a question (Liicke, Lathmann, Tisch. in ed. 7, Westcott and Hort in their text, A. Buttmanu, p. 253) or as an exclamation (Ewald) : see Westcott in loc. The possible renderings, on the evidence which we possess, seem to br the following. (1) Why do I even sptak to you at all? On o,ti or on see above, p. 208 : on *«/ see Herm. Vig. p. 837, and above, p. 546. (2) That 1 am even speaking to you at all I (3) From the beginning— from, the vei'y first — (1 am) that which I also speak to you. This i.-> De Wetttt's rendering as modififd by Briickner. (De Wette himself added to his rendering of rnv up^'^iv the more than doubtful gloss "before all things.") The chief objections to tnis translation are the position of rh* a^;^''*- which would more naturally be joined to kaku — the use of kaku (not kiya.), and the xai. Of these three renderings the third seems the least probable. — Meyer's interpretation referred to in the text is probably that of his second - dition (1852), adhered to in his later editions, IVkat I from the btginning am also speaking to you (do ye ask) ? i.e., " Who 1 am, is that which from the commencement con- stitutes the substance of my words ; and can ye then still ask respecting this ? " His earlier view of the passage was given in a note appended to the first edition of his commentary on Acts- (1835) : here he arrai.LC(S the words as v/j,d<; al Trocrjaai, they purposed, were inclined to do (Aristot. Folit. 6. 8), may in a definite context (when it is clear ' See Wj'ttenbach, Juliaiii Oral. p. 181. * [Bornenianri quotes two examples of the construction iiea.fxi» *'», viz., Herod. i-Krifl,i iivra ravra' Dem. Mid. 526, u^vpx" '"'' ! ^^^ compares Dem. Be Cor. 305. 22, xat rk uiv rrii -riXiu; oLt&h iwripx^v H^etra. See also Kiihiier 11. 36.] ^ 'E^iA«? Herni. Soph. Philoct. p. 238. [In Soph. Phil. 1327 Buttmann write.s cvyx^fit ^i'lXuv {for 6'iXuv), maintaining that in the signification "volun- tarius," "sponte," the form WiXui was always used; Hermann in loc. posi- tively denies the truth of this assertion. In his Gratnm. (§ 160. 36, see also A. Buttmann p. 875) Buttmann says that yiXeu is always used in the idiom of xvhieh Winer in here speaking. ] * In 2 P. iii. 5, Xatiuvu tovto iixavra;, I prefer the explanation latet eos hoc (that which follows) volentes, i. e., volenles ignorant, to the other, latet eos (that which follows), hoc (that which precedes) volentes, i.e., contendentcs : the former brings out more clearly what was criminal in the conduct of the scoffers. In Col. ii. 1 8 iiXuv must not be taken adverbially. [On the interpre- tations of fiXuy here see above, p. 291 sq.] * [Liicke's remarks are to the eflect that our Lord's language here is general, descriptive of the character of the Jews, fiXi-rt being a *' timeless" present : in being cMMren of the devil there is involved having the will and desires of the devil, j SECT. LIV.] THE ADVERBS. 587 that the reference is not to a mere act of will)^ signify they did it purposely, ■loillingly, gladly. See e. g. Isocr. Cdllim. 914, oi Bv^rv^ijadar)*} rfjq TroXeox? TrpoKivSvvevetv vficov ■qdeX'qcrav, loho were inclined to rush into danger for you (and have by their act given evidence of this inclination), who willingly rushed into danger for you (Xen. Cyr. 1, 1. 3). Tlie formula idekovfji, iroLelv, where not used to indicate a mere act of will, means, according to the nature of the case, either tJi/'y ore glad to do it, as in Demosth. 01. 2. p. 6 a, orav fiev vtt' evvolw; ra Trpdj/xara crvcrrrj Kal TracTfc ravrd crv/u,a) is independent, ^wr^i oneself; i. e.,. in these particular passages, turn ro2ind or hack (turn away from). That in I-. i. 68 eTreaKiy^aro (^ips) must be taken separately, is self-evident. Eom. X, 20, quoted above, rather corresponds to the Latin avdct dicere, in which phrase we do not look on the first verb as expressing an accessory idea. We must render the words, he ewholdens himself and says : aTroroXfia indicates his taking courage, and Xiyei the result of this, the outward expression of the courage in bold words. In CoL ii. 5 Paul probably intends to say two things : ^ " In spirit I am present among you, re- joicing (about you,.o-ii^ v/mv) and beholding your order etc." To the general statement is added a special instance. It is also possible that in tlie words ^Xeircov k.t.X. the object rejoiced over is subjoined, and that Kac should be rendered that is, to wit. In no case, however, since rejoicing denotes something which does not exist until produced by ^Xiiretv, could the adverbial notion, thus expressed by the finite verb in an independent form, pre- cede the principal notion : ^ indeed, even Hebrew usage, if ex- amined more accurately, would not countenance such an arrange- ment.^ In Ja. iv. 2, (^ovevere kuI ^t}Xovt€ does not mean, Ye 1 III Joseph. Bell. Jud. 3. 10. 2, (quoted by Wetstein, the MSS. h^ve x'^'P»' *»' (iy.Wut, or simply (ixi-Truv. ^ "Where the adverbial notion is promoted gr^immatically to an independence which does not logically belong to it, it can only niaiiitain this independence when following the principal verb. Compare Plutarch, Cleom. 18, tUiXfiv* xai ^ixrdfiivos, which is equivalent to /2i'a ilsOJuiv. ^ The Hebrew verbs which, when standing before another finite verb, are taken in an adverbial sense, express either a notion which is conceived inde- pendently (as in Job xix. 3, Ye are not asluimed and ye stun me), or a general notion which is defined with greater precision by a more sytecial notion contained in the following verb, as He hastened and ran to meet the Philistines, he turned back and digged, etc. Similarly in 1 S. ii. 3 ; though this poetical passage cannot be adduced in explanation of the prose of the N. T. 590 THE ADVERBS. [PART III. are jealous even unto death (Schott), indulge deadly jealousy ^ but, as Stolz translates, ye Tnurdcr and, are jealous. See Kern in loc. In Kev. iii, 19 each of the two verbal notions may very- well be taken by itself. Zullig and others assume a vcrTepov irporepov ; the right view is taken by Hengstenberg.* Against rendering Mk. x. 21, ^ydirrjo-ev avrov koL etirev avTiS, by hlande eum compellavit (Schott, al.), see Meyer in loc.^ 6. As prepositions are sometimes used without a case, as adverbs (see § 50. Eem. 2, p. 526), so conversely, and still more frequently, adverbs^ — especially adverbs of place and time — are joined with cases (Don. p. 526, Jelf 526 sqq.). "^//.a, which is thus used as early as Her, 6. 118, a^ia rw arparo), has in later Greek almost become a preposition; see Mt. xiii. 29, ajxa avroh = avv avToh, and compare Lucian, -^.si'ti. 41, 45, Polyb. 4. 48 6, al. (Klotz, Bhrar. 11. 97 sq.). "Eco? is thus used of time and place * (compare eo)? tovtov) : here the Greeks used a-)(^pi fiixpi', or in a local sense eo)? eh, €co<: inri (yet compare Diod. S, 1. 27, ea>el. Vol. I. p. 192 (Clark) : Hengstenberg's view may also be seen in Alford's note.] '["This interpretation of StyaTav rests entirely on Odyss. 23. 214, where however the verb .simply mean.s love, as here." Meyer.] Klotz, Devar. II. 564. SECT. LIV.] THE ADVERBS. 591 MSS. 'JEJ77i;v governs the genitive in Jo. iii. 23, vi. 19, xi. 18, al... and the dative in A. ix. 38, xxvii. 8 : o\^e the genitive, Mt. xxviii. 1. The genitive is also found with e/j,Trpo(7dev, oTria-co (in Hellenistic Greek only), o-rricrdev, vTrepeiceiva, eXarrov, and with eaoi and efo). Several of these words are so frequently joined with a case that they may be taken as true prepositions ; indeed in e&)?, %(i)/3t9, axpi' and ixe-^pi' the adverbial meaning is per- ceptibly thrown into the shade, and in avev is (in the N. T.) entirely lost.^ Under this head comes also fxicrov yevea? o-KoXia;, the reading of Ph. ii. 15 which Lachmann and Tischendorf have rightly received into the text (compare Theophan. p. 530). But in Mt. xiv, 24-, to ■rXoLov r)Sr} fxicrov r^s $aXdarava)V koX XafiirdBoyv (Arrian, Epict. 24. 113),' Horn. XV. 24, u^' vfiMUTr poire fi(f}dfjvai eKei(to Spain), Jo. vii. 35, iii. 8 {nroOev ep^erat koI ttov vTrdyet), viii. 14, xi. 8, L. xxiv. 28, Ja.iii. 4, Rev. xiv, 4,al. This is a misuse of the words, which is easily accounted for in colloquial language (in the case of wSe and ivOdBe, evravOol, the meanings hie and hue coalesced at a still earlier period, — see Kriig. p. 302 *), and which ought not to be disowned for the written Greek of the N.T.^ (Jelf 605. Ohs. 5). With respect to other adverbs of place, we not only find eo-&) used to denote rest within (evBov not occurring at all in the N. T.), Jo. xx. 26, A. v. 23 (Ez. ix. 6, Lev. x. 18), but also eKeiae in the sense of tKei, A. xxii. 5, d^(ou koX rovs examined in § 50. 4. 6, the sense heiug who had come to Damascus and were then at Damascus. See Alford in loc] 8ECT. LV.] THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 593 that of the N. T. may be seen from the examples collected by Lobeck {Phryn. p. 43 sq., 128) and Thilo {Act. Tlwm. p. 9).^ The (relative) adverbs of place are, as, it is well known, also used in reference to persons; compare Eev. ii. 13, irap' vfiiv, orrov o aarava^ Karoi/cet (Vechner, Hellenol. p. 234). Occa- sionally these adverbs are used with some looseness in their reference. See Jo. xx. 19, rSiv Ovpcov KeKKeia^ivwv oirov ^j on oi in later Greek."] SECT. LV.] THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 595 ireiria-TeuKev, because the words merely suppose a case (qicod non crediderit). This is not at variance with 1 Jo, v. 10, o /x^ TTiCTTeuo)!/ Ta> deu> ■\^evvaiv kTulScov ovk i(f)€LaaTo, p,r]7roio^ovfiai, /xrj avpiov rrjviKdSe ovKeri y dvdpooTTCou ouSet9 d^i(o<; ol6<; re touto iroLrjo-af p. 84 b, Ovhev heLVOV, fir) (fyo^rjdrj, 07reu9 firj .... ovBei/ en ovSafMOv J7' l^huc. 2. 76. See Gayler p. 427, 430. 1 Jo. V. 16, idp Tt9 iBt) tov dBe\ayetv would represent the not eating as something objective, possibly an actually existing practice. Rom. XV. 1, 6 fjpeaev. Hence we naturally find firj with the optative, when this mood expresses a pure wish (Franke I. 27): Mk. xi. 14, fir)KeTL eK aov f.U TOP alwva fj,7]Bel<; Kapirov Tia A. xvi. 37, oil -riivTus Rom. iii. 9 (§ 61. 4). In such cases, especially if aXXa follows, we more frequently find the strengthened form six' («^°- '^- ^j 1^- xiii. 3, al.). This form is, however, most common in interrogations (Mt, v. 46, al.) : in ordinary negation it is rare.] ^ [Inserted by mistake : the sentence is not one oi purpose.] SECT. LV.l THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 599 obvious ; for every condition, design, intention, or command belongs to the sphere of the mere conception. In conditional sentences we not unfrequently — in the N. T. indeed pretty frequently — meet with ov, and not firj. The older writers restrict this usage, with logical necessity, to the case in which some particular word only of the conditional sentence ^not the verb of the sentence merely, see Kriig. p. 306) is nega- tived, the negative coalescing with this word to express a single idea.' Thus in Soph. Aj. 1131, et rov^ davovra^ ovk ea? daTrreip, if thou preventest (Iliad 4. 55) ; Lys. Ar/or. 62, el fxev ov rroWol (i.e.,o\i70t) rjcrav Thuc. 3. 5 5,et airoarrjvaL ^AOrjvaioiv ovk rjOeXi]- aaiJbev Her. 6. 9. Compare Gayler p. 99 sqq., JMattli. 608 b, Kriig. p. 306 (Don. p. 555, Jelf 744. 1).- Accordingly there is nothing strange in Mt. xxvi. 42, L. xvi. 31, Jo. v. 47, Rom. viii. 9, 1 C. vii. 9, 2 Th. iii. 10, 14, 1 Tim. iii. 5. v. 8, Eev. XX. 15, al. ; and as little in 2 C. xii. 11, el koI ovhev eljjLi^ On the other hand, Lipsius* has quoted a number of other passages, which, either rn reality or in apjtearance, are at variance with the canon laid down above ; as indeed the N. T. writers, in general, more frequently express if not by el ov than 1 Henii. Vig. p. 833, Eiirip. Med. p. 34i, Soph. (Ed. C. 596, Scha-f. Plut. IV. 396, Mehlhorn, Anacr. p. 139, Bremi, Lys. p. Ill, Schoem. /sfruap. 324 sq. Schtefer says {Dem. III. 288j : ov poni licet, quaudo ncgatio refertur ad spqucn- tein voeejii cum eaque sic coalescit, imam ut aniha iiotioncm etKciant ; /<>) poni- tur, quaudo iiegatio pertinet ad particulaiii coriditionalem. Comp. Kost p. 751 sq. * On the analogous ovus 'v see Held. Phit. Timol. 357. ^ [Tlie difficulty of exactly classifying the N. T. examples of u ol is illus- trated by the fact that some passages (Jo. v. 47, iii. 12) are quoted by Winer twice, under different heads. He has perhaps brought too many passages under the principle stated above : A. Buttmann goes to the other extreme. A. Butt- mann's classification {(Jr. p. 344-348) is faulty in containing nothin,;.^ which directly answers to Winer's class ^a) ; though in the corresponding section of the Griech. Gr. the same usage is allowed for classical Greek. He e.vpluins most examples of il ov as arising out of antithesis — (1) to a positive notion pre- ceding (Mk. xi. 26, Jo. V. 47, A. xxv. 11, Rom. viii. 9, 1 C. vii. 9, in. iii. 2), or following (1 C. ix. 2, Jo. x. 37, L. xi. 8, xviii. 4, 1 C. xi. 6,— Ja. ii. 11,2 ?. ii. 4, 5) ; or (2) to an apodosis which is either fonnaHv or virtually negative (1 0. XV. 13-17, Kom. xi. 21, L. xvi'. 31, 2 Th. iii. 10, H" xii. 25 : L. xvi. 11 sq.', Jo. iii. 12, 1 Tim. iii. 5, 1 C. xv. 29, 32). In L. xiv. 2fi, 2 Jo. 10, 1 C. xvi. 22, 2Th. iii. 14, 1 Tim. v. 8, Kev. xx. 15, he ascribes oh to the somewhat lax usage of the N. T,, "in which conditional sentences of the 1st class arc in general negatived by »u." See further Green, Gr. p. 195, Webster, Syrd. p. 139 ; aIso Prof. Evarip'.s notes on 1 C. vii. 9, xvi. 22. — In modern Gre«>k the negative which corresponds to ol (a'tv, a truncated form of otSsv) regularly appeal's in the protasis of a conditional sentence (iMulIach, V uiij. p. 390, Si..'p'iocies, Gravim. p. 184sq.).] * De modorum in N. T. usu, p. 2C sqq. 600 THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES, [PART III, by el firjy which most commonly signifies unless.^ \Ve divide these passages into four classes. a, L, xii. 26, el oi/Be iXd'^ccrrov Zvvaade, ri irepi twv \ol- iruyv fiepi/jLvare ; cannot be taken into account at all, since here ei is conditional in appearance only, and in reality is equivalent to eVet (Krlig, p. 306). Translate : If — as is clear from what has been adduced — i, e., since ye cannot do even the least, etc. (For the same reason we always find Oavfidi^to el ov ; ^ comp, Kiihner II, 406.) So also Eom. xi. 21, Jo. iii. 12, v. 47, x. 35, H. xiL 25, 2 P. ii 4. Compare Soph. CEd. Col. 596, el 0e- \ovTdavX6v eVrt to delov . ... el Be e^et, ecTai TL Tov Oeov KpetTTov Hypotyp. 2. 5, 160, 175, Lucian, Paras. 12, Galen, Temper. 1. 3, Marc. Anton. 11. 18, p. 193 (Mor.). Com- pare also Euseb. De die domin. p. 9 (Jani). Xor can any ob- * E/' «v and tl ft-r. are well distinguished in one sentence in Acta Thorn, p. 57 (ed. Thilo). '■* [This assertion is too' strong, as is shown by Thuc. -4. 85 (Plat. Phced. 62 a). These passages are quoted, with others, by Buttmann {Griech. Or. § 148. 2. b. note), who says that iavfia^ai tl requires /to?, unless there is some special reason for Bu. Sec also Sandys, Isocr. Demon, p. 34. Kiihner himself in his second edition {II. 749) quotes examples of iauftaZuf tl ^>j.] SECT. LV.] THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 601 jection be raised against 1 C. xv. 13, et avdcrTacn')Toi KaKov iariv, rj ovre kukov eariv ovre d'yadov etrriv' Diog. L. 2. 36, el fjLevydp re T(t)V7rpo<;6urcov\e^eiav, Siopdioaovrai, €1 3' o V, ovBh irpo'i rifJM in Diog. L. 1. 105, iti» nat i» rot titcv ov fiftii, yifvt yivfuiiei Sluf oifti<. * Equivalent to u »v ftoixiuf* irr,, ipenvut Sj : compare Arrian, Epict. 1. 29. 35, 2. 11. 22. Contrast ThlXO. 1. 32, tl fth l^ira, K»xia.<, So^uj li ftaXke* aftaprla ' Compare also Anton. Prog. St diicrimine partkularum au et /*»), p. 9 (Gor- lic. 1823). * Mehlhoru I. c. gives the rule thus : ubi simpliciter negatio affirmationi ita opponatur, nt negandi particula voce sit acueuda, semper eu poni, ubi contia 602 THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART III. non in Latin) ; where however the negative is not emphatic, if not is expressed by el firj, as in Latin by nisi. Hence the use of el ov to express " If thou dost not, commit adultery" (with a reference to firj fioi'xev(xi)j and the iufiuitive , "' see Mt. viii. 28, Mk. i. 45, i"i. 2, iii. 20, 1 0. i. 7, 1 Th, i. 8. Only, in 2 C. iii. 7 a logical reason for /xtj is supplied by the conditional sentence (Engelhardt, Plat. Apol. p. 219). "On and cttci, because (in the oralio redo.), are regularly followed by ov, see Jo. viii. 20, 37, Rom, xi. 6, L. i. 54 (Biiumleiu p. 773) : we find on ixij in Jo. iii. 18, in a sentence of a conditional character. Yet in H. ix. 17, though in the oratio reda, we have BiaOtjKrj i-n-l vck/jois Be.fiuia, lira, jli^ttotc lcr)(yet, ore t,fj 6 SiaOe/'Xvo'i. Bohme's explana- tion is : fji^TTOTf. appears to be here used to deny the veiy conception of laxy^Lv, and thus to express a stronger negation than ovTrore would have conveyed. But Bohme's translation of /atjttotc by nondum is incorrect; it signifies never (Heliod. 2. 19). Perhaps also the writer's preference of fxy^Trore to ovttotc is rather to be ascribed to the fact that he is speaking generally, not of any particular testament. Yet later writers often connect the subjective negative with iird (oTt) qiiandoquidem, not only where something is clearly indicated as a subjective reason (as is perceptibly the case even in ^lian 12. 63, — compare also Philostr. Apoll. 7. 16, Lucian, Hermot. 47), but also where an objectively valid reason is assigned by the clause,* inasmuch as the reason comes back ultimately to a conception. Others (Bengel, vf-rbum voce inprimis iiotandum fi-/[ esse debere. Compare also Poppo on Xen. Anah. I. c. ' Compare also e. g. ^sop 7. 4, u o l ao) toUto -rposipipiv, olx av yi/miii avre trvvi/iovXivi;, if it were not useful to thee, thou wouklst not counsel it to us, '^ [The preference for ov when there is an antithesis, or where a single word is negatived, is well illustrated bj the occasional occurrence of eu in imperatival and final sentences: 1 P. iii. 3, 1 C. v. 10 (Meyer), Rev. ix. 4, 2 Tim. ii; 14 (oiJs*). Thet^e passages are quot^^ed by A. Buttmann (p. 352).] * [That is, we find in the N. T. no examples of Hsn with the indicative •when a negcdiue consequence is expressed. Of course, where usn hag the meaning itaque, quare (p. S77) it may be followed by cither al or |t4»i, according to the nature of the sentence. On ^i-ri with ov and the infinitive see Shilleto, Dem. F. L. p. 202 sqq., Don. p. 594.] * Gaylerp. 183 sqq., Madvig 207. Rem. 2. On Lucian and Arrian in particu- lar see Ellendt, Arr. Al. 1. Prwf. p. 23 sqq. Compare also Ptol. Geogr. 8. 1. 3. sect.lv.] the negative particles. 603 Lachmann^) take fii]TroT€ in H. ix. 17 as an interrogative word, as indeed tVet frequently introduces a question, see Rom. iii. 6, 1 G. xiv. 1 6, XV. 29 (Klotz, Devar. II. 543) : in this passage, however, such an explanation seems to me too rhetorical for the style. 3. M-q is further used — {d) In relative sentences with av (idv) : L. viii. IS, o^; av /jltj €XV' -A., iii. 23 (from the LXX), irdaa yjruxv> V'^''^ eay fir) n/covarj' Rev. xiii. 15, ocrot av fi7} Trpo^Kwrjaafaiv' L. ix. 5. In nones of these cases is there a denial of matter of fact in regard to definite subjects ; the language is conditional and relates to a conception, — whoever has not, whoever may not have. Relative sentences without ay regularly have ov (Jo. iv. 22, irpaKwetTe o ovK ot8aT€' L. xiv. 27, 09x49 ov j3ao-rd^eL' Rom. x. 14, 1 C. V. 1, 2 C. viii. 10, 1 Jo. iv. 6, al.), in so far as they deny some- thing as a matter of fact. Sometimes however we find fxr) in such sentences, where the negation merely relates to a concep- tion (a supposition, condition) : e. g., 2 P. i. 9, c5 fir} irdpea-rt ravrd, ti;0\o9 ea-Tiv, whosoever, if any one, etc. See Hermann, Vig. p. 805, Kriig. p. 306. In 1 Tim. v. 13, I'it. i. 11, tA /^r, Seovra and B, firj Set (compare Rom. i. 28, Soph. Phil. 583) ex- press a mere ethical conception, qua', si qua: non sunt honesta : a ov Bel would denote directly inhonesta, indicating the objec- tively existent genus of the unseemly.^ In Col. ii. 18 //.»; before ed>paKev^ has been expunged by recent critics : Tischendorf how- ever has in his 2nd Leipsic edition restored it to the text, and certainly it has the greater weight of external authority in its favour. (Meyer states the evidence imperfectly.) If the nega- tive is genuine * (some authorities have ov), p-jj is used because. ^ [So Tischendorf (ed. 7), Delitzsch, Westcott and Hort, Liinemann (some- what doubtfully) : this is the exjilanation given by Q^.cumenius and Theophy- laet. Bleek, Kurtz, Alford, and Tischendorf (ed. 8) agree with Winer : see also Green, Or. p. 202.] 2 Compare Gayler p. 240 sq. [EUicott on Tit. i. 11, Gr.een p. 196, Don. p. 555sq., Jelf743.] ^ Compare Philostr. Apoll. 7. 27, inXiyiTo av fih Ikiivm TfoSfiaivi, qua? illi Aa?eOfj S)Se Xi6o6-i](reTaL' L. ^dii. 17, xii. 2, Mt. xxiv. 2 ; compare 1 K. viii. 46. From Greek authors (Herm. Fi^. p. 709) see Eur. Eel. 509 sq., avrjp yap oiSeh JiSc . . . Ss . . . oi Siocrei ^opdv Lucian, Sacrif. 1, ow olSa, ei tis ovrto Karr)i]^ eo-ri, osTis ov ycAacreraf Soph. (Ed. R. 374, ovScis 09 ov)(\ tu)v8* ovciSiei rdxa.. In all these instances the relative sentence is conceived as a definite, objective predicate, as if the sentence ran, dv^p ov^v.'; 'SSe ov Sokrci fiopdv. So even in the construction with the optative ; sec Isocr Evagor. p. 452, ovk Io-tlv, osns ovk av AmklSo^ irpoKpiveiev' lb. p. 199, Plutarch, Apojihth. p. 196 c. Closely allied to this construction is the formula rts ia-nv, os ov, with the present indicative (A. xix. 35, H. xii. 7, — compare Dion. Comp. 11, p. 120 ed. Schaef ), equivalent in sense to oiSet's co-nv, os o v (for which Strabo, 6. 286, has oiSev fxipo<; avTTj'i ia-Tiv, o fii} . . . rvy^^avtt). More remote is oiSci's icTTiv, OS o V, with a past tense ; in this combination no one would expect to liiid /AT/. See Xen. An. 4. 5. 31, Thuc. 3. 81, Lucian, Tox. 22, A sin. 49, and compare Heindorf, Plat. Phced. p. 233, Weber, Demosth, p. 356 sq. See further Gayler p. 257 sqq., where however the examples are not properly distinguished. 4. (e) With infinitives (Matth. 608 0, Kriig. p. 308) :— not only where they depend on vc7'ha coyitandi, dicendi, imyerandi, cupiendi (naturally also in the construction of the accusative with the infinitive), as in Mt. ii. 12, v. 34, 39, L. ii. 26, v. 14, XX. 7, xxi. 14, A. iv. 17, 18, 20, v. 28, x. 28, xv. 19, 38, xix. 31, xxi. 4, xxiii. 8, xxvii. 21, Ptom. ii. 21 sq., xii. 3, xiii. 3, 1 C. v. 9, 1 1, 2 C. ii. 1, x. 2, H.ix. 8, al. ; or where a purpose is expressed, as in 2 C. iv. 4, irvipXcoae ra vorjfiara . , . et? to jxt] avyda-ar 1 Th. ii. 9, fpya^ofievoc Trpo? to jjlt] iTri^apfjaai' A. xx. 27, ovx vTr€aT€ikd/j.rjv roO /jbi] dvayyelXaf 1 P. iv. 2 : — but also where (Appendix, p. 127), but the.se editors consider the true reading of the passage to be lost. See a good paper by G. Findlay in the Exponitor, vol. xi. p. 385.] ' The N. T. does not happen to furnish an example of the use of fifi after particles of time (Gayler p. 185 sqq.). oi sometimes occurs in a temporal sen- tence with the indicative mood, see Jo. ix. 4, xvi. 25, 2 Tim. iv. 3, A. xxii. 11 : this is quite according to rule. SECT. LV.] THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 605 the infinitive is the subject of a sentence (as in 2 P. il 21, Kpelr- rov Tju avToir}rai Kad^ ev,QvK avTov otfiai tov Koa-fiov ^f^PV^o,'' '^^ ypa(f>6/M€va fiijSXuz, the negation belongs to olfiat : compare Xen. Mem. 2. 2. 10, e7a> fiev olfuzt, el roiavTrjv firj Bvvaaai, (f)ipeiv firjripa, aya6d v dvSpuiv .... yevo-CTtti rov Stiirvov' xviu. 29, Jo. V. 42, eyvujKa v/aSs on r^ a.ya.Tnjv tov ^eou ovk cx*"""* k.t.X., viii. 55, A. iL 31, al. The clause With on appears here as a pure objective sentence, just as in the indirect question (§ 41. 5". 4); as if the words ran, ovScls . . . ycvo-cTtti, Tovro vfxtv Xiyto. The infinitive construction, on the other hand, brings the verb into immediate connexion with, and conse- quently dependence upon, Xcyw, opSt, k.t.X. Compare Kriig. p. 286, 305, Madvig 200 (Don. p. 590, Jelf 742. 1). ^ [With the reading itithxTit im fih lxh7* : see above, p. 412.] * [See also Rom. vii. 6, A. xix. 27, 2 Tim. ii. 14 (A. Buttraann p. 350 sq.) : compare Green, Gr. p. 197 sq. On ov with iufinitive see Don. p. 591 (Jelf 745).] 606 THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART III. 5. (/) M?7 is found with participles^ (Gayler p. 2*74 sqq. Kriig. p. 309), not only when they belong to a sentence which as expressing command,, purpose, condition, etc., requires the subjective negative (see i o. 2), as in E. v. 27, Ph. i. 28, ii. 4, ill. 9, 2 Th. ii. 12, H. vi. 1, Ja. i 5, Tit. ii. 9 sq., Rom. viii. 4, xiv. 3, Mt. xxii. 24, A. xv. 38, L. iii. 11, 2 C. xii. 21 (compare Soph. (Ed. Col. 1155, 980, Plat. B&p. 2. 370 e, Xen. Cyr. 1. 4. 26, Kriig. p. 310) : — but also (a) When they refer not to particular persons but to a genus conceived of in the mind. Thus in Mt, xii. 30, o fs,7] cov /llct €/xou Kar ifjLov ecrrCv, the meaning is, ivhoever vt not with me; i.e., whoever belongs to the number of those persons of whom I form a mental conception, si quia non stet a meis ^jartibus (Herm. Vig.yi. 805, Matth. 608 c, Kriig. p. 309) : o ovk o)v fier efiov M^ould denote some particular individual who in point of fact was not with him. See also Mt. xxv. 29, L. vi. 49, Jo. x. 1, xii. 48, xx. 24 [xx. 29 ?J, Rom. iv. 5, xiv. 22, Ja. ii. 13, iv. 17, 1 Jo. ii. 4, 1 C. vii. 37. Hence we find firi with TTff?, see Mt. xiii, 19, Jo. XV. 2. To this class belongs also 2 Jo. 7, iroK'Kol rrXdvot elqrjXBou ei9 Tov Kocr/Mov ol firj ofio\oyovvT€ec firj fxadcov ypdfi/xaTo) ; L. vii. 33, iX-^Xvdev ^loidvvij'i 'itjtc eadtoyv dpTov fji7]Te Trivwv olvov, tvithout eating or drinking (spoken from the stand-point of those who, remarking this, are in the next clause introduced as speaking), — ovTe ia-Olcop oine Trivmv would express the predicates simply as matters of fact. In L. iv. 35, TO haifioviov i^rjXdev dir uvtov /xrjhep ^Xdyjrav avTov, Luke does not use the last words to relate a mere matter of fact {ov^ev ^Xdyjrav avTov, without injuring him): he only intends to exclude the supposition that the evil spirit may in some way have injured the demoniac, — without Juiving done (as one might perhaps suppose he would have done) harm to him. M/; may frequently be explained on this principle : see A. v. 7, xx. 2^j H. xi. 8, xiii. 27,^ Mt. xxii. 12. Compare the words of Klotz (Devar.'p. 6G6): quibus in locis omnibus propterea firj positum est, non ov, quod ille, qui loquitur, non rem ipsam spectat sed potius cogitationem rei, quam vult ex animo audientis amovere (Plut. Fo77ipej. c. 64); Herm. Vig. p. 806. In Mt. xviii. 25, /x^ k'^ovTa avTov dirohovvaL eKeXevaev avTov 6 Kvpiov, expresses the subjective stand-point of believers : compare H. xi. 7. So also in 2 C. V. 21, rov fir) yvovra dfiapriav irrrep rffiSiv dfiapriav iiroirffre. the words fir) yvovra relate to the conception of him who makes Christ to be dfiaprui : rov ov yvovra would be objective, equiva- lent to rov dyvoovvra^ (Tsa;us 1.11, and Schoemann in loc). In 2 C vL 3 we do not find ovBefilav iv ovBevl BiB6vre<; Trpo-iKOTriji', as this would merely represent a quality actually existent; but fM/qBefilav ev firfBevl K.rX., because the quality is regarded in connexion with irapaxaXovfiev (ver. 1) as one that is subjectively maintained, continually striven after. Compare further L. vii. 30, Jo. vil 49, 1 C. ix. 20 sq. Mr) is thus used with ««) ovrco irvKTevo), ws o v k aepa hepwv : here ovk depa Bipcov is a concrete predicate which Paul attributes to hini'^elf, and w? is qualitative, whereas o)? fir) aepa Bepwv would be, as if J did not beat the air. G. iv. 27 (from the LXX), eupdv6'j]Tc a-relpa rj ov rlicrovaa k.t.X., not- hearing one! — of an historical person. See further 1 Civ. 14, 2 C. iv. 8 sq., A. xxvi. 22, xxviii. 17, H. xi. 1 ; and for adjec- tives with ov, Rom. viii. 20, H. ix. 11. Compare Xen. Cyr. 8. 8. 6, Her. 0. 83, Plat. Phced. 80 e, Deraosth. Zenothem. p. 576 b, Strabo 17. 796, 822, Diod. S. 19.-97, Philostr. Apoll 7. 32, ^lian 10, 11, Lucian, Philovs. 5, Peregr. 34. In 1 P. i. 8 we meet with both negatives, ov ov k elBore^ ayaTrdre, et? bv apri fifj 6poivre!TT», fi>:div iSt^nfi^y J.'f attXoyiay '^X"^ .... iiiZrai i ait ffivrtvofiiyof, 39 610 THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART Til. that ye do not see him does not keep you back from rejoicing." A similar instance of the use of both ov and firj with participles • in the same sentence is found in Lucian, Indod. 5, koI o KV^epvau ovK elSco<; /cat iTrrreueii/ /u. ^ fi€fjLe\eT7)K(o^ k.t.X. : com- pare also Lycurg. 11. 9 and Bbime m loc. ]n Rom. i. 28 we tind TrapeSeoKep avrov^ o deo^ et? dBoKifxov vovv, Troieiv ra /irj KadrjKovra ; but in E. v. 3 sq., iropveca teal ndaa aKadapala . . . fxriBe ovofia^eadct) iv vjjuv . . , . rf evrpaTT^Xla, rd ovk dvrjKoura. The latter, as an apposition, is to be resolved into, which are the u'jLseemly things (which a Christian has to avoid), — which actions are not seemly : some MSS. indeed have h ovk dinjKev. In G. iv. 8, roTe ovk elBoTa deov ehovXevaare k.t.X., the words look back to an historic past, and ovk elBSre^ expresses a single notion, iffnorantes Deum, ddeoi. Contrast with this 1 Th. iv. 5, rd edvij rd fir) elBora jov deov, and 2 Th. i. 8, Tot9 fi r) elhoai deov, in dependent construction. Still there are some instances in which fxrj may appear to stand for ov. In Rom. iv. 19, however, koX fir] aa-Oevrjo-a'i rfj TrCa-Tei ov^ KaTcy67j€6n7 .. . . p^viBk- . . . fitj^e, Horn. xiv. 21, Col. ii. 21, L. xiv. 12 (not . . . and not . . . and not). (h) ov . . . ovre . . . ovre, Mt. xii. Z2 ; fii] . . . /xijre . . . fi-^re, 1 Tim. i. 7 ; M . , , p-^re . . . firjre . . . fiijre, Ja. v. 12 (fiv'^e three times), Mt. v. 34 sq. (jiijre four times), not . . . neither . . . nor, etc. Still more frequently, however, we meef with oure (Mre) not preceded by any simple negative : Jo. v. 3 7, a i; t e p. 69 sq. ; Stallb. Plat. Lack. p. 65 ; also Jen. LU.-Zdt. 1812, No. 194. p. 516, and Hartung, Partik. I. 191 sqq. 1 Benfey in thp Neu. Jahrb. /. Fhilol. XII. 155 :" As re ... re cau only con- nect notions or {jiopositions wliich, being mutually supplementary, constitute a unity, so it is only in such cases that oSn . . . eSn can be used. This higher unity is subdivided by the negatived parts which supplement each other ; in these, neithor the negation of one part nor that of the other is a whole, but each must Jirst be supplemented." ^ In Jud. i. 27 ov is followed by ol/li tepeated fourteen times. SECT. LV.] THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 613 (pcovrjv avrov a/crjKoare rroiTrore ovre etSo? avrov iwpdKare' Mt. vl 20, xxii. 30, L. xiv. 35, Jo. viii. 1 9, ix. 3, A. xv. 1 0, 1 Th. ii. .5 sq., Eom. viii. 38 (ten times); Mt, xi. 18, ^X6e yap ^Icodvvr]<: /jii]T€ €cr6i(ov fjLijre ttivcov A. xxviL 20, H. vii. 3 * {neither . . . nor). Accordingly, oijre and fxijTe regularly ^ point to another ovre or /ntjre (or to r^ or /cat), just as re ... re (re .. . /cat) cor- respond to each other ; whereas ovBe and fivSe attach themselves to a preceding ov or /ir/,-— as indeed 5e always looks to some- thing which has gone hefore. It may therefore be truly said, — it follows indeed from the meaning of re and Be, — that a closer connexion is expressed by the sequence ovre . . . ovre than by ov . . . ovBi (IClotz, Devar. p. 707 sq.^). In this correlation it is a matter of indifference whether the things denied are single words (conceptions) only or whole sentences, and whole sentences may as correctly be negatived by ovre . . . ovre (A xxviii: 21, Plat. Bep. 10. 597 c, Phced^. 260 c), as single words by ov . . . ovBe ;^ in the latter case the verb belongs to all the members negatived. See Mt. x. 9, pLrj KTrjcrrjcrOe '^pvcrov fitjBe dpyvpov /j,'r]Be '^oXkov' 2 P. i. 8, ouk dpyov Poppo's index to the A nab. p. 635. ' On Dvi'f and /M>jSt after an affirmative sentence, see Engclharat. Plat. Lack. p. 64 Bq., Fi-ankfc p. 6, 8 sq. * [The second clause is probably not genuine.] * That ftji'rt should have rernairipd unaltered even in the latest edition of Griesbach's N. T., rnay justly excite surprise. "What is still more remarkable is, that neither Gnesbach nor Schulz has even noticed the variant /<«2», found in approved MSS. See on the other hand Scholz in toe. [Tisch. has now returned to ^^jre in this passage (with MCD etc.), and in L. xx. 36 to ail-n (with i?QR etc.). In his note on L. xii. 26 (in ed. 7) he says, " Mihi non dubium videtur qiiin, fatiac.ent* Gi-aeeitate etiam av-T-i pro txiSi sit dictum; hinc viden- dum est ne emendationem paucorum testium seqmimur;'" compare also A. Buttmann p. 369. See also Rev. ix. 20 (Tisch.). In modern Greek — at all events in the langnage of common life (Ludeniann, Lehrb. p. 112) — firiri is used in the sense not even ; see Mullacli, y^iUg. p. 391.1 SECT. LV.] THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES.. 615 they were not able even to eat ; and hence we must read firjhi, which is found in the better MSS. (see Fritzsche in loc), and is received by. Lachmann and Tischendorf, but not by Scholz, For the same reason it is necessary to read ovhe in Mk. v. 3, ovhl aXvaer L. xii. 26, ovZe iXd^iarov huvacOe vii. 9, ovhk iv rw ^laparfK:^ also in L. xx. 36, where ovhk yap a'TToOavelv eVt BvvavTai (as good MSS. read) does not run parallel with the previous sentence ovre . . . ovre, but contains the proof of it, neque enimJ Compare further Mt. v. 36. In these passages also Scholz reproduced the old mistakes. c. Since by ovre . . . ovre members of a partition are negatived, and these members rigorously exclude each other (Herm. Med. p. 332), the reading of some MSS. in Mk. xiv. 68, oi/re olZa ovre iTrldraiMOL (received by Lachmann and Tischen- dorf into the text), c^.nnot stand: neque novi neque scio cannot well be said, since the two verbs are almost identical in meaning. Compare Franke II. 13, Sohfef. Demosth. III. 449, Fritz, in loc. Griesbach received into the text ovk oloa ovoe iirlarafMat (compare Cicero, Hose. Am. 43, non — not neque — novi neqw scio), which, from the meaning of the two verbs, is very suit- able.' d. Ov may be followed by ovre, the former negative being taken (in regard to sense) as standing for ovre : * hence in Kev. ^ Accordingly, we should read aiii in AcL Apocr. p. 168. Dbderlein, how- ever {Progr. de Brachylogia se.rmon'ts Gravel, p. 17), holds that oiiri i-s correct in such cases ; maintaining that, as t« (like *ai) has the meaning eiUim, eiln can also be used for ne . . . qu'uhni. Against this see Franke II. 11. [^b\i(Tib. OH. 6) asserts that in some passages oCn and ft-irt are thu.s used, and quotes Xen. Rep. Lac. 10. 7 (al. f^nVt), Xen. Monor. I, 2. 47. The latter passage, however, is a clear example of oi/rt . . . n : see Kiihner's note.] ^ Bornemann cohnects aiin with the following *«/ (see below, p. 619) ; but the sentence x.ai v'loi k.t.x. must be j6ined with Ifriiyyikoi ydf. " There is no doubt that with the reading ou-n . . . aiVs "the two notions are pi'csent to the mind under one common principal notion" (Meyer) ; but this takes for granted that there really are two notions, which in an affirmative sentence might be connected by both . . . and. [In this passage oSn . . . »«'« is strongly supported, and now stands in the best texr.s. ] * See Hermann, Med. p. 333 .sqq., 401, and Soph. Antig. p. 110 ; in opposition to Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 4, 5, and Soph. (Ed. T. 817. Compare Franke II. 27 sq. ; Matzuer, Antiphon p. 195 sq. ; Ellendt, Leac. Soph. II. 444; Klotz, Deo. p. 709 sq. "In rare cases, and in virtue of a rhetorical figure, it is allowable to drop the supplemental particle of one 6repa which immediately follows would give some support to it.'^ This read- ing is received by Tisohendorf in his 2nd Leipsic edition. The sentence, it is true, would be simpler ii we were to read pL7)Be TTvevfui, or (with the better MSS., and with Lachmann and Bornemami) /LtT^re dyyeXou fx-qre Truevfia ; — though indeed an unusual turnof expression might easily be changed by transcribers into one that was familiar, — In 1 Th. ii. 3, the nature of the notions combined leads me to consider, oy« ^k tr\dv7)D. [H is now added to the authorities for finrt, which now stands in the best toxta. See A. Muttm. p. 867 sq.. Frits. Mark, p. 153.] sect.lv.] the negative particles. 619 aKa6ap;/9av firiSl vTrooy'ifiara (not . . . riot . . . o./.«o not) ; Mt. x. 9, firj Kry'irrrfa-de )(pvabv fi.7]Bk ofTfupov fJi.7]6k xo^'^w ei5 Ttts ^'j>j/as vfJLiov, fjLij 7rr/pav c« 686v, prfBk 8vo xiriavas, firjSk viroBi^fxaTu k.t.A. We remark in passing that the distinction between oi8e (jirj^f) and «ai ov (koL fitj) which is brought out by Engelhardt, and still more strikingly by Franke ^ (koI ov, koi ptj, after attirraative sen- tences, — and not, yet not, et non, ac nun), appears to be founded in the nature of the case, and may also be recognised in the N. T. Compare koL ov, Jo. v. 43, vi. 17, vii. 36, A. xvi. 7, 2 C. xiii. 10; Kaljxrj, Ja. i. 5, iv. 17, 1 P. ii. 16. iii. 6, H. xiii. 17. For particularly instructive pasbages of Greek authors illustrating the distinction between oiS4 and ovtc, see Isocr. Areop. p. 345, ovk aviMfuoKuyi ouSe dro-KTaiS ovre cdepdrrevoi' ovn iLpytu^oy k.t.X. '. Perrnut. p. 750, (irrc fjajhiva /loi TrcoTrore ^tijS' iv oAtyap^'V M^^' ^ OrjfjLOKpaTia /ir/re vftpiv pi^rt d^iKiau cyKoAeo-af Her. 6. 9, Isocr. Ep. 8. p. 1016, Xenoph. Ages. 1. 4. J^emosth. Timoar. 481 b. Compare Matth. 609. 1. b. 7, In two parallel sentences we sometimes find ovre or firjre followed, not by a second negative, but by a simple copulative (/rat' or re) : Jo. iv. 11, ovre ain\r,[ia e;3^tt9, Kalro ^pkap ea-rl ^adv, — as in Latin nee haustrnm huOes et puieus etc. (Hand, Tursell. IV. 133 sqq.) ; 3 Jo. 10. Compare Arrian, Al. 4. 7. 6, iyQ> ovre rijv dyav ravr-qv nfuupiav Byaaov i'/ratvfo. ' [H reads {o'drt^sy ov^i, but the besi, critical texts have oiirt.] 2 Engelhardt, Plat, Lack. p. 65, Franke II. 8 sq. 620 THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART III. . . . Kot viraxOrjvat ^AXe^avBpov ^v^^v,fii k.tX. ; Paus. 1. 6. 5, A7]ixr]TpL0\ov» iTiTtih-Juv auK aXn^i'iu., is Still rendered by Reiske, te fortitudinis aludioswm esse opinione mxKjis quam re, ipsa. A similar impropriety may be seen in Albert!, Observ. p. 71. On the error introduced by Palairet (Obs. p. 236) into Macrob. Saturn. 1. 22, see my Grammat. Excurse p. 155. The above observations will easily clear up Cic. Off; 2. 8. 27. — A teference to Glass I. c. p. 421 will show any one how the older Biblical interpreters allowed themselves. to be influenced even by dot^niuLic motives in the explanation of this formula. — In 1 P. i. 12, the dilution of «J . . . U into non tarn . . . quam (see Schott, even in the latest edition) was the result of a misunderstanding of iiaxt)vi7t. Even the simple au Flatt would limit by a fiivot in 1 C. vii. -4! On 1 C. ix. 9 the passage cited from I liilo by the commeatatora [see Alford in loc. ] throws sufficient light. 622 THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART IJI. Tre/i-^avTos fie, where Jesus is speaking of the origin of his teaching (verses 15. 17, 18), Mi/ teaching (that which ye regaivj as mine, — compare vev. 15) does not appertain to me, hut to God, has not me as its author, but God. In calling it r) ifxrj hthaxn Jesus quotes the opinion of the Jf>ws, who in the worths TTw? ovTot ypdfXfiaTa olSe, fir/ fiefxa$7)K(i)^, regarded this teach- ing as a possession acquired by means of study. ^ Compare Jo V. 30,^ xii. 44. Jo. vi. 27, ipya^eade firj rrjv ^pSxruv rrjv atroX- XvfuevTfv, a\Xa ri/v jBpioaiv rrju pbivovaav €l<} ^tarjv altafiov, r^v 6 f to? Tov av6 pioTTov iifur hcoaet ; liere Jesus censures tlie con- duct of the multitude who have come to him 05 Messiah, and the thought " not so ninch for ordinary food as rather for heavenly" (Kiihnol) would be meaningless. On ver. 26 see Liicke. In 1 C. vii. 10 Paul makes a distinction between the Lord's injunctions and his own : so vice versa in ver. 1 2, re- ferring there to the words of Christ in Mt. v, 32. The recent commentator? take the right view. As to 1 C. xiv. 22 (compare ver. 23) no doubt can exist: compare also 1 C. x. 24 (Schott) and Meyer in he, E. vi. 12, H. xiii. 9, 1 C. i. 17 and Meyer in loe. So also in 2 C. vii. 9, xaipco ov^ on iXviDJOrjre aW on eXvirri- drjre et? fierdvoiav ; the XuTrrjdfjuac in itself (the idea so far as it is contained in XvTrrjOPji'ai), taken absolutely, is denied in the first clause, but only that it may be taken up again in the second with the qualification el) arvv ifiol' Jo. xii. 44, 6 7ri(JT€V(i}V €69 eV^ ov iriarreveL et'v ^pi£, dW e/f tov irep.-^avTa fxe A. v. 4 (compare Plut. Apophth. Lac. 41, and see Duker on Thuc. 4. 92), L. x. 20 (where several MSS. insert fjUiWov after Be), 2 C. ii. 5 ^ (Schott). On L. xiv. 12 sq. see Bornemann and De Wette in loc' ^ Compare Demosth. Euerg. 684 I), nyyii> rov ■^vififfaftivav K.T.X.. ; .ffisop 143. 2, oil ov fzi XoiioptU, iXX "ituoycii, «» ai "nr-za.ra.i. Klotz, Devar. p. 9 : «u* 8«/vSwv£«/.i\C-rt hkh ixx' i^'o /n-Uovs (W ^i iinfiupu) iravra; y^5j.] ^ This view — stated in the first edition of this work, in accordance with the observations of De Wette (A. L. Z. 1S16, No. 41, p. 321) and a reviewer in 624 THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PAllT 111. Where (ov) /x^ . . . aWa, km e^re correlative, as in Ph. ii. 4, /jur) to. €avT(s)V €Kao"Tos CTKOTTovvTcs, oXXa KOI TO. €T£po)v eKa(TTo^, the sentencG was originally planned for ov . , . aXXd, and the xai was afterwards inserted because the writer, on coming to the second clause, wished to soften and limit the thought. Similar passages are not uncommon: in Greek writers; see Fritz, Mark, Exc. 2, p. 788, and compare Poppo, Tkuc. III. iii. 300. On the Latin non ... sed etiam or quoque see Eamshorn p. 535 sq., Kritz, Veil. Pat. p. 157 sq. The converse of this is oi fiovov . . . aXXd (without kui, — see Lehmann, Lucian II. 551) : here the writer drops the fi.6v6v, and instead of proceeding with an expression parallel to that which has gone b^ifore, brings in one of heightened meaning (which commonly includes the former).