i.
ܝܙܙܝ.
.
.
܂
، ، ،
܂ · . . . . .
܂ ܃ ܂ ܃ ܂ ܃ ܂
܂
:. ܂
4_806,896
. ' .
ܙ
'
܀
܂
*
܂
|
|
ܕ
.
.
ܙ
܂
ܙ
܀
܂
܂ ·
.
.
. .
. . ܂
ܝ
ܘܕ
܂
.
. '
ܙ
ܙ
.
܂
;
܀
li;
.
܂ ; .. ."
܂
r
'
,
ܕܘܙ
,
ܘܗ
܂
܀
܀
.
ܪܙܙ70 ' ܀
ܙܙܪܘ
ܐܢܘܪ
܂
܃
܃
܃
ܝ
.
܂
ܨ
܀
.
100
:
ܢ
ܢ
܂
ܪܪܕܐܩ: ܘܪ
ܙܠܐܐ
:
-
-
-
.
.
܂
܀
.
ܕ
ܢ
•
•
•
•
;iiܪܛ
.
.'
. ܂
ܪ
ܫ
ܘ
ܪܠܙܪ
%xit
ܝ
ܙ
ܝ
ܪܙܙܪܕ
ܘ
ܘ
.
, . ܀ ܝܢ.
܀ ܗܘ
ܕܕܙ ܀ ܘ
ܐܘܘܘ
-
ܙܠܐܐ
ܐܐܐܠܐܝܐ
ܩܕܘܕ
ini
ܘܕܪܪ܀
܀
܀
܀
ܒܪ
܀
ܙ܂
ܕ܂
ܪ
ܕ
܂ .
ܟܙ
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
܀
ܪܕܛܪܟܕ;;
܀
w
' .'.
'
.
' ܂ '
.'.…
܀
x
;
܀
*
܀
ܢ ܢ
ܪ
1
16
1
1
'
܂ ܂ ܀ . .
.
. . . . . . .
ܚ
: ܣܪ
ܕ݁ܺܟܕ݁ܳܘ:
ܐ
-
'
܀
1
܇c
ܪܙܢ
.
. . .
.
܇܇
ܙܙܪܬ
::-::܀
ܘܘ
ܙܙܪܘ 100
. . ' . . . .
.
܂ . , . ' ܂
܀
ܫ
ܕ
*-i
-.t
܂ ܕ
iirii
ܙ
.
-:10
. . .
. . . .
.
.
. . . . .
܂.…. .. . . . .
. . ܂. ..܂
܂
܂
- .
.
܂ܘܘܘ
ܙ
ܕ
ܕ
܂
110
܂
ܘ
ܘ
.
|
ܙ
ܘ
{ {
'
-
0
ܙܙ
*
.- .- .. -_
'
ܕ
!
- ܂ '." • •
| .- .
܂….
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.… .
.
.' .. .܂܂…-
:

..
is :-
!:
L
:::..
---
--
-
--
---...---...
-
..
.
wwwwwwwwwwww
LATLIKIMIN TERJAN T IS
نیندییییییبینینینیسینینیننیییییچینند
z
D
UNHAN
TAHAN ng
WWillie
mas
.
iz
C
OTTIE
.
JllHHH
UW
W
THAIHINDI
ARTESI
..*
2
...
.
..
Us
YISHINGS
Chil
Tie
TIF 10K
dirigente
NIVERSITY OF MICH
wwwwwww
SOCOM.TWITTKLINY
Illinn
TALII
MAMI
LUARYTAS OF THE
OP
-
-
-
-
-------
-
SCIENTIAS
OOO000000OOOOOOOTI
-
-
-
-
TO
GUARD
HimoinniHinihin
Nami IPAHIWWERIN HAM
·
-
-
-
-
-
- -
...
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
?
'
.
.
-
--
- -
- -
-
F
1...
:. home
.
.:
.
.
.....
.
.
......
.
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
GRAMMAR OF
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK
79723
ECO:
13:19
..
illelistor
wille BY
FRIEDRICH BLASS, DR.PHIL., D.TH., Hon. LL.D. DUBLIN
m
Jup
PROFESSOR OF CLASSICAL POILOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF HALLE-WITTENBERG
TRANSLATED BY
HENRY ST. JOHN THACKERAY, M.A.
EXAMINER IN THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
London
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
NEW YORK : THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1898
GLASGOW: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS
BY ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO.
recat o 8-2428RH,
PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION.
exaus
PROFESSOR BLASS's Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch
appeared in Germany in October, 1896. The present translation
reproduces the whole work with the exception of the Preface,
which the author considered unsuitable to the English edition,
I on account of the somewhat personal character given to it by
2 the dedication which he had combined with it. Some points of
the Preface, however, are of sufficient general interest to be repro-
duced here in a summary form.
The author maintains that whereas Hellenistic Greek cannot
in comparison with Attic Greek be regarded as a very rich
language, it is for all that (except where borrowed literary words
and phrases intrude themselves) a pure language, which is
governed by regular laws of its own. He applies to it the
proverb των καλών και το μετόπωρον καλόν.
The present work does not profess to give the elements of
Greek grammar, but presupposes some knowledge on the part
of the reader. Those who desire to read the Greek Testament
after a two months' study of the Greek language are referred to
such works as Huddilston's Essentials of New Testament Greek.
With regard to textual criticism, a distinguishing feature in the
grammar is that whereas earlier grammarians quote the editions
of the leading N.T. critics, Professor Blass quotes the Mss.,
leaving the reader to draw his own conclusions as to the true
text in each instance. Whilst admitting that we have now
reached something like a new “Textus Receptus” based on the
oldest Greek tradition, and acknowledging the services rendered
to N.T. criticism by such critics as Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott
and Hort, and Tregelles, he has to confess that a definite conclusion
on this subject has not yet been arrived at.
The only point in reference to matters of higher criticism' to
which attention has to be called is that the John who wrote the
PREFACE.
Apocalypse is distinguished from John the author of the Gospel
and Epistles. The first and second Epistles of Peter do not
present sufficiently well-marked differences to require a distinction
to be drawn between them in a grammar of this kind. The
Pauline Epistles are all quoted as the work of St. Paul; the Epistle
to the Hebrews is naturally not so quoted. The general position
taken up by Professor Blass with regard to questions of authorship
is shown by the following words: “The tradition which has been
transmitted to us as to the names of the authors of the N.T. books,
in so far as it is unanimous, I hold to be approximately con-
temporary with those authors; that is to say, the approximation
is as close as we can at present look for; and, without claiming
to be a prophet, one may assert that, to whatever nearer approxim-
ation we may be brought by fortunate discoveries in the future,
Luke will remain Luke, and Mark will continue to be Mark.'
. The books to which the author expresses his obligations are the
grammars of Winer (including the new edition of P. Schmiedel) and
Buttmann, Jos. Viteau, Étude sur le Grec du N.T., Paris, 1893, and
Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in N.T. Greek, Chicago,
1893. The first-named of these works having grown to such
voluminous proportions, the present grammar, written in a smaller
compass, may, the author hopes, find a place beside it for such
persons as maintain the opinion péya Bibliov uéya kakóv.
The isolation of the N.T. from other contemporary or nearly
contemporary writings is a hindrance to the proper understanding
of it, and should by all means be avoided ; illustrations are there-
fore drawn by the writer from the Epistle of Barnabas, the
Shepherd of Hermas, the first and the so-called second Epistle of
Clement, and the Clementine Homilies.
The translator has merely to add that the references have been
to a great extent verified by him, and that the proofs have all
passed through the hands of Professor Blass, who has introduced
several additions and corrections which are not contained in the
original German edition. He has also to express his thanks to
the Rev. A. E. Brooke, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, for
kindly looking over the greater part of the translation in Ms. and
removing some of its imperfections, and to two of his own sisters
for welcome assistance in the work of transposing the third of the
Indices to suit the new pagination.
H. ST. J. T.
May 13, 1898.
CONTENTS.
PART I.
INTRODUCTION, PHONETICS, AND ACCIDENCE.
PAGE
§ 1. Introduction, -
§ 2. Elements of the New Testament language,
§ 3. Orthography, . . . . .
§ 4. Division of words, accents, breathings, punctuation,
$ 5. Elision, crasis, variable final consonants, .
§ 6. Sporadic sound-changes, .
§ 7. First and second declensions,
§ 8. Third declension, .
§ 9. Metaplasmus,
§ 10. Proper names. Indeclinable nouns,
$ 11. Adjectives, - -
$ 12. Numerals, - -
§ 13. Pronouns, .
§ 14. System of conjugation,
$ 15. Augment and reduplication,
$ 16. Verbs in -W. Tense formation, .
1 § 17. Verbs in -W. New formation of a present tense,
1$ 18. Verbs in -w. On the formation of the future, .
§ 19. Verbs in -W. First and second aorist, .
$ 20. Verbs in -W. Aorist and future of deponent verbs,
$ 21. Verbs in -w. Terminations,
$ 22. Contract verbs, - -
$ 23. Verbs in .lle -
$ 24. Table of noteworthy verbs, -
S 25. Adverbs, ..
§ 26. Particles, . .
$ 27. Word-formation by means of terminations and suffixes,
$ 28. Word-formation by composition, .
$ 29. Proper names,
vii
cos co
wo
Co wo wo wo
viii
.
.
CONTENTSPART II.
SYNTAX.
PAGE
-
-
-
•
-
-
72
$ 30. Subject and predicate,
$ 31. Agreement, - -
SYNTAX OF THE NOUN.
84
§ 32. Gender and number,
$ 33. The cases. Nominative and vocative,
$ 34. The accusative,
§ 35. The genitive,
§ 36. Continuation : genitive with verbs, etc., -
37. Dative, .
$ 38. Continuation : instrumental and temporal dative, -
$ 39. The cases with prepositions. Prepositions with the accusative, .
$ 40. Prepositions with the genitive,
§ 41. Prepositions with the dative,
$ 42. Prepositions with two cases,
§ 43. Prepositions with three cases,
§ 44. Syntax of the adjective, .
§ 45. Numerals; - - -
87
95
100
109
116
12]
124
130
132
136
140
144
145
§ 46. The article. I. é, ń, tó as pronoun ; the article with independent
substantives, -
§ 47. The article. II. The article with adjectives etc. ; the article
with connected parts of speech, . . . .
154
SYNTAX OF THE PRONOUNS.
§ 48. Personal, reflexive, and possessive pronouns,
§ 49. Demonstrative pronouns, - - -
$ 50. Relative and interrogative pronouns,
$ 51. Indefinite pronouns; pronominal words, -
.
170
1
SYNTAX OF THE VERB.
180
$ 52. The voices of the verb,
$ 53. Active voice,
$ 54. Passive voice,
$ 55. Middle voice, .
$ 56. The tenses. Present tense, - .
$ 57. Imperfect and aorist indicative,
8 58. Moods of the present and the aorist,
181
184
185
187
190
194
CONTENTS
ix
PAGE
198
201
201
202
205
208
8 59. The perfect, - -
$ 60. Pluperfect, .
$ 61. Future, ..
$ 62. Periphrastic conjugation,
§ 63. The moods. Indicative of unreality (and repetition), .
$ 64. Conjunctive and future (or present) indicative in principal clauses,
$ 65. Conjunctive and future (or present) indicative in subordinate
clauses, - - -
$ 66. Remains of the optative, .
$ 67. Imperative, - -
$ 68. Infinitive, .
$ 69. Infinitive and periphrasis with iva, -
$ 70. Infinitive and periphrasis with őtt, - .
$ 71. Infinitive with the article, .
$ 72. Cases with the infinitive. Nominative and accusative with the
infinitive, - - - - - -
$ 73. Participle. (I.) Participle as attribute-representing a substantive
-as predicate, .
$ 74. Participle. (II.) As an additional clause in the sentence,
211
219
221
221
222
230
233
237
242
247
253
257
259
$ 75. The negatives, ..
$ 76. Other adverbs, .
§ 77. Particles (conjunctions), -
$ 78. Particles (continued),
$ 79. Connection of sentences, .
$ 80. Position of words (position of clauses),
$ 81. Ellipse (Brachylogy), pleonasm, .
$ 82. Arrangement of words; figures of speech, -
270
275
INDEX.
304
I. Index of subjects, .
II. Index of Greek words,
III. Index of New Testament passages, ..
312
332
CORRIGENDA.
p. 3, line 28, for of the present day' read 'or those which they
have reached at the present day
p. 60, line 22, for our read oûv.
p. 68, last line, for 3 Jo. 2 read 3 Jo. 9.
p. 114, line 14, for kollaolal read komâobal.
line 29, omit the comma before tū TlOTEL.
line 36, for "for which 'read for the dative.'
p. 115, 12 lines from the bottom, for aýyas read anyás.
2 lines from the bottom, for till read Tivi.
p. 172, line 14, for Mt. 24. 23 read Mt. 24. 43.
p. 220, note 1, for A. 1. 8 read A. 1. 20.
p. 232, line 3, for H. 13. 8 read H. 13. 18.
PART I.
INTRODUCTION: PHONETICS AND ACCIDENCE.
§ 1. INTRODUCTION.
1. The special study of the grammar of New Testament Greek
has been for the most part prompted by purely practical needs. In
Greek literature as such the writings brought together in the New
Testament can claim but a very modest position; and the general
grammar of the Greek language can take but very limited notice of
the special features which they present. Yet, on the other hand,
their contents give them so paramount an importance, that in order
to understand them fully, and to restore them to their primitive
form, the most exact investigation even of their grammatical peculi-
arities becomes an absolute necessity.
The New Testament writers represent in general that portion of
the population of the Hellenised East, which, while it employed
Greek more or less fluently as the language of intercourse and
commerce-side by side with the native languages which were by
no means superseded-yet remained unfamiliar with the real
Hellenic culture and the literature of classical Greek. How far, in
this respect, exceptions are to be admitted in the case of Luke and
Paul, as also in the case of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
(Barnabas), it is not easy to decide : at any rate the traces of
classical culture even in these writers are next to nothing, whereas
in the next generation a Clement of Rome, with his yuvaikes
Aavaides kaì Alpkul and his story of the phoenix,l at once displays an
entirely different character. Accordingly, the language employed
in the N.T. is such as was spoken in the lower circles of society, not
such as was written in works of literature. But between these two
forms of speech there existed even at that time a very considerable
difference. The literary language had always remained dependent
in some measure on the old classical masterpieces; and though in
the first centuries of Hellenic influence it had followed the develop-
ment of the living language, and so had parted some distance from
those models, yet since the first century before Christ it had kept
struggling back to them again with an ever-increasing determination.

i Clem, ad Corinth. vi. 2: XXV.
INTRODUCTION.
[S 1. 1-2, § 2. 1.
If, then, the literature of the Alexandrian period must be called
Hellenistic, that of the Roman period must be termed Atticistic.
But the popular language had gone its own way, and continued to
do so until out of ancient Greek there was gradually developed
modern Greek, which, however, in its literature—its prose literature
in particular-is still very strongly affected by classic influences.
The N.T. then shows us an intermediate stage on the road between
ancient and modern Greek; on this ground, too, its language is
deserving of a special treatment.
2. It is indeed true that for a knowledge of the popular language
of the first century after Christ, as of the immediately preceding and
succeeding periods, the N.T. is by no means our only source. In
the way of literature not much is to be added, certainly nothing
which can diminish the supreme importance of the N.T. Un-
doubtedly the Greek translations of the Old Testament show a great
affinity of language, but they are translations, and slavishly literal
translations; no one ever spoke so, not even the Jewish translators.
Of profane literature, one might perhaps quote the discourses of
Epictetus contained in Arrian's commentary as the work most avail-
able for our purpose. But the spoken language is found quite pure,
purer by far than in the N.T. itself-found, too, in its various
gradations, corresponding naturally to the position and education of
the speaker-in those private records, the number and importance
of which is being perpetually increased by fresh discoveries in Egypt.
The language of the N.T. may, therefore, be quite rightly treated
in close connection with these. A grammar of the popular language
of the period, written on the basis of all these various authorities
more satisfactory than one which was limited to the language of the
New Testament. The practical considerations, however, from which
we set out, will be constantly imposing such a limitation ; for it
cannot be of the same importance to us to know what some chance
Egyptian writes in a letter or deed of sale, as it is to know what the
men of the N.T. have written, however true it may be that in their
and the lower classes of Egyptians and Syrians, and despised them
both alike.
§ 2. ELEMENTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT LANGUAGE.
1. By far the most predominant element in the language of the
New Testament is the Greek of common speech which was dis-
seminated in the East by the Macedonian conquest, in the form
which it had gradually assumed under the wider development of
modified Attic, in which were omitted such Attic peculiarities as
appeared too strange to the bulk of the remaining Greeks, such
as το instead of σσ in θάλαττα etc., and ρρ instead of ρσ in άρρην
1 Cf. G. A. Deissmann, Bibelstudien (Marburg, 1895), p. 57 if.
$ 2. 1.]
3
ELEMENTS OF THE N.T. LANGUAGE.
etc. As a matter of course it is the later Attic, not the older,
which lies at the base of it, which explains, to take one example,
the absence of any trace of a dual in this language. But as the
development extended, the remaining distinctions in the language
between duality and plurality were also set aside: not only is
πότερος abandoned for τίς, εκάτερος for έκαστος, and so on, but
above all the superlative is abandoned for the comparative : and
this is a state of things which we find in the language of the
N.T., but by no means in the literary language of a contemporary
and later date, which affords no traces of these peculiarities. With
this is connected the more limited use of the optative, and many
other usages, to be discussed in their place. Another not very con-
siderable portion of the alterations concerns the phonetic forms
of declension and conjugation, under which may be classed the
extension of the inflexion -a, gen. -ns to words in -pa, and the trans-
ference of 1st aorist terminations to the 2nd aorist. A third and
much larger class embraces the uses and combinations of forms and
"form-words,” in which a similar striving after simplification is
unmistakable. Very many usages disappear; the use of the
infinitive as the complement of the verb is extended at the ex-
pense of that of the participle, the objective accusative at the
expense of the genitive and dative; the rules concerning oủ or
uń are as simple as they are intricate for the classical languages.
Of quite another order, and concealed by the orthography, which
remained the same, are the general changes in the sounds of the
language, which even at that time had been carried out in no small
measure, though it was not till long afterwards that they reached
their later dimensions of the present day. A last class is composed
of changes in lexicology-for the most part the substitution of a
new expression in place of the usual expression for a thing or an
side by side with the old as its equivalent. This, however, does
not as a rule come within the province of grammar, unless the
expression be a kind of "form-word,” for instance a preposition, or
an irregular verb, an instance of this being the present of cidov,
which in general is no longer oρώ, but βλέπω or θεωρώ. The
Hellenistic language as a whole is in its way not less subject to
rules nor less systematic than Attic; but it has certainly not
received such a literary cultivation as the latter, because the con-
tinuous development of culture never allowed it completely to
break away from the older form, which was so exclusively regarded
as the standard of what the language should be.
1 Since the Kolvý had such a wide diffusion, from Italy and Gaul to Egypt and
Syria, it is a priori impossible that it should have been everywhere entirely
uniform, and so it is correct to speak also of an Alexandrian dialect lý ’Aletav-
Opéwv dialektos) as a special form of it (W.-Schm. g 3, 1, note 4). Of course we
are not in a position to make many distinctions in details in this respect; yet
even in the N.T. writers certain differences are well-marked, which have nothing
to do with a more or less cultivated style, e.g. some writers, and Luke in
particular, confuse els and èv, whereas the author of the Apocalypse is able
ELEMENTS OF THE N.T. LANGUAGE. [$ 2. 2-3.
the langhe national a threefota writer authe
2. One element of the popular languages of that time, and there-
fore of the New Testament language, which though not prominent
is clearly traceable, is the Latin element. The ruling people of
Italy intermingled with the population of all the provinces; Roman
proper names were widely circulated (as the N.T. at once clearly
shows in the names of its authors and the persons addressed); but
appellatives (KOVOTwdía, covoápcov, Kevtupiwv) also found admission,
and some phrases, particularly of commercial and legal life, were
literally translated (as tò ikavòv toleiv, lapſávelv = satisfacere, satis
accipere). In general, however, this influence remains confined to
lexicology and phraseology; in a slight degree it affects the form-
ation of words (Hpwd-lavoi, Xpnot-lavoi), in perhaps a greater degree
the syntax (ékélevoev aŭtov årayonvai = duci eum iussit), still it is
difficult here to determine what is due to native development of
the language and what to foreign influence.
3. The national Hebrew or Aramaic element influenced Greek-
writing Jews in a threefold manner. In the first place it is
probable that the speaker or writer quite involuntarily and uncon-
sciously rendered a phrase from his mother tongue by an accurately
corresponding phrase ; again, that the reading and hearing of the
Old Testament in the Greek version coloured the writer's style,
especially if he desired to write in a solemn and dignified manner
(just as profane writers borrowed phrases from the Attic writers
for a similar object); third and last, a great part of the N.T.
writings (the three first Gospels and the first half of the Acts) is
in all probability a direct working over of Hebrew or Aramaic
materials. This was not a translation like that executed by the
LXX., rendered word for word with the utmost fidelity, and almost
without any regard to intelligibility ; but it was convenient to
adhere to the originals even in expression instead of looking for
a form of expression which was good Greek. The Hebraisms and
Aramaisms are, then, for the most part of a lexical kind, i.e. they
consist in the meaning which is attributed to a word (okávdulov is
the rendering of Swan in the ethical sense, hence okavdaliceuv),
or in phrases literally translated (as apóownov daußávelv 09 NZ
'to respect the person,' hence z podwołÝurttys - Anuxía); these.
expressions, which moreover are not too numerous, must have been
current in Jewish, and subsequently in Christian, communities..
In the department of grammar the influence of Hebrew is seen
especially in a series of peculiarities in the use of prepositions,
consisting partly of circumlocutions such as αρέσκειν ενώπιόν τινος
instead of Tiví, pò apooónov tñs cisódov aŭroû, before him,' partly
in an extended use of certain prepositions such as év (emri) on the
a representative of the unadulterated Kolvý, uses often enough the superlative
forms in -ratos and -lotos in elative sense, whereas the forms in -tatos are gener-
ally absent from the writers of the N.T., and even those in -Lotos are only very
seldom found (see § 11, 3). Such cases must, then, go back to local differences
within the Kolvý, even if we can no longer rightly assign the range of circulation
of individual peculiarities.
8 2. 4.]
ELEMENTS OF THE N.T. LANGUAGE.
analogy of the corresponding Hebrew word (?); much is also taken
over in the use of the article and the pronouns; to which must be
added the periphrasis for the simple tense by means of ģv etc.
with the participle, beside other examples.
4. The literary language has also furnished its contribution to
the language of the N.T., if only in the case of a few more cultured
writers, especially Luke, Paul, and the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews.1 A very large number of good classical constructions are
indeed found in the N.T., but confined to these particular writers,
just as it is only they who occasionally employ a series of words
which belonged to the language of literary culture and not to
colloquial speech. Persons of some culture had these words and
constructions at their disposal when they required them, and would
even employ the correct forms of words as alternatives to the vulgar
forms of ordinary use. This is shown most distinctly by the speech
of Paul before Agrippa (Acts xxvi.), which we may safely regard as
reported with comparative accuracy. On this occasion, when Paul
had a more distinguished audience than he ever had before, he
makes use not only of pure Greek proverbs and modes of speech
(προς κέντρον λακτίζειν 14, ουκ έστιν εν γωνία πεπραγμένον τούτο 26),
but there also appears here the only superlative in -tatos in the
whole N.T. (Tv åkpißeotátny aiperiv 5), and here only 'oaol for
'they know' (4), not oïdaoiv; he must therefore have learnt some-
where (?at school), that in order to speak correct Attic Greek one
must conjugate iouevlote io aoiv. So also it is not surprising if
Paul writes to his pupils and colleagues in a somewhat different,
i.e. in a somewhat higher style, than that which he uses in writing
to his congregations. It is noteworthy that in the artificial repro-
duction of the ancient language the same phenomenon repeated
itself to a certain degree, which had long before occurred in the
reproduction of Homeric language by subsequent poets : namely,
that the imitator sometimes misunderstood, and accordingly misused,
a phrase. Just as Archilochus on the strength of the Homeric ·
line: τέκνον εμόν, γενεη μεν υπέρτερός έστιν 'Αχιλλεύς, πρεσβύτερος δε
ou cool (Il. xi. 786, Menoetius to Patroclus) employed 'éprepos=
Veúrepos (a sense which it never bore): so in all probability Luke
(with or without precedent) used metà Toy äoliv Mov in A. 20. 29
as equivalent to 'after my departure,' because he had misunderstood
Metà Trv ÖTLÉLV (correctly arrival') Tös yuvaukós in Herodotus, 9, 77
The same writer has απήεσαν, εξήεσαν (from the obsolete άπειμι,
EELMl) with the force of the aorist, ékelce, oubo e, in answer to the
question Where ? and many other instances.
1 The discrimination between the popular element and the literary element
interwoven into it is very minutely worked out in J. Viteau, Etude sur le Grec
du N.T.: Le verbe, syntaxe des prépositions, Paris, 1893.
2 Vide the Scholia to Il. loc. cit. (Archilochus, frag. 28, Bergk.).
ORTHOGRAPHY.
[S 3. 1.
1. Onafhed to (S 2, 1.
in general alter shew sound off banalready
$ 3. ORTHOGRAPHY.
1. One portion of the changes in the Greek language that have
been alluded to (S 2, 1) concerned generally the sounds and com-
binations of these ; but in general alterations of this kind it is
usual for the spelling not to imitate the new sound off-hand, and
certainly not without hesitation, in the case of a word which already
had a stereotyped and ordinary spelling. So, in Greek, in the
time of the composition of the N.T., there was, as we know from
manifold evidence of stone and papyrus, no one fixed orthography in
existence, but writers fluctuated between the old historical spelling
and a new phonetic manner of writing. The sound-changes,
at that time not nearly so great as they afterwards became, had
principally to do with the so-called , adscript in the diphthongs
ą, ?, W (strictly ão, 176, wi with i pronounced), which, since about the
second century before Christ, had become mute, and with the old
diphthong El, which from about the same period ceased to be
distinguished from long .. But the writing of AI, HI, I, EI did
not on that account become obsolete, preserved as they were by
their occurrence in all ancient books and literal transcripts of them;
only it was no longer known in which cases ā, ē, Ō should be
furnished with the symbol for i mute, and in which cases long į
should be written as EI. Many persons took the drastic measure
of omitting the i mute in all cases, even in the dative, as Strabo 1
attests, in the same way that we also find I as the prevailing spelling
for ī (though still not without exceptions) in manuscripts of the
period 2; others considered that in El as against I they had a
convenient means of distinguishing between 7 and ✓, in the same
way that ē and ě, 7 and ở were distinguished. So kiveîs is sometimes
KINIC, sometimes KEINEIC; and even KEINIC would be frequently
written by any ordinary scribe. It was not until a later date that
the historical method of writing was uniformly carried out, and
even then not without occasional errors, by learned grammarians,
especially Herodian of Alexandria, who taught in Rome under
M. Aurelius. This was in keeping with the prevailing impulse of
the time, which made for the revival of the old classical language.
Since then, in spite of increasing difficulties, this method of spelling
has been continuously taught and inculcated in the schools with the
help of numerous artificial rules up till the present day.
2. It is impossible therefore to suppose, after what has been
stated, that even Luke and Paul could have employed the correct
historical spelling in the case of , mute and el; for at that time
there was nobody in the schools of Antioch and Tarsus who could
teach it them, certainly not in the case of cl, though some rules
might be formulated at an earlier period with regard to o mute.
We are debarred from all knowledge as to how they actually did
1 Strabo, xiv., p. 648, rolloi ydp xwpis toll i ypápovol tås dotikás, kai ékBXlovou
δε το έθος φυσικών αιτίαν ουκ έχον.
2 Papyrus Ms. of the poems of Hero(n)das, London, 1991.
_-
.
.
$ 3. 2-4.]
ORTHOGRAPHY.
write, and it is a matter of indifference, provided that one realizes
this state of things, and recognizes that e.g. AWCIN stood equally
well for δωσιν or δώσειν. The oldest scribes whose work we possess
(cent. 4-6) always kept themselves much freer from the influence of
the schools than the later, i.e. they frequently wrote phonetically or
according to the rule el=ī (so the scribe of B), and indeed i mute
finds no place in Mss. before the seventh century. In our case there
consistently employ the historical spelling in the N.T., as well as in
the case of all profane writers, and remove all half measures, such as
those, for instance, still remaining in Tischendorf, without any
regard to the MS. evidence. The recording and weighing of evidence
of this kind in the case of individual words, e.g. words in -eld, -ca, is
the most unprofitable of tasks that a man can undertake.
3. The mute should therefore be supplied, as the correct his-
torical spelling, in the following words, as well as in the well-known
cases : pouvokELV, Ovo KELV (for -n-lo kelv), avtaxó, Távty, eiký,
kpuoï, láopą, netī, (åvti)mépą 1 (old dative forms); đOộos, šớov,
Tratpộos, inepôov, ♡óv, Tpøás, ‘Hpqons (for ‘Hpwions, from Ýpws),
at pộpa, cØSELV (for ow-íſelv). In the case of oỚCeLv, it is not yet
satisfactorily ascertained how far the tenses partook of the i, since
σαόω interposes itself and supplies εσώθην (for έσαώθην), σωτήρ etc. ;
in the active we may write owow, čowoa, okowka : in the perf. pass.
okowo uat appears to be correct, like vevoulouat, but ołowTai (A. 4. 9)
on the model of łóonv. It is also doubtful whether an . was ever
present in the forms first found in Hellenistic Greek, δώην, γνώην
(optat.), tatpolvas, untpodúas (Attic Soinv, yvoinv, -dolas); but
instances. As yet there is not sufficient evidence to decide between
z pãos – apģos, a paórns – mpąórns. For ec in place of ne vide infra 5.
4. El for i is established in Mss, and editions, being found most
persistently in Semitic words, especially proper names, where it
would never once be without use as an indication of the length of
the is provided only that it be correctly understood to have this
meaning, and not to represent a diphthong, which is fundamentally
wrong. We can, if we please, in these cases assist the pronunciation
by means of the symbol for a long vowel (c): thus Aavid, 'Addi,
'Axiu, Bevianīv, 'Eliakij, 'Elīgaßet, 2 'Iáīpos, Kīs, Aevū(s), Neobarid,
Eándipa, Taßida, Xepovßīv; Sedonjavī,4 'Iepixw5; ídī, daßßī, talida,
1 Certainly in later times the a in (rat)avtintepa appears to be short, since it
is elided in verse, Maneth. iv. 188.
2 Elelo. always in B, generally X, occasionally CD, see Tisch. on L. 1. 5.
3 The Mss. (A. 5. I) vary between El, l, v: there is no doubt of the identity
of the name with the Aran, NTD (pulchra), still it has been Grecised (gen. -ns
like páxalpa, -pns, & 7, 1) no doubt in connection with oán (e)upos, in which the
el is quite unjustifiable (Ap. 21. 19, -pos BP).
4 See Kautzsch in W.-Schm. & 5, 13 a (Hebr. 'Di na for 'z). The spelling
with n at the end as against -El, -e has only the very slenderest attestation ;
even the n of the second syllable must perhaps give way to the a of the western
tradition (many authorities in Mt. 26. 36: cp. Mc. 14. 32).
5 With e Mt. 20. 29 BCLZ; so always B, frequently A(D).
ORTHOGRAPHY.
[S 3. 4-6.
Teol, su, 14. mail the coins, Butym, M. suoly also have aripa not
oaßaxoovī. The proper names in -ías have in most cases č, and
therefore no el (so Mapaji, Mapía), but rightly ’Hlelas, 'Hlías
N, 'Iwrelas, -rías UN, 'Ofelas, -ías y, Oúpelas 7 .1
'Edoaîos L. 4. 27 yang has undoubtedly i, and is also spelt with
el in B (only), just as B has Papelaîou (Mc. 7. 1, 3, 5, A. 5. 34
etc.), Taledaid, -alos (Mc. 1. 14, 16, Jo. 7. I, A. 5. 37 etc.), Eelvá
(G. 4. 24 f.), Eclúv (R. 9. 33 etc.). Eapápela follows the analogy of
'Αντιόχεια, Αλεξάνδρεια etc., and must therefore retain ει in our
spelling of it,although the inhabitant is called Eauapérns, as the
inhabitant of Mapóvela is Mapwvítns.
5. With regard to Greek words and names, the following must be
noted for the correct discrimination between ei and o: oikTipw, not
-Elpw (cp. oikTipuós, -ípuwv, which in B certainly also have et § 4, 2).
'Ikóviov, not Eik. (i according to Etym. M. sub verbo, which, however,
does not agree with the coins, which give and el; the Mss. in
A. 13, 51, 14. I also read 6). Melyvvue, életfa etc., ueiyua. Tvw,
Telow, ÉTELA. Pulóvikos, -vikia (from víkn). Tavoukei A. 16. 34
(HAB+C), Tauitinei L. 23. 18, see § 28, 7. There is considerable
fluctuation in the language from the earliest times between -Elă
(proparoxyt.) and -ía; KAKOTabia Ja. 5. 10 (B1P) is the form
attested also for Attic Greek; w éleca, however (R. 3. 1, Jude 16),
already existed in Attic beside ωφελία. The spelling στρατείας (Β)
2 C. 10. 4 cannot be invalidated on the ground that in Attic
otpateia campaign' and otpatiá army' are interchanged, and
the one form stands for the other; napxia 'province' A. 25. I has
for a variant not επαρχεία but η επάρχειος (A, cp. sl). Ει is produced
from 70 according to the later Attic usage (which converted every
ηι into ει) in the words λειτουργός, -ία, -είν (orig. λητ., then λητ.),
which were taken over from Attic, and in Bouleu (L. 22. 42, the
literary word = the colloquial dédels $ 21, 7), whereas, in other cases
? in roots and in terminations (dat. Ist decl., conjunct., 2 sing. pass.)
remained as ē, and the use of the future for aor. conj. (8 65, 2, 5)
can on no account be explained by this Attic intermixture of the
diphthongs.
6. H in the language of the N.T., and also in the standard MSS.,
is in general far from being interchanged with b. Xpnotlavoí (and
Xprotós) rests on a popular interpretation of the word, for in place
of the unintelligible Xpłotós the heathen (from whom the designation
of the new sect as Xpnot. proceeded) substituted the familiar
Xprotós, which had a similar sound; the spelling of the word with
7. (in the N.T. preserved in every passage by k? A. 11. 26, 26. 28,
1 P. 4. 16) was not completely rejected even by the Christians, and
1 W. H. Append. 155. B alone is consistent in reading Oůpelou Mt. 1. 6
(the others -Lov). In the case of 'Eserlas 7200 Mt. l. 9 f. we have only
the witness of D for -El- in the passage L. 3. 23 ff., which it alters to correspond
with Mt. However, is the analogy complete ? C. I. Gr. 8613 also has
'Εζεκίας (-χίας) beside Iωσείας.
2 Cp. Herodian, Lentz, p. 279, 34.
3. 6-8.]
ORTHOGRAPHY.
maintained its position for a very long time.1 Kupývios for
Quirinius L. 2. 2 may be explained in a similar way (by a connec-
tion of it with Kupvn), but B and the Latin Mss. have Kup(e)ivov
Cyrino.2 In L. 14. 13, 21 åvárrelpos for åványpos is attested by
quite preponderating evidence (NABD al.), and is moreover men-
tioned by Phrynichus the Atticist as a vulgar form.3 ci uñv for
uhv H. 6. 14 (KABDI) is attested also in the LXX. and in papyri 4;
besides, all this class of variations belongs strictly to the province of
correct pronunciation (orthoepy), and not to that of orthography.
It is the same with the doubtful yourýrns or youvions (yuuviteúouev
1 C. 4. 11, with n L al., which, according to Dindorf in Steph. Thes.,
is the correct spelling), and olukivolov semicinctiun A. 19. 12 (all
MSS.), with which one might compare the comparatively early occur-
rence of divápia denariz 5 (N.T., however, always has dnv.). All
uncials have oldukoû sericumo Ap. 18. 12. The distinction made
between káundos camel' and Káuedos "rope' (Mt. 19. 24 etc.,
Suidas), appears to be a later artificiality.
7. At a much earlier time than the interchange of n-begins that
of ac- (n), appearing in passive verbal terminations already in the
Hellenistic period, in the middle of a word before a vowel some-
where about the second century A.D., and soon after universally, so
that little confidence can be placed in our MSS. as a whole in this
respect, though the oldest (D perhaps excepted) are still far more
correct in this than in the case of e-b. The question, therefore,
whether, in obedience to these witnesses, kepéa is to be written for
kepala, Eemvns and the like, should not be raised; the following
may be specially noticed : Ailapîtau A. 2. 9 (B correctly)?; åváyacov
Mc. 14. 15, L. 22. 12 (on quite overwhelming evidence); paíon
raeda Ap. 18. 13 (all uncials pédn); ballóns paenula (the Greek
form : strictly it should be palvóins) 2 Tim. 4. 13 (€ all uncials
except L); but ovkouopéa (A al. -aía) L. 19. 4 (from oukóuopov,
formation like undéa from uñov).
8. The diphthong v is already from early times limited to the
case where it is followed by another vowel, and even then it is ·
contracted in Attic Greek from the fifth century onwards into v;
it reappears, however, in Hellenistic Greek, being frequently indeed
1 See Hermes xxx. 465 ff.
2 Cp. Dittenberger, Herm. vi. 149. In Joseph. also the majority of the MSS.
have -ηνιος : to which add Μάρκος Κυρήνιος C. Ι. Α. iii. 599.
3 Phryn. in Bk. Anecd. i. 9, 22, avantnpla dià Toû n Tņu atpwthv, où dià ras el
dLQ0byyou, ús oi åpaleis (Tisch. ad loc.).
4 Blass, Ausspr. d. Gr. 339, 77 (Aegypt. Urk. des Berl. Mus. 543).
5 Ibid. 37, 94.
6 Cp. (W.-Schm. & 5, 14) OLPLKOTOLÓS (so for -os) Neapolitan inscription, Inscr.
Gr. It. et Sic. 785, to which siricarium and holosiricum are given as parallel
forms in Latin Inscr. (Mommsen).
? From Allán oby; see Euseb. Onomast. ed. Larsow-Parthey, p. 22. Yet
according to Könneke (sub verbo 13) the LXX. have Aldáu and 'Elapital side
by side.
10
[S 3. 8-10.
ORTHOGRAPHY.
other hand the inflexion -via, -víns ($ 7, 1) implies that the is not
pronounced. The uncial Mss. of the N.T. write it throughout; it
sometimes occurs in the word-division in B that the first scribe
divides vlovi; A has occasionally what comes to the same thing, üños.
The diphthong wv is non-existent (as also in Attic it may be said
not to occur); Mwvons is a trisyllable, and consequently to be
written Mwüğüs.
9. Consonants. Z-0.–The spelling &B, Eu in place of oß, ou is
widely disseminated in the Hellenistic and Roman period, in order
to indicate the soft sound which o has in this position only. This
however, is found far more rarely in the middle than at the beginning
of a word. In the N.T. the Mss. have Zuúpva Ap. 1. II, 2. 8 (N,
Latt. partly ; but Cuúpva has little support, as D Mt. 2. II, OGuúpuns
10. Single and double consonant.—With regard to the writing
of a single or double consonant much obscurity prevails in the Roman
period. The observance of the old-Greek rule, that p, if it passes
from the beginning to the middle of a word (through inflexion or
composition), preserves the stronger pronunciation of the initial letter
by becoming doubled, 2 is even in Attic Greek not quite without
exceptions ; in the later period the pronunciation itself must have
changed, and the stronger initial p approximated to the weaker medial
p, so that even a reduplication with p was now tolerated (bepavtiquévos
15, 6). The rule cannot be carried out in the N.T. without doing
great violence to the oldest Mss., although, on the other hand,
in these also there are still sufficient remnants of the ancient
practice to be found : thus all mss. have šppneev L. 9. 42, éppéen
Mt. 5. 21, 27 etc. (always in these words, § 16, 1), see Gregory
Tisch. iii. 121 ; äppwotos always, äppntos 2 C. 12. 4, Xecpáppovs Jo.
18. i etc.; on the other hand, äpabos Jo. 19. 23 (pp B), čari pártel Mc.
2. 21 (pp B2KMUT), åropiyavtes A. 27. 43 C etc. But while
this matter too belongs to orthography, the spelling pp recommends.
itself as a general principle. Tapncia is wrong, since it is assimilated
from hav-pnóía (zapno. Bi Mc. 8. 32, and passim; also ADL sometimes,
see Tisch.)3 ; áppaßóv (a borrowed Semitic word) has the metrical
prosody --- guaranteed and the doubling of the consonant estab-
lished in its Semitic form (åpaß. 2 C. 1. 22 XAFGL, 5. 5 DE,
E. 1. 14 FG), cp. also Lat. arrha 4
In the case of the other liquids and all the mutes there are only
isolated instances. βαλλάντιον, not βαλάντιον, is shown on quite
1 Tischendorf, N.T. Vat., p. xxviii. 4. There seem to have been people
who thought themselves bound, for correctness' sake, to pronounce hü-i-os,
mü-i-a, in three syllables ; cp. Cramer, Anecd. Oxon. III. 251.
2 Even the initial p in Att. inscr. is occasionally written pp ('Eonu. åpxacon.
1889, p. 49 ff. B, 20 ápruara ppuuois).
4 åppaß. C. I. Gr. ii. 2058, B. 34, åpaß. Papyrus Notices and Extr.
xviii. 2, 344 (W.-Schm. ibid. c); but pp Berl. Aeg. Urk. 240, 6.
§ 3. 10-12.]
II
ORTHOGRAPHY.
preponderating Ms. evidence to be correct, and the orthography is
also vouched for on metrical grounds. Qúyelos 2 Tim. 1. 15 ČxD
etc., -eldos A: the single letter appears to be the better spelling. 1
In uauwvās atrama the duplication of the u has very slender attest-
ation. évvevňkovta, čvvatos are wrong; yévvnua for living creatures
is correct (yevvâv, yevvão Dai), for products of the field incorrect,
since these are termed γένημα from γίνεσθαι Mt. 26. 29, Mc. 14. 25,
L. 12. 13 etc. This rests on quite preponderant evidence, which
is confirmed by the papyri.2 On xú(v)vw, KTÉVVO) see § 17. In
'Iwávns the single v is attested by the almost universal evidence of
B, frequently also by that of D (nearly always in Luke and Acts);
the word belongs to the series of Hellenised names (8 10, 2), which
treat the an of the Hebrew termination as a variable inflection,
whereas the interpretation of 'Iwávons as from 'Iwavav-ns (W.-Schm.
§ 5, 26 c) affords no explanation whatever for the-ns. On the other
hand, "Avva 791 is correct, and 'Iwávva (Aram. 707", cp. 70m2
Eovoávva, Maplap = Mapájen of Josephus) is also explicable (L. 8. 3
with v BD: 24. 10 with v only DL); the masc. "Avvas (for 727
Hebr., "Avavos Joseph.) might be influenced by the analogy of
"Avva.-Mutes : kpáßāros appears to be commended by Lat. grăbātus,
and the duplication of the B (introduced by the corrector in B) is
accordingly incorrect in any case; but for the ot there is the greatest
MS. authority (for which x has kt;. the single = in B1 only at Mc.
2. 4). Cp. W.-Schm. $ 5, note 52. 'Iórn is the orthography of the
N.T. (1 Macc.); elsewhere 'Ión preponderates (W.-Schm. § 5,
note 54).
11. Doubling of the aspirate. The aspirate, consisting of Tenuis
+ Aspiration, in correct writing naturally doubles only the first
element, kx, 70, 70 ; but at all times, in incorrect writing, the two
are doubled, xx, 00, pp. So N.T. ’Aøbía for 'Anoia ($ 6, 7)
Philem. 2 Di; Sáoolpa A. 5. I DE (but oánd(e)lpos Ap. 21. 19
in all MSS.); e baba or -eda Mc. 7. 34 nearly all : especially widely
extended is Maddalos (in the title to the Gospel XBD); Maddías
A. 1. 23, 26 B’D; Maltáv Mt. 1. 15 B(D); Maddad (aad, -at)
L. 3. 29 NB1
12. Assimilation.—Much diversity in writing is occasioned in
Greek (as also in Latin) at all periods by the adoption or omission
of the assimilation of consonants, which clash with each other by
reason of their juxtaposition within a word. In the classical period
the assimilation is often further extended to independent contiguous
words, and many instances of this are still preserved in the oldest
MSS. of the Alexandrian period; there are a few remnants of it in the
MSS. with which we are commonly dealing, including those of the
1 QvYEAcos (Gentile noun ?), C. I. Gr. ii. 3027 cited by W.-Schm. ibid. d.
2 Ibid. a ; Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 105 f.
3 The inscription, C. I. Gr. 8613 (under a statue of Hippolytus) has 'Iwávns ;
similarly Inscr. Gr. It. et Sic. 1106 (end of fourth century); otherwise -vv- has
most support in (later) inscriptions.
I 2
[S 3. 12–13.
ORTHOGRAPHY.
N.T.: é uéou Ap. 1. 13, 2. I etc. AC, H. 2. 12 AP, Mt. 18. 2,
L. 18. 20 LA etc.; oùp Mapián L. 2. 5 AE al.; oùu tãou 24. 21
EG al.; _y yaotpi L. 21. 23 A. The later period, on the other
hand, in accordance with its character in other matters (cp. SS 5, 1;
28, 8), was rather inclined to isolate words and even the elements of
words; hence in the later papyri the prepositions èv and oúv remain
without assimilation even in composition, and so also in the old MSS.
of the N.T., but this more often happens with oúv than with év, see
W. H. App. 149 f., W.-Schm. & 5, 251. 'Ef is everywhere assimilated
to the extent that it loses the o before consonants, both in composi-
tion and as a separately-written word; but the Attic and Alexandrian
writers went further, and assimilated the guttural, so that éy was
written before mediae and liquids, ex before ð and . But the MSS. of
the N.T. are scarcely acquainted with more than 8 and ék; for ékyova
I Tim. 5. 4 D1 has šyyova (i.e. eggona, not engona, Blass, Ausspr. 1233),
åteydúoel B* Col. 2. 11; åvéydintos D L. 12. 33. We naturally
carry out our rule consistently.
13. Transcription of Semitic words.- In the reproduction of
adopted Semitic words (proper names in the main) the MSS. occa-
sionally show an extraordinary amount of divergence, which is partly
due to the ignorance of the scribes, partly also, as must be admitted, -
to corrections on the part of persons who thought themselves better
informed. Thus the words on the cross in Mt. 27. 46 run as follows
in the different witnesses : nlei - andı (ård.) - ěłw(e)i(u), deua - omma
-1(e)qua - lapа, capaxdav(e) - oaſaktavel – capdavei (capo.); in
Mc. 15. 34 Elw(e). - Elwn - n1(e)c, lema - laulu)a - Mequa, caßax0.-
oaßakt.-oißak@avel-Ca(Bu) Bavel. Grammar, however, is not con-
cerned with individual words, but only with the rules for the tran-
scription of foreign sounds, which are the same for the N.T. as for
the LXX.2 The following are not expressed : x ,7, 11, », with
some exceptions, where is represented by X, as 'Paxýr 577,
Axát VN, Xappsv 7, Táo Xa NCT, TT. varies between Pax48
Mt. 1. 5, 'Pacß H. 11. 31, Ja. 2. 25; and sy by Y, as Tópoppa 77ay,
Táca 12); 'Akendemáx A. 1. 19 is strange for Nay P7 (cp. Eipax
170).3_and 1=1 and v; the latter (a half-vowel, our w, not our v)
blends with the preceding vowel to form a diphthong: Aavid, Ejo,
Aevís, Nevevital L. 11. 324; cp. with this Ekevâs A. 19. 14 if this
=Lat. Scaeva. >, , a=X, 0, 0 thus with aspiration, except when
two aspirates would stand in adjacent syllables, in which case the
Greeks differentiate also in native words; so táoxa (Joseph. has
v. 1. Darka : cp. LXX. 70b=Ilao xúp and Pacooúp), Kadupvo.oúp
02773 92 (NBD Mt. 4. 13, 11. 23 etc., later Mss. Karepv., see
in the cosa chwile oveo - tak for ords, hich are
with with aspis, in whicJose
I calcvyeveola Mt. 19. 28 XB'CDE etc., Tit. 3. 5 HACDEFG.
2 Cp. C. Könneke in Progr. von Stargard, 1885.
3 Reproduction of the guttural by prefixing a is seen in ánni Mt. 27. 46 (see
above) L (Euseb.), Nadavana Spain, LXX. ’Aepuców pioon, 'Aevowp 787 p'y.
* Another reading Niveuń (male' -Eul).
§ 3. 13-14, § 4. 1.] DIVISION OF WORDS.
13
Tisch. on Mt. 4. 13), Knpås. But is also represented by t, as in
cáßßarov naz; cp. ’Aotáptn, likewise admitted into the language
at an early date; he becomes, in L. 4. 26, Esperta in XAB+CD
al., Eapedda BPKLM; there is fluctuation also between Nacapel,
-pet, -pa(o), where the corresponding Semitic form is uncertain.
Tervno aped, -pet in Mt. 14. 34, Mc. 6. 53, L. 5. 1, is incorrect, D in
Mt., Mc. correctly, l'evvnoap; in 'Elcaßéo, -Bet the t corresponds
to Semitic », 937 On the other hand p, bare rendered by the
tenues K, 7,1 while t is almost entirely absent from Semitic words.
Sibilants: o esta 225 =0, += $ (with the value of French %), but nya
Mt. 1. 5 Boes AB, Boos C, Booß EKLM al; as vooWTOS. On
"AÇutos 1 TON see § 6, 7.
14. In Latin words it must be noted that qui is rendered by kv:
aquilo åkółwv (S 28, 3); Kupívios Quirinius sup. 6; likewise qui
by ko : quadrans Kodpávrns. U is ov: KOVOTwdía Mt. 27. 65, 'Poûpos;
but also v: Kevtypíwv Mc. 15. 39.2 On i= e see $ 6, 3.
$ 4. DIVISION OF WORDS, ACCENTS, BREATHINGS,
PUNCTUATION.
1. In the time of the composition of the N.T. and for long after-
wards the division of words was not generally practised, although
grammarians had much discussion on the subject of the position
of accents and breathings, as to what might be regarded as év uépos
Toû dóyov and what might not. It is absent from the old MSS., and
moreover continues to be imperfect in the later MSS. down to the
15th century. Of course it is the case with Greek as with other
languages-the controversy of the grammarians shows it that the
individuality of separate words was not in all cases quite strictly
established: words that were originally separate were by degrees
blended together in such a way that it is not always perceptible
at what point in the development the separation came absolutely
to an end. One indication of the fact that the blending has been
completed is when the constituent parts can no longer be separated
by another word : őtav dé, not ote 8' äv is the correct expression,
whereas ós 8 av is employed ; in the N.T. we also have coaútws dé
Mc. 14. 31, L. 20. 31, R. 8. 26 (on the other hand Homer has ás d'
ajtws, which is still met with in Herodotus and Attic writers)3 ; TÒ
8 aútó, rộ ydp aŭto are still retained in the N.T. On the same
principle the following e.g. form one word : 60TIS (still separable in
Attic), kaltep, Toivuv, uévtol, oùdé, oŰte, où détroTE, OČTU (the two last
separable in Att.), uńti and jýtiye, úgeí, boTEP, Úgtepel, in the N.T.
1 Exception: oaßaxdavl (see above) 'npaú, in which case, however, there is
a reverse change by assimilation to -ktavi.
2 Dittenberger, Hermes vi. 296.
3 Even as late as Philodem. Öntop. ii. 97, Sudhaus.
14
[$ 4. 1-2.
DIVISION OF WORDS-ACCENTS.
also indisputably ουδείς, μηδείς, where ουδ' υφ' ενός can no longer, as
in Att., take the place of ÚT' oùdevós etc. A second criterion is
afforded by the new accent for the combined words : ÉTÉKEL VA
(úmepékelva) from firêkîva, oùdels from oùd Els, ēkaradac (ČKTOTE) from
Èk rádal ('ék Tóre); a third by the new signification of the com-
pound : zapaxpñua is no longer identical with mapà xpñua, kadólov
is different from kao őlov, the origin of earths in E atthis tñs őpas
and of ivarí in iva ti yévntai is obscured. All this, however, by no
means affords a universally binding rule, not even the absence of
the first indication of blending; for in that case one would have to
write e.g. os tus in Attic. So also in the N.T. TOUTÉOTI, 'that is'
is not proved to be erroneous by the occurrence of a single instance
of ToûTO Sé &OTI (R. 1. 12), but it certainly does prove that it is not
tions before adverbs to appear as separate words, because the
independent notion of the preposition is lost: therefore we have
étrávu, ÚTOKÓTW, étaúplov "to-morrow,' årévavti, kadánas, ÚTeplíav,
ÚTTEP (EK )TeplogỘs 1; still år äpti 'from henceforth' appears to be
correct, also d'áag once for all,' at once,' cf. &TÈ Tpís. On kali
Eis, Karà els see § 51, 5; in epeyú (Lachm. 2 C. 11. 23) is clearly
an impossibility, as the sense is, I (subject) am so more than they
(predic.).
2. The system of symbols for reading purposes (accents, breathings,
instance only employed for the text of poetry written in dialect, and
was not carried out in ordinary prose till the times of minuscule
writing. With regard to accents, we have to apply the traditional
rules of the old grammarians to the N.T. as to other literature,
except in so far as an accentuation is expressly stated to be Attic
as opposed to the Hellenistic method, or where we notice in the
later form of the language a prosody different from that of the
earlier language, which necessitates a different accent. Peculiar
to Attic is the accentuation diétus etc., in N.T. accordingly dietńs;
also uãpos for uwpós, öxpelos for åxpeios (whereas épauos, étoîuos,
ομοίος were the ancient forms, and foreign to the κοινή3), ιμάντος
for ιμάντος with a different prosody, χιλιαδων for -άδων, imperat.
idé daßé for ide láße. On the other hand we are informed by
Herodian that ixoûs -ūv, šobüs -ūv were the ordinary, not a
language is the shortening of the stem-vowel in words in -ua, as
Défia, Tóma ($ 27, 2), therefore klima, kpina also are paroxytone,
1 Also ÚTEPEKTEPLO O OÙ E. 3. 20, 1 Th. 3. 10 (5. 13, v.l. -ows) always presents
a single idea, and is completely held together by Únep. Cp. $ 28, 2.
2 It is true that Euthalius already used those symbols in his edition of the
N.T. writings (W.-Schm. 6, 1, note 1), and they are also found in individual
· uncials dating from the 7th century (Gregory Tisch. iii. 99 f.); in B they
originate from a corrector of the 10th or llth century.
3 According to Herodian's words (Tepl Movúpous léčews, 938 L.) one would
have concluded that épnjos, ŠTOLMOs were peculiar to late Attic; however,
modern Greek also has špnuos (romance lang. ermo etc., Dietz, Etymol. Wörterb.
cl. rom. Spr. I. sub verb.) étoluos, uolos, but åxpełos.
$ 4. 2–3.]
.
ACCENTS-BREATHINGS.
15
not kdîua, kpîua; but xpîoua is not analogous to these (cp. xpīotós),
and is even written χρεισμα in B1 (1 Jo. 2. 20, 27). Also πνίγος
for πνίγος, ρίγος for ρίγος are attested as vulgar forms (Lobeck,
Phryn. 107), but there is no reason to infer from these that túxos
is the N.T. form of tûxos. Herodian informs us that the shortening
of and v before & was the general rule, hence we get ņdes, kņpuš,
knpýtal; but we have no ground whatever for extending this rule
to i and v before y, and B has Olelyis, hence accent Olitis; similarly
pipav (pelyav B) from pītTW, whereas the prosody of KÜTTW is not
established, and the accent of Kuya. is therefore equally uncertain.
Kpáśw, kpacov; optßw, črpiya etc. (with El before in B and the
Herculanean rolls), therefore συντετρίφθαι Μο. 5. 4 (συντετρειφθαι
B). In otidos "spot' the quantity of the 1 is unattested, except
indirectly by B, which throughout has otidos, aotidos, otidovv; this
proves that it is not otidos. In oikTipuwv, oiktipuós, in which B
has e in almost all cases (contrary to all analogy : the words occur
in the old dialects), the accent does not enter into the question.
Iacobudáklov, not -elov, is the constant form in B, and is also made
probable by the analogy of such words as tedávcov, urpotálcov;
cidálcov (§ 27, 3) has also better attestation in the N.T. (HAB etc.)
than -elov. In Latin proper names the quantity of the vowel in
Latin is the standard for determining the accent. This is definitely
fixed for Mārcus, Prīscus, quartus; hence Mâpkos, Kpiomos, 1 Kovâptos;
but Σεκούνδος Or Σέκουνδος. Ιn spite of everything there remains
considerable doubt in the accentuation, since the accents of the MSS.
are not altogether decisive; everything connected with the Hebrew
proper names is completely uncertain, but there is also much uncer-
tainty in the Greek and Grecised names.
3. The same principle must be followed for determining the
breathing, yet with somewhat greater deference to the MSS., not so
much to the actual symbols employed by them, as to the writing
with aspirate or tenuis in the case of the elision of a vowel or in the
case of oùk, oùy. It is established from other sources as well that
the rough breathing in the Hellenistic language did not in all cases
belong to the same words as in Attic; the MSS. of the N.T. have
a place among the witnesses, although to be sure some of these, such
as D of the Gospels and Acts, are generally untrustworthy in the
matter of tenuis or aspirate, and they are never agreed in the
doubtful cases. Smooth for rough breathing is especially strongly
attested in Jo. 8. 44 OỦK ČOTNKEV (HB’DLX al.), which might be a
newly-formed perfect of čomnv, and not an equivalent for ćOTNKEV
stands,' see 8 23, 6. The rough breathing is abundantly vouched
for in certain words that originally began with a digamma: ells,
El tlfW (éd é daridi) A. 2. 26 XCD, R. 8. 20 xB1DIFG, 1 C. 9. 10
in the first occasion only FG, in the second only A. R. 4. 18
CIDIFG, 5. 2 DIFG, Tit. 1. 2 D1 (év FG), 3. 7 ka@ FG (kata D),
A. 26. 6 no attestation. ÅpenaticovteS DP L. 6. 35 (åpenalkós
.
1B has Kpelotos, also in some places the equally correct forms IIpeloka,
Πρείσκιλλα.
16
[$ 4. 3-5.
BREATHINGS.
.
Herm. Vis. iii. 12. 2x); there is also one example of this from Attic
Greek, another from Hellenistic, the Greek O.T. supplies several.1
-ideîv: ápídw Ph. 2. 23 XABIDIFG, épide A. 4. 29 ADE, é cîdev
L. 1. 25 DW A(X), oủx idoú A. 2. 7 XDE, oủx idóvres 1 P. 1. 8 Bi
which also has ovx cidov G. 1. 19; many examples of åp, ép-, kao-
in 0.T.2 The form los often attested in inscriptions 3 exists in
kal' idíay Mt. 14. 23 D (ibid. 13 all have kar'), 17. 19 BID,
20. 17 B1, 24. 3 *B, Mc. 4. 34 BIDA, 6. 31 BI (not 32); in Bí
again in 9. 28, 13. 3 (elsewhere B also kar'). 'Egloproels Mt. 5. 338
(widely extended, Phryn. p. 308 Lob., from érlópk.4); but étos (Kat'
Tos L. 2. 41, Hellenistic often fros) does not appear in the N.T.
with the rough breathing. Sporadic instances like oủk půpov, oủk
Évekev, oủx oyeole (Gregory Tisch. ii. 90) must be regarded as
clerical errors; ovx oliyos, however (where there is no former
digamma in question), is not only a good variant reading in nearly
all the passages in the N.T. (Ă. 12. 18 XA, 14. 28 A, 17. 4 B*,
19. 23 KAD, 19. 24 N, 27. 20 A ; elsewhere only 15. 2, 17. 12), but
is found also in the LXX. and the papyri.5
4. A difficult, indeed insoluble, question is that concerning the
use of rough or smooth breathing in Semitic words, especially proper
names. The principle carried out by Westcott and Hort appears to
be rational, namely, of representing N and sy by the smooth breath-
ing, 7 and 1 by the rough, a practice which gives us many strange
results : ‘ABek (1-7), 'Alpacos (), Eűa (77), "Avva (1), and 'Avavias
(17), adindovia (6), but 'EBpaíos (y). The Ms. evidence, on the
other hand, is deserving of little confidence in itself, and these
witnesses are anything but agreed among themselves ('Hoaias – ’Ho.,
'ABpaúj - ’ABp., 'Hảias - 'HĂ. etc.). 6 Initial , must, when repre-
sented by 1, receive the smooth breathing, except where Hellenisation
connects the Hebrew with a Greek word with a rough breathing:
Iepooólvua (but 'lepovoalnu, 'Iepixó, in accordance with the rule).
Hoaias has dropped the " (so also Aram. "yux).
5. Of the remaining symbols, the familiar signs for long and short
in unfamiliar words might in many cases be employed with advan-
tage, so ī in Semitic words as an equivalent for the el of the MSS.
(S 3, 4). The marks of diaeresis, which from a very early time
were made use of to indicate a vowel which began a syllable,
especially 1 or v, are necessary or useful in cases where the or v
might be combined with a preceding vowel to form a diphthong :
'Ayala, 'Axaikos, ’EB païoti, Iſtolemais, rážos (the last name was still

1 Gregory, p. 91; W.-Schm. § 5, 10 a; A. Thumb, Spir. asper (Strassburg,
1889), p. 65, 71.
2 Gregory, ibid., Thumb 71.
3 Thumb, ibid.
4 Ibid. 72.
5 Berl. Aeg. Urk. No. 72; W.-H. 143. Elsewhere however, as in No. 2, oỦK
ol. and N.T. É ólya D Mt. 25. 21, 23.
Cp. Gregory, 106 f. Jerome in his explanation of Biblical names avowedly
brings N771 y under one head, and never writes h for any of these letters.
$ 4.5-6.] BREATHINGS, PUNCTUATION.
17
a trisyllable in Latin when the literature was at its prime). In
Semitic names, moreover, it is often a question what is a diphthong
and what is not; the use of the marks of diaeresis in ancient MSS.
(as in D Xopoľaiv, Byboaïdá) and the Latin translation can guide
us here, thus 'legoaJessae (-e), 'Eppalu Ephraem (-em, also XL in
Jo. 11. 54 -Eu), 2 but Kaiv, Naiv, Hoaias, Bndoaïdálv), although in
the case of Kalváv, in spite of the Latin ai and of Kaïvav in D,
according to the primary Semitic form (777) au appears to be
more correct.3
On Kai(a)pas Caiphas it is difficult to make any assertion ; 4 on
Mwions see § 3, 8. The hypodiastole may be employed in 6, ti for
distinction, though ő ti may likewise be written (but ootus).
6. As regards punctuation, it is certain that the writers of the N.T.
were acquainted with it, inasmuch as other writers of that time
made use of it, not only in Mss., but frequently also in letters and
documents; but whether they practised it, no one knows, and
certainly not how and where they employed it, since no authentic
information has come down to us on the subject. The oldest
witnesses (and B) have some punctuation as early as the first
hand ;5 in B the higher point on the line (ottyun) is, as a rule,
employed for the conclusion of an idea, the lower point (ÚTTOOTlyuń
viz. AYTON.) where the idea is still left in suspense. One very
practical contrivance for reading purposes, which (although often
imperfectly executed) meets us e.g. in D of the Gospels and Acts,
and in D (Claromont.) of the letters of St. Paul, and which Euthalius
about the middle of the 5th century employed in his editions of
New Testament writings, is the writing in sense-lines (orixou), the
line being broken off at every, even the smallest, section in the train
of ideas, which required a pause in reading. 6 Later editors are
compelled to give their own punctuation, and therewith often
enough their own interpretation : this they do very decidedly when
they put signs of interrogation (which in the MSS. are not earlier
than the 9th century) in place of full stops. Economy in the use of
punctuation is not to be commended : the most correct principle
appears to be to punctuate wherever a pause is necessary for reading
correctly.
1 As proved by Fr. Allen, Harvard Studies in Class. Phil. ii. (Boston, 1891),
71 ff.
212y) L. 4. 27 is Naluav (-as) in SABCDKL, hence X Neuav, Latt. (some)
Neman; but Neemav EFM al. and other Latt.; the remaining Latt. Naaman.
3 Kalau or -vay without the marks of diaer. both B and X; B always
Bnboalda(v), x partly (in three instances) -vaïda(v), partly -valda(v) (three
instances also); Hoalas B mostly (except R. 9. 22, 29, 10. 16, 20), x nine
times Hoalas, ten times Hoaias ; but Naiv, Kaïv XB constantly.
4 For Kalapas D and most Latt. have Kaldas (Kaelo., Kno.); Kaïágas is also
found in Josephus. The Semitic spelling is op (not x') =Knpas).
5 Gregory, 345, 348. Tischendorf, N.T. Vat. xix. ff.
6 See Gregory, 113 ff.
ELISION.
[8 5.1-2.
§ 5. ELISION, CRASIS, VARIABLE FINAL CONSONANTS.
1. It is in keeping with the tendency to a greater isolating of
individual words, which we have mentioned above ($ 3, 12) as
characteristic of the language of the period, that only a very
moderate use is made in the N.T., according to the ms. evidence
which may here be relied on, of the combination of words by means
of the ousting (elision) or blending (crasis) of the concluding vowel
(or diphthong) of a word. This tendency was carried so far, that
even in compound words the final vowel of the first component part
was not elided (tet pa-ápxns in the N.T., in later Greek óuo-oúčios;
$ 28, 8).1 In no case does elision take place in noun or verb forms;
even in the verse of Menander, 1 C. 15. 33, there is no necessity
whatever to write χρήσθ' ομιλίαι for χρηστά ομ. for the sake of the
verse, since the writing with elision or in full (plene, the regular
Latin usage) was always, even in verse, quite a matter for individual
opinion with the ancients. The only case where a pronoun suffers
elision is tollt' POTI or TOUTÉOTI ($ 4, 1); so that it is particles alone
which are still coupled together with comparative frequency with
other words, though here also the elision might be much more
abundant than it is.2 'Alló, according to Gregory, out of 345 cases
where a vowel follows, undergoes elision in 215 (in these statistics it
must, however, be remembered that the standard Mss. are far from
being always in agreement); before articles, pronouns, and particles
it shows a greater tendency to combine than before nouns and verbs.
Aé: 8 av frequently, otherwise combination hardly ever takes
place (Ph. 2. 18 de aŭtó xBP, aŭtó ACDE al.). Oud av H. 8. 4,
oủs où Mt. 24. 21, H. 13. 5, où8 outws 1 C. 14. 21, oúdőti R. 9. 7;
in oŭdiva H. 9. 25, C deviates from the rest with oudé; the scriptio
plena is more widely attested in oủd ei A. 19. 2, où8 Ý H. 9. 18;
elsewhere the final vowel remains. Te, oỦte, uńte, äua, äpa, åpa etc.
are not subject to elision. In prepositions, elision very seldom
takes place where a proper name follows; even on inscriptions of an
earlier time there was a preference for preserving the names
independent and recognisable by writing the preposition in full.
On the other hand, there was a tendency to elision in the case
of current phrases, and where a pronoun followed : år' åpxâs, år'
äpti, år' aŭroll, år' ¿uou, &' aŭto, kati šué, kat' (kal') idlav, kat'
oikov, jet' uoll, tap av, úď' ŕucov (üuwv), 'n oudevós (1 C. 2. 15).
’Avtí undergoes elision only in ảvo dv; elision is most frequent with
dlá (because there were already two vowels adjacent to each other),
thus si inovoviñs R. 8. 25, di łórtpov 1 C. 13. 12; but with
proper names dià 'Incoû R. 16. 27, Sià 'Hoaïov Mt. 8. 17 (before
'Aßpadu H. 7. 9 dià and di' are both attested).
2. The use of crasis is quite limited in the N.T. In the case of
the article, which affords so many instances in Attic Greek, there
1 See Gregory, 113 ff.
2 Gregory, 93 ff. Zimmer, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Th., 1881, 487 ff.; 1882, 340 ff.
$ 5.2-4.] CRASIS, VARIABLE FINAL CONSONANTS
19
occur only the following in the N.T.: toúvavtlov 2 C. 2. 7, G. 2. 7,
1 P. 3. g (stereotyped as a single word, hence toúv. Sé); toúvoua
• by name? Mt. 27. 57 (D Tò lvola); Karù Taurà (yo) L. 6. 23, 26,
17. 30, but even in this phrase (which is equivalent to a single word)
there is not wanting strong attestation for tà aútá.1 With kal the
crasis is constant in käv=“if it be but,' fairly constant in käv='even
if' (but käv for kai éáv "and if' is only sporadically found); in most
places there is preponderating evidence for kåyú, kánoí, kåjić, kåKeivos,
kåkellOev). Thus kaí is only blended with the following word, if it
be a pronoun or a particle; there appears to be no thought of writ-
ing kädeyev and the like.3
3. The variable v after i and e at the end of a word became more
and more firmly established in Attic Greek in the course of time, as
the inscriptions show, and so passed over into the Hellenistic
language as the favourite termination, though modern Greek shows
us that it subsequently disappeared again. In the standard MSS. of
the N.T. it is but seldon wanting, whether a consonant or a vowel
follow it, or the word stands at the end of a sentence; the rule that
the v should always be inserted before a vowel and always omitted
before a consonant is indeed not without a certain ratio, and receives
a certain amount of early support from the usage of the papyri, but
as far as we know the rule was only formulated in the Byzantine
era, and the instances where it is broken are quite innumerable.
The v is wanting5 occasionally after -e (L. 1. 3 PoE ABCD etc.,
-Ev AEKSA), and in éotiv, somewhat more often after the -oi of the
plural (χαλώσι most ΜSS. Mc. 2. 4, έχουσι L. 16. 29, τιμώσι twice
Jo. 5. 23), most frequently, comparatively speaking, after ou dat.
plur.; népvol 2 C. 8. 10, 9. 2 (D*FG répov, Db Teplov as elsewhere
in Mss.), 6 and eľkool (12 exx. in N.T.)? remain free from it.
4. The o of ottws is also established, for the most part, in the
N.T. before consonants as well as before vowels; otw is only
strongly attested in A. 23. 11 (KAB before ce), Ph. 3. 17 (KABD*FG
i In Acts 15. 27 there is for tà' aŭtá a v.l. in D tauta (as ToûTO is sometimes
read for to aúró). 1 Th. 2. 14 A taúra (with coronis). Ph. 3. 1 ¥*FGP Tauta.
1 P. 5. 9 all MSS. Tà aỦrd. With conjunction, Tà rào cửa, rò đề a/Tổ
2 The statistics are given in Gregory, 96 f.; Zimmer, 1.c., 1881, 482. Kai đáv
all mss. in Mt. 5. 47, 10. 13 etc.; kâr and if' 'Mc. 16. 18, L. 13. 9 (D kal éáv),
6. 34 D, Ja. 5. 15; more often 'even if,' as Mt. 26. 35, Jo. 8. 14 (but in 16 only
#has käv).
3 Nor yet of åderpoi, deotaluévol, which Holwerda conjectures in A. 28. 15,
Jo. 1. 24, whereas his proposals in A. 22. 5 käv (for kai)... é uaptúpel (B), Mt.
12. 21 Kåv (for kai, = kai ēv), L. 18. 7 kâv Makpoovuộn (for kai u – el) are more
probable. But D* has kåte únel in L. 15. 16.
4 Kühner-Blass, i. 3, i. 292.
5 W. H. 146 ff.; Gregory, 97 ff.
Hermas, Vis. iii. 10. 3 nepouvộ x, teplouvñ as, = nepvoivn, but ii. 1. I népvol
twice (once tepoi *).
7 Eikool is generally without v on Attic inscriptions of the classical period,
Hedde Maassen de litt. NT paragogica (Leipsic, 1881), p. 34, also in the Mss. of
authors like Strabo, Dionys. Halic., Athen. (even before a vowel), Lobeck,
Pathol. ii. 156.
20
[S 5. 4, $ 6.1.
SPORADIC SOUND-CHANGES.
before thepirat.), H. 12. 21 (**A before poßepóv), Ap. 16. 18 (HAB
before péyas). "Axpi and uéxpi generally stand, as in Attic, even before
a vowel without o, according to the majority of the MSS., but ué xpus
aipatos H. 12. 4 (-pu D*), and more frequently jéxpus (äxpus) où
Mc. 13. 30 (x-pl, Déws), G. 3. 19, 4. 19, H. 3. 13 (äxpı M), while in
1 C. 11. 26, 15. 25 etc., the witnesses are divided. 'Avrikpùs Xíov
A. 20. 15 'over against’ (a late usage), Att. (kat)avtikpú (ävtikpus
in Attic ='downright').1
§ 6. SPORADIC SOUND-CHANGES.
1. General sound-changes in the language of the N.T. as opposed
to Attic Greek do not openly present themselves, or at least are no
longer apparent, being concealed by the older orthography, which
either remained unaltered or was restored by the scribes (cp. $ 3, 1).
Of sporadic alterations which influenced the spelling as well as
the pronunciation of words, the following are noteworthy :-
A-E (av – eV). For ap we have ep in teorepákovta (Ionic, mod.
Gk., also papyri) in all cases according to the earliest evidence;
also Técrepa Jo. 19. 23 KALM, Ap. 4. 6, A. 4. 9 KA etc.; but
Técrapes, -ápwv, -apoi : TÉOcepas never, but in place of it -apes =
accusative (see § 8, 2), so that we must give the regular inflection
Trocapes, -apa etc., to the N.T. writers (= Ionic and mod. Gk.
-ερες, -ερα etc.).2 Καθαρίζειν also frequently has ερ in the Mss.
(kalapós never ; cp. also uvo epós Clem. ad Cor. i. 14. I, 30. 1 A):
Mt. 8. 3 ēkabepio on B*EL al. (ibid. kalapio Onti, 2 kalapio at all
MSS.), Mc. 1. 42 ékabepio on ÀB*CG al. (41 Kabapio Onti, 40.
kalapioal, 44 kalapio joù all MSS.); elsewhere more often with
-ep-, especially in A ;3 no possible paradigm results from this, -op-
must be written throughout. Cp. further IIátepa for -apa AC
A. 21. 1.-Variation between la – le (va – ve): diáin, valos, as in
Attic (Ionic and Hellenistic océin, Velos Phryn. Lob. 309), xlcepós
Ap. 3. 16 only in x; vice versa, dubiá cel B in L. 12. 28' for -CEL,
-évvvoly see § 17. The vulgar term Tráfw seize' ($ 24, iyoto-
Tlagrºs Papyr. Berl. Aeg. Mus. 325, 2), is derived from the Doric
Tcá(w=mlé(w press,' but has become differentiated from it (TTETT LE-
Ouévos pressed down' L. 6. 38).-a and ev at the close of a word:
Čvekev (ev.) is Ionic and Hellenistic; the Attic éveka ($ 40, 6) cannot,
be tolerated except in A, 26. 21, where all the witnesses have it
(speech of Paul before Agrippa, cp. § 1, 4; on the other hand in
19. 32 -ka is only in XAB).4 The Ionic and Hellenistic citev for
Eita is only found in Mc. 4. 28 XB*L; ČTTELTEV nowhere (according to
Phrynichus 124, Lob., both words are éo xátws Bápßapa). For
áyyapeów (a word borrowed from Persian: so spelt in mod. Gk.),
1 Apoc. Petr. 21, 26 (kat)avtikpus ékelvou, aŭtûv, 29 karaVTIKPŮ TOÚTWv.
2 Gregory, 80. Buresch, Rh. Mus. xlvi. 217 f.
3 Gregory, 82. Buresch, 219.
4 Eivera Hermas, Vis. iii. 1. 9 x, but 2. I cívekev X, čveka as, 5. 2 Čvekev X,
ένεκα ας.
§ 6. 1-3.]
21
SPORADIC SOUND-CHANGES.
fyyap. Mt. 5. 41 X, Mc. 15. 21 **B*. For Aaduatiav 2 Tim. 4. 10,
A App., C Acku.; in Latin also we have Delm. side by side with
Dalm.i ay for ey: épavvâv for èpeuvâv Jo. 5. 39 XB*, 7. 52 XB*T
etc. (*B* in general, AC occasionally), an Alexandrianism accord
ing to Buresch, Rh. Mus. xlvi. 213 (LXX. XA generally, not BC).2
2. A - 0, E-0. Ilatpolóas, untpolcas ($ 3, 3) were written
instead of -adolas, from álo(1)âv 1 Tim. 1. 9 according to XADFGL,
on the analogy of πατρο-κτόνος etc., when the formation of the
words had been forgotten. Inversely, Battaloyeîv Mt. 6. 7 XB was
written for βαττολ., cp. βατταρίζω (elsewhere in late writers only
the form with o is found); uecavúktiov Mc. 13. 35 only B*, L. 11.5
only D*, in A. 16. 25 and 20. 7 all MSS. uerov-; cp. MEO COTÓNLOV
Lob. Phryn. 195. Koloosai C. l. 2 is read by nearly all MSS.,
but the title is apòs Kodaooaeis in AB*K(N). Of course the text
and the title, which certainly did not originate with the author,
should be brought into agreement; in favour of o we have the coins
and nearly all the evidence of profane writers (-a- is a v.l. in
Xenophon, Anab. i. 2. 6).-E - 0: od Opetelv A. 3. 23 XB3EP al.
(-E- AB*CD), ólo Opeúelv H. 11. 28 (-e- only ADE), ólo Opevtńs 1 C.
10. 10 (-+- D*[FG7). Thus the evidence is overwhelming for the
second o, which has arisen from assimilation with the first o (as in
oßolós for oßedos), this is also the popular spelling (mod. Gk.
Folo Opeów); side by side with it öleopos remains constant in N.T.
Buresch 3 is in favour of e in the N.T. and the LXX.; in the latter,
where the word is extraordinarily frequent, we should write with e
according to sA*B*(B° -0-).-In 'Areñiñs A. 18. 24, 19. If* for
’Amollôs ('Amoldávios D) it must be remembered that the names
are originally identical: 'ATéllwv being Doric for ’Atóllw. It
appears in fact that in the Acts we should read ’Ateldhs in the
a text), whereas ’Atollós is an interpolation from 1 C. 1. 12 etc.;
the scholia also (Cramer, Caten., p. 309) seem to assume a difference
with regard to the name between Acts and 1 Corinthians.
3. E-I, I-Y. The Latin ở in the majority of cases where the
vowel was no pure è, but inclining to è, was represented by the
older Greek writer's not by 1 but by e: Téßepis, 4 Tepéplos, AquétLOS,
KateTúlcov and others (but Títos always with 1), see Dittenberger,
Herm. vi. 130 ff. In the N.T. Tißeplov L. 3. í is the traditional
spelling, but lévtlov linteum Jo. 13. 4 f.,5 leyeúv legio the majority
of uncials in Mt. 26. 53 (-4-**B*DL), Mc. 5. 9 (-6-**B*CDLA),
15 (-6- **BLA, hiat D), L. 8. 30 (-6-**B*D*L). In the N.T. the
best authority thus supports -LÚv; both forms occur in inscriptions..
i De Vit. Onomasticon tot. lat. s.v.
2 Gregory, 81. W. Schmid, Gtg. Gel. Anz., 1895, 40.
3 Op. cit. 216 f., cp. also H. Anz. Subsidia ad cognosc. Graecorum serm.
vulg. e Pentat. vers. repetita (Diss. phil. Hal. xii.), p. 363. 'O100 peúovtal stands
side by side with one pos also in Clem. Hom. xi. 9.
4 Hermas, however, has TIBeplv Vis. i. 1. 2.
5 Ditt. 144 (Hesych.; levTiáplos, inscr.).
6 Ibid. 142 (Acycúv also in Plut. Rom. 13, Otho 12).
22
[S 6. 3-5.
SPORADIC SOUND-CHANGES.
The opposite change is seen in Iloriodo. Puteoli (A. 28. 13), the
ordinary Greek spelling 1 (similar is the termination of lévtiOv;
the form lévteoV. Would have looked unnatural to a Greek). In
the Greek word álceús it appears that if the termination contains
ī (-lel, -eîs), the preceding i becomes e from dissimilation: årecis
Mt. 4. 18' f. **B*C, Mc. 1. 16 AB*I corr., 17 XAB*CLA, L. 5. 2
**ACLQ.-I - Y: Murilnvn is the older spelling, Mitud. A. 20, 14
that of the later writers; for Tpwyídcov or -ía (Strab., Stephan.
Byzant., Plin.) the Mss. in A. 20. 15 have udía, -um)cov (-dcov,
-OS MSS. of Ptolem. v. 2. 8).
4. Interchange of short and long vowel (or diphthong).--A-2.
åváyalov, åvoyacov (cp. on ac - €, § 3, 7): the spelling with a has
overwhelming authority in Mc. 14. 15, L. 22. 12 (from åvá-yî;
ůvoyacov with v.l. åvokalov in Xenoph. Anab. v. 4. 29).—EI before
a vowel easily loses its from early times, especially in derivatives
("Apelos máyos, but ’Apeorayitns as in N.T.); hence may be explained
ńxpecó Onoar R. 3. 12 0.T. (XAB*D*G, in LXX. XA²), whereas
åxpelos does not vary. But there are instances in the simple word
as well : τέλεος often in Attic, τέλειος Ν.Τ. και πλέον also in Ν.Τ.
occasionally, L. 3. 13 (-elov C), A. 15. 28 (D -eîov), elsewhere telov,
and always πλείων, πλείονος etc. (Attic also has πλέονος); in the
derivatives always πλεονεξία, -εκτείν.-Ν.Τ. always έσω (Ηomer and
tragedians have είσω and έσω); on the other hand, είνεκεν with
lengthened vowel (Ionic; cíveká is found in Attic Gk. as well, even
in prose) is an alternative for évekev in L. 4. 18, O.T. (also LXX.
Is. 61. I; supra p. 20, note 4), A. 28. 20 **A, 2 C. 3. 10 (most Mss.).-
0-12: apóiuos (from mpwi) and apóiuos Ja. 5. 7 (O KAB*P) are
comparable with aláluos (Att.) and thóiuos (late writers). For
Xpe-opelérns L. 7. 41, 16. 5 we should not write xpewg. (which has
less authority);2 nor should we replace the correct Erwikós A. 17. 18
by Eroikós of SAD al.—TY-OY: kollúplov Ap. 3. 18 XBC, -oúplov
AP does not belong here, on account of the long v; the latter form,
which is found elsewhere, is certainly of Latin origin.] A peculiar
word is oueipoua, or óp., which is equivalent to fuelpouai (éttiðvuô) in
sense, 1 Th. 2. 8 in 0.T. sporadically), but cannot easily be connected
with εμείρ. (from έμερος); but μείρομαι appears to exist in this sense
(Nicand. Theriac. 403), cp. (0)8úpouai, (o)kéliw, and the like,
Kühner, 19, i. 186.
5. Contraction and loss of vowel.-In contraction the Hellenistic
language, as appears from its inflections, does not go quite so far as
the Attic. Still veojunvía for Att. vovunvía in Col. 2. 16 is only attested
by BFG (LXX. occasionally): while åyaboepyeîv (1 Tim. 6. 18;
åyadovpyâv A. 14. 17, v.l. åyabotol@v) arises from the endeavour
to keep the two halves of the compound word recognisable, $ 28, 8
1 Ditt. 145.
2 Herodian, ii. 606 L., has w and o; the word is certainly not Attic (the oldest
form is xpňotns, then xpecotNS); xpew-puláklov and the like come from Attic
xpéws = xpéos. See further Lobeck, Phryn. 691 ; W.-Schm. § 16, 5, n. 28.
3 See W.-H. 152 a, W.-Schm. $ 16, 6.
$ 6. 5-7.]
23
SPORADIC SOUND-CHANGES.
(always kakoûpyos, iepovpyelv etc.).1 An entirely new kind of con-
traction is that of ιει = ή into τ: ταμείον from ταμιείον, πεϊν (pin)
from πιείν, see & 24, επείκεια Β* Acts 24. 42 (so also υγεία for υγίεια,
no instances in N.T.). In veocoós, veoccia, veocolov contraction
never took place, but the e dropped out in (Ionic and) Hellenistic
Gk.: so in N.T. voooós L. 2. 24 KBE al., voooiá with v.l. voodia
13. 34, Mt. 23. 37 (condemned by Phryn. 206, Lob.). In élevós
(Att.) for deelvós it must be remembered that the spelling EleLVOS
Ap. 3. 17 AP, 1 C. 15. 19 FG) may also represent eleivos, and
moreover, contraction in the N.T. is improbable. The reflexives in
Hellenistic Gk. are geavToû, êavtoû (but duautoll), § 13, 1; the con-
junction 'if' is éáv, § 26, 4, a form which is also very largely
introduced to express the potential particle (ibid.)
6. Prothetic vowels. The only points to note under this head
are that θέλω always stands for εθέλω ; on the other hand κείνος
never stands for ékeīvos : similarly xdés is not found, but only érdés
(also the prevalent Attic form) Jo. 4. 52 XAB*CD al., A. 7. 28
NB*CD, H. 13. 8 NAC*D*M. On oueipouavide supra 4.
7. Interchange of consonants. The main point under this head
is that the Hellenistic language did not adopt the Attic substitution
of tt for oo or of pp for po, though isolated instances of this were
continually intruding into it from the literary language, especially
as Atticising writers naturally imitated this peculiarity as well as
others. In the N.T. for oo we have: Dálagoa, apáoow, tapácow,
ÉKTňooouar (TT A. 13. 12 B) Teplorós; also kpeloowv Pauline
epp. on preponderant evidence (1 C. 7. 38, 11. 17, Ph. 1. 23, only
1 C. 7. 9 -IT- XBDE), but kpelttwv Hebrews (rt 1. 4, 7. 7, 19, 22,
8. 6 [twice), 9. 23, 11. 16, 35, 40, 12. 24, there is diversity only in
6. 9, where it is read by D*K, and 10. 34 00 NA) and Petrine epp.
(1 P. 3. 17; doubtful 2 P. 2. 21). To this corresponds norwv,
ñooouo dau in St. Paul (1 C. 11. 17, 2 C. 12. 13, 15), but the literary
words ήττασθαι, ήττημα are read with το even in his letters,
2 P. 2. 19 f., R. 11. 12, 1 C. 6. 7; élkoow Jo. 2. 10, R. 9. 12 O.T.;
éláttwv H. 7. 7, 1 Tim. 5. 9 (all MSS.; cp. § 2, 4); literary words,
édattovelv 2 C. 8. 15 O.T. ; êdattoûv H. 2. 7 (9) O.T., Jo. 3. 30.
(it is also occasionally found in Hermas: Vis. iii. 7. 6 Tattov;
Šim. ix. 27. 4 é NáTTOUS"; 9. 6 éláttwua). Similarly oņuepov always
takes the place of Att. Tņuepov.—With regard to Att. pp for po the
usage is more evenly divided. "Aponu Gospels, Ap. 12. 5 (but
äp()eva B, clearly a correction for äpoev), R. 1. 27 ſtwice]
(pp **[C]), G. 3. 28 (pp x), 1 C. 6. 9, 1 Tim. 1. 10; but along with
Dópoos, Oápoel, Dapoeite, which are constant, we find in Paul. epp.
and Hebr.), Dappeîv 2 C. 5. 6, 8, 7. 16, 10. 15, H. 13. 6 (also
mod. Gk. Dappớ; but Apoc. Petr. 5 Dapoňoavtes tapalapoúvelv); for
1 Also in R. 13. 3 for tŷ dyalộ đpyw there is a conjectural reading to åyalo-
epyø, but the antithetical clause dålà tự kaký will not suit this.
2 Elsewhere always επιεικής, -ιείκεια. Ιη εσθίω, εσθίεις the analogy of the other
parts of the verb prevented the fusion from taking place; on åpeis from åpinue
see $ 23, 7.
24
[$ 6. 7–8.
SPORADIC SOUND-CHANGES
the vulgar yakpáv, pakpódev Lc. and Hebr. give tóppu(Oev) L. 14. 32,
17. 12, 24. 28, H. 11. 13 (Mt. 15. 8, Mc. 7. 6 O.T.; Makpàv kai móppw
Barn. 20. 2).—Apart from these, there is hardly anything worthy of
note. Fluctuation in the aspiration of consonants : OT-00 (also
fluctuate in Attic) in otupís, opupis Mt. 15. 37 (od-D), 16. 10
(00-BD), Mc. 8. 8 (00-KA*D), 8. 20 (00-D), A. 9. 25 (00- *C, hiat
D); opóyyos D Mc. 15. 36 (not Mt. 27. 48; op- is also Attic);
OT-00: paotós Ap. 1. 13 BCP, obós H, jagós A ($ orig. =o), so
still in N.T. "A(WTOs A. 8. 40 97.77N, so L. 11. 27 martoi most MSS.,.
oboi DFG 23. 29 (D*), but Cuacor (usage also fluctuates in Attic
writers, Kühner 1s, i. 157). Póßnopa is read L. 21. 11 BD for
póßntpa; this suffix takes the form sometimes of -pov, sometimes of
- pov, Kühner, ibid. ii. 271. 27. The o in ’Arpia ('Appia, see
§ 3, 11), Philem. 2, is aspirated, as in inscriptions of the regions
(Phrygia, Caria) to which Appia belonged, where the name is
frequent; but it is very doubtful whether this is the Roman name
Appia. The Attic navdokelov, navdokeús (Lob. Phrýn. 307) occurs
in L. 10. 34 f. in * or **D*. In oủles, un dels the d of oud(é), undè)
has united, contrary to rule, with the aspirate of els to form ê (else-
where 0 =T + aspirate); these forms occur from the latter part of the
Attic period onwards, in writers (Aristot.), on inscriptions, and on
papyri, and so, too, in the N.T. (and Lxx.) occasionally: un év
A. 27. 33 NAB; ovlevós L. 22. 35 ABQT al., 2 C. 11. ABMP;
oủlév L. 23. 14 XBT, A. 15. 9 BHLP, 19. 27 HABHP, 26. 26 AB,
1 C. 13. 2 KABCDL (thus this spelling is by no mean's universal).
Still é ovdeveĉv is the prevalent form (as also in LXX. ; only in
Mc. 9. 12 BD have -devno). W. Schm. § 5, 27, n. 62 (Herm. Mand.
iv. 2. 1 oúl év * Sim. ix. 4. 6; Clem. Cor. i. 33. 1, 45. 7 undauws,
i.e. undè đuôs).
8. Insertion and omission of consonants.—Maußávw in Hellenistic
Gk. retains in all forms and derivatives with the stem in the p of
the present tense : éiñupony, lñuxtes, poowToýurtons etc., § 24,
W.-Schm. § 5, 30. The addition of u in urri(u), inue, éutí(u) apnuo
is as variable in Attic as in Hellenistic Gk. (W.-Schm. ibid.);
N.T. čuTuttlâv A. 14. 17 (with y DEP), éutin pão dau 28. 6 ** for
Tepat pão dai (it itp. A; elsewhere uncertainty about the u only exists
in the case of these compounds with u-). Insertion of cons. for
euphony (åv-d-pós, jeonju-ß-pia) takes place in many Semitic names
("Eo-d-pas, Map-ß-pn), in the N.T. Eajtóv, i.e. Eau-t-o ÚV, H. 11. 32
('Iotpaña D L. 2. 32, etc.).-opvdpóv for opvpóv A. 3. 7 **AB*C* is
unexplained. uoyyulálos Mc. 7. 32 has no authority (uoyidálos
=ó jóyus dalớv, and so with one y in NAB*DGK al.: also LXX.
Is. 35. 6: Bcorr. is the first to write yy). The excision of a
consonant (accompanied by lengthening of a vowel) appears in
yívojat, yiváo kw (Ionic and Hellenistic); also noticeable is õpkos
= äpktos. Ap. 13. 2 (all uncials), found also in the Lxx. and
elsewhere in the late language (W.-Schm. § 5, 31).
8 7.1-5.]
25
FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS.
$ 7. FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS.
1. Words in -pă and those in -via, i.e. -ữa ($ 3, 8) follow the
pattern of those in -coa, -ida etc., i.e. they take in G.D. 78;.
instead of Att. as, ą. (On the other hand those in -pā [ýuépā], and
in true -la. [åandela, uíă] retain a throughout the sing.) Etelpa, -ns
(A. 10. I etc.), Maxaip? (A. 12. 2), Tinupúpns (L. 6. 48), īpépns
(A. 27. 30), Sándelpa, -9 (5. 1), ovveidvia, -ns (5. 2). Similarly the
.LXX. and the papyri. Exception : otelpa (adj.), otelpa L. 1. 36 all
MSS.
2. The inflection ā, G. ās, etc. in proper names is not confined to
words where a definite sound (€, b, p precedes, any more than it is
in Attic. Mápla, -as Jo. 11. 1; Aúdda, -as (?) A. 9. 38. (cp. $ 10, 5).
To this corresponds the inflection of masc. names, N. äs, G. ā (as in
Doric etc.), D. ą, A. ūv, V. ā: 'Ioúdus, -a (Mc. 6. 3); 'Aypiatas, a
(A. 25. 23). Cp. § 10, 1. (On the other hand, -ías, -lov: so
Zaxapías, -ov L. 1. 40, 3. 2, beside "Avva and Kaïápa; 'Hilov, 1. 17
[-C NB], 4. 25, like Att. Káldías, -ov.)
3. Peculiarities.--Oeá A. 19. 27 occurs in the formula ý ueyáln
Deà "Apteuis (as in inscriptions); but ibid. 37 ý Deos, which is the
usual Att. form. Ocós, voc. Océ, Mt. 27. 46 is unclassical, occasion-
ally in LXX.; .cp. Synt. § 33, 4.
4. Contracted words in Decl. I. and II.—Boppâs, G. â, L. 13. 29,
Ap. 21. 13. (Att. and later writers have Bopéas and Boppas). The
use of contracted words of Decl. II. is very limited: vous and alous
are transferred to Decl. III. (8 9, 3); xeludppov Jo. 18. I is no doubt
from -ρρος ; οστούν Jo. 19. 36 Ο.Τ., but uncontracted oστέα L. 24. 39
(D oota); -éwv Mt. 23. 27, Eph. 5. 30 T.R., H. 11. 22,2 like xpvolwv
Ap. 2. I AC, -éovs 4. 4 X, -éas 5.8 (cp. Clem. Hom. x. 8 Xpvotovs,
úpyvpéovs, xpúo ea, åpyúpea, xálkea ; xvii. 3 xálkea, xpúoea); but this
uncontracted form is in no passage read by all mss., and alternates. .
with much more numerous examples of contraction in this adj. (and
in the adjectives år lous, ST lolls) in Ap. and elsewhere. Cp.
W. Schmidt de Joseph. eloc. 491 f. Xpvoâv Ap. 1. 13 **AC is a gross
blunder, wrongly formed on the model of xpvoâs 1. 12 (?).
5. The so-called Attic second declension is wanting, with the
exception of the formula ileus cou (v.l. ileos) Mt. 16. 22 ; cp. ilews
v.l. -Eos H. 8. 12 (Hermas, Sim. ix. 23. 4; Cew [-EWS A] Clem. Cor.
i. 2. 3). Avúyewv Mc. 14. 15 (-áyalov, -uyacov are the best attested
readings), L. 22. 12 (-áyalov, -cyalov, -ayeov, -wyeov) is an incorrect
form ; ή έως 1s non-existent, αυγή taking its place ; λαός, ναός stand
for lecs, vecs; ý alwv, -wvos for ñ álws. ‘H Kôs A. 21. 1, acc. Kô for
Kôv (like late Attic), is declined in this case after the manner of
αιδώς Decl. III..

ally in LXX., fed words in Decibers have Bopénis taal vows and
Anbe
1 E.g. ápoúpns Berlin Pap. 328, ii. 32 ; 349, 8. 'Iduins 327, 15. Eldrelns ($ 3,
8) 405, 24.
2 'OOTOûv 'ATTIKOL, bottov "EXnves says Moeris; but many examples of the
uncontracted form survive in Attic as well. Cp. W.-Schmidt, op. cit. 491.
26
[S 7.6. 8 8. 1-3.
THIRD DECLENSION.
6. Gender in Decl. II.—“O and ý åráßartpos are recorded in Mc. 14.3
· (Att. ó åráßactos Aristoph.). O ativos for Ý Ap. 8. II (?) (x omits
8). 'O Báros in Mc. 12. 26 has overwhelming authority; is read in
L. 20. 37, A. 7. 35 (Hellenistic, according to Moeris). 'H Invós
Ap. 14. 19 f. as commonly, but, according to ABCP, TÌv Invov ... TÒV
uéyay (cp. LXX., Gen. 30. 38). O lídos in all cases, even of the
specially precious species of stones (where Attic has ņ). ‘H duós (as
in old dialects, LXX.), L. 15. 14, A. 11. 28 (ó L. 4. 25). 'H otáuvos
H. 9. 4 (Attic: ó Doric and Lxx.). 'O ýanos for ♡ Ap. 21. 18 (cp.
Vídos; ő ýelos Theophrast. de lapid. 49).
DS
$ 8. THIRD DECLENSION.
1. Accusative singular in a and v.--The late-Greek forms in -av for
a (inscriptions, papyri: found quite early in dialects), on the analogy
of Decl. I. are frequently found in MSS., Mt. 2. 10 åotépav **C,
Jo. 20. 25 xeipav AB, A. 14. 12 Alav DEH al., špo evav Ap. 12. 3 A,
eikóvav 13. 14 A, unvav 22. 2 (Tisch. on H. 6. 19); they do not
deserve to be adopted. In words in -ns the accus. in nu is not
unknown to Attic (Tprýpnv, Anjoo Oévny), but occurs only in barytone
words [paroxyt. or proparoxyt.]; in the N.T. the following are
incredible: do balny(?accent) H. 6. 19 ACD, ovyyevny R. 16. II
AB*D*, đoeßnv R. 4. 5 xD*FG, úyınv Jo. 5. II **.-In barytones
in -es with 7 8 in the stem, the regular Attic accus. is -6v, and so
too in the N.T. xápiv etc. are the usual forms: but xápita A. 24.
27 (-1V *EL), 25. 9 A, Jd. 4 AB, Hellenistic according to Moeris
(papyri).1 Cp. Kleida L. 11. 52 (LXX.; D kleiv as in Attic and
Ap. 3. 7, 20. I, tàs Kleas in the quotation of Justin, cp. 2).
2. Accusative plural (assimilation to the nominative plural). —
The old termination (v)s in vowel stems (Toùs Bótpūs, toùs Bous) has
disappeared in Hellenistic Gk., and these words are inflected with
as: Mt. 14. 17 ixotas, Jo. 2. 14 Bóas. But kdeîs - Kleiv - Tds kreis,
Ap. 1. 18 (Kleidas B).--For -as we have -es in the MSS. (accus. =
nom.: old dialects and late Gk.2) in the case of Teco Apes (8 6, 1),
A. 27. 29 x, Jo. 11. 17 SA, Ap. (4. 4), 7. 1 A twice, P once, 9. 14
(so still more often in LXX.). So also we have by assimilation
(like ai and Tàs módels, Tpińpeus) oi and toùs Baciles in Hellenistic
Gk., and this accus. plur. is regular in N.T. for all words in -eús.
3. Relation of the nominative to the cases (inflection with or
without consonant).—The inflection -as, -aos=ws, as yîipas, -ws, képas,
-ws, has almost disappeared. Tîpas, dat. yńpec in L. 1. 36 (as in
Ionic: so usually in LXX., where also the gen. yńpovs occurs, as in
Clem. Cor. i. 63. 3; ibid. 10. 7 ynpei, v.l. -). Képas, Tépas take T
(as in Attic and always in Hellenistic Gk. tépata, Tepátwv acc. to
Moeris): képata Ap. 13. 1, tépata Mt. 24. 24. We have only
kpéas and plur. kpéa R. 14. 21, 1 C. 8. 13 (other cases wanting).
1 See also Viereck, Sermo Graecus quo senatus populusque R. ... usi sunt
(Göttingen, 1888), p. 59.
2 See especially Buresch, Rh. Mus. xlvi. 218.
$ 8.3-6.]
27
THIRD DECLENSION.
.
There is most attestation for the consonantal inflection with v for
all cases of the comp. in -wv: exceptions are almost confined to the
Acts (Tilelovs nom. or acc. A. 13. 31, 19. 32, 21. 10, 23. 13, 21,
24. II, 25. 6, 14: but -ves, -vas 27. 12, 20, 28. 23) and John (uelw,
N-ova 1. 51, eldoow 2. 10, jei(w ABE al. -wv, D-ova 5. 36, Telovs
4. 41, elsewhere Mt. 26. 53 a lew or -ovs).—On the other hand the 8
is omitted not only in vnotels Mt. 15. 22, Mc. 8. 3 (Polyb. and others;
like πόλεις, wrongly written νήστις), but also in έρεις (acc.) Tit. 3. 9
NAD al. (ép**DE al., but in the middle of words that are clearly
plurals), G. 5. 20 (nom. with v.l. épřs sing.), 2 C. 12. 20 (ditto), cp.
v.l. in 1 C. 3. 3, 1 Tim. 6. 4; side by side with épides 1 C. 1. II all
MSS. ('épels acc. in Clem. Cor. i. 35. 5).----Assimilation of the nom. to
the oblique cases takes place in Hellenistic Gk. in words in -ís, -ivos
when tv is substituted for is (sív, Ealapív), and so in N.T., ý údív
1 Th. 5.3 (åktív Apoc. Petr. 7).
4. Open and contracted forms.--'Opéwv Ap. 6. 15 (Hermas, Sim.
ix. 4. 4 etc.; Clem. Cor. i. 10, 7), and yetdew H. 13. 15 (from
LXX. Hos. 14. 3) show the widespread tendency, which is
apparently not wholly foreign to Attic, to leave this case uncon-
tracted in words in os. (But é v A. 4. 22, 7. 30 etc.) On the
other hand we have inxus, tnxwv for xewv Jo. 21. Ó (-EWV A),
Ap. 21. 17;1 Mucous (a barytone adj. in vs : Babús etc. are never so
inflected) has juíoovs for -eos Mc. 6. 23 (Apoc. Petr. 27), ýuíon
L. 19. 8 TII (D2), with the var. lect. ġulo(e)la xBLQ, Tà ý ulov
ARA(D*). 'Huigela would be a not impossible assimilation to a
yuíocia; vulgovs and won are attested as Hellenistic.2 'Yyińs, úria
Jo. 5. II, 15 etc. are Hellenistic (Attic has izcâ as well)
5. Genitive -eos and -ews. Babéws L. 24. 1 (on preponderant
evidence), and paéws XBKL 1 P. 3. 4 are mistakes of the popular
language (see Lobeck, Phr. 247) for -éos (otherwise there is no
instance of the gen. of the adj. in -ús).
6. Peculiarities.- Salt' in Attic is oi ales, in N.T. Tò ülas,
Mt. 5. 13 twice (ära [cp. TÒ yára twice, D once), Mc. 9. 50
twice (ära once n*, twice LA), L. 14. 34 (äla **D), no doubt derived
from τους άλας, and infected like τέρας : άλατι Col. 4. 6. This form is
also characteristic of the common language, according to Herodian ii.
716, Lentz. (In Mc. 9. 49 D has aí in a clause from Levit. 2. 13
which is wanting in XBLA; ibid. 50, acc. ara *A*BDLA, alas
H°APCN al.) — Naûs only occurs in A. 27. 41 TÌv vaūv (literary
word=vulgar tò alolov). -"Opvić 'a hen' nom. sing. L. 13. 34 (cp.
Doric gen. öpvexos); 3 for 'bird' N.T. has õpvcov Ap. 18. 2 etc.
(also Barn. 10. 4, Clem. 1 Cor. 25. 2, Herm. Sim. ix. 1, 8).-
Evyyevńs, -eís, dat. plur. -EūOL (like yovels, -Elloi) Mc. 6. 4 (-60 LV pa
[om. N*]AB+CD* al.), L. 2. 44 B*LXAA.6
1 On the Hellenistic ornxwv, Lob. Phryn. 243 f. W. Schmidt, Jos. eloc. 498.
2 Lob. 247. In dialects and in poetry a neuter plur. in-ela of these words occurs,
A. Buttmann, Stud. und Kr. 1862, 194.
3 Babrius ap. Crusius Philol. 1894, 238 (Athen. 9, 374 D, Herodian i. 44. 7 L.),
4 Cram. Anecd. Ox, iii. 246.

-
METAPLASMUS.
[S 9. 1-3.
$ 9. METAPLASMUS.
1. Fluctuation between neuter and masculine in Declension II.-
Atîtrvos for -ov is only a v.l. in L. 14. 16, Ap. 19. 9 (B), 17. Acouós
has plural deguá (old) L. 8. 29, A. 16. 26, 20. 23, and doubí (old)
Ph. 1. 13 (without distinction). Zuyós 'yoke' (in use since Polyb.)
: never cuyóv. Oeuéliov, plur. -a A. 16. 23 (Hom. LXX.; Herm. Sim.
ix. 14. 6; Attic, according to Moeris), elsewhere ó Demédios
1 C. 3. 11 f., 2 Tim. 2. 19, Clem. Cor. i. 33. 3 etc. (strictly sc. lidos;
Attic). O vôros R. 11. 10 O.T. quot. (class. Tò vôtov). Sitos, plur.
rita A. 7. 12 HP (Att. and LXX.; oiría read by XAB etc. does not
suit the sense). Στάδιον has plur, στάδια Jo. 6. 19 *D, and σταδίους
corr. ABL al.: the latter also occurs in L. 24. 13 and Ap. 21. 16
AB al. with v.l. -íwv (both plurs. are Attic).
2. Fluctuation between Declensions I. and II.—Compound sub-
stantives with äpxelv in their second half are formed with capxos in
Attic, in (dialectic and) Hellenistic Gk. more often with ápxns
(Decl. I.), Kübner, i. 3, i. 502. So in N.T. ¿Ovápxys, tatpiápxns,
moderápxns, terpadpxns ('Accapxwv Acts 19. 31), also ekotovtápxys
centurio Mt. 8. 13 (-X HUA), and in the majority of places in the
Acts; but xuliopxos tribunus always, ékatóvtapxos A. 22. 25 and
often (with much variety of reading about the vowel); OTPUTOTÉ-
dapxos or-ns 28 16, an addition of the B text (om. HAB).1
SVO EVTÉPLOV A. 28. 8 according to Moeris is Hellenistic for -pía,
Lob. Phryn. 518. "Hxos, ó (in L. 21. 25 Tò, see 3), L. 4. 37, A. 2. 2,
H. 12. 19, similarly stands for nxý (Moeris).
3. Fluctuation between Declensions II. (I.) and III.-The exx.
of interchange of -os masc., Decl. II., and -os neut., Decl. III., have
somewhat increased in number, in comparison with those in the
classical language. The Attic o deos becomes tò & deos in Lxx. and
N.T. always (exc. Mt. 9. 13 čleov C3EFG etc.: 12. 7 čleov EG etc.,
23. 23 TÒV Neov CAAN: H. 4. 16 é Reov CÓD EL: Tit. 3. 5 TOV
leov D-KL), with gen. éléovs, dat. éréel (the original forms, if we
may judge from the old derivative deelvós, cp. paelvós from páos,
and the compound vndeńs). O gados is the class. and also the usual
N.T. form ; To Š. (nom. or acc.) 2 C. 9. 2 &B, Ph. 3. 6 **ABD*FG,
with gen. Sýlovs A. 5. 17 only B* (Clem. Cor. i. 6. 1, 2, 9. I etc.
TÒ; 5. 2, 4, 5 etc. o). "Hxous L. 21. 25 for Yxov (see 2). 'O Oápißos
(ancient) for To L. 4. 36 D (0. Bé Yas), op. A. 3. Lo lắBoo C. Tô
aloûtos (nom. or acc. sing.) 2. C. 8. 2 **BCP, E. 1. 7, 2. 7, 3. 8, 16,
Ph. 4. 19, Col. 1. 27 (also o ni. x), 2. 2 (neut. **ABC), is attested on
preponderant or very good evidence; elsewhere (even E. 1. 18)
8 a., and always gen. cloúrov. TÒ OKÓTOS (cp. OKOTELVÓS) is
universally found (earlier ó and Tò): in H. 12. 18 okórw is a wrong
reading for fópw. Fluctuation between -os neut. and -a, -» Decl. I.
is rarer: TÒ Sijos (Attic, which has also ý siya) 2 C. 11. 27 diyel
(8147 B*); TÒ vikos? 1 C. 15. 54 f. O.T. quot., 57, Mt. 12. 20 O.T.
1 On the usage of Josephus cp. W. Schmidt, Jos. elocut. 485 ff.
2 The usual Lxx. form : Lob. Phryn. 647.
$ 9. 3. § 10. 1-2.] PROPER NAMES, INDECLINABLE
29
quot., Herm. Mand. xii. 2. 5; ý víkn 1 Jo. 5. 4. Noûs and dolls
(the latter A. 27. 9) are declined like Boüs : gen. voós, dat. voć, as
also in Herm. Sim. ix. 17. 2 (cp. $ 7, 4). 'H áłwv, -wvos Mt. 3. 12,
L. 3. 17, forý alws, -w (cp. § 7, 5). The dat. is formed from
Decl. III. in words that in their other cases are neuters of Decl. II.:
sákpvov (Ap. 7. 17, 21. 4) – dákpva – Sákpuow L. 7. 38, 44 (also in
Attic occasionally; dúkpu is an old form occurring in poetry):
cáßßatov - Oáßßata - ráßßaol always Mt. 12. 1 etc. Consonantal
stem of Decl. III. for -o- stem of Decl. II.: katńywp (on the model of
ÞÁTwp) Ap. 12. 10 only in A for katńyopos (NBCP as elsewhere
in N.T.).2
S
$ 10. PROPER NAMES. INDECLINABLE NOUNS.
1. The Hebrew personal names of the O.T., when quoted as such,
remain with few exceptions unaltered and indeclinable: 'Adáj,
'ABpaáp, 'Iakóß, Papaú, Aavís etc. The exceptions are mainly
nominatives in T, which are represented by the termination -as and
declined according to Decl. I. (gen. -a and -ov, see § 7, 2): 'Ioúdas
Mt. 1. 2 f.; Oúpías, gen. -ov ibid. 6; 'Ecerías, 'Hoaias etc. (but ’Abiá
{as LXX.] ibid. 7 nom. acc., L. 1. 5 gen.). Other exceptions are :
Mavao on Mt. 1. 10 acc., Mavacons nom., cp. inf. 3 (Mavaoon nom.
VbB); 'ovvậs and 'Iaußpñs 2 Tim. 3. 8; RevLs, -ELS nom. H. 7. 9
HBC*, the remaining MSS. 6 (EL) : cp. inf. 2. Colouw is declined
either with gen. -ôvos (therefore nom. -uov), so Mt. 1. 6 -uôva (but
** -uóv indecl.), 12. 42, and elsewhere: or -@VTOS (like Bevodov,
therefore nom. -uôv): A. 3. II -MWVTOS (DE -uôvos), 5. 12 (-uôvos
BDEP); so also LXX., unless, as usually happens, the word remains
indeclinable. Inooûs Josua H. 4. 8. Mwions (so, according to the
best evidence, with LXX. and Josephus, instead of Mwo. of the
ordinary MSS.), gen. always -éws as if from -eús, dat. -tê Mt. 17. 4
ABD al. (others -ň), Mc. 9. 4 AB3DE etc., ibid. 5 KABCDE etc.
(nearly all), and so elsewhere with constant variation in the MSS.
between -el and : acc. -éu only in L. 16. 29, elsewhere -ýv
(A. 6. 11, 7. 35, 1 Č. 10. 2, H. 3. 3). The latter inflection : -as, ñ,
-î, -ņu (cp. inf. 3) is that prevalent in the LXX.3
2. The same old Hebrew names, if employed as proper names of
other persons of the N.T. period, are far more susceptible to
Hellenisation and declension. The Hellenising is carried out : (a)
by appending -os; ’Iákwßos always, "Ayaß-os A. 11. 28, 21. 10: (b);
in words that in their Greek pronunciation would end in a vowel, by
appending -s to the nom., -v to the acc.: so 'Incoûs, 'Incoûv (cp. 1),
Aevis (also written -els; therefore i) Mc. 2. 14 (acc. -1v, indecl. **A
So also polls, gen. poós, in later Greek: cp. W.-Schm. § 8, 11, note 7.
2 Ibid. § 8, 13: it looks as if the original nom. was taken for a gen.: the late
form diákwv for õiákovos is parallel.
3 In Josephus Niese and Naber write -éos (an impossible inflection ; in the
MSS. -éws is a strongly attested variant), -ei, -ñv in their text; -Éws (with v.l. -cos)
is found as early as Diodor. Sic. 34. 1. 3. W.-Schm. § 10, 5.
30
[S 10. 2.
PROPER NAMES, INDECLINABLES.
al.), L. 5. 27 (acc. -\v, indecl. D), 29 (nom. -es, indecl. D); to which
must be added the nom. in -as, see 1; for the inflection vide inf. 3:
(c) in names in -an, by the substitution of s for v in the nom., so that
the inflection follows that of 'Ioúdas : "Avvas L. 3. 4, A. 4. 6,
Jo. 18. 13, 24 73197 (Joseph. "Avav-os): 'Iwvádas A. 4. 6 D,1 a name
which in Joseph. is still further Hellenised to 'Iwvá Ons : so N.T.
’Iwávns ($ 3, 10) 72777 or 'Iwaváv (L. 3. 27 in the genealogy of Christ),
gen. -ov,2 dat. - (-€. L. 7. 18, 22 XAB or B*[L], Mt. 11. 4 DA,
Ap. 1. **, cp. Mwvoel), acc. -nv. Josephus also makes Kaivas out of
Καινάν and Ναθας out of Ναθάν. The common name 'Ιωάνης is also
abbreviated into 'Iwva (Syr. 13??) LXX. 2 (4) Kings 25. 23, and so
Mt. 16. 17 Síuwv Bapıwvâ= . (ó viòs) 'Iwávov Jo. 1. 42 ('Iwvâ
AB3 al., Syr.), 21. 15 ff. ('Iwvâ Accorr. al., Syr. Sin. 77, a form
which also stands for the prophet Jonah L. 11. 29 etc.)'; 'Iwváv or
-úje (XBT, Syr.) is found in L. 3. 30 (in the genealogy of Christ).
By a similar abbreviation 90th became ,1079 'Iwons, gen. -ạtos
(inf. 3) Mc. 6. 3 BDLA ('Iwong , 'Iwon AC), 15. 40, 47 (with
similar v.l.): cp. the var. lect. to Mt. 13. 55, 27. 56, A. 1. 23, 4. 36;
in this name the evidence preponderates for the full Hebrew form
without alteration, vide inf. (d) The Hellenisation is carried furthest
in Siuwv, -wvos=Eveuv (this form occurs for Peter in A. 15. 14 in
James' speech, 2 P. 1. I [Eluw B]: for others in A. 13. 1, L. 2. 25
etc.): the pure Greek name with a similar sound is substituted for
the Hebrew name, after a fashion not unknown to the Jews of the
present day, just as 'Icowv (A. 17. 5 etc.) is substituted for Jesus,
and perhaps Kudías for Xovcas (L. 8. 3 according to the Latin cod. 7).
On the other hand, the following, though employed in this way,
remain unaltered and indeclinable : 'Iwond generally (vide sup.),
Natavana (also the names of the angels Moxana [Mex. B] and
Taşpına), Mavanv A. 13. 1. Similarly the woman's name 'Edaßét:
whereas by sometimes remains as Mapán, esp. for the mother of
Christ, and sometimes is Hellenised to Mapía (Mapiápun in Joseph.),
with great diversity of reading in the mss. (gen. Mapías Mt. 1. 16,
18, 2. II etc.; acc. Mapiáp 1. 20 [-tav BL]: in chaps. 27 and 28 the
form -ía for the nom. has most support in the case of the other
Maries; in L Mapiáu 1. 27, 30, 34, 37, 39 etc., but tñs Mapías 41,
ý Mapía 2. 19 ABD [D has also frequently elsewhere nom. -a, dat. -a
i.e. -e, acc. -av]; Paul in R. 16. 9 has Mapáj, an unknown lady, in
ABCP-Lav). The following are declinable without further addition :
"Avva 791 (nom. L. 2. 36) and Mápia Syr. 972 (gen. -as, see
$ 7, 2); the following are Hellenised by the addition of u (à ?):
'Iwav(v)a 10'7", Eovoavva 7:2592j (L. 8. 3, 24. 10), and there is a similar
addition of n in Eadáun Ebru Mc. 15. 40, 16. I.
1 'Iwválas appears already on an Egyptian papyrus of the 3rd cent. B.C.,
Flinders Petrie Pap. ii., p. 23: ’Amolcvlov... [Tapen ]ionuov, ôs kai ovplotừ ’Iwválas
[kaleital).
2 'Iwávov in Lxx, 2 Chr. 28. 12. 3Cp. W.-Schm. $ 10, 1, note 1.
10.3-5.] PROPER NAMES, INDECLINABLES.
3. The declension of Hebrew masc. proper names whose stem
ends in a long vowel (with the exception of those in -ías), and of
the similar Greek or Graeco-Roman names which are formed by
abbreviation (§ 29), follows the same pattern on the whole for all
vowels, and is consequently known as the “mixed” declension.
Three cases (G.D.V.) exhibit the pure stem (those ending in a, n, w
being in our spelling extended by an i'mute); the nom. in all cases
has s, the acc. generally v, but this is often wanting in LXX. and
N.T. with the n) and w stems: Mavagons, acc. -ñ, vide sup. 1 (so
LXX., e.g. 2 (4) Kings 20. 21, 21. 1, 2 Chron. chap. 33): Nevis, vide
sup. 1, 2 : 'ÀTollws, acc. 'Aroldo A. 19. I (-wvA2L, 'Ateld v **,
$ 6, 2), cp. Ko acc. 8 7, 5, 1 C. 4. 6 (-09 8*AB), Tit. 3. I3 (-01 NDH,
-wva FG). Exx. (a) Bapaßßäs, Bapváßas, 'Ioúdas, Znvâs (from Znvó-
dwpos), Eldas (= Eidovavós). (b) (Mavaoons, vide sup.) 'Amellas
R. 16. 10, acc. -ñv (as in A. 19. IX, vide sup.). The gen. of Greek
names of this class, in classical Greek -oû, is unrepresented in N.T.
(c) Aevis, vide sup. 2. (d) Incoûs, -oû, -oû, -oûv, -oû. (e) ’Atolls
(from 'Atollários). In extra-Biblical Greek besides this declension
of such names there is found a second, in which there is a similar
nom. in -s, but the stem for the remaining cases is extended by the
addition of a consonant (usually 8, in Egypt +), e.g. 'Antâs, -ados,
'Epuñs, -ndos: the single N.T. example of this declension is 'Iwoñs,
-ñtos, sup. 2.
4. Roman proper names.—There need only be noticed Agrippa
'Aypírtas, -a: Aquila 'Akúlas: Clemēns, Crescēns, Pudēns, gen. entis
=(Kanuns) -EVTOS Ph. 4. 3, Końokns 2 Tim. 4. 10, IIovons (-EVTOS) 21.
The n of the nom., which was hardly pronounced, is often absent
from Latin inscriptions.
5. Names of places, mountains, rivers. --- In this category it is the
usual practice in by far the majority of cases for non-Greek names
to remain un-Hellenised and undeclined, with the exception, of
course, of prominent place-names, which were already known to
the Greeks at an earlier period, such as Túpos; Eldúv, -ãvos ; "A(WTos
Asdod (cp. § 6, 7) A. 8. 40; Aauaokós etc. and (river-name)
’Iopdávns, -ov. The Hellenisation is well marked, a new etymology
(iepós, Sólvuor) being given, in the case of 'Iepooólvua, -wv, a form
which is employed in the N.T. alongside of 'Iepovoalnu (in the
latter there is no good reason for writing the rough breathing,
§ 4, 4; Mc. and John (Gosp.) always have ‘lepoo., and so Mt. exc.
in 27. 37 : 'Iepovo. is always the form in Ap., Hebr., and in Paul,
except in the narrative of G. 1. 17 f., 2. 1: L. gives both forms,
but 'lepovo, rarely, in his Gospel.1 Other exceptions are: Bndavia,
gen. -as, acc. -av Jo. 11. I, Mc. 11. 12, Jo. 12. 1, Mc. 11. II etc.
(but Mt. 21. 17, Mc. 11. I B* eis Bndavía, L. 19. 29 *BD* eis
Βηθφαγή και Βηθανία): Γολγοθα, Με. 15. 22 τον Γολγοθάν τόπον
(Folyola ACDE al.) róuoppa, -wv Mt. 10. 15 (-as CDLMP), -as
2 P. 2. 6, ep. inf. 6 (% Tooppa): A688a, gen. A68Bns A. 9, 38
BPEHLP, -as v*B*C, a indecl. AA (which is harsh in the con-
? LXX. 'Iepovo., except in 2, 3, 4 Macc. and Job. See W.-Schm. § 10, 3.

PROPER NAMES, INDECLINABLES.
[$ 10.5-8.
nection éyyùs oüons 1. tô 'Iómn); elsewhere the acc. is Aúdda, ibid.
32, 35 (av CEHLP), either as neut. plur. or as indecl. (?): 2 Sápetta
acc. L. 4. 26 (-wv gen. LXX. Obad. 20): Tòv Sapwva ('Accap.) “The
plain' yinen; Decl. III. or (with Aramaic -a) indecl. (?): 268oma
Dito (therefore Hellenised), -wv Mt. 10. 15, 11. 24, 17. 29, 2 P. 2. 6;
-OLS Mt. 11. 23 (Mc. 6. 11 Text. Rec., an insertion from Mt.),
L. 10. 12 (so earlier in LXX.). On the other hand the following
e.g. are unaltered and indecl.: Bno leéli, Bnodayî, Kapapvaoúli,
Aivóv Jo. 3. 23, Eartu ibid., Ecáv; (mountain) Eiva, (brook) Kedpov
Jo. 18. 1 (Toû xeluppov Toû K. correctly AS; other Mss. are corrupt
with Toy Kéopov, Top KéApol; Josephus declines To3 KeSpovos).
'Elacóv, Mount of Olives, as a Greek rendering cannot be indecl.;
therefore, as we elsewhere have tò opos rô é acơv, we must also read
öpos (acc.) rò kaloúpevov élarûv (not 'Elacáv) L. 19. 29, 21. 37: all
MSS. give a wrong inflection in A. 1, 12 Toû kalovuévov 'Elac@vos
for édaco: cp. § 33, 1.
6. On the declension of place-names. Double declension as in
class. Greek is seen in Néav róli A. 16. II; therefore also read
‘Iepô móle Col. 4. 13. Instances of metaplasmus: Decl. I. fem.
sing., Decl. II. neut. plur.-Atotpå, acc. -ěv A. 14. 6, 21, 16. I,
but dat. -ols 14. 8, 16. 2: Ovátelpa. acc. Ap. 1. II N, -av ABC, gen.
-Wv A. 16. 14, dat. -ols Ap. 2. 18 (B -păſ, $ 7, 1), 24 (AC-P , B -pals),
cp. Aú8da, supra 5. Decl. III. and Decl. I. confused.-Eadajív, dat.
cīvi A. 13. 5, but -ívy KAEL, cp. (W.-Schm. § 10, 5) gen. Ealapívns
in Suid. 'Etiopávios (cod. A), Salamina(m) Latt. ap. Acts ibid. like
Justin ii. 7. 7, Salaminae insulae xliv. 3. 2, Salaminam (cp. the new
formations in romance languages, Tarragona, Cartagena, Narbonne).
7. Gender.-In place-names the fem. is so much the rule that we
have not only ý 'Iepovo alñp. (A. 5. 28 etc.), but even tão a 'Iepooó-
dupec Mt. 2. 3 (on A. 16. 12 DudiTrovs, Krus &oti ... Tróles, see
$ 31, 2). The masc. ó Eidwáu (the spring and the pool) in L. 13. 4,
Jo. 9. 7, II is explained by the interpretation added in Jo. 9. 7
ÅreoTaljévos.
8. Of indeclinable appellatives there are only a few : (TÒV kopbav
Mt. 27. 6 B*, correctly tòy kopſavâv; indecl. in another sense
Mc. 7. II, where it is introduced as a Hebr. word): pávva, Tò
(Ap. 2. I7 Toi u.): Tác Xô, Tò (L. 2. 4. Top T.): (TaTay gen. for -va
2 Č. 12. 7 te al.; more a proper name than an appellative) : oikepa
acc. L. 1. 15 (indecl. in Lxx.): ý otaí Ap. 9. 12, 11. 14 (like ♡
Origis etc.: also used as a subst. elsewhere, LXX. and 1 C. 9. 16,
see W.-Gr.).
$ 11. ADJECTIVES.
1. Adjectives in -os, -77 (-a), -ov and -os, -ov. (a) Compound adj.
şi åpyń (åpyós= -epyós) 1 Tim. 5. 13, Tit. 1. 12 (Epimenides), Ja.
1 There is a similar fluctuation in Josephus, W.-Schm. ibid.
2 Josephus has ń 2., sc. anyń, B. J. v. 12. 2, vi. 8. 5, but uéXPL toll E. ii. 16.
2, vi. 7. 2.
Fustiations in romance ce-names the fensetc.), but even contó
$11. 1-3.]
33
ADFECTIVES.
2. 20 BC* (v.1. vekpá); Att. ápyös yuvń Phryn. Lob. 104 f. 'H aúto-
Máty Mc. 4. 28 (not unclass.). 'H tapaðalao rría Mt. 4. 13 (T9v
Tapada áo Lov D, Tap 001a Tay **), but on Tapcos L. 6. 17;
these compounds in -cos admit of both forms. (b) Uncompounded
adj. Η έρημος always (Att. -μος and -μη). Η έτοιμος Mt. 25. το
(A -pai), un 2 C. 9. 5, 1 P. 1. 5 (Att. -Los and -un). ‘H aiúvios
is the usual form as it is in Att.; -ío. 2 Th. 2. 16 (-cov FG), H. 9. 12,
often as a v.l. 'H Beßaía always (Att. -a and -os). 'H kóculos (Att.
-ía) 1 Tim. 2. 9 **ADcorr. al.; v.1. -iws. 'H Mátalos and -ía (as in Att.).
'Huolos ? Ap. 4. 3. 'Holos 1 Tim. 2. 8 (-ía. Att. and Lxx.). 'H
oúpávios L. 2. 13 (v.l. oúpavoû), A. 26. 19 (Att. -ía). In other cases
the N.T. is in agreement with the ordinary grammar.
2. Το συγγενής L. 1. 36 has the fem. ή συγγενίς for Att. -ής
(Clem. Hom. xii. 8: Phryn. Lob. 451 ; cp. evyevidwv yuvalkớv Clem.
Rom. Epit. ii. 144), whereas strictly this fem. only belonged to words
in -ons, -Tov, and to those in -eús (Booidís).
3. Comparison.— The absorption of the category of duality into
that of plurality (cp. SS 2, 1, and 13, 5), occasioned also the dis-
appearance from the vulgar language of one of the two degrees
of comparison, which in the great majority of cases (cp. inf. 5) was
the superlative, the functions of which were taken over by the
comparative. The single instance of a superl. in -tatos in the N.T.
is åkpißéotatos A. 26. 5 (in literary language, the speech of Paul
before Agrippa, § 2, 4). The remaining superlatives are in -LOTOS,
and are generally employed in intensive relative] sense, and in some
cases have quite lost their force : éáxiotos perexiguus passim? (as
a true superl., either due to the literary language or corrupt reading
in 1 C. 15. 9: for which éhaxlotótepos occurs in E. 3. &, inf. 4):
*Slota 2 C. 12. 9, 15, A. 18. 3 D (gladly,' very gladly '): kpátione
in the dedication L. 1. I: Méylotos permagnus 2 P. 1. 4: Elotos
Mt. 11. 20, 21. 8, cp. $ 44, 4: 1 C. 17. 27 (ò alelotov ‘at most '): 3
ús Táxlota A. 17. 15 (literary language, a true superl.) : ÚloTOS
passim : {yylota D Mc. 6. 36 (Joseph. passim : Clem. Cor. i. 5. 1).
The most frequent superlative which still remains is (uâldov --)
jálcota (Acts, Pauline epp., 2 Peter : still there are no more than
twelve instances in all).4 Cp. Synt. § 44, 3.
1 The usage of the Ep. of Barnabas agrees with that of the N.T. On the
other hand in Hermas, although his Greek is the unadulterated language of
ordinary speech, superlatives in -taros and -Lotos are quite common with intensive
[elative] sense, while he also uses the comparative for the superlative proper.
This (Roman) form of the kolvý thus held the same position in this respect as
the Italian of to-day, which does not distinguish between comp. and superl.,
but has preserved the forms in -issimo, etc., in intensive sense.
2 Hermas, Mand. v. 1. 5 Toll thaxlotov å Ulvdlov 'the little bit of wormwood,'
in a preceding passage (ibid.) á yw olov uikpdv \lav. A similar use occurs as
early as Aeschin. iii. 104.
3 Herm. Sim. viii. 5. 6, 10. I, ix. 7. 4. od mlectov MÉpos, but viii. 1. 6 TÒ
πλείον μ.
4 A popular substitute for μάλλον, μάλιστα as also for πλείων and πλείστος is
supplied by the adjective reploobs (superabundant,' ample’) together with
its adverb and comparative. TÒ TEPLOQÒY TOÚTWY Mt. 5. 7 = To Théov T. (cp.
34
[$ 11. 4-5.
ADJECTIVES.
4. Special forms of the comparative. For comp. of ảyadós we
never have duel vwv, Béltiov as an adv. only in 2 Tim. 1. 18 (-1wv
Herm. Vis. iii. 4. 3, 7. I); kpeloow (-TTWV, $ 6, 7) only in Pauline
epp., Hebrews, and Pet. (more excellent' or 'mightier,' of higher
standing,' opp. to é dártwv H. 7. 7); the vulgar åyaútepos (Herm.
Mand. viii. 9. I) is never found in the N.T.I For comp. of kakós,
xelpwv 'worse' is frequent; tò hooov is opp. to tò kpeiorov 1 C.
11. 17; rooov adv. 'less' (of degree) 2 C. 12. 15. 'Elboowv
deterior is the opposite to kpeloowv Jo. 2. ro, H. 7. 7, vide supra :
or, as in Attic, to uelewv R. 9. 12 0.T. quot.; adv. člattov 'less'
(of number) 1 Tim. 5. 9 (uckpótepos.is smaller' as in Attic). Táxiov
Hellenistic, B taxelov) is the constant form, not Oâtrov (Att.) or
-ooov, unless the latter is to be read for dogov in A. 27. 13 (a
literary word, cp. in Clem. Cor. i. 65. I the juxtaposition of the
cultured phrase όπως θάττον with conj., and the vulgar εις το τάχιον
with inf.). 'Elaxlotótepos "the lowest of all’ (see 3) is correctly
formed according to the rules of the common language ; Melcótepos
3 Jo. 4 shows an obscured sense of the idea of the comp. in
jel[wy, but is not without analogies in the older language (e.g. auelvó-
Tepos). Allótepoy Mt. 23. 15 = duplo magis (Appian also has
dialórepa TOÚTwv= dit laola T. Proem. 10), whereas ándotorepos
shows the Attic formation of such comparatives.
5. Adjectival comparative and superlative) of adverbs. The
superl. mpôtos has been retained where the comp. apótepos in the
sense of the first of two' has disappeared, so Jo. 1. 15, 30 mpôtós
uov, A. 1. I TÒV mpôtov dóyov (but apótepos='former, hitherto'
survives in E. 4. 22 TNV a potépav åvaotpobýv, cp. Herm. Mand. iv.
3. 1, 3 etc.); the corresponding adv. apótepov= formerly' H. 10. 32,
1 P. 1. 14 tò mpót. (8 34, 7) in Jo. 6. 62, 9. 8 (ibid. 7. 50, 51 as a
wrong reading), G. 4. 13, 1 Tim. 1. 13, whereas the first of two actions
is here also denoted by mpôtov (Mt. 7. 5, 8. 21, L. 14. 28, 31 etc.),
except in H. 4. 6, 7. 27 (literary style; in 2 C. 1. 15 apótepov should
apparently be erased with **). The opposite word doxaros is like-
wise also used in comp. sense (Mt. 27. 64); while votepos is superl.
1 Tim. 4. 1 (a wrong reading in Mt. 21. 31); the adv. Ýotepov is
$ 44, note 3), L. 12. 4 TEPLOOÓTepów (Teploob AD al.) Ti = aléov Tl; 12. 48 TEPLO-
obtepov, D léov; cp. Mt. 11. 9 = L. 7. 26, Mc. 12. 40 = L. 20. 47, Clem. Cor. i.
61. 3. The adv. TEPLOows = uâllov Mt. 27. 23, Mc. 10. 26, 15. 14 (-000TÉpws
ENP al.). (In conjunction warlov mePLOO ÓTepov [-épws D] Mc. 7. 36, -épws llo
2 C. 7. 13, vide inf., cp. $ 44, 5 and pleonasms like eúdtws Tapaxpñua.) So also
the Berlin papyri, 326, ii. 9 el d' {TL teplooà ypájjata kataliw (' further'), and
mod. Greek teplo obrepos, adv. -pov 'more.' In St. Paul, however, TEPLOO OTÉpws
appears occasionally to have a still stronger force = 'tepBallóvtws 2 C. 7. 15,
12. 5, G. 1. 14, cp. A. 26. II (tep. Mâllov 2 C. 7. 13 (?) = 'still much more,' cp.
sup.), while in other passages of his writings it may be replaced by uâllov or
uálcota, as TEPLOO ÓTepos by Telwv : Ph. l. 14, 2 C. l. 12, 1 C. 12. 23 f., 2 C. 10.
8 etc. So also H. 7. 15 TEPLO O ÓTepov (= uâllov) ÉTL Katádndov, 2. 1, 13. 19 -pws,
Herm. Mand. iv. 4. 2, Sim. v. 3. 3.
1 Kühner, i. 3, 1. 565. åyalútatos is also found in Herm. Vis. i. 2. 3 ('excel-
lent'; as a proper superl. in Diod. Sic. xvi. 85); Herm. Sim. viii. 9 has
ndúrepos, Kühner, ibid. 555.
$ 12. & 13. 1-2.]
NUMERALS. PRONOUNS.
common (also in superl. sense, as in Mt. 22. 27, L. 20. 32).
Further exx. of comp. of adverbs : Éútepos Mt. 8. 12 etc. (Herm.
Sim. ix. 7. 5), égútepos A. 16. 24, H. 6. 19, KATÁTepos E. 4. 9 (of
course also in superl. sense); these adjectives are not found in
Attic, which however has the corresponding adverbs : ávútepov
L. 14. 10, H. 10. 8 (Att. more often -pw), KATWTÉpw Mt. 2. 16
(kátw perhaps more correctly D), troppwtépw (-pov AB) L. 24. 28,
éyyútepov R. 13. 11.
$ 12. NUMERALS.
1. Aúo has gen. dúo, dat. dvoív (plural inflection): similarly Lxx.: 2
dvoiv for dvoîv is condemned by Phrynichus (Lob. 210).
2. In compounds of Séra with units, at least from thirteen up-
wards, déka occupies the first place (this practice is more frequent
in the later language than in the older : in mod. Gk., except in the
case of eleven and twelve, it is universal): (dekadúo [Polyb.]
A. 19. 7 HLP, 24. 11 same evidence; dekatécoupes Mt. 1. 17,
2 C. 12. 2, G. 2. 1: SEKOTÉVTE Jo. 11. 18, A. 27. 28, G. 1. 18 (deka
kai tévte Herm. Vis. ii. 2. 1 *): DEKOOKTÓ L. 13. 4 (déka kai ó. NA
al.), II (8. K. Ó. AL al.). The ordinals, however, take the reverse
order : Tecoapeo kaidekaTOS A. 27. 27, TEVTEKaldékatos L. 3. I (Ionic
and later language : Attic usually tétaptos kai déc.). With larger
numbers there is a similar order of words, with or (usually) without
kaí : eikool opeîs 1 C. 10. 8, TECO EPÓKovta kai ČE Jo. 2. 20.
$ 13. PRONOUNS.
1. Personal.--The 3rd pers. is represented by aútoû: the same
form is used for the 3rd pers. possessive. Reflexives: 1st pers.
sing. έμαυτού, 2nd sing. σεαυτού (not σαυτού), 3rd sing. εαυτού (not
airou): 3 plural 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pers. Éāvtûv (so in Hellenistic Gk.,
not pwv Q., ypwv Q., opớv a.; on ýpôv aŭtwv in 1 C. 5. 13 from
Deut. 17. 7, see $ 48, 10).
2. Demonstratives.-Oitos, ékelvos as usually; the intensive é
(oútoo-í) is unknown, but is employed by Luke (in the Acts) and
Paul (Hebrews) in the adv. vuví = vũv. "Oše is rare and almost con-
fined to the phrase ráde dével; Acts 21. II, Ap. 2. I, 8, 12, 18,
? Quite plebeian are ěti ávw, kátw for åvotepov, KATÚTepov in the apocryphal
addition to Mt. 20. 28 in D.
2 W.-Schm. $ 9, 11.
3 Even in the inscriptions of this period the trisyllabic forms, éavtoù etc. sup-
plant the dissyllabic, which in classical times were used alongside of them. In
the old edd. of the N.T. the latter still appear pretty frequently, but are now
rightly replaced by ÉAUTOû or aútoŮ (see Synt. $ 48, 6), so even in R. 14. 14 ol'
cavtoŮ KAB, A. 20. 30 ómlow eauTÛV KAB. The long a results from the con-
traction (éo aŭtoû); in the Hellenistic and Roman period it has occasioned the
loss of the v in pronunciation, whence the spelling eatoll (just as the c in äi, q was
unpronounced). See Wackernagel in Kuhn's Zeitschr. xxxiii.(N. F. xiii.), p. 2.ff.
36
SYSTEM OF CONJUGATION. [$ 13. 2-5. $ 14.
3. 1, 7, 14; elsewhere ráde A. 15. 23 D; yde L. 10. 39; TÁvde
Ja. 4. 13 (Clem. Cor. ii. 12. 5 voe is only a conjecture). Cp. Synt.
$ 49, 1, and inf. 4.
3. Relatives.—"Os, Ý, ő: Őotus, ñtus, 6,7l; the latter, however,
only in the nom. sing. and plur., except that ő,ti also appears as
acc.: in meaning it becomes confused with ős, see Synt. § 50, 1. We
have the stereotyped phrase éws őtov in Luke and John (å$' őtov in D
L. 13. 25); otherwise there is no instance of these old forms (so we
never find άσσα, άττα for άτινα), in the same way that the forms του,
TOV ( = Tívos, tivós), TÕ, TQ (= tivi, Tiví) etc. from ris, tus have become
obsolete. "OoTep is only in Mc. 15. 6 ¥°B3C al. ÖVTEP ÝToûvto (male
Öv trapnt. **AB*; the right reading in DG ởv åv v toŮVTO $ 63, 7).
On the use of os for a demonstrative pron. see Synt." s 46, 2.
4. Correlative pronouns.-IIoîos - TOLOÛTOS (TOLÓG Se only 2 P. 1. 17
Tocãode, cp. 2) - olos - Óroîos. IIóoos - TOCOÛTOS -- ooos. IIqlikos
(G. 6. II, H. 7. 4) - TYLKOÛTOS (2 C. 1. 10, H. 2. 3, Ja. 3. 4,
Ap. 16. 18) - Míkos (Col. 2. 1, Ja. 3. 5). To these must be added
TOTATÓs (with similar meaning to Tolos), Synt. § 50, 6. On the
correlative adverbs, see § 25. Tocoûtos and tooOÛTOS (TYLKOÛTOS)
have neut. in -ov and -o (both forms are also found in Att., though
the first is more frequent): with var. lect. Mt. 18. 5, A. 21. 25
B text, H. 7. 22: with -ov only H. 12. I; on the other hand
TOLIKOÛTo Herm. Vis. iv. 1. 10 (2. 3 with v.l.).
5. With pronouns and pronominal forms it has also happened.
that words indicating duality as distinct from plurality have become
obsolete (Trótepos - tís; ékátepos – ÉKAOTOS), with the exception of
åupótepou (the N.T. form, never äupw) and étepos, which, however,
already becomes confused with äldos. Cp. Synt. § 51, 6.
§ 14. SYSTEM OF CONJUGATION.
1. The system of the conjugation of the verb is apparently not
much altered from its earlier state, since nearly all the classical
forms are found in the N.T., the dual, of course, excepted. The
voices remain as before : and the tenses are the same, except that in
uipevýo kojal, pernoonoouai (not neuvoouar fut. perf., of which the
name 'Attic future' is sufficient indication that it was absent from
the Hellenistic language); čoTNV, Othooae; cotálnv, otaOncouat, but
not othéwi fut. perf.; Daivouai, pavňoouat, but the form pavoūmai,
which in Attic was allied to the present as distinguished from
Davno, which belonged to é dávny, no longer appears (1 P. 4. 18 is a
quotation from Lxx. Prov. 11. 31). This certainly destroys the
harmonious structure of the system of the tenses, viz. continuous
1 For Kekpáčovtal L. 19. 40 the better attested reading is kpáčovou XBL
(kpáčovrau D : kekpátouai passim in Lxx.). But cp. the aor. Ékék pağa A. 24. 21,
inf. $ 24.
$ 14. 1-2. $ 15. 1-3.] SYSTEM OF CONJUGATION:
37
action in present, past, and future time=pres. impf. and fut. of the
present (Ew, Tiuñoquai pass.): completed action in past and future
time=aorist and fut. of the aorist (oxow, Tipin Oncopai): continuity
of completed action in present, past, and future time = perf., plupf.,
and fut. of the perfect (OTNEW, Beßloouar pass.). Of the moods,
moreover, the optative is clearly on its way to becoming obsolete,
being only found in Luke's writings with any frequency, where its
presence is due to the influence of the literary language which
retained it. Of the future opt. there is no trace, and this tense is,
generally speaking, almost confined to the indic., since the use of the
fut. infin. is, with few exceptions, limited to the Acts (11. 28, 23. 30,
24. 15, 27. 10: cp. Synt. § 61, 3), and the fut. part. outside the
writings of the same author (Gosp. 22. 49, Acts 8. 27, 20, 22, 22. 5,
24. 17) is of quite rare occurrence (Mt. 27. 41 06owv, but owoal *,
kai oớoel D Jo. 6. 64[?], 1 C. 15. 37, H. 3. 5, 13. 17, 1 P. 3. 13,
2 P. 2. 13 with v.l.), cp. Synt. 8 61, 4. Finally, the verbal adjective
has practically disappeared, with the exception of forms like duvatós
which have become stereotyped as adjectives; the only exx. are
Taontós "liable to suffering A. 26. 23, and Bintéov L. 5. 38 (*D
Bállouriv): cp. Herm. Vis. iv. 2. 6 aipetútepov.
2. Periphrastic forms.— The perf. and pluperf. indic. are not
unfrequently represented by a periphrasis (as is also the case in
Att.), while for the perf. conjunctive (passive) a periphrasis is a
necessity (as in Att. for the most part); the perf. imperat. is
expressed periphrastically in L. 12. 35 ?O TWOAV Tepiecwouévai; on the
other hand we have repiuwoo Mc. 4. 39. By means of periphrasis
the place of the fut. perf. may also be supplied (L. 12. 52, Mt. 16. 19,
18. 18, H. 2. 13); periphrasis has, on the whole, a very wide range in
the N.T., see Synt. § 62.
$ 15. AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION.
1. The syllabic augment is wanting as a rule in the pluperf. (as
also in other Hellenistic writings, but not in Att.); exceptions are
chiefly in the passive (W. Schmidt de Josephi elocut. 438): éßeßinto
L. 16. 20, éneyéypanto A. 17. 23 (ņu yeypappévov D), OUVETÉOELVTO
J. 9. 22, TEPLEDESETO 11. 44 (Trepidéd. D*), êtreToDel L. 11. 22 (TTÉTT OLDEV
D), and many others.
2. The syllabic augment, in places where in Attic it holds an
exceptional position instead of (or in addition to the temporal, has
been ill maintained : úvoûpas, úvoúunu (Att. éwv.), wbw, woa (EEWOEV
A. 7. 45 only in p*E; ő ovv Ev. Petr. 6): in åvoiyw, karáyvu it
has indeed survived, but through being misunderstood has intruded
into the other moods and the fut. (see irreg. verbs, $ 24); poopouny
(-up-B3P) A. 2. 25 O.T. quot.: cúpwv Jo. 6. 2 XTA al. is no doubt a
wrong reading for Deúpouv (cp. ibid.). On the reduplication in
cópara, vide inf. 6.
3. The augment º- instead of é- (less frequent in Att. than in later
writers) is always used with Oéw (Att. éénw, Delov), never with
38
[$ 15. 3-6.
AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION.
βούλομαι (a word adopted from the literary language: but ήβούλετο
Herm. Sim. v. 6. 5); in dúvapai and ué lw there is much variation
in the Mss. between nduv., nic, and éduv., čl- (cp. W.-Schm. § 12, 3).
4. Loss of the temporal augment.—The addition of the temporal
augment was not without exceptions even in Attic Gk, in the case
of an initial diphthong of which the first letter was e or o. The
N.T. has eifa G. 2. 5 (as in Att.), oikodopô, oikodouňon XB* Jo. 2. 20,
oikodóuno ev B*D A. 7. 47, étolkodóungev 1 C. 3. 14 (TWK. B3C): on
the other hand økodóunoev Mt. 21. 33 all MSS., wkodóunto L. 4. 29
(oikodóuntal D), cp. évýknDEV 2 Tim. 1. 5 (-oé- only D*), katØKNJEV
(-LEV) Ja. 4. 5 O.T., Topóknoev H. 11. 9 etc. W. H. App. 161.
Since the original documents of the time show several instances
of unaugmented o1, and Phrynichus refers to it as a custom of his
time (Phryn. Rutherford, 244), it may safely be attributed to the
writers; besides o (for õi) no longer bore much resemblance to oi
(which in ordinary pronunciation somewhat inclined to ū). Cp.
W.-Schm. § 12, 5. Eů in older Attic when augmented always
became my, in the later Attic (which also used ni, el interchangeably).
not always ;' in the N.T. ev preponderates, but no- also occurs not.
unfrequently: núpíoketo H. 11. 5 acc. to XADE, Tpoonúťavto A. 8. 15
(-ev- only B), 20. 36 (-ev- B*D), núxóunu R. 9. 3 (eủx. DEKL).2 For
unaugmented at the only ex. is 2 Tim. 1. 16 ÉTALO xúvon (-7- **K;
interchange of airē and ?).—The augment is wanting in the case
of a single short vowel in eindúdeiv (as in Att.: Attic reduplic.): in
åvéon for -elon A. 16. 26, åpédnouv R. 4. 7 O.T. (e arose from the
moods instead of el=i: similarly LXX.): in obelov as a particle
introducing a wish, cp. § 63, 5; other cases appear to be clerical
errors : dcepuñvev(o)ev L. 24. 27 (-7- EHKM al.), Sceyeipeto Jo. 6. 18
B al., at poopúunu A. 2. 25 O.T., vide supra 2, dvopoúon L. 13. 13 (-w-
E al.) etc.
5. Temporal augment n or el.-In general the N.T. agrees with
Attic; thus it has epyácouai, ypya cópnv A. 18. 3 **AB*DE, řpyao áuny
Mt. 25. 16 ¥*B*DL, 26. 10 **B*D, Mc. 14. 6 **B*D, L. 19. 16
**AB*DE* al., H. 11. 33 **D* (see also R. 7. 8, 15. 18, 2 C. 7. II,
12. 12; B* reads ei- only in R. 15. 18, x in all these four passages,
DE never) as in Attic, and in the Berlin Egyptian Records 530. 15
oumpyáoavto (but perf. -el-, augm. and redupl. being distinguished,
see 6).
6. Reduplication.-Initial ŕ loses its peculiarity in pepavTLO-
uévos H. 10. 22 **ACD*P for épp.: trepipepappévos Ap. 19. 13 only
p* (Trepipepartio. fcc), cp. pepipepévou Mt. 9. 36 D*. (Similar forms
in Ionian and late writers, W.-Schm. § 12, 8: Kühner, 1.3 ii. 23).
On p for pp, vide supra § 3, 10. uvnoTEÚw, dep.vnotevuévn (on the
model of uéuvnual) L. 1. 27, 2. 5 only as a v.l. (Clem. Hom. xiii. 16:
1 In the later Atticism this is purely phonetic, as is shown by the fact that
this ευ was also introduced as the augment for αυ: εξησα from αυξάνω. The
same ev appears in inscriptions of the Roman period; but in the N. T. the only
example is D eočave A. 12. 24.
2 W.-Schm. § 12, 5 b.
$ 15. 6-7.]
AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION.
Kühner, ibid. 24). cipyaouai (from FeFépy.) as in Att. (augm. n, see
5) Jo. 3. 21, 1 P. 4. 3. Similarly we have cópaka beside éópwv: in
this case, however, the spelling fópaka is very widely spread both in
Att. and in the N.T. 71 C. 9. I -o- *B*D'EFGP, -W- AB3 al. :
Jo. 1. 18-o-B*EFGHKX, -W- KAB:CLM al. etc.). eidkwuévos is read
by nearly all mss. in L. 16. 20 (as if from ēdkw).
7. Augment and reduplication in compound verbs and verbs
derived from compounds. - Where the simple verb (with initial
vowel) has been forgotten, the augment precedes the prepos. (so usu.
in Att., but always in N.T.): kabeúdw, ékéDevdov; kaliw, ékába,
čka decóunv, ékadńunul; ïu leo jévos. In addition to these N.T. has
åpía (= åpínur) ý olev Mc. 1. 34, 11. 16 (attested also in Att., but
hardly correctly, as an alternative for åpiel, ýplet), and åvoiyw, řvolça
side by side with åvewža, ņvéwéa, with inf. åvewxOñvai L. 3. 21
(åvouxö. only in. D): impf. only (du)ývouye L. 24. 32, perf. act. in
nearly all cases åvéwya Jo. 1. 52 (ívewyóra x), 1 C. 16. 9, 2 C. 6. 11.
See irreg. verbs, § 24. Thus whereas in this instance the double
augm. appears as against the Att. usage, åvéyouahas only the single
augm.: åveo xójny A. 18. 4 (vv. DEHLP), áveixeo de 2 C. 11. 1 (ibid. 4,
but BD* ávex.), cp. Moeris's dictum nvéo xeto 'ATTikoí, áv. "Einves;
elsewhere, too, in the N.T. there is no instance of doubly augmented
forms of this kind.
Verbs derived from compounds (Trapacúvõeta) are in general
treated like compound verbs in Attic Gk., if the first component
part is a prepos.. the same is always the rule in N T., except in the
case of apoconteúELV : ÉTT ponteúc ajev Mt. 7. 22 XB*CLZ, spoed.
B’EGM al., 11. 13 é pobtevo AV B*CDG, Tpoeb. B**EFG al., (with
similar division of Mss.) 15. 7, Mc. 7. 6, L. 1. 67, A. 19. 6 ( always
ÉTTp. except in Jd. 14 poenpoonTEVCEV : B* én pod., B3 ét poep., all
others at poep.).2 So also stākovớ makes dinkóvovv (from diákovos :
does diú form part of the word ?), but in Att. édiakovou (we even
have Teplo CEUW, TEPLÉOdevov in E Acts 16. 5, a form proscribed by
Phrynichus). Verbs formed from compounds of eŮ, when the adverb
is followed by a short vowel, have a tendency in the late language
to augment this vowel : evayyerícovat, eúnyyelefóuny (so always) :
etapeCTW, eủnpeoTnkéva, H. 11. 5 xDEP (evap. AKL) 3 Verbs com-
pounded of two prepositions tend to a double augmentation :
¿TTEKUTÉO TN (úrok. B) Mc. 8. 25, ÅTekáteotá On (årok. DK) Mt. 12. 13:
similarly Mc. 3. 5 (úrok. D), L. 6. 10 (parallel forms occur in
inscriptions and the papyri); but in H. 12. 4 dvtexOTÉOTITE is hardly
attested.
1 'Ekápuvoar Mt. 13. 15 0.T., A. 28. 27 0.T., explains itself. Kajjúw from
kat(a)uów: the verb is proscribed by Phryn. Lob. 339.
2 This verb is treated at length in Kóvtos KPLTikai kai ypadko Traparnpňoels (1895),
p. 70 ff. : see also W. Schmidt, Joseph. eloc. 442. Ilappnoiáſomai è trapp. does
not come under this head (Tây not mapá is imbedded in it).
3 Hermas, Vis. iii. 1. 9 evapeoTnKÓTWV , eủnp. as : Eimpéornoav Sim. viii.
3. 5.
40
VERBS IN -1. TENSE FORMATION. [S 16. 1–3. & 17.
$ 16. VERBS IN - TENSE FORMATION.
1. Verbs with pure stem.- opéw keeps a short vowel in the
formation of the tenses (Att. -,-), épopérapev, popécouey 1 C. 15. 49
(popéra. Herm. Sim. ix. 16. 3, but perf. nepopakótes ibid. I); 1
inversely (επι)ποθέω makes επεπόθησα 1P.2. 2 (LXX.; in old and
Attic Gk. -Ecá preponderates). Cp. éppé Onu from stem pe- Mt. 5. 21
HLM al., 27 KỈ al., 31 XLM al., and so elsewhere interchangeably
with éppńönv (cp. LXX. and other late writings), but the short
vowel is limited in N.T. and other writings to the indic.: where
there is no augment the form is always ondeis etc. lleuvâv makes
TTELVÁOW, étteivaoa (no doubt with ă, not ā) L. 6. 25 etc. (so also
LXX.); but dilâv, duuñow. With o we have delovouévo. H. 10. 23
*D*P, but dedoul. as in Att. in Jo. 13. 10 (-ou-only E): kékdeloua.
always (L. 11. 7 etc.), as against Att. -ecual (quai) : ékleío Onv as
Att.: cp. irreg. verbs fúvvvui, kepávvoue, o(W.
2. Verbs with mute stem.-Of verbs in -w the following have a
guttural character : vuotá[, évúctatav Mt. 25. 8 (Hellen.: Att. -aca):
Taifw, fut. uttalfw, aur, pass. évetraixOnv Mc. 10. 34, Mt. 2. 16 etc.
(Doric and Hellen.: TALOa etc. Att.); the following is dental :
oaltisw, oadniow, łoáliloa (1 C. 15. 52, Mt. 6. 2 al.), Hellenistic
(=Att.), but -áynv Hellenist. 2 C. 12. 2, 4, cp. ápras (Att.), áprayń
(old and Att.), áprayuós (ápráew Homeric fūt.): otupítw, -íow, -coa
Ì. 9. 51 BCÍ al. (-(ẾC HÀD al.), 22. 32 ( D al.), "Ap. 3. 1 ACP
(-E-RB), 2 Th. 3. 3 B, A. 15. 32 CE, elsewhere -- (and corýplypai,
ornpryjós), which was the old inflection : cp. otpays. Apuów
(puosáunv), opácw (čo bufa) are unrepresented in present and
imperfect.
3. Verbs with liquid stem.-Verbs in -aívw, -aipw take only ava,
-āpa in the 1st aor. act., without regard to the preceding sound :
thus éýpāva (e precedes) as in Att., but also è leókāva (éképdava),
¿ßáo kāva, tonuāva for Att. -nva: étudavau from -paívw L. 1. 79,
ůvabávavtes (male -Pavévtes AB*CE al.) A. 21. 3, pávy Ap. 18. 23:
éçekádāpa 1 C. 5. 7, 2 Tim. 2. 21 (ékábapa is also sporadically
found in 4th century Attic). Apal (contracted from delpai) agrees
with Att. Perf. pass. éénpaupévos Mc. 11. 20 (Att. -aojal, though
-appar is also attested), jeucappévos Tit. 1. 15 (Att. -ou-), cp. Meuapan-
uévos Herm. Vis, iii. 11. 2 (-40 l-as), katyo Xyppévos Mand. xii. 5. 2.
$ 17. VERBS IN 2. NEW FORMATION OF A PRESENT
TENSE.
A new present tense is formed out of the perf. (instances of which
are forthcoming also at an earlier period : γεγονέω from γέγωνα):
yonyopeîv (Phryn. 118) from éypńyopa (the latter never in N.T.:
i The e in popéw is never found elsewhere except in the aorist and future active.
21 C. 9. 21 XAB al., but ¥°DEKL kepòñow the regular form elsewhere, cp.
Irreg. Verbs, $ 24.
8 17. $18.]
41
NEW PRESENT TENSE.
.
ypny. LXX., never in good writers, N.T. with aor. šypnyópnoa) :
orúkw stand' from coinka (used along with the latter word),
Mc. 11. 25 OTÝKETE (-77€; otte *), 3. 31 OTÝKOVTES BC* (v.l. OTÁVTES,
ÉOTYKÓTES, SOTÔTES), 1 C. 16. 13 (imperat. OTÝKETE), G. 5. I (id.),
Ph. 4. I did.), 1 Th. 3. 8 (id.), the only additional forms elsewhere
are otýke R. 14. 4, and otńkete indic. Ph. 1. 27: thus it is almost
confined to Pauline writings, and is mainly found in the imperat.
(for which cotate is the old form, eoTÝKETE is unexampled). The
word (mod. Gk. OtékW : OTÝKw, Epigr. Kaibel, 970) is thoroughly
plebeian. Other exx. of new present forms are : đubráfw for -évvvu
(Hellenist., also LXX.) L. 12. 27, duplácel B, CEL DL (the latter
form, elsewhere unattested, is cited by Cramer, An. Ox. 2. 338,
as κοινόν, and -άζω as δωρικόν), -έννυσι NA etc. as all MSS. read in
Mt. 6. 30:-évoidúoku "put on’ Mc. 15. 17 xBC (D ĉvdvdio k.) for
évdúw : évoldúo kouai put on oneself' L. 8. 27 ACA (D -8v81-) al.
(v.l. aor.), 16. 19 (LXX., Herm. Sim. ix. 13. 5): púßw (Hellenist.,
dee Phryn. Lob. 317: formed from the Hellenist. aor. ékpúßnv, like
εγράφην from γράφω: see 8 19, 2), L. 1. 24 περιέκρυβεν impf., not
2nd aor.: elsewhere no instances of pres. or impf. in N.T., Ev.
Petr. 16 ékpuſóueda :-(áto)KTÉV(v)w for -krelvw, with extremely un-
certain spelling: Mt. 10. 28 -KTEVVÓVTWV (-EVÓVtwv E al., -ELVÓVTWv B):
Mc. 12. 5 -KTÉVVOVTES, FG al. -EVOVTES, B -EVVÚVTES, NC - VVÚvtes, MS
-alvovtes: L. 12. 4 -EVVÓVTWV, -EVÓVTW DG al., -ALV- M, -ELV- B:
2 C. 3. 6 évvel, ACDE al. -ével, B -eível: Ap. 6. II évveo bai, BP
-elveolui : 13. 10 -ÉVEL, -EVEL BCP, -eível x; here Lachm. writes -aível
(as he does in 2 C. 3. 6), Tischend. -Evel.1 The ordinary -eívu has
most support in Mt. 23. 37 (-evv- CGK, -EV- ), L. 13. 34 (-EVV- AK
al.). For the spelling with -vv- or -v- see on xúv(v)w :-vlitw (appar-
ently not earlier than Hellenistic Gk., from vítw, éviya) for vítw :-
Xúv(v)w for xéw (Hellenist., mod. Gk.: cp. Kéxymai, éxúdny with
én lúonu from dúvw) everywhere except in Mt. 9. 17 ékxeitai
(probably in an interpolation, cp. D); in Ap. 16. I we should write
€KXéate aor. with B instead of -ÉETE.2 The best MSS. write the word
with vv: A. 9. 22 KB*C, 21. 31 **AB*D, 22. 20 KAB*, Mt. 26. 28
HABCD al., similarly 23. 35, Mc. 14. 24, L. 11. 50, 22. 20; in other
writings, however (Lob. Phryn. 726), xúvw is the only recognised
form, and this also has analogy in its favour. Cp. further in the
table of verbs, $ 24, Braorâv, yapicelv, órtáveo dau (under opâv).
ith wo: ., similarly, 36. Phryn. 72 ts favour
$ 18. VERBS IN-. ON THE FORMATION OF THE FUTURE.
1. The so-called Attic future of verbs in -ów, -áfw etc. disappears,
as the name itself implies, from the Hellenistic language, and accord-
ingly from the N.T., therefore -éow, -cow, not - -eis, -Ô -ậs in N.T.
- ' In Acts 3. I for ανέβαινον A has αναιβεννον, C ανέβεννον, in L. 10. 31 Α καται-
Bevvev. The spelling - Taivw has, however, little probability in view of the con-
sistent forms of the fut. -evû and aor. -Elva ; with -Évw one might compare vévw.
(NTTOKTÉVVW also occurs occasionally in Lxx., W.-Schm. § 15 note.)
? Herm. Vis. v. 5 oryxúvvou ; in Sim. viii. 2. 7 rapaxéel of as should
perhaps be emended παραχέαι.
42 VERBS IN-. FORMATION OF THE FUTURE. IS 18. 1-3.
Greek are correct (whilst the LXX. still has forms in -Ô -as). So in
particular καλώ καλέσω, τελώ τελέσω (απόλλυμι, απολέσω, απολούμαι,
8 24). On the other hand, verbs in -ίζω to a great extent form their
fut., as in Att., with --W, particularly (W. H. ii. App., p. 163) in the
3rd pers. plur. act., where the following syllable also begins with a.
σ: ελπιούσιν L. 1. 48, έδαφιούσιν 19. 44 etc. (only in Col. 4. 9
γνωρίσουσιν NBFGP, -ιούσιν * ACD al., whereas ibid. 7 all MSS. have
γνωρίσει, op. Ε. 6. 21, Jo. 17. 26). In the LΧΧ. the formation in
-ιω prevails, and this is accordingly found in Ο.Τ. quotations,
παροργιώ R. 10. 19, μετοικιώ Α. 7. 43. Additional eXX.: Με. 25. 32
αφορίσει *LΔ, -ιεί 8°ABD al. (-ιούσιν 13. 49 all Μss.): βαπτίσει
always: Ja. 4. 8 έγγιεί (-ίσει A): εμφανίσω, θερίσω, καθίσω are
Constant: διακαθαριεΐ Mt. 3. 12, item (L. 3. Ι7) H. 9. Ι4 (καθ.):
κομιείσθε 1Ρ. 5. 4, κομιείται Col. 3. 25 Ν*ACD* (-ίσεται “BD al.),
Ε. 6. 8 °D" al. (-ίσεται Ν*ABD* al.), κομιoύμενοι 2 P. 2. 13 (v.1.
άδικούμενοι): στηρίζω, -ίσω or -ίξω, 8 16, 2: φωτιεί Αp. 22. 5 NB, -ίσει
ΑΡ: χαρίσεται R. 8. 32: χρονιεί Η. 10. 37 Ο.Τ. “AD° al., -ίσει *D*
(ού μη χρονίση LΧΧ. ed.): χωρίσω. Since in 0.Τ. quotations the -ιω
of the Lxx. has not been corrupted by scribes into -low, it appears.
that in original passages of the N.T. the reading -íow should in
general be preferred.
2. Future without the characteristic form of the future tense.-.
Πίομαι agrees with the Att. form : for έδoμαι Ν.Τ. has φάγομαι,
L. 14. 15, 17. 8, Jo. 2. Ι7 Ο.Τ., Ja. 5. 2, Αp. 17. 16 (LXX. has
έδομαι ραssim : φάγομαι, έφαγον correspond to πίομαι, έπιον:
Phryn. 327, φάγ. βάρβαρον). In place of the fut. χέω the LΧΧ. and
Ν.Τ. have χεώ, χεείς etc.; εκχεείτε Deut. 12. Ι6, 24 (Clem, Cor.
ii. 7. 5 παθείται for πείσεται from πάσχω, cp. καθεδούμαι).
3. Whereas in Att. many active verbs form a future middle, in
N.T. the active form is in most cases employed throughout.
'Ακούσομαι occurs in the Acts (exc. in 28. 26 Ο.Τ. quot. -ετε) and
R. 10. 14 a wrong reading of y*DE al. for -owow HB; but åkoúow,
Jo. 5. 25 (-ονται AD al.), 28 (item), 10. 16 al. (where there is
diversity of reading -ow is preferable, since -couai has not been
corrupted in the Acts). “Αμαρτήσω Mt. 18. 21 (Herm. Mand. iv.
1. Ι, 2): απαντήσω Μο. 14. 13: άρπάσω Jo. 10. 28 (NDLX ου μη
αρπάση): βλέψω Acts 28. 26 Ο.Τ.: γελάσω L. 6. 2Ι: (γνώσομαι as
ordinarily): διώξω Mt. 23. 34 al.:1 (έσθίω, φάγομαι, see 2): ζήσω
Jo. 5. 25 NBDL (-ονται Α al.), 6. 5Ι ΝDL (-εται BC al.), 57 ABC2
(-εται ΓΔ al., ζη C*D), with diversity of reading ibid. 58 and so
passim, ζήσομαι all Μss. in Jo. 11. 25, R. 8. 13. ζήσω (1 Τh. 5. Ιο,
see 8 65, 2) 2 Τim. 2. ΙΙ (συνζήσομεν ; -ωμεν CLP is only a cor-
ruption): both forms also occur in Att. : (αποθανούμαι as usual) :
θαυμάσονται Αp. 17. 8 NB, correctly for Ν.Τ. θαυμασθήσονται AP
(from θαυμάζομαι = -ω, cp. 13. 3): κλαύσω L. 6. 25, Jo. 16. 20, Αp.
18. 9 (wrongly -ονται NA, though so read in Ηerm. Vis. iii. 3. 2):
1 Έπιορκήσω Mt. 5. 33 is also the Att. form : κατεπιορκησόμενος Demosth. 54.
40 is passive.
$ 19. 1-3.] VERBS IN -2. FIRST AND SECOND AORIST. 43
kpátw L. 19. 40 xBL, Kekpáčovtai AR al. as in Att. and LXX.,
kpáfovta. D: (ań(u) youat, otomar as usual) : TalỆw Mc. 10. 34:
(TEC Oūmai, miomar as usual): pevow Jo. 7. 38: Otroudáow 2 P. 1. 15
T-á€w *): ouvavtnow (cp. åravt.: no Attic instance of fut. from ouv-
avt) L. 22. 10, A. 20. 22: (Tétouan, bebéquat, xapñoquai as usual).1
$ 19. VERBS IN 2. FIRST AND SECOND AORIST.
1. 1st aorist act. in-oa instead of 2nd aorist.—(*Hţa) beside nyayov
is seen in émráčas 2 P. 2. 5, écouváča. L. 13. 34, ovváčavtes A. 14. 27 D
(found at the least in dialects, LXX., and late writers): fuáprnoa side
by side with ñuaprov R. 5. 14, 16, Mt. 18. 15, Herm. Mand. iv. 3. 6,
vi. 2. 7 etc. (Empedocl., LXX., Lob. Phryn. 732): éßlwod 1 P. 4. 2
(the better Att. form is épíwr), Enoc often takes the place of
the last word (Ionic and late, not Att.) A. 26. 5 etc.: Báornoa
Mt. 13. 26, H. 9. 4, causative Ja. 5. 18 as in LXX. Gen. 1. II
(Empedocl., late writers), never éplacTOV: Svoa intrans. for duv
Mc. 1. 32 BD (dv'A etc.), L. 4. 40 dúo avtos D, dúvavtos a few MSS.,
δύνοντος most ΜSS.: έκραξα, as in late writers, almost always (ανέκραγον
L. 23. 18 xBL, Herm. Vis. iii. 8. 9) except A. 24. 21 ékékpača KABC
as Lxx.: hella (late) A. 6. 2 (Katén.), L. 5. 11 D (id.), Mc. 12. 198
καταλείψη for -λ(ε)ίπη, elsewhere έλιπον.2 The assimilation to the
fut. is everywhere well marked.--A new 2nd aor. ávédalov is formed
from dvadárdw Ph. 4. 10 (LXX.), apparently in causative sense
(ανεβάλετε το υπέρ εμού φρονείν), unless του should be read with FG ;
cp. SS 24: 71, 2.
2. 2nd aorist passive for 2nd aorist active.--Epúnu fór é ouv, pvév
(ovudvelo ac) L. 8. 6 ff., ĉkovị Mt. 24. 32 = Mc. 13. 20 (like éppúny;
late). So also tapecoedúncav for -voav is read by B in Jd. 4.
3. 1st and 2nd aorist (and future) passive.--In the passive voice
the substitution of the 2nd aor. for the 1st is a very favourite idiom.
ryyélnv L. 8. 20 år. (LXX., and as early as Att.): řvolynv Mc. 7. 35
(-oixo. A al.), A. 12. 10 (-xon EHLP), Ap. 11. 19 (-xon B), 15. 5 side
by side with -x Onu (Att. has 1st aor.): fut. -yhoouo.i Mt. 7. 7,
L. 11. 10 NAC al., ávoiyetau BD (as also B in Mt. loc. cit.), but
-xońcouai L. 11. 9 f. (A)(D)EF al.: normáynv 2 C. 12. 2, 4 (late) for
Att. Ypado Ony (so Ap. 12. 5 ACP, but -áyn X, -áx0n B), with fut.
-yoouai 1 Th. 4. 17: ékány (Hom., Ionic, late writers) Ap. 8. 7,
1 C. 3. 15 (2 P. 3. 10), elsewhere, as in Att., we have the 1st aor. and
the fut. formed from it: ékpúßny Mt. 5. 14, etc. In these new 2nd
aorist forms there was a preference for the medial letters as the
final sound of the stem, even though as in the last instance (kpvo-)
the stem strictly had another termination (-o0nv Att., -On poet.) :
cp. pres. kpúßw § 17 : katevúyny Acts 2. 37 : Seráynv G. 3. 19, ÚTETáynv
R. 8. 20, 10. 3 al., a poderá yn Herm. Mand. iv. 1. 10 (this writer also
1 Xapñoquar is also to be regarded as Att. fut. of the aorist, as compared with
xalpňow fut. of the present.
2 Herm. Sim. viii. 3. 5 has kaTÉdecyev along with -lev. Clem. Cor. ii. 5
karalelyavras, 10 -Neluwmev.
44
VERBS IN -12. DEPONENT VERBS. [S 19. 3–4. $ 20.

has ωρύγη for -χθη, from ορύσσω Sim. ix. 6. 7), υποταγήσομαι
1 C. 15. 28, H. 12. 9 (Barn. 19. 7), but L. 17. 9 f. diataxdevra as in
Attic. Ψύχω makes ψυγήσεται Mt. 24. 12 (-χήσεται Κ; late writers
even say túyw, Lob. on Soph. Ajax, p. 3732 : cp. ékpúßnu – kpúßw).
New 1st aorists (for what in Attic is expressed by a different verb)
are été X Onu L. 2. 11, Mt. 2. 2 (Att. éyevóunv): årektávonv passim (Att.
årélavov). A substitute for 2nd aor. is ékdíonu (poet.), the regular
form (also klubhoomai) for Att. éklívnu.
4. On the intermixture of terminations of the 1st and 2nd aor.
act. and mid. see § 21, 1.
§ 20. VERBS IN -1. AORIST AND FUTURE OF DEPONENT
VERBS.
1. Aorist passive for aorist middle.—'Eyevňonu (Hellenist., Phryn.
108, LXX.) in addition to éyevóunv: Mt. 6. Io, 9. 29, 15, 28, 26. 42
imperat. yevnOntw, in O.T. quot. éyevýon 21. 42; elsewhere only
11. 23 -vono av ABCD, 28. 4 *BC*DL; Mc. and Jo. (including Epp.
and Apoc.) never have this form except in 0.T. quotations, so also
L. Gosp., but 10. 13 (=Mt. 11. 23) -vhongav ABDLE, 18. 23 -výon
XBL: in Acts the only instance is 4. 4 all MSS. -výon, but D also
has it in 7. 13, 20. 3, 16; it is frequent, however, in the epistles of
Paul and Peter, and in Hebrews. Cp. the perfect yeyévnual (found
in Att.) in addition to yéyova. 'ATTEKpOnv (Hellenist., Phryn. 108) is
universal, Luke alone uses the Attic form årtek peváuñv as well, 3. 16
(23. 9, L correctly -veto), A. 3. 12 (D is different), and always in the
indic.; otherwise the latter form is only found with var. lect.:
Mt. 27. 12 (D correctly -€TO), Mc. 14. 61 (-ion D ; -VETO ?), Jo. 5. 17,
19, 12. 23. The corresponding fut. is årokpiońcopai. So also
útokpívouai 'dissemble,' ÚTrekpiony, OUVUTEKpí Onoav G. 2. 13 (Herm.
Sim. ix. 19. 3, as Polyb.), dlakpívouai 'doubt,' diekpíonv. 'ATE-
loyńonv L. 21. 14, -noájnv 12. II, but Clem. Alex. ii. 35 f. Dd.
(quotation) -nonte (Att. irredoynodunu, but the other aor. too is
very old). Again, éyeipouar only makes nyépony (found in Att.),
never nypóunv: ávanavojai, (én)avarańoojai L. 10. 6 *B* (-aúceta.
rell.), Ap. 14. 13 AC (ibid. 6. II -aúoovtac or -WVtau all MSS.,
and so elsewhere; but Herm. Vis. i. 3. 3 A, iii. 9. I sétány,
and Katarańo etau Pap. Londin. p. 113, line 916; čkavoa, ékány
corresponds to étavớa, értánv). To verbs expressive of emotion,
which also in Att. take a passive aorist, belong iyod demuai (found
along with cô, § 24), nyaldiáðnv (-c0nv BL) Jo. 5. 35 (but 8. 56
-acúuny, and so elsewhere) : (Davuácoual, late form) ébavuáo Onv
Ap. 13. 3 A (-asuac ev XBP, -avmao tuon C), -oonoouai 17. 8, cp.
$ 18, 3 (the act. --(w occurs in Ap. 17. 7 and regularly elsewhere;
éDavpiáo Onv in pass. sense 2 Th. 1. 10): Daußeio Oui Mc. 1. 27
Daußňonoav (-Broav D), Daußnévtes A. 3. 11 D, cp. impf. Mc. 10.
24, 32, but Daußôv A. 9. 6 D as in Hom. etc.—Aleléato A. 17. 2
NAB (-éxon DE), 18. 19 KAB (-éxOn EHLP) is a wrong reading for
Sceléyeto; the Attic SceléxOnv stands in Mc. 9. 34. 'Apveio dai and

$ 20.1-2. $21.] VERBS IN -2. TERMINATIONS.
45
år- have only the aor. mid. (Att. more often aor, pass.; a corrupt.
active form ånapuñoai occurs in Herm. Sim. i. 5).
2. The future passive (i.e. strictly the aoristic fut., see § 14, 1) is
found with other verbs similar to those mentioned : (cůøpavońcowa,
only B for pres. Ap. 11. 16) Koyunonoopai 1 C. 15. 51, Metape nonoopai.
H. 7. 21 O.T. quot., pavño ouai (pavoûua. 1 P. 4. 18 O.T. quot.),
poßnońcoua. H. 13. 6 O.T. On the other hand : yevýooual, duvnoquat,
étuel ícouai 1 Tim. 3. 5: Topecouac (L. 11. 5 etc.).
§ 21. VERBS IN 2. TERMINATIONS.
1. As early as Attic Greek there is not wanting an intermediate
form between the 1st and 2nd aor. act, mid., with the terminations
of the 1st aor, but without its σ: είπα beside είπον, ήνεγκα beside
öveykov. The Hellenistic language had a tendency to extend this
type to numerous aorists which in classical Greek had the termin-
ations of the 2nd aor. throughout: Eila, -áunv, elpa, -áunv etc.
(Kühner I.3 ii. 104). Still this process, by means of which the
second aorist was eventually quite superseded, is in the N.T. far
from complete. Eltra (W. H. App. 164) keeps a unchanged in the
forms with T (as also in Att.): craté, -átw, -átwoav; also fairly
often before u: ÅTelttáueba 2 C. 4. 2, at poeltauev 1 Th. 4. 6 (-0- AKİ
al.); citas Mt. bis, L. semel, Mc. 12. 32 with v.l. -ES H*DEF al.,
Jo. 4. 17 -ES *B*; av has preponderant evidence; rarely cita as
in A. 26. 15; imperat. eine and citov (for accent, Lob. Phr. 348)
interchangeably; the part είπας is rare (A. 22. 29 -ών HLP), είπασα
hardly occurs (in Jo. 11. 28 all Mss. have citocoa in the first place,
BC* have -aga in the second ; -apa Herm. Vis. iii. 2. 3x, iv. 3. 7 **);
on the other hand eimóvtos etc., eittiv. "Hveyka has a except in
the infin. (only 1 P. 2. 5 has åvevéykal, always -eîv in Joseph.,
W. Schm. de Joseph. elocut. 457); imp. Mt. 8. 4 apogéveyke (-ov BC),
Trap- Mc. 14. 36, L. 22. 42 (male vv. 11. -A. L. al., -eîv AQ al.).
Other verbs never have inf. in -au nor part. -as, nor yet imperat.
2 sing. in -ov; on the other hand these forms occur : &faláv A. 16.
37 BD, 21. 27 **A (), Mc. 14. 46 MB (€-), (EeBalav Mc. 12. 8 B,
cp. Mt. 13. 48 D, 21. 39 D, Ap. 18. 19 C); elsav Mt. 13. 17 AB,
L. 10. 24 KBC al., Mc. 6. 33 D etc.: eidauev Mt. 25. 37 B*I, Mc. 2.
12 CD, 9. 38 DN: cidate L. 7. 22 A, Jo. 6. 26 C: eida Ap. 17. 3 A,
6 HA; in these instances -ov has far the most support from the MSS.
It is otherwise with ellov, -la: cilato 2 Th. 3. 10 (-ETO K), Herm.
Sim. v. 6. 6: úveíhate A. 2. 23, -ato 7. 21 (-€To P), -av 10. 39 (-ov
HLP): Fellato 7. 10 (-ETO H), 12. 11 (-ETO P), -ujnv 23. 27 (-óuny
HLP), but -éo Dai 7. 34 O.T. quot. Eipa has only slender attesta-
tion: cúpóuevos H. 9. 12 (-ó- D*), -av L. 8. 35 B*, Mt. 22. 10 D,
A. 5. IO AE, 13. 6 A: -aper L. 23. 2 B*L al. Again there is
preponderant evidence for crea, -av, -ate (G. 5. 4): imp. -ATE
L. 23. 30 (-€T€ **ABD al.), Ap. 6. 16 (-€T€ XBC). "Hlea Ap. 10. 9 A
(-ov ABCP), -0.uev A. 27. 5 8A, 28. I6 A. 21. 8 B, Mt. 25. 39 D:
Lav is often interchanged with -ov : but the imp. čldate, & dátw.is
40
[S 21., 1-6.
VERBS IN 2. TERMINATIONS.
attested by the mass of the MSS. All other instances are quite
isolated : åréavav Mt. 8. 32 x, L. 20. 31 B*, Jo. 8. 53 D* : élabav,
ca pev, -ate Jo. 1. 12 and 1 Jo. 2. 27 B*, L. 5. 5 A : émlav 1 C. 10..
4 D* etc.
2. The (mod. Gk.) extension of the terminations -a, -as etc. to
the imperfect is rare, and in no case unanimously attested. Eixar
Mc. 8. 7 XBDA, A. 28. 2 XAB, 8. 10X, Ap. 9. 8 SA (9-ov omn.),
L. 4. 40 D, Jo. 15. 22, 24 D* (rell. -ov or -ogav): cajev 2 Jo. 5 NA :
Eleyay Jo. 11. 56 xD, 9. io, 11. 36 **, A. 28. '6 B. According to
Buresch, Rh. Mus. 46, 224, these forms should not be recognised in
the N.T., since the MSS. supporting them are quite thrown into the
shade by the enormous mass of those which support -ov, -es etc.
3. The (aoristic) termination -av for -aor in the 3rd pers. plur.
perf. (Alexandrian according to Sext. Emp. adv. gramm. 213) is not
frequent either in the LXX. or in the N.T., and in the latter is
nowhere unanimously attested, so that its originality is subject to
the same doubt with the last exx. (Buresch, p. 205 ff.). The
instances are : eópakav L. 9. 36 BC2LX, Col. 2. I **ABCD*P:
TETÝPnkav BDL Jo. 17. 6: éyvakav ABCD al., ibid. 7 (étýpnouv-
čyvwv N): åréotalkav KAB A. 16. 36: cioelýkubav BP Ja. 5. 4:
yeyovav R. 16.7 XAB, Ap. 21. 6 NA (-a **BP, Buresch): TÉT(T)wkav
18. 3 AC: eipn av 19. 3 RAP.
4. The termination -rav for -v in the 3rd pers. plur. in Hellenistic
and N.T. Greek is constant in the imper. (also in the pass. and mid.
as a poc evěáo Owoav Ja. 5. 14); in the impf. (Hellenist., Kn. ii.3 55).
it is found in édodcourav R. 3. 13 O.T. quot.: also eixocav Jo. 15.
22, 24 xB al. (eixav D*, eixov AD2 which makes a very serious
ambiguity), trapeláßosav 2 Th. 3. 6 **AD* (-ETE BFG, -OV DcorrE al.,
somewhat ambiguous). The forms are apparently authentic, since
they were hardly current with the scribes, except in contract verbs,
where these forms are also found in mod. Gk; cp. Dopußoügav D
A. 17. 5 (KATOLkovoav? D 2. 46; D also has Uniaońcawav, eýpoloav
in 17. 27, see 5; Herm. Sim. vi. 2. 7 eủotalowav, ix. 9. 5 édokoûdav).
Cp. Buresch, 195 ff.
5. The termination -es for -as in perf. and 1st aor.)i is not only
quite unclassical, but is also only slenderly attested in the N.T. :
Ap. 2. 3 KEKOTLakes AC, 4 åpakes XC: eandudes A. 21. 22 B, kúpakes
Jo. 8. 57 B*, čowkes 17. 7 AB, 8 B, cilnpes Ap. 11. 17 C etc.
(W.-Schm. § 13, 16; Buresch, 219 ff.; ciwdes Papyr. of Hyperides
c. Philipp. col. 4. 20).
6. The rare optative has 3rd sing. of the 1st aor. in av (also Clem.
Cor. i. 33. I cáoal), not the better Att. -Ele; and a corresponding 3rd
plur. in alev : moińcalev L. 6. 11 BL (-ELEV XA, -Elav Att. EKM al.:
D has quite a different reading): A. 17. 27 Unladňoelav B al.,
-ειεν ΑΕ, -αισαν and ibid. εύροισαν D, which may be correct (cp.

