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 Tt<f, hut instead of for, therefore for because, on
the other side for on this side, the relative for the sign of the
apodosis (Isa. viii. 20^). Amidst such erudition on the part
of the interpreter, the reader becomes almost indignant at the
unskilfulness of the sacred writers, who knew so little how to
deal with words. One cannot conceive how such men could
make themselves even generally intelligible in their oral dis-
courses, in which this lawlessness -of language must certainly
have appeared in still stronger relief. Still more difficult is
it to understand how they won over to Christianity a large
number of educated men. Whilst, however, this play with
pro and idem quod has a laughable, it has also a serious aspect.
Does not Scripture — as a great philologer remarked long ago —
thus become like a waxen nose, which a man may twist any
way he pleases, in proportion to the scantiness of his knowledge
of language ? Would it have been impossible, or even difficult,
for such a man as Storr, for example, had the task been assigned
to him, to find in the words of the apostles any meaning
which he pleased ? And is such a view of the New Testament
language compatible with the dignity of sacred writers ? ^
We should regard as simply devoid of understanding any
man who, in the ordinary intercourse of life, could so pervert
language as to say, ' I shall come to you to-day,' instead of ' I
have come,' etc. ; ' No prophet has arisen out of Galilee,' for
' No prophet shall arise out of Galilee ' (John vii. 52) ; 'I call
you no longer servants,' for ' I called you not merely servants '
(John XV. 15); Tor Jesus himself testified that a prophet
hath no honour in his own country, for ' Although Jesus him-
self testified,' etc. (John iv. 44) ; ' I saw the forest with mag-
' [In this verse some regard "HJ'K as introducing the apodosis, and therefore
leave it untranslated (in English): thus Hendei-son (after Gesenius), 'There
shall be no dawn to them.' Winer, with Ewald, renders the verse : Ad legem
revertamur, ita profecto dicent, quibus non fulget aurora {Simonis, s.v.).]
^ Hermann, ad Vig. p. 786 : Diligenter caveant tirones, ne putent, viros
spiritu saneto afflatos sprevisse semionem mortaliura, sed meminerint potius,
illam interpretandi rationera, qua nonnulli theologorum utuntur, nihil ease nisi
blu^phemiam.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE. xxiu
nificent foliage,' instead of 'I saw a forest,' etc. (John v. 1) ; ^
' Send me the book, and I will read it/ for ' You will send me
the book,' etc. ; ' To whom it was revealed that . . .,' for ' To
whom this was revealed, yet so that , . .' (1 Pet. i. 12);^
'Christ died, he has therefore risen again,' for '.but has risen
again ; ' ' He is not more learned,' for ' He is not learned ; ' ' He
rejoiced that he shovdd see, . . . and he saw, and rejoiced,' for
' He would liave rejoiced if he had seen, . . . even over that
which he saw he rejoiced ' (John viii. 56) ; ' He began to wash,'
for ' He washed ' (John xiii. 5) ; and the like. If all the
examples of quid pro quo which during the past decennia a
number of interpreters have put into the mouths of the apostles
were collected together, t)ie world would justly be astounded.
When I, at that time a young academic teacher, undertook
to combat this unscientific procedure, I did not conceal from
myself that there were men far better qualified for such a
work ; and indeed what I. accomplished in the earlier editions
of this Grammar was but iinperfect. My attempt, however,
met with friendly recognition from some men of eminence ;
first, from Vater and D. Schulz. Others pointed out, some-
times certainly with harshness, the imperfections of the book ;
and to these critics I owe much, not only in this work, but
in all. my exegetical labours. I enlarged the grammatical
material by Excursuses, which followed the second edition in
1828. Extensive study of the writings of the Greek prose
authors and of the Hellenistic Jews enabled me to make the
third edition much more copious, and also more accurate. I
have subsequently laboured incessantly in the improvement of
the book ; and I have been gladdened by the aid which philo-
logical and exegetical works have afforded in rich abundance
for this purpose. Meanwhile the rational method of inves-
tigating the New Testament language has daily gained new
friends ; and the use made of this Grammar by commentators,
has become more and more apparent : even classical philologers
have begun to notice the book. At the same time, I have
always been far from thinking accurate grammatical explana-
tion to be the only proper exposition of the New Testament ;
^ Kiibnol's reasoning, Matt. p. 120 sq., shows {instar omnium) how completely
the commentators of the old school were destitute of critical perception.
* On this passage see my Erlanger Pfingstprogr. (1830).
XXIV AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
and I have borne in silence the charge which some have
brought against me, of being even an opponent of Vv-hat is now
called theological exposition.
The present edition, the sixth, will show on every page that
I have striven to come nearer to the truth, I deeply lament,
however, that in the very midst of my labours a nervous
afiection of the eves brou<i;ht me to the verge of total blindness.
Hence I have been compelled to employ the eyes and hand.s of
others in the completion of this edition ; and I avail myself
of this opportunity to express publicly my sincere thanks to
all my young friends who have unremittingly assisted me : for
it is only through their aid that I have been enabled to bring
the work to a conclusion, which I had often despaired of being
able to reach.
The change in the arrangement of the matter in Part III.
will, I think, be approved of. In other respects, it has been
my principal aim to treat every point with greater complete-
ness and yet in smaller space than formerly : accordingly, the
text of this Grammar now occupies about eight sheets fewer
than in my last edition. With tliis view I have made use of
abbreviations in the biblical and Greek quotations, as far as
I possibly could.^ I hope, however, that both these and the
names of modern authors' will evervwhere be intelligible. All
the quotations have been verified anew ; and, so far as I know,
every scientific work that has appeared since 1844 has been
turned to account, or at all events noticed
In regard to the text of .the New Testament, I have uniformly
(except when dealing with a question of various readings)
quoted from Dr. Tischendorfs second Leipsic edition [1849],
which probably now has the widest circulation.
May the work with these improvements — certainly the last
it will receive from my hands — accomplish what in its sphere
it can accomplish for the knowledge of Biblical truth !
Lei PS 10, October 1855.
' The Greek writers are only quoted by the pa,2;e when the division into
chapters has not obtained currency : Plato, as edited by Stephanus ; Stiabo and
Athenaeus, by Casaubon ; Demosthenes and I.socratts, by If. Wolf; Dionys.
Hal. by Reiske ; Dio Cassius by Keinianis ; Dio Chrysost. by Morell.
^ It may be observed that, instead of Kuinod, the Latinised form of the
name, Kiihnol (as the family name was written in Gi iman) is used thrcughoitt,
except in Latin citations.
CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION.
On the Object, Treatment, and History of N. T. Grammar
PAGF.
1
PART I.
ON THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION,
ESPECIALLY IN REGARD TO GRAMMAR.
.Sect. i. Various Opinions respecting the Character of tlie N. T. Diction . 12
ii. BasiaoltheN, T. Diction ........ '20
iii. Hftbvevv Aramaic Colouring of th« N, T. Diction .... 28
iv. Grammatica] Character of the N. T. Diction , . . .37
PART II.
ACCIDENCE.
Sect. V. Orthography and Orthographical Principles
vi. Accentuation .......
vii. Punctuation .......
viii. Unusual Forms in the First and Second Declensions
ix. Unusual Forips in the Third Declension
x- Declension of Foreign Words : Indeclinable Nouns
xi. Declension and Comparison of Adjectives .
xii. Augment and Reduplication of Regular Verbs
3iii. Unusual Forms in Tenses and Persons of Regular Verbs
xiv. Unusual Inflexions of Verbs in fti and Irregular Verbs
XV. Defective Verbs ........
xvi. Formation ol Derivative and Compound "Words .
42
55
63
69
73
77
80
82
86
93
98
112
XXVI
CONTENTS.
PART III.
SYNTAX.
A. SIGNIFICATION AND USE OF THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF
SPEECH.
PAGE
Chap. I. The Article 129
Sect. xvii. The Article as a Pronoun , . . . . .129
xviii. Tlie Article before Nouns ...... 131
xix. Omission of the Article before Nouns .... 14:7
XX. The Article with Attnbutives ..... 163
Chap. II. Pronouns
Sect. xxi. The Pronouns in general
xxii. Personal and Possessive Pronouns
xxiii. Demonstrative Pronouns • .
xxiv. Relative Pronouns
XXV. The Interrogative and Indefinite Pronoun <ri;
xxvi. Hebraistic modes of expressing certain Pronouns
176
176
178
195
202
210
2U
Chap. III. The Noun
Sect, xxvii. Number and Gender of Nouns
xxviu.
xxix.
XXX.
xxxi.
xxxii.
The Cases in general
The Nominative and Vocative
The Genitive .....
The Dative
The Accusative ....
xxxiii. Verbs (neuter) connected by means
with a Dependent Noun .
xxxiv. Adjectives .....
XXXV. The Comparative Degree
xxxvi. The Superlative Degree
xxxvii. Tlie Numerals ....
of a
Preposition
217
217
,224
226
,230
260
277
291
293
300
308
311
Chap. IV. The Verb
Sect, xxxviii. The Active and Middle Voices
xxxix. The Passive Voice ....
xl. The Tenses
xli. The Indicative, Conjunctive, .Optative Moods
xlii. The Conjunction «» with the Three Moods
xliii. The Imperative Mood ....
xliv. The Infinitive Mood ....
xlv. The Participle , . . . .
314
314
326
330
351
378
390
399
427
CONTENTS. xxvu
PAOE
Chap. V. The Particles .447
Sect. xlvi. The Particles in general ...... 447
xlvii. The Prepositions in general, and those which govern
the Genitive in particular ...... 449
xlviii. Prepositions governing the Dative .... 480
xlix. Prepositions with the Accusative ..... 494
1. Interchange, Accumulation, and Repetition of Preposi-
tions .... . . . . .^ilO
li. Use of Prepositions to form Periphrases . . 526
lii. Construction of Verbs compounded with Prepositions . 529
liii. The Conjunctions . . . . . . 541
liv. The Adverbs ........ 579
Iv. The Negative Particles 593
Ivi. Construction of the Negative Particles .... 627
Ivii. The Interrogative Particles ...... 638
B, THE STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES, AND THE COMBINA-
TION OF SENTENCES INTO PERIODS.
Sect. Iviii. The Sentence and its Elements in general . . . 644
lix. Enlargement of the Simple Sentence in the Subject and
Predicate : Attributives : Apposition . . . 657
Ix. Connexion of Sentences with one another : Periods . 673
IxL Position of Words and Clauses, especially when irregu-
larly arranged (Hyperbaton) ..... 684
Ixii. Interrupted Structure of Sentences : Parenthesis . . 702
Ixiii. Sentences in which the Construction is broken off or
changed : Anacoluthon : Oratio variata . . . 709
Ixiv. Incomplete Structure : Ellipsis : Aposiopesis . . 726
Ixv. Redundant Structure : Pleonasm (Redundance), Difl'use-
ness . . . . . ■ . . . . . 752
Ixvi. Condensation and Resolution of Sentences (Brevilo-
quence, Constructio praegnans, Attraction, etc.), . 773
Ixvii. Abnormal Relation of Particular Words in the Sentence
(Hypallage) ........ 786
Ixviii. Regard to Sound in the Structure of Sentences :
Paronomasia and Play upon Words (Annominatio) ;
Parallelism : Verse ....... 793
INDEX.
I. Passages of the New Testament 801
II. Passages of the Old Testament and Apocrypha . . . . 818
III. Subjects ■ 820
IV. Greek Words and Forms . .830
LIST OF AUTHOES.
B.C.
Acliilles Tatius ,
iEliaii ....
./Elian, the tactician .
iEneas of Gaza .
./Eachines, the philo.sopher ' 390
.^schines, the orator . . 340
.(Eschvlus .... 481)
^sop'2 . . . .600
Agathias ....
Alciphron . . .
Alexander Numenius (p. 749)
Ammonius, the grammarian
Anacreun ^ . . 520
Anilocides . .410
Anna Comiuiia .
Anonymi Chronologica * (p.
698) . . .
Antipater of Sidon (p. 733) lOr,
Antiphon . . . ioo
Antoninus Liberali.s .
Antdiiinus, Marc. Aureliiis
Aphthonins
ApoUodonis of Athens . 140
Apollonius Dyscolus .
Apollonius Rhodius . . 200
Appian ....
Aratiis 270
Aristsenetus
Aristarchus, the grammarian 170
Aristeas * . . . . 270
Aristides, the rhetorician .
Ari.stophanes . , .410
Aristotle .... 345
Arrian ....
Artemidorus Duldianus
Athenseus ....
A.D.
480?
210
120
490
.560
200 ?
150
390
1120
850
160?
160
300?
140
140
470?
160
140
150
200
Babrius .• . . .40?
Barnabas, Epistle of, written
about ... 100
Basilica, completed about . 900
Gallimachus . . . 270
Cananus, John . . . 1430
Cantacuzenus, John V. . 1355
Cebes . . . .400
Cedrenus, George . . 1060
Gharax, John ... ?
Chariton .... 500 ?
Chry.sostom, John . . 390
(.'iiinamus, John . . 1160
Clement of Alexandria . 195
Clement of Rome, Epitfth
of, written about . . 95
Cleomedes ... 200?
Codinus, George . . 1440
Constantino atanasses . llfiO
Constautine Porphyrogenitus 940
Demetrius Ixion
Demosthenes
Dexippus, the historian
Dicsarchus
Dinarchus
Diodorus Siculus
Diogenes Laertius
Dion Cassius
Dion Chrysostom
Dionysius of Halicarnassus
Dionysius Periegetes .
Dioscorides
Ducas, Michael . . ■
20
345
320
315
30
250
20
210
200
95
300 ?
100 f
1460
' The dialogues anil letters ascribed to tliis pliilosopher, togetlier with the otliei ' Kpj^t.
Socratis et Sociiitii'ormn,' .ire siJUiious.
2 The coUectiou of prose fables beai iiig jEsop's name is of very recent date. See Smith, DUt.
of Ptiogr. i. 47 sq.
^ Almost all tliat has come down to us under Anacreon's name is spurious. See Miiller, hit,
o/G^-eece, i. 245-249.
■t Probably written by Qeor<;ius ITaniartolus. See Diet, of Biogr. ii. 908.
5 The letter which bears the name of Aiisteas is spurious, but of early date,— not later than
the fir.st century b.o.
XXX
LIST OF AUTHORS.
Ephraera the Syrian
Epictetus
Epirapnides
Epiphanius, Bishop of Cy
pru3
Epiphanius, the monk
Etymologicum Maijnum
Eunapius .
Euripides .
Eusebins of Cssarea .
Eitstathius, the erotic writer
Eustathius, the giammarian
Eustratius, the philosopher
Galen
Geoponica compile'l
George Acropolita
George Clicerobosciis
George Pachymeres
George Phranzes
George the Pisidian
George the Synce'lus
Glycas, Michael
Gorgias of Leontiiii
Gregory of Corinth (Tardus)
Gregory of Nazianzus
Gregory of Nyssa
Heliodorus
Hermas
Herodian, the gramriarian
Heroflian, the historian
Herodotus
Hesiod
Hierocles (Neo-Platonist)
Himerius .
Hippocrates
Homer
Hyperides
tamblichus
Ignatius, Epistles of, written
about
Irenffius (Pacatus), the
grammarian .
Isaeus
Isocrates .
Jospphus .
Julian (Emperor)
Justin Martyr ' .
Leo Diaconus .
Leo, the grammarian
Leo VI. (the philosopher o
tactician)
Libanius .
B.C.
600
A.D.
350
90
435
430
370
1200?
1000?
390
315
1100?
1160
1100
i?.";
940
1260
400?
1280
1450
620
800
1180?
1150
370
375
390
140
160
215
440
860?
410
1
345
450
356
300
107
10?
370
380
75
355
130
980
940''
895
360
Longinus .
Longus
Lucian
Lycophron
Lycorgus, the orator .
Lysias
Macarius the EgyptiaTi
Macho
Malalas, John .
Malchus .
Manetho (author of 'atoti
Xierfiarixa),
Marinus, the philosopher
Maximus of lyre
Meleager .
Menander .
Menander, the historian
Mceris
Moschopuli, the (uncle and
nephew)
Moschus .
Nicander .
Nicephorus Blemraidas
NIcephorus Biyennius
Nicephorus Gregoras .
Nicephorus of Constanti
nople (Patr.) .
Nicephorus ii. (Emperor)
see p. 38
Nicetas Choniates
Nicetas Eugenianus .
Nilus
CEcumenius
(Enomaus
Ulyrapiodorus (Neo-Platon
ist)
Origen
Orphic Poems (earliest)
Paeanius .
Palaephatiis
Pausanias .
Petrus Patricius
Phalaris, Epistles of
Philo the Jew .
Philostratus, Flavins'
Philostratus, Flavins, ' of
Lemnos .
Photius,
Phrynichus
Pindar
Plato
Plutarch .
Pollux
B.C.
280
355
400
280
A.D.
250
400?
170
350
600?
500?
400?
485
190
60
310
590
200?
1300?
260
160
500?
1260
1100
1335
800
950
1190
1200?
420
950 1
150?
540
226
300?
470
380
400?
160
540
200?
30
220
240
860
170
90
170
• The date of his undisputed works is about 146 a.d.
* Author of Vd. ApoUotiii. VU. sophUtarum, Imagines, Heroica, etc.
' Author of another (smaller) work called ImagiTies.
LIST OF AUTHORS.
XXXI
B.a
A. D.
B.C.
A.n.
Polyjenus
150
Teles ....
.300
?
Polybius .
155
Theniistius
360
Porphyry .
280
Theocritus
275
PriscuB Panites
460
Theodoret ....
435
Proclus
455
Theodorus Gaza (p. 29)
1450
Procopius .
540
Theodosius Diaconus.
9«0
Psellus, Michael (the his
Theodosius, the grammarian
350?
torian) . .
107O
Tbeognis ....
530
Ptolemy . .
140
Theophane.s continuatus* .
Theophanes Isaurus .
940
800
Rosetta hiscription .
196
Theophrastus .
Theophylact (Abp. of Bul-
320
Scymnus of C'hios^
80
garia)' .
1070
Sextus Eiripiricus
230
Thomas Magister
1310
Sibylline Oracles (earliest)
' 150
Thucydidcs
420
Simplicius
530
Tiberius (p. 749)
?
Sophocles .
440
Htephanus of Byziintiimi
500?
Xenophon
390
Stobseus ,
480?
Xenophon of Ephesns
»
ytraV)0
10
Suidas
1050?
Zonaras ....
1115
Syiiesius .
410
Zosiiuus ....
440
The Septuagint version may be a.scribed to the period 280-160 B.C. Most of
the Greek books which arc usually inclmled iiudci- I be naiue ' Apocrypha '
belong (in their Greek dress) to the next hundred years ; the Prayer of
Manass«s and the third Book of Maccahefs fand possibly other books) are
later. The Psalms of Solomon may belong to the second century b.o., but
the Greek translation was probably made at a much later date. The versions
of Aquila. Symmachus, and Theodotiou v/ere executed in the second cr-ntury
A.I). To the same century are referred the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs feariy), the Protevangel of James (150 ?), the Gospel of Nico-
demus (first part — the 'Acts of Pilate'), the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the
Acts of 'J'homas.
EDITIONS QUOTED.
Kriiger, SpracUehrc : ed. 4, 1861-&2.
Matthise, SprachUhre : ed. 3, 1835.
Rost, Grammatik : ed. 7, 1856.
Buttmann, Or. Grammatik: ed. 21,
1863.
Ewald, Lehrhuch: ed. 7, 1863.
Jelf, Grammar: ed. 3, 1861.
Veitch, Greek Verba: ed. S, 1871.
Green, Gram, of tlie N. T. : ed. 2,
1862.
Tn the case of works not specified here or in the Preface, the references are
usually made to the last edition.
'Lob.' denotes Lobeck on Phrynichus ; ' Jrr. K.,' Fish lake's translation of
Buttmann 's Cafnlogue of Irregular Verbs (ed. 3, 18G6).
The notes appended by the former translator, Professor Masson, have the
signature '£. M.'
1 Author of a Periegesis, which is lost. The extant poem bearing the same name is of later
date.
2 See Diet, of Biogr ii. 757.
CORRIGENDA.
Page 274, line 18, after ii. 15, ifiaert [or rather, JuJe H.]
Page 336, line 2, for v. 4 rewl x. 4.
Page 588, line 10, /or former reorf latter.
Page 592, line 23, for SV»t» read vaZ.
N.B. — Where peculiarities in the form of words are in question (and therefore
in a large number of the quotations contained in §§ v.-xvi. of this book),
the references to the text of Westcott and Hortniustbe taken in connexion
with pages 141-173 of their Appendix, where many nlternailve readings are
given. When this Appendix -w as published (Sept. 1S81), the greater part
of the present volume vv;is aheady in type.
INTRODUCTION.
ON THE OBJECT, TKEATMEXT, AND HISTORY OF
N. T. GRAMMAR.
§ 1. The peculiar language of the N. T., like every other
language, presents two distinct aspects for scientific investiga-
tion. We may examine the several words in themselves as to
their origin and significations — the material element; or we may
consider these words as they are employed according to certain
laws to form clauses and periods — the formal element. The
former is the province of lexicography ; the latter of grammar,*
— which must be carefully distinguished from the laws of style
(or rhetoric) of the N. T.
N. T. lexicography, of which the examination of synonyms is a
Tery important part, though its importance has only of late been duly
recognised, has hitherto been treated in a merely practical manner.
A theoiij miglit however be constructed, for which the recently intro-
duced term lexicology would be a convenient name. No such theory
has as yet been fully developed for the N. T. ; but this is the less
surprising when we consider that the same want exists in connexion
with the classical languages, and that our exegetical theology is still
without a theory of Biblical criticism, higher and lower. Practical
lexicojrraphy has however suffered materially from this deficiency, as
might be easily shown by an examination of the lexicographical works
on the N. T., even the most recent. ^
A treatise on the laws of style or (to use the name adopted by
Glass and by Bauer, the author of Rhetorica Paulina) the Rhetoric of
the N. T. should investigate the peculiar features of the N. T. lan-
guage as shown in free, original composition, conditioned merely by
the character and aim of the writing, — first generally, and then with
reference to the peculiarities of the genera dicendi and of the several
^ On the separation of lexicography from grammar see an article by Pott, in
the Kieler allgem. Moaatssckr. July, 1851.
* For some remarks on the theory of lexicography see Schleiermaoher, ffer-
meneutik, pp. 49, 84. A contribution towards a comparative lexicography is
furui3hed by Zeller, in his TheoL Jahrb. II. 443 sqi^,
1
2 INTRODUCTION.
writers : compare Hand, Lfhrh. des led. Styls, p. 25 sq. Much yet
remains to be done in this department, especially as regards the
theor}' of the rhetorical figures, which have at all times been used
most mischievously in N. T. interpretation. The preparatory labours
of Bauer and D. Schulze ^ are of some use, and Wilke's compilation
(N. T. Pihetorik : Dresden, 1843) is worthy of attention: Schleier-
macher too gave excellent hints in his Herweneutik. Biblical rhetoric
would most appropriately include the treatment of the modes of
reasoning employed in the discourses of Jesus and in the apostolic
Epistles. By this arrangement, which agrees in principle with that
adopted by the ancient rhetoricians, we should avoid the excessive
subdivision of N. T. exegetics, and the separation of kindred subjects,
which throw light on one another when studied in connexion.^
It may be incidentally remarked that our Encyclopaedias still leave
very much to be desired in their delineation of exegetical theology
so called ; and that in practice the hermeneutics are not properly
distinguished from what we may call the philolog)/^ of the N. T., —
denoting by this name the whole of that province of exegetical
theology which has just been sketched in outline.
§ 2. As the language in which the K T. is written is a
variety of Greek, the proper object of a N. T. grammar would
be fully accomplished by a systematic grammatical comparison of
the N. T. language with the written Greek of the same age and
of the same description. As however this later Greek itself has
not yet been fully examined as a whole, and as N. T. Greek dis-
plays in general the influence of a foreign tongue (the Hebrew-
Ararnoean), N. T. grammar must take a proportionately wider
range, and investigate scientifically the laws according to which
the Jewish writers of the X. T. wrote the Greek of their time.
Let us suppose, for instance, that a grammar of the Egyptian or
Alexandrian dialect of Greek is required, that is, a grammar of the
language used by the Greek-speaking inhabitants of Alexandria,
gathered from all parts of the world. It will be necessary to collect
together all the peculiarities which make this a distinct dialect: but a
' K. L. Bauer, Rhetorica Paulina (Hal. 1782), and Philologia ThucydideO'
Paulina {\la\. 1773): under tliis head come also H. G. Tzschirner's Observa-
fioni's Pouli ap. epistolarum scriptoris Ingenium conccrnentes (Viteb. 1800).-—
J. D. S(;hulzc, D(r ncliriftsL Werth und Character des Johannes (Weisscnf.
1803); and two similar treatises by the same author, on Peter, Jttde, ar.d James
( VVcifiseiif. 1802), and on Mark (in Keil and Tzschirner's Analect. Vol. II. and
Vol. 111.).
* Compare also Gersdoif, Beitrilffe zur Sprachcharakterist. d. '^. T'. p. 7 ;
Keil, Lehrh. der H<rmcneutik, p. 28 ; C. J. Kellniann, Diss, de usu Rhetorices
hermenr.utiro (Gryph. 1766).
' 1 should prefer this old and intelligible appellation, " Philologia sacra N.T."
(compare J. Ch. Beck, Conitjyect. system, philol. sacroe: Bas. 1760, 12 sec-
tion. \ to that which Schleiermacher proposes in accordance with ancient usage,
" Grammar : " see Liicke on his Hermeneutik, p. 10.
TREATMENT OF N. T, GRAMMAR. 3
mere acciiraulation of disjointed details will not be sufficient ; we
must search for the leading characteristics, and we must show, in
every section of the grammar, liow the general tendency of the
dialect has affected the ordinary rules of Greek, by overlooking
niceties, misusing analogies, etc. The grammar of the dialect will
then be complete. Since the language of the N. T. is a variety
of later Greek, a special N. T. grammar could only portray it as
a species of a species, and would thus presuppose a grammar of
the ordinary later Greek. But it is hardly possible even to form
a conception of N. T. grammar so resti'icted, still less could such
a conception be Avorked out with advantage. For in the first place,
the grammar of later Greek, especially in its oral and popular form,
has not as yet been scientifically investigated,' and hence the founda-
tion which theory points out for a special N. T. grammar does not
actually exist. Moreover, the N. T. language in itself is said
also to exhibit the influence of a non-cognate tongue (the Hebrew-
Aramaean) upon the Greek.
For these reasons the boundaries of X. T. grammar must be
extended in two directions. It must first — since the reader brings
with him the ordinary grammar of the written language — investigate
the peculiarities of the later Greek in the N. T., according to the
principles mentioned above; and secondly, it must point out the
modifications which were introduced by the influence of the Hebrew-
Aramaean on the Greek, the details being classified as before. It is
not possible, however, to make a rigorous distinction between these
two elements ; for in the mind of the N. T. writers the mixture of
the (later) Greek with the national (Jewish) had given rise to a
single syntax, which must be recognised and exhibited in its unity.^
This treatment of N. T. grammar will be changed in one respect
only, when v/e are furnished with an independent grammar of later
Greek. Then the N. T. grammarian will not, as now, be compelled
to illustrate and prove by examples the peculiarities of the later
language ; a simple reference to these will suffice. On the other
hand, the polemic element in grammars of the N. T., which combats
' Valuable material for this purpose, though rather of a lexical than of a
grammatical character, will be found in Lobeck's notes on Phrynichi Eclogce
(Lips. 1820). Irmisch {on Herodian) and Fischer (Z>e 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, <ic., are
to be found in J. G. Straubc,' Diss, de emphasi Or. limjiup X. T., in Van den
Ilonert's Syntajwa, p. 70 s<(q.
' Weckberlin, llchr. Granutiat. (2 parts).
* .See the reviews in the Xeu. theol. Anna!. ISlfi, IT. pp. 850-879, and (by
d'j Wettc ?) the A. L. Z. 1816, N. 39-41, pp. 305-32G.
HISTORY OF N. T. GRAMMAR. 7
elements in the language of the N. T. ; has accordingly adduced as
Hebraistic very much which either is the common property of all
cultivated languages, or, at all events, occurs in Greek as frequently
as in Hebrew ; and, out of love to Storr's observations, has altogether
misinterpreted a multitude of passages in the N. T. (for examples see
below) hy/mcing Hebraisms upon them. Besides all this, everything
is in confusion, the arrangement of materials is most arbitrary, and
the book opens with a section on Tropes ! — a subject Avhich does not
belong to grammar at nil. Hence we cannot regard as too severe the
words with which the second of the reviewers above mentioned con-
cludes : " Seldom have we seen a book which has been so complete
a failure, and against the use of which it has been necessary to give
so emphatic a warning."
§ 4. The remarks .scattered through commentaries on the
N. T., books of observations, and exegetical monographs, though
sometimes displaying very respectable learning, yet when all
taken together presented no complete treatment of the grammar.
But even their incompleteness does less to render these collec-
tions useless, than the uncritical empiricism which ruled Greek
philology until the commencement of this century, and Hebrew
much later still ; as indeed this same empiricism has impressed
on N. T. exegesis also the character of uncertainty and arbitrari-
ness. The rational method of treatment, which seeks for the
explanation of all the phenomena of languages, even of their ano-
malies, in the modes of thought which characterise nations and
individual writers, has completely transformed thestudyof Greek.
The same method must be applied to the language of the N. T. :
then, and not till then, N. T. grammar receives a scientific
character, and is elevated into a sure instrument for exegesis.
The main features of this empirical philology, so far as grammar
is concerned, are the following :
(a) The grammatical structure of the language was apprehended
only in rudest outline, and hence the mutual relation of allied forms,
in which the genius of the Greek language is peculiarly siiown, — as
of the aorist and perfect, the conjunctive and optative, the two
negatives ov and fir/, — was left almost entirely undefined.
{b) Those forms whose true signification was generally recognised
were confounded together by an unlimited enallage, in virtue of
which one tense or case or particle might stand for another, even
for one of a directly opposite meaning, e.g. preterite for future, utto
for irpos, etc.
(c) A host of ellipses were devised, and in the simplest sentences
there was always something to be supplied.
The commentators applied these principles — which still appear in
Fischer's copious Animadv. ad Welkri Gramrn. G-r. (Lips. 1798 sqq.
8 INTRODUCTION.
3 spec.)— to the interpretation of the N. T. Nay they considered
themselves justified in using still greater freedom than classical philo-
logers, because (as they held) the Hebrew language, on the model of
which the Greek of the N. T. was framed, had as its distinguishing
characteristic the absence of all definiteness in forms and regularity
of syntax, so that Hebrew syntax was treated, not as a connected
whole, but only under enallage and solecism. i The ordinary com-
mentaries on the N. T. exhibit in profusion the natural results
of such principles, and Storr ^ earned the distinction of reducing
this whole /arra^o of crude empirical canons of language into a kind
of system. Apart from all other considerations, such canons of lan-
guage necessarily gave unlimited scope for arbitrary interpretation,
and it was easy to extract from the words of the sacred writers
meanings directly contrary to each other. ^
It was in Greek philology that the reformation commenced. A
pupil of Reitz, Gottfr. Hermann, by his work De eniendanda raiione
grammaticce Grcecce (1801), gave the first powerful impulse to the
rational* investigation of this noble language. In the course of more
than forty years this method has penetrated so deep, and has pro-
duced such solid results, that the face of Greek grammar is entirely
changed. It has recently been combined with historical investiga-
tion,^ and not without success. The principles of this method, which
entitle it to the name of rational, are the following :
(a) The fundamental meaning of every grammatical form (case,
tensi-, mood), or the idea which underlay this form in the mind of the
^ The attempts made by better scholars to combat this empiricism were
only partial and isolated. The Wittenberg Professors Balth. Stolberg (in his
Tractat. de solascitim. et barhariam. Or. N. F. dictionifalso tribuiis : Vit. 1681
and 1685) and Fr. Woken (in his Pietas critica in hypallagasbibl. : Viteb. 1718,
and esijecially in his Enallngce e N. T. Gr. textus prcecipuis el plurimia lo Is
exterminatoi : Viteb. 1730) exposed many blunders of the commentators, aiid
on the whole very intelligently. J. C. Schwarz also shows creditable learnin^-C
and acumen in his Lib. de opinatis dincipulor. Chr. soloirisviis (Cob. 1730).
Such voices were however not listened to, or were drowned by a contorte!
artificioiie !
* How complete a contrast is presented by his acute countryman Alb. Bengel,
in his Gnomon ! Though he often falls into over-refined explanations, and
attributes to the Apostles his own dialectic modes of thought, yet he left to
posterity a model of careful and spirited e.\position. He notices points of
grammar, — compare e.g. A. iii. 19, xxvi. 2, 1 C. xii. 15, Mt. xviii. 17, H. vi. 4 :
in the lexical department he pays especial attention to the examination of
synonyins.
* "Sunt," says Tittmann {Synon. N. T. I. p. 20*;}, "qui grammaticarum
legum observationem in N. T. intcrj>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!<cUIasi>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 i<l'omate tarn feliciter exprimi
possint, imo interdum ne exprimi quidem," — indeed as " gemmae
quibus (apostoli) scriptasua exornarint." After Beza, H. Stephens,
in the Prefxce to his edition of the N. T. (1576), entered the lists
against those "qui in his scriptis inculta omnia et horrida esse
putant ; " and took pains to show by examples the extent to which
the niceties of Greek are observed in the N. T., and how the very
Hebraisms give inimitable force and emphasis to its style. These
niceties of style are, it is true, rather rhetorical than linguistic, and
the Hebraisms are rated too high ; but the views of these two ex-
cellent Greek scholars are evidently less extreme than is commonly
supposed, and are on the whole nearer the truth than those of many
later commentators.
Both Drusius and Glass acknowledged the existence of Hebraisms
in the N. T., and gave illustrations of them without exciting opposi-
tion The first advocate of extreme views was Seb. Pfochen. In
his Diatribe deUnguce Gi-cecce N. T.puritate (Amst. 1629 : ed. 2, 1633),
after having in the Preface defined the question under discussion to
be, " an sty 'us N. T. sit vere Graecus nee ab aliorum Grsecorum stylo
alienior talisque, qui ab Homero, Demosthene aUisquo Graicis intel-
ligi potuisset," he endeavours to show by many examples (§ i^l-129),
" Gra^cos autores profanos eisdem phrasibus et verbis loquutos esse,
quibus scriptores N. T." (§ 29). This juvenile production however
— the principles of which were accepted by P^rasmus Schmid, as his
OpwpostlLumvm (1658) shows — seems to have excited little attention
at the time with its rigid Purism. The first who gave occasion
(though indirectly) for controversy on the diction of the N. T. was
the Hamburg Rector Joachim Jauge (1637, 1639) ; though his real
' [This portion of Planck's work is translated in the Biblical Cabinet, vol. vii.
pp. 67-71. The controversy is briefly sketched by Tregelles, in his edition of
Homo's Introduction, vol. iv. p. 21 scj.]
* See also Luumgarten, Polemik; iii. 176 sqq. The opinions of the Fathers
(especially the Apologists) on the style of the N. T. are given by J. Lami, De
erudit. Apostolor. p. 138 sq«i. They regard the subject more from a rhetorical
than from a gr;inuaatical point of view. Theodoret {Or. affect, cur.) trium-
phantly contrasts the aoXoixifffio'i aknuTiKo'i with the luXXoynrfu)) xmKei
14 OPINION'S ON THE CHARACTEE OF N. T. DICTION. [PART I.
opinions as to the Hellenism (not barbarism) of the N. T. style ^
were admitted by his opponent, the Hamburg Pastor Jac. Grosse
(1640), not indeed to be correct, but at all events to be free from
insidious intent."^ Tlie latter writer, however, brought upon himself
the censure of Dan. Wulfer (1640), who, in his Imiocentia Helle-
nistarum vindicata (without date or place), complained of the want of
clearness in Grosse's strictures.^ Grosse had now to defend himself,
not only against Wulfer, whom he proved to have misunderstood
his meaning, but also (1641) against the Jena theologian Joh.
Musaeus (1641, 1642), Avho found fault with Grosse's inconsistencies
and unsettled views, but wrote mainly in the interests of dogma (on
verbal inspiration). Hence by degrees Grosse gave to the world
five small treatises (1641, 1642), in defence, not of the classic
elegance, but of the purity and dignity of the N. T. language.
Without entering into these disputes, which passed into hateful
personalities, and which Avere almost entirely useless to science, Dan,
Heinsius (1643) declared himself on the side of the Hellenism of the
N. T. language ; and Thomas Gataker {De Novl InstrumenH stylo dis-
sert., 1648) wrote expressly — with learning, but not without exagge-
ration — against the Purism of Pfochen. Joh. Vorstalso now published
(1658, 1665) the well-arranged collection of N. T, Hebraisms which
for some time he had had in preparation : this work soon after fell
underthecensureof Hop. Vitringa, asbeing one-sided in ahigh degree.*
' In a German luemorial to the department of ecclesiastical affairs (1637)
Jiinge himself thns explains his true views : I have indeed said, and I still say,
that there exists in the N. T. wha,t is not really Greek. . . . The question an
N. T. srateat barbarismis is so offensive a question, that no Christian man
raised it before ; . . . that barharous fornuilas are to be found in the N. T. I
have never been willing to allow, especially because the Greeks themselves*
recognise a barbarism as a rnt'mm. [Limemanu refers to J. Junghts " Ueher die
O nglnalsprarhc des N. T." vom Jahre 1637 : anfijefunden, zuerd herausijeyeben
und einr/eleitet von Joh. Geffeken (Harab. 1863).]
* His two main theses are the following: "Quod quamvis evangelistfe et
apostoli in N. T. non adeo ornato et nitido, tumido et affectato(!) dicendi
genere usi sint . . . im])inin tamen, imo blasphemum sit, si quis inde S. litera-
rumstudiosus Grrecum stylum . . . sugillare, vilipendere et juventutisuspectura
facere ipsique vitia et notam soloecismorum et barbarismorum attricare con-
tendat. . . . Quod nee patres, qui sohecismorum et barbarismorum meminerunt
et apostolos idiotas fuiase scripsenuit, nee illi autores, qui stylum N. T. Helle-
nisticum esse statuerunt, nee isti, qui in N. T. Ebraismos et Chaldaismos esse
observanint, stylum s. apostolorum contemserint, sugillarint eumque impuritatis
alien jus accusarint cet."
^Grosse's work was strictly directed against a possible inference from the
position that the Greek of the'N. T. is not such as native Greek authors use, and
in the main concerns adversaries that (at all events in Hamburo;) had then no
existence. Besides, lie keeps throughout mainly on the negative •side ; as is
shown, for example, by the resume (p. 40 of Grosse's TriaA) : Etiamsi Graecus
.etylus apostolorum non sit tam ornatus et affectatus, ut fuitillequi fuit florente
Gn-^icia, non Atticus ut Athenis, non Doricus ut Corintht, non lonicns utEphesi,
non ^EoIiCus ut Troade, fuit tamen vere Gnccus ab oniui sohecisniorum et bar-
barismortim labe immunis.
* In the preface Vorst expresses his conviction, *' sacros codices N. T. talibus
ct vocaV)ulis et phrasibus, quaj Hebra^am linguam sapiant, ficafere plane." Com-
pare also his Cuyitata de stylo JV. T., prefixed to Fischer's edition of his work oa
Hebraisms.
SECT. I. ! OPINIONS ON THE CHAI?ACTER OF N. T. DICTION. 1 5
J. H. Bocler (1641) and J. Olecarius (1668) ^ took a middle course,
discriminating with greater cdre between the Hebrew and the Greek
elements of the N. T. style ; and with them J. Leusden agreed in
the main, though he is inferior to Olearius in discretion.
By most, however, it was now regarded as a settled point that the
Hebraisms must be allowed to be a very prominent element in the
language of the N. T., and that they give to the style a colouring, not
indeed barbarous, but widely removed from the standard of Greek
purity.^ This is the result arrived at by Mos. Solanus in a long-
deferred but very judicious reply to Pfochen. Even J. Heinr.
Michgielis (1707) and Ant. Blackwall (1727) did not venture to deny
the Hebraisms : they endeavoured to prove that the diction of the
N. T. writers, although not free from Hebraisms, still has all the
qualities of an elegant style, and is in this respect not inferior to
classic purity. The latter scholar commences his work(whichabounds
in good observations) with these words : "We are so far from denying
that there are Hebraisms in the N. T., that we esteem it a great advan-
tage and beauty to that sacred book that it abounds with them." Their
writings, however, had as little effect on the now established opinion
as those of the learned Ch, Siegm. Georgi, who in his Vlndicice N. T.
oh Ebraismis (17^2) returned to the more rigid Purism, and defended
his positions in his Hierocriticus sacer (1 733). He was followed, with
no greater success, by J. Conr. Schwarz, the chief aim of whose
Commentarii crit. ct philol. lingua: Gr. N. T. (Lips. 1736) was to prove
that even those expressions which had been considered Hebraisms
are pure Greek.^ The last who joined these writers in combating
the abuse of Hebraisms were Pil. Palairet (Obscrvatt. philol. crit. in
N. T. : Lugd. Bat. 1 752) * and H. W. van Marie {Florileg. observ. in
epp. apostol. : Lugd. Bat. 1758). Through the influence of the school
of Ernesti a more correct estimate of the language of the N. T.
became generally diffused over Germany : ^ compare Ernesti, Instit.
Interp. I. 2, cap. 3. [Bihl. Cab. I. p. 103 sqq.]
^ The Stricturce in Pfochen. diatrib. by J. Cotcejus were drawn up merely for
private use, and wore first published in Rhenferd's Sammlung.
* See also Werenfels, Opusc. I. p. 311 sqq. — Hemsterhuis on Lucian, Dial.
Mar. 4. 3 : " Eorum, qui orationem N. F. Graecam esse castigatissimam con-
tendunt, opinio pPHjuani mihi semper ridicula fuit visa." Blth. Stolberg also
{De solcecismis tt hnrbarlsmig N. T. : Viteb. 1681 and 1685) wished merely to
vindicate the N. T. from blemishes unjustly ascribed to it ; but in doing this he
explained away many real Hebraisms.
3 Conscious of certain victory Schwarz speaks thus in his preface (p. 8) :
" Olim Hebraismi, Syrismi, Chaldaismi, Eabinismi (sic!), Latinismi cet. cele-
brabantur nomina, ut vel scriptores sacvi suam Graecae dictionis ignorantiam
prodere aut in Gneco sermone tot linguarum notitiam osteutasse viderentur vel
saltern interpretes iUorum literatissimi et singularum locutionum perspicacissimi
judicarentur. Sed conata lusc ineptiarum et vanltatis ita sunt efiam a nob'is con-
victa, ut si qui cet." A satire on the Purists may be seen in Somnium in quo
prceter cetera genins sec. vapulat (Alteburg, 1761), p. 97 sqq.
* Supplements by Palairet himself are to be found in the Biblioth. Brem. nova
CI. 3, 4. In the main, however, Palairet quotes parallels almost excln.sively for
meanings and phrases which no man of judgment will regard as Hebraisms.
* Emesti's judgment on the diction of the N. T. {Diss, de difficult, interpret,
grammat. N. T. § 12) may here be recalled to mind : *' Genus orationis in libris
IG OPINIONS ON THE CHARACTER OF N. T. DICTION. [PART I.
Most of the (older) controversial works on this subject (those
mentioned above and others besides) are collected in J. Rhenferd's
Dissertalt. philolog.-theolog. de stylo N. T. syntagma (Leov. 1702), and
in what may be considered a supplement to this work, Taco Hajo
van den Honert, Syntagma dlssertatt. de stylo N. T. Grxco (Amst.
1703).! , . , ,
We will endeavour briefly to describe the mode in which the
Purists sought to establish their theory."^
Their efforts were mainly directed towards collecting from native
Greek authors passages in which occur the identical words and
phrases which in the N. T. are explained as Hebraisms. In general,
no distinction was made between the rhetorical element and what
properly belongs to language ; but besides this the Purists over-
looked the following facts :
(a) That many expressions and phrases (especially such as are
fio-urative) are from their simplicity and naturalness the common
property of all or of many languages, and therefore can no more be
called Oraecisms than Hebraisms.^
(b) That a distinction must be made betAveen the diction of poetry
and that of prose, and also between the figures which particular
writers may now and tlien use to gi^'e elevation to their style (as
luviina (yrationis) and those which have become an integral part of
the language. If expressions used by Pindar, TEschylus, Euripides,
&c., occur in the plain prose of the N. T./ or if these expressions or
rare Greek figures are here in regular and ordinary use, this furnishes
no proof at all of the classical purity of N. T. Greek.
(c) That when the N. T. writers use a form of speech which is
N. T. esse e pure Greecis et Ebrairam maxuue consuetiidineni refeientibus verbis
Ibrmulisque dicendi mixtum et temperatuia, id quidem adeo evidens est iis, qui
satis Grtece sciunt, ut plane viisericordia di^ni nint, qui omnia bene (Jraca esse
contendant.
^ The essays of Wu'fer, Grosso, and Mus;t>us, 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. Pr<zf. p. 3. Leusden (//e Dtale.ctis,
p. 37) says most absurdly, *' Nos non fudt caruiina istorum horninum (tragicor.)
innnmeris Hebraismis esse contaminata. ' Fischer accordingly finds Hebraisms
in the poems of Homer {ad Leusd. p. 114).
SECT. I.] OPINIONS ON THE CHARACTER OF N. T. DICTION. l7
common to both languages, their education renders it, in general,
more probable that the phrase was immediately derived from the
Hebre\v,and not borroAved from the refined written language of Greece.
(d) These uncritical collectors, moreover, raked together very
many passages from Greek authors which contain (a) the same word,
indeed, but in a different sense ; or (/3) phrases which are merely
similar, not exactly parallel.
(e) They even used the Byzantine writers without scruple, though
many constituents of the Hebraistic diction of the N. T. may have
foimd their way into the language of these writers through the
medium of the church, — a supposition which in particular instances
may be shown to be even probable, comp. Niebuhr, Index to Agathias,
B. V. ^r]fiLov(r6aL, — and though these writers at all events cannot be
adduced as evidence for ancient Greek purity of expression.
(/) Lastly, they passed over many phrases altogether in silence,
and were compelled to pass them over, because they are undeniably
Hebraisms.'
Their evidence, therefore, was either incomplete or beside the
mark. Most of the Purist writers, too, restricted thrmselves by
preference to 'the lexical element; Georgi alone took up the gram-
matical, and treated it with a copiousness founded on extensive
reading.
A few remarkable examples shall be given in proof of the above
assertions. 2
(a) On Mt. V. 6, ■rr€tvu)VT€<; koL Sii^wvtc? t^v SiKaiocrvvrjv, passages
are adduced from Xenophon, ./Eschines, Lucian, Artemidorus, to
prove that ^nfnju in this (figurative) sense is pure Greek. But as
the same figure is found (in Latin and) in almost all languages,
it is no more a Grsecism tljan a Hebraism. The same may be
said of €(t6Ulv (KaTecrOUtv) figur. consume: this cannot be proved
from Jliad 23. 182 to be a Gra^cism, or from Dt. xxxii. 22, &c., to be
a Hebraism, but is common to all languages. For the same reason
we could wqU spare the parallels to -ycvta generation, ie. the men of
a particular generation (Georgi, Vind. p. 39), to _;^etp power, to 6 Kvpw;
T^s oiVtas, and the like. But it is really laughable to be referred
on Mt. X, 27, Krjpv^are cttl twv Stu/xarwv, to >4isop 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 6<f)€i\6-
fieva means dehita, as elsewhere. In the same way, most of the
passages adduced by Georgi (Hierocr. p. 36 sq., 186 sq.), to prove
that €is and iv are interchanged in the best Greek authors, as in
the N. T., are altogether inappropriate. Compare also Krebs, Obs.
(/3) To prove that elpia-Ketv x«P"' (eXcos) irapd rivt is not a Hebraism,
Georgi (Vind. p. 116) quotes evpla-Kcadai Tr]v dpijvyjv, r»/i/ Swptdv, from
Demosthenes ; as if the Hebraism did not rather consist in the whole
phrase (for the use of find for attain is certainly no Hebraism), and
as if the difference in the voice of the verb were of no consequence
whatever. For -n-orripiov sors Palairet quotes such phrases as
Kparrjp a'/AaTo? (Aristoph. Acliam.) ', for TTtTTTeiv irritum esse Schwarz
brings forward Plat. Kuthyphr. 14 d, ov x°-F^'- ""to-tiTat o, ti av ct7r6ts'
The familiar merismus d-rro p.iKpov Icos /xcyaXov is claimed as pure
Greek - on the authority of passages in which ovt€ p-^ya ovre ap-iKpov
occurs. But it is not the merismus in itself that is Hebraistic, but
' Compare however Boissonade, Nic. p. 282.
* Georgi, I'ind. p. 810 sqq., Schwarz, Comment, p. 917. Compare Schiefer,
Julian, \). xxL
SECT. I.] OPINIONS ON THE CHARACTER OF N. T. DICTION. 19
only- the precise phrase utto fi. ew? /icy., which is not foand earlier
than Theophan. cont. p. G15 (Beklc). Kap-n-os rrj^ KotXta?, 6rr4>oo<;, 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^€<T0aL are pure Greek; and Palairet justilies
the use of rj ^yfyi for continens from Jo. Cinnam. Hist. 4. p. 183.
Still more singular is Pfochen's reference to Lucian, Mort. Peregr.
c. 13, as justifying the use of koivo? with the meaning immundus :
Lucian is scoHingly using a Jewish (Christian) expression.
(/) Of the many words and phrases which these writers have
entirely passed over in silence, we will only mention iTp6%u>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. <iwB(lnm ad hist, verhi Or. N. T. (Gott.
1821, and in Koseumiiller's Comin. Theol. I. i. p. 193 sqq.) See further (De
Wctte in) the A. Lit. Z. 1816. No. xxi.x. p. 306.
20 B49ia OF THE N. T. DICTION. [PART I.
Section II.
BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION.
In the age of Alexander the Great and his successors the
Greek language underwent an internal change of a twofold kind.
On the one hand, a literary prose language was formed, having
the Attic dialect as its basis, but distinguished from it by the
admission of a common Greek element, and even by many pro-
vincialisms: this is known as r) koivt] or iWrjviKrf Bcd\€Kro<i. On
the other hand, there arose a language of common life, a popu-
lar spoken language, in which the peculiarities of the various
dialects, which had hitherto been confined to particular sections
of the Greek nation, were fused together, the Macedonian ele-
ment being most prominent.^ This spoken Greek — which again
varied to some extent in the different provinces of Asia and Ainca
that were subject to the Macedonian rule — is the true basis of
the language of the LXX and the Apocryi)ha, and also of the
N. T. language. Its characteristics, amongst which must also
be included a neglect of nice distinctions uud a continued effort
after perspicuity and coi venience of expression, may fitly be
divided into Lexical and Grammatical.
The older works on the Greek dialects are now nearly usele.sa,
especially as regards the Kotv^ SioXcktos. The subject is best treated
in brief by Matthiae, Au.'if. Grumm. §§ 1-8, and (still more thoroughly)
by Buttmann, Jiisf. Sprachl I. 1-8 ; also, though not with perfect
accuracy, by H. Planck, /. c. pp. 13-23 [Bib. Cub. I. 113 sqq.]. Com-
pare also Tittmann, Syn. I. 262 sii., and Bernhardy p. 28 sqq. (Don.
pp. 1-4.) 2
The Jews of Egypt and Syria3--of these alone we are now speaking
^ Stuiz, p. 26 sqq. But the snbject deserves a new and thorough investi-
gation : it ran scarcely be disposed of by such dicta as that quoted by Thiersch,
JJe Pevt. Al. p. 74.
2 [The peculiarities of the Ore^k spoken in different conntries and at
difl'erent periods are carefully reviewed by MuUach, Grkch. Vulgai-sprache,
pp. 1-107.]
^ It is not possible to point out with exactness what belonged to the language
of Alexandria, and what was or became peculiar to the Greek dialect of Syria
(and Palestine) ; and the in([uiry is not ot great iippDrtance, even for the N. T.
Kichliorn's attempt (Einl. ins N. T. IV. VH aqq.) was a failure, and could not
be otherwise, as it was conducted with little critical accuracy. TEhp(^a.fiiffTt7t, a
word used by Demosthenes and by many writers from the time of Polybius, is
said by Eichhorn to have been a late addition to the Alexandrian dialect ; and
ity'Xti*, hospitio excipere, which is found in Xenophon and even in Homer, is
pronounced Alexandrian ! To what extent Greek was spoken by the Jews of
Syria (and Palestine), we need not here inquire. On this .see Paulus, De Judam
Paltist. Jesu et apost. tempore non Aram, dialecto sed Grceca quoqve lorntis
(Jen. 1803) ; Hug, Introd. II. § 10 ; Winer, BWB. II. p. 502 ; Schleiermacher,
SECT. II.] BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 21
— learned Greek in the first instance by intercourse with those who
spoke Greek, not from books ; ^ hence we need not wonder that in
writing they usually retained the peculiarities of the popular spoken
language. To this class belonged the LXX, the N. T. writers, and
the authors of the Palestinian apocryphal books. It is only in the
writings of a IV- w learned Jews who prized and studied Grecian litera-
tui'e, such as Philo and Josephus,^ tliat we find a nearer approach to
ordinary written Greek. We have but an imperfect knowledge of this
spoken language,* but a comparison qf Hellenistic Greek (apart from
its Hebraic element) with the later written Greek enables us to infer
that the spoken language had diverged still more widely tlian the
written from ancient elegance, admitting new and provincial words
and forms in greater number, neglecting more decidedly nice dis-
tinctions in construction and expression, misusing grammatical com-
binations through forgetfulness of their origin and principle, and
extending farther many corruptions which were already appearing in
the literary language. Its main characteristic, however, continued to
be an intermixture of the previously distinct dialects (Lob. Path. 1. 0),
of auch a kind that the Greek spoken in each province had as its basis
the dialect formerly current there : thus Atticisms and Dorisms pre-
duniinated in Alexandrian Greek. From the dialect spoken in Egypt,
especially in Alexandria (dialcctus Alcxandrina)* Hellenistic Greek
was immediately derived.
Harm. p. 61 .vj. [See also Diodati, Dt Christo Grace loquente. (Naples, 1767 ;
ifpiintod 184;5, with a preface by Dr. Dobbin) ; Davidsoa, Jntrod. to N. T.
(1818) I. 157-41; (ireswell, DisserlalioiiH, I. 136 sqq. ^2rid ed. ) ; Grinfield,
Apology for the LXX, pp. 77, 184 ; Smith, Diet, of Bible, ii. 531 ; Koberts,
-DuscusaionH on the. Gospels, pp. 1-316. The .subject is most fully examined
by Dr. Koberts, wliose conclusion is that Greek was "the common language of
public int«ii'Course " at tliis time. See further Schurer, Lehrh. d. neut. Zt.lt-
(je,schichte, p. 376 .s<j. ; and comp. Westcott, St. John, p. Iviii.]
^ Tiiat the reading of the LXX contributed to the formation of their Greek
style makes no rwsential difference here, as we are now referring immediately to
the national Greek element. It ia now generally acknowledged that even the
apostle Paul cannot be supposed to have received a learned Greek edncation
(amongst others see Plochen, p. 178). He certainly displays greater facility in
writing Greek than the I'alestinian apostles, but this he might easily acquire in
Asia Minor and through his extensive intercourse with native Greeks, some of
whom were persons of learning and distinction. Kbster {^Stiid. u. Krit. 1854, 2),
to prove that Paul formed his style on the model of Demosthenes, collects from
this orator a number of parallel words and phrases ; nearly all of these, however,
Paul might acquire from the spoken language of educated Greeks, and otliers
are not really parallel. In the case of men who moved .so much among Greeks,
copiousness and ease of style furnish no proof of acquaintance with Greek
literature.
^ A comparison of the earlier books of the Antiquities of Jo.sephus with th';
corresponding portions of tlie LXX will clearly show that his style cannot be
placed on the same level with that of the LXX, or even of the N. T., and wiil
exhibit the ditlerence between the Jewish and the Greek style of narration.
Compare further Schleiermacher, Herm. p. 63.
^ llence it will never be possible to supply the want of which Schleiermacher
complains {Htnn. p. 59), and give a "complete view of the language of common
life."
* On this subject {•rifi rUs ' AXilav'Bpiut lutXiKTov) the grammarians IreuiBua
(Pacatus) and Demetrius Ixion wrote special treatises, which are now lest ;
22 BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. [PART I.
We proceed to trace in detail the later elements found in Hellenistic
Greek, noticingfirst the lexical peculiarities, and then the grammatical,
which are less conspicuous. This inquiry must be founded on the
researches of Sturz, Planck, Lobeck, Boissunade, and others ; ^ and
to their works the reader is referred for citations — mainly from the
writers of the kolv^, Polybius, Plutarch, Strabo, ^lian, Arteraidorus,
Appian, Heliodorus, Sextus Empiricus, Arrian, &c.'^ — in proof of
the various particulars. We mark with an asteiisk whatever appears
to belong exclusively to the popular spoken language, and does not
occur in any profane author.'
LEXICAL PECULIARITIES.
(a) The later dialect comprehended words and forms from all the
dialects without distinction.*
(1) Attic : voAos (ucAos, Lob. p. 309), 6 (rK6TO<; (to <r.), dcros (accTos,
Herm. Free/, ad Soph. Aj. p. 19), <i>LaXrj {^UX-q), 6Xri6av (Lob. p.
151),^ yrpvfjiva (Trpvfx.vrj, Lob. p. 331), tAews (uVaos).
(■J) Doric : Trta^w (Trte'^w; K\i^avo<i (/<pi/Savos, Lob. p. 179), rj \ifio<i
(6 A.), TToia grass (for ttolj] or -n-oa) ; also probably /Se/x/J/oai^as, quoted
see Sturz, p. 24, and comp. p. 19 sij. The well-known Kosctta insciiption is a
specimen of this dialect : other extant monnments will be found in A. Peyron'a
Papyri Grceci reg. Taiirin. Musei ^gyptii ed. et illustrati (Turin, 1827, 2 vols.
4to. ), and his lllustrazione di due papiri greco-egizi delV imper. mutseo di Vienna
(in the Memorie dell' academ. di Torino, Tom. 33, p. 151 sqq., of the historical
class); Description of the Grenk papyri in the British Museum (London, 1839,
Part i. ) ; J. A. Letronne, Recueil des inscriptions grecques et latines de I'Egypte
d-c. (Paris, 1842, 184S, 2 torn.) [See also Mullach, Vulgarsp. p. 15 sqq.]
' hut see al.so Olearius, De Stylo N. T. p. 279 sqq.
' Tlie Fathers and the books of Roman law have hitherto been almost entirely
neglected in the investigation of later Greek ; to the latter frequent reference
will be made in the course of this work. [See Mullach, p. 31 sqq., 51.] How
far the N. T. diction through the medium of the Church aflected the Later
Byzantine Greek, is reserved for speciiil inquiry. The spurious apocryphal
books of the 0. T. {Libri Pseudepigraphi) and the apocryphal books of the
N. T. are now accessible in a more complete form and with a better text (the
latter books through the labours of Tischendorf), and may be used for points of
detail : tlie style of these productions as a whole (though in this respect they
differ among themselves) is so wretched, that the N. T. diction appears classic
Greek in comparison. Compare Tisch. De evangclior. apocryph. origine et usv, in
the Verhandelingen uitgeven door het Hangsche Genootschap, dec. (Pt. 12. 1851).
' The Greek grammarians, particularly Thomas Magister (latest edition,
Kitschl's : Halle, 1832), specify as common Greek much that is found even in
Attic writers : see e.g. h/iixios in Thom. M. p. 437, ifiwu/nx, ib. p. 363. Indeed
they ;ire not free from even gross mistakes ; comp. Oudendorp ad Thorn. M.
p. 90;". Much however that made its way into the written language aftrr
Alexander f lie Great may probably have existed in the spoken language at an
earlier date ; this was perhaps the case with <rT/)»)w«», which we meet with first
in the poets of the new comedy. — The N. T. MTiters sometimes use words and
forms which are preferred by the Atticists, instead of those which they assign
to common Greek : as ^cf^'^^'^if, '^^- M. p. 921,— « (not «') XaTxccy^, ib. p. 504.
* [In this section, (a), I have added in each case the other form of the word :
thrs Lobeck speaks of SaXos oh the Attic form, not UtktK.]
■' ['ax»;Vh» is rejected by the Atticists, and Lobeck I.e. agrees with them in the
main ; ccxiu is the regular Attic form, — "the later writers used in the present
*A7)/a;, wliich liowcver was still an ancient form." Irr. V. s. v.]
SECT. II.] BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 2 3
by Zonaras from 2 Tim. iv. 13, where, however, all our MSS. have
f^€n/3., see Sturz, Zonarce glossce sacrce II. p. 16 (Grimmee, 1820).
(3) Ionic : yoyyvtai (Lob. p. 358), prj(TCT(ii {p-qyvviii), Trptjvrj'i (-Trpavrys,
— yet TTprjvrj^ is found in Aristotle, Lob. p. 431), f^aOp-o^ (fiacrp.6<;,
Lob. p. 324), o-KopTTi'^etv (Lob. p. 218), Sipa-qv, Buttm. I. 84 (Jelf 33),
comp. Fritz. Rom. L 78. ^ To Ionic and Doric Greek belong
il\taa-€tv (Rev. vi. 14 V. I., comp. Matth. 12. 4), <f>v(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"), <TvyKpiv€iv compare (Lob. p. 278), Saijuiov, haip^viov evil spirit,^
<^^\ov {living) tree (Lidd. and l^cott s. v.), StaTrovcicr^at cegre /erre*
arkyuv hold off, endure,^ aefidt^a-Oai reverence ( = a-efSicrOaL, Fritz.
Rom, I. 74), a-vvi(x-rqiu prove, establish (Fritz. Rom. I. 159),
Xp-qp-aTlC^Lv be called (Fritz. Rom. II. 9), <p9d.vtLv come, arrive
(Fritz. Rom. II. 356), KC(^aAt's volume, roll (Bleek on H. x. 7),
iv(Txrip.u)v one of noble station (Loh. p. 333), \f/(j)p.L^€iv and xopTci^eti'
feed, nourish,*^ oi//ojvtov ^ay (Stupz p. 187), o^dptov fish, ipevyea-Oat
eloqui (Lob. p. 63), eVio-TeAAtii/ write a letter (cVio-toAij), ■trtpia-iTaa-OaL
necfutiis distrahi (Lob. p. 415), Trrai/xa corpse^ (Lob. p. 375), yf.vvrjpM.ra
* [Tischendorf now receives the Ionic iirn in Mk. iv. 28, and in L. xiii. 34 the
Doric opv,\ : in Eev. iii. 16 S has x,^npis.'\
* [On the jEolic xtUvu {x''"^!") see below, § 15 (Jelf 10. 6).]
^ On this word sec Donaldson, New C'r. p. 701 ; Blakesley, Herod, i. 5.56 sqq.]
•* [On this word and tlie next see Ellicott's notes on E. vi. 4, Col. i. 12.]
* [So Fritzsche {Rom. II. 428), "Valere serioribus Greecis ivT/Xeys/v non solum
repugnare verbis .sed etiam reniti re etfactis frustra neges : " see also Alf. on H.
xii. 3. Meyer (on Rom. x. 21) maintains that this verb always denotes opposi-
tion in words. ]
* That is, as its inherent signification, for the word is used in reference to an
evil demon as early as Homer {Iliad 8. 166) : of the same kind is also Dinarch.
adv. Demosth. § 30. p 155 (Bekker), a passage quoted by recent writers. Even
the Byzantines, to speak with exactness, add xaxas to ialftuv (Agath. 114. 4).
^ [On this word see Alford on 1 C. ix. 12 ; on ffviiffrvfti, EUic. on G. ii. 18 ; on
(pfdmiv, EUic. on Ph. iii. 16 ; on KKpaxU, Alibrd on H. x. 7.]
* This extension <jf meaning might in itself be considered a Hebraism. It
had become customary to use ^ufiiZ,iiv as entirely equivalent to p^3Xn (comp.
Grimm on Wis. xvi. 20), like x'>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.<rdai is only a similar,
not an identical phrase. That which the same writer quotes as a
stately formula, a-wTrjpelv eV rfj KapSia, never occurs without emphania
in the N. T. Kopda-iov, on the other hand, is an example of a word
which passed from the language of ordinary life into the written
language (compare the German Mddel), losing its accessory meaning
(Lob. p. 74).6
{d) Many words -which had long been in use received a new
form or pronunciation, by which the older was in most caaes super-
seded : as fxeTOLKiaia (/utcrotKta), iKccria (iKcreta, Lolo. p. 50i), uva-
OefjLa {avd6r]fia),^ dvaore/Aa, yevecria (yeveOXia, Lob. p. 104), yXojtr-
^ [With the reading apva >.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<i (x^^'s)> 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(TL<i, Lob. p. 512), d7rapTtcr//,os (aTrapTio-ts),
/MeXiao-io^ (yu-cXiVcreios), TroraTros (TroSuTros, Lob, p. 56j, fjaa-iXicrtra
(f3a<T iXeia)/' ^ot^^ttAis (jUoi;)(as, Lob. p. 452), fjiov6<f)6a\p.o^ (erf/uo-
<pdaXpo<;, TiOb. J). 13G), KajLfxviiv {KO.Tap.vetv , Sturz p.' 173), ot/^i/xos"
(oi^tos, Lob. p. 52), 6 TrXijatov (6 TTeAas), 7rposr)A.uTos (Ittt^Avs, \ alcK.
«c? Ammon. p. 32), ffiva-Lova-Oai (<f>v(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)po(rvv7]),*
TTTvov {iTTeox', Lob. p. 321), ^LOvpicrTrfs {ij/Ldvpwi, Til. M. p. 927),
hiTapLov, and most of the diminutives in apiov, as TraiSdpiov, ovdpuw
(Fritz. Mark, p. 638). 'AKp6/3v<xTo% and aKpo^varia are purely Alex-
andrian, liaving been first used by the LXX (Fritz, lioin. I. 136).
For verbs in px we find forms in to pure, as opLvvm for op.vvp.t (Tli.
M. p. 648). Compare also ^vpoM for ^vpe^a (Th. M. p. 642, Pliot.
Lex. p. 313, Lob. p. 205, and ad Soph. Aj. p. 181), the present
(iapiu) for papvvd) (Til. M. p. 141), crapoCv for craipeiv (Lob. p. 83),
XoA.ai/ (xoXovaOai), i^uv etvai for e^eii/ai (Foertscli, De locis Lvsice,
p. 60). Verbs used in the older written language as middle or de-
ponent now receive active forms ; as Kftpvaa-auv A. iv. 25 (from Pf<.
ii. 1), dyaXXiav L. i. 47, eiayycXi^eLV [Rev. X. 7, 1 Sam. xxxi. 9],
Lob. p. 268. Compound verbs, where the meaning itself was not
extended by the prepo.sition, were preferred to the less graphic and
less sonorous simple verbs ; ■* and, as sometimes even compound
' [See Ellicott on Ph. iv. 6. J
- [And oixeihofj.niu.ee, Lob. (. c. ; see Ellic. on E. ii. 21.]
^ &'iu\i\d\-\y i'ifiiT(rtt.(Papyr. Taur. 9. \i)iionihpivs: compare further Sturz p. 173.
* That, conversely, simple verbs were sometimes used instead of compound
by later writers, Tisehendorf {Stud. u. Krit. 1842, p. ^>^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,<raa6u.i, rma.ipo'tZ,iiy, have been substituted in many M8S. J
26 BASIS OF THE K. T. DICTIOX. [PART I.
verbs did not appear sufficiently expressive, many double compounds
were formed.^ For several nouns, mostly denoting parts of the
human body, diminutive forms, losing their special meaning, came
into common use in colloquial language ; as dtrlov (comp. Fischer,
Proluss. p. 10, Lob. p. 211), 4>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}po<l)opia (Theophan. p. 132), KaAoTroictc (Lob. p. 199),
al)(/j.aX<t)Ti^eiv and al^fj.aXu)Tev€iv (for alxp-dXiDTOv vouu', Th. M p. 23,
Lob. p. 442), fiea-LTiveiv, yvfXvrjTeveiv, ayaOoTroulv (ayaOoepyeiv) for
dya6bv ttouIv (Lob. p. 675), dyaAAiacrtc, opo6c(rta, ai'TiXvTpuv,* ck-
fj.VKTr]pi(€iv* dX€KTopo(f>iovia (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<i (Lob. p. 51).
(4) Verbs m oco, i^w, o^w, as duaKaivow, Ewapt'io), a(f)VTrv6to. SoAiooJ,
igovSep oui,* or 6 euoo), opOpi^o)^* 8eiy//art^oj,* 6eaT[iL,(i)^ (f)vXaKiX<»* uiarLi'o),
oKovTi^w, TTiXfKi^oj (Lob. p. 341), alptTito} (Babr. 61, Boissou. Anecd,
II. 31 8), a-ivLo^o).
^ Siebelis, Pr. de verb, compofi. qtwe quabuor purtH>. constant [Q\x<i\^^. 1832).
' Also abbreviated forms of proper n-auies. which no doubt were pre-
viously used in the popular language, were admitted into the written ; as
'.\Xf|aj, ItccmIo. (for 'iffTa^'ia), iic. The derivatives of lixf^'^'^* were but slightly
altered, as truvia^ivi, ^itoiaxtv;, for TailDxivs, &(;. (Lob. p. 307).
* Many such words have been collected from the Fathers by Suicer, Sacra-
Ohaen-att. p. 311 sqq. (Tigur. 11565).
* in the written language iyKaxii* alone was used ; see Winer, Gal. p. .131,
and Meyer on 2 C. iv. 1. ['E»*. occurs six times in Rec. but Ijfichm , Tisch. ,
Ellic, Westcott and Hort read iyx. (t»«. ) in every case. The Fathers use
lyKKKuv. See Ellic. and Lightf. on G. vi. 9, Alf. on 2 C. iv. 1.]
' [Sec EUicott on E. ii. 19 On Kti6u;, luentioncd below, see tllicott on G. iii 6 ]
SECT. II.] BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 27
To these may be added the two presents formed from perfects,
(TTTjKio (see above), y//i/yopw (Lob. p. 118). Compare also such ad-
Veibs as Trai-rort (ciunayTos, e/cao-Tore, Sturz p. 187), vaiSioOev (eK
TraioLov, Lob. p. 93), KaOws (Sturz p. 74), iravoLKL (iravoiKia., TravoiKrjcria,
Lob. p. 515).^ 'Ecr^arws f^^Lv is a later phrase for xaKciJ?, iTovqpw<i
ix^iv ^Lob. p. 389), and /coAoTrottli' (see above) was used for the older
phrase^ KoAws ttouIv.
That this list contains many words which were coined by the
Greek-speaking Jews or tlie N. T. writers themselves — especially
Paul, Luke, and the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews, comp. Origen,
Oral. § 27 — according to the prevailing analogy of the time, will not
be denied : compare particularly opOpi^uv (cpp'ri), kiOo/SoXeiv, al/jLareK-
^vcria, crK\'i]pOKap8ia, (rKhr]poTpd)^rjXo<;, dyaOoepyav, 6p6oiroS(iV, 6p6o-
TOfXiiv, ixo(ry(mroieiy, /jLeyoiKuxrvvrj, TaTreivocfipoaiJvrj, TrapaySaxT^s, Trarpi-
OLpXV^i ayeftaAdyr/TOS, vttottoSiov (Sturz p. 1^9), )(^pvaoOaKTv\LO<;. And
yet we cannot consider this point decided by the fact that no trace of
these words has been found in the extant works of the Greek authors
of the first centuries after Christ. Some of these works have not
been examined : ^ besides, manj' words of the kind might be already
current in ihe OT"dinary spoken language. Those words, however,
which denote Jewish institutions, or which designate Gentile
worshi]), etc., as idolatrous, naturally originated amongst the Greek-
speaking Jews themselves: e.g. aKrjvoiniyia, €iS(x)X66vTOV, eiioiXoXarpeLa.
Lastly, many words received among the Jews a ijiore specific mean-
ing connected with Jewish u.sages and modes of thought ; as cV»-
(TTpi(^icrdaL and iTTia-rpoff)-^, used absolutely, h'' converted, o/nversion,
irposTJ\vT05, irfvrtjKnixTrj Pentecost, Koa-p.o'i (in a figurative sense),
t^vXaKTYjpiov , iiriyafLJSpeviLv of the levirate marriage. On the pecu-
liarly Christian words and forms, e.g. ySaimo-jtAa, see p. 36.
GRAMMATICAL PECULIAKITIES.
These are in great measure limited to certain inflexions of nouns
and verbs, v/hich either were entirely unknown at an earlier period,
or were not used in certain words, or at all events were foreign to
written Attic, — for the mixture of the previous!}' distinct dialects is
seen in the inflexions as well as in the vocabulary of later Greek,
The use of the dual became rare.
There are few peculiarities of syntax. Certain verbs are construed
with cases different from those which they govern in classical Greek
^ That this popular Greek should have adopted with slight alterations
certain foreign words (appellatives) belonging to the other languages spoken
in the diti'erent provinces, is very natural, but our present general inquiry is
not further concerned with the fact. On the Egyptian words found in the LXX
and elsevvheie, see Sturz p. 84 sqq. Latin and Persian words have also been
{lointed out in the N. T. : comp. Olear. de stylo N. T. p. 366 sqq. ; Georgi,
Hierocr. I. 247 sqq. and II. (de Latinisviis aV. T.) ; Dresig, de N. T. Gr. Lati-
nismis merito tt /aleo sii^pectis (Lips. 1726) ; Schleiermacher, Herm. p. 62 sq.
* Most words of this kiiid appear later in the Byzantine writers, who abound
in double compounds and lengthened forms of words. They especially delighted
to revive in this way words which had been, as it were, worn out by use.
28 IIKBREW-AKAMAIC COLOURING OF THE N. T. DICTION. [PAKT I.
(§ 31. 1, 32. 4) ;i conjunctions which were formerly joined with the
optative or conjunctive only are now found with the indicative ; the
use of the optative perceptibly declines, especially in the aratio obliqiui,
the future part ciple after verbs oi go'iTig, sending, etc., gives place to
the present participle or to the infinitive; active verbs with saurcV
come into use instead of middle verbs, v\7here no special emphasis Is
intended ; and there is a general tendencv to use the more expressive
forms of speech without their peculiar force, and at the same time to
strive after additional emphasis even in grammatical forms, — comp.
/i€t^oT€/3os, ti/ain the place of the infinitive, &c. The later inflexions
^vill be most appropriately noticed in .5 4.
We cannot doubt that the late popular dialect had special pecu-
liarities in diflferent provinces. Critics have accordingly professed
to find Cilicisms in Paul's A\Titings, see Hieron. <id Algasiam Quocst.
10, Tom. IV. p. 204 (ed. Martianay) ; but the four examples which
this Father adduces are not conclusive,- and, as we know nothing of
Cilician provincialisms from any other source, ^ the inquiry should
rather be abandoned than be founded on mere hypotheses. Comp.
Stolberg, De Cilicismis a Paulo umrpaiis, in his Tr. de Soloec. N. T.
p. 91 sqq.
Section III.
HEBREW-ARAMAIC COLOURING OF THE N. T. DICTION.
The popular dialect of Greek was not spoken and written by
the Jews without foreign admixture. The general charac-
teristics of their mother-tongue — vividness and circumstantiality
combined with great sameness of expression — -were transferred
I'rom it to their Greek style, which also contains particular
phrases and constructions derived from the same source. Both
peculiarities, the general Hebraistic impress and the introduction
of " Hebraisms," are more apparent in their direct translation
from the Hebrew than in their original composition in Greek.*
The Hebraisms (and Aramaisms) are more frequently lexical
than grammatical. The former consist partly of words used in
an extended signification, partly of whole phrases imitated from
the Hebrew, and partly of words newly framed in accordance
^ Compare Boissonade, Amcd. III. 136, 154.
- Michaelis, Introduction I. 149 (Marsh's Transl.).
* Compare however Sturz p. 62, [who assigns a Cilician origin to sxich
forms as i'Xa/Sa, 'iipaya (see § 13. 1), and to the word viv'an, Li:v. xix. 27. The
Cilicisms of which Jerome sjuaks are xaTavccpKZy ntif, *«Ta/3^a/3ji/'i(» nta,
it6fci-rnt>v 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, 6<f)iiXi^fj.aTa a^ievai, 7rp6s<t>Trov 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 '<ddx ; x^^os for litttis
(Her. 1. 191, Strabo, al.), comp. nstj' ; o-ro/xa of a sword (ns), comp.,
besides the poets, Philostr. Rer. 19. 4. So also the phfase h/Svaaa-Oai
"XpuTTov — Dion. H. has TapKvvLov ivSva: — is formed on the model of
piy IJ'3^, or the like. Gomp. above, p. 17.
(3) Words, phrases, and constructions, which are equally common
in Greek and in Hebrew, so that we may doubt whether they were
used by the Jews as part of the popular Greek which they adopted,
or because the corresponding words, &c., in their native language
■yvere so familiar ; as <j>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, <TKv\a supellex,
comp. Esth. iii. 13 ; Acts ii. 24, wSTvcs vincula, comp. Ps. xvii. 6.^
Tlepav has even been rendered on this side of, like "iny (1) ! Compare
further Fritz. Bom.. I. 367 2
From what has been said it will be clear that the Hebraisms of the
N. T. may be divided into two classes — ferfed and imperfect. By
perfect Hebraisms we understand those uses of words, those phrases
and constructions, which belong exclusively to the Hebrew (Aramaic)
language, and which therefore Hellenistic Greek (i.e., the language of
the N. T.) has directly received from this source.^ Imperfect He-
braisms are thoae uses of words, those phrases and constructions,
which are also found in Greek prose, but which we may with very
great probability suppose the N. T. Avriters to have immediately
derived from the Hebrew or Aramaic— partly because these writers
were most familiar with their mother-tongue, and partly because the
phraseology in question was of more frequent occurrence in Hebrew
than in Greek. This distinction has been noticed by De Wette, who
says {I.e. p. 319) : "Whether a phrase is absolutely un-Greek, or
whether there exists m Greek a point of connexion to which the
phrase can attach itself, makes an essential difference."
We must however carry the investigation farther 1)ack, and consider
especially the genesis of the so-called Hebraisms. The language of
the LXX* cannot be made the basis of this inquiry : as a translation,
it affords no certain evidence respecting the Greek which was freely
spoken and written by Jews, and which had been acquired by them
from oral intercourse. Nor can we in the first instance deal with
the doctrinal parts of theN. T., because the religious phraseology of the
Jews in Greek naturally attached itself very closely to the Hebrew,
and found a model already existing in the LXX. If we wish to ascer-
^ [Since ppjj^ {spoils) is translated by i'jrapxovra. in Esth. iii. 13, it was said that
T T
fKuXec, L. xi. 22, is used hnjoods " per Hebraismum ; " and similarly that u^Ins
iai., A. ii. 24, means cords of deatlt, because in Ps. xviii. (xvii.) 5 T\V2 v3n
(which hus this meaning) is rendered ui7ns iav. in the LXX.]
^ In the title of Kaiser's Dlts, de. ling. Aram. ii..vi, &c. (Norimb. 1831), the
word ahusu would be more in accordance witli truth than iihu.
^ Such Hebraisms are thus dotined by Hlessig in the work cited above [p. 16,
note '] : " Hebraismus est solius llebrsei sermonis propria loquendi ratio, cujns-
modi in Grrecam vcl aliam linguain sinebarbarismisaspicionetransferre non licet."
* The most important work that hg^ yet appeared on the linguistic ele-
ment of the LXX is H. W. Jos. Thiersch, De Pentateuchi versione Alex, lihri 3
(Erlang. 1840), from which, in the later editions of this grammar, many welcome
illustrations have been received. But a complete examination of the la.tguage
of the LXX is still very much needed.
SECT. III.] HEBREW- ARAMAIC COLOURING OF THE N. T, DICTION. 33
tain as exactly as possible the influence which the mother-tongue
exerted on the Greek spoken by Jews, we must examine especially
the narrative style of the Apocrypha, the Gospels,, and the Acts of the
Apostles. In the first place, it is clear that it was the general character
of Hebrew or Aramaic composition that was most naturally and
unconsciously impressed — by original writers almost as much as by
translators — on their Greek style. No one esgapes without difficulty
from this general influence, which is, as it were, born with him ; only
reflexion and practice can set him free from it. This general character
consists : —
(1) In vividness — hence the use of a preposition instead of the
simple case, the latter construction being rather the result of abstrac-
tion — and consequently circumstantiality of expression ; e.g. </>€T;y6rv
airo TrposioTTOv tivos, iypa<p7] du'i ^^ctpo? tivos, iravres 'ITTo fiiKpov Jw?
/xeyoAov, koI tdrai , . . kol iK^iui, aud the like ; the accumulation of
personal and demonstrative pronouns, especially after the relative,
the narrative formula koj. eyiv^ro, <fcc.
(2) In the simplicity and indeed monotony with which the Hebrew
constructs sentences and joins sentence to sentence, preferring
co-ordination to subordination : hence the very limited use of con-
junctions (in which classical Greek is so rich), the uniformity in the
use of the tenses, the want of the periodic compactness which results
from the fusion of several sentences into one principal sentence, and
along with this the sparing use of participial constructions, so nume-
rous and diversified in classical Greek. In historical narrative there
is this marked peculiarity, that words spoken by another are almost
always quoted in the direct form, as uttered by him ; whereas it is the
indirect introduction of the speaker that gives so distinctive a colour-
ing to the narrative style of classical authors, and that leads to the
frequent and varied use of the optative, a mood which is almost un-
known in Hellenistic Greek,
From this general Hebrew iiifluence Jewish Greek necessarily
received a strongly marked character. Many special peculiarities,
howeA'^er, were derived from the same source, and it is to these that
the name of Hebraisms is usually given.
To begin with the simplest kind : —
{a) The Greek word which expressed the primary meaning of a
Hebrew word often received in addition its secondary meanings
also ; compare epwraf, 7J«t^^ interrogate and request. Hence it would
not be strange if the Jews had used BiKaioa-vvrj in the sense of abns,
like npli*. More certain examples are, 6(f>tiXr)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\fJLOv<i or TO o-To'/xa Ttvo? (ni53) ; yevecrOai Oavdrov, iiPi^p Dyn (Talm.);
apTov ffiayelv coenare, avh ^SX; at/xa c/cxe'tif, D^ "ij?^, kill/ dviCTrjfii
a-rrepfjia tivc from h JTlT 2^7} : i^tos Oavdrov from DID-JS (ot rtot tou
vvp.cfiwvo's) ; KapTTos oo-^vos from D^V^n na ; >cap7ros KoiXtas from Jtsa ""IS;
eiipx£(TOaL Ik Tr]<; 6(r<f>vos 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'o<poi).'\ .
* Though even Josephiis, when narrating O. T. history after the LXX, is
not altogether free from Hebraisms: see Scharfenberg, De Josephi et LXX.
consensu, in Pott, Sylloge vii. p. 306 sqq.
'In the sense of remitting sina, i.e. so far as tupu^-v/^irtt is concerned ;
SECT. III.] HEBREW- ARAMAIC COLOURING OF THE N. T. DICTION. 35
^icrdai €is 8iKaLO(rvvr]v, &c. — would convey to a native Greek either an
erroneous meaning or no meaning at all.^ At the same time, it
is easy to explain the fact that such Hebraistic expressions are
less numerous in the free composition of the N. T. than in the trans-
lation of the 0. T., and that, in the N. T. itself, those writers whose
education was Hellenistic — Paul, Luke (especially in the second part
of the Acts), John, and the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews^ — use
fewer Hebraisms than those who properly belonged to Palestine
(Matthew, Peter).' It is also obvious that the Hebraisms which
we find in the language of the Apostles were not all unconsciously
adopted.* The religious ex|)ressions — and these constitute by far the
greatest portion of the N. T. Hebraisms — were necessarily retained,
because these were, so to speak, completely imbued with the religious
ideas themselves, and because it was designed that Christianity
should in the first instance link itself to Judaism.^ Indeed there
were no terms in the Greek language, as it then existed, by which the
deep religious phenomena which apostolic Christianity made known
could be expressed. '^ But when it is maintained^ that the N. T.
writers always thought in Hebrew or Aramaic what they afterwards
wrote in Greek, this is an exaggeration. Such a habit belongs to
beginners only. We ourselves, when we have had some practice in
writing Latin, gradually (though never entirely) free ourselves from
the habit of first thiinkiag in our own language. Persons who, though
not scientifically trained in Greek, yet constantly heard Greek spoken
and very often — indeed regularly — spoke it themselves, could not but
acquire in a short time a stock of words and phrases and a power of
handling the language which would enable them, when writing, to
command Greek expressions at once, without first thinking of verna-
for aip<£»a/ remit, even in reference to offences, occurs Her. 6. 30, in the phrase
i.(piitai ct'iTiat, and iptiXn/iara ifiivai debita remiUere (to remit what is due)
is quite a common expression. In later Greek we find dipiivai t/w ttjv dlixiect,
Plutarch, Pomp. 34, see Coraes and Schaef. in loc. A native Greek would also
understand iCpitrxuv ;^a/wv, though it would sound strange to him in consequence
of the use of the active for the middle ilp'trKifficti.
1 Comp. Gatak. De stylo N. T. cap. 5.
2 Comp. Tholuck, CommerUar, cap. 1. § 2. p. 25 sqq.
3 The Grecian training of particulfir writers shows itself especially in the
appropriate use of verba composita and decom,posita.
* Van den Honert, Spnt. p. 103.
^ Comp. Beza ad Act. x. 46. Rambach is not altogether wrong in saying
(Inst. Herm. 1. 2. 2), "Lingua N. T. passim ad Kbraei sermouis indolem con-
formata est, ut hoc modo concentus scripturae utriusque Test, non in rebus solum
sed ipsis etiam in verbis clarius observaretur : " comp. Pfaff, Nott. ad Matth.
p. 34 ; Olear. p. 341 sqq. ; Tittm. Syn. I. p. 201 sq.— Compare further J. W. Schro-
der, De causis quare dictio pure OroEca in N. T. plerumqtie prcetermissa sit
(Marb. 1768) ; also Van Hengel, Comm. in Ep. ad Phillpp. p. 19.
* Some good remarks on this point are to be found in Hvalstroem, Spec,
de usu Grcecitatis Alex, in N. T. p. 6 sq. (Upsal. 1794). Van den Honert even
went so far as to assert, " Vel ipse Demosthenes, si eandem rem, quam nobis
tradidenmt apostoli, debita perspicuitate et efficacia perscribere voluisset,
Hebraismorum usum evitare non potuisset."
7 By Eichhorn and Bretschneider (PrcBf. ad Lex. N. T. II. 12, ed. 2) ; but
the latter has retracted this opinion, at any rate so far as regards Paul {Grundl.
des ev. Pietism, p. 179).
36 HEBREW-AKAMAIC COLOURING OF THE N. T. DICTION. [PART I.
cular words and phrases to be afterwards translated into Greek.^
The parallel drawn between the N. T. writers and our beginners in
Latin composition, or the (uneducated) German-speaking Jews, is
both unworthy and incorrect : comp. Schleierm. Herrn. pp. 54, 59,
257. It is also forgotten that the Apostles found a Jewish Greek
idiom already in existence, and that therefore they did not them-
selves construct most of their expressions by first thinking them out
in Hebrew.
Many Greek words are used by the N. T. writers in a special
relation to the Christian system of religion (and even in direct
contrast to Judaism), as religious technical terms. These appear to
constitute a third element'of the N. T. diction— the peculiarly
Christian.^ Compare especially the words (.pya (ipyd^ecrGai, Kom. iv.
4), ■JTLo-Ti.';, iriarTeveiv ek Xpio-toV, or Tnareikiv absolutely, o/xoAoyia,
BtKatoarvvT} and SiKaLovcrOat, cVAeyecr^at, oi KXrjTOi, oi tKAcKTOt, ol ayiot
(for Christians), ol ttio-tol and ol ajria-Toi, oIkoSo/jl-^ and oiKoSofi^iv in
a figurative sense, aTrocrroXos, cvayycAt^eo-^at and KrjpvTTetv used
absolutely of Christian preaching, the appropriation of the form
pdirTia-fia to baptism, perhaps kASj/ (tov) o-prov for the holy repasts (the
Agape with the Lord's supper), 6 K6o-fxo<;, rj a-dp^, 6 aapKiKck in the
familiar theological sense, and others Most of these expressions and
phrases, however, are found in the O. T. and in Rabbinical writings ;*
hence it will always be hard to prove anything to be absolutely
peculiar to the Apostles, — brought into use by them. This apostolic
element, therefore, mainly consists in the meaning and the applica-
tion given to words ami phrases, and the subject scarcely lies within
the limits of philological inquiry : compare, however, Schleierm.
Herm. pp. 56, C>7 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]<i, eiTra (1 aor.).
As forms entirely unknown in earlier Greek must be mentioned
— such a dative as vot, the imperative KaOov, perfects like lyvwKav
neutesL Gracitat (2d ed. 1872,— translated by Urwick, 1878). Liineinann refers
to Zezschwitz, Profangrdcitdt u. hihlisch. SprachgeiM : eine Vorl. iib. d. bibl.
Umhildvng helltn. Btgriffe, hes. der psyckol. (Leipz. 1859).]
1 [On the relation of the English of our Auth. Ver. to that now spoken, see
Max Mailer, Lectures on Language, p. 35 sq. (1st series) ; Marsh, Lectures on
the Eng. Lang. p. 443 sqq. (ed. Smith).]
38 GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. [PART I.
(for cyi'w/cao-i), second aorists and imperfects like KarcXiVoo-ar, tSo-
Xioia-av, second aorists like etSa/xev, l^uyav, the future conjunctives
(§ xiii. 1. e), the imperfect ^fjieda. To this head specially belong
many tense-forms which are regular in themselves, but for which
the older language used others ; as r/fidpT-qara for rjixapTov, av^m for
av^avo), Tf^a from ^kw, <^ayo/i,at for eSo/xai : indeed the new tense- and
mood-forms received by verbs from which earlier Greek, for the
sake of euphony,- used but few forms, constitute a special feature of
the later language. It should be added that several nouns received
a new gender, as 7) ySaro? (for 6 p.), and some in consequence a
twofold declension, e.g. ttAovtos, eXcos : see § 9. Rem. 2.
The peculiarities of syntax in later Greek are less numerous, and
consist mainly in a negligent use of the moods with particles. The
following examples may be quoted from the N. T. : orav with a past
tense of the indicative, d with the conjunctive, Iva with the present
indicative, the construction of such verbs as ytvecrOat, KaraBiKd^eiv,
with an accusative, of TrposKwav and 7rpos<jfca)iav with a dative ot
the person (Lob. p. 463, Matth. 402. c), the weakening of Tm in
such phrases as OeXio Iva, a^tos tva, etc., the extension of the genitive
of the infinitive (tov ttouIv) beyond its original and natural limits,
the use of the conjunctive for the optative in narration after past
tenses, and the consequent infrequency o| the optative mood, which
has entirely disappeared in modern Greek. Me'AAciv, OiXeiv, etc.,
are more frequently followed by the aorist infinitive (Lob. p. 747).
Neglect of declension is only beginning to show itself; thus we find
fi€Ta TOV Ev and the like (but as the result of design), see § 10. Rem.
Later still we find particular instances of entire misconception of
the meaning of cases and tenses : thus crvv takes the genitive in
Niceph. Tad. (Hase ad Leon. Dmc. p. 38), oltto the accusative in Leo
Gram. p. 232, and then in mt)dern Greek ; the aorist and present
participles are interchanged in Leo Diac. and others. The dual (of
nouns) is gradually superseded by the plural.
The grammatical character of the N. T. language has a very slight
Hebraic colouring. It is true that in grammatical structure Hebrew
(Aramaic) differs essentially from Greek ; but this would rather tend
to prevent the Greek-speaking Jews from intermingling with their
Greek the constructions of their native language : a German would be
in much greater danger of introducing German constructions into
Latin or French. Besides, it is always easier to master the gram-
matical laws of a foreign language than to obtain a perfect command
of its vocabulary and to acquire the general national complexion
of the foreign idiom : comp. Schleierm. Herm. p. 73. The rules of
syntax are but few in comparison with the multitude of words and
phrases ; these rules too — especially those fundamental laws on the
observance of which depends correctness of style, not elegance
merely — are much more frequently brought before the mind, parti-
cularly in speaking. Hence it was not difliicult for the Jews to
acquire such a knowledge of the grammatical framework of the Greek
of their time (in which, indeed, some of the niceties of Attic Greek
SECT. IV.] GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. 39
were unknown) as was quite sufficient for their simple style of
composition. Even the LXX in most cases correctly represent a
Hebrew construction by its counterpart in Greek.^ Only certain
expressions of frequent occurrence are either (when the laws of Greek
syntax do not forbid) rendered literally, e.g. the expression of a wish
by means of a question, 2 S. xv. 4 ns /xe Karao-T-qo-ei KpiTrjv ; xxiii. 15,
Num. xi. 29, Dt. v. 26, xxviii. 67, Cant. viii. 1 ;2 — or translated,
if possible, in a way which is at least in harmony with Greek
analogy, as Oavdrui airoOavela-Oi. Gen. iii. 4 ({^ncn T\\0\ Dt. xx. 17,
1 S. xiv. 39, Is. XXX. 19 ; — or even translated by a construction in
actual use in Greek (see however § 45), as Jud. xv. 2 fiia-wv i(ucrq-
o-as, for nwJJ' Kbb, Gen. xliii. 2, Ex. xxii. 17, xxiii. 26, 1 S. ii. 25,
al. ; compare also the infinitive with tov} Hebrew constructions
which are altogether opposed to the genius of the Greek language
are, as a rule, not retained in the LXX. Thus the feminine for the
neuter is found in but few passages, where the translators have not
suflBciently examined the original, or have anxiously sought for a
literal rendering (e.g. Ps. cxviii. 50, cxvii. 23) ;^ and it is not pro-
bable that they consciously used the feminine to represent the
neuter. In other passages it is clear that they understood the
Hebrew feminine to relate to some feminine noun or pronoun indi-
cated in the context, as in Jud. xix. 30 : in Neh. xiii. 14, however,
€v TavT-Tj is probably equivalent to the classical twut-q, in this respect,
hoc in genere (Xen. Cyr. 8. 8. 5), or therefwe, — comp. ravrri on
proplerea quod, Xen. An. 2. 6. 7 : see also 1 S. xi. 2. The combina-
tion of the Hebrew verb with prepositions is the construction most
frequently imitated : as ^eihio-dai Ittl tivl Dt. vii. 16, or i-n-t nva Ez.
vii. 4 \_Alex.^, olKoSofxelv ev Tivt Neh. iv. 10 (2 i^^^), cTrepwrav ev KvpLio
(nin"'2 hi^f) 1 S. x. 22, evSoKeh Iv TLVL (3 *^sn, Fritz. Rom. II, 371).
These imitations certainly sound harsh in Greek, but in each case some
possible point of contact might be found in a language so flexible.'
^ Various Greek idioms had become quite habitual to them, such as the
use of the article with attributive words and phrases after a substantive (» tcCpni
i it olfavu, and the like), the attraction of the relative, etc. : the negatives also
are alinost always correctly distinguished. The better translators furnish
examples of the more extended, use of the Greek cases, as Gen. xxvi. 10, niKpov
ixoifiriiti was within a little of kc.
* Comp. Rom. vii. 24, and Fritz, in loc, who adduces similar examples
from Greek poets. The formula with ■rus («») and the optat. or conj. is dis-
cussed by Schsefer, -ad Soph. (Ed. Col. p. 523, and Melet. p. 100.
* Hemsterhuis says (I.ucian, Dial. Mar. 4. 3) : " saepenumero contingit, ut
locutio qusedam native Grseca a LXX interpretibus et N. T. scriptoribus mutata
paululum potestate ad Hebrseam apte exprimendam adhibeatur."
* The translator of the Psalms is, in general, one of the most careless ;
that of Nehemiah is little better. — Aquila, who translated syllable for syllable
(and e.g. absurdly rendered nX) the sign of the accijsative, by iru*), cannot at all
be taken into consideration in any inquiry into the grammatical character of
Hellenistic Greek. He violates the rules of grammar without hesitation for the
.sake of a literal rendering ; as Gen. i. 5 £«aX£o-Ev « has tu (pwr) iifiipa. And
yet he always uses the article correctly, and even employs the attraction of the
relative, — so deeply were both rooted in the Greek language.
' As in German, "bauen an etwas," "fragen bei," etc.
40 GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. [PART I.
But even if the LXX presented more instances of servile imitation
of Hebrew constructions, this would not come into consideration in
our inquiry respecting the N. T. As we have already said, the style
of these translators, Avho usually followed the words of the original
with studious exactness, and in some cases did not even understand
their meaning, does not furnish the type of that style which Jews
would use in conversation or free composition. In point of granunar,
so far as the particular rules of the language are concerned, the
N, T. is altogether written in Greek ; and the few real grammatical
Hebraisms which it contains become hardly discernible. Amongst
these we may with more or less certainty ' include, in general, the
use of prepositions in ])hrases in which a classical writer would have
been content with the simple case, as avoKp-vTmLv n ciTrd nvos,
iadieiv airo rm' i/^i^^tcov, d^aios airo rov aLfjLaTO<;, koivwvos ci/ rivt,
dpecTKetj/ and 7rposKin/€u/ evMTnov titos, euBoK^lv and OeXeiv ev rivt.
Many examples of this kind, however, belong to the simplicity of the
ancient style, and hence are also found in classic writers, especially
the poets ; they are therefore not really discordant with the genius of
the Greek language (e.g. vaveLv airo rtvos). More special and certain
examples of grammatical Hebraism are the following : —
{a) The verbal translation of Hubrew constructions which are
opposed to the spirit of the Greek language ; as ofjLoXoyelv h> tui,
yS/VeTTCti' airo slbi cavere a, irpo<i€6iTO 7ri[x\l/at., the formula d ^oOrjcrerai
to express a negative oath.
(/;) The repetition of a word for the purpose of indicating distri-
bution, as Si'o Si'o, hinl, instead of uva Si'o.
{c) The imitation of the Hebrew infinitive absolute (see above).
{d) The use of the genitive of a noun expressing quality in the
place of an adjective : — and probably also the remarkably frequent
use of the infinitive with prepositions (and a subject in the accusa-
tive) in narration. '
The constructions included under (a) and (Ji) may be considered
jnire Hebraisms.
When, however, we consider that by far the largest number of
constructions in the N. T. are pure Greek, and that the N. T. writers
have even appropriated peculiarities of Greek syntax ^ which are
altogether alien to the genius of their native language — as the dis-
tinction of the different past tenses, the construction of verbs with dv,
the attraction of the relative, such constructions as oiKovofjLLav imri-
(TTevfji-ai, the use of a singular verb with neuter plurals, etc.-=— we
* As imaginary Hebraisms may be mentioned — the supposed plu7: excel-
leMicp., the 3 e.-isenfup, the combinations which have been wrongly taken as
periphrases for tlu; superlative (e.g. inUkTiyl TaZ hoZ), the use of the feminine
for tlie neuter, and the pretended hypallage to. l>r,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<p ; Webster, ,S>/nt. c. 1 ; Tregelles in Home's Introd. IV. pp. 8-23 :
Fairbairn, 7/<u-wi. Man. ]>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<i A. xxvi. 25, aX,\a aTraxravTo
A. vii. 3 9, aWa oySoov 2 P. ii. 5 ; also, in the best MSS., dWa v/u,d<i
2 C. xii. 14, aWa vlof G. iv. 7. MS. authority is also in favour
oi fi€Ta dv8p6<; L. ii. 36, fxera ec/coa-i xiv. 31, fierd diricnov 2 C.
vi. 15, diro dvarokSiv Rev. xxi. 13, dnro dadev€ia<i H. xi. 34,
diro ^ASd/j, Jude 14, 8ta etSov^; 2 C. v. 7. Compare also A. ix. 6,
X. 20, xvi. 37, 2 C. iv. 2, v. 12, L. xi. 17 (eVi oIkov), Mt. xxi. 5
(iirl ovov), etc. In L. iii. 2 eVt dp'^iepe(o<i, Mt. xxiv. 7 iirl
€6vo<?, 1 C. vi. 1 1 dWd d'jreXovaacrde, dWd iBiKai(t)67]T€, the
weight of authority is against the elision : in Eoin. vii. 13 aXV
and dWd have equal support.^ As the Ionic dialect is distin-
guished by indifference to hiatus, this peculiarity of N. T. Greek
was formerly considered an lonism : in Attic prose however
elision is sometimes neglected, though all the instances which
Georgi (Hierocr. I. 143) produces from Plato may not be trust-
worthy. See Buttm. I. 123 sqq. (Jelf 16 sq.).^ It is possible
that the variations may have been guided by some principle :
Sinteuis, for example, has reduced Phitarch's practice to rules
(Plut. Vit. IV. 321 sqq.). So in the N. T. we might occasionally
account for the absence of elision by reference to the writer's
meaning ; not imagining however that the Apostles would
bestow attention on such matters as these, but regarding the
choice as the result of a natural instinct. But the risk of trifling
would here be very great (Bengel on 1 C. vi. 11).
In the poetical quotation from Menander, ] C. xv. 33, even
Xachmann reads XPW^' 6/xiXiat Kanai (comp. Georgi, Hier. I. 186),
although the best MSS. of the N. T. have the uneHded form xpWTdy
which Tischendorf has received.^
(h) In regard to the final ? of oi;t<w9, fJ^^XP'-'^' ^"^ ^^® so-called
V i<f)eXKU(rriK6v,* the editors have for the most part followed the
ordinary rule, which, however has been limited by recent gram-
marians : see Buttm. I. 92 sqq. (Jelf 20). A more prudent
course is to follow the best MSS. in each case: accordingly recent
^ Comp. also Sturz p. 125.
* See also Heupel, Marc. p. 33 ; Benseler's excursus to his ed. of Isocr. Areop.
p. 385 sqq. ; Jacobs, ProB/. ad M\. Anim. p. 29 sq. ; Poppo, Tliuc. III. ii,
p. 358.
3 [Lachm. reads x?*!"^, not xf'*'<'^ [Rec.) : see Jelf 63. 2.]
* See Voemel, De * et $ adductis Uteris (Frankf. on M. 1853) ; Haake,
Beitrdgez. griech. Grammat. 1 Heft. [Lobeck, Path. Elcm. II. pp. 158-218;
Kiihner I. 227-232 ; G. Meyer, Gnech. Gram. pp. 259-264.]
44 ORTHOGEArHY AND ORTIIOGEAPHICAL PRINCIPLES. [PAKT II.
editors of the K T., following tlie uncial MSS./ uniformly
i-eceive oi5t<u9 and the v hi^^XKva-TLKov? Classical philologers
have endeavoured to discover some fixed principle which might
determine the preference of one or the other form in Greek
prose/ and it is not in itself improbable that the more careful
writers would be guided by euphony (Franke in Jaim's Jahrh.
1842, p. 247) and other consideration?* though ancient gram-
marians afifirm (Bekk. Anecd. III. p. 1400) that even in Attic
Greek the v was inserted before both consonants and vowels
without distinction (Jacobs, Prccf. ad JEi. Anim. p. 23 sq.), and
the MS. evidence contirms this assertion.* On /^expi' and
P'^XP'''*' ^XP'' ^"^ ^XP^^> ^"^ 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 <r : in Ph. iv. 1, however, all recent editors (apparently)
read e'vra;. — The v 'i(ptX«vffTHiev is naturally dealt with upon the same principles.
Again we find veiy great uniformity in the texts of Tregelles and Alford, who
almost invariably insert the ». The few exceptions I have noted are nearly all
found in plural datives. Thus luiri is received by Tregelles in Mt. vi. 24 and
L. xvi. 13, by Alford in L. xvi. 13 and A. xxi. 33 ; other examples inAlford's
text will be found in A. xvii. 25, xxi. 33, Rom. ii. 8. Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Westcott and Hort omit the n somewhat more freely, following the evidence in
each case. Thus Lachmann reads vtart five times and iu»-/ four ; Tisch. (ed. 8),
vcctrt fiVH times and Iviri three. In the text of Westcott and Hort crSff/v occurs
before a consonant forty times, Tan fourteen ; Ji/ir/v and ^uai each three times.
See also Mt. vii. 15, xx. 12, A. ii. 22, x. 41, xxi. 33, Rom. ii. 8, 2 Tim. iv. 8,
where the » is omitted in the dative plural by one or more of these editors. In
verbs the omission is apparently very rare. In Lachmann's text examples
will be found in L. i. 3, 9, A. ii. 6, vii. 25 ; in Tischendorf's, in L. i. 3, 9, Jo.
X. 14. Westcott and Hort omit v in these passages except A. vii. 25, and read
uTixuvrt, i<TTi, in Mt. vi. .5, 25 : in their text of I^omans, if I mistake not, there
arc in all not more than eight instances of omission, — five in the dative plural,
three in verbal inflexions (xartx^/vt, Wtfiivuiri, llaTar'Zcri). In many instances,
however, the alternative reading is given in their Appendix. See Scrivener,
Crilicma, p. 486 sq^i., Cod. Shi. p. liv, A. Buttm. Gr. p. 9.]
' Bornem. Dc (jem. Cyr. reo. p. 89 (with whom Poppo agrees, Jnd. to Cyr.) ;
Frotscher, Xen. IJitr. p. 9 ; Bremi, JEscli. Cles. 3, 4 j Schajf. Dtm. I. 207 ;
Miitzner, Antiph. p. 192.
■* We are not here concerned with the much-disputed questions, whether ourui
(.Sch«'f. Pint. V. 219) or ouru (Buttm. II. 264) was the original form, and
whttther v i(pi\K. really belongs to the forms to which it is attached : see Rost,
p. 47; Kriiger, p. 31*. [Don. })p. 53, 80, 193; Lobeck v.s. p. 203; Curtius,
Gramh. p. 54, Grcel: Verb, p. 41 (Trans.).]
^ Comp. also Bachmann, Lycopln: I. 15C ; Benseler, Isocr. Areop. p. 185^
SECT, v.] ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRArHICAL PRINCIPLES. 45
Attic forms, even when a vowel follows (Th. M. p. 135, Phryn.
p. 14, comp. Bornem. Xen. Cyr. 8. 6. 20); and though good
]\1SS. of Attic authors are not unfrequently on the other side,
this rule has been followed by modern editors. Comp. Stallb.
Plat. Phmd. p. 183. ^ymyos. p. 128, Schref Plid. V. p. 208,
and see on the whole YAoiz, Bevar. p. 231. In the N. T. the
best MSS. have i^'^xpi' invariably : axpt before consonants and
sometimes before vowels, A. xi. 5, xxviii. 15 ; but a%pt«? ov is
best supported in Rom. xi. 25, 1 C. xi. 26, xv. 25, al. (also
in A. vii. 18).*
The MSS. vary also between t'Kom and ci/cocrir, but tlie best are
said to omit the v, see Tisch. Praef. ad N. T. p. 23, [Proleg. p. 54,
ed. 7] ; the matter is but seldom noticed in the apparatus. In
A. XX. 15 most authorities have dvTiKpu?, not avTLKpv; on this see
Lob. p. 444, Buttm. II. p. 366.
(c) In compounds whose first part ends in 9, Knapp — after
Wolf {Lit. Analect. I. 460 sqq., comp. Krtig. p. 11) — intro-
duced the practice of writing 9 instead of or, as u)<;7rep, 09x49,
Su9/co\o9, eUc^yepetv : he has been followed by Schulz and
Fritzsche. Matthife's objections (§ 1. Rem. 5), however,
deserve all attention ; and no value should be attached to this
orthographical rule, especially as it has no historical basis.
Schneider in Plato and Lachmann in the N". T. write Mcrvep,
da-uKoveiv, &c. ; Hermann prefers 9. That 9 would be inad-
missible in such words as irpea^vrepo^i, /SXaa^rj/xecv, reXecr-
^opelv, is obvious.^
(d) Of more importance than all this is 'the peculiar spell-
ino- of certain words and classes of words, which is found in
the MSS. of the IST. T., and has been received into the text
by Lachmann and Tischendorf in almost every case. This
includes peculiarities of the Alexandrian orthography and
pronunciation.
1. For ei'CKa we sometimes find in the MSS. (and in Rec.) the
properly Ionic form (.IveKa or ^tveKcv (Wolf, Dem. Lejpt. p. 388, Georgi,
Rier. I. 182), as L. iv. 18, 2 C. iii. 10, vii. 12 ; and elsewhere lviK€v,
as Mt. xix. 29, Rom. viii. 36. The authority of good MSS. must
^ [Before a vowel (iiXf occurs in L. xvi. 16 (Tisch., al.), fiixpn in Mk. xiii. 30,
11. xii. 4 (G. iv. 19) : before a cons. ftixP' is always used. In TLsch_. (ed. 8) Hxpt
occurs fourteen times before a vowel, axp'i twice only : axp'i «« is much less
common than axP' ""• On these words see Lob. Path. El. II. 210.]
2 [In ed. 8, Tisch. WTites »• even at the end of a word. See further Lip.sius,
Grammat. Untersiichungen iiber die bibl. Qrcicitat, j). 122 (Leipz. 1863).]
46 ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHICAL PRmCIPLES. [PART II.
alone decide here, comp. Poppo, Cyrop. p. xxxix and Index s. v. "with
Buttra. II. 369 ; for the N. T., at any rate, no rule can be laid down
for the distinctive use ^ of the two forms. ^
2. For kvvevrjKovTa, Mt. xviii. 12, 13, L. xv. 4, 7, we should
rather write IvfvrjKovra, in accordance with good MSS. of Greek
authors and of the N. T. (e.g. D) and with the Etym. Magn. : see
Buttm. I. 277, Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 47 (Don. p. 144). "Eraros
also — a form very common in Greek prose,^ and also found in the
Rosetta inscription (line 4) — is supported by good MSS. in Mt. xx. 5,
xxvii. 45, L. xxiii. 44, A. x. 30, al. : compare also Rinck, Lucub.
p. 33. "Evaros was preferred by as early a critic as Bengel {Appar.
ad Mt. XX. 5). 4
3. The Ionic forms (Matth. 10. 1) Ti(ra-€pe<;, Teo-crepaKovTa, are some-
times found in good MSS., especially A and C (e.g. in A. iv. 22,
vii. 42, xiii. 18, Rev. xi. 2, xiii. 5, xiv. 1, xxi. 17), and have been
received into the text by Lachmann and Tischendorf. The same'
forms often occur in MSS. of the LXX (Stui-z p. 118). In
these documents, however, a and e are frequently interchanged ;
and such readings as eKaOepia-Oij Mt. viii. 3, iKaOepia-diqa-av L. xvii. 14,
KeKadepia-fXivovi H. X. 2 (A), will hardly be preferred by any
one.'
4. BaXavTiov. In all the places in which this word occurs (L. x.
4, xii. 33, xxii, 35, 36) good MSS. have /SaXXavrioi/, and this form
is received by Lachm. and Tischendorf. In MSS. of classical authors
also we find the doubled A, both in ^aXXavriov itself (Bornena. Xen.
Conv. p. 100) and in its derivatives, and Bekker has received it
in Plato ; see however Dindorf, Aristoph. Ban. 772, Schneider, Plat.
Civ. I. p. 75, III. p. 38. — Kpal3j3aTos is but seldom written with a
single /3, and then usually Kpa./3aTTo<;.^
5. On vTroTTtd^u} (uTroTric'^w), a various reading for vTrtoTria^o) (from
vTrttiTTLov), L. xviii. 5, 1 C. ix. 27, see Lob. p. 461. It is probably
no more than an error of transcription ; for the more characteristic
vTTWTria^w certainly proceeds from Paul, and has long stood in the
text. — Whether we should write dvcoyaiov or avdyaLov can hardly be
decided, the authorities for each being nearly equal : the former is
• Weber, Deinosth. p. 403 sq. On this see also Bremi, Hxc. vi. cut Lysiam, p.
443 sqq. (Jelf 10. Obs. 2.)
2 ["Eyi*a is found three times in Rec, twice in Tisehendorfs 7th edition, five
times in his 8th : for s'/vsxi* see L. iv. 18, 2 C. iii. 10, L. xviii. 29, A. xxviii. 20.
Elsewhere 'iviKiv is the form used, before both vowels and consonants : i'Iviko. is
not mentioned in Tisehendorfs apparatus. ]
3 See Schffif. Melet. p. 32 ; Schol. ad Apoll. Argon. 2. 788.
* [Of both these forms Tisch. {Proleg. p. 49, ed. 7) says, " plenissimam ubique
auctoritatem habent : " i»6v>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€L<s, formed on the same analogy, occurs Dio Cass. 45. 17 ;
in ^sch. Choeph. 242 the editions have rv^ct?. It is not unlikely
that €$vOr] was written by Paul, and displaced by the tran-
scribers.
13. For ;)^eoj^€iXcT7j?, L. vii. 41, xvi. 5, the best MSS. have
Xpeo</)ciAeT»;9, a form which Zonaras rejects, and which is found only
once in MSS. of Greek authors : see Lob. p. 691.
14. The aspirate for the tenu:s in i.<f>i8e 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, d<fitXvLtovTe% L, vi. 35,
oi^ oif/eaOe L. xvii. 22, ov)( 'lovSaiKw? G. ii. 14, oij^ oAtyo? A. xii.
18, al. : comp. Bornem. Act. p. 24. Analogous forms are found in
the LXX (Sturz, p. 127) and in Greek inscriptions (Bockh, Inscript.
I. 301, II. 774), and are explained by the fact that many of these
words (as cAttis, iSeiv) had been pronounced with the digamma.^
15. Ilpai;? and TrpavTrj's are the besi attested forms in the N. T.,
though Photius (Lexic. p. 386, Lips.) gives the preference to Trpaos :
see however Lob. p. 403 sq.^
16. 'Ex^es (not x^^'?. Lob. Path. I. 47) was introduced into the
text by Lachm. from the best MSS.^
^ [Amongst other instances may be mentioned iip' Ix-rlh Rom. viii. 20, A. ii.
26, iips7?iy L. i. 25, ovx 'Soi' A. ii. 7. In some instances (as Ph. ii. 23, G. ii. 14,
A. ii. 7, 26, Rom. viii. 20) the aspirate is well supported : it is received more or
less frequently by Lachm., Meyer, Alt"., Ellic, Westcott and Hort, and Tisch.
(esp. in ed. 7). Conversely, oiix is found before an aspirate in Jo. viii. 44, aux
iffTfiiciv (Tisch., but see below, p. 106) ; so also L. xxiv. 3, A. iii. 6, in K and C.
Similar examples are found in the MSS. of the LXX, as ovx. vTapxn Job xxxviii.
26, Kaf o(p^aXf/,otJs Ez. XX. 14. (In Mt. v. 33, x has ifwpxrKrin , and Mullach,
Vulg. p. 22, quotes l(piopxoiJvTi from Marm. Oxon. II. 1. 69. 78 : 8 x^/j also occurs
in inscriptions.) Seo Tisch. Prolog, p. 52 (ed. 7), N. T. Vatic, p. xxviii, and
Proleg. ad LXX. p. 33 ; A. Buttm. Gr. p. 7 ; Mullach, Vulg. pp. 22, 146 ;
Don. p. 17 ; Scrivener, CoU. of Cod. Sin. p. Iv ; Lightfoot on G. ii. 14, and
Ph, ii. 20 ; and compare Scrivener, Criticism, p. 491, where it is maintained
that such fonns are mere mistakes of the scribe.]
" [Tisch. has -xfai;, Tpxurn;, in every case ; Lachm. ■rpairyi; twice, G. vi. 1, E.
iv. 2 : sec Tisch. Prohg. p. 50 fed. 7), Lipsius p. 7, A. Buttm. p. 26.]
' [ct. The Attic tt for <ro- is found in but few words. Kptirruv is much more
common than Kpufmv. "HrTaiv occurs twice in Rec, but the true reading is
SECT, v.] ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHICAL PRINCIPLES. 49
2. Whether such words as Slo. ti, iva tl, Bed ye, dWd ye, air
apTc, TovT ecTi should he written as two words or one, can
scarcely be decided on any general principle ; and the remark-
able variations in the better MSS. make the question of less
importance. In most instances Knapp has preferred to unite
the words ; and certainly in expressions of frequent occurrence
two small words do naturally coalesce in pronunciation, as is
shown by the erases, hio, hiori,, Kadd, ojcne, — also by /xrjKerc, etc.
Schulz maintains the opposite view : but would he write et ye,
Toc vvv, ovK ezi, etc. ? How much the MSS., on the average, are
in favour of uniting the words, may be seen from Poppo, Thuc.
I. p. 455. Schulz himself writes StcfTrai^ro? in Mk. v. 5, L.
xxiv. 53 ; and Schneider in Plato almost always joins the words.
vrrat ; of Ixirraif both forms are used. The derivatives from these last have
TT, except in 2 C. xii. 13 {iiT<ru^»ri).
b. ff, ff. Both eLypytv and Uprrn occur in Rec. , and in Rom. i. 27 Tisch. now
reads affn* three times ; but cifxrnv is probably the true reading throughout the
N. T. BaffiTy occurs frequently, and idpru also (in the Gospels and Acts) ;
•ruf'fii. Rev. vi. 4 ; di.fffoi, A. xxviii. 15.
c. For H-oLTioum recent editors write Mx^6a7at (comp. Jelf 22. 3), see Mt. i. 15,
L. iii. 24, 29, A. i. 23, 26. Compare Scrivener, Critic, p. 488 sq.
d. 'ludvvtis is most frequently written by Tregelles and by Westcott and Hort
with a single » (comp. Scdvener, I.e.) : on yivtifia, which is very well supported
iu Mt. xxvi. 29, Mk. xiv. 25, L. (xii. 18) xxii. 18, 2 C. ix. 10, see Tisch. Froleg.
p. 48 (ed. 7).
8. The MSS. frequently vary between ix and ua in the terminations of nouns.
Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort write- jUE^uS/a, a.Xa.'^ovia, i/,a.y't(x,, Kufi'ia, dpt<rx.'tti,
'ArraX/a, ViaKrafla, etc. ; and the latter editors uniformly adopt the forms d-rufice,
ififta, tiipiKia, iTtiixla, ii^uXaXarpia. A similar Variation is found in other word.?
(as iaviZo), layiiTT^i), especially in proper names and foreign words ; sometimes it
is -sery difficult to decide between < and td. See Tisch. Proleg. /p. 51 (ed. 7),
Alford I. Proleg. p. 96 sq.
/. The breathings are often interchanged in proper names and foreign words ;
thus Tisch. writes 'u.aa.'tas, 'fio-Mt, hxii, 'Ep/zoyivns, uravvx, etc. : — cixviTis is in the
N. T. written with the aspirate, aXoai- without. See Lipsius, Gr. Unt. p. ISsqq.
g. Miscellaneous examples : a.id'mpoi L. xiv. 13, 21, dy^piout^oxn.. iii. 12, Z,p>invca
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<i ovv Mt.
xviii. 4, quisquis igitur (Buttm. I. 308) ; i^avTr]<i the adverb, and
i^ avTtjq ; — not to mention ovBel<; and oiiB' eh. In the MSS.,
however, the ovv (M orri^oCv, etc.) usually stands alone, and the
writers themselves sometimes separate it by a conjunction from
the word to which it belongs : see Jacobs, Prcef. ad ^lian. Anim.
p. 25. In detail much must be left to the editor's judgment;
but there can hardly be any sufficient reason for writing Slu-
'rravr6<i or vTrepeyco (2 C. xi. 23, Lachm.), and the like. Still we
must bear in mind that in the Greek of the N. T., so closely
related to the ordinary spoken language, orthographical com-
binations would be especially natural^
The neuter of the pronoun osn? was formerly written o,tl (with
the hypodiastole) in editions of the N. T., as L. x. 35, Jo. ii. 5,
xiv. 13, 1 C. xvi. 2, al. Lachmaan, after Bekker, introduced o ri
(as OS Tts, ij Tis).2 Others, as Schneider (Plat. Civ. I. Prcef.
p. 48 sq.),^ even think it unnecessary to separate the words. Much
may be said in favour of writing the pronoun on as one word ; inter
alia, that then the reader is not influenced in favour of a particular
interpretation of the text. It has indeed been doubted in many
passages of the N. T., e.g. in Jo. viiL 25, A. ix. 27, 2 C. iii. 14, whether
this word should be regarded as the pronoun or as the conjunction.
Wlien however this question has been once decided, it is safest to
1 [See Lipsius, Gfr. Unt. pp. 124-134, where this subject is more minutely
examined : see also Lob. p. 48. ]
* [Lachinaun writes oVt/;, ?t/( and follows Bekkor in » r/ only,]
» Comp. Jen. Lit. Z. 1809. IV, 174.
SECT, v.] ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIOAL PRINCIPLES. 51
write o n (with a space between) or o,ti (with the hypodiastole) in
the case of the pronoun.^
3. Crasis ^ is on the whole rare, and is confined to certain
expressions of frequent occurrence : in these, however, it is
found almost without variation.' It is most common in Kayo),
Kav, KUKel, KcLKeldev, KaKeluo'i : we fi.ad also Kufxoi, L. i. 3,
A. viii. 19, 1 C. iii. 1 [/ca7w], xv. 8 ; Kufii, Jo. vii. 28, 1 C.
xvi. 4 ; Tovvavrlov, 2 C. ii. 7, G. ii. 7, 1 P. iii 9 ; and once
rovvofia, Mt. xxvii. 57. On the other hand, we always find
ra avTo, in good MSS. : see L. vi. 23, xvii. 30, 1 Th. ii. 14.^
Tovrea-Tc, KaOd, Kaddvep, and the like, are only improperly
termed examples of crasis.
Contraction is but seldom neglected in the ordinary cases ;
see §§ 8 and 9 on oarea, ^etXewi/, voi, and the like. In L. viii. 38
the best MSS. have iheero, a form often found in Xenophon :
see Irr. V. s. v.. Lob. p. 220 (Jelf 239. 3).* The verb Kaii-
fbr'jeiv exhibits a contraction of a peculiar kind : comp. Lob.
p. 340.
There is good authority for koX eVet, Mt. v. 2-3, xxviii. 10, Mk.
i. "35, 38 ; koL iKtWtv Mk. x. I ; koX lKeivoL<i Mt. xx, 4 ; [koX iyto
L. xvi. 9], etc,
4. In, the earlier ed'tions of the N. T. the i subscript was
too frequently introduced : * this abuse was first censured by
Knapp. The c must certainly be rejected —
(a) In a crasis with Kai, when the first syllable of the second
word does not contain i (as Kara from kuI elra) ; thus Kayco,
KcLfioi, K^Kelvo^, Kav, KUKel, KctKelOev, etc.: see Herm. Vig. p. 526,
Buttm. 1. 114 (Jelf 13). The i subscript is however defended
by Thiersch {Gr. § 38 Anm. 1), and Poppo has retained it in
Thucjdides after the best MSS. {Thuc. II. i. p. 149).
' [See Lipsius p. 118 sq.]
* Ahrena, De Orasi et Aphcered (Stollberg, 1845).
' [In these passages some of the oldest MSS. have Taura., which may be rctlni.
Lachm. reads nrvrd in L. xvii. 30 and (m marg.) L. vi. 23, but the accentuated
MSS. are against this. ]
* Oorapare Fritzl De Conf. crit. p. 32. [Uncontracted forhis from' Sto^a/ are
frequently found in the MSS- of Xenophon, but in most instances they haV«
been altered by the editors : see Veitch, Gfr. Verbs, p. 159. In regard to
L. viii. it should rather be said that some of the best MSS. have iiiin. A
similar example is Ix^Urt, Rev. xvi. 1.]
* [On the practice of Biblical MSS. in regard to / subscript and ascript see
Lipsius p. 3, Scrivener, Critic, pp. 41 sq., 160.]
52 ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHICAL PRINCIPLES. [PART II.
(b) In the 2 perf. {? 1 perf.] aad 1 aor. act. of the verb atpoy
and its compounds : thus rjpicev Col. ii. 14, apai, Mt. xxiv. 17,
apov Mt. ix. 6, r)pav Mt. xiv. 12, apa<i 1 C. vi. 15, etc.: see
Buttm. I. 413, 439, and Poppo, Time. II. i. p. 150.
(c) In the infinitives ^r^v, ht^rjv, Tretvrjv, ')(^prja6at,} — properly
Doric, but also commonly used in Attic (Matth. 48. Eem. 2).
Some ancient grammarians ^ (later than the commencement of
our era) affirm that the same rule should be followed in the infin,
of contracted verbs in aay, as a^airav, opav, Tifidv ; probably
because these forms are immediately derived from (the Doric)
TCfMaev, K.T.X., as /xtadovv from p^iaOoev: see Wolf in the Lit.
Analekt. I. 419 sqq. (Don. p. 256, Jelf 239). Bengel inclined
towards this orthography, and it has been defended and adopted
by several scholars.^ Buttmann (I. 490) and Matth. (197.
b. 5) speak doubtfully ; and many editors — e.g. Lobeck, see his
Technol. p. 188 — retain the t. It has however been removed
from the N". T. by Schulz, Lachm., and Tisch. ; comp. E. v. 28,
Eom. xiii. 8, Mk. viii. 32, Jo. xvi. 19.^
{d) There is nothing decisive in favour of 7rpao<i (Lob. Phryn.
p. 403, Pathol. I. 442) ; yet see Buttm. I. 255. iT/jcut' also, from
irpo, should not have i subscript : see on this word generally
Buttmann, Plat. Crito, p. 43, Lexil. 17. 2.
(e) On iravrr], A. xxiv. 3, sea Buttm. II. 360 : the t, which is
rightly found in dWy, ravTrj, which are real datives, should be
omitted in TravTrj, which has no corresponding nominative. The
ancient grammarians, however, are of a different opinion (Lob.
Paral. p. 56 sq.), and Lacbmann writes iravrrj. Kpv(f>}] (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, <fivX.a, ipvcraro,
apa(f)0'i (Jo. xix. 23). They also disregarded the expedients by which
the Greeks avoided a harsh concurrence of many or dissimilar con-
sonants (Buttm. I. 75 sqq., Jelf 22) ; thus Xyp-^j/ofxai, avaXrjjxc^Ous,
{Il'T. V. p. 162), Trpo<;oJTroXr)iJUJ/La, dTreKrdvKaai, €V)((jipiov, (TuvKaAv/x/xa,
(TwprjTitv [1 (rvvt,r)T£Lv], avvTrvtyeLv, (rvvfJLa6T]Tr)<;, irivTru.^ These peculi-
arities are found more or less uniformly both in good MSS. of the
LXX. and N. T. (Tisch. Frcef. ad N. T. p. 20 sq., ed. 2) which are
said to have been written in Egypt — as A, B, C (ed. Tisch. p. 21), D
editor (I believe) omits * in ^rs^-J?, Sx^aa-Za, Ilia. Jelf (324. 2) writes all these
adverb.s without i subscript, and Kost (]>. 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. <Jo». See Lipsius p. 8 sq., Cobet, N. T. Vatic, p. xii,
and A. Buttmann's review of the last-named work in Stud. u. Kr'il. 1S62 (1.
Heft, p. 154) : on ir^Zifa. (Lachm. and others), see A. Buttm. Gr. p. 11, and
Cobet I.e. Lachm. and Tisch. write T^^as : Winer and others, Tpuas. West,
and Hort insert the / in all these words, except ffa^civ. ]
•' [Tisch. writes pfi in the N. T. : he says, ' ' pp prorsus invita odd. auctoritate
edi consiievit " {Prole<j. p. 276, ed. 7). See also Lipsius, p. 7, Jelf 7, Cobet,
N. T. Vatic, p. xcvi.]
* [Ei'Sia is received by Tisch., Treg., Westcott and Hort : see Tisch. Proleg.
(p. 49, ed. 7). "Apaipo; also, Jo. xix. 23, is found in almost all the ancient MSS.]
■"' [Conversely, such forms as f/i^so-*, lyKava. (iv f-'ury, U KavS), are found in
some of the oldest MSS. (Tisch. Proleg. p. 48, ed. 7) and in inscriptions (Don.
p. 68).]
64 ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHICAL PRINCIPLES. [PART 11.
of Gospels, D of Paul's Epistles (Tisch. Proleg. ad Cod. CUir-om. p. 18),
K of Gospels,^ — and in Coptic and Graeco-Coptic documents (Hug,.
Introd. § 50), We cannot therefore, with Planck,^ reject them at
once as due to the caprice of copyists, especially as analogies may
often be adduced from the older dialects. At the same time, many
are not specially Alexandrian, as they occur in MSS. of Gr^ek authors
and in inscriptions which cannot be proved to be of Egyptian origin
{e.g. et for i, cy for ck, — with Xtj/iiJ/oixat compare the Ionic Xdful/ofiai,,
Matth. 242) ; and, on the other hand, many Egyptian documents are
tolerably free from the peculiarities in question.
These forms have been introduced into the text by Lachm. and
Tischendorf, on the concurrent testimony of good (but usually few)
MSS., in Mt. XX. 10, xxi. 22, Mk. xii 40, L. xx. 47, A. i. 2, 8, 11,
38,3 ja. i. 7, Mk. i. 27, 2 C. vii. 3, Ph. ii. 25, al. ; sometimes without
citation of authorities, Mt. xix. 29, Jo. xvi. 14, 1 C. iii. 14, Ph. iii. 12,
Rom. vi. 8, al. Without more decisive reasons, hoAvever, than those
assigned by Tischendorf'* {Prcef. adN. 7'. p. 19), we surely ought not
to attribute to Palestinian writers — especially John, Paul, and James
— all the peculiarities of the Alexandrian dialect, and particularly of
the Alexandrian orthography ; and it is not probable that the N, T.
writers would follow this orthography in comparatively few in-
stances only.'' Co4ex B, too, is not yet thoroughly collated in
this respect. Tischendorf has introduced these forms less frequently
than the words of his preface (p, 21) would have led us to
expect.
Hence before this orthography is introduced into the N. T. text-
— if the MSS. are to be followed in such points even in editions of
^ See Hug, Introd. 1. § 50 sqq. ; Soholz, Gurce Cr'd. In hist. text. Evangg.
pp. 40, 61. ■ '
* De orationis N. T. indole, p. 25, note. [Bibl. Cad. voL ii. p. 129.]
^ [This is uo doubt intended for A. ii, 38. J
* [It will be remembered that Winer is speaking in thia paragraj>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 <rvXXaiu(ia,»iiv, cuXXaXtiv, <ru/ifi/>uXi<it, irv/iTi'Truv, we find
no example of this orthography ; in others, as <niX>.iytn, o-uyxaXu*, ffutr-ravpov»,
lyxaXiTy, it is noted only in isolated instances. [lufcTitrrtit occurs in the N, T,
once only, in the form <rvr'frifi* , and of the first tlu-ee words the irregular
forms are sometimes found, see Tisch. Prolog, p. 47 (ed, 7). There are some
interesting observations on this subjiict in the above-mentioned article in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1862 (p. 17.9 sqq.). The writer (A. Buttmann) maintains (1) that
i» is almost always assimilated before labials, comparatively seldom before
gutturals : — (2) that these compounds in which the writer appears to have
simply annexed the prejms. to auother word in adverbial fashion, each part of
the compound preserving its proper jiieaning, do not assimilate the » ; whilst in
those compounds which were in regular and current use, and in which tlie two
parts are fused together so as to express a single new idea, assimilation does
take plaoc. Com pare /rvyxXripotofio;, autf/.a.pTUf,uf, and similar "words, with
evfupifti, cvfjt.(itt,xxin, eLc. The subject however still needs careful investi-
gation,]
SECT. VI.] ACCENTUATION. 5 5
the N. T. designed for common use — the whole subject must receive
a new and complete examination. One question to be considered
will be, whether these peculiarities of spelling, which have been
supposed to represent the true popular pronunciation, do not rather
belong to a systerd of orthography adopted by the learned, somewhat
as we find in Roman inscriptions on stone ^ the etymological spelling
adferre, inlatus, etc.^
Section VI,
ACCENTUATION.
1 . The accentuation of the N. T, text is to be regulated not
so much by the authority of the oldest accentuated MSS. as
by the regular tradition of the grammarians. Many points,
however, have been left in doubt, and in the careful investiga-
tions of later scholars a tendency to excessive refinement is
sometimes observable. We may notice specially the following
points : —
(a) According to the ancient grammarians (Moeris p. 193)
the should be written tSe in Attic Greek only, l'8e in other
(later) Greek ; the same distinction being made as between Xa/3e
^ Schneider, Lat. Gr. I. ii. p. 530 sq., 543 sq., 566 sq., al.
* [It is now admitted by most that we must, in general, follow the most
ancient MSS. in regard to peculiarities both of inflexion and of orthography.
" For a long time it has been most strangely assumed that the linguistic forms
E reserved in the oldest MSS. are Alexandnne and not in the widest sense Jlel-
nistic. ... In the case of St. Paul, no less than in the case of Herodotus,
the evidence of the earliest witnesses must be decisive as to dialectic forms.
Egyptian scribes preserved the characteristics of other books, and there is no
reason to suppose that they altered those of the N. T.'^ (Westcott in Smith's
Diet, of the Bible, II. p. 531.) The following quotation refers directly to in-
flexions, but is equally applicable to orthography : " Our practical inference from
the whole discussion will be, not that Alexandrian inflexions should be inva-
riably or even usually received into the text, as some recent editors have been
inclined to do, but that they should be judged separately in every case on their
merits and the support adduced on their behalf; and be held entitled to no
other indulgence than that a lower degree of evidence wiU suffice for them than
when the sense is affected, inasmuch as idiosyncrasies in spelling are of all
others the most liable to be gradually and progressively modernised even by
faithful and painstaking transcribers." (Scrivener, Critic, p. 490.) See Tisch.
Proleg. p. 43 sqq. (ed. 7) ; Alford, vol. I. Proleg. p. 94 sqq. ; Tregelles, Printed
Text, p. 17-8 ;and (against Kuenen and Cobet, who without hesitation substitute
the ordinary forms of words) A. Buttm. in Stud, u, Krit. l.c, Comp. also Mullach,
Vulg. p. 21 ; Lightfoot, Clement, p, 26. On the other hand, many peculiarities
called Alexandrian by Sturz and others are no .doubt mere errors in spelling :
see Scrivener, Critic. /p. 10.]
56 ACCENTUATION. [PART II.
and Xa'^6 : see Weber, Demosth. p. 173, and comp. Buttm. I.
448. This rule has been followed by Griesbach (except in G.
V. 2), and by Lachmann[, Tischendorf, and others] in every case,
Bornemann suggested ^ that the word should be written IBe
when it is used as a true imperative and followed by an accusa-
tive (as in Eom. xi. 2 2), iBe when it is a mere exclamation. But
it is preferable to follow the ancient grammarians.
(6) Numerals compounded with eVo?, according to some
ancient grammarians (Th. M. p. 859, Moschopul. w? Scheit), arc
paroxytone when they are predicated of time, and oxytone in all
other cases. According to this we should have reaaapaKopra-
€T7]f '^povo^ in A. vii. 23,r.eaaapaKovTaeT7] xpovov in A. xiii. 18;
but in Eom. iv. 1 9, iKarovTaer/j'i.'^ In the MSS., however, this
distinction is not observed, and the rule is altogether doubtful
(see I.ob. p. 406) : Ammonius (p. 136) exactly reverses it, see
Bremi on ^schin. Ctesiph. 369 (ed. Goth.).^
(c) Krjpv^ and <f)OLvi^ are by some written Krjpv^ and (f}o2vL^,'*
on the ground that, according to some ancient grammarians, the
V and t in the nomin. sing, were pronounced short (Bekker,
Anecd. III. 1429). This rule is rejected by Hermann (Soph.
(Ed. E. p. 145), as contrary to all analogy. It is a question,
however, M'hether we should not for later Greek follow the
grammai;ians, and write Kripv^, j>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')(^o<i
(comp. Reisig, De consir. antisir. p. 20, Lob. Paral. p. 418),
^ Rosenniiiller, Exeg. Repert. II. 267.
* Comp. Jacobs, Anthol. III. pp. 251, 253.
' [Tischendorf accentuates on the penult, in every instance ; Tregelles and
Westcott and Hort on the hist syllable.]
* See SchiBfer, Gnom. p. 215 sq., and on Soph. Philoct. 562 : comp. EUendt,
Lfx. Soph. I. 956 sq.
'[Tisch. now writes *r>o? (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
<xTv\o<; (Lidd. and Scott s. v.), (pt-v|rt? and) pl^jrav L. iv. 35. It is
however rightly remarked by Fritzsehe (Bom. I. 107) that, as
we know from ancient grammarians ^ that a penultimate which
was long in Attic was often shortened in later Greek, it is not
so certain that we are justified in introducing the Attic accentu-
ation into the N.T.^ No editor has changed the regular OprjCKo^
into dpr](TKo^, though the latter is found in some IMSS. ; see
Bengel, Apif>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 (r<r, ^, |, \p. It is also very conceivable that the pronunciation would
vary at different periods, and that the natural quantity of the vowels might
possibly be retained in older Attic, whilst in later Gree}i the tendency might be
towards shortening the doubtful vowels where they were long by position."
Lipsius also receives (for the N. T. ) xp/f^a, Xnov, otIxo;, vrixo;. Tisch. writes
i\l-4'iS, xplfio., Xiyo*, iXxuffai (Jo. Xxi. 6), fi7yjU,a, ;^;^iV^a, (TtTXhs, (TrZXm, xnpv^ai,
'4'"X'ft usually following ilS. authority specilied in his notes (in ed. 7). In
all these words, and also in irvvTiTplipiai (Mk. v. 4), Westcott and Hort reject the
circumflex accent. For a good defence of x^/^sta (in later Greek) see Cobet, N. T.
Vatic, p. xlix. sqq. , see also Vaughan on Rom. ii. 2 ; on <ririXc;, see Eilicott on
E. v. 27 ; on crixo;, Lightfoot on G. ii. 9. The quantity of the v in kC'htu is
disputed, Buttmann giving Z {Irr. V. s. v.), Lobeck (Paral. p. 414) iJ ; but
->ra.(a.Ku-^a.i, uvaKv-^ai, are generally received in the N. T. Treg. writes vxdxa.
L. xi. 22, and <rt/>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)<i, K\dcrTr]<i, k.tX. Schott
and Wahl retain KTia-rfj, though the. true accentuation was
long ago advocated by Bengel (Appar. p. -442).
(i) On fiiadwro^ see Schsef. Demosth. II. 88. ^d>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
<f>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(rTo<i not ^Epacrro';, B\daTO<i not B\acr6<;, Kdpiro'i
not Kapiro'i, S(oa6ivr]<i (like ArjfjLoaOevrjq), and AioTp€(fyr)<;
3 Jo. 9. Similarly Tlfjuov instead of Tifj,6!)v, 'Opr)cri(f>opo<i for
'Ov7]ai(f)6po<;, EvfjLevr}<i for Evfievri<;. 'Tfievaio^i, however, re-
mains unaltered, as in general it is not customary to throw the
accent forward in proper names ; hence also the proparoxy tones
— as Tp6<f)i,fio<i, 'AatryKptTO'i — retain their accent* (Lob. Lc).
Yet the forms first mentioned are sometimes found in old
grammarians and in good MSS. (comp. Tisch. Proleg. God.
Clarom. p. 22) with their original accent: comp. also ^Ckrjro^,
Euseb. HiM. Ecd. 6. 21. 2. The name Xpi,<n6<i has never been
^ [That the adjective is (pctyit, the substantive (piyat. See Lipsius I.e. p. 28,]
• [Charax informs us that nV«» was a Syracusan form of the second aorist
imperative, and so Winer considers it (p. 103). See Fritz. Mark p. 517, A.
Buttm. Or. p. 57: comp. Curtius, Or. Verb, pp. 303, 450 (Trans.). Tisch.
receives iiV« in Mt. xviii. 17, xxii. 17, Mk. xiii. 4, L. x. 40, xx. 2, xxii. 67.
Jo. x. 24, A. xxviii. 26. See also Mt. iv. 3, xxiv. 3.]
3 So also geographical names ; see Nobbe, Sch. Ptol. II. 17 sq. (Lips. 1342).
* ["In this case proper names sometimes become oxytone, as Suvrvxp Ph.
iv. 2 (Ti.ich.) :" Lipsius p. 31. Liinemaun adds nifpof, 'Ef/Aeyi>rn, 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,fuiov<i, Kaj)apvaovfi. On the other hand, the MSS.
have Kavd, Fedarjfjbaprj (though TedqrjpLavel, which Lachm. and
Tisch. prefer, has more authority, see Fritz. Mark p. 626), also
Br}6<f>ay7J: 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, KopioXdvo<i, Plutarch, Coriol. c.
11, Dion. H. 6. p. 414 (ed. Sylb.); KiKiwdro^, Dion. H. 10. p.
650; TopKovdro^, Plut. Fab. Max. c. 9, Dio C. 34. c. 34;
Kohpdro<i (Quadratus), Joseph. Ant. 20. 6 ; 'OvopdTO'i, etc.
As to TtT09 and Tlro'i see Sintenis, Plut. Vit. II. 190 : on
^rjXi^ (not ^rjXi^ see Bornem. Act. p. 198.*
The accentuation o/xoio?, ifjTJfio^, ctoi/lios, /xwpos (Boisson. Anecd.
V. 94), which according to the grammarians (Greg. Cor. pp. 12,
' [This rule is usually followed. Lachm. and Tischendorf however write
Tvxitis (A. XX. 4, al.), *«x»it« (2 Tiiri. ii. 17); Tischendorf, ''Eiramrit (Rom.
xvi. 5), ^orpiipvs (3 Jo. 9). The MS. authority for the change is given by
Tisch. U. cc. and by Lipsius p. 30. See also Tisch. Proleg. p. 61 (ed. 7).]
* [Tisch. reads MaiougaXa.*, Tiiir>i/^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£<r^-/j (for Sso-jctJi), see Lob. Paral.
p. 396; ' KXi'iutlifi^oi A. xxvii. 6 Tisch. (following,' M>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<r.fwv).]
SEOT. VI.] ACCENTUATION. 61
rection introduced by those who took offence at the use of the
article. There is as little reason for reading ev rw Trpdyfiarc in
I Til. iv, 6. In 1 C. X. 19 several recent editors (Knapp and
Meyer) read, otc el8co\6duTov rl ia-riv, rj on etBcoXov rt ia-riv; on
the ground that rt is here emphatic (the opposite of ovhev), and
that an ambiguity is occasioned by the other reading, elhwXoOvTov
Ti eariv (Lachm.), since this might be rendered, " that' any
offering to an idol exists," — that there is such a thing as an
offering to an idol. But even if we grant that Meyer's is
certainly the true interpretation, the ordinary accentuation need
not be changed ; for with it we may translate, " that an offer-
ing to an idol is anything,"^ — in reality, and not in appearance
merely.^ In Jo. vii. 34, 36, critics are still divided between
oirov elfjbl ijco,, and uttov elfii, iyd) (the reading of several
Fathers and versions) ; and in A. xix. 38 almost all recent
editions have dyopaiot (an adjective, in the sense judicial)
instead of dyopalot,. In regard to the former passage, John's
ordinary usage (comp. xii. 26, xiv, 3, xvii. 24) is sufficient
proof that €tfii is to be preferred:' in the latter dyopatoi
is probably correct, if we follow Suidas, and in Ammon. p. 4
read (with Kulencamp), dyopawi fiev yap iartv rj rip-epa'
dyopalot 8e 6 'Epfjirj^ 6 eVl t^9 dyopd<i. Comp. Lob. Faral.
p. 340.'
In Eom. i. 30 some write 6eo(nvyeL<i, maintaining that the
word is here used in an active sense, and thar OeocrTvyei^i is
passive, Deo exosi. But the analogy of su^^h adjectives as
/jLTjrpoKTovoi; and p,riTpoKT6vo<i (Buttm. II. 482,.Jelf 50) proves
nothing for adjectives in t;? ; and Suidas says expressly that
6eoarvyel<i means both ol viro deov p^taov/xevoi and ol deov
fj.iaovvTe<i, though he distinguishes between d€OfMiai]<i and
0€ofjLL(n]<; in signification. Hence deo(7rvyd<i, which alone is
according to analogy (compound adjectives in 779 being oxytone),
is the only correct form. As regards the sense, it would seem
that the active meaning which Suidas gives to the word was
1 [That is, the same meaninp: may be obtained from I'iluX'oiur'at t< iitti*
through the emphasis laid on iVriv, as from ilduX. t'i ia-riv through the em-
phasis ou t/ : "is anything at all" is practically equivalent to "is (really)
anything."]
'^ See Liicke in loc, after Knapp, Comm. Isagog. p. 32 sq.
' [Tisch. in loc. (ed. 8) remarks that the MSS. do not support the distinction,
and reads Icyofatin : so Westcott and Hort. See Lij)sius, p. .26.]
62 ACCENTUATION. [PART II.
not derived by him from Greek usage, but was assumed for
this very passage. The word, it is true, does not often occur,
but no instance has been found in which a Greek author has
certainly used it in an active sense: see Fritz, in loc. There
is however good ground for the distinction between rpoxo'i
wheel, Ja. iii. 6 (in the text and the accentuated MSS.), and
rpoxo^ course, the reading adopted by Grotius, Hottinger,
Schulthess, and others; see 8ch«ef. Soph. II. 307. The figure
rpoyh^ 7ei'6<re&)9 (in conjunction with <f)\oyi^ov(ra) is neither
incorrect nor, in James, particularly strange ; hence no change
of accent is required.
The alterations of accent which have been proposed in other
passages — as ofjiios for o/liu>? 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, Trp6<i tre, but ev aoi, ev ifioc, eVi ere, eh cue, eir
ifie, etc. It is only in the case of tt/jo? fie, <re, that variants are
noted-, the orthdtoned pronouns being sometimes found (L. i. 43,
A. xxil 8, 13, xxiii. 22, xxiv. 19) in B and other MSS., mostly
at the end of a sentence or clause : see'Bornem. on A. xxiv. 19,
Partly on the authority of ancient grammarians, and partly for
the reason assigned by Hermann {De em. gr. Grcee. p. 75 sq.),
that in such combinations the pronoun is the principal word, one
must be disposed to decide generally in favour of retaining the
accent of the pronoun: irp6<i fie, hdwever, is defended by a portion
of the grammarians, and is often found in MSS. See Buttm. I
285 sq., i&Qohs, Anth. Pal. I. Proef. p. 32, Matth. Eurip. Or.
384 and Sprachl. 29, Kriig. p. 82, also Ellendt, Arrian I. 199.
Yet Eeisig (Conj. in Aristoph. p. 56) and Bornemann (Xen.
Conv. p. 163) maintain the other view; and it must be confessed
that — besides the case of tt^o? fie — the enclitic forms are often
found in good MSS. of Greek authors. The accent must of
SECT. VII.] PUNCTUATION. 63
course be retained when the pronoun is emphatic : thus Knapp
and Schulz correctly write rC irpo'^ ae in Jo. xxi. 22.^
As regards the inclination of the accent, the ordinary rules of
the grammarians are in general observed in editions of the N. T.
Hence even Fritzsche stili writes 6 Trats /jlov Mt. viiL 6, i$ vfiiav
Tives Jo. vi. 64, inro tiviov L. ix. 7 ; not ttoT*; fxov, c^ vfiStv Tives,
iirb TivG>v, 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 <f)i\ahe\(f)ia'?, ov ■^(peiav e^t^re ypdipeiv
vfiiv' Mt. vi. IG, ixT) <ylv€ade, coSTrep oi viroKpnai (for p,ri <y[v.
by itself gives no sense at all), Mt. v. 32, 69 av uiroXvo-rj ttjv
yvvaifca ainov, TrapeKTo^ \6jov 7rnpveia<; (the last words contain
the most essentia] part of the statement), Mt. xxii. 3, KaX
aireareCke rov<; Bov\ov<: avrov, KaKecrai tou9 KeKk'qixkvou^' 1 Th.
iii. 9, TtVor f^/ap €v-^apLariai> 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 eKelvo<i' Mt. xxiv.
44, fi ov 8oKecT6 wpa 6 viw^ rod duOpcoTrov ep^^rai' L. xii. 17,
on ovK Ip^tu TToO avvd^oi Tov<i KapiTovs p-ov ; or when there is an
attraction of the relative, as L. ii. 20, eVt iracnv oh qKovaav ; ^
or when the relative clause is so necessary a complement to the
antecedent that the sense is not complete unless both are taken
together, as L. xii. 8, Tra? 09 av 6p,o\oyi](Tr]- Mt. xiii. 44, iravra
oaa e%et ; or when the preposition is not repeated before the
relative, as A. xiiL 39, airo Trdvrcov wv ovk ■^Svv^Orjre k.t.X.,
L. i. 25.''' Also when the subject, the predicate, or the copula
of a sentence is composed of several words joined by Kai
(or ovSe), we must take all these words together, and regard
them as one whole grammatically, though, logically considered,
there are really several sentences : Mk. xiv. 22, \aj3div 6 ^Irja-oD^
aprov €vKoyrj(Ta<i eKkaae koI eBcoKev avroh' Jo. vi. 24, Irjaov'i
OVK 'icTTLv iKei ovBe ol pbaOrjTai avrou' Mt. xiii. 6, -qXiov dvarei-
\avro<; iKavpartcrdr] koI Bia to /x^ ^X^^^ pi^av i^rjpdvdr) (so
Lachm. correctly), 1 Tim. vi. 3, Mt. vi. 26. — (The case is
' Compare Schsef. Demosth. II. 657.
* It would b(i going too far to omit the comma before every relative sentence,
as is (lone by Bekker, for instance, in his edition of Plato,
5
66 PUNCTUATION. [PART II.
different in Mk. xiv. 2 7, Trard^o) tov Troifiii'a, KaX SiaaKopvia-d^-
aerai ra irpo^ara' Mt. vii. 7, aireire, kol Bodrja-erac vfuv :
here two complete sentences are connected by Kai, and thei'e-
fore the comma cannot be omitted. When ri separates two
sentences, the comma is always required before it.)
The comma must also be omitted between such sentences as
(TV fiovo^ irapoiKet'; 'lepovcr. koI ovk €yvo)<i k.t.X, (L. xxiv. 18),
because they are so closely connected that they nmst be read
without a pause, and only when thus joined together convey the
proper sense. In Mk. xv. 25 also we must write ■^v wpa rpirr]
KoX icnavpcoaav avrov, and in Mt. viii. 8, ovk elpX licavo<i iva
fxov vTTo rr)v aTkyrjv el'^ekdriq, without any break. Lastly, the
comma may be omitted before dWd when the following sen-
tence is incomplete, and therefore has its roots, so to speak, in
what has gone before : thus Roui. viii. 9, u/t6t9 Se ovk eVre eV
aapKL aXX' iv irvevfiaTC and in ver. 4, Toc<i firj Kara crdpKa
TrepLTrarova-tu dWa Kara irvev^a (here Fritzsche retains the
comma).
2. On the other hand, we must not brmg too much into a
sentence grammatically complete, and thus omit commas when
they are really necessary.
(a) The vocative is never a constituent part of the sentence
•with which it is connected, but it is to be regarded as a sort of
announcement of it ; especially when the verb of the sentence is
in the 1st or 3rd person. Hence the comma is required in Jo.
ix. 2, pa^^l, Tt'f T^fiaprev Mk. xiv. 36, djS^d 6 TraTrjp, Travra
Bvvard aof 2 P. iii. 1, L. xv. 18, xviii. 11, al.
{b) A comma is correctly inserted after a word which is the
subject both of a sentence immediately following it and begin-
ning with a conjunction, and also of the principal sentence ;
as Jo. vii 31, o Xpi<7T6<;, orav e\6y, , . . irotijaei. Lach-
mann's practice is different.
(c) If a grammatically complete sentence is followed by a
supplementary statement, which might properly form a sentence
of itself, the two must be separated by a comma : thus Rom.
xii. 1 , TTapaKaXo) vfid<; irapaarrjcrai to, (Tcofiara v. 0. ^. . . , rw
Beu), T7JV XoyiKTjv Xarpetav (that is, ?7Tt9 ia-rlv rj \oy. Xar.), 1 Tim.
ii. 6,0 Bov^ iavTov dvTiXvrpov virkp irduTcov, to fxaprvptov Katpoi<i
tStofc?. So also in the case of participles, &c. : Col. ii. 2, iva
TrapuKX. al xapBiai avrSiv, av[Ji^L(3a(x$ivTe<i iv dydiry Jo. ix. 1 3^
SECT. VII.] PUNCTUATION. 67
a<yovcnv avrov irpo<i rov<; (f)apia-aiov<;, top irore rv^\6v' Koni.
viii. 4, 'iva ro hiKaiayfxa rov vofMou irX'qpcoOfj iv rjijuv, rot<i /xr)
Kara crdpKa TrepLiraTovcnv' ver. 20, E. i. 12.
(d) If a twofold construction is used in what is (logically) a
single sentence, — as when an anacoluthon occnrs, — the parts
must be separated by a comma in writing, and in reading by a
pause ; as in Jo. xv. 2, ttciv Kkrj/jba ev ifu-ol fMt) (f)epov Kapirov,
aipei avro. By the addition of avro the words Tray k\. . . .
Kapirov hecome a casus pendens, wbich is merely placed in front
of the sentence ; and hence no one would read the words with-
out a pause. Similarly in Eev. iii 12, 6 vikmv, 'jrocijcrco avrov
crrvkov K.r.X., H. ix. 23,^ avdyKTj ra uev uTroBelyfjuara rcou ev
roi<; ovpavoU, rovrofi Kadapi^eadat. It is obvious that, when
complete sentences are introduced, they must be marked off by
commas from the principal sentence, as L. ix. 28, A. v. 7, al.
[see § 62. 2.]
(«) If in a sentence several words which stand in the same
relation are joined to one another da-vvBerax; (without Ka{), or
merely enumerated in succession, they must be separated from
one another by commas : 1 P. v. 1 0, avro<i Karapricrec, a-rrjpL^et,,
adevcoaei, OepbeXLaxrei' L. xiii. 1 4, diroKptdel'i he 6 ap^tcrf yaYtu^o?,
ayavaKrwv on . . . o ^Ir)aov<;, eXeye.
If the use of the comma in all these cases is correct, one might
wish that we had a subordinate stop — a half comma— that those
words in a continuous grammatical sentence which a reader is in
danger of connecting together, though they certainly do not form (so
to speak) one grammatical group, might be exhibited to the eye as
unconnected. Thus in L. xvi, lO, o tticttos iv IXa-^ia-ria koI ev 7roAA<3
irio-Tos ecTTt, any reader may go wrong, because xat naturally leads
him to expect a second word parallel to ttiotos ev (Xa-^^ia-Tia. The
same may be said of the following passages : Rom. iv. 14, f.1 yap
ol €K vofxov K\r)pov6fj.oi' Ja. V. 12, ^ro) Bk vfxCjv ro vat vol koL to ov
ov' 1 C. XV. 47, 6 TrpwTOS av6po}Tro<s c/c y^s xo'lko^' H. V. 12, o^ct-
Aovres ttvai SiSacrxaXot 8ia rov )(p6vov irdXiv )(p€tav e)^eT€ rov SiSd-
(TKCLv v/iSs' Jo. V. 5, rjv Tis avdpuiTTO'i exei TpidKovra koI o/cro) irrf
€p(wv ev rfj a.cr6ev€La' liom, iii. 9 , tl ovv ; 7rpo€;^o/u,e^a ; ov ttoivtcos
(ov, TravTw?). A half comma would make all clear. As however
no such stop exists, we might employ in its stead an ordinary comma,
just as it is used in writing and print to distinguish o,Tt from
on. But recent editors use no stop at all in such cases, and this
is perhaps the most prudent course.^
' [This is probably misplaced, and should come in below, with Rom. iv. 14, etc. ]
^ [Lipsius (pp. 83-108) gives a detailed analysis of Lachmann's system of
68 PUNCTUATION. [PAKT II.
3. It is in many respects desirable that an editor's view of
a passage should not be introduced into the text by means of
punctuation. This is easily avoided in cases where it is not
necessary to punctuate at all, as in Rom, i. 1 7, vii. 21, Mfc. xi. 11.
There are passages, however, where a stop — full stop, colon,
comma, or note of interrogation — is absolutely necessary, and
yet cannot be introduced without the adoption of some parti-
cular interpretation. In Jo. vii. 21, 22, for instance, every
editor must decide whether he will write, '''.Ei' epyov eiroirjaa kuX
Trdvre'i dav/xd^ere' Sia tovto MQ)<Trj<; BeScoKev vfitu TreptTOfjbtjv
K.r.X. (with Chrysostom, Cyril, Euthymius Zigabenus, al.), or
'^Ev ep'yov . . . davfid^ere Scd rovro. Mayai}^ k.t.X., with Theo-
phylact and nearly all modern editors and commentators. The
former punctuation might still be defended (not indeed on
the ground that, as Schulz has shown, Sia tovto in John
usually begins, but never ends a sentence, — but) if the con-
nexion were understood thus : " I have done one work and ye
all wonder : therefore (be it known to you) Moses has given
you etc." That is : "I will put an end to your wonder : you
yourselves perform circumcision on the Sabbath according to
the law of Moses. If then this ceremony, which immediately
affects only one part of the body, is not a violation of the
Sabbath, surely the work of healing, which extends to the whole
man, is also allowed." I confess, however, that (as also Liicke
has shown) the explanation of the passage is far simpler if the
ordinary punctuation is retained.^ Heb. xi. 1 might be punctu-
ated, eVrt 8e irlari^i, eXTrt^o/xevcov vTroa-raat^ k.t.X. : the emphasis
would thus fall on eaTi, and the existence of Tr/crri? of such a
kind as the words in apposition describe would be indicated as
an historical fact. I now think, however, that it is more appro-
priate to omit the comma, so that the words contain a definition
of faith, — the accuracy of which definition is illustrated by the
punctuation, marking instances in which Tischendorrs practice is different. In
his 7th ed. Tisch. punctuates more sparingly than before : "quod raritati stu-
debamus, id earn commendationem habet, quod quo antiquiores cdd. sunt, eo
rarior interpunctio est." {Proleg. p. 62.) On the traces ot" punctuation in the
older MSS,, see Lipsius pp. 67-76.]
' [Of recent commentators, Luthardt, Meyer, and Alford join S/i ToZra to ver.
22, but do not assume an ellipsis. On the other side, the English reader may be
referred to Stier, Words of the Lord Jesus, V. 259 ; Olshausen, Comm. III. 480,
and the notes of Tholuck, Hcngstenberg, and Wordsworth. Tisch. (ed. 8) omits
S(a ravro, ou Very slender authority, Westcott and Hort join the words to ver.
22. See Westcott's note in loc]
SECT. VIII.] UNUSUAL FORMS IN THE FIRST DECLENSION. 6 9
historical examples that follow : see Bleek in loc. In punctu-
ating Jo. xiv. 30, 31, commentators vary between iv i/xol ovk
€■^^€1 oiihev, aX>C "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 a<? make the genitive in
a ; OS Kald(j)a Jo. xviii. 13, "Avva L. iii. 2, ^Apira 2 C. xi, 32
(Joseph. Ant. 17. 3. 2, 18. 5. 1), Bapvd^a G. ii. 1, CoL iv. 10,
^AypiTrTra^ A. xxv. 23, comp. Joseph. Ant. 16. 2. 3, 16. 6. 7,
20. 7. 1, al. (XiXa Joseph. Vit. 17, MarOeLa Act. A])Ocr. p. 133),
^lovha often. — The same forms are not unfrequently used by
Attic writers in proper names ; as MaaKa Xen. An. 1. 5. 4,
Tw^pva Xen. Cyr. 5, 2. 14, KofMara Theocr. 5. 150, ah: comp.
Krug. p. 42 ' (Jelf 79, Don. p. 89), and on Boppa (L. xiii. 29,
Rev. xxi. 13), in particular, Buttm. 1. 147, 199, Bekker, ^?iecc?.
III. 1186.
^ So BoftS, in Act. Thorn., Aovna Euseb. H. E. 3. 24, 'E^^S ib. 3. 3.
^ On the other hand, we find ' KyplT-^ou occasionally in Josephus {Ant. 18. 7.
1 and 2, 18. 8. 8, al.) and Euseb. H. E. 2. 19. In the same way the MSS. of
Xenophon varj' between Fujipuou and TM^pva..
^ Georgi, Hkr. I. 156, Ellendt on Arrian, Al. I. S3, V. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I.
566.
70 UNUSUAL FORMS IN THE FIRST DECLENSION. [PART IL
The genitive of nouns in a? pure ends in ov in the N. T., as
usually in Attic writers (e.g. Alvelas;) ;^ as ^AvSpea-i Mk. i. 29,
Jo. i. 45 (Joseph.^71^. 12. 2. 3,Ad.Apocr. pp. 158, 159), "HXlas
L. i. 17 [?], iv. 25, 'Haata'; Mt. iii. 3, xiii. 14, A. xxviii. 25,al.,
'l€pe/iila<; Mt. ii. 17, xxvii. 9, Za^apia<i Mt. xxiii. 35, L. i. 40, al.,
AvcravLa<i L. iii, 1, Bapa^i'a<i Mt. xxiii. 35. Similarly ^Ovl-a'i
-ov (so always in Josephus), Tco^l-a^; -ov, Geo. Syncell. Chro-
nofjr. p. 164, though the usual genitive is Tco/Sla^'
Several names of places that might be declined as nouns of
the 1st decl. are in the N. T. indeclinable : as Kam (dat. Jo. ii. 1,
11, accus. Jo. iv. 46), BrjOa-a'iSd, BriO^ayri, VoXyoda, 'Fufxa.^ B-qOafiapa,
Jo. i. 28, must not be classed with these, for Origen treats it as
a neuter plural : in this passage recent editors read iv Brfiavia.
Av88a is certainly inflected as a fern. sing, in A, ix. 38 (Ai'^Svjs) ;
but in verses 32, 35, we find AvSSa as a neut. accus. in good
MSS.i
The compounds in ap-^o-i^ usually exchange this ending for apx^'^
(of the 1st decl.) -in the N. T. and in later Greek :^ as Trarpm/ax^?
H. vii. 4, plur. A. vii. 8, 9 (1 Chr. xxvii. 22); T€Tpdpxn<; Mt. xiv. 1, L.
iii. 19, ix. 7 (Joseph. Ant. 18. 7. 1, Terpapxat Euseb. H. E. 1. 7. 4);
TToAirapX^s A. xvii. 6 ; iOvdpxn's 2 C. xi. 32 (IMacc. xiv. 47, iOvdpxrj
1 Mace, XV. 1, 2, iOvdpxqv Joseph. A7it. 17. 11. 4, lOvdpxa'i Eus.
Const. 1. 8); from do-iap^i;?, ao-Mpx^v A. xix. 31 (atyidpxqv Euseb.
H. E. 4. 15. 11, Asiarcha, Cod. Theodos. 15. 92) ; tKarovrapx^? ■^'^- ^•
1, 22, xxi. 32, xxii. 26 (JosepL B. J. 3. 6. 2), kKaTovTdpxxj A. xxiv.
23, xxvii. 31, Mt, viii. 13, — where however a few MSS. have
^ Lobeck, Proleg. Pathol, p. 487 sqq.
* See in general Georg. Chojrobosci Diet, in Theod. Can. (ed. Gaisf.), I. 42.
' [Bniraidect may be the accus. of -Sa in Mk. vi. 45, viii. 2'2, but is vocative in
Mt. xi. 21. In Mt. xxvii. 33 we find lU ToKyoffd, but in Mk. xv. 22 (probably)
i'Ti VoXyoitiv.^
* See Winer, BWB. II. 30. ["At/'SSa is feminine in 1 Mace, and in Pliny:
Josephus uses both modes of inflexion." RWB. I.e. In A. ix. 38 we must read
Xvllai. — Compare Vof^opfuv Mt. x. 15 (Gen. xiii. 10), To/nippas 2 V. ii. 6 (Gen.
xiv. 2); Avirrpav A. xiv. 6, al., A'jffTpoii A. xiv. 8, al. ; Svecrtipuy A. xvi. 14,
^va.Tupa.v Rev. i. 11 (in good MSS.). — In the case of Uapia, '^apia.fi, the variation
between the inflected and the non-iuflected forms is very perplexing.]
* It is true the MSS. of the older Greek writers also vary between eepx'i. and
«^;t:i5) '^ut recent critics give the preference to apxoi (comp. Bornem. Xen. Conv.
I. 4, Popi)o, Xen. Cyr. 2. 1. 22, p. 109); this form also agrees best with the
derivation of these words (from a.i>x<>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, <f}aXayydpxrj<i ih. p. 30,
ilXapxys iL \). 50, i\€(f)ai'Tdpxr]'i 2 Macc. xiv. 12, 3 Macc. v. 4, 45,
dXajf3dpxy]'i Joseph. j4nt. 19. 5. 1, yevdpxrj'i Lycophr. 1307, Jogeph.
Jut 1. 13. 4, rakdpxn^ Arrian, Al. 2. 16. 11, Euseb. Cmist. 4. 63
(thougii in 4. 51, 68, he uses Ta$iapxo<i, s^e Heinich. J7idex p. 585),
iAapx/?s Anian, y}l. 1, 12. 11, 2. 7. 5, (TvpLdpxr}<: Act Apocr. p. 52,
vop.dpx-q<i Fapyr. Taur. p. 24, y€LTovLdpxr]<i Boisson. Anecd. V. 73,
To quote from the Byzantines all the examples of compounds in
-apxv^ would be an endless work; they occur on almost every page. —
Of some compounds -upxo<i is the only form which occurs in the N.T. :
thus we find x'-^^'^PX^'^ i" ^'^ t'''® N- T- passages, 22 in number (on the
other hand, x^Aiupx^^ Arrian, Al. 1. 22. 9, 7. 25. 11, see Ellendt,
Arrian II. 267), and also in the LXX, Ex. xviii. 11,^ 25, Dt. i. 15,
Num. i. 16, in which passages we also meet with 8tKd8apxo<; (StKa-
Sdpxai Arrian, Tad. p. 98). In the Byzantines, KevTapxo<; Cedren. 1,
705, 708, vuKTcVapxos Leo Diac. 6. 2, must be looked upon as isolated
instances of this form.
We meet with dialectic inflexions of nouns of the 1st decl., in
<nrupiq<i the Ionic genit. of a-iriipa, A. xxi. 31, xxvii. 1, and — with
some variation in the MSS. — A. x. 1 (comp. Arrian, Acies contra
Alanos pp. 99, 100, 102) : good MSS. also have p.axa.ip-q% Rev. xiii. 14,
H. xi. 34, 37, and p^x'^^PH I^ev. xiii. 10, L. xxii. 49, A. xii. 2 (comp.
Ex. XV. 9). Compare also SaTr^etpr; A. v. 1 (SaTr^eipa Lachm.), and
(rrvetSvtV ver. 2, in good MSS." See Matth. 68. 2.^
^ [In the received text -as occurs 15 times, -vs 5; in Tisch. (ed. 7), -o; 6 times
and -»s 13 ; in ed. 8 Tis<5h. reads -«s in A. xxii. 25 only, l)ut in some passages
there is little authority for the reading which he accepts. In the text of West-
cott and Hort (who receive -es 4 times, -»,• 15), Matthew uses -as in nomin., -n
in dative ; Luke (in Gospel and Acts) -*is only, except in accus. sing. (A. xxii,
25). — For TiTfa.px*is we should probably read Tirfaaf^ns : so also rirfaapx.'''^^-^
^ [In ed. 7 Winer added xu/itapx*'!, Esth. ii. 3.]
' [This should be xviii, 21 : tfsxaSa^;^!); occurs in some o/" these passages of the
LXX, viz. Ex. xviii. 21, 25, Dt. i. 15.]
•• [Tischendorf (ed. 8) receives the « in all these instances ; also -rXnfifiuptis L.
vi. 48, TfJp^ts A. xxvii. 30. On the Ionic forms in the N. T. see Cobet, JV. T,
Vatic, pp. xxxiii, Ixxiii sq., xc : A. Buttroann {Gr. p. 11) maintains that these
should not be called lonisms, as we do not find the nomin. -/m in the N. T. With
auniiulns Tisch. compares ifiP>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<?, however, a collateral indeclinable form Kfo occurs in Strabo
10. 489. Comxjare further Duker on Thuc. 8. 41.
{h) Not as dative of vov-i, after the analogy of the 3rd decl ,
1 C. i. 10, xiv. 15, Eom. vii. 25 ; vo6<i as genitive, for vov, 1 C.
xiv. 19. Tlie usual form of the dative in Greek writers is v6(o
or VQi : w^ occurs only in Simplic. ad Aristot. I'hys. 31. 25, Philo
1. 63 (Bckker, Anecd. III. p. 1196), the Byzantines, — e.g,
Malalas, see the index in the Bonn ed., Theophan. 28, — and the
Fathers: see Lob. p, 453, Boisson. Marin, p. 93 sq. . Similarly
7rXoo9, A. xxviu 9, genit. for ttXoC, as in Arrian, Peripl. p. 176,
Malalas 5. p. 94, Cinnarn. p. 86 ; comp. Lob. I.e.
(c) The vocative 6e.i J\It. xxvii. 46, without variant (Jud. xxi.
3. Wis. ix. i.Aci. Thorn. 25, 45, 67 r-Tcfj^iOce 1 Tim. i. 18, vi.
20) : an instance of this form is hardly to be found in Greek
writers, comp. Buttm. I. 151. Even in the LXX the voc. is
usually 6£6<;}
(f/) From oareov we find the uncontracted plural oaria L.
xxiv. 39, and ocxrkwv Mt. xxiii. 27, H. xi. 22, al. The latter is
not very uncommon in Greek prose, see Lucian, Necyojn. 15,
Plat. Locr. 102 d. ; comp. also Eurip, OresL 404, Troad. 1177 :
oa-rea is less common, but see Plat. Locr. 100 b., Aristot. Anim.
3. 7, Menand. p. 196 (ed. Meineke).'
The following instances of metaplasmus are found in the N. T. :
(1) 'O Seor/xos has in the phiral ra Sea-fid, L. viii. 29, A, xvi. 26,
XX. 23, and only once oi Sea-fioL, Ph. i. 13 j — in every instance without
any variant. In Greek authors, too, Sea-fjLoC is more rare than ra
Sio-fjd : see Thorn. M. p. 204, Buttm. I. 210 3 (Jelf 85).
(2) From ad/^/SaTov we find ouly the gen. sing, and plur. and
' [Kriigcr {p. 44) quotes ^le from (Enomaus in Euf9eb. Pranp. Ev. 5. 33, p. 228;
al.«o T,/ji.o6ii Luc. Harm, 1, •Pikiht Inscripl. 317.5. 6, 'Auftht Aristoph. Acharn.
176.J
- [In Rev. ii. 1 Ti-sch. read xp""'^"^ 'i 6<1- 7 ; and in Rev. ix. 20 K has ^iXKia,
360 Ijob. p. 207 : XC'^^^ (for Xf""^") is strongly supported iu Rev, i. 13.]
' Coinp. Ktihnul, Acl. p. 558.
SECT. IX.] UNUSUAL FORMS IN THE THIRD DECLENSION, 73
the dat. sing.^ [and accus. plur.] : the dative plural is o-a/3/3acrt (which
occurs also in Meleag. 83, 4), formed according to Passovv from a
sing. a-d^/SaT, -aT09.
(3) 'O o-tTo?, plural (ctItol and) o-tra A. \'ii. 12 v. I, as often in
Greek writers : a singular (tItov was never in use, see Schsef. Soph.
Eledr. 1366. In A. vii., however, the bestMSS. have airia, which
now stands in the text.^
In regard to gender : —
CI) At/Aos is feminine (Dorice, Lob. p. 188) in L. xv. 14, A. xi. 28,
on the testimony of a few good MSS. ; in L. iv. 25 there is very-
little authority for the feminine. Comp. Malalas 3. p. 60, and see
Bornem. on A. xi. 28.^
(2) In Mk. xii. 26 ySdros in masc, though not without v. I ; in
L. XX. 37, A. vii. 35, feminine : see Fritz. Mark p. 532. See in
general Lob. Paral. p. 174 sq., and comp. ) n-rjAos Const. Man. 2239,
2764, al.
(3) Instead of 6 vu)ro<s, the later form, some MSS. in Rom. xi. 10
have TO vwrov,^ the form used by the older writers : see Fritz.
V in Loc.^
Section IX.
UNUSUAL forms IN THE THIRD DECLENSION.
Peculiar forms deserving attention are,
1. In the singular: —
(fl) The genitive Tj/jLia-ov; Mk. vi. 23 (for the usua.1 form
TffiLcreo'i) from the neuter -tjfitav, used as a substantive ; comp.
Die Chr. 7. 99, Schwarz, Comm. p. 652, Buttm. L 191 (Jelf
122).
(b) The [onic dative y^pei (contracted from 'yrjpel) L. i. 36,
^ In the LXX we find (besides eraf>^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 <iAa/3a<rra«. In A. xxiii. 16 Rec. has to hilpov (2 Chr. xiii. 13, al.), but
the true reading is rhv Ivi^pav (A. xxv. 3, Jos. viii. 7, al.) : to ivihuav .seems not
to occur in Greek authors. In A. xxviii. 8 we must read ^ufivripi^v for (the
Attic) ^uffivripia. : see Lob. p. 518.]
74 UNUSUAL FOKMS IX TH-E THIRD DECLENSION. [PAET II.
where Rec^ has 7'/p« ; comp. ovhei from ovZo<i in Homer, The
same form occurs Ps. xci. 15, Ecclus. viii. 6, Theoplian, p. 36,
iu the Fathers — e.g. Theodoret, in Ps. cxix. I. 1393 (ed. Hal.),
— Fabric. Pscudepigr. IT. 630, 747, Boisson. Anecd. III. 19.
(c) The accusative v^vr) Jo. v. 11, 15, Tit. ii. 8 (Lev. xiii. 15).
The Attic writers use another contraction v'^ia, but v'^trj occurs
Plat. Pha:d. 89 d, and similar forms are found elsewhere (Matth.
113. Rem. 1, Jelf 1:.9).
(d) In A. xxvii. 40, A and several other MSS. haxe aprifiwia
as the accusative oi apreficov (comp. jXyjxovc Hom. Cerer. 209) ;
and Lachm. has received it into the text. Lobeck too (AJax
p. 171) prefers it to the common form dprefxova: " appellativi
declinatio sine dubio eadem quse proprii." See Anacr. Fragm,
27, and Fischer in loc}
2. In the plural : — ■
{a) The accus. in et? instead of ea? from nom. sing, in €v<; ;
as yov€i<; Mt. x. 2 1 , L. ii. 27, <ypaixiiarel<i Mt. xxiii. 34, etc. The
same form is also found in Attic writers, e.g. Xenophon (see
Poppo, Cyroi?. p. 32 sq., Weber, Dcm. pp. 492, 513), though the
Atticists reject it; see Matth. 83 a. Eem. 7 (Jelf 97).'^
Qj) Avcriv for hvolv, the dative of the numeral hvo, Mt. xxii.
40, L. xvi. 13, A. xii. 6 (Th. M. p. 253), follows the analogy of
the 3rd declension. It is found in Thuc. 8.101 {tvalv rjfiepai<i),
in Platarch, Aristotle, Hippocrates, and others : see Lob. p. 2 10
sq., Buttm. I. 276. In the genitive Bvo is always indeclinable
(Mt. XX. 24, xxi. 31, Jo. i. 41, 1 Tim. v. 19, al.), as sometiraeg
in Greek authors, e.g. Lucian, Dial. Mort. 4. 1, ^sop. 145.- 1
(Matth. 138, Jelf 166).
(c) The uncontracted forms opiwv. liev. vi. 15 (Ez. xi. 10,
1 K. XX. 28, Is. xiii. 4, al.) and p^^etXecov H. xiii. 15 (Pr. xii. 14,
xxxi. 31, Wis. i. 6, Ecclus. xxii. 27, al.), for the usual opwv,
;!^fc- iXwy, the other cases being regular. Such genitives, however,
are not uncommon in Greek prose, comp. Poppo, Xen. Gyr.
p. 213, Georgi, Hier. I. 145, Jacobs, Achill. Tat. 2. 1 ; as to
the poets, see Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. pp. x, xii.
^ [From fftriKnuXaruf we find in Rec. tr-riKovXa-rufx Mk. vi. 27 : but -arapx is
uow generally received. The same may be said of a^Ts^a»va.]
- [Tbe other form is not found in the N. T. In the plural of Ix^ii, (ioZ;, and
similar words, the contracted forms do not occur iu the N. T. (A. Buttm.
p. 14).]
SECT. IX.] UNUSUAL FORMS IN THE THIED DECLENSION. 75
(d) The contracted neuter plural tj/jlictt] (L. xix. 8), used as a
subst., — compare Theophr. Ch. 11 : ■what has been said respect-
ing rj/jiiaov^; applies here also. The ordinary form is yj/jiia-ea,
which some MSS. have in this passage ; Tisch. reads ij/jLicreia
with B, L; comp. Buttm, I. 248.^ See Fischer, Frol. p. 667,
Buttm. I. 191.
(e) The contracted genitive 7rrjj(biv Jo. xxi. 8, Eev. xxi. 17
(for TrTj-^kwv, which A has in the former passage) : this is a later
form (see Lob, p. 246), but it is found in Xen, An. 4. 7. 16,
and frequently ia Plutarch.^
For the Attic kAcTv (Thorn. M. p. ."iSG, Lob, p. 460), the accus.
of KXeL<i^ we find the more " common " form KAeiSa in L. xi. 52, and
(in a few MSS.) Rev. iii. 7, xx, 1 ; in the LXX more frequently,
Jud, iii, 25, Is. xxii. 22. ^ In the plural, KActSas is the better read-
ing in Mt. xvi. 19, but kAcZs in Rev. i. 18. Of cpis also there are
two plural forms, cpiScs 1 C. i. 11, and epet? (both nomin. and accus.)
2 C. xii. 20 : in G. v. 20 we should probably read cpts.'* Kpc'a?
has in the plural the usual contracted form Kpea (Buttm. I. 196),
Rom. xiv. 21, 1 C. viii. 13 (Ex. xvi. 8, 12), as in Xun. Cyr. 1. 3. 6,
2. 2. 2. On the other hand, Kcpas has Kcpara Rev. v. 6, xiii. 1, 11,
xvii. 12 (Am. iii. 14), Kcpartov Rev. ix, 13, xiii. 1 (1 K. i. 50, ii. 29) ;
and never the contracted nepa, Kepwv (Buttm. I.e., Bekker, Anccd.
III. 1001). Lastly, Tf.pa% has always repura, Mt. xxiv. 24, A. ii. 43,
V. 12, Jo. iv. 48, r(.pa.TMv Rom. xv. 19, instead of rlpa, rcpwi',
which are considered the Attic forms (Mceris p. 339, Buttm. /.c,
Jelf 103).
Rem. 1. The nomin. sinfr. of toSTve? occurs in 1 Th. v. 3 (Is.
xxxvii. 3) in the foim wUv (for wSt's) : comp. ScA^tV, which is not
^ [Tischendorf, Tregelles, Meyer, and Alford read r,fit<riia. ; Westcott and Hort,
r.fi'iina. Compare o^ua Hes. »bf. 348 (and Gottliug in loc), 6r,}^ua, Arat. 1068, for
c^ia, irX'.a. TiscLcndoif (ed. 7) quotes rfiimee. Ironi Antoninus Liberalis c. 2.
p. 16, and Cleonied. Theor. Cycl. 1. 5. p. 23. A. Buttm. inclines to iif/,tffti : see
Gr. p. 14, Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 194.]
^ [There is good authority for (iaiia; L. xxiv. 1, -rrfaius 1 P. iii. 4, instead of
(Litiioi, vrpaias (Lob. p. 247). Of comparatives in *» both the contracted and the
uncontracted forms are found in the N. T. ; from ris, tis^ cans, only the uncon-
tracted, with the single exception of oVoi/ in the formula 'ius omv (A. Buttm.
pp. 26, 31). In Rev. xx. 8 K has for Tso-ira^fl-i the poetical form Tirpairt, wliich is
also a v.l. in A. x. 11, xi. 5.]
' [From x*^?'^ ^'6 fi"J the accus. ;^«^<Ta, A. xxiv. 27, Jude 4, as in Eur. Hel.
1378, Xen. Hell. 3, 5. 16, al.]
* [Tisch. (ed, 7) received the nomin. 'ipm in 2 C. I.e., 1 Tim. vi. 4, but now reads
ifn in both places : in Tit. iii. 9 authorities are divided between 'ipn; (Lachm.,
Treg.) and 'ipn (Tisch.). Similar to this is vm-rui, accus. plur. of y^oTis, Mt. xv.
3?, Mk. viii. 3 (Lob. p. 326). Tisch. now (ed. 8) reads vr^r/f in Mk. viii. : Fritz.
{Mark, Exc. 3, p. 796 sq.) examines the readings, and decides in favour of this
Ionic form in both passages. Phrynichus (App. p. 52) says : viims »aj to ■jrXn-
SvvTtKov nj'iTTiS'j Ko.) trtiTTii : Lobcck (Phryn. p. 326) adds "leg. n)<rT£i;." See also
Tisch. on Mk. viii. 3 (ed. 8), and Wetstein in loc.}
■ 76 UNUSUAL FORMS IN THE THIRD DECLENSION. [PART IL
uncommon in later writers ; also kAciSiV, Constant. Porphyr. 14. 208.
See Buttm. I. 162 (J elf 104. 19).
Rem. 2. nXovTo?, which is usually masc, often appears in good
MSS. as a neuter noun ; see K ii. 7, iii. 8, 16, Ph. iv. 19, Col. ii. 2
{Act. Apocr. p. 76). 1 This peculiarity is probably to be referred
to the popular language, as indeed 6 and to ttA. are used pro-
miscuously in modern Greek ; see Coray, Elut. Vit. II. p. 58, hocr.
II. 103, 106. We find also t^ ^^Aos 2 C. ix. 2 (in B), Ph. iii. 6 (in
A, B),2 see Clem, Ep. p. 17 (Ittig) : perhaps also to ^xo? L. xxi. 25,
if T/Xous (which is the reading of good MSS.) is accentuated rfxovs,
as by Lachm. and others; comp. Malal. pp. 121, 436.^ In later
writers, comp. to kAcxSo? Theophan. contin. p. 222 (ed. Bekker) : see
in general Benseler, Isocr. Areop. p. 106. Conversely, later writers
use 6 SctTTi/os (L. xiv. 16 in B, D)* and 6 Telxos (Ducas p. 266, ed.
Bonn, Act. Apocr. p. 84). The heteroclite <tk6to% (Poppo, Thuc. I.
225) is once masc. in the N. T., H. xii. 18 (where however o-ko'to)
is uncertain) ; 5 elsewhere it is always neuter {a-KOTi vs, -t€i), without
any difference of reading. "EAeo? is sometimes masc. in the LXX,
as also in Philo I. 284, but is usually neuter in the MSS, of the
K T. ; the masc. form being noted as a variant in Mt. ix. 13, xii. 7,
xxiii. 23, Tit. iii. 5, H. iv. 16,^ only. In A. iii. 10 C has ^a/*;8oo
as genitive of ^a/^/Jo?.
Rem. 3. In the MSS. of the N. T. we find several examples of
the V appended to the accus. sing, in a or t} (iXiriSav, <rvyycvr}v) ; ''
as aaripav Mt, ii. 10 (C), x^pa" Jo. XX. 25 (A), apaivav Rev. xii.
13 (A), dKovav xiii. 14 (A), firivav xxii. 2 (A), Atav A. xiv. 12 (in
several MSS.), o-uyycv^v Rom. xvi. 11 (A), 6.(T<f>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 ©afiov<i (Plat. Phmir.
274 d) presents a parallel to that of 'Irjcrov<i (Matth. 70. 9).
The word Mcoctt}? iM(iiv<xri<;) is declined in two ways in the
N. T. The genitive is invariably Mwaiwi, as in the Greek
Fathers and the Byzantine writers ; comp. Diod. Sic. Ed. 34.
p. 194 (Lips.). In the dative even good MSS. vary between
M&)cret (which is also found in Eusebius and Theophanes) and
Ma}<jfi ; comp. Mt. xvii. 4, Mk. ix. 5, L. ix. 33, Jo. v. 46, ix. 29,
A. vii. 44, Eom. ix. 15,2 Tim. iii. 8.^ The accusative is Mwa-rjv
A. vi. 11, vii. 35, 1 C. x. 2, H. iii. 3 (Diod. Sic. 1. 94) ; but in L.
^ [Such forms as ilffi^nv, W^jvjjv (with accent thrown back), for iltnUn,
lutftivv, are said to be ^Eolic (Matth. 113. Kern. 2 ; Bekker, Anecd. p. 1233).]
'■' [In ed. 7 Tisch. received the final » in the passages quoted above frora the
Apocalypse, and in a<r(paXjiv H. vi. 19, A/an A. xiv. 12 : see Proleg. p. 55. In
e(£ 8 he rejects the » throughout, see his note on H. vi. 19. Similar forms are
frequently found in K, but not in any of these instances ; see Scrivener, Colla-
tion p. liv. See further A. Buttm. Or. p. 14 ; also Mullach, Vulg. pp. 22, 162,
where are given examples from inscriptions and analogies in modem Greek.]
2 Besides these forms, the MSS. of the LXX have often 'l»<rar for the dative
(Dt. iii. 21, 28, xxxi. 23), and even for the genitive (Ex. xvii. 14).
* [D has 'laKuPmu in Mk. xv. 47. Recent editors read 'Uirov in L. iii. 29.]
* [Lachmann reads -s-ji in A. vii. 44, and in Rom. ix. 15 {-(rii marg.) : Ti-
schendorf (ed. 7) in Mk. ix. 4, 5, A. vii. 44. In Mk. ix. Tisch. now (ed. 8) reads
Maiuo-j?: Acts vii. 44 is probably influenced by the usage of the LXX. — 'luaytnt
is regularly inflected according to the 1st decl. ; but we find a dative -vn in L,
viL 18, 22.]
78 FOREIGN WORDS : INDECLINABLE NOUNS. [PART IL
X vi. 2 9 (and here only) all the MSS. have Mcocrea, a form which
occurs in Euseb. H. F. 1. 3, and often in Clem. Al., Georg.
Syncell., Glycas, and others. All these forms, with the exception
of Mwo-t'o)?, may clearly be derived from the nominative Meocrr)?;
see the analogies in Biittm. I. 198, 210,^ 221 (Jelf IIG). Mco-
a-ico<; has been referred to a form Mwcreu'?, which however does
not occur, and is after all unnecessary, for thegenit. oVApt)^- is
sometimes "Apea^ (EUendt, Lex. Soph. I. 2 2 4). No other forms
are found in the N. T., but a genitive Mcocrr] occurs in the LXX
and in Geo. Phranzes, and Mwaov Bauer, Glossar. Theodoret.
p. 269 ; a vocative Mcocrrj in Ex. iii. 4. Mavaa-crfj [?-cro-/79]
has in Mt. i. 10 the accusative Mavaaa-rj, with the various read-
ing -aarjv.
In the received text the name Solomon is declined like Hevo^Si/, .
-uiVTO's ; thus accus. ^oXofx-QiVTa Mt. i. 6, genit. 'XoXofjMVTo<; Mt. xii. 42,
L. xi. 31, Jo. X. 23, A. iii. 11, v. 12. The better MSS., however, have
-u)va, -u>voi;^ 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) <TLK€pa L. i. 15, and in the LXX, Lev. x. 9, Num. vi 3, Is.
xxiv. 9, aL, : Eusebius (Prcep. Ev. 6. 10) has a genitive crU€po<i.^
The Hebrew plural termination occurs only in Xepov^i^ H. ix.
5 ; but this word is construed like a neuter plural (as if irvev-
fiuTa), as in the LXX (Gen. iii. 24, 1 K. viii. 7, Ez. x. 3, al.).^
In Eev. i. 4, dTro 6 wv »<at 6 rjv Kol 6 ipxoiJi€vo<;, a whole phrase
(forming, as it were, a Greek equivalent for nin^) is treated as an
indeclinable noun, — probably by design, as expressing the name of
the Unchangeable One. This resembles the use of cv, /j-rjOev, and
similar words, in Greek philosoplucal writings, even as early as
Aristotle; e.g. Aristot. Folit. 5. 3, Procl. Theol. Plat. 2 (ed. Hoeschel),
juera rod Iv, x^P'-'^ '''^'^ ^^ (Stollberg, de Sol. N. r. p. 14 sqq.) ; but
' [Usually written 'lif'x^ {-^'X^ Tisch.) ; so Winer in his RWB.]
- Elsewhere we find two modes of declining this word : (a) Genit. 'Iipix'ij
3 (1) Esdr. V. 22, dat. 'Upi^^ Frocop. de JidiJ. 5. 9, Tlieodoret V. p. 81 (Hal.),
or 'Ufixo'' Joseph. Bell. Jud. 1. 21. 4, Suid. s. v. 'r2;/ys»>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<i, are not nnfrequently used as if they had only two,
especially by Attic writers (Matth. 117, Jelf 1 2 7).^ Thus in the
N. T. we find a-Tparta ovpdvLo<i L. ii. 13, A. xxvi. 19, Koafiios
1 Tim. ii. 9 : in Eev. iv. 3 also 6/j,oio<i is the best attested reading,
though ipi,<; is feminine.'^ But in 1 Tim. ii. 8, i7raipovTa<i 6aiov<;
)(elpa,<i (where some MSS. have oata^), oaiov; may be joined with
iiralpovra^ ; though Fritzsche is wrong in maintaining that this
7nust be the construction {Rom. III. 161). Compare also Tit.
iii, 9, where fidracoL is used in reference to feminine nouns;
and Ja. i. 26, fzaraLOs- r) OprfaKela.
In later writers we find instances of the converse, a feminine
form being given to adjectives which in classical Greek have
only two terminations, e.g. dpy6<; ; see Lob. p. 105, and Paral.
p. 455 sqq., comp. Ellendt, Arr. Al. I 242.^ In this adjective,
however, the feminine form occurs even in a citation from Epi-
menides. Tit. i. 12. From av^'yevrj'i, -e<?, is formed a peculiar
feminine, avyyevi'i (as a substantive) L. i. 36 ; this is received
by Lachm. on the authority of good MSS. (Lob. p. 451) ; comp.
Malal. pp. 95, 96.
Atwvtos is usually in the N. T. an adj. of two terminations, but
atwvuxv occurs 2 Th. ii. 16, H. ix. 12, — in the latter passage without
any variant ; the same form is given by a single MS. in 2 P. i. 11,
and also in A. xiir. 48 : comp. Num. xxv. 13, Plat. Tim. 38 b.
Be/3aia, Rum. iv. 16, al., which the fastidious Thorn. M. condemns
(p. 149), is used by Isocrates, Demosthenes (Weber, Dem. p. 133),
Xenophon, al, : comp. Duker on Time. 2. 43. *E/37;/aos, which varies
even in Attic wiiters,* has always two terminations in the N. T;
As to a<r(^aXr)v H. vi. 19, i.e. dcr^oA^v, see § 9. Rem, 3.
In the N. T. Lexicons ^ yvi^aio^ is given as an adjective of
two terminations (Ph. iv. 3 ?), but without sufficient reason,
as no example of yvy'jaLo^ as a feminine form can be quoted.
' See Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. p. 77 (Lips.) ; Monk, Eurip. HipjjoL p. 56, and
Eurip. Ale. 126, 548, 1043.
* See Winer, Exegel. Stud. I, 152 : [as to 1 Tiin. ii, 8 see Ellicott in loc]
3 [See also Mullach, Vuly. p. 156.]
* Comp. Ellendt, Arr. AL I. 2^32, ilatth. 118. Rem, 1. ["Ewi^aj varies in the
N. T., as in classical Greek.]
* [Luneinann rightly adds, except Grimm's.]
SECT. XI.] DECLENSION AND COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES. 81
2. Oil the comj)arison of adjectives we have only to observe
that —
(a) The neuter comparative of ra^^'^ is rd'^iov (Jo. xx. 4,
I Tim. iii. 14, H. xiii. 10, 23, al, 1 Mace. ii. 40, Wis. xiii. 9),
for wliich Oaaaov, in Attic Oarrov, was commonly used. Td-
Xiov IS regularly used by Diod. Sic, Dion. H., Plutarch, al; see
Lob. p. 77, Meineke, Menand. p. 144.^
(6) In 3 Jo. 4 we find the double comparative /iei^orepo?, and
in E. iii. 8 eXa^ttrTorepo?, a comparative of a superlative ; comp.
eAa;^tcrT0TaT09, Sext.Emp. 9. 40 6, and in Latin miniriiissimus,i)es-
simissimus. Such forms belong mainly to poetry (Apoll. Ehod.
2. 368 fieiorepoq), or to the later language, which sought in this
way to add fresh strengtli to the comparative, which had lost
some of its significance : comp. KpenTojepo'i Ducas 27, 29, 37,
/jiei^ovoTepo'i ih. c. 27 and Malal. 18. p. 490,/Ltei^oTe/3O9 Constant.
I'orph. III. 257, irXeiorepo'i Theophan. p. 567, Some isolated
examples of a similar kind are found in earlier writers (see
Wetst. II. 247); these are not, however, introduced as words ac-
tually current, but are extemporised by the writers themselves,
as io-)(aTOiTepo<i Aristot. Metaph. 10. 4 : see Buttm. I. 274, Lob.
p. 136 (Jelf 140). Compare in German nrulirere from mehr.
(c) The comparatives Karcorepo'i (E. iv. 9), ai/oirepo? (L. xiv.
10), io(OT€po<i (A, xvi. 24), from the adverbs /cartu, dvco, eaco, are
groundlessly questioned by Buttmann (I. 271). They are cer-
tainly found in the K T. and in the LXX ; and not only occur
frequently in later Greek (as Leo Diac. 10. 1), but are even
used by Attic writers (Matth. 132).
On the comparative form of other adverbs derived from ad-
jectives, as TrepLacroTepoa^ (2 C. i. 12, G. i. 14, Ph. ii. 28, al), &,
form not unknown to classical writers, see Buttm, II. 345, Elms-
ley, Eurip. Ilaricl. p. 100 (Lips.).
The positive -^p^/jio^, 1 Tim. ii. 2, is not found in the older Greek
writers, see Buttm. L 27.1, II 343 : Lobeck {Path. I. 158) has
pointed it oat in an inscription {Inscript. Olbiopol. 2059, 24).
^ [Froip. hTTkous we find the peculiar compar. ^i-jrxirtpoi Mt. xxiii. 15 (Appiaii,
Pnj'f. Hist. Bom. 10), as if from S;tX« (which occurs in Anthol. Pal. 10. 101):.
see A. Buttm. p. 27, Lob. p. 234. The compar. of a.ya(oi in the N". T. is Kfujinruiy,
superl. Kfi.Ti<froi ; As^-^'ov occurs once as an adverb, 2 Tun. i. 18 : x^'f""^ i'^ the
usual compar. of k«.x,'os (A. Buttm. I.e.). nxiuv occurs much less frequently than
6
82 AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION OF REGULAR VERBS. [PART II.
Section XII.
AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION OF REGULAR VERBS.
1. The temporal instead of the syllabic augment occurs
(a) In the imperfect ^/teXXc, Jo. iv. 47, xi. 51, xii. 33, xviii.
32, L. X. 1, A. xvi. 27, xxvii. 33, Eev. x. 4, with decided pre-
ponderance of authority: iu L. ix. 31, Jo. vi. 71, H. xi. 8, e.jxeWe
is better attested.^ See in general Bockh, Plat. Men. p. 148 sq.
(&) In the imperfect '^Bvputo Mt. xxvi. 9, Mk. vi. 5, 19, xiv. 5,
Jo. ix. 33, xi. 37, L. viii. 19, xix. 3, with preponderant authority;
whilst there is good evidence for eZvvaro in L. i. 22, A. xxvi. 32,
Eev. xiv. 3, and ehvvaade 1 C. iii. 2. The aor. rjhvvrjO'qv is fully
established Mt. xvii. 16, 19, Mk. ix. 28, L. ix. 40, 1 C. iii. I.'''
On these common Attic forms see Buttm. I. 3 1 7 ^ ( Jelf 1 7 1), and
comp. Bornem. Act. p. 278 [Veitch, Gh. Verbs, s. vv,].
(c) But neither ■^^ovX6fi7]v, A. xv. 3 7, xxviii. 1 8, nor rj^ovXri'
0r]v, 2 Jo. 12 (Matth. 162, Jelf 17 1) is sufficiently attested : see
Bornem. Act. p. 233.
2. The syllabic augment in a verb beginning with a vowel
occurs Jo. xix. 32, 33, in xarea^av, 1 aor. indie, of Kardyvv/ii.
(comp. Thom. M. p. 498), and even in the other moods, as Karea-
ycoai^Jo. xix. 31 (Buttm. II. 07, Jelf 173. 8): comp. Thuc. 3.8,9,
Aristot. Anim. 9. 43, Plat. Cratyl 389 b, c.^ It is also inserted
in the fut. Kared^co Mt. xii. 20 (from the LXX),^to distinguish
this from the future of Kardyco. But from coveofiat, in which
verb the syllabic augment is most commonly used in classical
* [Jo. xi. 51, Rev. x. 4, are somewhat doubtful ; in H. xi. 8 we should probably
read r,/jt.iXXt\i. For ^^. see also L. vii. 2, xix. 4, A. xii. 6 ; for 'i/u.., Jo. vi. 6, vii.
39, A. xxi. 27, Rev. iii. 2.]
'^ [On the evidence now before us, we should probably read fiiw. seven times
only, Mk. iv. 33, vi. 19, xiv. 5, L. viii. 19, xix. 3, Jo. ix. 33, xii. 39 ; and iSwv.
(which occurs in Hec. twice only) twelve times. In the aorist we must read
riluv^^w (except in Mk. vii. 24, iiivvdadn), but jSu». is often a variant. Froni
(iouXoiiai the forms- with » are nowhere sufficiently attested.]
3 Anso Georgi, Hi^rocr. I. 32 ; Jacbbs, Achill. T. p. 554 ; Elleadt, Arr. Al. II.
208 ; Boisson. JUn. Oaz. p. 173, and Anec(,l. V. 19.
* [Veitch quotes xa.r-ia.yri, -ia.yuvi, -tayi'n, from Hippocr. 4. 220, 128, 172. On
this word see Cobet, N. T. Vatic, p. Ixxix.]
' In Cinnam. p. 190 we find an unusual form of the perfect, «aTi4yi»«.
6 [This fut. does not occur in the LXX {naralu Hab. iii. 12) ; in Is. xlii. 3
the word is vuvrfi-^'U. KaTid^a occurs Ps. xlvii. 8 Syram.]
SECT. XII.] AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION OF REGULAR VERBS. 83
Greek, we find wvrjad/XTji/ A. vii. 1 6 (as in Greek authors occa-
sionally, Lob. p. 139): also wo-a, axxafirju A. vii. 27, 39, 45,
for eaxra, ioya-d/jLrjv (§ 15), For similar instances see Poppo,
Tkuc. III. ii. p. 407, the Index to Leo Gr. p. 533. [Veitch,
Gr. V. s. vv.]
3. In verbs be2;inninor with ev we find
(a) Without augment: euhoKrjaa usually, rjuB. being favoured
by the MSS. in Mt. xvii. 5, 1 C. x. 5, Col. i. 19, H. x, 6, 8,
only ; — evXayrja-a more frequently than rjvX. (which is found
Mt. xiv. 19, L. xxiv. 30, H. xi. 20, 21), and the perf. euXoyrj^ev
H. vii. 6 ; — ev^oirro A. xxvii. 29 ; — evx^apicrrrjae A. xxvii. 35; —
evTTopetro A. xi. 2 9 ; — and decidedly evpla-Ketv ^ (except rjvpiaKov
Mk. xiv. 55, in good MSS.; comp. further A. vii. 46, L.
xix. 48).
(b) With augment: rfv^ofirju Eom. ix. 3 (the best reading),
eu-x^ofxrju occurs Xen. Atiah. 4. 8. 25, Ci/r. 3. 2. 15, but not
without variants; — TjvyapicrTrjcrav Rom.i. 2 1 ; — rjvcpoprjaev L. xii.
1 6 (doubtful) ; — TjvKaipovv Mk. vi. 3 1 (but doubtful in A. xvii.
21); — TjvcjypdvdT) A. ii. 2G (from the LXX). See in general
Buttm. I. 321, Poppo, Thuc. I. 227, also Lehm. Lucian II. 456
(Jelf 173, Don. p. 196). EvayyeXt^. has the augment after eu-
(without any variant), A. viii, 35, 40, xvii. 18, 1 C. xv. 1, G. iv.
13, Rev. X. 7, al. (see Lob. p. 269), — even irpoevrjyyeXiaaro G.
iii. 8 ; so also evapearecv H. xi. 5, though A and several other
MSS. have evapearrjKevai, without augment. JJpo<iev-)(ecr6aL
almost always has the augment without any variant, as
nrpo'irjv^aTo Mt. xxvi. 44, A. viii. 15, Trpo^rjv'^^eTo Mk. i. 35,
L. xxii. 41, al.^
4. OUoBo/j.eii', the only verb beginning with ol which occurs
^ Comp. Lob. p. 140, and Ajax p. 123 ; Herm. Eur. Bacch., p. 11 ; Boisson.
Philostr. Epp. p, 75. Even in Attic Greek the angm. is defended by Elmsley,
Eur. Med. 191, and it occurs frequently in the apocryphal writers (Ev. Nic. c.
20) and in the Fathers. [See Veitch, Or. V. s. v.; compare Don. p. 196.]
, ^ [The aor. of '£ySoxsa> 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 <pi]reveiv?
6. The augment of the form elXri^a (for the unused XeKrj^a,
Buttm. I. 316) is extended to tlie 1 aor. KareiX-T^c^^?;!/, which is
found Jo. viii. 4 (though not without a v. I.) instead of KareX. ;
see Maittaire, Dialectt. p. 58 (ed. Sturz). Traces of this form
already existed in Ionic Greek.*
7. A double augment is found in
{a) a'TTeKarecTTaOr] Mt. xii. 13, Mk. iii. 5, L. vi. 1 0, now rightly
admitted into the text : comp. arTreKaria-rrjcre Lucian, Philopatr.
e. 27, aireKarecnrja-av Ducas 29, aireKarearr]^ Theophan. p. 3 74,
dvT€Kar6aT7]v Cinnam. p. ,259 : see Dindorf, Diod. S. p. 539,
and Schaef. FkUarch, V. p. 198.^
' [The only simple verb, — there are several compounds : Tisoh. now receives
eix. in Jo. ii. 20, i'miKoio/j.vir'.v 1 C iii. 14 (Treg., Alf. ), oiKo'Suf/.v/rfai L. vi. 48 (see
A. Buttm. in Stiid. u. Krit. 18(52, p. 164) : Treg. reads oJx. in A. vii. 47. In tliese
four places oIk. is received by Westc. and Hort. See Tisch. on A. vii. 47, and
Prok't/. p. .55 (ed. 7). Comp. eixo^ofiva-av Ruth iv. 11 {Alex.}, oixT-tipvinv Ps. cii.
13, al'.]
* Epiphanii Mon. edita et Ined'da, cura A. Dressel (Par. 1843).
3 [Lachm. reads -rpoK!). in Jude 14 only; Tisch., Treg., Westcott and Hort,
iTfof. always. Tlie LXX use both forms.]
* [Comp. tlp:n^r,v, Ionic for ippriCvv. But here KamX. has little support.]
* [This is probably the true reading in Mk. viii. 25 (Ex. iv. 7). J
* Comp. also i<rfoi(pri<rivi>v Leo Granim. pp. 33, S.*}, 36, sKaTtirxiuafKv Canan.
462, lauMifjia.pTupivv ib. 478, i\<pupiirra.i Theophan. 112, \-yrpo\rci.\a. Thcodor. Oramm.
40. 8. As to the Attic writers see V. Fiitzsche, Aristoph. I. 55. [Comp. iTpoti'
fiivirct Jud. iL 14, al. See also Mullacli p. 246.]
SECT. XII,] AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION OF EEGULAPc VEUBS, 85
(b) In avLw^ev Jo. ix. 14, 30, di^ew;^^?/ L. i. 64 {Trr. V. s. v.
oX'ya)) ; once even in the infin. aor. avewxdrjvaL L. iii. 21. Y\ow\
this verb however several other forms are found in good jV[8S. :
i]voi^6v Ilev. xii. 16, al., rjvot'x^drja-av liev. xx. 12,t)voiyr)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*ixt<r^t ; in A. xviii. 14,
(ivs»';^OjMJI». J
3 [This form is a variant wherever the imperf. or aor. (middle or passive)
occurs, and is received more or less frequently by Lachm., Tisch., Alf., Treg.,
Westcott and Hort. Veitch {Gr. V. s.v.) quotes such forms from inscriptions.
Comp. Mullach, Vulg. p. 27.]
* [Sometimes (as L. xvi. 20, Jo. ix. 22) no MS. omits the angmeut.]
86 TENSES AND PERSONS OF REGULAR VERBS. [PART II.
Plato), especially when the augmented form would offend the
ear (Buttm. I. 318) ; hence in compounds particularly (comp. A,
xiv. 8).^ Compare Thuc. 8. 92, Xen. Cyr. 3. 2. 24 ; and as to
later writers see especially the Index to Joa. Cinnam. in the
Bonned. (Jelf 171).'
1 0. Mv7](TTev€cr6ai receives the reduplication (after the ana-
logy of /ie/jivr}fj,ai, Buttm. I. 315) in L. i. 27, ii. 5, /lefivrjarev-
fievr); but some good MSS. read efjivrjaT. [Lach., Tisch., and
others] : comp. Dt. xx. 7,xxii. 23 sqq. On pepavrcafievoi H.
X. 22, see § 13. 1. h.
In 2 Tim. i. 16, the aor. of the compound iTrai<rxyvoiiai is in
the best MSS. eTraurxvvOr}, without the temporal augment, and recent
editors have received this form into the text : similarly avopOtiiOr]
L. xiii. 13.3
Section XIII.
UNUSUAL FORMS IN THE TENSES ANp PERSONS OF REGULAR
VERBS,
1. (a) Tenses which in other respects are formed entirely
after the analogv of the 2 aor. have in the LXX the termination
(of the 1 aor.) a, etc. : * thus ecBafxev 1 S. x. 1 4, elSav and ecpvyav
2 S. X. 14, evpav xvii. 20, i(f>dyafi€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<Tafi€v c. 19; and
in Eustath. Amo?'. Isvi. I. p. 4 we should read e/cTrecrete on the
authority of good MSS., see Jacobs p. 664. Compare further
Lob. p. 183, Matth. 193. Kern. 5. In the Byzantine writers
there are undeniably various examples of such forms; as rfkdav
Malal. 18. p. 465, 12. p. v595, avfi^^Bav 15. p. 389, n'opafiev 18.
p. 449, cLTreXdaTe Ducas 24, i^eXOare Leo Gr. p. 343, iirei^eX-
6aT€ p. 337 : comp. iu general the Index to Ducas p. 639,
and to Theophan. p. 682 sq, (Bonn ed.).^
^ They are mostly verb.s wbicli have Eot a 1 aorist in use,
2 'Aici'Ttffai, which is found in good MSS. in L.-xiv..lO, xyii. 7, would neces-
sarily be the imper. of a similarly forftied aor. middle ajivncaftuv. Ah, however,
this tense nowhere occur.s (thougii a trace of it appears in the v. I. Ur{<ra;/i8«<j
Polyb. 6. 37. 4), dya-x-teat miist probably be considered an error of transcription
for ii'd'Tiiri, as t and at are often interchanged •, indeed the best MSS. have
-■rt^t, and this has recently been received into the text. Comp. also Riiick,
Lucubr. p. 330, [Tisch, on L. xiv. 10, and Proleg. p. 58]. Besides, the 2 aor.
active is the only tense of i.m-rl'urjuXlisX occury in. the N. T., Mt. xv. 35, Mk. vi.
40, L. xi. 37, xxii. 14. Jo. vi. 10, al. [The forms in a stre now received in Mb. yi,
Jo. vi.] Fritzsche {Mark, p. 641) considers kyivarai to be the 2d sing..fiit. (like
vitirxi) ; but the future would be unsuitable, especially as in L. xvii. 7 impera-
tives immediately follow.
* [In the 2d singular ; but the 3d sing, and 2d plur. are not rare.]
* But tifuay is distinctly found iu a Greek inscription, Bbckh II. 220. [Iu
Eur. Ale. 477, iVso-a is received by Buttm. (Ii. 278) aad by Mullach {Vulg. p.
226). Comp., however, Yeitch, Gr. V. s.v. iri^Tca.)
* [The forms in a are well attested in almost all the examples givfjn above from
the N. T. : in H. iii. 17, however, 'i^iirsv seems certainly the best reading. K:
arer
88 TENSES AND PEltSONS OF REGULAR VERBS. [PART II.
(h) Augmented tenses of yeibs beginnijig \vit,h p art> 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,<r<ru-j \j. viii. 29 (A. xvi. 22, but liccp'p. A. xiv. 14, — Mk.
xiv. (,:) IS mori' duubtful), 'fziptk^zTu ]Mk. ii. 21.
JiedupUcated Tenses. The ordiiiaiy form Ip'p. i.s found in L. xvii. 2 ('ippirrai),
also in E. iii. 17, Ool. ii. 7, A. xv. 29. In Mt. ix. 36 we should read s pifi/u-'aioi.
In 11. X. 22 the reduplication must certainly be roceivod, whether we write pip.
(TLsch.), or p'.p. (Laclmi., Treg., Wcstc. and llort), or psp. (Lobex;k, Parul. p. 14).
In Rev. xix. 13 N has ■^npipitcr.y.f/.iyiv, and (by a latei- hand) ■^ripipipavTKrf^itot ^Don.
|«p. 16, 19Z, Jell 176).]
SECT. XIII.] TENSES AND PERSONS OF IlEGULAR VERBS. 89
tenses, see § 40. 2, and conip. Fritz, on Mt. //. cc, Matth. 181.
2 a (Jelf 203).^
{(l) Of verbs in aivco, XevKaivw has in the aor. the Attic form
(Buttm. I. 439) 'KevKuvai Mk. ix. 3 ; in G. iii. 1 several MSS.
have i/3dcrKr]va, from ^a<rfcaiv(o, — also a correct form. ^7]jjLaiv(o,
however, has icnj/xava, A. xi. 28, Eev. i. 1 ; see below, § 15.
Tlie a is also retained in the aor. of /MQipaivoi 1 C. i. 20, and
^rjpaivo) Ja. i. 11, as it regularly is in verbs in -palvco : on
<f)dvac see § 15. (Jelf 222.)^
('') In particular passages future conjunctives are noted, as
found in a greater or smaller number of MSS. : thus 1 C. xiii. 3
KavdrjuwixaL (received into the text by Griesbach), 1 P. iii. 1
KephrjOijaaivrai, 1 Tim. vi. 8 ap/cecrBr/awfieOa, — in the last two
passages without much authority. In the better class of writers
such forms are probably due to the transcribers (Lob. p. 721),^
but in later authors, especially the Scholiasts (as on Thuc. 3. 11
and 54), they cannot be set aside. In tlic N". T., however, there
is very little in favour of these conjunctives. We hnd as isolated
instances evpqa-tj'i Kev. xyiii.,14, evptjcrtjomi/ i.\. 6 (yet an aor.
evpiicrat is sometimes met with. Lob. j). 721), 'yvcocrwi/raL
A. xxi. 24 (yet compare Tiob. p. 735) : oyjn^ade, L. xiii. 28,
and Scoarj, Jo. xvii. 2, are unquestionably aorists.* [See § 15.]
2. Peculiar person-endings : —
(a) The 2 pers. sing, of the pies, and fut. passive and middle
in et instead of r;; as PovXci L. xxii. 42, irape^ei vii. 4 v. I.,
o-yjrec Mt. xxvii. 4 and Jo. xi. 40 v. I. : comp. also A. xvi. 31,
xxiv. 8 V. II. In the two verbs oTrreadai and ^ovkeaOat this
^ [A. Butttn. (p. .37) gives a list of verba wliichhave this future in the N. T. :
XpoviXu, and sonietimea xa/ei'^^Bfia,. To these will be added y)iufiZ,u, if we read
yiufiovtriv in Col. iv. 9 ; the usual future is yvufltru. The fut. of ;^^i)v/?a>, how-
ever, is probably xf^''^'^ (H x. 37). On irr^piX,u, <raX-jr'iZ,u, see § 15. Contracted
futures are very common in the LXX. On yuyaTcti and other presents which
have been taken for futures, see A. Buttm. p. 3^.]
^ [In G. iii. 1 all the uncial MSS. have liSa»-*av«. Add vot/A.a.yoiri 1 P. v. 2
{ixKuiup,^ 2 Tim. ii. 21). See Lob, p. 25 : Veitch, Gr. V. pp. 305, 519.]
^ See Abresch in Ohsarvatt. Misc. 111. p. 13; and as to the later writers
Niebuhr, Ind. ad Agath. p. 413, and the Index to Theophan. p. (>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 <yafXT]adTwcrav 1 C. vii. 9, '^aixeiTwaav
vii. 36, fiavOavkrwaav 1 Tim. v. 4 (Tit. iii. 14) ; comp. A. xxiv.
20, XXV. 5.^ Elmsley's opinion,' that this form was not in use
before the time of Aristotle, is sufficiently refuted by Matth.
(198) and Bornemann (Xen. An. p. 38).
(/) The 3 pers. plur. of the historical tenses often ends in oaav
in good MSS. (Buttm. I. 346) ; as eXyouav (for dxov) Jo. xv. 22,
24, ihlSoaav'^ (for iBiBouv) xix. 3, irapeXd^oaav 2 Th. iii. 6, and
in Eom. iii. 13 (from LXX) iSoXiovaav. This termination is
very common in the LXX and the Byzantine writers; as rfKdoaav
Ex. XV. 27, icfxiyoa-av Jos. v. 11, KareXLiroaav Ex. xvi. 24, ixpi-
voaav xviii. 26, eiSocrav Niceph. Greg. 6. 5. p. 113, KarrjXdoaav
Nicet. Chon: 21. 7. p. 402, fierijXOoaav Niceph. Bryenn. p. 165,
Brunck, Analed. II. 47 : comp. also 1 Mace. vi. 31, Cant. iii. 3,
V. 7, vi. 8, Jos. ii. 1, iii. 14, v. 11, vi. 14, viii. 19, Jud. xix. 11,
i. 6, Euth i. 4, Lam. ii. 14, Ez. xxii. 11, Ex. xxxiii. 8, al. : see
Fischer, Weller II. 336 sq., Georgi, ffier. I. 165 sq.. Lob. Phryn.
p. 349, Pathol. I. 485, Sturz p. 58 sqq. In the N. T., however,
with the exception of Eom. /. c, this form is found in a few MSS.
only, and it may perhaps have originated with the Alexandrian
transcribers in every case.^
3. From contracted verbs: —
(a) The future iK^eoy A. ii. 17, 18 (from LXX), following the
analogy of liquid verbs (Buttm. I. 469) ; comp. Ez. vii. 8, xxi. 31,
Jer. xiv. 16, Hos. v. 10, Zech. xii. 10. If accentuated eVp^^ew, it
would be, according to Elmsley, the Attic future : for eK'^eo) is
' [In L. vi. 11, recent editors read -an*.]
" [1 believe the form in -vray h not given by Tisch., even as a v. I. Similarly,
in the passive we find -sSusai (not -<riut), as Ja. v. 14, L. xxi. 21.]
^ Elmsley, Eurip. Iph. Taur. p. 232 (ed. Lips.).
* [In this verb, however, this is the regular form.]
* [This ending is received by Tisch., Alford, and others, in all these passages.
Sae Mullach p. 16, who quotes irxo'av from Scymnus Chius, and the ,irr.'lar
forms a<pl\i(Tav, ixafifiatiirat, found in papyri in the Brit. Museum. Such forma
as QeXioufay (in contr. verbs) are of regular occurrence in modern Greek.]
92 TENSES AND TEESONS OF REGULAR VEI(13S. [PAllT n.
both pres. and fut. (Duttm. 11. 325, Jelf 245). In the LXX,
however, other persons occur, and these are circumflexed ; as
eK^eelf, eK^eelre, Ex. iv. 9, xxix. 12, xxx. 18, Dt. xii. 16.
(h) From the two verbs Biylrda, ireivdco, the forms in use in
written (Attic) Greek were Bcylryv, jreiuriv, in the inHniti"ve, and
Sti/rr;?, Sti/r^J, K.T.\.,in the indicative (Biittm. T. 487, Jelf 239).
In the N. T. we find instead Styjrdv, Sf\^a, Horn. xii. 20, Jo.
vii. 37 ; ireivdv Ph. iv. 12, ireiva Eom. xii. 20, 1 C. xi. 2 1 : these
forms in a are first found in Aristotle {Anim. 9. 21, comp,
Sallier ad Thorn. If. p. 699, Lob. p. 61). According to the same
analogy we find the fut. Treipdaoj (for Treivijo-cci) Rev. vii. 16,
Jo. vi. 35 V. I. (Is. v. 27, Ps. xlix, 12), and 1 aor. eVeiWo-a
Mk. ii. 25, xi. 12, Mt. xii. 1, 3, xxv. 35, L. iv. 2, al : both
these forms are peculiarities of later Greek, sec Lob. p. 204.^
(c) Of the verbs in eco which retain e in the future, etc.
(Lob. Paral. p. 435, Jelf 233), Kokeco and reXew occur in the
IST. T. : tlius we find KaXeaco, reX/o-w (Buttni. I. 386).''' We
find also (f)opla(o and e(j)6p€(ra 1 C. xv. 49 (Ecclus. xi. 5,
PaIo?.ph. 52. 4): in Greek writers ^oprjaco is the ordinary form
(so €v(p6p7}(rev L. xii. 1 6), but (popeaac is foimd as early as
Isaeus : see Irr. V. s. v. (f)ep(o. On • dirdXeaai, tTraiveaoi, see
below [§ 15].^
^ [In the fut. and aor. 'di-'^iui is regular ; or^dim) very seldom occurs as a
variant. In Ps. xlix. 12 Tuvdiru is aor. subj. Sec Veitch, Gr. V. s. vv.]
" [These are not the only verbs of this class in the N. T., for tenses wtli c
occur from apxiu (Icrapxia)), ifiiai : of the verbs which have s move partially
(Jelf 233. 2. c), 'cranial, up- and a«Ki/ia/, ^ia, are foiind in the N. T. : we might
add K'>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 -i<rav in Rev. vii. 11. This person "always ends in
uirav, as tri^oi»xiiaav Mk. XV. 7, al., even where in Attic Greek ta-av alone
was in use, e.g. pmrccv. We find, however, ut- t%r,t<ra.v A. xvii. 15, al." A.
Buttmann p. 43.]
* [Similarlj' ir',Souy A. iii. 2, iv. 35, and perhaps Mk. vi. 56 (but Wirihirai
k. viii. 17) : this is confined to very late Greek (Veitch, Gr. V, p. 562).]
' [Veitch remarks that the longer form in the simple verb seems late {M\.
Var. Hist. 3. 18), but quotes a<pi<rT7ix.ivai from Demosthenes. The l^ter perfect
XtTTOLKo, occiu-s A. viii. 11 in the infin. \\iiTra.yA\at (Jelf 278. 5, Veitch p. 300}.]
* [Tiach, does not give iVrw as a variant anywhere.]
94 VERBS IN fit AND IRREGULAR VERBS. [PART II.
2 C. vi. 4, X. 18 (Niceph. Bryenn. p. 41, comp. KaOiaraw Agath,
316. 2), airoKadtara Mk. ix. 12 (Dan. ii. 21, 2 S. xviii. 12 [in
some MSS.], Fabric. Pseud. II. 610, ^vviara Plat. Tim. 33a):
see Chain. Ch'oeci (ed. Dindorf) I. 251, D'Orvillc, Char it. p. 642,
Matth. 210 (Jelf 276). Similarly efi-mTrXcov (from e>7ri7rX.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 {e<jTrjK6<i) is the reading of the better
MSS. in both Mt. xxiv. 15 and Mk. xiii. 14 : this is the form
found in the oldest and best MSS. of Greek authors {Irr. V. s.v.,
• fin Rec. the form in -a.a occurs in Mk. ix. 12, A. viii. 9, xvii. 15, Eom. iii.
31, 2 C. iv. 2, vi. 4, x. 18 ; -av« in A. i. 6, Rom. vi. 13, 16, 2 C. iii. 1, v. 12,
X. 'l2 1 C. xiii. 2. Lachm., Treg., and Tisch. read -avu in all these places,
except 2 C. iv. 2, vi. 4 (trvnrTtkvTn), 1 C. xiii. 2 (/iiiirTavai), 2 Cor. iii. 1 (Tisch.
(fi/wiTTavE/v, Lachm. and Treg. <rvn<rTav) -. they also read (runtrra.vu in G. ii. 18. In
all these lifteen passages Westcott and Hort adopt -avai.]
2 [We should read iuiru in 2 Tim. ii. 7, iv. 14, S^ in E. iii. 16, Jo. xv. 16.
In Rom. XV. 5, 2 Tim. i. 16, 18, we must certainly read the optative Q>4n)- 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 ^u<n^ in Jo. xvii. 2, but 'huircvint in
Rev. iv. 9 : in Rev. viii. 3, xiii. 16, we should probably*read luiru and luffn.]
^ [In this verb some other peculiar forms deserve notice : the neuter partic.
axoS/Soun Rev. xxii. 2 (Lachm., Westc. and Hort) ; pres. indie. SiSal Rev. iii. 9 ;
suLj. pres. and aor. (3 sing.) ^I'SoT, oi7, 1 C. xv. 24, Mk. iv. 29, al. (1 Mace. xi. 40,
see belowj p. 360) : all these forms follow the present tense of contracted verbs.
In A. iv. 35, 1 C. xi. 23, jJ/StTa (for -ora, in a compound) is strongly supported,
and there fs good" authority for i^ihro Mk. xii. 1, Mt. xxi. 33, al. In Mt. xxi.
41 Bee. has the peculiar future IxioffiTai, but with no uncial MS.]
* [So slso'irrufa, L. xii. 35, 1 Tim. iii. 12.]
96 VERBS IN fXL AND IRREGULAR VERBS. [PART II.
is found in G. i. 1 only. The plural ijfieOa is found twice in Mt.
xxiii. 30 in very good MSS., and was received into the text by
Griesb.; in A. xxvii. 37 also Lachm. received it on tlie authority
of A atid B, but in G. iv. 3, E. ii. 3, it has not much support.^
This form occurs in no good writer; see, however, Epiphan. 0pp.
II. 333, Malal. 16. p. 404.
(c) For 7)ada, Mk. xiv. 67, MSS. of little weight liave ^9,^ a
form which in Attic Greek is unusual and indeed almost doubtful
(Buttm. I. 528, Jelf 286). As to later usage see Lob. p. 149
[and PaihoL II. 267].
Eem. 'Evt— G. iii. 28, Col. iii. 11, Ja. i. 17 (and in 1 C. vi. 5
doubtfuP), comp. Ecclus. xxxvii. 2 — is usually considered a con-
traction for cveo-rt : this is the opinion of old grammarians (corap.
Schol. Aristoph. Nub. 482), and it is defended by Fritzsche (Mark
p. 642). Buttmann's view however is preferable (II. 375), that
evL is the preposition (iv, h/l) with the accent thrown back, used
without ctvai, in the same way as eVt, Trapa, etc. The contraction of
(.vcrrri into ei'i would be very harsh and also without example ; Avhilst
iJuttmann's view is supported by the analogy of eTri and Trapa, the
latter of which can hardly be considered a contraction of Trapeo-r/ : see
Kriiger p. 25 (Jelf 63, 341). *Ei'i is very common in Attic Greek,
both poetry and prose (Georgi, Hier. I. 152, Schwarz, Comm. 48G) :
the poets use it for evctcri, as tin for Ittcio-i II. 20. 248, Odyss. 9. 126;
and irdpa is even joined Avith the 1 personal pronotm.*
3. The following forms are connected with the primitive
verb 'irjixL : —
(a) acpicovTat Mt. ix. 2, 5, Mk. ii< 5, L. v. 20, 23, vii. 47, 1 Jo.
ii. 12 [Mk. ii. 9 Bee, L. vii. 48, and perhaps Jo. xx. 23].' The
ancient grammarians do not agree in their explanation of this
word. Some,as Eustathius (Iliad 6. 5 9 0), consider it equivalent to
d^Mvrac, as a<f)€7} is used by Homer for d(f>f}. 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 a<f)i€i), formed from a present a6i(o (Eccl.
ii. 18, acpiofiev Mt. vi. 12 2;. /.) ; comp. ^vviov for ^vvUaav II. 1.
273, Irr. V. p. 147. In rjc^ie the angment is prefixed to the
prepos., as in other forms of this verb, e.g. i](f)€idT] Plutarch,
Sulla 28. See Fischer, JH//. II. 480.*
(c) Most MSS. have d(f>eOTjcrav 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>:i<rfa.i from Tah.
Heracl. 1. 105. See also t'ob.'t, X. T. Vatic, p. Ixxiv.]
"^ [The root -iM is implied by the forms Hfm, if.afttt (h. xi. 4), afUvn (Rev.
xi. 9), isp-oyrctt (Jo. XX. 23, Westcott and Hort, and elsewhere as a v. I.),
Untler this he^xd will come ruv/oi-ir/ (Mt. xiii. 13^, ri/v;'«» (Rom. iii. 11) if thus
aeceiituatod, as by Lachni., Treg. , "Wcstc. and Hort : also, according to the last-
named editors, <ruylun (Mk. iv. 12, L. viii. 10). In 2 C. x. 12 we shouhl read
ffwiaffi, in Alt. xiii. 23 fwnl; : in Mk. iv., L. viii., most editors read iruviuiji, the
ordinary form. Tisch. treats .several of these words as belonging to a root -/i« :
y«n*» (Rem. iii. 11, and in LXX), runevri (Mt. xiii. 13), rvtiuf -i? -i7t (Job xv.
9, Pr. xxi. 12. Jer. ix. 24, al.), afi,£ -*» (Eccl. ii. IS, v. 11). See Veitch pp. 104.
291, 304, Jelf 2S3sq.]
' [No uncial MS. inserts the augment here, or in iA^v, A. xvi. 26.]
* [In Hor. 2. 1(15 most MSS. have itiotrxi, and apiavra., is sometimes a »*./.
in good MSS. of the N. T. : in Mk. viii. 17, B has cviun. Alullach ( Vuhj. pp. 24,
38, 50) quotes the pres. i^* from a Nubi.iu inscription of the 3d or 4th century
(Corp. Jn.icr. 111. p. 4S6), and from a MS. of the 7th century.]
* [In modern Greek, verbs iu u take the place of those in ^ ; thus liiuftt,
98 DEFECTIVE VERBS. [PART 11.
4. The imper, of KdOrjfxat is (not KaOrjao, hut) kclOov in Mt.
xxii, 44, L. XX. 42, A. ii. 34, Ja. ii. 3 (1 S. i. 23, xxii. 5, 2 K.
ii. 2, 6, al.) : only in Mk. xii. 36 Tisch. has received KaOiaov on
the authority of B, Kddov never occurs in the earlier Greek
authors, and is therefore reckoned a corrupt form by Moeris
(p. 234) and Thorn. Mag. (p. 485).^ Similarly KaQy for KdOrj-
aai A. xxiii. 3 ; see Lob. p. 395, Greg. Cor. p. 411 (ed. Schaif.).
[Lob. Fathol.'ll. 129, Jelf 301.]
Section XV.
DEFECTIVE VERBS,
We find in the N. T. several verbal forms, framed indeed
according to rule, but rejected as unclassical by the ancient
grammarians because they do not occur in Greek authors, or
occur only in the later. In particular, we often meet with the
active form of the future in verbs which in better writers have
the middle form instead, see Buttm. II. 84 sq., Monk, Eur. Ale.
159, 645 : ^ this point, however, needs closer examination. The
following list contains all the forms which have been declared
unclassical. Those in regard to which the- grammarians, espe-
cially Thomas Magister and Moeris, have manifestly been too
fastidious, are marked with an asterisk.^
diyyeXkco. The 2 aor. active and passive are rare in the better
writers, and in many places doubtful (Buttm. II. 94 sq., /rr. V.
s. V.) ; yet see Schaef. Demosth. III. 175, Schoem. Isceus p. 39.
In the K T. we find dvrjyyeXr] 1 P. i. 12 and Rom. xv. 21
(from LXX), BcayyeXfj Rom. ix. 17 (from LXX), KaTrjyyeXTj
A. xvii, 13, [See Veitch, Gr. V, p. 5.]
a.(pi*ifj.i, are replaced by ^fSa/, iiplvnt, and similarly KiiufAai by xHof^at (MuUach
p. 261). Compare also grivu with Irrdvu ((Vrn^wi).]
' [Veitch (p. 307) quotes xaiou from coraic writers (Meineke, Fragm. Com. 2.
1190, 3. 167, al. ) and late prose. In L. xxii. 30 there is considerable authority
for a future Ka.6r,<ri<rh (1 S. v 7, al.), which is quoted by the same writer from
Eur. Frag. 77.]
2 [Compare the lists in Jelf 321, Don. p. 270 sq. This reference is not
repeated in each case. See also Veitch, Grceic Verbs, s. vv.]
^ [V/iner incloses these words within brackets : the asterisk is here used
instead, to avoid ambiguity. As xpifiaftai and iXida: were manifestly placed
within brackets for a diflerent reason,- the asterliik is not inserted before these
verbs : possibly it should be omitted before fuaUu alao.]
SECT. XV.] DEFECTIVE VERBS. 99
ayvu/jLc. On the fut; Kared^u Mt, xii. 20, aor. Karea^a, see
§ 12. 2.
'^ayw. On the 1 aor. rf^a, which occurs 2 P. ii. 5 in the
compound iird^a'i, see Irr. V. p. 9, Lob. pp. 287, 735 [Veitch,
Gr, F. p. 13 sq.]. In compounds this tense is not rare (2 S.
xxii. 3 5, 1 Mace. ii. 6 7, Index to Malal. s. v. ayw, Schsef. Index
ad JEsop. p. 135), even in good prose writers, Her. 1. 190,
5. 34, Xen. Hell. 2. 2. 20, Thuc. 2. 97, 8. 25.
'^aipew. The fut. ekca (Eev. xxii. 19, in the compound
d(f>e\(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<l. is always araXai//*ac<.]
SECT. XV.] DEFECTIVE VEKBS. 101
dpTrd^co. Aor. rjpTrdyrjv 2 C. xii. 2, 4, for -^pTrdadrjv (Rev.
xii. 5), Th. M. p. 424, Moer. p. 50, Buttin. I. 372 (Jelf 212.
6) : fut. dpiray^aofiai 1 Th. iv. 17. (Also dpTrdcrco, for dpird-
(To/xai, Jo. X, 28 : this is said to be a rare form, but it occurs
as early as Xen. 3Iag. Eq. 4. 17.)
*av^dvco. The primitive form av^co, E. ii. 21, Col. ii. 19,
is often found in Plato and Xenophon (Matth. 224).