^ A. xix. 26, ort ov fjiovov 'E^eVou. dAAa er;^cS^i' Tracrr^s r^s 'Atrt'as 6 IlaDXo? ovtos TrtiVas fieTeirrrfcriv cKavov ox^ov, that he not ordy at Ephesus hut in all Asia etc., — where in strictness we should have had, hut also in other places. Compare 1 Jo. V. 6, ovK €V rep v8aTL fxovov, aX\' iv t<3 vSari icai t<3 alfxart. On the Latin non solum (modo) . . . sed see Hand, Tursell. IV. 282 sqq., Kritz, Sail. Cat. p. 80. In Ph. ii. 1 2 the second member is strength- ened in a different manner. 1 Tim. V. 23, /tT^KCTi vSpoTrorei, dAA' oivia oXiyta XP^" ^^ ^^ ^® rendered, he no longer a water-drinker (^SpoTroretv, compare Her. 1. 71. Athen. 1. 168), but use a little wine: vSpoTroreLv is different from vSojp TTtVetv, and signifies to be a water-drinker, i.e., to make use of water as the ordinaiy and exclusive drink. He who '* drinks a little wine " naturally ceases to be a water-drinker in this sense of the word ; hence there is no need to supply ftovov. The note of Matthies in loc. is incorrect. 9. Two negatives occurring together in the same ^ principal sentence either^' (a) Coalesce to form an affirmation : A. iv. 2 0, ov Bvvd/xeOa the Theol. Annal. of 1816 (p. 873) — was assailed by Fritzeche in his 2nd Dissert, in 2 Cor. p. 162 sq. His objections were examined by Beyer (N. krit. Journ. d. Tlieol., vol. 3, part 1), and Fritzsche took up the subject again in the 2nd Exc. to his Comm. in Marc., p. 77-3 sqq. The above was in the main already written before I received this Excursus, and substantially coiiicides with what I ex- pressed in the 2nd edition of my Grammar (p. 177) and in my Grammat. Excurse (p. 155). Meyer and Baumgarten-Crusius decidedly agree with me in the various passages quoted above ; but I am especially gratified by the remarks of my acute colleague Klotz (Devar. II. 9 sq. ) in corroboration of my view. On non . . . sed compare Kritz, Sail. Jug. p. 533, Hand, Tursell. IV. 271. ^ See Stallb. Plat, Symp. p. 11.5, Fritz. I.e. p. 786 sqq., Klotz, Devar. p. 9sq. * Such a case as Rom. xv.,8 [probably xv. 18], in which the two negatives • which are to be changed into an affirmation stand in two different clauses which are united by attraction, does not require special mention. ^ Klotz, Devar. p. 695 sqq. ; E. Lieberkiihn, Jie negationum Grcec. currMla- tione (Jen. 1849). [Jelf 747 ; Shilleto, Dem. Fals. L. p. 60 : Clyde, Gr. Synt. p. 96 ; Farrar, Gh: Synt. p. 181 sq.J SECT LV,] THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 625 rjixeis CL ei'Sofiw fcal ^KOixra^sv, ^rj \a\eiv, non possiirmts . . . non dicere, i. a, vm must, declare (compare Aristoph. Ran. 42, ovtoi fih Tr)v A^fiTjrpa Svvaaat, firj yeXdv) : 1 0. xii< 15, ov Trafja TovTo ovK eoTiv c/c Tov (Tu)fiaro^, therefwe ^ it still ts of the, hodj/ (belongs fo it). In the former passage the negative partrcles belong to different verbs, — first the BvvaaOat is negatived and then the \a\elv : in Syriac, W> «n ^pjj ]Ldj i - .. v n » ^r> ^ . .fTfo .A\vr)< ]], In the latter, ovk eariv expresses a single idea, which is negatived by the first ov ; the " not-belonging to the hody " is denied.^ For ovk elvav thus used in a negative senten':^ compare Demosth. Androt 420 c, ^lian 12. 3C. See further Mt. xxv, 9 Rec. Compare Poppo, Thuc. III. iv 711, Matth. 609. 2. Or (and more frequently) — Qj) They are reducible to a single negation, and (originally) serve only to give more decisiveness to the principal negation, which would have been sufficient by itself, and to impress the negative character on the sentence in all its parts.^ Jo. xv, 5, ;^ci>/>t? ijMiv ov BvvacrBe Trotelv ovSiv, non jjotestis facere quid - qfiam, i. e., nihil potestis facere (Dem. Callipp, 718 c) ; 2 C. xi. 8, rrapeov . . . ov KarevdpKTjcra ovBevo'i' A. xxv. 24, €7n^oS)VTe<; firj oeip avrov ^rju fiTjKeri' Mk. xi. 14, fMrjKerc et? rov alcova eV cov /MTjSel^ Kapirov (par/rj' 1 C. i. 7, w9Te vfia-i fir) varepeccrdai iv fi^Sevl ^opi'cr^Ti- Mt. xxii. 16, Mk. i. 44, v. 37, vii. 12, ix. 8, xii. o4, XV. 4 sq., Mt. xxiv. 21, L. iv. 2, viii, 43 (viii. 51 v. /.), x. 19, XX. 40, xxii. 16, Jo. iii. 27, v. 30, vi. 63, ix, 33,xvi. 23 sq., xix. 41, A. viii. 16, 39, Rom. xiii 8, 1 C. viii. 2 v. I., 2 C. vi. 3, ^ [" Therefore" loses its meaning when the sentence is thus changed into an affirmative fonn, " It is not on this account not-of-the-body. "] ( so also in yulg,, •' non ideo non est de corpore. " De VVette and some others pre- fer the rendering num ideo non est corporis ? taking the negatives as strtMigfheii- ing each other. This meaning, however, would surely have been expressed by //.ri .... o'uK (see p. 641) : besides, the repetition of the simple negative in a ehort sentence of this character would be very strange. See Kiihner II. 759, Compare Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 221.] ^ As in popular German. he accumulation of negatives is however a genuine German idiom ; and it is only through the influence of the Latin, which so completely permeates our scientific colture, that it has disappeared from the diction of the educated. As to IaXxtx usage, see Jani, Ars poet. hat. p. 236 sq. [Farrar. Syntax^. 181 sq., Madvig, Lai. Or. 460. Oba. 2, Roby 11. 471-473.] 40 626 THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART III. 2 Th. ii. 3, 1 P. iii. 6, 1 Jo. i. 5, Eev. xviii. 4,' 11, 14, al.^ So especially wlien the notions every, at any time, always, pwry- where, are added to the negative sentence for the necossajy or the rhetorical extension of its meaning (Bijckh, Noii. Find. p. 418 sq.) ;^ or when the negation is divided into parts, as in Mt. xii. 32, ovK. cK^eOrjcreraL avro) ovre eV rovrw rw alo>i^t ovie eu to) fiiXkovTL.^ In this way a sentence may contain a series of negations: L. xxiii. 53, ov ovk r]v ovBiirco ovB€liSeif /bi'te iixa^vrai fir\rt i/.'-y^-/i finiiU. In such sentences the transcribers sometimes omit a negative : see Fritz. Mark, p. 107. -'This mode of expression is not however always employed : compare A. x. 14, ou'SiToTt iipayav ■ra.v xcivov xai aKaffapTo* (withoxit any Variant), 1' Jo. iv. 12. ' Klotz, Devar. II. 698 : "in hac ennntiatione ita rcpetita est negatio, q\iod uiiurTH|nodque orationis mcmbrum, quia eo amplificabatur sententia, quasi per se stare videbatnr. " *Sce Wyttenb. Plat. Phml. p. 199, Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 541, Boisson. Philostr. Her. p. 446, and Nicet. p. 243 ; and especially Herm. Soph. Antig. p. 13, Gayler p. 382 sq. eComp. Stallb. Plat. Re.p. I. 279, Poppo, Thuc. III. ii. 460. SECT. LVL] construction OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 627 combination XavOdvuv avrov rt rovroiv o v TrtiOofiai ovScV; but the better MSS, omit either oiSev or n.^ On the pleonastic /a 77 after verbs in which the idea of negation is already contained, see § 65. 2. Rem, A peculiar mode of negation is constituted by the con- junction el in formulas of swearing, in virtue of an aposiopesis o'" the apodosis : Mk. viii. 1 2, afxyv Xeyui Vfjuv, el So^r/o-crai rfj ycve.i Tavry crrjfxdov, i. e., no sign shall be given; H. iii. 11, iv. 3 (from the LXX), u>fxo:Tf. ba rf^"^ent, as It-xXriftna, was in actual use (E;c. X. 1) ?J SECT. LVI.] CONSTPJJCTION OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 629 In Rom. xiii. 8 also firi is joined with the present imperative, fxrfhevl firjSev 6(f>€i\£Te ; tor the subjective negatives prevent our taking op 162). Thus in Jo. xix. 24, p,r] «w»'^«'-] £30 CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PAET III. better MSS. are in favour of the former reading, which is re- ceived by Lachmann and Tischendorf ; and the apostle may cer- tainly intend to censure a fault which was already in existence in the church : the previous context makes this probable. Meyer takes a different view. For examples of the 1 plural conjunctive in Greek writers see Gayler p. 72 sq. 2. In dependent sentences we find firj {jxriTro)^, fiTj-rrore, etc.) : — (a) With the meaning in order that . . . not. In this sense however Xva /xrj is more commonly used. Here the conjunctive is used after the present tense and the imperative mood : 1 C. ix. 27, vTrfoTTid^o} jxov rb aSi^a . . . firjirco^ . . . dBoKifio^ yivcofULi' 2 C. ii. 7, xii. 6, Mt. v. 25, xv. 32, L. xii. 58, and fre- quently. The optative follows past tenses : A. xxvii. 42, rcjv (TTparionSiv ^ovkrj iyevero, iva roi"? Seo"/«uTa§ diroKTecvcoa-i, firj Ti? €KKo\vjjL^i]Q)ofiovpaL, fjL7j7rco6io(iovvTo t6v Xaov, as it is by most commentators (Meyer included) ; it is rather dependent on T/yayev auTous ov fjnTo. j3ia<;, and the WOrds iuvTo, quot.s a parallel instance Irom Diod. S. 2. 329, and urges that o-jtu; /u,r> is sometimes used with verbs oi /taring (Jelf 814. Obs. 5). A. Buttra. (p. 242) maintains that with neither reading would the clause depend on e^»/3/)?vTa. J ^ Thus all firi regularly refers to the future: Mt. xxiv. '21, «<« ou yiyoyiM .... ovV Bv fih y'ifr)'7ui. — That this formula is to bti regarded as elliptical, ov fih ■xoiriffri standing for ol Ss^ofxa or ov (p'o^o; {eu Seas) ivell-founded for the N, T., is rendered difficult by the variations in the MSS., which in many passages are divided between the future and the aorist conjunctive. As far as our present apparatus criticus euables us to judge, we must certainly read the conjunctive in Mt. v. 18, 20, 26, x. 23, xviii. 3, xxiii. 39, Mk. xiii. 2, 19, 30, L. vi. 37, xii. 59,xiii. 35, xviii. 17, 30, XXI. 18, Jo. viii. 51,x. 28, xi. 26, 56, 1 Th.iv. 15, 1 C. viii. 13, 2 P. i. 10, Eev. ii. 11, iii. 3, 12, xviii. 7, 21 sq., xxi. 25, 27.^ There is preponderant authority for the conjunctive in Mt. xvi. 28, xxvi. 35, Mk. ix. 41,xvi. 18, L. i. 17, ix. 27, xviii. 7, 30, xxii. 68, Jo. vi. 35, viii. 12, 52, xiii. 8, Eom. iv. 8, G. v. 16, 1 Th. V. 2>.^ The conjunctive is at least as wxll supported as the future in Mk. xiv. 31, L. xxi. 33, Mt. xv. 5, xxiv. 35, G. iv. 30, are collected by Gajler (p. 441 sqq.). Hitzig (Joh. Marr. p. ]06) incorrectly asserts tliat in the N. T. the Gospel of Mark and the Revelation show a special predilection for oi /^ri : a concordance will prove the contrary. [On the con- structions of ou (iri, and on the origin of the formula, see Don. New Craf. p. 622 sqq., Gfr. p. 662 sq., Jelf 748, Farrar, Gr. Synt. p. 183 sq., Riddell, Plat. Ap. p. 177, Goodwin, Synt. p. 184 : for the N. T. see Ellicott on G. iy. 30, v. 16, also on 1 Th. iv. 15 Transl., A. Buttm. p. 211 sqq., Green p. 190 sqq., Webster p. 140. The construction of o'u fiti with the 2 pers. future indicative taken inten-ogatively (Don. /. c, Jelf I. c.) is not found in the N. T. ^ ' Bengal's note on Mt. v. 18 is incorrect. [Here Bengel asserts that the sub- junctive is always used with «« ;(*«.] «See Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 365, Stallb. Plat. Rep. II. 36 sq., EUendt, i/cr. Soph. II. 409 sqq., Gayler p. 430 sqq. ^ [I have changed L. xiii. 88 into xiii. 35. Rev. iii. 3 ia doubtful.] * [In Mt. xxvi. 35 the future is generally received. L.'i. 17 is a mistake, per- haps fori. 15. L. xviii. 30 is in tne first list. In Jo. vi. 35 the weight of evi- dence is decidedly in favour of vy6vTe<; r^sS' eTreup^cuvrai ^€019 (according to Hermann and others), Xen. Cyr. 8. 1. 5, An. 2. 2. 12,^ Eier. 11. 15, €0.1' TOi)s ct>l\ovj in Dt. xxxi. 6, 8, 1 Chr. xxviii. 20, in A kx. If accepted, however, it would be the present subjunctive here.] 3 See Herm. on Elmsley, Eurip. Med. p. 390, Stallb. Plat. PolH. p. 51, Ast, Plat. PoUt. p. 3ti5. 638 THE INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART III. monly expressed hy oi . . , ov8eLv avrov \€yoi>rG<;' Kvpie, el . . . airoKaO icrrdvei'; rtjv ^aatXeiav ; L. xxii. 49, elirov Kvpie, el irard^ofjiev ev fua^alpa ; Mt. xii. 10, xix. 3, L. xiii. 23, A. xix. 2, xxi. 37, xxii. 25, Mk. viii. 23. On Mt. XX. 15, see Meyer.^ In the LXX, compare Gen. xvii. 17, xliii. 6, 1 S. X. 24, 2 S. ii. 1, xx. 17, 1 K. xiii. 14, xxii. 6, Jon. iv. 4, 9, Joel i. 2, Tob. v. 5, 2 Mace. vii. 7, Ruth i. 19. Originally this mode of expression may have involved an ellipsis, / should like to hiow (Meyer on Mt. xii. 10), as in German we sometimes use the indirect form, ob das wahr ist ? But in that period of the language with which we are now concerned el has come into all the rights of a directly interrogative particle,^ like the Latin con, which late writers use in direct questions; and to press el as the indirect an (FrJt^. Matt. p. 425, Mark, p. 327), would be very forced. In a similar way si, by which the Vulgate render this el, from an indirect (Liv. 39. 50) became a direct particle of interrogation. That Greek writers also sometimes use el in direct questions,^ was maintaijied by Stallbaum {Phileb. p. 1 1 7), but was rightly denied, so far as Attic prose is concerned, by Bornemann (Xen. Apol. p. 39 sq.) : Stallbaum afterwards retracted the admission he had made (Plat. Alcih. I. 231). Compare further Herm. on Lucian, Conscr. Hist. p. 221, Fritz. Mark, p. 328, Klotz, Dev. II. 511. In Odyss. 1. 158, quoted by Zeune {ad Vir/. p. 506), ^ was long ago substituted for el ; in Plat. Kep. 5. 478 d all good MSS. have eWo«.•] * Compare Schneider, Plat. Civ. I. 417. ' Hoogeveen, Doctr. Partic. I. 327. * Palairet, Observatt. p. 60. 640 THE INTERROGA.TIVE PARTICLES, [PART III. iroXK^L KOI haifiovia, is perhaps corrupt (Reiske proposes rj ri aXko) ; or else we must take it as an indirect question^ hut (one may ask, some one will perhaps ask) ivhether he has enjoined, miything else on you. Even in Plat. Civ. 4. 440 e Schneider on MS, authority retains et, changed by recent editors into [aXX) rj; but explains this use of the particle, in a question apparently but not really direct, as arising out of an ellipsis. He removes the note of interrogation. "Otl also has been taken as directly interrogative in the N. T , but on insufficient grounds: see § 53. 10. 5, [and § 24, 4], The interrogative apa was originally the paroxytone apa. It is used in interrogative sentences — shown to be such by the in- flexion of the voice — to express an inference from something which has preceded : the answer expected b)'" the question may be either negative (in which case apa is num igitur) or affirmative (ergoiie), see Klotz, Devar. II, 180 sqq.^ The former is the more usual case in prose (Herm. Vig, p. 823), and is met with in the N. T. : L. xviii. 8, apa €vpr)(Tci ryv 'kLCTTiv IttI t^s yrj^ ; will he then find ? Similarly apdye, A. viii, 30 : compare Xen. Mem. 3. 8. 3, apdyt, c^rj, ipuyrSs /u,€, €t Tt 6l8a TTVperov ayaOov ; ovk eywy', ^^i/. On the Other hand, in G, ii, 17 5pa would stand for ergone : Christ is then a minister of sin ? 2 Otliers read apa without an interrogation t against this, however, is the fact that fxrj yevoiTo is never used by Paul except after a question. See Meyer in loc? (Jelf 873, 2.) To the interrogatives Trois, ttotc, ■n-oD, k.t.X., designed for direct questions, there correspond the relative forms otto.s, ottotc, ottov, K.T.X., for the indirect question (and construction) : Buttiu. II, 277, This distinction, however, is not always observed even by Attic writers,^ and in later Greek it is frequently neglected. In the N. T. the direct interrogatives are the prevailing forms in the indirect construction : e. g., irodev Jo. vii. 27, ttov Mt. viii, 20, Jo. iii 8, On Tnis see Wahl, Clav. p; 439. "Ottov in the N. T. is used rather as a true relative.5 (Jelf 877. a.) ^ A different view is taken by Leidenroth, De vera vocum oriylne ac vi per Unguarum comparationem investiganda (Lips. 1830), p. 59 sqq. — Ou a^a and «/)* compare further Sheppard in the Classical Museum, No, 18, « Compare Schajf. Mekt. p, 89, Stallb. Plat. Rep. II, 223, Poppo, Thuc. III. i. 415. 3 [On this passage see especially the notes of Ellicott and Lightfoot : see also A. Bultmanu p. 247, who (with Wieseler) reads a^as, but retains the interroga- tion. On the force of yt in a^ayf (giving more point to the question by rc^ntrkt- ing the attention to it) see Klotz, Devar, II. 192 sq.] See Kuhuer II. 583 [II. 1016 : ed. 2], Herm. Soph- Antig. p. 80, Poppo, Irul. ad Xenoph. Cyrop., s. vy. ^u;, -toZ. ' ["Ora/f and eVoi/ are the only particles of this kind which oornr in the K. T. : ivin in L. vi, 3 {ReA., Tisoh, ed. 8) is a simple conjunction. "OirB$i SECT. LVII.] THE INTERKOGATIVE PARTICLES. 641 3. Ie negative questions (a) Ov is commonly used where an affirmative answer is expected/ for nonne ; as in Mt. vii. 22, ov tcS aa> ovofiari, irpo- €(f>7]T€V(Ta/xev ; have we not ? xiii. 27, L. xii. 6, xvii 17, Ja. IL 5, H. iii, 16, 1 C. ix. 1, xiv. 23. Sometimes also where the speaker himself regards the thing as denied, with an expression of in- dignation and reproach, as in A. xiii. 10, ov iravarj Siaarpeclxou Ta<; oSoi"? Kvpiov ra^ evdt:La9 Kpdcrao^, ^o)v S' oi^AovKovWo';, Xiycov Be mKarcov; (Don. p. 561, Jelf 413). Similarly in L. xvii. 18, Mk. xiv. 60. OvK apa, A. xxi. 38, means non igitur ; thou art not then (according to my conjecture, which I now see to be denied) etc.: see Klotz, Devar. II. 186. Nonne, the rendering of the Vulgate, would probably, in combination with yet, be ap' ov or ovKovv. see Herm. Vig. p. ,795, 824. Q)) Mrj (fiijri.^) is used where a negative answer is presup- posed or expected, surely not ? (Franke l. c. p. 18).* Jo. vii. 31, fi,T) irXeiova arjfieia tronjcret. ; he will surely not do more mira- cles ? (this is not conceivable) : Jo. xxi. 5, Rom. iii. 5 (where Philippi is incorrect), ix. 20, xi. 1. Mt. vii. 16, Mk. iv. 21, A. x. 47, al. The two negatives are found together in L. vi. 39, and the above-mentioned distinction is observed : fi-qrc hvvarai rv- \o<; Tv give the force of t/ by the German etwa (possibly, perchance).] ♦ On the Latin num see Hand, TiirselL p. 320. 41 642 THE INTERROGA.TIVE PARTICLES, [PART III. contested by Franke I. c. and others : in some passages of the N.T., however, this view has been taken — see Liicke, Joh. I. 602, and compare Fritz. Matt. p. 432. But in evppy case the speaker frames his question for a negative reply, and would not be sur- prised if such were returned: Jo iv. 33^ surely no one has hrought him anything to cat I (I cannot believe thnt, especially here in Samaria !) : Jo. viii. 2 2, he surd// ivill not kill himself, will he ? (we cannot believe that of him) Compare Mt. xii 23, Jo. iv. 29, vii. 26, 35. Here and there, indeed, there exists a disposition to believe that which is expiessed in the question; but the speaker, in giving the question a negative cast, at all events assumes the appearance of desiring a negative reply.^ — In Ja. iii. 14, also, el ^fjXov rrtKpov e^ere . . . /i?) KaraKav^daOe Kal y^evhecrOe Kara rrjs- dXijOeca';, some have taken fnj for nonne, but incorrectly : the sentence is categorical, — do not boast (of Christian wisdom, ver. 13) against the truth. When fXT) ov appears in a question, ov belongs to the verb of the sentence, and /x.77 alone expresses tlie interrogation : Kom. X. 18, fir) ovK rjKovaav ; they have surely not been loithoiit hear- ing, have they? Eom. x. 19, 1 C. ix. 4, 5, xi. 22 (Jud. vi. 13, xiv. 3, Jer, viii. 4, Xen. Mem. 4. 2. 12_, Plat. 3feno p. 89 c, Lys, 213 d. Acta Apocr. p. 79). On the other band ov firj is merely a strengthened form of the simple negation, and is as admissible in a question as in any other sentence : Jo. xviii. 11, ou jxt] ttIo) avTo ; should I not drink it? Arrian, Epict. 3. 22. 33. See § 56. 3. In A. vii. 42 sq. (a tjiiotation from Amos), [xt] acftdyia koI Ov- a-La's TT/yosTyve'y/caTC fiOL trt} Teao-apaKovra iv rrj ipijfjiu) ; ye SV.rtly have not (can ye have) offered to me .... m the mkhuness ? the speaker proceeds with koI dveXafSere, because the meaning Avhich the ques- tion conveys is, Ve have offered to me no sacrifices during forty years, and have (even) etc. A different explanation is given by Fritzsche {Mark, p. 66), for a refutation of which see Meyer in Ivc ' [This observation, which accords with J.'ir87-3. 4. Obs. 2, Knhiier II. ^i^li (t'd. 2), certainly seems to remove every diflicully. St'e also Don. [>. .509, riost p. 7.50, A. Buttm. p. 214, Meyer on Jo. iv. 29, Thi^luck on Rotii. iii 5. In tht; last-mentioned passa^'e Philippi is bojd enough to [iropose tlie rPndeiing " Js not God unrighteous etc. ?" but even those who speak, of an alTirmative answer as .soinctiuie.s expected (Hermann, Knigeii ventiirt: on no otlier Lruiislation than that given above, nureht not? Compare huwi'ver Green p. 198 scjq. — On the alleged use of (the indirect interrogative) tl for si ^17 in 1 C. vii. ]d, see the notes of Meyer and Alford m loc] SECT. LVII.] THE INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. 643 The original passage in Amos has not as yet been properly ex- plained. Perhaps the prophet follows a tradition different from that contained in the Pentateuch.^ On L. xviii. 7 see above, p. 620. In Mt. vii, 9 [Bee], rts irmy i$ vfjiC)!/ avOpoiiro'S, ov eav al- rr]]Kovyi/3a«x«».] SECT. LVIII.] THE SENTENCE AND ITS ELEMENTS, IN GENERAL. 647 With Greek authors also the rule is to use the plural when animate objects are spoken of. Conipai-e Xen. Cyr. 2. 3. 9, ra Cjciia iTrtaravrai' Plat. Lack. 180 e. tu /MtipaKca i7ri/j,efivr]VTac' Thuc. 1. 58. 4. 88, 7. 57, Eur. Bucch. 6 77 sq., Anian, Alex. 3. 28. 11, 5. 17. 12: see Herm, Vij. p. 739. The construction of neuters with a plural verb is found in Greek prose generally more frequently than is usually supposed, though certainly there is great variation in the MSS.^ It is by later writers, however, that it is mainly used, and that without any discrimination of njeaning : see Agath. 4. 5, 9. 15, 26. 9, 28. 1, 32. 6, 39. 10, 42. 6, aL, Thilo, Apocr. I. 182, Boisson. Fsell. p. 257 sq., Dressel, Index to Epiphan. Monach. p. 136. Jacobs's proposal- to correct all such passages, substituting the singular for the plural, he him- self seems subsequently to have retracted ; ^ where however MSS. have the singular, we isliould perhaps'(\vith Boisson. Eunap. p. 420, 601) give it the preference in the better writers. What has been said respecting the singular predicate after neuter nouns applies to the verbal form only. If the predicate con.sists of ctmi or yiv€crOaL with an adjective, the latter stands in the plural, even though the verb may be singular : G. v. 19, (f>avepd iaTLvra ipya T^s aapKOs- 1 C xiv. 26, TO Kpuirra t^s xapStas avrov ff>av€pa yiverai. 4 (b) Collectives which denote living beings have the pre- dicate in the plural : Mt. xxi. 8, 6 ttXpIctto^; ox^ov&iov(r6e Kara rov irepov. On the Other hand, in A. ii. 3 i iva eKaarov rxvriuv indicates the singular sub* ject of iKaOLcrev., — for iKuOicrav is an obvious correction, to bring the verb into conformity with uxftOqaav. Other examples of a tran- sition from the plural to the singular of the verb are collected by Heindorf, Plat. Protag. p. 499, and Jacobs, -^1. Ajiim. II. 100. The gender only of the predicate is affected by the collectives m L. X. 13, et ev ^vpw KoX StSwi't iy^vijOrja-av ai Suva/xeis • . . ■TrdXai &v iv o-aKKO) Kad-Qfxevoi (the inhabitants) /terevoT/crav. Rem. 1. L. ix. 28, iyivero . . . ti)S€i rjfxipcu oktw, has by some been considered an example of the Schema Pindaricum,^ in which a singular verb is joined with a plural subject (masculine or feminine), the verh preceding the subject : here however cyevcro is to ^ See Reitz, Lvcian, VI. 583 (Lehm.), Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 446, Kriiger, Dion. H. p. 234, Poppo, Thuc. III. i. 529 so., Ellendt, Arr. Alex. I. 105. 2 Wesseling, Diod. Sic. II. 105, Brunck, AJistoph. Plut. 784, Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 622 (Don. p. 372, Jelf 478). » Matth. 303, Herm. Soph. Trach. p. 86 (Don. p. 399, Jelf 386. 1). [In Rev, ix. 12 we must now read ifxt'^'ii eV* Si/'o oval. See A. Buttm. p. 126.1 SECT. LVIU.] THE SENTENCE AND ITS ELEMENTS, IN GENERAL. 649 be taken by itself, and the note of time wgei -^/xipai oktw.is a struc- tureless clause introduced parenthetically (see § 62. 2). Fke versa, in L. ix, 13 cto-iV must not be taken with TrAetov; the latter word is parenthetical and without construction (compare Xen. An. 1. 2. 11), and elcrtv belongs to aprot. That there is no disturbance of the construction "^hen the impe- rative dye, which is almost a mere interjection, is found in conjunc- tion with a plural subject, is obvious : Ja. iv. 13, aye vvv ol Acyovrcs- V. 1, dye vvv ot ttAovctioi. This usage is common in Greek prose e. g., Xen. Cyr. 4. 2. 47, 5. 3. 4, Jpol. 14 i^ the Latin age is similar (Hand, Tiirsell. I. 205). The same construction is found with epe (Himer. Oral. 17. 6). Rem. 2. A word may here be said on the use of a plural verb or pronoun by a single speaker- in reference to himself (Glass I. 320 sqq.). Th6 communicative meaning is still manifest in Mk. IV. 30, TTois ofjiOKiiaoifiev Trjv /Saa-iXeLav tov 6eov */ ev TtVi avrrjV irapaftoXrj BSifxev; Jo. iiL 11. The plural occurs much more fre-* quently in the Epistles (as among the Romans saripsimus, misimus), where the writer is speaking of himself as apostle : Rom. i. 5 (com- pare ver. .6),2 Col iv. 3 (immediately followed by SeSefiai^), H. xiii. 18 (comp. ver. 19), G. i. 8. From such passages we must dis- tinguish those in which the writer really includes others with himself, though it will be difficult in detail to determine when this is the case, and to what persons he is referring ; in any case the question is not one which grammar can decide. In E. i. 3 sqq. and 1 C. iv. 9, however, we have without duubt true plurals. On Jo. xxi. 24 see Meyer." (Jelf 390. 1.) In 1 C. XV. 31, with the reading kuS' rjjj-epav aTroOvrjo-KU), vrj rrjv ■fiiMerepav Kavxrjcnv, ^v e;)(w, we should have singular and plural com- bined ; but ifxerepav is certainly the preferable reading. 5. We cannot say that there is any grammatical discordance between predicate and subject in such sentences as Mt. vi. 34, apKerov rr} rjfiepa r) KaKia avTr) toiovto) rj iTTiTifMia avTTj. Here the neuter is used as a substantive, a sufficiency for such a man as this ; like Virg. Eel. 3. 80, triste lupus stabulis, a sad thing for stalls.^ For examples in Greek ■writers see Her. 3. 36, ao(f)ov rj Trpo/xTjOiT)- Xen. Hier. 6. 9, o ^ Compare Alberti, Observ. on Ja. iv. 13, Palairet, Observ. p. 502 sq., Wet- stein II. 676, Boraem. Xen. Apol. p. 52 (Jelf 890. 2). [Compare "Se, vvv iiKou- trxTi, Mt. xxvi. 65 (A. Buttm. p. 70).] * Van Hengel takes a different view, Rom. p. 52. ' [Does not this singular really tell the other -way ? See Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Eadie, on this passage and on Col. i. 3. See also 'Delitzsch and Alford on H. xiii. 18 ; Lightfoot on G. i. 8, Col. iv. 3 ; Gifford on Rom. L 5.] * [See Westcott's note in loc, and his Introd. p. xxxv.] * Ast, riat. Polit. p. 413, Herm. Vig. p. 699. 650 THE SENTENCE AND ITS ELEMENTS, IN GENERAL. [PART IIL TToXefto? f^o^epov Diog. L. 1. 98, koXov r]crv^La' Xen. Mem. 2. 3. 1, Plat. Lcgff. 4. 707 a, Plut. Pmdagog. 4. 3, Liician, Pldlops. 7, Isocr. Demon, p. 8, Plat. Conviv. p. 176 d, Aiistot. Iihet. 2. 2. 46, Eih. Nic. 8. 1. 3, Lucian, Fug. 13, Plut. Mul. Virt. p. 225 (Tauchn.), ^lian, Anim. 2. 10, Dio Chr. 40. 494, Sext. Emp. Math. 11. 96. Compare KUhner, Gr. II. 45' (Don. p. 398, Jelf 381). In Latin compare Ovid, Amor. 1. 9. 4, Cic. Off. 1. 4, Famil. 6. 21, Virg. Eel. 3. 82, ^n. 4. 569, Stat. Theh. 2. 399, Vechner, Helhnol. p. 247 sqq. — On the rhetorical emphasis which occasionally attaches itself to this use of the neuter, see Dissen, Demosth. Cor. p. 396. Of a different kmd, but also deserving of notice, is 1 P. il 19, rovTO yap x^pi^ Coraparc tovto ecrnv avdfjLVTjfris, Demosth,, and Schsefer in loc. {Appar V. 289), Hermann, Luc. Consn: Hist. p. 305. 6. If the subject or the predicate ' or both be complex (Matth. 299, Dun. p. 400, Jelf 391 sqq.). the grammatical form of the predicate will be determined by the following rules : — a. If the subject consist of words of the 1 and 3 person, the verb will stand in the 1 person plural: Jo x. 80, i'yio koI 6 Trarrjp '4i> dcrfxev 1 C. ix. 6, 17 fiovo^ ey(lt) koi. BapvafSm ovk exoju-ev i^oualap k.t.X. (1 C. XV. 1 1), Mt. ix. 14, L. ii. 48 (Eurip. Med. 1020). Only in G. i. 8 we find ^av ijpeh rj ayyeXo^ e^ ovpavov evayyeXi^-qrai, the latter being regarded as the more exalted subject ^ (Isseus 11. 10). When to the 2 person there is joined a word of the 3 peison, the former receives the preference as the more important, and the verb {placed Jirsi) stands in the 2 person: A. xvi. 31, ao)6r)(Tr} av koI 6 oIko^ gov xi. 14. b. When the various singular subjects are of the 3 person, or are not names of persons, (a) If the predicate follows, it regularly stands in the plural : A. iii. 1, n€rpo<; koI 'Iu>dvvr} ^laKUi^o'i KOL ^Iwdvvr}<;' Jo. xxL 2. Hence with Kai . . . Kal or re , . . Kai\ L. xxiii. 12, i'yevovro <^i\oi 'o re JltXaTo? kuI 'HpwZrj^ (A. i, 13, iv. 27, v. 24, viii. 5 ^), Tit. i. 15, /xejxLavrai^ avToiV Koi u vovdycofi€v rj TCTrlw/uiev rj rl trepLJSaXdo^eda ; L. xviii. 29, o? d(f>rJKev otKiav rj yvvaiKa rj dhe\.(f)Ov See Fritz. Bom. II. 553. Where such a series of words is introduced by to?, this word is brought in once only, at the beginning. In 1 P. iv. 15, however, by the repetition of 0)9 before dWorpLoeirlaKO'Tro^ this predicate is separated from those which precede, and stands out as distinct. It is not uncommon to find the copulative particle thus repeated before every word in a whole series (jpolysyndeton). Sometimes this is a mere reflexion of the Hebrew mode of expression (Ewald, * Compare Person, Eurip. Hec. p. 12 (Lips.), Schsef. Melet. ^. 24, Schoem. lecEus p. 295. 2 See Jacobs, Philostr. p. 377 (Jelf 478). 3 Matthise, Eurip. Hec. 84, Sprachl. 304. Rem. 3. [Nearly the same view is taken by Jelf 393. 3. 8.] * Matthiae, Eur. Iph. A. 875, Weber, Dem. p. 261, Fritz. Marh,Tp. 70, 420. * [The three genitives being taken as co-ordinate. — In Eom. xii. 2, al., the single article rendera the repetition of ««/ necessar>'.] SECT. LVIII.] THE SENTENCE AND ITS ELEMENTS, IN GENERAL. 653 Kr. Gr. p. 650); as in Mt, xxiii. 23, Rev. xvii. 15, xviii. 12, xxi. 8. Sometimes, however, the repetition seems intention- ally adopted, securing to each particular notion its proper foice. See Rom. vii. 12, 77 ivroXi] djia kuI BiKaia koI ayaO')]' i>i . 4, MV T} vloOecla kul r) So^a Koi at. BtadrjKai koI rj vo/xodecria Koi ri Xarpeia kol al iTrayyeXiai' L. xiv. 21, rovf Trrcop^ou? kuI avaTrrjpov^; koX rv(f)\ovr]iJ,oc, k.t.X., 1 C. iii. 12, €7roiKoSo/j,€t cVt rov 6fp,e\i,ov ^pvaov, dpyvpov, Xi- 6ov^ Tifiiovf, ^vXa, 'x^oprov, KaXdfirjv 1 P. iv. 3, H. xi. 37, 1 Tim. i. 10, iv. 13, 15 (Cic. Fam. 2. 5, Attic. 13. 13), Rom. i. 29 sqq., ii. 19, Ph. iii. 5, Jo. v. 3, 1 C. xiii. 4-8, xiv. 26, [Tit.] ii. 4 sq., Ja. V. 6, 1 P. ii. 9, Mt. xv. 19. (Col. iii. 11 is peculiar.) Similarly in Demosth. Phil. 4. p. 54 a, Pantc&n. p. 626 a, Plat. Gorg, p. 503 e, 517 d, Rep. 10. p. 598 c, Lycurg. 36. 2, Lucian, Dial, Mort. 26. 2, Heliod. 1. 5. {h) In contrasts and antitheses, w^hich thus obtain greater • prominence: 2 Tim. iv. 2, eTriar'qdi evKaipwi aKdlpw^i (like nolens volcns, honesta turpia, digni indigni, dva> Karco, Aristoph. Bom. 157, dvBpwv yuvaiKMv"^, 1 C.iii. 2, ydXa v/j,dopr]T6^- Xen. Bep. Ath. 1. 2, Rem. When several substantives, either in the subject or in 1 [An example of asyndeton. — For A. i. 26 (line 10) read A. i. 1.3.] 2 Beier, Cic. Off. I. 135, Kritz, Sail. I. 55, II. 323. 3 [Defending »«/ in Mk. i. 22, Fritzscbe says : Oytime enini comparata est copula 111 tali loco, ubi expouitm- de rebus diversis potius, quam plane oppositis. ] 654 THE SE^rTENCE AND ITS ELEMENTS, IN GENERAL. [PART III. the predicate, are connected by Kai, the first sometimes denotes an individual which is iacluded in the second as its genus, e.g., Zeus- koX Oeoi. Hence konroC has been supplied with the second word ; but this mode of expression is adopted for the sake of giving promi uence to one individual out of the whole mass, as the principa? subject: A. v. 29, 6 11 expos koX ol d-n-ocrToXoL (Theodoret III. 223, see Schaef. Soph. II. 314, 335), i. 14, ML xvi. 7, Mt. xvi. 14 (see however Meyer in loc.^). Compare Mk. x. 41. In Greek writers this Schema /car €^oic»?v (Lob. Soph. Ajax p. 221) is an established usage. Compare Plat. Protag. p. 310 d, w Zeu Kol $eoL (Plaut. CujjL 5, 1. 1, Jovi diisque ago gratias), Iliad 19. 63, "ExTopt Koi Tpwo-i- ^schin. Timarch. p. 171 c, '^okiov €Kiivo% o TraXaios vofi69€Tr](pr)Tuy) : others had named particular prophets, this speaker says generally one of the prophets. — J have changed Mk. x. 14 into x. 41, from ed. 5 (p. 670) : the reference is to «/ Si«a (»/' Xoi-rol SUa in D).] * See Ast, Thoophr. Char. p. 120, Stallb. Tlat. Protaq. p. ^-S. [Bernh. p. 48 sq., Matlh. 4b0. 8, -Jelf 899. f., Kiddell, Plat. Apol p. 215.J SECT, LVHI.] THE SENTENCE AND ITS ELEMENTS, IN GENERAL. 655 (a) When the verb is of the 1 or 2 person, the subject is commonly left unexpressed (being thought of as present, INIadvig- 6 a) j Jo. xix. 22, yeypacpa, 'ykypa(^a- Eom. viii. 15, ovk i\d- ^ere trvevixa SovXeiaf. Indeed the pronouns iyco, av, ac.t.X., are only inserted when emphasis is designed (§ 22. 6). If the name of the subject is appended to the pronoun of the 1 or 2 person, this is a case of apposition : G. v. 2, eyco IlavXo^ Xiyw vfilu (E iii. 1, Rom. xvi. 22, 2 C. x. 1, Phil. 19, Rev. i. 9, xxii. 8, al), G. ii. 1 5 ' J7/Aet? (f>v(ret ^lovhaloi . . . et? Xpicrrov ^Irjaovv eTricnev- nauti' (2 C. iv. 11), L. xi. 39. (A) In the 3 persoi (impersonally) : viz. — (a) The 3 plural active, where merely the general (acting) subjects are intended, (Mad vig G b). See Mt. vii. 16, firjri, cxuWeyovcrtv oLtto aKavBwv aTa(f)v\y]u ; surely they (people) do not yaiher ? surely one does not gather ? Jo. xv. 6, xx. 2, Mk. x. 13, A. iii. 2, L. xvii. 23, Rev. xii. 6.^ (/3) The 3 singular active, where there is before the mind no definite subject (Madv. 7 a) of which the verb is predicated, and where merely the existence of the action or state implied in the verb is indicated.^ Thus vet, ^povra (in Jo. xii. 29, ^povrrj yiv€Tai), it rains, etc. (like our es Idutet) ; 1 C. xv. 52, aaXiriaet, 'it ivill sound, one rvill sound, the trumpet ; also 2 C. x. 10, at tVto-ToXai, (f>t]ai, ^apeiai, it is said (Wisd. xv. 12*). Yet in the concrete conception of the Greeks these expressions may have been elliptical in the first instance: vei, (ipovTa Zev, not (ptiff'u] ' * So Liicke. [The same view is taken by Bengel, A. Bnttmann (p. "133) and others : De "Wette, Briickner, Diisterdieck, Huther, Alford supply o xItuv. In regard to H. x. 38, A. Buttm. (p. \o^) agrees with Winer : in support of the more obvious interpretation, which takes o llxaioi as the subject of v-nxrTukvTuu, see Bleek, Delitzsch, Liinemann, Kurtz, Alford in loc— On. the subject of this paragraph' see further § 64. 3, 67. 1.] SECT. LIX.] ENLARGEMENT OF THE SIMPLE SENTENCE. 657 Section LIX. ENLARGEMENT OF THE SIMPLE SENTENCE IN THE SUBJECT AND PREDICATE : ATTRIBUTIVES : APPOSITION. 1. The subject and predicate of a sentence may be enlarged in a great variety of ways by adjuncts, — in the first place by attributive adjuncts, most commonly by adjectives (see no, 2). Personal nouns, in paiticular, denoting office, character, etc., receive with buc sTioht extension of meaning the general per- sonal attributes iu the substantives dvdpcoiro';, avi)p, f^vvrf, etc. (Matth. 430. 6, Jelf 430, Don. p. 368). See Mt. xviu. 23, oyiMOKodrj . . . dv6p(07r(p jSaa-iXet xiii. 45, XX. X, xxi. 33 (Iliad 16. 203, avdpwTTo^ 6BiTrj^- Xen. C'l/r. 8. 7. 14. Plat. Go7'g. 518 c), A. iii. 14, rjTrjo-acrde avhpa •bovea -^apccrdrjvat vpuv i. 16, L. xxiv. 19 (Plat. Ion p. 540 d, avrjp a-TparTjyor Time. 1. 74, Palieph. 28. 2, avrjp aXteu9- 38. 2, Plat. £ep. 10. 620 b, Xen. Hi. 11.1 *). In 1 C. ix. 5, however, ywalKa is to be taken predicatively ; nor must we bring in here passages in which the attributive is properly an adjective, as A. i. 1 1, xvii. 12, xxi. 9 (N"ep. 25. 9), Jo. iv. 9. In the address avBpe'i 'lapavklrac (A ii. 22), auSpef AdrjvaLot (xvii. 22, xix. 35), the emphasis rests on dvSpe^; the address thus becomes expressive of respect (compare Xen. An, 3. 2. 2). Similar forms are of frequent occurrence in the Greek orators. 2. Adjectives (ana participles) which are joined attributively as complements to subsiautives are, as a rule, placed after their nouns (Jelf 901), since tlie ol)ject itself is presented to the mind before its predicate; e.g., L. ix. 37, avpijuTija-ev uvtm 6x>^o^ TToXv^ Rev, xvi. 2, iyeveTO eA.«o? kukov Kal irovrjpov Mt. iii. 4, Jo. ii. 6, 2 Tim, iv. 7 [_Rcc.'\, rov dywva rov KaXov r/ycovtafiai,' L. V. 36 sqq.. Ph. iv. 1, Rev. vi. 12, 13. When, however, the attributive is to be brought into prominence in direct or indirect antithesis, it is placed before the substantive ;^ this is of especially 1 See Fischer, Ind ad PaUeph. s. v. , Vechner, Hellenol. p. 188. As to Hebrew, see my Simonis p. i4. [Gcsen. Hehr. Gr. p. 188, Kalisch, Hehr. Or. I. 265.] * [These observations appear to require modification before they are applied to the case of an adjective joined to a noun lohich has the article. In o xaxis kyuyi tlie attributive stands out ies.s prominently than in « kyut » xaAos (p. 165), as in this latter arrangement of the words the mind is, so to speak, forced to receive separately the two moments of thought. Hence we should perhaps say that the adjective is-alniQst always ^see Green p. 33)— emphatic when postfixed 42 658 ENLARGEMENT OF THE SIMPLE SENTENCE. [PART III. frequent occurrence in the didactic style. Mt. xiii. 24, Mfiouiodi] 7} /3acriX.eia tmv ovpavwv avO pcoirtp aireipavTi koKov cnrepfia (ver. 25, eaTreipev ^i^dvia) ; L. viii. 15, to (irecrbp) iv rfj xaXfj yfj (ver. 12, 13, 14) ; Jo. ii. 10, irpSiTOV rov koKqv oXvov rWrjcriv, koI orav fxeOvadcocnv, rore top ekda-aco (Eom. i. 23, xiii. 3, Mk. i. 45, Mt. xii. 35) ; 1 C. v. 6, otl puKpa ^vfxr) o\ov to ^vpap,a ^vpol (J a. iii. 5) ; 1 R.iv. 10, GKaaro^ Ka6a)d\iou, aaxppova, Kocrpaov, k.tX., Tit. i. 6, ii. 4 sq., Ph. ii. 2, Rev. v. 1, Job i. 8 (see § 58. 7), — perhaps rising into a clima.K, L. vi. 38 (Matth. 444, Don. p. 386, Jelf 792. m) ;— or one of the attribu- tives stands in a closer relation to the substantive, forming with it (as it were) a single notion. To the latter class belong 1 1', i. 18> iK T?}? ixaraia^ v/xcjv avacnpo(py)<; TrarpovapaSoTOV Jo. xiL 3, fivpov vapBov TriaTCKfj'i TrdXvTifiov (where vdpho<; TriariK^ indicates commercially, so to speak, a particular kind of nard, "which is then declared to be •rro\vTifiopu re koX dvaiai 7rpo'i(f)6povTat firj BvvufMevai /e.r.A,., iii. 6 v.L,iav rijv Trapprjcriav koI to Kavj^pa fi^XP'' '^'c/Voln' ^e/Scuav Karda-x(o/M€V Eev. viii. 7. Compare Iliad 2. 1 3 6 sq., at rjiMerepai T aXoyoi Kai vrjiria reKva e'lar ivl /leydpoi^ TroriBiyfMevar Thuc. 8. 6.3, TTvdofievo^ . . . kol tov HtpopJSi^lStjv Kal ra yvvaiKa irepiuyeiw Pom. iii. 25, hv irpoeOero 6 deo'i iXaa-rr/piou; Ja. V. 1 0, vTToBeiypa kd^ere . . . tol'9 iTpo<^r)ra? irarepa. On the predicate placed first, see § 61. (Don. p. 500, 528, Jelf 375.) The predicate is soraetimes an adjective, as in H. vii. 24, aTrapa- /5aTw Ix^L TTjv Upoxrvvrjv Mk. viii. 17, H. v. 14, 1 C. xii. 12, Mt. xii. 13, dTr€KaT€crTdOrj {rj x^lp) vyirjv A. xiv. 10, xxvii. 43, xxviii. 13, Eom. X. 19, 1 C. iv. 9, ix. 17, Mk. iv. 28 ;— or a pronoun, Rom. ix. 24, of'? (ct-kcvt; cAeov?) Kal iKaXccrev r)/xa ^lophdvT) TTorafjua)' H. xii. 22, 7rpo<;eXT)\v9aTe ^i(ov opec A. X. 32, oiKia ^IfjiOiuof ^vpoix€vov^ as an apposition to rows oAi'yws u7ro<^cijyoi'Tas, but as an accusative governed by aTroc^cvyovras. We also have an example of apposition in Mk. viii. 8, ^pav TTcpicrcreu/xaTa KXao-y:xara>v CTrra o-TrvpiSa?, (hey took up leavings, S&veil baskets. In Mt. xvi, 13, with the reading rtva p.e Xeyovaiv oi dv- OpwTToi civat, Tov viov Tov dvOpMTTov ; the last words are in apposition : see Bornemann Luc. p. lit To reject fxi — as Fritzsche, Lachmann, and others do — on the authority of Codex B ^ (for here the versions cannot count) seems to me hazardous. The word p.( may be cumbrous, but I cannot think it inappropriate : fFho say the people that I, the Son of man, am ? He had always de- signated himself Son of man, and now would hear what concep- tion the people form of him as Son of man. On other passages in which the Dutch critics, in particular, have taken offence at such appositions, and rashly altered the text, see Bornemann's disserta- tion de Glossematis iV. T. {cap. 5). prefixed to his Scholia in Lucce Evangelium. Under the head of apposition must be brought the well-known use of oAXos before a substantive — not found in Homer only, e. g., Odyss. 2. 412, iJ-rjTijp S' c/aoI ovtl Trinva-Tai ovS" dXXai Sjxwai, nor others {namely) maids, Odyss. 1. 132 (compare Thiersch, Gr. p. 588), — but also in prose writers. See e. g. Plat. Gorg. 473 c, cuSat/xovt^o/xevos viro r(t)v TToAiTwv KOL Twv oAAcov $ivo)v, ttud the others {namely) foreigners ; Xen. An. 5. 4. 25, ol TroXip-ioi Ofiov Srj Travrcs ytvofxcvot Ifid^ovTO KoX i^KOVTl^OV TOIS TTaXTOtS" KOL aXAtt SopttTtt €;(OVT€S' 1. 5. 5.* ^ An apposition is joined to the personal pronoun included in the verb : 1 P. V. 1, -rapaKaXu (iyai) i irvf^'jrfiaftu'rtoix *«/ fjuocfrvi x.r.K. Compare Lucian, D. Deor. 24. 2, Thuc. 1. 137, Xen. Hell. 2. 3. 42. To this head may also be referred "I C. vi. 11, TavTci Tins riri (vfiui, Tins, ye, that is, some). [Tau^a is no doubt a misprint for rauri : .see § 23. .5, 58. 3. note.] * Lob. Soph. Jj. p. 74, Krii^. p. 133, Rost p. 483. [Don. p. 372, Jelf 467. 4 : as to Latin, see Madvig 297 a, Don. p. 274.] ^ [Now supported by X. Me is rejected by Tischendorf, Tregelles (see his note), Alford, Westcott and Hort ; bracketed by Lachmann ; defended by Meyer and Bleek. But why cannot versions count here ?] * Compare Elrasley, Eurip. Med. p. 128 sq. (Lips.), Jacobs, Athen. p. 22 sq., SECT. LIX.] ATTEIBUTIVES : APPOSITION. 665 It is not likely that Jo. xiv. 16, kol aXXov irapaKX-qrov Smau vfuv, is an example of this kind ; but the analogous word hepos is pro- bably so used in L. xxiii. 32, rjyovTo 8e kol Ircpot Bvo KaKovp- yoL crvv airo) dvaLpiOrjvai, where the words have the appearance of giving the name /caKoOpyos to Jesus. Compare L. x. 1, dvi8ei$€v u Kvpio'i Koi e repot' 9 i^SofjajKovra 8vo. See Thuc. 4. 67, Antiph. 6. 