1 Apollonius, Synt. i. 10, p. 37: 37, p. 71, attests elonkes, šypayes, ypayétw for
-as, -átw as forms about which grammarians were in conflict. 'Apńkete B*
Mt. 23. 23.
$ 21. 6–8. $ 22. 1-2.]
'47
CONTRACT VERBS.
LXX. aivéralgav Gen. 49. 8, črdowav Deut. 33. 16, W.-Schm. § 13,
14, note 14), since the scribes of D and of its ancestors certainly did
not find the optative in the living language.
7. The plupf. of course keeps ei (not e) in the plur.: TETTOLÓKELAV
Mc. 15. 7 etc.
8. The 2nd pers. sing. of the pres. and fut. pass. and mid.
regularly ends (as also in the older Attic) in -» ; the later Attic el
(ni and el interchangeable, g 3, 5) is found only in the word Boúlel,
borrowed by Luke from the literary language (L. 22. 42 -FGR al.;
cp. Herm. Sim. ix. 11. 9 Boúly, v. 5. 5 apparently Bottei), = Délecs
of the popular language. Along with -97, the termination -cal, esp.
frequent in contract verbs in -aw, corresponding to the forms -ual,
-Tai as in the perf., is a new formation of the popular language
which coincides with the primitive ending, and in mod. Greek has
affected verbs of all classes. 'Odvvão a. L. 16. 25: kavyaoai 1 C. 4. 7,
R. 2. 17, 23, 11. 18: also þáyedai, ziedai L. 17. 8. (Herm. Vis. ii.
4. I lavão ai : Sim. i. 3 xpão ai (Vis. iii. 6. 7 the same form, but
corrupt], ix. 2. 6 ÉT LOTão ac.) These should be regarded as the
regular forms in the N.T., since óduvą, páyy, riy are not represented.2
$ 22. CONTRACT VERBS.
1. Verbs in -ów.--Zņv takes nas in Att., but relvâv, Siyâv take a
for n as in other Hellenist. writings (cp. érelvaga, § 16, 1). (From Sîv
1 sing. impf. [nv R. 7. 9 B for ?[wv.3) From xpôua, we have xpñiai
in 1 Tim. 1. 8 xD al., xpñontai AP, otherwise there is no apposite
example ; xpão bau is Hellenistic, cp. Clem. Cor. ii. 6. 5 A, $ 21, 7,
W.-Schm. $ 13, 24.-Confusion of dw and -éw: “púrovv Mt. 15. 23
KABCD, Mc. 4. 10 NC, Jo. 4. 31 C (no Ms. in 4. 40 9. 15. X), 12. 21),
A. 16. 39' A; no other form of this vb. with ov:-éveßpluoùVTO
Mc. 14. 5 HC*, -jouevos Jo. 11. 38 XAU:-KOTLOûO LV Mt. 6. 28 B :-
VIKOūVTi Ap. 2. 17 AC, 2.7 A (-ovt. B), 15. 2 C:-kateyérovv L. 8.
53 D*KX etc. Cp. mod. Gk.; W.-Schm. § 13, 26.-On -agal,
2 pers. sing. pass., see $ 21,7.
2. Verbs in -ów.- Uncontracted contrary to the rule is - édéETO
L. 8. 38 (-Eîto **BC2LX, -EECTO AP formed out of -Eeto with correction
El written over it), cp. Clem. Hom. iii. 63, katéppee Apoc. Petr. 26,
Phryn. 220.-Confusion of -éw and áw : éle@vtos R. 9. 16 (-oûVTOS
BⓇK), éleâte Jd. 22 KBC², 23 XAB (there is much variety of reading
in this verse); but R. 9. 18ěleci NÀ?BD'L al., é leg only in D*(E)FG
(otherwise no exx. of such forms from érew: both forms found in
* Cp. Lob. Phryn. 360.
2 It is otherwise with verbs in -Ćw: L. 23. 40 poßñ cú, Herm. Vis. iii. 1. 9
Autî, but 10. 7 altioal, i.e. aiteioai x for altels as. From verbs in -ów, áreče-
voûoal (sic) Lxx. 3 Kgs. 14. 6, daßeßacoural Clem. Hom. xvi. 6. zapleioal, from
Xapioûual, occurs as early as 3rd cent. B.C. on an Egyptian papyrus. Grenfell-
Hunt, Greek Papyri, series ii. (1897), p. 29.
3 Efnv also occurs in Demosth. 24. 7 nearly all mss., Eur. Alc. 295 v.l., Phryn.
Lob. 457. Cp. dúšndi, Herm. Mand. iv. 1. 9; Kühner, Gr. 1.3 ii. 436.
VERBS IN -MI.
[S 22. 2-3. $ 23. 1-2.
LXX.: 1 the tenses have n, though ¢áw has čáow) :-ěllóya Philem.
18, -El 4°DcorrEKL, -âtai R. 5. 13 only sea (and en doyâro A); the
Hellenistic vb. elsewhere employs -eîv.2
3. Verbs in -ów.-Infin. -oîv ( = belv) for -oûv : KATAO Knvoîv Mt. 13. 32
B*D, Mc. 4. 32 B* : årodekatoîv H. 7. 5 BD* : quoîv 1 P. 2. 15$*:
but Tanpoûv all uncials in L. 9. 31, and it is the constant form in
LXX., so that the termination -oîv is hardly established for the
N.T. Cp. W.-Schm. § 13, 25: Hatzidakis Einl. in d. neugr. Gramm.
193.-The conjunctive is regular in eủo8@tau 1 C. 16. 2 (-ow on
HACI al.): on the other hand it takes the indic. form in G. 4. 17
En loûte, í C. 4. 6 Øvo loûo De (just as the sing. of the conj. act. is
identical with the indic., and in vbs. in -ów the whole conjunctive).
§ 23. VERBS IN -MI.
1. The conjugation in -fel, which from the beginning of the Greek
language gradually gives way to the other conjugation in -w, and
which has eventually entirely disappeared in modern Greek, in
spite of many signs of decay is not yet obsolete in the N.T. In
vbs. in -voue (and in öldrui), which in Attic and other early writers
have already a very strong rival in the forms in -(vlúw, the older
method of formation has not yet disappeared in the N.T., and is
especially the prevalent form (as in Att.) in the passive : Mt. 8. 25
årollóueda, 9. 17 dtóllutai, etc. Active forms : Seikvoue 1 C. 12. 31
(never -ów in this form), SELKVÚELS Jo. 2. 18 (never -vs), debkvvo IV
Mt. 4. 8 (N -vúel), Jo. 5. 20 (-vúel D, but ibid. D -vvolv for delệel),
cp. dubiévvvol § 24; but åtollúel Jo. 12. 25 (v.l. -ÉVEL), quvúel
Mt. 23. 20 ff. (from this verb there is no certain form in -rec),
ouvúovoiv H. 6. 16. Imperf. only in -w form : écúvvves Jo. 21. 8,
(ÚT)eotpávyvov Mt. 21. 8 (v.l. otpwoav), Mc. 11, 8 D, L. 19. 36.
Imperat. árólave R. 14. 15, òuvjete Ja. 5. 12, oßévvvte 1 Th. 5. 19.
Infin. ouvúelv Mt. 26. 74, Mc. 14. 71 (-úval BEHL al.), delkvúelv 16. 21
(-úvai B). Partic. dtollúwv Ap. 9. II, deLKVÚovtos 22. 8 (-ÚVTOS A) :
but inofwvvúvtes A. 27. 17, ÅmodelkvÚvta 2 Th. 2. 4 (-úovta AFG).
2. In verbs in -ával, -éval, -óva, there are similar transitions to the
w conjugation. Evviotu. R. 16. 1, ovviornoi 3. 5,5. 8, 2 C. 10.8 are
a few certain relics of the active of these forms in -áva(undoubtedly
from the literary language); elsewhere this verb takes the form
of otávelv (Hellenist.), for which lotāv (more often than -ávely in
LXX.) is a frequent v.l., occasionally also the plebeian otáVELV
(átokataotávels A. 1. 6 D, 17. 15 KATAOTávovtes D*, Mc. 9. 12
STOKUTATTÁVEL **D, -TLOTável B*). Thus : ouvLOTÁVEL 2 C. 3. 1, FG
-ával, BD* av: 4. 2 OuvioTÁVTES CD*FG, WVTES D'EKL, -ávovtes
ABP, a similar division of the MSS. in 6. 4 (-ôvtes is also read by
H): 1 C. 13. 2 ueblotável ACKL, -ával XBDEFG (this is the only
instance where a que form is strongly supported as a v.l.): ued cotável
1 W.-Schm. § 13, 26, note 26.
2 On this confusion of -áw and -éw see Hatzidakis, Einl. in d. neugr. Gr. 128.
$ 23. 2–4.]
49
VERBS IN -MI.
Herm. Vis. 1. 3. 4. Πιμπλάν stands for πιμπλάναι in A. 14. 17
furtulua dôv (LXX.). The passive remains unaffected by this change
(cp. 1): teplotacó 2 Tim. 2. 16, Tit. 3. 9, kablotatai H. 5. I etc.
Euliuspao bau A. 28. 6, Tisch. -ão Cai), kpénatal Mt. 22. 40, Kpeuá-
LEVOS A. 28. 4, G. 3. 13 O.T. quot.: so also dúva par, émio tauai as
usual, except that dúvoual, -ópeda, -óuevos are read by B or B* in
Mt. 19. 12, 26. 53, Mc. 10. 39, A. 4. 20, 27. 15 (also in the papyri),
cp. έξεκρέμετο L. 19. 48 NB: and δύνη stands for δύνασαι in
Mc. 9. 22 f. * (or p) BD al., 1. 40 B, L. 16. 2 BDP (v.l. -ýon),
Ap. 2. 2, but -agal is read by all Mss. in Mt. 5. 36, L. 5. 12, 6. 42,
Jo. 13. 36 (Phryn. 359: still dúvy or -& is already found in Attic
poets). Cp. W.-Schm. § 14, 17; both forms are found in Hermas,
e.g. Súvn Vis. ii. 1. 3, iii. 10. 8, -apaiii. 8. 5.—On éotnv vide infra 4.
3. Tronje, 818Wul. The pres. indic. as in Att. ; tibi, i.e. Tídel, occurs
in L. 8. 16 D; Tapadidws is also found L, 22. 4; 818@ only occurs in
Ap. 3. 9 ACI (-wul BP, Sédwka x). But in the impf. the forms éribel,
edidov are already found in Att. and so in N.T.; 3rd plur. êtídovv
A. 3. 2, 4. 35 (cp. for Attic, Bekk. Anecd. i. 90), also 8. 17 according
to D*EHLP (-eav NAD, -ogav B, -elgav C), Mc. 6. 56 ADN al. (-e av
*BLA): edidovv A. 4. 33, 27. 1, Mc. 15. 23, but A. 16. 4 -ogav (-ovv
HLP), Jo. 19. 3 XB; the forms in -ovv are to be preferred. Imperat.
τίθει, δίδου as in Att. But δίδωμι in the passive goes over to the
w.conjugation, the analogy between the two forms being very close :
dledídeto A. 4. 35 (-070 BPP), tapedídeto 1 C. 11. 23 (-OTO BÖLP), and
so 2nd aor. mid. ÅTT ÉⓇETO H. 12. 16 AC, cp. Mt. 21. 33 **B*CL, Mc.
12. I HAB*CKL, L. 20. 9 **AB*CL; but årédoo De A. 5. 8 all MSS.—
For pres. conj. see 4..
4. 2nd aorist active and middle. "EoTyv is found as an alternative
for otáOnv, see 6; rionue, sídwul employ the 2nd aor. only in the
mid., while coýkajev, -ate, -av, edukauev2 etc. are the aor. act. forms
in use (only L. 1. 2 has a 2nd aor, act. Tapédogav, literary language
in the preface). From other verbs éßnv, čyvov may be added. The
indic. is regular (for the mid. cp. 3). The conj. to Swka (and
dídwue) é yvwv shows great fluctuation (2 sing. Søs Mt. 5. 25): in the
3rd sing., which through the loss of the c in pronunciation had
become identical with the 1st sing., beside dø (818) and yvớ we also
have the forms doî (8180), yvoĉ or dún (identical with the optat.).
This last form, however, is almost confined to the Pauline Epistles,
where the scribes often met with the optat., which was not cur-
rent in their own day, and therefore introduced it occasionally
for the conj. (vide infra): E. 1. 17 dán most MSS. :( B), 3. 16
són only DEK al., 2 Tim. 2. 25 Són **ACD*P (Jo. 15. 16 dón
1 Aldw Tisch., others didâ, cp. ÅTodidoûv for -60 A Ap. 22. 2 (napadlowy x Mt.
26. 46, D Mc. 14. 42, J. 18. 2, 21. 20). In Hermas Tio â occurs Vis. i. 1. 3,
ii. 1. 2; Clem. Cor. i. 23 åmodido. Examples from the papyri in W. Schmidt,
Gtg. Gel. Anz. 1894, 45.
2 No inference for an aor. powoa can be drawn from iva ... don Jo. 17. 2
HAC al. (v.l. -ow, - DEL, etc.): nor yet from Mc. 6. 37 åyopáo wueV ... SHOWMEV
(XBD, v.l. -Jouev and dŵuev), see $ 65, 2.
50
(S 23. 4-6.
VERBS IN -MI.
EGH al.; årrodoin D* 1 Th. 5. 15). It is more difficult to decide
between δω, γνω and δού, γνοί (the latter like ζηλοί): still γνω has the
greater attestation (Jo. 7. 51, 11. 57 [yvoĉ D*], 14. 31, A. 22.
24: whereas yvoĉ has equal or greater authority in its favour in
Mc. 5. 43, 9. 30, L. 19. 15); also (ảno)8o all Mss. in Mt. 18. 30,
the same form or dúy all mss. in E. 1. 17, 3. 16, 2 Tim. 2. 25,
Jo. 15. 16 (x dúoel), cp. 13. 29 (do ĉ D).—The optat. Són is Hellenistic
(Phryn. 345 f., Moeris)1 and in Paul. Epp. R. 15. 5 etc.--Imperat.
åváorno, and åváotā A. 12. 7, E. 5. 14 0.7. quot. (-ýtw, -nte are con-
stant), áváßā Ap. 4. 1 (-01 A), Metáſa Mt. 17. 20 along with
Metáßno. Jo. 7. 3, katáßnai Mt. 27. 40 etc., at pooaváßno. L. 14. 10;
this verb also has -Bátw, -Bāte Mt. 24. 17, 27. 42, Ap. 11. 12 (-77€ B)
like tiua, -âte. 2
5. Perfect active.—Of the perfects formed after a partial analogy
to verbs in -μι, έστηκα limits these shorter forms to the infin. “Εστάναι
L. 13. 25, A. 12. 14, 1 C. 10. 12 (no other form: also usu. in the Lxx.),
and partic. ÉGTÁS (in most cases : fornKÚs is also found); fem. łatwoa
1 C. 7. 26, 2 P. 3. 5, neut. cotós Mt. 24. 15 (v.1. -cs), Ap. 14. I
(B-us), but cornkós (x -ús) 5. 6. But the indic. remains to TÝKAJEV
etc. (cp. éducajev). On otńkw see § 17. From tébvnka we have inf.
TeOvávai A. 14. 19 DEHLP; teOvnkús always. Oida, -as, -e, -amer etc.
(Ionic and Hellenist.) ; only in A. 26. 4 (speech of Paul before
Agrippa) loaoi (literary language); POTE H. 12. 17 (unless it be
imperat.); plupf. Ý SELV, -els etc.; moods as in Att.: cidâ, ¥ote Ja. 1. 19,
E. 2. 5 (v.l. č0TE); infin. cidévai, part. eidus.
6. Remaining tenses of the ordinary verbs in fi. -— Iotávw in
transitive sense has fut. oTÝOW, aor. corroa, perf. cotăka (differ-
.entiated from -nka; first found in Hyperides) A. 8. 11. Intransitive
are lotapal, fut. orýcoual and otabńcouai, aor. corny and dotá Ony;
both forms in the simple vb. are identical in meaning, as in Ionic and
Hellenist.3 (in Att. otáOnv, otaono. have a passive sense). Com-
pounds of tơ TCLOLL, P.g. Ảvôúc Tata.u, dv , -, Su-, eas, et-, ép- etc. take
-ny, -hoomar in aor. and fut. in intransitive senses ; on the other hand
the following also take aor. in -Onv in passive senses : kaliotauan
(R. 5. 19), ámokat. (Mt. 12. 13, Mc. 3. 5 -oTn C, Mc. 8. 25 -OTY
BCLA, L. 6. 10 -OTY **, H. 13. 19), ued. (L. 16. 4).4 The perf.
COTYKA has present meaning; but in Jo. 8. 44 OỦk (XB*DLX al.)
FOTNKEV (§ 4, 3) it has true perfect sense has stood,' a new formation
related to otnv (?). From onui, except for -jé, -oí, čon (which is
at once impf. and aor., as in Att.), no forms are represented in N.T.
1 This -ýny is found in other Hellenistic writings in all optatives in -olny :
Philodem. Rhet. ed. Sudhaus, ii. 52, 144, 169, 285, Eůtopụn, TOLQn, ouoloyun,
opovớn.
2 Attic poets also have åváota, karáßa, but other forms with n; Lxx. only
has -στα side by side with -στηθι.
3 There is not sufficient ground for attributing a passive sense to the simple
verb σταθήναι in passages like L. 21. 36 (D ibid. στήσεται).
4 But also without passive sense ÉTTEOTá Ony D L. 4. 39, 10. 40, Clem. Cor. i.
12. 4; årteotá Onu Herm. Mand. xii. 2. 3, Tapeot. Sim, viii. 4. I.
$ 23. 6-8.7
5.1
.
VERBS IN -MI.
- Tlenu has, as generally in the Hellenist. language, perf. act. rébelka
(Jo. 11. 34 : Att. -nka), perf. mid. réeluar (ouvr.) Jo. 9. 22 (pass. in
av Tebeljévos Jo. 19. 41 XB for étéon; 1 in the parallel passage L. 23.
53 iv keijevos according to the Att. usage, which is adhered to else-
where in Ν.Τ. in the substitution of κείσθαι for τεθείσθαι).
7. “Inu.—Only found in composition with ảv-, åps, (Tap-), kal-,
ovv-, and in the case of ảo, ovv-inpul (the only compounds in use in
the popular language) with the alternative form in -ów: in -iete, -LETAL
the two conjugations coincide. 'Abinu. (so Jo. 14. 27), -inou
(Mt. 3. 15), -Lévai (Mc. 2. 7 etc.); on the other hand -louer (so
ABCDE) in L. 11. 4 (Mt. 6. 12 D al., but **B åpýkajev); 2nd
sing. pres. åpeîs (i.e. -bels, -iis, cp. $ 6, 5, note 2), though in this case
there appears in Att. also -LELS (and tubels); impf. Dlev Mc. 1. 34,
11. 16; in the passive there is fluctuation between -levtal, -íovtal,
-EWVtai (vide infra). Cp. in Hermas åsinou Mand. x. 3. 3, íertai
Vis. ii. 2. 4, -íovo iv iii. 7. 1. In the case of ouvinu, there is only one
undisputed instance of the conjugation in -rl: A. 7. 25 ouviéval :
elsewhere Mt. 13. 19 ouviévtos, DF -lovtos: L. 24. 45 ouviéval, B*
ouvelvai; also ovviw, except in quotations, is never without var. lect.:
Mt. 13. 13 ovviovou (language influenced by O.T.: - Wow B** cp. D),
2 C. 10. 12 ouvíovo iv (-cãow 4*B, -1o aoi **), R. 3. 11 ouvíwv O.T.
quot. (Barn. 12. 10 ouvíwv, but 4. 6, 10. 12 -Lévai: Herm. Mand.
iv. 2. 1, x. 1. 3 ovviw, iv. 2. 2 ovviet, x. 1, 6 ouvíovo iv, Sim. ix. 12. I
cúvle; in the LXX. the forms from åpiw and ouvíw are more estab-
lished and fairly frequent, W.-Schm. § 14, 16). 'Avínur, áviévTES
E. 6. 9; kabléuevos A. 10. 11, 11. 5.- Tenses : N.T. has idîkav etc.
like Onkar (4 supra), the perf. -eîka never occurs," while ouvýkate
Mt. 13. 51, døńkajev kaì ñkolovonkajev (BCD, al. -noamer) Mc. 10. 28
may indeed give the impression of being perfects, but are still to be
taken as aorists (cp. Mt. 19. 27, L. 18. 28, and with ouvňkate Aristoph.
Ach. 101 čuvýkal ô léyel). The Doric (and. Ionic) perf. was ćwka,
pass. éwuar, and the latter also appears in N.T.: the form åpéwytau
is to be preferred in Jo. 20. 23 (wrong variants -levtai, -(e)lovtal: **
åpedýdetai), 1 Jo. 2. 12, L. 7. 47 f., 5. 20, 23 (also in Mt. 9. 2, 5
against -covtal D [5 Dp*], -levtal N[5 HCJB, Mc. 2. 5 [-levtái B], 9
[-te-nB]). On ávédnv, åpłonu see § 15, 4."
8. Eipl. The transition to the inflection of a deponent vb. (seen
in čo ouai: in mod. Gk. universally carried out) appears in ýunv Ist
pers. (differentiated from v 3rd pers. Lob. Phryn. 152), from which
queda is also formed Mt. 23. 30, A. 27. 37, E. 2. 3 AB; in G. 4. 3
quev in the first instance (all MSS.) with ueda (xD*FG) following;
elsewhere quev.-The 2nd sing. impf. nola only occurs in Mt. 26. 69,
Mc. 14. 67 (Euseb. quotes the verse with ńs), elsewhere it is is (the ter-
mination -oda occurs nowhere else) as in Hellenistic Gk. (Phryn. 149).
The imperat. has beside έστω, έστωσαν the vulgar form ήτω Ja. 5. Ι2,
1 C. 16. 22 (Herm. Vis. iii. 3. 4, Clem. Cor. i. 48. 5), cp. W.-Schm.
$ 14, 1. "Evi (i.e. strictly éveoti, éví=év: cp, zápa=Tápeotu) occurs
a mong variants:
[-te xBysovrau pats
D
Herm. Sim. ix. 15. 4. has redelmévoi in pass. sense, similarly repite eluéva,
Clem. Cor. i. 20. 4.
52
TABLE OF NOTEWORTHY VERBS. [S 23. 8–10. $ 24.
in 1 C. 6. 5, G. 3. 28, Col. 3. 11, Ja. 1. 17, already in the sense of
łatív there is,' which together with cioí has been supplanted by this
word, now written cival, in modern Greek. W. Schmidt, Atticism.
iii. 121.
9. Elui. In the popular language the verb occurs neither in its
simple form nor in composition, épxouac taking its place, $ 24; the
compounds only are employed by L. and Hebr. (from the literary
language) and not always correctly. Eiolaoi H. 9. 6 for Att.
cioepxovtai (ciolari is fut. in Att.): cïold. B Acts 9. 6 (-ed0e):
eigiévai 3. 3, 20. 7, 4 D, 27. 43 : partic. L. 8. 4 (-€ Oóvtos D),
Acts 13. 42, in aoristic sense 21. 17 in the ß text, so aoristic eloyel
21. 18, 26, -ecav 17. 10, 15. (Clem. Cor. i. 24. 3 ÖTTELOI departs'
[Att. will depart'l, cp. 54. 2 : Clem. Hom. ii. 1, iii. 63, (ÉTELO LÓV.
=-elosv.)
10. *Huat, Kequat.—Káonuar, ká.On A. 23. 3 (cp. dúvị, supra 3 ; so
already in Hyperides for -noai), imperat. kábov (already in late
Att.) Ja. 2. 3, Mt. - 22. 44 etc., and O.T. for noo. Imperf.
always ēkaonunu 15, 7; fut. kaońcoua. Mt. 19. 28 (-10 E DE CD*
al.), L. 22. 30 XAB3 al. Cp. $ 24.-Kelua, is regular : also used as
perf. pass. of ríonul as in Att., supra 6.
$ 24. TABLE OF NOTEWORTHY VERBS.
(The prefixing of * indicates that the paradigm embraces several stems.)
'Ayalliây active L. l. 47 (Ap. 19. 7, prob. more correctly cueda B;
1 P. I. 8 -âre only BC*); elsewhere deponent with aor. mid. and pass., $ 20.
The verb is absent from profane Greek (which has árállouainstead).
'AyyérdeLv, ýyyénv constant, $ 19, 3.
"Ayelv, aor. yayov and rarely ñža, $ 19, 1; perf. act. unattested.
(Ayyúval) only in composition katāyv. (as in Att.), pres. impf. unattested :
aor. katéāžav (Att.) Jo. 19. 32 f., but the use of the augm. is incorrectly extended
(§ 15, 2) to the fut, kareášel Mt. 12. 20, 0.T., and aor. conj. pass. Katea you
Jo. 19. 31.
* Aipeiv, aor. ellov and .na, $ 21, 1: fut. (late writers, LXX.) L. 12. 18,
2 Th. 2. 8 (v.l. åvaloi, vide inf.), Ap. 22. 19 (but alpoqua. Ph. 1. 22).
'Akoúelv, fut. Åkotow and Attic -gouar, $ 18, 3.
’Alňoelv for åleiv (Phryn. p. 151): only pres. attested (aor. meoa in Lxx. ::
no other form of the aor. is likely to have existed). Cp. vñdelv.
"Allodai, with compounds åv., Éš,- €0-, almost confined to Acts: (Jo. 4. 14,
21. 7 D), 1st aor. üráuny (LXX.) A. 14. 10 (Jo. 21.7 D): 2nd aor. ėparóuevos 19.
16 (also 3. 8 égalój. is better than -14- of the mss.): both forms occur in Att.
'Anaptávelv, fut. draptńow, § 18, 3: Ist aor. quáprnoa along with 2nd
aor. Ýjuaprov, § 19, 1.
Auflagelv, -LÉSELV, -evvúval : see 17.
Avaloûv = ávallo KELV (both Att., -oûv also in Lxx., W.-Schm. § 15): åvaloi
2 Th. 2. 8 ** Origen (v.l. åvalvoel, dvelei). Tenses regular : L. 9. 54, G. 5. 15.
('Avrâv): fut. åravshow, ouv-, § 18, 3.
'Arreldeiolai deponent A. 4. 17, 21 for Att. ÅTTELAEV (1 P. 2.23);
diatellelo bal as depon. is also Att.
Aporáfelv: fut. -áow, $ 18, 3: 2nd aor. pass. -ynu (and Ist aor. -oOnu? as in
Att.), g 19, 3.
en
8 24.]
53
TABLE OF NOTEWORTHY VERBS.
Αύξειν, αυξάνειν, both forms Att., but in transit. sense increase, whereas
grow' is -ομαι. Ν.Τ. has -άνω trans. only in 1 C. 3. 6 f., 2 C. 9. 1o (Herm.
Vis. iii. 4. Ι αύξω, i. 1. 6 αυξήσας). Elsewhere -άνω (and αύξω: only E. 2. 21,
Col. 2. 19) is used = Αtt. -ομαι A. 6. 7 al. : along with -άνομαι Mt. 13. 32
(NPD -ήση), Mc. 4. 8 v.1., Epp. Paul. passium, 1 P. 2. 2.
Βαίνειν : aor. έβην, ανάβα, -βατε, 8 23, 4.
Βαρεϊν : βεβαρημένος old (βεβ. ηύδεν Ρlat. Sympos. 203 B) Mt. 26. 43,
L. 9. 32 (Με. 14. 40 var. lect. βεβ., καταβεβ., καταβαρούμενοι, καταβαρυνό-
μενοι. Βαρύνω is the ordinary Att. word, but in Ν.Τ. besides this passage it
only occurs as a v.l. in L. 21. 34 DH, 2 c. 5. 4 D*FG). Elsewhere in the
pass. : 2 C. 1. 8, 5. 4, 1 Τim. 5. Ι6, L. 21. 34. Also the compounds επιβαρεϊν,
καταβ. in St. Paul (καταβ. Ηerm. Sim. ix. 28. 6, βαρούντα Clem. Ηom. xi. 16).
W. Schmidt, Atticism. iii. 187.
Βασκαίνειν : aor. -ανα, 16, 3.
Βιούν]: βιώσαι 1 P. 4. 2, for Att. -ναι (the only form in which this verb
occurs: elsewhere sîv, cp. inf.).
Blaorávelv : pres. conj. -vn Mc. 4. 27 XACal., but BC*DLA Blaota from
βλαστάν, ες Herm. Sim. iv. 1 βλαστώντα (W.-Schm. S 15) : a new 1st aor. -ησα
occurs, 8 19, 1.
Βλέπειν, “ to look, aor. έβλεψα (Acts 3. 4) as in Att.: περιεβλεψάμην Mc. 3. 5,
etc. With the meaning 'to see' (for opâv, vide inf.) only in pres. and impf.,
except Acts 28. 26 βλέψετε Ο.Τ. quot., see 8 18, 3. (Προβλέψασθαι = προϊδέσθαι
Η. i. 40, see 8 55, 1.)
Βούλεσθαι, 8 15, 3: 8 21, 7.
Ταμείν: also used of the wife (for Att. -είσθαι) Mc. 10. 12 (-ηθή v.1.), 1 Τim.
5. ΙΙ, Ι4 etc.; elsewhere for the wife Ν.Τ. uses -ίζεσθαι (but aor. -ήθην
1 C. 7. 39 = εγημάμην Att.), for which γαμίσκονται is read Mc. 12. 25 Ε al.,
L. 20. 34 NBL (εκγαμίσκ. E al., εκγαμί. A al., γαμούνται D), 35 Β (γαμίξ. ND al.,
εκγαμιξ. ΤΑ al.). The act. γαμίζειν (έκγ.) to give to wife': Mt. 24. 38 (γαμ. ND,
rell. εκγ.), 1 C. 7. 38.-Aor. act. έγάμησα Mt. 5. 32 al., Herm. Mand. iv. 4 (so
-ήθην, vide supra), for which the Att. form occurs as a v.1., γήμας Mt. 22. 35
NBL, L. 14. 20 (έλαβον D), 1 C. 7. 28 γαμήσης ... γήμη (D*FG γαμη).
Γελάν, fut. -άσω, 8 18, 3.
Γίνεσθαι (never γίγν. as in Att.), aor. εγενόμην And -νήθην, 8 20.
Γινώσκειν (never γίγν, as in Att.), 2nd aor. conj. γνοί and γνω, 8 23, 4.
Γρηγορείν, 8 17; cp. εγείρειν.
Δείσθαι, εδέετο, 8 22, 2.
Διακονείν, διηκόνουν, 8 15, 6.
Διδόναι, see 8 23, 3 and 4.
Διψάν, -άς, 8 22, 1; διψήσω, 8 16, 1.
Διώκειν, fut. -ξω, 8 18, 3.
Δύνασθαι pres., 8 23, 2; augm. ή- or έ-, 8 15, 3; fut. δυνήσομαι, 8 20, 2; aor.
ηδυνήθην (and ηδυνάσθην Mt. 17. 16 B, Mc. 7. 24 NB, Epic and Ionic).
Δύειν intrans. « to set ' Ε. 4. 26 (Homeric : Αtt. δύομαι), for which δύνω
(Xenoph. and others) occurs in L. 4. 40 (δύσαντος D) : aor. έδων, έδυσα, 8 19, 1
(εδύησαν, 8 19, 2) ; ενδύνοντες creeping in’ 2 Tim. 3. 6 (op. Barn. 4, 1ο).
’Evoúelv trans. to put on' pres. only in Mc. 15. 17 AN, correct reading
- διδάσκειν, see 8 17: so mid. ενδιδύσκεσθαι, see ibid. : but tenses as in Att. -έδυσα,
-άμην etc.: similarly έκδυσαι (pres. and impf. unattested).
'Εγείρειν raise up, awake: intrans. έγειρε (not -αι aor. mid.), sc. σεαυτόν
Mc. 5. 41 etc. (Εurip. Ιph. All. 624) ; intrans. -ομαι “rise' (διεγείρομαι awake'
intrans.), aor. ηγέρθην, 8 20 ; perf. εγήγερται “has been raised ’1 C. 15. 4 (late
writers; Att. èypúyopa ‘I am awake' has become yonyopô, $ 17).
ΕΙΔ - οίδα, 8 23, 5: fut. ειδήσω Η. 8. 11 Ο.Τ. quot. (Ionic and late = Att.
είσομαι).
Ειπείν, είρηκα etc. see λέγειν.
54
(S 24.
TABLE OF NOTEWORTHY VERBS.
'Eleâv - Édeelv, $ 22, 2.
"EAKELV, aor. eclkůra as in Att., fut. Elkřow Jo. 12. 32 (Att. ErW).
. 'Elkoûv : eil wuévos, § 15, 6.
'Epyáfeodal: ňprašóuny, npyao áuny, eipyaouai, § 15, 5 and 6.
*"Epxeolar. In Att. for sto come 'pxomar is used only in the indic., conj.
tw, inf. lévay etc., impf. ña, BELV : 'will come' = elul. When elu fell out of use
($ 23, 9), épxouat was employed throughout: čpxwjai, npxóunu etc., fut.
è Xetoomal (Epic and Ionic: Phryn. 37). Aor. nagov and perf. eaýavda as in Att.
* 'Eo Olelv and {olely (-0 Elv as early as Hom., Doric and late writers). The
former predominates (as also in Lxx.), so without var. lect. Mt. 9. II,
11. 18 f., 12. I etc., R. 14. 2 f., 6, 20 etc. ; but čo Onte L. 22. 30 BD*T, to Own
Mc. 1. 6 XBL*A, 12. 40 B, L. 7. 33 BD, 34 D, 10. 7 BD (elsewhere even Mc.
and L. have éo biely in all the MSS.). Fut. párouai from aor. épayov, § 18, 2:
2nd sing. -Egal, § 21, 7. Pf. BÉBpwka (from the obsolete Bußpúokw) Jo. 6. 13,
aor. pass. Bpwon L. 22. 10 D. (The pres. in the popular language was spúyw, so
always in S. John, elsewhere only Mt. 24. 38; see also Herm. Sim. v. 3. 7,
Barn. 7. 8, 10. 2, 3.)
"Έχειν, fut. only έξω, 8 14, 1; similarly ανέχεσθαι has only ανέξομαι : impf.
and aor. åvelx., åverx., § 15, 7.
Zñv, fut. show and -oual, § 18, 3: aor. i snoa A. 26. 5, Herm. Sim. viii. 9. 1,
for which in Att. ¿ßlwv was introduced as a supplementary form (cp. sup.
Bloûv): perf. unattested. (Impf. 1st sing. ésnV, -wv, $ 22, 1.)
Zavvúval, perf. pass. and mid. Trepleśwouévos (Att. without o) L. 12. 35 al.
HKELV : 3rd. plur. *Kaol Mc. 8. 3 KADN (al. Ökovoiv, B elolv), cp. Clem.
Cor. i. 12. 2. The transition of this verb of perfect meaning to the inflection
of the perfect tense is found also in Lxx. and other late writings, W.-Schm.
$ 13, 2: Kühner I. ii.3 438 : W. Schmidt, Jos. elocut. 470.
'Horololau, 2 C. 12. 13 **BD* noowonte (Ionic èooollo Dal), with v.l. ärtante
(the Attic form [literary lang.] as in 2 P. 2. 19 f. Ýrtntal, ÝTTWVTAL, and even
itinua in S. Paul), FG nattóėnte, cp. Jo. 3. 30 (literary lang.).
(Dallelv), aor. åvédalov, $ 19, 1 (no other form attested); åvabállw (intrans.)
Clem. Cor. i. 36. 2.
Oavuál elv (-erbal depon.), aor. ¿Daúmar a and -doonv, fut. (davuaoouai), -apoń-
couai, 18, 3: § 20, 1.
Deão dat, see Dewpciv.
Ofely not (as in Att.) <0€ Aelv, the ordinary word of the popular language
for will' (so mod. Gk.): beside it is found Boúdeolau (literary lang.) without
distinction of meaning, rare in the Gospels, and not often in the Epistles,
frequent only in the Acts.-Augm. always n., § 15, 3 (perfect unattested).
*ewpelv, generally defective, only pres. and impf. being used, but fut.
Jo. 7. 3. aor. Mt. 28. 1, L. 8. 35 D, 23. 48 KBCD al., Jo. 8. 51 (-gel K),
Ap. 11. 12; elsewhere the tenses of Deâobal (pres. impf. wanting) are used :
aor. -ao áuny, perf. teléaual, aor. pass. ¿Deádny.
'Ináokelat, mid. (Att.) H. 2. 17; ilágonti 'be merciful' L. 18. 13, cp.
Eilao év expiated' Plat. Legg. 862 Č.
Iotávely (lotâv), lotao bal, $ 23, 2, 4, 5, 6.
Kalapfelv. 'to cleanse' not kabaipelv (Jo. 15. 2 D correctly kalapleî, cp.
H. 10. 2; Kekalapuévwv is found in Herm. Sim. ix. 18. 3). In compounds the
simpler form is more attested : dlakalapai L. 3. 17 **B (al. dlakað aplei), èKKA-
Papare 1 C. 5. 7, Koa04pm 2 Tim. 2. 21.
Kadeleolat, kaOlfelv, katrodau. In Attic ékabes unu aor. = 'I seated myself,'
kabisw 'I seat' trans, and also intrans. 'I seat myself,' which is elsewhere ex-
pressed by -igouai: ká Onuac 'I sit' (in perfect sense). In the N.T: 'I set' or
seat' is kadisw, aor. -Loa (as in Att.): I seated myself ' = éká Oloa (not mid.),
so that the sense of Jo. 19. 13 is extremely doubtful : there is also a perf.
Keká@lkev (intrans.) H. 12. 2 (the present only appears in trans. sense : for fut.
vide inf.); aor. Ėkað éo Onu from kao é souai (Phryn. 269) only in L. 10. 39 HABC*
8 24.]
55
TABLE OF NOTEWORTHY VERBS.
al., -ίσασα C3DP etc.; sit' is κάθημαι (in the majority of cases) and καθέζομαι
(rare) : έκαθέζετο impf. sat ? ( had seated himself ') Jo. 4. 6, 11. 20, for which
εκάθητο occurs elsewhere, as in Mt. 13. 1 ; καθεζόμενος = καθήμ. Α. 6. 15
(D -ήμενοι) etc. ; fut. καθήσομαι Mt. 19. 28 (-ίσεσθε CD* al.), L. 22. 30 NAB3 al.
(-ίσεσθε EF, but B* κάθησθε conj., D καθέζησθε) for Attic καθεδούμαι. The
2nd pers. of κάθημαι is κάθη, 8 23, 9: imperat. κάθου ibid. (sit ' = seat thyself '
Ja. 2. 3).
Καίειν : aor. and fut. pass. 8 19, 3.
Καλείν : fut. καλέσω, 8 18, 1.
(Κεραννύναι), perf. pass. κεκέρασμαι (late ; Αtt. κέκράμαι) Αp. 14. το.
Κερδαίνειν (pres. and impf. unattested), aor. έκέρδησα as if from κερδέω (Ionic
and late writers) Mt. 16. 26 and passim ; but κερδάνω (8 16, 3) 1C. 9. 21 Ν*ABC
al. (8“DE al. κερδήσω, as also four times in the same chap. ver. 19, 20, 22);
a corresponding fut. pass. Keponoñoovtal occurs 1 P. 3. 1. There is fluctuation
also in Josephus between the Attic and the vulgar forms, W. Schmidt, de Jos.
elocut. 451, 459.
Κλαίειν, fut. κλαύσω, 8 18, 3.
Κλείειν, perf. pass. κέκλεισμαι for -ειμαι, 8 16, 1.
Κλίνειν, aor. and fut. pass. εκλίθην, κλιθήσομαι, 8 19, 3.
Kpálely, the pres. rare in Attic (which uses kékpaya instead) is often in N.T.,
on the other hand κέκραγα is only used in Jo. 1. 15: fut. κράξω (κεκράξομαι), S 18,
3: aor. εκέκραξα (LΧΧ., from κέκραγα) only Α. 24. 21 NABC.
Κρίνειν : αποκρίνομαι, υποκρίνομαι, aor. and fut. 8 20, 1.
Κρύβειν, aor. pass. εκρύβην, 8 19, 3.
(Κτείνειν): only in compound αποκτείνω and -έν(ν)ω, 8 17; aor. pass. απε-
κτάνθην (late) Mc. 9. 31 al. = Αtt. απέθανον.
(Κυεϊν) αποκυεϊ Ja. 1. 15, -ύησεν 1. 18 (from κύω we have έκύομεν in LΧΧ.,
W.-Schm. 8 15).
Κυλίειν (already in Αtt.; older form -ίνδω) Mc. 9, 20, fut. -tσω Μο. 16. 3,
aor, act. εκύλισα, perf. pass. κεκύλισμαι as in Att.
Λακεϊν “to burst”: έλάκησεν Α. 1. 18 (cp. Acts of Thomas, S 33) as in
Aristoph. Νub. 410 διαλακήσασα : elsewhere unknown: to be distinguished
from λάσκω sound' (aor. Ελακον).
Λαμβάνειν, fut. λήμψομαι, aor. pass. ελήμφθην (λήμψις Ph. 4. 15, ανάλημψις
L. 9. 51: προσωπoλήμπτης) as in other Hellenistic writings, 8 6, 8. (The later
MSS. restore the Attic forum by omitting the μ.)
(Λέγειν “to collect’): only in συλλέγω, -ξα, εκλελεγμένος (Αtt. usually
εξειλεγμ.) L. 9. 35.
*Λέγειν “ to say': Αtt. λέξω, έλεξα etc.; but in Ν.Τ. defective (the be-
ginning of this defective state reaches back into Attic times, Miller, Amer.
Journ. of Philol. xvi. 162) with only pres. and impf.; the remaining tenses
being aor. είπον, -α (8 21, 1), fut. έρω, perf. είρηκα, aor. pass. ερρέθην, ρηθήναι,
8 16, 1, perf. είρημαι. (Still λέγειν and είπείν were felt to be separate verbs,
otherwise we should not find these combinations : τουτο ειπών λέγει Jo. 21. 19,
είπεν λέγων L. 12. 25, 20. 2.) But διαλέγομαι, διελέχθην as in Att. (Μο. 9. 34),
see 8 20, 1.
Λείπειν : (class.) with alternative form λιμπάνειν, διελιμπανες Acts 8. 24 D,
17. 13 D, υπολιμπάνειν 1 P. 2. 21, εγκαταλιμπανόμενοι FG Euseb. Chrys. in
2 C. 4. 9 (also LΧΧ.); 1st aor. έλειψα occurs occasionally instead of έλιπον,
8 19, 1.
Λούειν, λέλουμαι, 8 16, 1.
(Mέλειν) επιμελούμαι (LΧΧ.) or -ομαι (both Attic forms) not represented :
fut. ήσομαι, $ 20, 2: μεταμέλομαι (the only Αtt. form) 2 C. 7. 8, aor. -ήθην (not
attested in Att.) Mt. 21. 29 etc., fut. -ηθήσομαι Η. 7. 21 Ο.Τ. quot.
Μέλλειν: έμελλον And ήμελλον, 8 15, 3.
Μιαίνειν : μεμίαμμαι, 8 16, 3.
56
[S 24.
TABLE OF NOTEWORTHY VERBS.
MyNCTEUELV : perf. pass. MeuVÝotevual y.l., § 15, 6.
Nýdel “to spin' for vîu (Ionic and late), the constant N.T. form, cp.
αλήθειν.
Νίπτειν for νίζειν, 8 17.
(Eupelv), pres. unattested : aor. mid. &úpaolal as if from &úpely (not fupão dal
pres.) 1 C. ll. 6 and fupňoaolai A. 21. 24 (both forms unattested in Att.), but
in Acts D has šúpwvtal, XB*D’EP čupňoovtal : perf. &&úpnual (Att.) 1 C. 11. 5.
(Olyelv) å volyelv (never -yvóval): the augment is always in the a in the comp.
diavolyelv, dinvoixonoav L. 24. 31, ouvolyev 32 etc.; also in the simple vb. con-
stantly in the 2nd aor. pass. nuolynu A. 12. 10 (-xon E al.), which is a new
formation ; in the other forms (the impf. is only attested for sav.) the old
syllabic augm. is still strongly represented : Ist aor. act. åvéwta Jo. 9. 14
(YvEwęEV LX, *volšev D), 17 volgev KAD al., BX nvéuš., KL åvéwt., similarly
ver. 32: in verses 21, 26, 30 B also has Hvolšev, and this form deserves prefer-
ence (cp. A. 5. 19, 9. 40, 12. 14, 14. 27, Ap. 6. I, 3 etc.);—perf. (intrans. as
in late writers) åvéuya Jo. 1. 52 (nvewyóta X), 1 C. 16. 9, 2 C. 6. II, elsewhere
åvéwymai as in Att. R. 3. 13 O.T. quot., 2 0. 2. 12 (nvewyl. DEP), A. 10. II
(øve. E), 16. 27: Ap. 4. I B, but KAP nve., similarly 10. 1, 8, 19. II (3. 8 åv.
ABC); 1st aor. pass. ÅVE♡xonu Mt. 3. 16 (ýve. B), 9. 30 (nve. BD), 27. 52,
L. 1. 64 etc.: nyeuxo. Jo. 9. io with preponderant evidence (åv. AK al.): Acts
16. 26 nvoixo. KAE, veuxo. BCD, åve. HLP: there is diversity of reading also
in Ap. 20. 12. Infin. åvewxOavai L. 3. 21 (-vol- only D), cp. supra á yvúval,
§ 15, 2. On 1st and 2nd aor. (*volynu) and fut. -yhoomal (-xono-) see § 19, 3.
OikTÍPELV (so to be spelt for -elpelv), fut. Oiktupňow R. 9. 15 O.T. quot. (late).
(OMúval) åroll., § 23, 1: fut. årolow as also in Herm. Sim. viii. 7. 5
(= Att. årolô 1 C. 1. 19 0.T. quot., so nearly always in Lxx.): but fut. pass.
åroloüual L. 13. 3 etc.
**Opây is still more defective than in Attic, since even the pres, and impf.
are rare (being confined to the literary language): the popular language
replaced them by means of BXÉT ELV and Dewpeiv. (Exceptions : Öpa, ópâte, cave,
-ete Mt. 8. 4 etc. [but BXÉTTETE is also used in this sense A. 13. 40 etc.]: also
L. 16. 23, 23. 49, A. 8. 23?, H. 11. 27, 1 P. 1. 8, Ja. 2. 24 (Ap. 18. 18, Jo. 6. 2,
Mc. 8. 24]: in composition H. 12. 2, A. 2. 25 O.T., R. 1. 20; pres. and impf.
are rare also in Hermas : Vis. iii. 2. 4, 8. 9, Mand. vi. 2. 4: Barn. ópâte 15. 8).
The perf. is still always cópaka (ěúp.), § 15, 6: aor. eldov (-a, § 21, 1): fut.
oyoual: aor. pass. 6oon apparui, fut. oponoomal (perf. WTTAL Herm. Vis.
iii. 1. 2 X). In addition a new present form is created otávoua. A. 1. 3
(LXX. ; Papyr. Louvre notices et extr. de MSS. xviii. 2, no. 49 according to the
facsimile).
llalfelv, malfw etc., § 16, 2; § 18, 3.
IIaúelv, ávamaño ouai, $ 20, 1.
TIeldelv, aor. pass. ¿Telo Onv, fut. Telo Oño oual L. 16. 31 (TTLOTEÚDOVOLV D).
II elvâv, -ậs etc., § 22, 1: aor. étreivao a, § 16, 1.
TIelpáfelv 'to tempt' or 'try any one' (Hom., and late writers) always for
Att. Telpâv; also for 'to attempt anything' = Att. Telpão dai A. 24. 6 al.
(Telpão bal A. 26. 21 speech of Paul before Agrippa).
Illáfelv, IIIÉLELV. The latter='to press' as in Att. L. 6. 38; the former is
confined to the common language = 'to lay hands on' (mod. Gk. Tiávw), aor.
È laoa, etiáo Onu (John, Acts, once even in St. Paul, Apoc.).
TIeutdây for -ával, $ 23, 2.
TIívelv, fut. Tlouai, miegai, $ 21, 7; aor. ËTLOV, imper. mle L. 12. 19 (Att. also
Till), infin. contracted to telv, Tiv (6, 5) Mt. 27. 34 H*D, Mc. 10. 38 D,
15. 23 D, Jo. 4. 7 **B*C*DL, cp. ibid. 9, 10 etc. (Anthol. Pal. xi. 140 in
verse : papyri in W. Schmidt, Gtg. Gel. Anz. 1895, 40.)
* IIc Tpáo Kelv, in Hellenistic Gk. conjugated in full with the exception of fut.
and aor. act. (so impf. act. Tím pao Kov A. 2. 45). In Attic it is only in the
pass. that the conjugation is fairly complete : the act. has perf. ºTTÉT paka
(Mt. 13. 46: D επώλησεν), but in the other tenses πωλείν and αποδίδοσθαι
8 24.]
57
TABLE OF NOTEWORTHY VERBS.
are used. The N.T. employs the aorist of the latter of these two verbs
(Α. 5. 8, 7, 9, H. 12. 16), from the former we have πωλώ, επώλουν, επώλησα,
πωλούμαι pass. (all used in Att. as well) : in addition to these πέπραμαι R. 7. 14,
επράθην Mt. 18. 25 etc.
Πίπτειν, έπεσον, and more frequently έπεσα, 8 21, 1.
Ποθεϊν, aor. επόθησα, 8 16, 1.
Ραίνειν, ραντίζειν. For reduplication, $ 15, 6.
Ρεϊν, fut. ρεύσω, 8 18, 3 (Attic has pres. fub. ρεύσομαι, aoristic fut. ρυήσομαι).
Ρηγνύναι in the pass. Mt. 9. 17, L. 5. 6 A al.: for which ρήσσειν (-ττειν, late
Writers) appears in Mt. 9. 17 D, L. 5. 6 NBL, Mc. 2. 22 ΑΓ al., ν.1. ρήξει ; aor.
έρρηξα ; the old epic word ρήσσειν = τύπτειν, cp. the Attic (and LΧΧ.) ράττειν
to dash down? Demosth. 54. 8 is found with the latter meaning in Mc. 9. 18
(ράσσει D), L. 9. 42, LΧΧ. Sap. 4. 19: Hermas, Mand. xi. 3 ραξαι ας). Το
this word also belongs προσέρηξες = προσέβαλε L. 6. 48.
Ρίπτειν and ρίπτειν, Αtt., in the N.T. the present stem only occurs in
Α. 22. 23, -ούντων (-όντων DEHL) cp. έρ(ρ)ίπτουν Herm. Vis. iii. 5. 5: perf.
ρέριμμαι, $ 15, 6.
Ρύεσθαι “ to save' (Epic, Ionic, and late writers) with aor. mid. έρ(ρ)υσάμην
and aor. pass. έρ(ρ)ύσθην (late) L. 1. 74 etc.
Σαλπίζειν, σαλπίσω etc., S 16, 2.
Σημαίνειν, εσήμανα, 8 16, 3.
*Σκοπεϊν, σκέψασθαι in Attic form one verb, since only pres. and impf. of
σκοπείν are found, and from σκέψ. the forms -πτομαι, εσκεπτόμην are absent. In
Ν.Τ. σκοπεϊν is used as in Att., επισκέπτεσθαι however is also found in the pres.
= to visit' (Η. 2. 6, Ja. 1. 27); επισκοπείν = “ to take care' Η. 12. 15 (έπι-
σκέπτεσθαι to inspect' Clem. Cor. 1. 25. 5; συνεσκέπτοντο Εν. Petr. 43).
Σπουδάζειν, fut. -σω, 8 18, 3.
Στηρίζειν, tenses, 8 16, 2.
Στρωννύειν (not στoρενν., which appears first in late scholiasts), 8 23, 1.
Σώζειν (ι adscript, S 3, 3): like εσώθην (έσαώθην, σαόω) the perf. σέσωται is
still found Acts 4. 9 NA: (v.1. -σται), but σεσωσμένοι E. 2. 5 all MSS., and in V. 8
only P has the Att. form -Wuévol.
Τάσσειν, ετάγην, together with ετάχθην, 8 19, 3.
Τελεϊν, fut. τελέσω, 8 18, 1.
Τίκτειν, ετέχθην, 8 19, 3.
Τυγχάνειν: the Hellenistic perf. is τέτευχα for Att. τετύχηκα, Ρhryn. 395:
So Η. 8. 6 τέτευχεν NBDE (v.1. τετύχηκεν Ρ, τέτυχε male N*AD*KI, a form
which is also occasionally found in the older editions of late writers : Lob. on
Phryn. loc. cit.).
*Τύπτειν is defective and completed by means of other verbs as in Attic :
τύπτειν, έτυπτον, πατάξω, επάταξα (pres. impf. etc. from this stem not found),
έπαισα (no pres. and impf. found), pass. τύπτομαι, aor. επλήγην (the only forum
of this verb represented) Ap. 8. 12.
*'Ytrayelv 'to go,' depart,' a word of the common language (never in Acts,
Paul, or Hebrews και mod. Gk. πάγω, πηγαίνω), which makes only a present
tense (most frequently the pres. imperat.); supplemented by πορεύομαι (which,
however, is not defective itself).
Φαίνειν, έφανα, 8 16, 3: φανήσομαι (φανούμαι), 8 20, 2.
(Φαύσκειν LΧΧ.), Φώσκειν (επιφώσκουσα Mt. 28. Ι, επέφωσκεν L. 23. 54), an
Ionic and Hellenistic verb, only found in composition with δια-, επι-, υπο-, and
elsewhere only in pres. and impf. (cp. φάος, φώς): Ν.Τ. has fut. επιφαύσει
Ε. 5. Ι4 a quotation (διέφαυσε LXX. Gen. 44. 3; υπόφαυσις Ηerodot. ).
*Φέρειν, ήνεγκα, -είν etc. $ 21, 1.
Φθάνειν, aor. έφθασα (so and έφθην Attic), perf. έφθακα (unattested in Att.)
1 Th. 2. 16 BD*.' Meaning 'to arrive at,'' come upon 'as in mod. Gk.; 'to
anticipate' only in 1 Th. 4. 15 (for which προφθ. is used Mt. 17. 25).
58
ADVERBS.
[$ 24, § 25. 1-2.
Dobelodai, poßnonoomas, $ 20, 2.
opeîv, popéow etc. § 16, 1.
Velv, in act. only H. 12. 15 (0.T. quot.) intransitive (frequently in late.
writers); elsewhere only aor. épúnv, § 19, 2.
Xalpelv, xapoouai, $ 18, 3.
Xú(v)vely for xelv, § 17: fut. xew, $ 18, 2: aor. čxea as in Att.: pass.
KÉXuual, é xúbnu also Att.
Vúxev, pres. L. 21. 26 áro-: fut. perf. Yuyñoquai, § 18, 3.
'120€lv, augment, g 15, 2.
Dveîolai, augment, g 15, 2: aor. Úvno áunu A. 7. 16 (Att. é piáuny, which is
still used in the Lxx.).
Sor
$ 25. ADVERBS.
1. Adverbs of manner formed from adjectives with termination
-ws occasionally have a comparative with a corresponding ending in
-Tépws : TEPLOCOTépws 2 C. 1. 12, and constantly in St. Paul, H. 2. 1,
13. 19 (6. 17 -ótepov, but B -otépws, 7. 15 -ótepov), Mc. 15. 14 ENP al.
(TEPLOCÊS NAB al.), 7. 36 D (-ÓTepov XAB al.), cp. for their meaning
and usage § 11, 4; OtOvdAlotépws Ph. 2. 28 (D*FG -ótepov); cp.
co xátws XELV (Polyb.) Mc. 5. 23. Elsewhere such comparative
adverbs take -Tepov, which is also the predominant termination in
Attic, and from -()w the constant adverbial form is -(1)ov (BélTlOV
etc., Attic has also the adverbial ending -óvws). Well'is kal@s, no
longer eŮ (except in E. 6. 3 O.T. quot., A. 15. 29 literary language : cº
TOLETV 'to benefit' anyone, only in Mc. 14. 7); "better' is kpeîdgov
(1 C. 7. 38). Allótepov “in double measure' Mt. 23. 15 (late).-On
åvótepov, katwTÉPW, Toppúrepov (-répw) see § 11, 5. We have an
instance of a numeral adverb πρώτως in A. 11. 26 NBD2 (πρώτον
A al., D* reads differently), i.e. ' for the first time,' cp. Clem. Hom..
ix. 4 TÒV Tpútus úvo.ykógavra, xvi. 20 pôros époéyew, å a pútws ń koú-
oquev, always used of the first appearance of something. Similarly
in Polyb. vi. 5. 10, Diod. Sic. iv. 24 TÓTe Tpótws etc., Phryn. Lob.
311 f.—An instance of an adverb formed from a participle (according
to classical precedent) is perdouévws 2 C. 9. 6 (Plutarch).
2. In adverbs of place the distinction between 'where?'and whither?'
is not always preserved even in classical Gk. (évoa, évtaūda, evo áde,
ävw, kátw, ciow, ČEW); 1 in the N.T. there is no longer any distinction
whatever, in the same way that év and eis begin to be confused ($ 39,
3). IIoù is 'where?' and 'whither?' (Toî has disappeared); to it
corresponds oü, ŐTOV (trov indef. is only in H. 2. 6, 4. 4, and in the
sense about' in R. 4. 19; Sutrov H. 2. 16). "Here' (hither') is
expressed by évőáde in L. (esp. in Acts) and Jo. 4. 15 f. (nowhere by
évraila), but usu. by Ude (in Acts only 9. 14, 21), which no longer
has its original meaning 'thus' (from Os - de): Att. also occasionally
1 But Attic writers still have beside είσω, έξω the forms ένδον, εντός, εκτός to
express the answer to the question 'where?'; accordingly Phrynichus 127 con-
demns the use of ciow in answer to this question, in spite of the instances that
occur in poetry and prose. N.T. never has čvdov, and only rarely évTÓS, ÉKTÓS
(the latter most often in St. Paul), which are still correctly used to answer
the question 'where ?'.
§ 25. 2–5.]
59
ADVERBS
ékelce A. 21. 3, 22. 5='there' (Déke).2 Cp. ouóse for ouoü A. 20. 18 D
joined with ÖvtWV; mavtaxow to every quarter' Mc. 1. 28, Årdaxou
ito another place' ibid. 38, Lob. Phryn. 43 f.—The local adverbs in
-y are no longer represented except távtas ttavtaxî (-oû HLP) every-
where’ A. 21. 28; Távty te kai Tavtaxoû 24. 3 appears to mean 'in
every way and everywhere.'
3. Adverbs answering the question whence ?' with termination
-Dev: módev (To év nowhere), 60ev (óródev nowhere), évOev (opposed to
ékei, unclass.) Mt. 17. 20 évtellDev C), L. 16. 26 (=Attic évtellOev,
ενθένδε), elsewhere εντεύθεν, which is also used for Attie ένθεν in the
phrase Jo. 19. 18 évtell dev kai évtelldev = Attic év ev kui év ev (Ap.
22. 2 évt. kai ékeidev AB, ¿VT. Każ évt. some minuscules, čv ev kai **,
ένθεν add. N°). Thence' is εκείθεν; other forms are πάντοθεν (παντα-
xóbev Mc. 1. 45 EGU al. as in Attic prose), állaxódev.—The termina-
tion - ev has become stereotyped and meaningless in most cases in
the words čowlev, EwDev 'within,' without,' as is often the case even
in Attic Gk. (they have the meaning from within,' 'from without' in
Mc. 7. 18, 21, 23, L. 11. 7; these forms are never used in answer to the
question 'whither ?'): also in kukdóbev Ap. 4. 8 (Att.): and the ter-
mination is entirely without force in έμπροσθεν, όπισθεν, as it is from
the earliest times. On the other hand ävwder='from above' (kátwder
15. 38 is like από μακρόθεν beside μακρόθεν Mt. 26. 58 (από om. NCF
al.), Mc. 15. 40, 5. 6 (årò om. AKL al.) etc. (also used in conjunction
with ίστασθαι, so that από and -θεν both lose their force), έκ παιδιόθεν
Mc. 9. 21 (without ék AX al., DK zaidós), cp. (år', ¿E) oủpavólev
Homer, Acts 14. 17 (without prep.); later writers are fond of reviv-
ing this kind of expression Lob, Phryn. 46. Makpó Dev first occurs
in Hellenistic Gk. (= Attic móppudev which occurs in L. 17. 12 with
Értno av, H. 11. 13), also tald()odev is first found in late writers (Lob.
Phryn. 93); on the other hand the classical éyyúdev is absent from
N.T.
4. Adverbs of time.—IIóte, Troté, őte (óóre only L. 6. 3 AEHK al.,
ότε NBCD al.), τότε ; besides these (άλλοτε is wanting) πάντοτε fre-
quently in St. Paul for åcí 3 (mod. Gk. and late writers, cp. Phryn.
103), and occasionally in Mt. Mc. L. (never in Acts), H. 7. 25 (never
in Epp. Cath.); åtí only occurs in Mc. 15. 8 ACD al., om. XB47
A. 7. 51, 2 C. 4. II, 6. 10 Tit. 1. 12 quot., H. 3.10 0.T.), 1 P. 3. 15
(om. Å Syr. Euseb.), 2 P. 1. 12.-IInvika etc. do not occur, only
övíka in 2C. 3. 15 f.
5. The waning of the system of the correlative adverbs is seen
chiefly in the indefinite adverbs, of which noté alone is in ordinary
1 Hermas frequently has de kåkeloe 'hither and thither,' Mand. v. 2. 7 etc.
? For ekel in A. 18. 19 BHLP have attoll, which is only found elsewhere in
Mt. 26. 36 (om. XC*), A. 15. 34 B text (?), 21. 4 (not without var. lect.).
3 In Hermas the use of del instead of távtote is one of the indications which
mark the forged conclusion of Simonides (Sim. ix. 30-x.).
ADVERBS-PARTICLES.
[8 25. S 26, 1-4.
use (πως only in είπως, μήπως : on που ποθεν] see 2 and 3); also in
the indefinite relatives, which become confused with the definite
forms (SS 13, 3; 50, 1), and then in some cases (for oπόθεν sup. 3,
οπότε 4) entirely or almost entirely disappear.
6. On compounded adverbs see $ 28, 7.
§ 26. PARTICLES.
1. In the use of particles the New Testament language is poor in
comparison with the classical, not only because a considerable num-
ber of old particles are completely absent, but more especially because
many of the remainder are only employed in a limited way. The
Syntax will treat of the manner of employment and the combinations
of the individual particles; here we merely give a table of those
which are represented and those which are absent, together with
remarks on the form of some of them.
2. Particles (and conjunctions) or combinations of particles in the
Ν.Τ.: αλλά, άμα, άν, άρα (άραγε), άρα (αράγε), άχρι(s), γάρ, γε, δε, δή,
δήπου (one ex.), διό, διόπερ, διότι, εάν, εάνπερ, εί, είπερ, είτα, είτε, επεί,
επειδή, επειδήπερ (one ex.), [επείπερ R. 3. 30 ν.1.], έπειτα, έως, ή, [ή,
more correctly ει (see 8 3, 6), in ει μήν Ο.Τ. quot. 3, ήδη, ηνίκα, Γήπερ
v.1. in Jo. 12. 431, ήτοι, ίνα, καθά, καθάπερ, καθό, καθότι, καθώς, και,
καίπερ, καίτοι(γε), μέν, μενούνγε, μέντοι, [μέχρι(s), v.1. for μ. ού], μή,
μηδέ, [μήν only in ει μήν, vide sup.], μήτε, μήτι, ναί, νή, όμως, οπότε (one
ex.), όπως, όταν, ότε, ότι, ου (ουχί), ουδέ, ούκουν (one ex.), ούν, ούτε,
(περ as in Att. prose only in combinations : διόπερ, είπερ etc.), πλήν,
πρίν, τε, (τοι only in καίτοι, μέντοι etc.), τοιγαρούν, τοίνυν, ώς, ωσάν,
ώσει, ώσπερ, ώσπερεί, ώστε.1
3. The following Attic particles are entirely wanting : ατάρ, άτε,
αυ, γούν, δήθεν, δητα, είθε, μα, νή, μήτοι, μών, νυν, οπόταν, (ούκουν),
ούτι, ούτοι, τέως. But the limitation of the rich store of particles
began at an early period, as may be shown e.g. by the fact that in
the 'Αθηναίων Πολιτεία of Aristotle not only all the last-named
particles with the exception of ote are absent, but also the following
among those enumerated under 2: άρα, άρα, άχρι, γε, δήπου, διόπερ,
διότι, εάντερ, είπερ, είτε, επειδήπερ, (επείπερ), (ήπερ), ήτοι, καίτοι,
μενούνγε, (μέντοι 3), μέχρι, μήτι, ναι, όμως, οπότε, ούκουν, ουχί,
τοιγαρούν, τοίνυν.
4. Εάν is the Hellenistic form for if' (op. εαυτού, σεαυτού), not
öv or äv; äv however is found in the MSS. of the N.T. in some few
instances, so Jo. 12. 32 B, 13. 20 (εάν DEFG al.), 16. 23 BC al., 20.
23 bis (éáv AD, semel **), Acts 9. 2 XE. . This may perhaps be
connected with the disproportionately greater encroachment which
¿áv made into the province of av, out of which a kind of interchange
of meanings between the two words might easily grow (modern Gk.
uses εάν and άν for if'). Εάν is found very frequently after
1 Hermas has further και μήν Mand. iv. 1. 8, V. 1. 7 (Barn. 9. 6) and γούν
(= ούν, εις also in other late writers, see Steph. - Dind. γούν), Sim. viii. 8. 2; Bar-
nabas has πέρας γέ τοι in 10. 2 and elsewhere.
8 26, 8 27. 1-2.]
WORD-FORMATION.
relatives in the N.T., as in the LXX. and the papyri: 1 Mt. 5. 19 Ös
εάν (immediately followed by oς δ' άν), 8. 19 όπου εάν, 10. 42 ος εάν
(BD άν), 11. 27 και εάν (άν D) etc.; in St. John only in 15. 7 (άν Β),
1 Jo. 3. 22 (Β άν), 3 Jo. 5.
$ 27. WORD-FORMATION BY MEANS OF TERMINATIONS
AND SUFFIXES.
1. The formation of words is naturally carried further in the
Hellenistic language than in the classical to meet new requirements,
but in all essentials the old patterns are adhered to.
Verbs from noun forms in -ος have termination -όω: αναστατούν,
αποδεκατούν (in the older lang. δεκατεύειν), ανακαινούν (class. -ίζειν),
αφυπνούν “ to fall asleep' (-ίζειν in class. Gk. = to awake, -ούν in
Hellenistic Gk. has the same meaning; "to fall asleep' in the older
lang. = καθυπνούν, cp. επικαθυπνούν Barn. 4. 13), δολιούν “to deceive'
(δόλιος) R. 3. 13 Ο.Τ. quot., θεμελιούν, κεφαλαιούν (-λιούν NBL)
Μο. 12. 4 appears to mean to beat on the head' = κολαφίζειν,
but is quite unparalleled in this sense (cp. Lob. Ρhryn. 95), κραταιούν,
s0 also σθενούν from το σθένος, (έν)δυναμούν from δύναμις, νεκρούν,
σαρούν = σαίρειν (from σάρος : Lob. Ρhryn. 83), χαριτούν from χάρις.
Verbs in -éw are principally compounds, see § 28, but there is also
δυνατείν from δυνατός (αδυνατείν is old). For εξουδενίζειν (Ρlut.)
N.T. generally has ećov@eveîv (Lxx.), with Devoûv as a v.l. in Mc. 9.
12.-Ιη -ίζειν or (after an ι) -άζειν : αγιάζειν (άγιος, old form αγίζειν),
αιχμαλωτίζειν, αναθεματίζειν, ανεμίζειν (old form -μούν), δογματίζειν,
δειγματίζειν, ενταφιάζειν, θεατρίζειν, θυσιάζειν for θύειν (θυσία), ίματίζειν
(from έμα = είμα, not from ιμάτιον και ιματισμός appears already in
Polyb.), ιουδαΐζειν, μυκτηρίζειν, νηπιάζειν (Hippocr.), όρθρίζειν, πελεκί-
ζειν (Polyb.), σινιάζειν (σινίον sieve,' also a late word ; old form
σάω, then σήθω), (δια)σκορπίζειν (old-Ionic, Phryn. 218), σμυρνίζειν
σπλαγχνίζεσθαι from σπλάγχνα αγαπή, συμμορφίζειν, φυλακίζειν
from φυλακή prison’; in Hermas συνετίζειν from συνετός, Mand. iv.
2. 2, cp. σοφίζειν “ to make wise' (Lxx.) 2 Τim. 3. 15.-Verbs in
-εύω are likewise formed from the most various stems : (αιχμαλωτεύω
only in 2 Tim. 3. 6 as a v.l. for -τίζω, vide supra ; -εύω Diod. Sic.),
παγιδεύειν (παγίς), (εξ)ολεθρεύειν (LXX. passim) : γυμνητεύειν (-ιτεύειν)
from γυμνήτης ($ 3, 6), μεσιτεύειν from μεσίτης (Polyb.) to be naked,
to be a mediator, so too ιερατεύειν (like βασιλεύειν, ηγεμονεύειν): on
a similar pattern έγκρατεύεσθαι “ to behave as an εγκρατής' (Aristot.)
like ειρωνεύεσθαι : s0 περπερεύεσθαι 1 C. 13. 4, παραβολεύεσθαι Ph.
2. 30 (nowhere else) to show oneself παράβολος' ( foolhardy),
αναιδεύεσθαι (αναιδής) Herm. Vis. iii. 7. 5, ακριβεύεσθαι Barn. 2. Ιo.
-In -ύνω we have σκληρύνω (1ike βαθύνω, μηκύνω). Cp. W.-Schm..
8 16, 1. On new present formations like στηκω, γρηγορώ see 8 17.
2. Verbal substantives in -μός, denoting an action : αγιασμός,
βαπτισμός, ενταφιασμός (-άζω 1), ονειδισμός, παροργισμός, πειρασμός,
ραντισμός, σαββατισμός (from σαββατίζω, not in Ν.Τ.), σωφρονισμός
1 For exx. see Berl. Aeg. Urk. no. 12. 18, 13. 10, 33. 16, 46. 17 etc.

WORD-FORMATION BY
[$ 27. 2.
all from verbs in - w, -á[w, whereas with other verbs the tendency
to form such derivatives (odupuós, åpduós and others in the earlier
language) appears to have almost died out; we only have åreleyjós
from átteréyxw, áprayuós from ápraw: and in Hermas ouusupuós
Vis. ii. 2. 2 N, zlatvojós Mand. v. 2. 3 (Clem. Cor. 3. I). But
substantives in -ja (generally denoting the result of the action) are
formed from verbs of all kinds : dyvonua 'a sin,' aitiwma A. 25. 7
(a strange form instead of the old uitíana 'an accusation'), 1
åvtatódoua (old form ols), avoinua 'an instrument for drawing
water,' a strange form (elsewhere årtintńP, -týplov), átaúyaoua,
dookiaoua, Bártloua (cp. supra -ouós, which is never used of John's
baptism, and of Christian baptism only in Col. 2. 12 BD*FG, cp.
H. 6. 2; the distinction of meaning is preserved : BATTLOuós is the
act of immersion, in Bán Loua the result is included), 2 éÉépaua,
ÝTTIMA, Oénua, iepáteuma (iepateúelv 1), karálųua (Hellenistic for
Kataywyclov; bere also tbere is a peculiar use of -ua for the place
of lodging), κατόρθωμα (Polyb.), πρόσκομμα και Hermas has ματαίωμα
'a vain thing' Mand. ix. 4, péôvoua "an intoxicating drink' vi. 2. 5
etc. (also in Philo, like édequa). Abstract nouns, again, take
termination -ous, and are mainly formed from stems that end with
a vowel (not from verbs in Ćw, where -quós is used): Biwris,
ÈTTLTÓOnois, délnous H. 2. 4 (elsewhere -nua), kaTávveis R. 11. 8 0.T.
quot. (karavúogelv 'to stupefy' Dan. 10. 9),3 eroi Onois (TÉTOLOo,
Phryn. 294 Lob.), póokiois (Polyb.), apóo xvols (duáprnois Herm.
Vis. ii. 2. 5). Nouns in -elā are from verbs in -euw: åpekela (älpeokos,
-okeúouan, -eía; Polyb.), épubela (Aristot.), iepateia (-tów sup. 1),
je dodela (-eúelv is Hellenistic from uédodos). The termination -movn
occurs in a few instances : Tinouovń (old), new forms meluovń from
meidw and filmo uový Ja. 1. 25. LXX. Sir. 11. 29, related to śmilňouwv.
Without suffix is oikodoun edification' or 'a building,' a new word,
and strictly speaking incorrectly formed instead of -la or nois,
Lob. Phryn. 490 (the formation douń belongs to a primitive word
déjw, not to oikodouéw); but cp. Tapao kevý from -áfw and esp. the
Attic jo bodopá.—New nouns to express the doer are formed in
-T7s (no longer in -Twp, -TẬp): Blactńs, Bartiotńs, yoyyvotńs, ducktYS,
δότης (old form δοτήρ), ελληνιστής from -ίζειν « to speak Greelk,
so the Greek-speaking Jew A. 6. I etc., evayyeliotńs, durputns,
Jepwtńs, TPOO KUVITÝs ; such words, as is shown e.g. by Mt. 11. 12
BráceTal - Blactai, Jo. 4. 20 ff. TPOOKUVEîV – TT pookuntal, are coined
with almost the same facility as verbal forms. With ÊTEVÕúrns an
upper garment' Jo. 21. 7 (already in Sophocles) cp. the German
Ueberzieher' [English overcoat'].-In -týplov (from -trip) are
ilaotýpcov (on ontplov inf. 6.), åkpoatýplov.-It is noticeable that
words in ua in the Hellenistic language follow the analogy of those
in -ols and cons (tos) in so far that they, like the latter, now prefer
the verbal stem ending in a short vowel and avoid the stem with
1 Altlwors in Eustathius p. 1422. 21 is compared.
2 Joseph. Ant. 18. 5. 2 uses Battlo uós of John's baptism.
. 3 Fritzsche, Paul. ad Rom. ii. 558 ff.
$ 27.2–4.]
63
TERMINATIONS AND SUFFIXES.
a long vowel : δόμα like δόσις δότης, θέμα (already in old Doric) like
O'cois Detós, whence åváleua= Att. -Onpa,? so tóua =Att. Tua,
kdýna, kptua, even áváo teua for otua? (true stem otă), SLácteua
A. 5. 7 (but Karaơ Thua Tit. 2. 3).
3. Substantives from adjectives: with termination -órns: dylórns,
åyvórns (old form á yvela from -eúw), ådniórns, åpenórns A. 2. 46
from å els simple,' plain,' Hellenistic (elsewhere the subst. is
always åpédeca), youvórns, patalórns, Meyadecórns; corresponding
forms from substantives are Deórns (Lucian), ádelpórys (1 and 4
Macc., Dio. Chrys.) in concrete sense the brotherhood 1 P. 2. 17,
5. 9 (Clem. Cor. i. 2. 4; in abstract sense Herm. Mand. x. 1. 4),
kupiórns in concrete sense principality' (an angelic order) E. 1. 2I
(abstract Herm. Sim. v. 6. I) etc.—With súvn: from adj. in uwv,
with which this formation is specially frequent (ow počúvn,
jevnuooúvn), éden pooúvn (already found in Callimachus : in N.T. usu.
in concrete sense "alms'): from adj. in -os (like dikaLOQÚVY,
åkepalogúvn Barn. 10. 4), but with lengthening of the antepenultimate,
as in the comparative, when the syllable preceding it is short :
åyabwoúvn, ayiwo úvn, Meyadwoúvn; iepwo úvn (=iepewo. from iepew-
which is from epevs) occurs in the older language. With -la :
édappía, tapadpovía 2 P. 2. 16 (from tapáopwv -ovelv, cp. eúdajovia).
4. Substantives from substantives : The feminine in -cosa is the
correct form corresponding to masculine in -É, Poîvić Polvora,
but in the later language this becomes an independent suffix
(Baláviooa from Balaveus, Bacídiood, Tadática), so in N.T.
vpobolvíkiooa from Erpopoīvić (Lucian) Mc. 7. 26 (v.l. Evpap. i.e.
Súpa $.: D Boivioon, Latt. Evpoboivooa).3_Of Latin origin are
the designations ending in -cavós derived from proper names, in the
N.T. 'Hpwdiavoí 'adherents of Herod' Mc. 3. 6 etc., and Xprotiavoi
fronm Χρηστός = Χριστός, the heathen designation for Christians
A. 11. 26, 26. 28, 1 P. 4. 16 (on n cp. § 3, 6), formed on the model
of Pompeiani, Caesariani ; in later times this form was frequently
employed for the names of sects. 4—Diminutives are, in keeping with
the whole character of the N.T., not abundant; some, however,
had become popular expressions, such as raidiov, zaidáplov, taidiokn
(old), Yexiov bread-crumb' (only in N.T. from yie), īTepúylov,
útlov, ùtápcov "ear' (the latter form in Mc. 14. 47 xBC, Jo. 18. 10
*BC*LX) of the part of the body considered as such (Moeris says
ωτίον is Hellenistic for Attic oύς),5 whereas oύς (together with ακοή).
denotes the organ of hearing regarded as such ; St. Luke, therefore,
atticises when he uses oŮs for the part of the body (L. 22. 50: griov
1 Also in the sense of “votive offering'L. 21. 5 according to XADX (Bal.-ońuaoi).
? Buresch, N. Jahrb. f. kl. Philol. 1891, 539, cod. A LXX.
3 W.-Schm. $ 16, 2 c, who explains it as due to a form Solvikls (Baoills), and
cites for Þolviklooa Herodian L. ii. 455. 19 (but see ibid. i. 268. 14, ii. 708. 10).
4 R. A. Lipsius Ursprung des Christennamens (Jena 1873); Blass, Hermes
XXX. 465 ff.
The popular language was fond of denoting the parts of the body by diminu-
tives (Lob. Phryn. 211 f.), so modern Gk. Máte 'eye' from oupátlov, aútl'ear'
(also owuátlov Clem. Hom. v. 1, and as early as Isocrat. Epist. 4, 11). ·
64
[$ 27. 4-6.
WORD-FORMATION.
DK) Denoting smallness : klivíduov L. 5. 19, 24, klivéplov (Lob.
Phryn. 180) A. 5. 15 XBCD (v.l. Kdevov), Bußlapídcov Ap. 10. 2, 8 ff.
(Herm. Vis. ii. 1. 3 v.l. B.Bridápiov, cp. didapídiov late writers), formed
from Bißlápi(ov) +-idcov (only here). The following diminutives
contain a subjective idea and belong to the special class of ÚTOKOPIO-
Tiká ſendearing terms] : kuváplov Mt. 15. 26 f., Mc. 7. 27 f., ixoudcov
Barn. 10. 5, yuvalkápov (also contemptuous) 2 Tim. 3. 6, also
probably óvápiov Jo. 12. 14 (elsewhere ovos) : with the subjective
sense of love paßdiov Herm. Sim. viii. 2. 9.-Formed with -ELOV or
-cov is eidwielov or -cov ($ 4, 2) from eidwlov (also LXX.). 1_With -úv
we should not reckon élacúv mount of olives,' which should rather
be written éłac@v gen. plur. (with variant form in A. 1. 12), but no
doubt åpedpóv 'privy' Mt. 15. 17, Mc. 7. 19, cp. Kot púv, Teplotepeúv,
and others.2
5. Adjectives from verbs.—IIecdós would be formed directly
from a verbal stem, did not this word in 1 C. 2. 4 owe its origin
to a patent corruption ( tel Ooîs written for -oî). In -tos (verbal ad-
jectives) there are many instances of compound words (see § 28, 5);
an uncompounded word is maontós capable of suffering' A. 26. 23
(Plutarch), in the narrower sense of words in -tós ; on the other
hand in the more general sense, equivalent to a perf. part. pass., we
have outloTÓS Mt. 22. 4 'fattened' (besides compounded words).
With the rare suffix -ωλος we have αμαρτωλός LΧΧ. Ν.Τ. cp.
pedulós.
6. Adjectives from nouns (and participles).-In -Los outńpios
(old); from which the substantive to owTnplov is formed, in LXX.
ta thankoffering,' also in the N.T. L. 3. 6, A. 28. 28 etc. = 'salvation':
cp. (EUKTnpía A. 27. 40 (only here, ČEUKTÝplos is old). From the
LXX., again, is daòs teplotolos Tit. 2. 14=520 by 6a people of
possession,' =ös Treplecti, öv • Deòs TEPLETTOLÝPato avto, cp. Jerome
ap. Tisch. ad. loc., W.-Schm. § 16, 3 b. Quite unique in the Greek
language is érLOVOLOS Mt. 6. II, L. 11. 3 which cannot well be
derived from any other source but η επιούσα sc. ημέρα (Α. 16. ΙΙ
and elsewhere in Acts), so that its meaning is bread for the coming
day': see the detailed exposition in W.-Schm. $ 16,3, n. 23.3 Origen
(i. 245) was not acquainted with the word either in literature or
in the colloquial language, and it must therefore be an artificial
translation of an Aramaic expression. An obscure word in -ekos is
TLOTLKÓS Mc. 14. 3, Jo. 12. 3 (va.pdoũ TTLOTLKĥs), which should perhaps
be rendered 'genuine' and be derived from LOTÓS or iotis, but
may on the other hand have an entirely different origin, W.-Schm.
$ 16, 3 b. Other forms in -ckós (or -akós, after c) are kuplakós (ňuépa
Ap. 1. 10, deir vov 1 C. 11. 20), Oktún kepapulká Ap. 2. 27 with v.l.

1 For -elov 'Atollwvelov and the like are quoted as parallels, but even there
-Lov is at least in the majority of cases the correct form, 'Amourlov. But
MovOelov, karnelov may be compared. In the LXX., e.g. in 1 Esd. 2. 9 AB
have -lov.
2 For details see Fischer, Vitia lexicorum N.T. 698 ff.
3 [See also Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision of the N.T., Appendix. Tr.]
$ 27. 6. § 28. 1-2.]
65
WORD-FORMATION.
LELKÉ i.e. (the vessels of the potter' (kepapeús, but the more natural
meaning is earthen,' so that the word is incorrectly used instead
of kepameolls, Lob. Phryn. 146), capkikós="belonging to oáps,' 'of
the nature of oáp' (opposed to trveyMaTikós), in the MSS. occasionally
confounded with oápkivos consisting of flesh' (like díolvos and N.T.
botpákuvos) 2 C. 3. 3 (-ckós R. 15. 27, 1 C. 9. 11, 2 C. 1. 12 (FG
-ívn], 2 C. 10. 4, 1 P. 2. 11, also 1 C. 3. 3 according to x al. [D*FG
-LVOL]; in the similar passages R. 7. 14, 1 C. 3. 1, H. 7. 16, while the
best tradition is in favour of -uvos, the sense demands - Kós, since
there is an antithesis with πνευματικός). In -ινός we have adjectives
of time (as in class. Gk. Leonußpivós): oppivós? L. 24. 22 (Öpoplar
KPP al., an atticising correction, Lob. Phryn. 51: -lvós also in Herm.
Sim. v. 1. 1), atpwüvós (older form pólos, pợos), kaonjepivos A. 6. 1,
Herm. Vis. i. 3. 2 (a similar form uconuepivós in class. Gk.) daily'
(from kal? ņuépav=class. kadnuépios), taxıvós ‘speedy' (from táxa,
taxéws) 2 P. 1. 14, 2. 1, Herm. Sim. viii. 9. 4.
$ 28. WORD-FORMATION BY COMPOSITION.
1. A distinction is drawn in Greek between true composition
(oúvdeols), in which the first of the component parts, if subject to
inflection, is represented by the stem alone without inflection, and
improper composition (tapáteous), i.e. the mere coalescing of words
originally separate, without further adaptation than is required for
euphony. To the class of parathetic compounds belong all com-
pounds of verbs with prepositions, together with some substantival
forms such as Διόσκοροι from Διός κόροι, and many adverbs, in the
formation of which the later language showed itself as prolific as
it did in the production of compound verbs. A third category
is formed by the derivatives of (true or improper) compounds
(Tapaoúvbera), such as TITOT podcîv, -ía from iTTOTPópos, Aloo Kóplov
from Albo kopol.
2. To enumerate the new (parathetic) compounds formed from
verb and preposition, together with the verbal substantives and
verbal adjectives belonging to them, does not come within the
province of the study of grammar.2 We may also have more than
one preposition combined in a word, as in the classical language;
special mention may be made of diatapatpißaí 1 Tim. 6. 5 'perpetual
disputations' (tapatpißń='dispute' Polyb.). Adverbs formed by
composition or cohesion (incorrectly used as prepositions) are coined
more freely by the later than by the classical language (Lob. Phryn.
45 ff.); as a rule they are composed of preposition and adverb,
as Útépávo E. 1. 21 etc. (étrávw, útokátw belong to the earlier period),
1 In the Hellenistic poets the quantity of the t, which in other words of this
class is short, is used indifferently as long or short; cod. B writes -lvos, not -Elvos.
? Winer, five essays 'de verborum cum praep. compositorum in N.T. usu,'
Leips. 1834-43; A. Rieder Verbs (and other words) compounded with more
than one prep. in the New and Old Test.,' Progr. Gumbinnen, 1876.
66
[8 28. 2-4.
WORD-FORMATION.
έκπαλαι 2P. 2. 3, 3. 5 (έκ παλαιού in Attic according to Phrynichus);
also from prepos. and adj. as έκπερισσού (beside έκπερισσως ? as
ABCD read in Mc. 14. 31: the word would naturally be forced into
an adverbial form), by accumulation υπερεκπερισσού (-ως), Ε. 3. 20,
1 Τh. 3. ΙΟ, 5. 13, cp. (-ως) Clem. Cor. i. 20. ΙΙ (8 4, 1 note), also
υπερπερισσως Mc. 7. 37 (v... υπερεκπ.), υπερλίαν 2 C. 11. 5, 12. II,
υπεράγαν Clem. Cor. 1. 56. 2 ; υπερέκεινα 2 C. 10. 16 is another new
form (prep. and pron.: επέκεινα is old).
3. True compounds are in a few cases fundamentally substantives,
formed in such a way that in front of a substantive, which keeps
its ordinary form, there is placed another substantive (or adject.)
more nearly defining or restricting its meaning (e.g. lion-head, Greek
λεοντοκεφαλή an architectural term); so in Ν.Τ. Συροφοίνισσα οι:
-ίκισσα Β 27, 4 (Λιβυφοίνικες Polyb.): ευρακύλων a hybrid word from
εύρος and aquilo (cp. ευρόνοτος north east'); ψευδοπροφήτης, -δάδελφος,
-δαπόστολος, -δοδιδάσκαλος, (ψευδόμαρτυς appears in Attic); σαρδόνυξ
(Α σαρδιόνυξ) Ap. 21. 20 from σάρδιος and όνυξ, ibid. χρυσόλιθος
(but χρυσόπρασος in the same verse is an adjective formed from
πράσoν lealk,' sc. λίθος); χρεοφειλέτης from χρέος and οφειλέτης, but
words of this kind (cp. ίππηλάτης, ιπποδιώκτης) belong rather to
compounds of subst. and verbal stem, vide infra 5; on the other
hand oικοδεσπότης (cp. Phryn. 373 who condemns the word: deriva-
tive οικοδεσποτείν) does really consist of oίκος and δεσπότης. -The
subst. is defined by a particle in συστρατιώτης (class.), συμπρεσβύτερος,
συγκληρονόμος : by a verbal stem in άρχιερεύς (but the older form is
αρχιέρεως, 1.. ο άρχων των ιερέων), αρχιτέκτων (which is likewise
strictly to be explained as ο άρχων των τεκτόνων), άρχιτελώνης L. 19. 2,
άρχιποίμην 1Ρ. 5. 4, αρχάγγελος (but in άρχισυνάγωγος, άρχιτρίκλινος
it is clear that the first component still continues to govern the
second).
4. There are a great number of adjectival forms composed of
adjectives (adv., prep., numeral) and substantive (adj.), which express
the combined notion of both ideas, such as the peculiar δευτερόπρωτον
σάββατον L. 6. Ι (from two numeral adjectives), variously explained,
see Tisch. ad loc. and W.-Grimm; an example of the ordinary type
(particle and subst.) is åvéleos Ja. 2. 13 (class. åvndeńs: the N.T. form
due to το έλεος 8 9, 3), so σκληροτράχηλος (LΧΧ.) Α. 7. 51, δίψυχος
Ja. 1. 8, 4. 8 (Hermas pass.), ετερόγλωσσος (Polyb.), δίστομος and
μονόφθαλμος already found in classical Gk. και ισάγγελος = ίσος τους
αγγέλοις, lilke Homeric ισόθεος; especially with a preposition in the
first place, in which case the formation of the adj. in -cos (åkpoywviacos
is from -α-ιος) is preferred : παραθαλάσσιος (old), επιθανάτιος 1 C.
4. 9 = επί θανάτω συνειλημμένος (also in Dionys. Halic.), επίγειος and
επουράνιος (old), καταχθόνιος (also old); ενώπιον (neuter of ενώπιος)
likewise takes this formation. From these words again neuter
substantives are formed. A peculiar compound of elements which
are coordinate and simply added together, is νυχθήμερον (late) 2 C. 11.
1 There are also correspondingly formed adjectives, thus in Hermas περίπικρος
“very bitter' Sim. vi. 2. 5, απόκενος “somewhat empty’ Mand. xii. 5. 2.
§ 28. 4–5.]
67
BY COMPOSITION.
25, 'a period of a night and a day,' Kühner i.ii. 318 ; note moreover
Tò sopckabokov A. 26. 1= ai 85860a 60Àaí ($ 44, 1); (ToToStov • foot-
stool,' inolviov (anvós) the receptacle or vat excavated beneath the
winepress, åváyalov (SS 3, 7; 6, 4); further åkpo Oívcov H. 7. 4 (old),
MEJOVÚKTLOV (Hellenistic, Lob. Phryn. 53; 86,2), jucúplov 'half an hour'
Ap. 8. I (huiapov AP, cp. uí paxuov, huu óỒLov etc.; Kühneri.3 ii. 323);
te pooáß Batov, ajdúoo uov a plant (garden mint). In the femin. we have
η καλλιέλαιος and its opposite αγριέλαιος (for which, according to
Moeris, Attic has kótivos) R. 11. 17, 24, not åypiedaía, although åyplo-
in the later language is also directly compounded with the substantive
(supra 3), as in åyplokodokúvon; also åkpoßvoría, a distorted form of
ακροποσθία or -ιον (the old word) from πόσ θη. Then from adjectives
of this kind there was a further creation of abstract substantives, such
as σκληροκαρδία hardness of heart' (LΧΧ.) related to σκληροκάρδιος
(Lxx.), and therefore for -kapdcia, cp. Dit dokapdía Barn. 20.,1, and
of verbs (cp. 5), amongst which may be specially noticed óporočelv
(ópbórovs is old) G. 2. 14 (nowhere else), and <ykakeîv (the word
ÈKKakelv is a wrong reading, occurring also in Herm. Mand. ix. 8)
'to be slack in anything' Polyb. 4, 19. 1o, formed directly from év
and κακός, although no word έγκακος ever existed; ενωτίζεσθαι Α. 2.
T4 (Lxx.) is also certainly formed directly from év and úra, cp.
ένστερνίζεσθαι Clem. Cor. ii. 1, ένστηθίζειν Athanasius..
5. The greater number of compounds, originally adjectival, are
formed of substantive (adject., pronoun) or particle and verbal stem;
from these adjectives there are then formed parasynthetic abstract
substantives and verbs. The most ordinary form is : adj. -os,
abstract subst. -ía, verb -éw, like it torpópos, intot popía, iTotpodéw.
So in the N.T. we have åyadorolós 1 P. 2. 14, åyaborouía 4. 19
(ůyabotoinois Herm. Mand. viii. 10, Sim. v. 3. 4), åyaDotTOLEîv 2. 15
(beside dyaboepycîv 1 Tim. 6. 18, dyaloupyeîv with v.l. åyalottoleiv
A. 14. 17), kadotoLEîv 2 Th. 3. 13, KAKOTOLÓS (and kakoúpyos, both old),
KAKOTT OLEîV (old), cipnuotolós -elv, MoO YOTOLEîv only in N.T. (Acts 7.
41) of the image of the golden calf, where the adjectival stem only
exists, and only needed to exist, in idea, io XUPOT OLEîv (and - toinois)
Hermas, Vis. i. 3. 2 etc. With other verbal stems there are:
Kakovyeîv an old form (from éxw: kakoûxos nowhere), aimpopopeîv -ía
(first in N.T.: -dópos nowhere), loyoua xelv -ía (late, other writers
also have -μάχος), λιθοβολεϊν “ to stone' together with λιθάζειν (the
old word was develv), latoueîv, štepovyelv 2 C. 6. 14 (étepošvyos
LXX.), ávOpwtOKTÓvos, åv@pwTápeokos (åpéckw), of uncertain meaning
deflodáſos Acts 23. 23 (an infantry corps), according to a probably
certain conjecture κενεμβατεύειν = -είν Col. 2. 18 (κενεμβάτης has to
be imagined: the word is formed like čuBareveLV) etc. Where the
verbal stem has an active sense the adjectives generally are paroxy-
tone (in the case of a short paenultima) or oxytone (if the paen.
is long), whereas in the case of a passive stem (and a short
paenultima) the accent is thrown back on to the first part of the
word (TPWTótOKOS 'firstborn,' whence apwrotókid, cp. evayyéliov,

? [Trampopopeło bat occurs in Lxx. Ecclesiastes 8. II. Tr.]
68
8 28. 5-6.
WORD-FORMATION
H. 12. 16). But for words of passive meaning the form of the verbal
adj. in -τος is preferred to that in -ος ; thus in Ν.Τ. πατροπαράδοτος
1Ρ. 1. 18, σητόβρωτος Ja. 5. 2, λιθόστρωτος (Sophocles) Jo. 19. 3,
ποταμοφόρητος (-φορείς) Αp. 12. 15,1 είδωλόθυτον (like ιερόθυτον);
just as in active words -Tms (the noun of the agent) may take
the place of -ος, χρεοφειλέτης supra 3, καρδιογνώστης Acts 1. 24,
15. 8 Ηerm. Mand. iv. 3. 4 (nowhere else), προσωπολήμπτης 10. 34
(-τεϊν, -ημψία). From διδάσκειν the compounds are formed with
termination -διδάσκαλος: νομοδιδάσκαλος, καλοδιδάσκαλος Tit. 2. 3
(like χοροδιδάσκ. in older Greek), ετεροδιδασκαλείν ? (= έτερα διδάσκειν !
or = ετέροις διδασκάλους χρήσθαι 2) 1 Τim. 1. 3, 6. 3; from φυλάσσω
with -φύλαξ (Hellenistic words): δεσμοφύλαξ Α. 16. 23 (γαζοφυλάκιον
Mc. 12. 41 etc. LΧΧ., & παρασύνθετον from γαζοφύλαξ) ; from verbs
in -άω, -έω with termin. -ης (1st decl.): πατρολώας (S 6, 2) άλοαν,
φρεναπάτης2 απατάν (whence φρεναπατάν), πορφυροπώλης πωλείν, with
fem. -πωλις A. 16. Ι4 ; so also αρσενοκοίτης (κοιτάζεσθαι, κοίτη) 1 C.
6. 9, 1 Τim. 1. 1ο, ειδωλολάτρης (λατρεύειν), whence ειδωλολατρείν
Hermas, ειδωλολατρία Ν.Τ. (a more correct form than -εία like
λατρεία και Β however, except in 1 C. 10. Ι4, has -λατρεία = -ΐα), and
from άρχειν we have words in -άρχης beside those in -αρχος, see 8 9, 2.
In οφθαλμοδουλία Ε. 6. 6, Col. 3. 22 (Β reads with ει, like δουλεία.
which is formed from δουλεύω) the underlying word is οφθαλμόδουλος
(which occurs in Const. Apost.), where the formation is dependent
on δούλος. Occasionally ής, -ές also appears as a termination:
ειλικρινής (κρίνω), subst. -ίνεια (old), τηλαυγής Mc. 8. 25 (-ως; v.1.
δηλαυγώς Ν* al.), an old poetical word, but also in LXX.: the sense.
has become weakened to clear,' so also in Herm. Sim. vi. 5. 1;
γονυπετής (πίπτω, Εurip.), τείν (Polyb.), νουνεχής (cp. inf. 7) from
έχω (Polyb.), ιεροπρεπής (Αtt.). 'Αλεκτοροφωνία “cock-crowing
(vulgar word, Lob. Ρhryn. 229 = η ώρα ηνίκα και άλ. φωνεί) is peculiar,
there being no conceivable adjective from which it can be derived.
In γλωσσόκομον a case 3 Jo. 12. 3, 13. 29 the verb κομείν, κομίζειν
is concealed; the Atticists require in place of this vulgar form the
longer γλωττοκομείον Phryn. Lob. 98 (cp. χερνιβείον “a hand-basin ).
6. In the older language it frequently happens that in compound
words of this kind the verb is given the first place (φερέοικος, δηξί-.
Ovuos), in the later language this does not often occur ; on compounds
in άρχι- vide supra 3: εθελοθρησκία (-εια Β, cp. 5) Col. 2. 23 based on
εθελόθρησκος (from θρήσκος) which is not found, cp. εθελοδιδάσκαλος
Hermas, εθελοδουλ(ε)ία Plato, εθέλεχθρος Demosth., εθελοκακείν Hdt.,
(εθελο- expressing spontaneity): φιλόθεος, φιλάγαθος and φίλαυτος
(Aristot.), (φιλόπρωτος late language, and) φιλοπρωτεύων4 3 Jo. 2 (no.

1 Ηesychius also has the phrase ποταμοφόρητον ποιείν, S.υ. απόερσεν.
2 1.e. one who deceives his own mind = 'conceited'; the word also occurs on:
a papyrus of the 2nd cent. B.C. (in rhetorical and artificial prose, Grenfell 'An
Alexandrian erotic fragment,' Oxf. 1896, p. 3).
3 Strictly a case for the mouthpiece of a fute (γλώττα).
4 Found already in an Attic inscription of the 1st cent. B. C., Εφ. αρχαιολ.
1893, 49 ft., 1. 30.
8 28. 6-7.]
69
BY COMPOSITION.
forms with μισο- appear in Ν.Τ.).-The words compounded with cer-
tain pronouns and particles deserve a special mention : αυτοκατάκριτος
Tit. 3. ΙΙ (αυτόματος and αυθαίρετος are old); words with a privative
for the most part formed in -τος, e.g. in Ν.Τ. αγενεαλόγητος, αδιάκριτος,
αδιάλειπτος, (αδύνατος, -είν are old), ακατάγνωστος, ακατακάλυπτος,
ακατάκριτος, ακατάλυτος, ακατάπαυστος, (ακατάστατος is old, -ασία
Polyb.), αναπολόγητος, αμετανόητος, (ανόητος old), ανεξερεύνητος, ανεξ-
ιχνίαστος etc., not however exclusively in a passive sense (e.g. those
from απολογείσθαι, [μετανοείν): s0 also άπταιστος Jude 24 (old) is
active.2 The opposite to d- 1s έν- (e.g. έντιμος = έν τιμη opposed to
άτιμος): έμπερίτομος is opposed to απερίτμητος in Barn. 9. 6 C and
= έν περιτομη of NG: Paul has άνομος – έννομος 1 C. 9. 21, 8 36, 11.-
With ευ we have: ευάρεστος (already in Xenoph.), ευμετάδοτος “ready
to impart' 1 Τim. 6. Ι8, ευπρόσδεκτος, εύπερίστατος Η. 12. 1 (nowhere
else) probably = η ραδίως περιισταμένη easily surrounding and
thereby hindering' a person ; with δυσ-: δυσβάστακτος, δυσερμή-
νευτος, δυσνόητος. 'Α(ν)- (and δυσ-) can also be compounded with
ordinary adjectives (in classical Gk. άναγνος, δίσαγνος), but in the
case of εύπάρεδρος 1 C. 7. 35 we should rather refer the word to
παρεδρεύειν than to πάρεδρος ; a compound of adverb and verb 18
quite inadmissible, therefore ευδοκείν (Hellenistic) must be derived
from an imaginary ευδοκος (δέχομαι), certainly not from δοκείν (aorist
ευδόκησα), similarly the old word καραδοκείν (Ν.Τ. αποκαραδοκία) is
derived through an imaginary καραδόκος from κάρα and δέχομαι
(cp. δοκεύω).3 Ευάγγελος (class.) is from εύ and αγγέλλειν ; whence
evoyyéliov (as early as Homer) = reward for good news, thanks for a
good message, cp. πρωτοτόκια supra 5; it is only late writers who
employ it for the good news itself ; ευαγγελίζεσθαι “to bring good
news' is also found in Attic Greek.-II poo pázlov Jo. 21. 5, which
according to Moeris is Hellenistic for Attic ofov (something eaten
with bread, comes from πρός and φαγείν και προσήλυτος however (LΧΧ.)
is connected with προσέρχεσθαι (έπηλυς, επηλύτης are old).-A special
formation is that in -ασία, -εσία, -ίσία, -οσία, -υσία, allied to -σις, and
not to be confused with abstract nouns from adjectives in -TOS
(ακαταστασία), since the former has the active sense of the verbal
substantive: ορκωμοσία an oath,’ οροθεσία Α. 17. 26 a setting of
bounds' (unless with Hesychius τα οροθέσια should be read, cp. τα
όρια; γυμνάσιον, συμπόσιον), δικαιοκρισία “righteous judgment’ R. 2. 5,
αίματεκχυσία Η. 9. 22, also παλιγγενεσία (γίνεσθαι) Tit. 3. 5; in com-
position with a preposition this formation appears in the older
language, e.g, αποστασία (προστασία is as early as Attic ; also from a
simple verb ονομασία).
7. Of compound adverbs, which were not originally derived from
adjectives, there are not many instances in the N.T. In -eć there
are παμπληθεί L. 23. Ι8, πανοικεί Α. 16. 34, in the cultivated lan-
guage of Luke, although these particular instances are not Attic;

1 See note 3, p. 68.
2 But åmeipastos Ja. 1. 13 is passive, cf. § 36, 11.
3 Cp. 8 6, 7 πανδοκεύς.
70
[S 28. 7-8. 8 25.
PROPER NAMES.
.cp. Kühner i.3 ii. 303 (i is probably an incorrect spelling, elinvuoti
and the like have č). Quodquadóv is frequent in the Acts (also occur-
ring in R. 15. 6), a classical word. (For adverbs in -dov see Kühner
ibid. 307 f.)
8. As is already apparent from the preceding instances, the em-
ployment of compound words in the N.T. is fairly large, and is not
absent even from the simplest style, although the more elevated style
naturally has a larger number of them: for the dutlå (as Aristotle
terms the compounds) serve from the earliest times as an embellish-
ment to the speech. In the short letter to Titus the following
striking instances occur (verbal compounds and others are neglected):
αδόκιμος, άκαρπος, ακατάγνωστος, άμαχος, ανέγκλητος, ανόητος, ανομία,
dvdmira.KTos, avobe.js, Tetons, douTía, coopba, Cycoons ; addons,
αυτοκατάκριτος; αισχροκερδής; ευάρεστος; γενεαλογία; ιεροπρεπής; καλο-
διδάσκαλος και ματαιολόγος και οίκουργ)ός, οικονόμος και παλιγγενεσία; πειθ-
αρχείν ; φιλάγαθος, φίλανδρος, φιλανθρωπία, φιλόξενος, φιλότεκνος και
Opevattátns. -With regard to the manner of the composition, it is
further to be noticed that, at least in the case of words compounded
with numerals, the numeral undergoes no elision as it does in Attic,
but remains intact, in accordance with the effort after a clearer
isolation of the words—a tendency which has likewise diminished
the number of cases of elision between separate words (8 5, 1, cp. 3, 12).
Thus terpaápxos, -yelv Tisch. in Acts 13. I according to x*, L. 3. 1**C
etc. (Tisch. on L. loc. cit.), TEQOEPAKOVTAETŃS A. 7. 23, 13. 18, éKATOVTA-
ets R. 4. 19 (which is an old form in dialects, but this is due to
Féros Kühner i. ii. 332; Att. -Tourns from -Toéns); in addition to
these, dyaboepyelv 1 Tim. 6. 18, ådlot PLOETLO KOTOS 1 P. 4. 15 KLP,
but AB -TPLET-; cp. LXX. ypappatoecaywyeús (Deut. 31. 28), makpo-
muepevelv, ápxlouvoxóos, later ĝuo-oúolos and the like.
§ 29. PROPER NAMES.
In the proper names of the N.T. the only grammatical point
which calls for attention is the class of (hypocoristic) abbreviated
names. These abbreviated names have always existed in Greek,
and present a great diversity in their formation, see Bechtel-Fick,
Griech. Personennamen 26 ff. : --s, -las, -elas, -éas (-as), -vs, -Mados,
-v(1) los, -wv, -iwv etc.; the Hellenistic language, on the other hand,
as it meets us in the N.T., has hardly any other form of the abbrevi-
ated name than that in -as, which is employed not only when the
full name contains an a, as in ’Avrimas Ap. 2. 13 from ’Avtíratpos, but
also when there is no such support for it, and the second half of a
name containing two stems is completely set aside. These short
names were in some cases given at birth, as when a Mantitheus called
his son Mantias, a Niceratus Nicias, a Demoteles Demon, but in others
the person originally had the full name, but was frequently called
by the shorter name, as Menodorus the admiral of Sextus Pompeius
is spoken of by the historians sometimes by his full name, sometimes
$ 29.]
71
PROPER NAMES.
as Menas (W.-Schm. § 16, 9).1 An instance of this in the N.T. is
Eldovavós, as he is always called in St. Paul (also 1 P. 5. 12), and Eidas
A. 15. 22 etc.: also no doubt ’Amoldávios A. 18. 24 D and 'Aroddôs
in St. Paul ('Arellas s in Acts, see § 6, 2), 'Aurlíatos R. 16. 8 with
v.l. 'Aurlías; but 'Enaopas Col. 1. 7, 4. 12 (of Colossae) Philem. 23
and 'Etappóditos Ph. 2. 25, 4. 18 (of Philippi) cannot be one and the
same person, although undoubtedly the one name is an abbreviation
of the other. The remaining abbreviations in -as; in many cases of
which the original name is not distinctly recognisable, are: ’Apteuās
('Apteuíowpos, Varro de lingua Lat. viii. 21), 'Epuãs (Epuódwpos and
the like), Znvās (Znvódwpos, see Bekk. Anecd. 857), Noupās (Nvupós.),
’Olvuras ('Olvuriódwpos), Anuês (Anuntpuos ?), ' Etepavâs (Erebavn-
bópos ? or a development of Etédavos, found in Attic Greek ?), 2
Ilapjevâs (Tlapuévwv),: IIatpóßas (IIatpóßios), Aovkâs (Aovkavós?
Aovkídios ?).4 In -ộs there are 'Areiañs R. 16. 10 (vide supra), and
'Epuñs ibid. 14 (which can hardly be merely identical with the name
of the god, although at a later period this kind of appellation is also
found); 5 in -ós there is only ’Amoldws, vide supra. The name
'Avopéas, which has early attestation, is of a genuine old Greek form.

1 See also Crusius, N. Jahrb. für Philol. 1891, p. 385 ff.
2 Bechtel-Fick, op. cit. 253 f., regard Erépavos itself as an abbreviation of
Pilo-otépavos or of Etepavo-klas.
3 Ibid. 205 (cp. Ilapuevions, -lokos, -wv, Levis etc.).
4 Some ancient Latin Mss. translate the title kată dovkây by secundum
Lucanum. In 'Avòpbvlkov kal 'Iovviav R. 16. 7 is commonly found a man's
name 'Iouvlas ( = Junianus ?); some of the ancient commentators (see Tisch.)
took them to be a married couple like Aquila and Priscilla.
5 Ibid. 304 ff.
PART II.
SYNTAX.
$ 30. SUBJECT AND PREDICATE.
1. It has already been noticed (in § 2, 1) that it is in the syntax,
¿.e. in the method of employing and combining the several word-
forms and .form-words' current in the language, that the principal
grammatical difference between the classical and the N.T. language
undoubtedly lies, just as it is here too that there is the greatest
difference between the individual writers of the N.T. It is also on
the syntactical side that the language itself has shown the greatest
development, and moreover it is here that the antithesis between
the artificial writer and the plain narrator of facts or the letter-
writer—as also that between the man who has received a pure
Greek education and the man whose education has been wholly
or preponderantly Hebrew—is most clearly marked. Hence the
difference in culture between the individual N.T. writers must make
itself felt in their syntax, from the author of the Apocalypse at one
extreme to Paul, Luke, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
at the other.
2. The two principal kinds of words are the noun and the verb.
The simplest sentence is formed by the combination of these two,
where the noun (övoua) represents the subject, i.e. the fundamental
idea, and the verb (óñua) represents the predicate, i.e. some further
statement concerning the subject. If however the predicate is
complex, the noun must very soon be called into requisition for
this office as well, and will serve sometimes as the principal part of
the predicate, sometimes as the complement of the verb. In the
former case, where one noun serves the purpose of specifying and
defining another noun, the verb is in many cases a mere "form-
word' necessary for the statement of this relation, though like
every verb it still presents the two inflections denoting tense and
mood. It is therefore only natural that, at least in the case of
the commonest tense, the present, and the commonest mood, the
indicative, the language should omit the verbal .form-word ''to be
as readily intelligible. On the question of the omission or non-
omission of the auxiliary verb different languages are divided. In
72
$ 30. 2–3.]
73
SUBJECT AND PREDICATE.
Hebrew the omission is the rule, in Greek it is allowable from the 1
earliest times and occurs also in the N.T., whereas modern Greek
has given up this liberty and always inserts the auxiliary verb.
3. Omission of the auxiliary verb. By far the most frequent
instance of omission, as in the classical language, is that of the
commonest form of the pres. indic. of the auxiliary verb, namely
the 3rd pers. sing. totiv. Still this omission never grew into a
fixed usage of the language, except in the case of a few stereotyped
phrases. Such are: dndov Őti (class.) 1 C. 15. 27, (1 Tim. 6. 7 ??),
also with reverse order of words őri ..., Salov G. 3. ; Ti suoi
(quîv) kai ooi Mt. 8. 29, Mc. 1. 24, 5. 7, L. 4. 34, 8. 28, Jo. 2. 41
(=Hebr. 27 - Judges 11. 12 etc.; there are, however,
similar classical phrases); 2 =í zpòs oé (ňuâs) Mt. 27. 4, Jo. 21. 22 f.,
quid hoc ad te (similar classical phrases),3 cp. Tí yáp jou 1 C. 5. 12,
and many other instances, infra § 50, 7; tí (uni) To operos 1 C. 15.
32, Ja. 2. 14, 16 állà Tí TOÚTWV opelos aŭtoís Demosth. 9. 69);
ŠTC ulkpov, kai ... Jo. 14. 19, 16. 16 f., 19 (ČTU M. ősov ógov H. 10. 37
O.T., but in LXX. Is. 26. 20 without this ellipse); maképlos ávnp
ös - Ja. 1. 12, R. 4. 8 O.T. (Hebr.
), so also makópiou of
TTTwyoi etc. Mt. 5. 3 etc., in this exclamation where the 3rd pers.
is used the auxiliary verb is never expressed (it is different with
the 2nd pers., Mt. 5. 11, 16. 17, and in a statement of fact, 11. 6 fom.
OTIV X ab]=L. 7. 23): cp. the classical wakápuós y dvrpěxwv k.7.d.
Aristoph. Ran. 1482. The classes of sentence where this omissions
is particularly frequent are exclamations (A. 19. 28, 34 meyaan
"Apteuls 'Epeciwv, R. 11. 33 ús åvećepeúvnta tà kpiuata attoo) and
questions (L. 4. 36 Tís ó lóyos ofTOS; A. 10. 21 tís uitía di ģv -;
Ř. 3. 1 tí TÒ Teplodòv toû 'Iovdalov, ñ rís übélela rñs trepitouñs ;)
but it is also found not infrequently in statements of fact, Mc. 14. 1
36 trávta Suvatá got, H. 9. 16 f. Tov diabńky, Dávatov úváykn dépeolau
Top Sua cuévol: Staion vào ẻm v6Kpo@s Belaía, 1 C. 10. I 3 and 2 C.
1. 18 TOTÒS • Deós, i Th. 5. 24 TLOTÒS Ó kalớv únâs (with éotiv in
2 Th. 3. 3, but the verb is wanting in FG al.), LOTOS dóyos 1 Tim.
1. 15, 3. 1, 4. 9, 2 Tim. 2. 11, Tit. 3. 8. Another class of expression
where (as in classical Greek) the omission is common consists of
impersonal phrases ; åváykn H. 9. 16 (vide supra), 9. 23, R. 13. 5 ?
(with cotí Mt. 18. ; but om. BL), úpa R. 13. II, Eóv A. 2. 29, 2C.
1 2. 4, údúvatov H. 6. 4, 18, 10. 4, 11. 6, ei Suvatov (as we say 'if
possible') Mt. 24. 24, Mc. 13. 22, R. 12. 18 (G. 4. 15 vide infra),
but with cotív Mt. 26. 39, Mc. 14. 35. Kedálalov dè H. 8. I is
classical. The verb may also be omitted even when it is not a
i Nonnus in his metrical paraphrase presents a very noteworthy various
reading: tl tuol, yúval, nè coi aŭtñ ; = tl tuoi ) col yúval; ('What is this to me or
to you ?? cp. the following words ούπω ήκει η ώρα μου). Cp. τί δέ σοι ταύτα Aristoph.
Lysistr. 511.
2 Kuhner, Gr. ii. 364 (Herodot. 5. 33 gol de xai roútoLOL TOîs apńyuaor ti ÉOTL;
Demosth. 29. 36 Tô Tị vu ka? Ta Baơáy ;).
3 0 údèv após TÒv Albvvoov ; Dem. 18. 21 oủô tv ¿OTI OTTou arpos émé.
74
[8 30. 3.
SUBJECT AND PREDICATE.
mere copula: 1 C. 15. 4ο και σώματα επουράνια (sc. εστίν “there are')
και σ, επίγεια. Other forms of είμι are omitted : εισίν with μακάριοι
vide supra, R. 11. 16 ει δε η απαρχή αγία, και το φύραμα, και
εί η ρίζα αγία, και οι κλάδοι, cp. R. 4. Ι4, 1 C. 16. 9, H. 2. II etc.
Είμί, εσμέν, εΐ are not often omitted, and the omission is even more
rare when εγώ, ημείς, οι σύ are not inserted; Mc. 12. 26 = Α. 7. 32
Ο.Τ. εγώ ο θεός 'Αβραάμ κ.τ.λ. (out LXX. has ειμί here, though it is
absent from the original Hebrew, and so Mt. 22. 32; also some MSS.
in Mc. and Acts), Jo. 14. II, 2 C. 10. 7; without a pronoun 2 C.
11. 6 ει δε και ιδιώτης το λόγο (sc. ειμί which D*E introduce, St.
Paul has been speaking of himself just before in verse 5), Ap. 15.4
ότι μόνος όσιος (sc. εί), Ph. 3. 15. "Ην 3rd sing. is aluυαgs omitted in
the phrase o (ή) όνομα L. 1. 26 f., 2. 25, 8. 41, 24. Ι3 (D ονόματι),
18 (ονόματι ΑΒ al.), Α. 13. 6 (D is different), or ου το όνομα Μο.
14. 32 (0 C), or in the still more Hebraic (cp. 1 Kings 1. I etc.)
και το όνομα αυτής (αυτού) L. 1. 5, 27; parenthetically όνομα αυτώ
(Demosth. 32. ΙΙ 'Αριστοφών όνομα αυτο) Jo. 1. 6 (with ήν inserted
*D*), 3. Ι (Ν* ονόματι, ας Luke has elsewhere in his Gospel and
almost always in the Acts (class.), cp. $ 33, 2; 38, 2; Xenophon
Mem, 3, 11. I writes ή όνομα ήν); in these phrases it nmalkes no
difference whether ήν is to be supplied (with persons) or εστίν (with
place-names). "Εσται (or εστί) is omitted in IP. 4. 17, 1 C. 15. 21,
cp. 22. "Hi only occasionally in St. Paul (2 C. 8. 11, 13). Ein is
commonly omitted in formulas expressing a wish, such as cleus 00
(sc. ο θεός είη) Mt. 16. 22, ειρήνη υμίν etc., as in classical Greek
(idaos Soph. O.C. 1477 ; cp. LXX. 2 Kings 20. 20) and in Hebrew
on) ; in doxologies such as ευλογητός ο θεός (2 C. 1. 3 etc.)
= Ηebr. B' N 779 (Ps. 66. 20 etc.) we may supply either is'
(cp. R. 1. 25 ός έστιν ευλ. κ.τ.λ., 2 C. 11. 31 και ών ευλογ., 1 P. 4. ΙΙ
ο έστιν [έστιν om. Α] η δόξα, Buttmann p. 120) or “be' (Winer, who
compares 1 Kings 10. 9 γένοιτο ευλ., Job 1. 21 είη ευλ.); the former,
however, appears to be the sense in which the N.T. writers under-
stood the phrase. "Έστω is omitted in μηδέν σοι και το δικαίω εκείνω
Mt. 27. 19 (cp. for the formula what is said above), in xápis To Deo
(class.) 2 C. 8. Ι6, 9. 15, (R. 6. 17); see further H. 13. 4, 5 τίμιος και
γάμος κ.τ.λ., R. 12. 19 H., Col. 4. 6. On the omission of είναι and
ών cp. SS 34, 5; 73, 4 and 5; 74, 2. The present or imperf. (aor.
and fut.) of είναι (γίνεσθαι, παρείναι, παραγίν.) may, after Hebrew
precedent, be omitted after idoú=797, which can stand by itself
for the verbal predicate, though it may also be introduced in
addition to the prodicate, Mt. 3. Ι7 (17. 5) και ιδου φωνή (sc. εγένετο)
εκ των ουρανών λέγουσα (but the same phrase occurs without ιδού
Α. 10. 15), L. 5. 18 και ιδού άνδρες φέροντες κ.τ.λ. (sc. ήσαν, παρησαν
as in 13. 1), cp. 5. 12, Α. 13. II και νυν ιδού χείρ κυρίου επί σε, 8.
36. On the more extended use of the ellipse of the verb vide
infra § 81.
1 On R. 1. 15 ούτως το κατ' εμέ πρόθυμος (so more correctly than -ον) sc. είμι
(οφειλέτης είμι precedes), sec $ 42, 2.
$ 30. 4.]
75
SUBJECT AND PREDICATE.
4. Absence of the subject. On the absence of the subject, where
it is not contained in the verb or in the context, the following
remarks may be made for the N.T. usage. The so-called impersonal
verbs expressing meteorological phenomena are almost entirely want-
ing. Bpexel (the vulgar word for Űel, which nowhere appears) is
personal in Mt. 5. 45, sc. Deós (Lxx. Gen. 2. 5, but é Deus uel is also
à classical phrase), impersonal in Ja. 5. 17, L. 17. 29 (Ap. 11. 6 iva
MY VETòs Bpexy, in the Vulgate simply pluat); Bpovra, 1 do tpártel etc.
are nowhere found (ý dotpari dotpártovoa L. 17. 24; the verb is
used="to shine' as in class. Greek ibid. 24. 4, cp. TrepiaOTPÁTTELV A. 9.
3, 22. 6 'to shine round about'). Equally uncommon in the N.T. are
the classical expressions in which the agent is readily supplied from the
verb in the person to whom some particular task belongs (e.g.ékýpuţe
sc ó kípus): padorioei 1 C. 15. 52 the trumpet shall sound' (Winer
compares the German 'es läutet'; in any case ó oadocykTýs cannot
be understood, the most that can be supplied is yoádzy). Peculiar
phrases are τρίτην ταύτην ημέραν άγει (it is,' as άγω ημέραν is used)
L. 24. 21, and déXec'it is enough 'Mc. 14. 41 (Anacreontea 28. 31;
but D has åt. TÒ Télos, the matter has received its completion).
Somewhat more frequent is the impersonal passive, like Latin itur
‘one goes, but this usage was never developed to any great extent
in Greck : Mt. 7. 2 év bo uétpw jetpeite uerpnOňoetav üniv (=Mc. 4. 24,
L. 6. 38), L. 6. 38 Sidote kał do Ońoetai úpîv (cp. Mt. 7.7, Mc. 4. 25),
where the writer passes at once to the 3rd pers. plur. act. with
cquivalent meaning uét pov ... dúcovoiv: 1 P. 4. 6 vek po îs cúnyyedío on,
R. 10. 10, 1 C. 15. 42 f. Oneipetal év peopą, éyeipetai év åplapoía
K.7.1., Herm. Mand. iii. 3 ÉTELOTEÚOn Tồ lóyo nov. But éppéon őri
Mt. 5. 21 does not come under this bead, since the question What
was said ?' finds its answer in the őti clause; in the same way apérrel,
apérov coté, dei, EcoTI, Eóv (éoti), éyéveto, dvéßn étrì try kapoiar
aútoll (A. 7. 23)2 followed by an infinitive are not instances of the
loss of the subject. The use of the 3rd pers. plur. act without al
subject is occasioned by the indefiniteness of the agent, but the sub
ject may also, if one likes, be denoted by oi ävOpwroL, as in L. 6. 31
kubws Oélete (va atouwoiv úpîv oi äv@p. ='that one should do unto you.'
The instances of omission in this case are not very many : Mt. 7. 16
ouléyovoiv, Mc. 10. 13 a podécepov, L. 17. 23 époüoiv, 12. 20,
Jo. 15. 6, 20. 2, A. 3. 2, Ap. 12. 6 (1 C. 10. 20).-In the formulas of
citation such as déyel 2 C. 7. 2, G. 3. 16 etc., droiv 1 C. 6. 16, H. 8. 5,
cipnke H. 4. 4, 6 Deós is to be understood (" He says '); in 2 C. 10. 10
proiv (ADE etc., ? 'one says ') appears to be a wrong reading for
pucív (B), unless perhaps a Tis has dropped out (but cp. Clem. Hom.
xi. 9 ad init.).
1 Βροντή γέγονεν talke its place in Jo. 12. 29.
2 Used impersonally in Herm. Mand. iv. 1, un åvaßalvétw OOU ÉTÈ TÌv kapolav
Tepi yuvalkos állorplas (Hebr. 3-5y 77283).
76
[S 31. 1-2.
AGREEMENT.
$ 31. AGREEMENT.
1. The arrangement (OÚvtuels) of the different parts of the
sentence, primarily of subject and predicate, involves a mutual
assimilation, inasmuch as the individual nouns and verbs are not
represented by a single abstract radical form, but only appear in
certain definite and distinctive forms, and these forms cannot differ
from each other in different parts of the sentence, where they refer
to the same thing or person. In addition to its application in the
case of subject and predicate, this law of agreement holds good also
for nouns which are bound up together into a smaller whole within
the sentence, one noun more nearly defining the other (the attribute,
apposition). The individual forms (or inflections) to which nouns and
verbs are subject express the following ideas : (a) one of the three
genders, since there are nouns which possess different forms for these
genders (adjectives), or which at least draw a distinction between
the masculine and feminine genders (designations of persons such
as Bacileús – Bogíliooa); (b) one of the two numbers (the dual no
longer existing in the N.T.)—this applies equally to nouns and
verbs; (c) one of the five cases (nouns); (d) one of the three persons
in the case of the verh, while the noun is for the 1st and 2nd persons
represented by a certain class of words—the pronouns. Any com-
bination of words where the agreement in any of these respects is
not adhered to is strictly proscribed as a solecisni, except in some
definite cases where the language admits of the violation of the
law of agreement.
2. Want of agreement in gender.-Instances of an adjectival
predicate in neuter sing. agreeing with a feminine subject are :
Mt. 6. 34 Gokemov Tm Lẻ Pợ h K.Kia altis, 2 C. 2. 6 iKavò9 Tô TotoÚT
» “TUTLLía ajin, A. 12. 3 D i8v 8Tư vp60Tóy éUTLV Tous loosaous »
ÉT cxcípnous aŭtoû. The third instance is, however, uncertain, since
the text in D may be due to corrupt conflation of different readings.
In the other two instances it appears better to regard åpkeróv and
ικανόν as imitations of the Latin satis (cp. L. 22. 38 ιδού μάχαιραι
de dúo – ikavóv éotiv, Herm. Vis. iii. 9. 3 tò đpketov rñs tpooñis satis
cibi ; on the other hand the predicate is ápkerós in 1 P. 4. 3) than
to compare the classical usage in general propositions such as oủk
úyabòv Tolukoipavín; in instances like the last the word “thing'
must be supplied, and a comparison is drawn between the general
idea contained in the subject and other things of a different charac-
ter. Kalòv tù alas Mc. 9. 50, L. 14. 34 salt is a good thing'
would also in classical Greek be expressed by something like
xpo luov oi ales; but there is an absence in the N.T. of analogous
instances of this use with a masculine or feminine subject, just as
the fuller classical forms of this neuter predicate-μάταιόν τι, χρήμα
oobóv—are also wanting. Still we find ti 'something (special),'
oứdév 'nothing' i.e. nothing worth' used as neuter predicates to a
masc. or fem. subject : G. 6. 3 ci dokei tus eivai tu undèv ûv (as in
8 31. 2.]
77
AGREEMENT.
class. Greek; beside this we have είναι τις Α. 5. 36, cp. 8. 9 = a
great man'). Further instances are τί ο Πέτρος έγένετο (τί είη ταύτα),
See $ 50, 7; 1 C. 11. 5 (the woman who is unveiled) έν έστι και το αυτό,
τη έξυρημένη, Mt. 6. 25 =L. 12. 23 η ψυχή πλειόν εστι της τροφής :
in general assertions of this kind μία και η αυτή, πλείων would be
impossible. But in particular statements the pronoun is brought
into agreement with the noun: R. 11. 5 τίς η πρόσληψις ει μη-
(German would use the neuter was ), E. 1. 18 τίς έστιν η ελπίς της
κλήσεως αυτού, 1 C. 3. Ι7 (ο ναός του θεού) οίτινές εστε υμείς (but in
10. 6. ΙΙ ταυτά [sc. κλέπται κ.τ.λ.] τινες ήτε = τοιούτοι, which would
not have been sufficiently clear, while oltot would have been
impossible; Herm. Sim. ix. 5. 3 τί έστιν [is the meaning of] η
οικοδομή). If the pronoun is the subject, in this case also there is.
agreement, which is contrary to German usage : Mt. 22. 38 αύτη,
έστιν η μεγάλη εντολή, Ph. 1. 28 ήτις (i.e. resistance, το αντικείσθαι)
έστιν αυτούς ένδειξις απωλείας, cp. Ε. 3. 13, A. 16. 12 Φιλίππους ήτις
έστι πόλις. But in assimilation of this sort Latin goes a step further
than Greelk: see 1 P. 2. Ι9 f. τούτο χάρις, ει – υποφέρει τις άλλ'
si - υπομενείτε, τούτο χάρις παρά θεώ, where the Greek regards the
two ideas of 'grace' and endurance' as too distinct to admit of
being merged into one, while the Latin translation has haec est gratia
(Buttmann, p. 112). In interpretations by means of a relative
sentence (as in 1 C. 3. 17 oltives quoted above) the prevalent form
elsewhere for the relative is the neut. sing. (which in that passage
would be intolerable: 8 έστιν υμείς), even though neither the
explanatory word nor the word explained has this gender : Mt. 27.
33 τόπον λεγόμενον Γολγ., ό (ός A al.) εστιν κρανίου τόπος (the
repetition of λεγόμενος either before or after τόπος is rightly omitted
by seeD), Mc. 15. 22 Γολγ. τόπον, ό έστιν μεθερμηνεύομενον κρ. τ.,
3. 17 Βοανηργές, ό έστιν υιοι βροντής, Jo. i. 421 etc. ; Mc. 12. 42
λεπτά δύο, ό έστιν κοδράντης ; Col. 3. Ι4 την αγάπην, και (v.1. ός, ήτις)
έστιν σύνδεσμος της τελειότητος2 (Barn. 15. 8 αρχήν ..., ό έστιν άλλου
κόσμου άρχήν); cp. Μο. 15. 16 της αυλής, ό έστιν πραιτώριον; Ε. 6. 17
την μάχαιραν –, ό έστιν ρήμα θεού; in the Apocalypse alone is there
assimilation of the relative to the subject or predic.: 4. 5 λαμπάδες,
ά (v.1. α) είσιν τα πνεύματα 5, 6, 8. This phrase 8 έστι has become
as much a stereotyped formula as the equivalent τουτ' έστι (τουτέστι).
in Mt. 27. 46 ήλι – τούτ' έστι θεέ μου κ.τ.λ., H. 2. 14 τον το κράτος
έχοντα του θανάτου, τουτέστι τον διάβολον, 7. 5, 9. II etc. But all
these instances represent not so much a classical as a Hellenistic
usage. (Τί έστι ταύτα is common to Ν.Τ. and classical Greek 8 50,
7). Οη πρώτη πάντων Mc. 12. 28 see 8 36, 12; on want of agreement.
in the constructio ad sensum vide infra 4; on the construction
1 Jo. 19. 17 τον λεγόμενον Κρανίου τόπον, δ (al. δς) λέγεται Εβραϊστι Γολγοθά is.
badly corrupted; we should read with LX, νulg. al. Κρ. τ., Εβρ. δε Γ.
2 Since this is a case not of interpretation but description, ós would be more
Correct, cp. Col. 3. 5 την πλεονεξίαν, ήτις εστίν ειδωλολατρία, where και εστι “that
is to say would be more in place than in verse 14, cp. the v.l. in E. 5. 5: The
reading 8 (BDEFG) for os in Col. 2. io is entirely wrong; in 2. 17 8 (BFG) for
ä is harsh.
78
[S 31. 2-3.
AGREEMENT.
where the subject of the sentence is composed of several words, or
in the case of an attribute to several nouns vide infra 5.
3. Want of agreement in number; neuter plurals with singular
verb. Probably there is no more striking peculiarity in the whole
of Greek syntax than the rule that where the subject is a neuter
plural the verb still remains in the singular. This rule, which in
Attic is never broken, is however not without exceptions in Homer
and in the Hellenistic language, and modern Greek has gone back
completely and exclusively to the use of the plural verb in this
instance as in others. In the N.T. (as in the LXX.) there is great
fluctuation, and very often this fluctuation extends to the readings
of the MSS. in individual passages : while in the Shepherd of
Hermas the plural is found in the majority of cases. Of neuter
words which denote persons: tékva is used with plural verb in
Mt. 10. 21 (sing. BA)=Mc. 13. 12 (sing. B), but with sing. verb in
1 Jo. 3. 10, R. 9. 8 : *Ovn with plur. verb Mt. 6. 32 (sing. EG al.),
12. 21 0.T., 25. 32 (sing. AE al.), L. 12. 30 (sing. AD al.), Acts 4.
25 0.T., 11. 1 (sing. D*), 13. 48, R. 2. 14 (sing. D'E), 15. 27, 1 C.
10. 20 ? (om. Tà Ovn BDEF al., sing. KL), G. 3. 8 O.T., 2 Tim. 4.
17 (sing. KL), Ap. 11. 18 (sing. **), 15. 4, 18. 3, 23, 21. 24, Clem.
Cor. i. 59. 4 (with sing. verb all Mss. in R. 9. 30, E. 4. 17); but
with dayjóvia the sing. verb preponderates, L. 4. 41 (plur. XC), 8.
2, 30 (plur. CF, also D with another reading, cp. 31 f.), 35 (plur. ),
38 (in verse 33 ciondov has overwhelming evidence, -Ev SU), 10. 17:
the plur. is found in Ja. 2. 19; Tveúpata_uses both constructions,
a plur. verb in Mc. 1. 27, 3. II (v.l. sing.), 5. 13 (sing. B), A. 8.7 ?
Ap. 4. 5 ? 16. 14 (v.l. with sing. partially introduced), a sing. verb
in L. 8. 2 KATOLKET, 10. 20 (v.l. daquóvia), 1 C. 14. 32 (v.l. Tveupa).
Other neuter words besides these appear with plural verb: Mt.
6. 23 tà kpíva rôs avęávovou (but with sing. verb in the corre-
sponding words in L. 12. 37), Jo. 19. 31 has first iva un velvy tà
ocata, followed by iva kotea yol aủTô Tà okéin, Jo. 10. 8 oỦk
ýkovo av (-0€V L) aŭtwv Tà apóßata. In the verses preceding the
last passage quoted a sing. verb is used with apóßara, ibid. 3
åkoúel, 4 dkolovoel, with the additional words őtı oldaolv TÌv porno
aŭtoû (because oise would have been ambiguous) and further on
another plural in verse 5; in the subsequent verses, 10 has won
where apóßata must be regarded as the subject, in 12 éoti is read
by KABLX, ciow by DT al., and so on with constant interchange
up till 16 (in 27 and the following verse there are conflicting
| readings). On the whole, the singular verb certainly is more
\ frequently used with words which have not a personal meaning
(the singular is not excluded even by the insertion of a numeral,
¿àv yévntai - ÉKATÒv mpóßata Mt. 18. 12), and is uniformly employed
with abstract words (exceptions are tà pñuata tauta with épávnoav
L. 24. 11, and perhaps épya with dúvavtai [v.l. -atal] 1 Tim. 5. 25)
and with pronouns such as ταυτα and & (Αp. 1. Ι9 ά εισιν και και
Méllel yeveo Aul; Clem. Cor. i. 42. 2 éyévouto újbótepa, cp. 27. 6
Trávta). In 1 C. 10. 11 there are two readings: Tarta SÈ TUTIKÔS
ouvéBarvey and — TÚTOL Ouvéßalvov, cp. verse 6 Tauta dè TÚTOL ýuôv
.
.:-
le
ningular wordt geoptions
are
$ 31. 3-5.]
79
AGREEMENT.
łyevnOnoav, the verb taking its number from the noun which forms
the predicate, as it does also in classical Greek as well as in Latin
(Kühner, Gr. ii.2 67).1
4. The so-called constructio ad sensum is very widespread in Greek
from early times, though without being subject to any rules; the
same construction appears in the N.T. It affects both number and
gender. The instances mainly consist of the collective words
which embrace in a singular noun the idea of a plurality of
persons : masculine words like όχλος, λαός, feminines like στρατιά,
oikia, neuters like anos, ottépua (with plur. verb in Herm. Vis.
ii. 2. 2). Instances of this construction, where a masculine plural
conforming to the sense only appears in a clause appended to the
main clause, do not give serious offence even in English: e.g.
1 C. 16. 15 oïdate tņv oikiav Etedavā, ŐT! – Taçav avtoús (PTAÇEV
tavtv is unnatural), Jo. 6. 2 ņKoloúdei öxlos molús, őri ĉo cúpouv.
The following are rather harsher constructions : L. 2. 13 años
στρατιάς ουρανίου (= αγγέλων), αινούντων τον θεόν και λεγόντων,
Α. 21. 35 ήκολούθει το πλήθος του λαού, κράζοντες Αίρε αυτόν (κραζον
DHLP) cp. 3. II. And this want of agreement in number is not
excluded even where the singular and plural words are directly
connected: A. 6. II Tolús te öxlos tûv lepéwv ÚTÝKovov (-ev AE) TÝ
TriOTEL, 25. 24 änav tò años Tŵr 'Iovdalwv évétvxóv (BH -év) uot ,
Boovies K.T.A., Mt. 21. 8 6 TÀe Tos dxlos ZompoJav, Jo. 7. 49 ) 3x os
OÛTOS ó un yevbokWY TÒV vóuov é rápatoi clow. The following also
are closely allied to ox dos etc.: td Ovn 'the heathen,' E. 4. 17 f.
Tà Ovn TTEPLATEî — , OKOTWjévou K.T.d. (1 C. 12. 2 is not an instance
of this), αι εκκλησίαι G. 1. 22 f. (which is followed by μόνον δε ακού-
OVTES hoav), and names of places : L. 10. 13 Tópw kai Eldovi
– kabńuevol, though here the other reading -val (DEG al.), since the
towns are regarded as .wholes (as in Mt. 11. 21 ff.), appears prefer-
able. Cp. $ 48, 5 (use of the personal pron. utroll and the relative).
5. If the subject consists of several coordinate words connected by
kal, the common predicate must, according to German feeling, stand
in the plural in conformity with the sense, and of course if one of the
subject words is éyó, this plural predicate must be the plural of the
1st person : L. 2. 48 ó tarp oov kåy' odvvólevou entoûjév ge,
Jo. 10. 30, 1 C. 9. 6. An additional modifying word, referring to
the subject, as oduvóuevou in the passage quoted, will, if declinable,
likewise fall into the plural, and into the masculine plural in a case
where the subject consists of a combination of masc. and fem. words
(Joseph and Mary in that passage). This is always the case if the
predicate follows the subject; on the other hand, if it precedes the
subject, it is rather the custom for the verb to stand in the singular,
and to correspond in form to the subject immediately following it :
again, if the verb is interposed between the different subjects, it is
made to correspond to the subject which has preceded it, and can
only take the number of that subject. Instances of the singular
? On the stereotyped use of the sing. idoú, ide, åye see § 33, 2 note.
80
[8 31. 5-6.
AGREEMENT
Verb occupying the first place: A. 11. 24 σωθήση συ και ο οίκός σου,
where the first word is the main subject 'thou together with thy
whole house,' similarly Jo. 2. 2 εκλήθη δε και Ιησούς και οι μαθηται
αυτού, and, So far as the participle at the head of the sentence is
concerned, A. 5. 29 αποκριθείς δε Πέτρος και οι απόστολοι είπαν (cp.
verse 21); but the singular verb is also used where the subjects are
placed on an equality: Jo. 18. 25 ήκολούθει δε το Ί.Σίμων Πέτρος και
άλλος μαθητής (cp. 20. 3, Α. 26. 30; so without exception where the
subject words are not persons, as in Mt. 5. Ι8 ο ουρανός και η γη);
L. 2. 33 ήν δε ο πατήρ αυτού και η μήτηρ θαυμάζοντες, Mt. 17. 3 ώφθη
(NBD : al. -ησαν) - Μωυσης και Ηλίας συλλαλoύντες. From the last
two instances it follows that where the predicate is divided, that
part of it which precedes the subject is in the singular, the part
which follows it is in the plural (so in the passage A. 5. 29 quoted
above). In the following instances there is a special reason for the
plural verb: Μο. 10. 35 προσπορεύονται αυτο Ιάκωβος και Ιωάνης οι
υιοί Ζεβεδαίου (the pair of brothers who from the first were thought
of together), Jo. 21. 2 ήσαν ομού Σίμων Πέτρος και κ.τ.λ., L. 23. 12
εγένοντο φίλοι και τε Ηρώδης και ο Πιλάτος, Α. 5. 24 ώς δε ήκουσαν – και
τε στρατηγός – και οι αρχιερείς (the plural has already been used
before of the same persons in verse 21; cp. 1. 13, 4. 27). Accord-
ingly in default of any reason of this kind, where the readings differ,
the singular appears to deserve the preference, as in L. 8. 19,
Α. 17. Ι4; we even have ακούσας δε Βαρνάβας και Παύλος the reading
of D in Acts 14. 14, cp. 13. 46 D. Instances of interposition of the
predicate are L. 8. 22 αυτός ανέβη εις πλοίων και οι μαθ. αυτού,
Jo. 4. 36 etc.—For adjectives and participles qualifying several
Words op. L. 10. Ι εις πάσαν πόλιν και τόπον, 1 Τh. 5. 23, on the
other hand δώρα και θυσίαι μη δυνάμεναι Η. 9. 9 (ibid. 3. 6 βεβαίαν is
an interpolation from verse 14). — The singular verb is regularly
used, if the two subjects instead of being connected by kai are
separated by ή: Mt. 5. ι8 ιώτα έν ή μία κεραία ου μή παρέλθη, 12. 25,
18. 8, E. 5. 5 (especially if the verb precedes as in 1 C. 14. 24);
G. 1. 8 εάν ημείς ή άγγελος εξ ουρανού ευαγγελίζηται (it would be
impossible to include the two subjects in -ζώμεθα). An exception is
Ja. 2. 15 εαν αδελφός ή αδελφή γυμνοί υπάρχωσιν (occasioned by the
adjective, the singular of which, γυμνός or γυμνή, would have been
harsh).
6. Solecisms (in the Apocalypse). In distinction from all other
New Testament writings, and in particular from those of the Apostle
St. John, the Apocalypse exhibits a multitude of the most remark-
able solecisms, which depend in the main upon the neglect of the
laws of agreement. Thus we have in 1. 5 από Ιησού Χρ., ο μάρτυς και
πιστός, ο πρωτότοκος των νεκρών και ο άρχων των βασιλέων της γης, το
αγαπώντι ημάς κ.τ.λ. (the datives on account of αυτώ in verse 6 accord-
ing to Winer), 11. 4 ουτοί είσιν αι δύο έλαίαι και αι δύο λυχνίαι αι
ενώπιον του κυρίου της γης εστώτες (*ABC; εστωσαι NP), 12. 5 και
έτεκεν υιόν άρσεν (ΑΡ; άρρενα NB, άρσενα Ρ), δς μέλλει κ.τ.λ. (the cor-
rection -eva is no improvement; a better alteration would be to strike
out υιόν), 14. 19 έβαλεν εις την ληνόν του θυμού του θεού τον μέγαν (την
8 31. 6.]
8Ι
AGREEMENT,
μεγάλην Ν). Op. 2. 20 (nom. in apposition with acc.), 3. 12 (nom.
for gen.), 6. 1 (the same, as a v.l.), 7.4 (nom. for acc.), 8. 9 (for gen.),
9. Ι4 (for dat.), 14. 12 (for gen., which & reads), 20. 2 (for acc.): 7.9
(όχλος ... εστωτες ... περιβεβλημένους ; the acc. is dependent on είδος
which stands at the beginning of the verse, the nom. on kai idoú
which follows είδον, Winer), 5. τιf. (λέγοντες following φωνήν αγγέλων
and ήν ο αριθμός αυτών μυριάδες κ.τ.λ.; similar anacolutha with λέγων
or -οντες in 4. Ι, 11. 15, 14. 7: and with v.1. 11. Ι, 19. 6), 21. 9 with
v.l. It has even been fixed as a rule for this writer that an apposi-
tional phrase following a noun in any case stands in the nominative,
although scribes have shown a strong inclination to correct these sole-
cisms.1 The isolated cases of anacoluthon of this kind which appear in
other writings of the N.T. should be regarded either as excusable or as
due to a corrupt text. Jo. 1. Ι4 ο λόγος σαρξ εγένετο – και εθεασάμεθα
την δόξαν αυτού – πλήρης (-ρη D) χάριτος και αληθείας. In this passage
the word in question is one which to a remarkably great extent, both
in the N.T. and also in papyrus documents, appears as indeclinable :
thus A. 6. 5 άνδρα πλήρης (-ρη BC2) πίστεως, 3 πλήρεις (-ρης AEHP)
πνεύματος, 19. 28 γενόμενοι πλήρεις (-ρης AEL) θυμού, Mc. 8. 19
κοφίνους πλήρεις (-ρης AFGM) κλασμάτων, 2 Jo. 8 μισθόν πλήρη
(-pns L); the only passages where it is declined in all MSS. (no
genitive following it) are Mt. 14. 20, 15. 37 ( εις), Mc. 4. 28 a v.1.
(-ρη), 6. 43 a v.l. (τρεις); cp. Papyr. Berol. no. 13. 8 άπερ απέσχαμεν
πλήρης, 81. 27 ας παραδώσω πλήρης, 270. 9, 373. 13, 21; Grenfell-
Hunt, Pap. ii., p. 107 διά το πλήρης αυτόν απεσχηκέναι, 118 (perhaps
also 117, where πλήρη is given at the end of a line).2-In Philipp. 2. I
εί τις παράκλησις -, εί τι παραμύθιον-, εί τις κοινωνία –, εί τις σπλάγχνα
και οικτιρμοί, εί τι (if it avails ought, cp. 8 31, 2) ought to be, as it
seems, written throughout.-Ja. 3. 8 την γλώσσαν ουδείς δύναται
δαμάσαι, ακατάσχετον κακόν, μεστή ιού (Tisch. puts a colon after δαμ.,
malking the following clause independent, sc. έστίν).-L. 24. 47
κηρυχθήναι μετάνοιαν – αρξάμενοι (-ένων D correctly, -ενον AC3FH al.)
and A. 10. 37 οίδατε το γενόμενον ρημα καθ' όλης της Ιουδαίας,
άρξάμενος από της Γαλιλ. (άρξ. γαρ AD, which is no improvement και
-ενον correctly LP; but the whole clause άρξ. α. τ. Γ. is perhaps
taken from L. 23. 5). For other instances cp. g 81.
1 Nestle, Philol. Sacra 7, Einftihrung in das Griech. Ν.Τ. 90 f. Alkin to this is
what may be called the indeclinable use of λέγων or λέγοντες in the LΧΧ. = DN9:
Gen. 15. 1, 22. 30, 38. 13, 45. 16 etc., Winer. On the practice of many translators
of putting words in apposition with any of the oblique cases in the nominative,
see Nestle, Philol. Sacra 7. (Nestle also conjectures in Ap. 1. 4 avevuátwv Tà
ενώπιον του θρόνου in place of the readings των, α, α εστιν ου εισιν, just as in 5. 13
8 alone has preserved the true reading το instead of o or 8 έστιν. In 2. 13
he reals εν ταις ημέραις 'Αντίπα ο μάρτυς μου ... ός.)
2"IIańons is also used indeclinably in the Lxx., e.g. Num. 7. 13 F, 19 X,
20 BA*, Job 21. 24 all Mss., Sir. 19. 23 B*. Cp. the phrase 'eine Arbeit voller
Fehler.'" (E. Nestle.)
82
[S 32. 1-3.
GENDER AND NUMBER.
SYNTAX OF THE NOUN.
§ 32. GENDER AND NUMBER.
1. The neuter of the adjective or participle is occasionally used
with reference to persons, not only in phrases like Tò yevvóuevov
L. 1. 35 “that which is to be born,' cp. tò tékvov, but also as in
Jo. 17. 2 - áons capkós, íva trâv 8 dédwkas atro, dúo el atroîs, where
men are first comprised under the collective name cápě, then under
the neuter mây, and finally (in aútoîs) the usual mode of designation
appears. Cp. Jo. 6. 37 (à similar instance), 1 Jo. 5. 4 (Tây Tó; Tâs
ó has been previously used in verse 1); further H. 7. 7 Tò élastov
υπό του κρείττονος ευλογείται, for ο ελάττων ΟΥ οι ελάττονες, in order
to represent the thought in a more abstract and so in a more general
form. A similar collective use of the neut. sing. appears in classical
Greek (Kühner ii.2 13). Elsewhere the neut. plur. is used :
1 C. 1. 27 f. Tà Loà Top xóa ILO – Tà áo evị T. K. - Tà Loxops, where
the sing. would have been wrong because of the idea of unity which
it would imply—since the uwpoi etc. do not form a definite section-
and moreover with the masculine the emphasis would not have lain
so strongly upon the abstract quality of foolishness etc. Cp. further
G. 3. 22 Tà Távta, which is not so strong as toùs Távtas, which might
also have stood, závta Jo. 12. 32 *D. (In classical Greek Tà
Deúyovta Xenoph. Anab. 7, 3. II ap. Winer; távra tà ovußeßiaouéva
Dem. 8. 41.)
2. The feminine appears to stand in place of the neuter, in
consequence of a literal rendering from the Hebrew, in the O.T.
quotation Mt. 21. 42 = Mc. 12. 11 Tapà kypſov éyéveto aŰTn kaí totiv
Davjaotń, from Ps. 118. 23=Hebr. O 'this.'
. 3. The so-called collective use of the masc. sing. (on the neuter
sing. vide supra l) is found in R. 3. I tí TÒ TEPLOCÒN TOû 'Iovdalov;
i.e. What advantage has the Jew as Jew?' (which every individual
Jew has ipso facto); cp. 2. 17-29, where the individual has already
been selected as the representative of the community. We have
just the same use with names of nations and rank, 'the soldier,' the
Jew'; Latin miles, Romanus etc.; in classical Greek it is less common
(Thucyd. 6. 78 Tòv Eupakóolov, to 'Aonvaiw). Other instances are
Mt. 12. 35 å åyalòs ävOpwnos, R. 13. 8. tÒ dyabòv épyov, 1 P. 4. 18
ó díkalos - ó doeßńs, R. 14. I Tòv do Oevoûvta. But in Ja. 2. 6 TÒV
Ttwxóv refers to the example of verse 2: also in 5. 6 a single
instance is thought of in τον δίκαιον, while 1 C. 6. 5 διακρίναι ανά
μέσον του αδελφού αυτού is an incorrect expression, which is easily
intelligible (since åvà mécov of course presupposes more persons
than one), for του αδ. α. και του ετέρου αδελφού (on account of verse I
Toluộ tis ... Kpíveo dai, where the language refers primarily to the
plaintiff). Cp. LXX. Gen. 23. 15, Winer $ 27, 1.
§ 32. 4-5.] GENDER AND NUMBER2TY
. . 83
4. Of another character is the use of the sing. of objects, which
belong individually to several persons, where several persons are
spoken of, as we also say they shook their heads' [die Köpfe) or
they shook their head' [den Kopf), i.e. everyone his own head,
where the insertion of 'everyone would be quite superfluous. In
Greek, including N.T. Greek, the plural is usual in such cases; but
deviations from this are permitted in classical as in N.T. Greek :
A. 25. 24 iva Eupňowvtal Thv kepalń (Vulg. capita), L. 1. 66 ?OEVTO
TTÁVTES Év TỶ kapoia (DL Tais kopoíaus) avrwv, Mc. 8. 17 TTET WpWuévnu
έχετε την καρδίαν υμών, Ε. 6. 14 περιζωσάμενοι την οσφύν υμών,
Αp. 6. ΙΙ εδόθη αυτοίς στολή λευκή (but έσθής in L. 24. 4 is collective
raiment,' as is usual with this word [eo Oñoeol ACL al.]). The
sing. is always used in the Hebraic periphrastic expressions ditò
TT POOÁTOU TẬv matépwv A. 7. 45, katd. pó WTOV TÁVtWv L. 2. 31, did
otóuaros zártwv A. 3. 18 (21); also Scà yeupòs is used with a plural
word as in A. 2. 23, but here we have also the conceivable use of dià
Tŵv xelpôv with a singular; êk tîs x. aŭtwv Jo. 10. 39.
5. The plural is used with reference to a single person by a
generalising mode of expression in Mt. 2. 20 TeO výkao i oſ [INTOŮVTES
Tv Yuxvv Toû maldiov, namely Herod (verse 19); the plural implies
the thought, there is nothing more to fear, since with Herod's death
all are dead who etc. More peculiar is the use of the plural in the
case of a certain group of substantives. This is partly due to the
influence of Hebrew; thus aiôves is used in H. 1. 2, 11. 3, 1 Tim. 1.
17 (?) for the world,' in L. 1. 33 and often for eternity' (esp. in
the phrase eis toùs alwvas tûv aiúvwv G. 1. 5 etc.)= ziy:
oúpavoi=biyan, but in most writers this plural is only used of
heaven in the figurative sense as the seat of God (beside the sing.
which is used in the same sense), whereas in the literal sense of
the word the sing. prevails, except where, in accordance with the
Jewish conception, several heavens are distinguished (E. 4. 10
ÚTepávw TÁVtWV Tôv oúp., cp. 1. 10, Col. 1. 16, 20, H. 1. 10 0.T.,
4. 14, 7. 26, 2 P. 3. 5, 7, 10, 12, 13; also probably ai Suvámecs Twv
oúpavov Mt. 24. 29 = Mc. 13. 25=Lc. 21. 26). Thus we always
have BuƠ LÀcáo Tv oỦpavlv Mt. 3. 2 etc., ỏ To.The juv ở ev (To[s)
oủp. 5. 16 etc.; similarly in Luke 10. 20 tà óvómara úpôv éyyéypantai
ev Tous oẻp. (Tổ oỦpavị D), 12, 23 ngapov #v To@s oộp., A. 2. 34,
7. 56; in Paul 2 C. 5. 1, E. 3. 15, 6. 9 (Hoủpavo), Ph. 3. 20, Col. 1.
5, 4. i (oúpavợ **ABC), 1 Th. 1. 10; i P. 1. 4 (oúpavộ ); (John
never has the plural; also in the Apoc. it only occurs in 12. 12);
in Mt. the passage 24. 31 dm'äkpwv oủpavớv éws ökpwv aŭtwv runs
counter to the rule given above (Mc. 13. 27 has the sing. here), but
not 3. 16 f., cp. Mc. 1. 10 f. eidev oxucouévous toùs oủpavoús -, kai
pwvÉK Tôv oúpavwv (L. 3. 21 f. has the sing., but cp. A. 7. 56).
Further oiktipuoi=biyanto in Paul, R. 12. I etc.; the sing. only occurs
in Col. 3. 12 (plur. K); cp. infra 6. The following plurals agree
with the classical use: ανατολαί, δυσμαι east and west Mt. 2. 1, 8. ΙΙ
etc., but only in the formula dard (éws) ávatodôv, dvouw, on the other