^apeo). From this root we find not only ^e^aprj/jbivo'i (Mt.
xxvi. 43, L. ix. 32), but also, contrary to Attic prose usage
(/?T. V. p. 51), ^apovfievoL 2 C. v. 4 (Mk. xiv. 40), /Sapet'cr^o)
] Tim. v, IG, and the aor. i^api'^O'qv L. xxi. 34, 2 C. I 8 :
lor the last tense, e^apvvO'qv (L. xxi. 34 v. I.) was used in the
written language.^
,6ao-Kaiv<i). The 1 aor. (G. iii. 1) is i^uaKave in Bee, but
in many [cursive] MSS". i^daK-qve (without i subscript), comp.
Buttm. I. 438 : the latter occurs in Dio C. 44. 39, Herodian
2. 4. 11, and in later writers.
/SfoG). 1 aor. inlin. ^icbaat 1 V. iv. 2, for which the 2 aor.
^Kovat is more usual in Attic Greek (Buttm. II. 129 sq., Ii-r.
V. s. v.) ; ^loxxai occurs however Aristot. Nic. 9. 8, Plutarch,
0pp. II. 367 sq., and oftener in compoimds (Steph. Thea. II.
260, ed. Hase). The other forms of the 1 aor. are more
common, especially the partic. /3t&;cra<?.
^Xacndvto. Aor. i^XdaTrjaa for e^Xacnov Mt. xiii. 26, Ja.
v. 18 i^Gen. i. 11, Num. xvii. 8, al., Ada Apocr. ^. 172);
comp. Buttm. II. 131 (Jelf 255). From the time of Aristotle
the 1 aor. is not uncommon in the written language (Steph.
Th:s. II. 273).^
*yafie(o. Aor. i<ydfX7]a-a Mk. vi. 17, Mt. xxii. 25 [Bee.'], 1 C.
vii. 9, instead of the older form e'yrjfia (from jafxco) L. xiv.
20, 1 C. vii. 28 (see Georgi, Hier. I. 29, Lob. p. 742): yet
iydfirjaa is found (if not in Xen. Cyr. 8. 4. 20) in Lucian,
Dial. Deor. 5. 4, Apollodor. 3. 15. 3. Better attested is
€<yafxri6T}v Mk. x. 12 (where however the reading is doubtful),
1 C. vii 39 (Lob. p. 742).
' [In Mk. xiv. 40 recent editors receive x.a,Ta^a.evvi/j,itot, the only iustance in
the N. T. of this form of the present. ]
^["Conj. pres. ^>.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.<rrZ : " A. Buttm. p. 48. Veitch quotes ShXatrruvra. from Hermas, Fast. p. 57
(p. S3' id. II]]gtnf ).]
102 DEFECTIVE VERBS. [PAET II.
ryeXaco. Fut. yeXdao) (for ^eKdaofiai) L. vi. 21; see Buttm.
II. 85, Irr. V. s. v.
ryiyvofiai. Aor. pass. ijevnBrjv^ used for iyevofirjv, A. iv. 4,
Col. iv. 11, 1 Th. ii. 14, al.; comp. Th. M. p. 189. This form,
originally Doric, is often found in writers of the Kotvn (Lob.
p. 109, Irr. V. p. 64).=^
Si8&)/it. The 1 aor. ehwKa is avoided by Attic M'riters in
the 1 and 2 pers. plur., the 2 aor. being used instead (Buttm.
I. 509, Jelf 277. 2). In the N. T., however, we find iSa>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
{ZvvavTo<i) in some inferior authorities : this also occurs in ^^1.
4. 1, Pausan. 2, II. 7.^
el'So) Tcnow. Perf. olZafiev (for 'la^iev) Mk. xi. 33, Jo. iii. 2,
1 C. viii. 1, al. (Poppo, Xen. An. 2. 4. 6) ; oUare (to-xe) Mk. x.
1 [It has sometimes been maintained that lyt^y.Sni has a passive mecmvng ;
against this see Meyer on 1 C. i. 30, Ellicott on Col. iy. 11.— In the N. T., as
might be expected, y'tva/iat is always found, not ylyv. ; similarly yivuaKu.']
'^ [From 'tyMay, 2 aor. of ytvu/ntu, we find yial Mk. T. 43, ix. 30, L. xix. 15, in
the best texts (Hei-m. Mand. 4, in K) ; tins is variously regarded as subj. (A.
Buttm. p. 46), or optative (Tisch. Proleg. p. 57, ed. 7) : comp. S«r, p. 95, and see
below, p. 360. — Alalia/ has the peculiar imi>erfcct 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<ra, but in the present
fiixu. (A. Buttm. p. 1/7.)]
SECT. XV,] DEFECTIVE VERBS. 103
38, xiii. 33, 1 C. ix. 13, Ph. iv. 15 ; olZaaiv (I'aaa-L) L. xi. 44,
Jo. X. 5 ; see Buttm. I. 546 (J elf 314) : comp. however
Aristoph. Av. 599, Xen. CEc. 20. 14. The 2 pers. sing. ol^a<i
(for olada) 1 C. vii. 16, Jo. xxi. 15, is rather Ionic and Doric,
yet it occurs Her. 4. 157, Xen. Mem. 4. 6, 6, Eurip. J^^c. 790,
and frequently in later Greek (Lob. p. 236). The 3 pers.
plur. pluperf. is ySeiaav Mk, i. 34, Jxd. ii. 9, xxi. 4, al., for
rjBeaav (Buttm. I.' 547).^ [Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.]
elirelv (2 aor. etTrov). The 1 aor. etvra occurs in the N. T. in
the 2 pers. sing., Mt. xxvi. 25, Mk. xii. 32, and frequently. This
person is also found in Attic writers, as Xen. dJc. 19. 14, Soph.
(Ed. Col. 1509 (along with et7re9, which is often used by Plato),
but is originally Ionic ; see Greg. Cor. p. 481 (ed. Schtef.), Schae-
fer, Dion. H. p. 436 sq. The imperative etiraTe Mt. x. 27, xxi.
5, Col. iv. 17, elirdrcoa-av A. xxiv. 20, is also very common in
Attic Greek (Plat. Lack. 187 d, Xen. Cyr. 3. 2. 28). Besides
these forms, we find the following in good MSS. : 3 pers. plur.
indie, elirav Mt. xii. 2, xvii 24', Mk. xi. 6, xiL 7, 16, L. v. 33,
xix, 39, XX. 2, A. i. 11, 24, vi. 2, xxviii 21, ah (Diod. S. 16.
44, Xen. Hell. 3. 5. 24, aL, v. I.) ; partic, et'jra<; (which is mainly
Ionic) A- vii. 37, xxii. 24 ; and even the rarer 1 pers. elTra H.
iii. 10 [Lachm.], A. xxvi. 15, for which elirov is generally used
in the N. T. : see Sturz p. 61.^ Eecent editors have accepted
these forms wherever they are attested by several MSS. In
compounds we find aTreiTrdfirjv 2 C. iv. 2 (Her. 6, 100), and
irpoeliraiMev 1 Th. iv. 6.^ Eittov — not ecirov, see § 6. 1. Jc. —
which occurs in good MSS. A. xxviii, 26, is to be regarded as a
2 aor. imper, ; the same form now stands in the text in Mk. xiii.
4, L. X. 40, whilst in other passages etVe has more authority.*
The 1 aor. pass, of this verh, ippijdrjv {ivova peo), Irr. V. p. 112)
is sometimes written ippeOrjv in N. T. MSS., e.g. Mt. v. 21, 31,
33 ;^ this form is often found in the MSS. of the later (non- Attic)
1 [We find tfan in A. xxvi, 4, "irrj (indie, or imper.) E, v. 5, al. ; the 2 pers.
sing, pluperf. is always r,lii;. For sT5«v, Tisch. sometimes reads tiev (Rev. vii. 1,
al.), iTi^i (Rev. xvii. G).]
2 eTtk* also occurs in the -well known Rosetta inscription, at the end of line 8.
^ Comp. uTa/jLiy 1, Turin. Papyr. p. 10. [On slVa^iv and u-raraxrai, see Veitch,
5. v.]
* [In most of the instances cited these forms are now generally received, and
also in other passages, as i^-ra. Mk. ix. 18, jiV«» \j. xs.. 2, al. (.see above, p. 58).]
* [Recent editors agree in reading ipfynv in Rom. ix, 12, 26, G. iii. 16, Rev.
vi. 11, ix. 4 : in Mt. v. (six times) Lachm. and Treg, read s//«V>!», 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<i, e'Xea Eom. ix. 16, 18, iXedre
Jude 23 : also in Clem. Al. p. 54 (Sylb.) the Florentine edition
has iXea. Compare further the Mi/m. Mag. 327. 30.^ A simi-
lar form is eWo^av Eom. v. 13, Phil. 18, which also is found
in good MSS.: in Phil. 18 Lachmann has received it into the
text, and after him Tischendorf. Fritzsche, Eom. 1. 311, de-
clares all these forms mistakes of transcription.^)
eX/ceo. From this root we find a present and imperf., Ja. ii. 6,
A. xxi. 30, as in Greek authors regularly ; but instead of the fut.
eX^ct) (Matth. 233), the less usual €\Kva-(o from the other form
cXkiico, Jo. xii. 32 ; comp. Job xxxix. 10.
''" €7raLvea>. 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<JH'^vo<;
also is said to be rare in the earlier Attic writers {Trr. V. I. c),
yet it occurs in Plat. Crit. c. 15.'
icrd'm. From the poetical form eaOco {In: V. p. 13G) we
find eadwv amongst the v. II. in Mk. i. 6, L. vii. 33, 34, x. 7,"
XX. 47, xxii. 30 [eo-^T^re] ; and Tisch. has received it into the
text on the' authority of (a few) good MSS. : see his Prccf.
p. 21 (ed. 2).^ In the LXX comp. Lev. xvii. 10, xix. 26,
Ecclus. XX. IG.
evpia-Kco. Aorist middle evpufirjv, for €vp6/j,r]v, II. ix. 12
(Pausan. 7. 11. 1, 8, 30. 4, al., comp. Lob. p. 139 sq.) : see
§ 13. 1. A 1 aor. evprjaa seems implied in the conjunctives ev-
pvcrrj<; Eev. xviii. 14, evp/jcrwaLv ix. 6 (as at least several MSS.
read), unless we consider these to be future conjunctives (§ 13.
1). Lobeck however (p. 721) quotes a participle evp/jaavTO';.*
^do). Future ^r]a-a) Rom. vi. 2, 2 C. xiii. 4, Jo. vi. 51, 57,
58 (av^rjao) Horn. vi. 8, 2 Tim. ii. 11): ^ijaofiai Mt. iv. 4, Mk;
V. 23,^ Jo. vi. 51, xi. 25, al.: 1 aor. e^ijaa Ptcv. ii. 8, L. xv. 24,
^ [On rifi;^oftnv see Don. Neiv Crnt. p. 651, but compare Veitch .s. v. ET^k/ is
not found in the N. T., and occurs once only in the LXX, "h Pr. vi 6 ; the
compounds are sometimes found, clii.-ily in Acts (A. Buttm. p. 50).]
* ''Hxh for iXr,\vei, G. iv. 4, Jo. xix. 39, al., is too hastily rejected by Thorn.
Mag. (p. 418); see Sallier iti loc. [Tlie note of Thorn. Mag. which Winer thinks
it worth while to notice is : »/.^i kchov, iKnkvh Ti 'att^xo'v.)
3 ["Efffu (found chiefly in B and D) is received by Tisch., Treg., Westc. and
Hort, in Mk. i. 6, L. x. 7, xxii. 30 : and bv Westc. and Hort in L. vii. 33
(Treg.), 34, Mk. xii. 40 (Treg.). See Ti-ch. Frol. p. 49 (ed. 7).]
* [Veitch quotes this aoiist from Maneth. 5. 137, Schol. yEsch. Prom. y9.]
* [Here we must read the aor. subj. : in Jo. vi. 51, quoted by Winer twicr,
Z,n(ni is probably the true reading. The fut. of Z,ccu) (avZ,d.u>) <iccurs 22 times, •!
times in quotations from the LXX (^nrirai). In 11 of the lenuiiniug 16 places
we must read '^nfm (5 timesi in John, 6 times in the Epistles) ; X,^ao/j.ai occurs in
Mt. ix. 18, X. 28, Jo. xi. 25, Kom, Wii. 13, x. 5. On 'H^nrt (and on 'i^r.v, the
reading of B in Rom. vii. 9) see Veitch p. 260.]
106 DEFECTIVE VERBS, [PAET II.
Eom. vii. 9, al., and often in the LXX. The futures are in the
main later forms, which occur but seldom in the earlier writers
(Buttm. II, 192); the aorist is confined to later Greek. Earlier
writers used in the fut. and aor. the corresponding tenses of
ijKO). From the 1 aor. ■^^a, a later form (Irr. V. p. 153, Lob.
p. V44), we find the conjvmct tj^wo-l in Rev. iii. 9, where how-
ever better MSS. have the fut. rj^ovat. From the perf. rjKa (Dt
xxxii. 17, Phot. Bihlioth. 222, Malal. p. 136 sq., Leo Gramm.
p. 98, al.. Lob. p. 744) we find ^/cacrt Mk. viii. 3, but on doubtful
authority: Lachm.^ however receives it.^
QaXkdi. The 2 aor. az/e^aXere^ Ph. iv. 10, — a form never
found in Greek prose, and seldom in poetry {Irr, F".
p. 154).^^
'iarriixL The present lardvco, which occurs Rom. iii. 31, and
in compounds, e.g. o-vvtardvco, 2 C. iii. 1 (iv. 2), v. 12, vi. 4, x.
12, 18, G. ii. 18, is found in Attic writers (Matth. 210), but
more frequently in later Greek (as icjiLardveiv Cinnam. 214,
256).^ On the later form lardco see § 14 1./.^
KaruKaico. Fut. KaTaKarjaoiJLai 1 C. iii. 15, 2 P. iii. 10 (from
aor. KareKdijv,^ Jler. 1. 51, 4. 79): the Attic future is KaraKav-
0i]a-o/xaL, Rev. xviii. 8. See Thom. M. p. 511, Buttm. II. 211
[Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.],
KardXeiTTw. 1 aor. KareXeL-^a A. vi. 2 (Lob. p. 714).
' [Meyer, Treg. , and TiscTi. read rf^ao*'. In L. xiii. 3,5 Ihc. has ^'|»;, but the
best MSS. either omit the word or read ii'^ti. The subj. «^<u occurs Rev. ii, 25.]
^ ['HrTanfixi : in 2 C. xii. 13 recent editors receive virtruivTs. (for iiTrninri), as
if from the Ionic i^fooftai, th6 augment being added as in zhwiia^m : see Oobet,
^V, T. Vat. p, xc]
^ [A. Buttmann (p. 59) quotes this aor. from Ps. xxvii. 7, Wis. iv. 4, Ecclus.
xlvi. 12. Hermann reads (aXonv in ^sch. Suppk 673, but see Paley in he.
Compare Lob, Paral, p, 557, and Lidd, and Scott s. v.]
* [evjiVxw : the syncopated forms are not found in the N, T. In A. xir. 19,
<r'Jvnxivai now stands in the place of nhdvai Bee. — From ixdexof^xi, the late
aorist Ixaainv occurs L, xviii. 13 : this aorist is used in modern Greek, see
Mullacli, Vuhj. p, 288. Veitch quotes tlie compound ViiXaafiv from Plat. Legg,
p. 862,]
^ [On /Vt«ku (a doubtful form in classic ^vTiters, Veitch s, v.) and /Vraa see
above, p. 94. Of (ttyiku we find the present (indie, imper,, and subj.), and
probably, if the reading olx iirrr,Ki is conect iu Jo. viii. 44, the imperfect. See
Mulhich, Vulg. p. 299. In Mk. ix. 12 Westc. and Hort read acroxaT/errav:/. ]
' [KufiZ,f)fi«t : the 1 aor. partic. is well supported in L. x, 39. On this late
aorist see Lob. p, 269, Veitch s, v. ; and comp. Mullach pp, 25, 289,]
' [Tliis nor. occurs Rev. viii. 7: xaTaxetri<rnftai, Is. xlvii. 14 Al.'\
8 [In this verb the 1 aor. is frequently used in modern Greek (Mullach
p. 258) : the 2 aor. is used in the N. T,, except in A. vL 2.]
SECT. XV.] DEFECTIVE VERBS. 107
Kepdvvvfii. Perf. passive KeKepao-fiat Eev, xiv. 10, for the
more usual KeKpa/xai {Irr. F". p. 183) : analogous to this is the
partic. (TvyKeKepaarfievov^ H. iv. 2, in very good MSS,
Kephalvo). Aor. iKepSrjaa Mt. xxv. 20, xviii. 15, KepBr/o-ai
A. xxvii. 21, K€pSi]aa<; L. ix. 25, KepBrjcro) conjunct. 1 C. ix. 19,
20, Mt. xvi. 26, and frequently; these forins belong to Ionic
prose (Irr. V. p. 184, Lob. p. 740). In Attic Greek the verb is
inflected regularly; com p. 1 C. ix. 21.-^
KXalfi). Fut. Kkavaco (properly Doric), for Kkavaofxai, L. vi,
25, Jo. xvi. 20, Eev. xviii. 9; comp. Eabr. 98. 9, Buttra. II. 85,
Irr. r. p. 189 [Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.]. The LXX have always
KXavcroixai [Eev. xviii. 9, Rec, Tisch.].
KkiTrrco. Fut. KXeyp-co, for Kke-^ofxai^ Mt. xix. 18, Eom.
xiii. 9 (Buttm, II. 85, 221) : it occurs m Lucian, Dial. Deor.
7. 4, — never in the LXX.
Kpd^co. Fut. Kpd^w L. xix. 40, according to good autho-
rities, for Ke/cpd^ofiai (which is always used in the LXX) ; aor.
€Kpa^a for eKpayov, Mt. viii. 29, xx. 30, al. (Buttm. IL 223).^
[Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.]
(Kpifiafiai. The form i^eKpefiero L. xix. 48, in B,* is not
even mentioned by Griesbach and Schulz, and undoubtedly is an
error of transcription. Lachmann also has left it unnoticed.)
Kpv-nTd). The 2 aor. act, eKpv^ov, L. i. 24 (I'hot. Bihlioth.
L 143, Bekk); see Irr. F. p. 198 [Yeitch, Gr. V. s. v.].
Kvca (to le pregnant). The fut. and aor. are regularly KV'))(Toy,
iKvrjaa [Irr. F. p. 204) ; so d'jT€Kvr]a-e, Ja. i. 18. In the present
ATue'co also occurs, and not merely (as Eustathius asserts, p. 1548.
20) in the sense Iriny forth: see Lob. Ajax p. 182 sq., Paral.
p. 556, Hence in Ja, i. 15 we may as correctly write diroKvel
as -Kvei, but it is not necessary to prefer the former on account
^ [Here xip^dva is generally received (but T^Titten as fut. indie, xipiuiu, by
Griesb. and by Westc. and Hort), though Kifir.au precedes and follows. Comp.
1 C. vii. 28, where yaft^ffru and yx/Ji.^ are found in the same verse ; Koni. ix. 10,
18, where the best MS.S.' have iXiuvTef and \Xii7; L. vii. 33, 34, in the texts of
Lachm. and Tregelles. See Lobeck's essay De orthographicB Grceca inconntantia
{Path. II. 341-355).]
- [So Buttmnnn, Lobeck, Jelf, and others. Veitch reverses the statement :
"fut. xxi-^u Arist. Eccl. 667, Xen. Mag. Eq. 4. 17, Luc, and rare zAi\^a^a< Xen.
Cyr. 7. 4. 13." ¥.x'i^u, not xxi^^sfinti, is the form used in the LXX.]
\[Also ixix.pir.'ia A. xxiv. 21, as in the LXX frequently.]
* [Also in K ; now received by Tisch., Vrestcott and Hort. Compare p. 95,
note^.]
108 DEFECTIVE VERBS. [PART II.
of the form of the aorist in ver. 18. N. T. lexicons have /cue'o)
only.
\daKQ}. To this belongs the aor. iXuKi^aa A. i. 18, usually
referred to the Doric present XaKeo) ; Buttmaiin however {Ir?-,
V. p. 208) maintains that it is immediately derived from the
2 aor. XaKelv, which is in general use in Attic Greek.
''^' fjLtaivw : in Tit. i. 1 5 good MSS. have the perf. partic. yu.e-
jiiafifjihoc, instead of the usual fie/maa-fMepov ; comp. Lob. p. 35.
[Veitch, Gr. V. s. v.]
VLTTTOi} Jo. xiii. 6, 14, vCirrofiai Mt. xv. 2. Instead of this
present earlier writers use i^t^oo; see Buttm. II. 249, Lob. p. 241.
ocKTeipay. Fut. olKreiprjcrci) Rom. ix. 15 (as if from oiKretpeco),
instead of olKrepo): comp. Ps. ci. 15, Jer. xxi. 7, Mic. vii. 19,
al. This fut. also occurs in the Byzantine writers, see Lob.
p. 741.
ofjLvvoi for Qfivvfit (Buttm. II. 255) Mt. xxiii. 20, 21, 22,
XX vi. 74, H. vi. 16, Ja. v. 12: in Mk. xiv. 7 1 , however, the better
MSS. have ofjivvpat for ofj^vveiv, and this was received into the
text by Griesbach.^
'"opdfo. Imperf. middle MpMfMijv A. ii. 25 (from Ps. xv. 8),
for whicli ecopcofjLTjv was used in Attic Greek (Buttm. I. 325).
From oTTTeadat we find in L. xiii. 28 (though not without
variant) the 1 aor. conj. oyjnjade, which occurs in Libanius and
the Byzantines: see Lob. p. 734.^
7rai^(o. Aor. iveirai^a Mt. xx. 19, xxvii. 31 (Pr. xxiii. 35),
for which in Attic Greek eiraia-a was used [Irr. V. p. 251). But
we find eirai^a, irai^at, in Lucian, Dial. Deor. 6. 4, and Encom.
Demmth. 15 ; comp. V. Yvitz^chQ, Aristoph. I. 378, Lob. p. 240,
The fut. irai^oi^ occurs Anacr. 24. 8.*
^ [Compare "itixvi-us, -£<», -ovrts (Jo. ii. 18, Mt. xvi. 21, Rev. xxii. 8). See
A. Buttm. p. 45, and Mullach p. 294, and Veitch on the particular verbs. The
proper inflexions of" verbs in vfjn are by no means rare in the N. T.}
* [In A. ii. 25 xfoofojfin* is strongly supported (§ 12. 10). In the perf. lifaxa.
is often a variant : see especially 1 C. ix. 1, Col. ii. 1, 18. "O^nrii is received
by most in L. xiii. 28 : comp. Wo-^'xra, Pindar, Fr. 58. 8, and i-rio\f,avrai, Flat.
Lep. 947 c. See Veitch.]
•* [See ]\lk. X. 34 (Is. xxxiii. 4) : -rai^a/u.ai is the usual fut. in the Alex, dialect,
as in later writers generally. In the N. T. the other tenses are similarly formed,
as 'i-rin\rt, i-xaiy^in^ : see h. Buttm. p. 64, Veitch p. 450.]
'' [Uaia : the fut. ivicra^irofiai (see above, Karaxaiai) occurs Rcv. xiv. 13, L. X. 6.
Comj). also 'crxnr, Bekk. An. p. 1324 : see Veitch. These forms (or else the
gi'jss of Hesychius, a/LCTa^oyrar avaTavavrai, pointing to a root -raZ-) might lead
us lo regard iKxra'^eLg-rcus, 2 p. ii. 14 (Lachm., Westc. and Ilort) as a by-form
SECT. XV.] DEFECTIVE VERBS. 109
TreTOfiai. The partlc. Treroofievov (for Trerofievov), which occurs
Rev. xiv. 6 [and viii. 13] in B, is from irerdofiai, which is
used only by Ionic (e.g. Her. 3. Ill) and later writers (e.g.
Lucian, Dial. Mort. 15. 3, v. I.) ; see Buttm. II. 271, Irr. V.
p. 262. [Veitch, Gr. V. p. 467.] The pres. ireTa/xaL, found
as early as Pindar, is given by Wetstein and IVIatthai amongst
the variants in Eev. xii. 14 [see also Eev. xiv. .6]}
TTtW. From the fut. Trio/Mac the fuU form irUaai (Buttm.
I. 347) occurs in L xvii 8, and in the same verse Vve have
(pdyea-ac, from ^dyofiai; both are found in Ez. xii. 18, Ruth
ii. 9, 14. On the infin. ttXu Jo. iv. 9, received by Lachm. and
Tisch. on the authority of good MSS., see Fritz. De crit. conf.
p. 2 7 sq. TIeiv only — not irlv — occurs in later Greek ; and
this "form (which is found in some MSS.) might perhaps be
received here, if A had not distinctly irUiv in ver. 7 and 1 0,
thus showing irlv in ver. 9 to be an error of transcription."
'7rl'7rT(o. Aor. eireaa: see § 13. 1.
pew. Fut. peva-oa Jo. vii. 38, for pevaofiai ; in Attic Greek
fwija-n/xai is the usual form (Lob. p. 739, /n\ V. p. 281). The
i aor. also (Cant. iv. 1 6 pevadrcoaav) is confined to later Greek ;
comp. Lob. p. 739.'^ The 2 aor. eppvrjv, which was in regular
use, occurs in the compound Trapapvwixev H. ii. 1.
<Ta\7ri^(o. Fut. cra\7ricr<i) for aaXirly^eo, 1 C, XV. 52, comp.
also Mrclian. Veil. p. 201 (Num. x. 3 ; the 1 aor. ea-dXiriaa also
— for eaaXrmy^a Xen. An. 1. 2. 17 — is connnon in the LXX),
See Phryn. p. 191, Th. M. p. 789.*
a-rjfjLaivo). 1 aor. icrtj/jLava A. xi. 28, xxv. 27 (Jud. vii. 21,
Esth. ii. 22, Plutarch, Aridicl. 19, Menand. By z. Hist. p. 308,
of ixarcfroLuvrtiui. But the word (which is not found elsewhere) may also he
derived from the root of -riraffim, rario/xat, and rendered insatiable : compare
Athen. i. 43, p. 24. The most obvious derivation — from Ka.TOLsra.affu {(rTsfatai}
Kxra'Taams, Arist. Eq. 502) — is excluded by the uiisuitableness of the meaning,
unsprinkled. The references to Athenseus and Hesychius I owe to the kindness
of Ur. Hort. See A. Buttm. p. 65.]
' [Hi/^a; : perf. partic. "riTniTfjLivo; L. vi. 38 ; elsewhere ■rid.Z,u (with 1 aor.
l-r'ta-ffa, not -!«)• See A. Buttm. p; QQ, Mullach p. 296. ]
* [Tisch. now writes tiTv, and receives this form in the pas.sages quoted
above, and in 1 C. ix. 4, x. 7, Rev. xvi. 6 : so (more or less frequently) Alford,
Treg., Westc. and Hort. See also A. xxiii. 12, 21 (B), Rom. xiv. 21 (D),
1 P. V. 8 (X). A. Buttm. (p. 66) regards this iniin. as contracted from a form
Tivai (as ^u» from <puvai), not from TnTf. See Tisch. on Jo. iv. 7.]
' [See however Veitch s. v., where this aorist is quoted from Arist. Eq. 526, al.]
* [^aXTiu is the form in Num. x. 3 : iraXvira. occurs Mt. vi. 2, Rev. ix. 1,
al. L'ouip. ffaX-jriffrris Rev. xviii. 22 (Polyb. 1. 45. 13 in some MSS.).]
110 DEFECTIVE VERBS. [PART 11.
309, 358, Act. Thorn, p. 32), 'which occurs indeed in Xen.
ffell. 2. 1. 28, but for which iarjfjbrjva was more commonly
used by earlier Attic writers: see Biittm. I. 438, Lob. p. 24,
and below s. v. (f).aLvco. [See § 13. 1. d.]
a-KeTTTOfxai. The present (H. ii. 6, Ja. i. 27, comp. Ps. viii,
5,. 1 S. xi. 8, XV. 4, aL) and the imperfect are seldom found in
Attic writers (Buttra. II. 291, Irr. V. p. 288).
*(r7rovBd^co. Fut. (nrouBdaa) for the usual cnrovBdcrofjLai,
2 P. i. 15 (Buttm. II. 85).
aTrjpll^o). The aor. imper. is in good MSS. a-rjjpiaov, L.
xxii. 3 2, Eev. iii. 2 ; and in 2 Th. iii. 3, B has the fut. o-rypc-
a-ec: the Greeks preferred crrr^pi^ov, aTTjpi^ec (Buttm. I. 372).^
Comp. in the LXX a-rr)pia-ov Jud. xix. 5, Ez. xx. 46, and
often ; ianjpKra 1 Mace. xiv. 1 4, al. [also (xr-qpccreL Jerem.
xvii. 5].
Tvjx^^^' The perf. Terev^e (properly Ionic, then Attic,
Buttm. II. 301) ^ is found in the received text of H. viji. 6 :
other MSS. however have the usual Attic perfect reTv^v/^^, and
A, D, etc., rervxe.^ On the last see Lob. p. 395.
^a'yetv. Fut. ^dyojiai Ja. v. 3, Eev. xvii. 16 [L. xiv. 15,
Jo. ii. 17], Gen. xxvii. 25, Ex. xii. 8 (and often), whence the
2 pers. (fxiyeaac L. xvii. 8. For this Greek authors use eBo/iai,
the fut. of eSw {Irr, V. p. 136).
<f)acv(o. 1 aor, infin. e'm<^avai (for €7ri^rjvai) L. i. 79,'* con-
trary to the usage of the better writers. In later Greek however
similar forms occur ; see Lob. p. 26, Thilo, Acta Thorn, p, 49 sq^.
(.^lian, Anim. 2. 11 and E2nl. p. 396, ed. Jac.)
cf>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'yKa<i A. v. 2, xiv. 13, ev€yKavre<i L.
' [In the N. T. also the forms from the » characteristic are more common.]
* [Rnttniann's words are : " rinv^f^ec was the true Ionic perfect, which in a
later period became frequent in the non- Attic writers. " {Irr. F. p. 238.) Com-
pare Veitch p. 578. ]
* [Tstux' (which is also the reading of K) is now generally received. I'his
form was not known to the ancient grammarians, but is often found in MSS.
of later authors : see Tisch. on H. viii. 6 (where no uncial MS. has rirv;y;tixi),
Yeitch p. 578, and especially Lobeck l. c]
* [In Rev. viii. 12, xviii. 23, Tisch. and Westcott and Hort x-ead (fdv^. instead
of <pa,i))if, (fa*^, of ReC, j and in A. XXi. 3, ava^a'KaiiTtf.]
SECT. XV.] DEFECTIVE VERBS. HI
XV. 23 v.l. for eveyKoiv {Irr. V. p. 319) : but see Xen. Merri: 1.
2. 53, Demosth. Timoth. 703 c, Isocr. Paneg. 40. The indie.
^ve^Ka is frequently used by Attic writers, as also the impera-
tive forms with a (Jo. xxi. lOy
*(jiddv(i). According to several Atticists, the 2 aor. e(^6riv
is to be preferred to the 1 aor. 'i^daaa, which, however,
often occurs even in Attic writers {Irr. V. p. 324), and is
invariably used in the K T., as Mt. xii. 28, Eom, ix. 31, 2 C.
X. 14, Ph. iii. 16, 1 Th. ii. 16. In the last passage several
MSS. have the perf €J>6aK€.
<f)ua}, 2 aor. passive i<f>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)v<i (Buttm. II. 321). In Mt.
xxiv. 32, Mk. xiii. 28, very good MSS. have iK(j>vfi (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<o
{d(f)V'7rvi^(o, Lob. p. 224), avaKauvoco (^avaKaivl^co, Isocr. Arcop.
c. 3) ; also /zecrro'tu, hoXioro. From Se/carow comes airoheKaToo) ;
with a^uTTi/ow comp. Kadvirvoco Xen. Mem. 2. 1. 30. We find
also Kparaioto for Kparvvto, aOevooi for aOeveco, avacnaTovv for
uvdaraTov iroielv ; but ')(apLT6(o is formed from '^dpi'i, Bvvap^oco
from Bvvafii<i (Lob. p. 605).
Verbs in i^co come from a great variety of roots ; as opOpi^w
from 6p6po<i, ai-^aXwTi^co from al-^dXo)ro<i, BeiyfiaTL^co from
Bely/ji,a, TreXe/ti^co from TreXe/cy?, /jbUKTripi^o) from p^vKT-qp, apvpvi-
^co, dvep,L^(o, (^vXaKL^co, IpaTL^oi, dvad£p,ari^a) (found also in
the Byz. writers), dearpl^o) (Cinnam. p. 213), (T7rXay')(vi^op,ai,,
alpeTi^ci), avpp,op(})i^(i) (Ph. iiL 10, in good MSS.). XKopirL^co
(BLaaKopTTi^o)) has no evident root in the Oreek written lan-
guage ; it was however a provincial, perhaps a Macedonian
word (Lob. p. 218). — On verbs in l^(o from names of nations
and persons, see Buttm. IL 385 (Jelf 330. Obs. 3) ; we have
1 [See also Jelf 329-347, Donalds. Gr. pp. 310-840, New Crat. pp. 449 sqq.,
524 sqq., 664 sqq.,. Webster, Syntax of the N. '1 . c. ii.]
2 On tills word see Lob. p. 182, [There are four forms of tbisword, i^ov-hviu,
'"iivsu, -liviu, -6iviai : the last is quoted by Lobeck from Eustratius (also ilov-
eivufia from Const. Porph.), and is received by Tisch. (ed. 8) in Mk. ix. 12 ; in
this passage indeed each of the four forms is found in one or more of our best
MSS. ''S.ovhviu occurs frequently in the LXX and in the N. T. ; -S2v/<u Mk. ix.
12 (Lachm., Treg., Westc. and Hort), 2 C. x. 10 (Lach.), Ez. xxi. 10; -Ssva^
Mk. Lx. 12 Rec, Jud. ix. 38, al.]
2 \Ki(pa.Xtt,i'ou occurs once in the N. T. in the ordinary texts of Mk. xii. 4, but its
proper meaning is altogether unsuitable in this passage. Tisch. (ed. 8) and
Westcott and Hort adopt the very probable reading (of NBL) ««8?aX('a«ra» ;
xk^clXiou stands to xi<paXioy iu the same relation &s KKpaKxiia to Ki^aXaiev.l
8 •
114 DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WORDS. [PART II.
only to mention lovSat^co, with which compare the later word
havlhl^o, Leo Gramm. p. 447.
There are also verbs in a^a that seldom or never occur else-
where, as vrjTna^co, aivia^co (arjOai) ; also in evco, as fMecriTevfo,
fxajevo), iyKparevofiai, al'^^fiaXwreva) (Lob. p. 442), irayiBeixo,
r/vfivijTevco} The last is from ^yvfiv-qTr}^, which (according to
Buttm. IL 431) can only be vindicated as a collateral form of
'yvfjLV}]<i. From 'yvfiv6<; we should expect yvfivirT)';, and thus we
find ryv/jLVLTevco in 1 C. iv, 11, in the best MSS.:^ we must not
therefore, with Pritzsche (Conform. Grit. p. 21) and Meyer,
regard this as a mistake in transcription.^
Amongst verbs in vvm which signify a moMng to he what the
(concrete) root denotes (as IXapvveiv = iXapov iroielv, Buttm.
II. 3^7, Jelf 330. 2), a-Kkrjpvvo) deserves mention ; it is a colla-
teral form of (TKkrjpow, which does not occur in the N. T.'*
Verbs in atvco — XevKaivw, ^rjpalvo), ev^paivw (Buttm. II
65 sq., Lob. Prol. Path. p. 37) — require no special lemark.^
The formation of verbs in 6(o from primitives in ew, though
not unknown to Attic writers (Buttm. II. 61, Lob. p. 151), may
have been more frequently practised in later Greek; at all events
vrjOw, Kvri6ci),aXrj6(j} [p. 22], are not used by the older writers.
See however Lob. p. 254.
Verbs in crK(o^ with the exception of evpia-Kco and BiBd<rKco,
are rare in the N". T., as elsewhere (Buttm. IL 59 sq., Jelf
330. 1). We find yrjpda-KCD as an inchoative (Buttm. II. 393) :
jjiedvaKO), causative of fi^dvoa, occurs in the passive only ; 70-
* [To these should be added ^jjXeuw, -wliich is well supported in Kev. iii. 19,
and pu'rapivDiiiti Rev. xxii. 11 (Tisch. ed. 7) : the la.tter verb is not. found else-
whe)e, and the former is very rare, see Lidd. and Scott s. v.]
* [The best texts now have yvfinnvu ; see Alf. in loc.'\
3 Comp. Lob. Ajax, p. 387. For oXo6piua>, 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 <rxu, see Don. New Cr. p. 615 ; Curtius, Eluddaliona, p. 141
sqq., Greek Verb, chapters x. and xxii.]
SECT. XVI.] DEIirVATIVE AND COMPOUND WORDS. ] ] 5
fitcTKO), equivalent in meaning to yajxl^o), is sufficiently attested
in L. XX. 34 only.^
rprjyopeo} (from tlie perfect iypyyopa) and its cognate eypy-
yoptw are altogether singular in formation (Lob, p. 119, Euttm
II. 158) ; but with this formation from a reduplicated perfect '
we may compare eVt/ce;^et/>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<Tfio<;, 6veiBc(T/jL6<i (Lob. p. 512), ^aaavicrfio^, irapopyLaixo'i,
pavTi(Tfi6^ (pavTLJ^eiv), aa^^aTt,(r/x6<i (o-a^jSaTt^^tv), aa>(j>povLcr/j,6'?,
direXeyp^o'i.
The most numerous formations, however, are those in fia
(Lob. Paral. p. 391 sqq.) and (tl<s, the former in great part
peculiar to the N. T,, but always framed in accordance with
analogy ; as ^dima-fia, paTna-fia (from ^airri^ew, etc.), yfreOafia
(from -^jrevSeaOat), lepdrevfia, KardXvfia (KaraXveiv), also efe--
pafia (Lob. p. 64), dademjfia, avrXruxa, dvrdXXayfxa, diro-
^ [Tiiis is the judgment of the best editors : yxfiiZci, however, occurs not un-
frequently. See Tisch. on Mt. xxii. 30. ]
^ Dbderlein, Ueber die Redupl. in der griech. und lat. Worthildunj, in his
Beden und Aufsdtzen II. No. 2.
3 [MuUach (p. 258) mentions that in modern Greek verbs in ia> 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<i, which are particularly numerous in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, are nearly all to be found in Greek
authors ; only 6eX'r]a-L<;, KaraTravcri^;, 'rrp6'i'^vcn<;,^ d7roXvrpa>(n<i,
BiKaico(Tt^, ireiTol6r)ai<i (Lob. p. 295), /3i&)crt9 {eTnTroOrjai'i), re-
quire mention. On irapaaKevr], formed from the root of a verb
in a^co, see Buttm. II. 404 ; on oikoSofi^, Lob. p. 490 : and on
the very common word BiadijKT] (from 1 aor. of TiOevat), Buttm.
IL 401, Lob. Paral p. 374.
To the abstract nouns belong also some in }iovri ; of these
we find in the IST. T. ifK'qapLovr} (Buttm. II. 405). ^ETTcXTjcr/jiovT],
however, is immediately derived from iin\i]<7^oiv ; TreLcrfiovij
(found also in Pachym. II. 100, 120) is formed from irela-fia,
though it may be directly reierred to ireiOco, as TrXrjanovij to
'rrXrjOw? Among abstract nouns from verbs in evoi should be
mentioned ipiOela}
The concrete nouns have little that is peculiar. From verbs
in a^co, t^co, v^(o, we find in the IST. T. the paroxytone KTLo-T7)<i„
and the oxytone ^ /3Lao-T7]<;, /3a7rTL<TTi]<i, fieptcrri]'?, evayyeXicrrTj'ii
yoyyvcTT-^f, and eW7]Viarri<=;^ — all seldom or never found else-
^ [In A. XXV. 7 a'lr'iiafia. (for a/V/a/ia) is very strongly supported : this word
" is not found elsewhere, but Eustaihius (p. 1422. 21) uses alrloiffts for ctWutan "
(Meyer inloc). — On the tendenoj' of some, nouns in fia to assume an active or
abstract meaning, see Elb'c. on Ph. iv. 6, Col. ii. 5.]
* The form x"'^"^ seems to be used only when the first part of the compound
is an appellative : the N. T. word a.tfj.aTiKxvaia, (Leo Gr. p. 287) may be com-
pared with a.'ifjt.a.Tox,'J<r'i«' (Theophan. p. 510), <puTox^<r''<^, and pmyx'"'''*-
^ [On ■riiirf/.ov^ see Ellic. on G. v. 8 ; and on the termination, Hew Crat. p.
457.]
* The connexion of ipthla with tpif is not precluded by the mere presence of
the i, for this letter is found in this family of words in ipihiv, ip'JiZii* ; but
the whole form of the word shows that it can only be referred to Ipihuu. That
moreover the N. T. word \fihiit. is no other than the ipih'ia. {labour for hire)
which was already in use among the Greeks, is convincingly shown by Fritzsche
{Rom. I. 143 sqq.). Amongst earlier writers, see Stolberg, De Soloec. N. T. p.
136 sqq. [See also EUicott and Lightfoot on G. v. 20 ; Alford on Rom. ii. 8.]
* On the accentuation see Buttm. II. 408 (Jelf 59, Don. p. 315).
* *EA.X>i»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, irpo<iKvvriTri<i (Constant. Man. 4670) :
un invevhvTTj^ see Buttm. II. 411 (Jelf 331). The older writers
preferred Bcwkttjp to BLa)KTT]<; ; similarly SoTi'jp has the collateral
form 86r7]q.^
Kardw^i,^, Kom. xi. 8 (from the LXX), if derived from
Karavvard^oi (as it was at one time supposed to be), would be
a very strange formation. It is however clear from Dan. x. 9
(Theodot.) that this noun was regarded as cognate with Kara-
vvaaeiv ; and thus it might denote stupefaction (p^V?.^ Ps. Ix. 5),
and thence torpor : ^ see Fritz. Horn. II. 558 sqq.
Tap,€iov (for ra/xielov, from Ta/xievco) is the reading of all good
MSS. in L. xii. 24, and of many MSS. in Mt. vi. 6^ (see Lob. p.
49 3, Par«^. p. 2 8): similarly we find the com])Oun(x 'yXoxra-oKOfiov
for yXoia-aoKo/juelov or 'yXMaaoKop^Lov (from Kofiico), without any
variant (see Lob. p. 98 sq.). In each case the abbreviated form
was the result of a careless pronunciation of the word.
,8. From Adjectives. Under this head come
(1) Some abstract nouns in tt;?, orr]<i ; as a7ioT7;?, dyv6Tr]<i,
dBe\(f)6Tr](i (Leo Gramm. p. 464), dSpoTr]^;, aTrXorrj^, iKavorrj'^,
dcpeX.oTTj'i (dcf)e\€ia in earlier writers), a-Kk'qpoTr}^;, Ti/jii6r7}<i, re-
XeioTTjsi, fiaTaLotr}<i, jv/j,i>6rrj<;, /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<rTrii (whicli never occurs in Greek
authors) very naturally signifies one who speaks Greek, though not a Greek by
birth, e.g. a Greek-speaking Jew. That in Christian Greek phraseology j;.x»)v/^ei»
also meant to be a heathen (as in Malal. p. 449) has no further connexion with
our subject. [See page 29, note *. ]
* [This verb occurs SchoL Aristoph. Ran. 507 ; and in Schol. Aristoph. Pax
1196 we should probably read x£«(jXXi//3;o-/iiK>/. ]
- [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, po<i
(Buttm. II. 415), there are. several later formations (Lob. p.
343), e.g. iXacppia, like alc^pla (Eustathius) from o,la'^p6<;. In
2 P. ii, 1 6 we find Trapacppovia from trapdi^poip (Lob. Proleg.
Path. p. 238), like euSaL/jLoiaa from evSac/j^cov ; but some
[cursive] MSS. have the more usual 'irapa<j>poavvr}?
Lastly, the neuter of many adjectives in to? is used as a sub-
stantive ; as vTTo^vyiov, fieOopiov, virok-qvcov, c<pdyLov (7rpo<}-
(pdyiov), etc. : see Fritz. Prdlim. p. 42.
7. From other substantives (Buttm. II. 420 sqq., Jelf 335,
Don. p. 319). Elh(o\elov^ (elScoXov), iXaicov (iXata), fivXcov Mt.
xxiv. 41 V. I. (/tyXo9, /auXi?), Buttm. II. 422 sq.; and the femin.
^aalXia-aa (Buttm. II. 42 7). ''A^ehpdov, which is peculiar to the
N. T., comes from ehpa. The gentile femin. from ^olvi^ is ^oi-
vtcrcra; hence we find Svpo(f)oivi(Taa Mk. vii. 26, as Kikia-tra
from KlXi^ (Buttm. II. .427). Perhaps however a femin. was
also formed from ^olvUt}, the name of the country, for very
many good MSS. have in this place XvpojjoLviKta-aa (comp. Fritz.
in loc.):^ this might be immediately derived from a simpler form
^oivLKi<i, as we find ^aaiXiao-a by the side of f3aai\L<;, and as
(in Latin at all events) Scythissa was used for HkvOi^;, or as in
later Greek (pvKdKiaaa is found by the side of (jiv\aKi<i : see in
general Lob. Pro^. Path. p. 413 sq.
To the later and Latinising formation belong, of gentile nouns
^ Mym. Mag. p. 275. 44. Yet we find /^iyaXo(ruv>] 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 <rt/vw in general,
see Aufreeht in the Berl. Zeitschr. fur vergleich. Spracfiforsch. 6. Heft. [Liine-
nianu adds a reference to G. Biihler, Das griech. Secund&rsufflx rvs : ein
Beitragz. Lehre v. d. W ortbildung (G'Ott. 1858).]
* Of substantives derived from adjectives in »,-, some, as is well known, end
in la. instead of na (Buttm. II. 416, Jelf 334. Obs. 1). In others the spelling
varies between <« and £/«, e.g. xaxo-prafficc {com-p. Poppo, Thuc. II. i. 154, Ellendt,
PrfEf. ad Arrian. p. 30 sqq., Weber, Demosth. p. 511), the form tia however
being best attested in this word. [See also p. 49. ]
2 [Written with -/- (not -£^-) by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort.]
* [So Lachm., Tisch., Westo. and Hort; Tregelles, 2v/i« *«<>-;*/><?«.]
SECT. XVI.] DErJVATIVE AND COMPOUND WOKDS. 119
and patronymics, 'Hpa)Siav6<;, Mt. xxii. 16, and Xpicrnavo^, A.
xi. 26, aL: comp. Kaia-apiavo^ Ait. Epict. 1. 19. 19, 3. 24. 117.
In the earlier language the termination avo<i was used only in
forming gentile names for cities and countries out of Greece
(Buttm. II. 429, Jelf 338. «7).
Among diminutives deserves to be mentioned ^L^Xapi^Lov,
formed immediately from ^ifiXdpiov (which is mentioned by
Pollux), and used instead of the older forms ^i^XiStov and
^i^XtBdpcov (like IfxaTiBdpiov from l^arlhiov) ; see Lob. Pathol.
I. 281. FvpaiKapiov follows the ordinary analogy, bilt seems to
have been of rare occurrence in Greek authors : the same may
be said of wTapiov (Mk. xiv. 47, Jo. xviii. 10), /cXivdpiov, irai-
Bdpcov. Amongst diminutives in lov, yjn^lov is decidedly a later
forni.^
The subataatives in Tjptov are properly neuter adjectives (Buttm. II.
412 sq.), as IXaa-Trjpiov, dvp-uxTripiov^ <j>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<J)'i.ov, is in like manner to
be regarded as the neuter of {i7r€puJto?,A\ hich is formed from the prepos.
vntp, as -arpwos from TTaTTjp, for there is no intermediate adjective
vVepos.^
ADJECTIVES.
a. From Verbs. To adjeotives^immediately derived from a
verbal root belongs irei&o'i, which is fidly estabhshed in 1 C. ii.
4 : compare e3o9 from eBw, ^oaKo^i from fBoaKo), (f)6LBo^ from
^ On diniinntives in tov see Fritz. PrtiUni. p. 43, aud Janson, De vocibua in
ici triayUabis, in Jahn's Archiv VII. 485 sqq.
2 [fn L. xxi. 11 we should probably read <pi^rjp,», for (pir^iTpet : compare
xipnSfor, Kaxr.Sfoy. See Lobeck in Buttm. II. 413. Here m&y also be mentioned
the form avyyiMiii {vvyyuiiai, Mk. vi. 4 and perhaps L. 11. 44) : see A, Buttm.
p. 25.]
120 DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WORDS. [PART II.
[^€lSq}) (f)€LBofJuii, and see Lob. p. 434. These derivatives are as
a rule oxytone; (f)d<yo'i alone is also written as a paroxytone by
the grammarians (Lob. Paral. p. 135), and this accentuation is
followed in the N. T, Among those in cSk6<;, dfjbapTa)k6<i is most
common (i^uttm. II. 448) ; etBwXov, which is the neuter of eiB(i)\o<;
(Lob. Path. p. 134), belongs to the same class.
Verbals in to? ^ sometimes correspond to the Latin participle
in tus, as yvcocrrS^ notus, <7tTei;T09 saginoius, d'rralBevTO'; (inept),
compare deoTrveua-TOf; inspiratus ;^ sometimes to adjectives in
bilis, as oparo^, Bv';^dcrrdKTO<i, are/cros', a.Karda'^^eTO'i, aKarairav-
O-T09, dveKBcT]'y7]T0<i, dveKkdXrjro'i. Some verbals have an active
meaning (Fritz. Rom. 11. 185), as aTrraicrTo^ not stumbling, i.e.
oiot iinning ; d\d\rjro<} however (Eom. viii. 26) certainly does
not belong to this class. ^ Aireipaaro^i, Ja. i. 13, like the classical
d-TreipaTOf;, is either untried, untempted, or — what amounts to the
same in this passage- — incapaUe of being tried {see p. 242].
Only TraOrjTOfi has the meaning one who is to suffer, A. xxvi.
23; comp. ^ev/cro?, jrpaKTo^, Aristot. De Anima 3. 9, p. 64
(Sylb.), Cattier, Gazophyl. p. 34. The verbal 'Kpo<;rj\vTo<i is
immediately connected with such forms as eTrrjXv^, fierTjXvi, and
is an extended formation of which we find no examples in Greek
authors.
0. From Adjectives. Among adjectives derived from other
adjectives (or from participles) a few deserve special notice : e.g.
irepLovaia and i7nova-io<;, like eKova-ia, iO€\ovcrio<;, (Lob. p. 4
sq.), which are formed from eKwv and iOeXcov in the same way as
the feminines eKovaa, ediXovaa. ^Eiriovaiof; however has pro-
bably a direct connexion with the feminine (^) iiriovaa, scil.
tjfiepa, so that apra iiriovaio^ is bread for the following day :
compare Stolberg, Diss, de pane iirtovaioi [De Solcecismis N. T.
p. 220 sqq.), Valcken. Meet. L 190, and Fritz. Matt. p. 207 sq.,
where also the derivation of the word from ovaia (which would
be grammatically possible, comp. evovaLo<i) is controverted.^
1 See Bnttm. J. 443 sqq., Lob. Paral. p. 478 sqq., Moiszisstzig, De Adj. Qrcpc.
Verbal. (Conitz 1844). [Don. p. 191 ; Curtius, Gr. Verb, p. 515. On the
accentuation of compound verbals, see Lob. Paral. pp. 473-498, A. Buttm.
Gr. p. 42.]
^ The pa.<:sive interjiretation of this word in 2 Tim. iii. 16 can admit of no
donbt, and is also supported by the analogy of 'ifi-rvivrroi ; though several deri-
vatives of this kind have an active meaning, as lUTytua-nss, aTotvirro}.
^ [This word is most fully exainined by Tholiick iSerm. on the Mmmt, pp. 341-
?48), Lightlout {Iiccl^wn,'\)iK ] 94-234"), M'ClcUan, ]S\w Ttit,. pp. 632-047.
SECT. XVI.] DEPaVATIVE AND COMPOUKD WORDS. 121
The meaning of 7repiovaio<i in the Bible is not simply propnus,
as opposed to what belongs to another, any more than irepiov-
<na(Tyi6<i in the LXX means simply property.
Hlo-tlko^ (Mk; xiv. 3, Jo. xii. 3), from TnaTo^, is explained by
several ancient commentators as meaning genuine. In earlier
writers the word signifies convincing, probably also persuasive,
Plat. Gorg. 455 a, Diog. L. 4. 37, Dion. H. V. 631, Sext. Emp.
Math, 2. 71, Theophrast. Metapk. 253 (Sylb.) ; in nearly all the
passages, however, some MSS. have TrecariKo^i, and this form has
usually been preferred by the critics, see Bekker and Stallb. on
Plat. I. c, and compare Lob. Ajajc, v. 151. In later Greek it sig-
nifies /a iY/i/nZ, trustivorthy, of persons; see Lacke, Joh. II. 496,
Index to Cedreniis p. 950. A transition to the meaning ^mwm^;,
as a material predicate, would not be impossible, particularly as
technical expressions (and such vdpBo^ ttco-tiki] may very well
have been), and mercantile terms especially, are often strange.^
Others, after Casaubon, take iriariKcxi for drinkable (Fritz.
Mark, p. 598 sqq.), from TriiridKai or the, root Trtw, like Trto-To?
drinkable (^schyl. From.. 480), iricnrip, iriarpa, vria-rpov, and
other words quoted by the old lexicographers. That the ancients
did sometimes drink the nard oil we know from Athenseus (15.
689). But I cannot clearly see why both evangelists applied
this particular epithet : if the thin liquid nard-ointnient which
they used for pouring out {Kara')(e€iv, Mk. I. c.) did not differ
from that which was drinkable, it would be just as superfluous
Liinemann refers to articles by Leo Meyer ^in Kuhn's Zeitschr. 1858, VII. 424 sq.,
428), who maintains that the word is formed by the suffix la from Wi and «t,
and denotes "that which is i^r.'," so that apTog s. signifies " the, bread which is
serviceable or necessary for the support of life, — which answers to our neces-
sities." Lightfoot's objection to all derivations from Jvai (or ohaia.) — that the
word would then be Wouaioi, not l-rtcvaios, the i never being retained unless the
second word was orujtnally written with the digamma (as in Wiopico;, innKi);,
etc.) — appears decisive. His conclusion is that the phrase means fyread for the
coming day. M'Clellan refers the word to a (viuv (soil. XP'""'^> '^'"^^)> "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
vapho<i \eirriq of Dioscorides is properly only fluid nard, as
opposed to the thick, viscid kind. In John's narrative, too,
the mention of drinkable nard does not harmonise well with
the manipulation indicated by a\.€L(f)€Lv. Lastly, Fritzsche's
rendering of ttktt. by " qui facile bibi potest, luhenter bibitur "
(p. 601) is not sufficiently supported; not to ijiention that
it cannot be certainly shown that TrcaTiKo^ anywhere has the
meaning drinkable. Indeed Tna-rcfi itself was probably not
much used — in ^schylus /. c. there is a play on words [ov
'^ta-Tov ovre Tnarov] — being superseded by the unambiguous
TTOTo?, 7roac/.co^.
7. From Substantives. To adjectives derived from substantives
belong amongst others adpKLvo<i and aapKiKo^. The former
signifies y?ts%, i.e. made of fiesh (2 C. iii. 3), as proparoxytone
adjectives in ti/p? almost without exception, denote the material
of which a thing is made, e.g. XiOtva of stone (2 C. iii. 3), ^v\tvo<i
toooden, TrrjXivo'i of clay, aKavOn'o^, ^vaaiva, etc. (Buttm, II.
448) : the latter is fleshly. Tb^re is however preponderant or
considerable authority for adpKivo^ in Rom, vii. 14, 1 G. iii. 1
(2 C. i. 12), H. vii 16, where a-apKiKo^ might have been ex-
pected ; and even Lachmann has received it into the text.^ But
how easily might aapKtKo-i, a word found in the N. T. only,^ be
confounded in the MSS. with the familiar word adpKivo<; (Fritz.
JRom. II. 46 sq.). If Paul wrote adpKLvo<i, he must have intended
some such special emphasis as Meyer attributes to the word in
1 C. iii. 1.^ But in the doctrinal system of Paul we find no
support for any description of the natural man which the merely
material word adpKivo<; would be sufficient to convey ; whilst
aapKLKo^i, in antithesis to irvevfiariKO'i, is all that is required even
in these passages. Besides, 1 C. iii. 3, taken in connexion with
ver. 2, shows that Paul used the same designation in both verses.*
1 [Not ill 2 C. i. 12 : in the other passages recent editors read (r^pxivas. On
adj. in /vaj see Donalds. Hew Crat. p. 458, Trench, Syn. s. v. o-a^xd-as.]
'^ [It occurs in Anth. Pal. 1. 107, Ps.-Arist. Hist. An. 10. 2. 7, and is a v. I.
in 2 Chr. xxxii. 8.]
•^ [Meyer's view is ;that, to designate more emphatically the unspiritual nature
of the Corinthians, Paul calls them men of the flesh — " men who had experienced
so little of the Holy Spirit's operation, that the <ra^| appeared to constitute
their whole being : " comp. Trench I. c]
* [That is, in verses 1, 3 : rxfxixol is undoubted in ver. 3. See AKord in loc]
SECT. XVI.] DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WOKDS. 123
SucL. an expression as ivroXyj aapKivT], H. vii. ] fi, is hardly to
be tolerated.^
Among the oxytone adjectives in ii/o? which express notions of
time (Buttm. II. 448, Jelf 338), Ka6T]fj,epcv6<;, 6pdpivl<i, Trpmvof,
are later forms, for which earlier writers used Ka6r)p,epLo^, k.t.X. ;
raxtvo^ belongs to the same class. Some adjectives derived
from substantives end in €iv6<i, as (rKorecv6<i, ^Q>Teiv6<i ; eA-eetw?
however — a form not uncommon in Attic Greek (V. Fritzsche,
Arist&ph. I. 456) — comes from the verb eXeew, as iro6eiv6<i from
rrroOew (Buttm. II. 448). KepapiK6<; (Kepd/xeio^, Kepdpao^:) must
also be reckoned with later adjectival formations.
Among adverbs derived from verbs, (f)€iBo/jievco^ seems to be
peculiar to the K T,^
B. DERIVATION BY COMPOSITION.
4. a. Substantives and Adjectives. The compound nouns
whose first part also is a noun are numerous in the N. T.
Although many of these words are not to be found in Greek
authors, yet there is nothing in their formation which is contrary
to analogy. Compare in particular SiKacoKpiaia (Leo Gr. p. 163),
atparefc^vaca, raTreivocfipcov — like eva(:^o<^pwv, Kparaiocppcov
Constant. Porphyr. II. 33„ and in later writers even lov8ai6(ppcov,
^Wrjvoipprov Cedren. I. 660, Theophan. I. 149 — and TaiT€ivo<^po-
(TvvTj (comp. fiaraioippoa-vvr) Constant. Man. 657), crKXrjpoKapSia,
a-KX7]poTpd^7]\o<; (from which we find aKkripoTpa^riXia and o-kXt]-
porpa^rjXcdv in Const. Man.), uKpo^vaTia!^ aKpoyoovLalo'i, dX-
' In general, we might perhaps assume that the later popular language con-
founded the forms, and used adpxivos also in the sense of rapaiKos, especially as
adjectives in tvo; do not always denote substance or material (comp. a>^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<i
Theophan. I. 736, KapBioKoka.Trrrj'i Leo Gr. 441), ctt/to^/jcoto?,
6(f)6a\fxoBovXeLa, elBoiXoXdrpT)^,^ elBoikoOvrov (Cedren. I. 286,
comp. the abstract elScoXoOvaia Theophan. 415), Bea/xo(f)v\a^
(vQiro(f)v\a^ Theoplian. I. 608), opKWfioaia (comp. dirwixoala,
KaTWjxoaia), iraTpoirapdhoTO'i (^eoTrapaSoTo? Theophan. I. 627),
lcrdfyy€ko<; (Theoph. I. 16), evTrepicrraro'?, ttoXvitolkiXo^, the
adverb rn-afxirKr^dei (the adjective TrafiTrXrid/]^ is found in good
writers), elXcKpcv^^;, etXiKplveui (F nhr, Dicccarch. p. 198). The
nearest approach to the compound SeurepoTrpwro?, L. vi. 1 (?),
is found in SevrepoSeKarT] (Hieron. inUzech. c. 45) ; as the one
means second-tenth, the other means second-first.^ ^(cB€Kd^vXo<;,
the neuter of which is used as a substantive in A. xxvi. 7, is
supported by rerpdi^vXa^ (Her. 5. 66).. — The- first part of the
compound is more rarely a verb, as in iOeXodpTjcrKeia self-imposed
worship : compare eOeXoBovXia,
The adjectives whose first part is a privative exhibit nothing
anomalous, though many of them may not have been used in the
written language (a/ierajyoT^To?, dve^epevvnjrG'?, dve^i'^viaaTo^).
The only peculiar word is dveX€o<;, which Lachm. has received
in Ja. ii. 1 3 on good authority, in the place of dviXeco'i ; Greek
writers used dvr]Xe^<;, or at any rate dveXei]<i (Lob. p. 710).
^AviXeo'i would be formed on the analogy of aveXir >,<;,[ 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.<i!T/»)f, a
common word in the 13yzantine writers.
^ [On this word see Tischendorf's long note (ed. 8), and comp. Tregelles and
Alford in loc, Wicseler, iSyn. pp. 203-215, Ellicott, Hist. L. p. 174, Scrivener,
Critic, p. 515, M'Clellan, Nev: Test. p. 690 sq. The word is retajned by Tisch.,
bracketed by Lachm. and Alford, banished to the margin by Tregelles and by
"Westcott and Hort. — On thxafp^a-xtia. see Expositor, xii. 2&5-297.]
SECT. XVI.] DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WOEDS. 125
tensive ; " but it is better (with Lob. Path. I. 35) to take it for
a formativum} See further Doderlein, De a intensivo sermonis
Gra;ci{Y.x\. ISSO).^
5. Verbs. "When the last part of the compound is a verb
(that is, in verla coniposita), the verbal root is retained un-
altered, as a rule, only when the first part is one of the so-called
old prepositions (Scaliger in Lob. Phryn, p. 266, Buttrn. II.
469 sq.). In other cases the verb properly takes its termination
from a noun derived from the root ; as ahwareiv, ofxoXoyeladai,
vovOeTelv, evepyereiv, Tpoirocpopetv,^ opdoro/xelv (comp. 6p6o-
rofila Theophan. contin. p. 812), a^^aOoep'^/dv and ayadovp-
ydv^ fjieTpioiraOeiv, etc.
It cannot however be denied that there are some isolated ex-
ceptions to this rule ; Scaliger himself had discovered Zv^dvr'jcrKw
in Euripides, comp. Buttm. IL 472. Hence we must also derive
€v8oK€iv from toKelv directly, and not (as Passow maintained)
through an intermediate noun S6ko<;, see Fritz. Bom. II. 370 :
the word originated in a mere union of ev and BoKelu in pronun-
ciation, comp. Buttm. IL 470. The same appbes to KupaBoKetP,
which must not be referred to SoKeva (Fritzschior.. Opusc,
p. 151) ; a noun Kapahoico^ does not exist.*
'OfjietpeaOai also (the reading of the better MSS, in 1 Th.
il 8, for ifjt,6ipe(76aL) would be admissible, even if derived from
ofjiov, 6/jb6<i, and etpetu (Fritz. Mark, p. 792). We do not indeed
meet with any otlier verb thus compounded with ofjMv, for 6fia~
Bid) comes from o/j.a8o<;, and o/xoBpofjielu, 6/jboBo^eiv, ofiewerelv,
6/j,r)p€V€iv, 6/j,o!^vyeiv, opuXelv, and even Ofiovoeiv (Buttm. IL
1 [In favour of Buttmann's view see Don. Gr. p. 334, iVVw Cr. p. 348 sq.
Lobeck's words are : a ;i;a'vu(, nivu, <rȣXXw, evrif;^^u, adjectiva in ns exeuntia fingi
non potuerunt nisi accedente vel pj-aspositione (iiz^avti;, Iktivks, '>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
a<r£Xy»i,-, axpayyii) with the prepos. «»a. ]
* [In Rev. viii. 1, we should probably read fifiiapav for i^/<i'/!/ij». ]
' [For which several editors read rptxpap^apilv, A. xiii. 18 (Dt. i. 31).]
* On these forms see Buttm. II. 457. Against elxovpyilt and aUatipyo; (Tit. ii.
5 V. L), comp. Fritz. De Grit. Gonf. p. 29. [In Tit. I. c. oUovpyos is strongly
supported, and is received by recent editors. ]
* [See JeK 346, Don. p. 339 sq., New Cr. p. 666 sq., Curt. Elucid. pp. 167 sqq.]
126 DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WORDS. [PART II.
473), are in like maimer directly derived from nouns. A diffi-
culty would also be presented by the genitive which is here go-
verned by the verb ; compare Matth. 405. The first objection,
however, should perhaps not be pressed in regard to a word
borrowed from the popular spoken language. Tf fMeipeaOac —
which is found in Nicand. Ther. 400, for ifj,€ipeadat — were the
original form, fieipiadat and o/j^elpeadai might exist together
as collateral forms, as easily as BvpecrOai and oBvpeo-Oai : in-
deed o/xeipea-Oai, may perhaps be the true reading here (Lob.
Path. I. 72).^
A compound peculiar to Hellenistic Greek is nTpo'^coirokr)-
irreiv, — 7rpo<;a}7ro\i]TrTr]^, 'Kpo'iaj'n-oKrj'^ia (Theodos. Acroas. 1 ,
32), a'irpo<i(07ro\r)'rrT(o<i {Ada Apocr. p. 86). A corresponding-
verb is dKaraXriTTTelv, Sext. Emp. I. 201 ; with the concrete de-
rivative compare BcopoXTJirrrjii and ipyoXijirrrj^j (LXX) ; and with
the abstract irpo^wiroXri-^la compare €p(OTo\7]ylria, Ephraem.
pp, 3104, 7890, Nicet.Eugen. 4. 251. Several nouns like tt/jo?-
(0'7rd\r]7rTr}<i, 6avaTr)<^6po^^ in which the second part is derived
from a verb, whilst the first denotes the object, etc. (Buttm. II.
478), are peculiar to the N. T. ; as Se^to\a/3o9, one lolio takes a
place at the right of any one, hence o.n attendant. From these
compounds are again derived, not only abstract nouns — to which
class (TKH]vo'K'r]<^la belongs, formed as if from a-Krjvoin^'yo'^, accord-
ing to a common analogy, like Kkivoir'qyia, — but also verbs, as
Xi6oj3o\e2v from Xt^o/3oXo9 (comp. dvOolBoketv, Orjpo^okelv, rjkio-
/36\€i(r6ai, etc.), opOoirohetv from opOoTrovi, he^tdka^elv (Leo
Gr. p. 175) : see Buttm. IL 479.
In verba decomposita that preposition by means of which the
compound became a double compound naturally stands first, as in
a.Tr€K8e)(^e(r6aL, crvvavTLXap.j3dvecr0ai. AiaTraparpi^T/, 1 Tim. vi. 5, WOuld
be at variance with this rule if it signified misplaced diligence or
^ [ The form witli e is now generally received here, and is the reading of good
MSS. in Job iii. 21. EUicott considers it a late form of ifnipa/xui : " as it seems
probable that fiufofiai is not an independent verb, but only an apocopated form of
ifiiifiofiixi 'metri causa,' it seems safer to consider o/^i'pofiai a corrupted and perhaps
strengthened form of the more usual verb." Similarly Jowett in toe, who adds
that the pseudo-form was supported perhaps by an imaginary derivation from
o/tou and i7puv. Compare however Lobeck I. c. : " vocales autem longas deteri
tam contra naturam est, ut psene credam primitivum fuisse afiupa amo vel hfiupa
quod codd. optimi N. T. prsebent." Westcott and Hort agree with Lobeck in
writing hit,., not »V0
^ A similar compound is alii'inf : from alros, «?«», nhia6a.i (Buttm. II. 458).
SECT. XVI.] DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WORDS. 127
useless disputing. The only meaning whicli hiairapaTp. can hav^j
is continued (endless) enmities, collisions ; the* other signification
would require TrnpaStarpt^j;. As however most of the MSS. are
in favour of SuxTraparp., which Lachmann has received into the
text, it has been supposed — even by Fritzsche {Mark, p. 796^) —
that in this particular instance the prepositions are transposed. But
hiairapaTpiPi], in the sense given above, is not unsuitable in this
passage. The other compounds with Siairapa, viz. StaTrapaKVTrrc-
a-OaL 1 K. vi. 4, and hLairapaT-qp^lv ^ 2 S. iii. 30, are in accordance
with the rule as regards their meaning : the former word however
is doubtful, see Schleusnesr, Thes. Phil. s. v.
HapaKaTadrjKTj is equivalent in meaning to Trapa$r]Kr], see Lennep,
Phalar. Ep. p. 198 (Lips.), Lob. p. 312 ; the latter is better
supported in the N. T. The MSS. similarly vary between the
two words in Thuc. 2. 72 (sfee the commentators), and also in
Plutarch, Ser: Find, (see Wyttenb. IL 530) : comp. also Heinichen,
Ind. ad Euseh. III. 529.
In Biblical Greek we meet with many compounds and double
compounds which do not occur in Greek authors. ^ In particular,
we find the simple verbs of earlier writers strengthened through
the addition of prepositions, which, so to speak, exhibit to the
eye the mode of the action j as indeed a love for what is vivid
and expressive is a general characteristic of the later language.
Thus we have KaTaXi6a.i^f.iv, to stone doivn; i^opKL^cLv, as if to ex-
tract an oath from a man, put on oath ; iiao-Tpdirreiv, to flash
forth; cKya/xi^civ, to give away in marriage {out of the family),
elocare ; Suyeipctv, iiavareXXeiv, i$op.oXoyeiv, and many others. See
my 5 Progr. de Verbor. cam Prepos. coiJipositor. in N. T, usu (Lips.
1834-43).
In the same way, and for the same reason, compound and
doubly compound adverbs (and prepositions) came into use in later
Greek, as i-iravto, KaTcvwTrtor, Karo'avTt. In the Byzantine writers
■such formations are carried to a still greater extent than in the
Bible ; compare for instance KarcTrdvo) in Constantine Porphyro-
genitus.
Rem. 1. Personal names, particularly such as are compound,
are frequently found in the N. T. in the contracted forms, which
especially belong to the popular spoken language, and these abbre-
viations are sometimes very bold (Lob. p. 434, comp. Schmid on
Horat. Epp. 1. 7. 55) ; as 'AttoAAws foi 'AttoAAwvios, 'Apre/Aas for
'Apre/tiSwpos (^Tit. iii 12), Nv/a^Ss for Nu^t^oSwpos (CoL iv. 15),*
^ [All uncial MSS. have lia-raparpilixi. No one now will agree with Fritzsche •
I. c. : " patet igitur voc. hxTpi^ai miris modis praepositione vrapa- esse diremtum,
quum exspectes •rapa'iiaTpifiai."^
* [To these Ellicott adds liarrxpdyu Greg. Nyss. II. 177, 'iia.-raparvpu Schol.
Lucian II. 796 (Hemst. ). The Lexicons give also compounds of lia-rxf» vnXh
aiuvau, Xa/ijiecnu, ^e^v, i^vfu (?), but all from late writers.]
2 [Comp. Ellicott's notes on Ph. iii. 11, E. i. 21.]
* Keil [Philologus II. 468) believes he has found this name in an inscription
128 DERIVATIVE AND COMPOUND WOEDS. [PART II.
Zr]va<i for Zrjv6So)po<; (Tit. iii. 13), Hapfxcvag for IIapfjievi8r]<; (A.
vi. 5), At^/xSs probably for Arj/jLea?, ArjfjieTpLo?, or ATQ/xapxo<s (Col.
iv. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 10), probably also 'OAv/attSs for 'OAv/attioSw/jos
(Rom. xvi, 15), 'E7ra</»pas for 'E7ra<^po8iros (Col. i. 7, iv. 12), and
'Ep/Atts for 'EpfjLoScjpo's (Rom. xvi. 14), ®ev8a<; for ©evSwpos (i.e.
©£oSa)/3os), and AoukSs for Lucanus. In Greek writers, compare
'AAe^as for 'AAe^avSpos (Jos. Bell. J. 6, 1. 8), Mr/vas for M>jvoowpo5,
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<i, rov^ Be irpo(^r)Ta<;, tov^ Be
K.T.\., so7ne .... others.
(h) In the course of a narration, when the simple o Be {ol
Be) is used for hut he, etc., in opposition to some other subject ;
as o Be e<fnj Mt. xiii. 29, ol Be uKovaavre^ eiropevOrjaav ii. 9, ii.
14, ix. 31, L. iii. 13, viii. 21, xx. 12, Jo. i. 39, ix. 38, A. i. 6,'
ix. 40, al: Xen. An. 2. 3. 2, ^sch. Dial. 3. 15, 17, Philostr.
Ap. 1. 21. 5, Diod. S. Exc. Vat. pp. 26, 29, al.
For ol fxev . . . . Ol 8e are used also ot /xcv .... aXXot 8c Jo.
vii. 12, ol /xkv . . . aXXoL Sk . . , cTcpot Se Mt. xvi. 14 (Plat. Legg.
2. 658 b, .^1. 2. 34, Pala^ph. 6. 5), rtvt? . . . . ol Be A. xvii. 18,
compare Plat. Legg. 1. G27 a, and Ast m loc. In Greek authors we
find still greater variety in expressions of this kind (Matth. 288.
Rem. 6, Jelf 764). The relative is sometimes used instead of the
article in such opposed clauses : as 1 C. xi. 21, os fj-ev ttuvo, os 8e
fX€$v€i- Mt. xxi. 35, ov /xev eScipav, ov Be aTreKTeivav k.t.A., A. xxvii.
44, Rom. ix. 21, Mk. xii. 5; compare Polyb. 1. 7. 3, 3. 76. 4,
Thuc. 3. 66, and see Georgi, Eier. I. 109 sqq., Herm. Vig. p. 706.
Once, OS /A£v . . . oAXos Be, 1 C. xii. 8 (Xen. A71. 3. 1. 35) ; o fieu
(neuter) . . . /cat erepov, L. viii. 5 sqq. : ^ in 1 C. xii. 28 there is
(evidently an anacoluthon. See, in general, Bernh. p. 306 sq. (Jelf
816. 3. b).
In Rom. xiv. 2 o 8e does not stand in relation to os fjiev ; 6 is simply
the article, and belongs to aaOevCjv.
2. In Mt. xxvi. 67, xxviii. 17, we find the partitive ol Be
without a preceding ol fiiv, so that only the second member of
the partition is expressed. The former passage, iveTTTva-av ek
TO 7rp6<;a)7rov avrov koL eKo\dj)i<Tav avTov, ol Be eppdina-av,
would be more regular if ol fiev were inserted before eKoXd^t-
aav. When however Matthew wrote this word, a second mem-
ber of the sentence was not as yet definitely before his mind ;
but when he adds ol Be ipp. it becomes evident that the €/co\d(f>.
' 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€<i avrov
'rrpo'ieKvvT](Tav : that this, however, refers only to the greater
part, is clear from the words which follow, ol he eZlcrTaaav}
In L. ix. 19, ol 8e would regularly refer to the ixaO-qrai
mentioned in the preceding verse, and would indicate that all
returned the answer which follows; but from aXkot he . . , aX-
\oi Be, it is clear that it was given by a part only. The cor-
responding verse in Matthew (xvi, 14) is expressed with more
exactness : ol Be elTTov' ol fiev ^loydvvrju .... aXXoc Be . . , ,
erepot oe.
Section XVIII.
THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS.
1. When 6, rj, to, stands before a noun as a true article,
it indicates that the object is conceived as definite,^ either from
its nature, or from tlie context, or by reference to a circle of
ideas which is assumed to be familiar to the reader's mind :
Mk. i. 32, ore eBv 6 't]Xio<;' Jo. i. 52, o^ecrde top ovpavov aveat-
<y6ra' 1 C. xv. 8, w'iTrepeL tm eKTpcofxari M(pd'r] Ka/xol (he is the
only abortion among the apostles) ; A. xxvii. 38, iK^aWo/xevoi,
rov alrov eU rrjv OaXacraav, the. wheat (the ship's store of pro-
visions) ; L. iv. 20, TTTv^a^ to ^tpXlov (which had been handed
to him, ver. 1 7) aTroBov<i tm vrrripeTri, the synagoyue-atiendant ;
Jo. xiii. 5, fidXXei vBcop . eh top vnrTrjpa, the hasin (which, as
usual, was standing by), comp. Mt. xxvi. 26 sq. ;* Jo. vi. 3,
^ [So Bengel (as an alternative) and Meyer : Alford, EUicott {Hist. Led.
p. 411), Ebrard {Goftpel Hist. ^. 462, Trans'.), '&iiev {Words of the Lord Jesus,
VIII. 278, Traus.), object to this interpretation, though not on graramatical
grounds. ]
2 Compare Epiphan. Hcer. 1. 9. 4. — Herm. Proef. ad Eurip. Iphlq. Aul.
p. 15: "Articulus quouiain origine jironomen domonstrativum est, detinit infi-
uita idque duobus niodis, aut designando certo de niultis aut quae multa sunt,
cunctis in unum colligenJis."
^ [See Jelf 446 sq. , Don. p. 350, Middleton p. 32 sqq., Madvig 8 : for the N. T.
see esi>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<? to opo^, into the- m,ouniain (which was situated
on the farther shore, ver. 1); 1 C. v. 0, eypayfra iv ttj eincrToX^
(which Paul had written to the Corinthians before this present
epistle); A. ix. 2, yrrjaaro i'maTo\l<i eh Aajxaa-Kov 7rp6<i Ta<;
orvpayct)'yd<;, to the synagogues (which were in Damascus) ;
ReVi XX. 4 [i?ec.], e^aalXevcrav fiera Xpiarov ra -^iXta errj,
the thousand years (the known duration of. Messiah's* kingdom) ;
Ja. ii. 25, 'Paa/3 rj Tropvr] virohe^afxevrj tou? ayyiXov^, the spies
(familiarly known from the history of Eahab) ; H. ix. 19,
\aj3oi3v TO alfia tmv fiocr'^wv koX tcov Tpdycov, with aHusion
to Ex. xxiv. 8. So in 1 C. vii. 3, tt} ywai/ci a dvrjp ttjv
6(f)€t\r]v aTToStSoTft), the debt (of marriage) ; vii, 29, o Kaipof;
avpeaTaX/xevo'i ea-.Tiv, comp. ver. 26, Std ttjv evea-Tdauv dvdyKrjv^
The article thus refers to well-known facts, arrangements,
or doctrines (A. v. 37, xxi. 38, H. xi. 28, 1 C. x. 1, 10, 2 Th. ii.
3, Jo. i. 21, ii. 14, xviii. 3, Mt. viii. 4, 1 2); or to something pre-
viously mentioned, Mt. ii. 7 (ver. 1), L. ix. 16 (ver. 13), A. ix.
17^ (ver. 11), Jo. iv. 43 (ver. 40), A. xi. 13 (x. 3, 22), Ja. ii. 3
(ver. 2), Jo. xii. 12 (ver. 1), xx. 1 (xix. 41), H. v. 4 (ver. 1),
Eev. XV. 6 (ver. 1). Thus o ep-^^o/xevo^; signifies the Messiah,
7j KpLai<; the Qfessianic) universal judfiment, t) ypa(^ri the Scrip-
tures, r) (ro)T7)p[a the salvation of Christ, 6 Trecpd^wv the tempter
(Satan), etc. So also of geographical designations : rj ep-i]/j,o<i,
the wilderness par excellence, "•31'?'^, — i. e., according to the
context, either the Arabian wilderness (of Mount Sinai), Jo.
iii. 14, vi. 31, A. vii. .30, or the wilderness of Judah (Mt.
iv. 1, xi. 7).
Another case deserving mention is the use of a singular
nt)un with the article to denote, in the individual which it par-
ticularises, the whole class,^ — as we ourselves say. The soldier
must be trained to arms: 2 C. xii. 12, ra arj/jieia tov dTrpaToXov
Mt. xii. 35, dyaBo^ dvdpwrro'i .... iic^dXXec dyadd' xx. 11,
xviii. 17, L. X. 7, G. iv. 1, Ja. v. 6. Akin to this is the use of
the singular in parables and allegories: Jo. x. 11, 6 iroifjbrjv 6
KaXo^ TTjv 'ylrv^Tjv avrov TiOrjacv (it is the ideal Good Shepherd
that is spoken of), Mt. xiii. 3, e^rjXOev 6 crTreipcov tov (xireipetv,
where Luther incorrectly has a sower. See Kriiger p. 103 sq.
^ [Corrected (for ix. 7) froi ed. 5, where the words of the .verse are quoted.]
* [Jelf 446. /3, Green p. 2], where the very common use of the plural to
denote a class is also noticed. ]
SECT. XVIII.] THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 133
Rem. According to Kiihnol, the article sometimes includes the
pronoun this ;'^ e.g. in Mt. i. 25 [Rec.'\, rov vlov for tovtov t6v vlov
Jo. vii. 17, yvMcrerai -n-cpl Trj<; Sioa)(rj<;- ver. 40, eK toO 6)(Xov A.
XXVI. 10, TTjv Trapa twi/ apx^epewv i^ovcriav Aa/3(jjv Mk. xiii. 20, A.
ix. 2. In all these instances, however, the definite article is quite
sufficient. Heumann has been still more liberal in this doctrine of
the article, and he has been followed by 8chulthess (iV. Krit. Jimrn.
I. 285) : both Schulthess and Kiihnol refer most incorrectly to Matth.
§ 286, where such a use of the article (which indeed is hardly to
be found in prose, except Ionic) is not the subject of discussion.
As to Col. iv. 16, OTav avayvojaOyj Trap' ifjuv i) CTricrroAiy, we too say
when the letter is read, and nothing more than the article was required,
since no other epistle than the present could be thought of : some
authorities annex avrrj, but the ancient versions must not be reckoned
with these.2 In 1 Tim, i. 15 the demonstrative pronoun is not
required even in Grerraan [or English], any more than in vi. 13
[1 14]. In 2 C. V. 4 TO) is not put SeiKriK-'os for tov'tw ; the article
simply points to the o-k^ios spoken of in ver. 1. In Col. iii. 8 to.
irdvTa is not ^^ these, all of them" (intensive), but the lohole, viz.
the sins which are (a second time) specified in the words which im-
mediately follow. In Kom. v. 5, too, h (cAttis) is simply the article;
see Fritz, in loc. Least of all can 6 Koa/j.o'i be taken for ovro'i 6
Koa-fxo'i : it is the world as opposed to heaven, the kingdom of heaven,
not this world as opposed to another koct/xo?. The passages in Greek
authors which might be claimed as instances of this idiom (Diog. L.
1. 72, 86) are to be judged of in the same way. Indeed one cauuot
see what could induce the apostles to avoid expressing the demon-
istrative pronoun in certain passages, in which it was present to
their thought, and to substitute for it the article, which in any case
has much less force : mere instinct would revolt at this. Besides,
expressiveness of language is a characteristic of N. T. Greek, and
of later Greek in general.
In Greek authors, especially the Ionic and Doric,^ and after-
wards in the Byzantine writers (Malal. pp. 95, 102), the article is
sometimes used for the relative. In the N. T., 2aSAos 6 koL Ilav-
Ao? (A. xiii. 9) has been regarded as an example of this usage (see
Schleusner s. v. 6), but wrongly : o koX IT. is here equivalent to o
Kol KaXovfjievo<s IlauAo? (Schaefer, L. Bos. p. 213), and the article
retains its ordinary meaning, just as in SavAos 6 Taparev^. Comp.
tlie similar phrase XIi/cos 6 kui Zci's, Malal. p. 19 sq, (ed. Bonn),
Jlcf. Thorn, p. 34. One example however may be quoted from
Hellenistic writers, viz. Psalt. Sal. 17. 12, ev tois Kpifxacri, ra
'^ Compare Siebelis, Paumn. I. 50, Boisson. Babr. p. 207. Compare the
German das when emphasised.
2 ["The genius of the language into which the translation is made may
require the introduction of connecting particles or words of reference, as can-
be seen from the italicised words iu the Authorised Version." Westcott in
Sniithis Diet, of Bible, II. 628.]
3 MattL. 292 : comp. Ellendt, ie.r. Soph. II. 204 (Jelf 445).
134 THE AKTICLE BEFOEE NOUNS. [PART HI.
7roi€6 cTTi Tr]v yrjv, if the reading is correct.^ In Wisd. xi. 15,
where ov (Alex.) is probably a correction, t6v must be regarded as
the article.
2. So far, Greek usage agrees with that of all languages
which possess an article. In the following cases, in which the
definite article would not be employed in German [or English],
the use of the Greek article is idiomatic : —
(a) Rev. iv. 7, to ^coov eyov to irpo^icoTrov co? avOpcoirov (Xen.
Cyr. 5. 1. 2, ofxo'av Tal<; SovXaa el^e rr]v iadfjra' Theophr.
Ch. 12 (19), Tov<; ovvxct-<i /jL€<ydXov<i ex^^v Polyan. 8. 10. 1, al.) ;
A. xxvi. 24 [^ec], fieydXr] rr} (fxovfj ecfirj- xiv. 10 [i^cc], 1 C. xi.
5 (Aristot. Anim. 2. 8, 10, Lucian, Catapl. 11, Diod. S. 1. 70,
83, Pol. 15. 29. 11, Philostr. Ap. 4. 44). We say, Re had eyes
as. He spoke with a loud voice, etc. By the use of the article
here something which belongs to the individual is pointed out
as possessed of a certain quality.^ This is shown still more
clearly by H. vii. 24, dvapd^arov ep^et rr^v lepooavvijv, He hath
the piricsthood as unchangeaUe (predicate), Mk. viii. 17, IP.
ii. 12, iv. 8, E. i. 18 ; and by Mt. iii. 4, el^e to evSvfia avTov
airo Tpc^Mv KajjirfKov Eev. ii. 18 (which differ from the previous
examples through the addition of the pronoun). With the
former examples compare further Thuc. 1. 10, 23, Plat. Phoedr.
242 b, Lucian, Dial. Deor. 8. 1, Fugit. 10, Eun. 11, Diod. S.
1. 52, 2. 19, 3. 34, ^1. Anim. 13. 15, Pol. 3. 4. 1, 8. 10. 1 ;
and see Lob. p. 265, Krlig. Dion. II. 126. (The article is
sometimes omitted, e.g. in 2 P. ii. 14: comp. Aristot. Anim.
2. 8, 10, with 2. 11.)
Q)) 1 C. iv, 5, Tore o eTTaivo<i r^evrjo-eraL eKaaTO), the praise
(that is due to him) ; Eom. xi. 36, avTw r) Bo^a et? t. alwva^'
xvi. 27, E. iii. 21, G. i. 5, 1 P. iv. 11, Eev. v. 13 ; Eev. iv. 11,
a^t09 et Xa^elv ttjv Bo^av k. ttjv ti/x^v' Ja. ii. 14 [iJec], tl to
ocf>€\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<f)OL' E. vi. 16, ^eXrj rov Trovtjpov' G. L 23, o Bkokcov vfjua^'
Tit. iii. 8, oi TreiricrTevKore'i rw deip- 1 C. ix. 13, ol ra iepa ipya-
^ofievor Mt. x. 20, 2 C. ii. 2, x. 16, 1 C. xiv. 16, H. xii. 27.
Instead of a noun we may have an indeclinable word, as an
infinitive or an adverb (2 C. i. 17), or a phrase, as Rom, iv. 14,
ol i/c vopLov H. xiii. 24, ol dnro rrj'i 'Ira\La<; (Diod. S. 1. 83), A.
xiii. 13, ol Trepl UavKov Ph. i. 27, ra irepl vp,(av k.tX., 1 C. xiii.
1 (Kriig. p. 1 6 sq., Jelf 436,457). Even a complete sentence
may have the article {to) prefixed to it; e.g. A. xxii. 30, yvwvai
TO TL KaTTjyopeiTai (iv. 21, 1 Th. iv. 1, L. xxii. 2, 23, 37), Mk. ix.
23, eiirev avrw to' el Bvvtj; G. v. 14, 6 Tra? v6fxo<; iv kvt Xoyeo ire-
ttXij pojTat, iv TO)' ayainqaei'^ tov ttXtjctlov crov, Rom. viii. 26,
xiii. 9, L. i. 62 :^ these sentences are for the most part quotations
or interrogations, which are in this way rendered more pro-
minent. Compare Plat. Gorg. 461 e, Fhced. 62 b, Hep. 1. 352 d,
Demosth. Con. 728 c, Lucian, ^Zea;. 20, Matth. 280, Stallb. Plat.
EutMjph. p. 5 5 , and Men, 2 5. When a mere adverb or a genitive
thus receives the article (especially the neuter to), it becomes
a virtual substantive :^ L. xvi. 26 \Iiec.\ ol eKcldev Jo. viii. 23,
TO, KCLTco, TO, uvco' Jo. xxl. 2, ol TOV Ze^eBaioV L. xx, 25, tu
Kal<Tapo<i- Ja. iv. 14, to tt}? avptov 2 P. ii. 22, to t^9 dX'r]6ov<;
'jrapoifxia<;' 1 C. vii. 33, to. tov KocrpLov 2 P. i. 3, 2 C. x. 16,
Ph. i. 5, Jo. xviii. 6, al. (Krlig. pp. 32, 107 sq.). We are often
obliged to use a periphrasis, the import of the, true proverb, what
^ [The article is somewhat doubtful iu Eev. vi. 8.]
* [Liinemann adds Mt. xix. 18. The use of t« with indirect questions is most
common in St. Luke (A. Buttm. p. 96).]
3 Elleudt, Arr. Al. I. 84, Weber, Dem. i>. 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.<i ccrrai 6 (ruAaywytav and
also Jo. V. 32, L. xviii. 9, — or as a definite subject where logically
an indefinite might have been expected, e.g. Rom. iii. 11, ovk Io-tw
6 (TvvtQ)v (Jo. V. 45), 2 C xi. 4, el 6 ipxofJievo<; aWov 'Iv/croCv Kr^pva-
aet. In all these cases, however, the quality is conceived as a
definite concrete, only the person who really acts as this concrete
remains undefined. The Tapacro-oi/rts v/xas actually exist, but they
are not particularised : ^ if he that cometh (the preacher appearing
among you, who will certainly come, — person and name are of no
consequence), etc. ; the man of understanding does not exist, etc.
The following examples are similar : Lucian, Abdic. 3, ^a-dv nva
ol fiavia^ ap^rjv tovt ttvat vo/jll^ovtc;' Lysias, £on, uiTlstoph. f<,
ctort Ttvcs ot TrposavaAicTKOVTes" Dio' Chr. 38. 482, rjh-q rtve's cicru' oi
KOI TovTo SeSotKores-* and the common phrase da-lv ol A.€yocrcs
(Matth. 268 init., Jelf 817, Ohs. 3); also Xen. An. 2. 4. 5, u >}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<i€TL$eL tows (xuit,opiivov'i ry iKKX-qcria means. He added to
the church those who became saved (through becoming believers) ;
He increased the church by the addition of those in the case of
whom the preaching proved eff"ectual : comp. Kriig. p. 103 sq.
Between -n-okkoi and ol ttoXXoi, used as a substantive, the usual
distinction is observed. Oi ttoXXol, which is very rare in tlie
N. T., means the well-known many (2 C. ii. 17) in marked contrast
^ We might however say in German das droben, das des morgenden Tags
{the morrotv's= what will happen on tlie morrow), die des Zebeddus (those who
belong to Zebedee, e.g. his sons) : .see § 30. S.
* [" To denotes that ' Hagar' is regarded not as a person, but as an object of
thongiit or of speech. It need not necessarily mean ' t\\e tvord Hagar;' com-
pare for instance E. iv. 9, to Ss ay£/3» t/ Io-t/v ; where to is the statement, for the
preceding word was not av£|S», but avafids." Lightfoot, Gal. p. 193 (ed. 6).]
^ Compare in Latin sunt qui existhnnnt, as di.^tinguished from sunt qui cxisti-
ment: see Zumpt § 563. [Don. Lat. Gr. p. 3.")3, Madvig, Lat. Gr. § 365.]
* [Also Demosth. De Cor. p. 330, ri<rav tivh ol Imirufiovri;' Xen. De l^c Eq.
9. 2, riKKTr civ opyit./)! ti; i ^jjti x'tyuv k.t.X. (where some omit o) : these examples
are given by Bernhardv, I.e.]
* !Herm. Soph. (L\LJi. 107, Doederl. Soph. (Ed. C. p. 296, Dissen, Dlth. Cor.
p. 238.
SECT. XVIIl] the ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 13
>-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>7ro<i ovto<;, L. xiv. 30 ovTo<i 6 av6pco7ro^,
Mt. xiii. 44 ^ tov aypov eKeivov, Mt. vii. 22 iv iKeivrj ry rj/xepa,
Mt. xxiv. 48 o KUKo^ SovXo'i eVet^-o?. In L. vii. 44, too, the
correct reading is ySXeTret? ravrijv rrjv yvvalKa, though — accord-
ing to Wolf, Dem. ZejJt. p. 263, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 243,
Kriig. p. 126 (Jelf 655. 4) — there would be no reason for re-
jecting rauT7]v 'yvvaiKa, since the womm was present. Kanies
of persons also with which ovto<; is joined usually take the
article : see H. vii. 1, A. i. 11, ii. 32, xix. 26 (vii. 40).
The noun with which Tra? is joined may either have the article
or not. Haaa 77oXi<? is every city, nracra r) 'rr6\c<i the whole city
(Mt. viii. 34), compare Rom. iii. 19, iva irdv aropa (f^payfj koL
vTToSiKO^ 'yeurjrai 7ra? 6 /cocr/u.09 : Trdcrac yeveaC all generations,
whatever their number, Trdcrat al 'yeveaC (Mt. i. l7) all the
generations, — those which (either from the context or in some
other way) are familiar as a definite number. Compare for the
singular Mt iii. 10, vi. 29. xiii. 47, Jo. ii. 10, L. vii. 29, Mk. v.
33, Ph. i. 3 ; for the plural, Mt. ii. 4,iv. 24, L. xiii. 27, A. xxii.
15, G. vi. 6, 2 P. iii. 16 (where there is not much authority for
the article). This rule is not violated^ in Mt ii. 3, irdcra 'lepo-
(Tokvfia all Jerusalem, iox Jerusalem is a proper name (see below,
no. 5); or in A.ii. 36, 7ra<? oIko<; 'lapai^X the whole house of Israel,
for this too is treated as a proper name (1 S. vii. 2 sq., Neli.
iv. 16, Judith viii. 6). E. iii. 15, irda-a Trarpid, is obviously
^ It is otherwise -when these pronouns are predicates, as in Rom. ix. 8,
TOLura TiKva tov (loZ' L. i. 36, ourii; finv 'Ikto; iiTtiv' Jo. IV. 18, tovto aXr,eii
tlftiKui- Jo. ii. 11, al. ; compare Fritz. Mutt. p. 663, Schsef. Plut. IV. 377 (Don.
p. 352).
2 [Corrected for L. iL 35, xiv. 13, Mt. xiii. 14.]
^ Such nouns as those specified in § 19. 1 may dispense with the article even
with ■ras all, -whole, as -riiroc yn ; comp. Pojipo, Thuc. III. ii. p. 224. In the
N. T. this particular word always has the article, as Mt. xxviL 45, \^\ -rarav
irn» yvv Rom. x. 18, al. Most of the passages quoted by Thiersch {de Pentai.
Alex. p. 121) to prove that the LXX omit the article with tui (all) are quite
unsuitable.
138 THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. [PART III.
every race ; Col. iv. 1 2, eV TravTi OeXrjfiari, rov 6eov, in every
will of God, in everything that God wills ; 1 P. i. 15,ei/ irdcrr)
dvaa-Tpo<pfj, in omni vitce modo. Still less can Ja. i. 2 Trdaav
X^pdv rj'yricraade, E. i. 8 €V Trdar) aocfyia (2 C. xii. 12, A. xxiii.
1), in the sense of all (full) joy, in all (full) ivisdom, be con-
sidered exceptions ; the nouns here are abstracts denoting a
whole, and hence the meaning is the same whether we say
every wisdom or all wisdom (Kriig. p. 124). In E. ii. 21, how-
ever, the weight of authority is in favour of iraaa oIkoBo/j,7),
though, as the subject is the church of Christ as a whole, the
whole luilding is the correct translation : ^ yet the article is ac-
tually found in A and C, and it might easily be left out through
itacism.
Ila? with the participle — which is not in itself equivalent to a noun
— deserves special notice. ITas o/jyiCo/ievos means every one heing angr;/
(if, or when he is angry, in being angry), comp. 1 C. xi. 4 ; but ttSs 6
opyi^ofx., Mt. V. 22, is every angry man, =Tras osrt? opyi^crat. Com-
pare L. vi. 47, xi. 10, Jo. iii. 20, xv. 2, 1 C. ix. 25, 1 Th. i. 7, al.
(Kriig. p. 103). The same remarks apply to the two readings in L.
XI. 4, iravTi o^etAovTt, Travrt rw o0. ; see Meyer. ''^
TotovTos^ is joined to an anarthrous noun in the sense of any such,
of such a kind; Mt. ix. 8 l^ovcrCa TOiav-rq, Mk. iv. 33 ToiaDrai Trapa-
^oXat, A. xvi. 24 TrapayyeAta Toiaurr?, 2 C. iii. 12. But it a particular
object is pointed out as such or of such a sort, the noun naturally
takes the article : Mk. ix. 37 cVtwv toiov'twv TratStW (in allusion to the
TratStov mentioned in ver. 36, which as it were represented the world
of children), Jo. iv. 23, 2 C. xii. 3 (comp. ver. 2), 2 C. xi. 13 (Schsef.
Demosth. III. ^36, Schneider, Plat. Civ. II. p. 1).
"EKao-To?, which is seldom used as an adjective in the N. T., is
always joined to an anarthrous noun ;* as L. vi. 44 iKaa-rov hivopov,
Jo. xix. 23 cxao-TO) (TTpaTL<j)-rr], H. iii. 13 Ka6' iKao-Trjv ijp.epav (Bornem.
^ [See EUicott in he. As however this rendering is altogether opposed to the
usage of the N. T., it is surely preferable to regard St. Paul as speaking of the
many o'lKaioftai which together make up the temple : Vaughan quotes Mt. xxiv.
1, Mk. xiii. 1, 2, as aptly illustrating this meaning of tlic word. On itacism see
Scrivener, Crli. p. 10.]
J [On -ris see .lelf 454. 1, Don. p. 354, Green p. 54 sq., Middleton p. 102 sqq.
nit rarely comes between the art. and the noun, as in A. xx. 18, G. v. 14, 1
Tim. i. 16 (a^ccs) ; plural A. xix. 7, xxvii. 37: see Green p. 55, Jelf I. c. On the
meaning of irS? when used with abstracts, see Ellicott on E. i. 8 ; comp. Shilleto,
Dem. >afe. 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<i Mt. x. 4, ii. 1,
3, iv. 21, xiv. 1, Mk. x. 47, xvi. 1, Jo. xviii. 2, 1 Th. iii. 2, Eom.
xvi. 8 sqq., A. i. 13, xii. 1, xviii. 8, 17: so also Pausan. 2. 1, 1,
3. 9. 1, 7. 18. 6, ^schin. Tim. 179 c, Diog. L. 4. 32, 7. 10, 13,
8 58, 63,Demosth. Theocr. 511 c,Apatur. 581 h,Fhorm.605 b,
al, Cono7i. 728 b, Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. S, 2. 1. 5, Diod. S. Uxc. Vat.
pp. 20, 22, 39, 41, 42,51, 69,95, al. When however the personal
name is indeclinable, and its case is not at once made evident,
by a preposition or by an appositional phrase (as in Mk. xi. 10,
L. i. 32, Ja iv. 5, A. ii. 29, vii. 14, xiii. 22, Rom. iv. 1, H. iv. 7),
the insertion of the article was more necessary, for the sake of
perspicuity: Mt. i. 18, xxii. 42, Mk. xv. 45, L. ii. 16, A. vii. 8,
Rom. ix. 13, xi. 25, G. iii. 8, H. xi. 17, al. (Hence in Rom. x.
19 ^ Paul would certainly have written firj rov 'la-'parjX ovk
eyi^ct) ; had he intended 'Icrpa-qX to be the object of eyvco : comp.
1 C. X. 18, L. xxiv. 21.) In the genealogical tables of Mt. i. and
L. iii. this principle is observed throughout, and even extended
to the declinable names. It should be observed that the MSS.
frequently vary in regard to the use of the article with proper
names.
We may remark in passing that the proper name 'Iov8a, where it is
to be characterised as the name of a territory, never occurs in the
LXX in the form rj 'louSa, r^s 'I., k.t.X. : we always find either 17 yrj
'lovSa (IK. xii. 32, 2 K. xxiv. 2), or the inflected form rj 'Iou(5aia
(2 Chr. xvii. 19), Hence the conjecture of ttJs 'lovBa in Mt. ii. 6 is
destitute of probability even on philological grounds.
7. The substantive with the article may as correctly form the
predicate as the subject of a sentence (though from the nature
of the case it will more frequently be the subject), since the
predicate may be conceived as a definite individual. In the
N. T. the predicate has the article much more frequently than
tion 1 P. i. 1, u'iTfaf .... ixXncTa~( •Trafi.'Teiinfj.'iii' and also Rev. i. 4. Even
those predicates which are characteristic of the subject dispense with the article
in addresses, Diog. L. 7. 7, 8.
1 Fritzsche in loc. has adduced dissimilar passages ; and for G. vi. 6 he must
have meant vi. 16.
142 TlIF ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. [PART III.
is commonly supposed^ (Kriig. p. 106): Mk. vi. 3, ov^ ovr6<i
icrriv 6 reKTwv, is not this the (well-known) carpenter ? vii. 1 5,
iK€ivd icTTi TO, KOLvovvra rov avOpwirov, those are the things that
defile the man ; xii. 7, ovro'i iariv 6 KXrjpovofio^' xiii. 11, ov yap
iare u/iei? ol XaXovvre'i' Mt. xxvi. 26, 28, rovTo ean ro aco/xd
fiov, TovTO eaTL TO alfjud fjiov Jo. iv. 42, ovt6<; tariv o acor-qp
rov Koo-fxov 1 C. X. 4, ?} Se Trerpa yv 6 XpicrT6<i' xi. 3, iravro';
dvBpo<i r] Ke(f)a\r} 6 XpLO'TO'i iarf xv. 56, ?; hvvaiJiL<i tj}'? dfjuapTLa^
6 vofio^' 2 C. iii. 17,0 Kvpto<; to rrvevfMa eaTiV 1 Jo. iii. 4, rj
d^aprla iarlv r] dvoixia' Ph. ii. 13, o 6e6<i e<TTiv 6 evepytov
E. ii. 14, avro<i <ydp iaTiv y etpijvr) rj/jichv. Compare also Mt.
V. 13, vi. 22, xvi. 16, Mk. viii. 29, ix. 7, xv. 2, Jo. i. 4, 8, 50, iii
10, iv. 29,2 V. 35^ 39 ,^- ^^^ 50, 51, 63,.ix. 8, 19, 20, x. 7, xi.25,
xiv. 21, A. iv. 11, vii. 32, viii. 10, ix. 21, xxi. 28, 38, Vh. iii. 3,
19, E. i. 23, 1 C. xi. 3, 2 C. iii. 2, 1 Jo. iv. 15, v. 6, Jude 19,
llev. i. 17, iii. 17, iv. 5, xvii. 18, xviii. 23, xix, 10, xx. 14. In
the following passages the MSS. vary more or less: Eev. v. 6, 8,
A. iii. 25, 1 Jo. ii. 22, 1 C. xv. 28, Jo. i. 21. In one instance
two substantives, one of which has the article and the other not,
are combined in the predicate: Jo. viii. 44, otl ^^evaTrjf; earl koI
6 TraTTjp avTov {y^ev8ov<;), he is a liar and the father of it. In
Greek authors also the predicate frequently has the article :
compare Xen. Mem. 3. 10. 1, Plat. Phcedr. 64 c, Gorg. 483 b,
Lucian, Dial. 31. 17. 1, and see Schasf. Demosth. III. 280, IV,
35, Matth. 264. Eem.
Hence the rule often laid down, that the subject of a sentence may
be known from its having the article, is incorrect ; as was already
perceived by Glass and Rambach {Instil. Hermen. p. 44G).^
' [These exceptions may be classified and explained without giving up the
general rule that the article usually distinguishes the subject from the predicate
^Don. p. 346, Jelf 460). When the predicate receives the article, it is usually in
reference to a previous mention of the word, or because the proposition is such
that the subject and predicate are convertible (Middl. p. 54, Don. New C'rat. p.
522). Compare Green's remarks (p. 35 sq.), which perhaps will explain most
of the examples : " When the article is inserted after a verb of existence, the real
predicate of the sentence is a simple identity, the identity of the subject with
something else, the idea of which is a familiar one. But when the word or
combination of words following the verb of existence is anarthrous, then the
circumstances or attributes signified by it form the predicate, instead of a
mere identity." See Don. p. 348 sq., Ellicott on 1 Th. iv. 3 and 1 Tim. vi. 10.
1 jinemann refers to Dornseiffen, De articulo apud Grcecos ejusque usu in pnx-
dicato (Amstel. 1856), as affording a copious collection of examples, without
any real enlargement of tlie theory. ]
^ Probably also Jo. iv. 37 ; see Meyer. [The article before iKrthyos is probably
spurious. ]
^ Compare also Jen. Lit. Z. ] 834 : No. 207.
SECT. XVIII.] THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUis'S. 143
8. In the language of living intercourse it is utterly impos-
sible that the article should be omitted where it is absolutely
necessary (compare on the other hand § 19), or inserted where
it is not required : ' opot can never be the mountain, nor can
TO 6po<; ever mean a mountain.^ The very many passages of
the N. T. in which older commentators — professedly following
the analogy of the Hebrew article (Gesen. Zg. p. 655)^ — sup-
posed 6, rj, TO, to stand for the indefinite article/ will be easily
disposed of by the careful reader. 1 Th. iv. 6, TrXeoveKreiv iv tc3
TTpdjfMiTi, means to overreach in business (in business affairs) : ^
Jo. ii. 25, ijivoxxKev rl rjv iv tco ap6pct)7rq), in the man with whom
he (on each occasion) had to do, — in every man (Kriig. p. 98) ;
compare Diog. L. 6. 64, tt^oi? tov crvvL<ndvra rov TraiSa Koi
Xiyovra w? €V(f)ve(7Tar6<i ian . , . etire k.t.X., to him who recom-
mended the hoy, i.e. to every one who did this. In Jo. iii. 10,
av el 6 BiBda-KaXof^ tov ^laparjX, Nicodemus is regarded as the
teacher of Israel Kar i^ox^v, as the man in whom all erudition
was concentrated, in order that more force may be given to the
contrast expressed in koI ravra ov yivcoaK6i<;; compare Plat. CHt.
51a, Kal aij <^?;cret? ravra iroioiv BcKaia rrpdrreiv o rrj dXijOeia
t^9 dperrj^ €7nfi€\6/j.evo<; (Stallb. Plat. Euth. p. 1 2, Valcken. Eur.
Fhcen. p. 552, Kriig. p. 101, Jelf 447). In H. v. 11, 6 X0709
is the (our) discourse, that which we have to say : comp. Plat.
Phcedr. 270 a.
On the other hand, there are cases in which the article may
be either inserted or omitted with equal objective correctness ®
1 Sturz, in his Lexic. Xenopk. III. 232, even quotes passages from Xenophou
as containing examples of the use of a for tU. To all this applies what Schsefer
(ad Plutarch. ) somewhere says : Tanta non fuit vis barbara; linguae, ut Graecae
ipsa fundamenta conveUere posset.
2 Kuinoel on Mt. v. 1, Jo. xix. 32, iii. 10.
* [In his Lehrgeb. I. c. Gesenius thus explained several passages in the O. T.
(as 1 S. xvii. 34, Gen. xiv. 13, al.), but he afterwards entirely retracted this
opinion; see his Thesaur. p. 361, Hebr. Gramm. p. 185 (Bagst. ): see also Ewald,
Aiii^f. Lehrb. p. 686, Kalisch, Hebr. Gr. I. 238 sq.]
* This frivolous principle is not justified by reference to commentators who
in particular passages have attributed a, false emphasis to the article (Glass 138
sqq.), or have pressed it unduly. Bohmer has discovered an extraordinary mode
of mediating between the old view and the new {Introd. in Up. ad Coloss. p.
291).
^ [See Ellicott, Alford, and Jowett in loc, who agree in the rendering, "in
the matter" (of which we are speaking) : see also Green p. 26 sq.]
" Thus it is easy to explain how one language even regularly employs the
article in certain cases {auras o av^puTas, rovs iplxav; •jroiuaia.i), in which another
does not {tlus man, Gotter glauben). Compare Siutenis, Plut. Themist. p. 190 :
144 THE ARTICLE BEFOKE NOUNS. [PART III.
(Fortsch, ad Lys. p. 49 sq.). In Ja. ii. 26, to aoifia x(oph -Jrvev ■
fjbUTO'i veKpov means the lody vnthout spirit; %«pt9 tov ttv. would
be, without the spirit belonging to this particular body. In L.
xii. 54, <^ood MSS. have orav cSrjre ve<p€Xr]v avaTeWovcrav 0.770
SvafMMU, whereas the received text has ttjv ve(f>. 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 <y\w<jo-r) (according to the best MSS.;
comp. Soph. CEJd. Col. 786, Xoyco fxev eaOXd, rolai S' epyoLo-iv
KaKd) ; 2 Tim. i. 10, 1 C. ii. 14, 15, Eom. ii, 29, iii. 27, 30,
H. ix. 4,xi. 38, Jude 16, 19, Jo. xii. 5, 6, Ja. ii. 17, 20, 26, Eev.
XX. 1.^ Compare Plat. Bep.l. 332 c and d, Xen. An. 3. 4. 7,
Galen. Temper. 1. 4, Diog. L. 6. 6, Lucian, Eunuch. 6, Porphyr.
Abstin. 1.14. (The antithesis iv ovpavco Kal eVl •rrj<; jPj'i is not
fully established in any passage, see Mt. xxviii. 18, 1 C. viii. 5 f
in E. iii. 15 the article is omitted in both members, without a^py
variant.)
There is however a clear necessity for the respective omission
. . , ■ . ■- - — t — -■ ■ -
"Multa, quae nos indefinite cogitata pronuntiamns, definite proferre soliti sunt
Grseci, ejus, de quo sermo esset, notitiam animo informatam praesunientes."
Kiihnbl misuses such remarks (ad Matt. p. 123).
1 This lends support to my exposition of G. iii. 20, to which it has always been
objected that I have taken tJs for « iTs. [The reading is doubtful in L. xvii.' 34.]
» See Porson, Eurip. Fhoen. p. 42 (ed. Lips.), Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 58, Lex.
Soph. II. 247. ...
'' [In Mt. xviii. 18, Tisch. (ed. 8) and others read t^J r>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, 7rpG<ie\0<ov
eU ypafifiarevf;' Rev. viii, 13, rjKova-a kvo<i derou. In Jo. vL 9
€v is probably not genuine (comp. Mt. ix. 18); and in Mt. xxi. 19
fiiav a-vKTJv perhaps signifies one fi^j-tree, standing by itself. ^X<i
rCiv irape(nr)K6ra>v, 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.; <ro)T7;/jta, Rom. x. 10,
2 Tim. iii. 15, H. i. 14, vi. 9. To these should be added a^aOov
Rom. viii. 28 (comp. Fritz, in loc), 'irovripov 1 Th. v. 22, koXov
re KoX KaKov H. v, 14. The article is also frequently omitted
in the N. T. with the concretes r)\io<i, 7^ {Earth), 0€6<i, 7r/309&)-
TTov, pofio<;, etc., and also with a number of other words, at all
events when, in combination with prepositions, etc., they form
certain phrases of very frequent occyirrence.^ We subjoin a
list of anarthrous concretes in the N. T., following the best
attested readings.
^A.105 (Held, Plut. Timol p. 467), e. g. Mt. xiii, 6, rjkiov dmretAavTos
(Polyaen. 6. 5, Lucian, Fer. Hist. 2. 12, ^lian 4. 1) : especially when
it is joined in the genitive to another noun, and a single notion is
expressed by the combination, as avarokr] rjkiov sunrise, Rev. vii. 2,
xvi. 12 (Her. 4. 8), </>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 Alyi<rr(u, and in Mt. xiv, 34
WuTTi* ynv us TiiiMtjirapiT. Lunem. adds Mt. iv. 15.]
' Compare Jacobs in the Schulzeit. 1831. No. 119, and Schoem. Plut. Agis
p. 135.
150 OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. [i'AKT III.
is omitted only in the jihrases iv oipavw, iv ovpavoi^, ii oipanov, i$
ovpavov,^ and in these by no means invariably (comp. Mt. yi. 1, 9,
xvi. 19, Mk. xii. 25,' L. vi. 23); John also always writes ck rov oipa-
vov, except in i. 32 [and vi, o8j. By Paul the article is omitted,
as a rule, in such phrases as avr' ovpavov, i$ ovpavov ;- and in 2 C.
xii. 2 we find €m<; rpirov ovpavov (Lucian, Philopatr. 12), see below, {h).
Peter omits the article even with the nominative ovpavoL 2 P^ iii.
5, 12. In the Apocalypse the article is always inserted.^'
OdXaa-aa : e. g. A. X. 6, 32, Trapa &d\a<r(raV L. xxi. 25 [Bcc],
rjxov(Tr)^ OaXda-ar]^ /cat adXov ; comp. Demosth. AnstocT. 450 c, Diod.
S. 1. 32, Dio Chr. 35. 436, 37. 455, Xen. Epb .5. 10, Arriau, Al. 2.
1, 2, .3, Held in Ad. Philol. Mmac. II. 182 sqq. In A, vii 36 we
even find iv ipv6pa OaXdo-a-rj (but in H. xi. 29, rrjv ip. $d\.) As a rule,
however, OdXaao-a has the article, especially wjien oppo-i'd to ij yf;.*
fxc(rr)p.f3pLa, in the phrases Kara fxca-rj/x^ptav southwards, A. viii. 26,
and Trepl ix€(r7]p.(3pLav, xxii. 6 : compare Xen. An. 1. 7. 6, Trpo? fxea-T^fi-
Ppiav- Plat. Fhcedr. 259 a, eV //ecrT//A/3pta. The article is also omitted
with the other words which denote the cardinal j>oints, e. g. Rev. xxi
13, diro dyoToXCiV, dirb jSoppa, aTrb vorov, d-rro SvafiMV ; .similarly frp(i<s
v6tov Strabo 16. 719, irpos icrrripav Diod. S. 3. 28, 7r/)os apKTov Sti^abo
15. 71,5, 719, 16. 749, 7r/>o? 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 dvSp6<i' K V. 23 ; contrast 1 C, xi. 3. L. xvi. 18,
ttSs o aTToXviov rrjv yuvaiKa auTov , . . ttus 6 d7r0A.eAvjU.ev 17V airo
dvSpos yafXMv, does not nece.ssarily come under this head, tliough
yvvri has the article in the first clause ; for the last words should be
translated, /i<; who marries a woman dismmed by a man. In A. i. 14,
however, we might have expected the article before yvvai^l (see De
Wette 171 he.) ; not so much in A. xxi. 5 ; but compare what is said
above,
TrposdDTTOv '. L. V. 12, 7r€cru)V CTTi TrposcoTTOv' xvii. IG, 1 C. XIV. 25 ;
com p. Ecclus. 1. 17, Tob. xii. 16, Heliod. 7. 8, ptTrret iavroy eVl
TrposwTTOj/- Achill,* Tat. 3. 1, Eustath. Amor. Ismen. 7. p. 286 (He-
liod. 1. 16) ; Kara 7r/)dsa)7roa', A. XXV. IC, 2 C. X. 7 (Ex. XxviU. 27,
xxxix. 13, al.).
Se^ia, apL<7Tf.pa, and similar words, in the phrases Ik Se^iwv,
Mt. xxvii. 38. xxv. 41,2 j^ xxiii. 33; e^ evwvv/xwv, Mat xx. 21,
XXV. 33, Mk. X. 37 (Krug. p. 100).
eKKKrjaia. : 3 Jo. 6, dl ipaprvprj<rAv o"ou rfj ayaTrrj evwTriov e/CKAr/trias'
1 C. xiv. 4 (iv e'lc/cAgcria, 1 C. xiv. 19, 35 ?).
6dvaTo<;: Mt. xxvi. 38, €W9 Oavdrov (Ecclus. xxxvii. 2, 11. C) ;
Ph. ii. 8. 30, fjL^xpi Oavdrov (Plat. Re,p. 2. 361 c, Athen. 1. 170);
Ja. V. 20, Ik Oavdrov (Job v. 20, Pr. x. 2, PJat. Garff. 511 c) ; L.
ii. 26, fii] iSeiv Odvarov ; liom. vii. 1 3, Karepya^op,ivT] Odvarov ;
Rom. i. 32, a^toi Oavdrov; 2 C. iv. 11, ets Odvarov irapaBi^ofifOa,
etc.: comp. Himer. 21, furd Odvarov Dion. H. IV. 2112, 2242,
and also Grimm on JFisdom, p. 26.
6vpa, in the plural, kiri Ovpais ad Jore.% Mt. xxiv. 33, Mk. xiii,
29 ; compare Plutarch, Themist. 29, Athen. 10. 441, Aristid. Orat.
II. 43 : but in the singular iirl rfj Ovpa A', v. 9.^ See Sintenis, Plut.
Them. p. 181.
vofxoi, of the Mosaic law .• Eom. ii. 12, 23, iii, 31, iv. 13, 14,
15, V. 13, 20, vii. 1, x. 4, xiii. 8, 1 C. ix. 20, G. ii. 21, iii. 11,
18, 21, iv. 5, Ph. iii. 6, H. vii. 12, al. The genitive is always
anarthrous when the governing noun has no article, as in epya v6-
fiov, etc. In the Gospels this word always has the article, except
in L. ii. 23, 24 IBec], where however a defining genitive follows.
As to the Apocrypha see Wahl, Clav. p. 343. Compare furthi-r
Bomem. Ada p. 201.^
1 [See Mt. xix. 29 (xv. 4), Luke xii. 53, al.]
* Tliis should be xxv. 34 : xxv. 41 is an example of eS liiiuvvfiuf. ]
^ The article should probably be omitted with the siiigular in Mk. xi. 4.]
* [There is still difference of opinion on the proper interpretation of voftcs
without the article. De Wette, Fritzsche, Meyer, Alford (see their notes on
Rom. ii. 12), EUicott (on G. ii. Id, al.), Jowett (on Rom. i. 2), and others agree
with Wiuer. On the other side (i.e. against tlit- vieAv that *«/*«< without the
SECT. XIX.] OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 153
pf//xa, of the wwd of God: followed by 6iov, Rom. x. 17 [Rec], E.
vi. 17, H. vi. 5; without 6eov,K v. 2G.
vtKpoL (the dead) is always anarthrous (except in E. v. 14) in
the phrases iyeipeLv, iy€Lpea6ai, avcurTrjvai Ik "CKpoiv, Mt. xvil. 9,
Mk. vl U, 16 [Uec.\ ix. 9, 10, xii 25, L. ix. 7, xvi. 31, xxiv. 46,
Jo. ii. 22, xii. 1, 9, 17, xx. 9, xxi. 14, A. iiL 15, iv. 2, x. 41,
xiii. 30, xxvi. 23, Rom. iv. 24, 1 C. xv. 20, al. ; so also in avd-
o-Too-i? v€»cpa>v (both wor<ls without the article), A. xvii. 32, xxiv.
21, Rom. i. 4, 1 C. XV. 12, 13, 21, 42,i al. : in Col. ii.- 12 and
1 Th. i. 10 only is a variant noted.^ On the other hand, we almost
always find eyctpeo-^ai, dvatrr^vai aTro tQsv v€Kp!l>v, 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<rov Mk. xiv. 60 (but eis to p.iarov Jo. xx. 19, 26,
L. iv. 35, vi. 8), Ik pea-ov 2 Th. ii. 7 : the omission of the article
i« still more common when a defining genitive follows, as Mk. vi. 47,
iv p-iaio rrj<i 6aXd(T(rrj^' L. viii. 7, cv p-iat^ rOiv aKavOwV A. XXVll.
27, Kara peaov riys vvktos (Theophr. Ch. 26). See Wahl, Clav.
Apocr. p. 326.
Ko'o/Aos is always anarthrous in the phrases aTro KaTa/3o\rj<; Koap-ov
L, xi. 50, H. iv. 3, trpo Kara/S. koV. J. Xvii. 24, 1 P. i. 20, aTro
KTiareuK Kocr. Rom. i. 20, air apxr)<: Koa: Mt. xxiv. 21 : in the Epistles
we find also cV koV/aw, Rom. v. 13, 1 C. viiL 4, xiv. 10, Ph. ii.
15, 1 Tim. iii. 16, 1 P. v. 9 [Rec.]. The nominative is but seldom
found without the article, as in G. vi. 14 ipuol K6a-p.o<: ccrravpcorai :
in Rom. iv. 13 the reading of the .best MSS. is Kk-qpovop-ov dvai
Ko<rp.ov.
KTLo-L^, creation (i. e. what has been created, the world), in the
phrase cltt' apxn<; kVutccos, Mk. x. 6, xiii. 19, 2 P. iii. 4. But there
is always a distinction in meaning between 7ra<ra ktio-is 1 P. ii. 1 3,
CoL i. 15 (see Meyer), and TrScra rj ktlo-is Mk, xvi 15, Rom. viii.
22, Col. i. 23 [Rec.y
article is used for the Mosaic law), see Middleton p. 303 sq., Lightfoot on G. ii.
19, iv. 5, Ph. iii 5, Hev. of N. T. p. 99, Vaughan on Rom. ii. 13; and Dr.
Gitford's full discussion in Speaker's Coram. Vol. 111. pp. 41-48.]
* [In ver. 42 both words have the article: J
'^ ['e* tuv v. is a variant in sonae other passages, but is strongly supported in
1 Th. i. 10, and well in CoL ii. 12.]
3 The distinction made by Van Hengel {on \ Cor. xv. p. 135) between vtKfoi
and 01 V. has no foundation either in principle or in usage.
* ["This remark needs considerable limitation : e.g., in Thucydides the article
is much more frequently inserted than omitted.'' A. Buttm. p. 89.]
* [See EUicott and Lightfoot on Col. i. 15.]
154 OMISSION OF THE AETICLE BEFORE NOUNS [pART' III.
fclpa : as i Jo. ii. IS, ca-xa-Trj wpa iaTL ; especially with numerals,
as ^v ojf)a Tfuri] Mk. XV. 25, Jo. xix. 14, vrcpt TpiTi]v u)pav Mt. XX,
3, A. X. 9, £o>? (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<i yevecrew; 'lr)(rov XpKTTo'' Mk. i. 1,
^PXV '''^^ evayycXiov' Rev. i. 1, dvoKakvif/iq Irjcrov Xptcrrov.
2. (b) The aiticle i.s often omitted with a noun that is fol-
lowed by a genitive which indicates the singly existing object as
belonging^ to this individual* Thus'^ Mt. xvii. 6, eireaov eVt
nrpo'ioi'jTov avTcov comp. xxvi. 39 (Is. xlix. 23, eVt 7rp6<i(07roi>
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(iiX<i( >ca) 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'Te<? 7rpd)TT}V(f>vXaKr}v kuX Zevrkpav
Mk. XV. 25, TjV &pa rpiTr} koX earavpoxrav avrov ?cv. 33, ea)?
wpa<i evvdrrj^' L. iii. 1, ev eret TrevreKaiZeKdroa Trj<i ri'y€p,ovla<i
K.T.X., 2 C. xii. 2, E. vi. 2 (Ph. i. 5 v.l.). From Greek authors
compare Lysias 7. 10, rp^rcp eret' Plat. Min. 319 c, Hipp. Maj.
286 b, Antiph. 6. 42, Andoc. '4. 17, Diog. L. 7. 135, 138,
141 sqq. (contrast 7. 150, 151, 153). See above 1. (a), under
first of these seems merely an extension of a common usage berond its ordinary
limits. The article is' naturally omitted in an adverbial phrase, such as -Tfo
tiftiuiro'v : the peculiarity in these examples is, as A. Buttmann well remarks
(p. 90), that the article is not inserted when a defining genitive limits the
general phrase to a particular case. This extension was the more natural as
the phrase is often a literal translation of a Hebrew combination which almost
plays the part of an ordinary preposition. As to (2), where the article is omitted
afjer lari (Madvig 10. Rem. 2), see above, page 142. In such examples as (3)
we may often trace the influence of the principle of ' ' correlation " (see. below,
§ 20. 4, note). In (4), however, we must recognise a peculiarity of the N. T.
language — the occasional omission of the article with nouns definite in sense
when they are accompanied by the genitive of a personal pronoun {see A. Buttm.
p. 119). Madvig's rule {loc. ciL), "The governing noun is sometimes anarthrous
when the writer wishes to express a notion that in itself is definite, in a general
manner," will not apply to many of these examples; and it may perhaps be
doubted whether the examples he gives (e. g. pTa -rXriiovs ruv tiiy, Thuc. 8. 105)
and most of those quoted by Winfr from classical Greek are not best explained
by reference to the nature and meaning of the particular words (as -rXiihs,
fiiyiSoi) by which the genitive is governed : comp. Kriiger p. 100.]
' [This passage has no place here : in his 4th and 5th editions "Winer has
"2 Th. ii. 2, £» iiii'ipct rov XpiTTou." These words however are not found in
this verse (» fifiipa toZ xvpiov), nor. does the article appear to bo ever omitted
wifh Tin'iptt in this and similar plirases, unless the following word {XjurTov,.
xvpiav) is also anarthrous.]
■•* Gersdorf (p. 316 sqq-) has not properly distinguished the cases. In L.
xxiii. 46, tti x*'P"'f "■*" "^apoe.riftfi.ai to thu/^.o. fnov, the article is both inserted
and omitted in the same clause : similady in other passages.
SECT. XrX.] OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. 157
wpa} — This usage enables us to justify Mt. xii. 24, eV Tt3
BeeX^e^ovX, ap'^ovTi twv Saifiovlayv (the reading of all the
MSS.) : Fritzsche, who usually finds a diflficidty in such
omissions of the article, substitutes iv B. ru> 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<i' Strabo 15. 719, vtto fiyKOv; twv oSaiv (17. 808), Thuc. 2.
38, 8ia /xeyc^os t^s TroAew?- 7. 72. In German also the article
is commonly omitted in such cases, if a preposition precedes : e.g.
iiber Auflbsung des lidihsels, Starke des Kdrpers, etc. In Greek
authors, however, the genitive also frequently loses the article, or
the genitive with the article precedes the governing noun, as twv
XwpiW xo^eTTOTT^s : see Xen. Cyr. S. 6. 16, Mem, 1. 4. 12, Thuc. 1.1,
6. 34, 8. 68.3
3. (c) When the conjunction kui' joins together two or more
nouns ^ (denoting different o-bjects *) which agree in case and
number but differ in gender, the article is, as a rule, repeated
with each substantive. This rule holds good not merely when
the nouns denote persons (as in A. xiii, 50, rcfi cre^ofievwi
ryvvaiKWi . . . Kal TOW 7rpG)T0U9T% TToXeft)?' L. xiv. 26, E. vi. 2,
A. xxvi. 30), but also when they signify objects without life ; as
Col. iv. 1, TO BiKaiov Ka\ ttjv laoTTjTa rolf Bov\oi<; irape'^eaOe'
Kom. viii. 2, utto tov vofiov r^? a/xapTia<i Kal tov OavaTov' Mt.
xxii. 4, L. X. 21, Rom. xvi. 17, Ph. iv. 7, 1 C. ii. 4, E. ii. 1, Rev.
' [Krtig. p. 100, Middleton p. 100, Green p. 42, Ellicott on E. vi. 2, Shilleto,
Dem. F. L. p. 38. The article is sometime.s omitted with superlative expres-
sions, as in 1 P. i. 5 (Kriig. p. 92, Middleton p. 101).]
- [Meyer renders, " by Beelzebul, as ruler over the devils."]
^ Compare Kriig. Dion. H. p. 168. Jacobs,- Athen. p. 18 sq., Poppo, Thuc,
III. i. 130.
* Beuseler (Isoer. Areop. p. 290 sqq.) has collected much from Isocrates on
the repetition and non-repetition of the article with nouns (substantive.s, adjec-
tives, participle.s, — also infinitives) which are thus connected by conjunctions,
but does not succeed in presenting the subject very clearly. Compare also
Tholuck, Literar. Anzeig. 1837. No. 5. [Middleton pp. 56-70, Green pp.
67-75, A. Buttmann p. 97 sqq., Webster, Gr. p. 36, Jelf 459. 9.]
^ For if the connected nouns are, for instance, only predicates of one and the
same person, as in Col. iii. 17 [Rec.\ tIj hu xni ■z'arp'r 2 P. i. 11, tov xvpUu
iifiuv «ai irury.fos 'l. X/j., E. vi. 21, Mk. vi. 3, A. iii. 14, the article cannot be
repeated. [So even with uxxd, 2 Th. ii. 12 (A. Buttm. p. 99) ; and with oi
L. xii. 48.] .
158 OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS. [PART JIL
i. 2, xiv. 7, H. in. 6. Compare Xen. Cyr. 2. 2. 9, crvv rS OaypaKi
K. rfj KOirihi- Plut, Virt. Mul. p. 210, hih, rov avtpa k. ttjv ape-
T?7i/' Dion. H. IV, 2245, 4, eVt rov tokov kuI rrj^ \o'^eia<i' 2117
17, ra'i -ylrvxa^i Kat ra o-rrXa' 2089. 14, Diod, S. 1. 50, 51, 86.
Philostr. Her. 3. 2, Diog. L. 3. 18, 5. 51, Herod. 2. 10. 15
Strabo 3. 163, 15, 712, Plut. And. FoU. 9. init., Thani^it. 8
Isocr. Areop. p. 334, Plat. Charon, p. 160 b, Sext. Era p. ado
Math. 2. 58.
In these combinations the repetition of the article appe;ired
grammatically necessary, but at the same time the nouns joined
for the most part express notions which must be apprehended
separately ; see below, no. 4. When however the notions are not
to be sharply distinguished, or when there is joined to the first
noun an adjective which belongs to the second also, the article
is not repeated (although the nouns differ in gender), the single
article belonging to all the nouns in common: Col, ii. 22, ra
ivTaKfiara Kal SiSacrKoXia'i riav avOpdiTToov' L. xiv. 23, e^eXOe
et's- Ta9 oSoii'i Kal ^payfiou<;' i. 6, iv 7racrat9 ra2<i ivroXal^ Kal
BLKaico/u.aai rov Kvpiov Mk. xii. 3 3, Eev. v. 1 2, Similar examples
are furnished in much greater numbers by Greek authors —
both poets (Herm. Eur Hec. p. 76) and prose-writers — with-
out anxious regard to the meaning of the words ; e.g. Plat,
Rep. 9, 586 d, ry e7n(}-ri)fjirj Kal Xoyo)' Ltgg. 6, 784, 6 rraxppovcov
Kal ato^povovcra 6, 510 c, Apol. 18 a, Crat. 405 d, Aristot.
AnaL Post. 1. 26, Thuc, 1. 54, Lycurg. 30, Lucian, Parasit. 13;
Herod. 8. 6. 11, M\. Anim. 5. 26.^ When the nouns are
separated by rf, the article is invariably repeated: Mt. xv. 5,
Tft> 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,<i K. 0€i6Tr)<i' Ph. i. 25, E. iii. 5. Compare Dion. H. IV
2246. 9, ra? avTMv yvvalKa<; kol dvyaT€pa<i' 2089. 4, Diod. S.
1. 86, TT)v irpoet,prip,ev7]v eTTt/xeXecav koI rcfxi'jv 2. 18, ^1. Anhn.
7. 29, Aristot Eth. Nicom. 4. 1. 9, 7 7 1.^ So also when the
common genitive follows the second noun, as in PJi. i. 20,
Kaja Tr]v aTTOKapaSoKiav Kal e'ATrtSa /xov i. 7, iv rfi airoXoyia
K. ^e^aicoaei rov evayyeXioV 1 P ii. 25 : on Ph. i. 19 see
Meyer.* Compare Benseler p 293 sq.
Under (1) it should be noted, that in a series of nouns which
belong to one category the first only has the article : as A. xxi. 25
(f)vXd(r(TC(TOaL avrous .... to '^ al/xa kol ttvlktov koX Tropvetav E.
iii. 18, Tt TO TrAaTos K. fxrJKO? K. pdBo<i K. vi/'og' Jo. V. 3, 1 C v. 10 ;
^ Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 253, Held, Plut. Timol. p. 455.
* [The nouns here differ in gender, though thv same f'onn of the article suits
both.]
' In this case we find the article omitted even when the nouns differ in
gender: Lysias, in Andoc. 17, Tipi ra, i^Xorpia Upa ku, Upras hri^'.'. Compare
above, 3.
* [In the edition referred to (the 1st) Meyer regards Iftuv as connected with
both SsjjVsws and Wix,i>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
el<Tiv A. xxvi. 30, dvia-Trj 6 ^aatXeix; koI 6 ^je/Licov k.t.X., Mk.
ii. 16 l^Rec'j, ol 'ypafifiarei'; koI ol ^apia-aiot (the two distinct
classes of Christ's adversaries united together for one object),
Jo. xix. 6, oi dp^iepei<i koI oi pTTTjperat (the chief priests and the
attendants belonging to them, — with their attendants), ii. 14, xi.
47, Mk.ii 18,vi. 21,xi. 9, 18, 27, xii. ia,xiii. 17, xiv. 43, L. i.
58, viii. 24, xi. 39, 42, xii. 11, xv. 6, 9,^ xx. 20, xxi. 23, xxiii. 4,
A. iv. 23, vi. 4, 13, xiii. 43, xv. 6, xxiii. 14, xxv. 15, Eom. vi. 19,
E. iii. 10, 12 [Bee], 2 C. xiii. 2, Ph. iv. 6, 1 Tim. iv. 6, Ja. iii.
11, 1 Jo. ii. 22, 24, iv. 6, v. 6, Rev. vi. 15, vii. 12, xiii. 10, 16,
xxii. 1. Compare Xen. Athen. 1. 4, Lys. Agorat. 2, adv. Nicom.
3, Isocr. Areop. p. 352, Permut. 736, Diod. S. 1. 30 {hia ttjv
dvvhpiav Kul TTJV aTrdviv t% dTrdaij^ Tpo<f>r}<;), 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 rrj<i v/ulmv Se?;crea)9 Kal eTri'^oprjyia'i rov
rrv€Vfiaro<; k.t.X."
Rem. 1. We find various reading-s in very many passages : e. g. Mt.
xxvii. 3, Mk. viii. 31. x. 33, xi. 15, L. xxii. 4, A. xvi. 19, Rom. iv.
2, 11, 19, 1 C. xi. 27^ 1 Th. i. 8.
It may not unfrequently lie a matter of indifference what particular
' Set Poppo, Thuc. I. 196 »[., III. i. 396, Geel on Dio Chr. 01. p. 295.
^ [It will be useiii) to compare with the last two sections A. Buttmann's care-
i\\\ cla-ssification of examples (pp. l,'7-iOl).
1. When the nonns (which agree in gender and number) have no attributives,
the article i.s
(rt) not repeated, when the nouns rnay be regarded as parts of one whole, as
expressing ideas which are kindrt^d or necessarily connected, or which supple-
ment one another j
(6) repeated, when they represent contrasted or independent notions.
There are, however, many exceptions to (a), as the writer without any risk of
amhignitv may name the parts for themselves, as parts: conip. Mt. xx. 18 with
xxi. 15, A. xiii. 4'.', with xv. 22.
2. (a) If aiij' one of the nouns has an attributive which belongs to all, the
article is not repeated.
(b) if the attributive belonf(s to this noun only, the article is repeated ;
(c) if each noun has its own attributive, the case is substantially the same as
(1), and the same i-ules apply.
As examples of 2. (n) lie gives Rom. i. 20. Ph. i. 20 : as exceptions, F<. iii.
10, 1 ('. xi. 27, A. XXV. 15, Rev. xiii. 10. For 2. (h) see Mk. vi. 21, 1 C. v.
10, 1 Tim. iv. 6 : Col. ii. 8 is an excei>tiou. 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, <ruTr,f>: 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 <iod and Saviour .Jesus Christ '"), they arq entirely agreed a.s to the
admib'sibility of both renderings in poiiit of (jrammar. See also Green, Gr, p.
75, Scholelield, HinU, Middleton p. 393 sq.]
* ["Granville Sharp's first rule," so often referred'to in diiscussions on these
texts, is as follows : " When the coj)ulative xai connects two nouns of the same
case (viz. nouns — either substantive, or adjective, or participles — of personal
description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, pro-
perties or qualities good or ilb. if the article 0, or siuy of its cases, precedes the
first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun
SECT, XX ] THE A.RTICLE WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 163
Rem. 2. We 6nd a singular omission of the article in L. x. 29, rt's
io 7t fiov 7r\r)(xiov ; and vcr. 36, rt's rovTiav . . . TrXrjo-tov 8o/cei aoi
ytyovivai rnv i/Lir. ; here o ttXtjo-iov might have been expected (see
Maryland, Eur. Suppl. 110), since irkrjo-Loy is also an adverb. Do-
derlein (Synori.. I. .59) has adduced a similar example, .^Eschyl. Fnrm.
938, i.fxoi B' iXaaarov Zrjvbt rj /xr]8kv /icXct, where fjLr]8iv appears to siand
for Tov /ivyoeV. In the above passages, however, it would be admissible
to take ttXyjctlov as an adverb, who (is) stands near me ? See Bornem.
in loc.
Section XX.
THE ARTICLE WITH ATTRIBUTIVES,
1. When attT-ibutives - consisting of adjectives.genilive cases,
or prepositional clauses ^ — are joined to a noun which has the
article^ they are placed either — ^
(a) Between the aiticle and the noun ; as o dyadix; dvOpwrro';
Mt. xii. 3 5, TO 4/jLov 6vo/j.a Mt. xviii. 20 to ayiov irvevfia. r) tov
Oeou ftaKpodvfMia 1 P iii. 20, rj avro K\r)cn<i Ph. iii. 1 4, ?; ei- (bo^w
dyvtf dvaarpo<j)ri 1 P iii, 2, rj ■nap' ip,ov SiaBrJKr} Rom. Xi. 27, rj
Kar eKKoyrjv TTpoOeais Rom. ix. 11, rh Katvov avrov p.i/r)fietou
Mt. xxvii, GO ; compare 2 P. ii, 7, H. v. 14, vi. 7: — or
(b) After the noun — with or without a second article ac
cording to the nature of the attributive,
(a) If the attributive consists of an adjective " or a preposi-
tional clause, the article is, as a rule, repeated.
or participle, the latter alway.s relates to the same person that is expresscid or
described by the first noan or participle , i e. it denotes a further description of
the first-named ])erson." Remarhs on the v^es of the definitive article in the
Oreektcxt of the N. T., p. 8 (2d e<i 1802). He adduces the following examples;
A. XX 28 (with the reading »i,^. ««; rfsaS), E. v. 5, 2 Th. i. 12, 1 Tim. v. 21 Rei.,
2 Tim. iv 1 {Rec, but KUf. instead of ^oiJ*.), Tit. ii. 13, 2 P. i. 1, Jude 4 Rec.
"The rule is sound in principle, but, in the case of propernamcs or quasi- proper
names, cannot safely be pressed :" Ellicott in Aids to Faith, p. 462. See also
Ellicott in locc, Middleton p. 60 .sqq. , Green, Gr. p. 73 sqq.]
' Genitives of personal pronouns are joined to the noun without a .second
article, as i Ta's /^au : they Vjlend, so to speak, with the substantive.
' Of course this only applies to adjectives which are used as attributives of
substantives. In L. Xxiii. 45, iff^ia-in n rcTccriTaVfiia, rod vaay f/AuDi, the adjec*
tive (jLitf belongvS to the verb, . . . wan rerU in tht. mi/Idle : n fj-ivot ««TaTir.
would have a different meaning. The other adjectives of this kind, definin
164 THE ARTICLE AVITH ATTRIBUTIVES. [PART ITI.
(y8) If however the attributive is the genitive case of a noun,
the re^Detition of the article is usually restricted to the following
cases : —
(aa) When the writer desires to give the adjunct more em-
phasis or prominence (as in 1 C. i. 18, o X070V 6 tov aravpov'
Tit. ii. 10, rr)v hihacrKoXLav rrjv rov acorr^po^ t^/mmw see Schsef.
Mdet. pp. 8, 72 sq., Matth. 278. Eem. 1) ; ^ and especially when
a relation of kindred or affinity is appended for the sake of
distinction, as in Jo. xix. 25, Mapia r) rov KXcoTra." A. xiii. 22,
Ja^lS 6 rov 'leaaai- Mt. iv. 21, x. 2, Mk. iii. 17.
(yQyS) When the noun already has its own (personal) genitive,
as in Mt. xxvi. 28, to alfjid fiov ro t?}? KaLvi]<i Sta07]K7]<; ; in this
passage, however, the article is not firmly established.^
(c) Such attributives — especially if adjectives — are some-
times, though rarely, placed before the noun and its aitii'le : as
A. xxvi. 24, fieyakj] ttj (fxovf) €(j)7] (see above, p. 134), Mt, iv.
23, Trepirjiyev ev okr) rrj raXiXaia.
In case (a), more than one attributive maybe inserted between
the article and the noun, as o a'y/.o? Kal ajX(iip.o<i av0p(O7ro<;: as a
rule, the article is not repeated. When however tlie attributives
place or number — iir;^asT»;, oX«;, fiifos, h\iyoi — appear in the sentence without an
article whenever they, are not true epithets ; and are placed eitlier
(a) After their noun, as in Mt. xvi 26, lav tov Kinrfj.ov okov jctpl^iryi, if he
should gain the whole world (the worjd wholly) ; Mt. x. 30, a,'i rptxH r. xiipa.\Y,i
Tarai rtju^f/v/tiyas ilait (ix. 35, Jo. V. 22, Rev. vi. 12, Plat. Epin. 983 a), Mt. xii.
4, evK l^ov nv tpa,yi7v , . . ii fart Toii nfivirit /u-ovai; : — or
(b) Before it, as in Mt. iv. 23, H. ix. 7, /^ivos « apxiep'.^s Jo. vi. 22. — See
Gersdorf p. 371 sqq., though his collection of examples is for the most part
uncritical. Comp. Jacob on Lucian, Al. p. 51, Kriig. p. 123, Host p. 425 (Don.
p. 462, Jelf 459).
' Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 55, Madvig 9. This construction however gradually
lo.st its force, an'd with many writer.s, — Demosthenes, Isocrates, Xenophon
Ephes. , in particular, — it is almost a rule to insert the article before such a
genitive, even when no emphasis is intended. Tlie orators may have had
reasons for doing this in nf token discourses. Compare Siebelis, Paunan. I. 17.
^ The proper meaning of this phrase is : among the women whose name is
Mary the (particular Mary) of Clopas,— the wife of C'lopas.— The article is not
introduced if the writer, in appending the genitive, does not aim at any precise
distinction : L. vi. 16, 'lai^Sav 'laKufiou- A. i. 13, 'laKufio; 'AXipaiov ju.st as in
Her. 1. 59, Avxevpyoi ' ApiirroXa.i'Siai' and DioU. H. Comp. 1, Aievuirioii ' AXi^iiv^pou
(though in both places Scluefer would in.sert the article); or in Aristot. Folit.
2. 6, Wva^ttfioi T.vpvipuitrof and Tliuc. 1. 24, 'Pd>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<yi(iiv twv air aicovof
7rpo(^7]rS}v' 1 P. iv. 14, to tjJ? §0^779 koI to tov deou Ttvevfj-a,
that is, the Spirit of (jlory and (therefore) the Spirit of God, —
the Spirit of glory, who is no other than the Spirit of God
Himself. Of a similar kind are Thuc. 1. 126, ev rfj tov Jio<?
rf/ fieyicTTT} ioprfj- Plat. Hep. 8. 565 d, Trepl rb iv ApKahia
TO TOV Acb<; lepov f except that in these examples kul is wanting
(Jelf 459. 5). — In case (b) also there is nothing to prevent an
accumulation of adjuncts : sec H. xi. 12, ?7 aijL/jLo<i rj irapa to
■^elXos T^V 6aXnacrq<;, 77 avapi0p.r}TO<i' Eev. ii. 12, Tr]v pofttpcUav
TTjv Blarro/jiov Trjv o^flav (Kriig. p. 119) : when however the
attributives are not connected by /cat (§ 19. 4), the article must
be repeated.'''
The first of the cases mentioned under {b), — that of adjectives
and prepositional clauses placed after the noun which they
qualify, — requires further explanation and illustration by ex-
amples.
a. Adjectives and possessive pronouns (with the article) fol-
lowing their noun : —
(1) For the simple case see Jo. x. 11, ttoi/jltjv 6 KaXo^i' A.
xii. 10, eVl TT)v itvXt]v ttjv crthTjpav' Jo. vii. 6, o Kaipb^ 6 e'/zo?"
i. 9, iv. 11, XV. 1, L. ii. 17, iii. 22, viii. 8, A. xix. 16, E. vi. 13,
Col. i. 21, 2 Tim. iv. 7 [^t'r.], 1 C. vii. 14, xii. 2, 31, 1 Jo. i. 3,
Ja, i, 9, iii. 7. In some of these instances the writer appends
the adjective for the sake of adding some closer specification
(comp. especially Ja. iii. 7) ; in others, that he may give to the
adjective more emphatic prominence (Bornemann, Luc. p. xxxvi,
Madvig 9 %
(2) We also find this arrangement chosen when the noun is
already qualified by a genitive or some other attributive : Mt.
iii. 17, o 11/09 /xoy 6 ar^airr\T6^' 2 C. vi. 7, 3ta Ttav ottXcov Ti]<i
8iKaiocrvvr)<; tmv Be^Lcbv Kal ctpiaTepcoV Jo. vi. 13, toov irevTe
apTwv To)v KptdivoiV Mt. vi. 6, L. vii. 47, Tit. ii. 11 [jRt;^.], H.
xiii. 20, al. The N. T. writers usually avoid such a combination
^ [The second article is omitted in the best texts. (Jelf 459. 5).]
^ A rare reiteration of the article, in full accordance with the above rules, i.s
found in Rev. XXi. 9, -/;/.^c» iU Ik ruv s^ra ayyiXaiy tu'j ij^^iurav Tas s^TTa fiaya,;
^ [Jcdf 458. 2, Green p. 33.]
166 THE ARTICLE WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. [PART III.
as Tov /Movoy. Oeov vlov, as more intricate ; compare Jo. iii. 1 6
[i?ec.], 1 Jo. iv. 9.
In 1 Jo. V. 20 Rcc., v ^(orj alcavios, the adjective is appended
without a second article ; but the better MSS. omit the article
before i^wrj. No exception could however be taken to the common
reading in itself, for the later writers begin to omit the article in
such cases (Bernh. p. 323)/ though the examples adduced from
Long. Past. 1. 16, Heliod. 7. 5, Diod. S. 5. 40, are not exactly
parallel with the passage of which we are speaking. Besides,
l;wr] alcovio^ had already come to be regarded as a single notion :
comp. Jo. iv. 36. In L. xii. 12, Griesbach and Schott read to
yap TTvev/xa ayiov ; but Knapp and all recent editors, to yap
ayiov TTvev/xa, without noting any variant. In 1 C. x, 3 [Bee.'],
TO ^pM/xa TTvevfiariKcv, and G. i. 4,^ o alcov 7rovrjp6<i, we must
look upon the adjective and substantive as coalescing to express
one main idea, and avro and evea-T. are (as often) inserted as
opithets between the article and the noun : compare 1 P. i. 1 8.'
See also H. ix. 1, to aycov Koa/jLiKov} With Jo. v. 36, iyoi
ex(o rr)v fiaprvpiav /xei^o) tov 'Ifodvvov, — in which fiei^co is the
predicate, " the testimony which I have is greater than, etc."
(Host p. 425, Don. p. 528 sq.),— may be compared Isocr. Philipp.
c. 56, TO crw/xa Ov-qTov airavTe'i e'xpfiev. See further Schait.
Plut. V. 30.
b. The following are examples of attributive prepositional
^ The earlier -writers did the same in certain cases, according to good MSS, :
cornitare Schneider, Plat. Civ. II. 319, and Kriiger in /o/t?i.s JaAri. 1838. I. 61.
* [In 1 C. X. 3, -TMiu/Jt.a.TiKiv should probably precede iipafta.: in G. i. 4, Lachm.,
Alford, Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort. read ix. tov aluvof tov UiaTUTOi 'rowpov.']
•' [1 C. X. 3 Jiec, G. i. 4 liec, 1 P. i. 18, fall directly under a rule thus given
by Kriiger (p. 121) . "When an attributive is inserted between the article and the
noun, a second attributive sometimes follows the noun without a second article :"
similarly Madvig 10. Rem. 6, A. Buttm. p. 91, Jeir459. 3, Green p. 59 (who adds
E. ii. 11, Koni. ix. 5, A. xiii. 32): see i^lso Rost p. 426, Riddcll, Plat. Apol. p.
128. Donaldson (p. 369 sijq.) seems to regard such examples as instanttes of
apposition : see also EUicott on G. i. 4.]
' [This is a ditferent case, since there is only one attributive. As the
ordinaiy rule is so carefully observed by the N. T. writers.— St. John, for in-
stance, uses ?«>) 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<i Trj<i eh tou<? dyiovi' Ja. i. 1, rat? ^uXaZ?
rah iv rfj htatX'iTopa- A. xv 23, roi? Kara rrjv ^Avriox^tav ....
aSe\^ot?, ToU €^ e$po)v' xxiv. 5, 7rdcn Toi<i lovBaioif; rot? Acara
T^i^ oLKov/xev'<]V iii. 16, iv. 2, viii. 1, xi. 22 [i^ec], xxvi. 4, 12,
22.^ xxvii. 5, Mk. iv. 31, xiii. 25. Jo. i, 46, L. xx. 35, Rom. iv. 11,
vii. 5,10,viii. 39,x. 5,xiv.l9,xv. 26,31,xvi. 1, 1 C. ii. 11 sq.,
iv. 17, xvi. 1, 2 C. ii. 6, vii. 12, ix. 1, xi. 3, Ph. i. 11., iii. 9, 1 Th
ii. I, iv. 10, 1 Tim. i. 14, 2 Tim. ii. 1, E. L 15, Eev. xiv. 17> 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 6e6<i . . . , o
/caXtVa? r)fj,d'; et? ttjv alcoviov avrov So^av .... oXtyov iraOov-
ra-i, avTcf Karapriaat, God .... He ivho called us unto His
eternal ylory, after we should havf suffered a while, etc. ; E. i. 1 2,
6t<? TO elvat rjfid<; 6i<? eiraivov .... Tot's'^ TrporfKiriKora^ iv toS
X'p., we, those who (quippe qui) have hoped (as those who have
hoped); compare ver. 19, H. iv. 3, vi. 18, Rom. viii. 4, 1 C. viii.
10, Jo. i. 12, 1 Jo. V. 13, 1 Th. i. 10, iv. 5, 1 P. i. 3, iii. 5, Ja. iii.
6, A. xxi. 38. Compare Dion. H. III. 1922, Polyb. 3, 45. 2, 3.
48. 6, I-ucian Dial M. 11. 1, al.
^ [la A. x.xvi. 4 the article is not certain ; in ver. 12 v,e must omit -rafd ;
ver. 4 is quoted befiow as an example of the omUsion of the article. In ver. 22
the main noun is anarthrous.]
- [Compare EUicott on E. i. 12, 2 Tim. i. 10, Don, Gr. p. 532, New Crat. p.
521, Jeif 151, 695 sqq. ; and see below, § 45. 2. J
158 THE ARTICLE WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. [PART III.
On the other hand, the participle is Vvithout the article in A.
xxiii. 2 7, TOP iivtoa rovrov ovWvfpOevra viro tmv 'lovhalwv, h-unc
virum comprehenmm, who has been apprehended; after he had
been apprehended ; 2 C. xi. 9, varep'qixd fxov Trpo^aveirXripoiaav
ol aheX^ol i\66vTe<; uiro MaKehovla^, tJi£ brethren when they had
come; A. iii. 26, dvaaT'qaa'i 6 Oeo^ rov iralSa avrov direcrreLXev
avr6v k.tX., God, raining iq^ ^ his So/i, sent him, etc. (contrast
H. xiii. 20) ; Kora. ii. 27, Kpivel rj U <^uo-eco? uKpo^varia rov
vofiov TcXova-a ai k.tX., if it fulfil, ov ly fLdJilling : compare
L. xvj. 1 4, Jo. iv. 6, 39, 45, 1 C. i. 7, xiv. 7, 2 C. iii. 2, H. x. 2,
xii. 23, 1 P. i. 12 (Fritz. Matt. p. 432, Stailb. Plat. Ajwl. p. 14).
So also in A. xxi. 8, ek tov oUov ^CkiiriTov rov eva'yyeXKxrov,
6Vto9 ck tmv kind, the correct translation is q^d erat, — as one of
the seven; rov ovra, the reading of several [cursive] MSS.,
gives a false emphasis to the clause : Rom. xvi. 1 is a simikr
instance. Compare Demosth. Con. 728 c, Ev^iVeov rovrovl 6v6'
Tj/jilv avyyevT]- Diod. S. 17. 38, 6 7rai9 mv e^ iro)V 3. 23, rov
TTiirrovTa Kapirov ovra koKoV Philostr. Apoll. 7. 16, iv ttj vr)a<ii
dvvSpcp ova-T) Trporepov Thuc. 4. 3, 8. 90, Demosth. Poli/d. 710 b,
Isocr. ^m^?'. 870, Lucian, Hernioi. 81, Dial. M. 10. 9, Alciphr.
3. 18, Strabo 3. 164, Long. 2. 2, Philostr. Her. 3. 4, Sophist. 1.
23. 1.
In E. vi. 16, TO. l3iX.r] ra TTCTrvpw/xcVa, the second ra is of doubtful
authority : if we omit it (with Lachni.) the words must be rendered,
the darts, token or though they are fiery (quencli Satan's darts burning).
lu 2 Jo. 7 e/3xo>evov 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. <r. irep. would give greater prominence
to the apposition,— ^0 those who are in Christ, as vini who etc., to
Ihem, who etc. : compare Malth. 271. Bem. But the whole clause /x.)
.... -vevjj.a is certainly not genuine.
^ [This English expression is ambiguous. The word used by Winer does
not nu;iiifv " vn'ising from the. dead :" he takes avatrriic-ai in the same sense as
acMffTnirii, ver. 22.]
SECT. XX.] THE ARTICLE WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 1G9
When a participle witli the article is placed in apposition to a
noun, or used as a vocative (as if in apposition to crv), it sometimes
expresses derision or indignation, or gives prominence to some pro-
perty which is pointed at with derision or indignation. Commentators
on Greek authors have often attributed a derisive force to the article
itself/ but this force lies only in the thoiKjht and the special pro-
minence with which it is expressed ; irt speaking, it would also be
indicated by the voice. From the N. T. may be adducefl Eom. ii. 1,
TO yap avTo. Trpdcraei': o KptvoiV IVIt. xxvii. 40, 6 KaraXvinv rov
vaoT' . . . KcxTafSyjOi aiTO rov aravpuv. See Herm. Eur. Ale. 708,
Matth. 276.
2. To the general rule explained above [p. 167. b.] there are
certain undoubted, indeed almost established exceptions. In
these a prepositional clause which with the noun it qualifies
expresses in the main one idea is to be connected with this noun
by the voice alone, the grammatical sign of union (the article)
being absent : " Col. i. 8, 8)]Xcoaa<i rj/ulu Trjv vfiwv dyaTrrjv ev
TTvev/iart, your love in the S'pirit (see Huther) ; 1 C. x. 18,
jSXeireTe rov ^lapaifK Kara acipKU (the opposite of ^lap. Kara
TTvev/jca) ; 2 C. vii. 7, top vfioiv l^rjXov virep ifiov' E. ii. 11.
These exceptions are found chieliy —
(a) In the oft-recurring apostolic (Pauline) phrases ev XpLaro)
^Irjaov, iv Kvplw, Kara crdpKa : as Col. i. 4 [i2ec.], aKovaavre^ rrji>
iria-rtv vulwv iv Xp. J. Kal rrjv dydmjv rr]v ei? 7rdvra<i rov'i
dylovi' E. i. 15, dKovaa<i rrjv Ka6' vfxa.<; TTLariv iv rw KupUo 'J.
Kal rrjv dyaTTTjv ttjv et9 7rdvra<; rov^ dyiov<;' IiOni. ix. 3, rojv
airyyevoiv fxov Kara adpKa' 1 Th. iv. 16, ol vcKpol iv Xpiaro)
dvaarrjaovrai rrpcorov, the- dead in Christ (1 C. xv. 18), the anti-
thesis to which is rjfiel^ ol ^wrre? (ver. 17), for these are ^(wi^re?
€v Xpicrrw (of the resurrection of those who are not Christians
Paul has here no occasion to speak) ; Ph. iii. 14, E. iv. 1 (here
iv Kvpiw would have been placed after u/iav if Paul had intended
that it should be joined with irapaKaXSi, and moreover it is
Bia-fiLOf; iv Kvpiw which gives the true emphasis to the exhorta-
tion which follows), ii. 21, vi. 21. Not unlike these examples
' " Articulus irrisjoiii inservit," Valcken. Eur. Phcxn. 1637 : Markland, Eur.
Sup)>l. 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, <jvverd<lyt)fjiti> 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<i'^ 2 C. ix. 13,
ciTrXoTTyTt TTj^i KOLV(ovia<; els avrovs Kal els Travras' Col. i. 12
(Job XXX. 19), comp. Bahr in toe. ; E. iii. 13, ev rats dXl-^eai
uoif virep vfjLfy)v (compare ver, 1); 2 0. i. 6 [7j Col. i. 24. So also
Polyb. 3. 48. 11, rr]v rwv o^oiv dXXorptorrjra Trpos ' Poi/jbaious'
Diod. S. 17. 10, rfjs ^AXe^di/Spou Trapouaias eVl Tas ©tjlSas
Her. 5. 108, 17 d^yeXia irepl tom' XaphUov Thuc. 5. 20, 7; es^oXrj
is TTjv ^Attikijv' 2. 52, 77 airyKOjXi^r) ck tmv d<ypo)V is to darv
1. 18, Plutarch, Coriol. 24, -»? ro^v TraTptiriow BvsfMei'eia Trpos tov
hrjfxov Poirip. 58, al irapaKXrjaeiS v'rrep Haiaapos. In the LXX
compare Ex. xvi. 7, toi' yoyyva/jbov vp,oiv irrl tm Oew, which
Thiersch considered prene vitiosum !
The case (a) is probably to be referred to the spoken language,
which, possessing the living, medium of the voice, would hardly
insert the article ineverycase; whilst the written language, in the
interests of pi-ecision, could less easily dispense with it. Yet even
for this case some parallel examples might be quoted from Creek
writers: compare Polyb. 5. 64. 6, 5ta r-qv -rov Trarpos^o^av iv
1 In the 0. T. quotation which occurs in Rom. i, 17 and G. iii. 11, Paul
probably connected Ix <7rl<rrim with o linaia;. lu the tir.st passage he adduces
the words of the prophet to establish the proposition 'hixainrjvfi hoZ Ik Tifria;
x.T.A.., not v ^luii Ix dixaioirdvrs; : compare Rom. X. 6, h Ix ■Tiff'TibJi iixaioiruyti. lu
M. X. 38, however, U vl<mui certainly belongs to Z'^.riTa.i ; sec Bleek. [In
livour of connecting Ix ir. with Z.r,aiTai in Rom. i. 17, Gal. iii. 11 (Ewald, De
VVette, al.) see the notes of Wieseler and Ellu;ott on the latte.r passage ; see also
Dclitz.sch oil Habakkuk p. 50 sqq.J
* ["Liegt in der Tendenz des Subst." --Sec F.llicott on E, i. 15. J
' Hence in Rom. v. 2 tlie absence of the article Ix^fore tU t>?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<i cLKpi^eiav (for rov irpo'i aKp., as is clear from what pre-
cedes), Thuc. 6. 55, d)9 o T€ ^oofi6<i o-r^/iaivei koL tj arrjkr) -rrepl
rrj'; rcov rvpdvvcov dBiKia<i (where Bekker from conjecture inserts
V before Trepi) : compare Kriig. Dion.^. 153, Poppo, TJmc.Hl.
i. 234.
We must however be cautious in dealing with particular
passages : ^ several which might at first seem to come under
this head, a closer examination will show to he of a different
kind; oomp. Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 315.
(a) Sometimes there may have been a slight transposition of
tlie words. Thus in 1 Tim. i. 2, TifioOew yvrjaio) reKV(p cv vicrTei,
tlie words ev Tricrr€t,xf construed in sense with yvrjcrio), will give
the meaning genui7ic in faith: compare Xen. An. 4. 3. 23, .vara
ra<i Trpo^TjKovcra^ 6'^da<i tVl rov rrorafxov, that is, Kara rd^ iirl
T. TT. 7rpo<;7]K. 6j(6a<;. But it is preferable on several grounds to
consider iv Trlaret here as an adjunct to the compound idea
genuine son. In 1 P. i. 2, however, the qualifying clauses Kara
rrpo'yvaxTtv Beou .... el<; xnraKoi^v Kal painia/xuv K.r.\. are
probably to be joined with eVXe/cTot? in ver. 1.
(b) In other instances the prepositional clause really qualifies
the verb: Col. i. 6, d<f) r]<t rjixepa^; rjKovaare Kal eireyvcore rrjv
■^apiv rov deov iv dXrjdeia (see Biihr and Meyer in loc.) ; Rom.
iii. 2b, bv TrpoiOero a 6e6<; iXaari^piov Sid 7ri(Tr€a)<; iv t&> avrov
aifiarc (see Fritz, and l)e Wette in loc.) ; Eom. viii. 2, o vofio^
rov TTvevp.aro^ t^9 f<w?}9 iv Xpicrro) 'J. rfkevOepwae fie diro rov
uofMov T?79 nf.iapria<; Kal rov Oavdrov, where it is evident from the
antithesis vop,. rov 6av. (to which v6fjLo<i t?}? foj^v accurately
correspondsj, and also from ver. 3, that cv Xp. must be con-
nected with rfXevO. (so Koppe).; Ph. i. 14, rov^ irXeiova'^ rcov
aheKxfiow iv Kvpi'o) neTroiOoras roi-i Seo-yu-otf fxov (compare a
'^ Harlbss (on E. i. 15) and Meyer (on Rom. iii. 25, al.) have expressed their
concurreni'e with the view maintained above. Fritzsche, too, who in his Letter
to Thiiluck (j). 35) had declared that .such a combination a.s ?;« t?s Tia-nui Iv
rw dirou alfiXTi would be a solecism, has since expres.sed his change of view
(Rom. 1. 195, 3(;5) : in his note on Kom. vi. 4 also he maintains that the only
admissible construction of the words is that which joins iU -«v ia^iarov with
*ia, T',u (IxTTia-fiaros, — a Combination which he had previously {Lett^'V, p. 32)
pronounced grammatically incorrect. [Fritzsch*". himself does not connect iv rw
aur. a'i/i. with ■jrifrius in Kom. iii. 25 ; he acknowledges, hov/ever, that .such a
connexion is grammatically admissible.]
172 THE ARTICLE WlTJl ATTPJBUTIVES. [PART III.
similar construction in G. v. 10, 'TrsTroiOa et? v/jLa<: iv Kvplor
and in 2 Th. iii. 4), as it is only when joined to nre'rroLOora^ that
iv Kvpiw has real significance ; Ja. iii. 13, Set^aTco Ik rrj'^ koXtj^
dvaarpoi^rj'i ra epya avTov ev irpavTTjri, ao<f)La<i, where the added
clause iv Trpavr. cro^. is an explanatory adjunct to e'/c t?}? /caX.
dvacrrpo(p)]<;. Compare also Eom. v. 8, 1 C. ii. 7, ix. 18, Ph. iii.
9,^ iv. 19, 21, Col. i. 9,E.ii. 7, iii. 12, 1 Th. ii. 16, Phil. 20, H.
xiii. 20, Jo. XV. 11 (see Liicke in he.)., 1 Jo. iv, 17, Jude 21.
So also A. xxii. 18 [itcc], ov irapaoe^ovrai crov ttjv /uapTvpiav
'Tvepl ifjLov, may be rendered, thy testimony tliey will not receive
concerning me, i.e. in reference to me they will not receive any
testimony from thee : r-qv fiapr. rrjv irepl ifiov would be, the
testimo7iy vjhich thou wilt hear or hast home concerning me. In
E. V. 26, iv pjjfMaTt does not belong to rS Xovrpaj rev vSaro<i:
the verse should probably be divided thus, — iva avTTjv dyida-j},
Kadapiaa^ rw \. r. vS., iv ptj/jLari. The Kadapi^eiv precedes
the dytd^ecv, and denotes something negative, as dyid^eLv some-
thing positive : see Kiickert and Meyer in loc.^ In H. x. 1
it was not necessary to write hid t^? 7rpo<i^opd<i rev a-oofiaTCi
. . . . T?}? i(fid7ra^: the last word relates just as well to
r/ytaa-jubevoi, see Bieek in loc. On E. ii. 15, Col. ii. 14, see
§ 31. Eem. 1.
In E. vi. 5, for rots Kvploi^ Kara aapKa, Lachm. has received tois
Kara (rdpKa Kvpioi^, on the authority of good MSS.
3. (a) An appellative in apposition to a proper name usually
has the article: A. xxv. 13, ^AypLTrira'i 6 ^aai\ev<i- L. ix. 19,
'Iwdvvrjv rov ^aTTTca-Tijv' A. xii. 1, xiii. 8, xxiii. 24, xxvi. 9, 2 C.
xi. 32, Mt. x.xvii. 2, al. In all these instances the appellative
denotes a rank, office, or the like, which is already well known ;
and it is only by means of the apposition that the proper name,
which may be common to many persons, becomes definite.
" Agrippa the king," is properly, " that Agrippa, out of all those
Avho bear the name Agrippa, who is king:" compare § 18. 6.
(6) But the apposition has no article in A. x. 32, ^ip^cov
^vpaev<i, Simon a tanner (a certain Simon, who was a tanner) ;
L. ii. 36, "Avva 7rpo(f}P)Ti<;, Anna, a 'prophetess ; viii. 3, 'Iwdvva,
^ [So Meyer : on the other side see Alford and Ellicolt in loc.^
* [EUicott, Alford, and Eadie join Iv pYiiAa.T, and Ka6a,flifx!.'\
SECT. XX.] THE ARTICLE WITH ATTKIBUTIVES. 1*7 3
'yvvT) Xov^a, iiriTpo'Trov 'HpcoBov A. XX. 4, Taio<; Aep^aco^,
Gains of Dei-be (not the well-known mhabitant of Derlje),yi. 22.
In all tliese instances the writer simply annexes an appositional
predicate, without any special design to distinguish the subject
from others of the same name.
In L iii. 1 also, iv eVet irevreKaL^eKajcp T>]<i r/yefiovcas Ti-
(iepiov Kaiaapo<f, the proper translation is, of Tiberius as em~
peror} A. vii. 10, evavriov ^apaco /3aari\i(o<i AlyvTrrov is not,
befo7r, Pharaoh, the well-known Jcin'j, or the then Hn// of
Egypt ; but before Tha/raoh, Miuj of Egypt, i. e. before Pha-
raohj who was king of Egypt. Compare Plutarch, Parallel. 15,
Bp€i/vo'i TaXaronj fjaaCKev'i' c. 30, ' AreTro/iapof; rdWwv (BaaL-
Xey?' etc., etc.
The general rule must also determine the use of the article
with other words in apposition, and it is strange that any one
should assert absolutely that a word in apposition never has the
article. A Greek would use no article in expressing your father,
an unlearned man ; wliiist in year father the general, the article
would be quite in place. This applies to Jo. viii, 44, gram-
matically considered.^
In general, we may consider tliat the article is more fre-
quently present than absent before the word in apposition (Post
p. 430, Jelf 450). In accordance with the principles explained
in § 19, the article may at times be omitted, even when the pre-
dicate is characteristic, distinguishing the individual from others:
llom. i. 7, afro 6eov irarpoii vfjbOdV 1 Tim. i. 1, Kar iiTLTa'yrjv
0€ov <jWT?}po^ t)/jLO)v' 1 P. V. 8, dvTi8iK0<; v/uLMV Bid^oXos.
So also when the appellative predicate precedes the proper
name, as Kupiw; 'Ii^aov^ Xpia-T6<i (2 C. i. 2, G. i. 3, Ph. iii. 20,
al.) ; tliougli in this case the article is commonly inserted, as
1 0. xi. 23, o Kvpic^ 'Irjcrov^' 2 Tim. i. 10, rov acojrjpo<i r)p,o)i'
Xpicrrov- Tit. iii. 4, 1 Th. iii 11, Phil, o, ah
4. An epithet joined to an anarthrous noun (appellative), is
itself anarthrous, as a rule* Mt. vii. 11, SofiuTa d'yadd' Jo,
' Gersdoif (p. 167) is wrong. [Ger.^dort' appears to regard the presence or
absence of the article before the word in apposition as a mere characteristic of
style, not att'ecting the sense in any degree.]
^ [It had been maintained (by Hilgenfeld) that roZ 'dia^ok^iu here is not in
apposition to •rarfos, but is dependent upon it.]
174 THE AKTICLE WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. [PART in.
ix. 1, elBeu dvOptoTTov rvcp^bu e« y€V€Tri<;' 1 Tim. iv. 3^ a 6 8c6s
eKritrev ah fJ^eTaXrj-sjnv fiera eir^apicrrLa^' i. 5, dyaTTTj >Ik Ka
Oapa^ Kaphla^- Tit. i. 6, rtKva ep^toy iria-rd, /mi} tv KarfjyopLa
d(royTia<fr} dvvrroraKra' liom. xiv. 17, BiKatoavi^ koI e.ip-i]vi) kui
'XP^pa. iv TTveufMarc dyi<p. Compare Plal. Rep. 2. 378 d,''Hpas
ck SeTfioii^t iiTTO viio<{ Koi 'Hc^aCarov pCyjrei^; otto it a-
Tpos, fieWovTO'i TTJ fiTjrpl rvTTTouivr) dfivvew, kui Oeo/iu
X^^-^i oa-a<; "0[xTjpo<i ireiroi'qKev, ov TrapaBeKTeov ti<; rrjv iroXu)
Theophr Ch. 29, kern Bk ri KaKoXoyta dyojv t;'}9 "^oyrj^ eh to
X^tpotf iv X6yoL<i- -^lian, Anim. 11. 15, eoiKa Xi^eiv eXi<^cii>-
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<ya9oL<i {men, that is to say, the good), Hiero 3. 8, vtto
ryvvacKcoi' rcZv eavrwv Mem. 1. 7. 5, 4. 5. 11, Dion H..IY.
2219 4, ewoia rf} tt/jo? auroi/" 2221. 5,- oifKia/xos o to?';
TT/Xt/coimHs" TTpefToyv -r^^lian, Anini. 3. 23, ouSe eTrl KSphei tq)
fjieyiarqi 7 27, Her. 5. 18, 6. 104, Plat. %>. 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.<!ence of the article " with nouns
governed by prepositions " affords no presumption that the nouns are used
indefinitely (p. 9U) : see Alford on H. i. 1, 1 0. xiv. 19, Ellicott on ] Tim. iii.
7, Kriig. p- 100.
(3) The omission of the article vith nouns which are made definite by a
dependent genitive : on this see p. 155, note 6. See further Ellicott, Aids to
Faith, p. 461 sq.J
176 THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL. [I'ART III.
CHAPTER SECOND.
PRONOUNS.
Section XXI.
THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL.
1. In the use of the pronouns the language of the N. T.
agrees in most respects with the older Greek prose, and with
Greek usage in general. The only peculiarities are
(1) The more frequent use of personal and demonstrative
pronouns, for the sake of greater clearness (or emphasis), — see
§ 22 sq. :
(2) Tlie comparative neglect of several forms, which belonged
rather to the luxuries of the language, or of whicli an Oriental
would not feel the need, as the correlatives, ot;Ti<i, 67r6cro<^,
oTTolo^, irrfkUof; [? ottt^Xi/co?], in the indirect construction ; in-
deed these forms are used in the N. T. even less frequently than
by the later Greeks. On the other hand, those modes of
expression by which the Greeks consolidated their sentences
(attraction) had become very familiar to the N. T. writers (§ 24).
The assertion that avr6<i is used in the N. T. for the unemphatic
he, is incorrect; and the Hebraistic separation of ovBel^ into
ov . . . . 7ra9 is almost confined to sententious propositions or
phrases.
2. The gender of pronouns, — personal, demonstrative, and
relative, — is not unfrequently different from that of the noun to
which they refer, the meaning of the noun being considered
rather than its grammatical gender {constructio ad sensuni).
This construction is most common when an animate object is
denoted by a neuter substantive or a feminine abstract, in
which case the masculine or feminine pronoun is used, ac-
cording to the sex of the object: Mt. xxviii. 19, fiaOrjTevcrare
ircivra to, edvr], ^aitTL^ovTef; avrov^, Rev. xix. 15 (compare
Ex. xxiii. 27, Dt. iv. 27, xviii. 14, al.), Rom. ii. 14, A. xv.
17, xxvi. 17, G. iv. 19, reKvia fiov, ou? TrdXtv wSlvm'^
2 Jo. 1, Rev. iii. 4 (like Eur. Suppl. 12, ewTa ^ewatwv
reKvcov, ov<i' Aristoph. Plut. 292), Jo. vi. 9, ea-mraihapiov ev
hftve
Mk
' [In A. xxiv. 1%, ii" we retain the more difficult reading Iv ols, we should
,ve an example of a constr. ad sejisuni of a somewhat different kind : compare
k. iii. 28, ^^a(r<pnf/.iai orx av \iXa<rl^r,fi.r,<iuaiy, Dt. iv. 2, V. 28 (Tisch. Fvol. p. 68).]
SECT. XXI.] THE PItONOUNS IN GENERAL. l77
o)8e, o? e%ei (as most of the better MSS. read, for 6 of Bee),
Mk. V. 41 (Esth. ii. 9), Col. ii. 15, ra^: ap-x^a^; k. t. e^ova-la-i . . .
6pia/jL^€V(Ta'i avTov<i' Col. ii. 19, tt]v Ke<^a\rjv (X.pLcrr6v), e'f ov
Trav TO ao)fia k.t.X. Jo. xv. 26, however, is not an example of
this kind, as rrrveufMa is only an apposition. For examples from
Greek authors see Matth. 434, Wurm, Dinarch. 81 sq., Ellendt,
Lex. Soph. II. 368 (Jelf 379, 819, Don. p. 362): comp. Draken-
borch on Liv. 29. 12. In Rev. iii. 4, xiii, 14,al.,the readings vary.
Under this head comes also Rev. xvii. 16, koX to. Se/ca Kepara a
tt^cs Koi TO d-qpiov, ovToi fxia-rjcrovarL ; where, in accordance with the
prophetic symbolism, Kcpara and Orjpiov are to be understood as signi-
fying persons.
3. On the same principle we find the plural of these pro-
nouns used in relation to a singular noun, if this noun has a
collective signification or is an abstract used for a concrete :
Mt. i. 21, rov \aov .... avrwv xiv. 14, Ph. ii. 15, yeued, iv
oi?" 3 Jo. 9, 77 iKKkrj<TLa . . . . avT(t)V E. v, 12, aKoro^i (Jctko-
T(cr/xeVot) .... vTT avrwv Mk. vi. 45 sq., .... rov 6-^ov,
Koi d7roTa^dfjL€vo<i avTot<;' Jo. xv. 6 (see Llicke in loc), L. vi.
17 (comp. § 2 2.. 3): A. xxii. 5 does not come in here. Compare
Soph. Track. 545, Time. 6. 91, 1. 136, Plat. Tim. 24 b, Phwdr.
260 a, Xen. Cyr. 6. 3. 4, Diod. S. 18. 6 : in the LXX this is
very common, see Is. Ixv. 1, Ex. xxxii. 11, 33, Dt. xxi. 8, 1 S.
xiv. 34; comp. Judith ii. 3, iv. 8, Ecclus. xvi. 8, Wis.^ v. 3, 7."
Some have supposed that Ph. iii. 20, eV oupavoi<i e^ ov, is an
example of the inverse construction, the use of a singular pro-
noun in reference to a plural noun (Bernh. p. 295); but e| ov
had in usage become a mere adverb, exactly equivalent to unde.
On the other hand, in 2 Jo. 7, ouro? i<TTiv 6 7r\dvo<i k.t.X.,
there is a transition from the plural firj 6fio\oyovvT€<; k.t.X. to
the collective singular.
Different from these examples are A. xv. 36, Kara iraa-av ttoXlv, ev
al? (where TrSo-a ttoAis, in itself, — without considering the inhabi-
tants, — implies a plurality, TrScrat iroA-tis ; comp. Poppo, T/mc. I. 92),
and 2 P. iii. 1, ravTrju ^8r} hixrrepav vfjuv ypa.<f>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<rh ; See llOWever § 23. 2.
12
178 PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PKONOUNS. [PART III.
Kem. 1. According to some commentators (e.g. Kiihnol) the pro-
noun occasionally refers to a noun which is not expressed until after-
wards ; e.g. Mt. xvii. 18, €7reTt)u.r/o-ej/ airw (namely t(5 Satynovia)), A.
xii. 21, iSrjfxr]y6p€i Trpos aurous (compare ver. 22, 6 S^^ao?).^ But neither
of these passages proves anything in regard to N. T. usage. In the
first, auTcp refers to the demoniac himself, for in the Gospels, as is
well known, the person possessed and the possessing demon are often
interchanged ; and the fact that Mark (ix. 25) ha^ eVer. tw ttv. tw
aKaOdpT(o is of no weight against this. In the other passage, avTov<i
refers to the Tyrian and Sidonian ambassadors mentioned in ver. 20,
as Kiihnol himself has admitted (comp. Georgi, Viiul. p. 208 sq.):
the verb SrjfjbrjyopeLv does not stand in the way of this explanation,
foj the king's answer was given in a full assembly of the people.
Rem. 2. The neuter of the interrogative pronoun tis and of the
demonstrative ovtos (avros) are often used adverbially to denote why
(wherefore) and therefore. There is a similar use of the interrogative
pronoun in Latin and German, quid cunctaris 2 toas zogerst du ? As
originally conceived, these words were true accusatives : see' Herm.
Vig. p. 882, Bernh. p. 130 (Jelf 580. Ohs. 5). For the strengthened
demonstrative avTo tovto compare 2 P. i. 5, /cat avro tovto cnrovSrjv
Trarrav TrapeaeviyKavre^ (Xen. An. 1. 9. 21, Plat. Protag. 310 e, avrk
Tavra vvv rjKUi irapa ere) : see Matth. 470. 8, Ast,'Plat. Legg. pp. 163,
169, 214. "-^ G. ii. 10 does not come in here; see § 22. 4. For
examples of rt, classified according to the very varied relations ex-
pressed, see "Wahl, Clav. 483. Greek writers also use o and a for Si'
o and St' a (Matth. 477. e) ; but Meyer is wrong in introducing this
mainly poetic use of a into A. xxvi. 16 (see § 39. Rem. 1) : in G. ii.
10 Meyer himself rejects on this very ground Schott's proposal to
take o for 8t' o.
The demonstrative is also used adverbially in the distributive
formula tovto fxiv . . . ToOro Sc, partly . . . partlij (H. x. 33, Her.
1. 30, 3. 132, Lucian, Nigr. 16) ; compare Wetstein II. 423, Matth.
288. Rem. 2 (Jelf 579. 6).— On 1 C. vi. 11, Ta^Ta Ttvcs ^n, where
there is a mixture of two constructions, see § 23. 5.^
Section XXII.
PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
i. The personal pronouns are used much more frequently in
the N. T. than in ordinary Greek.'* This peculiarity, which has
^ Fritz. Covj. I. p. 18 sq. — See Gesen. Lehrg. p. 740, Borhem. Xen. Conv.
p. 210.
2 [See Alford in loc, Ellicott on E. vi. 22, Jelf I.e., Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 119
sq.]
' [Liinemann here adds a note on the use of tI in an exclamation (hoio), in
Mt. vii. 14 (Lachm.), L. xii. 49, 2 S. vi. 20 : on these passages, however, see
p. 562.]
* We find however a complete parallel in the Homeric use of the posses.sive
SECT. XXII.] TERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 179
its origin in Hebrew circumstantiality of expression, appears
particularly in the u.se
(a) Of avTov, aov, etc., with substantives (especially in con-
nexion with the middle voice, § 38. 2): Jo. ii. 12, L. vi. 2 0, vii.
50, xi. 34, xxiv. 50, Mt. vi. 17, xv. 2, Mk. xii. 30, 1 P. iii. 11/
Rom. ix. 17, xvi. 7, A. xxv. 21, al.; compare 1 Mace. i. 6, Jos.
xxiii. 2, xxiv. 1, Neh. ix. 34.
(h) Of the accusative of the subject, in combination with the
infinitive: L. x. .35, iyoi iv rw erravepj^eaOai [xe aTroScoa-co' Jo. ii.
24, H. vii. 24, A. i. 3.
(c) Of the oblique cases of pronouns with both participle and
principal verb : Mk. x. 16, evayKa\tadfjLevo^ avra KarevXcr/ec
TideU Ta<i %et/3a? evr" avTci' ix. 28, A. vii 21, L. xvi. 2, 2 P. iii,
16 (compare below, no. 4). So especially in the Apocalypse.
In Mt. xxii. 37, Piev. ix. 21, the repetition of the pronoun is
probably to be ascribed to rhythm.
Along with this general tendency towards the accumulation
of pronouns, we meet with some instances (though but few)
in which a pronoun is not inserted where it might have been
expected : A. xiii. 3, Kal eVi^eVre? ra<i ■)(eipa<i auroU direXuaau
(avTov^), Mk. vi.-5, E. v. 11, Ph. i. 6, 2 Thess. iii. 12, H. iv. 15,
xiii. 17, 1 Tim. vi. 2, Jo. x. 29, L.xiv.4; compare Demosth.C'b?w?t
728 b, e/x-ot 7repi7rea6vTe<i .... e^ehvcrav? In Mt. xxi. 7, how-
ever, the better reading is eTreKaOicrev, and in 1 C. x. 9 ireipd^eiv
may be taken absolutely: in 2 Tim. ii. 11, a-vv avra would be
heavy in a sententious saying. In 1 P. ii. 1 1 vfid^ (found in
some MSS. after TrapaKaXcb, in others after dTre^ecrdai,) is cer-
tainly not genuine. In acclamations, such as Mt. xxvii. 22,
(TTavpwOrjTco, the omission of the pronoun is very natural (here
a German would nse the infinitive without a pronoun, hreu-
zigen!); yet in the parallel passage, Mk. xv. 13, we find
pronoun »;. In later (and sometimes in older) prose hIt'o; also is thus used
ahundanter : see Schaif. Ind. j£sop. p. 121, Schoem. Iscbu^ p- ^^-■
^ [Tliis should be 1 P. iii. 10 ; but tlid j)ronouns have not much authority. In
Mt. XV. 2 also the reading is doubtful. The same redundancy is common in
modem Greek : according to MuUaeh ( Vufg. p. 315) this is to be ascribed to
the influence of the LXX and X. T. But is it not natural to suppose that the
free use of these pronouns would be a chaiucteristic of the colloquial language
of all periods ?]
* In Latin compare Sallust, Jug. 54. 1, universes in concione landat. atqxie
agit gratias (iis) ; Cic. Orat. 1. 15, si modo erunt ad eum delata et tradita (ei) ;
Liv. 1. 11, 20. Compare Kritz on the first passage.
180 PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. [PART III.
a-ravpwcTov avrov. The omission of the pronoun is carried
much farther iu Greek authors.^
In E. iii. 18, ri ro irXdro^ k.t.X., we can hardly help out the mean-
ing by supposing an ellipsis of avr^s (dyaTn^s) : see Meyer. Some
(e.g. Kiihnol) have maintained that avrov? is redundant in Mt. xxi.
41, KUKoiis KttKai? aTToAecrei avTovs, — but altogether without reason.
Without avrovs the words would be quite general ; it is the pronoun
that connects them with the case in question, with the yewpyoi
mentioned in the parable.
2. Instead of personal pronouns the nouns themselves are
sometimes used. In some cases this arises from a certain inad-
vertency on the writer's part ; in qthers, where there are several
nouns to which the pronoun might possibly be referred, or
where the noun stands at some distance, the design is to save
the reader from uncertainty as to the meaning : see Jo. iii. 23
sq., X. 41, L. iii. 19, E. iv. 12, and compare 1 K. ix. 1, xii. 1,
Xen. Eph. 2. 13, Thuc. 6. 105, Diod. S. IJxc. T. p. 29 (Ellendt,
jLrrian I. 55).
In. Jo. iv. 1 , however, 'l7)(xov<; is repeated because the apostle
wishes to quote the very words which the Pharisees had heard:
compare 1 C. xi. 23. Those passages also in the discourses of
Jesus in which the name of the person or office is repeated for
the sake of emphasis, must not be referred to this head: Mk. ix.
41, €v ovofxan oti K-picrrov icrre L. xii. 8, 7ra? &? hv ofioXoyTjcrp
€f ifiol . . . Kal 6 vt09 Tov avOpoiirov o/u-oXoyrjcreL iv avrui' Jo.
vi. 40, 1 C. i, 8, 21, 1 Jo. v. 6, Col. ii. 11, etc., etc.: compare
Plat. Euthyjohr. p. 5 e, iEschyl. Prom. Vinct. 312, Cic. Fani.
2. 4. In all these instances the pronoun would be out of place,
and would mar the rhetorical effect. Least of all can the well-
known appellation o v/o? rov dvOpdoTrov, under which Jesus in
the Synoptic Gospels speaks of himself, as of a third person, be
regarded as standing for iyd). Elsewhere we find the noun
repeated for the sake of an emphatic antithesis: Jo. ix. 5, orav
iv Tft) Kocrubw S), (f)(o<; €i/u tov Kocp^ov xii. 47, ov/c rfKdov Xva Kpivco
rov Koapov dXX Xva crcocrco tov Kocrpov (Xen. An. 3. 2. 23, o?
/3acrt\e<y<> aKovTo<i iv ry /3a<7tX€a)9 X^P^ .... oiKOvo'i), Arrian,
AL 2. 18. 2, Kriig. p. 134 (Liv. 1. 10.' 1, 6. 2. 9, 38. 56. 3).
Accordingly, no one will iind an unmeaning repetition of the
noun in Rom. v. 12, Bi €v6<i dv6p. rj dpapria et? tov Koap,.
^ See Jacobs, Anth. Pal. III. 294, Breini, Lys. p. 50. Schsef. Demosth. IV. 78,
157, 2o2, V. 556, 567.
SECT. XXII.] PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 181
6i<?>}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<i avToh rd TrapaTnuifiara' Jo. xvii. 2. This usage is sufli-
ciently common in Greek writers; compare Thuc. 1. 27, 136,
Lucian, Tim. 9. Dial. Mort. 12. 4, Dion. H. IV. 2117, Jacob,
Luc. Toxar. p. 59.^ — Akin to this case is the following: —
(2) Avro<i refers to an abstract noun which must be supplied
from a preceding concrete, or vice versd : Jo. viii. 44, ■>^eva-Trj<}
earl Kol 6 TTUTrjp avrov (ylrev8ov<i) , see Liicke m ice.;* Rom.
^ Schulze in Keils Analect. II. ii. 112.
* On the whole subject compare Hermann, Diss, de pronom. auro;, m the Acta
Seminar, philol. Lips. Vol. I. 42 sqq.. and in his 0^«sc. I. 308 ;q<i. [A. Buttm.
Gr. p. 106.]
^ It is a simpler case when aixrif in the plural refers to an abstiact noun
which in itself merely signifies a community of men, e.g. i> 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)<i aiToaTo\LKr)<i '^dpcTO'i
iBiov avroc<i yap (d7roaT6Xoi<i) k.t.X} In L. xxiii. 51, avrdv
refers to the Sanhedrin, suggested by the predicate ^ov\€vri]<;,
ver. 50 : compare Jon. i. 8, evpe irkolov (Bahi^ov ek Qapak . . .
Kal dvefirj et? avro rov irXevcrai fxer avTcov k.t.X., — see above,
no. 2 [21. 2] ; Sallust, Cat. 17. 7, simul confisum, si conjuratio
vahiisset, facile apud illos (i.e. conjuratos) principem se fore.
Similar to this would be Mt. viii. 4, et<? fiapTvpiov avrolf (Mk. i.
44, L. V. 14), if the pronoun related to lepei in the preceding
clause, the plural lepevai being supplied with avroU. But if
the man who has been healed has already received from the
priests permission to bring the prescribed purification-offering,
the priest needs no further fiaprvpLov that he is clean : see
below, no. 4.
(3) AvTofi has a reference which is at least suggested by
some previous word, or by the verb of the sentence itself : 1 P.
iii. 14, TOP Be <p6^ov avroiv pLtj (po^rjdrJTe' i.e. rwv kukovvtcov
vfxd<i, or of those from whom ye are to suffer (Trda-'^eiv)^ see
Herm. Vig. p. 714;^ E. v. 12, rd Kpv^rj yivofxeva vir avrwv,
that is, Twv rd epya rov <jkotov<; ttoiovvtcov (ver. 1 1) ;* A. x. 10.
Compare Aristoph. Fhit. 566, Thuc. 1.22. 1, and Poppo in loc,
Heinichen, Ind. ad Euscb. III. 539. On A. xii. 21 see § 21.
Eem. 1.
(4) Ai)T6<i has no reference grammatically indicated in the
previous coiitext, but must be understood of a subject which is
supposed to be familiar : L. i. 17, avro^ irpoeXevae'rat avrov, i.e.
poiut of grammar nor preferable in sense ; indeed father of falsehood is a fuller
conception for John, who loves what is abstract. [See Briickner in loc, who
reviews the various explanations, and decides in favour of referring au-reiJ — not
to an abstract implied in ^iCaTr,; ("Winer, De Wette), but — to -v/^ESdoj in the pre-
ceding clause. See however p. 736, note *. ]
^ For a similar example with a relative see Testam. Pair. ]>. 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<i being used as
ill auT09 €(f)a, in reference to one who is recognised within a
certain circle as head or leader: in 1 Jo. ii. 12, 2 Jo. 6, 2 P. iii.
4, the pronoun is thus used of Christ. In L. v. 1 7, ek to Ida-dac
avTov^, the pronoun expresses the general notion, the sick, those
who required healiiig (amongst the persons present in the syna-
gogue) : the pronoun cannot refer back to ver. 15, though even
Bengel so explains it. On the other hand, in A. iv. 5 avrcou
refers to the Jews, among whom the events recorded occurred ;
their priests, «tc., are however mentioned in ver. 1, and Xao^
is used more than once in ver. 1 sq. of the Jewish people. In
Mt. xii. 9 the pronoun refers to those amongst whom Jesus then
was, the Galileans. In H. iv. 8, viii. 8,xi. 28, it refers to the
Israelites, suggested to the reader's mind by the circumstances
just spoken of. The above-mentioned e/? fiaprvpiov avroh, Mt.
viii. 4, comes in here : those meant by avTOL<i are the Jews (the
Jewish public), — the circle in which the injunctions of Moses (o
Trpo^ira^e Mcovarjf;) are bindiug. In Jo. xx. 15, aurov supposes
that the inquirer must know who is spoken of, inasmuch as he
has taken Him away ; or else Mary, herself engrossed with the
thought of the Lord, attributes her own ideas to the person
whom Bhe is addressing.'
In L. xviii. 34 airoi points back to tovs SwScku and avrovs in ver.
31 (the intervening words are a saying of Jesus) ; in H. iv. 13 airov
refers to tov deov in ver. 12 ; and in L. xxi. 21 avTrj<: refers to 'Upov-
crakrjiJL, ver. 20. In 2 C. vi. 17, €k fUaov avrwv, in a somewhat trans-
formed quotation from the O. T., relates to a-maTOL, ver. 14 ; and in
Rom. X. 18 avTuiv suggests to every reader the preachers mentioned
in concreto in ver. 15. On A. xxvii. 14, where some refer airjjs to
the ship, see Kiihnol. ^ In L. ii. 22, by avrwv we are to understand
mother and child (Mary and JesusV The commentators on H. xii.
17 are in doubt whether aurrjv refers to /xcravotav or to evXoytav ; but
the correlation of evpia-Kuv and eVC^retv of itself renders the former
the more probable reference. In Mt. iii. 16 avr<5 and eV airov
unquestionably relate to Jesus.
A slight negligence of another kind appears in Mt. xii. 15, xix. 2,
■^KoXovOrjaav avr<3 6)(\ol ttoXXol koI iOepd-n-ivaev avroi's Trai/ras. Here
' [Against this, see Meyer and Alford in loc. In L. v. 17 airov is probably
the true reading.]
* Compare also Poppo, Xen. Cyr. 3. 1. 31, 5. 4. 42, Thuc. III. i. 184, Lehmann,
Luciaii II. 325, IV. 429, Stallb. Plat. BejJ. II. 286 ; and on the whole subject
see Van Hengel, Annotat. p. 195 sqq.
•* [Meyer, Alford, and others with good reason refer airtis to Kpwr,v, ver. 13.]
184 PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. [PART III.
the pronoun grammatically refers to oxXol, but this reference is of
course loose in point of logic, — he healed them (i.e. the sick who were
in the crowds) in a body: in xiv. 14, i6ep. tovs dppdja-Tovs avruiv.
Compare also L. v. 17.
Accordingto some commentators thedemonstrativeovTosis similarly
construed ad sensum in 2 C. v. 2, tovto} being supposed to agree vnth
aw/xaTL implied in >) 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<i v€Kpoi><; ouTUf iv rol<i irapa'rrrdi-
fxacriv KOI rfj aicpo^varia rrj^i aapKO'i vp^oiv avve^o}07roLT](xeu vfid<s
K.T.X. ; Ph. i. 7. In most of these instances a participial clause
having the force of a sentence proper has preceded : in this case
Greek authors often add the pronoun, as Paus. 8. 38. 5, Herod.
3. 10. 6. Compare further Plat. A2J0I. 40 d, Symp. c. 21, Xen.
Cyr. 1. 3. 15, (Ec. 10. 4, Paus. 2. 3. 8, Arrian, Epict. 3. 1, Cic.
Catil. 2. 12. 27, Liv. 1. 2, Sail. Catil 40. 1, Herm. Soph. Trach.
p. 54, Schwarz, Comment, p. 2 1 1? In Jo. xviii. 1 1, to iror^piov
o BeBtoKev fiot, 6 varijp, ov firj ttico avro ; the pronoun is used
for emphasis : so also in Mt. vi. 4, 1 P. v. 10 (A. ii. 23), Kev.
xxi. 6. — After a case absolute the pronoun is almost necessarily
added, in the case required by the verb: Rev. iii. 12, o vlkuhv,
TTOirjao) avTov Jo. xv. 2, Mt. xii. 36, A. vii. 40 ; compare Plat.
Thecet. 173 d, ^1. Anim. 5. 34, 1. 48, al.
(b) A redundancy of this kind is still more common in rela-
tive sentences: Mk. vii. 25, <yvvri, ri<i et^^e to dvydrpiov avTr]<i
TTvevfjua aKuOapTov i. 7, Kev. vii. 2, ol? iBodr) avTOL<i aBiKrjaat
rrjv yrjv k.t.X, iii. 8, vii. 9, xiii. 8, xx. 8 ; similarly in Mk. xiii.
19, 6\lylrc<;, o'Ca ov yeyove roiavrr] ott' apj^rf^ /cr/creeo?. So also
with a relative adverb : Pev. xii. 6, 14, oirov e^ec €Kel tottov
K.T.X.
^ [Therp is considerable authority for the genitive absolute in Mk. v. 2, ix. 28,
A. vii. 21 ; and for the omission of aiiris in Mt. vi. 4, Rev. xxi. 6.]
2 [Conip. Jelf 658. 2, 699. Obs. 3, Green p. 118 sq.]
SECT. X.XII.] PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 185
Such instances of pleonasm occur much more frequently in
the LXX, in accordance with the Hebrew idiom :^ Ex. iv. 17,
Lev. xi. 32, 34, xiii. 52, xv. 4, 9, 17, 20, 24, 26, xvi. 9, 32,
xviii. 5, Num. xvii. 5, Dt. xi. 25,Jos. iii. 4, xxii. 19, Jud. xviii.
5, 6, Ruth i. 7, iii. 2, 4, 1 K xi. 34, xiii. 10, 25, 31, 2 K. xix. 4,
Bar. ii. 4, iii. 8, Xeh. viii. 12, ix. 19, Ts. i. 21, Joel iii. 7, Ps.
xxxix. 5, Judith v. 19, vii. 10, x. 2, xvi. 3, 3 (1) Esdr. iii. 5,
iv. 54, vi. 32, al, : see Thiersch, Be Pentat. Alex. p. 126 sq.
In Greek prose, however, avro^ '^ and the demonstrative pro-
nouns are sometimes superadded in a relative sentence, as Xen.
Ci/r. 1. 4. 19, Diod. S. 1. 97, 17. 35, Paus. 2. 4. 7, Soph.
Pkiloct. 316 (compare in Latin, Cic. Fam.. 4. 3, Acad. 2. 25,
PMlijyp. 2. 8) ; but the demonstrative is probably very seldom
found so near the relative ^ as in most of the examples quoted
above, — almost all of which are found in passages which are
Hebraistic in style.*
In A. iii. 13 [^Rec] the relative construction is dropped in the
second sentence (see below p. 186) : in Rom. vii. 21 the first and
second e/xoi seem to me to belong to different sentences, see § 61. 5.
Those passages also are of a different kind in which the personal
pronoun is accompanied by some other word, by means of which the
relative is more closely defined and explained : G. iii. 1 , oh kut o-
<^^aA/Aoi'9'Ir/(rovsXp. ■irpof.ypd<f>-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<XTd^€i' A. iii. 13 [/tt^c], 1 C. viii. 6 :
it is less correct to bring in here Rev. xvii. 2, yae^' rj^ iTropvevcrav
. . . Koi ifxe0v(T6'i](rav €k tov olvov r^s Tropv£ia<i avn}?, for the relative
construction was here necessarily avoided on account of the nouns
to be connected with the i)ronoun. In Hebrew, owing to the sim-
plicity of its structure, the continuation of the construction without
the relative is very common ; but we must not, by supplying '^t'^«; with
the subsequent clause, give to the sentence a turn which is foreign
to the character of the language.— -To require the relative instead of
avTO'i or ovTos in such passages as Jo. i. 6, A. x. 36, L. ii. 36, xix. 2,
is to misapprehend the simplicity of the N. T. diction, especially as
similar examples are not imfreouently to be found in Greek authors
(^Elian 12. 18, Strabo 8. 371, Philostr. Soph. 1. 25) ; comp. Kypke I.
347. In 1 C vii. 13, however, for ^n? e;^€t av8pa aina-Tov Ktti avros^
crvvcvZoKei K.T.X., Paul might also have written os o-vvevSoKei.
In the N. T., as elsewhere, 6 avros the same is followed by a dative
ol' the person^ in the sense of the same vAtJo, as in 1 C. xi. -5 : compare
Her. 4. 119, Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 13, 2. 1. 5, Cyr. 3. 3. 35, 7. 1. 2, Isocr.
Paneg. c. 23, Plat. Meuex. 244 d, Dio C. 332. 97.
Rem. In clas.sical Greek, as is well known, the nominative of
Quros is not used for the unemphatic he (Kriig. pp. 128, 135). Nor
can any decisive instance of such a usage be adduced from the N. T.'^
(compare Fritz. Matt. p. 47) : even in Luke, who uses avro's most
' See Herrii. V'kj. }>. 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 <rv tovto
\eyeL<}, where aeavrov in B and other MSS. is certainly a cor-
rection : in Rom. xiii. 9, Mt. xxii. 39 (from the LXX), and G.
V. 14, aeavrov is the better reading.
This usage is also found in Greek writers : ^ for (b) compare
Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 9, Ci/r. 1. 6. 44, Aristot. Mconu 2. 9, 9. 9,
^lian 1. 21, Arrian, Hpict. 4. 3. 11.^ On iaurcovioY aWrjXdyv
see the lexicons: compare Doderlein, Spion. III. 270 (Jelf
654. 3).
AvTov is frequently used by (Attic) Greek writers as a reflexive : *
the MSS. however often vary between avrov and avrov.* To decide
between the two on internal grounds is the more difficult because the
Greeks use the reflexive pronoun even when the principal subject is
remote,^ and because in many cases it depended entirely on the
writer's preference whether the reflexive pronoun should be used or
not.^ In the N. T. also — where from the time of Griesbach avrov has
^ See Locella, Xen. Eph. 164, Bremi, iEschin. Oratt. I. 66, Herm. Soyjh.
Track. 451, Boisson. Philostr. I/er. p. 326, Jacobs, AchUL 7\vt. p. 932, Held,
Plut. jEm. Paul. p. 130. Compare however the assertion of an ancient gram-
marian, Apollonius, in Wolf and Buttmann's jlfws. Atitiq. Studior. I. 360, and
Eustath. ad Odyss. i, p. 240.
^ [In Jo. xviii. 34, Lachraann, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, read
(Ttaurou, with the best MSS. : Rom. xiii. 9, Mt. xxii. 39, G. v. 14, are aW from the
LXX (Lev. xix. 18, also quoted in Mt. xix. 19, Mk. xii. 31, L. x. 27, Ja, ii. 8), and
here also the best MSS. have a-sai/rov. *' It is worthy of notice that, in those
passages of the classics in which the .singular oHocvtov is thus used, there is almost
alwa}'S considerable uncertainty of reading: this is not the case with the ex-
amples of the plural. And since it is often in the inferior and later MSS. that
we find these examples, we may at any rate assume it as certain that this usage
was in later times tolerably general (indeed almost universal in the case of the
plui'al), and was therefore tJtry familiar to the transcribers. Hence the common
assumption that through ignorance of this idiom the transcribers altered the 3d
person into the 1st or 2d, must be given up in regard to the passages in the
N. T., and to many of tho-se in earlier writers." A. Buttm. Or. p. 114. In
modern Greek inureZ is used for all three persons ; the popular language ex-
presses ifiavTou by rou ia.urovft.ou : see MuUach, Vulg. pp. -07, 320 sq., J. Donald-
son, Gr. p. 17. See further Lightfoot on G. v. 14, Jelf 654. 2. 6, Jebb, Sopli.
Electra, p. 30.]
^ Arndt, De pronom. ^■^flex. ap. Graec. (Neobrandenb. 1836).
* In later writers (as iEsop, the Scholiasts, al.) abroZ secis to predominate ;
see Schsef. Ind. ad JEsop. p. 124, and comp. Thilo, Apoci. I. 163.
•'' Compare however Held, Plut. Timol. p. 373.
•"' See Buttm. Demosth. Midias, Exc. x. p. 140 sqq., F. Hermann, Comm. Crit.
ad Plutarch, .•^uperst. p. 37 sq., Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p. 220. — Bremi (in the
Jahrh. der Philol. IX. p. 171) says : "On the use of avrou and avmu certain
SECT. XXII.] PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 189
been frequently introduced — careful editors have often been in doubt
which of these two pronouns to prefer. In- some passages either
would be appropriate. In Mt. iii. 16, for instance, eTSc to Trvfv/xa tov
$€ov . . . ipxofjievov i-TT avTov M^ould be said from the narrator's point
of view, whilst e^' airov would refer directly to the subject of the
verb €iSe, namely Jesus (Kriig. p. 130). In general, it is improbable
that the N. T. writers, whose style of narration is so simple (who, to
quote a similar case, drop the relative const^ uction, instead of carrying
it on to a second clause, see p. 186), would use the reflexive pronoun
when the subject is remote, i.e. when the subject and pronoun are not
in tl;e same clause. Accordingly, in Mt. ?.c.,^ E. i. 17, we should un-
hesitatingly write avTov, avTov ; but in A. xii. 11, H. v. 7, Kom. xiv.
14, avTov : see Fritz. Mail. Exc. 5, p. 858 sqq. — where also Matthise's
view (Eur. Iphig. Avl. 800, and Gr. 148. Rem. 3) is examined, — and
Poppo, Thiic. III. i. 159 sq. On the other hand, the fact noticed by
Bengel {Appar. ad Mt. i. 21) deserves attention — that in the MSS. of
the N. T. the prepositions airo, ,e7rt, vivo, Kara, //.era, are never written
a.(f>, 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 <na.vT'.v, not <ro,vToZ. (2) The ordinary rule for the pomtion of
190 PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. [PART III.
6. The personal pronouns i'yoii, av, rifiet^;, etc., cannot he dis-
pensed with in the oblique cases ; but in the nominative they
are regularly omitted, unless there belongs to them (usually in
consequence of antithesis) some emphasis, manifest or latent :
I'h. iv. 11, e7a> e/xadov ev oh ^tfu avrapKr]^ elvac' Jo. ii. 10,
7ra<? av6po)7ro<; . . . . av rer^prjKa'i k.t.X., Rom. vii. l7, L. xi. 19,
A. X. 15, Mk. xiv. 29, Jo. xviii. 38 sq., G. ii. 9 ; A. xi. 14,
awdrjcrr) crv Kol 6 oIko^; aov Jo. x. 30, A. xv. 10, 1 C. vii. 12,
L. i. 18 ; Mt. vi. 12, a<^e9 rj^lv to, 6<^ei\rifiaTa rjfitov (Uf, /cat
rjnec<; a<f)'^fca/j,€v k.t.\.; Jo. iv. 10, av av i7T7/(Ta9 avrov (whereas
/ asked of thee, ver. 7, 9), Mk. vi. 37, Sore avToi<i v/xel'i (fyayetu
(i/c, since they themselves have no provisions with them, ver. 36),
Jo. vi. 30, xxi. 22, Mk. xiii. 9, 23, 1 C. ii. 3 sq., Mt. xvii. 19,
2 Tim. iv. 6. So where the person is characterised by a v.'ord
in apposition, as in Jo. iv, 9, ttco? crv ^IovBaLo<; oiv k.t.X., Rom.
xiv. 4, av TL<; el 6 Kplvtov aXkorpiov oLKerrjv' Jo. x. 33, A. i. 24,
iv. 24, L. i. 76, E. iv. 1 : or where there is reference to some
description contained in the previous context, as in Jo. v. 44
(ver. 42, 43), Rom. ii. 3 ; or where it is supposed that such a
description will suggest itself, as in Jo. i. 30, L. ix. 9 (I, who as
king cannot be mistaken as to wliat has taken place), E. v. 32
(I, as apostle), Jo. ix. 24, G. vi. 8,^ 1 C. xi. 23. In an address
av is found particularly when one out of many is indicated (Jo.
i. 43, Ja. ii. 3), or where the person addressed is made promi-
nent by an attributive, as in 2 Tim. iii. 1 [ii. 1 ?], Mt. xi. 23.
In no instance do we find these pronouns expressed where
no emphasis rests upon them, and where consequently they
might have been omitted^ (Bornem. Xen. Conv. 187). If, for
instance, we find in E. v. 32, iyo) Be Xeyco et? Xpiarov, but
auTou and lauTev, in a possessive sense (» laurou var^p, « ^etrhp auToZ, see Jelf
C52. 3), is commonly observed in fhe N. T. (3) The 1st and 2d persona] pro-
nouns are very frequently used in the N. T. instead of the reflexive, unless the
pi'onoun is immediately dependent on the verb. On the principle of the ex-
ception just named, Buttmann would write auT. in Jo. ii. 24, xix. 17, A. xiv. 17,
Kev. viii. 6, xviii. 7 ; unless indeed the full form \avr. be received. See Ellicott
on E. i. 9. — Winer often writes u-'iroZ where all recent editors have ccurou.]
' [A mistake, probably for G. vi. 17 (a passage quoted in ed. 5, as illustrating
the use of the pronoim without direct antithesis), or for 1 C. vi. 8. A few lines
above I have written 2 Tim. for 1 Tim. (iv. 6), on the authority of ed. 5.]
^ [See Green, Gr. pp. 113-116. The opposite view, that the nominative of the
pronoun is often expressed in the N. T. where no particular emphasis is intended,
is maintained by A. Buttmann (p. 132). In modern Greek the classical usage
is observed (MuUach p. 311),]
SECT, XXn.] PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PEONOUNS. 191
simply Xeyco Be in 1 C. i. 12, Horn. xv. 8, there is an emphasis
designed in the first passage and none in the others. In regard
to the omission or insertion, and also the position, of these pro-
nouns, the MSS. vary very greatly : the decision must not be
made to depend on any fancied peculiarity of a writer's style
(Gersdorf p. 472 sq.), but on the nature of the sentence.
The personal pronoun is inserted and omitted in two consecutive
sentences in L. x. 2.3 sq., ol ySAeVoires a /SXe-ere .... TToAAoi Trpo-
(jirfraL .... rjOeXrjo-av iSciv, a r/xets /SAtVerc. But it IS Only in the
latter case that there is any real antithesis (v/ieis in contrast with
vpocfiyJTat, /SacrtA-cis, etc.) : in ver, 23, the 6<f>0aXfj.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]crt<i, memoria riei (1 C. xi.
24), Eom. xi. 31, tw v^erepw iXeet' xv. 4, 1 C. xv. 31, xvi. 17 ;
but not Jo. XV. lO.'^ So also in Greek writers, especially in
poetry: Xen. Cyr. 3. 1. 28, evvoia koI ^Ckia rfj i/jifj- Thuc.
1. 77, TO rjfierepov Beor 6. 89. Plat. Go'/y. 486 a, Antiphon 6.
41, al.^ As to Latin, compare Kritz on Sallust, Cat. p. 243.
The N. T. writers occasionally employ 1lBio<; instead of a per-
sonal pronoun, by the same kind of misuse as when in later
l.Sitm proprius takes the place o^suus or ejus (compare also niKeco<i
in the Byzantine writers^). Thus in Mt. xxii. 5 we have
J ["Who is made to stumble without my heing the one who burns? Of the
offence which another takes, I have the pain." Mever. ]
2 [This shov.l>l 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€<f, with or without a personal pronoun, would
have been sufficient (comp. 1 C. vii. 2).^ But this usage is on
the whole rare. Greek -writers probably furnish no similar
example, — for the instances quoted by Schwarz and Weiske '
are all unsatisfactory, or at most only apparently similar : the
same may be said of Diod. S. 6. 40. Conversely, a-<^eTepo<; is
occasionally taken for lhLo<i, see Wessel. Diod. >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 KaKOi<i Siavorjdel^ virep roov
IBicov K.T.X. In H. vii, 27, Bohme, Kiihnol, and others wrongly
take iBio<i for the mere possessive pronoun ; to the tSiat ap,aprtai.
are expressly opposed al rov \aov (as aWorpcac) : comp. also
iv. 10, When t'Siof has a personal pronoun joined with it, as
in Tit. i. 12, tBwi avrwv 'rrpoj>riT'q<i (Wis. xix. 12), the pro-
noun merely expresses the notion of belonging to (their poet\
whilst rSio? gives the antithesis their own poet, — not a foreigner.
For similar instances see JEschin. Ctesiph. 294 c, Xen. Hell.
1. 4. 13, Plat. Menex. 247 b : see Lob. p. 441, Wurm, Dinarch.
p. 70,
^ Meyer introduces into these passages an emphasis, which either is altogether
remote (Mt. xxv. 14), or would have been fully expressed by the pronoun. This
very use of "S/o; for the sake of emphasis, where there is no trace of an anti-
thesis, is unknown to Greek writers. [See Ellicott on E. iv. 28, v. 22. It may
be mentioned that in modem Greek o 'l^ios is equivalent to o xuris, and also to
aiiTof ; and that the ordinary possessive pronouns are formed by joining ^«u etc.
to I'Sixi;, which is by some derived from i'S/o; (Mullach, Vulg. p. 188 sq., 313, J
Donalds. Gr. p. 18 sq.).]
2 Schwarz, Comment, p. 687, Weiske, De Pleon. p. 62.
SECT. XXII.] PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 193
Kara joined with the accusative of a personal pronoun has been
regarded as forming a periphrasis for a possessive pronoun : E. i. 15,
r) Ka$' vfjia<: iriaTi<;, your faith, A. xvii. 28, oi Ka6' vfxa<; TTOirjrai'
xviii. 15, vofjios b Ktt^* v/nas" xxvi. 3, al. This view is con'ect on
the whole, but the possessive meaning follows very simply from the
signification of Kara.. 'H Kad' v/xa.<; TTto-ris is strictly fides qiue ad vos
pert'inet, apud vos {in vohis) est: comp. ^lian 2. 12, 17 /car avrov
apeTT]- Dion. H- I. 235, 01 Ka6' r}fia.<i )(p6voi. Compare § 30. 3.
Kem. 5.
Rem. 1. The genitive of the personal pronouns, especially fjLov
and crov (more rarely vfj.uiv, rjyiwv, avrov), is very frequently ^ placed
before the governing noun (and its article), though no special emphasis
is laid on the pronoun : Mt. ii. 2, vii. 24, viii. 8, xvi. 18, xvii. 15,
xxiii. 8, Mk. v. 30, ix. 24, Kom. xiv. IG, Ph. ii. 2, iv. 14, Col. ii. 5,
iv. 18, 1 C. viii. 12, 1 Th. ii. IG, iii. 10, 13, 2 Th. ii. 17, iii. 5,
1 Tim. iv. 15, 2 Tim. i. 4, Phil. 5, L. vi. 47, xii. 18, xv. 30, xvi. 6,
xix. 35, al.; Jo. ii. 23, iii. 19, 21, 33, iv. 47, ix. 11, 21, 26, xi. 32,
xii. 40, xiii. 1, al. ; 1 Jo. iii. 20, Rev. iii. 1, 2, 8, 15, x. 9, xiv. 18,
xviii. 5, al. So also when the noun has a preposition : Jo. xi. 32,
iTreo-tv avTov cts tov% TroSas. In many passages of this kind, however,
variants are noted. See on the whole Gersdorf p. 45G sqq.
The genitive is designedly placed before the noun
(a) In E. ii. 10, avrov yap itr/xev TroiTjfxa (more emphatic than la-p.h'
yap TT. avrov), L. xii. 30, xxii. 53.
(h) In 1 C. ix. 11, /Acya, il i^/Acts v/jlwv to. aapKiKa Oiptcofxev, on
account of the antithesis ; Ph. iii. 20.
(c) In Jo. xi. 48, rjfj.u)v /cat Tov Tovov Kai to f.6vo<i, where the
genitive belongs to two nouns ;2 A. xxi. 11, L. xii. 35, Rev. ii. 19,
2 C. viu. 4,3 2 Tim. iii. 10, Tit. i. 15, 1 Th. i. 3, ii. 19 (Diod. S.
11. 16).
The form c/xov, dependent on a noun and placed after it, appears
only in sucli combinations as Trto-Tfoj? v/xwi/ t€ /cai c/aov Rom. i. 12,
fi-qripa avrov Koi ifiov Rom. xvi. 13.
The insertion of the personal pronoun between the article and the
noun (as in 2 C. xii. 19, xm-ep r^s vfj.u>v 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«t<A>j <riv -rpotupuri k.t.x.,
Mt. xii. 47 ; also (from the LXX) L. xviii. 20, A. ii. 17. [The second a-av is
probably not genuine in A. iv. and L. xviiL]
* [This is not an example : see § SO. 7. a.]
* [A. Buttmann adds: "In Paul only, and with no other pronoun than
Vftur, J
1*1
O
194 PEKSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. [PART III.
genitive of the personal pronoun has its place between the attributive
and the noun: 2 C. v. 1, 17 cTrtyetos rj/xwy oiKta* 2 C iv. IG, 6 l^oj
rjfXMV avOpui'nro'i.
Rem. 2. In both Greek and Hebrew we sometimes find an appa-
rently pleonastic use of the dative of the personal pronouns in easy
and familiar language {dativus efhicus ^). Of this usage, which cer-
tainly might have been expected to occur in the N. T., Mt. xxi. 5
(a quotation from the 0. T.), and also Mt. xxi. 2, Rev. ii. 5, 16, H.
X. 34, have been considered examples. In Mt. xxi. 2, however,
dyayere /xol means bring it [them\ to me, and dydyere by itself would
have been incomplete. In Rev. ii. epxa/xat crot raxv is / will corns
upon thee (eTrl ere, iii. 3) quickly, — for punishment; compare ver. 14,
e;(co Kara crov oAi'ya, and ver. 16, /j.eTav6r](Tov.^ In the last passage,
ex^iv eauTots virap^iv means repositam or destinatam sibi habere, — for
themselves, as belonging to themselves. In Mt. xxi. 5 also a-oC is not
without force.
Rem. 3. It is usual to take 17 4'^xv /'•o^) ^^^j ^tc, as periphrases
for personal pronouns (Weiske, Ficon, p. 72 sq.), — both in quotations
from the O. T. (e.g. Mt. xii. 18, A. ii. 27, H. x. 38), and in the N. T.
language proper ; and this usage is regarded as being in the first
instance a Hebraism. ^ In no passage of the N. T., however, is (/a>;(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 <roi (e.g. Luc. P/.sc. 16, n%M uf^v ixSiKairaffa rh*
liK^v) see Hermann, Luc. Conscr. Hist. p. 179. It is a kind of dativvs incom-
modi (§ 31. 4. b) : comp. 1 K. xv. 20 (LXX). [In H. x. 34 the best texts have
iauToyj.]
3 Gesen. Lg. p. 752 sq., [Hebr. Gr. p. 202 (Bagst.), Kalisch, Hebr. Gr. I.
221], Vorst, Hebr. p. 121 sq., Riickert on Rom. xiii. ].
SECT. XXIII.] DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS. 195
in Greek writers (compare Xen. Cyr. 5. 1. 27, ^Elian 1. 32), especially
the poets, e.g. Soph. Philod. 714, CEd. Col. 499, 1207 -.^ it is no
Hebraism, but an example of antique vividness of expression. See
further Georgi, Viivl. p. 274, Schwarz ad Olear. p. 28, Comment, p.
1439.2
Section XXIII.
DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS.
1. The pronoun o5to? sometimes refers, not to the noun
which stands nearest to it, but to one more remote, which is to
be regarded as the principal subject, and which therefore was to
the writer the nearest jJ-^l/chologically, — was more vividly present
to his mind than any other : ^ A. i"^. 11. our6<i (^Irjaov^ Xpi(TT6<i
in ver. 10, though o 6e6<i is the nearest noun) iariv 6 \lOo<;. So
in 1 Jo. v. 20, ovTo^ eariv 6 a\ri9Lvo<i Oeo^;, the pronoun refers to
o ^eo9 — not Xptaro'i (which immediately precedes), as the older
theologians maintained on dogmatic grounds ; for, in the first
place, a\'t]6t,vo<i de6<i is a Constant and exclusive epithet of the
Father ; and, secondly, there follows a warning against idolatry,
and a\7jdiv6<i 6e6<i is always contrasted with el,Zw\a.*
A. viii. 26, avrr) earlv ep7)fio<i, is doubtful, some supplying the
nearest subject Tdi^a, others 6h6<i. See Kiihnol in loc, and my
^ In these passages it is not hard to discover the notion which is expressed
by the Latin anima, and I do not know why Ellendt (Lex. Soph. II. 079) takes
■4'tjxri as a mere circumlocution. The passages of Plato quoted by Ast (Lex.
Plat. III. 575) would really lose their distinctive colouring, if the canon "ora-
tionem anipliticat" were applied to them.
^ Mt. vi. 25, where •^"jx'' is contiasted with the rufix, can present no difficulty
to any one who is familiar with the anthropological notions of the Jews. — Nor
is Kafiioc. a mere circumlocution in A. xiv. 17, iin.TiTXuy TpvpH; ko.] tufpoiruvn; tu,s
xufita; Ufiuv' or in Ja. V. 5, ypiypart ra; KapVia.; u/^ut ; for, if SO, it must bo
possible to saj' lie struck hbs heart, instead of he struck him, etc. In these
verses, however, Kapilx is probably not used (as 3*5 sometimes is) in a merely
material sense, in' accordance with the physiological notions of antiquity, — to
xlreiKjthen the heart, i. e. in the- first instance the stomach and by means of this
the heart (even in Greek the meaning stomach is not entirely effaced in «a^S/a) ;
but the idea of enjoyment is included. See Baumgarten on the last passage.
3 SchiBf. Bern. V. 322, Stallb. Plat. Pha;dr. pp. 28, 157, Foertsch, Obs. in
Lysiam p. 74. ( Jelf 655. Obs. 1.)
* [So Alford (who also urges the parallelism with Jo. xvii. 3), Liicke (Bibl.
Cat. vol. XV. p. 288 si^q.), Haupt in loc. : on the other side see Ebrard, Comment.
p. 345 sq<|. (Clark), amd Wordsworth in loc]
196 DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS, [PART HI.
B WB. I. 395: I decidedly prefer 6Z6<;} There is less diffi-
culty in A. vii. 19, 2 Jo. 7. For examples from Greek prose
writers see Ast, Plat. Polit. 417, Leg-g. p. 77.
Conversely, in A. iii. 1 3 €K€tvo<; is to be referred to the nearest
subject (Kriig. p. 138,^ Jelf 655. 7): so also in Jo. vii. 45,
where eKelvot refers to the members of the Sanhedrin, apxi€pet<i
Ka\ (f>apL<ruiov<}, regarded (as the single article shows) as forming
one body. For an example of ovto? and e/ceti/o? so combined
that the former belongs to the more distant and the latter to
the nearer subject, see Plutarch, Vit. Demosth. 3 ; and for
examples of iKelvo<i where there is only one subject, and where
we might have expected ovrc<i or simply auT09, see 2 C. viii. 9,
Tit. iii. 7."
In Ph. i. 18, KoX iv TouTcj) xa'pw, the demonstrative simply refers to
the main thought Xpto-ros KarayycAAerat : in 2 P. i. 4, Bia. tovt<ji>v 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 <S points back to the principal
subject 6 6i6^. Of H, iii, 6 (ov o?kos) recent expositors have taken
the correct view,^
2, Where no special emphasis is intended, the demonstrative
pronoun which precedes a relative sentence is usually included
^ [See Meyer and Alford in loc. Smith, Diet. ofB. I. 657, Kitto, Cyd. II, 77,
Greswell, Diss. I. 177 sqq., Robinson, Bihl. Res. II. 514, in support of this view.]
' Brenii, Lys. p. 154, Schoem. Plut. Acjis p. 73, Foertsch I. c.
^ [On the question whether avris and IxiTvo; can be used in the same passage
•with reference to the same subject, see. Ellicott and Alford on 2 Tim. ii. 26,
Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 135.]
« GoUer, Thuc. II. 21, Siebelis, Pausan. III. 52, Schoem. Isceus p. 242 sq.,
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 369 ; and as to Latin, Kritz^ Sallust II. 115.-
^ [Of recent writers, Bleek, De Wette, Ebrard refer avrnd and oS to Xpurris ;
LUnemann, Delitzsch, Alford, Kurtz, Hofniann, and others, to God.]
SECT. XXIII.] DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS. 197
in the relative pronoun (Kriig. p. 145 sq., Jelf 817): — not
only
(a) Where, in accordance with the laws of government or of
attraction, the demonstrative would have been in the same case
as the relative ; as
(a) A. i. 24, dvdSei^ov ov i^eXe^co (for rovrov 6v), Eom. viii.
29, Jo. xviii. 26, auyy6vr]<; oou ov direKo-^ev Uirpot to cotlov'
1 C. vii. 39, 2 C. xi. 12, Ph. iv. 11 ;
{13) A. viii. 24, oTra)? fir]hev i'rrekOrj iir e'/ie wv eiprjKare (for
TovTcov a elp.), xxi. 19, xxii. 15, xxvi. 16, 22, L. ix. 36, Eom.
XV. 18, E. iii. 20, 1 C. [2 C] xii. 17 ; compare Is. ii. 8, Wis.
xii. 14, Tob. i. 8, xii. 2, 6, Plat. Gor^. 45 T e, Phced. 94 c, Isocr.
Fhil. p. 226,Z>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)<y'yeCka<i wv iSeov
Eurip. Med. 735, i/x/jLeveiv a aov kXvo) (i.e. tovtoi'; a, see
Elmsley in loc.), Lysias p. 152 (Steph.), fit] Ko.ra'yi'yvojcrKeTe
aScKiav Tov . . . Ba7rav(ovTo<i aXV ocroi . . . eWiafievoi etcnv
dvaXL(TK€Lv (for rovTcov oaoi) : see Stallb. Plat. Hep.. I. 139,
and compare Kritz, Sallust II. 301. In this case even the
preposition on which the case of the demonstrative depends is
omitted : Eom. x. 1 4, 7rco9 TriaTevaovaLv ov ovk ijKovcraV that
is, et9 rouTov ov k.t.X.^
If a preposition precedes a relative before which the demon-
strative is suppressed, this preposition logically belongs either
a. To the relative clause : Eom. x. 14, ttw? iTriKoXeaovrai ed
ov OVK iiTLcyrevaav vi. 21, riva Kapirov ec'^ere rare (that is, rov-
rcov) e^' oU vvv iiraKT^vveaOe^ xiv. 21, Jo. xix. 37 (from the
^ Similar to this would be 1 Tim. ii. 10, aA.X' o vpiorn ywai^n Wa.yyiX^.ofi'iva.n
hcffi^stav, if (with Matthies) we resolved o -rpiTu into !» toutm « ■jrpi-m. But it
is simpler and easier to join 2/ 'ipya>> 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<i 01)9 av vTroXd^o) €iJVolK(b<; e^eiv tt/do? i/xe.
Anah. 1. 9. 25, Hell. 4. 8. 33, Demosth. Con. p. 729 a, Oli/nth. I.
p. 2, Ei). 4. p. 118 b, Plat. Rep. 2. 375 d, Fhccd. Gl c, Arrian,
Alex. 6, 4. 3, Diog. L. 9. 67, 6. 74: — or
c. To both clauses : 2 C. ii. 3, 'iva fjurj Xinrrjv e-^w a<f oiv eSei
fx€ '^aLp€iV 1 C. vii. 39, X. 30, Jo. xi. G, Horn. xvi. 2 ; compare
Isocr. Evag. p. 470, ifkeiovi iv rovroa Toi<i tottoi'; Biarpl^eiv,
rj Trap* oU irporepov elwOofe^ rjaav (Cic. Af/rar. 2. 27).
1 C. vii. 1 and Ph. iv. 1 1 may be thus explained.^
In the same way, relative adverbs include the demonstrative :.
Jo, xi. 32, rjXOev ottov rjv 6 ^Irjaovf (i.e. eKelae ottov), vi. 62,
Mk. V. 40, el'iTTopeverat ottov ■^v to iraihiov (compare Buttm.
Fhiloct. p. 107), 1 C. xvi. 6,Mt. xxv. 24, awdycov 06 ev ov hieaKop-
TTia-a'i (for eKeWev ottov) ; compra'e Thuc. 1. 89. Still freer is
the construction in Jo. xx. 19, ruiv dvpSsv KeKkeio-fxevwv ottov
Tjaav oi fxadrjrai k.t.X. — That in condensed sentences of this kind
(in which the Greek did not really supply a demonstrative in
thought, see Krlig. p. 145) no comma should be inserted before
the relative, has been already remarked : such punctuation
would make Jo. vi. 29 quite meaningless.
3. In emphatic passages the demonstrative may be frequently
repeated in connected sentences: A. vii. 35 sqq., tovtov tov
Mcoiicrrjv . . . . tovtov 6 6eb<i (iTTeaTakKev . . . . ovTO<i e^tj'yayev
.... ovTO<i CGTLV Mo)vaf]<; o etVa? .... ovTa tGTiv
jev6/ji6vo<i iv Tji eKKkrjcria k.t.X. ; and in a different spirit Jo. vi.
by Weber, Dem. p. 492 [viz. as representing W) rouTei;, itp' oTs, in the tluntjs in
which (Dem. Aristocr. p. <584, Phil. 3. p. 119, al.).]
1 'AyifotTv ev, Porjihyr. Abst. 2. 53. Some would bring in liere Rom. vii. 6,
supplying Ikiiiim {'Ofnu) before iv J ; but i' ^ points back to a-Ta toZ vifjcov, and
tt.Toia,v. is annexed absolutely to xaTnpy. , as a designation of manner : see riiilippi.
^ [See Ji'lf 822. Oha. 3 sq., Don. [>. 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€<i
TMV TtpayfiaTOiv iiridv/xouai tovtov<; virep avriav ^ovkeveaOai,
Koi irpoiaracrOal re kavroiv rourovi, koI to,'? iXiriBa'i tmv
ayaOoiv ev tovtol<; e^ouai, koi hca irdvra ravra iravrcov fidXi-
crra tovtov<; djaTTwcnv. In Latin, compare Cic. Vcrr. 3. 9.
23 : hunc in omnibus stupris, hunc in fenorum expilationibus,
hunc in impuris conviviis principem adhibebat (Verres). With
a relative adjective this anaphora occurs in Ph. iv. 8, ocra
iaTcv d\r]0t], oaa ae\hva, oaa hiKaia, oca d<yvd, ocra irpo^-
(pCkri, oaa €V(f)T) fia. Compare further § 65. 5.
4. x^nother use of these pronouns is far more common.
When the subject of a sentence or the predicate placed early in
the sentence consists of several words, we find ovro'i or eKelvo'i
introduced immediately before (more rarely after) the verb, that
the subject or predicate may stand out more clearly or with
greater prominence: Mt. xxiv. 13, 6 vrrojxeiva'i ek reXo?, ovto'?
cr(odi](r€Tac' Jo. i. 18, 6 fM0V0'yevr)<; vib<; o wv et? tov koXttov tou
irarpo'i, eKelvo^ i^rjyyjcraro' Mk. vii. 15, ra iKiropeuo/xeva o-tt'
avTov, eKelvd ecrri rd Koivovvra tov dvOpcoirov vii. 20, xii. 40,
1 C. vi. 4, Toi/9 e^ovdev7}fju^vov<i ev rfi iKKkrjcria, tovtov^ Kadi^ere'
Eom. vii. 10, 15 sq., 19 sq., ix. 6, 8, xiv. 14, Jo. v. 11, xii. 48,
Ph. i. 22, al. Compare Thuc. 4. 69, Xen. Conv. 8. 33, Ages. 4.
