B50184
ཤཀ

ARTES
1817
SCIENTIA
VERITAS
LIBRARY
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
TUEROR
S-PENINSULAT
THE GIFT OF
Mrs H E Beman
не
GRAMMAR
OF
THE IDIOM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
PREPARED AS A SOLID BASIS FOR THE INTERPRETATION
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
BY
DR. GEORGE BENEDICT WINER.
SEVENTH EDITION, ENLARGED AND IMPROVED.
BY
DR. GOTTLIEB LÜNEMANN,
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GOETTINGEX,
REVISED AND AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION.

AFD
YOLUMUS
Vos
IGNORARE
Andover:
WARREN F. DRAPER.
LONDON: TRÜBNER AND CO. LEIPSIC: F. C. W. VOGEL.
PHILADELPHIA: SMITH, ENGLISH, & Co.
1874.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by
WARREN F. DRAPER,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
ANDOVER:
PRINTED BY WARREN F. DRAPER.
gir
Miho.
mho, A. & Baron
7-10-24
D
PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.
2.
WHEN this Grammar first made its appearance, in 1822, the
object proposed was to oppose the unbridled license with which
the diction of the New Testament was then, and had long been,
handled in commentaries and exegetical lectures; and to apply,
as far as practicable, the results of an enlightened philology, as
deduced and taught by Hermann and his school, to the study of
the language of the New Testament. It was high time that some
voice should be raised against the inveterate empiricism of ex-
positors, and that some effort should be made to emancipate the
writers of the N. T. from the bondage of a perverted philology,
which styled itself sacred and yet showed not the least respect
towards the sacred authors and their well-considered phraseology.
The fundamental error the рŵтоν eûdos — of the Biblical
πρῶτον ψεῦδος
philology and exegesis to which we refer, consisted ultimately in
this, that neither the Hebrew nor the language of the N. T. was
regarded as a living idiom (Herm. Eurip. Med. p. 401.), designed
to be used by men as the medium of intercourse. Had scholars
deliberately inquired, whether those departures from the current
laws of speech which were assumed to exist in the Bible in such
prodigious multitudes, were compatible with the essential princi-
ples of a language intended for the ordinary purposes of life, they
would not so arbitrarily have held every kind of anomaly to be
permissible; and would not have delighted to attribute to the
Apostles in almost every verse an enallage or a substitution of the
wrong construction for the right.
The older commentaries belonging to the period of the Refor-
mation are comparatively free from such perversions; but when
V
vi
PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.
we read certain commentaries of the 18th and 19th centuries still
current, we are constrained to conclude that the main character-
istic of the language of the N. T. is a total want of precision and
regularity. For these interpreters are continually showing how
here a wrong tense is used, there a wrong case, here a comparative
for a positive, there ỏ for Tis, but instead of for, consequently for
because, on the other side for on this side (what for so Isa. viii. 20).
Such exegetical learning makes a reader quite impatient with the
sacred writers for their ignorance of the ordinary principles of
language. He cannot comprehend how such men in oral dis-
course, where this lawlessness of speech must certainly have been
still more conspicuous, could have made themselves understood
even, much less how they could have won over to Christianity a
great number of persons of education.
But this system of explaining every difficulty by a pro or an
idem quod had a serious as well as a ludicrous aspect. For does
not Scripture become, as an eminent linguist long ago intimated,
like a waxen nose, which every one can twist as he pleases, in
proportion to his ignorance of the learned tongues? Would it
have been impossible, or even difficult, for such a man as Storr, for
example, had the task been assigned him, to have found in the
words of the Apostles any favorite notion whatever? And does
such a view of N. T. diction accord with the dignity of sacred
writers ?1 Every one who now-a-days should insist on using in
the ordinary intercourse of life such perversions of language as
the following: I shall come to thee to-day for I came to thee to-day;
no prophet ever came out of Galilee for no prophet will ever come
out of Galilee (Jno. vii. 52); I call you no longer servants for I
did not call you mere servants (Jno. xv. 15); for Jesus himself tes-
tified, that a prophet has no honor in his own country for although
Jesus himself testified, etc. (Jno. iv. 44); I saw the forest that was
magnificently covered with foliage for a forest that was, etc.
(Jno. v. 12); send me the book, and I will read it, for thou wilt
1 Herm. ad Viger. p. 786: Diligenter caveant tirones, ne putent, viros spiritu sancto
afflatos sprevisse sermonem mortalium, sed meminerint potius, illam interpretandi
rationem, qua nonnulli theologorum utuntur, nihil esse nisi blasphemiam.
2 To what extent expositors of the old school were devoid of all sense of expression
may be seen (instar omnium) in Kühnöl's reasoning, Mt. p. 120 sq.
PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.
vii
send me the book, etc.; to whom it was revealed that for to whom
this was revealed, yet so that, etc. (1 Pet. i. 12¹); Christ is dead
therefore risen again for but risen again; he is not more learned
for he is not learned; he rejoiced that he should see, etc., and he
saw and rejoiced, for he would have rejoiced if he had seen, etc.,
he rejoiced even at what he already saw (Jno. viii. 56); he began to
wash for he washed (Jno. xiii. 56), and the like,— would be re-
garded as having lost his reason. Were all the instances of a quid
pro quo which many expositors during the decennaries just past
have put into the mouth of the Apostles to be collected, the list
could not fail to be astounding.
When, at the commencement of my career as a university
tutor, I undertook to combat this absurd system of interpretation,
I was aware that there were scholars far more competent for the
task than myself; and, in fact, what I accomplished in the earlier
editions of this book was but imperfect. My attempt, however,
was cordially encouraged by distinguished men, and in particular
by Vater and D. Schulz. Others pointed out, sometimes indeed
in a spirit of bitterness, the imperfections of the work; and to
these unsparing critics I have been greatly indebted, not only in
this publication, but in all my exegetical labors. By discussions
annexed to the second edition (1828) the grammatical contents
of the work were enlarged, and the third edition came out greatly
improved, both in copiousness and accuracy, by a more extensive
study of the writings of the Greek prose authors and of the Hel-
lenistic Jews. From that time forward I have labored incessantly
to improve the work; and I have been animated by the aid which
philological and exegetical publications suited to my purpose have
furnished me in rich abundance. At the same time, the intelligent
investigation of the N. T. diction has been daily gaining ground;
and the use of the Grammar by commentators has been growing
more and more evident. The work began to attract the attention
of professed philologists even. At the same time I have always
been far from thinking the correct grammatical elucidation of the
N. T. to be its only proper exposition; and I have, in silence,
allowed some to regard me even as an opponent of what is now
called the theological interpretation.
1 On this passage see my Erlanger Pfingstprogr. 1830. 4to.
viii
PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.
The present edition- the sixth-will show again on every
page, that I have spared no effort to arrive at truth. Deeply, how-
ever, do I regret, that in the midst of my labors I was overtaken
by a nervous affection of the eyes, which has brought me to the
verge of total blindness. This calamity has compelled me to
employ the eyes and hands of others to complete this edition. I
cannot omit this opportunity of expressing publicly my sincere
thanks to all the young friends whose indefatigable assistance only
has enabled me, in spite of my frequent forebodings, to accomplish
my task.
The change in the arrangement of the matter in Part III. will,
I trust, be approved. In other respects, it has been my especial
aim to treat every point with greater completeness, and in smaller
space, than in previous editions; (the text of the Grammar now
occupies eight sheets fewer than before). With this view I
adopted all possible abbreviations in the Biblical and Greek
citations.¹ It is hoped, however, that these, as well as those for
the names of more recent authors,2 will everywhere be intelligible.
The citations have been verified anew throughout; and, so far as
I know, not a single work that has appeared since 1844 has been
left unused, or at least unnoticed.
The text of the N. T. I have uniformly, that is except when
there was a question of various readings, quoted in accordance
with the second Leipsic edition of Dr. Tischendorf, which at
present has probably the most extensive circulation.
May this new revision the last the work will ever receive
from me
contribute to the diffusion of Biblical truth, so far as
any such work can.
1 The Greek writers are only quoted by the page when the division by chapters has
not obtained currency: Plato, according to the edition by Stephan.; Strabo and Athe-
nacus, by Casaubon; Demosthen. and Isocrat., by H. Wolf; Dionys. Hal., by Reiske;
Dio Cass., by Reimar.; Dio Chrysost., by Morell.
2 It may be remarked here, that instead of Kuinoel (the Latinized form of the name),
Kühnöl, as the family wrote their name in German, is used everywhere, except in Latin
citations.
LEIPSIC, October, 1855.
1
PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION.
WINER'S foreboding that the sixth edition would be the last
revision from his hand has unfortunately been realized. But even
while sensible of his approaching death, the indefatigable man
took incessant interest in his Grammar, and labored to the very
end of his life to perfect it. Without altering the general distri-
bution of matter as it appeared in the sixth edition, he constantly
improved the book in details, by additions of greater or less
extent in more than three hundred and forty places, by erasures
and reconstructions, by the multiplication of parallel passages
from biblical and from profane literature, by a more precise defini-
tion of thoughts and expressions, by the correction of trivial over-
sights and mistakes, etc. etc. Thus he has not left us without
bequeathing to us in this book a legacy richer than ever.
When the publisher confided to me the preparation of the
new edition which had become necessary, I could not hesitate
a moment what course to adopt. It was clear to me, in the first
place, that the book must retain absolutely and throughout the
character of a work by Winer. This was demanded, on the one
hand, by reverence towards the departed author; whom no one
has hitherto surpassed-whom hardly any one among those now
living will surpass in a department which he cultivated with
especial fondness for more than a generation. It appeared also,
on the other hand, to be a sacred duty towards the theological
public, to whom Winer's work, on account of its scholarly exact-
ness and copious erudition, justly became long ago a precious.
possession and a universally acknowledged authority. I con-
sidered myself, therefore, as bound to abstain from every radical
T
2
ix
X
PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION.
I
alteration of the text, either as respects the general arrangement
or as respects the development of details. My task, rather,
perceived to be merely this: while preserving in its integrity the
character of Winer's book, to increase as far as possible, in
the spirit and intent of Winer, its usefulness for students of the
present day. I have taken especial pains to work into the text
the numerous manuscript notes from Winer's hand. In doing
this, Winer's own words have been retained as far as it was any
way feasible; and changes, when necessary, have always been
restricted so closely, that they affect merely what is unessential,
never the matter itself. Further, I have made it a point, not
merely to correct silently the obvious oversights and mistakes
I met with and they proved to be more numerous than I
expected and to give to the cross-references a definiteness
in which they were often deficient, but also to consult, as far
as pertinent, the theological and philological works which have
appeared since Winer's death, and to use in this new edition what
they contained worthy of attention. Whenever, too, a question
of textual criticism is involved, regard has been paid to the read-
ings of the Codex Sinaiticus. Yet great self-restraint has been
imposed throughout, in order not to augment excessively a work
already of considerable bulk.
Winer's additions and alterations have been directly incorpo-
rated with the text without being indicated by a particular sign.
They will be plain to every one who will take the pains to com-
pare the seventh edition with the sixth. On the other hand, the
additions which I have made have been in all cases marked by
square brackets.
The square brackets already used by Winer
here and there, have consequently been made to give place to
other signs; such as round brackets, dashes, etc. In conclusion
it may be remarked that very great care has been taken to secure
typographical accuracy.
And now may the book, in this its seventh edition, subserve its
purpose to afford the interpretation of the New Testament a stable
foundation.
GÖTTINGEN, August 19, 1866.
DR. LÜNEMANN.
AMERICAN EDITOR'S PREFACE.
WINER'S Grammar is now for the fourth time rendered accessi-
ble to English readers. A translation of the first edition was
made by the late Professors Stuart and Robinson, and published
at Andover in 1825. The fourth edition of the original, rendered
into English by Professors Agnew and Ebbeke, appeared in 1839.
Twenty years later Professor Masson's translation of the sixth
German edition was published at Edinburgh (and Philadelphia).
The present work was originally announced (in April 1866) as a
revision of Professor Masson's. The labor of revision was drawing
towards completion, and nearly three hundred pages of the book
had been stereotyped, when appeared the seventh German edition,
under the supervision of Dr. Lünemann. Some unavoidable
delay ensued before the revision and the printing were begun
anew in conformity with this new edition. These facts explain
why the publication of the present volume follows the original
announcement so tardily.
The book still remains, substantially, a revision of Professor
Masson's translation. The changes introduced have been such as
could be made upon the printed sheets of that work. This circum-
stance has frequently affected their form and sometimes their num-
ber. But although Professor Masson's version has been retained
as the basis of this, it is believed that hardly a paragraph of his
work remains altogether unaltered; and sometimes the alterations
amount in effect to a new translation, a translation which for
entire pages has but a few phrases in common with its predecessor.
In making the changes described it has been the editor's aim
to render the version a faithful reproduction of the original. A
faithful translation, he believes, should not only be free from
xi
xii
AMERICAN EDITOR'S PREFACE.
1
intentional addition, ¹ omission, or alteration, but in a work of
this kind should adhere as closely to the author's expression as
English idiom will permit. Accordingly, should the renderings
seem, here and there, to have lost a little in ease, a compensation
will be found, it is hoped, in their increased accuracy.
It has not been judged necessary to annotate any interpretation
having a doctrinal bearing, even though such interpretation be
debatable on grammatical grounds, or to qualify an expression or
two respecting the sacred writers which may strike many English
readers as unwarrantably free; for the book is likely to be used
either by students with mature understandings in exercise, or by
pupils under the guidance of competent teachers. The reasons
which have led the editor to disregard the request that he would
abridge and otherwise alter the original work will be suggested
by Professor Lünemann's remarks upon this point.
The notation of the sections, etc., has been carefully retained
throughout. When it could be done conveniently, the cross-refer-
ences have been rendered more definite by subjoining the number
of the page. To aid those who may use this book in connection
with Commentaries which refer to the Grammar by pages, the
paging of the sixth and seventh German editions, as well as of
Professor Masson's translation, has been noted on the outer margin
of the leaves. The indexes have been revised, and that of Greek
words has been considerably enlarged. Further, the Index of
Passages in the New Testament has been made complete, and the
references themselves have been carefully verified; this laborious
work has been performed by Mr. G. W. Warren, formerly a student
in this Seminary, at present Professor of Biblical Interpretation
in the Baptist Theological Seminary at Chicago, Illinois.
Index, it is believed, will be highly valued by students. A glance
at it will show with how little exaggeration the book may be called
a grammatical commentary on the more difficult texts of the New
Testament. Other references the editor has been content simply.
to transfer to the pages of the translation. This will account for
their frequent want of uniformity.
This
Pains have been taken to give the work that typographical
1 In a single passage it seemed necessary to append a note; see page 598.
AMERICAN EDITOR'S PREFACE.
xiii
accuracy which is a leading requisite in a satisfactory manual.
On this point, however, the editor would not speak too confi-
dently; for even in the seventh German edition, which is as
superior to the sixth in accuracy of typography as it is in elegance,
errata have been discovered by the score. It is hoped that the
mistakes which have slipped in, will not exceed in number those
detected, and silently rectified, in the German original.
In conclusion, the editor would express the desire that the
book in its present form may both facilitate and increase that
patient, reverent study of the letter of the Inspired Word, which
is indispensable to the fullest reception of it as spirit and life.
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, ANDOVER, MASA
October, 1868.
J. HENRY THAYER.
NOTE.
In this new impression the Biblical references, both in the body of the
work and as collected in the N. T. Index, have been verified again. A few
of the former, which appear to be wrong as they stand but which the editor
had not the means of correcting, have been marked with [?]. The altera-
tions in the N. T. Index are so numerous, that it has been found convenient
occasionally to sink an added reference into a foot-note; and, in inserting
other references to the pages, to disregard sometimes the strict numerical
order. In some instances, also, the gap left by the removal of erroneous
references has not been closed up. The re-examination of this index proves
it to be not quite "complete"; but there are no omissions, it is believed,
which a student will regret.
J. H. T.
ANDOVER, September, 1873.
CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION.
On the Scope, Treatment, and History of N. T. Grammar, §§ 1-4,
PART FIRST.
ON THE CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION ESPECIALLY
IN ITS GRAMMATICAL ASPECTS.
§ 1. Various Opinions concerning the Character of the N. T. Diction,
§ 2. Basis of the N. T. Diction,
§ 3. Hebrew-Aramaic Tinge of the N. T. Diction,
§ 4. Grammatical Character of the N. T. Diction,
PAGE
1
12
20
27
35
PART SECOND.
THE GRAMMATICAL FORMS AS RESPECTS THEIR FORMA-
TION (INFLECTION).
§ 5. Orthography and Orthographic Principles,
40
§ 6. Accentuation,
49
•
§ 7. Punctuation,
55
•
§ 8. Rare Forms of the First and Second Declensions,
60
§ 9. Rare Forms of the Third Declension,
§ 10. Foreign Words and Words which are Indeclinable,
64
66
§ 11. Inflection and Comparison of Adjectives, .
§ 12. Augment and Reduplication of Regular Verbs,
68
70
§ 13. Rare Forms in the Tenses and Persons of Regular Verbs,
§ 14. Rare Inflections of Verbs in MI and of Irregular Verbs,
§ 15. Defective Verbs,
§ 16. Formation of Words,
73
78
81
91
XV
xvi
CONTENTS.
PART THIRD.
SYNTAX.
A. IMPORT AND USE OF THE SEVERAL PARTS OF SPEECH.
CHAPTER I. THE ARTICLE.
§ 17. The Article as a Pronoun,
§ 18. Articulus Praepositivus, a. before Nouns,
§ 19. Omission of the Article before Nouns,
§ 20. Articulus Praepositivus, b. with Attributives, .
CHAPTER II. PRONOUNS.
§ 21. The Pronouns in general,
§ 22. Personal and Possessive Pronouns,
§ 23. The Demonstrative Pronoun,
PAGE
104
105
119
131
140
143
157
•
163
§ 25. The Interrogative Pronoun and the Indefinite Pronoun TIZ,
168
•
§ 26. Hebraisms in connection with certain Pronouns,
171
§ 24. The Relative Pronoun,
CHAPTER III. THE NOUN.
§ 27. Number and Gender of Nouns,
. 174
§ 28. The Cases in general,
179
§ 29. Nominative and Vocative,
181
§ 30. Genitive,
184
•
§ 31. Dative,
208
§ 32. Accusative,
221
§ 33. Connection of a Verb (neuter) with its dependent Noun by means
of Prepositions,
§ 34. Adjectives,
§ 35. Comparative,
232
234
239
§ 36. Superlative,
246
§ 37. Numerals,
248
CHAPTER IV. THE VERB.
§ 38. Active and Middle Voices,
251
§ 39. The Passive,
260
§ 40. The Tenses,
264
CONTENTS.
xvii
§ 41. The Indicative, Subjunctive, and Optative Moods,
§ 42. The Conjunction "AN with the three Moods,
§ 43. The Imperative,
§ 44. The Infinitive,
PAGE
281
302
310
317
340
§ 45. The Participle,
CHAPTER V. THE PARTICLES.
§ 46. The Particles in general,
356
•
§ 47. The Prepositions in general, and such as govern the Genitive in
particular,
358
§ 48. Prepositions with the Dative,
384
§ 49. Prepositions with the Accusative,
§ 51. Use of Prepositions in Circumlocutions,
§ 52. Construction of Verbs compounded with Prepositions,
§ 53. Conjunctions,
§ 54. Adverbs, .
§ 55. Negative Particles, .
396
•
§ 50. Interchange, Accumulation, and Repetition of Prepositions,
409
423
425
•
433
462
•
473
§ 56. Construction of Negative Particles,
§ 57. Interrogative Particles,
500
508
B. STRUCTURE OF PROPOSITIONS, AND THEIR COMBINA-
TION INTO PERIODS.
§ 58. The Proposition and its Component Parts in general,
512
§ 59. Extension of a Simple Sentence in its Subject and Predicate :
Attributives, Apposition,
523
§ 60. Connection of Sentences: Periods,
537
§ 61. Position of Words and Clauses, especially when Irregular (Hy-
perbaton),
546
§ 62. Interrupted Structure of Sentences; Parentheses,
561
§ 63. Broken and Heterogeneous Structure of Sentences; Anacoluthon,
Oratio variata,
566
§ 64. Defective Structure of Sentences; Ellipsis, Aposiopesis, .
580
§ 65. Redundant Structure of Sentences; Pleonasm (Superfluity),
Diffuseness,..
. 601
xviii
CONTENTS.
PAGE
§ 66. Condensed and Expanded Structure of Sentences (Breviloquence,
Constructio Praegnans, Attraction, etc.),
•
619
§ 67. Abnormal Relation of Individual Words in a Sentence (Hypallage),. 631
§ 68. Regard to Sound in the Structure of Sentences; Paronomasia and
Play upon Words (Annominatio), Parallelism, Verse, .
636
I. Index of Principal Subjects,
INDEX.
II.
Index of Greek Words and Forms,
III. Index of Passages in the N. T. explained or cited,
•
643
652
668
INTRODUCTION.
ON THE SCOPE, TREATMENT, AND HISTORY OF N. T. GRAMMAR.
§ 1. THE language of the N. T., like every other, presents two
aspects for scientific consideration, inasmuch as the words which
we find in the N. T. following one another in connected discourse
may be considered either by themselves, in reference to their origin
and their meaning (the material element); or as respects their
legitimate employment in the structure of clauses and periods.
(the formal element). The former is the business of Lexico-
graphy; the latter belongs to Grammar, which must be carefully
distinguished from N. T. Stylistics (Rhetoric).
On distinguishing Lexicography from Grammar, see Pott in the Kieler
Allgem. Monatsschr. 1851. Juli. The Lexicography of the N. T., of
which Synonymy forms a very important part, though its importance was
not duly recognized till of late, has always been cultivated in a merely
practical manner. A theory of it, however, may be laid down; which
might be styled Lexicology, a term that has recently come into use.
That this theory has not as yet been fully developed and perfected is the
less surprising, since even the classic tongues remain destitute of a Lex-
icology; and in the department of Exegetical Theology a theory of Biblical
Criticism (higher and lower) is still a desideratum. This deficiency,
however, has had a decidedly unfavorable effect on practical lexicography,
as might be easily shown by a close examination of the lexicographical
works on the N. T. which have hitherto appeared, even the most recent
not excepted.¹
N. T. Stylistics or Rhetoric (the latter appellation has already been em-
ployed by Glassius and by Bauer, author of Rhetorica Paulina), should
exhibit the characteristics of N. T. style in its freedom and individuality,
1 For some remarks on the theory of lexicography, see Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik,
S. 49. 84. A commencement towards a comparative lexicography has been made by
Zeller, in his theolog. Jahrb. II. 443 ff.
1
2
INTRODUCTION.
14 restricted only by the character and aim of the composition; and this it
7th ed.
2
should do both generally, and in reference to the peculiarities of the genera
dicendi and of the respective writers (cf. Hand, Lehrb. d. lat. Styls. p.
25 sq.). In this department much remains to be done, (particularly as
respects the theory of rhetorical figures, erroneous views respecting which
have at all times caused much mischief in the interpretation of the N. T.).
2 The preparatory labors of Bauer and Dan. Schulze, however, are of service;
and Wilke has made a compilation (N. T. Rhetorik, Dresd. 1843. 8vo.)
6th ed. Worthy of attention. Schleiermacher had already given excellent hints.
in his Hermeneutik. As respects the discourses of Jesus and the apostolic
epistles, it would be best to follow the example of the ancient rhetoricians,
and treat in Biblical Rhetoric of the style of reasoning. This would
prevent the excessive subdivision of N. T. Exegetics, and the separation
of kindred subjects, which, when treated in connection, afford mutual light.