* GENDER AND NUMBER-CASES. [S 32. 5-6. S 33.
hand we have εν τη ανατολη Mt. 2. 2, 9; από ανατολής (Β -ων) is also
found beside από δυσμών Αp. 21. 13, α. ανατολής (Α -ων) ηλίου 7. 2,
16. Ι2 (δυσμή never occurs, as in class. Greek δυσμαι is practically
the only form). Always εκ δεξιών, εξ αριστερών or ευωνύμων και εν τοις
δεξιούς Μο. 16. 5, εις τα δεξιά μέρη Jo. 21. 6; beside these we have
έν δεξια R. 8. 34, Ε. 1. 20 etc., Sc. χειρί (classical use is similar).
Cp. τα μέρη “the region' Mt. 2. 22 etc., επέκεινα beyond A. 7. 43
(a wrong reading from the LΧΧ. ; it should be επί τα μέρη). Τα
άγια, τα άγια των αγίων parts of the temple (or tabernacle) H. 9.
2 f. are used as well as το άγιον in verse 1 (τα αγια τ. αγίων in LXX.
1 Kings 8. 6). Πύλαι (class.) is only so used in πύλαι "Αιδου Mt.
16. 18 (LXX. Sap. Sal. 16. 23'; class. ), elsewhere the sing. is used
for one gate; similarly θύρα for one door (class. often θύραι), cp.
αι θύραι πάσαι Α. 16. 26, so that Jo. 20. 19 f. θυρών, and perhaps
also A. 5. 19, 23, 21. 30 are to be understood of several doors; the
plural is used in the expression étì Búpais Mt. 24. 33, Mc. 13. 29,
cp. Ja. 5. 9 προ των θυρών iguratively, προ της θύρας Α. 12. 6
literally (but ibid. 5. 23 προ των θυρών in a similar connection).
Κόλποι (class.) is used in L. 16. 23 εν τοις κόλπους (το κόλπω D)
αυτού ('Αβραάμ), the sing. in verse 22. (Ιμάτια means clothes
including έμάτιον and χιτών; but is used inaccurately = ιμάτιον in
Jo. 13. 4, 19. 23, also probably in A. 18. 6). The use of ápyúpia
for pieces of money' Mt. 26. 15 is not usual in classical Greek;
όψώνια wages' L. 3. Ι4 etc. is Hellenistic. Αίματα (in classical
poets) Ap. 18. 24 B (but KACP read alua) is blood shed by several
martyrs και Jo. 1. 13 ουκ εξ αιμάτων is used of the substance from
which a man is begotten (Eurip. Ion 693, Winer). The names of
feasts are as in classical Greek (Διονύσια, Παναθήναια) in the plural:
έγκαίνια, γενέσια (τα άζυμα in Μe. 14. Ι το πάσχα και τα άζυμα, but
D omits και τα άζ.; strictly η εορτή των αζύμων or αι ημέραι τ. άξ.);
also γάμοι a nmarriage-feast' Mt. 22. 2, Lc. 12. 36 etc. (classical):
but the sing. is used in Mt. 22. 8 etc. Διαθήκαι Ε. 2. 12, R. 9. 4
ACK (η διαθήκη BDE al., as always elsewhere ; cp. the classical
συνθήκαι).
6. The plural of abstract expressions is found in Greek in a manner
that appears strange to us, not only in poets, but also not infre-
quently in an elevated prose style, being used to indicate the
individual concrete manifestations of the abstract quality. In the
N.T. the epistolary style occasionally presents a similar usage :
2 C. 12. το έρις (v.1 έρεις, cp. 8 8, 3), ζήλος (v.1. ζήλοι), θυμοί, έριθείαι,
καταλαλιαι, ψιθυρισμοί, φυσιώσεις, ακαταστασίαι cp. G. 5. 20, τας
πορνείας 1 C. 7. 2, υποκρίσεις, φθόνους, καταλαλιάς 1P. 2. I cp. 4. 3,
προσωπoλημψίαις Ja. 2. Ι, αισχύνας Jd. 13 ; also θανάτοις “mortal
dangers' 2 C. 11. 23 (μνήμαι Ηerm. Sim. vi. 5. 3).
16. 7.ρισμοί, φS8, 3), όλο
8 33. THE CASES-NOMINATIVE AND νοCATIVE.
1. The nominative as the case of the name (όνομαστική = nomina-
tivus) appears to stand occasionally, where a proper name is
introduced, without regard to the construction, in place of the case.
$ 33. 1-3.]
85
NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE.
which is strictly required. Thus Jo. 13. 13 φωνείτε με και διδάσκαλος
και κύριος, but here the nom. has mainly a vocative character,
vide inf. 4: Αp. 9. ΙΙ όνομα έχει (άν. έχει is omitted by the
Latin Vulgate and may be supplied from the preceding words)
'Απολλύων. Cp. Xenoph. Oecon. 6. Ι4 τους έχοντας το σεμνόν όνομα
TOÛTO TÒ Kalós te kåyaðós (other instances in Lobeck, Phryn. 517. 1).
But elsewhere the name is regularly assimilated to the case : Mt.
1. 21, 25 καλέσεις το όνομα αυτού Ιησούν, Mc. 3. 16 επέθηκεν όνομα
το Σίμωνι Πέτρον (only Δ and the Latin versions have Πέτρος): and
without exception in the phrase ονόματι “by name' e.g. A. 27. I
εκατοντάρχη ονόματι Ιουλίω: cp. infra 2. It is accordingly incredible
that the Mount of Olives should be translated by 6 Έλαιών and
that this word should be used as indeclinable in L. 19. 29, 21. 37
όρος (acc.) το καλούμενον ελαιών, but we must write έλαιών (το όρος
των ελ. in L. 19, 37 etc.), and in the single passage where we dis-
tinctly have the other form, A. 1. 12 (ώρους του καλουμένου) έλαιώνος
we must correct the text to έλαιών (as also in Joseph. Αnt. Jud.
7, 9. 2), see 8 10, 5.
2. The nominative occasionally stands in a parenthesis inter-
rupting the construction : thus Jo. 1. 6 εγένετο άνθρωπος –, Ιωάνης
όνομα αυτώ (ήν is read before όν. by s*D*), cp. 3. Ι (where s* has
Νικόδημος ονόματι ; there is a more detailed expression introduced
by ήν δε in 18. το; cp. also Ap. 6. 8, 8. ΙΙ, 9. ΙΙ; a similar classical
use, $ 30, 2); for this elsewhere with a more normal adjustment to
the construction « ovoua – (often in Lc., but in Acts only at 13. 6;
oŮ tò óv. with v.l. a óv. Mc. 14. 32) or óvóuatı (Luke, Gospel and
Acts) is used. The instances in statements of time are more
strilking: L. 9. 28 εγένετο δε μετά τους λόγους τούτους, ώσει ημέραι
οκτώ, και παραλαβών κ.τ.λ., Mt. 15. 32 ότι ήδη ημέραι (ημέρας 8)
τρείς προσμένουσίν μοι. So also we may accordingly interpret Α.
5. 7 έγένετο δε, ως ωρών τριών διάστημα, και η γυνή κ.τ.λ., and perhaps
too (as Bengel and Winer) L. 13. Ι6 ήν έδησεν ο Σατανάς, ιδού δέκα
και οκτώ έτη.
3. The double nominative (nom. of the subject and nom. of the
predicate) is found in the N.T. as in Attic, except that occasionally
in place of the second nominative eis with the accusative is used
after a Hebrew model (as it is also used instead of the second
accusative with corresponding active verbs, $ 34, 5). This con-
struction appears with είναι (more precisely with the fut. έσομαι,
which has a certain relation to γίνομαι) and γίνεσθαι, but chiefly in
quotations : έσονται εις σάρκα μίαν Mt. 19. 5 Ο.Τ. = Ηebr. 2, εγενήθη
είς κεφαλήν γωνίας 21, 42 Ο.Τ., έσται τα σκολια εις ευθείας L. 3. 5
0.T., 2 C. 6. 18 O.T.; seldom except in quotations, as in L. 13. 19
εγένετο εις (om. εις D) δένδρον, Jo. 16. 20 η λύπη υμών εις χαράν
1 The use of the nom. with ιδού, ίδε (ίδε ο αμνός του θεού Jo. 1. 29 etc.) can
only appear irregular, if one recalls the original meaning of the words.
Already in Attic writers idoú (with this accent) has become a particle = ecce,
and idé at any rate has become stereotyped like dye and pépe, so that it is joined
with a plural word (Mt. 26. 65 etc. ; άγε οι λέγοντες Ja. 4. 13, cp. 5. 1).
86
[S 33. 3-4.
NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE.
yevňoetal (= METUOTPUĐňoetol, with which the use of eis is not
remarkable), Ap. 8. II (with 16. 19 éyéveto eis opía jépn cp. Scalpelv
εις : with l Th. 3. 5 εις κενόν γένηται ο κόπος ημών cp. the Attic είς
κέρδος τι δράν). The combination λογίζεσθαι (passive) εις is also
not Attic, being taken from Lxx. Gen. 15. 6 éloyíó on aútø eis
Sekalogúvny; in addition to its use in that quotation we have eis
oỦSèv loyco Oñval A. 19. 27 (the same combination in Is. 40. 17),
Tà tékva loyiceTal eis otrépua R. 9. 8, cp. 2. 26 (for nothing, for a
seed; cp. class. oỦdèv cîvai, tò pindèv civai); from this use comes the
phrase čuoi eis é házioróv éati i C. 4. 3.
4. The language has created a special case for address, namely
the vocative; this is limited, it is true, to the singular, and even
there is not in all cases distinguished in form from the nominative.
This case appears also in the N.T. (ådeloé L. 6. 42, tátep Mt. 6. 9),
but generally without the accompaniment which it usually has in
Attic, namely the interjection &. In most cases where this å is
found in the N.T. it expresses emotion : Mt. 15. 28 â (om. D)
yúvai, peyáản cov Tiotis (yúva. in L. 22. 57, Jo. 2. 4, 4. 21 etc.),
17. 17 = Mc. 9. 19, L. 9. 41) & yeved ÖTLOTOS (on the nom. vide
infra), L. 24. 25, A. 13. 10 & aanpys (cp. inf.) K.7.de (R. 11. 33
Búbos Toútov is not an address, but an exclamation, for which
purpose å [in this case also written ő] is likewise used in Attic),
Ĝ. 3. I, 1 Tim. 6. 20. With a less degree of emotion : û äv pune
R. 2. 1, 3, 9. 20, Ja. 2. 20 (av Opwme without å in L. 12. 14, 22. 58,
60); it is found without any sense of emotion in the Attic manner
only in the Acts: å Ocóside 1. 1 in L. 1. 3 kpátiote Ocópide, as
the author of the work περί ύψους has the address Ποστούμιε
píltate; on the other hand Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the work
Tepi Tôv åpx. Øntópwv has å kpátio TE 'Appale; in any case Oeóbile
without either o or kpáTLOTE would be much too bald), 18. 14 Å
(ävdpes) ’Iovdaîou (Gallio is speaking), 27. 21 & övdpes (while ävopes
àdelpoi, övdpes 'Aonvalou etc. are used even in this book without a,
and even the simple ő vopes 7. 26, 14. 15 etc., 27. 10, 25), ó Baordell
according to the witnesses supporting the ß text in A. 26. 13 (7).-
From the earliest times (the practice is as old as Homer) the
nominative has a tendency to usurp the place of the vocative.
In the N.T. this occurs in two instances : on the one hand, with
adjectives standing without a substantive or with a substantive
whose vocative is not distinguishable from the nomin.: Mt. 17. 17,
Mc. 9. 19, L. 9. 41 yeved ÖTLOTOS (but D in Mc. and Lc. has
är iOTE), A. 13. 10 ü rýpns (with which may be compared & SvoTuxńs
in Menander); äppwv L. 12. 20 (a variant -ov has little support),
1 C. 15. 36 (ditto); 1-on the other hand, where the article is
introduced, which must naturally be followed by the nominative.
The latter use of the nom. for voc. is also found already in Attic,
C.g. Aristoph. Acharn. 242 póül els tò apóo dev oliyov ý kavnpópos,
.e. you (who are) the basket bearer, Ran. 521 Tais (you there,
1 Even matńp is read by BD in Jo. 17. 21, and by AB in verses 24, 25,
Buyátnp AB'D etc. Jo. 12. 150.T., L. 8. 48 BKL, Mt. 9. 22 DGL, Mc. 5. 34 BD.
$ 33. 4. & 34. 1.] NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE.
87
the lad I mean) åkoloúdei ; in prose où ó mpeoßúratos, & dvopes of
Tapóvtes, oi oikétal, IIpóćeve kai oi äldoi oi tapóvres (Xen. Anab. i.
5. 16), and esp. with participles, one half of which do not form a
vocative at all.1 And so in the N.T. we have L. 8. 54 ♡ mais
éyelpov, Mc. 5. 41, 9. 25, L. 12. 32 un poßoü, TÒ Mikpòv Toluviov,
11. 39 úneis oi Papioaloc,2 R. 14. 4 où... 8 kpívwv, Col. 3. 8 ff. ai
γυναίκες – οι άνδρες – τα τέκνα etc. = υμείς μεν αι γυν.—υμείς δε οι
ävdpes, Ap. 18. 20 oủpavề kai oi äylou k.7.1.3 In all these instances
we have not so much a simple address as a more definite indication
of the person addressed. But the N.T. (and the Lxx.) have extended
this usage still further; in particular (Ⓡ) Océ is not common (only
in Mt. 27. 46 in a translation ; also rare in LXX.), the phrase ó Deos
being used instead, L. 18. 11, H. 1. 8 O.T., 10. 9 O.T. etc., kúpie ó
Deós Ap. 15. 3, and so also ó Tatńp Mt. 11. 26, R. 8. 15, ó domórns
Ap. 6. 10, o kúpiós pov kai ó Deós jov Jo. 20. 28 (o didáo kalos kai
ó kúpios 13. 13, vide supra 1); further Ó Baoileús Ap. 15. 3, Mt.
27. 29 (BD al. Bao lleu, Mc. 15. 18 (here xBD al. Booideu), Jo. 19. 3
(Booileû x), since this Bao. Tôv 'lovdaiwv is not a correct title, but
a special designation, whereas the mode of addressing king Agrippa
in A. 26. 7 etc. is and must be Baoileu.
$ 34. THE ACCUSATIVE.
1. The use of the accusative as the complement of transitive
verbs, which is the most ordinary function of this case, in the
N.T. gives occasion only for a few special remarks, since in the
first place transitives and intransitives are not so sharply distin-
guished in N.T. Greek as in older Greek, and again other cases
besides the accusative offer rival claims to be used as the comple-
ment of the verb. The following verbs occasionally appear as
transitives. Mévelv 'to await,' A. 20. 5, 23 (ÚTOMÉVEL 1 C. 13. 7 etc.,
also in the sense of 'to await the help of God,' Clem. Cor. i. 34. 8, à
quotation, for which Lxx. uses the dat.; teplévelv A. 1. 4, åvauévelv
1 Th. 1. 10). Deuyeu "to avoid' (opposed to SLÚKELV 'to strive after'
anything), 1 C. 6. 18, 1 Tim. 6. II, 2 Tim. 2. 22 (with Hebraic con-
struction d. årò in the same sense 1 C. 10. 14); "to flee before,' 'to
escape,' only in H. 11. 34, čovyov otómata uaxaipns as in class.
Greek, elsewhere 0. årò as in Mt. 3. 7 buyelv åtto tñs peldotons
οργής (which in class. Greek is only used of places, φεύγειν από της
Ekúlans Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 31, cp. Herm. Mand. xi. 14 peuyeu di'
aŭroll 'from him'); ekocúyelv trans. in L. 21. 36 etc.; åttoo. 2 P. 2. 20
(ibid 1. 4 with genit. ? see $ 36, 9). Duláoseotal 'to shun,'trans, as
in classical Greek, A. 21. 25 etc., as well as with åtò L. 12. 15
Krüger, Gramm. $ 45, 2. Kühner, Gr. ii.2 41 ff.
So also L. 6. 25 oval ynîv, oi ¿UTTET Mouévol, is regular, since oi èun. is equi-
valent to a vocative.
3 Without the article we have A. 7. 42 0.T. oikos 'Iopaña = (únels) ó olk. 'I.
(see on the omission of the article § 46, 9).
88
[S 34. 1.
ACCUSATIVE.
(Xenoph. Cyr. ii. 3. 9), cp. DudáTTELV AUTÒV ÅTÒ 1 Jo. 5.21.1 Coßelodau
to fear,' usually transitive, takes åró after Hebrew usage in Mt. 10.
28. appeîv is only intrans. (in classical Greek also trans.).
Oavuágelv, usually intrans., is trans. in L. 7. 9 _Daúnao ev aŭtov (om.
aút. D), A. 7. 31 TÒ Öpana (om. TÒ õp. A). Jd. 16. Aloxúveolar is
intrans. (with ảnó in 1 Jo. 2. 28), but étalo XÚv. is transitive, cp.
¿vtpérreo Dai infra 2. 'Elecîv (olktpélv R. 9. 15 O.T.) trans. Klabely
mostly intrans., trans. in Mt. 2. 18 O.T. (Lxx. is different), L. 23.
28 according to D (in the other Mss. it takes étrí with accus.).
IIevoeîv is trans. only in 2 C. 12. 21 (and in L. 23. 28 according to
D). Kórteodau 'to bewail' is trans. in L. 8. 52 (class.), and takes
étí with acc. in Ap. 1. 7, 18. 9. Eidokelv 'to take pleasure in' is
trans. only in Mt. 12. 18 0.T. in **B (al. eis, év), H. 10. 6, 8 0.T.
(the Lxx. here has noélnoas, elsewhere however it uses eúd. transi-
tively e.g. Ps. 51. 18). (Atropeîolal to occurs in A. 25. 20 KABHP,
CEL insert eis; nowhere else in the N.T. is the accus. found after
dr. or diam. [occasionally in classical Greek after år.), which take ev
or repí, both of which constructions occur in Herm. Sim. viii. 3. I).
Kavyaolau 'to boast,' mainly intrans., is trans. in 2 C. 9. 2, 11. 30
(with acc. of the thing). Blaoonuelv is often transitive (a late use, not
Attic), eis tiva the Attic construction is found in Mc. 3. 29 (om. eis
D), L. 12. 10.2 (Y Bpíselv is only used transitively.) 'Ouvúval is no
longer used with accusative of that by which one swears, except in
Ja. 5. 12; elsewhere it takes ¿v (eis) = Hebr. a Mt. 5. 34 etc., or (as
is found as early as class. Greek) Kutá TIVOS H. 6. 13, 16; but
ópkiselv tivá (évopk.) still keeps this accus. Mc. 5. 7, A. 19. 13, 1 Th.
5. 27 (opki w Dópk. 7 CE katà with genit. Mt. 26. 63, Herm. Sim.
ix. 10. 5). Oplaußevely to triumph' is used transitively='to lead in
triumph' in Col. 2. 15, and somewhat differently in 2 C. 2. 14 ('to
cause to go in triumph as a victor'; the use in the first passage may
be paralleled by Plutarch Comp. Thes. et. Rom. 4). Maonteúelv (a
late word) is intrans., 'to be a disciple,' in Mt. 27. 57 v.l., but the
passive éjoonteúon is read by HCD : trans., 'to make a disciple,' in
A. 14. 21, Mt. 13. 52 (pass.), 28. 19. 'Eutropeúeodau, a middle verb, is
intrans. in Ja. 4. 13 : trans. 'to deceive' in 2 P. 2. 3 (so čutrolâv
Soph. Ant. 1050). 'Iepovpyelv (a late word) TÒ eùayyéliov (like
Ovõlav) occurs in' R. 15. 16.3 'Yo tepely in the sense of 'to be
wanting' (without a case in Jo. 2. 3, cp. Dioscor. 5. 86), is trans. in
Mc. 10. 21 év QE Úgtepeî xBC al. (cou AD al.), cp. LXX. Ps. 22. I (else-
In L. 12. 15 (ópate kał ourdoceo de ård) the words kal pul. are wanting in the
Syriac version, and this same sense of 'to beware of' already belongs to ópâv =
βλέπειν από, Mc. 8. 15 οράτε (on. D, these two verbs cannot stand together) βλέπετε
ård, 12. 38 (on the other hand BXÉT. is also used transitively 'to look at' Mc.
13. 9, 1 C. 1. 26 etc., and perhaps Ph. 3. 2 unless here it = puldooeode). We
also have mpoo éxELV ÅTÒ Mt. 16. Ő (opâte kal at poo Exete Ård, where ópâte kal is
wanting in the Latin witnesses).
22 P. 2. 12 ły ols åyvoollow Brao onuoâvres 'railing at those things in which
they know nothing' (the idea is expressed more intelligibly in Jd. 10).
3'IVáokeo bal draprías H. 2. 17 is noticeable on account of the object, since
the classical use is (¿Flixáok. Debv 'to dispose Him to mercy towards one.' But
a similar use ( = expiare) is also found in Lxx. and Philo.
$ 34. 1-2.]
89
ACCUSATIVE.
where the Lxx. also has the dat. Buttm. 147; $ 37, 3). The following
are transitive in virtue of their composition with katá (as in class.
Greek): karaſpaßeúelv Col. 2. 18, kataywvíceo da. H. 11. 33, KATA-
codiceo Dai A. 7. 19 (to get the better of' etc.): with Siá (class.)
dla Topete bai, diépxeo Bal, Sianleiv in Lc., Acts, and Hebr. (in one
sentence we have beside this the construction with diá and the
genit., H. 11. 29 diéßnoav Tiv Oálacoav ós dià Empâs yñs): with
παρά παρέρχεσθαι (including Mc. 6. 48) : with περί περιέρχεσθαι τας
oikias 1 Tim. 5. 13 (class.), teplotavaí tiva A. 25. 7 (class.), repúyelv
(also intrans. $ 53, 1) Mt. 9.35, 23. 15, Mc. 6. 6 (with v.l. év in Mt.
4. 23): with mpó a poépxeo Dai Lc. 22. 47 (D aponyev), =class. pon-
yelo Oai Tivi; cp. Lat. praeire aliquem;? with útép ÚTepéyelv Ph. 4. 7 (cp.
$36, 8).
2. Verbs with variable construction. Es (kal@s) TOLEîv in Attic
take the accus. in all cases, similarly KaK@s (Trollà kard) TOLETV Tiva
and the like; but in L. 6. 27 we have kalớs TOLETTE TOTS — , Mc. 14. 7
EŮ TOLEîV with dat. (this is wanting in **): for the use of these verbs
with the accus. cp. infra 4. But übedelv and BASTTELV (a rare word)
take tiva in the N.T. as in Attic (AvoLTERETV tivi as in Att., but only
in L. 17. 2 where D has ovubépei); similarly kakớs légely Tiva, but
only in A. 23. 5 O.T., for which elsewhere kakoloyelv tiva is used in
Α. 19. 9 etc., like ευλογείν, besides which we further have καλώς είπωσιν
újâs, but only in L. 6. 26 (Dýpîv). (The simple léyelv with accus. of
the person="to allude to anyone in one's speech,' is found in Jo. 1.
15 ſa v.l.), 8. 27 [a v.l.), Ph. 3. 18, as in classical Greek.) The
following verbs of cognate meaning take the accusative : étnpeá felv
(Att. with dat.) TiVa Mt. 5. 44, L. 6. 28, 1 P. 3. 16: luualveodal Tiva
A. 8. 3 (Att. Tívá and Tuví) : Loudopeîv Tiva Jo. 9. 28, A. 23. 4 (as in
Att.): ØVELSIGELV (Att. Tivé) tivá Mt. 5. II etc. (in 27. 44 autó is a
wrong reading for aŭtóv): uéubeobar aútoús H. 8. 8 **AD*al., aŭtois
H'BD'al. (the latter is the Attic use): karapaolau (Att. with dat.)
with accus. in (Mt. 5. 44 [D* ýpiv]), Mc. 11. 21, L. 6. 28 (úpîv
EHL al. Justin Ap. i. 15), Ja. 3. 9 (cp. supra 1 Braoonucīv,
ußpíçelv, with which verbs this whole class, with the exception of ců
TTOLETV etc., appears to have been brought into uniformity). Evrpétreo bal
Tlva is 'to be afraid of anyone' (Polyb. and Acts; the earlier use
with Tivos = 'to trouble oneself about'), cp. ¿TALO YÚveo dar supra l;
Backalvelv Tivá 'to envy,' bewitch,'G.3. 1 (in Attic it perhaps also takes
Tivi like pooveîv?); TTPOOKUVEîv Tiva (Att.) occurs in Mt. 4. 10 O.T., L. 4.
8 O.T., 24. 52 (om. D), Jo. 4. 22 bis, 23 (aŭto f* ; in the same verse
all Mss. have rộ tatpi), 9. 38 D: elsewhere with tivé (a late use,
Lobeck Phryn. 463) or absolute (Tp. évÚTLÓV Tivos L. 4. 7); YOVUTETEîv
(Polyb.) Tiva Mt. 17. 14 (D omits aŭtóv), Mc. 10. 17 : without a
case in Mc. 1. 40, with čuti poobev Mt. 27. 29 (the dat. atrộ in the
former passage has very slight support); eúayye (feo dar in Attic has
accus. of the thing, dat. of the person : so also in L. 1. 19, 2. 10,
? II ponyoúuevou állnous R. 12. 10 'to prefer' = Ph. 2. 3 åminous ňyoúmerol
ÚTepé xovtas eauTẬv (cp. also 1 Th. 5. 13) ; not elsewhere in this sense, but cp.
TT pokpivelv. The acc, of course depends on 7., not on apó.
90
[S 34. 2–3.
ACCUSATIVE.
1 C. 15. i f. etc.: but it is also found with accus. of the person L. 3. 18
eunyyeríteto Tòv laóv and frequently in Luke and Acts, also G. 1. 9
(ibid. 8 with dat.), 1 P. 1. 12;1 ttapalveîv (only in Luke, from the
literary language) has accus. instead of the classical dat. A. 27. 22
(construction like that of mapakalcev)2; xpñola, takes acc. in 1 C. 7.
31 of Xpájevou TÒV Kóojov **ABDFG, dat. according to yºDcorr EK etc.
as in 9. 12, 18 etc. (cp. Buttm. p. 157); Telvây and diyâv take accus.
TÌv dukalogúvnu Mt. 5. 6 (class. gen.), elsewhere they are used with-
out a case.
3. The so-called accusative of the inner object or of content, found
with intransitive and passive verbs and generally with any verb, is
used in the N.T. practically in the same way as in the classical
language (there being a special reason for its being kept, as the
Hebrew had a similar usage). This accusative, whether it be that
of a substantive which is radically connected with the verb or of one
connected only in sense, in most cases requires, in order to have any
raison cl’être at all, to be more nearly defined by means of an adjective
or a genitive, whereas the dative of verbal substantives when simi-
larly used does not need this nearer definition, see $ 38, 3. This is
also occasionally omitted with the accusative, if the substantive has
a more concrete meaning, as in Mt. 13. 30 (according to the correct
reading of D Origen etc.) dýcate (aŭtà) deo ués (XBC etc. read eis 8.)
'into bundles,' which is a quite different use from Mt. 12. 29 dñon
TÒV lo xupóv (acc. of the outer object), but at the same time is not
entirely similar to the possible phrase δείν δέσιν, since the acc. δεσμάς
denotes an external result or product of the action (cp. oikodoucîv
oikiav L. 6. 48, TOLEîv Toinja, ypápelvypáupata); an object of this
kind may then become the subject to a passive verb (G. 1. II). A
similar instance is L. 2. 8 pulco CovTES pulakás of watch duty,
'sentry duty' (so in Xenoph. Anab. 2. 6. 10 etc.; also in LXX.), where
φυλακή expresses a definite objective kind of φυλάσσειν, and by no
means expresses merely the abstract idea of the verb; so ideîv opamo.
A. 11. 5. 16. 10 (passively opapa öp0n 16. 9). But in other cases
we have Mt. 2.10 éxápnoav yapàv peyádny opóSpa, Mc. 4. 41 époß“Onoav
poßov péyav, Ap. 16. 9 ékaupatio Ono av kaūja péya, 1 P. 3. 14 TÒv póßov
atrav (fear of them) un poßnoîte, Col. 2. 19 avçel (grows') Tņv
aténouv toll Deoû. This closer defining of the noun is also not absent
where the verb stands in a relative sentence : Jo. 17. 26 n ayótin v
riyátnoás Me ( according to D), Mc. 10. 38 TÒ Bártio há ö éyò
BaTricouar Battio Oñvac, Herm. Mand. vii. 1 ó póßos öv dei de Doßna val.
To the same class of accusative belong the cases where, in place of
the substantive with the word which more closely defines it, the
latter word occurs alone, either in the gender of the substantive,
T
i But not with a double acc.; in A. 13. 32 TÀU ... émayyeriav should be taken
with the following clause.
2 AldáOKELV with dat. instead of acc. in Ap. 2. 14 rests on a reading which is
quite uncertain.
3 But αμαρτάνοντα αμαρτίαν 1 Jo. 5. Ι6 18 more closely defined by μή προς
θάνατον : cp. the following words έστιν (“ there is ') αμαρτία προς θ.
8 34. 3-4.]
91
ACCUSATIVE.
which must then be supplied, as in L. 12. 47 f. δαρήσεται πολλάς,
ολίγας sc. πληγάς, or more commonly in the neuter : L. 5. 33
νηστεύουσιν πυκνά (= πυκνάς νηστείας), 2 C. 13. I τρίτον τούτο έρχομαι
(for the third time'), Ph. 1. 6 πεποιθώς αυτό τούτο (having this cont-
dence'), 2. 18, 1 C. 9. 25 πάντα έγκρατεύεται (but in Ηerm. Mand.
viii. 2 έγκρ. το πονηρόν is an instance of a true objective acc., being
opposed to ποιεϊν το π.: ibid. 2-12 the verb is also used with από,
genit., and inf.; cp. νηστεύειν τον κόσμον in the Λόγια 'Ιησού from
Oxyrhynchus), 10. 33 πάντα πάσιν αρέσκω, 11. 2 πάντα μου μέμνησθε
which is still more adverbial 'in everything,' 'in every respect'; TÒ
δ' αυτό Ph. 2. 18, Mt. 27. 44 in like manner' (on which is modelled
the concise phrase in 2 C. 6. 13 την αυτήν αντιμισθίαν “in like manner
in return, Fritzsche); μηδέν διακρινόμενος Α. 10. 20, cp. 11. 12 και
2 C. 12. ΙΙ ουδέν υστέρησα, cp. 11. 5, Mt. 19. 20 τί υστερώ ; ( wherein
am I still backward ?' whereas tívos tot. ='what do I lack ?'), 2 C.
12. 13 τί έστιν ο ήσσώθητε (similar sense); R. 6. Ιο ο γαρ απέθανεν,
τη αμαρτία απέθανεν – δ δε ζη, ζη τω θεώ, G. 2. 20 8 νυν ξω εν σαρκί,
εν πίστει ζω (the death that He died, the life that He liveth, or
else = in that He died and liveth). Still the use of these neuters
in the N.T. is far less extensive than in the classical language.
4. A double accusative is found mainly with a number of verbs
which can take both a personal object as well as (in another relation)
an object of the thing. Thus διδάσκειν with αποστασίαν πάντας
τους - Α. 21. 21, cp. Μο. 6. 34 αυτους πολλά (where however πολλά
is rather to be regarded as acc. of the inner object), Jo. 14. 26 υμάς
πάντα, also H. 5. 12 του διδάσκειν υμάς τινα (not τίνα) τα στοιχεία
κ.τ.λ. (thus the examples with this verb are not many): αναμιμνήσκειν
1 C. 4. 17, υπομιμν. Jo. 14. 26. But κρύπτειν τινά τι is not repre-
sented, the phrase used being τι από (Ηebr. a) τινος, Mt. 11. 25
(απ)έκρυψας ταύτα από σοφών (Herm. Sim. ix. 11. 9) or the still more
Helbraistic κρύψατε ημάς από προσώπου του – Αp. 6. 16 (passively
κεκρυμμένον απ' αυτών L. 18. 34 [as incidentally also in Homer
Odyss. 23. 110 κεκρυμμένα απ’ άλλων], εκρύβη από οφθαλμών σου
19. 42). Αιτείν τινά τι Mt. 6. 8 (D is diferent), Mc. 6. 22 f. etc.,
besides which παρά may be used of the person (class.) Jo. 4. 9,
A. 9. 2 (the middle verb: this never takes double acc.), or åó
Mt. 20. 20 BD (v.1. παρ'), 1 Jo. 5. Ι5 NB (similar v.l.): έρωτάν (ask a
question) Tivá ti Mt. 21. 24, Mc. 4. 10. (The following are not
found with double acc.: αφαιρείν, -είσθαι, the person being introduced
by dró L. 16. 3, or placed in the gen. (ibid. D; L. 10. 42 etc.), as
also in classical Greelk: and αποστερείν [the thing is placed in the
gen. in 1 Τim. 6. 5, but there is a v.1.1. Ποιείν τινά τι “ to do some-
thing with occurs in Mt. 27. 22 τί (accus. of the predicate) ποιήσω
Ιησούν, cp. Herm. Sim. i. 4 τί ποιήσεις τον αγρόν, Α. 12. 18 τι ο
Πέτρος έγένετο what was become of P.: Mc. 15. Ι2 is similar to the
passage of Matthew, but D reads τώ βασιλεϊ = what shall I do to ?
cp. supra 2; with the same meaning we have the construction τι τινί
1 The reading ουδέν (NBP ουδενός) χρείαν έχω Αp. 3. 17 can hardly be right.
92
[S 34. 4-5.
ACCUSATIVE.
Mt. 21. 40, L. 20. 15, Α. 9. 13, Herm. Sim. V. 2. 2, ix. 11. 8: also
Α. 16. 28 μηδέν πράξης (in place of ποιήσης σεαυτώ κακόν. In Attic
the acc. must be used in all cases in this sense, supra 2, whereas
ποιείν τινί τι “ to do something for anyone, as in Mc. 7. 12, 10. 36,
is also correct Attic Greek. Instead of ποιείν τί τινι we also have
π. τι έν τινι or είς τινα, Mt. 17. 12 [om, έν ND al.], L. 21. 31, Jo. 15. 21
Γυμίν AD? al.]; cp. καλόν έργον ήργάσατο εν εμοί Μο. 14. 6, εις εμέ
Mt. 26. Ιο [Attic has έργ. with double acc.]; ούτως γένηται εν εμοί
1 C. 9. 15, op. L. 21. 31 [Buttm. p. 130]). The double acc. is also
found after verbs of putting on and putting of: ένδιδάσκειν, εκδιδ. τινά
τι Mt. 27. 31, Mc. 15. 17, 20, L. 15. 22 ; hence we have also in the
Ν.Τ. (not class.) περιβάλλειν τινά τι Ι. 23. II AD al. (om. αυτόν
NB al.), Jo. 19. 2 (but not with περιτιθέναι which talkes τινί τι
Mt. 27. 28, nor with περιβάλλειν when used in other connections,
see L. 19. 43). Also with χρίειν : Η. 1. 9 Ο.Τ. τινα έλαιον, a Hebraic
use (but in Αp. 3. 18 the acc. κολλύριον must certainly be taken in
connection with αγοράσαι, not with έγχρίσαι). With cusative verbs
this use is more developed than in classical Greek : ποτίζειν τινά
ποτήριον Μο. 9. 41, γάλα 1 C. 3. 2, to make to drink, cp. Plat.
Phaedr. 247 E (so also ywuíów in the LXX., 'to make to eat': in
1 C. 13. 3 with the acc. of the thing only, cp. Winer, $ 32, note 4),
φορτίζειν “to make to carry' Ι. 11. 46, ορκίζειν and ένορκ. (strictly to
malke to swear by, Hdt. εξορκούν τινα το Στυγός ύδωρ 6. 74) to adjure
by' Mc. 5. 7 etc., vide supra 1.-In addition there are the instances,
few in number, where the acc. of the inner and of the outer object
are found together: Jo. 17. 26 η αγάπη ήν (ή according to D)
ηγάπησάς με, Ε. 2. 4 την άγ. ην ηγάπησεν ημάς, L. 4. 35 μηδέν βλάψας
αυτόν, G. 5. 2 υμάς ουδέν ωφελήσει, 4. 12, Α. 25. Io, Mt. 27. 44,
Μο. 6. 34 (supra).
5. A different class of double accusative is that where one acc. is
the acc. of the predicate, the construction corresponding to that of
intransitive and passive verbs with a double nominative. This class
is used after verbs of multing (ποιείν αυτόν βασιλέα Jo. 6. 15, op. supra
4, δν έθηκεν κληρονόμον Η. 1. 2, τίς με κατέστησεν κριτήν L. 12. 14):
having and talcing (Α. 13. 5 είχον Ιωάνην υπηρέτην, Ja. 5. το υπόδειγμα
λάβετε τους προφήτας): designating, calling (Jo. 10. 35 εκείνους είπε
θεούς, 15. Ι5, Mc. 10. 18 τί με λέγεις αγαθόν ; L. 1. 59 εκάλουν αυτό
Ζαχαρίας: in Hebraic style 1. 13, 31 καλέσεις το όνομα αυτού Ιωάνην,
Ιησούν, cp. the passive εκλήθη το όν. α. 'Ιησούς 2. 21, Buttm. p. 132):1
confessing, ομολογείν αυτόν Χριστόν Jo. 9. 22 (with είναι D), iJo. 4. 2
(acc. and inf. B), 2 Jo. 7: Tegardling, (Ph. 3. 7 ταύτα ήγημαι ζημίαν,
ibid. 8 with civar introduced, which is elsewhere always wanting
with ηγείσθαι, whereas vice versa νομίζειν and υπολαμβάνειν do not
appear with a double acc.; Α. 20. 24 ποιούμαι την ψυχήν τιμίαν, but
there is a v.1. in which ποιούμαι 18 replaced by έχω, for: which in this
sense [=Lat. habere] cp. L. 14. 18 έχε με παρητημένον, Ph. 2. 29 :
έχειν with ως Mt. 14. 5, 21. 26, like ηγείσθαι ως 2 Τh. 3. 15, Clem.
1 The dat. is used with επικαλείν όνομα in Mt. 10. 25 Β*, op. 37, 7.
$ 34. 5-6.]
93
ACCUSATIVE.
Cor. ii. 5. 6, Herm. Vis. 1. 1. ):1 proving (συνιστάναι G. 2. 18, but
εαυτούς ως θεού διάκονοι 2 C. 6. 4; on 2 C. 7. II see 8 36, 2 note),
(feigning, υποκρινομένους εαυτούς δικαίους L. 20. 20 D). Beside
these double accusatives we occasionally find eis prefixed to the
predicate, showing Hebrew influence (cp. 33, 3), Α. 13. 22 ήγειρεν
αυτοίς τον Δαυίδ εις βασιλέα, 47 Ο.Τ., 7. 21; Mt. 21. 46 είς προφήτης
(ως πρ. CD al.) αυτόν είχον (more frequent in LXX. ; Clem.
Cor. i. 42. 4 καθίστανον εις επισκόπους); the inserted ως (other
instances given above) may also be a Hebraism, cp. ελογίσθημεν ως
R. 8. 36 O.T. (Hebr. a).-One may refer to this class of double acc.
L. 9. Ι4 κατακλίνατε αυτούς κλισίας ανά πεντήκοντα, ep. Μο. 6. 39 ;
again Mt. 13. 3ο δείν αύτα δεσμάς, supra 3; and the classical διαιρείν
τι δύο μέρη, Kühner ii.2 278 f.
6. The passives of the verbs specified in 4 (with which verbs when
used in the passive the person and not the thing usually beconies
the subject) occasionally appear with the object of the thing :
2 Τh. 2. 15 τας παραδόσεις ας εδιδάχθητε, 1 Ο. 12. 13 εν πνεύμα
εποτίσθημεν (of course ένδεδυμένος, περιβεβλημένος also take this
object, but they are middle and not passive); 2 we further have
(formed after the classical πείθειν τινά τι) πεπείσμεθα τα κρείσσονα
H. 6. 9, and Ph. 3. 8 τα πάντα έζημιώθην, Mt. 16. 26 την ψυχήν αυτού
ζημιωθη (cp. Mc. 8. 36, L. 9. 25), opposed to κερδαίνειν, and formed
on the model of ζημιούν τινα ζημίαν, but with a further derivative
sense of the verb=to lose.3 Since moreover the person who is
expressed by the dative after the active verb may become the
subject to the passive verb (cp. $ 54, 3), such passives may also
appear with the acc. of the thing: πεπίστευμαι το ευαγγέλιον G. 2. 7,
οικονομίαν πεπίστευμαι 1 C. 9. 17, R. 3. 2, την αλυσιν περίκειμαι
Α. 28. 20 (active περιτιθέναι τινί τι), H. 5. 2 (also L. 17. 2 according
to d λίθον μυλικόν περιέκειτο : Ηerm. Vis. V, I, Sim. vi. 2. 5). Finally
we have (formed after δείν αυτού πόδας Mt. 22. 13) δεδεμένος τους πόδας
Jo. 11. 44, διεφθαρμένοι τον νούν 1 Τim. 6. 5, βεραντισμένοι τας καρδίας,
λελουμένοι το σώμα Η. 10. 22 f., according to a general usage of the
Greek language, which is employed with still greater freedom
especially by St. Paul : κατηχούμενος τον λόγον G. 6. 6 he who is
instructed in the gospel,' cp. A. 18. 25, 21. 24, L. 1. 4!, while with
the active verb the person is the object, never the thing;
πεπληρωμένοι καρπόν δικαιοσύνης Ph. 1. ΙΙ, cp. Col. 1. 9, with the
fruit’ (a Helbraism, Exod. 31. 3 ενέπλησα αυτόν πνεύμα σοφίας) και την
αυτήν εικόνα μεταμορφούμεθα 2 C. 3. 18 into the same image' ; (on
την αυτην αντιμισθίαν πλατύνθητε ibid. 6. 13 cp. supra 4, and for' τον
αυτόν τρόπον infra 7; αναφανέντες την Κύπρον Α. 21. 3 is a wrong
reading for αναφάναντες).
1 Hermas also has (Sim. viii. 3, 4) γνώση αυτους πάντας τους κ.τ.λ. recognise
them to be those who' etc.
2 Instead of the acc. with περιβάλλεσθαι the Apocalypse has εν with dat. in
3. 5, 4. 4 (here AP omit εν); so too Mt. 11. 8, L. 7. 25 ήμφιεσμένον έν μαλακούς.
3 Hdt. 7. 37 is wrongly adduced as a parallel : Thu yuxu Tivos (his son's)
δημιούσθαι (to lose as a punishment): the MSS. have τη ψυχή.
94
[S 34. 7-8.
ACCUSATIVE.
7. The accusative of reference with adjectives and the like has
a very limited use in the N.T., since this function is mostly taken
over by the dative, $ 38, 2. Mt. 27. 57 toůvoua "by name' (class.;
elsewhere óvóuati) : Jo. 6. 10 Tòv áp.Opòv ús TEVTAKLXídci: H.
2. 17 TLOTÓS ápxiepeùs à pòs TÒv Deóv. But this same phrase
Tà npòs tov Deóv R. 15. 17, together with the phrases R. 12. 18 TÒ ÉÉ
“pôv – eipnvejovtes, 9. 5 Tò katà cápka and 16. 19 TÒ édýpîv as a
v.l., TÒ koll' els 12. 5, has already become an adverbial accusative,
similar to ÉVEKOTTÓ Unv tà mollá (v.l. molláris) R. 15. 22, TÒ TRECO TOV
(at most) tpels 1 C. 14. 27, Tò mpótepov, tò apôtov cp. § 11, 5; in
Tò Ko huepav daily L. 19. 47, 11.3, A. 17. II, 28 D, 19. 9 D the
article is meaningless, cp. Tò apwí 5. 21 D, TÒ dellivóv 'in the after-
noon? 3. I D (infra 8); TÒ Toutóv and LOLTÓv (for the rest,' now,'
already' Mt. 26. 45 = Mc. 14. 41 (in both passages a v.l. without
TÒ), A. 27. 20 (1.), 2 C. 13. II (^.), E. 6. 10 TO 1. (**AB Toll LOLTTOŮ
henceforth,' see $ 36, 13), and frequently in the Pauline Epp., also
H. 10. 13 (also Attic); TÒ vův éxov A. 24. 25 'for the present'
(Lucian and others); TÒ Télos "finally' 1 P. 3. 8, Tòv åpxv from
the beginning,' at all' Jo. 8. 25. Again, the phrases öv tportov
Mt. 23. 37 and passim, Tòv ouorov tpórov Jd. 7 come under the head
of accusative of the inner object (besides which we have the dat.
Ph. 1. 18 Tavti tpóra, $ 38, 3, and kall öv tp. A. 15. II, 27. 25, cp.
R. 3. 2, 2 Th. 2. 3).
8. Accusative of extension in space and time: L. 22. 41 ÅTTEOTTáo On
un' outwv wo ei lidov Bolýv, 2. 44, Jo. 6. 19, answering the question
How far ? where the acc. may be regarded as a kind of object of
the thing; Jo. 2. 12 éjelvav où tollas guépas, answering the
question How long ? (to be similarly explained, cp. the dat. $ 38, 5);
as to Mt. 20. 2 ovubwvelv ék Snvaplov ('at a denarius') Tv pépav,
'a day,' 'per day,' vide § 36, 8. Further, vúkta kaì ñuépav day and
night' Mc. 4. 27, L. 2. 37, A. 26. 7; Tàs ňuépas - Tàs vúktas L. 21. 37
during the days, the nights'; ýpépav će vuepas 2 P. 2. 8 is classical.
This accusative appears to go beyond its own department in the
phrases το δειλινόν, το πρωί (see 7), where the question asked is
When ? (cp. Léoov ruépas Lxx. Dan. Sus. 7);as it does moreover
in its use with ápa (occurring in classical Greek): Jo. 4. 52 éxoès
ópav éßdóunv, Ap. 3. 3 Tolav őpav, A. 10. 30 (and verse 3 with v.l.
Trepi úpav évárny as in verse 9), cp. Aesch. Eum. 159 ápar oùdevòs
KOLVÝV, Eurip. Bacch. 722 TV tetaypévny Öpav, Aristot. ’A0. Ilodet.
cap. 30 ad fin. Trv őpav tij te poppn@eigav, Demosth. 54. 4 etc. ( = els
úpav, 'at the hour,' ÉTÈ T. Öpav A. 3. I), although the N.T. has also
Toía ópy and similar phrases, for which and for the encroachment
of the dat. on the functions of the accus. see § 38, 4 and 5. A
peculiar idiom is found in A. 27. 33 Teocapeo kalDEKÓTny oņuepov
uépav, i.e. 'it is to-day the 14th day since' etc., to-day is the
1. 2. 370 hts'; wipepond its re the
'Oddv Daldoons Mt. 4. 15 0.T. is a literal rendering of the Hebr. 7777 = versus,
which appears elsewhere in the Lxx., e.g. Deut. 11. 30.
2 Cp. also LXX. Thu Meonußplav Gen. 43. 16, Tò mpwi Ex. 7. 15. See Sophocles
Lexic. p. 44.
$ 34. $ 35. 1-2.]
95
GENITIVE.
14th day in succession that,' cp. Demosth. Tpítov ČTOS TOUTÍ, “it is
now the third year that.'---In answer to the question How far
distant ? beside the accus. (L. 24. 13 åréxovo av otadiovs EÝKovta
ÅTÒ ’Iepovo., cp. A. 1. 12), we find also åtó with the genitive,
probably a Latinism (a millibus passuum duobus, Caes. B. G. 2. 7):
Jo. 11. 18 9 Bndavía éyyùs Twv Iep., los drò otadiwv SEKATTÉVTE, cp.
21. 8, Ap. 14. 20, Herm. Vis. iv. 1. 5 (Diod., Plut. etc.).
$ 35. THE GENITIVE.
: 1. By far the most extensive use of the genitive is that by which it
defines a noun more closely after the manner of an adjective, and
like an adjective either as attribute or predicate; in the latter case
the genitive is said to be dependent on είναι (γίνεσθαι etc.). The
kind of relation which exists between the genitive and its noun
can only be decided by the sense and context: in the N.T. this
is often purely a matter of theological interpretation, which cannot
form part of the teaching of a grammatical work. The place of
the noun, which is defined by the genitive, may also be taken by
a pronoun and more especially by the article. We select here only
the points that are worthy of note.
2. Genitive of origin and membership.--As in the classical
language, the genitive is used where a particular person is indicated
by the mention of his father, ’lókoſov TÒV TOû Zepedalov Mt. 4. 21
etc., a use in which the introduction of viós is perfectly admissible,
'Iwávny Tòv Zaxaplov vióv L. 3. 2; in the case of the sons of Zebedee,
if named together, vioi (almost) always appears, Mt. 26. 37, 27. 56,
Mc. 10. 35, L. 5. 10, only in Jo. 21. 2 ABL al. read oi tou Z., while
oi vioi Z. is read by DE; where viós is omitted the introduction
of one article, contrary to the usual classical practice, causes the
insertion of the article with the other noun as well, thus Aavid
Tòv toû 'Icovaí A. 13. 22 0.T., cp. $ 46, 10 (but without an article
'Ioudav Eíuwvos 'Iokaplátov Jo. 6.71 etc., similarly in Greek style
Lútatpos IIúppov Bepolaíoś A. 20. 4). Indication of the mother by
her son's name: Mc. 15. 40 (cp. Mt. 27. 56) Mapía 'Io.káſov toll
puukpoŮ kai 'Iwontos uñone, whence in verse 47 M. Ý ’Iwontos, 15. I
M. ♡ 'Iakoßov as in L. 24. 10 (the article with the gen. is in this
case neglected except in Mt. 27. 56 ý toû 'Iak, -- uńinp). Of the
wife by her husband's name (this is also classical): Mt. 1. 6 tñs Toll
Qúpíov, Jo. 19. 25 Mapidu o Toll Klwâ.1 Whether in the case of
the apostle called 'Ioúdas ’Iakáſov L. 1. 16, A. 1. 13, viós or in
accordance with Jd. I å deleós is to be supplied (the latter is
grammatically admissible : cp. Timok pórns ó Mntpodúpou sc. åd.
Alciphron Ep. ii. 2) is a question which need not be discussed here.
Membership in a family (including a family of slaves) : TÔ XXóns
1 C. 1. 11, TOÙS (sc. brethren, Christians) ék Tv (sc. slaves) ’Aploto-
Boúdov, Napkiocov R. 16. 10 f. Yiós occurs in a metaphorical sense
The v.I. in A. 7. 13 'Eyuwp Toll Euxéu (DH: al. ¿v 2. or Toù v 2.) is explained
in accordance with Gen. 33. 19 as 'E. Tarpós E., which in any case is wrong.
96
[8 35. 2-4.
GENITIVE.
(a common Hebraism): 1 Τh. 5. 5 υιοί φωτός έστε και υλοι ημέρας και
hence with omission of viós, the genitive being also used predicatively,
ουκ εσμέν νυκτός ουδε σκότους 1 Τh. 5. 6, ημέρας όντες 8, cp. Η. 10. 39.
ουκ εσμεν υποστολής – αλλά πίστεως. Possession or discipleship:
οι του Χριστού 1 C. 15. 23; as predicate, A. 27. 36 του θεού ου είμι,
R. 8. 9 ούτος ούκ έστιν αυτού (Χρ.), 1 C. 1. 12, 3. 4 εγώ μέν είμι
Παύλου etc., 6. 19 ουκ έστε έαυτών («do not belong to yourselves, cp.
20), 3. 21 πάντα υμών έστι (= υμέτερα, cp. 8 48, 7); L. 20. Ι4; A. 1. 7
ουχ υμών έστι γνώναι does not belong to you, is not your concern,
2Ρ. 1. 20 προφητεία ιδίας επιλύσεως ού γίνεται; Η. 5. 14 τελείων έστιν
ή στερεά τροφή και Herm. Sim. viii. 7. 6 η ζωή πάντων έστι των -, cp.
Α. 10. 36 after the removal of the interpolated κύριος, Α. 20. 3
(Thuc. 1. 113). — The use of év, eis with the genitive of the house of
anyone is not found in the New Testament, nor yet the phrases év,
eis Aidov (as in Clem. Cor. i. 4. II), instead of which we have ev tỘ
άδη L. 16. 22, εις άδην Α. 2. 27 Ο.Τ. (άδου EP and some MSS. of the
LXX.), 31 (įdov ACDEP).
3. Objective genitive. Noteworthy instances are Mt. 24. 6 åkoai
πολέμων rumours of Wars: A. 4. 9 ευεργεσία ανθρώπου “ to a man':
R. 10. 2 ζήλος θεού concerning God” (Jo. 2. Ι7 Ο.Τ. και ζ. του οίκου σου):
Jo. 7. 13, 20. 19 διά τον φόβον των Ιουδαίων “ fear of the Jewς.'
Further instances : Mt. 13. 18 την παραβολήν τού σπείροντος (cp. 36)
about, of: 1 C. 1. 6 το μαρτύριον του Χριστού, 1. 18 ο λόγος και του
σταυρού, Mt. 4 23 etc. το ευαγγέλιον της βασιλείας, Me. 1. Ι το ευαγγ.
'Incoû Xp.; phrases similar to the last are frequent in St. Paul
(besides this use we have ευαγγ. θεού in R. 1. I and elsewhere,
denoting the author, the meaning being there explained by περί του
υιού αυτού in verse 3 και το ευαγγ. μου R. 2. Ι6, 16. 25, cp. 2 C. 4. 3,
2 Tim. 2. 8, denoting the preacher; and το ευαγγ. της ακροβυστίας
G. 2. 7 = “anmong,” “to, similar to the use of ευαγγελίζεσθαί τινα ; but
ευαγγ. Ματθαίου etc. would be presumptuous and false, as if the
individual evangelist had a special gospel proceeding from himself,
therefore katà M. etc. is used, i.e. according to Matthew's presenta-
tion of it). Other objective genitives are πίστις Ιησού Χρ. R. 3. 22
etc., for which we also have π. εις τον κύριον Ί. Χρ. Α. 20. 21 etc. and
εν Χρ. Ι. 1 Τim. 3. 13 etc.: υπακοή του Χρ., της πίστεως, τ. αληθείας
2 C. 10. 5, R. 1. 5, 1Ρ.. 1. 22 etc., whereas αγάπη του θεού can be
both subjective and objective, but in δικαιοσύνη τ. θ. and δικ. της
πίστεως the gen. indicates the author and the cause respectively,
hence η εκ θ. δικ. Ρh. 3. 9, η εκ πίστεως δ. R. 9. 30, also διά πίστεως
Ph. 3. 9. In R. 2. η υπομονή έργου αγαθού “ endurance in' is also a
Ikind of objective genitive; on the other hand 1 Τh. 1. 3 της υπομονής
της ελπίδος is parallel with the phrases του έργου της πίστεως and του
κόπου της αγάπης, and is rather to be regarded as subjective, express-
ing patient hope in conjunction with active faith (cp. G. 5. 6) and
labouring love.
4. The genitive of the whole or partitive genitive has not altogether
died out, although its place has been taken to a great extent by the
periphrasis with έξ (από, εν). Mt. 5. 29 f. εν των μελών σου, 6. 29
8 35. 4.]
GENITIVE.
εν τούτων, 10, 42 ένα των μικρών τούτων etc.; but 10. 29, 18. 12 έν έξ
αυτών, 26. 21 είς εξ υμών etc.: in Mt. 6. 27, 7. 9, L. 11. 5, 12. 25 and
elsewhere τίς εξ υμών ; and, generally speaking, in the case of τις the
gen. appears more frequently with ¢than without it (Mt. 22. 28 has
τίνος των επτά, but των επτά appears not to be genuine: Με. 12. 23
τίνος αυτών, here also the gen. is wanting in Δck: L. 7. 42 τίς αυτών,
but αυτ. is omitted by D etc.: 14. 5 τίνος υμών, D εξ υμών: 20. 33
τίνος αυτών, but αυτ. om. **e f,2 so that the only certain instances of
the simple gen. remaining are Α. 7. 52, H. 1. 5, 13). With τις,
however, the reverse is the case, the simple gen. preponderating
(except in John); with έκαστος it is found exclusively, but πας εξ
υμών L. 14. 33. This use of εξ can hardly be called classical
(although μόνος εξ απάντων and similar phrases occur), still it is
more classical than that of από in Mt. 27. 21 τίνα από των δύο ; the
use of èv also has classical precedent, Ja. 5. 13, 14, 19, 1 C. 15. 12
τις εν υμίν, Α. 5. 34 τις εν τω συνεδρίων (D εκ του συνεδρίου); cp. on the
periphrasis for the partitive gen. with verbs, 8 36, 1. This gen. is
used predicatively in ών έστιν Υμέναιος 1 Τim. 1. 20, Α. 23. 6: with
έκ Jo. 18. Ι7, L. 22. 58, 1 C. 12. 15 f. (Clem. Cor. ii. 14. 1, 18. Ι).
The following is noticeable: τα αυτά των παθημάτων 1 P. 5. 9
(strictly incorrect).—The employment of the partitive gen. or a
periphrasis for it as subject or object of the sentence is peculiar:
Jo. 16. 17 είπον εκ των μαθητών αυτού (some of his disciples) προς
αλλήλους, 7. 4ο έκ του όχλου ακούσαντες - έλεγον, 2 παραγενομένων εκ
της πόλεως L. 8. 35 D (some men of the town), Α. 21. Ι6 συνήλθον
δε και (έκ add. Ε) των μαθητών από Καισαρείας,3' 19. 33 εκ του όχλου
(sc. τινές), Αp. 11. 9, L. 21. Ι6 θανατώσουσιν εξ υμών (sc. τινάς),
11. 49, Mt. 23. 34, Αp. 2. 1ο, 2 Jo. 4; it even takes the place of a
dative in Jo. 3. 25 έγένετο ζήτησις εκ των μαθητών Ιωάνου μετά
Ιουδαίου (-ων) on the part of some of the disciples, cp. A. 15. 2.
This form of expression is due to Hebrew influence (172), although
in isolated cases the genitive is also so used in Attic (Xenoph. Anab.
3, 5. 16: Hellen. 4, 2. 20).-—To the class of partitive genitives
belongs also the gen. of the country, added to define the particular
place intended, and always with the article ($ 46, 11): Ναζαρέθ της
Γαλιλαίας Mt. 21. II, Mc. 1. 9, Κανά της Γαλ. Jo. 2. 1, Ταρσός της
Κιλικίας Α. 22. 3, with πόλις 21. 39, 16, 12 ήτις (Φίλιπποι) έστιν
πρώτης (as should be read) μερίδος της Μακεδονίας πόλις. As a
definition of time: οψε σαββάτων Mt. 28. I late on the Sabbath'
(which in accordance with the next clause and Mc. 16. I must be
equivalent to after the Sabbath '), δις του σαββάτου twice in the
week’ L. 18. Ι2. A further instance may be noticed : L. 19. 8 τα
ημίσεια (τα ήμισυ ARIDI) των υπαρχόντων with classical assimilation
to the gen. instead of το ήμισυ (Kühner ii.2 299, η ημίσεια της γης);
1 Móvos in the N.T. is never more nearly defined by a reference to the whole
of which it is a part.
2 Πολλοί is an interpolation of ΓΔΛ al.
8 Here however τινες των may have dropped out after μαθητών, since a second .
article is required.
.
G
98
GENITIVE.
[S 35. 4-5.
ΙΤΙΙ και
elsewhere we have ήμισυ καιρού Αp. 12. Ι4 (cp. 11. 9, 11 without a
genitive), έως ημίσους της βασιλείας Μο. 6. 23, like το δέκατον
(sc. μέρος) της πόλεως Αp. 11. 13.
5. A nearer definition of any kind by means of quality, direction,
aim etc. is expressed by the genitive in a long series of phrases,
some of which obviously take their origin from Hebrew (in which
language the adjective is but slightly developed): μισθού της αδικίας
Α. Ι. 18, μ. αδ. 2P. 2. 15, και οικονόμος της αδικίας L. 16. 8, του μαμωνά
της αδ. 9, ο κριτής τ. αδ. 18. 6= και άδικος (cp. 16. ΙΙ εν τώ αδίκη
μαμωνα): καρδία πονηρά απιστίας Η. 3. Ι2, ρήματα βλασφημίας Α.
6. ΙΙ Ν*D with v.1. βλάσφημα, cp. Αp. 13. Ι, 17. 3, χολή πικρίας
Α. 8. 23, ρίζα πικρίας Η. 12. 15 cp. LXX. Deut. 29. 18,1 Α. 9. 15
σκεύος εκλογής = έκλεκτόν (in R. 9. 22 f. σκεύη οργής, σκ. ελέους are
different, being equivalent to persons who bear the wrath or the
mercy), οι λόγοι της χάριτος L. 4. 22, πάθη ατιμίας R. 1. 26, ο οίνος
του θυμού Αp. 14. το etc. (where there is no equivalent adjective
which could replace the gen.), το σώμα της αμαρτίας R. 6. 6, το σ.
του θανάτου 7. 24 (cp. θνητόν σ. 6. Ι2, 8. ΙΙ), τ. σ. της ταπεινώσεως
ημών and τ. σ. της δόξης αυτού Ph. 3. 21, τ. σ. της σαρκός Col. 1. 22,
2. II etc. The reverse order of words e.g. επί πλούτου άδηλότητι =
αδήλω πλούτο 1 Τim. 6. Ι7 (έν καινότητα ζωής R. 6. 4 = έν καινη ζωή,
but cp. 7. 6) may be paralleled from the classical language (W.
8 34, 3). Further noticeable instances are ημέρα οργής, σωτηρίας,
επισκοπής etc. after Hebrew models R. 2. 5, 2 C. 6. 2 Ο.Τ., 1Ρ.
2. 12, also αναδείξεως L. 1. 8ο, in which there is nothing remarkable
but the Hebraic substitution of ημέρα for χρόνoς (οι χρόνοι της
αιρέσεως Aeschin. 2. 58): ανάστασις ζωής and κρίσεως « to life' etc.
Jo. 5. 29 (α. εις ζωήν LXX. 2 Μacc. 7. 14): οδός έθνών Mt. 10. 5, οδόν
(a kind of preposition like , 8 34, 8, note 1) θαλάσσης 4. 15 Ο.Τ.:
instances with the meaning to, ας η θύρα των προβάτων Jo. 10. 7,
πίστεως Α. 14. 27 (but θ. του λόγου Col. 4. 3=a door by which the
word enters), μετοικεσία Βαβυλώνος Mt. 1. II f., η διασπορά των
“Ελλήνων Jo. 7. 35: with the meaning among (from), κίνδυνοι ποταμών,
ληστών 2 C. 11. 26, followed by εξ εθνών, έν θαλάσση, etc.--Τo the
gen. of content belongs among other instances Jo. 21. 8 το δίκτυον
των ιχθύων (like class. πλοία σίτου); to the gen. of apposition
(Kühner Gr. ii.2 226 d), i.e. where the genitive takes the place of
a word in apposition with another, 2 C. 5. 5 τον αρραβώνα του
πνεύματος (which consists in' etc.), R. 4. ΙΙσημείον περιτομής (περιτομής
AC*), Jo. 2. 2 του ναού του σώματος αυτού, Ε. 4. 9 τα κατώτερα μέρη
της γης (not partitive, see Win. S 59, 8, but perhaps gen. of the
thing compared) etc.; also 2 P. 2. 6 πόλεις Σοδόμων και Γομόρρας
like 'Iliov rólev Hom. Il. 5, 642 etc. (this construction occurs here
only in the N.T., since πόλεως Θυατείρων Α. 16. 14 is the gen. of
πόλις θυάτειρα, like πόλει Ιόππη 11. 5; cp. also 2 C. 11. 32 την
πόλιν Δαμασκηνών, Αp. 3. 12, 18. 10, 21, 21. 2, το). On the gen.
1 Μή τις έστιν εν υμίν ρίζα άνω φύουσα εν χολή και πικρία; but ρίζα πικρίας is read
by cod. AF, and evoxłą for èv x. by B*AF*, and this was the reading followed
by the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews.
8 35. 5-6.],
99
,
GENITIVE.
with adjectives and participles used substantivally see § 47, 1.-
The gen. is used predicatively (supra 2 and 4), denoting quality,
in Mc. 5. 42 ήν ετών δώδεκα, L. 2. 42 ότε έγένετο ετών δώδεκα (D is
diferent), H. 12. ΙΙ πάσα παιδεία ου δοκεί χαράς είναι, αλλά λύπης.
6. As in classical Greek, there is nothing to prevent two genitives
of different meaning from being connected with a single substantive:
2 C. 5. Ιη επίγειος ημών οικία του σκηνους, possessive gen. and gen.
of apposition, Ph. 2. 30 το υμών (subjective) υστέρημα της πρός με
λειτουργίας (objective), Αp. 7. Ι7, 2P. 3. 2 της των αποστόλων υμών
( apostles sent to you') εντολής του κυρίου και σωτήρος (closely with
αποστ. “sent from etc. to ').2 In most cases, however, if several
genitives stand together, one of them is dependent on the other,
a practice through which writers, especially St. Paul, are occasionally
brought to a really burdensome accumulation of words : 2 C. 4. 5
τον φωτισμός του ευαγγελίου (“which proceeds from the gospel ') της
δόξης (content) του Χριστού, Ε. 1. 6 εις έπαινον δόξης (a single idea,
cp. Ph. 1. 17 εις δόξαν και έπαινον) της χάριτος αυτού,3 4. 13 είς μέτρον
ηλικίας του πληρώματος του Χριστού, 1. 18, 19, Col. 2. Ι2, 1 Τh. 1. 3
της υπομονής της ελπίδος (supra 3) του κυρίου ημών;4 Ap. 14. 8 εκ
του οίνου του θυμού (supra 5) της πορνείας αυτής, unless του θυμού
should be removed from this passage and from 18. 3 (with Griesbach)
as an interpolation from 14. ΙΟ, 16. 19 το ποτήριον του οίνου του
θυμού της οργής αυτού (αυτού om. 8), 19. Ι5 την ληνόν του οίνου του
θυμού της οργής του θεού. The last genitive of the series is usually
a possessive (Buttm. 136). In order that some clue may be left for
the understanding of the construction, it is necessary (and also in
conformity with Hebrew precedent) that the governing genitive
should always stand before the dependent genitive, while in the
case where two genitives are dependent on a single noun, one is
placed before and the other after the noun, see the instances given
above (Buttm. 135 f.). It has further been maintained (ibid. p.
294 f.), that in a case where a genitive without the article dependent
on a preposition governs another genitive, the former must always
occupy the first place : in the same way that a word in any case
without an article usually, though not always (Mt. 13. 33 eis åleópov
σάτα τρία) precedes the genitive which it governs. Exceptions
however must be admitted in the former case as well ; Mt. 24. 31

1 Here also belongs Αp. 21. 17 εμέτρησεν το τείχος αυτής εκατόν – πηχών, =
"amounting to 100 cubits,' cp. ibid. 16.
? However, there is so much obscurity and harshness in this passage that
one is justified in supposing some corruption of the text (της <διά>των αποστ. ?
cp. the Syriac).
3 DE read της δόξης, which would necessitate the rendering the praise of
the glory of His grace'; cp. 1. 12 είς έπ. (της add. A) δόξης αυτού, 14 εις έπ, της
(της om. 8) δόξης αυτού.
* Here further, the possessive juw is dependent on the first of the two geni-
tives in each case έργου, κόπου, υπομονής, according to the prescribed rule (see
below in the text); but the Western and Syriac Μss. put this υμών after πίστεως,
and some of these also make the sentence much smoother by reading the acc.
το έργον – τον κόπον – την υπομονήν.
100
(S 35. $ 36. 1.
GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC.
metà oádeyyos puños peyálns, if the reading is correct,1 means
with a loud trumpet-sound' (cp. H. 12. 19, Ap. 1. 10, 4. 1, 8. 13),
and 2 C. 3. 18 ÅTÒ Kvplov dvehuatos "from the spirit of the Lord,'
cp. verse 17.2 Also Bantlo uñv didaxûs H. 6. 2 (unless B is right in
reading Sidaxýv) can only mean 'teaching of baptisms.
§ 36. CONTINUATION: GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC.
1. The genitive is used in Greek in connection with verbs in a
series of instances where the partitive meaning is obvious. In the
N.T. this partitive genitive with verbs is replaced, even more fre-
quently than in the other cases mentioned ($ 35, 4), by a periphrasis
with a preposition (or the use of another case). It is true that
Metadaußávelv 'to partake of' always has the gen. (A. 2. 46, 27. 33 f.,
2 Tim. 2. 6, H. 6. 7, 12. 10; the verb has a different meaning in
the combination kaipòv jeta daßúv A. 24. 25=Polyb. 2, 16. 25 = 'to
get [an opportunity] later'); so also letéxelv in 1 C. 9. 12, 10. 21,
H. 2. 14, 5. 13, 7. 13, though uet. ek is found as well in 1 C. 10. 17,
and just as these constructions with the gen. are limited to Luke,
Paul, and Hebrews, SO KOLVOVETV tivos only appears in H. 2. 14, while
Paul, Peter, and John say Koivwveîv Tivi (using the dat. not only
of the person as in classical Greek, but also of the thing as in
R. 15. 27 Tots TVEduaTukous a)TDv #kotvt vnd av Tà Zv7, ep. 1 Tim.
5. 22, 1 P. 4. 13, 2 Jo. 11; R. 12. 13 holds an intermediate position),
or else Kolvwvelv Tivi (person) év Tivi G. 6. 6, or els dóyov doo Ews kai
λήμψεως Ρh. 4. 15. Μεταδιδόναι never has the genitive, but the
accusative, if it is the whole which is imparted R. 1. 11, 1 Th. 2. 8
(the classical usage is analogous), elsewhere only the dat. of the
person και μετεϊναι is unrepresented ; ο έχων μέρος εν- (of the
thing) occurs in Ap. 20. 6. But the greater number of the con-
structions which come under this head—to take of, to bring, eat,
drink of etc.—have been lost to the genitive, and are expressed
by ék or otó: L. 20. 10 årò TOû kaptroll dúoovoiv,3 Mc. 12. 2 (va
láBy årò TÔV Kapôv (only in A. 27. 36 do we have apogedáßovro
Tpooñs (with many var. lect.], like yeúeo Dai, vide infra; beside which
ibid. 33 μηδέν προσλαβόμενοι is correctly used to indicate not the
whole but the part), Jo. 21. 10 évéykate ÅTÓ TỐv ótapéwv, 1 C. 11.
28 ék toll äptov ło Olétw, Jo. 4. 14 ös äv min êk toû údatos (as well as
éo Díelv ti, where the object consists of the whole, Mc. 1. 6 € O1wv
åkpidas kai uédo cyplov, like Aristoph. Eq. 604 ñ o Olov dè ToÙS
Tayoúpovs; 1 C. 8. io tà eidwloovta ¢obielv, cp. 7, Ap. 2. 14, 20, i.C.
1 Dwvñs is wanting in XL etc., D al. have o. kai owv. Mey.
2 The Vulgate has a domino spiritu (Tertullian indeed reads a domino
spirituum). There might also appear to be an irregular order of words in the
reading given by Origen (in Matt. tom. xiv. 14) in 1 C. 2. 4: OỦK Èv TTELBOÎ coplas
Xóywv, al'év åmodelčel TveÚMatos duvánews. But cp. with the last words ovellua
tñs mlotews 2 C. 4. 13, V. coplas kal årrokalúy ews E. 1. 17 etc.
3 The use with the simple gen. in Ap. 2. 17 TW VLKOÛVTC dúow airô Toll (s0 AC;
TO B, ÉK TOû x) márva toll KEKpVULévou is not authentic.
8 36. 1-2.]
101
T
GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC.
meat which comes from sacrifices; 1 C. 10. 18 oi čoblovtes às
Ovoías, which they consume in common). Of verbs of cognate
meaning to these, xoptáfelv 'to satisfy' (vulgar word for kopevvúval,
see Athenaeus iii. 99 E) has the genitive Mc. 8. 4, the passive
(literary language) has the gen. A. 27. 38; yeuerba. has the gen. in
yeuco dal Davátov Mt. 16. 28 etc., H. 2. 9, Toll deitvov L. 14. 24,
undevòs A. 23. 14, tñs swpeâs H. 6. 4: on the other hand the acc.
in Jo. 2. 9 TÒ údwp, H. 6. 5 Deoû ñua, not a classical but most
probably a popular usage. The phrase éyó cov óvalunv Philem. 20
(the word only occurs bere) 3 is derived from the literary language;
απολαύειν is unrepresented; φείδομαι always has the gen., but is
limited to Luke (A. 20. 29), Paul (R. 8. 32 and passim) and 2 Peter
(2. 4 f.).
2. Closely related to a partitive genitive is the gen. with verbs
of touching and seizing. Of this we have the following N.T.
instances : önteoda. Mt. 8. 4 and frequently in the Gospels (in John
only in 20. 17 besides 1 Jo. 5. 18; in the Epistles besides the last
passage quoted only in 1 C. 7. 4, 2 C. 6. 17 0.T.; never in Acts),
kadáTTELV A. 28. 3, Ocgyávely (literary language) H. 11. 28, 12. 20;
tilaußáveodai Mt. 14. 31, Mc. 8. 23, Luke passim, 1 Tim. 6. 12, 19,
H. 2. 16, 8. 90.T., 'to lay hold on any one (anything)': also with
the part expressed in the gen., Mc. 8. 23 étudaßójevos tñs xelpòs toll
Tuolo0,4 so that the correct construction is in all cases the gen.;5
on the other hand, kpateîv 'to seize,' 'to hold' (Hellenistic) has
the whole in the accus. as in Mt. 14. 3 kpatńcas Tòv 'Iwávnv, and
the gen. is confined to the part which one seizes on, Mt. 9. 25
ékpáryde tñs xelpòs (Tņv xelpa D) aŭtñs, Mc. 1. 31 (not D), 5. 41
(Tņv yelpa D), L. 8. 54 (Kpateiv Tivà tivos is not found except in
Mc. 9. 27 according to A al., where xBD read as in the other
passages) : in metaphorical sense, “to hold fast to, "lay hold on,'
with gen. (probably due to the use of kpateiv'to get the mastery of'
with gen. in the literary language) H. 4. 14, 6. 18. Luke also says
mlágas (vulgar word= aßùv) avròv tñs xelpós A. 3. 7, like daßùy
Ilodvéévnu xepós Eurip. Hec. 523. In addition to these we have
1 Still in many places a classical writer would have employed the gen. where
the acc. occurs in the N.T., as in Jo. 6. 53 èàv un páynte tv oápka toŮ violl Toll
ůvo. kaì rinte aŭtoÊ Tò alua, cp. the use of the acc. in 54, 56, 57 with Tpúyelv, a
à classical writer would not have used in this connection.
2 There is a v.l. in APQ al. yeulo al tnv koillav aŭtoll åró, cp. infra 4.
3 Octws óvaiunv TÛV TÉKVWY Aristoph. Thesm. 469; on the other hand, apart
from these combinations with the gen. of the person, the use of åtó with this
verb is found as early as Plato, Charmid. 175 E ÅTÒ tñs owo pooúvns.
4 The reading of D laßóuevos TNV xcipa Toll 7. is neither in the style of classical
(Plato Parmen, ad init. Tñs xelpós) nor N.T. Greek (which never has the middle
Taußáveo dai).
• It is only in appearance that ėmiauß. seems to be used with accus. as well:
in A. 9. 27 (cp. 16. 19, 18. 17) επιλαβόμενος αυτόν ήγαγεν, the αυτόν is dependent
on öyayev, and aůtoŮ must be supplied with c aß. (L. 23. 26 échaßbuevou
Σίμωνά τινα NBCDLX must be a wrong reading instead of Σίμωνός τινος AP al.).
102
(8 36. 2-4
GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC.
with the gen.: čxerbai (met.) H. 6. 9 tà kpelosova kal éxóueva
owtypías (connected with, leading to salvation') and åvtexeobal
(met.) Mt. 6. 24, L. 16. 13 TOÙ évòs åvokeTaL 'to attach oneself. to,'
hold to,' Tit. 1. 9 (similar meaning), 1 Th. 5. 14 årtéxeo de Tv
do Oevớv (“to assist'), like åvtihapßáveotai (met.) L. 1. 54, A. 20. 35
(to assist,' as in Lxx. and Hellenist. Greek; but in oi tñs evepyedias
åvtilajſavóuevou 1 Tim. 6. 2 'to attain,' 'to partake of).
3. The gen. with verbs of attaining (cp. åvtilapßáveo dai supra 2
ad fin.) only remains in some isolated instances in the more cultured
writers. TuyxáVELV TLVÓS L. 20. 35 (Tvxeîv is absent in Latin MSS.),
A. 24. 3, 26. 22, 27. 3, 2 Tim. 2. 10, H. 8. 6, 11. 35, ÉTELTUYXávelv
Tivos H. 6. 15, 11. 33, but in R. 11. 7 TOÛTO OÚK ÉTTÉTVXev is read by
all the standard MSS. (so oudev Herm. Mand. ix. 5, but tñs apáčews
x. 2. 4, cp. on the classical use of the neut. pron. or adj. Kühner
ii.2 301, note 9). Aayxávely takes the gen. only in appearance in
L. 1. 9 (TOû Boucão al = Doplo, § 71, 3), the acc. in A. 1. 17, 2 P. 1. I
(which is also more frequent in classical Greek than the gen.);
kanpovouelv only the acc. Mt. 5. 5 etc. (Hellenistic, Phrynich. p. 129;
Attic has the gen.); _ lkveiobai is followed by a preposition 2 C.
10. 13 f.-Verbs of desiring and striving after : émlOvuelv takes the
gen. in. A. 20. 33, 1 Tim. 3. 1, but the acc. in Mt. 5. 28 in BDE etc.1
(aŭras is hardly attested, the case is wanting in f* and some fathers),
elsewhere it takes the inf. or is used absolutely ; opéyeolar with gen.
1 Tim. 3. 1, 6. ro, H. 11. 16, as also guelpeolai ( = ipelp.) 1 Th. 2. 8;
ÉTTLTTO Delv is transitive as in classical Greek, so also contrary to
classical usage are relvâv, diyâv, $ 34, 2.
4. The genitive after 'to be full,' 'to fill' has been better preserved.
IIlutt ával, éutilidával (the former only in Gospels and Acts, the
latter also in R. 15. 24) always take the gen., Mt. 22. 10, L. 1. 53
etc.; Timpoûv takes a gen., L. 2. 40 Timpoúpevov oopías (-ių xBL, vide
inf.), A. 2. 28 0.T. (with acc. for v.l. as also in the LXX.), 5. 28,
13. 52, R. 15. 13 (BFG Timpopopňoai év [ev om. FG] Táoy xapậ, vide
inf.), 15. 14, 2 Tim. 1. 4: and also ék (partitive, supra 1) Jo. 12. 3
(Béto on): the pass. takes the dat. R. 1. 29, 2 C. 7. 4, cp. $ 38, 1,
or ev E. 5. 18, but Col. 2. 10 év ajtó (Xploto) Ten inpouévoia is
different: cp. also for the active R. 15. 13 supra : with the acc.
(supra § 34, 6) Ph. 1. 11, cp. Col. 1. 9 : yếuelv with gen. Mt. 23. 27
and passin, also Ap. 4. 6, 8 etc. (ibid. 17. 3 yémovta (yé uov) óvóuata
Braconuías is a solecism); so yeulgelv Mc. 15. 36 (minoas D), Jo. 2.7,
6. 13?,3 Ap. 15. 8, with ék L. 15. 16 v.l. (cp. supra 1), Ap. 8. 5, cp.
inpoồv supra. Under this head may also be brought BárteLV TÒ
1 So frequently in LXX. : Exod. 20. 17 OỦK ÉLOvuMoels Tv yuvaika K.T.N.,
Deut. 5. 21 etc. (Winer), Herm. Vis. i. 1. 4, Sim. ix. 9. 7 (with gen. Sim. ix.
13. 8).
2 Probably 'fulfilled ' = 'perfect,' cp. 4. 12 TÉNELOL kai terimpo opnuévol (DºE
al. Tet\nwuévol) év Tavti denuatl toll Deoû.
3 Έγέμισαν δώδεκα κοφίνους κλασμάτων εκ των πέντε άρτων κ.τ.λ. ; we might
correct κοφ. κλασμάτων as in L. 9. 17, cp. also κόφινον κοπρίων L. 13. 8 D.
$ 36. 4-6.]
103
GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC.
äkpov toll daktúlov Údatos (údarıx) L. 16. 24,1 and perhaps tepIO O EVELY
öptwv L. 15. 17 (Lucian, not class.), cp. deineo daí Tivos infra 9.
5. Of verbs denoting perception, aioláveo dai only appears once
(L. 9. 45) and there with the acc. of the thing (aútó, to understand'
= cuviéval; on the classical use of aio 0. Tu see Kühner ii.2 309); with
Truvdáveodai Mt. 2. 4 [not D], Jo. 4. 52 (not B] the person is expressed
by mapá, with ouviévai it is nowhere expressed. Thus the only
remaining verb which takes the gen. is åKoúelv (ÉTTAKOVELV 2 C. 6. 2 O.T.
takes the gen.: also é trakpoâolai A. 16. 25; ÚTakoúely takes the dative).
With this verb the person, whose speech one hears, regularly stands
in the gen. (as in classical Greek), while the thing, concerning which
one hears tell, stands in the acc. (as does also the person in a similar
case, as in E. 4. 21 ń kotoate aútóv). It is not an essential difference
that the person may also be introduced by mapá Jo. 1. 41 and passim
(classical), and occasionally by åró (unclassical, A. 9. 13, 1 Jo. 1. 5)
or, with Hebrew phraseology, από (διά, έκ) του στόματός τινος
L. 22. 71, A. 1. 4 D, 22. 14. But there remains some common
ground for the use of genitive and accusative. "To hear a sound'
in classical Greek is åkoúelv owvñs, Bons etc.; but in the N.T. we
have both åk. owvñs and owvýv, the former being used in St. John's
Gospel in the sense of 'to obey' (5. 25, 28, 10. 3, 16 etc.), the latter
in the sense of mere perception (3. 8, 5. 37), while in the Acts and
the Apocalypse both constructions occur indiscriminately with the
latter meaning: acc. A. 9. 4, 22. 9, 14, 26. 14 (gen. E), Ap. 1. 10,
4. I etc. (also 2 P. 1. 18); gen. A. 9. 7, 11. 7 (acc. D), 22. 7,
Ap. 14. 13, 16. 1, 21. 3 (3. 20 'to obey'), as also H. 3. 7, 15 O.T.,
12. 19. To hear words' admits of both constructions in classical
Greek also; the N.T. generally uses the acc., but the gen, in
Jo. 7. 40, 12. 47, 19. 13 (with v.l., cp. 8). The following are used
correctly, otevayuoü A. 7. 34, ouppwvias Kai xopôv L. 15. 25;
the following are doubtful, Tr coplav Zadouwvos Mt. 12. 42,
L. 11. 31, TNV Braoonulav Mt. 26. 65, câs Blaconuías Mc. 14. 64
(acc. ADG), Tòv dotao uóv L. 1. 41; Néyoutu(s) Ap. 5. 13 is wrong
(laloûvtas A. 2. 6 D).-It is probably only in appearance that the
verb takes a double gen. in passages like A. 22. I åkoúoaté Mov tñs
apòs úpās drologías (Jo. 12. 47 al.; Herm. Mand. xii. 5, cp. pov tas
εντολάς Sim. ix. 23. 2), since μου belongs to απολογίας, the pronoun
being similarly placed in Jo. 9. 6 επέχρισεν αυτού τον πηλόν επί τους
upoaduoús. Ooppaíveo dat appears nowhere, and očelv is not found
with a case that more nearly defines it (the gen. with the latter verb
is of course of a different character to the gen. with the former); but
on the analogy of Celv, atvelv, fuit VEîV TIVOS "to smell of something'
we have in A. 9. I ệu Trvéwv åreldñs kai Póvov (LXX. Jos. 10. 40 Tây
èutt véov [wns).
6. To remember, to forget. Muuvýokeobal H. 2. 6 O.T., 13. 3)
together with its aorist and perfect always takes the gen. (on
1 The Lxx. uses åtó Levit. 14. 16 (Buttm. 148); the classical instances of
Bárteo dal tivos (Arat. 650 etc., Buttm. ibid.) are formed on the analogy of
doveo bai Tivos in Homer.
104.
[S 36.6–8.
GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC.
ondayxvilke ed eelv etc.).192, The cause instance
1 C. 11. 2 f. see § 34, 3); also uynuovetelv for the most part, but the
acc. in Mt. 16. 9 (D is different), Jo. 15. 20 (Tòv dóyov), D (Tous
lóyous) instead of toû lóyov (gen. in 16.4 Com. jpcaD], 21), i Th. 2. 9,
2 Tim. 2. 8, Ap. 18. 5 (Herm. Vis. i. 3. 3, ii. 1. 3): with tepi (to
make mention") H. 11. 22 (15 gen.): classical usage corresponds to
this, both cases being used ; åvapeuvÝCKELV_and -eo bai take acc.,
Mc. 14. 72, 1 C. 4. 17, 2 C. 7. 15, H. 10. 32 (class. acc. and more
often gen.); ÚTopluvÝ KELV and cobai take acc. in Jo. 14. 26,
3 Jo. 10 (2 Tim. 2. 14 TallTa úrouijvyoke is different, the acc. being
that of the inner object), gen. in L. 22. 61, and Tepi 2 P. 1. 12.
’Emulavõáveolar with gen. only occurs in H. 6. 10, 13. 2 (acc. **), 16;
similarly éklave. ibid. 12. 5; ĉidavo. takes acc. in Ph. 3. 14 (as
occasionally in classical Greek).
7. There are but few remaining instances of the genitive with
verbs expressing emotion. The cause of the emotion (after opriceo dai,
Davuáčelv, élecîv etc.) never stands in the gen.; the Hebraic verb
ofdayxvlt to dar=édecīv(from ot láyxva=brand) probably only appears
to be followed by the gen. of the person pitied in Mt. 18. 271 (else-
where it takes été tiva or émi tivi, tepi Tivos). 'Avex eodal 'to bear
with,' however, takes the gen. throughout in the N.T. as elsewhere,
úuôv Mt. 17. 17 etc. Mélel takes the gen. in 1 C. 9. 9, but DEFG
read repl Tớv Bowv, which is also the construction in Mt. 22. 16=Mc.
12. 4, Jo. 10. 13, 12. 6, 1 P. 5.7 (not unclassical); in A. 18. 17 oúdèy
TOÚTWV TỚ Tadliwni éjelev the construction is probably personal as
often in classical Greek (oùdév being nominative and Toútwv partitive).
Still we have émyuello daí Tivos L. 10. 34 f., 1 Tim. 3. 5 ; åmedelv TLVOS
1 Tim. 4. 14, H. 2. 3, 8. 9 O.T.; povociodai 1 Tim. 5. 8; pepluvâv
Mt. 6. 34 with εαυτής ΝΒ etc., τα εαυτής ΕΚ, perhaps εαυτη should
be read from the Lat. sibi (Tà Tepi ýpôv Ph. 2. 20, útép Tivos
1 C. 12. 25).
8. The following verbs of ruling (excelling) take the genitive :
ápxelv Mc. 10. 42, R. 15. 12 0.T., KUPLEVELV L. 22. 25, R. 6. 9 etc.,
KATAKUPLEVELV Mt. 20. 25, Mc. 10. 42 etc. (for Katefovoláčelv ibid. vide
inf. 10), aŭdevreîv 1 Tim. 2. 12, øyeuoveỦelv, Tetpapxeîv, åvoviaTEVELV
L. 2. 2, 3. 1, A. 18. 12 (v.l.), katasuvaoTEVÉLV Ja. 2. 6 *°BC al., but
υμάς is read by **A like καταβραβεύειν τινά etc., 8 34, 1; on κρατείν
vide supra 2. But faoll EÚELV no longer governs the genitive, except
in Mt. 2. 22 Tậs 'Iovdaías xB (the rest read tñs 'I. as often in the
LXX.), elsewhere (étrì tñs yñs Ap. 5. 10='on earth ') it takes érí Tiva
L. 1. 33, 19. 14, 27, R. 5. 14, after Hebrew precedent (5:29).
On ηττάσθαι see 8 37, 4. Verbs denoting excellence: υπερβάλλειν
Tivós E. 3. 19 (so Plat. Gorg. 475 B, the usual classical construction
is the acc. or absolute, as in N.T. 2 C. 3. 10, 9. 19), ÚTEPÉXELV TIVOS
Ph. 2. 3, but tová (also classical) 4. 7. Here also, therefore, we only
find remnants of the old usage; especially is this the case with the
gen. of the thing after verbs of accusing etc., of which the only
1 Emlayxvio els ôè ó Kúplos Toll doúlov Èkelvou 'the lord of that slave.'
§ 36. 8-9.]
.105
GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC.
instance which can be adduced is éykalcio Cai otáGews A. 19. 40, and
this is contrary to Attic usage (εγκαλείν τινί τι, but τινί τινος in
Plutarch Aristid. 10), elsewhere cyk. and kpíveo dai (pass.) take tepi
TIVOS A. 23. 29, 6 etc.. (Attic); for the dat. instead of gen. of the
punishment see § 37, 2.—The gen. of price is still used with
verbs of buying and selling, thus Mt. 10. 29 dooapiov iwleita26. 9,
A. 5. 8 etc.; also ovuowveîv (to agree) onvaplov Mt. 20. 13, but ék önv.
την ημέραν ibid. 2,1 cp. for the same periphrasis for this gen. αγοράζειν
ÉK Mt. 27. 7, ktão dac ék A. 1. 18; see further L. 16. 9 (on the use of
év see $ 41,1); a kindred use is åčioûv (KATAĚLOūv) Tivos 2 Th. 1. 5, 11,
1 Tim. 5. 17, H. 3. 3, 10. 29; but 'to exchange for' is expressed by
ålláệai ti év R. 1. 23 (after the Lxx. Ps. 105. 20), cp. 25 Metadiáo.
DELV &v, 26 metald. eis (unclassical, although the gen. with uet. is
also absent from classical Greek; in Plat. Tim. 19 A uet. eis means
'to bring over to another place ).
9. Of verbs which contain the idea of separation, the following are
found with the gen.: átallotploûv E. 2. 12, 4. 18, årootepeło dal
1 Tim. 6. 5, with v.l. Årect pajjévwv årò (D*), cp. 2 Tim. 4. 4,
ảotoxeîv 1 Tim. 1. 6 (with Tepi ti 6. 21, 2 Tim. 2. 18), Sladépewv 'to
differ' Mt. 6. 26 etc., kwlúelv tivá tivos 'to hinder from' (Xenoph.
Polyb.) A. 27. 43 (elsewhere K. Tiva, k. Ti, also after Hebrew example
kwlúelv ti åró Tivos L. 6. 29, 'to refuse,' as in LXX. Gen. 23. 6),
deleolau 'to lack' Ja. 1. 5, 2. 15 (év undeví 1. 4 'in no respect'), cp.
TEPLO O EÚELV Tivós, supra 4, mateodai 1 P. 4. I TÉTTAVTAL đuaptías (ibid.
3. 10 0.T. Taúelv tivà åró; åvaraúeo Dai ék as in class. Greek Ap. 14.
13, KATéTTAVCEV [intrans.] Årò H. 4. 4 0.T., 10) öpxeo Dal tivos does not
occur. otepelv "to be inferior to' (cp. Űrtepos) 2 C. 11. 5, 12. 11: 'to
lack' L. 22. 35: in the same sense otepeco Dai R. 3. 23 (with év
1 C. l. 7, cp. supra Leitteo Dai: Úgtepeiv årò to remain alienated
from’="to lose' H. 12. 15 (LXX. Eccl. 6. 2], cp. åvvotépntos årò
Herm. Mand. ix. 4); átéx coðal 'to abstain' A. 15. 29, 1 Tim. 4. 3,
1 P. 2. II (in A. 15. 20 the reading varies between the simple gen.
and åtó; with åtò 1 Th. 4. 3, 5. 22): ÅTéX EL “to be distant' L. 7. 6
**D (v.l. with drò, as in 24. 13 etc.); xPÍSELV Mt. 6. 32, L. 11. 8
(6owv, őoov kºDE al.), 12. 30, R. 16. 2, 2 C. 3. 1. To these may be
added Seîodal Tivos 'to ask' Mt. 9. 38, Luke passim (for which pós
Tiva is used in A. 8. 24, cp. cöxouai apòs 2 C. 13. 7, léyw apòs),
2 C. 8. 4, G. 4. 12; pordelodau 'to need’ only in A. 17. 25. Quite
peculiar is the use of the gen. in oύ βραδύνει κύριος της επαγγελίας
2 P. 3. 9, "hesitates and refrains from accomplishing it. But in
other cases separation is expressed by åró or & (classical Greek uses
the simple gen. as well): with xwpiceuv, lúelv, durpoûv, é levdepoûv,
Þúco bai, oýšelv, kadapišeiv, lovelv; with uedlotával L. 16. 4 there are
1 Unless this ek has a distributive meaning, as in Attic inscriptions (Meister-
hans' Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, p. 173. 2); kplow ... apabelowv ék tpc@v
öpaxuñv toy médiuvověkaotov, where an apparently irregular acc. is added in the
same way as in Mt. Tu ruépav. The same inscr. has elsewhere : apab évtwV EŠ
Opaxuwv Toû nedluvou ékáoTov; of course & could not well be said. In an-
other instance : BĘ OKTÙ oßolwv Tov otarípa, the acc. likewise has no governing
verb ("eight oboli being reckoned for each stater ').
106
[S 36. 9-11.
GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC.
variant readings (ék tñs oikovojías XBD, LX with årò, APR al.
with the simple gen.).
. 10. The following compound verbs take the gen. on the strength
of the preposition : éKTITTELV in metaphorical sense (not in the literal)
G. 5. 4, 2 P. 3. 17; the remaining instances are all compounds of
katá (with the meaning against' or 'down over'; on the other
hand, with the meaning down,' they take the acc., $ 34, 1): Kata-
yelâv Mt. 9. 24 (D* aútóv), Mc. 5. 40, L. 8. 53; katay.vớO KELV
1 Jo. 3. 20 f. (katadikáCELV Tlvós is classical, in the N.T. it only takes
the acc., Mt. 12. 7, also Ja. 5. 6); Katakavyão dau 'to boast oneself
against' R. 11. 18, Ja. 2. 13 (katakpívelv always takes the acc.; in
Attic tivos); katalaleiv Ja. 4. 11, 1 P. 2. 12 (Clem. Hom. xvi. 8,
xix. 7 also has karadéyelv Tivós 'to revile'); katapaprupeiv Mt. 26. 62
etc.; katavapkâv, a Pauline word, “to be burdensome to' 2 C. 11. 8,
12. 13; Kataotpnviâv 'to wax wanton against' 1 Tim. 5. II; kata-
Opoveîv Mt. 6. 24 etc.; Kataxciv 'to pour over' takes the gen. in
Mc. 14. 3 according to BC al., other Mss. have katá or éirí with
gen.: in Mt. 26. 7 it talkes επί τινος Or επί τι και κατεξουσιάζειν (op.
supra 8) Mt. 20. 25= Mc. 10. 42; Katnyopelv passim.
11. The use of the gen. as the complement of adjectives and adverbs
is also, as contrasted with classical usage, very limited. The follow-
ing instances occur: Kolywvós, o vykoLV. TIVOS (gen. of the thing) 2 C. 1. 7,
1 P.5. 1, R. 11. 17 (also with the gen. of the person, the companion
of someone,' H. 10. 33, also 1 C. 10. 18, 20; beside which we have
KOLVOvoi tô Eíumvi L. 5. 10 [gen. D], cp. $ 37, 3 and Kolvwvelv, supra 1);
(not kolvós Tivos, nor idios; Clem. Cor. i. 7.7 has állótploi ToŨ Deoû];
Métoxos H. 3. 1, 14, 6. 4, 12. 8(='a companion of someone'l. 6 O.T.;
cp. E. 5. 7?); cúmpoppos tñs cikóvos R. 8. 29, i.e. 'a bearer of the
image,' cp. § 37, 6 for the dat. (in ouvepyós Tivos and similar cases
with a personal gen. the adjective has become a substantive, cp.
ibid.); $évos tivós estranged from a thing,' E. 2. 12 (Plat. Apol. 17 D;
with dat. Clem. Cor. i. 1. 1); åtepaotos Kakov "untempted by
Ja. 1. 13 (so in classical Greelk απείρατός τινος, άγευστος κακών etc.,
Kühner ii.2 p. 344 f.); in dvopos Deoû — {vvouos XplotoŮ 1 C. 9. 21 the
gen. is dependent on vóuos (a peculiar and bold use, cp. § 28, 6); but
άσπιλος is followed by από (έκ CP) Ja. 1. 27, as also αθώος Mt. 27. 24,
kadapós A. 20. 26 (Demosth. 59. 78), cp. Kalapíšelv årò supra 9;
Meotós tivos Mt. 23. 28 etc., orýpns L. 4. I etc. (kevós and évøens are
never found with gen., K. Årò Herm. Mand. v. 7, xi. 4), cp. "to fill'
supra 4; đệtos, áváčios Mt. 3. 8, 1 C. 6. 2, etc., cp. gen. of price
supra 8 ; évoxos Davátov Mt. 26. 66, Mc. 14. 64, aiwvlov åmaptýuatos
(ájaptías, kpioews) Mc. 3. 29, etc. (as well as the use with the dat.,
modelled on évézeo Daí tivi, Mt. 5. 21 f., which is the commoner
classical construction ; ibid. 22 we also have čvoxos eis tėv yćevvav);
ópolos with gen. only in Jo. 8. 55 XCLX ýmwv, but ûnîv is read by
ABD etc., cp. 9. 9, 1 Jo. 3. 2 and elsewhere in N.T. (the gen. is also
classical but rare); dkólovda TOÚTWv Herm. Mand. viii. 4. 10
i The reading in A. 19. 27 kabalpeio dal tñs meyalecórnTOS (HABE); instead of
Ý Meyalecórns aúrns or aŭras Mey., seems to be impossible.
$36. 11-12.]
107
GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC.
(classical). Adverbs : ¢yyús with gen. Jo. 11. 18, R. 10. 8 O.T.,
H. 6. 8, 8. 13 etc., with dat. (rarely in classical, more often in late.
Greek) only A. 9. 38 éYYÙs ojos Ths A68Bas T7 'IoTTm (therefore
with good reason), 27.8 (the text of the passage is not quite certain);
almolov Jo. 4. 5, cp. L. 10. 29, 36 and ó tinolov cov Mt. 5. 43 etc.;
&VTÓS L. 17. 21,1 KTÓS 1 C. 6. 18 etc.; Ew Mt. 21. 39 etc. (not ow,
čowev, since 2 C. 4. 16 o čow » uw sc. ävē pwntos should be taken like
the preceding o čew nuwv č. in the sense of our' etc.); émrávo
Mt. 5. 14 etc., ÚTrepávw E. 4. IO, ÚTOKÁTw Mc. 6. II etc. (not ävw, KÓTW);
éustpoobey Mt. 5. 16 etc., őrlo bev Mt. 15. 23, L. 23. 26, omlow Mt. 3. 11
etc.; tépav Mt. 4. 25 etc.; [ÉTÉKELVA A. 7. 43 is a wrong reading]; in
addition to these xwpis Méxpi éws etc., see § 40, 6 ff. Prepositions.
- The class of adjectives in -ckós, formed from verbs and taking the
gen., which is so large in Attic Greek (Trapao KevaOTIKÓS Tivos and the
like, Kühner ii.?, p. 315) is entirely absent (didaktikos 1 Tim. 3. 2,
2 Tim. 2. 24, but without case). We occasionally find verbal adjec-
tives in -tós (in the sense of a perf. part. pass.) taking the gen., as
also indeed the perf. part. pass. in its ordinary form, still this is due
to the participle becoming a sort of substantive. Like úró todos
'Incoû ſ =ôv åréotudkev 'Incoûs) one may also say ékleKTO Deoû
R. 8: 33, Mt. 24. 31 etc.; åyarntoà Deoû R. 1. 7 ; cp, ó o yarmitós jov
16. 5 etc., oi ảyatnto ý uậv A. 15. 25 (cp. Attic ò èpájevós tivos);
Sidaktoi Ocoll Jo. 6. 45 0.T., cp. 1 C. 2. 13 oủk év didaktois åvOpwnívns
copías lóyous, à év Sidaktois veúmatos (classical parallels in
Kühner, p. 322, e.g. Soph. El. 343), where, if lóyous be not spurious,
didaktós has kept its adjectival character; eŭloynuévou ToỒ atpós
Mt. 25. 34 ; yevunto yuvalkớv Mt. 11. II, L. 7. 28 (LXX. Job 14. I);
in kantoi 'Incot, however, in R. 1. 6 the gen. is rather a gen. of the
possessor, since the Person who gives the call is God rather than
Jesus (Winer, $ 30, 4). A peculiar use is tò cibiquévov (D <Oos) Toû
vójov L. 2. 27.
12. The genitive of comparison with the comparative (and with
what remains of the superlative, cp. $ 11, 3 ff.) is found as in the
classical language; and along with it (though this is much the rarer
construction of the two, as it is in the earlier language) is used the
analytical expression with , particularly when the gen. could not
well be employed or would not be sufficiently explicit (e.g. with an
adj., bendovou uâldov ñ pilóocou 2 Tim. 3. 4, with a statement of time
R. 13. 11, with an infinitive Mt. 19. 24, A. 20. 35 etc., with a gen.
únov uâldov Toll Deoll A. 4. 19, also with a dat. as in Mt. 10. 15,
But in Mt. 23. 25 Tò ơ lev Toũ ToTapfou, 26 Tò evabs T. T. - Tò ởKTòs aỦros the
genitive denotes the whole, as in L. 11. 39.
? The gen. in déo ULOS TOŮ XPLOTOû E. 3. i (Paul has similar phrases elsewhere)
is also equivalent to a gen. with a substantive, see on this phrase Winer $ 30,
2, Buttm. p. 147 (E. 4. I has é déoucos èv kuplu).
30. Schwab, Hist. Syntax d. Gr. Comparation (Würzburg, 1894), ii. 92,
reckons that the use of the gen. or after the comparative is in poetry in the
proportion of 18:1, in Attic prose writers in the proportion of 5.5:1; in any
later period the use of the former construction is more than three times greater
than that of the latter.
Ιο8
[S 36.12–13.
GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC.
A. 5. 29); it is seldom found without some such occasion for it
(Jo. 3. Ι9 ηγάπησαν μάλλον το σκότος ή το φώς, 4. Ιπλείονας μαθητές
ποιεί ή 'Ιωάνης 1 Jo. 4. 4, 1 C. 14. 5). In addition to this periphrasis
there is the periphrasis by means of a preposition : Tapá tiva (cp.
classical passages like Thuc. i. 23. 3, which however are not entirely
similar, so that the prep. could not be replaced by ; 2 but in
modern Greek mapá or åró is the regular means of expressing com-
parison) L. 3. 13 πλέον παρά το διατεταγμένον (18. Ι4 μάλλον παρ'
εκείνον D, without μ. NBL, other MSS. have the corrupt reading ή γαρ
εκείνος), Ηebr. passim, 1. 4 διαφορώτερον παρ' αυτούς, 3. 3, 9. 23,
11. 4, 12. 24, Hernm. Vis. iii. 12. I, Sim. ix. 18. 2 (= more than,
without a comparative, S 43, 4); and υπέρ τινα (as in the case of
παρά, classical Greelk only shows the beginnings of this use), L. 16. 8
φρονιμώτεροι υπέρ, Jo. 12. 43 μάλλον υπέρ (ήπερ ABD al. is corrupt)
H. 4. 12, A. 20. 35 v.l. (Herm. Mand. v. 6 has Útép with the elative;
with comparative in elative sense υπέρ πάσαν αμαρτίαν άνομωτέρους
Barn. 5. 9; also LXX. e.g. Judges 11. 25, see Winer). The word
« than' is omitted after πλείων and ελάσσων before numerical state-
ments (in Attic πλείν εξακοσίους Αristoph. Αν. 1251 ; Lobeck Phryn.
410 f. ;3 Lat. plus quingenios): Α. 4. 22 ετών πλειόνων τεσσεράκοντα,
23. 13, 21, 24. II, 25. 6, 1 Τim. 5. 9 χήρα μη έλαττον ετών εξήκοντα ;4
also L. 9. 13 according to * ουκ εισίν ημίν πλείονες (other readings
are πλείον ή, πλέον ή, with stereotyped πλέον, cp. Kühner ii.2 847 f.)
άρτοι πέντε, Mt. 26. 53 πλείους (ΑΟ al.; πλείω *BD) δώδεκα
(NBDL; ή δ. AC al.) λεγιώνας (“BD al.; -νων *AC al.) αγγέλων ;
instead of πλείων we also have επάνω (νulgar) Mr. 14. 5 πραθήναι
επάνω δηναρίων τριακοσίων, 1 C. 15. 6 επάνω πεντακοσίοις αδελφούς.-
Instances of looser employment of the genitive: Mt. 5. 20 èàv un
περισσεύση ή δικαιοσύνη υμών πλείον των ... Φαρισαίων (= than that
of the Ph., yours is more in comparison with the Ph.); Jo. 5. 36 éyò
έχω την μαρτυρίαν μείζω του Ιωάνου, where it is ambiguous whether
the meaning is 'than John had,' or 'than that given by John’: in
the latter sense, however, μείζω ή (Β al. resid μείζων) του Ι. would be
better. Ας περισσός and -ύτερος have come to be used for πλείων
($ 11, 4), περισσός also takes the gen.: Mt. 5. 37 το περισσόν τούτων,
Ε. 3. 20 υπερεκπερισσού ών κ.τ.λ.-A stereotyped use of the neut.
πάντων to intensify the superlative appears in Mc. 12. 28 ποία έστιν
εντολή πρώτη πάντων (πασών is only read by M*al., but D it. omit
πάντων), cp. Τhuc. iv. 52. 3, Win. 8 27, 6.
13. Local and temporal genitive. There are a few remains of a
local gen.: L. 5. 19 ποίας (sc. οδού, by which way) εισενέγκωσιν,
1 In 1 Τim. 1. 4 εκζητήσεις παρέχουσιν μάλλον η οικοδομίαν θεού the gen. would
not have been in place, especially as μάλλον ή virtually has in this passage the
force of a negative.
2 For precise details on παρά see Schwab ii. 108 f., 152 f., on υπέρ 109 €., on
prepositions generally 149 ff.
3 For details see Schwab S4 ff.
+ The next word is yeyovvia, which some commentators attach to the follow-
ing évos dvopos yuvń ; still even if it is connected with the preceding words, the
usage remains the same, in spite of the Attic είκοσιν έτη γεγονώς, cp. 8 34, 8.
$ 36. 13. $ 37. 1.]
109
DATIVE
19. 4 ékelvns (Dékelvo) quellev dcépxer bai, which are incorrect, since
the gen. in classical Greek denotes the whole area within which
something goes on, just as the corresponding temporal gen. denotes
the whole period of time within which something happens. Of
this temporal use the N.T. bas the following examples : xeluôvos
Mt. 24. 20= Mc. 13. 18 during the winter': ňuépas Ap. 21. 25
during the day,' 'in the day,' with v.l. m. kai VUKTÓs, cp. Mc. 5. 5,
L. 18. 7, A. 9. 24 etc.. 'in the day as well as by night,' beside which
we have výkta kaì ñuépav 'all day and night long,' $ 34, 8 (but
Jo. 11. 9 éáv TuS TEPLTATÙ év ty quépą by day,' cp. S 38. 4; did tas
uépas 'in the course of this day,' L. 9. 37 D): vuitós Mt. 2. 14 etc.,
tñs v. L. 2. 8 ( in this night'), for which we have dà vvktós A. 5. 19
(v.l. dià T. v.), 16. 9, 17. 10, 23. 31, like per noctem ; Teco Epákovta.
ņuepôv D* A. 1. 3 for siņu. Tego. of B etc. and with equivalent
sense (during' i.C. at intervals in that time,' see § 42, 1); quépas
Méons A. 26. 13, uéons vuKTÓs Mt. 25. 6, Megovvktíov, ålektopopwvíos
Mc. 13. 35 (uecovúktlov KBC al., cp. § 34, 8), öp@pov Badéws L. 24. I
(all these denoting a space of time, 'the middle part of the day' etc.,
not a moment of time'), Toû doutroŮ (sc. Xpóvov) G. 6. 17, É. 6. 10
**AB "henceforth' (classical ; a stereotyped phrase). With an
adverb: dis toll caßßárov L. 18. 12 (twice in the week'), áta Toû
éviavtoŮ H. 9. 7, as in classical Greek.
**B* momenting a spacec al., op. med
adverb : benceforth time), pe time, the 34, 3), O Tío, de 1); spués
$ 37. DATIVE.
1. In the use of the Greek dative a distinction must be made
between the pure dative, which expresses the person more remotely
concerned, the instrumental dative (and dative of accompaniment),
and, thirdly, the local dative. Still this triple division cannot be
applied with absolute clearness and certainty to all the existing
usages. The functions of this case were in large measure, more so
than those of the accusative and genitive, usurped by different
prepositions, particularly év and els; connected with this and with
the disappearance of the use of the dative after prepositions, is the
subsequent loss of the dative in modern Greek and the substitution
for it of eis with the accusative. In the N.T., however, the case is
still very largely employed.
On the use of the dative as the necessary complement of the verb
the following points may be noted. To give, to promise etc.: there
is hardly any tendency to supplant the dat. (Sedouévov ¿v..., $ 41, 2;
Herm. Vis. i. 4. 8 els tò Gnplov uavtov ēdwka ; iii. 11. 3 Tapediókate
AVTOùs eis tas åkndias is different, where eis expresses the result, as
in the N.T., R. 1. 24 etc. (although the dat. is found beside eis in
E. 4. 19]; Tapad. eis ouvédpla Mt. 10. 17 etc. is also justifiable). To
do good etc., to be profitable, to injure: dat. and acc. see § 34, 1 and 4;
In classical Greek these must have been expressed by rolą, ékelvy, cp.
Xenoph. Anab. iii. 4. 37 xwplov ÚTEPSÉGiov, ñ špeklov ol"Elinves traplévac (therefore
D is right in 19. 4, but in the other passage the whole of the evidence supports
the gen.).
ΙΙΟ
[8 37. 1.
DATIVE.
έν is also used in place of the dat., ibid. 4: συμφέρειν always takes the
dat., Mt. 5. 29 etc. To serve (δουλεύειν λατρεύειν διακονείν υπηρετείν)
always takes the dat. ; also δουλoύν “ to make a servant'l C. 9. 19 ;
on δουλούσθαι pass. vide infra 4 ; προσκυνείν etc. take dat. and acc.
8 34, 1; προσκ, ενώπιόν τινος L. 4. 7, Αp. 15. 4 is Hebraic, S 40, 7;
so also åpéo KELV (elsewhere with riví, like åpkeîv and the adjectives
άρεστός, αρκετός, ικανός etc.) ενώπιόν τινος Α. 6. 5, άρεστος ενώπ. τινος
1 Jo. 3. 22. Το show, to reveal take dat. always (φαίνειν “to give
light' Αp. 21. 23 [with εν 8°], επιφαίνειν L. 1. 79), as also to seem'
(δοκείν, φαίνεσθαι); on φανερούν έν and the like see 8 41, 2. To say to
is expressed, as in classical Greek, by τινί or πρός τινα και εύχεσθαι takes
dat. A. 26. 29, and πρός τινα 2 C. 13. 7, προσεύχεσθαι dat. only, Mt. 6. 6,
1 C. 11. 13. To write, to announce take dat.; more striking and
isolated cases of the dat. with verbs of spealking are : απολογείσθαι το
δήμω Α. 19. 33, so 2 C. 12. Ι9 (Lucian, Plut.) before or in the
presence of anyone,’ αποτάσσεσθαι to say farewell’ Mc. 6. 46 etc.
(Hellenistic, Phryn. Lob. 23 f.); καυχάσθαι “to boast of before
2 C. 7. Ι4, 9. 2; ομολογείν τινι Η. 13. 15, τω ονόματι αυτού “to praise,
like εξομολογείσθαι, άνθομολ., R. 14. II Ο.Τ., Mt. 11. 25, L. 2. 38,
10. 21 (so also αινείτε τω θεώ Αp. 19. 5, like LΧΧ. Jerem. 20. 13 etc.,
Buttm. 153 note); “to confess before anyone,''to anyone' A. 24. 14;
Mt. 7. 23 (='to promise' A. 7. 17, with v.l. ő uodev and canyyellato
D; Mt. 14. 7; on ομολ. έν see S 41, 2); ψεύδεσθαί τινι Α. 5. 4 (LXX.; ibid. 3
τινα “ to deceive, as in classical Greek). To blame etc.: επιτιμών,
εγκαλείν take dat. (εγκ. κατά τινος R. 8. 33), καταράσθαι and μέμφε-
σθαι take the dat. as a doubtful v.1., 8 34, 2; ibid. on παραινείν
ευαγγελίζεσθαι και επιτάσσειν προστάσσειν διαστέλλεσθαι etc. talke dat. ;
also κελεύειν Εν. Petr. 47. 49, Herm. Sim. viii. 2. 8.-Πείθεσθαι,
υπακούειν, απιστεϊν, απειθείν talke the usual dat. ; but πεποιθέναι to
trust in’ besides the dat. (as in Ph. 1. 14) more often takes έν τινι,
επί τινι or τινα, είς τινα, and s0 πιστεύειν : with τινι passim, even in
the sense to believe in, as in A. 5. Ι4, 18. 8 το κυρίω; with prep.
« to believe in’: έν τινι only in Mc. 1. 15 πιστεύετε εν τώ ευαγγελία,
επί τινι 1 Τim. 1. Ι6, L. 24. 25 (πιστ. om. D), Mt. 27. 42 EF' al.
(NBL επ' αυτόν, AD αυτο), R. 9. 33 al. Ο.Τ., επί τινα Α. 9. 42 etc.,
είς τινα, εις το όνομά τινος etc., which is the commonest construction.
Cp. Buttmann, p. 150 f. 2-To be angry (also έμβριμάσθαι Mt. 9. 30
etc. και μετριοπαθείν τινι Η. 5. 2; on μέμφεσθαι, 8 34. 2), to envy talke
the usual dat.; also to thank, to owe etc.—The adjectives belonging
to these verbs are subjoined : ωφέλιμος Tit. 3. 8 (σύμφορον Or
ovu épov is used substantivally with a gen., 1 C. 7. 35, 10. 33 ;
σωτήριός τινι Tit. 2. II), άρεστός αρκετός ικανός vide supra και φανερός
Α. 7. 13, 1 Τim. 4. I5 (ν.1. with εν), εμφανής A. 10. 40, R. 10. 20
Ο.Τ., υπήκοος Α. 7. 39, πιστός το κυρίω Α. 16. 15, cp. Η. 3. 2
1 Jo. 3. 15 is different, where if εν αυτώ (Β) is correct it must be taken in
connection with έχη ζωήν.
". 2 'Ελπίζειν τινί “ to hope in anyone' (instead of επί τινα or τινι Or είς τινα και τη
TÚX? êtloas Thuc. 3. 97) occurs only in Mt. 12. 21 in a quotation from Is. 42.
4, where LXX. has επί τω ; εν τώ is read by D al. ; cp. 8 5, 2, note 3.
8 37. 1-3.]
I.II
DATIVE.
(1 P. 1. 21 εις θεόν ΑΒ, but 8" al. read πιστεύοντας και generally
absolute), απειθής A. 26. 19 etc. (άπιστος absolute), εναντίος Mc. 6. 48
etc. (with πρός τι A. 26. 9); to these may be added the substantive
οφειλέτης ειμί τινι R. 1. Ι4, 8. Ι2 (with gen. 15. 27 etc.). '
2. The dative is used in a looser manner (as in classical Greek)
with various verbs to denote the person whose interest is affected
(dativus commodi et incommodi). Μαρτυρείν τινι for anyone'
L. 4. 22 etc., also against anyone' Mt. 23. 31 μαρτυρείτε εαυτούς.
'Αναπληρούται αυτούς (D al. επ' αυτούς) η προφητεία L. 18. 31 (Dhas
περί with gen.). "Έκρινα έμαυτώ τούτο 2 C. 2. I for myself, cp.
Herm. Mand. xii. 4. 6 σεαυτώ κέκρικας του μη δύνασθαι τας εντολάς
ταύτας φυλαχθήναι. Also μη μεριμνάτε τη ψυχη υμών - τω σώματι
υμών Mt. 6. 25 (L. 12. 22), “ for the life--for the body’ (other con-
structions in 8 36, 7); and most probably Ap. 8. 4 ταις προσευχαις,
cp. 3 (Winer, $ 31, 6). The peculiar Pauline employment of the
dat. in the following passages is not quite the same as in the
last instances : R. 6. 1ο και απέθανεν, τη αμαρτία απέθανεν, ο δε
ζη, ζή τω θεώ, then in verse II νεκρούς μεν τη αμ., ζώντας δε
τω θεώ, 14. 7 f. ουδείς εαυτώ ζη, και ουδείς εαυτο αποθνήσκει: εάν
τε γάρ ζωμεν, το κυρίω ζωμεν, εάν τε αποθνήσκωμεν, το κ. άπο-
θνήσκομεν, from which the conclusion is drawn that in every
case του κυρίου εσμέν ; cp. further 6. 2, 7. 4 έθανατώθητε το
νόμω - εις το γενέσθαι υμάς ετέρω κ.τ.λ., 2 C. 5. 15, G. 2. 19,
1 P. 2. 24; the dative therefore expresses the possessor, cp.
the dat. with γίνεσθαι infra 3. Further instances : 2 C. 5. 13
είτε γαρ εξέστημεν, θεώ (it concerns God alone '), είτε σωφρονούμεν,
υμίν (in your interest '): R. 14. 4 το ιδίω κυρίω στήκει ή πίπτει, 6 και
φρονών την ημέραν κυρίω φρονεί και ο έσθίων κυρίω έσθίει' ευχαριστεί
γαρ τω θεώ κ.τ.λ. ο.. eating etc. is a matter in which God is con-
cerned, which takes place for Him (for His honour). Cp. also the
Ο.Τ. quotation ibid. ΙΙ έμοι κάμψει πάν γόνυ, with which may be
connected the use of προσκυνείν τινι (S 34, 1). A peculiar use is
that in Mc. 10. 33 κατακρινουσιν αυτόν θανάτω (-ου D*)= Mt. 20. Ι8
(here read by CD al., eis Oávatov H, B omits the noun), according to
Winer, $ 31, 1 ='to sentence to death,' cp. instances from late writers
like Diod. Sic. in Lob. Phryn. 475, 2 P. 2. 6 (otavpộ Clem. Hom.
Epit. i. 145); it may be influenced by the analogy of θανάτω ζημιούν
and the Latin capite damnare.
3. The dat. with είναι, γίνεσθαι (υπάρχειν in Acts and 2 P. 1. 8)
denotes the possessor, so that it corresponds to 'to have' or 'get'
with an altered construction : ουκ ήν αυτούς τόπος “ they had no
room’ L. 2. 7, εγίνετο πάση ψυχή φόβος all experienced and
continued to feel a fright' A. 2. 43, a common construction, as also
in classical Greek, used where the possessor is previously known and
the emphasis is laid not on him but on the thing which falls to his
lot (on the other hand with a gen. αύτη η οικία Σωκράτους έστίν
the house [which is previously known] belongs to Socrates,'
cp. R. 14. 8 etc.); but we also have R. 7. 3 εαν γένηται ανδρί ετέρω,
4 εις το γενέσθαι υμάς ετέρω (a Hebraism, modelled on 25N) ,
II2
[8 37. 3-4.
DATIVE.
LXX. Lev. 22. 12 etc.), Α. 2. 39 υμίν έστιν ή επαγγελία, due no doubt
to επαγγέλλεσθαί τινι, L. 12. το α ητοίμασας, τίνι έσται (sc. ήτοιμα-
σμένα , but D has τίνος). Correctly in A. 21. 23 εισιν ημίν δώδεκα
άνδρες we have here' ; Mt. 19. 27 τί έσται ημίν. On the model of
έστιν συνήθεια υμίν Jo, 18. 39 we have also κατά το ειωθός αυτό
L. 4. Ι6 (αυτο om. D), Α. 17. 2 (ο Παύλος D) ? 1 Of time: Α. 24. ΙΙ
ου πλείους εισί μοι ημέραι δώδεκα αφ' ής. Also with the meaning to
happen' Mt. 16. 22 ου μη έσται σοι τούτο, L. 1. 45, cp. the dat. with
συμβαίνει Μο. 10. 32 etc., and with ellipse of the verb L. 1. 43 πόθεν
μοι τούτο. The opposite meaning appears in έν σοι λείπει L. 18. 22,
Tit. 3. 12 (Polyb. 10, 18, 8), cp. the use with ủotepeîv, a v.l. in
Mc. 10. 21, $ 34, 1.—The relation expressed is different, if écri with
the dat. only forms a part of the predicate : the idea of possession
is then at any rate not in all cases apparent. A. 9. 15 σκεύος εκλογής
εστί μοι ούτος means I have in him' etc.; but 1 C. 1. Ι8 ο λόγος του
σταυρού τους μεν απολλυμένοις μωρία εστίν = is folly to them, passes
for folly with them,' cp. 2. 14 f., Mt. 18. 17; also with the meaning
it redounds to his' etc., 1 C. 11. Ι4 f. ατιμία αυτή έστι (=“he gets
dishonour therefrom ), whereas 14. 22 εις σημείόν είσιν τους κ.τ.λ.
means are there for,''serve for' (cp. Ja. 5. 3). --With adjectives :
καλόν σοί έστιν is good for thee' Mt. 18. 8 etc. (= thou derivest
proft therefrom '), Α. 19. 31 όντες αυτώ φίλοι “who had Paul for a
friend' (φίλος in itself as a substantive regularly takes the gen.: ουκ
ει φίλος του Καίσαρος Jo. 19. 12 ; similarly έχθρός), ήσαν κοινωνοί το
Σίμωνι L. 5. 1ο, S. had them for partners' (D ήσαν δε κ. αυτού, cp.
Η. 10. 33). With an adverb: οσίως ... υμίν εγενήθημεν 1 Τh. 2. το
(S 76, 1); ουαί μοι έστιν 1. C. 9. Ι6, elsewhere frequently ουαί τινι
without a verb, Mt. 11. 21 etc.; in the Apocalypse it takes an acc.
in 8. 13 KB, 12. 12 KACP, cp. Latin vae me and mihi ; Buttm. p. 134.
-The following are equivalent to datives with είναι : 1 C. 7. 28
θλίψιν τη σαρκί (“ for the flesh'; with έν D*FG) έξουσιν ; 2. C. 2. 13
ουκ έσχηκα άνεσιν τω πνεύματι μου (with ellipse of the verb G. 5. 13);
in conjunction with another dat. 2 C. 12. 7 εδόθη μοι σκόλοψ τη
σαρκί ; further instances occur with ευρίσκειν, Mt. 11. 29 ευρήσετε
ανάπαυσιν ταϊς ψυχαίς υμών, R. 7. το, 21, 2 C. 12. 20, Αp. 20. ΙΙ ;
with κινείν στάσεις Α. 24. 5; with αγοράζειν αγρόν εις ταφήν Mt. 27. 7
(as one might say έστιν ενταύθα ταφή τους ξένους); with an adjective,
μονογενής τη μητρι L. 7. 12 (cp. LXX. Win. $ 31, 3).
4. Not far removed from the use of the dat. with cîvau is its use
with the perfect passive = υπό with a gen.: πέπρακταί μοι τούτο Ι
have done this'; so in N.T. L. 23. 15.2 The other N.T. instances,
however, of the dat. with passive verbs are connected with the
particular sense in which the verb is used. In classical Greek we
have φαίνεσθαί τινι “to appear’ corresponding to φαίνειν τινί to
shine,' 'give light' (supra 1), and so in the N.T. in addition to
i Has this strange usage of Luke arisen from Plat. Rep. ii. 359 E outlóyou
γενομένου τους ποιμέσιν (with γενομ.) ειωθότος ? Cp. 9 2, 4.
2D has ουδέν άξιον θανάτου πεπραγμένον εστίν εν αυτώ, ο ηυenimus in illo.
Perhaps the right reading is εστίν εν αυτώ without πεπρ., cp. Α. 25. 5.
$ 37. 4-6.]
113
DATIVE.
palveolar, favepowo bar we have also ótáveolaí Tivi (aor. oponyau)
éto appear with the same construction (öponti mou is found already
in Eurip. Bacch. 914; Hebr. 779 with sx or, Syr. NINON with 3),
A. 1. 3 and passim, not to be explained as equivalent to opoñvai Útó
Tivos (in A. 7. 26 őpon aŭtois is rather supervenit than apparuit). Cp.
$ 54, 4. So too Deadîvai tois åv pútous Mt. 6. 1, 23. 5, and more
frequently yvwo Oñvac 'to become known,' A. 9. 24 etc., § 54, 41 (but
fyVWOTAL ÚT' aŭroll 1 C. 8. 3, has been recognised by God,'' cp.
G. 4. 9), eúpeOîvai only in R. 10. 20 O.T. (there is a v.l with év, but
the Hebrew in Isaiah 65. 1 has 3). We have further yaueio bai Tivi.
of the woman (as in Att.) I C. 7. 39 (but cp. § 24 yajeev), uvnoteu-
co daí tive Mt. 1. 18, and trelec Oai as in Attic; Ja. 3. 7 dauáčetai kai
668áuaƯTat To bóơet T7 vvpopTívm is ambiguous (Sau vaí Tuvt is
Homeric, but here the dat. is rather instrumental), in 2 P. 2. 19
TIS ÝTTYTAL, TOÚTw kai dedoúlwrai (dovloûv Tivi) the relative most prob-
ably means 'whereby,' since ýttàv in Hellenistic Greek is an active
verb and may form an ordinary passive. On ovveduvon A. 5. 9
vide infra 6, page 114, note 1.
5. To the dative expressing the weakest connection, the so-called
ethic dative, may be referred Ap. 2. 5 (cp. 16) épxouaí coi, unless
rather the dative, as in Mt. 21. 5 0.T. èpxetaí coi, is an incorrect
rendering of the Hebrew 7. Cp. Buttm. 155 f. Another Hebraism
is cơ Teos Tạ Đeq A. 7. 20, like LXX. Jonah 3. 3 Tokus Lexá.Am Tu
(0.7% ), i.e. 'very great,' whereas 2 P. 3. 14 comidou kaì å púuntou
attó (God) cúpedîvai probably rather contains the dat. denoting
possession, cp. supra 3 ; 4 Barn. 8. 4 levelot Tộ Pen for God, in God's
sight.' Another case of assimilation to Hebrew is seen in the fact
that the classical use of dat. μοι in addresses (ώ τέκνον μοι, ώ Πρώταρχε
μοι) has disappeared and its place been taken by the gen.: τέκνον μου
2 Tim. 2. 1, TeKva uov G. 4. 19, tekvía uov 1 Jo. 2. 1 (in 3. 18 as a
v.l., HAB al. read without uov, which is the ordinary usage; with
παιδία the pronoun never occurs), πάτερ ημών Mt. 6. 9 (elsewhere
Tátep without pron., as the Lxx. also translates the Hebr. "
Gen. 22. 7 etc.).
6. Dative of community. This dative, which is related to the
instrumental dat. (=dat. of accompaniment or association), is
With A. 7. 13 åveyuwploon 'Iwond toîs å delpois aŭtoû, cp. yuwplSELV TË TILL 2. 28.
? The dat. with cúplokeo dar in R. 7. 10 etc. is of another character, cp. supra
3 ad fin.; on 2 P. 3. 14 vide infra 5.
3 Ja. 3. 18 kapros ... Ottelpetal tois TOLOÑOL eipnunu is an instance of dat. com-
modi; cp. I P. 5. 9, L. 18. 31 (supra 2). — There are clear instances of the dat.
governed by the passive as such in the Clementine Homilies, e.g. iii. 68 Deo
ÉOTÚYntal, ix. 21 dalmooi åkoúetal, xix. 23 ÝTúxnTAL TOÊS TATTELVOĈS.
* A comparison, however, of E. 1. 4 elval ñuas ... d uvuous kąTEVÚTLOV aútoll,
Col. 1. 22 Tapaorno al ünâs ... åróuous kai åverklÝTous kat, aút., makes it possible
to interpret the dat. as equivalent to this periphrasis, which frequently takes
the place of the correct dative, I Jo. 3. 22 tà. åpertà ÉVÁTLOV autoú.
н
ΙΙ4
[8 37. 6.
DATIVE,
frequently found with ακολουθείν (συνακ. ; with συνέπεσθαι only in
Α. 20. 4, with έπεσθαι nowhere), beside the Hebraic ακ. οπίσω τινός
Mt. 10. 38, Mc. 8. 34 v.l. (μετά τινος, also classical, occurs in Αp.
6. 8, 14. 13; but in L. 9. 49 μεθ' ημών is not us' but with us ');
with διαλέγεσθαι (also πρός τινα as in class. Greek); ομιλείν Α. 24. 26 to
converse' (πρός τινα L. 24. 14); κρίνεσθαι “ to dispute' Mt. 5. 40
(μετά τινος 1 C. 6. 6, cp. 7, like πολεμείν, πόλεμον ποιείν μετά τινος
Αp. 11. 7, 12. 7 al., Hebr. , cp. 8 42, 3 και φίλοι μετ' αλλήλων
L. 23. 12); διακρίνεσθαι (same meaning) Jd. 9 (πρός τινα Α. 11. 2,
classical ; cp. μάχεσθαι προς Jo. 6. 52); διακατελέγχεσθαι Α. 18. 28;
διαλλάττεσθαι Mt. 5. 24, and more frequently καταλλάσσειν τινά τινι
and καταλλάσσεσθαί τινι ; διαβάλλεσθαι (pass.) τινι « to be calumniated
to someone' L. 16. Ι, μειγνύναι Αp. 15. 2 (with εν 8. 7, with μετά
Mt. 27. 34, L. 13. 1); κολλάσθαι (προσκολλ.) τινι L. 15. 15 etc. ;
χρήσθαι A. 27. 3, 17, 1 C. (a v.1. in 7. 31, see 8 34, 2), 9. Ι2, 15,
2 C. 1. 17, 3. 12, 1 Τim. 1. 8, 5. 23, καταχρήσθαι 1 C. 9. 18 (συγχρ.
Jo. 4. 9 in an interpolated clause) και κοινωνείν R. 12. 13 al. ; ετεροζυγείν
απίστοις (from ετερόζυγος Levit. 19. 19, used of beasts of different
kinds in a team) 2 C. 6. 14 'to be in unequal fellowship’ (like ovçuy.
τινί, Win. $ 31, 10 Rem. 4) και ομοιούν ομοιούσθαι Mt. 6. 8 etc. ; ομοιάζειν
23. 27 (intrans., v.1. παρομ.), like όμοιος vide infra ; εγγίζειν L. 7. Ι2
etc. (also with eis 18. 35 (tý 'Iep. some cursives and Epiphanius), on
account of the indeclinable 'Iepixó? as in 19. 29, Mt. 21. 1,
Mc. 11. I, though we also have εις την κώμην L. 24, 28; with επί 10.
9). The verbs compounded with cúv which govern a dative are
very numerous, such as συγκαθήσθαι A. 26. 30 (with μετά in
Μο. 14. 54, but D has καθήμενος), συγκακοπαθείν 2 Tim. 1. 8,
συγκακουχεϊσθαι Η. 11. 25, συγκατατίθεσθαι L. 23. 51, ο λόγος ουκ
ωφέλησεν εκείνους μη συγκεκερασμένος (-ους is a wrong reading), τη
πίστει (instrum.) τους ακούσασιν Η. 4. 2, etc. (some few also take μετά
as συλλαλείν in Mt. 17. 3, Α. 25. Ι2, but dat. in Mc. 9. 4 etc., προς
αλλήλους L. 4. 36 και συμφωνείν μετά Mt. 20. 2, but dat. in 13 and
elsewhere); a peculiar and unclassical instance is συνέρχεσθαί τινι
A. 1. 21 etc., to go with someone. Of adjectives the following
deserve special mention : όμοιος (with gen. ? 8 36, 11),2 και αυτός (εν και
το αυτό) only in 1 C. 11. 5; ίσος Mt. 20. 12 etc. (for which we have a
periphrasis with ως και in A. 11. Ι7; ο αυτός with καθώς και 1 Τh. 2. 14,
or with oδoς Ph. 1. 3ο);3 of compounds with σύν we have σύμμορφός
τινι Ph. 3. 21 (gen. of the thing possessed in R. 8. 29 της εικόνος, see
8 36, 11; for classical parallels Matthiae Gr. 864), σύμφυτος τα
ομοιώματι του θανάτου αυτού R. 6. 5; but the remaining compounds
of σύν are made into substantives (like φίλος etc.) and take a gen.,

1 There is a peculiar use in A. 5. 9 συνεφωνήθη υμίν convenit inter: υος; cp.
late author quoted by Stobaeus, Flor. 39, 32 συνεφώνησε τους δήμους, “the conn-
munities agreed.'
2 Besides expressing the similar person or thing, the dat, may also express
the possessor of the similar thing (Homer κομαι Χαρίτεσσιν ομοίαι): Αp. 9. 1ο
έχoυσιν ουράς ομοίας σκορπίοις, 13. 1 ; similarly τοίς ισότιμον ημίν πίστιν λαχουσιν
2Ρ. 1. 1, Buttm. p. 154.
3 In a quotation in R. 9. 29 we have ως Γόμορρα αν ώμοιώθημεν.
$ 37. 6-7.]
. ΙΙ,
. . . . . . .
. . . .
DATIVE. . . .
συγγενής συγκληρονόμος σύμβουλος συμμέτοχος (Ε. 5. 7) συναιχμάλωτος
συνεργός σύντροφος. Substantives take no share in these construc-
tions with the dat. (as they occasionally do in classical Greek,
IKühner Gr. ΙΙ.2 372 f.), e.g. R. 15. 26 κοινωνίαν ποιήσασθαι εις τους
πτωχούς, 2 C. 9. 13, τις κοινωνία φωτί (has the light ; φωτός D*) προς
σκότος 2 C. 6. 14, κοινωνίαν έχητε μεθ' ημών 1 Jo. 1. 3, 6, 7. The
adverb άμα takes the dat. only in Mt. 13. 29 άμα αυτούς τον σίτον
(but D άμα και τ. σ. συν αυτοίς, cp. άμα συν 1 Τh. 4. Ι7, 5. Io); on
èyyús see $ 36, il.
7. A great number of verbs (and adjectives) compounded with
other prepositions besides oúv govern the dative, while the sentence
may also be completed by the use of a preposition ; in general there
is this distinction made (as occasionally in classical Greek and in
Latin), that the preposition is used where the verb has its literal
meaning, and the dative where it has a figurative sense. Thus the
following compounds of εν regularly take a preposition : έμβαίνειν,
έμβιβάζειν, εμβάλλειν, εμβάπτειν, εμπίπτειν; the following regularly
take the dative: εγκαλείν (supra 1), εμμαίνεσθαι (A. 26. II), εμπαίζειν,
έντυγχάνειν (“ to entreat’; with πρός in Ηerm. Sim. ii. 8), but we
also have εμβλέπειν τινί (person) = βλ. είς τινα ; the following talke
Sometimes the dat., sometimes a preposition : έγκεντρίζειν R. 11. 24
είς καλλιέλαιον, τη ιδία έλαία, εμμένειν with dat. in A. 14. 22, G. 3. Το
Ο.Τ. A*B (with εν al. and LΧΧ.), with εν Η. 8. 9 Ο.Τ., έμπτύειν.
Compounds of εις take a preposition only (εισέρχεσθαι εις etc.); with
επί cp. the following eXX. : επιβάλλειν επί ιματίω (-ιον) Mt. 9. Ι6,
L. 5. 36 ; similarly επιβάλλειν τας χείρας talkes επί, except in A. 4. 3
where it has the dat. (D is different) και επιτιθέναι την χείρά τινι and
επί τινα occur : elsewhere the prep. preponderates where this verb is
used in the literal sense, as in επί τους ώμους Mt. 23. 4 (Jo. 19 2 τη
κεφαλή, but A has επί την κεφαλήν; L. 23. 26 αυτό τον σταυρόν), and
the dat. with the figurative sense, όνομα Mc. 3. 16 f., cp. επικαλείν
τινι όνομα (the classical επονομάζειν is similarly used) Mt. 10. 25 Β*
and Buttm. p. 132, βάρος Α. 15. 28, πληγάς 16, 23 ; επιτίθεσθαι “ to
lay hands on? 18. 10, with the idea of presenting 28. rol (the prep.
only occurs in Αp. 22. Ι8 εάν τις επιθη επ' αυτά [ adds to 7, επιθήσει
ο θεός επ' αυτόν τας πλήγας) ; εφίστασθαι talkes dat. and έπί, etc.
Compounds of παρά : παρατιθέναι τινί is used (not so much beside
anyone' as for anyone '), and παρατίθεσθαι “to commend' talkes the
same construction ; παρεδρεύειν (ν... προσ.) το θυσιαστηρίων (fg.)
1 C. 9. 13, and from this is derived the use with the adj. Tò eủTápedpov
(v.1. ευπρόσ.) το κυρίω 7. 35, which is more strilking because this adj.
takes the place of a substantive (Kühner II.2 372 f.); also with dat.
παρέχειν, παριστάναι, παρίστασθαι (even in the literal sense e.g.
Α. 1. Ιo, 9. 39); παρείναι usually takes a prep. (προς υμάς 2 C. 11. 8),
but the dat. where the verb is used metaphorically 2 P. 1. 9 (and 8
according to A); παραμένειν τινι (Dal. συμπ.) Ph. i. 25 (also the adj.
παράμονός τινι [dat. of thing] Ηerm. Sim. ix. 23. 3). With περί we
have: περιτιθέναι with dat., περιβάλλειν L. 19. 43 (on περιβ. τινά τι

1 The Syriac inserts in navi (apparently an addition of the ß text).
116 INSTRUMENTAL AND TEMPORAL DATIVE. [$ 37. S 38.
see $ 34, 4), trepikebjevov ňuîv vépos uaptúpwv H. 12. 1, but with the
literal sense of the verb trepà Tòv tpáxndov Mc. 9. 42, L. 17. 2, TEPL
TÍTTELV ELS TÓMov. A. 27. 41, but iyotaís, Telpao uoîs L10. 30, Ja. 1. 2,
TT EPITTEÍPELV Éavròv očúvais 1 Tim. 6. 10. With após : mpoo tibévai étrí ti
is used where the verb has the literal sense Mt. 6. 27, L. 12. 25, étrí
Tivi to add to something L. 3. 20,1 but the person for whom the
addition is made stands in the dat. Mt. 6. 33 etc., H. 12. 19;
προσέρχεσθαι regularly takes the dat. of the person, also θρόνω, όρει
H. 4. 16, 12. 18, 22; the following also take the dat. a pocéxelv (e.g.
EAUTÔ), at pookaptepelv, at pookliveo Oui (fig.); and with the literal sense
TipoC TÍTTELV (Mt. 7. 25 etc.; only in Mc. 7. 25 apòs toùs todas aŭtou),
Tipoo Dépelt (ipùs Tov-H. 5. 7, here plainly in figurative sense);
TT POO Kvielv dílov. Ty búpą Mt. 27. 60 (A has śni, so TÈ TÌv 0.
Mc. 15. 46); tpoopwvelv Tivi Mt. 11. 16, A. 22. 2 (D omits aútois)
etc., or transitively with tivá 'to summon? L. 6. 13 (
Dépávngev),
A. 11. 2 D (L. 23. 20 D aútoús, B aútoîs, absolute verb A al.).
- With compounds of ával the dat. is the prevailing construction
(åvokotao dai, avoiléyelv, åvTikelo Bal, ÅVTLTTÍTT TELV etc.; rarely após Tiva.,
as åvraywvíceo dai apòs H. 12. 4), and the same holds good of com-
pounds of To, with which prep. as with ảvić the literal meaning:
becomes obliterated (útorÍOC ELV TLví, only in quotations do we have
ÚTÒ TOùs módas or okátw TÔV TodWv 1 C. 15. 27, H. 2. 8; Ümoti060 bal.
1 Tim. 4. 6 'to advise'; úrápxelv, ÚTAKOÚELV); with ảvá we have dva-
Tídeo dai (Tipooavat.) Tivi 'to lay a case before someone' A. 25. 14.
etc. --A substantive is also found with a dat. (cp. supra 6) in
2 C. 11. 28 » émiotacís Moc ý kal ýuépav **BFG, but the text can
hardly be correct (HºD al. uov, Latt. in me).
$ 38. CONTINUATION: INSTRUMENTAL AND TEMPORAL
DATIVE.
1. The dative as the instrumental case is found in the N.T. as in
classical Greek, but this use is considerably limited by the employ-
ment of the periphrasis with év. The latter usage is by no means
foreign to the Greek language (Kühner Gr. ii.?, 403 f.); for the N.T.
writers, however, it is the Hebrew which has set the example of
this construction, and for this reason the frequency with which it
occurs differs with the individual writers : in the second half of the
Acts (13-28) the usage is rare and never a prominent feature, 3 while
1.To add to the community'is expressed in A. 2. 47 by tñ Kkinola EP (D.
ÉV TÏ .), the other Mss. make the verb absolute as it is in 41 and in 5. 14; with
the same meaning in 11. 24 we have tỘ kuplu, which however B*, no doubt.
rightly, omits ; 'to be gathered to his fathers' is expressed by após in 13. 36.
? In modern Greek, in which the dative is wanting, the instrumental case is.
expressed by Metá (ué), this use of tv having disappeared.
.3 A. 13. 29 OcKalollo bat év, for which see below in the text; 26. 29 kal év öllyw
kai Év Meyálw, which in the mouth of Paul (the evolyy of Agrippa in 28 is.
different) apparently should be taken to mean by little, by much,' i.e.
easily, with difficulty. Moreover the instances in the first half of the Acts.
are not numerous.
$ 38. 1-2.) INSTRUMENTAL AND TEMPORAL DATIVE. 1.17
the reverse is the case in the Apocalypse.—Examples: with the
Sword, by the sword (to strike, to perish etc.) έν μαχαίρη or ρομφαία
Mt. 26. 52, L. 22. 49, Αp. 2. 16, 6, 8, 13. 10, 19. 21, έν φόνω μαχαίρης
Η. 11. 37, μαχαίρη without εν Α. 12. 2, στόματι μαχαίρης L. 21. 24.
Το season with salt : αλατι Col. 4. 6, αλίζειν πυρί (αλί) Mc. 9. 5ο

L. 14. 34. To consume with fire etc. is εν πυρί 1 in Αp. 14. 1ο, 16. 8,
17. 16 (without ev xBP), 18. 8 (for merely to burn with fire' even
the Apocalypse uses πυρί καίεσθαι, 8. 8, 21. 8), πυρί in Mt. 3. 12,
L. 3. Ι7. To baptize with' is usually expressed by εν ύδατι or
év tiveúuati; Luke however has Ởduti in 3. 16 (with ev in D, in the
same passage all MSs. have εν πνεύματι in the opposing clause),
Α. 1. 5 (but εν πνεύματι ibid.), 11. Ι6 (with εν πν.; but χρίειν πνεύματι
10. 38). With δικαιούν δικαιούσθαι the dat. is found as in R. 3. 28
πίστει, but also εν, εν νόμω G. 5. 4, Α. 13. 39, εν τω αίματι του χρ.
R. 5. 9 (εκ πίστεως 5. I etc.). On the use of εν to denote the personal
agent, which cannot be expressed by the dat., see 8 41, 1; on the
Hebraic periphrases for the person with χείρ and στόμα και 40, 9.
Mετρεϊν έν τινι and τινι are used for to measure by’ Mt. 7. 2,
Μο. 4. 24, 2 C. 10. 122 (έν), L. 6. 38 (dat.); also to measure with,
Αp. 11. Ι, 21. 16 (έν) καλάμω. Τhe N.T. also has μεθύσκεσθαι οίνω
(Ε, 5. 18, lilke LXX. Proν. 4. Ι7), not οίνου the Attic construction ; 3
similarly πληρούν τινι or έν τινι, with anything (the dat. is occasionally
used in classical Greek, in Εurip. Bacch. 18 with πλήρης, in Herc.
Fur, 372 and Aesch. Sept. 464 with πληρούν), besides the gen. for
which see 8 36, 4 ; cp. also υπερπερισσεύομαι τη χαρά (έν τ. χ. Β)
2 C. 7. 4.
2. The instrumental dative is moreover used to denote the cause
or occasion: R. 11. 20 τη απιστία εξεκλάσθησαν, “on account of their
unbelief,’ 30 ήλεήθητε τη τούτων απειθείς, 31 ηπείθησαν το υμετέρω
ελέει, “because God wished to have mercy on you,’4 4. 20 ου διεκρίθη
τη απιστία, αλλ' ενεδυναμώθη τη πίστει, 1 C. 8. 7 etc.; see also A. 15. I
περιτέμνεσθαι τώ έθει το Μωυσέως, after,” in accordance with' (the β
text has a different and more ordinary expression); it also denotes
the part, attribute etc., in respect of which anything takes place,
1 C. 14. 20 μη παιδία γίνεσθε ταις φρεσίν, αλλά τη κακία νηπιάζετε,
ταις δε φρεσιν τέλειοι γίνεσθε, Ρh. 2. 7 σχήματι ευρεθείς ως άνθρωπος,
3. 5 περιτομη οκταήμερος, eight days old at circumcision, circumcised
on the eighth day'; s0 φύσει “by nature, G. 2. 15 etc., το γένει “by
extraction,' Α. 4. 36 etc. και απερίτμητοι τη καρδία Α. 7. 51, αδύνατος
τοις ποσίν 14. 8, έστερεούντο τη πίστει και έπερίσσευον το αριθμό 16. 5,
1 An accidental coincidence with the Homeric εν πυρί καίειν ΙΙ. Χxiv. 38.
2 Here the phrase is εν εαυτοίς by themselves, where it is true that in
classical Greek the dative could not stand : still no more could ev, the phrase
would be προς εαυτούς.
3 Yet even classical Greek has μεθύειν έρωτα ; and Lucian de dea Syr. 22
4 [The words tū ÚM. en. may also be taken with the following clause ; see
Sanday-Headlam and Gifford ad loc. Tr.]
118 INSTRUMENTAL AND TEMPORAL DATIVE. [$ 38. 2–3.
ονόματι “by name' (S 33, 2), το μήκει ποδών εκατόν Ηerm. Vis. iv.
1. 6,1 etc. etc. The usage of the N.T. language in this respect may
be said to be constant, since the alternative use of the accusative
which in the classical language is widely prevalent 2 is almost entirely
unrepresented (cp. § 34, 7). The cause may, of course, be also
expressed by means of a preposition (e.g. by év in év TOÚTW A. 24. 16,
Jo. 16. 30 on this account,' $ 41, 1); this is especially the case with
verbs expressing emotion (classical Greek uses the simple dat. and
acc. as well) : χαίρειν επί τινι Mt. 18. 3 etc., εν τούτω L. 10. 20
(R. 12. 12 τη ελπίδι is diferent, not rejoicing over the hope, but
in virtue of hope, in hope,”) and s0 αγαλλιάσθαι, ευφραίνεσθαι are
used with εν or επί ; ευδοκείν εν (είς 2 P. 1. Ι7, Mt. 12. Ι8 Ο.Τ. Γεν
D; acc. **Β], op. Η. 10. 6, 8 Ο.Τ., 8 34, 1), which in cultured style
is expressed by ευαρεστείται τοιαύταις θυσίαις Η. 13. Ι6 (Diodor. 3,
55. 9 etc.); θαυμάζειν επί τινι L. 4. 22 etc., περί τινος 2. 183 (on θ.
τινά, τι see 8 34, 1), so έκπλήσσεσθαι επί τινι, but 1 P. 4. 12 μη
ξενίζεσθε τη κ.τ.λ. (ibid. 4 with εν), καυχάσθαι εν or επί (for the acc.
8 34, 1), συλλυπείσθαι επί Mc. 3. 5 (but after οργίζεσθαι Αp. 12. 17,
μακροθυμεϊν Mt. 28. 26 etc., επί [είς, πρός] is used with the person
with whom one is angry or long-suffering).
3. This dative further expresses the accompanying circumstances,
the manner and style of an action : 1 C. 10. 30 χάριτι μετέχω, with
thanks,' 11. 5 προσευχομένη ακατακαλύπτω τη κεφαλη (Herm. Sim.
ix. 20. 3 γυμνοις ποσίν, Vis. V. Ι εισήλθεν ανήρ... σχήματι ποιμενικό),
H. 6. Ι7 έμεσίτευσεν όρκω. An alternative for the dat. is μετά τινος :
Mt. 26. 72 ηρνήσατο μεθ' όρκου (Χenoph. Cyr. ii. 3. Ι2 συν θεών όρκη
λέγω), cp. Η. 7. 20 f. ου χωρίς ορκωμοσίας – μεθ' ορκ.; μετά βίας Α. 5.
26, 24. 7 (class. βία, προς βίαν), μετά φωνής μεγάλης L. 17. 15 (μετά
σπουδής και κραυγής πολλής Aeschin. 2. το), etc. In Μο. 14. 65
ραπίσμασιν αυτόν έλαβον is quite a vulgarism, which at present can
only be paralleled from a papyrus of the first century A.D. (an argu-
ment to Demosth. Midias), where we find (αυτόν) κονδύλοις έλαβεν.4
Accompanying (military) forces in classical Greek are expressed by
the dat., in the N.T. by έν, εν δέκα χιλιάσιν άπαντάν L. 14. 31, cp.
Jd. Ι4, Α. 7. Ι4 (also (εισέρχεσθαι εν αίματι “with' Η. 9. 25, I Jo.
5. 6; έν ράβδω έλθω 1 C. 4. 21, 2 C. 10. Ι4 etc.); έν also denotes
manner in εν τάχει, εν εκτενεία etc., see 8 41, 1. We have παντί
τρόπω, είτε προφάσει είτε αληθεία Ρh. 1. Ι8 (ποίους τρόπους Herm.
Mand. xii. 3. Ι), but elsewhere όν τρόπον etc., S 34, 7 (εν παντί τρ.,
12 C. 7. 11 συνεστήσατε εαυτούς άγνους είναι (έν add. DEKLP, cp. αγ. εν τη
σαρκί Clem. Cor. 1. 38, 2) τα πράγματι is very harsh ; perhaps είναι is a corrup-
tion of έν, cp. 8 34, 5.
2 The dative is employed in classical Greek if a contrast is made or is present
to the mind of the writer, φύσει – νόμω, λόγω – έργω; Χen. Mem. ii. 1. 31 τοις
σώμασιν αδύνατοι – ταϊς ψυχαίς ανόητοι ; on the other hand in Anab. 1. 4. ΙΙ for
πόλις θάψακος ονόματι, όνομα is correctly restored from the MSS. (cp. 88 33, 2;
34, 7).
3 Αp. 13. 3 εθαύμασεν οπίσω του θηρίου is very strange, a pregnant construction
for έθ. επί τω θ. και επορεύθη όπ. αυτου, see W.-Gr.
4 See Fleckeis. Jahrb. f. class. Philol. 1892, p. 29, 33.
$ 38. 3-4.] INSTRUMENTAL AND TEMPORAL DATIVE. 119
with a v.l. [male) Tów 2 Th. 3. 16). A usage almost peculiar to the
N.T. (and the Lxx.) is the dat. oso etc. with opevec Bar, TTEPLTTATEIV,
OTOLXelv, in the N.T. always in metaphorical sense (L. 10. 31 KUTé-
Palvev ev rô odø ékeivn, B without év), in the Lxx. also in the literal,
cp. Ja. 2. 25 (class. Stkov 68òn tóeToov Thuc. ii. 64. 4; but Hebr.
2-15 2 Gen. 19. 2, and so Thuc. ii. 96. I “Topcjero Tp
aŭTÒs étoińcato by means of the way'; literal sense): A.14.16 Topeveo dai
Tais ódois aŭtwv, Jd. 11, R. 4. 12 OTOXEîv mois ſxveo LV (Clem. Hom.
x. 15 TẬ únav OTOiXcite napadeiyuati); further developments are tois
ČOOLV TEPLTATEîv A. 21. 21, Kópois kai médais R. 13. 13, Tveýjati
G. 5. I6, Top€ €ơ at Tộ bogo Toi Kopboo A. 9. 3I (the acc. is found
with the literal sense of the word in tov odov aŭtoh A. 8. 39; with
the metaphorical sense we have top. év 1 P. 4. 3, TEPLTATEV év 2 C. 4. 2
etc., Karà cápka R. 8. 4), Buttm. p. 160. Further (ibid 159 f.)
verbal substantives used with their cognate verbs or with verbs of
similar meaning stand in the dative—the usage is an imitation of the
Hebrew infinitive absolute like saya? n12 and is consequently found
already in the LXX.—whereas the analogous classical phrases such as
yáuw yaueîv ('in true wedlock'), buyn Deúyelv ("to flee with all
speed'ſ are only accidentally similar to these The N.T instances
are: (åkoy åkoveLV Mt. 13. 14 etc. O.T.), éri Orpią érebúunoa L. 22. 15,
xapa xalpel Jo. 3. 29,7 évUT VIOLS ÉVUT VLÓceo Dai A. 2. 17 O.T., drecký
(om. XABD al.) åteul noóueda 4. 17, mapayyedių. Tapnyyeidanev 5. 28,
úvaofuati dvedemarioajev 23. 12, TPOO EUX? tpoonueato Ja. 5. 17;
with which belong opkw Őuod eV A. 2. 30, DavátŲ TELEUTátw Mc. 7. 10
O.T., cp. Herm. Sim. viii. 7. 3 (Ú.TTOKTEîVai év Davátw Ap. 2. 23; 6.8
is a different use). Cp. on the similar constructions with the acc.
$ 34, 3; this dative of manner intensifies the verb in so far as it
indicates that the action is to be understood as taking place in the
fullest sense.
4. While there is no trace of a local dative in the N.T.2 (as is also
the case on the whole in Attic prose), the analogous temporal dative,
answering the question When?, is still fairly frequent: it may of
course be further elucidated by the insertion, common also in Attic,
of the preposition év. Since the dat. denotes the point of time, not
the period of time, while ev can have both these meanings, it is quite
possible to express 'in the day,' 'in the night' by év (tô pépą, vykti,
Jo. 11. 9, A. 18. 9, 1 Th. 5. 2, but the genitive must be used instead
of the simple dat., $ 36, 13 (Ø Oépel in Herm. Sim. iv. 3 for in
summer' is incorrect, ibid. 5 we have ¿v T. 0. ékelvo); on the other
1 On the other hand we have Mt. 2. 10 éxápnoay xapàv meyálny opb8pa, with
a closer defining of the noun, which also may be said to be the raison d'être of
the added verbal substantive; such closer definition is, speaking generally, never
found with the dat. in the N.T., though Hermas has Sim. ix. 18. 3 TTOVNpevo-
MÉVOUS TOLKlaus Tovnplais, l. 2 ïo xuoas tñ loxúc cov. With Jo. 18. 32 оnualvwv
Troiæ Davátu *uellev átolvo Kelv should be compared 21. 19 omualvwv Tolu Daváty
dočáoel Tov Debv: it is evident that in the first passage the cognate verb is by no
means obligatory, but might be replaced by another verb.
2 But in Herm. Vis. iv: 3. 7 we have tolw TÓTW árandev, probably through
the dat. and els having become interchangeable, g 37, 1 and 2.
120
.
INSTRUMENTAL AND TEMPORAL DATIVE. (S 38. 4.
hand in a statement about a definite day or a definite night, the
simple dative is no less correct than the dat. with ev. In the N.T.
we always have rũ Tpíty ýuépą Mt: 16. 21 (D reads otherwise), 17.
23 (ditto), L. 9. 22 (ditto), 24. 7, 46 ; Tm Tourm u. Tâm đúnov
Mc. 14. 12, Tņ ņu. oyòón A. 7. 8 (with év L. 1. 59, but DL omit év),
TAKTÝ Ýp. 12. 21, noía igu. (v.l. ápą) Mt. 24. 42, û nu. L. 17. 29 f.
(30 D is different), tô Yu. Tôv oaßßátwv L. 13. 14, 16, A. 13. 14,
16. 13, cp. inf. Tois oáßßaoiv, but with év L. 4. 13, the readings vary
in 14. 5; Tŷ éo xáty 19. Jo. 12. 48, with év 7. 37, 11. 24, with var.
lect. 6. 39 f., 44, 54; so tŷ uca oaßßátov (cp. for this Mc. 16. 21, 9,
Jo. 20. 1; with ¢v A. 20. 7); with ékeivy and taúty év is usually
inserted, but Jo. 20. 19 has an ill. ek.; and the pronouns are used
with vukti without ev in L. 12. 20, 17. 34, A. 12. 6. 27. 23 ; always
TÛ ÉLoúon or éxouévy ňu. (vuktí), but confined to Acts, e.g. 7. 26,
21. 26; also TÛ ÉÉñS 21. I etc. (but with év L. 7. 11, where D omits
év and there is a strongly supported reading év TỘ Ens; the readings
vary in 9. 37), rõ élDwo Kovon K..d. Mt. 28. 1 (Ýépą kai ruépą
' every day' 2 C. 4. 16 after the Hebrew Oiny Oi!, = ka@'ékáotnv ňu.
H. 3. 13). Further instances are: terápty bulakñ tñs vuitós Mt.
14. 25, Tô ¢otepivý 0. T. v. D in L. 12. 38, elsewhere in the same verse
this word takes év even in D; Toía 0. Mt. 24. 43 ; où dokeite úpą 44,
Tolą öpą L. 12. 39, TỶ upą toll Ovulápatos 1. 10, ty éváty ő. Mc. 15. 34,
ajTm Th . L. 2. 38 etc. (ajTm Ti vikTí Herm. Vis. iii. 1. 2, 10. 7), as
well as ev aút. 7. Ő. L. 12. 12 etc. (év also occurs with ékeivy Mt. 26.55
etc., and as a v.l. in Jo. 4. 53); ueạ ó. Ap. 8. 10, 16, 19, cp. on the
alternative use of the acc. § 34, 8. The simple dat. is not used in
the case of ToS, but év (L. 3. I); TEOW TEOo apákovta – ơkodounon
Jo. 2. 20 is a different use of the dative, for which we have also ev
(om. *) tpolv ňuépais in the same verse and in 19 (évom. B),
answering the question In how long a time?, where in classical
Greek év is the ordinary construction. With names of feasts we
have Mc. 6. 21 TOîs yevecious aŭroll, Mt. 14. 63; frequently tois
cáßßaoiv, 'on the Sabbath,' Mt. 12. i etc., as well as év Tois o.
L. 4. 31 al., also tộ oaßßúry L. 6. 9, oaßßárø Mt. 24. 20 (év o.
EF al., D oaßßátov § 36, 13), Jo. 5. 16 D, 7. 22 B (al. év o., as all
MSS. read in 23 bis), TẬ éxouévự o. A. 13. 44 lèv o. devtepon PÚTŲ
L. 6. I, év &Tépw o. 6. 6); Karà Tâv oáßßatov A. 13. 27 and elsewhere.
Tŷ coptñ Toll tráoxa L. 2. 41 (with év D); elsewhere ev TÛ É. (katà
ĉoptñv every feast' Mt. 27. 15 etc.). 'Etépais yeveais E. 3. 5, idą
yevea A. 13. 36; with év 14. 16. Kalpoîs idious 1 Tim. 6. 15. Tâ
Olivec ÚTOMÉVOVTES R. 12. 12, 'in tribulation,' is probably only due
to assimilation with the neighbouring datives in the same passage.
1 Λίαν πρωί τη μια τ. σ., but ACE al. read της μιάς and D μιάς, which could be
explained as partitive.
2 'Ev Tpliv nu. occurs also in Mt. 27. 40, dià Tprūv nu. in 26. 61, Mc. 14. 58.
3 In Mt. the mss. are divided between yeveolols oè yevouévoLS ABDL al., and
yeveolwr oè yevouévwv CK (cp. Mc. 6. 2) or å youévwv EG al.; the dative would
represent an unusual combination of the absolute use of the participle and the
temporal dative, and is best attributed to scribes who interpolated it from Mc.
$ 38.5, $ 39. 1.] PREPOSITIONS WITH ACCUSATIVE.
I 21
5. An unclassical use is that of the dative to denote duration of
time, instead of the accusative. But this use is only guaranteed for
transitive verbs, and, in a few instances, for passives: whereas, in
the case of intransitive verbs (also with a passive in Ap. 20. 3;
and a transitive verb in Mc. 2. 19 ogov xpóvov, L. 13. 8 TOÛTO TO ŠTOS,
A. 13. 18 ús TEOCEPAKovtaETÝ xpóvov, ibid. 21), the accusative still
remains : A. 8. II ikavõ xpóvo ¿EEOTAKÉvai aŭtoús a long time,'
L. 8. 29 Toldois xpóvous ouvnptákEu aŭtóv, R. 16. 25 xp. aiwviois
geolynuévov (but åredńuno ev xpóvous ikavoús L. 20.9, and correspond-
ing phrases occur elsewhere with intrans. verbs); in L. 8. 27 the
readings are divided between xpóvą ik, and ék (átrò) xpóvwv ik. (oủk
évedúo ato iuúrlov), in Jo. 14. 9 between tooOÚTW xpóvw (uell ýuôv
eiul) XDLQ and Togoûtov xp. AB al., as in A. 28. 12 between quépais
τρισίν and ημέρας τρείς (επεμείναμεν). A further instance is ως έτεσιν
Tetparocious kaì TevTÝKovta édkev koltás A. 13. 20,1 'throughout 450
years' (ibid. 18, 21 the accusative, vide supra). The reason for the
employment of the dative appears to be that the accusative was
regarded as the direct object, and therefore the writer did not like
to place another object beside it.2
$ 39. THE CASES WITH PREPOSITIONS. PREPOSITIONS
WITH THE ACCUSATIVE.
1. The remaining ideas which complete the meaning of verbs
and nouns are expressed not by a case alone, but with the help of
a preposition: a practice which in the course of the history of the
language became more and more adopted in opposition to the
employment of the simple case. The N.T. still preserves the whole
collection of the old prepositions proper of the Greek language,
with the exception of audí, but along with these the employment
of prepositions not strictly so called was further developed.
Prepositions proper may be divided into : I. Those that take one
case: 1. with acc. åvá, eis: 2. with gen. åvtí, åtó, é ék, pó:
3. with dat. év, cúv. II. With two cases, i.e. with acc. and gen:
diá, kará, uetá, repí, ÚTÉP, ÚTó. III. With three cases : étrí, tapá,
após. A simplification is seen in the fact that Metá, zrepí, úgó are
relegated from Class III. to Class II., while åvá (as already happens
in classical prose) is relegated from II. (dat. and accus.) to I. (the
loss being on the side of the dative); moreover após is now not far
from being confined to the construction of I. 1. Quasi-Prepositions
all take the genitive, and are strictly adverbs or cases of a noun
which received the character of prepositions only at a later period,
but in N.T. times resemble the regular prepositions in that they
The passage is seriously corrupted in most of the Mss., as the statement of
time has become attached to the preceding clause (19), where also there is a
transitive verb.
2 In Josephus, however, there is no perceptible difference between the dative
and accusative denoting duration of time, W. Schmidt de Jos. elocut. 382 f.
(except that diatplßelv and MÉVELV always take the accusative).
I22
[S 39. 1-3.
PREPOSITIONS
never or hardly ever stand without their case : Čvekev, zápiv on
account of, xwpis, ävev, åtep, T\v 'except,' uéxpi, öxpi, éws "unto'
(these last are also conjunctions), čuspoo Oev, évÚTLOV, évavríov etc.
before,' óríow behind,'étrávw, supon,' ÚTOKÁTW 'beneath,' ueratú
between.' Naturally no hard and fast line can be drawn between
preposition and adverb in these cases.
2. Of prepositions with the accusative, åvá, which has already
become rare in Attic prose, has well-nigh disappeared in the N.T.
'Avà écov (with gen.) between' Mt. 13. 25 etc. (Polyb. etc., LXX.:
modern Gr. åvápega) = év végŲ (L. 8. 7 al.), cp. § 40, 8; åvà pépos
'in turn’ 1 C. 14. 27 (Polyb.); elsewhere it is distributive apiece,'
traßov åvà onvéplov Mt. 20. 9 etc., åvà Trépuyas éË Ap. 4. 8, or at
the rate of, Mc. 6. 40 klería, åvà ékaTÓv A al. (as in L. 9. 14),
but with Kurd xBD (kard being an equivalent for åvà in all the
above-mentioned uses); stereotyped as an adverb (like katá, $ 51,5)
Ap. 21. 21 åvà Els ŠKUOTOS TÔ Tudávwv=kad' Els (Herm. Sim. ix. 2. 3,
see $ 45, 3).
3. Els not only maintained its own place in the language, but also
absorbed the kindred preposition év; many instances of this absorp-
tion appear already in the N.T., although, if we take the practice of
the N.T. as a whole, év is considerably more than a match for eis.
The classical position, namely that év with the dative answers
the question 'where ?,' eis with accusative the question 'whither ?,'
had from early times been simplified in some dialects by év taking
to itself (like the Latin in) both cases and both functions; but the
popular Hellenistic language went in the other direction and re-
duced everything to els with accusative, representing 'where?' and
whither?' From this intermixture, which meets us also in the
LXX. and in Egyptian private records,1 no writer of narrative in
the N.T. is free, with the exception of Matthew: not even Luke
in the Acts, where on the contrary most of the examples are found;
John has less of it than the others. Passages : Mc. 1: 9 éßartio On
eis tov 'Iopdávnu (év l. 5, Mt. 3. 6), 1. 39 kmptoowv els tès ouvaywyás
(εν ταις συναγωγαίς EF al.), 2. Ι εις οίκόν έστιν AC al. (εν οίκω NBDL),
10. 10 (év AC al. cioeldóvtos eis Syr. Sin.), 13. 3 kalnuévov eis tò
opos (kaliçelv eis 2 Th. 2. 4 is correct classical Greek), 13. 9, 16
ó eis tov åypov (év Mt. 24. 18), L. 4. 23 yevóueva ( done') eis mv
(NB, eis DL, ev tì al.) Kadapvaoúu (1. 44 is also unclassical, éyéveto
ñ ouvi eis td útá pov, cp. yevéo Dai eis ’Iep. A. 20. 16, 21. 17, 25. 15;
correctly év 13. 5), 9. 61, 11. 7 eis trv kolmnu eigív (ev D), 21. 37 (?),
A. 2. 5 eis 'Iep. KOTOLKOŪVTES (év H'BCDE; correctly H. 11. 9 Trap-
KYOEV els yâv, Mt. 2. 23, 4. 13, cp. Thuc. ii. 102. 6 KATOLKLO Oes eis
TÓTOUS), 2. 17 O.T. cp. 31 éykatadelyers Tijv fuxýv nov eis adnv,
39 mois eis Marpáv (class. Tois Makpàv (sc. odòvl å tolkollOuv), 7. 4. 12,
8. 20, 23 (v.l.), 40 eúpeOn eis "AfwTov, 9. 21 (év all mss. except xA),
11. 25 D, 14. 25 (év BCD), 17. 13 D, 18. 21 D, 19. 22 (év D), 21. 13,
20. Todo movemento the other most* Matthe
i So in the Egyptian records of the Berlin Museum, vol. ii. 385 els 'Alešdv.
Specáv érti, 423 kivovvetoavtos eis Oáraorav; Kaibel Epigr. 134 (written at
Athens in imperial times) eis túvßov kelual.
§ 39. 3–4.]
WITH ACCUSATIVE.
123
23. II bes, 25. 4, 26, 20, Jo. 1. 18 6 by cts Tv ko,mov Toi ToTpós,
17. 23 iva do LV TETELELWuévou eis (TO) év, cp. 1 Jo. 5. 8. o tpels els tò & v
eioiv. But čorn eis tò uboov Jo. 20. 19, 26 is classical (Xenophon
Cyr. iv. I. I), cp. 21. 4 (v.l. ét).1 On the other hand, the Epistles
and—what is still more striking—the Apocalypse-show at least in
the local signification a correct discrimination between eis and év,
except in (1 Jo. 5. 8, see above, and) 1 P. 5. 12 (a postscript to the
letter written in the apostle's own hand) Tiv zápiv. --- Eis ņv otņTE
(FOTÝKATE KLP), which certainly cannot mean "put yourself into it,'
but 'stand fast therein.' 2 Eis for ev is frequent in Hermas, Vis. i.
2. 2 é xovou Biblíov eis tès xelpas, ii. 4. 3, Sim. i. 2 etc.; see also
Clem. Cor. ii. 8. 2 (19. 4 ?), Clem. Hom. xii. 10. It thus appears
that at that time this use of eis was still a provincialism, although
even so the fact that several authors do not share in it is remark-
able. On the reverse interchange, év for eis, see § 41, 1.
4. Under the head of intermixture of els and év may be also
reckoned L. 1. 20 Tinpwońoovtar els TDV kalpòv aŭtô (correctly with
év Mt. 21. 41, 2 Th. 2. 6), whereas L. 13. 9 käv touyOn KapTÒv Eis TÒ
uéllov has classical parallels (so és úgtepov Hdt. 5. 74); correct are
also A. 13. 42 eis to metafi cáßßatov, 2 C. 13. 2 eis tò málo (cp.
classical cioaūOls); the remaining temporal uses of eis are still more
completely in agreement with classical Greek.—A, 7. 53 éháßere TÒV
vónov eis diatayàs åyyélw=&v diarayals (cp. Mt. 9. 34 and other
passages).—After the Hebrew bisa 7, Mc. 5. 34 and Lc. 7. 50,
8. 48 say Ümraye eis cipávny (so also LXX. "1 Sam. 1. 17 etc.): but the
sense seems to be better given by Ja. 2. 16 ÚTáyete èv cipvvy (so D
in both passages of Luke). In other instances the caprice of the
writer in his choice of eis or ev is not surprising, since Hebrew had
only the one preposition a, and classical Greek had in most of these
cases none at all. Thus LOTEÚELV els alternates with TOT. év
(Mc. 1. 15) and tot, éirí, in addition to which the correct classical
TT. Tuví appears, $ 37, 1; there is a corresponding interchange of
prepositions with the subst. πίστις (ή εν Χρ., ή εις Χρ., beside the
objective genitive), and with zero_Dévai, which also has the simple
dative : see for this verb and for TICEL § 37, 2; further, with
ouvúvac (which in classical Greek takes accus., $ 34, 1) in Mt. 5. 35
év and eis are found side by side ; with eúdokeîv 'to have pleasure
év is frequent, eis occurs in Mt. 12. 18 O.T. (öv simply **B, év D)
and 2 P. 1. 17. The rendering of the Hebrew own is especially
variable: To o ø óvómatı (instrumental dative) 4 Mt. 7. 22, eis ovoua
1"Traye vlyal els tiv kolvußnopav 9. 7 is supported by parallels from profane
writers ; vlyal however appears not to be genuine (Lachm.; on. A al., cp. II).
21 P. 3. 20 els mv (KiBwrdr) Nyou Oleo u onoar is 'into which few escaped,' cp.
2 Tim. 4. 18 (LXX. Gen. 19. 19).
3 Similarly Dappû ev confide in' 2 C. 7. 16: but els 10. i = Opaoús eiul 'toward
you.'
4 The simple dative is further found in (Mt. 12. 21, see § 37, 1, note 2),
Mc. 9. 38 AX al. (rell. év), Ja. 5. 10 AKL (rell. év).
124
PREPOSITIONS : [S 39. 4-5, S 40. 1-2.
προφήτου 10. 41, εις το εμόν όνομα 18. 20 (28. 19), επί τω ονόματί μου
18. 5, εν ονόματι Κυρίου 21. 9. Again to do to anyone' is ποιείν
(εργάζεσθαι) τι έν τινι, είς τινα, τινί (Att. τινά), see $ 34, 4 (beside
ποιείν ελεημοσύνας εις Α. 24. 17 there is an alternative ποιείν έλεος
μετά [Hebr. EP] τινος L. 10. 37). With the verb to announce, if the
communication is made to several persons, either eis or év is admis-
sible in Attic Greek (ειπείν εις τον δήμον, εν τω δήμω); so also in Ν.Τ.
κηρύσσειν εις Mc. 13. το (έν D), 14. 9, L. 24. 47, 1 Τh. 2. 9 (υμίν *),
έν 2 C. Ι. Ι9, G. 2. 2, ευαγγελίζεσθαι εις 1 P. 1. 25, έν G. 1. 16.
5. In place of a nominative (or accusative in the respective
passages) els is found with the accusative, after a Hebrew pattern,
with είναι, γίνεσθαι, λογίζεσθαι, 8 33, 3: for the sense to represent
as,” reckon as' see 8 34, 5. But in G. 3. 14 ίνα εις τα έθνη η ευλογία
του Αβραάμ γένηται the simple case would be the dative, cp. 8 37, 3,
or in classical Greek the genitive; cp. εγγίζειν εις for τινί, 8 37, 6 (in
modern Greek eis is the usual circumlocution for the lost dative,
cp. ibid. 1).-Εις for επί οι πρός : Jo. 4. 5 έρχεται εις πόλιν κ.τ.λ.
comes to’ not into,' 11. 31, 38 υπάγει (έρχεται) είς (D 11. 38 επι)
το μνημείον, 20. 3 (in 8 εις is correct); in accordance with which
some would support the reading of DHP in Mc. 3. 7 åvexópnoev eis
(instead of πρός) την θάλασσαν (similarly in 2. 13 Tisch. reads εξήλθεν
εις την θάλ. with N*, for παρά, and in 7. 31 with NBD al.).2 Even
Matthew in 12. 4I μετενόησαν εις το κήρυγμα Ιωνά has an instance of
εις for πρός, cp. Hdt. 3. 52 προς τούτο το κήρυγμα ούτις οι διαλέγεσθαι
ήθελε (in consequence of').
$ 40. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
1. Αντί is one of the prepositions that are dying out, being
represented by some twenty instances in the whole Ν.Τ. 'Ανθ' ών
• for the reason that’ – because' L. 1. 20, 19. 44, Α. 12. 23, 2 Τh.
2. Ιo, classical, also in LXX. 2 Kings 22. 17 = ΑΝ ΠΑ; for this'
= “therefore' L. 12. 3, αντί τούτου Ε. 5. 31 Ο.Τ. (ένεκεν τούτου LΧΧ.
and Mt. 19. 6, Mc. 10. 7, 12-5y).-Equivalent to a genitive of
price (similarly classical Greelk) H. 12. Ι6 αντί βρώσεως μιάς απέδοτο
τα πρωτοτόκια.-In a peculiar sense, Jo. 1. Ι6, χάριν αντί χάριτος
ελάβομεν, cp. class. γήν προ γής ελαύνεσθαι “from one land to another,
and frequently ελπίσιν εξ ελπίδων and the like.
2. 'Ató has still maintained its place in modern Greek, while it
has taken over the uses of έξ, which disappears ; in the N.T. this
mixture has already begun, although (with regard to the frequency
with which either is employed) e still holds its own fairly easily
1 This passage might indeed be a case of εις for έν: όπου εάν κηρυχθη το
ευαγγέλιον εις όλον τον κόσμον, λαληθήσεται κ.τ.λ.
2 Another incorrect use is δότε δακτύλιον εις την χείρα L. 15. 22, class. περί, see
Plato Rep. ii. 359 Ε ; also in the same passage υποδήματα εις τους πόδας (class.
dat., Odyss. 15. 368).
8 40. 2-3.]
125
WITH GENITIVE.
against από (as έν does against είς, 8: 39, 3). Instances of mixture:
απελθείν (έξ- EHLP) από (om. HLP) της πόλεως Α. 16. 39, which
means not to depart from the neighbourhood of the city' (where
από is right), but “ to go out of the city, 13. 5o, Mc.' 16. 9 αφ' (παρ'
C*DL) ής εξεβεβλήκει επτά δαιμόνια, Η. 11. 15 αφ' ής (πατρίδος)
εξέβησαν. However in most cases in a connection of this kind εξ
and årró are still correctly distinguished.—Also the partitive é,
which itself is scarcely classical (S 35, 4), is occasionally represented
by the still more unclassical από, Mt. 27. 21 τίνα από των δύο
(= class. πότερον τούτοις), and both are used promiscuously in place
of the classical genitive in phrases like to eat of,' 'to tuke of,
etc., 8 36, 1. Contrary to Attic usage is τινας των από της εκκλη-
oias A. 12. i 'those belonging to the community' (not those who
came from the community), cp. 6. 9, 15. 5, whereas in A. 10. 45,
11. 2, Tit. 1. το we have οι εκ περιτομής correctly (οι εκ της διατριβής
ταύτης Aeschin. 1. 54); still Hellenistic writers like Plutarch have
similar phrases. Again, εξ would be the correct preposition to ex-
press extraction from a place; but Ν.Τ. has ήν ο Φίλιππος από.
Βηθσαϊδά, εκ της πόλεως Ανδρέου Jo. 1. 44, cp. 45,2 Mt. 21. ΙΙ,
Α. 10. 38, and s0 always, unless as in L. 2. 4 (εκ πόλεως Ναζ.),
πόλις is added as well ; από is also regularly used of a person's.
country except in John, A. 6. 9, 21. 27, 23. 34, 24. 18 (but in
classical Greek, Isocr. 4. 82 etc. τους έκ της Ασίας).3 See also
Acts 2. 5. Material: ένδυμα από τριχών Mt. 3. 4. “After,' out of ':
έδυναμώθησαν από ασθενείας Η. 11. 34 (classical Greek has λευκών
ήμαρ εισιδείν εκ χείματος).
3. Από has supplanted υπό in the sense of on account of,' « for
(of things which occasion or hinder some result by their magnitude):
από της λύπης κοιμωμένους L. 22. 45, Mt. 13, 44, 14. 26, Α. 20. 9,
12: Ι4 από της χαράς ουκ ήνοιξεν, 22. II, L. 19. 3, (24. 41), Jo. 21. 6,
Herm. Vis. iii. 11. 2; cp, εξ infra 4. Also υπό with a passive verb
or a verb of passive meaning is often replaced by åró, although in
this instance the MSS. commonly exhibit much diversity in their
readings. A. 2. 22 αποδεδειγμένον από του θεού, 4. 36 επικληθείς
Βαρναβάς από (D υπό) των αποστόλων, Mt. 16. 21 πολλά παθείν από.
(D υπό) των κ.τ.λ. (in the parallel passage Mc. 8. 31 από is only read
by AX al., the rest have ÜTÒ: in L. 17. 25 årò is read by all). --'ATÓ
further encroaches upon the province of mapá with the genitive :
ακούειν από Α. 9. 13, 1 Jo. 1. 5; μανθάνειν από G. 3. 2, Col. i. 7;
παραλαμβάνειν από 1 C. 11. 23 (παρά DE, απολαμβ. από followed by
the same verb with mapá Herm. Vis. v. 7) etc.; also in the phrase
to come from a person': απο Ιακώβου G. 2. 12, από θεού Jo. 13. 3,
16. 3ο (εκ 8. 42, παρά 16. 27, op. S 43, 5).-The use of the old geni-
tive of separation ($ 36, 9) is far more restricted in the N.T. than in
1 So Plut. Caes. 35 οι από βουλής, members of the senate.
2 But in 1. 47 εκ Ναζ. δύναται τι αγαθόν είναι ; cp. 4. 22 η σωτηρία εκ των
Ιουδαίων εστίν.
3 ATÓ is found already in Homer and poetry : årò Etráprns Hdt. 8. 114,
Soph. El, 691.
126
[S 40. 3-5.
PREPOSITIONS
the classical language through the employment of årò (F): so regu-
larly with élevdepoūv, lúelv, xwpičelv etc., also with totepeîv (ibid.).
Much more remarkable, however, is the åró, which in imitation of
the Hebrew 79, 99='for,' is employed with verbs meaning 'to
hide,' 'to be on one's guard,' 'to fear' (similarly in the LXX., Buttm.
p. 278). See on KPÚTTELV Ort åró Tivos $ 34, 4; pevyelv, aviáo SELV
and -eo Oui, poßeio bai, aioxúveo da. åró Tivos $ 34, 1; to which must
be added προσέχειν εαυτο or still more abbreviated προσέχειν (sc. τον
voûv 'to have a care for oneself'='to beware'), åró Tivos L. 12. I,
Mt. 7. 15 etc.; in a similar sense opâv, Blért elv åtó Mc. 8. 15, 12. 38.
Tnpeîv and darnpelv, however, take é (equally unclassical): ¿E (å'D)
ův dlarnpollvtes ÉAUTOÚS A. 15. 29, Jo. 17. 25, Ap. 3. 10. In these
instances also the idea of separation or alienation is expressed by
åró, as it is in many expressions, especially in St. Paul, which can-
not be directly paralleled from the classical language: R. 9. 3 åvá@eua
είναι από του Χρ., 2 C. 11. 3 μή φθαρη τα νοήματα υμών από της απλό-
TITOS TỘs év Xp., 2 Th. 2. 2, Col. 2. 20 úmeávete útrò TÔ otouyelwv Toû
κόσμου, similarly with καταργείσθαι R. 7. 6, G. 5. 4; also μετανοείν από
in A. 8. 22, cp. H. 6. 1, ék Ap. 2. 21 etc.; duraloûv, Deputeúelv, doúelv
úró approach still more nearly to lúelv etc.) Cp. in Hermas and
other writings : διαφθαρήναι από Sim. iv. 7, αποτυφλούσθαι από Mand.
v. 2. 7, koloßds åtó Sim. ix. 26. 8, Kevòs åró Sim. ix. 19. 2, époquos
åró Clem. Cor. ii. 2. 3, LirotaKTEîv åró i. 21. 4, åpyelv åtó 33. 1.-
On the use of από in reclkoning distance (από σταδίων δεκαπέντε) see
$ 34, 8.--On útò a poo CóTOU Tivós infra 9.
4. On the largely employed ê, êk there is little to remark. It
takes the place of the subjective genitive 2 C. 9. 2 το εξ υμών ζηλος
(without ÈÊ ABCP), cp. 8. 7 TỶ & iuậv év ňuêv (?) åyáry. For its
partitive use cp. $ 35, 4, $ 36, 1; with 'to fill’ibid. 4 (S 38, 1). In
place of a genitive of price : ýyópaoav ¿attûv (the 30 pieces of
silver) Tòv å ypov Mt. 27. 7, § 36. 8. In a peculiar sense : Tous
νικώντας εκ του θηρίου (probably = τηρήσαντας εαυτούς έκ ..., supra 3)
Ap. 15. 2. Denoting the cause like åró, and classical úró, supra 3 :
Ap. 16. Io “uaơôvao Ths yodoas a Tv ºk Too móvoz, ep. II, 2 :
this book with the Gospel and the first Epistle of St. John makes
proportionally the largest use of é, of any of the N.T. books.
With attraction ég for év see $ 76, 4.
5. IIpò is not represented by very many examples, most of which
= 'before' of time; before' of place only in Acts (5. 23, v.l.) 12.6
(v.l. apùs in D), 14, 14. 13, Ja. 5. 9 (elsewhere čun poolev, vide
infra 7); of preference apo Távtwv Ja. 5. 12, 1 P. 4. 8. On the
Hebraistic apò a pooinov Tivos infra 9. In a peculiar usage: Jo. 12. I
Trò e mucp6v Too Táo Xa 6 days before the possover,” cp. Lat. Cute
diem tertium Calendas (so also other writers under the Empire,
But H. 5. 7 cloakovo Oeis ånd tñs eủlaßelas cannot be so taken 'heard (and
freed) from his fear,' especially as eủlaß. 12. 28 rather denotes the fear of God
(čp. eúlabelo bau 11. 7, eủaßńs A. 2. 5 etc.); therefore render 'on account of his
piety,' cp. p. 125.
$ 40. 5–7.]
127
79
WITH GENITIVE.
št. 11.3 386 in the receive
Forbe in a biztos
see Kühner Gr. II.2 288, W. Schmidt de Josephi. elocut. 513, and
cp. uetá $ 42, 3, and åtó in the reckoning of distance supra 3). .
6. Quasi-prepositions with genitive. “For the sake of' is évekev,
also cívekev $ 6, 4, éveka A. 26. 21 (Attic, § 6, 1) in Paul's speech
before Agrippa, also L. 6. 22 (-ev D al.), Mt. 19. 6 O.T. ABLZ (LXX.
-EV), A. 19. 32 XAB, Mc. 13. 9 B. Not frequent (some 20 instances,
including quotations); it denotes the cause or motive which is given
for an action, so regularly évekev čuoũ in the Gospels, elsewhere it is
hardly distinguishable from diá with accus., see § 42, 1; its position
(which in Attic is quite unrestricted) is always before the genitive
except in the case of an interrogative (Tívos évekev A. 19. 32) or a
relative sentence (où civerev L. 4. 18 O.T.). Xápiv is still rarer
(almost always placed after the word). —-'Except, without,' is
usually xwpis; dvev (also Attic) only appears in Mt. 10. 29, 1 P.
3. 1, 4. 9; ótep (poetical : in prose not before imperial times) only
in L. 22. 6, 35 (often in Hermas, e.g. Sim. v. 4. 5; Barn. 2. 6 C, but
üvev x); Tv (Attic) A. 8. I, 15. 28, 27. 22, Mc. 12. 32, “Jo.' 8. 10.
The position of these words (as also of those that follow) is always
before the case, except in one ex. of yopis H. 12. 4, § 80, 4; x. as
adverb (often in Attic) only appears in Jo. 20. 7.-'Unto' is dxpi(s),
uéxpu(s) as in Attic (on the s see g 5, 4), the former in Lc., Acts, Paul,
Hebrews, Ap., Mt. 24. 38 : the latter in Mt. 11. 23, 13. 30 (€ws BD),
28. 15 (**Déws), Mc. 13. 30 (éws D), and sporadically in Lc., Acts,
Paul, Hebrews; both are also used as conjunctions (in an inter-
mediate stage with the interposition of a relative, äxoi oll, M. oll;
Herm. Vis. iv. l. 9 M. Őte **, M. ŐTOV fue as), see $ 65, 10; 78, 3;
tws is also employed in this sense, originally a conjunction through-
out (its use as a prep. appears in Hellenistic Gk, and the LXX.),
Mt. i. 17 åmo ’Aßpadni éws Aavid, éws toû XplotoŮ etc. (often in Mt.,
also in Mc., Lc., Acts, rare in Paul and James; in Hebr. only in
quotations ; John uses none of the three words); here also we have
éws oü, éws otov. "Ews is moreover readily joined with an adverb:
EWS TÓTE, årò övw ev és kátu, éws õpti, śws oņuepov, on the other
hand you (uexet) Toũ võv, Ths Thuepov (although Thuc. 7. 83 has
uéxpe té). It occasionally has the meaning 'within': A. 19. 26 D
écs 'Epécov, 23. 23 (B text) éws ékatóv. Herm. Mand. iv. 1. 5 axpu
της άγνοίας ουχ αμαρτάνει means as long as he does not know'
(äxpus åv å yvoý = . åv yvợ “until').
7. 'Before? (in local sense, rarely apó, supra 5) is expressed by
fumpoo bev, évaytlov (čvavti, KATévavti, årévavti), évÚTLOV (KaTevÚTLOV).
Of these expressions čust poodev and évavtſov with the genitive are
also classical, and in the case of évavríov the construction with the
genitive is also the predominant use of the word, whereas čurt poo Dev
is more frequently adverbial ; årévavti is Hellenistic (Polyb.);
ÉVÓTTLOV (£v-út. before the eyes : Tà évómia is as old as Homer),
KatevÚTLOV (KaTÉvwna or kat' ¿vớa Hom.), évavril (ěvavta Hom.),
κατέναντι (κατέναντα in poetry) all take their origin from the LΧΧ.
? "Evauti occurs in inscriptions in translations of Roman senatus consulta,
Viereck Sermo graecus Senat. Rom. (Gtg. 1888) p. 16, 66.
128
[S 40. 7-8.
PREPOSITIONS
and are foreign to profane authors even at a later date than the
Ν.Τ., while the. Ν.Τ. on the other hand has not got αντικρύ(s)
(except in A. 20. 15 α. Χίου) καταντ. απαντ. The expressions serve
as a rendering for the Hebrew 52, ya, also for 777, and furt po-
σθεν and εναντίον also frequently stand in the N.T. in places where
classical Greek would express itself in a simpler manner. Thus
Mt. 7. 6 μη βάλετε τους μαργαρίτας υμών έμπροσθεν των χοίρων =
class. μη προβάλετε τ. μ. τοϊς χοίροις. "Εμπροσθεν is also apparently
used of time = πρό (so in class. Greek), in Jo. 1. Ι5, 30 (or of pre-
cedence=has obtained the precedence of me?); in adverbial sense
only in L. 19. 4, 28, Ph. 3. 14, Ap. 4. 6; it is employed by well-
nigh all writers (not Pet., James, Jude, Hebr.), most frequently by
Mt. 'Εναντίον occurs in Mc. 2. Ι2 ACD (al. έμπρ.), L. 1. 8 NAC al.
(έναντι BDE al.), 20. 26, 24. 19 (ενώπιον D), Α. 7. το (έναντι 8),
8. 32 Ο.Τ.; έναντι is further used in 8. 21 (ενώπιον EHLP) και κατέ-
ναντι απέν. (where the readings often vary) Mt. 21. 2, 27. 24 etc.,
Α. 3. 16, 17. 7, R. 3. Ι8 Ο.Τ., 4. 17 (adverb L. 19. 3ο) και ενώπιον is
frequent in Luke (in the first half of the Acts; in the second half it
is only found in 19. 9, 19, 27. 35) and in the Apocalypse : in John
only in 20. 30, 1 Jo. 3. 22, 3 Jo. 6: in Mt. and Mc. never (κατενώπ.
in a few passages of Paul and in Jude).-Before' in the strictly
local sense is generally expressed by čust poolev alone (the word has
only this sense in the Apoc.): έμπρ. του βήματος Α. 18. 17, των
ποδών Αp. 19. το (Β ενώπιον), 22. 8 (Α προ), although the author of
the Apoc. also says ενώπιον του θρόνου; similarly before anyone'
1s έμπροσθεν Jo. 3. 28, 10. 4 (ενώπιον L. 1. 76 NB); έμπρ. εναντίον
ενώπιον express before anyone' = before the eyes of anyone, also
pleasing in anyone's eyes = to anyone, A. 6. 5 ήρεσεν ενώπιον του
πλήθους = τώ πλήθει, 1 Jo. 3. 22 τα άρεστα ενώπιον αυτού και αμαρτάνειν
ενώπ. τινος = είς τινα L. 15. Ι8, 21 (1 Sam. 7. 6), Or τινί, LΧΧ.
Judges 11. 27, Buttm. p. 150; so à genitive or dative is often
replaced by this circumlocution, Mt. 18. 24 ουκ έστιν θέλημα έμ-
προσθεν του πατρός μου, where έμπρ. might be omitted, 11. 26,
L. 15. Io χαρά γίνεται ενώπιον των αγγέλων = των αγγέλων Or τοίς
αγγέλοις, 24. ΙΙ εφάνησαν ενώπιον αυτών ώσει λήρος = αυτοίς, etc.
Similar is H. 4. 13 αφανής ενώπιον αυτού, 13. 21 ; but in the second
half of the Acts it is only used = class. εναντίον. Κατέναντι, απέναντι
mean over against' = class. καταντικρύ, Mt. 21. 2, Mc. 12. 4I etc.;
but are also commonly used = before' like εναντίον, ενώπιον, ε.α. with
του όχλου Mt. 27. 24; a peculiar usage is απέναντι των δογμάτων
contrary to’ Α. 17. 7 (έναντία τοίς δόγμασιν Or των δογμάτων in
classical Greek).
8. The opposite of έμπροσθεν in the local sense is όπισθεν “behind,
occurring with genitive only in Mt. 15. 23, Lc. 23. 26, rarely also
as an adverb; on the other hand omlow in the older language the