4, Plat. Protaff. p. 339 d, Isocr. Ucar/. c. 23, Paus. 1. 24. 5,
Lucian, Fug. 3, .^1. 12. 19, al.- Of the use of Se to add
strength to this emphasis ^ no example is found in the N. T. ;
nor is there any trace herd of the anacoluthon which is not
uncommon in Greek writers in such cases,* — unless we bring
under this head the attraction in 1 P. ii. 7.
Still more frequently are these pronouns so used after an
antecedent clause beginning with a conjunction or a relative :
' See Bomemann, Blbl. Stud, der sdch-s. Geistl. I. 66 sq.
* See Schsef. Melet. p. 84, Jacob, Luc. Toxar. pp. 78, 144, and Luc. Alex. p. 7,
Siebelis, Pausan. 1. 63, Weber, Dem. p. 158. As to Latin see Kritz, Sallu.^t I.
171. [Jell' 6-^8. 1. On the frequency with which St. John thus uses lKi7yo; see
Alford on Jo. vii. 29 : in classical Greek auT-j; is more common.]
^ Buttm. Demosth. Mid. p. 152, Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 252, [Jelf 770,
I. a ; compare Don. p. 577. Some regard 2 P. ii. 20 as an example of this
kind, but see Alford in loc : Se is similarly used in A. xi. 17 Bee, see § 53.
7; ft].
■* Schwarz, De discipular. Ckr. so'.oecisin. p. 77.
200 ElEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS. [PART III.
Jo. ix. 31, edv Tt<? 6eoae^T]<; f) koI to OeXrj/xa avrov 'rrotfj rovrov
dKovei- Ja. i. 23, Mt. v. 19,xii. 50, Ph. iii. 7, iv. 9, 2 firn.-ii. 2.
We have a remarkable repetition of the demonstrative in L. xix 2,
Kttt avTos ^v dpxi-TeX<i)vr]<; kol oStos yjv TrXovonos ', the meaning IS,
He Idas a chief publican and indeed (as such) a rich man, — isque
dives fuit (Matth. 470. 6, Jelf 655. 6. Obs. 2). Lachmann reads
(with B) Koi auros (^v) TrXovcrLo<i ; but this reading has less to recom-
mend it.^ Compare Xen. Cyr. 8. 3. 48.
It is a different case when in a lengthened sentence the substantive
is taken up again by a pronoun, for the sake of clearness : 2 C. xii. 2,
oitSa avOpuiTTOv iv XptcrTO) . • . 7rp6 irwv SeKaTCcrcrdpoyv . . . ctrc ev
ario/xaTL . . . aprrayevra tov tolovtov K.r.X. (Plat. Hep. 3. 398, Xen.
Cyr. 1. 3. 15), 1 C. v. 3, 5, A. i. 21 sq. : compare § 22. 4.
5. Before oti, wa, and similar particles, a demonstrative pro-
noun is often inserted (particularly in Paul and John) when
the clause which follows is to receive special prominence. See
1 Tim, L 9, €tSa>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 6t<? TOVTO before iva, A. ix. 21, Eom. xiv. 9, 2 C. ii,
9, E. vi. 22, IP. iii. 9, 1 Jo. iii. 8 ; iv tovtw oti, 1 Jo. iv. 1 3 ;
€v TouTft) iva, Jo. XV. 8,^ 1 Jo. iv. 17 (see Llicke in loc.) ; iv
TovT(p edv, 1 Jo. ii. 3 ; iv tovtcc' 6t(w._ 1 Jo. v. 2. Compare
EUendt, Lex. Soph. II. 461, Franke, Deim&th. p. 40 (Jelf 657).
The demonstrative is also introduced for the sake of emphasis
when an infinitive ^ or a noun follows as predicate. 2 C. ii. 1,
eKpiva ifxavTO) tovto, to firj TrdXtv iv XvTrrj 7rpo<; vfia^ iXOelv
vii. 11, avTo TOVTO to kutci, Oeov XvmjOrjvac 1 C. vii. 37,
E. iv. 17, Ja, i. 27: compare Xen. Hell. 4. 1. 2, Ages. 1. 8,
Plat. Hipp. Maj. 302 a, Gorg. 491 d, Isocr. Evag. c. 3, Por-
phyr. Abstin. 1. 13, Dion. H. VI. 667, t£e Th^ic. 40. 3, Epict.
Enchir. 31. 1, 4, Stallb. Plat. Bep. II. 261. 2 C. xiii. 9, tovto
Kol €u^o/jt,e6a, Trjv v/jlcov KaTapTiacv 1 Jo. iii. 24, v. 4 : compare
Achill. Tat. 7. 2, (pdpfiaKov avToJ tovto Tij<i . . . Xv7n]<i 77 Trpo?
^ [Recent editors either read auri; or omit the pronoun.]
'^ In Rom. ii. 3 an extended vocative is inserted between touto and the clause
beginning with oti.
^ [Here the connexion of l» tovtm with "va may well be doubted. " The
pronoun looks back, whUe at the same time the thought already indicated is
developed in the words which follow : " Westcott in loc]
* Matth. Eurip. Phcxn: 520, Sprachl. 472. 2.
SECT. XXIII.] DEMONSTRATIVE PKONOUNS. 201
aWop 6t<r TO iraOeiv Koivcovia- Plat. Bej). 3. 407 a, Lucian,
Navig. 3, Eurip. SuppL 510, and also Jacob, Luc. Toxai\ i^.
136, Ast, Plat. Folit. p. 4G6. Even ei9 tovto is so used in A.
xxvi. 16, elf TOVTO japaxpdijp aoi irpo-x^eiptaaadai ae v7r7)peT7]v
Koi fjbdpTvpa k.tX. ; ovtco^ in 1 P. ii. 15 (1 Civ. 1); and
ivTevOev in Ja. iv. 1.
Lastly, the demonstrative is thus placed before a participial
clause in Mk. xii. 24, ov Sia tovto irXavdade, fir] elh6Te<i Ta<i
^pa^a'i K.tX., on account of this . . . because i/e knovj not, etc. :
comp. Antiphon 6. 46, ovk aTre^/pdcfioi^jo tovtov avTov eucKU, ov^
rjyovfievoi fjue dnoKTelvai, k.t.X.^ (J elf 657.)
The use of the demonstrative pronoun in such phrases as ov fxcTa
TToAAas rauVas r/fxe/ja';, after (in) a few days (A. i. 5), presents no
difficulty. It is not based (as is still maintained by Kiihnol) upon a
transposition of ttoXv-s, but is to be explained in the same way as the
Latin phrase " ante hos quinque dies : " in Greek compare Achill.
lat. 7. 14, J)S oKiyoiV irpo Tovrutv r]fjiepu)v' Heliod. 2. 22, 97, ov TTpo
TToWwv TwvSe rj/xepCjv. Aurat rjp.i.paL are these days just now past, and
" ante hos quinque dies " properly means befoi'e the five days ftst past
— reckoned back from the present time. Thus the pronoun connects
the note of time with the present.^
The demonstrative in Ja. iv. 1 3, Tropcvcrw/At^a ets rrjvSc t^^v ttoAiv,
into this and that toicm, the commentators and lexicographers are
able to illustrate only by reference to the familiar expression 6 Setva ;
but oSc is used by Greek writers in exactly the same way, e. g.
Plutarch, Symp. 1. 6. 1, tt/vSc t^v rjfxepav, this and thai day.-^
The plural of the demonstrative pronoun, ravra, is not unfrequently
used in Greek in reference to a single object, and thus, strictly
speaking, stands for tuvto : Plat. Jpol. 19 d, Fha^dr. 70 d, Xen. Cyr!
5. 3. 19.'* We find examples of this in 3 Jo. 4 (where some MSS.
have the correction ravry^s, — see Liicke m loc.) and Jo. i. 51 ; but
certainly not in Jo. xix. 36, see Van Hengel, Annotai. p. 85 sq. In
L. xii. 4 /tera Tavra is afterwards, this formula having become simply
' See Maetzner, Antiph. p. 219, Schoem. laoeus p. 370.
^ [On the position of el see Jelf 738. 2. Ohs. '6 {not after many, but after few :
Meyer) ; and on that of ravrxs, Jelf 453. Obs. 2, Don. p. 352.]
^ fit is not easy to see why Tritli should not have its full force "as implying
an object in immeuiate prospect ; tve will travel to this city here " (Green p. 125) :
see also Alford in loc, A. Buttm. p. 103, and compare Grant, Aristot. Ethics, I.
372. The passage from Plutarch admits of a similar explanation.]
* See Schsef. Dion. p. 80 ; comp. also Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 524, Stallb. Plat.
Apol. p. 19 d, Maetzner, Antiphon p. 153. Fritzsche (Qucest. Lucian. p. 126)
thus qualifies this observation : plui'. poni de una re tautummodo sic, si neque
uUa ^mergat ambiguitas et aut universe, non definite quis loquatur, aut una res
plurium vi sit praedita. [See Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 131 sq., Jelf 381. Obs. 1]
202 EELATIVE PRONOUNS. [PART III.
adverbial. Nearly the same is to be said of the familiar phrase xai
Tttura idque, H. xi. 12. On 1 C. ix. 15 ^ see Meyer. '^^
In 1 C. vi. 11, KoX TavTo, Ttv€s rjTi, ravra may be used with an
implication of contempt, of such a sort, talis farina'- homines (Bernh.
p. 281, Stallb. Plat. Rival, p. 274). Yet this was perhaps remote
from the Apostle's thought, and ravra is often used with reference
to a series of predicates, of such a description, ex hoc genere fuistis.
Kypke and Pott in loc. have confounded usages which are quite dis-
similar.
In 1 Jo. V. 20 Liicke ^ thinks there is a prozeugma of the demon-
strati v^e pronoun, ovros Ifrnv 6 aXi]0Lv6<; Beos, koL (avTrj) ^wi] aiwvto? :
this is not impossible in itself, but, as I think, it is unnecessary.
Rent As regards the position of ovtos and cKetvos, it should be
remarked that the former, from the nature of the case, usually stands
hefore, the latter after the noun, — oilros o av$pwn-o<;, 6 avOpoinos ckcivo?.
W e find however the opposite oi'der : in the case of ovros (Mt. xxviii.
15 6 Adyos ouro?, L. i. 29, al.) without any substantial differeiice of
meaning; in the case of c*cetvo? (L. xii. 47, H. iv, 11) especially in
the connective formulas iv 6KciVat§ rais rjp.ipai's, iv iKUvq rfj rjfjicpa.
or wp^, iv iKuvta tQ KatpuJ (Gersdorf p. 4.33). But it must not be
supposed that any writer has so bound himself to one particular
arrangement that we are justified in altering the other when it is
supported by good MSS. or by the sense of the passage.*
Section XXIV.
RELATIVE PRONOUNS.
1. According to the law of attraction/ the relative pronoun
09 (never o<?Tf<? ^ in the IST. T.), when required by the governing
^ [Meyer refers Tovruv to the ilovrla, the plural having reference to the various,
forms of this power : so ;il.so Alf'ord. ]
2 In the same way, i(p' eJ; and avU' Zv are used in Greek where the singular
would be sufficient (Fritz. Rom. 1. 299).
^ Compare also Studkn und Krilik. II. p. 147 sqq.
* [The demonstrative pronouns in -S= are very seldom used in the N. T. In
the best texts oli occurs 10 times (7 times in Rev. ii. and iii.), and raiii^i once :
in most instances oh has its usual reference to v^'Xi^i follows (Jelf 655. 6).]
* See Herm. Vig. p. 891 sqq., Bernh. p. 299 sqq. Compare also G. T. A.
Kriiger's thorough examination of the subject (with immediate reference to
Latin) in his Uvtfrsuch. a. d. Gebkte de.r IcU. Sprachlelire (3 Hefte : Braunschw.
1S-27V K. W. Kiiiger prefers the term assimilation {Sprachl. p. 141). [Jelf
822,T>ou. 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.) :" </)ojv7/ is
1 [Jo. ii. 22, iv. f.O, H. x. 1, are doubtful.]
'•^ [Mk. xiii. 9 should be xiii. 19 (a.s in ed. 6) : en Tit. iii. 5 see Ellicott.]
3 Wahl, Clav. p. 360.
* Here however we mifjht <with Wahl) consider the genitive to be governed
by the omitted preposition S/a : see § 50. 7 (Jelf 650. 3).
* See Gieseler in Rosenni. RepeHor. II. 124: Aristoph. Pint. 1044, r«>.«;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<s d<irjX6€ Nwc cts r^v kl^wtov, is probably a condensation of
dxpi T^s Tjfji. rj et^XOev : similarly in L. i. 20, A. i. 2, 22.* We find
the same attraction of the dative of the relative (without a conden-
sation of the two clauses into one) in Lev. xxiii. 15, dTro ryjs rjixipas
rj^ av TTposeeyKTjTe" Bar. i. 19 : the phrase ^s i^^cpas, it is true, is
also used (on which day), but in the LXX the dative of time pre-
dominates.
2. We sometimes meet with instances of an inverse attrac-
tion, the nouu to which the relative refers being attracted into
the construction of the relative clause, and assuming the case in
"which the governing verb requires the relative to stand (Jelf
824, Don. p. 364). When this occurs, either
a. The noun precedes the relative clause: 1 C. x. 16, rov
aprov ov Kkwfiev, ovj^l Koivcovla rod crcofxaro'i ; Mt. xxi. 42 (from
the LXX), \i6ov ov airehoKi^acrav ol olKoSo/jLovvTe<;, ovra iye-
vrjOr} (1 P. ii. 7) ;^ L. xii. 48, iravrl u> 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<f>' 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.<p' %? h>^9r'i(ra'rt
X.T.K., Xen. An. 5. 10. 12, «^£/>a ?xr>» a<p' ris 'fpi^t. In A. i. 22, ius ^ni hii. f,s,
Meyer explains ris as a genitive of time. See Madvig I. c]
^ [In 1 F. ii. 7, x/^oj is probably the true reading.]
SECT. XXIV.] RELATIVE PRONOUNS. 205
drjaerai irap* avrov: probably also L. i. 72, 73, fjivrjaOfjvac Bca-
drjKT}^ dyLa<i avTov, 6p/cov ov (OfjLoae irpot; ^A^paa/u,' but pro-
bably not A. X. 36, see below § 62. 3.^ — Or
5, In position, as in construction, the noun is completely
incorporated with the relative clause : Mk. vi. 16, op iyco direxe-
^aXiaa 'lajdwiju, ovro^ icnc' Phil. 10, L. xix. 37. Rom. vi. 17,
vTTTiKovcraTe et? bv irapehoOrire tvttov hihajfryi, is an example of
this kind, — whether it be resolved into eh top tvttov 8i8a-^P]<i ov
TrapeSoBrjTe, an accusative with a passive, for S? TrapeSodr} vfiip
(for a similar attraction, by which the accusative of the more
remote object is affected, see Demosth. Mid. 385 c, Bikt]p d/xa
^ovKofxevoL \a^6tv, (ov eVi tmp dXKoip iredeavro dpaavv ovra'
where mp is for a, i.e. eV oh, as a complement of dpaavp opra, —
and Dion. Hal. 9. 565, dyapdKTqcn,<; vp.oiP irepl mp v^pl^eade vtto
Toiv TToXe/Aiwy Demosth. Ep. 4. p. 118 b) ; — or more simply (as
by Bornemann, Eilckert, Fritzsche, al.) into virrjKovaare {ru>)
TV7r(pStoa^t]<i et? op irapehoBrjTe, since the construction viraKoveip
TLvP is the only one that is suitable here. Even A. xxi. 16,
dyopTe<; irap a> ^6vi(r0d)fiep Mvdcrcopi, is explained by some as
an example of attraction, — d'yoPT6<i irapd Mpdacopa .... Trap'
w ^eviaOwfiep \ but see § 31. 5. On 2 C. x. 13 see § 59. 7.
Examples parallel to (a) : Hippocr. Morh. 4. 11, Td<i Trr]yd<;
a? oopofiaaa, avrat tw o-dofMUTc k.t.X., Lysias, Bon. Arist. p. 649,
JElian, Anim. 3. 13,' Her. 2. 1.06, Soph. Ul. 653, Track. 283,
Eurip. Bacch. 443 sqq., Aristoph. Flut. 200, Alciphr. 3. 59 :
the well-known passage in the jEneid (1. 577), urbeni quam
statuo vestra est; Tereut. Eunuch. 4. 3. 11, Sen. Ep, 53. See
Wetstein I. 468. From the LXX may be quoted Gen. xxxi.
16, rrjv So^ap Tjp d(f)€i\€ro 6 deo'i .... i^fxip e<Traf and Num.
xix. 22 : from the Acta Petri et Pauli (Thilo, Cod..Ap. 1. 7),
dpKel rjixlp TTjp OXl-^iP rjp €')(^ofX€P Trapd Uerpov. (Jelf 824. I.)
To (b) : Xen. An. 1. 9. 19, el' rtva opurr} KaraaKevd^opra rj^
dp'^oc %&>/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 7rt<rraii', ols
rjSeTO Koi S>v (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<ja of the words. The explanation proposed
by Bretschneider (Lex. Man. p. 220) is farfetched in more respects
than one.
In the following examples the antecedent is merely incorporated
with the relative clause, without change of case : Mt. xxiv. 44, rj
uypa ov SoKciTe, 6 rtos rov dvOpwirov €p)^€Tai (Gen. ii. 17, Ex. X. 28,
xxxii. 34, Num. vi. 13, xxx. 6), Mt. vii. 2, iv w yuerpw fjL^Tps'iTe,
l-i€Tpr]Or]creTaL vplv' Jo. xi. 6. Mk. XV. 12 (H. xiii. 11), L. i. 4; also
Rom. iv. 17, see above. When the clause containing the relative
and the noun stands first, Greek writers usually insert in the prin-
cipal clause a demonstrative corresponding to the noun, and also keep
relative and noun apart by placing some Avord between them (Kriig.
p. 144, Jelf 824. II.).
The following are examples of attraction, with omission of the
attracting word (demonstrative) : —
a. Where a preposition is present : H. v. 8, €fxa6cv dc/>' 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<i, 6 icTTt "TTfjaiTcopcov G. iii. 16, tcw airipfiari
aov, 09 ecTTi XptcTTO^' 1 Tim. iii. 15, eV oi/C(p 6eov, ijri.<; iarlv
iKKXrjala 6eov' E. vi. 17, i. 14, Ph. i. 28, E. iii. 13, firj eKKu/ceip
iv rai? dXlylrecrt jxov virep vjjuwv, i]Ti<; earl 86^a vfjuoip (for 6) ;
also 1 C. iii. 17, where Meyer needlessly finds a difficulty in
SECT. XXIY.J EELATIVE PRONOUNS. 207
otTiv€<i. Compare also the variants in Eev. iv. 5, v. 6, b. On the
other hand, see E. i. 23, rfj tKKkrjala, 7/Ti9 eVrt to acojxa avrov'
1 C. iv. 1 7, Col. i. 24, ii. 1 7. Some have wrongly referred to this
head Col. iii. 5, ^Ti9 eorlu elSwXoXarpeLa, taking t]ti<; for ariva
(fieXr)) ; the relative refers to TrXeove^la alone, see Huther in loc.
In Col. iii. 14, o seems the best reading, — a pure neuter, used
without reference to the gender of the preceding or of the
following noun : '^ on E. v. 5 see Eera. 1. In Mt. xxvii, 33 and
similar passages o is qvod (soil, vocahulum). The commentators
on H. ix. 9 are not agreed, but most now refer i]Ti<i to 77 irpooTr)
<TK7)V7j in ver. 8, so that the passage does not fall under this
rule. There is greater difference of opinion in regard to Col.
i. 27, but it is better to connect 09 with o 7r\ovTo<;, as the
principal word, than with fxvarrjpiov}
It would seem that the relative usually takes the gender of
the noun which follows
(1) Where this is regarded as the principal noun ; as when
the relative clause gives the proper names of things which in
the principal clause were mentioned in general terms (Mk. xv.
16,1 Tim. iii. 1 5 ; compare Pausan. 2. 1 3. 4, Cic. 'pro Scst. 42.91,
domicilia eonjuncta quas urbes dicimus) — especially in the case
of personal names (G. iii. 16, — compare Cic. Legg. 1. 7. 22,
animal, quern vocamus hominem).
(2) Where the relative should strictly have been a neuter,
used absolutely, as in E. iii. 13.
On the other hand, the relative retains the gender of the
noun in the principal clause when the relative sentence serves
to expand and illustrate the principal subject, containing some
predicate of it (E. i. 23, 1 C. iv. 17)."'' — See on the whole G.
Kriig. I.e. 90 sqq. ;* and as to Latin, Zumpt, Gramm. § 372,
Kritz, Sallust I. 292, [Madvig, Lat Gr. § 316.]
4. The relative pronoun appears to stand for the interroga-
tive in a direct^ question in Mt. xxvi. 50, eralpe, e<f (that
» [See Ellicott in loc, Jelf 820. 1.] •
* [The most recent editors read ri -rXoZro;, so that, whether we take this word
(Meyr) or fivtrrr.piev (Ellicott) as the antecedent, the gender would result from
attraction. The best texts, however, have instead of oV. ]
•'' romp. Bremi on Nep. Thrasyb. 2.
* [See Ellicott on E. i. 14, Madvig 98.]
* "Os occurs in an indirect question in Soph. (Ed. R. 1068 ; see Ellendt, Lex.
Soph. II. 872. Compare also Passow s. v. [For examples of o? after verbs of
208 RELATIVE PRONOUNS. [PART III.
is, eVt Tt, Aristoph. Lj/sistr. 1101) Trdpec. This misuse of the
relative belongs to declining Greek (Schsef. Bern. V. 285), and
similar examples with other relative pronouns are given by
Lobeck {Phryn. p. 57), — see also Plat. Alcib. I. p, 110 c:
there is however nothing very strange in such a usage if we
consider how closely qui and quis arp connected in meaning.
It is not known in good prose. In Plat. Men. 74 d, ri has
been substituted, apparently without MS. authority : on Plat.
Rep. 8. 559 a see Stallbaum. But it is not necessary on this
account to assume an aposiopesis in Mt. xxvi, 50 (Meyer),^ or
with Fritzsche to regard the sentence as an exclamation, " Vetus
sodalis, ad qualem rem perpetrandam ades ! " By the question
itself Jesus could fully set before the mind of Judas the
wickedness of his purpose.
There would be less difficulty in supposing (with Lachmann)
that o,Tt" stands for ri, i.e. Bta ri, in Mk. ix. 11, Xeyovra' 6,rL
Xeyouatv ol ypafx/naret^ k.t.X. ; as in Heliod. 4. 16, 7. 14 (quoted
by Lobeck, I. c), 09x^9 appears in a direct question. In the
N. T. however 6,r(, is never used as an interrogative pronoun
(certainly not in Jo. viii. 25, see § 54. 1), even in an indirect
question [§ 25. 1] ; and as another otl immediately follows, the
first may be an error of transcription for ri : see Fritzsche.^
knowing, declaring, etc., see Mt. vi. 8, Mk. v. S3, Jo. xviii. 21, A. xxii. 24, L. vi.
3 {aiiyvuTi o- compare Mt. xii. 3, iviyv. t/), Mt. xi. 4, L. viii. 47 (Her. 4. 131,
Plat. Men. 80 c. Her. 6. 124, Time. 1. 136, 137). With L. viii. 47, S/ «v a/r/av
n\Par(> 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<Z $€12' G. ii. 20, o Sk vw ^w iv (TapKL, iy tticttci ^a> 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.<is or kind to which an
object belongs, and hence its most common meaning is mhoever ; elsewhere it
may usually be rendered, a man who (a thing ivhich), a class of men u-ho, such
as, ofmch a kind as (Mk. xii. 18, Col. ii. 23, Ph. ii. 20, L. xxiii. 19). Hence
hrii often brings in an explanation or the statement of a cause (^sch. Prom.
14
210 INTERROGATIVE AND INDEFINITE PRONOUN Ti?. [PART III.
Section XXV.
THE INTERROGATIVE AND INDEFINITE PRONOUN Tt?.
1. The use of the interrogative pronoun rt?, ri, is in the
N. T. extended somewhat beyond its ordinary limits. Not only
is Tt? of very common occurrence in the indirect question and
after verbs of hioiving, iyiquiring, etc. (whilst o<irL^, o,Ti, is
never so used in the N. T.), but— especially in the neuter (rt)—
it is sometimes found where a Greek writer would certainly have
employed 6,ri,, so that the interrogative is weakened into our
wJuit. For examples of the former kind see Mt. xx. 22, L. xxiii.
34 (Mk. xiv. 36), Jo. x. 6, A. xxi. 33, Rom. viii. 26, Col. i. 27,
al.: compare Xen. Ci/r. 1. 1.6, 1.3.17, Mem. 1. 6. 4, al.^ (Jelf
877. Ohs. 2). Of the latter kind are Mt. x. 19, Bod/jcreTaL v/xtp
. . . Tt \a\7]<TeT€, quod dicatis, and L. xvii. 8, erolfiaaov, ji
BeiTTv/jaay, para, quod comedam (not g^idd comedarii, which would
hardly be allowable in Latin in this connexion) : compare Bernh.
p. 443. Only once do we find 6,tl, — in A. ix. Q>? 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<r«s, o7o;, 'oToloi, nx'iKoi, occur in the N. T. as indirect interroga-
tives (see 2 Tim. i. 18, 1 Th. i. 5, 1 C. iii. 13, Col. ii. 1), and also— with the
exception of ^x/xo;— as relatives. In H. i. 4, vii. 20 sqq., x. 25, Rev. xviu. 7,
ovoi is accompanied by its correlative toitoutos : oi«j follows Ta/ouro; in_ 1 C.
XV. 48, ah (TTiXixoyris, Rev. xvi. 18?): oiraloi follows rotouTos in A. xxvi. 29.
—It may be mentioned here that of the neuter of Toirovros, toiouto;, both
forms occur in the N. T., according to the best MSS.]
1 Herm. ^nchyl p. 461, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II, t523.
■^ ["o,T( is received here by the best editors.]
'■' LZuuipt § 562, Madvig, Lat. Gr. § 363.J
SECT. XXV.] INTEllKOGATIVE AND INDEFINITE PRONOUN Ti?. 211
express the notion of having or possessing, — "■ tliat which they
might eat, they have not : " in the former, the notion of an
inquiry is also conveyed (and hence haheo quid must sometimes
be rendered Iknoio what), — " inquiring what they are to eat, they
have not (anything to eat)." Similar examples are Xen. Cyr.
6. 1. 48, ovK tx<o TV tieii^ov Hell. 1. 6. 5, Soph. (lid. Col. 317,
ovK e%&> 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<w ; xxi. 31,
Tis eK Twv Svo iTrnirjfTe ; 1j. vii. 42, xxii. 27, Ph. i. 22. Similar ex-
amples are to be found in Greek writers,^ who are not so accurate in
' [On tlie passages in which ris has been supposed to stand for the relative
))ronoun in the ^i. T., see A. Buttmann p. 251 sq. : sec also Jell" 877, and Rest
and Falin, Lex. s. v. Compare Deniosth. Dioni/s. p. 1290, UXjyo^svo; rivuv n'l
Tt/io.) iTiriTccvTa' Fals. LciJ. p. 133 sq., t'i nraf v/jlIv i\pnip'(rra.i, tout i'riTr,fovy
K.T.X.}
" [De "VVette and Meyer treat the first clause as a question : Ewald and
A. Buttmann regard r'r^a. ("or t/) as used for the relative, and Meyer allows that
this is grammatically admissible. Compare Ecclus. vi. 34, Ps. xxxix. 6, Lt'v.
xxi. 17, Dt. xxix. 18 (Tisch. X. T. p. lix, ed. 7 ; Field, LXX \>. 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]<yetT0 rj aKpareia rivl rj ahiKia rj afieXeia cnr^Lvai, from,
a certain (a kind of) weakness or injustice, etc., Plut. C'oriol. 14,
Hence we meet with it when a writer is using a figure which is
uncommon or too bold; as in Ja. i. 18, aTrap^i] rt? qucedam
(qusisi) primitice (Buttm. I. 579, Schoem. Plut. Agis p. 73).
(&) To numerals, when the number is to be taken approxi-
mately and not exactly: A. xxiii. 23, Bvo Tivd<i about two, xix. 14;
see Schfef. Dem. Ill 269, Matth. 487. 4 (Jelf 659, Don. p. 380).
(c) To adjectives of quality and quantity, with rhetorical
emphasis : H. x. 2 7, f^o^epd ri^ iKhUr)a-L<i terrihilis qucedamf
^ [T/f is sometimes used in the sense of <rar»y both in the N. T. (as L.
iv. 36) and in classical Greek : see Herm. Vig. p. 731, Shilleto, Dem. Fals.
Leg. p. 14. It was at one time supposed that -yrolo! frequently stands for t/s
in the N. T., but in most of the passages quoted in proof of this (e. g. Rom.
iii. 27, A. iv. 7), if not in all, the qualitative force of -mlos may be traced with
more or less distinctness. In modei-n Greek -roTos is frequently used in the
same sense as tU : see Mullach, Vulg. pp. 58, 209.]
2 Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 101, "Weber, Dem. p. 192.
^ Klotz, Cic. Led. p. 142, ^"auck in Jahns Jahrb. vol. 52. p. 183 sq.
SECT. XXV.] INTERROGATIVE AND INDEFINITE PEONOUN Tt?. 213
a right terrible {very terrible) 2ynnishment ; ^ compare Lucian,
Philop. 8, (f)o^€p6v Tt deafia- Diod. S. 5. 39, iwL'irovo'i rt? ^/o?-
yEscliin. Dial. 3. 17, Xen. Cyr. 1. 6. 14, 6. 4. 7,Heliod. 2. 23.
y9, Lucian, Dial M. 5. 1, Plutarch, Phoc. c. 13.^ Sd of per-
sons in A. viii. 9, ti€^a<; Tt<; a very great man (Xen. Eph. 3. 2,
Athen. 4. 21, al.).^ Compare A. v. S6,\ey(ov€lvaLTLva eavrov
that he is some one (of consequence, — really something) : see
Bernh. p. 440, Krug. p. 1 5 1, Jelf I. c. Obs. 1. In Latin quidam
is similarly used, and also — where there is no substantive or
adjective to be strengthened — aliquis, e. g. " aliquem esse," Cic.
Att. 3. 15.
Ha? Ti? does not occur in the N. T. ; some woiJd introduce
it in 1 C. ix. 2 2 (for irdvTtn'i rivd^) * on the testimony of a few
authorities, but without necessity, and even without any critical
probabiliiy. Eh ri^, unus aliquis, may be emphatic in Jo.
xi. 49,
The neuter n, aliquid, may be used with emphasis in Mt. xx. 20,
for aliquid magni (see Fritz, in loc), but this is not probable. The
pronoun must however be so taken in the formula elvai n, G. ii. 6,
vi. 3, al., as in the famihar Latin phrase aliquid esse. In every case
it is the connexion that gives the emphasis- (compare Herm. Fig.
p. 731), and hence the subject belongs to the province of rhetoric:
Tt Ae'yftv, Ti 7rpdfsa-f.Lv, are particularly common in Greek writers.
Kem. Tt9 may stand either before or after its substantive, as rts
aviqp A. iii. 2, avTjp Tts A. V. 1, X. 1 : the latter is the more asual
position in the N. T. It has been doubted (Matth. 487. 6, Jelf 660)
whether tis can be the first word of a sentence ; Hermann however
{Emend. Rat. p. 95) sees nothing objectionable in this position of
the pronoun. In the N. T. comjiare 1 Tim. v. 24, tlvwv av6pu)Tru)v
at afiapTLai irpoSrjXoL itaiv .. Ttcriv Se k.t.X., A. xvii. 18, xix. 31.
The abbreviated forms rov, tw (Buttm. I. 301, Jelf 156) are not
found in the N. T. : they have been introduced by some into 1 C.
XV. 8, 1 Th. iv. 6, but wrongly.
1 [" Bernhardy's account of this usage {Syntax -p. 442) seems to be the
true one, that it has the power of a doubled adjectival sense, and generalises
the quantity predicated, indicating some one of that kind, it maybe anyone. . .
The iiidefiniteness makes the declaration more awful." Alford on H. x. 27.
See also Delitzsch in loc, Jelf/. c. — The word Ix^iKn^,; above should be Ix.'Sox'i:
it is curious that this mistake should have escaped correction in all the German
editions.]
- Compare Boisson. Nket. p. 268.
^ In these cases tis is our [indefinite article] ein emphasised ; as we can say
in German, das war eine Freude, tJtat was a joy (a great joy), das ist ein Mann,
that is a man (a strong, able man).
* See Boisson. Eunajx p. 127,
214 HEBEAISTIC MODES OF EXPRESSING PRONOUNS. [PART III.
Section XXVI.
HEBRAISTIC MODES OF EXPRESSING CERTAIN PRONOUNS.
1. In accordance with the Hebrew idiom,^ the X. T. writers
sometimes use ov (fxrj) . . . ira? in the place of ouSet?, yuT^Sei?,
always however placing the negative in direct connexion with
the verb of the sentence: Mt. xxiv. 22, ovk av icwOrj iraaa
adp^' Eoni. iii. 20, e^ epycov vofiov ov BiKaiooOijo-eTai iraaa <jap^'
L. i. 37, OVK aBvvaTTjaet irapa rod 6eou ttolv p^fia' 1 C. i. 29,
OTTtw? fiT) Kavyy'jarjTai iraaa adp^ /c.t.X. ; compare also Rev. xxi.
27, ov fir] ehekOrj et? avrr/v irdv kolvoV A. x. 14, ovheirore
€<f)a<yoi> 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)/ju8a<i
Kal KpdvT) KoX fjuw^^^aipLov . . . . Bopv K.r.X., Cyr. 4. 3. 11,
Eurip. Cycl 225, Thuc. 3. 22, 4. 4, 6. 58, Pol. 3. 49. 12, ^1.
Anim. 5. 4; compare Cic. Bah. 4. 11, Sen. Ep. SV. In the
LXX compare Gen. xlviii. 12, Lev. x. 6, Jud. xiii. 20, Lam.
ii. 10, 2 Chr. xxix. 6 : see also Testam. Pair. p. 565.^ In the
N. T., as elsewhere, the plural is the form ordinarily used (so
also in L. xxiv. 5, A. i. 10^). See, in general, Elmsley on
Eur. Med. 264, Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 158.
The collective use of the singular must not be extended beyond
its natural limits. In 1 C vi. 5, SiaKplvai ava ixiaov tou dScA</)o{i,
Tov dS. does not stand for t^5 dSeA^oTiiTo? : nor would anything be
gained by such a supposition, for dva /aectov between should be fol-
lowed by the mention of particular individuals, not of a collective
whole. (Mt. xiii. 25 is a different case.) We should have dva /xcVov
dScAt^oG Koi aStX(f>ov (Gen. xxiii. 15), or toiv a8eX.<jiu)v airov (see
Grotius, — compare Pol. 10. 48. 1), or else the structure is faulty
through excessive conciseness. Even in Meyer's explanation it
is implied that the expression is incorrect, as it is also without
example.
2. Conversely, the plural of the class (masculine or femi-
nine) is used where the writer wishes to express himself gene-
^ 1 cannot bring in here iiro or -rfo rrpisu'rou a.hruv or vfiZv, xxtoc -prp. ■ravrav,
etc. (L. ii. 31, A. vii. 4.5, Ex. xxxiv. 11, Dt. iii. 18, vii. 19, viii. 20, al.), as
these phrases had already become mere adverbs.
" In 1 Th. i. 7, msti yaiirlat h(jLa,% rv-rov 'Xa.cn roli -riffTiioufiv, the singular
is quite regular, becau.se Paul is thinking of the church as a whole. 1 C. x. 6,
11 [Rec], 1 P. V. 3, are of a different kind ; here the singular would be inap-
propriate.
^ [In these two passages Rec. has the singular, the best MSS. the plural.]
SBCT. XXVII.] NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 219
rally, though the predicate directly refers to one individual
only : Mt. ii. 20, redvrjKaa-iv ol ^rirovvTe<i rrjv ■^v^^rjv tov TraiBiov,
though Herod the Great alone is meant (ver. 1 9) ; comp. Ex. iv.
19, and see -^Eschyl. From. 67, Eurip. Hec. 403, ^schin. adv.
Timarch. 21, and Brenii in loc} On the other hand, in Mt.
ix. 8, eho^aaav tov 6 gov tov Bovtu i^ovcrtav TocavTtjv Tot?
avOpoiiTOL^, the reference is certainly not to Chriat alone ; the
words must betaken quite generally, as in H. ix. 23. In Mt.
xxvii. 44, ol XijaTaL, \ve must recognise a different tradition
, fi-om that followed in L. xxiii. 39.^ In 1 C. xv. 29, vTrcp t&v
veKpcov can hardly refer to (the dead) Christ, — in that case we
should have had eh tov^ v€Kpov<i, — but must be understood of
(unbaptised) dead men.
In A. xiii. 40, to elpiifxevov cv toi? vpo(f>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 i<yKaivia, yevea-ia, d^v/xa {Ilavadrjvaia, Satur-
nalia^) ; 7a/iot nuptials, Mt. xxii. 2, L. xii. 36 (compare Tob.
xi. 20*); oyfroovia wages, Rom. vi. 23 (Fritz. JRom. I. 428),
and dpjvpia pieces of money, shekels, Mt. xxvi. 15, xxviii. 12.
When the names of countries or cities are plural, the cause
must be sought in the (original) plurality of the provinces
{Gallice) or of the distinct parts of the city, as ^Adrjvai, Tldrapa,
^IXiTTTToi, and probably rd 'lepocroXv/ia.^ Lastly, the plural
of those nouns which denote a feeling, a disposition, or a state,
expresses the forms or acts in which these are manifested : 1 P.
ii. 1, dirodepLGvoi irdcrav KaKiav . . . k. vTroKpLcret^ k. ^Oovovi
K. 7rdaa<i KaraXaXtd<i' 2 C. xii. 20, epi?, ^rjXo^, Ov/J-oi, ipidelai,
KaraXaXial, ■\ln6vpiafx,0L, <f)v(ncoa€t<i, dKaTaaraalat' 2 C. xi. 23,
eV 6avdroL<i TroWa/ct?' E. vi. 11, G. v. 20, 1 P. iv. 3, Ja: ii. 1
(2 C. ix. 6), Jude 13, 1 C. \di. 2.^ Thus the plural oUripfioi,
^''^Dp., is more common than the singular, which is found once
only (Col. iii. 12 v. Ij): E. ii. 3, deX^p,ara Tri<i crapKot;, also
comes in here.^
The plural of alfia Mood occurs Jo. i. 13 (with reference to natural
generation) : the only direct parallel to this is found in a poetical
1 Schneider, Lat. Gr. II. 476.
2 [These two references are wrong. In ed. 5, AViner gives Mt. xxvii. 31,
Mk. V. '60, Jo. xiii. 4, 12, A. xviii. 6 : hence we should probably read here Jo.
xix. 23, xiii. 4, A. xviii. 6.]
3 Poppo, Thuc. III. iv. 20.
* [A mistake, probably for viii. 20, or xi. 18.]
* Comp. Nobbe, Schedce Ptolem. I. 22. [See also Smith, Diet, of Bible
I. 982.]
^ Fritz. Rom. III. 6, Krltz, Salhist I. 76.
' [Here the plural has the support of one oiily (K) of the uncial MSS.]
* On the whole subject see Jacobs, Act. Fhilol. Monac. I. 154 sq., Schoem.
riut. Agis p. 75 sq., Stallb. Plat. Rep. II. 368, Heinichen, Euseb. III. 18 sq.,
Beruh. p. 62 sq. (Jelf 355, Don. p. 367).
SECT. XXVII.] NUMDER AND GEXDER OF NOUNS. 221
passage, Eur. Ion 693, but the plural in itself presents no more
difficulty in the case of alfia than in that of other fluids, as ra vSara
and Ttt yoAa/cra, Plat. Legg. 10. 887 d (Jelf 355). In Eev. xviii. 24
al^ara is a real plural. The plural is not used for the singular in
al ypa<f)ai, ra Upa ypd/xfjiaTa ; or in al SiaOrJKat Rom. ix. 4, E. ii 12,
the covenants •which God repeatedly made in the patriarchal age,
with Abraham, with Jacob, through Moses (compare "Wis. xii. 21,
2 Mace. viii. 15). 'ETrayycAtat, H' vii. 6, must be similarly explained.
Neither in these words, nor in Jo. ix. 3, 2 C. xii. 1, 7, nor in H.
ix. 23 (where the language is general), can we assume the existence
of a Hebraistic pluralis majestatis.
Ta crd^/3aTa, where the weekly day of rest is meant (Mt xii. 1,
L. iv. 16, al.), either is a transcript of the Aramaic snac', or is
formed according to the analogy of names of festivals. With more
reason might dyca dyioiv, used in H. ix. 3 for the most holy place
of the temple of Jerusalem, be regarded as a pluralis excellentice ;
unless indeed (vrith. Erasmus and others) we prefer the accentuation
dyta dytwv (compare SfiAaia SetAaicuv, Soph. £1. 849). But though
in the Pentateuch this part of the Israelitish sanctuary is called to
dytov Twv ctyuov (Ex. xxvi. 33, Num. iv. 4, compare Joseph. ArM.
3. 6. 4), yet in 1 K. viii. 6 this very (pl'i.ral) form rd dyta twi/ dytW
is used in the same sense. ^ We may compare the Latin penetralia,
adyta (Virg. ^n. 2. 297).
As to Ph. ii. 6, TO ilvai ta-a $e(2, where ta-a is used adverbial!}-,
compare the classical usage of the word, //. 5. 71, Odyss. 1. 432,
15. 520, Soph. (Ed. R. 1179, Thuc. 3. 14, Philostr. Ap. 8. 26, al. ;
and see Reisig, (Ed. Col, 526 (Jelf 382. 1).
4. The dual of the noun is not found in the N. T. '^ (except in
the numeral ^vo), the plural being used in its place, — even with
8^0, see Mt. iv. 18, xviii. 9, xxvi. 37, Jo. iv. 20 [40 ?], A. xii. 6,
aL Indeed in later Greek generally the dual form is rare. In
liev. xiL 14, rpe^erai Kaipov Kal Kaipov<; Kal TjfMia-v Kat.pov,th.e
plural by itself denotes two years : this is an imitation of the
Chaldee r?"7V in the Greek versions of Dan. vii. 25.^ Standing
thus between a year and half a year, the plural was allow-
ably made to signify two years. The use of ')(p6vo^, ^ovoi,
in the sense of year, years, becomes more and more common
1 [Not in thi.s passage only : see Num. iv. 19, 2 Chr. iv. 22, v. 7 (quoted by
Bleek. in loc. ). ]
* [It is not found in the LXX, or in modern Greek : see MuUach, Vulg. p.
149 sq.]
* It should be noticed that the Chaldee has (as a rule) no dual : see my
Chaldee Grammar p. 77. ["As a rule "—because '| the few dual forms are
borrowed from the Hebrew, and are found only in Biblical Chaldee."]
222 NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. [PART IH.
in later Greek: see also Evang. Aiwcr. pp. 60, Gl, Epiphaii.
Mon. 29. 28.
Boniemann discovers a trace of the dual in A. xv. 1 2, in a reading
i^rj-yov/^ui-oy (with v added above the line) found in a single MS., —
from which Tischendorf quotes the reading i^qyoviievoi, — and is ready
to greet this number Iceto animo !
5. The neuter singular or plural is sometimes found where
persons are referred to, the writer wishing to make his state-
ment altogether general (Jelf 436. 2) : 2 Th. ii. ^,to Ka-rk-^ov
oUBare (in ver. 7, 6 Kare')(wv) ; H. vii. 7, to eXarrov vtto rov
Kpelrrovo^ evXayelrat (Theodor. m loc.) ; .L. i. 35, 1 C. i. 27, 28,
ra ficopa rov Kocr/xov . . . ra aaOevrj ra i^ovSevrjfjbeva (in ver. 26
ol a-o<poi); Jo. vi. 37, 1 Jo. v. 4 (compare ver. 1) : so also in 1 C.
xi. 5, but not in Col. i. 20, H. vii. 19, Jo. iii. 6, see the more
recent commentators. In Rom. xi. 32 tou9 Trai/ra? is the estab-
lished reading. Similarly in Tlnic. 3. 1 I, ra Kparia-ra iirl rov<i
VTroBeearepov^i ^vveirt^yov Xen. An. 7. 3. 11, tu fieu (ftevyovra
KOL (iTroBiSpda-Kovra rifiei^ iKavol iaofMeOa BiuiKeLv Kal fiaareveiv,
rjv Be T/-? dvdLcrrijrai k.t.X}
6. The neuter seems to be used for the feminine in ML xii.
28, TTola icrrlv evToXr} 7rpa>Tr} 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<i re aXXa^; 7roA.et9 koI irduratv fidXicrra ttjv
"AvTuvBpov : see D'Orville, Charit. p. 549 sq., Porson, Eur.
Pluj&n. 121, Fritz, on Mk. /. c. "VVe cannot however say (wi-th
1^'Orville /. c. p. 292 sq.) that in A. ix. 37, XovcravTe^ aur'qv
eOrjKav, the masculine XovaavTe<i is used for Xovcraaat, because
the women attended to tJie washing of the corpse. Tlie
writer's language is quite general ^ and impersonal: they vjashed
and laid. If Luke had wished to notice the custom with his-
torical precision, he must have express;3d himself more circum-
stantially. Con) pare Xen. Mem. 2. 7. 2, avveXrjXvOaaiv . . .
^ Poppo, Thvc. I. 104, Seiiller, Eur. Troad. y. 01, Kritz, Sail. II. 69.
*[A. Butlm. ]t. 374, Uieeii p. 109: A. Buttiiiaiiii compares Iv roTs, whicli is
joined to a siiporlittive without clianci' oi" gender ^Don. p. 396), as iv to7; TkiTtrTui
Thuc. 3. 17. See further Aiford on Mk. i. c]
•■' Herm. Soph. Trwhln. p. 39 (Jelf 379. Oh.<. 1).
SECT. XXVJI.] NUMBER AIhD GENDER OF NOUNS. 223
uSeX<pai Te Kai u8e\<f}t,Sal Kal aveyjnal Toa'avrat, M<iT elvai iv ry
ol/cia recaapa kci i^€Ka tov<; iXevdepovi, fourteen free perso7is,
wliere the iTiasculiiie is used, although, as it appears, these free
persons are women : Suet.iV^^T. 33, acceptum a quadam Locusta,
veneriariorum inclita. (In L. xxii. 58 and Mt. xxvi. 7 1 we have
two different accounts ; see Meyer.^)
The masculine does not stand for tlie feminine in Gen. xxiii. 3,
aviaTTj A/3paa/x utto tov i'€Kpov uvtov' or in ver. 4, Odif/o} tov v eKpov
fxov (ver. 16), though Sarah is meant; or in Snsan. 61, eVouycrav
ovrois ov TpoTTOv lirovrjpixfTavTo tw TrA^yo-iov, though Susanna is meant.
With Gen. xxiii.-' compare Soph. A/dig. 830, </)(///x€Va» (vulg. KftOLn^va)
Tois l(TobiOL<i lyKXrjpa Xu^^uv fityoi : for a cooyst the Greeks ahvays use
o v€Kp6<i, never the feminine. See further Ilerm. Soph. Antlg. pp.
114,176. (Jelf 390. 1. c.)
Kem. 1. In Eom. xi. 4, a quotation from the 0. T. (1 K. xix.
18), we meet with tlie feminine 17 BaaA (Hos. ii. 8, Zeph. i. 4). It
is not probable that this form was chosen for the sake of expressing
contempt, in the same way as the feminine forms of the names of
idols are said to be used in Arabic and by Kabbinical writers (?).3
In this particular pi ssage the LXX has tw BauA, but Paul, who is
quoting from memoiy, might easily write 17 BuoA, a form which he
had found in some passages of the LXX (though the MSS. vaiy
now) : Iviickert is in perplexity, as he often is. It was after all a
matter of indifference whether the male or the female Baal should
be mentioned. — The feminine p,ot.xaX&€%, Ja. iv. 4, in the midst of a
general address, is explained by Tlieile by reference to 0. T. usage :
against this see De Wette. Theie is no decisive external evidence
for the omission of /xoixoi Kai ; and to refuse to admit an error of
transcription, even when similar words come together, is to carry
reverence for the (remaining) ])rincipal MSS. too far.*
Rem. 2. When a noun of any gender is taken in a material sense,
as a lomd, it is joined Avith the neuter article : as G. iv. 25, t6"A-/u/j,
the (word) Hagar.^ The feminine may seem to be used for the
neuter in -r) ohai. Rev. ix. 12, xi. 14 ; but the writer probably had
some such word as 6X1x111% or TaXantiapia before his mind.
Rem. 3. On the adverbial use of the fenunine adjective (as in
i8ta, KaT Ihiav, etc.), see i:? 54.
' [See howcvc-r Alford on Mt. xxvi. 69 ; l»ut especially Wcstcott, St. John py>.
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<i (comp. § 30) ; iroXefielv fierd TLvo<i, instead
of Tivi; KaTTjyopelv and eyKaXetv Kardnvo^ (L. xxiii. 14,Eom,
viii. 3 3), for tlvl ; ^ iyeipeiv nvd ek ^aaiXea, A. xiii. 2 2 (§ 3 2) ;
^a<ri\eveiv eiri nvc or Tivd (?V 'H^?), for Ttj/09 ; dOcoo^; with utto,
in the place of the simple genitive.^ In the LXX compare
(fyelBeaOuL eVi Tivi, or Tivo<;, or inrep Tivo<i (pV D^n).
This use of prepositions in the place of cases is, however, a general
feature of (antique) simplicity, and is therefore found not only in
the earlier Greek poets (as Homer), but also in the prose writers (as
Lucian).* Hence also for several expressions of this kind parallels
may be produced even from good writers, — e. g. for Travciv airo, com-
pare Matth. 355. Rem. 1.^
1 Hermann, De Emend. Rat. I. 137 sqq., Bernhardy p. 74 sqq. There is a
monograph on the subject by J. A. Hartnnp, Ueber die Casus, ihre Bildung und
Bedeutung in der griech. u. lat. Sprache (Erlang. 1831) : and another by Rumpel,
Ueber die Camslehre in Beziehung auf die griech. Sprache (Halle 1845).
[Donalds. New Crat. p. 428 sqq., Oramm. p. 464 .sqq., Clyde, Oreek Synt. pp.
23 -sqq., 38 : compare Jelf 471 sqq.]
^ Somewhat as the Byzantines say ayavccKruv or ifyiZ'-'S'^t Kara r/vaj, or like
ipylXirSti vfo; rivm Dio. Chr. 38. 4/0.
3 Krebs, Obs. e Josepho p. 73 sq. [Liinemann adds (tvilaUi Iv, Ph. iv. 12.]
* See Jacob, QucBst. Lucian. p. 11 sq.
^ [This excessive use of prepositions may have been then, as now, a character-
istic of the popular spoken language ; see J. Donaldson in Kitto, Cycl. II. 171.
For many examples of this kind in modem Greek see MuUach, Vulg. p. 323
sqq., Sophocles, Gramm. p. 152 sqq.]
SECT, XXVIir.] THE CASES IN GENERAL, 225
2. There is in reality no such thing as the use of one case
in the place of another {enallage casuuvi) ; but sometimes two
cases may be used in the same connexion with equal correctness,
if the relation is such that it can be viewed in two different
ways. Thus we may have 'Aao-vpLo^ ru> 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; ovro<i . . ,
ovK othafxev ri 'ye'yov<iv avroj (see § 28. 3) :^ — or
(b) Is simply inserted in the sentence as a name (nominativus
tituli), as if a mere (indeclinable) sound : Jo. xviii. 10, rjv 6i>o/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 <jenUiois et daf. absol. (Vratisl. 1828). [See Jelf
477, 695, 699 sq., Clyde, Greek. Syiit. p. 144 s«i(i.]
' [See §63, 1. 2. d, Jelf 477.]
* In all the earlier editions and in Laehmann's we find iXaiut. I cannot
agree with Fritzsche \Mark, ji. 794 sq.] in pronouncing this accentuation de-
cidedly incorrect. By Luke, who designed his Gospel for foreign readers, the
Mount of Olives, .suflieiently wcW known in Palestine, might very well be men-
tioned for the first time as the so called Mount of Olives, just as in A. i. 12 :
the phrase vph to opo: to Xsy. Ixaiuv when resolved becomes to Xiy. cfo; iXcHuv,
SECT. XXIX.] NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 227
compare 1 S. ix. 9, tov irpo^y'jrriv eKuXei 6 Xao<; e^irpoadev 6
^Xiircov Malal. 18. 482, 10. 247; see Lob. p. 517.' Con-
trast A. i. 12, diro 6pou<i rov KaXovfiepou 'EXaiayvo^. (J elf 475.
Obs. 1.)
Usually however, when the construction requires an oblique case,
the writer expresses the name in this case (simply interposing 6v6-
fiari), and thus brings the name into the regular construction of the
sentence. See A. xxvii. 1, kKarovTapxd ovoixan 'lovXiv^- ix. 11, 12,
tti'Spa 'Avavt'av ovojxaTi cistA^ovra (xviii, 2, Mt. xxvii. 32, L. V. 27), A.
xviii. 7, oiKt'a Ttvo? ovofxaTL 'loucrrov ; also Mt. i. 21, 25, KoAfVei? to
ovojxa avTov 'hja-ovf, L. i. 13 (in apposition to ovo/jlo) ; and even Mk.
iii. 16, eTredrjKev ovofxa tS 2i/Aa)vi IleVpov. — In Plut. Cwiol. 11, different
modes of expression are combined.
In Eev. i. 4, the nominative 6 wv k. 6 -^v «. o cpxoVfi'os (nin'', the
UncMngeahle Om !), is designedly treated as an indeclinable noun ;
see § 10.
2. The nominative (with the article) is sometimes used in an
address, particularly in calling or commanding, thus taking
the place of the vocative, the case framed for such purposes.^
Examples of this usage, which really coincides with that men-
tioned in 1 (a), are found in the N. T.: Mt. xi. 26, vai, 6 irarrjp
(e^o/jLoXo'yoifp.aL aoi, ver, 25), on ouroyf; iyivero' H. i. 8, x. 7 (in
the LXX compare Ps. xlii. 2, xxi. 2); especially with an impera-
tive, L. viii, 54, t; Trat? eyeipe' Mt. xxvii. 29, %ai/3e 6 ^aaiXevf;
T. TouS., Jo. xix. 3, Mk. v. 41, ix. 25, E. vi. 1, Col. iii. 18, Eev.
vi. 1 0. This mode of expression may have originally been some-
ad montem qui clicit-ur olivarum, and hence the article wonld very naturally be
omitted with iXaiuv. Perhaps, however, the translator of the Peshito Syriac
read '^Xaiuy : in this passage his reading is |Zul ^ » '"'^ j^^ZiiDj pQ-^, as
in A. i. 12 ; but in Mt. xxi. 1, xxi v. 3, al., for epo^ tZi IXaiiLv, he has simply
|Aj1) 1'^-^- [What is here said of L. xix. 29 is also true of L. xxi. 37 : the
latter verse is thus quoted by Tertullian {adv. Marc. 4. 39), "Sed enira per
diem in templo docebat ; ad noctem vero in elceonem secedebat. " The argument
from the Syriac Version is somewhat weakened by the fact that the translator
introduces ^ » *~^ ("mens loci olivarum," instead of " mons olivarum ") not only
in L. xix. 29, xxi. 37, A. i. 12, but also in L. xix. 37, xxii. 39 (t. 'dp. tZ*
iXaion). Lachmanu is wrongly quoted above in favour of iXatZv : in both
editions he reads -ui, which form most editors (but not Westcott and Hort)
now receive in the two passages referred to. With A. i. 12 compare Joseph.
Ant. 7. 9. 2 ; with L. xix. 29, Ant. 20. 8. 6, Bell. Jad. 2. 13. 5 (Grimm, Clavis
s. v.). — A striking example of the nominat. titidi is found in Jo. xiii. 13 ; see
also Rev. ix. 11.]
^ So even t^v av^puTOTOKo; <(iu*ny, Theodoret IV. 1304 ; t^» (iii
vpoinyop'tav. III. 241, lY. 454. In such cases the Romans always use the
genitive, — a fact which is usually overlooked by modern writers of Latin.
2 Fischer, Wtlkr III. 1. 319 sq. ; Markland, Eur. Jph. Aid. 446. [Jelf
76. 6, Green pp. 9, 85.]
228 NOMINATIVE A.ND VOCATIVE. [PART IIL
what rough and harsh (Bernh. p. 67), and may even retain this
character wherever it is used by the Greek prose writers ; but
in later Greek it is found where there is no special emphasis,
even in very gentle address (L. xii. 32, firj (po^ov, to fxiKphv
irocuviov viii. 54, Bar. iv. 5), and in prayers (L. xviii. 11, H.
X. 7). Jo. XX. 28, however, though directed to Jesus {(direv
avTw), is yet rather an exclamation than an address : ^ such
nominatives appear early and very distinctly in Greek writers
(Bernh, I.e., Krlig. p. 14, Jelf 476. Ohs.). Similarly in L. xii,
20 (with the reading a^pwv, — also 1 C. xv. 3 6, where there is not
much authority for d(ppov}; in Ph. iii. 18, 19, ttoWoI yap irept,-
iraTovaiv, ovs TroWa/ct? eXeyou . . . tou9 i'^Opov'i rov aravpov
Tov Xpcarov, mv to t€Xo<; airwiXua . . . oi ra i-rriyeca (f)po-
vovvTe<;;'^ and perhaps in Mk. xii. 38-40, ^eirere diro Todv
ypafijxarecov, twv OeXouroov . , , KaX dairacr/xovs , . , Kal irpa-
TOKadeBpia'i . . . oi KareaO iovres rd.'i oiKia^' . . . . ovrot
Xtj-ij/'ovtai Trepio-arorepov Kpifxa' though here ol KaTcaOiov-
Te? might be joined with ovtol XijyjrovTai.^ In Eev, xviii. 20
the vocative and the nominative are found in connexion.
3. The vocative however is used by the N. T. writers in
addresses much more frequently than the nominative. It is
sometimes accompanied by w, but more commonly stands alone.
'i2 occurs only in addresses (A. i. 1, xxvii. 21, xviii. 14, 1 Tim.
vi 1 i), mostly in connexion with an adjuration or an expression
of blame* (Rom. ii. 1, 3, ix. 20, 1 Tim. vi. 20, Ja. ii, 20, G,
iii. 1), or in exclamations, as L. xxiv. 25, A. xiii. 10. A simpfe
call or summons is expressed by the vocative without w: L. xiii,
12, xxii. 57, [Acts] xxvii. 10, Mt. ix. 22, Jo. iv. 21, xix. 26, A,
xiii. 15, xxvii 25, Even at the beginning of a speech, where
' On this verse see Alford and Westcott : see also Green p. 86.]
* [Compare EUicott in loc, who explains this "as an emphatic return to the
primary construction of the sentence ((raXXaJ yap -rs/w*.):" see further Alford
in loc.^ and below § 63 I. 2. In Mk. xii. 40 Bengel, Meyer, Lachm., Tisch.,
Treg., Westcott and Hort, join el nartrfioyns with tSrai : the other connexion
is defended by Alford and A. Buttmann (p. 79).]
* Hermann says (Prcef. ad Eurip. Androm. p. 15 sq,) : mihi quidem ubiqud
nominativus, quern pro vocativo positum volunt, nou vocantis sed declarautis
esse videtnr : o tu, qui es talis. This would apply to some of the above pas-
sages, but not to all, and the remark is probably intended to refer directly to
the poets only.
* Lob. AJcuc 451 sq. : see Fritzsche, Arlsloph. I. 4.
SECT. XXIX.] NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 229
the Greeks reguLarly prefix co, the vocative commonly stands by
itself in the N. T. : as A. i. 16, ii. 14, iii. 12, xiii. 16, xv. 13.
(See however Franke, Demosth. p. 193.) ^
An adjective joined to a vocative stands in the same case, as Ja.
ii. '20, w avOpuiire. Kcvi- Jo. xvii. 11, Mt. xviii. 32.- On words in
apposition to a vocative see § 59. 8 (Jelf 476. c, d).^
licui. It has been su])posed, but erroneously, that the N. T.
writers sometimes use Hebraistic periphrases for tlie nominative
case luxmely,
0.. Eis with the accusative, in the phrase cTvai or yivea-Oai e's
Ti (Leusden, Diall. p. 132). By far the greater number of tlie
examples adduced occur in quotations from the 0. T., or in O. T,
expressions which had become established formulas (Mt. xix. 5, 1 C.
vi. 16, E. V. 31, H. viii. 10, al.). Two facts, moreover, have been
overlooked. In the first place, yivca-Oai et? n, fieri i.e. abire (mutari)
in allq. (A. v. 36, Jo. xvi. 20, Rev. viii. 11) is a correct expression
in Greek ^ (as in German), and is used, at all events by later writers,
even in reference to persons (Geo. Pachymer. I. 345, d<; <jvixiJiu.)^ov<i
avrots ytvovrai). Again, in the Hebrew phrase rendered by ci^ai cw
Tt, the pre[)Osition b is not really an indication of the nominative, but
answers to our to or for {to serve for, turn to) : see H. viii. 10, 1 C.
xiv. 22, and comjDare Wi^. ii. 14, Acta Apocr. 169. In 1 C. iv. 3,
c/xoi CIS tAaxurrdv cVtiv means, to me, for me, it belongs to the least,
tJie most insignificant thing (with such a thing I associate it) : A, xix
27, €t? oihiv XoyiaOiivaL, is similar, to he reckoned for nothing (Wis. ix.
6 ^). In L. il 34, Kelrat CIS TTTwa-iv, the preposition is similarly used
to express destination, and there is no departure from Greek analogy,
see Ph. i. 17 (16), 1 Th. iii. .3: compare JEsop 24. 2, eU fieC^ovd
a-oi ux^ikiLav l(To^a.c and the Latin auxilio esseJ^ See further § 32,
4. b,
' On Z befoi-s tlio vocative see, in general, Doberenz, Prog, Hildhurgh.
(1844). [" Not only i.s * rarely joined to the vocative in the N. T. (only 16
times in all), but in most of these instances it is more than a mere sign of
the vocative, inasmuch as the expression has an emphatic character, and is
therefore rather an exclamation, than a simple address." A. Buttm. p. 140.
The same VTitoi rclers to this peculiarity as a result of Latin influence {Index,
3. V. Lati7ikme/i). Jelf 479. 2.]
^ But compare .Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 466.
' [" The interjections tiou and (esjiccially in John) even 7Si, answering
to the Latin ecc and en, are joined with a nominative. The freqiient occur-
rence of these words in narration and in argument must not be attributed
to the influence of the 0. T. alone, but was a feature of the popular language ;
hence they become more and more common at a later period." A. Buttm.
p. 139.]
* Georgi, Vhid. 337, Schwarz. Coram. 285. [Liddell and Scott, s. v. lylyyafMu :
compare Jelf 62-^. 3. c. ]
* Xen. Cyr. 3. 1. 33, xp^'f^"''^'' "'« 'fy^f" >.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.
* <Jonipare Hartung, Co^sus p. 12. [Don. p. 464, Clyde, Gr. Synt. pp. 30 sq.
On the name of this case see Max Miiller, Lectures on Language, I. 105 sq.]
SECT. XXX.] THE GENITIVE. 231
kind of depeyidence on or helolir/ing to} as in o Kvpio<; rou
Koa/xov, 'lovSwi 'laKco^ov: here a pronoun or the article may
take the place of the governing noun, compare § 18. 3. This
use of the genitive, associated even in plain prose with a
great variety of meanings/ we shall consider first. Besides
the ordinary cases — amongst which the genitive of quality
(Kom. XV. 6, 13, al.) and the partitive genitive (Eom. xvi. 5,
1 C. xvi. 15) should be specially mentioned^ — we have to
notice
a. The genitive of the object, after substantives which denote
an internal or external activity, — a feeling, expression, action
(Krug. p. 36, Don. p. 482, Jelf 542. ii.): Mt. xiii. 1 8, 7rapaj3o\r}
rov a-7retpovro<i the sower-parable, i.e. the parable about the
sower; 1 C. i. 6, fiapTvpiov rov Kpicrrov, witness concerning
Christ (ii. 1, compare xv. !•">) ; 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/<TTea>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 BUaio<i irapa rcy Oea,,
Rom. ii. 13 (set over against BiKaiovadat), and still more
directly in SiKaiovadac irapa tw 6ew G. iii. 11, or ivQ)7nov rov
Beov Rom. iii. 20. From the nature of the BiKaiovcrOai. both
expressions are correct ; but BlkuwI 6 ^eo? tov avOpioTrov is the
more stringent of the two, and in Rom. x. 3 we obtain a better
antithesis if Bck. 6eov is righteousness which God grants : com-
pare also Ph. iii. 9, »; e/c ^eoO ZiKaioavvq?
From what has just been said it will be clear that in many pas-
sages the decision between the subjective and the objective g<}nitive
belongs to exegesis, not to grammar : the question eepecially requires
a cautious use of parallel passages. In Ph. iv. 7, ctpiyVi; 6(.ov can
probably have no other meaning than peace (peace of soul) luliicJi Cod
gives, as the wish whi*;h the apostles express for tlieir readers is tllat
they may have dfi-qvi v otto O^ov : this parallelism is more decisive
here than that of Rom. v- 1, dprjvqv cxo/iev Trpos rov 6i.6v, which would
lead us to render elpr'prj Otov peace with Gou. In Col. iii. 15 also
(elp-qvyj XpioTTov) I consider the genitive to be subjective ; compare
Jo. xiv. 27. That in Pom. iv. 13 SiKatoo-wr; TrtVrtws {one notion, —
Char. p. 498, Schasf. *Sop/t. (I. 300, Stallb. Plat. Bep. II. 201, Apol. p. 29,
Poppo, Thuc. III. i. 521.
* [See Alford's note on 2 C. v. 14. On the nature of the genitive after
wi<m(, see Ellicott and Light.bot on Col. ii. 12.]
* [See AH'oixi and Vaughan on Rom. i. 17.]
SECT. XXX.] THE GENITIVE. 233
failh-rir/Memsn<'S.s) mea.ns rig/ileousneis ivhich faith brings, is manifest
from the expression more frequently used, r] htKaiocrvvq y Ik Trioreco?
(Rom. ix. 30, X. 6). In E. iv li< (dTr/jAAor/otof/xeVot) rfys ^wi)? Tov 6eoi,
is God's life: the Jife of Chn.stian believers i,s so called, as being a
life imparted hy God, excited within the soul by Him.
In the phrase eiayycXiov tov XpLCTTov it may appear doubtful
whether the genitive should be considered subjective (the Gospel
preached by Christ) or objective (the Gospel concerning Christ). I
prefer the latter, because we find in some passages (e. g. Kom. i. 3 ^)
the complete expression euayy£'A.tov tov deov Trept tov vlov avTOv, ol
which this may be merely an abridgment : compare aho f^vxyyiXiov
Trj<i ^apiTos TOV 6eov A. XX. 24, and evayyeXtov t^5 ySacrtXetas tov Beov
Mt. iv. 23, ix. 35. Meyer (on Mk. i. 1) regards the genitive in this
phrase as sometimes subjective, sometimes objective. ^ In Col. ii. 18
also it is a matter of dispute amongst the commentators whether
(Oprj<TKua) dyye'Acov is a genitive of the subject or of the object. The
latter view is preferable, reverenc& of angds, angel-v)orship : compare
Euseb. H. ?J. G. 41 v. I., (9pr;cr/<€ta tC>v 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 fxo<i
rdv afjiopTLUiv might signify 2mrificatio7i of sins (removal of sins, com-
pare Dt, xix. 13), as the Greeks could say KaOapi^ovrai al d/xapTtai
(comp. KdOaLpeiv alp.a to remove through cleansing, Iliad 16. 6G7) ; but
it is simpler to take tCjv d/x. as a genitive of blie object.^ Rom, ii. 7,
vTTOjxovT] epyov ayadov, and 1 Th. i. 3, virojxovr] t^s iXirihos, mean very
simply, canstancy or steadiness of good work, of hope. Ja. ii. 4 is
probably an indignant question : then . . , would ye not become judges
of evil tJiougMs (your own) ?
^ [This is the only passage in which thjs expression occurs, and here it is
probable that -nfi t. ul. ai. belongs to the verb TpoiT. in ver. 2 : so Meyer,
Fritz., Aliord, al.]
' [" When the genitive with lUyyiXio^ does not denote a. person, fhis genitive
is always that of the object ; in liayy. (ioZ, ilayy. u.ov, the genitive expresses
the subject. In ilayy. Xp,<mV the gnuitive may be either subjective (genillvun
auciorui) or objective ; the context alone can decide." (Meyer I.e.) I cannot
however find any passage in which Meyer does not regard this phrase as meaning
"ttie gospel concerning Christ" (genit. obj.).'\
*[ln H. i. 3 the renderini^ '''purification of sins" (where the genitive is
sorely objective) is adopted by Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford, and was preferred by
Winer in ed. 5 : compare Mt. viii. 3. Liinemann (cd. 3) and Kurtz render the
words " purification from sins," comparing the use of xeJafos with a genitive
(Don. p. 468, Jelf 529).]
234 THE GENITIVE. [PART III.
2. h. But the genitive is also used to express more remote
relations of dependence/ and in this way are formed, by a kind
of breviloquence, various composite terms (such as Uood-of-the-
cross, repentance-baptism, damaye-law), the resolution of which
will vary according to the nature of the component notions.
We notice
a. The genitive which expresses relations merely external
(relations of place or of time) : Mt. x. 5, 0S09 eOvdv Gentiles
road, i. e. road to the Gentiles (H. ix. 8, compare Gen. iii. 24,
77 oho<^ T. ^vKov Trj<i ^Q)r]s' Jcr. ii. 18, Judith v. 14) ; ^ Jo. x. 7,
Ovpa Touv Trpo^drfov, door to the sheep (Meyer) ; Mt. i. 11, 12,
fxerotKeata Ba/3v\d)vos, removal to Bahylon (Orph. 200, eVl
ttXoov ^A^eivoio, ad expcditionem in Axinum ; 144, v6aro<; at-
Koio, dommn reditus ; Eurip. Tph. Tl 1066 ^) ; Jo. vii. 35, ■^ hia-
cnropa, ru)v 'EWr^vcov, the dispersion (the dispersed) among the
Greeks ; Mk. viii. 27, Koyfiai Kataapeia^ t^«? ^iX'iTnrov, villages
around Coesarca Fhilippi, villages which are situated on its
territory ^ (Is. xvii. 2 ^) ; Col. i. 20, alfxa tov aravpov, blood of
the cross, i. e, blood shed on the cross ; 1 P. i. 2, pavTL(Tixo<i
aifiaTd, sprinkling (purifying) with blood ; 2 C. xi. 26, Kwhvvoi
Trora-fjiwv, perils on rivers (soon followed by kivB. iv iroXei,, iv
OaXdaarj, K.r.X.), compare Heliod. 2. 4. 65 Kivhwoi OaXaaawv.
Designations of time : Eom. ii. 5 (Zeph. ii. 2) r)/jiipa 0/97^9,
dag of wrath, i. e. day on which the wrath (of God) will manifest
itself in punishment: Jude 6,KpLa-i<; fi€ya\.7)<i i]/jLepa<i, judgment
on the great, day ; L. ii. 44, oSo<; ■r]fu.epa<i, a dagsjovrneg (dis-
tance traversed in a day, compare Her. 4. 101,Ptol. 1. 11. 4) ;
H. vi. 1, o rij(: dp'^i}'? rov Xpicrrov \6yo^, the elementary in-
1 Compare Jacob, Luc. Alex. p. 108 sq., Stallb. Plat. Tim. p. 241 .sq., Bernh.
p. 160 sqq.
^ In Mt. iv. 15, however, oTos faXatrtrrn certainly means way by the sea (of
Tiberias). [See below, p. 289.]
^ Compare Schajf. i\fekt. p. 90, Seidler, Eur. Eleclr. 161, Spohn, Isocr. Panerj.
p. 2, Buttm. Soph. Philoct. p. 67. The genitive has the opposite meaning )n
Plat. ApoL 40 c, ft.t.T(ilx.ri<Tii t^s •^ox'"-^ '''"'' to^du Tst) ivSkf^i [away Jrom this
■place),
* This reduces itself finally to the common topographical genitive (Kriig. p.
32 sq.), — which is simply a genitive of belonging to: Jo. ii. 1, KavS TJiis Ta-
XiXaiar A. xxii. 3, Tap<ro; tUs KiXixia;' xiii. 13, 14 [Rec], xxvii. 5, L. iv. 26 :
compare Xen. Hell. 1. 2. 12, Diod. S. 16. 92, 17. 63, Diog. L. 8. 3, Arrian, Al.
2. 4. 1 ; and see Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 151, Ramshorn, Laf. Gr. i. 167. (Don.
p. 482, Jelf 542. vi.)
^ [This reference is incorrect : probably, Jos. xvii. 11.]
SECT. XXX.] THE GENITIVE. 235
struction of Christ ; so also reK^iqpia rj/xepwv reacrapaKovTa, A.
i. 3, according to the reading of T)}
An external relation (of place) is also indicated in aXd^aarpov
fivpov ]\lk. xiv. 3, and KepafiLov vBaro^ ver. 13 ; compare 1 S.
X. 3, ayyeta aprcov, aaKo<; ol'vov Soph. £1. 758, -^aXKo^:
airoBov' ^ Dion. 11. IV. 2028, aa-(j)dXTov koI Triaar)'; dyyela'
Theophr. Ch. 17, Diog. L. 6. 9, 7. 3, Lucian, Asin. 37, Fugit.
31, Diod. S. Vatic. 32. 1. To the same class belongs Jo. xxi. 8,
TO Blktvov tcov l-)^OvQ>v (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<i, repcntance-haplism, i. e. baptism which binds
to repentance ; Rom. vii. 2, vojjlo^ tov dijBp6<;, the law of the
husband, i. e. the law which determines the relation to the hus-
band (compare Dem. 3[id. 390 a, o t?/<? pXafir)^ v6fjLo<i, the law
of damage, and majiy examples in the LXX, as Lev. xiv. 2, 6
v6p.o^ ToJ) XeTrpov vii. 1, xv. 32, Num. vi. 13, 21, see Fritz.
Ham. II. 9) ; vi. 6, aw/jia t>}<? dp.apTia<;, sin-hody, i. e. body which
belongs to sin, in which sin has being and dominion (in which
sin carries itself into effect), almost like aoopa tt}^ a-apK6<i, Col.
i. 22, body in which fleshliness has its being and its hold; Eom.
vii. 24, awfia tov Oavdrov tovtov, hody of this death, i. e. which
(in the way described in ver. 7 sqq.) leads to death, ver. 5, 10,
13. See further Tit. iii. 5.
' Others with less probability take the words hf^tfuv rtrrap. by them-
selves, throughout forty dayn (Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 640 sq.) ; but see below,
no. 11.
- See Schaefer on Long. Past. p. 386.
236 TUE GENITIVE. [PART III.
In L. xi. 29, to (rrjixiiov Iwi/a is nothing else than the sign which
was once exhibited in Jonah (which is now to be repeated in the
person of Christ). Jude 1 1 must be similarly explained. In Jo. xix.
14, however, Trapacr/cewy tov irdaxa does not mean "preparation-day
for the passover," but quite simply " the preparation-day ' of the
passover " (that which belongs to the paschal feast). In H. iii. 13,
airdrri t^s d^aaprtas, the genitive IS subjective and d/^aprta is person!
fied (Rom. vii. 1 ] , al.). But in 2 Th. ii. 10 dndTT) 1-75 dSiKi'as is deceit
which leads to unrighteousness. On E. iv. 18 see Mever ; on Ja. i, 17,
DeWette.2 . > ,
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'.a<i very simply means cup
of the, blessing, i.e. over which the blessing is pronounced , and in
ver. 21 TTOTTipLov Kvpi'ov IS cv}) of the Lord, where the more exact
reference of the genitive is supplied by ver. 16, as in Col. it 11
(Xpio-ToO) by ver. 14.* On Col. i. 14 Meyer's decision is correct. In
A. xxii. 3 vofiov depends on Kara olk pifi f.iav.
In H. iii. 3, some join the _s;enitive oIkov to tl/xt^v, greater honour of
the house (i.e. in the house): this rs not in itself impossible, but for
this Epistle it is harsh, and it is certainly opposed to the writer's aim ;
see Bieek in loc.
On the genitive of apposition, as iroA-cis Sof^o/xwv Kal Fo/xoppa? 2 P.
ii. 6 (urbs liomce), a-rjfjutov irepirop.rj^ Rom. iv. 11, see § 59. 8 (Jelf
435. d).
3. For a long time it was usual to regard the genitive of
kindred (Mapia ^laKco^ov, 'lovSa^ 'Iukco^ov, AavlS o tov ^letr-
aai) as involving an ellipsis., As however the genitive is the
case of dependence, and as every relationship is a kind of de-
pendence, there is no essential notion wanting (Herm. Ellijps.
p. 120): only it is left to the reader to define more exactly, in
accordance with the actual fact, that which the genitive ex-
presses quite generally (Plat. Bep. 3, 408 b). This genitive is
most commonly to be understood of son or daughter, as in Mt.
iv. 21, Jo. vi. 71, xxi. 2, 15, A. xiii. 22. In L.xxiv. 10, Mk. xv.
47, xvi. 1, fivTTjp must be supplied, — compare Mt. xxvii. 56,
Mk. XV. 40 (^lian 16. 30, '0Xvfi7ri.a<; tJ ^AXe^dvBpov, sc. MT-qp)
IlaTrjp, in A. vil 16 \_Rec\ 'Ep,p,cop tov Xv^ep. (compare Gen.
xxxiii. 19): similarly Steph. Byz. (s. v. AalhaXa), r) 7ro\t? (xtto
AaihaXov TOV 'iKapov. Twrj, in Mt. i. 6, etc Tf]<; tov Ovpiov,
' [Meyer regards the genitive in Ph. i. 8 as possessive; in E. vi. 4 [-raiiua.
Kcu ^tuhf'.tt. xvpifu), AsgeniL subjecti: see Ellic. IL cc, who takes the same view
of each passage. ]
* [Wirier ronders this (in ed. 5) "the inquiiy of a good conscience after
God : " comp. below, 3. Rem. 5. See Alford in loc]
3 [Bleek takes t. /hXX. ay. as a genitive oi reference or dependence ; Delitzsch,
Ilofm.. Alf. , as gaiitivus objecti.]
* [This reference and the next seem incorrect : perhaps we should read
ver. 12, and Col. iii. 14.]
238 THE GENITIVE. [PART III.
and in Jo. xix, 25 :^ compare Aristoph. EccL 46, Plin, Epp. 2.
20, Veraida Pisoiiis. 'A8e\(f)6<i is perhaps to be supplied in
L. vi, 16, A. i. 13, 'Iovha<i 'laKoojSov, if the same apostle is
mentioned in Jude 1: compare Alciphr. 2. 2, Tip^oKparij^ 6
MijTpoSoopov, scil. a8e\(f>6'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-
fjLaTo<s oAAa TTi/cup-aTos, the last two genitives depend on SiaKovous, as
the following verse shows. Similarly in Rom. xi. 33 all three geni-
tives depend on ^a^os.
Rem. 2. Sometimes, especially in Paul's Epistles, the genitive,
when placed after the governing noun, is separated from it by some
other word : Ph. li. 10, tVa ttSv yow Kafjuj/r] lirovpavtoiv koX ^-myuuiv
Kol KaraxdovLdiv (explanatory genitives appended to ttolv yow), Rom.
ix. 21, rj ovK €;^€t i^ovrrtav o Ktpa/Aeus tov tttjXuv ; 1 Tim. iii. 6, tva fxij
€is Kpifxa e/xTTc'cTT/ ToC Si.a(S6\ov (probably for emphasis), 1 Th. ii. 13,
1 0. viii. 7, H. viii. 5, Jo. xii. 1 1, 1 P. iii. 21 ; we find again a diflferent
arrangement in Rev. vii. 17. On the other hand, in E. ii. 3, yjixev
1 See Winer, HWB. II. 57 sq. [Smith, Dkt. of Bible II. 254. On this
example and the next see Lightfoot on Galatiana, Dissert. 2.]
- See on the whole Bos, EUips. (ed. Schaef.) s. vv., Boisson. Philostr. Her.
p. 307.
^ Comp. Kriiger, Xen. An. 2. 5. 38,, Bornem. Xen. Apol. p. ii, Boisson.
Babr. p. 116.
SECT. XXX.] THE GENITIVE. 239
TiKva <f)V(TeL 6pyii<:, the words could scarcely be arranged differently
Avithout laying undue emphasis on c^uo-et (?y/AO' <f>i<Te(. riKva opy^s).'
Kem. 3. Sometimes, but not frequently, we find one noun con-
nected with two genitives of dilJerent reference, — usually separated
from each other in position; the chief case is when one genitive
refers to a person, the other to a thing (Kriig. p. 40) : A. v. 32,
TjfxeLt icTfiev avTov (XptoroO) /xaprvpe^ tu>v 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<i dn-d^fcrts pvirov, the
Jlesh's putting away of filth (crhp^ aTroTiOiTai puirov), unless there is a
trajection in these words.
Two genitives are connected in a different way in Jo. vi. 1, rj
Oakaa-aa r^? TaXiXaia^ t^9 Ti/Se/xaSos, the lake of (lalilee, of Tiberias.
This lake is only once besides mentioned under the latter name (Jo.
xxi. 1). It may be that John added the more definite to the general
designation (compare Pausan, 5. 7. 3) for the sake of foreign readers,
in order to give them more certain information of the locality. Eeza
in loc. gives a different explanation. Kiihnol's suspicion that the
words T77'> 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
^a<jti5 Kul TO. a<f>vpd' 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.aT0<i .... rj^^aye. (ToiTrjpa 'h](T(wy' Ja. 1. 2G, «t Tt? ....
TOVTOV p.dTaio<: rj OprjcTKeia' iii. 3, II. x. 3G, E. ii. 8. This em-
' See on the whole Jacob, Luc. Tox. p. 46, Ellcndt, Arr. At. I. 241, Fritz.
Bom. II. 331.
^ [Liiuem. adds Mt. XXvi. 28, to aTf;id. //.au rr,S dia.Jr.x.ticI
3 See Ast, I'lat. Folit. p. 329, and Lex/g. p. 84 sq., Ub. Ajax p. 219, Buttm.
Drin. Mid. p. 17, and Soph. Phil. 7f>l, 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^a<r». alone. ]^
* [Quoted above (§ 21, 2) with the reading (iccTTt^Dins, which is found in
almost all the MSS.]
SECT. XXX.] THE GENITIVE. 241
certain property is ascribed (as Diod. Sic. 11. 89, r] irepl to Upw
dp;^aiOT7;s' ib., to -rrepl Tovg KpaTrjpa<; tSiw/xa^), are of a somewhat
different kind. We might rather say that vept with the jrenitive
stands for the simple case in 1 C vii. 37, i^ovata -rrepl tov iSiov Oc-
XrifiaTo<i, as the genitive might here liave been used alone ; but pmver
in regard to his will is at all events the more definite and the fuller
expression. A similar use of otto and Ik to form a periphrasis for
the genitive is discovered by the commentators in A. xxiii. 21,
T-^v ciTro trou iirayyiXiav and in 2 C. viii. 7, rfi l^ ifjLwv uydTnj ; but
these strictly mean amor qui a vobis prqficiscitnr, promissi/) a te
profecta : rrj vfxCjv dyaTrrj would be less precise, as this mi^jht also
mean amor in vos.^ Similarly in Thuc. 2. 92, rj airo rwv WOrjvouwv
^oiqOua' Dion. H. IV. 2235, iroXvv CK TUiV TTapovTioi' KLvrffrn.'; tXiov
Plat. Bep. 2'. 363 a, ras Sltt av-r^s evSoKi/Ar/o-ei?- Dem. Fac. 24 b,
Polyaen. 5. 11, Diod. S. 1. 8, 5. 39, J^cr. Vat. p. 117, Lucian,
Conscr. Hist. 40 ^ (Jelf 483. Ohs. 4). Rom. xi. 27, r] vap' Ifiov
huiOriK-q, requires the same explanation : compare Xen. Cyr. 5. 5.
13, Isocr Demon, p. 18, Arr. Al. 5. 18. 10, and see Fritz, m loc,
Schoera. Isceus p. 193. On Jo. i. 14 see Liicke. In no passage is
there a meaningless periphrasis.* In 1 C. ii. 12, in parallelism with
ov TO TTVED/Att ToD Koaftov i\ii(3op.€v, Paul designedly writes, dXXa
TO TTvtvfia TO £K Ofov, uot TO TTvcS/xa deov, or TO Oeov. The assertion
that iv with its case stands for the genitive^ (in 1 C. ii. 7, K ii. 21,
Tit iii. 5, 2 P. ii. 7) is altogether futile, as any one who reads -with
even moderate attention will perceive. Nor can we regard Kard
with the accusative, in the examples commonly quoted, as a mere
periphrasis for the genitive. In Rom. ix. 11,^ kut eKkoyrji' TrpoOea-i^
means the predestination accordiw/ to election, in consequence of an elec-
tion ; xi. 21, o'l Kara (fujaiv KXaSoi are the branches according to nature,
i.e. the natural branches ; similarly, H. xi. 7, 17 Kara Tricmv SiKaiocrvvr}.
In H. ix. 19, also, Kara tov vo^ov, if joined with Trdarf; cvToXiy?, would
not (as was clearly seen by Bleek) stand in the place of tov vo/aov.
See however above, § 22. 7. More suitable examples may be found
in Greek writers; as Diod. S. 1. 65, 17 KaTo. ttjv dpxV aTro^ccrt?,
resignation of government (strictly, in respect of government), 4. 13,
Exc. Vat. p. 103, Arr. Al. 1. 18. 12, Matth. 380. Rem. 5. On
evayye'Atov Kara MaT^aioi', k.t.A., see Fritzsche." It is altogether
^ Compare Schsef. Julian p. vi, and on Dion. Comp. p. 23.
22 c. ix. 2, a \l Ifjiui 2;Sxo« r.p'diBK nh; ■n'Xuota.i, \s an instance of attraction.
[This reading is doubtful : good M3S. omit t|. ]
3 Compare Jacobs, Athm. 321 sq., Anth. Pal. I. 1, 159, Schsef. Soph. Aj.
p. 228, EU6ndt,-Arr. Al. I. 329.
* [A. Bnttmann (p. 156), acknowledging that Winer's view is critically exact,
maintains that in many of these instances the term " periphrasis for the geni-
tive " IS convenient and substantially correct. In the same way the partitive
genitive is often supported by »* (Jo. vi. 60, al.) : compare Jelf 621. 3. i, and
Mullach, Vulrj. p. 324.]
^ See Koppe, Eph. p. 60.
^ 'Compare examples in the Nova Biblioth. Luhec. II. 105 sq. [See Westcott,
Introd. to Gospels, p. 210.]
16
242 THE GENITIVE. [PART III.
wrong to take to. tU Xpia-rov TraBrnxaTa, 1 P. i. 11, for Ttt XpiOTov
■jradT^fuxTa (v. 1): they are (like Trcpi Tf}<i d<i v/xas xiipiTo<i, ver. 10)
tlie offerings (destined, intended) /»r Christ.
It is a different matter wlien a preposition with its case takes the
place of a genitive in dependence on a noun through the preference
of the ro9t-verb for this preposition, as KOLvojvta vp^v els. to evayycXiov
Ph. J. 5; compare iv. 15. So probably eTrepw-n^pa ei« Oeov (after
God) 1 P. iii. 21 ; compare 2 S. xi. 7, imptoTav fi's ^eow.
4. The same type of immediate dependence is also presented
when the genitive is joined with verbal adjectives and parti-
ciples, whose meaning is not such that they (the root-verbs)
would regularly govern the genitive (as in 2 P. ii. 14, ^earov^
fiofxaXiBor Mt. X, 10, a^io<i rrj<i Tfjo^f}<?' H. iii. 1, KXijaeco^s
fiero^ct, etc., see no. 8 ; E. ii. 12, ^evoi tcop BiaOrjKcov ; etc.).
Thus we have in 1 C.ii. 13, \6yoi BiBaKTol 7rv€VfiaTo<; dylov (see
above, page 236) ; 2 P. ii. 14, icaphiav yeyvfivacrfievrjv TrXeove-
^ia<;} Compare Iliad 5. 6, XeXovfievo'i coKedvoio' Soph. Aj. 807,
ijnoTot '^TrarrjfievT)' ih, 1353, (^i\a>v viKa>fi€vo<i : with 1 C ii. 13
in particular, compare Soph. £1 344 Kuvrf<i BiBaKra; and with
2 P. ii. 1 4, Philostr. IIei\ 2. 1 5 0aXdTTTj<f ovTrco yeyvfivaarfiivoc'
3. 1, Nearopa TroKefuov ttoWwv yeyvfivuafievov 10. 1, a-o<f>ia^
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
d7n<xria<i, the genitive (of apposition) would present no difficulty
whatever. A similar example is Wis. xviii. 3, -ijiXiov d^a^r)
ff>i,\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\.avTo<i (f>c\(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.op<f>u<; 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, Tivo<i r€)v eTrra earav ryvvrj ; 1 0. iii. 21, Travra v/xoov etniv
(Xen. An. 2. 1. 4, Ptol. 1. 8. 1); vi. 19, ovk iare eavrwv, ye
lelong not to yourselves ; 2 C iv. 7, Xva r} v7repj3o\r) ri}? Bvvd-
fxeto'i -p Tov Oeov Kal fiij i^ rj/xcjv, that . . . may he God's and
not from us ; x. 7, Xpccrrov eii>ai' 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 <yvSyvat
K.T.X., it does not appertain to you, it is not in your povjer to
know (Plat. Gorg. 500 a, Xen. (Ec. 1. 2), Mk. xii. 7, Vfi^v
earai rj KXrjpovo/jiia (Mt. V. 3), 1 P. iii. 3 ; also H. v. 14, rekeiwv
iarlv 77 aTepea rpo^'^, belongs to (is suitable for) those who are
2)erfcct (JeU 518).
(c) The genitive of a property ^ (expressed by the singular of
an abstract noun) in which any one participates, as in 1 C. xiv.
33, oifK ea-TLv aKaraaraaCa^; 6e6^' H. x. 39, rjfie2<i ovk iafiev
vTroaToXrj^ .... aWa iriarectx; ■ k.t.X. (Plat. Apol. 28a): the
application of this idiom is very varied. We also find the geni-
tive of a concrete noun, as in A. ix. 2, rtm? t% oBov optw; ; ^
especially of the years of a person's age, Mk. v. 42, tjv ercov
BcoBefca- L. ii. 42, iii. 23, A, iv. 22, Tob. xiv. 2, 11, Plat. Legg.
4. 721 a. In these examples the subject is a person, in the fol-
lowing a thing: H. xii. 11, rrdaa iratBeia ou BoKel x^'P^'^ elvai,
is not (matter) of joy, something joyous, — though this might be
1 [A. Buttmann (p. 163) adds the remark that the use of the genitive with sW/
to d&iioie Si permanent property or quality (as in H. xii. 11, x. 39, 2 P, i. 20)
is almost unknown to Greek prose (Madvig 54. Rem. 1) :' compare below § 34.
3. b. — He refers to this head the genitive ^tixi^* in Rev. xxi. 17 (as havin^
arisen out of ro nlp^^ot nv t: vn^alii) ; similarly ;^/X<a3»y in ver. 16'. ]
^ [A. ix. 2 is also quoted above, under (a).]
SECT. XXX.] TUE GENITIVE. 245
referred to (a) ; 2 P. i. 20, iracra TrpocftTirela fypa<p7)^ ISia^ i-rrc-
Xvaews ov yiuerai. Wlieii persons are spoken of, Ihis construc-
tion of €«//<,' is sometimes made more animated, after the oriental
manner, by the insertion of uig<; or tckpov ; compare 1 Th. v. 5,
y/t€i9 viol (pcoro'i eare fcai viol r}^epa<;} (Jelf 518.)
The verb elvai is sometimes omitted, the same relations being
expressed by the genitive ; as in Ph. iii. 5, iyoi (pukri'i
Bepia/xLv.
6. The genitive appears in the N. T. with verbs (and adjec-
tives) as a clearly conceived case of proceeding froin, motion
whence, with a variety of application natural to this relation :
Grreek prose liowever is still richer than the N. T. in such ap-
plications, and in the N. T; the genitive is frequently supported
by prepositions. Since separation from is closely related to
proceeding from, and that which proceeds from and is separated
from may in many cases be regarded as a part of the whole
which remains behind, the genitive, as the case of proceeding
from, is also tlie regular case oi separation and o\ po.rtition. We
shall first consider the genitive of separation and removal, as the
more limited.
Words which express the notion of separation or removal are
ordinarily construed by Greek writers with a simple genitive,
even in prose ; as iXevdepovv rivo^ to free from somethijig, k(o-
\veiv, VTro'^copelv, Traveiv, Siacfiipeii', varepetv Tiv6<i (see Matth.
353 sqq., 366, Bernh. p. 179 sq., Don. p. 466, Jdf 530 .sq."-*),
though it is not at all uncommon to find suitable prepositions
used in such cases. Accordingly, in the K T. the simple genitive
is found with fieraaradrjvai, L. xvi. 4 ; ^ daro^elv, 1 Tim. i. 6 ;^
iraveaOat,, 1 P. iv. 1 ; KcoXveiv, A. xxvii. 43 (compare Xen. Cgr.
2. 4. 23, An. 1. 6. 2, Pol. 2. 52. 8, al.) ; Ziac^epeiv, Mt. x. 31,
1 C. XV. 41, al. (Xen. Gyr. 8. 2. 21, compare Kriig. Dion. H.
p. 462); aTroa-Tepeia-dat, 1 Tim. vi. 5;^ also varepeiv, to he
' We also nse both modes of expression, thou art Death's, and thou art
a child of Death : but it does not follow from this that there is an ellipsis in
the former phrase (Kiihnol on H. x. 39).
' [For verbs of mitsing {i.rToxi'iv) see Don. p. 466, Jelf 514 ; for 'Sia(pipiiy,
Don. p. 476, Jelf 503 sq. ; Cimpuv, Don. p. 476, Jelf 506.]
* [The best texts insert i» here. ]
* [That is, if uv is governed by o.iTox.r.aa.tT'.i (Hather, Grimm, Alford), and
not by tif.Tfa.'msa.y (Ellicott).]
'•' In A. xix. 27 good MSS. have fiiWitv n x.a.) y.ataipuffSxi riiy /xiyx-
Xtt'ormos oivrns, and Lachmann has received this reading; but I agree with
246 THE GENITIVE. [PART ni.
behind, fall sliort of, 2 C. xi. 5, xii. 11 (see Bleek on H. iv. 1),
and ^evot, rwv BiaOrjKwp, E. ii. 12, Yet the use of the preposition
has the preponderance : —
(a) With verbs of separating, freeing, and heing free (Matth.
353 sq., Bernh. p. 181, Jelf 531. Obs. 3), invariably: ■^oipi^eiv
ttTTo, Ptom. viii. 35, 1 0. vii. 10, H. vii. 26 (Plat. Phwd. 67 c,—
contrast Polyb. 5. 111. 2); \veLv airo, L. xiii. 16, 1 C. vii. 27 ;
ekevdepovv airo, Rom. vi. 18, 22, viii. 2, 21 (Thuc. 2. 71: found
also with €K, Matth. 353. Rem.); pvecrOat cltto, Mt. vi. 13 (2 S.
xix. 9, Ps. xvL 13 sq.), with e/c L. i. 74, Rom. vii. 24, al., Ex.
vi. 6, Job xxxiii. 30,. Ps. Ixviii. 15 ; aco^eiv airo, Rom. v. 9 (Ps.
Ixvnii. 15), and more frequently "Vvith e/c, Ja. v. 20, H. v. 7 (2 S.
xxii. 3 sq., 1 K. xix. 17); Xvrpovv airo. Tit. ii. 14, Ps. cxviii.
134 (Xvrpovv rtvo^, Fabric. Psetidepigraph. 1. 710); Kudapl-
^eiv OTTO, 1 Jo. i. 7, 2 C. vii. 1, H. ix. 14,— and accordingly
Kadapof; airo A. XX. 26, compare Tob. iii. 14, Demosth. Near.
628 c (with €/c Appian, Sijr. 59), aO^o^; dirS (p '?:) Mt. xxvii.
24, comp. Krebs, Observ. 73, Gen. xxiv. 41, Num. v. 19, 31
(d6oi)6<i rcvi, Jos. ii. 17, 19 sq.): similarly Xoveiv drrro (a pregnant
construction, by means of washing cleanse from), A. xvi. 33.
Rev. i. 5.^
(b) Where the construction with the simple genitive is also
used: Rev. xiv. 13, dya7ravecr6ai^ €k rciov kottcov 1 P. iii. 10,
TTttfo-aTO) TT]v <y\oi<T<jav diro kukov (Esth. ix. 16, Soph. JEl. 987,
Thuc 7. 73) : va-repetv diro, H. xii. 15, is probably a pregnant
construction.
The notion of separation and removal is also the foundation of the
Hellenistic construction KpvTrrtiv (tl) Atto tivo<;, L. xix 42 (for which
the Greeks said KprnrTuv nvd n) ; this too is properly a pregnant
construction. In the LXX compare Gen. iv. 14, xviii. 17, 1 S. iii.
18, al. To the construction of verbs of remaining behind anything/
(vo-Tcpciv Tivo?) may be referred the genitive in 2 P. iii. 9, oi (SpaSvvu
6 Kvptos T^s CTrayycAtas (ov fSpaSvs tori 7^9 cTrayycAtas) : compare
Meyer, who considers this reading (which probably is due to an error of tran-
scription, see Bengel) too weak for the character of the passage. [The genitive
is received by recent editors. A. Jiuttmann (p. 158) considers the genitive
partitive: Alford with bettor reason translates "deposed from her greatne.ss. "
In 2 P. i. 4 a-re(piiiyiiv is followed by a genitive ; see Alford's note.]
* [In llev. i. 5 >.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<r((n itscf/ is not joiped with a simple genitive in the N. T.j
SECT. XXX.] THE GENITIVE. 247
vcmpovv r^5 /3o»/^€ia?, Diod, S. 13. 110. Even as early as the
Syriac version we find lirayy. joined with /?paSvV«.
7. The simplest examples in prose of the genitive of pro-
ceeding from and of derivation are presented by apxofiai rivof
I begin from (with) something (Hartung p. 14), Bexofiai rivot
I receive from some one (Herra. Vig. p. 877), Beofuti Tivo<i (geni-
tive of person) I supplicate from some one (Matth. 355. Kem. 2),
aKovco Tf 1/09 / hear frmn some one : then we find yevo/iai, etrOica
Tiv6<i (e.g. dprov, /xeXtro?) / taste, eat of something, ovlvafuii
rivos I derive advantage, enjoyment, from something ; and, lastly,
SiBcofMt, XafM^dvQ) Tiv6<i, I give, take, of something (Herm. Opusc.
I. 178). In all these instances the genitive denotes the object
from which the hearing, eating, giving, proceeds, — from which
is derived what is eaten, tasted, given, etc. In the last examples
the genitive also denotes the mass, the whole, a part of which
is enjoyed, tasted, given, etc., and therefore these genitives may
also be regarded as partitive ; for where the reference is to the
whole, or to the object absolutely, the accusative is used, as
the case iof the simple object. In the language of the N, T.,
however, the genitive is supported by a preposition in many of
these constructions. To come to particulars : —
(a) Aeofiat takes without exception the genitive of the person
(Mt. ix. 38, L. V. 12,viii. 28, A. viii. 22,aL),the thing requested
being subjoined in the accusative, as in 2 C viii. 4, Beofievot
t)/ia)v rrjv y^dptv k.t.X} (Don. p. 468, Jelf 529.)
(6) Of the genitive with verbs of giving there is only one
example, Eev. ii, 17, Bcdao) avTw rov fidvva ; where some MSS.
have the correction Baxjca uvtm (payeiv tnro tov fidvva.^ On the
other hand, in Kom. i. 1 1 and 1 Th. ii. 8 the apostle could not
have written fxeraBiBovat ■^apiafxaro<i or evayyeXiov (Matth. 326.
3); for in the first passage he means some particular charisma
(in fact he says j^^dpcarfid ri) as a whole, and in the latter the
gospel is referred to as something indivisible. Paul did not
purpose to impart something from a spiritual gift, or something
from the Gospel. (Don. p. 473, Jelf 535.)
^ Weber, Dem. p. 163. [Once we find 3i.>^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]<i
A. xxvii. 36, fxcTaXa/x^dveiv Tpo^i]<; A. ii. 46, xxvii. 33 sq., yeve-
crOai rov SeiTrpov L. xiv. 24 (figuratively in H. vi. 4 <yevea6at
rr)<i Sfoped^i rfjq iirovpavLov, yeveaOat Oavdrov Mt. xvi. 28, L. ix.
27, H. ii 9, al.) : also with the genitive of a person, Phil. 20,
iyco cTov ovalfjurjv iv Kvpiw (so as early as Odyss. 19. 68), Bom,
XV. 24, eav vfiwv .... ifjuTrXijaOa). But yevecrdac governs the
accusative in Jo. ii. 9 iyevaaro ro vB(op, and in H. yi. 5,^ as it
freq^ueutly does in Jewish Greek (Job xii. 11, Ecclus. xxxvi. 24,
Tob. vii. 1 1), but probably never in Greek writers.^ Verbs of
eating of, as also those of giving and taking of ov from, are in all
other N. T. passages accompanied by prepositions :-—
a. By d-TTo : L. xxiv. 42 [Rec.'\, iiriScoKav avrw . ; . aTro /ze-
Xiaaiov KTjpiov, xx. 10 ; Mt. xv. 27, ra Kwdpia eaOUi d-jTO tcov
-^iXifov TOiv iraihlcov, — compare |0 h'Z^, and ^ayelv d-rcG Fabric.
x^seudep. I. 706; L. xxii. 18, ov fxr} tt/o) dirb rov yevvrip,aro<i rrj^
df^ireXov, Jer. Ii. (xxviii.) 7 ; A. ii. 1 7, cKxeco UTro rov rrvev^aro'i
fiov (from the LXX) ; v. 2, Kal ivoacpiaaro diro rrj<i rLjjLrjf;- Jo.
xxi. 10, iviyKare drro rwv 6-\{rapL0)V Mk. xii. 2, Lva .... Xd^ji
arro rov Kaprrov rov d/j,7reXa)vo<;.
b. By €k: 1 C. xi. 28, eV roD aprov iaeUrco- ix. 7 (2 S. xii.
3, 2 K. iv. 40, Ecclus. xi. 19, Judith xii. 2): Jo. iv. 14, 09 av
rrcj) e/c rov vSaror"^ v. 50, dpro^ .... ha rt? i^ avrov ^dyy
Beugel (on H. vi. 4) seems to trifle, in making a distinction in this passage
between yi6t<r6xi v\'itl) a genitive and with an accusative. ["The change of con-
straction from the genitive to the accusative in the small compass of this passage
cannot _be mere looseness of language. . . . This construction must be viewed
as an indication of a change of meaning, resulting from the presence of an
epithet, not as a mere epithet, but as entering into the predicate ; the action
signified being now no longer the bare process of tasting, but of becoming
cognisant by that means of a quality or condition of the object of taste. The
epithet KaXoy must be regarded as belonging to Iwafius as well as /?/««. "—Green,
wr. p. 94. Other explanations (less probable) will be found in the notes of
Deiitzsch and Alford. Comp. Jo. iv. 23 (p. 263, note ^).]
^ In the sense of eating up, conmming, (payitv and iriUiv of course take an
accusative (Mt. xii. 4, Rev. x. 10) ; 1 C. ix. 7 [r«v >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 <p(vye2p Ik dvaiaf, for
SvaiaaTTjpiov means altar : it is only in sense that cat from the
altar is equivalent to eat of ilie sacrifice (offered on the altar)
TJ;iere is probably no example of iadUcv airo or cV to be found in
Greek authors, but airoXavav airo rLvo<;, Plat. Rep. 3. 395 c, 10
606 b, Apol. 31 b, is a- kindred expression.
(d) Of verbs of perception, clkovw is construed with the geni-
tive of the person (to hear frovi some one), to hear some one, as
in Mt. xvii. 5, Mk. vii. 14, L. ii. 46, Jo. iii. 29, ix. 31, Rev. vi.
1, 3, Eom. X. 1 4 ; ^ the object is expressed by the accusative, as
in A. i. 4, r^v rjKovcrare jmov Lucian, Dial. Deor. 20. 13 (Don.
p. 469 sq., Jelf 485 sqq.). Besides this construction, however,
we also find uKoveiv tl utto, 1 Jo. i. 5 ; e/c, 2 C. xii. 6 (this
occiiYs as early as Odt/ss. 15. 374) ; Trapd, A. x. 22 : here Greek
authors would have been content with a simple genitive.^ A
genitive of the thing is joined to uKoveiv in Jo. v. 25, H. iv. 7,
UK. <f)o}uP)'i' L. XV. 25, ijKOvae avfirpcoifta^ kol ■^opcjv Mk. xiv.
64, rjKovccrre Tpj-i ^Xa(j(f)Tifxia<;- 1 Mace. x. 74, Bar. iii. 4
(Lucian, Bale. 2, Gall. 10, Xen. C]/r. 6. 2. 13, al.) ; an accusa-
tive in L. V, 1, uKoveiv rhv \6yov toO deov' Jo. viii. 40, ttjv
aXrjdeiav, rjv rjKovaa irapa t. 6eov k.t.X. In the latter examples
the object is regarded as one coherent whole, and the hearing is
an act of the intellect : in the former, the reference is in the first
instance to the particular tones or words which are heard (with
the physical ear) : Compare Kost p. 535.^
Th^ genitive after rvy^at'ctv (£7rtTt'y_)(ai/cti/) is perhaps, in its origin,
to be explained by the above rule ; yet we also find it where the
' By others (Riickert and Fritzsche) the personal genitive in oJ «i« vxou-
rar is understood to mean of whom (de quo) they have not heard, as we find
aKoiim rn'os in Iliad 24. 490. This does not seem to me probable (for the
construction in this sense is confined to poetry), and still less is it necessary :
we hear Christ when we hear the Gospel in which He speaks, and accordingly
XpiaTOD axovui is in E. iv. 21 predicated of those who had not heard Christ in
person. Philippi's note in loc. is superficial.
2 [These prepositions are sometimes inserted in cla-ssical Greek (Don. p. 470,
Jelf 485) : e. g., i^a, Thuc. 1. 125 ; vafi, Xen. An. 1. 2. 5 ; i«. Her. 3. 62.]
^ [A, Buttmann (p. 167) considers Jo. xii. 47, A. xxii. 1, al., as examples. of
another construction of a.Keva>, — 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-<x/>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 riv6<i,
Oi-yydveiv riv6<; With the genitive are construed
(a) Words that express the notion of sharing in, partici-
pating in, wanting (wishing to participate), see Matth. 325
(Don. p. 472, 468, Jelf 536, 529) -. Koivoyveiv, H. ii. 24 ; kolvco-
v6^, 1 C. X. 18, 1 P. V. 1 ; avyKoivo)vo<:, Eom. xi. 17 ; fiere-^eiv, 1
C. ix. 1 2, X. 2 1, H. V 1 3 ; fieTaXafi^dveiv, H. vi. 7, xii. 1 ; fierb-
')(p<;, H. iii. 1 : also 'xprj^et.vf Mt. vi. 32,2 Ciii. l,al.; Trpo^helaBai,
A.xvii. 25. But Koivcovelv is also found with a dative of the thing,
and indeed this is the more comnion construction in the N. T. ; *
1 Tim. V. 22, fiT] KOLvoovei afiapriaK dX\oTpiat<i Rom. xv. 27,
1 P. iv. 13, 2 Jo. 11 (Wis. vi. 25). In a transitive sense it is
joined with ei? in Ph. iv. lo , ovheixiu. fioi. evKXijaia iKoivfovrjfrei/
€69 Xoyov Bocrewf;: compare Plat. Jirp. 5. 453 b, hvvari] <j)v<Ti'i y
drjXeia Ty Toi) dppevcs yevovs Koivtourja'ai, et? drrravTa to, epya'
Act. Apocr. p. 91. The dative of the thing with KOLvwvdv and
fieTe')(eiv is sometimes found in Greek writers (Thuc. 2. 16,De-
* In good MSS. hrirvyx''^^'" ^^^ tlie accus. once, Rom. xi. 7 ; see Fritz, in loc,
2 Compare Brunck, Soph. El. 364, Jacobs, Anth Pal \U 803.
' lu L. xL 8 several MSS. have am*, xf»Zn* but we cannot (with Kiihubl)
infer from this, any more than from the construction x^^'Z^'* '"' (Matth. 35.5.
Rem. 2), that xP''Z"' takes an accusative, in the sense of desiring, craving.
[Compare Green p. 96, and see below, § 32. 4.]
* [On the constructions of xotva,fi7» in the N. T. see Ellicott's note on G. vi. 6 :
he maintains that this verb is always intransitive in the N. T. Knvutis also
takes a dative of the person (L. v. 10).]
SECT. XXX.] THE GENITIVE. 261
mosth. Cor. c. 18), see Poppo, Tliuc. III. ii. 77 : in the case of
Koivowelv this construction is explained by the notion of asso-
ciation which lies in the word. (1 Tim. v. 22 cannot he resolved
into fitjhev <roc kol Tai<i dfx,apTiai<i aWorp. Kocvhv €arco.) Once
we find fjL€T6x^i'V joined with eV : 1 G. x. 17, €«toO ei/09 dpTov
p.er€-)(Ofiev : 1 know of no example of the kind in Greek writers.
(b) Words of fulness, Jilling,^ emptiness, and deficiency
(Matth. 351 sq., Don. p. 468, Jelf 539, 529) : Rom. xv. 13,
6eo<i 7r\7]po)(7at, vfidf; Trdarj'i ')^apa<i koI evprjvrj's' L, i. 53,
ireivMVTa'i ^veirXr^aev a.'yadSyV A. v. 28, ireTfKTjpoiKare ri]v
' lepovaaXrjfji tj}? 8iBa^r)<i vjxcov (A. ii. 28, from the LXX),
Jo. ii. 7, 'yefMiaare Ta<i vhpi.a'i vSaro<i (vi 13), Mt. xxii. 10,
iTrXrjadrj 6 'ycipLOt; uvaKeip,iv<ov (A. xix. 29), Jo. i. 14, 77X77^77?
'^dpiTO'i' 2 P. ii. 14, 6(f>da\/xol fxecTTol fiof)(akLho<i' L. xi. 39,
TO e<T(t)0€v vficov yep-ec dpTrayi}'; Koi 'irovr}pia<i' Ja. i. 5, et Tt,^
vfioov XeiTrerat aro(f)ia<;.^ Pom. iii. 23, Traj/re? vaTepovurac rrj^j
Bo^r)^ Tov deov (compare Lob. p. 237) ; see also A. xiv. 17,
xxvii. 38, L. xv. 17, xxii. 35, Jo. xix. 29, Pom. xv. 14, 24, Pev.
XV. 8. Only seldom are verbs of fulness joined with utto "^
(L. XV, 16, eTrediifxec <yep,Lcrai rrjv Koikiav avroii cltto twp Kepa-
Tiayv xvi. 21), or with e'/c, as in Pev. viii. 5 (yefxi^eiv e/c),
Pev. xix. 21 ('x^oprd^. e'/c, contrast -^opTa^eiv Tivo<i Lam. iii.
15, 29), Pev. xvii. 2, 6 (fieOueiv, jxedva-KeaOai e/c), compare
Lucian, Dial. J). 6. 3.* Altogether solecistic is <yepov rd
6v6fiara,liev. xvii. 3 (compare ver. 4).'^ The use of the dative
with TrXTjpovp, fieOvo-KeaOai, etc., rests on an essentially different
view of the relation ; see § 31. 7. Tn 1 C. i. 7 vcnepeicdai iv
^ To this head belongs also «rA.ai/V/s< with the genitive, Eur. Or. 394. In
the N. T. the preposition 5» is always used : E. ii. 4, irXcvinos ty oAu (rich in
compassion), Ja. ii. 5. Compare -rXovTiJy, 'rXfivriZ,ig6a,i :» nu, 1 Tim. vi. 18, 1 C.
i. 5, al.
- Matthise, Eurip. HippoL 52?,.
^ [These verbs are followed by isra in modern Greek (Mullach, Vulff.
p. 325).]
* On TXti^univ cLTo, Atlien. 13. 569, see Schweighaus. Add. et Corrig.
p. 478. — Mt. xxiii. 15, lo-uim yi/aevirir (the Clip and platter) i^ af^ay?; ««<
oDcfecfiai , must probably be rendered, are filled from robbery ; they have con-
tents which are derived from robbery. Luke however tran.sfers the fulness to
the Pharisees themselves, and hence writes ro 'is-uhv i/ft-ut yifiu afrayra k.t.x.
So also in Jo. xii. 3, « tWia. Wxri^tLSn ix TJjs itr/u,y:s rev f/.upi>v, 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 tdcra<i avrov
rrj<i B6^id<i %et/909 (by the ^an^), compare Plat. Farm. 126, Xen.
An. 1. 6. 10. Hence these verbs are commonly used with the
genitive of a limb, as in L. viii. 54, Kparr)aa<; rrj<; %et/309 avrr)<;'
A. xxiii, 19 (Is. xli. 13, xlii. 6, Gen. xix. 16). On the other
hand, icparuv,\aii^dveLv,OT iiriKafi^dveaOai Tii'a, always means
to seize a man, i. e. his whole person, to apprehend : ^ Mt. xii. 11,
xiv. 3, xviii. 28, A. ix. 27, xvi. 19. The same distinction is
observed in the figurative use of these verbs : genitive, — H.
ii. 16, L. i. 54, 1 Tim. vi. 2 (Xen Cyr. 2. 3. 6) ; accusative, —
2 Th. ii. 15, Col. ii. 19, al. But Kparelv cling to, H. iv. 14,
vi. 18, and i7rcXap,/3dvecrOai lag hold of , 1 Tim. vi 12, 19 (Ml,
14. 27), are construed with a genitive : in each case, however,
the reference is to a possession (opoXoyi'a, eX-TTi?) designed for
many, which each man for his own part holds fast or attains.
See on the whole Matth. 330 sq. 'Eirikap^dveadat, used in a
^ [To this class belongs also -Trifiiraiviii abound in', L. xv. 17 : in its strictly
comparative sense (Xen. An. 4. 8. 11) this word does not directly govern a casa
in the N. T. Here may be mentioned the genitive with verbs which express
a notion of comparison, — the genitive of relation (Don. p. 476, Jelf 505 sij.):
{/■rcpJMx^X'.iv, K. iii. 19 ; v-ripi^^tiv, Ph. ii. 2 ; ffAirTa.aia.i, 1 Tim. iii. 4 ; i/a-Tipuv
una ha<pipuv, which however Wiuer places in a different class. On the genitive
after verbs compounded with rrpi, etc., see § 52. 2. 4. (A. Buttm. p. 168 sq.).]
^ [Duii.aldson takes a different view of this genitive, see p. 483.]
^.Bernbardy p. 168 (Jelf 540, Obs.). Compare ^ccttuv us liluf, Plat. Tim^
73 e, ^1. 14. 39.
* [A. Buttmann (p. 160) maintains that i'riXafn.Pid.Mierfai never really governs
an accusative. " In all the instances (either in the N. T. or in Greek authors)
m which such an accusative seems to occur, i-3r4Xxftfixviir^ai stands connected*
with another transitive verb, so that the accusative (by the cx^H-'^ "-"^^ *a/y«u)
is jointly dependent on both predicates." Similarly Meyer (on A. ix. 27).
Liinemann, in a note introduced in this place, takes the same view, and (juotes
A. XV iii. 17 a.3 an additional example.]
SECT. XXX.] THE GENITIVE. 253
metaphysical sense, is followed by two genitives in L. xx. 20,
iva eTTiXd^wvrai avrov Xoyov, tliat they might lay hold of him hy
a ivord, and in ver. 26, i7ri\a/3ia6aL avrov prjfxaro^'. so in its
proper sense Xen. An. 4, 7. 12. Lastly, we must bring in
here the construction €')(ea-6ai rivof to cling to, hang on some-
thing, pendere ex (see Bleek, Heir. II. ii. 220 sq., Matth. 330,
Jelf 536, Don. p. 483), and avTexeaeaC tlvo<;. In the K T.
these two verbs are so used only in the figurative sense : H.
vi. 9, ra Kpeia-crova Koi i-^ofieva (TQ)rr}pia<;' Mt. yi. 24, rov
evo^ avde^erat Kal rou krepov Karai^povrjcreL' 1 Th. v. 1 4, ame-
p^ecr^e tmv acrdevwv Tit. L 9, avT€-)(Oixevo^ rov Kara rrjv BiBa^rjv
iria-rov \6yov. Akin to these is avk")(eaQai rivo'^, to endure any-
thing or any one, since it properly signifies to hold to something^
(Mt. xvii. 17, H. xiii. 22, E. iv. 2), compare Kypke II. 93 : so
also evo')(o<; (eVe^j/o/^ew)?) rtro?, as in Mt xxvi. 66, evo-)(0<i Oavdrov,
or 1 C. xi. 27, €vo')(Q<i rov crco/xaro^ koI rov a'tp,aro<i rov Kvpiov
(Ja. ii. 10), for in all these instances there is denoted a heing
hound to (something), — in the first example, to a punishment
which must be suffered, — in the second, to a thing to which
satisfaction must be given. See Fritz. Matt. p. 223, Bleek,
Hehr. II. i, 340 sq. : compare § 31. 1.
Rem. 1. The partitive genitive is sometimes governed by an
adverb: H. ix. 7, aira^ tov eViaurov once in the year,^ L, xviii. 12,
xvii. 4 (Ptol. Geogr. 8. 15. 19, 8. 29. 31, 8. 16. 4, aL) : compare
Madv. 50 (Jelf 523).
Rem. 2. The partitive genitive is not always under the government
of another word : it sometimes appears as the subject of the sentence,
as in Xen. An. 3. 5. 16, OTrore . . . crveicraLVTO KoX (.-miXLyvvardai (T<f>u)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,
<Tvvr\KBov Koi twv fLaOrjrCjv crvv rjfiiv; compare Pseud-Arist. p. 120
(Haverc), kv ots Kal ySacriXiKol ^o-av KoX TuiV TifJiu)fji€V(jiv ii-nro tov
^ao-iA-ewv, As a rule, however, the genitive is accompanied by a
preposition in such cases; e.g. Jo. xvi. 17,^ cIttov ck twv fxaOrjruiv
avrov K.T.X. (Jelf 893. e).
9. It is not difficult to recognise the genitive as the whence-
case when it is joined with
' [Compare Jelf I. p. 454, Note ; and on i^tx"'' "^^^^ § 501.]
* [I.iinemann adds Mt. xxviii. 1, ov^s (ra^^iray.]
3 [Compare also Rev. xi. 9, Jo. vii. 40 (Tisch., al.) : In several passages «»
with its case occupies the place of the object, as 2 Jo. 4, Rev. ii. 10, Mt. xxiii.
34, L. xxi. 16 ; compare also Rev. v, 9, if fifta; be omitted. A. Buttm. p. 168 sq.,
Schirlitz, Grundz. p. 250.]
264 THE GENITIVE. [PART III.
(a) Verbs of accusing and impeacliing (condemning), as the
genitive of the thing (Matth. 369, Don. p. 479, Jelf 501) ; for
the crime of which one is accused is that //om wJiich the kutt}-
jopeip proceeds. See At xix. 40, KivSuvevo/xev iyKoXetadat,
(TTacreax:' xxv. 11, ovSiv eartv tav ovtoi KaTrjyopovcri fxov L.
xxiii. 1 4, ouBev evpov iv tu> 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)<i iiroirjaev^^ In later writers
fxi(T€iv also has the genitive of the thing, like iiraivelv ; see
Liban. Omtt. p. 1 20 d, Cantacuz. I. 56 . (Don. p. 479, Jelf 495.)
(c) Verbs of exhaling {smelling, breathing), Matth. 376
(Don. p. 469, Jelf 484) ; for in 6'^ety Tiv6<i the genitive deuotas
the material or the substance from lohich the ol^eiv emanates.
* [The constructions of xamyop-Tt in the N. T ave as follows : —
a. Genitive of person, the charge being either expressed by «^/ (A. xxiv. 13
only), or left unexpressed ; this is the most common construction.
b. v^ctTnyopilv ri*a, Kev. xii. 10 (probably).
c. Two genitives apparently in A. xxiv. 8, xxv. 11 (compare Dem. Mid. 3,
^afia.tci/,MV avTou Ko-Tnyopuv) ; but it is probable that »y stands for rovrav £
(by attraction), so that we have the regular construction xartiyepiTv ti t<»»; :
hence we need not take foXXa and toV« in JMk. xv. 3, 4, as semi-adverbial accu-
satives, but may consider them (Examples of the same kind.
(/ Ka.Tnyop'-tii Tt xxTx Tivo;, L. xxiii. 14 [uv for Toi/ruv a.). In several pas-
sages this verb is used absolutely. — Kara.fjt.apTvpi7v is followed by a genitive
of the person, —with t/ (Mt. xxvi. 62, Mk, xiv. 60), -Trora. lit. xxvii. 13:
r-aTayivojaKiDi by a genitive of the person only. (In part, from A. Buttmann
p. 165. )J
^ How xa-TfiyipiTv (properly, to affirm or maintain cifjaiusl some one) comes
to have a genitive of the person (Mt. xii. 10, L. xxiii. 2, al.) is obvious; but
xccTayiyurKu* Tivis ] ,Io. ill. 20, 21, is exactly similar (Matth. 378). For iyKa>.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\^<? koI (f>6voO, hreatkim/ of
threa/rnuKj and murder: compare Aristoph. Uq. 437, ovrot
'^Stj /caKLa^ Kut avKO(fiovr/a<i irvel Ileliod. 1. 2, Ephraem. 2358.
Different from this are <l)6vov irveovre'i Theocr. 22. 82, and
Bvixov iicrrveoyv Eur. Bacck. 620 ; here the simple object is
expressed (hreathiftg murder, courage), and the verbs are treated
as transitive. (Jelf 640. Ohs.)
10. There appears to be a somewhat wider departure from
the nature of the genitive, when this case is used with
{d) Verbs oi feeling, to denote the object towards which the
feeling is directed; as o-TrXayxi'^^eaOai tivo<; Mt. xviii. 27 In
German, however, we have the genitive con.struction (sich
jemandes erharraen), and in Greek the object svas ceitainly
regarded as exerting an influence on the person who feels, and
consequently as the point y>o?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<i eTredufiijaa (1 Tinr. iii. 1) : so also opiyecrOai,. I Tim.
iii. 1, €1 Ti<; itria Koirrj'i op^yerai, koKov cpjov iiriSvp^el (Isocr.
Demon, p. 24, 6pe'^6rjvaL rcou Kokuiv epycov Lucian, Tim. 70),
H. xi, 16 ; and ifiei'peadai., 1 Th. ii. 8 [liec.]. In the LXX, also,
and in the Apocrypha (Wis. vi. 12, 1 Mace, iv, 17, xi. 11, al.)
t'TrtOvfj.elv Tiv6<i {opiyeaOat does not occur) is the usual con-
^ [Compare Don. p. 484, ■where reasons are given for taking a tlilFerent view
of the nature of this genitive. ]
* [Htre al/'TKf is much better supported than avrr,i. Tisch. iu ed. 8 omits tho
pronoun, which is placed within bracicets by Westcott and Hort.j
256 THE GENITIVE. [PA-RT IIL
struction ; but the verb is already beginning to take an accusa-^
tive, as a transitive verb, e.g. Ex. xx. 17, Dt. v. 21, vii. 25, Mic.
it 2, Job xxxiii. 20, — compare Wis. xvi. 3, Ecclus. xvi. 1. Even
in earlier Greek the verb eTniroOelv is always followed by an
accusative (because the verb was in thought resolved into iroBeiv
or iroOov ex^iv iirl ti, toioards something, compare Fritz, Rom. I.
31), riat. Lcgg. 9. 855 e, Diod. S. 17. ,101 ; compare 2 C. ix.
14, Ph. i. 8, IP. ii. 2 (Jelf I.e. Ohs. 2). Iletvrjv and Bi-^^v also,
which in Greek writers are regularly followed by a genitive,
take an accusative in the N. T. (in a figurative sense, with refer-
ence to spiritual blessings); see Mt. v. 6, Trett/wi/Te? koI Sii/rwi/re?
rrjv BiKacocrvuTjv^ and compare <^i\oaoj)iav 8tx/r. Epist. Socr. 25,
53 (Allat.). The distinction between the two constructions is
obvious : Biyfrrjv <^t\oa-o(^lm is to thirst toljuards philosophy , whilst
in hi^r}v (pi,\oao(f)Lav philosophy is regarded as an indivisible
whole, into the possession of which one desires to come. Most
closely connected with these verbs are
(c) Verbs of thinJcing of, rememhering (Matth. 347, Don. p.
4G8, Jelf 515): L. xvii. '62, fivrffiovemTe rrj'^ yvvaiKO'; Acor i. 72,
fivrjo-Orjvac BiaOrJKTjr A. xi. 16, l.C. xi. 2, L. xxii. 61, H. xiii. 3,
Jude 17, 2 P. iii. 2. (On the other hand virofit^ivrjaiceLv Tiva
nrepi TLva, 2 P. i. 12.) We also use the genitive in German to
express thinking of a thing, for this operation is no other than
grasping, taking hold of something with the memory. Ana-
logous to this is to he forgetful of a thing: H. xii. 5, iK\i\7]a6e
tt}? TrapaKkr^crea^' vi. 10, eTrikadecrOaL rov €p<yov vixasv xiii.
2,16. Yet we often find the accusative with avaixifivrjcrKeadat,
H. X. 32, 2 C. vii. 15, Mk. xiv. 72, and with fivv/ioveveLV, Mt.
xvi. 9, 1 Th. ii. 9, Rev. xviii. 5 (Matth. /. c. Rem. 2, Jelf 515) ;
but rather in the sense of having a thing present to the mind,
holding in remembrance (Bernh. p. 1 7 7). 'ETTiXavBdveaOai also
tat^es an accusative in Ph. iii. 14, as sometimes in the LXX (Dt.
iv, 9, 2 K. xvii. 38, Is. bcv. 16, Wis. ii. 4, Ecclus. iii. 14 2) and
even in Attic Greek (Matth. /. c., Jelf 5 1 5). This twofold con-
struction rests on a difference in the view which is taken of the
^ In the LXX this verh is found with a dative, Ex. xvii. 3, lli^rKn^y a Xaosr
via.ri (towarrfa water). In Ps. Ixii. 2 also Vat. has lli^nvi era {hu, al. ft) h
•[In Wis. ii. 4 and Ecclus. iii. 14 WiX. does not govern an accusative.]
SECT. XXX.] THE GENITIVE. 257
relation, a difference wliich also shows itself in Latin. Verbs of
making mentimi of do not take a genitive in the N. T. : ^ we find
instead fivrjfxoveveiv irepi, H. xi. 22 ; compare /j,tfj,ui]crK6(rdat
nepcXen. Gyr. 1. 6. 12, Plut. Pondag. 9. 27, Tob. iv. 1,
id) The transition is easy to verbs which signify to care
for or to neglect anything (Matth. 348, Jelf 496) : L. x. 34.
i7r€fi6\i]07] avTov (1 Tim. iii. 5), 1 C. ix. 9, /jurj rwv ^oiou /xeXec
ra> 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 <ioKovvre<i ap-)(eLv rdv edpotv Kara-
Kvpievovaiv avroiV Rom. xv. 12 (from the LXX). Compare
also Kvpieveiv Rom. xiv. 9, 2 C. i. 24, avOevrelv 1 Tim.ii. 12,
Karahwaarevetu Ja. ii. 6, avBvTrareuehv A. xviii. 12, etc. ; these
verbs are merely derivatives from nouns, and the construction
resolves itself into Kvpiov rivo^ elvat, avOvrrarov Ttvo<f elvai.^
Yet ^aaCKeveiv ni/o^ (Her. 1,206 and LXX) never occurs in the
N. T. ; ' in its stead we find the Hebraistic expression (?y being
used with verbs of ruling, Ps. xlvii. 9, Prov. xxviii. 15, Neh. v.
1 5) ^aaiXeveiv iiri TLvo^i, Mt. ii 22, Kev. v. 10, or /3ao-. eVt riva,
L. i. 33, xix. 14, 27, Rom. v. 14: compare Lob. p. 475.
^ [This is a question of interpretation : some of the best commentators take
ft.}ir,fioviuiiv in this sense in H. xi. 15, where the verb governs a genitive.]
^ [If obliv be taken adverbially : but it is surely simpler to consider ovVt* the
subject of sutXtv, and roCrav dependent on euiit (Jelf 496. Obs, 2). j
^ [Similarly fitpiuvtiffti iain->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 fia<riXiuii rSj 'lot/Saiaf.]
17
258 THE GENITIVE. [PART III.
Verbs of buying and selling take the genitive of the price (Bernh.
p. 177 sq., Madv. 65, Don. p. 478, Jelf 519) : Mt. x. 29, o^t Svo
(TTpovdio. aa-cTopiov TrtoXetraf XX^^- 9, rfivvaro tovto irpaOrjvat ttoXAov'
XX. 13, Mk. xiv. 5, A. v. 8 (Plat. Apol 20 b), 1 C. vi, 20 (compare
Eev. vi. 6), Bar. L 10, iiL 30 (but in Mt. xxvii. 7, rjyopaa-av e| avrCjv,
SCil. dpyvpiuiv' A. i. 18), A. vii. 16, (ovT^o-aro ti/aj}? apyvpiov (with ck
in PalsepL 46. 3, 4). Under this head comes also Jude 1 1, ttj TrXavr]
rov BaXaoLfjL ixLcrOov i$€xvOr]a-av, for reward (Xen. Cyr. 3. 2. 7, Plat
Jtiep. 9. 575 b). This construction with ck, and still more a con-
sideration of the primary meaning of the genitive, might lead us to
refer this genitive of price to the notion of proceeding from, since
that which .is bought etc. for a price, proceeds for us, so to speak,
out of the price (or equivalent) which is given for it. But it is
probably nearer the truth to think of the genitive of exchange, and
of such expressions as dXXdrra-eiv tl tlvos (Hartung p. 15, Matth. 364,
Don. I. c, Jelf 520) ; for the object bougbt or sold is set over against
so much money,^ and hence in Greek avrt is the preposition of price."^
The construction oAXao-o-etv, SioAAao-o-ciyTt'Ttvos, does not itself occur
in the Greek Bible : in Rom. i. 23 we find instead the more vivid
phrase dXXda-a-eiv Ti evTLVL, by which in Ps. cv. 20 the LXX render the
Hebrew 3 I'lon. The nearest approach to this is found in dXXda-a-eiv
ri Ttvi, which occurs Her. 7. 152 and often in the LXX (Ex. xiii. 13,
Xiev. xxvii. 10, al.). Words of valuing, estimation, etc., belong to
the same category as verbs of buying and selling, and, like them,
govern the genitive, — to esteem worthy of a thing (Kriig, p. 53, Don.
/. c, Jelf 521) : compare a^ios Mt. iii 8, x. 10, Rom, i 32 ; ditow
2 TL i. 11, 1 Tim. v, 17, H. iii. 3, and frequently.
11. The genitive of place and of time : as -^sch. Prom. 714
Xaid'i ■)(ei,po<i cnBr)poTeKTove<; OLKovai XaX,i//3e?, on the left hand ^
(Her. 5. 77), Xen. Eph. 5. 13 iK€ivr)<i rri<; ^fjLepa<i, on that day,
Philostr. Her. 9. 3 sq. ^€Lfioovo<; in wilder, Thuc. 3. 104 (Matth.
377, Don. p. 471, Jelf 522 sq.). This genitive is not governed
directly by any particular word, but its relation to the con-
struction of the sentence is quite clear ; and there is in it no-
thing alien to the primary meaning of the genitive case.^ The
N. T. writers almost always insert a preposition : their use of
^ [The German preposition gegen (over against) is used with verbs of bu}dng,
etc., in the sense /or, in exchange /or, and thus closely resembles avr/.]
^ A different view will be found in Herm. Optisc, I. 179. See on the -other
hand Prufer, De Grceca et Lat, Declinatione 98 sq, [Liinemann adds : com-
pare H. xii. 2, 16.]
^ [In the phrases which are translated in this section Winer is able to imitate
the Greek construction by using the German genitive : with rou Xm-rou he com-
pares the German des weUern. — Compare Matzner, jEng. Lang. I, 389 sqq.,
Morris, Blst. Outl. pp. 193, 196.]
* Herm. V^ig. p. 881. Hartung p. 32 sqij.
SECT. XXX.] THE GENITIVE. 259
the simple genitive of place or time (which is properly a parti-
tive genitive) is almost confined to certain standing formulas :
thus we often meet with vvkt6<; ly night, also /jbear]<i vvKTO'i Mt.
XXV. 6,77/xe/3a9 kuI vvktos- L. xviii. 7, A. ix. 24 (Xen. An. 2. 6.
7) ; %et/ia)i/09 Mt. xxiv. 20 i connected with aajB^drw) ; opdpov
BaOio'i L. xxiv. 1 ; firj evpovTe^, Trala^ (ocov) el'ieveyKcocriv avTOV,
L. V. 19, by what way, eKeivrj^ (bed ohov) L. xix. 4 ; toO Xolttov
G. vi. 17 (Thuc. 4. 98). For this reason — because the use of
the genitive of time is limited in the K. T.to simple and familiar
formulas — we cannot render i]p,epo)v TeaaapaKovra in A. i. 3
(with the reading of D) vnthin forty days (I\iatth. 377. 2. b) :
see above 2. a. To express this meaning Luke would cer-
tainly have used a preposition.
Rev. xvi. 7, ■^xoucra Tov Ova-iaa-T-Qinov Aeyovros, must certainly not
be brought in here (/ heard one spoik'mg from the altar, — compare
Soph. El. 78, Bernh. p. 137).^ Iq accordance with analogous sen-
tences in ver. 5 and vi. 3, 5, the words must be rendered, / heard the
altar speak (see Bengel in loc.) ; and this prosopopoeia well suits the
strangely mysterious character of these Adsions : see De Wette. The
other reading, rjKova-a aXkov €k tov Bvcnaa-r. XeyovTo<;, is a palpable
correction. On Ti/5epta8os, Jo. vi. 1, see above, page 239.
Rem. The genitive absolute is of frequent occurrence in the
historical style of the N, T. In its original application this is not
an absolute case in the proper sense of the Avord, but depends on the
use of the genitive for definitions of time (compare Hartuug p. 31 ^) :
hence the corresponding absolute case in Latin is the ablative. It is
however used with a more extended reference, especially to assign
the cause and the condition, — both relations which are expressed by
the genitive. The only point needing remark here is, that a genitive
absolute is sometimes used where the nature of the following verb
would lead us to expect a different oblique case : L. xvii. 12 [I{ec.\
€ise/D;^o/AeVou avrov . . . aTry'jVTrjaav avrw, XXU. 10, 53, XVllL 40,
cyyicravTOS avrov iwrip^Trjcrev avrov Mk. XL 27, A- IV. 1, XXI. 17,
2 C. xiL 21,^ Jo. iv. 51. Examples of this kind are also common
in Greek authors, partly because when the sentence was commenced
the principal verb was not yet determined on, partly because the
more regular construction would in many cases render the expression
clumsy: compare Her. 1. 41, Thuc. 1. 114, 3. 13, Xen. An. 2. 4.
» Erfuidt, Soph. (EcL R. 142, Buttm. Philoct. 115.
* [Compare Jelf 541, Don. p. 485.]
'[With the reading ixSivras /jtav To.Tutusn fti: in the later MSS! the con-
.structiou is made regular. So in Rev. xvii. 8, quoted below, Rec. has the more
regular fixirovrn. for /Sxs^rovTtav (Tisch., al.). On this irregularity see Jelf 710,
and especially A. Buttmann p. 314 sf^q.]
260 THE DATIVE. [PART III.
24, Mem. 4. 8. 5, Pol. 4. 49. 1, Xen. Epli. 4. 5, Heliod. 2, 30. 113.1
In 2 C iv. 18 also, for atwviov /^apos 86$r}^ Karepyd^eraL rjfitv, fXTj
(TKOTTouvTiDv r)fjiit)v TO, yS AcTTo/x fva, Paul might have written yu,^ ctko-
vooa-L TO. ySA.'; but the former construction brings out the participial
member with more prominence and force : compare Xen. Cyr. 9. 1.
37. , Lastly, we find exceptional instances of the use of a genitive
absolute where the principal sentence has the same subject (in the
nominative) as the subordinate sentence ; as Mt. i. IS, /iivr](rTev6eL(rrj<i
r^s jJLTjTpbs avTov Mapta? tw 'Iwcrr^^, irplu r) crvpuXOetv airou?, cvpi&rj
iv yaarpl cxovcra, where the writer probably had in his mind another
mode of finishing the sentence. So perhaps in Rev, xvii. 8. Such
instances as these are rare in Greek authors : see however Her. 5. 81,
Plat. Bej). 8. 547 b, Pol. 31. 17. 1 ; and compare Poppo, Time. I.
119 sq., Wannowski p. 61 sqq. In the LXX see Gen. xliv. 4, Ex.
iv. 21, V. 20, xiv. 18 : compare Acta Apocr. pp. 68, 69, Epiphan. Vit.
pp. 326, 340, 346 (in the 2d volume of Epiphan. 0pp. : ed. Colon.),
and in- Latin, Suet. Tib. 31. In all these examples the genitive
absolute is employed as a regularly established construction, the
grammatical origin of which was no longer considered. ^
Section XXXI.
the dative,
In Greek the dative is a more comprehensive case than in
Latin, representing, as it does, the Latin ablative as well as
the Latin dative.^ In general, however, its connexion with the
sentence is not so close and necessary as that of the accusative
or even of the genitive t its office is merely to complete and'
1 Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. II. 21, Schsef. Apollon. Rh. II. 171, and Demosth.
II. 202, Poppo, Thuc. I. 2, 119, Siebelis, Pausan. II. 8, Hoffmann, Pr. de Casib.
Absol p. I. Compare the Latin ablatives absolute in Cic. PhiU 11. lo, Fam.
15. 4. 18, Cffisar, Bell. Gall. 5. 4, Cio. 1. 36, 2. 19, 3. 21.
^ [Bp. Ellicott has some general remarks on the N. T. use of the genitive
with the noun, in his Essay on " Scripture, and its interpretation " {Aids to
Faith, p. 462 sq.). Besides the genitive of apposition or identity (§ 59. 8. a),
of remoter reference (§ 30. 2), of quality (§ 34. 3. b), he specifies " a widely
extended use "of this case "to denote the ideas of origination (Rom. iv. 13,
hianiirvyfi rriffriai), and not unfrequently of definite agency (2 Th. ii. 13,
uyiaffiits Tlnvficcro;)," — upon this see especially his note on 1 Th. i. 6 ; and a
smaller class of examples "in which ideas, so to speak, of ethical substance or
contents appear to predominate (E. i. 13, aXr,fiuai and a-wTnpixe)." See also
Green, Gr. pp. 87-98, Webster, Synf. pp. 67-77, for notices, of many passages.]
' Compare Herm. Emend. Rat. p. 140. [On the radical force of the dative
see Don. p. 488, Jelf 471, 586, Clyde, Gr. Syni. p. 35. On the dative in the
N. T. see Green pp. 98-102, Webster, Synt. pp. 76-79, Ellicott u.s.]
SECT. XXXI.] THE DATIVE. 261
extend, by indicating the object (in most cases the personal
object) at which an action* is aimed, which an action concerns,
but which is not directly affected by the action. Hence we often
find this case in conjunction with the accusative of the object,
as in 2 C. ix. 2, irpo6vfjAa rjv icavywyuai MuKeBocrcv A. xxii.
25, TrpoireLvav avrov Toh ifMaaiv (see Klihnol),^ x.xiv. 5, Jo.
vi. 13. In, a loose application the dative is used (of things)
to denote whatever accompanies the action, as motive, power,
circumstance (of time or place), etc.
1. We -first consider the dative as the case of reference (of
the more remote object, as it is usually expressed), both in its
connexion with transitive verbs — as Zthovai (hwpelaOai) rt tivl,
>ypd(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'jrrjKo6<i, ivavrlo<;, etc, (Jelf 593.)
(d) In 7rpo<iKuv6lv ruvi, Xarpeveiv (not in Ph. iii. 3), BovKovp.
(Jelf 596.)
^ [Unless ToT; ifiatnv be taken as instrument, see Alford. Against Kiihnbl's
rendering of TponUnv (tradere) see Bornem. Luc. p. 181 sq., Meyer in loc.']
^ [The references in the text to Jelf's Or. apply to most of the words in the
various classes ; for tux.^(r6a.i, i/Ti>yx,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<TK€iv rivi [evapea-retv, H. xi. 5], apKdv (]\It. xxv.
9, 2 C. xii. 9), apKero^ and lKav6<i, Mt. vi. 34, 1 P. iv. 3,
2 C. ii. 6. (Jelf 594, 596.)
(/) Then in ^evi^eadai tlvl, 1 P. iv. 12 (Thuc. 4. 85), le
astonished at a thing (the astonishment is directed towards the
thing); airoXoyetadai (2 C xii. 19, A. xix. 33, compare 1 P. iii.
15), and ScaXiyeadac nvi, A. xvii. 2, xviii. 19 ; BiaKareX-eyx^-
aOai TLVL, A. xviii. 28 (SojfiarLi^eiv tlvl, compare Col. ii. 20) ;
where the dative indicates tlie person to whom the conversation
or defence is addressed. Likewise ofioXoyelv and i^ofioXoyel-
adai TLVL (Ja. v. 16), even with the signification j9ra^se (^ •^1'^'^),
L. X. 21, Eom. xiv. 11, H. xiii. 15 ; for every act of praise to
God is a confession made to Him that we acknowledge Him as
the High and Glorions One. (Jelf 589, 594.)
Once, in Eev. xix. 5, the best MSS. have the construction
alvelv Ttt't' (compare Ecclus. Ii. 12) : probably p nnin was before
the writer's mind, — unless indeed alvelv is here construed ad
sensum, as equivalent to elirelv acvea-iv.
{y) In Kpiveadai (Mt. v. 40) and hLaKpivea-dat tlvl Jude 9
(Jer, XV. 10), go to law, contend against or with. (Jelf 601.)
(A) Somewhat differently in the verbs of equality or likeness ;
as Mt. xxiii. 27, o/toia^ere Ta^oL<i K€KovLa/j,evoL<i' vi. 8, H. ii. 17,
2 C. X. 12 ; compare ofiOLo^i, iao<; tlvl, Mt. xi. 16, Jo. ix. 9, 1
Jo. iii. 2, A. xiv, 15, Mt. xx. 12, Ph. ii. 6 ^ (once 6ij.ol6<; tlvo^,
Jo. viii. 55, — Matth. 386, comp. § 30. 4): also in verbs of
jmrticirpating in, 1 Tim. v. 22, 1 P. iv. 13 (compare L. v. 10,
Eom. XV. 27), though these verbs more commonly take the
genitive (§ 30. 8) : similarly op,LKelv tlvl, A. xxiv. 26. (Jelf 594.)
{%) In the verbs of using, as yjpr](jQaL, A. xxvii. 1 7, 1 C. ix.
12, 15. Once however (in 1 C. vii. 31) this verb has an accu-
sative in the best MSS.,^ as sometimes in the later writers, e.g.
Malal. p. 5, Theophan. p. 314, Bockh, Corip. Inscri'pt. II. 405,
(but not Xen. Ages. 11. 11), compare Born em. Ada p. 222: in
A. xxvii. 17 there is little authority for the accusative. (Jelf
591.)
^ Comp. Fritzsche, Ariat. Amic. p. 15 : [on Koiiuvut, Green, Gr. p. 102.]
^ [A. Buttin. (p. 181 sq.) suggests that the accusative may have been occa-
.sioned by the verb which immediately follows {Kara^puifmoi), xirfiov being
regarded as in .some measure dependent on both verbs {i.xo kodioZ) : similarly
Meyer. K«Ta;^;^Sff•^«/ takes au accusative in later writers. ]
SECT. XXXI.] THE DATIVE. 26
o
(A) In aT7]Keiv (ea-rrj/cevai) rivi, standfast to a thing (2 C.i. 24,
G. V. 1 V. L), or to a person, Eom. xiv. A} (Jelf 590.^
Jlpo'iKvviiv (reverenre, irorship) is always foHowed by a dative in
Matthew, Mark, and Paul" (for Mt. iv. lb is a quotation from Dt. vi.
13) \ in the rest of the IST. T. we find sometimes the dative (Jo. ix.
38, A. vii. 43, H. i. 6, Rev. iv. 10, vii. 11, xiii. 4, al.), sometimes
the accusative (L. iv. 8, xxiv. 52, Jo. iv. 23, liev. ix. 20, xiv, 1 1 ) :
similarly yovvn-^Tdv nvd in Mk. (i. 40) x. 17, Mt. xvii. 14 (and some-
times XarpeveLv rivd : Matth. 392. Rem., Jelf 553. c). The construction
of TTposKwciv with a dative is peculiar to later Greek (Lob. p. 463).* —
Xaipdv, which by the Greeks is more frequently construed with the
dative (Fritz. Bom. III. 78 sq.), as it is sometimes in the LXX (Pr. xvii.
19, compare Bar. iv. 37), has never this construction in the K T.,
being usually accompanied by iirt over: on Rom. xii. 12 see below,
no. 7 : in 1 C. xiii. 6 the dative depends on crvv. — The phrases
a.Tro6av€cv rfj n/xapTia, tw vo/xw (Rom. vi. 2, G. ii. 19), 6ava-
Toxxrdai Tw vop.io (Rom. vii. 4), v€Kpov cTvat t^ ap.. (vi. 11), opposed
to Cw TivL (t(G Oe<l) Rom. vi. 10, compare 1 P. iv. 10°), signify
to have died or to be dead to sin, to the lato (for sin, for the law) ;
compare Rom. vii. 4, eh to yivia-dai vp.o.% Iripno- 1 P. ii. 24, d-rro-
yevecrOaL rfj dpapTLo,. In the same way we find in Rom. vi. 20
iXevOepoL rrj SiKaioavvT], in antithesis to 8ov\ova6ai ttj Sik. (ver. 18,
compare ver. 19, 20): when ye v)ere servants of sin ye were free with
reference to righteousness, to righteousness ye were in the relation
of free men. (Jelf 599.)
We must also recognise a dativus rei of direction in the phrase
KaraKpiv^Lv tlvo. Oavdrw, Mt. XX. 18 (compare 2 P. ii. 6^), to sentence
some one to death, i, e. to assign to death by a sentence. This con-
1 [The reading of G. v. 1 i.s most fully discus.sed by I.iglitfoot (Gat p. 197),
who — Avith most recent editors— ^rejects ^, and takes e-rvxin absolutely. If >)
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 <f)6^o<}
can only mean, that the <f)6(3oi' nlvai or ^iveadai applies to or
concerns me.
(a") Without a predicate etvai rivi expresses belonging to
(possession), 'yiveaOai nvL denotes becoming the property of: L.
ii. 7, ovK Tjv avroh rono^;, they had not room ; A, viii. 21, x. 6,
iii 6, xxi. 23, Mt. xviii. 12, L. i. 14, taToi x"-?"- o""*-' Mt. xvi.
22, Qv fjJq earai aoi rouTo, tills luill not befall thee; A. xx. 3, 16,
ii. 43, iyevero Trdcrr) ■^v)(^ <^6/3o<;, fear fell On; Horn. xi. 25.
With an eUipsis, 1 C. vi. 13, v. 12, 2 C. vi. 14, Jo. ii. 4 (KrUg.
p. 69, Jelf 597).
(h) With a predicate (usually a substantive) ehal or rylveaOal
Tivt, denotes what quality tlie thing spoken of has or receives
for- some one, either objectively or subjectively (in his opinion):
1 C. viii. 9, iJir}7ro}<i 7] e^ovaria .... irpo'iKOixiJLa lyevr^rai roif
acru€V€.aiv' i. 18, o X^iyov 6 tgO aTavpov Tot<i fiev dTJoWv/xivoi'i
/Mcopia iariv k.tX, ix. 2, xiv. 22, Eom. ii. 14, vii. 13, 1 G. iv. 3,
ix. 3, Ph. i. 28 (Jelf 600, 602). But to express turn to, prove
(Kriig. p. 69), the N. T. writers commonly use ehat, or jlveadai
eh ri.
3. Substantives derived from verbs which govern a dative
are sometimes followed by this case, instead of the ordinary
genitive : 2 C. ix. 12, evxapta-riai rw 6er^ (but not in ver. 11),
somewhat like evxal roi<i eeol<i Flat Zegg. 7. 800 a^ (Jelf 588,
597, Don. p. 49 5). Compare also to €lco66<{ avr^, L. iv. 1 6, A.
xvii. 2 (Plat. Zegg. 658 e, ro yOa rjixlv), and ro evTrdpeSpov r^J
KvpLa, 1 C. vii. 35.^ A different case from this is L. vii. 12,
vcos iJ.ovo<yev-q<i rfi /xTjTpi, a son who for the mother was the only
^ In the O. T. also this construction is unknown. One of the parallels cited
by Bretschneider is Sus. 41, xaTixpitut avrhy aToectnl* ; in the other, ver. 48,
the verb is used absolutely, xaTiKpivan ivyar.-ifo, 'irpariX.
* See Wyttenb. Pint. Mor. I. 154 (Lips.) ; Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. iOl, Sep.
I. 372 ; Ast, Plat. PoUt. 451 ; Bornem. Xen. Cyr. 374 ; Fritz. Mark p. 63.
« [Also Jo, xii 13, 2 C. xi. 28 (probably).]
SECT, XXXI.] THE DATIVE. 265
smi (thus not stricbl}^ for the genitive: compare Tob- iii. 15,
fioDoyevrj'i rip -Trarpl Jud. xi. 34) : this must not be confounded
with the dative of relationship (compare L. v. 10, Rom. iv. 12).^
On Rom. iv. 12 see § 63. 11. 1.
In Mt. xxvil. 7 also, r/yopaa-av tov aypov . . . . ek racjirjv rots
iivois,for burial for strangers, the dative belongs to the substantive :
comp Strabo 17. 807, -rrpos cTriSet^iv rots $evoLs.'^ But in 1 C. vii. 28
the dative may be joined with the verb of the sentence. See how-
ever Bernhardy p. 88.
4. Without direct dependence on the notion of a verb or
noun, the dative may indicate the reference which an action
has to some one ; as in 2 C. ii. 13, ovk ea'^rjKa aveaiu tw Trvev-
fxari fiov for my spirit (1 C. vii. 28), or in L. xviii. 31, iravra
Ta yeypafxfxeva . . . ra> 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<i k.tX., we liave a ?iiraple
dative of direction, speakinij to one another etc,
5, From these examples it is obvious that the dative is akin
to the prepositions eU (Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 360 ^) and
77/309 (compare Ast, Plat. Zegg. p. 558), just as the genitive to
the prepositions e'/c and airo. Hence in many phrases ek or irpo'i
with an accusative is used instead of the dative. Thus we find
not only the familiar example XeyeLv tlvl and nrpo'^ rtva (the
former is usually, almost constantly, preferred by Matthew and
Mark ^), — compare Kpa^eiv tivi, Kev. vii. 2, xiv. 15, cfxovetv nvi,
Eev. xiv. 18, — but also ev^eaOai deu) A. xxvi. 29 (Xen. Cyr. 5.
2. 12, Deraosth. Conon 729 c, Plut.'CmoZ. 9, Xen. Eph. 4. 3),
and ev^eadai. Trpo^; Oeov 2 C. xiii. 7 (Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 2), compare
Ph. iv. 6 ; ^odv tivi L. xviii. 7, and ^oav 7rp6<i rcvaHos. vii. 14;
\}revSe<70'ac rtvi^ A. v. 4, Ps. xvii. 45, Ixxvii. 36, Jer. v. 12 (not
in Greek authors), and 'yjrevB. irpoq riva (to lie towards, belie,
some one) Xen. An. 1. 3. 5 ; KaraWarreLv tivi and tt/jo? nva,
Xen, Vedig. 6. 8, Joseph. Antt. 14. 11. 3 ;* evSoKelv eU rtva
2 P. i. 17, and evh. nvi in Greek authors^ (Pol. 4. 22. 1,
1 Mace, i, 43) ; iid-^&aOai nvi Xen. An. 4. 5. 12, Plat. ii't^;. 3.
407 a, and tt/jo? rtm Jo. yi. 52, Iliad 17. 98, Plat. Lack. 191 d,
Luc. Conv. 42, and often (also in the LXX) ;^ ojxCKelv tlvL and
7r/309 Tti/a, L. xxiv. 14, Xen. Mem. 4. 3. 2. To the N. T. writers
the prepositional construction was also naturally suggested by
the more expressive and vivid phraseology of their mother
tongue ; and hence we sometimes find et>? 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 e6vo<i ixov
L. vii. 30, TT]V ^ov\r]v tov deov rjOerrjo-av et? kavrov^, to their
own detriment (as indeed et9 also signifies contra^). On tlie
other hand, KrjpvTretv or eva<yyeXc^. eh (Mk. xiii. 10, 1 P. i. 25,
L. xxiv. 47, — Paus. 8. 5. 8) must be rendered proclaim or preach
amongst them, since a plural noun always follows : in Mt. xx. 1,
/jLicrOovadac et? rov a/xTreX-wva is not hire for but hire into the
vineyard ; and there is the same pregnancy of expression in Mk.
viii. 19,T. aprof? eKKaaa et? Tov<i irevraKL<;')(^Ckiov<;, have hrokcn
(and divided) amongst etc. Similarly in Mt. v. 22, evo')(p^ ek rrjv
yeevvav, liable (to come, to be cast) into the Gehenna : contrast
TT] Kpiaet, TM (TvveBpiq)^ In Eom. viii. 1 8 also rrjv fxeXkovaav
ho^av a7roKa\v<^6rjvai el<; rjfMd<i is an abbreviated expression (see
Fritz, in loc^), like the Hebrew "^x n^33, i S. iii. 7. Lastly, we
cannot say that a preposition is used instead of a dative in the
phrase o)^eXi/xo9 Trpo? tl 1 Tim. iv. 8, 2 Tim. iii. 16 (w^eXt/io?
619 Xen. (JEc. 5. 11, compare 'xprjo^tpba eh Wis. xiii. 11), or in
ev6ero<; eUrt L. xiv. 35 (Dion. H. De Thuc. 55. 3, evdero^ irpo';
Pol. 26. 5. 6,Diod. S. 5. 37) ; the expressions useful, suitable to
or for a thing, are perfectly correct, as the dative would be more
fitly used in reference to the 2?^rson : compare however L.
ix. 62 V. /.*
The combination ■n-LcrTcvf.iv £ts or eVi rtva (A. ix. 42, xxii. 19)
obviously means in Christian phraseology more thaft Trto-Tcvciv nvt
(credere, confidere alicui), and must be taken as a pregnant ex-
pression, — believing, to give ■ oneself up to some one^ vAth faith to
declare adherence to some one, fide se ad aliquem apphcare.'^ Also
' In L. viii. 43 R&. has lU larpoh; 'rpoiataXaiaaira. 'e'Xov tov pi'iov, but the beSt
MSS. have laTpo?;, and this reading is to be preferred, as tl; larpous is an evident
correction r this verb, indeed, is commonly construed with t!; in Greek writers
(Xen. Cyr. 2. 4. 9, ^1. 14. 32).
^ [A. Buttmann (p. 170) maintains that it is most natural to regard ih t»)»
here as a periphrasis for the dative, the change from Tn Kflini, tu avn^fiw, to
this construction being occasioned'by the transition from the abstract and quasi-
abstract words {x.pi7ii, ffvvihpioy) to the more material yiifva.]
^ [Fritzsche explains uTsxaXvTT'.rai ti; ifii thus : manifestatur res ad me (ita,
ut ad me perferatur).]
* [Here tSi. t? liairiXiia. is generally received. For u<pixifm with dat. pers.
see Tit. iii. 8. Compare Clyde, Synt. p. 163.]
'■ UiffTiviiv iv XpitTT^ would be explained in the same way, but the existence
of this formula is not fully proved by G. iii. 26, E. i. 13 ; in Mk. i. 1.5, however,
we find irirT. h tv liayyikiat, which is not essentially dKferent. — Such phrases
as h Tfif ritee. ■Jr'nrrif do not prove the construction •ynrTivut -xp'os or u; nva to be
pure Greek (Schwarz, Comment, p. 1102). [We should probably read b ayT*
in Jo. iii, 15, but (with Meyer) connect the words with 'ix^, not -jnixrivuv. The
268 THE DATIVE. [PART III.
TTopaStSovat CIS is not simply equivalent to TrapaoiSovai tivl, but has
rather the meaning give mto tlie power of (Mt. x, 17) ; hence it is
used with edvaTo^Mt. x. 21, 2 0. iv. 11, with 6Xl\j/i<; Mt. xxiv. 9,
with aKaOaptria Rom. i. 24, etc. : compare Xen. Hell. 1. 7. 3. The
combination in E. iv. 19, kavrovs TrapeScoKav Tjj ao'cA.y€t'a et? epyamav
aKaOapaia<; Traa-q^ k.t.X..., needs no explanation.
Rem. The preposition ixcto. also is akin to the dative. Thus for
woAcyaeij/ Ttw we find in the N. T. TroXe/xelv //era rtvos, Rev. xii. 7, xiii,
4 • also Kptvea-Oai ixird Ttvo?, 1 C. vi. 6 (7). With a different refer-
ence, the dative is replaced
(a) By evwTTiov Tivos : A. vi. 5, T^pea-ev ivinnov TravTos toS ttXtj^ow?
(Gen, xxxiv. 18, xh. 37,^ 2 S. iii. 36, al.) ; compare 1 Jo. iii. 22,
TT/josKDj/etv ivwiriov tov 6e.ov (L. iv. 7, Rev. XV. 4). This belongs to
the Hebraic colouring of the language, as indeed the preposition
iviUmov itself (""JSp^) may almost be said to do.
(b) After TreTrotOa — by ev, Ph. iii. 3 ; by eVt'with the dative, IMk..
X. 24, 2 C. i. 9 ; or by eVi with the accusative, Mt. xxvii. 43, 1 Mace.
X. 77 (Alex.). [See below, p. 292.J
(c) After aKo\ov6(.Lv by oTrto-w, Mt. x. 38 ; see § 33,
That the dative may stand for the local 7rp6<; or et? with an
accusative, has been denied by Borneraann/ and after him by
Meyer (on A. ii. 33). It is true that the examples which Fritz-
sche (Conject. I. 42) has quoted from Greek poets do not prove
the point (for prose), and also that the N. T. passages may be
otherwise explained. In A. ii. 33 and v. 31 {y-^ovv) rfj Be^La
may mean hyXHis) right hand ; and in Rev. ii. 16 <roi is simply
a dativus incommodi. Even A, xxi. 1 6 might be rendered (as
by Beza and Glass) adducentes secum, apud quern, hospitaremur
Mnasoneniy — the word which should have been in the accus.
case, as the object of ayovre^ (viz. Mvdaayva k.t.X.), being
brought into the construction of the relative sentence (MvdawvL) :
hut this explanation has but little probability.^ A better course
constructions of this verb in the N. T. are fully examined by A. Buttniann
(p. 173)^ and more succinctly by Bp. Ellicott (on 1 Tim. i. 16). j
' [In Genesis II. cc. we have tr«vT/ov, not ivavisv.']
^ In Rosenm. Eepertor. II. 253, and in the iVew. krit, Joum. der theol. Literal
VI. 146 sq. : compare also nd Anah. p. 23.
^ Not exactly because the jjredicate a^a-lia [jia.(r,TY. is annexed (Bengels N.
Archiv III. 175), for this description of Mnason is added in order to show that
Paul mij(ht fully trust himself to him ; but rather because it is not very likely
that those wlio accompanied Paul from Caesarea would have brought with them
a' host for him, since there were in Jerusalem itself so many trustworthy Chris-
tians. Hence we should have to assume, either that this Mnason was in Ceesarea
by mere accidtint, or that he had a residence in both places at the same time.
If we were to drop the &ecvm, which certainly is not necessarily implied in
ayoira, it would simplify the matter (after their arrival in Jerusalem they
brought Mnason forward), but then the words would not be suitably arranged.
SECT. XXXr.] THE DATIVE. 269
would be to adopt Bornemann's more recent suggestion {Luc.
p. 177 sq.) and resolve the attraction thus : dyovref (^Jyua?) irapa
Mvdacovd Tiva . . . Trap' w ^eiucrdcofiev ^ (for ajeiv irapd rhva
compare Her. 1. 86, 3. 15). Even this however is not the sim-
plest explanation. The construction d'yetv TLvi, lead to some one
(but see the note below), may indeed be uncommon in Attic
prose, but later prose writers use expressions which are entirely
similar, as (jjoiTav run Philostr. Soph. 2. 1. 14," ijKeiv rtvl Plut.
u^m. 16. 1, ei<i<pep6iv rivd nvi Malal. 10. p. 231 : with A. xxi.
16, in particular, compare Xen. Eph. 3. 6. p. 63, nrorepov r]'y6iji,r]y
'A^poKOfirj- Epiph. Vit. p. 340 d, -qyayev avTov ^AOavaaiw to*
'Trd-mra? See also Bernh. p. 95, Held, Plut. Mm. P. p. 200.
Hence we may without hesitation render v-^ovv ry Se^M, exalt
to the right hand ; compare ver. 34, kuOov e'/c he^iwv fiov' see
also Luc. Asin. 39.
L. ii. 41, i-TTOpevovTO . . . fis 'lepovcraXrj/Ji rfj koprfi, must not he
rendered (as by Luther) to the feast, but either on account of the feast
(see below 6. c), or as a loose expression, at the feast.'^ With more
reason might Mk. xiv. 53 crvv€px.°vTai avru? [convenerant eum), and
Jo. xi. 33 Toii? o-wcA^ovra? o.vtq ^lovhaiow;, be brought in here (Eritz.
Mark p. 648). In my opinion, however, the dative m both passages
is really governed by avv ; the latter simply meaning who had come
With her, the former, tJi/ey came with Him, namely, with Jesus (ver.
54) ; see Baumg.-Crusius. (Jelf592.)
Tho use of the dative with verbs of coming in a non-local and
non-material sense (as in A. xxi. 31, avifirj t^acn<i toJ ;^iAiap;^a)), is
also a different construction from that noticed above.^ To this
unquestioned parallels occur frequently ,in Greek writers : e. g.
Plut. Brut. 27, fiiXXovTL avraJ Sia/3aLveiv . . . rJK€v dyye\ia Trepl r^s
H€Tal3oXrj<;' Pomp. 13, TO) '^vXS.a 7rpu)Trj fxev rjXOev ■ ayycXta ; compare
also avdyav ri tivl, to hrivq somefhiny before some one (notify to),
Malal. 3. p. 63, 10. p. 254 (Jelf 59.2).
6. The dative is used with still greater latitude, in reference
1 [So Meyer, De Wette, Alford, and others. The rarity of such (local) datives
is not the only objection to Winer's view : the order of the words would surely
have been diilerent, ayosin; Mv. t/v/ K., -rxf J ^sv. (A. Buttm. p. 284).]
» Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. IV. 339.
' In none of these instances, however, has aym Vjv/ (comp. ^r^aya-ys/v Tivi
§ 52. 4) a purely local or material meaning : it is used rather in the sense of
introducing, bringing into connexion with, into the society of some one.
Similarly (poirav -nvi (to go to some one as teacher), different from ipDirav rpit
rrtra Epict. Ench. 33. 13. [" In Plut. JEm. I. c. the dative depends on the whole
expression vx$ f^nviiiii* :" A. Buttm. p. 179.]
* We also should say in German : sie machten jahrlich zu Ostern eine Reise
nach . . . um dem Gottesdienste beizuwohnen.
5 Compare our " es kam ihni die Kunde, die Anzeige.'"'
270 THE DATIVE. [PART III.
to things, to denote that in loJiich or in reference to which an
action or a state exists. Hence it indicates
(a) The sphere to which a general predicate is to be limited
(compare Bernh. p. 84, Krtig. p. 86 ^) : 1 C. xiv. 20,/^^ TraiSia
^ivecrde rat? (ppeaiv, dXXa rr} KaKia vrjind^ere, children
in understanding, children as regards malice (Plat. Alcih. pr.
122 c) ; Kom. iv. 20, iveSvva/juodr} tjj Trtaret, he grew strong in
faith ; Ph. ii. 8, axvi^aTi evpedeU o)? dvOpaTTof iii. 5,^ Mt. v. 8,
xi. 29, A. vii. 51, xiv, 8, xvi. 5, xviii. 2, xx. 22, Eev. iv. 3, 1 C.
vii. 34, H. V. 11, xi. 12, xii. 3, 1 P. iii. 18, v. 9 (Pol. 20. 4. 7),
G.L 22, Kom. xii. 10, 11, Col. ii. 5, E. iv. 18,23 (Matth. 400.7,
Fritz. Rom. III. 6 8). A dative of this kind comes between two
connected nouns in E. ii. 3, ^yctev reKva (f>vaet 6pyf]<i, natural
children- of -wrath.
(b) The norm or rule in accordance with which something
takes place : A. xv. 1, idv fjurj TTeptri/xvijade rat edei Mwixreoi^;
(but in xvii. 2 Kara to eloodo^;, and more frequently Kara edo<i) ;
compare Xen. Cgr. 1. 2. 4, Sext. Emp. 2. 6, Strabo 15, 715,
Tob. iii. 8 [3 ?], 2 Mace. vi. 1.^
(c) The occasion or cause (on account of) : Rom. xi. 20, rij
aTriaria i^eK\do-07]<Tav, on account of unbelief (comipaYG ver. 30,
rjXe/jOrjre rfj rovrcov aTretOeLa), G. vi. 12, Col, i. 21.'* Also the
motive (from, in consequence of) : 1 C. viii. 7, ry crvvetSijaec rov
elSdiXov «i)9 elhwXodvrov iadloua-L' 2 C, 1 15, Eom. iv. 20. See
Diog. L. 2. 57, Heliod. 1. 12. 33, Paus, 3. 7. 3, Joseph. Antt. 17.
6. 1 ^ (Matth. 398 sq., Bernh. p. 102 sq., Kriig. p. 84).
More singular is the use of the dative in Rev. viii. 4, dvejSi^ 6 kottvo^
Twv OvfiLafjudToiv Tats Trposevxais tcov dyiW k.t.X., and many con-
jectures have been made respecting it. The simplest translation is,
the smoke of the (angels')^ incense ascended to the prayers, i. e., the
ascending smoke had reference to the prayers, was designed to -ac-
company them and render them more acceptable : on the idea see
1 [" A local dative ethically used : " Ellic. on G. i. 22. See Don. p. 488, Jelf
605. 4, Green p. 99.]
^ [Reading of course ■npiro//.^. Liinemanu adds Mt. v. 3. ]
^ [Jelf 603, Green p. 99 : the dative with -rofi-Jiadai (below, no. 9) should
perhaps come in here. J
* [So Meyer, taking ixh""^ passively, invisos Deo : if ix^po^t is active (Alford,
Ellicott) T9) havoia. will be a dative of reference. ]
* Compare Ast, Plat. PoiJ<. p. 392,Goeller, Thuc.p]p. 157, 184, al. (Don. p. 493).
^ [Or rather "angel's." — Compare Green p. 102 : "The dative may be re-
garded as dependent on an unexpressed, but implied, idea of bestowal, since the
incense is to be viewed as the accompaniment which gave to the prayers a
passport into the divine presence."]
SECT. XXXI.] THE DATIVE. 27 1
Ewald in !oc. That this is the meaning was felt by those who sup-
plied o-w the rendering inter preces sanctorum is altogether untenable,
— In 2 C vii. 1 J TO) TTpayixaTL would certainly be admissible, but for
the language of the N. T. the construction would be harsh. There are
good authorities in favour of prefixing ev ; and the omission of this
word may have arisen either from the absorption of ev in the preceding
word eii^at or from the reader's connecting TrpdyfxaTt with iy ttuvti.
7. In the various usages noticed in no. 6 we can discein
more or less clearly the dative of direction, that is (according to
the Greek conception), the true dative. The case is however
extended farther still in its application to Avhat is external, to
what accompanies the action, and passes over entirely into the
ablative, denoting
{d) The mode and manner, as the casus modalis (Bernh. p 100
sq., Don. p. 487, Jelf 603); 1 Cxi. o,'!rpo<iev)(^o/jbev7) aKuraKoXv-
TTTft) rfj Ke(f)a\y with uncovered head, x. 30, Col. ii. 11, Ph. i. 18,
2 P. ii. 4 (Jude 6) ; also Iiom. viii. 24, rfj iXTrlBi eacodrjfieu (and
E. V. 19 ^) : — or the (material) mea'ns, instrument, as the casus
instrumentalis (Mad v. 39., but comp. Kriig. p. 83 ^) ; 1 P. i. IS,
ov (f>6apT0t<i, apyvpifp rj '^vaiw, iXvrpcodrjTe' G. ii. 13, w9Te
. . . avvaTrrj'^dri avTcov rfj vtroKplaei, (2 P, iii. 17, compare
Zosim. 5. 6), E. i. 13, Col. ii. 7, Ph. iii. 3, 1 0. ix. 7, t/? arpa-
reverav Ihloa o-^wvLoa irore, hf means of his own expenditicre ;
H. vi. 17, i/jLeatTevcrev opKOi' iii. 1,^ Rom. xy. 18 : — further A.
i. 5, i/SaTTTLcrev vButl (xi. 16), Jo. xxi. 8, tc5 irXoiapio) ^Xdov
Mk. vi. 32 * (though elsewhere we find ev irXoiw- Mt. xiv. 13,
A.xxviii. ll,Diod. S. 19. 54)>A. 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 ■)(aipovre<i is through hope, in hope
rejoicing : in regard to 2 C. ix. 1 4, Be'^aei, I now agree with
Meyer.^ We frequently find iv or Scd (especially of persons)
' [This passage is again quoted below. On a peculiar use of the modal dative
in the LXX and N. T. see § 54. 3.]
^ [Kniger prefers the term dynamic dative, since "it does not properly de-
note the mere instrument or tool, though it is often improperly used of tiiis. "
On the dativ. intitrum. see Don. p, 490, Jelf 607.]
2 [This reference is wrong : perhaps i. 3.J ,
* [The reading is not certain : Lachm., Westc. and Hort insert iy.]
* [In ed. 5 Winer had taken 5f.->w 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 ^ia<i,
A. V. .26, xxiv. 7 ; for TTLarec, sometimes Blu Triarewi, etc. But
in E. ii. 8, Ty j^apiri eorre aetrwcr^evov tio, Trj'i nrlarerjo';, and in
Rora. iii. 24, the dative expresses the motive, and Sid TrtVTew?
the subjective means. In 2 P.. iii. 5 also we find a twofold ex-
pression of the means, S<.a indicating what is external, the dative
what is not material. For ttuvtI rpoiroi (Ph. i. 18) we find in
2 Th. iii. 1 6 tV nrravrl rpoTTw. On the other hand, in 2 P. ii. 3
the dative denotes the means, Ii/ the state (the disposition).
When however the commentators on the N. T. explained ty as a
simple nota dativi^ even in cases where a dative proper (not an abla-
tive) is required, they took an exaggerated view which cannot in the
least be justified by appealing to the Hebrew idiom. Most of the
examples quoted owe all their plausibility to the circumstance that
elsewhere the dative of the person is commonly found in similar
• [See Green, Gr. p. 101.]
^ \'Bv is omitted by the best editors on strong MS. authority.]
2 [The two expressions are about equally frequent : in is inserted in t]\e pas*
sage quoted in tne text and in Jo. L 33, Mk. i. 8 Rec, but omitted iu L. iii.
"16, A. i. 5, xi. 16, Mk. i. 8 (Tisch. ed. 8, Westcott and Hort).]
* Comp. Blom&eld, iEschyl. Agam. 1425, and Eurip. Med. p. 628,
SECT. XX:XI.] THE DATIVE. 273
combinations (compare 1 C, xiv. II, iii. 1, i. 18); in reality, they are
quite unsatisfactory. In A. iv, 12, heSofxevov eV avOpuiiroL<i is most
certainly equivalent to given (set lorth) wmomjst men (compare 2 C.
Vlll. 1^); G. i. 16, a-nOKokv^ai rov vuw a.vTOV iv ifxoi, is fo reveal
ill me (cr T(3 Trveu/Aan ftoi)) ; 1 Jo iv 9, i(fiav€pa)dr} n aya-mi rov
Beov iv -qfuvy the love of God wanifeHed itself on or in us, which
undoubtedly is different from " manifested ijbself to us;" 1 C, xiv. 11,
6 AoAwv ev i/xol i3dpftapo?, in my estimation, Tneo judicio ; ~ 1 C. iL 6,
o-o(f>iav 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\ol<i '^(jovoi'i a-vvr}pTrdK€t
avTov, Kithin (during) a long Hm£, A. viii. 11, xiii. 20, Rom. xvi.
25, Jo. ii. 20 (not E. iii. 5^); compare Joseph. Antt. 1. 3. 5, to
vhcop ■^fiepaa recraapaKovTa oXaa KorecpepeTo' Soph. Trach 599,
fiaxpu) XP^^V -^^schin. E;p. 1. p. 121 c, Diod. S. 1'.'. 93.
b. More frequently, a point of time at which something
happens, — either with words which directly express the notion
of time or of a division of time (accompanied by a numeral or
' So in Diog. L. 1. 105, ri Irinv It' an^puTti; ayix,^o» te xai (pscZxov, where
also the Latin translator has quidnam esset hominibus bonum, etc. Compare
also Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 628, iavXtvirovirtv i» t»7; Ix^pals aiirZt- Anian, Epiot.
1. 18. 8. [The "also" refers to the fact that in A. iv. 12 the Vulgate has
"datum hominibus."]
2 Comp. Jacobs, Athen. p. 183, Dbderlein, (Edip. Col p. 529, Wex, Soph,
Antig. v. 549.
' [Winer apparently agrees with Meyer (ed. 2, 3) in regarding irt/xr/s yfnali
as an ordinary transmissive dative. De W., Ellicott, and Alford take ytni in
its temporal sense, and the dative as a dative of time ; so also A. Buttmana aud
Meyer in ed. 4. ]
18
274 THE DATIVE. [?ART IIL
by a genitive, Kriig. p. 67), as L. xii. 20, Tavrj) rff vvktc Mk.
vi. 21, 'Iipu>hrj<i rol<; yevea'ioi.'i avrov ZelTTvov iiroLrjae^ Mt. XX.
19, rf/ rpiTrj tjfiepa avaa-Tij(T€Tat,' xxvi. 17, L. xiii, 10, A. vii. 8,
xii. 21, xxi. 26, xxii. 13, xxvii. 23 ; — or with the name of a
festival (Waiinowaki p 86), L. xiii. 14, roi aa^^drw idepdirevcre
(xiv. 1), Mt. xii. 1, roi<i ad^jSaai, al. Compare Plat. Conv.
1 74 a, Madvig 45. As a rule, however, iv is added to the dative
in the latter case, as it frequently is in the former (especially
with icT^aTT} rjfjbepa or rjpbepa t^<? Kpiaewi), even in Luke (iii. 1,
i. 26), compare Kriig. \). 67 (Don. p. 487, Jelf 606). In Greek
authors also tlie use of rfi eopry or jal<i kopral^; without ev is
rare (Wannowski p. 88).
The dative o^ place has not taken deep root in the N. T. Before
names of towns tv is always inserted, as Iv 'P^firj, iv'Tvpw, A. xviL 6
[]xvii. 16], xix. 1, Rom. i. 7, 2 Tim. i '17, iv. 20, al. '08os occa-
sionally dispenses with the preposition, as in Ja. ii. 25, irepa 68«r
iK/3(iXov(ra (where however a preposition was hardly needed), com-
pare Xen. Cyr. 1. 2. 16 ; 66<S TropevecrOat 2 P. ii. 15, A. xiv. 16 (in a
figurative sense), comp. Lucian, 2'im. 5, 68<2 fiahi'Cuv (Fritz. Eom.
III. 140 sq.) ; arotyjiiv tois lxve(Ti Rom. iv, 12 ((3aivetv txi/cfrt Plut.
Sol. 30). To this usage should also be referred the figurative phrases
-TTopeveaOai t<3 <f>6{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
■)(^eLp6ypa<f>ov 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<rri; to ipyj.) ; or we must translate (with Harless), He has
ahnlinhed fJie Inw of the commxtndment<^ in decree.i (abolished it on the side of
decrees). N. T. usage however does not support tlie former interpretation of
^iyu.ara ; and on Harless's view I should expect Toi's liy/tafi, since a definite
side of a definite law is spoken of." See EUicott and Lightfoot in toe]
276 THE DATIVE. [PART III.
avTO) for KaTa/3dvTo<s avTov, and iXOovri avrw Mt. xxi. 23), expresses
what was formerly the general belief of philologers as well as of
N. T. commentators. 1 In reality, however, all such datives (at
any rate in the better writers, Wannowski p. 91 sqq.) are as easily
explained from the nature of this case as the genitive absolute
from the nature of the genitive : ^ see Bernh. p. 82, Stallb. Plat,
Protag. 60, Rost p. 721 (Jelf 699). Kiihnol's .remark cannot
with even the least show of reason be applied to the passages
he has quoted, for in them Kara/iavrt and IXOovtl are connected
with the verb aKoXovOHv ; though it cannot be denied that Matthew
might have written KaTaf3dvT0^ airov yKoXovOrjaav avrw' o^Xol -rroXXui,
compare Mt. viii. 28, Mk. v. 2 v. l.'^ The only peculiarity of this
construction is, that avT<^ is uniformly repeated, — because the dative
participle and the governing verb are separated by several other
words. In the examples cited by Kypke (I. 4.7) from Pausanias and
Josephus, either there is simply a pronoun joined to the participle,
or the pronoun comes in only in immediate connexion with the verb
(Joseph. AntL 8. 13. 4); hence they prove nothing for the main
point. Nor is there a. real dative aTjsolute in A. xxii. 6 or 17 : in
the latter passage, just as in ver 6, /zot vTruirTpcij/avTi belongs to
cyeVero, but a different construction (with the genitive absolute)
then commences : pccidit mihi reverse, cum precabar in templo, etc.
Compare Pans. 3. 10, 7, and 25. 3.
Rem. 3. We find a double dative, one of the person, the other
(a dative of explanation, of more exact definition) of the thing, in
2 C. xii 7, ihodij jjoi a-KoXoijj rrj arapKi, there was given me a stake
for the {in the) flesh -^ (Ex, iv. 9, Gen. xlvii. 24): compare the Ho-
meric hi^ov ot T;vta x«/>'">'^ 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€<f>dX,r]v, (pvXda-creiv rov Krjirov,
<f)v\dcra-ea6ai. Ta<i ivTo\d<i. It must however be borne in
mind — not only
a. That in later, and particularly in Biblical Greek, several
neuter verbs have acquired a transitive (causative) meaning, as
fiaOrjTevetv tlvu (§ 38. 1) : — but also
b. That, in general, certain classes of verbal notions which
we consider either entirely or partially intransitive appeared
to the Greeks as transitive. Under this head come
(a) The verbs which denote emotions (Jelf 549 sq.) : eKedv,
Mt. ix. 27, Mk. V. 1 9, Ph. ii 27, al. (Plat. Sijvip. 173 c, MX. 13.
31) ; olKTeipetv, Eom. ix. 15, from the LXX (Soph. El. 1403,
Xen. Cyr. 5. 4. 32, Lucian, Ahd. G, Tim. 99) ; eiraio-'xyveaOaC
rtva and n, Mk. viii. 38, H. xi. 16, Eom. i. 16 (Plat. Soph,
247 c, — compare ala'^vveaOat, Soph. CEd. R. 1079, Eurip. Ion
1074), once eiraiax- eW, Eom. vi. 21 (compare Isocr. Permut.
*11^). On the other hand, aTrXwyxyi^eadat takes eVt as a rule,
only once governing the genitive, Mt. xviii. 27 (see § 33).
^EvrpiirecrdaL nva, to he afraid of any one (Mt. xxi. 37, L.
xviii. 2, H. xii. 9), is a later construction, not foimd before
Plutarch : in earlier writers we find ivrpeTreaOai tlvc}
(/9) The verbs of treating well or ill (harming, benefiting),
speaking well or ill of any one (Jelf 583): dBiKecv, ^XdrrreLv,
wcpeKelv, Xvfxaivecrdai, v^pi^eiv rivd (Xen. ITell. 2, 4. 17, Lucian,
Fisc. 6) ; eTrrjped^eLv nvd (with dative of the person, Xen. Mern,.
^ [A mere misprint for ti>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^Xaa<j)r}fjLelv rivd, Mt. xxvii. 39, A. xix. 37, Ilev, xiii.
6, al., but also ^Xacrcjyrjfielu ek riva L. xii. 1 (compare Demosth.
Car. Nav. p. 715 c, iJiod. S. 2. 18, and in the LXX, Hist.
Drac. 9, — so in Greek writers oveiBi^eiv eU rcva, v/Bpiteiv ek
riva Liician, Tim. 31). and ^Xaa-^rnxelv ev rivi 2 P. ii 12 (in
Greek writers also /3\. Trepi rivo'i, Lsocr Pe.rmut. 736); oveihi^av
Tivd, Mt. V. 11 (and in the LXX, compare Rom. xv. 3)/ for
which earlier writers used oveibt^eiv rivl ov ek riva: Ka/c(o<;
epelv rivd, A. xxiii. 5 (Plat. Euthyd. 284 e, Diod. S. Vat p. 66) ;
also Karapdadat riva, Mt. v. 44/ Ja. iii. 9 (Wisd. xii. 11,
Ecclus. iv. 5, al., — KarapdaOai rtvi Xen. An. 7. 7. 48). All
these constructions ultimately rest on the simple Xiyctv or elirelv
rcvd, Jo. i. 15, viii. 27, Ph. iii. 18, al., Jud. vii. 4; compare
Herm. Soph. QJd. C. 1404, Matth. 416. We find however
Ka\co<i TToieip with the dative of the person, L. vi. 27, and
similarly. eS iroielv, Mk. yd v. 7 : here the accusative is always
preferred in Greek prose ;^ compare however Odyss. 14. 289, o?
Bt} TToXKa KUK dvOponTTOLaiv e(op<yeL. Tloielv rivd ri, to dQ some-
thing to some one, also occurs in the N, T., Mt. xxvii. 22, Mk.
XV. 12 :^ compare Aristoph. N'uh. 258 sq.
(7) 'Ofxvveiv Tivd, Ja. v. 1 2 (ovpavov), to swear hy ; compare
Hos. iv. 15, Xen. Cyr, 5. 4. 31, Herod. 2. 10. 3 (Jelf 566. 2).
The N. T. writers however do not uniformly adopt these con-
cise constructions. As in ordinary Greek, several verbs vary
between a transitive and a neuter meaning : KXaieiv rcvd Mt. ii.
18 (from the LXX^), but eVt nva L. xix. 41, xxiii. 28 ; irevddv
Tcvd 2 C. xii. 21, but eVt tivl Rev. xviii. 11 ;* KoirTeaBai riva
L. viii, 52 (Eur. Troad. 628, 1 Mace. ii. 70), and eVt riva Rev.
» Schsef. Plutarch V. 347.
- [And also omllXnv mx, see examples in Liddell and Scott s. v. (but // 1,
211 is very doubtful).]
^ fThe clause is omitted in the best MSS. : this verb has an accusative in Mk.
xi. 2], and probably in L. vi. 28, where Rec. has the dative. Wisd. xii. 11 is
not an example in point.]
* A. xvi. 28, /j^rhh ^pa^>ii <ria.uTM xxxov, is of a different kind : we often meet
witli this and similar examples in Greek writers, as Lys. Accus. Ayor. 41, Xen.
Ci/r. 5. 4. 11, 5. 5. 14, 8. 7. 24.
^ Hee Biblioth. Br em. Nova I. 277.
* [If we omit »'» A-sysrs : the received text leaves the construction doubtful.]
' [The citation is from Jer. xxxi. (xxxviii. ) 15, butthisolau.se is altogether
dilRient in the LXX text.]
** [The most probable reading is iii' «y»r^.]
SECT. XXXII.] THE ACCUSATIVE. 279
i 7, xviii. 9 ; evSoKetv riva H. x. 6, 8, from the LXX ^ (Lev.
x.-ifvi. 34, Ps. 1. 18), but usually evZ. ev rivi. ^Ofivveiv is com-
n^only treated as a neuter verb, and construed with kuto. Tivot
H. vi. 13, 16 (Amos viii. 14, ZepLi. 5, Is. xlv, 23'^), or with
€v Tivc Mt. V. 34 sqq.,-' Rev. x. 6 (Jer. v. 2, 7, Ps. Ixii. 12). On
the other hand, instead of ev^apurreiv (rivl) eVt tivl, we find
(with the passive verb) the construction evy(ap. (rtvc) ti in 2! C.
1. 11 ; and in 2 C. ix. 2, xi. 30, Kav^aadav takes an accusative
of tlie thing.
With Jude 15, rotv tpyiov dore^etas avruiv wv (a) ■^(re/Srja-aVy
eompare Zeph. iii. 11, twv iTriTrjSevfxdTinv aov ojv ^a-i^rja-a^ £is ific :
aa-e^eiv ti, Plat. Legg. 12. 941 a, is of a different kind (Matth.
413. 11).
'Ifpovpyuy, ipydCea-OaL, and ifjL-7rop€vicr6aL are real transitives ; and
as the phrase Upovpyftv Ova-iav was in use (PaliBph. 5. 3, compare
Acta Apocr. 1 13), Paul could figuratively say up. to cvayyeAtov (Roni.
XV, IG). The accusative after ifiiropevcaOaL does not always denote
the mercliandise ; we find also i/xTrop. nva, Ez. xxvii. 21, 2 P. ii. 3,
— in the latter passage with the meaning trade in, (wish to) make a
gain of a man. With Rev. xviii. 17, oo-ot r^v OaXaa-arav ipyd^ovTui,
comp. Appian, Pun. 2, Boisson. Philostr. p. 452 : y^v ipya-tf Pans.
6. 10. 1, is similar.
Euayy€Xt^€o-^at (of Christian preaching) takes an accusative of the
person ia the N. T., as a transitive verb, L. iil 18, A. viii. 25, xiv.
21 ; compare eiayy. tlvo. ti A. xiii. 32. Yet tvayy. TLvi is also in
use, see L. iv. 18, Rom. i. 15, G. iv. 13, 1 P. iv. 6.
An accusative is also found with /Sao-KaiVeiv fasc'mare in G. iii. 1.
With the meaning invidere this verb takes the dative (Philostr. Epp.
13), see Lob. p. 463 : the ancient grammarians themselves, however,
are not agreed on the distinction between these two constructions,
see Wetstein II. 221 sq.
liapaLvelv, which in Greek writers usually takes the dative of
the person (yEsch. Vial. 2. 13, Pol. 5. 4. 7), is followed by an
accusative in A. xxvii. 22. Vice versa, we find SiSdo-Kcii' Tivt in Rev.
ii. 14 V. I., as in some later writers.*
^Xda-a-eo-Oai (to beware of) governs an accusative in A. xxi. 25,
2 Tim. iv. 15 (as frequently in Greek authors, Xen. 3Te7ti. 2. 2. 14,
Lucian, Asia. 4, Diod. S. 20, 26), as if to observe some one for oneself.
In L. xii. 15 it is joined with cltto ; this construction also is not
unknown in classical Greek (Xen. Cm: 2. 3. 9). Similarly <j>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 <ru)/xa . . . i <fio/3rj0rp-e Se. fiaXXov tov 8vvdfji€vov k.t.X. The Greeks
said cf)o/3ela-6ai vrro rtvos or rivt (yet compare <^oy3os diro tivos Xen.
Cyr. 3. 3. 53, 6. 3. 27) : <l>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 <po^r}6rjre (Is. viii. 12), Col.
ii. 19, aii^eL rr]v av^yaiv rov Oeov (Plat. Legg. 10. 910 d,
aae^ely dvSpcov aae^rjixa' 1 Mace. ii. 58, ^rjXaycrai t^rjkov voftov
Judith ix. 4) ; — or by means of an adjective, Mt. ii. 10, exaprjaav
X'^P^v fieyaXr^v ccpoSpa' Jo. vii. 24, tt]v SiKaiav Kpiaiv xpivere'
' Tim. i. 18, Iva arparevg rrjv koXtjv crrpareiav (Plut. Pomp.
41), Mk. iv. 41, i<^o^r)Owccv (f)6/3ov fxeyav 1 Tim. vi. 12, 2 Tim.
iv. 7, Rev. xvii. 6, 1 P. iii. 6 (Gen. xxvii. 33, Zach. i. 15, Jon.
i. 10, iv. 1, 6, Wisd. ix. 3^). This is very common in Greek
writers ; see especially Lob. Pared, p. 501 sqq.* Compare Plat.
Protag: 360 b, al<7')(pov^ ^o^ov^ ^o^ovvrav Xen. Mftn. 1. 5. 6,
tovkeueiv SovXeLov ovSe/juds rjTTov ala-xp'i-v' Her. 5. 119 , fid)(r)v
^l^f^X^cravTo laxvprjv (magnam pugnavimus pugnam. Tenant.
Adelph. 5. 3. 57), Plat. Apol. 28 b, tolovtov iimrjhevixa eTnrTj-
B€uaa<i' p. 36 c,ev€p'yerelv rrjp fieyiarrjv evepjeai'av Alciphr. 2.
3, Setrat fiov rn-dcra'i Beijaet^' Lysias, 1. Theoiunest. 27, •rreWov'i
8eKal dX\ov<i kiv8vvov<; /xed' vfMcov iKivBvv€V(r€(l*la.t. Conv. 208 c),
Demosth. Neecr. 517 b, J?p. p. 121 b, Aristot. Polit. 3. 10, Bhet.
2. 5. 4, Long. 4. 3, ..Eschin. Up. 1. 121 b, Lucian, Asm. 11, Phi-
lostT. Apoll. 2.32: see also Georgi, Vind. 199 sq., Wetst. XL 321
(Gesen. Lg. p. 810 ^). This construction is found with a passive
verb in Rev. xvi. 9, iKavfiarrlaOrjaav el dvOpwrroi Kavp.a fxeya
(Plat. Euthyd. 275 e, wcpeT^lrai ti)v fnybarTjv dxpeXeiav'
Plutarch, Cces. 55, al).
' Herm, Soph. PhiJ. 281, Earip. Androm. 220 sq., Kriig. p. l9.sq. [Don. p.
^01 : lor the different kinds of such accusatives see Jelf 548, 2. See also
Ridded, Plat. A/iol. p. 110 sq.]
2 [Thi.s word obrctive is surely a misprint : at all events an objective genitive
is of rare occurrence in this construction. See especially Lobeck, Paral. p. 513
sq. ; " In provel-hio ." . . TasyraXau ipo/Gov ^e/SoiJ/ta/ miniine sign ificatur Tantalum
ti meo, aed tiraeo id quod Tantalus pertimescere dicitur sive Tantalico quodam
timore angor. "]
'' [In this passage there is no qualifying adjective.]
* See Fischer, V/ell III. i. 422 sq., Bernh. p. 106 sq., Ast, Plat. Polit. 316,
Weber, Dem. p. 471, Matth. p. 744 sq. [?], § 40S, 421. Rem. 3.
^ [Gesen. Heb. Gr. p. 221 (Bagst,).]
282 THE ACCUSATIVE. [PAUT III.
So with a Telative pronoun : Jo. xvii. 26, tj ayair-q rjv ^yaTnjo-as
/££• E. ii. 4, Mk. X. 38, to /SaTmo-^a o cycu fiairTL^OfiaL ^aTTTurO^vai..
It is a different case when the cognate noun denotes the
objective result of the action, and consequently a concrete no-
tion ; as Bia6r]Kr}v BiarldecrOai (Jud. ii. 2), ftaprvpiav fiapTvpeiv,
tt'Xjovtov TrXovrelv (Dan. xi. 2), •y^rj^Lcrp.a '>^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 <f)vKaKds: (the
watches) Xen. An. 2. 6. 10, (popov (pepeiv Aristoph. Av. 191,
Aristot. Pol. 2. 8, Lucian, Paras. 43. In the K T. compare L.
ii. 8, (f)v\do-aopT€<i ^vkaKa<; t^9 vvktos' viii. 5, rov aireipa(, rov
a-TTopov avTov' Mt. xiii. 30, hrjcare Bea-fia^ ^ rrpo't to KaraKaixrai,
hind bundles ; Mt. vii. 24, oVt? ^KoB6/jLt]crev rrjv oUiav avrov'
L. vi. 48 ; compare also 1 P. iv. 2 (akorjv dfccveiv Obad. 1). In
.some of these instances no other form of expression was possible
(compare also onroaroXovf: aTrocTTeXXetz^, legates legare Cic. Vatin.
15. 'ypd/xfiara ypdcpav liem. Polycl. 710 b), and the connexion
of the noun with the verb is merely etymological and- historical.
On these constructions in general (which in Greek writers are
much more diversified) see Wunder on Lobeck's edition of Soph.
Ajax p. 37 sqq.
Akin to this construction are Spsov o/xyvvat L. i. 73 ^ (De-
> [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. Dio<!. H
-£":?<;. Vat. p. 49) ; Sc'p^ii' (TrAr/yus) •n-oXAuq. »>Ai.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 <f>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 <rTOfxaTo^ fiov
uKovaac to. gOvt] k.t.X., must not be compared with 2 ">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 is always used
or at all events implied ; see Col. i. 26, L. xviii. 34, xix. 42,
After Bi8daK€iv the person taught is in one passage (Rev. ii. 14)
expressed by ev tlvi (as if, to give instruction on some one *), but
this reading is not well attested : other and better MSS, have
eSiSaiTKe TM BaXaK, comp. Thilo, Apocr. I. 656 (? "'S'', Job xxi.
22). Besides alreli> 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 Tivo<i, 2 P. i. 12; irept^dXkeaOat iv^ Eev.
iii. 5, iv, 4 [Rec.'\; -^/xcjitea/j.evos ev, Mt. xi. 8, L. vii. 25 (with
the dative in Plat. Protag. 321 a). For d^aipelcrdai rivd tl we
find d<f)aip. ri dfro rtvo<i L. xvi. 3.
We may perhaps explain H, ii. 17, iXda-KccrOai ra<s d/Aaprtas
(compare Ecchia xxviii. 5, Dan. ix. 24 Theodot.), expiare peccata, on
^ [Mt. xxviL 28 is very doubtful : in Rev. xvii. 4 Bee. has the dative, but
apparently without any authority.]
" To this class belongs also ■^uf/.iXM, Num. xL 4, Dt. viii. 16, Wis. xvi. 20 ;
for this we find iI-k^/^uv Tiva rm Jambl. Pyth. 13. But in 1 C. xiii. 3 ^vftl^tiv
^ctyra ra. uvra.f^tvrei ieto convert into food {us0 as food) all my goods.
^ 2 Chr. xvii. 9 rnin^3 *1^7 is not a certain example of this construction in
T -■ -
Hebrew, as the meaning probably is teach in Judah. — In A. v^i. 22, iorathvh
•jToLirri iro(('ia. does not stand for ^a.irxi trsipiav (compare Diod. S. 1. 91) ; the dative
points .'ou-fi the means of the education, whilst i-rail. iroura* fftfia* would be
Moctvs est (institutus ad) sapientiam. The true reading however is probably
if V. ffoipiet : compare Plat. Crito 50 d.
* [To this should probably be added ^tfitid^Xun mi ti, L. xix. 43 (/?ec., Treg.,
"Westcott) : A. Buttmann p. 149.]
SECT. XXXIL] the ACCUSATIVE. 285
the supposition that the expression iXda-KecrOaL tdj/ 6e6v rak 6.^pTia<:
had come into use : the verb is then used altogether in a passive
sense, in 1 S. iii. 14, iiiXacrOrja-eTat aSiKta olkov 'HA,t.
The accusative neuter of pronouns (tl, to airo, Trarra) and of ad-
jectives (/i-eya, etc.), which is joined to many verbs along with ;in
accus. or genitive of the person (as fikdimiv L. iv. 35, w^eAeri'
G. V. 2, comp. Lucian, Tim. 119, oZlk^Iv A. xxv. 10, G. iv. 12,
Phil. 18, fLv-qa-OrivaL 1 C. xi. 2), must be referred essentially to the
same principle ; ^ only the construction with the double accusative
has stopped short, so to speak, at the first stage.^ I should thus
explain Mt. xxvii. 44. It is scarcely necessary to adduce examples
of intransitive verbs which are joined with such an accusative (of
the thing), and thus become to a limited extent transitives. See
however 1 C. ix. 25 Treu/ra iyKpaTeveraL, xi 2,^ Ph. i. 6,* ii.i 18,
2 C. vii. 14 (but compare above, no. 1), Mt. ix. 14, Rev. v. 4, al.
Fritzsche thus explains Rom. vi. 10, o aTrWavev' anu G. ii. 20, S
vvv l<jj iv (TapKL: see above § 24. Rem. 3.
h. An accusative of subject and predicate (IMatth. 420, Don.
p. 500, Jelf 375. 5): Jo. vi. 15 [i^ec], iva TroLrjaomiv avTov
^aaiXea' L. -xix. 46, I'/xet? avrov (xHkov) iiroirjaare air/jXaidu
Xt}(Tto)v' H. i. 2, ov eOrjKe K\y]pov6fMOV (i. 13), Ja. v. 10, vTroBeiy/jLa
\d(3ere rr}? KaK07ra6eia<; .... rov<; 7rpo(f)i]Ta<;' H. xii. 9, rov^
rfj<i aapKO^ 7rarepa<i et'^ofxev 7rai^evTd<i' Ph. iii. 7, ravTa {Kephrf)
rj'yrjixat ^rjixlaV 2 P. iii. 15, rrjv rov Kvpiov rj/xcov fiaKpoOvfiLuif
acoTrjplav rjyetaOe' L. i. 59, eKoXovv avro .... Za-)(apiav' ver.
53 (Pol. 15. 2. 4). This double accusative is especially found
after verbs of making, naming (nominating), setting up, regarding
as, etc. : Mt. iv. 19, xxii. 43, Jo. v. 11, x. 33, xix. 7, A. v. 31,
vii. 10, XX. 28, L. xii. 14, xix. 46, Rom. iii. 25, vi. 11, viii. 29,
1 C. iv. 9, ix. 5, 2 C. iii. 6, E. ii. 14, Ph. ii. 29, Tit. ii. 7, H. vii.
28, xi. 26, Ja. ii. 5, Rev. xxL 5, 2 S. ii. 5, 13, iii. 15.
The accusative of the predicate (of destination) is however
sometimes annexed by means of the preposition eU : as A. xiii.
22, rj^eipev avroh rov Aav):h ek ^acrtXea- vii. 21, avedpey^aro
1 Matt. 415. Rem. 3, 421. Rem. 2, Rost pp. 492, 498 (Jelf 578. 06s. 2, 579. 6).
* "We also say jem. etwas, viel, etc., fragen, but not jem. eine Nachricht
frageii.
3 [1 C. xi. 2 is quoted above, and is evidently retained here (from ed. 5) by
accident.]
* ["The accus. alro Touro is not governed by vi'rinius, but is appended to it
as specially marking the ' content and compass of the action ' (Madvig, Synt.
§ 27, a.); or, more exactly, ' the object in reference to which the action extends '
(Krug.§46 4. Isq.):" Ellicottm toe— On the "quantitative accus." see Riddell,
Plat. Apol. p. 112 sq., Ellic. on Ph. iv. 13 (Jelf 578. Obs. 2).]
286 THE ACCUSATIVE. [PART III.
avrov eavTTJ et? vlov for her son} xiii. 47 (compare also the
passive Xoyt^ea-dai eU tv A. xix. 27, IJom. iL 26, ix. 8, § 29. 3.
liem.); or by means of w?, 2 Th. iii. 15, koI firj m? ix^P^^ (jov-
rov, ver. 14) rjyelcrde (3 ^^^<). This is a Hebraistic construction
(Ewald, G?: 603), and is often used by the LXX in imitation of
the Hebrew: Is. xlix. 6, 2 K. iv. 1, Judith iii. 8, v. 11, Gen.
xii. 2, xliii. 17, 1 S. xv. 11, Esth. ii. 7, iv. 4.^ What has been
qiiot<;d from the older Greek writers as parallel with the con-
struct ion with et9 is of a different kind ; as for instance the €t?
of destination, Her, 1. 34, Travre? roia-t ^P^^'^'^^'' ^''? 'TroXe/xov
also Eurip. Troad. 1 20 1, o^ yap et? KoXko'i Ti/^ai Satficov BiBwcri'
Alciphr. 3. 28. In later writers, however, we find real parallels :
e.g. Niceph. Constant, p. 51 (ed. Bonn), o rij^ TroXeco^ a7ra<;
?>f]fio<i .... di>aryop€vov<riv et? fiaaiKea ^Aprefxiov p. 18, ew
yvvOLKa Blhtofjul aoi avrrjv Geo. Pachym. I. 349, tt/v eKelvov
eicyovov Xa^ojv ch yvvaltca' Theophan, con tin, p. 223, Ks^pi'-
TfjLivo<; et? ^aaiXea : see, in general, the indices to Pachymeres,
Leo Grammaticus, and Tlieophanes, in the Bonn edition ; also
Act(t Apocr. p.- 71.
To the same mode of expression' might be referred II. xi. 8,
XafifSdveiv et? KXrjpovofiCcw and perhaps A. vii. 53, eXd^ere tov
vofjiov eh Biarayd'i dyyiXoiv, ye received the law for (i. e. as)
ordinances of angels, see Bengel in loc. ; but it is easier to give
eU the meaning which it bears in Mt. xii. 41. In Ph. iv. 16,
the construction et? rrjv ;jj;peiW fioi eire^^are is evidently differ-
ent from TTjv ;^/0€tai/ /zot eV., and hence has no place here.
L. ix. 14, KaTOKXivare avTOvs KXicrias di/a Trevn^KOVTa (inrows
by fifties), and Mk. vi. 39, iirera^ev avroZs dvaxXtvai Trdi/ras crvfi-
TTwta o-v/ATTocrta (in separate table-companies), are substantially of
the same kind as the abuve examples. These accusatives are most
easily understood as predicative ; see § 59.
5. Verbs which in the active voice govern an accusative of
both person and thing, retain the latter in the passive : 2 Th. ii.
15, 7rapah6(T€i<i a? ehihd'xO'rjTe' L.xvi. 19, iveBiSva-KCTO irop^vpav
H. vi. 9. Compare Ph. iii. 8 ; also 1 C. xii. 13, omitting [the
second] ei<i. So also in the constructions noticed above, no. 2 :
' Compare Xen. An. 4. 5. 24, -ruXovi tU Sa^/*^v lix^iXu Tpefaftimui ; whereas
Arrian {Al. 1. 26. 5) has, tovs 'l-rvov;, cv: lairaiv p>x(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')(0po<i deov KaOtcnaraL.
Those verbs also wliich i)i the active voice govern a dative of
the person with an accusative of the thing, retain the latter in
the passive, being treated in the passive voice exactly like causa-
tive verbs : G. ii. 7, TreTrio-revfiai to evayyeXiov (from TTiaTevo)
rtvl Tt; m the passive, ircar€uop.ai rt), 1 C. ix. 17, Eom. iii. 2,
1 Tim. i. 11,1 ggg Fischer, Well. 111. I. 437, Matth. 424. 2.
TlepUeifiac follows the same analogy: A. xxviii. 20, ttjv aXvaiv
ravTiju TrepUeifiai (from aXvai^ irepiKU-rai fioi), H. v. 2; see
D'Orville, C/mrii. p. 240, Matth /. c.
In this way tlie accusative came to be used with passive
verbs, in general, to indicate the more remote object, and
especially the ^)a?'< of the subject which is in the state or con-
dition indicated by the verb : 1 Tim. vi. 5, 8ie(f)0app,€vot top vovv
(as if from huK^delpntv nvl rbv vovv), 2 Tim. iii. 8, Jo. xi. 44,
SeSefievo^ Tov<i TroSa? Koi raf '^etpa<i' I'll, ill, ireirXrjproftevoi,
KapTTov 8iKaLoa-vvr]<i-^ 2 C iii. 1 8, t^i' avrtjv eiKova /lerapopcpov'
fxtda-^ H. X. 22 .sf|. On tliis compare Vulcken. ad Jfn-od. 7. 39,
llurtung. Casus Gl (Don. p. 500, Jelf 584).
Whether Mt. xi. 5, tttw^oi cmyyeAt^oi'Tat, and II. iv. 2, ifr/xev
ivrjyyeXuTfjiivoL (ver. 6) — compare '2 S. xviii. 31, Joel il 32 — fall
under the above rule,* or whetlier they .should bo derived from
evaYyeXt^ea-dat rivd ri, remains doubtfid ■. see however § 39. 1.
G. The accusative employed to denote a material object
mediately was gradually extended more and more, and thus
there arose certain concise constructions of various kinds, which
^ On the other hand, sec e.g. 1 C. xiv. -34, oLk WiTi.i.'nra.i alraTs XaXuv"
A. xxvi. 1.
^ [See EJlic. in loc. and on Col. i. 9. This con.struction of irXnfviiriai is fol-
lowed by yifjuQ) in ]lev. xvii. 3, 4, y'i(t.i>f 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)<i errahLov^ eiKuai Trevre
(Matth. 425. 1), 1 P. iv. 2, rov irrlXoi'irov iv aapKl ^twaai xpo-
vov' Jo. ii. 12, eKel ejieivav ov iroKka.'i r^/xepar L. i. 75, ii. 41,
XV, 29, XX. 9, Jo. i. 40, v. 5/ xi. 6, Mt. ix. 20, A. xiii. 21, H.
xi. 23, iii. 17. (Mad v. 29 sq.) Thus in the K T., as elsewhere;
the accusative is the ordinary designation of duration of time (in
Jo. V. 5, however, ertj belongs to e^wx', see Meyer). Sometimes
it denotes the (approximate) ^otW of tnne, as in Jo. iv. 52, e-^Oh
wpav €/3B6/x7]v a<^rjKev avrov o rrvpero^' A. x, 3, Eev. iii. 3 ; but
in this case irepi with the accus. is more frequently used. See
Krug. p. 17 (.Don. p. 49S, Jelf 577 sq.).
When the accusative, either a single word or a phrase, is
annexed to other words to define them more exactly, as re-
gards kind, number, degree, or sphere, the construction most
nearly resembles the use of the accusative with passive verbs
noticed above (no. 5) :^ Jo. vi. 10, averrea-av'ol ■avSpe<; rov dpiO-
fiov <o<;el 'ir€VTaKi<ij(i\LOi (as regards number), — compare Isocr.
Big. 842, Aristot. Pol. 2. 8, Ptol. 4. 6. 34 (many other examples
are given by Lobeck, Phryn. p. 364 sq,. Parol, p. 528); Jude
7j Tov o/xoiov TovToi<i TpoTTov iKiropvevauo-oii' Mt. xxiii. 37,
ov rpoTTOv -opvi<i erma-vvd'yeL- 2 Tim. iii. 8 (Plat. Pe^). 7. 5 1 7 c,
Plut. PJduc. 4. 4, 9. 18), A. xviii. 3, o-KrjvoTroLo'i rrjv re^v-qv
(Lncian, Asm. 43, Agath. "2. 46, Acta Apocr. p. 61), This
accusative however is very rare in the N". T.: even in A. xviii. 3
the best MSS. have rfj re')(yr}, compare § 31. On the other hand,
we meet with a number of purely adverbial adjectives, which
possibly were in very common use in the colloquial language :
as iiaKpdv to a distance, far, fidrtp; in cassum, axfitju (the mo-
ment) now, Trjv dp-^Tjv (Jo. viii. 25), hoapedv, to Te\o<i (1 P. iii.
8), comp. § 54. 1. See on the whole Herm. Vig. p. 882 sq. To
^ [Jo. V. 5 is wrongly quoted here : the true construction is given in the next
sentence to this. ]
* As to Hebrew, comp. Ewald p. 591 sq. [Gesen. Or. p. 193 (Bagst.),
Kalisch, Gr. I. 248 sq.J
SKCT. XXXII.] THE ACCUSATIVE. - 289
the same category belong also certain parenthetical phrases, as
in Rom. xii. 18, el huvarov, to i^ vfiiov, fj-erd nrdvTwv avdp
elprjvevovre'i- ix. 5 (i. 15^), H. ii. 17, v. 1, liom. xv. 17 (Matth.
283, Madv. 31, Jelf 579, Dun. p. 502).
How the accusative of quality coincitles with the dative has
been already noticed. Thus tw apiBixia is sometimes found instead
of Tov apidfjiov. Where in the N. T. the dative is used, wo coininoidy
find the accusative in Greek writers : as to -yeVos {naiione) Xen. Cyr.
4, 6. 2, Herod. 1. 8. 2, Diod. S. 1. 4, Arr. Jl. 1. 27. 8, and riZ ytVet
Mk. vii. 2G, A. iv. 36 (Palaeph. 6. 2, 11. 2), iKXvea-Oai. t-^ ij/vxrj
H. xii, 3. and ttjv i/'i'XV*' I^iod S. 20. 1 ; /3pa8er? ry Kaphas. L. xxiv.
25, but fipa8v<; TOV vovy Dion. H. De Lys. p. 243 (Lips.). See Kriig.
p. 18, Lob. I'aral p. 528 (Wetstein, N. T. I. 82G). In Deraosth,
Ep. 4. p. 118 b, 6paav<s Tw ySt'o) stands by the side of py TroAtV?;? rr/v
<j>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 6eo<i,
Tre/i^^cs? .... Kot KaTUKpivcov k.tX. (and here ahvvaTov need
not be taken in a passive sense). To ahvVaTov ray however be
a nominative placed at the head of the sentence (compare Wis.
xvi. 17).^ In A. xxvt. 3 the accusative yv<o(TTrjv SvTa is cer-
tainly to be explained as an anacoluthon ; such instances are
of frequent occurrence when a participle is annexed, see § 63.
1. 2. a.^ In L. xxiv. 46 sq., eSei iraOelv tov Xpia-Tov . . . Kal
KTipvyBrjvai irrl Tat ovo/iaTL avTov p^cTavoiav .... ap^dpuevov ^
(iTTo 'lepova-aXijpb, the accusative in itself (in the construction
of the accusative with the infinitive) is grammatically clear :
there is merely some looseness in the reference of dp^dfievov,
heginwMfj (i.e., the Krjpvaawv lei/innwAj), — or it may be taken
impersonally, in the sense of a hefjinnmy being made (compare
Her. 3. 91): see also Kypke L .344 sq. In Rev. i. 20 the accu-
satives depend on ypd-xkov (ver. 19), as has long been admitted.
Lastly, in Rev. xxi. 17, eperpTjae to Tclxof t% TroXewc CKaTov
T6(r<Tap. 'jrrj'^mv, pirpov dvdpoirrov k.tX., the last words are a
loose apposition to the sentsnce epeTpTjcre to Tet;^09 k.t.X com-
pare Matth. 410'(Jelf 580, Don. p. 502).* On an accusative in
apposition to a whole sentence, as- in Rom. xii. 1, see § 59. 9,
» [See § 63. 2. d; and on L. xxiv. 47, § 66. 3.]
2 Schwarz (De Soloec, p. 94 sq. ) has not adduced any example that is exactly
of the same kind.
3 [Tregelles, Alford, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, read ipld/ts>ai : 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<fipaii/e<T0ac, A. 'Ah 41 ; o'yaX'
"KiadSat, 1 P. i. 6 (but dyuXKeo-Oat, eVt Xen. Meyn. 2. 6. 35,
3. 5. 16).
Of the verbs which siguify io be angnj, dyavaKTuv is con-
strued with nrept (to be angry on acGmnd of some orie), Mt. xx.
24, Mk. X, 41 ; but 6p^it^€aBai (Hke ayavaKrelv ciri' Laoian, Ab'
die 9, Aphfchon, Progynin. c 9, p. 267) with iirs ripi, Pev. xii,
17, compare Joseph. £dL Jud. 3. 9, 8. In the LXX we even
tinu opyl^earOai ev Ttv«, Jiid Li. 14> 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<i, L. ii. 18 (Isaeus 3. 28^), and 6avfj,d^ Scd rt, to
wonder on account of something, Mk. vi 6, as in M\. 12. 6, 14.
36, 6avfj,d^€t,v Tiva Sid n, Tn L. i. 21, however, davfjL. ev raJ
'Xfioui^eiv may mean wink fie delayed , yet compare Ecclus. xi.
21. On ^evL^eadai tlvl see above, § 31. 1./.
G. Of verbs signifying to, pity, c'n\a'^^i^^(TOai is usually
followed by eVt, either with the accusative (Mt. xv. 32, Mk, vi,
34, viii. 2, ix. 22), or with the dative, L. vii. 13, Mt. xiv. 14 ;
once only by trepl, Mt. ix. 3^. 'EXeeiadat [iXeelv] is treated as
a transitive verb; see § 32r 1.
d. Verbs of relying on, trusting, hoping, boasting, are construed
with Ittl, ev, and et?. IleTtoiOa e-ni rivc, Mk. x. 24 L. xi. 22,
2 C. i. 9 (Agath. 209. 5, 306. 20); ctti rt or rcva, Mt xxvii. 43,
2 Th. iii. 4; ev nvi,, Ph. iii. 3."^ JJcarevecv eVi rivt, Rom. ix
33, 1 P. ii. 6, from the LXX : on iria-reveiv eU or eVt rtva
.believe on some one, see above, § 31. 5» 'E\7ri^eiv eiri with dative,
Eom. XV. 12, Ph. iv. 10^ (Pol. 1. 82. 6), and with accusative
] Tim. V. 5, 1 Mace, ii 61 ; et?, Jo v. 45, 2 C, i. 10. 1 P. lii. 5,
Ecclus. ii. 9 (Herod. 7 10, I, Joseph- Bell. Jud. 6. 2. 1, 17 «9
iLva eXiri^ Pint. Galba a 19), ev, 1 C. xv. 19 (Xen. Cyr. 1 4.
25, Mem. 4. 2. 28, Pol. 1 59. 2 eXiriSa ex^w ev r.y Kay^a-
aOai eirl rivt. Pom. v. 2 (Ps. xlviii. 7, Ecclus. xxx. 2, Diod. S.
16 70, like crefivvveadat Diog. L. 2. 71, Isocr. Big. p. 840. and
(pvcriovaOaL Diog. L. 6. 24); more frequently ev tivl, Rom. ii.
17, 23, V. 3, 1 C. iii. 21, G. vi. 13 (Ps. cxlix. 5, Jer. ix, 23): but
connected closely with xara/ipaliiuiru ("of purpose," Alford : "by the exercise
of his mere will," WordswortJi). Lightfoot, whose explanation agrees with
Winer's, quotes 7Vst. xii. Patr. Asher 1, sa» n '4'"Z'> ^^^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 7ravTo<i
Tov rfrXrjOovi (Dt. i. 23), L. xxiv. 11, e<^dvrjaav epwirtov avrajv
&>9el Xr}po<; ra pjjfxara. In the LXX dpeo-Keiv is also joined with
evavriov Tiv6<i, Num. xxxvi. 6, Gen. xxxiv. 18, 1 Mace. vi. 60.^
ff. Of verbs of seeinf/,^\€'jreiv is often followed by et? {in-
hieri), Jo. xiii. 22, A. iii. 4,- — a constraction which is not un-
known to Greek writers, see Wahl,
The use of the preposition /xcra or a-vv with verbs of foUoivinfj
(compare comitari cum aliquo in Latin inscriptions), as in Eev. vi. 8,
xiv. 13,^ is, strictly speaking, an instance of pleonasm. ^ KkoXovOuv
oTTiVoj Tivos (^^nx), Mt. x. 38 (Is. xiv. 14), is Hebraistic.
Substantives derived from such verbs as the above are in like
manner joined with their object by means of a preposition : as
7rtcrrt5 iv X^pLariS, G. iii. 26, E. i. 15, al. ; -n-apova-ia Trpos vyxas, Ph. 1.
26 ; OXivj/€L<i vTTip v/jL(uv, E. iii. 13 • ^^Aos virep ip-ov, 2 C. vii. 7 : see
Fritz. Bmn. I. 195, 365 sq.
Section XXXIV.
ADJECTIVES.
1 . Though the two lasses of nouns, substantives and adjectives,
differ in the notions which they express, yet the latter (including
participles) are also found within the circle of substantives. In
this usage — w hich is much more varied in Greek than, for in-
' [Also in Dt. i. 23 (quoted above), according to Vat. ]
2 See Wntstein, N. T. I. 717, Lob. p. 354, Scliajf. Demosth. V. 590, TIerm.
ZrMcian p. 178, Kriig. p. 74. (Jelf 593. 068. 2.)
294 ADJLCTIVES. [part IIL
stance, in Latin — the adjective may appear either with or with-
out the article, and may have any gender, the latter being
determined sometimes by an original ellipsis, sometimes by the
power of the mascuL'ne and neuter genders to denote men and
things (Krug. p. 2 sq., Jelf 4X6, Don. p. 388). Thus we find
^ epiifj.o<i (yfj), rff iiriovtrrj (rj/Mepa), Storreres (ayaXfui) A. xix,.
35, TO a-Tjpixov ({j<f>a(Tfjia 1) Rev. xviii. 12, o cro<j}6<;, 6 KkiirTav
E. iv. 28, /SaaikiKoi, o ap'^mVy dWorpioi slrangers, KaKoiroioL
evildoers, to uryadov {to irvev/jiarucov. ^v^ikov, 1 0. xv. 46 ?)^
On the adjectives wliich are made substantives through eihpsis
see § 64. In the cla.ss of personal designations (fis aot^os, ot a ucjjoC)
the following belong cbaracteristicailjto the N. T. : 6 TncrTo^ the be-
liever, TTiaroi lelievO'S, aytot, ck/Wtoi, a/tapTo;Ao4 Rom. XV. 31,
xyi. 2, 1 C. vi. 2, 2 C. vi. 15, 1 Tim. i. 15, v, 10, 2 Tim. ii. 10, H
xii 3, Mt xxiv. 22. So even witli an adjective as an attributive,
Roni. i. 7, 1 C. i. 2, K/Vy/Tot? dyt'ots; or with a genitive, as in Kom.
viii'. 33 EKXtKToi 6fov. In all these instances the adjective indicates
persons (men) to whom the particular quality is attached, though
there is no necessity for supplying avBpi.moi (or dSe^c^oi). So also
where 6 dA-./^ivo? is used for God (1 Jo. v. 20), or 6 ayio« tuv Oeov
for Christ (L. iv. 34), or 6 Trovjjpds for the devil, there is no ellipsis
of these substantives : the notion is grammatically complete, the Trv£,
One, the Holtj One of God; and we must look elsewhere to learn
what Persons are especially so named in the language of the Bible.
2. Especially frequent and diversified are the substantivised
neuters (Kriii?, p. 4) ; indeed many of these regularly fill the
place of a substantive derivable from the same root, though
.not always actually existent, Tliese refer not merely to material
notions, as pAcov, ea-y^aTov, fjH/cpov, ^pa')(v, oXiyov, ^avepov,
KpvTTTov, Gkarrov, apaev, K.r.\. (particularly with prepositions,
as ti? TO fxka-ov Mk. iii. 3, Jo. xx. 1 9, fM€Ta ficKpov Mt. xxvi. 73,
eV 6\iy<p A. xxvi, 29, eV t&j (pavepco Mt. vi. 4 [Jiec], eh (f)av€-
pov Mk. iv. 22); — but also to the non-material and abstract,
especially with an appended genitive, as Rom. ii. 4 76 ^prjaTou
rod Oeov (rj ■^rjorTOTr}^)' H. vi. 17 to afjieTadeTov t^? 0ovXqr
Horn, viii 3, ix. 22, 1 C. i. 25, 2 C. iv. 1? Ph. iii. 8 to inrepexop
rr]<; fj/v(oa-€o><!' iv, 5, ro iTrteiK^ vfiMn. AVe find another con-
struction in the place of the genitive in Rom. i. 15, to kut
€/j,€ TrpoOvfiov (to TrpoBvfxov, the parpose, Eur. I^jh. Taar. 983
[989]). The plurals of adjectives are as a rule concretes, and
denote whole classes of things (or persons): to opaTo, kgX aopuTa
Col. i. 1 6, hrovpdvLa and iTrlyeca- Jo iii. 1 2, Ph. ii. 1 0, Tct j3a-
SECT. XXXIV.] ADJECTIVES. 295
6ea Eev. ii. 24:,apxaici 2 C. v. 17. These are sometimes more
exactly defined by the context : thus in Jo. iii, 1 2 eirovpapta
means heavenly trvAlis ; in Ph. ii. 10, heavenly heiiigs ; in E. ii.
6 and iii. 10, heavenly 'places (= ovpavoC, compare the variant
in E. i. 20), etc. In Kom. i. 20, ra aopara tov 6eov, the plural
has reference to the two attributes specified in the following
words, viz. fj re dtBio^ Bvpa/xa koX decorri'i ; and Philippi has
explained the word more correctly than Fritzsche. (On E. vi.
12, Trvev/xariKa. tt}? Trovijpia^, see Rem. 3.)
We must not bring in here 1 P. i. 7, to SoKifuov r?}? ttiWcws,
for hoKijjLLov is a substantive proper (there is no adjective ^okl-
/xto?).^ In Eom. L 19 also to yvworw tov Oeov is not simply
equivalent to -f] yvoio-is t. 6. ; if it were so, it would be hard to atm
why Paul did not use an expression so familiar to him as r} yi/wo-i?.
The meaning is either ivhat is knoicn (to man) of God, or what maij
he kwnmi of (or in) God.'^ I prefer the former as the more simple :
Paul is speaking of the objective knowledge, of the sum of what is
known of God (from what source, see ver. 20). This objective
yvMcrrov becomes subjective, inasmuch as it cjiavepov icmv er auTots.
Hence it is evident why Paul did not write rj yi/wo-t?.
This mode of expression, which arises quite simply out of the
nature of the neuter, is not unknown to Greek writers : the later
prose authors in particular have adopted it from the technical lan-
guage of philosophy. At the same time, the examples collected by
Georgi (Hierocr.' I. 39) need very much sifting. As real parallels
may be quoted Demosth. Phil. 1. p. 20 a, to twv Beuyv eiixivi-i'
Fals. Leg. p. 213 a, to do-^oA-es avr^s" Time. 1, %d>, to Trio-TW t^s
7roAtT€tas' 2. 71, to dcr^cve? r^s yvw/ATjs' Galen, Protrejit. 2, to rijs
ri)(y'q<i acrrarov, and to t^? ^dcrctos cvjxiTaKvXKTToV Heliod. 2. ] 5. 83,
to vTeppaWnv r^? Xvirq^- Plat. Phcedr. 240 a, Strabo 3. 168, Phi-
lostr. Jp. 7. 12, Diod. S. 19. 55, Diog. L. 9. fi:i With the
participle this coaetruction is especially common in Thucydides (and
the Byj'.antines;." An abstract noun and a neuter adjective are
combined in Plutarch. Agis 20, i) Trokky eixdfteta koI to irp^ov Kal
3. On the other hand, the notion which should be expressed
by an attributive * adjective is sometimes, by a change of con-
^ Od this [lassage, and on .Fa. i. 3, see Fritz. Prdlim. p. 44.
^ For t\ii- latter meaning of yvurro;, called in que.stion by Tholuck, see Soph.
(Ed. R. 3«2 (Herm.), Plat. Rep. 7. TjI? b, Arrian, EpicL 2. 20. 4, and comp.
Schultlie.v-j, Theol. Annal. 1829, p. &70.
^ Cdiiip. Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 25o, Niebuhr, hidex to Dexippus, Euaapins and
Malchus.
* On the substitution of a sub.stantive for a predicative adjective, oa rhe-
torical grounds (as in 2 (.'. iii. 9, ;< « S/ax-M'^e T»if xctTxxptets^i J«|a),
see § 5S.
296 ADJECTIVES. [part 111.
struction, expressed by a substantive. Yet the N. T. is by no
means poor in adjectives. It even contains no inconsiderable
iniraber which were unknown to the (eailier) Greeks, — some of
these coined by the Apostles themselves: as i'irtovaio'i,(TapKiK6<;,
irvevfjuiTCKO';, irapel^aKro'^, Trvpivo^, aKaraKpiro'i, dKpo<yo)viaio<;,
aveTraicT'^vvro';, avroKaTdKpcro<i, d')(€ipo'rroL'rjTO<;, ^potxyifio^, iin-
TToOrjTo^, €mr€ptaTaTO<i, ladryje\o<;, /caTeiSwXo?, KvpcaK6<i, Tairet-
vo^pwv^ etc.
In this case —
a. Sometimes the principal substantive stands in the geni-
tive : 1 Tim. vi. 17, /u.^ rfKTriKevai €itI ttKovtov dBTjXoTTjrc,
not to trust on uito^riainty of ricJies, i. e., on riches which are
uncertain ; Rom. vi. 4, iva rifiecs iv KacvoTTjrc ^o)i]<i TrepiTrar^-
acofiev vii. 6. This mode of expression, however, is not arbi-
trary, but is chosen for the purpose of giving more prominence
to the main idea, which, if expressed, by means of an adjective,
would be thrown more into the background. Hence it belongs
to rhetoric, not to grammar. Compare Zumjjt, Lat. Gr. § 672 ;
and for examples from Greek authors see Held, Pint. Timul.
p. 368.
Strictly speaking, those passages only should be brought in
here in which a substantive governing a genitive is connected with
a verb which, from the nature of the case, suits the genitive rather
than the governing noun, and consequently points out the genitive
.as the principal word ; as in " ingemuit corvi stupor, " or 1 Tim. I.e.,
iXirc^eiv ctti ttXovtov aSrjXorrjTt. Such passages as Col. ii. 5, jSXeTrwv
TO fTTCpCWyLia 7-^S TTiCTTeCOS* 2 C. Iv. 7 , tVtt Tj VTTepfSoXy] T^S 8vi'dfJi€M'i
7} Tov Oeov' G. ii. 14, opOotro^ilv Trpoi; rrjv aXy'jBetav Tov evo.yyeXioV
u. 5, also 2 Th. ii. 11, 7rt|U.7ret ivtpyfiav 7rAavr/s, must decidedly be
excluded from this class.- In H. ix. 2, t) n-po^eo-ts tojv aprtov means
^ [On e-apKiKoi see above, p. ] 22. Of the remaining words, ^fuiniJi.o! (Lev.
xix. 23) occurs in ^jsch. Prorr . 479 ; Tr-jpivos (Ez. xxviii. 14, 16, Ecclus. xlviii. 9)
imd ■rvivfiarixoi are used by Aristotle ; TapusaxToi (Prol. Sir. ^rap. vpiXoycs)
by Strabo (17. p. 794) ; avi-irnla-xvvTes by Josephus (Antt. 18. 7. 1) ; TKTini-
<PpMt> (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<i' xvi. 8, olKov6/j.o<i tTj^ ahi-
KLa<i' xviii. 6, Kpitr]<; t?}-; dScKia^' Col. 1. 13, ui09 rrj'i dyd'Tnj'i'^
Eev. xiii. 3, -^ irXTjyrj tov Bavdrov mortal wound, Rom. i. 26,
irddr] drifiiai;' 2 P. ii. 10, Ja. i. 25, H. i. 3.^ Such expressions
in prose follow the Hebrew idiom (which employs this con-
struction not merely through poverty in adjectives,^ but also
through the vividness of phraseology which belongs to oriental
languages) ; in the more elevated style, however, there are
examples in Greek authors."' In later writers phrases of this
kind find their way into plain prose (Eustath. Gramm. p. 478).
If the genitive of a personal pronoun is annexed, it is joined
in translation with the notion expressed by the combination of the
two substantives : H. i. 3 t<3 p-qfiart r^s Suva/^cws avrov, through
His powerful word, Col. i. 13, Kev. iii. 10, xiii. 3. It is usual to
go farther still, and maintain^ that, when two substantives .up so
combined, as to form a single principal notion, the demonsirdiive
pronoun, in accordance with the Hebrew idiom (?), agrees gramma-
tically with the governed noun." Thus in A, v. 20, ra prjuara t^s
^ [It may perhaps be doubted whether this pa.s.sage (with most of those in
which the genitive has some qualifying word, — " tlie expression tlius losing
its general character," A. Buttni.) should come in here : see Ellicott in loc. On
H. i. 3 see Alford.]
- But in 2 Th. i. 7, ayytXei "hvyufiiuf uvreZ means angels of His power', i.e.,
angels who serve His power.
'^Ewald p. 572. [Lefirb. p. 533.]
* See Erfurdt, Soph. <Ed. R. 826, compare Pfochen, Diatr. p. 29 ; but the
examples cited by Georgi ( Vixd. p. 214 sq<|. ) are almost all useless. — The geni-
tive of the material does not come in here : ylSov x-fi'^i, for example, was to the
Greeks exactly equivalent to our ram, of stone, and the opinion that an adjective
should have been used rests merely ou a comparison of Ihe Latin idiom. Like-
wise 'o<r/j.h ivulias, Ph. iv. 18 (compare Aristot. li/iet, 1. 11. 9), is probablj' odour
of fragrance, and is not really put for cir^-i .yuini. That 1 C. x. 16, ro rreTripim
rr,t luXoyla;, and Rom. i. 4, wivfia ecyiMiruify,;, are not to be explained by the
above rule, is now admitted by the best commentators. Still more nn.satis-
factory examples are given by Glass, I. 26 sq. [The genitive in iiruii iia^'ia; is
taken below (§ 65. 2) as a gsnitive of quality, not of material.]
* See e.g. Vorst, Ilebralsrn. p. 570 sq., Storr, Observ. p. 234 sq.
* In proof that this is a Hebraism, Ezr. ix. 14, n^XH ni^yir.n ""Sya. is quoted:
but here it is not at all necessary to connect n?X 'W'th the second substantive.
298 ADJECTIVES. [part III.
^<inj<s ravrrp;, ravrt]? would stand for ravra, these words of life;
xiii. 2(>, 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<i
(ver. 10 sqq.), and therefore could refer back to it : see De Wette
in loc. In A- xiii. 20 also, as thi? o-on-^p 'Irja-ov^ had been mentioned
in ver. 23, o Aoyos tjJs <rf,»Tvpias ravTy^-i is the ivovd of this sal-
vation (effeoted through Christ), in A. v. 20 the pronoun tefers to
the salvation which the a])ostles were at th.vfc veij time proclaiming.
Even the Hebrew combinati(m, as tSM 'h;hv^ Is. ii 20, or "^jh;? |)oa>
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. <jKfvrj ra vroAt/xtKa avro'v i's. Ixxxjx.
/, c, iv iXiu'oi dyCio) ; and one really cannot see what could lead such
writers as Luke and Paul to use so abnormal a construction in.
sentences so simple.'