Cf., besides, Gersdorf, Beiträge zur Sprachcharakterist. d. N. T. 1 Bd.
S. 7; Keil, Lehrb. der Hermeneutik, S. 28; C. J. Kellman, Diss. de usu
Rhetorices hermeneutico. Gryph. 1766. 4to.
It may be incidentally remarked, that in their exposition of Exegetical
Theology our Encyclopaedias still leave much to be desired. And in
practice, too, N. T. Hermeneutics is not properly distinguished from N. T.
Philology, as we may call that entire department of Exegetical Theology
which has just been sketched.
2
in so
§ 2. A grammatical exposition of the idiom of the N. T.,
far as it is a variety of the Greek language, would strictly consid-
ered involve only a systematic comparison of that idiom with the
grammatical structure of the later Greek literary language; for
with this last the idiom of the N. T. is closely connected, both
chronologically and generically. As, however, this later Greek
itself has not yet been delineated in its peculiarities as a whole,
and as the idiom of the N. T. also exhibits throughout the influence
of a foreign tongue (the Hebrew-Aramaic) upon the Greek, N. T.
15 Grammar must be so far extended as to comprise a scientific
1 K. Lud. Bauer, Rhetorica Paullina. Halle, 1782. 3 pts. in 2 Vol. 8vo. ; also Philologia
Thucydideo-Paullina. Halle, 1773. 8vo. (To these may be added: H. G. Tzschirner,
observationes Pauli Ap. epistolar. scriptoris ingenium concernentes. Viteb. 1800.
3 Partes. 4to.) J. Dan. Schulze, der schriftstellerische Werth und Charakter des
Johannes. Weissenf. 1803. 8vo.; also, der schriftsteller. Werth und Char. des Petrus,
Judas und Jacobus. eb. 1802. 8vo.; also, über den schriftst. Char. und Werth des
Evang. Markus, in Keil and Tzschirner's Analekt. 2 Bds. 2 St. S. 104-151. 3 St. S.
69–132. 3 Bds. 1 St. S. 88-127.
2 I should prefer this old and intelligible appellation, "Philologia' sacra N. T." (cf.
J. Ch. Beck, conspect. system. philol. sacrae. Bas. 1760. 12 Section. 4to.) to that which
Schleiermacher, following classic usage, proposes, "Grammar"; see Lücke, on his Her-
meneutik, S. 10.
INTRODUCTION.
CO
3
exposition of the mode in which the Jewish authors of the N. T.
wrote the Greek of their time.
If it were proposed e.g. to write a grammar of the Egyptian or Alexan-
drian variety of the Greek (as this variety had been moulded there in the
mouths of Greek-speaking residents from various parts of the world), it
would be enough to collect all its distinctive peculiarities, that is to say,
all that make it a separate dialect; not indeed simply stringing them 3
together in a fragmentary way, but arranging them systematically under the
the several divisions of grammar, and pointing out how and to what extent
they respectively modified the general laws of the Greek language (by
abandoning niceties, misusing analogies, etc.). The idiom of the N. T.,
as it is a variety of the later Greek, should it require a grammar of its
own, could only be exhibited as a species of a species; and thus a grammar
of the N. T. would presuppose a grammar of the later Greek. But N. T. 3
Grammar cannot easily be so restricted even in thought, still less can the 6th ed.
idea be carried out to advantage. For, on the one hand, the Grammar
of later Greek, especially in its oral popular form, has not yet been scien-
tifically investigated;¹ consequently, the groundwork for N. T. Grammar
exists in thought rather than in fact. On the other hand, the idiom
of the N. T. displays also the influence of a non-cognate language, the
Hebrew-Aramaic, upon the Greek. N. T. Grammar, therefore, must
extend its limits in two directions: Presuming the reader to be acquainted
with the Grammar of classic Greek, it must point out in the manner
already described the peculiarities of the later Greek, as exhibited in the
N. T.; and likewise show, in the same scientific way, how and to what
extent the Greek was modified by Hebrew-Aramaic influence. It would
be wrong, however, to attempt to keep the two quite separate,2 for the
mingling of the (later) Greek with the national (or Jewish) element in
the mind of the writers of the N. T., produced a single composite syntax,
which must be recognized and exhibited in its essential unity.
1 Valuable information, though rather lexical than grammatical, will be found in
Lobeck's notes on Phrynichi Eclog. Lips. 1820. 8vo. Previously Irmisch (on Herodian)
and Fischer (de vitiis Lexicor. N. T.) had collected much useful matter. Copious hints
relative to the graccitas fatiscens have been more recently presented in the improved
texts of the Byzantine writers, and the indices (of very unequal merit) appended to
most of them in the Bonn edition; as well as in Boissonade's notes in the anecdot.
graec. (Paris, 1829 ff. V. 8.), and in his editions of Marinus, Philostratus, Nicetas
Eugen., Babrius, etc.; and, lastly, in Mullach's ed. of Hicrocles (Berl. 1853. 8vo.),
[cf. also his Grammatik der griech. Vulgarsprache in histor. Entwickelung. Berl. 1856.
8vo.]. To the later Greek element appropriate reference is made likewise in Lobeck's
Paralipomena grammaticae Gr. Lips. 1837. 2 pts. 8vo., in his Pathologiac sermonis Gr.
proleg. Lips. 1843. 8vo., and pathol. Graeci serm. elementa, Königsb. 1853. I. Svo.,
and also in nuaтIKÓν S. verbor. Gr. et nominum verball. technologia, ib. 1846. 8vo.
2 For judicious remarks on the lexical treatment of Hebraisms, see Schleiermacher's
Hermeneutik, S. 65.
4
INTRODUCTION.
This mode of treating N. T. Grammar will undergo a partial change
16 whenever the grammar of the later Greek language shall have received
an independent exposition; for then it will not be necessary to prove the
peculiarities of this later language by examples, - a task from which the
N. T. grammarian cannot for the time be released. But one portion of
the present contents of a grammar will gradually disappear, viz. the
4 polemic, which opposes inveterate and deeply rooted prejudices, or errors
7th ed. which have again made their appearance. As yet, however, this negative
vindication of the true character of the diction of the N. T. still continues
indispensable; for, well-known expositors even of very recent date (Kühnöl,
Flatt, Klausen in his Evangeliencomm.) have shown us again how deeply
rooted is that old grammatical empiricism which deems it an abomination
ultra Fischerum (or even Storrium) sapere.
Special grammars of separate portions of the N. T., as of the writings
of John, of Paul, are clearly out of the question. The distinctive qualities
4 that mark the diction of these writers in particular, consist almost entirely
6th ed. in the use of certain favorite expressions, or relate to the department of
Rhetoric, as may be seen from the observations of Blackwall in his Crit.
Sacr. N. T. II. 2. 8. p. 322 sqq. ed. Lips. To this also peculiarities in
the collocation of words are mostly to be assigned. Grammar is but
seldom affected by these peculiarities of individuals. Accordingly Schulze
and Schulz¹ have, on the whole, formed a more correct estimate of such
peculiarities of diction than Gersdorf, whose well-known work no great
contribution of sure results even to verbal criticism must have almost
proved its own refutation, if it had had to be continued on the principles
hitherto laid down.
§ 3. Although investigation into the language of the N. T. is
the basis of all sound interpretation, yet N. T. Grammar has been
till a recent period almost entirely excluded by Biblical philologists
from the range of their inquiries. While the lexical element of
the N. T. language has been the subject of repeated investigation,
the grammatical has been treated at the most only so far as it
stood connected with the discussion of the Hebraisms of the N.T.2
1 His remarks on the character of the N. T. diction are contained in his dissertation
on the Parable of the Steward (Bresl. 1821. 8vo.) and that on the Lord's Supper
(Leipzig, 1824; 2d improved edit. 1831. 8vo.), and also in several articles in the
Wachlersch. theol. Annalen. In both dissertations, which are of an exegetical char-
acter, his observations, mostly acute, seem out of place, as they throw very little light
on exegesis. Textual criticism, however, might have turned his views to good account,
if the distinguished writer had only been pleased to give them to us in full. Cf. also
Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik, S. 129.
2 An honorable exception among earlier expositors is the nearly forgotton G. F.
Heupel, who in his copious and almost purely philological Commentary on the Gospel
of Mark (Strassburg, 1716. 8vo.) makes many excellent grammatical observations.
INTRODUCTION.
5
Only Casp. Wyss (1650) and G. Pasor (1655) conceived more 17
completely the idea of a N. T. grammar; but their efforts were
unavailing to accomplish its recognition as a special department
of exegetical discipline. During a period of one hundred and
sixty years after them, Haab was the first to publish a special 5
treatise on the Grammar of the N. T.; but his rather uncritical
work, besides being restricted to the Hebraisms, was adapted to
retard the science, rather than to promote it.
The first author who in some degree collected and explained the pecu-
liarities of the N. T. diction, was the celebrated Sal. Glass (†1656) in his
Philologia Sacra, the third book of which is entitled Grammatica Sacra,
and the fourth Grammaticae Sacrae Appendix.¹ But as he everywhere
makes the Hebrew his point of departure, and touches upon the language
of the N. T. only so far as it coincides with that, his treatise, to say nothing
of its deficiencies, can be mentioned in a history of N. T. Grammar only
as a weak performance. It serves to remind us, however, of the two
writers mentioned above, whose very names, as well as their productions,
which belong here, had fallen into almost total oblivion. The one, Casp.
W
yss, Prof. of Greek in the Gymnasium of Zurich (†1659), published
Dialectologia Sacra, in qua quicquid per universum N. F. contextum in
apostolica et voce et phrasi a communi Graecor. lingua eoque grammatica
analogia discrepat, methodo congrua disponitur, accurate definitur et om-
nium sacri contextus exemplorum inductione illustratur. Tigur. 1650.
pp. 324 (besides the appendix), small 8vo. In this treatise the grammatical
peculiarities of N. T. diction are arranged under the following heads:
Dialectus Attica, Ionica, Dorica, Aeolica, Boeotica, Poetica, 'Eẞpaïlovoa.
This arrangement is awkward in the extreme, since kindred topics are
separated and frequently are discussed in four different places. The
writer's acquaintance with the Greek dialects, also, was clearly not beyond
the ordinary scholarship of his time, as the very mention of a special
dialectus poetica shows, and an examination of what he calls Attic renders
still more manifest. Still, as a collection of examples, which in several
sections is absolutely complete, the volume has value; and as respects the
grammatical Hebraisms of the N. T. the author's moderation might well
have been imitated by his contemporaries.
George Pasor, Prof. of Greek at Franeker (†1637), known by his small
Lexicon of the N. T., — which has been several times republished, finally
by J. F. Fischer, — left among his papers a grammar of the N. T., which
his son, Matthias Pasor, Prof. of Theology at Gröningen (†1658), pub-
The Greek crudition of J. F. Hombergk, in his Parerga Sacra. Amstel. 1719. 4to., and
of H. Heisen, in his Novae Hypotheses Interpretandae felicius Ep. Jacobi. Brem. 1739.
4to., is lexical rather than grammatical.
¹ In Dathe's edition this Grammatica Sacra forms, as is well known, the first book.
7th ed.
5
6th ed
6
CO
INTRODUCTION.
18 lished, with additions and improvements of his own, under the following
title: G. Pasoris Grammatica Graeca Sacra N. T. in tres libros distributa.
6 Gröning. 1655. pp. 787. 8vo. This work is now a literary rarity,' though
7th ed. it is far more fitted than the Lexicon to transmit the author's name to
posterity. It is divided, as the title indicates, into three books. The first
contains the Inflections; the second, the Syntax (244-530); the third,
seven appendices: de nominibus N. T., de verbis N. T., de verbis anomalis,
de dialectis N. T., de accentibus, de praxi grammaticae, de numeris s.
arithmetica graeca. The second book and the Appendix de dialectis N. T.2
are the most valuable portions of the work. For in the first book, and in
6 most of the appendices which form the third, he treats of the ordinary
6th ed. subjects of a general Greek grammar, superfluously inserting e.g. full
paradigms of the Greek nouns and verbs. The syntax is elaborated with
great accuracy and copiousness. The writer points out what is Hebraistic,
but seldom adduces parallels from native Greek authors. This useful
volume, however, is without a full index.
During the interval from Pasor to Haab, the Grammar of the N. T.
was treated but incidentally in treatises on the style of the N. T., e.g. by
Leusden (de Dialectis N. T.) and Olearius (de Stylo N. T., pp. 257–271).
But these authors confined themselves almost exclusively to Hebraisms,
and by representing as Hebraistic much pure Greek phraseology, they
involved in confusion again the whole inquiry concerning the Grammar
of the N. T. Georgi was the first to vindicate the Greek character of
numerous constructions usually regarded as Hebraistic, although even he
did not escape one-sidedness. His writings attracted but little attention;
while the works of Vorst and Leusden now obtained through the efforts
of Fischer new currency, and Storr's well-known book was allowed for
many years to exert its pernicious influence on the interpretation of the
N. T. without restraint.
3
From the school of Storr appeared Ph. H. Haab (rector of Schweigern,
in the kingdom of Würtemberg, †1833) with his Hebrew-Greek Grammar
of the N. T., prefaced by F. G. v. Süskind. Tübing. 1815. 8vo. Over-
looking the pure Greek element in the N. T. diction, he directed his
1 Even Foppen (Bibliotheca Belgica, Tom. I. p. 342), who gives a list of Pasor's
other writings, does not mention this work. Salthen, Cat. Biblioth. Lib. Rar. (Regiom.
1751. 8vo.) p. 470, bears witness to its extreme rarity, and D. Gerdesius, in his Florileg.
Hist. Crit. Libr. Rar. (Gröning. 1763. 8vo.) p. 272.
2 Pasor had already himself added this appendix, under the title Idea (syllabus
brevis) Graecar. N. T. Dialectorum, to the first edition of his Syllabus Graeco-Lat.
omnium N. T. vocum. Amstel. 1632. 12mo. At the end he promises the above full
Grammatica N. T.
› Observatt. ad analog. et syntaxin Hebr. Stuttg. 1779. 8vo. Some acute gram-
matical observations, especially on enallage temporum, particularum, and the like, are
to be found in J. G. Straube, diss. de emphasi graecae linguae N. T. in v. d. Honert,
p. 70 sqq.
INTRODUCTION.
7
attention merely to grammatical Hebraisms, and in the arrangement of
the whole he followed the works of Storr and Weckherlin (Hebr. Gram. 19
2 Pts.). If the reviewer in Bengel's Archiv (1 B. S. 406 ff.) is to be
credited, "the author has accomplished his task with such diligence, such
sound judgment, such accuracy, and such nice and comprehensive knowl-
edge of language, as must obtain for it the approbation of all friends of 7
the well-grounded interpretation of the N. T." A very different and 7th ed.
almost entirely opposite opinion has been expressed, however, by two
scholars who must be regarded as most competent and impartial judges in
this department: in the n. theol. Annal. 1816. 2 B. S. 859–879, and (by
de Wette?) in the A. LZ. 1816. N. 39–41. S. 305–326. After long and
various use of the book, I am compelled to say that I entirely concur in
their decision. The principal fault of the book consists in the author's
not having correctly distinguished the classic Greek element from the
Hebraistic in the diction of the N. T., and in his having consequently
adduced as Hebraistic much either that is common to all cultivated lan-
guages, or that occurs as frequently in the classics as in the N. T.; while
from his partiality to Storr's views, he has quite misinterpreted numerous
passages of the N. T. by forcing Hebraisms upon them (see proof below).
Moreover, the book is full of confusion, the matter is arranged most 7
arbitrarily, and the whole begins with a section on Tropes!-a subject
not belonging to Grammar at all. The last of the reviewers mentioned
above does not, accordingly, seem too severe in concluding his criticism
with these words: "Seldom have we met a work which was so complete
a failure as this, and against the use of which we must warn the public so
emphatically."
6th ed
§ 4. Further, the detached grammatical remarks in commentaries
on the books of the N. T., in miscellanies, and in exegetical mon-
ographs, though sometimes exhibiting creditable research, failed
to furnish, all taken together, a complete discussion of the Gram-
mar of the N. T. These contributions, moreover, were rendered
useless by that uncritical empiricism which controlled Greek
Philology till the beginning of the present century, and Hebrew
till a much more recent period; just as this same empiricism has
imparted to the interpretation of the N. T. the impress of uncer-
tainty and arbitrariness. The philosophical method of handling
philological subjects, that method which seeks in national and
individual peculiarities of thought the grounds of all phenomena
of speech, anomalies even not excepted, has effected a complete
revolution in the study of Greek; and the application of the same
method to the language of the N. T. can alone invest the Grammar 20
of the N. T. with a scientific character, and elevate it to the dignity
of a safe guide in interpretation.
8
INTRODUCTION.
The empiricism that pervaded Greek philology manifested itself in the
department of Grammar mainly in the following particulars: a. The gram-
matical structure of the language was apprehended merely in the rudest.
outline; hence the relation of kindred forms, e.g. of the Aor. and Perf., of
the Subjunctive and the Optative, of the twofold order of negatives (ov
and µý), matters in which the genius of the Greek language is especially
conspicuous, was left quite uncertain. b. In regard to those forms the
8 distinctive power of which had been in general discerned, an unlimited
7th ed. interchange was asserted, according to which, one tense, one case, one par-
ticle, was used for another; and even direct opposites (e.g. Pret. and Fut.,
ȧó and πpós, etc.) were supposed to be interchanged. c. A multitude of
ellipses was devised, and in the most simple expression something was
said to be understood. This method of procedure, still exhibited in Fis-
cher's copious Animad. ad Welleri Grammat. Gr. (Lips. 1798 ff. 3 Spec.
8vo.), was applied by expositors to the N. T. They thought themselves
warranted in using still greater liberties than Greek philologists, because
the Hebrew, after which the diction of the N. T. was modelled, is charac-
terized by want of precision in forms, and want of regularity in syntax,
(which, therefore, was not treated systematically but only under the head
8 of enallages and solecisms). The natural consequences of such views were
6th ed. abundantly apparent in the N. T. commentaries of the time; and Storr²
had the honor of reducing to a sort of system this farrago of grammatical
empiricism. Apart from all other evils resulting from such principles,
they afforded unbounded license to the caprice of expositors, and made it
21 easy for them to discover in the words of the sacred authors sentiments
quite contradictory.3
1 This empiricism was but occasionally and partially combated by enlightened
scholars. Thus numerous misapprehensions of expositors were pointed out, very intel-
ligently on the whole, by the Wittenberg professors Balth. Stolberg, in his Tractat. de
soloecism. et barbarism. graecae N. F. dictioni falso tributis. Vit. (1681.) 1685. 4to., and
Franz Woken, in his dissertation entitled: Pietas critica in hypallagas bibl. Viteb.
1718. 8vo., and particularly in his Enallagae e N. T. graeci textus praccipuis et plu-
rimis locis exterminatae. Viteb. 1730. 8vo. Also J. Conr. Schwarz evinces highly
respectable research and judgment in his Lib. de opinatis discipulor. Chr. soloecismis.
Cob. 1730. 4to. Such protests, however, either obtained no attention, or were drowned
by a contorte! artificiose!
2 How entirely different from his acute countryman Alb. Bengel, in his Gnomon, who,
though he is often drawn into over-refined expositions, and attributes to the apostles
his own dialectic conceptions, might have served for years as a model of careful and
instructive exposition. While he turned attention to grammatical inquiries (cf. e.g.
Acts iii. 19; xxvi. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 15; Matt. xviii. 17; Heb. vi. 4.), he devoted special
diligence in lexical matters to synonyms.
8 Sunt, says Tittmann (de scriptor. N. T. diligentia gramm. Lips. 1813. 4to., in
Synonym. N. T. I. p. 206), qui grammaticarum legum observationem in N. T. inter-
pretatione parum curent et, si scriptoris cujusdam verba grammatice i.e. ex legibus
linguae explicata sententiam ..... ab ipsorum opinione alicnam prodant, nullam
illarum legum rationem habeant, sed propria verborum vi neglecta scriptorem dixisse
INTRODUCTION.
9
The Greek philologists were the first to abandon this empiricism.
Reitz's pupil, Gottfr. Hermann, by his work De Emendanda Ratione
Grammaticae Gr., gave the first powerful impulse to the rational¹ investi-
gation of the noble Greek tongue. This method has now, after the lapse
of more than fifty years, become so general, and produced such important 9
results, and of late has allied itself so successfully to historical ²
7th ed
research,
that Greek grammar has become transformed. The treatment of the sub-
ject has been rational, because
2
a. The primary import of all grammatical forms (the cases, tenses,
moods), that is, the notion corresponding to every such form in the Greek
mind, was distinctly settled; and to this primary notion all actual uses of
the same form were referred. Thus a multitude of ellipses disappeared,
and enallage was reduced within its natural and narrow bounds.
b. Even in the case of such deviations from the established laws of the
language as had been adopted, either generally or by individual authors,
anacoluthon, confusio duarum structurarum, attractio, constructio ad sen-
sum, brachylogia, etc., pains were taken to show how they originated
in the mind of the speaker or writer.
The Greek language is thus exhibited as the expression of Greek thought 9
as a living idiom. Every form and turn of expression is not merely
6th ed
stated as a matter of fact, but is traced back to the thinking mind, and an
attempt is made to comprehend it in its origin within the soul. By such
a method every unintelligible usage disappears of itself, such as the as-
sumption that a writer wishing to express a past event has employed a fut.
tense; that intending to say out of, he has said at; that wishing to call
some one learned, he has called him more learned; that meaning to sub-
join a cause, he has written consequently; that desirous of saying I saw a
man, he has said I saw the man, etc.
For a long time, however, Biblical philologists took no notice of all this 22
progress in Greek grammar (and lexicography). They clung to old Viger
and to Storr, and kept aloof from classical philology, under the impression
(by no one distinctly avowed, to be sure, in recent times) that N. T. Greek,
because Hebraistic, could not be subjected to the same philosophical
method of inquiry. They would not perceive that Hebrew itself, like
every other human language, admits and requires a philosophical treat-
ment. Through the persevering efforts of Ewald, this truth is now uni-
versally acknowledged. No one now denies that the ultimate explanation
of Hebrew modes of expression must be sought for in IIebrew modes of
contendant, quae talibus verbis nemo sana mente praeditus dicere unquam potuit. Hermann's
(ad Vig. 788) satirical remarks were just.
1 I should prefer this epithet to philosophical, because the latter may easily give rise
to misunderstanding. All merely empirical philology is irrational; it regards lan-
guage as something merely external, and not as the expression of thought. Cf. Titt-
mann, as above, S. 205 sq.
2 G. Bernhardy, wissenschaftl. Syntax der griech. Sprache. Berl. 1829. 8vo.
2
10
INTRODUCTION.
thought, and that a simple-minded people would be the last to repudiate.
10 the fundamental principles of human speech.¹ Scholars are no longer con-
7th ed. tent to give a preposition, for instance, the most diverse meanings accord-
ing to the assumed requirements of a context superficially examined. But
an endeavor is made to point out the transition from the primary import
of every particle to every one of its secondary meanings; and without.
this, every alleged signification is regarded as an unscientific assumption.
A student is no longer satisfied with the vague remark that to a Hebrew,
non omnis
which in reason can only mean not every one is the same
as omnis non, that is, nullus; on the contrary, he refers to the true prin-
ciple in every such case to be kept in view.