24. We have brevity of expression [p. 774] combined with apposi- tion in 2 C. vi. 13, ttjv avrrjv avTi/jLLcrOiav ■rrX.arvvdrjTe Kal {ijuct?, (for TO avTo, o icTTLv avTi/xLcrOLa) : see Fritzsche, Dissert, in 2 Cor. II. 113 sqq. An epexegetic apposition may be introduced by tovt' ?o-tiv : Eom. Vll. 18, cv i/JLol TOVT ecTTtv ev Ty aapKi fxov A. xix. 4, Mk. vii. 2, H. ix. 11, xi 16, xiii. 15, 1 P.' iii. 20, Phil. 12. In E. v. 23 an apposition is annexed by means of avro's, and thus brought into prominence : ws kui o XptaTos Kfa\i] 7^9 iKKXrjcrLa^, oltos crwTrjp toi" cru)/u.aTOS. The apposition is brought into the construction of a relative clause, in 1 Jo. ii. 25, avT-q icrrlv rj iirayyeXia, rjv avros eTrqyysLXaTO rj/jiii' rrjv ^oiTjv Ti]v alwviov; probably also in Ph. iii. 18 and 2 C. x. 13 (see Meyer vn loc). Compare Plat. Ph^d. 66 c, roTe . . . rjpAv eo-rai ov iTridv fjLOVfj.€v . . . (f>povrja€(jj<7et avra> ^coriv, toU dfiapTavovaiv firj '7rpo<; ddvarov:' Kriiger, Dion. p. 139, Poppo, Cyrop. p. 186, Yolc. Fritzsche, Qucpi^t. Lucian, p. 54 sq., Zell, Aristot. J<:thic. p. 62. [Jelf714. Obs. 2, Shilleto, Dem. F. L. p. ^i, Paley, Enrip. I. 92, Sandy.s, Isocr. p. 40, Liddell and Scott s. v.] •[Jelf 824. II. 4, Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 192.] * Bornemaun's expianation (Bibl. Studie.n der sacks. Oeistl. I. 71), which refers avTa! to him who prays, and takes Taii afioLfTiiyeurir as a dativus commodi (he trill give lutn life for those *'tc.), seems to me forced. .\itTu cannot well be referred to the aitXipe; afixprdyuv a/iaprsat fih -rfc; ^avaT«», for here aiTi7)i mani- festly denotes intercession. [The last part of this note is not clear ; for as 666 ENLARGEMENT OF THE SIMPLE SENTENCE. [PART III. compare 1 K. xii. 10, Xen. Mem. 2. 3. 2, Hi. 3. 4. Compare Vig. p. 41. Still more heterogeneous is the apposition in Col. iii. 5, veKpcoaaTe ra fiiXi] . . . iropveCav, aKadapaiav, k.t.X., where the members and the vices of which they are the media — the instruments and the products — are placed side by side : see Matth. 433. Rem. 3. There are, however, — apart from such instances as 1 C. xvi. 21, quoted above [t^ ep,y xei^pl TlavXov], — exceptions to the rule that words in apposition agree in case : — (a) An apposition is placed in dependence upon its noun, and joined to it in the genitive (Bengel on Jo. ii. 21) : this is a very common grammatical arrangement. See 2 P. ii. 6, -TroXa? ^otofjuwv Kal Toix6ppa<; (Od)jss. 1. 2, Thuc. 4. 46,^ — as in Latin ta^bs Jiomce, Jluvien Mheni) ; L. x:xii. 1, 7; eoprr) tmu a^vficov (2 Mace. vi. 7, ALovva-icoiJ kopTrj), ii. 41, Jo, xiii. 1 ; 2 C. v. 5, Tov appa^oiva tov irvevp.aro'i, the pledge of (consisting of) the Sjnrif, the Spirit as pledge (E. i. 1 4) ; Rom. i V; 1 1, arj/xelov eXa^e 'TTeptTOfirjt; (for which some authorities have the emendation TrepiTOfjbijv) ; Jo. ii. 21,xi. 13, A. ii. 33, iv. 22, Rom. viii. 21, xv, 16, 1 C. V 8, 2 C. V. 1, E. ii. 14, vi. 14, 16 sq., Col. iii. 24, H. vi. 1 , xii. 1 1, Ja. i. 12, 1 P. iii. 3, al. Under this head will also " come E. iv. 9, /care/S?; et? ra Karoyrepa {fj-epr}) ri]^ 7^? C^^'^'!"!'. P>fn), to the lower jmrts, namely, (to) tJie earth, or, to the lower parts which tljc earth constitutes.'^ A similar example is Is' xxxviii. 14, etV to ii-\lro[., &h. tt'd. R. 602, Monk, Eurip. Ale. 7, Matth. Euiip. Phom. 'ltd, Sjrrachl 432. 5,' Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 228. - Waniiowski, Synkia-. Anom. p. 47sqq., 197 s-rj. ^ Compare also Lob. Paralip. p. 519. [liiddell. Plat. Apol, p. 114 sqq.] •• [See Meyrick's note, Speak. Comm. 111. 548 sq.] * [See Aliord and Stanley : also Plunijitre, N. T. for Eng. Readers, II, 373.] G70 ENLARGEMENT OV THE SIMPLE SENTENCE. [PART UF. for the sake of emphasis: 1 C. v. 7, to iraa-ya r)(j.o}v v-nlp r'jfjtcuv ervdrj, Xpiaror Rom. viii. 28, 2 C. vii. 6*^ H. vii..4 (Stallb. Plat, Euthyd. p. 144, Weber, Dem. p. 152); J a. i. 7 sq., /i^; oUadoi 6 dvdpcoTroo^, on XijyfreraC rt -Trapa tov Kvp'iov, avrjp Si-yjrv-^o'i, aKaTaaTaro^ k.t.\., — whore we should say, Ae, a doithle-minded man etc. Rom. vii. 21 does not come in here;' on 2 C. xi. 2 see Meyer (agaifLSt Fritzsche). Ii is easy to see why the apposition precedes in 1 P. iii. 7, ol auSpe^ o-vvoiKovvret , . . . &)? daOeveiTTepoi cr/ceuei ru> yvuaiKeup. But such a passage as Tit. i. 3, kut ifnrayrjv rov cro>rr]po<; t'lfiojv 6eov,is of a different kind. Here the predicate (roarrjp r)fi(ov is the principal noun, which however is explained epexegetically (since in other pas- sages Christ receives this name) by the apposition deo'i. So also in Rom. iv. 12, 1 Tim. ii, 3, 2 Tim. i. 10, A. xxiv. 1, 1 P. iii. 15, V. 8, 2 P. i. 11, ii. 20 (iii. 7), Rev. ix. 11, Jo. vi; 27, L. ii. 1. Jude 4, H. ii. 9. Compare J^";,schin. Ep. G. jj. 124 b. Pans. 1. 10. 5, Alciphr. 3. 41, Diod. 8. Exc. Vat. p. 60. Such examples are common in Latin: Cic. Orat. 1. 18,Liv, 1. 14, 10. 35, 27. l,Ca3S. Bell. G. 4. 1. 10, Afr. 98, Suet. Tib. 2, Galb. A, Otho 1, Nep. 20. 1, 22. 3. Under this head come aiao adjectives or substantives which stand at the head of a sentence, aL>d — corresponding to the ej^exe- getic apposition — announce the purport of the sentence (K?-ug. p. 246 sq, Madv. 197,. Jelf. 580. 4): as H.- viii. 1, K€d\aiov in^ Toi? Afyo)u.tVots ToiovTov «Y0/iei' apyxtpia (Lycurg. Otat. 17. 6), — where there ib no need to supply tVn'. Compare Rom. viii. 3, 1 P. iii. S. . 11. In conclusion, we must notice summarily the inaccu- racies (s'olecisms) m government and apposition which are found in the Apocalypse (especially in descriptions of visions), and which, from their nuniber and character, give to the diction of this book the impress of considerable harshness.^ In some in- stances these are the result of design; in others they are to be referred to negiigesir^ on the part of the writer. Considered from a Greek point of view, they may be explained as arising out of anacoluthon, the mixture of two constructious, constructid ad ^ [Winer refers to Fritzsche, who takes t« «aX5v as in apposition to tj» vPftov. In 2 0. xi. 2 Fritzsche regards tm XpKrra as an apposition to Ivi avJ/)/. ] - On tfiese — besides the well-known works of Stolberg and Schwarz (referred to above, p. 7) — see ray E.ceget. Studien p. 154 sqq. [Davidson, Introd. to N. T. III. 56") si]q., Green p. 237 sq.] What Jlitzig {Joh. Marcus: Zurich, 1843, p. 65 sqq.) has collected on the language of the Apocalypse is in the service of a Bpecial critical purpose, and too much is set down to the account of Hebrew, Liioke passas a more moderate judgment (Apokal. II. 448 sqq.), but estimates too highly the merits of the learned Hitzig in this field. SECT. LIX.] ATTRIBUnVES : APPOSITION 671 sensum, variutio siructvrce, etc. In this light they sliould al- ways have been considered, and not ascribed to the ignorance of the writer, or even regarded as Hebraisms : most of the ex- amples indeed would be faulty in Hebi^ew, as in Greek, and to many Hebrew cannot have given more than indirect occasion. But with all the simplicity and the oriental tone of his language the author knows well and observes well the rules of Greek syntax; even in the imitation of Hebrew expressions he proceeds with caution (Liicke p. 447). Moreover to many of these rough- nesses of language we find parallels in the LXX, and even in Greek writers, though not occurring in such rapid succession as in the Apocalypse. To come to details : ^ — Eev. ii. 20 should probably be construed thus: ori, ac^eU Trjv 'yvvacKo, aov 'Ie^a/3eX' rj Xeyovcra eavrtju irpocfii^riv Kol ZihdaKet Koi irXava k.t.X., who, giving herself out for a pro- phetess, teaches and seduces etc. Eev. vii. 9, elBov, kuI ISov py\oiKOfiev'r} virdp'^ei avTrj evBaifiovc 1 [In most of the examples in this paragraph the received reading is a mani- fest correction. Here and there the reading is somewhat doubtful (thus good ilSS. have ^/(ovows in iv. 4, tov S(pit/ in xx. 2) ; but in almost every instance (not including ii. 20) the reading followed by Winer may be safely accepted.] 2 In Rev. xiv. 14, eTJov, xxi /S»u vj(p£X» kivx-h ko.) It) t»i» viipiXn* *a6ri//.tyi>v efiemv u'lu xv^pu'Tou, 'ixfv it.v.x., it is probable that xa^j^fiivo* is not accusative, masculine, but neuter, for "on the cloud something like a man etc." _ In the words which follow the construction immediately passes into the n)asculine. [It is singular that AViner afterwards inserted xiv. 14 in the text, as resembling iv. 4, still allowing this note to stand. Of Rev. ix. 14 also two different explana- tions are now given in this paragraph.] 672 ENLARGEMENT Or THE SIMPLE SENTENCE. [PART HI, elvai, irX.dvrj'i . . . dTrrjXXayiievrj, ws^Trep Se Xiycrac Kara twv fiefivrjfieufov, to? aXrjdoi'^ rov Xonrov ■^povop fierd Oewv Biayovaa (for 84070^0-77). Elsewhere Xt'-yo)!/ or XeyovTe Oew, Rev. xix. 6. The conjunction tva is frequently found in good MSS. in combination with the indicative (p. 361 sq.) present : see xiii 17, xx. 3.^ Section LX CONNEXION OF SENTENCES WITH ONE ANOTHER: PERIODS.^ 1. In all continuous writing the connexion of sentences is the rule, the absence of connexion (asyndeton) the exception, There are two kinds of asyndeton, — the grammatical and the rhetorical. a. Grammatically disconnected sentences are not merely such as begin a new division or section (of some length), the commencement of which is to be rendered conspicuous by this want of connexion ; e.g., Rom. ix. 1, x. 1, xiii, 1, G. iii. 1, iv. 21 , vi. 1, E. vi. 1, 5, 10, Ph. iv. 1, 4, 1 Tim. iii. 1, 14, v. 1, vi. 1, 3, 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1, 1 P. v. 1, 2 P. iii. 1, 1 Jo. ii. 1, iv. 1 sq. They also occur where the language flows on without interrup- tion, — sometimes in narration, where the mere order of succes- sion may of itself serve as a connexion in regard to time ; sometimes in the didactic style, especially in the expression of commands, maxims, etc., which, though still attached to a com- mon thread, stand out more independently if thus isolated. Such examples in narration occur most frequently in John, and con- stitute one characteristic feature of liis style : compare the oft- recurring Xeyei or €i'Trev avrw, aireKpid'T] avra>,^ i. 38, 40, 42, 44, 46 sq., 49, 52, ii. 4 sq., 7,'8, iii. 3, iv. 7, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25,26,34, 50,1. 26,49 sq., ii. 19, iii. 3, 5, 9, 10, [iv.] 13,17.. It cannot however be denied that by the asyndeton (compare Jo. XX. 26, xxi. 3), especially where it runs through several verses, the narration gains greatly in liveliness and impressiveness (as ^ [Surely vXava may be taken as the subjunctive in xx. 3.] ^ Schleiemiacher, Herm. p. 116 ,s(i. ^ [In a few of the passages which follow, these expressions occur without asyndeton. For iii. IZ, 17, we should evidently read iv. 13, 17.] 43 C74 CONNEXION OF SENTENCES WITH ONE ANOTHER. [PART III. indeed we frequently find it in conjunction with the historic present), — see Jo. iii. 3-5, iv. 9-11, 15-17, v. 6-8, xx. 14—18 ; and the two kinds of asyndeton, the grammatical and the rhetorical, flow into each other. The didactic asyndeton occurs in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. V, vi, vii), and also in James, but most frequently in John, — in Christ's discourses and in the First Epistle. The writer is, so to speak, continually commencing anew, and a translator has no right to introduce a connective particle. Compare Jo. ii. 7, iii. 30-33, v. 43, 45, vii. 17, 18, x. 3, 4, 17 sq., xv. 2-24, 1 Jo. i. 6, 8-10, il 4, 6, 9 sq., 15, 18 sq., iii. 1 sq., 4-10, 18-20, iv. 4-10, 12-, v. 1 sq., 5 sq., 9 sq., 12, 16-19, Ja. i. 16'] 8, iv. 7-10, V. 1-6, 8-10, Bom. xii. 9,14,16,21,1 Tim. iv. 11-16, V. 14, 22-24, Mt. X. 8.^ 2. The rhetorical asyndeton — which was long ago treated of by Longinus,^ Gregorius Corinthius, and Quintilian, and which is rightly reckoned amongst rhetorical figures^ — is, by the very nature of the case, of more frequent occurrence in the Epistles of the N. T. than in the historical books : the commentators have not always regarded it from the right point of view. As the language receives from it terseness and swiftness of movement, it serves to render the style lively and forcible. On asyndeton within a sentence, see § 58. 7. Of rhetorical asyndeton between {sentences we may distinguish the following cases (Bernh. p. 448, Kiihner II. 459 sqq., Jelf 792) : — The connecting particles are omitted a. When in impassioned language several parallel clauses are annexed to one another, and especially in a climax ;* here the repetition of the copula would be clumsy. Mk. i v. 3 9, a-tcoTra, Treipl/jicoao' iCor.iv. 8,17877 A<;e/copeo-/x,ei/ofc eVre* tjStj eTrXovrija-are, p^a)/ji9 rj/icav i^acnXevaaTe' xiii. 4-8, xiv. 26,1 Th. v. 14, 1 P. ii. ' [Jo. ii. 7 is wrong, — probably 1 Jo. ii. 7. In 1 Jo. v. 5 the reading is doubtful : in Ja. iv. 7 Se should be inserted.] 2 lionginus 19, Gregorius Corinthius in Walz, JRhet. Grceci VII. ii. 1211, Quintil. Jnstitut. 9. 3. 50 sq. 3 Glass, Philol. Sacr. I. 512 sq., Bauer, Rhetor. Paull. II. 591 sqq.; com- pare Hand, Lat. Styl p. 302. See Disseii, Pindar, Excurs. 2 (Gotha ed.), and Hermann's review in Jahns Jahrbb. I. 54 sqq. ; also Nagelsbach, Anmerlc. zur Ilias, p. 266 sqq. As to Latin, compare Kamshorn p. 514 sq. In Hebrew, many examples (which indeed require sifting) are given by Nolde, Concordant. Par^ ticul. p. 313 sqq. * Reiz and Lehmann on Lucian, Ter. Hist. 2. § 35. SECT. LX.J CONNEXION OF SENTENCES WITH ONE ANOTHER. 675 17, 1 Tim. iii. 16, 2 C. viL 2, Ja. v. 6, 1 P. v. 10, al. Similarly in Demosth. Fhil. 4. p. 54 a, Paniceh. 626 a, Xen. Ci/r. 7. 1.38 (Weber, Demosth. p. 363). b. In antithesis : the force of the contrasted notions thus strikes the eye at once. 1 C. xv. 43 sq., 7v a)pa Tplrr) Kol iaravpoiaav ainov Jo. xi. bo,r)v €771/9 to 'irdcf')(a koX avijSrja-av TToWoi' iv. 3 5, al. (compare § 5 3..3). This has become a standing usage in Greek writers in cases where the note of time is to be brought into prominence (Madv. 185 b, Jelf 752). The narration is however still more regularly continued by means of the more strongly marked connective particles Si and ovv (see § 5 3). As the former of these annexes some other thing, something different or new, and the latter indicates a conse- quence, both particles, loosely applied, are peculiarly adapted to the historical style ; and hence the K T. writers by an inter- change of Kai, Be, and ovv have imparted to their narration a certain variety, which even in the Gospels conceals the Hebrew tinge. Compare Jo. ii. 1 Kai twice, 2 8€, 3 Kai, 8 Kai, 8 sq. Bi ; Jo. iv. 4 Be, 5 o^v, 6 Be and odv; iv. 39 Be, 40 o^u, 41 Kai, 42 re; A. xii. 1-3 Se four times, 5 ovv and Be, 6 Be, 7 /cat twice 1 [Tt does not occur in this verse. In A. xiii. 52 and xvi. 23 (as often in the Acts) it is doubtful whether we should read n or Sj.] 2 Eost's remark (p. 723 sq.) on ti as a connective of sentences in Attic prose hardly receives confirmation from I>uke's usage. [Rost's remark (omitted in ed, 7) is to the effect that in Attic prose we find n . . . Tt only, when the words connected express ideas which are strongly opposed to each other.] SECT. LX.] CONNEXION OF SENTENCES WITH ONE ANOTHER. 677 and Be. 8 Be twice and kuI, 9 kul twice and Be, 10 Kac twice and Be, 11 Kac, 12 re, 13 Be, 14 /cat' and Be, 15 Se three times, 1 6 8e twice, 1 7 Be, re, and kqi, 18 Be, 19 Be and /tat, 20 Be twiofi, 21 and 22 Be, 23 Se and «at, 24 sq. 5e ; A. xxv. 1 ouv, 2 T€, 4 and 5 ovp, 6 and 7 Be ; etc. Other connectives in the historical style — not much more de- finite in their character, but adopted for the sake of greater variety — are rore (mainly in Matthew), fMra rovro or raGra (mainly in John and Luke), iv cKctVai? rais -rjixipais, etc. ; eiTa is only found in isolated instances. The design of the polysyndeton between sentences which are not purely narratory is, to give prominence to them as. separate part.s of one whole sentence : Jo. x. 3, Tovrat 6 dvpoipo's dvotyci kuI to. Trpoftara rrj'i (pojvrji avTOV dKOvet Kal to, tSta Tvpo^ara (fiwvei Kar ovofia Ka\ e^ayci avra" x. 9, 12. Compare A. xiii. 36, x\'iL 28, 1 C. xii. 4 sqq. 4. Of a closer kind is that connexion of sentences which is based on opposition ; either generally, where two sentences (like arsis and thesis, as it were) are joined by fiev . . .Be (Madv. 188) or Kat . . . Kac (Madv. 185), negatively by ovre . . . ovre; or where an affirmative sentence stands opposed to a negative, or a negative to an aflfirmative. Examples of the former are A. xxii. 9, TO fiev (f>ot)Q)vr}v ovk '^Kovaav xxiii. 8, xxv. 11, i. 5 (compare § 53. 7), Mk. ix. 13, Kac 'HXca'i iXijXvdev Kal eTrolrja-ap avT^ oaa rjOeXov Jo. ix. 37 (see § 53. 4). For examples of the latter see Jo. iii. 17, ovk airea-reiXev o 6eo)? 7^9* Mt. v. 48, eaeorde vfieU reXeioc, 9 6 irar^p vfj.(ov reXec6s M.U)vari<; v-^axrev .... ovrwt i/ylrtodrjvai Bet L. vi. 31, Kadoi^; diXere, cva iroidaiv vfj,lv- oi dvOpayrroc . . . KaX vfielrjrri? or m-n-ep or Ka6a>^ of the antecedent clause ; see Rom. v. 15, 2 C. xi. 3 [Rec:], 1 Th. ii. 7 sq., Mt. xii. 40, Jo. v. 21, xv. 4, 9,,xx. 21. (It is after &? follows a conditional clause, it was formerly considered to be purely pleonastic. In Rev. xi. 5, however, ovrox; is h^oo mode (see the previous sentence), and in 1 Th. iv. 14 it points to the ' Heindorf, Horat. Serm. 1. 1. 45, Krite, Sail. II. 349. [Madv. Lat. Or. 442. Ohsy a, Munro oa Lucr 3. 936.] ' Jaoobs, M\. Anim. p. 27 sq. Prce/, ' [Perhaps § 53. 10. 4.] SECT. LX.] CONNEXION OF SENTENCES WITH ONE ANOTHER. 6*79 identity of the lot of the faithful with that of Christ (drredaue Kol dvia-TT)) : these examples are not even parallel with those adduced by Matthise 610. exfr. — Still less is ovr(ov\aK7]v Trapa'YyeiKavre'i tm 8eOrj Tocs avvava^aa-Lv avT9, 07ro(ro9, etc. : Jo. vi. 64, ^Sec rive^ elalv ol fir} iria-revovTei}' Mt. x. 11, i^erdaare T/9 a^to9 iariv Jo. iii. 8, ovk ocSa^ TToOev ep'^^erao Kal irov VTrdyei' A. x. 18, iirvvOdvovro el SipL(t)v ivOdZe ^evl^erac L, xxii. 23, ijp^avTO crvt^r^Telv 7rpo rov ^ AiroWoi eivat iv Koplvdcp' xx. 1, fiera rb TravaaaOai rov dopv/Sov . , . o ITaOXo? e^rjkOev. Especially do infinitives with a preposition serve to give compactness and roundness to sentences. The same may be said of the accusative with the infinitive, which usually represents an objective sentence ; e.g., H. vi. 11, eTnOv- fJLOVfiev eKaarov v/xtov rrjv avrrjv evBeiKWcrOai crTrovBi'jV 1 Tim. ii. 8, ^ovKofiac irpo aTpaTev/xari i^etXa/jirju avTov, fxaOcov x.rX. ; A. xiv. 19, xviii. 22 sq., xxv, 6 sq., 2 Tim. i. 4, Tit. ii. 12 sq., 1 C. xi. 4, L. vii. 37 sq. Hence it must in general be acknowledged, not only that these constructions impart greater variety to the style, but also that they unite the sentences more closely witli one another, and consequently give to the periods greater roundness. The latter purpose is answered still more effectually when two independent sentences are so interwoven as to form but one, — by Attraction (§ G6), for which the relatives in particular possess extensive aptitude (§ 24). Attraction itself however is very varied, and occurs in the N. T. in many forms, from the most simple (L. v. 9, iTrl Ty cu^pa tmv l)(6v(av, y Tov6^o<: ju,eya9, Ipyov dya66v), or the adverb the adjective (xaXeiro^ kiav, fj.iyakr] (r^oSpa, Strabo 17. 801), the arrangement is" a very natural one : if the reverse is adopted, it is either from a wish to give prominence to the meaning of the adjective or adverb — occa- sioned perhaps in the case of many writers by an antithesis habitu- ally present to their mind (thus KoXa. tpya usually in Paul) ; or else the (antithetical) nature of the meaning of the adjective in question may require that it should stand first, — e.g., oAAos, cts, iStos, etc. Nor can it be thought strange that 6 av6pu)Tro<; owtos should occur more frequently, than ovto? 6 ai'^pcuTros : the latter involves an em- phasis on the pronoun (this man — no other) which can only exist when the words are spoken SctKTiKws or with vehemence. The pre- dominance of the latter order in John (Gersdorf p. 444 sq.) is in the first place by no means decided ; and, secondly, whenever this arrangement of the words is chosen, the reason may be easily per- ceived. Tavra TravTa in L. xii. 30 is not identical with irdvTa ravra in Mt. vL 32 (Gersdorf p. 447 sq.). The former signifies these things all taken together ; the latter, all these things. In the first, Travra is added to define raura more exactly; in the second, -n-avTa is indicated demonstratively by means of ravTo. YlavTa raOra may indeed be less usual (as perhaps omnia hcec is in Latin), but it is the best attested reading in Mt. xxiii. 36,^ xxiv. 33 sq., L. viL 18 : compare Bengel on Mt. xxiv. 33. — If a narrator, passing from one event to another, and making time the connecting link, say^ €v cKeiVais Tats ly/Acpais, etc., no attentive reader wjll regard this as an arbitrary departure from the usual order, rj ttoAis ixdv-rj. And what is the use of such remarks as this : " iraXiv, iKeWev, etc., sometimes precede, sometimes follow"?^ — How, in fine, Gersdorf (p. 335) could so entirely misapprehend the proper position of the adjective in Mt. xiii. 27, xv. 20, as to be even inclined to correct the text, ^ [In this passage and the next the reading is doubtful.] 2 Even Van Hengel's more exact remark {Phil. p. 201) on rraX/v in Paul's Epistles I cannot regard as a canon to be followed unconditionally in criticism, pr exegesis. As to Ph. ii. 28 I hold to what is said above, p. 435. SECT. LXI.] POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 687 I cannot understand. 'If in Mt. xv. 34 we find ttoo-ov^ aprov; Ixcre; 01 Be cTttov cTTTa koI oAiya l)(^0v8ia, but in Mk. viii. 7, koI (Txov 1^0 V 8 La oXiya, in the one passage oAtya is antithetical to i-n-Td, and therefore must stand before its noun ; whilst in the other " loaves " and *' fishes " stand contrasted, — " of fish also they had a small supply." That Paul writes otvo) oAtyw in 1 Tim. v. 23, and James in c. iii. 5 oXCyov (v. I. rfXiKov) irvp, will indeed surprise no one who studies language with attention. In Jo. V. 22, rrjv KpicTiv Trao-av St'SwAcc toJ vlQ, the position of iracrav immediately before SeSw/cc, to which it belongs (" he gave it to him not partially, but wholly," 1 C. xii. 12), is very appro- priate. Compare also Mt. ix. 35, Eom. iii. 9, xii. 4, A. xvL 26, xvii. 21, 1 a x. 1, Xen. Hell. 2. 3. 40, Thuc. 7. 60, al, (Jelf 714. Obs. 2). Besides the order Trao-a -rj tto'Ais, we also find 6 irSs vop.o'i G. V. 14, Toi/ rravTa xpovov A.. XX. 18, 1 Tim. i. 16 : Thuc. 4. 61, Isocr. Dem. p. 1, Herod. 1. 14. 10, Stallb. Plat. Phileh. 48 [see above, p. 138]. On such examples as the following, in which a word which involves emphasis is simply placed first, no remark is needed : Jo. vi. 57, viii. 25, ix. 31, xiii. 6, Kom. vii. 23, xiii. 14, 1 C. xii. 22, xiv. 2, XV. 44, L. ix. 20, xii. 30, xvi. 11, H. x. 30, Ja. iii. 3, 1 P. iii 21, 2 P. i. 21. See however below, no. 3. The constant adherence to one order in the apostolic benediction Xapt? vplv Koi clpr/vrj (so also in 1 and 2 Peter) is certainly designed to point out x»P'5 ^s the chief and the fuller idea to which flp-qv-q is added as consequent. The vocative with or without S is sometimes prefixed to the sen- tence ; viz., when it expresses a call (Mk. xiv. 37), or when, as an address, it is intended to awaken attention for what is to follow : see Mt. viii. 2, XV. 28, xviii. 32, xxv. 26, Mk. ix. 19, L. viii. 48, xxiv. 25, Jo. vi. 68, xiii 6, xxi 15 sqq., A. i. 11, ii. 29, v. 35, vii. 59, ix. 13, xiii. 10, xxv. 24, Rom. ix. 20, G. iii. 1, 1 Tim. vi. 20. Some- times it is inserted in the body of the sentence, viz., when attention is assumed to exist on the part of the person addressed, and what follows is simply to be referred to him : see Mt. ix. 22, xvi. 17, xx. 31 [Rec.\ Jo. xii. 15, A. i. 1, xxvi. 19, 24, 27, G.' i. 11, Ph. i 12, iii. 17, Phil. 20, 2 P. i. 10, Kev. xv. 4. In this case the vocative has its place after one word or after several, according to the degree of close- ness in the connexion of these words (Mt. xvi. 17, Jo. xii. 15, Rev, XV. 4, al.) : in son^e instances, when it is supplementary, it stands at the end of the sentence, see L. v. 8, Jo. xiv. 9, A. xxvi. 7. 3. The grounds of every singular arrangement (transposition) of words which originates in th^ writer's free preference may be more or less clearly perceived. The following cases should be distinguisiied : ^ a. Those in which the strikingly unusual position of the words arises from rhetorical causes, and is therefore intentional. ' [Jelf 904, Don. p. 611, Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 228.J 688 POSITION OE WORDS AND CLAUSES. [PART III. Thus in 1 P. il 7 the api>osition (Weber, Dem. p. 152) roh TTLcrrevovcTLv is reserved for the close of the sentence, because in this position the conditioning words " as believers," " if we believe," stand out more prominently, — especially as they are thus brought so near the antithetical a-TreidoOcri} Compare 1 Jo. V. 13, 16, Jo, xiii. 14, Eom. xi. 13, H. vi. 1 8 (Stallb. Plat. Euihyd. p. 144) ; also H, vii. 4, ^ koX BeKarijv ^A^paa/j, eBtaKev CK rSiv oiKpoOivieov, 6 TraT/atap^);?, to whom AhraJiam also gave tithes, the jiatriarch ; xL 17, 1 P. iv. 4. Other examples of the kind are H, vj. 1 9, fjv vcr€i belongs to reKva, and hence occupies the most suitable place, d. In some cases the transposition was unavoidable : H. xi. 32, eTrtXetT/ret yap /te Strjyovfievoif 6 ■^povo'i rrepl TeBecov, BapaK re Koi ^afjuy^dav k.t.X, A.S a whole series of names follows, to which a relative clause is to be appended (ver. 33), no other arrangement was possible. See H. vi, 1, 2, 1 C. i. 30. e. An effort to throw an unemphatic word into the shade may be perceived in H. iv. 11, Ti^a fj,T) iv raJ avrat ri'; vTroBei- yfxarv irearrj /c.t.X,^ V. 4, 1 P. ii. 19, A. xxvi. 24. So perhaps in 1 C. V. 1, &J9Te yvvaiKa riva rod Trarpo? ej(eLV L. xviii. 18. See Weber, Dem. p. 139, 251. In H. ix, 16 also, oirov SiaOrJKrj, ddvarov dvdyKy] (fyepeaOac tov 8i,a0tfi€vov, the force of the main thought BdvaTov dvdyicr] k.tX. would have been lessened if the last word had been placed anywhere else. Here and there, in the case of the more practised of the N". T. writers, even the * aurium judicium,' to which Cicero attaches so much import- ance, may have exerted an influence, and have produced a more flowing and rhythmical arrangement of words. On such examples as Ka/cows KUKOi<; airo\i(T(.t, in which similar words or repetitions of the same word are placed together, see § 68. 1. Compare Kuhner 11. 628 [II. 1103 in ed. 2, Jelf 904. 2]. When the predicate is brought forward in the sentence — as in Jo. I 1, 49 (compare ver. 47), iv. 19, 24, vi. 60, Rom. xiii. 11, 2 P. i, 10, 14, 19, Ph. iii. 20, ii. 11, I Jo. i. 10, Rev. ii. 9— we must esti- mate each case according to the above principles. It is natural that in those sentences particularly which have the character of exclama- tions, as in blessings (jxaKapicrfjioi), the predicate should stand at the head ; in such a case it has become usual to omit the substantive verb. See Mt. xxi. 9, €vXoyr7)U.£i'OS 6 ip^6ixevo<: cV ovojuoti Kvpiov xxiiL 39, L. i. 42, 68, 2 C. i. 3, \ C. ii. 1 1 [%\ 1 P. i. 3 ; Mt. v. 3, fxaKapioi ol TrT(t>x,oL Twirous OeXet (rit}9y]vai Koi eis k-nriyvtxxTiv oX-qBua'i iX-Oav, the general ultimate end is first mentioned, and then the immediate end (as a means towards attaining the former, — Kai being and accordingly). A. xiv. 10 i/jXaro Koi TrepteTrdrei is as possible in point of fact as 7r€pi7raT(i3»' Koi dXAo- /u,evo5, A. iii. 8. In 2 P. i. 9 fxvuiird^oiv is added for the sake of more exact definition. The Hysteron proteron which in A. xvi. 18 Borne- mann accepts from D* rests on insufficient authority. See further Wilke, N. T. BMorik, p. 226. 5. f. Soirietiines, however, there is a real misplacement of particular words, through some inadvertence, or rather because the ancients, having only intelligent readers in view, were not anxious about minute precision. In particular, the Greek prose writers not unfrequently transpose certain adverbs,^ to which every reader will assign their true position according to the sense, though the writer may not have arranged them with logical accura.cy. It is so with aet, in Isocr. Paneg. 14, StereAe- crav Koivr)v rr}v ttoXiv irape'^ovTe- avop-criri xaxoT; av(t)fji,ev, not in order that I (if ye keep yourselves from evil) mai/ appear approved (as your teacher). In 1 Jo. iv. 10 it is evident at once that the woi'ds ov^ on are correctly placed. Nor is there any misplacement of the negative in Rom. iv. 12; the strangeness consists in the repetition of the article before a-toi^ovaiv, — a negligence of style which Fritzsche seeks to hide by a forced interpretation, but which Philippi freely admits. In regard to 1 C. xv. 51, iravre^ (j^^v) ov koi/jlt]- 0i]crofjL€Oa, 7rdmeut agree with Meyer. Ver. 5 2 shows that the word cWaTrea-Bai is not used in the wider sense (as also applying to those who are raised), but in the narrower, as an antithesis to iyeipeadai. The only possible translation is : We all (the generation which Paul is addressing'') shall — noi sleep— ^shall however all be changed. Had Paul supposed that some of the Trai^re? must die, these would belong to the number of the ve/cpol spoken of in ver. 52, ^ [On this passage see Alford. Oompare also Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 232.] ^ Fritzsche, De covforvi. tfitct. LacJnn. p. "S sq. ; Van Hengel, Cor. p. 216 sqq. ' [" Paul himself and all those who will, with hini,.be living at the time of the -rapouir'if.," is a more exact expression of Meyer's view. But suiolythis arbitrary restriction of the meaning of ■^avrtf involves as grent a diPRanlty as the suppo- sition tFiat tlio meaning of a.>.Xa.T') ou xiifirjTiirouifix being quasi- parenthetical, we all shaf/ — not Jie — shall hoivever all be changi'd (Billroth, Oisliausen, Stanley). See lurther Alford in loc, A. Buttni. p. 121. — The reading of Hec. (so far as the position of ai is concerned, — ^;» must proi)ably be omitted) is retained by Ti.schendorf, Reiche, Meyer, De Wette, Staidey, Alford, Tregelles (who places in the margin xiifinfnirei/u'Jce. oi, •ravrsf Ss), Green {Dev. Orit. p. 141 -scj.): also by Westeott and Hort, see their Appendix, p. 118. See also Reiche, Co7mn. Cr. p. 297-317.] 696 POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. [PART III and rifieti rjp.epa'S t^s Map- SoxaiK^s 17/xcpas 2 Mace. xv. 36 (Joseph. Antt. 15. 11. 4, Plut. Symp, 8. 1, 1). We also find similar formulas (in a temporal sense) with lif.Ta : Plut. Coriol. 1 1 , fx^ff i^yxepas oAtya? -njs tou TraT/aos TcAcin-^s* Malal. 4. p. 88, fjnTo. i//3' erq tov TeXcvrrjarai, ryv UacrLfjxirjv Anon. Ghronol. (prefixed to Malalas in the Bonn ed.) p. 10, /nera Sue Ittj rov Kara- KkvcTfjiov. See Schsef er ad Bos, Ellips. p. 553 sq. 6. Certain particles and enclitic pronouns have their place in a Greek sentence fixed with more or less definiteness, in accordance with the weight which they possess in the sentence. Thus ixev (fievovvye, fxevroi), o^v, Be, yap, ye, toivvv, dpa, are not allowed to stand at the commencement of a sentence. ('A pa cannot even be the first word in the consequent clause ; see Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. 2, 8. 4. 7.) In regard to most of these words the rule is observed by the N. T. writers ; * and Be, yap and ovv occupy sometimes the second, sometimes the third, sometimes even the 1 Ranishom p. 273 [Zumpt 396, Madvig 234 b. Obs., 270. Oh.^. 4].— Au illustration is also afforded by Polyaen. 2. 35, tuv; croyXels iKiWiuinv kva (ipax'^ns i lonrrri/^a.ros '(•niriu.i. ^ [This mode of expression (with a numeral") belongs to late Greek, and its prevalence is to be attributed more or less to the influence of the Latin : see I.iddell and Scott s. v. •rpo, A. Buttm. p. 153. Compare t^o -rtiXXou, Her. 7. 130 (also 2 Jim. i. 9, Tit. i. 2). In the N. T. see further A. x. SO (Meyer, Alford), 2 C. xii. 2 : see Grimm, Clavis s. w. avi, -rpi, Jelf 905. 3.] ' Once only do we find i(p>j inserted in the riiidst of words directly quoted as spoken (A. xxiii. 35) ; but (pfia-i is so placed in Mt. xiv.,8, A. xxv. 5, 22, xx\L 25, al. [fiairit, 2 C. X. 10 Lachrn. ]. The N. T. writers commonly prefix a n«Jxa; 'iipri, %i e fiiv ct/xi avrjp 'lon^aios, yeyewry/xtVos ev Tttpo-<3 T^s KiAiKtas, a.vaT€6pafJifji€po<; Se iv tv} Tro'Aei TauViy, instead of, eyco ei/xt dyyp 'lovSatos yeycvrr/yu-eVos p-iv k.t.A. ; Tit. i. 15, ttuj/to IX€V KaBapa. rots Ka6apot<;^ rots Se p,€fi.ia.u'f.iivoi<; Kat amtrTois ovSkv KnOoipov, instead of rots p.ev KaOapot^ -n-avra KaOapd k.t.A., or Trdvra /xey Kadapd . . . ovSer Se KaOapbv rots fjiefxiaafxevoi? ; 1 C. ii. 15. Compare Xen. Mem. 2. 1. 6, 3. 9. 8, Ml Anim. 2. 31, Diog. L. 6. 60 : see Herm. Soph. (Ed. B. 436, Hartung, Part. II, 415 sq. In these three passages of the N. T., however, p.h/ is omitted in good MSS., and recent editors 2 have followed these authorities. But may not the offence which the particle gave to transcribers have been the very cause of the omission 1 The proper position of re. is immediately after a word which stands in parallelism with son)e other word : A. xiv. 1, 'lovSaiwv re Ka6 'EAAt^i/wv ttoAu irXrjOos- ix. 2, XX. 21, xxvi. 3. Not unfrequently, however, it is placed more freely (A. xxvl 22 ^) ; in particular, it stands imraediateiy after a preposition or article (A. x. 39, ii. 33, xxviii. 23, Jo. ii. 15, al.), in which case it sometimes indicates that this word belongs to the two parallel members, in common, — as in A. XXV. 23, a-vv re ;(iAuip;^ots koL avSpdaiv, xiv. 5 \J], X 39. Compare Plat. Legg. 7, 796 d, ets re TroAireiav /cat iSiov.6. — Even names of one person are sometimes separated by such conjunctions : Jo. xviii. 10, 2//*»» eSy uirpi;. * [In the last passage authorities are much divided. Westcott and Hort retain /*£».] ^ Klmfiley, Eurip. Heracl. 622 : yet compare Schoem, Isoeus p. 325. * On the whole see Sommer in Jahn's Archiv, I. 401 sqq. ^ See Matthia;, Eurip. Iphig. Aul. 498, Ellendt I. c. I. 344. [In L. xi. 8 yt is inserted between a preposition and its case : see Klotz, Dev. II. 327 sq., Jelf 735. Ofiti. 2. — Xapiv follows its genitive e-xcept in 1 Jo. iii. 12 : Herm. Viq. p. 700 sq., Jelf 621. Obs. 2.] ^ ' SECT. LXI.] POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 701 Several commentators (e. g. , Schott) discover a trajection of Kat (even) in H. vii. 4,

evTe<; k.tX. Mk. xvi. 3 is a similar case. In Ph. i. 1 6 sq., according to the best evidence, the two clauses should be thus arranged, ol fiev i^ aydiTTj's . . . . ol Be i^ €pi6eia9 Vfid<; a'^/voelv ort, TroX'XaActs vpoeOefxrjv iXOe'iv irpo^ vfid<; — Kol €K(o\v6r]V a-^pi Tov Sevpo — JW riva Kapirov cyoi Kal ev Vfxlv. This intervening sentence is called a parenthesis ; ^ and it is ' f Given previously by Cajetnn and Estiiis. — Winer's "former interpretation" is that given in ed. 4, in which ^s;.£i» is taken to mean do willingh/ or readily. ] * The explanation given in Ruddiman's Instilutiort^Ji (11. 396, ed. Stallli.) is not amiss : "parenthesis est sententi.i SLiinoni, antequara absolvatur, interjecta. " Wilke's deiinition {Rhetor, p. 227) is too wida. (Jelf 798. 2. ) ' Ch. Wolle, Comment, de parenthesi sacra, (Lips. 1726) ; J. F. Hirt, Diss, de pnrenthesl et (yenerotim ft .p 'lovSauov xix. 31 (Diog. L. 8. 42), L. xiii. 24, ttoWoI, Xe^co vfMLv, ^Tjr/jaovacv /c.r.A,. In several insta.nces a narrator intro- duces an explanatory clause of this kind in the midst of the direct words of a speaker : Alk. vii. ] l,eav eiTrj) avdpooTro^- Kop^av, 6 eartv Scopov, b iav e^ ifiov oic^eXrjOfi^' Jo. i. 39, ol he elirov avTM' paB^l, o XiycTai, ipfxrjpevo/xepov hchdaKaXe, irov fiev€i<};^ A summons or injunction is sometimes inserted in the same way : Mt. xxiv. 1 5 sq., orav 'iSyre to ^SeXvy/xa . . . ia-rof; ev TOTTOi dylo), o avayivwaKwu poeirco, rore ol eV r^ ^lovhaia K.T.X. 3. There is no parenthesis in Jo. xi. 30. This verse is ap- pended to ver. 29 that the place to which Mary went may be specified ; and now that the departure of Mary is fully related, the narrator passes to those who were with her (ver. 31), who also went out. In Jo. xix. 6 all proceeds regularly, for. the change of subjects does not show the necessity of a parenthesis. Nor are the parenthetical marks heeded in Mt. xvi. 2G (though Schulz has retained them), for ver. 26 brings into view the pre- ciousness of the ■^v)(r), in connexion witn Tr]p Be ■^v)(r]p ^rjfjuooOf}: the proof contained in ver. 27 relates to ver. 25 inclusively of ver. 26, and no interruption of the structure is to be seen any- where Mt. xxi. 4 sq. is an addition by the narrator, who how- ever in ver. 6 continues his narrative in a very simple manner, Jo. vi. 6 is a similar instance. — In Jo. i. 14 it is probable that the clause Kul edeacraixeda . . . Trarpo'i was not, in the writer's con- ception, a parenthetical insertion : after completing the complex sentence, he sums up with the words vrXijprjii '^dpiTo \aa>) merely to have been previous occurrences, the effect of which is expressed by 6L- Xere, which in thought must be repeated. But in most of the passarjes which it has been usual to adduce- as parenthetical there is neither parenthesis nor digression. In Tit. i. 1 sqq. Kara iriarcv is connected with airocrroXo';, and the destination of the apostle is completely stated in the words Kara Tricrriv . . . alwvlov ; to ^&)^9 alayvtov is then appended the re- lative sentence rfv errqyy . . . Beov. In Rom. i. 1-7, where Schott in his last edition assumt^s two parentheses, the whole passage continues with one imbroken thread ; only the words express- ing the main ideas are enlarged by means of relative clauses Tver. 3 sq., 5, 6). The same may be said of (^ol. iii. 12-14, where uve')(oixevot (which is in conformity with evhvaraade) is attached to jxaKpodvpuiav (perhaps also to Trpaor-rjra) as a specification of manner, and is itself supported by KaG(o<; K.r.X. It is only by the clause ovrco Kal IfxeU that the structure can be at all inter- ^ [Others carry bai/k still farther the reference of b r./uifia (e.g., Alford to ver. 10, Ewald to ver. 5) ; whilst Lachniann and Meyer include two verses only (14 and 15) in a parenthesis. In former editions Winer had substantially agreed with ?»engel, I)e Wette, al., in connecting ver. iO with the preceding vtrse : similarly -though with sunie difforcnec of iuterpretation — Fritzsche, Vaughan; and otheis.] 708 INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES. [PART III. riipted, the thought expressed by these words being already implied in the kuOm^; whicli introduces the preceding clause ; but supply y^api^ojievot, and the construction is regular. In H, xii. 20, 21, we are the less able (with Lachmann) to assume a parenthesis, since in ver. 2 2 the verb rrrpo'ieX'rjXvOare is repeated from ver. 18, and a new sentence therefore commenced, — ^an affirmative, corresponding to the negative sentence contained in ver. 18-21, In 1 C. i. 8 o? relates to Xpiaro^, ver. 7; and verses 5 and 6 do not form a parenthesis. The two relative sentences in Rom. xvi, 4, which are annexed to each other, and which do not i-eally interrupt the construction, cannot be regarded as a parentliesis. In 1 P. iii. 6 dyaOoTroiova-ai connects itself with ^'yevr'jOi^re, and the words co? . . . reKva ar(i not parenthetical. In E. iii. 5 tlie clause o erepai<^ k.tX. attPvches itself to ev /jLvaTTj- pUp Tov XpiaTov (ver. 4) : and in 2 P. i. 5 (Kchott) the words avTo TovTo Se arrovShv Trapei^eveyKavra stand on the same level with a>9 iravra . . . deB(op)i/Ji€V'}]; the question "he will surely not give }'' presupposes such a protasis as, 'a father asked hy his son for bread, or a father of whom his son asks hread (Mt. vii. 9), A. xxiii. 30 [Rec.^, p.7]vv$€LGrt)<; p,oi e7nlBov\r], fiiTct, To aLToixAaai Na/4««^»Je»«yap 6 ^eo? d^yyiXcov ovk ecfiela-aro k.t.X. has no grammatical apodosis. The apostle intended to say, so neither (indeed still less) ^vill he spare these false teachers ; but as one example of God's punishment after another presents itself to him (ver. 4-8), it is not until ver, 9 that he returns to the thought which should have formed the apodosis, and then with a changed construction and in a more general form. In Eom. V. 12 we might expect the words ws'Trep Bl hof avOpdiirov q Gal. p. 24, Oinisc. \k 178 sq. ) after S/a It tovs vnfusdjcrovi ■^iu'Scclik(fn)vs the words oux tirayxaff^ri ■npi-r/irj^vai (o T/tac). These words could only be omitted by Paul (unless we would regard him as an unskilled writer) if the subjoined relative clauses, had caused him to lose sight of the commencement of the ]ieriod. This, being so, the explanations of the sentence — which in any case is irregular — amount pretty much to the same thing. — There would be nothrng extraordinary in the style of such a sentence as this : " But not even did Titus .... allow himself to be forced into undergoing circumcision : on account of the false brethren who had crept in, however, he did not allow hiniself to be forced (into circumcision)."* [Fritzsche's explanation is adopted by Meyer, EUicott, Alford, al. : see further Lightfoot in loc. Green, Cr. Notes p. "l50.] ' In a grammatical point of view compare Xen, Cyr. 6. 2. 9 sqq., where the commencement, h.Ti.) It . . . tixhv k.t.X., is in § 12 taken up. again in the words oi; auv rocZra. nKovffiM o arfoir'ai rau Kvpsu, to which the apodosis is then attached. * "The Tr. submits his impression, tbut the mo't natural interpretation of the passnge is to supply !ripiiTfj.r,fiti: Titus was not compelled to he circumciseil, but on account of the false brethren . . . (was circumcised). Paul protested tyjainst the alle.ffed nece.ssity of ciicumci.sioii; liut. Miiili) rot using to njve in t-^' i^r.Tuyv, to the mcNSiire on doctrinal grounds, he approved it as a matter ot Christian cxpeUieucy."— .Vo/.; by the former Translator, Prof. Masaoit. SECT. LXIII.] IS BROKEN OFF OR CHANGED. YlS afxapria ei? rov Kocr^ov ehrjXde to be followed by the apodosis ovTw St' €vo? to TrapaTTTcofjui k.t.\. (ver. 15), which logically absorb the apodosis, and in el yap . . . airedavov the substance of the protasis in ver. 1 2 is briefly recapitulated : then in ver. 1 8 Paul sums up the twofold parallel (equality and inequality) in one final result.^ — 1 Tim. i. 3 sqq. must be judged of in a similar way. Kadw and 8tr<»njithen the a-wavafxCyvva-dai, In Ja. ii. 2 sqq. the anac(duthou disappears if we take ver. 4 (/cat ov k.t.X.) interrogatively," as is now done by most critics, Lachmann included. In Jo. xiii. 1 there is no anacoluthon in point of grammar: it is to hermeneutics that the removal of the difficulty belongs. 