Rem. 1. Some have found in L. xi. 33, ck Kpvmriv riOipn., an
imitation of the Hebrew use^ of the feminine adjective to express
the neuter. Absurd ! KpviTTri was already in use as a substantive,
with the meaning covered place or way^ subterruv,ain receptacle, invii
(Athen. 5. 205), and suits this pa^^age well. On the other hand,
Mt. Xxi, 42 (Mk. xii. 11), Trapa Kvpiov iyivcTO avrr] (tovto), koI
icrtl davfma-Tr] {davp.a(rT6v), is a quotation from Ps. cxvii. 23 : yet
even the LXX may have used the feminine here in reference to
Kcc^oAf/ ywvt'as (Wolf, Cur. ud Ii. I.).
Rem. 2. We have also to mention another Hebraistic ^ usage,
— a perijdirasis (as it is said) for certain concrete adjectives Avhen
used as substantives, formed by means of vto's or t^kvov followed
by a genitive of the abstract noun : riot d.7ru6ua<i E. ii. 2, i.e. dis-
ohedient rnies, viol cfxoTo? L. xvi. 8, Jo. xii. 36, rcKva j^wtos E. v. 8,
T€Kva opyrj^ E. ii. 3, riKva viroKorj^ 1 P. i. 14, TtKva Kardpas 2 P.
ii. 14, 6 vtos Tijs aTTwAttas 2 Th. ii, 3. Every one must feel tlmt
these combinations are not mere idle periphrases, but that they
express the idea with more vividness and therefore with more force.
This mode of expression is to be traced to the more lively imagi-
^ Tlifl (.'xamples quoted from Greek authors by Georgi (Vind. p. 204 sciq.)
unci Muntlie (Obs. Act. v. 20 ^ lose all plausibility when more closely exLmined
(Fritz. Mnrk, Exc. 1. p. 771 sq.).
. 2 (.Jest'n. Lchrri^h. p. 661, Vorst, Hebraism, p. 282 sq. [Gesen. Heb. Or.
p. ISO (Bagst.i, kalisch, Heb. Or. I. 244.]
8 \o\^t, Hebraism, p. 467 sqq. [Kalisch I. 262.]
SECT. XXXrv\] ADJECTIVES. 299
nation of the orientals, by which the most intimate connexion (de-
rivation from and dependence on) — even when the reference is to
what ib not material — is viewed under the image of the relation of
son or child to parent (Ecclus. iv. 11). Hence children of disobe-
dience are thoso who belong to a-TreiOeLa as a child to his mother,
disol>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 €Krjpv<raov (see Fritz, in loc.^): also by m, H. vii. 15,
1 Coinpare, in general, G. W. Nitzsch, De comparativis Grcecce linguce modis,
in his edition, of Plato's Ion (Lips. 1822).
^ In such cases the LXX.even use the genitive of the infinitive (Gen. iv. 13).
■ •■* [Compare p. 744 sq. In most of the N. T. examples the comparative is
followed by a n indeclinable word : A. Buttmann quotes Mt. xxvi. 53, where we
should proliably read -rX'-iu ^uiixa. XiyiZvaf. Compare p. 313 (t^avw).]
* See Lob. p. 410 .«q., Held, Pint. yEm. P. p. 261.
2 'Ma'AXiv ie not joined to the superlative. In 2 C, xii. 9, T^^nrra tiiv ^«xx«v
xav^^aoKat iV toT; affliniai; ftov, this word belongs to the whole claUKO 'JilnrTX
Kavx.. K.r.x., rather therefore will I very cjlacUy fj/orij, i.e., rather than, repining
at the uirfiviai (ver. 8 sq.), beseech God that I may be freed from them:
>iO(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
&fjMpr<a\a) [leravoovvri, ^ itrX ivevTjKovra&wea hiKalot^, greater
jny thun etc. Compare Num. xii. 6, la-xvec ovto<; fj -^fxel^.
With an adjective there is only one example of this kind, but
in both records : Mt. xviii. 8, Ka\6v aoi icrriv et^eXOetv et? rrjv
^mrjp '^coXbv ^ KvWov, rj hvo '^(Hfia.^ . . . e^ovra ^XrfOrjvat k.t.X.,
Mk. ix. 43. 45. The LXX use this construction frequently,
as Gen. xlix. 12, Hos. ii. 7, Jon. iv, 3, 8, Lam. iv. 9, Tob.
xii. 8, Ecclus, xxii, 15; it was /laturally suggested to them
by the Hebrew, in which the comparison is made to foll(>w 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(o<i'' koX SiKaiayi Trpo^^ayopsvaeif <TVvdp'X^ovra<; rj
iK€luov<i- JEsop. 1 3 4 (De Fur.).' (Don p. 3 9 2, Jelf 779. Ohs. 3.)
In L. xviii. 14, with the reading Karcft-q oSto5 SeStKaioj/LtcVos . . .
17 ^Kcivo?, there would, in view of the above usage, be no difficulty
whatever (compare Gen. xxxviii. 26, SeSiKaiWai (Mfuip rj eyii),
except that a comparison is not very suitable here : all the better
MSS. however have ^ yap,^ which is without example. Yet the.
sentence might perhaps be thus resolved, on Hermann's theory (fol-
lowed by Bomemann in loc.) : this man went justified ... or Wiis
it then the other (who went etc.) ? The yap would be added, as it
is added to other interrogative words (and also to ^, as Xen. Cyr.
1 Tlie explanation given by Hermann ( Vig. p. 884) and Schsefer (hid. .^sop.
p. 138) is more artificial, compare Held, Plut. Tim. p. 317 : the older gram-
marians supplied fMiXXov with the positive. [Hermann, taking an forte as the
proper meaning of j?, tlins renders Horn. 11. 1. 117, /S»yXs^' lyii Xaiv &'oot tfi/aviti,
n &«»\Mixi, voio populum salvum esse : an perire volo .?]
* See D'Orville, Charit. p. 538, Boissonade, Marin. Frocl. p. 78, Kypke I. 89,
II. 228, and Nitzsch I. c. p. 71. [RiddeU, Plat, Apol.f. 183.],
* See also Matthoei (small edition) in loc.
SECT. XXXV,] THE COMPAHATIVE DEGREE. 30
n
.S. 3. 40, Soph. Eledr. 1212 sq.), to strengthen the question. Some
MSS. hc^ve i^-rrep (which in Jo. xii. 43 is not different from ^) ; but
it is more probable that this was on emendation of i) yap, than that
•i; yap was derived from it, as the original reading, Lachmann,
Tischend. (ed. 1), and Meyer read irap c«tvov/ which would present
no difficulty of any kind ( justified past — passing over — the other).
3.* The comparative contrasts an object with but one standard
of comparison, whether this standard be a single individual, or a
united whole: Jo. xiii. 16, ovk eart Bov\o<; /jLel^cov rov Kvpiov
V. 20, fxei^ova rovrtov helmet avrw epya' x. 29. If the appended
genitive denotes all things of the same class (Mk. iv. 31, fiiKpo-
Te/309 trdvrwv rwv cnrepfjuaTcov ver. 32, L. xxi. 3, 1 C. xv. 19,
E. iii. 8), we must naturally take it as not including the object
compared, le.HS than all (other) seeds. In such a case the com-
parative may also be rendered by a suiiorlative, the least of all
seeds. This mode of expression is also found in Greek writers :
Demosth. Fals. Leg. 246 b, nravrwv tmv aXXow X^'P^ iroXirrjv
Athen. 3. 247, iravrwv KapirMv 0D(f)eXifiQ)Tepa' Dio (Jhr. 3. 39,
aTrdvrojv TrtOavdnTepos:. See Jacobs, Anthol. III. 247.
In 1 C. xiii. 1 3, /xet'^wj/ tovtwv t] ayairq, the comparative is not puL
for the superlative. We must render, greater of (among) these k lovk :
the comparative being chosen because love is contrasted with faith
and hope as one category.
4. The comparative is not' unfrequently used without any
express mention of the standard of comparison ^ (Matth. 457 d,
Kriig. p. 9 0). In most cases this may easily be perceived from
the context, as in Jo. xix. 11, A. xviii. 20, 1 C. vii. 38 (compare
ver. 36 sq.), xiL 31, H. ii. 1, vi. 16, ix. 11, Ja. iii. 1, 1 P. iii. 7 ;
or the phrase is one in familiar use, as ol TrXeiova the 7)iajority
(in an assemblage), A. xix. 32, xxvii 12, 1 C, ix. 19, al. Some-
times, however, the attentive reader finds the meaning of the
comparative less obvious, and here earlier exegesis considered
the comparative to be used for the positive ^ or the superlative :
^ [This reading, supported by the authority of N, B, D, L, is accepted by
Bleek, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and others. ]
2 Reiz, De Accent. Inclin. p. 54, Ast, Plat. P6lit. pp. 418, 638, Stallb. Phileb.
p. 120, Rep. 1. 238. [Don. p. 392, Jelf 784, Webster, Syntax p. 58, Green, Or.
p. 110.]
^ In Greek authors also the comparative is not used for the positive in such
sentences as Lucian, Ejpp, Sat. 3. 32, ro n^trrov *aJ ffujivoTiKUTipo^ xai iiri>ri/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<i t'rrep.-^^a avriv,
i.e. than I should liave done, if you had not beeh made uneasy
by the news of his illness (ver. 26) ; i 12, ra kut ifie fiakXop
eh irpoK07rr]v rov evwyyeXlov €\y]\v0e>' 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><i also, so common in Paul,
is never used without a comparison. In 2 C. i. 12, ii. 4, vii. 13,
xi. 23, Ph. i. 14, G. i. 14, H. ii. 1, vi. 17, this comparison is ob-
1 Bolime, who in his translation give.'^ correctly the meaning of this passage,
yet maintain.? in his commentary ; noii est comparat. stride irUeUigendus.
^[KaXav IcrT^v ai-r^ fiixx^y. " scil.' quavi si vivtrct et discipulos suos cor-
rumperet." (Fritzsche.)j
SECT. XXXV.] THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE. 305
vious at once. In 1 Th. ii. 17, TrefHO-aroTepa)'; etnrov^dcra/ieu to
'Trp6<;(07rov v/xoov IBeiv k.tX., the explanation of the more abun-
damtly^ is probably given by the preceding words airopi^avLo-Oev'
T€9 a^' vfjbb)v TTpo'i Kaipov topa<;. The loss of their personal
intercourse for a time (which Paul calls a state of orpTi.anhood)
had made his longing greater than it would have been if he had
never been thus united with them. In 2 P. i. 1 9 the meaning
of /3e/3aioT€/3ov is a question for hermeneutics to determine ; the
fluctuation of opinion in even the most recent commentaries
shows how obscure the reference is. In 2 P. ii. 11, however, it
can scarcely be doubted that after fxel^ovet; we must supply " than
those ToiXfXTjral avdaBel^.'" On K iv, 9 see Meyer.^
A. xvii. 21, Ae'yciv Tt Kai aKoveiv Kaivorepov, is peculiarly charac-
teristic. The comparative indicates that they wish to hear some-
thing newer (than that which was just passing current a.s netii), and
might seem to portray vividly the voracious appetite which the
Athenians in particular had for news. The comparative however
(usually veu)T€pov) was regularly used by the Greeks in the question
vhat news ? They did not speak of wliat was " neAV " simply and ab-
solutely (the positive), but contrasted it w ith what had been new up
to the time of asking. See Her. 1, 27, Eurip. Oresf. 1327, Aristoph.
Av. 254, Theophr. Ch. 8. 1, Lucian, As'i.n. 41, Diod. S. Ex^. Fat.
p. 24, Plat. Frofag. 310 b, and Eulhyphr. c. 1 (see Stallbaum in
loc).
In Mt. xviii. 1 (Mk. ix. 34, t. ix. 46, xxii. 24), twv aXKwv at
once suggests itself as the complement, ; fieyaros would have implied
three or four degrees of rank amongst the Twelve.^ So probably
in Mt. xi. 11, 6 hi yiKponpo? iv rfj jSoffiXeia r. ovp., the meaning
is, 6 /tiKp. (tojv^ (lAAoii/, — the comparative being chcjsen, it would
seem, as cone'^punding to the preceding pe!.iC,wv : compare Diog. L.
G. 5, ipuirrjOei'i tl fxtiKapLu^rcpov tV dvOpwiroLS, f-^rjy €VTv\ovvT<t
dTToBavilv.'^ Others supply 'iwdvyov tov jSaimiTTOv after fjuKpore-
pos : see on the whole Meyer m loe^ Likewise in A, xvii. 22, Kara.
vdvTa u)? SeifrthaiixovefTrijiov; v/xa<i Oiiapui, it does not appear-
that We can jom ws- to the ooniparative as an intensive particle ; we
must translate, In all respects ("at every step," as it were) T look
on you as more religiov,s men (than others are, scil. aXXwv). This
was, as is well knoAvn, the character of the Athenians : see tlie com-
mentators. The word Onapuv was designedly chosen, compare ver.
* ["Because the time of separation was so short," Liinemana, Alfonl : be-
cause "the separation was -wfiauiria el Ketfiia," Ellicott, al. ]
* [Winer's view of this pa.ssage is given in § 59. 8. o.]
' Ramshorn, Lat. Or. p 316.
* Bauer, Glossar. Theodoret. 455, Boisson. Phllodr. 491.
20
306 THE COMPARATIVE DEGKEE. [PAKT III.
23 ; and Snopelu <I)9, though not a common expression, can hardly be
considered strange.
Rem. 1. It has been maintained that, when vpa/ro^ is used
where two objects only are spoken of (as in Rev. xxL 1, ciSov ov-
pavov Kaivov 6 yap TrpaJros ovpavos K.T.A., privs caelum, H.
X. 9, iivaipti TO TTpMTOv, Lva TO 8cvT€pov (ttt^ctt;' Mt. xxi, 36; ciTre-
fTTctXcv uAAous Sow'Aovs TrAetova? twv TrptoTwv A. i. 1, 1 C. xiv.
30), it stands for the comparative jrpoTcpos. But this is only true
from the standpoint of Latin usage ; for in Greek it is quite common
to find Trpwros, Sevrepo?, not -Trporepo^, varcpo';, even where there
is a distinct reference to two, and two only ; ^ as indeed in German
[and English] former and latter belong rather to the written than
to the spoken language. Even TrpwTos with a genitive — as in Jo.
i, 15, 30, TrpwTo? /Jtov (compare ^lian, Anim. 8. 12), and (the adverb)
XV. 18, TrpwTov v/Awv — is, strictly speaking, nob the same as prior
me, prius vohis. The superlative simply includes the comparative,
in accordance with Hermann's remark,*^ " Grsecos ibi superlativum
pro comparative dicere, ubi haec duo simul indicare volunt, et maius
quid esse alio et omnino maximum,"^ Compare also Fritz. Rom.
II. 421, note.
In L. ii. 2,* avrt] r} airoypa<j)rf npuyTrj iyevero rfyep-ovevovTOf; t^s Svptas
Kvp-qviov, even, recent commentators, taking Trpwrrj for irporipa, have
maintained that the genitives Yye^noveuovTos k.t.A. are dependent
on this comparati'.e, it took place earlier than (before) Quiriniu&
was governor. But this is quite erroneous. If such were Luke's
meaning, his language would be not only ambiguous (for the closest
and most natural rendering is, it took place as the first under the
fiovernment of Qtdrinius), but also awkward, if not ungrammatical.
lIuscLke ^ has not succeeded in finding an example which is really
parallel : he merely illustrates the very familiar construction of TrpCJ-
ro<j with the genitive of a noun. Tholuck's mistake^ in regarding
Jer. xxix. 2 (LXX) as parallel is exposed by Fritzsche L c.
Rem. 2. Such examples as the following, in which two com-
paiatives stand in nmtual relation, need no comment : Rom. ix. 12,
o fxei^<))v SovAfyVci t<3 eAao-o-ovi (from the LXX), compare 1 C xii. 22,
2 C. xii. 1.5, Ph. i. 23 sq.; or with a word expressing proportion, H. i.
4, TocrovTw KpeirTUtv y€v6fif.vo^ o(Tta 8ia<f>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 ovro<i aTreXeiirero 7roXX2)v eKafr-
<T(o tov irarpofi, i. e. than that of his father, or in Lucian, Salt.
IQ^Ta oi o/x/MUTcov (f)atv6fj,ei'a TTiaroTepa elvac rwv wt&h/ BoKel.
There is here no proper ellipsis, as the older grammarians thought:
for if the sentence had been conceived by the Greek as it is by
us, he would have said t»'}<? roO 'Icodwov, T7]<i tov 7raTp6<;}
We must rather recognise here a condensation of expression
which was very familiar to the genius of the Greek language,
and which is not only very common in connexion with compai-a-
tives proper,^ but is also met with in other sentences of com-
parison ; '^ see ^06. In Latin, compare Juven. 3, 74, sermo
promptus et I.sa;o torrentior ; Cic. ad Brut 1. 12, Orat. 1. 44 :
in Hebrew, Is ivi. 5 (1 Esd. iil 5). ML. v* 20, also, tav /u.r; jre-
pi(Tcrevari vfiMV i) hiKaioavvrj irXecov tmv ypa/ji,uar€(ov /c.r.A-.^isvery
naturally explained in the same way. Jesus could speak of a,
hiicaioa-vvr} 'ypafip.areoiv, sincH theirconduct assumed for itself thi>s
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] <rv ev yvvac-
^Iv, blessed (art) tJiou among vjomeri. This is in the first in-
stance a Hebrew construction,^ which properly means : among
women it is thou (alone) whom we can call blessed, — the bless-
ing which others receive cannot come into any account when
placed beside thine : hence, with rhetorical emphasis, highly
blessed. Similar instances are found in the Greek poets : ^ e.g.
Eurip. Alcest. 473, w cjiiXa jvvaLKMi/ {oj (fyiXraTa), sec Monk in
loc, Aristoph. Pum. 1081, w o-xerXi dvBpcop, and still more
Pind. Kem. 3. 80 (140), alercx; w/cu? ip Treravoi^. Compare also
Himer. 07'aL 15. 4, ol jewaioi tmv ttovcov, and Jacobs, ^1.
Anim,. II. 400.
The case is different in Mt, xxii. 36, troia ivroXrj /MeyaXr}
ev ru> 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<i which precedes). Compare Herm.
yEs-chi/l. p. 214.
2. Of the well-known Hebrew mode of expressing the super-
lative, D^^'-Ji^^ ^y, Dnai? 12^, we find only the following examples
in the K T. : H. ix. 3, tf (Xeyo/jLevn) ayia dymv^ the most
holi/ place (which however Jiardly comes in here, since it had
already assumed the nature of a standing appellation) ; Eev.
1 Gesen. Lehrg. p. 692. [Kalisch, fJebr. Gr. I. 268.]
^ But the parallels quoted by Kiilmol are not satisfactory.
•^ [In ed. 5 Winer writes ayia, as feminine (compare § 27. 3, where he speaks
doubthiUy) : here, whilst joining this word with the feminine fi, he writes ay,a,
as neuter plural.— The explanation of Soph. El. 849 given below seems very
doubtful (see Jebb in loc.) : on the other examples from Sophocles see Campbell.
Soph. 1.75.]. ^ ^ '
SECT. XXXVI.] THE SUPERLATIVE. 309
XLX. 16, 6a(Ti\ev<; i3a(ri\4(oi% KvpiO<; Kvp'uov, the hixjhest King,
Lord: \ Tim vi. 15 Bat none of these expressions are pure
Hebraisms : ve find a. similar repetition of the adjective (used
substantival ly) in tlie Greek poeta, as Soph. Electr. 849, ^uXaia
^tiKaiwv' (Eli. R. 466, apptjr ap'prjTCdif Phil. 65, CEA. 0.
1 238, KaKu KOKuyv. See Bernhardy p. 154, Wex, Antig, I. o 1 6
(Jelf 534. Ohs. 2), Such a phrase as ySao-iXeu? /3a<r/A,ea)z^ how-
ever, is perfectly sim.p]e, and is more emphatic than o fj.tyLaTo<i
^acTiXevs', compare vEschyl Swppl. 524, ava^ uvolktcov, and even
as a technical expression, Theophan. contin. 127, 387, o ap'x^^v
rwv apyovrvdv} For the similar phrase ol alwvi'i raiv aidvMu
see the passages in the Concordance.
3. What were formerly adduced as Hebraistic periphrases
for the superlative '^ are for the most part either
(a) Figurative expressions, which are found in all languages,
— and the illusti-ation of which here belongs to N. T. rhetoric : or
(V) Constructions which have nothing to do with the su-
perlative.
Examples of (cc) are IL iv. 12, o \0709 tov deov TOfiMife'
p09 virep iracrav fid'^aipav hiaropLov Mt. xvii. 2U,etti'
eyrfre ttlo-tiv tw? kokkov crtvaireai';, the least faith; iv •16,
Ka6r)/M€voi<; iv ycopa Koi ctkiu Qavdrov, in the darkest shadow.
Compare Mt. xxviii. 3, Rev. i. 14, xviii. 5.
{h) In CoL ii. 19, av^T]ai<; toO 6eov is n.oi glorious, extra-
ordinary increase, but (irods increase, i. e., not merely " increase
which is pleasing to Ctod," but " increase produced by God "
(compare 1 C. iii. 6). In 2 C. i. 12, iv dirXoTTjrc Kal elXiKpivela
Beov, the meaning is not "perfect sincerity," but "sincerity which
God effects, produces," In Ja. v. 1 1, riXo<; Kvpiov is not "glorious
issue," but issue which the Lord has granted " (to Job). So
^ See also Herm. jEschyl. p. 230, Georgi, VimL 327, and Xova Biblioth.
Luhec. II. Ill sq. . ,
* See especially Fasor, Cfrara. p. 298 sq. The JleLiew idiom ^3113 bSll
ifi also found in later Greek poets ; see Boisson. Nk. Eugm. pp. 1D4, 3S3. Com-
pare in the LXX <r(peS^« r^ilpx Ex. i. 12, Judith iv. 2 : fiiya; xx) fiiya; oc-
ouis on the Rosetta Inscription, line 19. Not essentially different is the phrase
(fiiKpiv) «V»v 3<r«v, H. X. 37, a very very little (Ht^rrn. Vir). ]>. 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\7ri<y^ (f)a>prj<i fieydXrj'i, Mt. xxiv. 31), but
" God's trumpet," i. e., trumpet sounding at God! s command, — or,
more generally (since the word has not the article), such a
trumpet as is used in the service of God (in heaven) ; Rev.
XV. 2, KiBdpac To'v 6eov, harps of God, such as sound in heaven
{to the praise of God), compare 1 Ch. xvi. 42.
The commentators have long been agreed that in Rom. i.
16, Bvvafxi<i Oeov signifies God's power (power in which God
works) ; and there is no ground for charging Bengel with having
regarded this as a Hebraistic periphrasis because he adds the
explanation " magna et gloriosa." He merely brings into relief,
in his usual manner, two qualities which a " virtus Dei " will
possess, adding a reference to 2 C. x. 4,
Lastly, daTeio<; ro) 6eu), used of ]\loses in A. vii. 20, is
rather an expression of intensity than a substitute for the super-
lative degree : it must strictly be rendered beautiful for (before)
God, in the judgment of God, which is indeed equivalent to
admodum formosus (compare 2 C. x. 4^). Exactly in the same
manner are Q"''?^^^ and ^^^^"'^37 used in Hebrew,^ — compare
Gen. X. 9, Jon. iii. 3 (LXX, TroXt? p.eyd\r} tu> 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. <J. 5 2 sqq.^ Here
€19 no more stands for irpwro^ than in Latin wms stauds for
primus, when it is followed by alter, Urtius, etc. (Compare
also Kev. ix. 12 withxi. 14, and G. iv. 24.) In Her. 7. 11 8,
however, €t<? retfiins its proper meaning ^inus ; probably also in
Paus. 7. 20. 1, where Sylburg renders it by una} This use of
eh for 7rp(t)T0<i is Hebraistic ^ (as to the Talmud see Wetstein I.
544 ; in the LXX compare Ex. xl, 2, Num. i. 1, 18, Ezr. x. 16
sq., 2 Mace. xv. 36) ; classical Greek affords a parallel in com-
binations of numbers, aseU Ka\rptr]Koar6<; Her. 5. 89,o/te and
thiriiith. But we use the cardinal in a smiilar way (for brevity,
in the first instance) in expressing the year or the page, in the
year eighteen, page forty, etc.^
For the cardinal mic the singular noun is sometimes used alone,
as in A. xviii. 11 iKaOia-ev iviavTov KoX fi^va? e$ (Joseph, jintt.
15. 2. 3), Rev. xii. 14 Tp€<f)€Tai, ckc? Katpov (contrast Ja. iv. 13).
But there is no ellipsis in such cases (compare § 26. 1), since
the singular itself expresses unity. A similar usage is found iu all
languages.
^ [In ilk. xvi. 9 we have t/)6.'t» o-a/J/iaTsu.]
- Weber, Demosth. p. IGl.
^ Georgi, Vind. 54 sqq. Foertsch also {Obaerv. in Lysiam, p. 37) has oiily
been able to auduce pa.>-sage.s of this kind. On Oiog. L. 8. 20 see Lobcck,
Aglaopfoani. p. 429.
■* In ChisluiU, Antiq. Asiat. p. 159, /*<f tS; ^suXk-, is renJe-ied din co/icilii
prhna.
" Ewald, Krit. Or. 496 [Gesen. Hebr. Gr. p. 196 (Bagst.), Kalisch, HeMr.
Gr. 1. 276.]
* fOn rtffiTa.pii>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£<rirt^£,-xaiSi««:r»,-, Her. 1. 84. — It may be inenliouud hers
that the terniination -r\acn; does not occur in the N. T. : tlie later -T/.ay.wv
(Lob. p. 411) Is found Mk. x. 30, L. viii. 8, iviii. 30. See also A. Buttmfiuu, p. 30. ]
o
12 THE NTJMEKALS. [PART III,
2. We meet with an abbreviated use of the ordinal in 2 P.
ii. 5, oyBoov Ncoe . . . e<^vka^e, Noah as the eighth,!, e., Noah
with seven others. So in Plat. Legy. 3. 695 c. Xaftcov rrjv apxh^
e^ho^o? Plutarch, Pelop. c. 13; ets: oIkiuv Efoheica'ro'i /ta-
reXOcov Appian, Pww. p. 12 (2 Mace. v. 21)? Greek authors
usually add avT6<; -, see Kypke II. 442, Matth, 469. 9 (Jelf
656. 3, Don. p. 462).
3. When the cardinals are repeated, they stand for dism-
hutives, as in Mk. vi. 7, Bvo 8vo rjp^aro dTroareWetv, hinos mi-
sit, two and two. For this Greek writers use Kara or ava hvo
(Kriig. p. 80, Jelf 16] , Don. p, 514) ; the latter of these occurs
e.g. in L. x. 1 ^ and in Mk. vi, 7 (cited above) T) has the same
as a correction of hvo Bvo.' This repetition of the cardinal is
properly Hebraistic,'' and is the simplest mode of expressing
the distributive numeral: compare Lob. Pathol, y, 184. Yet
isolated instances of a similar kind occur in Greek (poetry), e. g.,
yEschyl. Pers. 981, fivpia fivp'ia, that is, icara fivpidBa<; , and
there is an analogous combination in Mk. vi, 39, 40, eirha^ev
avTol'i uvaKKh'aL irdvra<i crvixTroa la avfxiroaia . , ^ ave-rre-
crov TTpaaial vpaaiai.
The following combinations are ••lecuHar : dva eh c/cao-To?, Rev.
■xxi. 21, and cU KaO" ds (or KaOeh), Mk. xiv. 19, Jo. viii.. Q (like
IV KaO' fv) ; also 6 KaO' els, Rom. xii. 5 (3 Mace. v. 34). Greek
■writers use Ka,0' Iva (1 C. xiv. 31, E. v. 33), giving to the prepo-
sition its proper government. Compare however dva Tccrcrapcs Pint.
yEm. 32 (but see Held), eU KaOels (Bekker writes KaSeis) CeJren,
II. 698, 723, eU Trap' eh Leo, Tact. 7. 83, and the sunple KaOeh
Theophan. contin. p. 39 and 101 : other examples are cited from
later writers by Wetstein (I. 627), see also Interp. ad Lucian. So-
loic. 9 In these phrases the preposition simply plays the part of
an adverb (Herm. De Fartic. dv, p. 5 ,sq.) : Doderlein's view ^ is
different.
^ Compare ;il«o Schfiif. Plutarch V. 57, Demosth. I, 812,
'^ For this ava t]ie Syriac version always lepeats tiie cardinal ; e. g. Mk. vi.
40, ava Uarov, \^ IP^D, ■ > ■ 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 rpec<i.
In the LXX compare ] K. ix. 28, xv. 10, 33, xvi 23, 28, Gen.
xi. 13 in dud. x. 4 Tischendorf has rpLciKovra koI hvo vloi and
Tfjidfcovra iivo rrwXovi in the sanie verse ^
5. If e-navcc is joined to a cardinal to express cibove, more
than,, tlie (cardinal is not governed in the genitive, but is placed
in tlie case required by the verb of the sentence: Mk. xiv. 5,
TTpadrjvaL itravw rpiaKoat'wu Br]vapia>v' 1 C. xv. 6, fJi^drj iirdvoi
vevra/foaLOif; dBek(f)ol<!. Greek writers use the following word^
in n precisely similar manner, that is, without any influence on
case: eXarrov, Plat. Lrgfj. 9. 856 d, ^rj eXajTOv heKa err) ye-
yovorai: Thuc. C. 95 ; TrXeoy, Pausan. 8. 21. 1 ; TrepL, Zosim. 2.
30 ', €49 or £9, Appian, Civil. 2. 96;^ H'^XP^' JEsclnu. Fals. Leg.
37 (ed, Bremi) ; v-rrkp, Plut. Virt. Mid. 208 (ed. Lips.), Joseph.
Antt. 18. 1. 5.' In Latin such constructions as " occisis ad
^ Matth. 140 ; compare the Inscriptions in Chishiil], AniKj. Asiat. p. d'd sq.
(Don. p. 142.)
^ Three mnnerals are sometunes thus corabined : Eev. vii. 4, txuro* r-io-
ju-faLXatTO, ■Ti.dca.fxt' xiv 3, xxi. 17, Jo. xxi. 11 ix^Toy <r!vr^x»yTix -ifu;.
' Schoem /,s(r«s 332, Knip;. p. 7« (Je!f 16b)
* [In this verse ««/ i.s probably not ;>( :),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 i<? "as far as 7 repeated
70 times," Meyer defends tho otlier rendering, 77 times, on the gronnd that
Mitf/«>i«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 <TTa6rjvai (Mk. iii. 24) and the
1 fut. a-TaBija-ofxai. (Mt. xii. 25, 46) share in the intransitive meaning
stand, and that in A. xxvii 28 the 1 aor. ^lao-TryVavres signifies
having gone back^ (compare crrqo-as, Malal. 2. p. 35, for (TTo.'i). Of
' [See also § 2. 1. 6. J
* ['ExT^85r£/» is inserted by mistake: the active does not occur in the
N. T., nor does it seem to be ever used intransitively. On 1r(tfa.'iihin,a.^ see
§64.4.]
^ [Others of these verbs («.g. t««X/v«i») are "always intransitive in the N. T. "
— A. Buttmanil (p. 144) adds to the list loriyu, iitatiyu, ■rjma.yu, J,t;", iv'^X'"^-
attiXuu, KaraXvai, iyi'ipu (imper. iynf.) ; and remarks that some of these verbs,
when their meaning has been thus modified, take a new object — as ^spinyi tAj
*^>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.
<j>v<ii even the present tense is used intransitively in H. xii. 15, from
the LXX (//. 6. 149).^ — In 1 P. ii. 6, TrepUx^L eV t^ ypa<^fi, is con-
tained in the Script'ure., the verb is rather passive than intransitive
compare Joseph. Antt. 11. 4. 7, Malal. 9. 216, 18. 449, and see
Krebs, Obi^erv. 198.^
On the impersonal use of (the 3 pers. sing, of) certain verbs, as
fSpovra, Ae'yet, ^r/rrt, see § 58. 9.
2. The middle voice (of transitive verbs ^) refers baok the
action to the agent (Don. p. 433 sqq., Jelf 362), — either
M. Simply, as the direct object, as Xovofjuai I wash myself,
KpvTTTOfMat I conceal r/vi/self (Jo. viii. 59), aTrdy^q^ai I hang
viyself (Mt. xxvii. 5), Trapaa-Kevci^o/iaL (1 C. xiv. S):* or
A. Bultra. p. 17. In modern Greek iffTxinv is in regular use as an intransitive
aoi ist : perhaps a faint passive force may be observed in most of the instances
in which it occurs in tljc, N. T.'J
' [(in Mt. xxiv. 32, Jlk, xiii. 28, see § 15, s. v. (^vu.^
^ (With Laclimann s readijig -npiix^' « yp'^'P'i-, compare h i-naToXh tetfni-
X,i» ouTcoi 2 MllCC. -\i, 22, a t'ouai ifiZv unp/ix^i, Ec. Nicod. C. 4, COS h *afa.'
'hotrii 'JTifiix^i Ens. H. E. ',\. 1 (quoted witli others by Grimm, Wilkii Clavis
a. v.). A. Buttmann refers to his examination of this passage in Stud. u. Krit,
1858, p. 509. This uso of Tift'f.xu is not noticed by Rost and Palm or by
Liddell and Scott. J
'^ See L. Kiister, De vt,ro utsu ■verborum nicdiorum apud Grcfcos, and J. Clerici
Disa. de verbis Gr<Mcarur/i rntd.iis, both reprinted in the work of Drcsig mentioned
below: for a more nitionnl treatment sefi Herm. Emend. Hat. p. 178, Rernh. p.
342 sqq., Rost ]j. 673 S([<j.. Krag \i. 102 sq'j. See especially Poppo, Progr. de
(rrterorum verbis rnedii.-i, passivt.s, dejxmemibus rite discertiendis (Frankf. on
Oder, 1827)j and ilehlhorn's corrections in his review of the work in Jahn's
Jahrb. 1831, I. 14 sqq. ; Sommer in Jahn's Jahrb. 1831, II. 36 sqc^. , J. H.
Ivistcmaker, De oriylne ar ci verboruni deponentium et medicrrum Grcecfe lingtuf,
in the Classical Journal, No. 44 (Dec. 1820), No. 45 (March 1821). A mono-
graph for the N. T. is, S. F. Diesigij Commentarius de verbis mediis iV. T nunc
primum editus eiira J. F. Fischeri ■ Lfps. (1755) 1762. — On the whole, however,
scholars have hitherto assumed too many verbs to be middle ; very many we
are justified in regarding as passive because of the coKstowi use of the passive
aorist, — for in Greek, a.s in Latin, the ])assive may be used for the reflexive.
Thus *iv8«^ai, iydpiftai, iiu-Koviiirfiui, ayviZ^iirSxi, fJnivaKittiat, ioyfiarl^io'ffat (Coh
ii. 20), «Ti^a^t«-^a:< (Fritz li'ofii. I. 72), a-Ltr^nfianXtr^ai, were Certainly conceived
as j)a.s.sive, not middle verbs, like the Latin moveri, etc. Still more should opiyi-
ci'at (ajypctita ferri), li'o7y.ioffiti {panel], etc., — also airy^vvtaSxi, — b<i brought
in here. Compare, in general, Rost's Vorrede to the 3<i edition of his Oriech.
Worttrb. p, 9 sqq., and his Gramm. p. 270 [?573J, Sommer lot:, cit. [The aor.
iniddle of ipiyiiriai is in freqiient use, and in some others of these verbs this
tense .sometimes occurs (see Veitch, Gre^k V. s. vv. ), The aor. middle (im-
perative) of iytipui occurs several times in the received text, but not in the texts
of 'I i.sfjhendorf and Tregelles.]
* What verbs regularly express this reflexive meaning by the middle voice,
must be learnt from observation. In many — indeed in most (see I'ost p. 574) —
this meaning is always exjn-es.sed, not by the middle, but by the addition of the
reflexive pronoun, tuvTo*, k.t.x. • see Hnttm. 122. 2 (Jelf 363. 4, Don, p. 433J.
'J'hiw for show oneself "WQ find luKviu* lavToy (Mt. viii. 4, compare Her. 3. 119),
for kill on<iself a\wnys avoxTiivnr iauriy {.)o. viii. 22): compare also Jo. xxi. 18,
I 0. iii. 18, 2 Th. ii. 4, 1 Jo. i. 8 (in antithesis to a passive, Mt. xjciii. 12, 1 C.
SECT. XXXVIII.] THE ACTIVE A.ND MIDDLE VOICES, 317
h. Mediately, the action being performed on or in some way
for the subject: i^ajopd^o/iai I bin/ for myself, Trpoeyofx^ii
I hold before Twyself (Fritz'. Eom. I. 171), viirroyuai Ta<i ;j(;et/3a9
/ wash the hands for myself, I vjash my hands (Mk, vii. 3),
a-irdofiai ttjv fid^aipav (Mk. xiv. 47), el'^KoXovfiat I call in to
ma (A. X. 23), aTrcoOeofMai I thrust avjay for myself (from
myself). Compare also TrepiTroteiadai, KOfit^eaOai, Karapri^e-
crOac, eTtLKoXelaOai (Oeov), Fritz. Horn. II. 403 ; and the following
passages, Mt. vi. 17, L. vi. 7, x. 11, A. v. 2 sq., ix. 39, xviii. 18,
xix. 24, XXV. 11, G. iv. 10, 1 P. v. 5, 2 Th. iii. 14, H. x. 5.
Sometimes the physical and the metaphysical significations
of a verb are divided between the active and the middle : kutu-
XapLJBdveLV seize, KaraXafi^dveaOat comprehend (understand),
dvarcOivai set up, dvaTideadai set forth, relate, — probably also
hia^e^atovaOaL} 1 Tim. i. 7, Tit. iii. 8 (compare Aristot. Hhd.
2. 13). On Trpo^XiTreadat see below^ no. 6,
In other instances a new meaning arises out of tlie middle
voice : TreiBofxaL I persuade myself, i.e. / obey, aTroXvofiat
solvo me, i.e. discedo, Travofxai I cease, (f)t)\d<T<jofiat I observe
some one for r/iyself i.e. I am on my guard against him."'*
Entirely transitive are TrapacTov/ial n (I deprecate something
for myself) I decline something, aipovfiai 1 take for mysrlf, I
choose, d7reL7rd/xr]v n I lay aside (2 C. iv. 2), eKxpeTrofiat rt
(1 Tim. vi. 20), aTroSiBofial n (I deliver over something /rc»?/j,
myself) -I sell something, drroKpivofiai (I give a decision /rom
myself) I answer, imKaXou/JLaL Kaiaapa (A. xxv. 11) I call on
the emperor for myself, I appcaJ, to the, emperor. So also
Xvrpoai properly means, / set free, acting as master,- but
xi. 31, or an active, L. ix. 25, xxiii. 35) ; see Kiister, De verb. meA. p. 66.
Lexicographers siiould no longer defer a more accurate investigation of the
subject. See also Poppo l. c. p. 2, note, and Kriiger p. 168.
^ [Kartt kxf/.lianiv : ju cla.ssical Greek it is the activ/' that is used of the
inental powers (Jo. i. 5 ?) ; in the N. T. the middle is always used with this
reference. The active of tt.va.Tlii rim does not occur in the N. T., and in
classical Greek it is not always used in a physical sense. The active of ?<«-
liip>uiiiZff6cu 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<pixa.%a. is the better reading. [Tisch., Treg., and others read i^t/Xa^a^nv in
Mk. X. 20.]
318 THE ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. [PAKT III.
Xvrpovfiai, I set free- for myself the slave of another (L.
xxiv. 21). (Don. -p. 436, Jelf 363. 6.)
When such a middle verb is joined with an accusative of a
thing or quaHty belonging to the subject, the N. T. writers some-
times add the pronoun to the substantive: Mt. xv. 2, ov viTTTovTai
TU.S )(e2pa<; avTwv Rom. Ix. 17, otto)? evSei^w/Aat iv aol rrjv hvvafiiv
fiov.^ A. vii. 58, a-n-WevTo ra c/i-arta avrutv (where Tischendorf
leaves out the pronoun without sufficient reason), H. vi, 17,^ E.
ii. 7, 1 P. iv. 19. In such cases the pronoun is redundant, and it
is as a rule omitted by Greek writers, as indeed it frequently is in
the N. T. (A. ix. 39, Mk. vii. 3, xiv. 47).
From the usage (b) we must also explain 2 C. iii. 18, ^/^ct? Travrc?
.... TTjv B6$av Kvpiov KaTo-n-rpL^ofjievoi : as it were, " sibi intueri,"
to behold (for ourselves) tJie glory of the Lord (as in a mirror) ; like
Philo II. 107. In Horn. iii. 25 also,- ov TrpoWero 6 ^eos k.t.A..,
recent commentators have noticed the use of the middle voice ;
but Philippi seems to come nearer to the true explanation than
Fritzsche.^
3. c. Lastly, the middle voice not imfrequently denotes an
action which takes place at the command or by the permission
of the subject, — where a German would use the auxiliaiy (sich)
lasscn, and where in Latin we should commonly find curare : *
e.g. dhiKGlaOaL to let oneself be wronged, aTroa-repeicrdat to let
oneself be defrauded (both in 1 C. vi. 7), uTroypdcfyecrOac to have
oneself enrolled (L. ii. 1) : compare also ^airTi^eaOai, ya/.ceLa0ai,
and many others.' Examples of middle verbs which in this case
too receive a new and independent transitive meaning, are
havetl^oixai, pcciiniam mutuo dandam sibi curare, i.e. mutuam
sumere (Mt, v. 42), p,i(x6ov[jbat to get something let on hire to
oneself, i.e. to hire, engaga, Mt. xx. 1. (Don. pp. 435, 439,
Jelf 362. 6, 363. 7.)
Some middle verbs combine with the reflexive meaning the
reciprocal (Kriig. p. 1G5, Don. 440, Jelf 364) : PovXevea-Oai to consult
with one anotMr (Jo. xii. 10), a-wTtOea-BaL to settle among themselves,
agree (Jo. ix. 22), KplvecrOai to dispute, go to law (1 C. vi. 1 : should
we add the O. T. quotation Rom. iii. 4 1).^
' 'EfTdhUyvua, is frequently thus used by Greek wnters ■ see Engeiliardt, Plat,
Loch. p. 9, Schoem. Tlutarch, Agis p. 144 {Don. p. 447).
* [H. vi. 17 is inserted by mistake : A alone (of the uncial MSS.) has the
middle voice. In A. vii. 58 Tisch. restored airaiv in ed. 8. J
* [Philippi renders "set forth ;" Fritzsche, "esse voluit (destinavit)."]
* Compare Sommer in Seebode, Krit. Biblioth. 182S, II. 733. [See Riddell,
Plat. Apol. p. 150 sq.]
* [The name " dynamic " (Knig. p. 162) has be6n given to the middle when it
SECT. XXXVIII.] THE ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES, 319
4. Although the middle voice possesses an .accurately-
defined and characteristic meaning, yet in usage its forms are
often mixed up with those of the passive voice, even in the
best Greek writers.
(a) Not only are those tenses for which the middle voice
has no special form (the present, imperfect, perfect, pluper-
fect ') borrowed from the passive, and the 1 aorist passive of
several verbs (as ^o^daBai, Koi/xdcrOai. iropevea-dat, dyvt^eaOac
A. xxi. 24, 26,'^ — compare also, § 39, 2) used also as 1. aorist
middle : — but also
(b) A passive meaning is assumed by some of the middle
tenses proper, particularly the future : ^ such a use of the aorist
is far less common, and is indeed almost doubtful, especially in
prose.* It has been supposed that the N T. contains examples
of this transfer of meaning: G. v. 12, 6(f>€Xov kui aivoKoy^ov-
rai ol avaararovure'i vfia<i, — -.yet here the middle yields a very
suitable sense (see my Comment, in loc.) ; ** 1 C. x. 2, koI irav-
Te<? e^aiTTiaavTo, which however may very fitly be rendered
(see Meyer) they all allowed themselves to be baptised; i^a-
TTTiaOrja-av, the reading of very good MSS., is probably a
roiTection. 1 C. vi. 11, airekovaaaOe, is similar. In A. xv. 22,
in'licates an action not simply and absolutely, bnt as calling forth and exercising
the powers of the agent : see Ellicott on E. ii. 7, G. v. 6, Col. i. 6, and Webster,
Syntax p. 98. Compare Don. p. 438 : " The appropriative middle often exhibitf
a signification which might be called infrnsive, but which really implies an im-
modiate reference to some result in which the agent is interested. One of the
most common of the cases , ... is that of the aorist /Sir» and ll'irSai, of
wjiich the former means simply ' to see,' the latter 'to behold, to look with
interest or with a view to some contemplated and desired effect ' , . . . For this
njason -'Saw is more frequently used than Hi in calling attention to something
worth seeing .... In this particular use of the middle .... it will generally
be found that the middle implies a certain special diligence and earnestness in
the action."]
1 See Buttm. I. 368 (Jelf 367. 2).
' [Above (page 316, note ^) Winer calls iyv/^ja-^ati a passive.]
'Monk, Eurip. Uippol. p. 169 (Lips.), Boisson. Eunap. p. 33C, Poppo,
Thuc. I. i. 192, Stallb. Plat. Crit. 16, MiA.Bep. II. 230, Isocrat. Areopaij. p. 229
(ed. Benseler), Weber, Demosth. p. 353 (Jelf 364. 7). According to Sommer /. c.
the future middle itself was perhaps originally passive, and afterwards was pre-
ferred to the future passive on account of its more convenient form. Compare
Rost p. 573.
♦ D Orville, Charit. p. 358, Abresch. Ari.<if<i7i. p. 178, Matth. 496. 5, and on
Eur. Hel 42 ; but compare Schaef. Gnom. 166, Lob. p. 320 (Jelf/. c).
* [Winer's explanation agrees with that given by Alford, Lightfoot, al. ;
the force of the middle, however, is equally preserved in Ellicott's translation,
*' cut themselves ofiF (from communion with you)."]
320 THE ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES, [PAM HI
eKXe^afievovq — even if we were to connect ifc with avBpaf —
would not be equivalent to eK.\e-)(9evra'^ (see Kiilinol in loc,
Schwarz, Comm. p. 499), but would retain the middle significa-
tion, ivho have allowed themselves to he chosen, have undertaken
the mission (with their own consent) : eK\€')(6eina<; would be
who ha/oe been chosen, whether willingly or against their will.^
It is more probable however that eKXe^afievovi refers to
uTToaroXoi and Trpea^vrepoL, so that we must render, after they
had chosen men from aiiiowj themselves , see Eisner, Observ. I.
429, and compare § 63. I. 1
5. We sometimes find the active voice used by Greek writers
where the middle might have been expected.^ 2 C. xi. 20,
€c Tt? v/jid<i Karahovkol, is wrongly brought in here by some,
who render, if any one enslaves you to himself, sibi (G. ii. 4,
where the middle is a v. L). The apostle intends his language
to be altogether general, if any one enslaves you, makes yoa
slaves : the point is their becoming slaves, — to whom and how
the context must show. In L. xii. 20 also the active is used
correctly ; airairovatv diro a-ov is they require from thee — the
words are designed to express merely the removal of the '^v)(^t].
On the other hand, the active iroielv is sometimes found (at least
in the received text) where Greek writers ' would have used
iroielaOav^ e.g. avvwiMoaiav iroLelv A. xxiii. 13 (Polyb. 1. 70. 6,
Herod. 7. 4. 7),/ioi'^y7rot€ii' Jo.xiv.23 (Thuc. 1. 131, and Poppo
in loc), TrpoBeaiv ■ TToielv E. iii. 11'' (but in the first two pas-
-^ So perKaps Plutarch, Orator. Vit. 7 (V. 149; Lips.), -rirrtuffaf^ivct riiv
* Poppo, Time. I. i. 185, Locella, Xm. Eph. p. 233, Buttm. Soph. Phil p. Itil,
iSiebelis, Pausan. I. 5, Weber, Demosih. 252 sq.
* Kiister p. 37 sqq., 67 sqq., Dresig p. 401 s*Y\., Kriig. p. 1P3.
* 'oS»y !r«/«r» Mk. ii. 23 (where however the MSS. vjiry), is probably not put
for aSov 'Toiufffxi Her. 7. 42 (like Topuav rron7tr6a.i L. xiii. 22), since there is hero
•mething unsuitable in the meaning make a journeif : we ma}' adopt the strict
rendering, plucking eitrs they made a way (a path) in the field. Lachmann,
in accordance with his principle, receives o^afoiu*, the reading of B. [Meyer
agrees with Winer. On the other side see Alford in loc. , who urges that this
phrase occursvJud. xvii. 8 in the sense " make a journey," but does not notice
Meyer's objection that, on this view of the passage, the pr'mcijxd action would
be expressed by the participle (see below § 45. 6).]
* The middle of -roitT)) is but seldom foun^ in the N. T. — beiug used by
scarcely any writer except Paul and Luke (in the Acts) — but wherever it occurs
we may easily recognise the middle signification. As the lexixjons do not usually
present the active and the middle separately, a list of the phrases formed with
the middle of this verb is here subjoined : A. i. 1, to* 'KfuToi x'oyo^ ivurita.-
firit' viii. 2, iTDi^iffavre KoTtriv XXV. 17, a»a^oXri* ToiufSat' xxvU. 18, 4«»
SEOT. XXXVin.] THE A.CTIVE AND MIDDXE VOICES. 321
sages the middle is restored by Lachmann) : evpiaKetv also is
used with the meaning consequi, instead of evpiaKeadai (see
Fritz. Afatt. p. 390).^ Here and there the middle and the ac-
tive are interchanged : * L. xv. 6 , crvy KaXet rov^ (f)L\ov<i' vcr. 9,
avy/caXeiTai Ta<? (f)iXa<i K.r.K, according to Lachmann's reading-
(Tisch. has the active in both verses).^ Here it was for the
writer (Franke, Dem.oslh. p. 95) to decide whether lie would
say he called together to hiynself, or generally, he called to-
gether ; the latter was perfectly intelligible. Compare also Ja,
IV. 2 sq., alrelre kuI ov \a/x0dv€Te, hion KaKw^i alrecade'
1 Jo. iii. 22, compare v. 14 sq : * see Matth. 492 c (Foertsch,
Li/s p. 39).^ In 1 C. ix. 5 Trepidje&Oai would be more appro-
PiiXyir ■xotiladti' RoiTl. J. 0, E. 1. 16, 1 Th. i. 2, Phil. 4, fx-iun-y Tiiii xeiilrdcn'
2 p. i. 15, fiyfiftni Titas -roiilffiai' i. 10, iKktyrm Toiuria,! Eiifialav' Jude 3,
«-ro</3»jy Temrffai Ph. i. 4, 1 Tim. ii. 1, livrw iroitlaint' Roin. XV- 26, Kiitat-
Ki'av Toiiitria.! E. iv 16, T» vufjiO. rr,i ai/^r,<rtv Toiurai' H. i. 3, 3i' la(/T«»
icaiacivuo* Troivrdfiitit tw« afio-pTii^ii. In illustration of Greek usage much
is collected by Drcsig, p. 422 sqq. ; see also V Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 53S S(i.
The distinction between tlie active and the middle is thus defined by Blume (ofl
Lycurf/. p. 55) : Est vonit, quotiescunque accusativus substantivi abstract i
accedit, aliquid fffi-cere, parare, faciendum curare, produce, hrinii about, yrepart,
■vaiurSai ipmiTfi J'acere curn substantivis junutum periphrasin faoit verbi, quod
aut notatione aut certe notione nomini apposite conveniat. (On i.oyoi ttohTv
and votilffiti see Weber, Demo-tth. p, 295.) [The above list of phrases formed
with Tiiufixi is not quite complete We find linfftis -r. 1,. v. Z'-i, <rpitoi-x.i
rr. If cm xiii. 14, elaitoi Xoyav mouuai rrif "4^1/^*!* riuiav ifiauTu A XX. 24
(Tisch., Treg.); •ropiia.v ft.oiri*, and rvmifiiffia* •^iiuiriai (L. xiii. 22, Jo xiv.
23, A xxiii. 13) are mentioned in the text and the last note : on this use of
■xtniatai .see Jelf 363. 6, Shilleto, Dem. F. L. p, 59. In A. viii. 2 (quoted
above) the best MSS. have i'Toirieay ; for other examples of the active so used
see L X. 37 (xvi. 9), xviii. 7, Mk. xv. I (Schirlitz, Grundz. p. 274). In 1 Tim.
ii. 1 leotuviai is usually taken as ]>a.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'.
<ri\v fiuyaip. auTav. [Both airau and v'ra.afj.a-t are thu9 used in classical fJreek ;
see Midlach, Vulg. p. 336. With the examples in the text compare clthxH*
1 P, ii. 23, kiruXueiat A. iv. 17, 21 , On Ja. iv. 2 see Green, Notes p 1 S9. ]
* We might bring in boie those actives combined with the reflexive pro-
noun for which the middle was actually in use in a reflexive sense ; a.s Tot^«t
kflw» xavTov Ph. ii. 8, Mt. xviii. 4, compare ra.'nuaZvea.i Ja. iv. 10 (Wetst. 11.
271), 'iaxiXavi iavrev 1 C. ix. 19, ij^vvft/v lauTov .Jo. xxi. 18, ye/^nr^em iauTot
1 Tim. iv. 7, al. But in all these passages th« reflexive pronoun stands in au
21
322 THE ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES- [PART III.
priate : irepidyeiv nvd means to lead some one ahoid ior exhi-
bition or for guidance (2 Mace. vi. 10, Pol. 12. 4. 14), but to
lead ahouf with oneself (in one's company) is TrepidyeaOat : per-
haps however the active is so used in Xen. Cyr. 2. 2. 28. Iti
would not be at all surprising if foreigners, who had not a na-
tive's instinctive insight into the language, should occasionally
fail to notice the shades of meaning conveyed by the middle
voice, delicate as these sometimes are : even in classical Gi"eek
Hhe use of this voice seems to have often depended on the cul-
ture and tact of the mdividual writers The use of the active
KaOdiTTO) (A. xxviii. 3, though not without variant) in the place
of the middle KaddTrrofjuai belongs to later Oreck; see Passow s.v,
For SUpprjie TO. IfiaTta avTov Mt. xxvi. 65, A. xiv. 4, we might
have had Siepp-^^aro to. i/xarta (see above) , but the active is also in
use in such cases (Bernh. p. 348), The distinction between rrapcxcv
and 7rape;)(£(r^at' is not uniformly observed by the Greeks themselves ;
but in A. xix. 24, Col. iv, 1, Tit. ii. 7, the appropriateness of the
middle voice will be easily recognised. In A. xvi. 1 6, ipyaaCav -n-oXAifv
7rapet;(€ tois Kupt'ots avrrj'i /tiavTcvo/aeVr/, the active IS more suitable
than the middle would be, since it was only in actual fact, and not
by design, that this gain was procured by the damsel,
6, Conversely, we find the middle joined with eavr^ in Jo.
xix. 24, Bie/jLepto-avTo eavrol^; (11 Mt. xxvii. 35 simply tiefiepi-
cravTo), compare Xen. Cyr. 1. 4. 13, 2. 1. 30, Lycurg. 11. 8,
1 7. 3 ; also with eavrov, in the place of the active with kavrov
(Plat. Protag. p. 349 a, Blume, Lycurg. p. 90), in Tit. ii. 7
creavrov Trapexof^evo'; Tinrov, — but the middle had so fully estab-
lished itself in the sense show oneself (in this or that mental or
moral quality; that the writer used this voice even where he
had (on account of rvirov) expressed the reflexive by a separate
word. Compare Xen. Cyr. 8. 1. S9,'7rapdS€i,yfjia . . . roiovBe
eavTov irapel')(ero? In Tit. i. 5, if with Rec. we read eiriBiop-
antithesis (Kriig. p. 168), and in Jo. xxi,, for instance, the middle would even
be incorrect Thus xupuv iavri* would mean "to shave oneself," xufm-ix4
"to sAa?;e oneself." Moreover, where ambiguity might arise from the identity
of the passive and the middle form, it vrould be natural to use the active with
iavrov.
' Rost p. 575, Kriig. p. 163 , compare Kiister, no 49. [Don. p. 437, Green,
Or. p. 185, Ellicott on Col. iv. 1, Tit. ii. 7.]
■^ For other examples of the middle with iaurw, mvriv, see Schief. Dion.
Hal. p. 88, Bornem. Xen. An. 76 ii\., Bernh. p. 347, Mehlhom I. c. 36, Poppo,
Thuc. I. i. 189 ; compare also Epiphan. I. 380, o-rXiratAivoi ttcvriy. [Don.
p. 435, Jelf 363. 2.1
SECT. XXXVIII.] THE ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 323
OaxTTf (but better MSS. have eTnZiopOoiarj^), the middle voice
IS really used for the active.^ As little can we recognise a middle
meaning in aireKhvea-Qai Col. ii. 15, aixvvecrOai A. vii. 24 (com-
pare Dion. H. I. 548), apjjbo^eaOai 2 C. xi. 2.^ Perhaps also
-rrpoi-^eadai, Rom. iii. 9, stands for the active. Similar examples
are met with in Greek writers, especially those of a later date.^
T(j this head have been referred E. v. 13, irav to (fyavepovfie-
vov (f)(ji)^ earC' and i. 23, tov to, iravra ev iracri irXrjpov/jLe-
vov. In the first passage, however, ^avepovadai has just oc-
curred as a passive, and to this the apostle immediately pro-
ceeds to add (f)avepovfjb€vov, which must therefore be taken in
the same sense (so Harless and Meyer) : everythifig if it is
reproved is by the light made vumifest, for everything that is
made manifest is light. In E. i. 23 TrXrjpovpLevov might be con-
sidered passive (so Holzhausen), but then there would be a dif-
ficulty in ra rravra iv rracn, as is well shown by Harless. For
this reason I consider TfKrjpovixevov middle (Xen. Hell. 5. 4. 56,
6. 2. 1 4, Demosth. Po^?/cA 707 b), tlie fulness of Him who filleth
all ; the middle signification is not entirely lost, — "from Him-
self through Himself, He filleth all." In H. xi. 40 also the
middle Trpo^XeTreaOat is correctly used : Trpo^eireiv would
denote a mere perception, seeing heforehand, foreseeing, the
middle expresses the mental act of choosing beforehand, 'pro-
viding : TTpoopacrOat and Trpoiheadao are similarly used by
Greek writers.
In the verb hepjiiv we find a distinction in usage between the
active and the middle, the active being used by Paul of personal
(1 C xii. 6, G. ii. 8, E. i. ll,al.),the middle of non^personal activity
(Rom. vii. 5, Col. i. 29, 2 Th. ii. 7, al.) : hence in 1 Th. ii. 13 os must
be referred, not to ^eo?, but to Xoyo?.
7. From middle verbs must carefully be distinguished the
deponents. These verbs, with a passive (middle) form, have a
' [The middle is received by Tisch., "Westcott and Hort ; also by Ellicott and
Alford, who consider this an instance of the "dynamic " middle (see above, p.
318). In Col. ii. 15, we must surely give to i-rtxlvi<r^ai its strict middle mean-
ing (compare Col. iii. 9) : see the notes of Ellicott, Alford, and Lightfoot. On
ri/xutecTo, A. vii. 24, See A. Buttm. p. 194.]
* Losner, Observ. p. 320 sq. ["Medium active dici doceri neqnit, sed eo
respicitur ad eura, cui cura despondendi commissa est : " Wilke, Clavis s. v. (ed.
(irinini). ]
'^ Schaef, Plutarch. V. 101 ; Meineke, Index ad Cinnam. 244. In the passages
(juoted by Schweighiiuser (J[,i?a;Jc. //ero'/. II. 185) the middle bignific.ition may
for the most part be recognised.
324 THE ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. [PART IH.
transitive or a neuter meaning : their active form either does
not occur at all (in prose), or is used in precisely the same signi-
fication (Rost p. 263, Don. pp. 265, 440, Jelf 368).^ Such are
hvvaadai,, SaypelcrOai, yiyveaOat, ^id^ecrOac, evreXKea-Oai, ev-
-^(€(7601, ivOvfjLeladat,, ipyd^eaOat, evXa^elaOai, /j,d')/pcr0ai, /u-t/x-
<f>ecrdai, <f)eihea6ai, danrd^6<T0ai, efi')(eadat,, rjjeladai,, laadai.
Xoyi^eadai, irpoaiTLaaOat,'^ with many others. On these it
must be remarked that
a. Although most deponents have their aorist of the middle
form {middle deponents, as alTLaadai, dairdi^eaOat, ipyd^€-
aOai, ^eiBea-6at), yet not a few have in its place the aorist
passive (passive deponents^ : as 6ov\ecr6ai, BvvaaOai, eTrcfieXeZ-
a-dai, ev\a^ec(r$ac, aTrXay^vi^eaOat, fj.cop.da-6at,,^ etc. (Don^
p. 268).
b. Others have both forms of the aorist ; though in this
case one or other form predominates (in prose). To tbis class
belongs dpveiadai, on which (against Buttmann *) see Poppo,
Thuc. III. iv. 209 : the N. T. writers always use the middle
aorist rjpv7}(rdfn}v, which in Greek prose is the rarer form.
On the other hand, Bui\ey€T0at has always a passive aorist in
Biblical Greek (Don. p. 269 sq.).
c. Some middle deponents which possess an aorist (or perfect)
middle with an active meaning have also an aorist or perfect
passive with a passive meaning : e. g. idedOrjv Mt. vi. 1, Mk. xvi.
11 (Thuc. 3. 38),^ iOeaa-d/jLvv I saw; Iddrju Mt. viii. 13, L. vi.
17 (Is. liii 5, Plat. L^g. 6. 758 d), lauat Mk. v. 29, but laa-d-
fiTjv active ; i\oylcrdr)v frequently (compare Xen. Cyr. 3.1.33);
aTreSixOrjcrap ^ A. XV. 4 (comp. 2 Mace. iii. 9), aor. middle in
^ The active of Xv/j-n'maiai, for instance, is found in later writers only ;
see Passow. On the other hand, the active of 'iupi7<r6a,t occurs as early as
Pindar, Olymp. 6. 131. In the N. T. we find even ivayyi\iZ,u, as frequently in
the LXX
* [The actives P>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<ti : it is singular
that this slip is found iu five editions of the German (3rd to 7th). The perfect
occurs twice only in the N T. , here and in 1 P. iv. 3.
9 [In the N T. we find the active only, in Ja. iii. 5 Bee. Here however the
true reading is fnydXa a.ox,i7. ]
* [Compare Don. p 440 sq. Considering all deponents to be properly middle,
Donaldson classifies them "according to the usages of the middle in which they
respectively, originated "]
"' [In ed. 3, 4, Meyer calls attention to the use of the middle voice, and renders
qui sibi implet. J
326 THE PASSIVE VOICE. [PART III.
Section XXXIX.
THE PASSIVE VOICE.
1. When a verb which governs the dative or the genitive
of the person (as iria-revecv tlvi, Karrfyopeiv ri,v6<i) is used jn
the passive, the Greeks are accustomed to make the noun which
denotes the person the subject of the passive verb (Kriig. p. 159.
Jelf 364. 5, Don. p. 432).
a. Dative : G. ii. 7, Treirurrevfj^at to evayyeXiov, i. e. TreTTt-
(Trev/M€vov e')(Oi to evafyyiXiov (active, Tncrrevecv rivi rt) ; Rom
iii. 2. i7ncnev6rf<Tav (the Jews, ver.' 1) tcl \6yLa rov 6eov 1 C
ix. 17, olicovofjiiuv TTeTTiaTeviMac: compare Diog. L. 7. 34, itlo-thv-
6evre<i Tr}v iv TIep<yd^(p fii^XiodTjKrjv Pol. 3. 69. 1, Treiricrrevfie-
V09 Tr)v TToXiv ira-pd ' Pcofiaicov 31. 26. 7, Herod. 7. 9. 7, De-
mosth. Theocr. 507 c, Appian, Civ. 2. 136, Strabo 4. 197, 17
197, etc., etc. So also when this verb is used in the sense of
believing some one (Trtareveiv tlvL) we find the passive Tnarevo-
fjbai I am believed:^ e.g. Xen. A71. 7. 6. 33, Isocr. Trapez. p. 874,
Demosth. Callip. 720 a; ^aaiXevofiai, Aristot. Nic. 8. 11. — The
case is different in 1 Tim. iii. 16, eiricrevOr] (XpiaTOf) iv k6(t^g):
this cannot be referred to TCKneveiv Xpiara>, 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(^avei<Tav e')(ovTe<i ttjv K.; H. xi. 2, iv touttj ifMapTvprjOrjcrav
01 Trpea^vTepoL (jiapTvpelv tivI), A. xvi. 2, al. ; H. xiii. 16, eva-
pea-TeiTai 6 6e6<; (Bleek in loc.) ; further, H. viii. 5 KaOu)^ xe-
-X^pTifidTia-Tat Ma}va7}<i (Mt. ii. 12, 22, Joseph. Antt. 3. 8. 8), and
Mt. xi. 5 (L. vii. 22) tttqj'xoI evayyeXi^ovTaf H. iv. 2. The pas-
sages last cited come in here because evayyeki^eadat (see Fritz.
Matt p. 395) and xpVf^(i'rl^€Lv {J osei^h. Antt. 10. 1. 3, 11. 8. 4)
are lisually followed by the dative of the person. We should
probably add Col. ii. 20, t/ o)? ^wi^re? iv Kocrfxtp BoyfiuTi^eaOe
(Soy/juaTL^eiv tivc 2 Macc. x. 8); see Meyer. In 3 Jo. 12 the pas-
sive fiapTvpeiaOac has a dative of the person, like the active.
b. Genitive. Of verbs governing a genitive KaTTjyopovfiac
' The reverse aTurroufcti,, Wi.s. vii. 17.
* [Tischendorf and "VVestcoU and IJorjt read av«yava>T£}, 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 ■*<i'riy*ai<rftito< nr, Pr ii. 11 (A. ButtlTl. p, 188).]
* fWfvfr.aave this up in his 4th ed. (1862).]
3 Yetweihid a.-nxf.ir, in MSS. as early as Xen. Art. 2 1. 22: on I'lat. Ak.
2 p 149 b. see Lob p \QH In the writers alter Aloxuiider it is not at all
uncommon [See Voit'^h, Gr Verbs s. \ ]
* From this tense we tind the fur i'TSKpiinirefiat, Mt. xxv. 37, 45, and
LXX
" Compare Stiuz, Dial Alex. p. 148 sq.; Lobeclv, rhri/u. p. 108, Schoem.
fscBUs p. 305.
'' [Forothei exampieb see A Buttm p. 51 .sq. — The aor. pa.ssive of fixuf^aZu
occurs Rev. xiii. 3 (I-ach.) in an active sense; so al.so Sxvu.airir.r'tuat Rev. xvti.
8 (Lach., Tisch. ed. 7) : see Veitch p. 'J/l, A. Buttiu. p 59. j
328 THE PASSIVE VOICE [PART HI.
view really passive ; jnet as in Latin servari, delectari, are used
instead of servare se, dehctare se, which agree with our idiom :
compare Rest p, 673.' Wq must say the same of the 2 aor. kut-
aWajTjTO) 1 C. vii. 11, 2 C. V. 20 (compare Kom. v. 10), and of
the future {rrpoi;) KoXk-qdrjaeruL Mt. JCix. 5 (E. v. 31).
^EKXr)[)o)6qfjiiv E. i. 11 (see Harleas ift- he), and 7rpo^iK\7jp<i)9rjaav
A. xvii. 4, are evidently passive.
3. That the perfect (Matth. 493) aud the pluperfect passive
have also a middle signification has been generally admitted
since the so-called perfect and pluperfect middle disappeared
from our grammars (Buttm. 1. 362, Jelf 365. 3). In the N. T.
compare A. xiii. 2 (etf j o TTpo<iKiK\r)[xai avrov<i, to which I have
called them, for Tnyaelf ; xvi. 10;, irpaKeKXr/Tai r}fia<i o Kvpio<;
evarfyeXlaaadac aiirovs, the Lord has called us for Himself etc.
(compare Ex. iii, 18, v. 3); xxv. 12, Kaiaapa eirtKeKX.'qaai, tlwu,
hast called for thyself to the emperor (appealed to him); Rom. iv.
21, o eTTrjfyyeXTai, hwaroi, ecrri. koI 'jrotfjcrai (o 6e6<;), H. xii. 26 ;
Jo. ix. 22, avveredecvro ol ^louSaloi' 1 1'. iv. 3, Treiropevfievov^
iv aa-e\y€lai<i (1 S. xiv, 1 7, 2 K.v. 25, Job xxx. 28, Zeph. iii. 16,
Demosth. Nicostr. 723 c, al.j On the perfect passive of depo-
nents see § 38. 7.
On the otlier hand, 1 P. iv. 1 •n-cVavrai a/taprtas (commonly
rendered peccare desiit, compare Xen, Cyr. 3. 1. 18) may be taken
as passive, he has rest from sin, is secured against sin, see Kypke
in loc. : Ph. iii. 12, howevor, can in no case come in here. — Ilo-
XtT€uo/>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 (<ru<rafi.>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><f>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<s vTrdpxn-v eyvuj-
Predestination controversy, punctuating the ver.'«e thus, xa', loriirriurtLt, oroi Ar«>
•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 u<ptX7in'i*'s ■ Liban. Ep. 2
o
30 THE TEXSES [part III,
(T/nevors (-ixe fi.tv A-eyetv vTrefj rri<? ■rrarpi.do';, avTuv irirkp ^lXlttttov
though it is true this disappears if we follow Dissen in reading T7juas
(with one MS,),^ nos esse cogidtos (h. e. de nobis constare), me quidem
verba facere pro palria etc.
Kem. 3. Here and there it has appeared doubtful whether a
verb is middle or passive. The decision is grammatical only so far
as it may oi^ shown that the verb in question either was never used
ill the passive or in the middle, or that the middle had an active
meaning. Hence we are justified in regarding dTtyua^eo-^'ai, Rom. i
.24, as a passive ; so also otKoSoyaelo-^at 1 C. viii. 10, Travea-Oai 1 P.
iv. l,-^ dcaveovardai E. iv. 23: on the other hand, in 1 C. i. 2, ol
t/TtKoAoi'/xti/of TO opo/jLa Tov Kvpiov, the verb can only be middle.
In other cases the context must decide, — e.g. in 2 C. ii. 10, where
K€;^dptor/Aai must be considered middle (against Meyer), and in Rom.
iii. 9, where -irpoex^aOai cannot be passive; — or else the known
view of the writer, gathered from other passages, e.g. K vi. 10
Section XL.
THE TENSES.
1. The N. T. grammarians and commentators'^ have been
chargeable with the grossest mistakes in regard to the tenses of
the verb.* In general, these ^ are used in the N. T. exactly as
in Greek writers.^ The aorist refers to the past simply (the
' [On the frequent intereliange of fifttTs and i>ft.t7s in MSS. sec Scrivener, Jntrod.
p. 11 : for exanipl<fy in Demosthenes see e.g. Shilleto, Fals. Leg. p, 58, Weber,
Dem. pp. 11, 12, 10, ooinp. p. 18. Liddeil and Scott retain Cf^a;, and render
*' are detf-rniined ;" so also Kost and Palm.]
- [It IS nol. easy to see how these piinciples apply to vi^avra, 1 P. iv. 1, see
al>o"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 •<!
the teu.ses the N T, writers were very littlft bountl by the laws of grammar."
* Occasioned in part by the parallel passages, which, it was thought, must 1>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
u7roKara<TTrj(7ei Trdvra, compare Jo. vii. 42 ; L. xii. 54, orav
Ihrjre ttjv vecjteXrjv avareXkovaav 0.776 hvcrjMOiv^ evdeca Xeyere'
ofji^pofi ep^erai (a law of the weather, taught by experience) ;
Col. iii. 6, St* a ep^erai r} opyr) rov Oeov iirl tov<; viov^ Try?
arreiOeia^ (in accordance with a law of God's moral government
of the world) ; H. iv. 3, 1 C. iii. 13, xv. 2, E. v. 5 : hence the
phrase ep^erat aypa ore in the mouth of Jesus, Jo. iv. 21, xvi. 2 ;
hence too the Jewish designation of the Messiah, o ip^6fxevo<i
(N2n). "We may also bring in here the formula (peculiar to John)
oTTov elfil iyo), followed by a future (Jo. xii. 26, xiv. 3, xvii. 24),
unless we prefer the rendering where J am, where 1 have my
home. It would be a mistake to change the more select present
tense into the future, in translating these passages.^ Elsewhere
we find the present tense used of that which is just about to
take place ; which some one is on the point ot doing is already
preparing to do : ^ Jo x 32, Sia irolov avTwv epryov Xidaterk fie
(they had already seized the stones) ; Jo. xiii. 6, Kvpu, crv fwv
vl7rTei<; Tov<i TToSa? (he had already assumed the attitude of one
who washes); xiii. 27,* xvi, 17 {vTrdyco), xvti. 11, xxi 3,
1 C, xii. 31, 2 C. xiii. 1, Kom. xv. 25}
Many other passages have been brought under this head with
much less plausibiUty. In Jo iii 36 the thought is weakened if
Ix^i is taken for e^et. The notion of ^toiy, as used by John, not
only permits but almost requires the present tense ; apart from
this, however, Ix^iv ^lorjf alu>vLov 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<r rov'i ixaOrjra^ Kal evpiaKet avrov'i Ka6evSoirras. Such
a present is often introduced suddenly. m the midst of aorists (Jo.
ix. 13, xviii 28, xix. 9, A. x. 11, M.k. v. 15), or the present and
aorist are combined in a single verse, as in Mk. vi. l,ix. 2, xi.
' ["Fritzsche's note on ix^ri is, (what reward have ye) "'entered in God'a book
of account ? "]
f Matth. 504 ; comp. Zumpt, Lat. Gr. § 501 (Don. p. 405. Jelf 395. ?).
334 THE TENSES [PART IH,
15, Jo. XX. 6, 19. In the Synoptic Gospels we find the present
used by one narrator, the aorist by another; compare Mt. xxi. 13
with Mk. xi. 27 sq,.^ Mt. xxii. 23 with Mk. xii. 18. This pre-
sent also occurs in the apocalyptic vision, as Kev. xi, 9, xii. 2.
As to the LXX, where this usage is very rare, see Thiersch
p. 187."^ Suddenness, in a series of past events, is very charac-
teristically expressed by the present in Mt. ii. 13, ava-x^wprjo-dv-
royv avTMV ISoif ayyeXo^ KVpiou ^alverai Kar ovap k.t.X.
For similar examples see Xen. Hell. 2. 1. 15, Cyr. 4. 6. 4, 10,
5. 4. 3, Ages. 2. 19, 20, Thuo. 1. 48, 2. 68, Paus. 1. 17. 4, 9. 6. 1,
Arrian, Al 7. 17. 5, Dion H. IV. 2113, Achill. Tat. 4. 4, p. 85.3
c. Sometimes the present tense includes a preterite (Madv
110, Kem. 1, Jelf 396. 2), viz., when the verb indicates a state
which commenced at an earlier period but still continues — a
state in its continuance : Jo. xv 27.<ir' dpxv^ /^er i/xoi) ecrre
viii. 58, irplv 'AjSpadfM yevecrOai eyat flpi (compare tier, i 5
irpo Tov fie irkdaat ae eu Koi\(q, liriarafLat are' Ps. Ixxxix. 2),
2 P. iji. 4, 1 Jo. iii. 8 " We miglit bring in here A xxv. 11, et
fj,€v dBiKco Kal d^iop Oavdrov ireTipa-^d re (compare Xen. Cyr
5. 2. 24) ; but daiKu) denotes the quality presented to the cogni-
sance of the judge, ahuco^ elfii ; see Bernh. p. 370, Matt. 504. 2
(Madv- 110. Hem. 2|. In Jo viii. 14 we find first an aorist,
then a present t olSa irodev rj\6ou . . . vp,el<i 6e ovk oiBare,
TTodev ep-x^ofiai.
In 1 Jo. iii. 5 the sinlessness of Jesus is regarded as being in
faith still present (see Liicke). In A., jfxvi. 31, oi^tv Oavdroi d^iov
>) ^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)<TOV<i . . TTOtCl KOI /3 a TT T t' ^ £ f Mk. V. 14, €^A-
t^ov l^elv Ti ia-Ti to yeyovos* xii 41, xv. 47, Jo. i. 40, V. 13, 15,
vi 5, i!4, 61, L. vii. 37, xix. 3, A. iv. 13, ix. 2Q, x. 18, xii. 3,
H. xi. 8, 13 : the preterite which in most instances we find in a
greater or smaller number of MSS. is evidently a correction.* This
however is a regular Greek construction (seo Vig. p. 214 sq. and
compare below, § 41. b. 5), which really results from a mingling of
the orat'tu rerta and the oratio ohliqua, ^ compare Pol. 5. 26. 6,
« 22. 2, 4, Ml 2. 13 ext., Long. Past. 1. 10. 13. The imperfect
or aorist in these passages might have indicated that the circum-
stance asked after or heard of was past at the time of inquiring o)
hearing ('Ompare Jo. ix. 8, ol de'd^powre'; aurov to Trponpov, otl
Tt'</>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<y6 . . . €7re')^a)V,'Tr(t)^ rd^ 7rpcoTOK\iaia<: e^eXey.ovTO,
kov) tJoey (at that time) were choosing out ; xxiv. 32, rj Kaphia
TffXMV KaiofieVT) rfv ev '^pu.v, &)<> eXaXet -qpZv iv rj) oha>' A. viii.
36, u)<i eiropevovro KaTarrjv 6h6v,rj\dov eiri ti vSwp' x. 17, xvi.
4, xxii 11, L. vi. 19, Jo. v 16, .vii. 6.
b. To indicate a past action of flomevvhat long duration, or
continuously repeated : ^ Jo. iii. 22, eVet Sierpi^e fier' avrcav Kai
' [Compare however T*y Koi/uu/*ivMv 1 Th iv. 1?., aud the epitaph quoted by
Alfoi'd In loC, hpoy uTyiv xmfA.a.'ra.i a.T. A.]
- [" John is thinking much more of the diffusion of tlie holy light of life from
'Christ, than of its origination in Christ."]
^ Compare Schoem. Plut. Agis p. 135 sqq.
* [In very few of these passages i.s a jireterite given as a variant by Tisch, or
by Griesbach. The perfect is the best reading in Mk. xv. 47. ]
* Porsoii, Eurip. Orest. p. 36 (Lips.). On the still more extended use of the
present for a preterite in parenthetical sentences see Buttm. Gr. § 124. Rem.
6. and ad Pkilocl. p. 129.
* Bremi, Demosth. p. 19.
' Matth. 497 b, 502, Schoem. Plut. Agis p. 137, Held, Plut. uHm. P. p. 267:
336 THE TENSES. [PART iri.
i^drrrTi^ev Eom. xv. 22, eveKOTrTo/jLrjv ra ttoWo. tov eA,-
6eiv' 1 C. V. 4, eiTLvov yap iK irif^vfjiar. dKoXov0ova-r)<i 7Terpa<i,
where enriov denotes simply the past aud now completed action,
eirivov its continuance during the journey through the wilder-
ness ; xiii. 11, ore ■i]/jl7)v vrj'jrio^,ci)<i i/777rto<? iXdkovv A. xiii. 1 1,
mepidycov i^rjTei ')(eipay(o<yoi><i' Mt. xiii. 34, %tu/3t9 Trapa^oXrj'i ovk
iXdXei, (throughout the time of His ministry). Compare L. v, 1 5,
vi. 23, viii. 41,52,xvii.28,xxiv.l4,27^Mt.iii.5.xxvii.39,Mk. i.
7, 31, Jo. V. 18, vii. 1, xi. 5, xiii, 22 sq., xii. 2,xxi 18, A vi. 1.
7(Thuc.l.29), ix. 20, xi. 20, xviii.25, xxvi. 1, ll,xxviii. 6, Rev.
i. 9,2 1 P. iii. 5, 2 r. ii. 8, H. xii. 10, Col. iii. 7, al. ; Xen. An. 1,
2. 18. 4. 5. 18, 5. 4. 24, 6. 3. 3, Mem. 1. 1. 5,ApoL Socr. 14.
Hence the imperfect is used to express a custom or practice, as
in Mk XV. 6, Kara eopTr]v aTreXuev avroi<; eva hecrfjutov' xiv. 12
(Demosth. Phil. 2. 27 b); compare Herm. Vig. p. 746.
c. To denote an action commenced in past time but not ac-
tually accomplished :^ L. i. 59, eKaXow avro . . . Za^apiav (his
mother objected, and he is called John), Mt. iii. 14, 6 he'Icodv-
i/779 BteKwXuev avrov (compare ver. 15), A. vii. 26, avvjjXXaa-aev
avTov<i et9 elptjvqv* (Moses), compare ver. 27. Similarly in
Eurip. Iph. T. 360, Here. F. 437, Her. 1. 68, Thuc. 2. 5, De-
mosth. Mid. 396 b.Xenoph. An. 4, 5. 19, Meiri. 1. 2. 29, Pans.
4. 9. 4.^ — H, xi. 17 {trpo'ie^epfiv) has no place here G. i. 13,
however, would be an example if 'jropOdv were rendered destroy ;
but see my note in loc.^
d. The imperfect sometimes seems to take the place of the
aorist in narration, when events are described at which the nar-
rator was present : L. x. 18, idecopovv tov a-ajavav w? daTpairrjv
eV TOV ovpavov irecrovTa? By this means the narration is made
^ [The aorist is best attested here. ]
* [There is no imperfect in Rev. i, 9.]
^ Henn. Soph. Aj. 1106 : in eo, quod quis vohiit facere, nee tamen perfeeit,
qnod aptius adhiberi teinpus potest, quam quod ab ea ipsa ratione nonien habet|
imperfectura ? Compare Madv. 113. See also Schaef. Demosth I. ZV , Plutarch
IV. 398, Poppo, Thuc. III. i. 646, Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 282, Maetzner,
Antiph. p. 220, Schoem. Isoeiis p. 178.
* This is the reading of good MSS., see Fritz. De OrU. Conforinat. p. 3L [So
Lachm. and Tregelles read, also Westcott and Hort. |
* Compare Held, Plut. Timol p. 337, note.
" [Winer prefers to render -rofStli by vastare : in favour of the simple render-
ing " was destroying," see Meyer, Ellicott, Alford in loc]
[Meyer explains this imperfect as ased with reference to the time of sending
the disciples forth.]
SECT. XL.] THE TR.N'SES. 337
more graphic and animated than it would have been if the
writer had. used the aorist, which simply relates, condensing
each action into a single point Compare uiso A. xvi. 22, e/ce-
Xevov pa^Bi^Giv,^ tliey gave ordcr.-i (whilst 1 was present) etc.:
see Matth. 49 7 a. Hence this case reduces itself to the first "
CJelf 401. 3).
In no passage is it necessary to take this tense as used for
the pluperfect.'^ In A. iv. 13 the words eOav/xa^ov eTrejivoxTKov
re avTOV^, oti <ruv rat ^Irjaou tjcrav must be closely joined : they
'wondered and (excited by this \ery wonder to more careful
oijservation) recognised that tltey etc. KUhnol's explanation
(after Eaphel, Annot. II. 37) is incorrect
In man}'' passages the readings vary between aorist and irapL'ifect —
e.g. Mk. vi. 12, xiv. 70 (see Fritz, in loc.*), A. vii. :>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) al<rxpoTr]S ^ /AwpoXoyia rj
cvrpa-TTcXia, a ovk avrJK€v (KaOii<; TrpeVet immediately preceding).
In Col. iii., however, we must render wi oportebat, ut par erat,
as ivasfit (in the past as well as now 2), as indeed every such ad-
monition really presupposes that up to this time the duty enjoined
remained unperformed ^ (Kriig. p. 173). On this passage and on
E. V. 4 see § 41. a. 2. In Mt. xxvii. 54 ^v is used with reference
to one now dead, He was God's son.
4. The perfect tense is used in full accordance with its
meaning when the past is set in relation to the present, i.e., when
something past is to be indit;ated as now '(in the present) abso-
lutely completed (/ Jiave commanded , my command is in regard
to the present a command that was once given *) ; here the re-
sult of the action is usually, but not necessarily (Krlig. p. ] 74),
conceived as enduring. The following examples aje specially in-
structive : L. xiii. 2, ZoKelre, on ol TaXiXaloL ovtoi d/MaprcoXol
Trapa irdvTa'i .... i'yevovro, on TOiavra TreirovOaa iv, that
these Galileans became sinners, because they have suffered, etc., —
7iot simply, they suffered once or at some past time (this would
be the aorist), but — they stand recorded in history as men who
were cut off by (a violent) death; L. iv. 6, ort e'/iot irapaZe-
Borac (ji i^ovaia),i.e., I am in possession of it, it having been
delivered to me, covwiissarn habco potestatem, — the aorist would
mean it ivas delivered to me, and it would remain uncertain
i/SaS/^«^E» Kai x.a.TiXi^ofi,i)i riv 'Avri(puvra x.t.x. ; and from the LXX, Num.
XXxiii. 38 sn., anP>r) ^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<i
(where the antithesis in fna .... TeTeXeicoKev must not be over-
looked); Jo. xix. 22, o yeypacpa, ye<ypa<^a- Mk. x. 40, xi. 21, xvi.
4, L. xiii. 12, Jo. vii. 19, 22, viil 33, xiii. 12,^ xv. 24, xix. 30,
XX. 21, A. viii. 14, Eom. iii. 21, v. 2, ix. 6, 1 C. ii. 11, iv. 4, vii.
14sq.,x. 13,2C.iii. lO.vi. ll,Col.ii.l4,iii.3,H.i.4,iii.3,vii.6,
14, viii. 6, 13, ix. 18, 26, xii. 2, 1 Jo. v. 9 sq., 3 Jo. 12, 1 K iv. 1,
Eev. iii. 1 7. Hence in citations from 0. T. prophecies we find
yeypaTTTat very frequently, also Ke^rjfMaTiaTaL (H. viii. 5), or
eiprjKe, H. i. 13, iv. 4, etc."
The perfect and aorist are combined (compare Weber, Dem.
p. 480) in L. iv, 18, e^picre fie evayyeXi'o-aadat, airecTaXKe //,'■
Kr)pv^ai, He anointed me .... and has sent me (the former iy
regarded as an event which once occurred, the latter as con-
tinuing to operate) ; Mk. xv. 44, JTtXaro? e6avp,aa€v el r'jBrj
TedvrjKe' Kal .... iirijpcoTTja-ev avTov, el iruXat, aire Save (the
latter referring to the occurrence of death, the act of dying, the
former to the effect, the state of being dca(F)\ H. ii. 14, eirel to.
TraiBia KeKoiv(ov7)K€ (TapKo<i Kal aifiaTo^;, koI ayTo<i fieTecr'^e
(at his incarnation) twv auToiv 1 C. xv. 4, ore ira<prj (an event
that once took place, long since past) kuI otl eyrjyepTai tjj TpiTr}
r}p,tpa (it continues in its effects in the new life of Jesus) ; 2 C..
^ TituffKiri, 71 nrcinxa. vftTv ; where the completed action {e»i\pa) is repre-
sented as extending its influence into the present, in its symbolic meaning.
Compare xv. 18.
^ So also in 2 C. xii. 9, tipriKt ftot' upxu troi h x'^f'f H-o^i this perfect is used
of a communication (from the Lord) which is to be represented, not simply as
then received, but as continuing in force : He has told me, and with this I
must rest satisfied. What Riickert could find strange here I cannot see. Meyer
now takes the right view.
340 THE TENSES. [PART III.
i. 19, ix. 2, A. xxi. 28, Jo. viii. 40, iv. 38, xiii. 3 [Etx.], 1 Jo. i. 1.^
Other characteristic examples are Col. i. 16, on ev avrut cktio-Otj
Ttt TTiivra (the fact of creation) . ... to. nravra hC avrou koI €t<r
avTov €KTi(rrai (dogmatic view of the completed and now ex-
istent creation), Jo. xvii. 14, xx. 23 fMeyer^), 1 C. xv. 27, Col.
iii. 3. The perfect is used altogether fur the narrative aorist
in Eev. v. 7 7X^6 Kal ei\7}(f}e (ro /3'8\foi>), 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
<x9ir}v .... evavd<yt]o-a, vv^Orj^epov iv tw (BvOm TrewolrjKa' H.
xi. 28, TTLtTTet ireTTOLrj.'ce to Trda-^a Kal rrjv Trpo<s)(i>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, el<i ov yXiTLKare, on whom you
have hoped (placed your hope) and .still hope, in quo rejjositam
habetis spem vestram: similarly in 2 C. i. 10, ei<; ov rjXTriKa-
fiev 1 Tim. vi. 1 7, Jude 6. On ecapaKa Jo. ix. 37, al., see below.
2 Tim. iv. 8, r)ya7r7}K6r€<i rrjv €7ri<pdveiap avrov, is strictly who
have fixed their love on, and therefore now love. The pluper-
fect of such verbs naturally has the signification of an imperfect
(L. xvi. 20). Jo. i. 34, icafyoi ecopuKd kol fiefiapTvprjKa, cer-
tainly does not come in here : the latter perfect seems to repre-
sent the testimony borne by John to Christ at his baptism as
a completed act of enduring validity, / have seen it and liave
testified it. The explanation of tlie perfects in H. vii. 6 (9)
must be substantially the same; it is manifest that more is
intended than the mere narration of the fact.
b. In reference to ^future action, after sentences which express
a supposition (et or iav with future or aorist, rarely a parti-
ciple). Here, the condition being fulfilled, tlie action is conceived
(to follow immediately and) to be entirely settled:^ Eurip. El.
686, et 'jraXatfrOel^ TTTcofia 6avdaifj.ov Treaet, reOvrjfca €y(o'
Soph. Philoct. 75, and Li\'y 21. 43, si eundem animum habue-
ritis, vicimns^ (Krlig. p, 175j Don. p. 409, Jelf 399. 4). In the
N. T. see Horn. xiv. 23, o BiaKpiv6fiGVo<;, idv ^^dr/r}, KaraKe-
Kpi.raL' he is condemned, the sentence of condemnation is pro-
nounced (in the same moment) and remains pronounced over
hira, he lies under condemnation; iv. 14, 1 C. xiii. 1, 2 P. ii. 19,
20 ; and with a participle, Jo. iii. 18, o firj iricrreixov tjBt) Kexpi-
rat liom, xiii. 8. But the perfect does not stand for the future
in Jo. V. 24, fi€Ta/3efir)K6u eK rov Oavdrov 6t9 ttjv ^<arjv ; here
there is no reference whatever to a future event, but to some-
thing that has already taken place (e;%et ^<ar)v amviov); corn-
pare 1 Jo. iii. 14, Llicke, Comment. II. 52. In Jo. xvii, 10,
heZ6!;aa-p.ai, Christ speaks prolepticaliy, in reference to the dis-
' We do not find in the N. T. any clear example of the Hebrew prophetic
preterite (Gesen. hehnj. p, 7fii), which the LXX usiially render by a future.
We have .something analogous in Greek, when the soothsayers begin with the
future but continue in the aorist, Iliad 4. 158 sqq., Pind. Pyth. 4. 66, hthrn.
r.. 51 ; see Bbckli, Not. Grit. p. 462.
2 Conip. Poppo, Thuc. T. i. 156, Ast, Plat. PoUt. p. 470, Herm. Aristoph.
Nuh. p. 175 sq., Mattliiae, Enrip. Med. p. 512, and Gr. 500.
342 THE TENSES. [PART TIT.
ciples who already believed on him, compare xvi. 1 1 : in xiv. 7,
however, Kal cltt apri jivcoaKere avrov kuI ecopaKare avjov
must be rendered, from this time ye know him and have seen
him (not, as Kiihnol, eiim mox accuratius cognoscetis et quasi
oculis videhitis) ; compare Demosth, Lacrit. 597a, avOpanrtp,
hv rjfxeh ovre ytvaxxKOfiev ov9^ icopaKafiev TTcoTrore: see
further Llicke in loc.
In Ja. V. 2, 6 rrXoSros v/awv o-icrrjTre, koX to. t/xaria vfiOyv cnjTol^pwTa
ytyovev, the perfect does not stand for a present or future, but the
ca^e indicated by the apostle in raAaiTrw/atats ifiwv rais €Trepxofj.€vai?
is viewed as already present, and consequently the a-^eLv of the
riches as already completed In Jo. xvii. 22 Se'SwKa is not tribuam ;
Christ looks on his life as closed, the disciples have already taken
his place. In L. x. 19 SeSwKa and ^iSw/ai are equally appropriate:
Tischendorf rightly decides for the former.
In proof that the perfect is also used for the pluperfect — which
is not impossible — Haab (p. 95) wrongly adduces Jo. xii. 7, ets ti^k
-rjfxipav tov cvTa(f>i.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
Tov<i \ojov(; .... BtTjTTopovv L. vii. 1, CTretS^ iirXripwcrev to.
prjfiuTa .... ehriXdev ii. 39, xxii. 66, Jo. vi. 16, ix. 18, xiiL 12,
xxi. 9, A. xxi. 26 ; compare Thuc. 1. 102, ol 'AOrjvaloi ....
iiretBij ave'^coprjaav .... ^v/xp,a^OL ijepouTO' Jhlsch. Ep. 1.
p. 121 c: Madv. 114 (Jelf 404).
/8. In relative sentences : A. i. 2, evreiXcifxevo'^ roU utt'o-
arT6\oi<i 01)9 e^€\i^aro- ix. 'S5,^ Jo, xi. 30, i\^ 45, 4G, L. xix,
15,^ xxiv, 1 : Madv. 114 (Jelf /. c). The aorists in a sentence
with OTC, Jo. vi. 22, are probably to be taken in the same way :
see the comraentator.s. The explanation of this idiom is, that
the Greeks — who in such cases scarcely ever use the pluperfect
(Bernh. p. 380) — viewed the occurrence simply as a past event,
not in its relation to another event also past. The same use of
the aorist is found in independent sentences if they contain some
supplementary notice (Mt, xiv. 3 sq.) : whether Jo. xviii. 24 is
an instance of this kind is not a question which grammar can
decide. In Mt. xxvi. 48 ehcoKev is probably not to be taken aa
^ Ast, Plat. Lcgg. p. 9 sq., Franke, Demosth. \<. 6'2.
^ Exactly in the same way <ruy,6a.vo/jt.ai 1 h-xm, I)em. Callipp. p. 719 c, al.
» Wyttenbach, Tlut. Mor. II. 124, Palaii. p. 25.
* E. A, Fritsch, De Aoristi vi ac potest. (Frankf. 1837), H. Schmidt, Dcr
griech. Aorist in s. Verhdltniasen sm d. ubrigen Zeitformen (Halle, 1845). [For
the N. T. see Green, Gr. p. 133, Webster, Synt. p. 89.]
* Poppo, Thuc. I. i. 157, Jacob, Luc. Tvxar. p. 98, and Luc. Alex. p. 106,
Kiihner, Or. II. 79 [II. 145, ed. 2].
''[That is, if the meaning is ".who had turned to the Lord." Meyer and
Alford take this clause as expressing the coiiseqitence of the miracle, *' who
turned etc." Liinemann adds Mt, ii, 9, xxvii. 55.]
' JHere iiS««e« is now received by most editors.]
844 THE TENSES. [PAilT III,
a pluperfect (as by Fritz.), see Baumg.-Crusius and Meyer in
he. In such sentences, however, the pluperfect is regularly
used in the N. T., as in classical Greek: Jo. xi. 19, 57, yiii.
20, A. ix. 21, Mk. xiv. 44, Mt. vii. 25.
Haab,i in a most uncritical manner, has refen-ed to this head
many other passages, in some of which the aorist has its own original
meaning, whilst the rest are simply examples of differences between
the accounts given by the evangelists, which accounts we have no
right arbitrarily to force into harmony. Of the latter kind is Jo.
xviii. J 2, (TvviXaPov Tov 'It^ctow. According to the other evangelists
(Mt. xxvi. 50 sq., Mk. xiv. 46), Jesus was seized and bound ^ before
Peter struck with his sword ; but John may intend so to represent
the occurrence as if Peter struck in with the sword at the moment
when the watch laid hands on Jesus. On Mt. xxvii. .37, koX l-rriByjKav
iiravta ttj? K€<fiaXf}'; avrnv r^jv alriav avTOV yeypaixfxevrji', De A'V ette veiy
well remarks ; " As regards the fact, this must certainly be taken as
a pluperfect (thougij we cannot deny the possibility that the ])resent
narrator, not being an eye-witness, may have believed that this in-
scription was not set up until this tim.e), but as regards the words
it is a .simple pv*;terito : ///e narnd<rr ihcs not hare laka into accourd
the crder of time. That his narration is not exact is clear even fioni
the fact that, after saying that the soldiers sat down to watch Jesus,
he then brings in (ver. 3S) the crucifixion of the tAvo thieves, totc
trravfiovvTai k.t.X, Ave w© to take this also as a pluperfect 1 " ^ —
In Mk. iii. 16, hrWrjKe Tw St/AuiiH nvofLo. lUrjjov IS not impohmcvat,
for the circumstance had not i>een 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-
<rav .... tSo$k Kafjioi- is simple narration, since many undertool;
I too thought etc. : similarly in ii. 48, t€kvov, ri cTrociyo-as . . ,
it,r]TovfjLh- tre. More specious examples of this interchange would
^ Or. p. 95 : compare also Rasor p. 235.
' [The act of h'lnding is mentioned by St. John only.]
^ [There is no difficulty whatever in supposing (with Meyer) that the thieves
were crucified by another band of soldiers alter Jesus had been nailed to the
cross. On ver. 37 see Alford's note.]
* Mt. xxviii. 17, el "oi 'Ch'ti7ra.(ra.v, is Wrongly brought in here by Markland
(Expikatf. vttt. aUqnot locorum, in the Leipsic reprint of his edition of Eurip.
SiippL, p. 326) : on this passage see Valeken. Annot. Crit. p. 350. [See above,
§ 17. 2.]
^ [See EUic. IlisL L. pp. 377-8, Ebrard, Oospd Hid. p. 445, Greswell, Dis-
Htrt. in. 265 v,|.]
SECT. XL.] THE TENSES. 345
perhaps be L. xiv. 18, dypov rjyopacra' xiv. 19, ^€vy"t] /3o(ttv rjyo-
patra k.t.X.' Ph. lii. 12, ov)^ on 7]Sr] lAa/Sov ^ -^ot] T€T£Aci'a>//,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, ha<l been brought about : hence they allude to the fact of
c,r,pa.it-c6iti, not the result.
■•In 1 C. XV. 49 the aor. tipofieaf/.it might seem to stand for the futururn
exactum ; but Paul places himself at the ^ra^sta-Za as his point of view, and
speaks as a narrator of the past life cu earth. [Meyer explains i^Xnfr,, Jo
XV. 6, in a similar way ; so Alford.]
346 THE TENSES, [PART III.
neous consequence ; lie who has severed himself from Christ is
like a branch that has been broken off and thrown away : with
this ^Xrjdrjvai are connected the presents avvdyov<nv, etc. On
this passage compare Herra. De Emend: p. 1 9 2 sq., and Vig. I. c.
Eev. X. 7, OTav fieWrj cra\7ri^€Lv, kuI ireXiadr) to fivarrjpiov^
in the mouth of the angel relating to the future, is, Then is com-
pleted tlie mystery (1 C. vii, 28). Compare Eur, Med. 78,d7ra)\o-
fjiea-d^ dp\ el KUKov 'irpo<;oLcro/jLev veov iraXatw' Plat. Gorg. 4:84 a.
The aorist is never used in this manner where there is no ante-
cedent sentence.-- — In Jo. xvii. 18, aTriarretXa is 1 sent them: this
took place when the apostles were chosen. In Jo. xiii. 31,
Jesus says vvv iSo^dadij 6 vlbf; too dvdpcoTTov, the traitor Judas
having departed and having as it were already completed his
deeds. 'E^earr] in Mk. iii, 2 1 has a present sense, insanit ;
compare ver. 22. Jude 14 is a literal quotation from the
(Greek) Book of Enoch, and the aorist brings the coming of
Christ before our view, as having already taken place, in
Eom. viii. 30, iho^aae is used because he in regard to whom
God has accomplished the ScKatovv has already obtained from
Hini the So^d^eaOac also, though the reception of the Bo^a as
an actual possession belongs to the future.
1. In no passage of the N. T. does the aorist express an lia-
bitual act (Madv. Ill a,i Don. p. 412, Jelf 402). In L. L 51 the
fxeyaXeia of God (ver. 49) are represented as deeds already per-
formed, only the several parallel members must not be taken in
too strictly historical a sense. Jo. viii. 29, ow atfnjKe /xe fiovov 6
Trarrjp, is, the Father left me not alone (on the earth) ; i. e., besides
sending me (Trefuj/a^) he also granted me (up to this time) his constant
help. Equally unnecessary is it to take iSlSa^tv, 1 Jo. ii. 27, in this
sense : Liicke explains it correctly in his 2nd edition. On Rom.
viiL 30 see above. Heb. x. 5, 6, is a literal quotation from Ps. xl..,
referred back to the event of Christ's iUepx^crOaL ci? tov Koar/Mov.
In H. i. 9 (from the LXX), riyd^irqa-a^ SiKaioavvrjv k.t.X. assigns the
motive for that which folloM^s, 8ia tovto expi-are ae 6 ^cos, and the
former is as true an aorist as the latter. With more reason might
Ja. i. 11, dvcTCtXcvo ^Atos crvv toJ Kavauivt koL i $ tj p av e tov x^P"
TOV K.T.X., be considered an example of this use of the aorist (com-
pare 1 P. i. 24), as itwas taken by Piscator : these aorists however
simply narrate (as describing an actual event), and all taken together
they mark the rapid succession of the events, the sun rose, and
* Schaef. Demosth. I. 247, Wex, Antig. I. 026.
SECr. XL.] THE TENSES, 347
(immediately) iviihered, etc.,^ — scarcely had the sun risen when the
flower withered. — Such passages as E. v. 29 exhibit the transition
to this use of the aorist [to express an habitual act], which easily
follows from the primary meaning of the tense (Herm. De Emend.
Hat. p, 187).^ — In Ja. L 24, KaTevotja-tv iavrov kox aTreXr/XvOc kol
tv^c'cos iirfXaOeTo ottoios ^v, neither aorist nor perfect is used for
the present, but the case' mentioned in ver. 23 by way of example
is taken as actual fact, and the apostle falls into the tone of nar-
ration.
2. In 1 C. IX. 20, €yev6ij.r)v Tots 'Iov8ac'ot5 ws 'louSatos, Pott quite
needlessly takes the aor. for a present: the apostle is relating
how he has acted hitherto. The same mistake is made by Heumann
in 1 C, iv. 18, and by several commentators in Ja. ii. 6 TTTt/xao-are
(which even Gebser renders by a present) The aor. i8o$dcr9T], Jo.
XV. 8, is now explained by Tholuck more correctly than before : it
is the proleptic aorist, as in E. ii. 6, Rom. viii. 30. — In Mt. iii. 17
(xii. 18, xvii. 5, 2 P. i. 17), from the LXX, the aor. evSoKrja-a may
be explained very simply, My delight fell on him, he became the
object of my love ; see Meyer. — Hermann, Fig. p. 746 (no. 209),
treats laerely of poetic usage : his observations have been more
closely defined by MoUer in an acute essay in the Zntschift f. Al-
terth.-lFiss. 184G, no. 134-13*3.
The aorist lypaxpa is used in letters. instead of the present ypu<f>w,
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,
<vpi.e, rl Trar/'^ofiev iv fj-aj^aipa, are vx io alrilr etc. ? — properlj'",
ahall iva (with thy permission) strih.', wjit thou permit us
t(i strike ? Compare Eur. Ion 771, elTToy^e.v ij (rtytofiev ; r/ ri
hpd(rofj,€v; Horn. x. 14:, ttm^ ovv iTTL/caKea-ovrat,^ 6l<i ov ovK
cTrla-revcrap ; hnvcan ihey call etc. ? Eorn. iii. 6, eVtt ttw? Kpi-
veZ 6 deof TOV Koa/iov ; Jo. vi. 68, Mt. xii. 26,1 Tim. iii. 5, 1 C.
xiv. 16 (Plat. Li/,'i. 213 c, rl ovv Zi] "^priaoybSa ; Lucian, Tax.
'[Up. Ellicott mjsintaijia the same view, in his notes on G. vi. 11, Phil. 19.
On the other «<](• sec Bp Lightfoot's note on the former passa,^, where
'iyoa.-^a. IS held to ma.! k "the i<oint at which St, Paul takes the pen into his owix
hand, "j
'■■{"Liicke, after Rickli, 'with niurh ingenuity tries to fix 'iyfa^a. on the
(irei;eding portion of th^ epistle, keeping ypdifM tor the following . . . Liieke
subsequently gave up thi.s view : see note in Bertheaa's efiitiou of Liieke p. 26.5. "
Alford in loc. By De Wette and others yfa.ipLi is understood to refer rather
to the whole epistle, and "iypa-^a to what has preceded this point ; Beza and
Ousterd. refer both ypa^w and typa^ce. to the whole epistle. The latter view is
taken by Alford and Ilanpt ; also by A. Buttmana (p. 198).]
=* See Wyttenbach, Hut Moral. I. 231 sq. (Lips.).
♦ Schaefer {Plutarch IV. 398) declares himf;elf against Herm. Soph. Aj. 1105 :
compare however Herm. Iphig. Taur. p. 109. (Jelf 403. Oba. 3.)'
* The 3 future passive Kixfat,cft.sti, which occurs once (L. xix. 40) in not a few
MS8., stands for the 1 fut.,- which in this verb is not in use, and has not the
meaning which elsewhere belongs to this form, on which see Mattb. 498, Madv.
115 b, .Fanaon, JJe OrrjRci serin., pavlo.post'futuro (Rostenburg, 1844;.
''[Moie probably iviKa.xie-avTcr.i.]
SECT. XL.] THE TENSES. 349
47^ TTw? ovu .... '^prjcrofieOa rol<; irapova-i ;). In Mt. vii. 24,
however, ofiouoaw retains the simple signification of the future,
as also does roX.fi'qa-cc in Eom. xv. 1 8. In Rom. v, 7 something
is spoken of which ioill hardly occur at any time : 1 C. viii. 8 is
similar. — la Kom. vi 1,15, the conjunctive is the better reading,
and also in L. iii. 10, Jo. vi. 5 : in Eom. vi. 2, however, ^rjaofiev
has most support, and the future here forms a good antithesis
to the aorist aTreOdvofiev. In Mk. iv. 1 3 and 1 C. xiv. 7 we have
true futures. In ]\It. vii. 1 6 iTriyvcocreaOe does not contain an
injunction (ye shall, ye must), Jnit simply points to that which
the future will itself bring : by their fruits (by observing these,
in the course of your observation) ye loill know them. In Rom.
vi 1 4 the future expresses an assurance, and is essentially con-
nected with the apostle's reasoning. 1 C. xv. 29, eVet. t/
'rrocijcrov&ii' ol fSaTrri^ofievot inrep rojv veKpwv is probably to
be rendered, else Tif Christ has not risen) what will they do
(have recourse to) who have themselves baptised over the dead
(and consequently are in this case deceived) ? The present
rrotovaiv is a correction. Ti ovv ipov^iev, wherever it occurs.
is quid diccrmis, not quid dicamus ? 1 C. xiv. 1 5, irpo'iiv^ofiai
rut TTvcviiari, irpo^ev^opbai he koX tw vot, is not the expression
of a resolve {irpo'^ev^wiJiaL is probably only a correction), but a
Christian maxim which the believer intends to follow ; and the
future has a more decided tone than the conjunctive. In 2 C.
iii. 8 earat, refers to the future So^a. (As to such phrases as
$€Xet<i eroLfjudao/Msv, and re aipi]crofiai ou yvwpL^ai, where the
conjunctive might have been used, see § 41. a, and h. 4.)
The future is used of a case that is merely conceivable in
the formida ipel rif, dicat aliquis, 1 C. xv. 35, Ja. ii. 18, Here
however the Greek speaks more positively than the Roman :
some one will say, — I foresee this, it is just what I expect. So
also 6/3649 ovv dices igitur, Rom. ix. 19, xi 19. The future
meaning must certainly be retained in H. xi. 32, iircXeiylreL fj,e
Suj'yovfievov 6 ')(p6i>o^, time (I foresee) will fail me, dejiciet me
tern pus: compare Philostr. He?: p. 686, iiriXei^ei fie rj <f>o)V7i
also " longum es^narrare," for the Germanised- Latin, " longum
esset narrare."^ In L. xi, 5 also, Ti? e| v/jlmv e^et ^iKov kol
' It is a different case when the thouglit is expressed by the optative with iv,
as in Dion. H. 10. 2086, itiXuvoi Hi /j.- i rvi i^:^af xf'''"''-
350 THE TENSES. [PART III.
'TTOpevaerai Trpo? avrov fiecovvKTiov, the future is quite in
place : take away the interrogation and we have the ordinary
future, " No one of you will go to his friend at midnight," — such
an instance of importunity will never occur. Lastly, in Mt. v.
o9, 41, xxiii. 12, the notion of possibility attaches itself rather
to 09Tt9 than to the futui e : in J a. ii. 1 the better MSS. have
the conjunctive. — To take the luture as expressing simply a
toish in Eom. xvi. 20 Ph. iii. 15, iv. 7, 9, 19, Mt. xvi. 22,
would be a great blunder.
On the use of the future for the imperative see § 43. 5.
Some have most perversely taken the future as used for the pre-
terite in Rev. iv. 9, orav Swcrovo-i TO.' ^wa So^av . . . . t<5 KaOrjfXfvta
€7rl ToO Opovov .... irecrovvTai ol ccKocrt T€(T<Tap(.<; Trpecr/SvTcpoL k.t.X. : the
true rendering is, When (as often as) the beasts shall give glory ....
shall fall down. — On the other hand, the future does sometimes border
on the present tense in general maxims, as G. ii. 16, e$ '^pyujv vop-ov
ov SiKanod-qa-cTai Tracra trdpi (Rom. iii. 20) : tliis however is the ex-
pression of a law which (from the time when Christianity first
appeared) will continue in force in the world. We have substantially
the same case in. Rom. iii. 30, eTretVcp tls 6 0e6<:, o? StKaiwo-et
TrepiTCfiTjv €K Tito-Tccos K.T.X. , where SiKaLovv is viewed as an act of
God which Avill continue to be thus performed throughout the
Christian dispensation. In L. i. 37 we find the future aSwari^a-ei, in
an 0. T. reminiscence; of that which belongs to no particular time,
but will always be true (Theocr. 27. 9, see Herm. Emend. Eat.
p. 197); compare Rom. vii. 3. But in Mt. iv. 4 ^lyo-crai rather
denotes (after Dt. viii. 3) a rule established by God, shall live.
Rem. 1. ihe combination of different tenses by means of Kai}
of which occasional examples have already been given, arises in
some cases from the fact that, when not writing with rigor<^us pre-
cision, we may at times really use different tenses without any dif-
ference of sense: in other cases, as H. ii. 14, 1 C. x. 4, xv. 4, Ja.
i. 24, Jo. iii. 16, Ph. iii. 7 sq., 1 P. iv. 6, al., it is the result of design.
In the Apocalypse we probably have examples of the former kind, as
iii. 3, XL 10, xii. 4, xvi. 21, al. In none of these passages are the
tenses incorrect, and those who looked on such a combination of
tenses as something altogether extraordinary '^ only displayed their
own imperfect knowledge of Greek : see my Exeget. Studien, I.
147 sq.
Rem. 2. The above statement of the significations of the dif-
ferent tenses mainly applies to the indicative mood (and the parti-
1 Poppo, Thuc. I. i. 274 sq., Reisig, (Ed. Col. 419, Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 700,
Stollb. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 59 a.
' As for instance Eichborn, Einl. inH N. T. II. 378.
SECT. XLI.] THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. 351
ciple) alone: see Herm, Emoul. p. 189. In the other moods,
especially the conjunctive, optative, and imperative, the aorist is but
seldom used in reference to past time (1 P. iv. 61^); for the most
part it retains, as contrasted with the present tense, no more of its
own meaning than the reference to the rapid passing of the action
or its completion at once (Herm. Vig. p. 748) — compare present and
aorist in Jo. iii. 16 — without relation to any particular time : Eost
p. 594, Madv. Ill (Don. p. 413 sqq., Jelf 405).
Section XLI.
THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE MOODS.^
1. The distinction between these moods is thus defined by
Hermann. The indicative denotes the achud, the cpnjunctive
and optative that which is merely possible ; the conjunctive
being used for that wliich is objectively possible (the realisation
of which depends on circumstances),^ the optative for what is
Hubjcctivcly possible (that which is simply conceived in the
mind, — a wish is of this nature).^ See Herm. Eriuyid. Rat. I.
205 sqq., Vig. p. 901 sq., and more at large in De Particula
av p. V6 sq, ;" compare also Schneider, Tories. I. 230 sqq.^
With Klotz (ad Devarium), we have throughout followed this
' [So De "VVette rendfers, may have been judged: similarly Huther. Compare
Aiistoph. Ban. 1405 '/»' 'ix^rit (Buttm. Gr. Or. p. 409).]
^ Compare K. H. A. Lipsius, Comm. de modorum usu in N. T. : P. I. (Lips.
1827).
3 " In conjunctive sumitnr res experientia comprobanda . . . . ; conjunct) vus
est debere quid fieri intelligeutis ac propterea expectantis quid eveniat : " Herm.
Fartic. civ ]>. 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 v<p^ vfiwv <Tvvl(rTaa-dat, dehclam mTnmtnd,ari ,
I ought, to Imve, been recommended ; Mt. xxv. 27 eBei ae ^aXdv,
thou oughtcst to have etc (2 C. ii. 3, A. xxir.,19, xxvii. 21) ;
Mt. xxvi. 9, rjZvuaro rovro irpuOrivai k.tX. ; xxvi 24, koKov rjv
avTU) el ovK iyevvr'jdi], it woidd be (would have been) rjood for
him, satius erat ; 2 P. ii. 21 toftdrjov rjv avTot<; jj.) e7reyi/a>Kevai
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 <yap avTG<; i'ycb dvd6efj,a elvat diro rod Xpiarov
vTrep TOiv dBe\(})cov fiou (cqjfarem ego etc.), and in G. iv. 20,
where see my note.* The case is different in 2 C. i. 15, 1'hil.
13, 14, where the aorists simply narrate, and also in 2 Jo. 12,
■^^ovX'^drjv.
In Jo. iv. 4, al, ISet is a real imperfect indicative, denoting an
J See Herm. Partic. «» § 12.
2 [Both these grammarians point out the appropriate use of the imj^erfect
tense iu these expressions, to denote "an action which is not completed {sine
effectu), though under certain conditions it would be completed " (Kiihner I. c).
8ee also EUic. on G. iv. 20, Alford on Rom. ix..3.]
^ Schocmann's explanation is different {Iscbus p. 435): "Addita particula
«» voliiot- tern significamus a conditione suspensam, vellem, si liceret ; oniissa
autp>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<i 6 avOpcoiro'; ttoWo, crrjfieia Trocel, quid faciaraus ? wiuit
must we do ? (Lncian,P/sc. 10, Asin. 25). In stric uess, how-
ever, the indicative here intimates that there is no doubt that
something must (at once) be done, as we also say, what do we 1
a stronger and more decided expression than v)hat shall we do ?
Ti TTocwfiev is said by one who invites deliberation (compare
A. iv, 16*); he who says rt iroiovtiev presupposes on the part
of those concerned, not merely a general resolution to do some-
thing, but a resolution to do some particular thing, and wishes
only to lead to the actual declaration what this is.'^ On this
' [That is, to say it was necessary, for it would have beeti. Winer's words
arc musste er bft.trs leideii,.]
2 See also Ast, Plat. i.';/|/. p. 162 sq., Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 57.
' fConesponding to our must, s/iotild, ought.]
' [Where ^r-j/nVw^tv is well supported.]
''fA. Buttinanii (p. 208 '<q.) maintains that this explflnation is artificial, and
considers nowufnt here to be an exan)j)le of present used for future (§ 40. 2, C).]
SECT.XLI.] THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. 355
(rhetorical) use of the present indicative, which occurs mainly
in colloquial language, see Heind. Plat. Gorg. p. 109, and Tliccet.
p. 449, Stallb. Plat. Re^. I. 141, Bernh. p. 396 (Jelf 39 7. a).
The Greeks go farther still, even saying Trivoybev vje drink, i. e.
we will drink, wheu they are about immediately to proceed to
drink, when they are already raising the cup.^ We can
however scarcely regard G. vi. 10, ipja^ofieda to ayadpv {the
reading of some good MSS., especially A and B, received by
Xachmanri ^), as an e.srample of this kind : see Meyer in loc.
As to Jo. xxi. 3 compare § 40. 2.
1 C. X. 22 r] 7rapa^7]\ovfj.ev rot' Kvpiov ; (still rendered as a con-
janctiye by Schott) probably means, or are we prnvoMng G'jd ? is
this the meaning of our conduct, that we are stirring up the wrath
of God f l\apaCrjkovii(.v does not express what is yet to take place
(a3 is maintained by Riickert, al.), but what is actually taking place
already. Rom. viii. 24 S ftXirru rt?, ri koX eATri^ci ; is not quare
i/isiiper speret ? (Schott) — for if we remove the interrogation the
sentence will not be, this he nui.y not still hope for, but this he dues
nni still hop^ for. On the future indicative for the conjunctive see
§ 40. G.
The indicatives in Ja. v. 13, KaKOiraOel n? iu Ifuv, . . . aa-Oet/ti
ri^ h ifiiv, of a case which i.s regarded as aducdly jyesent, offer no
difficulty, — some- one is iifflide'd among yott, some ove is iveak among
you, etc. : compare Demosth. Cor. 351 c, where it is not necessar}^ to
place a note of interrogation (as Kriiger does, p. 184). Even the
})reterite is thus used by Greek writers, see Matth. 510, (Jelf 800.
b sq.) [See§ 60. 4]
4. The conjunctive is found in independent sentences
a. To express a challenge or invitation, or a resolve, conjanc-
tious adJiortativus (Matth. 510. 1, Jelf 416, Don. p. 548) . Jo.
xiv. 31, iyeipeaOc, aycofMev evTevdev xix. 24, 1 C. xv. 32,<^a-
ycofjLev Koi triiofjiev, avpiov yap cnroOv't^aKop.ev Phil. iii. 15,
o(Tot ovv reXtiot, toOto cPpovcofitp' 1 Th. v. 6fypr)yop(o/xev Kai
vii<^(ofjiev' L. viii. 22. Occasionally the MSS. are divided be-
lAVten the conjunctive and the future, e. g. in H. vi. 3,1 C xiv.
1 .lacohs, ArhUl Tat. \^. 559.
* [This reading was .idopt^d by Lachmann in liis smaller edition : in the
]Hi(^r he substituted the subjunctive, whirh is now generally received B,
quoted ubf^ive for the indie, has the subj. prima Truinu. On the meaning v liicli
Ifycc^ifjiJ-j: 'Would probably have in thid passage, sef ^leyer in loc. ." wt- do
good, this )s ouf maxim') ; hIso Winer in lor.. «lu) takes it as an exhortation.
-A Buttmann (p. 210) agrees with Meyer ; but favours Kuckert's explanation it
mfpiti'^riy.iv/n>, (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 <ypa(f)aL ; how are the Scriptures to he fulfilled I xxiii.
33, 7rw9 (fivyr}T€ (Jo. V. 47 v. I.). Under this head comes also
the conjunctive as used in such formulas as L. ix. 64, 0e\€t<;
e'cTTcofiev Trvp Kara^rjvai a/iro rov ovpavov ; is it thy will,
sliould we say ? Mt. xiii. 28, xxvi. 17, Mk. xiv. 12, L. xxii. 9.
Compare Eurip. Phcen. 722, ;SouX6t rpd'Traixac brj6\ 0801/9 aWa?
rivd<; ; Xen. Mem. 2. 1. 1, 0ov\ei <rK07ra>fM€v ; JEBch. Ciesiph.
297 c, Lucian, i>m/. if. 20. 3. See also Mt. vii, 4, a^e? '
eK^dXca ro Kdpj>o<i k.t.X, 1 C. iv. 21.* It is wrong to supply
iva or oTTox; in such cases ; ^ no word is left out, any more than
in such a sentence as it appears they are comirt/j. In certain pas-
sages some MSS. have the future (from the LXX, see H. viii. 5),
a tense which is sometimes (Luc. Navig. 26), though rarely,
used by Greek writers in such expressions ; see Lob. Phryn.
p. 734, Fritz. Matt. pp. 465, 761: compare e.g. Ex. xxv. 40, opa
TTotT^crei? Kara rov rvTov k.t.X.*^
In questions, the 3rd person of the deliberative conjunctive is less
common in the N. T. than the future, according to the testimony
of the MSS. (see above § 40. 6), and this tense must be retained
in E,om. x. 14 sq. : ^ in Greek writers, however, the conjunctive is not
^ [la H. vi. 3 TLsch. and others read •Tamffofin/ with J?BKL : 1 C. xiv. 15 is
quoted above (§ 40. 6) with the/uture, and the conj is pronounced a correction.]
« Herm. De Ellipa. p. 183 (Jtif 417).
' [It is interesting to notice that in modem Greek as (a shortened form of
A(pi() with the subj. is regulaHy used to express the 1 and 3 persons of the
imperative, as a.s ypi^J^uf^sn lei ns write (Mullach, Vulg. pp. 223, 360, J. Donald-
son, 3fod. Greek Or. p. 22). L. vi. 42, and perhaps Mt. xxvii..49 {Hipit lluftit),
Mk. XV. 36 {aiftrt Tlaifttv), are the remaining N. T, examples of this expression :
Oriimra (Wilkii C'lavis s. v.) quotes £(ps( lOu, a. isi%u/u.i)i from Epictet, Diss. 3. 12,
1. 9. See A. Buttm. p. 210, Jelf 416.]
* [This is a different case, as feXin is entirely separated from fx^a*.]
* Lehmann, Lucian, III. 466. [Madvig 123. 5, Jebb, Soph. Elect, p. 11.]
* [This is the passage quoted in H. viii. 5, just mentioned.]
' [Lachm., Treg., Alford, Westcott and Hort have the subjunctive in each
case ; Tischendort has the future once (iKovfovrat).]
SECT. XLI.] THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. 357
at all uncommon in this person,^ as Soph. Aj. 403, ttoI rt? <fivyr] ;
(Ed. Col. 170, TToi Ti? (f>povTL8o<s eX6rj (1 person in ver. 311), Plat.
Soph. 225 a, Arrian, Epid. 3. 22. 96. In L. xi. 5 the future indica-
tive and the conjunctive are combined, rts ii vjxwv ei^t <l>i\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<fop.(.v is supported
by much more testimony than l-^crofi€v. The critical authorities are
nearly equal ; only 7roi7/cro/Aev — though not t,,'ia-o/j.£v — is still quoted
(by Dermout) from the Codex Meermannianus.^ Considering how
easily a mistake in transcription might occur, we should probably
select as the most suitable reading, eav 6 Kvpios OiXrjcrr] koX ^r/crwftci',
KOL TrOL-q<T(J)p.iV K.T.X. (VCr. 1 S).**
5. The optative mood is found in independent sentences where
a wish is expressed : A. viii. 20, to dpyvpcov (tov avv col el' 77 et?
uTrdiXeLav' Rom. xv. 5, Phil. 20, e'yoo aov ovaifjurjv' 1 P. i. 2,
1 Stallhaum, Plat. 3rcn. p. lo3, Kriis. p. 185 (Jelf 417).
2 Stallb. Plat. Phileb. p. 26, and P/ued. p. 202, Bornem. Luc. p. 147, Biium-
lein p. 182.
3 Leipz. Literalur-Zeit. 1824, p. 2316, and N. krit. Journ. V. p. 3 sqq.
* N. krit. Journ. VI. p. 150 sqq.
* [A cursive MS. of the 12th century (quoted in the Gospels as 122, in the
Catholic Epistles as 177) ; it was collated by Dermout {Collect. Grit. I. p. 14) ;
Scrivener, Introd. p. 183.]
*> [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<i rvy^cdCTL Mk. iv, 21, L, viii. 12, Eom.
xi. 25, 1 Jo.i. 3,H. ix. 16, 1 0. vii. 29, G. vi. 13 (the conjunctive
here denoting^ that which was viewed as a co7isequence ivhick
w/ftsf actually follovj, that which was actually and immediately
designed, and hence that was objectively possible) ; — and after
an imperative or a future, as in 1 Tim. iv. 15, iv TovTot<; ia0c,
tva aov ij TTpoKOirij (f)avepa 77' Mt. ii. 8, aTrayyelXare fioo, otto)?
xdyco eXOwv 7rpo<;Kvi'i]aoj avrai' v. 16, xiv. 15, A. viii. 19, xxiii.
15, I C. iii. 18, 1 Jo. ii. 28, Jo. v, 20^ fiel^ova tovtooiJ Bei^ei av~
' See in g<^ner;il Fraiike in tlie Darmstmlter Schidzeit. 1839, p. 1236 sqq.,
and Klotsi, Dkuoi-. II. 615 sqq. [Don. p. 507 sqq., Jelf 805 sqq.. Green p. 168
eqq., Webster p. 128 sqq.]
^ Herra. Tig. p. 850.
sect; XLI.j.THE INDICA.TIVE, CON.nJNCTIYE, OPTATIVE MOODS. 359
rw ep'ya, 'Iva vfieif $avfj,d^T)Te' Ph. i. 26; — also after the eonjune-
tivus adhortativus or deliberativus (Rom. iii. 8, L. xx. 14, Jo. vi.
5, al.); — all this is in accordance with the rules laid down above,
and js perfectly regular : ^ — but also
(•/?) After a past tense, even where used in reference to what
is really''' past.''^ Sometimes we may find a reason for the use
of this mood in preference to the optative (Herm. Vig. p. 791,
Kriig. p. 191).^ Thus in the following passages the conjunctive
might indicate an action whicl still continues, either in itself or
at all events in its consequences, or which is frequently re-
peated :'^ 1 Tim. i. 16, rfkerjdrjv 'iva iv €fj,ol TrpcoTm ivSel^rjTat
I. X.pLcrro^ rrjv iracrav fiaKpnOvfiiav i. 20, oi)? TrapeScoKa ru>
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<? ehwKev
eavrov irepX rjfiMV, iva XvrpcocTTjTac rj/xa.'i' liom. vi. 4, crvverd-
<f)7]/jLev avToJ, iva . . , . Kal ■^fieU ev Katvorrjri ^o))}? Treptirarr)-
crcofj.ev' 1 J<». iii. 5, icfjavepcoOt], iva rd<i d^apria^ rjficiyv dpr/
iii. 8, i(f}av€pco07j, iva Xvap rd epya rod 8Lal36XQV v lo, ravra
eypa^lra v/xiv, 'iva elBfjre- compare L. i. 4 (Plat. Or it 43 h,
Rep. 9. 472 c, Lerjg. 2. 653 d, Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 8, MYvAn 12. 30).
In. other passages (e.g., A. v. 26, i^'^ayev avTov<i, iva firj Xida-
addaiv A, ix. 21, et? rovro kXrjXvdei,, iva .... dydyj)) the
conjunctive may denote an intended re;sult of the occitrrcncc of
•which tji.e spealcr entertained no doubt 'whatever ; compare Alk.
viii. 6, ihihov ro2<; ixadr]Tal^ avrov, iva "wapaOwcri {that th.e.y
should etc. — a thing which they certainly could not refuse to
do), xii. 2, A. XXV. 26, rrpoi^yayov avrbv £(/)' vixoov, otto)? r^s-
dvafcpL(Teo}<; y€vofiev7)<; cryjii rl ypd-\{rco. Tlie optative would ex-
press a purpose the issue of which was uncertain (Matth. 518.
4, 5, Telf 809). Lastly, Mt. xix. 13, 7rpo<iT]ve'^dr} aiiToj rd rrai-
Sia, 'iva ra? yelpu^i eTridr} avroZ^, and ]\lk. x. 13, irpo^ecpepov
■> 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<rof/.ai (p. 89),
and in 1 C. ix. 21 either 'Ua. xtp'ha.vcj or '/.« K'.f%a.^Z (p. 107). The future is re-
ceived by recent editors in Mk. xv. 20, L. xiv. 10, xx. 10, Jo. vii. 3, A. xxi.
24, 1 C. ix. (15) 18, Ph. ii. 11, Rev. vi. 4, xiii. 12 ; but here and there it is
uncertain whether the future is denendent on Vnr or not.]
2 ["E-TTi is not found in Ex. xx. 12, Dt. v. 16, but may liave been brought into
E. vi. 3' from Dt. xxii. 7 Al. : see Ellic. in loc, who (with Meyer, Alford, al.)
takes 'iirri as dependent on '/»«.]
^ [Lachm., Tisch., and Treg. have this construction in Mt. xxvi. 59 : in Rom.
iii. 4, we should probably read vixrurn;. ]
* Compare Bornem. Xen. An. p. 498, Klotz I. c. p. 683 sq., Gayler, De Part.
Neg. p. 211, 321, Post p. 656 (Jelf 811).
* [Or perhaps a more certain sequence : see Alford and Ellicott on G. ii. 4.]
362 THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OrTATIVE MOODS, [PART IH.
dicative,^ — of which we have two examples (almost without any
variant), 1 0. iv. 6 'iva fMciOrjTe . . . iva firj (f)V(riovcT6e' G. iv,
17 ^TjXovacv vfia'} . . . Xva avrov<i ^rjXovTe, — for the present
indicative after a particle of design is clearly illogical. Hence
it was maintained by Fritzsche {Matt. p. 836 sq.) that in both
these instances mt is not the conjunction but the adverb uhi ;
and this view (after Fritzsche himself had given it up as regards'
1 C. iv. 6 ") has been taken up again by Meyer, who translates,
in ivhich case ye then are 7iot fuffed iif, — where (in which state
of things) ye are zmlous in regard to them. But apart from the
fact that 'iva does not once occur in the whole Greek Bible
as an adverb of place, the use of the present tense would be
singular in both passages : in 1 C. iv. ^ moreover Ave might have
expected ov rather than firi. Besides, as Meyer himself allows,
the Xva of purpose would in each case much better suit the
apostle's meaning. I think therefore that we must regard
this use of the conj, 'iva with the present indicative as a faulty
construction of later Greek.^ We cannot indeed regard Acta
Ignai. p. 538 (ed. Ittig) as a certain example of this construc-
tion, as we miglit if necessary take aTrokovvrai to be the Attic
future; and in Geopon. 10. 48. 3, Himer. 15. 3, the indicative
may easily Jiave been a ndstake of transcription for the con-
junctive. This construction, liow^ever, occurs too frequently in
latei writers for us to assume a clerical error in every case. See
Malal. 10. p. 264, €7rnpeylra<i iva irdvre'i . . . ^aaTa^ovatv 12.
p. 300, i-rrotrjore Kekeva-iv Xva . . , ■^pT]/j,arL^ovai' Acta Pauli et
Petri 7, Trpodyei, iva fxia TroXt? dTToWvrac 20, ihlSa^a iva rfj
rifif) dXXrjX.ov^ irpo'iiyovvrai' Ado. Pauli ct Theclcc p. 45, iva
rydfioi fXT} yivovraf dXXa oyT&j? uuevovaiv' Evang. A'pocr. p. 447.'*
And iu the N. T. itself this construction has found its way into
^ Vfllckenaer's note on 1 Cor. mixes up the preterite, future, and present
indicative^ and is coiisequently rendered useless.
^ Frit/achior. Opusc. p. 186 sqq. : here he alters the text, reading (for 'iW //.h
.... tpvtriouah) iDCi f^v . . . . ipuiriaviT^ai. Against this see Meyer in lac.
^ In modern Greek (e.g. in the Confess. Orthod.) it is quite common to find vd
or h'>. 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(o<i ecrrlv fj alri'a rov avOpcoTrov
. . . ov (rv/jL(f>epei 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\d<s' viii. 31, xxvii. 40, Jo, vii.
might be used with equal propriety, so that the choice would be left entirely to
the writer ; also that the later writers do not carefully observe the distinction
between them. It may be worthy of remark that in mathematical hypotheses
(the correctness or incorrectness of which is not left for future experience to
decide) Euclid almost invariably uses tav with the conjunctive.
^ [Head xvi. 23 : recent editors receive «v here and in Jo. xiii. 20, xx. 23.]
SECT. XLL] the indicative, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. 365
4, 1 C. vii. 9, — present followed by imperative. Kom. viii. 11,
el TO TTvevfia rov iyeipapro^t ^Irjaovv . . . oIkcI iv vfjuv, 6 iyei-
pa<i . . . ^(ooTTOirjcrei kol ra dvrjTa acofiara vfxoyv Mt. xvii. 4,
A. xix. 39, Jo. v. 47, — present followed by future. 1 C. xv. 16,
et vexpoX ovK iyeipovrai, ovBe Xpi<TTo<i iy/jyeprai,, if the dead do
not rise (I assume this case), tJi€7i Christ also has not risen,
xiii. 1,^ 2 P. ii. 20 (Eom. iv. 14), — present followed by perfect :
compare Demosth. Ep. 3. p. 114 b. Mt. xii. 26, el 6 aarava<i
rov craravdv eK/BdWec, 6<^' iavrov i/xepiadr), compare ver. 28, L,
xi. 20, — present followed by aorist: compare Origen, J^e die
Domin. ip. 3 (Jani), d B^ rov epyov aTre^t?, eh rrjv eKKkTjaiav Se
OvK €hep')(rj, ovBev eKephava<i.
(y3) A. xvi. 15, el KeKpUaTe /xe irKjrrjv ru) Kvpioi eJvat, eh-
eXdovre^ . . . fieivare, — perfect followed by imperative. 2 C. v.
16, 6t Kot eyvcoKafiev Kara adpKa Xpiarop, dWa vvv ovKerioft-
vcoaKOfiep, — perfect followed by present : compare Demosth. c
Bceot. p. G39 a. Jo. xi. 12, et K€Koi/j,7)Tai, acoOrjaerai,' Rom. vi. 5,
— perfect followed by future. 2 C. ii. 5, eX xi? XeXvTnjKeVyOv/c
€fie XeXvTTijKev, — perfect followed by perfect. 2 C. vii. 14,ecTi
aura) inrep v/jlcov KeKairyTjp,aL, ov Karr)<T')(yv6r]v, — perfect followed
by aorist.
(7) Eom. XV. 27, el roi? nrvevixariKoh avrcop eKoivcovrjcrav
ra edvT], 6j>eL\ov<Jt K.rX., 1 Jo. iv. 11, — aorist followed by pre-
sent. Jo. xviii. 23, el KaKco<i iXdXrjaa, fxaprvprjaov irepl rov
KaKov- Rom. xi. 17, 18, Col. iii. 1, Phil. 18, — aorist followed by
imperative. Jo. xiii. 32, el 6 dea eBo^daOrj iv avrto, Kal 6 Beo<i
Bo^da-et, avrov iv eavrd>' 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<i ov t^ovXevovTO, el BvvaiVTO, i^coaai
ro TrXoiov also A, xxiv,, 19, oy? eSec eirl aov irapelvaL koI kuttj-
ryopelv, ei Tc e-xoiev Trpo? fie, if tJiey Iiad anything against me
(in their own l)elief;. See Krlig. p. 196(Jelf 885). InA.xx. 16
we might iii like manner expect the optative,^ yet even Greek
writers sometimes (and not merely in an established formula as
here, ei SwaTov ea-ri) use the indicative in the oratio oUiqua ;
e. g., /El. 12. 40, eKrjpv^flrj tw arpaTOTreBo), ec tl^ e-xeu vBcop e'/c
TOV Xodcrrov, Xva Bu> ^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<i
et fjLtj 8tepfji.r)vevri (al. 8L€p[jLr]V£vet), except the case if he interpret it,
except he ii^terpret it ; Rev. xi. 5 v. I." (Ecclus. xxii. 26). This con-
struction was for a long time banished from editions of the Attic
writers, but it is now admitted to occur even in prose. ^ The dis-
tinction between ct and idv or t]v with the conjunctive is thus
defined by Hermann : '' ci puts the condition simply, but in com-
bination with the conjunctive it puts it as depending on the event ;
so also does idv, but less decisively, inasmuch as the dv represents
the condition a? depending on accidental circumstances, if possibly
or jyerhaps. This would suit the two passages quoted above : 4kt6<;
el fxrj BiepfjLtjvevy, iiisi si interpret etur, a point which the event will
decide, — refertur ad certam spem atque opinionem, futurum id esse
(vel non esse) : whilst lav would make the matter doubtful, if per-
Jiaps (a thing which might possibly happen) he should interpret. The
latter would clearly be unsuitable, as a gift of interpretation did
exist, and was frequently exercised (ver. 26 sq.). In the later prose
writers this conjunctive becomes more and more common,^ especially
in the Byzantines (Index to Malalas and Theophanes), also in the
Hellenistic writers (Thilo, Acta Thnm. p. 23), and almost regularly
in the Canon. Apost. and the Basilica : from the LXX compare
Gen. xliiL 3, 4. In these writers it is impossible to lay down any
distinction between et with the conjunctive and with the indicative
(many question the existence of any such distinction even in Attic
* L. ix. 13 probably means unless perhaps we must buy, and the mood is inde-
pendent of tl, as in the classical formula <i'f te/j «v s/, Matth. 5'23. 3 (Jelf 432).
Plat. Crat. 425 d, li ftM Upa. 'hh . . . xai ii//,t~s . . , i-raXXctyuifi.tv, would be a
similar instance, bat others read ara-XXayiTuiv. [Meyer and Green (p. 159) take
the conjunctive as depending on ti, expressing a pure hypothesis.]
'■^ In 1 Th. V. 10 the received text, with all the better MSS., has "vu, un
yp^yafu/jLiD iirt xahCScufiif, elfio, ffu> 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<iKvvrj(TeTe tu> 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>j<r«>iTai. 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<TdKt<i dv), or a point of time
nydil which something is to take place (ew? dv) ; see Matth.
522. 1 (Don. p. 581, Jelf 841), In the latter case, however, we
also find the conjunctive alone with eci><?, eco? oy, d^pi', rrpiv, etc.,
as often in Greek writers, especially the later :^ Mk. xiv. 32,
Kadiaare wSe, eo)? 7rpo<;ev^a>/jLai, until I shall have 'prayed ;
2 P. i. 19, Ka\oi<i rroLelre 7rpo<;e^ovr6<; .... eo)? ov '^fiipa Bcav-
ydcrr)' L. xiii. 8, a^e? avrrjv fcal rovro ro ero^, ea)9 orav crKdy^a*
rrepl avr^v xii. 50, xv. 4, xxi. 24, xxii. 16, xxiv. 49 (H. x. 13),
2 Th. ii. 7, 1 C. xi. 26, xv. 25, G. iii. 19, E. iv. 13 ; L. ii. 26, /jltj
IBeiv ddvarov, rrplv -rj tSrj rov Xpicrrov? See Plutarch, Cat.
Min. 59, d-)(pt<; ov rrjv ia'^drrjv rv)(rjv rrj'i irarpiho'i i^eXey^oofjuev
Gees. 7, fii^t<i ov KaraTToXe/jLTjOfj KariXiva<;' Plat. Eryx. 392 c,
vEsch. Dial. 2. 1, Lob. Phryn. p. 14 sq.'^ The very clear dis-
tinction which Hermann makes between the two constructions
{De Partic. dv p. 109, adding however a limitation immediately
something actually existing, as in Jo. ix. 4, Jo. xir. 35, v. I. (Plat. PhcffcL 89 c,
Xcn. Vyr. 1. 6. 9, 7. 2. 22, Plut. Educ. 9. 27, al.,— Klotz, Bevar. II. 565). The
same mood follows an imperative in Mt. v. 25, W/ ivvauv TaT onrilUu aau ra^^,
'ius oTtu J (» Tn oIm ftsr ccumv, where, as a merely possible case is indicated, we
should have expected the conjunctive : these words, however, contain a general
maxim, in which the case is represented as one actually existing. On the other
hand, in L. xvii. 8, liaxavti fm, 'ia; ipiyu xa.) viu (the better MSS, omit av), the
conjunctive is used of an uncertain limit in the future.
' [A. Buttm. (p.- "230) suggests that in this construction lui, etc., follow the
analogy of the final particles "va, otu;, to which they are allied in meaning,
(.'ompare Green, Or. (1st ed.) p. 64.]
^ [This is the only example in the N. T. of ir(\t or "tfn n with the subjunctive
(the true reading is perhaps tfn ar liri), as A. xxv. 16 is the only example of
the optative construction. A. Buttra. remarks that in both passages a negative
has preceded, according tO the usual rule (Don. p. 583, Jelf 848). On the cor-
lectness of this rule see Shilleto, Dem. F. Jj. p. 127.]
* Stallb. Plat. PhiUh. p. 61 sq.. Held, Plut. Timol p. 369 sq., Jacobs, Achill.
Tat. p. 568.
372 THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. [PAKT III.
afterwards, p. Ill-') may appear to be supported by tbe above
passages, but disappears again, so far as the N. T. is concerned,
when we compare the passages in which eax; av is used (§ 42. 5).
In Eev, XX. 5 [^^<^.]j, ol XolttoX .... ovk e^rjaav, eox; reXeaOfj
TO, ')(i\t,a err], does not mean until .... were completed (in
narrative style), but is a concise expression for they remained
(and remain) dead until .... shall he completed.
3. The optative (without av) occurs once only in the N. T,
after a particle of time, in the cratio oUiqua : A. xxv. IG, ovk
tcmv edo'i ' P(i)fjUiLQL<i ')(api^€a-6a{ riva avdpwrrov eh cnrcokeiav,
irpiv 7) o Kar7jyopovfAevo<; Kara Trpo^wrrov e-x^ot rov^ KaTrjyo-
povi, ToTTov re aTroXoyia^ XdBoi k.tX.: see Klotz p. 727 (Don.
p.o8^sq.,.Jelf 848). Elsewhere,where we might expect this mood,
we find the conjunctive, Mt xiv. 22, A. xxiii. 12, 14, 21, Mk. ix
9, L. ii. 26, Eev. vi. 11. This may in part be explained as a
mixture of the oratio recta and the oratio obliqua : see below,
no. 5. With Mt. xiv. 22 compare Thuc, 1. 137, rrjv daifioXecav
elvat fiij^eva eK^rjvai, ix t}"}? i/eco?, fi^XP'' '^'^^'^'^ j^vTjraL' Al-
ciphr. 3. 64 (Poppo, Thuc. Li. 142, Kriig. p. 202, Jelf 887).
In one instance of this kind, Mk. vi. 45 (left by Fritzsche entirely
without notice), even the indicative is well supported : this must
be explained in the same way, see Meyer in loc.
"Otc also is joined with the conjunctive in L. xiii. 35, cws rtt^i, ore
iVTrrjTi : 2 this coustruction can hardly be found in Attic prose (Klotz
p. 688 ^), but — as used de eventu — it is not incorrect, gnatido dixeriiis.
The future indicative would be more suitable in the mouth of Clirist,
and would correspond better to ^fct ; compare Diod, Sic. Exc. Vatic.
• Compare Klotz, Devar. p. 568. ["Ita jam moribandus quis diceret adsten-
tibus amicis ^/'/tuTt iws 6a.iu, non item »»« «» <'«»«, quod potius ei conveniret
qui non ita propinqnam sibi putaret mortem esse." — H*!rm. I. c]
^ [There is great difference of opinion as to the reading. La6hmann reads
'iui at rill, en I'lrpn : Meyer, Tisch. (ed. 8), Treg., Alford, Westcott and Hort
omit av ; Treg. and Alford bracket the \Vbrds «!(« ors, which Westcott and Hort
omit. A. Buttm. (p. 231 sq. ) takes the subjunctive as depending in signification
upon the notion of aim or end implied by tas. As to a» with future indicative
see Klotz p. 117 sqq., Jelf 424.]
' [Klotz's words are : " Si res non ad ccgitation^-m refertiir et eventus
tantum modo spectatur, dubitare non potest quia etiam conjanctivus ad en
particnlam adjungi possit : ejus rei satis certum rtxeinplnm e scriptis Atticoruni
notatum non habeo." After quoting Jliad 21. 322 eq., and referring to the
construction of sort with tbe conjunctive in j^sch; Theh. 338 sq., he adds :
"satis usum testatur id, quod in ceteris particulis relatirls etiam Attici baud
raro conjunctivum sine «» partioula usurpant. "J
SECT. XLI.] THE Ds^DICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. 373
103. 31 (Lips.). See further on ore with conjunctive Jacobs, Ant'Uol
Pal. III. 100, and in Ad. Monac. I. ii. 147 (Jelf 842).
4. With inten^ogative words in indirect questions we find
a. The indicative, where the question relates to some actual
matter of fact, i.e., to the existence of something (is it ? ,is it
not ?), or to the quality of its existence (how / where ^ vAere-
fore ? etc.), whether the verb in the principal sentence is in the
present or in the preterite (Plut. Arist. 7, Xen. An. 2. 6. 4, Plat.
Phil. 22 a, Be2i 1 330 e, Conv. 194 e, Diog. L. 2. 69, Klotz,
JDevar. p. 508) Mk. xv 44, i7rT]p(oT'r]aev avrov, el traXai aire-
Oavev Mt. XXVI. Co, Jo. i. 40, elhov irov fievec Mk. v. 16, Sct)-
ytjaavro avTol<i, irC}<i iyevero rw BaLfiovi^ofMevo)' A. xx. 18, eVt-
arraaOt .... ttw? fieO^ vfifov iyevofirjv (he had actually been
with them), 1 Th. i. 9, dirayyeXkova-cv, oiroiav e'i<;oSov ea'^ofj.ev
'jrpo<i vfia<i' Jo. ix. 21, ttw? vvv ^Xiiret, ovk oiSafiev ix. 15,
X. 6, OVK eyvcoaav ripa rjv a iXdXei, ivliai it was (signified), iii.
8, vii. 27, XX. 13, A. v. 8, xii. 18, xv. 36, xix. 2, L. xxiii. 6, Col.
iv. 6, E. i. 18, 1 C. i. 16, iii. 1 0, 2 Th. iii. 7, 1 Tim. iii. 15 ; also
Jo. ix. 25 (where the d^apTwXov ehac had been asserted),
" whether he is a sinner ? " The Latin language uses the con-
junctive in such cases, taking a different view of the relation.'
The tense of the direct question is introduced into the indirect,
A. x. 18, iTTwddvero, el ^if-icop ev^dSe ^evl^erac H. xi. 8;
compare Plat. ApoL 21b, rjiropovi/, rl irore \eyei,' Plutarch,
0pp. IL 208 b, 220 f., 221 c, 230 f., 231 c, al, Polyb. 1. 60.
6. 4. 69. 3, Diog. L. 6. 42, 2. 69. This is done very frequently,
indeed almost regularly, by Greek writers. (Jelf 886. 2. d.)
b. The conjunctive, to express something objectively possible,
something which may or should take place (Klotz, Dev. p. 511,
Jelf 417, 879) : Mt. viii. 20, 6 vio^ rov dvOpwirov ovk eyei, irou
rr}v K€<f)a\7]v kXivtj^ where he ndght Lay, ubi reponat (Kriig.
p. 190), Rom. viii 26, ri irpo^ev^cofjieOa KaOo Bel, ovk
oioajxev, ichat v:e are to pray (on the variant irpaev^ofxeda sefl
Pritz. w loc), Mt. vi. 25, x. 19, Mk. xiii. 11, L. xii. 5, 11, H.
viii. 3, 1 P. v. 8.^ Compare Stallb. Plat. Fhccd. p. 202, and Bep.
* In Greek that whicli is objective is expressed in the objective mood ; in
Latin the objectiTe proposition is made to depend on the act of asking and
inquiring, and is for this? vary reason put as a mere conception, inttrrO'jG quid
e't. _ Compare Jen. L.Z. 1812, No. 194
* [The best texts hare n^rxTiii*. ]
-374 THE INPICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. [PART III.
I. 72, Xen. Mem.- 2. 1. 21, Cyr. 1. 4. 13, Anah. 1. 7. 7, 2. 4. 19,
Isocr. Pctneg. c. 4:1, Plat. Hep. 368 b. So also after a preterite,
A. iv. 21, fXTjBev evpicrK0VT€<; ro 7rco9 Ko\da-a>VTat avTov<;' L.
xix. 48, xxii. 2, Mk. iii. 6, cv^^ovXiov iiroiovv . . . oVo)? avTov
aTro\e<Toi<Tf xi. 18, xiv. 1, 40 : here the optative might have
been used (Lucian, Dial. D. 17. 1, 25. 1, al., Klihner II. 103,
Herm. Vig. p. 741), but the conjunctive is found instead
because there is a reference to the direct question which they
proposed to themselves, 7rw9 avrov airokeaw^ev ; — the deli-
berative conjunctive, compare Thuc. 2. 52.^
The future indicative may take the place of the conjunctive in such
cases (owing to the affinity of the two forms '•^) : Ph. i. 22, ti alprj-
(To/xai (without variant), ov yvwpi^w, what I should choose^ Mk. ix. 6 :
see Efemosth. Funehr. 152 b, Thuc. 7. 1.4, Herod. 5. 4. 16, Jacob,
Luc. Toxar. 151. On the other hand, in 1 C. vii. 32, 33, 34, dpe'cn;
is the reading of the best MSS. In Mk. iii. 2, -TrapcTripovv avrov, ei
.... OepaTrevo-et,^ the meaning is, whether he will (would) heal, and
the future tense was necessary, as in 1 C. vii. 16.*
c. The optative is \ised of subjective possibility, of some-
thing simply conceived in the mind ; and hence this mood is
found in narration after a preterite, when some one is introduced
with a question which has reference to his own conceptions
alone: L. xxii. 23, rjp^avro av^rjrelv ttjoo? €ainov<i, to Tt9 apa
etrj i^ avTcov, who lie mai/ be, i.e., whom they should suppose
it to be; i. 29, iii. 15, viii. 9, xv. 26, xviii. 36 (2 Mace. iii. 37),
A. xvii. 1 1 , iSe^avTO rov \6<yov .... dvaKpivovret rd^ ypa<f>d<;,
£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\a<f)^aecav, whether they
might fossihly feel etc.. A, xxvii. 12 (Thuc. 2. 77): see Matth.
526, Klotz p. 509.' (Jelf 877. Ohs. 5.)
The distinction between the moods in dependent sentences after
Tt's, etc., is very well illustrated by A. xxi. 33, iTrwOdveTo, ris av
itri Kctt Tt eo-Ti TreTTotTj/cws.^ That the prisoner had committed some
crime was certain, or was assumed by the centurion as certain, and
Tt eo-Ti TTCTT. luquires after the matter of fact of the TrcTrotvyKevat ;
but the centurion has as yet no conception toho he is, and wishes
to form one. Compare Xen. Ephes. 5. 12, eTcdav/xaKci., rives re
^a-av Kol Tt PovXoLVTo- Stallb. Plat. Etithiiphr. p. 107, Jacob,
Luc. Tox. 139 : see also Dio Chr. 35. 429, 41. 499, Heliod. 1. 25,
46, 2. 15. 81.
In the formula ouSct? la-nv os or rts eo-Ttv os (in the same sense),
even when followed by a future, the indicative is always used,
and quite correctly : Mt. x. 26, oiSeV ecrrt xcKoAv/x/xeVov, S ovk
airoKaXv<f}9yj<reTaL, there IS nothing which shall not be revealed (though
the Romans would say, nihil est, quod nan manifesttim fuiurum sit),
xxiv. 2, 1 C. vi. 5, Ph. ii. 20, A. xix. 35, H. xii. 7 (Judith v'iii. 28,
Tob. xiii. 2) ; compare Vig. p. 196 sq., Bernh. p. 390. Once only do
we find the conjunctive, and then in combination with the indicative :
L. viii. 17, ov yap icTTt KpvTrrov, o ov (ftax'epov yevyjcrerai, ov^k cltto-
Kpvffiov, o ov yvwor^ijcrerat /cat cts <f>av€p6v e\^i/ (where B and L have
o ov iMTj yvoxrOfj koI cts <f>. (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 d<fi€$:j(T£TaL <tol y) imvota -r^? KapSuas crov Mk. xi. 13, r}X6(.v
et apa evp-jcrei tl iv avrfj, he went to it, if haply he should find, etc.
(in Latin, si forte .... inveniret). The words are here expressed
in the mood which would be actually used by the speaker : I will go
to it and see whether haply I shall find etc. Of a different kind is
the future indicative after ciVo)? in Rom. i. 10, but this too is well
established.
In E. V. 15 the conjunctive or the future indicative must have been
used if the meaning were, take heed hoiv ye should (will) live strictly
with the present indicative the inquiry has reference to the mode (the
How) of the aKpt/?a>9 TrepLTrarelv, actually existent as a Christian duty ;
look to it i7i what tray you carry into effect the aKpLl3w<i 7rcpi7raT€u/,
how ye set about the work of living exactly. Compare Fritzschior.
0])USC. p. 209. 1 C. iii. 10, l/cacrros ^Acttcto) ttio? iiroiKoSofxei, is not
exactly parallel with this passage, inasmuch as, after the preceding
oAAos eTTOLKo8ofx€t, there can be no doubt at all that an actual act of
building is spoken of.
5. In the oratio ohliqua (Herm. Soph. Track, -p. 18) we
but seldom find the optative: A. xxv. 16, tt/jo? ovf anreKplOrjv
on ovK eartv e9o<; ' Po)fj,aioi^ '^api^ecrdai riva dvOpwrrov, irplv
r} o KaTrjyopovfj,€vo<i Kara 7rpo<ico7rov e^ot rovf KarTjyopov'i
TOTTov re uTToXoyia'? Xd^ot K.rX.: indeed the instances in which
the words of another are quoted indirectly are rare in the N. T^
In the few examples which do occur the indicative is commonly
used, either because the interposed sentence, where the optative
might have been expected, is expressed in the words of the
narrator^ (L. viii. 47, Mt. xviii. 25, Mk. ix. 9, A. xxii. 24), or
because, through a mixture of two constructions, the mood of
the oratio recta is substituted for that of the oratio ohliqua, — a
change which would be very natural in the language of con-
versation. See A. XV. 5, e^avecrrrja-dv rive<i rcov . . . ^apiaaicov,
Xeyovres; on 8ei TrepLre/xveiv K.rX., L. xviii. 9, elrre KaX Trpa
riva<i rov<i ireiroLOora'i e^' kavrol<i, on elal BlKaioi, (contrast
Matth. 529. 2 "), A. xii. 18, ■^p rdpa')(o<i ovk 0X1709 . . . re dpa
6 Tlerpof iyevero- ix. 27, xxiii. 20, 1 C. i. 15. We find similar
examples in Attic writers, though usually in sentences of greater
length: see Isocr. Trapez. 860, Demosth. Phorm. 586, Polycl.
710, 711, Lys. Ca;d. Eratosth. 19, Xen. Cyr. 2. 4. 3, 3. 2. 27,
^ Baumlein, Gr. Modi, p. 270.
^ [That is, contrast the examples given by Matthiae, I. c, which, though of the
same kind as the above N. T. examples, contain the optative.]
SECT. XLI.] THE INDICATIVE, CONJUNCTIVE, OPTATIVE MOODS. 377
4. 5. 36, Hell. 2. 1. 24 ; and of later v/riters, iElian 11. 9,Diog.
L. 2, 32, 74, Pausan. 6. 9. 1. See Heindorf, Plat. Soph. p. 439
sq., Matth. 529. 5, Bernh. p. 389.^
Rem. 1 . The consecutive particle wstc is commonly joined with
the infinitive, as indeed the simple infinitive may be appended in
a consecutive sense : compare § 44. Yet the finite verb is also
used, — not merely where wsrc begins a new sentence (in the sense
of quare, itaque), either in the indicative (Mt. xii. 12, xix. 6, xxiii.
31, Rom. vii. 4, xiii. 2, 1 C. xi. 27, xiv. 22, 2 C. iv. 12, v. 16, G.
iii. 9, iv. 7, 1 Th. iv. 18,^ 1 P. iv. 19, al.),^ or in the conjundivus
exhartaiivus (1 C. v. 8), or the imperative (1 C. iii. 21, x. 12, Ph, ii.
12, iv. 1, Ja. i. 19, al., Soph. El. 1163, Plutarch, Them. c. 27) ;— but
also where the sentence with w^rc is a necessary complement of
what precedes, as in Jo. iiL 16, ovtws ^jyairqa-ev 6 ^eos t6v Koa-fiov,
u)<iT€ . . . IStoKcv" G. ii. 13 (but in A. xiv. 1 owws w?tc is followed
by the infinitive). • The same is very common in Greek writers.
Thus we find wsre with a finite verb after ovrto in Isocr. Areopag.
pp. 343, 354, De Big. p. 838, ^gin. p. 922, Evag. 476, Lysias, Pro
Mantith. 2, and Pro Mil. 17, Xen. Cyr. 1. 4. 15, 2. 2. 10, Diog. L.
9. 68 ; after cis roo-oOrov, Isocr. De Big. p. 836, Soph. (Ed. B. 533.*
In the better writers indeed the distinction may be, that wsrc with
the indicative joins the facts together merely objectively as facts,
as prcecedens and consequens, whilst wsre with the infinitive brings
them into closer connexion and represents one as proceeding out of
the other. ^
Rem. 2. In the N. T., as in later Greek, otfi^ov {Z<peXov) is
treated entirely as a particle, and joined with the indicative ; either
with the preterite indicative, as in 1 C. iv, 8 o^cAov c^acrtAcvo-aTc,
ivould that ye had become kings, — imperfect, 2 C. xi. 1 6<j>iXoy 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 6<j)€Xov as a particle,
it was as logical to join the imperfect or aorist indicative with it
as with eiOe, see Matth. 513. Rem. 2, Klotz, JDevar. p. 516 (aor. de
re, de qua, quum non facta sit olim, nunc nobis gratum fore sig-
nificaraus, si facta esset illo tempore) : the future fills the place of
the optative. In Rev. iii. 15 some MSS. have o^cAov \}rvxpo<; elrj<;.
1 [See Jelf 885 sq., Don. p. 587, and compare Mullach, Vulg. p. 372.]
^ [In this passage and the next asn is joined with the imperative, not the
indicative : on usn with imperative see EUic. on Ph. ii. 12.]
^ Gayler, De Partic. Negat. p. 218 sq.
* See Gayler I. c. p. 221 sq. : compare Schref. Plutarch V. 248.
5 Klotz, p. 772, compare Biiumlein I. c. p. 88. [Jelf 863, Dou. p. 593 sq.,
Shillelo, Dem. Fah. Leg. p. 202 .sq., EUicott on G. ii. 13.]
® [Job xiv. 13 is singular : il yap S(fo.i»i . . \<f>vXa.\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<yQ<i
ovTo<; Xejeiv ; it being presupposed that his words have a mean-
ing. See also L. vi. 1 1,^ Gen. xxiii. 15, Dt. xxviii. 67, Job xix.
23, XXV. 4, xxix. 2, xxxi. 31, Ecclus. xxv. 3. Compare Odyss.
21. 259, Xen. Cyr. 1. 4. 12, Diog. L. 2. 5, Kriig. p. 186 sq.
(Don. p. 542, Jelf 425.)
We have what amounts to a hypothetical constnictlon in A.
viii. 31, TTtus oiV SvvaifjLVV, iav fxr] tis ohijyrjcrr) /xe ; for without an
interrogation it Avould run, ovk av Swaifx-qv. Compare Xen. JlpoL
6, ^v alcrOdvwfiaL ^etpwv yiyvo^cvos - . . Trois av . . . iyu> 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]<i ekaXei, if Joshua had given them rest, he would not
speak etc. (in the words previously cited, ver. 5). Compare the
present opl^ecin ver. 7 See also G. iii. 21, and compare Jer.
xxiii. 22, Bar. iii. 13.
h. With the aorist, to express / should Imve done At (Herm.
Vig. p. 813) : Mt. xi. 21, ei iyevovro . . . ttaXai av fxerevorjaav,
if . . . had been done, they would long ago have repented, 1 C.
ii. 8, Rom. ix. 29 (from the LXX), Gen. xxx. 27, xxxi. 27, 42,*
1 [Compare xev (Mk. vi. 56, al.), <«« av 2 C. x. 9, and Green p. 230 : "In the
later Greek the particle a,» is sometinjes combined with *«/ and »?, so as simply
to produce a strengthened term, without being in any way malerial to the
syntax.'' See also Jelf 430. Compare A. Buttm. p. 219 : "If we supply an
optative, such as yitaira, which may combine with <£> (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 rj<yaTraTe fi£, i^dpijre av, if ye loved me ye
ivould have rejoiced, xviii. 30, A. xviii. 14, — an imperfect in
the conditional clause (Bar. iii. 13^): Mt. xii. 7, el iyv(OK€LT€
.... ovK av /careSiKaa-are if ye had knoion, ye would not have
condemned, Jud. viii- 19, Job iv. 12, — a pluperfect in the con-
ditional clause (compare Demosth. Pantcen. p. 6 24b, Liban. Orati.
p. 1 1 7 c). In this case the pluperfect sometimes takes the place
of the aorist witli av, as in 1 Jo, ii 10, el rjcrav ef rj^oiv, fiefie-
vrjKeiaav av fied' rjficav, mansisscnt (atque adeo manerent), Jo.
xi. 21 (in vcr. 32 the aorist =), xiv. 7. See Soph. (Ed. R. 984,
iEsch. Ctes. 310 a, Demosth. Cor. 324 a, Plat. Pha:d. 106 c,
Diog. L. 3. 39, -Esop 31.1, Lucian, Fngit. 1 ; and compare
Herm. Partic. av p. 50.
On the whole subject see Heriraiin, Parti/'., av, I. cap. 1 0.
This distinction between the tenses seems not to have been
u7\derstood by some of the translators of the N. T.; by others it
has been neglected.^
The apodosis with dv is absorbed by an interrogative clause in
1 C xii. 19, el ^v ra Travra ev fie\o<i, ttov to awfia ; also in H.
vii. 1 1, et Te\€io)CTL<i oia rrj^ .... iepaxjvvrj^ rjv, Ti9 ere xpf/a k.t.X.,
for ovKeri &v rjv %peta k.t.X. For an example of av in an inter-
rogative apodosis see Wisd. xi. 26, ttw? e/xeivev dv rt, el fxr} <tv
vj6e\T]aa<; ; On A. viii, 31 see above.
' [This passage is out of place here ; it i" rightly quoted above under
«. ifi).]
^ [The best critical texts have the aorist in both verses. ]
^ [This can hardly be meant to imply that the rules given above are never
violated in the N. T,, — that we never find the imperfect where the aorist might
have been expected, — for Winer refers below to a modification of the rule, thus
expressed by Madvig I. c. : "Sometimes, either in both clauses or in only one
of them, the imperfect is used instead of the aorist, of relations belonf»iRg to the
past ; mostly (yet not always, especially in the poets} to denote an abiding
.state or a continued series of actions" (p, 95 of Transl.). Similarly Kriiger p.
195, Buttmann, Or^Qramm. p. 425, Kiihner on Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 5, Curtius, Gr.
(iramm. p. 296 (Transl.) : compare also Kiihner, Gr. II. 175, 971 sq. (ed. 2),
Jelf 856. Oha. 1, Bleek on H. vii. 11, xi. 15. Such exceptional instances, how-
ever, are probably very few in the N. T. : there seems no sufficient reason for
reckoning 1 C. xi. 31 or G. iii. 21 amongst them. When ^y occurs in the pro-
tasis, it must occasionally be rendered had been, see Jo. xi, 21, '62, 1 Jo. ii. 19,
(A. xviii. 14) ; compare Alford on H. viii, 7. In Jo. viii. 19, Rom. vii. 7 (quoted
in the text) the word used is ptir, which can scarcely be reckoned with plu-
perfects.]
382 THE CONJUNCTION av WITH THE THREE MOODS. [PART IIL
In Mk. xiii. 20, ei u^ /cuptos eKoXo^aicre .... ovk av i(T(i)0r] iraara
(rdp$, the two aorists do not stand for imperfects ; the meaning is, if
the Lord had not (in. his decree) shortened the days, all flesh would
have perished (might even now be looked upon as already destroyed).
In H. xi. 15, €t fxev iK€Lvr]<; i/xvyj/xovevov .... 6t;!^ov av Kaipov
avaKafjuj/ai, it is probable that the writer used the imperfect in the
principal clause because he is speaking of a continued action (of past
time),^ just as the imperfect is used in Latin (haberent) : - if they
thought that .... they had (during their life) time to return, and
consequently would not have made this declaration (ver. 13) at the
end of their life : the aorist wouUl have represented the tx^iv Koipnv as
something which occurred once and quickly passed. Another view of
the imperfect in hypothetical clauses (Franke, Demosth. pp. 59, 74) is
foreign to the context.
We sometimes find av omitted in the apodosis, especially
in connexion with the imperfect tense.^ This omission becomes
more and more frequent in later Greek, and is found in cases
where there is no aim after the emphasis — the idea of decision
— originally conveyed by this construction (Kiihner II. 556).*
The examples may be thus arranged : —
a. Imperfect " in both clauses : Jo. ix. 3 3, el fiij rjp ovto<;
irapa Oeov, ov/c '^Bvvaro iroieZv ovSev, were he not from God,
lie would he able to do nothing ; Diog. L. 2. 24, Lycurg. Oi'at.
8. 4, Plat. Sympos. 198 c, Gorg. 514 c. In Jo. viii. 39 the
MSS. are almost equally divided as to the omission or insertion
of av : if it originally stood in the text it may have been ab-
sorbed by the vvv which immediately follows.^
h. Aorist in the apodosis, with an ellipsis of rjv in the protasis :
G. iv. 15, el Buva'tov tou? 6(})6a\fiov<; v/mmv i^opv^avTa iZoiKare
/jLoc, where av has not much support.
c. Aorist in protasis, imperfect in apodosis : Jo. xv. 22, el fir}
rjXdov .... afiaprlav ovk el^ov, ^ / had not come, they would
not Jiave sin; compare Diog. L. 2. 21.
* Matth. 508. h, Madvig. 117. a. Rem. 1.
- Zumpt, Gramm. 525 [Madvig 347. b. Ohs. 2].
» Herm. Eur. Hec. 1087, Soph. Elect, p. 132, Parlic. a.» p. 70 sqq- Bremi,
Eire. 4 ad Lys. p. 439 sq., Matth. 508. Rem. 5. [Don. p. 540, Jelt'858, Ellicott
on G. iv. 15. In modern Greek a» is omitted in this case : see Mullach, Vulg.
p. 359.]
* Similar to these examples are such Latin sentences as the following : Flor.
4. 2. 19, peractmn erat bellum sine sanguine, si Pompeium opprimere (Ccesar)
potuisset ; Horat. Od. 2. 17. 27, Liv. 34. 29, Cic. Fam. 12. 24. 2, Tac. Annal.
3. 14, Sen. Consol. ad Marc. I. See Zumpt, Gr. 519. b. [Madvig 348, Don.
p. 396.]
* [Tischendorf and Tregelles read «<.... ia-n .... e^ra/E/Vs (without ecv) :
see below. Westcott and Hort read i<rr£, bat in the next clause vtnTTi.]
SECT. iCLII.] TfTE CONJUNCTION dv WITH THE THREE MOODS. 383
cl. Pluperfect in the conditional clause (Jud. viii. 19), im-
perfect in the principal clause : Jo. xix. 1 1 , ovk el^e? i^ovcriav
ovhefilav kut ifMov, el fir] rjv aoL BeoofMevov dvcodev, tJiou wouldst
not have . ... if it were not (had not been) given to thee, A,
xxvi. 32 ; Rom. vii. 7, non cognoram .... nisi diceret, — so also
in the words which immediately precede, r^y afiapriav k.t.X.,
where with el firj Bia vofiov we must repeat ejvcov. This omis-
sion of dv is particularly common with koKov ^v, eBei, ixp^F,
K.T.X. ; ^ compare Mt. xxvi. 24, koXov rjv avrut, el ovk e<yevvri6r]
K.T.X. See above § 41. a. 2.^
2 G. xi. 4j €1 6 ipxofj.evo'i aXXov 'Ii/croSf KTjpv(ra-et .... KaA.£«:
aveix'ea-Oc (avexea-de, found in B alone, is received by Lachmann^), is
rendered, if , . . p-eached, ye ivould hear with etc. Here we should
certainly expect to find iKi^pvacrey ; but, as several words intervene,
the writer might easily fall into such an anacoluthon {if ....
preaches another Jesus . ... ye would bear with it), using dv€ix(a-9e
as if he had writt<?n iKVjpva-a-cv, instead of following up the K-qpva-a-ei
with dvex^a-Oe. Or we may suppose that he changes the expression
designedly, that he may not give pain to the Corinthians, altering the
harsh dv^x'^crOe mto the hypothetical and therefore milder dvcix^aSe :
m this case, however, dv was the more to be expected as in the ante-;
cedent clause there is no aim at a hypothetical period : compare also-
Klotz, Devar. p. 487 sq.'* We have a similar example in Diog. L. 2.
69, Cl TOVTO <fiavX6v ia-TLV, ovk dv iv rats roiv dcwv eo/JTats iylvero :^
Demostb. Near. 815 a is of a different kind.
' Madyig 118, Biiuinlein p. 140 sq. (Don. p. 541, Jelf 858. 3).
2 [In the place referred to Winer maintains that there is no real ellipsis of ap
in such examples.]
3 [Alford and Westcott and Hort follow Lachmann in this reading. A.
Buttmann {Or. p. 226, Stud. u. Kr. 1858, rid. infr.) maintains that this is an
example of the fiist class of conditional sentences, not the fourth. He takes the
same view of .To. xix. 11, where however he would prefer to read s'a:"?.']
* [Klotz's words will make the meaning clearer: "Si ratione rem con-,
sideramus, in ejus modi locis " (i. e. ubi apodosis aliara orationis formam habet)
"condicionis et apodosis propria conjunctio nulla est, veram postquam sim-
pliciter posita est hypothetica enuntiatio, alio quodara modo concipitur cogita-
tlone apodosis, u't non exsequata sit totins enuntiationis ratio, sed condicio ilia
nihil adferat ad apodosin nisi externam rationem sententiarum."]
*'[ln this passage we have in the protasis the present indicative, and in the
apodosis- a pjtst tense of the indicative with av. L. xvii. 6, si ix^n ....
iXiyiTt av, is precisely similar to this, as also is Jo. viii. 39 with the reading il
. . . .' Uri .... itoi'Sti civ (the reading, however, is doubtful, see p. 382,
note ^). These passages — with some others in which the present tense is less
strongly supported, viz. Jo. Xiy. 28, H. xi. 15 (where however fivtifunuavtrit has
now the support of t<} — are carefully examined by A. Buttmann in an interesting
paper in the Studikn wid Kriiiken,'185S (p. 474 sqq.). His view is, that the
writer uses this form when he does not wish to imply an absolute denial of the
truth of the hypothesis, whilst at the same time he does deny that the hypo-
thesis is true in the sense required hj the apodosis. Hence, in strictness, we
384 THE CONJUNCTION av WITH THE THREE MOODS. [PART III.
That in Rom. iv. 2, t^'^'- xo-^xw^ doe^ not stand for el)(f.v av k., as
was maintained by Riickert, will be easily perceived by any one who
attends to Paul's reasoning : of recent commentators, Kollner has
rightly opposed this view.
3. lu relative clauses, after 09, 09x49, 00-09, ottov, etc., av is
found
«. With the indicative, when some actual fact, and there-
fore something certain, is spoken of, " sed cujus vel pars ali-
qua, vel ratio et modus dubitationem admittunt " (Herm. Vig.
p. 819):^ Mk. vi, 56, ottou av €l<;is'7ropev€To, where perchance he
entered, ubicunque intrabat (this might occur in different places
and repeatedly) oaoi av ^tttovto^ avrou, so m.any of theiii as
{at any time) touched hirn: KaBoji av, A. ii. 45, iv. 35 ; g)9 av,
1 C. xii. 2. In all these instances we have a (relative) preterite,
as in Gen. ii. 19, xxx. 42, Is.lv. 11, 2 S. xiv. 26, Ez, i. 20, x. 11,
Esth, viii. 17, 1 Mace, xiii, 20,- — and also in Greek writers, as
Lucian, Dial, M. 9. 2, Demon. 10, Demosth. I. Stcph. p. 610 b
(Agath. 32. 12, 117. 12, 287, 13, Malai. 14. 36). The present
indicative — 'which Klotz (p. 109 sqq.),in opposition to Hermann,
maintains to be inadmissible — is not even externally supported
in L. viii. 18, x. 8, Jo. v. 19 : in Mk. xi. 24 Lachmanu has
rightly restored from the MSS. the indicative without dv? The
present occijis frequently in the LXX, see Ps. ci. 3, Pr. i. 22,
Lev. XXV. 16.
In Mt. xiv. 36 we have oo-oi rjxpavTo, Stco-w^T/o-av* in the place
of ocrot av ^tttoj/to, l(Toit,ovTo' of the parallel passage, Mk. vi. 56.
r>oth 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 el<ie\£r)re, irdo what city ye may possibly have
entered, in quamcunque urhem, si quam in urhera ; xxi. 22, oaa,
av alrija-rjre, quceeunqiie petieritis ; xii. 32, Mk. ix. 18, xiv. 9,
L. X. 35, A. ii. 39, iii. 22, 23, viii. 19, Eora. x. 13, xvi. 2,* Ja.
iv. 4, 1 Jo. iv. 15, Kev. xiii. 15, al. For examples from Greek
writers see Bornem. Imc. p. G5 (Jelf 829). From the LXX,
compare Gen. xxi. 6, 12, xxii. 2, xxiv. 14, xxvi. 2, xxviii. 15,
xliv. 9 sq., Ex. i. 22, ix. 19, x. 28, Lev. v. 3, 15, 17, xi. 32, xx,
6, 9, 15, 17 sq., Num. v. 10, vi. 2, Dt. xvii. 9, Is. xi. 1 1. In the
place of the conjunctive we find the future indicative^ in Dt.
V. 27, Jer. xlix. 4, Jud. x. 18, xl 24, — Malch. fflst. p. 238,
Cinnara. I. 6 (Bonn ed): see Matth. 528. Rem. 3 (Jelf 827 a).
(y8) The present conjunctive is used of that which possibly
might now occur, or wliicli usually occurs, or which is to. be
represented as something continued : G. v. 1 7,. iW /jur), a dif
6i\7]T€, ravra iroirJTe- (what you may possihly desire). Col. iii. 1 7,
trav 6 Tt av Troirjre 1 Th. ii. 7,'^ to? av Tpo(f>6'? 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 e<? cfiaitpov 1X6 rj •,'^ this must be
rendej"ed which may not hccomt liaown and come to light. The relative
here refers to something which is conceived with perfect definite-
ness. not to anything whatever, quodcunque. On the other hand,
in Ja. ii. 10, osrt? oAov rbv vofxov rrjpijo-rf, jtto.i(ti] Se eV cvt, we might
have expected av , but it js not really required, as in the writer's
conception the case is altogeiher definite, qui (si qvis) .... custodi-
verit. So also in Mt. x 33. In Mt. xviii. 4 Lachni. has restored
the future.^
4. Tn indirect qiiestioas dp is joined with the optative (after
a preterite or an historic preseiitj : L. i. 62, ivevevov rw Trarpi,
TO rC dv deXoi KoXela-dai avrov, hoio he would 'perhaps wish
to have him named (it being supposed that he has a wish in this
case, — Ti diXoc k.t.\. would be, hovj he wished to have him
nctmed), A. v. 24, x. 17, xxi. 33 (see above, § 41. b. 4), L. vi. 11,
BieXdXovv TfjOo? dWi)\ov<i, ri dv iroci'jcreiav rw ^Iiqaov, what they
might possibly do with Jesus, quid forte faciendum videretur
(discus.sing the various possibilities in a doubting mood), ix. 46.
^ Compare Schaif. Demosth. I. 657, Poppo, Observ. p. 143 sqcj., Jen. Lit.-
Zeit. 1816, April, No. tJ9, and ad t'yrop. pp. 129, 209 ; on the otlier side,
Baumlein p. 212 sqq. [See also Green, Gr. p. 163 sq. A. Buttmann holds that,
as the N. T. writers omit av onlj- after the compound relatives (including -ra; os),
not after the simi}le aV, the particle was omitted because it seemed supertiuous
with pronouns whose meaning was already general. — But there are very few (if
any) well-attested examples of the omission, besides Ja. ii. 10, Mt. x. 33.]
■''[When this passage was quoted in § 4i„ 4, two readings were mentioned,
6u yiaKrSnffirat (Griesb., Meyer, De W., Tisch. ed, 7) and eu fih yvuff^^ (Lachm.,
Treg., Tisch. ed. 8, Alford, Westcott and Hort). It does not appear that any
editor reads ou yvua-^ti, or indeed that any MS. has this reading, except L, — in
which however /u-ri is written over the line. If we read yvaxTSmira.!, the above
explanation will a])ply to 'i>Jn ; 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)<TLV, lohen (i.e., os often as) they cat, Jo. viii. 44,
1 C. iii. 4, L. xi. 36 ; xvii, 10, orav ironjaTjT*- 'rrdvTa, Xeyere,
when ye shall Jmve <h?ne. Mt xxi. 40, orav ikdy 6 Kvpio: ....
ri TToitjaei, quando venerit. So usually witli the aorist con-
junctive for the Ijxtm futuium exacfum,M\<.. viii. 38, Jo. iv. 25,
xvi. 1 3, Rom. xi. 27, A. xxiii, 35, 1 C. xv. 27,^ xvi. 3, 1 Jo. ii,
28 ; and also H. i. 6 (as was pointed out by Bohme and Wahl)
The present conjunctive, on the other hand, usually indicates an
action of frequent recurrence, not limited to any particular
time (Matth. 521), or else represents something which in itself
is future simply as an event (1 C. xv, 24,^ where it stands by
the side of the aorist conjunctive).
Similar to this are ■^viku av, 2 C. iii. 16 (when it shall have
turned) ; oaaKs^ av {as often as), 1 C. xl 25, 26 (with the
present) ; &>«? 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<i dv i^eXdrjre' Ja. v. 7, L. i.x, 27 ; d'^ptM
ov dv, Rev. ii. 25 (Gen. xxiv. 14, 19, Jos. ii. 16, xx. 6, 9, Ex,
'[On this passage ("When God shall have declared that all thing.s have
been subjected to him ") see Alford's note. In 1 Jo. ii. 28 we mast read lay.]
^ [The received text hius the aoii-st, but there is no doubt that we mu.st read
vu.pah'iif or -S/Sa? (on the latter form, found with orm in Ml:, iv. 29 also, see
above, p. 360, note") : ora* indicates " the uncertainty of the time when " (Alford
in loc.).]
■* [In this purelv temporal sense a; a-i is at least very rare in Attic prose ;
see Klot/^, Devar'. ^. 759, A. Buttm. p. 2^2, Ellicott on Ph. 2. 23. To the
conjunctions mentioned above add i^' tZ av L. xiii. 25, and Wi.^ jVU. ii. 8, L. xi.
22, 34.]
* In Ex'. XV. 16, Jer. xxiii. 20, according to the usual text, we find £«</,- «» and
i«{ with the conjunctive iii parallel clauses. [In Ja. v. 7, quoted in the next
line, a» is probably not genuine.]
388 THE CONJUNCTION av WITH THE THREE MOODS. [PAKT III.
XV. 16, Is. vi. 11, xxvi. 20, xxx. 17, Tob. vii, 11, and often).
Compare Soph. CEd. ^.834, Xen. Cyi\ 3. 3. 18, 'iQ,An. 5. 1. 11,
Plat. Phccd. 5 9 e, al. ; this is the usual construction in Attic
prose (Rost p, 623, Don. p. 581 sq., Jelf 846). Compare also
§ 41. h. 3. 2. (6). — Uplv av does not occur in the K T.^
In Rev. iv. 9, orav Swa-ovcrt to. Qda Zo^av .... TrtcrovvTai oil
cLKoa-t Tt'o-crapc? k.t.X. (the correct reading), orav is joined with the
future instead of the conjunctive, quando dederint, — as in Iliad. 20.
335, dAA' dvaxi^pTJo-ai, ore /cei/ ivfifSX-qcreaL auru) : other MSS. have
Sokrt or Swo-axrt.^ In L. xi. 2, xiii. 28, Mt. x. 19, there is pre-
ponderant authority for the conjunctive. The use of the indie.
present with otov in Rom. ii. 14, orav -ttouI (which should rather he
regarded as a mistake of transcription for Trotij) is very douhtful :
we should read Trotwo-ty with Lachm. and Tischendorf. In Mk. xi.
25, however, orav o-rr/KCTc is supported by good MSS., and — as the
words are designed to express merely an external definition of
time,3 cum statis precantes — the indicative (according to Klotz, Devar.
p. 475 sq.) is just as admissible as in Lycurg. 28. 3 it is well
attested by MS. authority.^ In this case the present and future
indicative are sometimes found with orav even in earlier writers (see
Klotz I. c, and p. 477 sq., 690^), where it was formerly considered
inadmissible :** in later writers it occurs more frequently,'^ compare
e.g., Ex. i. 16, J d. Jpocr. 126.
More singular is the construction of orav in narration with an
indicative preterite (imperfect); Mk. iii. 11, to. Trvcv/i-ara . . . .
orav avTov c^cwpct, TrposcViTTTev (without any variant), uJien ai
any time (quandocunque) they saw him. Here Greek writers would
probably have used (ore or oTrdrai/ with) the optative, see Herm.
Fig. p. 792 ;^ but it is as easy to explain the indie, here as in oaot
av ipTTovTo (see above, 3. a). Compare Gen. xxxviii. 9, Ex. xvii.
1 [n^/y av 'Jiri is received by Treg., Westcott (and Tisch. Syn, Ev.) in L, ii. 26 :
Iiere it follows a negative clause, as usual (Don. p. 583, Jelf 848. 4). In ed. S
Tiscb. reads vffn Jt av "In. See above, p. 371.]
■'' [On 1 Tim. V, 11, vv-here Tisch. (ed. 7) and Alford read the future with 'i-rav^
see EUicott's note. He remarks that ' ' the only correct principle of explaining
these usages of iiv and era.* with the indicative" is "the restriction of the
whole conditional force to the particle, and the absence of necessary internal
connexion between the verb in the protasis and that in the apodosis. "]
* [Not an internal relation of cause or condition.]
* Bekker conjectures uxn, others read oV h, and Blume even says, "indica-
tivus per grammaticas leges h. 1. ferri nequit." [The reading in question is
eray . . . tltri. — In ed. 7 Tisch. received oTav with the present indicative in Mk.
xi. 25, xiii. 4, 7, L. xi. 2 ; but in all these passages, except the first, he now
reads the subjunctive.]
' Most of the examples quoted by Gayler, De Partic. Negat. p. 193 sq., are
probably doubtfuL
« Jacobs, Anthol. Palat. III. 61, Achill. Tat. 452, Matth. 521. 'note.
'' Jacobs in Act. Monac. L 146, Schsef. Ind. jEmp. 149.
* Fritzsche {Mark p. 801) prefers to write W at, in order to show that in
this case «> 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<yi/o€LT(o (the hope
of further successful instruction i'^ renounced). Whether this or
the ordinary meaning should be assigned to the imperative in
any particular passage, must be decided not by grammatical but
' [It seems much simpler to suppose that us and «v here coalesce, witti the
meaning quasi: so Meyer, jVliord, Green (see the note quoted ahove, p. ;180).
A. Bnttmann (p. 219). Green quotes Polyb. JJittt. I. 46, PJiilo, Mv.ndi Op\f. 1.
13 : toiOLv is thus used in modern Greek. On the classical ais^tpani see Jell* 430.
1 ; and on xi'v, as used in Mk. vi. 56, al., § 64. I. 1.]
" See Wall], C'lav. Apocn/ph. p. 137 sq., Thilo, Act. Thorn, p. 8
'^ [The reading is rather doubtful in some of thase examples. Sea Alford
vol. I. Proky. p. 98 (ed. 6), Ellic. on E. vi. 8. A. Buttm. p, 63, Green p. 164
(Jelf 42a).]
* In opposition to Schneider, Xen. Mem. 3, 10. 12.
■'' See Schtefer, Julian, p. v, Herm. Vij. p. 835, Bremi, Ly.s. p. 126, Bois?-
.sonade, ^«. Gaz. p. 269, Stallb. I'lat. Lnch. p. 57. A more moderate opinion
is expressed by Jacobs, Athen. p. 88 ; yet see his note in Lfction. Stoh. p. 45.
and Achill. Tat. p. 831 .sq. Compare also Valckenaer on 1 C. vi. 18.
" .\lmost like our eivmn in relative .sentences, ivan (twan ijeschehen aollte
(wann etwas geschielit, was es sein sollte).
f According to MoUer (Sehneidewin, Phllolog. VI. 124 sqq.) the present
imperative only should be used. We have the present, it is true, in the N. T,
pBjsaf;iis which are quoted above, but we cannot regard this as settling the
que?!tioii for the N. T.
SECT. XLril] THE IMPERATIVE MOOD. 391
by heiineueiitical considerations ; and these will not allow ns to
make the imperative permissive either in Mt. viii. 32 (on the
ground that sufferance is expressed in the parallel passage, L.
viii. 32), or in Jo. xiii. 27, 1 C. xi. 6. On Jo. xiii. 27 see
Baumgarten-Crusins : ^ in 1 C. xi. 6, Keipdo-dw as well as Kara-
KaXuTTTecrdco must be taken as implying logical necessity, — one
thing necessarily supposes the other. On the other hand, in Mt.
xxvi. 45, KaOevSere to Xoiirov xal avairavecrOe, Jesus, — his spirit
peaceful, mild, and resigned, through the influence of his prayer,
— probably speaks permissively, sleep on then further and re-'^t.
Irony at this moment of solemn feeling is not to be thought of.
In Mt. xxiii. 32, however, there probably is irony in the words :
if they are taken as permissive, the tone of the discourse loses in
force. In Eev. xxii. 1 1 the whole is a challenge : let every man,
by continuing in the coursewhich he has followed hitherto, ripen
against the approaching judgment of Christ : the fate of all is as
if already determined.
2. When two imperatives are connected by kul, the first
sometimes contains the condition (supposition) upon which the
action indicated by the second will take place, or the second ex-
presses a result which will certainly ensue (IMatth. 511. 5. c) -.'^
e. g., Bar. ii. 21, KXivare rov o]fiov vfxwv epydaacrOai tm ^aaCKet
. . . Kal Kadiaare eVt t?;v jrjv Epiyhan. II. 368, e^e rov'i rov
6eov Xoyov^ Kara "^V'^r'iv crov Kal "^peiav fiij e'^e^EirKpavlov. In
the N. T. this explanation has been applied to E. iv 26 (from
Ps. iv. 5), op'yi^ea-de koI fii] djjuaprdvere, he angry and sin not,
i. e., if ye are angry, do not sin, do not fall into sin (Riickert) ;
and to Jo, vii. 52, epevvrjaop koI t8e, search and thou, mtt see
(Kuhnol) : compare divide et impci^a. This is certainly very
common in Hebrew; see Ewald, Krit. Gr. p. 653. But in Jo. vii
1 [See Alforcl in he. ; and on Mt. xxvi. 45, Ellicott, Hist L. p. S30. ]
-The examples wliicli Bornemann (on L. xxiv. 39) quotes from Greek
authors are of a different kind Still this mode of expression cannot be regarded
as a real Hebraism, see Gesen. Lehrg. p. 776, — where however some passages
are quoted which are doubtful (as Fs. xxxvii. 27), or which shoidd at all events
have been separated from the rest (Gen. xiii. 18, Is. viii. 9). These passages
have no analogy to E. iv. 26 (see below) ; for Paul's words, if interpreted by
them, could only mean, if ye are angry, ye. do not sin, or even, if ye would
not sin, then be angry. It is surprising therefore that, notwithstanding this,
Zyro {Stud. u. Krit. 1841, 3. Heft, p. 685) has again had recourse to this so-
called Hebraism. [On the Hebrew idiom see Gesen. Hebr. Gr. p. 212 (Bagster)
Kalisch, Hehr. Gr. I. 300.]
392 THE mrEEATivE MOOD. [part m.
the expression is more forcible than Ka\ o-^et (Lucian, Indoot.
29) would have been : the result of the search is so certain, that
a challenge to search is at the same time a challenge to see. In
L. X. 28 we have the regular construction. In E. iv. 26, Paul's
meaning undoubtedly is, that when we are angry we must not
fall into sin, — compare ver. 27 (see Bengel and Baumg.-Crus. in
loc.) ; and ver. 3 1 cannot be urged against this. It is only the
grammatical estimate of the expression that is doubtful. Either
we have a single logical sentence, op7t^o/xei/ot /x^ a/ia/arat'eTe, split
up into two grammatical sentences, or else opjL^^crOe must be
taken as permissive (compare the similar passage Jer. x. 24).
For Meyer's assertion that, when two imperatives are closely
connected, we cannot take one as permissive and the other as
jussive, is incorrect : we have no difficulty in saying. Now go (I
give you leave), hut do owt stay out above an hour ! ^
In 1 Tim. vL 12 the words dywrt^ou rhv kvXov dyu)va Trjs iri-
o-rco)?, £7nAa/3oi) t^s aitovtou ^coijs (where the asyndeton is not
without force) must be .simply translated, strive, the good strife of
faith, lay hold (in and through the strife) of eternal life : compare
Mk. iv. 39 and Fritzsche in loc. Here the €7rtAa/x/5. -riys ^w^ is not
represented (as it might have been) as the result of the contest,
but as itself the substance of the striving ; and tViAa/A/?. does not
signify attain, receive. In 1 C. xv. 34, cKVT/i/^are ^iKatws koX ftr]
afiaprdviTe, we obviously have a twofold summons ; that expressed
by the aorist is to be carried into effoct at once without delay, the
other (expressed by the present) requires continued effort.
Such constructions as Jo. ii. 19, Xva-are tov vaov tovtov., koX Iv
TpLcriv rjfjLepai<i eyepw avToV Ja. iv. 7, di'TicmyTC to! ^la/JoXw, kol
^eu^'crat 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<p lepei' iii. 5, €KTeivop
TTjv x^tpd xTov vi. 11, €KTLvd^are tov y^ovv Jo. ii. 7, 'ye/nLcraTe
T09 vdpia<i vSccTO'i K.T.X., xi. 44, Xvaare avrov (Ad^apou) koi
d(f}eT€ avrov virdyecv 1 (J. v. 13, i^dpare rov irovqpov i^ vfxcop
ainoiV A. xxiii. 23, €Toi/xd(rare a-TpaTi(i)ra<i ^laKoaiov;, ha-ve
ivimediately . ... in readiness to march. See also Mk. ix. 22,
43., X. 21,xiii. 28,xiv. 15, 44,xv. 30, L. xx. 24, Jo. ii. 8, iv. 35,
vi. 10, xi. 39, xiii. 29, xviii. 11, xxL 6, A. iii. 4, vii. 33, ix. 11,
xvi. 9, xxi. 39, xxii. 13, 1 C. xvi. 1, E. vi. 13, 17, Gol. iii. 5, Tit
iii. 13, Phil. 17, Ja. iii. 13,.iv. 8, 9, 1 P. iv. 1, 2 P. i. 5, 10.
Where the reference is to something which is to be carried out
at once, vvv or vvvCis, sometimes joined to the aorist imperative,
^ Glass. Philol. Sacr. I. 286.
- [Tisch. has now (ed. 8) returned to Krntracrd, following t<.]
^ Hermann, Emend. Rat. p. 219, Vuj. p. 748 : comp. H. Schmidt, Dp Impera-
tivl teiuporifjus in llngwi Graxa (Wittenberg 1833), and especially BaumlBin,
6V. Modi p. 1G9 8qf[. In reference to the latter, see Moller in Schneidewin,
FkUoloo^is VI. 115 st^q. (Don. p. 41.3, Jelf 405. 1).
* Ast, Plat.. PoUt. p. 518, Schaef. Demo-flh. IV. 488.
394 THE IMPEF.ATIVE MOOD. [PART III.
as in A. x. 5, xxiii. 15, 2 C. viii. 11. Also where the injunction
is strengthened Ly B^ the aorist imperative is employed ; see A.
xiii. 2, 1 C. vi. 20, Judith v. 3, vii. 9, Bar. iii. 4 (Xen. Ci/r. 1. 3.
9, Soph. £1. 524, Klotz, Bcvar. p. 395).
h. The present imperative is used in reference to an action
which is already commenced and is to be continued/ or which
is lasting and frequently repeated. Hence it is commonly em-
ployed in the measured and unimpassioned language of laws and
moral precepts: e.g., Rom. xi. 20, fiij u-xjnjXoippovei. (a thing which
thou art now doing), xii. 20, iav ireiva 6 e')(j9p6<i aov, \lr(o/j,i^e
avrov (do this always in such a case), xiii. 3, OeXea firj <f>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,
TOv<i ^e^r]'\.ov<i Koi ypawBei^ fivdov? irapatrov Compare J a. i v.
11, V. 12, 1 Tim.iv. 11, 13, v. 7, 19, vi. II, 2 Tim. ii. 1,8, 14,
Tit. i. 13, iii. 1, 1 C. ix. 24, x. 14, 25, xvi. 13, Ph. ii. 12, iv. 3, 9,
E.ii. ll,iv. 25,26, 28,VL4,Jo.i. 44,xxi. 16, Mk. viii. 15, ix. 7,
39, xiii. 11, xiv. 38. Hence the present imperative is in ordinary
conversation a milder and less confident form, and frequently
expresses no more than advice (Moller I. c. p. 123 sq.).
The present and aorist imperative are sometimes found in com-
bination, each preserving its own meaning: e.g., Jo. ii. 1 6, npare
ravra ivTevOev, fjurj Troieire rov oIkov tov Trarpo^ fxov olkov e/XTTO-
piov 1 C. XV. 34, 6/ci'r;'\^aT€ 3tAcatft)9 /cat /xr^ ayu-apTa/^ere" A. xii.
8, 7repij3a\ov to IfiaTiovcrov Kal uKoXovdei fior Rom.vi. 13,
fiTjBe TTapiardvere rd fxeXrj v/xcov oifKa dBiKia'i rfj dfiapTia,
dWa '7rapa(TT)](TaT€ eavTov^ tm 6ea) ax? eV veKptov ^wvTa<i'
Mk. ii. 9, Jo. V. 8, 11, ii. 8. Compare Vlat. AV^.'9. 572 d. Oh
TOLVvv irdXiv ... veov vlov tv toi? iovtov av ijOeac reOpajJifxe-
vov TiOrjfxc. TiOcL roivvv Kai rd avrd eKeiva. irepl avrov
'^vyuofieva (Matth. 501); Xen. Cyr. 4. 5. 41, Demosth. Aphoh. 2,
p. 557 c, 588 a, Eurip. Ilip'pol. 475 sq., Herad. 635.
4. Here and there this distinction may seem to be disregarded
(i P. ii. 17^), and in particular the aorist imperative may
seem to be used where in strictness the present was required
' Poppo, Time. III. ii. 742.
*' [" (live honour to all men, — to each man according as the case which
requires it arises; q, d., in every case render promptly everv man's due:"
Alt'ord in loc. J
SECT. XL7II.] THE IMPERATIVE MOOD. 396
(Bernh. p. 393, Jelf 405). We must remember, however, that
in many cases it depends entirely on the writer's prefWetice
whether or not he shall represent the action as falling in a single
point of time and momentary, — whether simply as commencing,
or also as continuing. Nor must we overlook the fact that, in
general, the aorist imperative is considered more forcible and
urgent than the present (see no. 3), and that the strengthening
of expressions is to a great extent of a subje(;tive natun^^ The
following passages must be estimated according to these prin-
ciples: /.leLvare iv efxoi Jo. xv. 4, al. (compare jxevere L. ix. 4,
1 Jo. ii 28, fieve 2 Tim. iii. 14, fieverco 1 C. vii. 24, al.) ; 1 Jo.
v. 21, ^vXd^are kavTov<; anrb tmv €tBco\o)v (similarly in 1 Tim.
vi. 20, 2 Tim. i 1 4,— contrast 2 P. iil 17, 2 Tim. iv. 15); H. iii.
1, Kajavoyjcrare rov airoaToXov xal ap-^iepea tj}? ofioXoytete; rjfiMV'
Mk. xvi. 15, rropevdevTe^; elf rov Koafinv airavTa Krjpv^aTe to
euayyeXiov Jo. xiv^ 15, tos" evToXaf ret? efta<? r'r}pi]aare' Ja. v. 7,
fiaKpo0vfx7]n-aT€ €Yy9 t^9 irapovaiaf; rov Kvpcov. Compare Mt.
xxviii. 19, 2 Tim. i. 8, ii. 3, iv. 2, 1 P. i. 13, ii. 2, v. 2. Tn all
these instances it will be found that the aorist imperative is quite
in place. In Ptom. xv. 11 (from the LXX) and Jo. vii. 24 we
even find the present and aorist imperative of the same verb thus
combined.^ In several places the reading is uncertain (A. xvi.
15. Rom. xvi. 17), as indeed in the MSS. of Greek authors these
two forms are often interchanged (Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 09,
2 2 2), especially where they differ by a single letter only. Lastly,
there are cases in which one of the two imperatives has gone ouf
of use (thus wo always find Xd^e, never Xd/jL^ave), or else ont
of the two forms predominates, as in the X. T. ^epe as compared
with eveyKe. Sec Buumlein, Modi p. 172.
On the (present) imperative after /xtj see § 56. 1.
The perfect imperative is used when an action, completed in itself,
is to endure in its effects ; e.g., Mk. iv. 39, in Christ's address to the
^ Compare Schoem. Isa'ii.,-t p. 23.5. In opposition to Schief. Demosth. III. 185,
S.''hoeinann remarks : tenuissimum discriinen esse appuifct, ut swpeuuiuero pro
lubitu aut affectu loquentis variari oiatio possit. Nam quid mirum, qui modo
lenius jusRerat • <rKOTsrT£ (Demosth. Lept. 483), eiindcm statim cum majore
quadam vi et quasi intentius flagitantem addere : Xcynraaet. Et pleniinque,
si non semiier, apud pedestres quidem .scriptores, in tali diversomm tenipoium
coniunctioAe, praes. imperativus antecedit, .sequitui- aoristus. [The last remark
is not always applicable to the N. T. (Ellicott on 1 Tim. \± 12).]
* [This is the case in Rom. vi. Ki, quoted above. The reading in Jo. vii. 24
(and also in Jo. xiv. 15, quoted above) is uncertain.]
396 THE IMPERATIVE MOOD. [PAKT III, •
troubled sea, TT€<fyifX(a(ro, be (and remain) stilled. Compare also ep-
pwa-o, (.ppuio-Oc, A. xxiii. 30 [i?t?c.], xv. 29. See Herm. Emsnd. Rat.
p. 218, Matth. 500, Bauml. p. 174 (Jelf 420. 2). Compare Xen.
Mem. 4. 2. 19, Thuc. .1.71, Plat. Euthyd. 278 d, Rep. 8. 553 a.
5. There are other modes of expression which sometimes fill
the place of the imperative : — -
a. The originally elliptical phrase, {T command) that — or (see)
that — you linger not 1 expressed in Greek by oVco? with the
future indicative (see Madvig 123, Don. p. 602, Jelf 812. 2), as
OTTCD? irre^ec tcS jjuiapw Deni. Mid. 414 c, Eurip. Cycl. 595,
Aristoph. Niih. 823, — more rarely with the conjunctive (Xen.
Cyr. 1. 3. 18, Lucian, Dial. D. 20. 2). In the N. T. the
(weakened — see § 44. 8) "va vnih the conjunctive is thus used in
Mk. V. 23, wo. i\6(ov e7n6jj<i Ta<; xeipa<i avrfj- 2 C. viii. 7 (but
not 1 C. V. 2, 1 Tim. i. 3) ; and in the 3rd person, E. v. 33, rj
>yvvr) 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<i\ Xen. Cyr. 2. 3. 22.
Compare A. xiii. 1 0, ov iravcnj hiaarpk^wv ra's 6Bov*i Kvpiov ;
4 Mace. V. 1 0, OVK i^vrrvcoaecf; ; This construction however is
for the most part harsher than the imperative. (Don. p. 550,
Jelf 413. 2.)
c. The future, in c9.tegorical sentences (especially in the
negative form ^), thou wilt 7iot touch it ! Mt. vi. 5, ovk eaij to?
at vTTOKpiTai v. 48 (Lev. xi. 44). In Greek this mode of ex-
^ [If this is an example of this construction, it is a solitary example of
classical Greek. The Schol. takes 'ita. fir, as imperatival : so also Hartung,
Part. II. 140. On the other hand Schneidevin, Eeisig, Ellendt [Lex. Soph. s. v.
Vva), Wunder, al., give the usual meaning lest, connecting the clause with one
of the following verbs (ifv^.a^ai, fiHTaa-Taff') : the best lexicons and grammars
exclude the imperatival '/»« /u-ri from classical Greek.]
* [As in Hebrew a prohibition is always expressed by the future : KaKsch,
Ileb. Gr. I. 284, Geseu. I/eh. Gr. p. 208 (Bagst.).]
SECT. XLIII.J THE IMPERATIVE MOOD. 397
pressionwas considered milder than the imperative.^ In Hebrew,
however, it has established itself in the decisive language of
lejfislation,- and hence v/e find it in the 0. T. citations, Mt. v.
21, 27, 33, ov <f)ov€va€i(;, ou yu.ot;^ei;cret9" L. iv. 12, A. xxiii. 5,
Kom. vii. 7, xiii. 9, 1 C, ix. 9 (H. xii. 20 from the LXX). In the
fourth commandment only, TCfia top Traripa k.t^}^ is the im-
perative used, Mt. XV. 4, xix. 19, E. \l 2, al., as in the LXX.
In Rom. vi. 14, however, the future exj)resses simple expectation.
This form of expression may in itself be either harsh or mild,
according to the tone in which the words are uttered.
d. The infinitive, as in German fortgrhen ! Not to speak of
the ancient and epic language, this construction is found in the
Greek prose writers, not merely where a command is given
in excitement or with imperious brevity,^ but also in requests,
wishes, and prayers.^ Compare the ancient form of greeting,
^(aipeLV, A. XV. 23, Ja. i. 1. In the N. T. this construction has
often been extended beyond its true limits ;^ thus 1 Th. iii. 11,
2 Th. ii. 1 7, iii. 5, have been most erroneously quoted as examples,
for, as the accentuation shows, the vorbs are in the optative
mood. In other instances a chauge of structure in sentences
of some length has been overlooked. In L. ix. 3, for example,
we find /i77T6 pd^Bov . . . e^^^eii/, as if fMrjSh alpetv had preceded :
dTTev 7rp6<} avrov<i might be followed by either construction,
and the writer certainly used ex^iv as an infinitive dependent
on elirev. In the parallel passage, Mk. vi. 8 sq., there is again
a change of construction, of a different kind. Compare Arrian,
Al. 4. 20. 5, (TV vvv (fivXa^ov rrjv ap-^iW' ^l he . . . ai) hi . . .
TtapaBovvai. Similarly in Rom. xii. 15, see § 63.^ In other
' Matth. 498 d, Bernh. p. 378, Sintenis, Plut. Themist. 175 sqq., Stall b. Flat.
Bep. II. 295, Weber, Demosth. p. 369 sq. (Don. p. 407, Jelf 413. 1). As to the
Latin see Ramshorn p. 421.
2 Ewald, Krit. Gr. p. 531.
3 Herm. Soph. CEd. R. 1057, Schivf. Demosth. III. 530, Poppo, Thuc I. f. 146,
Bernh. p. 358 (Don. p. 552, Jelf 671 a). Thus in laws and rules of. life, in
Heaiod, 0pp. et dd., Theognis, Hippocrates, Marcus Antoninus. See Gayki,
Partic. Neg. p. 80 sq.
* Bremi, Demosth. p. 230, Stallb. Plat- Rep. I. 388, Fritz. Rom. III. 86,
Madv. 141. Rem. 2. (Don. i. c, Jelf 671 b.)
^ Georgi, Hierocr. I. i. 28.
^ [This passage is not directly noticed in § 63, bat in an earlier edition of this
■work (ed. 5, p. 383) Winer explained the infinitives x''''?"^7 *>■«'£>», 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 <jiuts, aXX' ii/a {Lo,pTvpri<Tr), rendering this hd he was to hear
witness (ix. 3, xiii. 18). But the words cannot have this meaning
unless Iva signifies in order that, and then sax ellipsis — at all events
one of a general kmd, such as ycyoue toCto^— hes at the root of
the phrase ; though John himself, through his familiarity with the
idiom, has nothing more tlian ' hvt in order that ' actually present
to his mind in the several passages : compare Fritzsche, Mdit.
p. 840 sq. The commentator, on the other hand, can In every
instance easily supply some special word from the context, and this
he must do if he would fulfil his duty. Thus in Jo. i. 8, he himself
was not the light of the world, but he appeared (ffXdev, ver. 7) tJtnt ke
might bear witness. In ix. 3, neither has this man sinned nor his parents,
but he was born blind thai .... might become manifest (compare 1 Jo.
il 19). In Jo. xiii. 18 there is probably au aposiopesis, easily
explained psychologically, / speak not of yov, all, 1 know those whom, I
have chosen, hut (I have made this choice) in m-der that .... may be
fulfilled etc. (see Baumg.-Crus. in luc.) ; unless we prefer to suppose
that Jesus, instead of expressing the mournful truth in his own
words, continues in the words of the Psalmist (compare 1 C. ii. 9).
In Jo. XV. 25 the words iiucrrjcrdv fi€ Sojpeav in the quotation show that
fji(fjLL(T^Ka(Ti.v is to be repeated before iva. In Mk. xiv. 49 it is the
coming out of the Jews against Jesus in the manner described in
ver. 48, that is declared to have been predicted.^ Lastly, in Rev.
other instances, e.g., Rom. xii. 15, pass into declarations of duty and of what
ought to he done." A. Buttmann (p. 271) doubts whether there is any real
exAinple of this (mainly poetical) usage in the N. T. He would supply somo
such word as xiya (the ellipsis of which before the formula x^'P"* Js shown by
the dative which precedes, Ja. i. 1, al.) in L. ix. 3, Horn. xii. 15, Ph. iii. 16. —
The pure imperatival infinitive stands for the second person only (Jelf 671 a,
EJIic. I. c.).]
1 In Rosenm. Repert. II. 145.
* It is not suflBcient to say (as De Wette does) that there is nothing to be
supplied : it is necessary in any case to show how and by what mea!\3 'Iva, come.s
to have this meaning.
•' [That is, "v* depends on ij Wi Xrnrrhy i^nX^art : this would be clearer
if (with Fritz., Tisch., Alf.) we removed the note of interrogation at the end of
ver. 48.]
SECT. XLIV.] THE INFINITIVE. 399
xiv. 13 we may supply before Iva avoir. k.t.A. the verb aTroOvija-Kova-iy
from the preceding airoOvyja-Kovn'i.^
Rem. Here and there in the N. T. text it is doiiijtful whether a
verbal form should be taken as imperative or as (the 2ud pers. of
the) indicative : e.g., H. xii. 17, to-re, on koX /xcTcVeiTa diXotv kXij
povofJL^crai ttjV evXoytav dTreSoKL/xdcrOrj' 1 C VI. 4, /Sudtlkol /xkv ovv
KjiiTrjpia lav ^XV^^t t*^^'^ k^ov6evr]jxevov<s ivrfj iKKXrjcria., toutovs KaOi^tTc
i. 2G, xi. 26, Rom. xiii. 6, E. ii. 22, Ph. ii. 15, 22, Jo. xiv. 1, 1 P.
i. 6, ii. 5.- In all such cases the question must be 'decided by the
context, and the mattef belongs to the province of liermeneutics, not
of grammar.
Section XLIV.
THE INFINITIVE.'*
1. The infinitive., iuasniucli as it expresses the notion of the
verb absolutely, that is. without reference to any subject, is of
all the verbal forms least capable of taking a place in the
grammatical sentence as a part of speech. It appears in this
character : —
(a) When it is used to express a brief, hurried commaiid
(§ 43. 5. d) ;
(h) AVhen it is introduced adverbially into a sentence ;
(c) When it is attached (annexed) to a sentence absolutely.
The only example of (h) is the phrase tw? euo? elirelv, H.
viL 9 (Kriig. p. 204). With (c) we might compare (Krlig.
p. 205, Jelf 679) Ph. iv. 10, aveddXere to vvep ifiov ^poveii/,
in respect of ... . heing disposed., t\io\\^\ here another explana-
tion is possible.*
Relating to this, {c), or essentially one with it, is the infinitive
which is added to a sentence as a complement {infinitivus tpexe-
geticus), usually to express design (Rost p. 697, Don. p. 598,
Jelf 669) : Mt. ii. 2, -ijXdofiev Trpo^Kwrjaai avrw {in order) to
worship him. So after epxcfiai, Mt. xi. 7, xx, 28, H, ix. 24,
^ [Others regard '/va as depending oil /tecxxfim (Diisterdieck, Alford, A.
Buttmanu). ]
* [Liinemann adds H. xiii. 23. The list might of course be greatly enlarged :
e.g., see Mt. xxiv. 33, xxvii. 65, Jo. v. 39, viii. 38, xv. 18, K v. 5, U. vii. 4,
Ja. ii. 1, 1 Jo. ii. 27.]
3 K. E. A. Schmidt, Ueber den Infinitiv (Prenzlau, 1823), M. Schmidt, Ueber
Jnfinit. (Ratisbon, 1826), Eichhoff, Ueber den Infin. (Crefeld, 1833). Comp.
Mehlhorn in the Allgem. Lit. Z. 1833 : ErgzbL No. 110.
* [Below (3. c) Winer takes to tpfomh as an object-infinitive, perhaps regard-
ing ivieiXin as a transitive verb (De W., Lightfoot, al.), — though as taken
above the infinitive is a kind of object (see ElUcott in loc.). Meyer and Alford
take TO vTtp tfiov as the object of (PfntTt, this infinitive being dependent on
CM^«AtT£.]
400 THE INFINITIVE. [PART III.
Kev. xxii. 12, Jo, iv. 15, L. i. 17; after TrefiTra or (tTroareWto,
Mk. iii. 14, 1 C. i. 17, xvi. 3 ; and after other verbs, A. v. 31,
Horn. X, 7, 1 C. X. 7. See also 2 C. xi. 2, '^pfioadfj.rjv vfia<i evl
dvBpl TrapOevov djvrjv Trapacrrrjcrat rw Xpiarw' Col. i. 22,2 C. ix.
5, x. 13, 16, Jo. xiii. 24 [i?tr.], vevei tovtw irvdeaOai (compare
Diod. S. 20. 69), Rev. xvi. 9, ov fierevoijaav hovvai avrcp Zo^av
2 P. iii. 2 (1 S. xvi. 1), Ph. iv. 12. Elsewhere it expresses the
consequence (as in the ancient language design and consequence
Avere not yet severed ') : Col. iv. Q), 6 X070? vfiGtv .... aXart,
7]pTvp,evo<i . . . elBevac ttco? k.t.X., seasoned with salt, to know (so
that you may know), H. v. 5 ; ^ — or the mode of performance, A.
XV. 10, Tt TteipaKere top deov iTrcOelvat ^vyov eVl rbv Tpd')(rfKov
Twy fiadtjrSyv, im.'ponendo jugwni, H. v. 5 (1 P. iv. 3). Lastly, in
E. iii. 6 the infinitival clause expresses the content of the fivari]-
ptov (ver. 4) ; compare also E. iv. 22. In Greek authors this
lax use of the infinitive is carried much farther.^ The infinitive
of design, in particular, is frequently used, see. Soph. CEd. G.
12, Thuc. 1. 50, 4. 8, Her. 7. 208, Pint. Cim. 5,' Arrian, Al. 1.
16. 10, 4. 16. 4 (Matth. 532, Krlig. p. 213) ; though after verbs
of going, sending, the participle is even more common in Greek
writers (compare A. viii. 27, xxiv. 11).
Such relations are sometimes indicated with greater clearness by
prefixing wsre to the infinitive ; e.g., L. ix. 52,* Mt. xxvii. 1. With
the latter passage, Fritzsche's explanation of which is very forced,^
compare Strab. 6. 324, Schsef. on Los, Ellips. p. 784, and on Soph.
(Ed. Col. p. 525, Matth. 531. Rem. 2. In the Byzantine writers
the use of wstc with the infinitive instead of the simple infinitive is
peculiarly common ; see e.g. Malal. p. 385, IfiovXivcraro mstc cKySAiy-
&qvaL Trjv TTtvOipav p. 434.*^ We find a parallel to L. ix. 52 iu
Euseb. H. E. 3. 28. 3, ctscX^elv ttotc Iv jSaXavtito wsre Xovaaadai.
And it would be better even to admit that the N. T. ' contains ex-
1 Biiuinlein, Modi p. 339. [On this infinitive see Don. p. 595, Jelf 669.]
^ [This passage is quoted again in the next sentence : in ed, 5 it is associated
(as here) with Col. iv. 6, and so it is usually explained.]
3 Schief. Soph. II. 324, Jacob, Luc. Tax.' 116, Held, Plut. ^Em. P, 185 sq.
* [In L. ix. 52 the leading of X and B is u% 'iToifjidaai : on this construction
see below.]
■''["In talibus locis aut verbum de conatu explicandum {ita, ut supplkio
officere eum connrentur), aut, quod hie pia^tulerim, rei conditio meute adjicienda
est: consilium inierunt .... ita, ut eum interficerent, nempe, si possent:"
Fritzsche iii he. Meyer : "in their intention the result of their consultation
Would be that they ivould put him to death." See also Jelf 863. 2 b ("the
result or effect" sometunes "includes the notion of an aim or purpose"),
Madvig 166 b, Don. p. 597. Other passages of the saine kind' are L. iv. 29,
XX. 20.]
® Compare also Heinichen, Ind. ad Eusel, III. 545.
SECT, XLIV.] THE INFINITIVE. 401
ampie.^ of the extended application of wstc which is thus exhibited
in later Greek, than to resort to forced interpretations.
We find on!}' one example oi ws with the infinitive, viz. A. xx. 24,
ovS^vh<: koycv iroioviJ.ai, ovBk e;(0) rrjv ifmxijv /xov TLfiiav e/taurw, <Ls tcAci-
wirux Tov '6fj6jjLov ^.uv aera x'^P«5, in order to Complete my comse, etc.
See Borneni. Sctbol p. 174 sq.^
Other forms of the epexegetical infinitive attach themselves
more easily to a. sentence or u. member of a sentence, and assume
the form of o word under grammatical government, for which
indeed they were in gom*:; cases taken by the older gramma-
rians : • —
(a) Mk. vii. 4, ir6>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,<yat (Weber, Z>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 <yoi kaiiv €c<ie\deiv ei? ttjv ^corjv '^coXov r) jcvXXop), or, by an
attraction very common in Greek writers, in the case of the sub-
ject. For the latter construction, see 2 P. ii. 21, Kpelrrov r]v
avrol'i, fir] eire'yvaicevai rrjv oSov Trj<; hiKaLoavvr}'^ rj eTrc^/vovcriv
eTTicTTpeylrai' A. xv. 25 v. I.;'' and compare Thuc. 2. 87, Demostli.
Fnnehr. 153 a, 156 a, Xen. ffier. 10. 2 (Bernh, p. 359, Krug.
p. 206, Jelf 672).^ In H. ii. 10 the two constructions are
combined, eTrpe-wev avrS . . . ayayoifra . , . reXeLcocraf'^ com-
pare Mk. ix. 27,^ Mt. xviii. 8 (Plut. Coriol. 14).
Remark further : —
a. The infinitive, v/hen used as subject, sometimes takes the article,
— namely where it expresses directly the notion of the verb in a
substantival form. This is the case not merely in such sentences as
Rom. vii. 1 8, to OeXeiv TrapaKCirai fioi, to 8k KaTepyd^earOai to koXov ov'
2 C, vii. 11, avTo TOVTQ TO Kara Otov XvTrrjOyfvai. ttoctt^v KaretpyacraTO vfuv
1 Compare Matthise, Eur. Med. p. 526, Schwarz, Z>€ 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<yrg. 475 b, Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 1, Diod. S. 1. 9.3.
h. In the place of the infinitive, principally where its subject is^
be specially indicated, we sometimes? find a complete sentence formed
with lav, €1. or iVa, according to the sen.se : Mk. xiv. 21, koXov
1/v avTio, d ovK ryevvrjOrj' 1 0. vii. 8, KaXov uvTol'i io-Tcv, iav fj.eCv(a(TLv <Ls
Kayco" Jo. xvi. 7, <Tvix(f>€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<iei>^€a-6ai tou? ayBpa<i' 2 C. xiii. 7, H. vi. 11, itnHv^ovfiei
CKacFTOv vfiSiv Trjv avTTjv evheiKwaOat a7rovBr)v K.tJ^., 2 P, i. 15,
1 C. vii. 10, A. xiv. 19, vofjblaavre^ avrov redvdvai 2 C. xi. 16,
/x.?7 Tt? fj,e 86^7) d(ppova elvaf ^ Eom. xv. 5, o 6e.o<i S<p7) l/xti/ ro
avTo <Ppovelv 2 Tim. i. 1 8. More commonly however we find a
complete sentence with iva after verbs of intreating, commnndinff^
etc. (see no. 8), and a sentence with on after verbs of saying,
believing (Mt. xx. 10, A. xix. 26, xxL 29, Rom. iv. 9, viii. 18, G,
v. 10). ^EXiri^o) always has this construction in the N. T.^
If on the other hand the subject of the infinitive is the same
as that of the finite verb, any attributives which it may have are
put in the nominative : Kom. xv. 24, IXiri^w Biairopevofievo';
0cdcracr6ai vpa';' 2 Cx. 2, Bioput to pr} Trapoiv 6apprj(Tai (Philostr.
Aijoll. 2. 23), Rom. i. 22, Ph. iv. 11, 2 P. iii. 14, Jude 3 (L. i.
9 T)? Tliis is a kind of attraction ; compare Kriiger, Gramm.
Untcrsu<;h. III. 328 sqq. (Jelf 672). The subject itself is not
repeated: see Ja. ii. 14, 1 C. vii. 36. Even in this constru'
tion, however, we sometimes (though rarely) find the accusativ.
(with infinitive): in this case the subject is always repeated in
the form of a pronoun.* See Eom. ii. 19, TreTrot^a? aeavTov
6Brj<yov elvai rvtpX&p' Ph. iii. 13, fc7&) epavrov ov Xoyl^opai kotzl
\r)(f)evac' L. xx. 20, viroKpivopevovi, kavrom BiKaiov; elvaf A.
xxvi. 2, Eev. ii. 2, 9 ;^ probably also E. iv. 22, where I regard
dvoOkcrdat vpd<i as dependent on eBthd')(6r]T€. Compare Her. 2.
^ If the substantive to wliicli the infinitive refers is governed by the principal
verb in the dative, the noun annexed to the infinitive may also be put in this
case, a^ in A. xxvii. 3 . . . . tsu HxvXai xpi<'''''f*^^°s iTtrpi^^tv ^pos rovs ^ixovs
ToptviivTi i'ri//.iXiias Tt/x^'", Unless the dative here is a correction; see
Bornem. in loc. On the otlier hand, m L. i. 74 sq. we have t«w ?««»«< tifiTti
a-ip'ofius IK x^ifoi l^^fuv puffSivT cti Xotrfiitiv aurtf x.t.x, f 66 the last para-
graph.]
* [This is likely to mislead. '"EW-jriXu is frequently followed by the infinitive
in the N. T., but not by the accusative and infinitive, though the example
quoted in the next spntence, Rom. xv. 24, is the same in principle : iXfr/^w 'in
(L. xxiv. 21, al.) is a late construction.]
^ In 1 Tim. i. 3 also, -roftuo/jt.ivo; belongs to vccptxaXiira : standing so near
vpesfitTvai, it would necessarily be in the accusative if it belonged to this infini-
tive. [On L. i. 9 see § 45. 6.]
♦ Herm. Vig. p. 743 (Jelf 673. 1).
^ [A. Buttmann (p. 274) adds L. xxiii. 2, A. v. 36, viii. 9 (xxv. 4), Eev. iij, 9,
A. xxv. 21, 2 C. vii. 11. — A. xxvi. 2 neednot come in here.]
SECT XLIV.J THE INFINITIVE. 405
2, Xen. Cyr. 5. 1. 21, vo\ii^oiiiL fyap e/jcavrov ioiKevac k.t.X., 1. 4.
4 (where see Poppo), An. 7. 1. 30, Mem. 2. 6. 35, Diod. S. 1. 50,
Exc. Vat. p. 57, Philostr. Apoll. 1. 12 : see Kriiger /.c. p. 390.
In the passages first quoted it is probable that this construction
was chosen for the sake of antithesis (see Plat. Sym'p, c. 3 and
Stallb. m loc, compare Kriig. I.e. p. 386 sq.) or of clearness : /
do not suppose that I myself have already etc. For the same
reason, as it seems to me, was vfia<; joined to the infinitive in
E. iv. 22, as in ver, 21 another subject, Jesus, had intervened.
Later writers however use this construction where there is no
antithesis.^
h. After verbs of saying (maintoAning), thinkr/ig the infinitive
sometimes expresses — not what according to the speaker's asser-
tion is, but — what ought to he, inasmuch as these verbs contain
rather the notion of advising, requiring, or commandingv^ See A.
xxi 21, Xejcov, fir) 'rreptTefJbveiv avrov<i ra rexva, he said they ought
not to (must not) circumcise their children, — he commanded them
not to circumcise, etc. ; xv. 24 (?),'' Tit. ii. 2, A. xxi. 4, tw
Uavkw eXeyov fir) ava^aiveLV eh 'lepocroXvfia, they said to Paul
he shauld not go up, they advised him not to go up. Compare
Eurip. Troad. 724. In all these instances, if the sentence were
resolved into the direct construction, we should have the impera-
tive, iJUTj Trepirenvere ra reKva vu6>u. 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<riat fit U ixtTTaffi, ; where the inhnitive might have been
directly annexed to iyinTi ftoi vTee-Tpi4'a*ri (accidit mihi), and perhaps would
have been so annexed if the writer had not bcen-lf.d avvav from the construction
with which he had begun by the intervening genitive absolute, xa> •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.vov<Tav Diod. S. 1. 50, 3. 22, 39, Plat. LeiJd. 1.
635 a, Demosth. Polycl 709 c, Dion. H. IV. 2089, and frequeutly,
especially in Polybius : this also occurs in 2 Mace. iii. 2, and once in
the N. T., A. xxi. 35. We find an approach towards the construction
in question (tyeVcro with infinitive) in Theogn. 6.'j9, ttoXXukl ....
ytyvcrai ivpelv ^py avSpwv, — with which Mt. xviii. 13 is most nearly
allied. It appears in full p] in Plat. I'hcedr. 242 b, to Satfj-oiiov re
Koi TO elo}$6s a-rjfjLelov fxoL yiyvecrOai. lyivtro ; and is particularly coiumou
in the later writers, e. g., Codin. p. 138, iyevero toi' f3acnXta aOvficlv
Epiphan. Monach. (ed. Dressel) p. 16, iyivero avTov<; ava/S/jvat eh
'lepovo-aXy'ifx.. (Jelf 669. 1.)
The use of the accusative with the infinitive in other cases is, as
has already been remarked, proportionally rare in the N. T. Wo
more commonly find a sentence with Sti in its place, exactly after
the manner of the later (popular) language, which resol ^es the more
condensed constructions, and loves the circinnstantial and exiilicit.
Hence in Latin, for example, the use of id where the older language
used the accusative with infinitive ; hence in particular the use of
quod after verba dicendi ef sentiendi, which became more and more
fiequent in the age of declining Latinity, especially i)i the non-Italian
provinces.^ There is another point which must not be overlookeil
— ^that the N. T. writers prefer after verba dicendi to let the words
spoken follow in the direct form, in accordance with the vividness
of oriental phraseology.
4, The infinitive, when by- means of the article it has re-
ceived a decidedly substantival character, is also employed in
the oblique cases. In the N. T., the case most commonly met
with is the genitive, which occurs here far more frequently
than in Greek authors,
a. Sometimes this genitive is dependent on nouns and
verbs that regularly govern this case : 1 C. ix. 6, ouk ey^ojjiev
^^ovaiav Tov fit) ipyd^eaOai ;^ 1 P. iv. 17, o icaipo<i rov ap^a-
trBai TO Kpifia k.t.X., A. xiv. 9, Trtcrriv e^et toG cr(oOT]vac' xx. .3,
eyti'€To yvcopbT) rov vTroarpetpeiv L. xxiv. 25, ^pa8el<i rfj icapoia
TOV TTiareveiv A. xxiii. 15, eToip-ot rov dveXeiv (Ez. xxi. 11,
' III German, the more condensed construction " er sagte, ich sei zu .si>iit
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<?Te e^oTTopriOrjvaL Tj^id^ koI tov ^rjv' 1 C. xvi. 4, eav y
a^Lov roil Kufjik iropeveadat, if it is worthy of (worth) the journey-
ing etc. Compare also 1 C. x. 13, 2 C, viii. 11, L. xxii. 6, Ph.
iii. 21, Koin. vii. 3,^ xv. 23, H v. 12, Rev. ix. 10 ^ (Gen. xix.
20, Ruth ii. 10, Neh. x. 29, Judith ix. 14, al). Sometimes the
MSS. vary between the infinitive with and without tov, e. g., in
Rev. xiv. 1 5 : elsewhere we find the two forms in parallel sen-
tences (H. V. 12,1 Th. iv. 9). For examples from Greek authors
see Georgi, Vind, p. 325 sq., Matth. 540 (Jelf 678. 3). \n these
it is common to find several words inserted between the article
and the infinitive, see Demosth. Funehr, 153 a, 154 c, Aristocr,
431 a : this is not the case in the simple language of the N. T
Under this head come also L. i. 57, i-rrXtjcrdT} 6 )(p6vo<; rov tckcik
airr]v and ii. 21 (compare. Gen. xxv. 24, xlvii. 29), the genitive
being, in the mind of the Greek writer, immediately dependent on
Xp6fo<;. In the Hebrew the case is somewhat different, the infinitive
with 7 being used : see. Ewaid p. 621.
h. Elsewhere the genitive of the infinitive stands in relation to
whole sentences as an expression of design^ Here earlier scholars
supplied iveKa (compare Dem. Fan, 156 b) or xdpiv. See
L. xxiv. 29, ehrjXOev rov /xelvat, <rvv avroh' Mt. xxiv. 45, oj>
KaTka-rrjcxev o Kvptoq eVt t*;? OiKereCa'^ avrov rov hovvat avro?,<;
rr)v rpo<f>7]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 <T€,fnrj /xe
vTTohd^Tjs ov 7rpb<i ro irpay/Mi (f)c\oveLKOvPTa Xiyecv, tov Kara-
<f>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<i . . . eis ajccnOapa-iau tov
a.TLfx.aZ,(.<Tdat. ra awfj-ara avruJv cv iavTol's, the infinitive depends imme-
diately on the noun aKaOapa-., and there is nothing strange in the
omission of rijv before this noun (Rom. xv. 23, 1 C ix. 6) : the
j^enitive points out in what tlie aKaBapa-ia consisted, commisit impuri-
tati, qiue cernehaiur in, etc. Fritzsche is more circumstantial : ^' vir-
gula post oLKadapcr. collocata ante tov mente repete aKoBapa-Lav."
What need there can be for this I cannot see, since aKaOapa-iav and
aTi.p.dt,c(r6aL stand close together, and the genitive can so well be
understood as indicating the sphere of the aKaOapala. Similarly in
Rom. viii 12 the infinitive tov Kara o-ap/ca ^rjv must be considered de-
pendent on 6<f>£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>y<ye\oi<i avrov ipreXelrai, nrepl
<Tov TOV Bta(f)v\d^af A. xxvii. 1 (where tov diroTfkelv cannot be
connected with the following TrapeSlBow without forcing the
words) ; compare Ruth ii. 9, 1 K. i, 35, 1 Mace, i, 62, iii. 31, v.
2,ix. 69, Malal. Chron. 18. 458, Ducas pp. 201, 217, 339, al.,
Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 707, Vit. E-piph. p. 346 : — but also
h, for epexegesis, where the simple infinitive with or v^itliout
W9T€ might have been used, and where the meaning of the geni-
tive has been lost in the mixture of consequence and purpose.
This is very common in the LXX, ? with the infinitive denoting
l)Oth design and consequence : — as to 6t<? to with the infinitive
see below. In the N. T. compare A. vii. 19, ovro<i KaTaao(f)t(Td-
fi€vo<i . . . efcd/ccoae rov<; iraripa^ rjfion' tov ttoi^lv c/cOeTa to
fipi(f)r} K.T.\., so that they exposed (compare Thuc. 2. 42, and Poppo
in lor.), and — a still harsher instance- -A. iii. 12^ d>q 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 <re iv dyaOoW 1 Macc. vi. 59,
(TTyja-ojfxev avroh rov Tropevecrdai rot? vofiif-ioi;' Joel ii. 21, ifi€-
yaXvve Kvpio<; rov Troirjaai.
How diversified the use of the infinitive with rov is in the LXX
will appear from the following examples, — whicli might be easily
classified, and in which a genitival relation may be more or lesa
clearly perceived : Gen. xxxi. 20, xxxiv. 17, xxxvii. 18, xxxix. 10^
Ex. ii. 18, vii. 14, viii. 29, ix. 17, xiv. 5, Jos. xxiii. 13, Jud. ii. 17,
21, 22, viii. ], ix. 21, 37, xii. G, xvi. 6, xviii. 9, xxi. 3, 7, 1 S. vii. 8,
xii. 23, xiv. 34, xv. 26, 1 K. ii. :). iii. 11, xii. 24, xv. 21, xvi. 7, 31,
Ps, xxxix. 14, Jon. i. 4, iii. 4, Mul. ii. 10, 3 (1) Esdr. i. 33, iv. 41,
v. 67, Judith ii. 13, v. 4, vii. 13, Ruth i. 12, 16, 18, iii. 3, iv. 4, 7,
15.* See also Thilo, Acf. Tliom. p. 20, Tischend. in the VerliaacUlbuj.
p. 141 : compare Ada Ap(cr. pp. C8, 85, 124, 127, al. This infinitive
is by no means rare in the Byzantine writers : e. g., see Malal, 18.
452, 18. 491, and compare the index toDucas p. 639, where we find
even elf^ovXerut rov tlva, (piXos (^p. 320, compare p. 189), Svvarai tou
avTaTTOKfjiOrjuai (p. 203).
We must recognise in this usage an exaggeration of declining
(Hellenistic) (Jreek, unless we prefer to resort to unnatural intcrp7«>-
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 <?a.urr,v : here
Schsefer, liav ijig before his mind only that Uf^e of Toi with the inlinitive wliich
is referred to above, no. 4. i, would reject the nroZ.