N. T. Grammar, therefore, must strive after a rational exposition of the
language of the N. T. if it will attain a scientific basis itself, or secure the
same in turn to exegesis. All that has been already achieved in Greek
10 philology must be carefully turned to account. It must, however, be
6th ed. remembered, that not every nice distinction propounded by the linguists is
to be viewed as established (and even the text perhaps altered accordingly),
but that philology is constantly progressive. Many views have already
required to be considerably modified (those, for instance, relating to the
use of ei with the subjunctive); others are still matters of disputation even
among the best scholars (for instance, certain uses of åv).
23
Since 1824, N. T. Grammar in particular has received valuable contri-
butions from Fritzsche, in his Dissertatt. in 2 Epist. ad Cor. (Lips. 1824.),
in his Commentaries on Matthew and Mark, in his Conject. in N. T. Lips.
1825. 2 Spec. 8vo., and especially in his Comment. on the Epistle to the
Romans, Hal. 1836. 8vo. To these must be added the Dissertations of
Gieseler and Bornemann in Rosenmüller's Exeget. Repert. 2 B., as well
as the latter's Scholia in Lucae Evang. Lips. 1830. 8vo., and, in part, his
edition of the Acts of the Apostles (Acta Apost. ad Cod. Cantabrig. fidem
rec. et interpr. est. Grossenhain, 1848. 8vo. I.). Finally, many grammat-
ical questions have been discussed in the controversial correspondence
between Fritzsche and Tholuck.2
1 Rational investigation must be founded on historical. The whole field of language
must first be historically surveyed, before we can explain individual phenomena. A
simple language supposes simplicity of thought; and the explanation of forms and
expressions is more easy in Hebrew, than in languages of less simplicity. The rational
investigation of Hebrew implies tracing out all transitions from one signification of a
word to another, all constructions and turns of expression, as they occurred in the
Hebrew mind; since language is merely the image of thought (as thinking is, according
to the Hebrew view itself, unuttered speech). To attempt to delineate a priori the
laws of language is absurd. It is readily conceded that the rational method of investi-
gation may be now and then misapplied, as even the Greek philologists have not
escaped over-refinements. Adherence, however, to empirical stupidity from the appre-
hension of such danger is disgraceful.
2 Fritzsche, Ueber die Verdienste D. Tholuck's um die Schrifterklärung. Halle. 1831.
8vo. Tholuck, Beiträge zur Spracherklärung des N. T. Halle. 1832. 8vo. Fritzsche,
*
INTRODUCTION.
11
Philological investigation into the language of the N. T. has not re-
mained wholly without influence¹ on any of the numerous commentaries
which have recently appeared, whether emanating from the critical, evan-
gelical, or philosophical school of theology; although but a few of them 11
have treated philological points attentively and independently (as van 7th ed
Hengel, Lücke, Bleek, Meyer). An intelligent estimate of improved phil-
ological principles in their application to the N. T., has been given by
H. G. Hölemann, Comment. de interpretatione sacra cum profana feliciter
conjungenda. Lips. 1832. 8vo.
N. T. Grammar has recently found its way from Germany to England
and North America; partly in a translation of the fourth edition of the
present book (New York and London, 1840), and partly in a separate
(original ?) work, entitled, A Greek Grammar to the N. T., etc., by the
Rev. William Trollope, M.A. London, 1842. 8vo. An earlier work on
this subject, entitled, A Grammar of the N. T. Dialect, by Moses Stuart.
Andover. 1841. 8vo., I have not yet seen. Moreover, the special gram-
matical characteristics of individual writers have begun to attract attention
(yet see above, p. 4): Gl. Ph. Ch. Kaiser, Diss. de Speciali Joa. Ap.
Grammatica Culpa Negligentiae liberanda. Erlang. 1842. II. 4to.; also
De Speciali Petri Ap. Grammatica Culpa Negligentiae liberanda. Erlang.
1848. 4to.
[In Germany, too, works upon N. T. Grammar have since been issued by
Alex. Buttmann (Grammatik des N. T. Sprachgebrauchs. Im Anschlusse
an Ph. Buttmann's griech. Grammatik. Berl. 1859. 8vo.) and S. Ch. Schir-
litz (Grundzüge der N. T. Gräcität nach den besten Quellen für Studi-
rende der Theol. u. Philol. Giessen. 1861. 8vo.).]
Präliminarien zur Abbitte und Ehrenerklärung, die ich gern dem D. Tholuck gewähren
möchte. Halle. 1832. 8vo. Tholuck, Noch ein ernstes Wort an D. Fritzsche. Halle.
1832. 8vo. Tholuck laid more stress on philological investigation in his Commentary
on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Hamb. 1836, 1840, 1850. 8vo. The anonymous author
of Beiträge zur Erklärung des Br. an die Hebr. Leipz. 1840. 8vo., passes a severe
judgment rather on the hermeneutical than the grammatical merits of Tholuck.
1 Even on the commentaries of the excellent BCrusius, whose weakest side is un-
doubtedly the philological.
12
7th ed.
11
6th ed.
25
PART I.
ON THE CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION, ESPECIALLY
IN ITS GRAMMATICAL ASPECTS.
§ 1. VARIOUS OPINIONS CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF THE
N. T. DICTION.
1. THOUGH the character of the N. T. diction is pretty distinct
and obvious, Biblical philologists long entertained erroneous, or
at least imperfect and one-sided, views on the subject. For, dog-
matic considerations, combined with ignorance of later Greek
dialectology, rendered minds in other respects intelligent incapable
of perceiving exegetical truth.
From the beginning of the 17th century various distinguished
scholars (Purists) repeatedly attempted to demonstrate that the
style of the N. T. reaches in every respect the standard of classical
purity and elegance; while others (Hebraists) not only. recognized
its Hebrew coloring, but in part at least grossly exaggerated it.
Towards the end of the 17th century the opinion of the Hebraists
obtained the ascendancy; though it did not altogether suppress
that of the Purists, which found very learned defenders. About
the middle of the 18th century, however, the Purist party became
extinct, and the principles of the Hebraists, slightly modified in
some particulars, became universal. Not until very lately have
scholars begun to perceive the one-sidedness of these principles,
and to adopt the correct intermediate views which Beza and H.
Stephanus had already in the main pointed out.
The history of the various opinions which from time to time were
advanced, often with great controversial bitterness, respecting the Greek
style of the N. T., is briefly related in Morus, Acroas. acad. sup. Hermeneut.
N. T., ed. Eichstädt, Tom. i. p. 216 sqq.; in Meyer, Gesch. der Schrifter-
klär. iii. 342 ff. (cf. Eichstädt, Pr. sententiar. de dictione scriptor. N. T.
brevis censura. Jen. 1845. 4to.); with several important inaccuracies, in
Planck, Einleit. in d. theol. Wissensch. ii. 43 ff. (cf. Stange, theol. Symmikta,
§ 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION.
13
7th ed.
ii. 295 ff.). For the bibliography of the subject see Walch, biblioth. theol. 13
iv. 276 sqq.¹ From these sources, with occasional corrections, we present
the following remarks as sufficient for our purpose :
12
6th ed.
Th. Beza, in his Digressio de dono linguarum et apostol. sermone (on
Acts x. 46), in reply to Erasmus's assertion Apostolorum sermo non solum 26
impolitus et inconditus verum etiam imperfectus et perturbatus, aliquoties
plane soloccissans, defended the simplicity and force of the N. T. diction;
and its Hebraisms in particular, which, as is well known, he was far from
denying, he represented in a very advantageous light as ejusmodi, ut nullo
alio idiomate tam feliciter exprimi possint, imo interdum ne exprimi quidem,
in fact as gemmae, quibus (apostoli) scripta sua exornarint. After him,
H. Stephanus, in the preface to his edition of the N. T. of 1576, combated
the views of those qui in his scriptis inculta omnia et horrida esse putant;
and labored to show, by specimens, what fine Greek turns of expression
occur in the style of the N. T., and that even the admixture of Hebraisms
imparts to it inimitable force and expressiveness.
Though the beauties pointed out are rhetorical rather than linguistic,
and the Hebraisms are overrated, yet the judgment of these two masters
of Greek is not so one-sided as it is generally said to be, and on the whole
comes nearer the truth than that of many later expositors.
After Drusius and Glass had specified and explained Hebraisms in the
N. T. without opposition, extravagant notions were first promulgated by
Seb. Pfochen, in his Diatribe de linguae graecae N. T. puritate (Amst.`
1629; ed. 2, 1633. 12mo.). Having in the preface stated the subject of
his inquiry to be: an stylus N. T. sit vere graecus nec ab aliorum Graecorum
stylo alienior talisque, qui ab Homero, Demosthene aliisque Graecis intelligi
potuisset §§ 81-129, he endeavors to demonstrate by copious quotations,
graecos autores profanos eisdem phrasibus et verbis loquutos esse, quibus
scriptores N. T. (§ 29). This juvenile treatise (though in substance ap-
proved by Erasmus Schmid, as afterwards appeared from his Opus posthu-
mum, 1658) seems, with its strict Purism, to have produced at the time no
great impression.
The Hamburg rector Joach. Junge (1637, 1639) in reality, though indi-
rectly, first gave rise to a controversy on the nature of the N. T. diction. 27
His opponent, the Hamburg pastor Jac. Grosse (1640), though not endors- 14
ing Junge's real opinion respecting the Hellenism (not barbarism) of the 7th ed.
1 See also Baumgarten, Polemik, iii. 176 ff. The opinions of the (apologetical)
Fathers on the style of the N. T. is given summarily in J. Lami, de erudit. apostolor.
p. 138 sqq. They treat the subject less under a philological than a rhetorical point of
view. Theodoret, gr. affect. cur. s., triumphantly opposes the σoroinioµol åλievtikoi to
the ξυλλογισμοὶ ἀττικοί.
2 Junge himself thus states his true opinion, in a German memorial addressed to the
Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs in 1637 [cf. Joach. Jungius Ueber die Originalsprache
des N. T. vom Jahre 1637. Aufgefunden, zuerst herausgegeben und eingeleitet von
Joh. Geffcken. Hamb. 1863. 8vo.]: I have distinctly said, and I still say, that the style
14
§ 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION.
13 N. T. style, admitted its harmlessness.¹ Dan. Wulfer, however, came
6th ed. forward the same year with Innocentia Hellenistarum vindicata (see 1, etc.),
in which he asserted that Grosse's reasoning was neither clear nor con-
vincing.2 Grosse had now to contend against Wulfer, whose misunder-
standings he exposed, and also against Joh. Musaeus, the theologian of
Jena (1641-42), who had charged him with vacillation and contradiction,
but had in view rather his doctrinal opinions (respecting verbal inspiration);
so that Grosse published, in all, five short dissertations (1641–42), vindi-
cating, not indeed the Grecian elegance, but the purity and dignity of the
language of the N. T.
Without mingling in these controversies, which descended into odious
personalities and were nearly fruitless to science, Dan. Heinsius (1643)
asserted the Hellenism of the N. T. diction; and Thom. Gataker (de novi
instrum. stylo dissert. 1648) wrote expressly against the Purism of Pfochen,
with learning, but not without exaggeration. Joh. Vorst now published
(1658, 1665) an elaborate and perspicuous list of the Hebraisms of the
N. T. which Hor. Vitringa shortly afterwards animadverted upon as highly
partial.3
J. H. Böcler (1641) and J. Olearius (1668)* adopted intermediate views,
carefully discriminating between the Greek and the Hebrew elements in
28 the style of the N. T., and J. Leusden agreed with them in the main,
although he is inferior to Olearius in discretion.
• •
•
of the N. T. is not classical Greek...... The question an N. T. scateat barbarismis,
is so outrageous, that no Christian man ever entertained it before; I never could
be brought to admit that there are barbarous expressions in the N. T., because the
Greeks themselves regard a barbarism as a vitium.
1 His two leading positions are thus expressed: quod quamvis evangelistae et apos-
toli in N. T. non adeo ornato et nitido, tumido et affectato (!) dicendi genere usi sint
..... impium tamen, imo blasphemum sit, si quis inde S. literarum studiosus graecum
stylum . . . . . sugillare, vilipendere et juventuti suspectum facere ipsique vitia et notam
soloccismorum et barbarismorum attricare contendat. . Quod nec patres, qui soloe-
cismorum et barbarismorum meminerunt et apostolos idiotas fuisse scripserunt, nec illi
autores, qui stylum N. T. hellenisticum esse statuerunt, nec isti, qui in N. T. Ebrais-
mos et Chaldaismos esse observarunt, stylum S. apostolorum contemserint, sugillarint
eumq. impuritatis alicujus accusarint cet.
• •
2 Grosse's dissertation was specially directed against a possible inference from the
proposition that the N. T. is not written in so good Greek as that employed by native
Greck authors; and, essentially, refers to adversaries that (at least in Hamburg) had
then no existence. Moreover his whole argument is rather of a negative kind, as appears
for example from the résumé (p. 40 of Grosse's Trias): etiamsi graecus stylus apostolor.
non sit tam ornatus et affectatus, ut fuit ille qui fuit florente Graecia, non atticus ut
Athenis, non doricus ut Corinthi, non ionicus ut Ephesi, non aeolicus ut Troade, fuit
tamen vere graecus ab omni soloecismorum et barbarismorum labe immunis.
8 Vorst in the preface utters his conviction: sacros codices N. T. talibus et vocabulis
et phrasibus, quae hebraeam linguam sapiant, scatere plane. Cf. further, his Cogitata
de stylo N. T., prefixed to Fischer's edition of the work de Hebraismis.
4 J. Cocceji stricturae in Pfochen. diatrib. were first printed solely for private distri-
bution, and afterwards published in Rhenferd's collection.
§ 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION.
15
6th ed.
It now came to be very generally admitted that Hebraisms constitute a
prominent element in N. T. diction, and give it a coloring, not indeed
barbarous, but widely removed from classic purity (see also Werenfels, 15
7th ed
Opusc. i. p. 311 sqq.).¹ The same view was advanced by Mos. Solanus,
in a tardy but very sensible pamphlet against Pfochen. Even J. Heinr. 14
Michaelis (1707) and Ant. Blackwall (1727) did not presume to deny the
existence of Hebraisms, but tried to prove that the style of the N. T.
writers, notwithstanding the Hebraisms, has all the properties of an elegant
style, and in this respect is not inferior to the purity of the classics. The
last-named scholar begins his work, which abounds in excellent remarks,
thus: tantum abest, ut hebraismos in N. T. reperiri infitiemur, ut eorum
potius insignem, qua hic divinus abundat liber, copiam ad commoditatem
ejus et elegantiam majorem afferre accessionem arbitremur. As little effect,
however, had these scholars on the now established opinion as the erudite
Ch. Siegm. Georgi, who, in his Vindiciae N. T. ab Ebraismis (1732), re-
turned to the strongest Purism; and in a new work, Ilierocriticus sacer
(1733), defended his assertions. He was followed, but with no greater
success, by J. Conr. Schwarz, whose Commentarii crit. et philol. linguae
gr. N. T. Lips. 1736. 4to., chiefly aimed at demonstrating the Greek purity
even of expressions taken for Hebraisms.2 To these must be added, as
the last who opposed the misuse of Hebraisms, El. Palairet (observatt.
philol. crit. in N. T. L. B. 1752. 8vo.),³ and H. W. van Marle (florileg.
observ. in epp. apost. L. B. 1758. 8vo.). Through the influence of the
school of Ernesti, the more correct estimate of the language of the N. T.
was generally diffused over Germany. Cf. Ernesti's Institut. Interpret.
i. 2. cap. 3.
4
1 Hemsterhuis ad Lucian. dial. mar. 4, 3: eorum, qui orationem N. T. graecam esse
castigatissimam contendunt, opinio perquam mihi semper ridicula fuit visa. Also, Blth.
Stolberg, de soloecismis et barbarismis N. T. Viteb. 1681. 4to. and 1685. 4to., wished
merely to vindicate the N. T. diction from blemishes unjustly ascribed to it; but, in
fact, attempted to explain away many real Hebraisms.
2 In the anticipation of certain victory he says in p. 8 of his preface: olim hebraismi,
syrismi, chaldaismi, rabinismi (sic!), latinismi cet. celebrabantur nomina, ut vel scrip-
tores sacri suam graecae dictionis ignorantiam prodere aut in graeco sermone tot lin-
guarum notitiam ostentasse viderentur vel saltem interpretes illorum literatissimi et
singularum locutionum perspicacissimi judicarentur. Sed conata haec ineptiarum et
vanitatis ita sunt etiam a nobis convicta, ut si qui cet. A satire on the Purists will be
found in Somnium in quo praeter cetera genius sec. vapulat. Alteburg. 1761, p. 97 sqq.
Supplements by Pal. himself may be seen in the Biblioth. Brem. nova Cl. 3 and 4.
On the whole, Pal. produces passages almost exclusively in defence of such significa-
tions and phrases, as no judicious person would take to be Hebraisms.
8
4 Ernesti's view of the N. T. diction (diss. de difficult. interpret. grammat. N. T. § 12)
may be recalled here: genus orationis in libris N. T. esse e pure graecis et ebraicam
maxime consuetudinem referentibus verbis formulisque dicendi mixtum et temperatum,
id quidem adeo evidens est iis, qui satis graece sciunt, ut plane misericordia digni sint, qui
omnia bene graeca esse contendant.
16
§ 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION.
29
Most of the above-mentioned old dissertations (besides others), written
16 in the Purist controversy, are collected in J. Rhenferd's Dissertatt. philolog.
7th ed. theolog. de Stylo N. T. syntagma, Leov. 1702. 4to., and in (what may be
considered as a supplement to Rhenferd's collection) Taco Hajo van den
Honert, Syntagma dissertatt. de stylo N. T. graeco. Amst. 1703. 4to.¹
15 Let us endeavor briefly to characterize the efforts of those who attrib-
6th ed. uted classical purity to the N. T. diction.²
Their great object was to collect from native Greek authors passages in
which those very same words and phrases occur which are found in the
N. T., and are there explained as Hebraisms. Now, apart from the cir-
cumstance that what is strictly speaking the body of the language was not
in general distinguished from the rhetorical element, the Purists entirely
overlooked the following considerations:
a. That numerous expressions and phrases (particularly such as are
figurative), owing to their simplicity and naturalness, are common to all,
or at least to many languages, and cannot with propriety be called either
Grecisms or Hebraisms.3
b. That a distinction is to be made between the diction of prose and
that of poetry, and also between figurative expressions employed very
rarely and by individual authors to give composition a peculiar elevation
(as lumina orationis), and those which have become the common property
of the language; and that, if in plain prose like that of the N. T. exprés-
sions used by Pindar, Eschylus, Euripides, etc. occur, or if such expres-
sions, as well as rare Greek figurative phrases, recur as ordinary phraseol-
ogy, this by no means proves the classical purity of the N. T.
4
c. That when an expression is found alike in Hebrew and in Greek, the
training and history of the writers of the N. T. render it in general more
1 The dissertations of Wulfer, Grosse, and Musaeus, though of trifling importance
compared to their size, are missed with regret from this collection, and more of Junge's
than the sententiae doct. vir. de stylo N. T. should have been admitted. Besides, cf.
Blessig, praesidia interpret. N. T. ex auctorib. graec. Argent. 1778. 4to., and Mittenzwey,
locorum quorundam e Hutchinsoni ad Xenoph. Cyrop. notis, quib. purum et elegans
N. T. dicendi genus defenditur, refutatio. Coburg. 1763. 4to. An essay by G. C. Drau-
dius, de stylo N. T., in the Primitt. Alsfeld., Nürnb. 1736. 8vo., I have not seen; (see
Neubauer, Nachr. von jetzt lebenden Theol. i. 253 ff.).
2 Mittenzwey made some remarks on this in his Essay, already mentioned.
8 Simplicity and graphic expression are common to Hebrew and Hebrew-Greek with
the diction of Homer; and particular phrases having these characteristics could with as
little propriety he called Hebraisms in the latter as Grecisms in the former. In general,
languages have points of contact, especially in popular speech, which is universally sim-
ple and graphic; while cultivated diction, as it is coined by the learned, is more isolated.
Hence in Latin, for instance, most of what are called Germanisms are to be found in
the style of comedies, epistles, etc.
* See, on the other hand, Krebs, observ. praef. p. 3. Leusden, de dialectt. p. 37, says,
with great absurdity: nos non fugit, carmina istorum hominum (tragicor.) innumeris
hebraismis esse contaminata. Accordingly Fischer, ad Leusden, p. 114, finds Hebra-
isms in the poems of Homer.
§ 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION.
17
probable that such expression is copied immediately from the Hebrew,
than that it is borrowed from the choicer literary language of Greece. 30
Not to mention,
d. That those uncritical collectors huddled together many passages out
of Greek authors where, a. the same word indeed occurs, but in a different 17
signification; or, B. expressions are found only similar, not identical. 7th ed.
Further,
e. That they unhesitatingly used even the Byzantine writers, into
whose language, through the influence of the church, many elements of the
Hebraizing N. T. phraseology may have been transferred (as in particular 16
instances can be proved to be extremely probable; cf. Niebuhr, Index to 6th ed
Agath. under nµiovodai); and, at all events, these Byzantine authors are
not standards of classic Greek purity. Finally,
f. That they passed over, and were forced to pass over, many expres-
sions in silence, because they are undeniable Hebraisms.¹
Thus the evidence produced in favor of Purism was partly defective
and partly irrelevant. Besides, most of the Purists restricted themselves
mainly to the lexical side of the question; Georgi alone discussed the
grammatical with a fulness sustained by stores of erudition.
In proof of the preceding statements, we subjoin several striking exam-
ples (cf. also Mori acroas. 1. c. p. 222 sqq.): And as respects
a. Matt. v. 6, πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες τὴν δικαιοσύνην. Examples are pro-
duced from Xenophon, Eschines, Lucian, Artemidorus, to prove that
dɩŷv, in this (figurative) sense, is pure Greek. But it is so used in Latin
also, and in nearly all languages; it cannot, therefore, be regarded as a
Grecism any more than a Hebraism. The same holds of ἐσθίειν (κατεσθίε
ev) in the figurative sense of consume, waste. This cannot be proved from
Iliad 23, 182 to be a Grecism, nor from Deut. xxxii. 22 etc. to be a He-
braism; but it is common to all languages. In the same way we might
dispense with parallels to yeveά generation i.e. the individuals of a partic-
ular generation (Georgi, Vind. p. 39), to xeip power, to ỏ kúpιos Tŷs oikías,
κύριος τῆς
and the like. And it is really ridiculous when Matt. x. 27 kŋpúέate èπì
τῶν δωμάτων is authenticated by #sop. 139, 1, ἔριφος ἐπί τινος
SúμаTOS EσTús. Pfochen's dissertation contains a great number of such
idle and preposterous remarks.
Π
b. That кoão da signifies mori is proved from the Iliad 11, 241
(Georgi, vind. p. 122 sqq.) κońσато xáλкeоv UTVOV, and Soph. Electr.
510; that σéрua is used also by the Greeks for proles is proved chiefly
from the poets, as Eurip. Iph. Aul. 524; Iph. Taur. 987; Hec. 254, and
Soph. Electr. 1508 (Georgi, vind. p. 87 sqq.); that Touaive means regere,
from Anacr. 57, 8; that ideîv and Jewpeîv Jávarov are good Greek, from 31
Soph. Elect. 205 (Schwarz, Comm. p. 410), or from Sépкeo Jaι KтÚTOV,
1 This applies also to J. E. Ostermann, whose Positiones philologicae graecum N. T.
contextum concernentes have been reprinted in Crenii exercitatt. fasc. ii. p. 485 sqq.
3
18
§ 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION.