1 C. ix. 15, if Iva before rts is spurious (Tischendorf has received it again *), is rather an example of aposiopesis than of anacoluthon : see Meyer. I^astly, in E. iii. 18 the participles are probably to be joined with the sentence aa i^Lia Bt8da/covT€^ Koi vovdeTovvTe<; eavrov'i k.tX. ; ii. 2, Xva TrapuKXyjOoocnv a'l Kap- Blui avTcov cn>iJL^i^aadevTe^ iv d'^d'rtTj k.t.X. (as if the TrapaKaXela-Oai had been made to relate to tlie persons them- selves), Col. ii. 10 ; ^ 2 C. ix. 10 sq., 6 i'rri'x^opv'y^v . , . ')(pp7]yr](xai Kat rrrXrjdvvaL rov airopov vjxwv . . . v/xwv, iv iravrl ttXqvti^o- fievoi K.T.X. ; ver. 12 sq., 77 BvaKovla (icrrl) Trepiaaevovcra Bid TToXXoov eu'^apiaricov, Bid. T/79 Boki/jlt]^ r7J>i BiaKovlalf from iVi(«a' r see Jelf 895. 1. Meyer and Alford agree with Winer.] « Comi)are in general Markland, Lyn. j). 3f!4 (Roiske, Vol. V.l. I3uttni. Soph. Philor.t. p. 110, Heidl.T, Eurip. Jphig. T. 1072, Kiiliner IT. 377 aq.. Schwarz, Solixcmn. p. 89 ; also Stallb. Plat. J^jo/. p. 135 so. .'ud tiympos. p. 33. 8K0T, LXfll.] IS BROKEN OFF OR GHANGRD. 7l7 casiouod by forgetfViliiess : the writer, losing sight of the prin- cipal word actually used in the earlier part of the sentence, supposes that he has used some other word of kindred sense. Compare further Evaiig. Apocr. p. 169, 445. Mk. xii. 40 and Ph. iii. 18 sq. are of a different description : see ^ 59. 8. b. — In Rom. xiii. 11 koI tovto ftSortv must b«! joined to o^etAerc, ver. 8 [p. 707]; and 1 P. ii. 16 attaches itself (as the ideas themselves suggest) to the imperative inrordyrjTe in ver, 13. b. After a participle we often find a transition to the con- struction with a finite verb : in this case tlie verb may be accompanied by 8e. Thus; Col. i. 26, ifKripwaai top \6yov rov Oeov, TO fiva-Ttjpioi' to uTroKeKpvfi/Mevov uTro rcov alwvwv . . . vvvl he icjiavepuiOT}- instead of vvvl 8e <^avepo)6ev (compare Her. 6. 25, Thuc. 1. 67), 1 C. vii. 37, o? ea-TTjKev iv rij Kapoia, p.rj €^cov avda(rl ^efilpafiiv is that of the accusative wdth the infinitive, but /xiya i^povet follows, as if oTfc had preceded. Plaut. Trucul. 2. 2. 62 is a similar instance. We might compare with this Jo. viii. 54, ov vfiei'^ Xiyere ore 6eo<; vfiMv earl (where Beov vpdv elvac miglit have been said) : this however is rather to be regarded as an example of attraction, see below [§ 66. 5]. (Jelf 804. 7.) d. At the head of a sentence there stands a nominative or an accusative with which the verb of the sentence is not made to agree (casus pendentes) : ^ 1 Jo. ii. 24, vfiei<;, o rjKovcrare arr dp'xrj'i, Iv vfiLv /jieviro)' and ver. 27, koI vfiet rjadevet .... 6 6eod\atov eVt TOi? \€yo/j,evoc^, toiovtov e-^o^ev up'^iepea k.t.X. ; see above, § 32. 7, and compare Kiihner II. 156. Several commentators, amongst whom is Olshausen, have sup- posed that we have an accusative absolute (?) in A. x. 36, tov Xoyov ov aTrccTTciAc tois viols 'la-parjX k.t.X., a uwd whk'h (or ivhich word) he first delivered to the children of Israel (viz., the word cv iravTi iOv€i K.T.X, ver. 35). See however § 62. 3, An anacoluthon pecuHar to the N. T. meets us sometimes, when a writer proceeds, not in his own words, but in those of some passage of the O. T. : e. g., Rom. XV. 3, koI yap 6 JipixxTos ov;^ cavrw -tjpea-ev ctAAa, Ka6u}<; yeypaTrrat, ol ovtiSicr/xoi tuiv ovciSi^ovtwv ere eTrcVetrav ctt* epi (instead of, " in order to please God, he submitted to the most cruel abuse") ; ver. 21, ix. 7 : compare 1 C, ii. 9, iiL 21,^ H. iii. 7, See however below, § 64 7. e. Under the head of anacoluthon comes also the use of /ieV without any subsequent parallel clause (marked by Be) : see Hermann, Vij. p. 841 sq.^ In this case, either (a) Tlie parallel member may easily be supplied from the clause with puev, and is in some measure already implied in it. E. g. : H. vi. 16, avOpairoc p,kv yap Kara tov p-elt^ova opuvvovai, men swear hy the greater, but God can only swear by himself, — compare ver. 13 (Plat. Protag. 334 a); here however p,kv is doubtful. Col. ii. 23, arivd ecrrt Xojov pL€V e-^ovra cro(f)ca<; iv fdeXodprjcnfela Kai k.t.X., ivhich have indeed an appearance of ivisdom, but are in fact no wisdom at all (Xen. An. 1. 2. 1) : Kom. X. 1, — where Paul may have designedly avoided expressing ^ [It comes to the same thing if (witli Meyer, Fritzsche, De Wette, Alford) we speak of ro ahita.rtv as a nominative in apposition to the sentence (Kriif^. p. 246>. — It will be observed that in many passages quoted above the form of the word does not show whetlior the (;ase is nominative or accusative : a comparison of these examjdt s with others, however, leaves little or no doubt that Winer is right in considering the ca-fus j>enden8 as a nominative. See A. Buttm. p. 382 : contrast Green, Gr. p. 233.] '■' [A mistake,— perhaps fori. 31. 1 C. ii. 9 is noticed more particularly in § 64. 7 : on the diiferent explanations of H. iii. 7 sqcj. see Alford's note.] 3 [Don. p. 577, Xew Crat. p. 281 sq., Jelf 76ti, Madvig 188; and for the N. T., A. Buttni. p. 365, Grimm, Clans s. v., Ellicott on 1 Th. ii. 18.— Most gniinmarians agne in this explanation of fi'm solUarium. See however Rost \i. Palm, Lex. II. 17r>, 177, where it is maintained that there are certainly examples in Attic prose in which the single ^ty has the samd force (= ^»7») as in the com- binations fiiiiToi, fiiiiivy : see also Bernh. p. 487, Kriiger p. 361, and compare 2 C. xi. 4. — When ftU is joined with yxp, each of the particles retains its proper force: in this and similar combinations, however, fi'tv solitarium is of frequent occurrence, — see Hartung, Partik. II. 414.] 720 SENTENCES IN WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION [PART III. the painful antithesis (which appears in ver. 3, — softened however by a commendation) : see also 1 C. v. 3. Compare Xen. Hier. 1. 7, 7. 4, Mem. "S. V2. 1, Plat. Phced. 58 a, Aristoph. Pax 13.^— Or (/3) The contrasted member is perceptibly subjoined, though with a different turn of expression : Eom. xi. 13 sq., e<^' oaov fjiev ovv el'fxl iyo) eOvSiV a7r6aro\o k.t.X., there is certainly an anacoluthon : when the apostle wrote the.se words he had in view a SevTepov or an (Itu, whioli, however, through the change of struc- ture, does not follow. Wyttenbach's remark (on Plut. Mor. I. 47 : ed. Lips.) is here in point : " si solum posnisset rrpwrov, poterat accipi pro maxime, ante omnia " (so almost all commentators here) : " nunc quum /xev addidit, videtur voluisse alia subjungere, tum sui oblitus esse." Compare also Isocr. Areop. p. 344, Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 2, Schtef. iJemodh. IV. 142, Miitzner, Ardiph. p. 191.— 1 C. xi 18. irpuiTOv p€v yap (TVV€p)(op.€V(iiv vfj.u)v k.t.X. : the eTrttra 8t is pro- bably included iu ver. 20 .sqq., and Paul really intended to write, First of all, I hear that in your assemblies there are divisions amongst you, — and tJien, that at the Lord's Supper disorders occur. The latter Paul looks at from a different point of view, — not from that of divisions. Rom. iii. 2 was correctly explained by Tholuck.'* So also in Alt. viii. 21, i-rrirpcipov jlol tt p C)t ov aiTcXOeLV koI Baxpai K.T.X., the word irpuiTov has nothing which corresponds to it. But we should ourselves say, Let me Jir.4 of all (first) go away and bury ; and every one at once supplies from the context, afterwards I icill return (and follow thee, ver. 19, 22). — If in the combination T€ . . . KUL we find TrpojTov inserted after re, it means especially (Rom. i. 16, ii. 9 sq.) : in 2 C. viii. 5, also, -n-pioTov . . . KaC does not stand for TrpwTov . . . tTTctra, — see Meyer in loc. An anacoluthon similar to that with fiev sometimes occurs with Kttt, in cases where /cat should properly have been repeated (both . . . and). Thus in 1 C. vii. 38, cisre Koi. 6 eKya/xi^oiv /coAcGs ttoici, o Se fiT] €Kya/x,6^ojv Kpda-cTov iroui, the sentence is really planned for Kol b firj . . . . KoAws TToiei, as its second member : but as Paul is about to write these words, he corrects himself, and uses the com- parative adverb ; and now, of course, the adversative particle appears to him more suitable. As however there are weighty authorities against 8c, Kai may have been the original reading, changed by transcribers who considered hi more appropriate. 1 Heind. Plat. Phoid. p. 133, Scbajf. Melet. p. 61. * Compare Ast, Plat. Lgijg. p. 230, Matthiae, Eurip. Orest. 24, Baiter, Ind. ad Isocr. Paneg. p. 133, Weber, Demosth. p. 257, ilatzner, Antiph. p. 209, 257 (Jelf765). ^ [If connected with xii. 1 (Meyer), — but not as explained below.] * [Who holds that Paul intended a clause with Se to follow.] 46 722 SENTENCES IN WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION [PART III. II. 1. Different from anacoluthon is the oratio variata^ (Matth. 633, Jelf 909. Ols. 1). This term is applied where in parallel sentences or members of sentences two different (though synonymous) constru.ctions, each complete in itself, are adopted, so that the period is heterogeneous in its structure. In careful writers we meet with the oratio variata mainly where a construction, if continued, would have been clumsy or obscure, or not altogether appropriate to the thought ; ^ sometimes also a- desire for variety has exerted an influence. "We give first some examples of a simple kind. 1 Jo. iL 2, tKa9 iavrov, tj Be yvvi) 'iva (pofitjrac rou dvSpa (^rompare § 43. 5 and Jo. xiii. 29). E. v. 27, Jra TrapaoTtjar) eavr^ evSo^ov rtjv €KKXr)aiai/, p.rj e'^ovrrap cirlXov . . . aXS! Iva 77 (^ iKKXrjcria) a<^ia Kal ap,(op.o<; ;'' compare Act. Apocr. p. 179. Ph. ii. 22, ort, o)? irarpX reKvov, avp ifiol ehovXevaev e/? ro evayyeXtou, that he, as a son his father, so has served (me in my apostolic office — or more fitly) with me etc.; Eom. iv. 12 (^1. An. 2. 42), L. ix. 1, i. 73 sq.,* 1 P. ii. 7, Eom. i. 12.'* 1 C. xiv. 1, ^yXovre r^ irvev- fxariKa, p,dXXov Se iva Trpo^rjrevrjre, where Paul might have written to irpo^ijrevetv : compare verses 5 and 11, Rev. iii, 18, A. xxii. 17. In the following examples the divergence is greater. Mk. xii. 38 sq., rcov deXovroav iv crToXai<; Trepiiraretv Kal aaira- a-p,ovieTQi avrov : see above, p. 186, and compare the similar examples iu L. xvii. 31, Jo. xv. 5. — ^In Rom. xii. 6 sqq., e-^ovre^i he "yapiaybara Kara rrjv %apti' . . . etVe Trpo^rjTetav Kara ttjv avaXo- jiav T% 7rtcrTea)(y, eire hiaKovlav ev rfj ZiaKoviq, etVe 6 SiSdcrKMv ev Ty StSaaKaXia, elre o jrapaKaXoiv ev rfj TrapaKXijarei, the con- structioa (accusatives in dependence upon eyovTe^) is kept up only as far as ev ry SiuKovia, and then begins a new construction, with concrete nouns: Paul might have written instead, etre BiBaa-Kokiav . . . TrapdKXrjcTtv k.t.X. — In 2 C. xi. 23 sqq. Paul is enumerating the sufferings which are attendant on the apostolic office, by means of which he has proved himself a servant of Christ, and that in a higher degree. First, he simply appends ev KOTTOi'i TrepLaa-oTepo)^ k.t.X., each particular brought into relief by an adverb of degree ; then follow narrative aorists and per- fects (ver. 24 sq.) ; and, lastly, Paul returns to substantives, interchanging the instrumental dative and the instrumental ev (ver. 26, 27). See further Jo. v. 44, Ph. i, 23 sq., 1 Jo. lii. 24. In 2 Jo. 2, Bca rrjv dXrjOeiav Trjv fikvovaav ev r/fiiv, KaX fied^ rjfjLMv ea-rat et9 rov alcova, it is obvious that the construction was intentionally changed in the second clause, in order that the thought might be brought out more forcibly than it would have been had this clause fallen into the construction of the first.^ In Rom. ii. 9 sq., also, Paul first writes eVl irdaav '^vyw (speaking of trouble), but afterwards (speaking of the blessings of salvation) substitutes the more appropriate personal dative. — The oratio variata is combined with ellipsis in 2 C. viii. ^ We could hardly (with Fritzsche) bring ilk. ii. 23, iy'niTo vajixvofivivfai auTor . . . Old toih irTopi/j,u*, xai Hp^avra a'l fiaSriTai «.T. X. , under the head of variatio structurcB (taking the last clause to stand tor aplit«*/^£rwv. ] 724 SENTENCES IN WHICH THE CONSTEUCTION [PART IH. 23, Eom. ii. 8, xi. 22 : also in Mk. vi. 8,^ Trapr^yyeiXev avroi<;, Xva fiTjBev atpoiaiv et? oBov . . . aXXJ v7ro8eBefj,evov<; aavBdXia (scil. TTope^eaOai) koI firj ivhixTacrOai (here the better reading is ivBvcrrja-de) Bvo ■^i,T(ova7]ali>, aWa co? yp-6(f)w KporaXayv eKBtco^eiev avrd^' Time. 8. 78, Xen. Mem. 2. 7. 8,' Hell 2. 3. 19, An. 2. 5. 5, iElian, Anim. 10. 13. With Mk, xii. 38 sq., in particular, com- pare Lysias, Cced. Eratosth. 21. From the LXX may be quoted Gen. xxxl 33, Jud. xvi. 24, 3 (1) Esd. iv. 48, viii. 22, 80, Neh. X 30. In Mk. iii. 14 sqq., to the principal words irrol'Tjaev BcoBeKa, Xva K.rX. (ver. 14, 15), which are complete in themselves, Mark first attaches an isolated notice koX kirkBriKev ovoixa rai Scfi(t>vi K.T.\. (ver. 16), in regard to the chief apostle, and then subjoins the names of the remaining apostles in direct dependence on eTToiTjaev (ver. 17-19) ; merely introducing in ver. 17 a second notice, similar to the former, by which the flow of the words is no more interrupted than it is in ver. 19 by 09 /cat TrapeBcoKev K.t.X. All would have been regular if in ver. 1 6 the evangelist had said ^cficova, « iirkOriKev ovopia k.tX. Under this head comes also the transition from the relative construction to that with the personal pronoun : 1 C. viii. 6, cIs t7€os . . . c^ ov ra iravTa Kai rj/jea C6? avrov A x. 11. o, ois to Kpijxa (KTraXai ovk dpyet koI rj aTrwActa avrwv ov vvcmx^ci; Rev. ii. 18 ^ see above, p. 186, Weber, Demosth. p. 355 sq. L. x. 8, cts riv av ■koXlv ^hipx^aO^, koX Se^wvTai (ot TroAiTai) vp.a.'i k.t.X., is substantially of the same kind. On Rev. vii. 9, cTBov koI iSov 6)(^\o^ . . . icTwres . . . Trepi- /3eftX7]ix€vove(^dvLaa^ 7rpo TrapaXvTt/cw is inserted by the narrator in the midst of the words of Christ (compare Mk. ii. 10, L. V. 24). This is the simplest view of the pas- sage ; Meyer's explanation is forced.'^ We find a transition from singular to plural, and vice versa., in liora. iii. 7 sq., xii. 16 sqq., 20, 1 C. (iv. 2) iv. 6 sq (^lian 5. 8), 2 C. xi. 6, Ja. ii. 16, G. iv. 6 sq. (vL 1).^ Rom. ii. 15 also, ev rais Kap8lat^ avruiv, (rvfJifxapTvpovar]<; avTOiv Trjr]v ; a7roKpi6cvT€i) ; xiv. 27, ciTC ykwcrcrr) Tts XouXci, Kara 8uo ^ to rrAeio-TOV Tptts (AaAetTwo-ai), compare 1 P. iV- H ^ L. xxiii. 41. ev TuS avT<3 Kpip-aTi el- /cat 17/xers jxev StKatws {icrfiev, scil. cV Tw Kp/yoia'^t toi'tw)'; 1 C. ix. 12, 25, xi. 16 ; 2 0. iii. 13, koL ov KaBarrep MwiJo-^s €Tt^€i KaXv/i/Jia eVt to Trpo'swTrov kavTOv {TL$ep.€v kciAv/a/ao €7rt to xpo'swjror ^/Mwi/).! Compare further Mt. xx. 23, xxvi. 5, Jo. xiii. 9, XV. 4, 5, xvii. 22, xviii. 40, Rom. i. 21 [1], ix. 32, xiv. 23, Ph. ii 5, iii. 4, H. (ii. 13) x. 25, xii. 25, Rev. xix. 10, Mt. xxv. 9. Under this head will also come 1 C. vii. 21, SovAos €KXrj6r}<;, p-r) o-ot fieXerta, if we supply the ellipsis in the simplest way, by understanding -rfj-i SovAetas (Lob. Farulip. p. 314) : see Meyer, who has overlooked the fact that 1 proposed this in my .5th edition.^ The most remarkable accumu- lation of such necessary repetitions of words is found in Rom. xii. 6 sq. c. Nor is there a real ellipsis when it is necessary to supply an affirmative from a preceding negative word, — a case of frequent occurrence in Greek authors (e. g., Thuc. 2. 98. 3, Tropi.vop.ivio avrw uTreyLyvtro ph' ovScv toC arpargv (• p.rj tl voato, TrposcytyveTO oe) : 1 C vii. 19, 17 TrepLTOjii] oJSu' eVn, aAAtt Ti^pr/cris cj'ToAujv $€0V {icrrL TL or Ttt TravTa «crT<), iii. T, 1 C. X. 24, .uiySels to eauToC ^ryTCiVw, dAAtt TO ToS kripov (scil. iKatTTO'i). Of a different kind are E. iv. 29 and 1 C. iii. 1. Conciseness of expression is carried still farther in Mk. xii. 5, Kttl TToAAous aAAous, toi/s p-lv ^ipovTe?, tovs 8c diroKTci- vovTcs; from these two participles we ,must supply a finite verb the most probable reading. In the examples by Winer and Fritzsche for the repetition of i'-ri the particle has the meaning that, not because.^ ' This case, in which the verb is construed, not with the principal subject, but with the subject of the subordinate clause, may be regarded as a species of attraction. See Kriiger, Gramm. Untersuch. III. 72, where many similar examples are adduced, e.g., Xen. Cyr. 4. ]. 3, Thuc. 1. 82, 3. 67. ''[The notice in ed. 5 (p. 654) has reference to the latter part of the verse only : Winer supplies ryi "iovXiia.. from 5ot/A«f, as object oi xp'>'^'^'- (so Bengel, Meyer, De W., Alford, al.). Compare Lightfoot, Col p. 390 %(i., Speak. Comm. III. 294.] ^ See Stallbaum, Plat. Apol. p. 78, Sympos. p. 80, Euthyd. p. 158, Matzner, Antiph. p. 17G (.Telf 895. 9). In regard to Latin, compare Bremi, Nep. p. 345, Kritz, SaUast II. 573. SECT. LXIV.] INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. 729 which will comprehend both verbal notions, such as ill-treat (compare Fritzsche in loc). So also in Rom. xiv. 21, koXov to fxij <^ay£tv Kpea fir]8e ■JTiiLV olvov, firjSe iv (S 6 aScAc/ios (tov TrposKoirTei k.t.A., we should probably supply after the second /x-qSe the general word ttoiciv (Aristot. Nicom. 8. 13. 6), or some such word as taste. On Ph. ii. 3 see below, no. 2 (Lob. Paralip. p. 382). In H. x. 6, 8, oXoKav- Tw/xara kol Trepl u/zapTias ovk cuSoxT^tras, we must from oXoKavTw/xara supply the general notion dva-iaq to the words ttc/ji d/xaprta? ; similarly, in H. X. 38 the general term avOp(inro<; is to be supplied from StKaios (compare Kiihner II. 37 ^). In Rev. vi. 4 the subject of cr<^a4^ovcri must be supplied from the clause Xafietv ttjv flpijvriv Ik t^s y^s, viz., the concrete ol AcaTotKowres €tt avrrj^. But here also the sup- pressed notion is partially present. — (For Latin examples similar to the above see Lindner, Lat. Ellips. p. 240 sqq.) In all these cases the necessity of some supplement is shown by the incompleteness of the sentence, considered grammati- cally and logically. Not so in Jo. viii. 15, v/acis Kara t^v crdpKa KpLV€T€, iyo) ov Kpivoi ovBeva : rather is the second clause so concluded by ov8«va, that we can perceive no requirement to supply anything, — Ye judge according to the fiesh, hat I judge no one (not merely, / judge no one according to the flesh, but ah- solutely^ I judge ho one). The only justification for supplying Kara TT/v o-dpKa from the preceding clause would be found in the inappro- priateness of the thought which would otherwise be presented : no such inappropriateness, however, am I able to discover, any more than Olsliausen and Liicke. As to the meaning, see especially Baumg.- Crusius in loc. After €l Bi p.r,, d hi p.^ yt (Mt. vi. 1, L. x. 6, xiii. 9, 2 C. xi. 16, al.),^ and after the formula ov p.6vov M ( . . . aXXa Kai), so frequently used by Paul, it is particularly common to have to repeat in thought a preceding word or phrase. For the latter see Rom. v. 3, ov fiuvov 8e (scil. Kav)((t)p.€Oa eV (XttlSl ttj's So^s, ver. 2), aXXa Kai Kav^iiifxeOa k.t.X. ; Rom. V. 11, KaToAAayeVrcs cT(ii6y]a6p.(.Ba. . . . ov p.6vov 8c (KaroAAayei/res cr(Ddr)a'6p.eOa), oAAo. kol Kav\i'Dp.cvoi' Vlil. 23, 2 C viii. 19. In Kom. ix. 10, ov p.6vov U, dXXa koL 'Pe/S^KKa k.t.X. some- thing more remote seems to be omitted. It is easiest to fill up the sense thus, from ver. 9 (compare ver. 12) : But not ordy did Sarah receive a divine promise respecting her son, but also Rebekah, though she was the mother of two legitimate sons, etc. In Greek writers compare Diog. L, 9. 39, 7revTa»coo-tois ToAavroi? Tip.r]6yjvai, p.r} p.6vov 8i, oAAo. Kai )(aXKai^ eiKocri. Lucian, Vit. Auct. 7 , ov p.6vov, aXXa. kul ^ [Jelf 373. 6. On this passa^re see § 58. 9.] * Compare Plat. Gori). 503 c, Fhrpd. 63 d, Hoogeveen, Parlk. Gr. I. 345 sq, [The strengthened form tl 3j ^>) yt, whirh in the N. T. occurs more frequently than the other, is not luiclassical : see Plat. R^p. 425 e. Both are found after negative (otherwi'^e, otherwise indeed), as well as ai'ter affirmative sentences : see Jelf 860. 4, Alford on Mt. vi. 1, Grimm, Vlavis p. 115, 74.] 730 INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. [PART III. ^v Bvpojpeiv avTov eViori/o-j;?, iroXv -mcTTOTipia XPWV ''"'^''^ kvvwV Toxar. 1. An analogous formula in earlier writers is oi fj.6i'ov ye ... . aXXd : Plat. Phced. 107 b, oi fj.6vov y, i<^rf u 2a>K/3ar7;s (scil. aTTLcrTiav ce Set ^x^iv 7r€pL Twv dpy]p.ivoiv), dAAa TavTO. re cu Ac'ytis k.t.X., Meno 71 D, Legg. 6. 752 a; see Heindorf and Stallbaum on Plat. Phced. I. c. In 2 C. vii. 7 the clause introduced by ov p-ovov Si is actually expressed, by a repetition of preceding words. — The use of Koiv in the sense of vel certe ^ is also the result of an omission ; e. g. , Mk. vi. 56, tva KOLV ToJ) KpacnreSov . . . axpoivraL (properly, IVa at/zaJi/rat avTov, KOLv Tou KpacTTTtSou di/'wvTai), 2 C. xl. 16. Thc samB may be said of £t Kat in 2 C. vii. 8 ; compare Bengel in loc.^ Still less can we give the name of ellipsis to the case in which a word expressed but once must in the same principal sentence be supplied a second time (in a different form):. A. xvii. 2, Kara ro cioj^os T(3 IlavAw ekijXOe -rrpos o.vtov<; (IlavAos), xiii. 3, i-mOeuTf^ ras x^H^"-"^ avToU aireXva-av (avTovs). In Rom. ii. 28, ovx o ev t<^ (jtavepi^ 'lotiSaids ccttiv ovbl tj kv to3 avept^ ireptTop.-q, the predica- tive words 'lovSalo'i and TrepiTop.r/ must also be supplied with the subjects 6 £v T(3 <^avepa> and rj iv T(2 avep(2. Compare also A. viii. 7. Rem. It may sometimes happen that some form of a word must be supplied from a subsequent clause;* compare 1 C. vii. 39. In Rom. V. 16, however, the opinion that Tra/DaTrrci/xaTos must be supplied with i$ «vds, from €k twv ttoXXwv Trupa-n-TmpdTtav, may now be re- garded as obsolete: see Philippi i?6 loc. In 2 C. viii. 5 the verb iSwKav in the second clause also belongs to the clause beginning with Kal ov (a very common case), only it must the first time be taken absolutely : and they did not give as (in the measure that) we hoped, but they gave themselves (personally) etc. But in Mk. xv, 8, i]P$aTo aheLo-dat ku^ws act cttoUu avroh, it might appear that with the verb atreto-^at we must supply ttouIv, from IttoUi. Strictly, however, the words run thus, . . . to make request in accordance with what he ahvays did for them (granted to them) : from this we may infer the object of the request, but have no right grammatically to supply it. — On E. iv. 26, where it has been proposed to take the p-rj 1 Kypke, Obs. II. 165, Hoogev. Partic. II. 956. * Vig. p. 527, Boisson. Philostr. Epp. p. 97. [Similarly Meyer, De W. , Fritzsche (2. Diss. p. 120), A. Buttm. (p. 360), Rost {Gr. p. 614), and others. For a different explanation of the process by which ««» came to mean if only, even {icecv being taken for xai av, not xai lay), see Rost und Palm, Liddell and Scott, s. v., Jebb on Soph. Ajax 1078 or El. 14So. See further Green p. 230, MuUach p. 398.— To the N. T. examples of *«v thus used add A. v. 15.] ' [Bengel takes the u nai before -rfo; ufxt as used elliptically, so as to give the meaning/or a season only — if indeed at all: " contristavit vos, inquit, epistola, tnntummodo ad tempus, vel potius ne ad tempus quidem." Meyer objects (1) that such an ellipsis is found with il xai apa, tWif apx, t'l apa, but never with the simple tl xai : (2) that on this view rrpos upav would naturally precede ti xa! : (3) that the thought itself would be inappropriate.] •* Herm. Ojmsc. p. 151, Jacob, Luc. Alex. p. 109, Lindner, Lat. Ellips. p. 251 sqq. SECT. LXIV.] INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE, 731 of tli£ second clause as belonging to the first also, sec above, p. 392. 2. The most common case of actual ellipsis is the omission •of the simple copula, avat : viz. — a. la the form ea-ri (more rarely 77),' — for this is really im- plied in the mere juxtaposition of subject and predicate:^ H. v. 1 3, Tra? 6 iMere-x^ujv ydXa/cros airetpo^ (ea-ri) Xoyov BiKaLocrvvij'i' ix. 16,x. 4; 18,xi 19, Mk. xiv. 36, Rom. xi. 16,xiv. 21, 2 0. l- 21, Ph. iv. 3, E. i. 18, Iv. 4 v 17, 2 Th. iii. 2, 1 P. iv. 17. Particularly also in questions, L. iv. 36, A, x. 21, Eom. iii. 1, viii. 27, 31, 2 C. ii. 16,.vi. 14, Eev. xiii. 4, H. vi. 8 (compare Kritz, Salhist, I. 251); and exclamations, A. xix. 28, 34, fxeydXr) f) "Aprefxa ^E(f>€cri(ov. This omission is however most common in certain established formulas: Ja. i. 12, fjiaicdpio^ avrjp, o? /c.t.X. (Mt. v. 3, 5- "I 0, xiii. 1 6, L. i. 45, Rom. iv. 8, xiv. 22, Ptev. xvi. 15, —compare 1 P. iv. 14); BP)\ou on, 1 C. xv. 27,' 1 Tim. vi. 7; avdyKv with an infinitive, H. ix. ] 6, 23, Rom. xiii. 5; Trto-ro? o ^eo9, 1 C. i. 9, X. 13, 2 C i. 18, or TtiaTo^ 6 \0709, 1 Tim. i. 15, iii. 1, 2 Tim. ii. 11; d Kvpio^ iy/v^, Ph. iv. 5; d^io'i 6 ipydrr}^ TTjf rpotpr)^, Mt. X. 10, 1 Tim. v. 18, — compare Rev. v. 2; ere fiiKpov, Jo. xiv. 19 ; fiiKpov baov oaov, H. x. 37; et Bvvarov, Mt. xxiv. 24, Rom. xii. 18, G. iv 15 ; copa with an infinitive, Eom. xiii. 11 (Plat. u4p. p. 42); ri ydp, Ph. i. 18, Eom. iii. 3; Tt ovv, Rom. iii. 9. vi. 15; ri ip.ol Kai aoi^ Mk. v. 7, i. 24, L. viii. 28, Jo. ii. 4, (Her. 5. 33, Demosth. Apkoh. 564 b, Arrian, EpicL 1. 1. 16, 1. 19. 16); t* to o(^eA.o9, 1 C. xv. 32, Ja. ii. 14. 16 ; c5 6vo/ua or ovofia aur(p, followed by the name, L. ii. 25, Jo. i. r>, iii. 1, al. (Demosth. Zenoth. p. 576 b); compare also A. xiii. 1 1, ii. 29; In the latter examples, as in the former, brevity and conciseness are altogether in place: compare Vig. p. 236.® ^ Compare however Stallbaum, Plat. Rtp. 1. 133. 7 Rost p. 468 sq., Kriig. p. 272 sq. : compare Wannowski, Syntax. Anom. p. 210 sq. [See Jelf 376, Don. p. 400 sq., A. Buttni. p. 136 sqq. In a few of the examples quoted here (e. g., H. ix. 16, E. iv. 4) it is th«» substantive verb that i8 omitted (see below) not the copula : in some others n* rather than Uri must be supplied. — H. vi. 8 is not a question : probably Winer had intended to mention the frequent omission of thai m relative clauses (Don. p. 401, Jelf 376. d), which is illustrated by this pa.ssage (H. ii. 10, iv. 13, ix. 2, 4, al.).] •' [Unless we supply •ra»T« vir/trirKXTai {MeyfT, and Winer above, 1. a); see Jelf 895. 1. a. — In J Tim. I. c. lUko). is absent from the best texts.] * [So in Mt. xxvii.' 19, //.nliv roi ««< t-Z IikolIw Ikuxii (ttru^ : A. Buttm. p. 138.] . ■ * Under this head comes also the formula t/ (i A,079> aXV ov rfj yvcoaet, w^here Xoyi^ofiai firjhev vcrreprjKevai tmv inrepXiav airo- aroXcou precedes.^ £tW: Rom. iv. 14, xi. 16, 1 C. xiii. 8, i. 26 (see Meyer '^), Rev. xxii. 15, H. ii. 11 (Schsf. Melet. p. 43 sq.). 'Eafiev: Rom. viii. 17, 2 C. x. 7, Ph. iii. 15 (Plin. Upp. 6. 16). El: Rev. xv. 4 (Plat. Gorg. 487 d). "Earo) : Rom. xii. 9, Col. iv. 6, H. xiii. 4, 5 (Fritz. II0771. III. 65); also with %a/0fc9 ra> Oeco, Rom. vi. 11,2 G. viii. 16, ix. 15 (3ien. An. 3. 3. 14). Eh in wishes: Rom. i. 7, xv. 33, Jo. xx. 19, 21, 26, Mt. xxi. 9, L. i. 28,^ Tit. iii. 15. Two different forms of this verb are omitted in close succession in Jo; xiv. 11, 6ri. iycD iv tu> Trarpl koI 6 irarr^p iv ifioi' xvii. 23. In historical narration the aorist also is left out: e.-g., 1 C. xvi. 9" (Xen An. 1. 2. 18, Oyr. 1. 6. 6, Thuc. 1. 138, al). On the future see below, p. 734. In the simple language of the N. T. the form to be supplied is always clearly indicated by the context (in Greek authors the determination is often m.ore difficult, see Schsef. Metet. p. 43 sq., 114); hitherto, liowever, commentators have been very lavish in allowing an ellipsis of the substantive verb, and in particular have by this means turned a multitude of participles into finite verbs (compare § 45. 6}.' ^ The case is .simpler in Mk. xii. 26 (from the LXX), tya o hoi. '' K^paifj.. A. vii. 32: also in 2 C. viii. 23. Compare Soph. Antif/. 634. [In the passage from which Mk. xii. 26 and A. vii. 32 are taken (Ex. iii. 6} t'lfi! is expres.sed. In 2 C. viii. 23 the form to be supplied is ua-i.] '•^ [Meyer .supplies iWi between (rokXo'i and a-oipei Compare the Journal of Philology, p. 158 sq. (Cambridge, 1868), where it is maintained that the refer- ence is to the preachers, and that St. Paul, when he wrote au ^/)>.Xc] (rofol ».t.x., hud i|iXi;^;^>is-av in his mind as the verb of the sentence.] ^ [It seems much more probable that iffTi should be supplied here (Meyer, De W., Bleek, al.).— See Ellicott on E. i. 2.] * [This is an example of the omission of t / ir /. ] * [In Green's Grammar (p. 180) it is straTigely n.sserted that "the absolute use of the participle as an imperative is a marked feature of the language of the New Testament:" see also his Critical Notea p. 36, Wiatislaw, Notes etc. p. 168, and (less positively) Webster, Sy7it. p. 116. The only pas.sages which I find quoted in illustration of this " Aramaism " (?) are 2 P. i. 20, 1 P. ii. 12, 2 P. iii. 3 (Mk. vi. 0), 1 P. ii. 18, iii. 1, 6 sqq., Kom. xii. 9-19, H. xiii. 5. The first of these passages is .surely perfectly regular ; the second and third are simple examples of the participial anacoluthon noticed above, § 63. 2 : a.s to Mk. vi. 9, it is hard to conceive anything more unnatural than the explanation of Croli- hfiivevs as an "indirect imperative" (Green, Or. Notes I, c). On 1 P. ii. 13-iii. SECT. LXIV,] INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. V33 The imperative plural la-ri,^ also, is suppressed in such cases as Rom. xii. 9 (1 P. iil. 8), as appears from the whole tone of the sentence ; and it is not necessary to explain the participle airoa-Tv- yovvTcs as an anacoluthon. — In eivVoyr/Tos 6 ^eo?, etc., Rom. ix. 5, 2 C. i. 3, E. i. 3, we must supply, not lazC (Fritz. Horn. I. 75), but £('?; or 'iaTiii (compare 1 P. x. 9,^ Job i. 21). We sometimes lind the same omission of Icttl, etc., when this verb is raoi-e tlian the mere copula, and denotes existence, subnstence (Rost p. 469, Jelf 376) : 1 C. xv. 21, Sl av0pu)Trov 6 OdvaTu^ TrpoTjpTjrac rfj KapBia, ^y) e'/c Xvtttj^, — scil. Borco, * See Hermann, Opusc. p. 157 sq., 169, Bos, Eltips. p. 598 (Jelf 590. Obs.) : on the Latin phrase see Kritz, Sallust II. 146 [Madvig 479. d. Ohs. 1]. ^ Hermann, Opusc. p. 156 sq. (Jelf 896). 3 This ellipsis is carried to a great extent in both Greek and Latin : e. g., Charit. 6. 1, Tavra. (i'.v oZv 01 atifif- Val. Flacc. 5. 254, vix ea. Compare also Cic. i\r. D. 2. 4. 11, augures rem ad Senatnm, and many examples of a similar kind, especially in the epistolary style : see Cic. Fam. 4. 8, 7. 9, Attic. 15 8, 17, 16. 9, — particularly the examples from ad Atticuvi. * Fritzsche in loc. [See p. 509, where H. vii. 13 is quoted for kiyu^ i-rl nva. In Rom. iv. 9 Meyer prefers the simple Itrr! (compare Rom. ii. 2. 9, A. iv. 33).] ^ ' * When similar imprecations occur in Greek authors,— e. g., Js xipuXvy «•«<, Aristoph. Pax 1063, — it is customary to supply Tpx-ritria, in accordance with Mosch. 4. 123, Phalar. Ep. 128. See Bos, Ellips. p. 657 sq. (Jelf 891. 4). * [This reference to Fritzsche must be understood as applying to the tense only: rntzsche supplies re xplua lyUiTa and to ^ufKTfxa. yiivj Kpariarw qyep^ovi ^tjXikl ^ai'pecv (scil. Xiyei,), A. XV. 23, Ja. i. 1, see Fritzsche, Horn. I. 22. In the proverb 2 P. ii. 22, vs Xova-af^evr/ cis KwAi? 6\iya<; TralcreLev ^lian, Anim. 10, 21, nacrTiyova-t TroWah' Aristoph. Niob. 971, Schol. ad Thuc. 2. 39 (oi'TrXeiova^ 'iveyKovre'i).'^ Ellipsis is carried farther in 2 C. viii. 15, 6 rb 'ttoXv ovk eTrXeovaa-e, kuI 6 to oXlyov ovk r/XarTovrjcre (from Ex. xvi. 18, compare ver. 1 7), where we may supply e;^&)i'.* Many such phrases (consisting of the article with an accusative) are found in later writers — e. g., Lucian, Catapl. 4, o to ^vXov Ms acous. 9, 6 rrjv avpLyya' Dial. M. 10. 4 (Bernh, p. 119) — and hence they are as fully established in usage as the formulas mentioned above. See hos, Ul lips. p. 166. Some have awkwardly intro- duced this idiom into Mt. iv. 15. — In Rom. xiii. 7, diroSoTe irdaL Tdosse often is. Lnther correc-.tly renders the words above yom' power. In 1 P. ii. 23, TrrvoeStSou T(3 KpivovTL 8iKa('u>?, sfcvergl comnien- tators supply Hpiaiv, from Kpivovru This is not impossible in^ itself, but TrapeStSou probably has the reflexive sense which is so common-.^ he committed li'mself (his cause) to him who jadgeth righbt^ouslyy There is no ellipsis whatever in Mt^ xxiii. 9, Trarcpa p.rj KaKiu-qn vpCiv cVi Trj>i yrj%, on the earth name not (any one) yoar fu.U/fi ; \. e., use not upon earth (that is, amongst and of men) the iipyellation " our father." Similarly, in 1 Tim. v. y, XVP^ raraXiyi'jOu) p.T] e-lurroy ItCjv k^rfKovra yeyovvia k.t.A., the meaning is,"y4s u widow let one. he regi.'itered (enrolled) who is not vnder sixty year's of age. The widows entered on the list, hov/ever, are (from ver. 16) those who received maintenance from the funds of the churcli. 5. In particular, "we find many snhstantives reguliirly omitted in certain definite formulas, or m a special context, — attributives only being expressed, which of themselves suggest the substantives. Compare Bernh. p. 183 aqq (Don. p. 356 sqq., delf 436). The following are examples of words thus omitted: — 'Hfxepa (Bos s. v.). In the formulas t) il3Ba/j,v, H. iv. 4 fof the Sabbath) ; eco? or /iep^t rrj^ arrjuepov, Mt. xxvii. 8, 2 C. iii. 15 (2 Chr. XXXV. 25, Malal. 12. 301},— here V^'/^a? is usually ex- pressed in the LXX and the K T.^) ; 77 avpiov, Ja. iv. 1 4, Mt. vi. 34, A. ,iv. 3, 5 (3 Mace. v. 38) ; ^ e^?j<}, A. xxi. 1, L. vii. 1 1 -^ 77} €xofJ,evrj, L. xiii. 33, A. xx. 15 ; r^ eViouo-^, A. xvi. 11 ; ry erepa (postridie), A. xx. 15 ; rfj rpirr;, L. xiii. 32 (X.en. Oyr. 5. 3, 27, Piut. Pardag. 9. 26, ttjv ixea7]v Ti/xveiv)} '086Tk iv. 29), quoting Is. xlvii. 3 ; see also Plat. Phadr. 250 e, and Hein- dorf and Thonip.son in tec. In 1 P. i. 23 he would supply ra tavroZ or x^9 sq.," Lob. Pamllp. p. 363. BKCT. LXIV.] INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. 739 Cic. Divin. 1, 54. 123) ;^ L. iii. 5, earai ra a-KoXta et? cudeta^ K.r.X. (where however ooouf follows iti the second member). Compare Lucian, Dial. M. 10. 13, evOetav iiceiVTjv TrpolovTe'i' Pans. 8. 23. 2 ; in Latin, cumpendiaria ducere (Senec. Ep. 119), rect^ ire." "TBcop (Bos p, 501 sqq.). Mt. x. 42, o? eap irorlarj . . . tto- rxjpiov yjrvxpov' J'a. iii. 11, Epictet. ^/ic/k 29. 2, Arrian, ^pzc^. 3. 12. 17, 3. 15, 3, Lucian, 3Iorti Peregr. 44 ; as we say a fjlaf^s of red (wine), a bottle of hrovm (beer), a pint of Bavarian, So also dipixov (soil. vZoip), An^io\A\. Nab. 1040, Arrian, E2nct. 3. 22. 71, al. In Latin, frigida, Plin. Ep. 6. 16 ; calida, Tac. GerTJi, 22 ; yilida, Hor. *S^erm. 2. 7. 91. 'Ifx-artov (Bos p. 204 sq). Jo. xx. 12, dewpel hvo uyyiXov^ iv \evKOL<; f. Ja. V. 7, jiaKpodvixoiv eV axnu> (^Kapiruy), eo)? Xd^tf TTpdillJbOV KOi Q-^lflOV. In all these formulas the ellipsis has established itself through long-continued usage ; and for this reason the meaning is clear, especially in certain contexts, to any one who is acquainted with the usus loquendi? Other omissions are of a more special ^ [In ver. 31. Tregelles reads lllov. — In L. ii. 49, u to7; t. ■r. //.. may mean either " my Father's house." {toIs oiK-n/^mri) or (less probably) " my Father's business."^ ^ Compare in German er nctzle rothen vor, er sass ztir rtchten, er fiihr mit sechsen, etc. {he set down red, he sat on the right, he drove in a coach and six). SECT. LXIV.] INCOMPLETE STKUCTURE. 741 character, belonging to the iisus loquendi of a particular city or community ; e. g., TrpofSaTiKr] (ttvXt}, Neh. iii. 1) Jo. v. 2/ — yet see Bos s. v. -TrvXrj. Similar examples are ol BotSeKa, ol eTTTo. {hidKovoi), A. xxi. 8 : compare ol rpcaKovra {Tvpavvoi) in Greek writers. To this head have been wrongly referred many expressions and formulas in whicli a neuter adjective or pronoun stands by itself, without any ellipsis (Kriig. p. 4, Jelf.436). To this class belong e.g. those adjectives which have long had a substantival character, to Upov (the temple), to SioTrere? (A. xix. 35), to a-rjpiKov (Rev. xviii. 12); in biblical language, rh ayiov, the holy j)lace (in the tabernacle and the temple), to IXaor-qpiov^ etc. Also to, Iha his own (property), Jo. i. 11 ; TO, o-a, what IS thine, L. \i. 30 ; Ta KaTwTcpa t^s y^«i, E. iv. 9 (where however good M8S. add p-tpr}) : sti I further to Tptrov twv ktict/icitw, Rev. viii. 9, al., and the adverbial expressions h/ iravTi, ets k^vov, to XoLTTov (§ 54. 1). In H. xiii. 22, Sto. /S/DaxeW, we must not suppose that Aoywv is to be supplied, any more than that in the Latin pauois there is an ellipsis of verbis or the like ; nor must tottu) be supplied with €v €Tcpa), A. xiii. 35, H. v. 6 (in quotations). In 1 C. xv. 46, also, TO TTVf.vp.aTiKov aud TO ij/vxi-Kov SLTB substau tival, and we have no right to understand o-w/>ta. Lastly, in cv tw fxcTa^v, Jo. iv. 31, there is no elli{)sis of p^povcu ; the phrase is to be referred to to /xcTa^u (Lucian, Dial. D. 10. \). Nor is the genitive of relationship elliptical, SwTraTpos Xlvppov (A. XX. 4), 'lov'Sas 'laKuyjSov, 'Ep.fx6p toS 2uxe> (§ 30. 3) ; but the genitive expresses the general idea of appertaining to."^ For examples from the Greeks and Romans see Vechner, Hellenolog. p. 122 sq., Jani, Ars Poet. p. 187 sq. But even if there were in such cases a real omission of vl6<;, uScXe^os, or the like, it would still be altogether preposterous to supply vios with the genitive in G. iii. 20, 6 §€ /xeo-tTT/s cvo? ovk ea-TLv.'^ A word can be left out only when the idea which it expresses is sup|)lied by the context, or may be supposed to be famihar to the reader. Put he who writes " the mediator is not of one " has not given even the most remote indication that " son " is the idea he would have the reader supply. The words in themselves simply say, he appertains not to one. Tiiat however he appertains as son (and not — to specify what surely must be regarded as lying nearest — in this very function of mediator) the reader would be left to guess ! In like manner, a number of (transitive) verbs, which in com- bination with a governed noun formed various familiar phrases, ' As wlien in Leipsic one speaks of going out "zum Grimmaischen," by the Grbiima {gale). " As we ourseh-es say PniJ^sia'-^ Bliirher. See Herm. Opusc. p. 120, Kiihner II. 118 .«(|. (Jelf 4o6. I., Don. p. 356, 468). ■^ Kaiser, De apolMyei. er. Joa. consiUis, II. 742 INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. [PART III. have in course of time dropped the noun, being now used by themselves to express the meaning which the combination had conveyed : ^ e. g., Bidyecv, to live (in an ethical sense), Tit. iii. 3^ — properly to pass, soil, rov ^lov (1 Tim. ii. 2). This verb is frequently so used in Greek writers; see Xen. Cyr. 1. 2. 2, 8. 3. 50, Diod. S. 1. 8. Similarly, Ziarpl^eLv to remain in a place, Jo. iii. 2 2, — properly, to spend, scil. tov xpovov: see Kiihnol in loc. In Latin compare agcre, dcgcre (Vechner, Helknol. p. 126 sq.). — l!v/xf3dWei,v rivi or Trpo? Tiva, A. iv. 15, xvii. 18, to converse (confer), consult loith some one, — originally avfj.- ^dXkeiv Xoyovij serm.onem conferre (Ceb. 33) : the earlier Greek writers mostly used the middle avfi^dWeaOaL. — Upo^e-xebp Tivl, give heed to, scil. tov vovv ; compare the Latin advertere, attendtre. Similarly, iTre-^eiv, L. xiv. 7, A. iii. 5. ^Ev€')(ei,v also is perhaps to be taken thus ^ in Mk. vi. 1 9, L. xi. 53. Here how- ever the word is sometimes explained as meaning to he angry, — scil. 'x^oXov (Her. 1. 1 1 S, 6. 1 19) ; but of the omission of this particular accusative no example is to be found. — ^ETrinOevai rivL (ra? 'xetpas:), A. xviii. 1 : compare Xen. Mem. 2. 1. 15, Cyr. 6. 3. 6. — XvWaix^dvetv, concipere, become pregnant,!^, i. 31. — Several verbs thus used absolutely have become technical expressions : e. g., EiaKovdv, Jo. xii. 2, to wait (at table) ; tt/oo?- (f)epeiv, H. V. 3, to offer; irpo'iKVvelv, to worship, perform, de- votions, Jo. xii. 20, A. viii. 27 ; Xarpevecv, Ph. iii. 3, L. ii. 37, A. xxvi. 7 ; KaXdv, to invite, 1 C. x. 27 (Xen. Cyr. 2. 2. 23. 8. 4. 1) ; Kpoveiv, to knock (at a door), Mt. vii. 7, al. ; irpo^dWeiv, to shoot forth (of trees), L. xxi. 30, — a Jiorticultural term. Nautical terms: aXpeiv, to weigh (anchor), A. xxvii. 13, — scil. ■racJve. p. ''2?>'o.] ^ [Green. Or. p. -26.] ♦ De Wette, Apostelj. p. 33. [Alford on A. ii. 4, Diet of Bible, III. 155S.] 744 INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. [PAHT III. left to the reader to conjecture which he should supply. In 2 P. ii. 10, oTTLo-w crapKO'iTropevicrBaL must not be supplemented by hipas, from Jude 7 : the phrase is intelligible as it stands. In 1 C. vi. 20, 7iyopda-6rp-€ ti/x^s, there is no ellipsis of p.eyuXr} c'iXii tZ 6iu ; Paul here is looking only at the spiritual meaning of the law, which he considers from the same point of view as Philo, who says, eu yap v^tp rcDn IXeyait o vifiof aXX' iiTip tui »«?» xat \iytt s^itTut : see Meyer. The -Tritfui which follows should of itself have prevenled such a weakening of the words. In Rom. iv. 9 there is no need of /tc'v^v before r, xul, an etiam ; and in Rora. iii. 28, where (T'Wh and zup); Uyuv v«>vH'^ (1 C. vii. 29, xv. 50];' or even. XoyiCea-de. (Meyer in his 1st edition connected rovro 8^ with the.following o aireipoiv, but— as he himself has felt — this would be a very rugged construction: his present explanation of rovro he, as an accusative absolute, is forced.) So also in the formula QVX on ( . . . aXkd), used for the purpose of avoiding misappre- hension, "I say" or "I mean" was originallv present in thouglit before on:^ Jo. vii. 22,"' ovx on e/c rov Mcov(Tt(o, Henu. Voj. p. 804. ♦ [Whether this passage Should come in here, or 'should be compared with Jo. xii. 6, i.s a disputed point : see Westuott's note. —There is a curious difference between the mefinings which tins formula ha^j in Ihe N. T. and ia classical Greek (.Jdf 762. 2, Herm. Vig. ]>. 790, Buttni. Gr. Gramm. \\ 013 sq. ;— see Xen. J/^ft/i. '1. 9. 8, Deiu. Timocr. p. 70'.^, Arisloc,'. p. 671, Time. 'J.. 97, DioC. p. 285), though the ellipsis must be supplied in (nearly'^ the same manner in boili cases. In classical Greek "Ju-'df (or do) not .?«// that . . . but" is used rhetorically, — "not only . . . but:" in the N. T. , as Winer remarks, "I do not nitan thai . . . ." is used to avoid misconcoiitiou. A. Buttmann, in comparirif« the N. T. usage wilh that of classic writers {Gr. p. 372), overlooks such examples as are given above (i^uoted mainly from Buttmann); and only speaks of tlu^ otlier use of aix »'■« — in the sense of alikough tJelf 891. '). h. Don. p. f.71, Riddell, Flat. Apol u. 177 sq..— Plat. Frotay. jk 336 d, al.).-^-Witli 7v« uh > = >.«//«., 2 C. ix. 4 (Phil. 19), compare the Latin wc dicain • A. Ruttin. p. 241, l^riiger p. 1'94 iJelf OOiS. F>. b, Madvip;', LaC Or. 440b).--Uu f^n-ri yt, 1 G. vi. 3, w ray nothing of, Vji-dum, see LKidell and Scott, s. v. ^^t/«, .Jelf 762, Don. p. 578.] SECT. LXIV.] INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. "747 (a.) By some it is rendered, hut it is not possiUe that etc. In this signification olov is generally accompanied by re, but this particle is not in itself essential, and actually is omitted in the passage which Wetstein quotes fiom Gorgias Leontinus, aol ovk t)v olov fjbovov /j,dprvpa'i . . . eiipelv : ' perhaps indeed we might read ov^ olov re 8e T^'Elian 4. 17) in Eon), ix. 6. The usual infinitive construction i/cTreirTcoKevat rov Xoyov would here be resolved into a sentence with ort: this is quite in the manner of the later language, — compare in Latin dico quod? De Wette's objection'^ falls to the ground if Fritzsclie's explanation of X070? 6gov is adopted, (b.) Others, with Fritzsche, take ol';^; olov in a sense whicli it frequently bears in later writers, — that of a negative adverb, not at all, hy no means (properly, ov toiovtov eaiiv oTt, the thing is not of suck a kind that): Polyb. 3. 82. 5, 18.18.11. In this case, it istrue, the finite verb always follows (without on); but ort here may be pleonastic (as in axj on), or Paul may have taken ov-^ olov in the sense of multmn alcst {nt), far from Us being the case that, and have construed accord- ingly, illeyer'.s analysis of the phrase is in no way preferable. In Rom. ix;. 16, apa ovv ov nn ^I'XovTOS ovSe rov T^j€;)(i)Vros k.t.A., whore it is sufficient to .suj)p]y ic-TL, the subject ot the impersonal sentence {it depends not then on him that wills, it is not a matter of wdling, — on cimt nvos see above, p. 243 sq.) must be obtained from the context, and is the attainvmd of the divivc nierci/ (ver. 15). Similarly in Rom. iv. 16, Starovro €k ttio-tcws (eVrt), iva kuto. x^P'-^ (??)' therefore from faith springs that of which J am speaking, viz., r} Kkrfpovo/xLa (supplied directly by ver. 14). On Rom. v. 18 see above, no. 2. In Mt. V. 38, also, 64>6a\f-i.6v avrl 6(f>$aXixov Koi oSovra avr' o8oVtos, there are Avanting both the subject and a part of the pre- 1 Comjiare also Kayser, Pfiilostr. .S'075/i. p. 348. Examples of the persoiiiil oJos itTi, such as those which Mf-yer quotes Irpra Polybius, have nothing to do with the .suhjpct. Com]inre, "Wcher, Df.moath. p. 469. * On tho relation whicli the infinitive construction bears to a sentence with «V(, see Kriigur p. 286. ^ fVi? , that St. Vaul is not sp^-aking of the impo.ssibility that God's word .should fail, but ol l)xv, fact that it has not failed. Fritzsche understands hy y.iyai fiicu God's decree to save, a reivnnnt only of l.srael. — The best commen- tator.s aj^ree substantially in the explanation of oix <"'* «'■'• ^^ li'^ analysis Meyer uses the same words as Wiuer {ol tdIo-j Ji Xsyw, I'mv or!), but supposes that the formula originated in tlie fu.sion of two expressions "Ix. ''«>• (as used in later Greek, — see above, and Phryn. p. 372 i and oux, '»-'■ 'I'he same view is taken by A. Buttm. (p. 372): Fritzsclie also prefers this explanation to any other, with the exception of that (juoted m the text. See A. Butlmannft. c, , but especially Fritzsche hi lor.] 748 INCOMPLETE .STRUCTURE. [PART III. dicate, though an in)pHoation of the latter is contained in ox'tL These words^ however, are taken from Ex. xxi, 24, where t"hey are- preceded by Swo-et.i In sucli familiar .'iayingp as passages of the law, which were present to the mind of all, and Tiad almost become proverbial, even verbs which in other casps could not be left out without ambiguity might very well be suppressed; see above, 3. b.2 7. An entire sentence is sometimes suppressed per elli/psin (Hermann, Opusc. p. 159, Vicf. p. 872, Jelf 860. 896). a. Eom. xi. 21 [Ecc], el yop 6 Oe6<{ tmv Kara (pvacv kXu- •Scou ovK ecpelcraro, /j.i]7rQ)s yiypaTrrai, 6 Kfiv^iLfxei'O's cv KvpLio Kai'^acr^w. We may supply with Iva a yevrj- Ttti or a wX-qptjiOfj. The apostle, however, unconcerned about the grammatical sequence, directly annexes to his own words the words of the Scripture, as an integral member of the sentence, just as in Rom. XV. 3 he introduces the words of Christ in the direct form, from Ps. Ixix. : compare Kom. xv. 21. In 1 C. ii. 9 sq., however, we must not follow Meyer in regarding \er. 10 as the apodosis cor- responding to a 6^6aXp.iv oro^nfav ravrriv ; Compare A. xxiii. 9 (Lachmann). ^ Compare Quintilian 9. 2. 54 ; Tiberius and Alexander, De Fiyuris, in Walz, 750 INCOMPLETE STKUCTUKE. [PART III. supplied by the gesture of the speaker (Hermann p. 153). In certain formulas of swearing this figure is of common occurrence, as is noticed above (§ 55, Eem., p. 627). Besides this case, how- ever, we meet with aposiopesis after a conditional sentence in the following passages. L. xix. 42, el eyvw^ kuI av, Kuiye ev rfj rjfiepa aov Tavrp, rcL Trpos fi/>7jvr]v aov, if thou also hadst knovjn what is for thy peace ! scil. " how happy would it be (for thee)." L. xxii. 42, Trdrep, el ^ovXei irapepeyKeiv^ to iroTrjpiov rodro uTT ifioi)- irXrjv K.r.X. In both these examples the apodosis is suppressed through sorrow. — A. xxiii. 9, ovSkv kukov eiipiaKo- fX€P ev TOO av6p(jo'Tr