'^ The Greeks themselves miji^ht conceive this infiniti^■e as a penilive, even
when it follows such verbs as ^iiya.fj.a., SiXu, etc., inasmuch as the action ex-
pressed by the infinitive is always dependent on the principal verb, as a part on
the whole.
* Eirdeit. in die OJenlar. Joh. (2 ed.), p. 454 sq.
412 THE INFINITIVE. [PART III
regard 6 Mix- Kal ol ayy. avrov as a parentbesis(awkwardly introduced,
it is true), which made it necessary for the writer to take up again
the iyevero 7roAe/i.os by means of Tou -nroXefjbYJa-ai. Fritzsche's expla-
nation 1 (Matt. p. 844) I consider artificial. Still less possible
would it be to regard -rov iroK^^rja-ai as an imitation of the (later)
Hebrew idiom or'^n':?, pugnandicm iis erat,^ as is done by Ewald and
also by Ziiilig : in no instance do even the LXX render the Hebrew
construction in this strange fashion. If we had merely cycVero
Tov TToXc/x^o-at, A. X. 25 (see below) would be a parallel instance, and
the construction might possibly be explained. Perhaps however
an ancient gloss has found its way into the text, or else something
has fallen out at an early period before rov 7roAe/^?j<ra(,. Borne
mann's proposal ^ to read eyevcTo ToAe'jaios iv t<2 ovpaviS 6 M.i.xo-t^\
K.T.X. is not even plausible ; and to supply (with Hengstenberg) made
war before rov ifroXei.(.rjrrat would make J ohn chargeable with strange
verbosity.
In A. X. 25, eyci'sro rov ikeXOuv rov Uirpov — where rov is critically
established — cannot be compared with the idiom mentioned in Gesen.
Lehrg. p, 786 sq.,* for this v/ould require lyive.ro 6 IleVpos tov emXddv.
It is an extension of the infinitive with rov beyond its proper limits/'
which it is certainly surprising to meet with in Luke. Burnemann
maintains tliat the whole clause is spurious : for his view of the true
text of the passage the reader is referred to his own essay.
In L. xvii. 1, 6.v€v8ikr6v ia-n rov jxy] iXOcLV ra aKtivBaXa, some MSS.
omit TOV : if it is genuine (and Lachm. and Tisch. have retained it),
the genitive is probably to be accounted for by the notion of dis
tance or exclusion which is implied in aveVScKTov ; compare above,
no. 4, b. Meyer's view is different.'''
5. The dative of the infinitive expresses the cause, — a notion
which regularly belongs to the dative case (see § 31. 6. c) : '
'^ [That "Michael and his angels " is parentlietical (the subject of iw»xi^»i(r««
rnentaUv supplied), so that roij •re^t^ji^'a.f depends on a TriXi/xei understood.]
- [Gesen. Heh. Or. p. 216, Kalisch, Heh. Or. L 298.]
■^ Jen. L.Z. 1845, No. 183. [Diisterdieck agrees with Winer in considering
the text corrupt. — A. Buttraann (p. 268) takes ^rm waX. as depending upon
lysviTo K.T.X., the .subject of this infinitive being a Mi^. ««' 'i cLyy. au. : the use
of the nominative for the accusative he regards as a cMstructio ad synesin, the
infinitival clause being equivalent to a subordinate sentence with a finite verb.
A more probable explanation is suggested by I>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 et<?
TO aTTjpL^at, and is therefore expressed in a different form. N"o
such dative infinitive however is found in Greek writers, and
we must read with good MSS. rb firjSeva aaiveadai, which
indeed now stands in the text: see above, no. 1, Eem.^
6. An oblique case of the infinitive is frequently — almost more
frequently in the N. T. than in Greek writers — combined with
a preposition, especially in historical nan-ation ; in this case the
article is never omitted (Herra. Vig. p. 702, Krlig. p. 110, Jelf
678),^ though several words may be inserted between the article
and the infinitive (JA. viii. 11, H. xi. 3, 1 P. iv. 2).^ Mt. xiii. 25,
ev rw KaOevBeiv Tou? avOpdorrovi, dnringthe slcepiiig of men {whilst
men slept) ; G. iv, 18, L. i. 8, A. viii. 6 (Xen. Cgr. 1. 4. 5, Ifiero
1. 6): A iii. 26, evkcyovvra v/jbo,^ iv t&J aTrocrTpicpetv k.t.X.,
through turning away (H. iii. 12), Pli. i. 23, emOvfilav e^oiv
€19 TO dvaXvaai, desire after dissolution; Ja. i. 19, (BpaSix; ei?
TO XaXrjcrac, slow for speaking ; 1 C. x. 6, et? to /mt} elvac vfjLd<i
iiridufirjTd'; kukcov, in order that ye may not he; ix, 18, 2 C.
iv. 4, vii, 3, Mt. xxvi. 2, L. iv. 29, A. vii. 19 (Xen, Cyr. 1, 4. 5,
■la. 7. 8. 20), Rom. iv, 18. (see Philippi in loc.) ; 1 Th. ii. 16,
' (Tiiis reference is carried on from ed. 5, but the notice to which it refers U
omitted troni the 6tb edition. After observing that the N, T. presents but few
examples of the Joosely appended infinitives which iire common in classical
(ireek, Winer says : " If in 1 Th. iii. 3 we read t'6 ^. <r., with the better MSS.,
tlie infinitive ])robablv depends on 'ra.fo.KxX'ura.i, and is explanatory of -rifi t?,?
is\c,':!^i" (p. 375: ed'^ 5). Similarly l)e W., Hofmann, A. Buttra. (p. 263),
Ellicoit. For other explanations see the notes of Ellicott and Alford in loc.
See also Green, Crit. Hotts p. 170.]
^ On the other hand, compare Theodoret III. 424, aro Kufitiiiv to oy»^«-
IV. 851, vapa. ffuyxXuhfflai' Psalt. Sal. 4. 9, Some e.\aniples of this kind are
found in the Greek prose writers (Beruli. p. 3.54, Kiihncr II. 362, Jelf l.c.), but
they are not free from doubt.
' Yet not so many words its we often fmd in Greek v/riters, who frefji:ently
interpose entire clauses (Xen. ffic. 13. 6, Cyr. 4. 5. 9, 7. 5. 42, al.) : in the N. T.,
too, the adjuncts follow the infin., as a rule. We have no instance of axn or
fiiXi" ^'ith the iufinitive, only one of tHua.,
414 THE INFINITIVE. [PART III.
2 C. viii. 6, et? to TrapaKaXeaac r/fia^ Tlrov, so thai we besought
Titus (literally, up to the point of beseeching, etc.),^ Kom. vii. 5,
H. xi. 3. H. ii. 15, 8ta 7ravr6<i rod ^rjv, through the vjhole life ;
Ph. i. *7 ,hia TO e')(jetv fie ev rfj KapZia vfid^, because I have you
etc. ;^ A. viii. 11, xviii. 2, H. vii. 23, x. 2, L. ii, 4, Mk; v. 4
(Xen. Gyr. 1. 4. 5, Mem. 2. 1. 15, Aristot. Rhet. 2. 13, Pol. 2.
5. 2). Ja. iv. 15, avr\ tov Xeyeiv vfid<;, instead of your saying
(Xen. Apol. 8, Plat. i?ep. 1. 343 a). Mt. vi. 8, irpo rov vfid^'
alrrja-at, before you ask ; L. ii. 21, xxii. 15, A. xxiii. 15 (Zeph,
ii. 2, Plat, Grit. 48 d). Mt. vi. 1, •Trpo<; ro deadrivai avroXs
in order to be seen by tJiem ; 2 C. iii. 13, 1 Th. ii. 9 : ^ L. xviii. 1 .
eXeyev Trapa^oXrjv Trpb^ rb 8e2u irdvrore Trpoffcv^eadai, tn re
ference to the duty, etc. Mt. xxvi. 32, fiera to eyepOrjvui, fie
after rny rising (resurrection), when I shall have risen ; L. xii
5, Mk. i. 14, A. vii. 4, xv, 13 (Herod. 2. 9. 6, 3. 5. 10)
2 C. vii. 12, €iV€K6J' tov (f)av€pQ}6f]vai ttjv arTrovSijv vficoiJ
(Demosth. Fun. 516 a, b, Pkt. Sis. 390 b, Diod. S. Exc. Vat.
p. 39 ; also Insci'ipt. Eosett. 11).*
The use of the infinitive witli £i<r or Trpos to express purpose is
particularly common in Paul's writings. The author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews prefers a derivative noun in such cases ; see Schulz,
Hehrderhr. p, 146 sqq.'^ Compare however 1 C. vii. 35.
^ No objection can be raised against resolving the infinitive with tU •ra by
80 that, as this preposition when joined "with nouns expresses either aim or
result : compare Eurip. Bacch. 1161. [Fritzsche agrees with Winer in admitting
tliis meaning {Rom. I. 63, 242) : Meyer (see notes on Rom. i. 20, 2 C. viii. 6)
maintains that the combination always denotes purpose. Ellicott remarks (on
1 Th. ii. 12) that it is " commonly used by St. Paul simply to denote \\\6 purpose,
and probably in no instance is simply indicative of result (ecbatic) ; " but adds,
" still there appear to be several passages in which the purpose is so far blended
with the subject of the prayer, entreaty, etc., or the issues of the action, that it
may not be improper to recognise a secondary and weakened force in reference
to purpose, analogous to that in tlie parallel use of '/»«. " Alford distinctly
admits the eventual sense in his note on H. xi. 3, but speaks somewhat incon-
sistently in his notes on Rom. i. 20, iv. 18. A. Buttm, (p. 264 sq.) divides the
examples into 4 classes, as lU 'ro with infinitive denotes purpose, — or a deigned
result, — or follows such verbs as hTir^ai, Ipurav, whose meaning relates to the
future (1 Th. ii. 12, al.), — or replaces the epexegetical infinitive (1 Th. iv. 9),
See Jelf 625. 3, 803. Obs. 1.]
"Against the other interpretation, in which ifiar is taken as the subject, see
Van Hengel in loc. Even where the subject is placed after the infinitive, tlie
correct view is always decided by the context : e.g., Simplic. Enchir. 13. p. 90,
2/a! TO ToXiftiiVi fiifiiTr^ai Toh; (rvyyvfivicfrdi. Compare Jo. i. 49.
^ [On irpas TO with infinitive, as signifying (never mere result, but) always
the subjective purpose, see Alford 's note (from Meyer) on 2 V. iii. 13.]
* [Add 'iui rov iXfii¥ auriv, A. viii. 40 (1 K. Xxii. 27) ; i» TOV s;t;«'^ ^ ^- '^''ii- 11-1
* [There are certainly many verbal nouns in this Epistle ^Davidson, Intr. III.
SECT. XLIV.] THE INFINITIVE, 415
If in tliis construction the infinitive has a subject expressed, this is
put in tlie accusative, even when it is identical with the subject of
the principal sentence : H. Vii. 24, 6 8e 86a to fxeveiv airbv et? tov
alwva .... Ixft* L. ii. 4. The predicates also stand in the accusa-
tive, L. xi. 8, Swcret avTio Sto. to tlvcu avrou <fit\ov : with this contrast
Xen. Cyr. L 4. 3, Sia to ^iXofiad-q^ eTvat , , . . avros avTjpMTn.
(Matth. 53G, Jelf 672. 4). The attraction, however, by which the
use of the nominative is really to be explained, is neglected by Greek
writers both in this and in other cases.
The infinitive (without the article) joined with irpiv or irpiv rj ^ may
also be regarded as an infinitivus nmninascens, for KardfirjOi Trplv
d.TroOavc'iv to TratSi'ov fwv (Jo. iv. 49) is equivalent to kut. irpo Tov
airoOavdv k.t.X. The infinitive with this particle is used, not merely
with a future or an imperative in relation to an CA'ent still future
(Matth. 522. 2. c), as in Mt. xxvi. 34 (A. ii. 20), but also in relation
to events of the past (Xen. Cyr. 3. 3. 60, An. 1. 4. 13, Herod. 1. 10.
15) iu combination with preterites; see Mt. i. 18, A. viL 2, Jo, viii.
58 As to Trplv Tf compare Her. 2. 2, 4. 167.
7, The well known distinction between the present and the
aorisb infinitive, and also that between the aonst and the future
inliiiitive (Herm. Vig. p. 773),^ are for the most part very clearly
observed in the N". T.
The aorist infinitive is used
a. \n narration, in reference to a preterite on which it is
dependent (iu accordance with the parity of tenses which Greek
writers particularly observe^) : Mk. ii. 4, firj Bvvdfievoi Tvpofey--
<yL(Ta,i aur(p .... direcTTe'yaa-av xii. 12, c^tjtovv avTOV KparrjaAi'
V. 3, ovZetsr]Zvvaro aurov Srjaac L. xviii. 13, ovk rj9e\€V ov8e
T0V9 ocpOaK/xoi/^ et? tov ovpavov ivapai' So. vi. 21, vii. 44, Mt.
19, viii. 29, xiv. 23, xviii. 23, xxiii. 37, xxvi. 40, xxvii. 34,
Mk. vi. 19, 48, Li vi. 48, x. 24, xv. 28, xix. 27, A. x. 10, xyii. 3,
XXV. 7, Col. i 27, G. iv. 20, Phil. 14, Jude 3. This is quite in
order, and requires no illustration from Greek writers (Madv.
172 b). — (Sometimes however the present infinitive is used, as in
247), but Stuart shows that tU ri with infinitive is not at all uncommon ; see his
Comm. p. 175 (London 1834).]
' Keitz, Lucian IV. 501 : ed. Lehm. (Jelf 848. 6, Don. p. 584).
" Stallb. Plat. Eutlnjd. p. 140: AorLstus (infin. ) quia nullam facit significa-
tionera perpetuitatis et continuationis, prouti vel initium vel progressus vel finis
actionis verbo expressae spectatur, ita solet usurpari, ut dicatur vel de eo, quod
statim et e vestigio fit ideoque etiam c^rto futurnm est, vel de re semel tantum
eveniente, quse diutumitatis et periietuitatis cogitationem aut non fert aut certo
non requirit, vel denique de re brevi et uno veluti temporis ictu peracta. (Don.
p. 415, Jelf 405. 4.)
3 See Schsefer, Demostk. III. 432, Stallb. Phileb. p. 86, Phced. p. 32.
416 THE INTINITIVK [PART III.
Jo. xvi. 19, A. xix. 33, L. vi. 19 : in Mt. xxiii. 37 also we find
the present/ but in the parallel passage, L. xiii. 34, the aorist
infinitive.) The aorist imperative also is regularly followed by
the aorist infinitive: Mt. viii. 22, d<f>e<i tou? veKpov'i Od^jrat,
Tov<i eavTMV veKpov^' xiv. 28, Mk. vii. 27.
h. After any tense whatever, when the reference is to an
action which rapidly passes, is completed all at once, or is to
commence immediately (Herm. Viff. I. c.) : Mk. xiv. 31, idv fie
Serj cvva'TtoOavelv croC XV. 31, kavrov ov Bvvarac aoxrab' Mt.
xix. 3, el e^eanv nvOpoiTrw diroKvaai t7]V <yvvalKa' 1 C. xv. 53,
Bet TO <f)6apTov rovro evoixraadai d^Oapalav. Compare Jo.
iii. 4, V. 10, ix. 27, xii. 21, A. iv. 16,' Eev.ii. 21, 2 C x, 12,
xii. 4, 1 Th. ii. 8, E. iii. 18. Under this head comes also Jo.
V. 44, — where iriareveiv means to put faith in, heeome a be-
liever in.
c. After verbs of hoping, promising, commanding^ wishiiig, and
many others, the Greeks not unfrequently use the aorist infini-
tive,^ — viz., where they wish to represent the action in itself,
simply and absolutely (" ab omni temporis definiti conditione
libera et immunis," Stallb. Plat. Euthyd. p. 140, Weber, Z>cw. 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\\€<Tdat also is
commonly joined with the aorist infinitive, as in Mk. xiv. 11,
eTnjyyeiXaTo avru> hovvav A. iii. 18, vii. 5 ; similarly ofjbvvfii,
A. ii. oO/opfcm wfioaev uvtm 6 d€0<; ix Kapirov Tr]<i ocrt^vo^i avrov
icaOiaaL c'tti tov dpovov, — but with future infinitive in II. iii. 1 8
(Weber, Bemosth. p. 330). After KeXeveiv the aorist infinitive
is more common than the present, the latter being used for the
most part of a lasting action ; e.g., A. xvi. 22, cKeXevov pa^Bi-
^eiv' xxiii. 35, iKeXevaev avrov iu rw irpairtapiw <^v\d(Tae<Tdac
xxiii. 3, XXV, 21, al.^ TJapaKaXelv is followed by the aorist
infinitive in Eom. xii. 1, xv, 30, 2 C. ii. 8, R iv. 1, al. ; but
by the present in Rom. xvi. 17, 1 Th. iv. 10, 1 Tim. ii. 1.
This will explain the use of the aorist infinitive after troifj.os and
iv iroLfiu) ex^Lv (in reference to the future), 2 C. x. 6, xi"i. 14, 1 P.
i. 5, A. 'xxi. 13. Here the present infinitive is less comrnou in the
N. T. : in Greek writers the aorist is on the whole rare, yet compare
Dion. H. III. 1536 (Joseph. AnU. 12. 4. % 6. 9. 2). llpiValso is in
the N. T. uniformly joined with the aorist infinitive, and, whore irpiv
refers to future time, this tense has the signification ot the futuruin
emdum: see Herm. Eurip, Med. p, 343 (Don. p. 584, Jelf 848.
Ob$. 6).
Whether in any other cases than that noticed in 7. a the aorist
mfinitive has in the N. T. the signification ot a preterite, is a disputed
point. Rom. XV. 9, to. eOvrj xnrtp cAeow? So^acraf. tov Beov, might
in the first instance be taken as an example of this, as the infinitive
is dependent on Acyw, ver. 8 (Madvig 172 a), and is parallel with a
p.eifect yeyevrjcrOai, while Paul would certainly have used a present
to denote a continued act of praise. Probably, however, he merely
wished to express the action of praising absolutel)', without any
reference to time. In 2 C. vi. 1 also it is not necessary to give
hi^acrOai the sense of a preterite, as is done by Meyer and others ;
though the connexion which Fritzsche ^ suggests between vi. 1 and
v. 20 is somewhat far-fetched. — In the later language the perfect
infinitive, as a more expressive form, takes the place of the aorist
infinitive in such cases : see below, p. 420.
' The perfect infinitive follows tXtr/^a in 2 C. v. 11, iK-riZ^a xni Iv tx7; guviihrt-
airiv ii/iuv -Ti^avifunricu, that I have been made manifest : here ikTi'i^u does not
siaiid for vofti'^e.,, but indicates an opinion wliicli still waits for confirmation.
The perfect infinitive, after the preceding Tt(p'rnftufi'Ja, needs no explanation :
compare Ilkid 15. 110, Uln vZv iX-rofi " Apnt y. vn/ix Tirvp^^xi, appositely cited by
Meyer. See also below, p. 4'20.
" [On this verb see below, 8. a. note.]
' Jioiii. III. 2-tl. [Meyer now roudeis " ne recipiatie. "]
27
418 THE INFINITIVE. [PART III.
The present infinitive is the general expression for an action
which ia now taking place, or which continues (either in itself
or in its results), or which is frequently repeated : Jo. ix. 4, ^pU
Btl ipyd^eaOaL ra epya tov 'Trefi'>^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 iravTO<i eTroielTO BcaTrpaTrecrOai,; 6. 1. 45, rjv ip.e ed(Trj<i
ire^ylrai, and in 46, ixeXevae ire/MTreiv; 2. 4. 10, oi/9 av
Ti9 QovXrjTai dyadov'i avvepyoi)^ trotelaOai .... oi)? Be Bij
Twv eU TOV TToXeixov epywv irotrjaraaBal rt? ^ovXoito crvvep'
yaw 7rpo6vfjLov^ ^^ Demosth. Timocr. 466 a, fir) e^elvat Xvcrai
fiTjBeva (yofiov), iav fir) iv vofiodeTat^, Tore 5' i^elvat tc3 /Sou-
Xofiev(p . c. . . Xvetv. Compare also Arrian, Al. 5. 2. 6. Some-
times however there is a perceptible distinction between the two
tenses in parallel sentences, e.g., Xen. Oyr. 5. 1. 2, 3, 3Iem. 1»
1. 14. Her. 6. 117, al. : see Matth. 501, Weber, i>m. 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<a, etc. The present and aorist in-
finitive are not nnfrequently interchanged in MSS. of Greek authors ;
see Xen. Cyr. 2. 2. 13, Arrian, Al. A. 6. 1, Elmsley, Eur. Med. 904,
941, al. So also in the N. T. : compare Jo. x. 21, A. xvi. 7, 1 C.
xiv. 35, 1 Th. ii. 12.
What is said above will also explain the use of the aorist infinitive
after a hypothetical clause in Jo. xxL 25, arwa, iav ypdtfyqrai Kaff Iv,
ovhl avrhv oifxai rbv Koa-fiov xw/>^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<f)6rjvar com-
pare Rom. viil 18 (but contrast 1 P. v. 1) ; — (c) more rarely by the
^ Herm. Ear, Suppl. p. 12. Praef.
* [Tregelles, Weatcott and Hort, read x'^f^""> 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<i Beo-fiiovi, that they had Jied, and hence were
avMy ; xxvii. 13, 86^avre<i tt}? 7rpoOicr€a><i KeKparrjKevat, that
they had (already) accomplished their purpose, and hence were
now in possession of its advantages. See also A. viii. 11,
xxvii. 9, xxvi. 32, H. xi. 3, Kom. iv. 1, xv. 8, 19, Mk. v. 4,
Jo. xii. 18, 29, 2 Tim. ii. 18 (1 P. iv. 3), 2 P. ii. 21. In
several of these passages, after verbs of saying and thinking, a
Greek writer would perhaps have been contented with the
aorist infinitive (Madv. 172). On 2 C. v. 11 see p. 417,
note;^ on 1 Tim. vi. 17, § 40. 4.
8. That the N. T. writers sometimes Tsee p. 421, note ^) use
Xva in cases where, according to the rules of (written) Greek prose,
we should have expected the simple infinitive (present or aorist,
not perfect), was rightly admitted by the earlier Biblical philo-
logers, but is positively denied by Fritzsche : ^ up to this time,
however, Fritzsche has hardly had any follower, with the excep-
tion of Meyer. '^ It might indeed be possible in such phrases as
^ [It is singular that 'i^ifSai is the only future infinitive joined with ^sXXw.]
^ Exc. 1 ad Matth. : see however Rom. III. 230. [In Rom. I. c. Fritz, says ;
ut interdum 'Ua cum conjunctivo post verba rogandi et precandi rem, quam
preceris, designet (3 Esdr. iv. 46, cf. ^iXa> '/►« 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<i fiaOrjral';, 'tva firjBevl eXiruxjiv k.t.\., and especially Mk.
V. 10, TrapeKiiXet avrov iroKkd, 'iva fxrj avTov; airoa-reiXr) k.t.X.,
to retain the original meaning of tW, and translate, sjmik (a
word of power) in order that these stones raay hecome hread^ —
he gave the disciples a clmrge, in order that they onight tell
no man, — he besoiight him earnestly, in order that he rtiight
not send them. But, on the other hand, it is stiL^ very singular
that in a multitude of instances, when we are expecting that
the object of the request or command will be mentioned, the
writer should prefer to specify the purpose, which in such com-
binations is usually absorbed by the object ; and on the other
hand, the very possibility of such an explanation shows how
nearly akin are purpose and object in such a case, and conse-
quently how easily tW might come into use as an expression of
the latter. Hence it is far simpler to suppose that the later
language, in accordance with its general character, resolved the
more condensed infinitive construction into a sentence proper,
and to some extent weakened the signification of 'iva} on the
same principle as the Eomans used v.t after impero, persuadeo,
rogo, — the object of the command or request being always
something to be effected, and therefore something which is
designed by the person commanding or beseeching.^ "We al-
ready meet with traces o£ this application of iva in writers of
the KOLvrj.
a. After verbs of desiring and requesting, iva begins in
these writers to pass into " that " of the objective sentence ; ^ as
in Dion. H. I. 215, herjo-ea-Bai, tt}? dvjarpo^ t?}? av<; efieXKov,
iva fxe 7rpo<; avrrjv a'^arjoi' II. 666 sq., Kpav^r] .... i'yeveTO Kal
in the N. T. {Gram. pp. 235-239). See also Ligbtfoot on G. v, 17, Ph. i. 9, Col.
i. 9, iv. 16, Green p. 171 sq., "Webster p. 130 sq.]
^ Weakened, because originally 'Iva, was used only to express a direct purpose,
— / come tliat I may Mp ihee. Even sufficiently worthy to he preserved waa
expressed in earlv writers, not by "ya. (Mt viii. 8, Jo. i. 27, vi, 7, al.), but by
the infinitive, perliaps with usn (Matth. 531, Jelf 666). But it does not follow
that the weakened 'Iva is generally equivalent to usn : this use of '/»« is rather,
as we can still perceive in most cases, an extension of eo consilio iU. Hence if
on the one side we maintain the above principles, and on the other deny that
'iva stands for usn {§-53. 10), we are not inconsistent.
^ Those who oppose this view should at least confess that the use of 'iva in
the cases considered is not in accordance with the (earlier) prose usage of the
Greeks. This is the least requirement of grammatical fairness.
3 An isolated instance in earlier Greek is a|(«?» 'iva, Demosth. Cor. 335 b.
422 THE INFINITIVE. [PART III
8€r}(r€i<i .... iva iikvrj K.rX: Charit. 3. 1, irapeKoXei KaXippoT)]/
I'va avrui 7rpo<;e\dr)- Arrian, Fjpict. 3. 23. 27 (see '^(^hsef. Meiet. p.
121). In Hellenistic writers, however, this usage is quite com-
mon : see 2 Mace. ii. 8, Ecclus. xxxvii. 15, xxxviii. 14, 3 (1)
Esdr. iv. 46, Joseph. Antt. 12. 3. 2, 14. 9. 4, Ignat. Philad. p,
379,Co^. Pseudepigr. 1. 543, 671, 673, 730, II. 705. Act. Thorn.
10, 24, 26, Acta apoc. p. 36.^ On Xva after verbs of command'
ing and directing^ see Herm. Orph, p. 814, and compare Leo
Philos. in Epigr. Gr. Lihh. 7 (Frankf, 1 6 0) p. 3 > 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 <rai{ airiiHi traTpixiois
rov (p^fUv^Kvxi T^t iraXm' 18. 44U, ztXtitra; <rou io^tjvai alralf X''P" ^P'lxis aya
^fiurtav XjTujv llxori z.t.X. ; 461, r'Tr.(ri vra; e itjftof rov a^6r,yot,i va^'hnfiev' p. 172.
Sts the index to Ducas, p. 639 6q.'(Bonn ed.).
* Hence was derived the periphrasis for the infinitive in modern Greek, tixt^
SECT. XLIV.] THE INFINITIVE. 423
Fseudepigr. I. 704, Thilo, Axoocr. L 546, 684, 706, Tischeud.
in the Verhandel. p. 141. • If in Mt. vii. 12 oaa av diXrjre Iva
TToiuaiv vfilv means tvish with the design that they may do it,
one cannot see why deXecv Xva should not have become an or-
dinary construction in the language, for deXeiv may always be
taken in tliis way. And are we to render Mk. vi. 25, OeXco iva
fiob Sa}<j Tr)v K€(f>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<i <yvS meant, he wished not, in oi'der thai any one should
know of it, how affected a sentence would this be ! That no
one should know of it was the very object of his wish. Compare
also A. xxvii. 42, ^ovXt) eyevero, Xva tov<; hea^ioiTa^ dTro/crei'-
voaaf Jo. ix. 22, crvveriOeivTo ol ^lovBatoi 'iva .... dTrocrvvdyo}-
709 yivijrat' xii. 1 (Ecclus, xliv. 1 8) ; and, as a single early
instance of this construction in Greek writers, Teles in Stob.
Serm. 95, p. 524, 40, tva Zeixi yevrjTai €7nOvfii]cr€i, To this
head belongs also irocelv iva, Jo. xi. 37, Col. iv. 16, Rev. iii. 9
(analogous to iroietv rov with the infinitive, — see above, no. 4),
also BcBovat iva, Mk. x. 37 (see Krebs in loc).
c. Lastly, in Mt. x. 25, dpK£Tov tqj iMaOrjry, Xva yevqrai
ox? o hihd<jKa\o<i avrov, is satis sit discipulo non superare via-
gistrum, lit ei j^ossit par esse redditus, an easy or a satisfactory
rendering ? Compare Jo. i. 27, vi. 7, Mt. viii. 8 : the infinitive
is used in Mt. iii. 1 1, 1 C. xv. 9, L. xv. 1 9, al. In Jo. iv. 34, eyxoi/
ffpajftd iariv, Xva iroiSi ro deXnjfia rov Trefiyjravro'i fie, is the
use of Xva completely justified by the rendering, nieus victus hoc
contineiiir studio, %it Dei satisfaciam vohmtati ? In that case
iXTrovBd^ecv Xva would be the ordinary and the simplest con-
struction. That in Jo. xv. 8 the clause beginning with Xva can-
not denote the design with which God glorifies himself (Meyer),
va, ypa^u) ov •ypa'^ai, for ypa(pii*, ypa-^ai. To what ail extent the usc of the
particle >» — 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'^"' •* vov6iriiZ<ri' p. 244, I'furia.* ^piai^u-
^Atuci v« imy'miiifiiv. Hence in almost all the passages noticed above the
modem Greek translator has retained Vkx in the form vi.
424 THE INFINITIVE. [PAKT TIL
has been already shown by Liicke : compare also xvii. 3. T very
much fear also that the resolution of Mt. xviii. 6, avficpep^i avrw,
iva Kp€fiaa6fj fjLv\o<i 6viKo<i .... Kol KaTwrrovrLcdrj k.tX., into
av/x(f>lp€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 €ypa<l>cv, 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 <f>ip7}Te, the clause with Tva certainly stands for an infinitive,
cV T<i> 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)(<u)v rjjxCjv /x4XXtLv ecreaOat tov ttXovv. Compare Xen. Hell, 2. 2.
2, ctSws, OTt, oo-o) av irXcLov? crvXXeywcrtv is to oxttv, Oarrov ToJi' iTrur]-
oeliov ivSeiav cW^ai ; Cyr, 1. 6. 18, 2. 4. 15, A7U 3. 1. 9, Plat,
I'hfrd. 63 c, Thuc. 4. 37. This is a mixture of two constructions
(Herm. Vig. p. 500, Jelf 804, 7), fxeWuv la-eaOaL tov irXovv, and on
fji^XXa. (ffiordai 6 7rXov9, and is found especirdly after verba sentiendi
and dicendi^ It occurs so frequently in the best writers (even in
short sentences, Arrian, Al. 6. 26. 10), that the construction had
^ [It is hard to l)e]ieve' that tins meaning (which is equivalent to rejoiced
because lie knew that he should see) cau be conveyed by iiyxXX. 'iva. The most
natural paraphrase appears to be he rejoiced in desire that he miglU see. Comp.
Westcott in loc. ]
* The conjunctive will not allow us to take i'va as where in these cases
(Hoogev. Particul. I. 525 sq.) ; we should then have to regard the conjunctive
aorist as the simple equivalent of the future (Lob. Phryn. p. 723). See how-
ever Tittmann, Synon. II. 49 sq.
^ [That is, if we read rivx, not Tfva.]
* See Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. p. 151 (Lips.), Jacobs, Philostr. Imagg. 620 ;
and, in regard to x,e*i and lil in particular, Weber, Demosth. p. 306. [Madvig
148 b, 150, Jelf 667. Obs. 5.]
6 Schajf. ad Bast. Ep. Cr. p. 36, Ast, Plat. Legg. p. 479, Wyttenb. Plot. Mar.
I. .'54, Boisson. Philostr. 284, ^n. Gaz. p. 230, Fritz. Quoe^t. Luc. p. 172 sq.
SECT. XL v.] THE PARTICIPLE. 427
almost ceased to be felt by the Greek as an anacoluthon : we can
only ascribe to the on a vis monstrandi, as when it stands before the
oratio directa. Compare Klotz, Devar. p. 692. — Similarly Iva. is
joined ^vith an infinitive in 3 (1) Esdr. vL 31.
Rem. 3. We find an echo of the Hebrew infinitive absolute in a
quotation from the LXX, Mt. xv. 4, Oavdrfo TcAorraTo) (Ex. xix. 12,
Num. xxvi. 65) ; and in the language of the N. T. itself, Rev. ii, 23,
oTTOKTevoi iv Oavdrt^ (compare fi^D^ nib), and L. xxii. 15, iviOvfjiLtx
iTreOvfirja-a k.t.X, The LXX frequently express the infinitive absolute
by means of this construction, — which is not discordant wifh Greek
idiom (§ 54. 3), — joining to the verb the ablative of a cognate noun ;
see Gen. xl. 15, xliii, 2, 1. 24, Ex. iii. 16, xi. 1, xviii. 18, xxi. 20,
xxii. 16, xxiii. 24, Lev. xix. 20, Num. xxii. 30, Dt. xxiv. 15, Zeph. i.
2, Ruth ii. 11, Judith vi. 4 (Test. Patr. p. 634) : on this see Thiersch,
Pent. p. 169 sq. Another mode in which the infinitive absolute is
translated by the LXX is noticed beloWj § 45. 8.
Rem. 4, There is nothing singular in the accumulation in one
sentence of several infinitives, one depending on another; e. g.,
2 P. i. ] 5, cnrovSdcro} iKdarore € x€ iv v/jlo.? . . . t^v tovtwv fi.W]fi.r]v
TTo leXa- au In Greek writers it is not uncommon to find three
such infinitives in close proximity (Weber, Demosth. p. 351).
Section XLV.
the participle.
1. The participle shows its verbal nature in two ways: —
(1) It governs the case of its verb as directly as the verb
itself: L. ix. 16, Xa^cov tov<; dprov<i' 1 C. xv. 57, rw BiBovrt,
^fiiv TO vIko^' L. viii. 3, eV rwv v7rap')(^6vT(i)v avraU' 2 C. i. 23,
<f>£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^ Kap8la<f' 1 P. L 7, p^uo'toi; toO
428 THE PARTIClPLf [PAKT III.
uTToWvfievov' H. vii. 8 ; — denoting something which is actually
present, or which regularly happens in all time.''
h. Aorist : Col. ii. 12, rod Beov tov ijetpavTo^ Xpiarov e/c
rwv v£Kpwv Rom. v. 16, St' €vo<i dfiapTi]aavro<; (a thing which
happened once), A. ix. 21.
c. Perfect : A. xxii. 3, avr)p ryey€i!vr}^Levo<; iv Tapaw, ava-
r€Opafi/j,€vo<i Be iv rfj nroXei ravTj) (qualities whose operation
extends onwards out of the past), Jo. xix. 35, o ewpa^w? fiefiap-
ruprjKev Mt. xxvii. 37, iiredrjKav . . . rrjv atTiav avrov j€-
ypafifievvv A. xxiii. 3, 1 P. i. 23, 2 P. ii. 6, Jo. v. 10, vil 15,
E. iii. 18.
d. Future (rare in the N. T.^i : 1 C, xv. 37, ov to acofia ro
yevrjao/jievov cnTeipei<i ; and, from a stand-point in past time, H.
iii. 5, Mo3V(Trj<; '7TLa-r6<s . . . co? Oepdiroiv eU ^prvpLOv rdv \a-
\r}67]aofjiiifo)v, of tJmt which 'was to he spoken (revealed). Com-
pare A. viii. 27, xxiv. 11, L. xxii. 49.
The present participle
a. Sometimes, when combined with a preterite, represents
the imperfect tense : A. xxv. 3, trapeKoXovv avrop alrovfievoi
XdpiV Rev. XV. 1, etBov dyyiXov^; eirrd c'^ovra'^ irXrjyd'i' H. xi.
21, 'IaKo)fi aTToOvrjaKODv . . . 7)v\6yrjaev A. vii. 26, uxpOij av-
rot<f fiaxofievoir x viii.' 5, xx. 9, xxi. 16, 2 P. ii. 23,^ 2 C. iii. 7 ; *
also in reference to a lasting state, A. xix. 24, 1 P. iii. 5 (Jelf
705. a).
b. Sometimes denotes that which will happen immediately,
or is certain to take place : Mt. xxvi. 28, to alfia to irepl ttoX-
\u)v Ifcj^yvofievov' vi. 30, tov ^opTov avpiov et? Kki^avov ^aXKo-
fievov 1 C. XV. 57, Ja. V, 1. Thus we find o ipxofievo^; as a
designation of the Messiah, «3ri^ not vcnturus, but the coming
one ; there is a steadfast and firm belief that he is coming
(Mt. XL 3, L. vii. 19, al.).
The participle tUr also, in combination with a preterite, or qualified
by an adverb of time, is not unfrequently an imperfect participle :
see Jo. i. 49, v. 13, xi. 31, 49, xxi. 11, A. viL 2, xi. 1, xviii. 24,
^ Schoem. Plut. Agis p. 153, Schaef. Plut. V. 211 sq.
" [A. Buttmann (,p. 296) remarks that the use of this participle in the sense of
the jCn^i sentence — so common in classical Greek (Don. p. 599, Jelf 811. 3) — is
in the N. T. confined to the book of Acts. ]
2 [Evidently a mistake for 1 P. ii. 23.]
* Borcem. Xen. Cyr. p. 264.
SECT. XLV.] THE PARTICIPLE. 429
2 C. i. 23,^ viii 9; E. ii. 13, vwl iv Xptcrraj 'Ir;croC i&ftet? oi TroTf
ovTcs K.T.X., Col. i. 21 ; 1 Tim. i. 13, fj-k ro irporepov ovra
fi\dcr(f>r)jj.ov. Compare Aristot. BJief. 2. 10. 13, ■7rpo<i tov<; fj-vpina-rbv
ovTar Lucian, Dial. Mar. 13. 2, dd/e (rjXonnrel'i vTrcpoTm/s Trporepov a)V.
In Jo. iii. 13, however, w;/- signifies ?/7w (essentially) is in heaven,
who appert'i.ins to heaven ;^ so also in i. 18. In Jo. ix. 25, Stl Tv<f>\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 <f>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 lavrov<i means, aS
if we reached not to you (in reality we do reach to you). In 2 P.
ii. 18 the present participle aTro^^vyovra<;, received into the text by
Lachmahn, shows that those referred to had only just begun to flee :
such, persons are most accessible to seduction. On E. ii. 2 1 and iv.
22, see Meyer.^
The aorist participle in the course of a narration sometimes
expresses a simultaneous action (Krlig. p. 178, Jelf 405, 5), as
in A. i. 24, 7rpo<;ev^dfji,€VOL elirov, praying they said (the prayer
follows), Eom. iv. 20, E. ii 8,^ Col. ii. 13, Ph. ii. 7, 2 P. ii. 5 ;
sometimes an action which had previously taken place (where
we look for the pluperfect), as in Mt. xxii. 25, o irpoiTo^ yafi-qa-afi
ereKevTTjo-e' A. v. 10, xiii. 51, 2 P. ii. 4, E. i. 4 sq.,-ii. 16. If the
principal verb relates to something future, the aorist participle
corresponds t^) the Latin futicrum <xactmn: 1 P. ii. 12, Xva . .
e'/c rSiv KoXoyv ep'-fwv eTroTTTevrravre'i ^ Bo^da-coatv rov Oeov iii. 2,
E. iv, 25, aTToOefievoi, to ■ylrevSo'i XaXelre dXr/deiav Mk. xiii. 13,
A. xxiv. 25, Eom. xv. 28, H.iv.3,;Herm. Vig. p. 774 (Jelf 7056).
— The perfect participle also sometimes has in a narration the
meaning of the pluperfect: Jo. ii. 9, oi BiaKouoi fjSecaav ol
TjVTXrjKore^ A. xviii, 2, evpcov ^lovhalov .... 7Tpo^(^drQ>s
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<Tr]<;.
Such small differences between the accounts of the Evangelists need
not trouble US.^ On Jo. vi. 33, 50, apros 6 KarajffaiVwv €k tov ovpavov,
as contrasted with the apro? o Kara/Sas iK t. ovp. of ver. 41 and 51,
see Liicke.* — Nor does the acrist participle stand for the perfect in
1 P. i. 13.
The perfect participle Kareyvwcr/jicW,,* G. ii. 11, has been wrongly
rendered reprehendendi/,s, for both grammar and context give the
meaning hlaw,ed: see Meyer. So also in Rev. xxi. 8 e/3ScAvy^€vos is
abominated. On the other hand, the present participle \jnf]\a(f)u)fji€vov,
H. xii. 18, means which could he felt; for to that which is felt
belongs, as a property, the capability of being felt, just as ra /SXctto-
peva may denote that which is visible. Compare Kritz, Sallust, II.
401 sq.
The participles of the aorist and the perfect are combined, and the
proper distinction of meaning maintained, in 2 C xii. 21, roiv Trporj-
fiapTrjKOTuiv Koi p.r) fKTavoTjcrdvTiov' 1 P. ii. 10, ol ovk r/Xe/jficvoL vvv Se
iXi-qOfvTVi (from the LXX ^), — the former denoting a state, the latter
^ [Winer here refers the participle to tov ipxnyev : in § 42. 2, however, he
cunnects it with the subject indicated in auru. The latter is the view of most
iroeut commentators-: see especially Alford's note.]
^ f Winer barely mentions this passage in no. 6 : from the connexion in which
it is Ih-ive introduced he seems to have taken tvpafit»oi as exj)re^sing an ante-
cedtni nat (Kurtz, Liinemann), rather than one that was contemporaneous with
c'nnPii'i'' (Bleek, Delitzsch, Alford).]
- [Jl is in great measure from the fact that St. Mark himself gives a different
note of time (x/av -riiat, ver. 2) that others have been led to conclude that
" aKaTt/Xmyra; vou riXiov is not to be referred to the actual phenomenon, but to
bH regarded only as a general definition of time : " EUicott, Hist. L. p. 377.
Bp, EUicott refers Vo Kobinson {Biblioth. Sacra II. 168), as giving examples
from the LXX " whjch dilute the objection arising from the use of the aorist."
In none of these examples, however (Jud. ix. 33, Ps. ciii. 22, 2 K. iii. 22, 2 S.
xxiii. 4>, 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 Xv7rovfievo<i (Eost p. 711) : — ^or
h. It is employed, for the sajce of periodic compactness, to form
subordinate sentences : and in this case it mav be resolved bv
means of relatives or conjunctions (Eost p. 711,Matth. 565 sq.^).
See Jo. XV. 2, Trav KXijfia fi7] (f)6pov Kapirov, which doe^ not hear
fruit ; Eom. xvi. 1, avvicrr'qfii ^oi/Brjv, ovo-qlv htaKovov L. Xvi,
14, al. Eom. ii. 27, ■^ aKpo/Svaria rov v6/j.ov reXova-a, if it
fulfils (through fulfilling) ; A. v. 4, ovy(l fikvov <to\ efieve ; if it
remained (unsold), did it not remain to thee? Eom. vii. 3^
2 P. i. 4, 1 Tim. iv. 4 (Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 14, 2. 3. 9, Plat. Sijmp,
208 d, Sch£ef. Melct. p. 57, Matth. 56G. 4). A. iv. 21, aTv^Xv-
aav avrov's fxijBev evpicrK0VT€<; K.r.X., because they found nothing ;
1 C. xi. 29, H. vi. 6 (Jude 5, Ja. ii. 25), Xen. Mem. 1. 2. 22,
Lucian, Dial. M. 27. 8. Eom. i. 32, o'iTtve<; ro oiKatcofxa xoO
6eov eiriyvovTe^i ov fiovov k.t.X., although they kneio (had per-
ceived) ; 1 C. ix. 1^, 1 Th. ii. 6, Ja. iii. 4, al. ; compare Xen.
Mem. 3. 10. 13, Philostr. ApoU. 2. 25, Lucian, Dial. M. 26. 1.
The most common case in narration is the resolution of parti-
ciples by,particles of time : 2 P. ii. 5, oyBovv Nwe . . ,. i^vXa^ev,
KaTaKXvcr/xov Koafio) i7rd^a<i, ivhen he brought on the world ; L. ii.
45, firj €vp6vT€<; virea-Tpey^av, after they had, failed'^ in their
search ; Ph. ii. 19, A. iv. 18, KaXk<Tavre<i avrov^ nrapTY^y^CXav
Mt. ii. 3 ; A. xxi. 28, iire^aXov eir avrov Ta<; %et/3a? Kpdl^Qt/TZS,
vjhilst they cried, etc. ; Eom. iv. 20, iveZwafidaOr} rj] iriaret 8ou<i
Bo^au TO) 6e(o k.t.X. (Don. p. 579, Jelf 696).
When" participles are used limitatively {although)^ this meaning
is often indicated by a prefixed KatVoi or Kai-rrep, as in Ph. iii. 4,
II, iv. 3, V. 8, vii. 5, 2 P. i. 12 ; 3 compare Xen, Cyr. 4. 5. 32, Plat.
" [Jelf 695 sqq., Don. p. 578 sqq., Webster, Syntax p. 113 sq.]
'^ [It will be seen that the English participle often furnishes a simple render-
ing? {not hainng found, crying, etc.) : the above renderings follow the German,
which resolves the participles into sentences.]
* [Similarly *«< txutx with a participle, H. xi. 12 : Don. p. 608, Jelf 697. d.'\
SECT. XLV.] THE PARTICIPLE. 433
Protag. 318 b, Diod. S. 3. 7, 17. 39 This meaning is sometimes
brought into prominence by an antithetical o/xcos (Kriig. p. 231) : ] 0.
xiv.. 7, oficos TO. anfrvyjx cjxjivrjy SlSovtu .... iav Btaa-Tokrjv /xi) 8(2, TroJs
yvuiaOrja-erai to avkovfxevov k.t.A.., a thing (an instrument) without life,
aWwugh giving a sound, is notwlthstantbng not understood, unless, etc.
(Don. p, 607, Jelf 697, d.)
3. Two or more participles, in different relations (either
co-ordinate with or subordinate to one another), and unconnected
by Kal, are frequently joined to one principal verb, especially iii
the historical style : — not merely
«. When one participle precedes and the other follows the
finite verb, as in L. iv. 35, pl-yfrav avrov rb Zaifioviov el<i fieo-ov
i^)]X6eu air avrov, fxrj^ev ^\dy\rav avTov, throwing Jiim down
(^fter having thrown him down) the spirit went out from him,
doing him no harm, — without injuring him at all ; x. 30, A. xiv.
19, XV. 24, xvi. 23, Mk. vi. 2, 2 C. vii. 1, Tit. ii. 12 sq., H. vi. 6,
X. 12 sq., 2 P. ii. 19 (Lucian, Philojys. 24, Pcrcgr. 25): — but
also, and more frequently,
I. When the participles, without any copula, all precede or
all follow the verb : Mt. xxviii. 2, ay^/eXo^ Kvpiov KaTa^a<i i^
ovpavov, irpo'ie'kOuiv aTre/cvXtcre rov \l6ov k.t.X., A. v, 5, a/couiov
*Avapia<i Toy? X6yov<i tovtov<?, ireaiyv e^e-^v^e' L. ix. 16, Xa^oov
xoif'i Trewe apTOV<; .... ava^Xey^a<; eh rov ovpavov evXoyrja-ev'
1 C. xi. 4, 7ru9 avrjp 7rpof;6V^6/jLevo<i ?) 7rpo(j)7}T€V(OV Kara KecpaXrjq
ei(wv Kurata'^vvei k.t.X., every man who prays or prophesies,
in praying etc.; L. vii. 37 sq.,xvi. 23, xxiii. 48, A. xiv. 14, xxi. 2,
XXV. 6, Mk, i. 41, v. 25-27,^ viii. 6 ; Col. i. 3 sq. evxaptcrrovfiev
.... 7rpo<i€V)(opei'o/ .... aKov(TavTe<;, praying .... after
having heard ; 1 Th. i. 2 sq., H. i, 3, xi 7, xii. 1, 1 C. xv. 58, Jo.
xiii. 1 sq.. Col. ii. 13, Ph. ii. 7, Phil. 4, Jude 20, al. In Greek
writers nothing is more common. Compare Xen. Hell. 1. 6. 8,
Cyr. 4. G. 4, Plat. Rep. 3. 366 a, Gorg. 471 b, Strabo 3. 165,
Lucian, Asin. 18, Alex. \ 9; Xen, Ephes. 3. 5, Alciphr. 3. 43 init.,
Arrian, Al. 3. 30. 7 (Jelf 706).^— (In several K T. passages
there is more or less MS. evidence in favour of the copula Kai ;
e.g. m A. ix. 40, Mk. xiv. 22, al.)
^ [In verses 25, 26, the participles are joined by conjunctions. In Mt. xxviii.
2 also, quoted above, we should probably read xoi irponxiuM.']
2 See Heindorf, Plat. ProtAxg. p. 562, Herm. Eurip Ion p. 842, Stallb. PlaU
Phileb, § 32, and Plat. Eutln/vhr, p. 27, Apot. p. 46 sq., Boisson. Arlsicmet. \).
257, Jacob ad Lucian. T". p. 43, EUendt, Arr. At. 11. 322, al,
28
434 THE PARTICIPLE. [PART HL
The nmtaal relation of the participles i3 of a different kind in L. il
12, cvp->7cr€T€ /3pe<j)0'i icnrapyavitifj.ei'ov Ketjievov iv (fiarvy,^ ye shall firid a
swaddled child lying in a manger: here the former participle occupies
the place of an adjective.
4. The participle, where it is merely used as a complement or
predicatively, sometimes discharges the function which in Latin
and German"^^ is discharged by the infinitive (Roat p. 704 sqq.^),
— viz. in the following well-known combinations : —
(a) A. V. 42, ovK i-rravovTo ZthdarKovte^- xiii. 10, H. X. 2,
Rev. iv. 8 ; A. xii. 16, etrefxeve Kpovwv L. vii. 45, 2 Mace, v- 27 ;
2 P. i. 19, c5 KoX.co'? TTOielre 7rpo<;€xovTer A. x. 33, xv. 29, Ph.
iv. 14, 3 Jo.' G (Plat. Spnjx 174 e, Fhmd. 60 c. Her. 5. 24, 26),
2 P. ii. 10, 2 Th. iii. 13.
(b) Mk. xvi. 5, elBov veavicricov KaOrj^evov A. ii. 1 1, uKovofiev
\aKovvT(ot; avrcov vii. 12, Mk. xiv. 58.
On rational' principles, however, the participle is at least as
appropriate as tlie infinitive in these cases ; the preference given
to the former by the Greeks rests on a nice distinction, not felt
by other nations. The meaning of ovk iiravovro SiOaa/coi^rt-? is
teaching (or as teachers) they did not cease ; * of elhov Kadrj/xevov,
they saw him (as one) sitting. The participle expresses an action
or a state which already exists, not one which is first occasioned
or produced by the principal verb. See on the whole Matth.
530. 2, Kriig. p. 221 sqq."'
The following instances are of a Jess conmion kind : —
Under («): 1 C.xW.lS {Eec.),evx(^P'-^"^^ "^^ ^^'^ iravrcov vftwv
fj^aWou yXcoa-aai'i XaXwv,^ thai I sj^cal (as one speaking), —
^ [Probably we should read ko., xi'i/juvw.]
* Junior readers are reiiiinded that, in copiousness of participial phraseo-
loo^y, the English comes much nearer thii Greek than either l.he Latin or the
German. The Greek idiom, when it dilfers from the Latin or German hh above,
often agrees entirely with the English, e.g. — they ceased teaohmg, Ite continued
knocking — B Af,
2 [Don. p 588, Jelf 681 sqq., Webster p. 110 sqq.j
3 [See Introduction, § 4, p. 8, note 2. ]
* It would make no essential difference if, with G. T. A. Kriiger {Untersrich.
aus dem Gebiete der Lat. Sprachl. III. 356 sqq., 404 S(iq.), we were to regard this
use of the nominative participle as an instance 01 attraction. See further lierm. '
Emend. Rat. p. 146 sq.
* For more precise distinctions, in regard to Greek' visage, see WeUer, Bemer-
kungen zur gr. Syntax (Meiniugen 1845).
* Lachmann and Tischendorf read XaXu with many uncial MSS. With thia
reading we have two unconnected sentences side by side, — / thank God, I speak
more than you all [lor tlutt 1 speak, etc.) ; compai'e Borhem Xcn. C<mv. p. 71.
In A we hnd neither AaXaJv nor XxXu
SECT. XLV.] THE PARTICIPLE. 435
compare Her. 9. 79 ; A. xvi. 34, -ffyaXKidararo TreTrierTevKcoq
tftj Oe^ (Enrip. Hipp. 8, Soph. Fhil. 882, Lucian, Paras. 3, Fu</.
1 2, Dion, H. IV. 2238). Kom. vii. 13 does not come under this
head ; see Riickert in loc}
Under (&): L. viii. 46, lyoi eyvo^v hvva^iv i^eXrjXvdviav
(Thuc. 1.25, yvovre^ . . . ovBefiLav aiplcriv uno KepKvpa^ TifiwpLav
ovaap- Xen. Cyr. 1. 4. 7, — see Monk, Eurip. Ripp. 304, and
Alcest.l52y,^ H.xiii. 23, yivooaKeTe TovaBeXcpouTifioOeov uiroXe-
Xvfiivov, ye know that . . . is set at Liberty ; A. xxiv. 10, £k ttoX-
\o)v erCiv ovra ere KpLrrjv tm edvu tovto) iTnardpiavu^' compare
Demosth. Ep. 4. p. 123 a (but in L. iv. 41, jjoeiaap rov Xpiarhv
avrov clvat, — where a Greek prose writer would probably have
used the paTticiple^); 2 Jo. 7, ol firj 6/jLo\oyovi'r£<; ^Ir/aovi' Xpi-
arov €p-)(Q[jievov eV aapKi 1 Jo. iv. 2, irvevp-a & ofioXoyd 'Ir/aoOi/
Xpiarov eu aapKl eXifkvdora^ On the use of the participle with
verba dicendi see Matth. 555. "Rem. 4, Jacobs, Ml.Anivi. U. 109
The verb ala-'^vpeaOac, in particular, ims this construction in
Greek prose ; e g. Xen. Gyr. 3. 2. 16, ala^vvoi/xed' dv a-oi /x//
aTToStSdi/Te?' 5. 1. 21, ala-^upop,ai keyoov Mem. 2. 6. 39,
L)iog. L. 6. 8, Liban. Oralt. p. 525 b And ]n this example we
may se;e how correct was the choice oi" the participle in the cases
just mentioned ; for with tliis verlj Greek writers join an in-
finitive as well as a participle, making however an essential dis-
tinction between the two constructions.'' The participle is used
only when some one is already doing (or has already done) a
thing of which — at the moment of doing it — he is ashamed : the
mfinitive denotes shame at some action yet to be done (not yet
actually performod); compare e.g. Isocr. ad Philipp p. 224, Big.
p. 842, Xen. Mem. 3. 7. 5. This distinction is correctly observed
' Compare Heusin^. Plut. Puedag. p. 19.
^ Several commentators bring in here E. iii. 19, ytuvai rhy I'rifp.a.xxitvta.*
■ TV! yvutritiis ayaTTiv tou Xpurrov : this caunot be, since the pai'ticiple is too
clearly marked as an attributive by its j^osition between the article and the
noun. For another reason we cannot regard I'h. ii. 28, 5fv« I'iovTts auron TaXm
Xtptiri, as an example of this construction ; for the meaning is in order that ye.,
seeing him, may again rejoice.
'■' Compare Mehlkoru in AUg. L. Z. 1833, no. 110 : but see Elmsley, Eur. Med.
580.
* The passage from Isocrates {Paneg. c. 8) usually quoted as a parallel (still
80 quoted by Matth. 55f.. Rem. 4) was corrected by Hier. Wolf: compare Baiter
in loc. [See however Sandys, Isocr p. 61.] Other examples are examined by
Weber, hem. p. 278.
' See Poppo, Xen. Vyr. p. 286 sq. In tlie rase of tratiatouai the two con-
structions coincide : see Ellendt, Arr. .^1/. I. 145.
436 THE PARTICIPLE. [PART III.
in L. xvi. 3, irracrelv alaxuvofiac, I am ashamed to leg (Eodus.
iv. 26, Sus. 11) : had the speaker already become a beggar, lie
must have said iirairwu aiaxvvo/jbai. "Ap^ofMai is always fol-
lowed by the infinitive in the N. T., as it usually is in Greek
authors : he legan spealdng is indeed a less suitable expression
than he continued speaJcing. See however Eost p. 708.
'Akovclv 1 also is sometimes construed with a predicative participle,
— not merely where direct personal hearing is signified (Rev. v. 13, A.
ii, 11), hut also with the meaning learn, be informed (through others),
L. iv. 23, A. vii. 12, 2 Th. iil 11, aKovofxev nvas '7r€pLTraT0vvTa<;'
and 3 Jo. 4 (Xen. Cyr. 2. 4. 12).2 In the latter sense it is more
frequently followed by on, once ^ by the accusative and infinitive,
1 C. xi. 18, OLKOvu) axicr/xaTa cv v/xlv VTrapyt-i-v {vTrdpxovTo) ; compare Xen.
Cyr. 1. 3. 1, 4. 16, The construction is different in E. iv. 22,
if d-rrodeo-Oai vp.a<; .... tov TraXaibv avOpw-rrov is dependent OU -^kov-
crare or iBiSdxdrjTe in ver. 21 {thai ye should lay aside) : see § 44. 3.
The participial construction here discussed is used by Greek
authors (in prose as well as poetry) with much more variety than
by the N. T. writers : * indeed the use of iravea-Ocu with the infinitive
is even condemned by ancient grammarians, though wrongly.^
In 1 Tim. v. 13, ap.a 8e koI dpyal fxavOdvovcn TrcpiepYO/^evat,
almost all recent commentators regard the participle as used for the
infinitive, they learn (accustom themselves) to go about idle, and
this gives a suitable sense. But whenever the participle joined with
fjLavOdveLv has reference to the subject, this verb means to ^e^-ceit'e,
understand, notice, remark, somethmg which is already existing ; see
Her. 3. 1, St.afiifiXrjfxevo's vTTo 'A/aao-to? ov p.av6dv€i<; (see Valcken. in
loc), Soph. A7it. 532, Msch. Prom. 62, Thuc. 6. 39, Plut. Peed. 8.
12, Dion. H. IV. 2238, Lucian, Dial. D. 16. 2.® In the sense of
' [On this verb see A. Buttm. p. 301 sqq. He maintains that, when aKoiu
denotes direct hearing, it may be followed by the genitive and participle (A. ii.
11, al.), but not by the accusative and participle ; so that when we seem to have
this latter construction (as in A. ix. 4, xxvi. 14, Rev. v. 13) the participle
is really in apposition to the object. This is the classical usage, see Liddell
and Scott s. v.— Mk. v. 36, with a passive verb, is an exception.]
^ Compare Rost in Grkch. IVdrterb. I. 143.
3 [Twice: 1 C. xi. 18, Jo. xii. 18. Other verbs which have this construc-
tion in Greek authors (e. g., yivaxTKuv, s/'Slva/, a^ayyixxuy, al.) are in the N. T.
seldom or never so used, but are followed by en or by the accusative with
infinitive. Once (A. xxvi. 22) Xaxiu is followed by a participle. (A. Buttm.
pp. 301, 305.)]
* See .lacobs, Anthol. III. 235, and Ackill. Tat. p. 828, Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 600,
Rchsef. Eurip. Hec. p. 31.
^ See Schjef. ApoU. Rhod. n.'223, Ast, Theophr. C7tar. p. 223 sq. (Jelf 688.
Ohs.l).
*■ In Xen. Cijr. 6. 2. 29, 'ius av fia.fMfi.iv i'Spo'Tirai ytvifctvot (a passage
which however would not be quite decisive), Xafuftiv has long stood in the
text.
SECT. XLV.] THE PARTICIPLE. 437
learning fiavBdvoi is followed by the infinitive, as in Ph. iv. 11. and
also 1 Tim. v. 4 ^ (Matth. 530. 2, Jelf 683). Hence we should have
to regard this example as an incorrect extension of the construction
beyond its rational limits. Perhaps however we should connect /u,ar-
6dvov(TL with apyai, and take Trepupxofxei/at as a participle proper (they
learn idleness, going about in the hauses) ; this would be an abbreviated
mode of expression, such as we sometimes find elsewhere with an
adjective (Plat. Euthyd. 276 b, ol afjcaOcLs dpa cro4>oi 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 acnepe<i rod ovpavov eaovrai
TTiTTToi/Te? (where there immediately follows, as a parallel
^ Mattliies has passed over in silence the grammatical difficulty. Leo — after
Casaubon, ad Athen. p. 452 — would render fiaytoDievai by aolent: he has not
noticed that this meaning belongs to the preterite only.
2 [The leading of this passage is doubtful : Bekker omits aoipoi. — Ellicott and
Alioid leceive Winer's explanation of 1 Tim. v. 13. A. Buttmann strongly
opposes it (p. 303 sq. ), adopting Bengel's view that fia^fatovn is to be taken
absolutely: similarly Wordsworth, Grimm {Ctavis s. v.), Green (Crit, Notes
p. 173).] ^
* Under this head comes also Dio Chr. 55. 558, o ^(oxfdrns 'dn ^i» ran av
ffiitfccvt XiSo^ooi T»)y Tou vrarpo; Ti^vtiv, aK/i)cia/ii» {S, learned as o. Stone-
cutter, etc.).
* [So with a verb of class {jb) in Mk. vi. 20 : see A. Buttm. p. 304.]
* In some tenses (as the perfect and pluperfect passive and plural) this be-
came, as every one knows, the usual mode of expression, and so figures iu the
paradigm of the verb.
438 THE PARTICIPLE. [PART HI.
member, koi al Bwafxea at iv to?? ovpapoc<i aaXevOrjaovrai, —
Matthew has TtecrovvTat), Ja. i, 17 "nav SaypTjfia reXeiov avrodkv
eart Kara^alvnv K.rX. L. v. 1, A.ii. 2. More frequently, how-
ever, it is used to express that which is lasting (rather a state
than an action),^ — a meaning which can also be expressed,
though less distinctly in relation to what is past, by tlie form
of the imperfect tense ^ (compare Beza on Mt. vii. 29): Mk. xv.
43, ?iv 7rpo<;Be'x^6/j,€vo<i ttjv ^aaiXeiav rov Oeov (L. xxiii. 51),
A. viii. 28, rjv re viroarpei^oiv koI Kadtj/xevo'; iirl rov ap/xaro^
avrov (an imperfect immediately folloM's), A. i. 1 0, ii. 42, viii. 1 3,
X. 24, Mt. vii. 29, Mk. ix. 4, xiv. 54, L. iv. 31, v. 10, vi. 12,
xxiv. 13. Hence this combination is especially found where an
event is spoken of in relation to some other event, as in L. xxiv.
32, ij KopSia rjfjiuiv Kato/xevr) rjv iv rjiuv' d><i iXakei, /c.t.X.; or where
a custom is mentioned, as in Mk. ii. 18, ^aav ol fiaOrjraVIcodv-
vov . . . vr)(xrevovr€<;, they wied to fast, — an explanation to which
Meyer objects without reason. In L. xxi. 24 also, 'lepova-aXrjp,
earai irarovfievq vtro kOvoiv, the words seem intended to ex-
press an enduring state, whereas the tv/o futures which precede,
'Treaovvrac and al^a\a)rLaOr]crovrai, denote transient events :
compare Mt. xxiv. 9. In some other passages ehat is not the
mere auxiliary: Mk. x. 32, ^aav h rfj oBm avaj3aivovre<; ek
'Iepoa-6\v/ia, theij were on the. road (compere ver. 1 7) travelling to
Jerusalem (Lucian, X>w7. 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 apxopivn<i is added as
a closer definition. The idiom mentioned by Viger (p. 355) * is not
similar ; and we cannot say of one who is entering on his thirtieth
year that he is beginning thirty years ; he is rather on the point of
completing thirty years. — In Ja. iii. 15, ovk co-tlv avryj -f] crocjiLa avw^cv
KaTtpxofjiivr] dX\' eVtytio?, ^x'k^ " -t-X., the participle rather assumes
* [In L. xxiii. 19 we must read ?,*... /sx^^s/s.— This periphrasis is veiy
common in St. Luke : see Davidson, Introd. to N. T. I. 195. On Jo. L 9 see
Westcott's note.]
* See K«ii!, Ltician VI. 537 (ed. Lehm.), Couriers on Lucian, Adn. p. 219,
Jacob, Qucest. Lucian. p. 12, Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 597, Boissou. FhUostr. 660, and
Nicet. p. 81, Matth. 560. [For the N. T. see also A. Buttm. pp. 308-313, Green
p. 180, Webster p. U5.]
' Compare Bornem. Schol. p. 176.
* [The use of ipxif^^^'i in the sense of Iv ipxn (Jelf 696. Obs. 1).— The posi-
tion of apx'f*t*os in this verse varies in different MSS. : recent editors place
it after 'Ureus. Most however are now agreed in the rendering, when he
began (his public ministry) : see Ellicott, Hist. Led. p. 104, Green, Grit. Notes
p. 50.]
440 THE PARTICIPLE. [PART lit
the character of an adjective, and lo-rtv belongs to the following
adjectives also.^
A. ^lil. 16, fjiovov (^(.(iairTia-^ivoL vTrrjp^ov tis to ovo/xa tov Kvptov
'Irjcrov, is not an example of vTrdpx<^ Muth a participle as a mere peri-
phrasis for the finite verb (Matth. 560), ior ^efSa-irrLcrfjievotrja-av would
be the regular expression, there being no other fonn for this tense
and person. In Ja. ii. 15, to yv/Avoi vn-opx'^o''*' is added keLTrofievoi as
a predicate.- L. xxiii. 12, however, may be a partial example of
this construction : for TrpovTnjpxov h' exOpa oircs Luke might have said
TrpoTipov €v €x6pa r)<Tav. On this combination of iirap)(€w with the
participle wv see Bomem. Schol. p. 1 43.
We have no example in the N. T. of the use ofytvofxai (in the sense
of eivai) with a participle ^ to form a periphrasis of this kind : H. v.
1 2, yeyovare y^puctv txovTe<;, means ye have hcy^ome persons needing, etc. ;
Mk. ix. 3, TCI l/jbaTLa avTov iyevovro a-TiXfiovTa, became shining ; L. xxiv.
37,* 2 0. vi. 14, Eev. xvi. 10 are similar to these. In Mk. i. 4,
however, the words eycvcTo 'Iwawr?? must be taken by themselves
(exstitit Joannes), and the participles which follow are attributive.
So also in Jo. i. 6..
Most certainly we have no periphrasis for the finite verb in such
expressions as ^€os eVriv o ivepyuiv ev vfjuv K.T.X. Ph. ii. 13, 1 C. iv. 4,
al. (the copula is usually omitted, as in Rom. viii. 33, H. iii. 4, al.),
God is the worker (it is God that works). Compare Fritz. liom. II.
212 sq., Knig. p. 218.
6. To omit the verb substantive in this constructiou, and thus
make the participle a simple substitute for a finite verb, is a
liberty which Greek prose writers allow themselves but seldom,^
and then only in simple tense and mood forms." Commentators
have frequently and without hesitation assumed this usage to
exist in the N. T., taking no notice of the corrections which are
found in the notes and observations of classical scholars.^ But
in almost all these N, T. passages we either find amongst the
' Compare Franke, Demosth. p. 42.
" [Winer follows the reading of the best texts, which omit a<r,.]
3 Hein J. Plat. Soph. 273 sq. , Lob. Soph. Ajax v. 588.
* [Are we then to join yiyi/zmi with ^ronfivTH ?]
^ Compare Fritz. Horn. I. 282. As to the Byzantine writers, who do nse the
participle simply for the finite verb, see the index to Malalas in the Bonn edi-
tion, p. 797. (We are not here speaking of the poets : see e.g. Hermann's review
of Miiller's Eumenides, p. 23.)
«See Harm. Tigr. p. 776, Matth. 560. Rem., Siebelis, PaMsaw. III. 106, Wan-
nowski, Synt. Anam. 202 sq. The restriction Tinder which Mehlhorn (Allg.
Lit. Z. 1833, No. 78) allows this ellipsis probably can neither be fully justified
on rational grounds, nor be established from the usage of Greek writers, espe-
cially the later.
' Henn. Vig. pp. 770, 776 sq., Bremi in the Philol. Be'itr. aus der Schweiz, f
172 sqq,, Bornem. Xen. C'oiiv. p. 146, and Schol. in Luc. p. 183, Doderlein on
Soph, (£d. Vol. p. 593 sq., Bernh. p. 470.
SECT. XLY.] THE PARTICIPLE. 441
preceding or following words a finite verb to which the participle
is annexed (and in this case we must not allow the ordinary
punctuation of the text to embarrass us), or else we have an
example of anacoluthon, the writer having lost sight of the
construction with which he commenced the sentence.^ Several
passages have already been correctly explained by Ostermann,
in Crenii Exercitatt. II. 522 sq.
a. In 2 C. iv. 13 e^oi/re? must be connected with thefoUow"-
ing 'mcnevoiiev, since ive have .... we also believe. In 2 P.
ii. 1, both apvovfievoL and iTrdjovTe^ are attached to irapei^d-
^ovaiv ; these participles however are not co-ordinate, but
ijrd'yovTe'i is annexed to the sentence olrive^; .... dpvovfxevot.
In Rom. V. 11, dXkd koI Kav^d>fi€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 Kardpa<i eyyv^, however, we must supply
€<ttL In 2 P. iii. 5 avvecrroja-a is a true participle (epithet), and
the preceding ^aav belongs to j; 777 also. In H, vii. 2 epfir/vevo-
fi€ifo<; must be joined with MeX'^iaeBex in ver. 1 ; since 6 crvvav
Trjaa<i ard ^ efiipicrev are parenthetical clauses, and the main verb
of the sentence comes in after all the predicates in ver. 3, fievei
lepexxi K.T.X? In E. v. 2 1 vTroraaaoixevoL is certainly attached to
the principal verb ir^qpovaOe iv irvevfiaTi, like the other parti-
ciples in verses 19, 20, and must not be taken (as by Koppe,
Flatt, al.) for an imperative : the following words al yvvatKa
k.tX. (ver. 2 2) are then annexed without any verb of their own
— for vTrordaaecrOe is certainly a gloss — as a further exposition
of this vrroracraofievoi. In 1 P. v. 7 also the participle must be
^ Poppo, Thiic. III. iii. 138.
' [The construction of this period depends mainly on the reading adopted
in ver 1, a (rvvaiTriirat or of auoenrricai (Lachm., Alf.) : the latter reading rests
on strong MS. authority. Bleek thinks that, if this reading is adopted, it i.s
most in accordance -with the style of this Epistle to assume an ellipsis of i«-T.,
taking (rv^^ctyrrnrat .... iiui/ii/s* 'Afi/>axfi 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<? may very
well be joined with SiaOijcro/jbat. Eora, vii. 13 was long ago
explained correctly. 1 P. iv. 8 is clear in itself.
b. In A. xxiv. 5 the sentence begins with the participle
€vp6vTe<; TOP av8pa, and should have been continued in ver. 6 by
eKpaT^o-afiep avrov k.t.X. ; but the writer annexes this principal
verb to the interposed relative clause o? koI .... iireipaae, In
2 P. i. 17, Xa^oov yap irapa 6eov k.tX., the construction is inter-
rupted by the parenthetical clause ^wvi)<; .... evSorcrjaa ; and
the apostle continues in ver. 1 8 with koI ravrrjv rrjv ^wvrjv r^ixel^
r)KovaaiJ.ev, not, as he had intended, with ly/ia? el')(e ravrrjv rrjv
<f>(i3vr}v dKovcavra<i, or the like.^ 0appovvre<;, 2 C. v. 6, is taken
up again after several interposed clauses in Oappovfxev 8e, ver. 8.
In 2 C vii. 5, oiiBe/xiav ea'^ifKev dvecrcv tj crdp^ rifioov, aW' iv
iravrl 6\t/36fji,evot, e^aiOev p-dx'^^ K.rX., we may supply ij/xeOa
(from 17 aap^ 77/Lta>j/) ; ^ 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<f)Ofi€P. See
Meyer in loc. In 1 P. ii. 1 1 drrkx^cOe is now restored to the
text,^ and with this e'xpvre<; (ver. 1 2) is regularly connected :
in A xxvi. 2 drr^yyeWov was long ago substituted for diray
yiWoov. On Rom. xii. 6 sqq., H. viii. 10, and 1 P. iii. 1, 7,
see § 63. (In Rev. x. 2 ^%a)i/ is added, in an independent
construction, and here eVrt may be supplied.)
^ Fritz. Diss, in 2 Cor. II. 44. Yet we might also suppose that the writer
had intended to say, receiving from God honour and glory . ... he was de-
clared to he live beloved Son of God, and that the constniction was interrupted
by the direct quotation of the worJ.s spoken by the voice from heaven.
* Herm. V^iy. p. 770.
'[Tisch. read aTtxifh in 1849, but in his 7th and 8th editions irixar^tu
Recent editors agree in receiving the infinitive. See § 63. 2.]
SECT. XLV.] THE PARTICIPLE. 443
Nor can the participle stand for tbe finite verb in Rom. iii. 23,
Travres .... vcrrtpovi'TaL r^s 86$r]s tov Oeov, SiKaLovfievoL Swpcciv k.t.A.,
— though even Ostermann gives the explanation ia-TepovvTai. kol
SiKaiovvTot. The connexion is thus c. aceived by the apostle, as his
words show, — and fall short of praise with God, being (since they are)
freely jmtified, etc. : the latter is a proof of the former.
1 C. ill. 19, 6 Spacrcro/JLevo? rovs cro^oii<i ev tt} Travovpytq. avrCjv, is a
quotation from the 0. T. : it is not a complete sentence, the apostle
taking those words only which were suitable to his purpgse ; com-
pare H. i. 7. What the apostle quotes incompletely, we must not
seek to complete by supplying iari — On 1 P, i. 14 see Fritz. Conject.
I. 41 sq. We may either take the participle fj.r] a-vcrxvp-aTLl^ofjievot as
depending upon iXTria-are, or, regarding this participial clause as
parallel with Kara tov KoXea-avra k.t.X., join it with y€vi')6r)-€ (ver. 15) :
1 prefer the latter course. — As little reason is there for changing
the participle into a finite verb in such proverbial expressions as
2 P. li, 22, Kvo)v CTTtcrrpci/'as iirl to tStov i^ipafxa, and vs Xovaafievr]
K.T.X. The words run, a dog tvho turns to his own vomit : tliey are
spoken Scikti/cw?, as it were, with reference to a case actually
observed, — ^just as when we say, a black sheep ! when we notice a
bad man amongst good.
In a different way the participle has been taken for the finite
verb in cases where it appeared to denote an action which followed
that indicated by the finite verb.^ In the N. T., however, we have
not a single certain example of this kind. L. iv. 15, ihiZaxTK^v
. . . . 8o^a^djtxei/os vtto TravTtov, mean.s, He tav.ghi .... being
(whilst he was teaching) praised by all ; Ja. ii. 9, d Se Trpo^wTroA'^TrTcrTc,
apMpTLOv ipyd^ea-Oe. iXey^^o/jLevoL vtto tov vo/jlov k.t.X., is, Ye CO'/nmit
sin, being (since ye are) convicted (as ■!rpo<;w7roXrj7rTovvT€<; ye are con-
victed, etc.) : Gebser's explanation is wrong. H. xi. 35, cTVfx-rravi'
vdija-av oi Trp(j^8e$dfxevoL ttjv <z7roAvTptuo-tv, since they did not accppt the
(offered) deliverance : 7rpn<;8€$dfj.€voL denotes what preceded the tv/a-
iravLt,i(T6ai, rather than what followed it. Compare H. ix. 12. A. xix.
29 is not an, example of that use of the aorist participle in narration
which is treated of by Herna. ad Vig. p. 774 :^ wpfirjo-dv tc ofxoOv/xa-
obv £4S TO Otarpov, crvvap7rd(TavTe<: Tdiiov koI 'AptaTapypv, means either
having carried off Gains, etc. (from their dwelling) with them, or
carrying off ... , with them. In L. i. 9, IXax^y rov Ovfjuaa-ai
ilseXOibv els TOV vaov tov Kvpiov, the participle probably belongs to the
infinitive (as it is taken in the Vulgate), — to burn incense, entering
into the temple ; Meyer's explanation is artificial. On Kom. iii. 23
see above : Kom. ii. 4 is clear in itself.
Another peculiarity which is occasionally met with in Greek
writers, the use of the participle to express the principal notion, the
* Bahr in Creuaer, Melet. III. 50 sq.
^ [According to which <runtpTdiravTis would be eqwivalent to xxi crvtrtf^a.va.t,']
444 THE PARTICIPLE. [PART III.
secondary being conveyed by the finite verb,^ has been without
reason intruded on the N. T. by some, who have entirely forgotten
that this usage cannot be assumed to exist in the absence of any
limitation arising out of the nature of the notions expressed. The
assumption that in 2 C. v. 2 o-rcva^o/Acv .... eViTro^ouvTcs stands
for fTTiTTodovficv a-Tevd^ovTe^, is particularly unfortunate : the parti-
ciple must be taken as annexed to the verb, and explained as an
expression of cause, as in ver. 4 o-rcva'^o/xcv (SapovfifvoL.
7. The present participle (with the article) is not uiifrequently
used substantivally, and then, having become a noun, excludes
all indication of time. In E. iv. 28, o KXeirrwu firjKeTC KkeTneray,
the present does not stand for the aorist o K\.€-\Jra<;, which is
found in some MSS., but the words mean, let the stealer (i. e.,
the thief) steal no more ; H. xi. 2 8. So also when the participle
is followed by an object-accusative or by other adjuncts : G. i.
23, o BuoKcop r}(jia<i Trore, our former persecutor ; Mt. xxvii. 40,
o KaraXviov rov vaov, the destroyer of the temple (in his own
imagination); Rev. xv. 2, oi viKOivra Ik toO Oripiov^ xx. 10,
G. ii. 2 (oi hoKovvre<i, see Kypke II. 2 74, — compare also Pachym.
1.117, 138, al), 1 Th. i. 10, v. 24, 1 P. i. 17, Eom. v. 17, Jo.
xii. 20 (xiii. 11). Compare Soph. Antig. 239, ovr elhov 6<iri<;
rjv 6 8pa)v' Pans. 9. 25. 5, ottolo, iartv auTOi<i koX rrj firjTpl
ra Bpcofieva' Diog. L. 1. 87, ^paSeco^; e^^j^etpei TOi? nrpar-
rofj,€voi(; {faciendis), Soph. Electr. 200, o Tavra irpdcra-cov Plat.
Cratyl. 416 b, o ra ovofMara Ti6el<i' Demosth. Theocrin. 508 b,
and frequently in the orators o rov vofxov Tt6el<i (Bremi, Bern.
p. 72) (legislator), 6 ypdcfxov rrjv fiaprvplav. Strabo 15. 713,
Arrian, Al. 5. 7. 12.^ In A. iii. 2, also, ol ekiropevofjievoL is sub-
stantival, the enterers, those entering ; and we cannot say with
Kuhnol {Matt. p. 324) that this present participle is used for the
future, on the ground that in ver. 3 we find fxeXkovra<i ehievac.
In ver, 3 the more exact expression was quite in place, since
the man who addressed the two apostles detained them a short
time during their ekdvai. — In other places, where there is a
1 Matth. 557. 1, Ferm. Soph. Aj. 172, Stallb. Plat, Gorg. p. 136 (Jelf
705. 3>.
^ 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 <rvti<f>€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 <ruiji.<pi>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,
<rKo-rovfityot ffKo-roufnv, has been questioned by recent critics : Matth. (§ 659)
proposes to read (xxo-rovfiii S. <rxort>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<i>» 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<s vtto tov UavXov \€<yo^kvoi<i,
avTiXeyovre^ Kol^ ^Xaa-cfjrjfiovvre^, is an example of a somewliat
different kind : avreXeyou is taken up again in the participle and
strengthened by fiXa<T(f)r]/j,ovi^T€(i (Jelf 705. 4).
E. V. 5, Tovro lo-Tc yti/wcTKoi'Tcs, does not come in here : Io-tc refers
to what has been said in verses 3 and 4, and yivwo-Kovrcs is con-
strued with on, — this however ye are aware of., knowing (considering)
that, etc. That 1 P. i. 10, 12 [11 ]], A. v. 4, do not fall under this
rule is obvious to every one. How Kiihnol could cite H. x. 37 6
ipx6fJi£vo<; q^ei (he leaves out the article, it is true) as an example of
this usage, must remain a mystery.
Rem. 1. On the absolute use of the participle see §§ 59 and 6C.
Such a participle is tv^w, 1 C. xvi. G, introduced into the sentence
like an adverb: see Xen. An. 6. 1. 20, Plat. Alab. 2. 140a. (Jelf
700. 2. a.)
Rem. 2. Sometimes two finite verbs are so closely connected by
Kai, that, logically, the first must be taken as a participle ; e. g.,
Mt. xviii. 21, TToaroLKiS a/JLapTrja-eL £ts ifJ-e 6 d8€A</)os /jlov kol d^j^cro)
avr(3, that is, afiaprfjcravTi. tw d8eA<;!><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\ <zva ; around^
{a.fX(J3i) irepC ; opposite, dvTC.
(b) Of (direction or) motion towards a point : into, ets ; towards,
Kara ; to, TTp6<s ', upon, im ; along, by, Trapd ; under, vtto.
(c) Of (direction or) motion from : out of, ck ; from, d-Tro ; from
under, vno ; down from, Kard ; from beside, irapd. With the last
cycle is connected the local through (8ta),i for which the Hebrews
use p, and which we sometimes express by out of (e.g., to, go out of
the door).
4. The type of local relations is first applied to notions of
time : hence most prepositions have had tempo j-al meaniiigs as-
signed to them. Then follows the transference to non-material,
purely metaphysical relations, which are conceived by every
nation under a more or less material form, and hence are very
differently expressed in different languages. Thus the Greek
says \ej€tv TrepCrLvof;, the Roman dAcere de aliqua, re, the Hebrew
3 13'^, the German frequently ilber etwas sprechen. By the
first the object is viewed as the centre which the speaker as it
were encompasses (to speak about something) ; the Roman views
it as a whole from which the speaker imparts something (to the
hearer), — de, as if "from the subject to say something";'' the
Hebrew, as the basis of the speaking (to discourse mi some-
thing) ; the German, as a surface lying before the speaker
over which the speaking spreads (for in this combination iiber
is followed by the accusative).
The notion of origin and consequently of cmise is most simply
comprised in the prepositions from, out of (fiiro, vtto, Trapd,
€k) ; that of occasion and therefore also of motive in ttjoo?, eh^
iiri with the dative, and Btd with the accusative (on account of) ;
in this case the idea suggested by iirt is that of the basis on
^ Compare Winer, Proyr. de verborum cum prcepositionibus composUorum in
N. T. v.<u V. p. 3.
'^ On the primary meaning of the Latin de, see lleidtmann in the Zeitschr. f.
AUcrf/i.-Wiss. 1846, No. 109 sq.
■* As in German au/' das Oeriicht
SECT. XLVII.J THE TREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL. 453
which something rests, just as we for the same reason use ground
for ratio. Design and aim are expressed by the prepositions to,
for, — iiri with the dative, eU and irpos with the accusative :
condition by eVt' with the dative, as we also say with the same
transference of meaning aiif Lohn Recht spreclien} and the like.
The object forming the basis on which an emotion rests is
indicated by eV/ with the genitive ; ^ as we also say to
rejoice over, pride oneself on, etc. Speaking in reference to
an object is designated as Xiyeiv irepl rivo<i (see above). The
7wrma or rule is indicated either by lomirdA (Trpos, Kara), or
by out of (e/f). In the former construction the rule is viewed
as that towards which something should direct itself; in the
latter, that which is regulated is viewed as proceeding out of,
being derived from, that whicli regulates. Lastly, the means
is very simply expressed by Bid with the genitive, sometimes
by iv.
5. One preposition certainly may stand for another in certain
cases. Amongst these, however, we must not reckon the cases
in which a metaphysical relation is expressed equally well by
several prepositions ; ^ as in loqui de re and sujjcr re, ^fjv eK and
uTTo TLvo<i, (h<fie\€C(T6ac cLTTO aud e/c Ttj/09 (Xen. Cyr. 5. 4. 34,
Mem. 2. 4. 1), — also d)(f)t\elcr0ai iirl tlvl, cnroKretveadaL afro and
t/c Tii^o? (Rev. ix. 18), airo6vi]crKeLV e'/c rLvo<i (Rev. viii. 11) and
VTTO rivo<i, aTroOvi](TK€Li> 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)?
6vpa<i TOV /j,v7}fieLov, which corresponds more fully with the
circuin stances of the case, out of the door— hewn in the rock),
for it is not always necessary to speak with exact precision,
and inadvertence on the writer's part may lead to the use of
the less definite expression in the place of the more definite.
It is only in appearance that an interchange of prepositions
takes place when a preposition is used in a pregnant sense, i. e.,
when it includes a second relation, the antecedent or the con-
sequent of that which it properly denotes (e. g., KaroiKelir eh
TrjV ttoKlv, elvai vtto vofiov), or when attraction takes place,
as in alpetv ra €k t7}9 otV/a9 (Mt. xxiv. 17), aTroTa^aadai roU
6t9 TOP oIkov (L. ix. 61).
An arbitrary interchange of prepositions (of which the older K T.
commentaries are full, and which was in part supported by a misuse
of parallel passages, especially in the Gospels) would never have
been dreamed of, had it been customary to regard languages as living
organs of communication for the different nations. It is tndy absurd
to suppose that any one could have said " he is travelling into Egypt "
instead of" he is travelhng in Egypt" (eJs for Iv), or "all things are
for him " in the place of " all things axe from him." We cannot even
regard it as entirely a matter of indifference whether, e. g., through
is expressed by 8ta or by iv, especially in the case of 8ia "l-qcrov
XpLOTov, and iv 'Itjo-oC Xpurrw, The Latin language also usually
makes a distinction between per (before names of persons) and the
ablative (of things). Exact observation shows generally how cor-
rectly even prepositions which are closely allied are discriminated
by the K T. writers (e. g., in Eom. xiil 1, ovk ea-nv i$ov(Tia d firj
ttTTo $€ov, al Sc ovcrai vtto tov 6eov Tcroy/ncvat cio-iv),^ and we should
seek to do honour both to them and to ourselves by uniformly
acknowledging their carefulness.
Where a relation may be expressed equally well by either of two
prepositions, the choice of the one in the N. T. in preference to the
other may perhaps belong to the colouring of Hellenistic Greek : at
any rate the grammarian must take this into consideration as a
possible case. Planck is mistaken, however, when he supposes ^
that dya^os Trpo's Tt (K iv. 29) is less correct Greek than dya^os cts
Tt : the former frequently occurs, e. g,, Theophr. Hist. Plant. 4. 3.
1, 7, 9. 13. 3, Xen. Mem. 4. 6. 10, al.*
' [The best texts now have ivo. ]
- Hence I cannot from my own observation understand what Lticke (Apo-
kal. II. 458) says of an irregular and inconsistent use of prepositions in the
3 Articuli nonnulU Lex. nov. in N. T. -p. li (Goett. 1824).
* See Schneider, Plat. Civ. II.. 278.
SECT. XLVII.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 455
With the prepositions which are construed with different cases in
different senses it is sometimes possible to join either of two cases
with equal correctness, where a metaphysical relation is to be ex-
pressed (e.g., we may have cVt with either genitive or accusative) :
indeed the MSS. are sometimes divided between the two cases, see
Rom. viii. 11. In the N. T. this principle has often been wrongly
applied to 8ta: see below, § 47. i. Rem. d, and compare § 49. c. Purely
external notions, however, admit of no such interchange in careful
writers : only very late authors, especially the Byzantines, take this
license, — confounding for example ^tra with genitive and /zfra with
accusative; see the index to Malalas s. v. (Bonn edition).^ Indeed
the later writers have so completely lost all sensitiveness to the force
of the cases, that they even begin to join prepositions with cases
entirely different in nature, e.g., dTrd with the accusative and dative,
KttTtt with the dative, o-uV with the genitive : see the index to Leo
Grammaticus and to Theophanes.'^ ' The opinion recently revived,
that confusion of this kind exists in the N. T. in consequence of the
absence of cases in Hebrew, is sufficiently refuted by the fact that
the N. T. writers, except in a very few doubtful instances, show
clearly that they correctly felt the distinctions between the cases.
The position of prepositions is a simpler matter in the N. T. than
in Greek writers (Matth. 595, Jelf 651). As a rule, they are placed
immediately before the noun. Only those conjunctions which can
never stand first in a clause are admitted between the preposition
and the noun : as 8e, Mt. xi. 12, xxii. 31, xxiv. 22, 36, A. v. 12 ;
yap, Jo. iv. 37, V. 46, A. viii. 23, Rom. iii, 20 ; tc, A. x. 39, xxv. 24 ;
yc, L. xi. 8, xviii. 5 ; fxiv and /xev yap, Rom. xi. 22, A. xxviii. 22,
2 Tim. iv. 4.
PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE,
a. \Aifrl, — the Latin ante — has the local meaning (straAght)
lefore, against (over against). Figuratively used, it denotes
barter and exchange (Plat. Conv. 218 e), in which one thing
is placed against another, is given /o?- it ('•' tooth /or tooth," Mt.
V. 38), and consequently takes its place. ^Aurl governs the
genitive because this is the case of (procession from and) ex-
change ; SCO above, p. 258. Examples of this meaning are 1 C.
xi. 15, ?; KOjXT) avrl Trepi^oXaiov SeBorai {rfj yvvaiKi), her hair
.... for, in the place of, a covering (to serve her as a covering.
1 Compare Scha?f. Ind. ad JSsop. p. 136, P.oisson. Anecd. IV. 487, V. 84. In
Acta Apocr. p. 257 we find fura. with the accusative close by uira. with the
genitive, the preposition meaning with in l.'oth places,
* The examples of U with the accusative arc of a different liind : see .Scha;f.
Dion. Vomp. p. 305, Koss, lns<rrlptt. (Jr. I. 37 (Don. j.. 510, Jclf 625).
456 PKEPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. [PART III.
— compare Lucian, Philops. 22, Libaii. Fp. 350), H. xii. 16, o?
avrl ^pcoaeo)^ ^ta^ aireBoro to. TrptoTOTOKia avrov' xii. 2, avrt, t^9
7rpoK€iijL€v-r]<; avrw ')(apa<i vTre/xeive aravpov (for the joy ordained
for him, — setting the death of the cross over against this), Mt. xx.
28, Bovvai Trjv '^V'^rjv avrovXvrpov avrl iroWcoV xvii. 27, e'/ce?-
vov [(xraTTjpa) \a^a)v B6^ avrol^ ami e/juov Kai <tov' ii. 22,
^ Ap'^ikao'i jSaaCKevei avrl 'HpcoBov, for Herod, in Herod's place,
— compare Her. 1. 108, Xen. An. 1. 1. 4, 1 K. xi. 44. Hence
dvTi is chiefly the preposition which denotes the price, for which
merchandise is given or received (H. xii. 16) ; then the retribu-
tion (Lev. xxiv. 20) and the recompense (here bordering on a
causal sense, Uke the German oh). Thus avB' wv m.eans (as a re-
compense) /or the fact (that), i. e., because, L. i. 20, xix. 44, Plat.
Menex. 244, Xen. An. 5. 5. 14, 1 K. xi. 11, Joel iii. 5,— ot where-
fore (therefore) L. xii. 3 ; dvrl rovrov E. v. 31 (from the LXX^),
therefore (for this), compare Pausan. 10. 38. 5. In one passage
dvTt is used with a peculiar application, but one which points
to the primary meaning of the preposition : Jo. i. IC, eXa/3o/xej/
.... %a/>if 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 TLvo<i, Xen. (Ec. 13. 6, it is defined
more sharply.) It is only in later writers that irapd with passive
verbs has exactly the force oiviro} In A. xxii. 30, ri Kaiiqyo-
peiTut irapa Tcop'IovSalaw, Luke could not well have said viro roiv
'Iovhal(ov, for as yet they had presented no accusation, — had not
taken action in the way of impeachment : the meaning is, with
ivhat he is charged on the part of the Jcv:s? In Mt. xxi. 42, irapa
Kvpiov iyeveTo avrrj (from the LXX)means/?'or/i God — divinitiis,
through means which exist in the power of God — this came to
pass. In Jo. i. 6, iyevero dvOpauro^ direaTaXfievo^ irapd Oeov'
1 Bast, Ep. Crit. pp. 156, 235, Ellendt, Arr. Alex. II. 172.
^ [The best texts now have i^re.]
458 PKEPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. [PART III.
the meaning is, he appeared, sent from God ; compare ver, l,r)v
Trpo'i Tov Oeov. (Don. pp. 431, 521, Jelf 637.)
There is not a single passage in the N. T. in which Trapd with the
genitive stands for -n-apd with the dative, as it is sometimes supposed
to do in Greek writers.^ In 2 Tim. i. 18 cvpio-Keiv conveys the idea
of obtaining (it is otherwise in L. i. 30, cSpe? x^P'" -^"pa t^ Oeui, tvith
God). Mlc V. 26 is an example of attraction. In Mk. iiL '2 1 , oi Trap
avroD probably means his kindred ;^ see Fritz, in loc, and compare
Susanna, 33. On the use of irapd as a periphrasis for the genitive see
§ 30. 3, Rem. 5. Any one may see tbab ra Trap* vp-wv, Ph. iv. 18, ra
Trap^ avToiv, L. X. 7, are not simply equivalent to m vp.Siv {vp.€T€pa), to.
avrSyv : in botli passages tlie phrase is joined with a verb of receiving,
—receiving that which comes from you, i. e., your gifts,— eating what
is offered, what is set before you, from (by) them.
'Ek originally denotes 'procession out of the interior — the com-
pass, the limits — of anything, and is the antithesis of et9 (L. x. 7,
xyii. 24, Herod. 4. 1 5. 1 0. ^sch. Dial. 3. 11). L. vi. 42, eV/SaXe
rrjv SoKcv ck tov 6<f>6a\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<TK€v e'/c rov irkoiov, is concisely
expressed, — taught out of the ship (speaking from on board) ;
compare ii. 35. Akin to this is the use of e/c to indicate the
material, Mt. xxvii. 29, Rom. ix. 21, compare Herod. 8. 4. 27 ; ^
then the mass or store out of which somethimj comes, from
which it is derived, as Jo. vi. 50, (^a'yelv i^ dprov L. viii. 3,
1 Jo. iv. 13, e/c rov irvevixaro^ avrov BeBojKev r}fuv,from his
spirit he has given to us ; further, the class from which some one
is, to which he belongs, as Jo. vii. 48, /i.?; rt? eV rSiv ap'XpvTwv
eTTiarevaev ; Jo. iii. l,dv6poiiro<i ck twv <f)aptcraicov xvi. 17, ecTrov
CK rcov fiadrjTMv (rives:), 2 Tim. iii. 6, 2 Jo. 4, Rev. ii. 10, — a
man's native country, out of which he comes, A. xxiii. 34,— the
progenitor from whom he is descended, as 'EJipala e| 'EBpaiwv
(Plat. Phmdr. 246 a),'* compare H.ii.ll; and lastly, the condition
1 Schffif. Dion. Comp. p. 118 sq., Held, Plut. Timol.-p. 427 (Jelf 637. Obs.l).
^ [lu the original there follows the parenthesis (" those descended from Mm,
his family "). The words are probably inserted by mistake, as they are inap-
plicable to the present case, and as Fritzsche — to whom Winer refers~e.xpressiy
rejects this meaning (which belongs to the phrase in 1 Mace. xiii. 52). 1
'Ellendt, Arr. Alex. I. 150.
♦ Compare IsuxUhuku, Died. S. Exc. Vat. p. 31.
SECT. XLVII.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 459
from which any one comes out, Eev. ix. 20, — or (by brachylogy)
out of which he undertakes something, as 2 C. ii. 4 e/c ttoXXt}?
6\iylrea)<i . . . eypaylra vfuv. Sometimes we find e/c used in a
local sense like the Latin ex for de {down from), as in A. xxviii.
4, Kpe/jidfievov to drjplov e'/c tt}? p^eipo? (Judith viii. 24, xiv. 11,
Odyss. 8. 67, Her. 4. 10, Xen. Mem. 3. 10. 13), A. xxvii. 29 ; or
less definitely,^ H. xiii. 10, (paryelv eK tov Over laa-rr^plov, from
the altar (that which was offered on the altar) ; " and even of
simple direction/rwn, as in Mt. xx. 21, iva KaOiaaaiv . •. . eU
e'/c Se^ccov k.tX, H. i. 13 (Bleek in lac). The German phrase is
to the right, but the Roman also says a, deoctra, and the Hebrew
IP. In such designations indeed it is of no consequence whether
We suppose the motion to take place from the object whose
position we are fixing (towards ourselves), or from ourselves
towards the object : the former conception is chosen by the
Greeks (eV Se^ta«?), the latter by the Germans. Compare Goeller
on Thuc. 8. 33; and for analogous examples see Thuc. 1. 64 3.
51, and Her. 3. 101, otKeovat Trpo<; vorov ave^iov.
When used of time, Ik denotes the starting-point of a tem-
poral series, the period since which something has been in ex-
istence : A. xxiv, 10, €/< TToWcov irrov ovra ae KpLrrjv k.tX., Jo.
vi. 66, ix. 1, A. ix. 33, G. i. 15 ; i^ Uavov L. xxiii. 8, like e/c
iroXkov.^ The Greek use of the preposition otit of results from
his more vivid conception of the relation. He does not look on
the period, as we do, as a point from which a reckoning is made.
^ Mk. xvi. 3 does not come in here ; see above, no. 5 (p. 454). — We must not
forget that sometimes the same relation is viewed somewhat differently in
two different languages, and yet correctly in both : e. g. , Rom. xiii. 11, \ytf6nyai
ilvwtev, " aufstehen rom Schlafe " [i. e., " arise /rom sleep "]. In Rev. vi. 14
ix is probably used designedly, as the mountains are fixed in the earth. This is
certainly the case in Jo. xx. 1.
2 Mt. xvii. 9, *«Ta/Sai'>!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<i,
i^ erovf:, etc.).
In a figurative sense, this preposition denotes any kind of
source and canse from which something proceeds or results
(hence ck and Bid are allied ^), whether this source (canse) be
material or personal : A. xLx. 25, Rom. x. 17, 2 C. ii. 2, iii. 5.
The following examples of this use of ifc deserve special notice :
Rev. viii. 11, diroSvrjcrKUv eK rwv vBdrcov (xix. 18,^ Dio C.
p. 239. 27, compare Iliad 18. 107) ; Rev. xv. 2, vlkui' €k Ttvo<i ^
(victoriam ferre ex aliquo, Liv. 8. 8 extr.) ; 1 0. ix. 14, etc rov ev-
wyyeXiov ^r)v (L.xii, 15, — compare ^rjv a7ro,Aristot.PoZ. 3.3,*and
ex rapto vi^'ere, Ovid, 3fct. 1. 144) ; L. xvi. 9, 'Kotrjaare eavroh
<bi\ov<; cK rov fiaficovd Tri<; d8iKia<; ; Rom. i. 4, opLadevro^ viov
Beov i^ dva(TTd(Teoi<i veKpoiv (the source of proof and conviction,
— compare Ja. ii. 18). The reference to persons^ is especially-
frequent and varied: compare further Jo. iii. 25, ejevero ^ijTrjaii^
eK Twv fiaBrfTOiu 'Icodvvov (Plat. Thecet. l7l a), Mt. i. 18, eV
yacTTpl c'^ovaa eK Trvevjxaro'i dyiov Jo. vii. 22, ovk e'/c rov Ma)v~
<rea)9 earlv {rj Trepiro/xy), Rom. xiii. 3, e^et? eiraivov e^ avrrj'^
{e^ovcria<i), Jo. x. 32, TroXXa koXcc epya eBei^a v/xlv e/c rov 7rarp6<;
fiov' vi. 65 (Her. 8. 114), xviii. 3, 1 C. vii. 7, 2 C. ii. 2, Rom. v.
16 (where Fritzsche's rendering ^er is inexact). 'Ek is especially
so used in reference to rulers, magistrates, judges ; see Xen.
An. 1. 1. 6,6y. 8. 6. 9, Her. 1.69, 121, 2. 151,Polyb. 15. 4,7.
In a special application this preposition denotes the state of mind,
the feeling, out of which something springs, as in 1 Tim. i. 5
(Rom.vi.l7), Mk. xii. 30, Ph. i. 16,' 1 Th. ii. 3 (Plato,PM. 22b,
1 Franke, Dem. p. 8, Held, Plut. Tim. 331 ; compare Fritz. Bom. I. 332.
2 [Read ix. 18, as in ed. 5.]
^ [A. Buttmann regards this as a Latinism (p. 147). lu Grimm's edition of
Wilke's Claris it is explained as an example of brachylogy, " vincendo se liberare
e potestate belluse." Alford cites Thuc. 1. 120, a^ixovy-ivous Ix ftiv tlpnvfis
■jrektfiiTv K.T.x. (see Jelf 621. 2) ; but surely. this is entirely different from v/xSr
* Demosth. Eiilml. 540 b, ^^w tx mu "hixa'tou, cited by Wahl in his Clavis, does
not come uuder this head.
* This usage is carried very far, especially in Herodotus : see Schweighaeus.
Lex. Herod, p. 192. See further e.g. Piog. I;, 1. 54, Philostr. Soph. 2. 12, al.,
and Stui-z, Lexic. Xen. II. 88. {Don. p. 4^30, Jelf 621. 3. 6.)
* [Here Winer takes el fciy as the subject of the sentence, and joins 1%
uyi-rn; with xrifvtaftvsi Understood : this construction is followed by the ancient
versions, our own Auth. Ycr., Alford, Lightfoot, al. A little lower down Ph. i.
17 is quoted for u\icn t|, which imi)lies that «/ \\ ipihlas {otns) is the subject:
SECT. XLVIL] prepositions WITH THE GENITIVE. 461
Xen. An. 7. 7. 43, eV t/}? -v/^i^%% (f)L'Ko<i rjv' Arrian, Ep. 3. 22. 18,
Aristoph. Nuh. 86) ; theu the occasion, as in Rev. xvi. 21, c'/SXa-
a-(f)}]fxi]aav tov deov e'/c t?}9 TrXTjjr]^ (but not, as Meyer maintains,^
in 1 C. X. 17), and the reason (ratio), Eev. viii. 13, — for both
occasion and reason are the source out of which the result flows
(Lucian, Asin. 46, Demosth. Con. 727 b ^) ; the substratum of a
judgment (that out of which a judgment is derived), Mt. xii. (33)
37,^ Eev. XX. 12, Xen. Cyr. 2. 2. 21, 2. 3. 6, JEsop. 93. 4 (we
use a different figure, decide by or according to something, —
compare iv, 1 Jo.-iii 19, v. 2), — and consequently the standard,
2 C. viii 1 1 . Occasionally 7??'icc is expressed by means of gk,'
as in Mt. xxviL 7, rj'yopaa'av e| avrwv (apyvptcov) dypov (Palseph.
46. 3), since for us the possession proceeds out of the money
paid for it: compare ^It. xx. 2, where the language is abbreviated.
On fi'l epyoyv thai and the like, G. iii. 10, Eom. iii. 26, iv. 14,
16, Ph. i. 17, Tit. i. 10, see my note on the first of these pas-
sages.* In general, the phrase etvat e/c riva shares in all the
prepositiott's variety of meaning : compare further, for instance,
1 C. xii. 15, OTL ovK eljxl %e/p, ovk elpX €K tov a-cofMara. Our
expression is the .revei-se of this ; we say to belong to the body."
That EK never stands for iv (as it is supposed sometimes to do in
Greek writers, see Poppo on Time. 2. 7, 8. 62) is quite certain. As
to attraction, e. g., Mt. xxiv. 17, alpnv to. Ik ttj^ oIklus, see § 66. 6 ;
and compare Poppo, Thicc. III. ii. 493.
'Ttto signifies /rom under, awny from under (nnrit?) : Hesiod,
Thcog. 669, Zev? .... virh ■^dovos rjKe k.tX., Plat. Phurxlr.
230 b. Next it commonly accompanies passive verbs,® to in-
this is the view taken (in both verses) by Meyer, De W., ElUcott, and others.
The construction must be the same in both verses. J
1 [Not now : he ren<lers " for from the one bread we all receive a portion."]
'''"Other passages quoted (e.g., by Bretscbneider) for the signification on
account o/ must be set aside. Rom. v. 16 reduces itself very simply to the
idea of source. A. xxviii. 3 may be rendered gliding out o/tJie heat ; but recent
editors read kts.
' See Kypke in loc.
* [There Winer merely says " Jvai £«, ut alibi, significnt, pmdere aliquevi ab
aliqua re, stare ab aliqua parte." See Ellic'jtt //> 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, <f)UiVTJ<; iv€^OeL(rr)<: auro) rotasSc vtto r^s fJ.eyaXoTrpeTTOv's Sd^s,
simply means when this voice was borne to him by the sublime majesty :
all other explanations are arbitrary.
^Airo as used of place is from, in the widest sense, — whether
that which comes from an object had previously been on, at, with,
hy, or even in the object ; hence this preposition is mainly the
antithesis of eVt with the accusative (Diog. L. 1. 24). See for
example, L. xxiv. 2, evpov rov XiOov airoKeKvX.iafievov diro rov
fjbVTj/jietov; Mt. xiv. 29, Acara/Sa? diro rov irXolov, coming down
from the ship (he had been on the ship) ; iii. 1 6, avc^rj clttq rov
vhara, vi^ from the water (not, out of the water) ; xv. 27, rwv
connecting viro rns K.r.x. with Kce.ra.vovii\i/jt,iv4)y, is to be preferred. — L. viii. 14 also
must be recognised as an example of v-x'o with a passive (the active verb is
used in Mt. xiii. 22, Mk. iv. 19). Bornemann (combines and) explains the words
differently, but not satisfactorily : he is followed however by Meyer. [Bor-
nemann and Meyer join utto with ■ropiu'of/.ivoi : Bornemann's rendering is " inter
curas .... vitam degunt " (Jelf 639. 2. c).]
' On the whole see Engelhardt, Plat. Apol. p. 171 sq., Lehmann, Lucian
VIII. 450, II. 23, Schulz, Abendmahl p. 218.
SECT. XLVII.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 463
■^1/^10)1' Twi/ TTiirrovTuiv airo tt}? Tpa7re^r)<; (they were on the
table) ; A. xxv, 1, uve^rj et? 'lepoaoXv/xa airb Kcuiaapeia^, from
(not ovt of) C'ffisarea.
In its further development airo becomes, both for physical and
for metaphysical relations, the preposition
a. Of separating and desisting from, as in Mt. vii. 23,
dirc^copetTe dn ipov' L. xxlv. 31, a^ai/TO? iyevero cltt uvtcov
H. iv. 4, KuriTravaev cnro nravroiv ra>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, <yvov^ utto tov KevTvpicovo'i' Mt. xii. 38, Oe-
rhv IvToXhn 'iXccliov "rapa, rtZ ■mcrpiii. Thus Paul Writes in 1 C. xi. 23, wa/isXa/So*
a.'ri Tou xvp'iov, of the Lord have I received ; not, the Lord himself has (directly,
personally, as in an a-roxaXv^is) communicated it to me. Some uncial MSS.
here have •ra^a, but this is certainly a correction ; see Schulz I. c. p. 215 sqq.,
and comp. N. Theol. Annal. 1818, II. 820 sqq. [See also Ellicott on G. i. 12.
Lightfoot (on G. i. 12) maintains that this distinction between -rapd and aira
after Xa.fi(ia.nn cannot be insisted on. " It is true, that while ««•» contemplates
only the giver, vrapa. in a manner connects the giver with the receiver, denoting
the passage from the one to the other, but the links of the chain between the
two may be numerous, and in all cases where the idea of transmission is promi-
nent -rxfi will be used in preference to a«'o, be the communication direct or
indirect ; so Ph. iv. 18, ^i^dfiuos Tupec ^E-ra-ipfKihirov to, ira/ ufx,uii ; comp. Plat.
Symp. 202 E."]
1 Here and there the MSS. are divided between iiro and v-r'o (Mk, viii. 31,
Rom. xiii. 1) : this is frequently the case in Greek authors seeSchsef. M^let. pp. 22,
83 sq., Sohweighaeuser, Lex. Polyb. p. 69 al. The use of «to with passive verbs
in the place of ya-o becomes more and more comrnoii in later writers, especially
the Byzantines ; see e. g. the index to Malalas in the Bonn edition. In earlier
Greek it is on the whole rare : see however Poppo, Thuc. III. i. 158, Bernh.
p. 224. [In modern Greek a,To is the preposition commonly used with passive
verbs ; see Mullach, Viilg. p. 385, Sophocles, Gr. p. 153.]
^ Ja. i. 13, ocri 6iov Ttipa-Zofiui, simply means /rcwAt God I am tempted, and is
a more geneml expression than i>*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 Trj<s
6Xi\l/t(o'i : but this is on occasion of the persecution. — (4) modo, instar ■
2 Tim. i. 3, airo Trpoyovwv (see also Flatt in loc.) : the meaning isfrom
my forefathers (Polyb. 5. 55. 9), with the feehngs inherited from them.
—On such passages as Jo. xi. 18, Rev. xiv, 20, see § 61. 5.
1 Poppo, Tkuc. III. i. 128, 593, Stallb. Plat. Bep. II. 180.
2 [Most now read i-^i here : this i.s not a " negative combination."']
3 [Here some of the best MSS. read itp' \ctvTov, by himself (V\i\g. apvd se).
See Meyer in loc^, Liddell and Scott s. v. iW. A. I. 1. d, Jelf 633. I. 3. fi.]
* [Don. p. 506, Jelf 620, Webster p. 152, Green p. 215.]
30
466 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. [PAET III.
c. 'AfMcfiL does not occur in the N. T.
d. IIpo before (with a more general meaning than avrl) is
used oi place in A, v. 23 [Bee.], Ja. v. 9, also in A. xiv. 13 (com-
pare Heliod. 1. 11. 30, Boeckh, Corp. Inscrijpt. II. 605). More
commonly of time, — either with nouns of time, as 2 Tim. iv. 21,
Tvph ')^eLfiojvor Jo, xiii. 1, 2 C. xii. 2, Mt. viii. 29, and the infini-
tive of verbs (Mt. vi. 8, Jo. i. 49); or with personal words, as in
Jo. V. 7 rrrpo ifjuov' x. 8, Eom. xvi. 7. It is applied figuratively
in Ja. V. 12, Trpo irdvTOJv, ante omnia, 1 P. iv. 8 (Xen. Mem. 2.
5. 3, Herod. 5, 4. 2). -As to the original use of this preposition,
by which its construction with a genitive is explained, see Bernh.
p. 231.^ (Don. p. 505, Jelf 619.)
e. UepL The primary meaning of this preposition is
clearly seen when it is joined with the dative case. It then ex-
presses the notion of encircling, inclosing on several or on all
sides, and is most nearly allied with afjuf>i, 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<i (Alciphr. 1. 20, see Bernh. p. 264), ehai
7rp6<i TLvo^, to be on the side of some one. Compare ad Ilerennium
2. 27, ab reo facere. Hence also 7rpo9 €p,ov, like e re nostra,
to my advantage, in accordance with my interests (Lob. p. 10,
Ellendt, Arrian I. 265). In the N. T. Trpo? in this sense has
given way to diro and eV: it occurs once only, in A. xxvii. 34,
TovTo (taking nourishment) tt/jo? t?79 vp,eT€pa<i acoTr)pia<i virdpyei,
1 Stallb. Plat. Rep. II. 157, and Tim. p. 97.
2 Even here however the preposition certainly retains the meaning around,
about, as the relation was originally viewed. He is "excellent around all," who
by his excellence keeps all in, as it were, so that no one can come forth out of
the mass. " Before all " marks the relation on one side only, ?r«/>/ 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<i r^? v/jberepa'^ So^t??, nan cedct vohis ingloriam.
(Don. p. 524, Jelf 638.)
g. 'E-TTi The primary meaning which might justify the
constiuction with the genitive has here for the most part dis-
appeared ; unless we choose to render e.g. L. iv. 29, 6pov<i, i(f>
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<i rr;? yd^rj'i-
vi. 3, xii. 20, Eom. ix. 5, etvai iirl irdvruyv E. iv. 6 ; compare
Polyb. 1. 34. 1, 2. 65. 9, Arrian, At. 3. 5. 4.'
(b) The object of au action, — its substratum, as it were : e. g.,
Jo. vi. 2, (TT]/Mela &, eiroUi errl tmv daOevovvrcov, which he did
on the sick (compare Matth. ij84. a. e). So especially in refer-
ence to S'peaking, as in G. iii. 1 6 oy Xeyet , , . cu? eVt ttoXXcoij, as
speaking upon moAiy (speaking of many) ; compare sariherc, dis-
serere super re, and Sext. Emp. adv. Matli. 2. 24,. 6. 25, Epict.
Unch. 3.'
(c) Presence before (coram), — especially of appearing before
judges, authorities, etc. (where we say bring up before) : Mt.
xxviii. 14,* A. xxiii. 30, xxiv. 20, xxv. 9, 1 C. vi. 1, 1 Tim. vi. 13
(compare JEl 8. 2, Lucian, Catapl 16,Dio C. p. 8 2.";, Schof^ra.
Imtts 293). Then in a general sense, 1 1'im. v. i'J. e^rl fxaprv-
poiv, before ivitnesses (Xen. Hell. G. 5. 38, Vedig. ii. 14, Lucian,
ridlops. 22, Matzner, Antiph. p. 165)/ — and also 2 C. vii. 14:
before, i. e., to Titus."
(d) In a kindred sense, with names of persons iiri denotes
the time of a prince's reign, as A. xi. 28, eVt KXav^iov, under
Claudius, Mk. ii. 26 (Raphel and Fritz, in loe.), L. iii. 2 (Her. 1.
15, ^Eschin. Vial. 3. 4, Xen. Ggr. 8. 4. 5, el^; ; also simply the
life-time of some one (eV'e/xoG, in tny time), especially of influen-
over the road or that it was planted on an tievation by the rond-side, or that
the road here passed through iv ravine. 'E-ri rtZ, Svfut, A. v 23, must apparently
be taken as an exception to Winer's remark, nnlei.ss we can give the prnpositioM.
its figurative meaning ov^r (ovuraight over, — see above). ]
' [Here iT('j3 probabl}' not genuine : in Kev. v. 10 we iiave (iccaiXiinv i^r) t?!.
•-^ Kcitz, LucianW. 448 (Bij).), Schiyf. Demosth. II. \TJ., Held, Pjut. Timol.
388.
' Heind. Plat. Charvi. 62, Ast, Plat. Lfgfj. p. Ill, Schooiu. Plut. Ag'm ]>. 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-La<i Ba^vktavo^, at the time of the exile.
Lastly, it becomes a simple indication of time, as in H. i. 1, 67r'
ia-x^drov rwv rj^epwv rovreov, in the last of the days, 1 P. i. 20,
2 P.iii. 3 (compare Num. xxiv. 14, Gen.xlix. 1 ; eVt rwv ap'^aiayv
Xpovtov, Aristot. Polit. 3. 10, Polyb. 1. 15. 12, Isocr. PaTug. c.
44) ; and generally of that to which something else attaches
itself, as in Eom, i. 10, eVl ruiv irpofiev^Siv /jlov, with (in) my
prayers, 1 Th. i. 2, E. i. 16. Somewhat different is Mk. xii.
2Q, eirl toO ^drov, at the hush, — a concise expression for " at
tlje passage in which the bush is spoken of."
Sometimes we find eiri with the genitive, in a local sense,
joined with verbs expressing direction, and even motion (Bernh.
p. 246) towards, to, upon. See Mt. xxvi. 12, ^aXovaa to ^lvpov
eVfc rov a-cofiaTo<;, over the body; A. x. 11, aKev6<i ri . . .
KadUfievov iirl t^? 7%, descending to the earth, Mk. xiv. 35,
eTTiTrrev eVt tt}? 7^9, on the earth ; H, vi. 7. This is very com-
mon in Greek writers; see Her. 1. 164, 2. 73, 75, 119, 4. 14,
5. 33,Xen. Cyr. 7. 2. 1, Hell. 1. 6. 20, 3. 4. 12, 5. 3. 6, 7. 1. 28,
al. In this usage the preposition originally included the sense
of remaining ff.^ or on, see Eost p. 560 : Kruger's explanation
(p. 339) is somewhat different.^ In such examples as Rev. x. 2,
L. viii. 16, Jo. xix. 19, A. v. 15 (rieevat, iirl tov k.t.X.), like
jponere in loco, the relation is viewed differently. (Don. p. 5 1 7,
Jelf 633.)
h. Merd properly signifies between, amidst (/ieVo?),^ as in
L. xxiv. 5, ri trjTetre tov ^wvra ixera tS>v 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 <f}a)vrj(; fieydXij^ Bo^d^cov (substantially equivalent to
^ [The force of f^tr^ is clear in veXi/jtilv fura tivcs (Rev. xii. 7, xiiL 4, xvii.
14,— Dj; Dn^3, 1 S. xvii. 33, al.), but it must be remembered that in Greek
writers this phrase has a very different meaning : see Wilke, Clavis s.v. fura (ed.
Grimm), Jelf 636. I. b.]
^ [Add L. i. 58. " This language must be traced to the Septuagint ; which
also exhibits in the same connexion the simple Dative (Jos. ii. 12), as well as
lis and tTi with the Accus. (Jos. ii. 14, 2 S. ii. 5). The expression eVa o etai
lTe>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'€(a<i avTov' Kom. iii 25, hv Trpoedero iXacrTr/piov 810,
T^9 TTUTTeco'?' Eom. ii. 12, Ja. ii. 12, KpivicrSai 810, v6fU)v. It is
applied to persons, as in A. iii. 16, 17 Tr/o-rt? 17 8t' avrov' 1 C. iii.
5, 8cdKovot, 8c uv itng^evaare' H. iii. 1 6, ti/ i'^iiXdovre^ i^ Alyv-
TTTov 8id McDvaeoi^ : so especially 8id 'Irjaov Xpurrov of the
mediatorial work of Christ in all its part.«^, Rom. ii. 16, v. 1,
2 C. i. 5, G. L 1, E. i. 5, Ph. i. 11, Tit. iii. 6, al. ; ' also 8id
7rv€v/LLaro<i {ay lav), Eom. V. 5, 1 C. xil 8, E. iii. 16. Under
this (instrumental) meaning must also be ranged 2 Tim. ii. 2, 8cd
TToXXcov fjLapTvpwvdntervenientihus multis teUih-iis, hy ike mediation
of, i.e., here, in tlie presence o/many witnesses); and H. vii. 9, hid
A/3padfM Kol Aeiil 8e8€KdTcoTai, throuffh Abraham, i.e., in the per-
son of Abraliam as representative of the whole Israelitish people,
— through Abraham's being tithed, Levi is also tithed. Atd
is sometimes, but only seldom, used in reference to the causa
principalis'^ (as in 1 C. i. 9, G. iv. 7 f. V), and might appear
* Tliis phrase has essentially the same meaning when it is combined with
words ct{ praising, tlionking, etc., as in Rom. L 8, vii. 26, x\i. 27, Col. iii. 17.
Not only are the benefits for Avhich we give thanks procured through Christ,
but also the thanksgiving itself is offered (in a mode pleasing to God) through
Christ, living with God. and (continuing the work of mediation for his peoplfi.
The Christian thanks God, not in his own person, but through Clirist, whom he
regards as the medium of \,i9. prayer, as He is the medium of his salvation.
Philippi's remarks on Rom. i. 8 are inadequate : Bengel is better.
^ On the Latin jjer fur a see Hand, Turaell. IV. 436 sq. "The (vrong done
tJtrough me " and " the wrong done hy me" Miay in the end express exactly
the same thing, but the wrong -doer is viewed under different aspects in the
two expressions. Aid is probably used designedly in Mt. xxvi. 24, t* at^ptiTM
oi' eu vies rau itPpurav ■jrapxliierai (the iiaitor w as mciely an instrument, com-
pare Rom, viii. 32) ; also in A. ii. 43, toXX* ts Ttparu xa'i irvftittt ha tu>v
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 (J<tti) Bid B6^t}<;, i. e,, evBo^ov (Matth.
580. 1, e). More loosely used, this preposition denotes that with
^ Brenii (on (]orn. Nep. 10, 1. 4) takes almost exactly the same view. Even
if it were conceded that S/a is perfectly identical with {/■ri, it would not follow
that in G. iii. 19, (ri/^os) S/arayj); S/ ayyikuv, the angel.? are indicated as the
authors of the Mosaic Law (as Schulthess persistently maintained). If we are
to depart from the simple explanation ordained through angels, reasons alto-
gether different from those which Schulthess gives, and of a more positive kind,
must be brought forward to justify the change.
2 [Stei^er refers avTou to the king : similarly Alford and (rthers. — On the
use of ha. in such passages as G. 1. 1 see Ellicott and Ijightfoot in loc. In
G, iv. 7, referred to in the text, S/i htZ is certainly the most probable
reading. ]
^ In 1 Th. iv. 2, rlyas ^afayyiX-in; liaxa/ilt Vfiiv iia, tou KVfiou Inrco,
the expression at first sight appeara strange. But as the Apostle was not
acting in his own person, but as moved through Christ, his charges were really
given through Christ.
* Xen. Cyr. 4. 6. 6 is of a different kind. In 2 C. ii. 4; also, i^-pai/'fl! vfiTv S/i
^eXXuv iatfvatt is properly through many tears : " amid many tears " expresses
eomething similar, — see above, s. v. fiira.
SECT. XLVII.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE, 475
which some one is furnished, the circumstances and relations
arrjid which he does something: 1 Jo. v. 6, iXdcov he vBaTo<;
Koi aiyLaTo<i, canu hy meatis of water and hlood ; H. ix. 12, —
but see Bleek in loc. ; ^ Eom. ii, 2 7, ere rov hia ypdfxfiaTO<; kuI
7r€piT0firj<s Trapa^drrjv ovra, ivith letter and circumcision, i. e.,
although thou wast in possession of a written law, etc. ; iv. 1 1 ;
xiv. 20, 6 hia TTpo'iKofi/xaro^ icOloov, v:ho eateth with (amid)
offence — giving offence.^
When applied to time, Bid signifies
(a) During (i. e., within the space of time), as in H. ii. 15,
Bia •jrdvTo<i rov ^rjv (Xen. Cyr. 2. 1. 19, Mem. 1. 2. 61, Plat.
Conv. 203 d) ; even if in the course of this period the action
takes place but once or occasionally, as A. v. 19, xvi. 9, al.
Of this laxer use of the preposition there are probably no
examples in Greek writers.^
Q)) After : * e. g., Bi irwv TrXeiovcov, A. xxiv. 1 7, — properly
interjectis pluribus annis, many years heing passed through,^ i. e.,
after the lapse of many years ;^ also G. ii. 1. Compare Her. 6.
118, Plat. Legg. 8. 834 e, Arist. ^wtm. 8. 15, Polyb. 22. 26. 22,
Geopon. 14. 26. 2, Plut. Agis 10, Lucian, Icar. 24, and in. the
^ ["The preposition S/a may here he taken as denoting the means : it was
Christ's own blood which opened to him, as it were, the entrance into the
heavenly sanctuary :" Bleek in loc. Similarly Alford.]
2 Markland, Lys. V. 329 (Reiske).
• ^ Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 164 sq. [In all the passages (A. r. 19,
xvi. 9, xvii. 10, xxiii. 31) Meyer defends the meaning through, throughout
(see his notes II. cc. and on G. ii. 1). On the oth^r side see Ellicott on G.
ii. 1 : " .... A. V. 19, where both the tense and the occurrence preclude the
possibility of its being 'throughont the night; ' so also A. xvi. 9 ; A. xvii. 10
is perhaps doubtful. "J
* This signification of }ia cannot be denied by any one who is not trying to find
in G. ii. 1 his own foregon<' conclusion respecting the chronology of Paul's travels.
That the preposition mai/ mean "after" can be clearly shown ; whether we
derive this meaning (with Matth. 580. 1. a) from the idea of interval which is
expressed by iia in its local sense, or from that of passing through a series of
points of time (which are thus indicated as gone over, as passed) : see Herm.
y^ig. p. 856. The assertion that it is only to a period of time after which some-
thing occurs as its result that 3/a can be tnus applied, is a subtlety which has no
foundation in the usage of the language, and which wrongly takes the notion of
means, which is but a derived sense of iia, to explain one of the temporal appli-
cations of the preposition, though these are always most closely attached to the
primary local meaning. Even were this conceded, however, it would be quite
admissible to understand ha. ^txuTuririipu* Ituv in G. ii. 1 of a journey the
necessity of which forced itself on Paul in consequence of Ii years of labour.
At all events xara aToxdXu\}^it (ver. 2) could not be urged as a decisive argu-
ment on the other side.
' Her. 3. 157, liaXi-ratf x/xi^-, Sexa' Isocr. Perm. p. 746.
* See Perizon. Jillari p. 921 (ed. Gronov.), Blomfield, iEsch. Pers. 1006,
Wetst. I. 525, 558. [Ellicott on G. ii. 1, Jelf 627. I. 2. b, Don. p. oil.]
476 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. [PART III.
LXX Dt. ix. 11. So, lastly, in Mk. ii. 1, Sl' yfiepcov, after
some days (Theophr. Plant. 4. 4, hC i)^epoiv nvcov) : compare
Bia -x^povov, Plat. Euthyd. 273 b, Xeii. Cyr. 1. 4. 28 (Raphel,
Kvpke, and Fritz, m loc.)} (Don. p. 510, Jelf 627.)
The followiug significations have been wrongly attributed to Sm: —
{a) Into: 1 C. xiii. 12, /SAcVo/iev hC hoTrrpox, is said according to
the popular conception, — a man looks through a mirror, inasmuch as
he imagines that the form he sees is behind the mirror.
(h) Cum: 1 C. xvi. 3, hC i-Tna-ToXojv tovtov^ Trefjuj/o) dveveyKfiv
K.T.k., must be rendered by means of. letters, recommending them by
letters (Syr. "jZ^-ti^). It is true the apostle also intends that they
shall take these letters with them, but the meaning of the preposition
is nevertheless strictly retained.
(c) ^d : 2 P. i. 3, Ka\4cravTO<s rifxa's 8ia So^rjs kol ap€Trj<; is not
ad religionem clwistianam adduxit eo cansilio, ut consequercmini
fdicitatcm. etc., but, called by means of glory and poiver, — so that
the power and majesty of God were manifested in this call (ver. 4,
compare 1 P. ii. 9). Some MSS. read 8d^ koI dperrj^
(d) On account of, for Slo. with the accusative : this intercliange
is found in very late writers only, e. g., Acta Apocr. p. 252. In
2 C. ix. 13 hta. rather expresses the occasion through which the
So^a^ctv is brought about ; the folloM ing words, eVl ry vTrorayrj, ex-
press over, i. e., on account of the obedience. 1 C. i. 21, oiiK lyvui 6
Koa-p.o'i Sia T^s o-o^tas rbv 6(.6v, may very well mean, by means of their
(vaunted, see ver. 20) wisdom, — the wisdom did not enable them to
attain this object ; though the explanation given by others " for
(very) wisdom " may be grammatically admissible, if we take this
rendering as derived from " having wisdom with them " (see above).
The words which immediately follow, h.k t^s puptas, are however
decisive for the former view. Rom. vii. 4, l6avaTU)0rp-e tw vofuo Sia
roil o-wftaros Xpicrrov, is explained by ver. 1-3 : ye were slain to the
law throxigh the body of Christ, — with the slaying of Christ's body
(which slayirig had reference to the law) ye have been slain to the
law. In 1 C. xi. 12 it is the less possible to take ota t-^s yui/uiKos
as used for Sta ri}v ywalKa (which here would l>ring 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<i belongs to Soki/ao^wv, as was seen by Bengel. In H. xi. 39,
(Schott) TravTcs fjbapTvpr)devT€^ ' 8ta rrj<; Tn'orTews meaus 2^'aised through
faith, who through faith have obtained praise.
^ [Fritzsche, Alford, and others thus explain Mt. xxvi. 61, Mk. xiv. 58, lix
Tfiur i\fi.if)uy. Meyer render.<> 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 'lri<n>u 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.pov<i inrep rjnoiv koI twv aTeyooi/
in-op€v6fM€vo<; (Herod. 2. 6. 19). Hence it is used in geographical
language for situation over something, imminere virbi : Xen. An.
1. 10. 12, Thuc. 1. 137 (Dissen, Find. p. 431). In the N. T. its
meaning is always figurative.^
(1) The nearest approach to its local signification is in 1 C.
iv. 6, iva jxrj e?9 v'jrkp rov kvo<i ipviriovade, if we render this,
that one may not he 'puffed tcp over the other (so as to imagine
himself elevated above the other),
(2) Still in connexion with the local sense, virep denotes for
the benefit of, for (the antithesis of Kara, Mk. ix. 40, Eora. viii.
31), e. g., to die, suffer, pray, care, exert oneself, for some one ; *
as Jo. X. 15, xi. 50, Eom, v. 6, ix, 3 (compare Xen. An. 7. 4. 9,
Diod.S. 17, 15,Strabo 3. 165,Eurip.^k 700, 7ll),L.xxii. 19,
2 0. V. 21, Ph. iv. 10, H. v. 1, vii 25, xiii. 17, Col. i.* 7, 24, pro-
bably also 1 C, XV. 2 9 ; the original idea being that of bending
over some one, as it were, protecting and warding off (compare
fidxecrOai virep tivo<;, Xen. Cyr. 2. 1. 21, Isocr. Paneg. 14).^
' Schaef. Long. p. 353 sq., Bernh. p. 238.
- [Jelf 628. 3. d (Don. p. 512). Bernhardy regards this usage as an inoor-
rect extension of the classical ifi'oaoti xaTo. with genitive of thing. Whereas
formerly this phrase was used in swearing ly a thing ("because one holds the
hand over it, or calls doimi the vengeance of the gods upon it : " Lidd. and
Scott), it is applied in later Greek to swearing by a deity. Similarly Bleek (ou
H. vi. 13).]
^ Unless we render 1 C. xv. 29, lia/rr'iXiirSa.i i-rip tZv nitfuy have themselves
baptised over the dead. The passage only admits of an archaeological explana-
tion. But it is strange that Meyer should pronounce the above rendering gram-
matically inadmissible because uTip does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. in
the local sense. Might not then the preposition be used with this most simple
local meaning in one single passage only ? Van Hengel's remark {Cor. p. 136)
deserves attention, though even this contains an arbitrary limitation. [See
Alford and Stanley in loc, and Smith, Diet, of Bible s. v. Baptism.]
* See Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p. 164 sq.
* Hence in strictness v-rip differs from Tip!, which merely signifies on account
of some one, he being viewed as the object, the cause of the dying, praying,
etc. : see Schaef. Demosth. I. 189 sq., and compare Reitz, Lucian VI. 642,
VII. 403 sq. (ed. Lehm.), Schoem. Isoeus -p. 234, Franke, Dem. p. 6i3q. The
two prepositions are, however, frequently interchanged in the MSS.' of the
SECT. XLVII.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE. 479
So also elvac virep riva, to be for some one, Mk. ix. 40, Eom. viii.
31, X. 1 ^ (Blume, Lycurg. p. 151). In most cases he who acts
in behalf of another appears for him (1 Tim. ii. 6, 2 C, v. 15),
and hence virep sometimes borders on avTi, instead of, loco
(see especially Eurip. Ale. 700), Phil. 13, Thuc. 1. 141, Polyb.
3. 67. 7.2
(3) 'Tirep denotes the subject on (about) which one speaks,
writes, judges, etc.: e.g., Kom. ix. 27, Ph. i. 7, 2 C. viii. 23,
Joel i. 3, Plutarch, Brut. 1, Mar. 3, Plat. Apol. 39 e, Leyg.
6. 776, Demosth. 1. Phil. p. 20 a, Arrian, Al 3. 3. 11, 6. 2. 6,
Arrian, Epict. 1. 19.26, Polyb. 1. 14. 1, Dion. H. V. 625, ^schin.
Dial. 1. 8, ^lian, Anim. 11. 20, and frequently. Also that over
{for) which one gives thanks or praise, as E. i. 1 6, v. 20, Eom. xv.
9 ; or on- which one prides oneself, of which one boasts, as 2 C.
vii. 4, ix. 2, xii. 5, 2 Th. i. 4: compare in Latin super, in Hebrew
hv, — •" de aliqua re loqui " also is akin to this, see under nrepi.^
Hence, generally, in regard to a thing, as in 2 C. i. 6, 8, 2 Th.
ii. 1, ipcorcofjbeif vfia<i virep xi}? 'jrapovaia<; rov Kvplov ; compare
Xen. Cyr. 7. 1. 17, virep rivo^ Oappelv, to have no fear in regard
to some one. Akin to this is the causal meaning oti account of,
for tlce sake of, 2 C, xii. 8, — Hebr. ?V, yet compare the Latin
gratia and Xen. Cyr. 2. 2. 11, and even the German /wr [/or],
which we can often make use of in such passages, and which
presents a different combination of meanings : Eom. xv, 8, virkp
a\7)d€ta^ Oeov (Philostr. Apoll. 1. 35, Xen. An. 1. 7. 3, al.). To
this class belong Jo. xi. 4, virep t^9 3o^77<? tov 6eov, for the glory
of God, glorice divince illustrandce causa ; 2 C. xii. 19, virep rrj<i
vfiutv oiKoSofifj';, for your edification; Eom. i. 5, 3 Jo. 7; also,
with a difference of application, Ph. ii. 13, 6e6<; eariv o evep-
lywv .... vTTcp rrj<i ev8oKLa<?, for the sake of his goodness, in
"N. T. (see G. i. 4, Koiu. i. 8), as in those of Greek authors, and tht; writers
tliemselves do not always observe the distinction. In 1 P. iii. IS (E. vi. 18 sq.)
dvip and sFifi are suitably combined : compare Thuc, 6. 73. [See Ellicott on G.
1. 4, Ph. i. 7, E. vi. 19, and Lightfoot on G. i. 4.]
1 [Winer renders (with Fritz., al.), " . . , is for theiu, for their salvation."]
^ When, however, in dogmatic passages sucli phrases as C^ip iiyMv arc used in
speaking of the death of Christ (G, iii. 13, Rom. v. 6, 8, xiv. 15, 1 F. iii. 18, al,),
we are not justified in directly translating t!<!-ip by instead of, on the ground of
such parallel passages as Mt. xx. 28 (Fritz, llom. I. 267). Instead of is the
more definite preposition ; i/tjp merely signifies /or- men, for their salvation, and
leaves it undetermined in what sense ChrlBt died for them. [See Ellicott on
G. iii. 13, Phil, la.] . . ■ .
** So with alirxyiiir^zi, iyayxxTiTr, etc, Stallb. Plat. Etithyd. p. 119.
480 PREPOSITiaNS GOVERNING THE DATIVE. [PART III.
order to satisfy his goodness. In 2 C. v. 20, virep Xpiarov
TTpecr/Bevofj^v .... Beofteda vTrep Xpiarov, the preposition pro-
bably means both times/or Christ} i. e., in his name and behalf
(consequently in his stead). Compare Xen. Cyr. 3. 3. 14, Plat.
Gorg. 515 c, Polyb. 21. 14. 9, Marie, Floril. p. 169 sq., and see
above, no. 2 (at the close). Others take the second vTrep as in
formulas of asseveration (Bemh. p. 2 44, whose explanation^ how-
ever is certainly incorrect), hy Christ, per Christum. We find
irpea^eveiv vTvep used in reference to a thing, in E. vi, 20, lo act
as ambassador for the Gospel (in the cause of the Gospel) . com-
pare Dion. H. IV. 2044, Lucian, Toocar. 34. (Don., p. 513,
Jelf 630.)
Section XLVIIT.
PREPOSITIONS governing THE DATIVE.
a. 'Ev?
(1) In its local sense,* this preposition refers to a space within
tlie limits of which something is situated. Hence, according to
the different views of this relation, iv denotes
a. In the first place, in or — when applied to surfaces, tracts,
or heights' — on ; Mt. xxiv. 40 iv rm aypo), xx. 3 iv r^ o,yopa,
L. xix. 36, Rev. iii. 21, Jo. iv. 20, 2 C. iii. 3. In many phrases
of this kind it would be more exact to use eVt.
h. Next it denotes amongst, in reference to masses : Mt. xi.
1 1, A. ii. 29, iv. 34, xx. 25, Eom. i. 5, 1 C. v. 1, 1 P. v. 1 sq.,ii. 12.
Allied to this is the use of iv to denote accompaniment, as L. xiv.
3 1, £1/ hUa xC^t,d(7Lv dTravTTjaaf Jude 14 (Neh. xiii, 2, 1 S. i. 24.^
1 Mace. i. 17) ; also clothing (and armour, compare E. vi. 16,
1 See De Wette, against Meyer. [Meyer now renders the preposition (both
times) in the same way as Winer.]
. * ["Properly, for the loel/are of the object named, vcrlp tok'ium, but also
i-Tif Znyiis, to implore by parents, by Zeus." Bernh. I.e. Compare LiddelJ
and Scott, s. v., — who however are mistaken in the statement that in Homer
this formula is only found in conjunction with X/Vo-a/ta/ : see II. 15. 665.]
* In H. xi. 26, Iv is (apparently) joined with the genitive, according to the
reading of A and other MSS., received into the text by Lachra., tuv i, Alyvvrov
^ntavpuv. Such combinations, by no means rare in Greek authors, are of
course elliptical, — tv yn \\yuirTov. Usually, however, only such words as »««,
Ufrn, (TiKos, are thus left out ; and in this passage the weight of MS. evidence is
on the side of vu* Alyv-rrou 4n<ra.vfu,i. As to the most ancient use of this
preposition (in Homer), see Giseke in Schneidewin's Philohg. VII. 77 sqq.
* See Spohn, Nicej>h. 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<i (as the
orators frequently use ev v/jllv for apiid vos, jadiccH ') ; and the
phrase iv oc^OakfioU rLv6<i, before the eyes of {aiite ociilos), see
Palairet and Eisner on Mt, xxi. 42, — though in this passage
(from the LXX) the phrase i&nised in a figurative sense.
(2) The transition to the expression of temporal relations is
very simple. Here our rendering is sometimes in, sometimes on
(e. g., of festivals), as Matt. xii. 2, Jo. ii. 23 ; sometimes at (with
the name of an event), as Mt. xxii. 28, 1 P. i. 7,— also 1 C. xv. 52,
ev rf] ia-'^drr} adXTnyji, at the last trumpet (when it sounds), 1 Th.
iv. 16, H. iii. 8, and with the infinitive of a verb, Mt. xiii. 25,
L. ix. 36, xvii. 11. Where it denotes ivithin (Wex, Soph. ^w^.
p. 167), as in Jo. ii. 19, our w is quite sufficient (Her. 2. 29) :
in this case iv manifestly differs from hid, for iv rpialv rifiepaa
(Plat. Mmex. 240 b) does not indicate that the space of three
days will be occupied with something, but merely that something
is to take place within the limits of this period, consequently
before the expiration of the three days. Compare further, eV w,
whilst, Jo. V 7, Mk. ii. 19, Thuc. 6. 55, Plat. Thcmt. 190 e. Soph.
Trach. 925 (eV tovtm, inferea, Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. 17, 3. 2. 12), iv
oh, during ivhich, L. xii. 1. Most closely allied to the temporal
iv is the iv of existence or continuance, as H. vi. 18, iv oh dBuvarov
-^evaaadat 6c6v, ivith which, there existing these two assurances
etc., Eom. ii. 12, iv vofiw rjixapTov,'with the laio (existing,, — in pos-
session of the law) ; — oi state, either physical (as L. viii. 43, fyvvr)
ovaa iv pvaei aifiarci' Rom. iv. 10, Ph. iv. 11 ^), or meta-
physical (L. iv. 36, Tit, i. 6), and especially of disposition,
frame ofiiiind, 1 Tim. ii. 2, 2 C. ii. 1, viii. 2, L. i. 44, 75, E. i. 4
(H. xi. 2), 2 'P. ii. 3 ; — and lastly of occupation, as 1 Tim, iv. 16,
iv T0VT019 'laOi,- Col. iv. 2, compare E. vi. 20 (Meyer m loc),
and the neuter fc'y oh, A.-xxvi. 12. Compai-e Xen. Cyr. 3. 1. 1,
5. 2. 17, Soph. (Ed. E. 570, Plat. Phaxl 59 a and Sfeallb. in loc.
(3) The application of iv to express non-inaterial relations,
which has already been partially noticed, is very diversified,
and exhibits both an extension in usage characteristic of later
' Eiickert says that in 1 C. xiv. 11 fv If^oi statids for Ifiei, — one of those
enperficial observations -which one does not e.Kpect to find set down so nakedly
hy any scholar at the present day.
2 See Kypke on 1 C. vi. 2 (Jelf 622. I. r).
3 See Eisner in he, Kiihner II. 274 (Jelf 022. 3. d).
SECT. XLVIII.] PREPOSITIONS GOVEENING THE DATIVE. 483
Greek, and also a Hebrew colouring. Not merely does iv in-
dicate that in which something is (metaphysically) contained,
in which it consists (consistit), or shows itself — as 1 P. iii. 4,
E. iv. 3 (ii. 15), 2 Th. ii. 9 (1 C. xi. 25), Ph. i. 9,— bnt it also
denotes, with great variety of application,
a. The substratum or the sphere (the range, personal or not
personal) on which or in which a power acts. See 1 C. ix. 15, Xva
ovTco (ver. 1 3 sq.) yevrjraL iv e/ioL, tluit it should thus he done
on me ; iv. 2, 6, eV rjfiiv fjid6i]Te, learn on us; Jo. xiii, 35, ev tovtco
ryvcacrovTaf Xen. Ci/?\ 1. 6. 41 (L. xxiv. 35, 1 Jo. iii. 19), Eom.
xiv. 22, 6 /jLTj Kpivwv iv oS {ev tovtw o) SoKifid^ef 1 Th. v. 12,
KOTTifbvTe'i ev vfMLv, loho labour on you ; Rom. i. 9, Xarpevecv iv.ra)
evayyeXlo) (1 Th. iii. 2 v. I., avvep<yo<i ev tu> evayyeXicp), 1 C. vii.
15. It is used ethically in 2 C. iv. 2, 7rept,7raTovvre<i iv jravovpyia
(E. ii. 3, 10, V. 2), Rom. vi. 2, ^ijv iv d/Maprla (Fritz, inloc), CoL
iii 7 (Cic. Fam. 9. 26) : compare 1 C. vi. 20, 2 Th. i. 10, 1 Jo.
ii. 8. ^Ev further denotes the oViject o?i (at, about) which one
rejoices, prides himself, etc., as 'yaipetv ev, Kav^dcrdac ev: see § 33.
b. The measure or law (Thuc. 1. 77, 8. 89) in or according
to which something is donC; as E. iv. 1 6 (H. iv. 11): compare the
Hebrew 3. Many thus explain the preposition in H. x. 10, ev
o5 OeXrjjjLan r]yia<Tp.kvoi icrp^ev, according to (in conformity with)
v)hich ivill : here, however, iv is more precise than Kara, — our
being sanctified through the sacrificial death of Christ has its
foundation m God's will. In no other passage does ev signify
secundum, though numerous examples of this meaning are given
in even the most recent N. T. lexicons.^ In 1 C. xiv. 1 1, eV ifioi,
according to my judgment, is properly- with me (in my concep-
tion^) : in Rom. i. 24, viii. 15, xi. 25 v. I., Ph. ii. 7, ev denotes
the state, condition. 1 Th. iv. 1 5 must be rendered, this I say
to you in a ward of the Lord ; ^ compare 1 C. ii. 7, xiv. 6. In
such phrases as TrepcTrarelv ev <ro(f)ia, aojiia is not represented
as the law according to lohich, but as an ideal possession, or as
the sphere in which one walks (see above). To explain iv
XpLCTU), iv Kvpi(p, as meaning according to the will or example
^ [This language is now too strong, the latest N. T. lexicons — e. g. , Schirlitz's
Worterbuch and Grimm's edition oif Wilke's Clavis — not being chargeable with
tliis. In the lattej work the meaning secundum is not given at all. ]
^ Compare Wex, Antig. p. 187. [See above, 1. d.j
^ [Compare EUicott in loc.']
484 PREPOSITIONS GOVERNING TIIE DATIVE. [PART III.
of Christ, is to deprive the apostle's conception of its force.
Lastly, 1 Tim. i. 18, 'Iva arparevy ev avral<; {rah irpo^i]'-
Tc/at?) rr)v KoXrjv arrpareiau, must probably be rendered ii\
accordance with the figure, in the 2)ro})hccies, — equipped with
them, as it were, as the soldier fights in armour.
c. The (external) occasion: A. vii. 29, e<f)vyep iu tm \o7w
Tovrcp, on this word (at this word), Xen. Equestr. 9.11. Hence
sometimes the ground, as in Mt. vi. 7, iv ry TroXvXoyia avrwv
eha/covadyaovrai, on account of their much speaking (properly,
with or ai their much speaking, compare ^lian, Anim, 11. 31,
Dio. 0. 25. 5) ; iv tovtw, therefore} in Jo. xvi. 30 and prol^ably
in 1 C. iv. 4 (compare Plutarch, Glor. Athen. c. 7, eV rov-
roi^) ; iv ^, for eV Tovrm ore, because, Rom. viii. 3 (see Fritz.).
In several languages, however, expressions which denote that
which takes place luith, ly, or at a thing are thus used in
reference to the ground or reason. In Latin 2^'>'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<rh\^t fgr Chrint'.'i sake (as if, from regard to the interest of Christ,
lest the Corinthians might possibly fall away), but in Christ, i.e., in and
in accordance with his (apostolic) fellowship with Christ (who was himself
ffiiT^jtjfs in a certain sense, — sae the previous part of the verse). These wirds
concisely indicate a state of things which resulted from the umi iv x^KTrai,
just as ^Jf and iuvarQf that are refeiTcd to fellowship with Christ (<n/v).
As little reason is there for rendering i Vnrfims iv xvpla/, E. iv. 1, the prisoner
SECT. XLVIII.] PREPOSITIONS GOVERNING THE DATIVE. 485
duced into too many passages, e.g., E. iii. 13, Jo. viii. 21, Ja. i,
25,. 2 0. vi. 12, H. iv. 11.
d. The instniinent and means, — chiefly in the book of Re-
velation. In the better Greek prose writers ^ this usage is con
fined to cases where we could use in (or on): e. g., Kaietv iv wvpC^
Eev. xvii. 16 (1 C. iii. 13), — compare 1 Mace. v. 44, vi. 31
(Brjcrat lu 'rriSai'i Xen. An. 4. 3. 8, — compare Jud. xv, 13, xvi. 7,
Ecclufl. xxviii. 19, Stallb. Vlsit.CriL p. 104, KokinrreLv iv lixaTLw
ML Anim. 11. 15) ; fierpetv iv fiirpq), Mt. vii. 2 ; aXt^cLv iv
(iXaTi, Mt. V. 13, llev. vii. 14, Ja. iii. 9, H. ix. 22. Here,
however, through the influence of the Hebrew 3, iv is thus
used (especially in Revelation) v/here there is no such limita-
tion, find where a Greek writer would have used the simple
dative as the casus instrununtalis. See L. xxii. 49, TrardcraeLv
ev fiaxatpa' Rev. vi. 8, amoKTelvai iv pofxcpaiar xiii. 10, xiv. 16,
/cpd^fiv ev fxe^/ahrj (pcovf] (2 P. ii. 16), Mt. vii. G, Karairarelv iv
roU 'iToa-lv' L, i. 51, Mk. xiv. 1, Rom. xv. G ; and compare Jud.
iv. 16, XV, 15, XX. 16,48, 1 K. xii. 18, Jos. x. 35. Ex. xiv. 21,
xvi. 3, xvii. 5, 13, xix. 13, Gen. xxxii. 20, xli. 36, xlviii. 22,
Neh. i. 10, 1 Mace. iv. 15, Judith ii. 19. v. 9, vi. 4, 12, al.^
Isolated examples of this kind are, howover found in Greek
writers ; see Himer. Eclog. 4. 16, iv ^i(^ei- Hippocr, Aphor. 2.
36, iv ^ppaK€LT}ac Kadaipeadar Malal. 2. p. 5 0.^ 'Ev is thus
fcrf (Jhrist's sake. Ph. i. 8, i'Ti-riia rra/ra; ufias iv f^rXxy^tois Xpiffrau 'itjrav, 13
somewhat raoro remote ; see Bengel.
> 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<iX[ju>'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<i drrroOv^crKovcrf A.iv. 2,iv^l7](xov rrjv dvdaraatv
rrjv ix vexpcov KarayyeWeiv. Least of all can iv XpiarM {jcvpUp)
ever be translated per Christum (Fritz. Rom. I. 397, — this is
distinctly hid ^Irjaov Xptarov) : Eom. vi. 11, ^covre^ tw deat kv
Xpiaro) 'Irjaov (the Christian lives not merely through Christ,
beneficio Christi, but in Christ, in a spiritually powerful fellow-
ship with Christ), vi. 23, 2 C. ii. 14. Indeed this phrase
always refers (usually in a concise, condensed manner) to elvai
iv Xpiara,, 1 Th. ii. 14, Kom. viii. l,xvi. 11, 2 C. v. 17, G. i.
22 ; and Luther's "barbarous" rendering (Fritz! Bom.. II. 85)
must be retained.^ So also in 1 C. xii. 3, iv Trvevfiari, Oeov
^ [These examples are not very clear. A. xyii. 31 may be simply rendered in
the person o/ (Meyer, Alford) : on Mt. ix. 54 see Green, Gr. p. 208.]
' In ii^o^atrfj.ai iv auroTf (Jo. xvii. 10), b ai/ToT; is Certainly more than Sj' ai-
vuv. He would bo glorified through them, if they but effected objectively
something which conduced to the glory of Christ ; he is glorified in them, in
so far as they glorify Christ in themselves, with their persons. So also, "to
live and be in God " seems to express man's existing (being rooted, so to
speak) in the divine power, with more precision than could have been con-
veyed by }id. When In and Sia are found in one sentence, S/a expresses the
external means, whilst iv refers to that which was effected in or on the person
of some one, and which cleaves to it, as it were : E. i. 7, «» » {Xpifr^} ix'/^^'
•riiv aTraXvrpua-iv 'Six rou otlfnaroi alroZ (where Meyer IS wrong), iii. 6. Even when
the reference is to things, not persons, we can perceive the difference between
EV (of metaphysical condition or power) and S;a (of the means) ; e. g., 1 P. i. 5,
Tovi iv ^vvcc/uii hou Ippovpouf^ivou; iia vriffrtcu; (sCC Steiger), i. 22 [i?ec. ], riyvntoTi;
iv T>? 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.Soi<i),
is, grafted on the branches (which had been in part cut off).'
(c) Together with. : in A. xx. 32 ev toI'; ryytao-/u,evois means amongst
the sanctified. A. Vll. 14, /nerfKaXeo-aro rov Traripa avrov "la/cwyS . . o
Iv i/ruxais ip^oiirjKovra, means {consisting) i/n 70 so^xls : 3 is
thus used in Dt. x. 22, but I do not know any similar example iri
Greek. Fritzsche's explanation of the words (Mark, p. 604) ^ appears
to me too artificial ; Wahl also has rejected it, E. vi. 2, 17^9 ia-rlv
ivToXrf TTpcoTT; iv cirayycAtct, certainly does not mean anneocu, addita
promissione, but, v;hich is the first in 'promise., L e., in point of promise
(" not fv Tct^tt : " Chrysost.) ; so Meyer.
{d) By [of the agent^ : E. iv. 2 1 , ciye h airia iSi^dxOrjre, if ye have
been taught in him, is closely connected with the following airoOea-dai
K.T.A., and hence the meaning is "conformably to fellowship with
Christ," "as believers on Christ." — As to iv for eh see § 50. 4.
b. Siiv, ivith, as distinguished from /iera, points to a closer
and stricter conjunction,^ such as (among persons) association
in calling, belief, lot, etc.: A. ii. 14, xiv. 4, 20, 1 C. xi. 32.
Hence it is especially used of spiritual fellowship, as that of
believers with Christ (Eom. vi. 8, Col. ii. 13, 20, iii. 3, 1 Th. iv.
17, V. 10), or that of believers with Abraham (G. iii. 9), crvv
denoting in all these instances, not a mere resemblance, but a
real association. Then, applied to things, it denotes powers
which work vjith a person, uniting themselves with him : e. g.,
1 C. V. 4, XV. 10. In 2 C. viii. 19 it would be used of a less
close conjunction, — with the collection ; but ev seems the pre-
ferable reading. Compare however L. xxiv. 21, crvv iracn tov-
Toi'i TpLT7]v ravTi]v ■^/xipav a/yei crijfMepov, with all this, i.e.., joined
with all this there is the fact that etc.; see Neb. v. 18, and com-
pare Joseph. Antt. 17. 6. 5. (Don. p. 508, Jelf 623.)
c. ^Erri. The primary meaning is wpon, over (both of eleva-
tions and of level surfaces),^ in the local sense: Mt. xiv. 11,
* [" Per septuaginta quinque homines Josephus patrem suum et iiniversam
familiam in vEgyptum arcessivit, h. e., Josephus eo, quod septuaginta quinque
homines in vEgyiituni arcesseret, patrem siium et cognates suos omnes eo
traduxit : " Fritz. I. c. Meyer follows this explanation.]
^ Kriiger (p. 322): "<rov tivi denotes rather coherence, f^trd t;v«s rather
coexistence." [See also Ellicott on G. iii. 9, E. vi. 23.]
^ According to Kriiger (p. 340), ivi with the genitive denotes a more acci-
dental, free connexion ; ijr/ with the dative denotes rather belonging to.
&ECT. XLVIII.j PREPOSITIONS GOVERNING THE DATIVE, 489
'f]vk^Q'T] 7] K€<pa\T} eVi 'TTLvaKL- Mk. i, 45, eV €p/]/xoi<; r6;rot<} (see
above on eVt with the genitive, and compare dvdjeiveh ttjv epr}-
fiov Mt. iv. 1), Mk. vi. 3 9, L. xxi. 6, Rev. xix. 1 4 ; also Jo. iv. 6, eVl
TTj TTijyy, over (on) the well (the margin of the well lying higher
than the well itself), Eev. ix. 14, Xen. An. 1. 2. 8, 5. 3. 2, djr.
7. 5. 11, Isocr. Paw^. c. 40, Dio C. 177. 30 (see above, § 47. g).^
Sometimes it signifies at, as in Jo. v. 2, eVi ttJ 'rrpo^ariKf}, at
the sheejp-t^ate, A. iii. 10, 11, Mt. xxiv. ^3, eVi ^u/oai? (Xen. Ct/t.
8. 1. 33, yet see note;"' p. 468) ; and is thus applied to persons,
A. v. 35, irpdcGetv n ItcL rtvt, to do something on ^ some one
(compare Zpav ti eiri rivt, Her. 3.14, ^1. A 7iwi. 11.11). Lastly,
iiri ismY/i— both of place {apud), as A. xxviii. 1 4, eV avroh ^ iiri-
fielvai, and of time, as H, ix. 20, eVt a-vvreXela roiv aldovwv, sv:b
Jinem inundi ; further. Ph. i. 3, evxapicrrui rw Oew etrl iracrr) rfj
ILvelcL vficav, with every mention, Mk. vi. 52, ou trvvrj/caj/ iirl Tot?
apTot^'* 2 C. ix. 6, a'n-eipecv, Oepl^eiv eV ev\oyiat<;, with bless-
ings, so that blessings are associated therewith. So, with a dif-
ferent application, in H. ix. 15, ro>v 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 >yevopievrj<i iirl Xref^dvM (see Albert! in loc.), but
^ The signification upon may also be traced in L. xii. 53, 'iratritt . . . -raThp
ip' v'ly Kai vVo; W) 'TaTp'i, thc father will be on him, i. e., pressing ou him,
a load on him ; as we say colloquially, Vater und Sohn Ikjen sick mtf dem.
HaUr [literally, /a^/ter and son lie on each other a neck, i e., plague each other].
Here however against correctly expresses the sense ; but I cannot bring ntyself
to give Wi this meaning in L. xxiii. 38, as Wahl does. Kom. x. 19 is of an
entirely different kind.
* [Here the German and the English prepositions do not agree ; we say at the
gate, but on or to the man, though the Gennan an is used in both cases. Simi-
larly in the next sentence we should not use with in rendering 11. ix. 2(5.]
* [We should probably read vrap' ai-reTs.]
* [That is, at the (niiraele of the) loavis thf;/ vnderstood not: so Fritz., De
W., Bleek, Meyer. Alford takes It-/ as expressing basis, fonn<icition.]
^ [Oorapare Wurm, Dinarch. p. 39 s«., Ellendt, Arr. Al. 1. 30 (Don. p. 518.
Jelf634. 2. /;.).
490 PREPOSITIONS GOVERNING THE DATIVE. [pART III.
here eVt rather means over (on account of) or against (Matthai
in loe.)}
In a figurative sense, eV/ denotes, in general, the basis on
which an action or a state rests, as in Ph. iii. 9, So in Mt. iv. 4
(from the LXX), ^tjv irr aprw (parallel with iv pyfiari), after
the Hebrew bv njn, Dt. viii. 3, — though the phrase is also found
in Greek writers, see Plat. Alcib. 1. 105 c, Alciphr. 3. 7 (com-
pare sustentare vitam). Under this head comes the phrase eVt
TO) om/xart rivo<i (Lucian, Pise. 15, compare Schoem. Isceus
p. 463 sq.), to do something on the name.of some one, i. e., to do
it resting on, or having reference to, this name. In the N. T.
we meet with eVt tw ovoiian 'Iijaov XptcrTov in different appli-
cations: e.g., io teach 07i the name of Christ (L. xxiv. 47, A. iv.
17, v. 28, 40), the teacher referring to Christ as the original
Teacher, by whom he is delegated ; to cast out devils on the name
of Christ (L. ix. 49), makipg the power of exorcism to depend on
his name (pronounced as a formula of exorcism) ; to be baptised
on the name of Christ, the baptism being founded on the con-
fession of his name (A. ii. 38) ; to receive some one on the name of
Christ (Mt. xviii. 5), i.'e., because he bears this name, confesses
it, etc. — 'Eiri is then specially applied to denote
a. Over — of superintendence : L. xii. 44, eVt toI^ vTrdp'^ovaL
Karaarriaet avrov^ compare Xen. Cyr. 6. 3. 28 (as elsewhere
€7ri with genitive, Lob. Fhryn. p. 474 sq.).
b. Over and above, to, — of addition to something already exist-
ing. See L. iii. 20, irpo<ie67]K€ Kal tovto Inrl Trdcrf Mt. xxv. 20,
aWa Trevre raXavra eKepSrjcra eV avToh, in addition to those
5 talents (if eir avToh is genuine ^), L. xvi. 26, eVt Traai rov-
roL^, over arid above (besides) all this, Lucian, Conscr. Hist. 31,
Aristoph. Flut. 628 (compare Wetstein and Kypke in loc),
Ph. ii. 17, Col. iii 14, E. vi. 16 (compare Polyb. 6. 23. 12).
Hence Jo. iv. 27, eVl Toinw ^\6ov at /laOijrat, on this, — when
Jesus was thus speaking with the Samaritan, the disciples came.
The application is somewhat different in 2 C, vii. 13, eVt rfj
TrapaKkrjaei irepLccroTepoi^ fidWov ex^pvp-ev, in addition to, i. e.,
besides my comfort I rejoiced, etc.
^ Comfare Schsefer, Plntarch V. 17, JIaetzner, Antiph. p. 288.
" 'This and Mt. xxiv. 47 seem the only "" —
[All recent editors omit the.se words j
[This and Mt. xxiv. 47 seem the only N. T examjjles (Jelf 634. II. 1. c.).]
SECT. XLVIII.] PREPOSITIONS GOVERNING THE DATIVE. 491
c. Over {at, about), — indicating the object after verbs de-
noting an emotion, as Oavfid^etu, dyaWiav, irevOelv, Xvrrela-Oai,
of/yL^eaOai, fMeTavovelv : see L. i. 47, xviii. 7, Mk. iii. 5, xii. 17,
Mt. vii. 28, Eom. x. 19, 2 C. xiL 21,^ Eev. xii. 17, xviii. 11 '^
(Plat. Symp. 217 a, 206 b, Isocr. Paneg. 22, Lucian, Philops.
14, Aristot. Rhet. 2. 10. 1, Palaeph. 1. 8, Joseph. Antt. 5. 1. 26,
al.). So with evj(apLcrTelv, to give tlianlis over (for), 1 0. i. 4, 2 C.
ix. 15, Ph. i. 3 sqq., Polyb. 18. 26. 4. Then with verbs of
speaking, Eev. x. 11, trpo^'qyexxjai I'rn \aol<; (xxii. 16 v. I.),
Jo. xii. 16, ravra r)v eV avras 'ye'ypajMfieva (Her. 1. Qt^, Pans.
3. 13. 3): compare Schoemann, Plut. Agis p. 71.
d. On, — of supposition and condition (Xen. Symp. 1. 5, Diod.
S. 2. 24, Lucian, Conscr. Hist. 38, ^sop. 21. 1): eV eXiriBi,
on hope^ 1 C. ix. 10 (Plat. Alcih. 1. 105 b, — eV eXiriat, Dio
C. 1003. 21, Herod. 3. 12. 20), H. ix. 17, e-rrl vcKpoi^:, wer dead
persons, i. e., not until there are dead persons, when death has
taken place.* Also of the motive : L. v. 5, tVl raJ pijfiar^ <tov
j(a\d(rQ} TO hiKTvov, on thy woi'd, induced by thy word ; A. iii.
16, iirl rfi Triarei, on account of faith ; A. xxvi. 6, Mt. xix. 9
(1 C. viii. 11 Z7. /.'^) ; compare Xen. Mem. 3. 14. 2, Cyr. 1. 3. 16,
1. 4. 24, 4. 5. 14, Her. 1. 137, Liicisixi, Herynot. 80, Isocr. Areop.
336, Dio Chr. 29. 293. Hence if cS, ivherefore, Diod. S. 19.
98 (e^' c57re/j, Dio C. 43. 95, al.), and because, 2 C. v. 4, Eom.
V. 12, also probably Ph. iii. 12 ^ {on account of the fact that . . .,
for eVt TovTcp oTt, see Fritz. Bom. I. 299 sq.), eo quod J
' [Winer connects W) rn aKifapria. with fnra,ii>n(rci*TU'> (as in A. V.), not with
mii6n<Tea (Meyer). There is no other example of /tircctoiin Iti in the N. T. ; in
the LXX see Joel ii. 13, Jon. iii. 10, al. To the verbs given above, Llinemann
adds ftaxpe^vf^tTy.]
^ [Here st' aiT»'v appears the true reading: there is no other example of
vrtuhtv iTi Tivi in the N. T.]
^ [If "on hope" is not allowable in English, we must say resting cm, hope,
with hope.]
* Several of these passages, however, may be referred to the most general
meaning tvith, by (see above) : so Fritz. Rom. 1. 315. [With H. ix. 17 compare
Soph. m. 237, also Eurip. Ion 228.]
' AviXuTx iffhiuv aS'Xifaf It) t? ^n ytuffti (where liowever good
authorities read l») is properly, he perishes over thy knowledge, i. e. , because
thy knowledge asserts itself, — in brief, through thy knowledge. But it does
not follow that la-/ by itself can mean through, as Grotius (on Rom. v. 12)
maintains.
' [The different meanings are examined by Bp. EUicott : see also Bp. Light-
foot in /oc]
"^ Greek writers commonly use the plural \ip' tTs (but irJ rfSs, Ellendt,
Arr. Al. I. 211).— Rothe ( Ver.mch uher Rom. v. 12sqq., p. 17 sqq.) has recently
maintained that in the N. T. if * always means on the supposition, under'
492 PREPOSITIONS GOVERNING THE DATIVE. [PART III.
e. To, for, — of aim and of result : ^ 1 Tli. iv. 7, ovk eKaXea-ev
k'Trl uKaOapcria, to undeanncss, G. v. 13 (like Kokelv eirl ^evia,
Xen. An. 7. 6. 3, and the like, — see Sintenis, Pint. Them. p. 147),
2 Tim. ii. 14, E. ii. iO. Compare Xen. An. 5, 7. 34, Mem,
2. 3. 19, Plat. Eep. 3. 389 b, Diod. S. 2. 24, Arrian, Al. 1.
26. 4, 2. 18. 9, Diog. L. 1. 7. 2, and the index to Dio a
p. 148 sq. (ed. Sturz). So also," according to some, e^' a> 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<i(ti'TTo\rjy^ia 'jrapci 6ew' ix.
14, L. i. 37 (where Trapd rov Oeov is a mere error of transcrip-
tion^, compare Demosth. Cor. 352 a, et ean irap efioi ta?
standing, condition, that, — in so far as; but there is no passage which will
admit this meaning without a forced interpretation ; compare Riickert, Comment.
zuEom. I. 262(2 Aufl.).
• [See Ellicott on 2 Tim. ii. 14.]
^ [The genitive is now received into the best texts on strong MS. evidence.
Meyer renders "on the part of God no word shall be powerless." Compare
Shilleto, Dem. F. L. p. 37 ; also Riddell, Plat. Apol p. 164 eq.]
SECT, xlviil] Prepositions governing the dative. 493
cfM-rreipia ; Ja. i. 17, 2 C. i. 17. It is especially used to signify
in the ju(^gment of, as A. xxvi. 8, rt diricrrov Kpiverai irap vfxlv
K.rX. (apiid vos) ; Eom. xii. 16, fit} ytv€aOe (ppovifjioi. Trap* iavro'^
(Pr. iii. 7), ivith yourselves, i. e. in your own ojpinion, 1 C. iii, 19,
2 P. iii. 8 (Her. 1. 32, Plat. Thea:i. 170 d. Soph. Track. 586,
Euidp. Bacch. 399, Electr. 737, Bernh. p. 257). So also in 2 P.
ii. 11, ov (pipovfTi Kar avrtov Trapa KvpUo (Lefore him, as Judge)
^\do-(f)r]/j,ov Kpicnv, if the words irapa Kvpiw were genuine;^ and
substantially in 1 C.vii. 24,e/foo-T09 iv <v ixXijOt], iv rovrco fxeveroi
Trapa $ea>, 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<yyi^ovTo<; rjhrj irpot rfj Kara^daet rov 6pov<; rcov iXaiatv, must
be rendered, vjhen he urns already near hy etc.* — 77/3o? with tlie
dative occurs far more frequently in the LXX than in the
N. T. (Don. p. 523, Jelf 638.)
f. Tlepl and viro are not found with the dative in the N. T.
^ [t< is now added to tlie autliorities in favour of the words ; Tregelles, Weat-
cott and Hort, insert them within brackets. ]
2 If 'Trapa with the dative were found joined to a verb of motioa, we should
liave to consider it an example of attraction, as in the similar case with iy. In
Xen. An. 2. 5. 27, however, which even Kiihuer cites ns the only instance, later
editors read -ntfo. Ti<Tira0£piivv, on MS. autliority. Ou the other hand see
Plutarch, Themi'st. c. 5, and Sintenis; in he. Yet it is not to be denied that the
notion of whither is originally contained in the dative itself (p. 268) ; compare
Hartung, Ueher die C'asu.i, p. 81. [Kiihner now reads the accusatixe in Xen.-
Art. 2. 5. 27.]
5 For there is no truth in Miinter's remark, Symbolce ad interpretationeTn
evangelii Johannis, p. 31.
• [Meyer says : " t/so; does not denote motion towards (De Wette), but we
have a pregnant combination of the direction (lyyiXoyroi) with the 'where;'
Kiihner II. p. 316 " (Jelf 645. 1. d). Compare A. Bnttmann, (/a p, 340.]
494 prepositions with the accusative. [part iii.
Section XLIX.
prepositions with the accusative.
a. JEt<?: the antithesis of eV, Eom. i. 17, v. 16.
a. In a local sense, el<i denotes not merely into and in among
(L. X. 36, A. iv. 17, also Mk. xiii. 14, et? ra opr), as we say into
the mountains), or to, of countries and cities, as in Mt. xxviii. 16,
A. X. 5, xii. 19, aL ; — but also (of level surfaces) on, as Mk, xi. 8,
eoTpwcrav et? rrjv 686v' A, xxvi. 14, Eev. ix. 3, and even simply
to (ad), towards (of motion or direction), e. g., Mk. iii. 7 ^ (Polyb.
2. 23. 1), Mt. xxi. 1, Jo, xi. 38, epx^rac et? ro fivrj/xelov, he comes
to tlie tomb (compare ver. 41), Jo. iv. 5 (compare ver. 28), xx. 1
(compare ver. 11), A. ix. 2, L, vi. 20, i7rdpa<i tou? ocfiOaX/xov?
et9 rov<i fxadTjrdf;, towards the disciples, Kev. x. 5 (eZ? rov ovpavov),
Xen. Cyr. 1. 4. 11, -^schin. Dial. 2. 2. Where €t? is joined
with names of persons, it does not often mean to {irpo^, or 0)9,
Madv. 28, Bernh. p. 215), but amongst, inter, as in A. xx. 29,
xxii. 21, L. xi. 49, Eom. v. 12, xvi. 26, Plat. Prot. 349 a, Gorg,
526b. In this case it sometimes borders on the dative, as in L.
xxiv. 47 : see above, § 31., 5.^ Once it signifies iiUo the house of,
in A. xvi. 40, el'^r{k6ov^e.h rrjv AvBiav (as several ^ MSS. read) : *
compare Lys. Oral. 2 in., Strabo 17. 796. The better MSS.
however have tt/oo.?,
b. In a temporal sense, et? denotes sometimes a point of time
for which, A. iv. 3 (Herod. 3, 5. 2), or imtil which, Jo, xiii. 1,
2 Tim. i. 12 ; ^ sometimes a period {for, on, like eVt), L. xii, 19,
et9 TToWd err) (Xen. Mem. 3. 6. 13).
c. When transferred to metaphysical relations, et? is used
to express a mark or aim of any kind; e. g., A. xxviii. 6, iu,-7]8ei>
^ [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 <yLv6fievov, towards (on) Mm ; compare Plut.
Moral, p. 786 c. Hence e/9 denotes
(a) The measure (Bernh. p. 2 1 8) to which something comes
up : 2 C. X. 1 3, et9 ra a/xerpa Kavxaadar iv. 17^ (Lucian, Dial.
Mort. 27. 7). Compare also the familiar phrases et? [xuXicrra
and et9 rpl^.
(/8) The state into which something passes: A,.ii. 20, Rev.
xi. 6, H. vi. 6. Compare also E. ii. 21 sq.
(7) The result: Rom. x. 10 (xiii. 14), 1 C. xi. 17, eU to
KpecTTOv crvvep'X^ecrOe.
(8) The direction of the mind, feeling, or conduct toioards
{crga and contra) : 1 P. iv. 9, cpiXo^evot €i9 uWyjXov;' Rom.
viii. 7 (Her., 6. 65), xii. 16, Mt. xxvi. 10, 3 Jo. 5, Col. iii. 9,
2 C. viii. 24, X. 1, L. xii. 10. Col. i. 20 also, airoKaTaWdTreiv
re eh avrov, reduces itself to this ; compare SiaWdrrecv Trpo^:
riva, Demosth. Ep. 3. p. 114, Thuc, 4. 59, al.^ Ek is furtlier
applied to the direction of the thought, as A. ii. 25, Aavch \eyei
els avrov, aiming at him (dicere in aliquem, compare Kypke in
loc), E. i. 10, V. 32, H. vii. 14, compare A. xxvi. 6,^ — of the de-
sire {after sometliing), Ph. i. 2 3, — and of tlie Avill generally. Then
to the occasion, Mt. xii. 41,et9 to Krjpvypba ^Icovd,at the preach-
ing ; and to the destination and purpose (Bernh. p. 2 1 9), as L. v.
4, 'x^aXdaare rd SiKrva vjioiv eU d'ypav,for the draught ; 2 C. ii.
12, iXSoov eh rrjv Tp(od8a eh to evayyeXiovjfor the Gospel, i. e.,
in order to preach the Gospel; A. ii. 38, vii. 5, Rom. v. 21,
vi. 20,-* viii. 15, ix. 21, xiii. 14,^ xvi. 19, H. x. 24, xii. 7,^ 1 P.
iv. 7, 2 R ii. 12, 2 C. ii. 16, vii. 9, G. ii. 8, Ph. i. 25 ; eh o, for
'which, Col. i. 29, 2 Th. i, 11 (compare 1 P. ii. 8) ; et9 Tt,Mt,xxvi.
8. By this are explained the phrases i\'n-i'^etv,7rt(Trevei.v eh riva;
also the passages in which et9, joined with personal words,signifies
for, as Rom. x. 12, ivXovrwv eh 7rdvra<;' L. xii. 21, 1 C. xvi. 1,
' [Corrected (for iv. 14) from ed. 5.]
- It. is not necessary to regard tliis (with Fritz. Jiom. I. 278) as a pregnant
expression. It is obvious that this phrase and that .which Greek writers pre-
ferred, lia>,xdr'ritv -TToii cfva, are founded on tlie same conception. [Compare
Ellicott on Col. I. c.\ ' .
^ Likewise Ifzo/rai sU ' Ufiti<rikvficc, Mt. V. 35, must substantially be referred to
this head : see Fritz, in loc.
« [Probably vi. 19.]
' [This is quoted by Winer for both result and purpose : see below.]
'' [ With the reading £<? rraihiay, found in all the uncial MSS. See Alford
.in loc, but correct the assertion that Tischendorf had returned to i! vradh/a* :
this is true of 1849, but in his 7th and $th editions Tischendorf reads t'l;.]
496 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE A0CT7SATIVE. [PART III.
al. (and hence borders on the dative, see above) ; and, lastly, the
looser combinations in which et? is rendered in reference to, as
regard,s,vnth rcspeet to (Bernh. p. 220, Bornem. Xen. C^/r.p. 484),
as A. XXV. 20, 2 P. i. 8, Eom. iv. 20, xv. 2 (of things, Xen. Mem.
3. 5. 1, Philostr. Apoll. 1. IG), and 2 C. xi. 10, E. iii. 16,' iv. 15,
Eom. xvi. 5 (of persons). Objective and subjective destination,
result and purpose, ar6 sometimes not to be separated, e. g., in
H. iv. 1 6, L. ii. 34, Eom. xiv. 1, Jude 21. Our own zu {for) also
includes botb.^— See further § 29. 3.Eem.(Don.p.509,Jelf 626).
Ets does 7iot bear the following meanings. — Suh : Eom. xi, 32
(compare G. iii. 22) ; here cts retains tlie meaning into, for we can
just a.s well say shut up into (in) soTaeihmg.-—JFitk (of the instru-
ment) : in A. xix. 3, e^s to 'Iiadwov /SdirTKrfJia (e/JaTTTtcr^r^/u-cv) is a
direct answer to the question, ci? ri ovv iJ3avTL(r6r}Te ; The strict
answer would have been, miio that unto which John baptised : hence
the expression is abbreviated, ur rather inexact. — Nor does this pre-
position properly mean before, coram, in A xxii. 30 (see Kiihnol) : *
ca-TTfja-ev (avrov) cis avrov^ means he placed him amongst them, in the
midst of them (ft? /.Uaov). 2 C. xi. 6, iv Travrl ipavefiinOevre^ tls Vfi,a.<i,
is strictly toivards you (erga), in the same sense as Trpds elsewhere
Tliat €ts is ever equivalent to Scd with the genitive is a mere fiction :
ch Siarayas ayytXwv, A. vii. 53, most simply means on or at injunctifms
of angels (which iiideed in sense amounts to in consequence of such
injunctions), unless the explanation mentioned in § 32. 4. b be pre-
ferred. — As to CIS for €v see § 50.
b. 'Avd, denoting (motion) en, up * (Bernh. p. 233 sq.) occurs
in the N. T.,
(1) In the phrase ava /xeaov, joined v/ith the genitive of a
place, in the midst of, m between, Mk. vii. 31, Mt. xiii. 35 ; and,
in a figurative sense, with the genitive of a person, in 1 C. vi. 6,
BiaKpivai ava fieaov rod aBeX^ov.
(2) With numerals, in a distributive sense : Jo. ii. 6, vSpiai
^ [Compare however EUicott in loc, and on iv. 15. On ^«rTsus/v tl; see p. 267,
and EUicott on G. ii. 16, 1 Tim. 1. 16. On ^a.'>rriZ,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)pov<TaL avu /xtrpT^ra? hvo rj Tjoet?, containing two or three
fjLerprjTai apiece, L. Ix. 3. x. 1, Mk. vi. 40 (where Lachmann reads
KurcL with B '). This usage is common in Greek writers, and
the preposition thus gradually assumes the nature of an adverb
(Bernh. p. 234). The distributive meaning probably grew out
of such phrases as dva Trav €to<;, on every year, year by year.
(Don. p. 514, Jeif 624.)
Hug maintains {Freiburg. Zeitschr. vi. 41 sq.) that Jo. ii. 6 must
be rendered ccrntaining towards, about, two or three ix^Tprp-ai ; but he
has not succeeded in proving that dvd was used in this sense. In
Polyb. 2. 10. 3, Dio Cass. 59. 2, dvd manifestly has its distributive
meaning: in Polyb. 1. 16. 2 no one will believe that the writer in-
tends merely to state the strength of the Roman legion indefinitely,
as towards 4,000 foot and 300 horse. In Her. 7. 184, dva, Sit^koo-ious
av8pu? Xoyt^oyLceVoicrt iv eKacrTr) vrfi is a pleonastic expression, such as
we meet with frequently : we ourselves could say without any diffi-
culty, 200 apiece .... in every ship: Rev. iv. 8, tv Ka6'' iv avrwv
Ixpv dva. TTTcpuyas If, is a similar example. To express towards, about,
amounting to a number, the Greeks use ciri with the accusative.
c. idiri, with the accusative is the preposition which denotes
the ground (ratio), not the purpose (not even in 1 C. vii. 2)?
It answers to on account of (so in Jo. vii. 43, x. 19, xv. 3, al.) ;
or, where the motive of an action is intended, to from, as Mt.
xxvii. 18, hia (j>06vou, frorr^ envy, E. ii. 4, Bca rrjv ttoWtjv dyd-
Trrjv (Diod. S. 19. 54, 8t^ rvv 7rpo<? toi)^ r^rv^^igKOTa^ eXeov Ari-
stot. Rhet. 2. 13, Deniosth. Conon 730 c). Rom. iii. 25, \vhich
even Eeiche has m.isundeTstood, was correctly explained by
Bengel.^ In H v. 12, hui rov '^povov means on account of tlie
time, considering the time (during which you have enjoyed
Christian instruction),* — not, as Schulz renders, after so long
' [Tisch., Westcott and Hort, read xara. In L. ix. 3 i»a is doubtful. Liine-
mann adds Mt, xx. 9.]
* It is only per coiiseqv/'yis that the notion of purpose is implied in 5/« rH;
■xofntiKi, on account of the fornications let every man have his own wife: the
fornications are the ground of this injunction, inasmuch as the design is that
they may be prevented. In Greek writers also purpose is sometimes thus
linked -vnth lia. ; see the commentators on Thuc. 4. 40, 102. [Winer's view that'
lia does not directly denote purpose seems to be held by most grammarians.
On the other side see .Telf 627. 3. a, Liddell and Scott s. v., Arnold and Poppo on
Thuc. 4. 40, Poppo on Thuc. 2. 89, Sliillelo, Demosth. Fals. Leg. pp. 3, 153.]
3 [Bengel's rendering is propter pratcnninsionem peccatorum : see Trench,
Syn. § xxxiii., Alford in he]
* The phrase occurs with substantially the same meaning in Polyb. 2. 21. 2,
and frequently : see Bleek in he. — Schulz would introduce the icnipor;il mean-
ing of iti into H. ii. 9 ; but 2/a to -rdfrf/.a rev fixydrou means on account of
32
498 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. [PART HI.
a time. Sometimes hia with the accusative appears to indicate
the means, as indeed the ground or motive and the means are
in themselves very nearly akin (comp. Demosth. Cor. 354 a,
Xen. Mem. 3. 3. 15, Liv. 8. 53), and the poets sometimes join
the accusative with hvd even when it is used in a local sense, see
Bernh. p. 236. See e.g. Jo. vi. 57, Kcv^ui fw hta rov irarepa koI
6 Tpooycov fie ^rjcreTat Si' e/u-e ; which exactly resembles Long.
Fastor. 2. p. 62 (Schaef.) hta 7a<i vvfi(f>a<; 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 rrj<i '^dpcTo<; t^? Bo6eLarj<; fxoi ; both expressions
are appropriate. 1 Jo, ii. 12 is rightly translated by Liicke.
2 P. ii. 2 is clear of itself. In 2 P. iil 12, St' ^y may be re-
ferred to rj rov Oeov r/fjbepa, and rendered on account of ; but is
not without meaning if joined (as by Bengel) with irapovala.
the sufferbui of death, and is explained by the well-known connexion which the
apostolic writers assume between the suHerings and the exaltation of Christ.
' Compare Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. II. p. 2 (Lips.), Sintenis, Pint. Tfiemist.
121, Poppo, Thur. III. ii. 517.
" ['^Propter- ejus qui in vobis habitat spiritinn, i. q. quoniara ejus spiritus
domiciliura in vobis collocavit. " Fiitzsche. — K is now added to the authorities
for the genitive, which is received by Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort. ]•
^ Here hoi to» iTaTalavrat forms an antithesis to oup(^ iicovint, not voluniarihjy
hut hy reason of him who subjected, — at the will and command of God. Prob-
iildy Paul designedly avoided saying S;« roZ v-roralKv-ro;, as if o hos v-rira^m
■xl/Tr,v. The proper and immediate cause of the fixTaioTtts was Adam's sin.
SECT. XLIX.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 499
Lastly, in G. iv. 1 3 Bi da-Oevetav Trj<i aapKO'i is probably not to
be understood (Scliott) as expressing state, condition (St' aade-
veias:) but means on account of, hy occasion of an infirmity : see
Meyer in loc. (Don. p. 510, Jelf 627.)
d. "Kara in its local primary sense deuotes
a. Motion doicii upon (compare i^i^schin. Dial. 3. 19), or in,
through, over (Xen. Cyr. 6. 2. 22): L. viii. 39, airrjXOe KaO" oKrjv
TTjv iroXiv KTjpvcraQiv' xv. 14, \t/io<? Kara rrjv '^copav, through the
land, over the whole land ; A. viii. 1 (2 Mace. iii. 14, Strabo 3.
163); A. V. 15, €Kcf>epeiv 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]<i t^<? Kara Kvprjvrjv
xxvii. 12, Xt/xeva iSXeirovra Kara Xt^a* (Xen. An. 7. 2. 1).
Thus Kara Trpo^coTroy tivc; means towards the face of, i.e., before
the eyes of, L. ii. 3 1, A. iii. 13 ; similarly kut 6(f)daXjjiov<;, G. iii. 1,
Xen. Hiero 1. 14, like Kar ofi/jia, Eurip. Androm. 1064, and
Kar o/Mfiara, Soph. Ant. 756. In Eom. viii. 27, also, Kara deov
ivTvyx^dveiv does not mean apud Deuvi (in a local sense), but
strictly towards God, before God!' Akin to this is the use of
* [Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westcott and Hort, read *«< ih for xara.]
3 Kara in its local sense is not really synonymous with U (as is maintained
by Kiihnol on A. xi. 1) : Kara, rriv ToXiy means throuqhout the city, x.aff hVot
along the road, on tlie road (as a line). Even kxt oixov, where the primary
meaning of xara is most concealed, differs in its conception from h oUw (as
at the house differs from in the house). — In several phrases' in which Iv might
have been employed xxra has established itself by usage.
' Hence arises the meaning with, as in aJ »af v/aZi ■jroinrai, A. xvii. 2S
(compare xiii. 1), and other phrases ; see above, p. 241 [and 193]. Kara with
a personal pronoun thus forms, mainly in later writers, a mere periphrasis for
the possessive pronoun : see Hase, Leo Diac. p. 2^0.
* [See Alford in loc, Cpnyb. and Howson, St. Paul II. 400, Smith, Diet, of
Bible II. 830.]
* Against this explanation (which has been adopted by Fritz., Krehl, al.)
various objections have recently been raised, especially by Meyer and Philipjii.
The least important of these is, that in this case we should have had x,xt alTov :
500 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE, [PART III.
the preposition in regard to time : either as in A. xvi. 25, Kara
TO fieaovvKTiov, toivards midniaht ; or as in Mt. xxvii. 15, Kaff
eoprrjv, during the feast} Mt. i. 20, Kar ovap, during the dream,
secundum quietem (Herod. 2. 7. 6, Kara <poi^ hy day Xen. Cyr.
3. 3. 25, Kara ^iov Plat. Gorg. 488 a), H. ix. 9) — also H. iii. 8
(from the LXX), Kara rr)v •^fiepav rod Treipacrfiov, at the day, etc.,
and Kara to avro, at the same time, A. xiv. 1. Next it is used
of both place and time in a distributive sense ; — in the first
instance with plural nouns, as Kara <j}vkd<i, by tribes. Matt. xxiv.
7, Kara tottoi;? (A. xxii. 19), Kara Bvo, by two, 1 C. xiv. 27
(Plat. Ep. 6. 323 c), Mk. vi. 40 v. L; then very frequently with
a singular noun, as A. xv. 21, Kara iroXtv, from city to city
(Diod. S. 19. 77, Plut. Cleom. 25, Dio Chr. 16. 461, Palteph.
52. 7), Kar iviavrov, year by year, H. ix. 25 (Plat. Pol. 298 e,
Xen. Cyr. 8. 6. 16 ; Kara iMrjva, Xen. An. 1. 9. 17, Dio C. 750.
74), Ka6^ rj/jiipau, daily, A. ii. 46, 1 C. xvi. 2 (Herm. Vig.
p. 860).^
In its figurative use, Kara is the preposition 'of relation and
reference to something. Sometimes in a general sense, as in E.
vi. 21, ra Kar ifii, quce ad me pertinent, A. xxv. 14; or to
define a general expression more exactly (Her. 1. 49, Soph.
Trach. 102, 379), E. vi 5, ol Kara adpKa Kvpioi, in respect of the
flesh, as regards the flesh ; Rom. ix. 5, k^ oiv (^ lovSaioiv) 6 Xpi-
<rT09 to Kara adpKa (1 P. iv. 14), A. iiL 22, Eom. vii. 22, — also
Eom. xi, 28 and xvi. 25. Sometimes in a special sense, to
denote
(a) The standard, rule, law, — according to or in conformity
with: E. iv. 7, Mt. xxv. 15, Jo. ii. 6, L. ii. 22, Kara vofiov,
H. ix. 19 (Xen. Cyr. 5. 5. 6), A. xxvi. 5, Eom. xi. 21, Kara
(pvcTLv' Mt. ix. 29, Kara rr)v irlarriv v/mcov, suitably to your
it is not difficult to feel the emphasis which lies in the substantive, and such an
emphasis is also visibly marked by the position of x.a.ra hiv, though v-rlf ayiuv
contains the principal moment of thought. The rendering according to God
introduces an entirely superfluous thought into the passage, for certainly from
the ■jftivf/.a. no intercession different from this could be expected.
^ [This is taken distributively by Fritzsche and Grimm. — Kar' evap Meyer
regards as simply adverbial, in the %vay of a dream, dreara-wise (§ 51. 2. g).]
^ [Winer in all probability refers here to the reading xa^ -ov {liec., Tischeu'
dorf ed. 2) : recent editors (including Tischendorf) read xai' ?iv. ]
3 Kas^' lecvTov, by oneself, is commonly referred to this usage (see e. g.
Passow), but wrongly, for the formula is not distributive. Ka^' \itvriv pro-
perly means in reference to oneself, and thus confines something to a single
subject ; hence the meaning hy oneself, adv. seorsum. On 'ix^iv Kaf iauriv see
Fritz. Bovi. III. 212.
SECT. XLIX.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 501
faith, as it dese7'ves ; 2 C. iv. 13^ Eom. ii. 2, Kara aXijOeiav'
Mt. ii 16, Kara [rov] ')(p6vov, according to the titne. Hence it
denotes similarity, kind (pattern) • H. viii. 8 sq., a-vvreXiaco . . .
SiuOtjktjv KaivrjV, ov Kara rrjv BcaO'q/crjv, rjv eTTOLija-a k.t.X. (1 K,
xi. 10), A. xviii. 14. When joined with names of persons Kara
commonly denotes according to some 07ie's mind, Col. ii. 8
(E. ii. 2), 2 C. xi. 17, — and vjill, Eom. xv. 5, 1 C. xii. 8,^ — or
according to the model and exawple of some one, as G. iv. 28,
Kara ^la-aaK, after the 'manner of Isaac, ad exemplum Isaaci,
1 P. i. 15, E. iv. 23 ^ (Plat. Farm. 126 c, Lucian, Pise. 6. 12,
Eunuch. 13, Dio C. 376. 59 ^). It is also used of authors : to
Kara Mardalov evayyeXcov is the Gospel (the Gospel history) as
written down hy Matthew (as apprehended and exhibited by
Matthew), On elvat Kara adpKa, Kara nrvevfia, Kora. viii. 5,
see the commentators. Of a more general kind is the (Pauline)
formula Kar av6pco7rov, after the fashion of man, in the ordinary
manner of men '^ (in various contexts), Eom. iii. 5, G. i. 11, iii.
15, 10. ix. 8, 1 P. iv. 6 (see Wiesinger in loc.)\ see Fritz.
Bom. I. 159 sq.^ Compare, in the same direction, Eom. iv. 4,
Kara -^dpLv, in the way of grace ; 1 C. ii. 1, KaO' virepoxv^ Xoyov
Ph. iii. 6, E. vi. 6, Eom. xiv. 15, A. xxv. 23, di^Bpaac rot? Kar
€^o^r)v tt}? TToXeo)?.
(b) The occasion^ (and the motive) — a meaning very nearly
related to the preceding (hence in Eom. iv. 4 vara ^apty may
also be from grace) : Mt. xLx. 3, arroXvo-at rrjv yvvalKa Kara
Tratrav alriav, on any ground (Kypke in loc, compare Pausan. 5.
10. 2, 6. 18, 2. 7), Eom. ii. 5, A. iii. 17, Kara ayvoiav iirpd^are,
in consequence of ignorance (Eaphel in loc), Ph. iv. 11, oup^ on
^ Compare Stallb. Plat. Oorg. p. 91.
' [This should be either iv. 22 or iv. 24.]
^ Compare Kypke and Wetstein on G. iv. 28, Marie, Floril. p. 64 sq.
* [See EUicott on G. i. 11, Lightfoot on G. iii. 15.]
* In 2 C. vii. 9, 10, Xvrilffiat nard hav and Xv'Trri xara. hov do not mean
sorrow -produced hy God (Kypke in loc), but, as Bengel strikingly says, " animi
Deum spectantis et sequeutis," — sorrow according to Ood, i. e., according to
God's mind and will. lu the next sentence, Paul might have written in the
same way « xaTa to» koj/jlov Xv<rn. But h t»u Kofff^hv Xvirn has a somewhat
different meaning, sorrov) of the world, i. e., such as the world (those who
belong to the world) has and feels (naturally, respecting things of the xoff/^os).
This difference in the expressions was also rightly estimated by Bengel. lu
1 P. iv. 6 xara, a.y6fu-rovi means after the manner of men, and is defined more
exactly by the annexed (rapxi, as Kmra din means after tlie manner of G'od, 'and.
is more exactly defined by w.ufixri (for God is vrnZfAo,).
« [Ellicott on Tit. iii. 5, Jelf 629. 3. e.J
502 PEEPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. [PART III.
Ka6^ vareprjaiv \e'yo},from want (in consequence of my suffering
want), Tit. iii. 5, 1 P. i. 3, Kara to avrov eXeor^ E. i. 5, Her.
9. 17 {Kara to e%^09), al. Compare Diog. L. 6. 10, Arrian,
Al. 1. 17. 13. Also H. xi. 7, ?7 Kara irlariv Bucatoavvr}, the
righteousness which is in consequence of faith.
(c) Destination for or to (Jo. ii. 6), 2 Tim. i. 1,^ Tit. i. 1
(compare Eom. i. 5, et<?) ; and (necessary) result, 2 C. xi. 21, kut
uTifMiav Xeyo), for dishonour (Her. 2. 152, Thao. 5, 7, 6. 31).
The meaning c/um must be given up, though Kara may some-
times be rendered with. In Eom. x. 2, ^^Xo? 6eov aXX' ov Kar
iTTLyvwoiv is zeal of^ God, hut not according to (in accordance
with) knotoledge, i. e., such as manifests itself in consequence of
knowledge (compare above Kar ayvoiav) 1 P. iii. 7. In H. xi,
13, Kara iriariv atreOavov K.r.X. means, they died in conformity
tvith faith, without having received, etc. ; it was in conformity
with faith (with the nature of 7r/crTt<f) that they died as those
who had only seen from afar the fulfilment of the promises,
for the thought which belongs to Kara Triariv is contained in
the second participial clause. (Don. p. 511, Jelf 629.)
e. 'TTrep denotes motion over and heyond (Her. 4. 168, Plat.
Crit. 108 e, Plut. Virt. Mid. p. 231 Lips.). In the N. T. Kara
never has this local meaning, but is always used figuratively, to
denote heyond, ahove, in number, rank, or quality. See A. xxvi.
13, <p(t)<; TrepiXdfjbyfrav . . , vTrep rrjv Xa/xTrporTjra rov ■/jXiov
Mt. X. 24, ovK eari ixa6r}rr]<i vTrep rov BcBda-KaXov Phil. 16,
Mt. X, 37, 6 (fiiXcov irarepa vrrep e/xi (^sch. Dial. 3. 6), 2 C. i. 8
(Epict. 3 1 , 3 7), G. i. 1 4 ; also 2 C. xii. 1 3, rt rydp iariv o ijrrTjOijre
VTrep Ta9 XotTra? iKKXT]aia<;, small heyond the other churches
(gradation downwards). As to virep after comparatives, see
§ 35. 1. (Don. p. 513, Jelf 630.)
f. Merd denotes motion in amongst (Iliad 2. 376) ; then
niotion hehind, after something. In prose however it is more
' Accordingly xara. is sometimes found in parallelism with the (instrumental)
dative, as in Arrian, Al. 5. 21. 4, xar 'ix^oi ''" ^ufou ^aXAov rJ^/X/arp 'AX£?a»S^«t/.
See Fritz. Rom. I. 99.
^ Matthies gives an artificial explanation, remarking that it cannot be
lexically shown that xara denotes the aim. But this meaning is very simply
contained in the nature of this preposition. See further Matth. 581. b. a, i.
[See Ellicott on Tit. i. 1, 2 Tim, i. 1, Jelf 629. 3. rf.]
^ [Winer here renders the genitive literally : in § 30. 1 he gives the explana-
tiou "zeal/orGod."]
SECT. XLIX.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 503
frequently used for (rest) behind, — post : H. ix. 3, /bLera ro Bev-
repov Karaireraa-ixa (Pans. 3. 1. 1). In all other passages of the
N. T, fierd is the temporal after (as the antithesis of irpo).
This is its meaning in Mt. xxvii. 63, where the popular expres-
sion can present no difficulty (see Krebs, Ohs. p. 8 7 sq.) ; and
in 1 C. xi. 25, fxera ro SeiTrvijaat, which we have no right to
vender whilst they were eating on account of Mt. xxvi. 26
(errOiovToip avToiv), — compare on the other side L. xxii. 20,
Indeed even the familiar jxed' rjfiipav, interdiu} properly means
yost lucem, after daybreak. (Don. p. 520, Jelf 636.)
g. Hapa in its primary sense denotes motion heside, hy, in
reference to a line or extended surface: Mt. iv. 18, ireptTrarSiv
TTapd rr]v dciXaaaav . . . etSe k.t.\., walkiTig along the seaside
(Xen. Cyr. 5. 4. 41, An. 4. 6. 4, 6. 2. 1, Plat. Gorg. 511 e),
Mt. xiii. 4, enea-e irapa tt)v 686v, fell hy the side of (along) the
road. It is then applied to a point in space, which belongs
however to an extended object, as epx'^crOcLi' Trapa rrjv daXacraav
to the sea, Mt. xv. 29, A, xvi. 13 ; piTrruv or TiOivac Trapd tou?
7roSa9 TLi'6<;, by the feet, Mt. xv. 30, A. iv. 35.^ But Trapd is also
thus used with verbs of rest,^ e. g., to sit, stand, lie, irapd rijv
6d\acraav or t})^ XifjLvrjv or Trapa rrjv oSoi/ (propter mare,
viam), Mt. xx. 30, L. v. 1 sq., xviii. 35, H. xi. 12, A. x. 6, w
iarlv oIklu irapd ddXaaaav (ver. 32) ; compare Xen. An. 3.
5. 1, 7. 2. 11, Paus. 1. 38. 9, JEsop. 44. I.''
Further Trapd indicates that something has not hit the mark,
but has fallen beside the mark ; and hence, according to the
nature of the words with which it is connected, it sometimes
signifies beyond (as Pom. xii. 3, with which Fritzsche compares
Plutarch, Mor. 83 sq., davfiaa-rai Trap o hel), sometimes below,
as in 2 C. xi. 24, Tr6vrdKL<i reacrapuKovra Trapd p^tav, forty 'passing
over one, forty save one (Joseph. Antt. 4. 8. 1, — compare H. ii.
7, from the LXX). See Bernhardy, p. 258.
In the former sense Trapd is used figuratively,
(«) In comparisons : L. xiii. 2, dp.apT(o\ol Trapd Trdvra<;,
beyond all [more than all, — see vTrep, and compare § 35. 2),
1 EUendt, An. Alex. 4. 13. 10 (Jelf 636. 2).
2 Compare Held, Plut. Timol. 356.
^ The transition to this usage is found in such expressions as Polyb. 1. 55. 7,
Iv T? Tapa rhy 'iraXiav xtifiivn vrXiufx c?; S/xsX/as, lying (extending) by (towards)
Jtaiy.
* Hartung, Die Casus p. 83.
604 PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. [PART III.
iii. 13, H. i. 9 (from the LXX), iii. 3 (Dio Cass. 152. 16).
Analogous to this is dWo^ Trapd, 1 C. iii. 11, other than, just
as dWo'i rj is used elsewhere.^ Rom. xiv. 5, Kpivet.v ■^fiepav
•Trap* ■^fjbipav, to judge (esteem) dai/ before day, i. e., prefer one
day to another.
Q)) With the meaning against, contrary to: A. xviii. 13,
Trapd vofiov (Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 18, Lucian, Demon. 49); Eom.
i. 26, nrapd (f}V(nv, prceter naturam (Plat. Bep. 5. 466 d, Plut.
Educ. 4. 9) ; Rom. iv. 18, Trap"" iXirlSa, prceter spem (Plat. Fol.
295 d) ; Rom. xvi. 17, H. xi. 11 (Thuc. 3. 54. Xen. An. 2. 5.
41, 5. 8. 17, 6. 4. 28, Phibstr. Apoll. 1. 38) : we also speak of
overstepping, transgressing, the law. The opposite would-be
Kara (jivcriv k.t.\. ; compare Xen. Mem. I. c., Plut. Ed^ic. 4. 9.
(c) Eom. i. 25, irapd rov Kricravra, passing over the Creator :
consequently, instead of the Creator.
Once Trapd indicates the ground or reason: in 1 C. xii. 15,
Trapd Tovro, on this account, — properly, hy the side of this, since
this is so 2 (Plut. Camill. 28, Dio C. 171. 96, Lucian, Paras. 12,
and often). In Latin propter, from prope (compare propter
flwmen), has become the ordinary causal preposition.^ (Don.
p. 521, Jelf 637.)
h. IIp6<i, to, towards, with verbs of motion or of mere
direction : see A iv. 24, E. iii. 14, 1 C. xiii. 12, Trp6<;(OTrov 7r/)o<?
Trp6<;coTrov, face turned towards face. Sometimes the import of
the accusative is apparently lost, rrpoq signifying zvith, — par-
ticularly in connexion with names of persons, Mt. xiii. 56,
Jo. i. 1,^ 1 C. xvi. 6 (Demosth. Apat. 579 a); but here tt/jo?
indicates (ideal) annexation. The appropriateness of this case is
still discernible in Mk. iv. 1, 6 6)^Xo<{ tt^o? rrjv OdXacrcrav cttI
T^9 7^9 -^v, towards the sea (by the sea) on the land, Mk. ii. 2,
and still more so in A. v. 10, xiii. 31, Ph. iv. 6 : see Fritz.
Mark, p. 201 sq., and compare Schoem. Isccus, p. 244. The
Latin ad unites both meanings.
1 Compare Stallb. Plat. Phileb. p. 51 (Jelf. 503. Ohs. 2).
2 Weber, Demosth. p. 521 (Don. p. 522, Jelf 6-37. 3. d).
® Vig. p. 862, v., Fritzsche, Quoist. Lucian. p. 124 sq., Matzner, Ant'iph. p. 182.
* [Compare Huther on 1 Jo. i. 2 : " In the N. T. rrpis with the accusative has
frequently the meaning with, but differs from -rp'o; with the dative in that it
indicates being with as not merely a being near or beside, but as a living
union," — implying rather the active notion of intercourse, than a mere passive
idea. Similarly Luthardt, Das Johann.-Evang. I. 290, Meyer and Westcott on
Jo. i. 1.]
SECT. XLIX.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 505
The temporal applications of Trpo? justify themselves at the
first glance : tt/jo? Kaipov for % time, L. viii. 13, Jo. v. 35, H.
xii. 10 sq., and tt/jo? iairepav toivards evening, L. xxiv. 29
(Wetstein I. 826). Compare ahove,^ s. v. eVt.
In its figurative use Trpo? indicates the point towards which
something is directed. Hence the result and issue, as 2 P. iii.
16, a . . . <rTp€^\ovcrcv . . . Trpo^ rrjv IBiav avTcov aTrooXetav
H. V. 14, ix. 13, 1 Tim. iv. 7 (Simplicius in Epict. 13. p. 146),
Jo. xi. 4. This preposition, however, particularly indicates the
direction of the mind towards something ; e. g., H. i. 7, nrpcxi
Tovf dyyeXov<i Xeyei, in reference to (pointing to them in what he
says), L. xx. 19, Eom. x. 21 (but not H. xi. 18), like dicere in
aliquem. Compare Plutarch, De el ap. Belpli. c. 21, Xen. Mem.
4. 2. 15. Specially, irpo^ denotes
(a) The state of feeling towards some one, erg a and contra : ^
L. xxiii. 12, 1 Th. v. 14, 2 C. iv. 2, vii. 12, A. vi. 1, H. xii. 4,
Col. iv. 5, Rev. xiii. 6.
(h) Design (direction of the will), and aim (purpose) : 1 C.
X. 11, xii. 7, Mt. vi. 1, H. vi. 11, A. xxvii. 12, 2 C. xi. 8, 1 P.
iv. 12. Hence Trpo? rt, for what purpose (quo consilio), Jo. xiii.
28; compare Soph. Aj. 40.
(c) Consideration of, regard to something : Mt. xix. 8, Mw-
arj^ 7r/3o? rrjv aKkijpoKapBiav vficov iireTpe'^ev k.t.X., having
regard to, on account of your stubbornness (Polyb. 5. 27. 4,
38. 3. 10).
^d) The rule or law according to which one guides himself, in
conformity with : L. xii. 47, G. ii. 14, 2 C. v. 10, Lucian, Conscr.
Hist. 38, Plat. Apol 40 e, ^schin. Dial. 3. 17. Hence also the
standard according to which a comparison is made : Rom. viii.
18, ovK d^ca TO. 'Kadrjfj.aTa rov vvv Kaipov 7rp6<i rrjv fMeXXovaav
Bo^av a'rroKa\v(l>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, ^co<? irepl i/xe, to shine round
about me, to encircle me with light, L. xiii. 8 ; also with verbs of
rest, Mk. iii. 34, oi rrepl avrov Kudrjfievof Mt. iii. 4, et%e ^(ovtjv
Trepl Tr]v 6o-(f>vv, about the loins (encircling them). Then of
time : Mk. vi. 48 'rrepl Terdprrjv <f>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}<i' L. xiii. 34, €7navvd^ai ri-jv
voaatav viro ra.<i inipvya^ fXen. Cyr. 5. 4. 43, Plutarch, Thcs.
3). It is also used of rest, i.e., of being (extending) uiuler a sur-
face, as in A. ii. 5, ol viro rov ovpavov L. xvii, 24 (Plat. E^. 7.
326 c), 1 C. X. 1 (Her. 2. 127, Plut. Themist 26,iEsop. 36. 3);^
also Eom. iii. 1 3 (from the LXX), to? aatrihftiv viro ra x^'^V ^^-
rcov, under (behind) their lips, — compare Her. 1. 12, KaraKpv-
Tneiv vTTo rrjv dvprjv. Thence in a figurative sense:'^ Kom. vii. 14,
ireTTpafxevo^ vtto tt^v ajxapriav, sold under sin — into the power of
sin; Mt. viii. 9, 'i^piv vir e/xavrov a-TpaTL(t)Ta<i (Ken. Cyr. 8. 8. 5),
under me, i.e., subjected to me (to my power); 1 P. v. 6 ; and
frequently ehai, or jLveaOai viro rt, to be placed in subjection to,
Mt. viii. 9, Rom. iii. 9, 1 Tim. vi. 1, G. iii. 10, iv. 2, 21 (Lucian,
AMic. 23). It is used of time in A. v. 21, vtto rov opOpov
(Lucian, Amor. 1), close upon, towards (like the local vtto to
ret;^o9) : in this sense ittto is frequently used in Greek, e. g.,
VTTO vvKTu, VTTO Trjv €(o, ctc.,^ aud sub in Latin. (Don. p. 525,
Jelf 639.)
1. 'Etti. 1. Of place. Motion over (over a surface) : Mt.
xxvii. 45, aK6To<; iyevero iirl iraaav ttjv fyrjv' xiv. 19, avaKki-
OrjvaL iirl rot/? ^pprav^'^ A. vii. 11 (xvii. 26). Motion iqjon or
to, either from above or from below; hence, down upon, as Mt.
X. 29, eVt fyfjv, A. iv. 33 ; up on, A. x. 9, dve^r} ivl to Bw/xn'
Mt. xxiv. 16, 1 P. ii. 24 fXen. Cyr. 3. 1. 4); also 0)i (motion
on), Jo. xiii. 25, i'miriineLV eVl to (nr)6o<i, on the breast (Jo,
7i\\. 20): up before (a high tribunal), Mt. x. 18, L, xii. 11. "EirL
' [Lachm., Treg., Westcott and Hort, .read r'rtt M. for Tas -rif) M. — Meyer
.irgues against the opinion that the sisters alone are meant : see also Alford
in loc.'\
* Thus in Eur. Ale. 907, Xvrra.i n {plXut tZv vvtq yaTay (changed by Monk into
Cto yaias) would be admissible. Compare Matthiie, Eur. Ilea. 144. The
phrase certainly does not belong to later Greek merely (Paheph. 10. 1).
^ P>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<i inrl MarOiaV
V. 28, iirayayelv eirC riva to al/xa avdpwTrov rivof}' Jo i. 33,
aL Our auf (^I'pon), which is almost always applicable as a
rendering for eVt, represents the same view : only in Mt. xxvii.
29, iTreOrjKav KoXafiov eV-t Tr]v Se^idv, we should say iiito, not
upon ; here however better MSS, have eV rfj. Se^ia, and the
common reading is not justified by Eev. xx. 1. It is only in
appearance that eVt is joined with verbs of rest : Mt. xiii. 2, o
o^Xo^ eVl Tov al<yta\ov elaTi]K€t,, stood (had placed itself) over
the shore; compare Odyss. 11. 577, Diod. S. 20. 7. Mt. xix. 28,
Ka6laea6e eirl ScoSeKa Op.ovovi (Paus. 1. 35. 2), 2 C. iii. 15, kcl-
Xvfxfia eTTt T^y KapSlav Kelraf A. x. 17, xi. 11, must be judged
of in the same way as the similar examples of eU. See § 50. 4,
Ellendt, Arr. Alex. II. 91.^
2. When applied to time, eiri denotes the period over which
something extends, as in L. iv. 25 eirl erri rpla, over, during.
' We must not class ■with such passages L. x. 9, ^Vy*" W "V*? ^ fiaaixuu
raw hiu. Here a gift from heaven is spoken of, which comes down on men.
Compare A. i. 8.
^ Ja. V. 14, irposiu^eiffairav It' aurav, may mean, let them pray over him (pray^
folding their hands over him, — compare A, xix. 13), or pray down upon,
towards, him; but it may also signify pray over, or above /wm [expressing a
relation of rest, not of motion], fpr we very often find 1^/ with the accusative
where we might have expected i-r'i with the genitive or dative. A recent com-
mentator should not have dismissed this explanation so lightly. In L. v. 25,
iip' S xarixtiro (the reading of the best MSS.) may either be explained in ac-
cordance with the above remark, or be rendered on which he lay stretched (the
reference is to a' surface). What has been said will entirely justify iVrrt i-ri tov
aiyiaXoy, which is received in Jo. xxi. 4 by Lachm. [and Tisch. in ed. S] on
good authority ; compare Xen. Cyr. 3. 8. 68, and see above in the text. Matthai
is wrong in calling this a semigrcecam correctionem. Certainly the difference
between Iti with the accusative and l«r/ with the genitive and dative is some-
times but small. If however it is supposed that the accusative stands for the
genitive or dative in Mk. xv. 24 (we also say iiher die Kleidung loosen, cast lots
over the clothing), Ph. ii. 27 (receive sorrow upon sorrow, one sorrow coming
upon that which already exists), a closer examination of the passages will
soon show that this view is incorrect. On the other hand, the dative miglit
certainly have been used in L. xxiii. 28, Rev. xviii. 11, — compare L. xix. 41,
P»ev. xviii. 20 ; and in Rey. v. 1 the accusative [^] would even have been more
correct. But the two constructions [Wt nvi and Wi n with e. g. xxaiw] express
conceptions somewhat different, as indeed we also say sick ilber eine Sache
freuen. [In L. xix. 41 recent editors receive avr-ziK On Rev. v. 1 see Alford.j
SECT. XLIX.] PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 509
three years, A. xiii. 31, xix. 10, H. xi. 30 (compare Her. 3. 59,
6. 101, Thuc. 2. 25, Xen. Cyr. 6. 2 34, Plat. Legg. 12. 945 b,
Strabo 9. 401) : hence €</>' 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 Kalvfxei<i iirl BcoBeKa 6 povov^ ; xxiv. 2,
oi) firj d(f)eOfj \lOo<i eVt \ldov and Mk. xiii. 2,^ ov fjur] d(f)€6'^
\l$o<i iirl Xido). Compare Jos. v. 16, where we find in one sen-
tence e'^' M vvv ecnr)Ka<i eV avrov ; Gen. xxxix. 5, xlix. 26, Ex.
viii.3, xii. 7, Jon. iv. 10. See also Kev.v. l,13,vi. 2, 16,vii. l,xiii.
1 6. Thusthe Greeks use with equal frequency ai'a/SatWti^ inrl Tov<i
iTnrov<; and eTrl rcov Xttttwv} in theLXXwe even find dva^aivuv
eVl Tal<i olKiai-i, Joel ii. 9. In Rev. xiv. 9 we have Xafi^dvei to
•^dpajfia fcVt Tov fjbeTcoTTov avrov rj eirt rrjv %etpa avrov : see
also xiii. 1. Compare further Diog. L. 2. 77, . . . eVt riijKov; €(f>r]
eVt T<p fJLeraB(0(T€iv K.r.X.; Pol. 6. 7. 2, rpa(f>evra^ viro rotovroL<i'
but in 10. 25. 1, Tpa(l3el<i Kal rracBev6el<i vwo KXeavBpov ; and
on the whole rriatter see Jacobs, Anthol. III. 194, 286, Bemh.
p. 200 sq. (Jelf 648). It is in connexion with e'lri that we most
frequently meet with this apparent indifference as to case.^ Com-
pare iXiri^eiv eirlrivt, and nva, 1 Tim. iv. 10, v. 5 ; TreiroiOevai,
errl rivt and rcva, 2 C. i. 9, ii. 3; Karacrrijo-ac tin rivo<? and rivi,
L. xii. 42, 44 (KOTrreaOac Irrl nva in Rev. i. 7, and eVi nvi, in
xviii. 9 V. I.); 6 eVi rov Koiroivo<i, A. xii. 20, and o eirl ral<i apKvai,
1 [Better L. xxi. 6 : iu Mk. I. c. the most probable reading is x'Jev.']
^ Bornem. Xen. Conv. p. 272.
3 Schneider, Flat. Civ. I. 74.
SECT. L.] REPETITION OF PREPOSITIONS. 511
Xen. Cyr. 2. 4. 25 : see Lob. Pliryn. p. 474 sq. Moreover, on
eV/ expressing aim with the genitive see Bremi, jEsch. p. 412,
with the dative and accusative, Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 5 9 ; on e^'
eavTov and e^' kavruj, Schoem. Isceus p 349 ; on Trapd with the
genitive instead of the dative, Scha;f. Dion. p. 1 1 8 sq. Hence in
particular cases in which Greek writers do not happen to furnish
exact parallels (as L. i. 59, KoXeiv I-ttl rivf compare Ezr. ii. 61,
jSTeli. vii. 63, al.) we should not be justified in pronouncing the
construction un-Greek, particularly if something analogous is met
with (Matth. 586. 17), or if the case employed can very well be
conceived in combination with the preposition. On the other
hand, the N. T. writers never write eVi KXavBicp or KXavScov in
the place of eVt KXavhiov ; nor do they ever join eVt expi'essing
condition with the genitive or accusative. It was not until a
later period that the interchange of cases joined in different
senses to a preposition (e. g., the use of fierd with genitive and
accusative without alteration of meaning), began to appear in
the written language: see above, p. 455.
That in one and the same sentence the same preposition with the
same case should be used to express different relations and meanings,
cannot be considered strange in Greek any more tlian in other lan-
guages. See, for example, L. xi. 50, "ya CKl^rp-rjOfj to alfxa iravToiv Twv
Trpo(f>r]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 7rdvTa<i tov<; dyiov<i, are usually explained
by referring the words Trpo? tov Kvpiov, as regards the sense, to
TTcaTtv, and e/? TrdvTa<i tov<} dyiov<; to dydiriiv. Such a chiasmus'^
would not be at all strange in itself; compare Plat. Legg. 9.
8G8 b (see Ast. Atiimadv. p. 16), Horat. Serin. 1. 3. 51, and
tlie commentators in loc. It is simpler however to take tticttk:
1 [Pla< oil within brackets probably because of the two explanations of t»u
vrai-r.poV. (he evil one (Jleyer, Luthardt, al. ), the evil (Olshauseu, al.).]
2 [Jeif 904. 3.— See EUicott in loc. ; also on E. iv. 12.]
512 INTERCHANGE, ACCUMULATION, AND [PART UI.
m the sense oi fidelity, and to consider both prepositional clauses
7rpo9 rov Kvpcov Kal et? irdvra'; tou? ayiovf;, as equally dependent
on TTtoTTt?, making no distinction between the prepositions ; see
Meyer. Some MSS. have ei<} in the place of tt/so?, but this is
a mere correction, occasioned by the tendency towards making
the phraseology uniform, and by observation of the fact that
elsewhere faith in Christ is always tt/cttk? J7 et? Xpiarov: the
expression irlarLv e-^eiv irpo<i- riva, however, presents no diffi-
culty whatever, and it occurs at least in Epiphan. Opp. 11. 335 d.
As to L. V. 15,^ Jo. vii. 42, 2 C. x. 3, 1 Th. ii. 3, Eom. iv.
18, X. 17, E. iv. 12, 1 Jo. iii. 24, 1 Th. iv. 7, 1 P. ii. 12, no
remark is required: on 1 C. iv. 10, 2 C. iv. 17, iii. 5, xiii. 3,
1 C. xii. 8, see the more recent commentators. On the other
hand, in 1 Th. ii. 6, ovre ^rjTOvvre'i i^ avOpcoTrayv Bo^av ovre a<f
vfMcbv 0VT6 air' dWbiv, the two prepositions are entirely synony-
mous, as also in Jo. xi. 1, A. xix. 23.^ In Eom. iii. 30 Paul
certainly intended no distinction in sense, for from a dogmatic
point of view Trta-Tiq may with equal propriety be conceived of
either as the source or as the means of blessedness (G. iii. 8, E,
ii. 8). From Greek writers compare Pans. 7. 7. 1, at in TvoXificov
Kal 0,770 rri<i vocrov avfKpopai ; Isocr. Pennut. 738, Arrian, Al. 2.
18. 9, Diod. S. 5. 30.^ There is just as little distinction between
the prepositions in 2 Jo. 2, rrjv uXtjOeiav r-qv pbevovaav iv rjiuv
Kal jxed' rjixoiv eaTai ; and in Ex. vi. 4, ev y (ryfj) Kal irapwK'qaai'
iir avTt]<i ; Jon. iv. 10. Lastly, ihe distinction which Billroth
makes between 8id So^?;? and iv So^ij in 2 C. iii. 1 1 can hardly
stand when confronted with actual usage: see above, p. 482,
and on Sid expressing state, p. 474. On the other hand, the
difference in meaning between Kard and eVt in 1 C. xi. 4, 1 0,
and between ix and Sid in 1 P. i. 23, is obvious.
3. Prepositions of kindred meaningare interchanged in parallel
passages of the Gospels and elsewhere. Thus in Mt. xxvi. 2 8 (Mk.
xiv. 24 *) we find alfia ro Trepl ttoWojv eK'^vvofievov, but in L.
xxii. 20, TO virep ttoWcov €K'x^. ; Mt. vii. 16, fxij ri crvWeyovcriv
ttTTO CLKavdoiv aracjivXrjv, but L. vi. 44, ovk e^ aKavOoyv crvWe-
^ [Recent editors ouiit u^' auT/)Z.^^
^ [A mistaken reference : perhaps A. xxiii. 34.]
3 Schsef. Onom. p. 203, and Soph. I. 248, Bornem. Xen. Mem. p. 45.
■* [Here recent editors read y^ri^. ]
SECT. L.] REPETITION OF PREPOSITIONS. 513
fyovcTL &v/ca; Mt. xxiv. 16, <l>ev<yeTQjaav iirl ra opT} (upon the
mountains, — compare Palteph. 1. 10),but Mk.xiii. 14:,(fievyeT(0(Tav
et9 ra opt] (into the mountains); Jo. x. 32,Sfca irolov avrSiv epyov
XtOd^ere /xe ; but in ver. 33, Trepl koKov epyov ov Xidd^ofiev ere ;
H. vii. 2, (o KoL SeKaTTjv diro vavTcov ifiepiaev ^A^pad/j,, but ver.
4, o5 Kal BeKarrjv 'A^paap, eScoKCV e/c rti)v aKpoOivicov ; Rom. iii.
25, 619 evhet^Lv t?}? ZiKaioavvri'i avrov, but ver. 26, irpo^ rrjv
evSet^cv Trj<; BcKaLocrvvr]<; avrov. Compar6 Xen. Ci/r. 5. 4. 43,
TTpo'i avTo TO rei^o? 7rpo<;r]ya'yov . . . ovk ideXto vtt avrd rd
rei^V dyeiv. To this head belong also H. xi. 2, iv Tavrj] (rfj
iricrreC) efiapTvpr^Orjcrav ol irpea^vrepot, but ver. 39, Trat'Te?
fiapTvprjdSvre'i Btd t% triareoii'i ("in faith," ^ meaning 7ct in-
structi fide) ; the phrases ev)(^e(rdat, Trpaev^eaOac, ev^apiarelv,
8e7](Ti<;, irepi or virep Tivo<i (Rom. x. 1, 2 C. i. 11, E. vi. 18,
Col. i. 3, 9, 1 C. i. 4, E. i. 16, compare Acta Apocr. p. 53) ; and
the expressions siiffer or die Trepl or virep dfiapri&v (the former
on account of, the latter /or sins), 1 C. xv. 3, 1 P. iii. 18. Some-
times even good MSS. are divided between virep and irepl (G. i.
4), as indeed these prepositions were often interchanged by the
transcribers: compare "Weber, Dem. p. 129. In 'Enrip. Ale.
180, where ov Ovr^a-Kciv irepi occurs instead of the more usual
virep, some recent editors have proposed to correct the text (see
Monk in loc), but certainly without suflicient reason.
Sometimes we find a preposition used in one of two parallel phrases
and omitted in the other : e. g., 1 P. iv. 1, Tra^orros vrrep rjixdv <r ap k i,
immediately followed by 6 TraOiav iv a- a p kl ;^ in L. iii. 16, A. i. 5,
and xi. 16, /3a7rTi^€ti/ vSar l, but /SaTTTt^etv tvvSartin Mt. iii. 11,
Jo. i. 26, 33.^ This difference does not affect the sense, but the two
phrases were in the first instance differently conceived. nacrx"v ev
<rapKi means to suffer in the flesh (body), but -rrdaxei-v crapKL to suffer
according to (§ 31. 6) the flesh; ^aTrn'^tiv iv vSuti, to baptise (by
immersing) in ivater, but ^airrC^eLv v^an, to baptise with water. Here
and in most other passages it is obvious that the expressions are
equivalent in sense,* but it is not to be supposed that one is used
for the other. Compare further E. ii. 1, veKpol tois Trapa-n-Tti/xao-t,
1 [See above, p. 484 : Delitzsch connects Iv rav-rri closely with the verb.]
2 [Recent editors omit iv, on strong MS. authority. J
^ But always (iarrri^tiv iv ■ittiuii.u.Ti, never /Sa'rr/^sjy Tviif/itTt. [The latter is
received by Westcott and Hort in Mk. i. 8.]
* So in Aristot. Anim. 4. 10. p. Ill ^Sylb.) Xaup>dvi)r6cti Tpioioyn is to be
caught with a trident (like t? x,-'?' wri</i the hand), but Xn(fii»vai i* tu rfislovn,
which immediately follows, is to have been caught on the trident. Schneider
and Bekker however read c» for en after Xniftrivai.
33
514 INTERCHANGE, ACCUMULATrON, AND [fART HI.
but Col. ii. 13, v(Kpoi € V Tots TrapaTTTw/iaoriJ 2 C. iv. 7, Iva r] VTrcp^oXrj
Trj<: 8vva/xtws tjtou $ c ov kol fir] i $ rj fjiiov ; Mt. vii. 2, compared
witli L. vi. 38, 1 Jo. iii. 18.
4. It was at one time supposed that, in the N. T.,^ the
prepositions iv and et? in particular ^ are directly and without
distinction used for each other. It was maintained that, in
virtue of the Hebrew idiom, iv with verbs of motion or direc-
tion is equivalent to in with the accusative : e. g., Mt. x. 16,
iyo} uTroar eWo) vfia<i &>? 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 Tat<i KapBiai.<; rjficbv
L. v, 16, Jo. viii. 37, 1 C. xi. 18, al. (In Eev. xi. 11 the reading
is very doubtful; and Mk. i. 16 and 1 Tim. iii. 16 certainly have
no place hefe.) It was also held that ek in combination with
verbs of rest is m with the ablative : e. g., A. vii. 4, (^ 7*7) ek rjv
vfi€2<; vvv KaroLKelre Mk. ii. 1, et? olkov^ ecm' Jo. i. 18, 6 cbv
etV Tov koXttov rod irarpof;' ix. 7, VL'^au et? TrjV KoXv/x^rjdpav,
and elsewhere."*
a. To begin with eV: Greek writers — in the first place Homer
— are accustomed sometimes to join this preposition with verbs
of motion in order to indicate at the same time tlie result of the
motion, that is, rest.^ This usage (the result of a love of con-
ciseness peculiar to the Greek nation) is not found in the earlier
prose writers ; for in Thuc. 4. 42, 7. 17, Xen. Hell. 7. 5. 10,
the readings are now corrected on MS. authority^ (Matth. 577).
1 Glassii Philol. S. I. 412 sq. (ed. Datlie).
* See also Stiirz, Leak. Xen. II. 68, 166.
" ['Ev o'Uu, Lacliiii., Tieg., Tiscli. (ed. 8), AVestcott and Hort.]
* To these two cases the above observation must here be limited ; for where
either i» or tU might equally well be used, according to the view taken of the
relation, it cannot be said that one stands for tJie other : e. g., toZto lyitiro jjloi
and "ot/ro e^enTO Ui \fi.\.
'■' The same may be said of the Hebrew 3, when it occurs in conjunction
with verbs of motion : see my Exeget. Sfvdien I. 49. sqq., [Ewald, Lehrb.
p. .556]. Compare further Krebs, Obs. 78 sq. — "Hku !» does not come under
this head (Lucian, Paras. 34, compare Popiio, Thuc. III. ii. 891). Nor can
perfects or pluperfects with U, as xa^a'ri^ivyUa.i U roTy, Plat. Soph. 260 c,
Thuc. 4. 14, etc., be considered parallel to, the examples given above. They
show however the origin of this usage (compare Bemh. p. 208), and in good
writers the usage is in general confined to such cases (Kriig. p. 321). Lastly,
the (not uncommon) combination 'ipx'-'^'''^' ^s L. ix. 46, xxiii. 42, Rev. xi. 11.
al., is perhaps also to be exce))ted, when it means to arise in. [In Rev. xi 11
Laelini., Tisch., and Diisterd. read iv ai/ro?; : K has e/'s aiiTovs.]
* [There is still some ditference of opinion on this point. In Thuc. 4. 42 the
SECT. L.] REPETITION OF PREPOSITIONS. 515
In later writers see e. g. ^lian 4. 18, KarrjXde Uxdroyv iv
SiKeXta, i. e., he came (and remained) in Sicily ; Paus. 6. 20. 4,
avToi Koyuiaai (paal rrjq 'IinroSafieia'; ra ocrrd iv 'OXufiiria' 7.
4. 3, al, Alciphr. 2. 3. p. 227 (Wagn.), Xen. Eph. 2. 12, Arrian,
£}ncL 1. 11. 32, ^sop 16, 127,343 (De Fur.), Dio Cass.
1288. 23.^ This may be applied to Mt. x. 16,=^ Rev. xi. 11.'
Perhaps also (with Baumg.-Crusius) to Jo. v. 4, especially if
these words are a later addition ; for the other explanation, he
went down in the pool (into its depths, in order to produce the
Tapa^Tj, see Liicke), has this against it, that in so circum-
stantial a narrative the angel's descent from heaven must have
been mentioned before anything else. In all the other passages
it is only in appearance that iv stands for et? : L. vii. 1 7 means
went forth (spread abroad) in all Judoea ; Mk. v. 30, he turned
round in the crowd : L. v. lid, he was in the deserts, ivithdrawing
himself. In Mt. xiv. 3, edero h (pvXaKTj, if the word'* is genuine,
is conceived exactly in the same way as the Latin ponere in
loco (for which we in German say put into, taking a different
but still a correct view of the relation) : a similar case is Jo,
iii. 35, Trdvra BeBwfCev iv rfi ;^€t/3t ainov' 2 C. viii. 16 {Iliad 1,
441, 5. 574, — compare also EUendt, Lexic. Soph. L 598). So
also in Mt. xxvi. 23, o ifi^d-^a^ iv rut rpv^Xio), who dips in the
dish, just as accurate an expression as our dip into the dish
(compare ^sop 124. 1) : 1 C. xi. 18, a-vvepxeadai, iv iKKX-ijaia
means co7ne together in an assembly (as we speak of meeting in
the market, in society) ; Ph. iv. 16, on kuI iv QeaaaXovUr] . . .
ek TTjv xP^^o.v fLov iirifiy^are, is an instance of brachylogy, — ye
sent to me in Thessalonica^ i. e., to me when I was in Thessalonica
(compare Thuc. 4. 27, and Pcppo in loc). In Jo. viii. 37 we
reading l» XiUKohla. aTntaa* is retained by Poppo, — also by Kiihner {Gr. II, 469 :
ed. 2) and Jelf (645. 1. a). Poppo says : Bekkerus invitis omnibus membranis
««•?»•«» ; sed axmray it videntur valere posse aa-^/.^o* ko,) aTiJo-av iv (ed. min. II.
ii. p. 68).]
' Compare Heind. Plat. Soph. p. 427 sq., Poppo, Thuc. I. i. 178 sq., Sch?ef.
Demosth. III. p. .505.
* [Meyer closely connects together -rpifiara iv ftia-M Xukuv -. " yc as my mes-
sengers will be in the sirnatio)i of sheep who are in tbe midst of wolves."]
•* The fact that ilsipx'"^'" ■' appears to be an imitation of 2 W3,' does not
affect the question, for the Hebrew phrase is undoubtedly to be explained in
the same way.
* [That is, the verb ihro. In ed. 2 Tisch. omitted xa'i 'ihro : in ed. 8 he
reads >cai 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, et<? is not un-
irequently joined to verbs of rest. Such combinations originally
included the additional idea of the (preceding or accompanying)
^notion, in accordance with the principle of breviloquence re-
ferred to above.^ See e. g. Xen. Cyr. 1. 2. 4, vo^qt €i<? ra^
eavTwv 'Y(opa'i eKacrroi tovtqjv irdpeiaiv' ^lian 7. 8, H^aLcmwv
619 'EK^drava direOave' Isseus 5. 46 (compare A. xxi. 13),*
Diod. S. 5. 84, Biarpl/3cav et? ra? vijaovr Pans. 7. 4. 3. (The
combination of et9\yith such verbs Sist^eiv,fca6e^€a6at — KaOrjaOai,
— Mk. xiii. 3, compare Eurip. I-ph. T. 620, is of a somewhat
different kind.^) By this may be explained : Mk. ii. 1, where
we also say er ist ins Haus [he is info the house ®j, i. e., he has
gone into the house, and is there now (Her. 1. 21, Arrian, AL
4. 22. 3, Pans. 8. 10. 4 and SiebeMsm Ioc.,Iay. 37. 18 ?, Curt.
3. 5. 10, Vechner, Hellenol. p. 258 sq.), — compare Mk. xiii. 16,
L, xi. 7 ; A, viii. 40, ^i\i.7nro<; evpidrj ek^'A^corov, Philip was
found carried away to Azotus (compare ver. 39, Trvevfj-a KvpCov
ripiraae rov ^iXiinrov) ^ — compare Esth. i. ^,Evang. Apocr. p.
1 [This passage is explained below, no. 5. In Mt. xxvii. 5 we should probably
read tU rov v«ov. ]
2 Passages of Greek authors in which t» has been \\Tongly supposed to stand
for s/f are more correctly explained by Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 247. On tit for iv
see ib. II. 91. On Latin phrases in which in with the ablative has appeared to
.stand for in with the accusative, see Kritz, Saliust. II. 31 sq.