σKÓTOV, in tragedians. For Toтýριov πive in a figurative sense (Matt.
xx. 22), Schwarz quotes schyl. Agam. 1397. That TimTew signifies
irritum esse, the established meaning in Hebrew, the same writer proves
by Plato's figurative expression, δοκεῖ ἡδονή σοι πεπτωκέναι καθαπερεί πλη
γεῖσα ὑπὸ τῶν νῦν δὴ λόγων, Phileb. p. 22. e.
c. The phrase ywóσkew ävdpa, though not unknown in Greek (Jacobs,
18 ad Philostr. imagg. p. 583), may be derived with assurance directly from
7th ed. the common Hebrew phrase, and regarded in our authors as a
Hebraism. In like manner oλáуxνa compassion, έnpá land as opposed
to water (Fischer ad Leusden dialectt. 31), xeîdos in the sense of shore,
στóμa for edge of a sword (cf., however, Boissonade, Nic. p. 282), πaɣúvelv
to be stupid, foolish, κύριος κυρίων, εἰςέρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κόσμον are primarily,
17 no doubt, copied from the Hebrew, and are not to be proved to be pure
6th ed. Greek by parallels from Herodot., Elian, Xenophon, Diodor. Sic., Philos-
tratus, and others.
d. a. That év is used by Greek authors to express the casus instru-
mentalis which with certain limitations is true. Pfochen tries to prove
by such quotations as: πλέων ἐν ταῖς ναυσί (Xenoph.), ἦλθε ..... ἐν νηῒ
μeλaívy (Hesiod)! That good Greek authors use a for res is said to be
apparent from Platt. legg. 797 e. (τούτου ῥήματος καὶ τοῦ δόγματος οὐκ εἶναι
ζημίαν μείζω), where ῥῆμα may be translated verdict, decision. Χορτάζειν
to fill, (of persons), is proved to be pure Greek from Plat. rep. 2, 372,
where it refers to swine! Ζητεῖν ψυχήν τινος is affirmed to be classical,
from Eur. Io. 1112; Thuc. 6, 27, etc., where (ŋreîv alone, occurs in the
sense of insidiari, or rather seek for (in order to kill). That opeλnua in
good Greek signifies peccatum, Schwarz tries to prove by Plat. Cratyl.
400 c., where, however, opeλóueva denotes as elsewhere debita. Equally
inappropriate are most of the passages from which Georgi (Hierocrit. p. 36
sq., 186 sq.) attempts to show that in the best Greek authors the preposi-
tions els and ev are interchanged, as they are in the N. T. Cf. also Krebs,
Obs. p. 14 sq.
β. That εὑρίσκειν χάριν (ἔλεος) παρά τινι is not a Hebraism, Georgi
(Vind. p. 116) tries to demonstrate from a passage of Demosthenes con-
taining the words εὑρίσκεσθαι τὴν εἰρήνην, τὴν δωρεάν, as if the Hebraism in
question did not lie rather in the whole phrase (for there is nothing peculiar
to Hebrew in using find for obtain), and as if nothing depended on the
middle voice. Palairet quotes Aristoph. Acharn. крarp aluaтos, and
similar expressions, to justify the use of Torńptov for sors; and Schwarz
defends πíπτew irritum esse by a reference to Plat. Euthyphr. 14 d. où
χαμαὶ πεσεῖται ὅ,τι ἂν εἴποις. Passages containing the words οὔτε μέγα
ойтε σμɩкρóν were quoted to show that the well-known Merismus åñò
μuikpoû ews μeɣáλov is pure Greek (Georgi, Vind. p. 310 sqq.; Schwarz,
Comment. p. 917; cf. Schäfer, Julian. p. xxi.). In such Merismus itself,
32 however, there is nothing Hebraistic, but only in the particular formula
§ 1. OPINIONS ON THE N. T. DICTION.
19
given above ȧrò pikp. Evs μey. Theophan. Cont. p. 615 Bekk. is the first
мкр. ἕως
writer in whom this form occurs. Καρπὸς τῆς κοιλίας, ὀσφύος, Georgi
(Vind. p. 304) supports by passages in which κapós alone is used to
denote the fruit of the human body. Aristoph. Nub. tλéov tλéov, more
and more, is not sufficient to prove that dúo dúo, two and two, is a Grecism;
it would be necessary to produce examples where the repeated cardinal is
employed for ἀνὰ δύο, ἀνὰ τρεῖς, etc., § 37, 3. In the same way ὅσσα δ'
ἀκούσας εἰςεθέμην is vainly quoted from Callimachus to prove that τιθέναι
eis rà ôra is pure Greek, as the two phrases are essentially unlike each
other. Yet such specimens might be multiplied without end. What 19
Georgi, Vind. p. 25, produces from Arrian. Epictet. in defence of & adepós ithel
alter, seems peculiarly ridiculous.
e. Schwarz, p. 1245, asserts, on the usage of Nicetas, the pure Greek
character of the phrase στηρίζειν τὸ πρόςωπον and the word ἐνωτίζεσθαι;
and Palairet proves that of έnpá in the sense of continent, from Jo.
Cinnam. hist. iv. p. 183. Pfochen still more oddly vindicates the use of
Kowós to signify immundus, from Lucian, Mort. Peregrin. c. 13, where
Lucian derisively employs a Judeo-Christian expression.
f. Of the numerous Hebraistic words and phrases which the Purists
passed over in silence, it will suffice to mention : πρόςωπον λαμβάνειν, σὰρξ 18
καὶ αἷμα, υἱὸς εἰρήνης, ἐξέρχεσθαι ἐξ ὀσφύος τινός, ποιεῖν ἔλεος (χάριν) μετά 6th ed
τινος, ἀποκρίνεσθαι without a preceding question, ἐξομολογεῖσθαι θεῷ (το
praise God) and many others; see § 3.
After Salmasius, whose work De Lingua Hellen. later scholars had
quite forgotten, Sturz's dissertation De Dialecto Alexandrina (Lips. 1784,
4to., and Ger. 1788-93, 4to.), 2d enlarged ed. Lips. 1809, 8vo., led the
way to a correct estimate of N. T. diction, particularly as respects its basis,
the Greek. (For able observations on Sturz, see the Heidelb. Jahrb.
1810. 18 Heft, S. 266 ff.) On this subject, therefore, Keil (Lehrb. der
Hermeneut. S. 11 f.), Bertholdt (Einleit. in d. Bib. 1 Th. S. 155 f.),
Eichhorn (Einleit. ins N. T. 4 Bd. S. 96 ff.), and Schott (Isagoge in N. T.
p. 497 sqq.) have written more satisfactorily than many earlier critics,
but without exhausting the subject, and without exhibiting the requisite
scientific precision. In both these respects the younger Planck has sur-
passed his predecessors; and (avoiding a fundamental mistake into which
Sturz fell) he was the first to unfold clearly, and on the whole correctly,
the character of the N. T. diction, in his De vera natura atque indole
orationis graecae N. T. comment. Gott. 1810, 4to. (reprinted in Com-
mentatt. theol. v. Rosenmüller, 1. 1. p. 112 sqq.). Cf. his Pr. Observatt.
quaedam ad hist. verbi gr. N. T. ibid. 1821, 4to. (and in Commentatt. theol.
v. Rosenmüller, 1. 1. p. 193 sqq.). See also (de Wette) A. Lit. Z. 1816,
No. xxix. S. 306.
20
§ 2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION.
33
§ 2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION.
In the age of Alexander the Great and his successors the Greek
language underwent an internal change of a double nature. On
the one hand, a literary prose language was formed, which was
founded on the Attic dialect, yet differed from it by adopting a
common Greek element, and even admitting numerous provin-
cialisms ή κοινὴ οι ἑλληνικὴ διάλεκτος). On the other hand, a
popular spoken language arose, in which the previously distinct
dialects spoken by the various Greek tribes were blended, with a
20 predominance of the Macedonic variety.¹ This latter compound,
7th ed. varying in some respects in the various provinces of Asia and Africa
subjected to the Macedonian rule, constitutes the special founda-
tion of the diction of the N. T., as it does also of the Septuagint
and Apocrypha. Its peculiarities, further modified by a dis-
regard of nice distinctions, and by an effort after perspicuity and
19 also after commodious forms of expression,- may be fitly ranged
6th ed. under two heads: Lexical and Grammatical.
The older dissertations on Greek Dialectology, so far as regards the
kowǹ diáλektos in particular, are now nearly useless. The subject is well,
though briefly, treated by Matthiae (ausführl. Gramm. § 1-8) and still
more thoroughly by Buttmann (ausführl. griech. Sprachlehre, S. 1–8),
and also, though not with complete accuracy, by Planck 1. c. p. 13–23.
Cf. besides, Tittmann, Synon. I. p. 262 sq., and Bernhardy, S. 28 ff.
The Jews in Egypt and Syria² —and to these we confine our remarks
learned Greek principally from oral intercourse with Greeks, and not
from books. It is not surprising, then, that even in writing they retained,
1 Sturz, de dial. maced. et alex. p. 26 sqq. Yet the subject requires a new and
thorough investigation; decisions such as that in Thiersch de Pentat. LXX. p. 74, can
by no means settle the question.
2 A precise distinction cannot be drawn between what belonged to the language of
Alexandria, and what was peculiar to the variety of Greek used in Syria (and Pales-
tine); and even if it could, it would be of little importance as respects the N. T. Eich-
horn's attempt (Einl. ins N. T. IV. 124 ff.) is a failure, and could not be otherwise, as
it was conducted with little judgment. Euxapioreiv, used by Demosthenes even, and
from the time of Polybius by many writers, he pronounces an addition to the Alexan-
drian diction! ¿evíÇew hospitio excipere, which is found not only in Xenophon but even
in Homer, is labelled as an Alexandrian word! To what extent Greek was spoken by
the Jews of Syria (and Palestine) we need not here inquire; on this point see Paulus,
de Jud. Palaest. Jesu et apostolor. tempore non aram. dialecto sed graeca quoque
locutis. Jen. 1803. II. 4; Hug, Einleitung, II. 31 ff.; my Realwörterb. II. 502.; Schlei-
ermacher, Hermeneutik, S. 61 f.
8 That the style of the Greek-speaking Jews was affected by the perusal of the Sep-
tuagint makes no essential difference here, where we have in view mainly the classic
§ 2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION.
21
7th ed
for the most part, the peculiarities of the popular spoken language. This 34
was the case with the LXX., the writers of the N. T., and the authors of
many (the Palestin.) Apocrypha. Only a few learned Jews, who prized 21
and studied Grecian literature, such as Philo and Josephus,¹ attained a
style approximating to, literary Greek. Though that popular variety of
Greek is no longer perfectly known,2 yet, from a comparison of the Hel-
lenistic language (Hebraisms excepted) with the later literary prose, it
appears that, departing still more noticeably from classic elegance, it had 20
adopted in greater abundance new and provincial words and forms, and 6th ed
begun to neglect more decidedly nice distinctions of construction and idiom,
to violate grammatical proprieties (their origin and grounds being lost.
sight of), and to extend many corruptions already manifesting themselves
in the literary diction. Its main characteristic, however, continued to be
such an intermixing of the previously distinct dialects (Lobeck, Pathol.
p. 9.), that each province retained its own local variety as the basis of the
provincial style; - the Alexandrian retaining a predominance of Atticisms
and Doricisms.
We shall now endeavor to portray more minutely the later elements,
both lexical and grammatical — of which the former are the more obvious
- of the Hellenistic Greek which took its rise from the dialect spoken in
Egypt, particularly in Alexandria (dialectus Alexandrina). In doing
3
Greek element. Moreover, that no profound Greek scholarship can be ascribed even
to the Apostle Paul (see, among others, Pfochen, p. 178) is now generally admitted.
He undoubtedly possessed a greater mastery of Greek than such of the sacred writers
as were natives of Palestine. This, however, he might easily attain in Asia Minor,
and by his considerable intercourse with native Grecks, some of whom were persons of
learning and distinction. Köster, in the Stud. und Krit. 1854. 2 (ob P. seine Sprache
an der des Demosth. gebildet habe) brings together Demosthenic words and phrases,
of nearly all of which it must be said that either Paul might have learned them from
the spoken language of the educated, or that they are unlike the diction of the Attic
orator. Copious command of Greek in the case of men who associated so much with
Greeks does not suffice to prove them students of Greek literature.
1 A comparison of portions of the earlier books of the Antiquities with the corres-
ponding portions of the Septuagint, proves particularly that the style of Josephus is
not to be put on a level with that of the Septuagint, or even of the N. T., and renders
obvious the difference between a Jewish and a Greek narrative style. Cf. besides,
Schleiermacher, Herm. S. 63.
2 Hence a "complete view of the language of common life," which Schleiermacher,
Herm. S. 59, would fain see, can never be given.
8 On this (Teρì Tîjs 'Aλe§avdpéwv diaλékтov) the grammarians Irenaeus (Pacatus) and
Demetrius Ixion had written special works, which are now lost. See Sturz, dial. maced.
et alex. p. 24, not. 4, cf. p. 19 sq. As extant specimens of this dialect, besides the well-
known Rosetta inscription, are to be considered: Papyri gracci reg. Taurin. musei
aegyptii ed. et illustr. a A. Peyron. Turin, 1827. 2 Vol. 4to., and the same author's
Illustrazione di due papiri gracco-egizi dell' imper. musco di Vienna, in the Memorie
dell' academ. di Torino, Tom. 33, p. 151 sqq. of the histor. class; Description of the
Greek Papyri in the British Museum, Lond. 1839. 4to. Tom. 1 ; J. A. Letronne, Recueil
des inscriptions grecques et latines de l'Egypte, etc. Paris, 1842 and 1848, 2 Tom. 4to.
22
§ 2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION.
this, we shall constantly avail ourselves of the researches of Sturz, Planck,
35 Lobeck,¹ Boissonade, and others. For the passages they quote in proof
(chiefly from the writers of the Kown, Polybius, Plutarch, Strabo, Elian,
Artemidorus, Appian, Heliodorus, Sext. Empiricus, Arrian, etc.) the
reader must be referred to the works of these critics themselves. What
appears to have belonged exclusively to the popular spoken language, and
22 is not to be found in any profane Greek author, we shall mark with an
7th ed. asterisk.3
21
1. LEXICAL PECULIARITIES: a. The later dialect comprised words
6th ed. and forms from all the Greek dialects, without distinction; as, for instance,
from the Attic: vaλos (Lob. 309), å σkótos, ¿erós (Herm. Praef. ad Soph.
Ai. p. 19), φιάλη, ἀλήθειν (Lob. 151), πρύμνα (Lob. 331), ἵλεως; from the
Doric : πιάζω (πιέζω), κλίβανος (Lob. 179), ἡ λιμός, ποία (grass, instead of
tvíŋ or tóα), ßeµßpávas, which Zonaras quotes from 2 Tim. iv. 13, where
however all our Codd. give μeμßp., sce Sturz, Zonarae glossae sacrae.
Grimmae, 1820. 4to. P. II. p. 16; from the Ionic: yoyyúśw (Lob. 358),
ῥήσσω, πρηνής (yet already used in Aristot., see Lob. 431), βαθμός (Lab.
324), akoptiŠew (Lob. 218), &pon (Bttm. I. S. 84, cf. Fr. Rom. I. 78).
Ionic and Doric is (eiλíoσew Rev. vi. 14 var.; cf. Mtth. I. 69) þúw in an
intransitive sense (Heb. xii. 15, cf. Babr. 64.). Grammarians note as
Macedonic, Tapeußoλn camp (Lob. 377, cf. Schwarz, Soloec. ap. 66), púμn
street; as of Cyrenaic origin, Bouvós hill (Lob. 355 sqq.); as Syracusan,
the imperative eiróv (Fritzsche, ad Mr. p. 515).
b. The later dialect attached new significations to words already existing
in the ancient language: παρακαλεῖν and ἐρωτῶν* entreat, παιδεύειν chastise,
1 Yet see even Olear. de stylo, p. 279 sqq.
2 In studying the peculiarities of later Greek, the church Fathers and the books of
Graeco-Roman law have hitherto been turned to scarcely any account. To the latter
frequent reference will be made in the course of this treatise. How far the N. T. diction,
through the influence of the church, affected the later Byzantine Greek, is reserved for
separate inquiry. The Pseudepigrapha of the O. T. and the Apocrypha of the N. T.,
that is certain portions of them, are now available more completely, and in a better
text; the latter through the labors of Tdf. The style of these clumsy compositions,
though not by any means uniform, is on the whole so poor that the N. T. diction seems
like classic Greck in comparison. Cf. besides, Tdf. de evangel. apocryph. origine et
usu, in the Verhandelingen uitgeven door het Haagsche Genootschap, etc. 12 Thl.
1851. 8vo.
3 The Greck grammarians, particularly Thomas Mag. (the latest edition by Ritschl,
Halle, 1832. 8vo.), specify as common Greek much that is not unknown even to standard
Attic (see c.g. Oeμéλios, Th. M. p. 437, and èpevvâμai, p. 363), and even fall sometimes
into gross mistakes. Cf. Oudendorp, ad Thom. M. p. 903.
903. Much that, after Alexander
the Great, forced its way into the written language, undoubtedly was current before in
the popular speech (as, perhaps, orpηviâv, which first appears in the poets of the New
Comedy). Besides, the N. T. writers frequently employ forms and words preferred by
the Atticists, instead of those characterized as common Greck; e.g. Xpnotótns, Thom.
M. p. 921, (not 8) λaîλay, Thom. M. 864.
§ 2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION.
23
ELV
Tih od
εὐχαριστεῖν thank (Lob. 18), ἀνακλίνειν, ἀναπίπτειν, ἀνακεῖσθαι, to recline at
table (Lob. 216), ἀποκριθῆναι answer (Lob. 168), ἀντιλέγειν oppose, ἀπο- 36
táoσeoðaɩ valere jubere, renuntiare (Lob. 23 sq.), ovyκpívew compare (Loh.
278), daíµwv, dayuóviov, evil spirit,¹ ¿údov (living) tree (Passow, sul, verb.),
diaπovéîodai aegre ferre*, oréyew hold off, endure, σeßálcoðaı revere (equiv-
alent to σéßeral, Fr. Rom. I. 74), ovvíoτnpɩ prove, establish (Fr. Rom. I.
159), xpnµatíšew be called (Fr. Rom. II. 9), pbáve come, arrive (Fr.
Rom. II. 356 sq.), kepaλis volume (roll) of a book (Bleek on Heb. x. 7),
evoxýµwv a respectable, prominent, man (Lob. 333), Yospićew and xopтálew
(fodder) feed, nourish*,2 ¿úviov wages (Sturz, 187), ¿vápiov fish, ¿pevye-
σθαι eloqui (Lob. 63 sq.), ἐπιστέλλειν write a letter (επιστολή), περισπᾶσθαι 28
negotiis distrahi (Lob. 415), πtôрa corpse (Lob. 375), yevvýpara fruges
(Lob. 286), oxoλń school (Lob. 401), Oupeós large (door-shaped) shield
(Lob. 366), Sapa house-top, λoißn offering (Babr. 23, 5), púun street
(Lob. 404 sq.), rappŋoía assurance, confidence, daλiá speech (dialect),
λaμmás lamp, kataσroλý long robe*, vvví now (in Attic, this instant) Fr.
Rom. I. 182, σráμvos, which in the classics denotes a vessel for holding 22
liquids, was used to signify also a vessel for dry articles, Babr. 108, 18.
6th ed
A special peculiarity was to give neuter verbs the transitive or causative
signification; as, μaonтevew (Matt. xxviii. 19), Opiaußever (2 Cor. ii. 14?
yet see Mey.), in the Sept. even S₁v, Baoiλevei, and many others; cf.
especially, Psalm xli. 3; cxviii. 50; cxxxviii. 7, etc., cf. § 32, 1. see Lydius
de re mil. 6. 3, esp. Lob. Soph. Ai. p. 382 sqq. Lastly, in the case of
µévoos, usage at least so far changed that the word, previously confined
to females, was applied to both sexes (Lob. 151 sq.; Schäfer, ind. ad Æsop.
p. 144).
3
c. Words and forms which in classical Greek were seldom used, or only
by poets and in the more elevated kinds of style, became ordinary and
favorite, and were employed even in common prose; such as, avlevreîv to
lord it (Lob. 120), μeσovúktiov (Thom. M. 609; Lob. 53), åλáλntos (?),
θεοστυγής (Pollux 1, 21), ἔσθησις (Th. M. 370), ἀλέκτωρ (ἀλεκτρυών, Lob.
229), ẞpéxew irrigare (Lob. 291), čow (for oío) Bttm. II. 185. To
1 That is, as its inherent signification; for, from the context, the word means this in
the Iliad, 8, 166, as also in Dinarch. adv. Demosthen. § 30, p. 155, Bekk., a passage
quoted by recent scholars. Even the Byzantines for precision add kakós to daíµwv,
δαίμων,
Agath. 114, 4.
2 This extended meaning might be considered also as a Hebraism; wulev was
commonly used as quite equivalent to (cf. Grimm on Wisd. xvi. 20), like Xoprá-
Čew, which in Greek authors is not applied to persons. (In opposition to Pfochen, see
Solanus in Rhenferd, p. 297.) It is uncertain whether dexadúo for dúdeka belongs to the
later popular Greek, or was first formed by the LXX. The first seems to me the more
probable, for toy any dodeka corresponds more exactly than dekadúo.
8 Transitive verbs are more convenient in construction than intransitive. Later
Greek even employed the construction TрosTάTTew Twά (Acta apocr. p. 172); just as in
German etwas widersprechen is the more familiar phrase; in the language of trade we
hear, das Rüböl ist gefragt.
24
§ 2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION.
the same head Eichhorn Einl. ins N. T. IV. 127) refers the phrase θέσθαι
τι ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, employed it is said in solemn style by the poets particularly
the tragedians, since it occurs in the N. T. in the plainest prose. But the
37 Homeric phrase ἐν φρεσὶ θέσθαι is only similar, not identical. The ex-
pression συντηρεῖν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, cited by the same author as a solemn
formula, is used also in the N. T. as emphatic. Κοράσιον, on the other
hand, is to be regarded as an example of a word which, dropping its sec-
ondary import, was adopted into the literary style from the colloquial
(Lob. 74), cf. Germ. mädel.
24
1
d. Many words which had long been in use received another form or
pronunciation, which generally supplanted its predecessor; such as, μετοι-
κεσία (μετοικία), ἱκεσία (ἱκετεία, Lob. 504), ἀνάθεμα (ἀνάθημα, Schäf. Plutarch.
V. p. 11), ἀνάστεμα, γενέσια (γενέθλια, Lob. 104), γλωσσόκομον (γλωσσο-
κομεῖον, Lob. 98 sq.), ἔκπαλαι (πάλαι, Lob. 45 sq.), εχθές (χθές), ἐξάπινα
(ἐξαπίνης), αἴτημα (αἴτησις), ψευσμα (ψευδος, Sallier ad Th. M. 927), ἀπάν
7th ed. τησις (ἀπάντημα), ἤγησις (ἡγεμονία), λυχνία (λυχνίον, Lob. 314), νίκος (νίκη,
Lob. 647), οἰκοδομή (οικοδόμησις, Lob. 490), ὀνειδισμός, Lob. 512 (ὄνειδος,
ὀνειδισμα, Her. 2, 188), οπτασία (ὄψις), ἡ ὁρκωμοσία (τὰ ὁρκωμόσια), μισθα-
ποδοσία (μισθοδοσία), συγκυρία (συγκύρησις), ἀποστασία (ἀπόστασις, Lob.