«!.J " i Winer tefera, I believe, to the conjecture that we should read ol V% ■mZ/^.a. .See Borncni. Luc. p. 182.] ' •* Several comTnentator.s regard the parallel pa.ssage Mt. xv. 5 a.s al.so contain- ing au apO.SlOpesiK {<) '. oj «> sIV>i tZ Tecrfi » Tri /tr/Tpl' ^eupev i lav i| ifioZ utpiXnSv?' Koii «J i^n Tifi,r,iri\ nrc-j -TraT'-fa. a.iiTcZ — namely, Ae actn r'xjhtly (act.s according to the law). Perhaps, however, we .should (with Grotius and Bengel) commence the ajiodosis at xa. «J firi : he wJio says to his parents . . . has al.>o (in such a case) no need to Jimmur his parents, — he, on doimj this, is also (in this instance) free from the. command Tif^a T'm a-art^as K.T.X, 8o taken, the Kai would not be i)leouasti(!. [Both in Mk. vii. 12 and in Mt. xv. 5 the ku.1 before aJ f^n is probably .spurious. The objection to Winer's exjdauation of Mt xv. 5 is, that oJ ^^ Ti(i,Y,iu does not SECT. LXlV.J INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. 7ol is an example of anacoluthori, not of aposiopesis. In Ph. i. 22 an aposiopesis (Eilliet) is not to be thought of.^ In Greek writers,^ as in the N. T., aposiopesis occurs most frequently after conditional clauses (Plat, Syvip. 220 d). Where tliere art' two parallel conditional clauses, it is very common to fmd'ihe apodosis belonging to the lirst suppressed,^ the speaker liasternng on to the second, as the more important : Plat. Profag. 325 d, iav ftev eKOJV rreiOtjra/ el Be ixrj . . . evOvvovaiv a7rec\ai<; Koi TrXrjyai^' Rep. 9. 575 d, ovkovv iav fiep cKOvre^ vT'TftKcociv' iai' Se fitj k.tX., Thuc. 3. 3. So in L. .\iii. 9, Kai^ fxkv TTOtrfarj KapTTov el he fir} ye, ew to fjLeWov eKK6>^eiin Bilhoth would .supply ^uXcttov ti. In this case the word would be left out by Paul designedly, because the subject was still pninful to him. But ^ypaij/a is oomj)lete in itself. raean he need not, but either he will not (so Frirzsclie, wiio considers this clause part of the pi-otasis), or — according to the usage of the LXX (Gieen, Or. p. ]93 sn., — see above, p. C;;6, note*) — he shall not (Ewald). In Mt. xv. 5 Meyer, De W., Alford, ah, suppose an aposiopesis after u, Zcch. vi. 15 : see Kostef, Erldul. der heU: Schrift, p. 97. ■* Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 256, Stallh. Plat. Gorg. p. 137. [Jelf 860. 3, Kiddell, PLit. Apol. p. 217.] 752 kedundant stkucture. [part iii. Section LXV. redundant structure: pleonasxm (redundance^), diffuseness. 1. Pleonasm^ is the opposite of ellipsis, as superfluity is the opposite of deficiency. Hence pleonasm would naturally consist in the use of a word the notion of which is not to he included in the conception of the sentence (Hermann, Opusc. I. 217, 222). It was believed, indeed, by the older grammarians that certain words — particles especially — might be mere exple- tives (Hermann I.e. p. 226); and KuhnoP'even thinks that 70 6po<^, 2 C. x. 2, 2 Th. iii, 15, Lucian, Pere^r. 11 (instead of the simple accusative, — compare 3 2B'n. Job xix. 11) ; as in Greek writers we even meet with vo/jLi^eiv Q}rj Xeywv, Doderl >%7iow.. IV. 13), — thougli certainly these might have been directly appended to the verb ehvov, el-Ke. Mt. xxii. 1 and L. xii. 16 differ again from these examples : still more do L. xiv. 7, xvi, 2, xviii. 2^ aL Another mode of introducing the oratio recta — e. g., L. xxiL 61, VTrefxvrjaOrj tov \6yov tov Kvpiov ws cTttcv avTw' A. xi. 16, ifjiVTja-drjv Toi) pr)fx.aTo<5 tov Kvpiov, d)5 lA-eytv — must be referred to circumstan- tiality of expression (see below, no. 4), and not be regarded as pleonasm. We meet with it even in Attic Avriters, e. g., Xen. Cyr. 8. 2. 14, Adyos avroS d7ro/x,v77/tiovcv€Tai, w% Ac'yot: see Bomem. Schol. p. 141. 2. b. One of the two synonymous words may in actual usage have partially lost its meaning,® e. g., dir ovpavodev {II. 8. * Vechner, Hellenol p. 177 sq. [Liinemann adds Mt. iv. 16.] 2 Compare V. Fritzsche, QuoRst. Lucian. p. 14 sq. ' [See however EUicott in loc. ] * Yet see Stallb. Plat. Phileb. p. 180. [With Rom. ix. 29 compare o^oi»,- oisxif. M&ch. Auam. 1311 ; «>oi»v i,-, Plat. Legg. 628 d (Liddell and Scott s. v., Jelf 594. Obs. 5). On 2 C. x. 2, aL, see Jelf 703. Ohs. 2.] * In the department of Accidence the double comparatives ftuZ'ripas, etc., belong to this class ; see § 11. 2. In German, compare mehrere, — for which purist pedants would both say and write mekre. [In English compare lesser, innermost, etc. : see Latham, Eng. Lang. II. 184, 191, Angus, Handb. p. 154, 191.] 48 754 REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. [PART III, 365), e^o^o'i aXkcov;^ or a repetition, which originally was emphatic, may have become weakened in the course of time, as TToXiv avOis (Herm. Vig. p. 886). So in the N. T. airb /xuKpo- Oev, Mt. xxvi. 58, Mk. xv. 40, Rev. xviii. 10 (West. I. 524 sq.); aTTo dvfoOev, Mt. xxvii. 5 1 , Mk. xv. 3 8 ; CTreiTU fxera rovro, Jo. xi. 7 (eu^e&)9 Tvapa'x^prifia, A. xiv. 10,inD). Compare eTreira /xera Tavra, Dem. JVecer. 530 a; elra fiera rovro or ravra, Arist. Hhct. 2. 9. 13, Plat. Lack. 190 e. For similar examples see Poppo, Thuc. III. i. 343, III. ii. 38 r in Latin, compare deinde postea (Cic. Mil. 24. 65), post deinde, turn deinde, etc.^ Other examples are L. xix. 4, irpoSpafjiMv epbirpoaOev (Xen. Cyr. 2. 2. 7, 7. 1. 36); iv. 29, eK^dWetv e^(o- L. xxiv. 50,€^dyeiv e^ft)'* (Eev. iii. 12); A. xviii. 21, irdXtv dvaKa/iTrreiv (Ceb, 29, compare Kritz, Sail. 1. 88) ; Mk. vii. 36, fiaWov Trepicrao- repov (§ 35. 1^); L. xxii. 11, ipelre rco oiKoSecrroTr] t?)? olKLas <^l'Xo. Kus e^o) ecTTwras irpo twv Ovp^v (Xen. Cyr. 7. 1. 23) ; also L. ii. 36, avT-q (ryv) Trpo/SefSijKVLa iv 7]p.ipa.i<; TroXXais (compare i. 7, 18), — for this means **she was /itr advanced in years" (Luciau, Peregr. 27, TroppcoTaru) y^pojs TTpofiefiijKw^) ; Rev. ix. 7, to. ofiOLwfxara rail/ aKpi^wv o/xota iTTTTots, for o/xouofiXLTa means /on?i5 (compare Ez. x. 22) ; 1 P. iii. 17, ei OiXoL TO BiX-qp.a tov Oeov, si placueHt voluntati divince, — Oikrjfxa denoting the will in itself, OeXeiv its active operation (like " the flood 1 Alberti, Observ. p. 470 sq., Thilo, Act. Thorn, p. 10, Buttm. Exc. 2 in Mid. p. 142 sqq. [Green p. 189, Webster p. 140, Farrar, Gr. Synt. p. 176 sq.] 2 Hermann, Oj9(<.sc. p. 232, Klotz, Devar. II. 668 : " non otiosam esse negationem in ejusmodi loeis, sed ita poni infinitivum, ut non res, quoe prohibenda videatur, intelligatur, sed qui« vi ac potestate istius prohibitiouis jam non fiat." [See also Ellicott on G. v. 7, Madvig 156. Rem. 4 (Don. p. 591). To the passages cited in the next sentence Liinemann adds 1 Th. ii. 16.] H 756 REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. [PART III, flows," etc.), — compare Ja. iii. 4 : in Jo. xx. 4, Trpo^Spa/jnv raxioi/ Tov IliTpov signifies he ran on hffore, faster than Feter (added for the sake of more exact definition). In 2 P. iii. 6, if vSoltwv be supplied with 8l S)v, yet vSan will not be superfluous : this word would denote the water as an element, whereas vSara (compare Gen. vii. 11) would signify the concrete (separate) masses of water. Compare further Jude 4. On 11. vi. 6 see my 3rd Frogr. de verbis compositis, \). 10. ^ That L. XX. 43, v7ro7ro8tov twv TroSaJv crov (H. i. 13), footstool for thy feet, and Gen. xvii. 13, 6 oiKoyevrj^ Trj<; otKtas crov (Dt. vii. 13), are nbt exactly similar to the examples given above, is evident from the appended iienitive. Lastly, such passages as Mk. viii. 4, aiSe . , . eV €pr//Aias* xiii. 29, cyyv9 . . . cVi $vpai<;- 2'Tim. ii. 10, come under the head not of pleonasm (Heinichen, Eus. II. 186), but of apposition. So also Mk. xii. 23, ev rfj dvao-Tocrei, orav avacTTwai' can hardly be called an example of diffuseness, for the latter clause is an application of the general iv rrj dvacTTao-cc to the brothers mentioned in ver. 20 sqq. See Lob. Faral. p. 534. 'Ocr/xr] evwStas in E. v. 2 (both words derived from 0^0)) might be regarded as a semi-pleonasm, and might perhaps be compared with TraiSwv airats (Eurip. Androm. G13, Herm. Opusc. p. 221). The words however mean odour of fragrance : oa/x-q is the scent as inhaled, cv'wSia its property. [Compare § 34. 3. t.] 3. c. Lastly, many redundancies of expression are to be ex- plained as arising from a mixture of two constructions (Herm. Opusc. p. 224, Vig. p. 887) : L. ii. 21, ore irrXija-dTjaav rjixepai, oKTco . . . Kal ^kXtjOt] to ovofia (instead of i7r\i]adr]crav 8e r]/j,ipat . . . Kai, or ore iTrX^'jaOrjcrau „ . , eKXijOrj) ; L. vii. 12, o)? ijyyiae Tfi TTvkrj TTJcovij, ^v ■}]Kovcra- Eev. ix. 21,xvi. 18, 1 C. xii. 12, xv. 54, Ph. ii. 16, iv. 17, Jo. X. 1 0, Eev. ix. 1 sq., Mk. i. 40, Mt. xviii. 32. In Greek writers compare Xen. Mem. 2. 10. 3, Demosth. Zenbth. 576 c. Long. 2. 3, T-ucian, Cynic. 9 (Jacob, Luc. Alex. 117, Poppo, Thuc. IIL ii. 23; : in Latin, compare the expressions which Julius Cffisar, in particular, so frequently makes use of, in m loca, quihus in locis, — dies, quo die, etc. By such repetitions the writer ensures that his meaning shall be understood, especially where the words to be connected stand somewhat widely apart. In some cases a repetition is of a rhetorical nature : see no. 5. b. The instrument by which an action is ordinarily or neces- sarily performed (e.g., a member of the human body) is expressly mentioned in connexion with the action : A. xv. 23, >ypd-\^avr€ (xiv. 33), Jo. vi. 5, irrdpa^ rov<; 6(f)6a\p,ov<; KoX 6€aadfievoe vitiis kxlcorum, p. 223 sqq., Pflugk. Eurip. Hel. p. 134. 760 BEDUNDANT STRUCTURE. [PART IH. d. A word which is usually regarded as included in another is sometimes expressed by the side of the latter : A. iii. 3, r}pd>Ta €\€v/MO(Tvvvv Xa^eiv^ (compare Virg. JSn. 5. 262, loricam . . . donat habere viro). Mk. i, 17, TrotT/o-w vfia': yeveadai d\i€cl). But though dvao-rds was not required here, yet in other passages which the commentators bring under the same head this participle is by no means redundant. Thus in Mt. xxvi. 62, avaaTa.6i7», is noticed above, p. 412. — See A. Buttm. p. 276 sq.] SECT. LXV.] REDUNDANT STRUCTURE; 761 TTopeva-OfJLat Trpos tov Traripa /xov (I Vjill rise up and go), I will forthwith go etc. There has been a general tendency to set down too many jiarticiples to the account of N. T. difluseness. Here and there there may be doubt in a particular case, but very many of these par- ticiples express ideas which would be missed, if left^ unexpressed : e.g., 1 C. vi. 15, flfjoas ovv TO, iJicXri tov XpLCTTOv TTOLrja-u) Tr6pvr}<; fxckr} ; (see Bengel in loc, Aristoph. Eq. 1130, Soph. CEd. R. 1270), 1 P. 111. 19, Tots ev (f)v\aK-fj irvev/xacrt iropevOcl's iK-qpv^ev. In L. xiL 37, TrapeXOujv SiaKovi^a-eL avTois, he will come to them and serve them, the sentence — even if judged of by our own feeling — is more graphic and vivid than it would have been without irapeXdwv. Nor can I regard ■irapeXdwv as superfluous in .^l, 2. 30.^ With A. iii. 3, quoted above under (d), may also be compared A, xi. 22, i^aTTio-TiiXav Bapvdfiav 8i€A^etv cws 'Ai'Tio;)(€tas (where the ancient versions leave out the infinitive, as unnecessary, though the translators certainly had it in the text before them 2) : these words, however, properly mean, they sent him aivay with the commission to go, that he shoidd go etc. Similarly in A. xx. 1, i^rjXdev rropeuOrjvM tis TTjv MaKcSoyiav, he departed in order to go to Macedonia. Compare also Csesar, Civ. 3. 33. But I cannot (with Bornemann) find a mere redundancy in L. xx. 35, ol 8k Kara^iw^eVres tov atwvos Ik€lvov TV)(^€'iv. Here TV)(jdv expresses something which in strictness is not implied in KaTa$iovarOai, and it is only when this word is added that the phrase becomes complete and clear. Compare Demosth. Cor. p. 328 b, Kar avTO TOVTO a^ids elp-i iiraivov Tv^ely and Bos, Exercit. p. 48 (Bomem. Schol. p. 125). Such sentences as Mk. xi. 5, rt ttoicitc Xvoyns tov ttmXov, and A. xxi. 13, Tt TTOtClTC /cXaiOVTCS KoX (TVvOpVTTTOVTi^ fXOV T^V KUphiaV, liaVC a cir- cumstantial appearance, when compared with the ordinary expressions •Tt Xv€T^, tL KXaUTe. But "what do ye, loosing?" properly means what is your aim in this ? quid hoc sibi vult ? Hence iroulv has not here the general meaning "do," which is already contained in every verb of special signification ; and we should rather regard ti Xvct^^ as a condensed expression than Tt TrotctTc Xvovtc<: as diffuse. o. Fulness of expression — the aim of which is sometimes didactic or rhetorical emphasis (solemnity), sometimes vividness of effect — is met with mainly in the following forms : — a. The same word is repeated one or more times in parallel members (Xen. An. 3. 4. 45). E. ii, 17, evrjyyeXiaaro elpr^vrjv 1 Compare in general Schpef. Soph. I. 253, 278, II. 314, Demosih. IV. 623, Pflugk, Eiirip. Hel. p. 134, Matth. 558. Rem. 2 (Jelf 698. Ohs.). ^ [This word is absent, not from these versions only, but also from the MSS. XAB : it is rejected by the best editors.] ^ [Winer adds a rendering {toas loset ihr) which imitates the Greek, as in this construction r/ was pnginally an accusative of the object (§ 21. 3. Kern. 2).} 762 REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. [PART III. v^ilv roi<; fxaKpav Koi elprivrjv toi? e-^yv^' Jo. vi. 63, ra prjfiara 7rv€v fid €] ear IV Col. i. 28, vovd€TOvvr€<; Trdvra dvOpcoirov koI BtBdaKopTe'^ nrdvra dvdpwirov Jo. i. 10, ix. 5, xiv. 26, 27, xv. 19, xix. 10, Mt. xii. 37, Rom. v. 12, xiv. 14, 1 C. i. 24, 27, xiii. 11, 2 C. xi. 26 ; Rom. (iii. 31), viii. 15, ovK iXd^ere irvevfia SovXeia^ . . .' dWd iXd^ere irvevfid vlodeaia^ (in H. xii. 18, 22, the repetition was necessary for the sake of clearness) : 1 C. x. 1 sq., ol irarepe'^ rjixSiV nrdvre'^ vtto rr/i; v€(f>e\r)V yaav Koi Trai^re? Si.d t?}? 6a\d(Tarj<; htrjkdov, Koi 'irdvreoi v. 17, Jo. i. 3, iii. 16, x. 5 (xviii. 20), xx. 27, 1 Jo. i. 6, ii. 4, 27, L. i. 20, A. xviii. 9, 1 Tim. ii. 7, Ja. i. 5, 23, 1 P. 1. 23, v. 2, H. vii. 21, x. 37 (from the LXX), xii. 8, Rev. ii. 13, iii. 9 (Dt. xxviii. 13, Is. iii. 9,^ XXX viii. 1, Ez. xviii. 21, Hos. v. 3). For examples in Greek * [Inserted by mistake. — I have corrected Mt. xxiii. 27 (below) into 37, from ed. 5.] - Horm. Opusc. p. 223 (Jelf 899. 6). ' [A mistake.— Some of the passages quoted above are but questionable examples of the usage here noticed.] SECT. LXV.] REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 763 writers see Eurip. El. 1057, 4^^i\ kovk aTrapvovixaf J£X. An. 2. 43, ovK apvovvTai oi avOpcotroi d\X^ ofjuoXoyovcn ; and especially the orators, e.g., Demosth. Feds. Leg. p. 200 c, (ppdao) koL ovk aTTOKpvyp'Ofiai.^ c. The following combinations aim at vividness of effect: A. xxvii. 20, TrepiTjpetTo eXwU iraaa' Rom. viii. 22, irdaa rj KTicrii^r], 'iva fxrj vTrepalpcofxai : the last words are omitted in good MSS., — but, no doubt, only because they appeared superfluous.^ Eev. ii. 5, /xeravorjaov koX to, TrpSyra epya TroLijcrov' el Se firj (jjieravoei, the resumptive formula Kadoof iBtBa^ev vjxdf; is so far from being pleonastic that it could hardly be dispensed with. Similarly in Kev. x. 3, 4.^ — Of a different kind is Rev. ii. 13, olBa ttov KaTOLKec Trapia-Tdvere eavToiff BovKovKi7t, videri, seem, is used . . . because in such a question as whether, and in what case, the iKrTipnxivoti already exists as an accomplished, irrevocable fact, human observation cannot go beyond a mere videtnr." Another explana- tion is that the word h;is reference to the opinion of the judge (of a race, etc.) : lest any one be held (almost " be adjudged ") to have come short of it.] SECT. LXV.] REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 767 d. Most of the passages of the Gospels in which dpx^aOai has been alleged to be pleonastic (compare also Valcken. Selecta 1. 87) are more correctly explained by Fritzsche (Matt. -p. 539 sq., — compare p. 766). The true explanation of L. iii. 8 had already been given by Bengel : omnem excusationis etiam conatuni pr?ecidit. In particular, it is altogether absurd to regard this verb as pleonastic in L. xii. 45, xxi. 28, 2 C. iii. 1. In Jo. xiii, 5 ijp^aTo indicates the commencement of the action whose termination is related in ver. 1 2. A. xxvii. 3 5 is explained by the following verse : by Paul's ap-^eaOai eaOietv the others were called upon to do the same. In A. xi. 1 5 Kiihnol gives the following reason for considering cip^aa-Oac XdXelv equivalent to \a\eiv: ex x. 43 patet, Petrura jam multa de religione Christiana disseruisse etc. But ap^ecrdat Xakelv strictly denotes only the beginning of the discourse, and the use of the phrase here shows that the discourse was not completed : Peter was intending to say more, — see x. 44, en Xa\ovino<; tov Tlerpov. One cannot see on what ground this beginning should be limited to the first six or eight words spoken. Besides, we must not forget that here (A, xi. 15), in a spoken address, iv tm ap^aaOat pie \aXelv is a more forcible expression, — q. d., "hardly had I said a few words, when etc." In A. xviii. 26J]p^aTo must be taken in connexion with the followinsr words, aKov(Tavr€<; Be avrov k.t.X. On A. ii. 4 see Meyer. As to A. xxiv. 2, the speech of Tertullus, which — to judge from the introduction (ver. 3) — was certainly intended to be of greater length, was probably interrupted (at ver. 9) by the corroboration of the Jews, Paul himself coming in immediately after. Or else we must understand ver. 2 thus : WTien he was called, Tertullus began, — withopt delay he began his speech. e. As to OeKeiv} Jo. v. 35, see Liicke's careful investigation of the passage. A more plausible example would be 2 Tim. iii. 12, Trai/re? ol OeXovre'^ €vae^(t) ; but these words mean, all who resolve to live godly, — all who have this in view. H. xiii. 1 8 is clear of itself. Jo. vii. 1 7 has already been coiTectly explained by Kiihnol. In Jo. vi. 21 the same commentator has rejected Bolten's arbitrary explanation : we must recognise a discrepancy between this passage and Mk. vi. ^ Gataker, Marc. Anton. 10. 8. 768 UKDUNDAXT STRI;CTURE. [PART HI. 51.^ In 1 C. X. 27, /cat 6k\ere iropeveadai means and ye are minded, resolve, to go (instead of declining the invitation). On 1 P. iii. 10 see Huther.'' f. In opposition to Kiihnol, who in Mt. ix. 1 5 takes Bvvaadai as pleonastic, see Fritzsche : Baumg.-Ci'usius wrongly renders the word maj/. Still less can we suffer the dictum "redundat" to lead us astray in L. xvi. 2, Jo. vil 7 ; in the latter passage especially a distinction is obviously intended between Bvvarai fj.iaelv and /xiaei. Among substantives, epyov in particular, when followed byagenitive, has been regarded as occasionally pleonastic:^ e. g., Rom. ii. 15, €fyyov vofjiov, E. iv. 12, 1 Th. i. 3 (see Koppe). Against this see Fritzsche, Bmh. I. 11 7. In 1 Th, i. 3. -the parallelism of epyov t^5 7rtcrT£ws with kottos t^? dyaTTT^s is of itself sufficient to show that epyov cannot be pleonastic: see I)e Wette in loc. E. iv. 12 has already been correctly explained by Flatt. Nor are any examples of a pleonasm of epyov to be found in Greek writers. In Polyaen. 1. 17, epyov toC XoyLov certainly signifies the subject of the oracle, the deed predicted in the oracle; in Diog. h. j^i'ocem. 1, to t^s (/)iAocroIn ed. 2 he jefers Z,un to the present life, and follows Bengel's explanation : ""qui viilt ita vivere ut ipsum non tsedeat vitte."] '^ Boisson. Nicet. p. 59. * [As the phrase is explained by Fritzsche I. c] * See also Kiihnol, Joh. p. 133. [On this word see Grimm, Clavis s. v., Cremer, Bibl.-theol. Worierb. s. v.] SECT. LXV.] REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 769 8. In the opinion of almost all the earlier commentators we have a kind of half pleonasm in the use of KoXeicrdat, for elvai} — a usage which has also been regarded as a Hebraism (^")i??, esse). This opinion was long ago corrected by Bretschneider {Lex. Man.]^. 2 09), who says "sum videlicet ex aliorumsententia:" compare Van Hengel, Cor. p. 53 sq., and on ^1?} see my Simon. Lex. p. 867. In the N. T. KaXelcrSai never has any other meaji- ing than to he named or called (Ja. ii. 23, Mt. v. 19, xxi. 13). It is especially used of titles of honour, which indicate the possession of a certain dignity (see Mt. v. 9, L. i. 76, 1 Jo. iii. 1, Roia ix. 26); and in some instances is even antithetical to "being," as in 1 C. XV. 9 (to have even the name of an apostle), L. xv. 19. As little right have we to fritter down ovofiii^ea-dai into a bare esse in Rom. xv. 20 (1 C. v. 1), E. i. 21, iii. 15, v. 3 : sometimes it is even the emphatic word, as is shown by (j^Tjhe in the passage last quoted.^ Of H. xL 1 8, eV 'la-adK KXTjOrjaeral crot a-irepfia, several commentators have even given the absurd translation existet tibi posteritas: Schulz's rendering also, thou wilt receive posterity, is very inaccurate. We are also told that eOpiWKeadat^ (together with N^03 in Hebrew) is frequently used for fluac Between these two verbs, however, there is always this distinction, that, whilst elvai indi- cates the quality of a tiling in itself, evpla-KecrOai. indicates the quality in so far as it is discovered, detected, recognised in the subject. Mt. i. 18, evpedr) iv yacrTpl e-)(ovaa, it was found (it appeared) tliat she was with child {?jv eV yaa-rpl €)^ovaa might have been said even earlier than this); L. xvii. 18, ov^ eupiOrjaav V7roaTpiyJravTe el firj o aXKoyevr)<; ovTO^ ; VJcre none found (q. d., dul none show themselves) wlio returned^ A. viii. 40, ^iXiTTTTos" 'zuped-rj el^^A^arov, Philip was found (com- pare ver. 39, iruevaa Kupiov rjpiraae rov ^LXnnrov) in Ashdod, — properly, was found removed to Ashflod, viz., by the iri/eOfxa ^ Grtev. Lection. Heslod. p. 'I'l; Porsou, Eurip. Hifjpol. v. 2; Bloiiilield, ^Esch. Pers. p. 128. Ou the other side see Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. 912. 2 The passages from Greek writers (quoted by Schwarz {Comment, p. 719 aq. ), as exemplifying the use of KaXuirim or lvafAa,Xi;\;>7 fcev rcov dpercbv t) ^povrjaL'i evplaKerai, means, yrvdentia virtutum prinei}num esse deprehenditur ; i.e., those who refiect find that etc. Eurip.T/jA. Tawr, 777 (766), ttoD ttot 6v0' el/pTjfjLeOa ; ubi tandem esse dcpi'ehendimur (deprehcnsi sumus) ? whither are we found to have wandered ? In Joseph.^7i^<. 17. (not 7.) 5. 8, evplcrKeadai has reference to the persons to whose view Herod was unwilling that so unwelcome a result should be exposed. Compare further Soph. Trach. 410, Aj. 1114 (1111), Biod. Sic. 3. 39, 19. 94, Athen. I. 331, Scliweigh. Philostr. ^^oZ^. 7. 11, Alciphr. 1. 30. In Ignat. ad Rom. 3, Xeyeadat -x^pcariavov and evptaKeadat 'x^pi- crriavov stand contrasted with each other.^ 9. Amongst particles, o)? in particular has frequently been considered pleonastic: e.g., in 2 P. i. 3, w? irdvra rj/xlv rfj<; decani Bvvdfie(o<; avrov . . . BeScoprjfievr)^. This particle, however, when joined to a participle in the construction of the genitive absolute, gives to the idea expressed by the verb a subjective character,^ * The same remark applies to the Latin inveniri (e. g., Cic. Lcel. 12. 42), which Schwarz clumsily explains as equivalent to esse. Even in Malalas.ii/^/Vx'.e-^aj clearly retains in most instances the meaning inveniri: e. g., 14. p. 372. So also in Theophanes : see the inde.x in the Bonn edition. - [Not in the construction of the genitive absolute only, see below : see also Kllieott on 1 Tii. ii. 4, A. Buttm. p. 307, Jelf 701, Goodwin, Syntax y. 219 sq., Griiniii, Ciufis s. v. Compare also Ellicott on E. v. 22, Lightfoot on Ph. ii. 12. j SECT. LXV.] KEDUNDANT STEUCTDRE. '7'71 the character of a conception or of a purpose. Hence the words just quoted from 2 P. i. 3 .must be connected with ver. 5, and rendered, ^em^ assured {^ri'viemlmring) that the divine pcnoer has given us all things, strive etc., — 7)yovfiei>oi,, ort, -q dela SvvafiL^ . . . BeSwprjTat (1 C. iv. 18). Compare Xen. Cp^. 3. 3. 4, fo? elp/juiTi ovarjii, on the ground that there is 'peace; 3. 1. 9, &)?• raXriOri epovv- T09, assured that I speak [tvill speak^ tlie truth. Compare also 6. 1. 37, Mem. 1. 6. 5, Strabo 9. 401, Xen. Eph. 4. 2, Dion. H. III. 1925.^ Greek writers also join this particle with the accusa- tive absolute: e.g., Xen. Cgr. 1. 4. 21, An. 7. 1. 40. With the same signification to? is prefixed to a dative governed by a verb in A. iii, 12, rj r^filv ri arevL^ere co? ISia Bvvdfiei . . . 'rreTroirjKocnv K.r.X. In Rom.xv. 15,ft)9 iTrava/j,Lfiv7]aK0)v,d)eiv et? Sia(f)dopdv, maintaining that firjKerc here stands for the simple fit] (for Christ Qiever went to corruption). But, as was seen by Bengel, the formula et9 SiacpOopctv vTrocrrpetjieiv simply denotes (death and) burial. -^1. 12. 52 proves nothing at all ; firjKeTi, here means no longer (as heretofore), just, as ovKert in Jo. xxi. 6. — A similar doctrine has been taught by many in regard to ovKCTc, but with no more reason. In Rom. vii. 1 7, vvvl 8e ovk€ti iycD KUTepyd^ofjbai avro, aX>C 77... d/xapria, the meaning is, But 7iovjj.when this has been observed by me (ver. 14 sqq.), it is no longer I tlmt do the evil; i. e., I can no longer regard myself Q.^ the primary cause of it (compare ver. 20).^ Rom. xi. 6, el he xdpiTL, ovK€Ti e| epycov, if hy grace, then nx) longer (does it come) from works; i. e., the latter thought is annulled by the former, and it can now be entertained no longer. Rom. xiv. 13, 15, 2 C. i. 23, G. ii. 20, iii. 18, are plain. In Jo. iv. 42 owcert 1 [See Alfonl in loc. and Ellicott's note on 2 Tli. ii. 2. In 2 C. v. 19, Meyer, De'.W., Stanley, A. Buttmann (p. 358), Waite [t^peak. Comm. III. 423) take *? cTi as because or seeim/ that : so Winer in ed. 5 (p. 688).] -^Separated from each other— ^i; being in the course of the sentence taken up by ?Ti— these particles are found in early writers : see Schoeui. hceus p. 294. Jacobs, Achill. Tct. p. 566. 3 [See Giti'ord's note in loc, and Lightfoot on G. iii. 18.] SECT. LXVl.] CONDENSATION AND RESOLUTION OF SENTENCES. 773 is made clear by the preceding verse, in which Sta tov \6you avTov appears as the antithesis to Sia rov Xoyov rf}^ yvvaLK6I AND RESOLUTION OV SENTENCES. [PART ni. " (Stavoov), on ov av k.tX.: compare Clem, nd Cor. 1. 55. The sentence could not be called elliptical unless it ran thus, ei he KaTaKavxaaat, '6ri oh ^i'ij)L(Tp.a o\ov: these are of frefiuent occurrence in the orators, see Kypke and Fritzscho. in loc. Jo. ix. 36, koX rk ian, Kvpie, iva inaTevaw ek avrov ; sdl. / tvish to knoio this, in order that etc. Compare Jo. i. 22. A breviloquence similar to that in clauses with tva obtains where an event is referred back to predictions of the prophets, by means of dAX' ;Vu, as in Jo. xv. 2.5, xiii. 18, Mk. xiv. 49 ; compare 1 C. ii. 9. In these pas^sa^'es; however, the missing member may commonly be sup- plied before im from the previous context : see Fritz. Mait. Exc. 1, ].. 8-H. [S^ 43. 5.] b. To a general predicate is directly attached a special verb (with its predicate), the verb which would suit the general predi- cate being passed over. . Ph. iii. 13 sq., e7w ifiavrov ov Xoyi^ofiai KaTfi\7}evaf.,tP Se,Ta fxtv OTricro) e7riX.avdav6fievo<;,rok oe . . . Kara (TKuTToii SicoKoi K.T.X,; lustcad of €v Be TTOLw, Kara aKorrov oc(okq>. Oonipare J.iv. 35. 11 : in eos se impetum facturum et nihil prius (facturum), qnam tlammam tectis injecturum. 2 C. vi. 13, rijv Be avri]v uvrtixicrdlav , . . TrXarvvdrjre Kal v/xet?; instead of TO ^€ avTo 6 ecrnv avripLiadia K.r.X. See Fritz. Diss, in 2. Cor. II. 115; on the accusative, however, compare Herm. Opusc. I. ' III Tirtm. ii. 14 Ijowpver (Fi'itzsclic) protasis and apodo.sis hang together Tviihout nny flillicultj. [Frit/sche (1. 117i had nuiintained that SS>.ov an was stippiijs-sed. f)ii 1 O. ix. 17 st-c Meyer and Alford.] SECT. LXri.] CONDENSATION AND RESOLUTION OF SENTENCES. 775 168 sq.^ Similarly in Jude 5, otl 6 Kvpio^ Xaov gk yf] rjKovcrare air ap-)(f}^, Xva ayaironi^v dW'>]Xov€Bpu)va eKiro- ' Kcv. ix. 10 probably should not cojdp in here : tlie comparison of the tails vitli scorpions doe.s not seem alien to the style of the poet, and indeeil lias been pointed out elsewhere : see ver. 19, and compare Ziillig in lor. - See Wyttunb. Plut. Mor. I. 480 sq. ■ Schref. ApoUon. Hhod. II. 164. Mdet. p. 57, DeiaoHth. III. 463; Stallb. Plat. Protaq. p. lo-S,' Hep. I. 134; also Hcinii'hen. Euseh. II. 154. ■■' Compare J^mo.sth. Mid. p. 415 a, ov y.iy«< in ver.lS : He saif.l, to them, "Are ye aUo . . . r'— making all meat-t clean ; i.e., by this saying pronouncing all meats henceforth clean.] SECT. LXVI.] CONDENSATION AND RESOLUTION OF SENTENCES. 779 peverai, KaOapi^ov iravTa ra ^pcofiuTa. Akin to this is the proleptic use of the adjectiva effedus (in a kind of apposition), as in Soph. CEd. Col. 1202, roov acov ahepKrwv ofifMaroov TrjTfofievo'i, for w9Te jeveadai dSepKTu: this idiom is not confined to the poets and orators,^ hut also occurs in ordinary' prose ^ (Don. p. 534, Jelf 439. 2). As N. T. examples might he quoted Mt. xii. 13, iv %^^p) "Tre/careo-Ta^T; vyc^'i' ^ Eom. i. 21, tcTKOTiaOri ?} aa-vve- rof avTQ)V Kaphia- 2 C. iv. 4, ^eo? irixpXoxje to, votjfxara rwv uTTiarcoV 1 Th. iii. 13, (mipi^at, Ta<; KupBia^ vfiwv dfj,€fM7rT0v<;' Ph. iii. 21, fieraa'^Tjp.aTiaet ro awfia . , , 7)p,oiv av/M/xop^ov tm acofiaTt (where after rjficov some MSS. add et<> to 'yeveadac avro), 1 C. i. 8. But in Rom. i. 21 and 2 Civ. 4, at all events, this explanation is hardly admissible. In the former passage (as was seen by Flatt) less is implied hy davvero^ (which has reference to ifiaraiooOrjaav which precedes) than by aKOTit,eaOat. In 2 C. iv. 4, Paul probably regards the illumination as proceeding from a general faith in Christ ; because they did not turn to Christ, but at once rejected him, the illumination did not become theirs. , By the side of the examples first quoted should be placed L. xxiv. 46 gq., tSft iradtiiv Tov Xptcrrov . . . koX dvacrr^i^at . . . Kal Ky]pv\Oy]vaL tin TO) ovofjiaTL avTov ^irdvoiav .... apidfievov .oltt^o 'l^povwaKy/fj. Here, as is often the case with i$Qv, irapov (Vig. p. 329, Don. p. 463, Jelf 700. 2), the participle is used absolutely and impersonally, — a beyinning being made (so as to begin); compare Her. 3. 'Jl, d-Tro 8e Hoo-eLBrjLov TroAtos . . . dp^d/juvov aTro ravrrjs P-^XP'- Ar/t'TTToi; . . . irtvTrjKovTa kul TpirjKocrLa rdXavTa (f>opos yy-^ 1 Schsef. Demosth. I. 239, V. 641 ; Erfurdt, Soph. Antifj. 786 ; Lob. Soph. Ajax p. 278 ; Heller, Soph. (Ed. Col. p. 522 sqq. =* Ast, Plat. Legg. p. 150 sq.. Plat. Polit. p. 592; Vole. Fritzsche, Qumst. Luclan. p. 39, 57 ; Weber, Demosth. p. 497. See in general Meyer, De epH/wtis ornanHhus, p. 24 ; and Ahlenieycr, Pr. iiber die dichterische Prolepsls des Adjtctivs (Paderboru, 1827). " Bornem. Schol. p. 39 ; Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 76 ; Winer, Simonis p. 262. * See J. L. Schlosser, Vindicatio N. T. locorum, ijuorum integritatem J. Marclandussu.spFrta)iiredderenondubitarit(linmh. 1732), p. 18sq. This English Critic (ad Lyaian'i). 653, Vol. VI., Etiske) proposed to rend ap^afiivuv. [Lachmaim placed this reading in his margin : Tischcndorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, read ap^xfutoi. That Winer regards u.pl,a.uiw, as masculine (as Bleek sup- poses, Syn. Erkl. II. 516) is not probable, as he refers to the airnilaruse of £|«v, etc. : in § 32. 7 his language is less clear. (In Her. 3. 91 Blakesley considers apld/^mtv the masculine accusative : but see Kriiger in loc, Jelf 700. '.i.) With the reading aplaftuoi A. Bnttmann (p. 375) %vould connect the participle with ihn ; see Jelf 696. Obs. 1, and for the irregularity in case and gender § 59. 8. b, 21.2: this however would bp very harsh. Others assume an anacoluthon, the participle being used as if the porsoaal constructiou with an active verb hud 780 CONDENSATION .\^D RESOLUTION OF SENTENCES. [PART III. There is a kind of breviloquence in A. i. 21, iv Travrl XP^^^y (*'*') V el^XOe Koi i$yX6ev «(/>' ^/aSs o Kvpio^'Irjaovs, instead of cts^A6£V€<^' 7}ixa<: Kol i^XOev a^' rjfjMv. Such difFuseness as this, ho^yever, would not be tolerated by any Greek writer : compare Eurip. Phcen. 536, is oIkovs cl^\6e Koi i$^XO' (though here, it is true, the arrangement of the words is simpler), and Valckenaer in loc. See also Poppo, 2'huc. I. i. 289. Rem. A. X. 39, koL ly/xcis fxaprvpes ttcivtcov wv iiroi-qcnv . , ., ov Kai (the reading of the best authorities) dvctAov Kpe/juicravTes e-rrl ^vXov, may be an example of bracliylogy, — the sense being, wfi are witnesses of all thai he did, also of the foci that they put him to death. This explana- tion however is not necessary. But whatever view may be taken of the passage, xat certainly has here no other meaning than etiam (adeo) ; tamen (Kiihnol) would be a precarious rendering in this connexion. It is only when judged of by the idiom of our own language that L. xxiv. 21, rpi-rqv ravrqv rjfiipav ayct cn^ficpov (compare 2 C. xii. 14, xiii. 1), can appear an example of brachylogy : in Greek the numeral is simplj' looked upon as a predicative adjunct. Compare Achill. Tat. 7. 11 (Jac), rpLTT^'v ravrrjv rj/xepav yeyovev a(f>av)]<;' Dion. Hal. IV. 2095, rpiaKoa-Tov €Tos rovro avej^opSa k.t.X. ; see Bornem. Lvc. p. 161, and on analogous cases Kniger p. 269 (Don. p. 352, Jelf 453). — Nor must we have recourse to brachylogy in 1 C. i. 12, e/cao"T09 vp.u}V X^ycr cyw //.ev £i/ai TlavXov, iyw de 'AttoAAw, eyw Be J^rjcfia, e'yw Si XpicTTov. It) these four sayings Paul intends to include all the declarations of religious ])artisanship which vrere current in the church ; every one uses some one of the following formulas. Compare 1 C. xiv. 26. Lastly, 1 C. vi. llj Tavrd Tn'e<: ^re, rightly understood, has nothing- of the nature of brachylogy : see § 58. 3, [§ 59. 7]. 4. A Greek, however, possessed the means of binding together still more closely his sentences and parts of sentences, and thus giving roundness and condensation to his language : this means is commonly known as attraction (Buttm. Gr. § 138. 1). It is only from one point of view that attraction can be regarded as a species of brachylogy. As used by recent grammarians, the name is given to those cases in which two members (especially clauses) which are logically (in sense) connected with each other are also bound together grammatically (formally), by bringing a word (or group of words) which properly belongs to one member alone into grammatical relation to the other, and thus attaching it to both members jointly, — to one logically, to the other grammatically. Thus in " urbem, quam statuo, vestra est," urls properly belongs io vestra est (for tliere are two sentences, — urhs vestra est and qitam statuo), but is attracted by the relative clause, preceded; But it is not improbable that tlie sentence sliould end at iiyfi, and tliat uflafiivc, belongs to i/tt-lf (Westcott and Hoit in margin).] ^ECT. LXVI.] CONDENSATION AND RESOLUTION OF SENTENCES. 781 and brought into its construction ; so that now it belongs at once to both clauses, — logically to vcstra est, grammatically to quam statuo. See Harm. Vig, p. 891 sqq.;^ but especially G. T. A, Kriiger, Gramm. Untersuch. 3. Theil. The great variety of form under which attraction occurs in Greek authors is not found in the N. T, : even here, however, we meet with several examples of this figure which were not recognised as such by earlier commentators, and which at all events threw many an obstacle in the way of the interpretation of the N. T.^ 5 Attraction may generally, so far as it affects the connexion of the sentences, be divided into three principal cases. Either (1) semething is attracted from the dependent by the principal sentence ; or (2) the principal sentence has given up something to the dependent sentence ; or (3) two sentences predicated of the same subject are contracted into one. The first case com- prises the following constructions : — a. 1 C. xvi. 15, oiSaTe ttjv ocKiav ^T€(j>avd ore iarlv aTrap')(ri T% ^A'xata'i' A. ix. 20, eKripv \6ya) S elirev (in^itead of ov). See § 24. 1. e. Lastly, under this head would come 1 P. iv. 3, dpKeTo^ 6 7rap€XTJ\vd(o<; ■^povo<; to ^ovXrj/xa roiv idvwv Kareipydcjdat, if we were (with Wahl) to resolve this sentence into dpKeTov ecmv ■qpuv, Tov ■)(p6vou KaretpydaOai : compare Buttm. § 138. 1, 7 (Don. p. 403, Jelf 677. 1). But this subtlety is not needed. On the other hand, it cannot be said that attraction is 1 [It is doubtful whether Col. iv. 17, G. vi. 1, iv. 11, sliould come in here. In Ool. iv. 17 and G. iv. 11 the subject of the dependent verb is not identical with the object of the principal verb (see Ellicott and Alford on G. iv. 11) : A. xiii. 32 and Jo. xiii. 28 are similar. See however Soph. (Ed. R. I. c, and the examples quoted by Kriiger, Sprachl. § 61. 6. 