* Cp. Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien (Marburg, 1897), p. 40 f., who gives
instances from the papyri of an adverbial use of ενώπιον, in the sense of in
person,' Latin coram; see also Grenfell-Hunt, Pap. ii. 112.
$ 40. 8–9.]
ì 29
WITH GENITIVE.
opposite of apóow, for which Attic had toppw far off,' the latter
form occurring occasionally in N.T.) is found fairly often, usually
as a preposition, more rarely as an adverb. The prepositional use
of oniow, which is foreign to profane writers, takes its origin from
the LXX. (Hebr. ): ëpxeoda, óriow Tivós to follow' (also
úkolovoeîv ót. Tiv., instead of the dative, see $ 37, 6), åréotyOe laòv
óriow aŭroll A. 5. 37, cp. 20. 30; even Davuáčelv omlow Ap. 13. 3
($ 38, 2, note 2). Somewhat different is épxeo bar óm. T. Mt. 3. II
etc., 'to come after (or behind) anyone,' in the Baptist's utterance
about Christ.—The compounds, found already in Attic Greek,
Én-ávw above' and ÚTO-KÁTW 'underneath' (used also in Attic with
the genitive), have a weakened force in the N.T. = 'upon,' 'under?:
Mt. 5. 14 tróles étrávw opovs KELLévn= Att. &T'őpovs, L. 8. 16 ÚTOKÁTW
klívns ríonowv=Att. ÚTÒ klívny; návw only is used adverbially,
and this word is also joined with numerals = 'more than,' without
affecting the case, $ 36, 12 (before an adverb Mt. 2. 9 êtrávw où tò
Taidíov, but D here has toù maudiov).-Between' is expressed by
METAŠÚ (Att.) Mt. 18. 15 etc. (rare); this word is also used adverbially
in Jo. 4. 31 év tỘ Mo = 'meanwhile,' but in the common language 1
="afterwards,' A. 13. 42 eis TÒ Metačù cáßßatov, cp. 23. 24 an
addition of the ß text, Barn. 13. 5, Clem. Cor. i. 44. 2. Beside
METAÉÚ we have åvà méoov, see g 39, 2: ¿v péow (tuproq) with genitive
'among,' between,' Mt. 10. 16 (B eis jégov), L. 10. 3 (uérov D,
vide infra), 8. 7 (uérov D), 21. 22 etc. = Hebrewing and classical
ev or eis, since where ?' and 'whither?' are not distinguished in
this instance (eis décov never occurs except as a var. lect. in Mt.
10. 16 vide supra, 14. 24 D for uérov; but of course we have eis tò
uécor without a subsequent case). Other equivalents are uécos
adjective Jo. 1. 26, L. 22. 55 BL (v.1. év ułow, Let') or uérov adverb
(cp. modern Greek uéoa), Ph. 2. 15 Tékva Deoù uérov yeveâs okoliâs,
L. 10. 3 D, vide supra (adj. or adv. in Mt. 14. 24, L. 8. 7 D). To
these must be added ék pécou with gen. = 7inn Mt. 13. 49 etc.
=class. &; dà uéčov with gen. (na) L. 4. 30 dienoùy dià uérov
aŭtøv=diá, (see also § 42, 1).
9. To express a prepositional idea by a circumlocution, the sub-
stantives πρόσωπον, χείρ, στόμα are employed with the genitive,
similarly to uécov, in constructions modelled on the Hebrew. 'ATÒ
προσώπου τινός = από or παρά with gen. after verbs signifying to
come' or 'to go,' A. 3. 19, 5. 41:= the N.T. åró (supra 3) after 'to
drive out,' 'to hide,' 'to fly' A. 7. 45, Ap. 6. 16, 12. 14, 20. 11, =
39. IIpò TT POOÁTov Mt. 11. 10 O.T. (" ), so L. 1.76 (AB évúrrcov),
9. 52, even (in A. 13. 24, a sermon of Paul) + pò a pooótov tñs civódov
aŭroll 'before (in advance of) him.' Katá arpoo Wrov = coram is also
à recognised usage in profane writers, and in this sense is correctly
employed in A. 25. 16 (without a gen.); elsewhere as in 3. 13 katà
z póo Wrov IIidátov, L. 2. 31 katà p. TrávTW TW daw it corresponds
1 In this sense it is found in Plut. Moral. 240 B and Josephus.
130
(S 40. 9, § 41. 1.
PREPOSITIONS
to the Hebr. 59; similarly eis tp. Tivos 2 C. 8. 24 (eis np. without
case, and with eis in place of év, Herm. Vis. iii. 6. 3).--Xelp: eis
xeîpás (719) Tivos rapadidóval, “into anyone's power,' 'to anyone'
Mt. 26. 45 etc., L. 23. 46, Jo. 13. 8, H. 10. 31 (èurregelv eis x. Deoû,
cp. Polyb. 8, 20. 8 ÚTTÒ Tàs twv éxOpôv X. míaTELV; ÚToxcípios); for
which is substituted év Tô X. Sédwkev (év for eis, § 41, 1) in Jo. 3. 35.
'Ev (oùv ABCDE) xelpi åyyélov A. 7. 35 (cp. G. 3. 19). 7, through,'
by means of.' 'Ek yelpós Tivos 'out of the power of anyone' (779)
L. 1. 71, A. 12. II Eeldató je ek X. 'Hpýdov, cp. in classical Gk.
Aesch. 3. 256 ék Twv xelpôv celéo Dai Twv Øidintov (here used as a
stronger and more vivid expression), etc. Acà xelpós, dià Tôv xelpôv
= diá through, by means of' Mc. 6. 2 and frequently in Acts
(2. 23, 5. 12 etc.), of actions; dià otópatos, on the other hand, is
used of speeches which God puts into the mouth of anyone, L. 1. 70,
Α. 1. 16 etc. Further, for λόγοι οι από τινος Or τινος the fuller and
more vivid o éKTOPEVóuevou ÉK (dià) cróu. Tivos is used in Mt. 4. 4
O.T. = LXX. Deut. 8. 3, L. 4. 22 etc.; for åkoúelv Tivós we have åk.
“K (ảmò, Suà) Toộ TT. Tuvos L. 22. TI, A. 1. 4 D, E. 4. 29 etc.; cp.
L. 11. 54 Onpellraí TuệK T. Ot. aŭtoù, a word from him ; otóuatos
'on the assertion of Mt. 18. 16, and many similar exx.; otóua was
moreover utilized in classical Greek to coin many expressions of this
kind. 'Ek otóuatos can also mean 'out of the jaws' 2 Tim. 4. 17.
-On ódóv as preposition (versus) Mt. 4. 15 see & 34, 8, note 1.
$ 41. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE.
1. Ev is the commonest of all prepositions in the N.T., notwith-
standing the fact that some writers ($ 39, 3) occasionally employ els
instead of it. (The reverse change, namely, the misuse of ev for eis,
can only be safely asserted to take place in a very few cases in the
N.T. Thus év ułow is used in answer to the question 'whither ?',
$ 40, 8; compare also clona de dadoylouds év aủTois L. 9. 46 came
into them,' 'into their hearts' (see next verse]: Katepalvev ev ta
kolvußńopa in a spurious verse Jo. 5. 4 [Herm. Šim. i. 6 åréons év
Tŷ Tólei gov, Clem. Hom. i. 7, xiv. 6]. But éñldev ó lóyos ¿v TỶ
'Iovdaía L. 7. 17 [cp. 1 Th. 1. 8] means 'was spread abroad in J.';
in Αp. 11. ΙΙ εισήλθεν εν αυτοίς is only read by A, αυτούς CP, εις
αυτούς NB; classical authors can use έν with τιθέναι and ιστάναι, and
with this may be compared διδόναι [to lay] εν τη χειρί τινος Jo. 3. 35
Ts 40, 9; Clem. Cor. i. 55. 5 Tapédwkev 'OXodépvny év xelpi Ondeias),
or év Tŷ kapdía 2 C. 1. 22, 8. 16; no conclusive evidence can be
drawn from the metaphorical usage in L. 1. 17 év Opovoel dikuiwv,
with the meaning "so that they have the wisdom'; kaleiv ev cipnvy
and similar phrases). The use of év receives its chief extension
through the imitation of Hebrew constructions with a Under this
head comes its instrumental employment, $ 38, 1; also its use to
indicate the personal agent : εν τω άρχοντι (through) των δαιμονίων
erawan Prom the ingresos that e ase of any metions with also its use to
8 4Ι. 1-2.]
131
WITH DATIVE.
εκβάλλει τα δαιμόνια Mt. 12. 24 (9. 24), κρίνειν την οικουμένην εν
ανδρί Α. 17. 31 (1 C. 6. 2). In the same way no doubt is to be
explained its use to express the motive: Α. 7. 29 έφυγεν Μωυσής εν
τα λόγω τούτω on account of' (DE have another reading έφυγάδευσεν
Μωυσήν εν “with): Mt. 6. 7 εν τη πολυλογία αυτών εισακουσθήσονται:
εν τούτω on this account’ Α. 24. Ι6, Jo. 16. 30: έν ο since,
because' H. 2. 18, or on which account: 6. 17; to the same
category belongs the use of ev with verbs expressing emotion, e.g.
χαίρειν, 8 38, 2. Another instance of instrumental έν is Ap. 5. 9
ηγόρασας εν τω αίματί σου, cp. A. 20. 28; this phrase εν τώ αίματι
(Toll Xp.) is found in various connections in the Pauline Epistles and
Acts (R. 3. 25, 5. 9 etc.), where the very indefinite and colourless
meaning of év does not help to determine the sense more accurately.
On evdeduuévos év and similar phrases see $ 34, 6, note 2; on èv of
accompaniment (with army’ etc.) 8 38, 3. Of manner (vide ibid.):
εν τάχει (class.) L. 18. 8 etc., κρίνειν εν δικαιοσύνη = δικαίως A. 17. 31,
Αp. 19. II, εν πάση ασφαλεία = ασφαλέστατα Α. 5. 23, έν (πάση)
παρρησία “freely,” “openly’ etc. Again άνθρωπος εν πνεύματι
ακαθάρτω Μο. 1. 23, 5. 2 must mean with an unclean spirit’ = έχων
έστε έν σαρκί άλλ' εν πνεύματι, είπερ πνεύμα θεού οικεί εν υμίν ει δέ τις
πνεύμα Χριστού ουκ έχει κ.τ.λ. is calculated to show the constant
fluctuation of the meanings of év and of the conceptions of the rela-
tion between man and spirit. Another phrase with an extremely
indefinite meaning is εν Χριστώ (κυρίω), which is attached again and
again in the Pauline Epistles to very different ideas.
2. Occasionally έν appears to stand for the ordinary dative proper.
1 C. 14. ΙΙ έσομαι το λαλουντι (“ for the speaker ') βάρβαρος, και ο
λαλών εν εμοί βάρβαρος • for me, instead of έμοί, which Paul avoided
because it might have been taken with λαλών. Cp. G. 1. Ι6
αποκαλύψαι τον υιόν αυτού εν εμοί to me’ (in me, .. in my spirit
would be an unnatural phrase); in 2 C. 4. 3 εν τοις άπoλλυμένοις έστι
κεκαλυμμένον “ for' is a better rendering than among'; 2 C. 8. I
where D omits the έν; but 1 Jo. 4. 9 εν τούτω εφανερώθη η αγάπη
του θεού εν ημίν means towards us, and is like ποιείν έν τινι, γίνεσθαι
έν τινι, where moreover either the dative or εις can stand, 8 34, 4.-
'Εν has the meaning of m' or “by’ with μανθάνειν 1 C. 4. 6,
γινώσκειν L. 24. 35 etc. (likewise classical); but we also find γιν. έκ
L. 6. 44 etc., κατά το 1. 18. For to swear by’ ομνύναι έν see 8 34, 1
(instead of the accus.); for ομολογείν έν τινι “ to profess allegiance to
anyone' (a Syriac expression) Mt. 10. 32, L. 12. 8, for which an
accus. or two accusatives may be used, see $ 34, 5. 'Ev uvotnplw
λαλούμεν σοφίαν 1 C. 2. 7 = as a mystery’ (so in classical Greek).
On év in temporal sense see $ 38, 4.
1 In R. 11. 12 εν 'Ήλία λέγει η γραφή might be interpreted in the same way, by
Elias, cp. εν τω 'Ωσηέ 9. 25, εν Δαυίδ Η. 4. 7, εν ετέρω προφήτη λέγει Barn. 6. 14.
But others class these with εν τω νόμω and the like.
132
[S 41. 3, § 42. l.
PREPOSITIONS
3. Zúv in classical Attic is limited to the sense of “including,"
whereas with' is expressed by petá ; but the Ionic dialect and
afterwards the Hellenistic language kept the old word oúv in addition
to uera, and it is consequently found in the N.T., although very
unequally employed by the different authors, and only occurring
with any frequency in Luke (Gospel and Acts) and Paul, while it is
unrepresented in the Apocalypse and the Epistles of John, and
almost unrepresented in his Gospel.1 There is scarcely anything
noteworthy in the way in which it is employed. Eùy tãou TOÚTOLS is
beside all this' (LXX., Josephus, see W.-Gr.) L. 24. 21. On dua and
cúv see $ 37, 6.
§ 42. PREPOSITIONS WITH TWO CASES.
1. Alá with accusative, local 'through' (poetical) only in L. 17. 11
dińexeto dà uécov (KBL, D omits diá, 40, 8; A al. dià uérov)
Eauapelas kai radedaías, an inadmissible reading; elsewhere on
account of,' denoting not only motive and author, but also (what in
classical Greek is expressed by éveka) aim, so that the modern Greek
meaning 'for' is already almost in existence: Mc. 2. 27 tò cáßßaton
dià tòv å vOpwarov éyéveto kai oux ó ävOp. Sià tò oáßßatov, Jo. 11. 42,
12. 30, 1 C. 11. 9 etc.— With genitive through' of place, time, and
agent as in classical Greek. The temporal diá also expresses an
interval of time that has elapsed : si étûv telecóvwv after several
years' A. 24. 17, G. 2. 1; and further (not classical) the period of
time within which something takes place : A. 1. 3 di quepôv teorepá-
KOVTA Óttavóuevos atrois during forty days' (not continuously, but.
at intervals, as was already noticed by the Scholiast following
Chrysostom), Sià. Vuktós per noctem 'at night' (class. VUKTÓs, výktwp),
5. 19 etc.; L. 9. 37 D Sià tñs uépas in the course of the day.'
Instead of the agent, the author may also be denoted by diá (as in
Aeschylus Agam. 1486 Sai Aids tavaltiov tavepyéta): R. 11. 36
aútoü (source) kai di attoll (the Creator) kai eis aŭtov tà mávra, cp.
H. 2. 1o Si' öv (God) Tà trávta kai di où Tà 77., 1 C. 1. 9, G. 1. 1 3 (but
the use is different in 1 C. 8. 6 eis Ocòs o TatńP, où tà trávta kai
ημείς εις αυτόν, και είς κύριος Ι. Χ., δι' ου τον Βτα πάντα και ημείς δι'
aŭtoù, cp. Jo. 1. 3; Mt. 1. 22 TÒ Pndèv ÚTd kupíov Slà Toll mpoońtov, etc.).
-Indicating mode and manner, dià Lóyou by way of speech,' 'orally'
A. 15. 27; also the circumstances in which a man is placed in doing
anything: R. 2. 27 ó dià ypáumatos kai Tepitouns tapaſárns vóuov,
who has the written statute witbal,' 14. 20 dià tpoo Kópatos ło Olelv
* See Tycho Mommsen's book, Beiträge zu d. Lehre v. d. gr. Präpositionen
(Berlin, 1895), where on page 395 the statistics of oúv and mera in the N.T. are.
concisely given. In John où occurs in 12. 2, 18. 1, 21. 3 (Metá very frequently);
in Paul it is absent from 2 Th., 1 and 2 Tim., Tit., Philem.; as it is also from
Hebr. and 1 Pet. [For the distinction between súv and Metá see also West-
cott's note on Jo. 1. 2. Tr.]
? Cp. Hatzidakis Einl. in d. ngr. Gramm. 212 f.
3 It stands for 'To with a passive verb in Herm. Sim. ix. 14. 5, Vis. iii. 13. 3.
$ 42. 1–3.]
133
WITH TWO CASES.
with offence,' dà moll dakpúwv 2 C. 2. 4: also undoubtedly de'
ảo Develas (not -évelav) cúnyyeliodunu ýpîv G. 4. 13 'in sickness,' as
the Vulgate per (not propter) infirmitatem. In a peculiar use in an
urgent petition=“by' (Attic após Tivos): R. 12. I zapakalô únâs dià
Top oiKTLpuby Top cos 15. 3o, 1 C. 1. Io and elsewhere in the Pauline
Epp. (cp. Katá tivos infra 2).
2. Kará with accusative occurs frequently and in various senses,
katá with accus. as a circumlocution for a genitive occurs frequently
in the Hellenistic language (η κατά τον ήλιον πορεία “the course of
the sun'), so in the N.T. one may adduce : A. 18. 15 vóuov toû kal’
úuês 'the law in force with you, your law,' cp. 26. 3, 17. 28, E. 1. 15
Thy Kae ju@s TúaTuv, A. 16. 39 D và Kae juẩs =rò juérepov Tp@Yua,
and R. 1. 15 TÒ Kat' čuè z pó Ovuov = v fun apo Oupia ? (but it is better
to take tò kat' équé as quod in me est, and then read arpó Oyuos with the
Latin authorities and supply ciſi, g 30, 3; cp. TÒ Katà oápka 9. 5 and
other phrases, $ 34, 7). -The distributive katá has become stereo-
typed as an adverb (cp. åvá, $ 39, 2) in kal' eis, see $ 51, 5.-In the
headings to the Gospels katà Marbacov etc. the author of this
particular form of the Gospel is denoted by kará, cp. $ 35, 3; with
this is compared (W.-Gr.) a talaià daoñky katà tous éprouńkovta,
and 2 Macc. 2. 13 to ÎS ÚTouvnuatio uois mois katà Neuiav, which
perhaps means 'which bear the name of N.
With the genitive the instances are far less numerous; kutá TIVOS
most often means against someone' in a hostile sense, and indeed
in the Hellenistic language it also takes the place of Attic été tiva
(otiv and the like): Mt. 12. 30 é un Öv Met suoù kat' fuoù éoTLV
(Demosth. 19. 339 ÉTÈ TÌv móliv otiv, but Polyb. 10, 8. 5 katà tñs
Trólews Úteláußavov civai), whereas the Attic katá against' is used
after verbs of speaking, witnessing etc.—Rarely in local sense : kata
Toll kpnuvoû Mt. 8. 32 etc. 'down from’; kata kepadîs éxwv 1 C. 11. 4,
opposed to åkatakaNÚTTọ Tỳ kepalŷn (“hanging down over the head,
'on the head'); “throughout' A. 9. 31 kaolns tñs 'Iovdaías, 10.37,
L. 4. 14, 23. 5 (Hellenistic, Polyb. 3, 19. 7. Slotápnoav katà mộs
výcov), in this sense always with olos and confined to Luke's Gospel
and Acts (with accus. o ÖVTES KATà Trv 'lovdalav A. 11. I, it means
simply “in”). A peculiar use is ń kard Bádovs attwyela 2 C. 8. 2 'deep'
or profound poverty' (Strabo 9, p. 419 ävtpov koîlov katà Bábovs,
W.-Gr.).-For its use with ouvúvai, (?)opki çelv Mt. 26. 63, H. 6. 13, 16,
see $ 34, 1 (kard Toll Kvplov púrnoa 'entreated by the Lord' Herm.
Vis. iii. 2. 3).
3. Merá with accusative in local sense after,' 'behind' only
occurs in H. 9. 3 metà TÒ DEÚTepov karamétaoua (answering to apó, an
unclassical use); elsewhere it always has temporal sense after.'
Oů metà moddas Tautas auépas A. 1. 5 is not many days after to-day,'
cp. apó, 40, 5.—Metá with genitive has to itself (and not in com-

? [Still no Greek ms. has the genitive in this passage. See Lightfoot ad loc.
Tr.1
134
[$ 42. 3-4.
PREPOSITIONS
mon with oúv) the meaning of 'among,' “amid,' metà Tôv vekp@v
L. 24. 5, metà åvouwv éroyío On (Mc. 15. 28) L. 22. 37, O.T. (Hebr.
OX, LXX. év), as in classical poets ; in the sense of 'with’ it is inter-
changed with oúv, $ 41, 3, but with this limitation that with expres-
sions which imply mutual participation, such as Todeuelv, eipnvetelv,
ovuowvelv, oídos, lasciv (Mc. 6. 50 etc.) and others ($ 37, 6), Metá
Tivos and not cúv Tivi is used in place of or by the side of the
simple dative (Hebr. Oy, class. dative or após); it is likewise the only
preposition used to express accompanying circumstances, metà póßov
etc., § 3, 3 (class.), and in the sense of 'to' (Hebraic) in Toleîv čieos
Metá Tivos . 10. 37, cp. 1. 58 (Herm. Sim. v. 1. I even has trepi
Trávtwv Ô étoinoe ueti čuoù 'to me,' which differs from the use of the
phrase in A. 14. 27 where werá ='with '). On the whole the use of
jetá far outweighs that of oúv (the number of instances of the former
word is nearly three times that of the latter), though in individual
books cúv has equally strong or even stronger attestation (in Acts).
4. IIepl with accusative (not very frequent) is used in local and
temporal sense for about'; so oí Tepi aŭtov Mc. 4. 10, L. 22. 49
='his disciples'; but oi tepi Ilaûlov A. 13. 13, as is the case with
similar phrases in the literary language, includes Paul; we even
have apos tds Tepi Mápoav kai Maplav Jo. 11. 19 A al. (as often in
later writers) to denote Martha and Mary only, but the phrase can
hardly be considered genuine ; 1 it has a further use, which is also
classical, to denote the object of the action or of the pains expended
(not the subject of speech or thought, which is nepí Tivos), with
TlOyuía. Mc. 4. 19 (om. D), with replomão dai, tupßáčec Oai L. 16. 40 f.,
with épyára. A. 19. 25. Paul, who only began to use trepi riva at the
time of writing the Philippian epistle, uses it generally for concern-
ing' (something like Plato's Townpòv tepi tò owua, injurious with
regard to '): Ph. 2. 23 Tà tepi fué, 1 Tim. 1. 19 tepi tnv mioTLV
eva.váyngav, 6. 4, 21, 2 Tim. 2. I8, 3. 8, Tit. 2. 7 (Từ Teki Top Túprov
Herm. Vis. iii. 3. 1).
TIepl with genitive (extremely common) most often in such phrases
as 'to speak,''know,' have a care' etc., 'concerning' or about';
at the beginning of a sentence or paragraph "as concerning' 1 C. 7. I
etc. (class.); also on account of' (class.) with kplveo Oui, éykaleiv,
eúxaploteīv, épwtav (entreat), delodat, tipogeúxeo Dai, Tpóbao iv (an
excuse) é xelv, aiveîv etc., in which cases it often passes over to the
meaning of for' and becomes confused with útépJo. 17. 9 où trepi
TOû Kóo uou epwtô, ållà repi av dédwkás Mol. It is used as absolutely
equivalent to Útép in Mt. 26. 28 TÒ Tepi (D ÚTÈP) mollớv ékywó-
pevov (in Mc. 14. 24 stepí is only read by A al.), 1 C. 1. 13 éotavpáon
Tepi tv only BD* (al. útèp), A. 26. I Tep(KAC al.; ÚÈD BLP)
DEAVTOû léyelv, G. 1. 4 (ÚTÈD XB), H. 5. 3 kalùs tepi tautoll, oŰTWS
każ trepi toù laoûtpoo dépeiv tepi (ÚTèp C De al. as in ver. I) đuaptcov,
cp. 10. 6, 8 0.T., 18, 26, 13. 11, 1 P. 3. 18, Mc. 1. 44, L. 5. 14.

1 II pòs Thy M. kal M. HBC*L al., similarly without thy D ; iva tapauvońo wyral.
Thy M. kai tnv M. Syr. Sin.
§ 42. 4–6.]
135
WITH TWO CASES.
With verbs expressing emotion : Mt. 9. 36 otlayxvio on trepi
avtûv (i.e. Tôvoxdwv; elsewhere the verb has été riva or éirí Tivi,
$$ 36, 7; 43, 1 and 3), Mt. 20. 24 and Mc. 10. 41 åyavaktev tepi
TLVOS, concerning anyone' (classical Greek has repè Tôv tpax OévtWV
Plat. Ep. vii. 349 D), L. 2. 18 Davuáčelv trepi (concerning a thing'),
all these constructions hardly classical ; περί πάντων ευοδούσθαι
'in every respect' 3 Jo. 2. IIoño ai tepi attoll ( to do with him ')
L. 2. 27 also appears to be an incorrect phrase (Tepà aúróv would be
better, vide supra, N.T. says aŭtö or év aúto); layxávelv ( to draw
lots') Tepi Tivos Jo. 19. 24 may be compared with the classical
μάχεσθαι περί τινος.
5. 'Ytép with accusative (not frequent) above,' denotes superi-
ority (no longer found in local sense); hence it is used with the com-
parative, $ 36, 12; it is used adverbially in the Pauline epistles Tèp
liar (or Úteplíav $$ 4,1; 28, 2) 2 C. 11. 5, 12. II ÚTÈP ÉK Teplogoû or
ÚTEPEKT. 1 Th. 3. 10, E. 3. 20, similarly or Útèp ÉKTEPLOO @s (BD*FG)
1 Th. 5. 13; or it stands by itself 2 C. 11. 23 diákovo Xplotoll clowv;
ÚTÈ (to a higher degree) éyù (dák, Xp. cime), cp. the classical words
ůnéplauitpos, ÚTEPEECKLO Xídiou ([Demosth.] 59. 89), whereas in the
N.T. it is impossible in all cases to carry out the compounding of
the two words into one.-—'Ytép with genitive ‘for,' opposed to kará
Tivos Mc. 9. 40 etc., is much limited in its use by the substitution of
Tepi (supra 4), while the reverse change (Néyelv ÚTép 'to speak
about') which is common in Attic and Hellenistic Greek (as also in
the Lxx.), is found more rarely and is almost confined to Paul:
Jo. 1. 30 ÚTÈD (Trepi xºA al.) ou timov, 2 C. 8. 23 ELTE ÚTÈP Títov (“as
concerning,') 12. 8 ÚTÈD TOÚTOV Tapecóleoa (' on this account,' 'on
behalf of this,' cp. supra 4 repí), 2 Th. 2. I, kavyao bar Útép often in
Paul, also ovo lowo Oai útép, opovelv ÚTép (in Ph. 1. 7 to think upon,'
in 4. 10 to care for '). Also the object to be attained may be
introduced by Útép, 2 C. 1. 6 ÚTÈD tñs xuôv zapakiñoews ( to'); so
also Ph. 2. 13 ÚTèp Koll>?) rñs cúdokias (God's; C adds attoll)
TTÁVTA TOLETTE (the first words are not to be taken with the preceding
clause).
6. 'Ytó with accusative (not very frequent; in John only in
1. 49 of his Gospel, never in the Apocalypse 1) under,' answering
the questions where ?' and 'whither ?' (the old local use of Úó
τινος and υπό τινι has become merged in υπό τι), is used in literal and
metaphorical sense; in temporal sense only in A. 5. 21 ÚTÒ TÓN
opopov, sub, circa (class.). 2_ 'Yo with genitive by,' denoting the agent,
is used with passive verbs and verbs of passive meaning like ainyàs
daußávelv 2 C. 11. 24 ;3 in some instances its place is taken by
áró, $ 40, 3; see also did, supra 1.
1 The Apoc. has ÚtokáTW (40, 8) instead, which is also found in John's
Gospel 1. 51.
2 Herm. often uses úmo xeipa in a peculiar way continually,' Vis. iii. 10. 7,
v. 5. 5, Mand. iv. 3. 6.
3 Herm. has the peculiar phrases in Sim. ix. 1. 2 ÚTÒ Tapdévou éúpakas and
UTTÒ áyyélov BXÉTTELS under the guidance of '-'the angel makes you to see,'cp.
Αp. 6. 8 αποκτείναι εν ... και υπό των θηρίων = ποιείν αποθανείν υπό κ.τ.λ.
136
[S 43. 1-2.
PREPOSITIONS
$ 43. PREPOSITIONS WITH THREE CASES.
1. 'Enl is the single preposition the use of which with all three
cases is largely represented. The case, however, which it takes
with far the most frequency is the accusative. This is used not
only, as in classical Greek, in answer to the question Whither?
(including such constructions as that with στήναι, where είς may
take the place of éní, $ 39, 3), but also not infrequently as a sub-
stitute for genitive or dative, in answer to the question Where ? :
Mt. 9. 2 (Mc. 2. 14, L. 5. 27) καθήμενος επί το τελώνιον, Mc. 4. 38 επί
το προσκεφάλαιον (D επί προσκεφαλαίου) καθεύδων, L. 2. 25 πνεύμα
άγιον ήν επ' αυτόν, op. 40 (where D has εν αυτώ), Jo. 1. 32 έμεινεν επ'
αυτόν (33), Α. 1. 15 επί το αυτό together' (so fairly often in Acts, and
Occasionally in Paul and elsewhere, used with είναι etc.; LΧΧ. Joseph.),
2 C. 3. 15 επί την καρδίαν αυτών κείται, Α. 21. 35 εγένετο επί τους
αναβαθμούς, cp. γίνεσθαι εις $ 39, 3 (but επί τινος L. 22. 4ο), Mt.
14. 25 περιπατων επί την θάλασσαν NB al., gen. CD al., 26 gen.
NBCD al., acc. EFG al.; 28 f. all MSS. επι τα ύδατα ; in Mc. 6. 48 f.,
Jo. 6. 19 the gen. is used, which in the passage of John some would
understand as in 21. I in the sense of by the sea,' although we
should not use such an expression, but 'on the shore.' Moreover
with the metaphorical senses of étrí the accusative is more widely
prevalent than it strictly should be : not only do we have καθιστάναι
δικαστην εφ' υμάς (direction whither 2) L. 12. 14, but also βασιλεύσει
επί τον οίκον Ιακώβ 1. 33 (Hebraic, op. inf. 2, 8 36, 8), επι ολίγα ής
πιστός, επί πολλών σε καταστήσω Mt. 25. 21, σπλαγχίζομαι επί των
όχλον 15. 32, Mc. 8. 2, cp. Herm. Mand. iv. 3. 5, Sim. ix. 24. 2
(which in Attic must at least have been επί τω...), μη κλαίετε επ' εμέ
L. 23. 28, ελπίζειν, πιστεύειν, πίστις, πεποιθέναι επί τινα Or επί τινι,
8 37, 1 alternating with είς τινα (έν τινι), Mc. 9. 12 f. γέγραπται επί
τον υιόν του ανθρώπου concerning' (Αtt. prefers επί τινι). • The
following further instances may be noticed : Α. 4. 22 ο άνθρωπος εφ'
δν γεγόνει το σημείον upon’ (class. εις δν, Hdt. 1. 114, or περί όν ;
cp. also επί τινος infra 2): 10. 35 πεσών επι τους πόδας προσεκύνησεν,
= Αtt. προσπεσών αυτώ (Jo. 11. 32 has προς with v.1. είς, Mc. 5. 22
πρός). In temporal senses : Α. 3. Ι επί την ώραν της προσευχής,
4. 5 (L. 10. 35) επί την αύριον, more frequently expressed by τη
επ-αύριον, denoting the coincidence of an action with a particular
time, for which classical Greek uses είς (έσαύριον); it further denotes
duration of time as in classical Greek: εφ' ημέρας πλείους Α. 13. 31
etc.
2. 'Erl with genitive in the majority of cases means "upon'
(ans wering the question Where ?), as in επί της γης, επί κλίνης,
καθήμενος επί του άρματος, επί του ίππου etc., but also in answer to
the question Whither?, the reverse interchange of meanings taking
place with sé with the accus. as was noticed above in 1: Mc. 4. 26
1 Επίστευσαν επί τον κύριον Α. 9. 42, 11. 17 etc. might be compared with
επέστρεψαν επί τον κ. 9. 35, 11. 21 etc. (direction whither), but we also have
τους πιστεύοντας επί σε Α. 22. 19 etc., where this explanation is unsuitable.
$ 43. 2-3.] WITH THREE CASES.
137
Bály tòv omópověì tûs yns, 9. 20 TEOÙY Érì tîs yộis (accus. in
Mt. 10. 29, 34), Mt. 26. 12 etc.; a further meaning is by,' ¿TTÈ Tas
odoû Mt. 21. 19, êtrì tñs Darácons Jo. 21. I etc. (For the strengthened
form érhvw 'upon' see § 40, 8.) With persons it means before,'
(ibid. 10 étrì Toll Bńuatos Kaíoapos fotòs before, but in 17 kabloas
ÉTÈ T. B. ‘upon '), Mt. 28. 14 with ảkovo oŷ (BD Úno), 1 Tim. 5. 19 émi
paprópwv (étè otópatos papr. 2 C. 13. 1, Hebr. 9-59), cp. infra 3,
2 C. 7. 14 ÉTÈ Titov (v.l. Tipòs Titov). In metaphorical sense of 'over,'
of authority and oversight (Attic), it is used not only with cîvai, but
also with kalotávac (supra 1), A. 8. 27, R. 9. 5, Mt. 24. 45 etc.; also
with Baouleuelv (cp. supra 1, § 36, 8) Mt. 2. 22 CD al. (HB have the
simple genitive). To do to anyone,' 'to say of anyone': Jo. 6. 2
a étrolel &TÈ TÔv ảo Devoúvtwv, G. 3. 16 où déyel ... ÚS ÉTÈ Toddôv K.T.d.
(as in Plato Charm. 155 D, W.-Gr.); én åndelas “in accordance
with the truth' Mc. 12. 14 etc. (Demosth. 18. 17 etc.); frequently
of contemporaneousness (classical) &TÈ ’ABiadap åpxcepéws Mc. 2. 26,
Mt. 1. II, H. 7. II and elsewhere; Paul uses étrì TốV apogeuxôv pov
meaning in,'E. 1. 16 etc.; a Hebraistic use is a' èo xátov TỘv ňuepôv
H. 1. 1, cp. 1 P. 1. 20, 2 P. 3. 3, Jude 18, and cp. $ 47, 2.
3. 'En with dative.—When the preposition has a local sense the
genitive and accusative have the preponderance, and a sharp dis-
tinction between its use with those cases and with the dative cannot
be drawn. Answering the question Where ? we have émi Dúpals, êm
Ap. 3. 20 the accus.) : &ì Tivakı "upon' (upon' in classical Greek
ékadéCETO ÉTTÈ TỶ anyn Jo. 4. 6, cp. 5. 2, 'at' or 'by': ÉTÈ Taúrn TÝ
TÉT pą (accus. in D) olkodouňow Mt. 16. 18 (but 7. 24 ff. accus.): with
ÉTißá delv én ukelodau ÉTTLTÍTTTELV Mt. 9. 16, Jo. 11. 38 (without êt'
**, cp. § 37, 7), A. 8. 16 (accus. D*, which is on the whole far the
more frequent construction): é' CTTOLS Ap. 19. 14 (elsewhere always
expressed by genit.). The dative also intervenes in the metaphorical
sense 'to set over' (as in classical authors) Mt. 24. 47. Most fre-
quently été tivi denotes the ground or reason, especially with verbs
expressing emotion, such as Davuáčelv, xalpelv, durreio bat, jetavocîv,
see $ 38, 2 (for the accus. supra 1); also with cúxaploteīv, SOÓCELU
TÒy Deóv, kpíveo dai (A. 26. 6); kaleîvêm à ' to call after' L. 1. 59; Šîv
ÉTÈ Mt. 4. 4 O.T.; apkelo baieti 3 Jo. 10; ¢¢ © for the reason that,'
because' R. 5. 12, 2 C. 5. 4; under this head may be brought
TETOLOéval, TTLOTEÚELV, TÍ CELV ÉTT Í TIVI, § 37, 1 (beside és í Tiva, supra 1,
and other constructions), Trappnotáčeo dar ÉTÈ TỘ kupiw A. 14. 3, unless
the last instance is to be connected with the common trì (like év) tộ
óvópati Tivos, $ 39, 4.—Expressing addition to (classical): L. 3. 20,
16. 26 étè (év XBL) Tâoi TOÚTous, cp. E. 6. 16 lév XBP), Col. 3. 14,
H. 8. 1 (for which we have accus. in Ph. 2. 27 lútnv &TÈ dúarnv).
Expressing a condition (classical): &M? ¿laidR. 8. 20, 1 C. 9. Io,
Tit. 1. 2 (a different use in A. 2. 26 O.T., 4. 8, 5. 2, where it rather
indicates the reason); cp. H. 8. 6, 9. 10, 15, 17; also kaleiv ém'
138
[S 43. 3-6.
PREPOSITIONS
élev epią G. 5. 13, OÚK T' åkalapola áll év åylaouo 1 Th. 4.7:
denoting rather aim, én épyous åyabois E. 2. Io, cp. 8' s kai
Kate uponu Ph. 3. 12 (4. 10 is similar, but the expression is hardly
formed correctly ; cp. infra); of result 2 Tim. 2. 14 (beside an éirí
with accus., where however there is a var. lect.). 'At' or 'to any-
thing'; 1 C. 14. 16, E. 4. 26, Ph. 1. 3, 2. 17, 1 Th. 3. 7, H. 11. 4,
Jo. 4. 27 ÉTTÈ Toútu (better év **D); H. 9. 26 ÉTÈ OVVtedeią toll
aiôvos; ép! ♡ é poveite whereon ye thought' Ph. 4. 10; with
persons against' (cp. accus. supra 1) L. 12. 52 (beside an accusative),
Ap. 10, 11, concerning' (cp. accus. supra 1) yeypajiuéva Jo. 12. 16
(D trepi aŭtou), 'in the case of’A. 5.35; Trì dvoi náprvolv åroОvýo kel
H. 10. 28=Hebr. -y, cp. supra 2 'if two witnesses are there,
denoting condition or reason.
4. Ilapá with accusative, mostly in local sense “by,' 'beside,' is
used indiscriminately to answer the questions Where? (strictly napá
TIVI) and Whither? (a distinction which is already becoming lost in
the classical language, through the encroachment of rape with the
accus.; in the N.T. the local mapá tivi has almost disappeared, vide
infra 6). It is not, as it frequently is in classical Greek, joined with
personal names (though παρά τους πόδας τινός is common); πρός τινα
takes its place, infra 7.-In metaphorical sense (classical) contrary
to,' as opposed to katá 'according to,' R. 1. 26, 11. 24 Tapà púoiv
opposed to katà D.; Katà dúvajev ... Tapà dúv. ('beyond ') 2 C. 8. 3
(v.). Úsèp); other than 'G. 1. 8 f., also with addos 1 C. 3. 11 (class.);
often ‘more than,' both with a comparative, $ 36, 12, and also with-
out one : élátpevo av TÔ KTIOel trapà Tòv ktío uvta R. 1. 25, 12. 3, 14. 5,
L. 13. 2, 4, Herm. Mand. x. 1. 2 in classical Greek only 'in com-
parison with,' but this easily leads to the other usage). It denotes
also (as in class. Greek) that in consequence of which something is
or is not: 2 C. 11. 24 Tercapákovta Tapà uíav, i.e. minus one, mapá
Tc 'almost’L. 5.7 D, Herm. Sim. ix. 19. 3, oỦ Tapà Toûto oỦK ČOTIV ÉK
TOû gújatos 1 C. 12. 15 f. that is no reason for its not being' etc.-
In Mt. and Mc. it is only found in local sense, in the Johannine
writings (including the Apocalypse) and in the Catholic Epistles
the use with accusative is entirely absent.
5. Ilapá with genitive 'from the side of,' only with persons (so
classical Greek), with verbs of coming, hearing, receiving etc. (årò
sometimes incorrectly takes its place, $ 40,3); it is also rightly used
in τοίς λελαλημένοις παρά κυρίου L. 1. 45 (since God did not speak
Himself, but the angel who was commissioned by Him, W.-Gr.); but
in A. 22. 30 mapá is found with katnyopciodal, but only in HLP, the
other MSS. reading Útó. It occurs without a verb in Mc. 3. 21 o zap'
aŭroll · His kinsfolk' (LXX. Dan. Sus. 33), but there are several
variants (the phrase in classical Greek could only mean the persons
sent out by someone) : datavňoaoa tà map' (trup om. D) éavras 5. 26
is good classical Greek; Lc. 10. 7, Ph. 4. 18 etc.
6. IIapá with dative is 'by,' 'beside,' answering the question
Where ? and with the exception of Jo. 19. 25 tapà tớ otavpộ is only
used of persons (so preponderantly in classical Greek), and more-
8 43. 6-7.]
139
over not of immediate neighbourhood (thus not καθήσθαι παρά, but
μετά Ap. 3. 21, σύν Α. 8. 31, or πρός Mt. 26. 55 CD), but in the
house of anyone'as in Jo. 1. 40: or amongst a people'as in Ap. 2. 13.
The word is further used in a figurative sense : L. 1. 30 ευρες χάριν
παρά τω θεώ, Mt. 19. 26 δυνατόν, αδύνατον παρά τινι, especially with
the meaning in the opinion of anyone' (classical) R. 12. 16 (11. 25,
also A. 26. 8 άπιστον κρίνεται παρ' υμίν (Mt. 21. 25 διελογίζοντο παρ'
εαυτοίς, but εν ΒL al., εις in 16. 8 etc.).--The dative is the rarest of
the cases after παρά (on account of its clashing with πρός, vide 7),
still nearly all writers use it.2
7. IIpós with accusative is abundantly used with verbs of coming,
sending, bringing, saying etc.='to' (a person); often also with the
verb 'to be'='with or 'at,' taking the place of mapá tivi, Mt. 13. 56
προς ημάς εισιν, 26. Ι8 προς σε ποιώ το πάσχα, 26. 55 as a v.l., Mc. 6. 3
etc. (Herm. Mand. xi. 9 etc.); also for παρά τινα (cp. supra 4), έθαψαν
προς τον άνδρα αυτής Α. 5. Ιο, εισήλθες πρός άνδρας 11. 3, 3. e. into
their house, and therefore expressed in Attic by παρά.3 Also of
places and things: Mt. 21. Ι προς (v.1. εις) το όρος, Mc. ii. , L. 19. 29:
προς την θύραν Μο. 1. 33, 2. 2, 11. 4 (L. 16. 20), answering the
questions Whither? and Where? (in the latter case we have
correctly προς τη θύρα Jo. 18. Ι6, προ των θυρών Α. 5. 23, επί θύραις
Mt. 24. 33): Μο. 3. 7 προς την θάλασσαν (v.1. είς, cp. S 39, 5),4 L. 12. 3
προς το ους λαλείν. As in classical Greek we also have θερμαίνεσθαι
προς το φως ( turning towards ) Μο. 14. 54 (L. 22. 56).-In temporal
sense it is used of approximation (class.): προς εσπέραν εστίν L. 24. 29
(πρ. ε. κέκλικεν η ημέρα D); and with the meaning for a certain
time' (and no longer) προς καιρόν, ώραν, ολίγας ημέρας, το παρόν,5
L. 8. 13, Jo. 5. 35, H. 12. 10 f. etc. To express hostile and friendly
relations, with μάχεσθαι, ειρήνην έχειν, ασύμφωνος (Α. 28. 25), ήπιος
etc.; relevance to, τί προς ημάς ; what is it to us ? ? (so classical
Greek, 8 30, 3) Mt. 27. 4, Jo. 21. 22 ; Μο. 12. 12 προς αυτούς την
παραβολήν είπεν = of them, cp. 10. 5, Mt. 19. 8, L. 12. 41, 18. Ι,
20. 19 etc.; with αγαθός, ωφέλιμος, δυνατός and other adjectives (“to,'
'for ') E. 4. 29, 1 Tim. 4. 8, 2 C. 10. 4, in which cases it may also
denote destination, aim, or result, as in L. 14. 32, 19. 42 tà apòs
ειρήνην, Jo. 4. 35 λευκαι προς θερισμόν, 11. 4 προς θάνατον
(1 Jo. 5. Ι6 f.), Α. 3. Ιο ο προς την ελεημοσύνην καθήμενος, Jo. 13. 28
Tipòs Tí einTev for what intent.' 'In accordance with' (class.) atpòs tò
συμφέρον 1 C. 12. 7, πρός & έπραξεν 2 C. 5. Io, L. 12. 47, Herm.
Mand. xi. 3. “In comparison with” (class.) άξια προς Β. 8. Ι8.
1L. 9. 47 has έστησεν αυτό παρ' εαυτώ, but D εαυτόν.
All except the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews.
3 Confusion with παρά τινι also takes place in Mc. 9. 31 εκράτησαν προς εαυτούς,
Π. 31 (L. 20. 5) διελογίζοντο προς εαυτούς, cp. Mt. 21. 25 παρ' εαυτοίς, supra 6.
4 L. 24. 5ο εξήγαγεν αυτούς έως (on. D) πρός (εις AX al.) Βηθανίαν, as far as to
B.,' 'within view of B.,' for that they entered into the place is not to be
thought of; els is wrong.
Classical (Thuc. ii. 22. 1, iii. 40. 7; Plato, Leg. v. 736 A).
140
[8 43. 8. § 44. 1.
SYNTAX OF
8. IIpós with genitive only occurs in A. 27. 34 (literary language)
TOÛTO mpòs tûs yperépas ownpias útápxel (on the side of,' advan-
tageous to,' for,' as in Thuc. iii. 59. 1 où tpos tñs ópetépas dółns Táde).
-Ilpós with dative, in local sense by,' 'at' (classical) is very rare,
since the accusative takes its place (cp. supra 7): Mc. 5. II apòs TÔ
Opel, L. 19. 37 (D accusative), Jo. 18. 16, 20. II (with v.l. accus.),
12, Ap. 1. 13.
$ 44. SYNTAX OF THE ADJECTIVE.
1. The adjective may take over the functions of a substantive not
only in the masculine and neuter, to denote persons and things
(where these ordinary ideas readily suggest themselves), but also in
the feminine : in this case there is a more or less obvious ellipse of
some well-known substantive, which is sufficiently indicated by the
feminine gender, the sense, and the context. The rule which applies
to adjectives holds good also for pronouns and participles, as also for
adverbial (or prepositional) expressions with the article. In the
following phrases yî must be understood : Ý Âmpá (Xenoph., LXX.)
Mt. 23. 15 (»v Oádacoav kaì T. $.), H. 11. 29 (XAD*E with yns), »
in ék TŘS ÚTÒ TÒv o úpavov els TÌv ÚT' oủp. L. 17. 24 it is better to supply
Lepidos; in ê évavrías aŭroll Mc. 15. 39 (Dékel), Tit. 2. 8 (class.) the
ellipse is quite obscure.—Ellipse of nuépa: Tŷ én loủoy A. 16. II,
20. 15, 21. 18 (with vịp. 7. 26), tñ exquévy, tî êtépą 20. 16, L. 13. 33
(Tân éx. p. A. 21. 26), elsewhere in Acts (and Luke's Gospel) TÛ ÉÉÛs;
TÝ (ét lavplov occurs also in Mt. 27. 62 (Mc., Jo., Ja.); onuepov kai
aỦotov Kai Tà Tp(T) L. 13. 32 (elsewhere To Tp. 1.); cis Tv cỏouo...
Tpb Alas Herm. Sim. vi. 5. 3 (Clem. Hom, ix. 1); % %B8óun the
Sabbath? H. 4. 4, Tp Quạ Tối ca.838Tv A. 20. 7 etc., uéYou Ts
oņuepov Mt. 11. 23 etc. (elsewhere with ňu.); also with ả®
2 P. 3. 4 (since') qu. may be supplied, cp. A. 24. 11 (Col. 1. 6, 9),
but in L. 7. 45 there can only be an ellipse of őpas,l as there is in
* Eartîs immediately' (S 4. I); there is the same ellipse in () mpwia,
ófía Mt., Mc., Jo., Herm. (not classical), (Ý) Tetpáunvos Jo. 4. 35,
Tpíll. H. 11. 23, cp. ñ tpijnvos Hdt. ii. 124. Odós is elided in L. 19.4

O.T. (but odoús occurs soon after). Further instances are: ¿v TÔ
AAnvuon (+2xví) se. YAơn Ap. 9. II, Tm TVGOúc sở, coq A. 27. 4o
(úpyvplov jupiádas Trévte SC. Spaxuôv A. 19. 19), ÉTÈ TÔ Tpoßatiky sc.
trúly Jo. 5. 2, ý defiá, úplotepá sc. xelp Mt. 6. 3 etc., év defią R. 8. 34
etc. 'on the right hand,' unless this should be read &vdéia (classical;
N.T. elsewhere has èK SEL@v, eis tà deglà pépn Jo. 21.6, Hermas has
also seEiá, evóvvua for to right' or 'left' Sim. ix. 12. 8), dapnoetab
Tollós ... ólíyas sc. Tanyás L. 12. 47 (S 34, 3; class.), cp. 2 C. 11. 24.
The following have become stereotyped : årò ucâs L. 14. 28 with
? It was a stereotyped formula, cp. Herm. Sim. viii. 1. 4 åp' ñs távta l'ons as
soon as,' after that'; 6. 6.
8 44. 1-3.]
Ι4Ι
THE ADJECTIVE.
one mind or voice' (από μιάς υσπλαγίδος Aristoph. Lysistr. 1000); 1
κατά μόνας alone’ (Τhuc. i. 32. 5 etc.) Mc. 4. Ιo, L. 9. I8 (LXX. ;
Herm. Mand. xi. 8); frequently κατ' ιδίαν, ιδία 1 C. 12. 11, δημοσία
openly' in publico (with a different meaning in Attic) A. 16. 37 etc.
-Similar instances of ellipse are found also with the other genders:
τω πνέοντι Sc. ανέμω Α. 27. 15 β text, πρόϊμον και όψιμον sc. υετόν
Ja. 5. 7 with the reading of (8)Β, το τρίτον, τέταρτον, δέκατον Sc.
μέρος Apoc. (not classical), το διοπετές sc. άγαλμα Α. 19. 35, ποτήριον
ψυχρού sc. ύδατος Mt. 10. 42, cp. Ja. 3. II (Winer, 8 64, 5), έν λευκούς
Sc. ίματίοις Jo. 20. 12 (Herm. Vis. iv. 2. Ι), cp. Mt. 11. 8, Αp. 18. 12, Ι6.
-The opposite procedure to an ellipse takes place when Luke
(according to classical precedent) inserts an åvýp with a substantive
denoting a person: α. προφήτης L. 24. 19, φονεύς Α. 3. Ι4, ανδρι
Ιουδαίω 10. 28, and in addresses άνδρες Γαλιλαίοι, 'Αθηναίοι, αδελφοί
etc., A. 1. 16 and elsewhere.
2. The use of an adjectival instead of an adverbial expression in
the case of certain ideas that are annexed to the predicate is found
in the N.T. as in the classical language, but rarely : the instances
are mainly in Luke's writings. Δευτεραίοι ήλθομεν on the second
day’ Α. 28. 13, cp. πεμπταίοι 20. 6 D for άχρι ημερών πέντε of the
other MSS. Γενόμεναι ορθριναι επί το μνημείον L. 24. 22 (ορθρινός
ελήλυθας Ηerm. Sim. ν. 1. Ι). Αυτομάτη ήνοίγη Α. 12. 19, Mc. 4. 28.
'Επιστη αιφνίδιος L. 21. 34; also εκών, άκων, πρώτος first of all'
(R. 10. 19); ανάστηθι ορθός Α. 14. 1ο, τούτο αληθές είρηκας (ΝΕ.
αληθώς 2) Jo. 4. 18 (like Demosth. 7. 43 τούτο γ' αληθή [other MS.
αληθές λέγουσι). There is a certain amount of mixture of μόνος and
the adverb μόνον, just as in the classical language the one use borders.
closely on the other : Mc. 6. 8 μηδέν ει μη ράβδον μόνον (μόνην D),
Α. 11. 19 μηδενί ει μή μόνον (μόνοις D) Ιουδαίοις, 1 Jo. 5. 6 ουκ εν τω
ύδατι μόνον (Β μόνω). If the word alone' refers without any doubt
to a verb (or else to a predicative idea lilke ακροαταί Ja. 1. 22, άργαί
1 Τim. 5. 13), then μόνον is the only possible expression ; but it is
also not contrary to Greek idiom to say (Η. 12. 26) σείσω ου μόνον
την γην, αλλά και τον ουρανόν “I am not contented with earth-
shaking only,' 2 Tim. 4. 8 ου μόνον δε έμοί, αλλά και πάσιν (to limit
the gift to one would be too little). For the reverse use of adverb.
for adj. see $ 76, 1.
3. On the coincidence in meaning of the comparative and super-
lative and the reason for it, we have already spoken in § 11, 3; the
two degrees are in no way differentiated, as they are in modern
Greek or in French, by the addition of the article for the superlative,
but are indistinguishable: 3 see 1 C. 13. 13 πίστις ελπίς αγάπη, τα τρία.
ταυτα μείζων δε τούτων ή αγάπη. The form which has remained in
ordinary use is in nearly all cases that of the comparative; πρώτος
1 Strictly of runners in a race, who rush off together at the fall of the single
Tope (ύσπληγξ, υσπλαγίς).
2 Less classical is λέγω υμίν αληθώς L. 9. 27, 12. 44, 21. 3= αμήν (which D.
reads in 12. 44 and Cyprian in 21. 3.
3 Barnabas agrees with the Ν.Τ. use, e.g. 12. 2 υψηλότερος πάντων.
142
[S 44. 3.
SYNTAX OF
and éo xatos are the only exceptions to this ($ 11,5). Now whereas
the superlative in classical Greek is used not only where there is a
definite comparison made of several things, but often in what may be
called an absolute sense, equivalent to our very, while the classical
comparative occasionally corresponds to an English positive (BaTTOV
= 'quickly'), so the New Testament comparative may have an
ambiguous meaning: Jo. 13. 27 ở TOLETS Toinoov Táxiov. (Luther
'bald' A.V. quickly 'l; but it may also mean 'as quickly as
possible'; cp. I Tim. 3. 14, where there is a v.l. ¿v Táxel; in
H. 13. 19 probably 'more quickly,' 23 èàv Táxtov špx?tai 'if he
comes soon’; in A. 17. 15 we have ús táxiata from the literary
language, but D reads év táxel). Also åogov, uâldov, ä pelvov etc.,
similarly νεώτερος or -ρον (καινότερον) can in the classical language be
rendered in many cases by the positive (although we also use similar
phrases such as come nearer,' it is better to ...'); in the N.T. cp.
(besides at peopútepos used as the designation of a Jewish or Christian
Official) A. 17. 21 déyelv TO ☆ å Kotelv Kalvótepov (Kühner ii.2 848), 2
whereas åocov napeléyovto TV Kpørnv 27. 13 (if Oãooov be not the
right reading) must mean “as near as possible'; so in any case
24. 22 åkpißotepov cidús = dkpißéotata, 25. 10 kálcové LYLVÁO KELS
= öplota, and 2 Tim. 1. 18 should be similarly explained Béarlov où
yuvúo KELS (not 'thou knowest better than I, which can certainly not
be right). In A. 17. 22 ús deloidaluoveotépous ypâs Dewpô, it is
doubtful whether the comp. has its classical sense of unusually
(too) god-fearing' or means 'very god-fearing'; but otoVSOLÓTepos
2 C. 8. 17 can only mean 'very zealous'; and frequently there is a
corresponding use of the English comparative, the standard of com-
parison being readily supplied, 2 0. 7. 7 GOTE ME pârlov xapîvai
still more.' In Hermas, on the other hand, the elative sense is
regularly expressed by the superlative, åyabótatos, oeuvótatos etc.,
while in other cases he also uses comparative and superlative inter-
changeably (Mand. viii. 4. TÁVTW Trovnpótata needs correction);
Sim. ix. 10. 7 is noticeable, Yoav dè ilapótepat, which appears to be
used in elative sense, and therefore to need correction, but the Latin
has hilares satis.—01 Tleloves may mean 'the greater number,' as in
1 C. 15. 6 åv o celous uévovoiv, 10. 5, but also others,' more,
9. 19 iva Toùs adelovas kepdow ? (t. al. aŭTôv Origen), 2 C. 2. 6;
4. 15, 9. 2, Ph. 1. 14 as opposed to the person or persons who have
iCp. Clem. Hom. i. 14 Táxióv de katalyonal, 'as quickly as possible,' xi. 13
Táxlov tidavo áveo Be ('forthwith '); in a quite different sense ix. 23 us. Táxlov
Eitrov=podoas, modo, 'just before.' For the superlative or elative sense cp.
also Papyr. Berl. Aeg. Urk. 417, 451, 615. Cp. TTUKVÓTepov A. 24. 26 where it
is ambiguous ('very often' or so much the oftener '); Clem. Cor. ii. 17. 3 prob-
ably 'as often as possible,' Clem. Hom. Ep. ad Jac. 9 TUKVOTEpov ... Ús dúvao de
(in the weaker sense ibid. iv. 2, viii. 7), similarly ouvexéo tepov iii. 69.
2 Hermas, Vis. iii. 10. 3 llav mpeo Butépa, 5 öln vewtépa 'very old,' quite
youthful,' Sim. ix. 11. 5.
3 The passage adduced by Winer, Luscian Piscat. 20 đ MELVOV où olo la tauta, û
Dlhooopla, is different, so far as the meaning of the comp. is concerned : the
goddess did actually know better than Lucian.
$ 44. 3-5.]
143
THE ADJECTIVE.
hitherto been considered; cp. Tauta EiTÙ kaì rà TOÚTWV delova
Clem. Hom. Ep. ad Jac. 17 (so A. 2. 40 ÉTÉpous te doyous aleloo ?).1
-On the remnants of the superlative see § 11, 3 (especially for
μάλιστα and μάλλον); on the forms of expression to introduce the
object compared (gen., Ý, mapá or Útép) $ 36, 12.
4. The positive may also be used with the meaning of a compara-
tive (or superlative) : this occasionally takes place in the classical
language, but it is mainly due to the example of the Semitic lan-
guage, which has no degrees of comparison at all. Oi rolloi are
the many as opposed to the few, i.e. the majority, in classical
Greek and Mt. 24. 12, frequently in Mc. (Gregory-Tisch. 128) 6. 2
BL (v.l. without oi), 9. 26 KABLA (same v.l.), cp. 12. 37 infra; in
St. Paul Twv mollô 1 C. 10. 33 is opposed to èuavtoü, and is
therefore parallel to the same writer's use of oi aleloves elsewhere;
Tlelotos is also found in this sense : Mt. 21. 8 ó Telelotos öxlos 2 = 8
Tolùs ö. of Mc. 12. 37 (ai melotai ouváveis aŭtoŮ Mt. 11. 20 'his
numerous miracles,' cp. Tà moldà ypápuasa A. 26. 24). A further
example is (Buttm. p. 73) Mt. 22. 36 moía évto!ueyáin év tớ vóuæ
“the greatest,' cp. 5. 19. With the idea of comparison more clearly
marked (by the addition of a gen.), we have tà áyra tớv åyiwv
H. 9. 2 f. (LXX.), a use which is by no means unclassical (Kakà
Kak@v, Kühner ii.2 20). In the case where the comparison is
introduced by útép or tapá (8 36, 12), on the analogy of the
Semitic construction, the adjective may be either positive or com-
parative : L. 13. 2 dpaprwloc Tapà trávras (where a comparative was
wanting, cp. Sedikalwjévos tapà 18. 14 XBL; frequent in LXX., e.g.
uéyas Tapà, apaüs Tapà Ex. 18. II, Num. 12. 3). The positive may
however also be used with » : Mt. 18. 8 f, Mc. 9. 43, 45 kalóv otiv
... (LXX. Gen. 49. 12 leukoà ); similarly where there is no
adjective (and pâldov is therefore to be supplied) L. 15. 7 xapà
FOTAL ..., 1 C. 14. 19 Oé!W ... ), Lc. 17. 2 dvoitele ... , for which
there are classical parallels.3
5. The comparative is heightened, as in classical Greek, by the
addition of modú or moldo : Ž C. 8. 22, Jo. 4. 41 ; occasionally too
by the accumulation of several comparatives : Ph. 1. 23 moldo yàp
Mâldov kpelooov (Clem. Cor. i. 48. 6 őow dokei pârlov uelfwv eivai is
merely pleonastic, like Herm. Sim. ix. 28. 4 uäilov evdoçótepou), 2 C.
7. 13 Teplopótepws pallov exópnuev, Mc. 7. 36 uâldov ztepiocótepov
(-otépws D) èKýpvooov, cp.$11,3, note 4. The same accumulation appears
in classical Greek, Schwab Syntax der Comparation iii. 59 ff. But in
idiota uâllov 2 C. 12. 9 the words should not be taken together :
the sense being "Gladly (superl. with elative force, and a stereo-
typed phrase) will I rather glory in my weaknesses.
1 Classical Greek had the same use : Tòv alelova xpovov ' a longer time' (than
at present), meloves loyol, TÒV mlelw Noyov (Soph. Tr. 731) ‘further speech.'
Cp. Kühn. ii. 549; E. Tournier, Rev. de philol. 1877, 253; 0. Schwab, Syntax
der Comparation ii. 178.
? Plato, Leg. 700 C.
3 Kühner ii.2 841 (so Herodotus ix, 26 fin. díkaiby ¿OTIV ...).
144
[S 45. 1-2
NUMERALS.
.
$ 45. NUMERALS.
1. The first day of the month or of the week is expressed in the
LXX. and in the N.T. not by mpúrn but by uía, whereas for the
higher numbers the ordinal is used, deutépa and so on : of course
the day being a single day (in the case of devrépa 'the second' etc.)
does not admit of being expressed by a plural, while all other
numbers but εις must necessarily be plurals. Thus εις μίαν σαββάτων
on Sunday'Mt. 28. I, év uca toll unvos coû deutépov Num. 1. 1. This
is not a classical, 1 but undoubtedly a Hebrew idiom (Gesenius-
Kautzsch, § 134, 4), with this difference that in Hebrew the later
days of the month are also denoted by cardinal numbers. This
N.T. usage (found also in A. 20. 7, 1 C. 16. 2, Mc. 16. 2) is violated
in ‘Mc.' 16. 9 Tpúty oaßßárov, for which Eusebius however quotes
τη μια.
2. Els already begins now and again to pass from the sense of a
numeral (one as opposed to several) into that of the indefinite
article ; the latter development, which has analogies in the German
and Romance languages, appears completely carried out in modern
Greek. The Hebrew Inx, moreover, afforded a precedent to the
N.T. writers. In Mt. 8. 19 tpooerowy eis ypappateús, 26. 69 mía
maldiokn, Ap. 8. 13 kovoa évos setoŵ etc., eis=the classical Tis; and
similarly we find eis with the gen. (or és): L. 15. 15 évà tôv toliTwv,
Ap. 7. 13 Els &K (ék om. x) Tôv trpeo Butépwv; 2 it is used in con-
junction with tis (classical) els tis aŭrwv L. 22. 50, still in such
a way that els forms a contrast to the remaining body (Jo. 11. 49,
a v.l. in Mc. 14. 47, 51). Another unclassical use is that of o els ...
ó étepos for ó uèv (Tepos) ... ó dè (ÉTepos), Mt. 6. 24, L. 7. 41 TÒV éva
- Tòv dè éva Barn. 7. 6, 17), els ... kai eis ... , Mt. 27. 38, L. 18. 10 D
(Herm. Mand. vi. 2. I; on the model of Heb. TEN, e.g. in Ex. 17. 12),
Mc. 4. 8, 20, cp. Mt. 13. S, 23 ($ 46, 2) etc., though even classical
writers repeatedly employ els when dividing a multitude (or a
duality) into its component parts, Hyperid. cont. Athenogenes § 14 f.
ó els vóuos ... ÉTepos v. K.T..., Xenoph. Cyrop. i. 2. 4 téttapa ... èv Mèv
... Ev de ... addo... aldo; Demosth. xviii. 215 Tpía ... év uèv ... ÉTepov
dè... Tpítov Sè, Arist. Rhet. ii. 20 f., 1393 A, 27 ċion dúo, èv jèv – v dè,
(where the full meaning of the numeral is preserved), cp. Ap. 17. 10
ÉTTá ... O TÉVTE ... O Els ... ó öllos. See $ 46, 2. Lastly, a quite un-
classical but Semitic usage is that of εις τον ένα for αλλήλους
.. 1 Th. 5. II (1 C. 4. 6 cfs 5Tºp Top vos Karà Top “Tépoo is different :
1 Els kai elkootós, Tolakootós (the regular form even in Attic inscriptions) is
essentially different, since this is only a case of the formation of the ordinal
being imperfectly carried out, as in the Latin unus et vicesimus.
2 This use of els is found already in Attic writers, évi TÔ Toletûv Hypérid.
Lycophr. 13, TÔ étaipwv els Aesch. c. Ctesiph. 89, although there is always
the implied meaning "belonging to this definite number (or class),' so that the
els has a force which is quite absent from it in Luke loc. cit. The instances
adduced for the weakened sense of els from Plato and Xenophon (e.g. Plat.
Leg. ix. 855 D) are quite irrelevant, since the eis is there a true numeral.
$45. 2–4. $ 46. 1-2.] NUMERALS. THE ARTICLE.
145
'
the sense being, every individual on behalf of the one against the
other, fully expressed els úrèp Toû §. Ķ, T. &t. kai étepos Ů, T. &vòs
(the opposite person to the previous évòs] K. T. &T,).
3. 'Avà and Katà with a numeral have a distributive sense as in
classical Greek: Mc. 6. 40 katà (v.l. åvà as in L. 9. 14) ÉKATÒV kai
Katà TEVTÝKOVTU (Herm. Sim. ix. 2. 3 åvà dúo tupévou, cp. $ 39, 2);
besides this we have after the Semitic manner 1 dúo dúo Mc. 6. 7
(åvà dúo D as in L. 10. 1), just as for Katà ouutóola, k. tpooiás
Mc. 6. 39 f. has ovutóola ovuróola, npaolah apaolaí (Herm. Sim.
viii. 2. 8 Táyuata Táyuata, 4. 2).2 On åvà els éKACTOS, Els kal' els
and the like, see § 51, 4.
4. 2 P. 2. 5 Öydoov Ne épúlacev, ‘Noah with seven others,' is
correct classical Greek (though öyd. aŭīòv would be more usual).-
Mt. 18. 22 έως εβδομηκοντάκις επτά is peculiar for seventy times
seven times': D* alone reads éß8. ÉTTÁKLS. —Now for the third
time' is tpitov TOÛTO (S 34, 3), like Herod. v. 76 tétAptov TOÛTO (W.);
'for the third time' is (TÒ) Tpítov Mc. 14. 41 etc., ék Tpítov Mt.
26. 44, cp. A. 10. I5.
§ 46. THE ARTICLE. ' I. 'O, Ý, tó, as pronoun; the article with
independent substantives.
1. The article é, ý, Tó, which had long since been developed out
of the old demonstrative pronoun, retains on the whole in the N.T.
all its former usages, and amongst them to a certain extent its use
as a pronoun (“this one,' 'he'). There is here, however, a confusion
(found also in other Hellenistic writings, and indeed in the classical
period, Kühner ii.” 779 f.) between the forms of the appov tpo-
TAKTIKOV ó, ý, tó and those of the apopov ÚTOTAKTIKÓv ős, , , since
the latter are employed as demonstratives instead of relatives.
2. 'O Mèv - o 8è, the one - the other.' This use is no longer very
frequent in the N.T., and usually takes the form of os uèv – Os dè (neut.
ö pèr ... Ô Sè, plur. å uży, ois mèv, oüs uè etc.); moreover the (Semitic)
use of els encroaches upon it, § 45, 2, though the latter is not every-
where synonymous with it, and can form no plural. Thus ở mèv -
8è refers either to persons already familiar, the one – the other, this
one—that one, or is quite indefinite, one - another; on the other
hand it does not serve as a means of differentiating a number of
persons or things when they are introduced for the first time; hence,
whereas Luke can say (23. 33) Toùs kakoúpyovs, ởv Mèv – Öv dè, the :
phrase in Mt. 27. 38 is dúo agoral, els – Kaè els (class. Els uèv - Tepos
Dė), cp. $ 45, 2. Other instances of os uèi – Ôs dè : Mt. 13. 4 (å uèv -
ända dè [Då 8è]; similar freedom as to the sequence in the clauses
is frequent elsewhere, cp. Kühner ii.2 508 note), 13. 8, 16. 14, 21.
35, 22. 5 (ös XBC*L, oi D), 25. 15, 26. 67 (oi dè alone, · but others'),
* Lxx. Gen. 7. 3, 9. From classical Greek Winer adduces Aesch. Pers. 981
uupla jupia mtej Trao Táv, i.e. Tov karà uuplous ápio uoûvta.
2 A mixed construction åvà dúo dúo occurs in the Gospel of Peter 35.
K
146
[46. 2–4.
THE ARTICLE.
.
.
28. 17 (ditto),1 Mc. 4. 4, 12. 5, L. 8. 5, Jo. 7. 12, A. 14. 4, 17. 18
(TLVès ... O dė), 32, 27. 44, 28. 24, R. 9. 21, 14. 2 (ös mèv - Ó Tös FG)
dè đo Devôv), 5, 1 Č. 11. 21, 12. 8, 28, 2 C. 2. 16 (“the latter? - "the
former,') Ph. 1. 16 (ditto), 2 Tim. 2. 20, Jd. 22. On the other hand
the only instances of ó mèv – ó Sè are : 1 C. 7.7 Ó MÈv oŰTWS é de
OÚTWS (ös pèKL), E. 4. II ToùS MÈY – Toùs dè all mss.; also in H. 7. 20 f.,
23 f., 12. 10 we have o uèv - ó dè, referring to definite persons in
7. 20 f. the priests under the old system - Jesus), who are indicated
in this way instead of by a repetition of the names, a case in which
ős is never used : Mt. 13. 23 also appears to be an instance, ôs di
(D has tóre for os Sv) kaprogopei kaì TOLEî ó meu ékatóv, é dè Eńkovta,
è dè tpiákovta, but the verse = verse 8, where ő is neuter, and it
should therefore probably be so taken here as well, cp. Mc. 4. 20
ły tpiákovta K.T.d. (where it is quite wrong to write év).
3. 'O & but he,' Ý Sè, oi se (only in the nominative) used in con-
tinuing a narrative, are common in all historical writings (least often
in St. John);2 the use of ó mèy oỦy he then,' without a dè strictly
corresponding to the pèv, is confined to the Acts. 'O Sè, ó mèv oŮv
show a special tendency to take a participle after them, which gives
rise occasionally to ambiguity. For instance, in A. 8. 4 Oi Mè oŮv
diagttapévtes means "they therefore that were scattered,' since in
order to separate oſ from diaotapévtes it would be necessary for the
subject referred to to have been mentioned just before, whereas
here it is a long way off (verse 1); but in 1. 6 of mèv oův ouvelObvtes
it is ambiguous whether the meaning is 'they therefore who were
come together' or 'they therefore, when they were come together.'
The demonstrative ó (ös) no longer appears in connection with other
particles : there is no trace of kai ős, kai tóv in the continuation of
à narrative, nor of Tòv kał Tóv (such and such a one,' or pò toll
'formerly' etc.
4. O, Ý, tó used as the article with appellatives has as in classical
Greek a double import: it is either individual or generic, ¿.e. it
either calls special attention to one definite individual out of a class,
á äv pwros = 0ŮTOS ó öv@pwros, or it contrasts the whole class as
such with other classes, οι άνθρωποι opposed to τα άλλα ζώα (or to
ó Deós). The latter use is also derived from the demonstrative
sense : these persons,' to wit 'men.' This sense of the article was
known by grammarians in early times (Apollonius Dyscolus) as the
'anaphoric sense, because there is a reference back (åvadopá) to
Something already familiar or supposed to be familiar: ο δούλός σου
is 'your slave' (the particular slave whom you know I mean, or the
one whom you have), but doớlós cov is a slave of yours.' If there-
fore an individual who is not yet familiar is introduced for the first
* In these last two passages there is no partition indicated at the beginning
of the sentence, but it is only through the oi dè that it becomes apparent that
the preceding statement was not applicable to the whole body. Cp. Winer,
$ 17, 2, who compares passages from classical authors.
2 Jo. 5. II • dè årekplon XC*GKL al., åttekp. alone CSDEF al., a peculiar
reading ds dè år. AB, as in Mc. 15. 23 Os de XB. Cp. $ 79, te
$ 46. 4–5.]
147
THE ARTICLE.
time, or if the whole class (though familiar) is not embraced, but
only an undefined part of it, then no article need be used, as e.g. in
the case of a predicate: for in juris uáptupes TOÚTWV there is no
åvadopá to particular well-known witnesses, nor is the whole class
embraced : this is the ordinary rule for expressing a predicate
(exceptions are given in § 47, 3).
5. The use of the individual article, in cases where it is used at
all, is generally speaking obligatory, at least according to classical
usage it is so : the necessity for its use is not removed by the inser-
tion of a demonstrative or a possessive: oŮTOS ó öv@pwTOS, ñ é un
oikio.. The generic article may be far more readily dispensed with,
especially in the case where the genus is represented by only a
single specimen. With natural objects: we have o ýdeos, gedűvn,
but also kíop 8ề (Toi se 7. D) vaTe6AaVios Mt. 13. 6, L. 21. 5 “covTau
ment kai étrì tûs yns "here on earth': A. 27. 20 uńte dè ñdíov unte
äotpwv érupalvóvtwv, 'neither sun nor stars shining,' 1 C. 15.41 ödan
δόξα ηλίου, και άλλη δόξα σελήνης, και άλλη δόξα αστέρων, Αp. 7. 2,
16. 12 årò åvarolñs ndiov, 22. 5 oỦk éxovo iv xpelav Pwtòs dúxvov kai
owrós ñ diou (cp. 21. 23 with art.). In a certain number of these
examples the omission or insertion of the article was obviously a
matter of choice; but in A. 27. 20 the meaning appears to be
intensified by the omission 'neither any sun,' and with 1 C. 15. 41
verse 39 must be compared, ärın mèv (odps) avOpúrwv, ädin dè konvñv
etc., and the reason for the absence of the article might be in both
passages that the reference is not so much to the species taken as a
whole, or to the uniquely existing sun, as to the distinctive charac-
teristic of the species or of the individual object in the respective
passages. Cp. 2 C. 11. 26 Kivdúvous ék yévous (my kindred, i.e. Jews),
kai éĚ Ovớv (elsewhere usually tà čovn, vide infra), K. év daldoon;
the article would here be wrong. Further instances of the absence
Tapà Oálaorav (after a preposition or a substantive equivalent to a
prep., $ 40, 9), L. 21. 25 xovs Darboons, Ja. 1. 6 klúdovi Oaláoons,
Jd. 13 kúuara ãypia bad. (part of the predicate, and also due
to the distinctive character of the sea being the point of the
comparison). With yn earth’ the cases of omission of the art.
are mainly after a preposition (though even here the cases of inser-
tion far preponderate): éì yês Mt. 28. 18 (with tñs BD), L. 2. 14,
1C. 8. 5, E. 3. 15, H. 12. 25,-8.4 (in all these instances except the last
in conjunction with ev oúpavoîs (-) or år' oúpavớv or ¿v idiotous),
ék yñs 1 C. 15. 47 (opposed to é oủp.), cp. also årto őkpov yñs éws
ökpov oúpavoû Mc. 13. 27. Besides these we have A. 17. 24 oủpavou
kai yộs kópios, 2 P. (3. 5 oủpavoù ... kai yî a new heaven,' similarly
13), 3. 10 oủpavo (with oi ABC)... OTOxela ... yî (with » CP), cp. 12.
Among these instances; in 1 Č. 15. 47 the omission was no doubt
obligatory, since ék yộis is earthy' (the essential property of earth
is referred to). Oủpavós (-o) with a preposition frequently stands
without an article (often there is a diversity of reading in the MSS.);
the omission is obligatory in Mt. 21. 25 f. oúpavoû... éĘ åv pútWV
H
148
[$ 46. 5–7.
THE ARTICLE
= 'of heavenly' or 'human origin’; so in Mc. 11. 30 f, L. 20. 4 f.
Omission of art. where there is no prep. occurs in A. 3. 21, 17. 24
(for 2 P. 3. 5, 12 vide supra). Kóruos : év kogu 1 C. 8. 4, 14. 10,
Ph. 2. 15 etc. (v.l. in 2 P. 1. 4); of one world as opposed to another
2 P. 1. 5 (see above on yn); kóruov forming part of the anarthrous
predicate R. 4. 13, 11. 12, 20; the omission is regular in all writers
in the formula årò kataßolas (dpxîs, ktíoews) koopov Mt. 25. 34 etc.,
cp. år' ápxộs kiloews Mc. 10, 6, 13. 19, 2 P. 3. 4; other instances
2 C. 5. 19, G. 6. 14.-The points of the compass, only found in con-
nection with prepositions, never have the article : Katè ueonußplav
A. 8. 26, åtò åvarodôv Mt. 2. 1, 8. II etc., ånd dvouwv L. 12. 54, ÅÒ
Boppâ kaì vórov 13. 29 (so in other writers); also Baridiora vótov
Mt. 12. 42 of more definite regions in the south, but év tû åvaro lý
is used in the same sense in Mt. 2. 2, 9.
6. Another class of Being, unique of Its kind, is expressed by
Deós, kúplos (=,777, but also Christ), and these words come near
being proper names; it is not surprising that the article is frequently
dropped. This happens especially after a preposition (åttò Deoû
Jo. 3. 2, év kupów passim), or when the word is in the genitive and
dependent on an anarthrous noun (particularly a predicate), e.g.
Mt. 27. 20 Öto D coll eime viós, L. 3. 2 éyéveto šnua Deoû (subject),
although we also have ei viòs el toll Deoû Mt. 4. 3, viè ToŮ Deoû 8. 29,
and the usage depends more on a natural tendency to assimilation
and abbreviation than on any hard and fast rule. So also vie
Slaßólov A. 13. 10 (daß. elsewhere takes an art., as does oatavas
except in [Mc. 3. 23.one Satan'] L. 22. 3). On Xplotós vide infra 10.
-Under the head of the generic article must also be classed plurals
like övOpwTol, vekpoi, čovn; here too it is especially after a preposition
and in a few phrases besides that we occasionally have noticeable
instances of the omission of the art.: éK VEKPwv éyepoñ Mt. 17. 9, and
so regularly (except in E. 5. 14 0.T., Col. 2. 12 BDËFG, 1 Th. 1. 10
[om. TÔ ACK]), whereas we have vyépon átrò tô v. Mt. 14. 2 etc.;
åváoTaoiV vekpôv A. 17. 32, 23. 6 etc.; in 1 C. 15. 15 f., 29, 32 the
article could not stand, because it is the idea and not the complete
number which is in question (verse 52 is different); 1 P. 4. 5 kpîval
Côvtas kai vekpoús = all, whether dead or living, cp. 6.-Not infre-
quently covn, 'the heathen' is without an art.: after Hebr. Dia in
A. 4. 25 O.T., R. 15. 12 0.T.; ÉÉ Ovô A. 15. 14, G. 2. 15, év ČOVEO LV
1 Tim. 3. 16, oùy č0. A. 4. 27; in the gen. aloûtos Ovôv, Ov, åtóo-
Tolos R. 11. 12 f. (predic.); also R. 3. 29 f. ♡ 'Iovdaíwv (as such) ó
θεός μόνον; ουχί και εθνών; ναι και εθνών, είπερ είς ο θεός, ός δικαιώσει
TEPLTourv (as such, or in some individual instances not specified) ÉK
TíoTews kai åkpoßvotſav dià rộs (anaphoric) Tio TEWS.
7. The individual article could scarcely be expected in formulas
like år' å ypoll, ev dypộ, eis åypov, since there is no question of a
definite field (Mt. 13. 24 év to åyp autoll); if however we also find
év to å. etc. without reference to a definite field (Mt. 13. 44, like tà
kpíva toll áypoŮ 6. 28), the art. must then be regarded as generic (as
we say 'the country'). 'Ey ảyopa L. 7. 32 = év tais ayopais (raîs om.
8 46. 7.]
149
THE ARTICLE.
CEF al.) in Mt. 11. 16 etc.; år' åyopôs Mc. 7. 4 a formula; similarly
επί θύραις Mt. 24. 33 ; of time προς εσπέραν L. 24. 29, έως εσπέρας
Α. 28. 23, μεχρι μεσονυκτίου 20. 7 (κατά το μεσ. 16. 25), διά νυκτός
with v.1. διά της ν. Α. 5. 19, 16. 9 etc. (the art. denoting the particular
night), προ καιρού = πριν καιρόν είναι Mt. 8. 29, εν καιρώ = όταν καιρός ή
24. 45, άχρι καιρου L. 4. 13, Α. 13. II, πρός καιρόν L. 8. 13, κατά κ.
R. 5. 6 (at the right time'; 'in its due time'), zapà kaipòv riderías
Η. 11. ΙΙ (so also in classical Greek without art.); απ’ (εξ) αρχής, εν
αρχή (class.); but εν καιρώ εσχάτω 1 P. 1. 5, εν εσχάταις ημέραις
2. Τim. 3. I, Ja. 5. 3 (used along with επ' εσχάτου or -ων των ημερών,
8 47, 2) come under the same class as από πρώτης ημέρας Α. 20. 18,
Ph. 1. 5 (NABP insert της), από έκτης ώρας Mt. 27. 45, έως ώρας ενάτης
Mc. 15. 33 (cp. Herm. Vis. iii. 1. 2, Sim. ix. 11. 7), έως τρίτου ουρανού
2 C. 12. 2, πρώτην φυλακήν και δευτέραν Α. 12. το, πρώτης (the read-
ing -τη of the MSS. is corrupt) μερίδος της Μακ. πόλις 16. 12, and are
explained by a usage of the older language, according to which the
art. may be omitted with ordinal numbers, Kühner ii.2 551, and not
merely in phrases like εσχάτη ώρα έστίν 1 Jo. 2. Ι8. The usage of
the language is however regulated with still greater precision : in
statements about the hour the art. is used only either anaphorically
as in Mt. 27. 46, cp. 45, or where there is an ellipse of úpa as in
Mt. 20. 6 (in 9 it is anaphoric), or where a further definition is
introduced as in A. 3. Ι την ώραν της προσευχής την ενάτης; with
ημέρα, on the other hand, it is only absent in the case of more
indefinite expressions, but is used with more definite statements,
thus τη τρίτη ημέρα always, and in Jo. 6. 39 Η. εν τη εσχάτη ημέρα.
-Oávatos very frequently appears without an art., where German
inserts one: έως θανάτου Mt. 26. 38, ένοχος θανάτου, άξιον θανάτου,
παραδιδόναι εις θάνατον, γεύεσθαι θανάτου; the art. is used either of
the actual death of a definite person (1 C. 11. 26), or (but this is
almost confined to John's Gospel, Paul, and Apoc.) of death in the
abstract, cp. 8. inf., Jo. 5. 24 μεταβέβηκεν εκ του θ. είς τήν ζωήν, or
where death is half personified (Ap. 13. 3, 12), besides the case
where assimilation to a noun in connection with it requires the
article: το απόκριμα του θ. 2 C. 1. 9 (η πληγή του θ. αυτού
Αp. 13. 3, 12 is anaphoric).-Πνεύμα : το άγιον πν. is used sometimes
to a certain extent personally, and then with the article, sometimes
for the godlike spirit moving in man, and then without an art.,
unless there is 'anaphora' as in A. 2. 4, 8. 18, cp. 17; in 10. 44
επέπεσεν το πν. το άγ. επί πάντας there is a reference to the well-
known fact of the outpouring, but this instance also approximates to
the first usage. Omission is also occasioned by the presence of a
preposition or by assimilation : εν πν. αγίω, εν δυνάμει πνεύματος
αγίου.--3 Jo. 6 ενώπιον εκκλησίας, 1 C. 14. 4 εκκλησίαν οικοδομεί
scarcely need explanation (a congregation ); in H. 12. 7 τίς γάρ
υιός, όν ου παιδεύει πατήρ, we might expect to have ο π. “ his father,
as in 1 Τim. 2. 12 after γυναικί to have του ανδρός “her husband' (so
1 C. 11. 3 κεφαλή γυναικός και ανήρ; in E. 5. 23 the art. goes with
.
1 On incidental cases of omission of the art. cp. 8.
15Ο
L8 46. 7-9.
THE ARTICLE.
γυναικός), but the relation is neglected (whom a father does not
chastise’; see also 8 82, 2 note), cp. Herm. Sim. ix. 28. 4 ίνα δούλος
κύριον ίδιον αρνήσηται. Πατήρ is used of God in Jo. 1. Ι4 δόξαν
ως μονογενούς παρά πατρός (a kind of assimilation to μονογ.), also in
the formula από θεού πατρός ημών R. 1. 7 etc.; πιστα κτίστη
1 P. 4. 19, with v.l. ús T. KT., is at any rate agreeable to the sense.
Συν γυναιξίν Α. 1. 14 is a regular formula, cp. 21. 5 συν γ. και τέκνοις
(classical Greek has the same phrase ; so we say with women and
children '); further, επί πρόσωπον πίπτειν L. 5. 12 etc., κατά πρ.
2 C. 10. 71; ep. 9.
8. With abstract words the article is very frequently absent in
Greek, where it is used in German; the more abstract the sense
in which such a word is used, the less liable is it to take any article
other than the generic. Hence in some passages the question is
rather to account for the presence of the art, than for its absence;
e.g. Col. 3. 5 πορνείαν ακαθαρσίαν πάθος επιθυμίαν... και την πλεονεξίαν,
the additional clause ήτις κ.τ.λ. entails the use of the article. In
1 C. 14. 20 μη παιδία γίνεσθε ταις φρεσίν, αλλά τη κακία νηπιάζετε, τη
κ. is due to ταις φρεσίν. Op. further H. 1. Ι4 εις διακονίαν αποστελ-
λόμενα διά τους μέλλοντας κληρονομείν σωτηρίαν (2. 3, 5. 9, 6. 9, 9. 28,
11. 7; with art. only in 2. Ιο τον αρχηγών της σωτηρίας αυτών). In
1 C. 13. 13 νυνι δε μένει πίστις ελπίς αγάπη ... μείζων δε τούτων ή
åyárn the art. is anaphoric (so also in the German; cp. verses 4 and
3, R. 13. Ιo and 9; R. 12. 7 είτε διακονίαν, έν τη διακονία είτε και
διδάσκων, έν τη διδασκαλία etc.; but ibid. 9 f. η αγάπη ανυπόκριτος, τη
φιλαδελφία φιλόστοργοι, τη τιμη αλλήλους προηγούμενοι, τη σπουδη μη
okvnpoí, because they are virtues assumed to be well known etc.).
St. Paul is fond of omitting the art. with αμαρτία, νόμος, and occa-
sionally with Oávatos (R. 6. 9, 8. 38, cp. supra 7), but the reason for
his doing so is intelligible: R. 5. 13 άχρι γάρ νόμου αμαρτία ήν εν
κόσμο (before there was a law, there was sin'), αμαρτία δε ουκ
ου κυριεύσει" ου γάρ εστε υπό νόμον (under any law') αλλά υπό χάριν,
3. 20 διά γαρ νόμου επίγνωσις αμαρτίας (a general statement). Σάρξ
we frequently have εν σαρκί and nearly always κατά σάρκα (την is
inserted as a v.1. in 2 C. 11. Ι8, and by nearly all MSS. in Jo. 8. 15).
9. Whereas hitherto no case has occurred where the classical
usage of the article is opposed to the N.T. usage, such opposition
appears in the case of a noun which governs a genitive, and which
in Hebrew would therefore be in the construct state or would have
à suffix attached to it, and in either case would be without an
article ; this Semitic usage has exercised a considerable influence on
the Greek of the N.T. writers, especially where they make use of
Semitic (i.e. Hebrew or Aramaic) originals. But as it was repugnant
to the spirit of the Greek language, the article has in general only
Also in profane writers like Polybius; there are similar classical phrases,
κατ' οφθαλμούς, εν οφθαλμοίς etc.
8 46. 9-10.]
151
THE ARTICLE.
been omitted, where the whole clause was governed by a preposition
(cp. supra 5-7), and the phrase has thus become a fixed formula:
από (προ) προσώπου τινός, δια χειρός τινος, διά στόματός τινος, από
οφθαλμών σου L. 19. 42, εν οφθαλμοίς ημών Mt. 21. 42 Ο.Τ. (προ οφθ.
υμών Clem. Cor. 1. 2. 1), formulas which are all thoroughly Hebraic,
8 40, 9; further instances are εν ημέραις “Ηρώδου Mt. 2. Ι, εν ημέρα
οργής R. 2, 5, Ph. 1. 6 άχρις ημέρας Ιησού Χριστού, op. 1ο, 2. Ι6 (εν
τη ημ. του κυρίου 1 C. 5. 6, 2 C. 5. Ι4, 2 Τh. 2. 2; on the other
hand the art. is omitted even with the nom., ημέρα κυρίου 1 Τh. 5. 2
Γη add. AKL], 2 P. 3. το BC [with η NAKLP]); εις οίκον αυτών
Mc. 8. 3, cp. 26 (the use with the art. largely preponderates;
L. 14. Ι εις οίκόν [τον ο. Α] τινος των Φαρισ. [cp. Α. 18. 7, 10. 32] is
excusable: την κατ' οίκον αυτων εκκλησίαν R. 16. 5, Col. 4. Ι5, cp.
Philem. 2, is a regular phrase and perhaps not a Hebraism); έκ κοιλίας
μητρος (αυτού) Mt. 9. 12, L. 1. 15, Α. 3. 2, 14. 8; έν βίβλω ζωής Ph.
4. 3 (but in Αp. with two articles), έν βίβλω λόγων Ησαΐου L. 3. 4,
cp. 20. 42, Α. 1. 20, 7. 42 (εν τη β. Μωυσέως Mc. 12. 26), έν δακτύλω θεού
L. 11. 20, εν τω Βεελζεβούλ άρχοντι των δαιμονίων Mt. 12. 24 (and a
v.l. in L. 11. 15), and many more. To these must be added phrases
which contain a proper name in the genitive, where the omission of
the art. is not dependent on the presence of a preposition: yn
'Ισραήλ, Σοδόμων, Αιγύπτου, Χαλδαίων etc., βασιλέως Αιγύπτου
Α. 7. το, εις πόλιν Δαυίδ L. 2, 4, cp. 11 ( the city of D.), οίκος Ισραήλ
Mt. 10. 6 (23 D) etc., εξ οίκου και πατριάς Δαυίδ L. 2. 4 (but in
L. 1. 33, Η. 8. 8, το Ο.Τ., it takes the article as in the LΧΧ.), εξ
εφημερίας 'Αβία L. 1. 5. It is not often that this omission of the art.
goes beyond such instances as those mentioned, as it does in Mary's
Song of praise in L. 1. 46 f.: εν βραχίονι αυτού, διανοία καρδίας αυτών,
Ισραήλ παιδός αυτού, and in that of Zacharias ibid. 68 f. : εν οίκω
Δαυίδ παιδός αυτού, έξ έχθρών ημών, διαθήκης αγίας αυτού, οδούς αυτού,
διά σπλάγχνα ελέους θεού ημών etc., by which means an unusually
strong Hebrew colouring is here produced.2 Cp. 2. 32 (Simeon's
song of praise), Ja. 1. 26, 5. 20.
10. In the case of proper names the final development of the
language has been that in modern Greek, when used as proper names,
they take the article; in classical Greek, on the other hand, as also
in the Greek of the N.T., proper names as such take no article, but
may take one in virtue of a reference (anaphora) to something pre-
ceding. Thus if Luke in A. 9. I says ο δε Σαύλος έτι έμπνέων κ.τ.λ.,
his object in using the article is to remind the reader of what he has
previously narrated about the man (8. 3 Σαύλος δε); we are then
informed that he requested επιστολαί είς Δαμασκόν, and further on
in verse 3, that he drew nigh to τη Δαμασκώ (the place of his destina-
iCp. supra 7 ad fin. with note 1; writers of pure Greek do not add a
genitive to expressions of this kind.
21 C. 2. 16 τίς γάρ έγνωνούν κυρίου is a quotation, and so is 1 P. 3. 12 οφθαλ-
μοί κυρίου, ώτα αυτού ; the LΧΧ, abounds with instances of this kind. But in
1 Τim. 5. Ιο αγίων πόδας, πόδας is due to assimilation to αγίων ; in 1 C. 10. 21
τραπέζης κυρίου – τρ. δαιμονίων it is the character of the thing which is in ques-
tion, cp. supra 5 (the one is a table of the Lord, the other a table of devils).
152
[$ 46. 10-11.
THE ARTICLE.
.
69, name orced sincet where or on
tion), the use of the article being much the same as in 20. 7 kiáoau
άρτον compared with II κλάσας τον άρτον. There is a subtle, and
often untranslatable, nicety of language in this use of the article.
But it is obvious that it depends in great measure on the caprice of the
writer, whether in a case where frequent mention is made of the same
person he chooses to express this reference to the preceding narrative
or not: moreover the MSS. are frequently divided. If in Acts 1. I
XAE al. (as opposed to BD) are right in reading ô 'Incoüs, then by
this ó the mind is carried back to the contents of the Gospel; but
such a reminder was by no means necessary. 'Ingolls, moreover, in
the Evangelists takes the article as a rule, except where an apposi-
tional phrase with the art, is introduced ; since obviously in that
case either the article with the name or the phrase in apposition is
superfluous. Hence Mt. 26. 69,71 metà 'I. Toù l'adidaſov (Nafwpaſov),
27. 17, 22 ’I. Tòv leyóuevov Xplotov, L. 2. 43 'I. Tais (2. 27 TÒ
Tatakov Incosv), cp. A. 1. I4 Mapíạ Tĩ AnToi To I., etc. (L. 3. I9 6 đề
'Hpódns ó Tetpaápxns, with reference to v. I; e omits o Tetp.). Again,
not only at the first mention of Jesus at all, but also in the first
appearance of the risen Lord, the use of the art. is excluded, since
here too there cannot well be anaphora : Mt. 28. 9 (’I. DL al.),
L. 24. 15 (o 'I. DNPX al.); in John's Gospel, however, while on the
one hand the anaphoric article is rendered possible at this point by
the context and is actually found there (20. 14 Dewpcê TÒV 'Incoûv
FOTŵra, after 12 TÒ.côua Toû 'Incoû), on the other hand it is often
omitted elsewhere (e.g. in l. 50), as frequently happens in the other
Evangelists in the case of other less distinguished names, such as
'Iwávns and IIétpos. In the Epistles, on the contrary, and in the
Apocalypse (and to some extent in the Acts) the article is as a rule
omitted as entirely superfluous (somewhat in the same way as is
done by the Greek orators in the name of the adversary in a lawsuit);
exceptions are 2 C. 4. 10 f. (but D*FG omit the art.), E. 4. 21
(anaphora to ajro), 1 Jo. 4. 3 (anaphora to 2; but x has no art.).
Xplotós is strictly an appellative, = the Messiah, and this is made
apparent in the Gospels and Acts by the frequent insertion of the
article ; here again the Epistles for the most part (but not always)
omit it.—A special case is that of indeclinable proper names, with
which the article, without its proper force, has occasionally to serve
to determine the case of the word : Mt. 1. 2 ff. 'ABpadu éyévvno ev
Tòv 'Ioaák... TÒv 'Iakoß etc. (the same form is also used in the case of
declinable names, such as tòv 'Ioúdav, and where there is a clause in
apposition as in 6 Tòv Aavid Tov Baoiléa ; ibid. ek Tņs toll Oủplov) cp.
A. 7, 8, 13. 21. On oi To Ze8cbaoo see $ 35, 2.
11. The preceding statements hold good equally for place-names
as for personal names (the art. is anaphoric in A. 9. 3 vide supra,
9. 38 tý IÓray, 42 tñs 'Iónys, cp. 36); tñs 'Póuns 18. 2 is due to
tñs 'Italias in the same verse; Tv 'Póunv 28. 14 denotes Rome
as the goal of the whole journey. Tpwas also, although strictly
subject to an article ('Alegávdpela Tpwas), only takes one in
a peculiar way in 2 C. 2. 12 (without an art. in A. 16. 8, 20. 5).
There is a peculiar use of the art. in the Acts in the statement of
$ 46. 11-12.]
153
THE ARTICLE.
halting-places on a journey : 17. 1Tìv. 'Auditoliv kai orv 'Atroddw-
víav (the places lying on the well-known road between Philippi and
Thessalonica), 20. 13, 21. 1, 3, 23. 31, but in 20. 14 ff. there is no
article. 'Iepovoalnu, ‘Iepooólvua hardly ever take an art., Winer,
$ 18, 5 (èv toîs ‘Iepooodúmors Jo. 10. 22 ABL, v ‘Iep. the rest; the
force of the article is, in the very same place which was the scene of
the previous narrative.)-The case is different with names of countries,
many of which being originally adjectives (sc. yî, xúpa) are never
found without an article: ♡ 'Ioudaia?, y radcaía, y MeOototapía, a
Μυσία (Μύσιος adj.), η Ελλάς Α. 20. 2; for a different reason ή
’Agía like Eủpúrn (V Außún does not come under this head) takes
the art. from early times, as one of the two divisions of the globe
that are naturally opposed to each other, and keeps it even when
it is used to denote the Roman province (in A. 2. 9 f. Meonorapia,
'Aola and Außún rý kata Kupnvny are the only places with an
article); only in A. 6. 9 do we find årò Kilikias kai 'Ac., and in
1 P. 1. I the names of all the countries are without the art. (but
there there is no art. at all in the whole address : KLEKTois Taperi-
öņuocs Olaonopâs IIóvtov K.T...).3 Also with other names of countries
the article is found more frequently than it would be with names of
towns : always with 'Italia, generally with 'Ayata (without art.
R. 15. 26, 2 C. 9. 2); Evpía, Kidokia, pvyia, 'Apaßia are strictly
adjectives, and therefore generally take the art., but A. 21. 3 eis E.,
Ki.. 6. 9 (vide supra), 23. 34, pvyiav kai Ilauguliav 2. ro, eis
'Apaßiav G. 1. 17. Taugulia, although strictly on a par with the
others (TÒ IIaudúlcov médayos A. 27. 5.B text), yet in a majority of
cases omits the art.; it has it in A. (27. 5 infra) 13. 13: eis IIépynu cñs
Ilaugulías is a chorographical gen. of the whole, $ 35, 4, which abso-
lutely requires the article (A. 13. 14, 22. 3, 27. 5, cp. 16. 12, 21. 39).
Aſyurtos never takes the art. (except in a wrong reading of xABCD
in A. 7. II, and of BC in 7. 36).-River-names : • 'Iopdávns Totapós
Mc. 1. 5, elsewhere ó 'Iopdávns (TÒV Totapòv Tòv Tißepuv Herm. Vis.
i. 1. 2; classical usage is the same); names of seas : ở ’Adplas A. 27.
27 as in classical Greek. 4
· 12. The names of nations, where the nation as a whole is in-
dicated, do not require the article any more than personal names
require it, and it is therefore omitted in almost every instance where
Plovdaíoc are referred to in St. Paul's vindications of himself against
the Jews, A. 26. 2, 3, 4, 7, 21, 25. 10 (as it is in the name of the
opponent in speeches in an Athenian lawsuit, supra 10), the
1 For which the Hebraic yêu 'Iovda is also used Mt. 2. 6. (Cp. ñ 'Iovdala yn
in Jo. 3. 22, and also according to D in 4. 3.)
2 Exception L. 17. II uboov Eamäpelas kai Tandalas, where the omission with
2. has produced the omission with r'.
3 This is not so much an enumeration of the persons addressed as a
characterization of them, and the omission of the art. becomes intelligible by
a comparison with 1 Tim. 1. 2 Temodéw yunolu TéKVW = os el yvňolov T. Cp. also
Winer, § 18, 6, note 4; infra § 47, 6, note l on p. 159; see also 47, 10.
4 Cp. on the article with names of countries etc. Kallenberg Philol. 49, 515 ff.
154
[$ 46. 12. $ 47:
THE ARTICLE.
exception being 25. 8 Tòv vójov TÔV 'Iovdaí wv, where tòv v. 'Iovdaíwv
could not well be used, while Toy V. Tòv 'I. (the Attic phrase, see
$ 47, 7) was contrary to the predominant practice of the N.T. Also
in the Pauline Epistles 'lovdało, takes no article, except in 1 C. 9. 20
éyevóuny toîs 'Iovdaíocs ús 'Iovdalos ('individual' article, those with
whom I had to deal on each occasion; toîs åvóuous etc. in the
following clauses are similar); nor yet "Elinves, although this
comprehensive name, just because of its comprehensiveness (in
opposition to Bápßapoi, cp. 11 on 'Agía) in classical Greek regularly
has the article 1; but the point with St. Paul is never the totality
of the nation, but its distinctive peculiarity (op. supra 5 on ģios
etc.), consequently R. 1. 14 'Elinoiv te kai Bapßápois is not less
classical than Demosth. viii. 67 mãow "Elnou kai Bapßápois (all,
whether Greeks or barbarians), or σοφοίς τε και ανοήτοις which
follows it in St. Paul, see § 47, 2. On the other hand in the
narrative of the Evangelists (and to some extent in the Acts 2) the
article is rarely omitted with 'Ioudaiou and other names of nations
(Mt. 28. 15 Tapà Plovdalous, D inserts rois : 10. 5, L. 9. 52 eis tódov
Lauapıtô is easily explained : in Jo. 4. 9 the clause is spurious).
An instance of a national name in the masc. sing. is ó 'Io pańà ; the
art. is wanting in Hebraic phrases like yâ 'I., ó laos ’I. (vioù 'I.), but .
also not infrequently elsewhere.
$ 47. ARTICLE. II. The article with adjectives etc.; the article
with connected parts of speech.
1. Every part of speech which is joined to a substantive as its
attribute or in apposition to itmadjective, pronoun, participle,
adverb, prepositional expression, the same case or the genitive of
another substantive etc. may in this connection, and without the
substantive being actually expressed, be accompanied by the article,
which in the case of the omission of the substantive often takes its
place and indicates the substantive to be supplied : thus oí TóTE SC.
ävOpwrol, where the omission of oí is impossible. We deal with the
latter case first, where the additional definition stands alone with-
out the substantive.
The adjective, where it is not a predicate to a substantive, in most
cases takes the article, which may be either individual or generic.
Masc. sing.: 8 ålnouvós 1 Jo. 5. 20 (God), ó jóvos 'the only One'
(God) Jo. 5. 44 B (the other Mss. insert Deós, cp. 17. 3), rovnpós
the devil,' ô áylos Toù Beoû L. 4. 34 (Christ), • díkalos (Christ)
A. 22. 14, in all which cases the art. is individual and denotes him
who possesses this quality kat éfoxýv. Quite different is 1 P. 4. 18
o díkalos—ó doeßńs, as we say 'the righteous--the godless,' i.e. one
(everyone) who is righteous or godless, regarded in this capacity,
i See Rhein. Mus. xliv. 12.
2 In this book we also find the correct classical phrases ’A Anvalol távtes 17. 21,
cp. $ 47, 9; Távtes 'Ioudaiol 26. 4 BC*E (ins. o XAC? al.).
$ 47. 1.]
155
THE ARTICLE.
where an individual is taken as a concrete instance of the genus :
similarly with a substantive introduced ó dyabòs ävOpwros Mt. 12. 35,
L. 6. 45 (8 32, 3): frequently with participles : the usage stands
midway between the individual and the generic use. A third mode
of using the art. may be illustrated by Ja. 2. 6 TÒV artwxóv 'that
beggar,' where it is individual and anaphoric, referring to the
instance in verse 2 ($ 32, 3). The masc. plur. can also be used in
this last sense, but it is more frequently generic: oi aloto moc 'the
rich,' oi äycou a name for Christians. The fem. sing. is used ellipti-
cally, ý épnuos and the like, $ 44, 1 (the art, is individual : épnuos
xópa opposed to inhabited country). The neut. sing. is used with
individual sense of a single definite thing or action, 2 C. 8. 14 0.T.
το πολύ and το ολίγον, Philem. I4 το αγαθόν σου “thy good deed,
but more frequently with generic sense as in L. 6. 45 ó åyabòs
άνθρωπος εκ του αγαθού θησαυρού της καρδίας προφέρει το αγαθόν (cor-
responding to ó ảy. üv p., vide supra), G. 6. 10 épyafóueda Tò
ảyadóv, R. 13. 3 to åyabòv Toiel, cp. just before rộ åyalộ épyo = tois
αγαθοίς έργοις ου αγαθοίς έργ., as Mt. 12. 35 (the parallel passage to
L. 6. 45) has tà (om. B al.) ảyadó and movnpà (LUA ins. Tà) in the
corresponding clause, cp. also R. 3. 8 tà kakd – tà åyalá. A peculiar
usage of Paul (and Hebrews) is that of the neut. sing. adjective
equivalent to an abstract noun, usually with a genitive : R. 2. 4 TÒ
xongTDv Top Đeos cus Lenovouáw.fs dyeu, differing from xong ToT7s (which
precedes), since the adjective denotes this goodness in a concrete
instance; 1. 19 TÒ YWOTÒV TOû Deoû “the fact of God's being known,' or
else that part of Ġod which is (to be known at all, in which case
pavepov (TLV év aŭtois must be is evident to them,' cp. § 41, 2.
The genitive would then be partitive, and the adjective would not be
used for an abstract noun. It is also perhaps so used in tò dokiucov
ýmô tậs oríotews Ja. 1. 3=1 P. 1. 7, for dokimos is = dókiuos, see G. A.
Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, 86 ff.; see further 1 C. 1.25 tò uwpov
Toù Deoû gobúrepov Tôv åvOpúrwv éotiv (cp. uwpia 21, 23), this divine
attribute which appears as foolishness; 20. 4. 17 tò rapavtika éhappov
Tas Oliyews ýucov (opposed to Bápos ibid.), 8. 9 Tò tñs juerépas åyárns
yunolov, Ph. 3. 8 dià Tò ÚTepézov tûs yvárews XPLOTOů (more concrete
and vivid than imepoxý), 4. 5 TÒ ÉTTLELKÈS úpôv, R. (8. 3)', 9. 22,
H. 6. I7, 7, 18, 1 C. 7. 35 Tò của xnuov Ka củápeSpov Tp Kopíp (8 37, 7)
åTTEPLOT LOTws. This is the most classical idiom in the language of
the N.T., and may be paralleled from the old heathen literature,
from Thucydides in particular.2_ The neut. sing. is also occasionally

1 Here not in abstract sense, tò å dúvatov toll vómov means the one thing which
the law could not do: still the genitive belongs to the same class of gen. in
either case.
2 Still it is not to be attributed to imitation; since the imitation must, accord.
ing to the usual way with imitative writers of that period, have betrayed itself
in details. Moreover, other contemporary writers avail themselves of this
method of expression : Strabo 3, p. 168 TÒ EÚMetaxelplotov añs onpas (Winer,
$ 34, 2); on Joseph, and others, see W. Schmidt de Jos. elocut. 365 ff. See
also Clem. Cor. i. 19. 1, 47. 5. “Quite a current usage in the higher kolvń,"
W. Schmid, Atticism. iv. 608.
156
[S 47. 1-3.
THE ARTICLE.
used collectively to denote persons, το έλαττον – του κρείττονος = οι
ελάττονες – των κρειττόνων, 8 32, 1; a peculiar instance is το δωδε-
κάφυλον ημών our 12 tribes' A. 26. 7 (Paul before Agrippa), cp.
Clem. Cor. 1. 55. 6 το δ. του Ισραήλ (and with the same meaning
31. 4 το δωδεκάσκηπτρον τ. Ι.). Elsewhere the neut. plur. is used of
persons, 1 C. 1. 27 f. τα μωρά του κόσμου etc., 8 32, 1; also of things
with the genitive, τα κρυπτα των ανθρώπων, του σκότους, της καρδίας,
της αισχύνης R. 2. 16, 1 C. 4. 5, 14. 25, 2 C. 4. 2, τα αόρατα του θεού
R. 1. 20, a use analogous to that of the singular (vide supra), but
referring to a plurality of phenomena. Other instances like τα ορατά
και αόρατα Col. 1. Ι6 (without a genitive) need only brief mention ;
τα καλά – τα σαπρά of fish caught in a net (what is good or bad)
Mt. 13. 48. Neuters of this kind are not frequent in the Gospels.
2. With the different ways of employing the adjective that have
been quoted, the article is sometimes essential, sometimes unneces-
sary. In R. 1. 14 as we have "Ελλησίν τε και βαρβάροις (8 46, 12),
so also σοφούς τε και ανοήτοις : Mt. 23. 34 προφήτας και σοφούς,
11. 25 = L. 10. 21 από σοφών και συνετών ... νηπίοις, where the article
would be as little in place as it would be if a substantive were
employed (cp. 8 46, 5 on 1 C. 15. 39), Mt. 5. 45 επί πονηρούς και
αγαθούς, 1 C. 1. 20 που σοφός και που γραμματεύς ; occasionally too it
is absent with neuter words, where its presence or omission appears
to be more optional : Ja. 4. 17 καλόν ποιείν (“some good '), Herm.
Χ. 2. 3 πονηρόν ήργάσατο, but followed in 4 by το πονηρόν anaphoric:
2 C. 8. 21 προνοούμενοι καλά ου μόνον ενώπιον κυρίου, αλλά και ενώπιον
ανθρώπων, in this passage the article would have broken the con-
nection with what follows. It is not accidental that beside £v TÔ
φανερώ (Mt. 6. 4 etc.) there is regularly found είς φανερον ελθείν
(because the latter refers to something not yet in existence), Mc. 4. 22,
L. 8. 17; usually too we have èv TỘ KPUTTẬ as in Mt. 6. 4, R. 2. 29,
but in Jo. 7. 4, 10, 18. 20 εν κρυπτώ (είς κρύπτην subst. L. 11. 33);
the opposite to which in John is not έν τω φανερώ, but (έν) παρρησία
or φανερώς. Εις το μέσον, εν τω μέσω, έκ του μέσου are used if no
genitive follows; otherwise the article is dropped, not so much on
account of the Hebraic usage (8 46, 9), as because εν τω μέσω υμών
would be superfluously verbose in a common formula; classical Greek
also leaves out the article. Instances of these phrases without a
gen. and without an art. (frequent in class. Greek) are Mc. 14. 60
(ins. το DM), L. 4. 35 only DΓΔ al., «Το.' 8. 3, 9, Α. 4. 7 DEP,
2 Τh. 2. 7. Cp. Μο. 13. 27 απ' άκρου γης έως άκρου ουρανού, Mt. 24.
31, vide inf. 6, note 2 ; επ' εσχάτου των ημερών H. 1. Ι, 2 P. 3. 3
(εσχάτων from (τα) έσχατα, as in Barn. 16. 5, Herm. Sim. ix. 12. 3),
επ' εσχάτου των χρόνων 1 P. 1. 2ο (του χρόνου 8, cp. Jd. 18), =
Ερ: ΠΝ2 LΧΧ.; έως εσχάτου της γης Α. 13. 47 Ο.Τ., 1. 8; but
τα έσχατα του ανθρώπου εκείνου Mt. 12. 45 = L. 11. 26, opposed to
τα πρώτα.
3. The participle, when it stands alone and does not refer to a
noun or pronoun, takes the article in most cases. Thus it is often
found even as predicate with the article, though this part of the
$ 47. 3-4.]
157
THE ARTICLE
sentence elsewhere generally omits the article. There are, however,
frequent instances where even a subst. or adj. used predicatively
takes the art.: Mc. 6. 3 oủx oûtós éotu Ó TÉKTWV; (he who is known
by this designation), Mt. 5. 13 yucês éOTE TÒ älas tñs yńs, cp. 14,
6. 22 6 A6xvos Top cóuaTóc éOTLv 650ahuốc (o), 16. 16 vì eỉ ở
Xpeơios 6 vios Too coo, Mc. 15. 2 dù cổ ở Baơ LÀeos Tuv lossaisov ;
Jo. 1. 4, 8 etc., 1 i.e. not one salt etc. as compared with another, but
that which alone has or deserves this title; more striking are
Jo. 3, 10 où ci ó Sidáo kalos toû 'lopand 'the (great) teacher,' 5. 35
ệkelvos (John) v ó lúxvos ó kalóuevos kai palvwv, the light of which
one speaks in proverbs; Mt. 24. 45 tis åpa lotiv Ở TTLOTÒS doớlos kač
Apóvillos; in connection with an anarthrous noun Jo. 8. 44 Őti
yetorns otiv kai 8 Tarip aŭroll (a passage which from early times
was grossly misunderstood, as though ó matńp were a further
subject, see Tischend.). So with an adjective Mt. 19. 17 eis iOTLV
ó åyabós, cp. supra 2 ad init. This use is very frequent with
participles : Mt. 7. 15 ékeivá &OTIV Tà Kouvoûvta TÒV ävpwnov, Jo. 5.
39 εκείναί εισιν αι μαρτυρούσαι περί εμού etc., in all which cases it is
taken for granted that something which produces this or that
result exists, and then this given category is applied to a definite
subject. A periphrasis of the verbal idea by means of civar is the
only case where an art. could not stand, § 14, 2.- On the other
hand a participle which stands alone is occasionally found, as in
classical Greek, without the art. even when it is the subject of the
sentence as in Mt. 2. 6 O.T. yoýuevos, but in this case it must be
regarded as a substantive (cp. Wilke-Grimm yelo bol; other exx.
in $ 73, 3).
4. Adverbs or prepositional expressions when used alone to denote
persons or things require the article practically in all cases (orinolov.
neighbour' is used as predicate without o in L. 10. 29, 36); in the
same way the article is found governing the genitive, although all
these modes of expression are not very frequent in the N.T. Oi
ékeldev L. 16. 26, Tà kátw, ta ävw Jo. 8. 23, Col. 3. i f.; oí Tepi aŭtóv
Mc. 4. 10, L. 22. 49; IIétpos kai oi où attó L. 9. 32; with the
gen. o Too Ze8e6aDoo Jo. 21. 2 ($ 35, 2), Ta Kaio apos and To Top
Deoll L. 20. 35, o toû XplotoŮ 1 C. 15. 23; more peculiar is Ja. 4. 14
TÒ (A td) tñs aớpcov (the things of the morrow,' 'what happens
to-morrow'; 2 P. 2. 22 to tñs đàndoüs tapoipias “the import of the
proverb, tà tộs eipävns R. 14. 19, 'that wbich makes for peace."
Especially noticeable are the adverbial accusatives (S 34, 7) like to
KUT! fué so far as I am concerned,' R. 1. 15 (see § 42, 2 ; elsewhere
Td kar čué appears as subject or object, Ph. 1. 12, Col. 4. 7), TòE
újwv R. 12. 18, TO Katà cápka 9. 5, where the insertion of the
article puts strong emphasis on the limitation, so far as the
material side is considered,' tò kao ýuépav g 34, 7, in which case
the art. may be equally well used or omitted, tò mpwi (ibid.) etc.-
Quite peculiar is L. 17. 4 in D: èày ÉTTÁKus åmaptňoy kai to'ÉTTÁKIS:
ÉT LOTP&Yn (“these 7 times,' cp. Syr. Sin., therefore anaphoric).
1 Cp. Winer, § 18, 7.
158
[S 47. 5-6.
THE ARTICLE.
5. On the infinitive with the article see § 71. The neut. sing.
of the article may be prefixed, in the same way as to the infin., to
indirect interrogative sentences, but this usage is rarely represented
except in the Lucan writings : R. 8. 26 tò yàp tí pocevõueda oủk
oldojev, 1 Th. 4. I kabùs tapedápete tap nuôv TÔ TÔs (otws without
TÒ FG) de juâs K.T.d. (Herm. Sim. viii. 1. 4, Clem. Hom. i. 6); for
Lucan instances see 1. 62, 19. 48, 9. 46 (eion dev dialoycouós, TÒ Tás
äv ein K.7.1.), A. 4. 21, 22. 30. No apparent distinction in meaning
is caused by using or omitting the article. The art. Tó is prefixed
to quotations of words and sentences as in classical Greek: TÒ 'Ayáp
G. 4. 25 (v.l.), Tò åvéßn E. 4. 9, Tò Où poveúoels K.T..., Mt. 19. 18
(rò om. DM.), év TQ 'A YATÝDELS K.T.d. G.5. 14; cp. R. 13. 9, H. 12. 27.
6. The adjective (or participle) which is not independent, but is
used as an attribute to a substantive, must, as in classical Greek, if
the substantive has the article, participate in this art. by being
placed in a middle position-ó åyabòs ävo ponos: or, if placed after
the substantive, it must take an article of its own-ó a vopwros ó
åyalós; if it stands outside the article and the substantive without
an article, then it is predicative. If it is placed between the art, and
the subst. greater emphasis is laid on the adjectivemå åyabòs
äv pwros Mt. 12. 35: if it is placed after the subst. the emphasis
falls on the substantive- εις την γην την αγαθήν opposed to πέτραν
etc. L. 8. 8. Examples of predicative use : Jo. 5. 35 xw Try
japtvplav ucí(w=» . vv čxw peitwv éotív, Mc. 8. 17, H. 7. 24,
1 C. 11. 5 dkataKadúTTŲ TY kedaiņ= åkatakáduttověxovoa TNÝ KED.
($ 38,3), A. 14. Io của GV LEy6.10 Tp Đovn (26. 24)== . 3 c&Tee EyGk
being placed after the noun, 8.7 etc.). Under this head there comes
also the partitive use of the adj., with mécos as in classical Greek,
L. 23. 45, Mt. 25. 6, A. 26. 13 ($ 36, 13), while for åkpos tò č.kpov
Mégov tñs vvktós, for which we have karà tò jegovúktiov 16. 25, never
as in classical Greek Tepi uboas vúktas: L. 16. 24. TÓ äkpov toll
daktúdov aŭroû=TÒv 8. åkpov, H. 11. 21, Mc. 13. 27):2 besides
μέσος, this use in the N.T. is only found with πας and όλος (where
they are contrasted with a part), vide infra 9.-In the case of an
attributive adjective it may also happen that the subst. has no
article, while the adjective (participle etc.) that follows it has one,
since the definiteness is only introduced with the added clause by
means of the article, and was not present before. See Kühner
Gr. ij.2 530: L. 23. 49 yuvaikes as ouvakolovdowoal women viz.
those who etc., A. 7. 35 év telpi åyyélov toŮ opdévtos aŭto an
angel viz. that one who etc.; this happens especially with a parti-
ciple, which may be resolved into an equivalent relative sentence,
. Also in older Greek (Xenophon etc.), Lobeck Phryn. 537.
2 Mt. 24. 31 år' dkpwy oủpavwv čws (Twy add. B) dkpwy aŭtwy only resembles the
classical usage in appearance: the plural åkpa 'is occasioned by the plural
$ 47. 6-7.]
159
THE ARTICLE.
cp. $ 73, 2; Jo.: 14. 27 cipńvnu åpinue ipîv, ciphunu Tv euery
δίδωμι υμίν.1'
7. The rule which holds good for adjectives holds good in the
classical language also for defining clauses with an adverb or
preposition; to a certain degree also for attributive genitives: thus
• 'Abyvaíwv dñuos or ó óñuos ó 'Aonvaíwv, although ó matńp uov is
obligatory and ó ÚTTOS TOÛ Otpatnyoù is possible. In the N.T. geni-
tives in a middle position are frequent, and still more so are genitives
placed after the noun which they qualify, but without a repetition of
the article : genitives in the later position with the article are not
frequent: A. 15. I TẬ <Oeu tô Mwvoews (om. the 2nd tŲ DEHLP),2
10. 1. 18 ó dóyos ó Toll odavpoll,s Tit. 2. 10 TOY Sidao kallav tņv toi
owrapos nuôv Geoû. 4 Cp. $ 46, 12. The partitive gen. must, as in
classical Greek, stand outside the principal clause and without a
repetition of the article : oi apÔTou TÔV 'Iovdalwv (A. 28. 17 is
different, tous óvtas TÔv 'lovd. apátous). Where the defining clause
is formed by a preposition, if the clause stands after the main clause,
the article appears to be especially necessary for the sake of clearness
(just as there are scarcely any instances of such a prepositional
clause used as attribute to an anarthrous subst.: in 1 C. 12. 31 eſ Tu
for ěti is read by D*F (Klostermann), whereby kalúnepßolny is
separated from odòv, sc. Šnloûte), and the omission of the article in
classical authors is by no means sufficiently attested; in the N.T.,
on the other hand, a considerable number of instances of omission are
commonly supposed to exist, apart from those cases where the subst.
has additional defining clauses (infra 8), 1 C. 10. 18 BXÉTTETE TÒV 'Io para
katà oápka, 1 Th. 4. 16 oi vekpoi (oi add FG, cp. it. Vulg. qui in Chr.
sunt) ¿v Xplotų, 2 C. 9. 13 (TY) dsdótnti tñs kolvwvías eis aŭtoús
(where, however, Tŷ Totayñ tñs ouodoylas üpôv (vide infra 8] els tò
K.7.d. precedes, and yw is also to be supplied with kolv.), R. 6. 4
συνετάφημεν αυτώ δια του βαπτίσματος εις τον θάνατον (cp. 3 εις τον
0. attoll épartío onuer). This last instance (if our text is correct)
appears conclusive; but in τον Ισραήλ κατά σάρκα the repetition of
the art. was quite impossible, as the sense is ó katà o. Öv 'Iop. ('Iop.
is predicate); so with oi katà o. kúpLou E. 6. 5 v.l. oi k. kata o.,
Col. 3. 22 id., tà Ovn èv oapkí E. 2. 115; & doulos ¿v kupím 4. 1,
i Buttmann is not to be followed in his assertion (p. 81) that the art. had
sometimes to stand before the substantive as well; Winer, § 20, 4 is here
correct. L. 5. 36 émrißinua Tò ånd Toû kalvoû is a wrong reading, which is only
by error found in Lachmann. A. 15. 23 å8elgoîs (this is the right reading; see
the author's note on that passage), Tols katà Thu 'AVTlóxelav is an address, see
$ 46, ll, note 3.
2 Mwüotws is found without an art. after the noun qualified in A. (13. 39),
15. 5, Mc. 12. 26, L. 2. 22, 24. 44 (Jo. 7. 23 ó vóuos ó M. X, like 6. 33 ó óptos •
Toll deoû xD), A. 28. 23, 2 C. 3. 7.
3 In the preceding verse (17) we have o otavpds toll XPLOTOû; so that ó toll ot.
appears to be a kind of anaphora.
4 Appositional clauses like Mapla Ý Toû 'Iakúſou sc. untnp do not come under
this head.
5 Hence the reading of DEFG in R. 9. 3 Tŵv å delowy MÖV TWv ovinyevwv Mov Tậv
(om. cett.) katà oápka is wrong.
160
[$ 47. 7-8.
THE ARTICLE.
Toîs alovoious év TẬ vũv aiwu. 1 Tim. 6. 17, ó mioTÒS év élaxioru
L. 16. 1o, in all which instances the closely connected predicative
clause could not be severed by the insertion of the article. With a
participle (R. 15. 31 Tvåmeldoúvtwv év TÏ 'Iovdaía) it is quite
obvious that the article is not repeated.
8. If a single substantive has several defining clauses it often
becomes inconvenient and clumsy to insert all of these between the
article and the substantive, and there is a tendency to divide them
so that some stand before the substantive and some after it. But in
this case the clauses placed after the substantive do not require the
repetition of the article, which on the contrary is only repeated in a
case where the particular defining clause is emphasized (or implies a
contrast), or else if the meaning would be in any way ambiguous.
Similarly the additional article can be dispensed with if the sub-
stantive is immediately followed by a genitive, which does not
require the article (supra 7), and this again is followed by a further
defining clause with a preposition : E. 3. 4 tnv cúveriv Mov ev TØ
uvotnp1w toû Xp. (Thy év would contrast this particular oúveols of Paul
with another), G. 1. 13 TÌv éuvv åvaotpoońV TOTE ¿v TỢ 'Iovdaïo uộ.
Exx. of repeated article: 1 Th. 1. 8 ) TócTus ju6v ị Tpos Toy Scòn
¿Eelý ludev (to prevent ambiguity), 2 Č. 9. 3 (ditto), R. 7. 5 (ditto),
8. 39 (emphasis). An adjective (or participle) following a genitive
must take the art.: ó viós jov o åyantós Mt. 3. 17; cp. 2 C. 6. 7,
H. 13. 20, E. 6. 16 (tà om. BD*FG); if there is no art. it is a predi-
cate: Tit. 2. II #Tebsvn vị xáoes Too Goo ( add. Cº al.) ToTotos
Trão iv åvOpórols. The presence of a numeral between the art. and
the noun never renders a subsequent article dispensable : Ja. 1. I
tais dádeku pulais tais év – , Jo. 6. 13, Ap. 21. 9 (since the numeral is
nothing more than a nearer definition of the plural): on the other
hand an adjective (or participle) in this position can exempt a sub-
sequent adj. from the article: 1 P. 1. 18 tņs Matalas úuôv ávaotpodñs
TUTpotapadótov (but matp. åvaot. is read by C Clem. Orig.), 1 C. 10. 3
Tò aútò Bpõua atvevmatikóv ? (DEFG al., but mv. stands before Bp.
in 8%AB al. ), G. 1. 4 Toộ ve Tomos a Govos Toympoo (DEFG al.; Tou
ai. Toù év. T. **AB a harsher reading; so Herm. Mand. x. 3. 2 TÒ
Tvcbua Tò solev Tạp dv600T thapbv), cp. Kihner ii.3 532 ; no offence
is caused by ο πιστός δούλος και φρόνιμος Mt. 24. 45, where και carries
over the article ; on the other hand in Ap. 2. 12 TÌv poupalav tiv
díotojov trv očelav the repetition is necessary, as in H. 11. 12 Ý
äumos o tapà tò xeîdos tñs Dadáoons åvapi@untos. The repetition
of the art. before the subst. is rare (more frequent in class. Greek):
L. 1. 70 Tôv aylwv Tŵv åt' aiôvos ... Tipoontwv only AC al. (cp.
A. 3. 21), 1 P. 4. 14 TÒ Tâs do&ns kai ad toll Deoll Tvellua; but o örlos,
o doctroi, if not followed immediately by a noun but by a defining
clause, require to be followed by an article, as in classical Greek:
Jo. 19. 32 Toû äldov Toù ovoravpwO'évtoS, Ap. 2. 24 mois louroes tois
11 C. 8. 7 on ourndelę (al. ovveLÓMO EL) éws åpri Toll eldúlov, the ordinary position
of the gen. being reversed (but T. eid. č. d. ALP).
$ 47. 8–9.]
161
THE ARTICLE.
έν Θυατείροις (since άλλ. and λ. do not unite with other defining
clauses to form a single phrase).
9. On oỦtos, ékeîvos, aúrós self' with the article when used with a
subst. see SS 49, 4; 48, 10. ToLoûtos is occasionally preceded by the
art. (when referring to individuals or embracing a class) : Mt. 19. 14
των τοιούτων (referring to the previous τα παιδία); but this rarely
happens when a subst. follows, 2 C. 12. 3, Mc. 9. 37 ABDL
(τοιούτους before τους in Jo. 4. 23 is predicative). Το τηλικούτο κήτος
Herm. Vis. iv. 1. 9. "EKAJTos is never followed by the art. (Attic
usage is different); with flos and tâs (cp. supra 6; ömas is
only found in Luke with any frequency) the relations are more
complicated. Thus, with Távtes all the subst., to which it
belongs, as one which must be understood in its entirety, is
naturally defined by the (generic) article, although trávtes in itself
does not require the art. any more than oitos does; hence závtes
Aonvalou as in Attic A. 17. 21, because names of peoples do not
need the art., cp. 26. 4, § 46, 12, note 2; also in (Luke and) Paul
TTávtes ävOputol A. 22. 15, R. 5. 12, 18, 12. 17, 18 etc. (Herm. Mand.
iii. 3), often in the weakened sense of all the world,' everybody';
cp. for Attic usage Kühner ii.2 545 2 (Trávtes ayyedoi H. 1. 6 O.T.).
It is just this weakening of meaning which is the cause of the omis-
sion; the words do not denote any totality as such, but the meaning
approximates to that of tâs 'every' (vide infra), as in mãow dyabois
G. 6. 6, 1 P. 2. I táoas katalaniás (não av kataladiáv **), Toiv
Úgtepovuévous Herm. Mand. ii. 4. But in 2 P. 3. 16 áoats Tais (T.
om. ABC) LOTOlais, E. 3. 8 TTÁVTWV Tậv åyiwv (Tôv ins. P. only), the
art, according to classical usage can by no means be omitted ; a
similar violation of classical usage is seen in L. 4. 20 távtwv év TỶ
ouvaywyộ (those who were in the syn.'), cp. 25.3 'Aupótepou like
Trávtes also takes the art., but only in L. 5.7 (elsewhere used without
a subst.). IIâs 'whole'in Attic is only used of definite individual
ideas, 8los 'whole' also of indefinite ideas, and so in Jo. 7. 23 olov
ävopwarov"a whole man,' A. 11. 26 évlavròv ő lov, also perhaps L. 5. 5
di' olns VUKTÒS' a whole night' (v.l. with tñs); the latter word is also
used with anarthrous city-names, A. 21. 31 öln'lepovoadňu like tãou
(om. D) ‘Iepooólvua Mt. 2. 3 (S 46, 11); elsewhere it always takes
the article. IIâs before an anarthrous subst. means 'every' (not
every individual like ÉKQOTOS, but any you please): Mt. 3. 10 nâv
dévopov, 19. 3 Karà Tâoav airiav, etc.; tãoa dikalovývn= nâv ö öv yî
dikalov (W.-Gr.) Mt. 3. 15; it is also equivalent to summus (W.-Gr.):
Metà táons rapproias A. 4. 29; tráon ouveldoer åyaby A. 23. i (in
1 The instances besides those in Luke are Mt. 6. 32, 24. 39 (Trávtas D), 28. II
(ärauta A), Mc. 8. 25 (D návra), ll. 32 v.l., Mc. 16. 15 (om. D), G. 3. 28
HAB%, E. 6. 13 (all mss.), Ja. 3. 2. The Attic distinction, that râs stands after
a vowel, aras after a consonant (Diels Gött. Gel. Anz. 1894, 298 ff.), cannot be
made in all cases even in Luke, cp. 1. 3 åvw ev Tâol, although atas is gener-
ally found after a consonant.
? So Dem. 8. 5, 42.
The words Év Tņ ovvar. are probably spurious, as they vary much in their
position in different MSS.
162
[S 47. 9–10.
THE ARTICLE.
every respect). The distinction between mâs with and without the
art. appears in 2 C. 1. 4 (W.-Gr.): ó mapakalov ňuês étè táoy tn
Oliyei ñuñv (that which actually exists in its totality), eis tò dúvaöläi
ouas tapakadeîv toùs év táon 01. (any which may arise); so also
A. 12. II ráons tñs rpoodokias toù laoû tûv 'Iovdaí wv (the whole
expectation actually entertained); 1 C. 13. 2 târav trv yvôol and
77. *. miotu (all that there is in its entirety). But in imitation
of Hebrew we have râs 'Io pana R. 11. 26, the whole of I., Tâs oikos
’lop. A. 2. 36 (è őlns kapdías aŭrwv Herm. Sim. vii. 4), cp. $ 46, 9;
similar but not incorrect is Tâoa cáps
* 3 ml nas prate an action in sam. Hesb4). in
all flesh,' everything
fleshly'='all men' (hip-57) Mt. 24. 22, L. 3. 6, R. 3. 20, 1 C. 1. 29
{ Hebrew weall that thertained); 1 0.403. Tŵr "lovčaloriser; so also
Mt. loc. cit. oủk åv &cóon 77. o. like Hebr. 135... >='no flesh,'$ 51, 2.
In other cases tâs o and Tâs must be carefully distinguished: Ph. 1.3
επί πάση τη μνεία “the whole' (or omit τη with DΕ), R. 8. 22 πάσα ή
krious the whole creation,' Tãou kt. 'every created thing'1 P. 2. 13,
Col. 1. 23 (with Tŷ De al.), 15 TPWTÓTOKOS Táons KTIEWS. A very
frequent use is that of râs ó with a participle ($ 73, 3) cp. the partic.
with art. without tâs e.g. Ó KRÉTWV "he who stole hitherto' E. 4. 28;
without an art. Mt. 13. 19 Tavt's Åkoúovtos, L. 11. 4; so always if
a subst. is interposed, Mt. 3. 10 râv dévòpov uÝ TOLOÛV K.T..—'O mâs,
Yoav oi távtes övòpes ("on the whole,' 'together ') doe dódeka (cp.
class. examples, e.g. Thuc. 1. Go), 27, 37, G. 5. I4 ở Tas vótos ev .vì
λόγω πεπλήρωται (opposed to the individual laws), Α. 20. Ι8 τον
πάντα χρόνον (από πρώτης ημέρας has preceded); frequently in Paul we
have of Trávtes without a subst., 1 C. 9. 22 (a comprehensive term for
the individual persons named in verses 20 ff.; also in 19 Tâow has
preceded), 10.17, R. 11. 32, E. t. 13, 2 C.5.10 TOÙS Trávras ňuâs (not only
he, of whom he had previously spoken), somewhat differently in 15 oi
Trávtes they all’ (ÚTÈD TTávtwv has preceded), cp. Ph. 2. 21; similarly
Tà trávta in 1 C. 12. 6 (opposed to the individual thing), 19, R. 8. 32,
11. 36 (the universe), 1 C. 15 27 f. (similarly, and with reference to
Távta preceding), etc.; also A. 17. 25 (Mc. 4. II v.l.). A peculiar
use is 1 Tim. l. 16 Tiv Ürraga.v (não av) Makpoovulav 'the utmost
(cp. supra) long-suffering which He has,' cp. Herm. Sim. ix. 24. 3
την απλότητα αυτών και πάσαν νηπιότητα. Like οι πάντες, τα πάντα
we also have oi dupótepoi, ta dupótepa E. 2. 14, 16, 18 (A. 23. 8, but
here there is no contrast to the individual things, so that djipótepa
TallTa would be more correct); Toùs dúo E. 2. 15 utrumque, because
oi dupótepol 16, 18 had to be used to express utrique.
10. A phrase in apposition with a proper name takes the article,
if a well-known person has to be distinguished from another person
of the same name, as ’Iwávns ó Barriotńs, Þílitros ó củayyeliotńs
A. 21. 8, Ó Baoileùs ‘Hpódns (v.l. 'H. 8 B.) 12. I, 'Aypíritas .
25. 13; in that case the proper name itself must generally stand
without the art., § 46, 10 (hence the reading in A. 12. 12 tas
[KABD] Mapias tñs untpós is incorrect, cp. ibid. 25 D*); on the
other hand we have Eluwvl Bupori 10. 6, Mváo osví Tivi Kumpiu 21. 16,
$ 47. 10–11.)
163
THE ARTICLE.
Mavant Housou Top T&Tpapx00 covToobos 13. I (ibid. the MSS.
except D* wrongly read Aoúklos ó Kupnvaſos); the necessity for the
person to be well known does not hold in the case of ó (ETTU)kaloú.
Mevos with a surname following, or the equivalent o kai, or again
where a man is denoted by the name of his father or other relation
by an art, and gen. (with or without viós etc.), $ 35, 2. On Papaw
βασιλέως Αιγύπτου Α. 7. Io see 8 46, 9.-In the case of the
anarthrous Deós ($ 46, 6) the article may be dispensed with in a clause
in apposition with it, but only in more formal and ceremonious
language, as in the opening of an epistle, R. 1. 7 årò Deoî tatpos yu@v
każ kupiov ’I. Xp., 1 Th. 1. I ¿v Deộ ratpi kai kupíø 'I. Xp., 1 Tim. 1. I
åróotolos ... Kat' itayny Deoù outñpos nuôv (cp. $ 46, 11, note 3);
similarly kúpios ($ 46, 6) is used in apposition to 'Ino. Xp., though
not often except in an opening clause (Ph. 3. 20).-In åvridikos
juôn dáßolos 1 P. 5. 8 avrid. is treated as an adjective; Jo. 8. 44
yucís ék TOû Tarpòs Toû daßódov coté must mean you are descended
from your father (cp. 38) the devil'; but the first article is apparently
spurious and matpós is predicative, supra 6). On Mt. 12. 24 see
§ 46, 9.
11. Where several substantives are connected by kal the article
may be carried over from the first of them to the one or more sub-
stantives that follow, especially if they are of the same gender and
number as the first, but occasionally too where the gender is
different: Col. 2. 22 katà Tà évtáduata kai didao kalías tûv åv puitwv,
L. 14. 23 eis tas ódows kai ppayuoús, l. 6, Mc. 12. 33 v.1. (Winer,
$ 19, 3). Inversely there are a number of instances where with the
same gender and number the repetition of the article is necessary or
more appropriate : A. 26. 30 Ó Baoileùs kai ó nyeuóv (different per-
sons), 1 C. 3. 8 8 PUTEÚwv kai ó motícwv év elow (ditto), Jo. 19. 6 oí
åp xlepeis kai oi útmpéral (whereas ápx. with tpeo Bútepoi or ypappareis
may dispense with a repetition of the art., Mt. 16. 21 etc.), MetaFÙ
Toû Ovoiaomnplov kai Tóû oikov L. 11. 51 (Mt. 23. 35). Also in the
case of te kaì repetition generally takes place, though in A. 14. 6 we
have tûv Ovô te kal (Tôv add. D) 'Iovdaiwy. There is frequently a
variety of readings, but the alteration in the sense is for the most
part unimportant. The article appears to be dropped, not unnatur-
ally, between two clauses in apposition connected by kai, in Tit. 2. 13
(T9V) éru ávelav tñs dó és Toll meyálov Deoû kai owrapos yuwv 'I. Xp.,
cp. 2 P. 1. I (but x here reads kupiov for Deoû, probably rightly, cp.
II, 2. 20, 3. 2, 18); however in Titus loc. cit. owTîpos ňu. 'l. Xp. may
be taken by itself and separated from the preceding, in which case
cp. for the loss of the art. supra 10; Winer, § 19, 5, note 1.
164
[S 48. 1-2.
PERSONAL, REFLEXIVE AND
SYNTAX OF THE PRONOUNS.
$ 48. PERSONAL, REFLEXIVE, AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
1. The nominatives of the personal pronouns εγώ, σύ, ημείς, υμείς
--are, as in classical Greek, not employed except for emphasis or
contrast. Jo. 4. Ιο συ αν ήτησας αυτόν (not, vice versa, I thee),
Α. 4. 7 εν ποία δυνάμει εποιήσατε τούτο υμείς ; (people like you, this
miracle), Jo. 5. 44 πώς δύνασθε υμείς πιστεύσαι (persons like you),
39 υμείς δοκείτε εν αυταίς ζωήν αιώνιον έχειν (you yourselves), 38 δν
απέστειλεν εκείνος, τούτω υμείς ου πιστεύετε (εκείνος – υμείς contrasted),
1. 30 υπέρ ου εγώ είπον (I myself), 42 συ ει Σίμων..., συ κληθήση
Knpâs (cp. 49, this particular person as opposed to others), E. 5. 32
το μυστήριον τούτο μέγα εστίν· εγώ δε λέγω εις Χριστόν και εις την
εκκλησίαν (subject and speaker contrasted).--As an equivalent for
the third person in the N.T., especially in Luke (Mt., Mc.; also.
LΧΧ.), αυτός is used = “he’ with emphasis (besides o in ο δε, ο μεν ούν,
$ 46, 3), L. 2. 28 (the parents bring in the child Jesus) και αυτός
(Simeon) εδέξατο αυτό κ.τ.λ. (in Simeon's own narration of the event
it would run και εγώ εδεξάμην), 1. 22, 2. 5ο (και αυτοί), 9. 36 (ditto),
11. Ι4 (και αυτό), L. 24. 21 ήλπίζομεν ότι αυτός έστιν ο μέλλων
λυτρούσθαι τον Ισραήλ (here too εγώ would be used if the story
were told in the first person), Μο. 14. 44 ον αν φιλήσω, αυτός έστιν
(he is the man), Α. 3. Ιο επεγίνωσκον δε αυτόν, ότι αυτός (BDEP ούτος,
cp. Jo. 9. 8 f.) ήν ο... καθήμενος (1st pers. ότι εγώ ήμην, cp. Jo. 9. 9),
cp. Herm. Mand. vi. 2. 5 γίνωσκε ότι αυτός έστιν εν σοί: Mt. 12. 5ο
(ep. with ούτος Mc. 3. 35), 5. 4 ft. Also αυτός δε, Mc. 5. 40 (και δε
A), L. 4. 30, 8. 37 etc. (even where the name is added, Mt. 3. 4
αυτός δε ο [ο om. D] Ιωάνης, but he, John' ; Με. 6. Ι7 αυτός γαρ
ο [ο om. D] Ηρ.); the feminine of αυτός is not so used: αύτη should
be written in L. 2. 37, 7. 12, 8. 42 και αύτη (και αυτός is also a
wrong reading in 8. 41 BD, and in 19. 2 where D reads ούτος
without καί). Classical Greek employs sometimes ούτος, Sometimes.
εκείνος (6), 8 49, 2 and 3; in modern Greek αυτός has become a
demonstrative pronoun and dropped the meaning of self' (for
which ο ίδιος is used). Of the oblique cases, the genitive alone is
used with emphasis in this way (class. εκείνου etc.): L. 24. 31 αυτών
δε διηνοίχθησαν οι οφθαλμοί, Mt. 5. 3, 10, cp. infra 7 (Herm. Sim. V.
7. 3 αυτού γάρ έστιν πάσα εξουσία, viii. 7. Ι άκουε και περί αυτών).
2. A prominent feature in the Greek of the N.T. (and still more
in that of the LXX.) is the extraordinary frequency of the oblique
cases of the personal pronouns used without emphasis. The reason
for this is the dependence of the language on Semitic speech, where
i Cp. Buttmann, p. 93 ff. (Winer, $ 22, note 4). The use is an old one,
though foreign to Attic writers : Ηom. ΙΙ. iii. 282 αυτός έπειθ' “Ελένην εχέτω ....
ημείς δε, “he ... we.'
$ 48. 2–3.]
165
POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
these pronouns are easily and conveniently attached as suffixes to
substantival and verbal forms, and are therefore everywhere
employed, where the full expression of the thought requires them.
The case is different with classical Greek, which has separate words
for them, of which some indeed are enclitic, but those for the
3rd person and for the plural are dissyllables, and therefore it
expresses these words only so far as they are essential to the
lucidity of the sense, while in other cases it leaves them to be
understood. The tendency of the N.T., then, is to express the
pronoun in each case with every verb which is joined with other
verbs in a sentence, and not, according to the classical method, to
write it once and leave it to be supplied in the other instances;
again, the possessive genitives uov, pov, aŭtoù etc. are used with a
quite peculiar and tiresome frequency, being employed, to take a
special instance, with reference to the subject of the sentence, in
which connection the simple pronoun cannot possibly stand in
classical Greek, but the reflexive is used instead, vide infra 6. Still
no rule can be laid down, the practice depends on the pleasure of
the writer, and superfluous pronouns are often omitted by the
better MSS. As in classical Greek 'my father' may be expressed
at the option of the writer by o Tatýp Mov (ó éjòs 7.) or o matńp, so
also in John's Gospel Christ speaks of God as ó TUTÝP uov, and
more often as ở TT CTốp, 8. 38 ẻy & éópaKa Taoà Tộ Tap Cuoc add.
3D al.) Aal, Kai juezs oỦv & Kojo are Tapa To Taipos (so without
inô BLT) TOLEÎTE : Mt. 27. 24 år evitato Tàs xelpas. The pronoun
is omitted in other cases or connections: A. 16. 15 TOperálecev
(sc. ģpâs) déyovou (without pîv), 19 daßóuevOL TÒV IIaûlov kai
Tòv Eilâv eídkvoav k.t... instead of tidaß. Toll II. ... cílk, aútoús).
On the other hand we have 22. 17 éyévetó vou ÚTOOTPéYavri—T PODev-
χομένου μου-γενέσθαι με (8 74, 5), 7. 21 εκτεθέντος δε αυτού, ανείλατο
αυτόν--και εξεθρέψατο αυτόν (vide ibid.; also for combinations such
as Mt. 6. 3 cos Toto vios ... Lì Yv0T = proTspa con, Mt. 8. I,
v.l. eeldóvti aŭto.... nkoloúdnoav aŭto). On the acc. and inf.
instead of the inf. see § 72, 2 and 3 ; on aŭtoû etc. after the relative
$ 50, 4.
3. The longer and unenclitic forms of the pronoun of the 1st pers.
sing.—ěuoll, čuoí, šué-are employed as in classical Greek to give
emphasis or to mark a contrast; they are generally used after a
preposition (even évekev), except after após : Mt. 25. 36 (p <ué),
Mc. 9. 19 (do.), A. 22. 10 (do.: in 8 čué **AB); with após the short
forms are used even where there is a contrast, Mt. 3. 14 éyw xpelav
ễx Drò roi Ba TTuanvau, Kai gò ñoan Tpós Le (where Tisch. writes
TT pòs mé; the classical language certainly knows nothing of an
accented ué); only in Jo. 6. 37 Tpòs čué is read by nearly all MSS.,
in the next clause apòs émè is read by AE al., após ue ABD al. (we
also find ¿vÚTLÓV Mov in several MSS. in Lc. 4. 7). Cp. Kühner
Gr. i.', i. 347. It follows that in the case of the second person,
the forms ooù etc. after prepositions other than após should be
accented. Of the strengthened Attic forms čywye, čuocye there are
no instances in the N.T.
166
[S 48. 4-6.
PERSONAL, REFLEXIVE AND
4. There is a wide-spread tendency among Greek writers, when they
speak of themselves, to say ņueîs instead of éyá. The same meaning
is often attributed to many instances of the 1st pers. plur. in St. Paul;
in his letters, however, there are usually several persons from whom,
as is shown in the opening clause, the letter proceeds, and where this
is not the case (Pastoral Epp.; Romans, Ephesians), no such plurals
are found : cp. e.g. Col. 1. 3 eŭxaplo TolleV with E. 1. 15 kåyù ... Oů
tavouac củxapiorồv. In R. 1. 5 di' où énábojev xápiv kai ámootor
K.7.d. while the language clearly applies to Paul himself (åroot.),
yet the words are not limited to him (xáp.v), but the persons
addressed, and indeed all Christians (cp. just before, 4 Toll kvplov
Yuwv), are fellow-partakers in the xápis; so that ěraßov xápiv would
not have been suitable. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
however (an epistle, moreover, which has no introduction at all with
the name of the writer), appears really to use the plur. and sing.
without distinction, 5. II, 6. I, 3, 9, er etc., 13. 18 f. (plur. – sing.),
22 f. (ÉTÉOTELła, uuwv): and even in those Pauline Epistles, which are
indited in the name of several persons, it is not always possible
appropriately to refer the plural to these different persons, e.g. in
2 C. 10. 11 ff. Similarly in 1 John 1. 4 ypápojev is apparently
identical in meaning with ypáow (2. I and elsewhere).- Quite
different is such a plural as we meet with in Mc. 4. 30 rôs ouocá-
σωμεν την βασιλείας του θεού, where in a way that is not unknown
to us the audience are represented as taking part in the deliberation.
5. The pronoun of the 3rd person aútoù etc. is very frequently used
with a disregard to formal agreement, where there is no noun of the
same gender and number to which it may refer. The occurrence of
the name of a place is sufficient ground for denoting the inhabitants
of it by αυτών: Α. 8. 5 Φίλιππος κατελθών εις την πόλιν της Σαμαρείας
ékúpvocev atroîs TÒv Xplotóv, 16. 10, 20. 2, 2 Č. 2. 12 f. etc.; in the
same way kóduos ... aútois ibid. 5. 19, TV ... aŭtois (p**aúto) Jo. 17. 2,
see § 32, 1 (classical usage is similar). Further we have L. 23. 50 f.
Bovlevts ... aŭtwv, .e. the members of the high council (the refer-
ence being understood from the preceding narrative); R. 2. 26 êàv v
ακροβυστία τα δικαιώματα του νόμου φυλάσση, .ε. ακροβυστίαν έχων,
and therefore followed by αυτού ; 1 P. 3. Ι4 τον φόβον αυτών, the
persecutors, who are understood from the sense and context, E. 5. 12
ům' aŭtôv, those who belong to the okótos of verse 1], etc. To these
must be added instances of constructio ad sensum ($ 31, 4) such as Mc.
5. 41 kparńcas tñs xelpòs Toll taldiou leyel aútî, and on the other
hand cases where the subject referred to is obvious without further
explanation, as in Jo. 20. 15 ajtóv, 1 Jo. 2. 12 aŭto0.1 Cp. Buttmann,
p. 92 f., Winer, $ 22, 3. The relative pronoun is sometimes used in
a similar way : G. 4. 19 Tekvía uov, oŮs, Jo. 6. 9 Taidápiov, ös (v.l. o),
Ph. 2. 15 yeveâs okoliâs, év ols; also A. 15. 36 Katà mãoаv módiv, év
als, 2 P. 3. I deutépav vjon ÉTTLOTO)ýv, év ais (i.e. tais dvolv ÉTTLOT.) etc.
6. The reflexive pronouns-euautoù, geavToû, êavtou, with plural
? In Jo. 8. 44 (ó matip) atrol (47, 3) may be referred without difficulty
through yeúorns to Orav lalõ Tò yeúdos.
$ 48. 6.]
167
POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd persons èuvTW ($ 13, 1)1_have in the N.T.
been to some extent displaced by the simple personal pronoun; but
a more noticeable fact is that they have had no share at all in the
extended use which the personal pronouns acquired (supra 2). When
the pronoun is employed as a direct complement to the verb, referring
back to the subject, no other than the reflexive form is found in all (or
nearly all) authors; but if the pronoun is governed by a preposition,
there are at least in Matthew numerous instances of the simple pro-
noun being used ; finally, if a substantive governing the pronoun is
interposed, and the pronoun has no emphasis at all (so that classical
writers would omit it altogether, supra 2), then the reflexive form is
never employed. Thus, in proportion as the number and the inde-
pendent character of the words interposed between the pronoun and
the subject becomes greater, the rarer becomes the use of the
reflexive. (For instances of this in classical writers, Kühner ii.2
489, 494.) Direct complement: Mt. 6. 19 f. Onoavpišete újîv
Ono avpoùs instead of éavroîs). After a preposition: Mt. 5. 29 f.,
18. 8 f. Báde årò goû, 6. 2 un calmioys čustpoo O'év cov, 11. 29 apate
Tòe (orov uoc ép buds, 13. I3 Ta.pdate MeTà Top BDI (realTop NKLM).
The simple form is still more frequent where two pronouns are con-
nected : 18. 15 é deyểov ... Metafù coû kai attoll, 17. 27 dòs årti époll
kai goû. (In Semitic speech, where the reflexive is expressed by a
periphrasis with 2338, there can be no question of this kind of
expression in these cases.) Yet even Mt. has citrov év avtois
(9. 3, 21), ueplo Deica kad ćavrns (12. 25), 15. 30 + XOVTes Me@' éavtov,
etc. -- In the case of a possessive genitive attached to a substantive,
the MS. evidence is often conflicting, not however in the case of
fuavtoû or geaVTOŮ, but only with avtoû. The only instance with
fuavtoŮ is 1 C. 10. 33 TÒ fuavtoŮ ovubépov (of geavtoŮ there is no
example); then with avtûv= 2nd pers. we have H. 10. 25 triv
επισυναγωγήν εαυτών, with εαυτού, -ης, -ών between the art. and the
noun (infra 7) we have Mc. 8. 35 v.l., L. 11. 21 TÌv Favtoù aúlv (D.
T. a. adron), 13. 34 The earThs vozơiày (và vOGGía. airs D), 14. 26 (ẽauToo
stands after the noun in *B), 33 (aŭroŮ D al.), also 16. 8 eis tiv
yeveàv TÌv éavtô; frequent in the Pauline Epp., e.g. R. 4. 19, 5. 8,
16. 4, 18. On the other hand, the-simple pronoun is also used e.g.
in A. 28. 19 Toll ?Ovous uov, ibid. ß text Tiv Yuxýv novG. 1. 14 nov
1 The corresponding use of εαυτου for (έμαυτού or) σεαυτού, which is far from
being established for classical prose, rests even in the N.T. on doubtful
authority: Jo. 18. 34 å$' &AUTOŮ OÙ TOÛTO Néyels, but ånd geautoŮ KBC*L:
R. 13. 9 = G. 5. 14 O.T. Ús autóv read by FGLP and FGLN*P in the respective
passages; cp. Herm. Vis. iv. 1. 5 ñpšaunu Néyelv év ÉQUTQ (H* as; travt. 4°),
Sim. ii. l ri où év éautų Šntes (X is wanting), ix. 2. 5: Clem. Hom. xiv. 10,
xvii. 18 for ėmavToû. Buttm. 99. On ýuwv attûv 1 C. 5. 13 vide infra 10.
2 We also have ? 80$a mautớ with inf. in A. 26. 9, whereas classical Greek in
a case like this where no stress is laid on the reflexive, says dokâ pot. On
É AUTÓv as subj. of the accus. and inf. see $ 72, 2; Butti. 236 (aúróv for autov
A. 25. 21).
3 Hence in translating from Semitic the reflexive is interchangeable with tin
yuxny aủTOû : cp. L. 9. 25 fautdv de åtoléras y Śnuiwels with 24 ároléon Thu y.
aútoù. Cp. Winer § 22, 7 note 3.
168
[S 48. 6-7.
PERSONAL, REFLEXIVE AND
bis, 16 τον υιόν αυτού, etc.; on έμός σός, νide infra 7.-Other instances
of reflexives : Mt. 12. 45 πονηρότερα εαυτού (DE* αυτου), Μο. 5. 26
τα παρ' εαυτής (αυτής ABL), L. 24. 27 τα περί εαυτού (αυτού DEL al.); :
on the other hand, Ph. 2. 23 αφίδω τα περί εμέ, R. 1. 15 το κατ' έμε
πρόθυμος sc. ειμί ($ 42, 2). A loose but intelligible use is 1 C. 10. 29
λέγω ουχί την εαυτού. -The mode of strengthening the reflexive by
means of aúrós, frequent in Attic, appears in a few instances (from
the literary language): 2 C. 10. 12 αυτοι εν εαυτους εαυτούς μετρούντες,
1. 9, Α. 5. 36 D κατελύθη αυτός δι' εαυτού (αυτου D); but in Jo. 9. 21
the pronouns must not be connected: αυτός (he himself) περί εαυτού
λαλήσει (op. R. 8. 23).-On εαυτων for αλλήλων, vide infra 9.
7. The possessives έμός, σός, ημέτερος, υμέτερος are employed in
classical Greek to represent the emphasized genitives εμού, σου etc.,
whereas if there is no emphasis on the pronoun possession is denoted
by the genitives μου, σου, ημών, υμών ; the position of the latter, as
of the corresponding αυτού, -ης, -ών of the 3rd pers., if the subst.
takes the article, is after the substantive (and the article is not
repeated), or even before the article, as in Mt. 8. 8 ίνα μου υπό την
στέγην, 1 Τh. 3. Ιο ιδείν υμών το πρόσωπον, 13 στηρίξαι υμών τας καρ-
días, or lastly, if the subst. has an attribute before it, the position of
the pronoun is after the attribute: 2 C. 4. Ι6 ο έξω ημών άνθρωπος,
Mt. 27. 6ο εν τω καινω αυτού μνημείω, 1 P. 1. 3, 2. 9, 5. το etc. (Butt-
mann, p. 101). On the other hand, the possessives take the position
of the attributes, as in classical Greek is the case with emphasized
genitives like έμαυτού, σεαυτού, εαυτού, τούτου, εκείνου (= his). The
noticeable point in the N.T. is that while čuo û and coû are not used
as possessives (except in connection with another gen., R. 16. 13
αυτού και εμού, 1. 12), the emphatic υμών (in the Pauline Εpp., Butt-
mann 102) undoubtedly is so used (in the position of the attribute;
cp. Soph. Oed. R. 1458 ή μεν ημών μοίρα), and hence it happens that
the words ημέτερος and υμέτερος are by no means represented in all
the N.T. writings (there are not ten instances of each, none at all e.g.
in Mt., Mc.): 1C. 16. 18 το έμόν πνεύμα και το υμών, 2 C. 1. 6 υπέρ της
υμών παρακλήσεως (object. gen., which however may equally well be
expressed by the possessive : R. 11. 31 τω υμετέρω ελέει, 1C. 11. 24 την
έμήν ανάμνησιν, W. $ 22, 7, cp. for class. exx. Kühner ii.2 486, note 11),
2 C. 9. 2 το υμών (v.1. εξ υμ.) ζήλος, 1 C. 16. 17 το υμών (μέτερον
BCD al.) υστέρημα, 1 Τh. 3. 7, Clem. Ηom. Χ. 15 τω υμών (reflex.)
παραδείγματι. Still the possessive is also found in another position
in ημών γαρ το πολίτευμα Ρh. 3. 20 (stronger emphasis, for which το
yap ņu. Tol. was not sufficient), and there are similar exceptions in
the case of reflexive genitives : την επισυναγωγήν εαυτων Η. 10. 25
(i.e. υμών αυτών), Α. 21. ΙΙ δήσας εαυτού τους πόδας (there is a wrong
reading αυτού, which would refer to Paul), G. 6. 4 το έργον εαυτού,
ibid. 8 εις την σάρκα εαυτού (αυτού D*FG, cp. the v.1. in E. 4. 16,
Mt. 21. 8, 23. 37 ; Ηerm. Vis. iii. 11. 3 εαυτών [2nd pers.] τας μερίμνας,
Sim. iv. 5 τον κύριον εαυτών [3rd pers. 1, ν. 4. 3; in general, according
to what has been said above see 67 äútoû deserves the preference).
Emphatic αυτού = his is found in the position of the attribute :
Tit. 3. 5 κατά το αυτου έλεος (opposed to preceding ημείς και το έλ. αυτού
$ 48. 7-9.]
169
POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
mihi ex 13 Béka do posses: "empubolo has heild, Josed to co the part
D*EFG), H. 2. 4 Kara The aroo 0%Angtv, R. 11. II Tộ củay Tapa-
TTTújati v owinpla toîs ¿Oveow 3. 24, 1 Th. 2. 19, Ja. 1. 18 (v.l. éavtoü);
cp. supra 1 (in R. 3. 25 év tỘ aŭtoù aluatı the gen. is from aŭtós
self'). For this classical Greek uses ékeivov (which may even have
reflexive force, Kühner ii.2 559, 12); the latter appears in the correct
position (that of the attribute), in Jo. 5. 47, 2 C. 8. 9, 14, 2 Tim.
2. 26 etc. (exception R. 6. 21 tò télos érelvwv); cp. with Toútov etc.,
R. 11. 30, 2 P.1. 15 (but contrary to rule are A. 13. 23 TOÚTOV Ó Deòs
Giò Too GTépuaTos, cp. on Ph. 3. 2o above; Ap. 18. I5 oi uTopou
TOÚTWV; H. 13. 11).—'Euós is very frequent in John, not very frequent
in the remaining writers (obs besides its use in Gospels and Acts
occurs only three times in Paul); <uós (like cós) is also used reflex-
ively for uavtoŮ (OEAUTOŮ), Philem. 19, Mt. 7. 3 (3 Jo. 4), Herm.
Sim. i. II TÒ Còv čpyov &pyáčov (also occasionally in class. Greek,
Kühner ii.2 494a).- The possessives are also used predicatively
(without an art.): Mt. 20. 23= Mc. 10. 40 oỦK FOTLV FuÒV TOÛTO douvai
(for which we have in the plur. únøv éoti 1 C. 3. 21 f., cp. supra
$ 35, 2); with a subst. inserted émov Bpôuá totiv (va K.7.d. Jo. 4. 34,
13. 35; under other circumstances also the art. may be dropped :
Ph. 3. 9 un éxwv éuny dikalovÚvny ('a righteousness of my own')
TYY ék vójov (cp. g 47, 6), as with Polos, infra 8, and with avtoû
L. 19. 13 deka doúlovs tautoll (of his ).
8. A common possessive pronoun is r8los, which in classical Greek
is opposed to κοινός or δημόσιος, while in modern Greek the new
possessive é édikós jov, oov etc. has been fully developed (with the
N.T. and LXX. use agree also Philo, Josephus, Plutarch etc.,
W. Schmidt Jos. elocut. 369). It is opposed to Kolvós A. 4. 32
(H. 7. 27); or means peculiar,' corresponding to the particular
condition of a person or thing, 1 C. 3. 8, 7. 7 etc. (class.); but
generally means simply own,' = favToll etc. (like class. oikeios) :
Jo. 1. ΙΙ εις τα ίδια ήλθεν, και οι ίδιοι αυτόν ου παρέλαβον, 42 ευρίσκει
Tùy vs Abov Toy Stov 2íuova, Mt. 22. 5 cus Tv (Stov ảopov (without
emphasis = eis t. å. aŭtoa), 25. 14; with v.l. éautoll L. 2. 3. It is
joined with the gen. aŭtoh etc. (a use which in itself is classical) in
Mc. 15. 20 (v.l. without aŭtoll, D also omits loca) A. 1. 19, 24. 23,
Tit. 1. 12, 2 P. 3. 3, 16. Kar' idav is frequent = class. Kad tavrov
by Himself,' Mt. 14. 13 etc.; idia ékáoto 1 C. 12. 11 is classical.It.
is not surprising that the article is occasionally dropped, cp. supra 7
ad fin. (1 Č. 15. 38, a v.l. inserts tó; Tit. 1. 12); in Tit. 2. 9 doúlovs
DEOTÓTais idiouS ÚTOTÁOT Eo Dar there is a kind of assimilation to the
anarthrous Soúlovs (somewhat as in H. 12. 7, § 46, 7); 2 P. 2. 16
é deyiv idías Tupavouíos is due to Hebrew usage like top. aŭtoû
($ 46, 9). On the periphrasis for the possess. gen. with katá see
$ 42, 2.
9. 'Eavtûv is found (as previously in classical Greek) for the
Til haine de men in het
? In H. 7. 18 dià Tò aútñs áo bevès kai dvw elés there is no emphasis on the
pronoun, but here there is no substantive : thy aútñs ào dévelay would scarcely
be written. (Still in Herm. Mand. vi. 2. 2 we have ràs aŭtwv évepyelas without
eniphasis, cp. Clem. Hom. xiv. 7, 10.)
170
POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. [S 48. 9–10.8 49. 1-2.
reciprocal állňwy in 1 C. 6. 7, Col. 3. 13, 16, etc., and often in con-
junction with it for the sake of variety : L. 23. 12 ålındw... apòs
ÈCvTous with v.l. in XBLT apòs aŭtoús, a use of the simple pronoun
which here appears to be inadmissible. The individual persons are
kept separate in äldos pòs ördov A. 2. 12 = npòs állndovs; cp. Els
τον ένα for αλλήλους (Semitic) 8 45, 2.
10. Aúrós 'self' has its classical usages (usually followed by an
article, which however does not belong to attós, and is therefore
sometimes omitted, as in aŭtos ’Incoûs Jo. 2. 24, according to
§ 46, 10); it is naturally found also in connection with the personal:
pronoun, where it is to be sharply distinguished from the reflexive :
ÈÉ Ýpôv aủTôv A. 20. 30, like aŭtos éyú, aŭtoi ýueis (in the 3rd pers.
it is of course not repeated : (va aŭrojs Šnloûte G. 4. 17, the men
themselves'); even in 1 C. 5. 13 Eápate tÒV Trovnpòv é úpôv aŭtv
the words ' a. are not reflexive, although this quotation is taken
from Deut. 17. 7 é@apeis TÒV T. ÈÉ Ýuwv aŭTôv, where tavrwv could not
be used because of the singular é apeis. For aútòs oitos (ékelvos).
Luke uses a)Tós in the phrases ev clan Tu Đạ, thuếpa L. 12. 12, 13. 31,
20. 19, A. 22. 13 etc., év a. TỘ kalpo L. 13. i (cp. é aŭtñs, $ 44, 1);
s0 also εν αυτη τη οικία 10. 7.
$ 49. DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS.
1. The demonstrative pronouns of the N.T. are: PŮTOS, ékeivos, and
aúrós, which is beginning to be so used, see § 48, 1, remnants of
é, ñ, tó, § 46, 1-3, remnants also of 68€, § 12, 2, which is not even
úsed correctly in all cases (Táde déyel to introduce some information
is correct in A. 21. 11, Ap. 2. 1 etc.), just because it belonged to the
language of literature and not to the living language : L. 10. 39 kat
Tņde îîv ůdeko» K.T.d. instead of Taúty (Ja. 4. 13 TopEvo óueda eis tv-
de TNV Tóliv appears to mean 'such and such a city,' Attic try kai
TÌv, as in Plat. Leg. 4. 721 B ty kai tý útiuial; the passage in
James is followed by I5 ποιήσομεν τουτο ή εκείνο with the same
meaning). Toâode for tocactns (correctly introducing some informa-
tion following) only occurs in 2 P. 1. 17.
2. The uses of oûtos and ékelvos are quite clearly distinguished.
Ούτος refers to persons or things actually present: Mt. 3. Ι7 ούτός
FOTIV ở viós jov etc.; to persons or things mentioned, =one who con-
tinues to be the subject of conversation, as e.g. in Mt. 3. 3 OUTOS
(John, verse i f.) yáp COTIV ở ønbeis .7.., especially used after a
preliminary description of a person to introduce what has to be
narrated of him, Mt. 27. 57 f. ävOputos aloúolos &Ò 'Apquabaías ...
OÛTOS apogelowy K.T.l., L. 23. 50 ff., Ja. 3. 2, 4. 47, A. 1. 18 OÛTOS
Mèv oŮv K.T.d., etc.; somewhat different is kai ollos in Luke in the
continuation of a description, L. 2. 25 f. kai idoù äv@pwntos v...
övoua Evueúv, kai ó ã. oŮtos dikalos K.T.N., cp. 17, 7. 12, 8. 41 (with a
wrong reading atròs, see § 48, 1), 19. 2 (the same v.l.; only D has
1 With this is rightly compared tývde tnv ņuépav in Plut. Qu. conviv. i. 6. 1.
$ 49. 2-3.]
171
DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS.
ούτος); cp. also και τήδε (sup. 1), 10. 39. Slight ambiguities (where
several substantives precede) must be cleared up by the sense :
Α. 8. 26 αύτη εστίν έρημος, referring to η οδός, not to Γάζα ; L. 16. I
άνθρωπός τις ην πλούσιος δς είχεν οικονόμον, και ούτος (referring to
οικ.) διεβλήθη αυτώ (to άνθ. πλ.). It very commonly stands in the
apodosis, referring back to the protasis : Mt. 10. 22 και δε υπομείνας εις
τέλος, ούτος σωθήσεται, R. 7. 15 ου γαρ και θέλω, τούτο πράσσω, αλλ' και
μισώ, τούτο ποιώ; but τούτο is also found in the preceding principal
clause, as a preliminary to a subordinate clause with ori, iva etc.;
1 Τim. 1. 9 ειδώς τούτο, ότι κ.τ.λ., 1 Jo. 2. 3 εν τούτω γινώσκομεν...,
εάν κ.τ.λ. ; also before an infinitive or substantive, 2 C. 2. I'
έκρινα έμαυτώ τούτο, το μή πάλιν ... ελθείν, 2 C. 13. 9 τουτο και
ευχόμεθα, την υμών κατάρτισιν. St. Paul frequently also has
αυτό τούτο, just this (and nothing else), R. 9. 17 Ο.Τ., 13. 6,
Ph. 1. 6. πεποιθώς αυτό τούτο (with reference to their endurance
already emphasized in verse 5), also 2 P. 1. 5; an adverbial use
(like τί) is τουτο αυτό just for this reason 2 C. 2. 3, S 34, 7.1 Another
adverbial use is τούτο μεν ... τούτο δε on the one hand ... on the
other hand, both ... and H. 10. 33 (Attic; literary language). We
further have και τούτο idque and indeed’ 1 C. 6. 8 (κ. ταύτα CD),
8 (ταύτα L), R. 13. II, E. 2. 8 (Αtt. και ταύτα, Kühner ii.2 791); on
και ταυτα with part. although' Η. 11. 12 etc. see 8 74, 2.-Ούτος
appears to be often used in a contemptuous way (like Latin iste) of
a person who is present: L. 15. 30 ο υιός σου ούτος, 18. ΙΙ ούτος και
τελώνης, Α. 17. 18.--On ου μετά πολλάς ταύτας ημέρας Α. 1. 5 see
8 42, 3.
3. The much rarer word εκείνος (most frequent, comparatively
speaking, in St. John) may be used to denote persons who are
absent, and are regarded in that light: υμείς – εκείνοι are opposed in
Mt. 13. II, Jo. 5. 39, Α. 3. 13, 2 C. 8. Ι4, ημείς (εγώ) – εκ. in Jo. 3.
28, 30, 1 C. 9. 25, 10. II, 15. II; of course the conversation must
have turned on the persons indicated, to make the pronoun in-
telligible at all. It is never used in the N.T. in connection with,
or in opposition to, ogros (Buttm. p. 91); but see Herm. Mand. iii. 5
ékeîva (the past) - Taūta (the present). Frequently in the N.T.
εκείνη η ημέρα is used of the last day, Mt. 7. 22, 2 Τh. 1. Io. But
it is especially used in narrative (even imaginary narrative) about
something that has been previously mentioned, and that which is
connected therewith. When thus used, it is distinguished from
ούτος, which refers to something which is still under immediate
consideration. Thus confusion between the two pronouns is not
often possible. Mt. 3. 1 εν δε ταις ημέραις εκείναις in the transition
to a fresh narrative, cp. Mc. 1. 9, 8. I, L. 2. 1; but Luke also uses
ταύταις in this phrase, 1. 39, 6. Ι2 (D εκείναις), Α. 1. 15, 6. Ι (v.1.
12 P. 1. 5 και αυτό δε τούτο (v.1. κ. α. τούτο δε) σπουδήν πάσαν παρεισενέγκαντες
might be a corruption of κατ' αυτό δε τούτο.
? It is used contemptuously or invidiously of an absent person in Jo. 9. 28,
cp. ούτος, sup. 2; in A. 5. 28 D has του άνθρ. εκείνου for τ. ά. τούτου of the other
MSS. (the latter is due to επί τώ ονόματι τούτω in the same verse).
172
DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS. (S 49. 3-4. $ 50. 1.
ruption. Mc. sve potrebnog with severo nás po
vi
ékelv.), 11. 27 (B atrais, cp. $ 48, 1): Mt. 7. 25, 27 Tự oikią ékelvy
(referring to 24 and 26; other subjects, namely the rain etc., have
intervened), 8. 28 did tñs ó doll ékelvns (where the possessed persons
dwelt; the road itself has not previously been mentioned), 9. 22 årò
tñs őpas ékelvns (when these words were spoken), 26, 31, 13. 44 TÒV
αγρόν εκείνον (referring to το αγρώ ibid., but again there has been
interruption caused by other subjects intervening).1_ In the apodosis
(cp. oŮTOS): Mc. 7. 20 TÒ ÉK Toù å v pótoV EKTOPEVóuevov, ékeivo (that
other thing) KouvoÎ Tòv äv@pwaov, Jo. 10. 1 (ék. opposed to the speaker),
similarly R. 14. 14, 2 C. 10. 18; with weakened force and indefinite
reference (he'; Jo. 14. 21 ó éxwv Tès évsodás jov ..., ékelvós éoTLV Ó
åyatûv ue, cp. 6. 57, 2 C. 10. 18, Herm. Mand. vii. 5, etc.; even
with reference to the speaker in Jo. 9. 37. It is not often followed
by the word or clause referred to: Mt. 24. 23 ékeivo (that other
thing, see 42) Sè yivó KETE ŐT. (R. 14. 15 ékeivov ... ÚTÈp og opposed
to ow), Jo. 13. 26'he,' cp. supra. Its meaning is also weakened to
'he' (they') in Jo. 10. 6 Taúrny TÙY Tapolplav EiTeV atrois ó ’Ino.,
ékeîvoi dè (for which oi dé, aŭtoi dè are synonyms, SS 46, 3; 48, 1),
and so frequently in John in unbroken connection with the first
mention, G. 9. II, 25, 36; similarly 'Mc.' 16. 10 ff.2 .
4. The substantive that is connected with oitos or ékeivos takes
the article as in classical Greek; it is only necessary to consider
whether the words are really to be connected, or whether the sub-
stantive or the pronoun forms part of the predicate: Jo. 2. II
TOÚTNv (obj.) étoinoev ápxov Tôv onuciwv, L. 2. I aŰTn (subj.) áno-
ypad mpúrn éyéveto (on the agreement in gender see § 31, 2),
Α. 24. 21 μιάς ταύτης φωνής ης εκέκραξα ότι = η φωνή ή εγένετο ήν μία
aúrn (predic.)—The position of the pronoun, either before the article
or after the substantive, is quite optional: o&tos (ékeivos) ở ävOpwTos
or o ö. oŮTOS (ékelvos).
4. The subs in classicreally to be to of the predio
$ 50. RELATIVE AND INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS.
1. The relative of definite reference ós (by the ancients called
άρθρον υποτακτικόν, 8 46, 1) and that of indefinite reference όστις are
no longer regularly distinguished in the N.T.; and with this is
connected the fact that the latter is almost entirely limited to the
nominative (s 13, 3), although in this case it is used by nearly all
1 See also Jo. 1. 6 ff. éyéveTo äv@pwros ... 'Iwávns. Oûtos (vide sup. 2) ñdeveis
μαρτυρίαν, ίνα πάντες πιστεύσωσιν δι' αυτού· ουκ ήν εκείνος το φώς (the discourse
passes from John to Jesus); 7. 45 în bov oův oi útmpétal TT pòs ToŮs åpxcepeis, kai
citov aŭtois ékeivol (those who were at a distance from the scene of action, and
were previously mentioned in verse 32).
? The Johannine use of Èkeîvos is exhaustively discussed by Steitz and
A. Buttmann in Stud. u. Kr. 1859, 497: 1860, 505 : 1861, 267 ; see also Zeit-
schrift f. w. Th. 1862, 204 for the passage 19. 35 kai ėktīvos oidev K.T.). (c.e. the
narrator, whose personality, however, is not prominently put forward, unless
with Zahn we refer ékeivos to Christ). Nonnus (see his paraphrase) read kåkelvov
oidayev őri álnovn Ý uapropia cotivº èyévETO OÈ K.T.N.; the Latin codex e omits
the verse, and has (like Nonnus) ¿yéveto Sè in y. 36.
$50. 1-2.]
173
RELATIVE PRONOUNS.
writers (least of all by John). A similar case is that of ocos, which,
except in Hebrews, is used only in the nominative and accusative.
Mt. uses Otis correctly in general statements, 5. 39, 41, 10. 33 etc.,
but also ós 10. 14, 23. 16, 18; esp. Tâs óptis 7. 24, 10. 32, 19. 29;
but râs ős occurs in L. 14. 33, A. 2. 21 0.T., G. 3. 10 0.T., Tavti ♡
L. 12. 48; Mt. also uses this phrase where a subst. is inserted,
12. 36 Tập 67ua. prov 6, 15. 13 Taơ ca pvTeka hy (Toa Loxo Tus
A. 3. 23 O.T.). "Ootis is also correctly used in connection with a
subst. of indefinite reference : Mt. 7. 15 Tậv yevôOTT POOntv oltives
(description follows), 24 åvopi ppovíja ootus etc. (but Lc. uses ös:
6. 48 åvOpóry ôs, 49 oikiav û): and to denote a definite person in a
case where the relative sentence expresses the general quality,
Jo. 8. 53 ’ABpaióſ, ÖCTIS dnéDavey (who was a man who died),
A. 7. 53 obtives éáBete K.7.d. (people who); but these limits are
often exceeded esp. by Luke, and oitives, ýtus are used = oí, ý :
TIétpov kaà 'Iwávnv, oitives A. 8. 15, Tv úlnu arus 12. 10, tódiv
Aavid, äris L. 2. 4 (particularly where a participle follows, and the
meaning of ol, n would not have been clear, A. 8. 15, 17. 10 Oitives
Trapayevóuevou); Ap. 12. 13 TÌv yuvalka ýtis ČTEKEV Tòv äppeva. This
use of 6otus for os is very old in Ionic Greek, Kühner Gr. ii.2 906
(Herod. ii. 99 gólov ýtis vûv Méubis kaneitai). In the Pauline
Epistles this use cannot be established, since in R. 16. 3 ff. ós and
60tls are alternately used, according as a mere statement of fact is
made (ös), or a characteristic is given (7 oltivés ciou emionuou év. Tois
ÅTOOTÓlous, oi kai apò čuoû yéyovav év Xploto); also in G. 4, 24, 26
Tus=ị Tota0T, cp. 1 C. 3. I7, Ph. 1. 28, l Tim. 3. I5.ỮAs an
instance of ός for όστις one may further note ουδείς (ου) ... δς (for
ŐOTIS) oủ, $ 75, 6.—6otep has been given up, $ 13, 3.
2. The ápopov ÜTOTAKTIKÓV, 6s, 6, 6 justifies this appellation chiefly in
the fact that, like the article (ö. T POTAKTIKÓv) which follows a sub-
stantive and introduces a further definition, its case is assimilated
to that of the substantive, even though in conformity with the
relative sentence it should have had another case, which is generally
the accusative (Attraction or Assimilation of the relative). In
this peculiarity of Greek the N.T. (like the Lxx.) is entirely in
agreement with the classical language. Exceptions occur (as in
classical Greek, Thuc. ii. 70. 5) where the relative clause is more
sharply divided from the rest of the sentence (through the insertion
of other-defining words with the noun and through the importance
of the contents of the relative sentence): H. 8. 2 This oknvộis rîs
álnouvîs, olv &TNÉEV ở kúplos, oủk äv@pwos; but in other passages there
is always a v.l., Mc. 13. 19 år' åpxûs krídews, ģv (vs AC2 al., om. Yv
čkt, ó O. D) ČKTLEV Deós, Jo. 2. 22 and 4. 50 TỘ loyą öv ( AAX
al., DA al.), 4. 5 xwplov ô (ou C*D al.), 7. 39 Coll XDG al.), Ap. 1. 20
(av B); Tit. 3. 5 oủk e pyov tûv év dikologúvn, å (øv CbDe al.)
étoińoajev ňuels is an instance of the case above-mentioned of
separation through the insertion of defining words. (On A. 8. 32 f.
see the author's commentary on that passage.) On the other hand
I "Ootis, in N.T. as in classical Greek, is never assimilated.
174
[S 50. 2-3.
it is not only the so-called accusative of the inner object ($ 34, 3)
which is capable of assimilation (E. 4. Ι της κλήσεως ης εκλήθητε,
A. 24. 21, 26. 16, Jd. 15), but occasionally the dative is assimilated
Lev. 23. Ι5, Bar. 1. 15), R. 4. Ι7. κατέναντι ου επίστευσεν θεού, 1.. κ.
του θ. ώ επ. (see below on the attraction of the substantive into the
relative clause). In addition to this, the preposition which should
be repeated before the relative may be omitted (class.): A. 1. 21
εν παντί χρόνω (sc. εν) ώ, 13. 2 εις το έργον (sc, εις) 8, 39 από πάντων
(sc. αφ') ών, Herm. Sim. ix. 7. 3 μετά πάντων (sc. μεθ') ών (but in the
case of a sharper division of the relative clause, the preposition is
repeated : Α. 7. 4 εις την γην ταύτην, εις ήν, 20. ι8 από πρώτης ημέρας,
αφ' ης, Jo. 4. 53 (έν) εκείνη τη ώρα, εν ή). It is readily intelligible
that the Greek relative includes our demonstrative 'he' or 'that';
it is therefore used by assimilation in the case which would belong
ών (do.), 17. 9 περί ών = περί τούτων ούς ; also ανθ' ών = αντί τούτων
ότι, εφ' ώ = επί τούτω ότι, διότι = διά τούτο ότι ; cp, adverbs of place
$ 76, 4. More noticeable is the occasional attraction of the noun
into the relative clause, in which case the article belonging to the
noun, being incompatible with the άρθρ. υποτ., must be left out,
while the noun itself is now assimilated to the case of the relative;
of course even where there is no assimilation of the relative, a
similar attraction of the noun into the relative clause, with the case
of the relative, may take place (so in classical Greek, Kühner ii.2
922: 2.3. ανδρί πάντες εύνοι ήσαν, απέθανεν). But the noun is not
placed immediately after the relative, except in the case of quépa:
L. 1. 2ο άχρι ης ημέρας γένηται ταυτα, = ά. της ημ. (έν) ή cp. supra,
A. 1. 1, Mt. 24. 38 (same phrase). On the other hand: L. 19. 37
πασών ών είδον δυνάμεων, 3. 19 περί πάντων ων εποίησεν πονηρών και
“Ηρώδης (των πον. ών Α*), cp. Α. 25. 182, ειnd with no assimilation of
the relative: L. 24. 1 φέρουσαι & ητοίμασαν αρώματα, Jo. 6. Ι4 8
εποίησεν σημείον. The way in which the following eXX. should be
resolved is ambiguous : L. 1. 4 περί ών κατηχήθης λόγων, = either
περί των λ. ους or των λόγων περί ών (in view of passages like
Α. 18. 25, 20, 24, 25, 26 the first is probably correct); R. 6. 17
υπηκούσατε εις δν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχής, probably τω τύπω εις ον;
with omission of a preposition A. 21. 16 (but not D) άγοντες παρ' ο
ξενισθώμεν Μνάσωνι = προς Μνάσωνα, ένα ξεν, παρ' αυτώ (8 65, 8).
3. If the noun is not attracted into the relative clause but stands
in front of it, it is still occasionally assimilated to the case of the
relative, à practice of which instances appear in classical authors
(attractio inversa, Kithner ii. 2 918, 4): 1 C. 10. Ι6 τον άρτον δν
κλωμεν, ουχί κοινωνία ... εστίν ; Α. 10. 36 τον λόγον δν ... ούτός έστι