528), νουθεσία (νουθέτησις, Lob. 512), απαρτισμός (ἀπάρτισις), μελίσσιος
(μελίσσειος), ποταπός (ποδαπός, Lob. 56), βασίλισσα (βασίλεια), μοιχαλίς
(μοιχάς Lob. 452), μονόφθαλμος (ετερόφθαλμος, Lob. 136), καμμύειν (κατα-
μύειν, Sturz, p. 123), ὄψιμος (ὄψιος, Lob. 52), ὁ πλησίον (ὁ πέλας), προςήλυτος
(ἔπηλυς, Valcken. ad Ammon. p. 32), φυσιοῦσθαι (φυσᾶν) to be puffed up
(trop. Babr. 114), ἀτενίζειν since Polybius for ἀτενίζεσθαι (Passow), ἐκχύνειν
(ἐκχέειν, Lob. 726), στήκω (from ἕστηκα stand, Bttm. II. 36), ἀργός, ή, όν
23
6th ed (as an adject. of three terminations, Lob. 105), πειθός, νοσσοί, νοσσιά
(νεοσσοί, νεοσσιά, Thom. Μ. 626; Lob. 206 f.), πετάομαι (πέτομαι, Lob. 581),
ἀπελπίζειν (ἀπογινώσκειν), ἐξυπνίζειν (ἀφυπνίζειν, Lob. 224), ραντίζειν (ῥαίνειν),
δεκατοῦν (δεκατεύειν), αροτριάν (ἀροῦν, Lob. 254 sq.), βιβλαρίδιον* (βιβλίδιον,
βιβλιδάριον), ψιχίον (ψίξ), ταμεῖον (ταμιείον) Lob. 493, καταποντίζειν (κατα-
ποντοῦν, Lob. 301), παραφρονία (παραφροσύνη)*, πτύον (πτέον, Lob. 321),
ψιθυριστής (for ψιθυρός) Thom. Μ. 927, ὠτάριον (as most of the diminutives
in -αριον, e.g. παιδάριον, ὀνάριον, Fr. Mr. p. 638). Purely Alexandrian
(LXX.) are ἀκρόβυστος and ἀκροβυστία, Fr. Rom. I. 136; verbal forms
in ω pure, instead of in μι, e.g. ομνύω for ὄμνυμι, Thom. Μ. 648. Cf. also
ξυράω for ξυρέω, Thom. Μ. 642; Phot. Lex. 313 (Lob. 205, and ad Soph.
Aiac. p. 181), pres. βαρέω (βαρύνω) Thom. Μ. p. 142, σαροῦν for σαίρειν
Lob. 83, χολάν (χολοῦσθαι), ἐξὸν εἶναι for ἐξεῖναι (Foertsch, de locis Lysiae,
p. 60 sq.). Active forms were adopted instead of the middle or deponent
verbs usual in the earlier language ; as, φρυάσσειν Act. iv. 25, from Ps. ii.,
ἀγαλλιᾶν Luke i. 47, εὐαγγελίζειν Lob. 269. Compound verbs, in which
1 Similar to which is ἱέρισσα from ἱερεύς, which is found in Papyr. Taurin. 9, 14. Cf.
Sturz, p. 173.
§ 2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION.
25
2
1
the preposition did not add to the meaning, were preferred to the less im-
posing and less sonorous simple forms. Further, as even many compound
verbs did not seem expressive enough, numerous double compounds made
their appearance (Siebelis, Pr. de verb. compos. quae quatuor partibus 38
constant. Budiss. 1832. 4to.). For members of the human body, however,
forms originally diminutive became sometimes the current forms in col-
loquial speech; as, úríov, cf. Fischer, proluss. p. 10 sqq.; Lob. 211 sq.,
popríov. Lastly, many substantives received a different gender and in 25
part a corresponding change of termination; see § 8 note, and § 9 note 2. 7th ed.
e. Entirely new words and phrases were constructed, mainly by
composition and for the most part to meet some sensible want; as, ¿Mo-
τριοεπίσκοπος*, ἀνθρωπάρεσκος (Lob. 621), ὁλόκληρος, ἀγενεαλόγητος*, αἷμα
τεκχυσία*, δικαιοκρισία, σιτομέτριον, νυχθήμερον (Sturz, 186), πληροφορία
(Theophan. 132), καλοποιεῖν (Lob. 199 sqq.), αἰχμαλωτίζειν and αἰχμαλωτεύειν
(for αἰχμάλωτον ποιεῖν, Thom. Μ. p. 23; Lob. 442), μεσιτεύειν, γυμνητεύειν,
ἀγαθοποιεῖν (ἀγαθοεργεῖν) for ἀγαθὸν ποιεῖν (Lob. 200), ἀγαλλίασις, ὁροθεσία, 24
ἀντίλυτρον*, ἐκμυκτηρίζειν*, ἀλεκτοροφωνία (Lob. 229), ἀποκεφαλίζειν (Lob.
341), ȧνтажокрíveolar (Esop. 272 de Fur.), éέoveveîv (Lob. 182; Schäf.
ind. Æsop. p. 135), èkkakeîv* (the literary Greek knows only eykakeîv, see
my Comment. ad Gal. p. 134, and Mey. on 2 Cor. iv. 1), evdokeîv (Sturz,
p. 168; Fr. Rom. II. 370 sq.), ὁμοιάζειν*, ἀγαθουργεῖν, ἀγαθωσύνη, διασκορ
πίζειν (Lob. 228), στρηνιάν (τρυφάν, Lob. 381), ἐγκρατεύομαι* (Lob. 442),
οἰκοδεσπότης, οἰκοδεσποτεῖν (Lob. 373), λιθοβολεῖν, προςφάγιον (ὄψον, Sturz,
191), λογία, κράββατος (σκίμπους, Lob. 63; Sturz, 175 sq.), πεποίθησις
(Lob. 295), σπίλος (κηλίς, Lob. 28), μάμμη (τήθη, Lob. 133 sq.), ῥαφίς
(βελόνη, Lob. 90), ἀγριέλαιος (κότινος, Moeris, p. 68), ἁγνότης*, ἁγιότης*,
ἐπενδύτης, ἐκτενῶς and ἐκτένεια (Lob. 311), ἀπαράβατος (Lob. 313).
It belongs alike to d. and e. to remark that the later Greek especially
abounded: in substantives in μα, e.g. κατάλυμα, ἀνταπόδομα, κατόρθωμα,
ῥάπισμα, γέννημα, ἔκτρωμα (Lob. 209), βάπτισμα*, ἔνταλμα, ἱεροσύλημα* (see
Pasor, Gramm. N.T. pp. 571–574);—in substantives compounded with ovv,
e.g. συμμαθητής, συμπολίτης (Lob. 471) ; — in adjectives in tvos, e.g. ὀρθρινός
1 That, on the other hand, simple verbs were in later Greek preferred to the corres-
ponding compound, Tdf. (Stud. und Krit. 1842. S. 505) tries to prove from the expres-
sion βουλὴν τιθέναι, for which the earlier Greeks had used βουλὴν προ τιθέναι. But
these phrases may have differed in meaning, see Raphel on Acts xxvii. 12. With
greater probability might be adduced here the verbs (mentioned under e.) deLYμATÍŠEI
and θεατρίζειν, for which in the written language we find only παραδειγματίζειν and
ἐκθεατρίζειν; so also ταρταροῦν τοι καταταρταροῦν. In the same way the Prussian official
style employs Führung for Aufführung.
LV
2 It may be mentioned here also, that abbreviated forms of proper names, which
probably were current carlier in popular speech, made their way into the written lan-
guage; as, Αλεξᾶς, Σπανία (for Ισπανία), etc. The derivatives of δέχεσθαι were but
slightly altered ; as, πανδοχεύς, ξενοδοχεύς, for πανδοκεύς, etc., Lob. 307.
8 Many such words have been collected from the Fathers by Suicer in his sacrac
observatt. (Tigur. 1665, 4to.) p. 311 sqq.
6th ed.
4
26
§ 2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION.
ω.
(Sturz, p. 186), πρωϊνός, καθημερινός, ὀστράκινος, δερμάτινος (Lob. 51 sq.) -
in verbs in ow, ίζω, αζω, e.g. ἀνακαινόω, δυναμόω, ἀφυπνόω, δολιόω, ἐξουδενόω*,
σθενόω, ὀρθρίζω*, δειγματίζω, θεατρίζω, φυλακίζω*, ἱματίζω, ἀκουτίζω, πελεκίζω
39 (Lob. 341), aiperiw (Babr. f. 61; Boisson. anecd. II. 318), oviáw. To
these may be added also the presents formed from preterites σтýкw (see
above), γρηγορώ Lob. 118 sq. Cf. also such adverbs as πάντοτε (διαπαντός,
ἑκάστοτε), παιδιόθεν ἐκ παιδίου, Lob. 93), καθώς (Sturz, p. 74), πανοικί
(πανοικία, πανοικησίᾳ, Lob. 515), see Sturz, 187 sq. Εσχάτως ἔχειν is a
26 later phrase (for κакws, Tоvηpus exew) Lob. 389; and kaλoжоtev (see above)
7th ed. was used for the more ancient phrase κaλâŵs πoieîv.
1
It cannot be denied that the preceding list contains many words formed,
agreeably to the prevailing analogy of the time, by the Greek-speaking
Jews, or even by the N. T. writers themselves (especially Paul, Luke, and
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; cf. Origen. orat. § 27); cf.
particularly ὀρθρίζειν (Dm), λιθοβολεῖν, αἱματεκχυσία, σκληροκαρδία, σκλη-
ροτράχηλος, ἀγαθοεργεῖν, ὀρθοποδεῖν, ὀρθοτομεῖν, μοσχοποιεῖν, μεγαλωσύνη, τα-
πεινοφροσύνη, παραβάτης, πατριάρχης, ἀγενεαλόγητος, ὑποπόδιον (Sturz, 199),
25 xpvoodaкtúdios. However, the circumstance that no traces of these words
6th ed.
are to be found in the Greek writers still extant of the first centuries after
Christ (but these have not yet been fully explored)2 must not be regarded
as altogether decisive. Many of the words in question may have been
already current in the popular speech of the Greeks. But words denoting
Jewish institutions, or heathenism as idolatry, originated of course among
the Greek-speaking Jews themselves; such as, σκηνοπηγία, εἰδωλόθυτον,
eidwλoλarpeía. Lastly, many words assumed among the Jews a peculiar
meaning resting on special Jewish modes of thought; as, Toтрéþeσ0αi,
ἐπιστροφή, absolutely used, to convert, conversion, προςήλυτος, πεντεκοστή
Whitsuntide, κόσμος (in a figurative sense), φυλακτήριον, ἐπιγαμβρεύειν of
the levirate marriage. In reference to Christian apostolic words and
forms (such as ẞáñтισμа) see § 3 end, p. 35.
2. GRAMMATICAL PECULIARITIES: These are confined mostly to in-
flections of nouns and verbs, which were either unknown in the earlier
language, or not used in certain words, or at least foreign to the literary
Attic for in this respect also the intermixture of dialects previously
distinct became manifest. Moreover, the use of the Dual became rare.
¹ Popular Greek naturally adopted single foreign words (appellatives), with slight
alterations, from the languages in use in the different provinces along with the Greek.
On this, however, we cannot dwell in an inquiry so general as the above. With regard
to the Egyptian element in the Septuagint and elsewhere, see Sturz, dialect. Alex.
p. 84 sqq. Also Latin and Persian words and expressions have been pointed out in the
N. T.; cf. Olear. de stylo N. T. p. 366 sq. 368 sqq.; Georgi, Hierocrit. I. p. 247 sqq.
and the whole of II. (de latinismis N. T.). Cf. Dresig, de N. T. gr. latinismis merito
et falso suspectis. Lips. 1726, 4to., and Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik, S. 62 f.
2 Most of this description appear subsequently in the Byzantine authors, who abound
in double compounds and lengthened forms of words. What had fallen into disuse
was eagerly restored and revived.
§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION.
27
The later Greek has few syntactical peculiarities. Certain verbs, for
instance, are construed with cases different from those they formerly used 40
to govern (§ 31, 1. cf. Boissonade, anecd. III. 136, 154); conjunctions which
previously took only the Subjunct. or Optat. are used with the Indic.; the
use of the Optat., particularly in the oratio obliqua, decreases sensibly;
the use of the future participle after verbs of going, sending, etc., recedes
before that of the present (or the infinitive); Active verbs with éavróv
begin to be substituted for Middle, when unemphatic. Also, in general,
more forcible expressions lose their emphasis. On the other hand, ad-
ditional expressiveness is aimed at even by grammatical forms, cf. peóτepos,
iva instead of the Infinitive, etc. But the later varieties of inflection will
most appropriately find place in § 4.
Later popular Greek had, beyond doubt, different peculiarities in differ-
ent provinces. Critics, accordingly, have professed to discover Cilicisms
in the style of Paul (Hieron. ad Algasiam quaest. 10. Tom. IV. ed. Marti- 27
anay, p. 204). The four examples, however, which this Father adduces 7th ed
are not conclusive (Michaelis, Einl. ins N. T. 1 Thl. S. 161); and as we
know nothing respecting the provincialisms of Cilicia (see, however, Sturz,
Dial. Alex. p. 62), it is better at present to dismiss the investigation alto-
gether, than to rest it on empty conjectures. Cf. B. Stolberg, de Cilicismis
a Paulo usurpatis, in his tr. de soloecismis N. T. p. 91 sqq.
§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF THE N. T. DICTION.
This popular variety of Greek, however, was not spoken and
written by the Jews without foreign admixture. They not only
imparted to their Greek style the general complexion of their
mother tongue, which consists in vividness and circumstantiality
as well as uniformity of expression, but also introduced particular
Jewish turns of expression. Yet both these peculiarities are more
apparent in their translations directly from Hebrew, than in their
original composition in Greek.¹
26
6th ed.
Lexical Hebraisms (and Aramaisms) are more numerous than
grammatical; and consist partly in the extension of the significa-
tion of words, partly in the imitation of entire phrases, and partly
also in the analogous formation of new words to express corres-
ponding Hebrew terms. Thus originated a Jewish-Greek, which
native Greeks did not entirely understand,2 and which they even 41
sometimes turned into ridicule.
1 Herein lies an argument, which has received little attention, why the text of the
N. T. is not to be regarded as a translation from the Aramaic, and that too, in a great
measure, clumsily executed.
2 Though the opinion of L. de Dieu (praefat. ad grammat. orient.): facilius Euro-
¡
28
§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION.
All the nations which after the death of Alexander continued under
Graeco-Macedonian rule and which gradually adopted the Greek language
of their conquerors even in common life, particularly the Syrians and
Hebrews, spoke Greek less purely than native Greeks, and imparted to
it more or less the impress of their mother tongue (Salmas. de lingua
Hellen. p. 121, cf. Joseph. antt. 20, 9). As the Greek-speaking Jews are
28 usually denominated Hellenists, this Oriental variety of Greek, known to
7th ed. us only in the writings of Jews, has not improperly obtained the name
of the Hellenistic idiom; see Buttm. I. S. 6.2 Accordingly, the diction
27
6th ed. of the LXX. and of the 'N. T. (of the Pseudepigrapha of the O. T. and
the Apocrypha of the N. T.) has been especially called Hellenistic; yet it
was not Drusius (ad Act. vi. 6), but Scaliger (animad. in Euseb. p. 134),
who first employed this term.
42
The Hebraisms of the N. T.- for these only, and not the oriental cast
of the periods and arrangement of words, were usually attended to— have
been collected frequently and thoroughly; in particular by Vorst, Leusden
(in his Philol. hebr., from which the dissertatio de dialectis N. T. sing.
de ejus hebraismis was separately printed by J. F. Fischer, Lips. 1754,
paeis foret Platonis Aristotelisque elegantiam imitari, quam Platoni Aristotelive N. T.
nobis interpretari, is decidedly an exaggeration. Still, the circumstance mentioned
above may in general explain the fact that learned Greek transcribers, or possessors of
MSS. of the N. T., often took the liberty of making corrections in order to bring the
diction nearer to Grecian elegance; see IIug, Einl. ins N. T. I. S. 129.
1 It is well known that Greek subsequently became Latinized, also, when the Romans
began to write in that language. The Latin coloring, however, is not very marked
before the Byzantine literature, even in Greek translations from Latin authors, such as
that of Eutropius by Paeanius, of Cicero's Cat. Maj. and Somn. Scip. by Theodorus
(published by Götz. Nürnb. 1801. 8vo.). This was partly owing to the much closer
affinity between Greek and Latin than between Hebrew and Greek, and partly because
these authors had made Greek a special study.
2 This appellation ought to be resumed as a technical term, it is so thoroughly appro-
priate. For λŋuors in the N. T. (Acts vi. 1) denotes a Greek-speaking Jew; (for
compilations respecting éλλnvíÇew rather than éλλŋvioтhs, see Wetstein II. p. 490; Lob.
p. 379 sq.). The notion of Salmasius, that in the N. T. Hellenist means a Greek prose-
lyte to Judaism, is a rash conclusion from Acts vi. 5, and Eichstädt (ad Mori acroas.
herm. I. p. 227) should not have adopted it. Moreover, the controversy between Dn.
Heinsius (exercit. de lingua hellenist. L. B. 1643. 8vo.), and Salmasius (hellenistica
L. B. 1643. 8vo. ; funus linguae hellen. ib. 1643. 8vo.; ossilegium linguae hellen. ib.
1643. 8vo.), on the appellation dialectus hellenistica, related not merely to the word Hel-
lenistic, but still more to the term dialectus, for which Salmasius wished to substitute
character or stylus idioticus (de Hellenist. p. 250), compare also Tittmann, Synonym. I. p.
259 sq. Yet the term dialect (didλektos Torikh) might be allowable to denote, particu-
larly in accordance with the very extensive meaning of the verb diaλéyeσdai (see, e.g.
Strabo 8, 514), that variety of Greck spoken by Hellenistic Jews. Other dissertations
on the designation dialect. hellenist. see in Walch, bib. theol. IV. p. 278 sq. and Fabric.
biblioth. graec. ed. Harles. IV. p. 893 sq. Thiersch and Rost have begun to call the
language of the Greek Bible the ecclesiastical dialect. This, however, is too narrow for
the subject discussed above, and the word dialect is inappropriate.
§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION.
29
1
1792, 8vo.), and Olearius (de Stylo N. T. p. 232 sqq.), cf. also Hartmann,
linguist. Einl. in das Stud. d. A. T. S. 382 ff. Anm. Still, this matter ought
to have been executed with more critical precision. Nearly all who have
written on this subject hitherto, are chargeable, more or less, with the
following errors:
a. They did not give sufficient attention to the Aramaic elements in the
diction of the N. T.2 In the time of Christ, as all know, the popular speech 29
of the Jews in Palestine was not the old Hebrew, but Syro-Chaldaic; 7th ed.
accordingly, many of the most current expressions of common life” must
have been introduced into Jewish-Greek from this dialect. Among the 28
older writers Olearius has a special section de Chaldaeo-Syriasmis N. T. 6th ed.
p. 345 sqq. (cf. Georgi, Hierocrit. I. p. 187 sqq.). More recently, a great
deal relating to this subject has been collected by Boysen (krit. Erläuter-
ungen des Grundtextes d. N. T. aus der syrischen Uebersetzung. Qued-
linb. 1761, 8vo., 3 Stücke), Agrell (oratio de dictione N. T. Wexion. 1798,
and otiola Syriaca. Lund. 1816, 4to. pp. 53-58), and Hartmann (as above,
382 ff.). Already had several earlier commentators occasionally directed
attention to Aramaisms; see Michaelis, Einleit. ins N. T. 1 Thl. S. 138 ff.;
Fischer ad Leusden, p. 140; Bertholdt's Einleit. 1 Thl. S. 158.- Under
this head come also the (few) Rabbinisms (see Olear. 1. c. p. 360 sqq.;
Georgi 1. c. p. 221 sqq.), for the elucidation of which much may still be
derived from Schöttgen, Hor. Hebr. They are mostly terms that may
have been used in the Rabbinical schools as early as the time of Christ.
b. They overlooked almost entirely the difference in style of the
several writers; so that according to their collections all the books of the 43
N. T. appear to abound in Hebraisms to the same extent. But in this
particular no little dissimilarity exists, and Matthew, Luke, John, Paul,
James, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews ought by no means
to be thrown together promiscuously. Those learned collectors failed also
1 A new and complete treatise on the Hebraisms of the N. T., elaborated critically and
on rational principles, is certainly needed. Meanwhile, the commencement recently
made (D. E. F. Buckel, de hebraismis N. T. Spec. 1. Lips. 1840, 8vo.) deserves to be
gratefully recognized.
2 Many of the peculiarities pointed out by the Hebraists might with equal propriety be
called either Hebraisms or Syriasms: c.g. els for an indefinite article, and the frequent use
of participles with elva for a finite verb. It is preferable, however, to regard these and
the like as Aramaisms, since they are far more common and more distinctly established
in the Aramaic, and occur almost exclusively in those later Hebrew writings the style
of which approaches the Aramaic. This refers principally to the diction of the N. T.,
for the Septuagint exhibits but few Aramaisms. Cf. Olear. p. 308; Gesen. Com. zu
Jes. I. 63.
8 To these the Aramaisms of the N. T. are, essentially, confined. For the religious
expressions are to be connected (through the medium of the Sept. in the case of the
majority of extra-Palestinean Jews) with the Ancient Hebrew, the sacred language. To
the same class also belongs @ávaros, pestilence, Rev. vi. 8; xviii. 8 (N♫♫,
cf. Ewald, Com. in Apoc. p. 122.
1200);
4 Even in one and the same writer we find a want of uniformity. Thus Luke in his
30
§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION,
to show the relation between the diction of the N. T. and that of the
Septuagint; though, great as the resemblance is, considerable dissimilarity
exists, and, speaking generally, the style of the LXX. as a direct and in
part a literal translation of the Hebrew text is more Hebraistic than that
of the N. T.
c. They included in their list of Hebraisms many expressions which are
not unknown to the Greek prose writers, or are the common property of
many languages; and, in general, they were guided by no distinct notion
30 of what constitutes a Hebraism; see Tittmann, de causis contortar. inter-
7th ed. pretatt. N. T. p. 18 sq. (Synonym. I. p. 269 sqq.); de Wette in the A. L. Z.
1816. N. 39. S. 306.
They made a threefold use of the term Hebraism, viz. to designate ·
1. Such words, phrases, and constructions, as are peculiar to the Hebrew
(Aramaean) tongue, and to which there is nothing corresponding in Greek
prose ; e.g. σπλαγχνίζεσθαι, ὀφειλήματα ἀφιέναι, πρόςωπον λαμβάνειν, οἰκοδο-
μείν (in a figurative sense), πλατύνειν τὴν καρδίαν, πορεύεσθαι ὀπίσω, οὐ .....
πᾶς (for οὐδείς), ἐξομολογεῖσθαί τινι and ἔν τινι, etc.
2. Such words, etc. as, though occasionally occurring in Greek authors,
are imitated by the writers of the N. T. directly from their native tongue;
e.g. σñépµa for proles (Schwarz, Comm. p. 1235) hebr. 7; åváyêŋ distress,
calamity (cf. D. Sic. 4, 43; Schwarz, as above, p. 81) hebr. pis, mise,
29, рwrâv request (as b denotes both request and interrogate, cf.
5th ed. the Latin rogare) Babr. 97, 3; Apollon. synt. p. 289; eis åtávтnow (D.
Sic. 8, 59; Polyb. 5, 26, 8) cf. nxp?; répara rŷs yns (Thuc. 1, 69; Xen.