6, and Riaddl, Plat. A}Jol. p. 207. — A. xiii. 32, ix. 2", iii. 10 (Col. iv.' 17, G. vi. 1), .are distinguished from the other examples quute,d above by the presence of the pronoun in the dependent clause : compare Kriiger I. c. — In 2 Mace. ii. 1 the principal verb is p.assive. ] * See in general J. A. Ltdimann, De Graecce linguue transpositione (Danz. 1832), p. 18 sfjq. ; Schwarz, De mlopc. p. 97. AVe cannot properly assume an "anticipa- tion " in these ca.ses, unless the writer, when he expresses the subject, has in his mind the predication which follows in the dependent sentence, as connected with the suliject. On tlie other hand, especially where parenthetical clauses intervene, e.g., A. XV. 36, 'friirKi^ufA'Ja Tci; a.di>.. 1. 2 7. 78 : quid censes, si ratio esset in belluis, uon suo quasque generi pluriuium tribu- turas fuisse 1 L. xix. 15, t/? ri Sieirpayfiareva-aro,' Mk. xv. 24, Tir]fjbovvT€<;, is probably to be resolved into iv TovTOLs, a ayvoovcTL, /3\acr(pr]ixovi'Te^. A similar construction, /3XarjfjLetv €ts tlvo, is frequently met with (§ 32. 1) : compare also 3 p|"in, 2 S. xxiii. 9; 3 P^p, Is. viii. 21. Perhaps also we "may compare fjLVKTrjpiQuv Iv Tivi, 3 (1) Esdr. i. 49 ; but see 2 Chr. xxxvi.-16. 'Ayvocii' iv Tivt, however, is not without example in later Greek ; see Fabric. Pseudepigr. II. 717. 6, But attraction is sometimes restricted to a single sentence. The principal case of this kind is that in which two local preposi- tions are blended into one, so as to give greater terseness to the language (Herm. Vig. p. 893, Jelf 647). L. xi. 13,6 irarr^p 6 i^ ovpavov Bcocrei 7rvevp,a ayiov ; for o Trarijp 6 ev ovpavu> Baxrei i^ ovpavov TTvevfMa ayiou. Col iv. 16, Tr}v e/c AaohtKela^ (iirc- crToXr)u) Xva kol vfiecf dvayvcore : not the letter writteii from Laodicea, but the letter ivritten to Laodieea and brought to the Colossians from Laodicea.' Compare also L. ix. 61 (Mk. v. 26). So also with adverbs of place : L. xvi. 26 [A'cc] may be brought under this head (Franke, Demosth. p. 13). With the passages first quoted may be reckoned H. xiii. 24, daird^ovTat vfia'i at diro Trj<; ^IraXiai. ; Ellendt, Le.r. Soph. II. 824 : Weber, DemuHth. y. 348 ; and as to Latin, Grote- fend, Aus/u/uiic/ie Grammatik II. 96, Kritz, Sallunt I. 211. * This explanation had been given earlier, by an anonymous writer in the AU. und Neu. of 1735, p. 336 sq. * PVoni ignorance of the prevalence of this idiom, some commentators have hcen induced, in spite of the context, to retain in their translation "the epistle (written by Paul) from Laodicea." [To the examples given in the text Liinc- maan adds Mt. xxiv. 17, ipai to. Ik tS,- o/»/a,-.] SECT. LXVI.j CONDENSATION AND RESOLUTION OF SENTENCES. 785 translation "those of Italy" — the Italian Christians (who were with the writer) — is also possible. A critical argument as to the place at which the Epistle was written should never have been founded on these words. 2 C. ix. 2 and Ph. iv, 22 may be understood witliout assuming an attraction. — This fusion of clauses is very common in Greek writers. Compare Xen. Cyr. 7. 2. 5, apTTcurofievoi ra e/c roiv oIki^wv Thuc. 2. 80, ahvvdrwv 6v- Tcov ^v/j.^or]Oeiv twv utto 6a\d(T(r7]<; ' AKapvdvwv Demosth. Phil. 3. 46 a, Tov<; e« ^eppiov retp^of? . , , arparuoTa'i i^iQaXev Paus. 4. 13. 1, diroppii^ai ra diro tt}? Tpa7re^r)<; Demosth. Timocr. 483 b, Xen. An. ] 2, 18, Plat. Apol. p. 32 b, Thuc. 3. 5, 7. 70, Lucian, Eunuch. 12, Theophr. Char. 2, Xen. Eph. 1. 10, Isocr. Ep. 7. p. 1012 (Judith viii. 17. Sus. 26)/ 7. Conversely, we sometimes find one sentence resolved gram- matically into two, which are connected by KaL Eom. vi, 17, p^apt? TO) dew, OTi rjTf. Zovkoi rrj({ dfjbapria^, vinjKnvcrare he K.r.X., for this Paul might have said ovres TTork hovXoL rrj^ dfiapTlaVol x. Tart 1) For a more accurate view of the subject see C. P.. M Ciller in Schneidewin's Philologus, "VIL 297 sqq ^ Glass, Philol. Sacra I. 18 sq. [' The two substantives Trfofxaprifnirn *«» S=»V£(, though not merely eqiii- yaient to 'precnnt^s Sf-riiiJo," siill practically amonut to a ' hendladvs. Aecord- mg to the regular rule, the substantive which contains the 'accidtjns ought to foUoiij ruther than precf'de (see Winer, de HypaUage e/ Hendiadyi p. 19), stm here TfiOixu^Tipr.ru so clearly receives its explanation from xai hn deduced from the collective rt? X^P^ ^^^^ Huther in loc.^), — as indeed we often find a plural used in reference to rk (Rev. xiv. 11): see Herbst, Xen. Mem. p. 5 (Jelf 3 9 0). In Rom. xiii. 6, however, Xeirovfyyol Otov elcriv refers to oi op^ovre^, ver, 3. a Sometimes we find a sudden change of subject: Jo. xix. 4 sq., i^rjXOev ovv iraXiv 6 FlcXaros Kal \k vfiiv avrov e^a> i^rjXOev ovv o *Ir](rov rrjv alrir^v Demosth. c. Phorm. 587 a, 09 ovk €(f)acrK€v ovre TO, '^prj/MiTa ivTcOecadac rovrov (Fhormion) , oine to -x^pvalov a'7r€i\r)(pivai {Lampis) ; Plutarch, Poplic. compar. 5, . . . Trpo?- eXa^ev {Poplkola) oaa Sovra iir/aTnjTov r)v viKricraf koI yap rov TToXe^ov BiiXvcre -{Poi'sena) k.t.X.', Vit. Lysandr. 24, aWo B' ov- Bev ■ixpr]aaTO {Agesilaus) avTM irpo^i rov TroXefiov aXXa rov yjiovov hie\66vroov rv^cov Kari^aXov rov dvBpa, Kol redvrjKev (oSto?) ic.r.X.; Lysias, Cced. Eratosth. 1.0, Xva rov rirdvv avrw (TraiBio)) BcBm koi firj j3oa (to TraiBiov)} As to Hebrew, see Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 803. A Words expressing reference are sometimes used with some looseness. As to avr6v 7rpo(fyrjro)U Bir)pp.7]V€V€v avToi aifuni. Considering the shortness of the sentence, however, it is not likely that Luke can have written iK'xyvofifvov through inadvertence. It is more probable that he construes iK^vvofievov with Trorrjpiov, as 8i86fX€vov with (Twfia, meaning by Tronjpiov the contents of the cup ', and this metonymy will still be easier than the other, to Ttorqpiov f) KaivT) hia6t)Kti. This irregularity is clearly of a logical, not of a grammatical description; though "to pour out a cup " is a per- fectly correct expression. Still, it was not necessary for Schult- ' Poppo, Thuc. I. i. 161 ; Bornemann, Xen, Anab. p. 206 ; Heinichen. Euseb. II. 175 7 See F. Woken, Pietas critica in hypaliagaa biblicas (Viteb. 1718). 792 ABNORMAL RELATION OF PARTICULAR WORDS, ETC. [PART III. hess^ to wax so warm on this point. In H. vi. 1 the hypallage assumed by Palairet and others has already been rejected by Klihnol. On Jo. i. 14, ttXt^'p?;? '^dpiTo<; k.tX., see § 62. 3 ; on 2 C. xi. 28, Eev. i. 5, see § 59. 8. That in 2 C. iv. 17 atcoviov fidpof; 86^r)<; cannot stand for alcovtov ^dpo? odovrjv fM€ oiv eiradev^ (compare Her. 1. 207), see Wetstein ' [So Bleek, Liinemann, Kurtz : Tholuck, Delitzsch, and Alfordgive to -rooi-ff,; a passive and concrete meaning.] - Comjjare Lobeck, Soph. Ajax p. 105, Paralip. p. 53 .sq. ■• See Glass, Philol. Sacra. I. 1335-1342 ; C. 13. Michaelis, De paronomasia sacra (Hal. 1737) ; also Lob. Paralip. p. 501 sqq. J. F. Bottcher's treatise Dc paronomasia Jinitimisque eijigicrvi Paulo Apostolo frequentatis (Lips. 1823) is a valuable and exhaustive monograph. * See Verschuir, Dissertat. philol. -exeg. p. 172 sqq. * Compare the German Hunger unci Kummer (want and woe). * Compare our leben und weben, — also Hulle und FiMe, Sans vnd Bratis, rad^n nnd adern. See Baiter, Isocr. Paneg. p. 117. ' " Seine Leiden leiteteii ihn zum Gehorsam." 794 REGARn TO SOUND IN THE STRUCTURE [PART HI. and Valcken. ia he; Eoni xi. 17, rcvk rSiv'K\dha>v e^e- /c\ao-^»;crai/.—Thns in a series of words we tind those of similar sound placed together: Kom. i. 29, 31 {Tropveia,'Trovnpia), (f^Oovov, 4>6vov . . . a. 12. 6, Bv^KoXi'a kuX fiavia 7ro\XdKi<; iroWoU . . . efiTTLirrovaw 4. 4.4, ttqX^mv 'rroXka- Kiq V7T0 rcdv diKocTTcJv d(f)ce/jbevMV' An. 2. 4. 10, aurol e'^' kavTwv exd^povv 2. 5. 7, irdvrr} yap irdi'Ta Tolf 0eoh viroxa- teal iravrayi) irdpTCOv licrov oi 6eol KpaTouaf Polyb. G. 18. 6, Athen. 8. 352, Arrian, MlpicL 3. 23. 22 ; Synes. Frov. 2. p. 1 16 b, Trdvra TravTaxov Trdvrwv KctKoyv ep-TrXea r)i>. — Mb. xxi. 41, KaKovs KaKcixi dnoXeaei avrovs:^ Demosth. Mid. 413 b, (Ira davfid^eis, el /caKos KUKUi^ aTToXfi' adv. Zmoth. 575 C, Aristoph. Pint. 65, 418,Diog. L. 2. 76, Alciphr:3. 10 ; compare also iEschyl. Pers. 1041, Plant. Aulular. 1. 1.3 sq.^ Writers will sometimes use rare or uncommon words or forms of words in order to produce a paronomasia (Gesen. Lehrg^ p. 858) : e.g, G. V. 7 sq., TTeideaOac . . . . rj ireia-fiopn (see my Comment, in loc).* 2. The plai/ on words is akin to paronomasia, but differs from it in having respect to the meaning of the words as well as to their similarity in sound ; * hence it commonly occurs in anti- ' Set! Kriig. Xen. vln. 1. 9. 2 ; Lob. Soph. Ajax p. 138, 380 ; Boisson. Nlcet. p. 243 ; Beier, Cic. Of. J. 128 ; Jahn, Archiv II. 402. * Die ScJiUmmen wird er schlimm vc.rderhen : [q. d., he will miserably destroy thex viiierable meyi\ ' Sch»fils, not their good."] ' E. g., "Traume sind Schaume." [Literally, "dreams are bubbles."— An example in English would be " What is/ame, but a name?"] SECT. LXVIII.J OF SENTENCES. 795 thesis. Mt. xvi.' 18, av el Uerpo^, koL iirl TavTrj ttj irerpa uiKo^ofiTjato K.r.\. ; Rom. v. 1 9 W97re/) ^la rrj<; 7rapaKoq<; tov ei/09 avOpoyrrov a/iaprtdkoi KareardOirjcrav ol rroWoi, ovto) Kai 8ta r^o/^a auTov . . . avTO<; Be Irjaovft'tY»v, 'louiotiats j«iv ffKeii^aXai, 'i6vi(ri it fiitipiat, auTo7( Vi daK€LV cKCtVov? crvv 6 id 6 at r)fjiepa<:, vvktmp Sk in idea- 6 a f^ Antiph^ 5. 91, €1 8€oi d/xapreiv eVi tw, dStKWi d-n-oXvcraL 6(TLU)Tepov av drj tov fxi) Suatws dTToAt'o-ai- Diod. S. 11. 57, Sd^as Trapa86$oi^ 8ta o-£0-itr(9af Thuc. 2. 62, ^ut/ povrj/xaTi fx6vov, aXXa Kal Kara povt]p.aTL (Rom. xii. 3); Lys. in rhilon. 17, Xen. An. 5. 8. 21, Plat. Rep. p. 580 b, Ladi. p. 188 b, Diod. Sic.^ Exc. Fat. ]). 27 5, Appian. Civ. 5. 132, twv wKTocftvXdKUJv e6o<; kol eiSos' Diog. L. 5 17, 0. 4, ^lian, Anim. 14. l.^ From the Apocrypha and the writ- ings of the Fathers, compare especially Sus. 54, 55, cl-n-ov, vtto tL hevopov dhi'i uvTOxk . . , utto ax^vov. EiTre 8c AavLrjX . . . crxicrei o-e /xicTov. 58, 59, €L7reV vrri irplvov. EiTre Se Aavi7yX • • • • t^" pofjLffialav €xwv irpiaat (tc /ic'croj/ (compare African! jEji?. a(^ (9ri(/. (Ze /t/.?^. Susan, p. 220, ed. Wetstein) ; 3 (1) Esdr. iv. 62, dveaiv koX dcftea-iv' Wisd. i. 10, OTi ov^ t,r]Xwaiw'; dnpodrai to. Tzdvra koX 6povLa's (TOV epya.^ Acta Apocr. p. 243, e^ dTreipUs pLoXXov 8e d-rropta'i- Macar. Horn. 2. 1, TO arwfia ov^t ev p.epo'; rj /leAos Trdar)(ti. As to Liatin See Jam, Ars Poet. p. 423 sq. 3. The pandlelismus memhrorum, well known as the form of Hebrew poetry, also occurs in the N. T., where the style rises to the elevation of rhythm. This parallelism is sometimes the synonymous, as in Mt. x. 26, Jo. i. 17 [?], vi. o5,xiv. 27,Tvom. ix. 2, xi. 12, 33, 1 C. xv. 54, 2 Th. ii. 8, H. xi. 17,' Ja. iv. 9, 2 P. ii. 3, al. ; sometimes the antithetic, as in Eom. ii. 7 sq., Jo, iii. G, 29 sq., 2 P. iv 6,'' IJo. ii. 10 sq., 17, al.,— see especially the hymn in L. i. 46 sqq. (compare § 65. 5).^ In some instances, points of dogma which might have been expressed in a single sentence are thus divided between parallel members : Eom. iv. ' See Buttin. Soph. PJiiloct. p. 150, Lob. Soph. Ajax p. 138. ' Compare Grimm, Comment, z. B. der Weisheit, p. 40 (Einleit.). ' [This verse is taken differently on p. 688.] * I A mistake,— no doubt for 1 P. iv. 6.] •'' E. G. Rhesa, Dp parallelismo sententiarum poet, in lihris N. T. II. (Regiom. 1811); J. .1. Siiouk Iluigronje, De jxirallelismo membrorum in Jesu Christi dictis observajtdo (Utr. 1836). [See Smith, Diet, of Bible s. v. " Poetry," Davidson in Home's Introd. II. 430 sqq., and the authorities quoted by the writers. To the.se add Davidson, Introduction to O. T. II. 271 sqq. (for the 0. T.), Forbes on the Ep. to the Romans (Edinburgh, 1868).] SECT. LXVIII.] OF SENTENCES. 797 25, X. 10. 1 Tim. iil 16 also, where with parallelism there is combined complete similarity of clauses, appears to be taken from a hymn of the apostolic church. 4. The verses or parts of verses ^ which are met with in the N. T. either are formal quotations from Greek poets, or appear suddenly in the midst of prose without any announcement what- ever. The examples of the latter class may be familiar poetical sentences from unknown poets. More frequently, however, the writer has unconsciously arranged his words in a metrical form • in this manner verses have sometimes found their way even into good prose, though the ancient rhetoricians pronounced them blemishes in composition.^ The poetical quotations are confined to the writings of the apostle Paul. They are three in number;^ — a. Tn Tit. i. 1 2, ah entire hexameter quoted from Epimenides of Crete (lBio7jTT]Sj — compare ver. 5) : Kprjre^ a b. In A. xvii 64 yfrevcTTui, KUKU Orjput 28, a half hexameter: yaarepes ap'yai eapLeu. Tou yap Kat jei/o^ Compare Aratus, Fhoeyumi. 5, wliere the verse concludes with o S' riTrio, 22 23! 25, 33, o/, 40, 44, 49, 54, . G04 . 628 . 438 . 137 . 214 , 219 . 220 . Ill . 204 . 333 . 212 , 6.59 . 490 . 525 . 24 . 259 G32, 748 578, 749 . 509 . 198 . 352 . 236 , 509 . 331 . 745 . 352 . 356 . 88 . 515 352, 473 . 144 . 131 . 428 . 366 . 636 . 194 . 527 . 391 207 sq. . 300 . 356 361, 546 . 476 . 760 477 sq. . 130 . 400 481, 516 265, 461 . 500 . 731 . 179 . 559 . 734 . 207 . 344 444 285 356 338 xxvii. 66, xxviii. 17, xxviii. 19, 472 1.30 240 Mark. 169, 219, i. 1, i. 4, ■ 9, 10, 16, 1. i i i. 17, i. 22, i. 35, i. 39, i. 44, ii. 1, ii. 8, ii. 10, ii. 15, ii. 16, ii. 18, ii. 23, ii. 24, ii. 26, iii. 2, iii. 6, iii. 11, iii. 14 sq iii. 16, iii. 16 sq iii. 20, iii. 21, iii. 28, iv. 1, iv. 12, iv. 19, iv. 29, iv. 38, iv. 39, V. 2, v. 3, V. 5, V. 11, V. 23, V. 25, V. 26, V. 30, V. 36, V. 43, vi. 3, vi. 7, vi. 8, vi. 8 sq., vi. 9, vi. 16, vi. 19, vi. 20, vi. 25, vi. 36, vi. 37, 476, 160, 208, 320, , 233 235 440 517 sq. , 693 , 520 , 760 • 653 . 760 51 7 sq. 182 183 516, 518 , 693 , 725 , 760 572 731 isl 438 406, 723 , 765 , 469 , 374 , 374 , 388 , 724 , 344 , 706 , 614 346, 458 , 176 504 577, 630 . 240 360, 738 , 187 , 395 , 276 ■ 615 • 438 • 438 , 396 230 458, 784 , 693 , 436 , 360 • 142 . 312 , 724 , 397 725. 732 205 . 742 , 437 , 423 « 210 , 190 NEW TESTAMENT. 803 vi. 3?) sq., vi. 45, vi. 52, vi. 56, vii. 4, vii. 11, vii. 15, \ai. 19, vii. 2G, vii. 30, viii. 2, viii. 3, viii. 4, viii. (i, viii. 8, viii. 11, viii. 12. 312, 581 . 372 . 489 . 384 401, 776 • 750 . 142 GG9, 778 . 118 . 300 , 704 ^ 106 . 468 . 359 , 664 . 429 • 627 . 280 ■ 267 . 186 . 614 234 189, 385 , 374 . 666 208, 572 , 677 • 693 , 348 , 710 . 135 208 572 3G0, 423 , 305 , 138 , 304 . 302 , 302 . 402 . 429 , 539 , 517 . 359 . 317 280 590 . 472 . 438 . 423 . 282 ^ 766 . 761 376 556 , 628 , 374 . ,389 , 345 ^ 232 , 388 . 725 , 728 , 298 xi XI XI XI XI X X X] XI X XI X XI X] XI XI X X] X X X XI XI XI XI XI XI X XI X X X X X X X X X X X X X X IV. 12, 14, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 28, 32, 33, 38, 38 sq 38 s( 3, IG 9, 10, M, 19, 20, 25, 28, 34, 1, M-. -- XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. xvi, xvi. xvi, xvi. xvi. xvi, xvi. •5. 4, 5. 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 3G, 40, 43, 47, 49, 53, 54, 58, 68, 70. 72, 1, 3, 4, 8, 16, 20, 21, 25, 36, 39, 4-1, o 3, 5, 7, 8. 9, 14, 1 Ol o _1, _ S, !5, (130, 477, 545, 702 . 595 . 209 . 361 . 756 . 201 470, 753 222 .* 528 . 158 280, 587 722 668, 705 . 516 . 517 . 267 . 661 . 184 . 382 . 437 . Ill . 578 374 632 637 438 313 273 586 360 356 235 211 374 457 145 398 269 438 476 615 337 742 321 . 254 . 254 . 730 206 sq. . 361 . 150 . 543 . 356 . 740 339, 679 . 431 159, 4.54, 546, 702 434 654 566 311 557 • 1, •4, ■6, . 9, . 17, .20, .21, 22 "24; 25, 27, .28, .31, . 32, .37, 2 .39, .42, . 43, .51, . 55, . 57, . 58, . 59, .62, .64, . 68, . 70, . 72, . 73, . 73 sq., ■ 74, . 76, .78, . 79, i. 1, i. 2, i. 4, i. 8, i. 12, i. 13, i. 21, i. 22, i. 23, i. 20, i. 28, i. 31, i. 34, i. 35, i. 3G, i. 41, i. 45, i. 49, ii. 1, ii. 5, ii. 8, ii. 15, ii. 20, ii. 23, ii. 23-38, Luke. 14. 204. 16, 408, 344, 765 ^ 206 . 158 443 . 182 438, 610 , 292 , 187 • 107 , 625 • 86 . 732 . 759 . 151 . 80 350, 492 , 740 , 308 424 sq. , 346 722 . 408 , 471 336, 511 , 386 , 777 . 589 165, 703 . 471 205, 784 410, 722 . 402 , 769 , 764 , 110 318, 401 306 210, 456 . 282 . 434 , 80 546 756 , 183 152 371, 388 , 187 . 218 229, 496 , 389 • 755 , 269 , 429 . 740 , 173 • 739 , 767 , 374 . 490 • 439 , 141 804 INDEX. iv. 6, • • ix. 46, . 305 xiii. 9, . 309, 751 iv. 10, . . 410 ix. 49, . . 490 xiii. 16, . . 7114 iv. 14, . . 477 ix. 51, . . 187 xiii. 34, . . 189 iv. 15, . IS 1, 187, 443 ix. 52, . 400, 743 xiii. 35, , . 372 iv. 10, . . 264 ix. 54, . 356 xiv. 7, . 335, 742 iv. IS, . 339, 501 ix. 61, . . 784 xiv. 8 sq., . 631 iv. 20, . . 131 ix. 62, . . 267 xiv. 10, . 8 7. 361, 574 iv. 22, , . 297 X. 1, . 592, 665 xiv. 18, . 3-i 5, 52o, 739 iv. 2.J, . . 518 X. 4, . . 619 xiv. 23, , . 158 iv. 20 sq., . 560 X. 7, . 458 XV. 6, . 321 iv. 20, . . 400 X. 8, . . 724 XV. 7, . . 302 iv. 35, . 5 7, 433, 007 X. 9, . 508 XV. 16, . . 248 iv. 42, . . 409 X. 13, . . 648 XV. 18, . . 760 V. 4, . 725 X. 18, . . 336 XV. 29, . . 156 V. 5, . 491 X. 19, . . 342 xvi. 2, . . 784 V. 14, . IS 2, 183, 725 X. 20, . 484, 621 xvi. 3, . . 430 V. 10, . 187, 515 X. 21, . . 202 xvi. 4, . . 736 V. 17, . . 183 X. 23 sq.. . 191 xvi. 8, . 25 4, 297, 748 V. 10, . 259, 738 X. 29, . . . 163 xvi. 9, . . 321 V. 24, . . 725 X. 30, . 163 xvi. 18, . . 152 V. 25, . . 508 X. 37, . 321, 471 xvi. 20, . . 85 V. 32, . . 339 X. 42, . . 308 xvi. 23, . . 220 vi. 1, . 124 xi. 3, 120 sq. xvi. 24, . . 252 vi. 11, . . 3 SO xi. 4, . 138 xvii. 1, . . 412 vi. 12, . . 231 xi. 5, 349, 357 xvii. 2, . 302, 424 vi. 10, . . 238 xi. 7, 516, 518 xvii. 6, . . 383 vi. IS, . . 464 xi. 8, 250, 554 xvii. 7, . . 87 vi. 34, . . 369 xi. 11, . 613, 710 xvii. 8, . U )9, 210, 371 vi. 35, . 151 xi. 12, . . 309 xvii. 15, . . 471 vi. 42, . . 356 xi. 13, . 784 xvii. 18, . . 769 vi. 48, . 588, 754 xi. 14, . . 180 xvii. 24, . . 740 vii. 4, . 386 xi. IS, . . 557 xvii. 25, . . 464 vii. 5, . 187 xi. 22, . . 32 xvii. 27, . . 204 vii. 8, . 438 xi. 28, . . 556 xvii. 31, . . 723 vii. 11, . . 738 xi. 29, . . 236 xviii. 1, . . 414 vii. 12, . 2( J4, 546, 756 xi. 33, . 298 xviii. 3, . . 776 vii. 22, . . 326 xi. 35, . . 374, 631 xviii. 4, . . 554, 744 vii. 20 sq., . 705 xi. 49, . . 494, 737 xviii. 6, . . 297 vii. 30, . . 207 xi. 53, . 742 xviii. 7, . . 321, 620 vii. 3:{, . . 607 xii. 1, . 482 xviii. 9, . . 136 vii. 44, . . 137 xii. 4, . 100, 201 xviii. 12, . 342 vii. 47, . 571 sq. xii. 6, . 216 xviii. 14, . 302 viii. 1, . . 738 xii. 8, . 283, 570 xviii. 15, . 135 viii. 14, . . 402 xii. 12, . . 166 xviii. 21, . 317 viii. 17, . . 375, 386 xii. 20, . 2 28, 320, 650 xviii. 31, . 205 viii. IS, . . 706 xii. 26, . 000, 614 sq. xviii. 34, . 183 viii. 2U, . . 736 xii. 3n, . . 193, 680 xix. 2, . . 200 viii. 20, . . 273 xii. 30, . . 736 XIX. 4, 259, 7 38, 754, 787 viii. 34, . . 517 xii. 37, . . 761 xix. 7, . . 492 viii. 43, . . 267 xii. 44, . . 490 xix. 11, . . 588 viii. 40, . . 435 xii. 40, . . 525 xix. 15, . 1 89, 3G0, 784 viii. 47, . . 208 xii. 47, . 2 S3, 607, 737 xix. 23, . iiiSsq. ix. 1, . 722 xii. 48, 204, i !83, 656, 737 xix. 29, . . 226 ix. 3, 397 sq. xii. 49, . . 562 xix. 37, . . 493, 601 ix. 9, . 190 xii. 51, . . 552 xix. 40, . 1 07, 348, 309 ix. 13, . 1 45, 368, 649 xii. 53, . . 489 xix. 42, . . 750 ix. 14, . . 286 xii. 54, . . 144, 332 xix. 43, . . 5-^14 ix. 10, . . 131 xii. 58, . . 508, 630 xix. 48, . . 107, 374 ix. 22, . . 464 xiii. 1, . . 778 XX. 2, . . 753 ix. 28, . . C48, 704 xiii. 2, . . 338, 503 XX. 10, . . 301 ix. 45, . . 574 xui. 4, . . 481 I XX. 11 sq., . 588 NEW TESTAMENT. 805 XX. 19, . XX. 20, . XX. 26, . XX. 27, . XX. 35, . XX. 3G, . XX. 42, . XX. 43, . XX. 46, . xxi. 6, . xxi. 11, . xxi. 19, . xxi. 21, . xxi. 24, . xxi. 25, , xxi. 30, . xxi. 37, . xxii. 2, . xxii. 9, . xxii. 11, . xxii. 15, . xxii. 19, . xxii. 20, . xxii. 23, . xxii. 24, . xxii. 26, . xxii. 30, , xxii. 41, . xxii. 42, . xxii. 49, . xxii. 5.3, . xxii. 61, . xxiii. 5, . xxiii. 8, . xxiii. 12, xxiii. 15, xxiii. 19, xxiii. 31, xxiii. 32, xxiii. 44, xxiii. 45, xxiii. 48, xxiii. 51, xxiii. 53, xxiv. 1, . xxiv. 13, xxiv. 15, xxiv. 16, xxiv. 18, xxiv. 21, xxiv. 25, xxiv. 27, xxiv. 29, xxiv. 32, xxiv. 35, xxiv. 36, xxiv. 39 sq. xxiv. 46 sq. xxiv. 47, xxiv. 50, . 505 180, 253, 400 . 253 668, 755 . 761 614 sq. . 139 . 756 . 587 . 718 . 793 . 342 . 183 . 438 149, 150 . 742 227, 517 sq. . 374 . 356 . 754 . 584 . 191 . 791 374, 556 305, 766 . 735 . 361 . 288 . 750 . 348 . 193 . 753 477, 775 459 440, 586 . 274 209, 439 . 356 . 665 . 543 . 163 . 509 182, 438 . 026 . 259 . 438 139, 187 . 409 . 785 488, 554, 655, John. 7U0, 290, 267, /SO 407 789 150 438 275 187 691 779 490 759 i. 1, i. 6, i. 8. 1.9, i. 13, i. 14, i. 15, i. 16, i. 18, i. 19, i. 22. i. 27, 30, 1. i. i. 34, i. 42, i. 51, i. 52, ii. 6, ii. 9, ii. 17, ii. IS, ii. 19, ii. 20, ii. 21, ii. 25, iii. 10, iii. 13, iii. 15, iii. 16, iii. IS, iii. 19, 11], oo iii. 2(;, iii. 29, iii. 34, iii. 36, iv. 1, iv. 5, iv. 6, iv. 11, iv. 14, iv. 15, iv. 18, iv. 23, iv. 29, iv. 31, iv. 33, iv. 34, iv. 35, iv. 37, iv. 42, iv. 44, iv. 48, iv. 52, V. 1, V. 2, V. 4, V. 5, 15 1. 263, 52 G, 151, 504 440, 457 . 398 . 439 . 220 705, 771 306, 342 456, 545 29, 517 sq. . 547 . 774 . 616 . 423 190, 306 150, 717 . 341 . 583 . 201 . 692 496 sq., 502 . 248 . 231 . 557 . 482 . 273 . 666 143, 426 . 143 . 429 . 267 215, 377 594, 602 . 785 . 742 . 265 . 584 . 527 . 332 . 180 . 494 59, 489, 772 . 619 . 496 . 363 . 582 528, 662 . 642 . 741 . 642 423, 425 798 142 37, 781, 560, 569 637 288 155 335, 489, 741 . 515 288, 321 qq V. 6 sq., V. 1.3, IS, 22 2i, 29, 32, V. 36, V. 37 sq., V.44, 190, V. 45, vi. ], vi. 3, vi. 7, vi. 9, vi. 10, vi. 17, vi. 19, vi. 21, vi. 22, vi. 22 s vi. 23, vi. 27, vi. 29, vi. 31, vi. 33, vi. 35, vi. 36, vi. 39, vi. 40, vi. 45, vi. vi. vi. 55, vi. 57, vi. 62, vi. 64, vii. 3, vii. 4, vii. 8, vii. 10, vii. 15, vii. 16, vii. 21 s vii. 22, vii. 23, vii. 31, vii. 34, vii. 35, vii. 36, vii. 38, vii. 40, vii. 45, vii. 49, vii. 51, vii. 52, viii. 4, viii. 9, viii. 12, viii. 15, viii. 20, 46, 50, 416, 622 . 748 . 112 . 336 . 687 . 341 . 235 . 136 1(56, 307 613 sq. 583,717,723 136, 341 . 239 131 sq. . 423 . 145 288, 571 . 745 . 468 469, 586 sq. 343 711 706 670 . 425 . 736 . 431 . 635 . 548 . 718 . 425 , 236 . 746 . 431 . 584 . 498 . 750 . 596 , 361 . 786 . 745 . 771 . 607 . 621 . 68 . 746 . 574 . 641 . 61 234, 375 . 61 109, 718 2.53 . 196 . 611 334, 656 333, 391 . ^84 . 775 . 636 . 729 . 481 806 INDEX. Vlll. viii. viii. viii. viii. viii. viii. viii. 21, 25, 29, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, viii. 53, viii. 54, viii. 55, viii. 5(>, viii. 58, viii. 59, ix. 2, ix. 3, ix. 5, ix. 7, ix. 17, ix. 21, ix. 22, ix. 25, ix. 30, ix. 33, ix. 3G, ix. 37, X. 4, X. 7, X. 11, X. 18, X. 27, X. 29, X. 32, X. 31), X. 37, xi. 1, xi. 2, xi. 4, xi. 1.3, xi. 15, xi. 18, xi. 19, xi. 30, xi. 33, xi. 37, xi. 44, xi. 47, xi. 48, xi. 49, xi. 50, xi. 52, xi. 55, xi. 56, xii. 1, xii. .3, xii. 5, xii. 7, xii. 9, xii. 13, xii. 10, 517, 484 sq. 546, 581 sq. . 346 . 369 515 sq. . 570 382 sq. 142, 173,181,586, 736 210, 722 718 243 426 334 588 574 398 ISO 705 557 189 423 429 30, 559 382 774 342 646 234 132 403 64(5 l&l 332 688 600 512 431 479 666 574, 702 697 506 705 269 423 348 354 759 213 424 722 676 637 697 21 251, 659 775 342 166 04, 754 . 491 23, 26, 40, 44, 47, i. 1, i. 2, li. 4, 5, i. 6, i. 10, 12, i. 13, i. 18, A. 24, ii. 27, i. 28, li. 29, i. 31, 34, v. 3, v. 7, V. 11, V. 10, V. 19, V. 23, V. 28, V. 30 sq., XV. 2, XV. 3, XV. 4, XV. 5, XV. 6, XV. 8, XV. 11, XV. 1.3, XV. 16, XV. 18, XV. 20, XV. 22, XV. 24, XV. 25, XV. 27, xvi. 2, xvi. 7, xvi. 8, xvi. 9, xvi. 11, xvi. 14 sq. xvi. 17, xvi. 24, xvi. 27, xvi. 30, xvi. 32, xvii. 2, xvii. 3, xvii. 4, xvii. 10, xvii. 18, xvii. 22, xvii, 24, 426, 576 332 575, 030 622 sq. ISO, 249 420, 715 315, 300 . 220 . 707 . 332 . 638 . 339 . 227 . 398 . 387 304, 332, 391 781 sq. . 722 . 346 583, 658 . 332 , 342 . 732 . 605 . 731 . 320 381, 383 . 69 67, 718 . 497 . 395 025, 723 177, 345, 788 ;j47, 423, 425 . 172 425, 745 . 303 306, 339 . 305 . 382 . 548 . 398 . 334 . 420 . 424 . 524 . 557 . 342 . 333 88, 253 . 575 . 187 420, 484 420, 048 181, 231, 801 303, 425 345 sq. 341, 486 . 346 . 342 . 332 xvii, 25, , xvii. 26, , xviii. 3, xviii. 11, xviii. 12, xviii. 28, xviii. 31, xviii. 37, xviii. 39, xix. 6, xix. 11, xix. 14, xix. 23, xix. 25, xix. 28, xix. 31, xix. 35, xix. 37, XX. 2, XX. 4, XX. 7, XX. 12, XX. 15, XX. 19, XX. 23, XX. 28, XX. 29, xxi. 1, xxi. 4, xxi. 8, xxi, 12, xxi. 13, xxi. 10, xxi. 18, xxi. 21, xxi. 22, xxi. 23, xxi. 25, 1,' 2, O ^. 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 1, 3, 12, . 548 . 282 132 184, 042 . 344 . 300 . 727 . 643 . 426 . 100 . 383 . 236 . 220 104, 238 575, 702 045 428 197 522, 736 756 788 739 183 198 340 228 340 408 508 097 706 759 755 321 734 370, 734 . 332 419, 605 Acts. 720, 775 204, 090 235, 259 . 725 . 201 244, 550 . 156 218, 546, 756 . 7(>3 . 227 160, 238 . 654 . 108 508, 780 204, 775 430 780 540 412 648 379 NEW TESTAMENT. 807 ii. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 11. ii. ii. ii. ii. ii. ii. ii. ii. 3S, i3. sq ii. 3 ii. 4 ii. 4 ii. 47, iii. 1, iii. 2, iii. 3, iii. 5, iii. 10, iii. 12, iii. 13, iii. 16, iii. 17, iii. 10, iii. 23, iii. 24 iii. 26, iv. 2, iv. 5, iv. 7, iv. II, iv. 12, iv. 13, iv. 15, iv. 17, iv. 20, iv. 21, iv. 22, iv. 29, iv. 35, v. 4, 2i V. 7, v. 12 sqq, V. 1.5, V. 17, V. 19, V. 20, V. 23, V. 26, V. 28, V. 29, V. 31, V. 32, V. 35, V. 36, V. 38 sq. V. 40, V. 42, vi. 9, vii. 4, vii. 5j 108, 495 . 528 . 740 . 470 . 731 . 670 . 740 268, 297, 066 . 137 490, 734 517 sq. 194, 473 . 384 . 136 . 509 . 444 . 760 . 742 781 sq. 410, 76.3, 771 S5, 186, 196, 720 . 491 . 501 389, 578 . 194 . 789 108, 413 . 486 18.3, 517 212, 788 195 3, 569, 619 . 337 . 742 490, 584 . 624 . 374 G66, 745 . 48 . 384 ij6, 021, 623, 731 . 704 . 706 . 730 . 760 . 475 . 297 469, 755 359, 034 490, 584 651, 654, 744 . 268 . 239 489, 697 213, 327 . 369 . 490 . 434 . 160 517 344 16, vii. 7, vii. 10, vii. 14, vii. 16, vii. 19, vii. 20, vii. 22, vii. 24, vii. 26, vii. 29, vii. 34, vii. 36, vii. 38, vii. 40, vii. 42, vii. 42 s vii. 45, vii. 48, vii. 53, viii. 2, viii. 5, viii. 9, viii. 11, viii, viii viii. 26, viii. 31, viii. 35, viii. 40, ix. 1, ix. 2, ix. 4, ix. 6, ix. 9, ix. 11, ix. 20, ix. 21, ix. 31, ix. 35, ix. 37, ix. 42, x. 3, X. 7, X. 10, X. 14, X. 15, X. 17, A. —, X. 25, 28, 30, 32, 36, 37, X. 39, X. 41, X. 45, X. 47, xi. 5, xi. 15, xi. 16, 112, 323, 220, 315, in. 385 173 488 237 . 410 265, 310 . 284 788 336 484 445 149 147 375 589 642 218 . 693 286, 496 . 321 . 181 . 213 , 273 . 440 37(), 556 147, 195 369, 379 . 759 516, 518, 769 . 255 . 133 . 436 210, 734 . 610 . 569 781 sq. . 359 . 477 . 343 222 .' 477 . 288 181, 788 182, 184 . 214 733, 755 464, 546, 756 4(16 412 563 698 172 )5, 706, 719 477 780 174 527 409 792 767 753 2( xi. 17, xi. 19, xi. 22, xi. 28, xii. 3, xii. 11, xii. 14, xii. 19, xii. 21, xiii. 2, xiii. 9, xiii. 10, xiii. 11, xiii. 13, xiii. 17, xiii. 19, , xiii. 20, , xiii. 25, . xiii. 26, , xiii. 27, . xiii. 32, xiii. 34, . xiii. 35, . xiii. 39, . xiii. 40, . xiii. 45, . xiii. 48, . xiii. 49, . xiv. 1, . xiv. 9, . xiv. 10, . xiv. 12, . xiv. 15, . xiv. 16, . xiv. 17, . xiv. 18, . xiv. 26, . xiv. 27, . XV. 1, XV. 4, XV. 7, . .XV. 10, . XV. 12, . XV. 16, . XV. 17, . XV. 22, . XV. 23, . XV. 24, . XV. 27, . XV. 36, . XV. 38, . xvi. 9, . xvi. 11, . xvi. 16, . xvi. 22, . xvi. 27, . xvi. 33, . xvi. 34, . xvi. 37, . xvi. 40, . xvii. 2, . 190, 553, 784 465, 489 , 761 . 661 . 588 . 189 . 57 517 s(|. . 178 28, 524 sq. . 133 396, . 294, 330 V. 9 sq., . 694 ix. 20, . 347 6, . 231 V. 10, 161, 354, 602 ix. 22, . 213 8, . l( )G, 519, 708 V. 11, . 347, 715 ix. 24, . . 748 9, . 473 V. 12, . . . 733 ix. 26, . . 609 10, . . 477 vi. 1, . 318 X. 2, . . 319 11, . . 238 vi. 2, . . 482 X. 3, . 168 12, . . 780 vi. 3, . . 155, 746 X. 4, . . 336, 659 21, . . 476 vi. 4, . 556 X. 9, . 179 99 . 7G5 vi. 5, . 218 X. 11, . . 567 23, IGS, G; ■8, 749, 795 vi. 7, . 318, 556, 579 X. 12, , . 766 25, . . 307 vi. 9 sq., . 613 X. 13, . 40S, 737, 743 26, . . 7;i2 vi. 10, . . 626 X. 16, . . 204, 237 27, . . 237 vi. 11, . 202, 319, 645, X. 17, 137, 251, 461 28, . IGl, 608 664, 780 X. 19, . . 61 29, . . . 214 vi. 1.3, . . 733 X. 21, . . 237 30, . 464 vi. 15, . . 761 X. 22, . . 355 *^ 1 . 749 vi. 16, . . 656 X. 24, . . 72S ii. 1, . . 2:!1, 430 vi. 19, . . 218 X. 27, . . 768 i .2, . 597 vi. 20, . . 744 X. 30, . 198, 271 NEW TESTAMENT. 8U i: X. S3, xi. 2. xi. 4, xi. 5, xi. 6, xi. 12, xi. 15, xi. 16, xi. 18, xi. 20, xi. 22, xi. 23, xi. 24, xi. 26, xi. 27, xi. 28, xi. 30, xi. 31, xii. 2, xii. 3, xii. 8, xii. 8 sq. xii. 15, xii. 22, xii. 28, xii. 31, xiii. 3, xiii. 6, xiii. 12, xiii. 13, xiv. 1, xiv. 4, xiv. 5, xiv. 7, xiv. 9, xiv. 11, xiv. 13, xiv. 15, xiv. 18, xiv. 19, xiv. 20, xiv. 22, xiv. 33, xiv. 34, xiv. 36, xiv. 38, XV. 2, 21 XV. 3, XV. 4, XV. 6, XV. 8, XV. 9, XV. 10, XV. 12, XV. 1.3, XV. 13 sq XV. 15, XV. 16, XV. 18, XV. 21, XV. 22. IGl. 1, . 607 . 285, 567 433, 477, 743 . 222, 271 . 391, 600 . 476 . 339, 455 766, 774 515, 720, 721 . 403 . 743 . 337, 464 , 191 . 568 253, 550 . 566 , 334 . 381 384, 714 . 486 . 501 . 522 504, 625 . .301 . 710 , 584 284, 361 263, 540 329, 476 . .303 507, 722 . 152 /22, 756 433, 693 . 438 483, 722 . 575 . 349 434, 683 . 302 . 270 . 229 . 244 . 777 . 494 . 390 CSS, 757 . 513 . 339 . 313 CO, 131 . 769 . 621 . 782 . 601 . 567 477, 556 . 365 . 487 . 733 . 488 431, 89, 191, 368, 070 XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. XV. xvi xvi xvi xvi, xvi xvi, xvi, xvi. xvi, xvi. 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 46, 49, 51 sq 52, 54, 57, 1, o 5, 6, 9, 12, 17, 21, 1U9, 2 CORIN i. 3, i. 4, i. 5, i. 7, i. 9, i. 10, . i. 12, . i. 15, . i. 17, . i. 18, . i. 24, . ii. 1, . ii. 2, . ii. 3, . ii. 4, . ii. 5, . ii. 6, . ii. 7, . ii. 9, . ii. 10, . ii. 12, . ii. 13, IS ii. 14, . ii. 16, . ii. 17, . iii. 3, . ill. 4 sq., iii. 5, . iii. 6, . iii. 7, . iii. 8, . iii. 9, 300, 387 . 656 387 7;J1, 736 219, 349, 478 191, 649 43, 797 . 392 . 333 . 228 . 775 . 656 . 741 . 345 . 695 482, 544, 655 . 776 . 428 . 467 . 500 219, 476 . 703 . 446 . 545 . 467 . 191 . 664 601, 602 sTHIANS. , . 733 . . 203 . . 236 , . 716 , 340, 575 , . 341 . . 309 , . 270 , . 576 , 557, 563 . 263, 746 , . 265 , 460, 547 ISS, 347, 352 , 459, 474 • . 623 , . 649 . . 406 . . 347 , . 327 , 495, 567 265, 340, 413 ■ . 24 , . 763 , . 138 . 122 • . 695 , . 746 , 238, 546 428, 790, 791 , . 349 • . 569 iii. 11, 13, 14, 14 sqq., 18, o •"J 3, 4, 111. iii. iii. iii. iv. iv. iv. iv. 7; iv. 10, iv. 13, 15, iv. 1 iv. 16, iv. 17, iv. IS, V. 1, V. 2, V. 4, V. 5, V. 6, V. 6 sqq. V. 7, V.8, V. 11, V. 12, V. 14, V. 19, V. 20, V. 21, vi. 1. vi. 3, vi. 4, vi. 1.3, vi. 14, vi. 17, vii. 5, vii. 7, vii. 8, vii. 9, vii. 11, vii. 12, vii. 13, vii. 14, viii. 2, viii. 3, viii. 5, viii. 6, viii. 7, viii. 8, viii. 9, viii. 10, viii. 11, viii. 12, viii. 13, viii. 15, viii. 16, viii. 17, viii. 18, viii. 19, viii. 20, viii. 23, 474, 512, 527 . 728 . 669 . 707 287, 318 . 103 273, 5.54 . 779 . 576 . 236 . 441 . 733 552, 581 792 260, 60S 3, 366, 666 184, 444 133, 491 . 666 . 442 . 717 . 474 . 553 . 417 4rl2, 743 232 181, 4.3S, 772 328, 480 232, 608 . 417 . GOB . 225 605, 774 . 276 . 183 711, 716 169, 304 . 730 501, 576, 622 . 271 317, 751 464, 490 . 469 477, 528 . 715 721, 730 . 414 41, 396, 565 . 476 . 196 . 701 . 461 . 385 527, 733 . 737 . 732 . 304 . 347 4S8, 729 . 441 723 sq. 4-i 812 INDEX. viii. 24, . . 753 ix. 2, . 241 ix. 4, . 746 ix. 6, 489, 746 ix. 7, . . 734 ix. 9, . . 588 ix. 10 sq.. . 716 ix. 11, . . 264 ix. 12, . . 234 ix. 12 sf|. . 716 ix. 13, . 170, 232, 476 ix. 14, . . 271 ix. 15, . 732 X. 1, . 477 X. 2, SI lo, 404, 406, 553 X. 4, 265, 310 X. 5, . 232 x.7, . . 465 X. 9, 380, 390 X. 10, . . 655 X. 12, . . 273 X. 13, 2C )3, 400, 495, 665 X. 14, . 430, 494, 595 xi. 1, .377, 551 xi. 2, 323, 670 xi. 3, . 776 xi. 4, 136, 383 xi. 6, . 552 xi. 7, 638 sq. xi. 9, . 168 xi. 10, . . 563 xi. 12, . 357, 547 xi. 16, 730, 757 xi. 17, . 501 xi. 18, . 145 xi. 20, . 320 xi. 21, . 502, 772 xi. 23, 526, 5S4 xi. 23 sq( IM • . 723 xi. 24, 503, 737 xi. 26, . 234 xi. 28, 264, 668 xi. 29, . 191 xi. 30, . 675 xii. 1, . 569 xii. 2, . 200 , 520, 698 xii. 6, . 568 xii. 7, 276, 764 xii. 8, . 479 xii. 9, '. siio , 339, 354 xii. 11, . 352 xii. 12, 132, 720 xii. 13, . 502 xii. 15, . 194 xii. 17, . 718 xii. 20, 274, 696 xii. 20 s( I*' • . 632 xii. 21, . 491 , 633, 792 xiii. 1, . 314 xiii. 4, *. 4S4 , 552, 555 xiii. 7, 576, 695 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Ssq., 12, 13, 15, 1. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. 16, i. IS, i. 19, i. 20, i. 23, i. 24, ii. 1, ii. 2, ii. 4, ii. 4 sq. , ii. 5, ii. 0, ii. 7, ii. 8, ii. 9, ii. 10, ii. 11, ii. 13, ii. 14, ii. 15 sq. ii. 16, ii. 17, ii. 19, ii. 20, iii. 1, iii. 4, iii. 7, iii. 9, iii. 10, iii. 11, iii. 14, iii. 1.5, iii. 16, iii. 17, iii. IS, iii. 19, iii. 20, iii. 21, iii. 22, iii. 23, iv. 7, iv. 8, iv. 9, iv. 11, iv. 13, iv. 1.5, iv. 17, iv. 19, iv. 20, iv. 25, Galatians. 474, 521 166, 659 . 1.34 . 795 136, 566 649, 650 . 369 4C4, 614, 618 336, 584 . 459 . 273 . 313 566, 789 . 563 444, 787 . 484 . 475 3, 633, 788 . .361 . 711 . 296 8, 579, 711 . 339 . 495 73.5, 766 178, 185 . 431 271, 377 48, 296, 505 . 655 350. 566 640, 770 . 263 209, 285 101, 168, 185, 279 . 561 206 s 469, 527 4S8 461 170 297 693 656 . 494 . 579 . 474 144, 741 174, .381 232 '. 494 473 sq. . 610 329, 755 032, 782 . 499 . 382 . 362 . 176 . .353 136, 223 iv. 27, iv. 28, V. 1, V. 4, V. 6, V. 7, V. 7 sq., V. 10, V. 12, V. 13, V. 16, V. 26, vi. 1, vi. 3, vi. 10, vi. 11, vi. 12, vi. 14, vi. 16, vi. 17, 301, 609, 742 . 501 . 263 . 776 . 319 . 755 . 794 . 292 319, .377 . 745 . 636 . 629 781 sq. . 766 355, 561 347 sq. . 270 . 153 . 546 190, 259 Ephesians. i. 3, ... 733 i. 5, . . . 502 i. 6, . 203 i. 7, . 486 i. 8, . 138, 204 i. 9, . 189 i. 10, . 495 i. 11, . 328 i. 12, . 167 i. 13, 200, 271, 704, 733 i. 14, 206 sq. i. 15, . 169, 193 i. 16, . 470 i. 17, . 189, 363 i. 18, . 716 i. 2U, . 273, 717 i. 23, 207, 323, 325, 669 ii. 2, 298, 501, 790 ii. 3, 220, 238, 270, 689, 717 ii. 4, . 282, 553 ii. 5, . 148 ii. 6, . 295, 347 ii. 7, . 172, 319 ii. 8, . 148, 272 ii. 10, . 185, 193 ii. 11, 166, 169, 708 ii. 11 pq.. . 753 ii. 11 Sqq., . 704 ii. 12, 221 ii. 14, '. 666 ii. 15, . 170, 275 ii. 16, . 519 ii. 17, . 759 ii. 21, 138 169, 186, 430 iii. 1, . 236 iii. 1 i ■ciq-. . 70S iii. 4, . 170 iii. 5, . 273 NEW TESTAMENT. 813 Hi. 6, . 400, 48G vi. 16 sq., . 606 iii. 21, . 779 iii. 8, . 81 vi. 18, . 546, 786 iv. 3, . 210 lii. 10, 10 1, 295, 575 vi. 19, . . 363 iv. 5, . 275 lii. 11, . 320 vi. 20, . . 482 iv. 7, . 232 ui. 12, . . 172, 232 VI. 22, . . 200 iv. 10, 106, 399 iii. 13, 170, 206 sq., 210 iv. 11, 501, 746 lii. 15, . 137 Philippians. IV. 15, . 250 lii. Iti, . 363, 496, 520 i. I, . . . 735 iv. 16, 286, 515 lii. 18, . 159, 180, 715 i. 3, . 4S9 iv. 18, 297, 458 lii. 19, . 232, 272, 435 i. 6, . 285 iv. 19, •-^1, . 172 iii. 20, . . 526 1. 7, 414, 783 iv. 22, . 785 lii. 21, . . 131 i. 8, . i !,30sq., 563 IV. 1, 169, 203, 485 i. 9, . 518 COLOSSIAXS. IV. 2 sq., . 716 i. 11, . 174, 287 i. 3 sq. » • • . 433 V. 3, . . 483 i. 12, . . . 304 i. 4, . 169 IV. 4, . . 519 i. 14, . . 171 i.6. 171, 204, 319, 717 IV. {'), . 521 i. 16 sq.. 460, 702 i. 8, . . 169 IV. 8, . . 282, 656 i. 17 (16), . 229 i. 9, . . 172 IV. 9, 136, 666, 741 i. 18, . 196 i. 10, . . 716 iv. 11, . . 130 i. 19, 159, 161 i. 12, , , . 170 IV. 13, . . 238 i. 22, . 37 4, 547, 751 i. 13, • . 297 iv. 14, . . 575 i. 23, . 300, 413 i. 15, , , . 153 iv. 15, . . 496 i. 23 sq., . 723 i. 16, . 144, 340, 521 IV. 11), . . 483 i. 26, . 170, 584 i. 17, . 187 iv. 18, . . 233, 660 i. 27, . . 265 i. 19, . 736 iv. 21, . . 249, 488 i. 28, . . 206 i. 20, *. 222, 266, 495 iv. 22, . 404 sq., 4.30 i. 29sq., . 716 i. 21, . 270, 553, 714 iv. 23, . 270, 330, 405 ii. 1, . . 661 i. 2.', , , . 235 iv. 24, . . 501 li. 3, . 735 i. 23, , . 596 iv. 215, . 391, 392, 620 ii. 4, . . 624 i. 24, . 170, 236 iv. 27, . . 616 ii. 6, 221, 406 i. 26, , , . 717 iv. 28, . 444 ii. 7, . 430 i. 27, . . 207 iv. 29, . 216, 454, 72S ii. 9, . 175 ii. 1, • • . 568 iv. 30, . . 494 ii. 10, . 238, 487 ii. 2, , , . 716 V. 2, . 756 ii. 11, . . 361 ii. 5, 552, 554, 588 sq. v. 3sq., . 33S, 610 ii. 12, . . 597 ii. 7, _ , . 271 v. 5, 159, 163,209,215,446 ii. 13, . . 479 ii. 8, . 13G, 501, 631 V. 9, . 230 ii. 15, . 591 ii. 13, . . 430 v. 12, . 177, 182 ii. IS, . . 285 ii. 14, • • . 275 V. 13, . . 323 ii. 20, . . 209 ii. 15, . . 323 V. 14, . . 110, 392 ii. 22, . 525, 722 ii. 16, • . 768 V. 15, , . 376, 595 ii. 23, . . 48 ii. 17, . . 667 V. 19, . . 265 ii. 27, . . 508 ii. 18, 233, 291, 310, 586, V. 21, . 441 ii. 2S, , , 304 603 V. 23, . 665 ii. 3u, , . 115 ii. 19, 159, 177, 281, 309, V. 24, . 565 iii. 2, . . 280 609 V. 26, . 153, 172 iii. 3, . 2( ;2, 271, 609 ii. 20, , , 316, 326 V. 27, . 722 iii. 5, . 270 ii. 22, . . 158 V. 31, . 328, 456, 539 iii. (i, . 174 ii. 23, , , 209, 719 V. 32, . 190, 553 iii. 7, 342 sq. iii. 5, 145, 207, 210, 393, V. 33, . 396, 722 iii. 8, . 552 666 vi. 2, . 488 iii. 9, 172, r ■4, 232, 487 iii. G, . 332 vi. 3, . 361 iii. 10, . . 409, 716 iii. 8, . 133 vi. 4, 236 sq., 485 iii. 11, . . 374 iii. 12, . 764 vi. 5, . 172 iii. 12, .345, . 374, 491 sq. iii. 12 sqq.. . 707 vi. 8. . 775 iii. 13 s(|., . 774 iii. 14, 207, 490 vi. 11, . 236 iii. 14, . . 169 iii. 1.5, 232, 546 vi. 12, . 299, 524 iii. 16, . 397 sq. iii. 16, . 716 vi. 13, . 236 iii. IS, . . 665 iii. 18, . 338 vi. 14, . 666 iii. 18 sq., 2' 28, G6S, 705 iii. 24, 46.3, 666 vi. IG, . 168, 490 iii. 20, . . 177, 568 iii. 25, . 775 814 INDEX. iv. 3, iv. G, iv. 12, iv. 15, iv. 16, iv. 17, . 649 . 398, 400 . 138 . 128, 181 133, 423, 784 . 781 sq. 1 Thessalonians. i. 1, i. 2, i. 3, 1. 7, i. 9, i. 10, ii. 3, ii. 6, ii. 7, ii. 8, ii. 10, ii. 12, ii. 13, ii. 16, ii. 17, ii. 20, iii. 3, iii. 5, iii. 6, iii. 8, iii. 9, iii. 13, iv. 2, iv. 3, iv. 6, iv. 7, iv. 8, iv. 9, iv. 33, iv. 14, iv. 15, iv. 16, V. 1, V. 2, V. 4, V. 10, V. 11, V. 12, V. 15, V. 22. 2 i. ]," i. 4, I. 4 sq., i. 6, i- 7, i. 8, i. 9, i. 10, i. 12, ii. 1, ii. 2, 169, 170 . 470 233, 768 . 218 . 181 444, 743 . 618 . 512 . 385 li'o, 777 , 584 , 414 323 2, 567, 743 . 305 5-58 sq. 229, 413 . 633 . 464 369, 579 . 283 519, 779 . 474 401 sq. 01, 143, 403 . 519 . 623 414, 426 . 335 . 678 483, 636 10, 482, 487 . 426 . 174 573, 575 . 368 . 217 . 483 . 360 . 149 2 Thessalonians. . 170 . 204 . 669 . 562 . 297 . 596 . 465 326, 486 162 sq. . 479 619, 771 ii. 3, ii. 3 sq. ii. 6, ii. 7, ii. 10, ii. 11, ii. 12, ii. 13, iii. 3, iii. 4, iii. 5, iii. 7, iii. 8, iii. 9, iii. 12, iii. 14, i. 2, i. 3, i. 3 sqq. i. 4, i. 6, i. 7, i. 9, i. 12, i. 18, ii. 1, ii. 2, 11. 4, , ii. 6, ii. 8, ii. 9, ii. 10, ii. 12, ii. 15, iii. 2, iii. 5, iii. 12, iii. 13, iii. 14, iii. 15, iii. 16, iv. 1, iv. 3, iv. 8. iv. 13, iv. 14, V. 4, v. 5, V. 9, v. 11, V. 13, V. 19, V. 23, vi. 3, vi. 4, vi. 5, vi. 8, vi. 12, vi. 13, 132, 298, 299 749 579 688 236 296 157 232, 260, 519 110 292 232 557 619 746 477 147 1 TiMOT 326, vi. 17, 170, 240, 296, 341 vi. 20, . . . 317 44i HY. 171 404 713 74 sq. 245 211 265 437 4S4 321 81 692 669 80 80 197 152 648, 787 146 567 146 175 304 206 sq. 36, 796 sq. . 233 . 777 . 175 . 370 . 471 . 787 . 162 . 738 . 388 603 757 . 624 . 64 . 506 126, 287 , 89 . 392 . 469 436, 469, 2 Timothy. i. 1, i. 3, i. 8, i. 9, i. 12, i. 13, i. 16, i. IS, ii. 2, ii. 6, li. 10, ii. 11, ii. 14, ii. 25, iii. 1, iii. 8, iii. 12, iii. 16, iv. 2, iv. S, iv. 9, iv. IS, 60: Titus. i. 1, i. i. 1 sqq., 2, i. i. 3, 5, i. 6, i. 11, i. 12, i. 15, ii ii 4, ii 7, ii 8, ii 13, iii. 3, iii. 5, iii. 7, 304, . 502 465, 561 . 236 . 698 . 546 . 174 . 86 458 473 696 175 179 2, 669, 778 374, 631 . 154 . 288 . 767 . 120 . 653 . 341 . 753 . 776 . 502 . 707 . 698 670, 711 . 322 . 146 . 603 80, 192, 797 108, 651, 700 . 405 . 363 322 527, 740 162 sq. . 742 174, 487, 502 . 196 Philemon. 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, i. 3, 236 511 578 236 205 795 479 . 771 347, 746 172, 795 519, 236, Hkbrews. . 219 233, 297 NEW TESTAMENT 815 i. fi, 1. 7, i. 8, i. 9, i. II, i. i;^, ii. 3, ii. 7, ii. 8, ii. 9, ii. 10, ii. 11, ii. 14, ii. 10, ii. 17, ii. 18, iii. 3, iii. 5, iii. 6, iii. 7, iii. 8, iii. 11, iii. 12, iii. 13, iii. 15, iii. IG, iii. 19, iv. I, iv. 2, iv. 3, iv. 4, iv. 8, iv. 11, iv. 13, iv. 15, IV. IG, V. 1, V. 2, V.4, V, 5, V.6, V. 7, V. 8, V. II, V. 12, vi. 1, vi. 2, vi. 5, vi. 6, vi. 7, vi. 8, vi. 13, vi. 14, vi. IG, vi. 17, vi. 18, vii. 2, vii. 4, vii. G, vii. 9, Tii. 11, . 387 . 5(15 . 227 . 34G, 504 . 333 . 75G . 474, 77G . 503 . 560 497, 578, 670 . 402, 431 . 458 . 339 . 334 . 2S4, 289 . 198, 484 . 237, 300 . 428 . 196 . 719 . 500 . 578, 627 242, 413, 632 . 236 . C28, 715 60, 551, G41 . 54G . 7GG . 275, 326 332, 578, G27 . 656 . 183, 380 . 483 . 183, 506 . 112 . 49G . 289 . 287 . 728 . 400 . 741 189, 540, 776 . 20G, 793 . 143 426, 440, 497 . 234, 666 233, 240, 690 . 248 2C5, 432, 756 . 174, 546 . 441 . 478 445, 553, 627 , 478, 719 . 484 . 482 441 . 6S8, 701 . 341, 610 341, 399, 473, 563 . 327, 605 vii. 12, vii. 17, vii. 20, vii. 20 sq., vii. 21, vii. 24, vii. 2G, vii. 27, viii. 1, viii. 3, viii. 5, viii. 6, viii. 8, viii. 9. viii. 10, viii. 11, ix. 1, ix. 2, ix. 3, ix. 4, ix. 5, ix. 6, ix. 7, ix. 8, ix. 9, ix. 10, ix. 11, ix. 12, ix. 15, ix. 16, ix. 17, ix. 19, ix. 22, ix. 2;), ix. 2G, X. 2, x. 5 s(|., X. 6, X. 8, X. 10, 14, 16, 20, 22 ii; 27, X. 28, X. 33, X. 34, X. 35, X. 37, X. 38, X. 39, xi. 1, 706 670, . 110, 183, 261, 229, 5.3G, . 217, 16G, 542, 175, 29G, . 221, 207, 500, 105, 431, . 231, 491, . 219, 354, 489, 442, 705, 172, 483, 442, 88, 194, 3fi9, 0, G56, 32 xi. 2, xi. 3, xi. 7, xi. II, . . 187, xi. 12, , 2(12, 432, xi. 13, xi. 15, 257, 381 sq., :G, 484, 414. 656 733 sq. 471 134 546 192 719 386 356 327 544 714 717 636 720 792 308 481 403 334 722 2.34 608 791 237 475 4S9 689 602 241 693 221 749 379 346 729 729 4S6 339 717 663 776 231 212 489 178 659 210 731 729 244 68 513 694 502 504 736 502 383 443, xi. 17, 338, xi. IS, xi. 2t;, XI. 28, xi. 29, xi. 32, xi. 35, xi. 39, xi. 40, xii. 1, xii. 2, xii. 3, xii. 7, xii. 10, xii. 11, xii. 1.), xii. 15, xii. 17, xii. IS, xii. 19, xii. 20 sqq., xii. 25, . XI xii. 27, xiii. 2, xiii. 4, xiii. 5, xiii. 9, xiii. 10, xiii. 13 xiii. 15 xiii. IS xiii. 19 xiii. 20, xiii. 22, xiii. 23 xiii. 24, 1, o *•» 7, 7 sq., 9 sq., 11, 1-2, 13, 15, 17, 18, 24, 25, 27, 1, 2 sqq. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 340, 546, 688, 796 . 505, 7G9 . 4S0, 740 114, 183, 340 . 510 . 349, 689 459, 57G, 609 . 47G, 513 . 323 . 527 . 456 . 23 . 495 . 509 . 244, 666 . 798 246, 316, 632 . 183 . 271, 431 . 755 . 708 . 789 . 576 . 585 . 732 637, 732 . 487 2!8, 459 236, 430 . 2G2 . G49 . 304 . 172 . 741 304, 435 . 784 James. 397 sq., 735 . 138 . 559 . 670 . 777 346, 347, 590 . 666 120, 242, 464 . 107 62, 236, 438, 798 . 212 . 340, 347 . 175, 297 . 246 . 232 . 