1 The regular phrase is εν ημ. ή Mt. 24. 5o, L. 1. 25 (plur.), 12. 46, without
the art., which is occasionally omitted in Hebrew before , infra 3; withont
έν L. 17. 29 f. ή ημέρα (in 30 D reads εν τη ημ. – η αποκαλυφθη). Ημ. is separ-
ated from the rel. in Ηerm. Mand. iv. 4. 3 άφ' ής μοι παρεδόθης ημέρας.
22 C. 10. 13 κατά το μέτρον του κανόνος, ού έμέρισεν ημίν ο θεός μέτρου = του μέτρου
oŮ, although in this case the appositional clause has been very loosely annexed.
$ 50. 3-5.]
175
INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS.
17. © örow.in keeping: "Apet; 22, 4);
Távtwv (kúpos should be removed.), Herm. Sim. ix. 13. 3, L. 12. 48
TAVTÈ Ⓡésoon modú, modù cytoovoiy tup' aŭtou (in sentences of this
kind the nominative is elsewhere used with anacoluthon, see § 79),
Mt. 21. 42 TÒv libov óv K.7.1. O.T.; peculiar is L. 1. 73 Opkov öv
öuocev instead of toll opkov oê (not a case of 'protasis,' but a supple-
mentary amplification; the passage is strongly Hebraic, § 46, 9;
Hebr. 2x op Ges.-K. § 130, 3).—Attraction with a relative
adverb: Mt. 25. 24 ovváyecs ödev ( =ékelbev Őrov) où dleo Kóprias, cp.
Kühner ii.2 915, note 6.
4. One piece of careless writing, which was specially suggested by
Semitic usage (Hebr. ng mg; Aramaic has similar expressions with
7), though it is not quite unknown to the classical language, is the
pleonastic use of the personal pronoun after the relative. Mc. 7. 25
yuv“, is eixev TÒ Ovyátplov aŭtas (a, om. KD) Tvellua åkálaptov, 1. 7
=L. 3. 16 og ... aŭrou, Ap. 7. 2 ols édóan atrois, 9, 3. 8, 13. 8, 20. 8,
Clem. Cor. i. 21. 9 oŮ ń avon aŭroll (frequent in LXX., Winer, $ 22, 4);
with these exx. the following are quite in keeping: Ap. 12. 6, 14
jToo ... cũ (up TN), 17. 9 8Too ... em air0v, Mc. 13. 19 oửa sổ
yeyovev tolaútn (9. 3 oia ... oủ dúvatal OŰtws leukával): in G. 3. I év
υμίν after ofs is merely a v.l.; but in 2. Ιο 8 και έσπούδασα αυτό
TOÛTO Toñoa, there is a reason for the expression, since attò in this
sense (just') cannot be joined to the relative, and therefore required
to be supplemented by TOÛTO. 3_Another quite different negligent
usage, which is also unobjectionable in the classical language, is the
linking on of a further subordinate clause to a relative clause by
means of każ... aŭtoû: 1 C. 8. 6 E o Tà trávta kai ģucis eis autóv
(a second ex. in the same verse), Ap. 17. 2, 2 P. 2. 3 (Kühner ii.2 936).
5. Relatives and interrogatives become confused in Greek as in
other languages. The relatives in particular, and as is only natural
the indefinite Sotis especially (but also ős, where it can conveniently
be so used), are frequently employed in the classical language in
indirect questions (beside the interrogatives), a usage which, how-
ever, is wanting in the N.T. (in A. 9. 7 the reading of XABC őri for
Tí must be rejected in view of the general practice elsewhere);
ónoîos alone is employed as an indirect interrogative: 1 C. 3. 13,
G. 2. 6 (otroîoí Tote), 1 Th. 1. 9, Ja. 1. 24 (elsewhere expressed by
Tolos), cp. omws L. 24. 20. The reverse use of the interrogative rls
instead of the relative rotis is Alexandrian (and dialectical), as e.g.
in a saying of Ptolemy Euergetes ap. Athen. x. 438 fin. Tivi ý túxn
Siswor, laßéw.4 In the N.T. we have A. 13. 25 Tíva ue úrovocîte
eival, ouk ciui éyú,5 cp. Mc. 14. 36 où tí éyè Déw, ållà tí oú (oủx
ó- áll D), L. 17. 8 ftohjacov Tí delivňow, Ja. 3. 13 tis copos kai
a second ex. in théron: 1 c. 8. Teslause to a relati
See the author's edition of the Acts, and above $ 35, 2.
2Cp. Kühner ii.2 937 (Hypereides Euxen. § 3 ô ... TOÚTwv).
3 So (Kühner loc. cit. note 2) ds ... Deútepos oŮTOS.
4 Cp. 0. Immisch Lpz. Stud. 1887, 309 ff.
5[W. H. txt. reads ti čuè ÚTOVOETTE elval ; OỦk elmi éyú. Tr.]
176
[8 50. 5-6.
RELATIVE AND
επιστήμων εν υμίν, δειξάτω (or τίς ... υμίν; an interrogative sentence).
The employment of Cotus or even of ós in a direct question is quite
incredible, except that o, ti appears to be used as an abbreviation for
τί ό,τι “why': Mc. 9. ΙΙ επηρώτων αυτόν λέγοντες· ό,τι λέγουσιν οι
γραμματείς κ.τ.λ., 28 επηρώτων αυτόν· ό, τι ημείς ουκ ηδυνήθημεν
έκβαλείν αυτό; (διατί ADKI), 2. 16 (τί ότι AC al., διατί xD): cp.
LΧΧ. 1 Chron. 17. 6 ό, τι = 125 But Jo. 8. 25 την αρχήν ό,τι και
λαλώ υμίν ; means according to classical usage (a meaning, it is true,
which cannot be paralleled from the N.T.): you ask, why (so in
classical Greek A says τίς έστιν ; to which B replies όστις ; Sc. έρωτας
you ask who he is ?) do I spealk to you at all ? (την αρχήν = όλως) :
cp. for the direct question Clem. Ηom. vi. ΙΙ τί και την αρχήν διαλέ-
γομαι και xix. 6 έπει τι και την αρχήν ζητεί ; while in Mt. 26. 5ο εταιρε
εφ' δ πάρει, εταιρε must be a corruption either of αίρε or εταιρε αίρε :
“ talke what thou art come to fetch' (D has εταιρε after πάρει).2
6. It has already been remarked in $ 13, 5 that the interrogative
tls (both in direct and indirect questions, supra 5) is also used for
πότερος “which of two ??: Mt. 21. 31 τίς εκ των δύο, 9. 5, L. 7. 42 etc.
A stereotyped phrase is πότερον ... ή utrum ... αη in indirect double
questions, but found only in Jo. 7. 17 (Herm. Sim. ix. 28. 4). Tís
is for the most part used substantivally; beside the adjectival tís
(τίς βασιλεύς L. 14. 31, τί σημείον Jo. 2. Ι8, τις μετοχή etc. 2 C.
6. 14 ff.) roîos is also used with little distinction from it, as also in
classical Greek-nowhere, however, in inquiries after persons, but in
such phrases as έν ποία εξουσία, ποία ονόματι (Α. 4. 7), ποία ώρα, εκποίας
επαρχίας (Α. 23. 34), διά ποίου νόμου (Ν. 3. 27), ποία σώματι (the pron.
having its strict sense, how constituted) 1 C. 15. 35, cp. Ja. 4. Ι4 ποία
γαρη (ή om. B) ζωή υμών (how miserably constituted; on the other hand
it is not elsewhere found with an article, Tis being used in that case :
Mc. 6. 2 τίς η σοφία, whence coming, A. 10. 21 τίς η αιτία, 17. 19
etc.); with an adj. τί is always used: τί αγαθόν, κακόν, περισσόν.
The two words are united tautologically (for emphasis) in eis tiva
ή ποίον καιρόν 1 P. 1. ΙΙ ; there is a diversity of reading in Mc. 4. 3ο
εν τίνι (ποία AC3D al.) παραβολή; the two are used interchangeably
in A. 7. 49 ποιον οίκον ... ή τις τόπος. Ιn L. 24. Ι9 ποία stands by
itself, referring to 18 τα γενόμενα. Beside ποίος we have also the
later ποταπός (old form ποδαπός, of what country by birth, like
αλλοδαπός, ημεδαπός ; for ποτ. = ποιος Lob. Ρhryn. 56), the latter
being used of persons as well as things: ποταπός έστιν ούτος, δς κ.τ.λ.,
Mt. 8. 27 (= τίς άρα Μο. 4. 41, L. 8. 25), τίς και ποταπή η γυνή
L. 7. 39, 2 P. 3. Ι1; of things Mc. 13. I, L. 1. 29, 1 Jo. 3. I (how
constituted, also how great or mighty ; lilke ποΐαι = τίνες in Ηerm.
Mand. viii. 3 ποταπαί εισιν αι πονηρίαι).
1In Mt. 26. 62 = Mc. 14. 6ο ουδέν αποκρίνη; τι ούτοι σου καταμαρτυρούσιν ; it is
impossible to unite the words in a single sentence, because αποκρίνεσθαι would
require a após, Mt. 27. 14. In the passage of James one may adduce 5. 13 in
favour of separating the clauses : κακοπαθει τις και προσευχέσθω, cp. 8 82.
2[Many commentators supply moinoov 'do that for which thou art come.' Tr.]
$ 50. 7. $ 51. 1.]
177
INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS.
7. The neuter ti is used as predicate to taita (as in class. Greek,
Krüger Gr. $ 61, 8, 2) in tí (äv) ein Taūta L. 15. 26 (rí OéleL TOÛTO
cîvai D), A. 17. 20 DEHL (v.l. Tíva), Herm. Vis. iv. 3. I; it is
necessary in Jo. 6. 9 állà Tahta Tí COTIV (of what use are they)
Eis TOOOÚTOVS ; further we have ävdpes, Tí TaūTA TOLEÎTE A. 14. 15, as
in Demosth. 55. 5 Telgia, tí taūta Toles (what are you doing
there ?), cp. with a singular demonstr. pron. L. 16. 2. Tí TOÛTO ÅKouw
Trepi ooû; (Tí predic.). In the passage of Acts Tí might also be
understood in its very common meaning of 'why?' (class.), Mt. 6. 28,
L. 2. 48 etc.; to express this meaning besides dià tí we have also
íva ti (sc. yévntai), A. 7. 25 O.T. (va tí (ivatí) éppúaxav čOvn etc.
(found in Attic), and ti ő, ti (őri), written fully in ti yeyovev őri juîv
uél lecs éubaví[ELV CEAVTÓv Jo. '14. 22 (where ŐT!= 'i' 6,Ti, just as
ri=dià ri), A. 5. 4, 9, L. 2. 49, v.l. in Mc. 2. 16, vide supra 5 (also
LXX.). A. 12. 18 tí äpa IIétpos éyéveto, 'what was become of him,'
is like Attic té yévwuaia; so L. 1. 66 Tí öpa TÒ zaidiov čo TAL; A. 5. 24
té äv yévoLTO TOÛTO, what would be likely to happen in the matter,'
how it would turn out' (tí predic.); in an abbreviated form oitos SE
Tí Jo. 21. 21, 'what will become of him ?' Téhow'=Hebr. 9
(Win. $ 21, 3, note 3), Mt. 7. 14 tí otev“ (v.l. Őri), L. 12. 49 rí
Déw (LXX.). Tí apos vuas (sc. coti), what does it concern us ?'
Mt. 27. 4: Tí zpòs oé Jo. 21. 22 (cp. § 30, 3; Attic has also tí taûr'
čuoí; Kühner ii.? 365, and so 1 C. 5. 12 ri yáp jou toÙS FEW Kpívelv;
where it takes the inf. as in Epict. Diss. ii. 17. 14, Win.); Tí éjoi kai
ooi (sc. eoTI, Kühner 364; but also a Hebrew phrase as in 2 Kings
3. 13) Mt. 8. 29 etc., $ 30, 3; St. Paul has tí yàp R. 3. 3, Ph. 1. 18
(what matters it? or what difference is it?) and ti oủv (sc. épolluev)
R. 6. 15. The masc. is used predicatively in éyù tís ýunv A. 11. 17,
cp. 2 Kings 8. 13.—Neut, and masc. pronouns are combined (as in
class. Greek) in Tis Tí öpy Mc. 15. 24, Tís tí dler payuateúcato (what
$ 51. INDEFINITE PRONOUNS; PRONOMINAL WORDS.
1. Tls, ti, as in classical Greek, is both substantival and adjectival;
when used in the latter way, its position is unrestricted, so that it
may even stand before its substantive, so long as there is another
word in front of it, kaí tis åvýp A. 3. 2, íva to metadã xápio ja R. 1. 11;
τινές stands at the beginning of the sentence in contrasts : τινες (μεν)
... T. dd 1 Tim. 5. 24, Ph. 1. 15 (Demosth. 9. 56), and even where
there is no contrasted clause : TIVÈS SÈ A. 17. 18, 19. 31, Jo. 7. 44
etc. (Demosth. 18. 44).-Special usages : Ja. 1. 18 åmapxv tiva tớv
aŭtoù KTlouátwv, softening the metaphorical expression (so to
1 Also Mt. 26. 62 = Mc. 14. 60 (sup. 5, note 1) Tí oŮtol gou katamaptupoño iv
resolves itself into rl èOTI oŮtoi o. k.
2 Joseph, de vita sua, § 296, ol eľkool Xpvool tl geybvaow; Xenoph. Hell. ii. 3.
17 TI ČO OLTO Ý Toletela (W.-Gr.).
M
178
[S 51. 1-4.
INDEFINITE PRONOUNS AND
speak;' (a kind of first fruits '); with numbers in classical Greek it
has the effect of making them indefinite, "about,' but in A. 23. 23
(cp. Herm. Vis. i. 4. 3) we have rivàs dúo 'a certain pair' (to which
corresponds els tis L. 22. 50, Jo: 11. 49; cp. § 45, 2); with an
adjective (frequent in class. Greek) poßepá Tis ékdoxÝ H. 10. 27, it
has an intensifying force like quidam, Kühner ii.2 570 f. (ÚTepndavía
molin tis, Herm. Mand. vi. 2.5); but in A. 8. 9 civaí Tiva EAUTÒV péyav,
uéya.v appears to be an interpolation, and Tiva to be used emphatically,
a person of importance, cp. 5. 35, Kühner 571 note 1; so civaí to 'to
be something important' G. 2. 6 (dokoúvtwv civaí ti, = Plat. Gorg.
472 A, Gercke), 6. 3.–Tus is used for each' in Herm. Sim. viii. 2. 5
kabùs afiós cotí TiS KATOLKEîv, cp. 4. 2 (A. 15. 2 according to the
Syriac). --On Tis to be supplied with a partitive word see $ 35, 4.
2. 'No one,' nobody' is oùdeis or undels (on -Oels, see $ 6, 7 fin.;
oudétepos Clem. Hom. xix. 12); in addition to these we have the
Hebraic où (un) ... Tâs, where the verb becomes closely attached to
the. où (or un): Mt. 24. 22 OỦk äv coóon nâoa cápê, like Hebr.
5%... 5, R. 3. ao (cp. Ps. 142. 2), L. 1. 37 oỦc đồovaThret Taoà Tô
Deộ râv pñua (= nothing), Ap. (7. 16, 9. 4) 21. 27, A. 10. 14 oÚSÉTOTE
έφαγον παν κοινόν (on the other hand oύ πας with no words inteven-
ing='not everyone,' as in class. Greek, Mt. 7. 21, 1 C. 15. 39); Tâs
... où (also Hebraics...) has the same meaning, but is less harsh
than the other, Ap. 18. 22, 22, 3, E. 4. 29, 5. 5, 2 P. 1. 20, 1 Jo. 2.
21, 3. 15; this use is excusable, where a positive clause with allá
follows, containing the principal point of the sentence, Jo. 3. 16 iva
Tâs Ó TLOTEÚWV un åólntui, årld éx? K.7.d., 6. 39, or where such a
clause is clearly to be supplied as in 12. 46.1 Els ... où is stronger
than oŭdels, Mt. 10. 29 év ... où tegeÎTal, 5. 18, L. 11: 46 etc., as in
Demost. 30. 33 % vovì giay huếpav ojo exốp6006v (Krüger, 8 24, 2, 2);
the same is true of the divided oudè els A. 4. 32, Mt. 27. 14, Jo. 1. 3
(**D oùdév), R. 3. 10 O.T. (oủ ... Oůdè els, cp. $ 75, 6; ibid. 12 O.T.
oúk éotiv čws évós, Buttm. p. 106, 1).
3. The generalizing relatives όστισουν, όστις δήποτε etc. do not
appear either as relatives or (with a verb to be supplied) as indefinite
pronouns ("someone or other'); olo on totoûv with v.l. © ŠÝTTOTE (relat.)
is found in an interpolated passage “Jo.' 5. 4. In A. 19. 26 after
Παύλος D adds τις τοτε, which should be corrected to τίς ποτε =Lat.
nescio quis ; so Clem. Hom. V. 27 Tis TOTE 'Iovduios (some Jew or
other,' Tí tote something' (modern Greek uses Títote for some-
thing' or nothing') xi. 28, xvii. 8 (ris for 60tLS, $ 50, 52; cp. the
adverb ŐTWS TOTé somehow'Clem. Hom. ii. 22, where értí is to be
supplied): Attic uses őOTIS ĉotiv or òv , Eurip. Bacch. 247,
Demosth. iv. 27, the latter being used by St. Paul in G. 5. 10.
4. On the derived correlatives olos, 6oos, TOLOÛTOS, TOO OÛTOS etc.
($ 12, 4) the following points may be noticed. In exclamations
(direct or indirect; originally indirect, 'see how,' 'I marvel how')
1 On 1 C. 15. 51 où távtes, as also on oỦ Távtws, TTÁVTWS Oů, see $ 75, 7.
2 So also TLVOO Oûv (according to the Ms. p) for notiVOO Oûv Clem. Hom. x. 20.
$ 51. 4-6.]
179
PRONOMINAL WORDS.
$45Tow hing nonany instine two recebe eis sever Herm.
the forms ofος, όσος, ηλίκος should strictly be used, as in classical
Greek, because some definite thing before one is indicated (so that
Ónoîos etc. are excluded); but here too we sometimes have the inter-
rogative forms as in indirect questions : Mc. 15. 4 de óra K.T...,
Mt. 27. 13 (B* coa), A. 21. 20, 2 C. 7. II (direct), PETE andikois
K.7.1. G. 6. II, H. 7. 14; but olos is correctly used in 1 Th. 1. 5,
2 Tim. 3. 11 (in L. 9. 55 D is right with olov),1 cp. Tôs, $ 76, 3. —
In correlative clauses we have TOLOÚTOUS ... Ônoîos A. 26. 29 (qualis-
cunque); TOOOÚTW ... 60W H. 1. 4; but as 6001=TávteS oi, it has
frequently to be followed by oŮTOL, as in R. 8. 14; peculiar is TÒV
aútòv ... olov Ph. 1. 30.-On Ó TOLOÛTOS see $ 47, 9; it is weakened
into a more indefinite term for oûtos in 2 C. 12. 2, 3, 5, 1 C. 5. 5,
2 C. 2. 6 f.—R. 9. 6 oủx olov bè ŐTL ÉKTÉT TWKEV is to be explained
(according to Lob. Phryn. 372, Buttm. 319) as for où Sýmov EKTETTT.,
cp. oùx ori, $ 81.–With H. 10.37 0.T. ŠTU ulkpòv ogov őoov (cp. LXX.
Is. 26. 20) and L. 5. 3 D éttavayayeîv ocov odov (for óliyov of the
other Mss.) i.e. a trifle, compare Aristoph. Vesp. 213.
5. Each'ÉKAOTOS (without the art. $ 47, 9; ibid. for the distinction
between it and râs; fortis each' supra 1) is intensified as Els
ÉKAOTOS; it is added to a plural subject without affecting the con-
struction (class.), Winer § 58, 4; Jo. 16. 32 etc. In addition to
έκαστος there has been developed out of the distributive κατά (or ανά,
$ 45, 3) the peculiar and grossly incorrect kad' (ůvà) eis, since kal'
ένα έκαστον became stereotyped as καθένα έκ., and this called forth
a corresponding nominative; so in modern Greek each' is kadévas.
Still there are not many instances as yet in the N.T. of this vulgarism,
and the amalgamation of the two words into one has not yet been
carried out: Mc. 14. 19 Eis Katà (kal' AD al.) Eis (C els & KaoTOS),
'Jo.' 8. 9 Eis kabels, R. 12. 5 TO SÈ Kad' els severally, with reference
to each individual, Ap. 21. 21 åvà. Els ékactos. (Herm. Sim. ix. 3. 4,
6. 3 katà éva = fractov, forming the whole object.)
6. "Erepos and axlos. "Etepos is beside áu ótepou the single surviv-
ing dual pronominal word, § 13, 5; in modern Greek it likewise has
disappeared, and even in the N.T. instances of its use cannot be
quoted from all writers (never in Mc. 16. 12 is spurious), the
Apocalypse, or Peter, never in John except in 19. 37, used prin-
cipally by Lc. and to some extent by Mt. and Paul). Moreover, the
way in which it is employed is no longer always correct: Mt. 16. 14
oi pèV ... alleu Sè... étepou sè (in the last two clauses Mc. 8. 28,
L. 9. 19 have άλλοι twice ; έτεροι could have stood correctly in the
second clause = a second section), L. 8. 6 ff. kai étepov three times (D
öllo, as in Mt. 13. 5 ff., Mc. 4. 5 ff.), 9. 59, 61, 1 C. 12. 9 f. (@ Mèv
... al Sè ... ÉTÉpw—then four times ändw Sè... ÉTÉpw ... äida de),
H. 11. 36. The use at the close of enumerations of kai étépous mol-
loós Mt. 15. 30 (cp. L. 3. 18, R. 8. 39, 13. 4, 1 Tim. 1. 10) may be
paralleled from Attic writers (Dem. 18. 208, 219, 19. 297): others,
different from those named (the latter being conceived of as a unit);
* Also passages like A. 9. 16 útodel$w aútĄ, coa del Tabeîv aútóy may be so
taken, but the explanation of ora = návra à is more natural (so 14. 27 etc.).
180
[S 51. 6. $ 52.
PRONOMINAL WORDS.
but no Attic author ever said ταϊς ετέραις πόλεσιν, “ the remaining
cities' L. 4. 3, for å étepos is restricted to a definite division into two
parts; hence Mt. 10. 23 is also incorrect, év tý módel taúty ... els any
unusual; no doubt 'the next city' is what is meant?). Ph. 2. 4 tà
Tŵy (add. D*FG) étépwv opposed to tà êavtûv is correct, cp. 1 C. 10.
24 al.-In the case of addos the most striking encroachment on the
province of έτερος is that ο άλλος is written where there is only a
division into two parts: Mt. 5. 39 (L. 6. 29) otpéyov aútớ kai mv
the case of öllos éotiv o paptvpôv Jo. 5. 32 (opposed to éyó) étepos
should have been used, whereas in Mt. 25. 16 etc. alla névte tálavra
may be illustrated from classical authors (Plato Leg. v. 745 A addo
τοσούτον μέρος). Έτεροι is used pleonastically (like άλλοι in class.
Greek, Kühner ii.? 245, note 1) in L. 23. 32 Kuè éTepou dúo kakoûpyou
=two others besides Him, malefactors; on the other hand, äldos is
absent in many places where we insert 'other': A. 5. 29 IIétpos kai
of (sc. är doi) mootolo; 2. 14. II. où tois (sc. doctoîs) &Vdeka ; cp.
in classical Greek "Ektopu kaì Tpúerou Hom. Il. 17. 291.—"Aldou
allo (Tu) are united with the meaning 'one one thing—one anothers
(classical) in A. 19. 32, 21. 34.2
SYNTAX OF THE VERB.
$ 52. THE VOICES OF THE VERB.
The system of three voices of the verb-active (transitive), pas-
sive (intransitive), and middle (i.e. transitive with reference to the
subject remains on the whole the same in the N.T. as in the
classical language. In the former, as in the latter, it frequently
happens in the case of individual verbs that by a certain arbitrariness
of the language this or that voice becomes the established and recog-
nized form for a particular meaning, to the exclusion of another
voice, which might perhaps appear more appropriate to this meaning.
It is therefore a difficult matter to arrive at any general conception
for each of the voices, which when applied to particular cases is not
bound at once to become subject to limitation or even contradiction.
The active does not in all cases denote an action, but may equally
well denote a state, or even being affected in some way or other-ideas
which would be more appropriately expressed by the passive. Xaipw
i The fuller (and certainly original) form of expression in D al. has an addi-
tional clause : kâv È TÔ ÉTÉpą (any D) Dickwolv ønâs, Deúyete els tnv árinu (once.
2 Hermas almost always uses ētepos for 'other,' even with the article as in
Vis. iii. 7. 1, 3 TOUS OÈ ÉTÉpous (Aldous), Sim. viii. 1. 7-18; but illos kai állos for
differing in each instance,' or 'in each individual,' Sim. ix. l. 4, 10 (cp.
Xenoph. Cyrop. iv. 1. 15 always fresh').
$ 52. & 53. 1.]
181
VOICES OF THE VERB.
means “I rejoice,' but the opposite is durolluar; accordingly in the
aorist έχάρην we actually have the passive form as in ελυπήθην. In
Darmácw, 'I am astonished' (wonder), the active voice is at most only
correct with the meaning to see with astonishment'; it has a middle
future Davudo qual, cp. De@uai Dedo ouai; but the verb of similar
meaning äyapar has vyáo Onv and accordingly (as a verb expressing
emotion) is passive, and the later language creates the corresponding
forms Davuácouai depon., and aor. Davuáo Onv, § 20, 1. We may
therefore assert that the active voice is quite unlimited in the mean-
ings which may be attached to it, except where a passive (or middle)
voice exists beside it, as in TÚTTW – TÚT Touar. It must further be
added that certain verbal forms unite an active formation with a
passive (intransitive) meaning, particularly the 1st and 2nd aorists pas-
sive in -Onv, -nv, and frequently perfects in -a, -ka (drówla, cornka).
On the other hand, the middle can be only imperfectly differentiated
from the passive, with which in the forms of the tenses, with the
exception of aorist and future, it entirely coincides. We may adhere
to the rule of giving the name of middle only to those forms which
share the transitive meaning of the active, as ίσταμαι έστησάμην
beside io tu čornoa ; but if no active form exists, or if the meaning
of the active form does not correspond to that of the passive or
middle, then it is difficult to distinguish between the two last-
mentioned voices. ’Arokpívouar, "answer,' is a deponent verb when
it has this meaning; since it is transitive, in classical Greek it takes
the forms ůrekpuvápnv, åtokpivoûual; the later language, however,
regardless of the meaning which elsewhere attaches to aorists in
- Onv, regularly uses årekpiOnv, årokp.Ooouai. Oavukoopa, from
Davuáčw should be called middle, since it is transitive, and the
classical language possesses the additional form Oavuao Onoquai with
a passive meaning; the same applies to Tétouai from TikTw and many
other such futures ; but αποθανούμαι from αποθνήσκω, θρέξομαι from
τρέχω (δραμούμαι from έδραμον), being intransitive, and having no
additional future forms, must certainly be classed as passives in the
same category with the later Davjao Ońcouac, if the conception of
the passive is extended, as it must be, so that it becomes equivalent
to intransitive. It is, in fact, quite a rare occurrence for the
language to draw a distinction between intransitive and passive, such
as in Attic is drawn between šotnv 'placed myself' and cotó.Onv
was placed,' or between othoomar shall place myself' and
otaońcouar 'shall be placed. In the language of poetry and in the
later language this distinction hardly exists at all: there eotálnv is
equivalent to έστην and φαάνθης tο εφάνην (while in Attic εφάνην
means 'appeared,'épávonv was informed against' [juridical term]).
$ 53. ACTIVE VOICE.
1. Some active verbs, which were originally transitive, subse-
quently developed an additional intransitive (or reflexive) meaning.
1 'Edayuáo Onu Ap. 13. 3, Davuao onoovtai 17. 8 have ceased to be used transi-
tively.
182
[$ 53. 1.
ACTIVE VOICE.
"Ayw lead,' besides the stereotyped phrase ãye (=class.), is also
used intransitively in äywuer let us go' Mt. 26. 46 etc.; and still
more frequently in composition: thus we have úzáyw, a vulgar word for
'to go,' esp. common in the forms ýtaye, -ete, but also found in other
forms of the present stem, e.g. Únáyel Jo. 3. 8 (the word is most
frequent in this writer), but never in other tenses, cp. § 24 (the word
is previously used in classical Greek, úáyed úucis tas o doll Aristoph.
Ran. 174, ÚTáyoque tåp äv Av. 1017, but with a more clearly defined
meaning); Tapéyelv 'to pass by'i, Mt. 20. 30, Mc. 15. 21 etc. (cp.
Polyb. v. 18, 4): met. 'to disappear' i C. 7. 31, for which 1 Jo. 2.
8, 17 uses tupayeral; Tepláyelv Mt. 4. 23, A. 13. II etc. 'to go
about,' with accus. of the district traversed, cp. $ 34, 1 (not so in
class. Greek?). Also repoáyelv besides the meaning 'to bring before
acquires that of 'to go before anyone (Tiva)' in class. Greek we
have Plat. Phaed. 90 A COû a poáyovtos éyù è cotóunv, but this is
different to the N.T. use; the common phrase is a ponyciolaí tivi,
which like ycioba, is never so used in the N.T.), Mt. 2. 9 and
passim ; but åváyeo dai ávnxony.--BállELV to rush' A. 27. 14 (the
use can hardly be paralleled, but cp. Pírtelv); éiß. "to rush upon’
(as already in class. Greek) Mc. 4. 37 ; ibid. 14. 72 the phrase
επιβαλών έκλαιεν is obscure (it is explained by αρξάμενος ; D has
ÝPĒato klabelv; cp. A. 11. 4 dpfáuevos éçerideto).—Bpéxelv trans.
means 'to water'; intrans. and impers. (8 30, 4) it stands for class.
ÚELV (which nowhere appears) as in modern Greek; we also have
ëßpee Tüp kaè Delov L. 17. 29, after Gen. 19. 24, where kúplos is
inserted as the subject.—"EXELV 'to be in such and such circum-
stances' as in class. Greek; similarly Únepéxelv to excel' (also
trans. 'to surpass ' Ph. 4. 7); åréXELV 'to be distant' (with accus. of
the distance); ¿véxecv (sc. xólov) to be angry' Mc. 6. 19 (L. 11. 53);
ÉTEXELV to observe anything' L. 14. 7 etc. (similarly in class.
Greek), also 'to stay,''tarry' A. 19. 22 (ditto); podégeiv 'to take
heeil,' to listen to anyone' (never with the original supplement Tòv
voûv, which is often inserted in Attic) : also with and without éavro
= cavere (Mt. 6. 1, L. 17. 2 etc.). 3_’AvakáutTTELY 'to turn round,'
come back'as in Attic.-Kively to decline of the day L. 9. 12,
24. 29 (similarly in Polyb.); ĉKKNívecv 'to turn aside'R. 16. 17 etc.
(class.).--PITTELV : åropiyavras is intrans. in A. 27. 43 (so símt. in
poetry and late writers),-- ETPÉDELV : the simple verb is intrans. in
A. 7. 42 ? as is often the case with its compounds with étl-, áto-,
åva-, ÚTO-, A. 3. 19 etc., not without classical precedent; ÚToompé-
peobal is never found in class. Greek it is used as well as -ELV);
i The explanation that it means discedere arises from Mt. 9. 27 mapáyoutu
εκείθεν, where υπάγοντι would be the correct word; in 9. 9 εκείθεν should prob-
ably be omitted with 4*L.
2 Demosth. 42. 5 treplayayov (to lead about) tv coxariáv; also in Cebes Tab.
6 περιάγονται is the reading now adopted.
3 IIEPLEXELV 'to contain' (of a written document) is in the first instance transi-
tive : Tepléxovoav ráde A. 15. 23 D : TEPLÉX. (čxovo av xB) TÒV TÚTOV TOÛTOV 23. 25;
but we also have the phrases π. τον τρόπον τούτον or ούτως, worded in this way
(Joseph.), and in 1 P. 2. 6 TEPLÉXEL év (TÔ) ypaon (ń ypaoń C), 'stands written.'
$ 53. 1-3.]
183
ACTIVE VOICE.
ÉTLOT PÉDelv 'to turn round,' be converted' (for which we have
-Eotpáonte in 1 P. 2. 25, but C reads -évate), so esp. frequent in this
sense in Polybius : pass. "to turn oneself round,' look round' (Att.);
åvaot.p. 'to turn round,' often used transitively as well it appears
intransitively in Attic as a military expression): pass. to live,'
sojourn' (Att.); đTootp. is intr. in A. 3. 26 (for which Att, generally
has the pass.), more often trans.; pass. with Tivá 'to turn away from,'
savoid' (Att.).—Cp. éyel pelv, kadičelv in § 24; and further, technical
expressions like aipelv (SC. TÌv vaûv åtrò tñs yńs) 'to set sail' A. 27. 13,
etc.
2. The intransitive employment of Stew and púelv is based upon
an old variation in the usage of these words, see § 24; that of
autávely upon the usage of the Hellenistic language, ibid. Beside
the deponent eủayyel (Geo bau (Att.) there is also found the form -Selv in
Ap. 10. 7, 14. 6 (elsewhere the Ap. also uses -seolar), as occasionally
in the LXX., 1 Sam. 31. 9 (Dio Cass. 61. 13). The new words
Oplaußeúelv and waðnteúelv in other writers are intrans. (to celebrate a
triumph, to be a disciple--corresponding to the ordinary meaning
of the termination -EÚELV), in the N.T. they are in (nearly) all cases
transitive, to lead in triumph, to make disciples, see § 34, 1.-
'Avadávavtes TÌv Kún pov A. 21. 3 (there is a wrong reading -ÉVTES)
means 'made it visible to ourselves,' viz. by approaching it; it must
have been a nautical expression, as årOK PÚTTELV (Lat. abscondere) is
used to express the opposite meaning
3. Active for middle.-If emphasis is laid on the reference to the
subject, then the middle is never employed, but the active with a
reflexive pronoun takes its place: απέκτεινεν εαυτόν (on the other
hand årnyato is used, because åráyxelv Tivá, i.e. someone else, is
unusual, the reflexive action being in this instance far the commoner
of the two). So we say 'he killed himself' ſtödtete sich selbst).
Elsewhere the reflexive reference which is suggested by the context
remains unexpressed, as in the case of (kata-) dovloûv (which Attic
also uses beside -owo Dal): 2 C. 11. 20 Eř tis yuâs Katadouloi, cp.
G. 2. 4 (so too åvapávavtes, supra 2). Inversely, the reflexive may
be expressed twice over, by the middle and by a pronoun; dieuepi-
CAVTO avtois Jo. 19. 24 O.T., cp. A. 7. 21 (as in Attic). With the
following verbs the use of the active instead of the middle is
contrary to Attic usage : (πειράζειν for πειράσθαι, see 8 24); ευρίσκειν
'to obtain' the usual form, except in H. 9. 12 (Attic uses the middle,
poets have the act. as well); kaoñyev tñs xelpòs aútoŮ A. 28. 3
instead of καθήψατο which C reads (but τόξου καθάψαι is also cited
by Pollux i. 164); logov Tò ÚTóồnua Tv TopDv Top A. 7. 33 0.T.
(LXX. λυσαι). For παρέχειν see 8 55, 1. Ποιείν is used (with μονήν
Jo. 14. 23 only in AEGH al.) (with ódóv Mc. 2. 23, BGH have
ÖSOTTOLEîv), with any ékdíknow L. 18. 7 f., tděleos uer' aŭtoll a Hebraic
phrase (Gen. 24. 12) L. 10. 37, 1. 72, with évédpav A. 25. 3? KOTETOV
8. 2 (cavto EHP), kpíow Jo. 5. 27, Jude 15, óleuov Ap. 11. 7 etc.,
ovußoúlcov Mc. 3. 6 (BL édidouv), 15. I (v.l. évoquéCartes), (with
ouvwuoolav A. 23. 13 only in HP), with owotpodúv ibid. 12; in all

184
[S 53. 3. $ 54. 1-3.
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE VOICES.
which cases the active is incorrect because the TOLOŪVtes are at the
same time the very persons who carry out the action which is
expressed by the verbal substantive. We also have elsewhere in
the N.T. molelo bar dóyov, åvaßorn , topel av, orovdÝv etc. Erráoaolau
Trv páxaipav is correctly written in Mc. 14. 47, A. 16. 27, but in
Mt. 26. 51 we have ÅTTÉOTTADEV T. M. aŭtoù, in which case Attic Greek
must certainly have omitted the attoll and expressed the reflexive
force by means of the middle; similarly in 26. 65 Scéppnev tà ipátia
aútoh, but in this case the use of the active is also classical (Aesch.
Pers. 199 ét lovs pńyvvolv, cp. 1030).
$ 54. PASSIVE VOICE.
1. Even deponent verbs with a transitive meaning can (as in
Attic) have a passive, the forms of which are for the most part
identical with those of the deponent. oyi (erau 'is reckoned'
R. 4. 4 f. (therefore even the present of this vb. occasionally has
a passive meaning: the instances of this in classical writers are not
numerous, but cp. Hdt. 3. 95 loyecóuevov). 'I@vto A. 5. 16 D:
lata. perf. Mc. 5. 29; épyačouévn Herm. Sim. v. 3. 8. But the
passive sense is frequent in the case of the aorist, where the passive
and deponent forms are distinguishable : éloyío Onv, iá nv, éxapio Onv,
éppúo Onv etc. (fut. doyco lýgouai R. 2. 26, iadno. Mt. 8. 8, åtapinoso.
[S 20, 1] L. 12. 9).
2. While in Attic Greek the passives of some ordinary verbs are
regularly represented by the actives of other verbs,-6.g. ÅTOKTEÍVELV
takes for passive droð výo KELV, Eů (kak@s) TOLEîv pass. Eů (kaks)
Tráo XELV, Eů (kak.) déyelv pass. cŮ (kak.) Koúelv, and úró is used with
these verbs as the connecting particle as it is elsewhere with true
passives—there are but few traces of this usage in the N.T. (@KTÍTTELV
Α. 27. 17, 26, 29 = εκβάλλεσθαι, but does not take υπό : on the other
hand ékpáddeodar is used in Mt. 8. 12 etc., though this form is also
found in Attic ; áo YELV ÚTÓ Mt. 17. 12, where étoinpay has pre-
ceded, Mc. 5. 26, 1 Th. 2. 14); still the instances of the contrary
usage are also not numerous : ÅTTOKTAVOộvaMc. 9. 31 etc. The
passive of Tolelv, with the exception of H. 12. 27 is entirely un-
represented.
3. As in Attic, a passive verb may have a person for its subject
even in a case where in the active this person is expressed by the
genitive or dative; the accusative of the thing remains the same
with the passive as with the active verb. The N.T. instances cannot
indeed be directly illustrated from the classical language, but they
are perfectly analogous to the classical instances. They are Slakovn-
envau Mc. 10. 45 (Slakovelv tivi); <ykalciobar to be accused (éykaleiv
TIVI) A. 19. 40 etc.; evapeoteco dai (act. with riví) H. 3. 16 (Diod. Sic.);
KATEYVwo Mévos G. 2. II (act. Tivós), so Diod. Sic.; katnyopelola. (act.
Tivós) with acc. of the thing Mt. 27. 12, A. 22. 30, 25. 16; Maptupełodau
(act. Tiví) to have a (good) testimonial (late writers) A. 6. 3 etc.,
1 Tim. 5. Io, H. 7. 8 etc. (but in 3 Jo. 12 Anuntpio deuaptúpntai);
$ 54. 3-5. $ 55. 1.] PASSIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES.
185
TTLOTEÚEOBal Tu 'to have something entrusted to one' (IT LOTEVELV TLví mi)
R. 3. 2 etc. (Polyb.): also (without an object) 'to find credit,
1 Tim. 3. 16 LOTEÚón (Xplotòs) év kóouw (act. Tiví or eis tiva), cp.
2 Th. 1. 10 (so previously in Attic); xonuarlfeodal 'to receive in-
structions' (from God; act. Tiví) Mt. 2. 12 etc.: only in L. 2. 26 do
we have v aŭro kexpnuatio uévov (D kexpnuatio uevos nv). -Quite
distinct from this is the use of the passive with a thing for its sub-
ject : 2 C. 1. II iva TÒ záploua củxaplotn Oñ (etxapiotelv Ti Herm.
where an infinitive or a Őti clause may be regarded as the subject,
ÉTTLT PÉTETAí oou... Néyelv A. 26. 1, 1 C. 14. 34, as also the impersonal
passive, 30, 4.
4. The passives of oράν, γιγνώσκειν, ευρίσκειν have a certain inde-
pendent position as compared with their actives, since they assume
à purely intransitive meaning, and are followed by the dative of the
person concerned, instead of making use of imó, see § 37, 4. A
frequent instance is ópîval tivi (an old use), apparere, supervenire,
with the new present oπτάνομαι A. 1. 3 (8 24). Γνωσθήναι “ to become
known' A. 9. 24 etc., cp. yiyváo keo bai Tivi 'to be known,' in Eur.
Cycl. 567, Xenoph. Cyr. vii. 1. 44; but 'to be recognized' is expressed
by the pass. with 'nó in 1 C. 8. 3. Espedîvai in R. 10. 20 0.T. (v.).
with év) is used along with čupavñ yevéo Dai (on 2 P. 3. 14, see 37,5).
Θεαθήναι is used like οφθ. in Mt. 6. Ι, 23. 5; φαίνεσθαι τινι dates from
the earliest stage of the language.
5. The passive must occasionally be rendered by 'to let oneself'
be etc. 'Adikelode 1 C. 6, 7 let yourselves be wronged' (in the
sense of allowing it to take place), so in the same verse droo Tepeło 0e.
Bartíceo dau 'to let oneself be baptized' (aor. Barrio Ony, but see
Ser Bau (S 24), Soyuariceo dai 'to let precepts be made for one' Col.
2. 20, TEPLTéuveo Bac passim. On the other hand, 'to let' in the sense
of occasioning some result is expressed by the middle voice, $ 55, 2.
$ 55. MIDDLE VOICE.
1. As the active is used in place of the middle, so the middle often
stands for the active which would naturally be expected. 'Auúverbau
'to assist'= the Attic djúvely in A. 7. 24 (the word occurs here
only). For απειλείσθαι see 8 24. 'Απεκδυσάμενος τας αρχάς is found
in Col. 2. 15, whereas in Attic åtrodúooo bai is 'to undress oneself.'
*Hprooáunu ünâs åvopí 2 C. 11. 2 'betrothed' is for ýpuoga (the word
here only). ('Evepyelodau is wrongly quoted in this connection : in
the following passages R. 7. 5, 2 Č. 1. 6, 4. 12, G. 5. 6, E. 3. 20,
Col. 1. 29, 1 Th. 2. 13, 2 Th. 2. 7, Ja. 5. 16 it is everywhere
intransitive, and never applied to God, of whom the active is used ;
the fact that the active appears in Mt. 14. 2, Mc. 6. 14 with duvápels
as subject, causes évepyelv to appear equivalent to évepyelo dai).
(The middle érdéyeo bal is always found, meaning to choose out
for oneself,' and it is only in A. 6. 5, 15. 22, 25 that it is not
186
[S 55. 1-2.
18 55. 146.
MIDDLE VOICE.
absolutely necessary to mentally supply for oneself'). ('ET-
delavvo Dai A. 9. 39 ſelsewhere N.T. has the act.] may mean 'to
display on their own persons.) Karadaußáveogai 'to perceive' A. 4. 13
etc. (Att. -elv, but Dionys. Hal. also has the middle). IIaparnpelo dai
L. 14. I al. (used as well as compelv; the simple verb only takes the
active form). IIImpoñola. E. 1. 23 'to fill’is equivalent to the act.
in 4. 10. lpoblémeo da. H. 11. 40 is modelled on a poopão dai (BXÉTELV
for oράν 8 24); περιβλέπεσθαι is the invariable form of the verb
(Polyb.; Attic uses the act.). Tlebau év fulakū and similar
phrases, 'to put in prison’ A. 4. 3 etc. (always the middle verb)
are in accordance with classical usage (katabnoóuevos es tò oiknua
Demosth. 56, 4); but the middle is also used with the meaning 'to
appoint as' or 'to,' drootólovs 1 C. 12. 28, eis ópyńv 1 Th. 5. 9=Att.
Toñoal, KataOthoai, Ionic Ocîval (H. 1. 2 ově Onkev kanpovóuov).-
Evykaleiv and -odal (' to call to oneself') are correctly distinguished,
if ovykaleitar is read instead of ovykakel with DF in L. 15. 6 and
with ADEG al. in verse 9.-Between aitelv and uiteio oar old gram-
marians draw the distinction, that a man who asks for something
to be given him, intending to give it back again, aiteital; but
aiteio Dar is applied generally to requests in business transactions,
and this is its regular use in the N.T. Mt. 27. 20, 58, Mc. 15 (6), 8,
43,1 L. 23. 23, 25, 52, A. 3. 14, 9. 2, 12. 20, 13. 28, 25. 3, 15; the
active is the usual form for requests from God, but the middle is
used in A. 7. 46,2 and there is an arbitrary interchange of mid. and
act. in Ja. 4. 2 f., 1 Jo. 5. 14 f. etc.; the request of a beggar, a son
etc. is naturally uiteiv, A. 3. 2, Mt. 7. 9 f. (cp. A. 16. 29, 1 C. 1. 22).
'Ataltelv, Tapaltelo bai are the Attic forms; enthoato L. 22. 31
(Attic uses both -eiv and -eiolai).-IIapexóuevos CEAVTÒV Tútov Tit. 2.7
is contrary to classical usage (Trapéxwv), but Col. 4. I tūvioórnta tois
doúlous tapéxeode is not (C reads -ete), nor is tapéen L. 7. 4, but the
active is certainly unclassical in παρείχον φιλανθρωπίαν Α. 28. 2,
&pyaclav 16. 16 (-€TO C; in 19. 24 A*DE read -xe, - Yeto is the usual
reading : the passage appears to be corrupt), although Homer uses
oldótnta napao xeiv.-On the whole the conclusion arrived at must
be that the New Testament writers were perfectly capable of pre-
serving the distinction between the active and middle.
2. The middle must occasionally be rendered by 'to let oneself,'
cp. $ 54, 4 for the pass., in the sense of occasioning some result, not
of allowing something to take place. Kelpao bai, Èúpaodai 1 C. 11. 6;
ödelov kał dokóYovrau G. 5. 12 have themselves castrated,' as in
Deut. 23. 1, whereas trepitéuveo bar is treated as a passive (let in the
sense of allow). 'Eşartloájnv in A. 22. 16 Bártial kał årólovoai
(1 C. 6. II åredoúcaobe) may be explained in the sense of occa-
? In Mc. 6. 22 atinoov (H-gal), 23 althons, 24 althowual, 25 thoato (D birrev),
there is a nice distinction, since the daughter of Herodias, after the king's
declaration, stands in a kind of business relation towards him. Cp. Mt. 20.
20, 22, Mc. 10. 35, 38.
2 A. 13. 21 thoavto Baoiléa, kai Swkev aútois DEÒS K.T.). probably does not
come under this head. Cp. 1 Sam. 8. 5.
$ 55. 2. $ 56. 1-3.] THE TENSES. PRESENT TENSE.
187
sioning'; but in 1 C. 10. 2 -Lavto of BKLP appears to be wrong
and to ôngav to be the only right reading. In L. 11. 38 one
minuscule codex (700 Greg., 604 Scriv.) exhibits the correct
έβαπτίσατο instead of -σθη.
$ 56. THE TENSES. PRESENT TENSE.
1. It was shown in a previous discussion in § 14, 1 that every
tense has generally speaking a double function to perform, at least
in the indicative : it expresses at once an action (continuance,
completion, continuance in completion), and a time-relation (present,
past, future), and the latter absolutely, i.e. with reference to the
stand-point of the speaker or narrator, not relatively, i.e. with refer-
ence to something else which occurs in the speech or narrative.
In the case of the future, however, the function of defining action
has disappeared from the Greek of the N.T., and the moods of this
tense (including the infinitive and participle) were originally formed
to denote a relative time-relation (with reference to the principal
action of the sentence), and only in so far as they were necessary
for this purpose : hence it happens that a future conjunctive 1 and
imperative never existed. The moods, with the exception just
mentioned, are not used to express the time-relation but only the
character of the action.
2. The present denotes therefore an action (1) as viewed in its
duration (its progress), (2) as taking place in present time. In the
latter case the present may be regarded as a point of time, with the
addition of the time immediately preceding and succeeding it, as in
ypábw 'I am writing (now),' or again the time included on either
side of the present moment may be extended more and more, until
it finally embraces all time, as in ó Ocòs čOTIV. Again, the idea of
repetition may be added to, or substituted for, that of duration, so
that what in itself is not continuous, is yet in virtue of its repetition
viewed as in a certain measure continuous: this is more clearly seen
in the case of past time : éßalev 'he struck,' ěßaldev 'he struck
repeatedly or continuously. A distinction between the present
strictly so called, denoting something which really takes place at
the present moment, and the wider use, can only be made by
means of a periphrasis, tuyxávw Öv (this however is not found in
the N.T., $ 73, 4).
3. Since the opposite to duration is completion (expressed by the
aorist), the present may be used with sufficient clearness to denote,
as such, an action which has not yet reached completion, where we
have recourse to the auxiliary verb 'will.' Jo. 10. 32 dià molov aútôv
ëpyov čuè ledáčete (“will ye stone me?'): G. 5. 4 Oltives év vóuw
dikaloão De would be justified': Jo. 13. 6 víztELS. The imperfect
more often has this (conative) meaning.
* It is true that instances of it are found in the mss. of the N.T., e.g. 1 C.
13. 3 kavońowua. CK.
188
[S 56. 4-6.
PRESENT TENSE.
4. Since in the case of actions viewed as completed, there exists
for obvious reasons no form to express present time (equivalent to a
present of the aorist), the present tense must also in certain cases
take over this function as well (aoristic present, Burton, N.T. Moods
and Tenses p. 9). If Peter in A. 9. 34 says to Aeneas iâtai ce
'Incoüs Xplorós, the meaning is not, 'He is engaged in healing thee,'
but 'He completes the cure at this moment, as I herewith announce
to thee': under the same category comes tapayyéllw gou .T.d. in
A. 16. 18 (the expulsion of a demon), where in a similar way an
action is denoted from the stand-point of the actor and speaker as
being completed in the present, which the narrator from his own
point of view would have expressed by the aorist as completed in
the past, zapńyyeldev.With this belongs åotáčetal 'sends greet-
ing': to which the corresponding term is always do táo ao de 'greet.'
5. The present also habitually takes an aoristic meaning, where
an interchange of times takes place, and it is used in lively, realistic
narrative as the historic present. This usage is frequent, as it is
in classical authors, in the New Testament writers of narrative,
except in Luke's writings, where we seldom meet with it. Jo. 1. 29
τη επαύριον βλέπει ... και λέγει ...; 35 τη επαύριον πάλιν ειστήκει
(pluperf. =impf. 'was standing')... 36 kac... dével...; 44 TỶ étaúpcov
idélnoeveedoev ... kaì cúpío kel; thus the tendency appears to be
for the circumstances to be denoted by past tenses, and the principal
actions (which take place under the circumstances described 2) by
the present, while the final results are again expressed by the
aorist, because there realistic narrative would be unnatural: 40 öldav
oŮv kai eidav ... kai ... čuelvav. Even apart from narrative the present
is used in a similar way: ibid. 15 'Iwávns uaprupei tepi aŭtoû kai
kékpayev ( = kpáſel).
6. "Hkw, as is well known, has a perfect meaning (L. 15. 27 etc.);
(Tápelou 'are come hither' A. 17. 6 is a present used for the perfect
of another verb [Burton, p. 10), as inexw is used for åreíanpa in
Mt. 6. 2). Further åkouw is 'I hear' in the sense of 'I have heard?
(L. 9. 9, 1 C. 11. 18, 2 Th. 3. 11, as in classical Greek; an equivalent
for it would be léyerai, where the use of the present is no more
remarkable than in Åkoúetal 1 C. 5. I). 'Adikô in A. 25. 11 beside
GELOV Davátov Té payé ti (and following oŭdèv ydi knka in verse 10)3
means "I am guilty,' am a criminal'as in Attic (this use occurs
here only ; in Mt. 20. 13 the word has the ordinary meaning of the
? Burton quotes in this connection (besides A. 26. I ÉT LT PÉTTETAL etc.) åplevtal
gov ai dmapria. Mc. 2. 5, Mt. 9. 2 etc., and rightly, at least if this reading is to
be trusted (cp. § 23, 7).
2 Rodemeyer, Diss. inaug. Basel 1889 (Präs. histor. bei Herodot. u. Thukyd.)
endeavours to show that the historic present expresses something which takes
place at or directly after a point of time already indicated : this theory holds
good up to a certain point. Mt. 2. 13 åvaxwpno ávtwv aůtwv looù šyyelos kuplov
palvetai (Win.); Herm. Vis. i. 1. 3 diabàs hroov ... kal tiow Tà yóvata.
3 Thus it appears that the perfect remains where there is a reference to
particular trespasses ; the present is only used of the general result.
$ 56. 6-9.]
189
PRESENT TENSE.
pres.); also ó vekớv in Ap. 2. 7 etc. may remind one of the Attic
use of vik@ for 'I am a conqueror,' while zpároei in A. 26. 31 refers
to Paul's whole manner of life and his Christianity in particular.
Throughout these remarks we are concerned only with the special
usage of individual verbs, and not with the general syntactical
employment of the present.
7. Presents such as those in L. 15. 29 TopallTa čY dovleuw oo
(cp. 13. 7 idoù spía črn å$' ou čpxquat, Jo. 8. 58 ciui, 15. 27 coté, and
many others) are by no means used for perfects : on the contrary,
no other form was possible, because the continuance or the recur-
rence of the action in the present had to be included in the
expression.
8. Present for future.—The classical language is also acquainted
with a (lively and imaginative) present for future in the case of
prophecies (e.g. in an oracle in Herodot. vii. 140 f.), and this present
-a sort of counterpart to the historic present—is very frequent in
the predictions of the N.T. It is not attached to any definite verbs,
and it is purely by accident that épxopar appears with special fre-
quency in this sense : Jo. 19. 3 éàv étoupáow tómov úpîv, rádiv čpxoual
każ mapadnuyomar újās; so esp. o épxóuevos 'He who is to come' (the
Messiah) Mt. 11. 3, cp. 11. 14 'Hlías ó uéldwv épxeo bav, 17. II 'HA.
épXetal. But we find equally well: Mc. 9. 31 ó vids Toll åv pánov
Trapadidota. (=uéddel tapadidoo Bau Mt. 17. 22)..., kai đTTOKTEVOÑO IV
ajtóv, Mt. 27. 63 metà tpels nuépas éyelpojal : Herm. Vis. ii. 2. 4
å levtal. The present is also used without any idea of prophecy,
if the matter is mentioned as something that is certain to take place,
so that péllet (épxeo Dai) could have been used : e.g. in Jo. 4. 35
έτι τετράμηνός έστι και ο θερισμός έρχεται, Mt. 24. 43 ποία φυλακή και
Kderns ép xeral, and repeatedly in éws épxopai (-etai), see $ 65, 10;
in other cases életoojai is necessary, Mt. 24. 5, Mc. 12. 9, 13. 6 etc.
But verbs of going and coming when used in the present also have
the meaning of being in course of going (or coming), in which case
the arrival at the goal still lies in the future: Jo. 3. 8 TbDev čpxeta
każ Toû Únáyel, almost=is about to go, 8. 14 TbDev dov kai Toû
úráyw ... Tóev čpxouai kai toû ÚT.; SO TOû úráyw -els in Jo. 14. 4 f.,
Topevoua. ibid. 2, 12, A. 20. 22 : åvaßalvouev Mt. 20. 18, Jo. 20. 17
(but in Jo. 7. 8 oủk åvaßalvw the present is used for future).
9. Present used to express relative time (cp. 1).-It is a well-
known fact that when the speech of another person is directly
repeated the tenses refer to the points of time of the speech itself,
and that in the classical language the form of oratio obliqua is
frequently assimilated in this respect to that of direct speech. In
the N.T. the use of oratio obliqua is certainly not favoured,
and that of oratio recta predominates; but it is noteworthy that
subordinate sentences after verbs of perception and belief are assi-
milated to oratio recta, and the tenses therefore have a relative
meaning. Thus Mt. 2. 22 åkoúsas őri 'Apxélaos Baoi level : Jo. 6. 24
eidev oxlos őti 'Incoûs oủk ČOTIV éke. This practice also appears
in the classical language, but not as a general rule, whereas in the
190
[S 56. 9. & 57. 1-3.
PRESENT TENSE.
N.T. the rule is so far established that the imperfect in such
sentences must in most cases be rendered by the pluperfect, since
it refers to an earlier time than that spoken of, $ 57, 6. Still we
have Jo. 16. 19 éyvw To ñ Oedov (v.l. ñueldov) aŭtov épwrâv, with
which cp. the instances of pluperf. for the usual perf. in $ 59, 6; 18.
32 ñue dev after onuaívwv, cp. $ 61, 2 (A. 22. 2 åkoúoavtes Őri apoo-
εφώνει, but the better reading is προσφωνεί DEH). The aorist
however may be used : Mc. 12. 12 éyvwoav őri EiTev (Mt. 21. 45 has
Őti déyel = č.eye).
$ 57. IMPERFECT AND AORIST INDICATIVE.
1. The distinction between continuous and completed action is
most sharply marked in the case of the imperfect and aorist indica-
tive, and moreover this distinction is observed with the same
accuracy in the N.T. as in classical Greek.
2. Repetition, as such, is regarded as continuous action, and
expressed by the imperfect (cp. § 56, 2), as also is action left
uncompleted (Imperf. de conatu., cp. $ 56, 3). Exx.: (a) A. 2. 45 tà
kthuara êtíT PAokov kai dieuépicov aŭtà Tâolv; this frequently hap-
pened, although it is not stated that it took place or was carried
into effect in every case (aorist), cp. 4. 34, 18. 8, Mc. 12. 41;
(6) A. 7. 26 ouvilaorev aútoùs eis eipnvnv, ‘sought to reconcile,'
26. II nváykasov Blaoonucīv, where however the imperf. also
expresses repetition (like εδίωκον ibid.), L. 1. 59 εκάλουν αυτό
Zaxaplav 'wished to call him Z.,' Mt 3. 14 dekó.vev "wished or
tried to prevent Him? (A. 27. 41 édúeto began to be broken up').
3. The action is further regarded as continuous if the manner of
it is vividly portrayed. H. 11. 17 TOTEL Tpocevývoyev ’Aßpadu Tòv
’Ioaák ..., kai Tòv povoyevî tposépepev K.T.d., a supplementary char-
acterization of the peculiar feature of this instance. A. 5. 26 âyev
aŭtoùs où uerà Bías, cp. 27 åyayóvres Sè (conclusion of the act) aŭtoùs
fornoav; 41 étropeúovto xalpovres ÓTÒ TopogóTOV TOû ovvedpíov (it was
here unnecessary to denote the conclusion of the act); 15. 3 dinpxovto
... éadınyoúuevou TYY ÉTTLO Tpoprv twv Ovớv, kai étolovv (everywhere)
Xapàv meyainv... (conclusion given in 4 Tapayevójevou dé); 15. 41 is
similar; on the other hand, we have in 16. 6 dinloov sè trv Øpvyſav
(where there is no description). See also 21. 3 étéojlev eis Evplav,
kai kata doulev Eis Tópov, where (as in 18. 22, 21. 15) the description
consists in the statement of the direction (eis ...); cp. 21. 30 Elkov
ČEW TOù lepoll, kai củDéws ek delo Onoav aí Cúpal (i.e. after the first action
had been completed, so that there is an indirect indication of its
completion), whereas in 14. 19 the reading čovpav (instead of čo upov)
Ew tñs trólews is preferable, as otherwise the completion of the act,
which certainly was carried out, would be in no way indicated.
Occasionally, however, we do find an imperfect contrasted with a
subsequent verb denoting completion, where the descriptive clause
has not previously been ecpressed : 21. 20 do fa cov TÓv Deóv, ElTTÓÚ TE
(“they glorified God for a long time and in various ways, till finally
$ 57. 3–4.]
191
IMPERFECT AND AORIST.
they said '); 18. 19 dledéyeto Toîs 'Iovdalous (D, the other MSS. wrongly
read - décato or - dexon), the conclusion is given in 20 f. (but in 17.2
ſocedéyeto HLP is the right reading, see § 20, 1] the descriptive
clause is present, and repetition is also expressed by the imperf.).
The most striking instance is 27. i f. rapedidovv ... ÊTißávtes de,
where the aorist (Lat. tradidit) must be considered to be required by
the sense.-In the Pauline Epistles cp. 1 C. 10. 4 ÉT LOV (the fact),
ËTT LVOV yapék Tvevmatikîs nét pas (the manner), 10. II TallTA TUTIKĀS
συνέβαινεν (manner), cp. with 6 ταύτα τύποι ημών εγενήθησαν (result).
4. There are certain verbs in Attic, which in virtue of their
special meaning to some extent prefer the form of incompleted
action: that is to say, the action in question finds its true end and
aim in the act of another person, without which it remains incom-
plete and without result, and the imperfect is used according as this
fact requires to be noticed. To this category belong KeleVelv, åếcoûv,
mapakeleveo Bab, épwrâv, TÉUTTELV, årooméddelv and many others. In
the Ν.Τ. κελεύειν lilke προστάττειν and παραγγέλλειν always denotes
an authoritative command, the accomplishment of which is under-
stood as a matter of course : hence we have ékélevoev (as in Attic in
this instance) like it pooétaţEV, tapńyyellev;1 likewise always čeMYEV,
ÁTÉOTELNEV; on the other hand, ņpúta (érnp.), with the meanings
questioned' and 'besought,' is found as well as ń pútnoev (érnp.), and
Trapekádel (for Att. Tapeke.EVETo, which does not appear) as well as
Traperálecev (itapývel A. 27. 9, literary language, 1 Elov 15. 38, ditto),
but used in such a way that the choice of the one tense or the other
on each occasion can generally be satisfactorily accounted for. Thus
in A. 10. 48 ņpórnoav is necessary, because the fulfilment of the
request which did take place is only indicated by means of this
aorist, 23. 18 is similar, whereas îpóra 'besought' in 3. 3 is used
quite in the manner above indicated; asking a question' is gener-
ally expressed by ηρώτησεν (as it is in Attic or by ήρετο), but in
Mc. 8. 5 by npóta, 23 empóra, 29 ditto (which might also be
employed in other places where the aorist is found, e.g. 9. 16);
Trapekáderav Mt. 8. 34 of the Gergesenes who besought Jesus to
depart (L. 8. 37 has npórnoav and Mc. 5. 17-%PEAVTO Tapakadeîv, but
D tapekárovv), where the fulfilment of the request necessarily
followed ; Mt. 18. 32 åøká ooi, ÉTTELSY Tapekálecás ue (the mere
request was sufficient), 26. 53 Tapakadécal Tòv matépa (ditto), A. 8. 31
Tapekálecev åvaßávta kalioal (the fulfilment is not mentioned as
self-evident); on the other hand tapekáder appears in A. 27. 33,
L. 8. 41 etc.2 In Jo. 4. 52 ÉTTÚDeTo is incorrectly used, and the
correct form επυνθάνετο has weak attestation (in 13. 24 πυθέσθαι
[which should strictly be tudáveo bai] is only read by AD al., while
l 'Ekélevov (paßolfelv) only occurs in A. 16. 22 (of magistrates), probably to
express repetition and a longer continuance of the action, which also accounts
for the present øaßolgelv, cp. § 58, 3; the conclusion is given in 23 Tollås de
ÉTLOÉUTES TAnyás. For mapńyyetlev L. 8. 29, cp. infra 5.
? Also in A. 16. 5 mapekádel might have been expected, since the issue is
expressly mentioned in kai tapeßiáoato Yuas. In verse 39 also the imperf.
might have been used.
192
[S 57. 4-6.
IMPERFECT AND AORIST.
other Mss. have a quite different reading). On the other hand
ÉTTUVÕáveto is found correctly in Mt. 2. 4, L. 15. 24, 18. 36, A. 4. 7,
aorist in John's Gospel, da dev cis tūv radodarav 4. 3, is at least
whereas in verses 4 ff. we have an account of what happened on the
way, and the arrival in Galilee is not reached till verse 45. With
this may be compared A. 28. 14 dajev, cp. 15, 16.)— With verbs
of requesting is associated pookuveiv, which when it has this mean-
ing is used as regularly in the imperfect (Mt. 8. 2, 9. 18, 15. 25
**BDM), as it is in the aorist with the meaning of 'to do homage'
(Mt. 2. 11, 14. 33 etc.).
5. For the interchange of eyev (-ov) and elnev (-av, -ov) the follow-
ing rules may be laid down. The individual utterance of an
individual person is principally denoted by the aorist; on the other
hand, the utterances of an indefinite number of persons are regularly
expressed by the imperfect, which may also be thought to look
forward to the conclusion given by the speech of the leading
person, which is subsequently appended : A. 2. 13 with which
cp. 14,1 "Eleyev is sometimes used before speeches of greater length,
as in L. 6. 20 before the Sermon on the Mount, after a series of
descriptive clauses in the imperf. in verses 18 and 19 (Mt. 5. 2 intro-
duces this Sermon with the words édidao ket déywv; again there is
a tendency to link on additional remarks to the preceding narrative
by means of kai čleyev or én. Sé, Mc. 4. 21, 24, 26, 30, 7. 9, 20,
used, L. 6. 39, 15. 11 etc. The words introduced by this verb may
always be looked at in two ways: they may be viewed as a sentence
which has been delivered or a speech that is being delivered, and so
Thucydides introduces his speeches sometimes with čleyev, some-
times with έλεξε. Cp. also the use of λέγων (not είπών), so frequently
added to another verbum dicendi.
6. The imperfect in statements after verbs of perception (and
believing) is generally relative in so far as it refers to a time previous
to the time of perception, and must consequently be rendered by the
pluperfect; synchronism (of the thing perceived and the perception
of it) is similarly expressed by the present, $ 56, 9. It is evident
that the imperfect here still preserves its sense of continuous action.
Mc. 11. 32 eixov Tòv 'Iwávny őri Tpodtys îv, had been ; A. 3. 10
&Treyivwokov Őti v ở kaoýuevos; 15. 3 deg av TÒV Tatépa attoll (who
was dead) őt. "Elnu útñpxev. In Jo. 6. 22 idòv (v.l. eidov) Ti OÚK
îv and 9. 8 oi Dewpollutes aútdy TÒ TPÓTepov ŐT! #poo altns Yv, the words
ιδείν and θεωρείν themselves refer back to the same previous time to
which the dependent clause refers; as this time remains unexpressed
in the participles, it had to be expressed in the dependent clause by
the imperfect. -For exceptions, see $ 56, 9.
1 Jo. 11. 37 TLVès od ¢ attûv Eirov (after čleyov oi 'Ioudaiol 36; AKII also have
heyov in 37).
$ 57. 7-9.]
193
: IMPERFECT AND AORIST.
tion, knowtain in the county
7. The aorist, which denotes completion, may also express the
entering upon a state or condition, when it is known as the 'ingres-
sive aorist'; strictly speaking, verbs of this class contain in themselves
an inchoative meaning besides that denoting the state : the former
meaning becomes prominent in the aorist, and the latter mainly in
the present the former meaning also, though rarely, appears in the
present, as in ympáo kw become old' beside ynpáw be old': in Latin
these inceptive presents are wide-spread). Thus coiynoev A. 15. 12
became silent,' ÉTT TÓXEVCEV 2 C. 8. 9 became poor,' R. 14. 9 + [no ev
became alive.'
8. An action which the use of the aorist shows to have been com-
pleted (to have taken place), need not by any means have been a
momentary action, but may have actually extended, and even be
expressly stated to have extended, over any length of time, provided
that it is only the completion and the conclusion of it which is
emphasized, this being just the force of the aorist. 'EBíw moldà črn,
but then he died.' "ETn dúo pee, but then he was deposed. It is
different with kakûs écn (where the manner of life is emphasized :
the conclusion is left out of consideration); and Sikaíws pxe (ok.
ipfe would be in most cases ingressive, he came by his office
honestly '). The same explanation applies to A. 28. 30 fuelvev det av
όλην εν ιδίων μισθώματι (but then this condition of things came to an
end), 14. 3 ikavòv xpóvov doét poyav (until the end of their stay, nar-
rated in verses 5 and 6, the length of which is summarily indicated
in verse 3),1 18. II ékáblcev (Paul sat' i.e. stayed in Corinth)
évlavròv kaš uñvas E (until his departure). In all these cases the
only reason for the aorist is to be found in the added note of the
length of the stay, which necessarily suggests the end of the
particular state of things; Luke even says (A. 11. 26) éyéveto aŭtoùs
éviavtov ő lov ovvaxonvai év TỶ ékkinoią, although ouváyeo dac ('to
assemble themselves 'j is certainly no continuous action, but only
something repeated at regular intervals. But repeated actions, if
summed up and limited to a certain number of times, may also be
expressed by an aorist, as in tpis épaßdio Onv 2 C. 11. 25, and this
tense may likewise be used where the separate actions of different
persons are comprehended in a single word, πάντες γαρ εκ του περισ-
Ceúovtos aŭtois épalov Mc. 12. 44, since in a comprehensive statement
of this kind the idea of the individual actions which succeed each
other becomes lost (previously in 41 we have rolloi lovocou éßallov
Tolla).--If the aorist of a verb like uévelv is used without any state-
ment of the duration of time, then it denotes merely the fact that
the stay took place, as opposed to departure : Jo. 7. čuelvev ¿v TỶ
Tadidalą= oủk åvéßn eis ‘Iepooólvua, 10. 40 fuelvevékei · He settled
down there,' without (for the present) returning to Judaea (Bějevev).
9. The meaning of past time, which generally attaches itself to
the aorist, is lost in the case of the so-called gnomic aorist, which
i On the other hand, we have in 14. 28 SLÉT PLßov xpbvov oỦk olbyov, where there
is no reference to a definite length of time ; cp. 16. 12, 25. 14.
N
194
has greater emphasis in a general statement than the present which
is equally possible. The latter, since it only calls attention to the
repetition of an event on all occasions, neglects to express the fact
of its completion: the aorist, referring to the individual case,
neglects to express the general applicability of the statement to
each occasion, which, however, is easily understood. This usage,
however, is very rare in the N.T., and only found in comparisons or
in connection with comparisons (Kühner, p. 138): Jo. 15. 6 êàv uń
a)Tà Kaù Tò Top BáÀYoutv, Kai Kai-Tau (all that precedes the col-
lecting and the burning is expressed by the aorist; so Hermas in a
simile has Vis. iii. 12. 2 katedeidon ... ényépon ... évedúo ATO ... OủKétu
åvákeltai all'OTNKEV K.7.d.: 13. 2 ételá eto ... Te poo Sexetai K.T...).
We have it also in similes in Mt. 13. 48, Ja. 1. 11, 24, 1 P. 1. 24
from Lxx. Is. 40. 7. (The case is different with Herm. Mand. iii. 2,
v. 1. 7, Sim. ix. 26. 2, where the aorist in the first place stands for
a perfect ſs 59, 37, and the latter is a more vigorous mode of express-
ing something still future, but certain to happen, Kühner, p. 129,
142.)
10. The aorist in epistolary style, referring to something simul-
taneous with the writing and sending of the letter, does not cease
to refer to a moment of past time, as the time in question actually
is past to the mind of the recipient and reader of the letter. In the
N.T. the only instance of this use is émeuta in A. 23. 30, Ph. 2. 28,
Col. 4. 8, Philem. II etc.; on the other hand we always have
ασπάζεται and γράφω (in 1 C. 5. ΙΙ έγραψα refers to an earlier letter,
letter)
· $ 58. MOODS OF THE PRESENT AND THE AORIST.
1. Between the moods (including the infinitive and participle) of
the present and the aorist there exists essentially the same relation
as that which prevails in the indicative between the imperfect and
aorist. They have a single function (8 56, 1), since they express the
kind of action only and not a time-relation. As the optative is rare
in the N.T., and the conjunctive, except where it is related in mean-
ing to the imperative, does not offer any special difficulties for
discussion at this point, we treat the moods in this order: Imperative
(Conjunct.), Infinitive, Participle.
2. Present and aorist imperative (pres. and aor. conj.).—The
present imperative (with which must be taken the hortatory con-
junctive, 1st pers. plur.), both positive and negatived by un, is used
in general precepts (even to individuals) on conduct and action; on
the other hand the aorist imperative (or conjunctive) is used in the
much less common) injunctions about action in individual cases.
(1) If the aorist is used in the first case, then it must either express
the entering upon a state of conduct which is in contrast with the
conduct hitherto shown, or it is used comprehensively (cp. § 57, 8)
$ 58. 2.)
195
MOODS OF PRESENT AND AORIST.
to denote conduct up to a final point, or again the general rule is
specialized so as to refer to an individual case. Exx.: (a) Ja. 4. 9
ταλαιπωρήσατε και πενθήσατε και κλαύσατε ... μεταστραφήσω ..., το
ταπεινώθητε, “become sorrowful' etc.1 (0) Ja. 5. 7 μακροθυμήσατε
έως της παρουσίας του κυρίου, which however may also be referred to
(α), cp. 8 μακροθυμήσατε και εμείς, στηρίξατε τας καρδίας υμών. 1 Τim.
6. 20 (2 Tim. 1. 14) την παραθήκην φύλαξον (cp. 1 Τim. 5. 21 ίνα
ταύτα φυλάξης, 2 Τim. 1. 12 φυλάξαι, 1 Jo. 5. 21 φυλάξατε εαυτά από
των ειδώλων, 1 Τim. 6. Ι4 τηρήσαι... μέχρι κ.τ.λ., 1 Τh. 5. 23), up
till the end,' to a definite point, whereas we have 1 Tim. 5. 22
σεαυτόν άγνον τήρει (in all things, continuously), cp. Ja. 1. 27 άσπιλον
εαυτόν τηρείν the true mode of θρησκεία. p. also 2 Tim. 4. 2, 5
κήρυξον έπίστηθι έλεγξον κ.τ.λ.: κακοπάθησον ποίησον πληροφόρησον,
i.e. 'up till the end,' with reference to the coming of Christ, cp. verses
1, 5, 6.2 (c) Mt. 7. 6 μή δώτε το άγιον τοις κυσίν, μηδε βάλετε κ.τ.λ.;
6. 34 μή μεριμνήσητε εις την αύριον (but without this additional phrase
we have in 25 μη μεριμνάτε, cp. 31, 10. 19, L. 11. 22, 29); 5. 39
όστις σε ραπίζει εις την δεξιάν σιαγόνα σου, στρέψον αυτό και την άλλην,
similarly in 4o and again in 42 το αιτούντί σε δός, και τον θέλοντα
από σου δανείσασθαι μη αποστραφης. That the present is also allow-
able in such cases is shown by L. 6. 29 f.: τω τύπτoντί σε επί την
σιαγόνα πάρεχε και την άλλην... παντί αιτούντί σε δίδου, και από του
αίροντος τα σα μη απαίτει.-- (2) An injunction about an individual
1 So also B. 13. 13 ώς εν ημέρα εύσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν with reference to
the beginning and the entrance upon this state of things, cp. 12, 14. II Epitra-
τεϊν (and στοιχεϊν) when used in exhortations usually appears in the present
(1 C. 7. 17, G. 5. Ι6, E. 4. 17, 5. 2, 8, Col. 2. 6, 4. 5, 1 Τh. 4. 12, G. 5. 25, Ph.
3. 16); but when the subject of discourse is the new life of the Christian
answering to his heavenly calling, which produces a fresh beginning, then the
aorist is introduced : Β. 6. 4 ίνα εν καινότητα ζωής περιπατήσωμεν, Ε. 2. Ιo, 4. 1,
Col. 1. το (in the similar passage 1 Τh. 2. 12 the readings vary between περι-
πατείν and -τησαι). -The force of the aorist is clear in φοβηθώμεν ούν τον θεόν
(which we hitherto have not done: just before we have oρώ γάρ τινας ατελείς
τα προς αυτόν φόβω πλείστα αμαρτάνοντας) Clem. Ηom. xvii. 12 (elsewhere in that
work, e.g. in chap. 11, we nearly always find φοβείσθαι etc.). In the N.T. cp.
Η. 4. Ι φοβηθώμεν ούν κ.τ.λ. let us lay hold on fear,' Αp. 14. 7; in Hermas,
Mand. vii. If. φοβήθητι τον κύριον και φύλασσε τας εντολάς αυτού-τον δέ διάβολον
μη φοβηθής-φοβήθητι δε τα έργα του διαβόλου, the aor. in all cases being used of
the fundamental position taken up: but then in 4 we have ėày (so passim)
θέλης το πονηρόν εργάσασθαι, φοβού τον κύριον, and then again : φοβήθητι ούν τον
κύριον και ζήση αυτώ, και όσοι αν φοβηθώσιν αυτόν-ζήσονται και Mand. i. 2 πίστευσον
αυτό και φοβήθητι αυτόν, φοβηθείς δε εγκράτευσαι, etc.
2 Clem. Cor. ii. 8. 4 τηρήσατε την σάρκα αγνήν ..., ίνα την ζωήν απολάβωμεν, cp.
4 τηρήσαντες ... ληψόμεθα ζωήν. Ηerm. Mand. viii. 2 has first το πονηρόν εγκρα-
τεύου, then έγκράτευσαι από πονηρίας πάσης, comprehensively : the present again
in 3 f. up to 6 εγκράτευσαι από πάντων τούτων, cp. 12 εάν το πονηρόν μη ποιης και
εγκρατεύση απ' αυτών. So also ix. 12 δούλευε τη πίστει, και από της διψυχίας από-
σχου. We have the aorist of the hypothetical conjunctive in Vis. ν. 7 εάν αυτάς
φυλάξητε και εν αυταίς πορευθήτε (op. the last note on περιπατείν) και εργάσησθε
αυτάς..., απολήμψεσθε από του κυρίου κ.τ.λ. So too the striking uses of the aorist
in 1 Peter must be explained by the instances in (a) or (6) given above: 1. 13
τελείως ελπίσατε “lay hold on hope, 22 αγαπήσατε “lay hold on love'; 1. 17 ανα-
στράφητε up to the end,' 5. Ι ποιμάνατε until Christ's appearing ; 2. 17
πάντας τιμήσατε give everyone his due honour, which is expanded in the
presents following την αδελφότητα αγαπάτε etc.
196
[S 58. 2–3.
MOODS OF
case is expressed by the present, if no definite aim or end for the
action is in prospect, or if the manner or character of the action is
taken into account, or again, in the case of a prohibition, if the thing
forbidden is already in existence. Exx.: (a) Mt. 26. 38= Mc. 14. 34
ucí vate ôde (“go not away,' $ 57, 8) kaè yonyopeite uet' duoll, L. 22.
40, 46 a poc eúxeo be ur eigeldeîv eis Telpao uóv. Frequently we have
ύπαγε, or πορεύου, which indeed are often found even where the aim
or end is stated : A. 22. 10 åvaords Tropeúov (“go forth') eis Aanao kóv
("as far as D.'), kåkel K.T.d., cp. 8. 26, 10. 20; Mt. 25. 9 Topeveo de
Tepòs Toùs twloûvtas (in this and that direction, where you may find
a seller) kui åyopáoate (aim) éavtals, cp. 25. 41 (where one should
place a comma after katapajévou); L. 5. 24 Topeúov eis Tòv oikóv gov
(expressing rather direction than aim; whether he reaches his house
or not, is beside the question), Jo. 20. 17. On the other hand, we
have topeúonti in Mt. 8. 9=L. 7. 8 (Topetov in LDX; a general's
command to his soldiers; the goal or end is omitted through abbrevi-
ation), A. 9. II, 28. 26 O.T. (6) 1 P. 4. 15 uń Tus ýmô Tuo XÉTW
ús poveùs K.7.1.; 1 C. 7. 36 ci de tus do xnuoveîv ... voué cel ..., ở O'élel
TOLEÍTwº oủx åmaptável yapeitwo av, cp. in the contrasted case in 37
tnpelv, and 38 • yapí(wv ... kalôs Tolei kai ó ur yapítwv kpeîdcov
TTOLÝCEL. In this passage the quality of the proceedings is in question:
unseemly or seemly—sinful or not sinful-good, better. (c) L. 8. 52
ék lalov ... o dè elitev un klaiete, Jo. 20. 17 uń Mov ártov (a thing
which has therefore already taken place or been attempted). Fre-
quently un poßoû, poßeco 0€, L. 5. 10, 8. 50, Mc. 5. 36, 6. 50 etc.
(Mt. 1. 20 ur poßnoņs zapadaßelv is different, do not abstain from
fear'); Ja. 1. 7 un oiécow (cp. Jo. 5. 45 un dokeîte; but in 2 C. 11.
16 we have uń Tis de dółn, where the opinion certainly cannot yet
have been entertained ; cp. Mt. 3. 9, 5. 17, 10. 34 do not let the
thought arise').2_'Aotráoao 0e is the form always used in greetings
(even in 3 Jo. 15 according to ); the aorist is found in all the
petitions of the Lord's Prayer, partly to express the desire for com-
plete fulfilment, partly with reference to the particular occasion of
the petition and the requirement for the time being : only in L. 11.
3 do we have τον άρτον... δίδου (ΝD wrongly read δος as in Mt.) ημίν
Tò kad' ñuépav (D onuepov as in Mt.).
3. Present and aorist infinitive. In the infinitive the distinction
between the two forms is on the whole easy to comprehend. O&RELV
is generally followed by the aorist infinitive, as is the corresponding
In the corresponding passage in Mt. and Lc. épxou must mean ‘go with me,'
not come hither,' which is expressed by e Noé in Mt. 14. 29, Jo. 4. 16 (and in
the use made of the passage Mt. S. 9 in Člem. Hom. ix. 21): cp. Jo. l. 47 pxov
kal ide 'go with me,' 1. 40, 11. 34.
? A special instance is pépe, øÉpete 'bring' (the pres. imperat. is always found
with the simple verb, except in Jo. 21. 10 évéykate), which as in classical Greek
is used for the aorist as well, there being no aorist derived from this stem.
But in the compound verb a distinction was made: Mt. 8. 4 nepoobvezke TÒ dôpov
(injunction as to what ought to be done), 5. 24 dalláynol ... kal Tote mpoo pepe
Td Owpov gov (injunction as to the manner and circumstances in which it may
be done).
$ 58. 3–4.]
197
PRESENT AND AORIST.
Attic word Boúleo bal, and naturally so, as the wish usually looks on
to the fulfilment; exceptions such as Oédw Eivat, tí délete nálev
åkoúelv (D -оūrai) Jo. 9. 27 (“to hear the same thing perpetually '),
are easily explained. In the same way the aorist inf. is the pre-
dominant form after Súvaotai, Suvarós, Ke EÚELV etc. (eredevov paßdicely
A. 16. 22 expresses duration, cp. § 57, 4, note 1). Médelv, on the
other hand, in the N.T. as in classical Greek only rarely takes the
aorist inf.: (A. 12. 6 AB), R. 8. 16 and G. 3. 23 uéllovoav åtoka-
duponvar (but doka!útteo Dai 1 P. 5. I), Ap. 3. 2, 16, 12. 4, where
the aorist is obviously correctly employed, while the present if used
in this connection goes beyond the proper sphere of that tense. In
classical Greek the most frequent construction of ué decv is that with
the future inf., which in the active and middle voices usually has a
neutral meaning so far as the kind of action is concerned; but since
the vulgar language abandoned this form of expression (uéllel with
a fut. inf. occurs only in the Acts, see $ 61, 3), it allowed the present
inf. to be used with the same range as the fut. inf. had previously
possessed : uéllel tapadidoo Dai Mt. 17. 22, for which we have also
merely tapadidotai, see § 56, 8.1’EXTILELY in the N.T. takes the
aorist inf. (instead of the fut.), correctly so far as the action is con-
cerned ; cp. $ 61, 3. Elsewhere too the infinitives keep their proper
force : R. 14. 21 kadòv tò uri payelv kpéa. undè Tielv oivov undè év Q å
edeloos oov POO KÓTEL means, “it is a good thing at times not to eat
meat, if offence is given thereby,' and the passage is not to be under-
stood of continual abstinence.
4. Present and aorist participle.—A participle used in connection
with a finite verb generally at first sight appears to denote relative
time, namely, the aorist participle to denote a past event, and the
present participle a simultaneous event, especially as the future
participle (like the fut. infin. and optat.) does really express some-
thing relatively future. Actually, however, the aorist participle
contains no more than the idea of completion; if therefore the
participle is followed by a finite verb, the sequence of events usually
is, that the first-mentioned action was accomplished when the latter
took place, just as the same sequence of events is expressed, if
instead of a participle and a finite verb two finite verbs connected by
kaí are employed. This temporal relation, however, is not neces-
sarily implied in either case: the phrase a poc evěájevou eitav A. 1.
24 = pod eućavto kai einav=a poc eúčavto imóvtes (cp. Mc. 14. 39)
denotes not merely simultaneous, but identical actions. If the parti-
ciple stands in the second place, as in Mt. 27. 4 ♡uaptov zopadows
alua đOộov, or Mc. 1. 31 Ý Yelpev aŭtūv kpatoas tñs yeupós, it may
happen, as in the second of these instances, that the true sequence
of time is not expressed, though in reality it is self-evident. Still in
spite of this the reading of the majority of the Mss. in Acts 25. 13 is
not Greek, 'Αγρίππας και Βερνίκη κατήλθον εις Καισάρειαν ασπασάμενοι
Tòv Photov (since the participle always, as such, expresses an accom-
i
1 Also in Jo. 16. 19 ñuelov (as x has for 106Rov) épwTây (DÈTepwrno al tepi
TOÚTOU) appears to be the better reading.
198
MOODS OF PRESENT AND AORIST. [$ 58. 4. $ 59. 1-2.
panying circumstance, which in this passage, where the arrival is
being narrated, cannot yet be regarded as concluded): the other
reading dotacóuevoi is the correct one.l . On the other hand, the
present participle is occasionally used after the main verb, since the
future participle is so rarely found (see $ 61, 4), to denote an action
which at least in its complete fulfilment is subsequent to the action
of the main verb: A. 18. 23 εξήλθεν (from Antioch) διερχόμενος την
Talatun xópav (i.e. kai dipxeto), 14. 21 f. Útréatpeyav eis tv
Aúotpav... ÉTT LOTNPicoutes Tds yoxds twv maontwv: 21. 2 eúpóvtes
πλοίον διαπερών εις Φοινίκην, 3 εκείσε το πλοίον ήν αποφορτιζόμενον τον
yójov. In these last two passages the pres. part. clearly takes the
place of μέλλων with the inf., e.g. έμελλεν αποφορτίζεσθαι, so that they
are to be compared with ó épxóuevos = ó Méldwv čpxeolar and mapa-
Sidotal=uédlet tapadidoo Oai g 56, 8; in the first two passages the
participle is tacked on as it were to a finite verb instead of a second
finite verb, to denote a subsequent action which in view of the actors'
designs and preparations is regarded as already beginning to take
place. In the following passages the fut. part. could have been
used : A. 15. 27 årrectáākajev åtayyél dovras (but cp. Thucyd. vii.
26. 9 fremyov dyyéllovras Kühner ii.2 121 f.), 21. 16 ouvñadov...
äyovtes. --The present participle when it stands before the main verb
may denote something that is already past : E. 4. 28 ó KNÉT TWV (he
who stole hitherto) un Kéti kletétW, Ap. 20. 10 ó alavớv=ôs étláva;
also Mt. 27. 40 Š katalówv ... kaì oikodouĝv = ôs katélves K.T.d.
(wouldest destroy'), since it is obvious that the pres. part. like the
pres. indic. may have a conative force (Mt. 23. 13 TOùs cio epxouévovs).

$ 59. THE PERFECT.
1. The perfect (as also the pluperfect) unites in itself as it were
present and aorist, since it expresses the continuance of completed
action: before the form kabéotăka for 'I have placed arose, this
meaning was expressed by čxw (pres.) karaotoas (aor.),” and a per-
fect like them inporate in Acts 5. 28 may be resolved into é impúoate
kai vův týpns coti. In the N.T. this form of the verb is still
constantly employed, and in a manner corresponding almost entirely
to its classical uses : although at a subsequent period the popular
language abandoned the old perfect, and let these forms, while they
still continued in existence, do duty for the aorist.
2. The present meaning so entirely preponderates with certain
verbs (as in classical Greek), that the aoristic meaning disappears.
altogether: e.g. in kékpayev Jo. 1. 15 a word borrowed from the
literary language in place of the Hellenistic kpášel, cp. § 56, 5;
1 The use of the aor. in John 11. 2 is noteworthy, nu de Mapcare ñ ålelyaca Tòv
KÚPLOV Múpw, 'who as is well known (cp. Mt. 26. 13) did (or, has done) this,'
although this story belongs to a later time and is told at a later point in the
narrative, 12. I ff.; so too Mt. 10. 4 'Ioudas ó kai tapa dous aútov,-ös kal
napédwKev aútbv Mc. 3. 19.
2 Demosth. xix. 288.
$ 59. 2–3.]
199
PERFECT.
fornka (cp. 3), Téolda, uéuvnuar (upvýo kouai is almost unrepresented,
only in H. 2. 6, 13. 3)?; also téOvnka 'I am dead,' ñorika eis tiva
Jo. 5. 45 etc. 'I have set my hope upon,'=I hope, but a stronger
form than élnícw, because the continuance of the hope which has
been formed is expressed by the perfect; similarly TÉTELO Ma. 'I am
convinced' R. 8. 38 etc.; ñynuai 'I believe' or 'reckon' (class.)
A. 26. 2 in Paul's speech before Agrippa (but in Ph. 3. 7 with its
ordinary meaning 'I have reckoned').
3. Inversely, the aoristic meaning of the perfect may be brought
into prominence and the other be made subordinate, without affecting
the correctness of the employment of this tense. This happens in
2 Tim. 4. 7 TÒV kador dyva nyúvidual, Tòv Spójov TETÉREKA, Tv
TÍCTLV TETÝPnka, viz. up till now, and the existing result inferred
from this is stated in verse 8: doctòv årókeltal jou ó tñs dikalogÚvns
στέφανος. In the well-known phrase & γέγραφα γέγραφα the first
perfect has more of an aoristic, the second more of a present mean-
ing. In the following passages the aorist and perfect are clearly
distinguished: A. 21. 28 "Elinvas elonyayev els tò lepòv kai kekoſVWKEY
TÒV Gylov Tónov, the introduction of these persons that took place has
produced a lasting effect of pollution; 1 C. 15. 3 f. Őri XplotÒS
απέθανεν ... και ότι ετάφη και ότι εγήγερται τη ημέρα τη τρίτη και
A. 22. 15 éon uáptus ... SY Éúpakas kai ý kovoas, the fact that Paul
has seen the Lord is that which permanently gives him his consecra-
tion as an Apostle (hence Paul himself says in 1 C. 9. I oỦk eini
åtbotodos; o'xì 'Incoûv ... úpaka ;), whereas the hearing (verses 7 ff.)
is far less essential.2 Only it must be borne in mind that the perfect
is not used in all cases where it might have been used, i.e. where
there is an actually existing result at the present time : the aorist
has extended its province at the expense of the perfect, and here
there is certainly a distinction between the language of the New
Testament and the classical language. Thus Mt. 23. 2 ÉTÈ Täs
Mwüoéws kadédpas ékáowav o ypaupateis, though they still sit
thereon: cp. H. 1. 3, 8. 1, 10. 12 for ékáblev : KEKóOikev only
appears in 12. 23; Mc. 3. 21 é leyov őto ECOTN (he is beside himself,
where D* has ēECOTATAL; 2 C. 5. 13 Ecotoue opposed to owopovoû-
μεν ; έστηκα had acquired too much of a present sense to be able to
lend itself still to a true perfect meaning, and it is for this reason
that 'He is risen' is never expressed by åvéotnkev (but by nyépon,
which is another instance of aorist for perfect, and éyńyeptai
Mc. 6. 14, Paul in 1 C. 15. passim, 2 Tim. 2. 8). Cp. § 57, 9 (even
classical Greek has some similar instances of the aorist for perfect, as
1 Κέκτημαι does not appear in the N.T., but only κτήσασθαι And κτάσθαι.
2 Also Jo. 3. 32 8 Épake kal BKOVOe, where likewise the principal emphasis is
laid on the seeing, but in 5. 37, 1 Jo. 1. 1, 3 we have ewpákauey and åxnxbauer
in close connection, where the hearing is regarded as equally essential.
'Eớpaka also appears in L. 24. 23, Jo. 19. 35, 20. 18 and passim ; åkiſkoa is rare
and nowhere found in Mt., Mc., or Luke.
3 It is preceded by ÚTÉMELVE oravpbv ('Incoûs), and followed in verse 3 by
åvaloyload de rdv tolaÚTNY ÚTOMENEVNKÓTA ... årtiloglav, the perfect being due to
the abiding example which He offers us.
200
[8 59. 3-7.
PERFECT.
Υ
in the saying of Euripides : τίς οίδεν εί το ζην μέν έστι κατθανείν
[= τεθνάναι, το κατθανείν δε ζην κάτω νομίζεται ;).
4. The use of the perfect instead of the aorist, in consequence of
the popular intermixture of the two tenses (vide supra 1), appears
undoubtedly in the Apocalypse: 5. 7 ήλθε και είληφε, cp. 8. 5, 7. 14
είρηκα (Β είπον), cp. 19. 3: in forms, therefore, in which the
reduplication is not clearly marked. The following perfects have
an equally certain aoristic sense: Herm. Vis. 1. 1. Ι πέπρακεν,
iii. 1. 2 άπται και (ας ώφθη), Clem. Ηom. ii. 53 εγήγερται, Gospel of
Peter 23 δεδώκασιν, cp. 31. Instances in the Pauline Epistles :
2 C. 2. 13 έσχηκα in historical narrative, whereas 7. 5 έσχηκεν (Β al.
έσχεν) and 1. 9 έσχήκαμεν may be explained as true perfects ;
απέσταλκα in 12. 17 does not seem right, coming as it does in the
middle of nothing but aorists (έπεμψα is read by DE, απέστειλα
by some cursives): the same perfect appears in A. 7. 35 TOÛTOV
(Moses) ο θεός άρχοντα απέσταλκε, most probably a wrong reading
for απέστειλεν οf CHP al. Also in 2 C. 11. 25 νυχθήμερον εν τω βυθό
πεποίηκα stands in connection with aorists only and without an
adequate reason for the perfect. But H. 11. 28 πίστει πεποίηκεν το
Táoxa is explained by the abiding institution, cp. verse 3 (éykekaí-
νισται 9. 18), while 17 προσενήνoχεν 'Αβραάμ τον Ισαάκ can indeed
only be understood as referring to the abiding example offered to us.
Lastly, yeyover is used for éyéveto in Mt. (and Apoc. Pet. II;
Burton, p. 43) in 25. 6 (Β has έγένετο). (In 1. 22 = 21. 4 the
perfect could be accounted for, although John uses éyéveto in an
analogous passage, 19. 36: there is still greater reason for γέγονεν
in Mt. 26. 56 of Christ's passion.)
5. In general statements or imaginary examples the perfect is only
rarely used, as also in Attic it is rare in these cases. In Mt. 13. 46
πέπρακεν (επώλησεν D) πάντα και ηγόρασεν αυτόν the suspicion of
an incorrect confusion with the aorist is obvious (no aorist from
πιπράσκω existed), cp. Herm. Vis. 1, 1, 1, supra 4; the same applies
to Ja. 1. 24 κατενόησεν και απελήλυθεν και ευθέως επελάθετο. But
passages like 1 Jo. 2. 5 8ς αν τηρη ... τετελείωται, Ja. 2. το όστις
τηρήση ... γέγονεν (ep. II), R. 14. 23 etc. are perfectly correct and in
accordance with classical usage (Aristoph. Lys. 545 ο μεν ήκων γάρ,
κάν ή πολιός, ταχύ ... γεγάμηκεν).
6. The perfect is used relatively, instead of the pluperfect, in the
same way as the present is used for the imperfect after verbs of per-
ception (op. 8 56, 9): Mc. 5. 33 ειδυλα και γέγονεν αυτη, Le: 20. Ι9 D
έγνωσαν ότι είρηκεν (al, είπεν = Mc. 12. 12); similarly after a verb
expressing emotion in A. 10. 45 εξέστησαν ότι εκκέχυται. So also in
L. 9. 36 we have ουδενί απήγγειλαν ουδέν ών έωράκασιν (D εθεάσαντο),
on the analogy of the equivalent phrase ουδ. απήγγ. ότι ταύτα
έωράκασιν. Still we have Mc. 15. Το έγίνωσκεν ότι παραδεδώκεισαν
(but DHS read παρέδωκαν as in Mt. 27. 18, ΑΕ al. παρεδώκεισαν),
Α. 19. 32 ουκ ήδεισαν τίνος ένεκεν συνεληλύθεισαν.
7. On the moods of the perfect it may be noticed that the
imperative, apart from έρρωσο έρρωσθε (formulas in A. 15. 29, 23. 30,
$ 60.8 61. 1-2.]
201
PLUPERFECT. FUTURE,
but not in all the Mss.) and the periphrasis with ciui (8 62, 1), only
appears in the vigorous prohibition πεφίμωσo Mc. 4. 39 (cp. τέθναθι
in Homer).
$ 60. PLUPERFECT.
1. The pluperfect, which naturally did not outlive the perfect in the
Greek language, is still, like the perfect, a current, though not a largely
employed, form with the New Testament writers ; even in classical
Greek, however, it is far rarer than the Latin or the German pluper-
fect, just because it is not used relatively as these latter are used.
If an action has taken place, without leaving behind it an effect still
permanent in subsequent past time, then the aorist must be employed,
since the pluperfect=aorist + imperfect (cp. the perf. $ 59, 1). L. 16.
20 Aáfapos éßeßanto apòs TÒV Tulôva aŭtou, 'was thrown down and
layº: Jo. 11. 44 ởỤus a)Too cooỒapía Tepuese To, 9. 2 2 môn bài Give-
TéDELVto oi 'Iovdałoư, the stipulation even at that early date was made.
Cp. also Acts 14. 23 TT ETT LOTEÚKELDAV (-aow D, $ 59, 6), 26 noav tapa-
dedouévou: but ibid. §n\pwoav, 27 étoinpav='had fulfilled,'had
done.'
2. The usages of the pluperfect, which vary with the particular
verb and the context, correspond to those of the perfect; the aoristic
meaning preponderates, e.g. in A. 4. 22 ó övOpwros é ' öv yeyóvel TÒ
onueĉov, although the other meaning is present as well, and generally
speaking an encroachment of the pluperfect into the province of the
aorist can by no means take place.-A. 9. 21 Sde eis TOÛTO énúder
(i.e. Paul to Damascus, the words are spoken by the Jews) is ex-
plained by the fact that this intention of the Apostle had now come
to an end, and therefore the perfect was no longer admissible.
$ 61. FUTURE.
1. The future, as was remarked above ($ 56, 1), is the one tense
which does not express action but simply a time-relation, so that
completed and continuous action are not differentiated. The syn-
thetic future has become extinct in modern Greek; in the N.T. it is
still largely used in the indicative, and is not limited to any con-
siderable extent either by periphrasis (S 62, 1, 2, 4) or by the use of
the present ($ 56, 8). On the modal functions of the future in-
dicative see SS 64, 65; it is occasionally used in a gnomic sense. (as
in classical Greek), to express what may be expected to take place
under certain circumstances, as in R. 5. 7 Módes ÚTèp Sikalov tis
ůro Daveitai, cp. 7. 3 xpnuaricel èàv yévntal: so the first of these
passages is an abbreviated form of εάν δίκαιος η κ.τ.λ.
2. The future is used relatively in statements after verbs of
believing, to denote a time subsequent to the time when the belief
was entertained : Mt. 20. 10 évóuco av ēti lý povrat (= uéllovou
dapßávelv); cp. the present $ 56, 9: imperf. § 57, 6: perf. § 59, 6.
In this case, however, another mode of expression was scarcely
202
[S 61. 2-4. $ 62. 1.
FUTURE.
possible, and the only difference in the classical language is that
classical Greek uses the future infinitive, which regularly has a
relative meaning, after vouíçelv, instead of oto with the indicative.
(After σημαίνων in Jo. 18. 32 we have ήμελλεν αποθνήσκειν, instead
of which uéllel might here be expected, § 56, 9, or the fut. as in
21. 19 dotcoel.)
3. The future infinitive, which like the participle and the optative
of the future, expresses the time-notion relatively with reference to
the principal action, has disappeared from the popular language, and
is found only in the Acts and the Epistle to the Hebrews : after
példev in A. 11. 28, 23. 30, 24. 15, 27. ro, after eati[ELV 26. 7 B (the
other Mss. have the aorist), after ouvúvai H. 3. 18. After mér delv
the place of the fut. inf. is taken by the pres. inf., cp. § 58, 3, rarely
by the aor. inf.; after érieur), apokatayyé deLV (A. 3. 18), quvúvac
(2. 30), apoodorâv (3. 3), ouodoyeîv 'to promise' (Mt. 14. 7), the
aorist infinitive is used, which preserves the nature of the action
correctly, but surrenders the expression of the time-relation
4. The future participle, used as the complement of the principal
verb (to express the aim or object) is likewise rare and almost
limited to the Acts : 8. 27 einNúdel apoo kuvňowv, 22. 5, 24. 17,
H. 13. 17 å yputrvollow ús dóyov årrodúcovTes; Mt. 27. 49 pxetai
σώσων, but s* has σώσαι, D και σώσει. Its place is frequently taken
by the pres. part., cp. $ 58, 4; elsewhere by the infinitive (1 C. 16.
3), a relative sentence (ibid. 4. 17) or some other phrase (Viteau
§ 288). Scarcely more widely extended is the use of the fut. part.
in a more independent position (cp. $ 62, 4): 1 C. 15. 37 tò owua Tò
yevncóuevov (also probably R. 8. 34 ó katukpıôv), A. 20. 22 tà
ouvavtňoovta, 2 P. 2. 13 Kouloúpevou ulo bòv åduxias (almost certainly
corrupt; **BP read adikoýuevou), Tis 8 Kakúowv úvâs (rös KakúCEL)
1 P. 3. 13, TÒ écóuevov L. 22. 49, ó tapadóowv Jo. 6. 64, but there D
is doubtless correct in reading mapadidoús (uéldwv zapadidóval N, as
in Jo. 12. 4), H. 3. 5 Tôv dalnonoouévwv (a unique instance of the
fut. part. pass.).
$ 62. PERIPHRASTIC CONJUGATION.
1. The classical language had already made use of elul with the
perfect participle as a periphrasis for the perfect, pluperfect, and
future perfect, active and passive, which under certain circum-
stances was necessary, but the usage was extended far beyond the
cases where that necessity existed. In the N.T. the cases where
periphrasis is necessary include the future perfect and the perfect
conjunctive (or optative), excluding of course oida cida; in other
cases it is practically indifferent, whether one writes étreyé ypato
(A. 17. 23) or vv yeypappévov (Jo. 19. 19 f.), yéypartai (very frequent)
or yeypaupévov éoti (Jo. 6. 31, 20. 30; in the next verse 31 we have
1 'EXTIŚW redavepwo dai 2 C. 5. 11 shows the deflection of the idea of 'hope'
into that of 'think,' which is also in vogue in German (as in classical Greek).
PERIPHRASTIC CONJUGATION.
203
Taūta dè yéypantai); cp. Herm. Sim. ix. 4. I ÚTODESúkeLaV – ÚTODE-
dukvía, no av. (Periphrasis in the active is less common, as in A. 21.
29 Yoav poewpakótes.) Even where the aoristic meaning of the
perfect ($ 59, 3) predominates, periphrasis may be introduced : où
yáp łOTIV év ywvía mtem pa yuévov TOÛTO (A. 26. 26). It occasionally
serves to produce a more forcible and rhetorical expression : A. 25. 10
(8*B) Gros em Too Bhuamos KaÍơ após clut, which is better than ZGTmka
ÉTTÈ ... or éri toll ... COTNKA. An example of the pluperfect is L. 2. 26
vv attö kexonMatiquévov ; fut. perf. L. 12. 52 čo ovrai diamemeplouévoi,
H. 2. 12 čoquai met OLDús O.T.; conjunct. Jo. 16. 24 Ý TETT Impwuévn;
imperat. L. 12. 35 OTWOAV Tepiecwouévai; even the participle itself
is written periphrastically in E. 4. 18, Col. 1. 21 Övtes (-as) danilo-
Tp.wuévou (ous), here clearly to express still more forcibly the idea of
persistence in the new condition of things (in the passage of Colossians
kai éxOpoús is appended; cp. Aristoph. Ran.721 ollow oủ KEKL-
Bondevuévols, allà kalliotois K.7.d.). A cognate instance is iv
Keijevos L. 23. 53, = tebequévos ($ 23, 6).
2. Eiuí? is further used to a large extent in the N.T. in connection
with the present participle to form a periphrasis for the imperfect
(øv), the future (écoucii), rarely the present indic. (eiul), and occasion:
ally the present infinitive and imperative (eivai, io O.); this use is
indeed especially frequent in the narrative style of Mark and Luke,
in whose writings the periphrasis mentioned in the previous para-
graph (1) also finds the greatest number of instances (Buttmann
p. 268). Many examples of this periphrasis may be quoted as
parallels from the classical language (Kühner ii. 35, note 3), and it
may be argued that this method of expression is analogous to that
mentioned in 1, and that at least in the case of the future it offered
the advantage of distinguishing continuous from momentary action;
still, in view of the absence of an analogous development in the
Hellenistic language, one cannot fail to recognize, especially in the
case of the imperfect, the influence of Aramaic (W. Schmid Atticismus
iii. 113 f.), since that language made an extensive use of periphrases
of this kind. One cannot adduce in this connection instances such
as R. 3. 12 0.T. OÚK &OTIV ( there is no-one') moc@V XPNOTÓTYTA,
A. 21. 23 cioèv ävdpes (there are persons here ) cúxnvě xoves (who
have a vow'); L. 2. 8 is also different, kai toluéves Yoav ... dypav-
λούντες και φυλάσσοντες, since the existence of these shepherds had
first to be noticed, and then their occupation (cp. A. 19. 14, 24).
But even after deducting all the examples, where the imperfect of the
principal verb could not have been used or would not have had the
1 Not ünápxw, which only occurs in A. 8. 16, 19. 36 in connection with a
perfect participle.
2 In the case of the following writings—(Mt.), Mc., Luke's Gospel, and the first
half of the Acts—this is no doubt due to their being direct translations from
Aramaic originals. In John's Gospel in most passages (1. 9, 28, 2. 6, 3. 23) av
has a certain independence of its own (orov ñv - Bartiswv, where he stayed
and baptized'); ñv kakdy mocŵv in 18. 30 seems to be a wrong reading for nu
KAKOTOLÓs. In Mt. cp. 7. 29, 19. 22 etc.-In St. Paul, G. l. 22 f. Bunu
αγνοούμενος ... ακούοντες ήσαν.
204
[$ 62. 2-4.
PERIPHRASTIC CONJUGATION.
same meaning, the number of instances even in the Acts is consider-
ably large : e.g. 1. Io årevíčovtes nav, 13 Yoav katapévovres, 14 ho av
Tpoo kaptepoūVTES, 2. 2 hoav kadńuevou etc. A periphrastic future
appears in 6. 4 Decóueda mpoo Kaptepoûvtes. (But from chapter 13
of the Acts onwards the only further instances are: 16. 12 quer év TÝ
módel diarpißovtes, cp. 14. 7, note 2 on p. 203: 18. 7 oikia ģv ouvouo-
pouca (an easily intelligible use]: 21. 3 ^v úto opticóuevov, see 58, 4,
ånepopTÍCeTo could not have been used : 22. 19 Yunu pulakífwvl).
Instances of the pres. indic. being written periphrastically : 2 C.
9. 12 o diakovía où jóvov &otiv te podavarinpowoa ..., ålda kaì Teplo-
cevovoa; G. 4. 24, Col. 2. 23?, Ja. 1. 17, 3. 15, Herm. Vis. i. 2. 4
POTIV Mèv oŮv ... ' Tolaúty Boulo) ... ÉTUDépovoa a periphrasis for the
sake of emphasis, somewhat like Demosth. 20. 18 ŠOTI SÈ... čxov;
Mt. 27. 33 is most probably corrupt (leyóuevos om. fcaD); the phrase
και έστιν (means ') μεθερμηνευόμενον does not come under this head.
The periphrases of the impersonal verbs must be given a place to
themselves, since they are not only common in Hellenistic Greek
(Schmid Atticism. iii. 114), but are also found previously in Attic
ICOTÈ te poonkov Dem. 3. 24): A. 19. 36 déov ĉotiv (cp. 1 P. 1. 6 déov
leotil; Clem. Cor. i. 34. 2): é óv (sc. eoT) A. 2. 29, 2 C. 12. 4.-
Infinitive : L. 9. 18=11. I év TỘ eivai attov apogevxóuevov. Impera-
tive: Mt. 5. 25 io Oc củvov (the verb is not elsewhere used in the
N.T.), L. 19. 17 io Ou é čovolavěxwv: Clem. Hom. Ep. ad Jac. 3 eŮ
To Ou tidós. Of the periphrastic conjunctive there is no instance. -
Future expressing continuance: Mt. 10. 22 De ulo OÚuevoi, Mc.
13. 25 o dorépes govtau TiTTOVTES, L. 5. 10 åvOpútovs čoy (wypôv,
1 C. 14. 11 De eis dépa dadoürtes, Herm. Mand. v. 2. & con
EÚPLOKóuevos, Sim. ix. 13. 2 čoy popôv; in these instances the reason
for using the periphrasis can be recognized (cp. the periphrastic fut.
perf.), see Buttmann p. 266 f.
3. Tívouai is also occasionally employed in an analogous way to
denote the beginning of a state. 2 Č. 6. 14 un ylveo ÉTEPOCV'yoŮvTES
útrioTOLS (do not give yourselves up to it'), Col. 1. 18, H. 5. 12,
Ap. 3. 2, 16. 10, Mc. 9.3 (7): the different tenses of yívouac are
joined with the pres. or perf. participle.—The combination of civai
with the aorist participle, which is not unknown to the language
of classical poetry, is only found in L. 23. 19 BLT OOTIS v... Bandeis
(om. *, the other Mss. have ßeßinuévos) év tý pulaký, where the
reading is therefore quite untrustworthy.
4. Another way of expressing imminence, besides the future, is by
Méw with the infinitive, a periphrasis with which the classical
1 This speech of Paul was delivered tñ éßpaid owvị. Cp. the author's edition
of Luke's Gospel, p. xxi.
?" Ativá łoTLV Xbyov uży éxovta copias, cp. Demosth. 31. II OỦ dè lóyov rò a payu
xovoti and other similar passages with čxwv (Rehdantz Ind. Demosth. ii.
Partic.).
3 In the Gospel of Peter 23 Deao áuevos nu, 51 v te@els, this combination is due
to a confusion between perfect and aorist; cp. 23 dedúrad for ëowkav. Clem.
Cor. ii. 17. 7 must be emended to čo ovta. Občav <di>Obutes.
$ 62. 4. § 63. 1-3.] INDICATIVE OF UNREALITY.
205
language is acquainted and which offers this advantage, that it pre-
sents a mode of indicating imminence in past time, c.g. L. 7. 2 ñuerde
TEREUTâv and passim ; also a conjunctive can be formed in this way,
Mc. 13. 4 őtav péld ovitelcío Dal; and it serves to replace the fut.
inf. and the fut. part. which are going out of use, and periphrasis
is therefore generally employed in these cases, e.g.uédecv Triut pao Dau
A. 28. 6, • Toûto Médwv Topáo cel L. 22. 36. In the case of a parti-
ciple, however, the periphrastic form is of wider application than
the simple form, since the latter (as a relative indication of time) can
never be employed in the genitive absolute, and nowhere at all
except where it is definitely connected with a finite verb: periphrasis
is therefore necessary in A. 18. 14 uéllovtos åvoiyelv gen. abs., 20.3
yevouévns étißoviñs aŭtớ uéllovti åváyeolai, Jo. 12. 4 'Ioúdas,
uéllwv aútov Tupadidóvai (but in 6. 64 Tis ÉOTIV o Tapaduo wv ABC al.,
cp. $ 61, 4).
$ 63. THE MOODS. INDICATIVE OF UNREALITY (AND
REPETITION).
PSP
1. With regard to the use of the moods the distinction between
the language of the New Testament and the classical language is
considerably greater than it is with regard to the tenses, if only for
the reason that the optative which was disappearing (8 14, 1) had to
be replaced.
2. The indicative in Greek, besides its primary function of making
assertions about real or actual events (to which in all languages is
attached its use in negative or interrogative sentences), has the
further function of denoting unreality as such, by means of the
tenses expressive of past time (since the form of the verb which is
used to express that which no longer exists acquires the general
notion of non-existence). The indicative, however, is not used in
this way in the principal clause without the addition of the particle
äv, which differentiates such sentences from unqualified assertions
about past time, whereas in the accompanying conditional and
subordinate clauses, and in the kindred clauses expressing a wish, the
indicative is used alone.
3. In the N.T. the indicative has not only kept the whole of this
sphere of its use, but has also enlarged it at the expense of the
optative. In the first place in hypothetical sentences, where
unreality is expressed, the indicative is used both in the protasis
and the apodosis; in the latter the insertion of äv is not obligatory.
Jo. 15. 24. ei tà épya un étroinoa év aútoîs ..., đpapriav oủk eixooav,
cp. 19. 11 (where XA etc. have the wrong reading xecs for fixes of
B etc.), 8. 39, G. 4. 15 (äv is added by ND-EKLP); on the other
hand av is inserted in Jo. 18. 30 ei un ŷv..., oủk öv oou tapedórajev,
and this is the case in the majority of instances. The position of av
is as near the beginning of the sentence as possible : oùk åv passim,
206
[S 63. 3-5.
INDICATIVE OF UNREALITY
o únypéta, äv oi fuoi rywvíčovto (Jo. 18. 36).1 The tense (imperf. or
aor.; pluperf. in 1 Jo. 2. 19) keeps the ordinary meaning of its
action; the imperfect in other connections is ambiguous (in the
passage above quoted nywvíc. av is 'would have fought, which was
meant to be regarded as a continuous or incomplete action, since
accomplishment and result were uncertain).
4. The imperfect indicative without év is used in classical Greek
for expressions of necessity, obligation, duty, possibility etc., when
one requires to indicate the fact that in reality the opposite is taking
place or has taken place : while the present indicative asserts some-
thing about present time, as it always does, and accordingly an
appeal is contained in such presents as xpý, atpoońkel etc. In the
former case we employ the conjunctive, it should or could be so, or
where the possibility of anything happening is past, it should or
could have been-a distinction which cannot be made in Greek; the
indicative is logically correct, since even in the case of the verb
(should'the obligation was already an actual one in past time (cp.
Latin). The N.T. keeps this usage of the imperfect, but uses it
further to denote what in classical Greek is expressed by the present
indicative: A. 22. 22 oủ ydp kalîkev attòv Šv (kaoñkov Dº, cp.
$ 62, 2), they are asking for him to be put to death : Col. 3. 18 ús
åvîkevas is seemly': E. 5. 4 å oúk dvſkev (v.l. Tà oủk åvýkovta). ?
Elsewhere the imperfect is used correctly : édec in Mt. 23. 23 TOūTA
Čdel Toñoai, kåktīva uni åpeîvac, a frequent form of this verb (also -
used of course where it is merely the past necessity which is stated,
oủxi taūta é de ['was bound') nadev Tòv Xplotóv L. 24. 26): opeudov
in 2 C. 12. II éyo yùp öpeldov údýuôv ovviotao Out, but differently
used in 1 C. 5. 1o Éte ópeílete éK TOû kóguov er Ocîv must have
otherwise,' where in classical Greek the insertion of öv is at least
admissible, as it is in H. 9. 26 ÉTTE ? SEL OÚTÒv modlákis madeiv: with
dúvao Dar in Mt. 26. 9 édúvato TOÛTO T padavac molloû: with an
impersonal expression with elvai, kadòv rv ei oủk éyevvñon Mt. 26. 24
(kalóv oti 18. 8 is different; cp. 2 P. 2. 213).
5. The indicative when used to denote an impracticable wish in
Attic is introduced by είθε or εί γάρ, but it is more inclined to use
the analytical expression eile (ei yàp) ödelov (with infinitive). From
the latter phrase, through the omission of the introductory particle
? In this passage öv is wanting in B*, and stands after nywv. in BmSLX ;
similar fluctuation in its position is seen in 8. 19 kal Tov marépa Mov dv ÝòELTE
BL, . óv XTA al., where perhaps av should be struck out with D, as it is in
verse 39 on preponderant authority. L. 19. 23 kåyò éroww OÙv TÓKŲ du aủTÒ
Čmr paça contains in enoúr an equivalent for a (temporal) protasis. "Av cannot
go further back in a sentence than oỦ: G. l. 10 XPLOTOû dolllos oỦk av hunv.
-Hypothetical sentences of this kind are remarkably scarce in the Pauline
Epistles ; in the Acts they are wanting entirely.
2 The Attic apoońkel does not appear in the N.T.; nor xpń except in Ja. 3. 10,
nor ÉçeOTc (for which ėžby is used, sc. &OTI, $ 62, 2), nor the verbal adj. in -TÉOS
with hv etc.
3 The Attic use of the (aorist) indicative to denote what nearly happened
(ολίγου εδέησα with infin., ολίγου επελαθόμην) is unattested in the N.T..
§ 63. 5–7.]
207
AND REPETITION.
and through the auxiliary verb becoming stereotyped, there has been
formed in the Hellenistic language the word übele (Callimachus) or
őbelov obedov used as a particle to introduce a wish with the indic. 1;
ödelov is the form which it takes in the N.T., where the particle is
even used (8 66, 1) with the future to introduce a practicable wish.
1 C. 4. 8 obedov (D'EL 6b.) Baoiletoate, 2 C. 11. 1 obedov (80.
D'EFGKL) åveíxeodé uov, Ap. 3. 15 (6$. BP).-—But if the idea of
wishing is expressed by a particular verb, then a distinction is
drawn in Attic between Boudoiunv öv (a practicable wish, modestly
expressed) and épovlóunu äv (impracticable), whereas in the N.T.
both these meanings are combined in époulouny or the more popular
word Kelov (without äv). Thus A. 25. 22 éß. åkowoar (perfectly
practicable), R. 9. 3 núxóunu åvábena civar (hardly conceived of as
practicable), G. 4. 20 joelov (modus irrealis, or imperfect of un-
reality), Philem. 13 éßovlóunu (i would have liked,' cp. 14). So also
Herm. Vis. iii. 8. 6, 11. 4, Clem. Hom. i. 9 Oelov=Bouloiunv äv.
The classical optative is only found in A. 26. 29 (HAB) eućaipnv äv,
see $ 66, 2.
6. The indicative of unreality in final clauses, which are dependent
on another indicative of this class, is not found in the N.T.; on the
contrary such clauses take the conjunctive, Jo. 18. 36 o únnpéta, ův
οι εμοί ηγωνίζοντο, ίνα μή παραδοθώ τους Ιουδαίοις.
7. While the classical language expresses indefinite repetition
in past time in principal clauses by åv with the imperfect or aorist
indicative, and in subordinate clauses by the optative, in the N.T.
the former method of expression has been transferred to subordinate
clauses in place of the optative?, while there is no instance of its use
in principal clauses. The äv, which in this case is never dropped
(éáv may be used, see $ 26, 4), is placed as in other subordinate
clauses as close as possible to the particle or the relative. Mc. 6. 56
όπου εάν (αν) εισεπορεύετο ..., εν ταις αγοραίς ετίθεσαν τους ασθενούντας:
15. 6 Dôv åv yitoûvto, the correct reading, cp. § 13, 3: A. 2. 45,
4. 35 (kabóti), 1 C. 12. 2 (us). The aorist is by no means excluded
(cp. for a classical instance in a principal clause Dem. 18, 219 mèv
ypápwv oủk åv &opéo Bevoev), and so we bave in Mc. 6. 566 kai ooou
åv öntavto (XBD; ÝTTOVTO AN al.) aŭtoll évý Couto, LXX. Is. 55. 11 00 a
ův noénoa., Herm. Sim. ix. 4. 5 őtav ćTéOnoav, 17. 33, Barn. 12. 2
ÓTÓTUV kaleider. Even particles compounded with äv, such as ótav,
take part in this construction with the indicative : Mc. 3. II tà
Tveúpata, őtav autov ¿Deúpouv, a podéTTITTOV, Mc. 11. 19 ótav (ŐTE AD
al.) otè éyéveto, &EETOPEÚETO ČEW tñs rólews, where this particle also
denotes custom, cp. L. 21. 37.
1 So LXX., Arrian. Diss. Epict., etc., Sophocles Lexicon opelw.
2 So also Lucian D. Mort. 9. 2 Övtiva Qv a pootpleya.
3 With pluperfect Sim. ix. 1. 6 ótav ÉTTLKEKAÚKel.
208 CONJUNCTIVE AND FUT. OR PRES. INDIC. IS 64. 1-2.
$ 64. CONJUNCTIVE AND FUTURE (OR PRESENT) INDICA-
TIVE IN PRINCIPAL CLAUSES.
1. The conjunctive has apparently the primary meaning of some-
thing which should (or ought to take place, and consequently its
proper use is to express the will of the speaker, though in a less
definite manner than the imperative, with which mood the conjunctive
has close affinities. But the conjunctive, and especially the aorist
conjunctive, also has close affinities with the future indicative. Not
only has it to a large extent the greatest similarity of form (lúow is
the form of the 1st sing. both of the aor. conj. and the fut. ind., dúo?
is the form of the 2nd sing. of the same tenses in the middle), but in
its manner of employment it comes into the closest contact with that
tense from the earliest times (Homer). The future does not assert
what is about to happen merely in point of time, but frequently also
what is about to happen in the intention of the speaker : Boulouar
déyelv gives the same meaning analytically, which lékw gives syn-
thetically. The conjunctive, on the other hand, actually has a much
wider range of employment than is contained in the primary meaning
above-mentioned, and expresses that which under certain circum-
stances may be the outcome of the present position of affairs : from
this it is at once apparent that it refers in great measure to the
future, while past time lies outside its compass. In the final de-
velopment of the language the future has been supplanted by déw
íva (for which modern Greek uses Oá) with the present or aorist
conjunctive (so that action is differentiated in future time as well as
in past time); the N.T., however, is still a long way removed from
this state of things, whereas the mixture of the fut. ind. and aor.
conj.1 has, in comparison with the classical language, made con-
siderable progress.
2. The conjunctive supplements the imperative (as in Latin and
other languages) in the 1st. pers. plur., where there is no distinction
from the classical language; this also happens, but in a somewhat
different way, in the 1st pers. sing., since an invitation is there made
to the other person to let the speaker do something; in classical
Greek this conjunctive is introduced by άγε and φέρε, also by δεύρο,
in the N.T. by öpes (whence äs in modern Greek) and deüpo (plural
DEŪTE): Mt. 7.4 öpes èKBálw tò kápoos, A. 7. 34 O.T. deüpo årrooteína
ce (Eurip. Bacch. 341 deūpó gov otéYW Kópa), cp. Ap. 17. 1, 21. 9.
The same words may also precede the 1st pers. plur. conj. and (deŪTE
at any rate) the 2nd pers. imp.: SEūTE Åmokteivwuev Mc. 12. 7, SEŪTE
POETE Mt. 28. 6; äoes towjev Mt. 27. 49 (where the singular form has
become stereotyped, as happens with aye, pépe etc.), Mc. 15. 36 ADV
(äpete ABC etc.) = our 'let us see.' Again the conj. necessarily
1 On this mixture in late Greek, which for instance introduces einw OOL = épü
ool, see Sophocles Lexic. p. 45, Hatzidakis Einl. in d. neugriech. Gramm.
p. 218. So in Clem. Hom. xi. 3 kai oŰTWS ... ournon (main clause) = duvňoetat.
But it occurs already in the LXX., e.g. Is. 33. 24 åpebñ yap autols ý ápaprla,
10. 16.
$ 64. 2–5.]
209
IN PRINCIPAL CLAUSES.
takes the place of the imperative in the 2nd person of the aorist after
piń, as in classical Greek, and may do so also in the 3rd person (not
frequently; classical Greek also uses conj. or imp.): uý tis aŭtov
é ovdevnoy 1 C. 16. 11, cp. 2 C. 11. 16, 2 Th. 2. 3. In the N.T. such
clauses are often preceded (Mt. 8. 4 al., Mc. 1. 44, 1 Th. 5. 15) by
opa, ópâte, BXÉTTETE, as well as apes etc., which do not affect the con-
struction, see $ 79, 4.-On uń expressing apprehension in independent
clauses see $ 65, 3 ad fin.
3. The future indicative takes the place of the imperative in the
legal language of the O.T. (not a classical use) both in positive and
negative commands (the negative being oủ), but the N.T. language
apart from 0.T. quotations does not appear to have been materially
affected by this use. Mt. 5. 43 O.T. dyaroels TÒV ainoíov cov, but
in the law of Christ in 44 åyarate; ibid. 21 O.T. oủ poveúcecs etc.,
but the future is nowhere used in this chapter in independent precepts
of Christ, since even 48 čo 60 De télelou is modelled on Deut. 18. 13.
Elsewhere however there are some isolated instances of the future
(2nd and 3rd persons): 6. 5 oỦk čveo 0€ (the imperative cote occurs
nowhere in the N.T.), 21. 3 éáv tis ýmêv einy Ti, épeite, = citate in
Mc. 11. 3, Mt. 20. 26 oủx outws OTAL Év úuiv, and then čo tal occurs
twice again in 26 f. with v.l. FOTW (Clem. Cor. i. 60. 2 Kalapeis).
With this is connected the reverse use of the imperative for future in
Mt. 10. 13 (è dátw y cipůvn ýuwv &Traútv (but fota. D?... ÉLotpa-
ontw), where the future is more natural and is actually found in
L. 10. 6. On opelov with the fut. ind. in a clause expressing a
wish) see § 66, 1.
4. A further substitute for the imperative is afforded by iva with
the conjunctive (used independently; cp. French que, class. ŐTWS
with fut.), E. 5. 33 (after åyatátw) Sè yuvi) iva poßñtai tòv övdpa,
cp. 2 C. 8. 7, Mc. 5. 23 (see on iva § 69, 1). This may be extended
by déw: Mc. 6. 25 déw iva dậs (sós Mt. 14. 8). Another substitute
is a question in the fut. with où (as frequently in classical Greek),
Α. 13. το ου παύση διαστρέφων, though in this passage the imperative
meaning is not quite clear, and perhaps a reproach is rather intended.
5. The most definite form of a negative assertion about the future
is that with où uń, which also appears in classical Greek and is there
also connected, as in the N.T., with both the fut. ind. and the con-
junctive. But though the N.T. has this double construction of oủ
un, still the only certain instance of its taking the fut. is Mt. 16. 22
ου μη έσται σοι τούτο, whereas in the other cases not only is there a
strong similarity between the form of aor. and fut., but there is also
a variety of readings, while in numerous passages the conjunctive is
by its peculiar form established beyond a doubt as the correct
reading. Mt. 15. 5 ου μή τιμήσει τον πατέρα, but τιμήση is read by
E*FGK al. (a quotation of a saying of the Rabbis, 'need not honour";
in the LΧΧ. ου μή is also prohibitive as in Gen. 3. 1), 26. 35 ου μή σε
árapvoouai (-owua, AEGK al.), Mc. 14. 31 ditto' (o wual XEFGK
al.), Ap. 9. 6 où un cúpńcovou (eúpwow AP). (But Hermas has in
Mand. ix. 5 ovdèv où un anun, Sim. i. 5 où un mapadexonon.) On the
219
CON
CONJUNCTIVE ETC. IN PRIN. CLAUSES. [S 64.5-6.
PEALES -ETE (Boúłeo 6 See 65, 1), which tut. is a v.l.
other hand the conj. is used c.g. in Ap. 2. II où pr ådıknoll, L. 12. 59
où un één oys, 13. 35. où ui) Ponte je. The conj. is always that of the
aorist, whereas classical Greek also uses the pres. conj. The same
form is occasionally used interrogatively to denote an affirmation
(the relation between the two uses being therefore the same as
between " où apátw." and "où apácw;"): Jo. 18. II où un riw aúró;
L. 18. 7, Ap. 15. 4. Tís où un poßnon ; (the classical où un dannoeus;=
'you will certainly not'='do not venture to' etc.).
6. In questions of doubt and deliberation, as to what ought to
take place, classical Greek uses the conjunctive or (more rarely) the
fut. ind., as in Eurip. Ion 758 cTWMEv; ~ ocy@uer; Tí Spáoquev;
generally in the 1st person, rarely in the 3rd. The question is
equivalent to χρή: it may be introduced by βούλει -εσθε (without a
conjunction): it is negatived by uń. The N.T. in this case practi-
cally uses only the conjunctive (the fut. is a v.l. in e.g. A. 2. 37,
4. 16; on Ph. 1. 22 see $ 65, 1), which is frequently introduced by
délecs -ETE (Bоúder Oe), and in addition to the 1st person the 2nd and
1st persons are occasionally used, where there is more of a future
meaning: L. 23. 31 év tỘ Énpộ ti yévntau (yevňoeta. D); (“what will
happen then ?'), Mt. 23. 33 ós púynte, “how will (or can) you
escape?', 26. 54, R. 10. 14 f. Tŵs oŮV étrekaréowita. (govrai KLP)...
Três d'È TLOTEÚDWow (v.l. -Covoiv)... Tôs dè dkoúowow (NA²B; -COVOLV
L, -COVTAL **D al.) ... Tôs Knpućwolv (the v.l. -ovou is hardly
attested), 'how will they' or 'can they': Hermas, Sim. v. 7. 3 Tâs
σωθή ο άνθρωπος. In these instances classical Greek must have used
the future, which we have in L. 16. II f. Tís TTLOTEÚDEL ; ... Tís dúoel ;
cp. 11. 11, Mt. 16. 26 tí dúrel = Mc. 8. 37 té doĉ (Sucel ACD al.). A
peculiar instance is L. 11. 5 tis e úpôvé seu pílov, kaì tropeúoetaL ...
kai ciny (épei AD al.) ... 7 Kůkeĉvos einy (épei D), where the thought
is awkwardly expressed ($ 77, 6; Viteau p. 10), and would have been
more appropriately rendered by the conditional form of sentence
(eàv dílos Topevon etc.), and then the future would be in its right
place in the apodosis. Cp. ibid. in f. The fut. is used in the 1st
pers. in R. 3. 5, 6. I tí époñuev; (cp. Plato, Crito 50 B), which at least
approximates to a deliberative sense; and this is decidedly the sense
of L. 22. 49 ei (direct question, $ 77, 2) Tatáfouev ev paxaípy ; (-wuer
GH al.).—Question introduced by bélels etc.: Mt. 13. 28 Oédels
oulle Ewjev; Jo. 18. 39 Boóleo de drolúow; The question may be
put analytically by the insertion of deĉ (xpý being unusual in the
Ν.Τ.), τί με δεί ποιείν Α. 16. 30, or of δύνασθαι for the other sense of
the future or conjunctive, Mt. 12. 34 trôs dúvao be laleiv (Viteau
p. 32). The pres. indic. is used very rarely in a deliberative sense
in place of the fut. ind. (S 56, 8): Jo. 11. 47 (Herm. Sim. ix. 9. I) rí
TOLOÛuer; for which there are parallels in colloquial Latin.1
In 1 Jo. 3. 17 Mevcê should be written for mével.—Plato, Symp. 214 A TW
TTOLOûev is not quite a similar case; it is not deliberative like ti Tolôjev ibid. B,
but the present contains a gentle rebuke.
$ 65.1-2.] CONJUNCTIVE ETC. IN SUBORD. CLAUSES. 211
: $ 65. CONJUNCTIVE AND FUTURE (OR PRESENT)
INDICATIVE IN SUBORDINATE CLAUSES.
1. Indirect interrogative sentences, like direct, take the delibera-
tive conjunctive, Mt. 6. 25 ur nepquvâte tí páynte: and here again
the sphere of the conjunctive is extended somewhat beyond its
classical limits, as in L. 12. 36 a poodexouévols TÒV kúplov, hóte åvalúon
(-0€ GKX al.), cp. Ph. 3. 12 with ei whether' diákw ei katadáßw
(cp. inf. 6): elsewhere this ci is followed by the fut. ind. (In
Mc. 11. 13 D gives the reading ideîv éóv [cp. inf. 4] Ti éoTLV év aúry.)
In the region of past time, where the classical language according to
rule employs the optative, the N.T. in this as in other cases retains
the conjunctive (though not always in St. Luke, see $ 66, 3): A. 4. 21
Lindèv kúpio KovTES TÒ TÔS Koláowita, aŭtoús. The use of the fut. ind.
(also possible in classical Greek) in such sentences is hardly attested
by Ph. 1. 22 tí aipoonai oủ yvwpićw, where the better punctuation
is tí aipoojai; (cp. $ 77, 6; B has aipňowuai).
2. Final clauses introduced by (va, otws, uń have very largely
extended the range of their use in the N.T. in consequence of the
infinitive being expressed by a periphrasis with iva; we are here
only concerned with the mood, which is in no way influenced by
the character of iva, whether it be a true final particle or not. This
mood in the N.T. is generally the conjunctive, without regard to the
right which the optative formerly possessed of expressing purpose
from a past point of view, or from that of some person introduced
by the narratorl; to a rather less extent the future indicative is also
introduced, and just where in classical Greek it is not found, namely
after iva and final uń, whereas the Attic use of onws and őrws uń in
connection with the fut. ind. (after verbs of deliberating, striving,
taking care) is not found in the N.T. With verbs of this class the
particles used throughout the N.T. are iva and for negative iva uń or
jení: onws, in so far as it appears at all (never in the Apoc., only once
in St. John's Gospel, and not often in St. Paul), is limited to a
purely final meaning and to its use in connection with verbs of
asking (Trapakadeîv etc.). "Otws has further lost, with the exception
of some few passages in Luke and a quotation from the LXX., the öv
which is often appended to it in Attic Greek; this particle was
never even in Attic annexed to ίνα and μή. Οη μή (μήποτε) express-
ing apprehension, vide inf. 3.—The fut. ind. after iva occurs most
frequently in the Apocalypse : 22. 14 iva čoTaL ... kai cioéOwoiv
(thus the two forms are regarded as equivalent), 3. 9 iva novo iv
(-wo1 B) kai #pookUvýcovou (-owo. B) ... kai yvwo w (9 reads yvớon