Ages. 9, 4; Dio Chr. 62. 587) cf. 7 DEN; Xedos for littus (Her. 1, 191;
Strabo, and others) cf. ; orópa of a sword () cf., besides the Poets,
Philostrat. her. 19, 4. So also the expression évdúoaodai Xpioтóv (Tap-
ἐνδύσασθαι
kúvɩov évdúo. in Dion. H.), formed after p, etc. Cf. above, p. 17.
3. Such words, etc., as are equally common in Greek and in Hebrew,
and with regard to which, accordingly, there is room for doubt whether
they are to be considered as portions of the popular Greek adopted by the
Jews, or as currently employed by them through the influence of their
44 native tongue; e.g. puλáoσewv vóμov, alua caedes, ȧvýp joined to an appel-
lative (ἀνὴρ φονεύς), παῖς slave, μεγαλύνειν to praise, διώκειν to pursue,
(cultivate) a virtue. To this head may be referred many of the grammat-
ical illustrations contained in Haab's grammar.
4. Lastly, it cannot be denied that in a great many passages expositors
introduced imaginary IIebraisms (Aramaisms); as, Eph. v. 26, èv jýµati
iva 7 (see Koppe); Matt. xxv. 23, xapá convivium from Aram.
Gospel, where he had to follow the evangelical paradosis, hebraizes more than in the
Acts; the deterioration in the diction after the proem of the Gospel was long ago pointed
out. The hymns, also, and the speeches, have more of a Hebrew coloring than the nar-
ative part; cf. c.g. Luke i. 13-20, 42-55, 68-79. The linguistic relation of Luke to the
Synoptics has not yet been systematically exhibited.
§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION.
31
(see Fischer, ad Leusden dial. p. 52) or Hebr., Esth. ix. 17,
etc. (Eichhorn, Einl. ins N. T. I. 528); Matt. vi. 1, dikawσir alms from
Chald. Matt. xxi. 13, Anoraí traders (Fischer, ad Leusden dial.
p. 48); and during the process many a misuse of the Sept. crept in (as
Luke xi. 22, okûda supellex, cf. Esth. iii. 13; Acts ii. 24, ¿dîves vincula,
cf. Ps. xviii. 6). And to crown all, répav on this side, like(?)! C£
also Fr. Rom. I. 367.¹
2
It is obvious from what has been said that there are two kinds of He-
braisms in the N. T., one of which may be called perfect, and the other
imperfect. By perfect Hebraisms we mean those words, phrases, and con-
structions which are strictly peculiar to the Hebrew (Aramacan) language,
and. therefore were transferred directly thence into the Hellenistic idiom,
(the diction of the N. T.). On the other hand, we call imperfect Hebraisms 31
all words, phrases, and constructions which, though to be found also in 7th ed.
Greek prose authors, are in all probability introduced directly from the
Hebrew (Aramaean): first, because the N. T. writers were more familiar
with Aramaean than with Greek; and secondly, because the phraseology
in question was of more frequent occurrence in the former language than
in the latter. De Wette also perceived this distinction, and stated it as
follows (as above, S. 319): "Certainly it makes an essential difference
whether a form of speech is wholly foreign to the Greek, or, on the other
hand, finds in Greek a point of contact to which it can attach itself.”
This whole investigation must be carried farther back; and first of all
the origin of the so-called Hebraisms must be considered. In doing this,
however, we cannot take the LXX.3 as our basis, since they, as translators, 30
furnish no sure testimony respecting that Greek diction of the Jews which 6th ed.
was formed independently and by oral intercourse. Nor can we immedi-
ately use for this purpose the doctrinal parts of the N. T., as the religious
phraseology of the Jews in Greek was naturally a close imitation of the
Hebrew, and formed on the model of the Septuagint. But it is pre-
eminently from the narrative style of the Apocrypha, the Gospels, and the
Acts, that the influence of Hebrew on the Greek of Jews is to be most
clearly determined.
In the first place, it is plain that original writers, scarcely less than 45
translators, unconsciously gave their Greek style the general impress of
the Hebrew-Aramaic idiom, from the influence of which, as their mother
1 In the title of Kaiser's dissertation de linguae aramaicae usu cet. Norimb. 1831. Svo.
the word abusu would be nearer the truth.
2 Blessig's definition is: Hebraismus est solius hebraei sermonis propria loquendi ratio,
cujusmodi in graccam vel aliam linguam sine barbarismi suspicione transferre non licet.
3 The most important work that has yet appeared on the linguistic element of the
Septuagint, is H. W. Jos. Thiersch, de Pentateuchi versione alex. libb. 3. Erlang. 1840.
8vo., from which I have obtained many acceptable illustrations for the later editions of
this Grammar. But a complete exhibition of the diction of the Septuagint is very
much needed.
32
§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION.
tongue, they could not rid themselves without great attention and long
practice. This general impress consists, partly in explicitness (hence the
use of prepositions with cases instead of cases alone, the latter construction
implying more abstraction), and a predilection for circumstantiality (peúyew
ἀπὸ προς ώπου τινός, ἐγράφη διά χειρός τι, πάντες ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως
μεγάλου, καὶ ἔσται kaì è̟kɣeŵ, and the like; the frequent use of the pers.
and dem. pron. particularly after the relative, the narrative expression kaì
éyéveтo, etc.); partly in the simplicity, and even monotony, with which
the IIcbrew (agreeably to a co-ordinating, rather than subordinating prin-
ciple) constructs periods, and links clause to clause. Hence the sparing
use of conjunctions in Jewish-Greek (in which respect the classic authors
display so copious a variety); hence the uniformity in the use of the tenses;
32 hence the absence of periodic combination of several subordinate clauses
7th ed. into a single sentence, and, in connection with this, the scanty use of parti-
cipial constructions, so frequent and so diversified among the Greeks.
In narration, a further prominent peculiarity of Hebrew-Greek consists
in this, that the words of another are almost always quoted directly;
whereas the indirect introduction of quotations gives a distinctive cast to
the Greek historical style, and occasions particularly the diversified use of
the Optative, a mood almost unknown in the Greek writings of Jews.
From this general Jewish influence alone the Greek of the Jews must
have received a strongly marked character; but in particulars it received
a great additional influence, and it is these particulars which are usually
styled Hebraisms.
a. Attaching the derivative meanings of a vernacular word to that
foreign word which corresponds to it in primary signification was the
simplest mode of Hebraizing (cf. épwrâv by to interrogate and to request).
Hence it would not be strange if the Jews had used Sikaɩoσúvn for alms,
according to the use of p. Less dubious instances are opeiλnµa pec-
.31 catum, after the Aram. in; vúµon (bride) also daughter-in-law Matt. x. 35,
6th ed. as denotes both (Sept. Gen. xxxviii. 11); eîs for primus (in certain
cases) like ; éέoµoλoyeîodai tivi also praise one (thanking), like ?hin
(Ps. cvi. 47; cxxii. 4, and elsewhere in Sept.); evλoyeîv bless, i.e. make
happy, like ; Kríσis thing created, creation, cf. Chald. ; dóέa bright-
ness, like Ti; dvváµeis miracles, n. The transfer of figurative senses
is the most frequent; as, πorýρlov sors, portio Matt. xx. 22 (Di5) ; okávdadov
stumbling-block in a moral sense (pp); yλwoσa for nåtion (i); xeîλos
for speech (p); ¿vútlov toû Beoû (in) according to God's judgment;
46 καρδία εὐθεῖα (την); περιπατείν wall, of one's course of life ; ὁδός (7)
cf. Schäf. ind. ad Aesop. p. 148; åváleµa not merely what is consecrated
to God, but, agreeably to the Heb. n, to be destroyed, Rom. ix. 3, Deut.
vii. 26, Josh. vi. 17, and elsewhere; λúew Matt. xvi. 19 for declare lawful,
.התיר .after the Rabbin
b. Numerous Hebraisms arose from the verbal translation of certain
§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION.
33
very common vernacular expressions; as, πpósʊπov λapßávew for ➡ ;
ζητεῖν ψυχήν for up, Upa; ποιεῖν ἔλεος (χάριν) μετά τινος, for ΕΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΩΣ;
ἀνοίγειν τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς or τὸ στόμα τινός (πρη) ; γεύεσθαι θανάτου και η ΕΣΕ
(Talm.); äprov payeîv (coenare) for on; alpa ékxéew (777) kill;
ἀνίστημι σπέρμα τινί for 3 τη; υἱὸς θανάτου for της (οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ
νυμφῶνος) ; καρπὸς ὀσφύος for
έρχεσθαι ἐκ τῆς ὀσφύος τινός for '
ὀφείλημα ἀφιέναι for Nain part (Talm.); also στηρίζειν πρόςωπον αὑτοῦ for 33
כָּל־בָּשָׂר ara rdpk for ; הִשִׂים פָּנָיו
3η της καρπὸς κοιλίας for ; ἐξ
πω ; ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός for "τος 1972;
c. The formation of foreign derivatives in imitation of vernacular, im-
plies more refection and contrivance; as, ὁλοκαύτωμα (from ὁλοκαυτοῦν,
Lob. 524) for ; onλayxvieolar from onλáva, as is connected
with mm ; σκανδαλίζειν, σκανδαλίζεσθαι, like b, bcm ; ἐγκαινίζειν from
eyκaívia, as is related to ; dvaleμaríew, like ; oppiew, like
; perhaps évwríeσα, like 78, cf. Fischer ad Leusden dial. p. 27.
ПроswπоληTтev, for which even the Hebr. has no single corresponding
word, goes still further.
7th ed
All this easily accounts for the predominant Hebrew-Aramaic complexion
of the style of the N. T. writers, who were not, like Philo and Josephus,2
acquainted with Greek literature, and did not aim at writing correct Greek.
Hence, the whole cast of their composition (particularly the want of com- 32
pactness, especially in narration) must have offended a cultivated Greek 6th ed
ear; indeed, numerous single expressions must either have conveyed
to a native Greek an erroneous meaning, or have been entirely unintel-
ligible (such as ἀφιέναι ὀφειλήματα, πρόςωπον λαμβάνειν, λογίζεσθαι εἰς
Sikαιoσúvην, and the like); cf. Gataker de Stylo N. T. cap. 5. Hence also 47
is explained why such Hebraistic turns of expression are less frequent in
the original authors of the N. T. than in the translators of the O. T., and
in the Hellenistic writers of the N. T. (Paul, Luke, particularly in the
3
1 A similar Grecism in Latin is e.g. a teneris unguiculis (Cic. fam. 1, 6, 3), which
although a Greek phrase was quite intelligible to the Romans, as е.g. kаρπòS XELλÉWV,
though it must have had a strange sound, was unquestionably intelligible to the Grecks;
сf. каρπòs pрev@v, Pind. Nem. 10, 22. Still more easily must the Greeks have under-
stood nаρπòs кoxías, since fruit, by itself, (for fruit of the body) was used in unambig-
uous connections, as well among the Grecks (Arist. polit. 7, 16; Eurip. Bacch. 1305),
as elsewhere; cf. Ruhnken, ad Homer. in Cerer. 23.
2 Though even Josephus, when narrating Old Test. history after the Septuagint, does
not always avoid Hebraisms; see Scharfenberg, de Josephi et LXX. consensu, in Pott's
sylloge, VII. p. 306 ff.
8 That is, in the signification of remitting sins, so far, therefore, as regards opeIλѵATA.
For, ¿piévai remit, even applied to offences, occurs in Her. 6, 30, in the expression
àpıévai aitíav, and òpeiλýμata àpiévai debita remittere (obligatory acts), is quite common.
In later Greek we find àpiévai Tivi Thy àdıkíav, Plutarch, Pomp. 34; see Coraes and
Schäf. in loc. The well-known phrase eúpíσkei xápi would likewise have been under-
stood by a native Greek, though it would have sounded strange to him (instead of
εὑρίσκεσθαι).
5
34
§ 3. HEBREW-ARAMAIC TINGE OF N. T. DICTION.
7th ed.
3
—
second part of the Acts, John, the author of the Epistle to the IIebrews;
cf. Tholuck, Com. Cap. I. § 2. S. 25 sqq.) than in those more strictly Pal-
estinean (Matthew, Peter). And it is obvious, further, that not all the
Hebraisms in the diction of the apostles were adopted unconsciously (van
d. Honert, Synt. p. 103). Religious expressions and of these the main
portion of N. T. Hebraisms consist they must have been influenced to
retain by the circumstance that in these expressions their religious ideas
themselves were embodied, and because Christianity had to be built on a
34 Jewish foundation. The existing Greek, too, possessed in fact no phrase-
ology for the profound religious phaenomena which apostolic Christianity
disclosed. Still, it is an exaggeration to assert, with Eichhorn and Bret-
schneider (Prefat. ad Lexic. N. T. ed. 2. II. p. 12),* that the authors of the
N. T. in composition did all their thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic. That
is the process of a tyro. We moderns even, in writing Latin, after we
have attained a certain proficiency, gradually (though never altogether)
cease to think first in our vernacular. Men who, though not regularly
33 trained in the study of language, were constantly hearing Greek spoken
6th ed. and very frequently, yes ordinarily, speaking it themselves, must soon have
acquired such a command of its words and phrases and such skill in ex-
pression, that in composition the Greek would present itself directly, and
not solely through the medium of Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic words and
phrases. The comparison of the authors of the N. T. with modern
beginners in writing Latin, or even with (uneducated) Jews speaking
1 The Grecian training of individual writers appears particularly in the appropriate
use of verba composita and decomposita.
2 Cf. Beza, ad Act. x. 46. Rambach is not altogether wrong in saying (institutt.
hermen. 1, 2, 2): lingua N. T. passim ad cbraei sermonis indolem conformata est, ut
hoc modo concentus scripturae utriusque test. non in rebus solum sed ipsis etiam in
verbis clarius observaretur. Cf. Pfaff. nott. ad Matt. p. 34; Olear. 341 sqq.; Tittmann,
de dilig. gramm. p. 6 sq. (Synon. I. p. 201 sq.). Further cf. J. W. Schröder, de causis
quare dictio pure graeca in N. T. plerumque praetermissa sit, Marb. 1768. 4to.; also
van Hengel, com. in cp. ad Philipp. p. 19.
8 Some good remarks on this point are to be found in Hvalstroem, spec. de usu graeci-
tatis alex. in N. T. (Upsal. 1794. 4to.) p. 6 sq.
Van den Honert went even so far as to
assert vel ipse Demosthenes, si candem rem, quam nobis tradiderunt apostoli, debita
perspicuitate et efficacia perscribere voluisset, hebraismorum usum evitare non potuisset.
4 The latter, however, recalled this opinion, so far at least as regards Paul (Grundlage
des evang. Pietism. u. s. w. S. 179).
6 How easily do we, who never heard Latin spoken by a native Roman, attain the
power of at once conceiving in Latin, dixit verum esse, or quam virtutem demonstravit
aliis praestare, and the like, without first mentally construing dixit quod verum sit, or
de qua virtute demonstravit, quod ca, etc. Thinking in conformity to the genius of
one's mother tongue, appears particularly in phrases and figures which have become
habitual, and which one introduces unconsciously in speaking or writing a foreign
language. So it was with the apostles, who constantly employed, and with perfect pro-
pricty, along with many Hebraistic expressions, numerous Greek phrases entirely foreign
to the genius of Hebrew.
§ 4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. 35
German, is as incorrect as it is unworthy; cf. Schleiermacher, Hermeneut.
S. 54, 59, 257. Besides, it is forgotten that the apostles found a Jewish-
Greek idiom already current, and therefore did not first frame for them-
selves most of their phraseology by thinking it out in Hebrew.
(Many Greek words are used by the N. T. writers with a specific
reference to the Christian system (even in contrast with Judaism), so to 48
speak, like religious technical terms. Hence arises, apparently, a third
element of N. T. diction, viz. the distinctively Christian (see Olear. de
Stylo N. T. p. 380 sqq. ed. Schwarz; Eckard, technica sacra. Quedlinb.
1716. 4to.). Compare particularly the words epya (épyášeobai Rom iv.4),
πίστις, πιστεύειν εἰς Χριστόν or πιστεύειν absol., ὁμολογία, δικαιοσύνη and δικαι-
οῦσθαι, ἐκλέγεσθαι, οἱ κλητοί, οἱ ἐκλεκτοί, οἱ ἅγιοι (for Christians), οἱ πιστοί
and οἱ ἄπιστοι, οἰκοδομή and οἰκοδομεῖν in the figurative sense, ἀπόστολος,
εὐαγγελίζεσθαι and κηρύττειν absol. for Christian preaching, the appropria-
tion of βάπτισμα for Christian baptism, perhaps κλᾶν... τὸν ... ἄρτον 35
for the holy repasts (the Agape with the Communion), ó kóσpos, ý σápέ, 7th ed.
å σapkɩkós, in the familiar theological sense, etc. Most of these expressions.
however, already existed in the O. T. and in rabbinical writings. Accord-
ingly it will not be easy to prove any phraseology to be altogether pecu-
liar to the apostles to have been introduced by them. This apostolic
element, therefore, is restricted rather to the meaning and application of
words and phrases, and lies on the very outskirts of the province of philo-
logical inquiry. Cf., however, Schleiermacher, Hermeneut. S. 56. 07 f.
138 f. [and G. v. Zezschwitz, Profangräcität u. biblisch. Sprachgeist. Eine
Vorl. üb. die bibl. Umbildung hellenischer Begriffe. bes. der psychologischen.
Leipz. 1859. 8vo.]. In the historical vocabulary náoɣew to suffer, and
Tapadíscolar to be delivered up, absol., had established themselves as tech-
nical expressions for the last earthly fate of Jesus.)
Grammatical Hebraisms will be discussed in the next section.
§ 4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION.
As respects the grammatical character of the N. T. diction,
those same two elements above mentioned may be distinctly traced.
That is to say, here also the peculiarities of the N. T. phrascology
are, fundamentally, those of the later (common) Greek language,
and consist more in certain forms of inflection than in syntactical
combinations. With these are occasionally mingled (though far
1 To attempt to explain such expressions in the Christian terminology of the apostles
by quotations from Greek authors (cf. Krebs, observ. praef. p. 4) is extremely absurd.
But, on the other hand, it is necessary to distinguish the diction of the apostles, far
more tinged as it was with Old Testament peculiarities, from the terminology of the
Greek Church, which was constantly growing more and more peculiar.
34
6th ed.
36
§ 4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION.
less copiously) Hebrew turns and constructions in the use of all
the parts of speech. A predilection for prepositions where the
Greeks employ cases alone is especially noticeable. In general
the grammatical character of the N. T. idiom conforms to the laws
of the Greek language; the authors of the N. T. have even adopted
many constructions peculiarly Greek (attraction of the relative
and the preposition), and have observed strictly, though as by
mere instinct, numerous distinctions entirely foreign to Hebrew
(e.g. that between the negatives où and un, etc.).
49 We find it true in Greek, as in almost all languages the history of whose
growth can be traced, that changes produced by time are lexical in their
nature far more than grammatical (compare, for instance, the German of
Luther's translation of the Bible with that of the present day). For the
36 later common Greek exhibits but few grammatical peculiarities, and these
7th ed. almost all relate to inflections. We find, that is to say, first and foremost,
a number of inflections in nouns and verbs which either were not used at
all previously, and were first formed in later times by the abbreviation or
the extension of the original forms, or which pertained exclusively to some
one of the dialects. Of the latter sort are, for example, a. Attic inflections :
τιθέασι, ἠβουλήθην, ἔμελλε, βούλει (βούλῃ), ὄψει; b. Doric : ἡ λιμός as fem.,
ἤτω (ἔστω), ἀφέωνται (ἀφεῖνται); c. Lolic : the Optat. in εια in 1st Aor.
(yet this was early adopted into Attic); d. Ionic: výpei, σreípns, eina
(1st Aor.). As forms quite unknown in the earlier language must be
mentioned, Datives like vot, Imperat. kátov, Perfects like yvwkav (for
ἐγνώκασι), 2d Aorists and Imperfects like κατελίπισαν, ἐδολιοῦσαν, 2d Aorists
like eldaµev, epvyav, the Subjunctive Future § 13, 1. e., the Imperf. p.eða.
To this head specially belong many tenses, regular indeed according to
analogy, but in place of which the earlier language used other forms; as,
ἡμάρτησα for ἥμαρτον, αὔξω for αὐξάνω, ήξα from ἥκω, φάγομαι for ἔδομαι,
etc.; indeed, the multiplication of tense and mood forms, of which for
euphony's sake only a few had been previously in use, is one of the char-
acteristics of the later language. Further, many nouns received a new
35 gender, as for ó Báros, and acquired thus a twofold declension; as,
fith ed. πÀOûTOS, ëλeos; see § 9 note 2, p. 65.
Peculiarities of syntax are less numerous in the later language,
appearing chiefly in a careless use of the moods with particles. The
following are instances under this head in the N. T.: orav with the Indic.
Pret., el with the Subj., va with the Indic. Pres., verbs such as yeúeσbai,
καταδικάζειν construed with the Acc., προςκυνείν and προςφωνεῖν with Dat.
pers. (see Lob. 463; Mtth. II. 902), the weakening of iva in phrases
like θέλω ἵνα, ἄξιος ἵνα, etc., the employment of the Gen. Inf. (τοῦ ποιεῖν)
beyond its original and natural bounds, the use of the Subj. for the Optat.
in narration after Preterites, and in general the infrequent use of the
of
§ 4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION.
37
Optat., which in Modern Greek has entirely disappeared. Méλλew, Oédeiv,
etc., are more commonly followed by the Aor. Inf. (Lob. 747). The
neglect of declension is just beginning to appear; thus, perà roû év, and
the like (which is, however, put designedly), § 10 end. Subsequently
the misapplication of cases and tenses in some instances also occurs.
σúv with the Gen. in Niceph. Tact. (Hase ad Leon. Diac. p. 38), ảπó with
the Acc. in Leo Grammat. (p. 232) and then in Modern Greek, the inter-
change of the Aor. and Pres. participles in Leo Diac. and elsewhere.
The Dual was gradually superseded by the Plural.
Thus
In a grammatical point of view the N. T. idiom bears few traces of
Hebrew influence. True, the grammatical structure of the Hebrew 50
(Aramaic) language differs essentially from that of the Greek; but this 37
must have tended rather to prevent the Greek-speaking Jews from mixing the
vernacular with Greek constructions. (Such mixture of constructions
would be far easier to a German in speaking Latin or French.) Besides,
every one makes the grammatical laws of a foreign language his own,
more easily than he does its store of words and phrases and its general
idiomatic peculiarities (cf. Schleiermacher, IIermeneut. S. 73). This is
so because the rules of syntax are but few in comparison with the number
of words and phrases, and because these rules too (especially the principal
ones, which are fundamental to accurate, not elegant, composition) by
oral intercourse are far more frequently brought before the mind. The
Jews, therefore, must have been able readily to acquire such a mastery
of the grammatical rules of the Greek then current-which by no means
possessed all the niceties of Attic as sufficed for their simple mode of
communicating their thoughts. Even the Seventy have succeeded for
the most part in recasting Hebrew constructions into accurate Greek.