3 Heind. Plat. Protag. p. 467, Acta Monac. I. 64 sq., II. 47, Schstf. De-
mosth. I. 194 sq., Schoem. Plut. Ayis. 1'5'2 sq., Hcrm. Soph^ ^y. 80, Jacobs,
^1. Anim. p. 406 (Jelf 646). As to Latin see Hartung, Leber die Onstis,
p. 68 .sqq.
■• Bis xupiev T«< 'ApKeiilas ivitrxii, Steph. Byz. p. 495 (Mein.), is different.
* See Buttm. Deniosth. Mid. p. 175, Schweigh. Lexic. Herod. I. 282, Valcken.
Herod. 8. 71, ah, Poppo, Thuc. Ill- i. p. 659^ Fritz. Mark, p. 558. [FriUsche
renders Mk. xiii. 3, quum in montem oUvarum consedisset; adding "nam
Ktx,6r,(T(a.t est sedere, consequens verbi corisidere KuiiXnv (sauTov)."]
^ [Compare the English provincial expression to home, for at home. The use
of to for at with names of places is very common in Devonshire and CoiDwall ;
see Stoddart, PhUoa. of Language, p. 173, Farrar, Gr. Si/nf. p. 98, Halliwell,
Arch. Diet. s. v. "to." Comp. Jamieson, Diet. s. v. "intill." — In Mk. ii. 1
we must read sv c'/ku.;]
' Wesseling, Diod.' Sic. II. 581.
SECT. L.] KEPETITION OF PEEPOSITIONS. 617
447 ; A. vii. 4, el<; rjv vfj^U vvv KaToiKecre (Ken. An. 1. 2. 24,
Xen. Eph. 2. 12, Theodoret, 0pp. I. 594) ; Mk. x. 10, where the
arrangement of the words must be remarked ; also probably A.
xviii. 2 1 , Se? fxe Trjveoprrjvrriv ip')(^Ofievr]V7rot,rj(Tat€l<; ' lepoaoXv^a,
— but the genuineness of these words has been suspected, and they
are rejected by the recent editors ; Jo. xx. 7, ivrervXiyfjievov eh
eva Toirov, wrapped togetlicr (and put) into one place. In A. xii.
19, however, et? Kaiadpeiav belongs grammatically to KareXOcov:
in A. XX. 14, eh is to. In A. xix. 22, iiria-'xe j^povov et? rrjv
'Aa-iav is probably not simply local, he remained behind in Asia,
but, he remained behind for Asia, in order to labour there still.
In A. iv. 5, <7Vvay(dr)vaL avrojv rov<i ap')(0VTa<i . . . eh 'lepocroXvfjLa,
Beza's is the only admissible explanation : ^ here however the
good MSS. have eV. In A. ii. 39, oi ek ju.a/cpdv are those who
dwell /ar away in the distance.^ Jo. i. 18, 6 a>v 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
<rvvaycoya<i haprjaeaOe, — where the weakly supported ev is ob-
* [" Arcessitis videlicet qui urbe aberant, ut sollennis esset hie conventus."]
* [The German can imitate the accusative case, die itis Wtite hin Wohnenden,
— into the distance. ]
^ Compare as analogous expressions in aurem, oculum dormire, Terent.
Heaut. 2. 2. 101, Plin. Upp. 4. 29, Plaut. Pseud. 1. 1. 121. De Wette rejects
the above explanation " as being altogether unsuitable here." But why should
not figvirative expressions of this kind, transferred from human relations to
God, be taken in the sense which was originally inherent in them, in which
they took their rise ? The phrase already exists ; and when we apply it to what
is not material, we take it just as it is, without thinking of the physical relation
which was its starting point. [See Westcott's note on Jo. i. 18.]
* Jer. xli. (xlviii.) 7, li^n "qin"^{< DOnK^'l. «^ip«l»» auTcl; us to (fpitf, he slew
(and cast) them into the well. Comp. 1 Mace. vii. 19.
518 INTERCHANGE, ACCUMULATION, AND [PART Til.
viously a correction, — the words €t9 (rvva'^oi^d^ cannot well be
joined with the preceding irapaScocrovac (Meyer) without entirely
destroying the parallelism. The simplest rendering, ye shall he
scourged into the synagogues, presents no archseological difficulty,
but we should rather have expected to read of scourging in the
synagogues: the pregnant construction, (taken) into the syna-
gogues ye shall he scourged, would still be harsh for Mark. L. iv.
23, p<ra rjKoixraixev yevofieva et? Kairepvaovfi, may very well
mean, done (towards) on Cafernaum, — compare A. xxviii. 6 ; and
eV, which is the reading of some good MSS., is certainly a cor-
rection.^ See on the whole Beyer, De Prcepositionum iv et et?
in K T. permutatione^ (Lips. 1824).'
5. Let us now turn to some passages of the N. T. Epistles,
in which it is said that these prepositions are interchanged, and
especially that iv is used for eh, in the expression of metaphysical
relations.* No one will find any difficulty in 2 Tim. iii. 16,
H. iii. 1 2, 2 P. ii. 1 3, or in E. i. 1 7, vi. 1 5. Ph. i. 9, "va rj dyd-Trv
^ Soph. Aj. 80, i/no"! ipxu TouToy U Isftavs /i'iviiv, can no longer be quoted
as a parallel, for Lobeck has shown that the tme reading is jv iifton ; see also
Wander, Ueher Lobecks Ausg. p. 92 sq. As to Xen. Cyr. 2. 1. 9, however, see
Borneni. in Index, s. v. us. So also Lycurg. 20. 3, haKapripiTv I'ls t«v ■rarpl'ia, is
not " they held out in their country."
■^ 'Ev and i; {i'ls) nia)' have originally been the same preposition, as indeed
Pindar, following the iEolic dialect, u.ses iv with the accusative for uV : see
Pindar (ed. Bbckh) 1. pp. 294, 378, al. (Don, p. 509, Jelf 625.) But we can no
more foumi on this an argument for the interchange of the two prepositions in
the Greek written language when more fully developed and fixed in its forms,
than we can now arbitrarily interchange vor und /ur in German, on the gi'ound
that in the earlier language they were really the same word.
3 [See also Green p. 209, Webster p. 161, and especially A. Buttmann p. 332
sqq. A. Buttmann divides the examples in which ut has been supposed to
stand for ev into four classes, as follows : — (1) There is in the clause a verb of
motion, to which t.'s belongs in ]iart, so that this is a case of attraction (a
ff;^Klua ocro njivov) : almost all the examples of this classical usage are found
in St. Luke's writings, see L. xxL 37, A. ii. 39 ('frayyiXia), vii. 4, xii. 19, Mt.
ii. 23, al. (2) The verb of rest is one which includes the idea of previous
motion (Mk. xiii. 3, A. xx. 14, Mk. xiv. 60, al.). (3) The verb with i!s is sTva*
or yiviff^ai : these verbs, expressing notions which are perfectly general and
therefore easily definable, receive through their union with iis the meaning of
equally general verbs of motion, e.g., comr, go : compare Her. 1. 21, 5. 38, Thuc.
6. 62, al. (L. xi. 7, Jo. L 18, Mk. ii. 1 Bee, L. i. 44, al.). (4) In the remaining
instances, he says, " we are compelled either to supply the missing idea of
motion, or to admit a more negligent use of ut, recognising in these examjiles
the first steps towards the ultimate confusion of the two prepositions ; " the latter
he regards as the more probable alternative in most cases. IJndei- the last head
hequotes A. viii. 40, xix. 22, xxi. 13, xxv. 4, Mk. i. 9, 39. al. It is noteworthy
that in iriost of tliese passages I'n is joined with a proper name of place.]
* Compare also Piiickerl on G. i. 6.
SECT. L.] KEPETITION OF PREPOSITIONS. 519
.... Trepcaa-eur) iv i'rLjpwaei,, is in hnovdedge, — the end is not
expressed until ver. 10, et? ro hoKifxd^aLv. So also in Phil. 6,
OTTca T] Kotvoovia Tr)<i iricnedti^ crov ipepyT)<i yevTjrac i v iTnyvoiaet.
In Ja. V. 5, eV r]p,epa (r(f)ayfj<i, the parallelism with idrjaavpiaare
iv ia^dTai<i 7)fMepac<i (ver. 3) of itself requires the rendering on
the day of slaunlder ; and this yields a good sense, — see Theile
in loc} In E. ii. 16, eV kvl <T(inx,aTi points to etV ^va Kaivov
dvOpwirov (ver. 1 5) : the KrccrOivTa^i et? eVa dvdpcoirov he accord-
ingly reconciles iv hi a-difxari, with God. In Eom. i. "24, et?
cLKaOapa-Lav belongs directly to "TrapeBcoKeu, and €P ral<; e7ri0u/ji,iai<;
is in their lusts ; compare ver. 27, ep rfj ope^ei avroip. In 1 C. i.
8, iv rfj rjfiepa must be construed with dpeyKXrjrovi, and this
in apposition to vfia^ ; so also in 1 Th. iii. 13, iv rfj Trapovata,
parallel with eixirpog-Oev rov 0eov, is directly dependent upon'
d/x€fi7rTov<;. 2 Th. ii. 13, eiXaro vp,d^ 6 Oeo^ . . . et? aforrfpiav
ev dytacr/jboi 7rv€v/jiaTo<; k.t.X., means, chosen to salvation in holi-
ness of the Spirit : ^ the dyiaafi6<i irpevfiaTO^; is the spiritual state
in which the " being chosen to salvation " is realised. 1 Jo. iv.
9 is simply therein manifested itself the love of God on us? In
Rom. ii. 5, however, 6r]<TavpL^et<; aeavrai opyrjp iv ^fiipa, opyrj'i
IS an example of brachylogy, — thou aH tixasaring up for thi/self
ivrath (which will break forth) on the day of ivrath : 1 Th. iv. 7,
ovK eKaXecrev rj/j,d<; 6 6eo<i iirl dKadapaia dXkd iv dyiaayiw, — for
G>?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<i, — see especially
Harless on the latter passage. In 1 C. I. c. the perfect tense
must not be overlooked. Aihovai iv ra2<; KapBiai^ (2 C. i. 22),-
and the like (Kom. v. 5), need no remark after what has been
said above, p. 515. Lastly, elf does not stand for eV in Eom. vi.
22, ex^re rov Kapirov vfjbwv elf dyiaafiov ; here 6t9 obviously
Indicates the ethical end. Eom, xiii. 14 is a similar case. In
^ ["Similes sunt pecudibus qua? ipso adeo niactatioiiis die se pascunt sagi-
nantque laetse ac securse." Theile in loc. DeW., referred to in § 50. 4. a, takes
the same view.]
* [Winer's words may mean either of the Spirit or of the spirit.]
'[Winer seems intentionally to leave it an 0}ien question whether iv nu7i
shall be connected with « a.ya,-r*i (Hutber, Ewald), or with i(paiif)u-6r, (Duster-
dieck, Bruckner, Alford). In ed. 5 Winer expressly rejected the former view of
the connexion.]
* [See below, § 66. 3.J
520 INTERCHANGE, ACCUMULATION, AND [PART lU.
E. iii, 16, KparaLovaOat et? rov ecrco dvOptoirov is to become strong
for (in reference to) the inner man.
It is in itseK improbable that the apostles, in expressing
clearly conceived dogmatic relations, would use ev for et? or ei<?
for cV, to the perplexity of their readers. At all events it would
have been as easy for them to write eU as it is for the com-
mentators who wish to smuggle in this preposition.
The canon of an arbitrary interchange of these prepositions is not
sustained by an appeal to Suidas and the Fathers : ^ or by the fact
that cv and eis sometimes alternate in parallel passages, — e. g., Mt. xxi.
8, icTTpwcrav to. i/xarta iv rfj oSw, but Mk. xi. 8, ets rrjv 686v ; Mt. xxiv.
18, o e V T«3 ayp«3 yu,^ iiriaTpe^J/dTb}, Mk. xiii. 16, o ccs Tov aypov k.t.X. ;
Mk, i. 16, d/jK^t^aAAovras d/x(jiL^Xrja-Tpov iv r^ OaXdcrcrr}, Mt. IV. 18,
/JoAAovras d/x<f)L/3>.T](TTpov cts rrjv 6dXa<r(rav,—the former, they cast
about (turned about) the net in the sea, the latter they cast it into
the sea, different points of time and different acts in their occupation
being indicated. In Rom. v. 21, iftaaiXevaev rj dpLapria Iv T<3
Oavdrw is in death — which is actually existent, but Xva rj x<^P'5
fiaa-iXevcrr] Sia SiKaioa-vvTjS cis ^wrjv aiwvtov, to life — as th? end to
be attained : eis ^(arjv aiwvtov however probably depends directly on
8iKaLocrvvT]<i (see Fritzsche). Compare also 2 C. xiii. 3.
It cannot however be denied that the principle according to which
CIS is joined with verbs of rest, as vice versa iv with verbs of motion,
was overlooked by the writers of later times, particularly the
Scholiasts ^ and the Byzantine writers. By these eh and iv are used
promiscuously, and in fact iv begins to predominate with verbs of
motion : see Leo Diac. p. xii. (ed. Hase), Blume, Lycurg. p. 56,
Niebuhr's index to Agathias, also the indices to Theophanes and to
Menandri Hist, in the Bonn edition.^ In modern Greek, indeed,
one only of the two prepositions is retained.* Compare further
Argum. ac? Demosth. Androt. § 17, Theodoret, 0pp. II. 466, 804, III.
869, Epiphan. Hcer. 46. 5, Pseudevipk Fit. Proph. p. 241, 248, 332,
334, 340, 341, Basilic. I. 150, III 496. The same may be noticed
in the LXX, the Apocrypha, and the Lihri Pseudepigraphi,^ in many
passages. In the N. T., however, there is at all events no example
* 2 C. xii. 2, ap-rayivTo. 'iu; rplrev cvpavov, is thus quotcd by Clem. Alex.
{Pcedag. I. p. 44, ed. Sylb. ), Iv Tplru ocfvrtahis olpa^iw. On the other hand,
Pr. xvii. 3, to»if/.aX,irat U xaft'mtu apyupos x.t.x., iiins tlius in Strom. II, p. 172,
icxifi. . , , , lis xdfuvov.
* Compare Hermann on Bockh's Behandl. d. Inschrift., p. 181 sq.
' Niceph. Const, p. 48, rv<pxa(ras It TV 'Vufifi il,i-riij.^i- Theophan. p. 105,
Tpnycpios irafpr>ff$at'TixuTifov ihioa<rxiv .... tls to litXTripioyi Tnt ayias anitaTariui'
pp. 62, 65, 68, Malal. 18. 467.
* [" 'Ev is very seldom used, though it is becoming more common. It occurs
regularly in several phrases, as h TorovTiu, i» t? 'ExXaS/, etc." J. Donalds. Mod.
Greek Gr. p. 32. See also Mullach, Vixlg. p. '380.]
* Compare "Wahl, Clav. Apocr. p. 165, 195, Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 598, 629,
SECT, L.] REPETITION OP PEEPOSITIONS. 521
more singular than those which are found in the earlier writers of
the KOLvrj,
6. It is an especial peculiarity of Paul's style to use different
prepositions in reference to one noun, that by means of these
prepositions collectively the idea may be defined on every side.
See e.ff. G. i. 1, ZTaOXo? d7rocrTo'Ko<i ovk aTr dvdpaynrcov ouSe 8i
dvOpcoirov, dWa hid ^Irjcrov XptaTov koI deov irarpo^ k.t.X.; i.e.,
in no respect an apostle who comes forward under human autho-
rity (not from men as the ultimate authority, nor tlwough a man
as medium or mediator). Kom. iii. 22, (7r€<f)avep(0Tat) SiKaioa-vvrj
6eovBid'7ri(Treo}^^Ir]aovXpLarov el'i'rrdvra'i koI iirl nravra';;^ i.e.,
it is most completely bestowed on all believers (it reveals itself
into all and over all), — Syr. . • i \n ^^ ,^] . • i V'-^V : Bengel
in lac. is arbitrary, following the ancient expositors, — Elickert
is in perplexity. Eom. xi. 36, e^ avrov {Oeov) kol Sl ainov Kal
€49 avTov rd iravra : i. e., the world stands in connexion with
God in all relations. It is out of him, inasmuch as he has
created it (the ultimate cause) ; through him, inasmuch as he
(continually) operates upon it; to him, inasmuch as he is the
end and aim to which everything in the world has reference,^
Col. i. 16, iv avTQ) (XpictTw) eKTccrOr) rd iravra . . . . rd iravra
Bi avrov Kal et«? avrov CKrcarat: i.e., the universe stands in a
necessary and all-sided relation to Christ. First, of the past
(by the aorist) : in him was the world created, inasmuch as he,
the Divine X0709, was the personal ground of the Divine creative
act (just as " in Christ" God redeemed the world). Then of the
existing world (the perfect): all is created through him, as the
personal medium, and to (for) him, as Kvpio<; rrdvrwv in the
most comprehensive sense. In ver, 1 7, irpo Trdvrcov points back
to Sl avrov, and iv avra> avvicrrriKev is explanatory of et"?
avrov. E. iv. 6, el? 6eo<i Ka\ rrarrjp irdvrwv o iirl rrdvrwv Kal
Bed irdvriov Kal iv rrdaiv rjfuv :^ i, e., God is the God and
Father of all in every conceivable respect, — ruling over all,
Bretschneider, Lexic. Man. p. 139, Acta Apocr. pp. 5, 13, 38, 65, 66, 68, 71, 88,
91, 93, 94, 263, and almost on every page.
^ [The last three words are omitted by recent editors.]
* Theodoret thus explains the passage : ai/Tos rk -ravrx vi^einxtv, aurc;
TO, yiyavoTa oia-nXiT xv/iiftuv , , . . lis ttuToy alfopeiv urrayrits TpusiiK-.i tiTip
filv Tuv wapi,avTa>v 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 <tov (<o cfjvcris) navTO, Iv crot Trdvra, €ts ore travTa'
Heliod. 2. 25, irpo irdvTtMv koI iiTi Traa-Lv' Philostr. ApolL 3. 25,
Tovs CTTi OaXaTTt] TC KoX iv OoXnTrrj' Tsocr. Big, p. 846, Ta fxXv vrf>
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)<? Kal diro iravTcov tojv
7rpo<f>i]T<t)v (A. XV. 4), 1 Th. i. 5, ev Bvvdpeo Kal iu irvevpari
arficp Kal ev 7r\r}po<j>opia 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<i Bea-fjLoi<; /xov Kal iv
T^ aTroXoyia' A. xxv. 23, al. Compare Xen. Cyr. 1. 6. 16,
Thiic. 8. 97,'Diod. S. 19. 86, 20. 15, Paus. 4. 8. 2.^
h. Jo. iv. 23, ev irvevfiarc Kal akrjdeia (two sides of one
main idea), — see Llicke ; L. xxi. 26, arro (po^ov Kal irpo'iBoKia<;
riav eirep-xofihcov (essentially one state of mind), E. i. 21, 1 Th.
i. 8,^ A. xvi. 2, xvii. 15 (compare Xen. Cyr. 1. 2. 7, Aristot.
Eth. Nie. 7. 11 mit, Thuc. 3. 72, 2. 83, Paus. 10. 20. 2). Also
with re , . . . Kai, A. xxviii. 23, airo re rov v6/j.ov Mcoaeo)^ Kal
rtav rrpocfyrjrcov i. 8, xxvi. 20 (Franke, Deviasth. p. 65), Paus.
10. 37. 2, 25. 23, Xen. Hell. 1. 1. 3, Herod. 6. 3. 2. For ex-
amples with proper names see A. vi; 9, rajv avro KtXiKia^; Kal
'AaLa^' xiv. 21, virearpeyfrav Ci? rrjv Avarpav Kal 'Ikovlov kuI
'Avrio'^eiav* xvi. 2, ix. 31, Mt. iv. 25.
If the connexion is disjunctive the preposition is usually
repeated ; if antithetical, invariably. See Col. iii. 1 7, o Tt eav
TToirjre iv Xoyo) rj ev epyw' ii. 16, Mt. vii. 16, xvii. 25,^ L. xx. 4,
Jo. vii. 48, A. iv. 7, viii. 34, Eom. iv. 9, 1 C. iv. 3, 21, xiv. 6,
Ptev. xiii. 16, — compare Paus. 7. 10. 1 (on the other hand, only
H. X. 28, iirl Bvcrlv rj rpicrl fidprvatv 1 Tim. v. 19 ") ; Rom. iv.
10, ovK ev Treptro/jL^, aXX ev aKpo^varia' vi. 15, viii. 4, ix. 24,
.1 C. ii. 5, xi. 17, 2 C. i. 12, iii. 3, E. i. 21, vi. 12, Jo. vii. 22, xvii.
9, al. (iUciphr. 1. 31).' Lastly, in comparative combinations
the preposition is always repeated : A. xi. 15, Rom. v. 19, 1 C.
XV. 22, 2 Th. ii. 2, H. iv. 10.^ In general, the tendency towards
the repetition of the preposition is stronger iu the N. T. than in
^ Bremi, Lys. p. 3 sq.
* As to the different eases in which Greek prose writers repeat the preposi-
tion attel- Ti xcci, see Somnier in Jahrb. f. Philol. 183], p. 408 Sf£. ; compare
Stallb. Phllr.b. p. 156, Weber, Dem. p. 189.
^ [Lachrri. and Tischendorf repeat ev. In A. i. 8, quoted below, the reading
is uncertain.]
■* [Here recent editors repeat s/,-.]
* [Conected for vii. 16, 25 ; also below, A. xi. 15 for xi. 18.]
* [Add Mk. xiii. 32 (where the best texts have ^), 1 Tim. ii. 9, — and with an
adjective, 1 P. i. 11. (A. Buttm. p. 342. )J
' The {(reposition is not repeated with an adjective in au antithesis of this
kind : 1 P. i. 23, oi/x ix gvafi; ip^aprfis aXXa a.^6apTov.
"- As to the usage of Greek writers see Schaef. Julian, p. 19 sq., Held, Plat.
Mm. 124, Kriig. p. 319 (Jelf tiSO. 6).
524 INTERCHANGE, ACCUMULATION, AND [PART III.
Greek prose writers (Bernh. p. 201, Kriig p. 319 sq., Schoem.
Plut. Cleom. p. 229), who either frequently or usually neglect to
repeat the preposition not merely in the case of substantives
which are simply connected,^ but also after aXkd or >;,^ 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? </)W9 Kai t?}? efoixria?
ToO crarava eirl rov 6e6v' vii. 38, 1 C. x. 28, H. vii. 27; but
compare Aristot. Eth. Nicom. 10. 9. 1, irepi re rovrunt xai twv
aperoiv, ere he Kal (ftikiafi k.t.X.,^ Lysias, 1. in Theomnest. 7, Dion.
H. IV. 2223. 1, Diog. L. Frocem. 6, «trabo 16. 778, Diod. S. 5.
31, Plutarch, Sol. c. 3.
In Jude 1 we must not repeat Iv from the preceding clause before
'Irjo-ou ^pixrT(^, — this would be harsh : the dative is a dativus cmnmodi,
Tceptfor Christ. The preposition is not, as a rule, repeated before a
noun in apposition, L. xxiii. 51, Rom. ix. 3, E. i, 19, 1 P. ii. 4 ; it is
only in the case of epexegetic apposition that the repetition can take
place, as in Rom. ii. 28, tj iv to! <^avep<3 ev crapKl Trcptro/x?;" Jo. xi. 54
(in 1 Jo. V. 20 there is no apposition). We find the same in Greek
writers, but the repetition is not usual unless the word in apposition
is separated from the principal word.*
The repetition of the preposition before each of a series of nouns
which follow one another without any conjunction — as in E. vi. 12,
ctAAa Trpos ras ap-^as, 7rpo<; ras e^oucrtos, Trpos tov^ kou jxaKpaTopa^
. . . . Trpos TCI TrvevfjutTLKo. K.T.X., Jo. xvi. 8 (compare Aristot. Ehet.
2. 10. 2) — is of a rhetorical nature, or serves to give greater pro-
minence to the several notions. See Dissen, Find. p. 519.
Greek writers do not, as a rule, repeat before the relative the pre-
position by which its antecedent is governed : Plat. Legg. 10. 909 d,
airo TTJs rjp.ipa<;, rj<i av o irar-qp avTwv ocpXrj ttjv Slktjv' 12. 955 b,
€V Upots .... ols av i$eX.7i' 2. G59 b, eK ravrov (TTOfxaTO^, ovirep
Tous 6eovs cTrexoAccraTo k.t.A., Plat. FJusd. 21, Gorg. 453 e, Lack
192 b, Thuc. 1. 28, Xen. Conv. 4. 1, An. 5. 7. 17, Hiero 1. 11,
Aristot. Frobl. 26. 4, 16, Paus. 9. 39. 4 (Bemh. p. 203 sq.,' Don.
p. 363, Jelf 650. 3). So also in the N. T., in A. xiii. 3d, a-n-o
TrdvTiDV, u)V oi'K rjSvvqOrjTC .... StKaiwd^vai, Stxatovrat* Xlil. 2
^ Bomem. Xen. Conv. 159.
2 Schaef. Demosth. V. 569, 760, Plutarch IV. 291, Poppo, Thuc. III. iv. 493,
Weber, Dem. p. 389, Fraiike, Dem. 6.
^ Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 112, 247 ; compare Borneto. Schol. p. 173.
* Stallb. Plat. Sympos. p. 104 sq., Gorg. p. 38, Rep. I. 237.
* See Zell, Aristot. Eth. p. 442.
^ Fritzsche, QtuxM. Lucian. p. 127, Matth. 594 d.
^ Compare Bremi, Lys. p. 201, Schaef. Soph. III. 317, Dion. Camp. p. 325,
Mdetem. p. 124, Demosth. II. 200, Heller, Soph. (Ed. C. p. 420, Ast, Plat. Legtj.
p. 108, Wurm, Dinarch. p. 93, St&llb. Plat. /?e/>. 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 <xvv i/xoi recollecting that he could not
well write ifx.ol iBovXeva-ev, — " he has, like a son serving his father,
served with me etc." See on the whole the counter-remarks of Bern-
hardy (p. 202), but compare Franke, Demosth. p. 30. [§ 63, IL 1.]
Rem. 1. It is an especial peculiarity of later Greek to combine
prepositions with adverbs, particularly adverbs of place and time
(Kriig. p. 300 sq., Jelf 644),— either so as to modify the meaning
of the adverb by means of the preposition, as airb Trpwt A. xxviii. 23,
airo irepva-L 2 C. viii. 10, ix. 2, air apTL Mt. xxvi. 29, otto to'tc Mt. iv,
17, xxvi, 16,3 ^TraXai 2 P, ii. 3, vir^pXiav 2 C. xi. 5, xii. 11 (compare
vTTipev, Xen.Hiero 6. 9); or so that the preposition, because it appeared
weakened by diversified use, was blended with an expressive ad-
verb,^ as vTTOKaTco, vTrepdvu), KarcVavTi. Sometimes also the adverb
is strengthened by the preposition, as -rrapavTUa. To the former
class belong also numeral ab verbs, such as €<f>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 fxia<i {yvcofi7)<;")^ L. xiv. 18,^
unanimously (proceeding /rowi one opinion).
h. Aid with the genitive usually denotes a state of mind,
' [See Lipsius, Oramm. Untfrsuch. p. 125 sqq. , and above, § 5. 2.— Kiiiger is
in favour ot writing the words separately. ]
* [" We find in Greek authors no certain example of this use of vTtp, except
Soph. Ayit. 514." Meyer on 2 C. I. c. In ed. 5 Winer added: Bengel takes
i/rif adverbially in E. iii. 20, but the arrangement of the words would then be
too artificial for Paul, and the sentence would after all be tautological.]
3 Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 108 sq.
* This is not altogether free from difficulty, especially as different views of a
relation prevail in different languages : e. g., a-ro ft.ip»vst in part ; «* oi^iuv, on
the right ; ab oriente, towards the East. At the root of several sucli phrases
there Ties some contraction or condensation of expression.
B [See below, § 64. 5.]
SECT. LI.] USE OF PREPOSITIONS TO FORM PERIPHRASES. 527
viewed as a jnedium or means. Thus St virofiovi)';, H. xii. 1,
may be rendered perscveringly , assidue (similarly, Rom. viii. 25,
hi v7rofxom]<; uireKSe'^ofieda k.t.X., — compare 8c a<f)po(rvvr}<:, im-
prudente7\X^en. Cyr. 3. 1. 18, and hi cvXa^eia^, timide, Dion. H.
III. 13G0 ^) ; compare also e.g. 8t a<T(f>a\ela<i, Time. 1. 17. Of
a different nature is H. xiii. 22, 8ia ^pa)(^e(ov eiriaTeiXa vfiiv,
hreviter, — strictly, by means of few (words), paiLcis ; compare hta
^pa')(yTdTO)v, Dem. Pant. 624 c, and see below, § 64. 5. In
2 C. iii. 11, el to Karap<yovixevov hia Bo^rji; k.t.X. (see above, p.
474), hut S6^T)<; is adjectival, and denotes a quality with which
something is invested.
c. Ek denotes a degree up to which something comes : L.
xiii. 11, ei9 TO 7rai/TeXe9, i(p to completeness, most completely
(^lian 7. 2, el^ KuWia-Tov Plat. Euthyd. 275 b, e? to dKpi^e<i
Thuc. 6. 82). This however can hardly be called a periphrasis
for the adverb,
d. 'Ek : e. g., €K fiepov<;, 1 C. xii. 2 7, ca? parte, — looked at
from the part. 'Ek is then used principally of the standard
(seciindum) ; as in ex rwv vo/xtoi/, secundum leges, legibus
convenienter (as if, receiving its direction from). Hence t'^
laoTqrot;, according to equality, equally, 2 C. viiL 13 ; eV /x.e-
rpov, according to measure, moderately, Jo. iii. 34. Compare ef
dBiKov, injuste, Xen. Cyr. 8. 8. 18 ; e| Xa-ov, Her. 7. 135, Plat.
Rep. 8. 561 b ; e/c 'irpo<i7)K6vT(ov, Thuc. 3. 67 ; and see Ast, Plat.
Zegg. p. 267, Bernh. p. 230 (Jelf 621. o.e). It also expresses
the source; as l^ dvd^Kr]^, H. vii. 12, compare Thuc. 3. 40, 7.
27, Dio C. 853. 93, — (proceeding) out of necessity, i. e., neois-
sarily ; similarly e/c avfjucfxavou, 1 C. vii, 5, ex composito, which
however, differently turned {according to an agreement), ap-
proaches the previous class. In the phrases ol e/c Trio-Teo)? (G.
iii. 7), ol eK 7re/3iTOfi^9 (A. x. 45), 6 e'^ evavTia<i (Tit. ii. 8), ol e^
epidelwi (Ptom. ii. 8), and the like, t'/c denotes ^a?'/y (dependence),
and consequently belonging to, — those of faith, those who belong
to faith, who stand (as it were) on the side of faith. Compare
Polyb. 10. 16. 6, Thuc. S. 92. The relation is purely material
in Mk. xi. 20, e/c pi^cov, out from the roots, radicitus. The tem-
poral eV Tpirov, Mt. xxvi. 44 (1 Mace. ix. 1, Babr. 95. 97, 107.
^ See Pflugk, Eur. Ilel. p. 41.
528 USE OF PREPOSITIONS TO FORM PERIPHRASES. [PART III.
16, Evang. Apocr. p. 439, compare e^ varepov Her. 1. 108), and
similar expressions — for which we, on the contrary, say zum
Britten \to instead of /rom] — are probably explained most simply
as " (beginning) /rom or out of the third time." In later writers
we find likewise e/c irpcorr)^ (Babr. *71. 2), e/c Zevreprj^ (114. 5).
e. 'Ev. The cases in which eV with a substantive may be
taken adverbially — as iv aXrjdeia, ev eKreveia, iv BtKcuocrvvij,
Mt. xxii. 16, Mk. xiv. 1, Col. iv. 5, A. xvii. 31 (eV BUr}, Plat.
Crat. p. 419 d, iv Ta;;^et, Thuc. 1. 90) ^ — the less require expla-
nation, as we ourselves in every case can use in with the cor-
responding substantive : the substantives denote for the rnost
part abstract notions, especially qualities or dispositions in which
one does something. Equally intelligible is the use of this
preposition with a substantive in an adjectival sense ; as epja
rd iv BiKacoavvTj, to fievov iv Bo^r) (iarC), 2 C. iii. 11, and
the like.
2. /. 'jEtti with the genitive is frequently found with abstract
nouns which denote a quality with which one acts in a certain
way, as eV aSeta?, with fearlessness ; or an objective notion
with the subsistence of which something harmonises, as Mk. xii.
32, etr aXr)0€ih'?, with subsistence or existence of truth, truly (Die
C. 699. 6o, 727. 82). With the dative, this preposition ex-
presses the basis on which something rests, so to speak : A. ii.
26, 17 a-dp^ fiov KaTacrK7]V(oaei, in iXTTcBc, with, in confidence (in
God), — therefore securely, tranquilly. The phrases iirl ro avro,
i(}> 6(Tov, eVt TToXv, have no difficulty.
ff. Kard. The phrase r) kutu ^d6ov<i TTTco^ela, 2 C. viii. 2, is
probably to be explained as the poverty reaching down into the
depth, the deepest poverty (compare Strabo 9. 419) ; Xen. Gyr.
4. 6. 5 is no parallel, for Kara jrj<i means terra conditus. The
adverbial KaO' oXov probably means, in strictness, througliout the
whole (in universum), since Kard with the genitive has some-
times this meaning. The instances in which Kara with the ac-
cusative of a substantive forms a periphrasis for an adverb (as
Kar €^ovaiav,Kar t^o^r]V,Kard'yvoya-i,v) require no explanation:'
^ But in Jo. iv. 23 the words iv Tvsy'^aT/ ku) kXrihiec, depending on -irpo;-
xwriirouffiv, are not to be resolved or diluted into the adverbs irtiufAaTiKu; ku]
aXn6us : iv denotes the sphere in which the ■rpoixwilv moves.
■^ See Schaef. Long. p. 330.
SECT. Lir.J VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 529
compare Kara rdxo<i, Dio C. 84. 40, 310. 93 ; Kara ro laxvpov,
Her. 1. 76 ; Kaff opiJLrjv, Soph. Philoct. 562; Kara ro dveTncrrrj/jLov,
^schin. Dial. 3.16; Kara ro 6p66v, Her. 7. 1 43. See Bernhardy
p. 241 (Jelf 629. II. 3). As to r^ Kar eKXoyrjv 7rp6deai<i, Eom.
ix. 11, ol Kara (pvaiv KXdhoi, Rom. xi. 21, see § 30. 3. Rem. 5.
h. IIp6<i with accusative : e. g., Ja. iv. 5, 7rp6<? <^66vov,
invidiose, — compare Trpo? op'yriv, Soph. El. 369 (properly
according to envy, accm'ding to anger) ; also Tr/jof aKpi/Seiav,
Sext. Emp. Hypot. 1. 126, for dKptfiSi<i,
On the periphrases for certain cases (especially the genitive)
formed by prepositions, as Ik, Kara, see § 30. 3. Rem. 5.
Section LIT.
CONSTRUCTION OF VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS.
1. In this section we shall naturally leave out of considera-
tion those compound verbs in which the meaning of the pre-
position is either obscured (e. g., drrohe'^eardaL, diroKpiveaOai,
drrodvrjaKuv), or blended with the meaning of the verb into one
common idea (/ieraStSoi/at, impart, rrpod^eiv rcvd, prfcire aliquem,
to precede some one, drroheKarovv ri, to tithe something, crir/KXeieiv
re, to inclose something) ; or in which the preposition, approach-
ing the nature of an adverb, intensifies the verb {em^'qretv,
BiareXetv, BtaKaOapl^etv, crvvreXelv, perpugnare). Our attention
will be confined to verbs in which the preposition continually
maintains its independent action as a preposition ; so that the
verb is attended, not merely by the object which properly
belongs to it (if it is a transitive verb), but also by another
noun, which depends upon this preposition : as iK^dWeiv to
cast out of, dvacpepecp to bring something up to} etc.
What is the full significance of the compound verbs of the N. T.,
and how far they can stand for the simple verbs, are questions which
have not yet been examined exhaustively and on rational principles.
Compare however C. F. Fritzsche, Fischers und Paulus Bemerkungen
iiber das Bedeutungsvolle der griechischen Prdposiiionen in den dam.it
zusammengeseizten Ferbis etc. (Leipz. 1809) ; Tittmann, De vi prceposi-
tionuni in verbis compositis in N. 7\ recie dipidicaiida (L\\)S. 1814); 2
J. van Voorst, De usu verbonim cum prcepositiombns compositorum in
^ Our hei-mtsu-er/i-n aus, hinaufbi'ingen auf. ^
- Included in his Synonyma N. T. (I. 217 sqq. ).
34
530 VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. [PA.RT III.
N. T. (Leid. 1818, 2 Spec), Theol. Annal. 1809, JI. 474 sqq.>
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, <Tvvea6i€i avroh, etc. Thus the genitive follows
compounds of utto, Kara (against), irpo ; the accusative, com-
pounds of Trepl (Mt. iv. 23, 'rrepLayeLv rrjp FaXikaiav,^ A. ix. 3).
3. Which of these constructions is the regular one. must be
learned from observation of the actual usage. Sometimes two
of them or all three are in use together : compare eTri^aWeiv, —
also parallel passages such as Mt. xxvii. 60 and Mk. xv. 46, Jo,
ix. 6 and 11, A. xv. 20 [Eec] and 29.^ We must not however
overlook the fact that in this case a distinction is often made by
1 Brunck, Aristoph. Nub. 987, Zell, Aristotel. Ethic, p. 383, Stallb. Plat. Gory.
p. 1.54.
2 [Literally, ^a^^enijiflr (Verflachung).]
^ Compare e.g. Seytfartli, De indole ep. ad Hebr. p. 92.
* [Unfortunately, these five parts are all that Winer published. Parts 1 and 2
deal with general questions (the alleged redundancy of the preposition in compound
verbs, — how far compound verbs can stand for simple) : in the remaining tliree
parts Winer examines the compounds of ava, avr/, cc-jro, hd, occurring in the N. T.]
^ See BOrnem. Xen. Conv. p. 219, Winer, 2. Progr. de verb, compp. p. 7 sqq.
^ [The probable reading here is iv t^ r. : Mt. ix. 35 may be substituted.]
' Thus we find avofrnvcii, dejicere, with a^a in Xen. Cyr. 5. 4. 1, and with the
simple genitive in 4. 5. 11.
SECT. LII.] VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 531
usage between the various cpnstructious. No one will think it
a matter of indifference whether the compounds with et? are
joined with the noun by means of the preposition €49 (or 'Trp6<i),
or are followed by the simple case.^ ^EKirlirreLv in its literal
meaning is followed by e'/c, whilst in a figurative sense (like spe
excidere) it takes a genitive, as in G. v. 4, 2 P. iii. 1 7, Philostr.
Apoll 1. 36 (see however Diod. S. 17. 47).^ We find Tr/ao?-
<f>ep€iv Tivl used of persons, offerre alicui (aliquid), but tt/jo?-
<l>€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<popL^6Lv,Ut.
XXV. 32 ; aTTO^aiveiv, L. v. 2 (Polyb. 23. 11. 4, al.) ; diro'^copeiv,
Mt. vii. 23, L. ix. 39; d(f)aip€ta0ac, L. x. 42, xvi. 3 (Lucian,
Tim. 45); d-Traipeadat, Mt. ix. 15; aTraWdTTecrdai, L. xii. 58,
' Eifiitai, uiii>^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,xo<Tr'iX-
Xiirfiai (A. xi. 11, 1 P. i. 12, — with U in Jo. i. 24 if «/ be omitted), aTonvd^rrttv,
arro^'ifiT^ai, a.-ra^a/fi^tir^ai. Under (6) come aTdyiii Ik (A. Xxiv. 7 Bee), (ZTo-
xuXitiy ix (Mk. xvi. 3) ; COmpam aTzp^i^iafiai tltJ roZ rvviSptou, A. iv. 15. ' A-rixio'^xi
takes a genitive (1 Tira. iv. 3, 1 P. ii. 11), also ii-o (1 Th. iv. 3, al.) : see above.
'A'ToXviffiixi probably governs a genitive in L. xiii. 12.]
* [Also uvxiTTTciir^izt iU, A. xi. 10. Compare dyairrat iU, Mk. xiv. 60.]
•"• [This is hardly one of the verbs in which dta. " expresses the local up." —
With avx^'ifi'Tin Ttti compare amynv rivi, A. xii. 4. See also A. xxi. 31.]
SECT. LII.] VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 533
this case we also find (iti nva, L. x. 6 (avaKafXTrreLv, compare
Died. S. 3. 17), or the dative, L. xxiii. 11, dva-n-ifiTreiv tcvL
(c) With iTTc, when the object to which tiie action is directed
is to be definitely marked as an elevation or as a surface on
which the motion terminates : see Polyb. 8. 31. 1, avacpipeLV iirl
Tr)v dyopdv, up to the market, and the reverse dva^ai'vecv iirl ttjv
olfciav, after tne Latin asccncUre, Polyb. 10. 4. 6 ; dvafiaiveiv
iirl SLKaaTTjpiov is common in Greek writers. Thus dva/3i^d-
^eiv eTrl rov alyiaXov, Mt. xiii. 48 (Xen. Cyr. 4. 2. 28, Polyb. 7.
1 7. 9), eVi TO KTfivo^, L. X. 34 ' (Pala^ph. 1. 9, Xen. Ctjr. 4. 5.
16, compare 7. 1. 38); dvatcKlvecrOat eirl tov<; '^6pTov<i, Mt. xiv.
19; dvaTTtTTTeLv eVi tt)v yfjp, Mt. xv. 35, or e-rrl rrjq yr}<i, Mk. viii.
6; dva^aiveiv eVt ro Ziofia, L. v. 19, and itrl avKouopeav, L. xix.
4 (compare Xen. Cyr. 4. 1. 7, 6. 4. 4, Her. 4. 22, Plut. Educ. 7.
13, Arrian, Eirid. 3. 24, 33, Lys. 1. Alcih. 10, Pans. 6. 4. 6);
dva(f)€p€iv iirl ro ^v\ov, up on the tree (cross), 1 P. ii. 24;^
dvaKafiTTTeiv eVt, L. x. 6 (Plut. Educ. 17. 13).
3. 'AvrL The verbs compounded with dvTt (against) are
regularly followed by the dative : as Mt. vii. 2 [i?ec.], L. xiii.
17, Jo. -xix. 12, Pom. xiii. 2, al. See however H. xii. 4,
dvraycovL^eaOac Trpo<; ri (compare ver. 3, tf et? avrov dvTiXoyLo).
Similarly avriKuadai, irpof;, Polyb. 2. 66. 3, Dio C. p. 204 and
777.^
4. *Eic. Verbs compounded with eV are followed sometimes
by e/f (when an actual "out of" is to be expressed), sometimes
by diTo or irapd, w^here merely direction from or from the vicinity
of is indicated. Thus we have eK^dWetv e'/c, Mt. xiii. 52, Jo. ii,
15, 3 Jo, 10, al. (Plat, Gorg. 468 d), and diro, Mt. vii. 4,^ eicKXi-
veiv diro, 1 P. iii. 11, Rom. xvi. 17 ; eKKo-jrreiv ck, Rom. xi. 24
(Diod. S. 16. 24) ; eKirlirreLv e/c, A. xii. 7 (Arrian, Ind. 30, 3);
iKkeysa-Oai itc, Jo. xv. 19 (Plat. Legg. 7. p. 811 a) ;^ eKiropeve-
adai eV, Mt. xv. 11, 18, Rev. ix. 18 (Polyb. 6. 58. 4), and diro,
' [A mistake : the verb here is Wi^iHi^nf. In the ne.xl passage 'fr'i taZ x'of^o"
is probably the true reading. In Mk. vi. 39 ava*x/»«/v i^ followed by Ivi with
the daiivt. We have a.^atiWui \t'i in Mt. v. 45. ]
^ We find avaliamiv with the simple accusative (av»/Saimv «V<ro») in Dion. H.
2252. 7, Pausan, 10. 19. 6.
^ [Compare L. xiv. C (omitting nurw) : also, moie remotely, L. xxiv. IT.]
* [Here we must read l* ; for i'rro see (Mk. xvi. 9 Rec.) A. xiii. 50 ; for ^apd,
Mk. xvi. 9. 'E*/S«aXf<» '^;w with genitive, L. iv. 29, al.]
* ['ZxXiyKr^ai a-ri, h. vi. 13.]
534 VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. [PART III,
Mk. vii. 15 (v. I.} not Mt. xxiv, 1), or irapd, Jo. xv. 26 ; eV^ev-
<yeLV e/c, A. xix. 16 ; i^aipecv and e^aipelv €K, 1 C. v. 2^ A. xxvi.
1*^ ; i^epxeaOac U, Mt. ii. 6, A. vii. 3, al. (Her. 9. 12), or trapd,
L, ii. 1. The simple genitive but rarely occurs with these verbs;
in a local sense only with i^ep-xjeadai, Mt. x. 14 (and even here
the reading is not quite certain, see the variants/ — but com-
pare iK^aCveiv rivo<i, Jacobs, Philostr. p. 718). In a figura-
tive sense, however, iKiriTTTeiv regularly takes a genitive (as
spe excidere), G. v. 4, 2 P. iii. 17, Plat. Hep. 6. 496 c, Lucian,
Contempl. 14 (bu,t is found with Ik, Her. 3. 14, Dio C. p. 1054.
57); so also iKKpefia<xdat, L. xix, 48. Lastly, cKcpeuyetv even
in the physical sense is followed by the accusative (of the power
escaped from), as 2. C. xi. 33, e/c^euyetr ra<; %6f/3a9 rtvos (Sus.
22), — so Her. 6. 40 [? 104], and frequently: ex is used only to
define the place, A. xix. 16, €K(f>vyelv 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<pei,v iv, 2 C. iii. 2 (like iyyXi^ecv iv., Her.
2. 4) ; i/uL/jbivetv iv {rfj BiaOijKT}), H. viii. 9. At the same time,
* [Here recent editors read t* for ia-o (Mt. xx. 29). In Mt. xxiv. 1 we have
the simple verb Toptvur^ai, and (according to almost all MSS. and editors) with
aoro. We find £|oD in Mk. xi. 19.]
^ [In this verse apSri is the best reading : we may substitute ver. 13.]
3 ["Ela rrii a'lxUs is probably the true reading : there is another example in
Jiec, A. xvi. 39, but it is not well supported. 'E^ipxi<^^<^i "■'"'<> (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<r6at, i^uhi». (The derivative verbs iichx.i7v and Ix.'Snfisiv arc
found with both ccto and i» : L. xviii. ,S, Rev. xix. 2, 2 C. v. 6, 8. )]
' [Here we must probably read ^kiTovris. In Mk. viii. 25 If/.dxi'niv takes an
accusative. ]
SECT. LII.] VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 535
the construction with the dative in both significations is not
altogether rare ; compare iix^Xeireiv rcvl (dative of person), Mk.
X. 21, 27, L. xxii. 61, Jo. i. 36, 43 {Vlo^t.Rep. 10. 609 d, Poiyb.
15. 28. 3) ; efjuTTTueiv TLvi', Mk. x. 34, xiv. 65, xv. 19 ; ifjufieveiv
Tivt {iricTTet), A. xiv. 22 (Xen. Mem. 4. 4. 4, Lyciirg. 19. 4,
Lucian, Tim. 102). 'Evrpv^dv, to revd in something, is followed
by the simple dative in Greek writers (e.g., Diod. S. 19. 7l),.but
in 2 P. ii. 13 ev is repeated : ejKevTpi^ecv, Rom. xi. 24, has two
constructions — being first followed by et? and then by the simple
dative.^
6. El^. Still more simple is the construction of verbs com-
pounded with €i<;, as ehdyeiv, eUTropeveadai, el<;^epetv, ehep-
X^adai : ^ in every instance et? is repeated. Compare Poppo,
Thuc. III. i. 210 ; see however Herm. Eurip. Ion p. 98, and my
2. Progr. de verbis compp. p. 13.
7. 'EttL The verbs compounded with eVt are divided be-
tween the construction with i-jri repeated (more rarely €t<i), and
that with the simple dative : many however have botli con-
structions. *E7rc/3aXXeu' ets rt (into something) or ivrl re (iipon,
on something, Plat. FroL 334 b), Mk. iv, 37, L. v. 36, ix. 62
[iiri nvL, Mt. ix. 16], — also with a dative of the person, 1 C.
vii. 35, Mk. xi. 7, A. iv. 3 (Polyb. 3. 2. 8, 3. 5. 5) ;^ iiri^alvuv
eVi or et?, A. xxi. 6 [72<;c.], xx. 18 (Mt. xxi. 5), — also with a
dative of the place, A. xxvii. 2 (Polyb. 1. 5. 2, Diod. S. 16. 66);
eTrijSXiTreiv eVt, L, i. 48, Ja. ii. 3, Plut. £duc. 4. 9 (with et?.
Plat. Phcedr. Boa); emKeio-dai erri tivl, Jo. xi. 38, — also with
a dative of the person 1 C. ix. 16 , iiniri'iTTei.v iiTL ri, L. i. 12,
A, X. 10 [Aec], or eVt rivt A. viii. 16, or with a dative of the
• [F,/; is aJsO found in the N. T. after lyxaraXii'ruv, iyxpuTTHv, \fx.iii(iaZ.ii\i,
iftTtHiD, Sv5i/ii», ivruXirruv, Ev follows lyKaroiKiTti, lyKau^f^arPcci, Itdf^io'iai,
i\iholi,i'Cir6ai^ Ui/Xt**, itiuXoytiTSai, DihuMtfiouirSai {iyxxKtlti). The simple clativc
is found with ifiLfxaimtr^ai, tuvail^iit, iffxXlx.ii;Sai, \vrp'lipi<riai, ivTii>.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 ; €in<i)epevv with a dative
of the thing. Ph. i. 17;^ icfjcKvela-dai et'f riva, 2 C. x. 14;*
€(f>dWea6ac 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
ifri<pipiiv Tiy'i in the N. T. This example is given a second time below.]
* [In the previous verse IfiiKiir^ai a^pi vfte^iv.]
* [This is a mistake ; the verb here is iyypaipiiv (see above, s. v. i»). The con-
struction tTiypa^iiv iv occurs A. xvii. 23 : this verb is also followed by i'rl nvos
(H. viii. 10, probably, see Bleek or Alford in loc), and by sW t< in H. x. 16,
according to the best reading.]
« [A mistake for xl. 29 (35).]
* [Several other verbs of this class are followed by ItI in the N. T. We find
\<r'i TI or Tiva. after l-n^ifia.'i^iii, iTiKaXiiir^ai, Wippavriiv, i^nrxrivouv, iTi^^^pinv (in
most texts), l-Tayiiv (also ireiynt rivi), 'frxvia-rar^ai, i'TavaTecvtfffiai (also with
irivi, Eom. ii. 17), iTti^ipx^Kr^ai, Wiyiipnv (also KOLTa Tivof, A. xiv. 2) : Wi Tivi after
iTanrxvoctriai (Rom. vi. 21, — elsewiierc this verb is either absolute or a simple
transitive), and 'friivnv : similarly 'frixx^i^uv l^rdvu nvas, Mt. xxi. 7. Els follows
LTtcvaynv {L. V. 4), and lTi(pei(rKuv (Mt. xxviii. 1) : on l-ri^nv tls, A. xix. 22, see
§ 50. 4. 'EmTtpivKT^ai is followed by ^pos ; iTiffwdyuv by Tpit and by vtc
(with accusative). It is not easy to say how many examples of the construction
with the simple dative should come in here : we may mention iTayuvit^i/r^ai,
SECT. LII.] VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PRErOSITIONS. 537
8. Aid. Of the compounds of Sid but few repeat the pre-
position. In the N. T. compare Ziairopeveadai Bia crTropifxav
L. vi. 1, compare Diod. S. JExc. Vat. p. 30 (but also — though
with a different meaning, obire — BiaTropeveadai •rroXei';, A. xvi.
4) ; Siepx^adai Bid, Mt. xii. 43, 2 C i. IG, to go ihronr/h (and
consequently, o«i5 of) something^ (compare Strabo 8. 332); and
the pregnant phrase Siaaco^eiv Bi vBara. 1 P. iii. 20. Most
of these verbs are, as transitives, followed by the accusative :
as BiairXeip, sail through, A. xxvii. 5 ; also Biep-)(^6a-6ai, when it
means to go throughout, L. xix. 1, A. xv. 3 ; Bia^aiveiv, H. xi.
29, etc.
9. Kara. Those compounds of Kurd which denote an action
tending down to some point of space are followed by utto or
e/c, when the terminus a quo is to be expressed ; as Kara^aiveiv
uTTo rov ovpavov, L. ix. 54, 1 Th. iv. 16, Kara^aiveiv eK rod
ovpavov, Jo. iii. 13, vi. 41. Where the terrninus ad quein is to
be indicated (Dio C. 108. 23, 741. 96), they take eVt, et?, or
7rp6<i'^ according to the nature of the mark aimed at (L. xxii. 44,
Mk. xiii. 15 \Kec^^, A. xiv. 11); perhaps also in A. xx. 9 the
simple dative, Kara(f)€p€a-6ai vttvm'^ On the other hand, KaOrj-
crOai, KaOi^eip, KarariOevai ev rivi, are to set doimi in a place, etc.
Karyyopeiv, to accust, is usually construed with the genitive of
the person, the signiiicaiiou of the Kara being present to the
mind: once we find Karrjyopeiv n Kara rcvo<;, L. xxiii. 14;
similarly i<yKa\eiv Kara rivos, Rom. viii. 33, compare Soph.
Philoct. 328. Analogous to the former construction is Kara-
Kav^aaOai rivo<i, to boast against some one, Rom. xi. 18 (compare
Ja. ii. 13), and Karafiaprvpeiv riv6<;, Mt. xxvi. 62, xxvii. 13 ;
but KaraKav^dadai Kard rivo<i, Ja. iii. 14.*
i'Ti^f^im, lyri7rXr,<rinif, i'rsipconiv (l'roif>Ki7v, 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»<w rivi>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 Ka<rayiXx)i, xnrayiiutrK-iv, narahuya-
(TTiviDi, KoyriiT^uiiv, KaraKupiiiiiv, xecraXixXiTv, xaratiaficati, xapa<rTpnyiat.tiv, xttra-
^peniv, xa'Tit.ovTiaXiiv {xa^dvrtiv, A. xxviii. 3) : on xaTi^iiv with genitive of infini-
tive see above, p. 409. In Mk. xiv. 3 the best reading appears to. be xarix'-i"
538 VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. [PART III.
10. Merd. Verbs compounded with /itera, in which this
preposition signifies trans — as nera^alveLv, /xera/xopcfyovv, fxera-
<7'^r}fiaTl^eiv, fieravoetv, /MeroiKi^eiv,^ al. — naturally take eh to
express passing over into. Compare Vig. p. 639.
11. Ilapd. Verbs compounded with irapd are followed by-
diro or Trapd (but compare § 47, p. 457 sqq.), when the place
ivhence is to be indicated. See A. i. 25, a<^' ^9 (aTroo-roXr}?)
'Trape^Tj, as in Dt. xvii. 20, Jos. xi. 15, al.; e^ ^9 in Dt. ix. 12,
16.^ JJapaXa/jb^dvetv diro Tcvo<i, 1 C. xi. 23, and irapd tcvo^,
1 Th. iv. 1, 2 Th. iii. 6 ; 7rapa(f)€p€cv diro tlvo<^, Mk. xiv. 36.
L. xxii. 42 ; 'napkp-^ecrOai diro tivo<;, Mt. v. 18, Mk. xiv. 35 '^
1 2. JTe/jt. The compounds with Trepl have for the most part
become pure transitives, and accordingly govern the accusative ;
as irepiep'^eadai-, 1 Tim. v. 13 (pbire), Trept^ojvvvvai, E. vi. 14,
irepuardvaL, A. xxv. 7. We find in a material sense, with irepi
repeated, TrepiaaTpd-rrretv (once only, A. xxii. 6, — in the parallel
passage, A. ix. 3, the verb is transitive), irepi^divvvaOai, Rev.
XV. 6 {irepl rd arrjOrj), nreptKelaOai, Mk. ix. 42, L. xvii. 2
{irepia'jrdadaLy L. x. 40). The dative follows TrepcTriTTTeiv
(Xrjaral'i, ireipaafioU) in L, x. 30, Ja. i. 2 (Thuc. 2. 54, Polyb.
3. 53. 6, Lycurg. 19. 1), and irepiKeladai, in H. xii. 1.*
13. Upo. Of the verbs compounded with irpo only irpn-
TTopeveadai repeats the preposition: L. i. 76, TrpoTropevaj) vrpb
irpo'icoTrov ^ Kvpiov (Dt. ix. 3). In the LXX this verb is also
alroZ TJjj KitpccXni ; for the omission of xa-rd before the second genitive see Plat.
Legg. 7. 814 d, Her. 4. 62 (Meyer j;i ?oc. ). On the constructions of x.xTnyi>fi7y &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.p<x2i'hovai,
Tapa*.t7tr0ai, TapaxoXLvhiv {■jrapifi/idXXuv, L. xix. 43, Tiscll. ) ; Compare -x-iiipiSpiotiv
mi, 1 C ix. 13. We find also 'rapa,x.^if/.dZ,nv Iv ; •rapaXa.fjt.fiam* -ifp'oi (also ^i/
iavrou), vra.paKa.d^taSa.i ■rp'os (with accusative) ; ■TapalidXXiiv and 'Xapuciilivai li;.
Uapiiyai is followed bv us and trpis nva, also Wi -nvos ; -rapa-yivltrffai by tis, Tpis
and it/ (with accusative) ; ^apdyuv by wa/>a. 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
avTov<i. See further no. 2.^
14. IIp6<t. Verbs compounded with tt/do? repeat this pre-
position when the local to is to be expressed. See e. g. irpo'iTri-
TTTtiv 7rpo<i Tovf TToSaf Tivo^, Mk. vii. 25, and compare Dio C.
932. 82, 1275. 53, — but 7rpo?7rt'7rTety toi^ jovaart, Diod, S. 17.
1 3 [and L. v.. 8] ; Trpo^riBeadai irpo^ rov<; nrarepa^, A. xiii. 36 ;
also 7rpo<iKoWacrdac TTpo^; r-qv ^vvalKa, to cleave to, Mk. x. 7, E.
V. 31.^ They are also followed by eV/: as irpandevat, iirl rrjv
rfkcK.iav, Mt. vi. 27 More rarely we find the dative thus used :
7rpo(i^p'^€(T$ai opii, H. xii. 22; trpo'i'Tri'irretv oiKia, Mt. vii. 25
(Xen. Eq. 1. 6, Philostr. Ajp. 5. 21); and, of direction, tt/jo?-
i\ta>vdv 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 (7rpo<idy€iv tm Kvpicp frequently occurs in the LXX),
7rpo<iK\lvea0ai rtvi, to adhere to, A. v. 36, Compare 7r/309e^eti/
Tivi, H. vii. 13, A. xvi. 14; 7rpo(;evxecr6ac nvi, Mt. vi. 6, 1 C.
xi. 13 ; TrparidevaL Xoyov tlvI, H. xii. 19 ; TrparWeaOat ry
iKKkrja-la, A. ii. 41,^ If the verb implies the notion of rest,
(vrpo? nvC), it is either construed thus with the dative, — as
'7rpo<;fiev€iv rtvC (A. xi, 23, 1 Tim. v. 5), irpo'iehpeveiv (\ G. ix. 13
[Rec.], Polyb. 8. 9. 11, 38. 5, 9), irpo^Kaprepelv (Mk. iii. 9, Col.
t;v«5 (A- XXV. 26), and •rfoypafuv xar iip^aXftevs (G. iii. 1) should perhaps be
mentioned.]
' [Here the word is lyavriov, and so in Ps. Ixxxiv. 14 Vat.]
^ [The genitive follows cr;oiVTavai"(l Tim. iii. 4, 5, al.), -rfovaTii (1 Tim. v. 8),
■rpoTopiuKT^ai (A. vii, 40).]
3 [This quotation from Gen. ii. 24 (where Alex, has the simple dative after
the verb) occurs three times in the N. T., and in every case the reading is doubt-
ful. In E. V. 31 TTpoi Triv yuyaixct is more generally received, though the dative
has considerable support ; in Mt. xix. 5 the best editors read the simple verb.
In Mk. X. 7 Tisch., Westcott and Hort, omit the clause ; Tregelles reads Tpis.]
* [Tn ixKXtiiria. is not found in A. ii. 41 : the phrase occurs in the received
texi of A. ii. 47 (the best MSS. omit tw ixxX-zKrlx), and in no other passage. In
A. xi. 24 (v. 14) we find ^focr'thdSa.t tZ Kvpioi.']
540 VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. [PART III.
iv. 2, Rom. xii. 12, compare Polyb, 1. 55. 4, 1. 59. 12, Diod. S.
20. 48, and frequently) ; or, in expressing purely local rela-
tions, followed by iu, as irpo^i/jieveiv iv 'JE^eo-w, 1 Tim. i. 3.^
15. Svv. The compounds of auv but seldom repeat this
preposition, as in Col. ii. 13 (cru^caoTrotetf), or take /Ltera instead
(Weber, Dem. p. 210), as in Mt. xxv. 19 (a-waipeiv), 2.C. viii.
18 (a-v/xirifMireiv), Mt. xx. 2 (^av/j,cf)a}i>e2v), 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]<j)La6>] 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, <rpaixXnpou<r(oLi, •7i'po;XuXi7v, -jrpoi-
xun7v [iycu-jriov rivo; in L. iv. 7, al.), •rpoiox,(i'!^-.iM, Tpo;TopiiJi^^ai, Tpo;rd(rirnv, Tpo;-
xoTTiiv, -rpoinkiivv, ^pes liuXniv (M.t. XXvii. 60), ■rpOipnyvvnai, ■rpos-4'Xuliv.'\
^ ['Svv is repeated with trvirrtiupovv Mt. xxvii. 44 (rt/vayuv 1 C. v, 4), cuv'ipxif^^i
A. xxi. 16. MsT« follows (Tuvdynv in Mt. xxviii. 12 ; /rwaxoXouhTv in Mk. v. 37 ;
<ruvi(rfnit in G. ii. 13. {llpoi is found after <ri/^>)Tirv, iruXXayiZ,t<r6al, irvfifiaXXtiv,
avXXaXiTv.)]
^ [In favour of the rendering, / rejoice with the latv, see Meyer and Vaughan
in loc. ]
* [Except in uTrira^iv vvri -roh; ir'nla;, E. i. 22, 1 C. XV. 27, probably quoted
from Ps. viii. 7 (u-r'iTa^iv l-}rox.a,Tu Tuv rroiZv, — SO in H. ii. 8). — The dative is
found after UTaxavnv, I'Torairaut (1 C. XV. 27, al. ).]
* [In 2 Th. ii. 4 we find vmpa'ipiiriai Wl. The genitive follows vTtplitixxtiv (E.
iii. 19), and u-rripi^itv (Ph. ii. 3).]
* [As ffv/ivrenTv K/ti ipE/s/v for j v fj. ip i p it \) (Kriig. p. 345). Compare Jelf
650. Obs. 4.]
SECT. LIII.] THE CONJUNCTIONS. 541
Section LIII.
THE conjunctions.
1. Conjunctions — whose office it is to join together words or
clauses — are divided into classes according to the kind of con-
nexion expressed. These classes are the same in every culti-
vated language, and are eight in number^ (Kriig. p. 345).^
The primitive conjunctions are monosyllabic, Kai, roi^ re, 8e,
fxev, ovv ; many are evidently derived from pronouns or adjec-
tives, as ore, on, o)?, roi, aWd, etc. ; others are compound, as
idv (el av), irrei, w^re, yap (ye apa), rolvvv, etc. Some, in ac-
cordance with their signification, govern a particular mood ; as
el, idv, 'tva, ottco^, ore, al. See in general Hermann, Emend, p.
164 sqq. The chief conjunctions of each class which are cur-
rent in Greek prose generally are also found in the N. T., and
with their legitimate meanings : ^ only rot, yi.r]v are not used
(by themselves), and many compounds which express nicer
shades of meaning (e. g., '^ovv) were not required in the N". T.
style.
It should further be remarked that the causal conjuuctions, for the
most part, originally expressed that which is objectively or temporally
present (e. g., oVt, Itrd, ettciSt;). This connexion of thought may also
be observed in the prepositions (p. 451 sq.), and likewise in Latin and
German , e g., qmd, qwniani, quando, quandoquidem, weil.^
2. The simplest and most general connexion of words and
clauses, the simple coupling together of words and clauses
which stand side by side, is formed by the conjunctions /cat and
re {et and que). The latter of these occurs most frequently in
Luke's writings (especially in the Acts), and next to these in
the Epistle to the Hebrews. Mt. ii. 13, irapdXa^e ro TratBiov
Kal rr)V fiTjrepa avrov Kal <f>evy€ a<? Atyvrrrov A. x. 22, dvr)p
1 [Kriiger uow has Jiine classes,— copulative, disjunctive, adversative, com-
parative, hypothetical, temporal, final, consecutive, and causal conjunctions.]
- Compare 0. Jahn, Orammaticor. Or. de caiijunctionibas doctrina (Gryph.
1847).
' [Mentioned again in the next line. T«/ is regarded as derived either from
Tu or from Toi = <ro', ; see Klihner II. 703 (ed. 2), Liddell and Scott s. v.]
* Schleiormacher, Hermen. p. 66, goes too far ; what he says on p. 130 is more
correct. It is only in regard to the position of certain conjunctions that the
N. T. language diners from the earlier prose.
* [Literally while. Compare in English, seeing that, being (Abbott, STiaksp.
Gr. p. 277), in the sense of since.']
542 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PAKT III.
<f)o^ovfj,€vo^ Tov 6e6v, fiapTvpovfxev6<; re vtto oXov rov eOvovs iv.
13, 6eQ)povvT€<; . . . edav/jLu^ov, iTreylpoocrKov re avrov'j K.r.'X
The distinction between kul and re is, that kul simply comiects
(notions of the same kind), re annexes (something added)
Hermann says " Kal conjungit, re adjungit : " compare with
this Klotz, Bevar. II. 144.} Hence re ratlxer denotes an m-
temal (logical), Kat rather an external relation.
In the N, T., as well as in classical Greek, tc^ thus indicates
an addition, complement, explanation,— something which flows out
of what has preceded, or is some detail belonging to it ' (Rest
p. 728) ; see Jo. vi. 18, A. ii. 33, 37, iv. 33, v. 42, vi. 7, viii. 13,
28, 31, X. 28, 48, xi. 21, xii. 6, xv. 4, 39, xix. 12, xx. 7, xxi. 18,
Rom. xvi. 26. Hence, as a rule, re denotes something of inferior
importance (Jo. iv. 42, A. xvi. 34). Sometimes however re may even
be used to give prominence. In H. ix. 1, ctxc koX rj -Trpwrrj (SiaOrjKT))
SiKanxifxaTa Xarpeias to t£ ayiov KocrfxiKov, the last object, as a detail,
and as presupposed in StKatw/xara AaTpctas,^ is annexed by means
of T£ : as however the writer (ver. 2 sqq.) goes into particulars re-
specting the sanctuary, it is clear that to aytov was for him the prin-
cipal notion in ver. 1. There is nothing stiange in such a use of
T€, for that which is not homogeneous with ^. hat has preceded (/tat),
but is added" to it, may be either the more or the less important of
the two, according to circumstances : compare also H. xii. 2. It .is
indeed by the subjective view of the writer that the choice of t€ is
in many cases determined ; see Klotz I. c. In the N. T. re and Se
have often been interchanged by the early transcribers : e, g., A. vii.
26, viii. 6, ix. 23, xi. 13, xii. 8, 12, xiii. 44, xxvi. 20,^ al. (Don.
p. 573, Jelf 754).
3l In the N. T. style, as in that of the Bible generally, the
simple connexion by Kal^ is frequently chosen where in the
' On Kai and te (derived from rm, Herm. Soph. iTrach. 1015) compare the
different views of philologers ; Herm. Vig. p. 835, ad Eurip. Med. p. 331, Hand,
De Partlc. n (Jen. 1832, 2 Progr.) Bernh. p. 482 sq., Sommer in the JV, Jahrb.
f. PMlol. 1831, III. 400 sq,, Hartung, Part. I. 58 sqq. [On ti see Curtius,
Grundz. pp. 133, 444.]
2 On the Latin que, see Znmpt, Gr. § 333, Hand, Tursellin. II. 467 sq. Com-
pare Bauermeister, Ueber die C'opulativpartikeln im Latein. (Luckau, 1853).
^ [" Like ' que,' te appends to the foregtfing clause (which is to be conceived
as having a separate and independent existence, Jelf, Gr. § 754. 6) an additional,
and very frequently a new thought ;— a thought which, though not necessary to
(Herm. Viger, No. 315), is yet often supplemental to, and a further development
of, the subject of the fhst clause ; compare Acts ii. 33, Heb. i. 3." Ellicott on
E. iii. 19.]
* [Against this see Delitzsch in loc.'\
^ [Probably xxvi. 10.]
* Of " and " uniting separate sentences, it is only necessary to mention specially
one case, which is often overlooked, — that in which a writer joins one 0. T.
quotation to another : e. g. A. i. 20, yivnHriu ii tvavXt; . . . «► avrri (Ps. Ixviii. ),
Ko.) T»* ivKTxoTrhv . . . iTifos (Ps. cviii. ), H. i. 9 sq. (see Bleek), Rom. ix. 33.
SECT. LIII.] THE CONJUNCTIONS 543
more reflective languages a conjunction of more special meaning
■would have been used. This peculiarity led astray the earlier
Biblical philology into the assumption that /cat in the N". T.,
as 1 in Hebrew, was the conjunction-general, uniting in itself
all meanings of the conjunctions, and indeed those of many
adverbs,^ But — as in Greek authors (Klotz, Dev. II. 635), so
also in the N, T. — Kcit has only two meanings, and, also?
These however admit of various shades, which we should our-
selves express by special words : thus also rises into even, vel,
adeo (Fritz. Bom. I. 270, Jacob, Luc. Alex. p. 50). But in
many passages there is not even such a modification as this, but
xav, as the simple copula, was chosen by the writer either in
accordance with the simplicity of Biblico-oriental thought, or
designedly — on rhetorical grounds: sometimes both these causes
coincide. The translator, however, has no right to destroy the
colouring of the original by introducing special conjunctions.
In the narrative syle, especially of the synoptic Gospels, the
several facts are in great measure strung together by Kai, as
simnly following one another; though 8e and ovv, /acto. tovto, flra,
etc., would have given more variety to the language, and the use
of the participial and relative constructions would have more clearly
distinguished between principal and subordinate sentences. E. g. :
Mt. i. 24 sq., 7rapeA.a/3€i/ TTjV ywa.LKa airov Koi ovk cytvwcrKev avrrjv
cws ov ereKCV vlov, koI iKoXicrev to ovo/xa airov Irjcrow' IV. 24 sq.,
vii, 25, 27, L. v. 17 ; see § 60. 3. One case deserves special men-
tion, — that in which a writer gives a note of time, and then annexes
the fact l^y means of Kat; as in Mk. xv. 25, ^v wpa rpiTq koX
i(TTavpoi<Tav airov (a supplementary remark, as it were, to ver. 24),
it was the third hour and {when) they crucified him : here the cor-
rection oT£ was early introduced. From this must be distinguished
L. XxiiL 44, y^v wsct wpa Ikt-yj koX (TKora eyeVero. Here, if OT€ had
been used, the time would have stood out as the principal matter,
and the fact would be regarded as subordinate : the two were to be
indicated as co-ordinate, and hence Kai This structure is also found in
Greek writers (Matth. 620. i. a, Madv. 185, Jelf 752); Plat. Symp.
220 C, rj^r} y}v ixeayjfj^^pia kol avOpwiroi rja-ddvovro' Arrian, Al. 6.
[This last example is quite different. St. Paul quotes Is. xxviii. 16, introducing
into tht verse certain words from Is. viii. li : the xa! belongs to the passage
itself.].
1 See still Schleusner, Lexic. s. v.
^ Klotz, I.e. : In omnibus locis, ubicunquehabeturxa/ parti cula, aut simpliciter
copulat duas res, aut ita ponitur ut prater alias res, quae aut re vera positse sunt
aut facile, cogitatione suppleri possunt, hanc vel illam rem esse aut fieri significet,
et in priore caussa "und" reddi solet, in post eriore e^jam, quoque, vel, sicuti res
• ac ratio in singulis locis requirit.
544 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PART III.
9. 8, yj8r} Trpos rfj eiroA^ct rjv kol . . . u)Ou' Thuc. 1. 50, Xen. An.
1. 1. 8. The case is still less similar when, in a prophetic announce-
ment, the note of time is placed first, and a sentence annexed by-
means of /cat, — an arrangement which gives more solemnity to the
language : see L. xix. 43, H. viii. 8, 1 C. xv. 52. So also in such
exhortations as airetre koI SoOrja-eTat vfuv' L. X. 28, TOVTO ttoUl
Kal irjcrrj, there is more force in the parallelism of the two verbs
than in some such construction as tovto ttolwv ^a-rj (Franke, De-
mosth. p. Gl). Compare Demostli. Ohjnth. 3. 11 c, ^bpan ravO" ov-
_In such cases as 1 C. v. 2, ". . . and ye are puffed up," Mt.
iii. 14, "I had need to be baptised of thee, and thou comest to me,"
Jo. vi. 70, " Have not I chosen you . . . ? a/idoi yon one is a traitor,"
Jo, xi. 8, xiv. 30, H. iii. 9, astonishment or sorrow is more eloquently
expressed by the simple and, than it would be by the more full-
sounding however, nevertheless, notwithstmiding. In the mere juxta-
position the contrast speaks as it were of itself. On the other
hand, in Mt. xxvi. 53, rf SoKets, 6Vt ov Swa/juai cipn irapaKaXea-aL tov
■n-arepa fiov koi 7rapacrTyo-€L /xol ttAciw SwScKa Aeyeati-as dyyeXwi/ ; H.
Xil. 9, ou TToAv fiaXXov vTrorayj^cro/AC^a t<3 Trarpl rSiv irv^v/xaTiuv /cat
^i^'cro/xer ; Ja. v. 18, Rev. xi. 3, that which was the object or purpose
of the first action, and might have been expressed as such (iva . . .),
is by means of the rat consecutmim presented independently as a
consequence, because it was the writer's point to give the second
member all possible emphasis. A Greek writer, aiming at the
same object, would probably have laid out his sentence thus : ov
TToAu fiSXXov WTTOTayeVre? tw Trarpt . . . ^rjcrofjiev ; See also Rom.
xi. 35, Mk. i. 27, Mt. v. 15, and compare Ewald p. G53 : in the LXX
see Ruth i. 11, Jon. i. 11. From later Greek may be quoted Malal.
2. p. 39, c/ceAtvorc Kat iKavOrj rj /xvcripa KecftaXij Trj<s Topy6vo<;.
In regard to the other uses of Kat, as they may be simply
traced back to the two meanings " and," " also," we have only to
remark ^ —
1 [" The use of Kxi in the N. T., as the Aramaic o would have led us a priori
to suppose, is somewhat varied. Though all are really included in the twc
broad distinctions et and etiam (see especially Klotz, Devar. vol. II p. 635),
\ye may perhaps conveniently enumerate the following subdivisions. Under the
first {et) xeci appears as, (a) sim^ply copulative; {fi) adjuncl'we, i.e. either when
the special is annexed to thn general as here," that is, in Ph. iv. 12, lit x«/—
"Mark i. ^, Eph. vi. 19, al., or conversely the general to the special, Matth.
x-xvi. 59 ; (y) consecutive, nearly 'and so,' Ph. iv. 9, Matth. xxiii. 32, 1 Thess.
iv. 1, compare James ii. 23, al. Under the second {etiam) km appears as,
(?) ascensive, ' even,' a very common and varied usage (compare notes on Eph.
i. 11), or conversely, descemive, Gal. iii. 4, Eph. v. 12, where see notes ; (:) ex-
planatory, approaching nearly to ' namely,' ' that is to say,' John i. 16, Gal. ii.
20, vi. 16, where see notes; (?) comparative, especially in double-mem bered
clauses, see notes on Eph. v. 23 ; to all which we may perhaps add a not un-
common u.se of xa/, which may be termed (») its contrasting force, as here (2nd
xa<'), and more strongly, Mark xii. 12, 1 Thess. ii. 18 ; compare 1 Cor. ix, 5, 6
SECT, liil] the conjunctions. 545
(a) The faC before interrogatives comes back to the meaning
"and :" Mk. X. 26, koI rt? SvvaraL a-uiO^vaL ; L, X. 29, Jo. ix. 36,
1 p. iii, 13, 2 C. ii. 2. This usage is familiar enough in Greek
writers, see Plat. Thecfl 188 d, Xen. Cyr. 5. 4. 13, 6. 3. 22, Lucian,
Herm. 8i, Diog. L. 6. 93, Died. S. Exc. Fat. p. 30 ; in Latin also et
is thus used. We ourselves so use and (" And what did he do ] "),
when we stop a speaker with an abrupt, urgent question. There
is however no example in the N. T. of the use of KaC before an
imperative, to give urgency to it.^ All the passages formerly
quoted as examples of this usage are of a different kind. In Mt.
xxiii. 32 the koi is consecutive ; ye declare yourselves to he sons . . .
then fill up, etc. In L. xii. 29 kui means also or aaid (consequently) ;
in iV!k. xt. 29 koi'Is and ; in 1 C. xL 6, also. The intensive KaLafter
interrogatives — as in Eom viii. 24 [it<?c.j, o yap ^Xitrti ri%, rl koX
iXviict ; luhy doth he yet hope for it ? — pomts to the meaning also.
(Jelf 759, 760.)
(5) Kat is never really adversative. First of aJl, those passages
must be set aside in which Kat ov, /cat /t^ (Fritz. Mark, p. 31), Kat
ovStts, etc., occur ; as Mt. xi. 17, xii. 39, xxvi. 60, Mk. i. 22, vil 24,
ix. 18, Jo. iii. 11, 32, vii. 30 (contrast ver. 44), x. 25, xiv. 30, A. xii.
19, Col. ii. 8, aL Here the opposition lies in the negation,and is
neither increased by 8c nor diniinished by the simple xat (Schajf Dem.
I. 645). But also in such sentences as Mk. xii. 12, c^t/tow avrov
Kparrja-ai kol i(f>o(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<i, ocrtos k.t.X., JOT
such a high priest was just .mitable fw vs ; H, vi. 7^ 1 P. ii. 8 (Jo.
viii. 25), Col. iii 15, 2 C. iii. 6, 2 Tim. i. 12 Elsewhere it might
be rendered mcissim (as in 1 C. i. 8, Ph. ii. 9), but " also " is perfectly
sufficient
(/) When Kat appear.=5 in the apodosis after a particle of tinic
(^TC, <I)s), — as in L. ii. 21, ore iTrXijo-Orjcrav rjfxcpai. okto) tov itcpiTi-
ficiv airovy kal iKX-qOr] to ovop.a avrov 'Irjcovi' or in L. Vll. Iw,
ws riyyure Tjj TrvXrj Trj<i iroAcojs, Kai iBoi) i$€KO/jLi^€TO TeOvqKui^' A.
i. iii, X. 17 [Bee], — the construction really designed was,* cttXi^-
1 See Frite. M'att. p. 786, Mark, p. 652. Compare Volo. Fritzsche, Quvst.
lAifinn. p. e7>, 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. 2<i, xai 'liuKiv Kai Tolt a-L/v alr^ oZtiv' Jo. v. 27 \^Eec \
where xa/ , . . ««(' are not jwrallel to tach other (the second xai signifying
aSso), do not come under this head. Compare Soph. Fkiloct. 274.
548 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PART III.
of the relative value of the two members (Eost p. 728 sq.^) :
compare A. iv. 27, v. 24, Eom. i. 14, H. xi. 32, al. In the
course of lengthened enumerations, groups (pairs) are thus
formed by means of re . . . Kai (. . . Kal) : H. xi. 32 [iJec],
BapiiK re koX Xafx^^tov Kal 'le^Ode, AavtS re koI ^afiovijX
Kal ra>u 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)<i^) . . . outw?. The force of oi/rco? is not un-
frequently enhanced by Kai, as in Ja. ii. 26, &)?7re/3 to awfjia
ycopl<i TTvevfjiaTO'? vcKpov iari, ovtq)<; Kal r] TrtixTt? X&>/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<i r] Kaipov^, both yvwvat ^6vov<; and yi'oJvat Kaipovi
(we may think of either one or the other) are equally denied ; so that
in sense this sentence exactly coincides with yvcovat xp^vov; Kal Ka/poJs.
Lastly, when Kat' and -^ occur in parallel passages (Mt. xxi. 23, L. X3i.
2), the relation is differently conceived by the different writers; - and
it would be a manifest abuse of parallelism to infer that the two
particles are synonymous.
'H and fcaihave not unfrequently been interchanged by transcribers
by ■>' 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<i TraiSaywyovs ^xn"^^ ^^ ^pccTTtSy
dXy ov TToAAov? irarepas (yet not, on the other luind), 2 C. iv. 16, xi. 6,
xiii. 4 [Reel, ^o'- "• ^ 5 ^^^ compare Her, 4. 120, Xen. Cyr. 8. 6.
18, Lucian, Pise. 24, JEMsm, Anim. 11. 31.^ — ^The case is different in
Rom. VI, 5, (1 (TvfjujiVTOi. yeyovafxev tw ofioLwfJMTi tov davdrov avTov,
akXa K at Tt}^ drocrrao-eajs ccro/Ac^a, SO shall we however etc.: see
Fritzsche in loc.^
The absorption by dXXd of the negative " no," after a negative
question — as in Mt. xi. 8, ri ii-^Xdare B^acraa-dai ; KoXafiov vivo avifiot)
araXev6fi€vov ; dA.\a Ti i^kdan iSctv; and in 1 C. vL 6, X, 20, Jo.
vii. 48 sq. — needs no comment.^ 'AAAa ixev ovv, PL iii. 8, is at sane
quidem: aXXd opposes the present ^ovfim to the perfect ^yrjfMti, as a
correction.* In Rom. v, 14, 15, aXXd occurs twice, with a different
reference in each case : in 1 C. vi. 11 it is repeated several times
emphatically, with the same reference.*
{b) Ac is often used when the writer merely subjoins something
new, different and distinct from what precedes, but on that account
not sharply opposed to it (Herm. Vig. p. 845): in 2 C. vi. 14 sqq.,
I C. iv. 7, XV. 35, we find it in a succession of questions (Hartung I.
169, Klotz, Devar. II. 356), Hence in the Synoptic Gospels nai and
^ See Kypke II. 197, Niebuhr, Ind. ad Agath. p. 409, Klotz, Devar. II. 93
(Jelf Z.c. Obs. 1).
' ["Male cum h. 1. 1 Cor. iv. 15 . . . . contendas. Ibi enim a.xxi post enun-
tiationes hypotheticas, quibus aliquid conceditur, in apodosi gravem ad praece-
dentem aut vocem aut sententiam oppositionem infert, at. " Fritzsche I. c. See
especially Ellicott on Ph. i. 18, who remarks on such examples as this : " the
primary force of «xx<» is so far obscured that it does practically little more than
impart a briskness and emphasis to the declaration. "]
» See Schweigh. Arr. Epid. II. ii. 839, iL&phel ad\ C.l. c.
* 'axx' rf, after a direct or indirect negation, occurs (occasionally in the
LXX, e. g.. Job vi. 5, and) three times in the N. T., in L. xii. 51, 2 C. i. 13,
1 C. iii. 5 ; in the last passage, however, it is probably not genuine. After
Klotz's careful investigation {Devar. II. 31 sqq.) — in which he followed Kriiger
(De fonnulcB axx' r, et affinium partkularum poet negationes vel negativas sen-
tentias usurpalarum naiura et usu, Brunsvic. 1834) — ix.x' H must certainly be
referred to aXXa, not to axxi. Thus L. xii. 51 will be, / have not come to bring
on earth .... aught but division. The fact that in 2 C. i. 13 ixx» itself pre-
cedes, does not invalidate this explanation : compare Plat. Phced. 81 b, and see
Klotz p. 86. [Compare Biddell, Plat. Apol. p. 176, Sandys, Isocr, Paneg. p. 46
sq,, Jelf 773. 5.]
» [nxjjy occurs in the N. T. (1) aa a preposition with the genitive, except, Mk,
xii. 32, al. (in A. xv. 28, ^rXtov . . , , *x«v). (2) With JVi, A. xx. 23, Ph. i. 18
(in the best texts). (3) In all other passages vXrv approaches more or less
nearly to ixXei. Its exceptive force is most visible in Rev. ii. 25, where aXXm
precedes ; see Jelf 779. Obs. 2. It introduces a correction in Mt. xxvi. 39, L.
xxii. 42 (being parallel with aXXi in Mk. xiv. 36, quoted above) : it follows a
negative in L. xii. 31, xxiii. 28. In L. xix. 27 it is used to "break off and pass
to another subject " (Liddell and Scott, s. v.). In L. xxii. 22 it follows /iit. In
most passages it may be rendered by notwithstanding, nevertheless, or (better
still) by the old-fashioned howbeit. See Don. p. 57'2, 576, Jelf 773. Obs. 4,
Webster, Syntax, p. 145, Ellicott on Ph. i. 18, I.ightfoot on Ph. iii, 16.]
SECT. LIU.] THE CONJUNCTIOKS. 553
Si are sometimes pamllel : in 2 C. vi. just quoted, ^ is inserted in the
midst of several repetitions of 8e.i Like the German aher, Be is used
in particular when an explanation is annexed, — whetheras an integral
part of a sentence (1 C. ii. 6, <ro<f)Lav AouVov/Lier ev toI? rcAetois, aocfiiav
St oi Tov aliovos TovTov iii. 15, Rom. iii. 22, ix. 30, Ph. ii. 8), or as
itself an independent sentence, as in Jo. vi. 10, ix. 14, xi. 5, xxi. 1,
G. ii. 2, E. V. 32, Ja. i. 6 : ^ also when, after a parenthesis or digres-
sion, the interrupted train of thought is taken up again (Herm.
Vig. p. 846 sq., Klotz II, 376, Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 141 sq.), as in
2 C. X. 2,3 iL 12, V. 8, E. ii. 4, compare Plat. Phcrd. p. 80 d, Xen.
Jn. 7. 2. 18, Paus. 3. 14. 1 (autem, Cic. Of. 1. 43, Liv. 6. 1. 10).
In an explanation which is at the same time a correction (e. g,,
1 C. i. 16), the adversative signification of the particle is still
perceptible. Sometimes 8c introduces a climax (H. xii. G), or marks
the steps in a regular progression of clauses (2 P. i. 5-7). On Sc
in the apodosis see Weber, Demosth. p. 387, and (especially for the
case in which Se follows participles which stand in the place of
a protasis, as Col. i. 21 *) Jacobs, ^^1. Anim. I. 26 Prcef. When
in a didactic passage 8e is frequently repeated (as in 1 P. iii. 14 sq.^),
we must seek the explanation of the particle in the relations of the
several clauses. In narrative we often find a number of sentences
simply connected by he : see Acts viil 1-3, 7-9.
Kal . . . 8e, in one and the same clause (as often in the best
authors, Weber, Dem. p. 220), signifies ei . . . vero, atqiie etiam, and
also, — Kttt' being a/50 and 8e a7id, according to Kriiger (p. 358), whilst
Hartung (I. 187 sq.) maintains the reverse. See Mt. xvi. 18, H, ix.
21, Jo. vi. 51, XV. 27, 1 Jo. i. 3, A. xxii. 29, 2 P. i. 5.^ In the
reverse order. Si. KaC (2 P. ii. 1), the particles mean hut also.
The N. T. use of fxev (a weakened form of fx-qv '') requires no special
remark, for fj-ev . . . Si . . . Se Jude 8 (not 2 C. viii. 17) is easily
explained. When ftev is answered by dAAa, as in liora. xiv. 20, al.
(compare Iliad 1. 22 sqq., Xen. Cyr. 7. 1. 16), the second member
is made to stand out with greater prominence (Klotz, Devar. II. 3).
' Greek authors also, as all readers know, use Sj very frequently in narration.
[In 2C. I. c. the true reading is, no doubt, ^ . . . %i . , . H . .' . VtA
* [Jelf 767. 3 (Don. p. 576), Ellicott on G. ii. 2.]
^[" After the relative sentence the -^ccpccKaXu is t^ken up again by Ss«/taj St,
the particle It standing in adversative relation to the contents of the relative
sentence : " Meyer in loc. See also Ellicott on E. ii. 4, Jelf 767. 4. 1
* Klotz, Devar. II. 374. [See Jelf 770. Ohs. 2, Ellicott and Lightfoot on Col.
L 21. In A. xi. 17 Rec. and 1 P. iv. 18 (possibly) St is found in the apodosis
after tl. See below, p. 749, and A. Biittra. p. 864.]
' See Wiesinger. Here, however, the third S« is" rejected by Lachmann [and
other modem editors].
* Schsef. Long. p. 349 sq., Poppo, Thuc. III. ii. 154, Ellendt, Arr. Altx. I,
137. [See also Ellicott's fnll note on 1 Tim, iii. 10 (Jelf 769).]
7 This occurs iu the N. T. in H. vi, 14 only (and even there not without
variant), in the genuine Greek combination n ft.r,i, to express an oath : see Har-
tung II. 376, 388 (Don. p. 569, Jelf 728. a). [The editors are divided between
« liny and %\ fi:^*, the latter having the support of the oldest MSS. : .see § 55. 9.
On the etymology of fciv (of which Donaldson considers the "emphatic and
affirmative " /*«y to be a lengthened form) see New Grat. p. 281 sq.]
554 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PART III
Where /Ui' and K-at are found in correspondence (A. xxvii. 21 sq.), we
have an unnriistakeable anacohithon : see Herm. Viyj. p; 841, MiiLzner,
Aviiph. 257. On /acV not followed by 8€ see § 63. I. 2. e. Against
the lawfulness -of supplying fxiv before 8c (Wahl, (Jlav. p. 307) see
Fritz. Emu. 11. 423 : compare Rost p. 736 sq. (Don. p. 575-578.
Jelf 765 sqq.)
The opposition conveyed by yet, however, is very rarely expressed
in the N. T. MeVroi is used most frequently by John, where another
writer would have used a simple Sc';^ once (Jo. xii. 42) h*
strengthens fiivroi by prefixing o/aws. The latter particle only occurs
twice besides, in Paul's Epistles (1 C. xiv. 7, G. iii, 15). KaiVotyf
however occurs in A. xiv. 17, in reference to something which has
preceded, and with the meaning' aUhovqh, quamjiaarnr There is
nothing peculiar in the N. T. use of dXAa ye, yi on the other hand,
L. xxiv. 21, 1 C. ix. 2, al.^ (Klotz, D&v. 11. 24 sq.), except that y€
immediately follows dAAa — a collocation of which there is probably
no example in good writers (Klotz 7. c. p. 15) 'I.'lie correlation though
. . . yet is expressed by ci Kat . . . aXXd in Ool. ii. 5, ft yap Kal t^
arapKi aTTCt/xt, dAAa Tip Trvevfj.aTt (Tyv vfxiv flfu', by il Hoi . , . ye m L,
xviii. 4 sq.* In general, el Kai signifies oithuugh, si etlarn. quamquam
(indicating something as an actual fact ^), whilst xal. et is even if, etixim
1 [MsvTiM occurs five times in St. John'a Cospel, and also in 2 Tim, ii. 19, Ja,
ii. 8, Jude 8. In all these instances—probably not excepting Ja. ii. 8, see De
W,^ Brtickner, Alford, Wordsw. {Vulg. "tamen") — it has this adversative force.
See Ellicott on 2 Tim. l c, Jelf 730. a, 736. 3.]
^ Ikol'stoi itself occurs in H. iv. 3, with a participle (§ 45. 2), and with a fln.;t«
verb in A. xiv. 17 (in the best texts). StrengLbened by yi, placed immediately
after it {" ut ipsa particularnm notio eo mode acuatiir, quasi Latine Axasis quam
qvain quidtin . " Klotz II. 654), it occurs in Jo. iv. 2. and in the received text of
A. xiv. 17. In A xvii, 27 the best reading is »a/ yi. (Don. p. d07, Jelf 772.
Obs. 2.)]
^ [These di-e the o't/.'/ examples of «x.Xa. yi but jve have u.>)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 <u9,
ore (orav), iirel, — also by eo)?, M^XP*, Trplv ; see § 41. b. 3,
§ 60. 4. A consequence is indicated "by ovv, roivvv, w^re
{fxevovv) ; and more sharply and distinctly by apa, Zio (odev),
roiyapovv {ovkovv in Jo. xviii. 37 only). The causal relation
is expressed by means of ort, yap {Siotl, iirec) ; ^ whilst ox;,
Kadci)<;, KaduTc (subjoining a clause), introduce rather an
explanation than a reason. Lastly, a condition is indicated
by el (eije, etirep), idv; § 41. b. 2.
(a) Of the particles which express a consequence, ovv^ is the
most common ; it is also the proper syllogistic particle.'* Its refer-
ence in any particular instance may be gathered more or less easily
from the context: e. g., Alt. iiL 8, 10, xii. 12, 1 C xiv. 11 (see
Meyer in loc), Mt. xxvii. 22, A. i. 21, Eom. vi. 4. It is also vory
frequently used, like the German nun, simply to mark the progress
of a narration (where it is only in virtue of a connexion in time
that the second of two events can l^o said to rest on the first as its
basis) j see Jo. iv. 5, 28, xiii. 6, and compare Schjef. Plutarch, IV.
425. Like the German also or min, ovv is used especially after a par-
enthetical clause to take up the train of thought ^ (1 C. viii. 4, xi. 20),
single word) is very easily recognised — see 1 C. vii. 21, if thou art eren able,
etc., 1 P. iii. 14, Ph. ii. 17 ; compare il olVt, L. xii. 2d. Perhajis "even it,"
though apparently inexact, i.s the most idiomatic translation in some passages,
as this combinatiou is used with considerable latitude in English. In some
"xamples ««/ belongs to the following word in the sense of abso {L. xi. 18, 2 C.
xi. 1.5). k; xa'i is found once with the optative (1 P. iii. 14), in every other
instance with the indicative : Ph. iii. 12 is a diH'ereut case, see p. 374. See
Eilioott on Ph. ii. 17, Alford on this pa.ssage and on 2 C. v. 16.]
^ [This combination is very rare in the N. T,, for in almost all the examyjlcs
of to.) '.: the ««/ is simply copulative (Mt. xi. 14, al.). TJie only instances .seem
to be 1 P. iii. 1, 1 C. viii. 5 {xa'i yap u-rtf) : in Mk. xiv. 29 we must read u *ai,
and in 2 C. xiii. 4 il is not genuine. Meyer and Alford, however, aie hardly
justified in asserting that in this last passage xai ykf ■/ could only mean '* even
if," "even putting the case that." K«i tl would naturally have this meaning,
and in the examples quoted by Hartuug,(I. 141) xaJ yap u in for < vn if. Still,
as the double force of xa) yap is acknowledged (see below p. 5G0), it is surely
jiossible that :<', if genuine, might here stand out of connexion with the xai, this
particle being merely copulative. Kriiger (§ (iU. 32. 21) expressly admits this
lIH-aning of xai yap ii'.]
2 [Also by h yt, Rom. viii. .32, .'ief'!n</ tluit he. (Don. p. 606, Jelf 73.5. 9.)]
•'' [Liinemann here refers to a wr.rk by V. C. Y. Kost, Ueber Ableitun<j, Bede.U'
turiij uiid Gebrauch der Partikel ovv (Gott. 1S59).]
* [Compare Don. p. 596 : " The particle «Jv is indicative ratlier of continua-
tion and retrospect than of inference : and, in general, it should be rendered
rather ' accordingly,' ' as was said,' ' to [aoceed,' than ' therefore,' which is pro-
perlv expressed bv apa. and its compounds." See also Don. p. 571, EUicott on
G. iii. .5, 21, Ph. ii. 1. Webster p. 144. J
* Heind. Plat. Li/.s. p. 52, Hen.ein. Xen. Jfem. p. 285, Jacob, Luc. AltJC.
556 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PART III.
or when the writer proceeds to explain or illustrate (by examples or
otherwise), as in Rom. xii. 20 [Bec.y (Jelf 737. 3. 5.)
"A pa : accordingly, quce cum ita slnt, rebus ita, comparatis. The
primary office of apa may certainly have been to introduce " lepio-
rem conclusioneni" ^ as indeed it occurs mainly in dialogue and in the
language of common life (Klotz, Devar. II. 167, 717); but in later
Greek the usage of the particle became extended, and particular
writers, at all events, use it to express rigorous logical inference.
"Apa inclines towards its original meaning when it stands in the
apodosis (after conditional clauses), as in Mt. xii. 28, 2 C, v, 15 [i?ec.],
G. iii. 29, H. xii. 8 (compare Xen. Gyr. 1, 3. 2, 8. 4. 7), — or draws
an inference either from the assertion (compare 1 C. v. 10, xv. 15,
where it may be rendered really, in fact, indeed^) or from the con-
duct of another person (L. xi. 48). Of the N, T. writers Paul uses
opa most frequently, and that particularly when he analyses the
contents of an 0. T. quotation (Rom. x. 17, G. iii. 17,~compare H.
iv. 9), or gives a r6sum6 of a discussion (Rom. viii. 1, G. iv. 31
v. I.) ; though in these cases he as frequently uses ovv. In questions,
apa refers either to some words or fact previously related (Mt. xix.
25, L. viii. 25, xxii. 23, A. xii. 18, 2 C. i. 17), or to some thought
which exists in the mind of the speaker (Mt, xviii. 1), and which
is more or less clearly shown to the reader It then means iinder
these circumstances, rebus ita comparatis, and sometimes naturally, as
may be conceived (Klotz II. 176), Et apa, si forte (Mk. xi. 13, A, viii.
22), and cVtt apa (1 C. vii. 14), also resolve themselves into this
signification (Klotz II, 178).
The combination apa ovv, placed at the beginning of a sentence
(see against this Hermann, Vig. p. 823), accordingly then^ hinc ergo
p. 42, Dissen, Demosth,. Cor. p. 413, Poppo, Thuc. III. iv. 738. [In both these
cases we use our English then (so then, .so now, accordingly, etc.).]
* [Msv aSv. The examples of /ih oSn are of two different kinds. (1) Mik is in
correspondence with St, — so that here we have merely a combination of 31% with
the distributive formula /ts» . . , Se : seeMk. xvi. 19, Ph. ii. 23, al. (lu several
examples which appear to belong to this class, the U which follows h:is no
connexion with the fiiv : see A. Buttm. p. 370.) Sometimes however — as in
the cases of the simple /*tv — the second member is not e-xpressed in strict
form : see § 63, 2. e, where Winer thus explains Rom. xi. 13, H. ix, 1. (2) oSj
in its proper sense is combined with the confirmative ^i" (Jelf 729 sq,,
Ellicott on Ph. iii, 8) : many examples of this kind are found in the Acts, cuv
usually signifying " continuation and retrospect" (Don. p. 596). As in classical
Greek, the emphatic addition may pass into a correction (Don. p. 577, Jelf I.e.,
Herra., Vig. p. 845), nay rather,~see L. xi. 28 (1 C. vi. 4, 7). In this last sense
the N, T. writers, perhaps more frequently, use /inovvyt : see Rom. ix. 20, x. 18,
L. xi. 28 Eec, Ph. iii. 8 (Tisch., Westcott).]
* [Quoted from Klotz I. c. Compare Don. p. 567, 597, Jelf 788 sq., Ellicott
on G. V. 11, Webster p. 121 sq. "Apa. is strengthened by t^j in Mt. vii. 20, xvii,
26, A. xi. 18 Bee. ("ita<|ue ergo," see Fritz. Matt, p, 563) : eipa yt also follows
u, A. xvii. 27. In classical Greek we find yt joined with S,fa, (A. viii. 30), but
not with apa.']
^ Klotz p. 169 : compare Stallb. Plat. Rap. I. 92, Hoogeveen, Doctrlna Par-
iicul. I. 109 sq.
SECT, LIII.] THE CONJUNCTIONS. 557
(apa expressing conclusion, ow continuation i), is a favourite formula
with Paul : see Rom. v. 18, vii. 3, viii. 12, ix. 16, al. I do not know
of an example of ap' ow in any Greek author: in Plat. Bejo. 5. p. 462 a
the more recent texts have ap' ovv^ (in a question); compare Schneider
in loc, Klotz, Devar, II. 180,
Aio (Si* o) is used most frequently by Paul and Luke : ^ toCvw, in
truth then, indeed noriv, and roiyapovv (the strengthened roiyap, Klotz
II. 738), wherefore then, are rare. — On wsre and its constructions see
p. 377.
(b) "On points in general to some existing fact, something which
lies before us, and hence answers to that as well as to because, quod :
in the latter case it is sometimes brought out more prominently by
prefixing 8ia. rovro (propterea quod). In some instances it is used
elliptical! y. See L. xi. 18, if Satan also is at variance with himself,
how will his kingdom stand? (I ask this) because ye say ^'Through
Beelzebub, etc. ; " L. i. 25, Mk. iii. 30 {Act. Apocr. p. 57), Bornem.
Luc. p. 5 sq. (Jelf 849. Obs. 1). So also in Jo. ii. 18, where the
case is not altered if we render ort in regard to the fact that* (Fritz.
Matt. p. 248 sq.). In Mt. v. 45, however, on is simply beca%ise. In
some passages it has been doubted whether on means because or that :
this question must be decided on hermeneutical grounds.
The compound Ston (chiefly found in later Greek), for this reason
that, and then because (Fritz. Rom. I. 57 sq.*), is used most frequently
by Paul and Luke.
1 Compare Hoogeveen, Doctr. Part. I. 129 sq., II. 1002. [Ellicott on G. vi.
10.]
2 [I have ventured to write if oZv (ed. 5) for «/ »J. (editions 6, 7) : the latter
is surely a misprint. Klotz, l. c, says we must certainly write af' here ; and
Schneider, also quoted by Winer, corrects ap' into a/. — Compare A. Buttm. p.
371.]
3 [On hi. on ichkh account, see Ellicott on G. iv. 31, Klotz II. 173 ("«J»
est fere l^tinum qiiod quum ita sit ; .... hi est quain ob rem, ut etiam hoc
aptius duas res conjungat "), A. Buttm. p. 233 : hin has been taken in this
sense in 1 Th. ii. 18 (1 P. ii. 6), but even here probably has its ordinary mean-
ing. The strengthened form ^limp, for which very reunion, occurs 1 C. viii. 13,
X. 14, xiv. 13 Rec. "Oht, whence it folloujs that, wherefore, occurs in this sense
five or six times in the Ep. to the Hebrews, also Mt. xiv. 7, A. xxvi. 19. On
i-a/vi/v (L. XX. 25, 1 C. ix. 26, H. xiii. 13, Ja. ii. 24 Rec.) see Jelf 790, Shilleto,
Dera. Fals. L. p. 12, Alford on 1 C. ix. 26. ■Voiyaowi occurs in 1 Th. iv. 8, H.
xii. 1 : " roiyoLf proprie significat hoc de caiissa hjitur .... saepenumero
ad Toiyap particulas accedit ovv particula, quod si tit, syllogistica sententiae
ratio magis exstat : " Klotz I. c. See also Ellicott on 1 Th. I. c. (Webster
p. 146.)]
* [Taking en as = £('? ixu,o, iVi, "hence in meaning equivalent to quatenus:"
Meyer in loc.,— who adopts this meaning in several passages (e.g., Jo. ix. 17,-
xvi. 9, Mk. xvi. 14, 2 C. i. 18). On on because and the antecedent it implies
see Jelf 849. 3 ; on certain cases in which its meaning seems to lie between
" because " and " that," see Ellicott on 2 Th. iii. 7 ; on 1 Tim. vi. 7 (S^Xa. being
omitted), see Alford in toe]
' [Fritzsche here maintains that tiin is sometimes simply " nam," for, in the
N. T. : this is denied by Meyer (on Rom. i. 19) and Ellicott (on 1 Th. ii. 8, G,
558 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [pART III.
The most common causal particle in cultivated prose is yap, which
corresponds to the German denn (for). In accordance with its
etymology, however, this particle (a compound of yc and upu, df>}
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<m. \>. 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 <I)s — which
in 2 Tim. i. 3, G. vi. 10, Mt. vL 12, signifies as — compare Ast, Plat.
Folit. p. 336, Stallb. Plat. Symp. p. 135, Lehmann, Lucian I, 457,
III. 425, al. As to £<^' w, because,^ see p. 491.
(c) Et has the compounds dye, " if, that is," ^ qiiandoquideni (when
no doubt exists), and eiTrcp If only, provided that (implying no decision),
1 Herm. Soph. Track, p. 176, Schsef. Dem. II. 579, Plutarch IV. 324, Klotz,
Deimr. II. 749 sq<i. [Shilleto, Dem. FaU. Leg. p. 96.]
^ [Here n yap is answered by tj (Koiu. xiv. 8, 2 C. v. 13), unless we ought to
read is for ts in ver. 27. — On ^e» ylfi see § 63. I. 2. e : in this combination ytif
retains its ordinary force.]
^ [Also our since. Neither Wil nor J^ri/Si) is used of time in the N. T., except
in L. vii. 1, where recent editors read i-ni^n {Bee. i-rii Ii). On Irnin see
Ellicott on Ph. ii. 26. — A relative adverb of place is sometimes used of time,
manner, etc. Compare aS, Rom. v. 20 ; otou, 1 C. iii. 3, also 2 P. ii. 11.]
* [The weight of MS. evidence is in favour of uTip (Lachmann, Westcott
and Hort, Alford). On i-ruTtp Fritzsche remarks : " infert Wi'tTip rem certam
iiullique dubitationi obnoxiam." — 'e^s/SmVs^, L. i. 1, '* quoniam (juidem: this
word does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., or in the LXX and Apocrypha, but
is often used by classical authors." Meyer i7i loc. J-,iinemann quotes Arist.
Pfn(<. 8. 5, Dion. Hal. 2. 72, Philo, ad Caj. § 25, and Hartung, Partik. I. 342
sq. On ttie force of Tip see Don. p. 572, New Cr. p. 388, Jelf 734.]
* [Ov itv-Kiv, L. iv. IS (Is. Ixi. 1), is often taken in this sense (compare e'Jtixa),
ill conformity with the Hebrew : see Meyer. The more natural rendering,
however, is wherefore (Vulg. , Syr.).]
^ [Winer's German rendering wenn ndmlich (in ed. 6, wann ndmlich) does
not very well agree with quandoquidem. His note on G. iii. 4, ilyt xa) iix.y.,
will show the view which he took of this particle : " quandoquUle.m, Miquidem
etiam J'rustra, — i. e. puto eouiilem, ista omnia vobis frustra contigis.se." —
It is not easy to decide on the distinction between these two particles in the
N. T. Hermann's canon {Vig. I. c), that a writer introduces by uy. an
assumption which he believes to be correct and true, se«ms at all events
inapplicable to N. T. usage. See Meyer and Ellicott on G. iii. 4, E. iii. 2 (v/ho
maintain that in all cases it is the context and not the particle that suggests
this meaning); Lightfoot on G. iii. 4 ("sIV;^ is, if anything, more directly
a'^irmativc th.an uy^ " in the N. T.) ; Green, CrK. Notes, p. 119 sq. (wlio lioids
that the difference between the particles in N. T. usage is simply that uy. "' is
the more pointed of the two "). Accepting Klotz's estimate of the proper force
of i"y'. (as indicating that if the assumption be correct the conclusion imast
36
562 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PART III.
— see Herm.- Fig. p, 834, and compare Klotz, Devar. II. 308, 528 :
these compound s.q,re almost confined to Paul's Epistles. The dis-
tinction just named shows itself in most passages. On E, iii. 2 st*e
Meyer: the use- of ctVcp in 1 P. ii. 3, and probably in 2 Th. i. 6,
appears to be of a rhetorical nature. On these passages and on Koni.
viii. 9, Col. i. 23, see Fritz. Fmllmin, p. 67 sq.^
Ei itself retains the meaning " if " even in those passages in which,
as regards the sense, it stands for cTret, since (A. iv. 9, Rom. xi. 21,
1 Jo. iv. 11, 2 P. ii. 4, al.). So far as the expression is concerned,
the sentence is conditional {if, as is actually the case), and the cate-
gorical sense does not for the moment come into consideration.
Sometimes this usage rests on rhetorical grounds.^ The same may
be said of the expressions in which d may be rendered that : see
§ 60, 6. -The use. of d to. express a wish, if only, that (in which
case Greek writers commonly use dOc or d yap, Klotz, Devar. II.
516), is found, according to recent commentators, in L. xii. 49 ; the
verse being punctuated thus, koX tC deXu) ; el •^Srj avycjydr}, And ivhat do I
wish ? (answer) that it luere already kindled ! See Meyer ^ in loc. .
as to the aorist see Klotz, I. c, " si de aliqua re sermo est, de qua,
quum non facta sit olim, nunc nobis gratum fore significam'us, si
facta esset illo tempore." There is however something artificial
in such a questioi in the mouth of Jesus. Of the objections which
Meyer raises against the ordinary explanation — How (how earnestly)
do I wish thai it were already kindled.^ — the second is of less
weight than (in point of usage) the first. (Don. p. 549. Jelf 856.
Obs. 2.)
certainly follow), we have no English expression which will of itself convey the
full meaning of the particle : *' if, that is," " if .at least," will suit the passages
of the ISr. T. in which it occurs, viz., 2 C. v. 3, G.- iii. 4, E. iii. 2, iv. 21, Col.
1. 28 (Rom. v. (5, Wcstcott and Hort). EiVtp may be translated "if only," "if
really," "provided that : " Rom. iii. 30, viii. 9, H, 1 C. \iii. 5, xv. 15 (2 C. v. 3,
Lachmann), 2 Th. i. 6, 1 P. ii. 3 Fee. We must however, remember that this
particle, like =<, is sometimes used rhetorically wliere there is no real doubt :
see Ellicott on 2 Th. i. 6: 'e«vt£/j (H. iii. 6 Bee, iii. 14, vi. 3) is similar to
' [The compound utu;, if' {wli ether) by any means or posMhly, occurs A. xxvii.
12, Rom. i. 10, xi. 14, Ph" iii. 11. Similarly fitivus (§ 56. 2).]
■'' Dissen, Demosth. Cor. p. 195; Bornemunn, Xen. Conv. p. 101.
'• ^ [In his fifth edition Meyer has given up this view (which is defended by
Grotius, 8tier, Alford, al.), and now — witli De W., Bleek, Grimm, al. — renders
the passage as Winer does below (How earnestly do I tvish that etc. ). Meyer's
"first objection " had been that ri cannot ~ m^ : he now quotes as parallel Mt.
vii. 14 (reading T<' with Lachmann, Tregelles, Bleek, al., — see however Tisch.
ed. 8, Grei-n, Dev. Crit. p. 13), 2 S. vi. 20, Cant. vii. 6. (In modern Greek r/is
used in this sense, e.g., rl teapot ccv^pat-rii; \ See MuUach, Vul{j. p. 210, 321.)
The second objection had reference to the use of ii instead of on, though pre-
ceded neither by such a verb as fiaufia^u, nor by a verb which implies atf^mpt
(Jelf 804. 9, 877. Oba. 5) : on this point he refers to Ecclus. xxiii. 14, Her. 9.
14,6. 52. It seems however very doubtful whether any sufficient reason has yet
been assigned for forsaking the usual meaning of il, and the interpretation
adopted in our A. V, See Green, Crit. Notes, p, 57.]
SECT. LIII.] THE CONJUNCTIONS. 563
9. Final clauses are expressed by means of the conjunctions
tva, oTTw? (&><»)• 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 (<S^>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<s does not interrupt the progress of the sen-
tence ; whereas Meyer's explanation, in which these words are taken
as forming an independent sentence, introduces a thought which
arrests the argument.^ On A. x. 20 (Eisner in loc.) see above, no. 7,
p. 551.
(h) For et fXTj. Mk. ix. 8 [i?6C.], ovKen ovSeva etSov, dAAa toi' ^Irjaovv
fjLovov, means : They wo longer saw any one (of those whom they
had previously seen, ver. 4), but (they saw) Jesus alone. In
Mt. XX. 23 (Raphel and Alberti m loc.) we must after aXXd repeat
So^r/creTai from the preceding Sovvai, and render the conjunction
but.^
(c) For sane, profedo. 'AXAa has not this meaning either in Jo.
viii. 26 (see above, no. 7, p. 552), or in Jo. xvi. 2, where it means
ivio or at, as in A. xix. 2, 1 C. vi. 6. Rom. vi. 5, where aXkd (km)
occurs in the apodosis, has certainly no place here.
2, At never means
(a) Therefore, then. In 1 C. xi. 28 8c' means but, in contrast to the
dva^c'ojs iarOuLv of ver. 27 : But let a man examine himself (that he
may not bring upon himself such guilt). 1 C. viii. 9 adds to the
general principle of ver. 8 a restriction for actual practice, in the
form of an exhortation : But take heed that this liberty etc. In Rom.
viii. 8, if Paul had wished to regard the proposition ^e(p dpicrcu ov
SvvavraL as a consequence of what precedes, he might have continued
with therefore (which meaning Riickert here assigns to Si) ; be passes
however from the ^^Opa ets Otov to the other side of the same truth,
Ocw dpia-ai ov Bvvavrau Had hot a clause been introduced between
these two sentences, no one would have found any difficulty here.
In Ja.'ii. 15 Se (if genuine) means yam vera, atqui.
(b) For.^ In Mk. xvi. 8 [Bee] eTx^ Scis a mere illustration, the cause
of this T/Do/i-os and e/ccTTao-is being assigned in the words i<f)of3ovvTo
' [Meyer's view is defended hy Ellicott and Alford : see their notes.]
* [Even in Mk. iv. 22 a/Xa is simply but (but rather), not sat'e, except. It
has frequently been maintained that we have in the N. T. instances of the
converse practice, the use of il /^-n (ia* fin) in the sense of aXxd. (G. i. 7, ii. 16,
Rom. xiv. 14, 1 C. vii. 17, Kev. xxi. 27, Mt. xii. 4, L. iv. 26, 27) : see Jelf 860.
5. I>, 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;<j<r. nisi per fidem."]
' Poppo, 'J'huc. II. 291, Ind. ad Xen. Cyr. s. v., Borneni. I/id. ad Xen. Anab.
s. V. On the other side see Herm. Vig. p. 846, Schajf. Demuf-th. II. 128 sq., V.
541, Lehm. Liician I. 197, Wex, Avdg. !. 300 sq. In the signification to wit,
that r«, the twi> 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 <f>povowT€<i, those whose mind is on earthly
things ! (a summary of ver. 1 9), For our conversation is in heaven,
— it is for this reason that I warn you against them (ver. 18 sq.).
In Rom. viii. 6 the clause with ydp states the reason why ot Kara
TTvcv/Aa (ver. 4) TO. Tou TTvci'/Aaros <j}povov(TLv, viz., because the <f)p6vr]fjia
T^s arapKos leads to death, but the <^p6vy]ix.a tov irvcv/xaros to life : ver. 5
contains the proof of ver. 4. The true explanation of Col. ii. 1
was pointed out by Bengel.^ H. vii. 12 (Kiihnol, " autem ") contains
the reason of ver. 1 1 : fo'r the alteration of the priestly succession
and the abolition of the. law are necessarily connected ; see Bleek in
loc. In 2 P. iii. 5 (Pott) it is explained how such men can come
forward with such frivolous assertions (ver. 3, 4). H. xii. 3 supports
the preceding resolve (r/acxw/itv k.t.X.) by a reference to the example
of Christ.
{b) Therefore, then. In L. xii. 58 all difficulty is removed by
Bengel's remark : " ydp ssepe ponitur, ubi propositionem excipit
tractatio." 1 C. xi. 26 explains ci? t^v ip.y]v dvdfivrjo-iv (ver. 25).
In Rom. ii. 28 the connexion is this : an uncircumcised man who
acts according to the law may pass judgment on thee, who, though
circumcised, transgressest the law, for it is not what is external
(as circumcision) that makes the true Jew. On H. ii. 8 see above,
p. 560.
^ Mnrkland, Eur. Svppl. v. 8, Elmsley, Eur. Med. 121. See on the other
side Henn. Vhj. p. 846, Bremi in the N. krit. Journ. IX. 533.
' [" Declarat, cur verbo certans usus sit (i. 29), nam sequitur mox, certamen."
Bengel. ]
SECT, liil] the conjunctions. 569
(c) AKhough: Jo. iv. 44 (see Kiihnol). In this verse yap is simply
for ; 7raT/3is can only mean Galilee (ver. 43). [See above, p. 560.]
(d) On the contrary: 2 P. i. 9 (Augusti). Ae might have been
used if the meaning intended had been, But {on the contrary) he icho
lacJceth these (virtues) etc. With yap, the sentence confirms (illus-
trates) a contrario (p.-^) the words whicli precede, ovk apyov^ . . .
Xpia-Tov iTTtyvmo-iv, — far he u'ho lacketh these is blind : by this means
a more forcible reason is supplied to the exhortation which follows
(ver. 10).
{e) Noiioithsfanding (dW o/aws) : 2 C. xii. 1 ^ (here there cer-
tainly is great fluctuation in the reading, but the common reading
til] 13 not so decidedly false as Meyer maintains it to be), Jl is in truth
of no advantage to me to boast myself (xi, 22 sq.) : for I tvill now
come (T will, that is, now come, — Klotz, Devar. II. 235) to visions
and revelations of the Lord. Paul places in contrast (compare ver. 5)
boastiny of himself (of his own merits) and boasting of the marks
of distinction accorded him by God. Of the latter he will boast
(ver. 5j ; hence the meaning is. Yet boasting (of myself) is of no
advantage, for nmv I will come to a subject of boasting which excludes
and renders stiperflvmis all boasting of self
if) The mere copula. In Rum. iii. 2 Trpwror //.cv yap commences
the proof of the assertion ttoXv Kara iravra TpoTTov. A. IV. 11:
Inquire in the house of Judas for Saul of Tarsus, for he is praying
(thou wilt therefore find him there), and he saw a vision (which
prepaied liim for thee) : compare Bengel in he. A. xvii. 28, tov
yap Kat ycVos l<rp.€.v, is a verse quoted verbatim from Aratus : yap
may also be taken as giving a reason for Iv avrw ^w/xtv koX klvov-
ficOa Kai C(Tp.€v. In A. iv. 12 the clause ov^\ yap ovofxa. IcTTLv k.t.A,
develops more precisely and consequently proves the statement Iv
oAAo) ov^ei'X 7] aojTfjpta : an attentive reader perce:ives at once what
the second sentence contains beyond the first. In A. xiii. 27 we
may, with Bengel, Meyer, al., explain the connexion thus : To you,
ye (foreign) Jews . . . is this zvord of salvation sent, fo7- those toho
dvjell in Jerusalem have spurned this Savio^ir. Yet it is more pro-
bable that Paul intended to continue thus : "for he is proved to
be the Messiah foretold to our fathers ; " compare ver. 29, 32 sqq.
The reasoning loses in external compactness, through the narration
of the events in which the prophecies had received their fulfilment.
In any case ydp is no mere particle of transition, as Kiihnol main-
tains. In 2 C. iii, 9 the words ct yap rj SiaKovia k.t.X. appear to me
80 far to contain a confirmation of the thought of the passage, as
that SiaKovia T75 SiKatocrvvy]^ expresses something more definite
than StaKovta TOV TTvev/xaros : if (although) the ministration of death
was glorious .... hoiv should not the ministration of the Spirit be
much more glorious ? '^ Fritzsche's explanation {Diss. Corinth. I.
^ [Meyer defends yap (as the more difficult reading) ; but Lachmann,
Tischeodorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, agree in adopting, xuvx^irfai lu, ou
suftipifdi ^sv, iXtv(rc/ii.ai 5s.]
^ [It is perhaps by accident that ver. 9 itself is not translated. In ed. 5 there
570 THE CONJUNCTIONS. [PAJIT III.
p. 18 sq.) 1 consider artiflcial. In Mt. i. 18 (Schott), after the
words Tov Itjctov Xpia~rov q ytno'i^ ovT<u<i _r\v the detailed account
begins (as is frequently the case) with ydp,~namely, that is.
4. Ovv has been incorrectiy explained, as equivalent to
(a) But. In A ii. ^^0 (Kahnol) Trporfit^rrfi ovv vndp^tov is Simply
annexed as an inference to the preceding sentence. David is dead"
and buried : therefore those words which he appears to utter of
himself were spoken by him in the ciiaracter of a prophet, in re-
ference to the resurrection of Christ. A, xxvi. 22 is not an anti-
thesis to ver. 21 : Paul, reviewing his apostolic life up to the period
of this imprisonment, comes to this conclusion,^ — / continue then,
by GodJa help, np to this day etc. Even Kiihnol in his Comment.
(p. 80-5) correctly renders oZv ig'itur, but in the Index gives it
the meaning sed, tamen ! Mt. xxvii. 22, rt ovv noi.rjcroi ^l-qa-ovv, is,
Whxit am I then (since you have decided for Barabbas) to do with
Jesus ?
(h) Far. In Mt. x. 32 ttS? ovv osrt? does not assign a reason
for the statement ttoAAwv (rrpovOttx>v buicl>eptT€ vjiqU, but is a re-
sumption and continuation of the main thought (ver. 27), Krjpviare
. , . . Koi y.r) <f>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 rjKov<TaT€ Trapa. tov irarpo-i TTOulre^ the ovv is most certainly
not redundant ; by this particle the conduct of the Jews (accordingly
ye also) is, with keenest irony, set over against the conduct of Jesus,
as following from the same rule.
Of these four conjunctions Si and ovv are those which most
readily approximate in meaning : and hence there are passages in
follows: For the miniiiratton of Juslif cation is (the ministration of justilication
is, that is to say) )nore cflorious than the rtunistration o/ condemnation.]
^ [Fritzsche connects this verse with ver. 23. — Meyer takes ouv as conclusive
und as referring to the previous context gejierally, from ^er. 16.]
' [Thoku'k. con.siders ouv to refer to the precedin^j part of ch. vii. Comparfe
Alfurd's note.]
SECT, liil] the conjunctions. 571
which either might be used with equal propriety (e.g., Mt. xviii. 31),
though even when used as mere continuatives (in narration) they
are not really identical. In.stead of saying " Jesus found two
fishermen, who .... Moreover he said to them, etc.," I may
also say "Jesus found .... He said therefore to them, etc."
The sense is but little affected by t)ie change, but the two sen-
tences are differently conceived. In the former case, after mentioning
the coming and finding, I add the speaking as a new and distinct
fact. In the latter case the thought is, He said therefore (taking
advantage of this circumstance) to them. But we have no right
to say that a narrator who uses 8e here should have used ovv, or
vice versa. — Sometimes al.>o 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<j. Cor. p. 491, Schneider, I'lat. JRep. I. 393, Siebelis, Ind
Pausan. p. 259.
SECT, liil] the gonjunctions. 573
quently used in the N. T. iK/SaTi-Kd^, denoting the actual consequence
(Glass. I. 539 sqq.) ; in Greek writers also this force has sometimes
been assigned to the particle.^ Even if we should grant the general
possibility of such a use of tva, as the Latin id denotes both purpose
and consequence, — though the weakening of Iva in later Greek (see
§ 44. 8) could prove nothing on this side, — yet no one will deny that
Commentators have made most unlimited use of this canon, and are
chargeable with great exaggeration. ^ The whole theory (of which
Devarius, for instance, knows nothing) was denied by Lehmann
{Lucian, I. 71), and afterwards by Fritzsche (Exc. 1 ad Matth.),
and by Beyer {N. krit. Jmrn. IV.. 418 sqq.); compare also Liicke,
Comment zu Joh. II. 371 sq., Meyer on Mt. i. 22. Beyer's view
was combated by Steudel in Bengei's N. Archiv. IV. 504 sq. ; Titt-
mann also {Sijnon. II. 35 sqq.) declared himself in favour of Iva
iK/SariKov.^ Others — as Olshausen (Bibl. Comment. II. 250) and Bleek
{Ilehr. 11. i. 283) — would have the ecbatic meaning admitted for
certain passages at all events.
First and especially, most commentators hitherto have overlooked
the fact that Iva must frequently be judged of in accordance with the
Hebrew teleology, in which the actual issues of events are spoken of
interchangeably with the Divine purposes and decrees, or rather in
which every (important, and especially every surprising) event is
represented as disposed and designed by God (see e. g. Ex. xi 9, Is.
' See Hoogeveen, Doctr. Particul. I. 524 sq., the commentators on Lucian,
Nigr. 30, Weiske, Xen. Anah. 1. 3. 28. Compare also Ewald, Apocal. p. 233.
'"^ If indeed, with Kiihaol {Hebr. p. 204), we lay it down as a principle that
7va only "scepius" denotes "consilium," we shall easily reach the conclusion
that the conjunction may be taken ixfianxZi.
^ Tittmann thinks he has discovered examples of "va f«/JaT/»o» even in the
Attic poets. This meaning, however, Vva clearly has not in Aristoph. ATitft. 58,
hup' txff "vat K>.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)7ro<i Iv (TafS/SaTio. Jo. ix. 2 is to be explained from the
Jewish teleology, which, in its national exaggeration, the disciples
accepted. Severe, mysterious bodily afflictions must be divinely
ordained punishments of sin : Who then has by his sin moved the
penal justice of God to cause this man to be born blind ? The neces-
sary, though not intentional, consequence of the d/xaprav€ij/ is meant :
see Liicke in loc. In Jo. xi. 15 Iva Tna-TevcrrjTe is added to St' vf.ia^ by
' See Raumg.-Crusius, Bihl. Theol. p. 272, Tholuck, Ausleij. d. Br. a. d. Horn.
p. 395 sqq. (3 Aufl.). — It is going, too far to say that the Israelites confouiided
throughout the ideas of design and result (Unger, De Faruhol. p. 173). It was
only in ihe'iv religious \inv/ of life (in the language of devotion, Eaumg.-Crus.
Joh. I. 19S) that the interchange took place. Where this influence did not
operate, the clear distinction between in order that and -so that would of
necessity force itself on the Israelites; and it is well known that in their
language they have provided for the expression of "so thaf a form which
shows how correctly the distinction was felt.
* Compare Liicke, Joh. I. 603, Fritzsche on Rom. viii. 17. [Alford on L,
xiv. 10.]
SECT. LIIl.] THE CONJUNCTIONS. 575
way of explanation : 7 rejoice on your account (tliat I was not there),
in order that ye may helleoe, — i. c , now ye cannot help believing. In.
Jo. xix. 28 iva means in order thai, — whether we connect iva reXeno&rj
y ypacfyi) with vivra ijhrf miKecrai (Luther, so also Meyer), or with
the following \eyei (Lucke, De Wette) : in the latter case Iva. denotes
a purpose ascribed to Jesus by the evangelist. On Jo. xvi. 24 see
Liicke.^ In Rom. xi, 31 Iva does not express the design of the
aTTu6ovvT€^, but the counseJ of God which connected itself with this
unbelief (compare ver. 32), to accord them salvation out of compas-
sion (not as mericed by them). In the connexion of the Divine plan
their unbelief has as its aim,, that etc. ; compare also ver. 11. Tiie
.same explanation applies to Rom. v. 20 sq., and probably to 2 C. i. 9.
The same teleologicai view is clearly implied in Jo. xii. -lO, a quota-
tion from the 0. T. Rom. ix. 1 1 is plain to any attentive reader,
and we may fairly wonder that ha can still be taken by Reiche as
ecbatic. In 2 C. v. 4 also the meaning is clear : .it is incomprehen-
sible how even Schott could render Iva bv ita ut^ In 1 C. v. 5 the
words €ts oXe^pov tt}? txapKnc; show that with the apostolic TrapaSiwvai
T<3 Sarava there is combined a purpose of doing good to the Trvev/xa ;
and hence Iva is unquestionably in order that. In I C. vii. 29 tlie
words Iva /cai ol g;^f)i'Tes K.r.k. express the (Divine) purpose for which
b KULpos o-vi'ccrraA/xtvos icrrt. E. ii. 9 is to be similarly explained. In
E. iii. 10 ii'a yv(j)pL(rOy k.t.X. is probably grammatically dependent on
aTroKeKpvfjiiJLfvov, ver. 9 : see Meyer in loc. In E. iv. 14 iVa fxrjKiri
/C.T.A. expresses the negative purpose of that which has been spoken
of in ver. 1 1-1 3.
As to G. V. 17 (Usteri, Baumg.-Crusius) see Meyer in loc.^ In
1 C. xiv. 13, 6 AoAtuv yKiiiao-r/ Trposevxiadm, Iva oupfjLrjvevy means.
Let him. pray — not in order to display his x^iipLo-fxa tu)v yXuicraCjv, but
— with the intention, design, of interpreting (the prayer). 1 Jo. iii. 1 :
BeJwld I how great love the Father shewed us, (with the design) that
we might be called children of God. See Liicke in loc. ; JBiuiug.-
Crusius wavers. In" Rev. viii, 1 2 ii/a indicates the object contem-
plated in the TrXy'jTTea-Oai of the suti, etc. ; for TrXyp-TtaOat does not
denote, as many suppose, the darkening of the heavenly bodieg in
itself, but is the O. T. n2:r\, used of the oliended Deity : see Ewald
in loc. In Rev. ix. 20 Iva jxij expresses the design of the fxcTavoilv ;
" they did not amend, i?i order that they might no longer serve
the demons etc." The perception that they were serving mere
demons and wooden idols should have brought them to repentance,
in order that they might escape from so degrading a service. In
1 Th. V. 4 (SchoLt, Baumg.-Crusius) Iva denotes a purpose of God,:
' [" Ili^nceforth would they ask in his name and receive, and so theirs would
be a completed joy. "Iva indicates the objectiVe aim of ainTn xai Xn^-.irii.'"
Liicke i. c]
^ [Who lakes 'Iva as expressing the purpose of the "powers contending with
one another in the conflict." Similajiy EUicott.]
576 THE COXJUNCTIONS. [PART III.
see Liinemann in loc. So also in the formula IkqXvOiv rj u>pa 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 <r&/v ffx-Xiuof^ivuv rhv ftiTo-hny.]
' On Mt. i. 22 Bengel says — in the dogmatic language of his age, hut on the
whole correctly : "ubicunque liiec locutio occurrit, gravitatem evangelistaruni
tucri debeinus et, ([uamvis hebeti visu nostro, credere ab illis notari eventum
SECT. 7 in.] THE CONJUNCTIONS. 577
this formula we must also refer Mk. iv. 12, jIU comes to them in
2Mirab!e:i, m order tJmf the i/. may see and yet not percewe, etc., — instead
of " in order that the declaration, I'hey tvlU see and yet not per-
ceive (Is. vi 10), may be accomplished." We ourselves are accus-
tomea to interweave such quotations with our own language, when
we can presume that they are well known. Jesus cannot have
intended to assert a grmral impossibility of understanding such para-
bles (for then indeed it would have been strange that he should speak
in parables) ; but to every one who did not understand parables so
oloar applied the prophet's words, he sees and does not understand, and
ihtit there would be such men is just what had been j redicted.^
In the faulty language of the Apocalypse iva is apparently once
(Ilev. xiii. 13) used for wstc, ws, after an adjective which includes the
notion of intensity ; inagna, nuracula (i. e., tam magna) uf. This
would be at all events as admissible as the use of on after an inten-
sive word ; compare Ducas p. 34, 28, p. 182, Theophan. Cont. p.
663, Cedren. II. 47, Canan. p. 465, Theod. H. E. 2. 6, p. «47 (ed.
Hal.), and my Erlang. Pfingstp'ogr. 1830, p. 11. See however p.
424 sq. The case is different in 1 Jo. i. 9 (a passage which even De
Wette and Schott misinterpret) : He is faithful and just in order to
forgive vs (for the purpose of forgiving). Compare our own expres-
sion, he is a sagadons man to perceive . . . : to say he is a sagacious
man, so that he perceives, wuuld in the main give the same sense, but
the conception would be somewhat different. Of a similar kind to
this are the passage.s which Tittmann quotes (Synon. II. 39) from
Marc. Anton. 11, 3, Justju M. p. 504. When Bengel says (on Rev.
/. c.) " a-o frequens Joanni particula ; in omnibus suislibris non nisi
seme], J<>. 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!i<riiv. So Meyer, Tisch. (ed.
8), but not Tregelle.5, Westcott and Hort, or De Wette, Ewald, lileek. "With
the other piuictuation this verse resemoles some of the examples quoted in
§ 44. 8, p. 425 sq. , the notion of desicjn being really piesent in y'iyf.a.'rTa.i.
Compare Bengel : "quia scn[>luia 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). eKTevw<i (the same.Lob.P^rj'n.p. 311),
aTTepi(T7rd(TT(o<i (the same, Lob. p. 415),eTot/x.&)9 (for which, at all
events in Attic Greek, i^ eTol/Mov was used), €vdvfi(o<; (from
Pulybius onwards), icr-)(arai<i (compare Lob. p. 389), €vapeaT(o<i
(Arrian, Epid. 1. 12. 21), /cevo)? xlrrian, Ujoict. 2. 17. 6. (et?
on Ir.Tou see above. — U^-ri is always tetjiporal, except, perhaps, in G. ii. 6,
iroToi -TOTi {qualescunqve, of what kind soever). In the compounds Ta-ran,
ovhi-TToT-, ft>t^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)<? and 7rd\vfjiepa)<;,p7}Tco^,
€6viic(o<i in the Biblical sense.^ Amongst the other adverbs
also there are some which belong to later Greek, and are cen-
sured by the grammarians : e. g., vTrepeKeiva (see Thorn. JM. p.
336), ovpavodev^ Traihiodev, fiaKp66ev (Lob. p. 93 sq.).
The expression of an adverbial notion by means of a neuter
adjective or participle,^ a usage which becomes more and more
common in later writers, does not in the N. T. overpass the
limits maintained in earlier prose. Compare irpcorov, vcnepov,
irpojepov and to Trporepav, TrXtjciov, rv^ov, eXarrov, ttoXv, ro vvv
e'xpv, A. xxiv. 2b, for the present (Vig. p. 9, compare Herm.
p. S88), TovvavTioVjXoiTTov and toXoittov (Herm. Vig.ip. 706),
ra'^v, TTVKvd, Xcra, fiaKpd, ttoWo, (both ofte7i and afpoSpa), and ra
TToWd (for the most part). For most of these no adverbial
forms exist. In general, the N. T. diction presents no peculiarity
in regard to the use of adjectives, with or without a preposition
(elliptically or not), in the place of adverbs : compare e.g. rod
XoLTTOv,^ Tre^T], Trdvrtj, Karafi6va<;, Kar Ihlav, IBia, KaOokov, el^i
Kevov, and see the lexicons s. vv. Instead of Kara ckovctiov Phil.
14 (Num. XV. 3) Greek writers more commonly use eKov(ri(o<i,
eKovaia,^ or ef €Kovaia<i. Of genuine Greek combinations,
such as irapay^prjixa, it is not necessary to speak. On the other
hand, the use of abstract substantives with prepositions in the
^ [These adverbs do not all fully answer to the description liy which they
are introduced. 'XKaifui occurs in Hat. TinKeus 33 a, Rep. 606 b ; avallus,
Plat. Hep. 388 d ; a.vifi.as, Thuc. 4. 92 ; a'roi-'ofA.ax, Dcni. 1402. 16, Isocr. Archid.
p. 126 b; lr«;>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<i, L. xxii. 59 (for a\7]6oi<i); iv
BtKatoavvT], A. xvii. 31 (for Si/caioj?). See above, § 51.
The phrase vf^epa kol r}fiepa, 2 C. iv. 16, would be alto-
gether without example for the N". T., if it were intended as
a periphrasis for the adverb daily, which is usually expressed in
the N. T., as elsewhere, by Kaff' rjij^epav or to Kaff rjfxepav : com-
pare Di"" nr} Probably however Paul used this expression
(dai/ hy day) designedly, 'in order to indicate the progressive
nature of i\\<^ dvaKaivoucrdai ; whereas Kad^ (eKao-rrjv) rj/Mepav
dvaKaivovrai might have been taken in a different sense. Ana-
logous to this (but in a local sense) are Mk. vi. 39, iirira^ev
avaKXlvat, irdvrai avfMTTocria avfivoaia, catervatim (com-
pare Ex. viii. 14), ver. 40^ dveTrecrov irpaaiai irpacriai, areolatim :
see § 37. 3. These are, strictly speaking, instances of apposi-
tion : compare L. ix. 14. The examples which Georgi has
collected {Vindie, p. 340) are of a different kind.
The use of the simple accusative of a noun (substantive) in an
adverbial sense is really the result of contraction in the structure of
the sentence (Harm. Fig. p. 883 ^). Under this head come, besides
the familiar example x'''P'-^> —
(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<nra(rTO)<i.
2. The adverbial notion is sometimes conceived concretely
as adjectival, and joined to a substantive (Matth. 446, Kiihner
II. 382), — not only in cases where a predicate really belongs
(logically) to the substantive and not to the verb (though in our
own language we use an adverb ^,^ but also where such direct
Handbuch on John (ed. 5 : 1863). Briickner sums up ihus : " The rule there-
fore is as follows. Tjjv afx^> 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 <w'o questions,
the first being twv apx^i^ ; (" The chief point do ye ask ? ") Other explanations
will be found in his elaborate note, see vol. II. 24-29 (Tran^l.): compare also
the notes of Tholuck and Alford, and btier. Words of tlie Lord Jesus, V. 337 sqq.
(Transl.).]
' As m Jo. iv. 18, rouro aknffti u'pvcas, this hast thou said as (something) true,
hoc verum dixisti : rovro akn^^i upv*-a.s (which, according to Kiihn'ol, would have
been the correct expression here) is ambiguous. Compare Xen, Vectig. 1. 2, «V*f
li yvua67,, on uknfii touto kiyu' Demosth. Halon, 34 b, roura yi akrjtf k'ty»v<nt.
SECT. LIV.] THE ADVERBS. 583
reference of the predicate to the substantive seemed to give
clearness to the sentence/ A. xiv. 10, avda-Tijdt iirl Tov<i ttoSo?
<Tou opdos; Mk. iv. 28, avTo/MaTtj rj <yrj KapTro<f)opei, A. xii,
10 (Iliad 5. 749); Eom. x. 19, TrpcoToi; Ma)varj<; X€7£t (as
the first), 1 Tim. ii. 13, Jo. xx. 4, al. ;^ L. xxi. 34, pLrj-nore ivriaTjj
€cl> v/j,d<; al<fiVi8i,o<i r) r}p,epa €Keivt] (v. I. ali^vihlw^) ; A. xxviii.
13, Bevrepaloc rj\6op,ev el<; UoTiokov; ; 1 C. ix. 17, el ^ap
eKOiv rovTO npaacrco . ... el Be ukohv k.tX. Compare also
L. V. 21, 1 C. ix. 6, al.^
These particular adjectives are frequently, indeed almost
regularly, so used in Greek authors. For a uto/jcitd?, see Her.
2. 66, Lucian, Necyom. 1, Xen. An. 5. 7. 3, 4. 3. 8, Cyr. 1. 4.
13, Hell. 5. 1. 14, Dion. H. I. 139, Wetst. L 569 ; for -rrpCiro^,
Xen. An. 2. 3. 19, Cyr. -1. 4. 2, Paus. 6. 4. 2, Charit. 2. 2 ; for
Zevrepalo^, Her. 6. 106, Xen. Cijr. 5. 2. 2, Arrian, Al. 5. 22. 4,
Wetst. II. 654; for alcfivihiof, Thuc. 6. 49, 8. 28,— " mhitus
irrapit," Tac. Hist. 3. 47. In the case of other adjectives, how-
ever, this usage is not uncommon. See Xen. Cyr. 5. 3. 55,
avTO^ irapekavvoiv Tov Xtcttov .... ^cru^o? KareOearo /c.t.X, ;
6. 1. 45, ei/ Qlh\ ort aa/ji€vo<; av trpo^ apBpa .... aTraWa-
'yrjaeraf Demostli. Zenotli. 5 76 b, 2 Mace. x. 33, Pflugk, Eurip.
Hel. p. 48 (contrast A. xxi. 17); Xen. Cyr. 7. 5. 49 v. l, el
ravra TTpoOvixo^ croc crvWd^oL/Mi ; 4. 2. 11, ede\ov<TiOL
i^i6yre<;\ Dio Chr. 40. 495, ttvkvoI /SaSi^ovre^ ; Isocr. Up.
' Compare especially Bremi, Exc. 2. cut Lys. p. 449 sq., Melilhom, De ad'
jectivoruia pro adverbio poi<'Ucrunt ratioiic el usu (Glogav. 1828) : see also Vech-
ner, Hellenol. 215 sqq., Zumpt, Lat. Gr. § 682, 686, Kritz, Sail. I. 125, II. 131,
216. This usage is more prevalent in Latin than in Greek. Eichhorn mis-
applies tlie rule when he maintains {Einleitung ins N. T. II. 261) that in Jo.
xiii. I ' \yToXri\i xxivh* i'l'auifii may rnean, / ivill give you the covmaandnifnt aiif.w
{xaivaiij . 'u tliis case John must at all events have written (ravrri*) rriv IvraXrv
x.atvTiy J/Sfc, In Jo. V. 44, the order of the words is by itself sufficient
to show that ivov is not advcihial, see I.iicke in loc. : [see also above, p. Ittb,
note-.]
- The ordinal adjecti\es cannot take tlio place of ordinal adverbs unless the
Jirst, second, etc., are used of the j-ierson—i.e., unless the words indicate some-
thing which this person did before all other persons (was the lirst to do).
When a Jirst action is ascribed to a person, in contradistinction to other sub-
sequent actions of the same person, the adverb only must be used. Compare
also Kritz, Sallust II. 174. [Hence, if (with Tisch., Meyer, al.) we read TfuTOi
in Jo. i. 41 (42), the meaning must be, either that Andrew was the first to tind
Simon, whom both disciples had sought for (Bengel, Liicke, al. ), or that each
disciple had sought fm ovm brother, and that Audrew was the first to succeed in
his quest (Meyer).]
3 [See also Mk. xii. 22 Rec. {;i(rx.»rcs), Mt. xiv. 13 Tisch. (xe^^f ), and EUicott's
note on Col. ii. 3 {a^oKpu(pti).'\
584 THE ADVERBS. [PART III.
8, TeXevTcov {at last) vTreaxofii]}'. Compare Palairet 214,
Valcken. on Her. 8. 130, Ellendt, Arr. Al. I. 15G, Krilg. p. 240
sq. (Don. p. 458 sqq., Jelf 714).
How far it is correct to teach that adjectives stand for adverbs, will
be obvious from what has been said. But it is also a mistake to sup-
pose that adverbs are used in the place of adjectives (Ast, Plat. Pohf.
p. 271 ^) : e. g., in Mt. i. 18, ?/ ycrecrt? ovtw<; ^v xix. 10, et ovrois
icrrlv rj airta tov avdpu)irov (Rom. iv. 18, from the LXX), 1 P. ii. 15 ;
1 Th. ii. 10, u)S ocr/ojs KOL StKai'oJS Kai d/i.6/x7rTa)s vfxiv iy€VT]dr]fj.ev ver. 13 j
Pom. ix. 20, Tt fxe eVoiTyo-as ovTois. In the passages first quoted eaat
is not the mere copula (as in av-rrj or tolovto ian), but expresses
existence, state, or nature {comparatum esse)J^ In Rom. ix. 20 ovrw?
expresses the mode of ttouIv, the consequence of whicL is that he is
this particular person.'^ So also in 1 C. vii. 7, ck. -to9 tStov e^ci
X(ipi(rfj.a, OS /i.€v ovT(ji^, os Se ovTU)<i, the adverbs are quite in
place : Each has his oian (special) gift of grace, one in this manner, the
other in that. (Don. p. 454 sq., Jelf 375.)
Certain adverbs approach more nearly to adjectives : —
(a) Some adverbs of place, as eyyvs cti'ai, ;(wpt? rtios ctvai (E. ii.
12), TToppcj etvai (L. xiv. 32) : Kriig. p. 275.
(b) Those adverbs of degree which are joined to substantives
(wv being understood) ; as paXa o-rpa-nTyos , X.en. Hell. 6. 2. 39. See
Bemh. p. 338 (Jelf 456). These adverbs are usually placed before
the noun, but sometimes follow it. 1 C. xii. 31 is thus understood
even by early expositors : Koi Itl KaG" virepjBoXr^v 6S6v vplv
8eLKw/Mi, a surpassing way. The adverbial adjunct follows the noun
in 1 C. viii. 7, Trj crvvi.i8rjcreL e(D<; apri Tor dSwXov' Ph. i. 26, 2 P. ii. 23 ;^
probably also in 2 C. xi. 23, see Meyer in loc.
3. The adverbial notion of intenseness is not unfrequently
expressed by joining to the verb a participle of the same verb
(see § 45. 8), or the dative (ablative) of a cognate noun. Thus :
L. xxii. 15, i'mOvfjiia eTreOvfirjaa, I have earnestly desired ; Jo. iii.
2 9, %apa ')(aLpei,impcnse la;tatvr; A.iv. 1 TjavretX^ aTreikijacofjieOa,
Id lUi positively forbid- ; A. v. 28, 7rapayy^\ia TrapTjyyelXafiev
vfuv; A xxiii. 14, avaOifiari aveOefiariaa/Mev, we have most
solemnhj vowed, Ja. v, 17; and from the LXX, Mt. xiii. 14
' His article in the Landsltuter Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaji iind Kunst,
III. ii. 133 sqq., I have not been able to examine.
^ In Jo. vi. 55 tliere is a ditference of reading. Recent editors prefer
ixr.irii : see Liickc, who however well refutes the opinion that ii.rju; is synony-
mous with ikn^ii.
* Compare Brcmi, .,'Esch. Ctesiph. p. 278, Bernh. p. 337 sq. , Herm. Soph. Ant.
633, W.^x, Ardig. I. 20C, Mehlhorn in the .4%. Lit.-Zeit. 1833 (Ergzbl. No. 108),
Lob. Paral. p. 151. As to Latin, see Kritz, Sail. Cat. p. 306 sq.
* [Obviously a mistake,— perh-.uis for 2 P. ii. 3, in which verse De Wette joins
sKvra/.ai with ra x-p./jua.. Another example is G. i. 13. J
SECT. LIV.] THE ADVERBS. 585
(Is. vi. 9), Mt. XV. 4, OavuTfo TeXevrdroy (Ex. xxi. 15). The latter
mode of expression is of frequent occnrrenee in the LXX and
Apocrypha, and is there an iruitation of the Hebrew absolute
infinitive: compare Is. xxx. 19, Ixvi. 10, Dt. vii. 26, Ex. xxi.
20, Jos. xxiv. 10, 1 S. xii. 25, xiv. 39, Ecclus. xlviii. 11, Judith
vi. 4 (Vorst, ITehr. p. 624 sq.). It is however occasionally
found in Greek authors:^ e.g., Plat. Symj). 195 b, ^eirywv
^iryfi TO 'yripa<i? Phceclr. 265 d, ifiol (palvejai ra fiev aXXa
TraiBia tt err at a Oar Photius, cod. 80. 113, a-7rov8fj
(TTTovSa^eiv Soph. (Ed. JR. 65, vrrvw evhovra' 2E\.. 8. 15, vlkt^
ivUrjcye.
Of a different nature are those passages in which the dative of the
noun is accompanied by an adjective (or other adjunct), as in rai?
/xeyLcrTai<i ti/mol^ iTi/xrjaav, tpqfxiovToi ry vofJ.L^Ofj.ivrj l,r)/xLa (SchwaiZ,
Cornm. p. 49) : this coincides with the idiom illustrated in § 32. 2.
Compare Xen. An. 4. 5. 33, Plut. Ccniol. 3, Aristoph. Plut. 592,
^schyl. From. 392, Horn. Hymn, in Merc. 572 : from the N. T. see
1 P. i 8, ayaXXiaarOe. x°^P^ aviKXaXrjTcd k.t.X. Nor has Demosth.
B<xot. 1. G39 a, yd/xw. yeyixfirjKU)^, any connexion with this con-
struction ; tlie phrase rheans having es/mised by marriage, i.e., living in
lawful wedlock, — for yafx-elaOaL by itself is also used of concubinage.
I should even except Xen. yln. 4. 6. 25, ol TreArao-Tat Spofjuo lOeov,
as 8p6fjLo<; denotes a particiilar kind of running, — racing, trotting. On
Soph. CEd. Col: 1625 (1G21) see Henn. in locJ
4. Certain adverbial notions the Greeks had become accus-
tomed to conceive as vcrhal. In such cases the principal verb
of the sentence is that which represents the adverb, the verb to
be qualified being placed in dependence on this, in the form of
an infinitive or a participle; see Matth, 552 sqq.,and compare
Kritz, Sallust I. 89 (Don. p. 580, Jelf 693). Thus : H. xiii. 2,
eXaOov ripei ^evlaavre^, they were not apparent (to them-
selves) as entertaining, they entertained unconsciously; see
Wetstein in loc, and compare Josephus, Bell. Jud. 3. 7. 3, Tob.
xii. 13.* A. xii. 16, iTrifieve Kpovcov, he knocked persistently
^ Schfef. Soph. II. 313, Ast, Plat. Sjnn. 586, Lob. Paral. p. 524.
^ Lobeck I. c. shows that this phrase was used by Greek writers only in a
figurative and not in a physical .sense, as in Jer. (x.xvi.) .xlvi. 5. — An analogous
constniction in Latin is the well-known occidio?ie occidere.
^ [Hermann joins (fofiiu with trri'urxi, not with lilffocvTo,;.']
* We find however instances of the other construction, which answers to our
own usage: as iEl. 1. 7, ourei, aVav auTeli; XadvTii ieiKva.fjt.^u ^iyaxri.
The infinitive instead of the participle follows Xavdmi in Leo, Chronwjr.
p. 19.
586 THE ADVERBS. [PART HI.
(Jo. viii. 7): compare Losner, Ohs. 203. Mk. xiv. 8, Trpoc-
Xa/3e fivpiaaiy antevertit itngere, she anointed heforehand (see
Kypke in loc): (j^Odvoy also is sometimes joined with the infini-
tive/ — compare rapere occupat in Hor. Od. 2. 12. 28. Mt. vi.
5, (f)c\Qvcri Trpo^iev^ecrOac, thej/ gladly pray, they love to pray (com-
pare JFA. 14. 37, <pi\(o ra ayaXfiara . . . opav); see Wetsteiu
and Fritzsche in loc. On L. xxiii. 12 see Bornemann.^
Whether OeXcoJ' as a finite verb (for that the participle has this
adverbial sense is well known, — compare Meyer on Col. ii. 1 8),*
is ever used to express the adverbial notion gladly, willingly,
voluntarily {sponte),hiis recently been questioned. And indeed in
Jo. viii. 44, T«9 iiriOv/xlai; rov Trarpo<i vfjL&v OeXere ttolclv must
be rendered, (,he lusts of your father it is your ivill, ye are resolved
and inclined, to do (carry into effect), — either in a general sense
(your hearts impel you to follow the desires of Satan), or with
the meaning in " seeking to kill me " (ver. 40). The plural,
in which T)e Wette finds a ditficulty, has already been explained
by Llicke.* So also in Jo. vi. 21 the explanation given by
Kiihnol and others is unnecessary ; unless we are attempting,
with nothing before us to authorise such an attempt, to har-
monise the narrative of this evangelist with that given by
Matthew and Mark. At the same time we must admit so much
as this, that rj6e\oi> 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,<f)€p€c .... Kal avfiTroveiv Koi (pepetv ra^
av/j.(f)opd<i Kal /xeveiv iOeXovaip ol avdpanroL ; or they do it
of their oum accord, as in Xen. Hier. 7. 9, otuv apOpcowot, avBpa
7)'y7)adfjt,€Voi . . . 'iKavov . . . CTe^aywcrt . . . KaX Bcopelxrdat
ideXacrc.^ Compa e further Stallb. Plat. Symp. p. 56, and
Gorg. p. 36, Ast, Plat. Legg. p. 28. Accordingly, in Mk. xii.
38, L. XX. 46, Twy OeXovrwv TrepcTrarelv tv aroXal^, v:ho are
disposed to walk about — i. e., who love to walk about, is not in-
correct Greek (tliough a Greek author would have preferred to
say ribv (ficXovvToiv TrepiTraTeip); but this phrase should perhaps
be directly referred to the Hebraistic OeXeiv tl delectari re, as
indeed in Mk. .1. c. the accusative do-7raa/j.ov<i is immediately
added as the object of deXetv.
5. This transformation of an adverbial into a verbal notion
is carried still farther in Hebrew.^ In this language we not
only iind the verb which represents the adverb joined in gram-
matical construction with the verb proper (an arrangement which
clearly shows that the two are essentially connected), — as in
n'bKO eip*l, i. e., lie sent again, — but also the two verbs in a finite
form connected by and, as, he does niuch and weeps {Ewald p.
631),* The latter mode of expression (a kind of ev Scd Bvciv
^ Here \Jo. vi. 21), according to the account given iu this Gospel, there seeuis
to have beeji the will only. [On the other side, see Westcott and Alfoid in ioc,
Trench, Miracles ip. 304, Luthardt, Das. Joh.-Ev. I. 489 (ed. %).]
2 Compare also Origan, c. Marcion. p. 35 (Wetst.), to. iixaias h ra7; yfatpaTs
ilfr,ft'ti!t fioi/Xn ai'mus voiit, tlwu art disposcd to iinderstarul, — th<m purposely
undt-rstandest.
^ [Gesen. Or. p. 225 sq., Kalisch I. 310.]
* It 18 only in particular instances that the LXX render these Hebrew phrases
literally. See e.g. Jud. xiii. 10, iTd^wm n yunh xai Upafu- 1 S. xxv, 42, Ps.
cv. 18, Dan. x. 13, Hos. i. 6; and on the other hand, Gen. xxvi. 18, xxx. 31,
Job xix. 3, Ps. xxxii. 3. The formula no'l is sometimes rendered in the
LXX by a participle ; see Gen. xx3(viii. 5, ^poshira 'in 'inxiv vliv- xxv. 1,
rpaftfiivaf 'Afifcca.fi i^ccfit yuta,7xa,' Job xxix. 1, xxxvL 1. One example of this
588 THE ADVERBS. [PART IH.
in verbs) was retained in certain phrases in all periods of the
language ; but in Other cases it perceptibly passes into the former
construction, which thus becomes predominant. The former
idiom is imitated in L. xx. 11 sq., irpo^iedeTo 7re/i-\^at (contrast
Mk. xii. 4, Kol irdXcv diriareiXev) , A. xii. 3, 7rpo<ie6€ro avWa-
^€ip Kol nirpov, he further apyrehended Peter also, IMk. xiv. 2 5
v.l. In the LXX 7rpo<;Ti9ivav and the middle 'irpo<iTLdeaOai are
often thus used, e.g., Gen. iv. 2, xi, 6,^ Ex. x. 28, xiv. 13, Dt.
iii. 26, xviii. 16, Jos. vii. 12, al.; also with a passive infinitive,
Jud. xiiL 21. Of the former more simple construction also the
N. T. has been supposed to furnish examples:^ e. gi, Rom. x.
20, aTTOToXfia Koi \eyet, he speaJcs out freely ; L. vi. 48, ^a-Ka-^e
Kal i^dOvve, he dug deep (Schott); Col. ii. 5, '^(aipoov koL ^XcTrav,
seeing with delight (Bengel and Schott). But in many of the
passages which have been brought in here this mode of explana^-
tion is altogether inadmissible ; as in 2 C. ix. 9, eo-Kopincrev,
eB(OKe rot<i irevrjcnv, which must be rendered, he dispersed ahroad.
he gave to the poor (Ps. cxi. 9). In others it is not required ;
e. g., L. vi. 48, he dug and deepened (" crescit oratio," Beza).
Jo. viii. 59, iKpv/St] koI e^rjXOev €k rov lepov (Baumg.-Crusius),
means he concealed himself and went aioaij ; i.e., either he with-
drew from their sight — made himself invisible (in which case
a miraculous a^aj^tcr/Ao? of Christ is here recorded), or he con-
cealed himself and (soon after) went away (Llicke, Meyer). The
narrator might very well from this point of view thus combine
together and connect by kuL two events which, though not
strictly simultaneous, followed each other in quick succession.
We ought perhaps, with Bengel, to give the preference to the
former explanation, as more in accordance with the character of
John's Gospel : if the words hiekOwv Bed fxeaov avrwv are
genuine, this view is certainly correct. The word dvaaTpi-^co in
A. XV. 16 is not found in the LXX version of Am. ix. 11, which
the apostle is quoting, nor is there any corresponding word in
kind is found in the N. T., in L. xi.x. 11. Comi)are further Tliiersch, De Pentat.
Alex. p. 177.
^ [This reference is incorrect. Perhaps we should read Ex. xi. 6, which is a
similar example (both in Hebrew and in Greek), except that the dependent
ijitinitive is understood, not expressed.]
- The examples which Kiihnol (on L. vi. 48) has addiiced as analogous, col-
lected out of Xenophon, Plautus, and Persius, every one who has learnt to make
distinctions in language will perceive to be of a difi'ereut kind.
SKCT. LIV,] -THE ADVERBS. 589
the Hebrew text. The sense intended by the apostle probably
is, / will turn again to him. In many 0. T. pa,ssages 2V^ must
thus be taken independently; see e. g. Jer. xii. 15, 31K'X
D'nrpn")"!, / will turn hack — to, them, in antithesis to Jehovah's
turning away from them, — and liave compassion on them : in the
LXX, dvaarpeiijro} koI iXeijcreo avTov<i. In A. xv. 1 6 the iterivm
is already contained in the compounds a^oiKoBajju^ao), avopOuxro).
Similarly in Mt. xviii. 3, iav fir) (rrpa^rjre koI ykvriade k.t.X.,
and A. vii. 42, earpeyjrev 6 0eo<? xal irapehtOKe, the verb
(Trpe(f>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><i wKeavov). Also with names of persons, as far as,
see L. iv. 42, A. ix. 38, Lam, iii. 39. Xoypk in Jo. xv. 5 means
seimrated from {/mt) fievovT€'i iv ep^oi, ver. 4), compare Xen. Cyr.
6. 1, 7, Polyb, 3, 103. 8 ; then very frequently without, besides.
Il\r]ariov in Jo. iv. 5 takes a genitive, as in the LXX ; compare
Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 6, ^schin. Dial. 3. 3 : in Greek authors it
also takes a dative. UapairXijaLov, on the other hand, is fol-
lowed by a dative in Ph. ii. 27, with very slight variation in the
^ Gebser gains nothing by refening to Ja. i. 11 and iii. 14 in support of this
explanation. In the formev passage, bvsts/Xev o Hxm; . . . *«! ilrfntf eipreaspo
the rapid scorching of the herbage more strikingly than avaniXaf i^ffKu^i : com-
pare veni vidi vici, not venieius vidi, or vcJii vidensque lici. The ri&iiig and the
scorching are spoken of as one ; not, v^hen it has rL&n it is wont to scorch" It
is by the use of finite verbs to express the several moments of tho.iglit <MAt the
rapid succession is more vividly portrayed. The second passage, Ja. iii. 14, fi»
tiaritiiecv^afffi kx) ■^iuiieh Kara. 7r.s ixnhias, I render (and WiesingRr now agioes
with me), do not boast and Ik against the truth : Kara. rHi aXnhixi properly
belongs to Ka.rax.a.u;)^a.irf!ri (Roni. xi. 18). In order however to explain Kara.:'
xa,uxafh the apofitle introduces immediately after it a strongor expression. By
rs'.solving the words into fih KaTCKau^ufUvet ^ti^ivh xei-rx rhf aXnhias, we gain
nothing but the tautology Kttra rris a,\rihla.( ypiCltir^ai, whilst the KCtrd, in
xxraicavxairh is entirely lost.
^ [Rei>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 $aXdar<Tri<; rjv, /ac'itov is an adjective, — nams jam
media maris erat : see Krebs in loc. — The genera! usage of the N. T.
iTj regard to tlie combination of adverbs with the genitive will
appear very simple if compared with the far bolder constructions of
tJie same kind which are found in the Greek of all periods. See
Bernh. p. 157 sq.
Such combinations as ews aprt, cw? totc, ?ws orou, ?«? -rrpwit, cws
£^tu, ews Kara), etc., are indeed especially common iu later Greek prose
(from the LXX compare Icdsto-c Neh. ii. 16, ew? nVo? [Ex. xvi. 28],
eu)s ol Gen. xxvi. 13), but are in particular instances confirmed by
the authority of earlier writers. See Bernh. p. 196, Knig. p. 300
sq. (Jelf 614).
As to adverbs with the article in the place of nouns, see § 18. 3.
7. The adverbs of place are sometiraes interchanged in
good prose, originally in consequence of attraction; see Harm.
Vy:;. p. 790 ^ (Jelf 646). The chief instance of this interchange
(wliich is not confined to relative clauses, § 23. 2) is the com-
bination of adverbs of rest with verbs denoting motion, where
the writer intends at the same time to express the idea of con-
tinuance iu the place (Herm. /, c, Bernh. p. 350, — see also § 50.
4, on eV) : compare Mt. ii. 22, e^o^iiOt] eKel aireXdeiv xvii. 20,
xxviii. 1 G. In later Greek, however, eVf? i?, used as a direct equi-
' [The following adverbs, besides those rneationed in the text, are found with
a genitive in the X. T. : inp, avTiKfus, a.vri'rifa, tKrit, Uris, itavTiov, tvixa, ?|a)^£y,
'r-vavu, £Wf«5iv«, /Aira.'^u, -ripav, TXf.v, I'xoko.tu, -/^auit, — a^fhafri, vr'-pavu, — a-a^s-
x-TOi, ivccvn, sv^ix/i'v, KariftuTioy, xaTtvavri. i/Tj^f x^rs^.a'Csi/. The last five '^Ol'ds ap-
pear to be conSiied to the language of the LXX, Apoerj'pba, .ind N. T. (though
the adjective Ivm^io; is of earlier date) : ^apiKri; belongs to very late Greek :
a-TiyKVTi and u'Tipa.va) arc found in writers of the »!1(vj?.]
* PIttrm. Soph. Antig. 517, Wex, Anf.i(j. I. 107, Weber, Demo'^th. p. 4i6,
Kriiger, Grammatische Untermchunrjen, III. 306 sqq.
592 THE ADVERBS. [PART III.
valent for iKetae, ttov and oirov stand for Trot and ottol, ov for
whither. They are thus used in the LXX and even in the N. T.,
where e.g. ottoc does not once occur. See Jo. xviii. 3, o 'IovBa<i
. . . ep^erav Ik el fiera (f>ava)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 rov<i eKtlae
6vra<i ; * see Wetstein on A. xxii. 6, ar.fl compare especially ol
e/cetae ot/ceoyre?, Hippocr. Viet. San. 2. 2. p. 35, and the index to
Agathias, to Menander, and to Malalas, in the Bonn edition.
On the other hand, A. xiv. 26, odev rjo-au irapaBeBo/jiepoi rf/ ^a-
pcTi, is — as was seen by Luther — altogether according to rule
(compare Meyer in loc.) ; and Hemsterhuis's emendation fjea-av is
in any case inadmissible. In A. xxi. 3 eKelae retains its proper
meaning, as does ovov in L. xii. 17. The adverbs e^cadev,
eaoodev, Kara), as is well known, represent in prose usage both
relations, from without and without, motion and rest beneath,
etc. That the usage of the later prose writers keeps pace with
' In Her. 1. 121 tX^a-v exs? plainly signifies being arrived there (compare the
preceding words Ui x'^'f"^* 'f niptrxt) ; and tpp^iria.! might, if necessarj', be
thus rendered in ,To. xviii. 3. In H. vi. 20, eVow ■TrfHtfu/jni; usTiXh. may mean
■ichere . . . entered [as distinguished from whither . . . entered] : see Bohme,
whom Bleek has not understood.
^ [If the reference to Kriiger includes all these words, there is some change in
the later edition (4th : 1862) : in this Kriiger mentions neither ivrxuh? nor
uh. On ivTccbffoi see Shilleto, Dem. F. L. p. 183 ; on a'Si, Liddell and Scott s. v.,
Hayman, Odyss. Vol. I. Append, p. 24. See Jelf 605. Obs. 5.]
^ Several passages indeed which are really of a different, nature have been
referred to this head, e. g., Mt. xxvi. 36, L. xii. 17, 18 : here iku and oZ [<rai/?]
certainly mean there, where. Not so in L. x. 1, where Holemann"s rendering
ubi iter facere in animo erat is incorrect, since ipxit^ti does not mean iter
facere. Compare Herm. Soph. Antig. p. 106.
" [Unless Meyer's view he preferred, — that this example belongs to the cla;->s
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
^<rav ol fuidrjTai, the doors there (the doors of the chamber),
where; Mk. ii. 4, Compare Mt. ii. 9 (Kriig. p. 302).
Section LV.
THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
1. The Greek language has, as is well known, two series
of negative words, viz., ov, ovre, ovKeri (oySe/<?), k.t.X., and
fi^, firjre, /j,r)K€Ti, (firjBeis:), k.t.X. The distinction between the
two series has been most completely developed by Hermann
{Viff. p. 804 sqq.) : compare Matth. 608 sq., Madvig 200 sqq.
(Don. p. 552 sqq., Jelf 738 sqq.). Ov stands where something
is to be directly denied (as matter of fact) ; fi^, where something
is to be denied as mere matter of thought (in conception and
conditionally) : the former, is the objective, the latter the sulrfec-
tive negative.^ Tbat this distinction is substantially observed in
1 Compare further Buttm. Philoct. p. 107, Rtallb. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 95 sqq.,
Schoem. Plut. Cteom. p. 186, Hartung, Casus p. 85 sqq. ; also Kypke and Eisner
on Mt. ii. 22. — We must not, it is true, overlook the fact that such forms as -rev,
Ta7, and IxtT, ixuri, might easily be interchanged by the transcribers, and indeed
are often confounded in the MSS. of Greek authors (Schasf. Eurip. IJec. 1062).
In the N. T., however, the variations of this kind which have been noted are
extremely few. It is also very unusual to meet with corrections (such as ixu
in A. xxii. 6) : the readers were already too much accustomed to this use of the
adverbs to take offence at it. It may be added that the early (Homeric) Greek
agrees with later prose usage in the interchange of local adverbs, whilst in Attic
prose the forms are kept more di.stinct.
• Compare further L. Richter, Be usu et discnmine partkularum al et f.yi
(Crossen, 1831-34, 3 Commentt.) ; F. Franke, De particutis mfjantlbu.t Ungutf.
Or. (Rintel. 1832-33, 2 Commentt.), reviewed by Benfey iniS^. Jahrb.f. Philol.
XII. 147 sqq. ; Baumlein in the ifei^scAr./. Alter thvmsvns.'i. 1847, No. 97-99, [and
his Untersuchungen iiber griech. Pa rtikeln (Stuttgart, 1861), p. 256-315.] See
also the observations (relating directly to particular usages of the two negatives,
but also very instructive in regard to their general character) which are found
in Herm. Soph. (Ed. R. 568, Aj. 76, Philoct. 706, Eurip. Androm. 379, Elmsley,
Eurip. Med. p. 155 (Lips.), Schsf. Demosth. I. 225, 465, 587, 591, II. i!66, 327,
481, 492, 568, II L 288, 299, IV. 258, V. 730, Stallb. Piat. Phml. p. 43, 144.—
Hermann's theory has been controverted by Hartung [Lehrevonden yrierh. Par-
tikeln, II. 73 sqq.), who takes Thiersch's principles as his basis ; and he has bedn
38
.594 THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART III.
the N. T.' will become evident if, before proceeding further,
we notice —
a. Certain passages in which both forms of negation occur
together.
Jo. iii. 18, o irtazevwv eh avrov ov KpLverat, 6 Be {jltj Trcarevoiv
tjBt) KeKpiTut,, on fxr) TreTTLarevKev k.t.X. (compare Herm. l^^ig.
p. 805). Here Kplvea-Qai is denied as a matter of fact by ov\
i. e., it is declared that a judgment does not in fact exist. The
second Tncrrevoiv is by means of imtj negatived in conception
merely, for 6 yu?; irtaTevwv means whoever does 7iot believe, if any
one does not believe ; 6 ov Tricrrevcov would indicate some par-
ticular man who does not believe. Hence also we have on fxt)
followed by Rost {Gramm. p. 743). In the main, however, Hartung ultimately
agrees with Heimann, and the doubt through which he was led to the views
which he has adopted has been resolved by Klotz {Devar. II. 666). G. F.
Gayler's treatise, Farticularum Grceci sermonis negantium accurata disputatio
(Tubing. 1836), is an industrious collection of examples, but lacks clearness of
judgment. — On the distinction between hon and iiaud in Latin, see Franke I.
7 sq., the Review in Hall. L.Z. 1834, No. 145, and Hand, Tursell. III. 16 sqq.
(who explains ol as the qualitative, firi as the modal negative). The comparison
between the Hebrew ^x and /""' (Ewald p. 530) is less capable of being carried
through : it is precisely in the nicer usages of ^« that the Hebrew particle
ceases to correspond with it. [The above reference to (an older edition of)
Rost's Or. is left as it stands in Winer's text : in his 7th edition Host sub-
stantially agrees with Hermann. — Thiersch's words, as quoted by Hartung (p.
105), are as follows : ' V'' denies not independently and directly, but in relation
to something else, — as when a case is supposed, a condition or design stated', or
when a wish, will, command, or a fear, apprehension, or care is expressed."
Hartung lays great stress on such examples as Horn. 11. 15. 41 (10. 330, Aristoph.
Av. 194, al. ), where /^r, is used in an oath, though the sentence is grammatically
independent : see Kiihner II. 743 (ed. 2), Biiumlein p. 286 (Jelf 741. e).]
1 The almost invariable observance by the N. T. writers of this (in itself nice)
distinction is due, not to their theoretical acquaintance with it, but to the in-
stinct acquired through much intercourse with those who spoke Greek. In
exactly the same manner we learn the (sometimes conventional) distinctions
e.g. of the synonyms of our own language. In particular instances, however,* a
foreigner might well go wrong ; as indeed even Plutarch (seq Schsef. Demosth.
III. 289, PlutarchY. 6, 142, 475), Lucian (Schtef. Demosth. I. 529, Schoemann,
Pint. Agis -^. 93, Fritzsche, Qucest. Lucian. p. 44), Pausanias (Franke I. 14),
iElian (Jacobs, .^1. Anim. p. 187) — compare Madvig 207. Rem., Matth. 608.
Rem. — are said to have sometimes confounded the two negatives. Compare
also Ellendt, Prcef. ad Arrian. I. 24 sq., on on //.n for oti ov. Yet I would not
affirm that in these passages grammatical acuteness could not occasionally dis-
cover the reason 'why ov or jui is used. We must indeed constantly bear in
mind that there is sometimes no stringent reason in favour of one or the other,
but either negative may be used with equal coiTectness, according to the mode
in which the writer conceives the matter (Herm. Viy. p. 806). [On the use of
the negatives in the N. T. see A. Buttm. Gr. p. 344-366, Green, Gr. p. 186-202,
Webster, Syntax, p. 138-144, Jelf 746. Obs. The first number o( the ATnerican
Journal of Philology contains an interesting paper (by the editor. Professor
Gildersleeve) on " The encroachments of ^>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> ■\^ev<jrrjv TreTroirjKev auTov, otl o v ireTTiarevKev
et? rrjv fiapTvpiav k.t.X. Here the apostle in the last clause
passes suddenly from mere conception (6 fjur) incneixav) to
actual fact ; the fit] Tri&revuv had already commenced, and
John now represents to himself an actual unbeliever.
Mk. xii. 14, e^ea-Tc Kqvcrov .... Sovvac rj o v ; Bw/mcv, 17 /i- ^
ZSifxev ; In the first instance inquiry is made as to the objective
basis of the payment of tribute ; in the second, a subjective
principle is expressed,— s7wmM lue give, etc. Compare Herm.
Vig. p. 806, and on Aristoph. Thesmoph. 19, Stallb. Plat. Rep,
II. 270.
E. v. 15, ^Xeirere ttw? uKpi^w TrepcTraTelre, fx,rj ui<i daocpoc
aW' o)? <TO(poi. Here firj o)<; daocpoi k.t.X. is a direct explana-
tion of 7r«iJ9, and, like it, is dependent on /SXeVere ; hence the
subjective negation.
2 C. X. 14, j) yap, 0)9 /x ^ i(f)L/cvov/j,€vot et9 vixd<i, virepeKTei-
vofiev kavTov<i : we do not overstretch ourselves (an objective
denial), as if we ha4 ii^t reached to you, — a mere conception,
in reality it is otherwise. With this contrast 1 C. ix. 26.
Rom. xi. 21, el yap 6 0€o<; rdv Kara <f>vaiv kTulScov ovk
i(f)€LaaTo, p,r]7roi<i ovBe aov cf)eur€rat : if ... . has not spared
(a statement of fact, — he has in reality not spared them), so (it
is to he feared) that he will not spare thee also. Here the apostle
might have expressed the sentence categorically, so will he not-
spare thee also ; ^ but he prefers to give it a milder turn by
means of /JbJjTrco'i, — lest possibly the ovSk aov (peLaerat be realised,
and every apprehension is subjective (Rev. ix. 4 ^). Compare
Plat. Phwd. 76 b, (f>o^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\<f)6v avrov dp,apTdvovTa
dfiapriav p, r) 7rp6<i Odvarov . . . irdcra dhiKla dp^apjta earl kuI
e<TTLv dp-apria o v 7rp6(; ddvarov. In the first instance, as sub-
' [jyiiirrw; is not fouiid in N, A, B, C ; and is now rejected "by most of the
editors. ^ — It will be observed that E. v. 15 does not contain both negatives. ]
2 1 A comparison of earlier editions seems to show that this passage is only
quoted here as another example of a verse containing both negatives.]
596 THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART Til.
jective observation is spoken of, p.r} is used, depending on ihv
iSt) ; in the latter ov, since a principle of objective validity is
stated, — a dogmatically real idea established.
John vi. 64, elalv i^ vfi&v rivi'i, ot o v -jria-Tevovaiv ijBei y^p
.... 6 ^Irjffov^, rlv€<i elaiv oi firj TnarevovTe'}. Here ot ov
tnarevovaiv declares a matter of fact ; ol firj TnaTevovre^i a con-
ception, — those, whoever tluy might be, who believed not (qui ess&nt,
qui non crederent). — Compare also^ Eora. v. 13, Jo, v. 23, xiv.
24, XV. 24, A. iv. 20, x. 14, xxv. 17 sq., 1 Jo. iv. 8, v. 12,
3 Jo. 10, 2 Th. iii. 10, G. iv. 8, 2 C. ii. 13, H. iv. 2, 15.^
b. But the same result which these passages give is also
obtained from those in which fi'q occurs alone : —
Mt. xxii. 25, /jbT} eycov oirepfia a<l)fJK€ Tr)v yvvatKa avrov toj
aSeX^. avrov. Here/i.^ e^av is said with reference to the law
which made this provision (idv rt? diroddvy firj ex'^v k.t.X.,
ver. 24) : not having , . . he left behind, as a. non-possessor in
the sense of the law he left, etc. ; ovk e;\;a)i/ would exhibit the
not-having as if narrating a pure matter of fact. In Mk. xii.
20 it stands in the narrative form, ovk d<f)rJKe tnripfjLa.
CoL i 23, eiyc iTrifievere rfi irCaTet, .... koI firj pueraKivov-
fievoi dtro rrj<i eX7r/8o9 : here the not being shaken (in a sentence
beginning with etye) is put as a conditio^, consequently as a
mere conception.
2 Th. i. 8, BiB6vT0<} eKBl/crjcrii/ rot? p, rj elBoai Oeov xal rot<i
fi T} vTruKovova-i rat €vayy€\{<p. Here the expression is general,
denoting suc/i as know not God, whoever they are, wherever
such are found (hence a conception). Compare ii. 12.
* fit will not be supposed that in all these examples of ft» a classical writer
wonld have chosen the subjective negation : this point is examined below.]
2 In the following passages from Greek authors to and fi» appear together
in the same sentence, the distinction between them being more or less clearly
marked: Sext. Emp, adv. Math. 1. S. 68, raura oux ofroXtyavfi-uov «►, axxk
xa^oif t^itrXiipovtrof neiitit xec] fttiKiTi fiirfiaii, AXXec ufinv \ififru/ii*eu rcii
i.'Topla.i' 2. 60, XlxTiav, us it ftniiv lorn ftiTopixjjt riXes, aiiiiv ivri friTOpiKti'
(2. 107); 2. 110; Hypotyp. 3. 1. 2; Lucian, Catapl. 15, iyu eln firtVi* 'ix^u*
Wi^vfo* i» vZ fiiaf, el* iyfit, o u ffvvuKiecv, e v xp*"''*t *■• f' ^- • Soph. Antig.
686, tur if iutai/iti*, ft^r Wtvraifttif Xiyin' Philoct. 1048; Demosth. Gal-
Ikl. 736 b, Pac. 23 a, Phorm. 604 a ; Xen. Cyr. 2. 4. 27 ; Aristot. Polit. 6. 6,
Rhet. 1. il, 31, 2. 2, 15 ; Lucian, Dial. Mort. 16. 2, Adv. indoct. 5 ; Strabo 8.
138, 15. 712 ; Himer. Oratt. 23. 18 ; Plutarch, Pompej. 23, Apophth. p. 183 sq. ;
iElian, Anim. 5. 28 ; Joseph. Antt. 16. 9. 8. Compare further Gayler p. 291.
From the Fathers, compare Origen, c. Marc. p. 26 (Wetst.) ; frotn the Apocry-
phal writers, Acta Apocr. p. 107. Particularljr noteworthy is Agath. 2. 23, ip'
oT<u a,* ffeifiari ft n ff&rTon xxravretTiv et efviif n oi xun; e^v n uutikx tmipoiTUfrti
^ixir^apci^aitr x.r.X,
SECT. LV.J THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 597
Rom. xiv. 21, koKov to firj (fyar/elv Kpia. The not eating is
presented as a conception, if any one eats not ; to ov <f>ayetv
would represent the not eating as something objective, possibly
an actually existing practice.
Rom. XV. 1, 6<f)€l\ofjLev Se ^fi€l<i .... /cat /xtj €avTol<? ape-
aKCLv : in verse 3, where a fact is narrated, KaX yap 6 XpiaTo^i
QVX ^o.vru> 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 <f)d<yot (where how-
ever some M3S. read ^0777), and 2 Tim. iv. 16. Similarly in
imperatival claucses, as Rom. xiv. 1, tov aadevovma ttj -rria-Tei
trpo^XapL^dvecrde, /mt) et? BiaKpCaeL^; SiaXoytafiMV (xii. 11), Ph.
ii. 12 — ^where some wrongly join fir) (u? iv ttj trapovcria k.tX.
with vTnjKouaare, in which case ov must certainly have been
used, not pq. . .
According to the distinction defined above, p.ri will as a rule
express the weaker (compare also Herm. Philoct. 706), and ov,
as categorical, the stronger negation. O-ica'^ionally, however,
p,ri is more forcible than nv (Herm. '^o^h.. Ant ig. 691^); for the
denial of the (very) conception of a thing expresses more than
the denial of its (empirical) actual existence. See below, no. 5.
In a similar manner, the Latin haud is sometimes the stronger,
sometimes the weaker negative ; see Franke I. 7, and compare
Wo-nd. Tursellimi8lll.20.
Where ov belongs to a single word (verb), the meaning of which
is directly opposite to that of some other word existing in the lan-
guage, the negative and verb coalesce to express this contrary idea:
e.g., ovK lav, to prevent (A. xvi. 7), ov Oek^Lv, vdle (1 C. x. l).^ See
Franke I. 9 sq., and compare below no. 6 [5 ]]. When ov combines
with nouns to express one idea, it annuls their meaning altogether.
See Rom. x. 19, Trapa^r^AoKraj u/ias f-rr ovk eUveL, about a no-nation ;
IX. 25, KaX.€<ro) TOV ov Xaov yxov Xaoi ,o.ov kol Ti]v ovk TjyaTrr]iJ.iviqv rjyain]-
fiivrjv' 1 P. ii. 10 : all these are quotations from the 0. T. Compare
Thuc. 1. 137, 17 ov Bid\vcri<s, the nof-bredking doivn (the bridge had not
been broken down), 5. 50, 17 ova c^ot-o-t'a Eurip. Hippol. 196, ovk
^ [On Hermann's view of this pussage see Jelf 746. Obs. See also Donaldti
Anttg. p. 190.]
^ [It nas often been supposed that oii yap txpita, 1 C. ii. 2, is an example of
this kind, (see e. g. Stanley in tec,], hai this may well be doubted: see Meyer anrl
Alford.]
598 THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART III.
d*o8€i^ts.^ As to the difference between this combination and that of
fLYj with the substantive (17 /a'^ StoAuo-is), see Franke I. c. I. 9 : many
examples of both are given by Gayler p. 16 sqq. (Don. p. 558, Jelf
738, 745).
The simple accentuated ov, no (Mt. v. 37, Ja. v. 12, 2 C. i. 17 sq.),
occurs in answer to a question only in Mt. xiii. 29 and Jo. i. 21 c^
for passages from Greek authors see Gayler p. 161. The fuller
expression ow cytuye would have been more in accordance with
usage.
2. We proceed to the consideration of the cases of most
frequent recurrence in which the negation is effected by jxtj.
Mrj is used
(a) In (wishes) commands, resolutions, and encouragements
— not merely in conjunction with the verb of the sentence, i.e.,
with the imperative or conjunctive employed, as in Mt. vii. 1, fty
Kptvere' G. v. 26, firj jiva)fie6a K€v6Bo^of 2 Th. iii. 10 (on this
see § 56. 1) : — but also with words which are considered as
integral parts of the command, etc., as in 1 P. v. 2, iroiiiavare
. , , fiT) dvay/caa-Tcl)<;- 1 P. i 13 sq., 1 Tim. v. 9, L. vi. 35, 1 0.
V. 8, Eom. xiii. 13, Ph. ii. 4, 12, H. x. 25, A. x. 20.
(b) In final sentences. With iva, Mt. vii. 1, xvi. 20, Horn. xi.
25, E. ii. 9, H. xii. 3, Mk. v. 43, 2 C. v. 15, vii. 9, E. iv. 14 ;
with OTTO)?, L. xvi. 26, 1 C. i. 29, Mt. vi. 18, A. viii. 24, xx. 16.
So also with particular words of the final sentence : Eom. viii.
4, E. ii. 12,^ Ph. i. 27 sq., iii. 9, 2 Th. ii. 12, H. xii. 27.
(£) In conditional sentences (Herm. Viff. p. 805). With et,
Jo. XV. 22, el fiT} rfKdov, d/xaprtav ovk €l')(ocrav' xviii. 30, et firi
r^v ovro<; KaKov iroicbv, ovk av croi TrapehdnKajxev' Mt. xxiv. 22,
A. xxvi. 32, Rom. vii. 7, Jo. ix. 33; with idv, Mt. v. 20, xii. 29,
Rom. X. 15, 2 Tim. ii. 5. Here the negative has not always re-
ference to the whole sentence, but is also found with particular
words which are conceived as conditional: see 1 Tim, v. 21, Tit.
i. 6, et Ti<? earrlv dveyKXrjTo^: . . , /jlt) iv Karijyopla daQ>Tia<i' ii. 8.
Ja. i. 4, 26.
In all these cases the necessity of the subjective negation is
^ See Monk in loc, Sturz, Jnd. ad Dion. Cass. p. 245, Fritz. Rom. II. 424.
* [It also occurs in Jo. xxi. 5, and Jo. vii. 12 is a similar instance : compare
»i yoif> 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-
\ovTd<i y ovBe aol <f)evy€tv koXov, si, qvMm te volunt recipere,
ne tibi quidem decorum est exsnlem esse; .^schin, Ej). 8, el he
ovBe <Tvv €Keiv(p BiiyvoiKa'; e^tevai k.t.X.; Sext. Empir. Math.
"7. 434, el ovB^ avTO rovro fjBet k.t.X. ; Xen. An. 7. 1. 29, .^sop
23. 2. See Bernh. p. 386, Franke, Demosth. p. 202, Gayl, p,
11.8, Herm, ^schyl II. 148 (Jelf 744).
b. Other passages, if more accurately examined, are in accord-
ance with the above canon. Of this kind are, not only 1 C.
xi. 6, €1 yap ov KaTaKaXvTrreraL yvvrj, koI Keipda-Ooa, if a woman
is unveiled, she shovld also he shorn, 2 Th. iii. 1 ; — but also
Jo. X. 37, el ov TTOiQ) TO, epya rov irarpo'; fiov, fir) TnareveTe
fiof el Se itolS), kolv eixol firj 'jria-TevTjre, Tot? epyot<i triarevcrare,
if I leave undone the works of my Father (and thus withhold
from you the proofs of my divine mission) etc., hut if I do them,
etc.; Jo. iii 12, Rom. viii. 9, Rev. xx. 15. Compare Lye.
Accus. Agoi\ 76, eav fiev ovv ^da-Krj ^pvvi'^ov dtroKre'lvai, tovtwp
fiefxvijade .... eav S" ov ^daKr}, epeade avrov k.t.X., hut if he
deny it; Sext. Emp. Math. 2. Ill, ei fiev Xij/xfiaTa Tiva eyei
. . . . el Be ovK e^ei k.t.X., hut if he is destitute of them,; 9.
1*7 6, el uev ovk e%€t, (f>avX6v 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<i veKpdv ovk
€<Tri, if resurrection of the dead is a nonentity : compare the
preceding words, ttw? Xeyovcri rtve? ort dvdaracri'i veKptov ovk
ear IV ; With verse 16 compare Philostr. Apoll. 4. 16, p. 154.
c. Where the sentence with el ov merely negatives the notion
expressed affirmatively by a corresponding sentence, though ov
does not coalesce with the tiegatived word to express one anti-
theticid idea. See 1 C. ix. 2, el dX\.ot<; ovk elfil inroaroXo^,
aXkd'ye vf.uv elfjui, si aliis non sum apostolus, vobis certe sum ;
also L. xi. 8 ; compare xviil 4. In antitheses of this kind also
el ov is used by later writers: e.g., Sext. Empir. Math. 11. 5,
64 fj^fv oTfaOov car IV, ev tmv rpiwv 'yevrjcerav, el he ovk kariv
d<-/a66v, >')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<i, — where the sense is not, " if however
they conceal it," but, " if however they do not say what is ser-
viceable." ^ Compare Jud. ix. 20, Judith v. 21, Demosth. Upp.
p. 125 a, BasiJie. II. 525, and Poppo, Xen. Anab. p. 358.
d. Where ov denies antithetically, as in the last case, but no
directly affirmative sentence is actuallv expressed. Examples
of tbis kind are Ja. iL 11, el ov fiotxevaec^ (referring to the
preceding fif/ fx,oi^evaTj<i),(f}ovevaei<i 8e, yeyova<; irapa^drri'i vofiov,
if thou dost not commit adultery, hut dost murder,^ i. 23, iii. 2 ;
1 C xvi. 22, ef Ti9 ov (f)iK€i tov Kvpcov, ijroj dvdOepu (where the
rendering if any otie hates tlu Lord would probably not repre-
sent the apostle's meaning) ; 2 Jo. 10, et rtf ep^erac tt/jo? vfid<i
Kal ravrr)v ttjv BiSa-^rjv ov (jiepef L. xiv, 26.
For the later prose WTiters, therefore (who use et ov — as
stronger and more emphatic than et fi^ — much more frequently
than the earlier writers, who employ it somewhat sparingly)
we may lay down tlie following rule : ^ Where an emphasis rests
on the negative of. a conditional sentence,* el ov is used (as si
1 Macar. Homil, 1. 10. Gunip.Tie also la* ai> 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)<i\ " If any one does not love the
Lord " (as he ought to do), " If I am not an apostle to others,"
" If thou art not the Christ " (Jo. i. 25, compare ver. 20). The
emphasis is occasioned by aa antithesis, either open (l.C. ix. 2)*
or concealed (1 C. xvi. 22). It lies however in the nature of the
case that here also ov negatives a pari only of the conditional
sentence, and not the conditional .sentence itself."^
"fisre (Kriig. p. 307), even when it merely expresses an actual
result, is in the N. T. always followed by /j'->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?<fZ prodessent. From the LXX may be quoted Ex. ix. 21, 05 ^ »j Tp^sitrx.'-
T'p Oiavola ti; to fri/ta xvflov, which is OppOScd tO a <po^avft,iyo( to prifix Kvpliv, ver. 20 :
here therefore the use of «j fit) is exactly like that of il S« firi in antithesis. For
an example of ov and /jlji after relatives in parallel clauses see Arrian, Epict. 2.
2. 4.
* [The negative is omitted by Ewald, Meyer, Tischendorf (ed. 8), Alford,
TregeUes : see Tregelles, Printed Text, p. 204, and Green, DeiK Crit. p. 154.
The negative is absent from the texts of Lightfoot and Westcott and Hort
604 THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART III.
as the sentence was conceived by the writer, tliis relative clause
has a subjective character, like fjuijBeU v(jid<i KaTa^pa^evera}
In many of the instances in which os is followed by ov it has been
supposed (Lipsius, Mod. p. 14) that fxrj would be more correct, since
the words appear to express a mere conception : e. g., Mt. xxiv. 2,
oi fxr) a<f>eOfj S)Se Xi6o<s ctti Xl6ov, o<i ov KaraXvOi^creTax. Here however
/xrj is not required, inasmuch as the words deny something as a matter
of fact. In some cases the conjunctive would have been used in
Latin, and therefore /xi^ might have been expected : Mt. x. 26, ovScV
ccTTi KCKoAu/i/LieVov, o ovK a7roKaXv<f>6-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)<f>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 avToi<! firj iireyvoiKevai' L. xvii. 1 '), or where an infinitive
under the government of a preposition would, if resolved, be-
come a finite verb with ov, as in Ja. iv. 2, ovk exere Btct to fir)
alrelaOaL vfia<i ( =r on ovk alrelaOe vfielf), L. viii. 6, A. xxviii. 18,
H. X. 2. In the former of these two cases, however, iTreyvcuKevai,
(2 P.,ii. 21) is still denied merely as a conception (in point of
fact they had known it); and in the latter the cause is not stated
obiectively, but is presented in the first instance as a conception
of the speaker. For examples from Greek authors in illustra-
tion of all these points, see Gayler p. 294 sqq. Compare Host
p. 757, Baumlein no. 99, p. 788 sq. (Don. p. 590 sq., Jelf 745).
The words which essentially belong to the infinitive clause are
in like manner negatived by iiri ; see e. g. 2 C. x. 2.
The cases in which ov is used, and may or must be used, in
the infinitive amstruction, are pointed out by Eost p. 754 sq.,
Kriiger p. 308 sq., Baumlein p. 778. In Jo. xxi. 25, iav ypd-
<f>r}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
<re ov BvvaaOat (pipeiv. In H. vii. 11, t/? ere %/3eia Kara rrjv
rd^iv MeX^icreSe/c erepov dviaraaOai lepea Kal ov Kara ttjv rd^iv
^AapcDv Xeyeadat, the negation does not belong to the infinitive,
but negatives the words Kara rrjv rd^iv ^Aapcav. We often find
ov thus joined with some particular word of a dependent sen-
tence : see Krug. p. 306 (Jelf 745. Ohs. Z)?
If after verha intelligendi or dicendi in the oratio recta, etc., that
which is asserted, observed, etc., is expressed by a clause with on,
the negative employed is ov: L. xiv. 24, Xfyw vplv, on oiScts tu>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€<i ^Iijaovv Xptcrrov k.t.X.: these
words do not mean many seducers, namely those men, who do not
confess {ol ov')(^ ofiQXoyovvre'i), but many seducers, all those who
do not confess, quicunque non profitentur.
1 [See Don. p. 554, Jelf 746. Clyde, Synt. p. 110, 113, Green, Gr. p. 201 sq.,
Webster, Synt. p. 114, 139, A. Buttm. p. 350 sqq. ; Ellicott on 1 Tim. vi. 4, 1 Th.
ii, 15, G. iv. 8, and in Aids to Faith p. 467. — It is very easy to confound two
different questions, — whether ^»j is in itself admissible, and whether a classical
writer would have preferred it to eu. After what Winer has said on the former
point, there will hardly be much doubt as to the abstract lawfulness of using /j.^,
at all events in most of the examples quoted : as to the latter, it is certain that
in many instances the participle would have been accompanied by alt in classical
Greek. — It will be useful to compare with the observations in the text A. Butt-
mann's classification of examples "o. The participle with the article is regularly
negatived by f*» : the exceptions are all cases of antithesis (Rom. ix. 25 al.),
unless Ta oi/x avinxoira be the true reading in E. v. 4. — b. The anarthrous par-
ticiple takes fi» when it represents a hypothetical sentence, When it expresses
actual matter of fact, and would be resolved by means of the relative, or by
whereas, since, lohilst, without, etc., the negative is sometimes ol, sometimes,
and more commonly (though the circumstances may be exactly similar), (An.
Wlien Bu is used, it is often in consequence of antithesis (2 C. iv, 8, al.), or be-
cause the negative affects some particular word rather than the clause itself. —
c. When the participle with uvai is a periphrasis for a finite verb, the negative
employed is ^j;, if it is the participle that is negatived (and not the copula — and
by consequence the whole sentence). — d. When the sentence to which the par-
ticiple belongs requires firi, the participle takes this negative, — sometimes even
v/here there is an antithesis." — In modern Greek the participle invariably takes
^^' : see Mullach, Vuly. p. 29, 389, Sophocles, Gr. p. 192. J
SECT. LV.] THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 607
(/9) When, though the reference is to particular persons, the
attribute ascribed to them by the participle is ascribed only
conditionally or in conception: L. xi. 24, orav .... i^eXOr} ....
hiep-^eTai hi dvvSpcov roirwv ^ijrovv avdiravcnv, koX fxrj evpiaKov
\e<yet, if he finds it not, in case he does not etc.; Rom. ii. 14 ;
G. vi. 9, 6epiao/x€v iir) ixXvofievoc L. xii. 47, €K€lvo<; 6 SoOXof
(ver. 45 sq.) o fir) irotfidaaii fiTjSe Tronjcraf tt^o? to OeXrj/jui 8a-
pi]a€TaL (tliis was put as one of two possible cases) ; 1 C. x. 33,
Trdvra irdcnv dpeaKto, firj ^rfTcov to ifiavTov <TVfi(f)€pov, I seek to
please all (a conception of the mind), as one who, — inasmuch
as I etc.; 1 C. ix. 21,2 C. vi. 3, Rom. xv. 23, 1 Th. iii. 1, 5 ; *
Jo. vii. 15, TTw? 0UT09 'ypdfj.fjLaTa olSe fx-q iiefiadriKco^ ) xohereas
he has not learned (whereas we know him to be one who has
not learned, — compare Vhilo'sXx. Apoll. 3. 22, o? koI ypd(f>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 Kvpio<i avTOv irpa-
Bfjvai, K.T.X., the first words certainly do express an actual fact
{since 1m luul not), but they are in tliis construction brought
into close connexion with eKeXevaev, — he commanded because the
man had not, because he knew that the man had not, etc. So
* Against Riickert see LiinemaTin in loc. ■ [Riickert asserts that fttixin is here
incorrectly used for oLxiTi : see Ellicott.]
[Probably for H. xi. 8, 13, 27 ; H. xi. 13 is mentioned in ed. 5.]
608 THE NEGATIVE PAKTICLES. [PART III.
also in A. xxi. 34, L. ii. 45, xxiv. 23, A. ix. 26, xiii. 28, xvii. 6,
xxvii. 7, 20, 1 P. iv. 4, 2 P. iii. 9 : compare Plut. Fompej. c.
23, Alex. 51, Polyb. 17. 7. 5, 5. 30. 5. As to Eom. ix. 11 see
FritzBche in loc} In A. xx. 29, olBa ore eUeXevcrovTat . . , \vkoi.
^ap€l<: eh vfx,d<;, fir) ^eiSofievot rov ttoi/jlviov, the whole belongs to
the region of conceptions, as is shown by the future tense. In
H. ix. 9 also the words firj Bwdfievai Kara avveihrjaiv reXeiwaai
k.tX. express the writer's own view: ov Bwdfievai would indi-
cate a property actually inherent {unable etc.), — but such sacri-
fices Israelites would not have' offered. 1 C. i. 28, e^eXe^aro
6 0€b<s Tcl, fir) ovra, iva ra ovra Karapyi]<rr) : here ra ovk ovra
would have signified (Herm. Vig. p. 889) tlie non-existent (as a
single negative notion), whilst to, fir) ovra is intended to signify
the things which, were looked upon as — which parsed as — things
which did not exist ; the writer negatives ovra as a conception,
and does not speak of that which in actual fact is nx)n-existcnt?
In 2 C. iv. 18 (even in the latter part of the verse, which is
categorical), contrasted with ra fiXerrofieva stands rci fir} /S\€-
ir6fieva,Tiot rci ov pkerrofieva (H. xi. 1). The latter would denot-e
that which in point of fact is not seen {ra dopard) ; id. jit) ,S\e-
rrofieva, in combination with fir) aKoirovvroDv r)fiS>v, 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 ««)<? in subjective
language : 1 C. iv. 7, ri Kai^daai to? fir) Xa^cov ; iv. 18, vii. 29,
1 [" Ou«rft» ysvyji^ivTiDv »iSs <rpala\iriuv x.T.X. foret ' quum nonfliuii nati essent
neque fecissent : ' ^nVa* yt*. fin'Si -rp. valet ' etiamsi nondum nati essent neque
fecissent,' i. q. f» r^ [i,rtTu yiwrifrivai avrovf fitihi ^pa^ai." Fritz. I. c]
^ In Xen. An. 4. 4. 15 fth ovra. and ahx ctra are united.
' Riickert's purely empirical and incorrect statement (in his note in loc), that
between the article and the participle Greek writers never use «« bat always ftv,
has already been duly refuted by Meyer. [This "empirical " remark is (for the
N. T.) not far fVom the truth : see p. 606, note i. Compare Madvig 207.]
SECT. LV.] THE NEGATIVE PAHTICLES. 609
2 C. X. 14, 1 P. ii 16 (Gayler p. 278 sq.); the case is dif-
ferent in 1 C. ix. 26, see below.
On the other hand, when ov is joined to participles (and
adjectives) — a much less common case than the preceding — we
have a direct denial of matter of fact (Gayler p. 287 sq., Matth,
608 d) ; and hence this construction is especially found when
predicates are denied of persons who are definitely present to
the mind,^ Ph. iii. 3 [^t'c], j;/zet? icr/j,ei/ rj •jrepirofii], ol irvevixazL
deo) XarpevovTa . , . . kuI ovk ev (rapKi TreTrocdoTe^ : in regard
to r]ij,ei<i, since they are in fact irvev^ari, Oe^ XaTpevovra, the
iv aapKL TreiroidoTe^; is directly denied. 1 P. ii. 10 (from the
LXX), v/jL€i<; . . . . ol o V k T}\er]fi€voi, vvv he e\er]d6vre<i ; Rom.
ix. 25 (from the LXX). H. xi. 35, eXa^ov yvvaiKe'} .... aXXoc
Be eTVfiTraviadrjaav o v irposhe^dfievoL rrjv aTroXvrpoicnv, not
accepting, i. e., spurning. Col. ii. 19, elKr) (pu<rLOVfj,evo<t .... kuI
ov Kparoiv, although thesentence is imperatival (ver. 18, /j,r}B€l<i
v/j,d<i Kara^pa^eveTU), and a p}] ecopaxev k.t.X.), for in the words
ov KparSiv the apostle passes to an actually existing predicate :
A. xvii. 27, L. vi. 42. 1 C. ix. 26, e<^oi> 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), eu<f>pdv6'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<i ircaTevovre^ Be dyaXXi.da&e
K.T.X. Here ovk elBoret expresses the negative idea, {personal! g)
2inaxquainted ivith, — a matter of fact ; whilst p,T) opcavret signi-
fies although ye see not, — -referred to the conception of the per-
sons addressed : " believing, ye rejoice in him, and the thought
1 The difference between ol and /t»5 with the participle is well illustrated
by Plat. Phoed. 63 b, filiKow av oIk kya^aKTui, injuste facer em ego, qui non
indignor, compared with rihlxovM eiv f^n kyatar-Tuit (the reading of Olympiodorug),
tnjui^te facerem, si 7wn indignarer. Compare also Joseph. Antl. 16. 7. 5, 'o 2s
•iifufaf lis ftifov «T£(X>!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<T€ "TO iavTov crwfua k.t.A., the meaning is, he considered
not his body, quippe qui non essef imheciUis. KaTa'orjae is a fact, the
being weak in faith only a conception, to be denied : ovk do-^€i/7;o-as
would be strong in faith. With a different construction indeed
the apostle might have written ovk rja-Oaqa-ev .... wsre KaravofjcraL
K.T.A. ; compare Plut. Reg. Apopldh. y. 81 (Tauchn.). On the other
hand, H. vii. 6, 6 Se fx-q ycveoAoyov/ACvos €^ aurcoi' SeScKarwKe rov
^Afipadfji, may be explained on the principle that the Greeks (espe-
cially in antitheses, compare ver. 5), where they wish to express a
very strong denial (and the emphasis rests on the negation), use fjurjy
and thus deny the very conception. See above, p. 597, and Her-
mann on Soph. Atitig. 691, — a passage which will be quoted im-
mediately. In L. i. 20, Icrrj (THii7rQ)v Kai /xt/ 8vva.fi€vo<; XaXycrcu, the
subjective negative is the more appropriate, as the words speak of
an attribute in its announcement merely, consequently as a concep-
tion (^o-g) : so also in A. xiii. 11.
Most remarkable of all is the union of the subjective and objec-
tive negatives in A. ix. 9, rjv 7//xepas rpcis fti] ^AeVwv koX ovk (.(^ayiv
ovSk iiriev : compare Epiphan. 0pp. II. 368 a, tjv 8k 6 /Sacrt-
kfvs fiTj Svva/Acvo? XoA^crat. Here however the not eating and
not drinking are related as matters of fact, whilst the ^AeVetv, which
from verse 8 might have been supposed to be returning, is denied
antithetically as a conception. Hermann's remark (Soph. Antig.
691) is applicable here : /x?; fortius est, quia ad oppositum refertur :
1 [Ov is omitted in the best texts. In 1 P. L 8 (quoted above) we must read
tiiyrt; ; in E. V. 4, i ««* avVxiv. ]
SECT. LV.] THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 6 1 1
nam ovk cai/ simpliciter est prokibere, fx-ij iay autem dicitur, quum,
quern credas sitiirum, non sinit. So in this verse ov ftXevoiv would
have simply meant blind; firj /SXeVajv is not seeing, — said of one who
had been, and mia:ht appear to be again, possessed of sight. Ooinpare
also Jo. vii. 49, 6 o^Aos outos, 6 /xi^ ytvcio-^cwv tov vofx-ov. Here it is
denied that the o;(Aos possesses a quahty which it might and should
have possessed ; [i.-q yivuio-KOiv expresses blame, ov yivwa-Kuiv would be
the simple predicate unacquainted with the law. See further L. xiii.
11, Mk. V. 26, A. ix. 7 (compare verse 3).
However true Schfefer's remark^ may be — " In scriptis cadentis
Gr^rH-itatis vix credas, quoties participialis con.^tructio (the genitive
afjsoiute, in particular) non ov cet., ut oportebat, sed /Aiy cet. ad-
sciscat "' — yet every passage, even in the writers of the koivt}, must
be very carefully examined, before we assert that ^jlyj is u.ned in it
instead of ov (Fritz. Rnm. II. 295). In particular, as has been
already s.aid, must we never overlook the fact that the choici- of the
negative, especially in combination with the participle, not unfre-
queritly depends on the mode in which the writer prefers to view
the subject betore him (Hei-m. Vlg. p. 804, 806, Matth. 608 init.,
608 c). On the general question compare further Jacobs. Anihol.
Fat. III. 244, Bahr in Oreuzer, Melet. III. 20, Schsef Eurip. Med.
811 (ed. Porsou).^
6. A continued negation is, as is well known, expressed by
the compound negatives ovSe {fjwqfik), ovre (/xrjre).^ The differ-
ence between these two words has been frequently discn.'^sed
by modern philologers, but has not yet been decided with
complete unanimity, or developed in all its relations. See
especially Herm. Eurip. Med. 330 sqq. (also in his Opiisc. III.
143 sqq.), and ad Philod. p. 140; also Franke, Comm. IT. 5 sqq.,
Wex,Antig. II. 15 6 sqq., Klotz, Dev. II. 70 6 sqq.'' (Jelf 775 sq.)
^ Demost/i. III. 4y5. Compare also Schaefer, Plutarch V. 6 ; Thilo, Acta,
Thorn, p. 28 ; aii.l above, p. 594, note ^ [Shilleto, Dem. F. L. p. 4.]
- On ^Eilian 3. 2, « Js (jLiCiti itarupa^Mi u-ynv' 14. 33, o( ol/Siv iiUTCt-
fa.x,6t'- tWtv, see Fritz. Rom. II. 295. — Ol has moreover been corsidered to
stand ior /j^n with a participle ; sometimes in Plutiifch, see Held on Phit.
Tiw.. p. 457 sq. ; al.so in iElian, see Jacobs, /£A. Anir/i. II. 187. In Badlic. I.
150, Ta'ilaiv ohx, liriivTwv, si Mil fioii exstftnt, it appears io me that oti takes
the place of f^n : rht-se words would properly mean, .nnce there arc. no children.
(Gavler. p. 591, Cjuotes Polyb. 7. 9. 12. tUv dniv ov c«vtw» ufiTv ko.) v/iiv ; but
this reading is merely a conjecture of Casaubon's. ) In Lueian, Saliat. 75, how-
ever, thf tninsition from uvrt to oH-n is the result of anacoluthon. We have a
ditlertiit combination of cu and m.» with participles in iElian, Anim. 5. 28 : see
Jacobs in Loc.
* Where ovl'i does not point to a negation contained in the preceding v/ords,
it signifies alao not, ov not even (Klota, Devur. p. 707). On the latter meaning
see Franke II. 11. [On the former see Riddell,, Plat. Apol. p. 172: oili is
sometimes hut not (Soph. El. 132, 1034).]
* Compare Hand, De ParPic. ti Dissert. 2, p. 9 sqq. ; Engelhardt, Plat. Lack.
612 THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART III.
That ovBi and ovre run parallel with the conjunctions Be
and T€, and must in the first instance be explained from the
meaning of these particles, admits of no doubt. Accordingly,
we may say with Hermann that ovre and firjre are " adjunctivse,"
ovSi and fi'qhe " disjunctivae " (as Be is properly hut, and denotes
a contrast, Franke II. 5) : that is, ovBi and fjir,Bi add negation
to negation, whilst ovt€ and /jLJjre divide a single negation into
parts (which, naturally, are mutually exclusive).^ Thus : Mt.
vii. 6, fir] Bcore ro dycov rol^ kvctl, fjLrjBe ^aXrjre rov^ fxapyapi-
ra<; k.t.X., is, give riot .... and moreover cast not (two different
actions being equally negatived, i. e., forbidden) ; Mt. vi. 26,
ou a-Trecpovanv ovBe Bepi^ovaci/ ovBe a-vvdyovaiv k.t.X., they
sow not and tJiey reap not and they gatlur not in. With these
contrast Mt. xii. 32, ovk acjyeOija-erac avrai ovre iv rovrcp reS
aitavt, ovre iv rat /MeWovTi, — forgiveness will not be granted
either in this world or in the world to come (the single nega-
tion OVK d<f>€6n<T€Tat is- divided into two parts, in regard to
time) ; L. ix. 3, p.T}Bev atpere eh ttjv oBof/ 'firjre pd^Bov ij,rjTe
TTTjpav fitjre aprop ^ijre dpyvpiov.
When the particles are thus used, we commonly find in
correspondence —
(a) Ov . .. ovBe, Mt. vi. 28, vii. 18, L. vi. 44, Jo. xiii. 16,
xiv. 17, A. ix. 9, Rom. ii. 28 ; /mij . . . fiTjBe, Mt. vi. 25, x. 14,
xxiii. 9 sq., Mk. xiii. 15, L. xvii 23, Jo. iv. 15, A. iv. 18, Kom.
vi 12 sq., 2 C. iv. 2, 1 Tim. i. 3 sq. ; ov . . . odBe . . . ovBe, Mt.
xii, 19, Jo. i. 13, 25,;^ /i>7 .. . . 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<i ovBe dKaprrov;
Kadiarrjaiv Mt. xxii. 29, xxiv. 20, xxv. 13, 1 Jo. iii. 18, In
Mt. X. 9 we might have had the other form of negation, had
Matthew written firjBev KryjarjcrOe firjre '^vaov fiTjre dpyvpov
K.r.X.: compare Franke II. 8. Mt. vi. 20, and Mt. x. 9 as
compared with L. ix. 3, are peculiarly instmctive for the per-
ception of the distinction between ovSe and ovre. ■
The sequence ovre .... ovre . . . . koI ov, Jo, v, 37 sq. (as the
clauses are combined in that explanation of the passage which has
^ 1 C vi. 9 sq. , euTt . . , iUTi . , . ouTi . . . curi . . . olirt . . . ovrt . . . buti
. . . ouTi [or more probably ou] . . . d . . , oi, is remarkable only for the accu-
mulation of negatives. There is nothing singular in the nse of ol after iCn,
though it cannot be supported by the passage which Gaykr (p. 386) quotes,
Soph. Antig. 4 sq. : compare (Dio C. 205. 6, 412. 59) Klotz, Bevar. p. 711.
See further below, no. 9.
* As to a single ftuVs, the other being suppressed, see Herm. Soph. Philoct.
p. 139 sq., and in general Franke II. 13 .sq.
^ " Cum oun et ad priora respicere poseit et ad sequentia, aptior connexio est
singulorum raembrorum per eas particulas, multo autem dissolutior et fortuita
magis conjunctio membrorum per olVi . , . cuVi particulas, quia prius ol/Tt nuu-
quam respicit ad ea quae sequuntur sed ad priora . , . alterum autem oudi yjer
aliquam oppositionis rationem, quam habet Bs particula, sequentia adjungit
prioribus, non apte connex^ ^8d potius fortuito concursu accedentia. " On this
account, however, Sj is stranger than n. Franke II. 6, 15.
* Hence Mitthicc (,609. 1. a) does not express himself accurately.
614 THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PABT III.
recently beer, most commonly adopted), is as admissible gramma-
tically 9s ovT€ ... re uv (Heim. Soph. Antki. 759, Poppo, Thuc.
111. i. p. 68). As however the clause with Kai . . . ou does not
stand in precisely the same relation as would have beert indicated by
ovT(, I consider it prelerable not to include this clause {aal . . . ov)
in the partition : see Meyer in loc.^
From this it further follows that
a. OvBe . . ovhe {/xrfhe . . . /irjSe), in the sense of neither . . .
nor (no simple negative having preceded), cannot be corre-
lative:^ but when to one negation another is annexed, and
negation strung on negation, the first is expressed by ov or /*»; :
it is this which gives the antithetical and disjunctive Be the basis
it requires.^ Mk. viiL 26, Xiyeov, firjBe els rr)v KOifX'qv elsekdrj';
/jr)8e elTrri'i rivt K.T.\., cannot be rendered mque . . . neque ;
the first fxrjhe is ?ie . . . quidem, the second also . . . not: see
Meyer in loc.^ Compare Eurip. Hippol. 1052 and Klotz, Devar.
p. 708. The case is somewhat different when the first ovhk
connects the sentence with what precedes, as for instance (with
ouSe '^ap) in G. i. 12, ovh\ fyap iyco irapa dvOpwvov irapkXaSov
avTo ovBe iStSd^Orjp. On this passage, however, see below.
b. Since ovre and /ir^re always co-ordinate one member of a
partition with another, pj^re cannot be tolerated in Mk. iii. 20,
W9T6 p,r] Buvaadai p^r/TC aprov ^a'yelv;^ for here tiv) (payeiv is
dependent on Bvvaadai. As the words now stand, they can
only mean, that they neither vjere able nor ate (the first p,ri
standing for /i^re). The meaning however obviously is, that
^ [Meyer has changed his view, and now connects together limt . . . oiSn . . .
. *«< oil (compare Jo. iv. 11, quoted below), observing that the ciiange of ex-
pression gives more independence to the new moment of thought.]
2 On Thnc, 1. 142 see Poppo in loc. ; on Xen. An. 3. 1. 27> 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 <w, by which means the member in
which it stands, being thus deprived of its supplemental symbol, apparently
obtains greater independence, and consequently greater rhetorical force ; just;
as, in the place of ' neither father nor mother,' we may more poetically say 'not
616 THE NEGATIVE PARTICI.ES. [PART III.
ix. 21 ovT€^ must not be altered (Matth. 609. 1. ^, Jelf 775. 2),
— though such a sequence is said to be confined to poetry
(Franke II. 28). The same correlation is to be recx)gnised in
Rev. V. 4, ovBel^ a^to<; evpidr] avol^at ro ^iBXiov ovre I3X&-
ireiv axno (the reading retained byTischendort), — compare Klotz,
Lev. II. 709 sq., and the passage there quoted from Aristot.
Polit. 1. 3 : the author might indeed have written ovhih d^io<i
€vpe07} ovre &voi^ai ro ^ijSXiov ovre ^Xerretv. In E, iv. 27, how-
ever, jj^rj , . . fi-rjre cannot be tolerated; the best MSS. unanimously
give firj^i, which has already been received into the text by
Lachmann. This construction^ is a species of anacoluthon: when
the writer begins with ov, he has not as yet the following parallel
member in his thoughts. In some cases this arrangement may
be adopted designedly, for the purpose of giving prominence to
the fir.st word. In Eev. xii. 8 also ovBe appears to me more
correct, and it has been received by Knapp. On the other hand,
in Jo. i. 25, el av ovk elo Xpcaro<i ovre ^II\ia<i ovre 6 7rpo^t}r7]<i,
an alteration of the conjunctions into ovBe would grammatically
be unnecessary (compare Herm. Soph. Philoct. p. 140) ; the
better MSS. however have ovhe. In Eev. v, 3 also, ovBe\<i rjhv-
varo iv rw ovpav^ ovBe iirl rrj<; yr)<}, ovBe vrroKarco rr]<i fy^?
avol^at, ro /Bt^iou oi/Be ^ivetv avro, the relation of the
negatives is correct : no one . . . also 7iot on earth, also not . . .
to open, also not (not even) to looh^
e. As to ovre (repeated) .... ovBe, A. xxiv. 1 2 sq., according
to the reading adopted by Lachmann ^ and Bornemann from B,
see Herm. Soph. (Ed. Col. 229, Franke II. 14 sqq., Klotz, De-
var. II. 714. Here ovBi is not parallel with ovre, but begins a
new sentence : " They neither found me in the temple .... nor
in the S}'nagogues .... moreover they cannot etc." Most MSS.,
fathernor mother.'" Benfey I.e. p. 156. Compare Henn. I.e. p. 331, 401, and
Franke II. 27 (who takes a different view) ; also Doderlein, Progr. de Brachy'
logia, p. 6. [Frunke holds tliat there is an ellipsis of the lirst oUti.']
Ol/ fiiriy'oriffaiv ix tuv pivuti ai/TO/yJ tvri i* t»» . . . e-J'ti ik t?j . . . oi/Tt ix
Tuv K.r.x. (instead of the' periectly regular ov fAiriyiir,ira.t avn -»» tuv ^ovu¥
oSir *.T.x.) is just as allowable as Odysa. 9. 136 sqq., »V ov xf^^ Wtc-fixris Ivrtv,
eiir sums fiaXitiv, aOri vpu/uv^tri' avaylai OT OdysS. 4. 666: see Kloiz, Dtvar. p.
710. In Rev. L c. no variant is noted.
* [Viz., cii {fin) . . . ouTi (/ATiTi) : the reference is not to Eph. iv. 27.]
* [We must probably read evn /3;. :*«;». Tisch. (ed. 8) reads olhi three times
in the verse : this reading presents a double illustration of the text, avlvs . . .
ourt . . . ouTg . . . y'rif, and (ijtiJt/f . . . ) a.yoi^xi , , , curl fiXiviiv av<ri.^
* [Tischebdoif and Weatcott and Hort read aiSl ; Tregelles, Alford, ovrt.]
SECT. LV.] THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 617
however, have ovre in ver. 13 : with this reading, ovre ....
evpov fj,€ and ovte rrapacrrriaaL BvvavTWy are regular correlative
sentences, and ovre eV rah avvayoiyai<i and ovre Karci iroXiv
belong to the first sentence as subordinate members. On L.
XX. 36 see p. 615.
That in negative sentences the subordinate members are intro-
duced by rj, has been already remarked (§ 53. 6). In A. xvii. 29,
however, with the reading found in D (and received by BornetQann},
ovK of^uXofx-ev vofXL^€Lv ovT€ )(pvari3 7] apyvp(ji k.t.A., rj would be co-
ordinate with ovT£,— a construction of which another example is
hardly to be found (Matth. Eurip. VII. 178). Still, as we meet with
the sequence tc . . . ^ (Klotz, Devar. II. 742 sq.), cure . . . ^ may
be admissible. But the other authorities omit ovre. here.
It is more difficult to say whether firjhe, ovSe, can be fol-
lowed by fMijre, ovre. Almost all the more recent philologers
decide in the negative (see Matth. 609. 1. ^)} on the ground
that, as the stronger ovBe (Matth. 609. 1. a, y9) precedes, the
weaker ovre cannot follow. Compare also Fritz. IfarJc, p. 158.^
Yet in the editions of Greek authors we find not a few passages
in which ovSi is followed by ovre, — e. g., Thuc. 3. 48 (see Poppo
in loc), Lucian, JDial. Mort. 26. 2, Catapl. 15, Plat. Charm.
171 b, Aristot; Physiogn. 6. p. 148 (Franz) : it is usual however
to correct such readings, commonly with more or less support
from the MSS. That ovre and firire cannot be pa redid to an
ovhk or firjhe may be taken as a rule (though the reason alleged
for it does not appear to me decisive) ; but where these particles
have nothing to do with ovhe or /it/Sc as a conjunction, I con-
sider the sequence correct. This condition is satisfied in the
two following cases -? —
a. When ovZk signifies ne . . . quidem (Klotz, Devar. II.
7 11, — compare 2 Mace. v. 10), or aho not, or connects the
negative sentence * with a preceding sentence to which the he
\ Engelhardt I. c. p, 70 ; Lehmann, Lucian, Til. 615 sq. ; Franke II. 18, al.
[Liddell and Scott s. vv. : compare Jelf 776. Obs. 5.]
* Bornemann (Xen. Anab. p. 26) and Hand,(^ c. p. 13) consider o^S* . . . oun
admissible.
* Compare aho Doderlein in Passow^a WB., s. v. <ji5L
* [Winer's words are ; " or connects with a preceding sentence tlie negative
sentence to which the li points back." As this yields no sense, we must either
make the correction which I have adopted in the text, or write r; for Ss in
Winer's sentence. A comparison of earlier editions of the original work seems
te show that the former correction of the mispiint is the more probable.]
618 THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART III.
points/' In G. i. 12, ovSe yap iyo) . , . irapeXa^ov avro ovre
<iBi8d^07jv. the common reading is to be retained, if the words
are rendered, for a/so I have not received it, nor have I learnt
it, — or neque enim ego (instead of ov yap) accept didicique {-ve) :
compare Hoogeveen, Doctr. Particul. II. 980 sq. See Plat.
Gho/nii, iTl b; Horn, in Cerer. 22 (Herm. Ermnd. p. 39), Lysias,
(h^at. 19. p. 157 (Steph.). The ovhe which is found in some
good MSS. in the place of ovre is probably a correction.
b. When ovre (fiijre) is not co-ordinate with, but subordinate
to, the ovBe (firjhk) which precedes : e. g., " I harbour no enmity,
and A work not against the schemes of others, and not against
their attempts." Xen. Mem. 2. 2. 11, /i-778' erreadai, fiijS^ irei-
(fetrOat ui,i]r€ crparrjy^ fxrjre aWw ap^ovrc (the first two words,
however, are of doubtful authority); Cyr. 8. 7. 22, nrjiror aae^h
/j,i)B^v finbe Sbvoatov fir/re 7rotr'icrr]r€ fx.'qre ^ovXevcrTjre ; Plat. Legg.
11. 916 e. Here the negation /x^^Se is divided into two parts
(/U.7JT6 .... fJL'^re) : Dem. Callijip. 718 c, Judith viii. 18. Com-
pare Held, Plut. Timol. p. 433 sq., Matth. 600. Lb, Kiihner
II. 440 (Jeif 776. 3, 5). Accordingly, in A. xxiii. 8 the reading
fJLr) etvat avdcrraariv, fJLrfhe dyyeXov (fitj^e elvai firjre ayyeKov)
fjitire TTvevfia would be admissible; and ra dp,(f>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)<i ovBe ef
' Handi.c. ; " intelligitiu-, nexuni, quem nonnuUi gramniatici inter ivoi et
vtlri iTitercedere dixcnint, nullum esse, nisi quod ev in voc. eLU cum cUrt
cohsereat. Nam si in aliquibus Horn. locis ista voce, hoc quidem ordine nexa
videntur exhiberi, in iis Si pertinet ad superiora conjungenda. " Compare Har-
tung I. 201, Klotz p. 711.
^ See Hoogeveen, Doctr. Partic. I. 751. -Kiihnol would translate ra, a.fi<p!><rifeL
Iria ista; but very unsuccessfully defends this rendering by Odyss. iS. 78,
a.fji<pi,Tifiy, KuVoi TE x<ti ayXiiin Koi oHiaf, for here the tirst two words, connected
by T< XX,, are regarded as expressing one main idea. If in A, xxiii. 8 we read
f^ii'i, still «f/^oTiga does not signify tria; but the writer combines together
ccyyiXev and Tni//.<t, according r.o their logical import, as one principal concep-
ti(>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<Tia<i ovZe ev B6\(p the more appropriate reading: so the
pEissage stands in the better MSS. and in Lachmann's text. In
any such case as this I think accurate writers would, for the
sake of clearness, use ^ in preference to ovre: see § 53. 6.
In 1 C. iii. 2 ovre of the received text is a mere error. of tran-
scription; the best MSS. have aAA.' ovSk en vw SuVttor^«, ne nunc
quidem : compare A. xix. 2, Lucian. Hermot. 7, Conscr, Hxst. 33,
and Fritz. Mark, p. 157. In 2 Th. ii. 2 also the best MSS. have
eis TO fjirj ra^^ews (raX^vO-qvai , . . fJirjSk OpotltrOat ftvTe Sta Trvev/xaTo?
K.T.X. (Lachniann, Tischendorf ). In 2 Th. iii. 8 oiSe is the only
correct reading. In L. vii. 9, xii. 27, A. xvi. 21, ovS4 was received
by Griesbach, and rightly: in A. iv. 12 also oi'Je is the true read-
ing. In Ja. iii. 12, recent editions (including those of Laclimahn
and Tischendorf) have ovre oAvkov yXvKv iroirja-ai vBojfx This reading
is only tenable on the assumption (a harsh assumption certainly)
that James had in his mind as the antecedent clause oure Swarat
<n;*c^ cAawxs 7roLrj(rai cc.t.A. : otherwise we must read ouSc, which is
found in some MSS.^
In such passages as the following there is nothing strange : L.
X. 4 [i?fc.], fX7) fiacrTdt,6T€ ftakXdvTLov, fjirj 7r>;/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<i ovre travTaTraciv e^eicrTrjKeb UroXefiaLO} t^? -^copa^,
Kal Tiva<j TMV Alyvirriiov Xo^ricra<i Bie^Oeipev Lucian, Dial.
iI/«?'. 14. 1, Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 20. Here re is more common.^
See Hartung, Partik I. 193, Klotz, Devar. p. 713, 740, Gotting.
Anzeig. 1831, p. 1188 (Jelf 775. 3).
On the other hand, in Ja, iii, 14 the second negation is
omitted, or rather the effect bi the negative is continued to the
annexed sentence : i^rj KaraKav^aQe Kal yfrevBeade Kara t?}?
aXrjOeuL'i. So also in 2 C. xii. 21, Mt. xiii. 15, Mk. iv. 12,
Jo. xii. 40, A. xxviii. 27 : compare Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 2. 20,
Diod. S. 2. 48,^1. Anim. 5. 21.^ Several commentators have
found the converse of this in E. iv. 26, opjL^ecrde kuI firj afut/p-
rdvere, considering the words to stand for jx^ opyl^eade koI {{jlt})
apuaprdvere. In Greek writers (even in prose) we do find many-
instances inwhich othe or ovre is expressed in the second member
of a sentence only, and must be supplied in the first.^ For the
prose of the N. T., however, such a construction would be
exceedingly harsh, and there is no need for introducing it in this
passage (especially as we have not p,iq re dp,aprdvere) : see §43.2.
In L. xviii. 7, according to the best attested reading, o 6eo<i
ov purj TTOiTJar] rrjp €KBcKr)<riv rwv eickeKrwv avrov .... Kal
fxaKpoOvfiet eV avrol^, — especially ii p-aKpodv/jLel means delay
— the negative is dropped in the second clause, and the inter-
rogative fiTj (num) is alone repeated *
It is hardly necessary to mention oiBe .... Bi, H. ix. 12, as
ov .... Be is of so very frequent occurrence.
8. It has frequently been laid down as a rule, that sen-
tences containing a simple negation which are followed by dWd
(Be), or in which ov {firj) forms an antithesis to a preceding
affirmative sentence (Mt. ix, 1 3, from the LXX, H. xiii. 9, L.
X. 20), are not always ^ to be taken as simply and absolutely ne-
' Jacobitz, Luc. Tox. c. 25 ; "We'ber, Demosih. p. 402 sq. [Comp. A, xxvii.
20..]
» Gataker, Advers. MlsreU. 2. 2, p. 268 ; Jacobs, M\. Anim. II. 182 ; BoU-
sonade, Nicet. p. 390.
* Spe S6hfef. on Bos, EUips. p. 777 ; Henn. Soph. Aj. 239, 616: Dbderlein,
Brachylog. p. 5 sq. ; Poppo, Tkuc. III. iv. 841 (Jelf 7/6. 06s. 3, 776. Obs. 4,
Don. p. 610).
* Biiinttmann in the Sdchs. Blhl. Studien, I. 69.
* As for iustuiicc lu Mk. v. 39, to 'rmhiy :jk airiSanv aXXa KaSeihi, — where
SECT. LV.] THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 621
gative, but, " by a Hebraism, found also in Greek prose writers,"
must be rendered not so much . . . as/ or else, not only . . .
hut also ^ (non solum . . , sed etiara ^). For example : A. v. 4,
ovK iyp'evao) avOpcovoL';, aWa rw Oeo), not so much to men (the
apostle Peter), as rather to God; 1 C. xv, 10 [i^ec], ovk
iyo) Be {eKoiriacra), aSX -q %apt<? too deov t) crvv ifioi, — -rendered
by Augustine, non ego solus, sed gratia Dei mecum (Jo. v.
30) ;* L. X. 20, /i^ -^aipere on ... "^aLpere Se on k.t.\., nolite
tarn propterea leetari . . . quam potiiis etc.
On more accurate examination, however, all the N. T. pas-
sages to which this canon is applied are found to belong to one
of the two following -classes : —
(a) In some the unconditional negation is actually intended,
as a careful consideration of the context proves. Mt. ix. 1 3, eXeov
OeXta Kol ov Ovalav, — where Christ, using the words of the pro-
phet (Hos. vi. 6), requires that mercy (the feeling) should really
be put in the place of sacrifices (mere symbols) ; compare the
words which follow, ov yap riXdov KaXeaat BtKaiov<i, a\V
afiaprQ>\ov<i. Jo. vii. 16, 77 efxr} 8iSa')(^T] ovk eanv ifiij, dWa rov
certainly the latter idea does annul the fonner ; Mt. ix. 12, x. 34, xv. 11, 2 C.
xiii. 7. '
* Non tarn . . . quam, tu raffouTo* . . . «Va», Heliod. 10. 3, Xen. Eph. 5. 11 ;
ev% tvruf . . . at, Uio Chr. 8. 130 ; au fiaXXov n, Xen. Hell. 7. 1.-2.
^ The former rendering {non tarn . . . quam), as the following examples will
show, has been by far the most common in the N. T. The fact that in N. T.
Gi-eek the relative negation 7ion solum . . . ned is frequently, but non tarn . . .
(juam never, actually expressed, might appear to justify thisJ
'. Compare Blackwall, Aiict. CI. Sacr. p. 62, Glass I. 418 sqq., Wetstein and
Kypke on Mt. ix. 13, Heumann on 1 C. x. 23 sq., Kuinoel, Acta p. 177, Haab,
Gr. p. 145 sqq., Bos, Ellips. p. 772 sq., al. : Valcken. Opuac. II. 190, Dion. H.
IV. 2121. 10, J.vcobs, Anth. Pal. III. p. Ixix.
* It is no wonder that exegetes should, have been partial to such a weaken-
ing of these formulas, since ev^n clas.sical philologers have thought them-
selves obliged to soften a strong expression in passages of ancient writers,
where there was not the slightest occasion for doing so. Thus Dion, H. IV.
2111; li^n TO a»lft7i>» 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<i /iierdvoiav. Similarly in the
phrase 7ion ionics sed optinuis (see the note below), non cancels
the "good" (in the positive degree) —"^ood' he is not," in order
that its place may be taken by the only correct word, optinius, —
in which, to be sure, bonus is included.
(&) In other passages the writer prefers to use the absolute
instead of the conditioned (relative) negation on rhetoriml
grounds, — not for the purpose of really (logically) annuliinfr the
^ Bengel : " non est mea, non uilo modod iscendi laboie paita."
^ It would be a similar case if, for example, some one v?ere to say of a com-
mentator who quotes largely, ]'hy learning is not tliine hut WetMein'a. "Thy
learning" is here set down only problematioally : and if we were to infer from
this that the speaker intended really to ascribe (that) learning in some measdrt,
in some respect, to the person in question, the conclusion would not be logical
but merely grammatical. On the phrase non bonus sed optimus (Fritz. Diss. 2.
ill 'I (Jor. p. 1C2) a hint had already been given by Hermann (Eur. Alcest, p.
29). or a similar kind are the passages cited by Heumann I. c. . Cic. Arch. 4.
8, sp non interfuisse sed egisse ; Veil. Pat. 2. 13, vir non steculi sui sed omnis
eevi optimus. Compare also 2 C. vii. 9.