The supposed optat. dun in E. 1. 17 is really conjunctive ($ 23, 4; B gives
correctly ).
2 The passage is 11. 57, where tws is evidently used for the sake of variety,
since a iva has occurred immediately before; the same reason applies to its use
in St. Paul in 1 C. 1. 29, 2 C. 8. 14, 2 Th. 1. 12 (but not in 2 C. 8. 11, G. l. 4,
Philem. 6: lva ... lva occurs in G. 4. 5, 1 C. 4. 6).
212 CONJUNCTIVE AND FUT. OR PRES. INDIC. [$65. 2–3.
(MAB* CD have come in the 14.2) van cire other
not well), 8. 3 Súpel (-BP), similarly in 13. 16 (written awci,
from which the wrong reading swol(v) arose). See also 6. 4, II,
9. 4, 5, 20, 13. 12, 14. 13. In St. Paul we have: 1 C. 9. 15 (va tis
(oúdeis is wrong) KEVOEL, 18 iva Oñow, 13. 3 Tapadó iva kavońcojai
(the readings -owua. CK, kavxýrwuar XAB are wrong), G. 2. 4 Kata-
dovládovou (KAB*CDE), Phil. 2. II. Also probably 1 Th. 5. 10
ίνα ζήσομεν (Α; D*E have ζώμεν ; the aorist ζήσωμεν οf etc. would
mean come to life again as in R. 14. 9): in this passage äv is
also omitted fronm an intervening clause, ένα είτε γρηγορώμεν είτε
KabeúdWjev K.T.d., cp. Ph. 1. 27 iva cite åkoúo (conj.). Other passages
are: 1 P. 3. I kepononoovtai, Jo. 17. 2 dúo el (-7 HACG al., Sáow **,
čx9 D), L. 14. 10 épcê with v.l. in AD al. einn, 20. 10 duo ovo with
v.l. in CD al. Swoiv. With us: Col. 2.8 BRÉTTETE un ... čo tai, H. 3. 12
BXÉTTETE PÝTrote ... čoral. A special instance is that where a conj.
after iva (or un is succeeded by a fut. linked on to the conj. by a
kai to denote a further result: A. 21. 24 iva ÉupňowuTui (-ovtal
XB*D2E al.) ..., kai yvárovtat, for which kaì yvwo i was at any rate
possible ; the same arrangement is used elsewhere in the N.T., and
moreover in cases where the second verb should, strictly speaking,
have been subordinated to the final particle; there appears therefore
to be a kind of Hebraism underlying this construction, as in the
LXX. this habit of writing the second verb in the future is very
widely extended (Viteau, p. 81 f.). Eph. 6. 3 O.T. iva ... yévntai kai
čoy, Jo. 15.8 iva Kaptòv... Dépnte kai yevoeo de (yévno De BDL al.) époè.
Maontaí, L. 22. 30 (with many vv.Il.), 12. 58 (uñarote), Mt. 5. 25
(ditto), Mc. 5. 23 (according to A), Mt. 13. 15=Jo. 12. 40 = A. 28. 27
0.T. (Is. 6. IO TOT or Zva un), Barn. 4. 3 [va. Taxzºn Kai mặet (8 for
Én), Herm. Mand. vi. 2. 10, Sim. ix. 7. 6, 28. 5. There is the same
construction after an independent conj., αγοράσωμεν και δώσομεν
Mc. 6. 37 ALA (-wuev XBD, al. dwuer); and in Hermas after an
imperat., Vis. i. 1. 3 dáße kai úrodávels Moi, Mand. ii. 1 ökakos yívov
kai čoy ús (esto Lat.).—-"OTWs áv occurs in L. 2. 35, A. 3. 19, 15. 17
O.T. (Amos 9. 12, our text has no äv); also in a quotation in R. 3. 4
=Ps. 51. 6.—The present indic. after iva is of course simply due to
corruption of the text.1
3. Mń after words expressing apprehension poßoümar etc.) is not
final, but is akin to the wiń which expresses apprehension in inde.
pendent sentences such as un å ypockótepov Ñ 'it is perhaps too rude'
(Plato). Still from one point of view this uń does border on the
meaning of final uń, since an apprehension of something eventually
happening has for its immediate result the purpose of avoiding this
thing. In the N.T. this uń of apprehension is usually strengthened
by Tote or tws: uÝmote, uńITws. On the other hand the idea of nega-
tion in the un is so far weakened, that it is used to introduce some-
thing which is surmised, where there is no idea of warding it off:
accordingly in Hellenistic Greek uñarote in a principal clause means.
perhaps, in a dependent clause 'if perchance, if possibly':
UVO VOXU.*
1 Jo. 5. 20 XL, G. 6. 12 ACF al., Tit. 2. 4**AF al. etc. But puolowo 0e 1 C.
4. 6 and fnloûte G. 4. 17. are conjunctives, see § 22, 3.
$ 65. 3-4.]
213
IN SUBORDINATE CLAUSES..
(L. 3. 15 an indirect question), 2 Tim. 2. 25 unaote Sợi atrois o
deòs K.T.A. If the thing (surmised or) feared is something negative,
then the formation (as in classical Greek) is een oủ: Mt. 25. 9 Tote
oủk úpkéon NALE, for which BCD al. have the not impossible reading
M. où un åpk. (åpkével D). The classical construction, if the appre-
hension has reference to something which is still dependent on the
will, is always the conjunctive: if it refers to something which has
already taken place or generally to something independent of the
will, any tense of the indicative may also be used (the indicative is
always used in reference to a past event). In the N.T. the phrase
poßoîual un is found only in Luke and Paul (Hebrews): A. 23. 10
bognets (HLP của8nets) Anh Stan Taơm, cp. 27. I7, 29, 2 C. 11. 3
(uýtws), 12. 20 (ditto), G. 4. II (ditto), H. 4. I here untote doký, in
G. 4. 11, with reference to something which has taken place, it takes
the perf. indic. (Kekoriaka), elsewhere the aor. conj.; clearly this
construction poßoüuar uń was a literary and not a popular one
(Viteau, p. 83). There is a greater frequency of dependent clauses
with uýtote (uń ws), which are attached to any verb, to express the
accompanying feeling of apprehension by which the action related is
influenced, the construction varying as before : G. 2. 2 éve éuny aútois
Tò của Yvetov ..., Tus cus K6vòe Tiếao (conj.) n = patov, 1 Th. 3. 5
έπεμψα εις το γνώναι την πίστιν υμών, μήπως επείρασεν υμάς ο σατανάς
kaŭ eis kevdv yevntai (the issue feared) Ó KÓTOS qu@ (L. 3. 15 with
optat., see $ 66, 3). There is a transition to final un in L. 14. 8 f.
per) katakdi@y's ..., MÝTote ... ~ Kekinuévos? (ģEEL D)..., kai épcî (cp.
supra 2). As in the last passage D has the fut. = conj., so we find
this tense occasionally elsewhere : Mc. 14. 2 uÝTote čoTaL (Mt. 7. 6
v.l.), Herm. Sim. ix. 28. 7, Mand. x. 2. 5 (&vTeúčerau should be read
for -ntai); cp. Blénete un (uńmote) total Col. 2. 8, H. 3. 12, final
(supra 2).-Independent clauses with uń and the conj. usually have
an imperative meaning, $ 64, 2; under this head comes 1 Th. 5. 15
ópâte untis åtodoî, å là... SIÁKETE (on ópâte before the imperat. and
conj. see SS 64, 2; 79, 4). An exception to this is Mt. 25. 9 MÝTOTE
oủk ápkéon, vide supra.
4. Of conditional sentences the four following forms exist in
classical Greek : (1) ei with indicative, denoting something which is
simply regarded as actual; (2) éáv with conjunctive, to express that
which from the given stand-point of present time, the time in ques-
tion being either general or a special occasion, I wish to denote as
under certain circumstances actual or liable to happen ; (3) ei with
optative, if I wish to represent anything as generally possible, with-
out regard to the general or actual situation at the moment (hence
also used with reference to a position of affairs in past time); (4) ei
with imperfect, aorist, or pluperfect indicative, to denote that the
actual state of things is the opposite to the case supposed, vide supra
$ 63, 2 and 3. The distinction between (1) and (2) is very slight in
i Not dýn optat. ; cp. 8 23, 4 and supra 2, note 1.
2 This perf. conj. also occurs in Jo. 17. 19, 23, 1 C. 1. 10, 2 C. 1. 9, and is in
all cases easily intelligible.
214
CONJUNCTIVE AND FUT. OR PRES. INDIC. [865. 4.
finta indic., since ceciderit ; the im. T. (3) is
the case of ei with the fut. indic., since éáv with the aor. conj. also
generally refers to the future—èàv téoy = si ceciderit; the indicative,
however, expresses a more definite expectation.-In the N.T. (3) is
hardly represented (see § 66, 4); (1) and (2) have come into still
closer contact, as is seen especially in the fact that éáv may also be
joined with the indicative. We note at the outset that the dissyllabic
form of this particle is the regular one (cp. ÉavTou, where Attic has
both εαυτού and αυτού), whereas inversely the form εάν for άν is
frequently employed in relative sentences (inf. 7), § 26, 4. Still
and if,' even if, may be käv: Mt. 21. 21 (D kai ... éài), L. 13. 9
(kai éàv D) etc. (see Š 5, 2). Externally then the prominent dis-
tinction between (1) and (2) is that the negative used with ei is où,
while with éáv it is (as in all Attic conditional sentences) uń, see
$ 75, 3. But the internal distinction between the two forms has not
been quite lost. It is only modern Greek which denotes every 'if'
by öv; in the N.T. ei with the indicative is obligatory for all sup-
positions referring to what has already taken place : Mc. 3. 26 ei o
σατανάς ανέστη εφ' εαυτόν (which according to the speech of Christ's
opponent must already have taken place), contrast ibid. 24 in an
imaginary instance, tàv Baoilela ėd'eautNV Mepco on. The same dis-
tinction holds good where the two forms occur in even closer
connection, as in Jo. 13. 17 ei tauta ordate (present reality), jakápuoí
tote èàv monte attá (future), or 1 C. 7. 36 ci sé tis doxnmovelvétè
την παρθένον αυτου νομίζει (reality), εάν η υπέρακμος (future), 1.2. the
indicative is used where a supposition is made with regard to some-
thing now actually existing, and the only irregularity is that this
present indicative is occasionally preceded by éáv instead of ci :
i Jo. 5. 15 càv ordajev (the reading of ise XôWuer is not good),
1 Th. 3. 7 év ýueis otńket€ (-97€ **DE), whereas before the imperf.
and aor. indic. the N.T. like classical Greek always uses ei.2
(Inversely in 1 Th. 5. 10 cite ... cite takes the conjunctive, in a
clause inserted in the middle of a final sentence, vide supra 2.) Ei
with the pres. indic. is used with reference to present reality also in
G. 1.9 (8 is different); on the other hand éáv with pres. conj. is very
rarely so used, A. 5. 38 €àv û éę úv@pútov v Bovly, aýrn K.T... followed
in 39 by ei dè ék Deoû łotiv, where we should no doubt understand
the meaning to be: 'If perchance it should be—but if, as these
persons maintain, it really is' etc. That in fact is very often the
meaning of this ei : 'if really' (as is maintained), or even “if accord-
ingly' (as follows from what has been said): in the latter case it
approximates to the meaning of émel. Ei tauta, TOLES (“really'),
bavépƠov .UTòP Tộ xócup Jo. 7. 4. E Tòe xốprov ... 6 beos o]Toys
åpbiévvvou (accordingly, see verses 28 f.), tóow uâldov “pas
Mt. 6. 30. 'Eáv, on the other hand, when referring to an actually
H
i Not very different in meaning is 1 Jo. 2. 29 èàv eldre, where the transition
from el with indic. to the other, apparently less suitable, mode of expression
(ۈv c. conj.) is quite carried out (as' or 'as soon as you know ..., 80 you also
know').
? LXX. also has làv où nooa Job 22. 3.
8 65. 4-6.] .
215
IN SUBORDINATE CLAUSES.
existing state of things, makes the supposition indefinite: 1 C. 4. 15
εάν γαρ μυρίους παιδαγωγούς έχητε (“even if you should have '),
Jo. 5. 31 εάν εγώ μαρτυρώ (if perchance' ; one might also treat
μαρτυρώ as an indic., vide supra) περί έμαυτού, η μαρτυρία μου ουκ
έστιν αληθής.1 On the other hand, with reference to things which
may or may not happen at any time, éáv with the pres. conj. is the
regular construction, though indeed in the N.T. ei with the indic. is
also found used in this way : Mt. 5. 29 ει ο οφθαλμός σου σκανδαλίζει
σε, cp. 30, 18. 8 f. (but εάν σκανδαλίζη Mc. 9. 43, 45, 47), L. 6. 32
εί αγαπάτε, but in 33 εάν αγαθοποιήτε (Με. 5. 46 εάν αγαπήσετε).
Quite incorrect is Mc. 9. 42 καλόν έστιν αυτό μάλλον εί περίκειται ...
και βέβληται (D is correct with περιέκειτο ... έβλήθη), =L. 17. 2
(περιέκειτο - έρ(ρ)ιπτο D). Εάν with the pres. conj. in other cases
refers to the future: εάν θέλης, δύνασαι 2 Mt. 8. 2 etc., εάν με δέη
Mc. 14. 31, 1 Jo. 2, 3 εάν τηρώμεν (φυλάξωμεν χ*), cp. Ι ίνα μη
αμάρτητε and εάν τις αμάρτη.
5. (Continuation : el with future, éáv with aor. conj. and fut.)
The connection of ci with the fut, indic. is quite rare in the N.T.,
but keeps fairly well its meaning of a definite supposition: Mt. 26. 33
= Mc. 14. 29 ει (και) πάντες σκανδαλισθήσονται (i.e. as you have just
now said; cp. supra 4); 2 Tim. 2. 12 εί άρνησόμεθα parallel with εί
συναπεθάνομεν ... εί υπομένομεν κ.τ.λ. ; 1P. 2. 20 twice ει υπομονείτε,
preceded by εί υποφέρει τις 19: in this case εάν υποφέρη and εάν
υπομείνατε might at least be thought to be equally possible. In L. 11. 8
ει και ου δώσει is incorrect for εάν και μη δω; cp. the intermixture of
fut. and aor. conj. ibid. 5 ff. The fut. is correct in 1 C. 9. II
θερίσομεν (-σωμεν CDE al.) and 3. Ι4 f. ει μενει ... εί κατακαήσεται, of
a definite point of future time, the day of judgment (Ap. 13. ro v.l.).
-For ćáv with fut. indic. there is no quite certain instance : see
Mt. 18. 19 εάν συμφωνήσουσιν (-ωσιν FGKM al.), a general statement ;
L. 19. 4ο εαν σιωπήσουσιν NAB al., σιγήσουσιν D, σιωπήσωσιν ΤΛ al.,
of something impending at the present moment ; Α. 8. 31 εάν μή τις
οδηγήσει με ΑΒ*CE (ditto); Αp. 2. 22 ΝA (ditto, but in 5 εαν μη
μετανοήσης). Cp. Herm. Mand. ν. 1. 2 εάν έση (ας pr. man. ής), iv. 3. 7
εαν μηκέτι προσθήσω, Vis. 1. 3. 2 v.1. The bulk of the instances
exhibit the aor. conj. both in general statements and in those refer-
ring to what is now impending : cp. for the latter case Mt. 21. 25
εάν είπωμεν, Jo. 16. 7 εάν μη απέλθω... εάν δε πορευθώ. It is further
used (in the province of the optative, see 8 66, 4) with reference to
what was impending in a past state of things : εάν εύρη Α. 9. 2. A
peculiar use is that in Mc. 10. 30 ουδείς έστιν... εαν (D ος άν, cp.
L. 18. 3ο) μη λάβη without his receiving.'
6. Concessive sentences introduced by ei kai or èàv kaí'even if'
call for no special remarks, especially as there is no real distinction
between them and conditional sentences. Käv which unites in itself
1 Ιbid. 8. 14 καν εγώ μαρτυρώ περί έμαυτού, αληθής εστιν ή μαρτυρία μου even if
ever.'
2 The Hellenistic el délels corresponds to the French s'il vous plait, Herodas
• 7. 70, 8. 6 etc.; so in the N.T. Mt. 17. 4 ει θέλεις ποιήσωμεν).
216 CONJUNCTIVE AND FUT. OR PRES. INDIC. [$ 65. 6-7.
200 followed by except, may further. 403, or the truth and Top con
the meanings of and if, 'if only,' 'if even' (etsi) does not come
under this category; cp. $ 78, 7.1 But el is used in a special sense
to express the expectation attending an action, Lat. si (forte).
(classical Greek uses ei and éáv thus): it is strengthened by ăpa or
åpaye and becomes equivalent to the ci in an indirect question, with
which this ei was regarded as identical, and is also extended by the
addition of tws (only found after ci and uń in the N.T.): A. 27. 12,
R. 1. 10, 11. 14, Ph. 3. II. This ci may therefore govern the con-
junctive, Ph. 3. 12 Suckw ei katadáßw, cp. supra 1 and (for the
kindred uń, uńrote whether perchance') 3, or the fut. indic. A. 8. 22
ei äpa åpeoņoetai. We may further note ei utí (class.), ei uń Tu, ÉKTÒS
ci un except if,' except,' except that.' Of these ci uń is generally
not followed by a verb, though we also have G. 1. 7 ci uń Tives elolv
=alny ŐTo (A. 20. 23). T. e. except that'; 1 C. 7. 17 ci un (=anv,
$ 77, 13)... TepetateíTW 'howbeit"; for this we have èàv us (without
à verb) in Mc. 4. 22 RB, cp. $.77, 13, G. 2. 16 (also in Attic, but
not frequently); ει μή τι άν (αν om. Β) εκ συμφώνου “except perhaps
by agreement' 1 C. 7. 5, but with a verb in 2 C. 13. 5 ei uń Tu
údókquoc cote it must then be the case that,' and with a conj. in
L. 9. 13 ei uń Tu TopevēévTES ♡ueis å yopáo Wjev (all uncials), unless
perhaps we buy'2; éKTòs ei uń takes the aor. indic. in 1 C. 15. 2, the
conj. in 14. 5 KTÒS Ei un depunveón (v.l. -wv D*), and stands without
a verb in 1 Tim. 5. 19. In these connections therefore ci and éáv
are interchanged, and the latter is generally replaced by the former;
similarly in the elliptical phrase ci sè uń (ye) otherwise ci often
stands where éáv would be used if the sentence were written in full,
while êàv dè uń does not appear at all (so Attic). Apart from these
special combinations (and apart from cite ... cite after iva, supra 2) ei
with the conj. is not found (the reading in Ap. 11. 5 kai ei... Delon
is quite uncertain ; perhaps we should write käv from the KAIH
of p*).
7. Relative sentences take the conjunctive in two ways: (1) with
άν in the kind of hypothetical sentence such as όστις αν θέλη = εάν
Tis Bén, (2) without öv, the relative having a final sense, where this
construction supplants, though not entirely, the Attic future indica-
tive. The place of äv is according to the popular manner of the
time taken by táv, the MSS. of course showing very great uncertainty
about the reading 4; the position of the particle is as in Attic
immediately after the relative, unless perhaps Sé or yáp is interposed.
The negative with the conjunctive is always us, with the indicative
it is usually ov, even in cases where un is used in Attic, cp. $ 75, 3
1 Kdy has also become a particle meaning "even only,' A. 5. 15, 2 C. 11. 16,
Clem. Cor. ii. 7. 2, 18. 2 (Attic).
2 Viteau, p. 114 explains the conj. as deliberative, sc. Boúder ('unless we
should buy').
3 Krüger, $ 65, 5, 12.
4 “Os cày Mt. 5. 19 (ẻàu om. D*, áp Dº): 10. I4 6s eat CEF al. (ày 8BDKL):
A. 7. 7 W tàv (ây BD) O.T. Also in the London papyrus of Aristotle (o èàv
col. 12, 31, chap. 30. 2). Cp. & 26, 4.
$ 65. 7-8.] :: IN SUBORDINATE CLAUSES.
217
(similarly ei oủ, supra 4). Now in constructions with a relative
sentence, which might be replaced by hypothetical clauses, no state-
ment is made about anything concrete and actual, but only a general
statement or supposition; consequently ös (or otis, $ 50, 1) äv,
corresponding to éáv, appears to be the regular phrase. So L. 8. 18
6s vào đâu (đv vào ABLX) x2, Songerou aỗTú, Kai 6s để tìm “xa, Kai ô
čxel (no longer hypothetical, the supposition having already been
made in ós äv un éx) åpońgetal år" aŭroû. But the same saying
takes the form in Mt. (13. 12) and Mc. (4. 25) of os (OCTIS) ydp & yel
(ävěxy in Mc. AEG al., äv & yel DE*F al.) ... os oùK YEL" (E*G al.
Oủk éx9). The indicative, which also appears in classical Greek, in
such sentences expresses the definite assumption that such persons
exist. This assumption occasionally arises directly from the circum-
stances : L. 9. 50 ( = Mc. 9. 40) os ydp ouk čo ti kalypôv, ÚTèp ýuôv
FOTlv, cp. 49.-The same relation exists between the aor. conj. and
the fut. ind. as between the pres. conj. and pres. ind., and the dis-
tinction here also frequently appears to be obliterated : Mt. 18. 4
(60 TLS TOTELVÉTEL Éautóv, whereas in 23. 12 with the same sense the
future tense may be purposely used with reference to the future of
the disciples), 5. 39 (the reading of xB paricel is not good), 41, 10.
32 00tis ojo Loyńcel answering to 33 60TIS 8 åv åpvýontai (and cp.
L. 12. 8). Of course the fut. may also be equivalent to the pres.
with öv, and the latter be equivalent to the fut. (continuous action) :
L. 17. 31 Ôs čoTaL ÉTTÈ TOû dóvatos. The fut. ind. is equally admissible
after ös äv as it is after éáv, but there is a lack of certain instances of
this construction : Mc. 8. 35 årrodegel XBCD2 al. (-09 AL al.), L. 17.
33 do. XAL al. (-oy BDE al.), 12. 8 Quodoyńcel AB*DR al., A. 7. 7
O.T. ACD, Barn. 11. 8 ở àv EeleceTaL XC1: while the present
indic. otrov äv úmáyel Ap. 14. 4 only rests on the authority of AC and
must certainly be rejected. The possibility of av being omitted with
Őotis is maintained, but in no case are all the Mss. in agreement:
Mt. 10. 33 (om. äv BL), Ja. 2 10 VOTIS ... tupňon (XBC, CEL AKLP),
πταίση δε εν ενί (ABC, σει KLP) και όσοι without άν is found twice in
Herm. Sim. viii. 11. 3.
8. (Continuation).—Relative sentences with a final meaning occa-
sionally show instances of the fut. in the N.T. as in Attic: Mc. 1. 2=
Mt. 11. 10, L. 7. 27 årrooté LW Tòv ayyedóv uov ..., Ös Katar KEVÉO EL
(O.T: Malachi 3. 1, but our Lxx. has a different text), 1 C. 4.. 17 (but
we also say who shall'), but elsewhere the conj. is used, which must
be explained by assimilation to sentences with iva, which are else-
where found with the same meaning. Mc. 14. 14=L. 22. II TOC
ło TÌv TÒ katályua Õhov páyw (D in Mc. has páyojai), = iva páyw :
A. 21. 16 āYouTES TAP' evioOuev Mváo wvi, = após Mváo wva iva Eev.
map aủTø. On the other hand we have iva in 2 C. 12. 7 édoon nou
okoloy ... äyyelos carava, iva je kolaoín (Viteau p. 134 f.). --Akin
to these are the relative sentences which denote a kind of consequence
resulting from some particular quality or state, and which in Latin
1“As äv ouvTeléo ovoly occurs in an inscription in a translation from the Latin,
Viereck Sermo Graecus senatus Rom. (Gtg. 1888), p. 38. 67, 8.
218 CONFUNCTIVE Y
AND FUT. OR PRES. INDIC. (8 65. 8-9.
take the conjunctive like final relative sentences. In this case we
have the fut. in L. 7. 4 äuós éOTIV « tapéen (mid.) TOÛTO, cp. Lat.
dignus qui with conj.; on the other hand iva is used in Jo. 1. 27 ÖELOS
iva lúow (equivalent to ikavos dûoa. Mc. 1. 7 etc.: classical Greek takes
the inf. after äecos as well).—In oủk éxw Ô tapaOnow L. 11. 6 the
future is classical, but ő is not, as tí must have been used (for the
delib. conj. in indirect questions vide supra l); in é XELV TO Ở por-
EVéyk? H. 8. 3 (cp. Clem. Cor. i. 38. 2 édWkEv Si' oü apogavainpwon)
the fut. would be used in classical Greek, cp. Phil. 2. 20 oùdéva fyw ...
OCTLS nepouvoel. Here again the infinitive would be possible, & XEL TO
apogevéykal, and that in the N.T. might be replaced by iva, Jo. 5. 7,
see $ 69, 4.
9. Temporal sentences introduced by őte, őtav (ÓTÓTe only in L.
6. 3 AEH al., őte ABCD al.), (énel only in L. 7. I with v.l. &TELÒN;
elsewhere êtreí is causal in the N.T.), ús etc. (see $ 78, 3), are generally
only a special class of relative sentences, and exhibit the same con-
structions. "Ote is found very frequently with the aorist indicative,
but according to circumstances also takes the imperfect, perfect (1 C.
13. 11 őte yeyova, but B has éyevóunv), present (H. 9. 17), and future.
The last tense usually occurs in phrases like έρχεται ώρα ότε προσ.
KuvÞoete Jo. 4. 21, cp. 23, 5. 25, 28, 16. 25, L. 17. 22 (őre én i Ovuńoete,
D Toû értiOvuñoai juās), 2 Tim. 4. 3, which are closely related to
relative phrases such as oùdév ĉOTIV kekanopévov Ô oủk åtokalvoon-
GETAL (Mt. 10. 26),1 (and therefore in the former as in the latter
instances the place of the fut. may be taken by the infin., and that
again may be replaced by ίνα with conj., Jo. 16. 2 έρχεται ώρα ίνα
doen). Hence in accordance with what was said in 8 the conj. (with-
out av) may also take the place of this fut.: L. 13. 35 éws MEEL ŐTE (the
time when) einTE (so AD etc.; there is a v.1. éws åv cinnte, agreeing
with Mt. 23. 39). Elsewhere öte does not appear with the conj.; à
further instance of its use with the fut. is R. 2. 16 év ģuépa ÖTE Kpivel
(v.l. év ♡u. Kpivel, or according to Marcion's N.T., simply kplvei,
cp. $ 79, 7), whereas in other places ötay with the conj. is used in
this way: Mt. 9. 15 éleÚCovtaL nuépai őtav årapoộ, cp. Mc. 2. 20,
for which Luke uses the more awkward, but more correct construc-
tion (5. 35) életcovtai ñuépai, kai (8 77, 6) őtav åtapoộ ..., TÓTE
vnoteúdovo LV (kaì om. &C. al.). The use of őtav is more justifiable in
Mt. 26. 29 (Mc. 14. 25) cws tñs Yuépas ékeluns őrav tivw, since the
phrase is a periphrasis for Attic πρίν αν.-"Όταν with the indicative
denotes in the first place indefinite frequency in past time, see $ 63,
7; secondly it is used quite incorrectly in Ap. 8. I őtav ÝVOLÉE AC
(ore xP, and so this author writes elsewhere, 6. I, 3 etc.; in modern
Greek őtav is when' as åv is 'if'); besides this it corresponds to
¿áv with the indic. (supra 4) in L. 13. 28 orav oyeo de B*DX (-90de
ABcorr. al., ionte ), Mc. 11. 25 őtav OTÝKETE (cp. èàv otńkete 1 Th. 3.
7, but there there is a reason for it (see above 4), which in the
passage from St. Mark is not the case) ACD al. (-nte BG al., OTÛTEN);
i For this Mc. 4. 22 has èàv univa gavepwon, = perhaps űOTE pavepwoîval or in
better Attic olov pavepwoîval.
$ 65. 9–10. § 66. 1.] IN SUBORDINATE CLAUSES.
219
wiches (Contin15.5*%. Op. Clemetc.; tk tested (L.
elsewhere its use is insufficiently attested (L. 11. 2 a poc eúxeo de
ACH al.; Jo. 7. 27 pxetal X etc.; the evidence for å koúete Mc. 13.
7 is quite insufficient). Cp. Clem. Cor. ii. 12. i őtav total (quotation),
17. 6, Barn. 15. 5 N.
10. (Continuation).–Temporal particles and compound expressions
with the meaning "until' 7' while'), éws, ćws oŮ (orov), ev , axpuls),
äxpus oŮ, uéxpuls), jéxpus ol (8 78, 3) take the indicative in the regular
way (the fut. ind. is rare, it is a v.l. in L. 13. 35 (see 9]; the present
is used instead in éws épxouai Jo. 21. 22, 1 Tim. 4. 13 until I come'
[S 56, 8]=ều ộ ệoxua. L. 19. 13, ep. Mc. 6. 45 ABL bus almos demo Det,
v.l. dmodúoy cel, D avròs dè åtolúel; but here it may also mean
'while). But where they take the conjunctive, éws frequently, and
éws oŮ (őtov), äxpus (oc), jéxpus où probably always omit the av: Mc.
13. 30 uéxpis oll (u. őtov B, uéxpc x, éws of D) Tahta távta yévntal,
1 C. 11. 26 öxpi oll (äv add. xDe al.) 109, E. 4. 13 MéxPL kataVTKOWjev,
L. 21. 24 Öxpi og (og om. A al.) tinpwowolv, L. 17. 8 fws (äv add.
AK al.) páyw, Mc. 14. 32 éws TT poceúếwuai (D al. -opai), 2 Th. 2. 7
(éws äv FG); äv is used in Mt. 5. 26 fws åv åmodøs and in all other
passages (Ap. 2. 25 Öxpi oll av ñfw; the fut. occurs without av in 17.
17, but B reads teneo Zwou as in 15. 8, 20. 3, 5). We even have öxpu
is ňuépas yévntal L. 1. 20. The reason for this usage of the language,
which may be traced back a long way (Herodotus, Thucydides and
others 2), is probably to be found in the fact that these sentences
have a certain affinity with final sentences; sentences with a pív have
this same affinity, in which the omission of öv is specially frequent
in classical authors, but in the N.T. these have been considerably
supplanted by clauses formed with śws etc. (T pív with the conj.
appears in L. 2. 26 mpìv [om. B] äv [ův om. AD al.] idy, but A*
here also has έως αν ίδη : 22. 34 πρίν ή απαρνήση ΑΓ al., but έως is
read by ABL, ćws où K™ al., ćws ŐTOU D; with the optative A. 25. 16,
see $ 66, 5).
8 66. REMAINS OF THE OPTATIVE.
1. The optative in principal sentences to denote a practicable
(see 8 63, 5) wish has not yet gone out of use in the N.T.3 (the negative
is uń). Myévolto occurs in L. 20. 16 and frequently in Paul (to
express strong aversion, Lxx. has the same phrase, Hebr. 72311).
1 Th. 5. 23 áyiáoai: Philem. 20 éyú cov óvaluny: Mc. 11. 14 unkéri
i Viteau, p. 129 f. explains the passages in Lc. and Jo. as meaning 'while I
go' or withdraw myself,' though this explanation cannot be applied to the
passage in 1 Tim. All other explanations than that given above are completely
discredited by its use in Hermas Sim. v. 2. 2, ix. 10. 5, 6, 11. I Ėày dè un eron,
μενείς μεθ' ημών ώδε έως έρχεται until he comes (which is a certainty, 8 56, 8).
One must therefore also attribute to èv « L. 19. 13 with the same present the
meaning of 'until,' = és 8.
2 Krüger, $ 54, 17, 3 (dialekt. Synt. 54, 17, 5 and 9).
3 There are 35 examples in all (Burton, p. 79), all with the exception of
Philem. 20 in the 3rd person.
220
[S 66. 1-4.
REMAINS OF THE OPTATIVE.
undeis púyou. But there is a strong inclination to use the imperative
instead of the optative, not only in requests, where the imperative
has a legitimate place in classical Greek as well, but also in impreca-
tions, where it takes the place of the classical optative: åvádena OTW
G. 1. 6 f., cp. 1 C. 16. 22.1 The single instance of the pres. opt. is
A. 8. 20 TÒ åpyúplóv oov ein eis årwleiav. The Attic phrases ei yap,
cibe to introduce a wish ($ 63, 5) are not found; opelov (vide ibid.)
is used with a fut. ind. to express a practicable wish in G. 5. 12
opeloy kaì đTOKÓJovtal oí åvao TATOŪVTES ýmãs, 'would that they would
at once castrate themselves.'
2. The optative with áv in principal sentences to denote possi-
bility (modus potentialis) has quite disappeared from the popular
language; the unique instance of it (besides its use in questions) is A.
26.29 (Paul before Agrippa, literary language) cúšal unv äv (cp. in class.
Greek Aeschines 1. 159), whereas elsewhere eßovlóunu is used rather
than Bovloi unv öv, $ 63, 5, and in hypothetical sentences (infra 4) the
optative (with äv) is at any rate never found in the principal clause.
In many places where Attic could have used the potential mood, the
N.T. uses the future indicative: R. 3. 6 ÉTTET TÕS kpuvei ó Deòs TÒV
Kóguov; 1 C. 15. 35 épei Tis (although this future is also not un-
classical, § 61, 1; Buttm. p. 188). Instances of the optative also
occur in Luke in direct questions : Tŵs yàp åv duvaiunv A. 8. 31 and
Tí åv Oélo. Oftos léyelv 17. 18, cp. infra 3 (also taken from the literary
language).
3. The optative of indirect speech (in subordinate clauses), answer-
ing to the indicative or conjunctive of direct speech, cannot be expected
to occur with any frequency in the N.T., on account of the decided
preference which the language in general shows for direct expression.
Luke alone uses the optative occasionally, and even he never has it
after őri and ós, and not often even in indirect questions proper
(L. 22. 23 tis äpa ein, 8. 9 Tis ein (ein om. LET); the following instances
should probably all contain äv and the optative therefore answers to
the potential mood of the direct question (supra 2)2: L. 1. 29 TOTATÒS
äv (add. D) ein, 62 tí åv Oélou kaleco Dai, 6. 11, 9. 46, 15. 26 (äv om.
XAT al.; D í délel Toûto civa.), 18. 32 (äv om. XABP al.), Acts (2. 12
Ti Oé el TÖÛTO Eîval a direct question; E äv Delov, « Oékot, readings
which in an indirect question are inadmissible after λέγοντες), 5. 24 τί
ův yévoLTO TOÛTO, 10. 17. Besides this the optative of indirect speech
is found after ei "whether' (S 65, 1 and 6) in A. 17. 27 ŠNTEĪV TÒv
Deóv, ei äpaye Unladňoelav aútòv kaì cúpolev, cp. 27. 12, 39, and after
uńTote 'whether perhaps' in L. 3. 15 uÝTote ein infra 4, and lastly
in a dependent statement of time in indirect speech, A. 25. 16 vide
infra 5.
4. While no example of the optative is found in final sentences
(on E. 1. 17 see $ 65, 2, note 1: 3, note 1), there are some few
i The optative in an imprecation of ill only occurs in Mc. 11. 14, A. 8. 20.
In a quotation from Ps. 109. 8, A. l. 8 uses laßétw where the Lxx. has láßol.
2 An indirect question may also in classical Greek take every mood of the
direct question, Krüger, $ 54, 6, 6.
$ 66. 4–5. § 67. $ 68. 1.] IMPERATIVE. INFINITIVE.
221
instances of it in hypothetical sentences. A. 24. 19 oŮs édel... KATN-
yopeîv, ti TL ÉXOLEV Tpòs čué, which would certainly be more correctly
expressed by ci to é xovou or éáv tu čxwoi: 20. 16 OTTEVÕEV yáp, či
duvatòv ein aŭto, ... yevéolai eis ’Iepovoadņu (indirect; besides ei may
very naturally be understood as meaning 'whether,' cp. 27. 12, 39,
supra 3): 1 P. 3. I4 củ vai Táo Xo Te Sun SukaLOGUvmv, takakuou, I7
κρείττον άγαθοποιούντας, ει θέλοι το θέλημα του θεού, πάσχειν ή κακο-
TTOLOÛVTas, ‘if perchance'as in Attic (literary language). Besides these
we have the formula ei túxou in St. Paul, 1 C. 14. 10, 15. 37.
5. In (relative and) temporal sentences there is no further instance
besides A. 25. 16 (Festus's words): återpionv ŐTo OỦK ČOTIV Oos
xapíceo da..., apìv katnyopoúmeros éxou ... láßou te, where the
opt. is rightly used in indirect speech for the conj. of direct speech.
$ 67. IMPERATIVE.
1. The imperative in the N.T. keeps for the most part within the
same limits as in the classical language; as in that language it by no
means expresses simply a command, but also a request or a concession
(Mc. 8. 32 ÚTáyete, 2 Č. 12.6 OTW Sé). In the last case the impera-
tive sentence may be equivalent to a concessive sentence : Jo. 2. 19
λύσατε τον ναόν τούτον, και εν τρισίν ημέραις έγερω αυτόν, = εάν και
lúonte; cp. in classical Greek Soph. Ant. 1168 ff. lOÚtel te yàp kat'
οίκον ... εάν δ' άπη τούτων το χαίρειν, τάλλ' εγώ καπνού σκιάς ουκ αν
Tepialunv (Kühner ii. 201). On the encroachment of the imperative
into the province of the optative see $ 66, 1.
2. The imperative is frequently replaced by the conjunctive, see
$ 64, 2, by iva or Oélo iva with conj., ibid. 4, or by the fut. indic.,
ibid. 3; cp. Viteau p. 37. On the substitution of the infinitive for it
see $ 69, 1.
$ 68. INFINITIVE.
been largel beside it by a separate con, though developmen previ
1. The infinitive is another of those forms which the language at
a later period gave up, in favour of a periphrasis with Iva (mod.
Greek vá) and the conjunctive, a construction which has already
been largely developed in the N.T. But the infinitive is still abund-
antly used beside it by all writers, so that it depends on the discretion
of the writer on each separate occasion whether he employs the
synthetic or the analytical expression, though the latter is not in all
cases open to use. The beginnings of this development may be
traced not only in the earlier Hellenistic Greek, but also previously
to that in classical Greek, the only difference being that in the
classical language the particle used in the periphrasis is not iva but
Örws, e.g. telpão Oai őrws owcóueda (Xenoph.) = nelpão Dar cóſec dau,
whereas later őrws retired more into the background ($ 65, 2) and
finally disappeared. Cp. also the use of ut in Latin which is so
frequently interchangeable with the infinitive.
222
[S 68. 2–3. 8.69. 1.
INFINITIVE
2. From early times there existed in Greek a second analytical
expression for the infinitive, namely 8ti (us) with the indicative, with
which cp. the Latin use of quod or quia (late Latin says dico vobis quia
unus vestrum me traditurus est). The line of demarcation between the
old őri, which of course reappears in the N.T., and the new iva is
that the former has an indicative sense, the latter a conjunctive
(or imperative) sense, while the infinitive is the ovoua pñuatos (as
Apollonius calls it) with a neutral meaning between the two others.
To express actual facts, therefore, particularly those which belong to
past time, iva can never be used in the periphrasis, but only őrı; on
the other hand things which may be regarded as a contemplated
result or one likely to occur, are expressed to a wide extent by iva.
The intervening province, viz. that which still belongs exclusively to
the infinitive, is not a large one in the N.T.: under this head, for in-
stance, comes the rule that dúvao Dai and uéidelv are joined exclusively
with the infinitive.
3. As the ovoua pñuatos the infinitive is capable of taking the
neuter of the article, and this may be declined, and the cases of the
infinitive so formed may be dependent on different prepositions. In
this way the sphere of the infinitive has been very largely extended,
so that it can also represent temporal and causal sentences. The
N.T. retains this usage, and in particular employs the genitive with
TOû in the most lavish way.
$ 69. INFINITIVE AND PERIPHRASIS WITH {va.
1. The use of the infinitive in a principal sentence in place of a
finite verb, with imperative sense and with the subject in the
nominativet, is extremely old and found with special frequency in
Homer, while in Attic it becomes less prominent. On the other
hand the later classical language (especially in legal phraseology)
uses the accusative and infinitive in this sense, or the simple infinitive
with no subject expressed (Xéyelv 'one must say'= dertéov), in which
case the ideas accessory to the subject appear in the accusative.2 At
the same time Attic uses ŐTws with the fut. indic. with imperative
sense. In the N.T. we find in a few passages (va with the conj.
used in a similar way, see $ 64, 4: and the infinitive which is equi-
valent to it twice in St. Paul, R. 12. 15 xalpelv letà taipóvtwv,
κλαίειν μετά κλαιόντων, Ph. 3. Ι6 πλήν εις και εφθάσαμεν, τω αυτό
OTOLXeîv. Where the subject has to be expressed Paul uses iva : de
yuvi iva poßitai tòv övdpa E. 5. 33. It is very easy here to supply
a governing verb (a verbum dicendi or xpń, del), as it is with the
(accusative and) infinitive; the infinitive xalpelv to express a wish
in epistolary style is clearly elliptical, A. 15. 23, 23. 26.
i Homer, Il. B. 75 úneis o ellodev öxlos épNTÚELV ÉTÉEOOL. Aristoph. Ran. 133
TóⓇelval kal où oautóv.
2 So in Aristotle, Bonitz Index Aristot. s. v. Infinitivus.
$ 69. 2-3.] INFINITIVE AND PERIPHRASIS WITH (va. 223
2. Of equal antiquity with the last usage is the use of the infinitive
to express aim or object, which in Homer has a much wider range
than in Attic writers, who for the most part only employ it after
verbs containing the idea of to give, appoint, present, send etc.
This infinitive, which is equivalent to a final sentence, has again
become widely prevalent in the N.T.: Mt. 5. 17 Oủk oov katalüsal,
αλλά πληρώσαι ; 4. Ι ο Ιησούς ανήχθη εις την έρημον υπό του
TV6 Tos, Tetpaơ vai trò To Sta86A00; L. 18. Io dve8nrav
a poceúčao Bai; A. 10. 33 Tápeguev åkowoan. (Attic would here use
the future participle which in the N.T. is almost unused, $ 61, 4.)
Of course this infinitive is also found with διδόναι, αποστέλλειν etc.
as in Attic: Mc. 3. 14 Åmodtéady knpuogelv (A. 5. 21 åréoteldav
áxanvai aŭtoús is different, the construction being passive, and the
acc. and inf. being therefore used; cp. inf. 8), Mt. 25. 35 édúkaté Mou
payciv. Beside the inf. iva also appears again : Mt. 27. 26 tapédWKEV
iva otavpw On (=Mc. 15. 15, Jo. 19. 16), though in the case of a
specially close connection of the two verbs in certain definite phrases
the infinitive does not admit of being replaced by iva: thus tapa-
didóvai pulcoreLV A. 12. 4, 16. 4, Sidóvai (aiteîv) payelv, atleîv passim,
while on the other hand where the connection is not so close and
the subordinate clause is of greater length, iva is the natural con-
struction: though here the infin. may also be used, as in A. 20. 28
υμάς το πνεύμα το άγιον έθετο επισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν την εκκλησίαν
K.T.d., 1. 24 f. eeelew... daßeiv K.T... Moreover with regard to the
use of iva there is here and in all cases where the infinitive is in
question a distinction between the different writers: John, Matthew,
and Mark employ it very freely, Luke much more rarely, especially
in the Acts, a work which has very few instances of the employment
of this particle in an unclassical way; also in James, Peter, and the
Epistle to the Hebrews it only appears as a strictly final particle.-
A third construction with topadidóval etc. is eis tò with the infinitive,
see 8 71, 5; the participle, which is also so used in the N.T., offers
another alternative construction, $ 74, 2, and aim or object of any
kind is very frequently denoted by means of toû with the infinitive,
$ 71, 3.
3. Akin to the infinitive of aim is the infinitive of result, yet so
far distinguished from it, that if the result is declared to be actual,
iva according to what has been said has, or at least should have, no
place (vide infra). The particle used to introduce this infinitive is
Ūote as in classical Greek; the alternative use of the simple ús is no
more certainly established for the N.T. than it is for ordinary Attic.
Lote is also used in the N.T. (as in classical Greek) to introduce
independent sentences, when it takes the indicative, imperative, or
hortatory conjunctive (meaning therefore '). It also occasionally
takes the indicative where the sentence is really dependent (class.),
In L. 9. 52 ús is only read by XB; A. 20. 24 ús telecúow **(?WS 7. A)B, ús
τελειώσαι AHLP: τε has apparently fallen out before τελειώσαι, and so E has
COTE (Ús TÒ C). In Josephus, however, the traditional text often has a con-
secutive us (with infin.), Raab de Jos. elocut. (Erlangen, 1890), p. 37.
224
[S 69. 3.
INFINITIVE AND
Jo. 3. Ι6 ούτως γαρ ηγάπησεν ο θεός τον κόσμον, ώστε τον υιόν τον
μονογενή έδωκεν (cp. further G. 2. 13); but in most cases of this kind
it takes the infinitive (class.), the subject being usually added in the
accusative, unless it can be obviously supplied from what has pre-
ceded (cp. $ 72). The construction with the infinitive has a some-
what wider range than in Attic; in a sentence like A. 15. 39 éyéVETO
παροξυσμός, ώστε αποχωρισθήναι αυτούς απ' αλλήλων, an Attic writer
would rather have used the indicative, both because there was no close
connection between the clauses and also on account of the importance
attaching to the result. But uote is by no means used (either in
the N.T. or in Attic) to introduce merely the actual or the possible
result, but may also introduce the contemplated result, and so the
boundary-line which separates these sentences from sentences of
design almost disappears. In έδωκεν αυτοίς εξουσίαν πνευμάτων
ακαθάρτων, ώστε εκβάλλειν αυτά (Mt. 10. I) we still have a sentence
denoting pure result, so that they could drive out: (there is an
affinity between this construction and the simple inf. after covoiav
έχειν, infra 5); but L. 20. 20 ίνα επιλάβωνται αιτού λόγου, ώστε
παραδούναι αυτόν τη αρχή του ηγεμόνος means so that they might be
able'='in order that they might be able,' and the v.l. els tò for WOTE
(AT al., cp. supra 2) is quite in accordance with the sense. Cp.
further L. 4. 29 ώστε (in order to, v.. εις το AC al.) κατακρημνίσαι
αυτόν, 9. 52 ώστε (in order to’; ΝΒ ώς, see note 1 on p. 223) ετοιμάσαι
αυτό, Mt. 27. Ι συμβούλιον έλαβον ώστε θανατώσαι αυτόν (D correctly.
explaining the meaning gives ίνα θανατώσουσιν αυτ.).2–The inf.
without őrte (also with its subject in the accusative) is used in a
similar way to express result : Α. 5. 3 διά τί επλήρωσεν ο σατανάς την
καρδίαν σου, ψεύσασθαι σε κ.τ.λ., Αp. 5. 5 ενίκησεν ο λέων ... ανοίξαι
(Βο ανοίγων) κ.τ.λ., 16, 9 ου μετενόησαν δούναι αυτό δόξαν, H. 6. το
ου γαρ άδικος ο θεός, (sc. ώστε) επιλα θεσθαι. The inf. is still more
freely used in L. 1. 54 (the Magnifcat) αντελάβετο Ισραήλ παιδος
αυτού, μνησθήναι ελέους κ.τ.λ., and in 72 (the Benedictus) ποιήσαι
έλεος κ.τ.λ. (the clauses are joined together quite incoherently: this
clause is parallel with the accusative of a noun in the preceding
verse 71 σωτηρίαν εξ εχθρών κ.τ.λ.); cp. 78 f. (inf. after έπεσκέψατο).-
Then again this infinitive of result may be replaced (as elsewhere in
late writers 3) by ίνα instead of the classical ώστε: 1 Jo. 1. 9 πιστός
έστιν και δίκαιος, ίνα άφη τας αμαρτίας (cp. supra H. 6. το), Αp. 9. 20
(cp. supra 16. 9) ουδε μετενόησαν, ίνα μη προσκυνήσουσιν, 13. 13 ποιεί
σημεία μεγάλα, ίνα και πυρ ποιη καταβαίνειν (cp. a similar phrase with
ώστε in Mt. 24. 24), Jo. 9. 2 τίς ήμαρτεν ..., ίνα τυφλός γεννηθη (“so
1"Ωστε (εφ' ώτε) on condition that does not appear in the N.T. (for which
ένα is used in G. 2. 9): not yet ώστε after a comparative with ή (νεώτερος ή ώστε
ειδέναι), Burton p. 150. On ίνα in Mc. 4. 22 see 8 65, 9 note.
2 Here belongs also A. 20. 24, see note l on last page, in order to fulfil,' if
ώστε τελειώσαι is the correct reading. Cp. for ώστε in Josephus W. Schm d de
FI. Jos. elocut. (1893) p. 418 ff.
3 Cp. op. cit. 420 f., where instances from Josephus are given (in all of which,
however, the result is merely conceived and not actual).
§ 69. 3–4.]
225
PERIPHRASIS WITH (va.
that'), L. 9.45 iv napakekakvupévov år' aŭtôv, iva un año dovrai attó,
2 C. 1. 17, 1 Th. 5. 4: Herm. Sim. vii. 2, ix. 1. 10. In these
instances the correct limits for the use of iva are already exceeded.
(In other passages one can quite well regard iva as final, e.g. in the
phrase iva timpwoñi 'in order to carry out God's determinate
counsel.')—The so-called infinitive absolute after ús, which is
fairly frequent in Attic, only appears in ús éTOS eineîv .so to say'
H. 7. 9 (literary language).
4. With the infinitive of design or result are included the well-
known constructions of the infinitive with verbs meaning to wish,
strive, avoid, ask, summon, make, leave, allow, hinder, be able, have
power etc., with which in classical Greek űrte is often prefixed to
the infinitive. An alternative Attic construction with a certain
number of these verbs is that with otws, though it is by no means
used to the same extent in which Latin ut is used after verbs of this
kind; at a later time iva stepped into the place of Tws and obtained
a more and more extended use, so that in the N.T. with a great
number of these verbs iva begins to be interchangeable with the inf.,
and even (especially in writers other than Luke, Paul, and the author
of Hebrews) to supplant it. The subject of the inf. is often either
necessarily (as with dúvajal) or in most cases (as with Oéw) identical
with that of the principal verb, elsewhere it coincides with the
object of the principal verb (e) or with the dative which follows it
(Tpoorácow); if it requires to be expressly stated, it stands in the
accusative. Ofw usually takes the (acc. and) inf.: iva in Mt. 7. 12,
1 C. 14. 5 (déw juâs laleiv..., uâllov dè iva arpoonteúnte) and else-
where.—Boúrouau (as a word belonging to cultured speech) only takes
the (acc. and) inf., so toluô takes inf. (åpvoûua. H. 11. 24; also doká
in un sónTE Xéyelv Mt. 3. 9 do not let it occur to you to say’: see
also 1 C. 11. 16: 80€é moi in Luke e.g. L. 1. 3).—Bovlevoua. inf. and
iva, Jo. 11. 53 (v.l. ouveßoud.), 12. 10 (in class. Greek inf. and Őws);
similarly ovußovlevouai (va Mt. 26. 4: ovußovleuelv Tiví 'to advise,'
with inf. Ap. 3. 18.–Oplew inf. A. 11. 29.-Xuyrldeua, inf. and iva,
Jo. 9. 22; potídewainf. R. 1. 13.—'Etiduw, ÉTTLTTOOô only take the
inf. (or acc. and inf. H. 6. 11); but we have nyaldiáoato (valdy
Jo. 8. 56, where the meaning can only be 'to long with ecstasy,' 'to
rejoice that he should see,' cp. the use of toll and the inf. ($ 71, 3) in
Herm. Vis. iii. 8. 7 Tepuyap's éyevó unv toll ideīv, 10. 6.-Zntô (ÉTTIENT.)
takes inf.: iva in i C. 4. 2, 14. 12.--Znã (s to strive zealously') takes
iva in 1 C. 14. 1.-Etroudáfw only the (acc. and) inf. (OTEÚdw acc. and
inf. in Herm. Sim. ix. 3. 2; îywvícovto iva Jo. 18. 36, pilotiueio dai
takes inf. in Paul).—IIelpáfw to try' takes inf. (the Attic telp@uai
also takes Őws?).—’EmiX Elpã (only in Lc.) also takes inf.: and so
ảokő, only in A. 24. 16.-BXétrete iva (see to it that’: Att. opâte
ÖTWS) occurs in 1 C. 16. 10.-Aloxúvouai (étalOX.), poßoüual to be
ashamed' or 'afraid to do something,' only the inf. (L. 16. 3 etc.); so
okvô A. 9. 38.—Qulácooual iva ur 2. P. 3. 17 (Attic has uń and ŐTTWS
1A. 15. 10 Ti TerpáŠETE TÖv Debv, erleivac Šuyóv must be similarly explained,
unless perhaps TÒr Debv, which is omitted in some Latin Mss., is an interpolation.
226
[S 69. 4.
INFINITIVE AND
un).-Alouai 'to request' takes iva in L. 9. 40, 21. 36, 22. 32, ŐTWS
in Mt. 9. 38, L. 10. 2, A. 8. 24, elsewhere the inf. (Attic uses inf.
and Örws).—'Epwtâ iva ("request') occurs in Mc. 7. 26 etc., ŐTWS
in L. 7. 3, 11. 37, A. 23. 20, elsewhere it takes inf. (and acc. of
the object of ép.); so nepWTÔ Mt. 16. 1.--IIapakalâ 'to beseech,'
exhort' similarly takes iva in Mt. 14. 36 etc., omws in Mt. 8. 34
(Biva), A. 25. 2 (cp. Att. Topakeletopal with inf. and őrws). -
Altoquai takes (acc. and) inf. L. 23. 23, A. 3. 14, 7. 46, 13. 28, Jo. 4. 9,
E. 3. 13: iva Col. 1. 9 (kai aitoúmevoi om. B); in classical Greek it
also takes ŐTWS.—II poreúxouai (va Mc. 14. 35 etc. (Ömws A. 8. 15, inf.
L. 22. 40; cp. Toû with inf. Ja. 5. 17); cüxouai (a more literary
word) takes (acc. and) inf. A. 26. 29 etc. —’Aflâ 'to ask' (Luke,
literary language) only takes (acc. and) inf. A. 15. 38, 28. 22 (in
class. Greek also ows; iva in a forged document in Demosth. 18.
155); in the sense of 'to count worthy' it also takes the inf. (cp. öệcos,
infra 5) L. 7.7; KATAệc@ A. 5. 41.-IIapauvô acc. of the object and
inf. (only in A. 27. 22, a literary word).—Keleuw only takes the (acc.
and) inf. (being used only by Mt. and Lc.); similarly táoow A. 15. 2,
diatkoow (-00uae mid.), TT portáoow (rare), étLTÁOOW (rare); åvajil-
pvokw 2 Tim. 1. 6, åtellolluar mid. A. 4. 17, veuw A. 24. 10;
trapayyéklw also takes iva Mc. 6. 8 (åtayyéddw iva Mt. 28. 10); só
diapaptúpouai iva 1 Tim. 5. 21; &vté loual iva Mc. 13. 34; knpúoow
iva Mc. 6. 12; Slao Télouai iva Mt. 16. 20 (v.l. êtreTi unor ev), Mc. 7. 36
etc.; ÉTILTIU@ iva Mt. 20. 31 (with the two last verbs there is no
instance of the inf.; in class. Greek verbs of this class except keleów
show a decided tendency to take ows).-Xpnuarigoual pass. 'receive a
divine command' takes the inf. Mt. 2. 12, A. 10. 22 (in L. 2. 26 the
inf. expresses an assertion).—’Efopkifw iva occurs in Mt. 26. 63
(opkiw or évopk. with acc. and inf. in 1 Th. 5. 27).-Aéyw frequently
takes iva, as well as the (acc. and) inf. when it expresses a command
(iva is used in this way in Ap. 14. 13); similarly ypábw, e.g.
yeypantai (va. Mc. 9. 12 (12. 19), and årooté dw iva A. 16. 36, cp.
supra 2.-IIelow iva Mt. 27. 20, elsewhere it takes acc. of the object
and inf.—IIolâ iva is used in Jo. 11. 37, Col. 4. 16, Ap. 3. 9 Toinow
aŭtoùs iva ý Éovoiv, cp. 13. 12, 15 f. (in 15 iva is wanting in XB); (va
has more of a final sense in Mc. 3. 14, cp. č Onka iva Jo. 15. 16 (Tocê
Tiva with inf. occurs in L. 5. 34 etc.; classical Greek has also occa-
sionally ToLEî Őws 'to cause that'); TOLEîV with acc. and inf. occurs
in Mc. 1. 17 (Mt. 4. 19 double acc.), L. 5. 34 etc.; didóvar (a Hebrew
usage) is similarly used in A. 10. 40, 14. 3, 2. 27 O.T.-'Ayyapeów iva
Mt. 27. 32 (no instance of the inf. ; 6oris oe åyyapetoel [D -peúell
Míncov v Mt. 5. 41).—'E tiva only takes inf.; the commoner åbinuo
"let' also takes (va, Mc. 11. 16; katadeiitw Tivá takes the inf. L. 10.40
(not so much an inf. of aim as of result, cp. Hom. Il. P. 151.—'ELTPÉTEW
Tivé only takes the inf. ; similarly kwłów trvá (with this the verb
Attic un is not annexed to the simple inf., SS 71, 3; 75, 4).—'To be
able,'' to understand' etc. only take the inf.: dúvapai (Suvat Paul),
ioxów (katlo XÚw L. 21. 36 xB al., v.l. KatafiWOộte; ¿ELOX. E. 3. 18),
éxw Mt. 18. 25 (in the N.T. it also has the meaning to have to,''be
obliged to,' L. 12. 50 Bántioua exw Banti dîvai, cp. Clem. Hom.
8 69. 4-5.]
227
PERIPHRASIS WITH (va.
i. 17, xii. 8), οίδα Mt. 7. II etc., γινώσκω Mt. 16. 3; further μανθάνω
1 Τim. 5. 4 etc., παιδεύομαι pass. 1. 20; προμελετώ L. 21. Ι4, διδάσκω
11. Ι (παραλαμβάνω Με. 7. 4), δεικνύω Α. 10. 28, υποδεικ. Mt. 3. 7.
-The inf. is likewise used with οφείλω, μέλλω, είωθα, φιλώ Mt. 6. 5
(23. 6 f.), άρχομαι (never with the participle in Ν.Τ., op. 8 73, 4),
προστίθεμαι (a Hebraism, Soi with and inf.) continue to do,
“repeat’ L. 20. II, A. 12. 3 (LXX. also uses the active), κινδυνεύω
Α. 19. 27, 40, προσποιούμαι L. 24. 28, επιλανθάνομαι forget to do'
Mt. 16. 5 = Mc. 8. 14 (also in Attic), and its opposite προσέχειν (not
so used in Att.) Mt. 6. 1 (with iva Barn. 16. 8). The construction
with the inf. is very widely extended in individual instances, and
used with far greater freedom than in Attic. Thus we have
διαβλέψεις έκβαλείν Mt. 7. 5, L. 6. 42 ; δοκιμάζω approve,' ου δοκ.
“disdain’1 Τh. 2. 4, R. 1. 28 (in Αtt. with inf. of opinion), ευδοκώ
Col. 1. 19 with (acc. and) inf. (Polyb. 1. 8. 4), συνευδ. with inf.
1 C. 7. 12 (acc. and inf. in Herm. Sim. v. 2. 11, iva ibid. 8). H. 11.5
ούχ εαυτόν εδόξασεν γενηθήναι αρχιερέα, like άξιούν. Α. 25. 21 του
Παύλου επικαλεσαμένου τηρηθήναι αυτόν, like verbs of asking (the β
text reads differently). A. 15. Ι4 έπεσκέψατο λαβείν, cp. L. 1. 25
επειδεν αφελεϊν. Α. 14. 15 ευαγγελιζόμενοι υμάς επιστρέφειν (D is
different, using όπως), 17. 21 εις ουδέν έτερον ηύχαίρουν ή λέγειν τι ...
καινότερον (there is no need to supply εις το before the inf., since
ευκαιρείν takes the inf. in Lucian Amor. 33). R. 1. Το ευοδωθήσομαι
έλθείν, like δύναμαι. 1 Τh. 2. 2 (Ε. 6. 2ο) παρρησιάζομαι (like
τολμώ). Μο. 5. 32 περιεβλέπετο ιδείν, 14. 8 προέλαβεν μυρίσαι (ep.
the Attic use of φθάνω with partic. Or inf., προφθάση βαλείν Clem.
Cor. ii. 8. 2). A. 16. 1ο προσκέκληται ημάς ευαγγελίσασθαι αυτούς.
Η. 11. 8 υπήκουσεν εξελθείν. Τit. 3. 8 φροντίζωσιν προΐστασθαι.
L. 12. 45 χρονίζει έρχεσθαι. We have the same construction with
longer phrases : τιθέναι (τίθεσθαι) εν τη καρδία (το πνεύματι) to
resolve,' “ to think of' (a Hebraism) L. 21. Ι4, A. 19. 21, ής διήνοιξεν
την καρδίαν (a Hebraism) προσέχειν Α. 16. 14 (op. the same phrase
with του and inf. in L. 24. 45); the following take ίνα, βουλή έγένετο
Α. 27. 42, θέλημά έστιν Mt. 15. Ι4 etc.: εγένετο ορμή A. 14. 5 takes
the inf. ; cp. L. 2. I, Jo. 13. 2, 34, Α. 17. Ι5, Ε. 3. 8 etc.
5. A similar relation between the infinitive and iva exists in the
case of a series of impersonal expressions, whether they consist of a
simple verb or combinations of εστίν with an adj., such as δεί,
συμφέρει, έξεστι, έγένετο, δυνατόν έστιν, αρεστόν έστιν: also in the case
of combinations of εστίν with a substantive such as ώρα εστίν, καιρός
έστιν, and in the case of adjectives like δυνατός άξιος έκανός έτοιμος
used as predicates (with εστί) or as attributes. The infinitive might
here be said to express the direction or goal. Equivalent to these
are combinations like εξουσίαν έχω, χρείαν έχω etc. In Attic όπως is
excluded with expressions of this kind, Cote is not entirely excluded
(έστιν ώστε it is possible that’ Sophocles); in the N.T. ένα may be
i Very common in Mt., Mc., Lc., often used almost superfluously, as in Mc.
1. 45 ήρξατο κηρύσσειν which is hardly distinguishable from εκήρυσσεν.
228
[S 69. 5.
INFINITIVE AND
used in all cases, except where a fact is stated to have taken place,
as in the common phrase éyéveto (cp. $ 72, 5) and its classical equi-
valent συνέβη (only in A. 21. 35), or where the close connection of
the word with the inf. has become quite established, as with deal and
έξεστι (with the latter cp. ελευθέρα έστιν γαμηθήναι 1 C. 7. 39).
Συμφέρει ένα occurs in Mt. 5. 29 f., 18. 6 etc., besides (acc. and) inf.
'Αρκετόν (sc. έστιν) ίνα γένηται Mt. 10. 25 (differing from αρκούσιν ίνα
Jo. 6. 7, where the result is stated, = ώστε); on the other hand the
inf. is used in 1 P. 4. 3 αρκετός έστιν ο παρεληλυθως χρόνος... κατειρ-
γάσθαι. Δυνατόν έστι (Α. 2. 24 with acc. and inf.) and δυνατός έστι
(somewhat more frequent) only take the inf. like δύναμαι. Ούκ είμι
ικανός ένα is used in Mt. 8. 8, elsewhere the inf. 2; ουκ ειμι άξιος ένα
Jo. 1. 27 (often with inf. ; with του and inf. 1 C. 16. 4, see 8 71, 3;
with a relative sentence L. 7. 4, 8 65, 8). Συνήθειά έστιν ίνα Jo. 18. 39;
έρχεται (ή) ώρα ίνα Jo. 12. 23, 13. Ι, 16. 2, 32 (acc. and inf. as in
Attic in R. 13. ΙΙ ; (6) καιρός [sc. έστι του άρξασθαι το κρίμα
1 P. 4. 17; cp. $ 71, 33 ; elsewhere these words take öte or ev ,
έσται κ. ότε... ανέξονται 2 Tim. 4. 3, έρχεται ώρα εν η.. ακούσουσιν
Jo. 5. 25, where the prediction is more definite, whereas iva. or the
inf. states the tendency or drift of the impending event). Xpelav čxw
ίνα Jo. 2. 25, 16. 30, 1 Jo. 2. 27; elsewhere it talkes inf., Mt. 3. Ι4
etc., Jo. 13. 10 (with viyao Dar, the two verbs having the same subject,
while in the iva passages a new subject is introduced 4). 'Egovolav
έχω takes inf. Η. 13. Το, Αp. 11. 6; εδόθη εξουσία inf. ibid. 13. 5
(with ώστε Mt. 10. 1, vide sup. 3) ; δότε την εξουσίαν ταύτην ίνα Α. 8.
19. With ένα must also be quoted 1 C. 4. 3 έμοί εις ελάχιστον έστιν
ίνα. Το έμόν βρωμά έστιν ίνα Jo. 4. 34, cp. the passages quoted below
in 6. "Ανθρωπον ουκ έχω ένα βάλη με Jo. 5. 7, instead of oς βαλει or
the Attic τον βαλούντα, ep. S 65, 8.-Again ίνα is used after a com-
parative with ή: L. 17. 2 λυσιτελεί αυτό εί περίκειται ... ή ένα σκαν-
δαλίση, 1 C. 9. 15 καλόν μοι μάλλον αποθανείν, ή το καύχημά μου ένα
τις κενώσει (8*BD* have the bad reading ουδείς for ίνα τις).-The
infinitive is freely used in some special phrases such as in G. 5. 3
οφειλέτης έστιν (= οφείλει) ποιήσαι, Η. 4. Ι καταλειπομένης επαγγελίας
εισελθείν (op. απολείπεται, απόκειται with inf. in 4. 6, 9. 27): a classical
use is 5. ΙΙ λόγος δυσερμήνευτος λέγειν (lilke λευκός ιδείν etc.; elsewhere
not used in N.T.); another very classical use occurs in H. 9. 5 oỦk
έστιν νύν λέγειν (Viteau p. 251). A peculiar use of the inf. is και
έχων ώτα ακούειν άκουέτω Μο. 4. 9, L. 14. 35 and elsewhere (to hear,
δυνάμενα ακούειν), cp. ώτα του μη ακούειν R. 11. 8 such ears that they
cannot hear, 8 71, 3.
1 Still Barn. 5. 13 has έδει ένα πάθη.
2 Cp. πολλά, μικρόν λείπει (is wanting) with ένα and with inf. in Ηerm. Vis.
iii. 1. 9, Sim. ix. 9. 4.
3 A peculiar instance is Ap. 11. 18 ήλθεν ο καιρός των νεκρών κριθήναι και δούναι
κ.τ.λ., = ίνα κριθώσιν οι νεκροί και δως κ.τ.λ.; cp. R. 9. 21 έχει εξουσίαν του πηλού,
ποιήσαι κ.τ.λ.
41 Τh. 4. 9 ου χρείαν έχομεν γράφειν υμίν 8°D* al., έχετε... γράφειν Ν*AD al.
incorrectly: a third reading which is also grammatically correct is éxeTE ...
γράφεσθαι (= 5. 1) Η al.
8 69. 6-8.]
229
PERIPHRASIS WITH ένα.
6. Closely related to some of the expressions quoted under 4 and
5 is the explanatory (accusative and) infinitive, preceded by a
demonstrative; the demonstrative may also be omitted without
rendering the construction with the infinitive thereby impossible.
"Ινα may here also take the place of the infinitive. Ja. 1. 2η θρησκεία
καθαρά ... αύτη εστίν, επισκέπτεσθαι ορφανούς, Α. 15. 28 μηδέν πλέον
υμίν επιτίθεσθαι βάρος πλήν τούτων των επάναγκες, απέχεσθαι κ.τ.λ.,
1 Τh. 4. 3 τούτο γάρ έστιν το θέλημα του θεού, ο αγιασμός υμών,
απέχεσθαι υμάς κ.τ.λ., Ε. 3. 8 (op. without a demonstr. and with ίνα
1 C. 16. 12). With ίνα : L. 1. 43 και πόθεν μοι τούτο, ίνα έλθη ή
μήτηρ του κυρίου μου προς εμέ (here somewhat irregular, as the clause
introduced by ένα is already a fact), Jo. 15. 8 έν τούτω εδοξάσθη και
πατήρ μου, ένα καρπόν πολύν φέρητε, = εν τω φέρειν υμάς (conception
and wish, not actual fact), 1 Jo. 5. 3 αύτη γάρ έστιν η αγάπη του Θεού,
ένα τας εντολάς αυτού τηρώμεν. It is specially frequent in John, see
further 6. 39, 17. 3, 1 Jo. 3. ΙΙ, 23, 4. 21, 2 Jo. 6 (without a
demonstr. Jo. 4. 34, supra 5); akin to this use are 1 Jo. 3. 1 (TOTATIV
αγάπην... ίνα), 1 C. 9. τ8 (τίς μου έστιν ο μισθός ; ίνα). A further
noteworthy instance is Jo. 15. 13 μείζονα ταύτης αγάπην ουδείς έχει,
ίνα την ψυχήν αυτού θη (= του θείναι), cp. 3 Jo. 4. But if the
epexegetical phrase consists of facts, John uses not ένα but ότι (8 70,
3): 1 Jo. 3. 16 εν τούτω εγνώκαμεν την αγάπην, ότι εκείνος ... την
ψυχήν αυτού έθηκεν, or again if the fact is only supposed to take
place, εάν or όταν is used: 1 Jo. 2. 3 εν τούτω γινώσκομεν ότι ..., εάν
τηρώμεν, 5. 2 εν τ. γ. ότι ..., όταν αγαπώμεν.
7. The infinitive with πρίν (or πριν ή which is not such good
Attic) belongs, generally speaking, to this series of infinitives, which
correspond to a conjunctive and not to an indicative : although iva
cannot be introduced in this case, and the conjunctive, where it is
used, is sharply distinguished from the infinitive, viz. the conjunctive
stands after a negative principal sentence, the infinitive after a
positive sentence (as in Attic).1 Mt. 1. Ι8 πριν ή συνελθείν αυτούς,
ευρέθη κ.τ.λ., 26. 34, 75 πρίν (ή is added by A in verse 75; L. 22. 61
ή ειdd. Β; Μο. 14. 3ο ή om. ND, 72 no ΜSS. have ή) αλέκτορα φωνήσαι
τρίς απαρνήση με, Jo. 4. 49, 8. 58,2 14. 29, Α. 2. 20 Ο.Τ., 7. 2 (never
in the Epistles). In a similar way to this πρίν, προ του with the inf.
may also be used, c.g. in Mt. 6. 8, L. 2. 21, G. 2. 12, 3. 23, especially
in the case of a fact which is regarded as really taking place at a
subsequent time, though πρίν is not excluded in this case, A. 7. 2,
Jo. 8. 58 (so in Attic). IIpív with the conj. or optat. in the respective
cases (for the opt. of indirect speech see § 66, 5) after a negative
principal sentence is found only in Luke, see g 65, 10.
8. With regard to the voice of the verb, it is noticeable that after
1 The conj. (without áv) is used after a positive principal sentence, and there-
fore incorrectly, in Herm. Sim. v. 7. 3.
2D has πρίν 'Αβραάμ without the inf. γενέσθαι, so that πρίν is used as a pre-
position (with the gen.), like έως with the gen., 8 40, 6. Cp. Stephanis πρίν
(πρίν ώρας Pindar Pyth. 4, 43 ; often in Josephus ; Arrian al.), W. Schnmid de
Joseph. eloc. 395.
230 INFIN. AND PERIPHRASIS WITH va. [$ 69. 8. $ 70. 1–2.
verbs of commanding the inf. pass. is used instead of the inf. act. in
a manner that is more characteristic of Latin than of classical Greek,
if it is necessary to state that something is to be done to a person,
without mentioning the agent.1 Mt. 18. 25 ékélevD EV aŭtòv tpadîvai,
Α. 23. 3 κελεύεις με τύπτεσθαι, ειnd so frequently with κελεύειν in Mt.
and Lc. (who alone use this verb, supra 4). On the other hand we
have A. 23. 10 ÉKÉREVDE TÒ otpátevua áprágai aŭtóv (16. 22 ékélevov
paßsífelv is contrary to the above rule). A. 5. 21 åréoteldav åxoavau
aŭtoús, 22. 24 citras páotie.V dveráceo bar aúróv, Mc. 6. 27 ÉTÉTLEEV
evexOaval (HBC ¿véykai) Thv kepalyv aŭtoll (but in 6. 39 ÉTÉTAÇEV
aútois åvarlîvai távtas), A. 24. 23 (datatáuevos), L. 8. 55 (déTO.EEV),
L. 19. 15 (elitev), A. 25. 21 (éttikaleo auévov), 1 Th. 5. 27 ( év lopkíšw), 2
A. 13. 28 (v týcurto, cp. Clem. Cor. i. 55. 4).
$ 70. INFINITIVE AND PERIPHRASIS WITH Śti.
1. The complement of verbs of (perceiving), believing, (showing),
saying, in respect of the purport of the idea or communication in
question, is in classical Greek rendered to a great extent by the
infinitive, the subject of which, if identical with that of the governing
verb, is not expressed, while in other cases it is placed in the
accusative. The participle is an alternative construction for the
infinitive, see $ 73, 5; in addition to these constructions, the com-
plement of verbs of perceiving, showing, saying (not of verbs of
believing) is often formed by means of an indirect question, and a
development of this use is the construction with őti (strictly 6, 71 an
indirect interrogative particle), which is allowable with these same
verbs (and therefore not with verbs of believing). Lastly, as a less
definitely 3 analytical expression, ús with a finite verb is also in use
with verbs of saying, hearing etc.
2. In the N.T. the infinitive has not indeed gone out of use in
connection with these verbs, but it has taken quite a subordinate
place, while the prevailing construction is that with óti. The in-
direct question is kept within its proper limits, ús is found almost
exclusively in Luke and Paul and preserves more or less clearly its
proper meaning of 'how,' though it is already becoming interchange-
able with mớs, which in late Greek assumes more and more the
meaning of ŐT14; lastly, the unclassical combination ús őtc occurs three
1 And even where the agent is mentioned in Herm. Sim. ix. 8. 3 ÉKÉNEUOE Sid.
των παρθένων απενεχθήναι.
? Buttm. 236 f., who rightly, rejects the following readings, Mc. 5. 43 dollvar
(D) instead of dodavat, 6. 27 évéyka. (XBCA) instead of evexõhval, A. 22. 24 åve-
Tášelv (D*) instead of -eo Dai, and also in Mc. 10. 49 prefers elitev aútdy pwvnoîval
(ADX al.) to elitev pwyńoate autóv (HBCLA). In Mc. . 7 the MSS. are divided
between είπεν (εκέλευσεν οf D is wrong) παραθείναι – παρατιθέναι - παρατεθήναι (Α,
cp. αρρoni νulg. it.) – παρέθηκεν (N*, without είπεν); παρατεθήναι is the realing
commended by the usage of the language (Buttm.).
? Riemann Revue de philol. N.S. vi. 73.
4'ls is used in Mc. 12. 26 after åvay.vuokelv (v.l. Tws), L. 6. 4 (åvay.; v.l. rūs,
om. BD), L. 8. 47 (åmayyéMXELV; D 871), 23. 55 (deão dai), 24. 6 (urno o avai; D coa),
$ 70. 2.] INFINITIVE AND PERIPHRASIS WITH óti.
231
times in Paul.1 The point above all to be noticed is that the use,
which is so largely developed in classical Greek, of the indirect form
of speech with the (acc. and) infinitive, is almost entirely wanting ;
it may be said that Luke is the only writer who uses it at any
length, and even he very quickly passes over into the direct form,
see A. 25. 4 f., 1. 4.--Details: verbs of perceiving (recognizing and
knowing) with the acc. and inf. 'AKOÚELV Jo. 12. 18, 1 C. 11. 18 (i.e.
to receive a communication (so in classical Greek]; elsewhere it takes
the participle and more commonly ότι). (Θεωρείν and βλέπειν take
ŐTo Mc. 16. 4 etc.; not the inf., but part., $ 73, 5.) I'vớokely takes
acc. and inf. in H. 10. 34 (in classical Greek only with the meaning
'to pass judgment,' which may also be adopted in this passage); the
prevailing construction is őri, cp. Participles $ 73,5. ELSévai in L. 4.
41, 1 P. 5. 9 (Clem. Cor. i. 43. 6, 62. 3) takes acc. and inf. (as
occasionally in class. Greek), elsewhere the partic. and usually Őtu
(us), which is also the usual construction with coloraolau. Kata-
Napßáveolau 'to recognize,' 'find' (post-classical; cp. Att. -velv) takes
acc. and inf. in A. 25. 25; elsewhere oti (4. 13, 10. 34).—To believe
etc. contrary to Attic usage very largely take ori : Sokelv 'to think'
takes (acc. and) inf. in L. 8. 18, 24. 37, A. 12. 9, Jo. 5. 39, 16. 2,
2 C. 11. 16 etc., ori in Mt. 6. 7 etc. (so almost always except in Lc.
and Paul; there is a second reading in Mc. 6. 49); but Sokeiv 'to
seem' only takes inf. (Lc., Paul, Hebrews; Herm. Sim. ix. 5. I
¿dókel uol impers. with acc. and inf.), similarly Poté jou 'it seemed
good to me' (only in Lc., literary language, $ 69, 4). 'Elmiyelv takes
inf. in L. 6. 34, R. 15. 24 and elsewhere in Lc. and Paul (the fut.
inf. in A. 26. 7 B, elsewhere the aorist, § 61, 3), and in 2 Jo. 12,
3 Jo. 14; őri in A. 24. 26, 2 C. 1. 13 and elsewhere in Lc. and Paul.
EX ELV TIVà Őto 'to reckon' (Lat. habere, a Latinism, cp. $ 34, 5) Mc.
11. 32 (D y delgav). 'Hyeolat takes acc. and inf. in Ph. 3. 8 (for the
double acc. $ 34,5). Kpivelv, “to decide that something is,' takes acc. and
inf. in A. 16. 15, TOÛTO őri in 2 C. 5. 15; 'to decide that something
should be' ('to choose,' 'conclude ') takes inf. in A. 15. 19, 1 C. 2. 2,
acc. and inf. in A. 25. 25 (Toû with inf. in 27. 1; this construction
like έδοξέ μοι belongs to the same category as βούλεσθαι, κελεύειν etc.,
§ 69, 4). Aoylicobar, to decide,' takes (acc. and) inf. in R. 3. 28,
14. 14, 2 C. 11. 5, Ph. 3. 13; ori in R. &. 18, Jo. 11. 50, H. 11. 19
(in John and Hebr. "to reflect,' say to oneself,' as in 2 C. 10. II;
with this meaning oti is not unclassical). Notîv acc. and inf. H. 11. 3;
Óti Mt. 15. 17 etc. (both unclassical). Noulfely takes (acc. and) inf.
in L. 2. 44 and elsewhere in Lc. and Paul (évóuecov solebant with
inf. A. 16. 13?); őri in Mt. 5. 17 etc., A. 21. 29 (the acc. and inf.
24. 35 (ènyeîo bai; D 8T1), A. 10. 28 (oldate, ws & Déletov), 38 (emloraodai; D reads
differently), 20. 20 (ětlot.; Tŵs is used previously in verse 18), R. l. 9 and Ph.
1. 8 and 1 Th. 2. 10 (Máptus) and in a few passages elsewhere. Ilớs (Hatzidakis
Einl. in d. ngr. Gramm. 19) occurs in Mt. 12. 4 after åvarivuo KELV, Mc. 12. 41
with Beupel, L. 14. 7 with êméxwv, A. ll. 13 årńyyellev, 1 Th. 1. 9. Barn. 14.
6, Clem. Cor. i. 19. 3, 21. 3, 34. 5, 37. 2, 56. 16.
12 C. 5. 19, 11. 21, 2 Th. 2. 2. See on this late usage of the language
Sophocles Lex. s.v. ús (Clem. Hom. i. 7).
232 INFINITIVE AND PERIPHRASIS WITH Őtu. (S 70. 2–3.
would have been ambiguous).1 Oreodal (acc. and) inf. Jo. 21. 25
(last verse of the Gospel), Ph. 1. 17; őri Ja. 1. 7. IIelberdai (acc.
and) inf. L. 20. 6, A. 26. 26 (apparently with őri in H. 13. 8, but
the passage is probably corrupt; v.l. Ten Oí Dauer); similarly the (acc.
and) inf. is used with TETOLOévai R. 2. 19, 2 Č. 10. 7; öti in R. 8. 38
etc.; Ph. 2. 24 etc. IIIOTEÚELV takes inf. in A. 15. 11, R. 14. 2 ; ŐT,
passim. IIpoo Sokây takes (acc. and) inf. A. 3. 5 (aor. inf.), 28. 6 (with
Méddelv Triumpuobou). Ytrokpiveodai acc. and inf. L. 20. 20. Ytronau-
Bávely takes őri in L. 7. 43 (this is also classical, Plato Apol. 35 A).
*YtrovoElv acc. and inf. A. 13. 25, 27. 27. On the whole, therefore,
the use of the infinitive with verbs of believing is, with some very
rare exceptions, limited to Lc. and Paul (Hebrews), being 'a remnant
of the literary language' (Viteau, p. 52).
3. Verbs of saying, showing etc. take őri with a finite verb to a
very large extent, as do also the equivalent expressions such as
náprupa értikaloûuai tòv Deóv 2 C. 1. 23, aŭtn eoTiv n uaptupla 1 Jo. 5.
II, éUTùy arn hảoyeÀía 1 Jo, 1. 5, 'va TẶmpuôn ô tóyos Jo. 15. 25,
åvéßn báois A. 21. 31, év óvópati Mc. 9. 41 (“for the reason that,
on the ground that'); further, adjectives like olov (sc. ĉorí) take
this construction. Special mention may be made of pával őri 1 C.
10. 19, 15. 50 (with acc. and inf. in R. 3. 8), whereas in classical
Greek this verb hardly ever takes oti (any more than it takes an
indirect question). Aadel oto is rare, H. 11. 18, this verb never
takes acc. and inf.; the commoner construction is éládnoev deywv
like έκραξεν λέγων, απεκρίθη λέγων etc., the usual phrase formed on
the model of the Hebrew (hany 27.), cp. $ 74, 3. Kpáčelv, (do) déy-
γεσθαι, φωνείν never take ότι or acc. and inf., αποκρίνεσθαι only in Le:
(20.7 with inf., A. 25. 4 acc. and inf., 25. 16 ŐTL), Boâv only in A. 25. 24
takes the inf. 'Ouvúelv ŐT. Occurs in Mt. 26. 74, Ap. 10. 6 (unclassical;
it takes the aor. inf. in A. 2. 30, the fut. inf. as in class. Greek in
H. 3. 18); ŐTi is also used with other expressions of asseveration
such as fotiv å dňoela toû XplotOû êv čuoi, öti 2 C. 11. 1o, cp. (Clem.
Cor. i. 58. 2), G. 1. 20, R. 14. II, 2 C. 1. 23 (vide supra). The use
of the (acc. and) inf., as compared with that of oti, is seldom found
in writers other than Lc. and Paul : dévely takes acc. and inf. in Mt.
16. 13, 15, 22. 23=Mc. 8. 27, 29, 12. 18, Jo. 12. 29 etci, kataKpVelv
in Mc. 14. 64, étiuaptupeîv in 1 P. 5. 12, étayyélleolai takes the inf. in
Mc. 14. II, A. 7. 5; in Lc. and Paul the following verbs also take
this construction, åtayyérlev A. 12. 14, pokaTayyedeLV 3. 18, åtap-
velodau L. 22. 34, Suo Xuplfeodai A. 12. 15, uaptupeîv 10. 43, arpoaitiâolau
R. 3. 9, onualver A. 11. 28, xenuarit eu to predict L. 2. 26; while the
ότι used with παραγγέλλειν to command in 2 Τh. 3. Ιo is a ότι
recitativum (infra 4).-Verbs of showing (which may be regarded as
the causatives of verbs of perceiving) in Attic Greek, in cases where
Őri is not used, generally express the complement by means of the
i Thuc, iii. 88 is quite wrongly adduced as an instance of voulçelv ötl.
2 R. 14. 2 LOTEÚEL Payelv návra. IILOTEÚELV here therefore means not believe,'
but to have confidence and dare.
$ 70.3–5. § 71, 1-2.] INFINITIVE WITH ARTICLE.
233
participle (δεικνύναι, δηλούν, also φανερός είμι etc.; occasionally also
átayyéllelv and the like). In the N.T. we find & LdELkvúvai A. 18.
28 and onloûv H. 9. 8 with acc. and inf. (which is not contrary to
Attic usage),1 ÚTodelkvúvai A. 20. 35 and pavepowo Dar pass. 2 C. 3. 3,
1 Jo. 2. 19 with őti (bavepoûv takes acc. and inf. in Barn. 5. 9); so
ondov (at pódndov) óti 1 C. 15. 27, G. 3. 11, H. 7. 14; instances of the
use of the participle are entirely wanting.
4. By far the most ordinary form of the complement of verbs of
saying is that of direct speech, which may be introduced by őti (the
so-called őti recitativum), for which see $ 79, 12. An indirect state-
ment after verbs of perceiving and believing is also assimilated to the
direct statement so far as the tense is concerned, see SS 56, 9; 57, 6;
59, 6; 60, 2. "Oru is used quite irregularly with the acc. and inf.
after Dewpô in A. 27. 10; in A. 14, 22 we can more readily tolerate
και ότι (equivalent to λέγοντες ότι) with a finite verb following
παρακαλείν with an infinitive.
5. The very common use in the classical language of av with the
infinitive (= av with indic. or optat. of direct speech) is entirely
absent from the N.T. (woáv with the inf. is not connected with this
use, $ 78, 1).
$71. INFINITIVE WITH THE ARTICLE.
1. The article with an infinitive strictly has the same (anaphoric)
meaning which it has with a noun; but there is this difference
between the two, that the infinitive takes no declension forms, and
consequently the article has to be used, especially in all instances
where the case of the infinitive requires expression, without regard
to its proper meaning and merely to make the sense intelligible.
The use of the infinitive accompanied by the article in all four cases,
and also in dependence on the different prepositions, became more
and more extended in Greek; consequently the N.T. shows a great
abundance of usages of this kind, although most of them are not
widely attested, and can be but very slightly illustrated outside the
writings which were influenced by the literary language, namely
those of Luke and Paul (James). See Viteau, p. 173. The rarest of
these usages is the addition to the infinitive of an attribute in the
same case (which even in classical Greek is only possible with a
pronoun) : the only N.T. instance is H. 2. 15 Sid Tavtòs Toû fîqv.
2. The nominative of the infinitive with the article, as also the
accusative used independently of a preposition, are found sporadically
in Mt. and Mc., somewhat more frequently in Paul, and practically
nowhere in the remaining writers; they are generally used in such
a way that the anaphoric meaning of the article, with reference to
something previously mentioned or otherwise well known, is more
Or less clearly marked. Mt. 15. 20 το ανίπτοις χερσίν φαγείν subj.

1 On ouvlotával with acc. and inf. in 2 C. 7. 11 (?) see $ 38, 2 note.
234
[S 71. 2-3.
INFINITIVE WITH ARTICLE.
(see verse 2): 20. 23 tò kaliooi obj. (kadío wolv verse 21): Mc. 9. 10
Tò va0TậvLL (9 ivaT; D has jray ép V6Kpv ảwaOT7): 12. 33 Tò
ảya.av (see 30): A. 25. II Pavaroo .. Tò dToWavetv: R. 4. I3 %
étrayyedía ... TÒ Kinpovóuov aútov cival (epexegetical to étayy. : the
art. in both cases denoting something well known): 7.18 TÒ GéNELV ...
το κατεργάζεσθαι, ideas which have already been the subjects of
discussion; cp. 2 C. 8. 10 f. (TÒ Oélelv is added as the opposite of tò
TOÑOai), Ph. 2. 13 (do.), 1. 29 (do.), 1. 21 f., 24: R. 13. 8 tò ålandovs:
åyarâv (the well-known precept): 1 C. 11. 6 Kelpáo dw łupáo dw...
To ke page. i <úpoo cut : 7. 26,114, 39, 2 C. 7. II, Ph. 2. 6, 4. Io Tò
ÚTÈD tuoll Spoveiv (which you have previously done ; but FG read
Toll, cp. 19, 1), H. 10. 31 (in G. 4. 18 KABC omit tò). The force
of the article is not so clear in 2 C. 9. I Teplogóv £OTI TÒ ypábelv, cp.
Demosth. 2. 3. TÒ SLEÉLéval ... ouxi kal@s é xelv oʻyoumai (the article
denotes something obvious, which might take place), Herm. Vis. iv.
2. 6 aipet.crepov av aŭtois TÒ Mi, yevvn añval. But its use is still more
lax with pń in 2 C. 10. 2 SéouaTÒ MY) Tapwv Dappñoara, R. 14. 13, 21,
2 C. 2. I, and quite superfluous in 1 Th. 3. 3 Tò (om. XABD al.)
undeva caíveo Oal, 4. 6 TÒ MY ÚTeppalvelv (whereas there is no art. in
verses 3 f. with απέχεσθαι and ειδέναι); this το μή (like του μή, infra
3) is equivalent to a iva clause, and is found to a certain extent
similarly used in classical writers after a verb of hindering (KUTÉYELV
TÒ Mr) dakpúelv Plato, Phaedo 117 C), while douai tò Dappñoal without
a uń would clearly be impossible even in Paul.3
3. The genitive of the infinitive, not dependent on a preposition,
has an extensive range in Paul and still more in Luke ; it is found
to a limited degree in Matthew and Mark, but is wholly, or almost
wholly, absent from the other writers. According to classical usage
it may either be dependent on a noun or verb which governs a
genitive, or it is employed (from Thucydides onwards, but not very
frequently) to denote aim or object (being equivalent to a final sen-
tence or an inf. with éveku). Both uses occur in the N.T., but the
manner of employing this inf. has been extended beyond these
limits, very much in the same way that the use of iva has been
extended. It is found after nouns such as xpóvos, kalpós, é ovola,
éltis, xpeía: L. 1. 57, 2. 6, 1 P. 4. 17, L. 10. 19, 22. 6, A. 27. 20,
1 C. 9. 10, R. 15. 23, H. 5. 12; in these cases the inf. without the
art, and the periphrasis with iva may also be used, $ 69, 5, without
altering the meaning (whereas in Attic a toll of this kind ordin-
arily keeps its proper force), and passages like L. 2. 21 &Trino Ondav
ģuépau OKTÒ TOû Tepitelleiv aútov show a very loose connection
between the inf. and the substantive (almost=űOTE TEPITEuelv, iva
1 In this passage and in 2 C. 7. II (R. 14. 13, 2 C. 2. I) TOÛTo precedes, but
the pronoun in no way occasions the use of the art., cp. (without an art.) 1 C.
7. 37 etc., § 69, 6 (Buttm. p. 225).
2 In A. 4. 18 tapńyyeldav tò (om. **B) kablov un poéyyeo dac the article, if
correctly read, should be joined with kadblov, cp. § 34, 7, Diod. Sic. 1. 77.
3 A parallel from the Lxx. is quoted (Viteau, p. 164), viz. 2 Esdr. 6. 8 Tour
katapynoîval, 'that it may not be hindered.'
$ 71. 3.]
235
INFINITIVE ZY
WITH ARTICLE.
περιτέμωσιν). Op. further R. 8. Ι2 οφειλέται ... του κατά σάρκα ζην,
R. 1. 24 ακαθαρσίαν, του ατιμάζεσθαι, = ώστε ατ.; the connection with
the subst. is quite lost in 1 C. 10. 13 την έκβασιν, του δύνασθαι.
υπενεγκείν, R. 11. 8 Ο.Τ. οφθαλμούς του μη βλέπεις και ώτα του μη
ακούειν, such eyes that they’ etc. (ibid. το Ο.Τ. σκοτισθήτωσαν οι
οφθ. του μη βλ.). Also A. 14. 9 ότι έχει πίστιν του σωθήναι, the faith
necessary to salvation, = π. ώστε σωθήναι ; Ρh. 3. 21 την ενέργειας του
δύνασθαι (the force whereby He is able), η προθυμία του θέλεις
2 C. 8. 11 the zeal to will, which makes one willing. With adjectives
we have άξιον του πορεύεσθαι 1C. 16. 4 as in classical Greek; the
instances with verbs, which in classical Greek govern the genitive,
are equally few, εξαπορηθήναι του ζήν 2 C. 1. 8 (απορείν τινος ; also
εξαπορείσθαί τινος Dionys. Hal.), έλαχεν του θυμιάσαι L. 1. 9 (LXX.
has the same use in 1 Sam. 14. 47; but in classical Greek in spite of
λαγχάνειν τινός this verb only takes the simple inf., and the του with
the inf. corresponds rather to its free use in the examples given
below). The construction of του μή and the inf. with verbs of
hindering, ceasing etc. (Lc., but also in the Lxx.) has classical pre-
cedent, e.g. Χen. Anab. iii. 5. ΙΙ πας ασκός δύο άνδρας έξει του μη
καταδύναι ; but the usage is carried further, and του μή clearly has
the meaning so that not’: L. 4. 42 (κατέχειν), 24. τ6 (κρατείσθαι),
Α. 10. 47 (κωλύειν), 14. I8 (καταπαύειν), 20. 20, 27 (υποστέλλεσθαι και
D incorrectly omits the μή), also L. 17. Ι ανένδεκτόν έστι του μη ...
(ep. from the Ο.Τ. 1 P. 3. το παύειν, R. 11. το σκοτισθήναι, vide
supral). Paul however has this inf. without un, so that its dependence
on the principal verb is clear, R. 15. 22 ένεκοπτόμην του ελθείν. Cp.
το μή, supra 2.-A final (or consecutive) sense is the commonest
sense in which toll and roll uń are used in the N.T.: Mt. 13. 3
εξήλθεν ο σπείρων του σπείρειν, 2. 13 ζητείν του απολέσαι, 21. 32 μετε-
μελήθητε του πιστεύσαι (so as to), 3. 13, 11. Ι, 24. 45 (om. του D),
H. 10.7 (0.T.), 11. 5. The simple inf. has already acquired this
final sense ; there is a tendency to add the toớ to the second of two
infinitives of this kind for the sake of clearness : L. 1. 76 f., 78 f.,
2. 22, 24, A. 26. 18. The toll is then used in other cases as well,
being attached in numerous instances at any rate in Luke (especially
in the Acts; occasionally in James) to infinitives of any kind what-
ever after the example of the Lxx.2: it is found after éyéveto
Α. 10. 25 (not in D, but this MS. has it in 2. 1), εκρίθη 27. Ι, cp.
εγένετο γνώμης του 20. 3 (ανέβη επί την καρδίαν Ηerm. Vis. iii. 7. 2),
έπιστείλαι 15. 20, παρακαλείν 21. 12, εντέλλεσθαι L. 4. Ιο Ο.Τ.
(Ps. 90. II), προσεύχεσθαι Ja. 5. 17, κατανεύειν L. 5. 7, στηρίζειν το
πρόσωπον 9. 51, συντίθεσθαι Α. 23. 20, ποιείν 3. 12, έτοιμος 23. 15
(Herm. Sim. viii. 4. 2). The only infinitive which cannot take the
του is one which may be resolved into a ότι clause: it is the possi-
bility of substituting iva or ūote for it which forms the limitation to
sionalrous instancehen usedmness : . Second of this
1 The LXX. has Gen. 16. 2 συνέκλεισεν του μη ..., 20. 6 έφεισάμην σου του μη ...
Ps. 38. 2 φυλάξω τας οδούς μου του μή ..., 68. 24 (= R. 11. το). Viteau, p. 172.
2 Ε.g. in 1 Kings 1. 35 after ενετειλάμην, Ezek. 21. II and 1 Μacc. 5. 39 after
έτοιμος. Viteau, p. 170.
236
[S 71. 3-5.
INFINITIVE ΤΙ
WITH ARTICLE.
its use. It is especially frequent in an explanatory clause loosely
ειppended to the main sentence: L. 24. 25 βραδείς τη καρδία, του
πιστεύσαι (in believing; του π. om. D), cp. βραδ. εις το infra 4,
Α. 7. 19 εκάκωσεν τους πατέρας, του ποιείν (so as to make, in that he
made, = ποιών Or και επoίει), L. 1. 73, R. 6. 6, 7. 3, Ph. 3. Το
(R. 1. 24, 1 C. 10. 13, vide supra). A quite peculiar instance is
Αp. 12. 7 έγένετο πόλεμος εν τω ουρανό, ο Μιχαήλ και οι άγγελοι αυτού
του (του om. NB) πολεμήσαι μετά του δράκοντος (it happened ... that
there fought ... ').3
4. The dative of the inf. without a preposition is found only once
in Paul to denote reason : 2 C. 2. 13 ουκ έσχηκα άνεσιν τω πνεύ-
ματί μου, τα μη ευρείν με Τίτον (LP το μη, *C2 του μη, both readings
impossible; but DE perhaps correctly have εν τω μη, cp. inf. 6).
5. Prepositions with the accusative of the infinitive. Els TÒ
denotes aim or result (= ίνα Or ώστε) : Mt. 20. 19 παραδώσουσιν εις
το έμπαίξαι, cp. 26. 2, 27. 31, Mc. 14. 55 (ένα θανατώσουσιν D),
L. 5. Ι7 (D reads differently), Α. 7. Ι9, Ja. 1. Ι8, 3. 3 (v.1. προς),
1 P. 3. 7, 4. 2; very frequent in Paul (and Hebrews), R. 1. 11, 20,
3. 26, 4. ΙΙ bis, I6, I8 etc., also used very loosely as in 2 C. 8. 6 εις
το παρακαλέσαι “to such an extent that we exhorted’; further
notable instances are 1 Τh. 3. Ιο δεόμενοι εις το ιδείν, = ίνα ίδωμεν,
8 69, 4: την επιθυμίαν έχων εις το αναλύσαι Ph. 1. 23 (DEFG omit
eis, which gives an impossible construction). (This use of eis is
nowhere found in the Johannine writings ; on the other hand it is
found in the First Epistle of Clement, e.g. in 65. I where it is parallel
with όπως.) It is used in another way in Ja. 1. 19 ταχύς εις το άκουσαι,
βραδύς εις το λαλήσαι, βραδύς εις οργήν, the inf. being treated as equi-
valent to a substantive (Herm. Mand. i. Ιδ ποιήσας έκ του μη όντος
εις το είναι τα πάντα, lilke ποιείν εις ύψος Clem. Cor. 1. 59. 3).-Aim
(or result) is likewise denoted by npòs TÒ, which however is nowhere
Very frequent: Με. 5. 28ο βλέπων γυναίκα προς το επιθυμήσαι αυτής,
6. Ι προς το θεαθήναι αυτούς, 13. 30, 23. 5, 26. 12, Μο. 13. 22,
L. 18. Ι (προς το δείν προσεύχεσθαι, ιuiti Teference to), Α. 3. Ι9 NB
(rell. είς), 2 C. 3. 13, Εph. 6. ΙΙ (DEFG είς), 1 Τh. 2. 9, 2 Τh. 3. 8.-
Alà tò to denote the reason is frequent in Luke: 2. 4, 8. 6 etc.,
Α. 4. 2, 8. II etc. ; also in Mt. 13. 5, 6, 24. 12, Mc. 4. 5, 6, 5. 4. (D
is different), Jo. 2. 24 (Syr. Sin. omits the whole clause), Ja. 4. 2,
Ph. 1. 7 (the solitary instance in Paul), H. 7. 23 f., 10. 2.-Μετά το
is used in statements of time: Mt. 26. 32, Mc. 1. 14, 14. 28 (16. 19),
L. 12. 5, 22. 20, Α. 1. 3, 7. 4, 10. 41, 15. 13, 19. 21, 20. Ι, 1 C. 11. 25,
H. 10. 15, 26.--The accus. of the inf. is nowhere found with éní,
κατά, παρά.
1 In Hermas, however, even this limit is transgressed, Mand. xii. 4. 6 σεαυτο
κέκρικας του μή δύνασθαι, = ότι ου δύνασαι.
2 There is an exact parallel in the LΧΧ., 1 Kings 17. 20 συ κεκάκωκας του θανα-
τωσαι τον υιόν αυτής.
3 Buttmann, p. 231; the nom. with the inf. is certainly quite a barbarism.
A forced explanation, by supplying ñoav with moleuñoal, is given by Viteau, 168.
$71. 6–7. $ 72. 1.] INF. WITH ART. CASES WITH INF. 237
BE
6. Prepositions with the genitive of the infinitive. 'Avrì Toll
'instead of' Ja. 4. 15. Acà mavtÒS TOû Sîv H. 2. 15 all through life,'
cp. supra 1 ad fin. 'Ek Toû E XELV 2 C. 8. II, probably = kabò äv éxy
of verse 12 (pro facultatibus, Grimm). "EveKey Toû pavepw Bijval
2 C..7. 12 (formed on the model of the preceding éveKEV Toll
αδικήσαντος κ.τ.λ.; otherwise ένεκεν would be superfluous). “Έως του
er ocîv A. 8. 40 (post-classical, in the LXX. Gen. 24. 33, Viteau); the
Attic use of Méxpe (űxpu) Toû with the inf. does not occur. IIpò toll
Mt. 6. 8, L. 2. 21, 22. 15, A. 23. 15, Jo. 1. 49, 13. 19, 17. 5, G. 2. 12,
3. 23. The gen. of the inf. is nowhere found with åtó, metá, trepi,
ůmép, nor yet with ävev, xwpís, xápiv etc.
7. The preposition év is used with the dative of the infinitive,
generally in a temporal sense ='while': Mt. 13. 4 év TẬ otepelv
αυτόν, = the classical σπείροντος αυτού (since Attic writers do not use
év to in this way, as Hebrew writers certainly use , Gesen.-Kautzsch
$ 114, 2), 13. 25, 27. 12, Mc. 4. 4, L. 1. 8, 2. 6, 43, 5. I etc. (éyéveto év
To is specially frequent, e.g. 1. 8, 2. 6), A. 2. I, 9. 3, 19. I (éyév. év
TỘ), R. 3. 4 0.T., 15. 13 (om. DEFG, the clause is probably due to
dittography of eis TÒ Tepio o cüelv), G. 4. 18. This phrase generally
takes the present infinitive, in Luke however it also takes the aorist.
inf., in which case the rendering of it is usually altered from 'while'
to after that' (so that it stands for the aorist participle or ote with
the aorist) : L. 2. 27 év to cioayayîv=elo ayayóvtwv or ote clonyayov,
(3. 21 év TÔ Barti Önvar 1 =őtt éBarrio On] äravta Tòv laòv kaè 'Incoû
Barrio Oévtos, the two things are represented as simultaneous events),
8. 40 (ÚTOOTPÉDelv XB), 9. 34 (simultaneous events), 36, 11. 37, 14. I,
19. 15, 24. 30, A. 11. 15.1 Also H. 2. 8 év TỚ ÚTOTá ai, where again
simultaneousness is expressed, 'in that' or 'by the fact that,'
= útoráļas ; a similar meaning is expressed in 8. 13 by év tớ léyelv
' in that he says,' by saying '; further instances of a meaning that
is not purely temporal are Mc. 6. 48 Bacavi couévous év to élaóvelv,
in rowing: L. 1. 21 ébavuacov év TÔ, when and that he tarried :
A. 3. 26 év tý dootpébelv, in that he turned = by turning; so 4. 30
(Herm. Vis. i. 1. 8).— The articular infinitive is never found with én í
or após.
$ 72. CASES WITH THE INFINITIVE. NOMINATIVE AND
ACCUSATIVE WITH THE INFINITIVE.
1. The classical language has but few exceptions to the rule that
the subject of the infinitive, if identical with the subject of the main
verb, is not expressed, but is supplied from the main verb in the
nominative ($ 70, 1); the exceptions are occasioned by the necessity
for laying greater emphasis on the subject, or by assimilation to an
additional contrasted subject, which must necessarily be expressed
1 Accordingly one might expect in L. 10. 35 év TØ Êtravépxeobal ue ÅToollow
rather to have ėravelociv, cp. 19. 15; but the meaning is not 'after my return'
but 'on my way back.'
238
(S 72. 1-2.
NOMINATIVE AND ACCUSATIVE
by the accusative. On the other hand, the interposition of a preposi-
tion governing the infinitive produces no alteration of the rule, nor
again the insertion of delv, xpîvac (of which insertion there are no
instances in the N.T. if we except A. 26. 9 in Paul's speech before
Agrippa). The same rule applies to the N.T.; the subject of the
infinitive which has already been given in or together with the main
verb, in the majority of cases is not repeated with the infinitive : and
if the infinitive is accompanied by a nominal predicate or an apposi-
tional phrase agreeing with its subject, the latter is nowhere and the
former is not always a reason for altering the construction, in other
words the appositional phrase must and the predicate may, as in
classical Greek, be expressed in the nominative. 2 C. 10. 2 douar TÒ
ur) tapwy (apposition) Dapproat, R. 9. 3 núxóunv åvá@eua (predic.) eivai
ajtós éyú, (Jo. 7. 4 where according to BD the acc. autò should be
read for atròs), R. 1. 22 báo Kovtes cival oopoi, H. 11. 4 euaptupňon civa,
δίκαιος (in Ρh. 4. ΙΙ έμαθον αυτάρκης είναι the nom. is necessary, since
the acc. and inf. is out of place with javoável which in meaning is
related to the verb 'to be able'). Instances of omission of subject,
where there is no apposition or predicate: L. 24. 23 léyovoai
ćwpakéval, Ja. 2. 14, 1 Jo. 2. 6, 9, Tit. 1. 16 (with Xéyelv and
guodoyeiv; it is superfluous to quote instances with Oékelv, Šnteîv
etc.).
2. There are however not a few instances where, particularly if a
nominal predicate is introduced, the infinitive (in a way that is
familiar in Latin writers)1 keeps the reflexive pronoun in the accusa-
tive as its subject, and then the predicate is made to agree with
this. A. 5. 36 Oevdâs déywv elvaí Tiva Fautóv, 8. 9, L. 23. 3, Ap. 2. 9
and 3. 9 TẬv leyóvtwv 'Iovdalovs cîvai tautoús (in 2. 2 most Mss. omit
Elvai), L. 20. 20 ÚTOKpLvouévous éautoùs dikalovs civai (elvar om. D),
R. 2. 19 métroldas geavtòV osnyòv civar, 6. II loyiceo de éavtoùs rival
verpoús. According to the usage of the classical language there would
in all these cases be no sufficient reason for the insertion of the
reflexive; after λεγόντων in Αp. 2. 9 Ιουδαίων would have had to be
used, but this assimilation is certainly not in the manner of the
N.T., vide infra 6 ; in 1 C. 7. II OUVEOTÝDate (you have proved')
Éavtoùs áyvoùs cîvai, classical Greek would have said úuâs aútoùs övtas,
see $ 70, 3. The only instances of the reflexive being used where
there is no nominal predicate are: Ph. 3. 13 éyù épavtòv oệtw
λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι, Η. 10. 34 γινώσκοντες έχειν εαυτούς κρείσσονα
ÚTUPÉLV (cp. $ 70, 2), Clem. Cor. i. 39. I Éavtoùs Bovlójevou étaipeo dan,
=class. aŭtoi, Herm. Sim. vi. 3. 5, A. 25. 21 Toll Ilaúlov člkadega-
jévov inpeło bar aútov (cp. $ 69, 4): this last is the only instance
(besides the reading of CD in L. 20. 7 un cidévai aŭtoús) where the
pronoun is not reflexive (cp. E. 4. 22 “nâs, but the whole construction
of that sentence is far from clear). In A. 25. 4 the reflexive is kept
where there is a contrasted clause as often in classical Greek : 71-
1 Also found in inscriptional translations from Latin, Viereck Sermo Graecus
senatus Rom. p. 68, 12.
$ 72. 2-5.]
239
WITH THE INFINITIVE.
pecobai tòv II., ĉavtòv dè uéddelv K.7.. (in classical Greek aútòs might
also be used).
3. More remarkable are the instances where an infinitive depend-
ent on a preposition, though its subject is identical with that of the
main verb, nevertheless has an accusative, and moreover an accusa-
tive of the simple personal pronoun (not reflexive), attached to it
as its subject. This insertion of the pronoun is a very favourite
construction, if the clause with the inf. and prep. holds an independ-
ent position within the sentence. Thus it is found after uetà Tò in
Mt. 26. 32 = Mc. 14. 28 metà Tò éyeponvaí pe at poáếw, A. 1. 3 Tapéo TNCEV
ÉOUTÒV (@vta jetà tò aðeîv aúróv (19. 21 METÀ TÒ yevéo Dai, but D adds
Me, Herm. Vis. ii. 1. 3, Mand. iv. 1. 7, Sim. viii. 2. 5, 6. I). After
Slà Tò: L. 2. 4 åvéßn ... dià tò civar aútov, 19. II, JO. 2. 24 dià Tò
aútòv yiváo kelv, Ja. 4. 2 oủk & XETE Oià tò un altîo dar ünâs, H. 7. 24.
"Ews toll é Ocîv aŭtov A. 8. 40. IIpo toll L. 22. 15. 'Ev T KOTNYO-
pelo Oui atròv oỦSèv årrekpivato Mt. 27. 12, cp. L. 9. 34, 10. 35, A. 4. 30,
R. 3. 4 0.T., Clem. Cor. i. 10. 1. With the simple dative of the inf.
2 C. 2. 13. This accus. is not found in the N.T. in expressions
denoting aim by means of eis tò and apòs tò (though it occurs with
eis in Clem. Cor. i. 34. 7); nor is it found in all cases with Metá etc.
That the reflexive pronoun is not used is natural in view of the
independent character of the clause with the infinitive and preposition.
(The acc. is found after Űote in Clem. Cor. i. 11. 2, 46. 7, Herm.
Sim. ix. 6. 3, 12. 2; after toll in Clem. Cor. i. 25. 2; after opív in
Herm. Sim. ix. 16. 3.)
4. A certain scarcity of the use of the nominative with the infini-
tive is seen in the fact that the personal construction with the
passive voice such as déyouar elvac is by no means common in the
N.T. writers (for H. 11. 4 épo.ptupňon civaj vide sup. 1; cp. XPLOTÒS
kmpúoo etau őri 1 C. 15. 12, ó pnoeis Mt. 3. 3, ý koúo On oti used person-
ally Mc. 2. I?, pavepowo bai ori 2 C. 3. 3, 1 Jo. 2. 19, pavepoà čo ovtal
őri Herm. Sim. iv. 4). The personal construction is used more fre-
quently with the inf. denoting something which ought to take place
(dedokluóo ueda LOTEVOîmva. 1 Th. 2. 4; xpnuariccobar $ 69, 4; the latter
verb is also found with the nom. and inf. of assertion in L. 2. 26
according to the reading of D), and with adjectives (8 69, 5) such as
δυνατός, έκανός (out αρκετός in 1 P. 4. 3 does not affect the inf. which
has a subject of its own); so too we have ēdoša épavto selv apocal
A. 26. 9, as well as ¿Soft Mo. L. 1. 3 etc.
5. The accusative and infinitive is also in comparison with its use
in the classical language greatly restricted, by direct speech or by
iva and őtı; similarly instances of tò (nom. or acc.) with the acc. and
inf. (as in R. 4. 13) are almost entirely wanting. On the other hand
this construction has made some acquisitions, cp. supra 2 and 3,
$ 70, 2 etc.; and a certain tendency to use the fuller construction
(acc. and infin.) is unmistakable. However, even in cases where
the accusative may be inserted, it need not always be used : thus we
have oŰTWS é xelv in A. 12. 15, but in 24. 9 TahTU OÚTWS & XELV; it may
further be omitted with ανάγκη and δει as in Mt. 23. 23 έδει ποιήσαι
240
[8 72. 5.
:
NOMINATIVE AND ACCUSATIVE
(i.e. únâs), R. 13. 5 åváyky ÚTOTÁOO eo bau (see 30, 3; DE etc. read diò
ÚTOTÁOO EOE); or again if the subject of the inf. has already been
mentioned in another case with the main verb, as in L. 2. 26 ñv
atrợ kexpauatlo jévov un ideîv (i.e. aŭtòr) Bávarov, or if it may readily
be supplied from a phrase in apposition with the subject, as in
1 P. 2. II åyantoi, tapakalô (i.e. únās) ús tapoíkovs ... årrexeo bat,
cp. ibid. 15, Viteau, p. 149 f. The following, therefore, are the cases
where the acc. and inf. is allowable :-with verbs of perceiving,
recognizing, believing, asserting, showing, $ 70, 1-3, where the object
of this verb and the subject of the inf. is generally not identical with
the subject of the principal verb: with verbs of making and allowing,
also with some verbs of commanding and bidding such as kelEVELV,
where the two things are never identical : with verbs of willing,
where they usually are identical (and the simple inf. is therefore the
usual construction), of desiring etc.: again with impersonal expressions
like sei, évdexetal, åváyın, dvvatóv, åpectóv (éoti), öpa (eotív) etc.,
also εγένετο, συνέβη; with a certain number of these last expressions
the subject of the infinitive is already expressed in the dative outside
the range of the infinitive clause, while in the case of others there is
a tendency to leave it unexpressed, either because it may readily be
supplied as has been stated above, or in general statements because
of its indefiniteness. To these instances must be added the inf. with
a preposition and the article, and the inf. with apív, tó, Tou, ūote, if
the subject is here expressed and not left to be supplied. Some
details may be noticed. With verbs of perceiving, knowing etc.
(also making) frequently, as in classical Greek, the accusative is
present, while the infinitive is replaced by őri (or (va respectively)
with a finite verb: A. 16. 3 delcav Tov Tatépa aŭtoû ÖTo "Eliny
ÚTņexev, 3. 10, 4. 13, Mc. 11. 32, G. 5. 21, Ap. 3. 9 TOLKOW aútoùs
iva Fovolv; cp. supra 4 for the nom. with a personal construction
with ori, and 1 C. 9. 15, $ 69, 5; the accus, may also be followed by
an indirect question, as in Jo. 7. 27 etc.1 We may further note the
ordinary passive construction with verbs of commanding, see § 69, 8;
the verb léyew belongs to this category, which when used to express
a command, though it may take the dative of the person addressed
with a simple infinitive (corresponding to an imperative of direct
speech) as in Mt. 5. 34, 39, L. 12. 13, yet is also found with the acc.
and inf.: A. 21. 21 Véywy (om. D) un Tepitélvelv aútoùs Tà Tékva,
22. 24 (pass.), L. 19. 15 (do.), where the ambiguity as to whether
command or assertion is intended must be cleared up by the context.
The dative with the inf. is also found after dataogelv (-60 Bai) A. 24.
23, TLTOO VELV (Mc. 6. 39 etc.; also ráo Delv A. 22. 10), Tapayyéddelv,
εντέλλεσθαι, also επιτρέπειν, after impersonal and adjectival or sub-
stantival expressions like coupépet, čÕos éoti, đOéuctov, aio xpóv, kalóv
coti etc. (cp. Dative § 37, 3); to which may be added ovveuvon
úpîv telpáoal A. 5. 9, § 37, 6, p. 114 note 1. But the acc. and inf. is
1 Even by uń ws after poſelo Bat, a verb which can certainly not take acc. and
inf.: G. 4. II poßoüual únâs (for you), uń Tws elkỹ KEKOmlaka els únâs, with which
Soph. O.T. 760 is compared (Win. $ 66, 5).
$ 72. 5–6.)
241
WITH THE INFINITIVE.
not excluded from being used with these words, being found not
only with a passive construction as in A. 10. 48 pooétaEev aŭtoùS
Barrio dîvai, Mc. 6. 27 &TÉTačev évexoîva(KBC have évéykai which
is less in accordance with N.T. idiom) Thv kebannv, but also with an
active (ěTaxav åvaßalverv IIaûlov A. 15. 2), and even where the
person addressed is identical with the subject of the inf., 1 Tim. 6.
13 f. Trapayyéldw... tnpño aí qe. Also with ovudépet and apértel there
is nothing to prevent the inf. from having a subject of its own, as
distinct from the person interested: Jo. 18. 14 ovubépei éva ävOpwTov
årobaveîv, 1 C. 11. 13; it is more remarkable that with kalóv oti
'it is good' the interested person may be expressed by the accusative
with an inf.: Mt. 17.4=Mc. 9. 5, L. 9. 33 kadóv éoTu ģuâs Sde cival,
where however the accusative may be justified, the phrase being
equivalent to 'I am pleased that we are here': Mc. 9. 45 kalóv éotív
de cloeldeîv cis arv fwriv xwlov (cp. 43, 47, where the MSS. are more
divided between oou and ot; ooi is used in Mt. 18. 8 f.). So too we
have R. 13. ΙΙ ώρα ημάς εγερθήναι, where ημίν would be equally good :
L. 6. 4 oŮs oủk & ECOTIV Payeîv ei un uovovs Toùs iepels (D has the dat.
as in Mt. 12. 4; in Mc. 2. 26 BL have the acc.,' ACD etc. the
dat.): L. 20. 22 ČEOTIV ņuâs ... dollvai ABL (Vuîv ACD al.). 'EyéveTO
frequently takes acc. and inf.; with the dat. it means “it befell him
that he' etc. A. 20. 16, G. 6. 14; but the acc. and inf. may also be
used after a dative, A. 22. 6 éyévetó uol .. Trepiaotpátai Šôs, even
where the accusative refers to the same person as the dative, 22. 17
éyévetó uol ... yevéo Bat je (a very clumsy sentence). On the indicative
after éyéveto see $ 79, 4. The person addressed is expressed by the
genitive after Séouai 'request"; if the subject of the inf. is the
petitioner, then we have the nom. and inf., L. 8. 38, 2 C. 10. 2: if
the person petitioned, the simple inf. is likewise used, L. 9. 38,
A. 26. 3. The verbs of cognate meaning with the last take the
accus. of the person addressed, namely épwrô, napakalô, aitoâual,
also afc@, tapauvõ; here therefore we have a case of acc. and inf.,
but the infinitive has a greater independence than it has in the strict
cases of acc. and inf., and may accordingly in spite of the accusative
which has preceded take a further accusative as its subject (especially
where a passive construction is used): A. 13. 28 ytýoavto Il.datov
αναιρεθήναι αυτόν, 1 Τh. 5. 27 ορκίζω υμάς αναγνωσθήναι την επιστολήν
(here the choice of the passive is not without a reason, whereas in
Acts loc. cit. D has toūTOV Mèv otavpwoai). (A. 21. 12 Tapekaloquer...
του μη αναβαίνειν αυτόν.)
6. Since the subject of the inf. generally stands or is thought of
as standing in the accusative, it is natural that appositional clauses
and predicates of this subject also take the accusative case, not only
where the subject itself has or would have this case if it were
expressed, but also where it has already been used with the principal
verb in the genitive or dative. The classical language has the
1 This strikes one as an unusual construction, but it is found elsewhere,
npura daßeîv A. 3. 3, nthoato eúpeîv 7. 46 (28. 20 ?); a classical instance is altwv
laßeîv Aristoph. Plut. 240.
242
[S 72. 6. $ 73. 1-2.
PARTICIPLE (Ι.).
choice of saying συμβουλεύω σοι προθύμω είναι οι πρόθυμον είναι και in
the case of a genitive δέομαι σου προθύμου είναι is given the preference
(an adj.), but προστάτην γενέσθαι (a subst.; Kühner, Gr. ii. 2 510 f.) και
appositional clauses formed by means of a participle are freely
expressed by the dat. (or acc.), but not by the gen., the accusative
being used instead. In the N.T. there is no instance of a predicate
being expressed by gen. or dat.; appositional clauses are also for the
most part placed in the accusative, as in L. 1. 73 f. του δούναι ημίν...
ρυσθέντας λατρεύειν, Η. 2. 1ο, Α. 15. 22, 25 (in 25 ABL have
εκλεξαμένοις) etc.; the dat. is only found in the following passages,
2 P. 2. 21 κρείσσον ήν αυτοίς μη επεγνωκέναι... ή επιγνούσιν επιστρέψει
(where however the participle belongs rather to κρείσσον ήν αυτούς
than to the inf., as it decidedly does in A. 16. 21, where “Ρωμαίοις
ουσιν goes with έξεστιν ημίν ; so in L. 1. 3), L. 9. 59 επίτρεψόν μοι
πρώτον απελθόντι (but D has -τα, ΑΚΠ απελθείν και) θάψαι τον πατέρα
μου, Α. 27. 3 επέτρεψεν (sc. τω Παύλο) προς τους φίλους πορευθέντι
(NAB; -τα HLP) επιμελείας τυχείν.
$ 73. PARTICIPLE. (I.) PARTICIPLE AS ATTRIBUTE-
REPRESENTING A SUBSTANTIVE-AS PREDICATE.
1. The participles—which are declinable nouns belonging to the
verb, used to express not action or being acted upon, like the infini-
tive, but the actor or the person acted on-have not as yet in the
N.T. forfeited much of that profusion with which they appear in
the classical language, since their only loss is that the future parti-
ciples are less widely used ($ 61, 4); the further development of the
language into modern popular Greek certainly very largely reduced
the number of these verbal forms, and left none of them remaining
except the (pres. and perf.) participles passive and an indeclinable
gerund in place of the pres. part. act. The usages of the participle
in the N.T. are also on the whole the same as in the classical
language, though with certain limitations, especially with regard to
the frequency with which some of them are employed.
2. Participle as attribute (or in apposition with or without an
article, equivalent to a relative sentence. Mt. 25. 34 την ήτοιμασμένην
υμίν βασιλείαν, =τ. β. η υμίν ητοίμασται: Με. 3. 22 οι γραμματείς οι
από Ιεροσολύμων καταβάντες : L. 6. 48 όμοιός έστιν ανθρώπων οικοδο-
μουντι οικίαν, cp. Mt. 7. 24 άνδρι όστις ώκοδόμησεν αυτού την οικίαν :
Mc. 5. 25 γυνή ούσα έν ρύσει αίματος κ.τ.λ. (the participles continue for
a long way; cp. L. 8. 43, where the first part. is succeeded by a relative
sentence. Frequently we have ο λεγόμενος, καλούμενος (in Lc. also
επικαλ., of surnames, A. 10. 18, cp. δς επικαλείται 5. 32) followed by a
proper name, the art. with the participle being placed after the generic
word of the original name: όρους του καλουμένου ελαιών Α. 1. 12,
Ιησούς ο λεγόμενος Χριστός Mt. 1. 161 (we never find such expressions
1 Jo. 5. 2 έστιν... επί τη προβατική κολυμβήθρα ή επιλεγομένη... Βηθζαθά (D reads
λεγ. without ή, * το λεγόμενον); in this passage the article must have been
8 73. 2-3.]
243
PARTICIPLE (I.).
as in Τhuc. ii. 29. 3 της Φωκίδος νυν καλουμένης γης, or in iv. 8. 6 η
νησος η Σφακτηρία καλουμένη). A point to be noticed is the separa-
tion of the participle from the word or words which further define
its meaning: R. 8. Ι8 την μέλλουσαν δόξαν αποκαλυφθήναι, G. 3. 23,
1 C. 12. 22 τα δοκούντα μέλη ... υπάρχειν, 2 P. 3. 2, A. 13. Ι έν
'Αντιοχεία κατά την ούσαν εκκλησίαν, 14. 13 του όντος Διός προ πόλεως
according to the reading of D (see Ramsay, Church in Roman
Empire, p. 51 f.), 28 17. Participles as a rule do not show a
tendency to dispense with the article, even where the preceding
substantive has none; in that case (cp. $ 47, 6) the added clause
containing the article often gives a supplementary definition or a
reference to some well-known fact : 1Ρ. 1. 7 χρυσίου του απολλυμένου,
L. 7. 32 παιδίοις τοις εν αγορά καθημένοις, Jo. 12. 12. όχλος πολύς και
ελθών εις την εορτήν, Α. 4. 12 ουδε γαρ όνομά έστιν έτερον το δεδομένον.
In these last two and in similar passages (Mc. 14. 41, A. 11. 21,
where DE al. omit the art., Jd. 4, 2 Jo. 7) the presence of the article
is remarkable, not because it would be better omitted—for that must
have obscured the attributive character of the clause—but because
according to Attic custom this attributive character should rather
have been expressed by a relative sentence. The same use of the
art. is found with τινές without a substantive: L. 18. 9 τινας τους
πεποιθότας εφ' εαυτούς, G. 1. 7 ει μή τινές εισιν οι ταράσσοντες υμάς,
Col. 2. 8; the definite article here has no force, and we may compare
in Isocrates εισί τινες οι μέγα φρονούσιν (10. 1), ε. τ. οι ... έχουσι
(15. 46). These constructions have therefore been caused by the
fact that a relative sentence and a participle with the article have
become synonymous.2_ The participle with article is found, as in
classical Greek, with a personal pronoun, Ja. 4. Ι2 συ τις εί ο κρίνων
(δς κρίνεις KL), 1 C. 8. το σε (om. B al.) τον έχοντα, R. 9. 20, Jo. 1. 12
etc.; also where the pronoun must be supplied from the verb, H. 4. 3
εισερχόμεθα ... οι πιστεύσαντες, 6. Ι8; it is especially frequent with
an imperative, Mt. 7. 23, 27. 40 (also ουαί υμίν, οι έμπεπλησμένοι
Γ = οι έμπεπλησθε] L. 6. 25, though in 24 we have ουαί υμίν τοις
πλουσίοις ; Α. 13. 16 άνδρες Ισραηλίται και [sc. υμείς] οι φοβούμενοι
τον θεόν, 2. Ι4; 8 33, 4).
3. The participle when used without a substantive (or pronoun)
and in place of one, as a rule takes the article as it does in classical
Greek : ο παραδιδούς με Mt. 26. 46 (cp. 48; Ιούδας και παρ. αυτόν 25),
ο κλέπτων “he who has stolen hitherto’ Ε. 4. 28 etc. So also when
used as a predicate (cp. 8 47, 3), Jo. 8. 28 εγώ είμι και μαρτυρών, 6. 63
etc. Where it is used with a general application as in E. 4. 28 loc.
cit. πας may be inserted : πάσι τοις κατοικούσιν Α. 1. 19 ; πας και
omitted according to Attic usage, but may stand according to the usage of the
N.T.: cp. the further instances given of this in the text. The reading to
λεγόμενον (and the insertion of ή) may be due to κολυμβήθρα being taken as a
dative.
1 In Lys. 19. 57 εισί τινες οι προαναλίσκοντες it has not unreasonably been pro-
posed to read οι προαναλίσκoυσι.
2 For an instance where or is omitted cp. Μο. 14. 4 ήσάν τινες αγανακτούντες, και
periphrasis for the imperfect.
244
(S 73. 3-4.
PARTICIPLE (1.).
ópyucóuevos Mt. 5. 25, cp. 28, 7. 8 etc., L. 6. 30, 47 etc., A. 10. 43,
13. 39 (Tâs ó not elsewhere in Acts), R. 1. 16, 2. I etc., though in
other cases the article cannot be used with tâs everyone,' $ 47, 9.
Cp. Soph. Aj. 152 nâs ó klúov, Demosth. 23. 97 Tâs ó Ofuevos
(Krüger, Gr. 50, 4, 1: 11, 11). The article is omitted in Mt. 13. 19
Tavtòs ÁKOVOVTOS, L. 11. 4 avti opeídovTI (LX insert art.; D reads
quite differently), 2 Th. 2. 4, Ap. 22. 15; and in all cases where a
substantive is introduced as in Mt. 12. 25 (here again participle with
art. is equivalent to a relative sentence, cp. Tâs ő0TIS Mt. 7. 24 with
the part. in 26). Instances without râs where the art. is omitted
(occasionally found in class. Greek, Kühner ii. 525 f.): ýyoúuevos
Mt. 2. 6 O.T. (see § 47, 3), pwrn Bowvtos Mc. 1. 30.T., é xecs ékel
kpatoûvtas Ap. 2. 14, OÚK Šotiv ovvíwv K.T.. R. 3. II f. O.T. (accord-
ing to (A)BĜ, other Mss. insert art., in Lxx. Ps. 13. i f. most MSS.
omit it), 'one who' or 'persons who,' though with oik čotiv, čxw and
similar words the article is not ordinarily omitted in Attic.-
Ņeuter participle, sing. and plur.: Mt. 1. 20 TÒ év aůty yevvnd'év,
2. 15 and passim TÒ Śndev, L. 2. 27 Tò ci louévov (č Oos D) Toû vóuov
(cp. § 47, 1), 3. 13 TÒ Slatetay’évov úpîv, 4. 16 katà tò eiwods aŭto,
8. 56 Tò herovos, 9. 7 Tà Yevoucva, Jo. 16. I3 Tà épxíueva, 1 C. 1. 28
τα εξουθενημένα, τα μη όντα, τα όντα, 10. 27 παν το παρατιθέμενον,
14. 7, 9 tò aŭloýuevov etc., 2 C. 3. 10 f. TÒ Dedoçaouévov, TÒ Karapyoú-
Levol etc., H. 12. Io Karn To Soko6v avro@s, mì Tò Touchépov, 12. II
Tipos TÒ Tapóv etc. On the whole, as compared with the classical
language, the use of the neuter is not a very frequent one : like the
masculine participle it sometimes has reference to some individual
thing, sometimes it generalizes ; TÒ Oupdépov has also (as in Attic)
become a regular substantive, if it is the correct reading, and not.
có bopov, in 1 C. 7. 35, 10. 33 Tò Luv ajT65v (ẻ LCLUToo) coupépov
(fc al.).-In one or two passages we also find the rare future parti-
ciple used with the article without a substantive: L. 22. 49 TÒ
coójevov (T) yevój. D; other MSS. omit these words altogether from
the text), etc., see $ 61, 1.
4. The participle stands as part of the predicate in the first place
in the periphrastic forms of the verb, § 62: viz. in the perfect (and
fut. perf.) as in classical Greek, also according to Aramaic manner in
the imperfect and future, the boundary-line between this use of the
participle and its use as a clause in apposition being not very clearly
drawn, ibid. 2. The finite verb used with it. is cîvai or yíveo dai
(ibid. 3). This predicative participle is further used as the comple-
ment of a series of verbs which express a qualified form of the verb.
'to be' (to be continually, to be secretly etc.), and which by them-
selves give a quite incomplete sense; still this use of the part, as the
complement of another verb has very much gone out in the N.T. and
is mainly found only in Luke and Paul (Hebrews). 'Ytrápxelv (strictly
'to be beforehand,' 'to be already' so and so, though in the N.T.
and elsewhere in the later language its meaning is weakened to that.
of cival; nowhere in the N.T. has it the sense of 'to take the lead in
an action') takes a participle in A. 8. 16, 19. 36, Ja. 2. 15 yvuvoù
ůnápxwolv kai deltójevou (@iv add. ALP) Tûs ... tpoons; z poürápXELV

$ 73. 4-5.]
245
PARTICIPLE (1.).
(which obviously contains the meaning of 'before'; a classical word)
takes a part. in L. 23. 12 (D is different): but the part. is independ-
ent in Ā. 8. 9 TpOUTÝPXEv év tŷ Tólei, Mayeúwv K.T... (cp. the text of
D). If the complement of this and of similar verbs is formed by an
adjective or a preposition with a noun, then őv should be inserted;
but this participle is usually omitted with this verb and the other
verbs belonging to this class, cp. infra ; Phrynichus 277 notes oídos
COL TVytávw without öv as a Hellenistic construction (though instances
of it are not wanting in Attic). This verb tvyxávw to be by
accident' never takes a part. in N.T.; Satedeir 'to continue' takes
an adj. without öv in A. 27. 33, for which we have ćTVUÉVELV (cp.
dapévw déywv Demosth. 8. 711) in 'Jo.' 8. 7 ÉTT ÉLEVOV épwTÔVTES,
A. 12. 16, Clem. Cor. ii. 10. 5, and as in Attic où diéditev katapulowca
L. 7. 45, cp. A. 20. 27 D, Herm. Vis. i. 3. 2, iv. 3. 6, Mand. ix. 8.
Apxeolain Attic takes a participle, if the initial state of anything
is contrasted with its continuation or end, elsewhere the inf., which is
used in all cases in the N.T.; however there is no passage where the
part. would have had to be used according to the Attic rule. Ilaveolau
takes a part. in L. 5. 4, A. 5. 42, 6. 13 etc., E. 1. 16, Col. 1. 9,
H. 10. 2 (where it has a part. pass. oỦk äv étaúoavto upoo depóueval);
for which we have the unclassical τελεϊν in Mt. 11. Ι ετέλεσεν διατάσ-
ow (cp. D in Luke 7. I).-Aavdávely only takes a part. in H. 13. 2
əlalov (sc. FavTous) EevioavteS (literary language); palveolar in Mt. 6.
18 όπως μη φανης τους ανθρώποις νηστεύων, where however νηστεύων
is an addition to the subject as in verse 17 συ δε νηστ. άλειψαι, and
davys . åvOp. is an independent clause as in verse 5 (we nowhere
have paivoua, or pavepós ciphi, onlós eiue with a part. in the Attic
manner='it is evident that'; on pavepowo dau oti see $ 70, 3).— With
verbs meaning 'to cease' or 'not to desist' may be reckoned éykakeîv
which takes a part. in G. 6. 9, 2 Th. 3. 13; the Attic words káuveiv,
ůrayopetely to fail,' ávexeo Dai, Kaptepelv, iTouévelv do not appear
with a participle.--II poépdage aŭtov léywy Mt. 17. 25 agrees with
classical usage (the simple verb has almost lost the meaning of
"before'); it takes the inf. in Clem. Cor. ii. 8. 2, see $ 69, 4.-Other
expressions denoting action qualified in some way or other take a
part.: kalớs Toleữv as in Attic, kadós étroinoas zapayevóuevos A. 10.
33, cp. Ph. 4. 14, 2 P. 1. 19, 3 Jo. 6; for which we find incorrectly
ευ πράσσειν in A. 15. 29 3 To this category belongs also τί ποιείτε
lúovtes Mc. 11. 5, cp. A. 21. 13; and again ñuaprov tapadoús Mt.
27. 4.-Oixeobai and the like are never found with a participle.
5. A further category of verbs which take a participle as their
complement consists of those which denote emotion, such as xaipelv,
ópyiceo Dai, aio xúveo Dai and the like; this usage, however, has almost
disappeared in the N.T. A. 16. 34 nyaldiato TTET LO TEUKÚs is an
undoubted instance of it; but Jo. 20. 20 exápnoav idóvres undoubtedly
means when they saw Him' (the participle being an additional
independent statement), as in Ph. 2. 28 iva idovteS AÚTòv xapñte, Mt.
1 'Ejejévelv with a part. occurs in an inscriptional letter of Augustus, Viereck
Sermo Graecus senatus Rom. p. 76.
246
[S 73. 5.
PARTICIPLE (I.).
2. 10. Another instance is 2 P. 2. 20 δόξας ου τρέμουσιν. βλασ-
φημούντες do not shudder at reviling’; but in 1 C. 14. Ι8 ευχαριστώ...
λαλών is a wrong reading (of KL; correctly λαλώ).--The use of the
participle as a complement has been better preserved in the case of
verbs of perceiving and apprehending; in classical Greek the part.
stands in the nominative, if the perception refers to the subject, e.g.
ορω ημαρτηκώς, in the accusative (or genitive) if it refers to the
object, whereas in the N.T. except with passive verbs the nominative
is no longer found referring to the subject (öti is used instead in
Μο. 5. 29, 1 Jo. 3. 14). With verbs meaning to see (βλέπω, θεωρώ,
[δρώ), είδον, εθεασάμην, εόρακα, τεθέαμαι, όψομαι) we have Mt. 24. 30
όψονται τον υιόν του ανθρ. έρχόμενον, cp. 15. 31, Mc. 5. 31, Jo. 1. 32,
38 etc.; with όντα Α. 8. 23, 17. Ι6; with an ellipse of this participle
(cp. supra 4; also found in classical Greek, Krüger, Gr. 8 56, 7, 4)
Jo. 1. 5I είδόν σε υποκάτω της συκής, Με: 25. 38 f. είδομεν σε ξένον,
ασθενή (ασθενούντα BD), cp. 45, Α. 17. 22 ως δεισιδαιμονεστέρους υμάς
θεωρώ.1 (These verbs also take ότι, $ 70, 2.) Occasionally with the
verb 'to see' as with other verbs of this kind the participle is rather
more distinct from the object and presents an additional clause,
while object and verb together give a fairly complete idea : Mt. 22.
II είδεν έχει άνθρωπον ουκ ενδεδυμένον κ.τ.λ., = δς ούκ ένεδέδυτο, Mc. 11.
13 ιδών συκήν από μακρόθεν έχουσαν φύλλα, “which had leaves.' -
’AKOÚELV with a part. is no longer frequent; alternative constructions,
if the substance of the thing heard is stated, are the acc. and inf. and
especially ότι, 8 70, 2; it takes the acc. and part. in L. 4. 23 όσα
ηκούσαμεν γενόμενα, Α. 7. 12, 3 Jo. 4, 2 Τh. 3. Ι1,2 and incorrectly
instead of the gen. in A. 9. 4, 26. 14, vide infra. The construction
with a gen. and part. is also not frequent apart from the Acts :
Mc. 12. 28 ακούσας αυτών συζητούντων, 14. 58, L. 18. 36 όχλου
διαπορευομένου, Jo. 1. 37, Α. 2. 6, 6. II etc.; in 22. 7 and 11. 7
ήκουσα φωνής λεγούσης μοι, for which in 9. 4, 26. Ι4 we have φωνήν
λέγουσαν (in 26. Ι4 E has the gen.), although φωνή refers to the
speaker and not to the thing spoken. Op. 8 36, 5.-Γινώσκειν. has
this construction in L. 8. 46 έγνων δύναμιν εξεληλυθυίαν απ' εμού,
Α. 19. 35, H. 13. 23; but επιγιν. Μο. 5. 30 (ep. L. Ιoc. cit.) takes an
object with an attributive participle, επιγνούς την εξ αυτού δύν.
εξελθούσαν.-Είδέναι is so used only in 2 C. 12. 2 οίδα ... αρπαγέντα
τον τοιούτον (it takes an adj. without όντα in Μο. 6. 20 ειδώς αυτόν
άνδρα δίκαιον, where D inserts είναι); elsewhere it has the inf. and most
frequently ότι, 8 70, 2.-Επίστασθαι in A. 24. Το όντα σε κριτήν
επιστάμενος, cp. 26. 3 where 4*BEH omit επιστ.-Ευρίσκειν commonly
takes this construction (also classical, Thuc. ii. 6. 3), Mt. 12. 44
ευρίσκει (sc. τον οίκον, which D inserts) σχολάζοντα, 24. 46 ον... ευρήσει
i No further instances occur of this use of us with verbs of seeing : but cp.
infra ως εχθρόν ηγείσθε 2 Τh. 3. 15 “ as if he were an enemy’ (see also 8 34, 5) ;
the meaning therefore must be, ‘so far as I see it appears as if you were' etc.
(ως softens the reproof).
2 The classical distinction between the inf. and the part. with this verb (the
part. denoting rather the actual fact, and the inf. the hearsay report, Kühner
ii.2 629) seems not to exist in the N.T.
: $ 73. 5. $ 74. 1-2.] PARTICIPLE (I.) AND (II.).
247
TTOLOUVTU OÚTws, etc. (occasionally as with the verb 'to see,' the part.
is more distinct from the object, A. 9. 2 Tivàs cúpy rñs odoll övras
who were'); the pass. cúpiokeo bat is used with the nom. of the part.
(= Attic φαίνεσθαι, Viteau), ευρέθη εν γαστρί έχουσα Mt. 1. Ι8.-
Aokimágel in 2 C. 8. 22 óv doktuáo ajev (“have proved') orovdalov Övta.
(used in another way it takes the inf., $ 69, 4).—Instances of this
construction are wanting with ouviéval, aio Oáveo bat, ueuvño Dai and
others ; μανθάνειν (class. μανθάνω διαβεβλημένος « that I am slan-
dered ') only appears to take it in 1 Tim. 5. 13 ápa dè' kai ápyai
μανθάνουσιν περιερχόμεναι, where περιερχ. is in any case an additional
statement, while åpyal is the predicate, with the omission (through
corruption of the text) of civai (uavo, takes the inf. ibid. 4, Ph. 4. II,
Tit. 3. 14).-Verbs of opining strictly take an inf. or a double
accusative ($ 34, 5); but in the latter case the acc. of the predicate
may be a participle, é xe Me. Tapytnuévov L. 14. 18, alindovs ♡ yoýuevou
ÚTepexovtas Ph. 2. 3. The participle with ás may also in classical
Greek be used with verbs of this class (Hdt. ii. 1 ós doúlovs
Tratpwious êóvras évójece), as it is in 2 C. 10. 2 toùs loyecouévovs ģuês
Ús katà cápka reputatoûvtas, but we may equally well have cúpeleis
ús öv@pwros Ph. 2. 8, ús exOpov vycío de 2 Th. 3. 15, so that one sees
that in the first passage the participle possesses no peculiar function
of its own. Cp. § 74, 6.- Quoroyeîv takes a double accusative in
Jo. 9. 22 (D inserts eîval) and R. 10. 9 èàv guoloynoys kúplov ’Inooûv
'confessest J. as Lord’; accordingly we have also in 1 Jo. 4. 2 'Ino.
Xp. év o apki einudóta, unless B is more correct in reading endud'éval;
cp. 3 with the reading of x 'I. kúplov ev o. & l., and 2 Jo. 7.-Verbs
of showing are never found with a participle, $ 70, 3.
$ 74. PARTICIPLE. (II.) AS AN ADDITIONAL CLAUSE
IN THE SENTENCE.
1. The participle is found still more abundantly used as an addi-
tional clause in the sentence, either referring to a noun (or pronoun)
employed in the same sentence and in agreement with it (the con-
junctive participle), or used independently and then usually placed
together with the noun, which is its subject, in the genitive (the
participle absolute). In both cases there is no nearer definition
inherent in the participle as such, of the relation in which it stands
to the remaining assertions of the sentence; but such a definition
may be given by prefixing a particle and in a definite way by the
tense of the participle (the future). The same purpose may be ful-
filled by the writer, if he pleases, in other ways, with greater
definiteness though at the same time with greater prolixity: namely,
by a prepositional expression, by a conditional, causal, or temporal
sentence etc., and lastly by the use of several co-ordinated principal
verbs.
2. The conjunctive participle.—1 Tim. 1. 13 åyvo@vétroinoa, cp.
A. 3. 17 Karà ãyvolav én páfate, per inscitiam : Mt. 6. 27 (L. 12. 25).
Tís uepuuvớv dúvatal mpoo Ocīvai K.7.1., 'by taking thought, or=éày kai
-----
-
248
PARTICIPLE (11.).
[S 74. 2.
uepquvą. We may note the occasional omission of the part. Óv:
L. 4. I 'Incoûs dè anons veumatos á yiov ÚTTEOTPeyev, cp. A. 6. 8 a
quite similar phrase : H. 7. 2, A. 19. 37 oŰte iepootlovs oŰte Brao-
Onuoûvtas (cp. Kühner ii. 659), where the part. is concessive or
adversative: as in Mt. 7. II ci jucîs rovnpoi ÖVTES odate K.T.d.,
although you are evil' (cp. L. 11. 13). To denote this sense more
clearly classical Greek avails itself of the particle kalmed, which is rare
in the N.T.: Ph. 3. 4 kaimepéyù é xwv metroLOno lv K.T..., H. 5. 8, 7. 5,
12. 17: 2 P. 1. 12 (Herm. Sim. viii. 6. 4, 11. I); it also uses kai
TAÚTU, which in the NT. appears in H. 11. 12; a less classical use is
kaltou with a part., likewise only found in H. 4. 3 (before a participle
absolute), and a still less classical word is kaltouye (in classical Greek
the ye is detached and affixed to the word emphasized), which how-
ever is only found with a finite verb, and therefore with a sort of
paratactical construction: Jo. 4. 2 (kaltou C), A. 14. 17 (Kaitou
N'ABC*); in A. 17. 27 kalye 'indeed' appears to be the better reading
(kaſtolye X, kaítol AE), here a participle follows. Cp. $ 77, 4 and 14.
--Conditional participle: L. 9. 25 Tí úDeleitai ävOpwtos kepońcas Tov
kóruov odov, = ſt. 16. 26 êàv kepdñon. Causal : Mt. 1. 19 'Iwong...,
δίκαιος ών και μη θέλων αυτών δειγματίσαι, έβουλήθη κ.τ.λ., = ότι δίκαιος
üv, or dià tò dikalos cival, or in class. Greek) äte (olov, ola) 8. öv,
particles which are no longer found in the N.T. Final participle :
the classical use of the fut. part. in this sense in the N.T. apart from
Lc. (A. 8. 27 eindúdel tpoo kuvÝowv, 22. 5, 24. 17, also 25. 13 accord-
ing to the correct reading ảonacóuevo!, § 58, 4) occurs only in
Mt. 27. 49 (épxetal dúow: but * has owai, D kai oáce). More
commonly this function is performed by the pres. part., $ 58, 4, as in