Only a few vernacular idioms of frequent occurrence, and not at variance
with the rules of Greek Grammar, have been retained to the letter (such
as instead of the Optat. an interrogative clause expressing a wish, 2 Sam. 36
xv. 4, Tis μe KATαOTÝσEL KρITýv; xxiii. 15; Num. xi. 29; Deut. v. 26; 6th ed.
xxviii. 67; Cant. viii. 12), or, where it could be done, rendered in accord-
ance at least with Greek analogy (as, bavárų åñoðaveîσße Gen. iii. 4, mi
7 Deut. xx. 17; 1 Sam. xiv. 39; Isa. xxx. 19) or by a construction
already usual in Greek (see, however, § 45, 8), Judg. xv. 2 pov épíonoas
for, Gen. xliii. 2; Ex. xxii. 17; xxiii. 26; 1 Sam. ii. 25, etc.;
1 Certain Greek idioms became quite habitual to them, such as the article with qual-
ifying words and phrases after a noun (8 kúρios 8 év oùpavê, and the like), the attraction
of the relative, etc. Negatives, also, they almost always distinguish correctly. The
more extended use of the Greek cases is exhibited by the better translators, as e.g. Gen.
xxvi. 10, μkρoû èkowheŋ it wanted little that, etc.
2 Cf. Rom. vii. 24, where Fr. adduces similar instances from Greek poets. The con-
struction with Tŵs (av) followed by the Optat. or Subjunct. is discussed by Schafer,
ad Soph. Oed. Col. p. 523, and Melet. p. 100.
38
§ 4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION.
1
cf. also Inf. with Toû.¹ Hebrew constructions thoroughly repugnant to the
genius of the Greek, the Septuagint have usually rejected. For instance,
the Fem. for the Neut. occurs only in a few passages, where the translators
have not duly adverted to the meaning of the text, or have given it a
nervously literal rendering; as, Ps. cxix. 50; cxviii. 23;2 and it is hardly
38 allowable to suppose that they designedly employed it for the Neut. In
7th ed. other passages the Heb. Fem. refers manifestly to a feminine subject indi-
51 cated in the context; as, Judges xix. 30. On the other hand, ¿v taúty in
Neh. xiii. 14 is probably equivalent to raúry in Greek authors, in this
respect, hoc in genere (Xen. Cyr. 8, 8, 5) or therefore (cf. Taúτη öτɩ propterea
quod, Xen. Anab. 2, 6, 7); see also 1 Sam. xi. 2. The construction of
Hebrew verbs with prepositions is imitated oftenest; as, peídeolai éπí
τινι Deut. vii. 16, or ἐπί τινα Ezek. vii. 4, οἰκοδομεῖν ἔν τινι Neh. iv. 10
( ), ἐπερωτᾶν ἐν κυρίῳ (πήρες ) 1 Sam. x. 22, εὐδοκεῖν ἔν τινι
(77 Fr. Rom. II. 371). These imitations sound harsh in Greek, it
must be confessed, yet in that flexible idiom they might find some point
of affinity. (Cf. the Germ. bauen an etwas, fragen bei, etc.)
Even, however, if the Septuagint contained numerous other slavish
imitations of Hebrew constructions, that would prove nothing in reference
to the N. T. idiom. For, as has already been said, the style of these
translators who, moreover, adhered for the most part with rigid exactness
to the very letter of the Hebrew, which sometimes indeed they did not
even understand, was by no means the model followed by the Jews in
original composition or conversation. So far as regards the several rules
of grammar, the N. T. is written thoroughly in Greek, and the few un-
doubted grammatical Hebraisms it contains become hardly discernible.
37 To IIebraisms of this sort may be referred, with more or less assurance,³
6th ed. the use of prepositions where the Greeks employ cases alone (ȧTокрÚTтEW
τι ἀπό τινος, ἐσθίειν ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων, ἀθῶος ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος, κοινωνὸς ἔν
τινι, ἀρέσκειν and προςκυνεῖν ἐνώπιόν τινος, εὐδοκεῖν and θέλειν ἔν τινι). Many
such peculiarities, however, pertain to antique simplicity, and are accord-
ingly in use among the Greeks themselves, especially the poets, and con-
1 IIemsterhuis, ad Lucian. dial. mar. 4, 3: saepenumero contingit, ut locutio quaedam
native gracca a LXX. interpretib. et N. T. scriptoribus mutata paululum potestate ad
hebracam apte exprimendam adhibeatur.
2 The translation of the Psalms is, in general, one of the most heedless. That of
Nehemiah is little better. Aquila, who translated word for word (absurdly rendering
for instance, the nota acc. by σúv), cannot be taken into consideration at all in an
inquiry into the grammatical character of Hellenistic Greek. In order to give a literal
translation he violates without hesitation the rules of grammar; as, Gen. i. 5, ékáλeoev
8 OEDS TW PWTì quépa. And yet he always uses the article with propriety, and even em-
ploys the attraction of the relative; so deeply were both rooted in the Greek language!
3 Imaginary Hebraisms are, the supposed Plur. excell., the essentiae, combinations
erroneously regarded as circumlocutions for the superlative like oάλñıyέ тoû beοû, the
use of the Fem. for the Neut., and probably the Hypallage already mentioned rà §ʼnμATA
τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης for ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα τῆς ζωῆς.
§ 4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. 39
sequently do not exactly conflict with the genius of the language; as,
παύειν ἀπό τινος.
Special and more decided instances are:
a. The verbal imitation of such Hebrew constructions as offend against
Greek propriety; as, ὁμολογεῖν ἔν τινι, βλέπειν ἀπό sibi cavere a, προςέθετο
πέμψαι, εἰ δοθήσεται as a form of negatory oath ;
b. The repetition of a word to denote distribution, as dúo dúo bini,
instead of ȧvà dúo ;
c. The imitation of the Inf. absol. (see above);
d. The use of the Gen. of an abstract noun for the kindred adjective,
and probably the very frequent use of the Inf. with a preposition (and its 52
subject in the Acc.) in narration.
The peculiarities classed under a. and b. may be regarded as pure
Hebraisms.
When, however, it is considered that by far the majority of construc-
tions in the N. T. are genuine Greek, and that the N. T. writers have
constantly employed such peculiarities of Greek syntax¹ as differed entirely 39
from their vernacular idiom, as the distinction of the different past 7th ed
tenses, the use of av with verbs, the attraction of the relative, such an
expression as oikovoµíav teñíotevpai, the use of the Sing. with Neuters,
etc., we shall not be disposed to join in the cry about countless gram-
matical Hebraisms in the N. T. That the diction of the N. T. is grammat-
ically far less Hebraistic than that of the Septuagint and the Palestinean
Apocrypha, as might naturally be expected, will be manifest, if, when the
expressions just specified as Hebraistic are observed in the Septuagint, it
is also noticed that many a vernacular idiom in the LXX. never occurs
in the N. T., or (such as an interrogative clause for the Opt.) only in soli-
tary cases in impassioned style. A circumlocution for the Fut., as cooμai
Sidóvaι Tob. v. 14, or the repetition of a substantive to denote every (Num.
ix. 10; 2 Kings xvii. 29; 1 Chron. ix. 27), never occurs there."
The N. T. writers considered separately exhibit extremely few purely 38
grammatical peculiarities. Only the book of Rev. requires particular, 6th ed.
though not exceptional, attention in a treatise on the grammar of the N. T.
Finally, throughout the investigation into the grammatical character of
the N. T. diction, it is obvious that the diversity of readings must be care-
fully attended to; on the other hand, it is also plain that verbal criticism
can be successfully practised only in connection with a thorough acquain-
tance with the linguistic (lexical) peculiarities of the several N. T. writers.
1 The more refined elegances of literary Attic are not to be found in the N. T., partly
because they were unknown in the popular language adopted by the N. T. writers, partly
because they were unsuited to the simple cast of thought of the sacred authors.
2 Yet in the better translated portions of the O. T. and in the Palestin. Apocrypha
we find single Greek constructions, on the other hand, instead of which the authors of the
N. T. use the corresponding Hebraisms; thus, in 3 Esr. vi. 10; Tob. iii. 8, the Gen. is
used with strict Grecian propriety. Further, cf. Thiersch, de Pentat. alex. p. 95 sq.
40
7th ed.
39
6th ed.
53
PART II.
THE GRAMMATICAL FORMS AS RESPECTS THEIR FORMATION.
(INFLECTION.)
§ 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES.
1. THE best manuscripts of the N. T. (like those of the Greek
classics, see Poppo, Thuc. I. 214; Mtth. I. 133) exhibit extraor-
dinary variations of orthography, especially in regard to particular
words and forms. Amid such diversity it cannot always be de-
termined on satisfactory grounds what is correct. However,
editors of the text should lay down precise rules, and carry them
out consistently.
Though the various Codd. have recently been collated with
greater diplomatic exactness, still, on many points, a more careful
settlement of the facts is to be desired.
We submit the following remarks:
αν
a. The use of an apostrophe to prevent a hiatus is of much
rarer occurrence in the Codd. of the N. T. and of the Sept., than
in the texts of native Greek authors (especially the orators; cf.
G. E. Benseler, de hiatu in scriptorib. gr. P. I. Friberg. 1841. 8vo. ;
the same, de hiatu in Demosth. Friberg. 1847. 4to.): åµa, äpa,
ἆρα, γέ, ἐμέ, ἔτι, ἵνα, ὥςτε, never suffer elision of the last vowel ;
dé (before av) and oudé very seldom (Matt. xxiii. 16 and 18;
xxiv. 21; Rom. ix. 7; 1 Cor. xiv. 21; Heb. viii. 4; Luke x. 10;
2 Cor. iii. 16; xi. 21; Phil. ii. 18; 1 John ii. 5; iii. 17). Only
the prepositions ἀπό, διά, ἐπί, παρά, μετά, and the conjunction
aλλá regularly suffer elision, the former particularly before pro-
nouns and in phrases of frequent occurrence, as aπ' àρxîìs, etc.;
avrí only in ȧve' v. Yet the manuscripts vary in those cases,
and even the best in particular passages, especially in regard to
aλλá. Thus the Cod. Alex. [Sin.] and some others, have in Acts
xxvi. 25 ἀλλὰ ἀληθείας ; vii. 39 ἀλλὰ ἀπώσαντο ; 2 Pet. ii. 5 ἀλλὰ
§ 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES.
41
7th ed.
oydoov. The best Codd. have 2 Cor. xii. 14 aλλà úµâs, and Gal.
iv. 7 åλλà viós. So also the authority of manuscripts is in favor
of, Luke ii. 36 μετὰ ἀνδρός ; xiv. 31 μετὰ εἴκοσι ; 2 Cor. vi. 15 μετά
ἀπίστου; Rev. xxi. 13 ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν; Heb. xi. 34 ἀπὸ ἀσθενείας, 41
Jude 14 από 'Αδάμ; 2 Cor. v. 7 διὰ εἴδους. Cf. also Acts ix. 6 ;
x. 20; xvi. 37; 2 Cor. iv. 2; v. 12; Luke xi. 17 éπì olkov; Matt. 54
xxi. 5 éπì övov, etc. There is a preponderance of authority for
40
Luke iii. 2 èπì ȧpxiepéws, and Matt. xxiv. 7 éπì ë¤vos; 1 Cor. vi. 11 6th ed
ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε; whereas the authority is
equal in Rom. vii. 13 for åλλà ý áμapría and the other reading.
Cf. besides, Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 125. That among Ionic authors
the same indifference about shunning a hiatus prevails is well
known; and accordingly this peculiarity in the N. T. is styled by
the earlier biblical philologists an Ionism. Elision is neglected,
however, by Attic prose authors, though the instances which Georgi
produces from Plato cannot all be trusted (Hierocrit. N. T. I. p.
143). See Bttm. I. S. 123 ff.; Heupel, Marc. p. 33; Benseler,
Exc. to his edition of Isocr. Areop. p. 385 sqq.; Jacobs, praef. ad
Aelian. anim. p. 29 sq.; Thucyd. ed. Poppo III. II. 358. Perhaps
this variation is not without principle, as e.g. Sintenis (Plutarch.
vit. IV. p. 321 sqq.) has reduced to rules the use of the hiatus in
Plutarch. In the N. T., too, the omission of the elision might be
occasionally traced to the writer's intent, on one ground or another;
not that the apostles bestowed attention on such things, but so far
as they were guided by an instinctive sense of propriety. On this
point, however, there is a risk of trifling (Bengel on 1 Cor. vi. 11)
·
Even in Lehm. the poetic quotation from Menander, 1 Cor. xv. 33, is
written with the elision — χρῆσθ' (for χρηστὰ) ὁμιλίαι κακαί; cf. Georgi,
Hierocrit. I. 186. The best Codd., however, of the N. T. [Sin. also] have
Xonorά, which Tdf. has adopted.
b. In regard to final s in ourws, μéxpis, and the so-called v
¿PeλKVOTIKÓv (Voemel, de v et s adductis literis. Fcf. a. M. 1853.
4to; Haake, Beiträge z. griech. Grammat. I. Heft), editors have
mostly followed the known rule, which, however, has been restricted
by more recent grammarians (Bttm. I. 92 ff.). But it is more
advisable to be guided in every case by the authority of the best
Codd., and accordingly recent N. T. critics have printed outws and
v éþeλkvotikóv throughout, agreeably to the uncial Codd. (Tdf.
praef. ad N. T. p. xxiii. [ed. vii. p. liii.]). Critics have tried to
deduce from the Greek prose authors a fixed rule for determining
when οὕτως οι οὕτω, εἶπεν οι εἶπε, etc., should be used (Bornem.
6
42
§ 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES.
6th ed.
1
de gemina Cyrop. recens. p. 89, whom Poppo in his Index to the
Cyrop. follows; Frotscher, Xen. Hier. p. 9; Bremi, Aeschin. Ctesiph.
3 and 4; Schäf. Demosth. I. p. 207; Mätzner, ad Antiphont. p. 192),
and it is in itself not unlikely that the more careful authors were
guided in this by euphony (Franke in Jahın's Jahrb. 1842. S. 247)
42 and other considerations, though ancient grammarians affirm
7th ed. (Bekkeri Anecd. III. p. 1400) that even the Attics wrote v èpeλ-
41
KUσTɩKóv indiscriminately before consonants even (Jacobs, praef.
55 ad Aelian. anim. p. 23 sq.), and so it appears in the Codd.; cf.
also Bachmann, Lycophr. I. 156 sq.; Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p.
185 sq.
On μéxpi and μéxpis, äxpi and äxpis in particular, see
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 479. According to the grammarians the
Attic orthography requires uéxpɩ and axpɩ even before a vowel
(Th. M. p. 185; Phryn. p. 14; cf. Bornem. Xen. Cyrop. 8, 6, 20),
and so they are printed by recent editors; cf. Stallb. Plat. Phaed.
p. 183. and Sympos. p. 128; Schäf. Plutarch. V. p. 268. See in
general Klotz, Devar. p. 231. Yet even in Attic authors good
Codd. have not unfrequently the form with s. In the N. T. the
best Codd. give μéxpɩ invariably, and axp even before vowels,
Acts xi. 5; xxviii. 15; but äxpis ov, Rom. xi. 25; 1 Cor. xi. 26;
xv. 25, etc., preponderates (also Acts vii. 18).
Codd. vary also as to v in ekoơi, but the best are said to omit it, see
Tdf. praef. ad N. T. p. 23 [ed. vii. p. 54], though in the appar. this matter
is but seldom noticed. On avтikpus, as most authorities [Sin. also] have
in Acts xx. 15, not åvτipú, see Lob. Phryn. p. 443 sq.; Bttm. II. 366.
c. In compounds whose first part ends in s, Knapp, after Wolf
(liter. Analect. 1 Bd. S. 460 ff.; cf. Krüg. S. 12), introduced the
forms for σ, and has been followed in this by Schulz and Fr., e.g.
ὥςπερ, ὅςτις, δύςκολος, εἰςφέρειν. Still, Matthiae's objections (I. S.
26) deserve great consideration; and this orthography, as it has
no historic warrant, has no great claim to adoption. Schneider
in Plato, and Lehm. in the N. T., write σTEр, eloαкоve, etc.
Hm., however, committed himself to the former method. That
it is inadmissible in such words as πρεσβύτερος, βλασφημεῖν, τε
λeopoρeîv, is obvious.
d. Of more importance than all this is the unusual mode of
spelling certain words and classes of words which is found even
1 The disputed question, whether ouтws or ouтw was the original spelling (for the
former see Schaf. Plutarch. V. p. 219, for the latter Bttm. II. 264), and whether v peλк.
really belongs to the forms to which it is annexed (see Rost, Gramm. S. 71; Krü. 30)
is not relevant here.
§ 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 43
in the manuscripts of the N. T. and has been almost without
exception adopted into the text by Lchm. and Tdf. This com-
prehends peculiarities of Alexandrian orthography (and pronun-
ciation). We notice the following particulars :
1. For eveka. we find in MSS. (and in the text. rec.) several times the
Ionic form elveka or elvekev (Wolf, Dem. Lept. p. 388; Georgi, Hierocr. I. 43
182), elsewhere évekev: the last e.g. Matt. xix. 29; Rom. viii. 36; the first 7th ed
Luke iv. 18; 2 Cor. iii. 10; vii. 12. The authority of good Codd. must 56
alone here decide; cf. Poppo, Cyrop. p. xxxix and Ind. Cyrop. and W. m.
Buttm. II. 369. In the N. T. at least no distinction can be fixed between
the two forms; Weber, Demosth. 403 sq. See also Bremi, exc. VI. ad
Lysiam p. 443 sqq.
2. According to good MSS. even of the N. T. (e.g. Codd. [Sin. and]
Cantabr.) and according to the Etymol. Mag. évveVÝKovтa Matt. xviii. 12, 13;
Luke xv. 4, 7, is better written évevýkovтa; see Bttm. I. 277; Bornem.
Xen. Anab. p. 47. So also evaros occurs according to good Codd. in Matt.
xx. 5; xxvii. 45; Luke xxiii. 44; Acts x. 30, etc.; cf. also Rinck, lucu-
bratt. p. 33, a form very common in Greek prose authors (see Schäf. Melet.
p. 32; Scholiast ad Apollon. Argon. 2, 788), and also found in the Rosetta
Inscription, 4th line. It was preferred by Bengel, appar. ad Matt. xx. 5.
3. The Ionic form (Mtth. I. 54) Téσσepes, Teσσeрáкоvта occurs several
times in good Codd. (particularly Alex. [Sin.] and Ephraemi); e.g. Acts
iv. 22; vii. 42; xiii. 18; Rev. xi. 2; xiii. 5; xiv. 1; xxi. 17, and Lehm.
and Tdf. have admitted it into the text. It frequently occurs also in Codd.
of the Sept. (Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 118). In these ancient documents, how-
ever, a and ‹ are often interchanged, and one would scarcely consent to
write Matt. viii. 3 kalepio0n, Luke xvii. 14 kalepio@noav, or Heb. x. 2
kekabepɩoµévovs with A, and the like.
4. For Baλávrov in every place where it occurs, Luke x. 4; xii. 33;
xxii. 35, 36, good Codd. have ẞaλλávтiov, and this Lchm. and Tdf. have
printed. Also in MSS. of Greek authors we find this doubling both in
Baλavrov itself (Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 100) and in its derivatives.
Bekker in his Plato has adopted it. Yet see Dindorf, Aristoph. ran. 772,
and Schneider, Plat. civ. I. p. 75, III. p. 38. The word κрáßßaтos is but
seldom written with a single ẞ (and then mostlу Kрáßаτтos).
5. As to ὑποπιάζω (ὑποπιέζω) for ὑπωπιάζω (from ὑπώπιον), Luke xviii. 5 ;
1 Cor. ix. 27 var., see Lob. p. 461. It is probably merely a mistake of
the copyists; for Paul undoubtedly used the more characteristic viάw W
and that has now long stood in the text. Whether we should write
ἀνάγαιον οι ἀνάγαιον can hardly be determined, the authorities for each
being nearly equal. The former is derived from the adv. avw, the latter
from ává (Fr. Mr. 611). See, besides, Lob. p. 297.
6. The well-known controversy about the right way of spelling adverbs
in ɩ or a (Hm. Soph. Ai. p. 183; Sturz, opusc. p. 229 sqq.), affects the
42
6th ed
:
44
§ 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES.
N. T. only in regard to avoiκí Acts xvi. 34; cf. Plat. Eryx. 392 c.; Aesch.
dial. 2, 1; Joseph. Antt. 4, 4, 4; 3 Macc. iii. 27. Bloomfield, glossar. in
Aesch. Prom. p. 131 sq., is perhaps right in thinking that such adverbs
from nouns in os should be written with only (πανοικί, properly πανοικοί,
57 as some Codd. have in Acts, as above). Still, nearly all the Codd. are in
favor of «; see Poppo, Thuc. II. I. 1540; Lob. 515.
7. Should we write Aavid or Aaßid? See Gersdorf, Sprachchar. I. 44,
44 who leaves it undecided, yet adopts the spelling with B. The Codd. usually
7th ed. have it abbreviated, Aad, yet occasionally the older and better, where they
give it at full length, have Aavid (Aaveid), as Knapp, Schulz, Fr., Tdf.
have printed it. Montfaucon, Palaeograph. graec. 5, 1, decided for the
latter. Lchm. has invariably Aaveíd; cf. besides Bleek on Heb. iv. 7.
8. The name of Moses is written Moüons in the principal Codd. of the
N. T. (as in the Sept. and Josephus), and this has been adopted by Knapp,
Schulz, Lehm., Tdf. Still, it is a question whether this properly Coptic
form, which in the Sept. is justifiable, should not in the N. T. give place
to the form Mwons, which comes nearer the Hebrew and is certainly more
43 usual; this passed over also to the Greeks (Strabo 16, 760 sq.) and
6th ed. Romans, and has been retained by Scholz. On the diaeresis in Moons,
dropped by Lehm., see Fr. Rom. II. 313.
9. As to Koloooaí and Kodaσoaí see the expositors on Col. i. 1. The
first of these forms is found not only on the coins of that city (Eckhel,
doctrina numor. vett. I. III. 147), but also in the best Codd. of the classics
(cf. Xen. Anab. 1, 2, 6); hence it was preferred by Valckenaer, ad Her.
7, 30. In the N. T., however, the form with a has more authority, and
has been adopted by Lchm. and Tdf. It exhibits probably the popular
pronunciation.
10. For évveós Acts ix. 7, it is better to write eveós (cf. ävews), agreeably
to the best Codd.
11. The un-Attic form oveís, ovlév, is found altogether in the N. T.
only in single though good Codd., Luke xxiii. 14; 1 Cor. xiii. 2 f.; 2 Cor.
xi. 8; Acts xv. 9; xix. 27: µŋlév Acts xxiii. 14; xxvii. 33; see Lob.
Phryn. p. 181 sq. It occurs also in the Sept. (Bornem. Act. p. 115) and
in Greek papyrus rolls.
12. 'E0úðŋ 1 Cor. v. 7, text. rec., for which all the better Codd. have
¿rúon (Bttm. I. 78), is unusual, but rests on an unexceptionable retaining
of the radical where there is no reduplication (wvaι, кaðоpĺñvαι),
though both the verbs Ove and Oeiva (the only ones of which the stem
begins with and which form a 1st Aor.) change the radical in the 1st
Aor. into 7 (Lob. Paralip. 45). The participle Oveis, analogous in form
to the above example, occurs in Dio Cass. 45, 17. (In Aesch. Choëph.
242, the editions have rules). It is not improbable that the first form
was employed by Paul, and suppressed by the copyists.
13. For Xpewpeλérns the best Codd. have xpeopeλérŋs Luke vii. 41
;
§ 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES.
45
xvi. 5, which Zonaras rejects, and it occurs only once in the MSS. of
Greek authors; see Lob. Phryn. p. 691.