SECT. LV.] THE NRfiATIVE PARTIOLBS. 023
first conception, but in order that he rviaj direct undivided
attention to the second the first disappearing from view in the
presence of the second (compfctre Meyer on A. v. 4): 1 Th. iv. 8
(Schott), rejects not mem, hut God) He certainly does also
reject the apostle, who declaxes the truth of God ; but Paul here
wishes the thought that it is really God, as the true author of
this declaration, who is rejected, to come before the mind with
all its force. The force of the thought is immediately impaired,
if the word.s are rendered, ht rejects not so in.uck man as God,
Such a translation is no better than, for instance, dihiting an
asyndeton (which also is rhetorical in its natui-e) by inserting
the copula. I hold therefore that ovk . . . dWd, when used
in cases where the logical meaning requires nan tam . . . guurn,
always belongs to the rhetorical colouring of the language, and
hence must be retained in tran^alation. This is done by all the
better translators. The speaker has chosen this mode of nega-
tion designedly, and the formula is not to be estimated on the
principles of mere grammar. The question whether any parti-
cular passage comes under this head, or not, must be decided,
not by the feeling of the commentator, but by the context and
by the nature of the ideas connected The following passages
must be dealt with on this principle: Mt, x. 20 (Schott), ovx
v/j.€i<i iare ol \a\ovvre<;, dXka to irvev^a tov 'irarpo^ vfxojv'
Mk. ix. 37 (Schott), 09 idv i/xe he^tjrai, ovk i/j.e Bexerai, dWd
TOu dvoa-TeiXavrd fte- 1 C. xv. 10 [i2e/?.J, irepiacroTepov airdv
ndvTwv eKOTTcaa-a' ovk iyo) Be, a\X' 77 xdpi<; rov deov ->) 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), nyyi<ra.fi.i*r) vfipir^ai oJ» iui (in point of
fact, however, he had been outrugeJ) ixx' ixuriit (rr.v fiovXnt; kx'i t»» o^/x'>i>
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£«/<riv bXx' i-ri^iv est : non perkUtatus aed passus
est, ((uibus verbi.s hoc sigiiificatui- : uon dico istum ])cric!itaturn esse sed passnm,
ita ut, cum ille dicatar passus esse, .jam ne cogitftur quidera de eo, quod priori
mcTubro dictum est.
2 [With the punctuation, aux iui >.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€l<i Keifievo'i'
Mk. V. 3. Compare ^lian, Anim. 11. 3 1, &)? ovheirdiTrore ovheva,
ovhev a8iKt]cra<i' Plat. Parmen. 166 a, on raXka rtov /xrj ovtoov
oi/^evl ovBafii] ov8afjb(i!)<; ovBe^idv Kotvcoi'iav ep^^ef Phmd. 78 d,
Her. 2. 39, ovBe aXkov odBei^o<{ efxyp-v^ov /c€(^a\f/<? yevaerac
AiyvirTLcov ot-Set"? ; Lysias, Fro Maniith., 10, Xen. Anah. 2. 4.
23, Plat. FhiL 29 b, So^ph. 249 b, Lncian, Chronol. [? Cronos.]
13, Dio. C. 635. 40, 402. 35, 422. 24.^ WhenovBi is used in
the sense oi m , . . . qitidem, GTreek writers usually join another
negative to the verb:'' so in L. xviii. 13, ovk rjO^Xev ovBe tov<;
o^6d\ixov<i ets" Tov ovpavov cTrapai.
In 1 C. vi. 10, after several partitive clauses (ovre, oun, oi, ov),
the negative is again repeated with the predicate for the sake of
clearness, /JacriXctai/ $eov o V KXrjpovofji^a-ovcrt : the best MSS. how-
ever omit it, and it is not received by Lachmann. So also in Rev.
xxi. 4, 6 OdvaTO<; ovk etrrai In, ovre TrivOo^ ovn Kpavyij ovre ttovos ovk
ca-rai ere, the writer might without hesitation have omitted the
second ovk. The nearest approach to this is u^schin. Ctesipk.
285 b, ovBe ye q Trovrjpos ovk dv ttotc yevoiTO 8yifj.ocria )(p't]CTO<;, 866
Bremi in loc. (c. 77) : compare also Plat. Rep. 4. 426 b, and Herm.
Soph. Antig. I. c. If inverted, ovk ecrrai In owrc irivOo^ K.T.X., the
sentence would be quite regular. In A. xxvj. 26 Rec. we find the
^ [Rev. xviii. 4 is a mistake. ]
2 In the LXX compare Geii. xlv. 1, Num. xvi. 15, Ex. x. 23, Dt. xxxiv. 6,
Jos. ii. 11, 1 S. xii. 4 ; and especially Hos. iv. 4, «V&/? ^>iSeif /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<Ta, € I £t?€A£i;crovTot «is T^v KaTdirava-iv fiov. Thi ?
is an imitation of the Hebrew DK (compare Gen. xiv. 23, Dt. i. 35.
1 K. i. 51, ii. 8, 2 K. iii. 14, al.), and a formula of imprecation
must in all cases be supplied as the apodosis. In the passage last
quoted ( H. iv. 3), supply, then will I not live, will not he Jehovah ; in
those passages in which men are the speakers, the suppressed clause
is, so shall Gad punish me (compare 1 S. iii. 17, 2 S. iii. 35), then
will I not live, etc.2 Compare Aristoph. Equit. 698 sq., d fx-q </
iK(l)dyii) . . . ovS€TroT€ /SLUio-ofiai ; Cic. Fam. 9. 15. 7, mm-iar, si habeo,
'Eai/ also is thus used in the LXX : see Neb. xiii. 25, Cant. ii. 7,
iii. 5. Of the opposite lav fxi] or el ixyj (in an affirmative sense) there
is no example in the N. T. : compare Ez. xvii. 19. Haab (p. 226)
most inconsiderately refers to this head Mk. x. 30 and 2 Th. ii. 3.^
Section LVI.
construction of the negative particles.
1. The subjective negative fit], ne, together with its com-
pounds, is used in independent sentences to express a negative
wish or a warning : —
a. In the former case it is naturally joined with the (aorist)
optative (Franke I. 27), — the mood which would have been used
had there been no negation ; e. g., in the frequently recurring
formula ^?) 76^01x0, L. xx. 16, Rom. iii. 6, ix. 14, G. ii. 17
1 [X has both ti and ai/ft*. Tregelles brackets the lattei' word : Meyer takes
it in an adverbial sense, and suggests that it was the supposition that there were
two accusatives of the object, n and aiiii*, which led to the omission of one of
these words iu several ilSS.]
« Ewald, Krit. Gr. p. 661. [Gesen. Hebr. Gr. p. 246.]
' [The positive asseveration ^ DN is rendered in the LXX sometimes by ri firm
(Job i. 11, ii. 5, in the Roman text), sometimes by il firi (iK. xx. 23 Vat., Al., —
also for ""s in Is. xlv. 23 Vat., Sin.). Either through a confusion between these
two expressions, or by an orthographical corruption of n (Fritzsche on Bar. ii. 29.
— compare Etym. Mag. 416. 41), we frequently find u fn-nv in exactly the same
sense : see Ez. xx.xiii. 27, xxxiv. 8, xxxv. 6, Bar. ii. 29 (Job i. 11 Vat., Al, Sin. ).
There is often considerable confusion between these forms in the leading MSS.
In H. vi. 14 (from tlie LXX) u /in* is very strongly supported : iu Gen. xxii. 17
also, the source of the quotation, it is found in several of the best MSS. See
Bleek in he, A. Buttm. p. 359, Grimm, Clavi^ s. v. £*'.]
628 CONSTRUf;TION OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART III.
(Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 204 sq.), and in ^r) avroh Xoyiadelij,
2 Tim. iv. 16 (Plat. Legff. 11. 918 d). Similarly with /u»?/ceTt
ia Mk. xi. 14 Rec., ftriiceri etc aov eh top aloiva jj/rjhel'i Kapitov
<f)dyot, may no one ever again etc. I Yet the conjunctive ^a7j7
would here be more appropriate in the mouth of Christ, if it
had but stronger external evidence in its favour. See farther
Gayler p. 76 sqq., 82.
b. In the latter case jxtj is joined with
[a) The imperative present, — usually to denote something
which one is already doing, and which also is not transient
(Herm. Vig. p. 809): Mt. vi. 19, /i^ Orjaavpi^ere v/uv vii. 1,
fir} Kplvere Jo. V. 14, fi7]icf.ti afjudprave. Compare Mt. xxiv. 6,^
17 {Ber,.'\, Jo. XIV. 1, xix. 21, Mk. xiii. 7, 11, Eom. xl 18,
E. iv. 28, 1 Tim. v. 23, 1 P. iv. 12.
(yS) The conjunctive aorist, — to denote something transient
which must not take pla,ce at all (Herai. I. c). See L. vi. 29, d-n-^
TaO atpoVTof; aov to l/iaTiop Kal rov '^trcbva, ixrj K(o\var)<; ; Mt. x.
34, 1X7) vofxicT^re (do not conceive tlie thought), on yXdov k.t.X. ,
Mt. vi 1 3, L. xvii. 23, A. xvi. 28. So in legislative prohibitions
fMt. vi, 7, Mk, x. 19, Col, ii. 21), where not the recurrence or
continuance of the action, but the action absolutely and in itself
(even a single performance of it), is interdicted. The impera-
tive aorist, which properly has this meaning, and which is not at
all uncommon in later writers (Gayler p. 64),^ does not occur in
the N. T., and is doubtful in the LXX. On the other hand, we
often find the present imp«^rative used in reference to what
should not be begun at all (Herm. I. c, Franke I. 30) : compare
Mt. ix. 30, E. V. d, 1 Tim. v. 22, 1 Jo. iii, 7. On the whole
subject see Herm. De prceceptis Atiicisiar. p. 4 sqq. {O-pusc. \
270 sqq.) ; and compare Herm, Soph. Aj. p. 163, Bernh. p. 393
sq., Franke I. 28 sqq — In L. x, 4 the imperative and the con-
junctive occur in the same sentenc^,^ fJelf 420. 3, Pon. p. 413.)
* Here, as was rightly observed by H. Steplianua in the preface to his Greek
Testament of 1576, 'ofaTi innst be followed by a comma. If we directly
connect opan with fin, we must have ^pti»(rh instead of ifouaii. This has not
been noticed by Tischendorf, [Tischendorf iiitrod'-"^"d the comma in ed, 7. but
dropped it in ed. 8.]
^ Compare Brerai, Exc. 12. ad Lys, p. 452. sqq.
" [ Delitzsch and Grimm (Clavis 3 v. p-n) suppose that f^n irxXzpavriTt, H, iii,
16, 18 an example of the use of /*« with the preount conjunctive, instead of the
aonst. But why must 7KXnfu»>: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 o<j!)etA«Te as indicative. Reiche's observations on the opposite
side are a marvellous mixture of the obscure and the half true. If
however he supposes that the subjective negatives are so used in
some of the passages cited by Wetstein, he is very greatly mistaken ;
in these we have the infinitive or the participle, — moods which are
regularly joined with /ioy.
On ov with the indicative future — partly in quotations of O. T.
laws (as Mt. v. 21, o{i cftovevo-ur xix. 18, A. xxiii. 5, Rom. xiii. 9),
partly in the language of the N. T. itself (as Mt. vi. 5, ovk IcrecrOe
wsTTc^) oi vTroKptTai), v/here fii] with the conjunctive might have been
expected — compare i^ 43. 5. Not unlike this is Xen. Hell. 2. 3. 34 :
see Locella, Xen. JSphes. p. 204, Franke 1. 24.
" • Ou prd/Vfith the future indicative as a mild prohibition, see Weber,
Demostk. p. 369.
Where ^rj in a prohibitive sense is joined with the third
person (as is frequently the case in laws,— see Franke I.e. p.
32), the mood employed i8-i,iti the N. T. invariably) the impera-
tive, not the conjunctive ; ^ the present imperative being used if
that which is forbidden is already in existence, the aorist if
something wliicli does not yet exist is to be avoided (for the
future also). For the present, see Rom. vi. 12, /i^ ovv
fiaatXevero} rj a^apria ev tw Ovtjtm vixoyv ccojiaiTi' xiv. 16, 1 C.
vii. 12,13, Col. ii. 16, 1 Tim. vi. 2.* Ja. i. 7, 1 P. iv. 15, 2 P. iii.
8. For the aorist : Mt. vi. 3, firj yvdoTco rj apitrrepd aov k.t.X.,
xxiv. 18, f/,T} enrKTrpe-^dTO) aTTiow Mk. xiii 15, fxij Kara^droi
et? TTjv oIkIuv ; also probably Mt, xxiv. 1 7 (apcording to good
MSS.), where Bee. has Kdra^acveroi. Compare Xen. Cyi\ 7. 5.
73, 8. 7. 26, .^schin. Ctes. 282 c, Matth. 511, 3, Ktihner II.
113. Hence no examples from the LXX are required here;
otherwise, besides Dt. xxxiii. 6 and 1 S. xvii. 32, many might
be quoted, — e.g., Jos. vii. 3, 1 S. xxv. 25, 2 S. i. 23, Jud. vi. 39.
rJelf 420. Ols. 6.)
If a dehoitation is to be expressed in the first person (plural),
fi"^ stands with the conjunctive, either present or aorist accord-
ing to the distinction mentioned above (Herm. Soph. Aj. \>p
162). Thus in Jo. xix. 24, p,r] <Txiar(ofji.€v ; but in 1 Jo. iii. 1 8, fjj)^
dyaTTcofjiei/ X079) (^^ some were doing), G. vi. 9, 1 Th. v. 6, Rom.
xiv. 13, 1 C. X. 8. In G. v. 26 the MSS. are divided, some
having fi^ yLv(*)fie6a Kevoho^oi (Bee), others yevdiixeQa. The
^ Herm. SopL. Aj. p. 168. [In Mt. xxi, 19 Tregelles reads a'»i*»*» '>«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]<ra<; hiaf^vyoi. In the last passage good MSS.
have Biatjjvyr},^ which is received by Lachmann and Tischendorf
(Bernh. p. 401, Krtig. p. 191, Jelf 805) ; but this may be a cor-
rection or an error in transcription. "We also meet with the
conjunctive in the 0. T. quotation which occurs in Mt. xiii. 15,
A. xxviii. 27: here however there is still less difficulty, as a, per-
manent result is intended. The future indicative is found by the
side of the conjunctive aorist in Mk, iv. 12 (from the LXX),^
fiiJTTore iTria-rpe-^axn Kal d^edr)<7eTai (according to good
^ [No uncial MS. has the optative here, and in no other passage of the N. T.
is the optative found after the final (tvi. — In 2 C. ix. 4 the conjunctive follows the
epistolary aorist.]
^ [This certainly is a free quotation from Is. vi. 10, but aifiHirtTat (or aiptiif) is
substituted for IdffojjiOfA of the LXX. The same passage is quoted in Mt. xiii. 14 sq.,
A. xxviii. 26 sq. (with fxtfron), Jo. xii. 40 (with "va fi.ri): in all cases Idaaiicu is the
reading now received. In Mk. I. c. Fritzsche stands alone amongst recent
editors in receiving the future into the text.' He thus gives his reasons : "Nam
primo a(pii^ vulgare est, exquisitum ^(p-J^jirat, delude illud ob conjunctives
prsecedentes scripserunt librarii vel quod giammaticte tiraerent, ignari, Futurum
hie non modo justiim esse, sed longe prsestare Conjunctivo, quia id, quod e re
consequatur enuntianduni fuit : — ne quando rcaipiscant et veniam consecutnri
shit: Cf. Hermann ad Soph. El. v. 992 et Heindorf ad Plat. Cratyl. p. 36."
Hermann I. c. distinguishrs between o'pa /nh x.Tn(T&f/.i6a [cave ve contrahamus)
and opa fiii x.rnoofjt.iict. {cave ne ron/rnr/nyp aimus). This case however belongs
to (b) U'low. In other cases the future indicative is very rarely found with
the final w« in classical Greek (except iji Homer) ; see Bernh. p. 402, Host p.
661, Marthia 519. 7, Goodwin, Syntax p. 6S. In the N. T., however, this con-
struction is undoubted (as iu the case of Vva, see p. 361) : besides the examples
just quoted fee Mk. xiv. 2 (placed by Winer under the next head, p. 632), Mt.
yii. 6 (where a conjunctive foiiowsV See also Mt. v. 25, L. xii. 5S : here a con-
junctive is followed by a future, which may however be independent (comparf:
Ij-ffojiai in the passages cited above). In several other passages the future is a
SECT. LVl.] CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 631
MSS.), but it is not necessary to regard this tense as jointly
dependent on fi^Trorc : even so taken, however, the future
would be very appropriate, see Fritzsche in loc. The same may
be said of IdcropLat, A. xxviii. 27 (Bornemann, Idcroofxai) : com-
pare L. xiv. 8 sq. In Mt. vii. 6 Laclirnann and Tischendorf
read fii]7roTe KaraTraTrjcrova-cv, where Griesbach and Scholz note
no variant whatever.
(i) For that not, lest haply, after opa, /SXeVe, or (po/Bovfiai and
the like (Herm. Vig. p. 797, Eost, Gr. p. 662 sq.).^ In this
combination we find
a. The indicative, — when at the same time a conjecture or
apprehension is expressed that something does actually exist,
will exist, or has existed. — Present indicative : L. xi. 35, crKOTret
fiT) TO (f>Q)<i TO iv <Tol (TKOTO'i i<rTiv. See Herm. Soph. Aj. 272,
^i] iari verentis quidem est ne quid nunc sit, sed indicantis
simul, putare se ita esse, ut veretur: compare Gayler p. 317
sq., Protev. Jacobi 14.''* — Future indicative: Col. ii. 8, ^Xinere
fi^ ra earai Vfid^ 6 avXayooyihv, ne futurus sit, ne existat, qui
variant, — and that not only where its form merely differs by a vowel from that
of the conjunctive : see Mt. v. 25 {■ra.pa.luffu), 1 xiv. 8, al., Mt. xxvii. 64, L.
xiv. 12. See Green, Or. p. 175. (On the combination of future and con-
junctive .see Paley on .^sch. Pers. 120.)]
^ [There is great difference of opinion as to this construction. By many it
is considered a variety of the indirect question : see Don. p. 560 sq., Jelf 814,
Kiihner II. 1037 (ed. 2), Rost u. Palm, Lex. s. v. f^^, Host, Gr. p. 664, Hartung,
Part. II. 137, Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 140, 171. Others connect the construction
with that of the final sentence : see Liddell and Scott 3. v. fii, Curtius, Gr. p.
292 (Trans.), Kriig. p. 193 (compare however p. 194), Buttm. Grkch. Gr. p.
432, Green, Gr. p. 176 sq., and compare Goodwin, Synt. p. 66, 84. Compare
further Klotz II. 667, Madvig 124- a. For the N. T. see A. Buttm. p. 242 scj.,
Green I.e., V/ahster Sytit. p. 141 sq. On the different tenses aud moods used
see especially Shilleto, Dem. F. L. p. 200 sq., Jebb, Soph. EL p. 59, Goodwin
I.e. ]). 80-85. — L. xi. 35 is a very simple instance of the indirect question.
2 Tim. ii. 25, . . . fin-raTi dun (or very possibly ^ari), whether haply, i.s somewhat
elliptical, but is an example of the same principle : see Ellicott in loc, and
compare Jelf 877. Ohs. 5, A. Buttm. p. 256.— Mk. xiv. 2) quoted below, seems
naturally to belong to (a).]
^ We cannot, with De Wette, pronounce this view inappropriate, on the
ground that "an absolute, general warning is here expressed." This is the
very question. A challenge to examination, with the apprehension that such
may be the case, might certainly be given by Jesus to the Jews of that age,
their prevalent religious character being such as is presupposed in other parts
of the N. T. ; and this challenge is in reality a general one. " Let every one
see to it, l«st possibly the second of the alternatives mentioned in ver. 34, in
regard to the spiritual eye, may exist in his case." The apprehension that
Jesus would, thus be countenancing the doctrine of a total corruption ol man s
understanding, is groundles-s ; and Niemeyer (/:/aM. Pretl.-Jonrn. 1832. Xov.)
should not have been induced bv this to take the indicative as u.sed for the con-
junctive, — an interpretation which he supports by passages of a totally difFerent
nature.
632 CONSTRUCTION OF THE KEGA,T1VE PAKTICLES. [PART III.
etc.; H. iii. 12, Mk. xiv. 2, Her. 3. .36, Plat. Crat7/l. 393 c,
Achill Tat. 6. 2 (p. 837; ed. Jac.), Xen.. Cj/r. 4. 1. 18, al.
Compare Stallb. Plat. Rep. I. 336. — Preterite indicative, after a
present: G-. iv. 1 1 , ^o/3ot)^-at v/xa?, fiijTro}^ elKrj KeKoiriaKa (have
laboured)} Compare Thuc. 3. 53, Plat. Lys. 218 d, Diog. L. 6.
5, Lucian, Pine. 15 (Job i. 5) : see Gayler p. 317, 320,
yS. The conjunctive (Gayler p. 323 sqq.) ; to express the
object of a mere apprehension, which may perhaps not be cou-
hrmed. Present conjunctive; H. xii. 15 (from the LXX). Ittl-
(TKOTTovvTes . . . fiTj Tt9 pL^a wiKpiu'^ . . , cVo^X^. See Herm.
Soph. Aj. 212 . fiT) fi verentis est, ne quid nunc sit, simulque
nescire se utrum sit necne significantis, Tlie aorist is the tense
commonly used, in reference to something still future : Mt.
xxiv. 4, •/SXeVere, ixrj ri<i vfia'i irXavrjtrrj' 2 C. xi. 3, (po^ovfiai,
fi^TTfo^ . . . (pOapf) ra voijfiara vfxwv xii. 20, L. xxi. 8, A. xiii.
40, 1 C. viii. 9. x. 12. The conjunctive mood is found in narration
after past tenses; see A. xxiii. 10, ev\a^7)6d<i fir) BiaaTraadfj
, . . iK€\ev0-€' xxvii. 17, 29. The same usage occurs in the best
Greek prose after verbs of fearing, in cases where the apprehen-
sion appears suffiGiently well founded (Host p. 662): e. g., Xen.
An. I. 8, 24, Kvpo^ Beiaaf;, pr) oTntrOev yevo/jievo'i KaraKO"^ ro
'EXKrjviKov Cyr. 4, 5. 48, iroXvv <f)6^ov ^fuv Trapei-^ere fii) ri
TraOrjre Lysias, Cccd. Eratosth. 44, o e^tw Zehm'i p/rj Tt? trvBrjTai
eTreOvpovv avrov aTroXkaai. Compare also Thuc. 2. 101, Plat.
Eiithyd. 288 b, Herod 4. 1. 3, 6. 1. 11.^ The future indicative
and the conjunctive occur together in 2 C. xii. 20 sq., <\>ofiovpaL,
fjL7j7rco<i ov^ oLovi BeXo) evpas vpa<; Kayo) evpeOw vp.lv . . . /*»;
TrdXiv iXOopTo^ fiov TaTrecvaxrec pe o Beo^t k.t.X.
The same principles must be applied to elliptical passages such
as the following (Gayl. p. 327), Mt. xxv. 9 liec, firpror'. ovk
dpKeo-i] yjfuv koX v/juv, lest haply there be insvfficieni, i. e., it is to
he feared that there will not suffice. Eecent editors prefer fn/firon
ov fxri apKcar), a reading for which there is no preponderant authority :
in this casf firjVorr is taken by itself — no, in no wise.'* Rom. xi. 21,
' ^ Herm. Eur. M^d. p. 356, ru|.po, Thuc. I. i. 185, Stallb. Plat Meno p. 98
- See MntAh. 520. Bornenj. Xen. Synp. p. 70, Gayler p. 324 sq.
' [Ti.sch. in (id. 8 retuma to ovk, iu deference to X ; but the MS^ evidence
for oi //« is veiy strong CWiner estimates the evidence differently below, §.64.
7), and this reading is generally received. Meyer and Bleek agree with "Winer's
second explanation (taking /i^frar: by itsell), and refer to Bomemann in the
Stud. u. Km l<jl3 (p. 110). Bornt-raann, however, quotes no example of ^rfwe-re
thus used, but conteiiU himself with such passage-s as Mt. xxvi. 5. A. Bultmann
SECT. LVI.] COKSTOUCTION OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 633
cZ o Oeo's tS)V Kara tftvaiv KXaBotv ovk c^euraro, firjiro)? ovSe <rov
<f>6i<r€Tai (incomparably better supported than <^etcr7;Ttu), if God has
not spared, (I fear and conjecture) that possibly he will not spare
thee also, ne til/i qmque non sit parciturus : compare Gen. xxiv. 39.
In G-. ii. 2, ave/^Tjv .... dve$tfxr}v .... /uij/ttcus cts xeybv Tpe;(co
^ eSpa/j-ov, Fritzsclie, in his Conjed. (I. p. 60 note), considered the
translation ne operam meavi luderem aut lusmem faulty in two
respects : first, because in this case the optative might have been
expected instead <'f T/;e'xw (after a past tense) ; and secondly, be-
cause the indicative t^pajxov would hfere indicate what the apostle
cannot intend to say, viz., that he has laboured in v;im. Hence
he took the words as a direct question : num frustra operam meam
in evangelium insumo an insumsii Fritzsche himself, hoAvever,
afterwards felt how artificial this interpretation was; and in the
Opmcul. Fritzsfhiorum (p. 173 sq.) he hasgiveri a dirTerenl j onder-
ing. The difficulty in respect of Tp<)(o}, indeed, disapi.ears entirely
for the N. T. ; nay, the present conjunctive ^ is quite in place, since
Paul is speaking of apostolic activity which stiii coniiv.ues. The
preterite indicative iSpajxov, however, would at once be justified by
th'.' assumption that Paul has given to the whole sentent^e tJiat tura of
exj)ression which he would have used had the Avords hern spoken
directly, — that I may not percJmnce run or have rrni (for "should
run or should have run '^ ; compare above, p. 360. Simph'r still,
however, is Fvitzsche's present view of the preterite, that it is used
in a hypothetical sense;- *' ne forte frustra cucurris.^em," ■"Whkh.
might easUy have been the case, if I had not c. mmunitatcd my
teaching ... in Jerusalem, We must not indeed refer the dv€$i-
Ij-rji' (as FritzscKe does) to a purpose on the part of Paul to receive
instruct ion (for the mere communication could not secure him from
having run in vain, but only the assent of the apostles) : rather
must Paul have been convinced in his own mind that his view is
the right one, and have merely purposed to obtain for himself the
weighty declaration of the apostles, without which his apostolic
labour would have been fruitless both for the present and for the
past. See De Wette in loc.^
In 1 Th. iii. 5 pa^ttw^ is joined with both indicative and con-
junctive: l^re/Ai/^a €is to yvdvai ttjv tticttlv i/Auiv, ftrjirw; iireLpacrev
(p. 363) considers au (i.n apKiirri dependent on /i^nTort, and it is hard to see any
va]i«l objection to this. The elliptical use of urivfTt (Gen. xxiv. 6, xxvii. 12,
1. 15, al. ) is very common in later writers : the particle thus coqies to mean little
more than perhaps, perchance. See Sturz, Dial. Alex. p. 184, A. Buttm. p.
354.— On Rom. xi. 21 see § 65. 1.]
^ Usteri and Scbott conclude that fpix" ^^ indicative, from the fact that
I'Spaf^ot follows ; as if tL^re were not in.stauces in which the .same ]»article, nom
a djrierence In the thought, may be — sometimes actually is — joined with differ-
ent moods ; see 1 Th. iii. 5, to be quoted immediately. [A. Buttm. (p. 3.^3) and
Meyer take Tps;^<v as indicative, preissing the analogy of ilpaftar, but neglecting
1 Th. iii. 5.]
2 Matth. 519. 7, De Parlic. «. p. 54 (Don. p. 603, Jelf 813).
* [See especially EUicott in loc : also Green p. 176 sij.]
634 CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART III.
v/aSs 6 ircipa^wv Koi cts kcvov yevrjrai 6 kottos rj/xSyv, I sent to
learn ymir faith, (fearing) lest haply the tempter should have tempted
you, and my labour should be fruitless. The different moods here
require no vindication. The temptation (the shaking of their faith)
might have already taken place ; but the question whether the
apostle's labour was thereby rendered fruitless depended on the
result of the temptation, which was as yet unknown to the apostle,
and he might therefore speak of the object of his fear as something
future. Fritzsche's rendering (Optisc. Fritz, p. 176), '*ut . . . cog-
noscerera, an forte Satauas vos tentasset et ne forte labores mei irriti
essent," seems to me harsh, since it requires us to take /xi^Trws in two
different senses. That on my view of the passage, however, the
future -vcvTjo-eTai must have been used, instead of ysvT/rat, 1 cannot
at all allow : the future construction is far too strongly marked to be
used in expressing an ap])rehension which may not be confirmed,
and the confirmation of which is at all events not relegated to a
future period, more or less remote.^ See also Herm. Soph. Aj.
p. 48, and Partic. civ p. 126 sq., Matth. 519. 8.
Rem. Verbs of fearing are regularly followed by the simple
ix.ri, fLiijTra)^, etc., not by tva jx-q. Hence in A. v. 26 iVa //.^ Ai^a-
cr$w<Ttv must not be connected with i(f>o(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 i<f)0^ovvTO yap Tov Xaov
must be regarded as a parenthesis. ^
3. The intensive ov fii] (of tliat which m no wise will or
shall happen) ^ is sometimes, indeed most commonly, joined
' [" Tlie future would have represented soTnetbinir to occur at some inclefinite
future time, the aorist subjunctive is properly used of a transient state occurring
in particular cases ; see Matth. Gr. § 519. 8, and compare Madvig, Synt. § 124. 1,
who correctly observes that ^») with future, after verbs of fearing, etc. , always
gives prominence to the notion of futurity." EUicott in loc]
*[ Most of the leading MSS. omit 'Iva. Meyer, ivho retains "va and connects
'iva fin with l(polii>uvTo, 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) i<rTi {there is no fear)
fin rraitttrr, is now the prevailing opinion of philologers : see Ast, Plat. PoHt. p.
3fi!5, Matthias Eurip. Hippol. p. 24. Sprachl. 517, Herm. Soph. (Ed. C. 1028,
HartLing 11. 156. If fliis be so, we must assume that the Greeks had lost sight
of the origin of the expression, for " there is no fear that " would be unsuit-
able in many passages ; in the N. T. see Mt. v. 20, xviii. 3, L. xxii. 16, Jo. iv.
18 [probably iv. 48] At an earlier period Hermann had explained the formula
differently (Eurip. Med. p. 390 sq.); compare also the view stiil taken by
Gayler (p. 402^ — The connective oili ftn {xa) ol ft.ri) occurs in the N. T. once
only. Rev. vii. 16 v. I., but ficquently iu the LXX (e. g., Ex. xxii. XI. xxiii.
13, Jos, xxiii. 7) ; oi-Jt/f /^r, Wis. i. 8. — Ov ftn is of very frequeni occurrence
in the LXX, and its prevalence may probabl}- be referred to that striving after
great expressiveness which is characteristio of the later language : the examples
SECT. LVI.] CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 635
with the conjunctive aorist, sometimes with the conjunctive pre-
sent (Stallb. Plat. Rep. I. 51,' — see below), sometimeti also ^ with
the indicative future.^ The distinction between the conjunctive
aorist and the future indicative (which alone occur in the N. T.)
is thus defined by Hermann (Soph. (Ed. Col. v. 853) : " Con-
junctivo aoristi locus est aut in eo, quod jam actum est " (see
however EUendt, Lex. Soph. II. 411 sq.), " aut in re incerti tem-
poris, sad semel vel brevi temporis momento agenda : futuri
vero usus, quern ipsa verbi forma nouuisi in rebus futuris versari
ostendit, ad ea pertinet, quai aut diuturniora aliquando eventura
indicare volurnus aut non aliquo quocuuque, sed remotiore ali-
quo tempore dicimus futura esse." The inquiry whether this
distinction is >vell-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 <r£iv«<r»i and s/v^nVi;, which are received by recent
editors : on the union of future and subjunctive, see Tisch. in loc. (ed. 7), and
compare p. 630, note*.]
636 CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. [PART III.
H. X. 17, Eev. ix, 6* (xviii. 14).' The future is decide<lly
favoured in L. x. 19, xxii. 34, Jo, iv. 4, x. 35 :^ in Mt. xvi.
22 it stands without any variant, ov fir} eazat <rpi tovto,
{dbdt) ne tihi accidat hoc.
Hence the conjunctive is beyond dispute the ordinary form
in the N. T. (compare Lob. Fhryn. p. 722 f^.) : this is no less
true in regard to Greek autliors, see Hartung, PaHik. II. 156 sq.
Hermann's canon however, cited above, is on the whole in-
applicable to the N. T. ;* for though several passages might be
explained in accoi"dance with it, yet it is violated by others, and
the aorist is used where we should necessarily have expected the
future. See for example 1 Tli. iv. 15, '6tv '^fxeU ol ^wpre? oi
rrepiXeiTrofxevov eh Tr]v Trapovalav rou KVfjiov oi/ fir] ^OdatofMev
rov<i Kot/j,7]0€VTa(;, where the point of time is perfectly definite, on
the day of Christ's second coming ; H. viii. 1 1 , wliere the woids
ov firjBiBd^axnv have reference to a particular time (the Messianic
period, ver. 1 0), and also indicate som.ething lasting ; compare
Kev, xxi. 25. In fact, such a use of the conjunctive aorist in the
sense of the future had become common in later Greek ; compare
Lob. /. c. ip. 123, Thilo, Act. Thorn, p. 57. Madvig also (§ 124,
Eem. 3) finds no sensible difference of meaning between the
future and the aorist in this construction. (All the examples
of ov /ijyin the LXX are collected by Gayler, p. 440 sqq.)
Dawes's canon, which leaves out of cousideration any diflference
of meaning between the aorist and the future in this construction,
but maintains in regard to the former that only the second aorist
active (and middle) is to be admitted into the texts of Greek authors,
* [The conjunctive is certainly the true reading in Mt. xxiv. 35 : Rev. ix. 6
is doubtful. In all the other passages we should probably read the future.]
'■' We must also not overlook the possibility that the presence of the future
in MSS. may sometimes have been occasioned by a future occiuring in the words
which precede or follow : e. g., Jo. viii 12, ov f/.r, viptvarj^o-n «i.x' £|sr.
' [In L. xxii. 34 eu (fuvriiru is best supported. For Jo. iv. 4, X. 35, we should
probably read iv, 14, x. 5.]
[It seems to be generally admitted that this canon canriot be applied to the
N. T. Meyer however maintains that the two constructions are not perfectly
identical in meaning, the future expressing more assurance and confidence
than the conjunctive : -see Mt. xxvi. 35, Jo. viii. 12 (Hartung II. 167). The only
other question in regard to the meaning is, whether the formula is ever impera-
tival in the N. T. JCllicott, Meyer, »nd De Wctte decide in the uegative : see
their notes on G. v. 16. The decision turns mainly on the inteiprelation of this
passage (on which see also Green, Cr. Notes p. 153) and of Mt. sv. 5 (on which
see below, § 64. 11). The prolnbitorv sense is commoi) in the LXX ; see
Thiersch, De Pent. Alex. p. 109, Green" p. 193. j
SECT. LVI.] CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 637
has met with almost general opposition.^ Nor can it bo applied to
the N. T. : here the 1 aorisfc active is just as common as the 2 aorist,
even in the case of verbs whose 2 aorist was much in use : see the
variants in Rev. xviii. 14.
Occasionally ov fi-q is followed in a few MSS. by the present
indicative ; viz., in Jo. iv. 48, eav /a?) (njfjLCLa koL repara iSr^rc, ov fir}
fftoTeverc- H. xiii. 5 (from the LXX), ov jxri <re cyKaraAeiVcu.^ In
Rev. iii. 12, indecl, one MS. (cited by Griesbach) has the optative,
ov fj.r} i^iXdoL. The last instance is certainly a mistake of the
transcriber, caused by not hearing correctly the word read ; the con-
junctive was long ago restored. (The case is different when the
optative occurs in the oratio ohliqua : see Soph. Philoct. 611 and
Schaefer in loc. ; compare also Schsefer, Demosth. II. 321.) In H. xiii.
5 also we must certainly read eyKaToAiVw. In Jo. iv, 48, however,
•TTioTtvVe might perhaps be the true reading, for the present conjunc-
tive is used by Greek writers after ov iirj : e.g., Soph. CEd. Col. 1024,
ovs oi fj.^ 7roT€ ^(opas <f>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\ov<s KpaT'fj's €v Trotwv, ov yurj crot SvvwvTat dvre-
\€iv oi TToXe/jLLOi (wherc, as in Jo. /. c, a conditional clause with idv
precedes), and often in Demosthenes (Gayler p. 437). Still in this
passage the weight of MS. authority is recorded in favour of ttiotcv-
<rr)T€, which is received by Lachmann and Tischendorf. What Her-
mann says (Iphig. Taur. p. 102) on the present indicative after oi
fi-tj will hardly protect the received reading. On L. xviii. 7 see
§57. 3, and p. 620.
This intensive ov ^-q is also found in dependent sentences ; not
merely in relative (Mt. xvi. 28, L. xviii. 30, A. xiii. 41), but also
in objective sentences, after on, as L. xiii. 35 [i?r';.], xxii. 16, Mt. xxiv.
34 ; Jo. xi. 58, ri Soxct Vfjuv, 6tl ov fXT] (X6rj eis t^v eoprr/v; what think
ye? that he will not come to the feast? So also in the direct
question, after rt'?, in Rev. xv. 4, n's ov /i.^ cftofSrjOjj; With Jo. xi. 5Q,
etc., compare Xen. Cyr. 8. 1. 5, tovto yap tv dSevat xp^j oti ov
Svj Bvvrjrai Kvpos evpeiv k.t.X., and Time. 5. 69; with Rev. xv. 4,
eh. ii. 3, Slo. tC ov (jltj yei^rjTai, TTOvqpov k.t.X. Ou ov p-rj in a
question without any interrogative pronoun, joined with the con-
junctive or with the future (Ruth iii. 1), see § 57. 3.
Rem. yot . . . except, no one . , . hut, nothing but, are com-
1 See Matth. 517; Rem. 1, Stallb. Plat. Eep. II. 343, [Jelf 748. Obs. 3, A.
Buttm. p. 213]: and on the other hand Benih. p. 402 sq.
2 [Tischendorf (ed. 8) and Alford adopt this reading, which has now the
support of K : the same form is found with ov ^>j 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 . . , ov8eL<s . . , ov8ev . . d -xi} : se^ Mt.
xi. 27, xxi. 19, L. iv. 26, Jo. xvii. 12, al. (Klotz, Devar. 11. 524).
More rarely the negative is followed by -rrXrjv, as in A. xx. 23, xxvii.
22. "H occurs once only, in the received text of Jo. xiii. 10, o Ac
Aou/xevos ovK £p(€6 XP^lav 7) Tovs TTOf^as viiJ/aa-OaL; and here most MSS.
have el firj, which Lachmann has received. This however might he a
correction of the rarer w, vrhich does occasionally occur (Xen. Cyr.
7. 5. 41).
Section LVII.
the interrogative particles.
1. In the N. T.-* those questions which do not commence with
an interrogative pronoun or a special interrogative adverb (ttw?,
TTov, etc.)
a. Are, if direct, usually expressed without any introduc-
tory particle (Jo. vii. 23, xiii, 6, xix. 10, A. xxi. 37, L. xiii. 2,
1 C. V. 2, Rom. iL 2 1, G. iii. 21, etc., etc.).'^ Sometimes, however,
contrary to the usage of the Greek written language (see be-
low, no. 2), a question in which the inquirer merely expresses
his uncertainty, without indicating any particular answer as
expected by him, is introduced by ei.
b. If indirect, they are introduced by el, — which in this case
is still the conditional conjunction.^
In direct double questions rrorepov . . . i] occurs once onl}^
Jo. vii. 1 7} Elsewhere the first question is not preceded by any
particle (L. xx. 4, G. i. 10, iii. 2, Rom. ii. 3, al.); ij being placed
before the second, if positive, and rj ov (Mt. xxii. l7, L. xx. 22)
or r) fMTj (Mk. xii. 14)^ if negative.*^ "H is sometimes used in a
question which stands related to a preceding categorical sentence
(like an in Latin,— see Hand, Tursell. I. 349): 2 C. xi. 7, el kuI
1 Compare Krii^er p. 283 (Jelf 873).
* Hence there is sometimos a division of opinion amongst commentators
whether a sentence is or is not to be taken as a question (e.g., Jo. xvi. 31, Rom.
viii. 33, xiv. 22, 1 C. i. 13, 2 C. iii. 1, xii. 19, H. x. 2, Ja. ii. 4), or how many
words are inchided in the question (e.g., Jo, vii. 19, Rom. iv. 1). On this,
Grammar can as a rule offer no decision.
3 As to how £i coTnes to have the meaning of an interrogative particle, see
Hartung, Partik. 11. 201 sqq. ; compare Klotz, Dev. II. 508.
* [This is an indirect double question.]
* Compare Bos, EUips. p. 759, Klotz, Devar. II. 576 sq.
8 [Indirect double questions : TorifoM . . . », Jo. vii. \7 ; tl . . , r, h. vi.
9; itrt . . . uri. 2 C. xii. 2 sq. See A. Buttmann p. 249 sq. (Jelf 878). On
the moods used in indirect questions see § 41. b. 4.j
SECT. LVII.] THE INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. 639
lBL(orr]<; tw X07&), aXV ov ttj yvaxrei . . . . ^ dftapriav iTroirjcra
ifxavTov laTreLvcjv ; or have I committed sin ? Rom. vi. 3 (Dio
C. 282. 20), al. ; compare Lehmann, Lucicin II. 331 sq.
2. The following are examples of the singular use of el in
direct questions (a usage found mainly in Luke) : A. i. 6, iirripo)-
T(i>v 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<? for el; and in Aristoph. Nub. 483 * el does not
mean man, but is the indirect interrogative an. So also in
Deraosth. CallivL p. 735 b. Dio Ghr. 30.299, et TidXko vpXv
irpaeTa^ev, iireareiXev ^ BieXe^Orj ; where follows the answer
^ [Here Meyer retains the il of Mec, but takes it iu its conditional sense :
most editoi-s read ^'. In Mk. viii. 23 ntany read fixL-ru, in which case the inter-
rogation it not direct ; Westcott and Hort have (ixiTm (/Sxjts/ in the margin).
In A. vii. 1 Reo. il is accompanied by «/>«.•]
* 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:La<i ; wilt thou not cease? The difference
in the tendency of the question is indicated, as in German, by
the difference of tone:^ here ov negatives the verb, — non desiTiere
=ipergere (see Franke I. 15). Compare Plut. Lucull. c. 40, ov
'kavarj av ttXovtwv fxev a>9 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-
<f>\o<; Tv<fi\ov oBrjyeiv ; ov'^l .dfjLcfjoTepoi, ei9 ^odvvov jcecovvrat, ;
Hermann (Vig. p. 789) remarks that /ir^ sometimes looks
forward to an affirmati\ e answer. The truth of this assertion is
occurs once only in an indirect question (L. xxiv 20). — We find this substitu-
tion of direct for indirect interrogatives in modern Greek : see Mullacli, Vulg.
p. 321, Sophocles, Gram. p. 137, 178 sq.]
' Hartung, Partik. II. 88 (Don. p. 558 .sq., Jelf 874).
* liicht (wahr), du willst aufhiyren? (you will cease, will you not?) is nonne
desinn-% '^ but niclit auflioren wdlst du (will you not cease ?) is non desines ?
' [Th's combination of /*»■ with the adverbial accusative n (compare the Latin
numquid) occurs frequently in the N. T., almost always in an interrogation.
Properly signifying in some, respect, in any respect, t< usually somewhat softens
the question {num fortaasi'}, sometimes apparently strengthens it (as it does
the imperative, — e. g., in .^sch. Sept. c. Th. 686). We find il ftrin in L. ix.
13, 1 0. vii. 5, 2 C. xiii. 5 (Vulg. : nisi forte) : on //.vti yi see § 64. 6. — In the
German renderings in this pamgraph Winer is able ^x> 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]<jrj 6 vlov avTov dproi/, fjurj \i6oi' cTrtSwact avTio i there is a com-
bination of two questions, jf-lw is there among you who . . . would
give !■ and If any one. were asked, he VMuld surely not give ? (would
he perchance give 1) Compare L. xi. 11 and Bornemann in loc.^
Kern. As to Jo. xviii. 37 see especially Ilerm. Vig. p. 794..
OvKovv is non (novne) ergo, with or without an interrogation • ov-
Kovv is ergo, the negation being dropped. If then in this passage
we were to read ovkow, interrogatively {oukow /3acrLXev^ €i crv ;), the
meaning might be, ..^r^ not thou then a king? nonne ergo (Herm.
Vig. p. 795) rex es? the speaker expecting an affirmo.tive answer
(in accordance with the words of Jesus r) ySaa/Aeta rj i/jirj k.t.X.) : see
no. 3. But ovKovf^ the reading received by the editors, is simpler, —
nvKow )9arr[Afvv £t crv- thou, art then surely a king, ei'go rex es f^perhaps
with suppressed irony*), either without or with a question : Xen.
Cyr. 2. 4. 15, 5. 2. 26, 29, Aristot. BheL 3. 18. 14, al. (This
OVKOVV also was originally interrogative, thou art a king, art thou
mtl l<i it not so?* It is in this way that the particle obtained the
meaning then, consequently, or accordingly.) In Jo. xviii. 37, as it
seems to me, the words, in the mouth of the inquiring judge, are
more suitably taken as a question ; and they are tlius explained by
Liicke.^ In any case, however, ovkovv cannot be no7i igitur, as it
IS rendered by Kiihnol and Bretschneid^r :.in this sense it would be
necessary to write om ovv.
' [On Aino3 v. 25 sq. and A. vii. 42 sq. see Pusey on Amos I. c, Davidson,
Jntr. to O. T. III. 260. Smith, Diet, of BMe s. v. Remphan, Turpie, The 0. T.
in the New, p. 1 69 sqq. ]
2 [Bornemann remarks that Luke writes the latter part of the verse as if the
protasis tat roe yrarifia utrnffyi i uio; of rot had preceded (compare ver. 12).]
5 See Bremi, Demosth. p.' 238.
* See Herm. Vig. p. 794 sq. ; compare Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 432 sq. —
Rost (p. 747) and Gayler (p. 149) declare themselves against the plan of dis-
tingui.shing by the accentuation.
* [Most are now agreed in writing ouxaZv liairiXtl; tl ru ; Grimm (Clavis s. v.)
prefers oSxtv» [ianXiui n <r-j ; see Westcott's note. — Kiihner has an excursus on
this word in his edition of Xenoph. Memor. p. 513-523.]
'644 THE SENTENCE AND ITS ELEMENTS, IN GENERAL. [PART IIL
THE STEUCTUEE OF SENTENCES, AND THE COM-
BINATION OF SENTENCES INTO PEEIODS.
Section LVIII.
the sentence and its elements, in general.
1, The essential elements of a simple sentence are the sub-
ject, the predicate, and the copula. As however the subject
and the predicate may be completed and extended in a great
variety of ways by means of adjuncts, so on the other hand we
often find the predicate, sometimes the subject also, blended
with the copula. The limits of the copula are never doubtful ;
but we are at times left in uncertainty what and how many
words constitute the subject or the predicate (see Eom. i. 17,
2 C. i 17, xi. 13, xiii. 7). Such a question as this belongs to
hermeneutics, not to grammar.
The infinitive (by itself^ where it stands for the imperative, as
in Ph. iii. 16 (see § 43. 5), is an incomplete sentence ; for here there
is no grammatical indication of the subject, which in other cases is
shown by the person of the verb.
2. As a rule, the subject and the predicate are nouns, — in-
finitives used as substantives being included under this name
(Ph. i. 22, 29, 1 Th. iv. 3). Sometimes however they consist of
an entire clause or sentence: L. xxii. 37, to yey pa fjL/j,evov 8ei
TeXeaOrjvai iv ifioi, ro' Koi fiera avofiojv iXojiaOrj' 1 Th. iv. 1,
irapeXd^ere Trap" rjiiwv ro 7ra)<; Set v/j,d<; Trepcirarelv' Mt. XV. 26,
ovK. eariv koKov Xa^elv rov dprov tcov tgkvcop k.t.X. The case
of the subject is in independent sentences the nominative (in de-
pendent, the accusative, — accusativus cum infinitivo) ; but by an
ellipsis the partitive genitive may stand as the subject, as in A.
xxi. 16'(§ 30. 8, Eem. 2). On the other hand, a use of iv as a
Tiota noviinativi, in imitation of the Hebrew 3 essentice, is not to
be thought of; the latter idiom is itself a grammatical figment
(see § 29. Eem.).
SECT. LVIII.] THE SENTENCE AND ITS ELEMENTS, IN GENERAL. 645
The case in which the predicate consists of a participle with
the article deserves special mention : Mt. x. 20, ov yap ^/Aets cVtc
ot XakovvT€r Jo. V. 32, xiv. 28,1 ph. ii. 13, Rom. viii. 33, G. i. 7, al.
This case must be carefully distinguished from that in which the
participle is without the article (compare Matth. 270, Fritz. Eom.
II. 212 sq.).
3. The copula regularly agrees in number, the predicate in
both number and gender, with the subject. There is an ex-
ception to the latter rule when the predicate consists of a sub-
stantive ; for then the predicate may have a different gender
and number from the subject. 2 C. i. 14, Kavxni^o, vjxwv ia-^ev
1 Th. ii. 20, vixel<; iare 77 ho^a rjiJuCov koI 77 X^P^' '^^' ^^- ^^»
eyco elfio rj avd<rra(Tc<i koX -q ^(orj- viii. 1 2, 2 C. iii. 2, Rom. vii.
13, E. i. 23, rjTi^ (97 eKK\.7]<Tia) icrrl rb awfia avrov (see § 24.
3), 1 a xi. 7, Col. iv. 11, L. xxii. 20."'
In regard to the copula also we meet with certain departures
from the rule, even in prose, through the writer's allowing more
influence to the meaning of the subject than to its grammatical
form. This takes place in Greek more frequently than in Latin.
(a) A neuter plural is joined with a singular predicate (co-
pula), — chiefly when the subjects are of a material nature, and
consequently may be regarded as a mass:^ Jo. x. 25, ra ep'ya
. . . fiapTupel irepl ifiov' 2 P. ii. 20, jiyovev auTot<i ra ^a^aTa
X^^pova ro)v TrpcoTcov A. i. 18, xxvi. 24, Jo. ix. 3, x. 21, iii. 23,
xit. 31, Rev. viii. 3. — But
(a) When the objects spoken of are intended to stand out
prominently in their plurality and separateness (Weber, De-
mosth. p. 529), the predicate is in the plural : Jo. xix. 31, 'iva
KareaySya-Lv avrwv (of the three who were crucified) ra a-Ke\r)
(immediately preceded by ha firj fMeivrj ra a-cofjuara, — compare
also Jo. vi. 13,'* Rev. xxi. 12, xx. 7, Xen. An. 1. 7. 17). Other-
'^ [A mistake, probably for xiv. 21.]
* The case in which the neuter has a contemptuous force (as in 1 C. vi. 11,
ravTti Titts nrt) must, grammatically considered, be brought in here. [On this
passage see § 23. 5.1
3 Bemh. p. 418, Matt. 300. [Don. p. 399, Jelf 384 sq., Farrar, Gr. Synt.
p. 59 sq. : for the N. T., Green p. 187, Webster p. 50 sq., A. Buttm. p. 125 sq.
In modem Greek neuter plurals regularly take a plural verb : see J. Donaldson,
Gr. p. 33.]
* [Here Winer reads iTtiiiffirtvffai (see ed. 5, p. 419), with Tischendorf and
others. In the passages next quoted, however, the singular is certainly the true
reading : indeed iu Rev. xxi. 12 there is no variant.]
646 THE SENTENCE AND ITS ELEMENTS, IN GENERA.L, [PART III.
wise the plural ^ is rare : 1 Tim. v. 25, ra a\\&)9 exovra {epya)
Kpv^rjvai ov hvvavrar Rev. i. 19, a etSe? koI a elaiv (but im-
mediately afterwards a fieWei ^iveaOaC), He v. xvi. 2 0, L. xxiv. 1 1 ,
— but not Rom. iii. 2 (see § 39. 1). Singular and plural stand
side by side in 2 P. iii. 10." This use of the plural verb is not
uncommon in Greek writers (Rost p. 470, Kiihner II. 50),
especially where instead of the neuter noun some other sub-
stantive of the masculine or feminine gender may have been
in the Avriter's mind ; ^ — though not in such cases only, com-
pare Xen. Cyr.2. 2. 2, An. 1. 4. 4, Hipparch. 8. 6, Thuc, 6.
62, JEl Anim. 11. 37, Plat. B.c2J. 1. 353 c.
()S) When however the neuter noun denotes or implies ani-
mate objects, especially persons, the plural of the predicate is
almost always used : Mt. x. 21, iirava<rry)(Tovrai, TeKva irrl 701/6*9
Kat BavaTcoaovaiv avrov^' Ja. ii. 19, ra BatfMOVia Tncrrevovcrtv
Kol ^piaaovaiv Jo. x. 8, ovk ■>]Kov<rav avTOiv ra Trpo^arw IVIk.
iii. 11, V. 13, vii. 28, Mt. vi. 26, xii. 21, 2 Tim. iv. ] 7, Rev. iii.
2* 4, xi. 13, 18, xvi. 14, xix. 21 (Mt. xxvii. 52, iroWa awpara
rcov KeKotfitjfievcov ajlfov iQyepdtjaav). In other passages the
MSS. vary remarkably, and the singular has a preponderance of
authority in Mk. iv. 4, L. iv. 41, viii. 38,** xiii. 19, Jo. x. 1 2, 1 Jo.
IV. 1, Rev. xviii. 3. In L. viii. 2, indeed, we find without any
variant a(f) ^9 Baipbovia errra c^eKrfKvOef viii. 30, eUriXdev Bai-
fMovca TToXXa' 1 Jo. iii. 10, ^avepd iariv ra reKva rov deov koI
ra reKva rov Bia^oXov. Compare further E. iv. 17, Rom. ix. 8.
Singular and plural are combined in Jo. x. 4, ra rrpo^ara aurS
uKoXovdel, on oiBacriv rrjv (^(ovr^v avrov' x. 27, ra irpo/Sara
Tr;9 <f)Q}vr]<i fiov oLKovet^ Koi aKoXovOova iv fioi' Rev. xvi. 14 :
compare 1 S. ix. 12. In Rev. xvii. 12, ra BeKa Kepara Se/ca
0aaiX.€i<i eiaiv, jhe noun of the predicate made the plural appear
the more suitable number for the verb: compare 1 C. x. 11.
' [Thai is, when rruitertal objects are spoken of.]
* [The best texts have the singular twice.]
* Herm. Soph. El. p. 67, Poppo, Thuc. 1. i. 97 sq., Cyrop. p. 116 : see how-
ever Schneider, Plat. Civ. I. 93.
* [Ti Aflj^a being explained of pergons. On this see Alford in loc]
'fin L. viii 33, 1 Jo. iy. 1, there is no vaiiation of reading. L. viii. 30
should come in here ratlier than below : the singular is the true reading, but the
phuul is a variant."]
* [The plural is more probable Tiere : in 1 C. x, 11, quoted in the following
sentence, we should read (7«>yi/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^o<i ecnpcaaav
kavTwv ra i/Maria (Mk ix 1 5. L, vi. 19, xxiii. 1), 1 C. xvi. 15,
ocSare riji/ oiitlav Xrecfiavdj 6tc .... eh htaKoviav roU ayioi<i
era^av eavTovi Kev. xviii. 4. e^eXdere i^ avrr]<i, 6 Xao? fiov
(Hesiod, Scuf. 327), also Rev. ix. 18, aireKrdvdr)aav to rpi-
rov TMv avdpcoTTcav viii 9 (contrast the singular in viii. 8 sq.,
11), L. viii. 37/ A. xxv. 24. In other passages we find the
plural and singular of the verb or predicate combined : Jo. vi. 2,
rfKoXovdei av7(jj 6^\oi TroXys, on cdopwv (xii. 9, 12 sq., 18),
L. i. 21, tJv Xao9 Ttpo^SoKtov Kal ednvfia^ov A. xv. 1 2 (1 C.
xvi. 1 5). We have the plural in relation to a collective in L. ix,
1 2, cnroXverov rbv ByXov, Xva a7reX66vT€^ . . . KaraXufraxn k.t.X.
When the predicate consists of an adjective with eluat, this ad-
jective not only stands in the plural, but also naturally receives
1 Rdtz, LucianYU. 483 Bip.), Ast, Plat. Leffg. p. 46, Zell, Aristot Ethk.
Hkom. p. 4, 209, Bremi. Z.j/.x. exc. 10. p. 448 sq., Held, Plut. ^m. P. p. 280,
Ellcndt, Pr<xf. ad Arhon. I. 21 sq . Bornem. Xen. Cyrop. p. 173.
-Jacobs, Ath&n. p. 228 ; comp also jleind. Cratyl. p. 137,
' Compare Jacobs, Philostr Jmag p. 236
* [Tfie singular is supported by the best MSS. in this passage. In A. xxv. 24
the reading is not certain.]
648 THE SENTENCE AND ITS ELEMENTS, IN GENERAL. [PART III.
the gender of the personal noun, as in Jo. vii. 49, o o;^X,o9 ovro<;
. . . iiraparoL ela-Lv. Attributives in this construction, how-
ever, may stand either in the plural or in the singular — the
latter when they jprecede the substantive; Mk, ix* 15, Tra? o
o^of IBovre^ . . . i^eOafj-^tjOijaav (L. xix, 37, A. v. 16, xxi.
36, XXV. 24), L. xxiii, 1, avaarav airav ro TrXfjOo^ rp/a'^Qv
avTov. Still the regular construction of collectives with a sin-
gular predicate is more commonly adopted by the N. T, writers.
In the LXX collectives are often joined with a plural pre-
dicate ; see Jud. ii. 10, Euth. iv. 11, IS. xii. 18 sq., 1 K. iil 2,
viii. ^'6, xii. 12, Is. li. 4, Judith vi. 18 : \ao<i almost always has
a plural verb. In Greek authors, too, the usage is far from
uncommon: see Her. 9. 23, w? a^i rb •n\r)6o<i eTre^oijOrjcrav
Philostr. Rer. p. 709, o arrparo^; adv^ioc rjcxav Thuc. 1. 20, 4.
128, Xen. Mem. 4. 3. 10, ^lian, Anim. 5. 54, Plutarch, Mar.
p. 418 c, Pausan. 7. 9. 3.' (Don. p. 399, Jelf 378.)
A substantially similar instance is 1 Tim. ii. 15, o-w^T/o-cTai Se
{rf yvvYi) 8ia ttj'S TCKVoyovtas, car /X€tV(U(riv (at yvvaiKe^) iv Trto-ret ;
for the subject which we have to supply, 17 yw^, is to be under-
stood of the whole race of women. But in Jo. xvi. 32, tva a-Kop-
Tna-6rJT€ cKao-ros ets to. tSia, the plural verb is not directly the pre-
dicate of cKao-Tos, but cKacT-Tos is an explanatory adjunct to the plural ;
as in A. n. 6, tjkovov ets c/<acrTos ry iSi'a StaXcKTO)- ReV. XX. 13
(v. 8), 1 p. iv, 10, A. xi. 29. See Hes. Scut. 283, ^lian, Anim,. 15.
5, Var. Hist. 14. 46,.^ A ii. 12 is similar, as also is 1 C. iv. 6, Tva
firj CIS VTrep tov ivb<s <f>v&iov(r6e Kara rov irepov. On the Other
hand, in A. ii. 3 i<f> 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 <f>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)<i' 2 C. ii. 6, iKavov Ta> 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}<i ave^atvov iv. 19, xii. 25, xiii.
46,xiv. 14, XV. 36, xvi. 25, XXV. 13, 1 C. xv. 50, Ja.ii. 15.* If
' Compare Georgi, HiTocr. I. 51, Wet.stein I. 337, Kypke, Ohs. I. 40, Fischer,
Well. ]II. a. p. 310 .sq., Elmsley,Eur. Med. p. 237 "(ed. Lips.), Held, Plut.
TivioL p. 367 sq., Waitz, Aristot. CaUg. p. 292.
* [It is hard to see why Winer adds " or the predicate," unless perhaps to
include the case in which the copula agrees with the predicate instead of the
subject (Don. p. 400, Jelf 389).]
^ [Unless we ascribe the singular to the iuthieuoe of « (A. Buttm. p. 127).]
* I Id this passage the plural follows two subjects connected by i. 1
SECT. LVIII.] THE SENTENCE AND ITS ELEMENTS, IN GENERAL. 651
one of the subjects is masculine, the predicate takes its gender
irom this subject (2 P. iii. 7). A common attributive is some-
times joined in construction with one subject only, either the
first or the chief; see A. v. 29, a.'jroKpidel';^ TltTpo'; kuI ol
airoaroXoi eiTrav. Where this is not the case (as in A. iv. 19),
if the nouns are of different genders, the attributive is mascu-
line, e.g. A. XXV. 13, ^AypLTTTra'i koL BepviKr) KaT7]VTrjcrav . . .
acnraadfjievoL rov ^rjarov' Ja. ii. 15. We also find a singular
predicate when a number of subjects are connected by the
disjunctive 57: Mt. v. 18, xii. 25, xviii. 8, E. v. 5.
(/3) If tlie predicate jire^edes, it may stand either
1. In the plural, the writer having already before his mind a
plurality of subjects; e.g., Mk. x. 35, Trpo^iropevovTai avTu>
^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 vov<s Kal rj avveiS'ijo-i^. Or,
2. In the singular, if the subjects are intended to be conceived
singly, as in 1 Tmi vi. 4, t"^ u)v yiverai <f)06vo^, epi^, ^Xao(f)7]fjLLai,
K.T.X., Eev. ix. 17,^ 1 C. xiv. 24, idv etVeX^?; rt? a7rt<7T09 rj ISkott]^
(so usually when the disjunctive rj comes between the subjects,
1 0. vii. 15, 1 ? iv. 15 '), A. v. 38, xx. 4, 1 C. vii. 34,- or if
the first subject only, usually as the principal subject, is in the
first instance taken into consideration. For the latter case, Jo.
iL 2, 6K'Ki]6rj (jcai) o Ir)o-ov<; Kal 01 fiaOrjral avrov' iv. 53, viii.
52,^ xviii. 15,xx. 3,A. xxvi. 30, L. xxiL 14, Mt. xii. 3, Phil. 23,
Rev. i. 3, xii. 7.al. ; Plat. Theag. 124 e. Pans. 9. 13. 3, 9. 36. 1,
Diod. S. Hxc. Vat. p. 25, Madvig 2. A participle or adjective
belonging to the predicate stands in the plural : 1.. ii. 3^, ^v 6
' [Oihers explain this singular as referring to the fact that Peter was the
only actual speaker : see Meyer and Alford in loc, A. Buttm. p. 127.]
'■^ [This should probably be xviii. 5.]
' [Winer takes this as plural, and A. Buttm. (p. 41) inclines to the same
opinion : Kriiger (p. 120) quotes xiKXivrai from Xen. De re eq. 5. 2 (leg. 5. 5),
KiKpivTai from Demosth. Aiidrot. 66, Tlviocr. 173 ; see also Paley on ^Esch. Pera.
574, Jelf 224. 3. Ohs. 3. — Ordinarily tlie word is taken as singular.]
* Thuc. 1. 47, Plat. Gorg. 503 e, 517 d, Lucian, Dial. Mort. 26. 1, Quint.
Inst. 9. 4. 22.
* [This is not an example. ]
* [In this passage, and in Jo. iv. 12, L. viii. 22 (quoted below as examples of
auto; KKi), the verb does not stand first, but comes between the first subject
(which is in the singular number) and the rest. In L. xxii. 14, Mt. xii. 3, the
first subject is not expressed, but is included in the person of the verb.]
652 THE SENTENCE AND ITS ELEMENTS, IN GENERAL, [PART III.
Trarrip avrov Kol rj fiJjTrjp davfxd^ovre<i' Rev. viii. 7. On the
whole subject compare Viger p. 194, D'Orville, Charit. 497,
Schoemann, Ismus 4G2. When the subjects are connected by
ri, Greek writers usually place the verb in the plural,^ just as
with a\\o9 aXK<p and the like : ^ the distinction which Matthise ^
makes between the use of the two numbers (in connexion with
Tj) is not perceptible, at all events in the N. T. — In A. xxiii. 9,
ei he irvevfia iXaXijaev avtw r) ayye\o<i , . ,, the singular is quite
in order, as the words are arranged.
In the following examples one subject receives the most decided
prominence among the rest : Jo. ii. 12, KaTifirj ct? KarjMpvaovix auros
Koi ol fjLaOrjToi avTov- iv. 12, 53, L. vi. 3, viii. 22, A. vii. 15; here
the singular predicate needs no justification. This mode of ex-
pression is of frequent occurrence in Hebrew (Gesen. Lehrg. p. 722),
but even in the form avT6<i re nai or koX avVos koI, Ruth i. 3, 6 — is
not uncommon in Greek writers.^ Compare Demosth. Euerg. 688 a,
ci 8to/i€t cttI IlaAAaStaj avTOS koX rj yvvrj kol to, TraiSia k.t.A.. ', Alciphr.
1. 24, 0)5 av e^oi/At crw^co'^ai avTO'i koI t] yvvT] Koi to. Tratoto.
7. When several subjects or predicates are combined in one
sentence, and joined by a copulative particle, the simplest
arrangement is when this particle is placed before the last only
of the connected words. On the other hand, the disjunctive rf
must be repeated before each of the words after the first : Mt.
vi. 31, Tt (f>dycofi€v rj TCTrlw/uiev rj rl trepLJSaXdo^eda ; L. xviii. 29,
o? d(f>rJKev otKiav rj yvvaiKa rj dhe\.(f)Ov<i rj yovei<i rj reKva. The
same repetition is also found sometimes with the copulative;
e.g., Rom. LL Y, Toi9 Bo^av Kal rijirjv koX d<f)6ap<riav ^rjTova-f xi.
33,® xii. 2 (Lucian, Mgr. 1 7> 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)\ov<i kuI .'^(^coX.ovf; el'^dyaye' 1 P. i. 4, iii. 8,^
Jo.xvi. 8, A. XV. 20, 29, xxi. 25, Ph. iv. 12, Rev. ii. 19, v.
12, vii. 9, 1^, viiL 5, Philostr. Apoll. 6. 24, Diod. S. :EJxc.
Vat. p. 32. So especially with proper names : A- i. 26, xiii. 1,
XX. 4, Mt. iv. 25, Jo. xxi 2.
On the other hand, we sometimes find the copulative par-
ticle entirely omitted between the different parts of a sentence —
asyndeton (Jelf 792, Don. p. 609) : —
(a) In enumerations : 2 Tim. iii. 2, ea-ovrai ol avOpcoTroi (f)L~
\avTOl, <f)i\dp'yvpot, dXd^ove^, vTreprj^avoi, /3Xda(f>r]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,d<i iTroriaa, ov ^pwfxa'
vii. 12, Jo. X. 16, Ja. 119. But the asyndeton is not necessary
in such cases, see Col. ii. 8, 1 C.x. 20 ; compare Fritz. Mark, p.
31 sq., though, as it seems to me, too subtle a distinction is there
drawn between the two modes of expression.^
Where plurals are found amongst the various subjects, the verb
which follows is plural, A. v, 17, 29. This is not however neces-
sarily the case ; see Diod. S, 20. 72, iiaKpva koi. d£r;cret<; xal Oprjvo's
iyev€TO (rv/j<f>opr]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]<i, Kal 6 Apaxcov kol ol Kara tou? )(p6vov'i CKCtvoi;?
vofioOerar Aristoph. Nub. 412 (Cic, Tusc. 4. 5. 9, Chrysippus
et Stoici).2 On Eurip. Med. 1141, considered by Elmsley an example
of this idiom, see Herra. Med. p. 392 (ed. Lips.), and also Locella,
Xen. Ephes. p. 208. (Of a diflferent kind, and yet akin to this, is the
Latin exercitus equitatusque, Caes, Bell. Gall. 2. 11.)
8. If two predicate-verbs have a common object, this object
is expressed once only if the two verbs govern the same case :
L. xiv. 4, Idaaro avrov Kal airiXvcrev Mt. iv. 11. In Greek
authors the object is regularly expressed but once even when
the verbs govern different cases (Kriig. p. 259): here the N. T.
writers commonly repeat the object in the form of a pronoun,
as in L. xvi. 2, (fxov^aa^i avrov ecTrev avrm. Compare, how-
ever, A. xiii. 3, i'TTiOivTe'i Ta<i ■)^eLpa<i avroif airekvcrav E. v. 11,
fir) avyKOLvcoveire Tol<i epyoa rol'i dKapiroc;, fidWov 8e eXeyx^ere'
2 Th. iii. 15, 1 Tim. vi. 2. See § 22. 1.
9. Of the three elements of the sentence the subject and the
predicate are indispensable, whereas the simple copula is implied
in the juxta- position of the subject and the predicate : thus
o 6eo^ <To<p6<t in Greek can only mean God is luise. So also
where subject and predicate are enlarged, as in H. v. 13, vra? o
fjLeTe'^ayv yd\aKTo<i dirupo^i \6yov hiKaLoavv^]'^' 2 C. i. 21, Kom.
xi. 15 (see § 64. 2). But as the predicate usually blends with
the copula, so may the subject be included in the copula, or in
the copula blended with the predicate. This takes place — apart
from any particular context — in the following cases : —
' [Meyer opposes Fritzsche's assertion that a'xxsv is to be supplied after ?►«
{tuv •rpi>(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<i (Xeu. Hell.
4, 7, 4), aaXiriaet 6 aa\7nyKTr}<i. like the avayvoicrerai of the
oratory, See § 64. 3. On (the parentheticalj </)T7crt', which is not
unconimon in Greek authors, see Wolf, Dcmosth. Lepl. p. 288,
Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. II. 105, Boisson. Eunap. p. 418; the
use of inquit and ait in Latin is parallel.^
' [As in ver. 16 Jj is generally received, it is perhaps simplest to supply
i<r^.«» in vet-. 1,") ^MeVf!-, Jlcimann, Ellicott, Lifjlitiont).]
■'' See Fischer, W'dl. IIL i. 347, Duker on Thiic. 7. 09, Rornem. Luc. p. 84.
^ [On verbs used impersonally in the 3 pets, t-ing. see Dun. p. 341, Jelf 373,
Clyde, SyiUax p. 114, liiddell, Plat. Apot. p. 155 .-,q., A. Buttm. p. 135. On
aorix'" ^i^- x'v. 41, -TTipiixi' \ P. ii. 6, See (A. Buttm. in) J^ittai. u. Krit. 1858, p.
50ti si]f[. In L. xxiv. 21 it seems prubaVjle that a.yti is used impersonally, ayn
{r'm) iifiifiav — -h r.u'ipa HyiTui : see De W., 131eek, Wordsvv. in toe, A. Buttm.
dr. p. 1-3 i sq. Meyer and Alfonl supply 'l»o-ai/; as the subj^'r't ; Bornemann and
Grimui o 'is-pa'^A..^
* [Here the variant ^«o-',v (2 C. x. 10, Laehrn.) is well supporti-d.]
* See Heindorf, Horat. Sat. p. 146, Kamshorn, Cramm. p. 383.
656 THE SENTENCE AND ITS ELEMENTS/IN GENERAL. [PART III,
(7) More commonly, however, it is the 3 singular passive
(Madv. 7 1)) that is used in this impersonal sense : 1 C. xv. 42,
aireCperaL iv (f)6opa, iyeiperat iv ac^Oapaia (see Van Hengel in
loc), 1 P. iv. 6, ei<? rovTO koI v€Kpoi<; evTjyyeXiadrf /c.r.X, Mt. vii.
2, 7, V. 21, al. We find this form in parallelism with the 3 plural
active in L. xii. 48, S iBoOrj rrpXv, -rrokv^rjTijOi'jqreTat Trap' avrov,
Kol «5 irapedevTo ttoXv, irepiaaorepov alrxjcrova-Lv avrov}
The formulas of citation — Xcyet, 2 C. vi. 2, G. iii. 16, E. iv. 8,
al. ; <jiT]a-L, 1 C. vi. 16, H. viil 5 ; €ipr]K€, H. iv. 4 (compare the Rab-
binical IDIXI 2) . fj^apTvpd H. vii. 17 (fiTTc, 1 C. XV. 27)— are probably
in no instance impersonal in the minds of the N. T. writers.^ The
subject (6 ^eds) is usually contained in the context, either directly
or indirectly : in 1 C. vi. 16 and Mt xix. 5, <^7jo-t, there is an apos-
tolic ellipsis (of 6 6cds) ; in H. vii. 17 the best authorities have
fiapTvpurai.
In the following passages there is nothing impersonal in the
expression : Jo. xii, 40 (any one conversant with the Bible readily
supplies 6 6'eds), 1 C. xv. 25 (6fj, scil. X/^^o■Tds, supplied from awVov) ;
Eom. iv. 3, 22, iirLo-revcrev 'A/Spaap t<S OcQ kol iXoytaOrj auVw €«
8iKaLoa-vvr]v, scil. to ina-TivcraL, supplied from im<TT€vaiv ; Jo. vii.
51, where with iav fir] aKova-rj we must repeat o vd/tto?, which is
personified as a judge. In 1 Jo. v. 16, atrov/xcj/os (^td?), supplied
from air-^a-et, will be more suitable * than alrCiv as a subject for Swcrtt.
In H. X. 38, iav viTO(TT€iXr}Tai, it is probably simplest to regard- the
general term avOpoiTro's, supplied from 6 StKuips, as the subject of the
verb.
The predicate is included in cTmt when this verb signifies existence :
Mt. xxiii. 30, el rip-^Oa iv Tats rjp-epai'i rS)v Trarepwv k.t.X., Jo. viii. 58,
Rev. xxi. 1 , T] OdXaaa-a ovk ecrriv crt. In this sense flvai may have
adverbs annexed to it, for the sake of more exact definition : 1 G.
vii. 26, KaXov avSptiiirw to oiutws etvai.
1 But this will not justify our saying that the 3 plural active is ever used — as
in Chaldee, see my Ghamm. § 49 [Gesen. Hebr. Gr. p. 221],— simply to express
the passive ; for even in L. xii. 20 aTaiToZiriv may be conceived concretely, see
Bornera. in loc.
* See Surenhusius, B//3Xa; xaraf^Xccyitt, p.. 11.
3 [On the other side see Lightfoot on G. iii. 16 : compare Delitzsch on H. viii.
5 — In Mt. xix. 5 we have ti-ri>, 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. <im>, 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)<i eXa^ev '^dpLcrfia ei? eavTov<i avrb
SiaKovovPTd o)? KoXol oiKovofxoL (tliG KaKOi oiKovopoL do not so);
H. X. 29 (compare ver. 28), viii. 6 ; Eom. vi. 12, jxr) ^SaciXeveTo)
T) d/jLapTca iv rut dvrjTO) vp,<hv acop-art (because the acopa is Quiyrov,
for this reason it would be absurd to give oneself up to such
dominion) ; 2 P. i. 4, Mk. xiv. 6, H. ix. 11, 12, 1 Tim. i. 19,
1 C. V. 7, 2 C. v. 1, 1 P. iv. 10, 19. Hence in apostolic language
we find Kaivr) ktIci'^, kulvo^ dvdpcoTTo<i, and usually r] kuiv^
Biadr]Ki]. But the postfixed adjective may also be emphatic, if
rendered prominent by the article, as in Jv. iv. 11, frodev e;^a<;
TO vhwo TO ^Mv ; X. 11. eyco elpt 6 Trotprjv 6 KoX.o'i, — or placed at
the end of the sentence, as in Mk. ii. 21, OL/Set? . . . eTnpu'/rreL t-7rl
lp.dTLov iraXaiov Jo. xix. 41, Mk. xvi. 17, y\(t)a(Tai<; \a\.rjcrov<n
KaivaU. Wo hnd both positions of the adjective in the same
verse in Tit. iii. 9, p^wpd^ ^T^T^/crtt? .... p'dxO'^ vopcKd<i. In
general, it must be remembered that it often rests entirely with
the writer whether he will emphasise the attributive, or not.
Thus in Jo. xiii. 34, 1 Jo. ii. 7, 8, the apostle might have written
Kaivrjv ivroKi)v, in distinct antithesis to the old commandments ;
but he writes imoXtju Kacvrjv, a commandmeiit, which is new.
In Kev. iii. 12 we have t% Kaivfj'i 'lepovaaXijp,, but in xxi. 2
'lepovaaXrjp Kaiv^v. In 2 P. iii. 13, KaivQV<i ovpavov'; KaX jrjv
Kaiviqv} it was siiflicient to make the adjective emphatic by
position once only, where it is first used. As in A. vii. 36
and H. xi. 29 we have epvOpd dd^uiaaa, so in the LXX wo
frequently find ddXaaaa ipvdpd. [See further § 61.]
with the article (an arrangement which always gives some emphasis to the
substantive), and may have emphasis when inserted between the article and the
noun. Thus ayuv KKXi; and e xaXo; dyav wiU be the natural arrangements of
the words without and with the article, apart from any special emphasis. See
e.g. Jo. xvii. 2 Sq., .... idirti avroTs ^aiJiv aituviov' atirri ii larit ■i a,iuito$
Z,uri *.T.X.--When several adjectives are joined to a noun, there seems to have
been a special preference for placing the noun first. ]
' [This arrangement seems chosen for the sake of variety only : compare 1 0.
xiii. 2. On the Chiasmus see Jelf 904. 3, Clyde, Synt. p. 171, Don, Lat, Or.
p. 252.]
SECT. LIX.] ATTRIBUTrV'ES : APPOSITION. 659
When two or more adjectiveB connected by kui are attached to
the same substantive, they either precede or follow it, according
to the above rule : 1 Tim. ii. 2, ha rjptp.ov koX rjavxiov /3tov Sia-
yoj/x€v Mt. XXV. 21, SouAc ayaOk KOi iricrTi- \i. xxiii. 60, av-qp dyado^
Koi SiKaios- A. xi. 24, Rev. iii. 14, xvi. 2. I'he explanation of such
an arrangement of words as is found in Mt. xxiv. 4.5, 6 ttio-tos
SovAo? Koi (fip6vi/xor H. X. 34,^ is, that the second attributive is
brought in afterwards by the writer as a supplement, or that he
reserves it for the end of the sentence that it may have greater
weight.
3. Two or more adjectives attached to nouns are, as a rule, con-
nected by Kat: 1 P. i. 4, as KXijpovo/j^tav dcpOaprov kol a/xiavrov
KoX afjLcipavTov i. 19, 2 P. ii. 14, al. Where the copula is absent,
either the writer intends to give an enumeration of separate
qualities, which are to be noted separately (§ 58. 6), as in
1 Tim. iii. 2 sqq., 5et rov iirLcnco'Kov aveTriXrjTrrov elvac, vr](f>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\vTifio<i), Jo. xvii. 3, iva 'yivoo-
tjKooaiv ere lov fiovov dXrjBivov Bfov G. i. 4, 1 C. x. 4, Rev. i. 16,
ii. 12, xii. 3, xv. 6, xx. 1 1 : this is sometimes shown by the very
arrangement of the words, as in- Jo. vii. 37, ev rfj ia'^arr) rifiepa
Tj) fjLeyoKrj rrj^ eoprf]';- H. ix. 11. Coinpare Her. 7. 23, atTO^
TToXA-o? e^oLTa eV t^? *Aaia<i d\r)\eaiJi,evo<f Dion. H. IV. 2097,
a-vvayayovre'i ihitariKov avvehpiov TrarpiKov: see Matth. 444 (Jelf
44 1).'' Where the second predicate is a participle proper, no
one will look for a connecting «at: A. xxvii. 6, evpcov ifXolov
^AXe^avSplvov irXeov et? rrjv ^iTaXiav Mk. xiv. 14, Rev. x. 1.
When TToXv'i is added to a noun which already has an adjective,
it is joined with it either according to the above rule (Jo. x. 32,
TToAAo. KoXa Ipya eSeifa* 1 Tim. vi. 9), or as in A. xxv. 7, ttoAAo. tc ^
Ktti /Sapea alTLuyfxara, where the word expressing the quality is
^ [On these pa8::age.s, and on 1 P. i. 18 (quoted below), see p. 166.]
* Dissen, Pindar p. 30o sq. (ed. Goth.), Herm. Ear. H/c. p. 54, Elmsley, Eur.
Med. 807, Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 71. Compare Kritz on Sallust, Juff. 172.
'[There is no authority whatever for n here. — For Mk. xiv. 14 (quoted above)
read Mk. xiv. 15.]
G60 ENLARGEMENT OF THE SIMPLE SENTENCE. [PART IIL
brought into prominence, many and (indeed) heavy etc. Compare
Her. 4. 167-, 8. 61, Xen. Mem. 2. 9. 6, Lys. 26. 1 : see Matth. 444
(Don. p. 386, Jelf 759. Ohs. 2), Under the same head come Jo, xx.
30, TToAXa Koi oAXtt cny/tcta (contrast xxi. 25 oAAa TroAAa), and L. iii.
1 8, TToAAa Kox €T€pa (this combination also is not unknown to Greek
writers, see Kypke on Jo. xx. 30), many and other, — for which v\-ft
say many other.
4. From the natural rule, that the adjective must agree with
its noun in gender and number, there are only occasional devia-
tions, — 'vvhere the writer has allowed the consideration of the
liieaning to prevail over that of the grammatical form.
(a) Masculine adjectives are joined to neuter or feminine sub-
stantives which signify persons (Herm. Viff. p. 715) : Rev. xix.
14, ra crrpaTeufiara . . . rjKoKovOei avru) . , , ivBeSvfJ,evot
^ucraivov XevKov KuOapov' Hev, v, 6, E. iv. 17, 18, 1 C. xii. 2,
Mk. ix. 26. See Xen. Mem. 2^2. 3, aliroXei^ . . , otx; iravaoure^
Cyr. 1. 2. 12, 7. 3. 8, Joseph. Antt. 6. 11. 6 (compare Liv. 7, 2).
a still bolder example is Aristid. I. 267 extr. (J ebb), ii/xiWa Kal
a7rov^r)Tb)veKaTep(o6evfji€yiaT(ov7r6X€(ov, KoKovvTOiv re (t)<i avrovi.
8ee also Eev. xi. 15, iyevovro (f)(oval fieyaXaL . . . Xeyovreq (v.
1 3); iv. 8, Ttt reaaapa ^oia, ev KaO' ev aurcov e%&)i/ ava Trrepvya'?
e^, . . . Kal avdiravaiv ovk e-xpvcriT rj(xepa^ kuI pvkto^ Xeyovre'?.
(Don, p. 386, Jelf 378 sq.)
In E. iv. 18 io-KOTiajxevoi does not belong to the subordinate
sentence Ka^w? Koi ra Wviq, but to v/aSs : ^ 2 Jo. 4, evprjKa €K Twv
reKViDv nov Tr'tpiiraTovvTas, only borders on this usage.
(h) Collectives in the singular (compare § 58. 4) are sometimes
follo\ved by a plurrJ adjective: A. v, 16, a-vvijpx^.TO to irXtjdo^
roiv irepi^ nroXewv' lepova-aXrjpb (f)epoVTe<i uaQevel-i k.t.X. (xxi. 36,
L. xix. 37, compare Diod. S. 5. 43, Xen. Eph. 1. 3, Palairet,
Ohscrv. p. 201), A. iii. 11, a-vvehpafxev 7ra<i 6 Xa6<i . . , eKOafi^of
Jo. xii. 12. Rev. vii. 9,, xix. 1 (Philostr. Apoll. 2. 12), L. ii. 13,
•KXrj6o<i crTpaTid<i ovpavlov alvovvrwv rov deov k.t.X. In Rev.
iii. 9, however, tcov XejouTcov is not an epithet of (rvvaya)y7}<i, but
must be taken partitively. Singular and plural are combined in
Mk. viii. 1, irapLTToXXov oj^ov 6vTo<i koI ixrj eyovTcav, ri (pdywa^f
A. xxi. 36.^ Compare Diod. S. 14. 78, rod 7rXrj6ov<iavvrpe'^ovTo<i
.. . . Kal rov<; ixiadov^ irporepov drrairovvroav Virg. ^n. 2. 64,
' [This is surely impossible . the words which follow must have been fur the
moment overlooked. — On this cotistruct'io ad sensnm see § 21.]
^ [A. xxi. 36 is out of place htre : it is very properly quoted above.]
SECT. LIX.] ArrRiBUTiVES: APPOSITION, 661
Tindique visendi studio Trojana juventus circumfusa ruit cer-
tantque illudere capto.^ (Matth. 434. 2, Jelf 378.)
The combination of two genders in Rev. xiv. 19 is singular:
tjiaXiv eh ryjv Xrjvbv Toy Ovfiov rov Btov tov jxiyav (a:i Tischendorl
and others read). At^vos is sometimes masculine in the LXX ; see
Gea. XXX, 38, 41 (Vat.).^ But in A. xi. 28 Luke certainly wrote
\cfi6v fieyaXrji' . . . ^tis : see Bornemann in loc. lu Ph. ii. 1, for
et Tis (o TrAayx''^) ^^^ recent editors read ci nva.^
5. Whei* an adjective belongs to two or more substantives
which differ in gender or number (Jelf 391),
(a) The adjective is usually repeated with each substantive :
Mk. xiii. 1, the iroraTroi \lOoi koX iroraTral olKoBofial' Ja. i. 17,
Tracra Socrt? dya6r] koI irav hctiprjfia reXeiov llev, xxi. 1, ovpavbv
icaivov Koi <yf}v KaivrjV Jo. xi. 33, A. iv. 7, 1 C. xiii. 2, E. i. 21,
1 P. ii. 1, 2 P. iii. 13, 3 (1) Esdr. iii. 5. Compare Aristot.
Nicom. 7. 9. 1, Demosth. Pac. 23 b.
{h) The adjective is expressed once only. If it precedes, it
takes the gender and number of the first noun, as in L. x. 1, e^9
Trd<rav iroXiv koi tottov 1 Th. v. 23, Rev. xiii. 7, vi. 14, vii. 9 :
compare Diod. S. 1. 4, fjuera TroWtj^ KaKOTradela'? koI klvBvvcov
Dem. Con. 728 a, Plutarch, Mor. 993 a. When the adjective
stands last, it is sometimes plural, sometimes singular, and takes
the gender of the nearest or of the principal substantive. See
' See further Poppo, Tfiuc. I. 102 sq., Bornem. Xen. Apul. p. 36, Anab. p.
354, Jacobs, Anthol. Pal. III. 811, Herm. Luo. Ooriscr. Hist. p. 301, Ast, Plat.
Legij. p. 103 sq.
^ Liicke (Apokal. II. 464) would eitlur read, witli a single MS. [no. 36, a
cursive MS. of the 14th century], t«u ft.i'ya.Xou, which is probably a correction,
or assume a constructio ad sensum, the writer having only ^y/*«j roZ itoZ before
his mind when he wrote to» fiiyav. That the latter supposition involves con-
siderable harshness, is admitted by Liicke himself. See also Matthai's smaller
edition, p. 63. [In his 2nd edition Liicke agreed with Winer. Peculiarities of
this kind occur in Hebrew, see Gesen. Hebr. Or. p. 187 sq., Kalisch II. 108.
Diisterdieck (comparing Pr. xviii. 14) suggests that the writer first uses the
ordinary feminine form tji» Xvriv, but adds the epithet in the masculine because
this form seemed more suitable to that which the image represents : see also
Alford in loc. — In L. xix. 37 Lachmann aud Tregelles read irai-r^v <J» »rSa»
iuyauiuv ; but this reading is not strongly supported.]
* [e7 rti ffTkayx*'^ is received by Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann (both editions),
Tischendorf, Alford, Eadie, Lightfoot and others ; and is supported by an over-
whelming weight of evidence. Meyer and Ellicott read u rmtt on internal
grounds : for this reading "no manuscript whatever has been cited" (Scrivener
introd. p. 549.). Reiche and Scrivener prefer il n, which however is not found
in any ancient MS., and is almost as ditficult as i" ns in point of grammar. Of
those who read »" ns, some defend it as an extreme example of constructio ad
smhuni (Eadie, Alford, A. Buttm. p. 81), others take it as a mistake on the part
ot the original scribe (see Lightfoot) : other explanations (very unnatural) may
be seen in Meyer's last edition, p. 71 sn. (Transl.). See further Green, Gr. p.
10!)- — InMk. xiii. 14 we must read to p,aiXuyfca rni \fr)fiai(fius 'nrrKxira, clearly
a constructio ad sensum.]
662 ENLARGEMENT OF THE SIMPLE SENTENCE. [PART DI.
H, IX. 9, 8o!>pu 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<i vavf aTreXr/-
Xvdora- Xen. Cyr. 7. 5. 60. If the nouns are of the same
gender, or if in the adjective the different gender's cannot be
indicated by different forms, the adjective is usually expressed
once only, either with the first substantive — A. ii. 43, Mt. iv.
24, Mk. ii. 15, E. i. 21, 1 a xi. 30 (2 P. i. 10), Eev. vi. 15,~
or with the second (2 C. 1. G).
in 1 P. 1. 18, ov ^dapToTs apyvpt'o) rj )(pvcrLiD iXvTptLOyyre, it
might seem that we have a plural o.djective belonging'to two [singular]
noTins. Here however (f)6apro?s must be regarded as a noun, dpyvptw
and xP'^^ai'.io as words in apposition to it, added for more exact
expiaimtiou : not by ?neans of perishaUe things, silver or gold.
6. Of very frequent occurrence dje predicative enlargements,
which we should mark by as ov for. See 1 Tim. ii. 7, eU o
eT^By^v iyoi Krjpv^' 1 C. x. 6, ravra tvttoi, r^pwv iyevrjOrio-av x,
11 [Rec!\, XV. 26, Mt. i. 18, Jo. iii. 2, xii. 46, 2 Tim. i. 11 ; 1 P.
il. 5j avrol ax; XiOoi twz/xe? OLKoSopeicrOe oIko<; TrvevfiUTiKO';' 1 C.
ix. 5, dB€\(pj]i> 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<i'
A. vii. 10, xix. 19, xx. 28, xxv. 14, xxvi. 5, L. xx. 43, 1 C. xv.
20, 23,2 Cor. iii. 6, 1 Jo. iv. 1 0, 14 (2 Th. ii. 13, with the read-
ing aTrapxnv), H. i. 2, xii. 9, 2 P. iii. 1, Eev. xiv. 4. Some-
times such a predicate is made prominent by the comparative
particle w?, as in 2 C. x. 2, \oyi^ofievov<i ^/za? a><? fcara adpKU
TrepiiraTovvrar 1 C. iv. 1, — compare 2 Th. iii. 15, 1 Tim. v. 1, 2;
or the Hebraistic consti-uction with et9 is employed, as in A. xiii.
22,'tjyeipet/ tov Aavl'B avrol^ et? /daaiXea' xiii. 47, vii. 21 (see p.
285 sq.; The word to which the predicate refers is left out in
1 Tim. V. 1, TrapuKdXet (scil. avrov, supplied from the preceding
word rrrpea-^vTepw) &>? 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<s- Jo. iv. 23,^ H.
^ [With the rendering for such the Father setketh his worshippers to be
SECT. LIX.J ATTRIBUTIVES : APPOSITION. 663
X. 20. Conversely, a predicate is added to a pronoun in 1 P. iii. 21,
b (vSiop) KOL vfj.a<i dvTLTvTrov vvv (rw^ct. Such predicates are some-
times to be taken proleptically : ^ Mt. xii. 13, aTriKarea-TaO-q vytrj<;,
i. e., oisre yeveV^at vytij (L. -ail 35 v.l), Ph. iii. 21, 1 C. i. 8, 1 Th.
iiL 13. [§ 66. 3.]
7. There is especial variety in the appositional adjuncts,''
which are appended without a conjunction {aa-vvheroiS!), mainly
for the purpose of more exactly defining one nominal (pr pro-
nominal) notion by means of another. Apposition is
(a) Synthetic, — in the case of proper names, which are cha-
racterised by the word denoting the species to which they belong,
or (if the names are common to several persons or things) are
distinguished by means of a word expressive of quality : Mt, iii.
6, iv Ta> ^lophdvT) TTorafjua)' H. xii. 22, 7rpo<;eXT)\v9aTe ^i(ov opec
A. X. 32, oiKia ^IfjiOiuof ^vp<Teco<;' H. vii. 4, heKarrjv ^A/3paafi
eBcoKev . . . . 6 TraTpidp^ij'i- A. xxi. 39, Rev. ii. 24.
(b) Partitive (Eost p. 483 sq.): 1 C. vii. 7, e/cao-ro? iHtov e^ei
^dpio-fia, 6 fiev oi/t<u9, o he ovTwr Mt. xxii, 5, A. xvii. 32, xxvii.
44. More simply in A. ii, 6, rjKovov el? eKaaro^ rf} ISlo, BtaXeKTrp
K.T.X., E. iv. 25.
(c) ParathetiG, — where some quality of a person or thing is
indicated: L. xxiii. 50, 'I&)T7/(/), dvrjp dyaOot; koI BiKaio<i' Jo. xiii,
14, el iyo} evi-yp'a v/xcov Tov<i TToSa?, o KVpio^ Kai o StSa<T/ca\o?*
viii. 40, H. ix. 24, A. xxii. 12, Ja. i. 8, Mt, xiv. 20, Ptom. vii. 19.
Compare 1 P. v. 1, al.
((/) Fpe.xegeMc, — when a word of less wide significatioti is
added, and we should interpose namely : E. i. 7, iv w e%o/x.ey
(ver. 10) Tt)v aTToXvTpcoaLV .... Tr^f d(jieaiv rlov TrapaTrrcofidTOiv'
1 P. v. 8, avrlBLKot vp,o)v, Bid/3oXo<;' E. i. 13, ii. 15, iv. 13,
Ph. iv. 18, 1 C. V. 7, 2 C. v. 1, vii. 6, Eom. viii. 23, Jo. vi. 27,
vii, 2, Mk. xii. 44, A. viii. 38, 1 Jo. v. 20, Jude 4, Rev. xii. 1, al.
So also after pronouns: Jo.ix. \3,d'yova-Lv avrov rov irore rvcjikov
1 Th. iv. 3, rovTo fo-ri OeXrjfia rov deov, 6 a7tacr/i09 vficov (Xen,
Cyr. 2. 2. 15, Plat. Eej). 9. 583 d, Gorf/. 478 c), 2 C. ii. 1, eKpiva
(Alford, Meyer, TiUthardt, al.) : others, seeketh such as Jus v)or shippers. In H.
X. 20 the. ordinary view is simpler, that ^v (coiisiiiere'l predicative by Winer") is
the object of ivix.uis'Knv, and odh Tcp'onparo^ xtt) ?&ira» predicative or descrip-
tive.]
' Bornem. Luc. p. 39, Krug. p. 240 (Don. p. 534 sq., Jelf 439. 2).
2 Some well-weighed observations will be found in .J. D. Weickert's Progr.
uber die Apposition im Deutschen (Liibben, 182D). Compare also Mehlhorn. De
uppositione in Grmca lingua, Glog. 183S (Soramer in the Zeitschr. filr Alter-
thumswiss. 1839, No. 125 sq.), Rost p. 481 i^([(i. (Don. p. 368 sqq., Jelf 467.)
664 EXLARGEMENT OF THE SIMPLE SENTENCE. [pART III*
ifiavTw TovTo, TO fii) . . . . iXdelu (Rost p. 48 1), E. i. 19, eh I'fjia^
Tou? 7ri(TT€vovra<;- Eoin. xiv. 13, 2 0. xiii. 9, Ph. iii. 3, Ja. i. 27,
1 P. i. 21, ii. 7 (2 P. iii. 2), 1 Jo. ii. 16, iii. 24,^ al. (Bornem.
Zuc. p. 1 14 sq;): 1. C xvi. 21, o aaTraa/ncxi rj] i^ifj 'x,^ipl UavXov,
i.e., rrj %€t/3t fiov IlavXov^ (compare Cic. Par-ad. 4. 8, Fam. 5. 1 2,
Liv. 4. 2, 7. 40). Even adverbs are followed by appositional
adjuncts! L. iv. 23, eoSe eV rfj warpihi aov (^schyl. Choeph.
654), Ja. iv. 1, Trodev 7r6\e/j,oc koL fxd)^ai ; ovk ivrev6ev, i/c
Tcop rjhovoiv K.rX., Mk. viii. 4, 1 P. ii. 15..
Several appositionai words may be joined to one subject (Rev. xii.
9, xiii. 16), and thus an apposition sometimes consists of several
members (3 Th. ii. 3 sq.). In 2 P. ii. 18, however, we must not
(with Lachmann and Tischendorf ) take tous Iv trXavrj ava(TTp€<f>oix€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 Kf<f>a\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<i- Hipp. maj. 281 c, 01 7ra\atot
(Kfii/oi, wv ovofJiaTa p-eydXa Aeyerat . . IliTraKow Kal B/avros, . .
(f^aivovTaL dire^oixcvoi' Eep. 3. 402 c, 7. 533 c, Apol. p. 41 a, Luciun,
Eumxch. 4.^
8 That words in apposition, stn tiding as they do on the
same, level with the nouns to which they are joined, agree with
them in case, is a well-known rule : there is no such agreement
in gender or number (Eamshorn p. 294). Thus a material
(abstract) noun may stand in apposition to a personal noun, or a
plural to a collective singular, or a singular to a plural. Ph. iv.
1, aheX^ot fJ.ov djairijTOL . . . %apa Kal (xr€(f)avo<i fiov' 1 C. iv.
13, XV. 20, Col. iii. 4, Ph. iv. 18, Eev. i. 6, xvi. 3 ; Soph. dJd.
Col. 472, Eurip. Troad. 432 ; I'lin. Fpp. 9. 26, Demosthenes ilia
norma oratoris et regula ; Liv. 1. 20. 3, virgines Vestse, Alba,
oriundum sacerdotium ; Liv. 1. 27. 3, 8. 32. 5. 1 C. i. 2, rfj
€KK\7](Tia Tov deov, rfyiaa/xivoi'; iv XpLCTO), rfj ovo-t) iv Kopivda'
1 Jo.v. 1 6, Sct><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<i rod ovpavov ; compare A. ii. 19, iu
T& ovpavM civo) . . . eVt t//? 7% kutq}. From dve^r} the apostle
infers a KUTe^rj ; now first of all and properly it was the earth
to which Christ descended (and from which he ascended again) :
-this, as contrasted with heaven — which is here called vyjro<;, — is
designated a depth or low region. Christ's descent into hell (of
which we find these words explained in Evang. Apocr. p. 445),
as a single event, cannot come into consideration here ; and to
Winer considers ahrZ and t«i"V aiA.a.pri.^titjffiv as in apposition, he must himself
refer aoT* to the aJeX^cs x.r.x. — Those who make anui the subject of 'btoau
(see above, p. 606) naturally explain the datives as Winer does above. A.
Buttm. takes alrw as the dalivus ethicv.i, and roTs ifiapratourtv as governed by
leirti, and a his as the subject of this verb.]
" Kriig. p. 113 (Jelf 435. d.) : compare also Hoffmann, Oramm. Syr. p. 298.
[Cowper, Syr. Or. ]). 96.]
* [In support of this view — also taken by Meyer (ed. 2), Harless, De Wette, —
see Kadie in loc. : on tlie other side see the notes of Meyer (ed. 3 and 4),
Olshausen, EUicott, Alford, and Wordsworth.]
SECT. LIX.] ATTRIBUTIVES: AI'POSITION. 667
refer al^aXwrevecv al^aXcoaiav to this would be too limited
a view.
The interpretation of airap^r} tov Trvevfiarc:. Rom. viiL 23,
to mean the Spirit as first-fruits (viz., of God's gifts of grace)
has not yet been fully refuted, even by Meyer and Philippi
The main objection urged against it, that the genitive after
dirap-xr} is always (in Scripture language ? — compare however
Ex. xxvi. 21/ Bt. xii, 11, 17) a. partitive genitive, would after
all be a merely mechanical argument. In that case one could
never say mi/ first-fruits, first-fruits of Pentecost, etc. ; but living
languages do not allow themselves to be peijt up within such
narrow limits. Compare Fritz. Boyn. II. 175. The t^pirit-is
without question a gift of God, as truly so as- the (Tayrrjpia or the
K\r)povofj.ia, and may very well be regarded as the first-fruits
of the gifts of God ; and this view is more nearly suggested by
the phrase dppa/3o)v rov trvevfiaTd itself than Philippe is willing
to admit. On the other hand, the use of Trvetjfxa to denote thfe
fulness of heavenly blessings, those of the future v/orld included,
is not found in the language of Scripture.^
The ycnitivus appositionis admits of easy explanation out of
the nature of the genitive case, — the sign of circumcision, a geni-
tive used for more exact definition of a general notion. Though
not uncommon in Oriental usage,^ in Greek it appears to be re-
stricted to the geographical formula noticed above (and even this
is on the whole of rare occurrence) ; for of the examples quoted
by Bauer * from Thucydides there is not one which is altogether
certain.' In Latin, however, — besides such examples as verhum
scrihendi,. vocahidum silentii, which occur throughout the ancient
^ [Perhaps Ex. xxv. 2.— Winer puts tlie objection in its extreme form. De
Wette (ed. 4) .-<ays the genitive is most naturally partitive : Meyer (ed. 3),
wherever in thel.XX and Apocrypha i-rapx^ is followed by a genitive of th*t
(!A)rt_g, this genitive is partitive. See Alford.]
* in Col.i.i. 17, « ifr^ fKix t<J» fnXXivTut, re Ti (rui/.a. roti X/nrrau, it WOllld
be a great mistake to consider tjJ XpicToZ as a genitive of apposition. The
words must undoubtedly be so explained as to make Xp^Trev [tart of the predi-
cate, in dependence on Is-r/: but tke body is Christ's, beloiuj^ to Christ, is in
Christ, with Christ.
3 Gesen. Lehrg. p. (j77, Ewald p, 579. [Gesen. Hchr. Gr. p. 189.]
* Philolog'a thucydideo-PauUina, p. Sl.sqq.
^ Mever on E. iv. 9 [ed. 2] cites Erfurdt on Soph. Antig. 355 and Schccfer
on ApoHon. Rhod. Schol. p. 235 ; but in neither place is anything said about
the genitive of apposition. [The yenWviis dejiniVvus or epexegetiais (Matth.
343, Bernh. p. 143, Madvig 49 a, Riddell, Plat. Apol p. 124) is nearly akin to
this genitive. A. Buttra. (p. 78) strongly objects to our regarding these genitives
as representing a relation of apposition, and certainly the name seems ill -chosen.]
668 ENLAJIGEMENT OF THE SIMPLE SENTENCE. [pART III.
languages, but which modern writers leave unnoticed, — compare
Cic. Ojf. 2. 5, collectis ceteris causis, eluvionis, pestilentia,
vastitatis, etc. (i.e., quae consistunt in eliivione, pestilentia, etc.).^
(h) We sometimes find the nominative where from the struc-
ture of the sentence a difterent case might have been expected :
Ja. iii. 8, rrjv 'yXoxraav ouSei? Bi/jjarac Bafidaai' (iKtncKTTaroV
KUKov, fxecrrrj lov. The last words are to be regarded as a kind
of exclamatioh, and are ttierefore appended in an independent
construction : compare Mk, xii. 40, Ph. iii. 18 sq.. Rev. i. 5, aTro
^Irjaov Xpiarov, 6 fxdprv^: 6 rmaro^, might be taken in the same
way. In L. xx. 27, TrpoveX-^Jj/re? rives toxv ^aSoovKaiwv, oi
dvrL\eyovT€<i dvaaTaxriv fj,r) elvai k.tX., tS)v dvr LXeyovTwv would
have been more correct; nothing is gained by referring (as Meyer
does ') to Bernhardy p. 68. Nor is the example quoted by Borne-
mann in loc, Thuc. 1. 110, altogether analogous. We have
however something similar in Corn. Kep. 2.7, illorum urbem, ut
propugnaculum oppositum esse barbaris, — where at all events
the gender (as in L. xx. 27 the case) is conformed to that of a
subordinate noun, and not to that of the main noun, to which it
belongs in sense. A parallel N. T. example would be Mk. vii. 1 9,
with the reading KaOapl^tav [see p. 778]. On the other hand,
there is an intentional anacoluthon in Demosth.yim/!oc;'a^.458a,
opa . . . Tf^ii 7r6\€co<;oiKoBofX7]fiaTa kuI KaracKevdafiaraTrjXiKavTa
Kui Toiaura, M'ire . . . TrponvXaia ravra, veco<;oiKoiy aroai, k.t.X.
And it is, in general, easy to understand how even a word in
apposition, when designed to stand out independently, might be
placed in the nominative, outside the construction of the sentence
— interposed as a pendent word, so to speak. (Jelf 477, 708.)
In 2 C. xi. 28 -^ iTna-va-Taa-Cs fjiov k.t.X. is not an abnormal ap-
position to x*^p''^ "^^^ TraptKTo'?, — such a solecism as this cannot be
ascribed to Paul, — but a subject-nominative, and as such emphatic.
The a.pposition joined to a vocative stands in the nominative in
Rom. ii. 1, S) dvOpw-n-e TTtts 6 Kptvwv Rev. xi. 17, xvi. 7 (compare
Bar. ii 12, Act. Apocr. p. 51, 60), the epexegesis not being construed
with the vocative, but introduced independently. Compare Bernh.
p. 67. In Mt. vi. 9, the adjunct tV toI? oipavols could not be joined
to TraTfp by the copulative article in any other way, since the article
has no vocative form.
9. An apposition may be joined, not to single words only,
J [Madvig, Lat. Gr. 286. Obs. 2, Ztirapt 425, Mayor on Cic. Phil. 2. 78.]
2 [Meyer now connects o/ ivriXiyimrii with raii. — Beruh. p. -68 refers to the
subject noticed in Jelf 47 7. 2. J
SECT. LIX.] ATTRIBUTIVES: APPOSITION. 6G9
but also to whole sentences (Kriig. p. 246/ Don. p. 373, 502,
Jelf 580). In this case the nouns which constitute the apposi-
tion, standing either in the accusative or in the nominative
according to the conformation of the sentence, may frequently
be resolved into an independent sentence.'^
{a) Substantives. — In the accusative:^ Rom. xii. 1, Trapa-
KoXoi vfx,d<i, irapaaTTjaac ra crco/LLara vfiwv Ovcriav ^cocrav, ayiav,
evapearov tw 6eu), rijv Xo^lktjv Xarpelav, — that is, ?;Ti9 lajl
XoyiKTj Xajpela, qui est cultiis etc. ; 1 Tim. ii. 6, 6 Bov'i kavrov
avTiXvrpov inrep iravroyv, to fxaprvpiov Kai.pol<; ISioif. In
the nominative: 2 Th. i. 4 »>[., &<iTe rj/jbd'^ avrov^ iv vfitv Kav-
'^dadav iv raU efCKXrjaiai'i rov 6eov virep t?}? v7rojjLOvfj<i v/xf7)v
Kai TTtcrreft)? eV irdcri. Toc<i Bicoyfiol'; uficov /cal Tai<i OXlyfrecriv, alv
dpe^eaOe, evSeiyfia t;)^ SiKaiw? Kpi(Tew<i rov deou k.t.X. Com-
pare Sueton. CaH(j. 10, decretum est, ut dies . . . Parilia voca-
retur, velut argumontmti rursus conditae urbis ; Curt. 4. 7. 13,
repente obduct^e cajlo nubes coudidere solem, ingens a^stu fati-
gatis auxiliuvi ; Cic. Tusc. 1. 43. 102, Hor. Sat. 1. 4. 110, Flor.
3. 21. See Eurip Orest. 1105, Here. Fur. 59, Mectr. 231,
Plat. Gorg. 507 d ; and as to Latin, Rarashorn p. 296. Bengel
wrongly takes to irXi'ipwp.a in E. i. 23 as thus used ; this is a
very simple instance uf apposition (to aoy^a avrov)^
(h) A neuter adjective or participle stands in relation to a
whole sentence ; 2 Tim. il. 1 4, hiap,aprvp6iJ.evo<; ivdoiriov rov
Kvpiov pbTj Xoyop-a-^elv, tl<; ovoei/ -y^pi/a ipuoi'' Mk. vii. 19 [ii!r!c.],
Kul et<v rov d(f}tSpcbva cKTropevorai, KaSapi^ov trdvra rd ^pco/xara,
which (nsLTnely the iKiropeveadat ei^ rov dcjieBpoyvajmaJies all rjieats
clean, — see however above, 8 (b), and compare § 63 [? 66. 3]. —
But we must not (with Meyer) take dvaKaXvirroiMevov in 2 C. iii.
1 4 as an impersonal apposition of this kind ; ^ the word is an
attributive to KaXv/xpLa.
In Rev. xxi. 17 fierpov AvOowttov is annexed as a loose apposition
to ifX€TprnT€ TO Tfixos K.T.X. Exainples similar to thi.s, though not
exactly like it, are quoted bj'- Madvig (§ 19).
10. A word in apposition will naturally follow the principal
noun, though sometimes it is separated from it by several words,
^ Erlurtit, Soi>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 dvdpcoTro<i €Ka.i>o^, 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€<i>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\o<i 7ro\i)<? . . . e<TTa)T€<? ivcoTnov rev Opovov , . . Trepi^e^Xr]-
fiivov^, may be explained as containing a mixture of two con-
structions : in using the nominative the writer had ISov before
his mind, but in using the accusative Trepi^e^Xrjfiivov; the verb
elBov, and thus he mixes together the two constructions. Com-
pare iv. 4, xiv. 14, Judith x. 7, Stallb. Plat. Euihyphr. p. 32.^
In Eev. ix. 14 6 e^f^v is probably used for a vocative prefixed to
\va-ov. In Eev. v. 11 sq., rjKovaa ^(ovrjv ayyiXcov . . . koI rfv o
apc6fio<; avToJv fivpidBe^ fxvpidhcov . . . Xeyovre'i, the last word is
not construed with fivpidSa, but (the words Kal rjv . . . fivpidScov
being taken as a parenthesis) with dyyeXoi, as if the sentence
had commenced with (fxovrjv eTrijpav dyyekoi k.t.X. ■ Similar
examples are Thuc. 7. 42, toU I!vpaKovaioL<i . . . KaTd7rXr]^t<i
ovK oXtr/T] ijevero . . . opwvrer Achill. Tat. 6. 13, TreipuTrjptov
ravra elvai boL Soxei, . . . dvSpa tolovtov Xa^ovaa' Plat. Phced.
p. 81 a, oiiKovv ovTco fiev e^ovaa et<? to opboiov avrfj to deiScf
d-rTkp-)(erai to 6el6v Te .. .,ol d(f>iKOfiev'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<i (iv. 1, vi. 9 sq., xi.
15) stands iu connexion with cpoyvrj, ^oovai, etc., because the
writer is thinking of the speakers themselves. We even find
Xeyoiv used quite absolutely in xi. 1/ xiv. 7, xix. 6, — as in the
LXX, -where it corresponds to the Hebrew ibsj?, Gen. xv. 1,
xxii. 20, xxxviii. 13, xlr. 16, xlviii. 2, Ex. v. 14, Jos. x. 17,
Jud. xvi. 2, 1 Sam. xv. J 2, 1 K. xii. 10 : even in Rev. v. 12 it
might" be so taken. More singular is the irregular apposition
(§ 59. 8.5) in Rev. iii. 1 2, ro ovofia tt)? TroXew? rov deov fiou, rf]<;
KaLvi}<; 'lepova-aXrjfi, rj KarafBaivovaa e'/c rov ovpavov . . . kclito
6vop.d fjLov TO Kaivov (where however J7 Kara^alvovaa, since it
cannot well be taken as a nomiiiativus titiiLi, i)iterrupts the struc-
ture of the sentence as a significant parenthesLs, — as if for avTT]
iarlv r'l Kaia^aivovcra) ; and also in Rev. xiv. 12, wSe vrro/j,ovr)
TMV dyifov iarlv ol r-rfpovvre'i rd^ ivroXd^; k.t.X. (i. 5), where
there is a sudden transition to a new sentence, somewhat as in
Ja. iii. 8, rijv yXoxraav ovSel'i hvvarai di'dpcoTrwv Ba/ndcrai, uKard-
G-yerov KaKov, fiecnrj lov davarrj^opov. In Rev. viii. 9 also,
d-rredaveu ro rpirov rSyv KTicrfjudrcov ru)v iv rrj OaXdaa-g, rd e^ovra
yjrvxd'i, and iu ix. 14, xvi. 3, it is probably by design that the
apposition is interposed in an independent form: see also xx. 2.
In Rev.xxi. 10sq(j.,the structure changes repeatedly: first we find
Kara^aivovcav iu regular agreement with rr^v ttoXlv of ver. 1 ;
then is inserted an independent sentence, o ^warrjp k.t.X.; ver.
12 comes back to iroXc^, but the attributive commences a new
sentence, exovaa k.t.X. Compare Cic. Brut. 35: Q. Catulus non
antiquo more sed hoc nostro . . . eruditus; multse literae, summa
. . . comitas etc. On the combination, of two constructions,
either of which is allowable (as in Rev. xviii. 12 sq., xjx. 12),
see § 63. II. 1 : in xvii. 14 [? xvii. 4] there is less harshness.
In i. 5 sq. rw ayaTrcovrt k.t.X. is connected with avToi rj oo^a k.t.X. ;
but instead of writing kuI Trocriaavri k.t.X., the writer interposes
this thought in the form of an independent sentence. The com-
bination of two different genders (as in xiv. 19} is noticed above,
no. 4. b ; still more singular are xi. 4, ovtoL elcriv a'l hvo eXalat
Kot at ^1)0 Xvxyuii at ivwiriov rov Kvpi'ov eo-T&ire?, —for earcbaat
1 [Compare § 6'6. I. 1, A. Buttm. p. 334.— In xix. 6 recent edityrs read
XiyiyTn/y.]
SECT. LX.] CONNEXION OF SENTENCES WITH ONE ANOTHEB. 673
is evidently a correction, v. 6 (iv. 8, x iv. 1 , v. I.) : the attributives
are construed ad ssnsum, the substantives denoting living beings
of the male sex. On Rev. i. 4 see p. 79.
Inaccuracies of a different kind are noticed occasionally in the
earlier pages of this work. By the side of StSoo-Kctv tlvl (p. 284)
may be placed alvelv tu> 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., <nreiperat iv arifiia,
iyeiperai iv So^-p, aireiperat iv aadeveia, ijei'perat iv Bvvdfiet,,
fTTTeiperac <r&^a '^vyjLKoVyi'yeipeTai a-oifia irvevfxaTLKoV Ja. i. 19,
ira<i avd poiiTO'i ra-x^ixj eh ro uKovcraL, ^paBv<i et? to XaXrjaai :
compare also Mk. xvi. 6, Jo. iv. 22, vi. 63, viii. 41.-' So also in
parallelism of sentences generally ; as A. xxv. 12, Kala-apa iyri-
KeK\r)(Tac, iirl Kalcrapa iropevay : compare Eurip. I ph. Aul. 464.
c. Especially when a reason (motive) or explanation is appended
to a sentence (Kriig. p. 254), or when an application or admoni-
tion is deduced from what has preceded:' Kev. xxiL 10,^ firj
(rcftpayicT'p'i rov^; \6yov<; t^<? irpo(^r)reia^ rov fic^Xiov tovrov o
Kaipixi iyyv^ ianv Jo. iv. 24, viii. 18, xvii. 17, Rom. vi. 9,
1 C. vii. 4, 15, 2 C. xii. 11, Rev. xvi. 6, 15, 1 P. v. 8, 2 P. ii. 16,
(Rev. xiv. 5 v. I.) ; H. iii. 12, ^Xiirere (compare ver. 7-11)
firjTTore e<nat ev rcvc v^cov KapSia irovrjph aincrrta^' 1 C. vi, 18,
V. 7, 13, vii. 23, 2 C. xi. 30 (see Meyer),* Jo. xii. 35. One case
deserves mention as a special variety of asyndeton, — where a
saying is followed up by an explanatory clause (without? /cat) in
which the principal word is repeated: Jo.x. 11, iyoa elfii 6 iroifirjv
6 KoXof 6 iroifirjv 6 Koko^ rrjv "^v^V^ avTov rldrjaiv virep rwv
irpo^aTOiV XV. 13, 1 C. viii. 2, In such passages we have only
to supply in thought a on {yap) or an ovv (w?Te), in order to feel
how the presence of a conjunction weakens the expression.
Compare Lysias, in Nicomach. 23, ^sch. Ctesipk. 48 (Kritz,
Salhtst, I. 184). It is not uncommon to meet with asyndeton
when a writer is developing and working out a thought: see
H. xi. 3.
It was formerly an inveterate habit of commentators to supply
some particle before a sentence which was appended d(rw8c'Tws,
and by this means to bring the sentence into connection with the pre-
ceding words ; the rhetorical effect produced by the omission of the
I'Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 144, and Plat. Protay. p. 52.
» Stallb. Plat. Alcib. 2. p. 319.
' [The most probable reading is # xaw/iof yap iyyvs Wtiv.]
* [".Ver. 30 expr<-sses the result of verses 23-29, which establish the.i^rv
iyu of ver. 23." Meyer in ioc.—lt will be seen that some of the passages
quoted in this paragraph are mentioned above as examples of yrammutical
asyndeton. It is not possible to define exactly the .boundaries of each kind,]
676 CONNEXION OF SENTENCES WITH ONE ANOTHER. [PART m,
conjunction was thus entirely overlooked : see, for example, 1 C. ill
17, vii. 23, Ja. v. 3 (Pott in loc.). The same fault was also com-
mitted by transcribers of MSS., who frequently introduced connect-
ing particles into the text.
3. The connexion of sentences witli one another is most
simply effected by means of the copulative particles Kai and re,
— negatively by ovBl These particles denote nothing more than
mere annexation (§ 53) ; and hence in the historical style, in
accordance with oriental simplicity, they frequently afford the
means of passing from one fact to another,— /tat both in the
Gospels and in the Acts, re (Madv. 185, Jelf 754. 3) almost ex-
clusively in the Acts. For Kai thus used, compare Mt. iv. 2 3-2 5,
vii. 25, viii. 23-25, ix. 1-4, xiii 53-58, Mk. i. 13, ii. 1 sq,,
Jo. ii. 7 sq., 13-16, iii. 22, iv. 27, v. 9, A. ii. 1-4, xii. 7-9,
[xiv.] 24-26 ; for re, A. xii. 6, 12, 17, xiii 4, 46, 50,^ 52, xiv.
11-13, 21, XV. 4, 6,xvi. 23, 34,xvii. 2.6, xviii. 4, 26, xix. 2 sq.,
6, 11, XX. 3, 7, XXV. 2, xxvii. 3, 8, 29, xxviii. 2.^ In particular,
a writer will sometimes first specify the time of an occurrence
in an independent sentence, and then subjoin by means of Kat
the statement of the occurrence itself; see Mk. xv. 25,'>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)<i ededaavro, rrjv Bk <f>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<i
TOP viov avTOv 'iva Kplvrj rov Kca^ov, aXV tVa a(od^ o Koajjco^;'
Rom. ix. 1, dXi^deiav Xeyco ev Xpcar^, ov -^evBofJuic (compare
§ 55. 8). To this type — that of opposition or contrast — may
also be reduced
a. Sentences of comparison: Mt. xii. 40, &<iirep Tjv 'leom?
iv T^ KoiXla rov Krjrovi rpei^: r)p,€pa<; Kac rpe2<: vvKra<;, ovrti)<;
ecrrac o vib^ tov dvtfpoyrrou iv rfj KapBca r>)? 7^9* Mt. v. 48,
eaeorde vfieU reXeioc, <it>9 6 irar^p vfj.(ov reXec6<i icrrcv Jo. iii. 14,
Kadci>s M.U)vari<; v-^axrev .... ovrwt i/ylrtodrjvai Bet L. vi. 31,
Kadoi^; diXere, cva iroidaiv vfj,lv- oi dvOpayrroc . . . KaX vfiel<i
TTOiecre avroU 6fioLa)<i.
b. Temporal sentences (see § 53. 8) : L. i. 23, tu? iirX'ja-dTja-av
at rjfjcipai . . . dm-ijXdev A. xxvii. 1, Ja iv, 1, Mt, xviL 25, ore
eltiijXdev et? rrjv ocKiav . . . nrpoe^Oaaev vi. 2, orav oZv 7rocjj<t
iXerjjxoavvrjv, p.^ a-aX'jri(rr}<i ep^irpocrdev <tov, al.
678 CONNEXION OF STENTF.N€ES WiTIt ONE ANOTHER. [PART III.
c. Even conditional sentences (§ 53. 8) : 1 C. ix. 17, d ckwv
TovTo TTpdairai, fiiaOov ^^w L. vii. 39, el rjv 'irpo(\>rjrri<i, iytvwa-Kev
av Jo. vii. 17, iav Ti9 OeXy to deXruxa avrov iroielv, yvuxrerat
/f.T.X. That these sentences really come in here, is shown by
the construction (examined elsewhere) in Ja, v, 13, KaKoiraOel
T« eV vfilv, Trpo^ev^ecrOa), where the conditional sentence takes
an independent form, some one among you is afflicted (I put the
case), let him pray ; 1 C. vii. 21, hov\o<i ifc\jj6r)<;, fxri croi fieXero).
Compare Ja. ii. 19 sq. (Madv. 194. Rem. 3, Jelf 860. 8). Some
supply et in such a case, but improperly : it is however just as
inadniissible to take the first clause interrogatively. See above,
p. 355 ; and compare Bernh. p. 385, Dissen, Demosth. Cor.
p. 284 sq. Similarly in Latin: Terent. Eunuch. 2. 2. 21,
negat quis, nego ; ait, ajo,*
5. In the three cases just adduced, a, h, and c, — as also in
causal sentences, — an antecedent clause {or protasis) and a conj-e-
quent clause (or apodosis) stand contrasted with each other : L.
i. 1, V. 4, Mt. iv. 3, V. 13, H. ii. 14, al. In most instances, how-
ever, there is no special indication of the commencement of the
consequent clause, marked in German by so , and hence it has
sometimes been a matter of doubt where the apodosis begins
(e.g., in Ja. iii. 3 sq., iv. 15, al.). Where ovrw^ appears to be
used for such a purpose, or where the apodosis is introduced by
elra, rore, or in hypothetical clauses by dWd, Se,^ apa (oSi/ ?
see § 63 ^) — as in Mk. xiii. 14, Mt. xii. 28, Jo. vii. 10, xi. 6, xii.
16, 1 C. i. 23, XV. 54, xvi. 2, 2 C. xiii. 4 [Hec.], 1 Th. v. 3, al.—
the design is to give prominence to the apodosis : ovrcos, in par-
ticular, alludes again to the circumstances expressed in the pro-
tasis. Only in sentences of comparison (4. a) we frequently find
ovTQ)^ or Kai before the apodosis, answering to the a>? 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 &<i'rrep that ovtco<; most regularly occurs.) Where oi5tq>?
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(o<i redundant
when it follows participles, as in Jo. iv. 6, A. xx. 1 1 : see § 65. 9.
In the case of an accumulation of antecedent and consequent
clauses, it sometimes occurs that the protasis is repeated after
the apodosis, usually in a definite form, so that here We have a,
doubled apodosis. See Eev.ii. 5, fX€Tav6ri<T6p' el Be fir) (/xeravoeh) ,
€p')(ofial (Toi ra'^v . . ., idv fiTj ix€Tavorfar)<i ; here the length of
the sentence gave occasion to the iei)etition. Mt. v. IS is
probably not an example of this kind: see § 65. 6.
6. The conception of objective sentences, sentences of con-
sequence and purpose, and causal sentences,, is one of distinct
dependence, and therefore of subordination to a principal sen-
tence. Hence they are appended in the form of dependent
sentences, by means of on, &)9, — o'sre, &><? (not Xva, see § 53. 10.
6), also ovv, apa, — tW, ottw^, — 7ap, oVf, etc. (see § 53) ; and
in some instances the character of grammatical dependence is
further indicated by the use of the indirect moods of the verb.
Since the causal is akin to the objective sentence, ort {quod)
may stand at the head of either, signifying both hecaicse and that.
There is one case in which et (like si in Latin) apparently takes
the place of the objective ore, viz., after verbs which express a
mental emotion (Mad v. 194 c,* Jelf 804. 9). See e.g. Mk.zv.
44, edavfiaaev el rihrj 7e6vrjK€v, miratus est si jam moi'tuus fuerit ;
1 Jo. iii. 13, yu,^ 6av/iid^€T€, el /xiael vfid<i 6 Koa-fioii ; compare
Fritz. Mark, p. 7 2. Here however on is used where that which
occasions the wonder (grief, etc.) is actually existent ; el where
it hovers before the mind of the speaker only as a case supposed,
or appears to him uncertain, or at all events is to be represented
as uncertain, — ' marvel not if the world hates you.'^ A. xxvi. 8
is a similar instance. In the latter case it is sometimes modesty
which leads to the choice of this mode of expression ; as in our
own language we sometimes say, He asked him whciJier he
would not give etc. Compare with this A. viii. 22.
The aflSnity between objective and relative sentences is shown
by A xiv. 27, dvr^yycAAoi/, oaa iTroirjcrev 6 ^cos /act* avrwv kol oti
^votfev K.r.X. .
1 Hoogeveen, Doctr. Part. p. 228 sq. (ed. Schiitz) ; Jacob on Lucian, Taxar.
p. 52.
2 Weber, Demosth. p. 535, Matth. 617. 2, Kost p. 628 sq.
680 CONNEXION OF SENTENCES WITH ONE ANOTHER. [PART III.
7. The character of dependence is still more decidedly
exhibited by
a. Relative sentences, where they are appositional — whether
they be more or less essential to the integrity of the sentence :
Mt. ii. 9, acTTqp, ov elZov, Trporjiyev avTov<i' Rom. v. 1 4, ^ABcifj,,'
o9 iari TU7ro<? rov fieXXovro'i' 1 C. i. 30, XpicrTO), S9 iyevrjOrj
a-o(})ia rjfilv k.t.X., A. i. 2, xv, 10. But the form of the relative
sentence is also employed in two other cases :- —
(a) Where 09 is continuative, and can be resolved into kov
olro^;^ examples of this kind are mainly found in narration.
A. xiii. 43, <rjKokov6'r]<xav ^oXkol . . . rw IJavXq) Kal rw Bapvd^a,
oiriv€<i 7rpo^\aXovvT€<i ^ireiBov avrovf^ k.t.X. ; A. xvi. 24, e^dkov
el<; (f>v\aK7]v Trapa'YyeiKavre'i tm 8e<rfio<pu\aKi ... 09 irapayyeXiav
rdtavrrjv k.tX. ; L. x. 30, A. iii. 3, xiii. 31, xiv. 9, xvi, 14, IG,
xvii 10,xix. 25,xxi. 4,xxii. 4, xxiii. 14, xxviii. 23. (Jelf 834.)
()8) Where the subject or predicate is a relative sentence :
A. xiii. 25, ep^erat, ov ovk elfxl a^io^ ro \nr6t)'qp,a \vcai' xiii.
48, iTrlarevcrav, ocroi Tjcrav Terajfiivoc €t9 ^<or)v aiatviov xiii. 37,
Jo. xi. 3, ov ^tX€i9, aa6evd' Mt. x. 27, xxiii. 12, Jo. i. 46, iii.
34, XV. 7, 1 Jo. ii. 5, iv. 6, Rom. viii. 25. In this case the rela-
tive sentence is frequently placed before the principal, as in Jo.
iii. 34, xiii. 7, 1 Jo. iii. 17, A. x. 1 5, Rora. viii. 25 ; or the prin-
cipal sentence contains a demonstrative which points back to the
relative sentence, — see Mt. v. 19, L. ix. 26, Jo. v. 19, 1 Jo. ii. 5.
Not unfrequently several relative sentences are combined (IP.
iii. 19-22); either co-ordinate, A. xiv. 16 sq., i. 2 sq., iii. 2
sq., xxvii 23, xxiv. 6, 8 (Tisch.) ; or subordinated one to another,
A, xiii. 3i ('It^ctov?) OS u><l>Orj Tocs avvava^aa-Lv avT<u . . . otTivcs
vvv elalv fjidprvpf^ airov k.t.A.,, XXV. 15 sq., xxvi. 7, Rom. i.
2, 5, 6.
h. Indirect interrogative sentences, — which native Greeks
characterise by the peculiar form of the interrogative words
09Tt9, o7ro«>9, 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<i iav-
T0V9 TO Tt9 apa €cr] i^ avruiv 6 rovro (leWojv trpdcaeLV A. xxv.
^ [R^st p. 679, Kuhner II. 938 (ed. 2), This usage is much more common
in Latin (Zumpt 803, Madvig 448) : A. Buttinaon holds that the frequency
of such examples in later Greek, is to be ascribed to Latin influence (p-
282 sq.).]
SECT. LX.] CONNEXION OF SENTENCES WITH ONE ANOTHER. 681
20, a7ropovfi€vo<; iy<o . . . eXeyov, el ^ovXoiro Tropev^aOai k.t.X. —
On this compare Schleiermacher, Herm. p. 131.
8. So far, the connexion of sentences with one another has
depended upon certain conjunctions, — under which head, if we
take the word in a wider sense, the relatives may be included.
This connexion is also effected by means of inflexional forms,
especially the infinitive and the participle, through which the
subordinate sentences are grammatically incorporated with a
principal sentence, as constituent parts of it. For example : —
a, 1 C. xvi. 3, TOVTOVi rrifi^lrco aireveyKelv rrjv %«/3tv (tW
a7rej'€7«&)crt), Mk. iv. 3 [J?^c.], i^Xdev 6 (rireipwv rov (nrelpaf
A. xxvi. 16, elf rovro aKftdrjp crot, irpoy^eipicracrOal ere' Ph.
i. 7, Sia TO 6^€ij' fie.iv rfj KapBia vfia^ {oti vfid<; iv rfj KapBia
e^Qi), A. xviii, 2, xxvii. 9, xix. 1, iyevero ev ru> 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<iev')(ecrdai, tou? avBpa<i k.t.X. (§ 44. 3).
b. 2 C. vii, 1, ravra'i e'^ovre'; ra<i eirayye\La<i KaOapiacofxev
iavTov'i' L. iv. 35, A. xxv. 13 [^Bec.'], Karrivrqaav aairaaoiievoL
rov ^r}(Trov A. xxv. 1, ^rjcrro<i i'm^a'i rfj errapy^ia . . .
dve^T}' L. iv, 2, ^yero iv rrj ipr'ifia) 7r€ipa^6fievo<i' A. xii. 16,
iirifieve Kpoixov (§ 45. 4). Especially are participles so used
in the construction of the genitive absolute, to denote accessory
circumstances of place or time (§ 30. Rem., p. 259): e.g., A.
xxv. 13, rjfiepwv Siayevofievoiv rivatv * Aypirmra^ koX BepviKT)
tcarijvrTjaav x. 9, eKeivav rfj rroXei iyyt^ovrcav ave^rj Uerpo^'
L. iv. 40, Bvvovro<i rov rfKiov 7rdvTe<i . . . Tjyayov ix. 42, en
irpa^ep'^ofiivov avrov epprj^ev avrov ro haLfwviov Mk. xiv. Z, Kai
6vro^ avrov iv BtjOavia iv rfj oIkIo. SifMoyvof rov Xe-rrpov, Kara-
KCLfMevov avrov, rjXdev ywr) K.r.X. By degrees this construction
became so fuUy established as an idiom of the language, that it
is used even where the subject with which the participle is
joined is identical with the subject of the principal sentence: see
p. 260, Moreover the same principal sentence frequently con-
tains several participial constructions, either co-ordinate or sub-
ordinated to one another, by which means the structure of the
682 CONNEXION OF SENTENCES WITH ONE ANOTHER. [pART III.
sentence becomes more organic. See A. xii. 25, Bapvd^a<; koI
Sav\o<; vTrearpeyp^av i^ 'lepovaakrjfi, ir\r]p(aaavTe<i ttjv 8ia-
Koviav, crvfi'7rapa\a/36vTe<i koX ^Icodvvrjv' xvi. 27, €^v7rvo<i
yevoixevo<i 6 BeafjLO<pv\a^ Kal IBcov dve(i}yfi€va<; Td<; 6upa<;
TT}^ (f)vXaKrj<;, (77raadiJ,evo<i pud'^^aipav rjp.eXKev eavrov dvaipelv,
v0fj,i^03v eKTrecpevyevat tov<; 8eap,L0V<;' xxiii. 27, ToVavSpa rov-
rov avWrj/xipOevra vtto rwv ^lovhaicov Kal fieWovra
dvaipeladai vtt avrcov €7ri(TTd<i avv ra> 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 <Tvve\aj3ovA. iv. 13, iireyLvaya/cov
ai>Tov<i on (Tvv rm^Irjcov riaav) to the complicated, e.g., Rom. iii.
8, Tt erv Kayo) ft)9 dfiaprccXof; KpLVO/xai ; Kal firj, Kad(o^ ^Xaatprj-
fM0v/j,e6a Kal Kadd><i (^aaiv rive<; /;|U,a9 XejeLV, 6*tl Troi7]cr<oiu,eu
Ta KaKd, Iva ekOrj ra dyaOd ;
Rem. A contrast to, this fusion of sentences is presented when
a writer, instead of contenting himself with the simple infinitive,
substitutes for this a complete sentence : Mk. xiv. 21, koXov avroJ
€t ovK iyevvyjdrj 6 avOpuiiro'i CKetvos' 1 Jo. V. 2, cv tovtw iyv<i)Ka-
fJi€V, OTL . . . . , oTav Tov Oeov a.yaTru)fjLiv (ii. 3), A. XXVii. 42, twv
crrpariiOTm' /3ovXr) iyevero, Tva tovs Sefr^wras aTroKTetvuicrLV (contrast
ver. 12), Rev. xix. 8. Tliis mode of expression is not always to be
ascribed to a love of expansion (characteristic of the later language);
it is sometimes adopted in order to give the clause greater pro-
minence, sometimes for the sake of a more flexible construction.
9, By means of these different connectives the style of the
N. T. is made to possess an organic texture by no means wanting
in variety, though less diversified than the style of Greek writers
generally. We even find somewhat lengthy periods thus formed,
particularly in Luke (and more especially in the Acts): e.g. L. i.
1-3, A. xii. 13 sq., xv. 24-26, xvii. 24 sq., xx. 9, 20 sq., xxiii.
10, xxvi. 10-14, 16-18, Rom. i. 1-7, 1 P. iii. 18-22, H. ii.
2-4, 2 P. i. 2-7. Yet it must not be concealed that, in cases
SECT, LX.] CONNEXION OF SENTENCES WITH ONE ANOTHER. 683
•where a long period had been planned, the thread of the con-
struction is frequently broken, and either the paragraph ends in
some anacoluthon or is left altogether without conclusion (Eom.
iii. 8, xii. 6-8, xvi. 25 sq., 27, Mk. vi. 8 sq., G. ii. 4 sq., 2 P. ii.
4-8, 2 Th. ii. 3 sq., — see § 63), or at all events the construction
is commenced anew (2 P. ii. 5 sq., E. v. 27, Jo. viii. 53, Rev. ii.
2, 0).
One means of constructing ramified sentences the N.T. writers
have renounced. Wheu words spoken by others are quoted,
even when contained in a brief compass, they are not, as a rule,
brought into the structure of the sentence in the indirect con-
struction, but are expressed in the direct form ; and indeed are
not always introduced by ore ^ as an external connective, or by
Xeycov. See Mt. ix. 18, xxvi. 72, Mk. xi. 32, L. v. 12, Jo. i. 20,
xxi. 17, G. L 23, A. iii. 22. v. 23, al. So also, wheu a writer
has begun by quoting words indirectly, he will frequently pass
very quickly into the oratio direda: L. v. 14, A. i. 4, xxiii. 22
(see § 63. II. 2). This peculiarity is especially met with after
verbs of asking, which are followed, not by an indirect statement
of the request or intreaty in the form of.an infinitive or a clause,
with tW (§ 44. 8), but ])y the very woras of the speaker: L. xiv.
18, epcoTco ere, e^^^e fie TraprjTrjfi'tvov xiv. 19, v. 12, Jo. iv. 31, ix.
2, Ph. iv. 3, A. ii. 40, xvi. 15, xxi. 39, Mt. viii. 31, xviii. 29, 1 C.
iv. 16. But what the style thus loses in conciseness, it gains
on the other hand in liveliness and clearness. See further
Schleieimacher, Herm. p. 131.
Rem. It is interesting to notice in parallel sections, especially
of the Synoptic Gospels, the variety displayed in the formation and
connexion of sentences. In such a comparison Luke always stands
' fin his interpstiiig dissertations on Primitive Liturgies, Dr. Jessop com-
plains, perhaps with reason, that Winer notices too slightly the recitative on,
which is certainly of frequent occurrence in the N. T. (Bruder points out about
one hundred examples, but this number should be increased by twenty or
more.T In many passages it is difficult to decide whether on is recitative or
whether it introduces an ordinary dependent clause ; see e. g. the varying
.judgments of editors ir. Mt. x. 7, L. vii. 4, Ph. ii. 11. Now and then we have
to decide between en recitative and iV/ causal, as in Mt. xvi. 7, L. i. 25, Jo.
XX. 13 (all these are probably examples of the former), and in some quotations
from tho 0. T., where on may or may not belong to the words quoted (Mt. iv.
6, Rom. viii. 36, ah). Of course, any constniction of the oratio recta may
thus follow on : e. g., a direct question (Mk. iv. 21, viii. 4), or an imperative,
(2 Til. iii 10). Not unfrequently we find quotations with and without on
standing side by side (L. xx. 5, Jo. viii. 33, — co*nj)are L. iv. 4, 8, 10, 12).
The omission of J'r/ (after ivxainrToi) in 1 C. xiv. 18 ia-remarkable : Greek writers
frequently Omit this particle after olf^ai, oTaa, etc. (Krug. p. 216, Jelf 79». 1. a).]
684 POSITION OF WOKDS AND CLAUSES. [PART III.
out as the more practised writer ; as indeed he is also more careful
than the others in his choice of words, — preferring, for instance,
idionaatic expressions, verba composita and decomposita. But this
siibject belongs to a treatise on N. T. style.
Section LXI.
POSITION of words AND CLAUSES, ESPECIALLY WHEN
IRREGULARLY ARRANGED (HYPERBATON).
1. The arrangement of the several words of a sentence is
in general determined by the order in which the conceptions are
formed, and by the closer relations in which certain parts of the
sentence (as groups of words) stand to one another. The latter
consideration re([uires, for instance, that the adjective should, as
a rule, be placed in the most immediate contact with its sub-
stantive, the adverb with its verb or adjective, the genitive with
its governing noun, the preposition with its case, one member
of an antithesis with the other. In particular instances, the
union of a sentence with what has gone before (H. xi. 1, 1 Tim.
vi. 6, Col ii. 9, Ph. iv. 10), the gi-eater (rhetorical) emphasis
which is to fall upon a word, and also in a greater or less degree
a desire for euphony and for such grouping as will minister
to it, furnish grounds for determining the position of the words :
sometimes, moreover, the order of succession in which words
should be placed will be fixed by the nature or the conventional
estimate of the ideas which they express (e. g., terra marique.
Land und Leute, etc.). Emphasis does not require that the
word which receives the stress should be placed /rs^; it may
even stand last (see e.g. Jacob, Luc. Alex. p. 74), and indeed
may occupy any place in which; according to the constitution of
the particular sentence, a word will stand out from the main
body with most marked prominence. It is from a wish to efifect
a connexion with what has preceded that e. g. the relative pro-
noun, even when in an oblique case, commonly begins a sentence.
Hence it is by the laws of the succession of thought and
by rhetorical considerations (Herm. Soph. Track, p. 131) that
the position of words is determined ; and although these allow
wide scope for the free action of the mind, and by the culti-
vated writer will never be felt as fetters, yet in the arrangement
of words— for the very reason that logical and rhetorical pur-
poses arc 80 decidedly served by it — there are usually but few
peculiarities which have become so habitual to a writer that we
SECT. LXI.] POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 685
call give them a leading place among the characteristics of hia
style.^
2. The position of words in the K T, is in the main subject
to the same rules as are followed by the Greek prose writers ;
for it is only in a very small measure that these rules are
national. We may however notice : —
a. That in the didactic writings, of Paul especially, thp
arrangement of words is freer and more varied than in the
historical books, — as indeed in the former rhetorical considera-
tions have more weight. In the (Synoptic) Gospels, on the
other hand, the Hebrew type of arrangement prevails.
b. That, especially in narrative, the N. T. writers avoid any
great separation of the two main elements of the sentence, sub-
ject and verb (predicate) ; and, in accordance with the Hebrew
mode of expression, either draw the verb nearer to the subject,
or, if the subject is complex, place the principal subject only
before the verb, leaving the rest to follow (§ 58. 6), that the
reader's attentioti may not be kept on the stretch too long.
Relative clauses likewise are, whenever it is possible, so placed
as to come in after the completion of the principal sentence.
On the whole, the collocation of words in the N. T. is simple
and free from all mannerisms, as well as from stiffness or mono-
tony. Gersdorf indeed, in his well-known work,^ has specified
many peculiarities of this kind as characterising the several
writers ; but a closer scrutiny of his examples will show
(ft) That he has not paid due regard to the various considera-
tions on which the order and succession of words usually depend
in each particular case ;
(b) That, holding the opinio]i that it may have become a
habit with a writer invariably to place (for instance) the adverb
' I am not acquainted with any thorough and complete treatment of the
arrangement of words in Greek. Kuhnfir, howeyer, .deserves thanks for his
attempt to claim, for this subject, under the name "Topik," its due place in
grammar: see his Gramm. H- 622 s(iq. [II. 1094-1104: ed. 2]. Madvig also
has some remarks on this head in his Syntax, § 217 sqq. In Latin, the collo-
cation of words earlier received more special notice, in connexion with the
doctrine of euphony, and the subject is well treated in brief by Zumpt, Or.
786 sqq. • v'orapare also Hand, Lehrb. des tat. Styls -p. 307 sqq., Gernhard,
Commentatt. G-ramm. part 8 {.Jen. 1828). On the aneien t languages, in general,
see H. Weil, i)': i'orcZre des mots dans les langues anciennea etc. (Par. 1844).
Short, The Order of Words in Attic Cheek Prone (Kew York, 1870).]
^ [C. G. Gersdorf, Beitrdge zur Sprach-Characteristik der Schr{ftsteller des
Neuen TestaniKnis (Leipzig, 1816).]
686 POSITION OF words' AND CLAUSES. [PART III.
hej'orii, (or after) the Verb, he has proposed, and to some extent
has carried out, a plan of critical procedure which cannot but
be censured as one-sided. A more rational treatment of this
subject would be of great service to textual criticism.
It is not in itself a matter of indifference whether we have ro
7j-v€v/i,a Tou Otov or TO Tzvf.v\x.a. TO Tov 6eov (compare § 20. 1), and
without the a.rticle Trvcvyuta Ocov or deov Trvevyaa. It would be ne-
cessary to examine severally all the examples of this phrase which
occur in the N. T., according to the special conformation of the
style of each passage. To neglect all such considerations in making
use of the MSS. (and even of the ancient versions, and of the
Fathers — who quote more or less freely), and to force upon a writer
some one of these collocations whenever he uses the words, is em-
pirical pedantry. If the adjective usually follows the noun {<f>6^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 <u9 ayxvpav e^cfiev rf]^ yjrv^rj^ a<r<f)a\r]
re Kal ^e^a(av fcal ekep'y^op.ivriv k.t.\., x. 34, 1 P. i. 23 ; 1 C,
xiii. 1, i^v rai<i yXcoaa-ai*; TwvdvdpcoTrcov XaXcoKul rdv ayyeXmv
A. xxiv. 17, xxvi. 22. The genitive in particular is thus post-
poned : 1 Th. i. 6, Jo. vii. 38, 1 Tim. iii. 6,^ al. As to words
brought forward in position (see above, no. 2), there is mani-
festly antithesis in 1 C. x. 11, rama rvrroc avvc^aivov iK€ivoi<i,
iypd(f}r) Be Trpof k.tX, L. xvi. 12, xxiii. 31, Jo. ix. 17 [Bec.],^
xxi. 21 ; also in 2 C. ii. 4, ov')^^ "va XxmTjdrjre, aXKa rrjv aydfnjv
ha yvoire- xii. 7, 1 C. ix. 15, A. xix. 4, Rom. xi. 31, CoLiv. 16,
G. ii. 10 (Cic. Div. 1. 40, Mil. 2 fin., Krug. p. 267) ; and no
less in 1 C. vi. 4, ^kotlko, fiev otv Kpirrfpia ihv exv^^
(examples ofedv thus kept back occur frequently in Demosthenes,
Klotz p, 484), Rom. xii. 3, eKacrrcp 6><i ifiepia-ev jxerpov Trto'Tewi'
1 0. iii. 5, vii. 17, Jo. xiii. 34 (Cic. Of. 2. 21, 72), 2 th. ii. 7,
fiovov o Kare')^a3v dpri eru? ck fiecrov yevqrai; lastly in Rom,
viii. 1 8, ovK d^ta ra iradrjfiara rov vvv Katpov ttjOo? rrjv jxeWov-
cav Bo^av d7roKa\v(f)6fjtfai- G. iii. 23, H. x. 1, 1 C. xii. 22.
b. In other instances, some closer specification which did not
occur to the writer until after he had arranged the sentence is
brought in afterwards : A. xxii. 9, to fikv ^w<? iOedaavro, rrjv Be
(poivrjv OVK rjKOvaav tov \a\ovvT6<; jxoi' iv, 33, fieydXr} Bvvdfiet
aTreBlBovv to fxapTvpLov ol drroaroXoi tt}? dvacrda-eco'; rov
Kvplov'lTfo-ov- H. xii. 11, Jo. i. 49, iv. 39, vi. 66 [Eec.]; xii. 11,
1 C. X. 27, L. xix. 47, 1 P. i. 13, v. 1 2, 2 P. iii. 2 (A. xix. 27) ;
compare Arrian, ^/ex. 3. 28. 1, rov'i v7ro\€i,<p6evra!i ev ry Bico^et
' With this compare Demosth. Fals. Le*. 204 c, liui . rciyvv o xarnyooZv it
P^PX^f Jy«* rOUTUVy TOVTblll BVOtlS if/.eV.
"^ [See p. 238, Ellicott on G. ii. 6, 9, A. Buttm. p. 387. — In some of the
examples in (b) the order is probably adopted, for emphaeis or clearness. ]
3 [T/s often stands .second (tJiirci in Rom. xir. 10. Jo. xxi. 21), that an
ernDbatic word may precede. Compare i C. xv..36. .A. Buttm. p. 388 sq.)J
*[In 1 C, XV. 2 a sentence precedes t/. Compare Jo. a. 36. (A. Bnttm. I.e.)]
SECT. LXI.] POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 689
T?}? (TTpaTiag. Under this head Rev. vii. 17 should probably
come. In 2 P. iii. 1, iv al<i Sieyeipco vfjbStv ev vnofivi^crec rr^v
eikiKpLvr) Sidvotav, the words iv vTroixv-qcrei are brought into the
current of the sentence as a supplementary addition defining
Sieyeipco more precisely.
c. Words which are to be connected with one another are
brought closer together: Rom. ix. 21, e;^et e^ovalau 6 KepafMev^
Tov TTijXov €K Tov avTov (f)vpd/j.aTO<i iroirjaac k.t.X., 1 P. ii. 16,
1 C. ii. 11. — In E. ii. 3 <f>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 T<Z TTveu/xari- v. 4-11, xxiv. 46. This remark also applies, as a
' [See Riddell, Plat, ApoL p. 280.]
44
690 FOSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES, [PAP^T lU.
rule, to the doxologies of the 0. T. (Tl^"ili, ^"jiC') : Gen. ix. 26, 1 S.
xxvi. 25, 2 S. xviii. 28, Ps. cvi. (cv.) 48, ah But it is only by
empirical commentators that this arrangement can be regarded as
unalterably fixed ; for where the subject expresses the main idea, and
especially where it is antithetical to another subject, the predicate
both may and will stand after it ; compare Ps. Ixvii. 20 (LXX).
Hence in Eom. ix. 5, if the words 6 wv inl Travrcov ^€os evAoyT^ro? k.t.A.
are referred to God, this collocation of the words is perfectly suitable,
and indeed necessary : Harless (see his note on E. i. 3) and many
others are mistaken here.^
On a genitive placed before its governing noun see § 30. 3.
Rem. 4 ; a careful writer will avoid such an arrangement where it
may give rise to any mistake. Hence in H. vi 2 /Sairr to- fxiov StSa-
X^s does not stand for StSa^-^s ^aTTTLcr/j.(Zv, — the more especially as
in the other groups the position of the genitive is regular. In the
passages quoted by Tholuck from Thucydides and Plutarch there is
no possibility of ambiguity.
4. If the earlier students of the X. T. noticed the arrange-
ment of words in those cases only where certain parts of a
sentence were separated from the words to which they logically
belong (1 Th. ii. 13, 1 P. ii. 7, Eom. xi. 13, H.il 9), — examples
of " Trajection," so called,^ — tliis limitation in range was less to
be censured than the almost entire neglect to inquire into the
motives which led to the trajection in each particular case. By
such motives (having their existence, it is true, mainly in
instinct and feeling) the X. T. writers were always guided.
Most rarely are transpositions met with where the nature of
the ideas (QuintiL Listit. 9. 4. 24) suggested the order of the
words (Mt. vii. 7, Jo. vii. 34, Rev. xxi. 6, xxii 13, Mt. viii.
11. H. xiii. 8), or where the relative position of words
wliich form a group had become settled conventionally,
accordinsr to the natm-e or the estimation of the ideas, — in
some instances not without regard to ease of pronunciation.
Thus we find avBpe<i koL ytva^Keii, A. viiL 3^ ix. 2 ; yvvatKe^
Koi TraiBia or reKva, Mt. xiv. 21, xv. 38, A. xxi 5 ; ^aJi/Te? /cal
veKpoi, A. X. 42, 2 Tim, iv. 1, 1 P. iv. 5 ; vvK-ra koX i]fiepav,
A. XX. 31, xxvi. 7 ; vvkto^ kuI rip,ipa'?, 1 Th. ii. 9, iii. 10 ; aap^
Koi alfia, Mt. xvi. 17, G. i. 16, Jo. vi. 54, 56 ; iaSieiv {rpoyyecv)
* [On Rom. ix. 5 see Afford and Vaughan in loc. ; Green, Cr. Notea, p. 121
sq. ; Gifford's note in Speak. Com. III. 178 sq. ; and the discussion in the
Expositor, IX. 217, 397, X. 232. Compare Ellicott on E. i. 3.J
* On such trajections in Gn-ek authors see Abresch, Aristcenet. p. 218, Wolf,
Pemosth. Lfpt. p. 300, Reitz, Lucian YII. US (Bip.), Kriiger, Dion. Hal. p.
13&, 318, Eugelhaidt. Euthijplir. p. 123 sq.
SECT. LXI.] POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 691
KoX TTLveiv, Mt. xi. 18, L. vii. 34/xii. 45, 1 C. xi. 22, 29; ^pw<Ti<i
KoX 7r6ai<i, Rom. xiv. 1 7, Col. ii. 1 G ; epyw koI Xoyoi, L. xxiv. 1 9
{Fritz. Rom. III. 268); o ovpavo<i koI t) 77. Mt. v. 18, xi. 25,
xxiv. 35, A. iv. 24, al. ; o r]\io<i Kai 7) aeXi^vT), L. xxi. 25, Rev.
xxi. 23 ; 77 7^ /cat r] dakaaaa, A. iv. 24, xiv. 15, Rev. vii. 1, 3,
xiv. 7, al.; rlyU . . . left, Mt. xx. 21, xxv. 33, Mk. x. 40, L. xxiii.
33, 2 C. vi. 7, Rev. x. 2; BovXoc . . . iXevdepoi, 1 C. xii. 13, G.
iii. 28, PI vi. 8 ; ^lovZaiot koX ''EXXrjve^, A. xviii. 4, xix. 10, Rom.
iii. 9, 1 C. i. 24 (compare Rom. ii. 9 sq.); — with other examples
of the same kind. Deviations from this order occur hut sparingly
(cases indeed may be conceived in which the reverse arrange-
ment is more in accordance with truth, compare Rom. xiv. 9 ^) :
when this reverse arrangement is supported by the preponderant
or unanimous testimony of the MSS., it must without hesitation
be received. Thus wemust read alfMa kol adp^ in E. vi. 12, H.
ii. 1 4 ; Tj ddXacrcra koI 77 ^rjpd, Mt. xxiii. 1 5 ; rifiepa<; nal vvkt6<;,
A. ix. 24, L. xviii. 7 ; Xoyoy Kal epyo) (Diod. S. Uxc. Vat. p. 23),
Rom. XV. 18 -/'EXXtjv koI 'Iov8aco<;, Col. iii. 11.^ (In Mt. xiv.
21, XV. 38, the reading of D is TraiZla Kal yvvaiKe'i : compare
Ceesar, B. Gall. 2. 28, 4. 14.) The order ol 'rr6Be<i Kal al %e4/369
seems to predominate in the N. T. : Mu. xxii. 13, Jo. xi. 44, xiii,
9, A. xxi. 11. L. xxiv. 39, 40, are the only examples of the
reverse, ra? -^elpd^; fiov Kal tov^ iroSaf. Here perhaps there is a
reference to the circumstance that the hands only of the cruci-
fied were pierced, so that ra? %e4/3a9 is the principal member
of the clause ; indeed John mentions the hands alone. In
Rom. xiv. 9, the order vcKpol Kal ^(ovre<i is determined by the
preceding words dirkSavev Kal e^rjaev.
The N. T. writers move more freely when they bring together
a series of notions. In this case we do not find general and
special ideas separately grouped, but the order of the words is
regulated by a loose association of ideas, or even by similarity
1 Heusinger, Plut. Educ. 2. 5.
2 [It will be understood that these are not the only examples in which the order
given above is departed from. In A. xvii. 12 we find yv^xixao . . . xai iylpHv :
in Mt. XV. 38 the order ■railla *«) yt/vaTxis is found in K as well as in D, and is
received by Tisch. (ed. 8) : of hfiipas »ui vuxt'o; there are 5 examples in Revelation,
against 5 or 6 of vfxro; xa.) vi/jLtfa.; in the rest of the N. T. (see Ellicott on 1 Tim.
V. 5, Lob. Paral. p. 62 S4.). With Rom. xv. 18 may be corni)ared Col. iii. 17 and
A. vii. 22 {'ipy'j) xai xiyu occurs twice only) : earth stands before heaven in L.
xii. 56, Rev. xx. 11, al., — also sea b<ifore land in Rev. x. 5, 8 (but compare ver.
2) : in Rev. xiii. 16, xix. 18, Sai/Xo; follows iXiChfo;.]
692 POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. [PART IH.
of sound (Rorn. i. 29, 31, Col. iii. 5). On the whole see Lobeck,
Paralip. p. 62 sqq.
We must be cautious in applying the name Hysteron proteron
(compare Odyss. 12. 134, rae /*€V dpa Opiij/aa-a re/coucra re- Thuc. 8.
66 ^) to such abnormal collocations. It may be observed in passing
that Jo. i. 52, dyyeAons O^ov dvaBatvovra^ Kal KaraPatvov-
Ttts, has been rightly explained by Lvicko ;^ and that we. must not
suppose the ideas inverted in Jo. vi. 69, TreTrio-Tcu/ca/xcv Koi eyvw/ca-
fx.€v (compare x. 38), because in 1 Jo. iv. 1 6 we find eyvwKa/Acv Kal
TTCTrio-TcuKa/zcv (Jo. xvii. 8).^ Nor can we admit this figure of speech
in other N. T. passages. In 1 Tim. ii. 4 Travra? a.»/^/>wirous 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<i Kal roi^ aBlK0v/j,6V0L<; ael rrov
'EXXrjvuiv iirafivvova-av Ken. GEc. 19. 19, Thuc. 2. 43, al." With
'TToXXdKL'i : see Stallb. Plat. Ecj). I. 93, With ert in Eom. v. 6,
ert X/3t<7T09 ovroiv rjixtav acrOevcov^ for eVt ouroov n/^MV aaf^evCov
1 Nitzsch, Odyss. I. 251 sq. [Several of Nitzsch's examples are quoted by
Hayman on Od. 4. 208 : see also Jiiddell, Plat. Apol p. 237 sq., Jelf 904. 4.]
^ [As signifying that the augels are not regarded as r.ow beginning to descend :
the scene displayed to view will be that of an already existing intercourse
between earth and heaven.]
^ See Baumg.-Crusius in he. [In Jo. x. 38 read yvwrt .laJ y(Kwo-*!»iTS.]
* [The transposition of S(a*/)v»f'sif and l-rmrfi^xi.]
s Stallb. Plat. Pkcp-d. p. 123 (Jelf. 904. Obs. 2, Don. p. 611).
* See Kriiger, Dioji. p. 252, Schtef. Demo-sCh. 11. 234.
~ [This reading is retained by most editors : see Reiche, Cormn. (Jr. p. 34-39.
On the K^ading %ti ykp . . . Scu-hfuv in (NACD, Griesbach. Lachmann, Tregelles)
see V^aaglian, who takes the tirst "ti as ntoreowr (L, xvi. 26, al.). Alford reads
I'lyi . . . a.(rhvu-j iri, v.'ith B : SO also Westoott and Hort (doubtfully), -see their
Appendix, p. 178.]
SECT. LXL] position OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 693
(compare ver. 8) Plat. Rep. 2. 363 d, Achill. Tat. 5. 18, and
Poppo, Time. I. i. 300 sqq. Lastly, with oixwq: 1 Cor. xiv. 7,
6/Mk)<} TO, ay^vy^a <f)u)vi)v hthovra . , , eav Bia(TToXr}v Tol'i (bOoyyoL^;
fii] Bu), '7rc*)9 yi'uxrdrja'erat to au\ovp,€vov k.t.X., instead of, to,
a-\lru)/a, (KutTrep) tpfjovrjv BiBovra, oyu-oj?, iav fxrj k.tX.\ G. iii. 15,
o^o)? duOpiorcov KeKvpw^itvrjv BiaOrjKTjv ouBei<; a^eret, instead of,
6V<ws ovBe\<; aderei} Compare Plat. Phad. 91 c, (po^etTat
fir} V '^v)(i} ofxcos Kal Beiorepov Kal /caWtov ou rov <T(t)fiaTO<;
•KpoaiToXKvTjraL? (Jelf 697. d.)
In the case of the negative also a trajection is not very un-
common in Greek writers, especially the poets (see Hermann,
Eurip, Kac. 12). When this takes place, either there is a tacit
antithesis, as in Plat. 6'ri^. 47 d, TreiOo/xevot ^r) rfj roiv eTraiovTcciv
Bo^Tj- Lerjg. 12. 943 a, Xen. Mmi. 3, 9. 6 (compare Kiihuer II.
628,^ Jelf 904. Obs. 3) ; or the negation, instead of being
attached to the negatived word, is prefixed to the whole sentence,
as in Plat. A'pol. 35 d, a fi-qre rj^oviiai koXcl eXvat fMrjre BUdia'
Xen. Eph. 3. 8, ort fir) ro (pdp/Ji'CiKov Oavdaifiov rjv — so also in
A. vii. 48, aXK^ ovy 6 v^ia-TO'i iv '^eipoiroi'^TOi'i KarotKec. By
many commentators it is supposed that there is a misplacement
of the negative^ in Piom. iii. 9, rl ovv; Trpoexofieda; ov irdv-
^ See Bengel, and my note in he.
« See Hermann and Lobeck on Sopli. Aj. 15, Doderlein, Soph. (Ed. C. p. 396,
Pflugk, Eurip. Andr. p. 10, and Hel. p. 76.— We must not however, with Fritz.
Mark, p. 19, bring ihe'iax {i-Ms) under this head. In Mk. ii. 8, v. 30, it belongs
to the participle beside which jt is placed: in other instances, Mk. i. 10, ix. 15,
it stands at the head of the sentence (see above in the text), and may then be
easily connected with the principal verb. iiaX/» also is not transposed in 2 C.
xii. 21, but is prefixed to the whole sentence, — lest again lohen Icorne God should
humble me. So probably irx^'i" in H. ix. 22 : arul almost may this rule be laid
down, " Everything is purified by blood, etc." Compare Galen, Profre.pt. c. 1,
Tec uh (LWa \ua, c^iliv cLrtx"^ rravr iffr't' Aristot. Polit. 2. 8, Lysias I. 204
(ed. Auger).
3 What Valckenaer quotes in his Schol. N. T., II. 574, is not all well
chosen. On other passages in which even recent scholars have wrongly assumed
a trajection of the negative (e.g., Thuc. 1. 5, 3-. 57) see Sintenis, Plut. Themist.
p. 2.
♦ The assertion made by some of these commentators, that Grotius's rendering
"not in all respects" is un grammatical, I do not understand. As little how-
ever can I comprehend how av vavTui, omnirM non, can be called a Hebraism.
The meaning of ^3 ^ — the particles standing thus in immediate connexion — is
non omnis; and whenever oi *«? is used in the sense of avh'n the particles are
separated in such a way that the verb is negatived by eb (§ 26; 1). ^bn n!?. with
an ellipsis of the verb (adduced by Koppe i7t foe), I cannot call to mind as
occurring in the 0. T.
694 POSITION OF WORDS AND- CLAUSES. [PART III.
T&)9, 1. e., hy no means (Trai/Tw? ov, 1 C. xvi. 12). The words
ov 7ravroo<; must have this meaning here, whether irpoe^6fj,€0a
be rendered have vje a pre-eminence ? or have toe an excuse ?
That such an explanation is philologically possible, is shown by
Theogn. 305 (250 sq.y and Epiphan. Ecer. 38. 6, and also by
the analogy of such expressions as ovSh Traj^rax? Her. 5. 34, 65 ;^
but there is no real transposition of the negative. The phrase
was rather conceived tlius, — no, absolutely, — no, in no way;
and the distinction between ov iravrw'^ as not altogether and as
altogether not would probably be marked by the mode of utter-
ance. Hence there was no occasion for the despair expressed
by Van Hengel, who holds that in the text as it stands there is
some corruption, the nature of which is not Clearly indicated.
On the other hand, in 1 C. v. 9 sq., eypayjra v/jliv . . . fit) avvava-
fjLiyvvadat 7ropvoL<i, ov TravTco^ Tot? 7r6pvoL<; rov tcoa/xov tovtov,
the meaning of ov iravTw^; is non omnino (Sext. Emp. Math. 11.
1 8), and the last words 'are corrective and explanatory of firj
(Twauafiiyvva-Oac iropvoi'i : to hold no intercourse with fornicators,
— not generally with the fornicators of this world, for in that
case ye must needs sever yourselves from the world (but, in
strictness, only with the unchaste members of the church). So
the passage was taken by Luther. H. xi. 3, etV to ixt] e'/c ^aivo-
fiipwv ra ^Xe'rrofxeva yeyovei^at, has been wrongly referred to this
category. Schulz correctly renders -the words : That, therefore,
ivhat has been seen has nevertheless not arisen out of things visible;
compare also Bengel in loc. The proposition denied is Ik (fyaivo-
fievcov TO, /3\67r6/uieva yeyovevai ; and to this the negative is pre-
Oi xa.x.01 ov •Xa\iTu; Kitia) Ik yaTTpi; yiyivaviv,
AA>- avop-criri xaxoT; <rut^fiivoi (fliXlrii.
^ But oil irxiu {/ji,ri wavu) inTariably uienns not particul/irl)/. Suioetinies it is
inild in expression only, aud in meaning strong, — on the juinciple of Litotes ;
seo Weber, Demosth. p. 340, Franke, Danmth. p. 62. In Eom. I.e. the context
and the tone of the passaga prevent our applying this primnple, and rendering
ov TavTui not altogether (either seriously or ironically). [In Rom. iii. 9 the
rendering " 6y no means'" is accepted by most. A. Buttm. (p. 389), remarking
that if the ellipsis were filled up we should have ov •vptix.'M-^^a. tiLvtms, refers the
phrase to the iiliom noticed in § 26. 1 : Meyer seems to connect it with the
instances in wliich ov reverses the meaning of the word before which it stands
(§ 55. 1). This latter principle is frequently applied to au ■jra.w: see Don. p.
568, Jelf 738. ()h.'<. 1, Buttm. p. 496, Kriig. p. 304, Hartnng IL 87, Liddell and
Scott s.v. wcvt/, Meyer on Rom. I.e. On the other side see Rest u. Palm s.v.
iract/, Riddell, Plat. Apol. p. 171 sq., who take th« same view as Winer (" the
universa] meaning of oi ^ravw is hardly, scarcely : " Riddell I. c.).]
SECT. LXI.] POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 695
fixed in perfect accordance with rule.^ THe passage appealed to
as containing a transposed negative, 2 Mace. vii. 28, oti ovk i^
ovroiv iTroiijaev avra 6 de6<i, is uncertain, since this reading is
lound in the Ood. Alex, only : Tischendorf reads ef ovk ovtcov.
In 2 C. iii. 4 sq., nreTroidrjcnv . . . eyofjuev, ou;^ on iKavoi ecrfiev
k.t:\., we cannot take ou^ on as standing for ore ov^ (m)- The
true rendering is : This conviction have we ... ; not (having in
rnind 2 C. i. 24) that xoe arc able through ourselves, but our ability
is from God. In 2 C. xiii. 7 Paul expresses the purpose of eu;^o-
fxeOa . . . fiTjSev in the first instance negatively, in the words
ovx '('Va 'r]fjiei<i 86ki/j,oi (f>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, 7rdme<i Se aWayTjaofjieda, even after all that has
been said by Fritzsche^ and Van Hengel, I can l>ut 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<TiiT6ct.t varies .somewhat in the two verses.
Keiche (Ooinm. Cr. in loc.) argues in favour of a tiansposition of the negative ;
and De Wettc concedes that this is possible, as the emphasis lies on 'wavn?
(contpare Num. x.viii, 18). De Wette himself, however, refers the first wavrs; as
■well as the second to a.xXayr.iro/ji.'Ja, the words (,«;>') 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 rifiet<i would be an incorrect antithesis. The doubt whether
Paul could utter such a prediction as this, cannot induce me to
give to aWdireadai in ver. 61a meaning different from that
which it bears in ver. 52, Other objections are answered by
Meyer. — That in Rom. xiii. 1 4 t^-? aapKo<; rrrpovotav //»; TroieiaOe
et? €7ri6vfiia<i does not stand for /xr) el<i eTriOv/jiia^, seems clear
in any case : see Fritzsche in loc. In 2 C. xii. 20 the translators
— as far back as Luther — have taken the liberty of transposing
the negative ; in the Greek, however, all is in order.
In Rom. XV. 20 ovx ottov, assumed to stand for otioi; ovk, is
said by Bengel " majorem emphasin habere," by Baumg.-Crusius to
be a milder and more modest phrase ; whereas it is simply the only
correct expression,— ovtws, ovx ^'^^^ • • - °^^^ k.t.X. In Rom. viii.
12 oil rfl vapKi of itself calls forth the antithesis dXXa t<3 Trveu/xart.
Attention was called by Bengel to the different positions (each of
them in accordance with the sense to be expressed) which the nega-
tive occupies in Rom. ii. 14, tOvr] ra fxrj vo/iov e^"^''''* ^^^ vofxov fXT]
t^ovres; see also Meyer in loc.^
Several have supposed a kyperbaton to exist in 2- Tim. ii. 6, rbv
KomwvTa yewpyov del TrpwTOv tcov KapTriSv peTaXafilSdveiv. The apostle
seems (from ver. .5) to intend to say, " the husbandmaii who first
labours must enjoy the fruits," i.e., the husbandman must first labour
before he enjoys the fruits : in this case irpwTov belongs to kottiuv, and
the sentence should properly have been arranged accordingly. Com-
pare Xen. Ci/T. 1. 3. 18, 6 cros Trpwros iraTrjp rerayfiiva ttouI ; i.e.,'
6 cros Trarrjp TrpaJro? tct. ttoul. To evade the hvperhaton, Grotius
takes TrpwTov as demum, which is not admissible. Recent commen-
tators, laying the emphasis on KOTriwvra thus thrown forward in the
sentence, explain the words to mean, "the labouring " — not the idle
— " husbandman has the first right to enjoy the fruits" : see especially
Wiesinger in loc. Similar and even more remarkable hyperbata, are
not rare in Greek prose : see Plat. Hep. 7. 624 a, Xen. Cyr. 2. I.
5.2
A Greek writer will sometimes take one or more words out of
a relative sentence, and bring them in before the relative^ for the
sake of emphasis : sees above, no. 3. Several commentators have
introduced this usage into A. i. 2, punctuating the words thus : toi?
dTTooToAois, Sia TTvcv/xttTos ayiov ous cfeXe^aro. This arrangement
however has little probability, for it is only the ivriXKeaOai 8ia th'cu-
/*aTos ayiov that could here be of importance to Luke (for the subse-
' [Bengel: "wow legem habent . . . legem non habent." Meyer: in the
former case it is the possession of the law that is denied (and the contrast is
between the law and qivtrn): in the latter, the possession of the law (the Gentiles
are contrasted with the Jews who have it).]
2 Compare Bomem. Xen. Anab. p. 21, Franlce, Demosth. p. 33.
' Stallb. Plat. Rep. I. 109.
SECT. LXI.] POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 697
quent contents of the book of Acts) ; whereas the iKXiyearOai crx rov
irvev/xaTo^ falls within tlie sphere of tlie Gospel, and should not be first
related here. The general reference to the past contained in o6s
iieXi^aro — in which words the apostles are especially indicated — is
not without meaning, since it was through this previous choice that
they became qualified to receive the commands 8ta tov irvevfjiaTos.
See Valcken. in loc. — There would be more ground for such an
arrangement of words in A. v. 35, Trposex^re eaurots, iirl rots dv^pw-rrots
Tt ^e'AAcre npdcraeiv (see Bornem. in loc); though the other punctua-
tion gives a suitable sense, — take heed to yourselves in regard to these
men, what ye are about to do.
On the other hand it is inconceivable that in A. xxvii. 39 Luke
can nave written koXttov tlvcl Kareuoow e^ovra aiyioAov for atyioAov
exovTu KoX-Trov rivd , The explanation had already been given by
Grotius : non frustra hoc additur, sunt enim sinus quidani mavis, qui
litus non habent, sed prfpruptis rupibus cinguntur. See also Bengel.
Besides, alyiaXof f^ovru must be strictly connected with the relative
clause €ts ov k.t.X., — which had a shore on which they resolved to land,
i. e., a shore of such a nature that they could be led to this resolve.^
Equally harsh is the arrangement which some have proposed in Rom.
Vll. 21 , €Vpi(TKO} apa TOV I'O/JLOV TCp 6f.koVTl ifXol TTOietV TO KaXbv OTL ifinl TO
KaKov Trapa/ceirai, — viz., tuj BiXovTi i/xol Tov vojxov ttoulv, to KaXov,
K.T.X. It has always seemed to me that the word? are most simply
grouped thus : cvpia-Kb) apa tov v6/jlov, tw diXovTi .... on ifxol to KaKov
TrapaKeiTai, invetiio hanc legem (normam) volenti mihi honesium facere,
ut mihi etc. 2 See also Philippi in loc.
Such expressions as the following are considered by many to be
examples of a trajection which has become established, and which
even influences the case of the noun (Matth. 380. Rem. 2) : Jo. xii. 1,
■Kpo €$ rjfxepwv TOV irda-xa, six days before the passover ; xi. 18, yjv ri
^rjOavia iyyv<; twv 'lepoaoXvfxuyv w<? dyru O'TaStcov SeKaTvevTe, abovt
fifteen stadia from it. Compare Jo. xxi. 8, Rev, xiv. 20. Were the
prepositions in their right place, it is said, the words would run e^
•f)fji€pai<i TTpo TOV ■7rd(T\a, ws 0"Ta8tous ScKaTrcvTc airo 'lepoa-oXvfjiuyv (L, xxiv.
13). It is probable, however, that in Greek they set out from a
different view of the matter, and in s})ecifying distance said ctTro o-Ta-
Biuiv StKawevTe (properly, lying off from 15 stadia, i. e.., where the 16
stadia terminate, at the end of the 15 stadia); just as in Latin, e, g.,
^ [See Smith, Vwjuge of St. Paul ip. 136, Alford ?n loc]
^ [If we take this as the most natural division of the words, there are two
chief interpretations between which we have to choose. (1.) That given in
the text, which is, perhaps, most commonly adopted. The weak point is the
explanation of rov viftet, which throughout the context denotes the Mosaic law.
(2. ) "I find then with regard to the law, that to me, etc. " On this view we have
a broken construction ; t«v vi/u-ov being put "as if the intention had been to com-
plete the sentence thus. I find then the law powerless to effectuate in me that
well-doing which my will approves" (Vaughan). — Meyer takes yo^ov as governed
by B'iXoMTi. Bengel and others give oVj the sense oi because. See Meyer's note ;
&\so Speak. C'omm. 111. 142, 14-5.]
698 POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. [PART III,
Liv. 24. 46, Fabius cum a quingentis fere passibus castra posuisset.^
. If now it was also necessary to define the position of the speaker, this
was expressed by means of a genitive added to the formula. So also
in specifications of time. As it was customary to say Trpo cf rj/jiepwv
for six days ago,'^ the same formula was retained when it was necessary
to give an indication of the point of time in reference to which the
calculation was made ; hence irpo c^ rjfxf.poiv tou irda-xo- (compare Evang.
Apocr. p. 436 sq.). In whatever way the matter may be regarded,
this mode of expression (in relation to both space and time) is suffi-
ciently common in later writers. Compare ^lian, Anim. 11. 19, -rrpo
irevre -^fiepwv tou dfftavicrdrjvaL tyjv 'EXiKrjv Xen. Eph. 3. 3, Lucian,
Cronos. 14, Geopon. 12. 31. 2, Achill. Tat. 7. 14 (and Jacobs in he),
Epiphan. 0pp. II. 248 a, Strabo 10. 483, 15. 715, KaTou\af3^2v divSpai
TrevrtKatSeKa oltto crraStW eiKocrt rrj<: TrdAecos* Plutarch, Pflilop. 4, ^v
dypos auT<3 xaAos aTro crraSiW ciKotrt r^s ttoAcws* Diod. S. 2. 7, Acta
Apocr. p. 39, 61 ; see Reiske, Const. Forphyrog. II. 20 (Bonn ed.),
Schsef. Long. p. 129. In the LXX Kiihnol has pointed out the
following examples: Am. i. 1, Trpo hvo irCJv rov aeLo-p-ov- iv. 7, -n-po
Tpiwv p.r)v<2v Tov fpvyrjTOv ; with a singular, aro p.id>i 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<pri, etc., to the words quoted : in Greak authors tliis is the less usual
arrangement (Madvig 219). [On fti, and 5s see Jelf 765 ; on Ss, Ellicott on G.
iii. 23. ]
SECT. LXI.] POSITION OF WOKDS AND CLAUSES. 699
fourth place. The MSS., it is true, do not alwr^ys agree among
themselves. These three particles have the third or fourth place
especially when it is proper to avoid separating words which are
closely connected:^ e.g., G. iii. 23, Trpo rov Be iXddv Mk. i. 38,
ek TOVTo yap €^e\r)\vda' L. vi. 23, xv. 17, 2 C. i. 19, 6 rov Seov
yap viof A, xxvii. 14, fier ov ttoXv Be eSaXe /c.r.X., Jo. v iii. 16,
Kal iav KpivQ) Be eyco' 1 Jo. ii. 2, ov irepl tmv i^fieripoov Be fiovov
.1 C. viii. 4, irepX t^? ^pcocreco<; ovv roiv elBcoXoOvTCDV 2 C. x. 1, o?
Kara Tvpo'icoTrov fiev raireiv6<i' Jo. xvi. 22, A. iii. 21. On Be.
(Her. 8. 68, ^1. Anim. 7. 27, Xen. Mem. 2. 1. 16, 5. 4. 13, Diod.
S. 11. 11, thuc. 1. 6, 70, Arrian, Al. 2. 2. 2, Xen. Eq. 11. 8,
Lucian, Euimch. 4, Biol. Mort. 5. 1, Sext. Emp. Math. 7. 65,
Strabo 17. 808) — see Herm. Orph.ip. 820, Boisson.Anst<^net.ip.
687, Poppo, Thuc. I. i. 302, III. i. 71, Stallb. Phileb, p. 90,
Franke, Demosth. p. 208. On yap see Schsef. Melet. Crit. p. 76,
V. Fritzsche, Qucest. Zucion. p. 100. On fxev see Herm. Orph.
I.e., Bornem. Xenoph. Conv. p. 61, Weber, Demosth. p. 402.
On the other hand, apa (see Herm. Soph. Antig. 628) frequently
occupies the first place, contrary to Greek usage : e. g., L. xi. 48,
Eom. X. 17, 2 C. v. 15, G. ii. 21, v. 11, aL Similarly dpa ovv,
"Rom. V. 1 8, vii. 3, 2 Th. ii. 1 5, E. ii. 1 9 , ah Mevovvye also begins
a period in L. xi. 28 [Rec:\ Kom. ix. 20, x. 18 (see Lob. Phryn.
p. 342) ; and roivvv in H. xiii. 13.^ The latter particle very
rarely stands first in the better Greek authors ; for examples
from later writers see Lob. Phryn. I.e. In Sextus Empiricus,
in particular, they are not uncommon: see Math. 1. 11, 14,
25; 140, 152, 155, 217, al. Amongst the Byzantines compare
Cinnam. p. 125, 136 (Bonn ed.).^'
It has been questioned whether the indefinite tis can commence a
sentence : see Matthiae. Eurip. Suppl. 1187 and Sprachl. 487. 6. The
instances in which it has the first place may indeed, from tlie nature
of the case, be rare ; but approved critics have witli good reason
assigned it this position in Soph. Track. 865, (Ed. R. 1471
(compare ver. 1475), .Eschyl. Chueph. G40 (Htrm.). In prose see
Plat, ThecBt. 147 c, Plut. Tranq. c. 13. In the N. T., however, there
1 [Liinemann adds : "especially in prepositional combinations." To Winer'.s
list of examples he adds H. i. 13.]
2 [To/yy* stands second in 1 C. ix. 26, L. xx. 25 Bee: firat in H. xiii. 13, L.
XX. 25 (in the best texts). In Ja. ii. 24 it is probably not gemiin'^.]
* MsvToi however is always placed after some other word which commaiices
the sentence. It is otherwise in later writers : see Boissonade, Anecd. II. 27,
700 POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. [PART TIL
are undoubted examples of this kind : Mt. xxvii. 47, L. vi. 2, Jo. xiii.
39, 1 Tim. V. 24, Ph. i, 15. (Jelf 660.)
The particles aXXa ye, yet at all events, are in earlier writers always
separated by some word (be it only a particle) : see Klotz, p. 15 sq.
This rule is not observed in L. xxiv. 21, aXXa ye trw Trao-t rowots Tpiri}v
TavTTjv rjfxipav ayct : see Bomemann m loc.
The particle /tteV is regularly placed after the word to which it
belongs in sense^ (Jelf 765). To this rule also there are some ex-
ceptions : A. xxii. 3, ey<i> 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<i oi.kous- Thuc. 4. 13,
and the examples collected by Elmsley, Eurip. Uerad. 622 (also
Joseph. Antt. 17. 6. 2), and by Ellendt, Lexic: Soph. II. 796^ (Jelf
756). In the same way ye is placed after the article or a mono-
syllabic particle, as Rom. viii. 32, 2 C. v. 3, E. iii. 2 ; compare Xen.
Mem. 1. 2. 27, 3. 12. 7, 4. 2. 22, Diod. S. 5. 40. &
^ If several words are connected together grammatically, — as article and noun,
preposition and noun,— /*£» may stand immediately after the Srst: e. g., L. x. 2,
i uh hpirfiis' H. xii. 11, Tpo; fih to T/tpln: A. i. 1, viil. 4, al. (Dcmosth. Lacrit.
.'iQS a). So also fiii oSv : Lysias, Pecun. Publ. 3, Iv ftiv oZv t-Z voxif^ai. Com-
pare Bornem. Xen. Conv. p. 61. This is true of other conjunctions also ; see
above, p. 4.'>.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, <p kol SeKarrjv 'A^paa/x eSwjcev, — as standing for
<S SeKdrrjv.Kal 'AjSpaafi «8a)K€v. But here it is on the giving of the
tenth that the emphasis rests : Schuiz has correctly translated the
words.
7. In certain passages a violent displacement of clauses ^
has been supposed to exist : —
a. In A. xxiv, 22, 6 ^rfki^, iiKpc/Secrrepov etSo)? ra irepX t?)?
o^ov, eiiras, orav Avaca<{ KaTa^fj, Biayvcocrofjbat k.t.X., Beza,
Grotius and others bring elSco^ k.t.X. into the sentence intro-
duced by eiTra<i, and translate : Felix., quando accuratius ....
coynovero, inqiiit, et Lysias Imc venerit etc. Here however the
whole is quite in order, as the more recent commentators have
perceived.^
b. In 2 C. viii. 10, otViz/e? ov jxovov to irotrjcrat aWa KaX ro
diXeiv TTpoevrjp^aade arrb Trepucrt, some have supposed that the
clauses are inverted (non velle solum seel facere i7icepistis^),
because in ver. 11 we find y Trpodv/ula rov deXetv. But there
is no ground for such an assumption. The " wishing " strictly
denotes only the determination (to collect), and may, if Trpoev-tjp-
^aade is said comparatively — i. e., in comparison with the Chris-
tians of Macedonia — stand before uhe 7roi»}crat, as a more
important moment of thought. Not merely in the arrangement,
but even in the purpose, ye were before the Macedonians : the
more becoming is it then to bring the collection to a complete
conclusion.'* It would have been quite possible that the resolve
of the Macedonians might have first moved the Corinthians to a
like resolve. Meyer's treatment of the words is forced, and he
comes at. last to Fritzsche's view,^ which De Wette ably opposes.
^ "W. Kahler, Satura duplex de ver is el Jictis textus sacri trajectionibus ex
Evangeliis et Actis Apostolorum collectis (Lemgov. 1728) ; E. Wassenbergh, De
Iranspositione, saluberrimo in sanandis veterum scriptis remedio (Franecq.
1786), — reprinted in Seebode's M^cell. Grit, 1. 141 sqq.
* Comp. Boriiemann in Rosenmiiller, Repertoriimi II. 281 sq.
3 Grotius, Schott, Stolz, and others. Syriac : {<-^ .Vr)\ qJ^ ,pAjf-»
7 P D ». 7
* I cannot admit that if this were the meaning we should necessarily have
Kill.) WiriX'iTa.Ti TO ■xmnffo.i in ver. 11. The Hxm was, naturally, completed long
ago, but it was also of importance to bring the -Jtofntcti to a conclusion.
* Diss, in Cor. II. 9. [Fritzsche explained to ermtiirx! of Nvhat had been already
done in the way of collection, to iixu\i of the purpose to continue in the same
course. Meyer now (ed. 2, 3, 4) agrees with De Wette and Winer : so also
Wieseler, Alford, Stanley.]
702 INTERRUPTED. STRUCTURE OF SENTENOBS. [PART III.
Of recent commentators Da Wette was the first to return to the
above explanation.^ I retract my former interpretation of the
passage. — On Jo. xi 15 see above, § 53. 10. 6,
In Mk. xii. 12a trajection is not to be thought of : after the
completion of the first sentence, consisting of two members, the
writer assigns the reason of the fact expressed in the former
member, and the result is then given in the words /cat a<}>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^ €pi6eia<i : hence they refer to
the members of ver, 1 5 in the reverse order, — an arrangement
which cannot mislead any reader.
Whenever, in tlie arrangement of particular clauses, the de-
pendent are made to precede the principal — as final clauses (Mt.
xvii. 27, A. xxiv. 4, Jo. i. 31, xix. 28, 31, 2 C. xii. 7, Roth, ix.' 11,
— see Fritzsche, Rom. IT. 297), or relative (Mk. xi. 23, Jo. iii. 11,
Rom, viii. 29, al.), or conditional (1 C. vi. 4, xiv. 9), — the rea-sou
for this arrangement is obvious to any attentive reader. Compare
Kiihner II. 62G (Jelf 903. 2). Under this head should probably
come 1 C XV. 2, TtVt Aoyw evT/yyeXicra/LtTyv v/xiv ei KaT€;^CTe : see Meyer
in loc.
Section LXII.
interrupted structurh of sentences : parenthesis,
1. We give the name of " interrupted sentences " to those
sentences whose grammatical course is arrested by the inter-
vention of a sentence which is complete in itself: "^ A. xiii. 8, av-
Biinaro aurol<i ^E\v/jia<i 6 fiAyo'i — oyr&>9 <yap fjLedepfirjveverac to
ovofjua avTov — ^tjtcov Siacrrpe'^frai k.t.X. \ Rom. i. 13, ov 6e\a>
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 .<iptciafim. sacra (Jen. 1745) ; A. B. Spitzner, Comment,
philol. de parenthesi lihris V. ct jV. T. accummodata (Lips. 1773) ; J. G. Lindner,
2Comvunt. dt par6nthesibusJohannei5{ATn3tad, 1765, — a treatise " de parenthe-
SECT. LXII.] INTERRUrTED STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES. 703
customary to present it to the eye as severed from the main
sentence, by the use ol" the familiar marks of parenthesis.^
According to the above definition we cannot, in the first
place, regard as a parenthesis any accessory sentence which is
introduced (even though it be of considerable length), if — either
by means of a relative or as a genitive absolute — it stands con-
nected in construction with the principal sentence : Eora. xvi. 4,
ix. 1, 1 P. iii. 6, 1 C. v. 4, L. i. 70, ii. 23, E. vi. 2, A. iv. 36.
Still less can this naine be given to appositional clauses, as Jo.
xiv. 22, XV. 26, 1 P. iii. 21, 2 Jo. 1, A. ix. 17, Mk. vii. 2, 1 C.
ix. 21 ; to clauses which are appended to a completed sentence
to give an illustration, explanation, or reason, as Jo. iv. 6, 8, 10,^
xi. 2, 51 sq., xiii. 11, xviii. 5, xix. 23, Mk. vii. 3 sq., 26, Mt. i.
22sq.,L.i. 55, A. i. 15, viii. 16, Eom. viii. 36, 1 C. ii. 8, xv. 41,
G. ii, 8, E. ii. 8, H. v. 13, viii. 5, vii. 11, Rev. xxi. 25 ; or,
lastly, to clauses which grammatically support any part of the
sentence which lies beyond their own limits^^ e. g., 1 C. xvi. 5,
eKevaofiat 7rpo<i iifia^, orav MaKehoviav Bie\9(0 (MaKeBoviav
'yap hiepYOfiaC), irpo'i vfid<i Be tv)(ov irapa/jLevo), — where it
is clear that MaKeBoviav and v/j,a<i, Biepx,ofiai and Trapafievco, are
mutually related, — G. iv. 24, H. iii. 4, Jo. xxi. 8, Ptom. ix. 11,
Mk. V. 13, vii. 26.
Parentheses are either brouglit in dcrvvSeTco^, or are intro-
duced by KUL (Fritzsche, Eom. I. 35), Be, or <ydp: Rom. i. 13,
vii. 1, E. V. 9, H. vii. 11, Jo. xix. 31,1 Tim. ii. 7, A. xii. 3, xiil
8, 1 Jo. i. 2. After a parenthesis the construction either proceeds
regularly, or is taken up again (sometimes in a somewhat altered
form) by means of the repetition of a word from the principal
sentence, with or without a conjunction, — as in 2 C. v. 8, 1 Jo.
i. 3. Such a resumption of the construction, however, does not
in itself give us a right to regard a series of words as forming a
Bibus PauUinis" is more to be wished for). — Compare further Clerici Ars Crit.
II. 144 sqq. (Lips.) ; Baiimgarten, Amfiihrl. Vorfr. iiber die Hermeneutik, p. 217
sqq. ; Keil, Lehrb. der Hennen. p. 58 sq. (for the most part incorrect).
1 To omit all external indications of a (true) parenthesis would be an incon-
sistency, if punctuation is to be retained at all. Still, in by far the greatest
number of cases commas are sufficient for marking otf inserted words. The
roimd brackets seem the most suitable marks of parenthesis.
2 [Probably this should be iv. 9.— A. i. 15, G. ii. 8, H. vii. 11, are subsequently
quoted by Winer as true parentheses ]
'[It is hard to see how Jo. xxi. 8, Rom. ix. 11, Mk. v. 13, answer ta this
description. In the next paragiaph Liinemann adds Jo. xvii. 10.]
704 INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES, [PART III.
parenthesis: E. i. 13, iv o5 teal v/ietv dKovaavT€<; top Xoyov rrj<;
dXr)6eia<i, to evayyeXiov T779 a-Q)Tr]pia<i vfjboiv, ev c5 Kai jriarev-
a-avT6<i i(T(f)pa'yi<rdT]Te K.r.X., ii. 1 1 sqq., 1 C. viii. 1 (see Meyer ^),
2 C. V. 6 sqq., Jo. xxi. 21. When the construction which had
been commenced is not taken up again grammatically, but
the train of thought is continued in a new and independent
manner (as in Rom. v. 1 2 sqq.), we have not a parenthesis, but
an anacoluthon (§ 63).
2. The number of parentheses in the N. T. is not small,
but it is not as large as the earlier commentators and editors
(Knapp included) supposed. Besides the insertionof single words,
which is common in both Greek and Latin authors (compare
nudius tertius), — as 2 C. viii. 3 Kara Bvpa/xiv, ^aprvpS), Kal
irapa hvvajxiv avdalperof H. x. 29, irocrq), SoKelre, ')(eipovo^
d^ico9)]<T€Tai TCfjbcopi'a^'^ 2 C. x. 10, al [xev eTrtaroXai, ^rjcriv,
iBapecac (see above, § 58. 9), xi. 21, Rom. jii. 5, — we frequently
find in the historical books explanatory statements in regard to
place, time, occasion, etc., parenthetically introduced : A. xii. 3,
Trpo^eBero avWa^ecv KalUerpov- — rjcrav Se rjfx'epat rwv d^v-
fjicov — 6v K.r.X., i. 15, xiii. 8, L. ix. 28, iyevero fiera row X070U9
T0UT0U9, ft)9et T^fiepat, oKrca, kul K.r.X. (compare Isocr. Phil.
p. 216, Lucian, Dial. Mar. 1. 4),^ A. v. 7, eyevero 8e, (09 oupcov
rpiCiv BtdcrTrjfxa, Kal rj 'yvvq k.t.X., Mt. XV. 32 (compare
^ [Meyer remarks that the words « yvufis . . . aurev, constitute a logical, but
not a grammatical parenthesis, 2 C. v. 6 sqq. has just been quoted : see also
§ 63. I. 2. b. On Rom. v, 12 sqq. see § 63. I. 1.]
^ Aristoph, Acha/rn. 12, -ttZs tovt ioniri fjt,ou, ^tKtls, tni nxp^lctv ; Villois. Anecd.
II, 24, -riraiv, o'liffSi, tuyitTifcts . . . l^tbtaxiv ;
' The Greek construction to which this- is compared by Kiihnbl and others
(the so-called Schema Pindarictim, — see Fischer, Weller III. 345 sq., Vig. p.
192 sq., Herm. Soph. Track. 517, Boeckh, Pindar II. ii. 684 sq., J. B. Brigleb,
Diss, in loc, Luc. ix. 28 : Jen. 1739) lies too remote, being almost coniined to
poetry (Kiihner II. 50 sq., Jelf 386. 1) ; nor is the application of this idiom
recommended by the iyiyiTo, which usually stands absolutely (in no instance do
we find iyifoyra iifiifxi eKTeH, etc.).— The above explanation of L, ix. 28 must be
applied to Mt. xv. . 32, oV/ ijlti hf^ipai ffiHi, vfo;/j.cvdvffi ftoi, — as the best MSS,
read : Fritzsche, not recognising tliat such definitions of time are loosely in-
tioduced, adopted the reading of D, ?S»? tiftifai rpus t/V< ««! vpes/^ivovfi ». t. x.,
which is a manifest correction. In his note on Mk. viii. 2, however, he acknow-
ledges the correctness of the usual text : see also his Sendschreiben iiber die
Verdienste Tholucks, p. 17. In L. xiii. 16, also, «v i^wnv i traTavZi, i'^ol
}ieicct xat oKToi 'i-rn x.r.x., I have no hesitation in taking the words (with Bengel)
in the same way. [Fritzsche /. c. decides for the reading «S») VV*' '^/"~* ^^
both passages : Winer's words may seem to imply that Fritzsche adopted the
received text.]
SECT. LXII.] IXTERRUPTED STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES. 70G
Liicmn, Dial. Mar. 1. 4, Scliief. Z'umo.s^A. V. 388), L. xx,i.ii. 51,
Jo. iii. 1, .■?]v av6pQ)7ro<;, NiKuB7)fj,o<i ovojxa avrw, tip^cov T(t>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<? koX dXr)-
0€ia<i, grammatically independent, — somewliat as in Ph. iii. 1 9
or Mk. xii. 40. — In L. vii. 29 sq. we have no parenthesis (Lach-
niarm) ; the two verses contain \Vords of Qhrist, who is repre-
^ It is a different case when the writer subjoins such an explanation to
the words of another, and then continues in his own langaago : Jo. ix. 7, li-raye
vi\lai lt( rriv KoXufjt-fiYiipav rtiv i'/Xt/a^-, o tpfirtiiivtrai a-7ri(rTuXfii)/o;. otTtikhv
auv x.T.X. ; 1. 42, 4-3, Mt. i. 22 sq., xxi. 4 sq. In no such instance can a paren-
thesis be thought of. In Mt. ix. 6 we have not so much a parenthesis as a
blending of the oratio directa and indirecta. In H. x. 8 the writer certainly
does bring his own words into the midst of a quotation, but it is by means of a
relative sentence. [As to Mt. ix. 6 compare what is said below, § C3. 11. 2,
66. 1, a.]
45
706 INTEEEUPTED STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES. [PART ITT.
sented as speaking both before and afterwards (ver, 3 h). It is
not sufficient to assume a parenthesis in Mk. iii. 17 ; the struc-
ture varies in ver. 16-19, — see § 63. 11. 1. Jo. vi. 23 is not in
the least parenthetical : it stands connected with ore of ver. 22.
Zeigler's proposal^ to regard the words Kal ^aav . . . yvvat-
Kwv in A. V. 1 2 sqq. as a parenthesis has very properly found no
favour with the editors (Schott excepted). But those also who
suspect that there is something spurious in ver, 12-15^* have
come to this conclusion too hastily. The words tw^re Kara ra?
7r\,aT€ia<i eKf^epetv tov? aaOevel'i k.t.X. accord very well with
ver. 14: it is from the two circumstances, that the people magni-
fied the apostles, and that the number of the believers increased,
that it is easy to understand why the sick were brought out into
the streets. Indeed these words accord with ver. 1 4 much better
than with ver. 12. Are we to suppose the iroWa <T7]^eta Kal
repara (iv ra> \aa>) merely to have been previous occurrences,
the effect of which is expressed by <w9T€ iK(pepeLv k.tX. ? To
assume this would be to sacrifice the perspicuity of the narrative.
And what then could these ttoWo, errjixeia have been but miracles
of healing ? Hence in the words &<rr€ Kara k.t.\. the writer
recurs, in a different connexion, to what he had only indicated
summarily in ver. 1 2, in order that he may recount it more in
detail (ver. 15 sq.). For these reasons I am also unable to agree
with Lachmann in considering ver, 14 a parenthesis. In A. x.
36 however, rov \6<yov is probably connected with ver. 37, and
the words ovto9 k.tX — which, as an independent sentence, ex-
press a leading thought, which Peter could not well annex by
means of a relative — form a parenthesis : after this interruption
the speaker proceeds in ver. 37, extending the thought.
4. In the Epistles also we may observe, first of all, certain
short parentheses, which contain sometimes a limitation (I ('
vii. 11), sometimes a corroboration (1 Tim. ii. 7, 1 Th. ii. 5}
sometimes a proof or a more exact explanation, as in Rom. vii 1
2 C. V. 7, vi. 2, x. 4, xii. 2, G. ii. 8, E. ii. 5, v. 9, Ja. iv. 14,
2 Th. i. 10, 1 Jo. i. 2, 1 Tim. iii. 5 ; — or indeed any thought which
forced itself upon the writer (Col. iv. 10, Rom. i. 13). There are
however some parentheses of greater length ; e. g., H. vii. 2 sq.,
^ In Gabler's Jotirn. fur theolog. Lit. J. 155.
* Eichhorn, Beck, Kiihnol.
SECT. LXII.] INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES, 707
ol fiev <ydp . . . eh rov aloiva, — for KaO^ oaov ov %&)p'i9 op/ccofio~
o-i'a<i (ver, 20) is manifestly connected with Kara rocrovro Kpeirro-
vo<i K.T.X. of ver. 22. So also in Ttom. ii. 13-15, since ver. 16,
€v rj/xepa ore Kpwel K.r.X., is certainly most suitably connected
with Kpi,6i)(TovraL in ver. 1 2 : indeed the word Kpivel points back
to KpiOijaovrai Verses 13—15 constitute a group of thoughts
complete in itself, added to ver. 12 for the purpose of explana-
tion It is the doing of the law that is of moment, and not the
hearing (ver. 1 3) : but heathen who live righteously are doers of
the law (ver, 14, 15).^ — Many however of the lengthy insertions
at-e not parentheses, but digressions ; since they merely delay
the progress of the thought, and do not interrupt the construc-
tion. Thus in 1 C. viii. 1-3, after the grammatically complete
sentence Trepl Be . . . exofJbev, Paul introduces a digression (^ yvo^-
(Ti<i . . . i/7r' avTov) on yvoicn'i in relation to ayairrj, and then re-
turns to ver. 1, beginning afresh with irepl ry<; ^paxrea)? ovv K.r.X.
(ver. 4). The case is similar in 1 C. xv. 9, 10, and in 2 C. iii
14-18 (iv. 1 attaches itself to iii. 1 2) : also in Eom. xiii. 9 sq., —
in Kal rovro elB6r€<i (ver. 11) Paul returns to /jbTjBevl p.T]Bev 6(f>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'}]<i k.t.X., ver. 4 being a relative
sentence explanatory of the words Bca Bn^^<; kuI ap£Trj<;. 1 Jo.
iv. 1 7 sqq. and E. i. 2 1 hardly require remark. In E. ii. 1 1 ol
Xejo/xevot . . . 'y^eipo'TroiTJrov is an apposition to ra edvrj iv a-apKt,
and the repetition of on in ver. 1 2 cannot make the preceding
words a parentliesis. Lastly, we have anacoJutlia, not paren-
theses, in Col. iii. 16, 2 P. ii. 4-8 (in the latter instance the
anacoluthon is partly occasioned by the sentence in ver, 8, — see
§ 63. I. 1), and 1 Tim. i. 3 sqq.
In E. iii. I sqq. the predicate is nut 6 8ccr/x£05 ; in this case, if the
meaning were ego Paulus vmculis detineor, we could not have the
nrticle, and the sense " I am the prisoner of Christ (^ar' lioxrfv)" does
not commend itself. The simplest ])roce(.lure is (after Theodoret) to
consider the rovrov x^P"' ^^ ^'^^- ^'^ '*'"' '^'^^ resumption of the inter
rupted thought of ver. 1 ; especially as the circumstance that Paul
h.as by his imprisonment boon taken away from In's personal labours
might so well give rise to the prayer of ver. 14 scjq. : by this means,
also, the tovtov x'^pLv of ver. 1 receives its natural interpretation.
Others, with much less probability, connect iv. 1 with iii. 1, on the
ground that 6 ^^eVftios (iv. ! ) seems to point back to e'yw 6 8ia-fjiio<:.
Compare fiirthe;- Cramer'-s version of this Epistle, p. 71 sqq., where
other conjectures are mentioned and examined ; also Harless in loc.
sect. lxm.] consteuction broken ol-'f or changed. 709
Section LXIII.
sentences in which the construction is broken off or
changed : anacoluthon : oratio variata.
T. 1. Anacoluthoii ^ is said to exist when the construction
v/ith which a sentence opens has no grammatical continuation ;
whether it be that something which intervenes (in particular, a
parenthesis ^) has Jed the writer entirely away from the cpn-
structiori with which he began, or tliat, a preferable turn of
expression presenting itself,^ he is induced to give the sentence
a different conclusion from that required by the form of its com-
mencement.* Hence auacolutha are partly involuntary, partly
intentional. In the latter class are inciudwd those which rest
on a rhetorical basis (Stallb. Plat. Gokj. p. 221), or which arise,
as Hermann says ( Vig. p. 895), "a motu animi vel ab arte ora-
toris vim aliquam captante." It is in writers of great mental
vivacity — more taken up with the thought than with the mode
of its expression — that we may expect to find anacolutha most
frequently: hence they are particularly numerous in the episto-
lary style of the apostle Paul. The following are examples. A.
XV. 22, eSo^ev Tot9 aTroa-roXoK; . . . iKXe^a^hovi avSpa<i e^
avrfov ireuylrai .... 'ypdyjravTe'i Bia %ei/309 avTMV. With this
compare Lys. in Eratosth. 7, tSo^ev avroU . . wiirep . . .ire-
Troi/qKore^' Antiphon p. 613 (Pieiske), eBo^ev avr^ ^ovXofievr]
^eX.Tioi' elvac fiera heZirvov Bovvai, ral^ K\vTai/j,vr/<Trpa<i t/}9
rovTov p,r]Tpd<i vTTodijKaL'i ap-a BiaKovova-a ; conversely, Plat.
Legr/. 3. 686 d, uTroQXeyya'i irpo^i rovrov rov crroXop, ov irept
^ Herm. Vig. p. 894 sqq. (whose illustrations are almost confined to poetical
anacolutha), Poppo, Thuc. I. i. 360 sqc^., Kiihner II. 616 sqq. [II. 1091 sqq. :
ed. 2], Madv. 216, F. Ricliter, De prcBcipula Grcecm lingtioe anacoluthis (Mlihlh.
1827-28 : 2 spec), De Wannowski, Syntaxeos anomalw Grcecorum pars- etc.
(Lips. 1835), F. W. Engejhardt, Anacolutha Plato7iica(Gnddni, 1834 etc. : spec.
1-3) : compare Gernhard, Cic. Offic. p. 441 sq., Matthise, De anacoluthis apud
Cireronem in Wolf, Analect. Lit. III. 1 .sqq. For the N. T. see Fritzsche,
Conjectanea, spec. 1 p. 33 sq. (Lips. 1825). [See also (Don. p. 60S) Jelf 900,
P.iddell, Plat. A2mL p. 223 sqq., and Campbell, Plat. Thecet. Appendix A : for
the N. T., A. Bottm. p. 373 sqq. (Green p. 234 sq.).]
2 See Beier, Cic. Offic. II. 365.
3 Weber, Demo.<<th. p. 5o8.
* Hence jn 1 Jo. i. 1 sqq. there is nothing of the character of an anaco-
luthon ; after the parenthesis of the 2nd verse the writer accurately connects
ver. 3 v.nth the beginning of the sentence, repeating — in full aCi;ordaiice with
grammatical rale — some of the words of ver. 1.
710 SENTENCES IN WHICH THE CONSTKUCTION [PART III.
ScaXeyofxeOa, eBo^e fxot TrdyKaXot; elvai (this is very common
with eSo^e), Plat. Apol. 21c, Xen. Cijr. 6, 1. 31, Luciaii, AstroL
3, Schwarz, Solcecism. p. 86 sq.^ A. xx. 3, ir o lt] a a<i fjLrjva<i
rpeh, 'y€vofM€vi]<; avro) ein^ovXrj^ .... /xeWovTi avdyeadai ei?
rr)v Hvpiav, iyevero yvcofxrj k.t.\. Jn Rom. xvi. 25, 27, to5
SvvafievM . . , fjbova cro<pa) Oeo) Bio, ^Irjaov Xptcnov, cS rj Bo^a eZ?
Toij^ al(ova<;, Paul has been led away from the construction he
intended by the lengthened statement in regard to God winch
is contained in ver. 25, 26 ; and, instead of simply adding rj Bo^a
649 Toi/^ alcovas, he expresses the substance of the doxology by a
relative clause, just as if the dative Oew had concluded a sen-
tence. A.'xxiv. 5 sq. is a similar case. The participial clause
evpovre^ rov avBpa tovtov k.t.\. should have been followed by
the verb eKpaTijaafiev in ver. 6 ; but Luke, led away by the
relative sentence o<? kul k.t.X., has brought this verb also into
the relative construction {ov koX €Kpar7]aa/j,ev).
The anacolutha which occur in periods of less extent are more
remarkable:^ e.g., A. xix 34, iiriyvovre';, on ^lovbaio^ Ian,
(fxovij eyevero uia eK travrfov (instead o{ ecficovrja-av d7ravTe'i)\ Mk.
ix. 20, IBwv [o Tral'i) avrov. to rrvevfia t.vOv<i Zairupa^ev avrov
(instead of virh rov 7Tvev/jiaTo<i €a'rrapd-)(Oq). With the latter
passage Fritzsche compares Anthol. Fal. 11. 488 (?), Kuyco S'
avTov IBoov, TO arofca fiov BeBerai; see also Plat. Legg. 6. 769 c.
In L. xi. 11, Tiva i^ vp^wv rov "rrarepa alrrjcret, o u/o? aprov, p,rj
\lOov eTTiBcoa-ei avTa>; 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]<i et? rov uvBpa p.i'KKeiv
eaeo-dai: here the proper (continuation of the sentfjnce would be
fisWovcrrjii eaeaOai, whereas peWetv would be in place if the
sentence had opened with some such construction as yLiT^i/uo-am-wy
iTTi^ovkriv K.T.X. Compare § 45. 6. The construction is probably
altered intentionally in 1 O. xii. 28, ou9 /tei/ eOero o ^eo? iv ry
' In Latin compare Hirtias, Bell. Afrir. 25, dum haec ita fierent, rex Juba,
Cdgniti.s . . . ., non est viswn etc. ; Plin. Ep. 10. 34.
- One of the most remarkable, perhaps, is tliat which is quoted by Kypke
(II. 104) : Hippocr. Marh. Vulg. .5. 1, iv 'Hx<S< ^ toZ Kti-rupou yuvi •xuf.rot
f/^fi ttirriM ^'jvzyf/^i xai ^upf/.a^a TTiv^vaa ovTto di<piXiiTo. Compare al.so Bat".
I. ?>, fiiTct, To aLToixAaai Na/4««^»Je»«<r«e riv Ig^anav . . ,'. ««; rtyay.v xuToy k.t.K. j
Act. Apoor. p. 69.
SECT. LXIIL] is broken OFF OR CHANGED. 711
eKKXrjcyia rrpcoTov a7ro<rro\ov<;, Bevrepov 7rpo(^r}ra<i, rpirov BiSa-
<r«raX,0L"? k.t.X. Paul at first intended to write oO? fiev . . . cltto-
o-ToXoi;?, 01)9 8e 7rpQ(^r)Ta<i /c.T.X.,but instead of a mere enumeration
prefers an arrangement in order of rank. Hence ou? ^kv is
altogether suspended in the sentence ; and the abstract nouns
which follow {e-rrena hvvdfiei<; k.tX.) attach themselves to the
simple eOero, which alone was still -present to the writer's mind.
So also in Tit. i. 3: when the apostle adds i<f)avepcocrev Se k.t.X.
he seizes on a more suitable turn of expression by the introduc-
tion of TOP \6yov avrov. Compare further 2 C. vii. 5 (1 C. vii.
26). The parts of the sentence which display the anacoluthun
stand farther apart in Jo. vi. 22 sqq., ry iiravpLov 6)(Ko^ ....
Ihdiv^ on . . . (aXka Be rjXde irXocdpia . . . ), ore ovv elBev
6 6-)^\o'i K.T.X.: here elSei', in consequence of the words in-
serted, has gained a more comprehensive object than belonged
to IBoov. In G. ii. 6, utto Be tmv Bokovvtcov elvai ti — oiroloi irore
Tjaav, ovBkv fjboi Btacpepet — i/xol yap ol BoKovvre^ oiiBev Trpo'iave-
6evro, the apostle should have continued by means of a passive
verb, but was so nmch disturbed in the construction by the
parenthesis ottowl . . . Biai^epei, that he forms a new sentence
\vith yap? In G. ii. 4 sq., B(,a Be Tov<i irapei'idKrov^i yjrevBaBiX-
<f)0v^ .... ot? ovBe 'Trpo<i wpav el^ap-ev ttj vTrorayfj k.t.X., the
parenthesis introduced in ver, 4 has occasioned the anacoluthon.
The apostle might either have said, On account of the false
hrethren (in order to please them) . . . we did not permit Titus
to be circumcised, or To the false hrethren we could (in this
respect) by no means give way : he has here blended the two
constructions.^ In Eom. ii. 17 sqq., verses 17-20 constitute the
^ [Lachmauu, Tregelles, Tischendorf, AlforJ, Westcott and Hort, read uSav for
tSa/v. The 23rd verse is said above (§ 62. 3) 7tot to be parenthetical. — Similar to
this passage (with the reading lltuv) is Rom. xv. 23 sq., if we omit Ixsua-o^a*
orph iiMas, and inclose IkoriZu ■ . . ifiTkva-^ai within a parenthesis : see Alford. ]
- In sense, Hermann's explanation (Progr. de locis Ep. ad Gal. p. 7) agrees
•with this. Hermann assumes, however, an aposiopesis after acr» Ss tZv "inKcuvre^v
. . . TI : against this see Fritzsche, 2. Proyr. p. 13 [Opusc. Fritzschiorum p.
211 sq.). The latter writer regards the words a.-ro . . . n (which should, he
thinks, form the conclusion of ver. 5) as parallel to lia Si, tous vrafinaxTovi
■v^juSaSsX^auf, and translates : propter irreptitios auteni et falsos .sodales (se
circumcidi non passus est), qaippe qui . . . quibus . . . vt . . . a viris autem, qvi
aurtoriiate valtrent (circuincisionis uecessitatem sibi imi)oui non si\''it). Against
this see Meyer. 1- have seen no reason, to alter my view of the pas.sage.
[Winer's rendering is: Principibus vero (qualescunque demum ei-ant, id nihil ad
me, Deus cnim externa hominis non curat) principes, inquam, nihil {iiovi)
mecum commonicarunt. Similarly EUicott, Lightfoot, al. ]
* It is in no respect easier to repeat (with Fritzsche, Progr, 1. in Ep. ad'
712 SENTENCES IN WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION [PART III.
protasis, and the apodosis begins in ver. 21. As Paul carries
through several clauses the thought which he premises as pro-
tasis, he loses recollection of the el of ver. 1 7 ; and when he
brings in the apodosis (ver. 21), he passes to another turn of
expression by means of ovv, which particle points to anacoluthon.
The case is but little altered if we take odv as the conjunction
which resumes and gathers up the protasis (Klotz, Bev. II.
718 sq.), — as in Greek authors it so frequently commences the
apodosis; for still the words o SiSdaKcov . . . 6 KTjpvaacov k.t.X.,
whether taken as a question or as an assertion of reproach, alter
the natural course of the sentence. After el Be k.t.X. the most
simple apodosis would be : thou oughtest to prove this knowledge
of the law hy living thyself according to the laio (compare ver.
23). It is at once evident to every one that the turn which Paul
has chosen is more forcible.^
In the following passages the anacoluthon is harsher. In
2 P. ii. 4 the protasis el >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<i avOpcoTTOv {Xpiarov) hLKaioavvrj /cal Sia Ty}<; St-
KaiocrvvT}^ rj ^(oj]. But by the explanations of et9?}X^ei' tj a/iapria
KoX 6 6dvaro<; which verses 12—14 contain, the regular construc-
tion is broken off (though in the words o<? icrTi ti/tto? toO fiek-
\ovTo<i there is an indication of the antithesis) ; and moreover,
the apostle remembers that not merely may a ^\m^\e parallel
be drawn between Adam a.nd Christ (<w<j7rep . . . ovTw<i), but that
what is derived from Christ surpasses, both in extent and in
■influence, that which proceeds from Adam : hence the epanor-
thosis TToWfZ /uidWov, — as was perceived by Calvin. The
resumption is effected by means of the words ahX ov-^ &>? 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<i
vapeKokeaa is left entirely without any consequent clause : as
Paul at once introduces into the protasis the object of the irapa-
Kokelv, the apodosis — which should have run thus, ovrw kuc vvv
irapaKoXoi, 'iva Trapa'yyeiXrj^ k.tX. — escapes his attention. It is
altogether unnatural to consider verses 5-17 parentlietical, as
even Bengel does ; but it is still more preposterous to take KaOm
as a particle of transition, not to be expressed in translation
(Heydenreich).
By many commentators, both ancient and modern, Rom. ix.
22 sqq. has been regarded as a very remarkable, and in part a
double anacoluthon : see the various opinions in Reiche's Co7/i-
onentarms Criticus. But it is probably simpler to attach the koI
Iva of ver. 2 2 to i'jvejKev, and to regard the apodosis as suppressed
at the end of ver. 23:7/" God, determined to shovj his wrath . . .
with all longsuffering endured the vessels of his wrath . ... also
in order to make known the riches . . . . : hov: then ? what sJmll vje
say to it ? (must not all censure then be silenced ?) The en-
during of the cKew-) opyris is not regarded merely as a proof of
' [So Vaughan, Webster and "Wilkinson. Most commentators take a similar
view of the gmeral construction of this passage. Others would commence the
apodosis with xal outw; in ver. 12 (Green, Cr. Notes p. 115), or with ko.) Ita. tTh
kf^apTias : Alford supplies "it was "before usTrip.]
714 SENTENCES IN WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION [PART HI.
liis fxaKpoOvfiia, but also as occasioned by the purpose of mani-
festing the riches of his glory, which he has destined for the
(TKevT] eXiovf;. The immediate destruction of the o-Kevt] 6pyi}<i
(here, the unbelieving Jews) wouhl have been perfectly just.
But God endured them with long-suffering (thus softening his
justice by kindness) ; and at once the purpose and the result of
this was the clear manifestation (by means of the contrast) of
the greatness of his grace towards the a-Kevrj eXeou*?. The Be
of ver. 22 is not ovv ; and hence it is not probable that this verse
is a continuation of the thought expressed in verses 20, 21.
That God is entirely free in bestowing his tokens of grace, had
been sufficiently declared. The creature cannot rise up against
the Creator : that is enough. But, Paul resumes, God is not
even altogether as rigorous as he might be, without having
reason to apprehend censure from men.^
On A. X. 36 see above, § 62. 3 : on Bom. xii. 6 sqq. see
below, II. 1. In Col. i. 21 there is in anv case anacoluthon, —
wliether we read aTroKarrjWd'yrjTe, with Lachmann, or retain
the received reading airoKanpCka^Gv. On 2 P. i. 17 see p. 442;
on 1 C. xii. 2, Meyer.'^
In some other passages in wliich commentators have supposed
the existence of anacoluthon, I can discover nothing of the kind.
Rom. vii. 21, evpio-KO} apa Tov vofjiov tw 6<.\ovti. e/AOt rroulv to koAov,
oTi ifioL TO KUKov TTapoiKUTaL, fomierly regarded by Fritzsche^ as a
blending of two constructions, has since been differently explained by
him,— in accordance with Knapp's view of the passage: see above,
p. 697. Nor is there a mixture of two constructions in H. viii. 9
(Fritz. G(n)j. p. 34). 'Ev rj/xepa i-n-LXa^ofxivov fxov tt)? x^ipos avrCjv (taken
from the LXX) may perhaps be an unusual mode of expression, but
is not incorrect ; and the Hebrew words (for this is a quotation from
Jer. xxxi 32), DTa "'i5"'Tnn nV3, have certainly given occasion, so to
speak, to the use of this phrase. The participle is chosen in the place
of the infinitive, as in Jer. xxix. 2 : compare Bar. ii. 28. — In 1 P. ii. 7
a-n-ciOova-L Se stands grammatically connected with the words of the
^ [Liinemann suggests that it is still simpler to take s/ . . . UnyKiv as protasis,
and xa'i (soil. nvtyKiv) 'iia. in ver. 23 as apodosis : if God endured . . . he. endurtd
them also (or at the same time) in order to . . . Similarly Ewald. ]
2 [In the edition referred to, I believe, Me5'er held that Paul proceeds with
err through forgetfnlness that he had begun with »?3a.T£ 'in (not o'I^ti merely) :
see Alford in loc. In edition 4 Meyer supplies r,Tt with the participle.] .
■'■ Voirifct. p. r)0. [Fritzsche considered that the two semtences tupifTKu ipo.
T»i wj^flv rui f'.Ke-iTi Ifcai irorji to Ka\ov to kxxov TxpaxsTa-fai (per ill, quod niihi
. . . malv.in adjacet) and lufuxxu apa, on i/^o'i ^ixovri . . . TxpaKiirat are hero
blended. J
SECT. LXIII.] IS BROKEN OFF OR CHANGED. 7l5
quotation, oStos iyei'rjOr) k.t.X. As to Rom. i. 26, 27, the variation
of reading between o/f.oiws ^e kul and 6/xotcus tc kui of itself renders
it difficult to eoiiie to a decision. The former appears to have more
external raithority on its side,^ and it has been adopted by Borne-
mann - (as also by Lachmann), and defended as being a formula of
fn quent occurrence in the N. T. : see Mt. xxvi. 35, xxvii. 41 (Mk. xv.
ol), L. v. 10, X. 32, 1 C. vii. 3 sq., Ja. ii. 25 (also Diod. Sic. 17.
111). But in none of these instances does re precede, and hence
they are all inadequate : compare however the passage cited by
Fritzsche from Plat. Synip. 186 e, t] tc ovv larpiKy] . . . wsavrws
hi Koi yvfjLvaa-riKrj. This reading of the most important MSS., then,
might be justitied granim;itically ; and, as the apostle obviously
wishes to give the greater prooiinence to what was done by the
appeves (he dwells on this in ver. 27, severely denouncing the crime),
it would even he very appropriate. The question now is, whether
an aiMcolutlion is involved by either or by both of these readings.
With ,the reading ofx.oiui's re koi there is as little anacoluthon as in
the Latin " nam ei feminae . . . et similiter etiam mares : " if however
we receive ofj-oiois he kui, the natural sequence is interrupted, just
as in *' et feminae . . . similiter vero etiam mares " (Klotz, Devar. II.
740).
The apodosis of H. iii. 15 i.s probably to be sought in ver. 16,
TtVes yap, quinam etc. (Bleek, Tholuck, al.). In 2 C. viii. 3 ai6at-
pfTid connects itself with cai;rcii.'s thiaKov (ver. 5). In 1 C. v. 11
thf-re is no anacoluthon in tw toiovVw fivhl crvveaOUiv (so Erasmus) ;
these words take uj> 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^L<j)(y(TrjT€ : see Meyer in loc.
2. The illustrations of anacoluthon which have been given
thus far are of such a nature that they might well occur in any
language. We have now to mention some particular kinds of
1 [Ts has the support of the two oldest MSS., B aii'i X, and is retained by
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort : Ii is prelerred by Tisch.
(ed. 7), Meyer, A. Buttmann (p. 361), al. In some of the passages quoted
below for of^o'ias Ss «a/ the reading is doubtfuL]
^ Ncuen the,ot. Journ. VI. 145.
' [The CA.se IS not altered if we omit x«/, with Tisch findorf and others.]
* [The editors are diride.d, not betw<^en tU and <'»« ti}. as Winer's words
might seem To imply, but between ailii; ^Ti-ch. ed. 1, 8, Lachm., Treg.,
Meyer) and Y»a rtt (Tisch. ed. 2, 7, Dp W. , Reiche). Meyer now taktss a different
view of the construction 'see above, p. 551), considering that the aposiopesis
would be too Ixdd for the N. T.]
716 SENTENCES IN WHICH THE CONSTP.UCTION [PART in.
anacolutliOD, which have especially established themselves in
Greek usage : —
a. When the construction is continued by means of parti-
ciples, these frequently appear in an abnormal case, as standing
at a distance from the governing verb.^ E. iv. 2 sq., irapa-
KaXo) vfj,a<i . . . TreptTTarfjaai . . . ave'^ofievoi aXXy\o)V iv dydirri,
a-7rovSd^ovTe<i k.t.X., as if the exhortation had been in the
direct fonn, TreptTrarrjaaTe : also E. i. 18, where Meyer raises
unnecessary difficulties.^ Col. iii. 16, 6 X0709 rov Xpiarov
evotK€iT(o ev v^jlIv irXovcrico'i, iv Trdcrrj a-0(f>ia 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 BiaKovla<i ravTn-i
Bo^d^ovre<i rov 6e6v (as if oti ttoXXoI cv^apiarovo-iv had pre-
ceded); compare Xen. Ci/r. 1. 4. 26. 8ee also 2 C. i. 7,* vii. 5,
Ph. i. 29 sq., iii. 10, 2 P. iii. 3, A. xxvi. 3; Jude 16.'
Anacolutha of this kind may in part be regarded as inten-
tional. The conceptions, tlius expressed by the casus recti of
the participles, stand out with greater prominence ; had an
oblique case been used, they would be kept back in the body of
the sentence (see especially Jude 1 6), and be represented as only
accessory. In most instances, however, the anacoluthon is oc-
» See Vig. p. 837 sqq., Eost p. 712 sq. [Jelf 707, A. Buttm. p. 298 .sq., Green
p. 235. j
2 [In his 3rd and 4th editions Meyer mhstantialh/ agrees with "Winer. See
Ellicott and Alford in f.oc. ; also A. Buttm. p. 94, 317, who prefers to legard
the accusatives as governed by S^ij;.— The peculiarity of this example is, that
the "abnonnal case" is the accusativp, not the nominative: A. xxvi. 3 is some-
what diflerent, as the personal pronoun is repeated.]
* [A nustake : no doubt, for i. 10.]
I That IS, if the clause r, Ixrri; .... i^ip i/uuv immeihately precedes s(S»rs?,
as it does in Bee, and also in the reading adopted by (Iriei-badi, Mayr, Tisch-
eiidorf, Westcott and Ilort.— Lachm., De W., Reiche, Alfojd, and Tregellcs
bring in this clause before tiVs Tapaxo'.y.ovf/.'Ja . . . -. with this reading d'SSorsj is
quite regular.]
^ * [A. Buttmann takes ovtu «•£ as an accus. absolute (p. 317): se.e Jclf 700,
Ellic. on E. i. 18. Jelf and Green (Or. Notes p. 102) supply a parlicij>lf 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 avd<yKrjv. i^ovcriav Be e^et (for e'^cov)} We must not
bring in here 1 C. iv. 14 (as Meyer does), or E. ii. 3, where
rj/xev is parallel to avea-ipcx^rjiiev. Tlie transition takes place
without he in E. i. 20, Kara rr}v evep^^^eiav . . . f]v evyjpyrja-ev ev
r^ XpicTT^, i<-/eipa<i avrov . . . ical eKciOca-ev'^ 2 G. vi. 9, Jo.
V. 44,'Col.'i. erPaus. 10. 9 1). On 2 Jo. 2 see below, II. 1. An
effort to attain a simpler structure or to give prominence to the
second thought (see especially 2 C. vi. 9, and compare Xen. Oyr.
5. 4. 29) is not unlVequently the cause of this anacoluthon. —
H. viii. 10 (a quotation from the O. T.) must be explained on the
same principle : avTr) r} SiaOrjKrj, rjv htaOrjaop^at tm oiko) ^lapar'jX
. . . hthov'i vofiov; /jLou ttv ryv Buivotav avToyv Koi iirl Kapoia^i
avToiv eTTiypd-^o) avTov'i. Some (e. g., Bohme) render the Kai
before eTnypd-^co by Hiam ; but this is forced, and anything
but favoured by x. 16. Of Jo. i. 32, TeOeafxat rb Trvevfia Kara-
0a LVOV , . . Kol eixetvev eV avrov (compare ver. 33, e'^' ov av
a3?79 roTTvevfia KarajBalvov Kal i^evov etr^ avrov), Baurag.-Crusius
has already pointed out the right view.^ In such passages the
MSS. sometimes have the participle as a correction of the finite
verb; e. g.-, in E. i. 20, where however KadLaa<i is received by
Lachmann as genuine. A similar kind of anacoluthon is pre-
'■ I'he case noticed by Hennaiin (Soph. &''. p. 153) and Buttinann (Deino-sth.
Mid. p. 149) is ditlereat from this.
''[The best texts now have x-aflsa.-, here, and in Col. i. 6. omit tci'i before
^ Compare further Sehaf. Dion. H. p. 31, Demo.%th. II. 75, V. 437, 573,
Plutarch, IV. 323, P.hime, Lycunj. p. 147, Matth. 632. 4.
718 SENTENCES IN WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION [PART IIL
sented by 2 C. v. 6 sqq., Oappovvre^} ovv irdvroTe . . . Bappov/xev
Se Kol evBoKovfiev : several clauses having intervened, Paul re-
peats the 6appovvT€<i — which he had intended to construe with
evBoKovp-ev — in the form of the finite verb. (Jelf 705, 759.)
c. A sentence which has begun with ort concludes with the
(accusative and) infinitive, as if thio particle had not been used:
A. xxvii. 10, Oetopco, ori jxera v^peco^ koI ttoW?}? ^T^/ita? , . .
fieWetv ^aeaOat tov ttXovv ; compare Plat. Go/y. 453 b, iyob
yap €v l(J&' on, to? i/xavTov ireiOo), ctirep . . . Kal efxl elvai tov-
Tcov eva' and see above, p. 426. Conversely, in ^lian 12. 39
the construction intended in the words (f>a(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<i, ro '^(piafjba o eXd-
/3eTe ott' avrov iv vfuv fievet, and ye, the anointincj v)hich ....
abides in you. In either passage, to join I'/Aet? with the relative
clause (as Lachmann does) would be giving to the pronoun, ^so
prominently thrown forward,an undue weightof emphasis. L. xxi.
6, ravra a Oecopetre, ekevaovrat rjfxepai, ev al<; ovk a^eOrjaerat
\i6o<i eVt XiOu) K.rX., tJmt which ye see (here), days ivill come in
which (it will be overthrown to the very last stone) not one stone
(of it) will he left upon another. So also in Jo. vi. 39, vii. 38,
XV. 2, Mt. vii. 24 [i?ec.], xii. 36, Rev. ii. 26, iii. 12, 21, vi. 8 :
compare Ex. ix. 7, Xeii. Cyr. 2. 3. 5, (Ec. 1. 14, JEl 7. 1.
2 C. xii. 17, fir) riva mv direaraXKa 7rpo<; vfj,d<;, Si avrov
eTfkeoveKvqaa vfia<i ; instead of. Have I sent or made use of
any one of those whom etc. in order to roh you ? Eom. viii. 3,
ro dtvvarov rov vo/xov, iv a> rjadevet .... 6 6eo<i rov eavrov
vlov 7re/u\|ra<? . . . Karixpive rrjv dfxapriav iv rfi (rapici, what was
impossible to the law .... God, sendiiig his Son, condemned
sin in the flesh : instead of, that God did, and condemned etc.
1 Wannowski, Syntax. Anomal. p. 54 sq. : see however H. L.-Z. 18-36, 1.
338. [Jelf 477, Green, Gr. p. 233 S(i.j
SECT. LXIII.] IS BROKEN OFF OR CHANGED. 7l9
Here however ro ahvvarov may also be taken as a predicate
prefixed to a sentence which is complete in itself, and may be
resolved into o 70/3 ahvva7ov iari} — as in H. viii. 1, Ke<f>d\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<i, rrjv hiaKOviav fiov So^d^co,
64770)9 Trapa^rjXooa-co fwv rrjv adpKa K.r.\. Here the Be clause is
included in etVa)? TTapa^rfKiocxfo : had Paul continued the sen-
tence regalarly, the words would run, Incismuch as lam apostle
of the gentiles, I ghrify my office (preacliing to the gentiles
zealously), hut in this I have iro view the benefit of the Jews (I
would by this means provoke the Jews to jealousy) ; — as to
my sphere of labour I. am apor.tle of the gentiles, but in pur-
pose I am also apostlu of the Jews. — Or
(7) The construction is altogether broken off, and the
parallel clause must be deduced by the reader from the sequel:
e. "". A. i. 1, rov fiev irpwrov Xoyov iiToirjcrd/Mrjv irepi rrravTcov . . ..
dveXr)(f)0i]. Here the writer should have continued thus, hut
from this point of time (that of the Ascension) / v:ill now carry
on the narrative in the second part of my 'work . through the
iDeution of the apostles in ver. 3, however, he allows himself
to be led to the mention of Christ's appearances after his resur-
rection, and immediately subjoins to this the sequel of the
narration. Rom. vii. 12, a)<iTe o fiev v6/jlo^ dyio? Kal t) ivroXr]
dyia KOA. BcKala ical dyadr), the law indeed is holy, and the com-
mandment holy etc., — but sin, stirred up in the adp^, misuses
these (in the manner indicated iu ver. 3) : this thought is pur-
sued by Paul in ver. 13, with a different turn of expression.
Compare further Rom. i. 8, iii. 2, 1 C xi. 18 (in each case-Trpw-
Tov fi€v, — see below), H. ix. 1, 2 C. xii. 12 (see Rilckert in loc),
A. iii. 13, xix. 4 (in the last passage {I'ev is not fully established),
xxvi. 4. For examples from Gjeek writers see Eurip. Or^st. 8,
Xen. Cyr. 2. 1. 4, 4. 5. 50, Mem. 1. 2. 2, 2. 6. 3, Plat. Apol.
21 d, Reisig, Soph. CEd. Col p. 398, Locella, Xen. Ephes.
p. 225, etc., etc. In L. viii. 5 sqq., Jo. xi. 6, xix. 32, Ja. iii. 17,
the correlative particle is not entirely omitted, Be being simply
1 See Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 105 ; Held; Plut. ^m. P. p. 123.
SECT. LXIII.] IS BROKEN OFF OR CHANGED. 721
replaced by eireira} or by Kat: that Greek writers frequently
use ixev . . . eiretTa, fiev . . . Kai (Thuc. 5. 60, 71), fiev ... re, as
correlatives, is a well-known fact, and in no way strange.^ The
clause with Be occasionally stands at some distance, as in 2 C.
ix. 1, 3 (Thuc. 2. 74),— probably also 1 C. xi. 18^ (see below); or
is not entirely parallel in point of expression (G. iv. 24, 26).
In Rom. i. 8, -rrpwrov fiev €v)(apia-Tu> 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,
tKa<TfjLO<i irepl twv afiapricov rj/jLoyv, ov irepi tmv fj/xeripcov Se
fiovov,aXka Kai irepl oXov rov Kocrfjuov: here we might either
have had irepl row oXov rou Koa/iou instead of Trepl oXov rov
Kocrp-ov, or irepl r}p,Mv instead of irepl tmv ^^eripwv. Similarly
H. ix. 7, A. XX. 34 (1 K. iii. 1, iv. 30, Lucian, ParasH. 20). R
V. 33,A;at u/Aet? ol naO^ eva cKaaros rqv eaurou •yui/aiKa oyr&jf
ayaTrdrci) a>9 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,ov<i (aairdl^eadat) iv rah dyopatt K.r.X. Jo. viii. 53, p,rf av
p,€i^(ov el rov Trarpo? rjpcov ^A^padp,, o9Tfc<? diriOave; Kal ol
7rpo<j)r]rai diridavov : here regularity of construction would
require that the question should be continued, Kal rojv nrpot^-
7WV, oinves uTreOavov. 1 C. vii. 13, yvvj], ^rit e^et dvBpa din-
1 Jacob, Luc. Alex. p. 22, Jacobs, uElian p. 6, Bremi, JEschin. II. 7.
« Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 254, Beier, Cic. Offic. II. 3?.