p. 186) another construction with kindred meaning is introduced,
such as in Mt. 11. 2 réubas elnev, 1 C. 4. 17 čreya Twódcov, ôs
åvajevoel, or the infinitive, which is the commonest construction of
all, $ 69, 2.-Then the most frequent use of this participle is to state
the manner in which an action takes place, its antecedents and its
accompaniments, in which case it would sometimes be possible to use
a temporal sentence in its place, and sometimes not, viz. if the state-
ment is of too little importance to warrant the latter construction.
For instance, in Mc. 1. 7 0ů oủk cipi ikavos kútas lūpal tòv inávra, no
one would have said êreldàv kúpw; nor again in A. 21. 32 ös tapa-
daßùv otpatıútas katéSpauevét' aŭtóv would anyone have used such
a phrase as επειδή παρέλαβεν, since the part, in this passage (as λαβών
often does in class. Greek) corresponds to our 'with' and admits of
no analysis (see also Jo. 18. 3, which Viteau compares with Mt. 26. 47,
Jo. 19. 39 ; ¢xwv, which is also very common in class. Greek, occurs
in L. 2. 42 in D, besides in Mt. 15. 30 with the addition of ued'
łautW (äywy occurs nowhere). While therefore these classical
phrases with the exception of laßúv are disappearing, daßáy is also
used in another way together with other descriptive participles,
which according to Hebrew precedent become purely pleonastic
(Viteau, p. 191): Mt. 13. 31 KÓKKW OLVáews, Öv daßwy ăvÖpWTOS
$ 74. 2–3.]
PARTICIPLE (II.).
249
ČO TELPev, and again in 33 fúun ģv daßoüoa yuvià évékpvyev, 14. 19
lußòv toùs Öptovs cúlóynoev, 21. 35, 39 etc.; so also ávaorás (after
the Hebr. Qap) L. 15. 18 åvaotas tropeúo qual, ibid. 20, A. 5. 17, 8. 27
etc.; Mt. 13. 46 47Telev TémpaKev (ep. 25. 18, 25), Topquets 25. 16
(both verbs representing the Hebr. 37), cp. infra 3.-The classical
use of åpxóuevos (at the beginning,' TELEUTôv 'in conclusion,' is
not found; but we find as in class. Greek ápěápevou åtto. Iepovoadnje
which in the passage of "Jo. we have in the ordinary text (D
is different) the unclassical addition of éws tộv éo xátwv, as also
in A. 1. 22 pỆauevos drò Too Bag Túa uamos Iovoc dapt (s BD)
K.7.d. (L. 23. 5, Mt. 20. 8). Apáuevos is used pleonastically in
A. 11. 4 åpáuevos IIétpos EETídero aútois kabers, with a certain
reference to καθεξής and occasioned by that word; cp. on ήρξατο
with inf. & 69, 4 note 1, on p. 227.— With pooleis Eimtev said further
3. Conjunctive participle and co-ordination.—The pleonastic use of
laßeîv etc. (supra 2) does not necessarily require the participle, and
the finite verb (with kal) may also be employed in this way--a con-
struction which exactly corresponds to the Hebrew exemplar, and
which in Greek would only be regarded as intolerable when con-
tinued at some length. In the Lxx. we have Gen. 32. 22 åvaotàs dè
TYYv vúkta ékelvnv, ěraße tas dúo yuvaikas... kai déßn ..., (23) kai člaßev
aútoùs kai diéßn K.T..., which for the most part agrees word for word
with the Hebrew, except that a perfect agreement would have also
required και ανέστη ... και έλαβεν at the beginning, which was felt to
be intolerable even by this translator. The N.T. writers have also
in the case of this particular verb usually preferred the participle;
co-ordination is only rarely found as in A. 8. 26 åváotnou kai topeúov
(here also D has ávaotàs tropeúonti; the MSS. often give åváota with-
out kaè with asyndeton, A. 9. 11 B, 10. 13 Vulgate, 20 D* Vulg., so
in 11. 7; cp. $ 79, 4); L. 22. 17 láßere TOÛTO kai scapepíoate. In
the introduction to a speech we find already in Hebrew myns used
with a finite verb such as 'asked' or 'answered': the Greek" equi-
valent for this is déyov, numerous instances of which appear in the
N.T. after årokpívesool, laleiv, kpáčelv, napakaleiv etc. But in
Hebrew the word "answered' is also succeeded by ASO (LXX. kai
ETTEV), and the same construction occurs in the N.T. e.g. Jo. 20. 28
årtekpion Owuâs kai elnev, 14. 23, 18. 30 (so almost always in John's
Gospel, unless áttekp. is used without an additional word), L. 17. 20;
beside which we have återpion déywv Mc. 15. 9 (D Åmokpideis déyel),
A. 15. 13 (not in D), årekpídnouv léyovoa. Mt. 25. 9, cp. 37, 44 f.
(Jo. 12. 23), and by far the most predominant formula except in
John áokpides eitrev (twice in the second half of the Acts 19. 15 (not
in D], 25. 9). We never find årtokpivóuevos EiTTEV, any more than we
find årekpíon eitt óv, since the answer is reported as a fact, and there-
fore in the aorist, while the verb of saying which is joined with it in
the participle gives the manner of the answer, and must therefore be
25ο
Ε.
PARTICIPLE [S 74. 3.
(II.).
a present participle. John (and Paul) have also the following com-
binations: Jo. 1. 25 και ήρώτησαν αυτόν και είπον αυτώ (but Mt. 15. 23
η μαθητών στα particips 4), any "
5.23 φαγαν
etc.), 9. 28 ελοιδόρησαν αυτόν και είπαν, 12. 44 έκραξεν και είπεν (D
έκραζε και έλεγεν), cp. D in L. 8. 28 (but Mt. 8. 29 has έκραξαν
λέγοντες, so 14. 30 etc.; κράξας λέγει Μο. 5. 7 [είπε D], κράξας έλεγε
9. 24 [λέγει a better reading in D]; εκραύγαζον [v.Ι. έκραζον] λέγ.
Jo. 19. Ι2, εκραύγασαν λέγ. 18. 40) ; 13. 21 εμαρτύρησε και είπε
(Α. 13. 22 είπεν μαρτυρήσας ; Jo. 1. 32 εμαρτύρησεν λέγων); R. 10. 20
αποτολμά και λέγει ; Jo. 18. 25 ηρνήσατο και είπε, Mt. 26. 7o etc. ήρν.
λέγων, but Α. 7. 35 δν ηρνήσαντο είπόντες.1 The tense in the last
instance είπόντες is occasioned by the fact that ήρν. is not here a
verbum dicendi ; accordingly we find the same tense elsewhere,
Jo. 11. 28 έφώνησεν την αδελφήν (called) ειπούσα (with the words),
= και είπεν 18. 33; A. 22. 24 εκέλευσεν εισάγεσθαι ... είπας, 21. Ι4
ησυχάσαμεν ειπόντες, L. 5. 13 ήψατο είπών, 22. 8 απέστειλεν ειπών (Mt.
inversely has πέμψας είπεν “sent with the words'; 11. 3 πέμψας διά
των μαθητών είπεν is rather different “he bade them say). By the
use of the aorist participle nothing is stated with regard to the
sequence of time (cp. § 58, 4), any more than it is by the use of
the equivalent co-ordination with και: L. 15. 23 φαγόντες ευφρανθώμεν,
=D φάγωμεν και ευφρ. With the finite verb είπεν we do indeed
occasionally find λέγων (L. 12. Ι6, 20. 2 ; see $ 24 s ν. λέγειν), but
other participles, which express something more than merely saying,
are always aorist participles as in the instances quoted hitherto :
παρρησιασάμενοι ε. Α. 13. 46, προσευξάμενοι ε. 1. 24, since the two
verbs, which denote one and the same action, are assimilated to each
other.' Between two participles of this kind a connecting copula is
inserted: κράζοντες και λέγοντες Mt. 9. 27, αποταξάμενος και είπών
Α. 18. 21 (the β text is different), Paul rather harshly has χαίρων
kai Blém WV Col. 2. 5 meaning since I see'; where no such close
homogeneity exists between them, the participles may follow each
other with asyndeton, and often are bound to do so: A. 18. 23
εξήλθεν, διερχόμενος την Γαλατικήν χώραν, στηρίζων τους μαθητάς, =
εξήλθεν και διήρχετο (8 58, 4) στηρίζων (the latter part. being sub-
ordinated as the sense requires): 19. 16 έφαλόμενος ο άνθρωπος επ'
αυτούς ..., κατακυριεύσας αμφοτέρων ίσχυσεν κατ' αυτών, = εφήλετο και
κ.τ.λ., whereas the reading και κατακ. (*HLP) connects κατακυριεύειν
with έφαλέσθαι in a way that is not so good ; in 18. 22 κατελθών εις
Καισάρειαν, αναβας και ασπασάμενος τους μαθητές, κατέβη εις 'Αντι-
όχειαν a second και before αναβάς would be possible but ugly: the
sentence may be resolved into κατήλθεν εις Κ., αναβάς δε και κ.τ.λ.
These instances of accumulation of participles, which are not
uncommon in the Acts (as distinguished from the simpler manner of
1 Among remarkable instances of co-ordination belongs έσκαψεν και εβάθυνεν
L. 6. 48, as the meaning is dug deep'; Badúvas would therefore be more
appropriate. But the LXX., following the Hebrew, has the same construction,
ετάχυνε και έδραμεν Judges 13. 1ο (Winer).-Also Jo. 8. 59 εκρύβη και εξήλθεν εκ
του ιερού, = εκρύβη εξελθών withdrew from their sight.”
$ 74. 3-5.]
251
PARTICIPLE (11.).
the Gospels?), are never devoid of a certain amount of stylistic
refinement, which is absent from the instances of accumulation in
the epistolary style of St. Paul, which consist rather of a mere
stringing together of words.
4. A thoroughly un-Greek usage, though common in the Lxx., is
the addition to a finite verb of the participle belonging to that verb,
in imitation of the infinitive which is so constantly introduced in
Hebrew, and which in other cases is rendered in more correct Greek
by the dative of the verbal substantive, $ 38, 3. The N.T. only has
this part. in O.T. quotations : Mt. 13. 14 BXETTOVTES Blétete, A. 7. 34
idàv eidov, H. 6. 14.
5. Participle absolute.—Of the absolute participial constructions
the classical language makes the most abundant use of the genitive
absolute : the use of the accusative absolute is in its way as regular,
but is not found very frequently : the nominative absolute (as in
Hdt. vii. 157 ålns ylvouévn V Ellás, teip meyóin ovvayetai) is anti-
quated and was never a common construction. The N.T. has only
preserved the use of the genitive in this way; since the so-called
instances of the nom. absolute to be found there are really no con-
struction at all, but its opposite, i.e. anacoluthon (see $ 79, 7). Now
the use of the gen. abs. in the regular classical language is limited to
the case where the noun or pronoun to which the participle refers
does not appear as the subject or have any other function in the sen-
tence; in all other cases the conjunctive participle must be used.
The New Testament writers on the other hand—in the same way in
which they are inclined to detach the infinitive from the structure of
the sentence, and to give it a subject of its own in the accusative,
even where this is already the main subject of the sentence (S 72, 2
and 3)-show a similar tendency to give a greater independence to
participial additional clauses, and adopt the absolute construction in
numerous instances, even where classical writers would never have
admitted it as a special license.2 Mt. 9. 18 Taūta attoll ladoûvtos
aútois, idoù äpywv... TPOO EKÚVEL aúto ; cp. 1o (where it is more excus-
able), 18. 24, 24. 3, 26. 6, 27. 17, in all which cases the noun which is
the subject of the participle appears in the dative in the main sentence
(in 5. I aúrą is omitted in B ; in 8. I according to **KL al. we
should read kataßávti aủTẬ ... nkolouonoav aŭto, likewise grossly
incorrect, cp. inf.; a similar v.l. appears ibid. 5, 28, 21. 23, but in
8. 28 ** gives a correct construction reading é óvtwv aủTôv); so also
Mc. 13. 1, L. 12. 36, 14. 29 (D gives a different and correct constr.),
17. 12 (BL om. atro; D is quite different), 22. 10, Jo. 4. 51 (aúró
om. d), A. 4. I (D om, aŭtois). Again we have in Mt. 18. 25 un
EXOvtos aŭtoû ÅTodoúval, ékélevcev a úróv ó kúplos apaOſvai (the accusa-
tive following); so Mc. 5. 18, 9. 28 (v.l. eioeldóvta aŭtov... fumpúrwV
1 Occasionally, however, it is found there as well : Mt. 14. 19 Keleucas (XZ
ĈKEAevo ev)... daßww ... åvaßiéyas, 27. 48 opanov ... kai laßùy ... ainoas te (te om.
D)... Kai epidels.
2 On the same usage in the LXX. see Viteau, p. 199 f. (e.g. Gen. 18. 1, Ex.
5. 20).
252
[S 74. 5-6.
PARTICIPLE (11.).
aúróv), 10. 17, 11. 27 (apùs aútòr), 13. 3, L. 9. 42, 15. 20, 18. 40,
22. 53 (éni čué), Jo. 8. 30 (eis aŭtóv), A. 19. 30 (avtòv om. D), 21. 17
(the ß text is different), 25. 7, 28. 17 (apòs aútows), 2 C. 12. 21 (v.l.
èNOóvta je, and without the second je). If the accusative is depen-
dent on a preposition, and the participle precedes the accusative, it
is of course impossible to make it into a conjunctive participle. If
the word in question follows in the genitive, the result is the same
incorrect pleonasm of the pronoun as is seen in the case of the dative
in the example quoted above from Mt. 8. I with the reading of A*:
Mt. 6. 3 co Tououvos Le LoƯ Úvmv un YvDT ảouƠTépá Too (Herm.
Sim. ix. 14. 3 Kateboappévwv yuwv ... Tv (wriv quwv), cp. 5. 1 if aŭto
is omitted (with B, vide supra). The instance which intrinsically is
the harshest, and at the same time the least common, is that where
the word in question is afterwards used as the subject, as in Mt. 1. 18
μνηστευθείσης της μητρός αυτου Μαρίας το 'Ιωσήφ, πριν ή συνελθείν
aŭtoùs cúpéon, an anacoluthon which after all is tolerable, and for
which classical parallels may be found (Kühner ii. 666); but A. 22. 17
is an extremely clumsy sentence, éyéveto Sé pou ÚTOOTPéYavti eis
Ιερουσ., [και] προσευχομένου μου εν τω ιερό, γενέσθαι με έν έκστάσει
(kal should apparently be removed, because if it is kept the connec-
tion of the dat. and gen. remains inexplicable). Cp. also L. 8.35 D;
Herm. Vis. i. 1. 3 Topevouévov uov eis Kovmas kai dotácortos (ésofacov
as) ..., TEPLTATôv åbútvwoa. The gen. abs. stands after the subject
in H. 8. 90.T., cp. Viteau, p. 210 (the meaning is 'in the day when
I took'); it has the same position after the dative in 2 C. 4. 18 juiv,
un okOTOÚVTwv quôv (but D*FG read with an anacoluthon un
OKOTOŪVTES, perhaps rightly), Herm. Vis. iii. 1. 5 ppikn uol apoondev,
Móvov nov Övtos. — The omission of the noun or pronoun which agrees
with the part., if it can be readily supplied, is allowable in the N.T.
as in the classical language : Mt. 17. 14 XBZ (C etc. insert aŭrwv), 26
(with many variants), L. 12. 36 é dóvtos kai kpoúo avtos, A. 21. 31
ŠYTOÚVtwv (ibid. 10 with ģuw inserted as a v.l.), etc. Another
instance of the omission of a noun with the participle occurs in Attic
where the participle is impersonal; this is a case for the employment
of the accusative absolute, é óv, úzápxov, a pogtetayuévov etc., followed
by an infinitive. But in the N.T. Eóv is only used as a predicate
with an ellipse of łoti, A. 2. 29, 2 C. 12. 4, and even Luke is so far
from employing a passive part. in this way that he says very awk-
wardly in A. 23. 30 unvvdelons Sé pou étißoviñs els tòv övdpa čo co dau,
instead of unrudè éri Bovdnu čo. (Buttm. 273). The solitary
remaining instance, rather obscured, of the acc. abs. is tuxóv
'perhaps ' in 1 C. 16. 6, L. 20. 13 D, A. 12. 15 D.
6. Particles used with a participle.—It has already been noticed
above in 2 that the particular relation in which the additional parti-
cipial clause (whether absolute or conjunctive) stands to the principal
sentence may be rendered perceptible by the insertion of a particle
(kaltep, kai Taūta, kaitot). This usage is but slightly represented in
the N.T.; since even of the temporal use of dua to denote simultan-
eousness or immediate sequence (Tpißwv ära éon while rubbing') it
contains no real instance (A. 24. 26 äua kai činícwv is 'withal in the -
$74. 6. $75. 1-2.]
253
PARTICIPLE (II.). NEGATIVES.
Rath these particle se reckoned a most entirely
expectation,' 27. 40 äua åvévtes while they at the same time also,
Col. 4. 3. TT podevxóuevo. Gua kai tepi ý jav, at the same time for us
also'; cp. aua dè kui with imperat. in Philem. 22). A more frequent
particle with a participle is the simple ús (co Tep in A. 2. 2, denoting
comparison ; doci 'as though'R. 6. 13); however the participle is
for the most part used with us (as with doel in the passage of
Romans) in just the same way as a noun of any kind may be used
with these particles, cp. SS 34, 5 and 78, 1, and of constructions
which may really be reckoned as special participial constructions
with ós, many are entirely or almost entirely wanting in the N.T.
Thus we never find ως with the acc. abs. (ώς τους θεούς κάλλιστα
eidoras 'in the belief that'); and again ús with a future participle
occurs only in H. 13. 17 áypurvollow ús Lóyov årrodovtes 'as persons
who' (cp. L. 9. 52 bql quasi paraturi = ús étoquáOOVTES; Mc. 11. 13
ús eúprowv Origen, minusc. 100, afq). In all these instances ús with
a participle gives a reason on the part of the actor or speaker. The
use of this construction without an acc. abs. and with a participle
other than the future is more common : L. 16. 1 and 23. 14 'on the
assertion that,'' on the plea of,' so also in A. 23. 15, 20, 27. 30 (here
with προφάσει prefixed); see also Α. 3. 12 ημίν τι ατενίζετε, ως
TT ETT OLYKóolv 'as though we had,' 1 C. 7.25 yvóunu didwut ús y denuévos,
as one who,' in the conviction that I am one'; 2 C. 5.20 (gen. abs.),
H. 12. 27; A. 20. 13 (ß text) ús uéllw... since he said that'; in
the negative we have oủx ús í not as if' A. 28. 19, 2 Jo. 5. We also
find abbreviated expressions where the participle is dropped :
Col. 3. 23 ô éày Toure, ek Voxs #py cơ 6, 6s Tạ Kop (sc. pra Guevot
attó) kai oỦk åv pútrols, 1 C. 9. 26, 2 C. 2. 17, E. 6. 7, 1 P. 4. II,
R. 13. 13 ús év quépą= ús quépas oions, 2 Th. 2. 2 dién lotolîs, ús
di' vuôv, sc. yeypappévns, or rather= ús quôv yeypapótwv avtv, G. 3. 16
etc. Classical Greek has similar phrases. -—"Av with the participle
has quite gone out of use, as it has with the infinitive.- Where a
participial clause is placed first, the principal clause which follows
may be introduced by a outws referring back to the previous clause;
but this classical usage is found only in the Acts : 20. Il guerous
..., OŰTWS ÉÉņbev, 27. 10.
$ 75. THE NEGATIVES.
1. The distinction between the two negatives, the objective où and
the subjective uń, in classical Greek is to some extent rather compli-
cated ; on the other hand in the kouvn of the N.T. all instances may
practically be brought under the single rule, that oủ negatives the
indicative, un the other moods, including the infinitive and parti-
ciple.
2. Principal clauses with the indicative.---The prohibitive future
makes no exception to the rule just given : où boveúoels Mt. 5. 21
1's dy with a gen. abs. in Barn. 6. 11 is different; cp. the modern Greek
v loáv 'as,' Hatzidakis Einl. in d. ngr. Gr. 217; infra § 78, 1.
254
[S 75. 2–3.
NEGATIVES.
O.T. (8 64, 3).1 But in an interrogative sentence both oủ and uñ are
employed (as in classical Greek): où (or où uń, $ 64, 5) if an affirma-
tive answer is expected, uń if a negative; so in L. 6. 39 unti dúvara.
Tuolos Tuplòv šonyeîv ( is it possible that ... ?' Ans. Certainly
not), oủxi dupótepou eis Böduvov eutecoûvtal (Ans. Yes, certainly). Of
course the negative used depends on the answer expected and not on
the actual answer given: thus in Mt. 26. 25 Judas asks like the other
Apostles (22) Múti éyú cipe, paßßí ('it surely is not I?'), and receives
the answer où cimas. (In L. 17. 9, according to AD al., the answer
of the first speaker is appended with the words oυ δοκώ.) Μήτι
instead of uń is a very favourite form in questions of this kind, just
as oùxí takes the place of où in those which expect a positive answer;
but the simple forms are also used. In questions introduced by uń
the verb itself may also be negatived, as in classical Greek, of course
with où: this produces un ... où (and an affirmative answer is natur-
ally now expected): R. 10. 17 un oủk ikovoav 'can it be that they
have not heard it?' (Ans. Certainly they have), 1 C. 11. 22 al.
(only in the Pauline Epp.).—Mýri is further found in the elliptical
untiye 1 C. 6. 3=TÓW ye uâllov 'much more' (un ti ye di Tols Deo is
Demosth. 2. 23).
3. Subordinate clauses with the indicative.-The chief point to
notice here is that ei with the indicative (supposed reality) takes the
negative où in direct contradistinction to the classical language, as it
even does in one instance where the indicative denotes something
contrary to fact: Mt. 26. 24 = Mc. 14. 21 kalov ģv attû, ei oỦk éyev-
von ở ävApwrOS ékeivos. Elsewhere however these suppositions
contrary to fact take pń : Jo. 15. 22 ci un îndov ..., đuaptiav oỦK
Elxooav, 24, 9. 33, 18. 30, 19. 11, Mt. 24. 22=Mc. 13. 20, A. 26. 32,
R. 7. 7, no distinction being made as to whether ei uń means 'apart
from the case where' (nisi) or "supposing the case that not' (si non,
as in Jo. 15. 22, 24). Moreover in other cases where the meaning is
nisi ei uń is used (cp. Kühner ii.2 744), viz. either where, as generally
happens, no verb follows the particle, as in Mt. 5. 13 eis oùdèv ei un
Binonvar (and in ei dè uń ye, $ 77, 4), or where a verb is used, which
is generally in the pres. indic., as in ei uń Tivés ciou G. 1. 7, cp.
$ 65, 6. But in all other cases we find ei oủ (even in L. 11. 8 ei kai
où dúo el for èàv kai uz do, $ 65, 5); an abnormal instance is 1 Tim.
6. 3 eľ TLS ÉTepodidao kalei kai uz tpooexetal K.T... (literary language;
Ei ... où appears in 3. 5, 5. 8), and another is the additional clause in
D in L. 6.4 ci dè un oídas. Similar to this is the use of où in relative
sentences with the indicative; exceptions are (1 Jo. 4. 3 Ô un
Quo oyei a wrong reading for ô lúel), Tit. 1. II didáo Kovtes å ur) del,
2 P.1.9 ♡ urTápeoTLV TAÙTa, tuplós eoTLV (literary language; there
is no question here of definite persons or things, Kühner ii.2 745).
In affirmations introduced by öti (or ús), also in temporal and causal
i Still Clem. Hom. iii. 69 has undeva uloňoete (in the middle of positive futures
expressing command).
? Still Jo. 21. 5 uń TL or poopázlov ČXETE ; hardly lends itself to the meaning
certainly not I suppose' (cp. also the use of this negative in 4. 33, 7. 26).
$ 75. 3-5.]
255
NEGATIVES
sentences with the indicative, the general use of où is a matter of
course ; H. 9. 17 éveà NÝTote (or un tóte) lo xúel, őte Šîn o diabélevos
is an interrogative sentence (Theophylact), and the only exception
to this rule which can be established is Jo. 3. 18 ó ur) TUOTEÚWV dn
κέκριται, ότι μη πεπίστευκεν εις το όνομα κ.τ.λ.2-After μήπως Or μη
expressing apprehension, if the verb itself is negatived, an oủ niust
be inserted before the conjunctive : Mt. 25. 9 uÝTTOTE oỦk dpkéon (cp.
the v.l. in the same passage, infra 6); poßoüuai un ... où 2 C. 12. 20.
4. The infinitive.—Mń is used throughout, since in H. 7. 11 it is
not the inf. but only the idea κατά την τάξιν 'Ααρών which is negatived
(cp. in class. Greek Lys. 13. 62 ci pèv où toldo [= ólíyou] joav,
Kühner ii.2 747 f.). We may particularly note the use of un accord-
ing to classical precedent (Kühner 761 f.) in certain instances after
verbs containing a negative idea (a pleonastic use according to our way
of thinking): L. 20. 27 oí åv idéYoutes (AP al.; XBCDL read léyoutes
as in Mt. and Mc.) ανάστασιν μή είναι (αντιλέγειν here only talkes an
inf.), 22. 34 éws tpis åtapvon pri cidéval de (ue år. eid. xBLT; årapv.
not elsewhere with an inf.), cp. 1 Jo. 2. 22 ó åpvoúmevos ŐT. 'Ino. oủk
ŠOTIV ô Xplotós (as in Demosth. 9. 54 åpv. ús oùk cioi TOLOÛTOL),
H. 12. 19 Tapytno avto ury (om. **P) pootedîvai, G. 5. 7 rís ýpās
ενέκοψεν αληθεία μη πείθεσθαι ; (έγκόπτεσθαι takes του ελθείν in
R. 15. 22, cp. Kühner 768 c.). But in H. 11. 24 we have npvýoato
(scorned') Réyeo Dai; and kwlúel is regularly used without a subse-
quent uń, a construction which is also admissible in classical Greek,
Kühner 767 f.; see however $ 71, 2 and 3.
5. The participle. Here the tendency of the later language to
use uń is noticeable even in writers like Plutarch; the Attic
language on the other hand lays down rules as to the particular
negative required according to the meaning of the participle in indi-
vidual cases. Hardly any exceptions to the N.T. usage occur in Mt.
and John: Mt. 22. II eldev ävOpwTov oỦk evdedyuévov čvouua yápov, =
ös oúk évedéduto (Attic Greek would therefore have où; but CSD have
un perhaps correctly, cp. 12), Jo. 10. 12 ó Mio Owròs kai oủk öv zroquýv
(no definite person is referred to, therefore Attic would use uń): in
this passage où is no doubt a Hebraism, since in the case of a parti-
ciple with the article the LXX. render NS by ov, as in G. 4. 27 O.T.
ý où tikrovoa K.T.d., R. 9. 25 (Viteau, p. 217 f.). There are more
exceptions in Luke : 6. 42 aŭtos ... oủ BétWv (D' is different), A. 7.5
oỦk Övtos aúró Tékvov, 26. 22 oỦdèvèKTÒS déywv, 28. 17 oůdèy ... trotoas
(all correct Attic Greek). Oủx ó tuyávno ordinary person’explains
itself (it is the single idea in tuxúv which is negatived, supra 4)
i 'Emei uń instead of étrei oº is an established usage in Clem. Hom. (ix. 14,
xviii. 6), and for many instances of emel uń in Philostratus see W. Schmid
Atticism. iv. 93; but at any rate in the passage of Hebrews uÝTOTE (un TOTE
**D*) is clearly interrogative ('never' would be undÉTote or où déroTE). Cp.
further & 82, 2.
? It is said (Viteau, p. 213 f.) that the second uń is here occasioned by assimi-
lation to the first, i.e. the use of uń is explained as a piece of carelessness,
which I should rather attribute to the copyist than to the author.
256
NEGATIVES.
[S 75. 5-7.
A. 19. II, 28. 2; there is a different reason for où in 28. 19 (1 Th.
2. 4) ουχ ώς έχων κ.τ.λ. (I have not done this as one who' etc.).
Instances of où in Paul (Hebrews and Peter): (R. 9. 25 O.T. (vide
Supra τον ου λαών κ.τ.λ. after the Hebrew, = τον ουκ όντα λ. in class.
Greek; cp. 1 P. 2. 1ο), 2 C. 4. 8 f. θλιβόμενοι αλλ' ου στενοχωρού-
μενοι κ.τ.λ. (here again it is the single idea in στενοχ. which is nega-
tived), Ph. 3. 3 και ουκ εν σαρκί πεποιθότες, Col. 2. 19 και ου κρατών
κ.τ.λ. (elsewhere και μή is used, as in L. 1. 20 έση σιωπών και μη
δυνάμενος λαλήσαι)1: Η. 11. Ι πραγμάτων ου βλεπομένων (= Αtt. ών
άν τις μη ορα), 35 ου προσδεξάμενοι (correctly): 1Ρ. 1. 8 ον ουκ ιδόντες
αγαπάτε correctly, but the writer continues with εις δν άρτι μη ορώντες
πιστεύοντες δέ, where it is artifcial to wish to draw a distinction
between the two negatives. With ús (with which Attic prefers to
use oυ, Kühner 755) we have 1 C. 9. 26 ως ουκ αδήλως ... ως ουκ αέρα
δέρων.
6. Combined negatives.—For ur où vide supra 2 and 3; for où uń
(frequently used) see $ 64, 5, with the conj. or fut. indic.; once we
find as a v.1. uń Tote où un Mt. 25. 9 BCD al., vide supra 3 ad fin.-
The only examples of où ... Oů, où ... un neutralizing each other are
1 C. 12. 15 ου παρά τούτο ούκ έστιν εκ του σώματος (cp. μή ... μή in
L. 14. 29 D, ίνα μήποτε ... μη ισχύση), Α. 4. 20 ου δυνάμεθα ... μη
λαλείν (classical usage corresponds), apart from the instances where
the second negative stands in a subordinate clause, viz. oideis - os
(class. όστις) ού (but here we do not find the classical practice of
directly connecting oùdels with, and assimilating it to, the relative,
Kühner 919, 5) Mt. 10. 26, L. 12. 2, ου ... δς ού Mt. 24. 2 al.; the
same meaning is expressed by giving an interrogative form to the
principal clause and omitting the first negative (Buttmann 305), τις
έστιν ... ος ου Α. 19. 35.-The classical combination of negatives oυ
(μη) ... ουδείς (μηδείς) and the like, to intensify the negation, is not
excessively frequent: the instances are Μo. 15. 4 ουκ αποκρίνη ουδέν;
5 ουκέτι ουδεν απεκρίθη, L. 10. 19 ουδέν .. ου μή (not in D), 23. 53 ουκ
ήν ουδέπω ουδείς, Α. 8. 39 ουκ ... ουκέτι, Μο. 11. Ι4 μηκέτι ... μηδείς, etc.
(ουδέποτέ μοι ουδείς Herm. Mand. iii. 3); on the other hand we find
(contrary to the classical rule, Kühner 758, but cp. 760, 4) ουχ
αρπάσει τις Jo. 10. 28, ου ... υπό τινος 1 C. 6. Ι2, ουδε τον πατέρα τις
επιγινώσκει Mt. 11. 27, 12. 19, ούτε ... τις Α. 28. 21, ου δυνήση έτι
οικονομεϊν L. 16. 2, ου ... ποτέ 2 P. 1. 21.
7. Form and position of the negative. The strengthened form
o'xí, besides being used in questions (supra 2), is also specially
frequent where the negative is independent = 'no, L. 1. 6ο, ουχί,
λέγω υμίν 12. 5Ι, 13. 3, 5 (the opposite to which is ναί [Attic never
has ναιγί, λέγω υμίν 7. 26; ού λ. υμίν would not have been quite
clear, though oŭ also appears elsewhere for ‘no,' Mt. 13. 29 etc., and
in a strengthened form oŬ oị like vaí vai Mt. 5. 372); the longer
1 In E. 5. 4 τα ουκ ανήκοντα is only a v.1. for & ουκ ανήκεν, see $ 63, 4. In 1 C.
11. 17 read ουκ επαινώ (with a stop before it, and παραγγέλλω).
2 So too in 2 C. 1. 17 ίνα η παρ' εμοί το ναι ναι και το ου ου ; but in Ja. 5. 12
the words should apparently be divided, ήτω δε υμών το ναι ναι (“let your yea
be a yea, and nothing more') και το ου ού.
$75. 7. $ 76. 1.]
257
NEGATIVES. OTHER ADVERBS.
form of the negative is also occasionally used elsewhere, Jo. 13. 10 f.
oủxi távtes, 14. 22, 1 C. 10. 29, oủxi R. 8. 32, oủxi uâldov 1 C.
5. 2, 6. 7, 2 C. 3. 8.—The position of the negative is as a matter of
course before the thing to be negatived, especially therefore does it
stand before the verb; frequently negative and verb coalesce into a
single ideá, as in oủk éñ (or the more colloquial oủk dpiw) "prevent,'
A. 19. 30 etc. A separation of the negative from the verb may
cause ambiguity, as in A. 7. 48 ål oủx o útuotos év xelportointois
Katolke (as if the writer's intention was to state that someone
else dwelt therein); Ja. 3. I un moldoi didáo kaloi ylverde; hence
the tendency is to place it immediately before the verb, évòs OÚK
OTIV G. 3. 20. A difficulty is caused by où távtus R. 3, 9, 1 C.
5. 10, which looks like a partial negation (a general negation being
expressed by πάντως ουκ ήν θέλημα 1 C. 16. 12), but at any rate in
R. 3. 9 the meaning must be 'by no means. But in this passage où
. stands by itself, and one can understand that Távtws où would not
be written (a final position for the negative is quite unusual, and cp.
oủ TAVTE@s Herm. Sim. vii. 4); Herodotus also has oùdèy (où dév Ti)
Trávtws in this sense, v. 34, 65, vi. 3. In the other passage the meaning
appears to be rather 'not altogether' (Winer, $ 61, 5, cp. Clem. Hom.
iv. 8, xix. 9, XX. 5). The meaning of the passage 1 C. 15. 51 is
uncertain on critical grounds : TÁVTES (uèv) oỦ koyunOncóueda, TÁVTES
dè åldaynoóueda the reading of B al. gives a quite unsatisfactory
sense (unless πάντες ου is taken as = ου πάντες, as it is at any rate
used in Herm. Sim. viii. 6. 2 trávtes où uetevőnoav 'not all'), but there
are several other readings supported by the authority of MSS. and
Fathers, see Tischendorf.—The order of words in H. 11. 3 is correct
in classical Greek, eis tò un ek parvouévwv ( =ék un 0.) TÒ Bretóuevov
yeyovévai (2 Macc. 7. 28 Öto OÚK ÖVTWV étoinoev aùtà ó Deós), since
participles and adjectives used in connection with a preposition have
a tendency to take any adverbial words which are in apposition with
them before the preposition, as in où jetà moldás A. 1. 5, L. 15. 13 D
(al. Let' où tollàs, as in A. 27. 14 Met' où volt), Demosth. 18. 133
oºk ev SEOVTC 'unseasonably' (like ús eis é á XLOTO, OŰTW Méxpc zróppo
and many others).
$ 76. OTHER ADVERBS.
1. Adverb as predicate.—Adverbs like éyyús and óppw may, as in
the classical language, be joined with civa, as predicates, or be used
as predicates with an ellipse of cîvai, e.g. o kúpuos éyyús Ph. 4. 5, no
less than prepositions with their cases which are so abundantly used
in this way, e.g. ήν εν τη πόλει. The use of ούτως as a predicate is less
classical : Mt. 1. 18 9 yéveriS OŰTWS ñv (for totaúrn av or oŰtws to Xev),
19. 10 ei oŰTWS fotiv ♡ aisia toll åv pórov K.7.d., R. 4. 18 O.T., 1 P.
2. 15 (although too eta. OÚTWs, i.e. ús déyers, and ČOTIV oŰtws in an
answer are also classical constructions); besides this use we have
OŰTWs éxel in A. 7. I etc. Another predicative use of outws occurs in
R. 9. 20 tí ue ênoinoas outws, = TOLOÛTOV. The phrase to civai loa (an
adverbial neut. plur.) Deộ Ph. 2. 6 is in agreement with an old usage
R
258
[8 76. 1-4.
OTHER ADVERBS.
of the language, op. Τhuc. iii. 14 ίσα και ικέται εσμέν, Winer, 8 27, 3.
With yiveo dai (with which verb the use of an adverb is in itself
quite unobjectionable) we have 1 Τh. 2. το ως οσίως και δικαίως και
αμέμπτως υμίν τους πιστεύουσιν εγενήθημεν (beside 2. 7 εγενήθημεν
ήπιοι) we have behaved’; cp. A. 20. Ι8 πως ... εγενόμην (D ποταπως
ήν).
er
infin with an kan
2. There is a tendency in Greek to express certain adverbial ideas
by particular verbs : thus 'secretly' or 'unconsciously' is expressed
by λανθάνειν with a participle, 8 73, 4 (Η. 13. 2; elsewhere the
adverb λάθρα is used as also in class. Greek, Mt. 1. 19 etc.), “con-
tinuously, further, incessantly’ by διατελείν, επιμένειν, ου διαλείπειν,
vide ibid.; cp. with an infinitive φιλουσι προσεύχεσθαι gladly’ (Mt.
6. 5, Winer, 8 54, 4), and (with an imitation of Hebrew) προσέθετο
πέμψαι L. 20. II f. (not in D) = πάλιν έπεμψεν in Mc. 12. 4, although
(according to A. 12. 3 προσέθετο συλλαβείν και Πέτρου) it must rather
be rendered 'he proceeded to' (Hebr. 04, with an inf.); the
same meaning is elsewhere given by the participle of προστιθέναι,
προσθείς είπεν L. 19. ΙΙ, like προσθείσα έτεκεν LXX. Gen. 38. 5 .
« further.'
3. Of the correlative adverbs ($ 25, 5) the interrogative form is
used instead of the relative in exclamations : πως δύσκολόν εστι Μο.
10. 23, cp. 24, L. 18. 24, πώς συνέχομαι L. 12. 5ο, πώς έφίλει αυτόν
(Attic ocov) Jo. 11. 36 (Herm. Mand. xi. 20, xii. 4. 2). Cp. the
Pronouns, 8 51, 4. Still in R. 10, 15 Ο.Τ. we have ως ωραίοι κ.τ.λ.,
11. 33 ως ανεξερεύνητα κ.τ.λ.-"Όπως (D ως) in an indirect question
representing tûs is only found in L. 24. 20 (cp. 8 50,5). On tos= ús
= ότι see 8 70, 2. - (“Οτε μεν ... οτε δε for now ... now, instead of
τότε μεν ... τότε δε, occurs in Barn. 2. 4, 5 [a Hellenistic use ; cp. δς
μεν ... δς δε, S 46, 21; but we also find ποτέ μεν .. ποτέ δε in Barn.
10. 7, which is classical ; in the N.T. no instances of these phrases
are attested).
4. Instances of attraction with adverbs of place, as for instance in
class. Greek we have και εκείθεν πόλεμος (for και εκεί ών) δεύρο ήξει (Demosth.
1. 15; Buttm. p. 323), cannot be quoted from the N.T., except the
passage L. 16. 26 μηδ' οι εκείθεν (of before εκ. is omitted by *BD)
προς υμάς διαπερώσιν, where however we might supply θέλοντες
διαβηναι from the preceding clause. Still we find a corresponding
use of εξ instead of έν: L. 11. 13 ο πατήρο εξ ουρανού δώσει πνεύμα
άγιον (ο before εξ om. NLX), Mt. 24. 17 μη καταβάτω άρα τα (D αραί
τι= Μο. 13. 15) εκ της οικίας αυτού, Col. 4. Ι6 την έκ Λαοδικείας
(επιστολήν) ίνα και υμείς αναγνώτε, the letter which you will find
there. (But in Ρh. 4. 22 οι εκ της Καίσαρος οικίας membership is
denoted by έξ, as also in oι εκ περιτομής R. 4. 12, cp. 8 40, 2;
ασπάζοναι υμάς οι από της Ιταλίας Η. 13. 24 is ambiguous and
obscure, as the place where the letter was written is unknown.)-
An attraction, corresponding to that of the relative (S 50, 2), is found
in the case of an adverb in Mt. 25. 24, 26 συνάγων όθεν (= εκείθεν ού)
ου διεσκόρπισας.
$77. 1-2.]
259
PARTICLES (CONJUNCTIONS).
$ 77. PARTICLES (CONJUNCTIONS).
1. One part of the functions of the particles (including the con-
junctions) is that they serve to give greater prominence to the modal
character of the sentence, as is the case with the particle öv and the
interrogative particles, but their more usual function is to express
the mutual relations existing between the sentences and the clauses
which compose them : membership of a single series, antithesis, rela-
tion between cause and effect, or between condition and result etc.
The number of particles employed in the N.T. is considerably
less than the number employed in the classical language, see § 26, 2;
still in spite of this it appears excessively large in comparison with
the poverty displayed by the Semitic languages in this department.
2. On the particle äv, cp. SS 63; 65, 4-10; 66, 2 (70, 5; 74, 6).—
Direct interrogative sentences, which are not introduced by an
interrogative pronoun or adverb, but expect the answer 'yes' or
'no,' do not require a distinguishing particle any more than in
classical Greek, since the tone in which they are uttered is a
sufficient indication of their character, though it is true that when
they are transmitted to writing the general sense of their context
is the only thing which distinguishes them, and this in certain
circumstances may be ambiguous ($ 4, 6; instances of this are
Jo. 16. 31, 1 C. 1. 13, Viteau p. 23, 50). If an affirmative
answer is to be intimated, this character of the sentence is marked
by the insertion of ov, 'if a negative answer, by the insertion of
juń (unti); and this is a case where a question is distinguished as
such by an external symbol, since the use of uń with an indicative
where the particle is in no way dependent can certainly not be found
except in an interrogative sentence, cp. $ 75, 2. Double questions
with the distinguishing particles tótepov ... ý occur nowhere in the
N.T. in direct speech in indirect speech only in John 7. 17; also
Barn. 19. 5); more often the first member of the sentence is left
without a distinguishing particle, as in G. 1. 1o äpti yàp åvopórovs
πείθω ή τον θεόν; (the simple interrogative ή = an or' occurs in
Mt. 20. 15, 26. 53, 2 C. 11.7, where FG have ñ uń'or perhaps,' a
combination of particles not elsewhere attested). Still there are
certain interrogative particles, of which may be mentioned in the
first place åpa or åpá ye; this, it is true, can only be distinguished
from the inferential äpa (ye) by the prosody, and it is moreover quite
rare and only represented in Luke and Paul (therefore a literary
word): L. 18. 8 åpa cúpňoel TNV miotu ÉTTÈ cñs yộs; A. 8. 30 åpá ye
ylváokels å åvayıváo KELS; G. 2. 17 åpa Xplotos duaptías diákovos;
un yévolto (this phrase un y. in the Pauline Epp. is always an
answer to a question, 66, 1: therefore opu cannot be read here; still
åpa in this passage has the meaning of 'therefore' which öpa else-
where has, $ 78, 5). We have a kindred use of apa (as in classical
Greek) after tís in Mt. 18. I rís öpa uelfwv &otiv K.T.., L. 1. 66 etc.
(in indirect speech in 22. 23) : after ei (indirect and direct) in Mc.
11. 13, A. 7. 1, 8. 22 (ei äpaye 17. 27); after unti in 2 C. 1. 17; it
260
[$ 77. 2-4.
PARTICLES (CONFUNCTIONS).
denotes astonishment in A. 21. 38 oủk åpa où ci ó AlyúTTLOS; ('not
then'), while in other cases it corresponds to our 'well' or 'then’;
Tís ápa in Mt. 19. 25, 27 is inferential, ‘now,' 'then,' cp. supra on
G. 2. 17. Again the ei of indirect questions ($ 65, 1, cp. 6) may also
be attached to a direct question: Mt. 12. 1o étnpótno av attòv
Néyovtes. E É ECOTLV Toîs cáßßari Depanello al ; 19. 3 Néyovtes El ...
(it introduces similar words in indirect speech in Mc. 10. 2, Viteau
p. 22, 1), A. 1. 6, 7. I etc. (most frequently in Luke, Win. $ 57, 2);
the usage is unclassical, but is also found in the LXX. (Gen. 17. 17
etc., Winer loc. cit.).1 The alternative use of the interrogative
like the use of the same word affirmatively, is entirely wanting.
3. Sentences which denote assurance, both direct and indirect (in
the latter case the infinitive is used), are in classical Greek intro-
duced by uńy, which in the Hellenistic and Roman period is some-
times written in the form of ei (accent ?) unv2; so in the LXX. and in
a quotation from it in H. 6. 14 €i univ eŭloyộv eủloynow oe û KL*).
Another corroborative word is the particle val="yea,' to which the
opposite is où oủxi 'nay,' $ 75, 7. Naí is also used in the emphatic
repetition of something already stated, 'yes indeed,' L. 12. 5 vai,
déyw ûnîv, Toûtov poßnonte, 11. 51, Ap. 1. 7, 14. 13, 16. 7; also in a
repeated request Ph. 4. 3, Philem. 20 (it is a favourite word in
classical Greek in formulas of asseveration and adjuration, e.g. vai
Trpòs Tŵv yovátwv Aristoph. Pax 1113). Naí is not the only form
for expressing an affirmative answer, the statement made may also
be repeated and endorsed (as in class. Greek): Mc. 14. 61 f. où el ...;
... łyó ciți, cp. A. 22. 27 where the ß text has ciuí for val of the a
text; another formula is où déyels Mt. 27. II, Mc. 15. 2, L. 23. 3,
i.e. 'you say so yourself, not I' ($ 48, 1), which always to some
extent implies that one would not have made this particular state-
ment spontaneously if the question had not been asked; in Jo. 18. 37
we have où léyels, ŐT. (not that,' but 'since,' 'for,' $ 78, 6) Baoilets
eiſe, which is similar to L. 22. 70 gueîs léyete, őri éyú eius. -A certain
extenuation, and at the same time a corroboration, of a proposition
made is contained in the word Sýtov 'surely,' certainly' (an appeal
to the knowledge possessed by the readers as well): it is only found
in H. 2. 16 (a classical and literary word).
4. The particle ye which serves to emphasize a word (known by
the old grammarians as the σύνδεσμος παραπληρωματικός) in the N.T.
is almost confined to its use in connection with other conjunctions,
in which case it often really sinks into being a mere unmeaning
appendage. Thus we have åpá ye, öpa ye (supra 2; $78,5), kaltolye,
Mevoûvye $ 77, 14; frequently ei è uń ye with an ellipse of the verb,
otherwise' (classical), Mt. 6. I, 9. 17 (B omits ye), L. 5. 36 etc.,
2 C. 11. 16 (on the other hand Mc., Jo., and Ap. have this phrase
without ye), untiye $ 75, 2. Still ye keeps its proper meaning in
? It is probably a Hebraism (Viteau), being another rendering (besides uń)
of the Hebrew 17.
2 Blass Ausspr. 333 n. 77; so also Berl. Aegypt. Urk. 543.
$ 77. 4-6.]
261
PARTICLES (CONFUNCTIONS).
ållá ye yuív eime 1 C. 9. 2 “yet at least I am so to you,' which class.
Greek would express by separating the particles αλλ' υμίν γε (and
the particles are somewhat differently used in L. 24. 21 ådlá ye kcii
Où tão LV TOÚTOLS 'but indeed'); also in Kai ye fè Toùs doúlovs
A. 2. 18 O.T. (Herm. Mand. viii. 5 kai ye moldá) and also' (or 'and
indeed'), where again class. Greek would separate the particles kał
ÉTTú ye, as St. Paul does in 1 C. 4. 8 kai obedov ye éßao idetoate 'and
I would also that ye did ...' (D*FG omit yel; and in ei ye si quidem
(R. 5. 6 v.l.) 2 C. 5. 3, E. 3. 2, 4. 21, Col. 1. 23 (classical). It
appears without another conjunction in L. 11. 8 diá ye triv åvaídelav
aŭtoû, cp. 18. 5, R. 8. 32 ős ye qui quidem 'One who, Herm. Vis. i.
1. 8 åpapria yć łoti ('indeed it is '), kai peyaan.
5. Particles which connect sentences or clauses with one another
or place them in a certain relation to each other, fall into two
classes, namely those which indicate that the clauses possess an
equal position in the structure of the sentence (co-ordinating
particles), and those which subordinate and give a dependent char-
acter to the clauses introduced by them (subordinating particles).
The former are of the most diverse origin, the latter are for the
most part derived from a relative stem. They may be divided
according to their meaning as follows: (only co-ordinating)-(1)
copulative, (2) disjunctive, (3) adversative; (only subordinating)-
(4) comparative, (5) hypothetical, (6) temporal, (7) final, (8) con-
junctions used in assertions and in indirect questions; (partly co-
ordinating, partly subordinating)-(9) consecutive, (10) causal, (11)
concessive conjunctions.
6. The copulative conjunctions in use in the N.T. are kaí, TE, OÚTE
μήτε, ουδέ μηδέ. In the case of και a distinction is made between its
strictly copulative meaning (and') and its adjunctive meaning
(also). The excessive and uniform use of kol to string sentences
together and combine them makes the narrative style, especially in
Mark, but also in Luke as e.g. in A. 13. 17. ff., in many ways un-
pleasant and of too commonplace a character, cp. $ 79, 1: whereas
elsewhere in Luke as well as in John the alternative use of the
particles Te, Sé, oův, and of asyndeton gives a greater variety to the
style, apart from the fact that these writers also employ a sub-
ordinating or participial construction. Kaſ may be used even where
a contrast actually exists : Mc. 12. 12 kaì è nrovv aŭròv kpatao al,
kai époß nonoav Tòv oxlov, cp. L. 20. 19 (but D in Luke reads époß.
DÈ), Jo. 1. 5. It frequently = and yet' (kai őuws, õuws dè are not in
use): Mt. 6. 26 où o meipovoL ..., kal ó Tarp ýuñv oủpávios TpeDel
attá, 10. 29, Jo. 1. 10, 3. II, 32 etc. (with a negative in Mt. 11. 17,
A. 12. 19 etc., where this meaning is less striking), and hence the
mutual relation of the several clauses is often very vaguely stated,
and must be helped out with some difficulty by the interpretation
| 1L. 19. 42 is a difficult passage, et ZYPS cat co gai Ye 6v Tm huếpa coc TaÚT)
Tà após elpunu pov, where Eusebius has kal ye où èv, and D kai où év (kalye
must mean at least,' = class. Čv ye Tô K.T.N.); also A. 17. 27, for which
cp. $ 74, 2.
262
[S 77. 6.
PARTICLES (CONFUNCTIONS).
which is put upon the passage, e.g. in Jo. 7. 28 κάμε οίδατε και οίδατε
πόθεν ειμί (as you say), και απ' έμαυτού ουκ ελήλυθα, άλλ' κ.τ.λ., δ.ε.
“ and yet in reality Idid not' etc., = classical και μην, καίτοι, or with
a participle και ταύτα απ' έμ. ουκ εληλυθότα. A different use is that of
the so-called consecutive kai, in English and so' or 'so': Mt. 5. 15
αλλ' επί την λυχνίαν (τιθέασιν), και λάμπει κ.τ.λ. (= ώστε λάμπειν; in
L. 8. 16 = 11. 33 expressed by ίνα), H. 3. 19 και βλέπομεν “and s0
we see,' ópõuev oův; this use is specially found after imperatives,
Mt. 8. 8 είπέ λόγω, και (so) αθήσεται, op. L. 7. 7 where BL give a
closer connection to the clauses by reading και ιαθήτω: Ja. 4. 7
αντίστησε το διαβόλω, και φεύξεται αφ' υμών (= φεύξεται γαρ, ευθύς
γάρ φ.); still we have a similar classical use, θεσθε ... και ... oίσει
Soph. O.C. 1410 f., πείθου λέγοντι, κουχ αμαρτήση ποτέ EI. 1207,
Kühner ii.2 792, 5. Οη και with a future following sentences of
design with a conjunctive, to denote an ulterior result, see $ 65, 2;
cp. also Mt. 26. 53, H. 12. 9; further L. 11. 5 τίς εξ υμών έξει φίλον,
και πορεύσεται προς αυτόν ... και είπη αυτό-κακείνος ... είπη (8 64, 6),
instead of subordinating the clauses by means of éáv or a gen. abs.,
just as the first kaí might also have been avoided by writing éxwv
φίλον. Co-ordination in place of subordination occurs in statements
of time: Mc. 15. 25 και ήν ώρα τρίτη και ( when’ or that ') έσταύ-
ρωσαν (but D εφύλασσον which gives a better sense) αυτόν (the
crucifixion has already been narrated in 24), which differs from
L. 23. 44 και ήν ήδη ώρα έκτη, και σκότος εγένετο, which may be
paralleled from classical Greek (Plat. Sympos. 220 c, Win. $ 53, 3);
still even Luke has the unclassical use ήξουσιν ημέραι ... και (when)
L. 19. 43: Mt. 26. 45, H. 8. 8 0.T. The use of kai with a finite
verb after και εγένετο, εγένετο δε, instead of the acc. and inf. which is
likewise found (S 65, 5), is an imitation of Hebrew: L. 19. 15 και
εγένετο εν τω επανελθείν αυτόν ... και (om. Syr. latt.) είπεν, 9. 28 έγ. δε
μετά τους λόγους τούτους, ώσει ημέραι οκτώ (S 33, 2) και (om. *ΒΗ
latt. syr.)... ανέβη, cp. Α. 5. 7 (here all MSS. read και), although in
constructions of this kind the kai is more often omitted : Mc. 4. 4
και εγένετο εν τω σπείρειν, ο μεν έπεσεν κ.τ.λ., Mt. 7. 28 etc.; the
éyéveto which is purely pleonastic owes its origin solely to a dis-
inclination to begin a sentence with a statement of time (S 80, 1).
Another Hebraistic use of καί is to begin an apodosis : L. 2. 21 και
ότε επλήσθησαν ..., και (om. D) εκλήθη κ.τ.λ., 7. 12 ώς δε ήγγισεν ...
και ιδού έξεκομίζετο κ.τ.λ., where the reading of D shows that this
use is scarcely different from the use with έγένετο, viz. εγένετο δε ως
ήγγιζεν ..., εξεκομίζετο, cp. also A. 1. το (και ιδού), 10. 17 (και ιδ. CD
al., KAB omit kai), Ap. 3. 20 after a sentence beginning with èàv
(AP omit και). But the case is different with 2 C. 2. 2 ει γαρ εγώ
λυπώ υμάς, και τίς ο ευφραίνων με, .ε. who then,' as Winer correctly
explains it, comparing Mc. 10. 26 και τις δύναται σωθήναι (op. also
Mc. 9. 12 D: ει 'Ηλίας ελθών αποκαθιστάνει πάντα, και πως γέγραπται
... ίνα ... εξουθενηθη ;), Jo. 9. 36, 14. 22 8 al. (a classical use, Xenoph.
Cyr. v. 4. 13 etc., Kühner ii.2 791 f.); Ph. 1. 22 should accordingly
i Found also in Homer, e.g. Il. A. 478.
$ 77. 6–8.]
263
PARTICLES (CONJUNCTIONS).
Tit. 1. 10 ike (Kühnson vide it in 11. 9. in comparo introdu
1.10 and litere adjective atépeso 1: 2) CD Cena kaloclass. Govers
be interpreted in the same way, ei dè To Sîv ev capki, TOÛTÓ MOL KaptÒS
ëpyov, kai ti aipňoquai; oủ yvopí[w, ovvexouai dè K.7.1.1
7. Kal meaning and indeed' (epexegetic kai as Winer calls it,
cp. Kühner 791) appears in Jo. 1. 16 kai xápu ávti xápitos, 1 C. 3.
5, 15. 38 kai ékáoTQ; with a demonstrative it gives emphasis, kai
TOÛTOV do Tavpwuévov 1 C. 2. 2, kai touto idque R. 13. II, 1 C. 6. 6, 8
(in 8 there is a v.l. kai taūta, as in H. 11. 12 and in class. Greek,
Kühner ibid.). With A. 16. 15 Ws dè éBantío On, kal ó Oikos aŭras
(and likewise, together with'; so 18. 2) cp. Aristoph. Ran. 697 f.
oi uell juôv tollà on xoi matépes évavuáxño av. It is used after
Tolús before a second adjective, pleonastically according to our usage
(a classical and literary use), in A. 25. 7 tollá kai Bapéa aiciáuata
(Tit. 1. 1o?). It is not used as in class. Greek after o aútós, quoíws
and the like (Kühner 361 note 18).–For kal also' in and after
sentences of comparison vide infra $ 78, 1; it='even' in Mt. 5. 46
etc., and before a comparative in 11. 9, but in H. 8. 6 60w kai
κράττονος κ.τ.λ. the και is the same as that in comparative sentences;
there is a tendency to use it after διό, διά τούτο to introduce the
result, L. 1. 35, 11. 49. On kai yàp see $ 78, 6; a kindred use to
this (kal occupying another position) is seen in H. 7. 26 TOLOÛTOS yòp
quîv kai ŠT PETTEV å pxlepeús. In jueTd kai Kiñuevtos Ph. 4. 3 it is
pleonastic, cp. Clem. Cor. i. 65. I où kai ÞovptuváTW. On kai ... Sè
vide infra 12. A peculiar (but classical) use of it is after an in-
terrogative, as in tí kał Bartícovtai 1 C. 15. 29, 'why at all ?' (or
'even as much as '), cp. R. 8. 24, L. 13. 7, Kühner 798.
8. Te by no means appears in all writings of the N.T., and would
not be represented to any very great extent at all but for the Acts,
in which book alone there are more than twice as many instances of
it as occur in the rest of the N.T. together (the instances are equally
distributed over all parts of the Acts; next to the Acts the greatest
number of instances occur in Hebrews and Romans ; there are only
eight instances in Luke's Gospel2). The use of the simple te (for te
... Kaí, te kai, te ... Te vide infra 9) is also foreign for the most part
to cultured Atticists, while the higher style of poetry uses it abun-
dantly. In the N.T. te is not often used to connect single ideas (this
use in classical Greek is almost confined to poetry, Kühner ii.2 786),
as in H. 6. 5 Deoû øñua duvádels te uéllovtos aiôvos, 9. 1, 1 C. 4. 21,
cp. further infra 9; in the connection of sentences it denotes a closer
connection and affinity between them : A. 2. 40 ÉTÉPOLS TE (8è male D)
doyous alelooi dieuaptúpato (and likewise), 37 Katevúynoav tv
7, Kühner why after an in
1 In Ja. 4. 15 it is perfectly admissible to let the apodosis begin with kai
(both) Šño quer instead of beginning it at kal Toño Quev, Buttm. 311 note.--Co-
ordination with kai instead of a subordinate clause : L. 1. 49 • duvaros, kai öylov
Td óvoua aŭtoll ( = oŮ td öv. är.), L. 8. 12 oi åkovo avtes, cita épxetal, Mt. 13. 22.
2 The simple te only occurs in L. 21. II bis, although here too it is followed
by a kal, celo uol te (and,' te om. AL) yeyáloi kai ... Nfuoc ..Zoovtal, poßntpá te
l'and') kai onuela ... čotal: unless this is rather a case of asyndeton, vide 9 (since
te is not a suitable word for a connecting particle). In 24. 20 for őrws (ús D)
Te aŮtdy the correct reading may be that of DÓTWS (W) roûtov. (Still in 23. 36
D has b&os Te n poo é depov aútŲ Néyoutes.)
264
[S 77. 8-9.
PARTICLES (CONJUNCTIONS).
καρδίαν, είπόν τε (“ and so they said '), 27. 4 f. υπεπλεύσαμεν την
Κύπρον ... τό τε πέλαγος το κατά την Κιλικίαν ... διαπλεύσαντες κ.τ.λ.
(in pursuance of the course adopted).
9. We find the following correlative combinations (meaning “as
well ... as also ) και ... και ..., τε ... και (τε και), τε ... τε. The last
(which in classical Greek is more frequent in poetry than in prose,
though in prose it is commoner than a simple te, Kühner ii.2 788),
besides its use in ούτε ... ούτε etc. (inf. 10) occurs in είτε ... είτε, see
$ 78, 2; also in εάν τε ... εάν τε R. 14. 8 bis ; but otherwise only in
Α. 26. Ι6 ών τε είδες ών τε οφθήσομαί σοι; the combined phrases are
in this way placed side by side (often = even as ... So ...). Τε ... και
affords a closer connection than the simple kai: in Attic Greek it is
generally avoided if kaí would immediately follow me, since in this
case te might appear to have no point; in the N.T. however it is
found in this case as well, Mt. 22. το πονηρούς τε και αγαθούς, Α. 1. I
ποιείν τε και διδάσκειν, 2. 9 f., 4. 27, R. 1. 12 υμών τε και εμού, 3. 9
Ιουδαίους τε και "Έλληνας, etc. The connection of Ιουδαίοι and
"Έλληνες is almost always made by means of τε και οι τε ... και:
Α. 14. I (18. 4 έπειθεν τε Ι. και Έλληνας, for an obvious reason),
19. Ιο (without τε D), 17 (om. τε DΕ), 20, 21, R. Ι. Ι6 (τε om. *),
2. 9, 10, 12 (without τε DE), 1 . 1. 24 (τε om. FG); but in 10. 32
we have απρόσκοποι και Ιουδαίοις γίνεσθε και "Ελλησιν και τη
εκκλησία του θεού, where the distinction of the different nationalities
is kept, whereas in the other passages with te kai the difference is
rather removed. For και ... και cp. Mt. 10. 28 και (not in all MSS.)
ψυχήν και σώμα, which however may mean even soul and body’ (as
is still more clearly the meaning in 8. 27 = Mc. 4. 41=L. 8. 25 kai ó
άνεμος και η θάλασσα υπακούουσιν αυτο), L. 5. 36 και το καινον σχίσει,
και το παλαιό ου συμφωνήσει κ.τ.λ. (“on the one hand... on the other,
so that there is a double injury); the use is somewhat more frequent
in John, ίνα και ο σπείρων ομου χαίρη και ο θερίζων 4. 36, where the
two clauses are sharply distinguished : 7. 28 (supra 6), 11. 48 (in
these two passages the particles have a less definite meaning), 12. 28,
15. 24 νύν δε και έωράκασιν και (and yet') μεμισήκασιν και έμε και τον
πατέρα μου (Who appear to them to be different Persons). Paul
uses a double και in R. 14. 9 bis, 1 C. 1. 22 etc.; a peculiar instance
is Ph. 4. 12 οίδα και ταπεινούσθαι, οίδα και περισσεύειν, where και even
in the first clause has rather the meaning of also.'-In longer
enumerations τε (...) και may be followed by a further τε, as in
Α. 9. Ι5 εθνών τε (τε om. HLP) και βασιλέων υιών τε Ισραήλ, 26. Ιo,
Clem. Cor. i. 20. 3 (on the other hand in L. 22. 66 το πρεσβυτέριον
του λαού, αρχιερείς τε και γραμματείς the last words are an explanatory
apposition, since otherwise the article must have been used (D kai
αρχ. και γρ.]); we have τε ... τε ... και in H. 6. 2 (αναστάσεως and
κρίματος being closely connected by τε ... και), ... τε και... και... τε
και ... και in 11. 32, an enumeration of names, where however the
1 So in Clem. Cor. i. 20. 10 twice, i. 3 - ii. I four times. It cannot be wondered
at that te was often confused in course of transmission with dé; thus te is in-
admissible in a parenthesis, as in A. 1. 15 XAB have ñ te for au dè (infra 12).
$ 77. 9–10.]
265
PARTICLES (CONFUNCTIONS).
first three conjunctions are wanting in A: in this passage the te
must be taken as a connective particle and not as correlative to kai
(similarly in A. 13. I, 1 C. 1. 30), whereas in the long enumerations
in A. 1. 13 and 2. 9 ff. couples are formed by means of te kaè or a
simple kai, and the relation between the several couples is one of
asyndeton (cp. Mt. 10. 3 f., 24. 38, R. 1. 14, 1 Tim. 1. 9, Clem. Cor.
i. 3. 2, 35. 5, Herm. Mand. xii. 3. I; in L. 6. 14 ff. there is a v.l. in
ABD al. ſopposed to A al.] with a continuous use of kaì, as in the
reading of all the Mss. in Mc. 3. 16 ff.).—Position of the correlative
TE: where a preposition precedes which is common to the connected
ideas, the te is notwithstanding placed immediately after this pre-
v.l. repeats the év), as also in classical Greek (Win. $ 61, 6); on the
other hand we have twv Ovô te kai 'Iovdaíwv A. 14. 5 (5ôvė. Kai
Tv D).
. 10. The use of correlative negative clauses with oŰTE ... OÚte or unte
... Mýte respectively, and of oudè or undè respectively as a connecting
particle after negative sentences (and of kaì où, kal un after positive
sentences) remains the same as in classical Greek. Therefore où ...,
..., uńte ... uńte K.T.d. with Mt. 10. 9 f. (Winer). In 1 C. 6. 9 f. a
very long enumeration which begins with Oűté ... OŰte etc. finally
veers round to asyndeton with ou... où (once also in Mt. 10. 10 un
is interposed between several cases of unde). Of course it often
happens, as in profane writers, that oute – oùdé, unte – unde are con-
fused in the MSS., as is also the case with sé and te (supra 8)? If
oůdé or unde stands at the beginning of the whole sentence, or after
an où or uń within the same clause of the sentence, it then means
not even,''not so much as': Mc. 8. 26 undè (un **) eis Tv kúunv
cioéxoys (with many vv.ll.; the sense requires citys in place of
eioérons), Mt. 6. 15 etc., Mc. 3. 20 GOTE un dúvao bar aútoùs undè (male
μήτε NCDE al.) άρτον φαγείν.2 The positive term corresponding to
a series of words strung together by każ, but the equivalent for oŮte
... oŰte is kai...kai, or te ... kai (Te): hence the reading in Mc. 14. 68
OŰTe oida oŰte émiotajai of XBDL appears to be inadmissible, since
the two perfectly synonymous words could not be connected by kai
... kai, te kai, and therefore the right reading is that of AKM OÚK ...
oûdè (CE al. read oủk ... OÚte, which seems to be the origin of the
In L. 20. 36 OUTE vàp is wrongly read by XQ al. for oude yàp ($ 78, 6). In
Ap. 9. 21 all Mss. read oŰte several times after oủ, as in 21. 4; in 5. 4 nearly
all have où dels .. OŬTE, but in 5. 3 they are divided : in 12. 8, 20. 4 oủsè pre-
ponderates (as also in Jo. 1. 25): in 7. 16, 9. 4, 21. 23 all have oudé. Ja. 3. 12
is quite corrupt.
2 The sequence oŰTE ... OÜTE ... OŰTE ... OÚSÈ (nor at all,' as though a single où or
oúdajoû had preceded) is perfectly admissible, A. 24. 12 f., Buttm. 315 note. But
we also find in ... unde (RABCE uńte) ... MÝTE A. 23. 8, where two ideas are con-
nected and the second is subdivided, cp. for class. exx. Kühner ii.2 829c;
accordingly in G. l. 12 ojde yap (since not even')... Tapaßov oŰTE didáxonu
(B al.) would be possible, though oudè è0. is better attested and is more regular.
266
[S 77. 10–12.
PARTICLES (CONFUNCTIONS).
confusion). A disjunctive expression with a negative preceding may
also be equivalent to oυ ..., ουδέ, or oου ... ούτε ... ούτε: Mt. 5. 17 μη
νομίσητε ότι ήλθον καταλύσαι τον νόμον ή τους προφήτας = ουκ ή. κατ.
ούτε τ.ν, ούτε τ. πρ. ; Α. 17. 29 etc.; cp. inf. 11.- Of course a correla-
tion of negative and positive members is allowable, though this is
not a frequent construction in the N.Τ.: Jo. 4. ΙΙ ούτε άντλημα έχεις,
και το φρέαρ έστιν βαθύ (D has ουδέ, which seems preferable), 3 Jo. το
ούτε αυτός επιδέχεται ... και τους βουλομένους κωλύει (in class. Greek
ούτε ... και is very rare, Kühner ii.2 831 a). A 27. 20 μήτε ... μήτε ...
te (however this te is hardly a correlative, but rather a connecting
particle). Kai oú after negative sentences, as in Mt. 15. 32 (Jo. 5.
37 f. ούτε... ούτε ... και ... ού) does not imply a correlation, but an
independent continuation, Buttm. p. 316. (In L. 18. 2 we have τον θεόν
ου φοβούμενος και άνθρωπον ουκ εντρεπόμενος, Somewhat incorrectly,
but in ν. 4 NB etc. read ουδε άνθρ. εντρέπομαι while AD etc. again read
και...ουκ.)
11. The disjunctive particle is ή, also ή και or even’ (L. 18. ΙΙ
al.); correlatively ή...ή either... or' (for which we have the classical
ήτοι ... ή in R. 6. 16, Kühner ii.2 837); in addition to this we have
ELTE ... Eſte sive ... sive, which strictly introduces subordinate clauses,
but in virtue of an ellipse may also (as in class. Greek) be used with-
out a inite verb, as in 2 C. 5. Ιο ίνα κομίσηται έκαστος ... είτε αγαθών
είτε κακόν, Ε. 6. 8, Ph. 1. 18 etc., and not solely in a disjunctive
sense, but equally well (as te is included in it) as a copula; cp. $78, 2.
H also approximates, especially in negative sentences, to the mean-
ing of a copula : Α. 1. 7 ου ... χρόνους ή καιρούς (synonymes), 11. 8
κοινόν ή ακάθαρτον ουδέποτε κ.τ.λ., cp. 10. 18 ουδέποτε έφαγον παν
κοινόν και (ή CD al.) ακάθαρτον: Jo. 8. Ι4 οίδα πόθεν ήλθον και που
υπάγω υμείς δε ουκ οίδατε πόθεν έρχομαι ή που υπάγω, 1 0. 11. 27 ος αν
εσθίη ... ή πίνη ... αναξίως; similarly in interrogative sentences, which
in meaning are equivalent to a negative sentence, 1 Th. 2. 10 tis yap
ημών ελπίς ή χαρά ή στέφανος (in 20 the positive statement runs ή δόξα
και η χαρά). "Η αη in interrogative sentences, vide supra 2, is sharply
disjunctive ('otherwise this must be the case'). A singular instance
of its use is in 1 Th. 2. Ι9 (vide supra) τις γαρ... στέφανος ; ή (ή 1s.
wanting in N*) ουχί και υμείς...; where ή has probably been foisted
into the text for the sake of the Tís (who else but'); cp. Jo. 13. 10
v.l. (and άλλ' ή inf. 13).
12. The adversative particles most in use are sé and allá, the
former of which has its correlative in uév, while the latter usually
refers to a preceding negative (but on the contrary'). This refer-
ence, however, may also be expressed, though not so strongly, by
δε : Α. 12. 9 ουκ ήδει ... έδόκει δε (“but rather'), 14, H. 4. 13, 6. 12
etc. A distinction must also be made between contradiction (αλλά)
and antithesis (δε): Η. 2. 8 ουδεν αφήκεν αυτώ ανυπότακτον νυν δε
ούπω δρώμεν αυτώ τα πάντα υποτεταγμένα (but, on the other
hand '). The correlation of μέν and δέ, which is so essentially char-
acteristic of the classical Greek style, is very largely reduced in the
N.T., so that uév is wholly absent from Ap., 2 P., 1, 2 and 3 Jo.
$ 77. 12–13.]
. 267
PARTICLES (CONJUNCTIONS).
2 Th., 1 Tim., Tit. (uév in 1. 15 is spurious) and Philemon, and is
practically unrepresented in Ja. (3. 17 mpôtov MÈV ... ČTTELTA, an
antithesis also found in classical Greek without dé; cp. Jo. 11. 6,
1 C. 12. 28), Eph. (4. II TOùs Mèv ... TOùs 8è), Col. (2. 23, an ana-
coluthon without an answering clause), and 1 Th. (2. 18 éyù Mèv
IIaülos, the antithetical clause being omitted but sufficiently in-
timated by uèv; classical Greek has a similar use, Hdt. iii. 3 &uoi Mèv
où mi avós ['to me at least'], Kühner 813 f.); it is also comparatively
in Acts, Hebrews (1 Peter) and some of the Pauline epistles.
Moreover a large number of these instances, especially those in Luke,
are instances of the resumptive uèv oův, $ 78, 5, where the uév in
very few cases indicates a real antithesis : other examples of ana-
coluthic uév are also fairly common in Luke, where the style and
structure of the sentence are more or less harshly violated, as in
L. 8. 5 f. ö uè ... kai étepov (occasioned by a development of the idea
being interposed: so in Mc. 4. 4 f.), A. 1. 1, 3. 13, 21, 17. 30, 27. 21
(cp. also 20. 11. 4, H. 7. II): not to mention the instances, where
the omission of sè is excusable or even classically correct, viz. apôtov
Mèv R. 1. 8, 3. 2, 1 C. 11. 18 (perhaps ‘from the very outset'),
A. 28. 22 Tepi mèv yàp tñs oipéoews Taútys yvwotòv ňuív éotiv K.T.d.
( so much we do indeed know'), R. 10. I Ý Mèv eúdokia k.t... (so
far as my wishes are concerned'), 11. 13ěd'őoov uèv oův ciue éyw Ovớv
ÅTóotolos k.t.d., cp. Kühner 814.-In Jo. 7. 12 oi uèi is followed by
allou (ä. Sè BTX) with the asyndeton of which this gospel is so
fond ($ 79, 4); in H. 12. 9 où tolló Sè (n°D*, the other Mss. omit
8è) is probably the correct reading; we have instances of rèv ... åldà,
Mèv ... alv (Kühn. 812 f.) in A. 4. 16, R. 14. 20, 1 C. 14. 17:
L. 22. 22; and a kindred úse to this occurs in Mt. 17. 11 f. 'Hlías
Lèv ép xeral ..., déyw dè úpîv, with which cp. Mc. 9. 12 MÈY ... (om.
DL), 13 allà ..., where wèv means “indeed,' certainly,' and sè (or
ållà) is an emphatic 'but.'-Aé introduces a parenthesis in A. 12. 3
hoav dè ai ģuéput tûv å fúuwv, cp. 1. 15 jv dè k.7.d. (te is wrongly
read by FAB al.) : 4. 13 étéyivwokov dè (so D reads instead of Te).
It introduces an explantion or a climax (but,' and indeed') in
R. 3. 22 Sukalooúvn dè Deoû, 9. 30, 1. C. 2. 6, Ph. 2. 8.—We find kui ...
Sè in connection with each other in A. 2. 44, 3. 24 kai távtes dè K.T...,
and also all,' 22. 29 kai ó xudiapxos dè, Mt. 16. 18 kåyù dè ooù déyw,
Jo. 8. 16 etc. (Tisch. on 6. 51), etc.: whereas dè kai means 'but.
also,' A. 22. 28 etc.
13. ’Alá, besides its use in opposition to a preceding oủ2 (with
Mèv is not unfrequently interpolated in the inferior MSS., Buttm. p. 313.
Also in Clem. Cor. i. (62, 1 anacol.), Cor. ii., Barnabas (i. 2 anacol.) and
Hermas it is only rarely represented.
2 Oů ... állá may also mean 'not so much ... as,' Mc. 9. 37 OÚK Éme déxetai,
ållà Tov åToomellavrá ue, Mt. 10. 20, Jo. 12. 44, A. 5. 4 etc., the first member
of the sentence being not entirely negatived, but only made subordinate.
3 Oů ubyov ... állá is used without a kaì if the second member includes the
first, A. 19. 26, 1 Jo. 5. 6, or as in Ph. 1. 12 állà Tollô uallov k.T..
268
[8 77. 13.
PARTICLES (CONFUNCTIONS).
in opposition to a foregoing positive sentence ("but not'): 1 C. 10.
23 πάντα έξεστιν, αλλ' ου πάντα συμφέρει, ibid. 5, Mt. 24. 6; it is
further used where no negative precedes or follows it, as in
1 C. 6. ΙΙ και ταυτά τινες ήτε, αλλά απελούσασθε, αλλά ηγιάσθητε,
where one can easily supply 'but you are so no longer' and
render αλλά by on the contrary’: 1 C. 3. 6 εγώ έφύτευσα, Απολλως
επότισεν, αλλά ο θεός ηύξανεν (out He Who gave the increase was
not I nor he, but God), 7. 7, Jo. 16. 2. It stands at the beginning
of the sentence with or without a negative: R. 10. Ι6 αλλ' ου
πάντες υπήκουσαν, where the difference is more strongly marked
than it would be with δε, 10. Ι8 f. αλλά λέγω..., 11. 4,
1 C. 12. 24, 15. 35; similarly before commands or requests,
Α. 10. 20, 26. Ι6, Mt. 9. Ι8, Mc. 9. 22 etc. A similar meaning
is expressed in Mt. ειnd Lc. (not in Acts) by πλήν, yet,” “how-
beit' (in Acts and Mc. it is a preposition meaning "except' as in
class. Greelk, 8 40, 6; we also have πλήν ότι [class.] except that'
in A. 20. 23): Mt. 26. 39 (L. 22. 43) πλήν ούχ ως εγώ θέλω άλλ' ώς
σύ, = Μο. 14. 36 αλλ' ουχ κ.τ.λ.; Mt. 11. 22, 24, 26. 64 πλήν λέγω
υμίν, but in Mc. 9. 13 αλλά λέγω υμίν (op. Mt. 17. Ι2 λέγω δε υμίν);
Mt. 18. 7 πλήν ουαι κ.τ.λ., =L. 17. Ι ουαι δε (πλην ουαι δε NBDL);
it even takes the place of an åldá corresponding to a negative in
L. 23. 28 μη κλαίετε επ' εμέ, πλην εφ' εαυτάς κλαίετε (αλλ' D); 12. 29,
31 (D ζητείτε δε); it is obvious that πλήν was the regular word in
the vulgar language. (In Paul it has rather the meaning of 'only,'1
'in any case,' being used at the end of a discussion to emphasize the
essential point, 1 C. 11. II, E. 5. 33, Ph. 3. Ι6, 4. Ι4; s0 also in
Αp. 2. 25, and there is a parallel use (3) in Ρh. 1. 18 τί γάρ και πλην
(om. Β) ότι (om. DEKL) παντί τρόπω ... Χριστός καταγγέλλεται, και
εν τούτω χαίρω, where τί γάρ appears to mean as in R. 3. 3 what
matters it?', and aliv, with or without őri, seems to denote 'at all
events,' and is moreover superfluous.)—'Allá is used after an oratori-
cal question as in class. Greek, in Jo. 12. 27 τί είπω; πάτερ, σώσόν
με ...; αλλά διά τούτο ήλθον κ.τ.λ. (there are simpler sentences in
7. 49, 1 C. 10. 20); or in a succession of questions (the answer being
either given in each case or suppressed), Mt. 11. 8 f. = L. 7. 24 ff.
τι εξήλθατε ... και ... αλλά τι εξήλθατε ; κ.τ.λ. (class.). A peculiar
instance is H. 3. Ι6 τίνες γαρ ακούσαντες παρεπίκραναν και άλλ' ου
πάντες οι εξελθόντες εξ Αιγύπτου ... ; where however the άλλ' (op. the
Syriac VS.) may have only originated from a misunderstanding of the
preceding Tives as if it were Tivès. 2 —’Alld is used in the apodosis after
εί, εάν, είπερ, meaning still, at least' (class.): 1 C. 4. 15 έαν μυρίους
παιδαγωγούς έχητε εν Χριστώ, αλλ' ου πολλούς πατέρας, 2 C. 4. 16,
11. 6, (i3. 4 ν.λ.), Col. 2. 5 etc. ; cp. αλλά γε υμίν ειμι 1 C. 9. 2 (supra
4).-Besides its use in this passage αλλά γε και... is found in L. 24.
21 (vide ibid.), introducing an accessory idea in an emphatic way,
1Cp. Aristotle's use, Bonitz Index Arist. S.V. πλήν.
2 The use is different in L. 17. 7 f. τίς ... έρεί αυτό... αλλ' ουχί έρεί αυτό... ;
and not rather.' D here omits oùxi, according to which the second half of
the sentence is not interrogative.
$77. 13-14.]
269
PARTICLES (CONJUNCTIONS).
director de ter ce of inter poudí,
created). We fide Ph. 3. 8. Contrary but 29.
adrà (wite must happened. 18,
liptical hrase) in ost he distins and from many sou
ope A)
cp. állà kal ibid. 22, 12. 7, 16. 21, 'not only this, but also,' as in
Ph. 1. 18 yaipw, ålda kai yapńcouai, 2 C. 11. I obelov åvel xeo de ...,
årda kai å véyeo De (not only will I utter the wish, but I entreat you
directly); to this corresponds állojsé in 1 C. 3. 2 OỬtw yàp édúvao Oe.
åll oude éto vův dúvao Oe, A. 19. 2, L. 23. 15. The simple allá also
has this force of introducing an accessory idea, in 2 C. 7. II 6ONV
ý nîv karnpyáoato omovov, åldà (and not only that, but also )
åroloylav, ållà åyaváktnoiv, allà póßov K.7.1. (åldá 6 times re-
peated). We further have allà devoûv ye (without ye in BDF al.) kai
(om. 4*) Ýyoûua. Ph. 3. 8, cp. inf. 14.—Notice must be taken of the
elliptical å l'{va 'on the contrary (but) this has happened (or a
similar phrase) in order that,' Mc. 14. 49, Jo. 1. 8, 9. 3, 13. 18,
15. 25; but this must be distinguished from Mc. 4. 22 oủ yàp ČOTIV
τι κρυπτον, εαν μη ένα φανερωθή ουδέ εγένετο απόκρυφον, αλλ' ίνα έλθη
εις φανερον, where αλλ' = ει μή save that, and from the use of άλλ'
(i.e. öllo) 9 in L. 12. 51 ovxí, léyw ynîv, öll ) (Dållà) diapepco uov,
nothing else but' (classical, Kühner ii.2 824, 5 and 6, 825 note 4),
cp. 2.C. 1. 13 où ydp alla ... all arom. BFG) ^ (om. A) å (om.
AD*) åvayıváo Ketei (öll is an interpolation in i C. 3. 5), Clem.
Cor. i. 41. 2.
14. Other adversative particles are péytol 'however,' où(Seis) MéVTOL
Jo. 4. 27, 7. 13, 20. 5, 21. 4 (Herm. Sim. vi. 1. 6), uws uévtou 12. 42;
this particle occurs very rarely except in John, viz. ó Mévtou Demélios
2 Tim. 2. 19, Ja. 2. 8, Jd. 8 (in the two last passages with a weaker
meaning = 'but.'). "Ouws apart from the instance quoted occurs only
again in 1 C. 14. 7, Ġ. 3. 15, where it is used in a peculiar way :
όμως τα άψυχα φωνήν διδόντα ..., εάν διαστολήν φθόγγου μη δω, πως
γνωσθήσεται κ.τ.λ., and όμως ανθρώπου κεκυρωμένης διαθήκην ουδείς
å etcî; the latter passage is explained (Fritzsche) as a substitution
for kaimep å vOp., Ouws oùdeis ào. 'if it be only a man's will, yet,' some-
what like Xenoph. Cyrop. v. 1. 26 où ooi opws kai év tỳ Toleulą
Övtes Dappoûuev, Kühner p. 645; but as in both passages a comparison
is introduced by it, and as outws also follows in the passage of 1 Cor.,
it appears to be rather an instance of the old word ouốs ‘in like
manner' being brought into play, which should accordingly be
rendered simply by also' or 'likewise.' 2_Kalrou in classical Greek
means. 'and yet,' and rarely takes a participle with the meaning
although,' cp. $ 74, 2; in the N.T. it introduces a parenthesis in
Jo. 4. 2 kaltoiye (S 77, 4) 'Incoûs aŭtos oủk Bártičev K.T.. (='although
He did not baptize'), and has a more independent character in A.
14. 17, though here also it may be rendered ' although' (on A. 17. 27
see $ 74, 2; for kultou with a participle H. 4. 3).-Kal uñv and yet!
(class.) does not occur in the N.T.; but Hermas uses it in Mand. iv. 1.

1*AX' is rendered pleonastic by a preceding itlos, but the use is nevertheless
not unclassical, Kühner 824, 6.
Clem. Hom. i. 15 ( = Epitom. 14) has kai óums šualov kai Tŷ Tul@vi ÉTÉOTNU, =
ára 'at the same time'; xix. 23 kal dus tolallTá tiva dupla K.T.A., = kal óuolws.
(In 1 C. l.c. the accentuation ouws is supported by Wilke Neut. Rhetorik
p. 225.)
270
[877. 14. $ 78. 1.
PARTICLES (CONTINUED).
8, v. 1. 7, with an intensifying force in an answer, somewhat like
immo (class., Kühner ii.2 690.-Mèv oův in classical Greek is specially
used in answers with heightening or corrective force, and is always
so placed that the per here as in other cases has another word before
it; but in the N.T. Ņevoûv or nevoûvye with the same meaning stands
at the beginning of a sentence: L. 11. 28 devoûv (ins. ye B3CD al.)
jakápuoi of K.T... (rather'), R. 9. 20 (ye is omitted by B only), 10. 18
μενούνγε (μενούνγε om. FG); we also find αλλά μενούν(γε) in Ρh. 3. 8,
vide supra 13. Cp. Phryn. Lob. 342. But the classical position of
the word is seen in 1 c. 6. 4 Biwtirà uÈV oŮv kpırúpia K.T.d., cp. 7
(oův om. **D*).
er nietos 1004, as in R. Dus and many
$ 78. PARTICLES (continued).
1. The comparative particles which are followed by a subordinate
clause are ws and Contep, also frequently in nearly all writers kabús, a
Hellenistic word, see Phrynicus p. 425 Lob., who strongly disapproves
of it and requires instead kabá (only in Mt. 27. 10 O. T. and L. 1. 2
according to D and Euseb., certainly the right reading, see p. 49 on
Tapédosav) or kadó (which is found in R. S. 26, 2 C. 8. 12, 1 P. 4. 13);
the equally Attic form kadátep occurs only in Paul and Hebrews.
The uses of us are manifold, and some of them, as being too well
known and commonplace, need not be discussed at all in this
grammar. The correlative terms are ús (coTEP, kabús, kabárep)
– ούτως or ούτως και ; or the term corresponding to ως may be simply
kal, as in Mt. 6. 1o, or again kal may be attached to us and may
even stand' in both portions of the comparison, as in R. 1. 13 va rivà
Kapròv oxô kal év üniv, kaows kal év Tois doctrois ?Oveolv, Mt. 18. 33
etc. (as in class. Greek, Kühner p. 799, 2).-When used to introduce
a sentence ús and more particularly kabús may also to some extent
denote a reason : R. 1. 28 kabùs oỦk édokíjag av TÒV Deòv & XELV év
ÊTLYVÚgel, tapédwkev aŭtoùs ó Deòs k..d. (even as'='since,' quando-
quidem), 1 C. 1. 6, 5. 7, E. 1. 4, Ph. 1. 7 (Mt. 6. 12 ús kaì ýuces
åpýkajev, = L. 11. 4 kai yòp aútoi åplouev), cp. us with a partic.
$ 74, 6.—A parable is introduced by ús in Mc. 13. 34, by Áo Tep yàp
(yàp om. D) in 25. 14, though no corresponding term follows, and
there is also no close connection with the preceding words, cp. 81, 2.
-Before ideas the place of ús is taken by woel (especially in the
Gospels and Acts, also in Herm. Sim. vi. 2. 5, ix. 11. 5), with much
variety of reading in the MSS.; this particle is also used before
numerical ideas = about,' Mt. 14. 21 (D Ós), Jo. 4. 6 (ús has prepon-
derant evidence) etc. (classical); do tepel (in comparisons) only occurs
in 1 C. 15. 8 (GoTEp D*) and as a v.l. in 4. 13; úcúv (ús öv) only in
2 C. 10.9 đoàv (“as it were”) ékpoßeiv, cp. $ 70,5. A very wide use
is made of us in connection with a predicate, whether in the nomina-
tive, Mt. 22. 30 ús äyyelou Deoû cioiv, 18. 3 èàv un yévno de ús tà
Traidia, 1 C. 7.7 èàv jeivwo i ús keyú, or in the accusative, L. 15. 19
Toinoov je ús éva Tūv ulo Díw dov, especially with the verbs
doyíčeo dai, vyeo dac etc., $ 34, 5 (all unclassical uses; but in the
LXX. we have in Gen. 3. 50 60 De ús Deoí, = class. icóledi, or ioa kai
8 78. 1-2.]
27I
PARTICLES (CONTINUED).
θεοί according to Thuc. iii. 14, cp. [S 76, 1] είναι ίσα θεώ Ρh. 2. 6).
With την ίσην ως και ημίν Α. 11. 17 cp. classical eX.Χ. in Kühner 361,
note 18. Πορεύεσθαι ώς (έως NABE) επί την θάλασσαν Α. 17. Ι4 is a
Hellenistic usage, ως επί = versus in Polyb. i. 29. I etc., see Wetstein
ad loc.; ús táxiata ibid. 15 is classical (literary language ; $ 44, 3).
On ús with a partic. and in abbreviated sentences see § 74, 6. On
exclamatory ως 8 76, 3; ώς (ως ότι) in assertions 8 70, 2; on temporal
ως infra 3; with an infnitive 8 69, 3.
2. The hypothetical particles are ei and táv, see $ 65, 4 and 5;
Paul (and 1 Ρet. 2. 3, but s*AB read εί) also uses είπερ if on the
other hand, R. 3. 30 (v.1. επείπερ), 8. 9, 17, 2 Τh. 1. 6, referring to
an alternative condition (or fact); távítep is similarly used in H. 3 (6
v.1.) 14, 6. 3; but the particle is differently used in 1 C. 8. 5 και γαρ
είπερ εισίν λεγόμενοι θεοί..., αλλ' ημίν εις ο θεός, where it has a con-
cessive sense, however true it may be that,' as in Homer (Kühner
991, note 2)1 EXys is similarly used, but makes a more definite
assumption (G. Hermann), $ 77, 4. The correlative terms in use are
είτε ... είτε (εάν τε ... εάν τε R. 14. 8 twice), only found in Paul and
1 Peter, either with a finite verb, as in 1 C. 10. 3Ι είτε ούν έσθίετε
είτε πίνετε είτε τι ποιείτε, πάντα εις δόξαν θεού ποιείτε, “whether it be
that ... or that,' or still more frequently without a verb by abbrevia-
tion (classical, Kühner 839), ibid. 3. 21 f. πάντα γάρ υμών έστιν, είτε
Παύλος είτε 'Απολλώς είτε Κηφάς, where perhaps no definite verb can
be supplied, but the meaning is 'whether one mentions, whether it
be, whether one is concerned with' 2 ; similarly 13. 8 είτε δε προ-
φητείαι, καταργηθήσονται, είτε γλώσσαι, παύσονται, είτε κ.τ.λ., and
R. 12. 6 f. έχοντες δε χαρίσματα ... είτε προφητείαν (sc. έχοντες), κατά
την ..., είτε διακονίαν, έν ..., είτε και διδάσκων, έν τη διδασκαλία: είτε και
παρακαλών, έν κ.τ.λ. The meaning of είτε ... είτε in such passages
approximates very closely to that of και ... και, and the construction
is also of the same character as that with kal; the passage R. 12. 7
like other cases of enumeration (R. 2. 17-20 ; $ 79, 3) concludes with
an asyndeton, και μεταδιδούς έν απλότητι κ.τ.λ.-Further correlative
terms are ei pès ... El Sè, as in A. 18. 14 f.; here we may note the
thoroughly classical suppression of the first apodosis in L. 13. 9 kův
μεν ποιήση καρπόν (sc. it is well): ει δε μήγε, εκκόψεις αυτήν (cp.
Kühner 986). On ει δε μή, ει δε μήτε (the second protasis being
abbreviated) see 8 77, 4 ; on εί (εάν) μή (τι) except, except that'
see SS 65, 6 : 77, 3. In imitation of Hebrew ei is used after formulas
of swearing (= Helbr. ON) : Mc. 8. 12 αμήν λέγω υμίν, ει (there shall
not ) δοθήσεται τη γενεά ταυτη σημείον (cp. Mt. 16. 4 a principal sen-

1 We also have 1 C. 15. 15 δν (τον Χρ.) ουκ ήγειρεν, είπερ άρα νεκροί ουκ εγείρονται,
but the clause einep ... .yelp. is absent (through homoeoteleuton ? cp. 16) in DE
and other witnesses ; the sense can perfectly well dispense with it, and is
better without it; moreover the classical use of apa (' as they say ') is remark-
able. Here also einep means “if on the other hand' (as they say).
2 For this in 2 C. 8. 23 we have είτε υπέρ Τίτου, κοινωνός έμός κ.τ.λ., but here
again the sentence continues in the nominative, είτε αδελφοί ημών, απόστολοι
εκκλησιών.
272
[S 78. 2-5.
PARTICLES (CONTINUED).
tence with oº), H. 3. II=4. 3 0.T. --On concessive ei kai, èàv kai
etc. see $ 65, 6; on ei in indirect and direct questions, and its use
to express expectation (also expressed by ei TWS, si forte) see SS 65, 1
and 6 ; 77, 2.
3. The temporal particles, used to denote time when, are őte, őtav,
ÓTÓTE (ÉTTELÓÝ is generally causal, as is én ELÒÝTTEP; ÉTELÓÝ in temporal
sense only occurs in L. 7. I with vv.ll. êtrei, őte), and exceptionally
in Paul vvika (a literary word, but also found in LXX. e.g. Exod. 1. 10,
Deut. 7. 12) 2 C. 3. 15 f. from LXX. Exod. 34. 34 (a particle which
strictly refers to a period of an hour or a year, but is already in
Attic used interchangeably with őte). Another equally rare word is
ÓTÓTe, if it is correctly read in L. 6. 3 ÓTÓTE (ŐTE XBCDL al., as in
Mt., Mc.) énelvagev. In addition to these we find os not unfrequently
used in the narrative of Luke (Gospel and Acts) and John: L. 1. 23
ως επλήσθησαν αι ημέραι, Jo. 2. 9 ώς δε εγεύσατο ο αρχιτρίκλινος κ.τ.λ.
(classical ; LXX. especially 1 Macc., Win.-Grimm); in Paul we have
R. 15. 24 ús. åv topeówua, els tnv Emavíav 'in my approaching journey
to Spain,' 1 C. 11. 34 ús ävěrow 'when I come (shall come), Ph. 2. 23
ús åv åbidw-a use of ós äv which finds only distant parallels in
classical Greek; it takes the pres. indic. in G. 6.10 ús kalpověxouer
(male-Wjev xB*) cum, 'now while' (Clem. Cor. ii. 8. 1, 9. 7), and in
L. 12. 58 ús ydp úráyels ... ét' äpxovta, ¿v Tŷ 08ộ (Mt. 5. 25 is differ-
ently expressed, using éws Őrov; in Lc. éws ÚTáyeis would be tauto-
logical beside év tý odø). -Time during which is expressed, as in
classical Greek, by śws (with a present), Jo. 9. 4 éws ňuépa fotív, cp.
12. 35 f., where in 35 ABD al., and in 36 the same MSS. with #, read
ús, which after the instances of ús that have been quoted is not
impossible, though the meaning 'as long as' appears more correct at
least in verse 352; see also Mc. 6. 45, Jo. 21. 22, 1 Tim. 4. 13, $ 65,
10. Elsewhere for as long as we have ćws Őrov Mt. 5. 25 (as ćws
has become a preposition, $ 40, 6), or öxpis où H. 3. 13, A. 27. 33, or
év Mc. 2. 19, L. 5. 34, Jo. 5. . The same expressions together
with éws où, äxpt, uéxpu, uéxpc où when used with the aor. conj. (or
fut. indic.) mean “until,' $ 65, 9 and 10.-'Before' is aplv, Tpív »,
usually with an infinitive; also apò toll with an infin., ibid.
4. For the final particles (va, ő ws, uń see $ 65, 2; on the extended
use of iva, § 69; on uń, uÝws, uÝmote after boßeio Dar etc. $ 65, 3.-
For assertions with őri (cós, cs őri, TÔ), $ 70; for indirect questions
with ei (Tótepov ... » Jo. 7. 17), $ 77, 2.
5. The consecutive subordinating particles are Őote, see $ 69, 3, and
iva, ibid.— With a co-ordinate construction oŮv is particularly fre-
quent, being one of the commonest of the particles in the N.T., and
fairly represented in all writings, though a far larger use is made of
1Hdt. iv. 172 tûv od us ēkaotós oi uixoî, didol dôpov. But the Lxx. has the
same use, e.g. in Jos. 2. 14; also Herm. Vis. iii. S. 9.
2 In modern Greek Űs (from ws) also means 'until'; but in the N.T. the two
words are not elsewhere confused (come with an inf. = 'until' in 'Jo.' 8. 9 D?),
and we should therefore perhaps write with x in verse 35 éws 'as long as,' and
in verse 36 us quando ‘now when.'
$78. 5.]
273
PARTICLES (CONTINUED).
it in narrative than in epistolary style, and the greatest of all in
John's Gospel (whereas in the Johannine Epistles it only occurs in
3 Jo. 8 [being interpolated in 1 Jo. 2. 24, 4. 197). Of course it does
not always imply a strictly causal connection, but may be used in a
looser way of a temporal connection, and therefore to resume or con-
tinue the narrative. Luke is accustomed in the Acts, if the narrative
sentence begins with a noun or pronoun (or a participle with the
article), to emphasize the oův by the addition of pièv, which need not
be succeeded by a contrasted clause with dè : 1. 6 o uèv oův
ovvedóvTes K.T..., 18 UTOS Mè oŮV K.T..., 2. 41 o uèv oův åmode áuevot,
9. 31 αι μεν ούν εκκλησίαι etc.; this combination of particles is used
sometimes to state what further took place, sometimes to summarize
the events which have been previously narrated, before passing on
to something new (cp. for the class. use Kühner 711); the same use
occurs in Luke's Gospel 3. 18 ollà Lèv Oův kai étepa Tapakalv
ευαγγελίζετο τον λαόν (the only instance of μεν ούν in that Gospel).
The simple oův is used after a participle in A. 10. 23 (15. 2 v.l.), 16.
II, 25. 17 (cp. 26. 22 etc.); in Luke's Gospel only in 23. 16 = 22;
D has it also in 5.7. Oův is used after parenthetical remarks to
indicate a recurrence to the original subject in Jo. 4. 45, 6. 24, 1 C.
8. 4, 11. 20 (also classical; but the classical 8è oův to indicate this
recurrence is unrepresented). The interrogative oủkoûv "therefore,'
then’ (Kühner 715 f.) occurs only in Jo. 18. 37 Oủkoûv Baoileùs ei
oú; On mèv oův, uevoûv see § 77. 14.-Another consecutive particle is
ápa 'therefore,' 'consequently,' especially frequent in Paul, who
sometimes makes it, as in classical Greek, the second word in the
sentence, R. 7. 21 cúpíoku äpa, sometimes contrary to classical usage
the first, as in R. 10. 17 öpa (FG ã. oŮv) Ý TOTIS ÉÉ åkons, 1 C. 15. 18,
2 C. 7. 12 etc. (H. 4. 9); we also find the strengthened form öpa oův
R. 5. 18, 7. 3, 25, 8. 12, 9, 16, 18 etc., G. 6. 10, E. 2. 19 (om. oºv
FG), 1 Th. 5. 6, 2 Th. 2. 15. It is strengthened by ye and given
- the first position in the sentence in Mt. 7. 20, 17. 26, A. 11. 18
EHLP, where other Mss. have äpa as in L. 11. 48 (for which Mt. 23.
31 uses come with indic.). Also in an apodosis after a protasis with
ei, the simple äpa is always used and is always the first word: Mt.
12. 28=L. 11. 20, 2 C. 5. 14 according to yoC* al. (most Mss. omit
ei, but it would easily be dropped before els), G. 2. 21 (ibid. 18 inter-
rogatively, therefore åpa $ 77, 2), 3. 25, H. 12. 8. On éneà åpa in
Paul cp. inf. 6; on åpa, äpa in interrogative sentences § 77, 2.-
Another quite rare particle is touyapo ûv (classical), 1 Th. 4. 8, H. 12. I,
placed at the beginning of a sentence; and tolvuy is not much
commoner, standing as the second word (as in class. Greek) in
L. 20. 25 ACP al., as the first word (unclassical) in BL, and omitted
in D (as it is in Mc. 12. 17; Mt. 22. 21 has oův); as second word
also in 1 C. 9. 26 (in Ja. 2. 24 it is spurious), as first word in H. 13. 13
(Clem. Cor. i. 15. I).-Another particle of kindred meaning is sń,
which is found (though rarely) according to classical usage in sen-
tences containing a request, 1 C. 6. 20 dočáoate ori (“therefore') TÒV
1 But found in other late writers, see Lob. Phryn. 342.
274
2
PARTICLES (S 78. 5–6.
(CONTINUED).
DEÒV K.7.d. (but ** and some Latin witnesses omit on and present an
asyndeton); in L. 2. 15, A. 13. 2, 15. 36 at the beginning of a speech
(come now'); a quite different and thoroughly classical use of it
occurs in Mt. 13. 23 Òs SY Kaprtopopei 'who is just the man who' (for
ös di D has Tóte, the Vulgate and others et).—Lastly we have the
consecutive particle sió, i.e. Si' , and therefore strictly used to intro-
duce a subordinate relative sentence, but its subordinating character
is forgotten, Mt. 27. 8, L. 1. 35 (A* wrongly has dióti, which is often
confused with dió): in the latter passage we have the combination,
also a favourite one in classical Greek, 1 dò kai, and the corresponding
dio oudè in 7.7; it is frequent in the Acts and Epistles; we also have
SLÓTEP 1 C. 8. 13, 10. 14 (in 14. 13 most mss. read diò). "Odev is
similarly used in Mt. 14. 7, A. 26. 19, and often in Hebrews, c.g.
2. 17, 3. 1, denoting a reason like our 'hence.²2
6. The principal causal subordinating particle is 81" because,' for
which Luke and Paul (H., Ja., 1 P.) also use Suóti (classical). But
the subordination both with őri and diót is often a very loose one (cp.
Sió, 70ev, supra 5), so that it must be translated 'for’: 1 C. 1. 25 Őto
το μωρόν του θεού σοφώτερον των ανθρώπων εστίν κ.τ.λ., 4. 9, 10. 17
2 C. 4. 6. 7. 8, 14, with dióti R. 1. 19, 21, 3. 20, 8. 7 (őri FG) etc.
A similar use is made of énel, which in the N.T. is regulary a causal
particle: R. 3. 6 TET (for ') Tôs kolvei ó Deòs TÒV koopov, where as in
other passages it has the additional meaning of if otherwise'
(classical, Xenoph. Cyr. ii. 2. 31 etc.), which it has in assertions in
Ř. 11. 6 éve n xápis OỦKÉTo yívetai xápis, 22 éttei kai où éKKOTÝoY.
ETTELSń, which is likewise a causal particle (supra 3), has not this
additional meaning, though like őto it implies a loose subordination :
1 C. 14. 16 (BÉTEN), l. 22 (FG étei). EmreisÝTrep occurs only in
L. 1. I 'inasmuch as already,' referring to a fact already well known,
cp. Einep supra 2.-On ép @ cp. supra § 43, 3; on kabús supra 1.
Kabótı (only in Luke) strictly means 'according as,' 'just as,' and is
so used in A. 2. 45, 4. 35; but in Hellenistic Greek it passes over to
the meaning of dióti: L. 1. 7 kabóti îv 'Elaßèt otelpa, 19. 9,
A. 17. 31 (dlóti HLP).— The co-ordinating particle is yáp, one of the
commonest of the particles (least often, in comparison with the rest
of the N.T., in John, especially in his Epistles; there are also not
many instances of it in the Apocalypse). Its usages agree with the
classical usages; it is also frequently found in questions, where we
use 'then,' Mt. 27. 23 Tí yàp KaKÒV étroingev; what evil then has he
done ?', A. 8. 31 tûs ydp äv duvaluny; giving the reason for a denial
or refusal which is left unexpressed, or for a reproach (whether
expressed or not) as in Mt. 9. 5 Ti yáp łOTIV EÚKOTÓTepov K.T.N., 23. 17
uwpoi kai tuolo, rís yùp K.T.l., A. 19. 35 etc., unless it should be
rendered literally by "for who,' as in L. 22. 27. In answers it corrobo-
rates a statement about which a question has been raised (Kühner
ii. 724), 'yes in truth,' 'indeed,' as in 1 C. 9. 10 Ÿ di' pâs távtWS
1 E.g. in Aristotle's ’AAnvalwy modcrela.
2 Aristot. 'A0. mol. 3. 2 etc.
$ 78. 6-7. $ 79. 1.] PARTICLES (CONTINUED).
275
dével; (an oratorical question) Si' juâs yập éypáøn, 1 Th. 2. 20 (and
it is similarly used where a statement is repeated, R. 15. 26 f.
núdókndav yàp.... můdókno av yáp, kai k.t..); there is a somewhat
different use after an indignant question in A. 16. 37 of oủ yáp, non pro-
fecto (classical ; see the author's note on the passage), and a different
use again in Jo. 9. 30 in the retort of the man born blind, ev toútø yàp
(oův D) TÒ Davuaotóv £OTIV, ŐTu K.T.d., which is equivalent to an inter-
rogative (vide supra) oủ yàp ¿v TOÚTŲ K.T...—Kal yap is ‘for also,' so
that there is no closer connection between the two particles (= ÉTELÓN
kai); the well-known use of kai ydp for etenim (Kühner 855), where
kaí quite loses its force, is sometimes traced in passages like I C.5.7,
11. 9, 12. 13 (where oŰtws kal Ở Xp. precedes); but in reality kai
keeps its meaning of 'also' in these places, though it refers not to a
single idea, but to the whole sentence. There is however an instance
of the classical kai yàp in L. 22. 37 [D omits yáp), cp. Jo. 12. 39 D
kai ydp instead of ori.) Oudè yap is similarly used in R. 8. 7 (but in
Jo. 8. 42, where D reads oủ yap, it rather=neque enim, corresponding
to a positive etenim). In te yùp R. 7. 7 te has nothing whatever to
do with yáp: if té and yáp are genuine (te is omitted by FG and
the Latin Mss.), one must suppose it to be an instance of anacoluthon.
7. The concessive subordinating particles are ei kal, êày kal, $ 65, 6;
also káv meaning "even if,' Mt. 21. 21, 26. 35, Jo. 8. 14, 10. 38; on
the other hand kal ei is only found, where the reading is certain, in
the sense of and if' (Mc. 14. 27 ei kai xBC al., kai édy or käv D, kai
ei A al.; 2 C. 13. 4. kai ydp ei A al., which is more correct than kai
yàp without ei as read by **BD*F al.; Origen reads ei ydp kal, see
Tisch.). Οη καίπερ, καίτοι with a participle, and καίτοι(γε) with a
finite verb see § 74, 2. Kaitou takes alternately a hypotactical or a
paratactical construction, vide ibid., as it alternately has an adversa-
tive or a concessive meaning, $ 77, 14.-On the use of ouws corre-
sponding to classical kaimep vide ibid.
$ 79. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
1. We find the methods of connecting sentences in Greek already
divided in Aristotle's terminology? into two opposite classes, namely
the continuous or running style (cipouévn) and the compact (kate-
otpaupévn) or periodic style (év ztepiódois). In the latter the whole
discourse is subdivided into units consisting of coherent and well-
balanced members; in the former the subsequent section is always
loosely appended to the section preceding it, and there is never a
definite conclusion within view of the reader. The periodic style is
characteristic of artistically developed prose, the continuous style is
that which we find in the oldest, and still quite unsophisticated,
prose, and on the whole is that which characterizes the N.T. narrative,
10n 2 C. 13. 4 vide inf. 7. The classical use also appears in Herm. Sim. ix.
8. 2 kal ydp (etenim) kai ("also’) OÛTOL Kot.de
2 Arist. Rhet. iii. 9.
276
[$ 79. 1-2.
CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
agreeing as it does with the manner of the Semitic models on which
that narrative is based. To the idea which is given the first place and
which is complete in itself there is appended a second and similar idea,
the connecting link being in most cases koi =Hebrew ?, then follows
a third, and so on in an unending series : this tedious character of
uniformity is an especially noticeable feature of the narrative of
Mark, but is also not wanting in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and
John. Another class of continuous style is that where the opening
sentence is developed by appending to it a participle, or a clause.
introduced by őti, or a relative sentence, or in some similar way,
since in this case also there is no end or termination in view ; this
manner of writing, which is freely employed by Paul in large portions
of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, is indeed still more
tedious and presents still greater obscurity than the simple linking
together of sentences by means of kaí.
2. Besides the connection of clauses by means of a conjunction, a.
relative, a subordinate participle etc., there is further the uncon-
nected or paratactical construction (known as asyndeton); this is on
the whole repugnant to the spirit of the Greek language, both with
regard to sentences and the members which compose them, as also
with regard to parallel portions of a single clause, and accordingly
in the N.T. also is only used to a limited extent. Those sentences
are not to be regarded as strict cases of asyndeton, where the new
sentence begins with a demonstrative pronoun or a demonstrative
adverb, referring back to something which has preceded : A. 16. 3
TOÛTOV (Timothy) no élnoev ó IIaûlos oùv aŭro EEN DEīv, Jo. 5. 6
TOÛTOV idūv K.7.X. (ibid. 21. 21 AX al., but XBČD have toûtov oŮv),
the person having been previously introduced and described; a quite
parallel instance may be quoted e.g. from Demosth. 21. 58 Eavviwv
OTIV SÝTTOV TIS..." Olltos dotpateias ń w .... TOÛTov uerd K.T.d. An
unclassical use, on the other hand, is that of tóte as a connecting
particle, which is particularly characteristic of Matthew, though also
occurring in Luke (esp. in the Acts), to introduce something which
was subsequent in point of time, not something which happened at a
definite point of time: Mt. 2. 7 TÓTe ‘Hp ons k.č.d., 16, 17, 3. 5, 13, 15,
4. 1, 5, 10, 11 etc., L. 14. 21 (D kai), 21. 10 Tóte é Reyev atrols (om. D),
24. 45, A. 1. 12, 4. 8 etc. (esp. frequent in D, e.g. 2. 14, 37); John uses
the combination Tóre oŮv, 11. 14 (oºv om. A), 19. 1, 16, 20. 8, tóte in
that case having a fuller meaning 'at this time' (as opposed to pre-
vious time). Other circumstantial formulas with similar meaning,
which can hardly be interpreted in their literal sense, are: Mt. 11. 25,
12. I év ékeivu TØ kaipộ (14. I, where D has év ék. Sė), évékeivy
őpą. Mt. 18. 7 (év ék. Òè BM), évékelvals (8è add. D) Tais ňuépaus Mc.
8. I (év dè tais ņu. ék. Mt. 3. I, but DE al. om. Dè); év aútý (8è add.
D) rũ ópą L. 10. 21 (7. 21 v.1. év ékelvy T. 6.; with dè AD al.). ’ATÒ
TÓTe may also be noticed in Mt. 4. 17 (with yèp in D), 16. 21, L. 16.
16 (kai à. T. Mt. 26. 16). Metà TOUTO (Tauta) without a conjunction
occurs in John's Gospel, 2. 12, 3. 22, 5. 1, 14, 6. I etc. (in 19. 38 Metd.
8è T., but dè is omitted by EGK al.), and the Apocalypse (4. 1, 7. 9,
8 79. 2-3.]
277
CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
18. 1, 19. 1, 20. 3, with και 7. Ι [και om. AC1, 15. 5); see also Α.
18. I according to XAB (v.Ι. μετά δε ταύτα), and the reading of nearly
all Greek MSS. in L. 10. Ι, 18. 4.-In the case of έπειτα and είτα
Attic Greek is not fond of inserting a dé (Krüger Gr. $ 69, 24), and
the Ν.Τ. usage is the same, L. 16. 7, Jo. 11. 7, Μο. 4. 17 etc. (Ja. 4. 14
έπ. και ΝΑΒΚ, έπ. δε και only LP). The N.T. also uses έτι without
a conjunction : L. 8. 49 έτι αυτού λαλούντος, Α. 10. 44, Mt. 12. 46
(with dè CE al.), cp. 26. 47 (where Latin MSS. omit the conj., and
there are var. lect. και έτι and έτι δε).
3. Asyndeton between individual words or ideas is quite a natural
occurrence for the sake of convenience in lengthy enumerations, but
here there is a tendency at any rate to connect the words in pairs to
avoid ambiguity, see $ 77, 9, until at last even this becomes tedious
to the writer, 1 Tim. 1. 9, 10; still, if the ideas are not strictly summed
up, but merely enumerated, the use of asyndeton may be an actual
necessity. Thus we have in 1 P. 4. 3 πεπορευμένους εν ασελγείαις,
επιθυμίαις, οινοφλυγίαις, κώμοις, πότοις και αθεμίτοις ειδωλολατρίαις
(with the last word the adjective necessitates the insertion of και);
the use of kaí in this passage would lay too great a charge against
individual persons. 2 Τim. 3. 2 έσονται οι άνθρωποι φίλαυτοι, φιλάρ-
γυροι, αλαζόνες, υπερήφανοι, βλάσφημοι κ.τ.λ. (but the same men do
not possess all these faults). If the particle is used in enumerations
of this kind, the construction is known as polysyndeton, a figure of
speech which may be used just as well as asyndeton for a rhetorical
purpose, only in a different way: polysyndeton by evidently summing
up the different ideas produces an impression of greatness and fulness,
asyndeton, by breaking up the separate ideas and introducing them one
after the other in a jerky manner, gives an impression of vivacity and
excitement. Still neither asyndeton nor polysyndeton is used with
a rhetorical effect in every case where they occur : L. 18. 29 (= Mt.
19. 29, Mc. 10. 29) ουδείς έστιν ος αφήκεν οικίαν η γυναίκα ή αδελφούς
κ.τ.λ. cannot well be otherwise expressed; also L. 14. 2Ι τους πτωχούς
και αναπείρους και τυφλούς και χωλούς εισάγαγε ώδε is a simple and
straightforward expression, no less than Jo. 5. 3 πλήθος των ασθε-
νούντων, τυφλών χωλών ξηρών (in the latter passage και would be
superfluous, in Lc. it is not so because the different persons are
summed up). Where there are only two ideas N.T. (like classical)
Greek is not fond of asyndeton, except where opposites are connected,
as in 2 Tim. 4. 2 επίστηθι ευκαίρως άκαίρως, cp. άνω κάτω, ιolens υolens,
Kühner 865 d, Win. § 58, 71. But polysyndeton is used with a
really rhetorical effect in R. 9. 4 ών ή υιοθεσία και η δόξα και αι
διαθήκαι και η νομοθεσία και η λατρεία και αι επαγγελίαι (cp. 2. 17 ft.),
Or in Αp. 5. 12 λαβείν την δύναμιν και πλούτος και σοφίαν και ισχύν
και τιμήν και δόξαν και ευλογίαν ; just as asyndeton is used in 1 C.
3. 12 εί τις εποικοδομεί επί τον θεμέλιον χρυσίον, άργυρον, λίθους τιμίους,
1 If the negative idea (with ου) is attached to the positive, και may be in-
serted or omitted : 1 C. 10. 20 δαιμονίοις και ου θεώ, 3. 2 γάλα ..., ου βρώμα
(DEFG ins. και), 7. 12 etc.
278
[S 79. 3-4.
CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
úla, xóptov, kadáuny, which should be recited in a vivid way, giving
emphasis to the studied anti-climax.
4. If the connected ideas are finite verbs, this leads us at once to
asyndeton between sentences ; but there are certain imperatives
which deserve a separate mention. Mt. 5. 24 Útraye mpôtov dialdáynou,
8. 4 etc. (18. 15 utaye čleyov XBD, a v.l. inserts kal; similarly Mc.
6. 38; but in Ap. 16. I all uncials have kai), cp. the classical use of
äye and lO. (N.T. does not use épxov thus, but has č. kal ide Jo. 1. 47,
11. 34, Ap. 6. 1, 3, 5, 7 [in Ap. there is a correct v.l., omitting kai
ºde]); [yeupe åpov Mc. 2. 11 (in 9 most Mss. insert kai), but in L. 6. 8
only A has šy. orņou, and there is preponderant. evidence for kul, in
Mt. 9. 6 AC al. read éyepoeis åpov, B reads as in Mc., Děyelpe kaš
âpov: we further have eyeipeo de öywuev in Mt. 26. 46 = Mc. 14. 42.;
also ανάστα is so used at least as av.l. of D* in A. 11. η ανάστα Πέτρε
dŵoov, $ 74, 3. Further we have opa opâte, Blérete = cave(te) (cp.
$ 64, 2), Mt. 9. 30 ópâte undeis yivwo KÉTW, 24. 6 ópâte un Opoclo e
(Buttm. p. 209), and accordingly Spâte (BX.) un with conjunctive in
Mt., Mc., Lc. is also apparently to be regarded as an instance of
asyndeton, Mt. 24. 4 BXÉTTETE un Tis ýmàs alavňon, although in
passages like Col. 2. 8 Bl. uń Tis total, A. 13. 40, H. 12. 25 the uń
subordinates the following clause no less than it does in ßlentétw un
Tréoy 1 C. 10. 12. On äopes with conj. see $ 64, 2. Not far removed
from these instances is ocúrra repíuwoo Mc. 4. 39 (o. kaì b óonti D).
The 'corresponding use of asyndeton with indicatives is limited to
éyéveto with a finite verb, $ 77, 6, and to the asyndeton after TOUTO
in an explanation of the preceding clause (classical, Kühner ii.? 864)
L. 3. 20 tpooénke kai TOūTO ÊTrì Tâolv, katÉK NELCE K.T... (*BD al.);
a peculiar instance is 1 C. 4. 9 Sokê yàp (ori add. vDc al.) ó Deòs
απέδειξεν, which should be compared with the insertion of δοκείτε and
MapTupã inf. 7.-Again, where we have to do with really distinct
clauses and sentences, a distinction must be drawn between narrative
style on the one hand, and didactic and homiletic (or conversational)
style on the other. In narrative the connecting link is generally
retained, at least by Mt., Mc. and Lc., for John certainly shows à
remarkable difference from them in this respect : thus in "1. 23 édn,
26 årrekpíôn, 29 Ty énaúplov Blérrel, similarly in 35, 37 ňkovoav (każ
iſk. *'ABC al.), 38 otpapeis (with dè aABC al.), 40 déyel, 41 îv
(A al. hv OÈ), 42 cúpío kel, 43 Þyayev (kaì . AX al.) and <ußléyas
aŭto etc., beside which he uses the connecting particles oův, dé, koí.
These instances of asyndeton give the impression of ease, not so
much of vividness or hurry on the part of the narrator. (Hermas
has similar instances, e.g. Vis. iii. 10. 2 årokpideloá pou léyel, y
drokpideis aŭry déyw – år. Mol déyel, and again in 10, so that he uses
asyndeton just in these formulas of narrated dialogue, where most
of John's instances occur, and like John he is fond of using it with
the historic present, Winer $ 60, 1; he also uses it with uerò moltà
ËTn, jl. Xpóvov Tivá etc., Vis. i. 1. 1 ff., cp. supra 2 ad fin. In the
didactic style of the Gospels asyndeton is very commonly found
between the individual precepts and utterances, e.g. almost through-
out the whole passage Mt. 5. 3-17, and not only where there is no
$ 79. 4-6.]
279
CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
connection of thought, 1 but also in spite of such connection: ibid. 17
un voulonte ŐTo głdov katalüsal ..." oỦk joov katalüsal K.T... (in-
stead of oủ yap), L. 6. 27 åyarate toùs ..., kal@s TOLEÎTE TOîs ..., a poo-
eúxeo be trepi.... (29) TÔ TÚTTOVTU ..., kaì đTÒ K.T.d. (from this point
onwards there is more connection). John also frequently employs
it: 3. 6 TÒ yeyevvnuévov ..., 7 un Davudoys ..., 8 TÒ TVEŪua K.T...
Here too the asyndeton is used with no rhetorical purpose, although
it perhaps gives greater solemnity and weight to the discourse. The
style of the exhortations and precepts in the Epistles is similar.
But in the Epistles, especially the Pauline Epistles, we also find
many instances, some of them brilliant instances, of rhetorical
asyndeton, see § 82.
5. New sections in doctrinal writings of some length usually have,
as in classical works, some link to connect them with the preceding
section, and this is at any rate essentially requisite in a work that
lays claim to careful execution. On the other hand, the epistolary
style is apt to make use of asyndeton, when a further subject is
started, and there are moreover numerous instances in Paul
and other writers where such a fresh start is made (E ATTOGTOO EWS,
i.c. with a break'), quite apart from the Epistle of James,
which has the appearance of being a collection of aphorisms,
and the first Epistle of John which is hardly less loosely put to-
gether. In the Epistle to the Romans there are connecting links
till we reach 8. 16 avrò TÒ TTVEŪua ovuaptvpeî K.7.d., where one may
very well speak of a figure of ¢ ÅTOTÁCews; the thought is so
directly the outcome of the feeling (as also in 10. 1). The absence
of a connecting link at the beginning of the second main section of
the letter (9. 1), which is so distinct from the preceding section, may.
be surprising, but a mere conjunction would here be quite inadequate
to produce a connection. In 1 Corinthians the đTOOTÉGEWS con-
struction is profusely and effectively employed; but new subjects
are also sometimes introduced without a conjunction, as in 5. 9,
6. I, 12, but in 7. I, 25, 8. I, 12. 1, 16. I we have tepi sè, in 15. I
yvopićw Sè, etc. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the connection of
sections is regularly preserved, except in the hortatory sections
which are not connected with one another. :.
6. The other class of construction, the compact or periodic, has
never been entirely wanting in any form of Greek literature; it is
found for instance where the first-mentioned part of the thought
defines the time of what follows, and this statement of time is not
given in a few words (such as évékeivaus tais ñuépaus), but at such
length that a pause is required after it; thus we have a clause
standing first which though it stands by itself gives a broken and
incomplete meaning, and must therefore be succeeded by a second
clause to complete the sense. This style is also found where the
first part of the sentence is a condition etc., or where the subject of
1 In this case Attic writers also employ asyndeton in admonitions, Isocrates
R. i. ii. iii.: cp. his statement on this subject in xv. 67 f.
28ο
[8 79. 6.
CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
the sentence which is placed at the beginning is expanded by means
of attributive words into a separate clause; there is a weaker,
but still a true, connection of clauses, where two members of an
antithesis, or a disjunction, or a parallelism, are set side by side, and
the link between the first member and the second is expressed by a
particle such as μέν, ή, τε or και. Even a particle is not absolutely
necessary to produce connection, so that we may even speak of
periods where asyndeton is used, as in 1 C. 7. 27 δέδεσαι γυναικί μη
ζήτει λύσιν λέλυσαι από γυναικός μη ζήτει γυναίκα, = ει μεν δέδεσαι...
ει δε λέλυσαι, cp. 8 82, 8. We, it is true, are accustomed only to
speak of a periodic style, where the number of clauses which com-
bine to form a single unit and which only receive their full meaning
from the last of them is far in excess of two, and we consequently
fail to discover a periodic style in the N.T., since as a matter of fact
there are not many sentences of this kind to be found in it. We have
indeed the preface to Luke's Gospel, L. 1. Ι-4 επειδήπερ πολλοί επεχεί-
ρησαν | ανατάξασθαι διήγησιν περί των πεπληροφορημένων εν ημίν πραγ-
μάτων | καθα (sic D) παρέδοσαν ημίν οι απ' αρχής αυτόπται και υπηρεται
γενόμενοι του λόγου έδοξε κάμοι παρηκολουθηκότι άνωθεν πάσιν ακριβώς
| καθεξής σου γράψαι κράτιστε θεόφιλε | ένα επιγνώς περί ών κατηχήθης
λόγων την ασφάλειαν, where, if the sentence is divided as above, and
regard is had to the appropriate length of the clauses, erring neither
on the side of excessive length or brevity, a beautiful relation is seen
to exist between the protasis with its three clauses and the apodosis
with its corresponding structure. Since to do is answered by
κάμοι, and ανατ. διήγησιν by γράψαι, and the καθά clause by ίνα
επιγνώς κ.τ.λ., we see that the last clause, which is appended to a
sentence already complete, is at least demanded by the correspond.
ence which prevails throughout the whole passage. The same
writer, however, in the rest of his Gospel has by no means taken
the trouble to construct artistic periods, and his second work,
the Acts, does not even open with a tolerably well-constructed
sentence; the only similar period to be found besides in that author
occurs at the beginning of the Apostolic letter, A. 15. 24 ff. The
artificially-constructed sentence at the beginning of the Epistle to
the Hebrews is of a different character. Πολυμερώς και πολυτρόπως
πάλαι ο θεός λαλήσας τους πατράσιν εν τοις προφήταις | επ' εσχάτου
των ημερών τούτων ελάλησεν ημίν εν υιώ (this according to ancient
ideas is a complete period with two clauses or members, to which
some looser clauses are then directly appended): óv ?Onkev kinpovóuov
πάντων | δι' ου και εποίησεν τους αιώνας (with a rhetorical anaphoric
use of the relative with asyndeton, $ 82, 5; as in the subsequent
passage) | δς ών απαύγασμα της δόξης και χαρακτήρα της υποστάσεως
αυτού | φέρων τε τα πάντα το ρήματι της δυνάμεως αυτού καθαρισμόν
των αμαρτιών ποιησάμενος | εκάθισεν έν δεξιά της μεγαλωσύνης έν
υψηλούς (a period with four clauses) | τοσούτω κρείττων γενόμενος των
αγγέλων | όσο διαφορώτερον παρ' αυτούς κεκληρονόμηκεν όνομα (an
appended period consisting of two clauses connected by τοσούτω...
őrw). The rest of the Epistle is composed in a similarly fluent
and beautiful rhetorical style, and the whole work must, especially

$ 79. 6-7.]
281
CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
with regard to the composition of words and sentences, be reckoned
as a piece of artistic prose, cp. § 82, 2. Paul, on the other hand,
generally does not take the trouble which is required for so careful
a style, and hence it happens that in spite of all his eloquence artistic
periods are not to be looked for in his writings, while harsh paren-
theses and anacolutha abound.
7. In the case of a parenthesis the direct course of a sentence is
interrupted by a subordinate idea being inserted into the middle of
it. We also freely make use of parentheses in writing, but prevent
the irregularity of the construction from interfering with the intel-
ligibility of the passage by enclosing the interruption within brackets
or dashes, unless indeed we throw the clause, which might be a
parenthesis, into a foot-note. The need of a parenthesis usually
arises from the fact that some idea or thought which occurs in the
sentence necessitates a pause, such for instance as the introduction of
a foreign word which requires explanation. In that case a sentence,
which should strictly be closely joined together, is divided in two;
this is done either in such a way that the whole construction still
preserves its unity, as in Mt. 27. 33 eis ... Tolyodá, ő éotiv Kpavlov
TÓMos?, or else the insertion entirely destroys the structure of the
sentence (anacoluthon), or again after the insertion, which is
expressed as an independent clause, the writer returns to the original
construction. In this last case we have a parenthesis. An instance
of it is Mt. 24. 15 f. őtav Ponte TÒ Boé vyua ... (8 åvayıváokwv voeltw),
TÓTE of K.7.d. Or again an accessory but indispensable thought
cannot be brought into line with the construction which has
already been begun, and is thrown into the sentence just as it
arises, e.g. in A. 12. 3. podéDeto ovllaßeîv kai IIétpovấoav se ai
ημέραι των αζύμων-δν και πιάσας έθετο εις φυλακήν, where it would
have been possible to bind the sentence more closely together by
saying περί αυτάς τας ημέρας τας των αζύμων και Πέτρον συλλαβών εις
pulakově Octo; but that would be the artistic style, not the style of
the New Testament. Cp. 1. 15, 4. 13, (S 77, 12). The parenthesis
in A. 5. 14 pärlov Sè pocetíOevto K.T.d. is harsh; it is true that the
sentence runs smoothly on from 13, but the return to the main sen-
tence after the parenthesis is awkwardly executed; the clause wote
και εις τας πλατείας κ.τ.λ. in reality expresses a result not of verse I4
but of 13, though it looks as if the former were the case. But many
of the worst instances of this sort occur in the Pauline Epistles. If
the thread of St. Paul's thought, when considered as a whole and in
larger sections, includes many lengthy digressions (Win. $ 62, 4), it
is not to be wondered at that in smaller matters also the connection
of clauses suffers in the same way. A parallel passage to A. 5. 14 is
1 If an explanatory clause of this kind is inserted into the report of a direct
speech, of which it can form no part, it must certainly be enclosed in brackets,
in spite of the fact that the construction is not broken by it. Thus Mc. 7. II
èàv city... Kopßây (8 ¢OTIV dôpov), Jo. 1. 39. (It is different if a scholium of this
kind is appended to a direct speech, as in Jo. 9. 7, 1. 42 etc., Winer $ 62, 2
note.)
282
[$ 79. 7–8.
CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
R. 1. 13 őri mondákis tt poe'éunverdeîv após ýpâs, kaŭ ĉkwlúOnu äxpu
TOû deüpo, iva tivà Kapòv oxû kai év üniv, where the iva clause is to
be joined with #poedeuny. As here there is a lacuna in the thought
between the words deüpo and iva, so is there in 2. 15 f. between dro-
λογουμένων and έν η ημέρα, so that it might appear best to suppose that
in the latter passage there is a parenthesis ; but it is not till a long
way back in the sentence that one reaches a definite point, to which ev
û Kit... may be smoothly and logically joined according to the original
conception of the thought. But to all appearance it is Marcion's
text (which is known from some quotations) which alone affords us
real help here, by omitting the έν η ημέρα (or εν ημ. ή, or εν ημ. ότε),
and introducing a very expressive asyndeton, cp. 1. 22, 7. 24, 8. 16 etc.
But these details are matters for the commentator to discuss as they
severally arise. Another grammatical point to note is that, as in
classical Greek, a finite verb is occasionally inserted in the middle of
the construction (which there would be no point in isolating from
the rest of the sentence by marks of parenthesis, and to do so might
even give a wrong meaning): L. 13. 24 rolloi, déyw ynîv, Śnthoovoiv
K.T... ('I tell you'), 2 C. 8. 3 Őti katà Súvajev, uaptupw, kał tapà
δύναμιν κ.τ.λ., H. 10. 29 πόσω δοκείτε χείρονος αξιωθήσεται τιμωρίας
(Herm. Sim. ix. 28. 8 Tí dokeite toińoel), in all which passages it
would be very easy to work the word into the construction; classical
writers however have the same construction in numerous passages
with oida, opas, oîua, etc., Kühner ii.2 873 f. (Aristoph. Ach. 12 s
TOÛT' POELOE Mov Sokeis tiv kapdiav;). To this category belong the
Pauline phrases kat, äv@pwrov déyw R. 3. 5, ev adpooúvy léyw 2 C.
11. 21, Ús té vous déyw 6. 13, which are epidiorthoses and prodi-
orthoses expressed in the concisest way. But the insertion of baciv,
čon etc. does not come under this head, as this is only a case of displace-
ment in the position of the word in the sentence : 2 C. 10. 10 Őti ai
ĚTLOTOlai uév faol Bupciau ( = oti pasív: “Ai Mèv” K.T.d.), Mt. 14. 8,
A. 23. 35 etc. Also proper names and temporal statements placed
in the nominative in defiance of the construction ($ 33, 2) are not
parenthetical, because they form an essential part of the main
thought, and occur in their right place in the sentence.
8. Anacoluthon is due to a failure in carrying out the originally
intended structure of the sentence; since the continuation and

prose instances of anacoluthon must generally be reckoned as
blemishes, although they are not entirely wanting even in the prose
there is an imitation of a natural conversational tone, as in the cases
where Plato has it, is quite justified, and it may therefore be con-
sidered justifiable in epistolary style as well, so long as it does not
interfere with the understanding of the passage, though this limita-
tion certainly seems not unfrequently to be transgressed by St. Paul.
i Wilke d. neutest. Rhetorik (Dresden 1843) p. 216, 228 f. makes the sug-
gestion that verses 14 and 15 were added as a marginal note.
$ 79. 8-9.]
283
CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
Of the very various forms of anacoluthon I give the first place to a
peculiar instance, which appears in the simplest periods, consisting
of two members or clauses (supra 6). Mt. 12. 36 παν ρήμα αργόν και
λαλήσουσιν οι άνθρωποι | αποδώσουσιν περί αυτού λόγον, 10. 32, Jo. 6..
39,1 17. 2, L. 12. 48, 2 C. 12. 17 μή τινα ών απέσταλκα προς υμάς | δι'
αυτού έπλεονέκτησα υμάς ; In these instances the two halves of the
sentence required to be placed in opposition to each other, with a
pause between them and a reference in the second half back to the
first, and a certain weightiness is given to the style by treating each
part of the sentence independently, instead of writing for instance
όσα αν ρήματα αργά λαλήσωσιν, περί πάντων (τούτων) αποδώσουσιν
λόγον. In the passage from St. Paul τινα is obviously occasioned by
απέσταλκα ; with this is compared 1 Jo. 2. 2 και υμείς το χρίσμα και
ελάβετε απ' αυτού μένει εν υμίν, where the pronoun occurs in both
members, and in the first is to be taken with ελάβετε, whereas the
passage might have run without anacoluthon και εν υμίν το χρ. δ ελ.
α. α. μένει. A similar case occurs ibid. 24 υμείς και ηκούσατε απ' αρχής
| εν υμίν μενέτω2 (μένει or μενέτω by itself was not sufficient to make
à clause, and the contrast between beginning and continuance
required to be sharply expressed). Other instances of anacoluthon
of this or a kindred sort are: A. 7. 4ο ο Μωυσής ούτος, ος ..., ουκ
οίδαμεν τί έγένετο αυτό (Ο.Τ. Εx. 32. Ι),3 Jo. 7. 38 και πιστεύων εις εμέ
... ποταμοί εκ της κοιλίας αυτού ρεύσουσιν κ.τ.λ.4, Mc. 9. 20 και ιδών
αυτόν, το πνεύμα συνεσπάραξεν αυτόν (instead of συνεσπαράχθη υπό του
πν.), Α. 19. 34 επιγνόντες δε ότι Ιουδαιός έστιν, φωνή εγένετο μία εκ
πάντων (instead of έβόησαν ομου πάντες, which would not conveniently
suit the following words). A very awkward instance occurs in Ap.
2. 26 and 3. 12, 21ο νικών, δώσω αυτώ ; on the other hand in 2. 7, 17
we have το νικώντι, δώσω αυτω, cp. 6. 4, Mt. 4. Ι6 Ο.Τ., 5. 4o (the
pronoun referring back to the preceding clause, $ 48, 2). Herm.
Mand. iv. 5 is like an instance of nominative absolute of the old sort
(8 74, 5), αμφότερα τα πνεύματα επί το αυτό κατοικούντα, ασύμφορόν
έστιν... εκείνη ενώ κατοικούσιν.
9. Another kind of anacoluthon is found in sentences of greater
length, where the interruption of the original construction by inter-
vening sentences causes that construction to be forgotten, so that in
the mind of the writer another is substituted for it. Thus A. 24. 6
1 Here we find ίνα πάν δ δέδωκάς μου, μη απολέσω εξ αυτού, αλλά αναστήσω αυτό
κ.τ.λ., with πας ... μή for ουδείς, 8 47, 9, though here no doubt the negative
looks on to the second positive half of the sentence, Buttmann p. 106, as in Jo.
3. 16. According to Buttm. 325 the mâv in all these instances is nominative
(nominative absolute,' cp. $ 74, 4); as it also is according to him in Jo. 15. 2
πάν κλήμα εν εμοί μή φέρον καρπόν, αίρει αυτό.
2 Therefore this is not a case of the subject being thrown forward before the
relative (8 80, 4), whereas 1 C. 11. Ι4 ανήρ μέν εάν κομά, ατιμία αυτώ έστιν κ.τ.λ.
may be so explained, as = εάν μεν ανήρ.
3 In L. 21. 6 there is no reference in the second clause to the ταύτα &, and we
should probably follow D in omitting d.
• 4 Ηerm. Meand. vii. 5 των δε μή φυλασσόντων ...(the genitive is due to assimila-
tion with the preceding antithetical clause), ουδε ζωή έστιν εν αυτοίς.
284
[$ 79. 9–10.
CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
(in the speech of Tertullus, which is transmitted by Luke with
greater negligence than any other), ευρόντες γάρ τον άνδρα τούτον
dowóv..., ös kai..., Öv kai ékpatňoapev k.T..; this ởv kai, which is occa-
sioned by ôs kai preceding, should have been dropped, in order to make
the period run correctly, whereas the writer here continues as though
he had begun with eŰpouer. The narrative portions of the N.T. do
not contain many anacolutha of this kind : the passage Jo. 6. 22-24
has been transmitted with too much variation in the MSS. for us to
be able to clearly recognize the hand of the author; according to the
usual reading the τη επαύριον ο όχλος at the beginning is taken up
again in 24 with ŐTE Oův ci devó öxlos, in a manner that is not
unknown in classical writers, where there is no question of forgetful-
ness at all ; cp. 1 Jo. 1. 1-3. But the Pauline Epistles (though not
all to the same extent, as the care with which they were written
varied considerably) contain numerous and more flagrant instances.
In G. 2. 6 ÅTÒ Sè Tôv dokoúvtwv civaí To ... Óroîoí Tote hoav, oùdev mot
διαφέρει πρόσωπον θεός ανθρώπου ου λαμβάνει ... έμοί γάρ οι δοκούντες
oỦdèv at pooavéDevto, instead of čuoi oớdèv z pogaveréon, the author may
either have forgotten his opening clause or else considered it con-
venient to repeat it in a new form. At all events the passage is
easily understood?; but just before in 4 dià dè toùs tapelákTOVS
Yevdade povs ... ols (oude) apùs pav eixamev K.T..., it is by no means
easy to say what was the drift of St. Paul's thought in the opening
clause, unless the ois (which is omitted by Latin MSS.) is spurious. 2
In many cases defective transmission or criticism of the text is cer-
tainly to blame : in R. 2. 17 ff. an obvious remedy is by adopting
the reading idè for ei sè (which can hardly be called a variant:
FIAE-IAE, ide – ide) to change what appears to be a protasis with-
out a correct apodosis into a principal clause. But in 1 Tim. 1. 3 ff.
the construction which began with καθώς παρεκάλεσά σε κ, τ.λ. through
innumerable insertions and appended clauses is unmistakably reduced
to utter confusion.
10. Frequent instances of anacoluthon are occasioned in St. Paul
by the free use of the participle, which he is fond of using, and some-
times in a long series of clauses, instead of a finite verb. Thus 2 C.
7. 5 ουδεμίαν έσχηκεν άνεσιν η σάρξ ημών, αλλ' εν παντί θλιβόμενοι
EwDev páxac, čow@ev póßoi, where one may no doubt supply éouév in
the first clause as cioin in the second, though this does not do away
with the harshness and the want of accurate sequence in the passage.
Similarly in 5. 12 où ... OVVlotávojuev ..., áll ápopuniy SidóvTES (sc.
ypábojev TaŪTU). So ibid. 8. 18 ff. OUVETTÉN Papev dè tòv ådelødv..., oŮ
i Belser (die Selbstvertheidigung des. P. im Gal. br., Freiburg im Br. 1896,
p. 69) says with regard to the attempt (of Spitta and others) to give a uniform
construction to this sentence: 'A philologist, who with a sane mind proceeds
to expound the verse, cannot oudè impòs üpav be in doubt as to the perverseness
of the undertaking.'
2 In any case in R. 16. 27 ♡ should be removed (with B), not only because of the
anacoluthon, but especially in order to give dià ’I. Xp. its proper connection.
3 Cp. Wilke (op. cit. p. 282, note 1) p. 215 f., who, it is true, decides con-
clusively in favour of el dè.
8 79. 10.]
285
CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
ο έπαινος... διά πασών των εκκλησιών, ου μόνον δε, αλλά και χειροτονηθείς
(instead of εχειροτονήθη) υπό των εκκλησιών συνέκδημος ημών συν
τη χάριτι τη διακονoυμένη υφ' ημών, στελλόμενοι τούτο, μή τις ημάς
μωμήσηται κ.τ.λ., where στελλ. is closely connected not so much with
συνεπέμψαμεν (i.e. sent with Timothy), as with συνέκδημος ημών etc.,
so that it is an undoubted case of anacoluthon, the participle stand-
ing for otellóueda yáp. In E. 5. 21 there is no direct anacoluthon,
but υποτασσόμενοι has not the same closer connection with the last
fnite verb πληρούσθε τ8, which λαλούντες etc. 19, and ευχαριστούντες
20 have; the style is the same as in R. 12. 9 ff, where in the exhor-
tations (after the style has already been entirely broken up in 6 ff.,
cp. $ 78, 2) participles (or adjectives) are appended to each other in
an unending series, with no possibility of bringing them into any
construction. Thus in the opening verse 9 η αγάπη ανυπόκριτος
interrupts the remarks about what the Romans should be, individu-
ally (8) or collectively; after the interruption, however, he continues
with αποστυγoύντες ... φιλόστοργοι etc. up to διώκοντες 13 ; then in
14 f. there is a fresh interruption of clauses in the imperative or
infinitive; in 16 we again have participles φρονούντες etc. and again
an imperative γίνεσθε, in 17 f. there is a continuation of the series
of participles; it looks as though St. Paul regarded the descriptive
participle (whether ote is mentally supplied or not) as completely
equivalent to the imperative. Cp. further E. 4. 20 παρακαλώ υμάς
περιπατήσαι ... ανεχόμενοι αλλήλων... σπουδάζοντες (cp. 2P. 3. 3), 3. 18,
Col. 3. 16 f. ο λόγος ενοικείτω... διδάσκοντες κ.τλ., where the participle
follows upon imperatives and is equivalent to them as in Rom. loc. cit.;
but there is a similar anacolathon in 2 C. 9. ΙΙ πλουτιζόμενοι after an
assertion in the future tense, in 13 δοξάζοντες κ.τ.λ. there is an extension
of the preceding διά πολλών ευχαριστιών τω θεώ (the subject of the
part. being the recipients of the benefit), cp. 1. 7; participles are used
without anacoluthon, but in a very long series in 2 C. 6. 3-10. The
constant element in all these instances is the nominative of the parti-
ciple, which is therefore essentially connected with this free use. Cp.
λέγων, λέγοντες και 30, 6. The reverse use is occasionally found, namely
the use of a fnite verb in place of a participle. Col. 1. 26 το μυστήριον
το αποκεκρυμμένον ..., νυνι δε εφανερώθη (D φανερωθέν) ; 2 Jo. 2 την
μένουσαν εν ημίν, και μεθ' ημών έσται, Jo. 15. 5 και μένων εν εμοί, κάγώ (sc.
μένω) εν αυτώ, ούτος φέρει καρπόν, 5. 44 (but sée etc. regularly ζητούντες),
2 C. 6. 9; Αp. 3. 7; it is less harsh in 1 C. 7. 37 ος έστηκεν ... μη
έχων ... εξουσίαν δε έχει, cp. Jo. 5. 4.4, 1. 32. Parallels may
undoubtedly be quoted from classical writers for this use, as also for
the free use of appended participles in the nominative, Kühner ii.2
661 ff.; it is the frequency, harshness, and awkwardness of its use in
the N.T. which makes the difference; since anacolutha such as A. 15.
22 f. έδοξεν τους αποστόλοις (= the Apostles determined)... πέμψαι...,
γράψαντες might be equally well written by a classical author, as
Τhuc. iii. 36. 2 writes έδοξεν αυτοίς ... αποκτείναι, επικαλούντες.

1 Clem. Cor. 1. 11. I may be noticed, Λώτ εσώθη εκ Σοδόμων, της περιχώρου
κριθείσης ... και πρόδηλον ποιήσας ο δεσπότης κ.τ.λ., as though έσωσεν had preceded.
286
[$ 79. 11–12.
CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
11. On the absence of a particle corresponding to the particle uév,
which strictly requires a de corresponding to it, see $ 77, 12. A unique
case of anacoluthon occurs in A. 27. 10 Dewpô őti... Médelv (70, 4),
where the őri was required to prevent ambiguity, and the infinitive is
due to forgetfulness (supra 8), cp. Xenoph. Hell. ii. 2. 2 etc., Winer
$ 44, 8, note 2. To a relative clause there is sometimes appended a
further clause with a co-ordinating particle (such as kai), in which
the relative cannot be supplied in the same form as in the first clause
(classical, Kühner 936 f.): Tit. 1. 2 f. (wńs, ģv ért nyyeidato ..., ébav-
épwoev dè vûv Tòv lóyov aŭTou, Ap. 17. 2 (also 1 C. 7. 13 with the
reading ýtis, but a better reading is ei tis in xD* al.), L. 17. 31.
The construction is rather one of oratio variata than of anacoluthon
in R. 2. 6 ff. ös åtodo el ... Tois uèn... (wńv. Tois dè... Spyn kai Ovuós
(sc. έσται ; the idea conveyed by δώσει would not admit of being sup-
plied with these nouns), the passage continues with the same con-
struction, but a fresh contrast is formed, Oratis kaì otevoxwpía
Trão av yuxv ..., Sóća dè K.T... Cp. 11. 22; G. 4. 6 f. őri dé ¢ote vioi,
FEATÉGTELLEV... eis tos kapoias nuôv .... "NOTE OỦKÉTI e K.T.R. (but
ibid. 6. I OKOTWV ceavtóv K.T.d. is a real case of anacoluthon).
12. Mixture of direct and indirect speech. It has already been
remarked that the employment of the indirect form of speech,
whether with ori and the optative, or with the accusative (nomin.)
and infinitive, is not in the manner of the N.T. writers of narrative,
as it is foreign to the style of popular narrators in general (SS 66, 3;
70, 4); from this it follows that not only does őri ordinarily take
the indicative instead of the optative (a tendency which it also has in
classical Greek), but it may also be followed by an accurate reproduc-
tion of the direct form of the speech, so that oti thus performs the
function of our inverted commas (Kühner p. 885). An example which
shows this is Jo.10.36 (Buttm. p. 234)..picîs léyete ŐT("Blao brucis,"
ότι είπον κ.τ.λ., instead of βλασφημείν, which would have linked on
much better to the protasis öv K.7.1.1 But it is quite impossible for a
N.T. writer to do what is so common in classical Greek (and Latin)
writers, namely to continue the indirect form of speech for any length
of time; on the contrary they never fail to revert very soon to direct
speech, a habit which is also not unusual in classical authors, Kühner
p. 1062 f. Thus A. 1. 4 tapńyyedev... men xwpíčeo bav, allà trepquévelv
... *v nikovoare, 23. 22, Mc. 6. 8 f. mupnyyeldev iva..., áll! ÚTOSEDEMÉVOUS
... (as though an inf. had preceded), kaè un evdúono de K.T..., L. 5. 14.
Inversely, the direct form of speech is occasionally abandoned in
favour of the indirect or a narrative form: A. 23. 23 ETTEV. &Tocuáoate
... (24) KTÝvn te rapoorņo ar K.T.d. (the ß text is different and runs
more smoothly), Mc. 11. 31 f. èàv ein WuEV ..., &pel ... ållà elmwuev ...;
époßoüvto TÒV laóv k.7.1. (instead of poßoúueda, as in Mt. 21. 26 and
as D2 al. read here from the passage of Matthew). A different use
from this is that in Mc. 2. 10 (va dè cidate ... (addressed to the Phari-
sees like the preceding words), léyel TỘ tapadutikợ. “Eoi déyw
i Herm. Mand. ix. I even uses to before a question : Néywv Őti Tūs dúvajal
K.T.N.
$ 79. 12. $ 80. 1.] POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. 287
κ.τ.λ.” (as in L. 5. 24, while Mt. 9. 6 has τότε λέγει); the speech is
related just as it was made, and the apostrophe to the sick man is
indicated by the parenthetical words (the use of iva etc. in this way,
with an ellipse of "I will say this,' is also classical, Krüger Gr. $ 54,
8, note 14; and see 8 81, 3).
$ 80. POSITION OF WORDS (POSITION OF CLAUSES).
1. The Greek language is not one of those which are fettered
with regard to the position of the different parts of the sentence, and
it does not act contrary to its nature in this respect in the N.T.,
and the tendency for it to do so was reduced by the fact that the
Semitic languages also have no strict rules about the order of words.
In spite of this, both in the Semitic languages, and in the Greek of
the New Testament, particularly that of writers of narrative, certain
tendencies and habits are apparent. In general the verb, or the
substantival predicate with its copula, is placed immediately after
the conjunction; then follows the subject, then the object, the
complementary participle etc.; unemphatic pronouns, however, have
a tendency to be placed in immediate connection with the verb, also
anything else that is dependent on the verb, especially if the subject
is extended. The same rules hold good for infinitival and parti-
cipial clauses (and for a participle placed at the head of a sentence)
as for clauses with a finite verb. Thus we have (Luke 1. 11) 6oon
δε αυτώ άγγελος κυρίου εστως εκ δεξιών. (12) και εταράχθη Ζαχαρίας
ιδών. (13) είπεν δε προς αυτόν ο άγγελος. (18) και είπεν Ζ. προς τον
άγγελον. (το) και αποκριθείς ο άγγ. είπεν αυτω. With a nominal
predicate: Mc. 2. 28 ώστε κύριός έστιν ο υιός του ανθρώπου και του
σαββάτου (cp. L. 6. 5), for which Mt: 12. 8 has κύριος γάρ έστιν του
σαββ. ο υιός του ανθρώπου, since here the extended subject possessed
more weight than the genitive, unemphasized by kai. Mt. 13. 31, 33
ομοία εστίν η βασιλεία τ. ούρ. κόκκω ..., = 24 ώμοιώθη κ.τ.λ. But the
participle stands after the subject: L. 2. 33 ήν ο πατήρ αυτού και η
μήτηρ θαυμάζοντες, Α. 12. 6 ήν ο Πέτρος κοιμώμενος, Mc. 1. 6, 14. 4,
40. Still in all these cases, there is by no means any binding rule
about the order, so that in L. 1. in the middle of the clauses quoted
above we find in verse 125 και φόβος επέπεσεν επ' αυτόν, clearly
because φόβος offers more of a parallel to εταράχθη in 128 than
επέπεσεν does : whereas in A. 19. Ι7 we have και επέπεσεν φόβος επί
πάντας αυτούς, L. 1. 65 και εγένετο επί πάντας φόβος (D φόβος μέγας
επί π.) τους περιοικούντας αυτούς, where the reason for placing πάντας
early in the sentence in the ordinary reading is to give it stress and
preserve the parallelism, as the passage continues και εν όλη τη ορεινη
... διελαλείτο πάντα τα ρήματα ταυτα, και έθεντο πάντες οι ακούσαντες
εν ταίς καρδίαις αυτών. Any emphasis whatever on any part of a sen-
1 Ε.g. L. 2. 13 και εξαίφνης εγένετο συν τω αγγέλω πλήθος στρατιάς ουρανίου
αινούντων κ.τ.λ., Α. 27. 2 όντος συν ημίν 'Αριστάρχου Μακεδόνος θεσσαλονικέως.
2 For details see Gersdorf, Beiträge zur Sprachcharakteristik d. Schriftst. d.
Ν.Τ., Leipzig 1816, p. 90 f., 502 ff.
288
POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES. [$ 80. 1-2.
tence generally tends at once to throw that part into the forefront of
the sentence : ibid. 67 και Ζαχαρίας ο πατήρ αυτού ... (as opposed to
the neighbours etc., who were the last subjects of discourse), 57 τη
δε 'Ελισαβετ επλήσθη ο χρόνος του τεκείν αυτήν. Statements of time,
which mark a transition, also have a tendency to stand at the begin-
ning; but there too the inclination to begin a sentence with a verb
occasions the introduction of a meaningless éyéveto, which does not
in all cases affect the construction, before the temporal statement :
L. 2. Ι εγένετο δε εν ταις ημέραις εκείναις εξήλθεν δόγμα κ.τ.λ., cp.
8 77, 6; so 1. 8 έγένετο δε εν τω ιερατεύειν αυτόν ... έλαχε κ.τ.λ., 23 και
εγένετο ως επλήσθησαν ... απήλθεν κ.τ.λ.
2. Closely related parts of the sentence, e.g. noun and attribute,
noun and dependent genitive, several subjects or objects connected
by kaí etc., are usually in simple and plain discourse placed together,
whereas not only in poetry, but also in discourse which has any
claims to a rhetorical style, they are frequently severed from each
other, in order to give greater effect to the separated words by their
isolation. Thus the epistolary formula runs χάρις υμίν και ειρήνη, not .
the tendency which from early times exists in Greek as in cognate
languages, to bring unemphasized (enclitic) pronouns and the like as
near as possible to the beginning of the sentence (though not to put
them actually at the beginning'); hence we find also R. 1. ΙΙ ίνα τι
μεταδώ χάρισμα υμίν πνευματικόν, Α. 26. 24 τα πολλά σε γράμματα εις
μανίαν περιτρέπει, Jo. 13. 6 σύ μου νίπτεις τους πόδας, 9. 6 (ABL)
επέχρισεν αυτού τον πηλόν επί τους οφθαλμούς, H. 4. ΙΙ ίνα μή εν τω
αυτω τις υποδείγματι πέση κ.τ.λ., 1 C. 5. Ι ώστε γυναίκά τινα του πατρός
έχειν (also to emphasize both γυν, and πατρός), L. 18. 18 και επηρώ-
τησέν τις αυτόν άρχων λέγων. But here again there is no obligation
to use this order of words : thus we have 2 C. 11. 16 κάν ως άφρονα
δέξασθέ με, where no doubt the object was to give δέξασθε the prior
position. A prior position gives emphasis, a position at the end of
the sentence does so only indirectly, where the word is torn from its
natural context and made independent; the later position may also
be influenced by the connection with the following clause, as in 1 P.
2. η υμίν ούν η τιμή τους πιστεύουσιν απειθούσιν δε κ.τλ. Sometimes
the regular order of words would be too cumbrous and unpleasant:
Α. 4. 33 ΑΕ μεγάλη δυναμει απεδίδουν οι απόστολοι το μαρτύριον της
αναστάσεως Ιησου χρ. του κυρίου, but NB etc. have a better reading
το μαρτ. οι απόστολοι, and B also has του κ. 'Ιησ. της αναστ. We even
have in Αp. 3. 8 μικράν έχεις δύναμιν (cp. 4 with v.1.).--The Epistle
to the Hebrews not unfrequently has a really oratorical and choice
order of words : 1. 4 τοσούτω κρείττων γενόμενος των αγγέλων, όσο
διαφορώτερον παρ' αυτούς κεκληρονόμηκεν όνομα (it was necessary to
make åyy. and ovoua stand out; the latter word also forms a link
with the following clause), 5 τίνι γαρ είπεν ποτε των αγγέλων (for the
* See J. Wackernagel, Ueber ein Gesetz der indogerm. Wortstellung, Indo.
germ. Forschungen i. 333 ff.
8 8o. 2-3.] POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
289
same reason), 11. 32 επιλείψει με γαρ (v.l. γάρ με, infra 4) διηγούμενον
ο χρόνος περί Γεδεών κ.τ.λ., which offers a close parallel to Demosth.
18. 29 f. επιλείψει με λέγονθ' η ημέρα τα των προδοτών ονόματα, 12. 1
τοσούτον έχοντες (τοσ. emphatic) περικείμενον ημίν νέφος μαρτύρων,
όγκον αποθέμενοι (ό. emphatic) πάντα και την εύπερίστατον αμαρτίαν.
But many similar instances may also be cited from Paul and í Peter;
such is the versatility of the Greek language that lively and animated
discourse everywhere gives rise to these dislocations of words.
3. With regard to the position of the adjectival attribute, the rule
holds good that it generally stands after its substantive?; ¿.e. the
principal word comes first, and then the word which defines it more
closely, just in the same way that the adverb which gives a nearer
definition of an adjective (or a verb) is given the second place :
υψηλόν λίαν Mt. 4. 8, έθυμώθη λίαν 2. 16. But we also find λίαν (om.
D) πρωί Mc. 16. 2, λίαν γαρ αντέστη 2 Tim. 4. ΙΟ, and in the case of an
attribute δι' ανύδρων τόπων Mt. 12. 43 (αν. is the principal idea), καλών
σπέρμα 13. 27 (κ. ditto), εχθρός άνθρωπος 28, καλούς μαργαρίτας 45
etc. The rule cannot be laid down for a substantive which is pro-
vided with an article: πνεύμα άγιον is the correct phrase without
an article, but with it we have both το πν, το άγ. and το άγιον πνεύμα
as in Mt. 28. 19, A. 1. 8, which then becomes a single idea. Cp.
8 47, 6 και την αγίαν πόλιν (Jerusalem) Mt. 4. 5, 27. 53 (but η π. η αγ.
in Ap. 11. 2, 21. 2, 22. 19).--On the attributive genitive see $ 35, 62;
on oitos and ékeîvos $ 49, 4.—Matthew has a habit of putting adverbs
after imperatives, while he makes them precede indicatives : thus
27. 42 καταβάτω νύν, 43 δυσάσθω νύν, 3. 15 άφες άρτι, 18. 16 (έτι),
and on the other hand 19. 20 έτι υστερώ, 26. 65 (5. 13 ισχύει έτι, but
D omits έτι), 9. I8 (άρτι ; in 26. 53 before παρακαλέσαι according to
AD al.), 26. 65 (vûv). 3 – The order of words has become established
by custom in certain frequently occurring combinations with kal,
Winer S 61, 4, such εις άνδρες και γυναίκες, γυν, και παιδία (τέκνα), but
cod. D in Mt. 14. 21 puts παιδ. first, as ND do in 15. 38; also εσθίειν
και πίνειν, οι πόδες και αι χείρες (the reverse order in L. 24. 39, but
not in x), etc.; but all these are peculiarities of a lexical rather than
a grammatical nature.-The vocative stands either at the beginning,
as in Mt. 8. 2 and often, or near the beginning of the sentence, as in
όθεν, αδελφοί άγιοι Η. 3. I etc., Or in proximity to the pronoun of the
second person, 1 C. 1. το παρακαλώ δε υμάς, αδελφοί, or to a verbal
form in the second person, Ja. 1. 2 πάσαν χαράν ηγήσασθε, αδελφοί
μου (this may be compared with the ordinary sequence of verb--
subject ; there is the same position of the voc. in Jo. 14. 9 τοσούτον
... και ουκ έγνωκάς με Φίλιππε, where Φ. could not well have stood
earlier); it also stands after a 1st pers. plur. in which the persons
addressed are included, H. 10. 19 έχοντες ούν, αδελφοί, κ.τ.λ. It
af tortos and 21: 2, 22.(Jerusal
1 Gersdorf (op. cit. supra l) p. 334 ff. (the rule applies to adjectives of
quality, since those of quantity may stand first in all cases, as may also
μικρός).
2 See also op. cit. 295 ff.
3 Op. cit. 106.
POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
[8 80. 3-6.
rarely stands at the end of the sentence : L. 5. 8, A. (2. 37), 26. 7,
the last passage occurring in Paul's speech before Agrippa, in which
there are other instances of the vocative being purposely given a
peculiar position (verses 2 and 13).
4. To the obvious rule, that a subordinating conjunction stands at
the beginning of the subordinate clause dependent upon it, there are
some exceptions, as in classical Greek, especially in St. Paul, since
emphasized portions of the subordinate sentence are placed before
the conjunction : rvv åyány (va yvôte 2 C. 2. 4, 12. 7, 1 C. 9. 15,
G. 2. 10, Col. 4. 16, A. 19. 4; Biwtikà Mè oŮV KOLTÁpia èàv čxnte 1 Č.
6. 4, 11, 14 ($ 79, 7 note), 14. 9, Mt. 15. 14, Jo. 10. 9; R. 12. 3
ÉKGOT♡ ús <uéPLO EV K.T..., 1 C. 3. 5, 7. 17 (bis); 2 Th. 2. 7 éws; Jo.
7.27 orav. We have further A. 13. 32 kai vuces yuās evayyede cóueda,
την προς τους πατέρας επαγγελίαν γενομένην, ότι ταύτην ο θεός εκπεπλή-
same thing happens sometimes with the relative, Jo. 4. 18 vũv öv & XELS,
1 C. 15. 36 où Ô otelpers, and akin to this is the habit in interrogative
sentences of putting the emphasized idea before the interrogative: Jo.
1. 19 (= 8. 25, 21. II, R. 9. 20, 14. 4, Ja. 4. 12) Où tis eſ ; cp. Jo. 9. 17,
8. 25 (Ő, TI, $ 50, 5), L. 9. 20, 16. II f., Jo. 21. 21 OÛTOS SÈ tíl etc.,
Buttmann 333 C.-Of the co-ordinating conjunctions some stand in
the first place, such as kaí, , átlá, others in the second (on devia-
tions from classical usage in this respect see SS 77, 13; 78, 5); the
latter class, however, are occasionally found also in the third, fourth,
or fifth place, partly from necessity, as in 1 Jo. 2. 2 où tepi. Tôv
õuetépwv 8è móvov, Jo. 8. 16 kai éàv kpívo 8è éyè ('even if I however'),
partly at the option of the writer, for instance where there is a pre-
position governing a case, or a noun with an attributive genitive:
2 C. 1. 19 ó Toll deoü ydp vids HAB al., which gives greater promin-
ence to θεού than the reading of DF al. ο γαρ τ. θ. υιός, 1 C. 8. 4 περί
This Bpár EWS OŮV Tôveidwło Dútov (instead of oŮV DE insert dè after trepi):
Herm. Sim. viii. 7. 6 ev tais êvtorais dè, ix. 21. I ét Tv kapdíav de,
Mand. ix. 3 oủk čo tu yàp, Vis. iii. 13. 2 us êàv yàp.-On the position
of te see § 77, 9; on the position of the negative $ 75, 7 ; on that of
the secondary class of prepositions $ 40, 6 (with où xwpis H. 12. 4
cp. av övev Xenoph. Hell. vii. 1. 3 ; xápuv is placed after its case
except in 1 Jo. 3. 12 xápuv Tivos).
5. The adoption of a hyperbaton, i.e. a departure from the natural
arrangement of words, is a very old expedient for the purpose of
Socrates use it (Protagoras 343 E), in order to compel Simonides the
poet to use the expression which Socrates regards as correct. It is
employed in a similar way, and with scarcely more justification, by
the exegetes of the N.T., see Win. $ 61, 5.
6. The question of the arrangement within the whole sentence of
the principal and subordinate clauses which compose it, is a matter
1 This final position of Ti is also found in Demosthenes: tauta ÈOTÈ TL; 9. 39
etc. --Cp. also TÒ OKÓTOS Tóoov Mt. 6. 23, oi o è évvéa roll; L. 17. 17. Wilke (op.
cit. $ 79, 7) p. 375.
$ 80. 6. $ 81. 1.] ELLIPSE, BRACHYLOGY, PLEONASM. 291
rather of style than of grammar. Grammar should perhaps take
note of licenses that are permitted, such as the insertion of a final
sentence before its due place : Jo. 19. 28 metà taūta ’I. ciôùs ... iva
Telew on ý ypačń, léyel Act, 19. 31, R. 9. II. On the other hand
it is a very forced explanation which makes in 1 C. 15. 2 tivi loyo
eúnyyelwaunv úpîv dependent on the following ei katéXeTe; it appears
rather that ei, like the reading in D* óbeidete katéxelv, is an explana-
tory gloss, so that we only have a protasis standing before a principal
clause (katéxeTe)? Jo. 10. 36 has the appearance of being an oratorical
sentence, since the subordinate clause öv o atòp nyiag eV K.T.d. is placed
before the principal clause “peis déyete ŐT! Blaconueis (see $ 79, 12,
= Brao onuciv); in reality however the sentence with its defective
structure (öv referring to Blao nueis) is one of the instances of the
loose formation of sentences with two members, found elsewhere in
John's Gospel, $ 79, 8.
$ 81. ELLIPSE (BRACHYLOGY), PLEONASM.
1. An ellipse is where it is left to the reader or hearer to complete
for himself the thought which is incompletely expressed: not because
the writer is afraid of saying something—that is the figure of aposi-
opesis—but because he finds any further addition superfluous. Still
every omission of this sort is not therefore to be regarded as an ellipse.
It is equally superfluous to insert what would be a mere repetition
of something already stated, as for instance in the case of a preposi-
tion repeated before a second noun which is connected by kai with a
previous noun, the omission or insertion of which preposition is an
optional matter (see Winer $ 50, 7); again the verb in the protasis
sufficiently indicates the verb which should stand in the apodosis, in
2 C. 5. 13 cite yàp éçéornjev, beộ (sc. égéot.). cite ou povoquev, újîv
(sc. owpp.); this is the figure known as åtò kolvoŮ (Kühner ii.2 1066).2
Moreover some slight alterations or changes in the form of the word
may require to be supplied : Mc. 14. 29 ei távtes okavdalco Ooovtal,
ått oŮk éyú, sc. okavdalco Ońcouar, which is actually inserted in D
and in Mt. 26. 33 (a harsher instance is G. 3. 5 E épywv vóuov, where
Érexopnyel TÒ TveŪua kai évepyeî k.t.d. must be supplied from the
participles). The omission becomes of a somewhat different character
where positives and negatives are combined, as in 1 C. 10. 24 un dels
TÒ Éavtoü Enteítw, allà tò Toù étépov, sc. ČkaoTOS (to be understood
from undeís); and entirely different in 1 Tim. 4. 3 kalvóvtwv yaueîv,
åréyedai Bowuátw SC. KELEVÓVtwv (a similar instance is found in
Lucian Charon S 2 kwlúo el évepyelv kai [sc. ToLÝCEL] Šppucoûv, as Dr.
1 Therefore a full stop should be placed after owseo de, where a fresh sentence
begins which is unconnected with the last, $ 79, 5.
2 Wilke (op. cit: in $ 79, 7 note) p. 121 ff. The formula dů ubyov dé, allà kai =
moreover too' comes under this category, R. 5. 3, II, 8. 23, 9. 1o, 2 C. 8. 19,
where an immediately preceding word or thought has to be supplied, which in
2 C. 7. 7 is actually repeated; it is only in R. 9. 10 that the definite words to
be supplied are not given in the preceding clause, cp. Win. $ 64, 1 c, who com-
pares Diogenes L. 9. 39 (Antisthenes) and où jóvov ye állà in Plato.
292
[$ 81. 1.
ELLIPSE, BRACHYLOGY, PLEONASM.
Moulton points out), with which cp. 1 C. 3. 2 yáda ýmās étória, où
Bpõua (sc. something like éxóuloa; $ 34, 4): here one verb refers to
two objects (or subjects), to only one of which it is applicable in its
literal acceptation (the figure of zeugma, Kühner Gr. ii.? 1075 f.).1
On the other hand, an ellipse proper may only then be supposed to
exist, when the idea itself is not expressed in any shape whatever,
and there is also no cognate idea which takes its place in the form
required. Under these circumstances the following words may be
omitted : anything which may obviously be supplied from the nature
of the structure of the sentence, such as the copula, § 30, 3; the sub-
ject if it is an ordinary word (such as the thing, or men), or if it is
absolutely required by the statement, $ 30, 4; the principal word,
if it is sufficiently indicated by the attribute, therefore especially
with an attributive genitive, $ 35, 2). Omissions of this sort are
conventional, and parallels may in some instances be found in other
languages as well; a specially Greek idiom is the omission of the
idea of other' or 'at all, in Ilétpos Où tols évdeka A. 2. 14 = oùy toîs
Toùs Loutroùs åroctólovs, while D omits doctors; 5. 29 II. kai oi åró-
orolou (D is different); 1 C. 10. 31 cite éo Olete cite míveTE EITE TI (sc.
öllo 'besides' or 'at all') TOLEÎTE, R. 14. 21 undè sc. to do anything
else, Mt. 16. 14. Objects are omitted with verbs like TeleUTâv, viz. TÒV
Blov, “to die,' or dáyelv (ditto) 'to live,' Tit. 3. 3 (Bíov is inserted in
1 Tim. 2. 2), also Sateicīv, Scotpißely used intransitively show a.
similar ellipse; we also have apoo é xeLV SC. Tòv voûv, cp. $ 53, 1, etc.
Ilworaus Talcî should strictly be étépaus yd. laleiv, a form which
it takes in the narrative of the first appearance of the phenomenon
in A. 2. 4 (Mc.'16. 17 yi. Kalvais); but in sinilar narratives further
on in the Acts (10. 46, 19. 6) the additional word is at best only
found in the ß text, and in Paul it occurs nowhere (but see 1 C.14.21).
As an instance of conventional omission of a verb may be reckoned
the omission of he said in the report of a conversation, where the
recurrence of the word would be superfluous and wearisome :
A. 25. 22 ’Aypittras Sè apòs Tòv Potov (with én CEHLP); ibid.
9. 5, 11 the verb might be supplied from the previous clause (årò
KOLVOÛ). Somewhat different is kai (idoù) pur), sc. éyéveto Mt. 3. 17
v.
::
unless indeed even xalpelv is omitted, as in Ap. 1. 4 and in Paul,
though in his Epistles (and in the Apocalypse) its place is always
taken by the Christian greeting χάρις υμίν κ.τ.λ.2 Verbs of any kind
1 Wilke p. 130 (1 C. 14. 34 ÉTTLT PÉTetai: A. 14. 22 Tapakaloûvtes). A kindred
use is that in A. 1. 21 eloņoev kai Eghoev čo nuas, = elo. èo. kai ėč. trap nuor
(cp. 9. 28), where the clause which more nearly defines the verb ought to be
expressed twice in different forms.
2 The formula oux ÓT1 = oỦ Néyw őri, as we say not that,' occurs in Jo. 6. 46
oủx ŐTL TOY matépa é pakév TIS, 7. 22, 2 C. 1. 24, 3. 5, Ph. 4. 17, 2 Th. 3. 9; its
origin has become so obscured that Paul can even say in Ph. 4. II oŮx 6Ti Kad'
jo tépnou léyw, Win. $ 64, 6. Cp. for classical instances of it Kühner ii. 800,
but in classical Greek it involves the idea of a climax (being followed by årld),
$ 81. 1-2.] ELLIPSE, BRACHYLOGY, PLEONASM.
293

are omitted in formulas and proverbs, which are apt to be expressed
in an abbreviated form : Mt. 5. 38 οφθαλμόν αντί οφθαλμού κ.τ.λ.
(δώσει according to Ex. 21. 24), Αp. 6. 6 χοίνιξ σίτου δηναρίου (πωλεί-
ται “costs'), Α. 18. 6 το αίμα υμών επί την κεφαλήν υμών, op. Mt. 27. 25
(sc. ελθέτω according to Mt. 23. 35 ; a Hebrew phrase, see LXX. 2
Sam. Ι. Ι6), 2 P. 2. 22 ύς λουσαμένη εις κύλισμα βορβόρου (classical
γλαύκ' 'Αθήναζε etc.; but in the passage from 2 Pet. επιστρέψασα may
be supplied from the preceding proverb, Win. $ 64, 2). "Όρα μή (sc.
ποιήσης) must also have been a common phrase, Ap. 19. 10, 22. 9.
On ίνα τί, τί πρός σε etc. see 8 50, 7. Υμείς δε ουχ ούτως (should act)
occurs in L. 22. 26. 'Αλλ' ίνα, but it was, it came to pass etc. for this
reason that = the Divine will was, occurs in Jo.1.8, 9.3, 13. 18, 15. 25,
Mc. 14. 49.-Ει δε μή (γε) (S 77, 4) otherwise' has become a stereo-
typed phrase, so that it may even stand instead of ci 6è) after a
negative sentence, as in L. 5. 36 (a classical use, Kühner 987); also
instead of εάν δε μή after εάν μέν ..., L. 10. 6, 13. 9 (in Αp. 2. 5 an
explanatory clause with ėdy uzy is tacked on at the end), see for
classical instances Krüger 8 65, 5. 12. Also ει μή, εάν μή (Mc. 4. 22,
G. 2. 16) 'except' were originally elliptical phrases. In 2 Th. 1. 5
ένδειγμα της δικαίας κρίσεως κ.τ.λ. (after ταις θλίψεσιν αίς ενέχεσθε)
stands for 8 έστιν ένδ. κ.τ.λ. (cp. Ε. 3. 13, Ph. 1. 28), but may be
classed with the accusative used in apposition of sentences, Kühner
243 (Buttm. p. 134), as in R. 12. 1 παρακαλώ υμάς παραστήσαι τα
σώματα υμών θυσίαν ..., την λογικήν λατρείαν υμών (so that this is etc.).
-Jo. 7. 35 που ούτος μέλλει πορεύεσθαι, ότι ημείς ούχ ευρήσομεν αυτόν;
is not elliptical, since ότι = δι' ό,τι as in 14. 22 (8 50, 7), 9. 17, Mt.
8. 27, Mc. 4. 41'; but Mt. 16. 7 ότι άρτους ουκ ελάβομεν = τούτ' εκείνο,
ότι κ.τ.λ.; cp. the classical ellipses with ότι given in Kühner p. 889,
note 4.
2. Omissions which are due to individual style and taste go much
further, especially in letters, where the writer reckons on the know-
ledge which the recipient shares with himself, and also imitates
ordinary speech, which is likewise full of ellipses, both conventional
and such as depend more on individual caprice. Examples : 1 C.
1. 31 ίνα καθώς γέγραπται: “Ο καυχώμενος κ.τ.λ. in order that it
may come to pass, or proceed as' etc.2: 4. 6 ίνα εν ημίν μάθητε το μη
υπέρ & γέγραπται (φρονείν is added by 3D al.): 2 C. 8. 15 Ο.Τ. και το
πολύ ουκ έπλεόνασεν, και και το ολίγον ουκ ήλαττόνησεν, = Ex. 16. 18
which is based on 17 και συνέλεξαν και το πολύ και και το έλαττον, Sc.
which is not inherent in it in the N.T. Once Paul uses oủx olov Óti with a
similar meaning ( = it is not as if '), R. 9. 6 ουχ οίον δε ότι εκπέπτωκεν ο λόγος
του Θεού (as Polyb. iii. 88. 5 uses ουχ οίον ... αλλά with the idea of a clinmax =
class. ουχ ότι). Cp. the elliptical μήτιγε, 8 75, 2.
These combinations of particles are ultimately derived from Hebrew, cp.
H. 2. 6 = Ps. 8. 5 τί έστιν άνθρωπος, ότι μιμνήσκη αυτού και κ.τ.λ., where ότι = .
So in Εxod. 3. II, 16. 7, Judges 19. 18 etc. (Gesenius-Kantzsch S 107, 4. b 3);
in 1 Sam. 11. 5 the equivalent in the Greek for ' Dys-2 is ti TL (p. 177) Klalel
ο λαός.
2 Or else (Win. $ 64, 7) the literal quotation takes the place of a paraphrase,
which would have required the conjunctive.
294
ELLIPSE, BRACHYLOGY, PLEONASM. (S.81. 2-4.
therefore some word like συλλέξας (cp. Νum. 11. 32)1: R. 13. 7
απόδοτε πάσιν τάς οφειλάς, τω τον φόρον (sc. perhaps οφειλόμενον
έχoντι) τον φόρον, τω το τέλος το τέλος κ.τ.λ.: G. 5. 13 μόνον μη την
ελευθερίαν εις αφορμήν τη σαρκί, sc. Something like έχετε: in the case
of this warning (only) not' we also are inclined to use ellipse (Mt.
26. 5, Mc. 14. 2 μή εν τη εορτη, where however the ellipse can and
must be supplied from the preceding words): Ph. 3. Ι4 εν δε (I do):
2 C. 9. 6 τούτο δε (sc. φημι, according to 1 C. 7. 29, 15. 5ο), ο σπείρων
φειδομένως φειδομένως και θερίσει: 9. 7 έκαστος καθώς προήρηται, may
give: G. 2. 9 δεξιάς έδωκαν κοινωνίας, ένα ημείς μεν εις τα έθνη (ευαγ-
γελιζώμεθα [Win.] according to 2 C. 10. 16), αυτοί δε εις την περιτομήν:
R. 4. 9 ο μακαρισμός επί την περιτομήν ή...; (sc. λέγεται): 5. Ι8 ως δι'
ενός παραπτώματος εις πάντας ανθρώπους είς κατάκριμα, ούτως κ.τ.λ.,
which would be unintelligible without the long exposition preceding,
and even so hardly admits of being supplemented by a definite word
such as απέβη, αποβήσεται ; Paul once more emphasizes the corre-
spondence between the two actions (of Adam and Christ)—their
opposite cause (διά), their equal range or extent (εις), the opposite
nature of their ultimate end (εις).-Aposiopesis (supra 1) is sometimes
assumed in L. 19. 42 ει έγνως και συ τα προς ειρήνην, νύν δε εκρύβη,
because the apodosis is suppressed (cp. 22. 42 where the reading is
doubtful, εί βούλει παρενέγκαι τούτο το ποτήριον απ' εμού, πλην κ.τ.λ.,
with v.l. Tapeveykeîv and Tapéveyke); but since in the former passage
nothing else can be supplied but 'it would be (or is) pleasing to me,'
the passage should rather be compared with the classical omission of
the first apodosis with ει μεν ... εί δε, 8 78, 2. There is likewise no
aposiopesis in Jo. 6. 62 εάν ούν θεωρητε ..., SC. what could you say
then ?, or in A. 23. 9 ει δε πνεύμα αυτό ελάλησεν, Sc. what opposition
can we make? (HLP interpolate μη θεομαχώμεν), R. 9 22. Abbrevia-
tion in the principal clause is also found in sentences of comparison :
και ου ( and it is not so ') καθάπερ Μωυσής κ.τ.λ., 2 C. 3. 13, Mt. 25. 14,
Μο. 13. 34, op. $ 78, 1.
3. Distinct from ellipse is what is known as brachylogy, where
something is passed over for the sake of brevity, not so much affect-
ing the grammatical structure as the thought: the omission may
either be conventional or due to individual style. An instance of the
former is to be found in iva clauses which are thrown forward in a
sentence, and which give the aim or object of the subsequent state-
ment, Mt. 9. 6 ίνα δε είδητε κ.τ.λ. (S 79, 12)2; an instance of the latter
is R. 11. Ι8 ει δε κατακαυχάσαι (you must know then that) ου σύ την
ρίζαν βαστάζεις, αλλ' η ρίζα σέ, 1 C. 11. 16, Win. 8 66, 1. '
4. The opposite to ellipse is pleonasm, which consists especially in
expression being given a second time to an idea which has already
been expressed in the sentence, not with any rhetorical object (such
1 Winer 8 64, 4 supplies έχων, comparing expressions in Lucian such as και το
ξύλον sc. έχων “the man with the stick.'
2 Under this head should probaby be classed 2 C. 10. 9 iva od (o è add. H vulg.
al.) un dów K.T.N. (verse io is a parenthesis). We have a final sentence after a
question (sc. answer') in Jo. 1. 22, 9. 36.
$ 81. 4.9 82. 1.] ARRANGEMENT OF WORDS: FIGURES. 295
as accounts for the emphatic reduplication of a word or sentence,
$ 82, 7), nor again from mere thoughtlessness, but simply in con-
formity to certain habits of the language. Cp. on palloy with a
comparative § 44, 5, on aŭtoù after ős (Hebraic) S 50,4; on pleonastic
negatives $ 75, 4 and 6, KTÒs ei un= ei uń 8 65, 6; we may also reckon
as pleonasms citev léywv (8 74, 3), idwv cidov (ibid. 4), Zavátw Telev-
TÁTW (38, 3) and other cases of Hebraistic prolixity of expression.1
On årò pakpódev and the like see $ 25, 3; with which must be com-
pared podpauò v (els tò) čutpoo dev L. 19. 4,2 máliv åyakáļTTELV A. 18. 21,
77. ÚTOOTPÉDeiv G. 1. 17 (TT. ÉTTLOTp. 4. 9), . Èk deutépov, dettepov, ävwDev
Mt. 26. 42, 44, A. 10. 15, Jo. 4. 54, G. 4. 93; ÉTELTA METÀ TOÛTO Jo.
11.7 (there are similar phrases in classical Greek, Kühner ii.2 1087 f.),
L. 22. II TẬ oikodeotót tñs oikias (without rñs oik. in Mc. 14. 14),
with which one may class the classical airódia aiyớv and the like,
Kühner ibid. 1086.
§ 82. ARRANGEMENT OF WORDS; FIGURES OF SPEECH.
1. The sophists and rhetoricians who about the end of the fifth
and the beginning of the fourth centuries B.C. created the Attic
artistic prose style, did so with a certain amount of emulation with
the only artistic form of speech previously in existence, namely
poetry, and accordingly they endeavoured sometimes to borrow its
external charms, sometimes to replace them by others equivalent to
them. We are here speaking not so much of expression, as of the
combination (arrangement, oúveols) of words, and anything else that
may be regarded as connected with their arrangement. Since verse
was excluded, Gorgias of Sicily, the first master of artistic prose,
introduced into use as in some way equivalent to it certain figures of
speech, which in the language of rhetoric took their name from him
(Topylela oxýuata). These figures consist in the artificial and formal
combination of opposites (antithesis) or parallels (parison, isocolon),
the charm of which was enhanced by various assonances at the end
of the clauses (i.e. rhyme) as also at the beginning and in the middle
of them (tapóuoca, parechesis etc.). There is here an obvious point
of contact with that which poetry elsewhere usually regarded as its
distinctive feature, and also a particularly close contact with the old
Hebrew parallelism of clauses. These mannerisms of Gorgias were
not free from a certain degree of pedantry and indeed of obvious
affectation, and for this reason they were subsequently exploded and
10n đpšaodai, ápěáuevos see $$ 69, 4 note ; 74, 2; on éyéveTo $ 77, 6.
2 Also in Jo. 20. 4 tr pokopanev táxlov TOû IIét pov there is a superfluity of words:
Spajev was sufficient (or 7 poéop. Toll IIẾT pov), especially as kal indev mpôtos Eis TÒ
Mrnjelov follows. It is somewhat different in L. 1. 76 T Por opeúon pò TT POOÁTTOV
( = ipd) Toû kuplov ; since it is a common phenomenon of the language, that if a
verb compounded with a preposition has its literal meaning, the preposition is
again repeated in the complement (elo Bállelv els), 37, 7.
3 But Winer & 65, 2 notes with reason that èK DEUTÉpou etc. if it follows tálcv
is not superfluous, but a nearer definition. --D has eŮdéws Tapaxpñua (classical)
in A. 14. 10.
296
[$ 82. 1-2.
ARRANGEMENT OF WORDS, AND
went out of fashion; they were most unsuitable for practical speech,
and for this purpose the Attic orators of the fourth century created
a very different and flexible artistic style, which is based upon an
imitation of lively speech, springing directly from the feelings, with
its forms and figures (oxýuara). But in place of rhyme which had
been carried to excess and of assonance in general, the artistic prose
of the fourth century, showing herein a certain direct approximation
to the style of lyric poetry, had recourse to manifold rhythms, which
by their mutual accordance imparted to the language a beautifully
harmonious character; it further borrowed from the poets (a practice
of which the beginnings are found in Gorgias himself) a smoothness
and absence of friction in the juncture of words, doing away with
the harsh collision between vowels at the end and beginning of
contiguous words,—the so-called hiatus. This avoiding of hiatus
continued to be practised by Hellenistic and Atticistic writers of the
following centuries with a greater or less degree of strictness.
2. The Epistle to the Hebrews is the only piece of writing in the
N.T., which in structure of sentences and style shows the care and
dexterity of an artistic writer, and so it cannot be wondered at, if it
is in this work alone that the principle of avoiding hiatus is taken
into account. But it is by no means the case that all collisions of
vowels are of the same kind : those which are faulty in the strictest
sense are only such as are not rendered inaudible by a pause in the