715 231, 2.S3, 547 . 236,205 . 217 . 554 . 443 253, 350, 386 816 INDEX. ii. 11, . . 601 ii. 12, . . 484, 732 ii. 12, . IDS, 784 ii. 13, . . 124 ii. 14, . . 474 ii. 14, . 108, 242 ii. 14, . . 1.34 ii. 16, . . 689, 717 ii. 16, . . 118 ii. 15, . . 440, 566 ii. 17, . . 394 ii. 18, . 430, 664 ii. 18, . . 349 ii. 18, . . 732 ii. 19, . . 275 ii. 22, . . 540 ii. 19, . . 650 ii. 20, . . 199 ii. 23, . . 567 ii. 22, . . 770 ii. 21, . 352, 605 ii. 2(5, . . 144 ii. 23, . . 738 ii. 22, . 135 sq., 443, iii. 3, . 749 ii. 24, . . 185, 263 735, 798 iii. 4, . 756 iii. 1, 89. 361, 442, iii. 1, 177, 689 iii. G, . 62 602, 732 iii. 3, 716, 732 iii. 7, . 275 iii. 3, . . 666 iii. 4, . 183, 334, 736, iii. S, . . 668, 672 iii. 4, . 483 745, 788 iii. 11, . . 739 iii. 6, 281, 578, 708 iii. 5, 272, 441, 522, 586 iii. 12, . . 619 iii. 6 sqq., . 732 iii. 9, . . 246 iii. 1.3, . . 172, 211 iii. 8, . . 288, 733 iii. 10, . 156, 646 iii. 14, . 590, 620, 642 iii. 10, . . 409, 768 iii. 11, . . 430 iii. 15, . . 439 iii. 12, . . 733 iii. 12, . 196, 498 iii. IS, . . 275 iii. 14, , 182, 281, 367 iii. 13, . . 658 iv. 2, . . 5S9 iii. 17, . . 367, 755 iii. 14, . . 274 iv. 2 sq. , . 321 iii. 18, . . 513 iii. 17, . . 271 iv. 4, . 223 iii. 19, . . 761 iv. 5, . 529 iii. 20, . 194, 537, 776 1 JOH N. iv. 10, . . 327 iii. 21, 2; !7, 239, 242, 663 i. 1, . 758 iv. 13, . . 145, 201 iv. 1, . . 328, 513 1. 1 sqq., . 709 iv. 14, . 135 sq., 175 iv. 2, . 101 i. 9, . 577 iv. 15, . . 357, 547 iv. 3, . 400, 782 ii. 2, . . 722 V. 2, . 342 iv. 6, 351, 501, 786 ii. 5, . 232 V. 3, . . 154, 265 iv. 7, . . 495 ii. 7 sq., . . 658 V. 4, . 464 iv. 8, . 134 ii. 8, . 335 v. 5, . 195, 519 iv. 11, . 134, 196 ii. 12, . . 183 V. 6, . 132 iv. 12, . . 262 ii. 13, . . 348 V. 7, . 740 iv. 14, . . 136, 165 ii. 15, . 232 V. 11, . 309 IV. 19, . . 57, 151 ii. 19, . . 398 V. 13, . 211, 355, 678 V. 2, . 481 ii. 21, . . 215, 347 V. 14, . 508 V. 6, . 327 ii. 22, . . 755 V. 17, . 584 V. 7, 441 sq. ii. 24, . . 718 V. 8, , 154, 173 ii. 25, . . 665 ] . Peter. V. 9, . 270 ii. 26, . . 347 i. 1, . 141 V. 10, . 167 ii. 27, 346, 4 26, 718, 764 i. 2, . 171, 234, 297 V. 12, . 347 ii. 28, . . 280 i. 3, . 502 iii. 1, . 575, 769 i. 5, . VA, 486 ! Peter. iii. 5, . 334 i. 7, . 174, 295 i. 1, 162 sq., 250, 778 iii. 8, . 334 i. 8, . 609 i. 3, . 328, 476, 770 iii. 11, . . 425 i. 9, . 429 i. 4, . 196 iii. 11 sq., . 778 i. 10, . 242 i. 5, . 178, 70S, 749 iii. 13, . . 679 i. 11, . 242 i. 9, 2 33, 569, 603, 692 iii. 17, . . 232 1. 12, . 621 i. 17, . 442, 462 iii. 18, . . 629 i. 14, . 443 i. 19, . 305 iii. 19 sq.. . 727 i. 15, . 138, 501 i. 20, 244 sq., 732 iii. 23, . . 425 i. 18, . 166, 659, 662 ii. 1, . 441 iii. 24, , . 200, 723 i. 22, . 232, 486 ii. 3, IS 6, 272, 279, 482, iv. 2, . 435 i. 24, 346 sq. 584, 724 iv. 4, . 788 i. 2.-), . 267 ii. 4, . 429, 712 iv. 9, , , 273, 519 ii. 3, . 562 ii. 5, . 312, 432 iv. 17, . . 172, 425 ii. 6, . 316 ii. 6, . 263 iv. 20, . . 342 ii. 7, . 6-68, 714, 722 ii. 7, . 461 V. 6, . 475 ii. 8, . 54(; ii. 9, . 429 V. 9, . 774 ii. 10, . 431 ii. 10, . 297, 744 V. 10, . . 594 ii. 11, . 179, 442 ii. 11, . 305, 493 V. 13, . . 348 NEW TESTAMENT. 817 V. in, • . 369 iv. 8, . 41 )7, 660, 673 xiii. 16, • i . 361 V. 16, . 595, 650, 665 iv. 9, 350, 388 xiii. 17, . 673 V. 20, 166, 195, 202, 363, iv. 11, . . 134 xiv. 1, . 673 524 V. 3, . . 616 xiv. 4, . 384 V. 4, . . 616 xiv. 6, . 109 2 John V. 6, . . 673 xiv. 7, . 672 2, . , 512, 723 V. 7, , 340 xiv. 9, . 510 4, . . . 660 V. 9, . . 487 xiv. 10, 107, 547 6, . . . 183 V. 11 sq.. . 671 xiv. 12, 232, 672 7, 168, 1 75, 177, 435, 606, V. 12, . . 158, 672 xiv. 13, 361, 398 sq., 487, 788 V. 13, . . 134, 436 576 12,. • ■ . 347 vi. 4, . . 361, 729 xiv. 14, . 671, 724 vi. 6, . . 735 xiv. 19, . 661, 672 3 JOHX vi. 8, . 135, 718 xiv. 20, . 697 2, . * • . 467 vi. 11, . . 218, 361 XV. 2, , CIO, 444, 460 4, . 81, 201, 425, 745 vi. 14, . . 459 xvi. 3, . 672 6, . . . 152 vii. 2. . . 149, 429 xvi. 7, . 259 7, . • • . 463 vii. 9, . . 671, 724 xvi. 9, . 281 10,. ^ , , 619 vii. 11, . . 93 xvi. 19, . 763 12,. • • . 326 vii. 14, . . 340 xvi. 21, . 461 vii. 17, . . 689 xvii. 2, . 186 JUDE. viii. 1, . . 389 xvii. 3, . 251, 287 J, . 265, 524 viii. 3, . . 361 xvii. 4, . 287 4, . . 162 viii. 4, . . 270 xvii. 8, 259 sq., 327, 736, 5, . . 775 viii. 5, . . 340 781, 783 If 288, 778 viii. 9, , . 672 xvii. 9, . 185 11,. 2:;6, 258 viii. 11, . . 1.35 xvii. 12, . 646 14,. 2(55, 346 viii. 12, . . 575 xvii. 16, . 177 15,. 203, 279 viii. 13, . 145, 401 xviii. 11, . 491 16,. . 716 ix. 4, 214, 602 xviii. 12, 294, 739, 741 21,. 172, 496 ix. 7, . 755 xviii. 12 sq., . . 724 ix. 10, . . 778 xviii. 14, . 194 Ei VELATTOX. ix. 11, . 227, 739 xviii. 17, . 279 i. 4, 79, 141, 227, 735 ix. 12, . 223, 648 xviii. 24, . 221 i. 5, 246, 668, 672 ix. 14, . 671, 672 xix. 5, . 262 i. 5 sq., . . 672 ix. 1^\ . 4')0, 465 xix. 6, • ►, • ^"'"^ i. 6, . . 725 ix. 20, . 575, 616 xix. 10, 748, 751 i. 10, . . 230 ix. 21, . . 610 xix. 12, . 672 i. 19, . . 646 X. 7, 346, 547 xix. 13, . 135 i. 20, . 290 X. 9, . 398 xix. 16, 308 sq. ii. 5, 194, 079, 764 X. 11, . . 491 XX. 2, 671 sq. ii. 13, . 525, 593, 764 xi. 4, . 672 XX. 3, . 673 ii. 14, . . 284 xi. 5, 3G8, 678 XX. 4, . 132 ii. ir.. . 194, 268 xi. 9, . 253 XX. 5, . 372 ii. 17, . 247, 725 xi. Ii, . . 515 xxi. 4, . . 626 ii. 20, . 97, 671 xi. 14, , . 223 xxi. 8, • . 431 ii. 26, . . . 718 xi. 15, . 660 xxi. 9, . . 165 iii. 2, ^ . 646 xii. 6, . 184 xxi. 11, . . 310 iii. 3, . . 288 xii. 7, . 411 xxi. 10 s( 1., . . 672 iii. 9, 3( ;1, 423, 660, 781 xii. 8, 616, 770 xxi. 13, . . 150 iii. 10, . . 297 xii. 9. . . 753 xxi. 16, . . 244, 509 iii. 1-2, . 0.37, 672, 718 xii. 11, . . 498 xxi. 17, . 244, 290, 669 iii. ir>, . . 377 sq. xii. 14, . 184, 221 xxi. 25, . . 636 iii. 19, . • , 590 xii. 17, . . 491 xxi. 27, . 214, 566, 789 iii. 2(1, , 547 xiii. 1, . . 510 xxii. 3, . . 216 iii. 21, , 718 xiii. 3, . 297, 327 xxii. 9. . . 748, 751 iv. 1, . 672 xiii. 1(», . . 161 xxii. 1 1 , . 391 iv. 3, ^ 80 xiii. 11.. . 778 xxii. 14, . 360 iv. 4, • 671 xiii. 12, , 185, 361 xxii. 10, . . 491 iv. 7, • 134 xiii. 13, . . . 577 xxii. 19, . 743 Win er Gr i\mm, ir. 52 818 INDEX. II.— PASSAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT' AND APOCRYPHA EXPLAINED OR ILLUSTRATED. Genesis. [xxxii. .>2, 230] xxii. 26, 411 xxxii. 33, 177 xxiii. 13, 411 . 300 xxxiii. 4, 739 . 314 xxxiii. 8, 389 Judges. . 389 xxxiv. 2.3, 314 ii. 14, . 291 . 310 xxxiv. 34, 389 ii. 21, . 411 . 736 xxxvi. 1, 185 V. 3, . 191 . 578] xl. 36, . 389 vi. 3, . . . 389 . 143] vi. 10, . 185 . 072 Leviticus. vi. IS, . 191 . 412] i. 14, . . . 369 ix. 37, . 411 . 756 XV. 16, . 185 X. 18, . 385 . (527 xvi. 32, . 185 xi. 24, . 385 . 672 xix. 18, . 188 xi. 27, . 191 . 223 xxi. 17, . 211 xi. 34, . 265 . 185 xxi. 20, . . 185 xii. 6, 411 , 204 xxii. 4, . 185 xiii. 23, . 384 . 185 xxiii. 15, . 204 xvi. 2, . 672 . 39 xxiv. 20, . 748 xvi. 24, . 724 . 389 xvii. 8, . 320 . 389 NaMBERS. xix. 30, . . 39 . 205 ix. 10, . . . 41 xxi. 3, . 411 . 334 xi. 9, 389 xxi. 7, • 411 . 38'8 xii. 6, 302 . 672 xiv. 2, 377 Ruth. . 302 xiv. 27, 749 i. 12, . . 411 . 334 xix. 22, . 205 ii. 2, 185 . 136 XX. 3, . 377 ii. 10, . 408 . 1.36 XX. 19, . 248 iii. 3, . 411 . 368 xxiii. 13, . 695 iii. 15, , 740 . 260 xxxiii. 38 sq.. . 338 . 672 1 Samuel. . 672 Deuteronomy. [ii. 3, 589' [ill. 7, . . 267 V. 27, . . . 385 vii. 2 sq.. . 137 . 309 vii. 13, . . 756 ix. 9, . 227 63, 388 viii. 3, . . 350 ix. 12, . . 646 . 260 ix. 11, . . 476 xi. 2, . 39 . 672 X. 22, . . 488 xii. 23, . . 411 . 581 xi. 30, . . 289 xiv. 39, . . 136 71, 369 xvi. 16, . . 314 XV. 12, . . 672 . 603 xix. 21, . . 748 xvi. 9, , . 283 . 748 xxii. 7, . . 361 xvii. 34, . 389 . 484 xxii. 27, , 136 [xvii. 34, . 143] . 260 xxviii. 62, . 754 xviii. 22, . 291 . 387 xxix. 18, , 211 XXV. 20, . 71 . 377 xxxi. 6, . 637 . 170 xxxi. 8, . 637 2 Samuel. . 256 i. 16, . 734 b88 sq. Joshua. vi. 20, . . 562 . 356 V. 15, . . .510 XV. 4, . 358 97, 751 x. 17, 672 xix. 43, . . 314 iv. 13, iv. 24, vi. 4, X. 9, X. 21, [xi. 7, [xiv. 13, XV. 1, [xv. 12, xvii. 13, xxii. 17, xxii. 20, xxiii. 3sq., xxiv. 3, . xxiv. 7, . xxiv. 37, xxvi. 10, xxvii. 30, XXX. 42, xxxi. 10, xxxiii. 17, xxxviii. 9, xxxviii. 13, xxxviii. 26, xxxix. 16, xl. 8, xii. 8, xliii. 3 sq., xliv. 4, xiv. 16, xlviii. 2, Exodus. i. 12, i. 16, iv. 21, V. 14, viii. 14, viii. 21, ix. 21, X. 11, xiv. 4, xiv. 18, XV. 16, xvi. 3, xvi. 7, xvii. 3, xvii. 11, XXV. 40, xxxii. 32, • [When the fio:ures are inclosed in brackets, the reference is to the Hebrew text; otherwise, to the Greek.] OLD TESTAMENT AND APOCRYniA. 819 1 Kings. ii. 2, iii. 1, iii. 11, iii. 18, viii. 16, viii. 37, viii. 48, xii. 9, xii. 10, xiii. 10, xvi. 19, xvi. 31, XX. 23, 2 Kings. vi. 10, . xvii. 29, . 1 Chronicles ix. 27, . xvii. 6, . xvii. 24, . xxi. 24, . xxviii. 4, xxviii. 20, 2 Chronicles vi. 38, . [xvii. 9, . XXXV. 10, [ix. 14, Ezra. Nehemiah. iv. IG, V. 18, ix. 7, xiii. 14, xiii. 25, i. 5, Esther. Job xiv. 13, xviii. 4, [xix. 3, xxii. 3, Psalms. iv. 5, [x^^ii. 5, xxii. 1, . [xxii. 22, xxiv. 8, . xxxix. 6, xl. 3, . 191 722 411 789 283 572 289 736 072 411 410 411 627 314 41 41 208 7.S0 487 283 637 289 284] SO 297] 137 488 2S3 39 627 516 377 740 589] 369 391 .32] 280 770] 327 211 24 1.6, , Ixii. 2 Ixvii. 20.' Ixxxix. 2, xciv. 11, [xcv. 11, ci. 3, cxi. 1 9 cxvii. 5, . cxvii. 23, cx\aii . 33, cxviii . 50. cxviii 159, cxix. 7, . [cxix. 104, cxxxvii. 7, cxlvi. 10, 574 256 090 mi 578 578] 384 291 776 39, 298 327 24, 39 503 389 314] 23 291 Proverbs. viii. 28, . [xviii. 14, Canticles. ii. 7, iii. 5, vii. 6, i. 9, vi. 4, ix. 1, xxvi. 20, xxix. 10, xxxvi. 12, xlv. 23, . xlvii. 3, . Isaiah. i. 5, ii. 36, . X. 24, . xi. 5, xxiii. 20, [xii. 7, . xlix. 4, . Jeremiah. 740 001] 627 027 502 86 204 289 309 117 574 027 738 334 208 .392 410 387 517] 385 Lamentations. i. 20, . . . Ezekiel. xvii. 19, . xxi. 11, . xxxiii. 27, xxxiv. 8, XXXV. 6, xliv, 9, . Daniel. iii. 15, 563 627 407 627 627 627 216 751 v. 5, vii. 25, xi. 2, ii. 8, ii. 21, i. 1, IV. 7, i. 3, iii. 3, iii. 4, i. 4, vi. 15, HOSEA. Joel. Amos. Jonah. Zephaniaii. Zechakiah. i. 31 i. 49, iv. 48, iv. 54, V. 67, vi. 31, viii. 22, iii. 6, iv. 15, V. 14, vii. 11, ii. 3, iv. 2, ix. 2, ix. 14, X. 7, xiii. 20, ii. 14, ii. 15, vii. 3, ix. 6, xi. 15, XV. 12, xvi. 17, xvi. 20, xvii. 2, xviii. 3, xix. 12, 3(1) ESDRAS.I TOEIT. Jl'dith. Wisdom. 24 221 262 223 411 698 698 182 310 411 223 751 170 784 724 185 411 427 724 302 265 41 369 177 309 185 408 071 411 229 778 778 229 1.34 655 290 23 236 242 192 ' [1 Esdras in editions of the LXX ; 3 Esdras in the Vulgate and the English Apocrypha.] 820 INDEX. EcCLESIASTICtJS. iii. 10, . 731 V. 39, . • • 408 vi. 34, . 211 iii. 36, . 505 vi. 27, , • • 411 xi. 21, . 202 vi. 59, . , • 411 xxii. 2G, . 368 SUS.^.NNA. xiii. 52, , • , 458 xxiii. 1-4, 562 0, • • • • 27 766 214 xliv. 18, . 423 2 Macc ABEES. Bap. ucir. 33, . 458 796 223 ii. 1, 782 i. 9, i. 10, . 710 204 o4 sqq., . 61 V. 10, . vi. 1, . 617 270 ii. 12, . ii. 28, . 229 714 1 Maccabees. vii. 28, . xi. 22, . 695 31G ii. 29, . G27 ii. 58, . 231 XV. 3(J, . 6L'8 III.— INDEX OF SUBJECTS. A1)breviated forms of proper names, 26, 127 sq. ; of other noinis, 24 sq. of words 111 a 117. sen- Abnormal relation tence, 786-793. Abstract nouns, forms of, 115-118 ; use of the article with, 147-155, 138; plural of, 220 ; supplied from con- crete, 181 ; combined with concrete, 665 sq., 725 sq. Accentuation, 55-63 ; words distin- guished by, 55 sq., 58, 60 sqq. ; changes in later Greek, 56 sq. ; of certain personal names, 58 sqq. ; of indeclinable names, 59 ; of elided words, 43. Accumulation of prepositions, 521 sq. Accusative case, 277-290 ; with transi- tive verbs, 277-280 ; of place, 280 ; of cognate noun, 281 - 283, 203 ; double, 2S4 sq., 285 sq. ; of neuter adjectives and pronouns, 285, 250 ; quantitative, 285, 775 ; with passive verbs, 286 sq., 326 ; of the remoter object, 287 ; of time and space, 287 sq. ; of exact definition, 288 ; ad- verbial, 288 sq., 581 sq. ; absolute, 226, 290, 716, 718 sq. ; after prepo- sitions, 494-509 ; after verbs com- pounded with prepositions, 530-540 ; in apposition to a sentence, 290, 669 ; with infinitive, 402, 404 sq., 406 sq. , 414 sq. ; after on, 426, 718 ; is iv used as a periphrasis for the? 283; (sing.) of 3d decl. with appended v, 76 sq. Active voice, 314-316 ; apparently used in a reHexive, 315, 738, — or a pas- sive sense, 316 ; with luurov, 316, 321 sq. ; sometimes used for the middle voice, 320-322, 24, 35. Adjectives : of two and three termina- tions, 25, 80 ; declension of, 80, 71-77 ; comparison of, 81, 300-310 ; double comparatives, 81, 753 ; derived from verbs, 119, — from adjectives, 120 sqq., — from substantives, 122 sq. ; compound, 123 sqq. ; as attributives, 163-166, 174 sq., 657-663; used as substantives, 135, 217 sq., 293-295, 299, 649 sq., — neuter, so used, 119, 294 sq., 299, 649 sq.. 741 ; accus. of, used adverbially, 288 ; neuter, used as adverbs, 314, 580 ; is the femin. used for the neuter? 298, 39; ex- pressing an eff(r-cr, proleptic use o^', 663, 779 ; joined to substantives with the article, 103-166, — to anarthrous nouns, 174 sq., — to the vocative case, 229, — to two or more substan- tives, 661 sq. ; connected by kk'i, 659 ; differing from their substan- tive in number, gender, or case, 660 Sq., 672 sq., 705, 790-792; predica- tive, 134, 647 sqq., 662 sq. ; in ap- position, relating to a sentence, 669 sq. ; in the place of adverbs, 582- 584 ; ellipsis of, 743 sq. ; periphrases for, 298 sq., 526-529; followed by the genitive, 242 sq. ; position of, 163-166, 657-659, 686 sq. Adverbs, 447 sq., 578-643, 123 ; use of, by the N. T. writers, 579 ; de- rived from adjectives, 579 sq. ; with the article, 135 ; joined to nouns, 582, 584 ; whether used for adjec- tives, 584; periphrases for, 526-529 ; replaced by adjectives, 582-584, — by participles or the dative case, 445 sq., 584 sq., — by linite verbs, 585- 590 ; demonstrative, included in rela- tive, 198 ; governing a case, 590 s(j. ; SUBJECTS. 821 combinations of, 591, — with x^repo- sitions, 525 sq. ; prepositions used as, 526 ; of place, interchanged, 591-593, — used of persons, 593 ; apposition joined to, 6G-i ; irregular position of, 092 sqq. ; no real ellipsis of, 744 sq. ; in / or II, 47 ; comparison of, SI ; compound, 127. Adversative sentences, 551-555, 677- 679. yEolic forms, 37, 77, 90, 100, 104. Affirmative word supplied from nega- tive, 728, 777. Alexandrian dialect of Greek, 20-22, etc., 90; its peculiar orthography, 53 sqq. See Septuagint. Anacoluthon : particular kinds of, 716- 722 ; various examples of, 709-722, 209, 397, 442, 554, 561, 578, 670-673, 704, 70S ; xnmctuation, 67. Annominatio, 794 sqq. Antiptosis, 792 sq. Aorist tense, 343-348 ; when used for the pluperfect, 343 sq. ; never stands for the perfect, 3 44 sq., — or the future, 345 sq., — or the present, 347 ; ite- rative or gnomic aorist, 346 sq. ; epis- tolary aorist, 347 sq. ; not used do conatu in the N. T., 34S ; has the aor. middle a passive sense ? 319 sq. ; aor. passive in middle sense, 327 sq. ; ])roper translation of, 345 ; aor. iudic. with av, 380 sq., — without elv in apo- dosis, 382 sq. ; 2 aor. with emling «, 86 sq., 103 ; 1 aor. with ^olic opt., 90 ; 1 aor. in the place of 2 aor., 38, 99, 101 sqq., 106 sqq. See also Im- perative, etc. Apocalypse, peculiarities in the lan- guage and style of the, 41, 150, 263, 350, 451, 485, 577, 070 sqq. Apocry|)hal writings, general style of the, 22. Apodosis, introduced by xa!, 357, 546 sq., 678, 756, — by Ss, 553, 678, 749, — by aXkec, 552, 678, — by cuv, 712, — by ouru;, 548 sq., 678 sq. ; com- mencement of, not marked, 678 ; suppressed, 578, 627, 712 sq., 749 ; doubled, 679 ; link between protasis and apodosis wanting, 773 sq. ; forms of, in conditional sentences, 364-367, 378-384 ; peculiar use of the perfect and the aorist in, 341 sq., 345 sq. Aposiopesis, 749-751, 551, 627, 715. Apostrophe in tbe N. T., 42 sq. Apposition, 663-673, 657 ; different kinds of, 663 sq. ; construction of words in, 665-669 ; irregularities, 670-673, 668, 705 ; genitive of, 666- 668 ; to a genit. included in a pos- sessive pron., 664 ; to an adverb, 664 ; to a sentence, 290, 668 sqq. ; prei^osition not repeated with a noun in, 524 ; a clause in apposition at- tracted into a relative clause, 665, 783 ; article with words in, 172 sq. ; Ijosition of words in, 669 sq. (687 sq. ) AquiLa, 39. Aramaic language, 30 sq., 187, 224, 544; Aramaisms, 30 sq., 217, 439 (732). Article, definite, 129-175 ; as a de- monstr. pron., 129 sqq. (comp. 133) ; with nouns, 131-136 ; designating a class, 132, 217 ; is it used for the relative? 133; peculiar uses of, 134 sq. , 136, 743 ; in the place of a pers. pron., 135 ; in appellations, 135 ; with adjectives, adverbs, sentences, etc., 135; neuter article with masc. or fern, nouns, 136, 223 ; with de- monstr. pron., 137, — ^a;, 137 sq., — ToiovToi, etc., 138 sq. ; with proper names, 137, 139-141; m the predicate, (136), 141 sq. ; never indefinite, 143 ; cases in which it may either be in- serted or omitted, 143, 147-163 ; fre- quently omitted after a prepos., 139, 149, 151, 157, — in superscriptions, 140, 155, — before quasi-pro])er names and abstract nouns, 147-155, — before nouns which are followed by a de- fining genitive, 153, 155 sq., 175, — in enumerations, 149, 175, — with ordinal numerals, 154, 156, — by the law of correlation, 175; the use of the art. sometimes a characteristic of style, 146 sq. ; variation of Jiss. in regard to, 146 sq. ; repetition of, with nouns connected by conjunc- tions, 157-162 ; with attributives, 103-175 ; with nouns in a})position, 172 sq. ; sometimes found with the attributive of an anarthrous substan- tive, 174 sq.; questions in regard to the art. wLiich are not fully settled, 175; works upon, 129; jjusiiuui, l47. Article, indefinite, never expresi>ed by 0, ii, TO, 143 ; indicated by t);, and sometimes by sf;, 145 sq. Assimilation of consonants, neglected, 54 ; in Latin, 55. Asyndeton, 653, 659, 673-676. Attic forms, 22 sq., 37, 88 sq. Attraction, 682, 780-785 ; of relative pronoun or adverb, 197, 202 sqq., 206, 782; of antecedent, 204 sqq., 783 ; of an apposition into a relative clause, 665, 783 ; of the subject of a dependent sentence, 781 sq. ; of pre- positions, 454, 493, 784 sq. ; with infinitives, 402, 40i, 7S2. 822 INDEX. Attributives, 657-673 ; article with, 163-175 ; ellipsis of, 743 sq. Augment : temporal for syllabic, 82, 102; syllabic for temporal, 82 sq. ; superfluous, 82, 111 ; neglected, 83- 86, 108 ; irregular, 84 sq. ; double, 84 sq. ; in verbs beginning with £u, 83, — with p, 88 ; position of, in com- pound, verbs, 83-85, 97. Bengel (J. A.), S, 310. Beth essentiiE, 40, 230. Blending of two constructions, 426, 546, 5'66, 670-673, 714, 724 sq., 747, 756 sq. Brachylogy. See Breriloquence. Breathings, interchanged, 48 sq. ; over PP, 53 ; aspirate over initial p, 53. Breviloquenoe, 773-785 ; in compari- sons, 307, 777 sq. ; in questions, 783 sq. ; in use of apxiff^ai, 775, 790 ; miscellaneous exx. of, 460, 472, 514 sqq., 557, 665. Byzantine writers, notices of their lan- guage and style, passim ; in general, 17, 22, 27 sq. ; forms of words, 70, 71, 72, 76, 81, 84, 87, 90 sq., 93 sq., 99, 108, 113, 119, 123 sq., 127, 128, 390, 423 ; words and phrases, 19, 23, 327 ; syntax, 38, 133, 139, 191, 224, 286, 295, 299, 312, 335, 361 sq., 368, 389, 396, 400, 407, 411, 422, 439 sq., 446, 455, 404, 500, 520, 577, 592, 647, 699, 75-1, 770, 772. Cardinal numeral, used for ordinal, 311 ; numeral one expressed by the singular number, 311 ; repeated, in the place of a distributive, 40, 312 ; in the place of a numeral adverb, 314. Cases, in general, 224 sqq. ; not really interchanged, 225 ; used absolutely, 225 sq. (see Genitive, etc.) ; relation between prepositions and, 449 sq., 451 sq. ; not interchanged, with pre- positions, 455, 458, 476, 492 sq., 508, 611; their meaning lost in late Greek, 38 ; nominative and vocative, 225- 230 ; genitive, 230-260 ; dative, 260- 277 ; accusative, 277-290. Causal conjunctions, originally objec- tive or temporal, 541, 561, 679; causal sentences, 555, 557-561, 679. Chaldee, 22], 224, 656, 795. Chiasm (the flgure), 511, 658. Christian element in N. T. Greek, 36, 451. Cilicisms, 28, 88. Circumstantiality of expression, 33, 753, 757-701. Cognate substantive, accus. of, 281- 283, 203. Collective nouns, construction of, 647 (181) ; collective use of the singular, 218 (177). Comma, improper use of, 65 sq. ; where necessary, 66 sq. (628) ; a half- comma desirable, 67. Comparative degree, 300-307; strength- ened by uaXXov, 300 sq. ; followed by prepositions, 301, 303, 502 sqq., — by ^', 300 ; whether used for the superlative, 303, 305 sq., — or the positive, 301, 303 sqq. ; correlative comparatives, 306 ; peculiarities in the form of, 81 ; of adverbs, 81. Comparison, sentences of, 548 sq., 677 ; pleonasm in, 549, 753 sq. ; breviloquence in, 307, 777 sq. Compound verbs, 125- 127 ; construction of, 529-540 ; used for simple, and vice versa, 25, 745. Concessive sentences, 551, 554 sq. (432 sq. ) Concrete nouns, supplied from abstract, 181, 787 ; combiued with abstract, 665 sq., 725 sq. Conditional sentences, 678 ; forms of protasis, 363-370, 380-384; of apo- dosis, 364-367, 378-384. See Protasis, Apodosis. Conjunctions, 447 sq., 541-579 ; limited use of, in N. T. Greek, 33, 448, 579 ; various classes of, 541 ; copulative, 541-548 ; correlative, 547 sq. ; com- parative, 548 sq. ; disjunctive, 549- 551 ; adversative, 551-554 ; conces- sive, 551, 554 sq. ; temporal, 555, 370 sq., 387, 561 ; consecutive, 377, 400, 555-557, 563, 578 ; causal, 555, 557-561 ; conditional, 555, 561 sq., 363 sq. ; final, 563, 358, 627 ; objec- tive, 563 ; repetition of, 652 sq. ; position of, 455, 547, 557, 698-701 ; never really interchanged, 543, 545, 549 sq., 563-578 ; no real ellipsis of, 744 sq. ; omission of — s&e Asyndeton. Conjunctive mood, 351 ; in independent sentences, 355-357 ; in dependent sentences, 358-390 ; with civ, 364-367, 385 sq., 389 ; with particles of design, 358-363 ; after u, lav, 364-369 ; alter particles of time, 371 sq., 387 sq. ; in indirect questions, 373 sq. ; in relative sentences, 385 sq, ; with Vva, for an imperative, 396 ; with ^-/?, 628-634 ; with oO y.r„ 634-037 ; aorist and present of, 351, 3S5, 387 ; future of, 89, 95. Consecutive sentences, 377, 400, 679. Consequent clause. See Apodosis. SUBJECTS. 823 Consonants, unusual combinations of, 49, 54 sq. Constructio ad sensum, 787 ; in regard to gender, 176 sq., 648, 6G0 sq., — number, 177, 181, 645-648, 660 ; in the Apocalypse, 670-673. Constructio prtegnans, 776 sq., 454, 465, 495, 514 sqq. Constructions, blejiding of two. See Blendin;/. Contracted verbs, 91 sq. ; contracted forms of jjroper names, 26, 127 sq., — of other nouns, 24 sq., 117. Contraction, 51; neglected, 51, 72, 74 sq. Co-ordination instead of subordination, 33, 446 sq., 543, 676. Copula suppressed, 654, 6S9, 731-734. Crasis, 51. Dative case, 260-277 ; with verbs and adjectives, expressing the remoter ol>- ject, 261-2G4; with tivai, ylvta-^ai, 264; with ocIto;, ISO ; joined to subitan- tiv^es, 264 sq. ; of reference, 261, 265, 270 ; of opinion or judgment, 264 sq., 310 ; dativus commodi, in- commodi, 285 ; dat. ethicus, 194 ; of the sphere, rule, cause, etc., 270 ; of the mode, instrument, 271, 283, 289, 427, 584 sq. ; of time and place, 27."^ sq. ; with passive verbs, 274 sq. ; ab- solute, 226, 275 ; double, 276 ; is it used for the local il; or w^o; ? 268 sq. ; with verbs of coming, 269 ; preposi- tions akin to, 266-268, 272 ; differs from S/a with the genitive, 272 ; after prepositions, 480-493 ; after verbs compounded with ava, «»r/, Iv, Wi, igressious, 707. Diminutives in later Greek, 25 sq., 119. Distributive numerals, how expressed in the N. T., 19, 40, 312, 496 sq., 500 ; compare 41. Doric forms, 22, 37 (52), 95, 96 sq., 128. Doxologies, 689 sq. Dual, not found in the K T., 221 ; rare in later Greek, 27, 38. Dynamic dative, 271 ; oyu. middle, 318 sq. Elision, rare in the N. T., 42 sq. Ellipsis, 726-749 ; ellip.sis, improperly so called, 727-730 ; ellipsis of uvai or yU'.^Su,, 437, 440, 584, 731-734 ; of other verbs, 734 sq. ; of substantives, with attributives, 294, 738-741,— after ev, »/,-, 480, 740 ; of object, with transitive verbs, 741 sq. ; of attri- butive adjective, 743 sq. ; (partial) of both subject and predicate, 745-748 ; in commands, 748 ; of the subject, 735-738 (787) ; of sentences, 748 sq. ; ellipsis of adverbs or conjunctions impossible, 744 sq. ; additional ex- amples of, 396, 398, 480, 632, 723 sq. ; of "hilv with inlinitives (?), 405. Empirical philology, characteristics of, 7 sq. Enallage of gender or number, in pro- nouns, 176 sq., — in nouns, 217 sqq. ; of case, 225, 455 ; of number, in the verb, 645-649 ; of gender, in the pre- dicate, 648 sqq. ; of tense, 330 sq. ; of prepositions, 450, 453 sqq., 514-521. Enclitic pronouns, 62 sq. ; position of, 699 sq. Euphony, 793. Feminine gender, in adverbial formulas, 739 ; does it ever stand for the neuter ? 39, 223, 298. Final j (in oZtoi;, etc.), 43 sqq. ; final » (v £if =X;6u«'T(x^v), 43 sqq. Final sentences. See Purpose. Foreign names, declension of, 77 sqq. Formulas of citation, 656, 735 ; of as- severation, 445 sq., 563, 627. Fritzsche (K. F. A.), 10. Fulness of expression, 757, 761-764. 824 INDEX. Future tense, 34S-350 ; expressing what may or must take place, 348 sq. ; used of a possible case, 349 sq., 35G ; never stands for the optative mood, 350, — or for a past tense, 350 ; sometimes borders on the present tense, 350 ; used for the imperative, 396 sq. ; future indie, after f/.-o, 630 sq., — after cb fjin, 634-636 ; affinity between the future and the conjunctive mood, 349, 356 sq., 361, 374, 385, 630-632, 635 sq. ; with av, 372, 388 ; futurum exactum, 385, 387, 417 ; future middle m a passive sense, 319 ; 3d future, 348 ; Attic future, 88 sq. ; future conjunctive, 89, 95 ; active form of future in the place of the middle form, 98, etc. ; (periphrases for, 41). Gataker, 14. Gender of nouns, 222 sq. ; sometimes changed in later Greek, 26, 38, 73, 76. See Construdio ad sensum. General notion supplied from special, 728sq., 774sq. Genitive case, 230-260 ; attributive, ap- pended with repeated article, 163 f'q. ; of quality, 40, 231, 297 ; partitive, 231, 247 sq., 250-253,— after adverbs, 253 ; of the object, 231-233 ; of the subject, 232 sq., 236 sq. ; expressing remote relations of dependence, 234-237 ; ex- pressing relations of place or time (attributively), 234 ; topographical, 234 ; of content, 235 ; of material, 297 ; of apposition, 237, 242, 666-668 ; of kindred, 164, 237 sq., 741 ; of re- lation, 242 sq., 252 ; of separation, 245-247 ; of price and exchange, 258 ; of place and time, 204, 258 sq. , 739 ; genitive absolute, 226, 259, — used irregularly, 259 sq., 681 sq., — used impersonally, 736 ; after adjectives and participles, 242 sq. ; after uvea, yivi«, 403 sq., 420-426, 682,— with Jr/, 404, 407, 747 ; after irTi, 403 ; after lyiviTo, 4(J6 sq. ; with av, 390 ; with a nega- tive, 604 sq. ; after -rp'iy, 415; after OT,, 426, 718 ; genitive of, 407-412, 420 ; dati%'e, 412 sq. ; after preposi- tions, 40, 413-415, 420 ; replaced by the participle, 434-437, 782. Interjections, 447, 579. Interrogative particles, 638-643. Interrogative pronouns, direct and in- direct, 176, 210, 680 ; can they take the jilace of relative pronouns (or rice Vf-rsa)^. 210 sq., 207 sq. ; used adverbially in the neuter, 178. Interi'ogative sentences, direct and in- direct, 638-643, 680 sq. ; indirect, construction of, 373-37(5, 380 sq., 680 sq. ; negative, 641-643 ; two fused into one, 783 sq. ; blended with rela- tive, 784. Interrupted sentences. 702-708. Ionic forms, 23, 37, 45 sq., 71, 73 sq., 75, 102 sq., 106, 109 sq., 363. Iota subscript, 51 sq. Irregular verbs, 98-112. Itacism, 138, 53. James (St.), peculiarities in the lan- guage and style of, 674, 798. John (St.), peculiarities in the language and style of, 11, 3."), 79, 146, 149 sq., 151, 166, 199, 200, 229, 2.35, 263, 266, 332, 425 sq., 451, 554, 576 sq., 673, 676 sq., 762. Josephus, language and style of, 21, 34, 59, 79, 352. Latin language : its influence on the svntax of N. T. Greek, 41, 229, 340, 422, 460, 680, 698; Latin words in 826 INDEX. the K T. and in later Greek, 27, ] 28, 29 (119) ; notices of Latin con- structions, 16, 178, 201, 210 sq., 293, 306, 373, 407, 421, 424, 45-, 454, 459, 504, 583, 597, 625, 645, 667 sq., 741, 743, 758 ; orthography of Latin ■words, 55 ; Grsecisms in Latin, 34. Lexicology and lexicography, 1. Libri Pt-eudepiyraiJld, style of, 22. Luke (St.), peculiarities in the language and style of, 31, 35, 79, 135, 146, 149 sq., 151, 226 sq., 266, 320, 372, 408, 412, 422, 428, 446, 477, 518, 541, 543, 556 sq., 561, 639, 641, 676 sq., 680, 683, 085, 7G0, 763, 767, 789 sq. Mark (St.), peculiarities in the lan- guage and style of, 79, 146, 149 sq., 151, 181, 208, 263, 266, 543, 676, 685. Masculine gender, is it used for the feminine ? 222 sq. Matthew (St.), peculiarities in the lan- guage and stj'le of, 35, 79, 146, 149 sq., 151, 263, 266, 422, 543, 576, 674, 676 sq., 685. Metaplasmus, 72 sq., 76. Middle voice, 316-325 ; meaning of, 316-318 ; joined with pers. pronouns, 179, 318, 322 ; tenses of, with pas- sive meaning, 319 sq. ; used for the a'ltive, 322 sq. ; active used in its place, 320-322 (98, etc.). Moods, used with less strictness in later Greek, 38. See Indicative, etc. Negative particles, 593-638 ; joined to jjarticular words in a sentence, 597 sqq., 601 sq., 605 sq., 609, 641 ; with participles, 606-611 ; expressing a continuednegation, 611-619; followed by xa' (te), 619 sq. ; combinations of, 624-627, 634-638 ; trajection of, 693- 696 ; pleonasm of, 755-757 ; affirma- tive word supplied from negative, 728, 777 ; is the absolute negation used for the relative? 620-624. Neuter gender, used of persons, 222 ; is it used for the feminine ? 222 ; neuter plural with singular verb, 645-647 ; neuter adjective, for an abstract noun, 294. See Gender and C'onstructio ad sensum. Neuter verbs. See Verbs, intransitive. Nominative case, 226-230 ; nomin. tituli, 226 sq. ; used absolutely, 226, 290 (672), 718 sq. ; for the vocative, 227 sq. ; periphrases for, 229 sq. ; with an infinitive, 404, 415, 782 ; in exclamations, 228, 668, 672 ; of par- ticiple, irregularly used, 716, 779; in apposition to a sentence, GC9, 719. Nouns, unusual inflexions of, in 1st decl., 69 sqq. ; 2d decl., 72 sq. ; 3d decl., 73-77. See Substantives. Number of nouns, 217-222. Numerals, 311-314 ; cardinal, 23, 311, 313 ; ordinal, 311 sq. ; proportional, 311 ; distributive, 312, 496 sq., 500 ; qualified by ■ttov, &15, u;ii, 578 sq., — by Ti;, 212 ; numeral adverbs, 314 ; accentuation of numerals in -sr-zij, 56. Object expressed by ix. with the geni- tive, 253 ; common to two verbs, 654 ; ellipsis of, 742. Objective sentence (^vith on, o's), 563, 679 ; negative in an, 605 ; akin to the relative sentence, 679 sq. Opposition, 551-555, 677-679. Optative mood, 351 ; in independent sentences, 357 sq., 379; replaced by a question, 39, 41, 358 ; with civ, 353, 379, 386 sq. ; in final sentences, 358 sqq. , 363 ; after tl, 364, 367 sq. ; after ■prpiv, 372; in oratio obliqna, 376, 372; in indirect questions, 374 sq., 386 sq. ; rai-e in later Greek, 28, 38, 352, 360 ; replaced by the conjunctive, 359 sq., 372; aorist and present, 351. Oratio obliqna, 372, 376 ; passing into, or intermingled with, the oratio recta, 376, 683, 705, 725 ; compara- tively rare in the N. T., 33, 376, 683. Oratio variata, 722-726, 525, 672. Ordinal numerals, a peculiar use of, 312; cardinal, insteail of, 311. Oriental names, declension of, 77 sq. Orthography, princiitles of, 42-55 ; of particularwords, 45-49 ; Alexandrian, 53 6qq. Palestine, language of, in the time of our Lord, 20 sq., 30. Parallel members inexactly expressed, 789 ; parallel passages, abuse of, 330, 431, 454, 520, 550, 571. Paralielismus antitheticus, 762 sq. ; par. meinbrorum, 764, 796. Parenthesis, 702-708 ; consisting of single words, 704; followed by ydp, 558, — by Ss, 5.53 ; introduced by »«/, S;, yap, 703 ; in the historical books, 704-706 ; in the epistles, 706-708, 289 ; marks of, 69, 703. Paronomasia, 793 sq., 796. Participle, 427-447, 681 sq. ; as attribu- tives, with and without the art. , 1 67- 169, 657-663 ; with the article, 135 SUBJECTS. 827 Bq., 138, 1G7-1G9, 444 sq.,— as predi- cate, 136, 440, G45 ; governing a genitive, 242 sq. (445) ; with the case of its verb, 427, 444 ; future, rare in the N. T., 428 ; present, 427, 431, — is it used for other tenses ? 428 sqq., 444, — with article, as a timeless substantive, 444 sq. ; aoiist, 428, 430, — not used for other tenses, 431 sq. ; perfect, 428, 430 sq. ; resolutif)n ot, by suljordinate sentences, 1U8, 432 sq. ; with Kai-roi, Kalwip, 432 sq. ; two or more partic. unconnected by conjunctions, 433 ; in the place of an infinitive, 434-437, 782 ; not used for a finite verb, 440-443, 732 sq. ; whether it expresses the principal rotion. 320, 443 sq., 585-587; with iiiai, 30, 437-440 ; replaced by a finite verb, 446, 544 ; with negatives, 6(K)- 611 ; used absolutely, 446, 779 (669), — in the genitive, 259 sq., 681 sq., 736 ; with ui, 110 sq. ; in combina- tion with some part of its own verb, 445 sq., 584 sq. ; transition from, to a finite verb, 717 sq. ; in an abnormal case, 716 sq. ; in apposi- tion, in the place of a sentence, 669, 778 sq. Particles, various classes of, 447 sq. ; sparingly used in the N. T., 4:18, 679 ; no real ellipsis of, 744 sq. ; posi- tion of, 698-701 ; written separately or joined, 49, 526. Partitive formulas, 130, 216 sq. ; with first member buppressed, 130 sq. Pasor, 4 sq. Passive voii;e, 326-330 ; of verbs whi^h govern the dative or genitive, 287, 326 sq. ; tenses of, in middle sense, 327 sq. ; not used like the Hebrew Hoplial, 329 ; accompanied by a dat've, 274, — by prepositions, 461- 46-> ; with an aceus., 286 sq., 326. Paul (St.), peculiarities in the languaoe aud style of, 21, 28, 31, 35, 146, 150 t-q., 154, 162, 169 sq., 193, 200, 2u9, 232, 235, 238, 263, 320, 323, 3t;2, <08, 414, 430, 446, 451, 501, 521, C56 sq., 562, 640, 685, 709, 729, 746, 763, 793, 797. Peculiarities iu the diction of N. T. writers, general remarks on, 4, 30, 41, 240, 684 sq. See Matthew, Hark, etc. Perfect tense, 338-343 ; combined with the aorist, 339 sq. ; used in an aoristio sense, 340 ; is it used for other ten.ses? 340-342; with present meaning, (341), 342 ; passive, in a middle sense, 328, — not used for the perfect active, 328 ; with av, 369. See also Imj)era- tive, etc. Personal pronouns, 176, 178-191 ; used with great frequency in the N. T., 176, 178 sq., 184; sometimes omitted where they might have been expected, 179 ; replaced by nouns, 180 sq. ; used with some looseness of refer- ence, 181-184, 788; redundancy of, in relative sentences, 184 sq. ; re- peated, with a different reference, 186 ; nomin. of, when expressed, 190 sq. ; position of, 193 ; jjeri- phrases for, 193, 241 ; dativus ethi- cus (?), 194 ; enclitic forms of, 62 sq. (193). Peter (St. ), peculiarities in the language and style of, 11, 35, 146, 150 sq., 154 Pfochen, 13. Philo, 21, 34 Play upon words, 794-796. Pleonasm, 752-773 ; of negatives, 755, 756 sq. ; of sentences, impossible, 7ti4 ; alleged pleonasm of certain verbs {lipx'-'^ai, etc.), 765-770, — sub- stantives ('ipyov, etc.), 768, — particles, 770-773. Pluperfect tense, with the meaning of tlie imperfect, 341 sq. ; passive, in a middle sense, 328 ; expressed by means of the aorist, 343 sq. ; with «», 381, 379; indie, 3d plural, 93; without augment, 85 sq. Plural number, apparently used for the singular, 201, 218-221, 649 ; in a dual sense, 221; implying 'some,* 744 ; of abstract nouns, 220 ; plur. maje.statis, 221, 649 ; neuter, with singular verb, 645-647 ; transition from, to singular (and vice versa), rio, 649. Polysyndeton, 652 sq., 677, 762. Position of words in a sentence, 684- 702 ; of adjectives used attributively and predicatively, 163-166, 657-659, 686 sq. ; of the genitive of pers. pro- nouns, 193 sq. ; of demonstr. pron., 2()2, 686 sq. ; of relative clauses, 209, 685, 6516 sq., 702 ; of rU, 212, 688,— t);, 213, 689, 699 sq. ; of the predi- cate, 689 sq. ; of the genitive, 193, 238 sq., 690; of the vocative, 687; of prepositions, 455 ; of adverbs, 692 sq. ; of negatives, 693-69G ; of con- junctions, etc. , 455, 547, 557, 698-701; of enqjhatic words generally, 684, 686 sq. ; of words in apposition, 669 sq. (687 sq. ) ; conventional arrangement of certain substantives, 690 sq. ; de- jjondeat clauses placed beiore princi- 828 INDEX. pal, 702 ; regard to sound in the ar- raugeineut of words, 689, 79-1. See also Trajedion. Positive degree, with fx-aXXov or n, in- stead of a comparative, 3U1 sq. ; fol- lowed by vapti., i-yrip, 301, 503 sq. ; is it used for the superlative ? 308. Possessive pronouns, sometimes used objectively, 191 ; re^jlaced by 'II, o?, 191 sq. ; periphrases for, 193, 499 ; vvith apposition in the genitive, 664. Predicate, construction of, 644-G56, 660, 662 sq., 285 sq. ; enlargement of, 657, etc. ; ellipsis of, 734 738 ; partial ellipsis of both subject and predicate, 745-748 ; article in, 136, 141 sq. ; placed first, 689 sq. Prepositions, in general, 447-455 ; com- pound, 127 ; governing the genitive, 455, etc.,— the dative, 480, etc., — the accus., 494, etc. ; originally adverbs, 447; used adverbially, 312 sq., 526; joined with adverbs, 525 sq. ; their relation to cases, 449 sq., 451 sq. ; used when the simple case would have sufficed, 32, 40, 224, 245-249, 251, 253, 258, 266, 272, 280, 450 ; forming periphrases for adjectives and adverbs, 526-529 ; interchange of, 450, 453 sqq., 512-521 ; the same relation expressed by various prepo- sitions in different languages, 452 sq., 459, 468, 487, 528 ; attraction of, 454, 493, 784 sq. ; repetition of, 522-525 ; not repeated with the rela- tive, 197 sq., 524 sq. ; with different cases in the same sentence, 510 sq. ; different prepositions in the same sentence, 511 sq., — or joined to one noun, 521 sq. ; after comparatives, 301, 303, 502 sqq. ; after intransitive verbs, 277-280, 291-293 (529, etc.); of rest, joined to verbs of motion, 492 sq., 514-516 (compare 591-593) ; of motion, joined to verbs of rest, 503, 514, 516-518 (comp. 592); construction of verbs compounded with, 529-540 ; apparent transposition of, 697 sq. (127) ; position of, 455 ; quasi-prepo- sitions, 590 sq. (155 sq., 218, 758 sq.) ; prepositional clauses as attri- butives, 163, 160, 169-172, 174, 527 sq. Present tense, 331-335; combined with the aorist, 333 sq. ; includes a preter- ite, 334 ; in the sense of a perfect, 343 ; is it used for other tenses ? 331-335 ; historic, 334 ; with «►, 384, 369, 388 ; in the dependent moods — see Imperative, etc. Preterite, j^rophetic, 341. Prolepsis, 341 sq., 345 sq., 347, CG3, 779. Pronouns, in general, 176-178 ; personal, 178-191 ; possessive, 191-193 ; demon- strative, 195-202 ; relative, 202-210 ; interrogative, 210-212 ; indefinite, 212 sq. ; expressed in a Hebraistio manner, 214-217 ; construed ad sensum, 176 sq., 181 sq., 787 sq. ; are they used with prospective refer- ence ? 178 ; neuter of, used adverbi- ally, 178, 285, 250,— or as a sub- stantive, 741. Proper names, in a;, a?, 69 sq., 127 sq. ; with other endings, 77 sq. ; in- declinable, 70, 78 sq., 226 sq. ; in contracted forms, 26, 127 sq. ; with and without the article, 137, 139- 141 ; accentuation of certain, 58 sq. Protasis of conditional sentences, 363- 370, 380-384, 678 ; not expressed, 353, 378 sq., 749 ; replaced by a principal sentence, 211, 355, 678, — by an imperative, 391 sqq. ; nega- tives in, 598-602 ; ajjosiopesis after, 627, 750 sq. Proverbial expressions, 443, 735, 747 sq. Prozeugma of the demonstrative pro- noun, 202. Punctuation, 63-69 (628). Purists, 12-19. Purpose, adverbial sentences of, 679, 358-363, 389 ; expressed by the in- finitive, 399 sq., 408 sqq., — by tbe participle, 428, — by a relative sen- tence, 386. Questions, of doubt or uncertainty, 348 sq. , 356 sq. ; used to express a wish, 39, 41, 358 ; direct, 638-643 ; indirect, 373-376, 386 sq., 638-640 ; negative, for the imperative, 396 ; breviloquence in, 783 sq. Quotations joined by ««/, 542 ; sen- tences abruptly concluded by, 719, 749 ; poetical, 797 ; how introduced, 656, 735. Rabbinisms, 30, 34 (36). Rational philology, 8-10. Keciprocal formulas, 217. Redundance. See Pleonasm. Reduplication, in verbs beginning with p, 88 ; instead of augment, 86. Reflexive pronouns, 187-189; 3d person used for ist and 2(1, 187 sq. ; re- placed by pers. pronouns, 188 sq., —by '!^ios, 191 sq. Relative pronouns, 202-210 ; in the place of demonstrative, 130, 209 ; SUBJECTS. 829 including demonstrative, 107 sq., 2U(i ; construed ad sensuai, 170 sq. ; adverbial use of the neuter, 178, 209 ; are they used for direct inter- rogatives ? 