Jo. XI. 52, {HfiiXXm aToiynfxiiy) ah^ v-x\f roO 'ihou; fcivoi, aXX' 'Iva. xat rk
TiKva . . . (Twaydyri (Is I'v, does iiot coiiie Under this head. There was here no
more convenient mode of expressing the second clause.
* In L. i. 55, however, tu 'Afipaa/i x.r.x. must be joined [not with eXaXgo-e,
but] with (jt-trtaHiai Ixious, mainly on account of ils rov a'tutva,
'■" Compare Matth. 632. 5, Schwarz, Sol<x^. p. 89 sq.
SECT. LXIII.] IS BROKEN OFF OR CHANGED. 723
arov Kol ovTO<i crvvevBoKei (/cat auvevSoKouvTa) ocKeiv fier avrri<i,
fMT) d<l>ieTQi 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<r(»i tou; fix^nrds), even
if we were to apply the .standard of cultivated prose : for the narrative style
of the Evangelists such a construction (afi?,ar4xi reus /aa^riTds) would be too '
heavy. Besides, the ly'tviTo stands in no necessary relation to tkf\a.iT6a.i too;
/uecitlTci; (q. d., "it came to pass that, as he . . ., the disciples plucked ears of
corn ") ; but Mark's meaning is, It came to pass that he went through the corn-
iields on a Sabhath, and (then) the disciples plucked etc. — Still less can I find
eny change of construction that is worth noticing in 1 C. iv. 14, E. ii. 11-13
(or in Ph. i. 13 !). No writer is so anxious about uniformity as not to allow
himself to say " Not shaming you do 1 write this, but as my beloved children I
admonish you," instead of " 1 do not . . . shaming. . . but admonishing." In A.
.xxi. 28, however (Fritz. Conjpct. I. 42 sq.), the words 'in ti of themselves show
that Luke desires to give prominence to that which follows, and the independent
construction of the new sentence accords with this purpose. [In 1 C. iv. 14
Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort read >«*/^£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(ova<i, — see Fritzsche in loc. In Rom. xii.
2, however, we should probably read the infinitive ava-xrjiMarl-
^eaOat,^ not the imperative a-vcr'^Tj/xaTi^eade.
Many examples of a similar kind may be collected from
Greek authors : e.g., Paus. 1. 19. 5,tov Ntaov Xiyerai dir/arepa
epaadijvaL Mlvco kol ct)9 direKeipe raf rpc^a'i tov irarpo'i' 5. 1.
2, 8. 22. 4, UelcravBpo^ Be avrov 6 Ka/j,ipeu'i aTroKreivat to?
6pvi9a<i 01) <f>7]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€vov<s (compare xiv. 14), see above, § 59. 11. In both
passages there is a blending of two constructions. So also in Rev.
xviii. 12 sq., where first of all genitives of apposition are joined to
TOV yofiov, then an accusative (ttSv $vXov) comes in, then (/cat l-Tmoiv
^ [Is not this rather an example of anacoluthon, v-ro^i^tfiivaui being used as
if an infinitive had preceded ? See A. Buttra. p. 384, Meyer in loc.'\
^ [The imperative is retained by Tischendorf, Tregeiles, Westcott and Hort.]
SECT. LXIII.] IS BROKEN OFF OR CHANGED. 725
K.T.X.) genitives again, and lastly another accusative (tl^vxa.'s avOpw-
TTOiv). In Rev. ii. 1 7, however, where Scicrw governs first the genitive
and then the accusative, the distinction between the cases is correctly
observed.
2. Deserving of special notice is the transition from the
oratio ohliqua to the oratio recta, and vice versa : ^ this transition
is very common in Greek prose. A. xxiiL 2 2, airiXvae rov veauiav
irapayyelXa^ fXTjSevl eKkaXrjaai, ore ravra ei>e(^dvLaa^ 7rpo<i fie'
xxiii. 23 sq., elTrev eTOLfidorare . . . Krrjvq re 7rapaart]aat' L. v.
1 4, rrapr/yyeiXev avrcp fiijSevl elrrelv, dXKa arreXOoyv Bel^ov' Mk.
vi. 9. . Compare Xen, i/e/^. 2.1.25, An. 1. 3. 14, and the passages
■which Eypke (I. 229 sq.) quotes from Josephus. Mk. xi. 31 sq.,
eav et'iTwp.ev ef ovpavov, ipel' Btarl ovv ovk iinareiiaare avrS ;
aX\' eiTTOifxev ef dvdpcoTTwv ; e^o^ovvro rov \aov : in the last
clause the narrator continues in his own words. With A. i. 4
compare Lysias, i?i Diogit. 12, erreuZr} he crvvrf\.6ofi€v, rjpero avrov
rj yvvri, ri'va rrore yjrv^rjv e'^cov d^iol rrepX rwv rralhwv roiavrrj
'^pijaOac, dBeX(p6<; pikv cop rov 7rarp6<;, irarrjp 8' e'/io? k.t.X.
{(kopon. 1. 12. 6). See further Jo. xiii. 29, A. xvii. 3. In Mt.
ix. 6, however, the clause rore Xeyec t&> 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 Trj<i cuvetOT^crew?, may be
brought in here. The change from singular to plural in L. v. 4 is
inteniiona) : see Bornemann in loc. On a plural in apposition to a
singular, as in 1 Jo. v. 16, see § 59. 8.
Words of dissimilar character stand in apposition to each other
in Rev. i. 6, evoirjcnv T;/Aas (3a<ri.Xeidv tepei? tw dew: see § 59. 8.
In other constructions besides this Greek writers sometimes place
concretes and abstracts side by side ; see Bremi on ^-Eschin. Ctesipk.
1 D'OrviUe, Chant p. 89, 347, Heind. Profag. p. 510 sq., Jacobs, jElian
p. 46, 475, Ast, Plat. Le(jt). p. 160, Held, Plut. Timol. p. 461, Bornem. Xen.
Mem. p. 253, Fritz. Mark, p. 212 (Jelf 890).
• Mt. Xvi. 11, rru; ou voiTrs, art el Ttfii apTuv li^iv ufi.iv' vrpesipf^iTi SI airo Tt;;
t,iiirie ru)* ^xpitraiun x.t.x., is of a different kind : here we have merely a repeti-
tion of the direct words of Jesus (ver. 6), as such. Nor is there anything
singular in Jo. x. 36. [In Mt. xvi. 11 it seems much simpler to make the
question end at iuTv. So the passage now stands in the best texts.]
^ Selnveigh. Arrian, Epirt. II. 1,94, 278, Matthia, Eurip. Oreiit. Ill, Schaef.
Demoith. IV. 106, Schwarz, Sol(£c. 107.
726 INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. [PART 111.
§ 25, Weber, Demosth. p. 260. Compare also Cffisar, Civ. 3. 32, erat
plena lidorum et imperiorv/in provincia.
Section LXIV.
incomplete structure : ellipsis^ aposiopesis.
1. Until a very recent period the ideas generally enter-
tained in regard to ellipsis (and pleonasm) were both inaccurate
and fluctuating : hence the uncritical collections of L. Bos ^ and
his followers, and of the N. T. philologers in particular (compare
Haab p. 276 sqq.j. It was from Hermann's acute examination
of the subject ^ that these words first received an accurate de-
finition and fixed meaning. Hermann is in the main followed
in the present section, in which my immediate aim is simply
to determine the various classes of ellipsis, a large number of
examples having already been accumulated by Glass and Haab.*
I. Ellipsis (ex'^uding aposiopesis, on which below, no. II.) con-
sists in the omission of a word which, though absent itself from
the sentence, yet in its idea must necessarily (for completeness
of the sentence) be present to the thought.® Such omission of
words to be supplied by the mind (whether it be occasioned by
* See K. F. Krumbholz, De.ellipseos in N. T. usu frequfuli, in his Operarum
subsecivarum lib. 1. No. ] 1 (Norimb. 17?'6) ; F. A. Wolf, De agnUione eflipseos in
interpretdtionelihrorum sacrorum, Comm. i.-xi. (Lips. 1800-1808, — Comm. i.-vi.
are reprinted in Pott's iS't/Zfogie Comment. Theol. IV. 107 sqq., VII, 52sqq., VIII.
1 sqq.), — an uncritical collection. Compare further Bauer, Fhilol. Thuctid.-
Paull. 162 sqq. ; Bloch, Ueher die EUlpaen in denpaul. Brief en, in his Theologen
(Odensee,. 1791), 1 St. [Jelf 891 sqq., Don. p. 609, Webster, Synt. p. 257.]
* Lamb. Bos, Ellipses Orcecoe (Franecq. 1712, Traj. ad Rhen. 1755) ; ed. C.
Schoettgen, 1713, 1728 ; ed. 5. F. Leisner, Lips. 1749, 1767 ; ed. N. Schwebel.
Norimb. 1763; cum notis C. B. Michaelis, HaL'1765; cum- priorum editorum
euisque ohaervationibus ed. G. H. Scha^fer, Lips. 1808 (reprinted at Oxford.
1813). Compare Fischer, Weller III. i. 119 sqq., 111. ii. 29 sqq.
' Hermann, De ellipsi et pleonasmo, in Wolf and Buttmann's Museum, anti-
quitatia studiorum, Vol. I. Fasc. I. p. 97-235, and. in Hermann's Opuscula, i.
148-244 ; also, in brief, ad Vig. p. 869 .sqq. — Ellipsis in Latin is treated by
J. W. Schlickeisen, De forrnis linyuoe Lalinoe ellipticis, 2 Pr. (Miiblhausen, 1830,
1843). An earlier work, by J. G. Lindner {(Jeber die lateinischen Ellipsen
Frankf. on M. 1780), is of little importance even as a collection of examples.
* How much the books of the Bible have had to suffer from commentators in
regard to ellipsi.s is intimated by Hermann (Opiisc. p. 217), when he calls these
books " cereos flecti quorundam artibus."
' Hermann, Upusc. p. 153 : ElUpseos propria est ratio gvammatiea, qua? posita
est in eo, ut oratio, etiamsi aliquid omis.sum sit, Integra esse censeatur, quia id,
quod omissum est, necessario tamen intelligi debeat, ut quo non intellecto sen-
tentia nulla futura sit.
SECT. LXIV.] INCOMPLETE STKUCTUKE. 727
convenience, or by a desire for conciseness) ^ can take place
only when the language used contains a clear intimation of
what has been suppressed (Hermann, Opusc. p. 218), — either by
means of the build of the particular sentence, or in consequence
of some conventional usage.^ As there are three constituent
parts of the simple sentence, ellipses would range themselves
under the three main heads of ellipsis of the subject, of the
predicate, and of the copula (Herm. Vig. p. 870). Of the
predicate, however, a real — i. e., an entire — ellipsis does not and
probably cannot occur (Herm. Vig. p. 872) ; for the predicates
of a subject are so manifold, that a writer cannot leave this
part of the sentence to be supplied by the reader. Hence there
remain only two kinds of ellipsis : of these the ellipsis of the
subject is from the nature of the case the more limited.
The case in which a word or phrase which is expressed in one
clause must be repeated iti a subsequent and connected clause (Glass
I. 632 sqq.) — either unaltered, or with some change of form re-
quired by the construction — cannot be called ellipsis, for here there
is no real omission of the word.^ The following are examples of
this case : —
a. 2 C i. 6, €irc Okif^ufjieOa, v-rrlp tj^s vfioiv (roiT/jptas, scil. 6Xi(3o-
fjicOa (v. 13, vii. 12); L. xxii. 3G, 6 £;^wv (SaXkdyTiov, dparoi ....
6 fjLr] £;;^wv, scil. /SaWtifTiov (koI irypav), Ja. iL 10, Jo. iv. 26 ; Jo.
xii. 28, 86$a(xov crov TO ovofjua .... kol iSo^aaa Koi vdXiv So^dcru),
sell. TO ovofxd fj.ov. ,Corapaj-e further Rom. iiL 27, viii. 4, xi. 6,
xiii. 1 (at 81 ova-ai, sell. i$ovaiai, — this word is supplied by inferior
authorities only),* Jo. iv. 53, A. xxiii. 34, 1 C. vii. 3 sq., xi. 25
■ 1 The omission of a word may sometimes arise from rhetorical considerations,
either entirely, or at all events in part. See below, no. 3.
^ To neither of .these can e.g. those commentators appeal, who, in Older to
escape the archajological difficulty of Jo. xviii. 31, supply hoc die (festo) with
h/^Tv eux i^imt aToxTiTytm ovd'tvct,.
a Hermann, Vig. p. 869, Opusc. p. 151 sq., Poppo, Thuc. I. i. 282.— It must
be acknowledged that this mode of expression gives more roundness and com-
pactness to the style : the repetition of the same or similar forms of words
would in most cases be very clumsy.
* 1 Jo. iii. 20 would come in here acxiording to Liicke's explanation of the
passage, .which supplies ysyurxii/Au (ofoafnv) from ver. 19 before the second
on. I confess, however, that to me this explanation seems very harsh. Why
may not a transcriber have inadvertently written an twice? Lachmann indeed
rejects the second on, with A ; but it is just as likely that the particle was left
out because it was not understood. Or why may not the repetition of on be
ascribed to the author himself, as in E. ii. 11 sq. (see Fritz. 3. Progr. ad Oal.
p. 5, or Fritzschiorura 0;)«sc. p. 236) ? The passage has not yet been sufficiently
explained. [In his smaller edition Lachmann rejected the second en, but
restored it in his larger work, reading the pronoun o n in the former clause :
Bengel, Ewald, Hutlier, and others accept the pronoun, which seems certainly
728 INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. [PART III.
(compare ver. 23), xv. 27, 2 C. xi. 11, Eev. ii. 9. So especially in
answers: Jo. xviii. 5, rtVa irjrdTi ; .... 'Irja-ow tov NaCcopaiov
xviii. 7, L. XX. 24, rtVos e'xtt ^Ixova KoX iTnypa<f>r]v ; a7roKpi6cvT€<i etirov
Kaca-apos- vii. 43, Mt. xxvii. 21 ; H. v. 4, oux «'a"^«? '^^^ Xafipdvu
rriv Tifiyv, dAAtt KoAow/xcfos wro toO ^coO, scil. A.a/x^ttvci r^./ ti/at/v
(Aa/i./^av€i having, however, the meaning receives).
b. Mk. xiv. 29, ei ffai'Tes a-KavSaXta-dy'io-ovTaL, oAA,' owk eya. (o-Kav8a-
Xi(TOy',(rofiaL, compare Mt. xxvi. - 33) ; E. v. 24, wsrrcp rj^ iKKXrja-U
vTrorao-o-erai T<S Xpto-rw, ovtw .... at yi-vatKes Tots avSpdaLV {vtto-
Tarro-eV(9wcrav) ; 2 Tim! L 5, r/Ti'S ivwKr]cr€v Iv rrj p-dp,fij} (rov . . . .:
ir€7r€i(TfiaL 8e, on Kai «/ (rot (cvoiKcI) ; Rom. xi. 16, €i rjajrapxn dyia,
Kfti TO (pvpaim (dyiov) ; H. V. 5, 6 XpicrTos ot'x laurov tSd^ao-cv . . .
dAA' 6 XaArjcras vrpos aiVoV (e8d^'ao-£v avTw) ; 1 C. xi. 1, fxip.r}TaL fxov
yiv€(rOe, Ka$i^<s Kayw XpicrTOV (yaf^r/TTjs ti>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 <f>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 <f>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<rr.») »t«, Mk. ii. 16 [Rec.\
A. V. 4 (Bar. iii.' ,10) : see Fritz. Mark, p. 60.
732 INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. [PART III.
The conjunctive 77 is to be supplied after Xva in (Rom. iv. 16)
2 C. viii. 11, 13'
I). More rarely is the substantive verb omitted in other
forms. Elfjit: 2 C. xi. 6, d Be koI ISkoti]^ ru> 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<s (exists),
1 C. XV. 40, Rom. iv. 1 3.
It will also be sufficient to supply elvac ov yiveadaL iu most
of those passages in which an oblique case or a preposition
appears to require a verb of more special meaning. See 1 C. vi.
13, TO, ^payfiara rfj KoCKta koX rj KoCkia Tot^ /Spw/xacrf A. x. 15,
^Q}VT] itoKlv €K Bevrepov Trpo? avrov [iyevero, compare ver. 13),
Mt. iii. 17 (in Jo. xii. 28, rjXdev jxovrj ^), 1 C. iv. 20, ovk iv \6yo)
7] ^acTiXela rod Oeov, d\X' ev Bvvd^ei (compare ii. 5), Rom. x. 1.
xi. 11, 2 C. iv. 15, viii. 13 (Meyer ^), 1 P. iii. 12, H. vii. 20.
The preposition or the case shows what verbal notion must be
supplied in thought : (whose final lot) leads to horning, is des-
tined for, came to him,^ etc. As in the last passage [A. x. 15]
iyivero is obviously sufficient, so also in the first two, considering
the simplicity of the style, nothing but icnl must be supplied.
Similarly in 1 C. v. 12, riydp fioi koX rot"? e^w Kpivuv; (Arrian,
Epid. 2. 1 7. 1 4, Tt p,oi vvv Trjv 7rpo9 dX\,r]\ov<i fxd'^vv irapa^ipeiv ;
9, see above, p. 442. In H. xiii. 5, Rom. xii. 9 sqq., it must not be forgotten
that by the side of the participles stand adjectives, with which tlie imperative
of tivai is confessedly to be supplied.]
1 In E. i. 13, also, Meyer would supply i<rri after iv J : this Iv S, however,
seems rather to be taken up again, after the clause a.xouira.\iTt; k.t.x., in the
second Iv a. Between axoug-avTn and "riimufaMTii there can hardly come uvai
h Xpirra. [Meyer does supply i<rri, but it is the indicative, not the impera-
tive.]
* [This is no doubt a mistake for 1 K. x. 9. — On this question see Ellicott
on E. i. 3, Ligbtfoot on G. i. 5, A. Buttra. p. 137.]
' It is always the more simple notion that is omitted ; and if a writer here
and there introduces a verb of special meaning into a formula which is com-
monly elliptical, it does not follow that this is the verb by which the ellipsis is
to be supplied. Thus Antipater in the Greek Anthology says u rl toi ix /SZ/SXav
vXfiiv ifia» oipiXo; ; but we must, not on this account supply ^xh in the formula
rl fioi TO oipiXoi (so Palairet p. 415), but only the simple la-r/'. Similarly in
Lucian, Merc. Cond. 25, we find ri xoivov xi/pa. x.x.) ovm ; but it does not follow
that in the formula ti if^o'i xaJ <roi ; the word xemiv is to be supplied. See Fritz.
Mark, p. 33.
* [Meyer supplies yUirat with ^rs^iVirei/^a.]
* [These three renderings relate to H. vi. 8', 1 C. vi. 13, A. x. 15,— as is
shown by ed. 5. The omission of H. vi. 8 in tlie sixth and seventh editions is
probably accidental : this passage is misplaced above, p. 731.]
734 INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. [PART III.
4. 6. 33), and in Jo. xxi. 22, ri irph ae ; ^ (compare the Latin
Iwc nihil ad -nie, quid hoc ad 7)ie ?). In Jo. xxi. 21 also, outo9 Se
Tt ; it will be sufficient to supply e<nat, {'yevrjaeTai) : the future
is suggested by the context. Compare 1 P. iv. 17. Lastly, the
formula iva ri (scil. yevrjrac or yevoLTo) also comes under this
head: see Herm. Vig. p. 849.
Verbs wbicli express not merely the copula but also the
predicate (or a part of it) ^ can be left unexpressed only where
they are indicated by the conformation of the sentence (Bar. iv.
1). Compare such well-known phrases as zwolfeinen Thaler [or
our three a penny\ manuvo dc tohula, hmo hacUnus, etc. Thus in
A. ix. 6 Bee., 6 Kvpio<i irpo'; avrov, we readily supply etTre (ver.
15), to which TT/jos avrov points ; as in A. ii. 38, xxv. 22 (iElian
1.16 v.l.j. In Rom. iv, 9, o fiaKapia-fjiO'i outo? eVl rrjv frepiTOfjbrjv
rj Koi iirl ttjv uKpo^vcrrlav ; the meaning obviously is, dots this
. . . refer etc.; but the word to be supplied is not TriirTet (Theo-
phylact), but rather Xeyerat,^ — compare ver. 6 {Xeyeiv eU riva,
Eurip. Iphig. T. 1180). A. xviii. 6, to al^a vficov iirX .'Trjv
Ke(f}a\rjv vfMVDV' Mt. xxvii. 25, to alfia avrov ecf) r)/j,a<i (2 S. i. 16,
Plat. Euthyd. 283 e), — scil. iXdeTOJ, compare Mt. xxiii 35
(though eo-TG) would be sufficient).^ In Rom. v. 18, as St' ev6<;
irapaTTTco/jiaTO'i et? Travra^ avOpdiirovi eh KaraKpu^a, supply the
impersonal aire^ri, res cessit, abiit in etc.; and with the following
words, ouTO) Kal Sc €vo<; 8iKaLcofj,aT0<f et? iravras civdpcoTrov^ et9
hiKatoocnv fo)?)?, supply airo^'qaeTaL (in accordance with ver. 1 9,
— so Fritzsche^), or rather a second airi^rj (Meyer). 2 C. ix, 7,
cKaa-TO'i Kad(t>^ 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<ma,i in the two
members of this verse.]
SECT. LXIV.] INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. 735
from the whole context. In L. xxii. 26, v/xeh Be ov^ oi/tg)?, it
will be simplest to supply TroL-qa-ere, from Kvpievova-ii/ k.t.X. ;
perhaps however 'iaeade would be sufiBcient.^ In Ph. ii. 3,
l-tqSev Kara ipideCav, nothing more is required than the
repetition of <^povovvTe<i from the preceding verse.^ In G. ii. 9,
Se^ta? ehoiKav e/xol /cat Bapvd/3a KOivwvia'?, iva 'q/jLe2<; fiev ei<i
ra eOvTf, avrol Se ei? rr,v irepiro/xtjv, as the words relate to
preachers of the Gospel, we may easily supply evayjeXi^cofieda,
evayyeXt^covrat (2 C. x. 16, like icvpvTTeiv et? rtva in 1 Th. ii. 9),
and not, with Fritzsche and Meyer [in earlier editions], the less
significant iropevOw/jbev, "rropevOMai, etc. In the proclamation of
Kev. vi. 6, %oti/t^ crirov BrjuapLovKai rpel^ yoiviKe'i KpiOwvBT^vaplov
{A measure of wheat for a denarius!), the necessary supplement
is as readily suggested by the genitive of price (p. 258), as it is
in similar notices of sale in our own language. On the formulas
of salutation in letters, as Rev. i. 4, ]Io)dvi^r}(: rats" irrra iKKXricriaa
ra7s €P rfi ^Arrla' Ph. i. 1, IIauXo<; iraa-iv roh dyloa . . . toI^
oiiaiv ii/ ^PtXiTTTTOif (scil. -^aLpeiv Xeyet), or in A. xxiii, 26, KXav-
htos Avaia'i ra> 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<T/x.a (3op/36pov^
the verb is included in ct? ; and we might easily supply cTrto-Tpci/^ao-a,
in accordance with the preceding words. In proverbs, however,
which demand brevity of expression, even verbs of special meaning
are omitted (l)y conventional usage) ; compare foriuna fortes, yXavK
di 'AOrjva^, and see Bernh. p. 351 » (Jelf 891. 4).
3. The subject can be entirely suppressed (Kriig. p. 264) in
the following cases only : —
a. Where the subject is at once obvious, because the predicate,
either from the nature of the case or through some conventional
usage, can be asserted of one (definite) subject only : e. g.,
jSpoifTo. (o Zevf), <raX7ri^€L (6 aaXTTtyKrr]<;), dvayvdaaeTai, (De-
mosth. Mid. 386 b) scil. scriha : see above, § 58. 9. From Jewish
phraseology we may bring in hero the formula of quotation
Xeyei, H. i. 7 ; eXprjKe, H. iv. 4 ; 4^'nai, H. viii. 5 (fiaprvpd, H. vii.
17 Rec). See above, § 58. 9. On H. xiii. 5 see Bleek.*
' [Or even 'utt'i (Meyer, Bornemann) : compare Mk. x. 43.]
2 [So Alford, Ellicott : see however Lightfoot in loc. ("do nothing") and on
G. V. 11]
3 Grotefp.nd, .4ms/. lat. Grammat. II. 397 .sq., Ziimpt, Lat. Orammat. 7.59.
' [Bleek's opinion may be .seen in Alford's note. On Col. i. 19 (quoted below)
compare the notes of Ellicott and Lightfoot.]
736 INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. [PART III.
b. When a saying is quoted the subject of wliich any reader
can at once supply, from his own knowledge or reading : Jo. vi.
31, aprov e/c roO ovpavov eScoicev avToi<; (f)aye'lv (soil, o 0e6<;),
2 C. ix. 9 (Ps. cxi. 9), 1 C. xv. 27 (but in ver. 25 Xptaro^ is
the subject). Col. i. 19, Jo. xii. 40, xv. 25, Kom. ix. 18 sq.; see
Van Hengel, Cor. p. 1 2 sq. On Jo. vii. 51 see p. G 5 6 : 1 Tim.
iii. 16 is noticed below, and Mt. v. 38 in no. 6.^ (Jelf 373.)
When the 3rd person plural is used impersonally, as in Jo. xx.
2, rjpav Tov KvpLov c/c rov fLvrjixiiov (compare § 58. 9), there is no
omisgion ; for this person iteelf really contains the general subject
people or men. See also L. xii. 20, and Bornemann in loe. The same
may be said of the genitive absolute, as in L. viii. 20 [ifec], aTrrjyy€\.yj
auTw AeyovTwv, i. e., men saying, as tliey said. Compare 1 K.
xii/ 9, 1 Chr. xvii. 24, Thuc. 1. 3, Xen. Cyr. 3. 3. 54, Diog.
L. 6. 32.2
In 1 Tim. iii. 16, with the reading os, the subject of the follow-
ing relative clauses is wanting ; unless we suppose, with some
recent commentators, that the apodosis begins at idiKanoOr]. This
however is not advisable on account of the parallelism : it is more
probable that all the members are co-ordinate, and that the apostle
took the whole from some hymn (such as were already current in
the apostolic church), the more readily suppressing the subject —
which was known to all — as he was here only concerned with the
predicates, which involved the fjLva-Trjpiov. (Ou the simple auros,
of a well-known subject, see § 22. 3.) On 1 C. vii. 36 see § 67. 1.
Under (a) come also H. xi. 12, 8to koI a<^' evos iyfvvrjdrja-av, —
where one readily supplies children (descendants), a notion which is
indeed already contained in yewaa-Oai (compare Gen. x. 21); and
Kom. ix. 11, fxyjirui yap yevvTqOivTtav /xrjSk Trpa^dvTUiv, where moreovt;;r
the idea tc'kvwv or vlStv is sufficiently indicated in the words 'PcyScKKa
ei €vos KOLTTjv ^xovcTa K.T.X. (ver. 10). In L. xvi. 4 the subject is
tJie debtors : compare ver. 5.
Where the subject is not left out but must be repeated from
the context (this is not the case in H. viii. 4), there may sometimes
be room for a difference of opinion: e.g., in Rom. vii. I, 1 C. xv.
25 (H. ix. 1). The decision in such cases belongs to hermeneutics,
not to grammar.^
' Rhetorical considerations have sometimes an influence in such eases, the
subject being suppressed through indignation and displeasure. Kora. ix. 19 and
2 P. iii. 4 (Gerhard) may perhaps be examples of this kind.
2 Doderlein, Soph. (Edip. Col. p. 393, Valcken. Herod, p. 414, Schsef.
Demosth. V. 301. [In the best texts, Mt. xvii. 14, 26, L. xii. 36, A. xxi. 10,
Rom. ix. 11, and perhaps Rev. xvii. 8, are examples of the genitive absolute
with subject omitted (A. Buttm. p. 316). See Jelf 695. Ohs. 1.]
' [In classical Greek we not unfrequently find the indefinite tJs omitted with
the 3rd pers. sing, of a verb (Kiihner II. '32). The difficulty of Jo. viii. 44 is
relieved if oto.* XaXij be rendered whenever one speaketh : o -recriip ahnv will then
denote the devil, tke father of the liar. Compare Job xxviii. 3, 2 S. xvi. 23 ;
also such examples as Mt. xix. 3, 1 Th. iy. 9, Mk. v. 43, where an indefinite
subject may be supplied with the dependent infinitive. See Westcott's note.]
SECT. LXIV.] INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE, 737
4 On the other hand, it frequently happens that only a
part of the subject or of the (words joined to the copula-"- to
form the) predicate is expressed ; the part omitted we must then
supply from what is before us, having respect to conventional
usage, A. xxi. 16, (Tvurfk.6ov koL tcov ixadrjrdv, there also
came together (tiv6<;, some) of the disciples; so with ck or utto,
L. xi. 49, e^ avrwv aTTOKTevouai {rivas:), xxi 1 6^ Jo. xvi. 17, xxi,
10, vi. 39, Rev. ii. 10 (v. 9), xi. 9^ (compare p, 253) ; Jo. iv. 35,
6t(, eVt TeTpdfj,r)v6<i iarc (xpovos), X.en. Hell. 2. 3,, 9; L. xii.
47 sq., eiceivos 6 SouXo'^ . . . haprjaeTat iroWd^ . . . 6Xiya<i
(compare 2 C. xi, 24), The notion of stripes is contained in
hepeiv, and hence one easily supplies irX-qyd'i: This elliptical
phrase is of frequent occurrence in Greek: authors : e. g., Xen.
An. 5. 8. 12, Tovrov dveKpayov &>? 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
Td<i 0(^etXa9,Tft) rov <^opov,rov (})6poi'K.T.\.,it is simplest to supply
diTooL^ovat KeXevovTC, i. e. uTrairovvrt. In 1 C. iv. 6, iva iv tj/jlIv
/.idOijre TO fjbT} virep a yiypa7nai,i[4)povelv be rejected as spurious,
an infinitive is wanting {fer ellipsi/n, — not per aposioptsin, as
Meyer maintains^) : we need nothing more than the general
expression go beyond — exalt yourselves above — ivhat etc. On the
other hand, in 1 C. x. 13, v-rrep o 8uyao-^e, there is nothing to be
^ See above, no, 2.
* Compart; Heiudorf, Plat. Gory. p. 148, Vole. Fritzsche, Qvxpsiiwi. Lucian,
201. — Some have dumpily introduced this ellipsis into Jo. iii. 25.
3 Compare Jacobs, Addll. Tat. p. 737, Ast, Plat. Legy. p. 433, Valcken. ad
Luc. i.e. (Jelf 436); and on something similar. Bos, Ellips. s.v, mK^fd.'/.. Com-
pare aliu our own expression " er zahlte ihm zwanzig auf " {he covnted him out
twetif}/).
* [Or rather e-vxxil%s, as Ex. xvi. 17 suggests.]
* [Not in his latest edition.]
47
738 INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. [PaRT III
saf»piied : the verb is used ubsolutel y, as the Latin 2>osse 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)}
'086<i.^ L. xix. 4, eVf/vT^c IjfieWe BiepxeaOat L. v. 19, yuj?
€vp6vT€<; -nola^ ekeveyKOicrii/ avrov {Qio,. Ait. 9. l,quaituri sint,
' [Winer's meaning no doubt is, tlmt we often mtet with ve rhs thus nseci in
an appai'^ntly reflexive sense (§ 33. 1). As to ■rctfo.h'hi.^it, itself the case i^ not
made out veiy rlcarl_y. .A. Buttni. (p. 145) allows this nieaniiijx to the aorist
only (:>Tk 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^<V.v ;
Mather, t» Xoi}ifi/crfia.i x.r.x. (Wiesinger) ; Alford, "the revilers etc." In Mk. iv.'
29, Meyer maintains that the ordinary explanation is not justified by usac-e, and
would render "when the fruit permits,— i.e., is ripe enouch :" .so " also "^Blcek .
Grimm. J
_ *• [As to the N. T., «^s^«? is expiessed in Pom. xi. 8, 2 C. iii. 14 ; and omitted
m Mt. XI. 23, xxvii. 8. Mt. xxviii. l.o is doubtful.]
3 [Uere. Trefrelles and V/esteott and Hort read tv tJ i^r.s, scil. xp'^r ■ similarly
L. viii. 1, i-j c-j xah^^s. Compare also cc<p' oS, etc.]
^ ■* In A. xix. 38, ayif^^o, iiyevra/ (Strnh. 13. 629). most supply Uipai ; and this
13 quite appropriate. [M.'ver supplies «-JvoS«.]
Fischer I.e. p. 2.^>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<a6e^op,evov<i, in white garments; Mt. xi. 8, Rev.
xviii. 12^16. Compare Ex. xxxiii. 4 in the LXX ; also Arrian,
JEpicl. 3. 22. 10, iv KOKKLvoa irepi.TraroiV. See Wetst. 1. 381,
958, Bos p 204.
r\(bacra. Rev. ix. 11, iv rfi eWrjutKr}.
Aijpa}^ A. xxvii. 40, iirdpai/re^ rov uprefiova rff irveoucrr} ;
■• The local meaning of tlie genitive, that ?i;av— as in German we use the
genitive des Weges [in the same sense] — is questioned by Boniemanii \Luc. j).
27, 118), -who in L. v. 19 and xix. 4 would read -T./(a and ^xilyri. Hermann, how-
ever ( Vlg. p. 881), found no difficulty in tlii.s local genitivo, which indeed has
established itself in the pronominal adverbs eJ, 7,0? Of tiiis very phrase, how-
ever, rjjf (kut^s) ihu, — compare Bernh. p. 136 several examples have been
adduced, and not from poets merely (Kriiger, S'prachl. II, 1. p. 9) : compare
especially Thuc. 4. 47. 2 and Kriiger m loc, Thuc. 4. '6V,. 3. If we wish to bring
the local genitive nearer to the origin'il signification ut the cnse (§ 30. 1), we
migl perhaps take it as meaning proceeding from th/xt {way) , but it is sinifiler
to conccct it with those apidications of the genitive which are noticed in § 30.
.11. (Jelf 522).
^ Many adverbial expressions find their explaii'ition m yii ellipsis of 'this
(Buttm. Aunf. Sprachl. TI. r\il) or of x'^'i"^ (Bos. p. 56.1), such a?; /§-«, xxr liiuv,
ev/i<"'<cc (A xri. 37, al.) ; these expressions, however, are useil without any con-
sideration of their origin (B'^rnh. p. 18.5 si|.). .Such aa adverbial formula is ti-rt
/jiiis, L. xiv. 18, wlii'.h is not found in Greek writers, though probably it was
current in the spoken language. It is efjuivalent to unth one mind (ix iJt.i«.! ^v^Hf,
Dion. H.. II. 1058), or wUh ov^e voice {uno o)e, ix f^,a( <paiv?,s, Herod. 1. 4. 21) ;
Wabl's explanation {Glav. p. 45), after CameraHus, is too artificial. — It is
possible that in such formulas no substantive at oil was originally supplied by
the Greeks, and that the feminine (as an .ibslract form — Ewald, Hehr. (Jr. 645)
was used just as independently as the neuter (sec Schajfer on Bos, Ellips. p. 43,
and a review In //. Lit. Zeit. 1825, no. 179): this however Hermann wiU not
admit lOpusr. p 162). [On avi u,as Meyer .says : " We must understand some
notion ot manner, which was originally presented under a IqccU a,spect ; see
especially Lob. Para/, p. 363." Similarly Jelf I. p. 457.]
^ Bos.p. 49: compare Lobeck, Paral. p. 314.
740 INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. [PART III.
compare Lucian, Hermot. 28 (like rw Trveovn, scil dvifiw,
Lucian, Char. 3).
Xcopa (Bos p. 560 sqq.). 'E^ evavria<;, ex adverso, Mk. xv.
39 ; this phrase is then also used in a figurative sense, Tit.
ii. 8. The same word is supplied in L. xvii. 24:, -q aa-rpaTrrj rj
acrTpaTTTovcra e/c tt}? vtt ovpavov eZ? rr^v vtt ovpavov \ap,iTU
(Job xviii. 4, Pr. viii. 29).
'H opecvrj (L. i. 39) became a substantive at an early period,
— the 'mountain-district; see Xen. Cyr. 1. 3. 3, Ptol. Geogr. 5,
17. 3, 6. 9. 4.
"flpa (Ume). It is supposed that there is an ellipsis of this
word in the formula d</)' ^9, 2 P. iii. 4, L. vii. 45, A. xxiv. 11 ;
this phrase, it is true, had already completely assumed the nature
of an adverb (compare however Mt. xv. 28), So also in e^
avTrj<i (Mk. vi. 25, A. x. 33, aL). which many even write as one
word, i^avTfj<i.
Aojxo^ (or olKo<i). A. ii. 27, 31, et? aSov (compare Bos p. 14,
Vechner, Hcllenol. p. 124 sq.) ; but the best MSS. have ek aBrjv}
Frj. Mt. xxiii 15, J7 ^VP"' (opposed to ^ OdXaaaa), the con-
tinent : see Kypke in loc. We should have to supply the same
substantive in H. xi. 26, with Lachmann's reading ol iu
Alyvirrov drjo-avpol : compare Her. 8. 3, Diod. S. 12. 34. But
the reading oi Alyinrrov Orjaavpoi is better supported.
Xetp. In 97 Be^id, rj dptarepd, Mt. vi. 3, al. ; he^idv BtBovat,
G. ii. 9 (Xen. An. 1. 6. 6, 2. 5. 3) ; eV Be^ia, eVt tt]v Be^idv, E. i..
20, Mt. xxvii. 29 [Eec.].
Apa-^rj. A. xix. 19, evpov dp^opiov fjivpidBa<i irevre ; just as
we say, he is worth a million. Compare Lucian, Eun. 3, 8,
AchiU. T. 5. 17. So also we find the names of measures sup-
pressed (Ruth iii. 15).
'TeTo<>. 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.
■ra<i dyKvpa^ (Bos p. 15, see Thuc. 2. 23), as in Latin solvere
{Qses,. Gall. 4. 23) ; Kare')(etv ek, A. xxvii. 40, — see Wahl, s. v.
We must however be careful not to bring in here those
' f Against supplying any object see Jelf 359 : compare Don. p. 423.]
^ [Meyer also and A. Buttm. ^p. 144) take Wixi'* rtvl in these two passages as
observe, match hostilely : in Mk. vi. 19 Vulg. has " insidiabatur ei." On tlie
other side are Dc "\V., Blcek, Grimm, al. (There would not however be much
more dilHculty in tracing ivi^^tiv in the sen.se of lo be enraged to the familiar
plirast) i:i-^u\t ^'aXty r.v/, than in assuming an ellipsis of ^umyii with jiii^;\ in G.
iv. 27,— so Viiiier in loc, De W., A. Buttm. p. M6 : see EUicott on G. iv. 27.)
With Ton-Zix^'^ and Wixf*, as above (see ElUcott on 1 Tim. i. 4, iv. 16), com-
pare sor.paXilv, Mk. xiv. 72 (A. V. : ' wlien he thought thereon ") : see A. Buttm.
p. 146, Aiford in loci
SECT. LXIV.] INCOMPLETE STItUCTURE. 743
verbs which iu themselves contain a con)pIcte notion, oi* those
which in the particnlar context are intended to expre-ss nothing
more than the action which they denote, and are used absolutely
Of this kind are e.g. iu yaarrpl e'^^eiv, to he, ivitk child ; Siopuaaeiv,
to break through, break in, Mt. vi. 1 9 ; a-Tprapuueiv eavro), sibi
stemcre, A. ix. 34, to ■pfcparea, bed for oneself ;^ aiTo<rr^XK€iv to
send — personally or by letter, L. vii. 19, A, xix. 31 - (Vechner,
Hellcnol. p. 126); imtj e'xeiv to be poor, 1 C. xi. 22 (Boisson.
Philostr. JEpp. p. 128, — compare the Latin habere, Jani, Ars
poet. p. 189) ; ayopu^eiv koI irwXelv, Rev. xiii. 17. For verbs
used in an abstract sense, see e.g. 1 C. iii. 1, x. 13, H. xil 25,
Col. ii. 21, I'h. ii. 12, Ja. iv. 2 sq. On iraaX'^i'V, in particular,
see Wahl, Clav. p. 387 ; compare Weber, Dem. p. 384. In.L.
ix. 52, wvre eTOifidcrai avrt^, the verb should probably betaken
thus, — to make preparations for him : the context clearly shov/,s
for what purpose, and we have not to supply ^evlav (fiom PbiiL
22). The same maybe said of 1 C. xi. 4, Kara. K(c<pa\ti<j fywt^
(compare 2 C. v. 12), and of Eev. xxii. 19, idv tl-; d^eKrj dnro
ratv Xoytov tov /Bi^Xiou, — where to supply rt would betray a
total want of linguistic perception. Lastly, ZuvacrOai when used
absolutely denotes ,^o have power, and does- not need a comple-
mentary infinitive, — not even in 1 C. x. 13, where hvvaadai
vireve^/KHv immediately follows : compare Rom. viii.. 7, 1 C. iii.
2, 2 C. xiii. 8. — (We also find substantives with the article so
used, as dogmatic technical tenns,^ where some would expect
a personal genitive {Oeov) : e. g., r) opyij, Rom. iii. 5, v. 9, xii.
19, 1 Th. i. 10, ii. 16. and t6 deXvf^a, Rom. ii. 18.)
Th? cases are very rare in which an a4je6tive which is used
attributively Avith a substantive can be suppressed. It uiay very
well be conceived that, as the phrase XaXdv trc'/xits (or Kutvat?)
y/Vwcro-ats was in frequent use, the adjective rni^ht be dropped, and
yAojcro-ais AoAeii'-itself tljus become a technical term.'' But beyond
the range of local and individual usage — as in such examples as
lihrl (i. e., Sihylhni), Inshon in pQ,r(ih'us (for w furtihus infideh'U'm) — we
shall not find any omission of this kind ; for so manifold are the
epithet."? which may be attached to a substantive, that it cannot be
' Compare in German the use of streuen (in v/inter;.
'•' [These two patssawes are examples of ■priu-Tr-.iM, not ui xTm/jriXXity. Lunemann
adds a reference to Mt. x.\'iii. 3i as containing verbs (^atox-Ttn^n, fi^arriyc^jin)
thus used absolutely (Meyer in he.) ; but see aJ>cJve. 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}<i. The words simply
mean, ye have been bought far a price ; and the emphasis lies on the
verb, — bought, not acquired without cost. In Mt. xii. 32, 8s av cittj;
Xoyov Kara rod vlov tov dv6pw7rov, we have not to supply ^Xd(r(^r]fi.ov ■
to speak a word against some one is a phrase complete in itself. In
Rev. ii. 6, also, the translation hoc (Jaudabile) habes does not pre-
suppose the omission of some similar word in the Greek. More
plausible are such examples as A. v. 29, o nc'rpo? koL ol dTroo-ToAoi,
L e., 01 aXkoi or oi Aoittoi a-Troa-ToXoi ; but see above, § 58. 7. Rem. In
such cases as Mt. XV. 23^ ovk aTreKptOr] avry Xoyov L. vii. 7, eiTre Aoyw,
to supply eva (hi), or to supply tlvwv (Jacobs, Ach. Tat. p. 440) in
Mk. ii. 1 , 8t' TjfjLepSjv, or ttoXvv in L. xviii. 4, tVi xpoVov, would be absurd.
The one is implied in the singular number, as the some in the plural.
Compare iMcinn, Herm., raXavTov for a talent ; Exin. 6, y/xepav nnwm.
diem (compare the Latin id verbo dicam) ; Alex. 15, ■i)p.ipa<i o'lkoi
e/jLeivev; Xen. Eph. 5. 2, Charit. 5. 9. With L. xviii. 4, in particular,
compare the familiar expression XP^^^ (Schoemann, Iso^us p. 444).
Eem. Nothing however is more absurd than to assunie an
ellipsis of adver^DS and conjunctions ; and yet this assumption has
been made in a number of instances, and hy N. T. commentators.
Of such commentators Hermann says (Opusc. p. 204) : qui si cogi-
tassent, adverbia conjunctionesque proprietatibus quibusdam et sen-
tentiarum inter se consociationibus ac dissociationibus indicandis
inservire, quae nisi disertim verbis expressse vel propterea intelligi
nequeant, quod, si ellipsi locus esset, etiam aliena intelligi possent :
numquam adeo absonam opinionera essent amplexi, ut voculas,
quarum omissio longe aliter quam adjectio sententias conformat, per
ellipsin negligi potuisse crederent. In some cases there lies at the
root of this opinion a want of acquaintance with the nature of the
moods. Thus it has been held that we should supply Iva or ottojs
in OeXei^ tiTTco/icv, L. ix. 54, H. viii. 5, al. (against this s&e Hermann
p. 207, and compare § 41. a. 4) ; el or idv in such sentences as 1 C.
vii. 21, SovAos iKXrjB-jqs, fi.ri (xoi fieXerw (Hermann p. 205, compare § 60.
4).; dv (Schwarz, Solcec. p. 125) in Jo. xv. 22, d p,r] rfXBov . . . ,
ifxapTLav ovk ci^ov, and similar sentences (Hermann p. 205, see § 42.
2) ; and frequently fiovov in the formula ovk . . . oAAa (compare § 65.
8), or in 1 C. ix. 9.^ It has also been supposed that ^ is left out after
^ Mh Tuy p,<iu)> 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«><jw are placed in juxtaposi-
tion, — as in Paul t/Vtu and 'inyoi; are antitheses which are mutually exclusive —
sueh an addition would be altogether superfluous, and would make the sentence
awkward. On Eom. iv. H see Fritzsche.
SECT. LXIV.] INCOMPLETE STKUCTURE. 745
a comparative in Jo. xv, 13, 3 Jo. 4 (Baumg.-Crusius) ; but in each
of these passages the clause with Iva is an explanatory adjunct to the
demonstrative pronoun, and the genitive of this pronoun is dependent
on the comparative. Nor is rj to be supplied in such cases as A. iv. 22,
CTwi/ Tjv irAcioVwv Tea-a-apoLKOVTa' xxiii. 13, 21, xxiv, 11, XXV. 6,Mt. xxvi.
53, although in other places this particle is used. The Greek had
accustomed himself thus to condense the phrase ; and probably the
•jrActovcs presented itself to his mind not as a comparative (more than),
but as a defining adjunct, — ^just as elsewhere the neuter (adverb)
7r\fov is introduced even extra construdidnem: see Lob. Phryn. p. 410
sq., and compare Matth. 455. Rem. 4. [See above § 35. 1, 37. 5].
Lastly, iu 2 P. iii. 4, d<f)' ^s oi Trarepcs iKOi/i^Orjaav^ TrdvTa ovto}<; ^tu/j-eVtt
ttTr' dp)^^ /cTicrew5, some (and still Pott) would supply ws before a-n-'
dpxrj^ KTiVcws: the meaning obtained would certainly be suitable, but
how empirical and arbitrary the process ! The writer here brings
together in one sentence two termini a quo, one nearer, the other more
remote, — ol iraripf.^ being taken as referring to those fathers (.see
Semler, especially) Avho had received the promise of the irapova-ia.
We should have a half ellipsis in the case of a particle, if ov
were used for oww.^ In Jo. vi. 17,^ however, after ^8r/ in the
preceding clause there was at all events no need of ovttw : already
had darkness come on, and Jesus had not appeared. In Jo. vii. 8
ovira is in reality a mere correction : if 6v« is the true reading, we
cannot remove what I may call the moral difficulty of the passage by
substituting for it a philological difficulty.^ If ov-n-u) occurs in Mt. xv.
17, it does not follow that in Mk, vii. 18 ov stands for ovTrut: in the
former passage, however, ov is the best attested reading. In Mk. xi.
13 not is perfectly sufficient. — Against the admission of another land
of half ellipsis, the use of simple in the place of compound verbs, see
my Progr. de 'verhorvm simpUcium pro compositis in N. T. usu et
caussis (Leipsic, 1^33).
6. Occasionally we meet with a partial ellipsis of both sub-
ject and predicate in one sentence. G. v. 13, /jlovov firj rip iXev-
depiav el<i a(f)opfir]v rfj aapKi (Kari'X^rjre, rpe-yfrrjre, — Q^^cumenius,
uTTO'^priariade) : the preceding iKXrjdrjre make.s the subject clear,
as the second person, and the part of the predicate which belongs
to the copula (KaTe^ovT€<: k.t.X. ^re [or rather eVre], Herm.
Vig. p. 872) is readily supplied from et9 u(pop/xi]v (compare
Jacobs, Philostr. p. 526), Mt. xxvi. 5 (Mk. xiv. 2), fii] iv r^
eopry, scil. rovro yeveado) or tovto TroiMfxev. unless we prefer to
' Compare especially Withof, Opusc. (Ling. 1778), p. 32 sqq.
* [Here the best texts have oti-ra. On .lo. vii. 8 see Ellic, Hist. L. p. 247,
Alford in loc. : dStu is received by Westcott and Jlort. ]
^ See also Boisson. riiilostr. Her. p. 602, Jacobs, Philostr. Imafj<j. 357, and
Jilian, Anim. II. 250.
746 INCOMPLETE STKLTCTURE. [PAHT III.
repeat the two verbs KpaT)]a-w/xev kuI a-rroKTeimifiev from ver. 4.
There is no aposiopesis in these words, or in G. v. 1 3 (Meyer^),
any more than when we say, only not at the feast. On the par-
tial ellipsis in clauses with iiri, see Klotz, Devar. II. 669. In
2 C. ix. 6, with tqvto Se we apparently ought to supply Xeyw
(G. iii. 17, 1 Th. iv. 15) or <f>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<i iaztv {n
rrepiro/nrj), aXX' ck roiv rrarepwv vi. 46, 2 C. i. 24, iii. 5, 1'h. iv.
17; 2 Th. iii. 9. The foi-mula, however, became so fully estab-
lished in usage, that its origin was no longer thought of; and
hence Paul could write, in Ph. iv. 11, ov'x^ on Kad' va-repija-iv
Xeyco.
In parallelism with this ovx on may be placed the ov^ olov
on of Kom. ix. 6 ov^, o^ov Ze on iKirerrrcoKnv o \o'yo<; rov deov:
i. e., ov rolov Be Xtjo), olov on K.r.X. no7i talc (dico) quale, (hoc
est) excidi'ise etc. With this again we may compare the otou on
of later writers (Schaef. Greg. Cur. p. 105), and — in regard to the
circumstantiality of the expression — the combinations noticed
by Lobeck [Phryn. p. 427), w? olov, olov o)<^rrep: We have
before us tv.'o other modes of resolving this Pauline formula.
^ [Not \\\ hi.s last eilition.]
2 Bos p. 632 &<\,, Franke, Deniosth. p. 83; compare ITerm. ^1S-<chyl. II. 362.
» Sfhaif. Bos p. nf>, 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)<i ovde aov (f)eta-6rat, soil. BeSoiKa or
opdre, — which however is iiidicated in /Jbi]7r(o<;. Mt. xxv. 9 Eec,
/jbtjiroTe OVK apKe.a-T}, — foi' which however the weight of evidence
requires us to read /jiJTrore ov fjii] apKeay: with the latter reading,
fi7]7roTe must be taken by itself (as expressing refusal), h/ no
ineans ! soil. Bco/Jbcu (ver. 8), or <y€ve(r6(o tovto ; ^ compare Kev.
xix. 10, xxii. 9, Ex. x. 11.
In L. xvi. 8 it is not so much that (prjfJ'l or €(f)rj is omitted,
as that what is further said by him to whom the words ort
(f)povi/M(o<; eTroirjaev belong is introduced in the direct form.
Similarly in L. v. 14. The only cases in which we find e<f)r}, etc.,
left out in Greek prose are when an indication of the person
speaking is given by o Be, ol he (./Elian 9. 29, ^i-zuw. 1. 6), and
when the setting of the sentence itself vshows that it belongs to
some particular per-sou (to another speaker), — a very common
case in dialogues. Van Hengel {Annotatt. p. 8 sqq.) has wrongly
applied this ellipsis — e<^r) 6 Oeo^i — to Mt. xxiii. 34: against this
see Fritzsche in loc. Bengel's note on 1 C. ix. 24 is incorrect."*
In Mt. xvi. 7, however, BieXoyl^ovTo ev kainots Xiyovre^' on
apTov<i OVK e\a/3ofx,ev, it is much more appropriate to supply the
simple sentence ravra Xejet before oVt, and to render this word
becmcse, than to take on as the particle introducing the oratio
recta. In Jo. v. 6, 7, the words ai'OpoiTrov ouk e^(o, iva . . .
QaKrj fxe eh ryjv Ko\vfi^7}0pav do not seem suitable as a direct
answer to the question deXei^; vyi7)<; jevecrOai ; and we might
' [It is sipgular that in Dt. xix. 21 these accusatives occur without any verb
(Alford on Mt. I.e.): Lev. xxiv. 20 is similar.]
2 Akin to this accusative in tJie citation of a law i.s that which we find in all
langU3ge« in orders, demands : e.g., •znl Xopicuv. See Bos p. 601.
^ [Ort these two passages see above, p. 632 Kq.J
* ["N"u .semel reticetur verbum inquit, mqw'unl . . . Itao^ue hie (l^uoque
census est : Vto, inquiunt, '.-Mn-iVc." J
SECT. LXIV.] INCOMPLETE STRUCTURE. V49
therefore suppose a simple yes truly, certainhj, to be left out.
But the sick man does not stop to make this simple affirmation,
but at once passes on to speak of the hindrance which up to this
time has frustrated his wish. On such passages as Jo. i. 8, ovic
1JU iKelvo<; to </)W9, a\X Xva fxaprvprjarj' ix. 3, see p. 398.
b. A protasis of some length is sometimes left without any-
consequent clause. Thus with 2 Th. ii. 3 sq., on iav /xt) eXdy i)
airoaraaia irpSixov . . . ort eariv deo'i, we have to supply (from
ver. 1) the rrrapovaia rov Kvpiov docs not take 'place. The
omission is occasioned by the length of the' protasis.^ In parti-
cular, we find a protasis with w<i7rep without any apodosis, Mt.
XXV. 14, Eom. V. 12, ix. 22 sqq.:"'' see § 63. 1. (Jelf 860. 3./
In quotations from the 0. T. it sometimes appears as if a whole
sentence has been left out; e, g., in 1 C= i. 31, Iva, Ka6u>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.<k K.T.X. : instead of proceeding with tovto
rj/xlv K.T.X., in connexion with aXXd, Paul directly subjoins the anti-
thesis to the words of the quotation, and thus leaves dAAa without
grammatical sequence.*
II. Aposiopesis. Aposiopesis is the suppression of a sen-
tence or a part of a sentence in consequence of excited feeling
(e. g., of anger,* sorrow, fear, etc.^), the member omitted being
^ Some bring in here Ja. iii. 3, — with what is no doubt the correct reading,
It St. Here however the apodosis is probably contained iu the words *«< oXov
TO acifi.it : see Wiesinger's careful examination of the passage.
* [The protasis here does not coninience with us-rip, but with s/.]
' [It is not uncommon to find a protasis (with il) suppressed in connexion with
Wi'i, which may therefore be rendered since otherwiHe (Rom. iii. 6, H. ix. 26,
al.) : see Liddell and Scott s. v. II. 3. c (where however the words " protasis " and
"apodosis" are accidentally transposed), Vaughan ou Rom. xi. 22, A. Buttm.
p. 359 (Jelf 860. 2),— also above, p. 354.]
* [Similarly De Wette : Meyer now considers ver. 9 as depending upon XaXovfitf
(as Winer in ed. 5, p. 530).— 1 C. ii. 10 (Meyer ed. 1, 2, AlCord, Evans) and i. 23
(Meyer, Alford) should have been mentioned above, p. 553, as passages in which
ii has been regarded as introducing the apodosis : compare also 2 P. i. 5.]
* Compare Stallbaum, Plat. Apol. p. 35. So in the welLknown example
quos ego — .'orinourown " vvarte, ich will dich—! " ("Stay, andl'll — " !). The.
aposiopesis may appear iu the form of a question ; as in Num. xiv. 27, 'ius t/v«5
riiv truvayuyhy t>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<p tovtw' el Ze Trvevfia £XdX'i]aev avT(p rj dyye-
X,o9 : ive find no evil in this man ; if however a spirit Jtas
spoken to him, or an angel — (said by the Pharisees with gestures
expressive of doubt), scil. " the case is a doubtful one," or " we
must be on our guard." Others take the words interrogatively
(Laehmann) : if however .... has spoken ? how then ? what
should then be done ? On the whole see Fritzsche, Conj'ed. I.
30 sq. The words fifj Oeofxa^cofiev, which are added in some
MSS., are a gloss. Bornemann has tacitly withdrawn his earlier
conjecture.^ Still it may be doubted whether this is really an
example of aposiopesis, or whether the sentence is merely broken
off by a sudden interruption. — Iii .Jo, vi. 62 the apodosis is sup-
pressed in the triumphant tone of the pas.sage, but it is at once
suggested by ver. 61, hoio will that amaze you\ In Mk. vii.
11, i'//.€t9 X€7€Te' eav eiTrrj dvdpwiro'i tw nrarpl r] r^ fjujrpt'
Kop^dv . . . . o edv e^ ifiov cocfjeXrjdfjs' Kal ovKeTc u^iere K.r.X.,
we must supply as apodosis (from ver. 10) he acts righthj in
keeping his vow ; in this case, therefore, ye set him fiee fix)m
the Tifidv Tov Trarepa k.t.X. See Krebs in loc^ 2 Th. ii. 3 sqq.
Rhelor. Gnec. VIII. 536, 450. [.Jelf 897, A. Buttm. p. 396, Webster p. 258,
Ziimpt758.]
' [Laehmann, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, read ^-^^:«'/>«!.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>^ei<i avrrjv ;
if it hear fruit, it is well (it may he left standing), hvt if not ^
cut it down (though here we miglt also supply a^e? avrr)v from'
the words* preceding).~On the suppression, after el he fiij or
el Be /jL^jyt, of an entire hyj;otheticul clause to be supplied from
the previous context, see p. 729.
VVe might also regard opa jxr^. Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 9, as an
example of aposiopesis ; and might compare it with the foMriulas of
dnprecation so common in the tragedians, as /u/ rnvra (Eurip. Ion
lo35), firj (TV ye, etc. (Jclf 897). Yet see above, p. 729.
In Rom. vii. 24 sq., the words of co.nplaint rt's /xe /x'trtrat Ik
Tov (jco/jLaTu? Tuv Oavdrov rovTov are followed, through the over-
mastering pressure of joy, by a brief Thanh be. to Cod ! This also
is a kind of aposiopesis. "'J. hanks be to God that hi has already
delivered me " would be cairn and passionless.
It has been assumed that some idea is suppressed in 2 C. vii.
12, o-po. il KoX lypa^a. vjxtv : e\>in 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<ptXnS7,t, as iu Jlk. vii. 12.: Bleek
agrees with Winer. See Green, Or. p. 191, Crit. Notes p. 18 s<{., 88.1
^ [Lightfoot assnmes an aposiopesis in this verse : see his note, — also Grf'en,
Cr. Notes \y 161.]
*• In the O. T. corupare Ex. xxxii. 32, Dan. iii. \f>, 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<i can be used in the place of 6po<i, As however it is alto-
gether absurd to talk of a pleonasm of the definite article, so also
is the existence of expletives in written Greek a pure figment.
There is only one form in which pleonasm (which mainly occurs
in the predicate of a sentence, Hermann I.e. p. 219) can appear,
— viz., when there are introduced into a sentence words the
notion of which has already been fully expressed in some other
part of the same sentenec (or period), whether by the same word
or by one of equivalent meaning. This however cannot take
place on any rational principles except in the following cases : —
a. A writer may express the same thing a second time
(especially in a lengthy sentence) through inadvertence, or
through want of confidence in the attention of the reader:
nonne tihi ad me venienti nonnt dixi ? Here it is not really
intended that the nonyie should be presented to the mind more
than once. So also in Col. ii. 13, xal v[xa<i vexpoifi ov7a<; ev
' See Fischer, Weller III. i. 269 sqq. ; B. Weiske, Pleonasmi Gr.ceci sive com-
rrfniarius de. vocibus, qiUB in servione Qrceco abundare dicuntur (Lips. 1S07) ;
I'oppo, Thuc. I. i. 197 .sqq. In reference to the N. T., see Glass, Phil. Sacra I.
G41 sqq. (this writer, however, deals with the 0. T. more than with the K T,,
and his general treatment of the subject is but poor) ; Bauer, Philol. Thuc.
PauU. p. 202 sqq. ; Tzschucke, De sermon. J. Chr. p. 270 sqq. ; Haab p. :V24 sqq. ;
J, H. Mains, De pleonasinls linguae Oraecoe in N. T. (Giess. 1728, — ] sheets). The
last named writer had intended to write a treatise -on pleonasm generally: see
his Ohservationes in libr. sacr. I. 52. Another work, by M. Nascou — announced
by a Prodromiis (Havn. 1787) — also failed to appear. [J elf 899, Don. p. (510,
A. Buttm. p. 340 sqq., Webster p. 258 sq.]
" Glass /. c. writes sensibly on the meaning of the term pleonasm : compare
also Flacius, Clavis scrlptoriim sacrorum II. 4, 224, and my first i'co(/r. de verbig
fOMiposi/is p. 7 sq. Quiutilian {Instil. 8. 3. 53) gives a simple, but — if rightly
understood — an adequate dehnition : "pleonasm, vitium, cum supervacuis verbis
oratio oneratur."
3 On Mt. V. 1. Compare "Weiske, Pleon. p. 34. [See above, § 18. 8.]
-2.
SECT. LXV.] REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 753
Tot? TrapaTTTcofiao'c . . . <Tvve^oio7roLr)crev vfia^ crijv avTw' Mt.
viii. 1, E. ii. 11 sq., Ph. iv. 15 -v. /. ;^ Mk. vii, 25, YUi/?;, 7^9 e'xei^
TO dvydrpcov avTrj<; Truevfia aKadaprov Kev. vii. 2 (see § 22. 4):
Demosth. Euerg. 688 b, ovroi, wovro ifie, el iroWd fiov XdQoiev
ivi^vpa, dafievov dtpyjceiv fjie rov<i fidpTvpa<i ' 1 C. vii. 26, vofMt^(o
TovTo Ka\ov virdp^ecv . . . on kuXov dvOpcoTrcp' Eev. xii. 9 (?);''^
2 Tim. IV. 9,^ a-irovBaa-ov i\delv irpo'; fie ra^eayi' 2 C. viii. 24,
Tr)v evBei^iv t^? d'ydirrf'i . . . evBeiKvvfxev.oi (see however § 32.
2); compare Plat. Xe^^. 12.966 h,Tr)v evBec^iv too X076) dSvva-
relv evheiicvva'dai, (Xen. Cyr. 8. 2. 5). Under this head
we may bring Eom. ix. 29 (from the LXX), co? T6p,oppa dv
oifioKodrjfxev (in the parallel member, wf . . . dv eyevTjdrjfiev).
Also Xoyl^eaOai or -qyeladal nva d><^, 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}<i* and the like. Of a different kind are L. xx. 2, etTro v
•TTpo? avTov Xeyovre^' Mk. xii. 26, ttw? el'rrev avTw 6 deo'i
Xeycov A. xxviii. 25, to Trvevfia iXdXrjaev . . . Xeyov, etc.:
in all these instances the participle is used (as it frequently is
in the LXX) to introduce the direct words of the speaker (com-
pare the well-known ej>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?)?
olKLa<if Eev.xviii.22 (compare 0dyss..l4. 101, avcov av^oa-ia;
Her. 5. 64, o-rparrjybv rrj'i <7TpaTi,r}<i\ Plat. Legg. 2. 671 d,
Cedren. 1. 343, Theocr. 25. 95) ; Jo.xii. 1 3,Ta /Sam tmv (^olvUcov
(ySaifoz/ of itself signifies a ^«i?n-67'a?ic7i); A. ii. 30,op«fo wiioaev
6 Oeo'i, — compare Ex. xxv. 12.'^
• Under this head also come the following constructions, which
have almost assumed the character of established schtinata : —
a. Particles of comparison are followed by xai, though the
" also" is contained in the comparison itself, which asserts that
in connexion with a second object also some circumstance exists.
A. xi, l7,€t T'qv 'iarjv Scopeav €^roK€v auTot? o ^eo9 co? kuI rjjjuv
1 C. vii. 7, 6eK(o irdvra'^ dvOpcoirovf; elvat co<i kuI ifiavrov. See
above, p. 549.
Tfi
^ Hermann, Horn. Hymn, in Cerer. 362.
- From later writers compare a-To ■^ra.vra.x'^i-v, Const. Mannss. p. 127: «to
uihv ov f/.ytx.ihy, Theophan. Cont. 519, 524; U W^o^jv, Nicet. Annal. 18.
S. 359 d ; Ik Tcci^ihv or m^r/sVsi., Malalas 18. p. 429, 5. p. 117; £vs«a ^j^)/,
edrenus I. p. 716 ; a-i^i . . . huca, Niceph. Cpolit. p. 6, 35 ; av^' Jv 'inxa, Theo-
phan. Cont. p. 138 ; avfi' Zv or,, Dt. xxviii. 62. On the latter examples see
Herm, Opv.sc. p. 220. [We find 'm -railiihy in Mk. ix. 21.] '.
^ Vechner, Hdlenol. p. 156 sqq.
■• Lob. Soph. Ajax-^. 337, Bornem. Schol. p. 166 sq.
' Compare Herm. Opusc. p. 222, Vechner, Helhnol. p. 166 sqq.
* See Boi-nemajm in loc. olKsiofitTv oJ»ov (L. vi. 48) is no more an example of
pleonasm than cudijicare domnm; in the usus loquendi both verbs very eaily
assumed the (general) meaning build. For other examples of the same kind see
Lob Parnf. p. 501 sq.
' See Jacob, Qumst. Lucian. p. 10, Bornem. Xen. Gmv. p. 186, Fllugk, Eurip.
Hcc. p. 18, Lob. Paralip. p. 534 sqq.
SECT. LXV.] REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 755
/3. Into a sentence which depends upon a verb of denying,
and which forms its complement, a negative is introduced : 1 Jo.
ii. 22,0 upvovfjL€vo<;, otl ^Irjaov<i ovk ecmv 6 Xptaro'i' L. xx. 27,
avTiKeyovre';, avdarraaiv fjur) eivat (Xen. Ci/r. 2. 2. 20, An. 2. 5.
29, Isocr. Trapez. 360, Demosth. Phorm. 585,Thuc. 1. 77), H.
xii. 19, 01 dKovcravTe<i iraprjTtjcravro /itj 7rpo<iTe6rjvai avToi<; Xoyou
(Thuc. 5. 63), G. v. 7, rt? Vfid<i eveKo-^ev rf] akr]6ela p,i] irei-
6ecrdaL (Eurip. Ifec. 860). Compare further L. iv. 42, A. xx. 27,
1 P. iii. 10 (Thuc. 5. 25, 7. 53, Plat. Phced. 117 c, Demosth.
Phcenipp. 654 b); and see Vig. p. 459, 811, Matth.534.Eem. 5^
(Jelf 749, Don. p. 591). We have similar examples in German,
in colloquial language, and in Greek also the usage may be ex-
plained as arising out of the circumstantiality which belongs to
the lansfuajre of conversation. The negation which the verbs con-
tain gradually became less sensible, and hence it was expressly
revived in the dependent sentence (compare Mad vig 211).
Modern gramniflrians, indeed, are not disposed to allow that this
construction is an example of pleonasm ;^ logically, however,
one of the negations is undeniably superfluous. — The dependent
negative is sometimes omitted in the N. T., as in classical Greek :
e. g., after verbs of hhideririg, L. xxiii. 2, A. viii. 36, Eom. xv.
22. Compare IMatth. I. c, Madv. 210. Eem. 1, Klotz, Devar. II.
668 (Don. I. c, Jelf 749. Ohs.).
There is a difference between the above examples and A. x. 15,
-ttoXlv €k Bevripov (compare Jo. iv. 54), Jo. xxi. 16, TrdXiv Sevrepov
(Plut. Fhilop. c. 15), G. iv. 9, TraAtv avinO^v (Isocr. Areopag. p. 338,
iraXiv ii apxq?), T'ursus denuo (Hand, Tursell. II. 279) : in all these
instances a more definite word is annexed for the sake of explanation.
This difference is still greater in A. v. 23, with the reading Tot>s <^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 TTJ<i 7roXe&)9, Kal ISov €^€KO/j.i^€TO TedvrjKW(; ; A. x. 1 7."^
Eom, ix. 29 also might be brought under this head (see above,
p. 753), and even the use of on before the oratio recta, in its
original conception (Eost, (?r. p. 646, Jelf 802. Ohs. 8). With
greater certainty we may apply this explanation to the pleonastic
negative in the formula iKT6<i el firj (Devar. 1. 74) : 1 C. xiv. 5,
* ["Ceterum vaXi^ a.va.xaiviX,iiv non puto abundanter dictum . . . Sed hanc
vim habere videtur : dcnuo renovare scil. eos, quorum animi jam olim, cum
Christo nomen dcdissent, renovati essent, ad bonara meutem revocare." Winer
I. c]
* [That is, when after a particle of time the apodosis is intro^luced by *«/
(or by 1 in Hebrew,— see Winer, Simonvi s. v.),' the construction is regarded by
Winer as a kind of anacoluthon : see above, p. 546 sq., Herm. Vig. I.e., Kriiger
p. 3u2. (For a difierent explanation of the Greek construction, see Kiihner
il. 422, Jelf 759. Obs. 3 : compare also Ewald, Lehrb. p. 826, 832.) It is usual
to class together as exampL s of *«/ in apodosi such passages as L. ii. 21 (which
occur frequently in the LXX,— e.g., Ex. xvi. 10, Xxxiii. 22, Lev. xiv. 34 sq.,
xxni. 10, XXV. 2, Jos. iii. 8, iv. 1, viii. 24, x. 24), and those in which ««/ follows
xai iy'iviTo OT ly'tviTD Ss (with a notc of time, see p. 760) : see De W., Bleek,
Altord U. cc., A. Buttm. p. 276 sq., 362. When the usage of the LXX is cou-
sidered, it is hard to see how Meyer can be justified in giving to ««/ the meanine
also in L. ii. 21, vii. 12, A. i. 10, x. 17 Jitc]
SECT. LXV.] REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 757
fxei^rovo 7rpo(pijT€V(ov rj o XaKcov jXcocraat^, eKToij ei fMriBiep/jbr/vevrj,
except if he add an interpretation ; 1 C. xv. 2, 1 Tim. v. 19.^
Here we might have had either €«to9 el BiepfjLrjvevTj or el p.rj
Bt€pfi7)vev7f. Of this and similar formulas (as irXrju el firj)
many examples have been collected by Lobeck {Fhryn. p. 459) :
compare also Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 869, Doderlein, (Ed. Col.
p. 382 sqq. (JeK 860. Ohs. 3). On the other hand, when el he
(jLTj ye (after a negative clause) appears to have the meaning,
if however this he the case,^ otherwise — as in Mt. Vi. 1, ix. 17,
2 C. xi. 16 — the negative may not have been looked upon as
pleonastic, as the formula was originally conceived : see
Fritzsche, Matt. p. 255 (Jelf 860. 6).
4. Most of what has received the name of pleonasm in the
N. T. (and elsewhere) should rather be referred to circumstan-
tiality, or, more commonly still, to fulness oi expression.^ The
former is the result of an effort to be very clearly understood ;
the latter aims at vividness, impressiveness (solemnity), round-
ness of style. It must not be forgotten that the language of the
N. T, consists to a great extent of spoken words, or is formed
on the model of the spoken language ; and that in oriental
phraseology the qualities just mentioned are very highly prized.
The distinction between true pleonasm and such expressions as
we have now in view is, that in the latter no words or parts
of words express conceptions which are not to be included in
the general conception of the sentence, though all may not be
absolutely required for the logical completeness of the thought.
Thus in Mk. i. l7 we have troirjo-w vfia^ jeveadat aXieU
avdpcoTTcav, but in Mt. iv. 19 iroirjcrw vp,d<; a\c€t<; avdpiOTTcov.
The opposite of this is not ellipsis but conciseness.
The examples of circumstantiality of expression may be
divided into the following classes : —
a. A word which, so far as the thought is concerned, need
not be expressed more than once, is sometimes found repeated in
' We often use similar expressions in our colloquial: language : e.g., alJe wareri
zugegen, ausyenomrnen du nichl,— ich kornme nickt, bevor du nicht yem'jt hast.
» [That is : in Mt. vi. 1, but if ye do etc. ; ix. 17, but if they do put etc.
Fritzsche's explanation is to the effect tl)at li it f^n after a negative clause
properly means, but if ye do not attend to the prohibition, if ye do not abstain
from, etc.]
^Herm. Opusc. p. 222 sfiq., Fig. p. 887, Poppo, Thuc. I. i. 204 sqci-
758 REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. [PART III.
a parallel member wherever it would be supplied by the mind : ^
H. ii. 16, ov yap ayjeXoov iTTiXaji^dverac, dWa (nr€pfiaTo<t
^A0paafi iTTiXa/i^uveTac- Jo. xii. 3, ijXeiylrep tov<; voBa^ rov
Irjcrov Koi e^e/jLU^ev ral^ Bpc^lv avrr)^ Tov<i TroSrt? avTOV' Rev.
xiv. 2, rjKovaa (fxovrjv etc rov ovpavov .... koL 'fj (f>covij, ^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€<i
Sta %e/joo9 avTMv (they were to deliver the letter), A. xi. 30
.(2 C. xvii. 13 '), xix. 11 ; A. iii. 18, TrpoKar^jyeiXe 8id arofia-
To? iravrtov roiv irpocpTjrcov xv. 7, L. i. 70, al. Prom the Greek
poets compare Eurip. Ion 1187 v. l, %e/oo-ti' eKxecov cirovhd^i-
Hcc. 526 sq., Theocr. 7. 153, iroacrl xopevaai : see Lobeck, Ajax
p. 222 sq. (Wuuder, Recens. p. 1 7 sq.). But in Rom. x. 15 (from
the LXX), 0)9 (opatoi 01 ttoSc? rwp evayyeXi^Ofievcov elprjvqv,
the idea of arrived which is implied in TroSe? is anything but an
idle addition ; and in 1 Jo. i. 1, o eapuKa/Mev roU ocftBaX/xol^
7}fiuiv (L. ii. 30), the writer has manifestly added the last words
for the sake of emphasis, — as when we speak of seeing ?i;i<!A. ones
own eyes (Hesiod, llieoy. 701, Thuc. 2. 11, Aristot. Mirah. 160,
Heliod. 4. 1 9 % As to Mk. vi. 2, A. v. 1 2, it must be recollected
that the miracles spoken of were performed by the laying on of
hands. IIpo irposdy-nov, however, as used in L. i. 76, irpoTropeva-r),
'n-po Trpo^MTTov Kvpiov L. ix. 62 0.33^), is analogous to the
A different view must be taken of many repetitions used by the orators, who
when writing, had before their minds the delivery of the oration in the presence
ot the people : compare Foertsch, Dc locis LysicE p. 29. The repetition of the
■^*T?^M ' "^oi'covpr (e. g., Plat. Charm. 168 a), is of a different nature.
[This IS probably intended for 2 K. xvii. 13.]
■^ See Hrenii, J^sck. 1. 124 ; and compare Jani, Ars Poet. p. 220 sq.
SECT. LXV,] EEDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 759
examples quoted above. This formula came to be used in the
simple sense hefore (in reference to inanimate objects), e. g.,
A. xiii. 24, ,7r/3o irpo<;cii'Trov Tr]<i ehoBov avrov : compare Num.
xix, 4, CLTrevavTi rod 7rpo?co7rou TT]<i aKr]vf}<i- Ps. xciv. 6,^ Kara
irpo^diTTov dvifLOv.
c. When an action must from the nature of the case be pre-
ceded by another action, this latter is nevertheless expressly
related, — usuallybymeansof a participle: Mt.xxvi. 51, e/cretVa?
rr)v '^etpa aTreaTracrev rrjv fid'^aipav avrov' ii. 8, 07r&)9 xdyo)
iXBcbv Trpo^Kwrjuoi avru> (xiv. 33), Jo. vi. 5, irrdpa^ rov<;
6(f)6a\p,ov<; KoX 6€aadfievo<i' Mt. xiii. 31, 6fj,oia kokko) a-Lvd7rea><?,
ov Xaj3oiv dvOpcoTra ecnreipev xiii. 33, A. xvi. 3 (Xen. Eph. 3. 4,
Bk avrov Xa^oiv dyei, Trpo? rrjv 'AvOtav, see Locella p. 141),
Jo. vi. 15, 71/01)9 on fMeXkovaip ep^eadat Kal dprrd^eiv avrov
Mt. xix. 21. So also in 1 C. ii. 1, Kayo) iXdcbv tt/so? u/xa?,
dBe\(f)oi, rj\dov ov K.r.X., the participle was not required : the
examples quoted by Bornemann (on Xen, Cyr. 5. 3. 2) are not
really similar, as in these several words intervene between the
participle and its finite verb. On the other hand^ L. i. 31, avX-
\r]y}rr} iv yaarpl Kal ri^rj vlov, is not a mere redundancy
of language ; the high importance of the favour destined for her
is expressed by the prominence thus given to every particular
involved. In L. xxiv. 50, i7rdpa<; rd<i x^^P^^ avrov evXoyrjaev
avrov^, the participial clause indicates the symbolical gesture of
the person blessing ; in E. ii. 1 7 iXdcov marks an important
moment of thought, to be dwelt upon independently, — as in
L. xii. 37. — In Jo. xxi. 13, also, ep^j^rat ^I'qcrov<i Kal Xap-^dvet
rov ciprov Kal BlBqxtlp avroi<i, the writer designedly mentions
each single act of the wonderful occurrences, — bringing the
whole, as it were, before our eyes. In Jo. xi. 48 the words
ikevcovrai ol 'Poofxaiot relate to the approach of Koman armies.
See further Mt. viii. 3, 7,ix. 18,xxvii. 48,L.vi. 20 (.EL 12. 22),
Jo. XV. 16, Eev. xvi. 1,2. In A. viii. 35, dvoi^a<; 6 ^iXtTrvro? ro
arofia avrov Kal dp^d/xevo^ dirb tj}? '^/pa<^rj<i ravrrj'i evrjyyeXta-aro
K.r.X., the clause dvol^a<; ro arr6/j.a is probably used as a (solemn)
introduction of an important statement ; this is certainly the
case in Mt. v. 2 (see Fritzsche in loc.)?
^ [A mistake : either for Ps. Ixxxii. 14 or for Ps. xxxiv. o.]
^ Compare generally Fischer, Z>e 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€c<i
avdpcoTTcov (see above, p. 757): compare Ex. xxiii. 15,Demosth^
Ep. 3. p. 114 b, ^ Kal Tov? avaLadrjrovi dv€KTOv<i iroielv BokcX
yivetrOai.
e. In the progress of a narration, the Hebraistic Kal iyivero
is prefixed to the detail of the several facts: Mt. vii. 28, Kal
i'yivero, ore (xwereK^aev . . . e^eTr\r)(Tcrovro, — for which a Greek
writer would simply say /cat ore (or ere he) crvvereXecrev. On
the other hand, in Jo: xi. 11, ravra elirev, Kal iiera tovto
\eyei avToh, neither raOra elirev nor /Acra toOto is superfluous :
the latter marks a pause.
Under (c) will come the use of the participle dvaoras in such cases as
Mt. ix. 9, dvacrras rjKoXovOrjaev avVw' Mk. il U, vii. 24, L. i. 39 (Hke
the Hebrew Di5>l). 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<i 6 d/oxicpciis eT-n-ev avrw, the meaning obviously is, he stood
iij) from indignation, he started up (from his seat) : A. v. 17^is a
similar instance. Mk. i. 35, Tr/awt tvwxov At'av dvacrras iiTJkOe,
rising in the, morning, when it was still very dark. L. xv. 18, dvao-ras
^ See Wetstein in loc, and Boisson. Eunap. p. 459.
* This formula is only met with where the principal sentence is preceded by
some note of time. The principal verb is sometimes appended by means of ku!
(on this see Fritzsche, Matt. p. 341), as in Mt. ix. 10, L. v. 1, 12, ix. 51 ; more
commonly it follows without, any copula (Mt. xi. 1, 5ciii. 53, xix. 1, xxvi. 1, Mk.
iv. 4, L. i. 8, 41,. ii. 1, al.). This idiom is used most frequently by Luke, in his
Gospel. It was an unhappy thought of Bornemann's (Hchol. p. 25) that *a/ in
this construction should be rendered also. — ''Eyitiro here is really pleonastic, for
the note of time might be directly attached to the principal verb. [The con-
struction of *ai iyivtra {iyinra Ss) with the accusative and infinitive (Mk. ii. 23,
al., — A. ix. 37, al.) is noticed above, p. 406 sq. : this construction seems not to
occur in the LXX or Apocrj'jiha (compare however 2 Mace. iii. 16). For »«<
iyiyiTB (iyivfre Se) followed by Kxi and the finite verb, see Gen. xxiv. 30, xxxix.
13 sq., Jos. V. 1, xxiii. 1, 1 Mace. x. 64, 88 (Gen. xxvi. 32, xxvii. 1, xxxix. 19,
xli. 8) : for the same without xai, Gen. xxii. 1, xxiv. 45, Judith xii. 10, xiii. 12
(Gen. xxiv. 52, xxvii. 34, xl. 1, 20, xli. 1). In Mk. ii. 15 Tischendorf, Meyer,
Westcott and Hort read yivirai with accusative and infinitive : Alford, yivtraj
with xai and finite verb. In the LXX iyt*^iv frequently takes the place of
tyiura (e.g., 1 S. iv. 1, xi. 1, Esth. V. 1) ; also, when the future is spoken of,
x.a.1 'irrai . . . xai, Ex. xiii. 11 sq., Dt. xi. 29, — or without a second xa,i, e.g., Lev.
xiv. 9, Dt. xxi. 14, Judith xiv. 2 (A. ii. 17, 21, iii. 23, Rom. ix. 26,— all quota-
tions from the 0. T.). On the meaning of xai after iyiwrg ii etc. (explained by
Fritzsche /.c. as "nempe"),- see above, p. 756, note*. A. x. 25, iyUtTe roZ
tisi>.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 €<TTcv Kal ^(o>] 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
'irdvre<i eU top Mcoija-rjv e^anrriaavTO, Kal Trai/re? .... kul
TTai/re? k.tX. (Ca3S. Bell. Gall. 1. 31), Ph. iii. 2, iv. 8, 2 C.
vii. 2 ; 1 C. xiv. 24, Rev. viii. 7, 12 ; 1 C. vi. 11, dWa direXov-
aaade, dWd rjyidaOrjTe, dWd ehtKamOrjTe- i. 20, iv. 8,
1 Tim. V. 10, 2 C. vi. 2, IBov vvv Kaipo<; evnpo^SeKTO'i, Ihov vvv
rifxepa a(OTrjpia<; (Arrian, Hpict. 3. 23. 20), xi. 20, E. vi. 12, 17,
V. 10,* 1 Jo. i. 1, Rev. xiv. 8, xviii. 2. (The examples oi poly-
syndeton may also be brought under this head: Rev. vii. 12,
Rom. ii. 17 sq., 1 C. xiii. 2.) Such repetitions frequently occur
in urgent address, as Mt. xxv. 11, KijpLe, Kvpie, dvot^ov i^filv
xxiii. 37, L. viii. 24:, x. 4.1, xxii. 31-, A. ix. 4 ; and also in de-
mands, Jo. xix. 6 (Kriig. Dion. p. 11). In all these examples
the writer is unwilling to leave it to the reader to repeat in
thought a word which has been once expressed ; that the im-
portance of this word may be properly felt, he prefers himself to
. express it in every instance in which it comes before the mind.
(So especially e'/c irapaXkrjXov'. Rom. xi. 32, 1 C. xv. 21.)
b. A thought which is to be brought out with great pre-
cision is in very many instances (especially in John) expressed
both affirmatively and negatively in parallel members {paralle-
lismus antithdicus^). Jo. i. 20, w/xoXoyrjae Kal ovk rjpvriaaTo-
E. v. 15, fxri a)<j daot^oti dX)C d)<i ao(l>oi 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
KTicri<i ava-revd^ei Kal <Tvv(o8ivei,' Mt. ix. 35. Compare Diod.
S. IV 51, 7repivnlrd^i€vo<i to acofia irdv Strabo 11. 500, ttoX-
\al'i crvfjU'TTXrjpov/j.eiwi TTT^yat?' Lucian, Paras. 12, Long. 4. 15;
Cic. Sen. 18, ro7isurrexisse omnes; Liv. 33. 29, cum omnia terrore
et fuga complessent. See ray second Progr. de verbis compositis,
p. 21 sq.
d. The form of address in A. i. 11, avhpe^ TdXCKalof iii. 12,
avhpe<i ^lapariXlraf ii. 14, v. 35, xiii. 16, conveys the same
(respectful) emphasis (meii of Israel !) as the familiar avBp€<;
AOrjvaloL — which itself occurs in A. xvii. 22 — or dvBpe<i
SiKaarai. See § 59. 1.
In 2 C. ii. 16, ots p-ev oaprj Oavarov cis OdvaTov, ols Se oafxr) ^wrj<; eh
Cwqv, every word is needed. A savour of death to death, a savour of
life to life, means a savour of death, which from its very nature can
bring nothing but death, etc.
A pleonastic character has often been wrongly ascribed to passages
in which synonyms seem brought together for the purpose of express-
ing one main idea, — a common case in Demosthenes.- Paul however
— from whose writings these examples are in the main derived — is
not in the habit of bringing real synonyms into the same sentence,
(Nor has he done so in E. i. 5, 19, ii. 1, iv. 23, 1 C. L 10, il 4,
1 Tim. ii. 1, v. 5 : compare also Ja. iii. 13, Jo. xii. 49, 1 P. i. 4, iv. 9,
1 Jo. i. 1, al., — and see Fritz. Rom. II. 372.) A more careful study
of the Greek language in general, and of the diction of the apostles in
particular, will preserve us from adopting any such principle, — which
c. g. would greatly weaken the apostolic salutation x^P'-'*' eXcos Kal
elpijyT].^ — In the combinations 6v^os opyrjs Rev. xvi. 19, TrcXayos t^?
' See Maius, Obse^-v. Sacr. II. 77 sqq., Kypke I. 350 sq., Poppo, Thucyd, I. i.
204, Herm. Med. p. 361 (ed. Elrasley), and Soph. (Ed. Col. p. 41, Philoct. p. 44,
Jacob, Qurrsl. LurAan. p. 19, Weber, Demosth. p. 314, Boisson. Eunap. p. 164
sqq. , Matzner, Aniiph. p. 157.
' See Schasfer, Demosth. 1. 209, 320, 756, Plnkirch IV. 367, V. 106, Weber,
Dcmosih. p. 376, Franke, Demosth. p. 12, Bremi, j^schin. I. 79, Lucian, Alex.
p. 24 (ed, Jacob), Poppo, Thuc. HI. i. 619, Schoem. Plut. Agrs^. 171. Compare
Lob, Parnlip. p. 61 sq.
' SchEpfer's observation {Demosth. I. 320) — "usus (sjnionymoruin) duplex,
gravior alter, ut vim conoilient orationi, alter levior, ut vel aures expleant vel
numeros reddant jucundiorcs" — has immediate reference to the orators only.
764 REDUNDANT STEUCTURE. [PART III.
6aXd(r(Tr}<i Mt. xviii. 6, iTri€f}dv€ia rrj^ Trdpovcria? 2 Th. il. 8, (TTrXay^a
cXcovs or olKTipfiov L. L 78, Col. iii. 12, there is nothing pleonastic.
The second was long ago correctly rendered by Wetstein cequor
maris : Tr^Xayos signifies the expanse (of the sea), and thus is also
used of the surface of a river, — see Schwarz, Commentar. p. 1067.^
In L. i. 78, Col. iii. 12, orrrXayxva is the wider expression, which is
more exactly defined by the genitive annexed.
The parallelismus membrorum, which appears here and there in the
N. T. (see § 68. 3), has nothing to do with pleonasm. On the parti-
tion of points of dogma between parallel members, as in Eom. iv. 25,
X. 10, see De Wette on the former passage.
6. Pleonasm of entire sentencCvS is a thing inconceivable.
Whenever a writer repeats a sentence with but slight variation,
liis aim is to give very marked prominence to a thought, or to
exhibit it under different aspects. 2 C. xii. 7, rfj vTrep^oXfj rSiv
airoKoXir^ewv iva /jltj virepaipu) fxai, iSoOr] fioi ckoXo-^ . . .
'iva {Me Ko\a(f>i^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<i), ep^op.ai aot ra/^v koI Kivqcno
rrjv Xv^ylav aov ix Tov roirov avTTJ<;, iav firj (JLeravorjarj^i'.
compare Plat. Gorg. 514a, 77/u.tw irrrcx^ipTjreov eari depa-
ireveiv, (U9 ^eXriaTov; avrov<: Tov<i '7roXira<; TroLovvra^' avev yap
8t} rovrov, w<; iv Tol<i e/jLTrpoaOev evplaKo/xev, ovBev 6'<^eA.o? . . .
iav firf KaXr] Kar^adrj rj hidvoia y rcov fieXXovrtov
x.rX (Stallb. Plat. Apol. p. 23). On 1 C. xiv. 6 see Meyer; and
on 1 C, vii. 26 see above, no. 1, On the other hand, in 1 Jo. ii.
27, CO? TO avrb ■^piafia BiSdaKet vfia<i .... Kal, Ka6(i}<i iBl-
Ba^ev vfid<;, fievecre iv avra>, 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<i' ottov 6 Opovos tov a-aravd;
* The investigation of N. T. synonyms (commenced by Bengel, not without'
success) has been pursued by Tittmann (De ISynonymis N. T. lib. I.: Lips. 1829) :
his method is not so much the historical as that of free combination. — Compare
also Bomemann's examples and observations in his Diss, de glossem. N. T. p. 29
sqq. [This dissertation is prefixed to Bornemann's Scholia on Luke. — On N. T.
synonyms see especially Trench's work ; also Webster, Synt. p. 186-237, Green,
Crit. Notes.]
* [On the reading see Westcott and Hort's Appendix, p. 120. On 1 C. xiv. 6,
vii. 26, quoted below, compare Evans's notes, in Speak. Comm. nL-344, 291.]
' On such examples as the above see Hermann, Eurip. Bacch. 1060, Soph.
Antig. 691, audPhiloct. 269, 454; Reisig, Conject. Aristopfi. p. 314 sq.; Heindorf,
Plat. Phced.j,. 52 and Cic. Nat. D. 1. 16 ; Sch^f. Deixosth.V. 726 ; Matth. 636.
2. [§ 60. .5, Jelf 860. 10.
SECT. LXV.] REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. 765
wliere oirov 6 6p6vo<i is immediately subjoined in explanation of
(as if in answer to) irov KaroiKeif. So also might Mk. ii. 24 be
taken ; here however re is probably whi/ ? 2 C. vii. 8 and Jo.
xiii. 17 do not come in here. In 1 C. i. 22 sq, also, the sentence
eTreiBr) koX 'lovBaloi . . . ficopiap is obviously not a mere repetition
of eVetS^ yap . . . tov deov in ver. 21, any more than 17/xet? he
Kripvcraop,ev (ver. 23) is a mere repetition of euBoK-rjcrev 6 6e6^
K.T.X. (ver. 21). In liom. vi. 16, ovk olhare, ort a> Trapia-Tdvere
eavToiff BovKov<i et9 vttukotjv, SovXol ecrre <p v7ra/covere, there
would be no expression of idem per idem, even if SovXot were
not immediately followed by the defining clause iirot, dfiapTia<i
et? ddvarov rf v7raK07]<i el<i hiKaLocrvvT]v. Nor is there auy more
reason for regarding the two clauses in Rom. vi. 6, u/a KarapyrjOrj
TO acofia Tr}? d/xapTiwi, roO fjLijKiri SovXeuetv r}fid<i ttj dfiaprca,
as identical in meaning : the former clause speaks generally of
the KaTapjrjdrjvai of the a-wfia rrj'i d/xapria's, the latter expresses
concretely the purpose of this KaTapyrjOyjvai. 1 P. ii. 16 has
not the remotest connexion with this subject: 2 P. iii. 4 also is
of a different kind. On Mt. v. 18 there may be a difference of
opinion, according as iravra in the last clause is taken as re-
ferring to the law (so Olshausen, Meyer), or is explained in a
general sense, as by Fritzsche, — donee omnia {quce mente fingere
queas) evenerint. The latter explanation, however, is less
satisfactory.
7. We will now refer to certain cases in which N. T. com-
mentators, both ancient and modern, have assumed the existence
of pleonasm, though in reality there is no redundancy of language
whatever. First of all, an observation is current even in recent
commentaries, supported by misinterpreted parallel passages of
(ireek authors, to the effect that in the N. T. several verbs — viz.,
dp')(e(TdaL, hoKelv, 6eA.eiv, roXfxdv, Bvvaadai, — are often pleonastic
when joined with an infinitive : Kiihnol, indeed (on L. i. 1),
even includes iTn-^eipelv in the number (comp. Weiske, Pleon.
s. vv.). The whole canon rests on error.
a. In L. i. 1, eTreiSijTrep iroXXol i'ire')(^€Lpr)crav dvard^aaOaL
Bt7]y7)(riv K.T.X. , the verb i-m^eipetu is no more used without
specific meaning,' than is the Latin aggredi in aggressus sum
scrihere. Luther well fenders the words. Since many have
' Though even classical philologers have taken this view,— see Herbst, Xeii.
Men. p. as ; on the other side see Heind. Plat. Soph. p. 450.
766 REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. [PAHT 111.
ventured etc. ; and in all the passages quoted by Kiihnol from
Greek authors the verb has this meaning.
b. Similarly, roXfiap (Weiske p. 121 sq.) is to undertake
something, and is always used in reference to important or diffi-
cult affairs, — sustinerc, bring oneself to ^ (Eom. v. 7, 1 C. vi. 1).
In Jo. xxi. 12, however, it simply signifies audere, to venture;
and it is only as to tJie reason ivhy they were afraid to make
this inquiry of Jesus that we can be at all in doubt. Markland's
observation, Lysias p. 159 (ed. Taylor), ought not to have led
any commentator astra}^
c. As to BoKelv compare Fritzsche's note on Mt. iii. 9, and
what was said still earlier by J. D. Michaelis in the Nov. Mis-
cell. Lips. IV. 45. In 1 C. x. 12, o Bokmv eaTcivai obviously
means he who thinks (imagines) he stands; compare G. vi. 3. In
Mk. X. 42, OL hoKovvre<; dp^etv tmv idvwv signifies those who are
accounted, are recognised as, iite riders of the nations. G. ii. 9,
Susann. 5, Joseph. Antt. 19. 6. 3, are similar examples: the
parallel passage, Mt. xx. 25, has simply ol ap-^ovre^i. L. xxii.
24, Tt<f ayrwv Sok€i elvat fxei^wv, quis videatur liahere (habi-
turus esse) principatum, — who must be Judged to have the (yre-
erninence (over the rest) : the matter is still future, and hence
can only be a subject for probable judgment. 1 C, xi. 1 6, el ri<i
BoK6t (f)i\6v6tKo<? elvai, if any one thinks he m.ay be contentious ;
or, as Meyer/ De Wette, if any one appears to be contentious
(urbanity of expression). L. viii. 18, % SoKel e%etz/, 7vhat he
thinks he possesses. 1 C. iii. 18, vii. 40, viii. 2, xiv. 37, H. iv. 1
(here Bohme regards BoKet a,s "elegantius," — Kiihnol and Bleek^
take a more correct view), require no remark. Compare gene-
rally Bornemann, Schol. p. 52 sq.
^ Blume, Lycurg. p. 89.
* [In his earlier editions : lie now renders the words, thinks of being etc. (not
"thinks that he may be "). Lightfoot takes the same view ; see his note on Ph.
iii. 4. — On this verb see Trench, Syn. s. v., Ellicott and Lightfoot on G. ii. 2, 6,
Ph. iii. 4.]
3 [Bleek, Liinemnnn, Delitzsch, Alford, and others take Saxsrv here as practi-
cally synonymous with ipa.ivi(r6ai. — "appear," in the sense of being found or shown
(to have come short). If this view is correct, this is the only passage in the
N. T. in which 'ioxuv is used in an objective sense (see Trench I. c). Kurtz in foe.
says: '*'B/>Ki7t, 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)<i ^fjv ev Xpt,crTa> ; 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 (/)iAocro<j!)ias epyov means (he
occupation of philosophising, the cultivation of philosophy, — compare
soon after ap^at </)tAoo-o<^tas (in Latm, compare Curt. 8. 14. 37, virtutis
opus, and Petr. Fragm. 28. 5, proditionis opus), — not exactly the
fabric * of philosophy. We cannot put epyov and XPW"- ^i*^^ by side ;
nor indeed is XPVH-"- I'pally pleonastic, when followed by a genitive :
see Liddell and Scott s. v. "Ovofxa, which has very frequently been
regarded as pleonastic,^ is correctly explained by Wahl (compare Van
Hengel, Phil. p. 160) : see also my edition of Simon. Lex. Hebr. s. v.
DC?'. This word, however, deserves greater exactness of treatment at
the hands of N. T. lexicographers. (On a periphrastic use of ovop/x
found in. Greek poetry, see Matth. 430. k, Jelf 442. e.) In Col. ii. IG,
ev fjiepei eoprrj^ 17 vovp.-r]VLa^ 17 cra(3/36.T(i}v, there is no more pleonasm
than when we say in resj)ect of (or in the matter of) the fasts, new
moons, etc. Lastly, in Rom. vi. 6 the words crw/i.a t^s d/Aaprtas express
a single idea, the sin-body; — i.e., the body (of man), on the relation of
which to sin no reader of Paul's Epistles can stand in doubt. See
above, p. 235.
' [.See above, p. 587. On Jo. vii. 17 see Alford's note.]
* [In Lis 1st edition, to which Winer refers, Huther understands ^u^v to refer
to eUrnal life, and remarks thus on the singular expression fiXuv a.yct.'jra.y ^iv^» :
' ' the love of life, no less than the possession of it, is conditioned by a certain
course of conduct." >In 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<i Bouvai Bo^au rep 6ea> 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<r6i.t iu the place of Citat, will he
set aside at once by any attentive reader. It is really laughable, however, to tinl
noinman taken as used for eji^e in Cic. Flacc. 27.
* See still Pott on 1 C. iv. 2 ; and compare the commentators on Pluh Edac.
13. 5. Against such a view o( KV03 see my Simonie, p. 575,
49
770 REDUNDANT STRUCTURE. [PART HI,
Kvpiov that carried him away; Eom. vii. 10, evpedrj /j,ol rj evroXr)
7) ek i^wrjv avTr) et? ddvarov, it loas found, it proved (by experience
obtained in his own case, ver. 8-10), ^Aa^ the commandment for
lif e 1 tad he come for me a commandment for death; G.ii.l7,et 8e . . .
evpeOrjfiev Kat avrol a/iapTcoXoi, if hou'ever we . , . vjer.e ourselves
discovered (in tlie sight of botli God and men) to he sinners; 1 C.
iv. 2, 2 C. V. 3, Ph. iii. 9 ; Rev. xii. 8, ovSe roTToi; evpeOr) avrcov
€Ti iv Tw ovpavM, their place was 7io longer found (was no longer
to be sliown) in heaven, — ^.just as we say, all traces of them were
lestToycd (compare Eev. xvi. 20, xviii. 21, xx. 11) ; IP. ii. 22,
jvZk evpeOrj SoXo? eV tco crrofjuaTL avrov, tlicre VMS not found in his
mouth any deceit, — no deceit could be detected in his words (Rev.
xiv. 5). Pli. ii. 7 was correctly translated by Luther.
The parallels which are quoted from Greek authors by Kypke
(I. 2), Palairet (p. 1 9 8), Schwarz, and otiiei'S, prove nothing. In
]\Iarc. Anton. 9. 9, to crvva'yoo'yov iv tu) Kpelrrovi i7rtT€tv6/j.€vov
evpta-Kero k.t.X., this verb retains its true meaning, to he found,
met with. Hierocl. in carm. Fythag. p. 88 (ed. Lond.),a/>;\;>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)<i means as (express-
ing quality) ; as one who reminds you in conformity with the
grace of God.
In Rom. ix. 32, on ovk Ik Trtcrrcws, dA.X' ws i^ cpywv vofjuov, ck Trto-rews
indicates the objective rule or norm, cLs i$ epyuyv one that is' merely
imagined. 2 C. xiii. 7, Jo. vii. 10, and Phil. 1 4 must also be brought
under the head of comparison. And in Mt. vii 29, ^i' StSdo-Kojv ws
Icovdiav €-)(wv' Jo. i. 14, Sofav O)? [xovoytvov'i rrapo. Trarpos" the meanmg
simply is, "«5 onewho has authority," "«s of the only-begotten." Even
here the particle does not in itself signify re vera, though us regards
the sense this idea is implied by the comparison, — altogether as, just as,
i. e., the true, perfect glory of the Son of God.-
As to w? tVt, A. xvii. 14, it should be observed that <I)s. when
joined with a preposition denoting direction (eVt, -r-pos, cts), expresses
either the definite intention of following a certain direction, or a mere
pretence or feint of doing so (Kiihner II. 280, Jelf 626. Obs. 1). In
this passage Beza, Grotius, and others, take the words in the latter
sense, but the former is simpler, and suits the context better. As parallel
passages compare Thuc. 5. 3, 6. 61, Xeo. An. 1. 9. 23, 7. 7. 55, Diod.
S. 14. 102, Polyb. 5. 70. 3, Arrian, ^/. 2. 17. 2, 3. 18. 14: see
further EUendt, Lex. Soph. II. 1004. So also when w? is immediately
followed by ort^ (q. d., "as that"), ws properly indicates that the
clause with on expresses the thought of another, a thought which is
merely reported, or even feigne<l : see e. g. Argam. of Isocr. Busir. p.
520, KaTrjyopovv avrov ws oTt Kai.va Saiixovia ets</)£pet. So in 2 Th. ii. 2,
1 See Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 320, Lbsacr, Obs. p. 483, Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 20:3,
Fritz. Rom. II. 360.
2 [See above, p. 151. In A. xrii. 14, f[Uoted below, the reading ?«? It'i is
st.rongljr supported, and now .'it;uids in the best texts.]
•* The case is different with us or* in Aristot. Pol. 3. 7 ; here u; corraaponds
to otJTu; which precedes.
772 REDUNDANT STRUCTURE; [PART III.
«i5 TO fir] craXev&yjvaL v/aSs . . . /J-rjre. Sia Xoyov /xrJTe Sl . cVio-toXt}? , , .
is oTi iv€(rTr]K€v rj r]fx€pa tov Kvptov. In 2 Cor. xi. 21 also, this mean-
ing may still be recognised (see Meyer in loc.^) ; and in 2 C. v. 19, if
we regard the sentence as expressing the content of the SiaKovLu rijs
KaToXXayrj? which has been committed to them, 'fl? on occurs in the
same sense in older writers, see Xen. HelL 3. 2. 14, Dion. H. III.
1776;2 as to the later (Theodoret, Epp. p. 1294) see ThiXo, Ad.
Thorn, p. 10 sq., Lehrs, De Aristarch. p. 34. A similar example, but
decidedly of a pleonastic character, is w<s Iva in Byzantine Greek, Due.
8. p. 31, 127, Jo. Canan. p. 467, 470 sq. : still more singular is Iv
oirm, Constant. Man. p. 62, Geo, Acropoh p. 62. (On the formula
a»s olov, which is found in earlier writers, see Bast, Ep, Crit. p. 43,
Herm. Opicst. I. 219sq.)
OvTWi also has been considered redundant in Jo. iv. 6 (Kiihnol)
6 *lr]aovi KeKOTTtaKws €k t^s 68onropLa<s eKaOe^ero oiitws. This adverb,
however, is frequently brought in thus after a participle, the idea of
which is by this means taken up again, — wearied from the journey he
sat dovm thus {sic ut erat, in consequence of this weariness) : Xen. An.
4. 5. 29, Cyr. 5. 2. 6, 7. 5. 71, Hellen. 7. 4. 20, Arrian, Al. 5. 27. 13,
Ellendt, Arrian I. 4 (Jelf 696. Obs. 5). On ovto) at the commence-
ment of the apodosis, see § 60. 5.
10. Palairet (p. 305), following Glass, finds a half pleonasm
of a particle in A. xiii. 34, fjurjKert fMeWovra v7roaTpe(f>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}^ yvvaLK6<i in
ver. 3 9 : a distinction is made between two motives for the
TTiareveLv, — one earlier, the other later. On Jo. xv. 15 see
Llicke.^ — Xen. An. 1. 10. 12 cannot be quoted in confirmation
of such a (pleonastic) use of ovKen; still less Xen. Eph, 1. 13
(/jLTjKeTi). In Pans. 8. 28. 2 recent editors read ovk eaTL, but
see Siebelis in loc. Compare further Lucian, Parasit. 12, Sext.
Emp.. Math. 2. 47, Arrian, Epict. 3. 22. 86. In ^lian, Anim.
4. 3 also, Jacobs admits that ovKeri, is used for the simple nega-
tive paullo inajore cum vi.
Section LXVI.
CONDENSATION AND RESOLUTION OF SENTENCES (BREVILOQUENCE,
GONSTRUCTIO FR^GNANS, ATTRACTION, ETC.).
1. The inherent tendency which led the Greek to condense
his sentences, and by this means give to them a closer consist-
ence and more roundness, shows itself not in poetry only but
also in prose, in various idioms of the language, some of which
are not unknown to the N". T. writers. AU these idioms agree
in this particular, that some intermediate member, not absolutely
required for the intelligibility of the sentence, is passed over,
and the other members drawn together so as to form one com-
pact whole.^ This breviloquence is akin to ellipsis and yet
different from it; in an elliptical sentence the grammatical struc-
ture always points to the omission of some particular word,
whilst in au example of breviloquence the laeuvxi is concealed
by the structure of the sentence.
To breviloquence belong the following cases : —
a. Between a protasis and tlie apodosis which follows it there
is sometimes no direct link of connexion: Eom. xi. 18, el 8e
KaraKav)(acraL, ov aii rrjv pc^av ^aard^ec^, aWa t) pl^a ae, hut if
thou . . . . , then know or consider that thou dost not etc. (1 C.
xi. 16). To make the structure complete, we nmst have IcrOi,
^ [Stier's explanation of tlie apparent discrepancy between this "crse and li.
xii. 4, Jo. XV. 20, substantially agrees wit-h Liicke's : see Words of the Lord Jesus,
VI. 292 (Transl.).- See also Westcott's note.]
^ Compare Matth. 634. Doderlein, De brarkylogia sermonls Orcec'i et Latini
(Erlung. 1S31). (Jelf 892 sqq.)
774 CONDENSATIO>I 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 <jv k.tX; in this case ort would point to
a word which had been actually left out, such as know, reflect.
Tn the same way, saYo is often suppressed in Latin between pro-
tasis and apodosis: see Cic. Or. 2. 12. 51. Compare further
1 Jo. V. 9, el rr]v fxaprvplav rwv avdpcoTroJv \afX^dvofiev, rj fiap-
rvpla Tod Oeov fiei^cov earlv, we must remember that the testi-
mony of God etc.; or, then we must also receive the testimony
of God', which indeed etc.; 1 C. ix. 17.' Also Mt. ix. 6, iW Se ^
elh7)re, on e^ovaiav e^ei o vPo^ tov avdpcl^Trov .... (rSre Xe7et rw
-rrapaXvnKfo) eyepOeU apov aov t^v kKiv^v, where the words
introduced by the narrator do not enter into the construction of
the sentence: that ye mmj know . . . stayid up and take etc.,— i.e.
the sick man shall immediately stand up at my command, I com-
mand the sick man, "Stand up etc." Analogous to this are such
examples as Demosth. Cor. 329 c, iva roivvv elSy^re, on avTo<:
fioL fxaprvpel . . . Xa^cov avdjvcodc ro ■>^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}<f>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]<i AlyvirTov
croi(Ta<i TO hevrepov rov^ /jltj 7rtcrrevaavTa<i cnrooXeo-ev. Here the
verb connected with to BevTepov should properly have been ovk
eacoae (dWd k.t.X.) : the Lord, after having saved, the second
time (when they needed his helping grace) refused them his
saving grace and left .... to destruction. Compare further
Eoni. xi. 23, SvvaTo^i eariv 6 deo^ TrdXiv iyKeurplaac avrov-i. By
avToi are meant those that grew on the stock Kara (f)u(Tiv; and
hence cannot be a second time grafted on the stock. The strict
expression would be : to bring them a second time into union
with the stock, viz., by being grafted in.
In Col. iiL 25, however, 6 dSiKwy Ko^ulTai o yStK-rjcre, if judged by
Greek idiom, is hardly an example of brachylogy. This expression, in
accordance with the meaning o{ Ko/xL^ecrdaL, resembles our own, he will
reap the ivrong he has done : it is not the wrong itself that he will
receive, but the fruits of it, the recompense for it, — the wrong 'in
the form of punishment. Compare PI vi. 8. We have a similar
example in Jo. xii. 5, Sio. t4 tovto to fivpov ovk iTrpaO-q , . . koL iS60rj
TTToyxoL';, and (the proceeds) given to the poor ; — properly, and (in the
form of the money obtained by the sale of it) given to the poor. So
also in 1 C. xv. 3-7.
c. A. i. 1, o)v Tjp^aro o ^Irjaom iroLelv re Kal BiBdcrKeiv a^pt
J79 ri/j,ipa<i K.T.X. : i.e., what Jesus began to do and to teach, and
continued to do and to teach until the day (ver. 22?}. Similar
to this is L. xxiii. 5, StSdcriccov KaO' okr\^ t^? ^lovSaia'i, dp^dij.evo<;
dirb T779 TaXiXaia^ ew? o)he ,hz<j inning from Galilee and continuing
lip to this place; alsoMt. xx. 8, Jo. viii. 9, Strabo 12. 541. The
construction proposed by Fritzsche for the latter class of pas-
sages — hihdaKwv ety? c5Se, dp^d[xevo<; diro rrj<i Ta\t\aia'i^ (Lucian,
Sonin. 15)— is too artificial. The assertion of Valckenaer and
Kiihnol that in A. i. 1 dpx^crdat is pleonastic, is a mere subter-
fuge to avoid the difficulty.
2. The following forms of brachylogy are of peculiarly fre-
quent occurrence, and were noticed by earlier grammarians.
d. The so-called construcfio pra^gnans, in which a preposition
' [Hermann, /-. c. is speaking, of the con.strnetioii T^-ri'TOf^ai -voha., and ot the
accusatives kxmkv, kfx^t (see above, p. 581). — Meyer would bring tliis passage
under § 63. "2. d, supposing Paul to have changed the construction after writing
(the object) tjjv avTrii aiTiuKT^'ta-). It is sutely simpler to take the accusative as
the "quantitative ohject" (p. ^So). Compare DeW. in loc, A. Buttm. p. 189 sq.]
* [Similarly Meyer ^see his note on Mt. xx. S) : A. Biittm. (p. 374), Bleek and
others agree with Wtaer. On A. i. 1 see Allord. ]
776 CONDENSATION AND RESOLUTION OF SENTENCES. [PART III.
is joined to a verb which includes another verb as its consequent.
2 Tim. iv. 18, a-tocrei, et<? rrjv ^aaiXeLav, he will save me into his
kingdom, i. e., will save me, removing me into etc.; A. xxiii. 24,
1 P.iii. 20 (Her. 7. 230,Xen.^ri. 2. 3. 11, Poly b. 8. ll,Luciaii,
Asin. 56, al^); 2 Tim. ii. 26, avavri^lrwaiv e/c t^? rov hia^okov
TraylBor Mt. v. 22, €voxo<i earai eh rrjv yeavvav (§ 31. 5); Eom.
viii. 21, ikevdepwdriaeTat anro rr]^; SovXeia? Tf)<; <p6opd<; eh rrjv
eXevdeptav rrj<; So^t;? k.t.X. (see Fritzsche in lac.) ; A. v. 3 7,
airearrjae \aov iKavov otriaoa avrov' xx. 30, 2 C. xi. 3, /xrjTrcot
. . . ^Oapfi rd vorjfiara v/jlmv cltto rrj<i aTrXorrjTO^' A. Vlii. 40,
^/XtTTTTov evpedrj eh "A^corov (Rom. vii. 10). See further A.
xxiii. 11, L. iv. 38, xviii, 3, G. v. 4, Eom. vii. 2, ix. 3 (xv.
28), xvi. 20, 1 C. xii. 13, xv. 54, 2 C. x. 5, H. ii. 3, x. 22, E. ii.
15, 1 Tim. V. 15, 1 P. iii. 10. According to some H. v. 7 also
falls under this head, see Bleek'^ m loc. (Ps. xxii. 22 in the
Hebrew, Ps. cxvii. 5 in the LXX) : a more certain example is
Mk. vii. 4.^ This abbreviated structure is frequently met with
in Greek prose:* as to Hebrew see Ewald p. 620. Such phrases
as fcpvTTTeiv or KXeieivrt, cltto Tivo<i (1 Jo. iii. 17), fieravoelv airo
Tr]<i KUKia'? (A. viii. 22) or ex twv ep'^wv, etc. (Eev. ix. 20 sq.,
xvi. 1 1), aTTo^XeireLV and d<f)opav eh (H. xi. 26, xii. 2), TrapaXa/j,-
fidveiv eh (Mt. iv. 5), da^aXt^eadat toi"? TroSa? eh to ^vXov (A.
xvi. 24), crvyKXeleiv tov<; Trayrap eh aTreideiav (Eomi xi. 32),
arise in like manner out of a pregnancy of expression, which
however is hardly felt by us (conceal /row, shut up w). On
^uTTTi^ecv riva eh riva see Fritz. Bom. I, 359. On the
■ Compare ray Comment. 5. de verbis compositis, p. 9. [Winer here notices the
frequency with which the constructio prceynans occurs in the N. T. in combina«
tion with corapounds of S/a. In 1 P. iii. 20 he takes iia {'Jlai-of) as through, not
a.s used in an instrumental sense. On G. v. 4 (Eom. vii. 2) see Ellicott.]
I [Bleek does not himself take this view of the passage. See Alford's note.]
This passage must be rendered: (coming) /»-om tJie market (Arrian, Epict.
3. 19. 5, ai fih tSpti/ii* (fayut ix fiaXavtiau), excf/it they have washed 'them-
KPlveK they eat nothing. The objection to our referring fiaTritruvra, to the
iirttrles of food (so Kiihndl) does not lie so mudh in the usage of the language —
ior JixTTifffiis, derivedfrom (ia^rT^^u*, is evidently afiplipd to things in ver. 4, —
or in the use of the middle voice (for this might mean wash for them.<<elves), as in
the circumstance that we should thus introduce a very ordinary thought, and
onp which would not be looked for in this connexion. To wash articles of food
which had been purchased was certainly not a mere precept of Pharisaism, but
was a proceeding required by the nature of the case and by the. spirit of the
Mosaic laws of purification.
60
Gesen-
iuosaic laws ot purification.
♦ Conipare Markland, Eurip. Suppl. 1205 ; Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. p.
OPPO, Thiix:. I. i. 292 sq. [.Telf fi45 sq., Green p. 209 sq. : for Hebrew, G
I'. 224 (lians.), Ewald, ZeA/-;.. p. 700, Kalisch I. 311.]
SECT, lxvl] condensation and kesolution of sentences. 777
general subject compare further Fritz. Mark, p. 322 ; also
§ 50. 4.
e. Zeugma (Synizesis) : when two nouns are construed with
one verb, though only one of them — the first— directly suits the
verb. 1 C. iii. 2, lydka i//Lia<? eTroriaa, ov ^poiy/xa : from iiroriaa,
which suits ydXa only, we must apply the verb feed for fipoifia
(compare Act. Apocr. p. 60). L. i. 64, dvewx^V ''"o <^Top,a avrov
. . . Kal r) lyXwaaa avrov : where, properly speaking, iXvdr) —
which is found in some few authorities — must be supplied with
yXtoa-a-a (compare Mk. vii. 35) ; see Eaphei m loc.^ In 1 Tim.
iV. 3, KOiXvovTODv jufxelv, aTri^eadai /Spco/uiaTcov, we must supply
before the latter infinitive KeXevovTcov (or, with a scholiast in
Matthaei, elfrjryovfiivtov) from KaXvovrcov, which is equivalent to
KeXevovrcov /xij.^ Another example is 1 C. xiv^ 34 [£ec.]. Com*
pare Soph. CEd.B. 242, Eurip. Phmn. 1223, Plat. Bep, 2. 374 b
(yet see Stallbaum in loc), Protag. 327 c, Demosth. Cor. § 55
(see Dissen m loc), Arrian, Al. 7. 15. 5. So in Greek authors
we have sometimes to supply from the, first verb a verb of
directly opposite, meaning, for the second member of the sen-
tence : see Kiihner II. 604- Stallb. Plat. Cratyl. p. 169 (Jelf
895. 9). Some have introduced this idiom into Ja. i. 9, 10,
supplying with 6 he irkovino^ the verb raTreivovaBco (or alajfjo'
vea6co) : * this however is unnecessarv, and the thought is finer
if Kav^daOco is carried on to the second clause,^ — see my
Ohservationes in cp. Jacohi, p. 6. On 1 C. vii. 19 see above,
§ 64. 1.^ (Jelf 895, Don. p. 610.)
f. In comparisons:* i. e., with the comparative degree (compare
' Compare Lobeck, Soph. Ajax p. 429 sq.
2 That ifoiyiiy yXuvaav can be used in plain prose, is not bl-oved by the
examples adduced by Segaar in ?oc. — We may remark in passing that the zeugma
usually quoted from Her. 4. 106 disappears in Schweighauser's edition, in which
we read XainTo. 1\ tfmpitvffi . , i yXua(Ta.t Ti I'Sitiv 'ix"^"'* -A-S however no MS. has
'ix""', later editors have rightly omitted the word.
'[See Westcott and Hort's Appendix, p. 134. — Liineniann adds 1 Th. ii. 8i
with ri( iavTut ■^'UX^S supplying ladvai from the COtnpOUnd verb /uira.ledvai.'\
* The passage quoted by Hottinger in loc. from Plat. Bep. 2. 367 d mns thu^
in the recent editions, on MS. authority : mur oSv avTo l-raivKrev S/xa<«iri/v«j, «
aUTfi h' avTVv Toy j;^ov<7-a iy'ur.ffi xcci alixia, (iXa^rii [instead of . t . «»/mff/' xai
ahiKtocy, o ;3xa»T£i.] Hence it is no longer a parallel.
* For examples of zeugma in Greek and Latin writers see D'Orville, Charit.
p. 440 sq. ; Wyttenb. Plut. Moral. I. 189 sq. (ed. Lips.) ; Schaef. Dion. p. 105 ;
Engelhardt, Plat. Apol. p. 221 ; Bremj, ad Lys. exc. 3 ; Vole. Fritzsche, Quceat.
Lucian. p. 182; Funkhanel, Demosth. Androt.ja. 70 ; Hand, Lat. Styl p. 424 sq.
« Jacobs, Anthol Pal. IIL 63, 494, AcJdlL Tat. p.-747; Fritz. Mark, p. 147.
778 OfJTIBENSATION AND ITESOLUTION OF SENTENCES. [PA"RT III.
§ 36. 6), and in combinations with adjectives expressing likeness,
e.g., Rev. xiii, 11, el)(€ Kepara hvo o/jboia apviw (properly
apviov Kepaa-t)} as in Iliud 17. 51, KOfxaL XapiT€craiv 6p,olaf
Wisd. ii. 15, vii. 3 ; 2 P. i, 1, Toi<; IoStc/xov r^fuv Xa^ovat irla-riu
(for lo-oTCfMov rfj rjficbv TriareL), Jude 7. Compare further Xen.
Ci/r. 5, 1. 3, ofjboiav rals BovXai'? el^^ tt)v iadPjra' 6. 1. 50,
ap/xara e« rov iTTTfcKov rov eaurou ofMoia eKeiv(p (i.e., roi^ i/cetvov},.
riidd J . 163, oj) ficv aolrrore laov e)(^co yepa'i (i.e., laou rS croi),
A.rrJnn, E'fld. 1. 14. 11 (Matth. 453,Jelf 781. d). This brevi-
loquence iu comparison is used Viy Greek writers with much
groat-er variety of form : see Xen. Cyr. 5. 4. 6, 2. 1. 15, Hicr. 1.
38. Isocr. Evofj. c. 14, Diod. S. 3. 18, ^1. Anim. 4. 21, Dion. H.
1. 111.^ Under this head will also come 1 Jo. iii. 1 1 sq., avrr,
Tj dyyeXia 7]i> rjKovcrare air ap-)(f}^, Xva ayaironi^v dW'>]Xov<i' ou
Ka6co<i Kail' in: tov iromipov yju K.r.\. Here there is, strictly
speaking, nothing to be supplied (w/ier or nroLMfjLev would not
suit ov), but the comparison is negligently expressed. The reader
easily adjusts the clauses for himself: that we shoidd love one
another, — not as Cain ivas of the ivicked one , . . will or may it
be with us.^
We might bring under this head L. xiii. 1, Siv to alfxa JltAaros tjii.$e
fxera tCov dv<Tiwv avToJv (for /xera tov at/xaros tcov dva-Lutvl) ; but this
explanation is not necessary, see Meyer.
3. g. It may also be considered a kind of breviloquence when
a word which should have formed a sentence of its own is simply
appended (or even prefixed) to a sentence, as an apposition :
e.g., 2 Tim. ii. 14, Rom. viii. 3, al. (see § 59. 9), and — according
to the ordinary reading'* — j\Ik. vii. 19, et? rov dcf>€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<ip Ix -roXirtxtis alr'ia;, »iS' usTtp
■\pim^an uTodou; rt'us trrKpamus tXuft rr)* 'rfilii'Krii, not Oil aCCOUnt of a polUic'd
Dpinre, and not as Aristophon qua.^hed the. impmchment ; i.e., and liot acting; in
thn manner in which Arist^phon quashed etc. Against Reiske, who would here
insert JV in the text, see Spalding in loc.
» [Karfa^/^a,, now stands in the best texts. Many regard this word as a loose
apposition to i.^iifZ,a. (§ 59. $. b) : see Meyer, Green, Crit. Notes -p. 38. A. Buttm.
p. 79. But an ancient and very probable interpretation connects KafxpiZun with
>.iy«< in ver.lS : He saif.l, to them, "Are ye aUo . . . r'— making all meat-t
clean ; i.e., by this saying pronouncing all meats henceforth clean.]
SECT. LXVI.] CONDENSATION AND RESOLUTION OF SENTENCES. 779
peverai, KaOapi^ov iravTa ra ^pcofiuTa. Akin to this is the
proleptic use of the adjectiva effedus (in a kind of apposition), as
in Soph. CEd. Col. 1202, roov acov ahepKrwv ofifMaroov TrjTfofievo'i,
for w9Te jeveadai dSepKTu: this idiom is not confined to the poets
and orators,^ hut also occurs in ordinary' prose ^ (Don. p. 534,
Jelf 439. 2). As N. T. examples might he quoted Mt. xii. 13,
iv %^^p) "Tre/careo-Ta^T; vyc^'i' ^ Eom. i. 21, tcTKOTiaOri ?} aa-vve-
rof avTQ)V Kaphia- 2 C. iv. 4, ^eo? irixpXoxje to, votjfxara rwv
uTTiarcoV 1 Th. iii. 13, (mipi^at, Ta<; KupBia^ vfiwv dfj,€fM7rT0v<;'
Ph. iii. 21, fieraa'^Tjp.aTiaet ro awfia . , , 7)p,oiv av/M/xop^ov tm
acofiaTt (where after rjficov some MSS. add et<> to 'yeveadac avro),
1 C. i. 8. But in Rom. i. 21 and 2 Civ. 4, at all events, this
explanation is hardly admissible. In the former passage (as was
seen by Flatt) less is implied hy davvero^ (which has reference
to ifiaraiooOrjaav which precedes) than by aKOTit,eaOat. In 2 C.
iv. 4, Paul probably regards the illumination as proceeding from
a general faith in Christ ; because they did not turn to Christ,
but at once rejected him, the illumination did not become theirs.
, By the side of the examples first quoted should be placed L. xxiv.
46 gq., tSft iradtiiv Tov Xptcrrov . . . koX dvacrr^i^at . . . Kal Ky]pv\Oy]vaL
tin TO) ovofjiaTL avTov ^irdvoiav .... apidfievov .oltt^o 'l^povwaKy/fj.
Here, as is often the case with i$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<X(Tev rov ^Irjaovv otl outo? eartv
6 vlo<: Tov deov. This construction occurs very frequently where
an objective sentence follows a verb oi perceiving , knowing, shelv-
ing or declaring : Mk. xi. 32, xii. 34, A. iii. 10, iv. 13, xiii. 32,
XV. 36, xvi. 3 [i^ec], xxvi. 5, 1 C. iii. 20, xiv. 37, 2 C. xii. 3 sq.
1 Th. ii. 1, 2 Th. ii. 4, Jo. iv. 35, v. 42, vii. 27, viii. 54 (Arrian,
Al 7, 15. 7), xi. 31, Rev. xvii. 8 (Gen. i. 4, 1 Mace. xiii. 53,
2 Mace. ii. 1, 1 K. v. 3, xi. 28, al.). Also where an interroga-
tive clause follows: L. iv. 34, olhd o-e, ris eV Mk. i. 24 ;^ L. xix.
3, iZelv TOV ^Irjaovv, ti? eVrf * Jo. vii. 27, rovrov ol'Safiev,
TTodev eariv (Kypke in loc); A. xv. 36, iTria-Keslrcofieda rot"?
dB€\<f)ov<; ^ . . 7ra><f exovcrt' 2 C. xiii. 5, Jo. xiii, 28 (Achill,
Tat. 1, 19, Th^ophr. Char. 21, Philostr. Up. 64). The same
anticipation is found with sentences introduced by tW, fi^, etc. :
Col. iv, 17, ^XeTreryjv hiaKoviav, Xva avrrjy irXrjpoi'i' Rev. iii, 9,
'jrotija-co avTov<i, tva ij^oxrf G. vi. 1, ctko-kmv aeavTOV, /xrj Kot av
■ ^ Herinaiin l. c. : Est attractio in eo posita, si quid eo, quod sinjul ad duas
oratioriis partes refertur, ad quarum alteram non vecte refertur, aiubas in unam
tonjuugit. (^iiipare Kriiger I.e., p. 39 s({. Many make a distinction between
jissimilatiou.aud attraction : compare Hahd, Lat. Styli^. 376 sqq.
- Seee.gr. Bowyer, Conject. I. 147.
3 See Heupel and Fritzsclie in loc. ; Boissonade, Philostr. Epp. p. 143.
* Compare Sclisefer, Jiid. Jimp. p. 127.— IC. xv. 2 does not come in here : 'see
§ 61. 7,
782 CONDENSATION AND EESOLUTION OF SENTENCES. [PAllT III.
irupaadfir iv. 11,' (f)ol3ovfiai v^ia^, fiyjiroy^; eUP] KeKO-rrlaKa ek
v/Md<;. Compare Diod. S. 4. 40, TOf aBe\(pov evXa/SeiaOai, im^ttot^.
iiridrjrat rrj ^aaiXeia' Soph. (Ed. R. 760, hehoiK ii^avrov
. . . fi^ TToXV dyau elpijfiep v fiov Thuc. 3. 53; Ignat, ad Eom.
1 , <f)oSovfJ,at TTjv v^cou aydTrrjv, fir) auTifj /xe dhtKi'jar)- Varro, E. B.
Z. 10. 6, Cies. B. Gall. 1. 39 ; compare [G. T. A.] Ivruger p. 164
sq. Similavlv with a passive verb: 1 C. xv. 12, Xpio-ro^
KqpvaaeTai, ort iic v€Kpoiv ey^yeprai.'' (Jelf 898. 2.)
1?. Eom. i. 22, ^daKOvre^ elvai aoc^ol ifxaypdvOrjaav 2 P. ii,
21, KpeiTTOV rjv a vTot<i firj iireyvcoKevtiL . . . i] eTriyvovo tv
iTrKTTpeyfrai. k.t.X.: see § 44. 2, Kiihner II. 355. This attraction
is neglected in A. xv. 22, 25 [Bee] (Eisner, Ohs. I. 428 sq.),
xxvi. 20, H. ii. 10, 1 P. iv. 3, L. i. 74. Compare Bremi, Ji:scliin.
Fals. Leg. p. 196.
c. A. xvi. 34, rjyaWidaaTo Treiria-TevKco'; rut dew' 1 C. xiv.
18 V.I., ev-vapKTToi toD dew irdpTcov vfiwv fxaXXov y\(oacrai<;
\aXwv : see § 45. 4.
d. The simplest kind of attraction — of very frequent occur-
rence — is that by which the relative, instead of being adapted in
case (the accusative) to the verb of the relative sentence, is made
to correspond to the verb of the principal sentence, and conse-
quently stands in the case governed by this verb: Jo. ii. 22,
iiriarevaav ra> \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>.<fiou; may have been all that the speaker at
first intended to say ; and vra; '(:^ov(nM may have been added merely lor the sake
of further explanation.— As to Hebrew see Gesen. Lehrg. p. 854.
SECT. LXVI.] CONDENSATION AND RESOLUTION OF SENTENCES. 783
neglected in Pb. i. 7, ^Uaiov i/jbol rovro (ppovetv being said
instead of BtKaio'i elfic tovto (ppovelv (Matth. p. 756); for
Greek writers also use SIkulov iari impersonally with an
infinitive, tbough less inclined to join with it a personab dative
than to attach the personal word to the infinitive and place it
in the accusative case (Her. 1. 39). The former construction
is simpler in conception and more natural.
(2) The secondary clause exerts an attraction on the prin-
cipal. — The simplest case is that in which the relative pronoun,
which properly takes its number and gender from its antecedent
in the principal clause, — is made to agree with the noun in the
subordinate clause: 1 Tini.iii, 15, iv oXK(p deov,ijTL<i ia-rlv ckkXt)-
aia' Rom. ix. 24, {(tk^vt] eXeou?) 01)9 koX eKokeaev rj^ia'i [§ 24. 3].
This attraction is carried farther in the followingf cases : —
a. 1 C. X. 16, rov apTov hv KXcofxev ov^l koivcovlu tov aoo-
fxaro'i' Jo. vi. 29, tva 7riaT€v<jrjTe e/? ov airecrreiXev iKeivo<i (see
§ 24. 2) ; or Mk. vi. 16, ov iycb dTrefce<pdXiaa 'Icodvvijv, 0UT09
eaTLv (see § 24. 2), — compare Mt. vii. 9.
b. 1 Jo. ii. 25, avTrf eariv 17 eTrayyeXla, tjv avro'i iTrrjyye'CkaTo
rjfuv TTjv ^(orjv rr/v aldovtov, — instead of rj ^oot], in apposition to
iirayyeXia (see § 59. 7); Thi]. 10 sq ; liom. iv. 24, dXka koI he
rip^d^, oU /xeWei Xoyi^^eardaL Toi<i TrLarevovatv k.t.X. (Rev. xvii.
8 v.l. ?). Luther has taken Ph. iii. 18 in this way. Compare
further Fritz. Mark, p. 328, Stallb. Plat. Bep. I. 216, II. 146,
Kiihner II. 515 (Jelf 824. II. 4).
C. Mt. X. 25, dpK€TOV TO} fj,a6r)T7}, Iva yeprjTai &)? 6 BiBuaKoXa
avTov, Koi hoi)\o<i d)<i Kvpio<i auTov ; instead of Kal too SovXoi
{'iva yevqrai) co? o Kvpio<i k.t.X.
d. Piom. iii. 8, tl eVt Kayco ro? dfMapTa)Xo<i Kpivojxai ; koi /jlt],
Ka6oo<; /3Xa<T(lirjfiov/jie9a Kal Ka6co<i (paai Tt,ve<i 'qp.d^ Xe7ei.i', otl
TTotrj&fOfxev to. kciku, I'va k.t.X. Here the apostle should have
made the iroielv KaKu k.t.X. dependent upon Kal fiij, but, led
away by the parenthesis, joins it to Xeyeiv in the oratio recta.
This is not an uncommon case in Greek writers, especially when
a relative clause is introduced. See Herm. Vig. p. 745, Kriiger,
Untersuch. p. 457 sqq., Dissen, Dem. Cor. 177 ; as to Latin, see
Ceier, Cic. Of. I. 50 sq., Grotefend, Ausf. Gr. p. 462 sq.^
(3) Two successive interrogative sentences, predicated of the
' [Similar examples are noticed by Jelf (898. 4), but are difi'erently ex[ilained.
Kiihner 's remarks (II. 1085 : ed. 2) substantially agree with tliose iji tlie text.]
784 CONDENSATION AND RESOLUTION OF SENTENCES. [PAET III.
same subject, are fused into one: A. xi. 17, iycb Be rt? ij/xTjv
Swaro^ K(o\uaai rov Oeov ; hut who was I ? loas I powerful
enough to hinder ? Compare Cic. Nat. Z>. 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,
Ti<? Tt dprj ; ^ For other examples of interrogative sentences inter-
woven by attraction, see Kuhner II. 588 sq. [II. 1021 sq.,ed. 2 ;
Jelf 883.] Interrogative and relative sentences are blended in
L. xvi. 2, tI rovTo aKovco irepl crov ; quid est quod de te audio ?- See
Borneniann in loc. (Jelf I.e.). A. xiv. 15, rt ravra iroLelje ; is
similar.
L. i. 73 also I regard as a case of attraction : fxvr^aOyjvat 8ia9rJKr]<i
flyia? avTov, opKov (for opKov) ov w/jiocre k.t.X. Others (e.g., Kiihnol)
consider that we have here a twofold construction of fjLvrjcrdrjvat, which
is found with an accusative in the LXX (Gen. ix. 16, Ex. xx. 8).2
2 P. il 12, €v oU dyuoova-L j3\a(T<f>r]fjbovvT€<;, is probably to be resolved
into iv TovTOLs, a ayvoovcTL, /3\acr(pr]ixovi'Te^. A similar construction,
/3Xa<r<f>rjfjLetv €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<; ^IraXia<i (i.e., ol iv rfj ^IraXla dvo t^9 'IraXuis:) ; but the
^ St-e Herm. Soph. Ajax 1164, Eurip. Ion 807 ; Lobeck, Soph. Ajaji 454 h>i. ;
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^ dfiapTla<i
virrjKoviraTe e'/c Kaphias? I., xxiv. 1 8, av fi6vq<; irapoiKet^
' lepovcraky]ui koX ouk eyvco'i ; for which, in a language which
wields the participial construction with such facility, we might
have had, with greater con'ectness,<ri) p.6vo<i TrczpoiK&v' lepova-akrjp,
ovK eyvco'; ; See also Mt. xi. 25, and probably 1 C. iv. 4. See
Fritzsche, Matt. p. 287, 413, Gesenius on Is. v. 4, and compare
what IS said by Buttmann (§136. 1) on sentences which are
connected with each other by fjiev and Se, and by Kiihner (11.
415 sq., Jelf 751 sq.) on the subject of parataxis generally. In
some of these passages, however, this structure may have been
adopted for the purpose of fully securing to the first sentence
the attention it requires. This purpose shows itself still more
clearly in Ja iii. 19, avirj iarlv r) Kpicn<i, ori 70 <f}(o<i iXrfKvOev
els Tov Koafxov Kol 7)y dnrr^aav at dv6p(07roi, pdWov ro <TKoro<i
^ See Fischer, Plat. Phced. p. 318 sq. , Sch.^fer, Demosth. IV. 119 , HerTnann,
Soph. Electr. 135, and M%c\\, Agam. 516 ; Ast, Theophr. Char. p. 61 ; Poppo,
Thur. I. i. 176 sq., III. li. 889 : Weber, Demosth. p. 191, 446.
^ By others — as at last by Fritzsche also —the stress is laid on the preterite
riTt, "that ye were" (that this state is iiov/ past); and the position in which ««
stands may be claimed as an argument on t'lLs side. So understood, however,
Paul's language is somewhat artificial ; for, atrictly, n-^t does no more than
point to their condition as existing formerly^ — does not contemplate it from the
standpoint of present time as now at an end ("ye were servants, "—not "ye have
been etc."). [Meyer agrees with Fritzsche. — In his note on Mt. xi. 25 Fritzsche
had favoured the explanation of Kom. vi. 17 which is given in the text.]
50
786 ABNORMAL RELATION OF PARTTCULA.R WORDS [PAHT III.
^.T-.X.,— see Baumg.-Crusius, and especially Liicke in he:
compare also vi. 50. So also in Jo. vii. 4, ovSeiV rt iv Kpvirrro
iroiet Kol ^Tjrei avro^ iv frapfx^cria ehai, John prefers to express
the two inconsistent actions by these parallel sentences {no one
does the two things together) instead of writing, ovheU . . . irout
^r]ro)v avr6<i K.rX. On Mt xviii. 21 see above, § 45. Eem. 2
[p. 446]. In 1 P. iv. 6, however, the two sentences depending
upon. Lva must be regarded as co-ordinate, only the meaning of
/cpcvecrOai in this connexion must be rightly understood.
Parallel to this idiom, but more restricted in its character would be
the figure of speecli known as ev Sia. Bvo7.v {hendtadys). This figure
consists in the use of two substantives in the place of a single sub-
stantive with an adjective or genitive (of quality) — the quality of the
object being, for tlie sake of emphasis, raised to equal grammatical
independence with the object itself: e. g., "pateris libamus et auro,"
i. e J patens anreis. This is essentially an instance of apposition, —
pateris et quidtim avro, paf&ris h. e. auro.^ Commentators have dis-
covered this fip;ure in the N. T. :2 many of them indeed (as Heinrichs)
have applied it without any limit and in the most foolish way, — e.g.,
in Mt. iii. 11, A. xiv. 13, Ja L 14. iii. 5, H. vi. 10. (Wilke, Rhel. p.
149.) But even, of the examples which have been more carefully
.sifted there is not one which is undoubted. Either the nouns com-
bined express two notions which are really distinct (2 Tim. iv, 1,
2 P, i. 16) J or the second substantive is added epexegetically (and
therefore by way of supplement), -is in (Rom. i. 5) A. i. 25, xxiii, 6,
E. vi. 18,3 — compare also 2 C- viii. 1 (kuL meaning ajid indeed, namely,
p. 545 sq,). Examples of the latter class, though in genus allied to
hendiadys, are yet specifically different. To find a hendiadys in the
verb, as ron)mentators have done (e. g in Ph. iv. 18), is altogether
absurd.
SKCTfON LXVII.
ABNORMAL RELATION OF PARTTGULAR WORDS IN THE SENTENCE
rHYPALLAGE).
1. A departure from rule may occasionally be observed in
regard to the relation sustained by particular words of a sen-
1 Sw Fritzsche, Mall, exc, 4 : Teipel in the Archiv f. d. Stud. d. neuern
Sf/rachen >Vol 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<rt', that the
expression, though not a strict and grammatical, is yet a virtual, or what might
he termed a contexlual U hi. luon ; see especially Fritz. MattL p. 857," Eili
cott in lee] r J r
SECT. UCVU.] IN THE SENTENCE. 787
teTice. Sometimes this irregularity arises from the cojistrvdio
ad sensum, so familiar to the Greeks : here no one who atten-
tively follows the connexion can find the explanation either
difficult or doubtful In other cases the cause is inadvertence
on the part of the writer : full of the thoughts with which lie
is occupied, he loses si{?ht of correctness, of expression.
We notice the following cases • —
a. TYiP coTistructio ad senium (7rpo<i to cruxaivofji^vov or Kara
avveiTiv). Of this construction with predicate and attributive
examples have been given in § 58 ; with pronouns, in § 21.
(Compare also Rev. iii. 4.)
b. The subject is suppressed, and must be iwliredbj supplied
from the previous context. 1 C. vii. .30, 7a/ietT&)o-ai/, viz., the
two young persons who have become acquainted with each
other; this is suggested by the mention of the marriageable
daughter in the preceding part of the verse. G. i. 23. fiovov
aKOvonre^ tfcrav. from rait? iKK\r)aiais, ver. 22, must be gathered
the notion of members of the churches, (Compare Caes. B. G. 4.
14.) 1 Tim. ii. 15 would be a similar example, if with iav
fxeivoyaiv ev Triarei the word rcKva were supplied from the
preceding rcKvoyovia^. In point of grammar this explanation is
admissible, — compare Plat Legr^. 10. 886 d, v/here yevofieuoi
stands in relation to Oeoyoviav, just as if the expression used had
been Ocotv yeveai.<i:^ but see above, § 58. 4. In 1 Tim. v. 4 the
subject of fiavdavhaxrav is probably x^P^''> 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<y€i avroW ^Ihe dya>
vfiiv avrov e^a> i^rjXOev ovv o *Ir](rov<i e^co . . . , Kal \eyet
avTols, viz. Pilate (compare xix. 38); L. xix. 4, irpoSpafjiODv ....
ave/Sr) itri avKOfiopeav {ZaKxaws), (va cBrj avrov (^Irjaovv), on
ixeiv-qs rfixeXXc (lr}(Tovs) Siepxf<TOac. Compare L. xiv. 5, xv. 15,
xvil 2, Mk. ix. 20, A. vi. 6, x. 4, Rom. x 14 sq., Judith v 8.
On 1 Jo. v. 16 see § 58. 9. This transition from one subject to
another is not uncommon In Greek prose. See Her. 6. 30, o Se
' See Zell. Aristot. Ethic, p. 209 ; Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 29, 160 ; Kuster
(Reisig), Xen. (Econ. p. 247 sq.
* [See EUicott and Alford on this passage,]
788 ABNORMAL RELATION OF PARTICULAR WORDS [PART III.
{Histiceus) ovr av eirade kukov ovhiv, ^OKeeiv ifMoi,a'n-^Ke (Darius)
r av auru> 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\66vro<i aTreirXevcrev {Lysander) eh rrjv SrrdprTjp
K.r.X. ; Ages. 40, rrjv /Saa-tXelav 'ApxlBajjio<i . . . TrapeXa^e, kuI
(scil. avrr}) Bie/xeive r(o yivef Artax. 15, rov Kpord(f>ov 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 avr6<i see § 22. 3. Thus in G, ii. 2 avroU
refers to 'lepoaoXvfMa in ver. 1, the inhahitants of the city being
meant: A, xvii, 16^ is similar. In 2 P, iii. 4 avrov must be
understood of Christ, who, though not expressly named, is in-
dicated in the word irapova-la fn Jo. xv. 6 avrd stands in re-
lation to the singular to KXrjfia, which belongs as an apposition
to €t Tt9. In a different manner we lind avTovc ui A iv. 7 used
in reference, not to avrwv (ver, 5), but to verses 1 and 2. In
A. X. 7 avrw points, not to Simon (ver. 6), but to Cornelius
(ver. 1—5); this is expressly indicated in some MSS,, which read
TO) KopvrjXup — an obvious gloss. In A. vii, 24 we have Trard^a^
rov Alyvirnov, though nothing has been previously said about
any Egyptian; only in dBiKovfievov the dBiKcov is implied, and
that he was an Egyptian is assumed to be known from the con-
nexion of the narrative. Lastly, in 2 Jo. 7 ovTo<i points back to
TToXXol rrXdvoL, and comprehends the many in the unity of this
person. Conversely, in 1 Jo. iv. 4 avroix; has reference to dyri-
XP^o^Tov, ver. 3. Of a simpler kind is the reference of avrov
m Jo. XX. 7, avrov in Jo. xx. 15; as also that of eKetvoi to the
nearest subject in Jo. vii. 45 (see p, 196). There is also incor-
rectness when a single form of a pronoun (especially a relative
pronoun), must, as regards construction, serve for two cases ;
' Compare Poppo, Observ. in Thucyd. p. 189 ; Schaef. Demosth. IV. 214,
Plutarch IV. 281, 331, V. 86, 295; Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 215; Miitzner, Antiph.
p. 145 ; Sdioem. Isaus p. 294.
- [There seems to be some mistaKe in this reference. — See further § 22. 3.1
SECT. LXVTI.] IN THE SENTENCE. 789
as in 1 C. ii. 9, a ocpdakficx; ovk elbei/ Kai ov<^ ovk ffKovcrev Kal eiri
Kaphiav dv6pco7rov ovk dve^r] (from the LXXj. This belongs, in
essence, to the subject treated in § 64. 1 Similar examples are
of frequent occurrence, both in Greek and also in Latin (Kritz,
Sail. I. 67, IL 295 sq.).
e. The first of two parallel members is sometimes expressed so
generally as to seem to include the second, in cases where from the
nature of the case this is impossible. A, xxvii. 22, dirofioXr) ifrvxrjs
ovSc/At'a lo-Ttti €$ ifjiOiv ttXyjv tov irXoiov, literally means, there will be no
loss of life, except of the ship; whereas the meaning intended is, there
mil be no loss of life, only of the ship will there be loss. G. i. 19, erepov
Tbiv d7ro<rToA(jv ovk eiSov, €i jxij 'IukcojSov tov aBtX<f)6v tov Kvpiov would
be similar to this, if we were (with Fritzsche, Matt. p. 482) to render
the words, alium apostoluni non vidi, sed vidi Jacobum etc., — dhov
alone beingrepeated beforc'JaKw^Sov; but see m.y Comment.^ ax\dL Meyer
in loc." We have an approach to such a use of el fxrj in Rev. xxi. 27,
ov fxyj fl'ilX.Orj . . , TTav kolvov kul 6 ttolwv jSSiXvyfia . , . ci /xr] ol
yeypa/x/x.eVot eV tuI (Sl/SXlw rq'; ^ojf/s, where the yeypa/x/xeVot are not to be
included under irap kolvov the meaning is. Nothing profane shall enter,
only those who are inscribed . shall enter. See also Rev. ix. 4
Compare 1 K. iii. 18, ovk eariv ov6€l<; fxeO' rji.iCjv irapl^ afifjiOTepuyv rjfjiwv
iv TU) OIKW
2 The inadvertence of the writer has disturbed the very
structure of the sentence in L,xxiv. 27: dp^dfjueuo'; drro Mcoa-eco'i
Koi aTTO irdvTcov ru>v 7rpo(fyrjro)U Bir)pp.7]V€V€v avToi<i iv Tracraiv
Tat? <ypa(paU rd irepl aiirov. Here we can hardly assume that
with Moses and the prophets are contrasted any other books of
the 0. T , which Jesus went on to explain ; nor can we suppose,
with Kiihnol, that Jesus first quoted the sayings of the prophets,
and then proceeded in the second place to interpret them (see
Van 'iiengel, Annot. p. 104). The meaning intended by Luke
is probably this : Jesus, beginning fro7n (with) Moses, went through
all the. prophets (see also Baumg.-Crusius in lac): instead of
expressing himself thus, having the utto in his mind when he
appended the iravre^ irpocpTjTai, he wrote these words in the
genitive case. The expedient on wliich Meyer has lighted^ is
1 [Winer I. c. hesitates between Fritzsclie's view and the identification of
James the Lord's brother with James son of Alphseus. Meyer, Ellicott, Light-
foot, al., consider that James is here called an apostle. — See p. 566.]
* In H. xii. 25, il ixiivoi oIk l%i(puyov . . . ToXh [i.a.'KXov hfiiii x.t.X., those
(Ktihnbl and others) who render -^oXv fiaXXav multo minus repeat for the apodosis
no more than ix(pivlifit6a. The formula retains, however, its usual meaning
multo magls, and the entire negative notion ei* Ixtptu'^ofiiia must be repeated
with it. Compare Csesar, B. G. 1. 47.
3 [That (as Alford says) he began with Moses first ;— that he began with each
of the prophets as he came to them. See Ellicott, Hist L. p. 395 sq. ]
790 ABNORMAL PELAIJON OF PARTICULAR WORDS [PART HI.
but a sorry one. By the side of this passage we may place
A. iii. 24, irdvre<; oi Trpo^rjrac airo Xa^iovrfK koI rdv KaOe^rjs
oaoi iXaX'qaav kuX KaT^yyetXav k.t.X. Luke might have written
either, All prophets, Samuel (as the first) and those who followed
(in order) all etc., or. All prophets from, Samuel onwards, as many
of them as etc. As the words stand there is an nnnrristakeable
tautology. Nor will the punctuation which Casaubon suggested,
and which has been adopted by a host of commentators (Valcke-
naer included), T&ii' KaOe^r]<y oaoi e\d\r]crav, Sii^ord any substantial
help. "We still have all prophets from Samuel onwards, and then,
as if not included in the first clause, all loho followed Samuel and
prophesied. The expedient which Van Hengel {Annotat. p. 1 03)
has proposed — to supply ew9 'Ibxivvov (Mt. xi. 13) — is arbitrary,
and after all only gives us a thought which is equally unsuitable,
from Samud and tha folio winf) prophets onwards . . . until John;
whereas we expect to find two extremes of this series mentioned.
And even thus Van Hengel merely gains the brachylogy noticed
above [p. 775] as used by Luke : apyjeadai diro . . cw? , . .
3. Earlier commentators went farther still in the discovery
of such inaccuracies, resulting from negligence on the part of
the writer.
a. A mistake in the connexion of attributive and noun, in-
fluencing the grammatical forni of the attributive, was supposed
to have been detected — not only in A. v. 20, rd pijfiara Trj<i f<u^9
ravTi}^: (for Toura), Rom. vii: 24, on which see p. 297 sq.; but
also* — in E. ii. 2, Kara rov dfy)(uvTa 'T^? i^ova'la<; tov dipo^,
Tov Trvevfj.aro'i k.t.\. (for to TTifti'/ta), E. iii. 2, 2 C. iii. 7, L
viii.32,xxii. 20 ; and this species of" hypallage"' was supported
by examples drawn from ancient authors. In a sentence of some
length, comprising relations of various kinds, such a mistake
might be possible, especially in the case of the less practised
writers : in poetry, indeed, there may be passages which cannot
be explained in any natural manner without such an assump-
tion.' Tn prose, however, such examples are probably rare in
' Bengel on L. xxii. 20 ; Bauer, Philol. Tkmyd.-Paul p. 263.
* Compai-e Glass. Philol. Sacr I. (5.52 sqq. ; Jam", Ars Poet. Lai. p. 258 sqq.
On the other side see Elster, de Hypallage (Helinst. 1845)
3 Compare Lobeck, Soph. Ajax p. 7-3 sq. ; Hermann, Vig. p. 891, Soph.
f'hUoct. p. 202, and Eur. Hel. p. 7 • Kriiger. Orammat. Untersuch. Ill, 37 sq.
(Jelf 440, Don. p. 387).
SECT. LXVII.] IN THE SENTENCE. 79]
the extreme;^ and in the N. T. there is not one clear instance
of the kind,'^ L. viii. 32 is explained at once. On E. iii. 2 see
rny Progr. de Hypallage et Hendiadyi in N. T. lihris (Erlang.
1 824) p. 15, and Harless in loc. In E. ii, 2, where the apostle
might most easily have been led aside from the correct construc-
tion, TTvevfut, is the spirit which rules in and influences the men
of the world, of which spirit Satan is regarded as the lord and
master. See Meyer's note: Heinichen {Evseh. II. 99) holds
fast to hypallage. In 2 C. iii. 7, el rj'BiaKovia rov davdrov iv
ypafifMaaiv ivreTUTrco/xevT) iv \Woi^\. Paul might have more
simply said, in contrast with hiakovla rov irvevfiaro'i, tj SiaKovia
rod ypafi/xaro^ ivrermroifxkvov ev XiOoa. Still the existing con-
nexion of thewords is not incorrect. Moses' nunistration of death
was itself iv \l6oL<i ivreTvircofievrj , in so far as it consisted in
bringing to the people, and exercising amongst them, this legis-
lation which threatened and brought death. The letter of the
law contained the ministry which Moses had to fulfil. V/ith
this passage may grammatically be compared Tac. Annul. 14.
16 : quod species ipsa carrainura docet, non impetu et instinctis
nee ore uno flufns. In H. ix. 1 i-mK^ifx^va is certainly not to
be construed with SiKOLcofiaat, as standing for iTriKecfievoi^ ;
BiKaioouacri is in apposition to in i/BpwfjbacrivK.r. X,a.r\d i7nKei/j,€va
is parallelto/z?7 Sumaei/at.theneuter gender being chosen because
both otopa and Ovalai are included. With the other reading
BiKauofxara, which is well attested, iniKeifj-eva may be referred
to this appositional word without any irregularity whatever, A
more plausible example is L, xxii. 20, where to vvep vfxwv iK^o—
vofievov might be construed with iv ra> 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<i B6^tj<;, is sufficiently
proved by one single consideration— that the exactness of arrange-
ment at which the apostle manifestly aimed (•jrapavTiica . . .
alooviov, eka^pov . . . ^dpo<;, dXlyjnf , , o 86^a) would be destroyed
by such' a change. On 1 C. iv. 3 see Meyer, against Billroth
and Riickert. A. xi. 5, elSou Kara/Salvov a/e€v6<; ri, &>? odovrjv
fM€<yd\7]v, riaanpa-iv ap^at9 Kadtepbevrjv, is not (through com-
parison with X. 11, KaOiefxevov) to be regarded as an instance
of hypallage : the attributives might 'be joined to aKevo<; as
correctly as to odovrj. It is hard to come to a decision upon
2 C. xii. 21,fj,r} . . . Trevdijao) 7roA,X,ou9 T(ov TrporjfiapTrjKOToov KOi
firj fieravoTjadvTwv k.t.X. The question arises, why not all un-
repentant sinners ? Can Paul have intended to write tou? /x^
fieravoT^cravTaf; ? As however in ver. 2 1 he mentions a category
of sins different from that in ver. 20, we may assume, with Meyer,
that the TrporjfxaprrjfcoTe'i are more exactly defined by means of
fir] fj.eTavor](TdvT(ov, as persons who have remained impenitent
only in regard to those sins of sensuality which are specified in
the words which immediately follow.^
b. Akin to hypallage is antiptosis, — a figure which is dis-
covered by some (Kiihnol amongst others) in H. ix. 2, irpoOeat^
dpTcov, these words being taken as standing for dproi nrpodk-
a-em.^ In some such way have been explained Plotin. Enn.
2. 1. p. 97 g, Trpo^ TO fSovX-Tjfia rov diroreKeafxaTo^ virdp-^eiv
irpo^i)K€t' Thuc. 1. 6, ol Trpea^vrepoi to)v evhaifiovtov (see the
scholiast), — as standing for Trpo? to rov iSovKruxaro^ dirore-
\e<rfia, ol €vBai/j,ov€<; rcbv nrpeaQvrepcov. In this passage of -the
N. T., however, we must keep to the simple rendering, the
setting forth of the loaves (the sacred custom of setting forth
'_ Vom Abendmakl, p. 155 sq. [See Green p. 236.]
- [Meyer joins tlie clause It/ k.t.x. with ■ruer.<r,,, not with ^£r«v.^^«vT«v.—
i^c V\ ette and others suppose that -^i.h:, here includes the idea of inflictinn
jmm^hvi^Mt, and by this means explain the use oi ^cXXcC,. See Waite's note
on this verse. Speak. Comm. III. 474]
ni' 0" .'^^^'s^n^f vellous fi-urc see Hermann, Vig. p. 890, Soph. Eledr. p. 8 ;
Bloiniield, .'Esch. Agam. 148, 13C0 ; Wytteub. Vlai. P heed. p. 232.
SECT. LXVIII.] PARONOMASIA. 793
the loaves).^ Valckenaer would even take 77 rpdire^a kol t)
irpodea-L'; rwv dprcov as standing for ?; Tpdrre^a toov dprwv rt]<i
irpodecreco'i. Lastly, some (including Bengel) have taken Kom.
ix. 31, Slookcdv vofxov 8LKaLoauvr)<i, as standing for Skokcov
SiKaioavvr]v vo^iov : this is preposterous, see Fritzsche in loc.
On other absurdities of this kind compare Fritzsche's instruc-
tive excursus, Mark, p. 759 sqq.
Section LXVIII.
REGARD TO SOUND IN THE STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES : PARONO-
MASIA AND PLAY UPON WORDS (ANNOMINATIO) : PARALLELISM
VERSE.
1. The euphony which we usually find in the language of
the N. T. (examples of the contrary presenting themselves but
rarely, e.g., in 1 C. xii. 2 ^) is not in general the result of any
deliberate aim on the part of the writers : it is only in the
instance of paronomasia and play upon words that we can
ascribe much to design.
Paronomasia^ — which consists in the combination of like-
sounding words, and which is a favourite figure with oriental
writers* — is especially common in Paul's Epistles. In some
instances the combination seerns to have naturally presented
itself; in others, to have been sought by the writer for the
purpose of giving a cheerful liveliness to his language, or greater
emphasis to the thought. L. xxi. 11, kuI Xi/jloI koL Xoifiol
eaovrai.^ Hesiod, Opp. 226, Plutarch, Coriol. c. 13, — see
Valcken. in loc. ; A. xvii. 25, ftu^v zeal Trz/or;!/" (compare Varro,
B. R. 3. 2. 13, utrum propter oves, an propter aves) ; H. v. 8^
'ifiaOev d(f> 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<rvveTov<;, aavveerov<; (Wetst. in locX Elsewhere
we find words of similar derivation brought together: 1 C.ii.
13. (V hi8aKTOi<; 7rvev^aTo<i, Trvev/jLaTiKoi^irvevfiaTLKa crirfKpivov-
T6<f 2 C. viii. 22, eV ttoWoU iroXkaKcs mrovSaiop- ix. 8, iv iravrt
'rrdvTore,7ra<Tav avrdpKeiav A. xxiv. 3, 2 C. x. 12, avrol iv
eavToU eavTou<; p,eTpovvT€<;- Rom. viii. 23, avTol ev eavroi^
arevd^ofiev Ph. i. 4. Xen. Mem. ?>. 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»f<T, Soph. Elcctr. 742; Lobeck, Soph. Aj. p. 471, Paralip. p. 8,
56 .sqq. ; Koertsch, De locis Lynice p. 44. See also Doderlein, Progr. de hrachy-
Lji/ia p. 8 sq. In particular, ¥j. A. DiUcr has collected many such example.s of
paroiKifnasia in his Profjr, de consensu notionum qualis est in vocihiis fjusdem
oiiyinis diversitalu formarum copulatis (Misen 1842).
' Compare " Die Bistkiimer sind verwandelt in WiisttJiiimer, die Abteifn sind
wun -RauHeien" (Schiller, in Wallensteins Lager); " Yf^rbeaservngen nicht
Vrrhoneruntjm." In the A<jmda ot Duke Heinrich of Sa.xony (1539),' it is said
in the. preface respecting the Popish priest : " Sein Sorge ist nicht Seelsorge
sonderii Methorge." [" He carts for the menl, not the weal, of his people,"—
" for their yof>ils, 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^<i v7raKo-^<; tov ej/6? biKaLoi KaTatrradrjaovTaf i. 20, ra
aopara avrov .... Kadopcnaf Ph. iii. 2 sq., /^XeVeTf
Tt^v KaTaTOfirjV, rj/xeh "ynp ic/xev i) TrepiTofir'} (Diog, L. 6,
24, rr^v Ei/xXeiSov <t^o\))v eXeye 'x^oXtjv, rrjv Be HXaTcovof;
Siarpc^rfv fcararpi/Srjv) ; Ph. iii. 12, 2 C. iv. 8, airopov-
/levoc, aXX' ovk e^airopovfievoL' 2 Th. iii. 11, p,r}8ev ep-
f/a^o/x^pov;, aXXa irepiepya^ofievov'; (coinpare Seidler,
Euiip. Troad. p." 1 1) ; 2 C v. 4, cc/)' 6$ ov deXofiev eKhvaacrdat,
rt\X' errev^va'aadai A. viii. 30, apa ye ycpoiaKei^, a ava-
yivwa-Kei'i ; Jo. ii. 23 sq.,, rroXXot iiriarevaav eh to 6i>o/^a
auTov . . . avTO<; Be Irjaov<i ovk e'trta-revev kavrov avTol<;' Rom.
i. 28, iii. 3, xi. 1 7/ xii. 3, xvi. 2, E. i 23, iii. 14 sq., 19, G. iv.
17, 1:C. in. 17 vi 2,xi. 21^,31, xiv. 10, 2 C. iii. 2, v. 21, x. 3,
1 Tun. i. 8 sq., 2 Tim. iii. 4, iv 7, 3 Jo. 7 sq., Rev. xxii. 18 sq.
In Phil. 20 the aihision made by ovaifirjv to the name of the
slave "'Ovrjo-if.io^ is of a more covert kind.^ The remark made
above in regard to the employment of unusual words is also
applicable here, and is perhaps exemplified in G. v. 12 ; compare
my Commeni. in loc, and also Terent. Hec^r. prol. 1, 2, orator
ad vos venio ornatu prologi, sinite cxorator sim.
As may readily be supposed, the works of Greek authors (especially
the orators) are not wanting in similar examples of paronomasia and
' [Quoted above, in no I. Liinemann adds Mt. vi. 16. J
* For a play on words in which the allusion is to sifjnitication only, see Phil.
11, 'OvflW/taf Ta» -ronri eroi a^friii ro*, yvvl 'ht a»i kxi I//.0I iii^frfe-Tov. Still nsore
latent would be the play upon words m 1 C. i. 23, Knfv<^aof/.tv Xfurro* £lr<)•«t^
fa>ft'tY»v, 'louiotiats j«iv ffKeii^aXai, 'i6vi(ri it fiitipiat, auTo7( Vi <ro7i x.Xn'roTi . . ,
et^iu.*. it' Paul here had in his mind the words ^35^ (Chaldee), crux, and
f'it^'Sbi <r»a»2ia^«'';*^i'3D. stultus, and ^"2^, sapkntia (Glass, Philol. I. 1839).
1 am jiot, however, acquainted with the word ^SK'D "^ Chaldee, and it is only
in jt;thiopic that we find PptMD, cross. The whole assertion is a piece of learned
trifling. — Equally improbable is Jerome's conjecture in regard to G. i. 6, that in
the word f^iroirihirh the apostle alludes to the oriental etymology of the name
TaXdrat (from TVi or j?i) . see my note in loc., and Bottcher /. c, p. 74 sq. In
the discourses of Jesus, delivered in the Syro-Chaldaic language, a play on words
may in many instances have been lost through translation into Greek *, compare
GHss I. c, p. 1339. The attempts which modern scholars have made to restore
some of these — e.g., in Mt. viii 21 (Eichhom, Einl, ins N, T. I. 504 sq.), and
in Jo. xiii. 1 {fiirf.fiv, npQ DDD)"""^"*'' '^'^ pronounced v«ry unfortunate.
796 REGARD TO SOUND IN THE STRUCTURE [PART III,
play upon words. Examples have been collected by Tesmar, in
Institut Rhetor, p. 156 sqq. ; Eisner, m Diss. IL Paulus d Jesatas
inter se comparati (Vratisl. 1821), p. 24; Bremi, ad. Isocr. exc. 6;
^Yeber, Demosth. p. 205. Compare (in addition) the ^following
Demosth. Aristocr. 457 b. dv6pwirov<; ov8k iXevOepovi dAA' 6\i0pov<;
Plat. Ph(r;d. 83 d, ojaorpoTros Tc Kal bp.6Tpo^o%- ^sch. Ctesipk § 78,
OV TOV TpOTTOV O-Xko. TOV TOTTOV fXOVOV /X£T7jAA.a^eV- Strabo 9 402,
<f>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/ <t>povrj/xaTi fx6vov, aXXa Kal Kara
<i>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 6pov<i yoyyv<rfiS)i'
ovK dTTOKpvTTTeTaL- xW. 5, 6iXti<i fXT] dpjd (IvaL TO. Trj<; (TO(f>La'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 (lBio<i avrcov 7rpo4>7jTT]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<i dpOpcoTTocai (Be^id a-ripxiivet) \ a spondee occupying
the 5th place, as is often the case — especially in Aratus (10, 12,
32, 33).
c. In 1 C. XV. 33, an iambic trimeter acatalectic (senarius) :
(f)d€ipou(nv TjOrj '^rjcrff' \ o/it
Xtai
*j —
KaKai
spondees occupying the uneven places 1 and 3, as is frequently
' Loeffler, De versihus qui in solufa y. T. oratione hnhentur (Leipsio, 1718) ;
Kosegarten, De poetarum effatis Grvec. in N. 7' , - also included in his Dinser-
fatt. Acad. fed. Mohnike), p. 135 sqij. [See also thft Introduction to Neale's
Hymns of the Eastern Chitrch.]
* Compare Cic. Orat. 56. 189 (mis-quoted by V»''eber, Demosth. p, 208) ;
Quintil. Instit. 9. 4. .52, 72 sqq. ; Fabric. BiUloth. Latin, (ed. Ernesti) II. 389 ;
Nolten, Aniibarb. s. v. "versus ; " Jacob, Luc. Alex, p, .52 sq. ; Disseii, Demosth.
Cor p. 315 ; Franke, Demosth. p. 6 ; also the Clatmical Journal, no. 45, p. 40
sqq. The treatise by Loeffler (Moeller), De ver.su inoiiinato in prosa (Leipsic,
1668), I have not seen. The censure passed on verses which appear in the
irddst of prose is qualified and corrected by Hermann, in his Opusc. I. 121 sqq.
' J. Hoffmann, De Paulo apostoln scrlpturas pro/anas ter allegante (Tubing.
1770).
798
REGARD TO SOUND IN THE STRUCTURE [PART III.
the case^ (Don. p. 623). This quotation is from the weil known
comic poet Meuander,— according to H. Stephanus, from his
Thais:' The best MSS. of the N. T., however, read XPV<^'^^.
without elision;
5. The second of the above-mentioned classes* will compre-
hend
a. The hexameter verse in Ja. i. 17,— which was recognised
by eurlv commentators :
Tracra Bo\(n<; ayaOrj Kai
irav d(o
— ^ w
prifia T€
Xeiov
the lengthening of trt? in the second foot being quite admissible,
in the arsis. See the commentators in loc. Schulthess endea-
voured to arrange the rest of the passage in a metrical form, as
two verses ; but the rhythm would be harsh, and the fact that
Jamps makes use of poetical words does not justify us in
inferring the existence of actual verses, and putting these
together by means of violent alterations and transpositions.
b. On the other hand, we have the true rhjrthm of a hexa-
meter in H. xii. 13, in the words
Kat Tpovia<i 6p\6a<i TroLlrjaare \ rot? troaiv \ vficov.
0. In A. xxiii. 5, also, the words quoted from the LXX may
be scanned as an iambic trimeter acatalectie.
ap^ov
ja rov
Xaov
ep€c<;
KaKa><i ;
(TOV OVK
though certainly the three spondees which occur in the 1st, 3rd,
and 4th places would render the verse unpleasing to a Grecian
ear. — Lastly, in Jo. iv. 35 the words reTpafirji/of . . . ep'^^erai
will have the rhythm of a trimeter acatalectie, if we read
" Hermann, Doetr. Mttr. p. 74 (On p, 139, ''in imparl sede " is surely n
miaprint for " in pari sede.")
' See Mcnatidri Fragm. p. 75 (ed. Meineke), and Fragm. Comic. Gr. IV. 132
(ed. Meineke).
• The search after such verses is so much the more a matter of idle curiosity,
as the rhythm of prose is diflerent from that of poetry, and in some instances
will not allow these sentences to stand out as verses: Hermann I.e. p. 124,
Thinrsoh in the Munchner gel. Anzeigen, 1849, vol. 28, no. 1 18. We have selected
snrh lines only a.s in them.selves express a complete thought. For examples of
half— or at all events incomplete — sentences which contain a rhythm, see the
Classical Journal I. c, p. 46 sq. On 2 P. ii. 22, also, iambic verses have been
forced, by a combination of the two proverbs : see Bengel in loc.
SECT. LXVllI.]
OF SENTENCES.
799
Terpafiijvo^ ecni ^w Scpia fio<; ep'^erai
Here there is an anapaest in the first place (Herm. Doctr. Metr.
p. J 19 sq., Don. p. 623) : on ^w^ for koI 6 see Buttm. 1. 122,
^ [Surely this should be x*^ '■ s^« Buttm. I. c, Don. p. 67, Jelf 13. J
INDEX.
I.— PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT EXPLAINED
OPt ILLUSTRATED.
^Matthew.
Vi. 7, .
. 484
1 xi. 5,
. 326
i. 2-lG, . . .141
vi. 9, .
. 668
xi. 8,
. 739
i. 11 sq., . . 234
vi. 12, .
. 561
xi. 11,
. 305
i. 17, . . . 137
vi. 19, .
. 149
xi. 25,
. 785
i. IS,
2G0, 570, 7G9
vi. 25, .
. 195
xii. 4,
. 566
i. 20,
488, 500
vi. 32, .
560
xii. 7,
. 381
i. 21,
. 187
vi. 34, ,
. 257, 649
xii. 9,
. 183
i. 22,
. 57G
vii. 4, .
356
xii. 13,
G63, 779
ii. 2,
. 558
vii. 6, .
630
xii. 14,
. 360
ii. 3,
. 1.37
vii. 8, .
. 333
xii. 15,
. 183
ii. 4,
88, 333
vii. 9, .
. 211, u43
?cii. 21,
. 261
ii. 6,
. 141
vii. 12, .
. 423, 570
xii. 23,
. 642
ii. 1.3,
. 334
vii. 14, .
208, 562
xii. 24,
. 157
ii. 20,
. 219
vii. 1(), .
349, 465
xii. 26,
. 217
ii. 22,
. 257
vii. 21, .
. 214
xii. 30,
606
iii. 5,
. 546
vii. 24, .
. 349, 718
xii. 32,
. 626, 744
iii. 7,
. 509
vii. 29, .
. 771
xii. 36,
. 718
iii. 10,
. 333
viii. 1, .
. 275
xii. 41,
472, 495
iii. 11,
. 333
viii. 4, .
182, 183
xii. 42,
. 150
iii. 12,
. 185
viii. 8, .
. 423
xii. 50,
. 139, 187
iii. 14,
. 336
viii. 11,
. 220
xiii. 3,
. 132
iii. h),
. 183, 189
viii. 19,
. 145
xiii. 14,
265, 445, 58i
iii. 17,
347, 733
viii. 21,
. 721
xiii. 15,
. 63i)
iv. 1,
. 132
viii. 28,
. 276
xiii. 18,
. 231
iv. 3,
. 421
viii. 32,
. 391
xiii. 23,
. 578
iv. 4,
350, 486, 490
viii. 34,
. 137
xiii. 25,
. 413
iv. 15,
234, 289
ix. G, . ■;
'05, 725, 774
xiii. 28,
. 356
iv. 1(),
. 309
ix. 8, .
. 219
xiii. 30,
. 282
iv. 28,
181, 233
ix. 13, .
. 621
xiii. 34,
. 3;k)
V. 3,
. 689
ix. 17, .
. 757
xiii. 52,
. 265
v. 9. .
. 769
ix. 34, .
. 486
xiv. 3,
. 515
V. 18, .
. 216, 765
ix. 35, .
181, 233
xiv. 6,
. 276
V. 19, .
. 308
X. 1, .
. 231
xiv. 7,
. 471
V. 20, ,
. 307
x. 5, .
. 234
xiv. 22,
. 372
V. 21, .
. 275
X. 11, .
. 385
xiv. 24,
. 591
V. 22, .
138, 267, 776
X. 16, .
. 515
xiv. 25,
. 468
V. 25, .
371, 6.30
X. 19, .
. 210
xiv. 31,
. 252
V. 28, .
. 255
X. 25, ,
423, 783
xiv. 36,
. 384
V. 34, ,
. 486
X. 26, .
. 375
XV. 4, .
427, 585
V. 35, .
. 495
X. 28, . 1
00, 149, 280
XV. 5, .
158, 636, 750
V. 3S, .
. 747
X. 29, .
. 216
XV. 16, .
. 582
V. 45, .
. 557, 572
X. 32, .
283, 570
XV. 23, .
. 216, 744
V. 4(3, .
332 sq.
X. 33, .
. 386
XV. 32, .
210, 704
vi. 1, .
32, 757
X. 42, .
. 739
xvi. 6, .
. 280
vi. 5,
. 586
xi. 1, .
. 181 1 xvi. 7, .
. 748
Wir
ler Grammar.
51
802
INDEX.
xvi. 11, .
xvi. 1.'), .
xvi. 14, .
xvi. 20, .
xvi. 2(5, .
xvii. 11,
xvii. 12,
x™. 14,
xvii. Itj,
xvii. 18,
xvii. 20,
xvii. 2"),
xvii. 20,
xviii. 1, .
xviii. 'S, .
xviii. 5, .
xviii. 0, .
8,.
19,
21,
O.I
xvui.
<cviii.
icviii.
<viii.
•cviii.
(cviii. 24,
jcviii. 2,1,
xviii. 27,
xix. 2, .
xix. 5, .
xix. 8, .
Xix. 12, .
xix. 13, .
xix. 22, .
XX. 1,
XX. 2, ,
XX. S,
XX. 15, ,
XX. 18, .
XX. 20, .
XX. 2;{, .
xxi. 2, .
xxi. ?,, .
xxi. 5, ,
xxi. 7, .
xxi. 19, 145,
xxi. 20, .
xxi. 2;i, .
xxi. 41, ,
xxi. 42, ,
xxii. 5, ,
xxii. 25,
xxii. 3(),
xxiii. 5, ,
xxiii. 9, ,
xxiii. 15,
xxiii. 2.5,
xxiii. .'iO,
xxiii. .)!,
xxiii. 32,
xxiii. 33,
xxiii. 34,
xxiii. 35,
xxiii. 37,
1G4,
305,
42k
328,
5G6,
179,
468 sq.,
ISO
298.
, 386,
457,
391,
ot;4
654
421
705
332
273
736
102
178
3.-9
463
736
556
589
490
764
4ti5
302
369
446
314
146
607
255
183
539
505
152
359
438
267
461
775
639
263
213
728
194
567
194
219
629
345
276
794
482
191
596
308
567
738
740
251
380
2()5
545
356
748
578
288
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XXV.
XXV.
XXV.
XXV.
XXV.
XXV.
XXV.
XXV.
XXV.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvii,
xxvii.
xxvii,
xxvii
xxvii
xxvii.
xxvii
xxvii
xxvii
xxvii.
xxvii.
xxvii.
xxvii.
xxvii.
— , •
6, .
9, .
12,
22
26,
27,
32,
38,
40,
43,
45,
47,
50,
1, .
6, .
9, .
14,
21,
24,
27,
34,
40,
9
■") *
5,.
9,.
17,
18,
23,
24,
26,
20 SI.,
28,
33,
35,
3S,
44-,
45,
50,
53,
54,
59,
61,
62,
63,
66,
67,
1,
•I'
7,
. 15,
1J>,
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, <i41
. 610
. 506
. 472
. 547
. 273
. 211
. 298
. 569
166, 284, 781 sq.
. 772
. 741
. 524
. 219
. 446
. 328
. 472
. 500
. 407
99, 692
. 187
. 784
. 274
. 195
. 409
. 592
. 471
. 270
. 471
. 283
. 400
222
'. 588
. 389
319, 709
160, 397, 735
. 405
, 429
. 177
. 465
275, 475
. 79
322
. 3.37
. 420
2^16, 465
. 435
. 559
. 494
264, 4G5
808
INDEX.
XVll.
xvii.
xvii.
xvii.
xvii.
xvii.
xvii.
xvii.
xvii.
x\T:i.
xvii.
xvii.
3, .
4, .
10,
11,
14,
IS,
20,
21,
25,
27,
28.
379.
xvii. 29,
xWi. 31,
xviii. 6,
xvjii. 10,
xviii. 15,
xviii. 17,
xviii. 21,
xix. 3, .
xix. 4, .
xix. 14, .
xix. 19,
xix. 22,
xix. 26,
xix. 27,
xix. 29,
xix. 34,
xix. 35,
xix. 38,
XX. 2,
XX. 3,
XX. 4,
XX. 9,
XX. 13,
XX. 14,
XX. 16,
XX. 18,
XX. 24,
XX. 27,
XX. 29,
XX. 34,
XX. 35,
xxi. 2,
xxi. 3,
xxi. 4,
xxi. 8,
xxi. 10,
xxi. 13,
xxi. 16,
xxi. 21,
xxi. 24,
xxi. 25,
xxi. 26,
xxi. 28,
xxi. 31,
xxi. 33,
xxi. 38.
xxii. 1,
465,
725
328
475
374
771
742
212
305
305
793
374 sq., 556
129, 193. 499,
569, 797
. 617
. 486
220, 734
. 742
. 193
. 257
. 517
. 498
. 720
212
'. 740
315, 517 sq.
. 624
229, 245, 548
443
710
741
738
181
710
173
537
. 328
517 sq.
. 367
. 204
233, 401
. 409
. 494
. 722
. 301
. 429
439, 592
. 405
108, 741
. 736
518, 761
253, 268,
386, 737
. 405
. 361
. 159
. 343
548, 723
. 269
. 375
. 641
. 249
294,
468 sq
516,
205,
xxu.
xxii.
xxii.
xxii.
xxii.
xxii.
xxii.
xxii.
xxii.
xxii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiii.
xxiv.
xxiv.
xxiv.
xxiv.
xxiv.
xxiv.
xxiv.
xxiv.
xxiv.
xxiv.
xxiv.
xxiv.
xxiv.
xxiv.
XXV.
XXV.
XXV.
XXV.
XXV.
XXV.
XXV.
XXV.
XXV.
XXV.
XX vi.
xx^•i.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
xxvi.
3, .
5, .
0, .
17,.
IS,.
21,.
22
24,!
25,.
30, .
1, .
5, .
, 0, .
,8, .
,9, .
13,
. 14,
, 15,
,21,
0-7
23i
23 sq..
26,
27,
30,
31,
34,
— , .
3, .
5 sq.,
8, .
10,
11,
12 sq.,
14,
17,
IS,
19,
21,
22
25^
4, .
7, .
10,.
11,.
12,.
15,.
16,.
IS,.
22
27', '.
3, 193, 290,
4, .
8, .
10,
14,
16,
IS,
24,
428, 700
. 592
. 276
400, 722
. 172
. 494
. 352
. 208
. 261
457, 496
. 328
. 798
546, 786
. 618
749, 750
. 320
. 584
. 407
. 241
. 725
212, 393
. 725
. 735
. 168
. 710
. 475
212, 456
. 767
. 52
442, 710
. 254
435, 459
, 204
. 616
. 275
207, 475
176
0x0
54,
4,
. 352
. 203
. 701
. 580
. 518
. 659
. 304
317, 334
. 675
. 161
371 sq.
. 466
353, 734
. 402
499, 716
. 720
. 679
. 548
. 436
178, 329
. 174
436, 570
. 120
. 134
xxvi. 26,
xxvi. 29,
xxvi. 31,
xxvi. 32,
xxvii. 1,
xxvii. 2,
xxvii. 10,
xxvii. 12,
xxvii. 13,
xxvii. 14,
xxvii. 20,
xxvii. 21,
xxvii. 22,
xxvii. 28,
xxvii. 33,
xxvii. 34,
xxvii. 35,
xxvii. 38,
xxvii. 39,
xxvii. 40,
xxvii. 42,
xxviii. 3,
xxviii. 20,
xxviii. 23,
xxviii. 25,
xxviii. 20,
xxviii. 27,
623 sq.
. 379
. 334
. 3S3
. 410
. 280
. 426, 718
. 375, 499
. 3U4, 742
. 183, 477
. 149, 763
. 352
. 789
. 315
. 437
. 467
. 767
. 131
. 367, 697
74, 739, 742
. 423, 630
322, 461, 465
. 2S7
. 150
. 753
. 58
630 sq.
Romans.
i. 1, . . . 155
i. 1 sqq., . . 707
i. 3, . . . 233
i. 4, . 235, 297, 460
i. 5, . . 232, 474
i. 6, . . . 243
i. 7, . . . 294
i. 8, . 473, 720 sq.
i. 9, . . . 503
i. 10, . . 374, 470
i. 12, . . .722
i. 13, . . . 549
i. 15, . . 2S9, 294
i. 16, . . 310, 721
i. 17, . . 170, 232
i. 19, . . .295
i. 20, . . . 295
i. 21, . . . 779
i. 23, . . 258, 485
i. 24, . S30, 410, 519
i. 25, . . . 504
i. 26, . . . 297
i. 26sq., . . 715
i. 28, . . 603, 610
i. 30, ... 61
i 32 . . . 432
ii. I,' '. 169, 484, 668
ii. 3, . . . 200
ii. 5, . 234, 501, 519
ii. 7, . . . 233
ii. 8,
ii. 9.
527,
194
NEW TESTAMENT.
809
ii. 9 sq.,
•
721, 723 (
vi. 3,
. 639
ix. 15, .
. 103
ii. 12,
. 482
vi. 4,
170 sq., 296
ix. 16, .
. 747
ii. 13 sqq
., . . 707
vi. 5,
. 552
ix. 18, .
. 736
ii. 14, 174, 3SS, 696, 774 |
vi. 6, 2.
15, 409, 765, 768
ix. 19, .
. 342, 736
ii. 15,
. 725
vi. 10, 209, 263, 285, 532
ix. 20, .
. 584
ii. 17 sqq
, . 711 sq.
vi. 11, .
. 263, 486
ix. 21, .
. 689
ii. 18, ".
. 743
v-i. 12, .
. 148, 658
ix. 22 sqq.,
. 713, 749
ii. 21 sq.,
. 405
vi. 13, .
. 394
IX. 24, .
. 662
ii. 26, .
181 sq.
vi. 14, .
. 349, 397
ix. 26, .
. 769
ii. 27,
168, 432, 475
vi. 16, .
. 549, 765
ix. 29, .
. 753
ii. 2S,
. 508, 730
vi. 17, 2(
)5, 327, 732, 785
ix. 30, .
. 174, 553
iii. 2,
720 sq.
vi. 20, .
. 263
ix. 31, .
. 793
iii. 4,
. 318, 389
vi. 21, .
177, 197, 277
ix. 32, .
. 771
iii. 5,
641 sq.
vi. 22, .
. 519
ix. 33,
. 542
iii. 6,
348, 743, 749
vii. 2, .
235, 339, 776
X. 1, .
479, 719, 733
iii. 7,
. 546, 579
vii. 3, .
. 408
X. 2, .
. 231, 502
iii. 8,
. 783
vii. 4,
. 263, 476
X. 3,
. 232
iii. 9,
330, 693 sq.
vii. 5,
. 414
X. 10, .
. 495
iii. 11, .
. 136
vii. 6,
. 198, 296
X. 14, 197
249, 348, 356
iii. 19, .
. 137, 576
vii. 7,
. 383, 561
X. 15,
. 356, 758
iii. 20, .
. 214, 350
-\ii. 10, .
. 770
X. IS, .
. 183, 642
iii. 21, .
. 232
vii. 12, .
. 720
X. 19, 141
491, 597, 662
iii. 22, .
232, 521, 553
vii. 13, .
. 435
X. 20, .
274, 588 sq.
iii. 23, .
. 443
vii. 14, .
. 507
X. 21, .
. 23, 505
iii. 24, .
. 272
vii. 17, .
. 579, 772
xi. 2,
. 481
iii. 25, .
119, 171, 189,
vii. 21, 1
85,670,697,714
xi. 4,
. 223
318, 497
vii. 22, .
. 540
xi. 6,
. 354, 772
iii. 27, .
. 212
vii. 24, .
235, 298, 358
xi. 7,
. 250
iii. 28, .
. 744
vii. 24 sq
., . . 751
xi. 8,
. 117
iii. 30, .
350, 453, 512
viii. 1, .
. 168
xi. 11, .
. 574, 733
iv. 2,
. 384
\nii. 2, .
. 171
xi. 13, .
, 509
iv. 3, .
. 567
viii. 3,
290, 484, 670,
xi. 13 sq..
. 720
iv. 4,
. 36
718, 778
xi. 14, .
. 374
iv. 9,
509, 734, 744
viii. 6, .
. 560, 568
xi. 17, .
. 488
iv. 11, .
. 475, 666
viii. 8, .
. 566
xi. 18, .
. 773
iv. 12, .
274, 695, 722
viii. 11, .
. 498
xi. 20, .
. 270, 394
iv. 13, .
232, 260, 568
viii. 12, .
. 410, 696
xi. 21, 24
I, 595, 632, 748
iv. 16, .
. 747
viii. 15, .
. 483
xi. 23, .
. 776
iv. 17, .
. 204, 206
viii. 18, ,
. 267, 505
xi. 27, .
. 241
iv. 19, .
. 610
^^ii. 20,
. 498
xi. 30,
. 270
iv. 20, .
270, 327, 430
viii. 21, .
666, 776
xi. 31,
191, 575, 688
v. 2, .
. 170
viii. 22,
. 763
xi. 32, .
. 496
V. 3,
. 729
viii. 23,
145, 2;j3, 667, 729
xi. 33,
. 238, 652
V. 5,
133, 2.32, 516
viii. 24,
271, 355, 545
xi. 36,
. 134, 521
V. 6, .
. 692, 568
viii. 25,
. 527
xii. 1,
65, 477, 669
V. 7,
145, 349, 568
viii. 26,
. 120
xii. 2, .
. 724
V. 8,
. 172
viii. 27,
. 499
xii. 5,
. 137
V. 9,
. 743
viii. 29,
. 243
xii. 6 sqq..
. 723, 728
V. 11,
. 441, 729
viii. 30,
346 sq.
xii. 9,
. 733
V. 12,
. 180, 491, 494,
viii. 32,
. 555
xii. 9 sqq. ,
. 732
712 sq., 749
viii. 35,
. 232
xii. 12, .
. 271
V. 12 sqq
., . . 713
viii. 36,
, 235
xii. 15, .
397 sq.
V. 14,
.
. 492
ix. 1,
: *5{
xii. 16, .
. 275
V. 15,
^
. 137
ix. 3,
353, 776
xii. 18, .
. 289
V. 16,
,
. 730
ix. 4,
. 221
xii. 19, .
. 743
V. 18,
.
235, 734
ix. 5, 1
60, 289, 690, 733
xii. 20, .
. 394
V. 19,
. 137
ix. 6,
746 sq.
xiii. 1, .
. 194, 454
V. 20,
.
. 561
ix. 7,
. 719
xiii. 2, .
. 265
V. 20 sq.
. 575
ix. 8,
. 137
xiii. 7, .
. 737
V. 21,
. 520
ix. 10,
. 729
xiii. 8, .
. 629
VI. 2,
.
263, 349
ix. 11,
. 241, 008, 736
xiii. 9 sq.,
. 707
810
INDEX.
xiii. 11, .
. 243, 717
ii. 5,
. 733
vii. 1,
. 198
xiii. 14, .
. 696
ii. 6,
. 273
vii. 2,
. 192, 497
xiv. 1, .
. 496
ii. 7,
. 172
vii. 3,
. 132
xiv. 2, .
. 130,405
ii. 9,
. 398, 719, 788
vii. 5,
. 380, 527
xiv. 4, .
. 263
ii. 9 sq.,
. 749
vii. 7,
354, 567, 584, 754
xiv. 8,
. 369
ii. 10,
. 749
vii. 10,
. 622
xiv. 9,
. 691
ii. 11,
. 689
vii. 11,
. 328
xiv. 11, . 2
-52, 5G3, 572
ii. 12,
. 241
vii. 1.3,
. 186, 722
xiv. 14, . 1
S9, 4S7, 566
ii. 13,
. 242
vii. 14,
. 354, 486, 556
xiv. 20, .
. 475
ii. 15,
. 700
vii. 15,
. 390, 519
xiv. 21, .
. 597, 729
iii. 1,
. 122, 728
vii. 17,
. 566
xiv. 23, .
. 341
iii. 2,
. 619, 777
vii. 18,
. 211
XV. 1,
. 597
iii. 5,
. 546, 570
vii. 19,
. 728
XV. 3, .
. 719, 749
iii. 7,
. 728
vii. 20,
. 525
XV. 4,
. 191, 236
iii. 10,
. 376
vii. 21, .
555, 678, 728, 744
XV. 5,
. 231, 501
iii. 11,
. 504
vii. 24,
. 493
XV. 8, .
. 479
iii. 13,
. 332
vii. 26,
. 403, 570
XV. 9, .
405, 417
iii. 14,
. 60
vii. 28, 2
65, 346, 354, 366
XV. 13, .
. 231
iii. 17,
. 206
vii. 29,
. 132, 575
XV. 15, . 3(
)4, 347, 771
iii. 19,
. 443
vii. 31,
. 262
XV. 16, . 2-
'9, 48G, 666
iv. 2,
. 424
vii. 35,
. 284, 445, 582
XV. 17, .
. 289
iv. 3,
. 229, 424
vii. 36,
. 787
XV. 20, .
. 696
iv. 4,
484, 5G0, 785
vii. 37,
. 241, 717
XV. 21, .
719, 749
iv. 5,
. 134
vii. 38,
. 304, 721
XV. 23 sq.,
. 711
iv. 6, 2
17, 3G2 sq., 478,
viii. 1 sq
I., . . 707
XV. 25, .
. 429
483, 737
viii. 3,
. 329
XV. 27, .
. 560
iv. 7, .
. 554, 567
viii. 6,
186, 522, 724
XV. 28, .
. 472
iv. 8,
. 377
viii. 7,
231, 270, 584
XV. 30, .
. 477
iv. 9,
149, 158 sq.
viii. 9,
. 566
xvi. 2, .
. 198
iv. 11, .
. 114
viii. 11,
. 491, 559
xvi. 4, .
. 708
iv. 14, ,
156, 430, 717
ix. 2,
265, 554, 602
xvi. 5, .
. 496
iv. 15, .
. 552
ix. 5,
321, 401, 657
xvi. 10, ,
. 238
iv. IS,
. 771
ix. 7,
. 271
xvi. 12, .
. 487
iv. 20, .
. 733
ix. 9,
. 559, 744
xvi. 19, ,
. 560
iv. 21,
. 356
ix. 10,
. 491, 559
xvi. 20, .
. 776
V. 1,
. 210, 6S9
ix. 11,
. 3G8
xvi. 25, .
. 273
V. 2,
. 576
ix. 12,
. 231
xvi. 25 sqq.,
. 710
V. 3,
. 558, 720
ix. 15, 2
J2, 361, 424, 483,
xvi. 26, .
232, 494
V. 5,
. 575
551, 715
xvi. 27, .
. 134
V. 7,
48, 354
ix. 17,
. 774
V. S,
. 6G6
ix. 18,
. 172, 361
1 COEINT
HIANS.
V. 9,
. 132, 347
ix. 19,
. 429
i ■>
. 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,
<!ta.fa., vipi, Tp'o;, truv {uvo), 530-540 J of
infinitive, 412 sq.
Dawes's Canon, 636 sq.
Declensions of uouuf, unusual forms in,
69-80.
Defective verbs, 98-112.
Demonstrative pronouns, 195 - 202 ;
joined to nouns with the article,
137 ; as predicates, 137 ; used ad-
verbially in the neuter, 178 ; includ-
ed in the relative, 197, 206 ; repeti-
tion of, 198 sqq. ; introduced (for
emphasis) before verbs, 199, — before
on, 'i'lct, etc., a predicative infinitive,
a participial clause, etc., 200 sq. ;
sometimes used with some looseness
of reference, 195 sq., 788 ; in -Si, 202.
Deponents, 323-325.
Derivation, by terminations, 113-123 ;
by composition, 123-127.
Derivative verbs, 113-115, 125 sqq. ;
substantives, 115-119, 123 sq. ; ad-
jectives, 120-125.
Direresis, 47, 49.
Dialects of Greek, in general, 20 ;
Alexandrian dialect, 20-22, 53 sqq.,
90 (see Septucujint), JNlacedonian, 20
(23), 113; Hellenistic, 20 sqq., 28
sq., and passim ; h xoivr,, 20 ; writers
of ri KoiMYi, 22 ; dialects mingled in
later Greek, 20 aq.
Diffuseness, 757-764,
l>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<rSai, 243-245 ; after verbs of giv-
ing, tasting, etc., 247 sq., — of partici-
pating in, 250, — of perception, 249, —
of fulness and want, 251, — of touch-
ing, laying hold of, etc., 252 sq., —
of accusing, etc., 254 sq., — of feeling,
desiring, caring for, remembering,
etc., 255 sqq.,— of ruling, 252, 257 ;
after verbs containing a notion of
comparison, 252 ; after comparatives,
300, 303, 307 ; after prepositions,
455-480 ; after verbs compounded
with a'To, Ik, y.«.Ta, -rpo, uTip, 530-540 ;
several genitives, dependent on one
another, 238 ; genitive placed be-
fore, 239, 690, — or separated from,
its governing noun, 23 i j two geni-
tives depending on one noun, 239 ;■
periphrases for, 240-242 ; represent-
ing the subject of a sentence, 253,
737 ; genitive of the infinitive, 407-
412, 420 ; distinction between the
genit. and accus. after certaia verbs,
247, 250, 252, 255-257 ; general re-
marks on the case, 260.
Gentile nouns, 118 sq.
Georgi(C. S.), 6, 15, 17.
Gersdorf, 4, 173, 685-687.
Graicisms in Latin, 34.
Grammar of N. T. Greek : its object
and treatment, 1-4; its history, 4-19 ;
works upon, 10 sq.
Greek, later, passim; works illustra-
tive of, 3 ; its general character, 20 ;
lexical peculiarities, 22-27, 28 sq. ;
grammatical peculiarities, 27, 37 sq.
— Peculiarities of the popular spoken
language : in general, 20-22 (55) ;
in words and phrases, 22-27, 229 ;
forms of words, 76, 95, 127 ; syntax,
170, 179, 352, 403, 407, 424, 438,
450 592.
Greek, modern, 76, 77, SS, 90, 91, 97,
98, 106, 115, 230, 313,-30; pecu-
liarities of syntax, 38, 179, 187, 188,
190, 192, 210, 212, 221, 224, 246,
251, 266, 287, 301, 312, 316, 345,
352, 356, 362, 382, 389, 390, 422,
423, 424, 464, 471, 520, 558, 562,
599, 606, 614, 641, 645.
Haab, 6.
Hebraisms, various opinions respecting,
13 sq. ; perfect (pure) and imperfect,
32, 40; lexical, 18 sq., 28-36, 23
(194); grammatical, 40; Hebraisms
in connexion with pronouns, 176,
184 sq., 216 sq. (297 sq.); with
numerals, 216, 311, 312 ; positive for
superlative adjective, 308 sq. ; future
for imperative, 396 sq. ; finite verb
with adverbial force, 587-590 ; imi-
tations of the Hebrew infinitive
absolute, 39 sq., 427, 445 sq., 584
sq. ; Hebraistic use of prepositions,
229, 257, 268, 280, 285 sq., 662, 291,
293, 450 sq., 470 sq., 485, 487 sq. ;
olov, towards, 289 ; vio; (rinvov) in
periphrases, 298 sq. ; oh . . , w«?,
214 sq. ; il in formulas of swearing,
627 ; y-"-' iytviro, lyiviTo §£, 406 sq. ,
756, 760 ; ^iXm t/, 587 ; ««Xm i', 302 ;
uffTiTo; TM QlM, 310 ; I'lvcti (y'iviir^ai) u;
Ti, 229; lis with j^redicate, 285 sq.,
662 ; hf^ipa xce.] rifiipa, 581. (See
further 230, 514 sq., '329, 331, 391,
297 sq., 309 sq.) General influence
of Hebrew on the Greek of the I^,
SUBJECTS.
825
T., 23, 32 sq., 224, 44S, 450 sq., 543,
685, 759.
Hebraists, 12-15.
Hebrew language, general charac-
teristics of the, 9, it), 28, 32 sq. ;
Hebrew words and phrases noticed,
33, 34, 117; Hebrew constructions
noticed, 145, 214, 216, 217, 229 sq.,
267, 283, 289, 291, 297 sq., 310, 331,
334, 341, 358, 391, 396, 412, 445 sq.,
451 sq., 471, 472, 485, 514 sq., 517,
564, 57 i, 573 sqq., 578, 587, 589,
594, 627, 652, 656, 661, 6S9 sq., 693,
756, 760, 769, 776.
Hebrews, peculiarities in the language
and style of the Ep. to the, 35, 151,
414, 441, 446, 541, 557.
Hellenistic Greek, 19 sqq., 28 sq.
Hendiadys, 786.
Heteroclites, 70, 72-79.
Historic present, 334.
Hypallage, 297 sq., 786-792.
Hyperbaton, 687-702.
Hypodiastole, 50.
Hypothetical sentences. See Condi-
tional.
Hlative or consecutive sentences, 377,
400, 679.
Imperative mood, 390-399; in a per-
missive sense, 390 sq. ; two impera-
tives connected by Kni, how resolved,
.391-393; not used for the future,
393 ; aorist and present of, 351, 393-
395, 628 sq. ; perfect of, 395 sq. ;
substitutes for, 396-398; with /*^', 628
sq. ; 3d plural, form of, 91.
Imperfect indicative, 335-338 ; is it
used for other tenses ? 336-338 ;
combined with the aor., 337 ; peculiar
use of the, 352 sqq. ; with «», 353,
380, 381 sq. ; without civ, in the
apodosis, 382 sq. ; variation of Mss.
between aor. and imperfect, 337.
Impersonal verbs, 655 sq., 735 sq. ; im-
personal use of participles, 779, 736.
Inclination of the accent, 62 sq.
Indeclinable nouns, 70, 78 sq. (226
sq.) ; accentuation, 59.
Indefinite pronoun tU, 212 sq. ; posi-
tion of, 213, 689, 699 sq.
Indicative mood, 351, 352-390 ; appa-
rently used for the conjunctive, 354
sq. ; after particles of design, 360-
363, 673 (3S6) ; in conditional sen-
tences, 364-370, 378-384 ; in tem-
poral sentences, 370 sqq., 388 sq. ;
in indirect questions, 373-376 ; in
relative sentences, 384-386 ; in illa-
tive sentences, 377 ; with o^ii-ov,
377 ; after ^^', 630-634.
Indirect quotation, rare in the N. T.,
33, 376, 683.
Infinitive absolute (Hebrew), how trans-
lated, 39 sq., 427, 445 sq., 584 sq.
Infinitive mood, 399-427, 681 ; epex-
egetic, 399-401, 410 sq. ; expressing
purpose or consequence, 399 sq., 4U8
sqq. ; after a;r=, 377, 400 ; as the
subject of a sentence, 401-403 ; ac-
cus. with, 4U2, 404 sq., 406 sq.,
414 sq. ; nominative and other cases
with, 402, 404, 415, 782; as object,
4U3-407 ; expressing what ou<jht to
be, 405 sq. ; for imperative, 397 sq.,
399, 644 ; with the article, 402, 406-
415 ; present and aorist of, 415-419 ;
future, 416, 419-421 ; perfect, 417,
420 ; active, for passive, 426 ; re-
jdaced by finite verb with ■./, law, 403,
682,— with oruv, 082,— with '/>«, 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-A<p(>V 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.<x.-iit, 220 sq. ;
ulfAu, ix,-/,isii/, 34.
a.iy^a.Tix.'/^vaioi., 26 sq., 116, 123.
ctlvio) with dative, 673.
-cciua,\ev\)S in, 114; 1 aor. of verbs
in -ciiuu, -ctipo), 89.
Ktcin) (and compounds), 86, 99.
u'iou, 1 aorist, etc., b2 ; used abso-
lutely, 742.
uh-yc'-^'jofixt with infin. and partic,
435 sq.
alria, construction, 284 ; cthot'y.eii,
321.
a.iT/iux, 2.5.
cihiojyci, 116.
ui:pvioiog used adverbially, 583.
uly^y.ot.'huTi^u, -tiiiu, 26, 113 sq.
KiMVi;, 219 sq.
ociuuio;, «, ou, 80.
ecKxipu;, 579 sq.
a'S«T«)CO<TOf, 296.
aAiofras-aTTOj, 108.
d^.uvj, 288, 581 sq.
a.Krih'iv&ica ovtau t., 293.
oLkovu, construction, 249, 259, 434,
436 ; auUisse, 343, dx-ovau, 99.
ax so, 3 1/(7- ('at, a./.oC;'iv'!TOi, 123 sq,
ciKOoyuvtoctoc, 123, 296.
aA«/3«!7T«0? (-T60»), 73.
«A£4A/iT0,', 24, 120.
Ci'AiKTOpOipUuict, 26.
dhSKTUp^ 24.
'AAS^5tJ/Ofl<yOJ (-<>(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<jy.riu,xi, constr., 256.
x'jx^Uk, 579 sq.
dvxTrx'/sijOUXi, 108.
dvxviipog, 49.
d'JX':7i'77T(u, 22 ; dvocTriaxi, 87.
dvxarx;, pleonastic (?), 760 sq.
dyxGTxroa, 113.
dv xTi'h'hoi intransitive, 315.
duxTiS/iyt, act. aud midd., 317.
dvx-'j>.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<^'-<i 97.
cc^ek, 97.
dj)i-hu^ 99.
dfiojuTcti, 96 sq.
cKpilw^ 48.
dZr^y.t, 96 sq. ; ci(p£g (a^psrs) with
conjunctive, 356 ; oi(p. 6(pu7^'/i^xra.^
ol, o4.
ccx,itpo7roiy}rog, 296.
ccxpioa, 49.
dxP'i ^XP'^i 44 sq. ; with genit., 591 ;
oc. ov, cc. ov civ, zvi, oiO sq., ooi
sq. ; dxpt ^; '/],uipcc;, 204, 370.
Bix\ i], 220.
(ixdiiiog, 2o.
jiciiuu (and corap.), 94.
(iot'io-j, 754.
(icx.TCku.urtct'j, 46.
(ia.'K'hu (and comp.) intrans., 315.
/icCTTTI^OfiXI, 776.
/5c67!-Tiafcu, 26 sq., 86, 115.
fidc^ru with genit., 252.
(ictpiO) ((ixpv!/u), 25, 101.
(ia.ii'hiuw, constr., 24, 257, 314.
(ictdi'ht'jGec, 25.
fiu.ax.at.iuu, 1 aor. of, 89, 101 ; con-
struction, 279.
fixTog, gender, 73.
Winer Gr.immar.
[ii/ioiiog, ec, ov, 80.
ByiSx/ixpix, 70.
B«^(7«i'5c«, 70.
fiiliXuptOioy, 25, 119.
iZiuaut, 101.
(i'ha.'JTce.'ju, 101 ; intrans., 315.
(b'Ka.a^-fiU.ku, construction, 278, 784.
fi-hk-Ku uTTo T., 40, 280 ; /3X. ug t., 293 ;
/SAs-rs y.yi, 631 sq.
(iopocig, genit., 69 ; without art., 150.
fiovhof/.ctt followed by the conjunctive,
356 ; i(iov'h6i/.yiv without u,v, 353.
fiovuog, 23.
(ipuoiivu with genit., 246.
Hpxovryjg, accent, 60.
fipix'^, 24.
(ipuatfiog, 296.
'/«,«!«, 101, 107 (585).
"/uy.iaxu, 114 sq.
yxfcot, 22<.>.
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.(i<j, y'huaaax.o^uiiov, 24, 117.
yuuizog, 295.
53
834
INDEX.
yayyiiZ,^-, 23.
ToAyof^a, 70.
Tof/.oppot., 70.
ypci^fii with dative, 265 ; in aorist,
347 sq.
-yp-fiyopiu^ 27, 115.
yvfiuriTivu (yy,tc{//-), 26, 114.
yyi/;; without art., 152 ; omitted, 237.
occijxuy, occi^icoiiiou, 23.
oce.vsli!^o/u,cii, 318.
^civio (-£;o), Ao4/3('5, 47.
OB, 651-554, 676 sq. ; how it differs
from dXhce,, 551 sq. ; can it stand
for other conj. ? 566 sq., 570 sq. ;
in the apodosis, 553, 678, 749 (19'J) ;
introducing a parenth., 703 ; after
a parenth., 553 ; position, 455, 698
sq. ; eUded before «v, 42 ; o og, 130
sq. ; oil (^--j) ... Si, 551 (620 sqq.) ;
x«/ . . . di. OS y.(x.i, hh'o.
-Be, demonstratives in, 202.
lii, construction, 402 : 'ion without ai;,
352-354, 383 ; ellipsis of oth i^i),
405.
'hiiyy.dTi^a, 25, 113.
oilicuvfAi, 1U8.
OiKDCOVO, ZO.
OiX-XTTiVTi, 313.
CiKtaroa, 25, 113.
0£*/c«, without art., 152 ; plural, 220 ;
ix, 0:B.tx;, Oii,lU<J, 459.
es|/oA«/3oj, 126.
lioi^oii, construction, 247, 414, 422 ;
shiiTo, 51 ; tOsiho, 102.
oipus 'TToTOxot,;, 283, 286 sq.
Oio-^sj, osaf^Y], 60.
osff;4«oV, plural of, 72.
■ Oia^opii'ha.i,, 124.
0£!;t£/)«?oj useil adverbially, 583.
oivnpov adverbial, 314.
OsunpoTrpuTog, 124.
oi 578 (394).
OYlT^ov &'r/, 731.
A)9^«r, 128.
Oyi,uo<jix, 53, 739.
O'/JTrOTf, 0-/J7701/, 578.
oi» with genit., 452, 472-477 : can it
denote the causa principalis f 473
sq. ; sometimes akin to the dative,
272 ; oisi 'I. Xoiaroi/, 473 ; in peri-
phrases for adj. or adverbs, 474,
526 sq. ; with the accus., 497-499 ;
with the infiu., 414.
Zix, construction of verbs compounded
with, 537.
"hictZtliatcoitxt, 317.
o/aooAoj without art., 154 sq.
otoi'/a used absolutely, 742.
6ti>e.$'/,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, £a<M, .597, 599.
iyoi.yyfiaa., 101.
syyiij with genit. and dative, 243,
591 ; i-/yv; sJuoei, .584.
iysioa iutrans., 315 sq. ; iysipo/iicci,
316.
i'/zV/l')/)!/, 102.
iyKcciuici, 220.
iyxcctvli^u, 34.
£y;ca)cg'(*i, 26.
i'/xaAiw, construction, 254.
lyKpXTSVofictt, 26.
ey6), when expressed, 190; f/.Bt dativus
ethicus CH), 194; ^aoy standing before
the governing noun, 193 ; T^po; y.i,
02 sq. ; x«^' i,y.^2;, 193, 499.
thi a true imperf. indie, 353 sq.
i'iio'hiovaxii, 91.
fOW>i5«,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 <i par-
ticiple, 434 ; 'lOiiv dciyuTO, 17 sq. ;
iipioi, i^iioiv, ei<piOa, 48.
iiou'hilov, 118.
dau'KodvTou, 27, 124
iiou'Ko'Kurpiict^ 21.
ilou'Ko'Koc.-prt;, 124.
d'ou'kov^ 120.
ily^TJ, iix-Vi, b'2.
d'y.oat (-/»), 45.
d'hlKpl'Jitoe,, ii>.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<j, 145 sq. (30) ; ti; ti;, 146,
213; si; and 6 si;, 144; si; for
■^pijTo;, 33, 311 ; ii; . . . kxI ii; (and
836
INDEX.
similar expressions), 216 sq. ; s7;
Tov svst, 217; eU • . . ov, 216; oi/oi
ii;, 216 ; ii; x,cc&' sk, etc., 812.
-sirrav for -strxu, in pluperf., 93, 103.
iUipy^iidcti il: TO'j KOGf^ou^ 18.
UTS, 549, 638 (368).
insv, Z.I.
U, 4.^8-461, 453, 456 sq. ; how it
differs from dvo, 456 sq. ; not used
for sj/, 461 ; replacing the simple
genit., 241 (?), 246, 248 sq., 251,
253, 258, 458, 737 ; in periphrases
for adverbs, 527 sq. ; attraction
•with s;c, 784 sq. ; SKTrcK.'Ka.i, 25, 525.
sx, constr. of verbs compounded with,
633 sq.
fKUtrro^ with the art., 138 sq. ; with
plural predicate, 648.
SK'/xiiiil^ai, 127.
iKs7 for i%.sia£, and vice versa, 591
sqq.
Uiho; referring to the nearest subject,
196, 788 ; taking up the subject or
predicate, 199, 206; position, 199,
202, 686 ; joined to a noun with
the art., 137 ; apparently used for
ovTo;, 196 ; occurring in the same
sentence with auroV, 196.
iyAp^m^, 107.
iKKClKiU, 26.
ix.x.'KYiaicc without art., 152.
iK'/^iyoy^at 'i'j rivi, 283.
iKUVKTYipi'^CJ, 26.
iKOvaiov (kuzx), 680.
iKpu^a, 107.
SKOVjioU, 107.
SKTiUSlX, 26.
ix.Tsvoj;, 26, 579 sq.
iKTo; with genit, 591 ; Uro; i! ,u'/i, 368,
757.
i!Cx,iio, ly-y^iiuo) {-yjjvvw), 25, 104 ; fut.
ix-xiu, 91 sq., 104 ; Ix;^£'£t£, 61.
V/Mv used adverbially, 583.
i'hanuv, 118, 226 sq.
k'ha.Knix, 108.
iXxTTuv, 49 ; without ij, 300 (745).
iAoc^^taTonpo;, 81, 763.
sMku, 104.
iMeivog, 123.
£A£0-, 76.
ihivaofiui, 104 sq,
iy\K6i), augment, 85.
i'hKvu, 57, 104.
«XA»7i//^^j, 29, 116 sq.
iXKnvioT'i^g, 116.
•AXoyizij, 104.
i'K'Trl^a with dative, 2G1 ; other con-
structions, 292, 404, 416 sq.
eXt/; : £?>' 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<jy^vi/Syi, 86.
iWKU, 387.
'f^xDu with genit., 591 ; without in-
fluence on case, 313.
'Exotip/sizj-, 128.
s'S's/, 541, 561 ; with indie, present,
354 ; introducing a question, 603 ;
with a suppressed protasis, 354,
749 ; i'TTil y.'/i, 602 ; iiiii oipu, 556.
Ivith'/i, 541, 5G1.
iTTilO'/l'Trip^ 561.
e^s/Vso, 561.
'i'Tirinci. fiiroi tcvto, 754.
iTTsneivu, accent, 59 ; with genit., 591.
swis/ovTYi;, 26, 117.
iTTspuroiu, 25 ; stt. Iv, 39.
k'zix.u used absolutely, 742.
iTzi w'ith genit., 468-470, 465 ; with
dative, 488-492, 452 sq. ; with
accus., 507-509 ; in periphrases for
adverbs, 528 ; with different cases
in one sentence, 510 ; e^'&J, 491 sq. ;
i(p' o7;, 197 sq., 202 ; stti rp/j, 525.
Itt/, constr. of verbs compounded
with, 535 sq.
ivtiloc'h^.u used absolutely, 742.
STriyKfi/ipsvu, 27.
iTTioiopdoouxi, 322 sq.
e-TTiiv^uiu, construction, 255 sq.
iTTtKX'AiofiKl, 330.
iTTt'Ax^uouvof^a.i, constr., 252 sq.
iin'Ku.'jdu.voiA.ut, constr., 256.
i'77iKf,<jyi.ovvi, 116.
ii7ty.ivu, construction, 537 ; with a
participle, 434.
i'TTtopyJi), future, 104.
STTiovaio;, 120 sq.
iT^ri'z-oSiu, construction, 256.
i'TTlTi-od/iTO;, 296.
i-TriaTci.y.a.i with participle, 435.
iTTtaTOhCii, 219.
'iTriaToiCfo^xi. STrisTOO'^'^, 27.
i'^irid/iyJ rii/i, used absolutely, 742.
l^/Tf'/^ayoj, construction, 249 sq.
tTTi^^Ctl/XI, 110.
iTTt^CCVait, 110.
i7Tix,iip£u, alleged pleonasm of, 765.
ioavjau^ 49.
ipyx^o/^cci ri, 279 ; augment, 85.
epyo'j not pleonastic, 768.
epivyoficti, 23.
'ipri/iio;, ov, 80 ; accent, 59.
iptSilcc, 116; accent, 57.
£>/;, 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/,aG<x, without art., 150.
da.'hy.i}, 106.
6o!.vecrin^6pog, 126.
OoivciTo;, 30 ;. without art., 152 ; 6rJ',vci'
roy toilv (^6io>puv), 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;, 6prt<jKric, 57.
6ptxyiiiycii tiucc, 24, 314,
GREEK WORDS AND FORMS.
839
GviCTSlCOi, 70.
6v/ccry,p ouiitted, 2S7.
Si/px without axt., 152 ; Supxt, 220.
evpiog, 24.
.6m, verbs in, 114.
/ subscript, in certain words and
classes of words, 51-53.
t and €1 interchanged, 49, 53 ; -ta or
-sict. as ending of nouns, 49, lib.
/ or si as adverbial ending, 47.
-/«, subst. in, 116, 118 sq., 126.
ioi, I OS, 55 sq. ; i'h, ioov, 229, 319,
563 ; i'os combined Avith a plural
verb, 649 ; uoov y,ctl looi) with accus.
and nomin., 671, 724.
rS/Oi" for a possess, pron.,191 sq.; joined
to a pers. pron., 192 ; /o/«, 53, 739.
iipianci, 25.
' Upf/,u, declension, 79.
iio'jvp-yiu as a transit, verb, 279.
' Izpovjcihr,!/.., ' Ispoao'hviicx, 79; with
and without art., 140 ; plui'al form,
220.
-/^w, verbs in, 27, 113 ; contracted
future, 88 sq.
hui (and comp.), inflexions, 96 sq.
'Ir^aotJ;, declension, 77.
iKsatci, 24.
ly^ciaKoiiiXi, 106 ; with accus., 284 sq.
i7^ctaT'/!piO!/, 119, 741.
'iJ,£6,g, 22.
if/.ccriov omitted, 739 ; plural, 220.
hci, 5G3 ; construction, 358-363, 073 ;
with optat., 363 ; forming a peri-
phrasis for the imperative, 396. — for
the infin., 28, 403, 420-426, 682,—
in St. John, 425 sq. ; ix,,SccriK6)c,
572-577 ; for <yc«, 577 ; for or/ (V),
677 ; no real cUii^sis of, 356, 744 ;
'iuci t/, 212, 734 ; cIXa 'iux, 398,
774 ; ha 'T^'/^npudfi, 576 sq. ; hcc yy/i
T^iyu, 746.
-ii/o;, -/y&'c, adj. in, 122 sq. ; common
in later Greek, 26.
-lov. subst. in, 119.
'louox, accent, 59; art. with, 141.
iovOcci^o^, 114.
taci'/'yi'Ao;, 124.
i'ffo,-, ho;, 60 ; tact, adverbial, 221.
iarciyu, 106, 94.
iorciu, 93 sq.
hr/iut (and comp.), inflexions, 84, 93-
95, 106 ; meaning, 315 sq., 342.
^laxuvYig, ^luavYi;, 49; decleuslon, 77.
^luaiis, 77.
Kccdx, 548.
Kccdciicioy,cci, construction, 245.
KCidcC77Sp, 548.
y.aia.'TtTU, 322.
KCcdil^OfiXI, 106.
x,ccdii;, KCiff it;, 312.
X.!X.6ipi^U, 46.
Kcidivou, augment, 83.
y,ci6~/iKsi/, 352, 338.
x,rxdrtU.x,i {Kcid-/;. y.ccdov), 98.
KvJrj, 385 sq., .548.
y.x66Ti, 548, 555 ; x. civ with indie,
384.
y,ot,6ov, 98.
y-ctda;, 27, .548, 555, 561.
y,u6o>i'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 '<!, 302 ; y,. tjv, 352, 383.
KxhoT^oiku, 26 sq.
K<X!^p(.VU, 25, 51.
KoLu, 380, 730.
KocpxaoyAu, 125.
Kotplia. not used for a pcrs. pron., 195.
KctooioyvuGTYf;, 124.
KXp-776; lu^iio; (xo;X<'«;), yj-Chkuv, 34.
KOLTo. with genit., 477 sq. ; with accus.,
499-502, 453 ; in peiiphra.ses for
adj. or adverbs, 528 sq., — for the
genit. (?), 241 ; with accus. of pers.
pron. for a possessive pron., 193,
499 ; expressing distribution, 312,
840
INDEX.
500 ; sometimes akin to the dative,
272.
KXToc., constr. of verbs compounded
with, 537.
Kctroiliot,^ 94.
x.a,Tcii,(ipccfiivu, 28.
KotrocyivudKu, construction, 254.
x.ocTot.x,oi.'/iaof^c(.c^ 106.
x.a,TccKccv)(,o(,o 1^01,1, constr., 254 ; kccioc-
Kcx.v'^oia!)C,i^ 90.
K(X.T»Kpiva dxvdru, 263 sq.
x£4TaAs4,tc/3«y«, 317, 321.
KaraXsiTTU, aorist, 106.
X.dTOC.'hVfACi, 26, 116.
x.cna.'Kvu iutraus., 315.
x,ix,Ta,f^oi,p7vpiu, construction, 254.
X-OCTOCVCtpKOCi), 28.
Kot-rdiiiv^ig^ 117.
KXTccTiroi/ri^a, 25.
KXTxpoioixon, construction, 278.
xxrxaro'A'/!, 24.
x,x-xxpxofixi, construction, 262.
KXTSXyCO (x.XTiX^U, ICXTtX^XV^, 82.
x.xTsiou'Xos, 296.
y^xTivxvrt with genit., 591.
Kxni'onriou with genit., 591.
x.xrix,'^ s/f, 743.
KXTYiyopia, construction, 254.
KXT/Iyojp^ 117.
KXTU, 592 ; KXTuripoc, 81.
Kxvxxo/icxi, construction, 279, 292 sq.;
kxvx,x'jxi, 90.
X.i>CipX(TfiXI, 107.
KiKTyj^UXl, 342.
;t£A£i;<u, construction, 337, 417, 422,
aivco;, 579.
x,spxt/i/Vfii, 107.
Kipxrx, 75.
Kipoxivu, 89, 107.
y.iCpx'hxioa, 113.
xs^flsA/r, 23.
x'/jjst'l, xijpyl, 56.
y-npvaau si'; r., 267 ; ;£y)|9^|«;, -t;-, 57.
K'Axta, constr., 278 ; future, 107.
x-T^xo) (to//) oiproy, 36.
xAs/j, declension, 75.
KAEoVaj, 128.
xAs-v^o), 107.
KT^npovofiiu, construction, 250.
K'Ai'fixvo;, 22.
xA/;*iy (ix,yJKivc,i) intrans., 315.
xo/A;« : ix, x.oi'KiX';, x,xp77o; k., 34.
Koifixopixi^ 17, 334 sq., 342.
xoiuo;, 19.
KOiviu, 112.
KOivuuiu, construction, 250 sq.
xoiyuvo;, construction, 250.
Ko'Koaaxi, Ko'hxjaxi, 47.
xoA'To;, 220.
nopt-i'^o^uxi, lib ; future, 89.
tcoTrroy.xi rtvx, 278.
Kopxciov, 24.
Koafito;, ot/, 80.
Koa/iioc:, 27 ; without art., 153 ; o xJ-
(TiMo?, 133.
KpxilxTTog, 26, 46.
xpx^u, lu7 ; fut., 107, 348 ; x£x/i«7«,
342 ; Kpx^ov, 57.
KpxTia, construction, 252, 409.
icpixi;, 75.
KpiirrOJV, 49, 81 ; KpilTTOU '/}V, 352.
x,pepcx,uxi, 107.
Kpif4,X, KplpiX, 56 S0[.
;c(5o:^(y used absol., 742.
KpvT^Tyi, 298.
x.pv-77ru^ 25 ; inflexions, 107 ; construc-
tion, 246, 284.
KTXOl^Xl, 342.
x.Tt(7i;, creature, 33 ; without art, 153.
xT/ar^f, KTiaryj;, bl sq.
;c:^s-T&), quantity of f, 57.
Kvptxy-og, 296.
Kvpiog and o x-vptoi, 154.
x.!/ii), xi/iiy, 107.
'hxy^xvu, construction, 250, 401.
'hxdpcc, T^xdpx, 52.
Aa<A«i//, 7^xi7^x-ip, 56 ; gender, 22.
Ax'hiu with participle, 436.
'Kx'hLx, 24.
A«|tt/3«j/w, fut. 'K'/i/x-ipojuxi, 53 sq. ;
A«/3s-, 395, — accent, 55 sq. ; is hxiiuv
pleonastic? 759; Aa^/3. tsjw l-Tixy-
yiT^lxu, 297.
A«|449r«j, 24.
^.x'jdxvu with participle, 585.
'hxaKCo, 108.
AfysiSjy, 'kiyiuv, 49.
Asyiw, construction, 266 ; implying
command, 405 ; ellipsis of, 746 ;
As'ys' in citations, 656, 735 ; Asywv
pleonastic, 753 ; Asywj/, T^iyovzi;,
used absolutely, 672 ; Asy. ^rs/)/,
452.
y^sh.'i), 106.
Aw^/of, gender, 661.
"AifixvojTog, 73.
A<^o/3oAs<y, 26, 126.
A/,«6V femm., 73, 22, 661.
'hoyi'x, 26.
T^oyit.oy.xt, 324 sq. ; Aoy. £<"j T/, 229,
286.
GREEK WORDS AND FORMS.
841
Xo;^>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.
fis<jovvx,riov, 24.
yA^o; predicative, 163 sq.; yA(70v with-
out art., 153, — with genit., 591.
ysTx. with genit., 470-472 ; akin to
the dative, 268, 272 ; with verbs
of following, 293 ; -TroXiyuv y.ira.
T., 471, 506 ; with accus., 502 sq. ;
with an infin., 414.
y.iiu,^ constr. of verbs compomided
with, 287, 538.
y.i:Tu.yop(p6u, construction, 287, 538.
yt-ru^u with genit., 591 ; to ytT.., 741.
yizix^^i construction, 250 sq.
yiToiKtaiec, 24,
yixo'', f^i'/CO'?^ 44 sq. ; with genit.,
591 ; y. ol, 370 sq.
yv] : how it differs from ov, 593, etc. ;
used for oy, 610 sq. ; with the optat.,
597 sq., — the imper., 598, Q>2ii 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«-<jT£,
611-619 ; apparently used for y/t'A,
614 sq. ; y/;T£ . . . y/irs, 612-617;
y/;rs . . . kcci (ji), 619 sq. ; y/,Oi . . .
y/iTs, 617 sq.
(£« -^T»p without art.l 51 sq.; omitted, 2S7.
y/lTi {b1 y/iri}, 641 ; y/jrtyi, 746.
yrizpo'/^^x:, 49.
yixivci), 108, 651.
ylyyci, ylyyn, 56 sq.
ytyjY,ay.',ycJt.t^ Constr., 256, 784.
yiudocTi ootid ict, 25.
ytadooyai, 318.
yicduroc, 58.
yjf,yo'jivu, construction, 256 sq.
yjY.GTivoycit, redupl., 86.
yoiY,a.t.ii, 25, 223.
-yyj-k, subst. in, 116.
yi'jin; predicative, 1G4 ; alleged ellipsis
842
INDEX.
of y-o'jov, 620-624, 744 ^ w y.ivfjv
. . . dM.oc,^ 624 ; ov fcovou "ht (ellipt.),
729 sq.
^oy()ip^««A,£40c, 25.
-,wor, subst. in, 115.
f/.rj(j'/,0'r:(jliu, 27.
y.vptoi, fcvpto:^ 60.
fiOf^CCOliCil, 324.
/aupo;, 59 pq.
Mu'vo-y;; (r.l^jyajj?), Mwffijf, 47 ; declen-
sion, 77 sq.
V i^fiT^KVjTty.iv, 43 sqq. ; v not changed
before 7, ft., etc., 53 sqq. ; u and j/y
in certain words, 46, 49, 53 ; v
added to accus. sing, of 3 decl., 53,
7C sq.
v<^A, 579.
N£5e77oA/j, declension, 79.
viKDog, gender, 223 ; vsKpot •without
art., 153 ; d.'JX(JTot.(j:; vix.puv, 2o5.
v'/i, 579.
vY,7Ti;, declension, 75.
vr^^a/io; (vr,^x'hio;'), 49.
ui:'-»id 'ix. T., 4G0 ; 6 vsx.^1', 444.
VIKBOI, 104.
tilx.o:, 25.
UlTT-U, 108.
^oMo^sTsw, construction, 327.
;/s,icoj without art., 152 sq.
Vjoio; {vi0:;76:), etc., 25, -il).
;/iVy? without art., 150.
vovdidiet, 25.
'Nv,c<.(^ci; {Nvf<.$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«,5s<T/i;, 27.
-TTciBccSr/Asuof/^xc, 115.
KXpX'JlX-piilviy 127.
"TTxpxliluf^i intrans., 315, 738; vxp.
si'; T., 268 ; T^-xox'^ior/adxi, 36.
-Tixpxtvia with accus., 279.
'T^xpxx.x'hia, 23 ; construction, 422 ;
with aor. infin., 417.
'7rXpXKXTxSviK-/l, 127.
TV xpx'T^'hYta tov with a dative, 590.
ivxpxaKiv'/i, derivation, 116 ; t. toS
■Tvxaxx, 236.
'7!XpX(fp0uix, 25, 118.
■77XpilSXX.T0g, 296.
TTxpiicro; with genit., 591.
'TrxpsfifioX'/j, 23.
TTupix,^, TTxpixoi^xi, 322.
YixDi^iuxg, 128.
-Trxfip/tcix, 24,
■TTx; with art., 137 sq. ; with abstract
nouns, 138 ; with participles, 138 ;
jwsition of, 138, 686 sq. ; Trxg . . .
ov (fc-Ji) for oi/hi's (/^noit::), 31, 214
sq. (694) ; rx -ttxv-x, 133, 144 ;
TTxvTX Txvrx and rxlnx ttxhtx,
686 ; TTxvrx with intrans. verbs,
285 ; '7rxi>ruy 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<y, 109.
^;W«/, 109.
Ht'Kci-o;, accent, 59.
t/*«, 109, 112.
■t/tttiw (and comp.), 86 sq. ; iTiax, 86
sq. ; irritum esse, 18.
■w/(7TS!^iM it;, Ivi rtuet, 267, 292 ; tti-
aziviadcii, construction, 287. 326.
-TrtaTiKo;, 121 sq.
cr/ffT/j with objective geuit., 232; v/ith
prepos., 267 (171).
-Tr'^xaiiiv, 311.
Try^umvCi) rr/V x.xooixu, .31.
■7T7.UUV, ■tt'/Auv, 81 ; without sj', 300.
'TT'hio) with accusative, 280.
'Tz'hrty'/i omitted, 737.
T:l\'/ldn, Til) ^x., 148.
"zX-fii^y.iio-fi;, 71.
•^A-^^ 552, 591, 638.
T'Kyipo^opia, 26.
-ttMoou, constr., 251, 272, 287.
'!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.
57<y, 579.
^wj. See tiT^-a;, ^■/i';ras-
■T^u; for oVw;, 640.
^ not doubled after a prepos. or the
augment, 53, tt8 ; p (pp) or p (pp),
53.
pxKKo;, 49.
pccvTi^a, 25 ; pepauTiafiivo; (^pip.^, 88.
Pcc(pig, 26.
^'w, 109.
/?-,j,t4«e, 18, 216 ; without art., 153.
.^ijffo-sj {p/,y:^vf.(.t), 23 ; used absol., 742.
p/ircj;, 580.
piTTTCo : pi-'petv, Pi^pxv, 67 ; pepiy.i^ii'joi
(oip-, ep-), SS.
pp., pa, 49.
P'J/4«, 2.H sq.
iv7rnpivo,uui, 114.
ff, ?, 45.
f in ovra;, etc., 43 sqq.
ff«/3'3«To», deck'UbioJi, 72 sq. ; (7«/3/3«to£,
221.
axXTTi^u, 109.
GCCpOlOV^ 73.
aapyAKog, aa.OKivog, 122 sq.
(7^0^ X55( uiy.ci, 19 ; 7:it.-joc aot-p^, 34 ;
■/.oL-a. (ja-pKCi, 1G9, 50U sq.
aapooi, 25, 113.
2£eT«y!«j, 2ar«», 78 ; with art., 155.
aefix^oyoii, 23.
<7£>i5)»» 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.
e7<To.c, plural, 73.
aKot,v<)ci'ki(^u, 34.
aKti.uocc'hov., figur., 33.
CKiTTTOfieCI, 110.
CK'/jVOTTYi'/tX, 27. 126.
7K'Ar,pOKCCpOl'tX.. 27, 123.
tx.'AYipoTpa.'c-^Xo;, 27, 123
GKy^YiOVJU, 114.
(7x.&'aoi//, 276.
ax.opTi'i^o), 23, 113.
ijy.oTo;, 0, 22, 76.
-ffxw, verbs in, 114.
^0'Aoy.ui/, form and declension, 73,
litcuvict, 26.
(7T«W, dTTCCOyat, 321.
(jTrn'pyig, 71.
ff'rsxofXosTwp, declension, 74.
(j~ipy», offspriiui, 17, 31.
ff^siiow intransitive, 315.
(/Tr'i'Ao;, 26, 57.
aTr'AxyXiVci, 18, 764.
a'^Aocy;iiv/^o,c4«/, 31, 34, 113; Construc-
tion, 255, 277, 292.
o-^-ot/oci^w, 110.
(7(7, TT, 48.
r7ra0;ow, plural, 73.
oTocyvog, 24.
ariyw, 22.
(jTsjy.^j, 25, 27, 106; construction, 263.
(jTYlpI^d), 110.
cr//3«j {^aroi(iot,i), 49.
2to('xc/V ("W-), 49.
aToyoi,^ edge, 18, 31.
crpi(fu (dycc-, i-Tri-) intrans., 315; ia
it used with adverbial force? 588
sq. ^
crrp/ii/ixu, 22, 26.
arv'Aoc, OTV'Ao;, 57.
(. y, when exjjressed, 190 sq. ; toS, posi-
tion of, 193 ; aoi flat, ethicus (V),
194 ; ■Trpog (7S, 62 sq. ; >cix,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.
<puo6g, 120.
(fipco, 110 sq.
$ivyu, construction, 280, 409.
(^■/i/ai, ellipsis of, 746 ; (fr.ai {Z:iai\
848
INDEX.
655 sq., 735 ; position of (^m't, 'i^pn,
698 ; iJ>Yi omitted, 748.
(pSccvu, 2;) ; inflexions, 111 ; construc-
tion, 580.
<p;aX>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.
<py?L«(7!76), 31, 317 ; construction, 279
sq.
(^vaiiofiXI, 25.
cpvu, inflexions, 111 ; intransitive, 23,
316.
<f:uv>!, 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