elision of the first vowel (all', 8') or crasis (käv), or lastly are not
formed by small ‘form-words' such as kai, ei, un, toll, 6, Tò (the various
forms of the article ; also ô, où etc.) in the case of which a prose-
writer excuses a license which can hardly be helped. The use of
hiatus with τί, τι, ότι, περί, πρό is also allowable, as it is previously in
poetry. Elisions of g €, o, however, are not readily adopted, if the
words combined in this way are other than .form-words' (cp. & 5, 1);
on the other hand, the au of verbal terminations is subject to elision
(and is written with elision ?), being also reckoned for the purpose of
the accent as short or almost short. If then in the Epistle to the
Hebrews one leaves out of sight in the first place all the O.T.
chap. 9. 2-7 (description of the tabernacle), the test of hiatus gives
the following results. Hiatus is a matter of indifference where there
is a pause (this includes such passages as 2. II È ÊvÒs, 3. 3 oikov ,
6. 17 aŭtoù l, 7. 24 aiôva , 11. 18 / őtt, 251); hiatus with kaí is
also a comparatively indifferent matter. With uń there are 7 in-
4, oi 5, ỷ 1, Top 7, ep 5, ep 1, ở 1, số 2 (10. 5, 11. I6 ; it is avoided
by using di ñv aitiav in 2. 11), 08 2, ∞ 1 (instances with art. and rel.
amount to 47 in all 3). With ă and € (not reckoning åldá, dé, te, iva
1 E.g. in the Herculanean rolls of Philodemus, Kühner I.3 i. 238.
2'0 before opkos may be quite well dispensed with.
3 In the Epistle to the Romans this number (not reckoning quotations) is
already surpassed at 4. 14, in 1 Corinthians at 6. 19.
$ 82. 2–3.]
297
FIGURES OF SPEECH.
and prepositions) there are 171 and 7 respectively; with ai of verbal
terminations 17.2 Apart from these, the harsher cases of hiatus are
as follows: 1. I táłac ó Ocós (the article can be dispensed with,
$ 46, 6), 2. 8 aúto åvUTÓTAKTOV (aúrö is superfluous, as just before in
the same verse it is removed by Lachm. on the authority of B etc.),
oŰrw op@uev (BXétrojev as in 9?), (9 0.T. quot.), 9 Deoû ÚTÈp (Trepi ?
cp. 5. 3, 10. 18, 26, 13. 11. 18, § 42, 4), (14 étel oův as in 4. 6, énei
as a "form-word' may be used with hiatus also in Demosthenes), 15,
16, 3. 1, 2 (aúróv is superfluous ; ibid. a quotation as in 5), 12 is full
of instances of hiatus, two of which are harsh ; (4. 7 according to **
ορίζει τινά ημέραν; ibid. ΙΙ hiatus is avoided by the insertion of τις),
(5. 9 read αυτώ πάσιν with KL al.), το θεού αρχιερεύς (to be reckoned
as a quotation ?), 6. 3 ÉTT IT péry é Deós (see on 1. 1), 6. 7, 10 (7. 1 O.T.
quot.), 3, 14, 8. 7 zpárn Ekelun ov, 9. 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, 24,
25 bis, 26 (frei édec), 10 (2 the text is uncertain 4), 10 three instances
of hiatus,5 (13 quotation), 19, 11. 4, 5 míotel 'Evòx, similarly 21, 22,
11. 7, 8 (Troll, excusable), 19 (not without v.l.), (21 quot.), 22, 28.
30 two cases of hiatus with 'Iepexó, 31, 34, 12. 8 (the position of
coté varies and the word can be dispensed with), 24 ('Incoû super-
fluous), 25. The attention that has been been bestowed on the
avoiding of hiatus is accordingly put beyond a doubt, though the
different portions of the work seem not to have been executed with
quite a uniform amount of care.
3. To look for verses and fragments of verse (apart from the three
quotations, A. 17. 28, 1 C. 15. 33, Tit. 1. 12), i.e. to look for rhythm
in the N.T., is on the whole a useless waste of time, and the speci-
mens of verse which have been found are for the most part of such a
quality that they are better left unmentioned (Ja. 1. 17 is a hexameter
Tãoa Šóols K.7.d., but contains a tribrach in the second foot). It is
somewhat different, however, with the Epistle to the Hebrews, where
in 12. 13 there occurs a faultless hexameter, kai tpoyeds opods moin-
oate? Tois mooiy úuôv, and immediately after in 14 f. two equally
13. 17 kôla ČTEDEV is a quotation. This calculation includes 4. I åpa, also
11. 14 tatploaétiŠNTOllol, where D* al. read Śntollol; an additional instance is
4. 7 tivà nulo, on which see below in the text.
2 In 12. 7 TT poopépetai ở Debs, ó can be dispensed with as in l. 1 (see lower
down in the text); 3. 18 is a quotation.
3 The clause être uÝTote loxúel, ŐTE Šü diabéuevos may be perfectly well dis-
pensed with, and cp. $ 75, 3.
4 'Enel oủk du etaÚCAVTO (which must be taken as a question) with v.l. omitting
ουκ ; an obvious suggestion is to read κάν.
5 Not according to the text of Theophylact : £v Q Delý Mati Toû matpos nyiá-
σθημεν οι διά της προσφοράς του σώματος του Χρ. της εφάπαξ κ.τ.λ.
See also 12. 7 ALOEÚEL Tarp without the article (8 46, 7), which would have
caused a hiatus; ibid. 14 oŮ xwpls stands for xwpis où (where oùdels follows).
Also in l. I év to viơ might have been expected.
78*P have a v.l. TOLEîte, as molel is read in Prov. 4. 26 on which the passage
is based, but here at any rate the present is not in keeping with the sense, as
the aorist is needed to express the contrast with the state of things hitherto
existing, $ 58, 2. The question of rhythm in Hebrews has been specially con-
298
[8 82. 3-4.
ARRANGEMENT OF WORDS, AND
faultless trimeters in succession, ου χωρίς ουδείς όψεται τον κύριον | επι-
σκοπούντες μή τις υστερών από . The opening of the Epistle has a
similar rhythm, especially if o is expunged (supra 2): πολυμερώς και
πολυτρόπως πάλαι θεός, υυυ- - - - - -, which
would be a senarius if a single syllable, e.g. ., were prefixed to it;
then there follows another senarius επ' εσχάτου των ημερών τούτων
ελάλησεν); see further 4 τοσούτω κρείττων γενόμενος των αγγέλων,
where the metre is made correct by transposing κρείττων τοσούτω,
11. 27 τον γαρ αόρατον ως ορών έκαρτέρησεν), 12. 2 ος αντί της προκει-
μένης αυτω χαράς, 28 δι' ης λατρεύομεν (but with v.1. -ωμεν) ευαρέστως
τω θεώ μετ' ευλαβείας και δέους και γαρ ο θεός |. At any rate one
cannot feel quite so certain in this Epistle as elsewhere, that one is
merely dealing with purely fortuitous cases of rhythm.
4. The studied employment of the so-called Gorgian assonances
is necessarily foreign to the style of the N.T., all the more because
they were comparatively foreign to the whole period; accident how-
ever of course produces occasional instances of them, and the writer
often did not decline to make use of any that suggested themselves.
Paronomasia is the name given to the recurrence of the same word
or word-stem in close proximity, parechesis to the resemblance in
sound between different contiguous words. Instances of paronomasia
are: Mt. 21. 41 κακούς κακώς απολέσει αυτούς (a good classical and
popular. combination of words 2), 2 C. 9. 8 εν παντί πάντοτε πασαν
αυτάρκειαν,3 8. 22, Α. 21. 28, 24. 3 (Herm. Mand. xi. 3 αυτός γαρ
κενός ών κενώς [MSS. κενός και αποκρίνεται κενοίς); then there may
be a contrast in the sentence, so that there is a certain subtlety and
sometimes a suggestion of wit in the paronomasia : 2 C. 4. 8 άπορού-
μενοι, αλλ' ουκ εξαπορούμενοι, 2 Τh. 3. ΙΙ μηδέν εργαζομένους, αλλά
περιεργαζομένους, Α. 8. 3ο άρά γε γινώσκεις και αναγινώσκεις ; (cp. 2 C.
3. 2), R. 12. 3 μη υπερφρονείν παρ' δ δεί φρονείν, αλλά φρονείν εις το :
σωφρονείν (which might almost be called finical), 1 C. 11. 2g f. κρίμα -
διακρίνων-διεκρίνομεν-έκρινόμεθα-κρινόμενοι---κατακριθώμεν (ditto),
2 C. 10. 2 f. κατά σάρκα-έν σαρκί--κατά σ.; the paronomasia is most
sharply marked in Ρh. 3. 2 f. βλέπετε την κατατομής (the Jewish
circumcision), ημείς γάρ εσμεν η περιτομή,4 where Paul in an

sidered by Delitzsch in his commentary, see the review by J. Köstlin in Gtg.
gel. Anz. 1858, art. 84, p. 827 ff., who however is inclined to disbelieve in it.
This verse is noticed by Delitzsch, the following verse is added by his
reviewer. Xwpls in this passage only stands after its case, g 80, 4; but hiatus
is also avoided by this expedient, supra note 6 on p. 297.
2 Demosth. 21. 204 ει κακός κακώς απολεϊ, Winer 8 67, 1.
3 Plato Menex. 247 A (a Gorgian assonance): διά παντός πάσαν πάντως προ-
θυμίαν πειράσθε έχειν. For the Ν.Τ. see numerous instances of the figures here
discussed in Wilke p. 342 Η., 402-415.
4 Winer & 68, 2 compares Diog. Laert. 6. 24, who says of Diogenes the Cynic
την μεν Ευκλείδου σχολήν έλεγε χολήν, την δε Πλάτωνος διατριβήν κατατριβήν.-
Paul does not make any word-play on the name of the slave Onesimus, although
he uses (in this passage only) the word oναίμην, Philem. 20; the most that can
be said is that the recipient of the letter might make for himself the obvious
play of words from 'Ονήσιμον - άχρηστον 1ο f.
§ 82. 4-5.]
299
FIGURES OF SPEECH.
oratorical manner robs his opponents of the word in which they
pride themselves and turns it into a disgrace. The paronomasia in
A. 23. 3 also appears to be oratorical, where Paul in answer to
Ananias, who had commanded τύπτειν αυτού το στόμα, replies τύπτειν
de uéddel é Qcós, using the same word in another and metaphorical
sense; cp. Ap. 22. 28 f., and with parechesis oxivos-oxioei, tpivos
---píoec LXX. Dan. Sus. 54 f., Winer $ 68, 2; so that this appears
to have been a common method of retort among the Jews. The
practice of twisting a word that occurs in the sentence into a meta-
phorical sense is illustrated also by 2 C. 3. i ff. (@LOTONń): similarly
L. 9. 60 (Mt. 8. 22) äpes toùs vekpoùs Oáyai toùs eavtûv vekpoús: Mt.
5. 19 (éláxcotoS); but Paul is particularly fond of dwelling on an
idea and a word, although it does not assume different meanings
and is not repeated absolutely immediately, while there is still a
certain artificial and reflective manner in the repetition (known as
traductio in Latin rhetoricians). Thus in 2 C. 3. 5 ff. we first have
ikavoimikavotnsikávwoev, then ypápa (following éyyeypapuévy 2 f.)
three times, also tveŪua (which has likewise been used already in 3);
Slákovos 6, Slakovía 7 ff. four times ; doa 7-11 eight times besides
Sedofáo Dau twice in 10 (où SedóĒaota. TÒ Sedotaouévov, a kind of
oxymoron with an apparent contradiction).--Parechesis is seen in
the old combination of words, which became popular, L. 21. II depoi
koi lowoù čo ovrai (Hesiod, W. and D. 241 demòv óuoû kaì loquóv);
H. 5. 8 čuabev å dôvérradev (the proverb mátel pálos occurs in
Aesch. Agam. 170); Paul in enumerations combines the following
words, R. 1. 29 (G. 5. 21?) poóvov povov, 31 do UvéTOUS đouvoétous;
but kládwv €çekláo Onoav 11. 17, 19 may be accidental or a kind of
etymological igure (lilke φόβον φοβείσθαι).--The ομοιοτέλευτον in
R. 12. 15 xalpelv merà xalpóvTwv, klaleiv jetà klatóvtwv (where there is
assonance also in the first words of the two clauses, so that this is a
case of ouolokátapkrov as well) arose naturally and unsought; but in
5. 16 it may be considered as studied and deliberate, oủx ús di' &vòs
αμαρτήσαντος το δώρημα το μεν γαρ κρίμα εξ ενός εις κατάκριμα, το δε
Xáploua ék Tollớv upatwuátwv eis dikaiwua. Paul has certainly
not sought after rhyme in this passage, but has no doubt (as already
in 14 f.) played with the formations in -Ma, which were among the
deliciae of the Hellenistic stylist.1
5. Antitheses and parallelisms of all kinds are very largely
developed in the N.T., not only in the Pauline Epistles, but also in
the Gospels, especially those of Matthew and Luke; in the latter
their occurrence is due to the gnomic character of ancient Hebrew
literature (supra 1), in the former it is the outcome of the Apostle's
dialectic and eloquence. With these should be reckoned a further
series of figures (oxuara), of which we learn in Greek and Latin
rhetoricians, and for which instances are quoted from Demosthenes,
Cicero etc. Antithesis and parison (supra 1), considered on their
own merits, form part of these figures ; but it may easily happen in
- 1 E.g. of Epicurus, from whom Cleomedes nepi Meteúpwv B cap. 1 gives.
excerpts containing the words karáornua Milo ua almaoua åvarpatyaoua.
300
[S 82. 5.
ARRANGEMENT OF WORDS, AND
cases of parallelism of this kind, that the first words are alike
(anaphora), or the last words are alike (antistrophe), or the first
and the last words are alike (symploce), and by this means the
parallelism is rendered still more striking to the ear. Moreover
words in the middle of the sentence may be alike or have a
similar termination. Again cases frequently occur where there is
a double anaphora etc., if each section of the parallelism is again sub-
divided, and the repetition of the word may take place not only
twice, but even thrice and still more often. Thus we have in 1 C. 1.
25 ff. ότι το μωρόν του θεού σοφώτερόν έστιν των ανθρώπων | και το ασθενές
του θεού | ισχυρότερόν εστι των ανθρώπων1. βλέπετε γάρ την κλησιν
υμών αδελφοί | ότι ου πολλοί σοφοί κατά σάρκα | ου πολλοί δυνατοί | ου
πολλοι ευγενείς || αλλά τα μωρά του κόσμου εξελέξατο ο θεός | ένα καταισχύνη
τους σοφούς (τα σοφά according to the text of Marcion, a better read-
ing) | και τα ασθενή του κόσμου εξελέξατο ο θεός | ένα καταισχύνη τα ισχυρά
I και τα αγενή του κόσμου και τα εξουθενημένα εξελέξατο ο θεός τα μη όντα 2 !
ίνα τα όντα καταργήση | όπως μη καυχήσηται πάσα σαρξ ενώπιον του θεού.
In this passage the parallelism is developed, though not quite from
the beginning, into rounded periods of three sections, and the third
section in the last parallelism, which gives the finish to the whole
sentence, exceeds the others in the number and length of its clauses,
the parallelism is thus sustained throughout the whole passage with a
precision as accurate as the thought admitted of, while the sharpness
of the thought is not sacrificed to form. This is a point which the
rhetoricians praise as a merit in Demosthenes also, that his antitheses
are not worked out with minute accuracy. And so too St. Paul does
not say ίνα τα ευγενή καταργήση because τα αγενή has preceded, but
the expansion of the concluding clause enables him to introduce tà
un övra, which together with its opposite tà Övta, which is annexed,
gives a better and much more powerful expression to the thought.
No Greek orator for one must naturally compare the passage with
practical speech, and not with the quiet flow of artistic speech, in
1'Έστι is read in both places before άνθρ. in DEFG ; NABC al. have σοφώτ. τ.
α. εστίν, and then N°AC al. have in the corresponding clause ισχ. τ. ά. εστίν, but
here x*B omit totiv. A similar termination must in any case be retained. Cp.
10. 16 (where B is wrong).
2 The και before τα μη όντα in BN° al. is certainly an interpolation. Marcion
had in his text (instead of the third του κόσμου) και τα ελάχιστα, then he omits
the third εξελέξατο ο θεός, and gives in the following clause ίνα καταισχύνη τα
όντα, a reading the whole of which seems to give additional force and beauty
to the sentence.
3 Cic. de Orat. iii. 186 (apparently following Theophrastus) : membra si in
extremo breviora sunt, infringitur ille quasi verborum ambitus (period); quare
aut paria esse debent posteriora superioribus et extrema primis, aut, quod etiam
est melius et iucundus, longiorn. Denmetrius περί ερμηνείας Ι8: εν ταις συνθέτοις
τάλλα. Cp. 1 C. 15. 42 ff. σπείρεται εν φθορα | εγείρεται εν αφθαρσία || σπείρεται
έν ατιμία | εγείρεται εν δόξη 1η σπ. εν ασθενεία | έγ. εν δυνάμει | σπ. σώμα ψυχικόν
εγείρεται σώμα πνευματικόν (10 syllables, the longest of all these κώλα); ibid.
48 f. three periods containing parallels, the last being far the longest in both
portions of the comparison ; R. 8. 33 ff., 2. 21 ff.
8 82. 5-7.]
30I
FIGURES OF SPEECH.
which everything which may be termed δις ταυτόν λέγειν is proscribed
-would have regarded the eloquence of this passage with other feel-
ings than those of the highest admiration.
6. The practice of giving a similar termination to clauses (anti-
strophe) may occasionally take a simpler form as in H. 2. 16 où yàp
δήπου αγγέλων επιλαμβάνεται, αλλά σπέρματος 'Αβραάμ επιλαμβάνεται
(more emphatic than if the verb were left to be supplied in the second
clause). The same Epistle has an excessively long instance of anaphora
in 11. 3-31 πίστει (repeated 18 times), a passage which talken together
with the forcible and comprehensive conclusion (32-40) corresponds
in some measure to the peroration of a speech following upon the
demonstration ; before and after) this point this letter is by no
means so rich in figures as some of the Pauline Epistles, but exhibits
in this respect a certain classically temperate attitude. St. Paul, on
the other hand, has e.g. in 2 C. 6. 4 ff. év 19 times, followed imme-
diately by dià 3 times, and us 7.1 (Clem. Cor. i. 36. 2 has anaphora
with διά τούτου 5 times repeated ; with αγάπη after 1 C. 13] in
49. 4.) The speeches in the Acts, which are certainly nothing more
than excerpts from speeches, for this reason alone cannot have much
embellishment: anaphora occurs with υμείς ... υμίν in 3. 26 f., τούτω
... ούτος 4. Ιo f., τούτον ... ούτος 3 times in 7. 35 f., see further
10. 42 f., 13. 39.
7. The emphatic duplication of an impressive word (epanadiplosis
of the rhetoricians) is not unknown in the N.T., but is nowhere to
be reckoned as a rhetorical device: thus Ap. 14. 8 = 18. 2 έπεσεν έπεσεν
Βαβυλών η μεγάλη, Mt. 25. ΙΙ κύριε κύριε, 23. 7, Mc. 14. 45 ραββί
ραββί (some Μss.), L. 8. 24 επιστάτα επιστάτα, Jo. 19. 6 σταύρωσον σταύ-
ρωσον, L. 10. 41 Μάρθα Μάρθα, in all which passages we have a direct
report of the actual words spoken, as is most clearly shown by
Α. 19. 34 μεγάλη η "Αρτεμις 'Εφεσίων, μεγάλη η "Α. Ε. (so B reads),
words which were in fact shouted for two hours. (On the other
hand the repetition is rhetorical in Clem. Cor. 1. 47. 6 αισχρά,
αγαπητοί, και λίαν αισχρά και ανάξια κ.τ.λ.). Another figure in which
repetition plays a part is the kind of climax, which consists in each
clause taking up and repeating the principal word of the preceding
clause; the rhetoricians found this figure already existing in Homer
Il. ii. 102, where the following words occur on the subject of Aga-
memnon's sceptre, "Ήφαιστος μεν δωκε Διι..., αυτάρ άρα Ζευς δώκε
διακτόρω 'Aργειφόντη, Ερμείας δε κ.τ.λ. So Paul has in R. 5. 3 f. ή
θλίψις υπομονήν κατεργάζεται, η δε υπομονή δοκιμήν, η δε δοκιμή ελπίδα,
η δε ελπίς ου καταισχύνει, cp. 8. 29 f., and a decidedly artificial passage
10. Ι4 πως ούν επικαλέσωνται εις ον ουκ επίστευσαν και πως δε πιστεύσωσιν
ου ουκ ήκουσαν και πως δε ακούσωσιν χωρίς κηρύσσοντος και πως δε κηρύξωσιν
εαν μη αποσταλωσιν ; Cp. also 2 P. 1. 5 Η. επιχορηγήσατε εν τη πίστει
υμών την αρετήν, εν δε τη αρετή την γνώσιν, εν δε κ.τ.λ. (7 clauses in
all; but the object of using the figure in this passage is by no means
intelligible). A further instance is Ηerm. Mand. v. 2. 4 εκ της αφρο-
1 See for further details Wilke 396 f.
302
[S 82. 7-9.
ARRANGEMENT OF WORDS, AND
σύνης γίνεται πικρία, εκ δε της πικρίας θυμός, εκ δε του θυμού οργή, εκ
dè tñs ópyns uñues cita y uñvis K.t.d.1
8. Asyndeton and polysyndeton have already been discussed in
$ 79, 3 ff.; here we may lay greater stress on one form of asyndeton,
which is based upon the resolution of a periodic sentence, but which
gives a more lively and effective expression to the thought than the
periodic form of sentence would do, 1 C. 7. 27 déderai yuvalki un
ζήτει λύσιν | λέλυσαι από γυναικός / μη ζήτει γυναίκα, = ει μεν δέδεσαι
yuv., un Š. d., ei dè K.T... (where there is likewise a strong instance
of antistrophe, supra 5, and in dúou | lévoathe figure called by
the rhetoricians anastrophe, that is the end of one clause is equivalent
to the beginning of the next; moreover the point of the sentence is
further heightened by the brevity of the clauses). Cp. ibid. 18, 21,
Ja. 5. 13 ff.; many sentences of the same kind occur in the practical
writings of Greek orators. In the passages in the orators and in
the N.T. the first portion of resolved sentences of this kind is
ordinarily written as a question; but certainly German has analogous
phrases which are not interrogative, bist du los, so suche' etc. The
more ordinary forms of asyndeton are occasionally employed by Paul
with almost too great a profusion, so that the figure loses its force as
an artistic expedient, and the whole discourse appears broken up into
small fragments. The Epistle to the Hebrews shows more moderation
in this respect, even in the brilliant passage where thotel is repeated
18 times with asyndeton (supra 6); since the separate paragraphs in
that passage, which are in many cases of a considerable length, are
not without their own connecting links, and in the concluding
summary 11. 31 ff., though twice over we have 10 or almost 10
short clauses standing without connecting links, yet a piece of con-
nected speech is interposed between them (35 f.), and the whole
chapter is rounded off by a periodic sentence in verses 39, 40.
9. Besides figures of expression (oxhuara. Nézews), to which those
hitherto considered belong, the rhetoricians discriminate and give a
separate name to an equally large number of figures of thought (ox.
Slavolas), with which it is not the case, as it is with the former class,
that the substitution of one synonym for another, or the deletion of
a word, or an alteration in the order of words causes the figure to
disappear. As a general rule these figures of thought belong not so
much to the earlier as to the later period of Attic oratory, since
their development presupposes a certain amount of advance in the
acuteness and subtlety of the language. The orator pretends to pass
over something which in reality he mentions: thus oti Mèv ... , tapa-
deltw (a figure known as paraleipsis or praeteritio); and under this
figure one may of course, if one pleases, bring Paul's language in
Philem. 19 iva pot Néyw őti kaì geavtóv uou a poco elders.2 Again, 2 C.
i There is a similar instance in a fragment of the comedian Epicharmus, ek
μεν θυσίας τoίνα, εκ δε θοίνας πόσις εγένετο-έκ δε πόσιος κώμος, εκ κώμου δ' εγένεθ'
üavia, ék do tavlas dika K.T.1. -Cp. Wilke 398, who further adduces Ja. 1. 14 f.
and 1 C. 11. 3 (in the latter passage there is no climax).
2 Wilke p. 365 cites also passages like 1 Th. 4. 9, where however no figure
§ 82. 9–10.]
303
FIGURES OF SPEECH.
9. 4 uń Tote ... KATALO Xuv@@uev ňueis, iva un déywuev ýueis is not a
simple and straight-forward statement: the simple expression of the
Apostle's thought would be Katalo xuvÖîte, but as that would pain
his hearers, he appears to turn the reproach against himself, while
he makes it clear that he does so by what the rhetoricians call a
oxôpa éTTLELKÉS. Paul also occasionally employs irony (eipwvela) of
the sharpest kind: 1 C. 4. 8 non Kekopeouévol coté; ñon én loutńcate;
xwpis yuwv éßao idetoate; 2 C. 11. 19 f. y déws åvéxeo de Tôv å póvwv,
Opovijo. Övres åvexeo de yàp K.7.d., 12. 131; he knows how to change
his tone in an astonishing way, and if conscious of the offence which
he is about to give or has given, he employs prodiorthoses as in
2 C. 11. 1 ff., 16 ff., 21 év å pooúvy léyw, 23, or epidiorthoses as in
12. II yéyova äopwv K.T..., 7. 3, R. 3. 5 katà ävOpwTov léyw,2 since
he everywhere puts himself in a position of the closest intercourse
and liveliest sympathy with his readers.
10. Other figures of thought have more of an obviously rhetorical
character, so especially the (so-called rhetorical) question with its
various methods of employment, sometimes serving the purpose of
dialectical liveliness and perspicuity, as in R. 3. I ri oův TÒ TEPLOTÒv
Toû 'Iovdalov; with the answer todů Karà távta Tpórov, 4. 10 Tậs oův
ελογίσθη; έν περιτομη όντι ή έν ακροβυστία και ουκ εν περιτομη κ.τ.λ.
(this use is especially frequent in the Epistle to the Romans: but cp.
also Jo. 12. 27), sometimes used as an expression of keen sensibility,
astonishment, or unwillingness, but also of a joyful elation of spirit,
as in R. 8. 31 tí oův épolluev tepòs Tauta; ci ó Ocòs Útèp nuwv, mis kal'
juwv; to which there is subsequently attached a pair of questions,
with their subordinate answers, which are also expressed in an
interrogative form (ÚTodopá, subjectio): Tís éykalecel Katà ékleKT@v
Deoû; Deòs ó Oikac@v; tis ó katakpivôv; Xplotòs 'Incoûs o K.7.1.3 This
is one of the brilliant oratorical passages, which are a distinguishing
feature of this Epistle and the Corinthian Epistles (see further e.g.
2 C. 11. 22 'EBpałoí cioiv; kåyú. 'lopandiraí cioiv; kåyú. atépua
'Aßpadu elolv; kåyú, K.T...), but the discussion of such passages is
out of place in a grammar and can only be tolerated if briefly dwelt
on and treated by way of appendix. .
can be recognized (oủ xpelar éxete), any more than in H. 11. 32, where the
expression used corresponds accurately to the fact.
2 Ibid. 356. From the Gospels, L. 13. 33 comes under this head.
2 Ibid. 292 ff. Epidiorthosis is used in another sense in the case of a correc-
tion which enhances a previous statement: R. 8. 34 • åmofavov, uâhlov de
&yepels, G. 4. 9.
3 So Augustine and most modern authorities take θεός ο δικ. and Χριστός κ.τ.λ.
as questions. It is true that Tischendorf and Wilke (p. 396) are opposed to this
view ; but as there is undoubtedly a question in the third place, and as Deòs
dik. does not mean 'God is here, who? etc. (as Luther renders it), it appears
better to keep the other (interrogative) interpretation throughout. The passage
is oratorical rather than strictly logical.
INDEX.
I. INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
Accents 14 f.
258. Adjectival and adverbial com-
Accusative-With transitive verbs
parative of adverbs 34 f. Com-
87 ff. With verbs compounded with
pounded adverbs 65 f., 69 f. Adv.
katá etc. $9. Acc. of the inner
with the article 157, 159. Adv. as
object (content) 90 f., 174. With
predicate 257 f. Position of adv.
passive verbs 93. Double acc. 289.
Öl ff. Acc. of reference 94. In
apposition with the sentence 293.
Agreement 76 ff.
Adverbial acc. 94, 157. Acc. of
Anacoluthon 251, 267, 282 ff.
extension etc. in space and time
94f., 121. After prepositions 122 Anaphora 300 f.
ff., 132 ff. Acc. of the infinitive Anastrophe (figure of speech) 302.
with article 233 f. Acc. of inf. de-
Antistrophe (figure of speech) 300 f.
pendent on prepositions 236. Acc.
with the inf. in clauses in apposition
Antithesis 295, 299 f.
with subject 241 f.
Accusative and infinitive 239 ff. Cp. and passive aorist 44 f. Termina-
238 f., 225 ff., 230 ff., 237 ff. (Acc. tions 45 f. Aorist of deponent
with Óti or iva used instead of acc. verbs 44 f. Uses of the aorist
and inf. 240.)
190 ff., 205, 207 ff., 218. Gnomic
Accusative absolute 251 f.
aorist 193 f. Epistolary aorist 194.
Active 180 ff. With intransitive
Moods of the aorist : imperative
meaning 182 f. For middle 183 f.
194 ff._infinitive 196 f., 202, 231,
237–participle 197 f., 204.--con-
junctive 208 ff., 211 ff. Aorist indic.
Adjective-Inflection and degrees of with åv 207, cp. Indicative.
comparison 32 ff. Syntax 140 ff.
Feminine (masc., neut.) of adj. with
Apocalypse, solecisms in, 80 f. Other
ellipse of a subst. 140 f. Neuter details in Ap.: 117 (instrumental èv
adj. (sing, and plur.) used substan-
frequent), 123 (els not used for ¢v),
tivally of persons 82, 156. Other
126 (èş frequent), 128 (èvÚTLOV etc.),
instances of independent use of adj.
132 (oúv never used), 135 (ůmb with
without subst. (with and without
acc. never), 138 (zapá with acc.
article) 154 ff. Neuter adj. with
never), 152 (’Inools without art. ),
179 (étepos never), 200 (perfect for
verb 141. Adj. as attribute with
aorist), 211 (omws never), 211 f. (lva
article, predicative (and partitive)
with fut.), 266 (uère never), 274
adj. without art. 158. Position 289.
(yàp).
Adjective, verbal: has (almost) dis-
Aposiopesis 291, 294.
appeared 37, 64, 206 note 2.
Apposition with and without the
Adverbs of manner 58. Derived from
article 152, 162 f. (159 note 4),
participles 58. Adverbs of place
242 f. (participles). Apposition of
58 f. Adv. of time 59. Correlative
sentences 293.
adverbs 59 f. Interrogative adv. | Aramaic 4f.
304
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
305
Arrangement of words § 82, 295 ff.
Article-- ó Tó. With crasis 18 f.
Uses 145 ff. As pronoun 145 f.
Individual or generic 146 ff., 155.
Anaphoric sense of art. 146, 148-
152, 233 (infin.), etc. Omission of
art. 147 ff. : usually omitted with
| Attic declension 25. Attic future
41 f.
Attraction of the relative 173 f.
Attractio inversa 174 f. Attraction
in the case of a relative adverb 258.
Augment (syllabic and temporal) 37
ff. In compound verbs 39. Double
augment in verbs compounded of
two prepositions 39.
with ordinal numbers 149: after
the relative 174: with abstract
nouns 150 : with nouns governing a
Brachylogy 294.
Breathing, rough and smooth, 15 f.
In Semitic words 16.
Cardinal numbers 35. Used instead
of ordinals 144.
Causal particles 261, 274 f.
Causal sentences 274, 254 f. (negative
ou).
Causative verbs with a double accusa-
174 note 1. Art. with proper
names 151 f., 95: with place-names
152 f.: names of countries 153 :
names of rivers and seas 153 :
names of nations 153 f. Art. with
adjectives 154 ff., 158. With parti-
ciples 156 f., 158, 242 ff. With
adverbs 157, 159. With preposi-
tional expressions 94, 157, 159 f.
At the beginning of a defining
clause 159. Art. governing the
genitive 157, 159. Art. with
several defining clauses 160. Re-
peated after ó öllos, ol loltrol 160 f.
Art. with oûtos, ékeivos 161, 172.
With aútós 161, 170. With pos-
sessives (LOLOS) 169. Not with
ŠKUotos 161. With Glos, mâs (äras)
161 f. With appositional phrases
162 f. Repetition of art. in the
case of several connected sub-
stantives 163. Art. with infinitive
233 ff. To prefixed to indirect
questions 158: prefixed to quota-
tions of words and sentences 158.
Article, indefinite : beginnings of (els)
Clement of Rome, Epistle to the
144.
Aspirate, doubling of the, 11.
Assertion, sentences of : with Óri etc.
222, 230 ff., 272. Negative où 254 f.
Assertion, particles of 261, 272.
Assimilation of consonants 11 f.: in
independent words 11 f. Ass. in
gender of the subject (pronoun) to
the predicate 77. Of nulous to the
genitive which it governs 97. Of
the relative : see Attraction.
Assurance, sentences denoting, 260.
Asyndeton 276 ff. (299). Between
Corinthians 1.
Climax 301 f.
Common speech of the Hellenistic
period 2 ff. Differences which may
be traced in it 3 note 1, 33 note 1.
Compact (or periodic) form of speech
275, 279 f.
Comparative 33 ff. Adjectival comp.
of adverbs 34 f., 58. Used instead
of superlative 33, 141 f. Corre-
sponding to English positive 142.
Heightening of comp. 143. Eva
after a comp. with 7 228.
Comparative particles 261, 270 f.
Comparison of adjective (and adverb)
33 ff.
Composition, proper and improper
65, cp. Word-formation.
Composition (arrangement) of words
295 ff.
Concessive particles 261, 275.
Concessive sentences 215, 248 (parti-
cipial), 275.
Conditional particles 213 f., 261, 271.
tain imperatives 278. Between
clauses and sentences (thoughts,
paragraphs) 278 ff., 267, 271. Cp.
250 (participles). New subject
introduced with a fresh start (5
ÅTOO TÁOews) 279, cp. Figures of
speech.
221, 271, 254 (negative où and uń).
Conjugation, system of 36 f.
Conjunctions, see Particles.
Conjunctive of verbs in -ów 48. Its
use in principal sentences 208 ff.
Its use to supplement and take the
place of the imperative 208 f. With
306
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
où uń 209 f. In questions 210. Its | Diaeresis, marks of 16 f.
use in subordinate sentences 211 ff.
Diminutives 63 f.
In indirect questions 211. In final
sentences 21lf. After uń 212 f.
Disjunctive particles 261, 266.
In conditional sentences 213 ff. In Division of words. See Words.
concessive sentences 215 f. In rela Doubling of consonants 10 f. Of
tive sentences 216 ff. In temporal
aspirates, 11.
sentences 218 f. After Iva 221 ff.
Dual, disappearance of the, 3, 36, 76.
After aplv 229. Conj. of the pre-
sent, aorist, perfect, see Present,
Duality no longer distinguished (or
Aorist, Perfect. The conj. nega-
scarcely so) from plurality 3, 34, 36.
tived by uń 253.
Consecutive particles 261, 272 ff.
Elative 33, 143. Distinguished from
superlative 33 note l.
Consecutive sentences with ώστε (ως)
223 f., 272. With iva 224 f.
Elision 18. Neglected in some com-
pound words 70. Avoids hiatus
Consonants-Variable final conson 296 f.
ants 19 f. Interchange of conson-
Ellipse § 81, 291 ff. Of the verb 'to
ants 23 f. Orthography 10 ff. Single
be: 72 ff. Of other verbs 292 ff.
and double cons. 10 f. Assimilation
Of the subject 75. Of a substantive
llf. Rendering of Semitic cons.
(usually feminine) with an adjective
12 f. : of Latin cons. 13.
etc. 140 f. Of the object 292. Cp.
Constructio ad sensum 79, 166.
180 and 292 (ällos). 269 (åll'iva).
Continuous style 275 f.
Absence of the apodosis 271, 294.
Contraction 22 f. In the 1st and 2nd Epanadiplosis 301.
declensions 25. In the 3rd declen-
Epidiorthosis 282, 303.
sion 27. In verbs 47 f.
Co-ordination of finite verbs and
participial expressions 249 ff. Feminine (of the pronoun) instead of
Copulative particles 261 ff.
neuter 82.
Correlative pronouns 36, 178 f. Cor-
Figures of speech 295 ff. Gorgian
relative adverbs 59 f.
figures 295 f., 298 f. Oratorical
299 ff. Figures of thought 302 f.
Crasis 18 f.
The figure 5 år OOTÓOEWS 279 : ånd
KOLVOÛ 291.
Dative-As the necessary complement ! Final particles 211, 261, 272.
of the verb 109 ff.; Ďat. commodi
Final sentences 211 f., 207, 220 (223,
et incommodi 111. Dat. with elul
225 ff., 272), 291 (position).
etc. lllf. With the (perfect) pas-
sive 112f. Ethic dative 113. Dat.
Formation of words. See Word-
of community 113 ff. With words
formation.
compounded with prepositions 114 Future-Only one form of the fut. in
(ouv), 115 f. Instrumental dat. 116 f. each voice 36. But by means of
Dat. of cause or occasion 117. Dat. periphrasis a fut. perf. is formed
of respect 117. Dat. of manner
37, 202: and a fut. expressing con-
118 f. Dat. of verbal subst. used tinuance 204. The moods denote
with its cognate verb 119. Tem relative time 187; they are becom-
poral dat. 119 f. Also used for ing obsolete 37 (cp. 211). Forma-
duration of time 121. Periphrasis tion of the fut. 41 ff. Fụt. of
for dat. with els or ev 109 f. 124, 131 ; deponent verbs 44 f. Use of the
with šui pool ev or evúrlov 128. Dat. fut. 201 f., 208 ff. Interchangeable
of the infinitive 236 ; after èv 237.
with the present 189. Fut. for
Demonstrative pronouns 35 f. Uses
optative 220. For imperative 209,
of, 170 ff. Preceding an infinitive
253. Interchangeable with the
229. Used to connect sentences
conjunctive in principal clauses
276. Demonstrative adverbs 58 f.
208 ff.: with où uñ 209 f.: in ques-
tions 210: in subordinate clauses
Derivatives of compounds (Tapaoúv 211 ff. Fut. after öte 218. With
Deta) 65.
opelov 220. Fut. infinitive (rare)
Design, sentences of. See Final Sen 37, 202, 231. Fut. participle (rare)
tences.
37, 202.
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
307
Genitive with nouns 95 ff., 159 f. | Hiatus avoided in artistic prose 296.
(article). Gen. of origin and In the Epistle to the Hebrews 296 f.
membership 95 f. With elval and
Hyperbaton 290.
ylveo da. 95f., 99. Objective gen.
96 (168). Gen. of the whole (parti-
tive) 96 ff., 144, 159 (position):
with verbs 100 ff. : as subject or
Imperative-Termination -Dav 46.
Uses of the imperat. 220. Present
object 97. Gen. of the country to
and aorist imp. 194 ff. Perf. imp.
define particular places 97: with
the art. 153 f. Gen. of quality etc.
200 f. : periphrasis for perf. imp.
(gen. for adj.) 98 f. Of content 98.
201. Periphrasis for pres. imp. 203 f.
Of apposition 98. Several genitives
Imp. supplemented or replaced by
connected with a single noun 99 f.
the conj. 208 f., 213: by the fut.
Gen. with verbs 100 ff.: verbs of
209: by iva with conj. 209, 222: by
touching and seizing 101 f.; of
the infin. 222. Imp. for optative
attaining, desiring 102: verbs de-
220. Imp. used with asyndeton,
noting to be full, to fill 102 f.: of
278.
perception 103: of remembering, Imperfect-Terminations 46. Uses of
forgetting 103 f.: of emotion 104: the impf. 190 ff. With relative
of ruling, excelling 104: of accus meaning, 192. Denoting unreality
ing etc. 104f. Gen.of price 105. With 205 f. Impf. of verbs denoting
verbs denoting separation 105 f. necessity etc. 206. Impf. (with dv)
With compounds of katá (°F) 106. denoting indefinite repetition 207.
With adjectives and adverbs 106 f. Impf. with ote 218. Periphrasis
(114 f.). With the comparative for the impf. 203 f.
(and superlative) 107 f. Local and Impersonal verbs 75. Periphrastically
temporal gen. 108 f. With prepo expressed 204. Construction 227 f.,
sitions 124 ff., 132 ff., 136 ff. Peri. 252 (participle).
phrases for gen. with čutr poo dev,
Indefinite pronouns 177 f.
EvÚTLOV 128 : with €, å6 96'f., 100
f., 144, 125 f.: with Kará 133.
Indicative 205 ff. Ind. of unreality
Article with the gen. 156 f. Gen.
(with and without öv) 205 ff. Used
of the infinitive 234 ff.: dependent
for expressions of necessity etc. 206.
on a preposition 237.
Denoting an impracticable wish 206
f. A practicable wish (fut. ind.)
Genitive absolute 251 f. Without
220. Used instead of the optative
noun or pronoun 252.
and áv 207. Used with áv in sub-
Gorgian figures 295 f., 298 f.
ordinate clauses to denote indefinite
repetition 207. In hypothetical
sentences (ind. of reality and un.
Hebrew, its influence on the Greek of
reality) 205 f., 213 ff. Fut. ind.
the N.T., 4 f. and passim.
interchangeable with conjunct. in
principal clauses 208 ff.: for impera-
Hebrews, Epistle to the. Its artistic
tive 209 : with oỦ uń 209 f.: in
style 1, 5, 280 f. (construction of
questions 210 (pres. ind. ibid.): in
sentences), 288 f. (position of words),
subordinate clauses 211 ff. (Pres.
296 f. (avoidance of hiatus), 297 f.
ind, not used in final sentences 212.
(verse), 301 (figures of speech), 279
Aorist and perfect ind. after un 213.
and 302 (asyndeton). Details:-24
Fut. ind. after sáv 215 : after os av
(Toppw[Dev]): 52 (Eque): 100: 127
217. Ind. after őtav 218 f.). Nega-
(éws not used as a preposition): 139
tived by oů (uń) 253 ff.
note 2 (does not use mapá with dat.):
155 (neut. adj. with genitive): 166
Indirect speech 220, 231. Mixture of
(nueis for èyó): 202 (fut. inf.): 213
direct and indirect speech 286.
(poßoüuae viñ): 223 (iva only used as Infinitive 221 ff. Periphrasis with
a final particle): 231 f. (inf. with eival for pres. inf. 203 f. Inf. with
verbs of believing): 260 (ońmov): Mérlw a periphrasis for fut. 204 f.
263 (te fairly frequent): 267 (also Periphrasis for inf. with iva 221-230:
Mév): 274 (88ev, dióti).
with őti 222, 230 ff. Inf. for
Hellenistic language, see Common
imperat. 222. Expressing a wish in
epistolary style 222. Inf. absolute
speech, Popular language.
225. Inf. of aim or object 223.
Hexameter in the N.T. 297.
Of result 223 ff. After verbs of
308
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
wishing, striving etc. 225 ff. (after | Latin, its influence on the Greek of
dpxouac 227, 245). After impersonal the N.T. 4, 63 (terminations in
expressions, adjectives etc. 227 f. -Lavós), 76 (ikavby etc.), 95 (ård
Explanatory inf. 229. After rpív otadlwy DEKAT ÉVTE), 126 f. (IT po
229 (IT PÒ ToỞ ibid.). After verbs of huepôn Toũ Tảoxa), 230 ? (inf. pass.
(perceiving), believing, (showing), for act.), 238 ? (acc. of the reflexive
saying 230 ff. Never used with iv in the acc. and inf.).
233. Inf. pass. for inf. act. 230, Literary language 1 f., 5, and passim.
240 f. Present and aorist inf. 196 f.,
Luke (Gospel and Acts). Style 1, 5,
202, 231, 237. Future inf. (rare)
37, 197, 202, 205, 231. Inf. with
203 note 2, 250 f. (Acts), 261, 276,
278, 280, 299, 301 (speeches in the
the article 233 ff.: after prepositions
Acts). Details : 5 (üdlęcs),
236 f. Cases with the inf. (nom.
24
and acc. with inf.) 237 ff. Inf.
(troppw[@ev]), 37 and 211 and 220 f.
(optat.), 52 (elue), 74 (vvbuati in
negatived by un 253, 255.
Acts), 100, 101 (peldouai), 112 note
Interrogative particles 259 f.
1, 122 f. (els for év, esp. in Acts),
128 (èvÚTLOV), 132 Couv), 133 (kará
Interrogative pronouns 176 f. Con-
with gen.), 134 (ou and metá, Acts),
fused with relatives 175 f. Used in
141 (åvnp 'Ioudałos), 146 (ó mèv oŮv,
exclamations 178 f., cp. 258 (ad-
Acts), 152 f. (Acts), 158 (td prefixed
verbs).
to indirect questions), 161, 164.
Interrogative sentences, direct 259 f., (aúrós), 170 (kal OÛTOS), 173 (60TLS),
220. With oů and a fut. = impera 179 (étepos), 188 (historic present
tive 209. With où un 210. Ques rare), 197 (Acts, fut. inf.), 202 (fut.
tions of doubt and deliberation 210. inf. and part.), 203 (periphrasis for
Questions with yáp 274 f. Indirect imperf. etc.), 206 note 1 (Acts),
interrog. sentences 211, 220, 230, 211 (6mws Šv), 213 (poßoüual uń), 223
240. With the article to prefixed (Acts, iva generally has its correct
158.-Oratorical questions etc. 268, classical sense), 227 and 230 (keleów,
274, 303.
áčcm), 227 note 1 (äpxomai), 230 (ús
for tl), 231 (indirect speech), 231 f.
Irony 303.
(inf. with verbs of believing and
Isocolon 295.
saying), 233 (inf. with art.), 234 f.
(gen. of the inf., Acts), 236 (Ocà td
with inf.), 237 (év TQ with aor. inf.),
246 (Acts), 253 (Acts), 255 f. (où
James, Epistle of. Character of its with part.), 259 (åpáſye]), 260 (et
style 279. Details : 127 (ëws), 223 with direct questions), 260 f. (ye),
(iva only used as a final particle), 263 f. (Te, Acts), 267 and 273 (Acts,
233 (inf. with art.), 235 (Toû with Mév; Mèv pův), 268 (Gosp., Thýv), 270
inf.), 267 (uév almost unrepresented), (ugel), 272 (temporal ws), 274 (Acts,
274 (OLÓTL).
816), 274 (OLÓti, kaObri), 276 (TOTE,
Acts). —Preface to the Gospel 49,
John (Gospel and Epistles). Style
280. Distinctions between 1st and
261, 276, 278, 279 (Epp.), 291.
2nd parts of the Acts 203 note 2,
Details : 97, 100 (KoivwvEîv TLVL),
116 (év), 128 (ÉvÚLov), 204 (peri-
122 f. (els for év), 126 (è frequent),
phrasis for impf.), 249. —Speech of
127 (€ws, Méxpi, expl absent), 128,
Paul before Agrippa (Acts xxvi.) 5,
132 (oúv almost unrepresented),
20, and 127 (éveka), 33 (åkpißéotatos),
135 (úró with acc. almost unrepre-
50 (loaolv), 156 (TD owdekádulov),
sented), 138 (trapá with acc. absent),
199 (üynuai for vyoûual), 220 (eúčal-
146 (ó de not frequent), 152 ('Ingolls:
unu äv), 238.
often used without the art.), 169
(εμός frequent), 171 (εκείνος largely
used), 173 (80tis rare), 179 (étepos
hardly ever used), 203 note 2, 211 Mark-Style 203 note 2, 261, 276,
(όπως hardly ever), 223 (ίνα freely 278. Details: 127 (€ws), 128 (ėvÚTLOV
used), 236 (els td with inf. unused), not used), 138 (Trapá with acc. only
249 f., 266 (uè absent from the in local sense), 164 (aŭrbs), 179
Epistles), 272 (temporal ús), 272 f. (never étepos), 203 (periphrasis for
(oûv), 274 (yáp not common), 276 impf. etc.), 223 (free use of iva),
(τότε ούν, μετά τούτο or ταύτα).
227 note 1 (åpxovai), 233 f. (nom.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
309
acc. and gen. of the inf. with art.), , Paraleipsis 302 f.
268 (ilv).
Parechesis 295, 298 f.
Matthew-Style 276, 278, 299. De Parenthesis 281 f. Indicated by de
tails : 122 (els and év distinguished),
267, 269.
127 (@ws), 128 (èvÚTLOV not used),
Parison 295, 299.
138 (mapá with acc. only in local
sense), 164 (aŭtós), 173 (ootls), 179
Paromoion 295.
(ČTepos), 200 (yéyovev for aorist), 223 Paronomasia 298 f.
(free use of iva), 226 and 230 Participle, present and aorist 197 f.,
(Keleów), 227 note 1 (dpxomai), 250, 204 (aor. part. with Elvai).
233 f. (nom. acc. and gen. of the Fut. part. rare 37, 202, 205, 244,
inf. with art.), 268 (tv), 276 248, 253. Fut. part. pass. 202.
(tote).
Uses of the part. 242 ff. Part. as
Metaplasmus in the declensions 28 £, attribute (or in apposition) 156 f.
32.
(article), 242 f. Part. representing
Middle voice 180 f. Future mid. for
à substantive 157 (article), 243 f.
active verbs 42 f. Aorist (and fut.)
Ilâs (ó) with part. 162, 243 f.
pass. or mid. 44 f. Uses of the
Participle as part of the predicate
middle 185 ff. Active for mid.
37 and 202 ff. (periphrases), 244 ff.
183 f.
Conjunctive part. and part. absolute
247 ff. Pleonastic use with finite
Mixed declension 31.
vb. of part. belonging to the vb.
Modern Greek 2, and passim.
251. Part. negatived by uń 253,
Mountains, names of, 31 f.
255 f. (part. with article takes où by
a Hebraism 255).—Perf. part. pass.
with the genitive 107.-Free use of
Negatives 253 ff., 214, 216.
the part. 284 f. Finite verb in
Neuter plural with sing. or plur. verb
place of part. 285.
78 f. * Adjectival predicate in the
Particles 60 f. Uses 259 ff. Co-
neuter 76 f. : use of ti and oudév as ordinating and subordinating parti-
predic. 76 f. : of TOÛTO 77: of Ti 177.
cles 261. Particles used with a
7 OTLV 77. Neuter of pronouns participle 247 f., 252 f. Position
etc. used as acc. of the inner object
of the particle 290.
91. Neut. of the adj. (or part.) Passive 180 f., 184 f. Pass. of de-
used in sing. or plur. of persons 82, ponent verbs 184. Of intransitive
156, 244. Other uses of independent verbs 184 f. Impersonal pass. 75
neut. adj. (or part.) 155 ff., 244. (185). Construction of the pass.
Nominative 84 ff. Used where a
with the accusative 93. With the
proper name is introduced 84 f.
dative 112 f., 185. Infin. pass. for
Used in a parenthesis interrupting
act. 230, 240 f.
the construction (also in statements Paul-Style 1, 5, 251, 276 (Ephesians
of time) 85, 282. Double nom. 85 f. and Colossians), 281 (bis), 284f., 290,
Nom. for vocative 86 f. Nom. of 300 (1 Cor.), 301 ff. (figures), 302,
the infinitive 233 f. Nom. absolute 303, 303 (Rom. and Cor.). Details :
251, 283 with note l. Nom. of the 100, 101 (peldomai), 111 (dative), 127
participle (solecism) 81 note 1, 285. (ws), 131 f., 134 (Philippians and
Nominative with the infinitive 237 ff.
Pastoral Epp.), 135 (útép), ibid.
Numerals 35. Syntax 144 f., 160 and
(ŮTÉp with gen.), 155 (neut. adj.
162 (the article).
with gen.), 166 (nuels and éyo), 171
(aúrd TOÛTO), 173 (ős and őOTIS), 179
(@repos), 200 (perf. for aor.), 206
Optative becoming obsolète 37. Fut.
note 1, 211 (őrws not frequent), 213
opt. no longer found 37.. Termina-
(poßoüual uń), 230 f. (ws for őri, ás
tions 46 f. Remaining uses of the
ÖTL), 231 f. (verbs of believing and
opt. 219 ff. Replaced by the in-
saying), 233 (inf. with article), 233
dicative 207. :
f. (acc. of inf., gen. of inf.), 236 (els
TÒ with inf.), 259 (åpa, åpá ye), 267
Ordinal numbers, cardinals used in-
(uév), 268 (
o v), 271 (ettep; eite ...
stead of, 144. Omission of the EiTE), 272 (“vika; temporal üs), 273
article with them 149.
(åpa), 274 (obri), 279 (the figure és
Orthography (§ 3) 6 ff.
åTOOTáoews), 280 f., 282 ff. (anacolu-

310
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
thon), 298 f. (paronomasia), 299 | Polysyndeton 277..
(dwelling on a word; paromoion, | Popular language, the Hellenistic, 1 f.
antithesis).-Speech before Agrippa
(Acts xxvi.), see Luke.
Position of words. See Words.
Perfect, periphrasis for, 37, 202 f.
Positive for comparative 143.
Terminations of the perf. 46. Uses Possessive pronouns 35. Their uses ,
of the perf. 198 ff. Perf. for aorist 168 f. With and without the article
200. În relative sense for pluperf. 169.
200. After öte 218. Moods 200 f.
Predicate (nominal). Agreement with
Perf. conjunctive 213 note 2.
the subject 76 f. Without the
Periodic (or compact) form of speech article 147. With the article 156
275, 279 ff.
f., 243. Predicative adjective with-
Periods 279 ff., 283, 300, 280 and
out the art. 158, 169 (possessives).
302 (periods where asyndeton is
Predicate with an infinitive, its
case 241 f. Participle as part. of
used).
the predicate 244 ff. (202 ff.). Ús
Periphrasis of verbal forms 37, 201
with a predicate 270 f.
(bis), 202 ff.
Personal pronouns 35. Uses 164 ff.
Predicate (verbal) takes its number
Nom. used for emphasis 164. Fre-
from the nominal predicate 78 f.
quent use of the personal pronouns
Prepositions 121 ff. Prepositions:
164 f. Used instead of reflexives proper and improper (quasi-preposi-
165, 167 f. Unenclitic forms of the tions) 121 f. With the accusative
pron. of the 1st pers. 165. Inter-
121-124. With the genitive 124-
change of personal and possessive
130. With the dative 130-132.
pronouns 168 f. Pleonastic pron. With two cases 132-135. With
after the relative 175, 283.
three cases 136-140. Prep. with
the infinitive 236 f., 239. Prep.
Persons—3rd pers. plur. = 'one'
(Germ. man) 75. 1st pers. plur.
omitted in the case of assimilation
of the relative 174. Prep. repeated
for 1st pers. sing. 166.
or not repeated with several con-
Peter (esp. the 1st Epistle). Details: nected nouns 291.
100 (KOLVWvElv), 101 (peldouai 2 Pet.), Present–New formation of pres. tense
179 (étepos never used), 223 (Iva only from the perf. 40 f. Other new
used in final sense). 266 f. (uév
forms of pres. 41. Periphrasis for
fairly often in 1 Pet., never in 2
pres. 203 f. Uses of the pres. 187
Pet.), 271 (ettep; eite ... Eite), 274 ff. Conative pres. 187. * Aoristic
(dlóti), 288 (position of words).
pres. 188. Historic pres. 188.
Place-names 31 f. With and without Pres. with perfect sense 188 f.
the article 152 f.
Pres. for future 189, 219. Pres.
denoting relative time 189 f. Moods
Play on words. See Words.
194 ff. Imperative 194 ff. Infini-
Pleonasm 294 f., 59 and 295 (år? tive 196 f. Participle 197 f. Con-
ävwdev and similar phrases), 143 and junctive 208 ff., 211 ff. Pres. indic.
295 (uâlloy with a comparative), with ote 218.
175 and 251 f. (pers. pronoun), 180 Prodiorthosis 282, 303.
(ËTepol), 227 note 1 and 249 (ápxo-
mai), 255 (un), 263 (olla kai), 269
Pronouns 35 f. Syntax 164 ff. Pron.
note 1 (arx').
as predicate brought into agreement
with the noun 77. Pron. as subject
Pluperfect, periphrasis for, 37, 202 f.
agreeing with the predicate 77.
Augment generally wanting 37.
Terminations 47. Uses of plupf.
Proper names, Semitic, declinable and
201, 206 (unreality).
indeclinable 29 f. Hypocoristic
Plural used of a single person 83, 166
(abbreviated) proper names 70f.
Proper names with and without
(ņuees). The plurals aiūves, oủpavol
etc. 83 f. Names of feasts' 84.
the article 151 f., 162 f. Omission
Plur. of abstract words 84. Plur.
of article with substantive which
(and sing.) of verb with neut. plur.
has a proper name dependent on it.
151.
subject 78 f. Collective words 79.
Plur, in the case of a complex sub-
Prothetic vowel 23.
ject 79 f.
Punctuation 17.
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
311
Symploce (figure of speech) 300.
Temporal particles 261, 272.
Temporal sentences 272. Moods used
in them 221. Negative où 254 f.
Reduplication 38 f. In compound
verbs 39. Cf. Doubling.
Reflexive pronouns 35. Their uses
166 ff. În the acc. and inf. con-
struction 238 f.
Relative pronouns 36. Uses 172 ff.
Confusion of relatives and inter-
rogatives 175 f.
Relative sentences equivalent to parti-
ciples 242f. Môods in relative
sentences 216 ff. Negative oủ and
uń 254. Noun attracted into the
relative clause 174. Clause with
kal ... (aútoh) linked on to a relative
clause 175, 286.
Rhythm 296, 297 f.
River-names 31 f., with the article
Verse in the N.T., specimens of, 297f.
Vocative-Use 86 f. Position 289 f.
153.
Semitic 'words, transcription of 12 f.,
16 f.
Senarii in the N.T. 298.
Sense-lines, writing in, 17.
Sentences, connexion of, 275 ff.
Singular-Collective use of the masc.
sing. (of substantives and adjectives)
82. Of the neut. sing. 82, 155 f.
Sing. (or plur.) used of objects
which belong to several persons 83.
Sing. verb with neut. plur. subject
78. Number of the verb in the
case of collective words 79 : in the
case of a complex subject 79 f.
Solecisms 76, 80 f.
Sound-changes, general (in the case of
El and i adscript) 6. Sporadic (8 6)
20 ff.
Superlative has (almost) disappeared
33 f. (58), 141 ff.
Wish, sentences expressing a, 206 f.,
219f., 222 (infin.).
Words, division of, 13f.
Word-formation 61 ff. By composi-
tion 65 ff.
Words, play on, 298 f.
Words, position of, $ 80, 287 ff. Ordi-
nary rules 287 f. Position of enclitic
words 288. Position of the govern-
ing gen. before the dependent gen.
99 f. Of the attribute (adj., gen.
etc.) 158 ff., 288 f. Of the adverb
289. Of the partitive genitive 159.
Of the possessives and the possessive
gen. of the personal pron. 168 f.,
288. Of ékelvov and toutov 169. Of
several defining clauses 160. Of
ούτος αnd εκείνος 172. Of the voca-
tive 289 f. Of ¢VEKEV and other
quasi-prepositions 127, 290. Of ár
205 f., 216. Of the negative 257.
Of T€ 265. Of åpa and tolvuv 273.
Of the subordinating conjunction
(and the relative) 283 note 2, 290.
Separation of the participle from
the inf. dependent on it 243.
Zeugma 292.
II. INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
225.
Η
A interchanged with € 20 f. With o, aipéw aor. 45, 52: fut. 52.
21. With ω 22.
-αίρω aor. -άρα 40.
-a, -as etc. for -ov, -es etc. in the 2nd
aor. 45 f. In the impf. 46.
αίρω intransit. 183.
αγαθοεργέω, -ουργέω 22, 67, 70.
αισθάνομαι τι 103.
αγαθός, degrees of comparison 34.
αισχύνομαι with από 88. With inf.
αγαλλιάω, -άομαι 32. Aor. 44. Con-
struction 118, 225, 245.
αιτέω and αιτέομαι distinguished 186.
αγανακτέω περί τινος 135.
Constr. 91, 226, 230, 241.
αγγαρεύω and έγγ. 20 f. Constr. 226.
αιώνες 83.
αγγέλλω, aor. pass. 43, 52.
αιώνιος, 2 and 3 terminations 33.
dye with plur. 85 note l.
“Ακελδεμάχ 12,
άγια, τα 84. τα άγ. των αγίων 84, 143.
ακολουθέω constr. 113 f.
αγορά without article, 148 f.
ακούω fut. 42, 52. Constr. 103, 231,
239, 246. With perfect sense 188.
άγριέλαιος, η 67.
ακροβυστία 67.
áypós without art. 148.
άκρος, το άκρον with gen. 158.
άγω, aor. 43, 52. Intrans. 182. άγει
τρίτην ταύτην ημέραν 75.
ακύλων αγuilo 13.
αγωνίζομαι ίνα 225.
αλάβαστρος, o and η 26.
αδελφός to be supplied with a genitive
άλα(s), τo, for οι άλες 27.
95.
άλεκτοροφωνία 68. -ας answering the
αδελφότης 63.
question When? 109.
άδης : εν τω άδη, εις άδην (not"Αιδου)
αλήθεια, επ' αληθείας 137.
96.
αλήθω for αλέω 52.
αδικέομαι let myself be wronged’ αληθώς λέγω υμίν 141 note 2.
185. αδικώ with perfect sense 188.
αλιεύς plur. -εείς 22.
'Αδρίας, ο 153.
αλλά 60, 267 . ου μόνον ... αλλά (και)
αεί not often used, πάντοτε used in 267. αλλ' ού 267 f. αλλά γε 261,
stead 59.
268. αλλά και, αλλ' ουδε 269. αλλ'
άζυμα, τα 84.
ίνα 269, 293.
"Αζωτος 24.
άλλομαι 52.
αι interchanged with e 9.
άλλος and έτερος 179 f. With article
-au of verbal terminations subject to
repeated 160 f. άλλος προς άλλον
elision 296 f.
170. Ellipse of a. 180, 292. άλλ' ή
269 with note 1.
-αι optat. 46 f.
άλων, ή, for άλως 29.
Αίγυπτος without art. 153.
άμα 60. With dat. 15. With par-
-αιεν optat. 46.
ticiple 252 f.
Αίλαμίται 9.
αμαρτάνω 52. Fut. and aor. 42 f.
αίματα 84.
Constr. 128, 245.
-αίνω aor, -ανα 40.
| αμαρτία without art. 150.
312
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
313
αμαρτωλός 64.
αμελέω with gen. 104.
αμύνεσθαι for -ειν 185.
αμφιάζω, -έζω 52, 20, 41.
αμφότεροι 36. With art. 161, 162.
-av for -a in acc. of 3rd decl. 26.
-αν for -ασι in perf. 46.
αν 60, 259. With indic. 205 Η.
With conjunct. 211 f., 216 f., 219.
With fut. (and pres.) indic.
217. With optat. 220. Not with
infin. 233. Not with part. 253.
όπως άν 211 f. ώς άν 272. Omission
of άν with όστις ? 217. With έως,
άχρι, μέχρι 219.
av for éáv 'if' 60.
åvá with acc. 122. Stereotyped as an
adverb 122, 145, 179. ανά μέσον
122, 129.
ανάγαιον (ανώγ.) 9, 22, 67. ανώγεων
incorrect form 25.
αναγινώσκω constr. 230 note 4.
ανάγκη without εστίν 73. Constr.
239 f.
αναθάλλω aor. -έθαλον 43, 54.
ανάθεμα for -ημα 62f.
ανακάμπτω intrans. 182.
αναλόω 52.
αναμιμνήσκω, -ομαι constr. 104, 226.
αναπαύομαι fut. and aor. 44, 56.
ανάπειρος for -ηρος 9.
αναστρέφω intrans. 182.
ανατίθεμαι τινι 116.
ανατολαί plur. 83 f. Without art.
148. η ανατολή “ the East' 148.
αναφαίνω γήν 183.
ανέθη. See ανίημι.
ανέλεος 66.
άνεμος omitted 141.
άνευ with gen. 127.
ανέχομαι augment 39, 54. Constr.
104.
ανήκεν 206.
ανήρ Ιουδαίος etc. 141. άνδρες και
γυναίκες 289.
άνθρωπος : πάντες άνθρωποι 161.
ανίημι 51. ανέθη 38.
ανίστημι : pleonastic use of αναστάς
249: of 'ανάστηθι (και) 249, 278.
ανέστηκε not used for is risen ' 199.
"Αννα 11, 30.
"Αννας 11, 30.
ανοίγω 56. Augment etc. 39, 56.
Aor. and fut. pass. 43.
αντέχομαι with gen. 102.
αντί with gen. 124. άνθ' ών 124. αντί
του with inf. 237. Construction
with compounds of αντί 116.
αντικρύς 20. With gen. 128.
αντιλαμβάνομαι with gen. 102.
αντιλέγω with μή and inf. 255.
αντιπέρα 7.
άνωθεν and απ' άν. 59.
ανώτερον 35.
άξιος constr. 106 (gen.), 218, 228, 235.
αξιώ constr. 105 (gen.), 226, 241.
απαγγέλλω constr. 226, 230 note 4,
232.
απαιτεω 186.
απαντάω 52, fut. 42.
απαρνέομαι aor. 44 f. Pass. 184.
Constr. 232, 255 (μή ειnd inf. ).
απάρτι 14.
άπας beside πας 161 with note 1.
With art. 161 f.
απειλέομαι 52. Constr. 226.
απείραστος κακών 106.
απεκδύομαι 185.
'Απελλής beside 'Απολλώς -ώνιος 21,
71. Declension 31.
απέναντι 14. With gen. 127 f.
απέρχομαι : pleonastic use of απελθών
249.
απέχω, -ομαι constr. 105, 182. απέχει
75. απέχω = απείληφα 188.
από with gen., 124 f. For εξ 124 f.
Denoting extraction (place of birth)
125. For partitive gen. 96, 125 :
do. with verbs 100 f. For υπό 125
(also with passive verbs). For παρά
125, 103 (ακούω). For gen. of
separation 105 f., 125 f. With
κρύπτω 91. With φεύγω, φυλάσσομαι
etc. 87 f., 126. With adjectives
106. Answering the question How
far distant ? 95. από προσώπου τινός
83, 129. από τ. στόματός τινός 130.
αφ' ης 140. από μιάς 140 f. από
τότε 276.
απόκειται with inf. 228.
αποκόπτομαι 186.
αποκρίνομαι 55. Fut. and aor. 44,
18i. Constr. 232, 249 (with λέγων και
αποκριθείς είπεν etc.), cp. 278.
αποκτείνω, -έννω 41, 55. Aor, pass.
| 44, 55. Use of the verb 184.
314
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
απολείπεται with inf. 228.
Η ασπάζομαι 194. ασπάσασθε aor. 196.
απόλλυμι 56.
αστήρ, -έρες without art. 147.
'Απολλώς, -ώνιος, 'Απελλής 21, 71. άστοχέω constr. 105.
Declension 31.
dotpa without art. 147.
απολογέομαι τινι 10.
άτερ with gen. 127.
απoρέομαι constr. 88.
αυθεντέω τινός 104.
απορίπτω intrans. 182.
αύξω, -άνω 53, 183 (intrans.).
αποστέλλω constr. 223, 226, 230.
αύρα omitted 140.
αποστρέφω intrans. 182.
αυτο- in composition 69, 70.
αποτάσσομαι τινι 110.
αυτόματος 69. -μάτη 33. Adj. for
αποφθέγγομαι constr. 232.
adν. 141.
άπτομαι with gen. 101.
αυτός self' 170, 168 (α. δι' εαυτού
'Απφία 24.
etc.), 171 (αυτό τούτο). He' (em-
άρα, άραγε 60, 216, 259 f., 273. άρα
phatic) 164, 168 f. (αυτού his ').
ούν 273.
ίδιος αυτού 169. αυτού etc. used with
disregard to formal agreement 166.
άρα, αρά γε 60, 259.
Frequent use of αυτού etc. 164 f.,
'Αραβία with and without article 153. 251 f., and 283. Do. (after a rela-
αργός, -ή 32 f.
tive) 175. και ... αυτου after a
relative clause 175. ó autós constr.
αργύρια 84.
114, 179, 263. επί το αυτό 136.
αρέσκω constr. 110, 128.
αυτού adν. 59 note 2.
αρεστόν εστι constr. 227, 240.
αφαιρέω constr. 91.
άρθρον προτακτικόν (ο ή τό) and
άφες with conjunctive 208.
υποτακτικόν (ός ή 8) 145, 172 f.
αφίημι αφίω 51. ήφιες 39. αφέθην
αριστερά sc. χείρ 140. εξ αριστερών 84.
38. Constr. 226.
αρκετόν (satis) 76. Constr. 228. αρκετός άφιξις “departure' 5.
228 and 239.
'Αχαΐα with and without art. 153.
åpkéw constr. 228.
αχρείος accent 14. αχρείος -εούν 22.
άρκος for άρκτος 2Α.
άχρι(s) 20, 60. With gen. 127. α. ου
αρμόζομαι for -ω 185.
127, 219, 272. As conjunction 219,
αρνέομαι aor. 44 f. Constr. 225, 255. 272.
αρπάζω 40, 52. Aor. and fut. pass. αψινθος, ο ? 26.
43.
-áw, verbs in -ów and -éw confused
αρραβών 10.
47 f.
άρρην, άρσην 23.
άρτι, position of, 289.
Balvw 2nd aor. imperat. 50, 53.
αρχή: την αρχήν 94, 176. απ' αρχής Η βαλλάντιον 10 f.
etc. without art. 149.
βάλλω aor. 45. Intrans. 182.
-άρχης and -αρχος 28, 68.
βαπτίζομαι aor. 185 ft.
αρχι- in composition 66.
βάπτισμα And -σμός 61 f.
αρχιερεύς 66.
βαρέω (-ύνω) 53.
άρχω with gen. 104. -ομαι constr.
*227, 245. Often almost superfluous
βασιλεύω constr. 104, 136 f.
227 note 1.
βασκαίνω 53. Aor. 40. Constr. 89
αρξάμενος beginning with' 249.
βάτος, o and ή 26.
-ας gen. -α (and -ου) 25, 29, 31. Abbre-
βατταλογείν for -ολογείν 21.
viated names in -as 70 f.
βέβαιος, -αία 33.
-άσαι 2nd sing. pres. ind. pass. of
Βηθανία 31.
verbs in .dw 47.
βιβλαρίδιον 64.
-šola, substantives in, 69.
βιβλος without art. 151.
'Ασία with art. 153.
βιόω 53 f. Aor. 43.
ασκέω with inf. 225.
βλαστάνω and -άω 53. Aor. 43.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
315
βλασφημέω constr. 88.
βλέπω for oρώ 3, 56. Aor. and fut.
42, 53. Constr. 88 note 1, 126, 225,
231, 246. βλέπετε) 209, 278.
βοάω constr. 232.
Βοες Βοος Βοοζ 13.
βορράς 25. Without art. 148.
βουλεύομαι constr. 225.
βούλομαι = θέλω 47. Augment 37 f.
βούλει 47. Constr. 225. έβουλόμην
207. βούλεσθε with conjunct. 210.
βούς acc. pl. βόας 26.
βρέχει for ύει, personal and inmpers. 75.
Trans. and intrans. 182.
Γόμορρα, -ων 12, 31.
YOVUTTETÉW constr. 89.
yoûv wanting 60. Cp. note 1.
γράφω constr. 226. γρ. and έγραψα in
letters 194.
γρηγορώ 40 f., 53.
γυμνητεύω -ιτεύω 9.
γυνή with gen., ellipse of, 95. With-
out art. 150. άνδρες και γυναίκες, γ.
και παιδία 289.
Γαζοφυλάκιον 15.
Γάϊος 16 f.
Γαλιλαία 8. . With art. 153. -αίος 8. I
γαμέω -ίζω -ίσκω 53. γαμέομαι constr.
113.
γάμοι 84.
γάρ 60, 274 f.
γε 60, 260 f. Cp. άρα γε, αρά γε, καίγε,
καίτοιγε, μενούνγε.
Γεθσημανί (-σαμανί) 7.
γελάω 53. Fut. 42.
γεμίζω constr. 102.
γέμω constr. 102.
γένημα and γέννημα distinguished 11.
Γεννησαρ, not -αρεθ -αρετ 13.
γένος : τω γένει 117.
γεύομαι with acc. and gen. 101.
γή omitted 140. Without art. 147.
γήρας -ους -ει 26.
γίνομαι, not γίγν. 24. Aor. 44, 53.
γέγονεν for εγένετο 200. With gen. 96,
99. With dat. 1llf. With els and
έν 85 f., 122, 124. With επί 136.
With adv. 258. In periphrases
with participle 204, 244. εγένετο
with inf. 75, 227 f., 235 (του with
inf.), 241. With a finite verb (with
and without και) 262, 288. εγένετο
εν τω with inf. 237. μη γένοιτο 219,
259. έγένετο onmitted 74, 292.
γινώσκω, not γιγν. 24, 53. Conj. γνώ,
Δάκρυον dat. -υσιν 29.
δαμάζομαι pass. Constr. 113.
Δαυίδ (-είδ) 7.
δε 60, 266 f. μεν ... δε see μέν. και...
δε, δε ... και 267. Position 290.
Sel constr. 227 f., 239. For delibera-
tive conj. 210. έδει 206. δέον (εστίν)
204.
δείκνυμι 48. Constr. 227.
το δειλινόν Answering the question
When ? 94.
δείπνος for -ον 28.
δεκαδύο, δεκατέσσαρες etc. 35.
Δελματία for Δαλμ. 21.
δεξιά, ή 140. έν δεξιά (ενδέξια), εκ
δεξιών etc. 84, 140.
δέομαι 53. εδέετο 47. Constr. 105,
226, 234, 238, 241 f.
δέσμιος του Χριστού 107 note 2.
δεσμοί and -α 28.
δεύρο, δεύτε with conjunctive 208.
δευτεραίος 141.
δευτερόπρωτον σάββατον 66.
Séw 'bind,' pass. with acc. 93.
δή 60, 273 f.
δηλον ότι 73, 233. δηλός είμι with
γνοί 49. Constr. 227, 231 (note 4),
238, 240, 246. Pass. with lat. 113,
185.
γλώσσα omitted 140. γλώσσαις λαλείν
292.
γλωσσόκομον 68.
Γολγοθά 31.
partic. not used 245.
δηλόω constr. 232 f.
Δημάς 71.
δημοσία 141.
δήπου 58, 60, 260.
διά with acc. 132. διά το with inf.
236, 239. With gen. 132 f. διά
του with inf. 237 (233). διά μέσου =
διά 129. διά χειρός (-ων) τινος 83,
130, 151. διά στόματός τινος 83,
130, 151. Verbs compounded with
διά which take the acc. 89 : do.
which take the dat. 114.
διαβάλλομαι with dat. 114.
διαβλέπω constr. 227.
316
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
διάβολος without art. 148.
δυσεντέριον 28.
διάγω intrans. 292.
δυσμαι 83 f. Without art. 148.
διαθήκαι 84.
δύω 53. Intrans. 183. δύω, δύνω,
διακονώ 53. Augm. 39. Pass. 184. ενδιδύσκω 53 (41). Aor. 43 (bis).
διακρίνομαι aor. 44. Constr. 114. | το δωδεκάφυλον ήμών 67, 156.
διαλέγομαι 55. Aor. 44. Constr. 114.
διαλείπω with participle 245, 258.
e interchanged with a 20 f. With o
διαμαρτύρομαι constr. 226.
21. With ι 21 f.
διαμερίζομαι mid. 183.
éáv not öv or *v 60, 214, 271. Constr.
διαπαρατριβή 65.
213 ff. (with pres. ind. 214. With
διαρρήγνυμι for mid. 184.
fut. 215). εάν και 215. εάν τε ...
εάν τε 271.
διαστέλλομαι constr. 226.
εάν μή except' 216,
293.
διάστεμα for –ημα 63.
εάν for άν 60 f., 216.
διατάσσω, -ομαι constr. 226, 230, 240.
εάνπερ 60, 271.
διατελέω with partic. 245, 258. In-
εαυτού not αυτού 35. For εμαυτού,
trans. 292.
σεαυτου 167 note 1. εαυτων for
διατηρέω with εξ and από 126.
ημών αυτών, υμών α. 35. For
διατρίβω intrans. 292.
αλλήλων 169 f. εαυτού and αυτού
-διδάσκαλος in composition 68.
167 f. Position of ε. 168. Streng-
διδάσκω with double acc, 91, Pass.
thened by addition of αυτός 168.
with acc. 93. With inf. 227. εάω constr. 226. ουκ έω 257.
δίδωμι 49 f. Conj. δώ δοί (δώη) 49 f. εγγαρεύω for αγγαρ. 20 f.
Opt. δώη 50. With inf. 223. With εγγίζω constr. 114.
acc. and inf. 226.
έγγιστα 33.
διετής accent 14.
έγγονα, έκγ. 12.
διισχυρίζομαι constr. 232.
εγγύς with gen. (or dat.) 107. Ας
δικαιόω constr. 117.
predicate 257.
διό 60, 274. δ. και 263, 274.
εγγύτερον 35.
διόπερ 60, 274.
εγείρω, -ομαι, forms in use 53. Aor.
διοπετές, το 141.
44. ηγέρθη, εγήγερται “is risen’
διότι 60, 274.
199. έγειρε άρον, εγείρεσθε άγωμεν
278.
διπλότερον 34, 58.
διψάω contract verb in a 47, 53.
εγκαίνια 84.
Constr. 90, 102.
εγκακείν (έκκ.) 67. Constr. 245.
δίψος, το 28.
εγκαλέω constr. 105, 110, 184.
διώκω, fut. -ξω 42, 53.
εγκόπτω constr. 235, 255.
δοκέω constr. 225, 231. έδοξέ μοι ibid., έγκρατεύομαι constr. 91.
239. έδοξα εμαυτώ 167 note 2, 239. 'Εζεκίας 8 note 1.
δοκώ with finite verb 278. δοκείτε
εθελο-, compounds with, 68.
inserted in middle of sentence 282.
tovn with predicate in sing. and plur.
δοκιμάζω constr. 227, 239.
78. Without art. 147, 148.
δοξάζω constr. 227.
ει =i6 f., 7 f.
δραχμή omitted 140.
El interchanged with e 22.
δύναμαι 53. Augm. 38. δύνομαι etc.
-εί, adverbs in, 69.
49. δύνασαι and δύνη 49. Fut. 45.
Constr. 197, 210, 222, 225, 226.
ει 60, 205, 213 ff., 271 f., 254 (ού and
έδύνατο could have been’ 206.
μή). Whether ' 211, 216, 220 f.
Before direct questions 260. ει και
δυνατέω constr. 226.
215. ει μή (τι) 216, 254, 293. ει δε
δυνατόν έστι, δυνατός constr. 197, 227 μή (γε) 216, 260, 271, 2933. ει άρα
f., 239 f.
(γε) 259. εί γε 261, 271. εϊπως 60,
δύο declension 35. δύο δύο 145. οι Ι
δύο 162.
Η ει μήν for ή μήν 9, 60, 260.
216.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
317
-εια interchanged with -ία 8.
εκείνος 171 f. With (or without) art.
-εία, substantives in, 62.
172. εκείνης sc. οδού 109, 140.
είδον and -α 45, 56. Cp. οράω.
εκείσε = εκεί 59.
ειδώλιον -είον 15, 64.
εκκλίνω intrans. 182.
ειδωλολατρία (-εία) 68.
έκλανθάνομαι constr. 104.
είκη 7.
εκλέγω perf. pass. 55. εκλέγομαι mid.
είκοσι not -ιν 19 with note 7.
185 f.
είκω ειξα 38.
έκπαλαι 14, 66.
eiul, forms of, 51 f. Omission of, 72 ff.,
εκπερισσού 66. έκπερισσως 66.
92 (είναι), 245 and 246 f. (ών). In
εκπίπτω constr. 106. Equivalent to
periphrases 37, 201, 202 ff. E. with
εκβάλλομαι 184.
gen. 95 f., 99. With dat. 111 f. εκτός 58 note 1. With gen. 107.
είμι, remnants of, 52.
εκτός ει μή 216.
-ειον, -ιον, substantives in, 15, 64.
έκτοτε 14.
είπερ 60, 271.
'Ελαιών (not -ων) όρος 32, 64, 85.
είπον, -α 45, 55. είπεν and έλεγεν 192.
ελάσσων -ττων 23. Meaning 34.
ως έπος ειπείν 225. ειπών, και είπεν
Without ή 108.
249 f. είπεν λέγων 55, 250. Cp. ελάχιστος pereciguus 33. -ιστότερος
λέγω.
33, 34.
είπως 60, 216.
έλεάω for -έω 47 f., 54. Transit. 88.
είρηκεν with subject unexpressed 75. ελ(ε)εινός 23.
For aorist 200.
έλεος, (δ and) το 28.
ειρήνη υμίν 74. ύπαγε εις ειρήνην, εν 'Ελισαβέτ, -βέθ 7, 13, 30.
ειρήνη 123.
'Ελισαίος 8.
-eîs for -éas (substantives in -eús) 26. ελκόω augm. 39, 54.
els with acc. 122 ff. Confused with έλκω aor. and fut. 54.
εν 122 H., 130. For επί and πρός
“Ελλάς with art. 153.
124. εις το with inf. 224, 236, 239.
εις with έσομαι, γίνομαι (είμί) 85 f.
"Έλληνες, art. with, 154. Ιουδαίοι (τε)
With λογίζεσθαι (pass.) 86. With
και Έλληνες 264.
εγείρω, έχω etc. 93. Interchange έλλογάω -έω 48.
able with dat. 109 f. Compounds ελπίζω, ελπίς 15 f. ήλπικα 199.
of είς, constr. 115. είς πρόσωπον 130. ελπίζω constr. 110 note 2, 136, 137,
εις χείρας 130. εις ελάχιστον έστι 86, 197, 202, 231, 234 (ελπίς).
εμάυτού 35, 166 f.
els as indefinite article 144. uia for
πρώτη 144. είς τις 144, 178. εις ου
έμβλέπω constr. 115.
178. είς έκαστος etc. 179. ο εις ... και
εμμένω constr. 115.
έτερος 144. είς ... και είς 144, 145. εμός 168 f.
εις τον ένα 144 f. από μιάς 140 f. εμπί(μ)πλημα 24. -πλάω 49. Constr.
-είσαι 2nd sing. pass. termination of 102.
verbs in -ów 47 note 2.
εμπί(μ)πρημι 24.
-εισαν in plupf. 47.
έμπνέω with gen. 103.
ειτα, είτεν 20, 60, 277.
εμπορεύομαι intrans. and trans. 88.
είτε 60. είτε ... είτε 212, 214, 271.
έμπροσθεν 59, 107, 127 f. προδραμών
είωθα constr. 227.
έμπροσθεν 295.
εκ see εξ.
έν with dat. 130 f. εν τω with inf.
έκαστος 179. Does not take art. 161. 237, 239. Confused with είς 122 H.,
Distinguished from πας 161. With 130. Its use in periphrases for
partitive gen. 97.
partitive gen. 96 f. Interchangeable
εκδιδύσκω constr. 92.
with simple dat. 109 f., 131. For
instrumental dat. 116 f., 130 f.
εκεί 59. Pleonastic use after όπου
Denoting the personal agent 130 f.
175.
With λέγει 131 note 1. Denoting
εκείθεν 59. For εκεί? 258.
the cause or motive 118, 131. εν
228.
318
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
τούτω, εν ώ 131, 219, 272. With 1 -εος in 2nd declension contracted and
verbs expressing emotion 118. De uncontracted 25.
noting accompanying forces etc.
επαγγέλλομαι constr. 232.
118. Of manner 118, 131. With
μανθάνω, γινώσκω (with' or by )
επαισχύνομαι augm. 38.
131. Of time 19 f. εν δεξιά 140. επακούω τινός 103.
έν (εμ) μέσω 12, 129. εν χειρί 130. έπακροωμαι τινος 103.
εν Χριστώ (κυρίω) 131.-Not assimi-
επάνω 14, 65. With gen. 107, 108,
lated in composition 12. Opposed 129.
to å- 69. Compounds of év, constr.
115.
επαρχία -ειος 8.
έναντι with gen. 127 f.
επαύριον 14, 136.
εναντίος constr. 111. εναντίον Hith
Επαφρόδιτος 'Επαφράς 71.
gen. 127 f. εξ εναντίας 140.
έπει 60, 218, 274.
ενδιδύσκω 41, 53. Constr. 92.
επειδή 60, 218, 272, 274.
ένδον 58 note 1.
επειδήπερ 60, 272, 274.
ένεκεν είνεκεν (ένεκα) 20, 22. Uses of,
επείκεια for επιείκ. 23.
127. έν. του with inf. 237.
επείπερ 60.
ενεργέω and -έομαι 185.
έπειτα 60, 277. επ. μετά τούτο 295.
ενέχειν intrans. 182.
επέκεινα 14, 66, 84. With gen. 107.
ενθάδε 58.
επερωτάω constr. 226.
ένθεν 59.
επέχω intrans. 182.
ένι = εστι 51 f.
επηρεάζω τινά 89.
ένορκίζω constr. 88, 92, 226.
επί with acc. 136. επί το αυτό 136.
ένοχος constr. 106.
With gen. 136 f. With dat. 137 f.
εντέλλομαι constr. 226, 235, 240.
εφ' ώ 137. Compounds of επί,
εντεύθεν 59.
constr. 115.
επιβάλλω intrans. 182. Constr. 115.
εντός rare 58 note 1. With gen. 107.
επιγινώσκω constr. 246.
έντρέπομαι τινα 89.
επιδείκνυμαι mid. 186. -νυμι constr.
εντυγχάνω constr. 115.
233.
ενώπιον with gen. 127 f. For dat.
επιθυμέω constr. 102, 225.
113 note 4, 128.
επικαλέω, -ομαι constr. 92 note 1, 227,
εξ, εκ, έγ 12. Uses 124 f. εκ του 230, 238. ο επικαλούμενος 163.
with inf. 237. In periphrases for
επιλαμβάνομαι τινος 101.
partitive gen. 96 f. (144). Do. with
verbs 100 f. With 'to fill' etc. επιλανθάνομαι constr. 104, 227.
102, 117 note 3. With 'to sell' επιλησμονή 62.
etc. 105, 126. With verbs denoting
επιμαρτυρέω constr. 232.
separation 105 f. For υπό 126.
For έν (attraction) 258.
επιμέλομαι -έομαι 55 : fut. 45: constr.
εκ μέσου
= εξ 129. εκ χειρός, εκ στόματος 83,
104.
130. Compounds of εκ with gen.
επιμένω with partic. 245, 258.
106.
επιούσιος 64.
εξαυτής 14, 140.
επιποθέω constr. 102, 225.
έξεστιν constr. 227 f., 241. εξόν sc. Ι επισκέπτομαι constr. 227.
εστι 73, 75, 204, 252.
επίσταμαι constr. 231 with note 4,
εξολοθρεύω 21.
246.
εξουσίαν έχω etc. constr. 227 f., 234. Η επιστρέφω intrans. 182 f.
εξορκίζω constr. 88, 133, 226.
επιτάσσω constr. 226, 230, 240 f.
εξουθενέω (-όω) 24, 61.
επιτίθημι, -εμαι constr. 115.
έξω 58 note 1. With gen. 107. επιτιμάω constr. 226.
έξωθεν 59.
επιτρέπω constr. 226, 240.
εξώτερος 35.
επιτυγχάνω constr. 102.
εόρακα and εώρακα 39, 56. Use 199 f. Ι επιχειρέω constr. 225.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
319
εραυνάω for έρευν. 21.
ευρακύλων 66.
εργάζομαι, ήργαζόμην -σάμην, but είρ- Ι ευρίσκω aor. 45. Active for mid. 183.
γασμαι 38 f., 54. Constr. 92, 124. Constr. 246 f. -ομαι pass. with dat.
έρημος, accentuation of, 14. o and η 33. 113 (note 2), 185.
ή έρ. ας subst. 140, 155.
-εύς, acc. plur. -είς 26.
έρις, plur. -ιδες and -εις 27, 84.
ευφραίνομαι constr. 118.
Ερμής 71.
ευχαριστέω constr. 137, 185 (246).
έρρέθην for -ήθην 10, 40, 55.
εύχομαι augm. 38. Constr. 10, 226.
ερρωσο, -σθε 200.
-εύω, -εύομαι, verbs in, 61.
έρχομαι : forms in use 54. Aor. 45. εφάπαξ 14. .
έρχομαι, ο ερχόμενος in future sense
εφικνέομαι τινος 102.
189, 219. έρχου come with' 196
note 1. έρχου και ίδε 278.
εφιορκέω 16.
¿pwráw with double accus. 91. With
έφοράω constr. 227.
inf. etc. 226, 241. ηρώτων λέγοντες
'Εφραίμ 17.
etc. 250. ήρώτα and -τησεν 191. έχθές 23.
-ες term. of 2nd pers. in perf. and 1st έχω regard as ' 92, 231, 247 : “be
aor. for -as 46.
obliged to ' 226. Fut. only έξω 36,
έσθής in collective sense 83.
54. έσχηκα for aor. 200. Intrans.
εσθίω, έσθω 54. φάγομαι 42 (-εσαι 47).
182. With double acc. (ως, εις) 92,
247. With relative clause 218.
Constr. 100 f. εσθίειν και πίνειν 289.
With inf. 226. With ότι 231. έχων
-εσία, substantives in, 69.
with ' 248. έχομαι τινος 102,
έστακα, -ηκα (έστηκα ?) 50 (15, 199). -éw, verbs in, 61. Formed from com-
έστε imperat. nowhere used 209.
pound adjectives in -os 67.
έσχατος also comparative 34. επ' -éws gen. termination of adjectives in
εσχάτου (-των) των ημερών etc. (137,
-ύς 27.
149), 156. τα έσχατα 156.
έως, ή, not in use 25.
dow, not crow 22. Cp. 58 note 1. Not |
έως conj. 60, 219, 272. With gen. 127.
with gen. 107.
With gen. of the inf. 237, 239. έως
έσωθεν 59. Not with gen. 107.
ού, ότου 127, 219, 272. έως with
adverb 127.
εσώτερος 35.
ετεροδιδασκαλέω 68.
έτερος and άλλος 179 f.
ζ = σδ 24.
έτι 277. Position 289. έτι άνω, κάτω
ζάω 54. Fut. 42. Imperf. 47.
for ανώτερον, κατώτερον 35 note 1.
ξβ for σβ 10.
έτι μικρών και 73.
ζηλος, o and το 28.
έτοιμος 2 and 3 terminations 33. ζηλόω constr. 225.
Accentuation 14. With toll and
inf. 235.
ζημιόω pass. with acc. 93.
ζητέω constr. 225.
EU, kalôs used instead of, 58. Com-
pounds with eü 69, 39 (augment of
ζμ for σμ 10.
verbs compounded with εθ), εύ ποιέω ζυγός, not -ον 28.
(πράσσω) constr. 89, 245.
ζώννυμι, perf. pass. 54.
ευαγγελίζομαι ειnd -ζω 39, 69, 183. ζώον 7.
Constr. 89 f., 124, 227.
ευαγγέλιον 69. With gen. and with
η interchanged with ι8 f. η inter-
κατά and acc. 96, 133.
changed with el 8 f.
ευαρεστέομαι with dat. 118, 184.
ή, ή... ή 266. In questions (also ή μη)
ευδοκέω 69. Constr. 88, 118, 123, 227. 259, 266. With comparatives 107 f.
ευκαιρέω constr. 227.
With positives 143.
ευλογητός ο θεός 74.
o changed to el in later Attic 8.
ευοδούμαι constr. 227.
η in 2nd pers. pass. 47.
ευπάρεδρος 69. Constr. 115.
-η, adverbs in, 59.
320
Σ
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
15.
ηγέομαι with double acc. 92, 247. Η θεάομαι defective 54 (supplemented by
With acc. and inf. 92, 231. With θεωρέω). εθεάθην with dat. 113, 185.
Ús and acc. 92 f., 270, 246 note 1, θ. with part. 246. With ως 230
2A7. ηγούμενος subst. 157, 244. note 4.
ήγημαι with present sense 199. Θέλω, not έθ. 23, 54. Augm. ή- 37, 54.
ήδιστα very gladly’ 33.
= βούλομαι 47. Constr. 196 f., 209,
ήδύτερος 34 note 1.
2io (θέλετε with conj.), 225. ήθελαν
ikw, inflection 54. Has perfect sense
I could wish' 207.
188.
θεμέλιον and -ος 28.
Ηλίας 8. Declension 25.
-θεν, adverbs in, 59.
ήλιος without art. 147.
θεός νοc. θεός (θεέ) 25, 87. Without
art. 148, 163, 297.
ημείς for εγώ 166.
θεωρέω supplemented by θεάομαι 54.
ημέρα onmitted 140. Without art. 149,
T'akes place of pres. opáw 56. Constr.
151. νύκτα και ημέραν 94, 109.
231 with note 4, 233, 246.
ημέραν εξ ημέρας 94. ημέρας (μέσης)
109. Dat. with and without év 109,
θιγγάνω with gen. 101.
119 f., 174 note 1. ημέρα και ημέρα ! θλίψις 15.
120. διά της ημ. 109, 132. δι' ημερών
θνήσκω 7. Perf. 50, 199.
τεσσεράκοντα (τεσσ. ημ.) 109, 132.
θριαμβεύω trans. 88, 183.
προ εξ ημ. του πάσχα 126 f. ου μετά
πολλάς ταύτας ημέρας 133. (το) καθ' Θυάτειρα declined 32.
ημέραν 94, 157. εκείνη η ημ. the θύρα and -αι 84, 137, 149.
last day 171. εν αυτή τη ημ. 170.
εν ταις ημ. εκείναις (ταύταις) 171 f.,
cp. 276. επ' εσχάτου (-ων) των ημ. Ι ι interchangeable with ε 21 f. Withυ
137, 149, 156.
22 (with ο 22). Shortened before ξ
ήμισυς declined 27. ήμισυ, τα ημίσεια
with gen. 97 f.
ι adscript (ι mute) 6 f.
-ην for -η in acc. of 3rd decl. 26.
-1 in demonstratives (νυνί) 35.
ήνεγκα, ενεγκείν etc. 45, 57.
-la, substantives in, 63. Do, related
ηνίκα 59, 272.
to compound adjectives in -os and
ήπερ 60.
verbs in -έω 67.
“Ηρώδης 7.
-ιάζω, verbs in, 61.
-ns in compounds from verbs in -áw,
-Lavós, designations ending in, of Latin
-έω 68.
origin 63.
-ης, -εντος (in proper names) = Lat.
άομαι pass. 184.
-ens, -entis 31.
-las, gen. -lov (proper names), 25, 29.
Ησαΐας Ησ. 16.
ιδείν for ιδείν 16.
ήσσων ήττων, ήσσούμαι ηττώμαι etc. ίδιος for 'δ. 16. Generally possessive
23, 54. ήσσων, ήσσον meaning 34.
= 'own' 169. Omission of art. with
ήτοι 60, 266.
it 169. κατ' ιδίαν, ιδία 141, 169.
ήχος, ο 28: gen. -ους ibid.
ιδού for ιδού 16. Without a finite
verb 74, 292. και ιδού 262. ιδού,
ίδε with nom. 85 note 1. ίδε with
0, reduplication of, 11.
plural word 85 note l.
θάλασσα without art. 147.
ιει contracted into ει 23, 51.
θάνατος without art. 149, 150.
Ιεράπολις dat. Iερά πόλει 32.
θαμβέω and deponent -έομαι 44. Aor.
Ιεριχώ 7, 16.
ibid.
Ιεροσόλυμα Ιερουσαλήμ 16, 31. Fem.
θαρρέω and θάρσει 23. Intrans. 88.
32. Hardly ever takes art. 153,
Constr. 123 note 3.
θαυμάζω and dep. -ομαι 44, 54, 181.
iepovpyéw trans. 88.
Aor. ibid. Fut. 42. Constr. 88,
Ιεσσαί 17.
118, 135, 137.
-68w, verbs in, 61.
θεά beside ή θεός 25.
ίημι with compounds 51.
cp. 161.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
321
Ιησούς 29. Declined 31. With and I καθόλου, το 234 note 2.
without art. 152, 170.
καθότι 274.
ikavós constr. 227 f. ikavóv satis 76.
καθώς 270.
Ικόνιον 8.
και 60, 261 f. (249 f., 275 note 1).
-ικός (-ιακός), adjectives in, 64 f. In crasis 19. At the beginning of
Verbal adj. in -ικός with gen. Want the apodosis 262 f. In sentences of
ing 107. .
comparison 263, 270. και ... και, τε
ελάσκομαι 54. Constr. 88 note 3.
(...) και etc. 264 f. αλλά και 269.
και γαρ 275. και ... δε, δε και 267.
Κλεώς σοι 25, 74.
διό και etc. 263. ει και see ει. και
ιμάτιον omitted 141. ιμάτια 84. '
εί 275. ή και 266. και ου, και μη
-ίν, -ίνος for -ίς, -ίνος 27.
265 f. και ταύτα with particip. 248,
ίνα 60, 211 f., 221, 222 f., 209 (for
263. και τούτο 171, 263. και τις
inmperat.), 217 f., 240. αλλ' ίνα 269,
“who then ?' 262f. Cp. καίγε, καί-
293. ίνα δε 286 f. .
περ, καίτοι(γε), κάν.
ένατί 14.
Και(α)φας 17 note 4.
-ινός, adjectives in, 65.
καίγε 248, 261.
Ιόππη Ιόπη 11.
Καινάν 17.
Ιορδάνης, ο 153.
καινότερος for positive 142.
Ιουδαία with art. 153.
καίπερ 60. With part. 248.
Ιουδαίοι with and without art. 153 f.
καιρός without art. 149. κ. (έστιν)
Ι. (τε) και Έλληνες 264.
constr. 223 f., 234.
Ιουνίας Or -νία 71 note 4.
καίτοι(γε) 60, 248, 260, 269 (275).
ίσα as adverb with είναι 257 f. (271).
kalw aor. and fut. pass. 43, 55.
ίσασι for οίδασι 5, 50.
κακoλoγέω τινά 89.
-tola, substantives in, 69.
κακοπαθία 8.
ίσος constr. 114, 270 f.
κακός, conaparison of, 34. κακούς κακώς
298.
'Ισραήλ, ο 154. πας Ι., πάς οίκος Ι.
162.
καλέω fut. καλέσω 42, 55. With
double acc. 92. o καλούμενος 163.
-ισσα, στιbstantives in, 63.
καλλιέλαιος, η 67.
ιστάνω, -άω for ίστημι 48. έστην and
εστάθην 50, 181. 2nd aor. imperat.
καλόν εστιν constr. 12, 240 f.
50. Other tenses 50.
καλώς for ευ 58. καλώς (ε) ποιέω
ισχύω constr. 226.
constr. 89, 245. καλώς λέγω 89.
Ιταλία with art. 153.
κάμηλος (-ιλος) 9.
ιχθύς accent 14. Acc. plur. -ύας 26.
κάν 19 note 2, 214, 275.
Ιωάννα 11, 30.
katá with acc. 133. In periphrases for
possessive gen. 133, 169. Distribu-
Ιωάνης Ίωνα(s) etc. 11, 30.
tive katá, stereotyped as an adv.
Ιωνάθας (-ης) 30.
133, 145, 179. With gen. 133.
Ιωσήφ Ιωσής 30. Gen. -ήτος 31. κατά μόνας 141. κατ' ιδίαν 141, 169.
Ιωσίας 8.
κατά πρόσωπον 83, 129 f. Compounds
of κατά, constr. 89 (acc.), 104, 106
(gen.).
καθά 270.
καταγινώσκομαι pass. 184.
καθάπερ 270.
κατάγνυμι 52.
καθάπτω for -ομαι 183. With gen. 101.
καταδουλόω active 183.
καθαρίζω (-ερ-) 20. For καθαίρω 54.
καταδυναστεύω constr. 104.
καθέζομαι 54 f.
κατακρίνω constr. 232. θανάτω 111.
καθ' είς 179. το καθ' είς 94.
κατακυριεύω τινός 104.
καθήκεν, καθήκον 206.
καταλαμβάνομαι mid. 186. Constr.
κάθημαι 52, 54 f.
231.
καθίζω 54 f.
καταλείπω constr. 226.
καθό 270.
καταλλάσσω, -ομαι with dat. 114.
322
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
καταναρκάω τινός 106.
κόσμος without art. 148.
κατανύσσω, aor. pass. 43.
Κουαρτος 15.
καταξιώ constr. 226.
κράβ[β]ατος (-αττος, -ακτος) 11.
καταράομαι τινα 89.
κραζω, κραζον 15. Inflection 55. Fut.
καταχράομαι with dat. 114.
36 note 1, 43. Aor. 43. κέκραγα =
κράζω 198. Constr. 232, 250.
κατέναντι with gen. 127 f.
κρατέω constr. 101. -έομαι του μη with
κατενώπιον with gen. 127 f. Inter-
inf. 235.
changeable with dat. 113 note 4.
κράτιστε in address 33, 86.
κατηγορέομαι pass. 184.
κρέας, κρέα 26.
κατήγωρ for -ορος 29.
κρείσσων, -ττων 23. Meaning 34.
κατηχέομαι pass. with acc. 93.
κρίμα accent and quantity 14 f., 63.
κατώτερος, -έρω 35.
κρίνω constr. 231. -ομαι constr. 114.
καυχάομαι intrans. and trans. 88.
Constr. 110, 118.
Κρίσπος 15.
Καφαρναούμ 12 f., 32.
κρύβω for κρύπτω 41, 55. Aor. pass.
43, 53. Constr. 91.
Κεδρών 32.
κείμαι 52. = τέθειμαι 51. κείμενος ήν 203.
κρυπτός : έν (τω) κρυπτώ 156.
κτέννω (-αίνω) for -είνω 41, 55. - Cp.
κείρομαι have one's hair cut' 186.
αποκτ.
κέκτημαι not used 199 note 1.
| κτίσις without art. 148. πάσα (ή) κτ.
κέκραγα for κράζω 198.
162.
κελεύω constr. 110, 191, 197, 226, 230, I κυέω (κύω) 55.
240 (acc. and inf. pass.).
κυκλόθεν 59.
κενεμβατεύω 67.
κυλίω 55.
(κεράννυμι) perf. pass. 55.
Κυρήνιος, -ίνος, more correctly -ίνιος
κέρας κέρατα 26.
9, 13.
κερδαίνω, aor. -ανα, -ησα 40, 55. Fut. κυριεύω τινός 104.
pass. 55.
KÚplos without art. 148.
κήρυξ accent 15.
κωλύω constr. 105, 226, 255.
κηρύσσω constr. 124, 226, 239.
Κώς, acc. Kώ 25
Κιλικία with and without art. 153.
κινδυνεύω constr. 227.
κλαίω 55. Fut. 42. Constr. 88, 136.
| λαγχάνω constr. 102, 135, 235.
κλειδα κλείν 26. Plur. κλειδας | λάθρα 7, 238.
κλείς 26.
λακέω 55.
κλείω κέκλεισμαι 40, 55.
λαλέω constr. 232.
κληρονομέω constr. 102.
λαμβάνω, λήμψομαι etc. 24, 55. είληφα
κλίμα accent and quantity 14 f., 63. with aoristic sense 200. λ. ραπί-
κλίνω aor. pass. 44, 55. Intrans. 182.
σμασιν 118. λαβών (έλαβεν και) pleo-
nastic 248 f.
κοιλία without art. 151.
λανθάνω constr. 245, 258.
κοιμάομαι funt. 45.
λεγεών, -ιών 21.
κοινωνέω constr. 100, 114.
λέγω defective, supplemented by είπον
κοινωνός with gen. (or dat.) 106.
etc. 55. λέγει without subj. 75.
κολλάομαι with dat. 114.
λέγει εν Ήλία and similar phrases
κολλύριον (-ούριον) 22.
131 note 1. With acc. (τινά) 89.
Κολοσσαί Κολασσαείς 21.
καλώς, κακώς λέγω 89. With double
acc. 92. With 8tı or acc. and inf.
κόλποι 84.
232, 240. With ίνα 226. έλεγες
κόπτομαι constr. 88.
and είπεν 192. λέγων, -οντες 81 note
κορβανάς (-βαν) 32.
1, 232, 249 f., 285. συ λέγεις 260.
ο λεγόμενος 242. λέγω υμίν inserted
κορέννυμι with gen. 101.
282. κατά άνθρωπον λέγω and simi-
κόσμιος, ο ή 33.
lar phrases inserted 282.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
323
λείπω aor. 43, 55. Alternative pres. I μέλει constr. 104.
λιμπάνω 55. λείπει τινί 112. λείπο-
μέλλω augm. 38, 55. Constr. 197, 2002,
μαι τινος 105.
222, 227. With inf. as periphrasis
λειτουργός, -ία, -έω 8.
for fut. 204 f.
λέντιον 21.
μέμνημαι, see μιμνήσκομαι.
Λευις (-εις) declined 29.
μέμφομαι constr. 89.
ληνός, ή (6) 26.
μέν 60, 266 f. μεν ... δε 266 f. μεν ...
λίαν usually placed after word quali- Ι αλλά (πλήν) 267. μεν ούν 267, 270,
fied 289.
273.
λίθος, ο (not ή) 26.
μενούν γε 60, 260, 269, 270.
λιμός, o and η 26. λιμός and λοιμός 1 μέντοι 60, 269.
combined 299.
μένω trans. 87.
λογίζομαι pass. 184. Constr. with εις ! μεριμνάω constr. 104, 111.
86. With us and nom. 93, 270.
μερίς omitted 140.
With (acc. and) inf. or ότι 231.
μέρος omitted 141.
λοιδορέω τινά 89.
μέρη region' 84.
λοιπός : (το) λοιπόν 94. του λοιπού 94,
μεσανύκτιον for μεσον. 21.
109. Art. repeated after 1. 160 f.
μεσημβρία without art. 148.
λ. onmitted 180, 292.
μεσονύκτιον (μεσαν.) 67. Without art.
Λουκάς 71.
149. -ίου 109.
λούω, λέλου(σ)μαι 40, 55.
Μεσοποταμία with art. 153.
Λύδδα, «ης (-ας) 25, 31 f. ή and τα Λ.
μέσος partitive 109, 158. το μέσον 158.
31 f.
ανά μέσον 122, 129. εμ (εν) μέσω 12:
with gen. 129. μέσος, μέσον adν.,
λυμαίνομαι τινα 89.
εκ μέσου, διά μέσου (-ον) with gen.
λυπέομαι constr. 137.
129, 132. Article 156.
λυσιτελέω constr. 89.
μεστός with gen. 106.
Λύστρα, -αν, -οις 32.
μετά with acc. 133. μετά το with inf.
236, 239. With gen. 133 f. Denot-
ing manner 118. Alternating with
dat. after verbs denoting community
ua, substantives in, 62. With short
114. μετά and σύν 132, 133 f. μετά
stem-vowel 14 f., 62 f. Studied
και 263.
accumulation of, 299.
μεταδίδωμι constr. 100.
μαθητεύω intrans. and trans. 88, 183.
μεταλαμβάνω with gen. 100. μεταλα-
μακάριος without auxiliary verb 73 f.
βών καιρόν 100.
μακρόθεν (από μ.) 59.
μεταλλάσσω constr. 105.
μακροθυμέω constr. 118.
μεταμέλομαι 55. Flut. 45. Constr. 235.
μάλλον, μάλιστα 33. μάλλον omitted
μεταξύ “ between ' (with gen.), after-
143. Pleonastic μάλλον 143.
wards' 129.
μαμωνάς 11.
μετέχω constr. 100.
μανθάνω constr. 247, 227, 238.
μέτοχος with gen. 106.
μάννα 32.
μετράω έν τινι 117.
Μάρθα, -ας 25, 30.
μετριοπαθέω τινι 110.
Μαριάμ, -ία 30.
μέχρι(s) 20, 60. With gen. 127. μ. ου
Μάρκος 15.
127, 219, 272. Conjunction 219, 272.
μαρτυρέω constr. 111. With λέγων etc. I μή negative 214, 216, 253 f. Inter-
250. -έομαι pass. 184. μαρτυρώ in rogative 254, 259. Before an inf.
serted 282.
after verbs containing a negative
μιαστός, -σθός, -ζός 24.
idea 255. το μή with inf. 234. του
un with inf. 235. As conjunction
μάταιος 2 and 3 terminations 33.
211 f.-μή ού 213, 254. ου μή see
μεθύσκομαι οίνω 117.
ου. μή with ellipse 293 f. -μή
μείγνυμι (not μίγν.) 8.
γένοιτο 219, 259.
μειζότερος 34.
μηδέ 60, 261, 265.
324
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
μηδείς 14, 178. μηθείς an alternative | νούς, νοός 29.
form 24.
νύν, position of, 289.
μηθαμώς 24.
νύξ : νύκτα και ημέραν 94, 109. (της)
μηθείς 24.
νυκτός 109. διά (της) ν. 109, 132,
μήν see ει μήν.
149. μέσης ν. 109. εν νυκτί 119.
μήποτε 212 f., 220, 255 note 1. μήποτε
κατά μέσον της ν. 158.
ου μή 256.
νυχθήμερον 66 f.
μήπως 60, 212 f., 240 note 1, 255. νυστάζω ένύσταξα 40.
μήτε 60, 261. μήτε ... μήτε 265 f.
μήτηρ to be supplied 95.
ξένος with gen. 106.
μήτι 254, 259. μήτιγε 254.
ξηρά, ή 140.
μητρολώας 7, 21.
ξηραίνω έξηραμμένος 40.
-M, verbs in, 48 ff.
ξυρέω forms 56. έξυράμης 186.
μιαίνω μεμιαμμένος 40, 55.
μιμνήσκω -ομαι 7. Constr. 103 f.
μέμνημαι with present sense 199. o interchangeable with a and € 21.
Μιτυλήνη for Μυτιλ. 22.
With i 22.
μνημονεύω constr. 104.
ο, η, το 145 6. το, του, τω with inf.
233 ff. ο μεν ... ο δε 145 f. ο δε, ή δε,
μνηστεύω μεμνήστευμαι ? 38, 56.
οι δε 146. ο μεν ούν 146. As article
μογιλάλος 24.
146 ft. o και 163.
μόνος never more nearly defined by 8δε 35 f., 170.
reference to the whole 97 note l.
οδός, ellipse of, 108 f., 140. οδόν with
μόνος and adν. μόνον 141. κατά μόνας
gen. versus 94 note 1, 98, 130. οδώ
141. ου μόνον ... αλλά (και) 267, ου
with πορεύομαι etc. 119.
μ. δε α. και 291 note 2.
Όξίας 8.
-μός, substantives in, 61 f.
8θεν 59, 258 (attraction). Conjunction
Mvola with art. 153.
274.
Μωύσης 10. Declined 29.
οι- often unaugmented 38.
οίδα forms 50, 53 (op. ίσασιν). Constr.
227, 231, 240, 246.
v, variable, 19.
οικοδεσπότης 66. οικ. της οικίας 295.
Ναζαρετ, -εθ, -αθ 13.
οικοδομή 62.
ναι 256, 260. ναι, λέγω υμίν 256, 260.
οίκος without art. 151, 162.
ναι ναι 256.
Ναιμάν Νεεμάν etc. 17 note 2.
οικτιρμός 8, 15. -οι 83.
ναύς in literary lang. for πλοίον 27.
οικτίρω (-ίρμων) 8, 15, 56. Trans. 88.
Νεάπολις Νέαν πόλιν 32.
-oîv for -oûv in inf. 48.
οίος 36, 178 f. ούχ οίον ότι 179, 292
νεκροί without art. 148.
note 2. οίος δήποτ’ ούν 178.
νεομηνία νουμ. 22.
ολοθρεύω, -ευτής, εξολ. for -6- 21.
ν(ε)οσσός ν(ε)οσσια etc. 23.
όλος with art. 161.
νεύω with inf. 226.
ομείρομαι for ιμ. 22. With gen. 102.
νήθω 56.
ομιλέω constr. 114.
νηστις, plur. νήστεις 27.
(όμνυμι), ομνύω 48. Constr. 88, 123,
νικάω, ο νικών with perfect sense 189. | 131, 133, 232.
νίκος, το for η νίκη 28 f.
ομοθυμαδόν 70.
νίπτω for νίζω 41, 56.
ομοιάζω constr. 114.
voéw constr. 231.
όμοιος accent 14. 2 terminations ? 33.
voulfw not with double acc. 92. With With dat. (or gen.) 106, 114.
. inf., with ότι 201 f., 231 f.
ομοιόω constr. 114.
νόμος without art. 150.
ομολογέω constr. 92, 110, 131, 202, 247.
νότος without art. 148.
ομόσε = ομού 59.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
325
όμως 60, 269.
Τ ότι 60, 222, 229, 230 f., 240 (272) 286.
ονειδίζω τινά 89.
Before direct speech 233, 286. 'Be-
Cause' 274.
ονίναμαι with gen. 101.
ούχ (οιον) ότι 179, 292
note 2.
όνομα : ώ όν., ου το όν., (και τό) όν.
αυτού, ονόματι 74, 85, 118. τούνομα
ότου in έως ότου, μέχρι ότ. 36, 127,
219.
94. επιτίθημι, επικαλέω τινί όν. 15.
καλέω το όν, τινος... (acc.) 92. πιστεύω
-oû, adverbs in, 58 f.
εις το όν. τινος 110. επί (εν) το ον. ού, 253 f., 214, 216 f. ου ... αλλά (δε)
τινος etc. 123 f.
266, 267. ου μόνον ... αλλά (και) 267.
-oos, contraction of, in 2nd decl. 25. ου μ. δε α. και 291 note 2. ου in
questions 254, 239, 209 f.
όπισθεν with gen. 107, 128.
ου ... ου
(un) neutralizing each other 256.
οπίσω with gen. 107, 128 f.
ου ... ουδείς etc. intensifying the
οποίος 36, 175, 179.
negation 256. ου ου (ditto) 256.
οπότε 59 f., 218, 272.
ου μή with conj. (or fut.) 209 f. oύ
ŐTrou 'where' and 'whither' 58.
πάντως and similar phrases 257.
ουχ ότι 292 note 2. ουχ οίον ότι 179,
οπτάνομαι 56. With dat. 113, 185.
292 note 2. ου γάρ 275.
Op. οράω.
où 'where' and 'whither' 58.
όπως 60, 175, 211 f., 221, 258.
οράω defective, supplemented by
ούαι, η 32. With dat. 112.
βλέπω, θεωρώ, είδον etc. 56. Perf.
ουδέ 60, 261, 265 f. άλλ' ουδε 269.
εόρακα And εώρ. 39. Pass. οπτάνομαι,
ουδε γαρ 275.
ώφθην 56, 185. Constr. 88 note 1, ουδείς 14. Also oυθείς 24. ουδείς, ουδε
126, 246. άρα, οράτε μή 209, 213, είς 178. ουδ. δς ου 173, 256. ουδέν
278. ορα μή elliptical 293.
nothing worth' 76. ουχ ολίγος 16.
οργίζομαι constr. 118.
ουδέτερος 178.
ορέγομαι with gen. 102.
ουκούν 60, 273.
ορεινή, ή 140.
ούν 60, 272 f. άρα ούν 273. μεν ούν
ορθοποδέω 67.
see μέν.
ορίζω constr. 225.
ουράνιος, ο, η 33.
ορκίζω constr. 88, 92, 133, 241.
oủpavós and -ot 83. Without art.
147 f.
όρνιξ, όρνεον 27.
Ουρίας 8. "
οροθεσία, ή, or -έσια, τα 69.
-ούσαι 2nd pers. pass. in verbs in -δω
ορύσσω ιοr. pass. 44.
47 note 2.
ός, ή, 8 36. Uses 173 f., 216 f. Con-
ούτε 60, 261. ούτε ... ούτε (και) 265 f.
fused with oστις 172f. Not used
for als 176 (but see also 218). Used
ούτος 35. Uses 170 ft. With and
with disregard to formal agreement
without art. 172. Referring to a
166. Attraction 173 f. δς μεν ...
subsequent clause with Óti, iva, or
δς δε 145 f. αφ' ης 140. ό εστι 77,
inf. 171, 229. τούτο μεν ... τούτο δε
204. ενώ see εν. εφ' ώ see επί.
171. και τούτο odque 171, 263. και
ταύτα with part. 171, 248, 263. ούτος
-0σία, substantives in, 69.
with anaphora 301.
όσιος, ο, ή 33.
ούτω(s) 19 f. After a participle 253.
όσος 36, 178 f. όσον όσον 179.
As predicate 257. ώς ... ούτως (και)
όσπερ not in use 36, 173.
270.
οστέον -ούν 25.
ουχί 254, 256 f. ουχί, λέγω υμίν 256.
όστις (almost) confined to the nom. 36. Ι οφειλέτης ειμί constr. 111.
Uses 172 f., 216 ff. With conj. with. οφείλω: ώφειλον 206. Constr. 227.
out Dv ? 217. Not used in indirect
όφελος particle to introduce a wish
questions 175, but cp. 176. 8,71 in
206 f., 220.
direct questions 176: = δι' ό,τι 177.
όστις αν η 178.
οφθαλμοδουλία (-εία) 68.
όταν 60, 218 f., 272.
οφθαλμός without art. 151 with note 2.
ότε 60, 218, 228, 272. οτε μεν ... ότε δε
οψία, ή 140.
| -ów, verbs in, new forms of, 61.
258.
326
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
παιδεύομαι constr. 227.
(εκ) παιδιόθεν 59.
παίζω 56, 40. Fut. 43.
πάλιν ανακάμπτειν and similar phrases
295.
παμπληθεί 8, 69.
Παμφυλία with and without art.
153.
πανδοχείον, 'χείον 24. .
πανοικεί 8, 69.
πανταχή, πάντη 7.
πάντοτε for αεί 59.
πάντως ού and ου πάντως 257.
trapá with acc. 138. With coinpara-
tive 108 : cp. 138 (with positivel43).
With gen. 138. With dat. 138 f.
Compounds of παρά transitive 89 :
with dat. etc. 115.
παραγγέλλω constr. 226, 232, 240 f.
παράγω intrans. 182.
παραδίδωμι constr. 223, 236.
παραθαλάσσιος, -ία 33.
παραινέω constr. 90, 226, 241.
παραιτέομαι with μή ειnd inf. 255.
παρακαλέω constr. 226, 233, 235, 241,
249. παρεκάλει, -εσεν 191.
παραλαμβάνω constr. 227. παραλαβών
248.
παράλιος, ο, η 33.
παρατηρέω, -έομαι 186.
πάρειμι, -είναι constr. 115.
παρέχω, -ομαι 186. Constr. 115.
παρρησία 10.
παρρησιάζομαι constr. 227.
πας with art. 161 f. πας εξ 97. ο πας,
οι πάντες, τα πάντα 162. πας όστις,
δς 173 (244). πάς ο with part. 243 f.
πάν το with part. 244. πάς ... ού, ου
... πας = ουδείς 162, 178, 283 note 1.
πάντες ού 257. πάντων a stereotyped
forum with πρώτη 108.
πάσχα (φάσκα) 12, 32.
πάσχω υπό 184.
Πάταρα (-ερα) 20.
πατρολώας 7, 21, 68.
παύω επάην 44, 56. -ομαι constr. 105,
245.
πεζή 7.
πειθός non-existent 64.
πείθω 56. πείθω and -ομαι constr. 226,
232. Cp. πέπoιθα.
πείν for πιείν 23, 56.
πεινάω contract verb in α instead of η
47, 56. Tenses 40, 56. Constr.
90, 102.
πειράζω, meanings of, 56. Constr. 225,
πεισμονή 62.
πενθέω intrans. and trans. 88.
TTÉTOLDa with present sense 199. Constr.
110, 123, 136, 137, 232.
περ in combinations like καίπερ 60.
πέρα 7.
πέραν with gen. 107.
περί with acc. 134. οι περί αυτόν,
Παύλον 134, 157. With gen. 134 f. :
confused with υπέρ 134 f. Com-
pounds of περί ' transitive 89 : with
dat. etc. 115f.
περιάγω intrans. 182.
περιβάλλω constr. 92, 115 f. -ομαι mid.
constr. 93 with note 2.
περιβλέπομαι mid. 186. Constr. 227.
περιέχω 182 note 3.
περίκειμαι with acc. 93. With dat. etc.
116.
περιούσιος 64.
περιπατέω with dat. 119.
περιπίπτω constr. 116.
περισσός, -ότερος, -ώς,, -οτέρως for
πλείων, μάλλον etc. 33 note 4, 58,
143. περισσός with gen. 108.
περιτέμνομαι pass. 185.
περίχωρος, ή 140.
πέρυσι (πέρσυ, πέρισυ), not -ιν 19.
πηλίκος 36. For ηλίκος 179.
πήχυς, -ών 27.
πιάζω, -έζω 20, 56. πιάζω constr. 101.
πίεσαι. See πίνω.
πιμπλάω for -ημι 49. Constr. 102.
πίνω 56. πείν Or πίν for πιείν 23.
πίεσαι 47. πίνω constr. 100.
πιπράσκω 56 f. Perf. 200.
πιστεύω constr. 110, 123, 136, 137,
232. -ομαι pass. 93, 185.
πιστικός 64.
πίστις constr. 123, 136.
πιστός constr. 10 f., 143. το πλείστον
. at most' 94.
πλείστος 33.
πλείων, neut. πλείον πλέον 22. οι
πλείονες, meanings of, 142 f. πλείων
before numerical statements with-
out ή 108.
πληγή omitted 140.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
327
,
πλήν 127. “Yet' (= αλλά) 268. “Only’ | πρόϊμος-πρώϊμος 22.
' 268.
προκαταγγέλλω constr. 202, 232.
πλήρης ιsed indeclinably 81. Constr.
προλαμβάνω with inf. 227.
106.
πληρόω and -όομαι mid. 186. Constr.
προμελετάω with inf. 227.
102, 117. Pass. with acc. 93.
προνοέομαι τινος 104.
πλησίον with gen. 107. (δ) πλ. 157.
προοράω: προορώμην ? 37.
πλούς, πλοός 25, 29.
πρός with acc. 139 : for παρά τινι (τινα)
πλούτος, o and το 28.
139: interchangeable with `dat.
110 f., 114 f., 116. τι προς ημάς 139.
πνεύμα without art. 149.
προς τί 139. πρός με 165. προς το
ποθέω 40, 57.
with inf. 236. — With gen. and dat.
ποιέω, -έομαι constr. 91 f., 124, 134,
140.-Compounds of πρός, constr.
135. καλώς (ε) π. 89 : (with part.
116.
245). With iva or inf. 226, 235, προσανατίθεμαι τινι 16.
240. ποιέω for -έομαι mid. 183 f.
προσέρχομαι constr. 116.
Pass. almost unrepresented 184.
προσεύχομαι τινι 110. With ίνα etc.
ποίος 36, 176, 179. ποίας sc. οδού 108, 226, 235.
140.
προσέχω intrans. 182, 292. Constr. 88
πόλις with gen. of the name 98.
note 1, 116, 126. With inf. (or ίνα)
πολύς followed by και 263. οι πολλοί
227.
143. πολλάς δέρεσθαι 91, 140. πολύ, προσδέομαι with gen. 105.
πολλώ with comparative 143.
προσδοκώ constr. 202, 232.
πορεύομαι εδώ etc. 119. πoρεύου and προσήκει wanting in Ν.Τ. 206 note 2. .
-θητι 196, 249. πορευθείς 249.
προσήλυτος 69.
πόρρω (in literary language) = μακράν προσκαλέομαι constr. 227.
24. As predicate 257.
προσκυνέω constr. 89, 110. Imperf.
πόρρωθεν 59. = μακρόθεν 24.
and aor. distinguished 192.
πορρωτέρω (-ον) 35.
προσλαμβάνομαι constr. 100.
πόσος 36, 179.
προσπίπτω constr. 116.
ποταμοφόρητος 68.
προσποιέομαι with inf. 227.
ποταπός 36, 176, 229.
προστάσσω constr. 226.
ποτέ 59 f., 212f. (μήποτε).
προστίθημι constr. 116. -εμαι “con-
πότερον ..., ή 176, 259.
tinue to’ etc. with inf. 227, 258.
ποτίζω with double acc. 92. Pass.
προσθείς είπεν and similar phrases
with acc. 93.
249, 258.
Ποτίολοι 22.
προσφάγιον 69.
TTOû 'where' and 'whither' 58. προσφωνέω constr. 116.
που (rare) 58.
πρόσωπον without art. 150 f. In peri-
πράος, πράος 7.
phrases 83, 129 f., 151. πρόσωπον
λαμβάνω 4 (προσωπoλήμπτης etc. 68).
πράσσω: ευ πράσσω for καλώς ποιώ ?
245.
πρότερος -ον 34.
πρέπει constr. 241.
προτίθεμαι constr. 225.
πρίν 60. Constr. 219, 229, 240, 272. προϋπάρχω with part. 244 f.
πρίν ή 218 f., 229, 272. Prepos. with προφητεύω augm. 39.
gen. 229 note 2.
προφθάνω constr. 245.
Πρίσκα, Πρίσκιλλα 15 note 1.
πρωί, το ειnswering the question
πρό with gen. 126 f. προ προσώπου When ? 94, 157.
τινός 129. προ του with inf. 229, 237.
πρωία, ή 140.
προάγω intrans. 182.
πρώιμος. See προϊμος.
προαιτιάομαι constr. 232.
πρώρα 7.
προβλέπομαι mid. 186.
πρώτος for» πρότερος 34. “First of all'
πρόδηλον ότι 233.
141. πρώτον μεν 267.
328
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
πυκνότερον 142 note 1.
πύλη and -αι 84. πύλη omitted 140.
πυνθάνομαι constr. 103.
πώς 258. For ώς or ότι 230.
πως 60, 212f. (είπως, μήπως).
ρ, ρρ 10. Reduplication with ρ- 38.
-ρά 1st declens. gen. •ρης 25.
ραβδη 9.
Ραχάβ, Ραάβ 12.
βεραντισμένος 38, 57.
δεριμμένος 38, 57.
péw fut. 43, 57.
ρήγνυμι ρήσσω (βάσσω) 57.
ρίπτω -έω 57. ριψαν 15. Perf. pass.
38.
•ρσ., «ρρ- 2, 23.
ρύομαι 57.
Σίμων for Συμεών 30.
Σινά 8, 32.
σιρικόν 9.
-σις, substantives in, 62.
σίτος plur. -α 28.
Σιών 8.
σιώπα πεφίμωσo 278.
σκάνδαλον 4.
σκέπτομαι, σκοπέω 57.
Σκευάς 12.
σκληροκαρδία, -κάρδιος 67.
σκότος, τo (not o) 28.
Σόδομα, -ων 32.
Σολομών, -ώνος and -μών, μώντος 29. .
σπάω and -ομαι mid. 184.
σπίλος not σπίλος 15.
σπλαγχνίζομαι 61. Constr. 104, 135,
136.
σπόγγος, σφόγγος 24.
σπουδάζω 57. Fut. 43. Constr.
225.
σπυρίς, σφυρίς 24.
-σσ., -ττ- 2, 23.
στάδιον plur. -οι and -α 28.
στάμνος, η 26.
στάνω for ίστημι 48.
Στεφανάς 71.
στήκω for έστηκα 41.
στηρίζω, formation of tenses of, 40,
42, 57. στ. το πρόσωπον του with
inf. 235.
στοιχέω with dat. 119.
στόμα without art. 151. In peri-
phrases 83, 103, 129 f., 137, 151.
στρατεία, στρατιά 8.
στρέφω intrans. ? 182.
στρωννύω 48, 57.
συγγενής dat. plur. -εύσι 27. Fem. -ίς
σ, variable, 19f.
σάββατον 13. Dat. plur. -ασιν 29.
(εν) τοίς σ., τω σ. etc. 120. δις του σ.
97, 109. οψέ σαββάτων 97.
Σαλαμίν, -ίνη 32.
σαλπίζω, εσάλπισα etc. 40, 57. σαλ-
πίσει 75.
Σαλώμη 30.
Σαμάρεια, -ίτης 8.
-rav for -v in the imperat. 46. In the
impf. 46. In the optat. 46 f.
Σάπφιρα 7. 11. -ης 25.
σαρδ(ι)όνυξ 66.
Σάρεπτα, -φθα 13, 32.
σαρκικός, -ινος 65.
σάρξ without art. 150. πάσα σ. 162.
το κατά σάκρα 94, 157. κατά σ. with
'Ισραήλ, κύριος etc. 159.
Σαρωνα 32.
σατανάς, σατάν 32. Without art.
148.
σεαυτού not σαυτού 35.
Σεκούνδος, Σέκ. 15.
σελήνη without art. 147.
σημαίνω, εσήμανα, 40, 57. Constr.
232.
σήμερον (not τήμ.) 23.
σίκερα 32.
Σιλουανός, Σιλάς 71.
Σιλωάμ, ο 32.
σιμικίνθιον 9.
33.
συγκαλέω and -έομαι mid. 186.
συκομορέα 9.
συλλέγω 55.
συμβαίνω: συνέβη 228, 240.
συμβουλεύω, -ομαι constr. 225.
σύμμορφος with gen. 106. With dat.
114.
συμφέρει constr. 110, 227 f., 240 f.
συμφέρον as subst. 244.
σύμφορον (-έρον) with gen. 110.
συμφωνέω pass. constr. 114 note 1,
240.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
329
Ι
σύν in composition not assimilated 12. 1 τίς 36. Uses of, 175 f. Position 290.
Its uses in comparison with those For πότερος 36, 176. For όστις 175 f.
of μετά with gen. 132, 133 f. Verbs With partitive gen. and έξ (εν) 97.
(and adjectives) compounded with τίς ήμην κ.τ.λ. 177. τί as predicate
o úv, constr. with dat. 114f.
to ταύτα 77, 177. τι (predic.) εγέ-
συναντάω fut. 43, 52.
νετο 77, 177. τι “why ?? 177. τι
ότι (τί γέγονεν ότι), ίνα τι 177. τι
συνέρχομαι τινι go with anyone' 114.
“how' 177. τι προς ημάς, σε 73, 139,
συνευδοκώ constr. 227.
177. τί εμοί (ημίν) και σοι 73 (cp.
-σύνη, substantives in, 63.
74), 177. τί γάρ μοι. 73. τί γάρ;
συνήθειά έστιν constr. 228.
177, 274. τι ούν ; 177.
συνίημι, συνίω 51.
TuS indefinite pron. 36, 177 f. With
συνίστημι constr. 18 note 1 (233
partitive gen. and έξ (εν) 97. είς τις
144, 178.
note 1, 238).
τι something special
(predic.) 76 f. : similar use of τις 77.
συντίθεμαι constr. 225, 235.
ου ... τις 256. τινές οι with part. 243.
Συρία with and without art. 153.
Position of τις 288, 297.
Συροφοινίκισσα, φοίνισσα 63, 66. τίς ποτε “sonmeone or other' 178.
σφυδρόν for σφυρόν 24.
τoι only found in combinations 60.
ώζω, σώσω etc., εσώθην σέσωται 7, 57. τοιγαρούν 273.
τοίνυν 273.
τoιόσδε 36, 170.
ταμείον 23.
τοιούτος, neut. -o and -ον 36. ο τ. 161,
τάσσω aor. and fut. pass. 43 f., 57. 179. τοιαύτη pleonastically used
Constr. 240 f.
after oία 175.
τάχιον for θάσσον 34. Meaning 142.
τολμάω constr. 225.
τε 261, 263 f. τε (...) και, τε ... τε etc. -τος (verbal adj.) 37, 64. In com-
264 f.
pound words 68. Constr. with gen.
τέκνον, τεκνίον with μου 113.
107.
τελευτάω intrans. 292.
τοσούτος, neut. -O and -ον 36.
τελέω, τελέσω 42, 57. With part. τότε 276.
• 245.
τουτέστι, τούτ' έστι 14, 18, 77.
-τέον, verbal adjectives in, 37 (206 τρέμω with part. 246.
note 2).
τρίβω, συντετρίφθαι 15.
τέρας, plur. τέρατα 26.
τρίμηνος, ή 140.
τέσσαρες, -αρα (-ερα ?) 20. Acc. -αρες ?
τρίτον τούτο “now for the third time
20, 26.
91, 145. (το) τρ. for the third
τεσσαρεσκαιδέκατος 35.
time' 145. έκ τρίτου 145.
τεσσεράκοντα 20.
τρόπος : δν τρόπον etc., καθ' δν τρ.,
τεσσερακονταέτης 70.
παντί τρόπω 94, 118.
τετραάρχης 70.
Τρωάς, article 152.
τετράμηνος, ή 140.
Τρωγίλιον, -υλία etc. 22.
τηλαυγής 68.
τρώγω for εσθίω 54.
τηλικούτος, neut. -ον and -ο 36. ο τηλ.
τυγχάνω forms 57. Constr. 102. ει
161.
τύχοι 221. τυχόν 252. ουχ ο τυχών
τηρέω constr. 126.
255 f.
-τήριον, substantives in, 62, 64.
τύπτω defective 57.
-της, nouns denoting the agent in, 62.
In compound words 68.
v shortened before g 15. Interchange-
τι. See τίς.
able with ι22. =Lat. 13. κυ=Lat.
τίθημι forums 49, 51. Act. and mid.
-quυ- 13.
186. Constr. 226 f.
θαλος, ο for ή 26.
τίκτω aor. pass. 44, 57.
υγιής acc. -ιη 27.
τίνω τείσω etc. 8.
ύδωρ omitted 141.
330
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
:
244.
υετός omitted 141.
φανερός : εν τω φ., εις φ. 156.
vl changed into ū 9 f.
Φαρισαίοι 8.
-υία 1st decl. gen. -υψης 25.
φαύσκω, φώσκω 57.
viós to be supplied with a gen. 95. | φείδομαι with gen. 101. φειδομένως 58.
In metaphorical sense 95 f.
φέρω 57. φέρε, φέρετε 196 note 2.
υμών for υμέτερος 168. υ. αυτών “your
φέρων 248.
selves' (not reflexive) 170.
φεύγω trans. and with από 87.
-ύνω, new verb formed in, 61.
Φήλιξ 15.
υπάγω go’ 57, 182. Pres. not used
φημι 50. φησίν without subj. 75.
in future sense 189. ύπαγε 196, 278. φημι ότι 232. έφη omitted 292.
υπακούω with dat. 103. With inf. φημι omitted 294.
227.
φθάνω 57, 245.
υπάρχω not employed for periphrases φιλέω constr. 227. Used to express
203 note 1. With part. ibid. and
* gladly ' 258.
φιλόνικος not -εικος 8.
υπέρ with acc. 135. With compara-
tive 108. With gen. 135. Confused
φίλος with gen. (είμι φ. with dat.) 112.
with περί with gen. 134, 135. Used φοβέομαι fut. 45, 58. Trans, and with
adverbially (in conjunction with από 88. With μή 212f., 240 note 1.
adv. etc.) 14, 65 f., 135.-—Verb com With inf. 225.
pounded with υπέρ transitive 89.. φόβηθρον for -τρον 24.
υπεράνω 65.
φορέω, formation of tenses of, 40, 58.
υπερβάλλω constr. 104.
φορτίζω with double acc. 92.
υπερέκεινα 14, 66.
φρεναπάτης, -άω 68, 70.
υπερεκπερισσού, -ως 14 with note 1, φροντίζω constr. 227.
66, 135. With gen. 108.
Φρυγία with and without art. 153.
υπερέχω constr. 89, 104.
Φύγελ(λ)ος 11.
υπερλίαν, υπέρ λίαν 14, 66, 135.
φυλακή: Τετάρτη φ. etc. 120.
υπό with acc. and gen. 135. υπό χείρα
-φύλαξ in conmposition 68.
135 note 2. Compounds with υπό,
constr. 116.
φυλάσσω από 88. -ομαι trans. and
with από 87 f. φυλάσσω φυλακάς 90.
υποδείκνυμι constr. 233.
φυλάσσομαι ίνα μή 225.
υποκάτω 14, 65. With gen. 107, 129, Ι φύω εφύης 43, 58.
135 note 1.
υποκρίνομαι aor. 44. Constr. 232.
υπολαμβάνω not used with double χαίρω, fut. 43, 58. Constr. 118, 137
acc. 92. With ότι 232.
(245). χαρά χ. 119. χαίρειν sc. λέγει
υπομένω transit. 87.
222, 292.
υπομιμνήσκω, -ομαι constr. 104.
χάριν and χάριτα 26. χάριν with gen.
127. Position 290. χάρις υμίν και
υπονοέω constr. 232.
ειρήνη 288.
υποστέλλομαι constr. 235.
χειμάρρου from -ρρος (-άρρους) 25.
-υσία, substantives in, 69.
χείρ omitted 140. χ. in periphrases
υστερέω constr. 88 f., 91, 105, 112. 83, 130, 151. υπό χείρα 135 note 2.
ύστερος -ον also used in superlative χείρες και πόδες 289.
sense 34 f.
χέω. See χύν(ν)ω. χεώ ibid.
χλιαρός, -ερός 20.
χορτάζω, -ομαι constr. 101.
φ, reduplication of, 11.
χράομαι, contract forms of, 47. Constr.
φάγομαι 42, 54. φάγεσαι 47, 54.
90, 114.
φαιλόνης 9.
χρείαν έχω constr. 227 f. χρεία του
φαίνω έφανα 40, 57. φαίνομαι τινι 185. with inf. 234.
With part.? 245.
χρεοφειλέτης (χρεωφ.) 22, 68.
φανερόομαι constr. 233, 239.
χρή almost entirely absent 206 note 2.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS.
331
χρήζω constr. 105.
χρηματίζω, -ομαι (pass.) constr. 226,
232, 239 f.
Χρηστιανός not Χριστ. 63.
χρίσμα 15. .
Χριστός without art. 152.
χρίω constr. 92. :
χρονίζω constr. 227.
χύ(ν)νω for χέω 41, 58. Fut. χεώ 42,
58.
χωρίς with gen. 107, 127, 290 and 297f.
notes 6 and 1 (position).
ωνέομαι ωνούμην 37, 58.
öpa omitted 140, 149. Without art.
149. ώρα sc. εστίν 73: constr.
227 f., 240 f. ώραν εβδόμην etc.
(question When ?) 94. Simple dat.
and dat. with εν 120. εν αυτή την ώρα
170, 276.
-ws, adverbs in, 58.
ως 60, 270 f. Comparative particle
270 f. With predicate 92f., 270.
ως επί υersus 271. ώς τάχιστα 142,
271. With participle etc. 246 f.,
253. ουχ ώς 253. ώς oύ 256. In
exclamations 258. ώς, ώς ότι in
assertions 230 f. Temporal ús 218,
272. With inf. 225. With inf. for
ώστε ? 223.
ωσάν (ως άν) 233, 253 note 1, 270.
ωσει 253, 270.
ώσπερ 60, 253, 270.
ώσπερεί 270.
ώστε 60, 223 f., 240 (272 with note 2).
ωτίον (ωτάριον) beside oύς 63.
ωφέλεια -ελία 8.
ωφελέω Constr. 89, 90.
ώφθην αρραrus 56, 185; cp. οράω.
ψεύδομαι constr. 110.
ψύχω fut. pass. 44, 58.
ψωμίζω constr. 92.
w interchanged with a 22.
ώ before the vocative 86.
ωδε “here” (“hither') 58 f.
ώθέω ώσα 37, 58.
-ών, substantives in, 64.
-ων (comparat.) -ονες (-ους) etc. 27.
III. INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES.
24 268.
24. 17
24. 22
1. 22
ot
43
283.
24.45
9
25. II
196.
26. 29
MATTHEW.
1. 2 ff. 152.
1. 18 252, 257.
1. 19
248.
200.
157, 244.
164.
14 165, 190.
3. 16 f. 83.
3. 17
292.
15 94 note 1, 98,
130, 147.
5. 1 251.
266.
5. 19
299.
5. 20 108.
5. 28
102.
293.
5. 39 ff. 195, 217.
f. 209.
252.
245.
6. 30 214.
6. 34 104, 195.
173.
173.
7. 25, 27 172.
251 f.
215.
196.
293.
172, 251.
191.
51, 188 note l.
294.
182 note 1.
218.
251.
172.
182 note 1.
278.
224.
10. 4 198 note l.
lorezo esco
Essiggisigiaire common si mund mercado com os ceangenaaaaalala chiesa
inirico o co co o co co si oi oi oi oi oi o
contact opnemen voor aan
143.
| 24. 12 143.
24. 15 f. 281.
287.
258.
19. n.3, 110 n. 2.
178.
273.
24. 31 99f., 158 note 2
265.
172, 189.
157, 160.
124.
25. 6 200.
217.
196, 213, 255.
146, 274.
301.
90.
25. 14
270.
172.
26 175, 258.
200.
120 note 3.
294.
251 note 1.
26. 24
254.
209.
254.
233.
134.
85, 266.
218.
88 note l.
26. 33
215.
293.
196.
125.
268
209.
176.
215 note 2.
26. 53
191.
267.
26. 62 106, 176 n. 1.
217.
26. 64
268.
215.
224.
145.
27. II 260.
27. 25 293.
104.
27: 33
77, 281.
191.
145.
257.
27. 40
198.
27 260.
251 note 1.
277.
27. 49 202, 208, 248.
94, 105.
97.
111.
152.
234.
200.
MARK.
113.
143.
251.
28 49
10.
209.
197.
147.
1. 45 227 note 1.
298.
239.
255.
51.
143.
2. io
2. 13 124.
107 note l.
284.
210.
278.
3. UI 207.
278.
| 3. 14
226.
131.
iriniaiaiaiaiaiai cias
286.
217.
124.
10. 23 180.
10. 28 264.
33 217.
11. 8 f. 268.
332
INDEX OF N.T. PASSAGES.
333
Gojoj # # #
5. 36 159 note 1, 264,
293.
6. 3
272.
6. 4. 241, 254.
6.8 279.
14 ff. 263.
25
87 note 2.
6. 29 f. 105, 195.
6. 48
250 note 1.
218.
248.
196.
60
NO
15.
& f.
22 ff. 104
6. 27
id
37
219.
280.
174.
20
265.
14. 21. 254.
138.
14. 24 134.
214.
14. 27 275.
228.
14. 29 215, 251, 291.
146.
14. 34
196.
216, 218 note 1,
175, 268.
269.
14. 44
164.
217.
176 note 1, 177
166. .
293.
14. 65 118.
131.
| 14. 68
265.
166.
14. 72 182.
230 note 2. 15. 2 260.
143, 176.
6 36, 207.
15. 10 200.
286.
15. 25 262.
186 note 1. 16. 2 120.
230.
[Mc.] 16. 9
212.
11Mc.] 16. io ff. 172.
6. 39 f. 145, 230.
LUKE.
6. 48 237.
1. I 274.
207.
281 note 1.
1. 4.
172.
l. 7 274.
7. 25
175.
288.
124.
1.9 102, 235.
230 note 2. 1. 12 287.
88 note l.
· 130.
8. 23 101.
1. 20 174, 219.
265.
1. 21 237.
133.
1. 23 288.
8. 35 217.
178.
9. 10
234.
229.
267 f.
138.
9. 20 283.
1. 46 ff. 151.
143.
224.
176, 251. 1. 59 190.
9. 37
267 note 2. 1. 65 ff. 287.
217.
151.
215.
160.
241.
175.
295 note 2.
111.
171, 288.
230 note 2.
203
11. I
234, 262.
11.
218.
185, 219.
11. 30 f. 148.
107, 135, 237.
286.
164.
192.
164.
1.2.4 61.
3. 18
273.
12. 28 108.
237.
12. 33 234.
248.
12. 41, 44 193.
112.
13. 7 219,
20, 25 161.
13. 19
173, 175.
224.
13. 34 270.
14. 2
138.
14. 3. 106.
108, 140.
14. 9 124.
196, 286.
14. 14 217.
218.
# # # 260 to Rico escococo coco copo connnnc o co co co co ci oi oi oi oi oi oi oi ooooo--
கலை கைகககககககககககககல்வ
Domini nomunoco
zzziniciririririririririririririririrajoiciaiaiaiaiasca Hi Hi Hi Hi LOLO LI LO 200
7. 17 130.
7. 24 ft. 268.
8. 5 f. 267.
8. 18 217.
8. 24 301.
8. 27, 29 121.
8. 40 237.
f. 164.
196.
265.
108.
216.
24 f. 167 note 3.
248. :
85, 262.
9. 33 241.
237.
9. 36
200.
225.
130.
9. 49 f. 217.
224.
242.
299.
293.
237 note l.
134.
170.
301.
219.
196.
210, 262.
218.
1.
277.
215.
7
11. 32
36
48
வல்ல்ல்ல்ல்ல்ல்
258.
270.
217.
88 note l.
211.
175.
269.
272.
271, 293.
38.
85.
282.
218.
303 note 1.
218.
35
334
OF N.T. PASSAGES.
TA
INDEX 14. 21
is
6
15. 16
15. 22
15. 26
15. 30
6666777777777
tome
95.
16. I
16. 2
16.
24. 25
16. ?
16.2
17. 2
17. 4.
17. 8
17. II
17. 22
I. 14
19. 31
17. 33
229.
18.7
18. I
1
18. 29
277.
189.
19. 2
19.4
2
cô có vỏ cỏ có ở có có o o o o o o o ocessed====dai
213.
210.
277.
145.
292 note 2.
228.
263 note 2.
294.
186.
262.
37, 202, 205.
19 note 3, 101. 23. 50 f.
f. 166.
214, 238.
124 note 2. 23. 53 203.
189.
177, 220.
258, 263 note 2.
171.
24. 13
267.
171, 253.
24. 15
152.
262, 264.
177.
24. 21
164.
7. 35
105 f.
236.
7. 38 283.
39.
24. 27 38.
7. 40 97.
103.
24. 47
81, 249.
7. 45 172 note 1.
258.
139 note 4. [Jo.j 8. 9 249, 272 note 2.
182, 215, 228.
8.14 189, 215 note 1,266.
157.
JOHN.
8. 16 290.
268 note 2. 1 1. 6 ff. 172 note 1. 8. 19 206 note l.
175.
1. 13
84.
8. 25 176.
132, 153 note 2. | 1. 14. 81.
165.
128, 198.
275.
217.
124.
157, 163, 166 n. 1.
217.
1. 22
294 note 2.
173.
236.
19 note 3.
19 note 3.
218.
8. 59 250 note 1.
171.
128, 164.
224.
108, 143.
281 note 1. 9. 6 103, 288.
288.
164.
123 n. 1, 281 n. 1.
221.
192.
164.
293.
3. 10 157.
168.
97.
3. 15 110 note l. 9. 28 171 note 2.
249, 258.
255.
169, 219.
3. 25 97.
294.
262.
3. 32 199 note 2. | 10.6 172.
215.
3. 35
130.
261 note 1, 294.
269.
187.
262.
114.
286, 291.
148.
164.
19. II
19.13
275.
19. 15
255.
19. 4
1
42
43
4 f.
193.
258,
266.
198 note 1.
200.
4. 18 141.
134.
224, 238.
138.
11. 4 210.
241.
4. 34
228.
264.
255.
4. 36
264.
211 note 2.
265 note 1. 5. 2 242 note l.
126.
283 note 3.
277.
205.
263 note 2, 299.
12. 12 243.
97.
228.
27 268, 303.
217, 295.
146 note 2.
12. 28
264.
293.
5. 31 215.
12. 35 f. 272.
219, 255. 5. 35 157.
12. 43 60, 108.
108.
13. 6
187, 288.
294.
37 f. 266.
13. 13
85.
268.
5. 38 164.
13. 17 214.
210, 244.
164.
13. 27 142.
154, 164. 14. 9 121, 289.
37.
14. 21
260.
6.9 166, 177.
14. 22
177, 293.
170.
6. 13
102 with note3.
283 note l.
6. 18 38.
285.
112.
15. Ő 194.
204.
15. 8
212, 229.
264.
22 ff. 284.
| 15. 13
229.
20. 19
20. 20
20. 22
20. 27
12. I
5. 3
21. 6
21. IL
21. 16
22. II
22. 26
gererererer
40, 46 196.
253.
136.
192.
6. 22
23. 28
INDEX OF N.T. PASSAGES.
335
15. 22
15. 24
16. 17
18.346
254.
205, 264.
97.
197 note 1.
82, 166.
167 note 1.
206, 207.
260, 273.
301.
205.
13. 21
5. 36
19. I
19. I
54.
1y.
81.
១ ១ ១ ** ***
O
os di ciocoici cigaganini
217.
14. 13
77 note 1.
131.
291.
172 note 2.
295 note 2.
152.
196.
245.
254 note 2.
177, 290.
177, 214.
232.
20. I
1.
2
677777777777777778
1.
6
15. 39
5.7 85, 267. | 11. 26 193.
5.9 114 note l, 240. 12. I 125.
5. 14 f. 281.
12. 3 76, 258, 267, 281.
5. 21 135, 230. 12. 12 162.
5. 24. 177, 220.
13. I
163.
5. 26 f. 190.
13. 13
134.
5. 28 119, 171 note 2. 13. 20 121.
5. 29 292.
186 note 2.
168.
24 129.
214.
25 175.
190.
90 note 1, 290.
81.
42 129.
137, 193.
248.
14. 9 235.
153.
14. IO 158, 295 note 3.
243.
113 note 1.
14. 15
177.
236.
14. 17 269.
113.
14. 19 190.
165.
14. 21 f. 198.
185.
14. 22 233, 292 note l.
190.
14. 28 193 note l.
131.
15. I 117.
183.
15. 3 f. 190.
208.
15. 3 192.
7. 35
158, 200. 15. io 225 note l.
35 ff. 301.
15. 22 f. 285.
40 283.
15. 23 159 n. 1, 182 n. 3.
84, 107.
15. 27 198.
186, 241 note 1. 15. 36 166.
123.
224.
146.
16. 12 97,193 n. 1,204.
166.
16. 14 98.
178.
16. 15 165, 191 n. 2, 263.
171, 249. 16. 18 188.
259, 298. 16. 21 242.
215, 191. 16. 22 f. 191 n. 1, 197, 230.
173
16. 34 245.
237.
16. 37. 275.
103, 151. 16. 39 125, 133, 191 n. 2.
151' (152). 17. I 153.
246.
17. 2 112, 191.
292.
128.
175.
17. 18 171.
292.
17. 21 142, 154n. 2, 161.
15 264.
17. 22 142.
15 179 note 1. 17. 26
9. 21 201.
101 note 5. 18. 2 152.
9. 28 292 note 1. 18. 6 293.
9. 34
188.
21
22
24 f.
2.4
9 f.
9 ff.
mimi nimiznimnimizisiaisiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiaiais com o co *i * * * * * * *
ACTS.
152.
109, 185.
286.
133.
146.
32, 85, 95.
265.
264 note 1, 267.
220 note 1.
174, 292 note 1.
174, 249.
197, 223.
292.
153.
265.
220.
292.
38.
263, 292.
112.
143, 263.
190.
116 note l.
191, 241 note 1.
164, 192.
253.
Face AW 609 out the
2. 14
2. 25
2. 37
2. 39
69.
274.
27
2. 47
18. II
193.
9. 38, 42 152.
18. 15
133.
10. 14. 178.
104.
10. 33
223.
18. 19 ff. 191.
10. 36
96, 174. 18. 21
10. 37
81.
18. 22
250.
10. 46 292
198, 250.
10. 48 191.
18. 24 21.
11.1 249.
19. I 21.
11. 7
19. 6 292.
11. 17 177.
19. 7 162.
116 note l. l 19. 16 250.
3
IO
12
26
3. 26 f.
237.
301.
164.
301.
295.
10 f.
4. 12
18. 23
243.
267.
256.
119.
234 note 2.
288.
224.
246.
11. 24.
336
INDEX OF N.T. PASSAGES.
2. 7
2. 13
2. 17
2. 19 f.
12
14
3. 20
4. 3
19.
37
aici aj oj oj ca ci * i Hi #
288.
162.
195 note 2.
215.
151 note 2.
166, 221.
123 note 2.
277.
148.
196.
154.
195 note 2.
163.
123.
26. 29
27. I f.
4. 15
X
27. 3
33.
290.
167 note 2, 238.
190.
290.
264.
20, 127.
143, 158, 288.
116 note 3, 207.
191.
242.
264.
233, 286.
34, 142.
141.
147, 266.
253.
94.
140.
140, 253.
190.
183.
152.
27. 4 f.
27. 10
won
I
12
27. 20
27. 30
27. 33
1. I
27. 34
2 PETER.
163.
171.
301.
254.
145.
lll.
240.
o
159.
246.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
88 note 2.
256.
267.
193.
202.
103.
28. 30
irricidii aiaiaiaiai oi oi oi ci ca os ojos Gi
169.
113.
- nnܩܩܗ : ܕ ܬ ܩ ܧ ܨ ܒ ܬ ܚܚܩ ܝܰܘܶ
19. 24 186.
19. 26
127, 178.
19. 27
106 note 1.
19. 32
200.
19. 34
283, 301.
248.
20. Z 152.
20. II 152.
20. 13 153, 253.
20. 16 221.
20. 24 92, 223 note l.
20. 28 223.
20. 30
170.
21. I 153.
21. 2 f. 198.
21. 3
40, 93, 153, 183,
190, 204.
II 168.
21. 16 97, 174, 217.
21. 20 190.
21. 21
203.
212.
199, 298.
190.
260.
22. I
22. 2 190.
19 note 3.
241.
246.
22. 10 196.
22. 15
199.
22. 16 186.
22. 17
165, 252.
22. 22
206.
230 note 2.
299.
162, 265 note 2.
294.
178, 286.
182 note 3.
252.
153.
298.
24. 6 283 f.
265 note 2.
24. 19
24. 21 172.
24. 22 142.
24. 26 252.
25. 4. 238.
25. 8 154.
25. 10 142, 203.
25. rof. 188.
25. II 234, 292.
25. 13 197.
220.
25. 21 238.
25. 22 207, 292.
26.2 199, 290.
26. 4. 50.
242.
1. 14 f.
sisiirinizia aj
JAMES.
302 note 1.
297.
177.
236.
200.
195.
104, 155.
200, 217.
113.
157, 293.
166.
99.
137, 156.
147.
105.
113:
161.
oft nco año
81.
O
265 note 1.
175.
113 note 3.
4. 9f. 195.
4. 13 170.
4. 14 157, 176.
4. 15 263 note l.
5.7 141.
5.f. 195.
5. 12 256 note 2.
5. 13 ff. 302.
5. 16 185.
1 JOHN.
166.
224.
290.
215, 229.
200.
255.
273, 283.
283.
214 note l.
221.
tanmunat
miziciaiaiaiaiai aici ca sa ti ti ti ti 20 10 20
mormant
229.
229.
210 note 1.
247.
152, 254.
131.
273.
229.
3
1 PETER.
153.
256.
195 note 2.
195 note 2.
160.
156.
195 note 2.
182 note 3.
229.
25.
214.
.-
2 JOHN.
285.
10
1
2
INDEX OF N.T. PASSAGES.
337
2
IO
3 John.
135.
266.
9. I
9. 3
8. 29 f. 301.
8. 31 ff. 303.
8. 33 ff. 303 note 3.
8. 34 303 note 2.
160.
279.
207, 159 note 5.
9.4
179, 292 note 2.
9. 21 228 note 3.
10. I 267, 279.
10. 9
247.
10. 14 f. 210, 301.
10. 16 268
11. 6 274.
11. 8
8 235.
3. 14 f. 215.
3. 21 271.
228.
48,144,211 note
1, 293.
4. 8 207, 302.
4. 9. 278.
215, 268.
5. I 288.
275.
206, 257.
277.
9. 6
SS
5. 10
5. 13
170.
6.4
6.5
270, 290.
82.
265.
268.
====doi
267.
ROMANS.
166.
107.
163.
8 267.
1. 13 270, 282.
l. 14 154.
1. 15 74 notel,133,157.
1. 19
155.
235.
270.
299.
299.
155.
286.
282.
15
156, 218.
17 ff. 284.
238.
300 note 3.
166.
132.
303.
267.
210, 282, 303
220, 274.
11. I
11. I
273.
17, 19 299.
216.
294.
274.
238.
286.
216.
11. 36
132.
293.
5 c o o o o SPSSSSSSSSSơó có cô
253.
voi oi
298.
271.
150.
257.
9. 10
234.
7. 27
280, 302.
35 115, 155, 244.
214.
7. 36 ff. 196.
285.
8. 4 290.
271.
132, 175.
160 note 1.
199.
274f.
9. II 215.
112, 228.
229.
142.
154.
106.
162.
187.
3. 25
3. 29 f.
285.
120.
222, 299.
23 note 1.
73, 240.
13. Ź 294.
13. 9 167 note 1.
13. II
241.
13 195 note 1, 253.
14. 2 232 note 2.
4. 111.
7 f. 111.
14. II 111.
14. 19
14. 21 197, 292.
272.
15. 26 f. 115, 275.
16. 3 ff. 173.
16. 7 71 note 4.
27 284 note 2.
203.
150.
169.
148.
294.
303.
234.
174.
301.
201.
150.
299.
4.9
Ιο
13
17
157.
3 ff.
15. 24
o aumto
160.
co co vo co co co co co # # # # o o o o o o o o o o o>>>>>>ỏ gỗ ó ó ô
montonant
294.
191.
191.
10. II
78.
10. 13
10. 16
235.
colo
210.
195 note 1, 159.
114.
Iof. 91, 111.
150.
6. 17 174.
3 201.
INTHIANS.
13 134.
1. 18 159.
1. 25 ff. 155, 274, 300.
27 f. 82, 156.
1. 31 293.
100 note 2.
10. 18
10. 21
174.
159.
151 note 2.
291.
271, 292
264.
131.
rajcicici Gä сh Di G D G
107.
151 note 2.
65.
269, 292.
11. 5
11. Ő
11. 9
244.
302 note l.
133.
77, 158
186, 234.
275.
283 note 2.
256 note 1.
267.
65.
269.
14
268.
277.
111.
160, 185.
275.
65.
234.
155.
275.
131.
235.
279.
11. 17
162.
11. 18
Y
INDEX OF N.T. PASSAGES.
295.
ର୍ଷ
11. 27 266.
11. 29 ff. 298.
272.
275.
138, 256.
212, 284. .
284.
desi gigi mo mai
200, 284.
142.
118n.1,233 n. 1,
294.
159.
cow na
175.
273.
175.
291.
124.
269.
162.
187 note 1, 212.
271.
150.
13. 8
14. E
4. 6 f.
286.
ver
14. 7
269.
131.
t. II
14. 18
TO
777 788888888888899999999900
20
246.
150.
216, 291.
199.
5
295, 303 note 2.
213, 240 note l.
133.
205.
48, 212 note 1.
234.
166.
207.
4. 19
4. 24
173.
15 271 note l.
15. 35
15. 41 147.
15. 42 ff. 300 note 3.
15. 47 147.
5. 12
15. 51
257.
173.
187.
185.
186.
294.
167 note 1, 162.
299.
286.
272.
5. 14
5. 21
6. I
6. 10
1. 6
1. 15
EPHESIANS.
133.
49,211 note 1.
186.
2 CORINTHIANS.
162.
185.
1.9
200.
269..
256 note 2.
290.
262.
171.
76, 142.
200, 236.
299.
65.
299.
294.
93, 100.
131.
298.
152.
185.
142.
107.
155.
160.
162.
107 note 2.
160.
161.
ooow och uw daw n
185.
cici i #i #i #
15
98.
203.
285.
238.
162, 198, 243.
206, 256 note l.
166.
285.
164.
222.
i 203 204 205 20 20 coco
18
252.
212.
159.
3
.
PHILIPPIANS.
162.
234, 269.
237.
131.
133.
282.
236.
155.
Iof. 234.
8. II 235, 237.
8. 15. 293.
142.
8. 18 ff. 284.
156.
271 note 2.
234.
142, 168.
9. 3 160.
303.
9. 6 294.
9.7 294.
9. S 298.
II 8. 285.
159.
234.
10.9 270, 294 note 2.
10. 1075, 282.
10. II . 166.
10. 12 168.
10. 13 174 note 2.
11. I 207, 269.
11. I ff. 303.
11. 10 232.
ll. 16 196.
11. 16 ff. 288, 303.
11. 19 f. 303.
282, 303.
11. 22
303.
135, 303.
11. 21
maigiai
193, 200.
147.
116.
217.
143.
206, 303.
303.
200, 283.
255.
252.
275.
216.
12.-13
12. 17
12. 20
12. 21
13. 4
13. 5
162, 266.
202 note 1.
284.
1ll, 199, 291.
162, 273.
166.
285.
295.
91, 93, 282.
114, 204.
303.
6. 3-10
6. 4 ff.
6. 13
GALATIANS.
1.4 160.
1. Ź 216, 254.
1. 12 265 note 2.
160.
131.
91, 171.
1. II 93, 102.
1. 14 142.
1. 18 268.
1. 22 211, 262.
6. 14
7. 3
INDEX OF N.T. PASSAGES.
339
1. 5
minicaiaiaiaiaiaiais os os ci ca ca ca ci G
ooooooo
3. II
2 f.
236.
212.
81.
180.
257, 271.
247.
135, 234.
166.
218.
168, 272.
88, note 1, 298.
199.
155, 269, 270.
169.
138, 216.
294.
222, 268.
163, 168.
235.
155.
43, 138, 234.
292 note 2.
264.
258.
I.
4
162.
291.
4.3
4. 13
5. 9
4. 10
aici ci co ti * i Hi Lowo 2020zo coco coccorrrrrrrcococo co os oi oi oooooooom
247.
4. 12
4. 22
f
146.
COLOSSIANS.
162.
173.
218.
263.
203.
162.
237.
5. II 144.
2. 16
301.
5. 27 241.
80.
98.
2 THESSALONIANS.
268.
293.
1 195 note 1.
253.
114.
185.
297.
2. 12
215.
288, 297.
3. 10 232.
134.
298.
126 note l.
299.
1 TIMOTHY.
297.
1. I 163.
228.
1. 3 ff. 284.
100, 264.
108 note l.
297.
l. 10 277.
224.
1. 16
260.
296.
219.
225.
108 with note 4.
255.
5. 10 151 note 2.
33 f. note 4.
5. 13
65.
5. 19 216.
5. 22 195.
146.
254.
263.
6.5 105.
6. 13 f. 241.
6. 20 195.
252.
2 TIMOTHY.
1. 16 38.
9. 9 80.
1. 18 142.
218,255,297 n. 3.
2. 25
213.
10. 2 297.
3. 2 277.
| 10. 10 297 note 5.
10. 25
168.
195.
178.
4. 3
118.
138.
10. 29 282.
10. 33 171.
TITUS.
10. 37 73, 179.
1. 2 f.
11. 3 257.
1. II 254.
3-31 301.
169.
12 160.
2. II 160.
11. 17
190, 200.
163.
11. 27 298.
168, 173.
1l, 28
200.
264, 289, 302 f.
PHILEMON.
note 2.
207.
32-40 301.
302.
289.
20 298 note 4. 12. 2 f. 199 note 3, 298.
149, 297 note 6.
HEBREWS.
297.
1. I 137,156,297,297
267.
note 6, 298.
146.
280.
297 f.
1. 4 288, 298.
4. 2
277
คง งง 4
285.
185.
250.
213.
77 note 2, 102.
185.
77 note 2.
204, 267.
77 note 2, 150.
77 note 2.
285.
253.
258.
von
28
NCO O
199.
17
3. 5°
14
16 f.
4. 3
16
+
286.
a-
2. 9
aici
در
Oow
پر ہر
iniziavaiaiaiaiai mici ti ti ti
1 THESSALONIANS.
163.
96, 99.
160.
258.
195 note 1.
185.
267.
266.
234.
213.
214.
236.
158.
234.
228 note 4, 302
van overw och ett a cow
Esisisigasiggisia
coucou
mirisiaiaiaiai
297 note 6.
12. 15
98.
237, 266, 297. 12. 24 297.
298.
253.
233, 237.
232.
note 2.
4. 16 159.
5. 10 212, 214.
288.
297.
132.
12. 28
340
INDEX OF N.T. PASSAGES.
13. 19
13. 23
13. 24.
142.
142.
258.
12. 14
13. 3
175.
44, 118 note 3.
224.
226.
13. 13
13. 15
APOCALYPSE.
212.
80.
113, 293.
283.
238.
160.
90 note 2
100 note 3, 283.
81.
215.
283.
211, 226, 240.
81, 283.
91 note 1.
92.
283.
265 note l.
265 note l.
224.
200.
wo cocococococorrincos co oi oi oi oi
14. 4 217.
99, 301.
81.
14. 19 80.
15. 2
17
a cicavar aici ai ai GS GS G C G 20 20 20 20 20 20
+ 5 N Coon
SO
L
saagigiai
103.
81, 278.
278.
283.
278.
293.
278.
175.
81.
81.
200.
218.
212.
200.
114 note 2.
126.
16. I 41.
16. 9
224.
16. 1999.
17.8
44.
18. 2 301.
99.
85.
200.
224.
265 note 1.
80.
216.
130.
228 note 3.
80.
175.
236.
265 note 1.
293.
265 note l.
20. 10
198.
21. 4
265 note l.
21. 17 99 note 1.
21. 21
122.
22. 9
293.
22. 14 211.
| 22. 28 f. 299.
81.
5. 11 f.
5. I2
277.
GLASGOW: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY ROBERT DAOLLHOSE AND CO.

-
-
-
-
---.
.
.W
...
+
.--.
TENT
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
I
IIIII
BOUND
3 9015 01070 7563
OCT
UNIV.
LIBAT
'
.
-...-
·} !
.
inte
.
.
1
...
:.
.
.
-.
-
...-
.',
.
"
.'
ARTISTRERT
-
量
​-
警
​事事​,

「華華​」舉
​鲁
​,
鲁鲁​,,
·
着重量
​書書畫
​-
: 有事
​看看
​量​,重重重重重重​,
f.
書畫​,書
​學畫畫書
​軍事重重​,
量 ​,
畫書
​基本
​事​,
-
神
​重
​是是
​事事通事
​4
|
本書​。
|
lu鲁鲁t
學畫畫書
​事​。
看日事事會
​;重量​,
一
​1,1,1
|-
下
​.
事重重​,非
​有毒重重
​事
​---
畫畢書
​--
重量
​鲁吉
​-
鲁​,鲁鲁​,鲁鲁​-|
|
,
量
​*
*
eaf
重量​,
非重量
​t
中​.
.
-
-
|
看了​。
-
事
​,
看看
​“
华
​,
重
​,
重量車
​重重重重​”
重量
​重毒是
​車事
​書畫事事​。
車
​-
|
|
.
中
​鲁鲁​,鲁鲁
​业
​;
普車​,
量量產​,事事中事事​,
li是全为基善事​, "-
/
中
​量是
​-
.
e
「”.
.
…
--
::
,
鲁鲁​,事
​體​,畫庫
​畫書
​.
.
.
.
.、今す
​- 由
​.
。
.
r
,
,
,
鼻
​"
i
+
:"
:
单击量
​車事
​4.
重
​量​-重量
​:
4
,
,
*
是​,
TH
.
著者
​-。
-
-
LE
---
書
​「
是
​量​”
是
​鲁鲁​,
-
。
事
​| 事
​畫書
​事
​。
重量​-重量
​*
青春​,
-
---
重​,
-
单量​,
--
1.
是非
​|
重重疊疊書會
​賽事​,
,
事
​量​,
重量
​看看書​,
平​,
1.
華
​。賽
​事
​重重重​。
重量
​量​重量基準
​。
本書​:
T
.
4,
,
鲁
​農事​,
轟轟重重
​·
・
重劃書
​尊重量
​重量非非
​重
​|
重重重 ​11
畫畫是費量
​在鲁鲁
​1.
”
鲁鲁鲁​..
董事會量產
​“.
青​,
垂在背書
​单是鲁鲁鲁車重量套書事
​鲁鲁鲁​,
鲁鲁董事
​事重重​,是華
​*
| | 重量
​重量
​美
​。
"
"
“,
鲁
​主是重要​,
「難重重重重重
​量
​重量重量​,
,
畫書
​。
非得是學不會
​*
--
,看看
​車重量​。
重量
​-
本
​鲁普​,
鲁-
​-
畫畫是
​量身高​,
量
​非非
​看
​.
.
「
畫畫
​量​”一事
​,
事
​事
​是看重
​售 ​體重管事看
​。
平
​事非非
​着
​看
​。
鲁鲁​,其重量单
​學會董事事​,
灣學賽事
​非計劃書者​,
事事非事事
​1
動畫筆
​.
串串串串量​。
鲁鲁鲁鲁事​,等等​。
事事書 ​, 事事​,。
新着重身量身​「華華戰略學
​普鲁斯車事
​看看​,事事
​单单事再生
​善事毒​,
鲁
​事
​畢書
​毒鲁
​重量
​畫畫
​前事
​,無非是非對
​重量
​A:事
​車子​,
其实​,
重
​。
事事
​重量
​「畫書
​畫書舉重拳重擊聲看书
​- 事事實鲁鲁​,鲁鲁
​重事事​,事事集
​首
​重量​,
重
​事​,事事書
​畫畫是非
​書
​非戰
​。
重量​。
事
​。
事書體重量​,
書畫事事​| |
重車賽事​。
「 書
​「
事
​書畫事事
​畫畫畫畫畫非非
​事事無事一舉世無量集會​,
都是靠
​重量
​重要
​垂直​:
年前
​,
其無​,無非善非軍事轟轟轟
​普
​書庫
​畢鲁鲁事
​鲁貴重重
​學車費實在是無動鲁事
​等一下​,
事事無事
​重重
​事事畫著學學看書學學學畫畫​,每鲁鲁能
​事事事非學乌鲁鲁​,鲁鲁事是鲁鲁
​一​,
,鲁鲁鲁鲁​,鲁鲁鲁鲁鲁番
​45
鲁鲁
​中
​事事事​,事事學學鲁鲁鲁​,鲁鲁兽等學畢鲁鲁鲁鲁鲁
​。
重重​,
鲁鲁鲁
​事
​事事非事事鲁鲁鲁鲁​”事非非
​意事重置
​中事事​,
臺北影最新動基準量產車量之事​。
| 。”
最重要事事单事事事書單身
​動畫筆 ​看
​鲁鲁事非非​,
事非事畢事​,
事事非事事​,事事都
​普​「重量
​環華華​) 書事​。
--
-
非重重重重重重重
​量
​看我
​看看​,
體重是
​事事
​是真光
​事​,事事鲁鲁量
​-
-
-
.
--
」
.
掌事者
​事
​一家人​,
「
141集
​鲁鲁鲁​,鲁鲁車事
​..
畢學長基事事事非事事最重身
​事
​-
重量
​-
,
事
​-事事
​善重新重量重量量​,重量
​量基本维鲁鲁鲁事非非無非事事看
​重量事鲁​,鲁鲁鲜事​,看看
​書畫
​賽事集書畫集​,
事事有
​非筆畫數都非善非善非善非善事
​事事
​中
​- 畫書
​曹
​鲁鲁​,事無非是青春事事非事售車賽事非事事非事事非事事學
​「是是非非
​-非重量轟轟​「舊舊事重事事
​-
理事单​,基建工程動車普轟轟真善事​!」
-
4
章事
​ATTA華人學​!
事业单等重量事​。
「
無得典無基善事集全集等​,
事事都得尊重事事鲁鲁
​ht學者​,會事工
​轟轟轟動事重重​,事非事事事
​量素T」
事事書籍事實是是是是非非​」,曲曲鲁鲁​,,鲁鲁鲁​。