207 sq. ; combined with interrog. pron., 211 ; after verbs of knowing, etc., 208; rejjeated, 20U ; attraction of, 197, 202 sqq., 200, 782 ; taking their gender or number from a following noun, 200 sq., 783 ; their antecedent, sometimes remote, 190 ; continuative force of, 080 ; prepos. not repeated with, 197 sq., 524 sq. ; with yi, 555, — or other particles, 578 sq. Ptclative sentences, 680 ; expressing purpose, 380 ; construction of, 384- 380 ; replaced by principal sentences, ISO, 711, 724, — by participles, 107 sq., 432 ; redundancy of pronouns in, 184 sq. ; position of, 209, 085, 090 sq., 7u2. Ehetoric of the N. T., 1 sq. ; rhetoricnl usages, 308 sq. , 022-024, 07-1 sq., 684 sq., 087 sq., 709, 730. Koselta inscription, 22. Schema xar s|«;(;>;v, 654 ; a-ro x.oniZ, 252, 202, 205, 518; i'indaricum, 648 sq., 704. Schwarz(J. C), 8, 15. Sentence (the) and its elements, 644- 050, 04 sq. ; one logic'al, resoivcil into two grammatical, 440, 785 sq. ; with the article, 135 ; simple, how enlarged, 657-673 ; apposition to, 290, 008 sqq. ; sentences connected by })articles and relatives, 070081, — by intlexional forms, 681 scj. ; opposed sentences, 677-079 ; ellipsis of sentences, 748 sq. ; repetition of sentences, 704 sq. ; trajection of sen- tences, 701 sq. Septuagmt version,' its language and style, passim; general remarks, 20, 21, 28-30, 32-34, 36, 39-41 ; relation between the language of the LXX and that of the N. T., 21, 31, 32, 30, 40, 41 ; peculiarities in words and forms, 24, 32, 141, 327,-40, 47, 48, 53, 54, 71, 73, 77, 78, 79, 80, 88, 89, 90, 91, 97, 313, 390; in syntax, 39- 41, 137, 156, 167, 177, 179, 185, lS(i, 189, 191, 203, 204, 211, 215, 210, 217, 221, 223, 229, 248, 255, 250, 257, 258, 280, 289, 291, 292, 293, 298, 300, 301, 302, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 317, 334, .341, 300, 3(;8, 309, 378, 384, 385, 389, 390, 409, 410, 411, 422, 427, 431, 439, 445, 471, 520, 502, 572, 585, 587, 588, 591, 592, 020, 027, 628, 634, 630, 037, 639, 048, 007, 071, 072, 090, 698, 714, 724, 738, 751, 753, 756, 759, 700. Sharp's (Granville) 'first rule,' 102 sq. Singular number, apjiarently used for the plural, 212 ; in a collective sense, 132, 177, 217 sq. ; transition from, to the plural, 725 ; used distribu- tively, 218. Subject of a sentence, 644 ; with the article, 141 ; expressed by a genitive, with or without a prepos., 253, 737 ; not expressed, 054-656, 735-738, 787, 190 ; partial ellipsis of both subject and predicate, 745-748 ; complex, construction of, 650-654, 685, — pro- minence given to one member, 651 sq. ; enlargement of, 657-673 ; change of, 787 sq. ; attraction of the subject of a dependent sentence, 781 sq. Substantives, declension of, 69-80 ; derived from verbs, 115-117, — from aljectives, 117 sq.,— from substan- tives, 118 sq. ; compound, 123-127; article with, 131-103, 172 sq. ; in tlie place of pronouns, 180 sq., — of adjectives, 295-297 ; substantives which are commonly used in the plural, 219 scpp ; cognate, accus. of, 281-283, 203 ; repeated, with adver- bial force, 581. Superlative, periphrases for, 308 310; strengthened by ■rdi"ruv, 310. Synizesis, 777. Synonyms combined, 753-755, 763 sq. Syriac version (Peshito), references to the, 217, 227, 247, 298, 312, 521, 625. Technical terms belonging to theX. T., 'M ; formed by ellipsis with verbs, 742, — by substantives with the ar- ticle, 743. Temporal adverbs, used in an argu- mentative sense, 579. Temporal sentences, 370 373, 387-389, 677 sq. ; expressed by participles, 168, 432, — by intinitives (with pre- pos.), 413 sq., — by principal sen- tences, 543 sq. , 676, 704. Tenses of the Greek verb, 330 sq. ; in no case really interchanged, ib. ; the present, 331-335 ; the imperfect, 335- 338 ; the perfect, 338-343 ; the aorist, 343-348 ; the future, 348-350 ; com- bination of different tenses, 350 ; * [Under this head are included the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament.] 830 INDEX. tenses of tlie dependent moods, 350 sq. ; peculiar forms in, 82, etc. Thiersch (H. W. J.), 32. Thomas Magisr.er, 22. Time as expressed by prepositions, 452, 475, — by the cases, 25S sq., 273 sq., 288 ; notices of, introduced paren- thetically, 704. Tittmann, 449. Trajection (or transposition) of words, 687-698 (201, 240); of clauses, 701 sq. (559 sq. ). Transition irom the participle to the finite verb, 717 sq. ; from the rela- tive to the demoustrative construc- tion, 186, 724 (711) ; from the oratio obliqua to the or. recta, and I'ice versa, 376, 683, 725 ; from singular to plural, and vice versa, 725, 649. Verbals in r«;, 120. Verbs, derivative, 113-115; compound, 125 sqq. ; double compounds, 126 sq. ; compound, used for simple (and vice versa), 25, 529 sq., 745 ; inflexion of, 82-112 ; verbs in w used for verbs in^;, 25 (93-C8, 100, 106 sq., 108); intransitive verbs, made transi- tive, 24, 314, .329, — with accusative {accus. rel), 285, — accompanied by {/■TO, ■rapa, 462, — connected by pre- positions with the dependent noun, 291-293 ; partially intransitive, 315 eq. ; transitive, used intransitively, 315 (742 sq.); compounded with prepositions, construction of, 529- 540; used impersonally, 655 sq., 735 sq. ; finite, with adverbial force, 585-590 ; of commanding, asking, etc., 410 sq., 414 (416), 421 sq. ; ellijjsis of, 731-735. Verses (hexameter, etc.) occurring in theN. T., 797. Versions, as critical authorities, 133, 571, 664. Vocative case, not a part of the sen- tence, 66 ; with and mthout S. 228 sq. ; accompanied by an adjective in tbenomin., 229, 668; position, 687. Voices of the verb, 314-330. Vorst, 14, 30. Wahl, 451. Wish, expressed by a question, 39, 41, 358 ; by the optative, 357 sq. , 378 ; by o^sXov, 377 ; by ul 562. Words (and phrases) supplied in con- nected clauses, 727-730 ; arrangement of — see Position, Trajection. Wyss (Caspar), 4 sq. Zeugma, 777. IV.— INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS. « intensive, 12.5. 64 privative, 124. u changed into s, 46, 73 sq., 90, 107 ; -Ku for -iu, 25, 104 ; ct, a.:, etc., for oj/, £f, etc., in the 2 aorist, 86 sq. -Be, -«, as a genitive termination, 69. -a., genit. ->?;, after vowels and p, 71 ; genit. -aj, after o and ^,70 sq. dyotdoipyio), 26 sq. ciyotdoT^'Oiioj, 26. clyxdo;, comparison of, 81 ; dy. -Trpo; t;, 454. ccyoidovpyiu, 20. dyudaavvY), 20. «y«X7i<«w, dycOO^iutJii, 25, 26. dyxvoiM, not used adverbially, 590. ciy0t.77'fl TOV GSOV (Xp^ffTO'i), 2o2. " Ayxo, TO, 223. dyyifCKu (and compounds), 98. oiyyi'Kot, 01 ciyyihai, 1.55. a.yi with plural subject, 049. dyiusct'k'JyYiro^, 20 sq. uyict (t«), 220 sq. ; dyioc. dyiu'j^ 221, 308. dytoryi;, 26. dyyrAcu, construction,^ 198, 784. dyvoT)^;, 26. dyvvt^i (x^Tayfy,**/), 82. dyooie, without article, 150. dyopatoi, dy'ipxioi, 61. dyptihcttog^ 26. ' [This will be understood to mean 'notices of construction.' It does not necessarily imply that the pages specified coutaiu a compkte register of the constructious of the word.j GREEK WORDS AND FORMS. 831 eiyp'ji without artide, 150 sq. (i'/4J (aud compounds), i)9 ; used in- transitively, 315 ; oiyu rtvi, 268 sq. ; oLyn used impersonally, 655. £40-AV omitted, 238. doix-ii), meaning, 33-i. ciopoT'/j?, accent, 60. ci.ir6;, 22. u^v/icx, 220. -5t^«, verbs in, 26, 114. ^A()-?,uctt, plural, 220. ciffooi^a, 25. USaio;, eiduo;, 53 ; construction, 246. Ai'/vTrro; anarthrous, 139. ciifcot^ exiles, 31 ; a.'iy.(3f), 60. uA'/jBcd, 22. ciA/s?? (aAs£(j), 49. ccAAsi : how it differs from os, 551 sq. ; can it stand for other conj. ? 565 sq. ; various uses of, 551-554 ; commencing the apodosis, 552, 678 ; aAAa yf, 5.54, 700 ; aAAa yh ovv, bb2 ; «aa' 'iuet, 398, 774 ; aA>.' 71, bo2. «AA«(7!7«, constr., 258, 485. «aa' '<(', 552. cc'A'Aoccoti, 99. «AA&f omitted (?), 654. 744 ; ap- parently pleonastic, 664 sq. aAAoTp/osT/'o-xoTToc, 26, 123 sq. cc,ux as a prepos., 590. dyecpTo-pa, 99 sq. ; construction, 293. ctfiirctvoriTo;, 124. dfiviv, 579. 'A.^ttA/*?, 128. dfivuoficci, 323. os.m:?/, not found in the N. T., 466. eif/,(^isvvv(iii, ccfii(ptci.^o), -i^oj, lOO. -eiv for -«(7< in 3 plur. perf. act., 90. -uv not -«]/, as termination of infin., 52. oiv with the indie, conj., and optat. moods, 364, 366 sq., 369, 370-372, 378-390; omitted, 353 sq. 382-385, 419. 744 ; in relative sentences, 384-386 ; in indirect questions, 386 sq. ; without a verb, 380 ; oLv for iccu, 364, 380 ; idv for £y, 390. «>£« with accus., 496 sq. ; expressing distribution, 312, 496 sq. civx, construction of verbs compound- ed with, 532 sq.^ duxfix, 94. dvctyKYi, 31 ; omissionof sar/with, 731. di/xOzux, 24, 34. XVxdsliiXTI^i), 34. duxx-xyTTTu intransitive, 315. duxx-iiyxt, 23. dvxKhi'joyxt, 2.3. dvxKvu intransitive, 315. d'jxu.tyjvi.xi, plur., 220 ; without art., 150. dux(i:»i'j'jyxt, construction, 326. avsAsoc, 124. dvi^ipiV'jrtTog, 124. '[Asa rule, the contents of § 52 are referred to here in this general manner, and not in connexion with the particular verbs.] 832 INDEX. uvi^iX'jla.(jro?^ 124. ai/STra/Vx^^VTOf, 296. oiviv with genit., 591. elvixo/^'^'i augment, 85 ; future, 100 ; construction, 20-4, 253. dv/ip without art., 152 ; with personal nouns, 657, 763. d.udpuTTcipKjX.oc, 26, 124. dv6oU77t!JOV 'kkyu^ 28. ot,u6pu7;-o; joined to personal nouns, 657 ; ndT^ oiu6pu7rov^ 501. dvfjiyoi, augment, 85 ; inflexions, 85, lUO; d. TO aTOf^oe., Toi/g 6(Ddot7^fcovg, 34, 759. dv6,uo);, 579 sq. dii(jpdo)d-fi^ 86. -ai/oc, termination of patronymics, etc., 119. dl/TXTTOKptUO/Lietl, 26. dvri//j,ucii, construction, 253. dvTi with genit., 258, 455 sq. ; with infin., 414 ; di>d' ii/, 202, 456. di/Tt, construction of verbs compounded w4th, 533. oiuTiKpv;, duTiKpv, 45 ; with genitive, 591. dvriy^Byu, 23. dvrl'Avrpov, 26. 'Avr/x^j, 128. duTi'T^ipa., accent, 60 ; with genit., 591. dvYKTii^ot,^ 116. ocjuycciou (^dyuyuiov^, 46. dvuripo;., 81. d^io; 'ivx, 421. d'^ccuTti.u, 100. dTTctuTYiaig, 25 ; i!; dTrccuryiaiv, 31. dTrapxftatTog, 26. d'TTxpTrtixiit.og, 25. d'TTiuAo)^ d'7rit'h(jVt/,Ut, .321. d'^iipccGTo;^ 120, 242 sq. di7.SKoi,riaryii dTreaxTicrrddio., 84. dTTSyJhvOfMZI, 323. d'TTs'A'Tri^u, 25. «xs>«>T/, 591. d'T^ipW'TC'X.GTCLj;, 579. dTTiy^u, 343. «^o, 456 sq., 462-466 ; how it differs from s», 456 sq., — from irxpot., when used with passives, 463 sq. ; inter- changed with vTvo, 464 ; replacing the simple genitive, 241 (?), 246- 249, 251, 463, 737 ; in periphrases for adverbs, 526 ; with the infin., 413 ; attraction with diro, 784 ; transposed (?), 697 sq. ; d(p ou, 204, 370, 387, 738 : d^' 5? hy-h^'t 204 ; dTTo /iiiKpov iug fnyoc'kov, 18 sq. ; osxd to'ts, axo -Tripvai, b'2b sq. ; dTTo f^ctKoodiv, 753 sq. aTTo, construction of verbs compound- ed -with, 531 sq. d-T^oosKTog, accent, 60. dTTod'j'/iay.u with dative, 263. dTTOKKpaXi^a, 26. d7roK.pivo[/.ot.t, 19, 317; dTTix-pld-AV^ 23, 327. d'7r6Kpv(l:og used adverbially, 583. d770Kreii/o), dTTOKriuiia, 23, 100. d'TTox.viu, d-TTOKVij, 107 sq. d'KoK'Kvy.t, d'TTo'K'Kvu, 108 ; future, 100; 0/ d'T^ro'h'kvi^i'joi^ 430. A7roXX&)f, 127. divoppiivTu intrans., 315. dTrooTxaiet, 25. d7^0Tocaaoi/.oi.t, 23. dTTOToi/^ug^ 579 sq. dTrpogaTjroKYjTTTug^ 126. oL'Tncaarog, 120. d-Truaxro, 111. a;oos, meaning, 555 sq. ; occupying the first place, 698 sq. ; ap« oSv, 556 ; a/!« ye, 556 ; il dpot,, 556. «/5«, meaning, 640 ; «/i« ys, 556, 640. dp»(pog, 53. dpyig, 71, 61/, 25, 80. dpyi/pix, 220. dpidKita,, dpiijy.nct, 57. dpiaKcj, construction, 293. -upiou, diminutives in, 119 ; common in later Greek, 25. dowTipu, without art., 152 ; plural, 220. dpyAouxi, construction, 292. dpfiil^ofiui, 323. dp'jiQiLcxi, 25, 324. dporpixu, 25. dpTTu^a, 101. doayiv, 23, 49. Aprsy.dg, 127. dprsfiuv, declension, 74. oipro'j Wctytiv, 34 ; a. xA«v, 36. «/j;i(;^ without art., 154; {rr.u^ dpx,y;v used adverbially, 288, 581 sq. dpxoptui, peculiar use of, 789 sq. ; breviloquence Avith, 775 ; is it ever pleonastic '? 767 ; dpi^cty-imv used absolutely, 779. -apxog, -upx'f,g, substantives in, 70 sq. -«?, -«j, pro^ser names in, 26, 69 sq., 128. dasfiico, construction, 279. drjTox,tu, construction, 24 "> GREEK WORDS AND FORMS. 833 «ff(J«X'^i/, 76 sq. ciriui^u, 25, 124. drip with ^^onit., 591. eti/Ssvzio), 24. av^xyu intrans., "15 ; uv^u, 101. etup» omitted, 739 sq. uiiTOx.xroc)cpiroi, 296. ccvTofiuro; used adverbially, 583. uvro;, used with some looseness of re- ference, 181-184, 788; referring to a noun which follows (?), 178 ; re- dundant, 179, 184 (652), — in con- nexion with participles, 184, 276, — in relative sentences, 184 sq. ; re- peated, 186 ; K»i oivroc in the place of a relative, 186, 724 ; is the nomin. of ccvro; the unemphatic he ? 186 sq. ; uurog used of Christ, 182 sq., 187 ; u^Wog and exelyo; in one sentence, 196 ; etvTov placed before its governing noun, 193 ; o etvTo;, etvTo; 0, 139 ; 6 cciiTo: with a dative, 186 ; TO aiiro with intransitive verbs, 285 ; Toi a'jTO., rocvrix., 51 ; uvzo rovTO used adverbially, 178. eivrov, oevroii, 188 sq. dXiOpuu., 118. cc(pi6m<^'-. y«o, etymology and meaning, 558- 561 ; in questions, 659 ; can it stand for other conj. ? 568 sqq. ; introducing a parenthesis, 558, 7(J3 ; after a parenth., 658 ; position, 455, 698-70U ; ij ydp, 302 ; kccI yip, 660 sq. ; t/ y»p, 559, 731 ; ts -/dp, 561. '/£. 547, 554, 556, 661, 640, 729, 746 ; position, 455, 698, 700. ys-Kdu, 102. yiixo) (yiim'^u), construction, 251, 287. yivii, TU yivii, 148. yvAnia., 24 ; plural, 220. ykuvny-cc, 23, '2(j ; yvjTiy.a., 49. yivoy.a.t, figiu". used, 34 ; constr., 248. '/•^ omitted, 480, 740 ; without art., 149 (137). y/lpsi, 73 sq. yiuoy.ai, 1U2 ; yiyovei, 340 ; with genitive, 243 sqq. ; with dative, 264 ; with a participle, 440 ; omit- ted, 733 sq., 745 sq., 748; yiu. ug ri, 229 ; x,xi tyiuiro, kyiv. Oi {yiviTcci, iyiv'/}6-/i), with finite verb, 756, 760, — with infin., 406 sq., 760 ; iyiu. roi with infin., 411 sq. yi'joidKu, meanings of, 18, 329 sq. ; forms, 89, 102; yvrTi, 102, 360; passive, 329 ; with a participle, 435. ytdmua., nation, 34 ; omitted, 739 ; is the phrase y'huaaxtg "KoLKiiv ellip- tical V 743. y>.ua(jox.oy.(ie.$'/,x,oct, 221. oiccKovia, augment, 85 ; used abso- lutely, 742. A/asv, 76 sq. otccTTocQu-, compounds with, 126 sq, 0:ci7rctpcczpijivi, 126 sq. ():ci—oviciuoii, 23. OtU.IJK0p7;-I^U, 26, 113. oictTpific.) used absolutely, 742. oidifipoi, construction, 245, 252. oioaoKu Tiut\ 279 ; 'iv rrjt, '284. oiou,ui (and comp.), inflexions, 89, 93, 94, 95, 102 ; ouvi, o^j-,, 94, 363 ; oua-/i, 89, 95 ; Ziooi, ooi, 95, 360 ; oio. iv T., 515. oispy.'/jvsvs, 86. oitar/if^i intrans. in 1 aor., 315. 0ix.ccirj>cpiaic6, 26, 123. oiKxioa'Jvn^ alms (?), 32, 33 ; oik. Ofov, 232. o;o', Olivip, 557. Oirj-iTiq (to), 294, 741. 3<6't;, 557. oiyr'Aonpo;, 81. oii^au, meaning and constr., 17, 256 ; Oi-^pxv, or^^Tiv, 52, 92. oiuKu, 31 ; future, 102. ooKico never really pleonastic, 766 ; oi 'hoKovvTs;, 444, 766. o6,uo; omitted, 740. o&Ssf, brightness, splendour, 33 ; ij oc'Jss, 134. opy,-/,ii<,-/} omitted, 740. o:/»s{,«54/, augment, 82; '^■jvij, 90; never pleonastic, 768 ; yiovycxiarii/ without «e>, 352 ; used absolutely, 743. ovyxy.si:, miracles, 33. ovo, declension, 74 ; ovo ovo, 40, 312; . Si/o with plural noun, 221. Qvaiyrspiov, 73. ovapci/.i, 220; without art., 150. ovo, ovyi), ^ihiiQKu (and compounds), . 102. 0iJ0£y.«(p!^A0C, 124. owyj, 94, 363. 0W|C4£S, 24. "oLa-zi, 89, 95. £ for «, 46, 73 sq., 90, 107; -iu for -ecu, 104 ; ^ and u,i interchanged in Jiss., 87 ; £ and >j interchanged, 53, 637. iot, 579. GKEEK WORDS AND FOllMS. 835 lay, £(', 363 sq., 368 sqq. ; lav -with imlic, 309, o88 sq., 357 ; with coiij., 363 sq., 306 sq., 368 ; loiv with a finite verb replacing an intin., 403 ; no real ellipsis of 6«», 744 ; tdiv (a-/) in oaths, 627 ; ixv y.-/i not used for dhXa., 566 ; £af/ for «>, 390 ; uv for jsiv, 364, 380. \a.'j'::ip^ 562. iccvTrax/ for 1 and 2 pers., 187 sq. ; idUTOv^ sccvroy, with the middle, 322 sq., — or with the active voice, 28, 321 sq. ; uvr'jv, 188 sq. ; kavruii/ for aAA-^Xwy, lb8 ; d:p' ixvTOJV, i(p' iX'j-oii, 465 ; Kcid^ icivrov, 500. iizu : ovx, £ai5«,t!fI/, 102. edi'KodpYI'JKiiX, 124. £^.-Aiij, ^s>v&), 102, 586. See (^;a«. idi/tKu;, 580. £^:^^>9, 48. -£<' or -/, adverbial ending, 47. -it as termination of 2 sing, indie, passive, 89 sq. t/, meaning, 365 sq., 638; with indie, 364-366, 369 sq., 380-384, 374-376 ; with couj., 368, 374 ; with optative, 367 ; il, ictu, 363 sq., 368 sqq. ; u with a finite verb replacing an inlin., 403, 682 ; d fc-Jj, s'l ov, 598-602 ; no real ellipsis of ii, 678, 744 ; ti in oaths, 40, 627 ; d as indirect in- terrogative, 638, — its construction, 373 sq., 375 sq. ; d in direct in- terrofi-ation, 638 sqq. ; d for &r<, 679, 562, 600 ; for i^s/, 562, 600 ; ii oipct, 556, 375 sq. ; d kuI, x.ix,l d, 554 sq. ; d oi yy^, li "hi y/i yi, used elliptically, 729 sq., 757. -it» or -IX as termination of siibst., 49, 118. il'yi, 561 sq. iiOiU,, 53. (jfoai) dao'j, inflexions, 102 sq., 86, 88; i'oi, ioi, 55 sq. ; followed by .IKpt'J71i, 124. i'O.iaaa^ 23. si y,-/j in oaths, 027; not used for dXhu., 566, 789 ; d y.-n ri tliu, 380 ; Urc; d y,-/;, 757, 368 ; ov {ovOn';) . . . il y/j, 638. il y,-/!v (/} y.'/;v), 553, G27. il,ui, 95 sq. ; ilyi, ilyi, 61 ; lari, 'ioTi, 61 , the substantive verb, 584, 656 ; ijv as an aorist, 381 ; uv a past partic, 428 sq. ; with a partic, 437-440, 30, — negatived by y/i, 606 ; omitted, 437, 440 sq., 731-735, 745 sqq.; i(jri\ it is possible, 403 ; sTueii riuog, 243 sq.,— t;w, 264,— s/'j t/, 229,— iK Ti'jo;, 461 ; x.oci 'iaTcci . . . kxI, 760. ijfii (and comp.), 105, 93, 331; i7y.t, ily-i, 61. ihsKiV. See iUiX.X. -iivo;, adj. in, 123. d'TTip, 561 sq. ^r^roy, inflexions, 103 sq. ; eiVoy, 23, 58, 103 ; ippY,d/iv, ippi9-/iv, 103 sq. ; ii'p/jKi {ilvi) in citations, 656, 735 ; ellipsis of iJ-^i, 734 ; sIttuu hx, 422 ; u; i'TTO', ilT^iiv^ 399, 503. f/V6;j, 374, 376, 562. il'pu, ipu. See iivov. -d;, plural termination (for -ix;), 74. il; with accus., 494-496 ; in pei'i- plu-ases, 285 sq., 627, 062 ; does it form a periphrasis for the nomin. ? 229; can ilg be used for ly? 514, 516-521, — or as a >;oto dalivi? 2GG sq., — or accusalivi? 285 sq., 062; il; with the infin., 413 sq., 423. d;, constr. of verbs compounded with, 535. si; for T' sAtt/o/, etc., 48. I,C4&V sometimes used objectively, 191. iU.TVllV'KclV, 94. il^TTuiu with genit., 255. ij^7ropivo/u,cci, constr., 279. ijHTrpoudiv with genit., 591. £{/ with dative, 480-488 ; apparently with genit., 480 (with accus., 455) ; with infin., 413 ; with dative of time or place, 274 ; ditfei's from 3/« with genit., 486 ; in perijjhrases for adj. or adverbs, 528 ; apparently used for el;, 514-516, 518-521 ; can ki/ represent the dative ? 272 sq., — or the accus. ? 283, — or the nomin. (Beth esmitiie)! 230, 644; h w, 482, 484, 370 ; iu 'Xpiaru (sv Kvplqi), 484, 486 sq., — used attributively, 169 sq.; Iv o'vo'^kt/, 487. iv, constr. of verbs compounded with, 534 sq. 'iyccvri with genit., 691. iva-uTiov, 268, 293 ; with genit., 691. 'ivuTo;, 'ivvxTo;, 46. iVOilKVVf^Xl, 318. ivovo^dt figur., 31. sviyKo,;, 110 sq. iViOpOV, to. iviKot., 'ivix-sv, ilusKiv, 45 sq. ; with genit., 691 ; with infin., 414 ; ov iiviKiv, 561. iVivi^KOUTOt, 46. iuiog, ivuiog, 48. SVST^-UI^X, 108. susoyia, ivspyoutcx:, 323. iy£X,i» used absolutely, 742. hdxh, 692. ht, 96. hiax'^^' intrans., 315. ivoxoc with genit., 253 ; with dative, 264, 267 ; with el;, 267, 776. svro^ with genit., 591. £i/T/5£7ro,t40t/ TIUX, 217 . ivuTTiov, 268, 293, 691 ; h. toZ Giov, 34. sywri^of.ccii, 34. iiccTriva., 25. iisaps/niro, 107. iS,iVSV(Ti, 112. f |£(7T/, construction, 402 ; l^oV ifrri, 25. i^o/i^o'hoyioyxl rivt and 'iu nut, 31, 33, 262. e^opxi'^a, 127. II oi), whence, 111. GREEK WORDS A>;D FORMS. 837 i^OVOS!/c&>, -ou, l^cudiviu, -6u, 26, 113. 'iiu with geuit., 591. 'ir.uSiu, 592 ; with genit., 591. ii,cj(jiu. 111. iOIKCC, 342. i'7:a,-/yi'K'hoy-u.i with aor. iufin., 417. iirAi'jiau^ lOl. £V«/|«, 108. i77ui/;, plural, 75, 'Eofioig, 128. ipP'/jh'J, ippiS/iv, 103 sq. 'ipyjit^cci (and comp.), 104 sq., 86; I^resent in future sense, 331 sq. ; o ipxo,ui'^og, 428. ipurau, 23, 25, 31, 33 ; construction, 284, 414, 422. ipUTiU, 104. -is for -«? in 2 sing, perf., 90. iijr,ficc'ja,, 89, 109 sq. ioimig, 23. io^icd {ifayou), construction, 248 sq. ; (Pot.yo,u.ui, ((.uyiaxi, 110. 'iadu, 24, 105. 'iija6rju.a.t {'/iTTotofioti^, 49, 106. S7ra.ixi, 93. 'iaxa.ro; predicative, 164 ; used ad- verbially, 583. iux^Tu;, 579 sq. ; hx- ex-'^f -7, 580. 'iau, itau, 60 ; meaning, 592 ; with genit., 591 ; iau-zipo;, 81. iaudsv, 592. hepo; apparently pleonastic, 665 ; ku sTipa, 741. -sT/ij, accent, of numeral adj. in, 56. 6-/, 579 ; with comparatives, 300 sq. ; trajection of, 692. iToifAci^u used absolutely, 743. i-oi,u.o;, ou, 80 ; accent, 59 ; with aor. infin., 417. SToifiug, bid sq. SV-, augment of verbs beginning with, 83. ii/ccyy-'Ki^u, active voice, 25 ; aug- ment, 83 ; construction, 267, 279, 284, 287, 326. iilCtyy'ihKjV TW XpirjTOU, 233 ; ill. y.V.Z'}. ^lci~l)nto!/, 501. svcipiaru;, 579 sq. iv yi, obi. iuooKico, 26 ; derivation, 125 ; aug- ment, 83 ; ivo. i'j Ttvt., 39, 291 ; other constructions, 266, 279. tvd-ro;, construction, 267. ivdv/iiu;, 579 sq. i-j^u; tigur., ;>4 ; tiiSvi (ci-i^twj), posi- tion of, 693. 838 INDEX. tvy.oy'io,, S3 ; augment, S3 ; ivMyvi- f/Avo^ (iiiy.oyriToi), position of, 689 sq., — ellipsis of s(« (iaTu) with, loo. S'jTripiarccro^, 124. evTrposwT^ia}, 114. iupidKi) (and comp.), 87, 89, 105 ; augment, 83; tiipiaanv x^P"' (s^-"?)' 18 , 35 ; eCpi'cy.rj^uoii Avith dative of agent, 274 sq. ; is svpi'aKoftai used for £i>/? 769 sq. tvuxY.y^uv, 23. ivxi^pta-via, 20, 23 ; augment, 83 ; -with accus., 279 ; with participle, 434 tv-/,oiAcn, augment, 83 ; construction, 266 ; rrj^oy-fiv without civ, 353. •iva, verbs in, 114 sq. ivo.vvy.ot, without art., 152 ; plural, 220. iCi;»7rx^. 525. f?)?. See drifit. 'iXScGci, 111. Hili, 48. ^>c&k (x&k), 25, 48. iX,oj (and compounds.), inflexions, 88, 100; intransitive, 315; 'ixoff-ai nuo;, 253 ; 's-/cirj and y.yi sxnv used absol., 743 ; ellipsis of 6>:/, 737. -io), derivative verbs in, 114 sq. ; verbs in -sco which retain s in the future, 92 ; -la for au, 104. iuvnuayy/jv, 82, 112. -io); for -io; in geuit. of adj., 75. tu; with genit., 590 sq. ; with infin., 414 ; 'iur ov (otov), 370, 591 ; constr. of the conj. s'ijj (s. oL, s. oVoy), with and -without av, 370 sqq., 387 sq. ; SMf tto'tj, etc., 591 ; iu; STri r., 771. ^a.a, 105 sq. ; ^'/lu without / subscript, 52 ; transitive in the LXX, 24. CliVVVU, 49. t^riKsvu, 114. Q/i'Kog, neuter, 76 ^rj^iooficti, 17. Zr,u'2c, 128. ^>j-£w with infin., 403 ; ^-/ir. -^vy^ju, 34 il^UOV, ^UQ'J, 53. ^ disjunctive, 549-551 ; not used for x.ui, 549 sq. ; repeated 652 ; ij . . . ij X5c/. 549 ; in questions, 638 sq. 5 comparative, 549 ; after compara- tives, 300 ; after adj. in the positive, 301 sq. ; no real ellipsis of, 744 sq. (300) ; SiKu Y,, 301 sq. ; y.vfjiziXu j", 302; ^ '/«;;, 302. ?j yy/i'j (s/ y/iv), 553, 627. ijoy) ('/fow TTOTs), 579. i^Ku, inflexions, 106 ; meaning, 343. i)>.ix.o;, 210. '^A/oj without art., 148 sq. '/lyxpTYidu, 99 sq. '^yiOu., 95 sq. '/iy-ilg and vysl; interchanged, 330. '^'icsAAs, 82. YiyAoa, omitted, 738 ; oixpi (and «:r') vjg i^fispx;, 204 ; v\yApv, x-al ijuipXy 581 ; li '/lyspuv, 476. i^y.TiV, 95 sq. '/ipciGYi {yiyianoC), '/jfiioov;, 73, 75. Yiy.iupov, 125. '//ji/^c, ('/]v. oil/), 370 sq., 387, 389 4J|«, 108. '^~ip, 303, 549. ijps/iio;, 81. -r,pto'j, subst. in, 119. Tlpyjjyyfi'j^ 105. ^j for Yin&a., 96. 5JT0/, 549. '/I'i-ccoy.v.t, 106. '^Vis/, 95. !?!?;«, 97. viydi, 76. 6a.'hf/,aGpuv), Yi sq. dxvyx^o), inflexions, 327 ; constr.^ 292 ; 6«.vy. si, 562, 679, 600. hciTpi'l^o), 25, 113. diAnuBi, meaning, 755 sq. ; to ^i'A., 743. di?.i> (eSiT^u), 102, 586 ; is it u-sed with adverbial force ? 586 sq. ; is it ever pleonastic? 767 sq. ; Si'Ai) vi, malo, 301 sq. ; ov Gi'Koi, nolo, 597 ; ^. Toi'Jiaco, 856 ; S. hoe., 420, 422 sq. ; Si'Ku iv Ti'Ji. 291 sq. ; 6ixa Tt, 587. 6i6'771liVBT0g, 120. Oio; without art., 151 ; 0se, 72 : d- cTilos (ovvccro?) TO Qso, 310, 265. $irj(j-v'/7i;. 24 ; accent, 61 sq. Qivou.;, 128. 69 for T-e, 49. e-K^-^i;, 6>J-^ic, 56. Sy/iG-KO), 106. Spy,Gx,rj;, 6prti'77ip, 548. Kxi, 541-548, 676 ; connecting nume- rals, 313 ; in questions, 545 ; as an adversative (?), 545; not used for ill, 549 .sq. ; epexegetic, 545 sq., 786 ; joining the special to the general, 544, 546, 653 sq. ; does x-cii mean especUilhj ? 546 ; com- mencing the apodosis, 357, 546 sq., 756 ; in comparisons, 548 sq., 754 ; trajection of ('?), 701 ; crasis with y.cii, 51 ; xai . . . y.ai, 547 sq. (the 2d x.sti omitted, 721) ; ts . . . x.xt\ 547 sq. ; ts kxi, 548 ; x.»i . . . os, 553 ; Kcciys, 547 ; y.ccl yxp, 560 sq. ; it Kdi, Kcct ii, 554 sq. ; ov . . . dXhoi Kcci, 624. Kccivonpo;, 305. x-ciiTrip with jjarticiple, 432 sq. Kcctoos without art., 154 ; Kxipol for dual, 221. KcttTOi, 432 sq., 554. y.xhor/s, 554. Kutu (and comp.), 89, 106. Kxxog, comparison, 81. Kx'hio), invite, 742 ; is y.a.'KiiaSui used for il-jcii ? 769. y.xKoii 'CipX(TfiXI, 107. KiKTyj^UXl, 342. ;t£A£i;7, 24. XO^TT&V, rOU 'hOl'TTOV, TO "KOITVOV, 580 \ Si^' parent ellipsis of, 654, 74-4. Acit/xij, 128. Avooot, 70. hvaiTi'Kit Ij, 302. Avarpx, 70. y^vrpou, active and middle, 318. 'hv)c'-'i», '26. hvu figur., 34. •,ux, substantives in, 26, 115 sq. ; their meaning, 116 ; common in later Greek, 26, 115. //.udrtTivu transitive, 24, 314. fcuKUBio;, 689. f^uKoodii/, 680 ; «7ro t6., 753 sq. ^iCKKfiv omitted, 301 sq. ; with the comparative, 300, 754 ; with the positive, 301, 306 sq. ; not joined with the superlative, 300. ^«,£«,«<»j, 26. [/.uuixvu with infin. and partic, 436 fiupTvpioccxi, construction, 326. fiuaccoiicii, 49. f4,<)ir»io;, ov, 80. y.x-cctipr,;, y.ccy^ctipY,, 71. f/.iyct'Kvvu, 31. yiyct'huavvi/i^ 27, 118. fisdvao;, 24. yidva (yeduoKoycci), constr., 251, 272. fisi^oTipo;, 28, 81, 753. f/.e'kst, construction, 257. fiiT^iaato:, 25. (A.i'A7M with infin., 419 sq. ; with aug- ment, 82. f/.i[x.iuf/.yA'jo;, 108. y.iv, position of, 698-700, 455; yAu . . . o£, 130, 551, 553 sq., 677 ; yAv not followed by li, 553 sq., 719-721 ; y.i'j yup, 719 ; yiv ovv, 552, 556. y,svovvy£, 556 ; at the beginning of a sentence, 699. y.iVToi, 551, 554 ; its position, 699. y.ipiyjocu, construction, 257, 261. yiafiyjlpiu, without art., 150. yiaiTSva, 2G. fis2ii sq., — the infin., 604 sq. ; y/i with piirtic. and adjectives, 606-611; pleonastic use of ^-/j, 409, 755 ; y/i after re- latives, 603 sq. ; in conditional and final sentences, 698 ; in prohibi- tions, 598, 628 sq. ; in questions, direct, 641-643, — and indirect, 374 ; y/i oy, 642 ; ov yv;, 634-637, 642, 750 sq. ; trajection of y/;, 693-696 ; y/i after verbs of fearing, 631-634 ; y/l, final, 630-634 ; y/j . . . y/ioi, 612 ; y^ . . . dy.-hrj. (Si), 620-624 ; yif) . . . oiht^'l x.tx.1, 624 ; y/i . . . jrsij for y/i^ili, 214 sq. ynoi: distinctive use of yrM and yiT:, 611-619 ; how yr^i differs from kxI y/l, 619 ; yi) . . . y/tOs, 612 ; y/iOi . . . y/iOi, 614 ; y/ioi . . . y/iTi, 617 sq. y/ihi;, 48. y/iKiri not used for y/j, 772 sq. y/l^, 541, 553. yJiT^ors, 374, 679, 603, 630 sqq., 748. y/i'TTov, 579. yr,vuu 562, 630-634, 748 ; with aor. indie, 633 sq. ; with two different moods, 633 sq. y/iTi : distinctive use of y/thi and ,t«-!,), 127 sq. vJf/.(p-/i, daiighter-in-lan\ 33. i/D:/, vuj//, 579 ; u'jui^ 24. tiv'/,^y;f(,ipov, 26. uaiT'jg, ucoTOV, 73. ^tUI^OfiOil TtVt. 262. gsvooopisyj, 26. |)5s«, 18. SiiAw, 23. ^y^s«6), 25. or 0) in certain words, 46, 48, 49. 6 f/Av, 6 oi (and similar expressions), 130; 0£ without yAv, 130 sq. ; TO before sentences, adverbs, etc., 135, 644, — before masc, or femin. nouns, 136, 223 ; to (toD, tw) be- fore the infin., 402 sq., 406-415, 420. Zlu 201 sq. o'SoV figur., 31 ; omitted, 738 sq. ; 601) withont prepos.- 274 ; ohiv. to- trards, 2S9 ; oOcu Troniy, 320. COVUXdXi, 90. o^£v, 557. oIS^ (p£/«/), 342, 381, 435 (93). oi>c-/]jiixrcc omitted, 740. oly.oOiij'TrorYig, 26. o'iKolofiiu (and comp.), augment, 83 sq. ; used figur., 31, 36 ; oU. ty Ttvi, 39 ; oiKOQ. oIko'j, 754. o'lKooofi'/}, 25, 36. ofr.o.c omitted, 480, 740. oiKovpyoc, 125. o'lKTiipu, future, 108. OlKTipfiOl, 220. -olv for -oiu in iniin. active, 92, 52. oto;, 210 ; oio(; Q-/i7rorovu, 578. 6x1-/0? predicative, 164. cXodpSVai, Ohi&piVU^ 114. oT^oy.ccvToif^ot,, 34. &Ao'v,A/;oo,c, 26. oAo; predicative, 164. 'OAy,Mx^?, 128. ifMtpouut, 125 sq. oy.'jvo, oi/.'jvf/.t, 25, 108 ; construction, 278 sq., 282 sq., 417, 486, 495. OlCOlCi^U, 26. ofioio:, ou, 80 ; accent, 59 sq. ; with genit., 243 ; with dative, 262. 6/iioiuju.u, form, 755. 0,640 Aoysii) with a partic, 435 ; &,««. sV ri'ji, 40, 283 ; o>. t;://, 262. oV'^'j;, 433, 551, 554; trajectionof, 693. OVCiPlOV, 25. o'jiio'i^u, construction, 278. fj'Jitoiciy^og, 2.5. ovot/.a,, various constructions, 227 ; is it ever pleonastic ? 768 ; i-Trl tw ovoftccrt, 490 ; I'J 6'j6f(.v-Ti. 487. lu(jyA^Qy.a.i not equivalent to s/.f-/, 769. oTTiuhv with genit., 591. oV/(7w with genit., 591 ; -zops-JsQ^oci oV. Ti'jo;, 31 ; dMtJjvduv lir. t., 293. oVo?o,', 210. oVore, 370, 389, 640. oVoi/, 5G1, 593, 640; for oVo/, 692; oVof «» with indie, 384. OTTTCtaiot, 25. c.V«c, 563, 640 ; construction, 358- 361, 425 ; is it used for oi;rs'> 578, 676 ; OTTu; aiv, 389 ; opoe. oV(y.c, 425 ; 0. -jTMpudyi, 576 sq. ; omitted (?), 356, 744. ' opoco) (and comp.), forms, 86, 89, 108 ; BupxKX, 342 ; 6(p6'/;i/ect tivi, 275 ; oca GREEK WORDS AND FORMS. 843 voir^an;, 356 ; J'ost ,i4ij, G28, 630-632, 751 ; opce. o'Trug, 425. ooy■i^ {h), 743. co-i^Tj (-/j), 740. coku'j^ 74. ocda'Trottiu, 27, 126. cpSo-of^iu, 27, 12.5. ccSoi^u, 26, 34, 113. ooKuy.ooict,, 25, 124. ooudioia,, 26. iV, ojT/c, 209 sq. ; oV referring to a remote antecedent, 196 ; used for the interrog., 207 sq. ; attraction, 202-204, 780 sqq. ; o; with conj. and with f ut. indie., expressing pur- 130se, 375, 386 ; o; uv Avith conj. and indie, 384-386; &> = ''«' oZ-o:, 680 ; replaced by kxi and a de- monstr. pron., 186, 724 ; & prefixed to sentences, 209 (285) ; o; yAu . . . o; oi (and similar expressions), 130 ; or ys, 000 ; o; 6'/j, o; Oy;7rort, 0/8 ; sg oJ, vlience, 111 ; I'ijjj ct/, etc., — see 370, 482, 484: i^ «, 491 sq. ; \Z' oic, 197 sq., 202 ; d!>'d' uv, 202, 456. cau'/ctg oiv, .387. -aaxv, 3 plur. of historical tenses, 91. oV/oj, ov, 80. cffoc, 210 ; 070/ a;/ with indie, 384 ; oaov oao'j, 309. caziu, 6a~io)v, V2. oVr/f, &V T'?, 50 sq. ; cert:, o:, 202, 209 sq. ; in an indirect question, 210 ; •with conj. or fiit. indie, expressing purpose, 375, 386 ; is o,rt used for t/ in a direct qu. ? 208 sq., 572 ; ciri; a!/, 384-386, 603; 'icjg'drov,75, 370 sq. -oavnYi, substantives in, 118. oV«», constructions, 363, 387-389 ; oV«» with a finite verb instead of an infinitive, 682. OTS with indie., 370 sq. ; with conj., 372 sq. o,Ti, Ti, 50 sq. 'on, 541, 557, 563, 679, 756 ; is it used for other conj.? 571 sq. ; inter- changed with OTS in Mss., 572 ; with infin., 426 sq., 718; introducing the oratio recta, 756, 683 ; on with finite verb replacing an infin., 404, 407, 436. 747 ; omitted, 683 ; re- peated, 708, 727 sq. ; oV/ ov, y.-r„ 602, 605 (594) ; ov-/;, oV^, ovx o'iov en, 746 sq. ; }>Y,y^ov cV/, 731 ; r/ ot<, 731 ; u; CTi, 111 sq. oVcif (bjc 0.), 75. oil : distinctive use of ov and ^s?, 593- 611 ; ov in conditional sentences, 598-602 ; with partic. and adj., 606-611 ; with the infin., 605 ; with subst., 597 sq. ; after relatives, 603 sq. ; witli the fut. in prohibitions, 396 sq., 629 ; ov with single words in final clauses, etc., 600, 602, 605, 608 ; oi/ reversing the meaning of verbs, etc., 597, 699 sq., 605, 608-611 ; oi/ for y/i in antitheses, 601, 602, 606; in questions, 641- 643, 396 ; pleonastic, 755 ; trajec- tion of ov, 693-696 ; ov y/i, 634- 637, 642, 750 sq. ; yh ov, 642; el oil, 599-602 ; oii . . . «AAa (oi), 620- 624 ; oil . . . uKt-d. kui, oil yovov . . . clyj^ci, 624; oil or oiion'; . . . ti y/; (tt^.tiv, 'ij), 638 ; oil . . . oiioe, 612 ; oil . . . oCts, 615 sq. ; oi/x. cioa., 641 ; (liiy, oTi, oiix oTov on, 746 sq. ; oii yjj'jov 0£ (elliptical). 729 sq. ; oij . . . 'TTci; for oiiOiic, 31. 214 sq. ; oii irctv- To -, -TToiVTu; oil, 693 sq. ; oii ttuvv, 694; oil . . . 77or£, 216; oi-for oi-Vw (?), 745 ; oil, oii^i, 598 ; (oiiK iar/,Ksv, oiix, ioov, 48}. ol, 561, 592. oiioi (oy«), 60, 579. oiixl ('^), 223. oiioi : distinctive use of eiol and oiVf, 611-619 ; how it diiTers from x.cci oil, 619 ; oiihi, vol even, 611, 617 sq., Q'2C) ; oiils tic, 216 ; ov . . . oiioi, 61 2 ; oiiOi . . . oi/oe, 614 ; oi/oi . . . ovts, 617 sqq. ; oiioi . . .U, 620. oiiOiig iaTti) og, 375 ; with oil, 604. oiiSsig, 48. oiiyJTi, bid ; not used for oii, 772 sq. ovKOvj, oiiKovu, 555, 643. ovv, bbb-bhl , 676 ; is it used for other conj.? 570 sq. ; in 3d or 4th place, 698 sq. ; in apodosis, 712 ; upu oiiv, bbl ; t/ ovv, 731 ; yJu ovv, 552, 556. oiipuviog, ov, 80. oiipwjodiv, 580 ; otT: ovp., 753. oiipavo; without art, 144, 149 sq. ; oiipuvoi, 220. o'jTi : distinctive use of oi-Vs and oiihi, 611-619; oiJTS apparently used for oiifii, 615 ; oi-Vs . . . cvn, 612-617, 077 ; otJrs . . . >cui (ri), 619 sq. ; oiire . . . Kxi oil, 613 sq. ; oi'te . . . oiio's, 616 sq. 844 INDEX. ovro; referring to a remote subject, 195 sq. ; taking up the subject or predicate, 199, 206; repeated, 198 sqq. ; joined to a noun which has the art., 137 ; position, 199, 202, 686 ; before on, ha, etc., 200 ; rovTo adverbial, 178 ; rovro f/,ku . . . Tovro hi, 178 ; Toir' 'iartv epexeg., 665 ; rouirot iroiVTOt,, 'jrot.vcx roivrtx., 686 ; ixv-za, referring to a single object, 201 sq. ; Ka.\ tainoc, 202, 432 ; Iv rovro), 484 ; iv t«:^t3j, 39 ; f^ird radnot,, 201. (iVTug, 548 sq., 678 sq. ; ovro:, wru, 43 sq. ; is it used for ovrog ? 584 ; Mirug shxi, 584 ; commencing the apodosis, 678 sq. ; pleonastic (?), 678 sq., 772. oi/x,i, 598. o^ii'hnf^a, sin, 31, 33 sq. ; &(p. d(pdvai, bl, hi. o^i'iKu, imperfect ■without «*, 352. o?5Ao;/ witli indie, 377. 6$d*K!/.o'6(iV'hiix, 124. 6-^cipiov, 23. 6-^e with genit., 591. oxp-fladi, 89, 108. 6-i^liK.Q;, 25. 6-^uviou, 23 ; plural, 220. -Gu, verbs in, 2{j, 113. 7rxdr,T6:, 120. "Traiodpiov, 25. 'rreiioivi), Zo. -TTciioiodiv, 27, 580 ; tx. tt., 754. C7«<'^^, 108. -ctKi'j, position, 693 ; pleonastic, 754 sqq. ■:7ccy.7:'h-fi6ii, 124. •^«:/Oo;iSi;f, 26. -ztfJoiKi, 27 ; form, 47. rzx-j-zxyj^, -xri, 53. rrciur/i, '^^ocurv}, b'2. ■^uuTore, 27. -T^uvTu; oil, ov 'Tra.VTM;, 693 sq. 'TTci'jv : (IV (//■'/;) -Tsrdi/v, G94. TTupii. -with genit., 457 ; different from cItto, 456 sq., 463 sq. ; after passive verbs, 457 ; with dative, 492 sq. ; with accus., 503 sq. ; in compari- sons, 301, 503 sq. •Trxpoc., construction of verbs com- pounded with, 538. •rctfls«,5sruy with superl., 222, 310, — with compar., 303. Trxox^ indeclinable, 79. TTxaxo), 36. UxTxpx, plural, 220. •^stTjj/! without art., 151; omitted, 237. TTXTptxpxiri;, 27^ 70. '^XTpa'huix;, 49. TTxrpo'TTxpxhoTog, 124. TTxvcd (kxtxttxvu), constructious, 245, 409 ; with a partic, 434. Tzx^uvu figur., 18. ^j^ij used adverbially, 583 ; ^s^ii, 53. iviiSo;, 119. luiiuxu, 52, 92; with accus., 253. "Treipx^co, 112, Ti-eiG/xoy/;, 116, 794. TTiAxyos T'^s ^xKccaa-fig, 7fi3 sq. '^'t^TTu in a past tense, 347. 7i-iv6iu, 792. TViUT/jKoaryi, 27. 'TV'iTiiipXyAvOC, 112. T^riTToidx, construction, 208, 292, Tmroidyjats, 26. Trip, 561, TTioxu with genit., 591, 31. TripxTX rvig yvig, 31. -Tvipl with genit., 466 sq. ; different from v'TTio, 466, 478 sq., 513,— from «,a(p/, 406 ; with accus., 5U6 ; ia periphrases, 240 sq., 506. TZipi, coiistr. of veibs compounded with, 538. GREEK WORDS AND FORMS. 845 vsotxyu, 'ziotxyo^a.t, 322 sq. ■^ipiiyjh 316. 'Tripix.nf/.cti, construction, 287. TTioiovaio;, 120 sq. -T^iotTXTiu, live, 34 ; "n'ith a dative, 274. ^ •TnpiaTrocoiiixi, 23. 'TTipiffaoTiou:, 81, 304 sq. ■^srao.aK/, 25, 109. "T^iTOy-tX.!. 109. ~rr/,uv, 75. TT/a^^, 22. ^/£r.T,>jiov as a prepos., 590 ; o 57A., 63, 25. Tr'h.mi^ovyi, 116. wAooV, 72. 'Tr'Kovaio;, construction, 251. TrfvovTo; neuter, 76. -TTVivf/.x oiyiou wathout the art., 151. 'zvsvi/.xrtKog, 296. TTOIX, 22. ^rofstj (^Ku7^2i;, iv) Ttv't, 278; ';r.TOi/ with infiu., 410 sq. ; ir. 'ivu, 423 ; -Tronrj, TTotilaSxi, 320 sq. ; ■jtoiuv £ Aeo j (p^af^/v) it«S7a rivo;, 34, 471. voif/^citi/ii, rule, 17. •zroii^viov, 'TTOtf^vlov, 60. woror for t/c, 212. VO'hip'Ai) y.iTX T., 471, 506. T^o'Ki;, elHpsis of, 79. •xohmvoyxt, 325, 328. TTO'hvyipo);, 580. ^oAi/T(//x<>io.c, 124. iroAv.c joined to a subst. with an adj., 659 sq. ; ttoAAo/ and 0/ v., 136 sq. ; TToAt^ with compar., 301 ; •s-oXXa ad- verbial, 580. 'TTOkvrpoTTug, 580. nvopiiioy-xi wdth dative, 270, 274. '7rctTXf^o(f6prtTCtg, 124. 7707-«— (/Vi 25. •s-dTs, 579. See (/.'/•.ttots. •urors for o-ttoti, 640. TToreoo;, 211 ; Trorspov . . . oj, G38. z-OT'/ipiov, lot, 18, 33; ttot. rriuitu (fig.), 18 ; ^OT. iK)CVv6,U,i!/0V, 7'Jl. •^ot/, 578 sq. 770& for oVof, 640 ; for -vo?, 592 sq. 770v;, "T^oi/;, 56. Trpir,; (-Trpio;), 52. irpoCv;, -TTpxirni ('^'pseo?, -Trpxorni), 48. TrpiTTii (^■Trpi-TTou iari), construction, 402. T^J?!--/?-, 23. ■TTpty, -Trpiv ij, 371 sq., 415, 417. ■^rpo' with genit., 466; transposed (?) in temporal phrases, 697 sq.; with the infin., 414. Tf 0, construction of verbs compounded with. 538 sq. ^oo'SaAAij used absoL, 742. ■zpolyA'Tru, -of/,ut, 323. vp'Jdiai; ciDTuv, 296 sq., 792 sq. rrpoi^rj;, 49. TrpOKO-TTTU, 315. Trporjpoiyyriv, 86. r.p'J: w'ith genit., 467 sq. ; with dative, 493 ; with accus., 453, 504 sqq. ; '77p6; (/.'., OS, 62 sq. ; in periphrases, 529 ; with the iufin., 414 ; akin to the simple dative, 266 sq. Tirpog, construction of verbs compounded with, 539 sq. T-pogty^u Tivl, 742. ■77po;v)>^vros, 25, 27, 120. '7rpo;x.vvia, construction, 263. -TTpogriSnyi with adverbial force, 40, 587 sq. '7rpo;J:oe.yiov, 26. Trpog^XTCo;, 580. '7rpo;(pipa) used absol., 742. vpo;M7ro'Ayi7niu, 34, 126. ■S-pOJM'S-OASJ'S-TWJ, 126. ■TrpogcoTroy.Yj-d/lx, 126. izpoiUTzo'j without art., 152; -ro. "hxy.- fixuii!/, 31, 34 ; TTp. (jrr,piCit'j, 34 ; y.XTx TrpoguTTOv, 499, 218 ; 7rp6 T^pog' L^-^rw, 156, 218, 758 sq. '7rpri(fr,Tivu. augment, 84. -Tvpuyju, 22. Trpui'^ 62. 8-16 INDEX. vpupx {t7Pu-, ffpii)-),53, 60; Trpupvi;, 71. 'TrpuTO;, -T^puTOV, 588 ; 'Trpurov, I'll ; "Trp. fiov, 306 ; '^paio; for v^-ponpo;, 30G ; tig for "TrpuTCi;, 3o, 311. r;7TVoy, 25. 77~O^U,CC, 23. '^:/A)9 omitted, 741 ; vvt^oit^ 220. ■;:vpivog, 29G. 57i5)»» ami '^ crtA., 148 sq. a/jyoiiuu, 109 sq. fj'fiToiip'j)To;, 124. -a6o)oo',v, 3 plur. imper., 91. clyApci, indecliu., 7i3. :i;/A«f, 128. OlpiKOli, 49. -a/f, subst. in, 115 sq. otToyirpirju, 26. e7cix,d^ vyxg, 193. av/ysi/riV, 76 sq. avyyivic,, femin. of o-^'yyHi/zjf, 80. avyxpivu, 23. ovyKvpici, 25. GVKdyOBiOi (-,M6J-), 49. nuAAayiidivoi used absolutely, 742. avyjiciTCAu nut, 742. ovypccidYirYf;, 26. ovyCPipit ha, 424. ffi^v with dative, 488 ; different from yiTo,, 488. (7:;v, construction of verbs compounded with, 21)9, 540 ; adj. compounded with Qxjv governing the genit., 243 ; subst. compounded with avv connnou in later Greek, 26. avi/eioviyi;, 71. -avvYj, subst. in, 118. av'jtoiiai, 97. ovs/ioTYiyt, 23. avvrpijiu (<" or <), 57. GREEK WORDS A^B FORMS. 817 "Z'jpr^^oiviKnaci, "S.vpofotuiaaci, 118 oOpri;, avpri;, 60. ailvpig ((775--), 49. ayjj'Kvi^ 24. jii)^(y s/'j T/, 776 ; o/ ciii!^6fzsiiot, 430. '^a—XTpog, 128. rocf^uov, 2.5, 117. ra7rii'jo(l:prj(jvv-/i, 27, 123. TUTiriivoXpcov, 123, 296. T(/.Grat,p6u^ 25. Tost/Tsi. See wj-Tog. rxyjouy 81 ; not used as a positive, oU4. "r, .542, 676 ; diffei'ent from ««/, 542 ; Ts . . . Ts, 547 ; Ts . . . >c«/, 547 sq. ; T£ x«/, 548 ; rs . . .oi^ 548, 715 ; position, 455, 700 ; n '/ccp-, 561. TSKVIOU, 60. T£>cyoy in periphrases, 298 sq. TiAito);, 580. ■ripaf, 75. TsacrxpssKcci^iaxro;, 311. Tiaasp-i;, -x, -xiconTCi, 46. T£T£y;<;6, 110. Tri'AiK.oi'To;, 210. -r/)c, subst. in, 116 sqq. Tii)yiy^t, 93 ; diadoct iu rn Kxpdix, 24. Tj; not used for i'l rt;, 211, 678, 744 ; witli subst. and adj., 212 sq. ; may either precede or follow its subst., 213 ; may liave the first place, 699 sq. ; in reference to a plural, 787 ; as antithesis of ovoi:/, 213 ; ri with emphasis, 213 ; ri, accus. with in- traus. verbs, 285; rov, tw, 60 sq., 213; £/",- T/r, 146, 213; skiovTi;, 29, 145 sq.; ellipsis of, 736. Tt; in indirect qu. and for the relative, 210 sq. ; for ■Trorspo;, 211 ; ri; ianu og with tlie indie, 375, — with ov, 604 ; for -TroUg, 212 ; position, 212, 688 ; t/, ivhy ^ 178 ; t/ for ug, 562 ; 'i'jx t/, 212, 734 ; ti on, 731 ; r/ ifiol Koct ool, 731, 733 ; t/ yxp, ri oiiv, 559, 731. TO. See 0. TO/, 541. See fiiyrot, etc. TOiyxpovu, bbl. roiuvi/, 555, 557, 699. ToiovTog, 210 ; with the art., 138. roT^lAtku not pleonastic, 766. -TOf, verbals in, 120. roawTog, 210 ; zoaovru . . . iiatj, 306. TotiT£(TT;, 49, 665. rwro. See oi/TOf. rpiriiu, 314. zpoTTog, accus. used adverbially, 283. rpo:po^Qpio), 125. roo'p^io,', TS&>i(iV, 62. Tpoag, 53. TT, ffff, 48. rvyx^v'-'i 110 ; construction, 249 sq^. rvyo'j, 446. -TiJ(7«v, 3 plur. imperative, 91. vu-Kog, 22. viioH^u with accus., 277. i/y/^, 74. vQup omitted, 739. virog omitted, 740. viog in periphrases, 34, 298 sq. ; omitted, 237, 741. Cifiirspog used objectively, 191. -vyo), verbs in, 114. O'Tcipxu with partic, 440. vz-ip with genit., 478-480 : how it differs from ■77spi, 466, 478 sq., 513 ; with accus., 502 ; in comparisons, 301 ; u':Tsp'hiuv, 525 ; as an adverb, 526. t/TTip, oonstr. of verbs compounded with, 540. i/TTsouyo) with genit., 591. {jiriQi/.irjot,, 5t)0 ; with genit., 591 ; accent, 59. v'TTspsK'TTioKjijolJ wlth gcult., 591. VTTiOUOV, 119. vTTo Avith genit., 456 sq., 461 sq, ; interchanged with d-o, 463 sq. ; with accus., 507. v'TTo, constr. of verbs compounded witii, 540. i/TTOKcicroi with genit., 591. ii'TroTiootov, 27. i/TruTTiai^u, 46. varipio), construction, 245 sq., 251 £XJ., 280. •j\!/4fjrog without art., 151. -i>u for -v/iii, 25, 108. (p for TT, 48 sq. (puyopcxi, ipxyirjxi, 110. ([a.yog, CPccyc,:, 58, 120. (puivij, 110; construction, 293. (lxv(Tx.a, 110. (psioopcxi, constr., 39, 257. (Ziionf^iyug, 123. Yi omitted, 748. (pSccvu, 2;) ; inflexions, 111 ; construc- tion, 580. 5, 22. <\->[xt'7T'7rot, plural, 220. q:o(iioi/,cti, construction, 279 sq. ; (po(i. fjc'/i, 631. CoSridpov, 119. (poiui^, ifrjiyii, 56. (popriov, 26. (Ppvctaao), 25. (pv'hcf-KT'/ipioi/, 27, 119. !, 203 ; ellipsis of, 739. xcti'po), 111 ; construction, 263, 291 ; xccipnv, 397 sq., 735. XCDi^cS^xi, 325_, 327 ; future, 111. X^P'v with genit., 591, 700. y^ocpircc, lb. Xoipiroci), 113. Pi^Aoc, shore, 18, 31 ; language, 34 ; yji'hiav, 74. Xiip omitted, 740. Xipovjiiju., 79. xio) (yjivoi), 104 (51) ; %iu futiu-e, 91 sq., 104. yfiKoLO), 25. Xoorx^cj, 18, 23. XDXDfixi, construction, 262. XPSofii7..STYi;, 48. xoy;, construction, 402. XPfi^", construction, 250. Xpyi,nBcri^o), 23 ; x!^^,"-'^'^'^°/^'^h ^26. XpmriTYi;, 22. xpiay-x, xP^''/^'^} 56 sq. iipiaro; and o Xo., 146 ; is Xpiarog ixsed to intensify the meanino; of a subst. ? 310; iv XpiaTot, 1G9 sq., 484, 486 sq. ; liii. XpwTov, 473. xofj'jo; omitted, 738. ■XiP^Qto;, declension, 72 XOV(TohuKTv>^tf>:, 27. -%w/a, subst. in, 116. X^;, 799. ;)iwpa omitted, 740. ;)i&)/!/j as a prepos., 590 sq. ipivloyoci, construction, 266. -ipsijafiix, 25. iptdvpiaT'/ii, 25. ^ixloy, 25, 119. ^/f %5j omitted, 739 ; is it a periphrasis for a pers. pron. ? 194 sq. ■^uyJ^co, 23 ; with accus., 284. -u, accus. ending, 72. -a, verbs in, for verbs in //.i, 25 (93-98, 100, 106 sq., 108). Z with the vocative, 228 sq. Los, 592. uQiv, If) ; uOi'jic, 32. ^6iu, 82 sq.. 111. -u>.6g, adj. in, 120. uu for a past partic, 428 sq. UViOfAXt, 82, 112. uov, 53. upot. without art., 154; omitted, 740. UpUjiCYlV, 108. -ii;, genit. -co, in proper names, 72. us, 370, 548 sq., 555, 561, 563, 578, 662 ; with intin., 380, 390, 400 sq. ; with participles, 770 sq. ; with the predicate, 286, 753 ; o>; oiv, 384 sq., 387, 389; omitted (?), 745 ; pleo- nastic (?), 770-772, 753 ; with nu- merals, 578 sq. ; ug eVo? i'f^slv, 399, 563; u; on, 111 sq. ; ug 1^/, 771 ; ui xocl, 549 ; for oL'tojj (V), 578, oiaoci^Ylv, 83, 111. u;ii with numerals, 578 sq. ugTrio, 548, 678 ; protasis with ugvsf^ without apodosis, 749. . uiTi with intin., 377, 400 ; with finite verb, 377 ; u. {ov and) f^vi, 602. urupiov, 25. UTiO'J, 26. uCpi'Kt^uo; TT^o'j T', 267. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. DEC 1 - m f T '?' "fi; R£C'D LD-IRL OCT 18 LO URL MAY?.8 gfffD IJI-UEB 3Uli •0?^ ?«'•« wW-Si Form L9-50m-4,'61(B8994s4)444 ' iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiin L 005 240 052 UC SOUTHEBt'J REGIONAL LIBRARY FACIL TY AA 000 410 070 7