ον
14. The rough mutes for the smooth in de Acts iv. 29, and ảþídw
Phil. ii. 23, Lehm. has already adopted on the authority of MSS. Other
similar forms are ép éλmídi 1 Cor. ix. 10; åpeλπílovтes Luke vi. 35; ovx
ὄψεσθε Luke xvii. 22; οὐχ Ἰουδαϊκῶς Gal. ii. 14; οὐχ ὀλίγος Acts xii. 18,
etc., (cf. Bornem. Acta, p. 24). Analogous forms occur in the Sept. 58
(Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 127) and in Greek inscriptions (Böckh, Inscript. I.
301, and II. 774), and are explained by the fact that many of those words,
as èλπís, ideîv, had been pronounced with the digamma.
15. IIpaűs and πрaτηs appear in the N. T. to be the better attested
readings, though Photius, in his Lexicon, p. 386, Lips., prefers pãos; yet 45
see Lob. Phryn. p. 403 sq.
16. 'Ex¤és (not x¤és, Lob. path. p. 47) Lchm. has already received into
the text, agreeably to the best Codd.
7th ed.
2. Whether such words as διὰ τί, ἵνα τί, διά γε, ἀλλά γε, ἀπ᾿
ἄρτι, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι should be written separate or united, can hardly be
determined on any general principle; and the matter is of the less
moment as the best Codd. themselves vary extremely. Knapp
has printed most such words combined; and, in fact, two small
words in expressions of frequent recurrence are wont readily to
blend thus in pronunciation as the crases in διό, διότι, καθά, ὥστε, 41
also unxéтi and others, show). Schulz, on the contrary, defends 6th ed
their separation. Would he write also el ye, Toι vûv, our eтi, etc.?
How much the Codd. in the main favor their junction may be
seen from Poppo, Thuc. I. p. 455. Schulz himself, too, has printed
SiaTavтós Mark v. 5, Luke xxiv. 53; and Schneider in his Plato
follows almost invariably the united mode of writing them. Many
inconveniences, however, would arise from carrying out strictly
either mode of writing; and as the oldest and best Codd. of the
N. T. are written continuously, thus affording no guidance on this
point, it would probably be advisable constantly to combine such
words in the N. T. in the following cases: a. Where the language
supplies an obvious analogy, e.g. οὐκέτι like μηκέτι, τοιγάρ like
TOÍVUV, ÖSTIS Cf. öтov. b. Where one of the words does not elsewhere
occur separately (in prose); therefore, elπeρ, kaiπeр. c. When an
enclitic follows a monosyllable or dissyllable with which it usually
constitutes a single idea, as εἴτε, εἴγε, ἄραγε; but not διάγε τὴν
ávaldeiav Luke xi. 8 (Lehm. divides). d. Where the words have
a different signification according as they are separated or united;
as, óstɩsoûv quicumque, but ős тis oûv Matt. xviii. 4 quisquis igitur
(Bttm. I. 308), ἐξαυτῆς adv. and ἐξ αὐτῆς (not to mention οὐδείς
46
§ 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES.
and oud els). The former ovv, however, is usually found disunited
in the Codd., and by the authors themselves is sometimes separated
by the interposition of a conjunction; see Jacobs, praef. Aelian.
anim. p. 25. As for the rest, much must be left to the editor's
judgment in each particular instance. However, he could hardly
find clear ground for writing διαπαντός, or even ὑπερεγώ (2 Cor.
59 xi. 23, Lchm.) and the like; although in general it must not be
forgotten that in the language of the N. T., as closely approaching
popular speech, orthographic combinations are especially frequent.
In the editions of the N. T. the pronoun o,r was invariably so written
(with the hypodiastole), Luke x. 35; Jno. ii. 5; xiv: 13; 1 Cor. xvi. 2 ;
etc., till Lchm., after Bekker, introduced % TI (as os Tis, й TIs). Some
46 think even this separation unnecessary (as Schneider, Plat. civ. I. praef.
7th ed. p. 48 sq.); cf. Jen. Lit. Z. 1809, IV. 174. The non-separation, besides
other recommendations, has in its favor the consideration that an arbitrary
exposition of the text is not forced upon the reader. (In the N. T. par-
ticularly it has often been doubtful which of the two is to be read, as Jno.
viii. 25; Acts ix. 27; 2 Cor. iii. 14.) Once, however, we decide between
pron. and conj., it is safest to write or with a space, or even to retain the
hypodiastole.
3. Crasis¹ occurs on the whole but seldom, and only in particular
forms of frequent recurrence. In these, however, it is found almost
without var. The most common instances are κἀγώ, κἄν, κἀκεῖ,
45 KȧкеîÐеv, Kȧкeivos, also κȧμoí, Luke i. 3; Acts viii. 19; 1 Cor. iii. 1;
6th ed. xv. 8; kȧµé, Jno. vii. 28; 1 Cor. xvi. 4; Tovvavríov, 2 Cor. ii. 7 ;
Gal. ii. 7; 1 Pet. iii. 9; once Toйvoμa, Matt. xxvii. 57. On the
other hand, good Codd. have throughout và aνTά, Luke vi. 23;
xvii. 30; 1 Thess. ii. 14. Instances like TOUTÉOTI, KAÐά, KAÐáπЄр,
are not properly called crasis.
Contraction, where usual, is rarely neglected; cf. on öσrea,
Xeiλéwv, vol, and the like §§ 8 and 9, besides édéeтo, Luke viii. 38,
according to the best Codd., cf. Fr. de conform. crit. p. 32, as often
in Xenoph. See Bttm. II. 150; Lob. 220. The verb kaµµúew ex-
hibits a contraction of a peculiar sort; cf. Lob. 340.
There is good authority for kaì èkeî, Maṭt. v. 23; xxviii. 10; Mark i.
35, 38; kaì ékeîðev, Mark x. 1; kaì èkeivois, Matt. xx. 4, etc.
4. In the earlier editions of the N. T. the Iota subscript [2] was
too frequently introduced. This abuse was first censured by
Knapp. The iota must be decidedly rejected:
¹ Ahrens, de crasi et aphaeresi. Stollberg, 1845. 4to.
[² Cf. K. H. A. Lipsius, grammat. Unterss. über die biblische Gräcität. Leipz. 8vo.
S. 3 ff.]
§ 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES.
47
a. In cases of crasis with kai
second word does not contain an
when the first syllable of the
(as kậтa from Kai eira), there-
fore in κάγώ, καμοί, κἀκεῖνος, καν, κἀκεῖ, κἀκεῖθεν, etc. See Hm.
し
​Vig. p. 526; Bttm. I. 114. The subs., however, is defended by
Thiersch, Gr. § 38 note 1, and Poppo has retained it in Thucyd.
after the best MSS. (Thuc. II. I. p. 149).
b. In the 2d perf. and 1st aor. act. of the verb apo and its com-
pounds, thus e.g. рkev Col. ii. 14; åpar Matt. xxiv. 17; âpov Matt. 60
ix. 6; pav Matt. xiv. 12; äpas 1 Cor. vi. 15, etc. See Bttm. I.
413, 439; Poppo, Thue. II. I. 150.
c. In the Doric Inf., used also by the Attics (Mtth. I. 148), S₁v,
διψήν, πεινῆν, χρῆσθαι. According to ancient grammarians 1 (who
flourished after Christ) the iota ought to be rejected also in con-
tract verbs in άω ; as ἀγαπᾶν, ὁρᾶν, τιμᾶν, probably inasmuch as
these forms arose from (the Doric) rudev, like poboûv from 47
μolóev; see Wolf in the lit. Analekten 1 Bd. S. 419 ff. Bengel 7th ed
favored this form, and it has been defended and followed by several
scholars (Reiz, Lucian. IV. p. 393 sq. ed. Bp.; Elmsley, Eurip.
Med. v. 69, and praef. ad Soph. Oedip. R. p. 9 sq.; Ellendt, Arrian.
Al. I. p. 14 sq.). Bttm. I. 490, and Mtth. I. 437, declare them-
selves undecided, and many editors have retained the old mode of
writing (as Lobeck, cf. his technol. p. 188). Schulz, Lelim. and
Tdf., however, have rejected the subs. from the N. T.; cf. Eph.
v. 28; Rom. xiii. 8; Mark viii. 32; John xvi. 19.
し
​π
d. There is nothing decisive for πρios (Lob. Phryn. 403; pathol.
serm. gr. p. 442), yet see Bttm. I. 255. Neither has pw, from
πρо, an ɩ subs.; see as to this word in general, Bttm. ad Plat. Crit.
p. 43, and Lexilog. 17, 2.
e. As to πávтn Acts xxiv. 3, see Bttm. II. 360. The , which
has a right to stand in aλλn, Taúтn, as actual Datives, should be
rejected in πávтn, which has no corresponding Nom. The old 46
grammarians, however, are of a different opinion (Lob. paralip. 6th ed
56 sq.), and Lchm. has printed Távтη. Also круpη (Doг. круpâ)
κρυφῆ κρυφᾶ)
Eph. v. 12, cf. Xen. conv. 5, 8, and eikη (Bttm. II. 342) have been
received into the N. T. text; cf. Poppo, Thuc. II. I. 150. Lehm.
still writes Xá@pa, though λálpa is more correct; Schneider, Plat.
civ. I. p. 61 praef.; Ellendt, lex. Soph. II. p. 3 sq. Lastly,
f. Since Lchm. àlov stands in the text of the N. T. Matt.
xxvii. 4, 24 (ả¤wïov, Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 1267), cf. also Weber,
1 Cf. Vig. p. 220. See also Gregor. Choerobosc. Dictata ed. Gaisford, tom. II. p. 721.
Yet see Hm. Vig. 748.
48 § 5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES.
Demosth. p. 231; but contrary to all tradition, Lob. pathol. gracc.
serm. p. 440.¹
After the example of Bekker and others, Lchm. began, in the larger
edition of his N. T., to reject the breathings over double p as useless; but
he has found no followers [except Tdf. ed. vii.]. That the Romans also
heard an aspiration in the middle of words is clear from the orthography
of Pyrrhus, Tyrrhenus, etc. Bttm. I. S. 28. Still less can one bring one's
self to omit the breathing also over p at the beginning of a word, as some
61 do; see in opposition Rost, Gramm. S. 17 f. [or, as Lchm. does, to mark
with a smooth breathing the first p in words the first two syllables of which
begin with p; see in opposition Göttling, Accentl. p. 205].
"
८
The Alexandrians (Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 116 sqq.) had, as it is admitted,
their peculiar Greek orthography, which not only interchanged letters (as
aɩ and eɩ, e and ŋ, i and eɩ, cf. eidéa Matt. xxviii. 3, y and к), but even
added superfluous ones, to strengthen the forms of words; as, ékɣlés,
βασιλέαν, νύκταν, φθάννειν, ἐκχυννόμενον, ἔσσπειρε, ἀναβαίννον, ἥλλατο (Acts
xiv. 10; vii. 26; cf. Poppo, Thuc. I. 210). On the other hand, necessary
48 letters (when doubled) they rejected; as, δυσεβής, σάβασι, ἀντάλαγμα, φύλα,
7th ed. ¿púσaro, papos (Jno. xix. 23). They disregarded, too, the methods by
which the Greeks avoided a harsh concurrence of many or of dissimilar
consonants (Bttm. I. 75 f.) ; as, Anu opal, avalnutes (Bttm. II. 231),
προςωπολημψία, ἀπεκτάνκασι, ἐνχώριον, συγκάλυμμα, συνρητεῖν, συνπνίγειν,
σvνμaðητýs, TÉVπe. These peculiarities are found, partly in good MSS. of
the Sept. and of the N. T. (Tdf. praef. ad N. T. p. 20 sq. [ed. vii. p. 46 sqq.])
which are said to have been executed in Egypt, e.g. Cod. Alex., [Cod.
Sin.], Cod. Vatic., Cod. Ephraem. (ed. Tdf. p. 21), Cod. Cantabr., Cod.
Claromont. (Tdf. prolegg. ad cod. Clarom. p. 18), Cod. Cypr. (see Hug,
Einleit. I. S. 238, 242, 244, 245, 247, 249, 254; Scholz, curae crit. in hist.
text. evangg. pp. 40, 61); partly in Coptic and Graeco-Coptic documents
(see Hug. I. 239), with more or less uniformity. They cannot, therefore,
be dismissed as but caprices of the copyists, as Planck thinks (de orat.
N. T. indole, p. 25, note), especially as for many of them analogies can be
adduced from the older dialects. At the same time, many of them are not
specially Alexandrian, as the like occur in Codd. of Greek authors, and in
Greek inscriptions, that cannot be traced to an Egyptian origin; as, e.g.
47 e for i, ey for ek, (on λýμopai cf. the Ion. λáμyouai Mtth. 609); and, on
6th ed. the other hand, many Egyptian documents are tolerably free from the
peculiarities in question.
•
ει
Lehm. and Tdf., on the concurrent testimony of good (but for the most
part few) Codd. in Matt. xx. 10; xxi. 22; Mark xii. 40; Luke xx. 47;
1 The spelling bv (Wessel, Her. 2, 68), (ov, which Jacobs, in Aelian. animal., re-
cently adopted on the authority of a good Cod., nobody will be disposed to introduce
into the N. T.; still less opgew. Cf. Lob. pathol. p. 442.
§ 6. ACCENTUATION.
49
Acts i. 2, 8, 11, 22; Jas. i. 7; Mark i. 27; 2 Cor. vii. 3; Phil. ii. 25,
etc. (sometimes without giving authorities, Matt. xix. 29; John xvi. 14;
1 Cor. iii. 14; Phil. iii. 12; Rom. vi. 8, etc.), have received these forms
into the text. Without more convincing proof, however, than what has
been produced by Tdf. praef. ad. N. T. p. 19 [ed. vii. p. 45] all the peculi-
arities of the Alex. dialect, and in particular of the Alex. orthography,
should not be attributed to Palestinean writers, (as John, Paul, James);
and it is improbable that the N. T. writers should have followed that
orthography only in comparatively few instances.¹ Besides, Cod. B in
reference to this point has not yet been thoroughly collated. According
to what Tdf. has said, as above, p. 21, he might have been expected to
adopt such forms more frequently.
The introduction, therefore, of this orthography into the text of the
N. T.—if editors choose to imitate on such points the Codd., even in edi-
tions intended for general use must undergo renewed and thorough
consideration; and at the same time the question may be raised, whether 62
this orthography was not a mode of spelling adopted by the learned rather 49
than the actual pronunciation of the people, somewhat as in Roman in- 7th ed
scriptions (Schneider, lat. Grammat. I. II. 530 f., 543 f., 566 f. etc.) we
find adferre, inlatus, and the like, written according to the etymology.
§ 6. ACCENTUATION. [2]
1. The accentuation of the text of the N. T. is to be regulated,
not so much by the authority of the oldest accented Codd. [to which
Lipsius, as above, has attached too much importance], as by the
established tradition of the grammarians; though much still re-
mains doubtful, and, in the minute researches of later critics,
attempts have sometimes been made to introduce subtilties. We
select the following observations:
a. According to the ancient grammarians (Moeris, p. 193), ide
should be written idé in Attic authors only, and "de in the remain-
ing (later) writers; just as λaßé and λáße are distinguished, Weber,
Demosth. p. 173, cf. Bttm. I. 448. Griesb. has so printed (except
in Gal. v. 2), and Lchm. everywhere. According to Bornem.'s
conjecture (Rosenmüller, exeg. Repert. II. 267), the word should
be written idé when it occurs as an Imper. followed by an Acc.
(Rom. xi. 22), and "de when it is merely an exclamation. It is
preferable, however, to follow the ancient grammarians.
1 Of many words, as συλλαμβάνειν, συλλαλεῖν, συμβούλιον, συμπίπτειν, no such for
at all has been observed ; of others, as συλλέγειν, συγκαλεῖν, συσταυροῦν, ἐγκαλεῖν, only
in single passages.
[2 Cf. Lipsius, gramm. Unterss. üb. d. bibl. Gräcität. S. 14 ff. S. 33 ff.]
7
50
§ 6. ACCENTUATION.
6th ed.
b. Numerals compounded with eros should have the accent on
the penult, according to the ancient grammarians (Thom. M. 859;
48 Moschopul. in Sched.), when they are used of time; in every other
case, on the last. Hence Acts vii. 23 Teσσаpakovтαéтηs xpóvоs, and
Acts xiii. 18 τεσσαρακονταέτη χρόνον; on the other hand, ἑκατον-
TaeTýs, Rom. iv. 19 (cf. Jacobs, Anthol. III. p. 251, 253). This
distinction, however, is not observed in the MSS., and the whole
rule is doubtful, see Lob. 406 sq. Ammonius, p. 136, exactly re-
verses the distinction; see Bremi, Aeschin. Ctesiph. 369, ed. Goth.
υ
c. Some would have κήρυξ and φοίνιξ accented κῆρυξ and φοίνιξ
(see Schäf. Gnom. p. 215 sq. and Soph. Philoct. 562, cf. Ellendt,
Lexic. Soph. I. 956 sq.) on the ground that, according to ancient
grammarians, the v and (in the Nom. Sing.) were pronounced
63 short (Bekker, Anecd. III. 1429). Hm., Soph. Oed. R. p. 145,
rejects this as contrary to all analogy. Yet it is a question whether
in later Greek the accentuation κῆρυξ, φοίνιξ is not to be preferred
with the grammarians; see Bttm. I. 167. Lehm. has followed it.
d. For Toûs, as it stood in most of the older editions of the N. T.,
Knapp restored Toús, because the Gen. has Todos with short o
sec Lob. Phryn. 765, and paralip. 93.
c. Griesb. and others have incorrectly written Maihay; it should
50 be laîλay, as the a is short. In the same way, Schulz (though
7th ed. not invariably) and Lelim. write Oxîys for Oxífis (as Xŷris),
because the first is long, not by position, but by nature. So
κλίμα, κρίμα, χρίσμα, μίγμα, ψύχος (cf. Reisig, de constr. antistr.
p. 20; Loh. paralip. 418), orûλos (Passow, under the word), (¿îis
and) pitav Luke iv. 35. However, it has been rightly remarked
by Fr., Rom. I. 107, that as according to the testimony of the
ancient grammarians (Lob. Phryn. 107; cf. Dindorf, praef. ad
Aristoph. Acharn. p. 15) the later Greeks in many words shortened
the penult which was long in Attic, this return to Attic accentua-
tion in the N. T. is not so unquestionably warranted. No editor
[except Tdf. ed. vii.] has changed the regular Opĥσкos into Opnσkós,
though several Codd. so read; see Bengel, app. crit. ad Jac. i. 26.
f. Since the termination at is considered as short in accentuation.
(Bttm. I. 54), we must write Ovµâoaι Luke i. 9, and êηpûğαı Luke
iv. 19; Acts x. 42, for Ovμiáoaɩ and êŋpúğaɩ (as still written by
Knapp); cf. Poppo, Thuc. II. I. 151; Bornem. schol. p. 4. Griesb.
and Knapp, in Acts xii. 14, still write erroneously éorâvat, as a is
short. On the other hand ovvтeтρîplaι Mark v. 4 has already
been restored.
§ 6. ACCENTUATION.
51
g. In the older editions, even in Knapp's, épileía is written
éploeia; but, as the word is derived from épileúw, the former ac-
centuation is alone admissible; see Bttm. I. 141, II. 401. So
ἀρεσκεία, since it comes from ἀρεσκεύειν and not ἀρέσκειν, must
not be accented ȧpéσreia (as both Lelim. and Tdf. accent it).
στης,
h. Lchm., agreeably to the undoubted analogy of yváσtηs, kλá-
στns, etc., changed KTIOT 1 Pet. iv. 19 (Knapp and Griesb.) into
KTÍσTη. But Schott and Wahl have retained KTIOT; yet see Beng.
appar. p. 442.
i. As to μiolwrós see Schäf. Dem. II. p. 88. The word púyos. 19
Matt. xi. 19; Luke vii. 34, is so accented even in other books ib ed
besides the N. T., Lob. Phryn. 434, though from analogy we
should expect payós, Lob. paralip. 135, who decides against Fr.
Mr. p. 790 sqq.
k. Lob. Phryn. 348, and Bttm. exc. I. ad Plat. Menon. hold 64
that we should write eiπov 1st Aor. Imp. Acts xxviii. 26, and not
eiπóv; yet see reasons worthy of consideration on the other side
by Wex, in the Jahrb. für Philol. VI. 169. The former accentua-
tion is limited to standard Attic. For eiπóv in the Greek Bible,
see the express testimony of Charax in Bttm. as above, who calls
the accentuation Syracusan. The later editors have also retained
this form. See, besides, Bornem. Acta, p. 234 sq.
1. Names of Persons, originally oxytone adjectives or appellatives,
throw back the accent for the sake of distinction; thus, TúXIKOS
not Τυχικός, Επαίνετος not Επαινετός (Lob. paral. 481), Φίλητος 51
not Þíλŋrós (see Bengel app. crit. on the passage), "Epaσros not ithel
Εραστός, Βλάστος not Βλαστός, Κάρπος uot Καρπός, [Πύρρος not
Πυῤῥός, Ερμογένης,] Σωσθένης (like Δημοσθένης) and Διοτρέφης
3 Jno. 9. In the same way we write Τίμων for Τιμῶν, Ονησίφορος
for 'Ονησιφόρος, Εὐμένης for Εὐμενής. On the other hand Υμέναιος
remains unaltered, as in general there is a reluctance to throw
forward the accent in proper names. Hence even proparoxytones,
as Τρόφιμος, Ασύγκριτος, [Εὔτυχος] retain their accent, Lob. as
above. Yet those former examples also occur exceptionally with
their original accent in ancient grammarians and in good Codd.
(cf. Tdf. prolegg. Cod. Clarom. p. 22; cf. also λntós in Euseb.
H. E. 6, 21, 2); and the name Xplorós was never brought under
the preceding rule. See, generally, Reiz de incl. accent. p. 116;
Schäf. Dion. H. p. 265; Funkhänel, Demosth. Androt. p. 108 sq.;
1 So also geographical names; see Nobbe, schedae Ptolem. II. (Lips. 1842. 8vo.)
p. 17 sq.
52
§ 6. ACCENTUATION.
particularly Lehrs, de Aristarchi studiis Homer. p. 276 sq. (In
the same way also ἐπέκεινα, ἐπίταδε, ὑπερέκεινα were accented,
when these forms, compounded of è' èkeiva, etc., were used as
adverbs.)
m. Indeclinable oriental names are regularly accented on the
last; (cf. however, Ιούδα, Θάμαρ, Ζοροβάβελ, Ιωάθαμ, Ελεάζαρ,
and the segholate form 'Excégep Luke iii. 29, 'IeÇáßeλ Rev. ii. 20
according to good Codd., Malovoáλa Luke iii. 37). The accent,
even on long vowels, is for the most part the acute; as, 'Ioaák,
Ισραήλ, Ιακώβ, Γεννησάρ, Βηθσαϊδά, Βηθεσδά, Εμμαούς, Καφαρ-
ναούμ. On the other hand, the MSS. have Κανά, Γεθσημανῆ
Kavâ,
(though there is more authority for Telonμavel, which Lehm. and
Tdf. prefer; see Fr. Mr. p. 626), also Вη¤þayî (cf. also Nievñ).
Names which occur as indeclinable and as oxytone, Josephus, with
whom declension predominates, makes barytone; as, 'Aßío (in the
N. T. 'Aẞiá). The oldest MSS. are said (Tdf. prolegg. p. 36. [ed.
vii. p. 61]) to give IIλâros, not IIλáros, as it is usually written
65 even by Lehm. (and by Cardwell in his ed. of Joseph. bell. jud.).
50 Yet even recent editors, agreeably to the Codd., write Kopioλávos
6th ed. (Plutarch. Coriol. c. 11; Dion. H. 6, p. 414, Sylb.), KikivvάTOS
(Dion. H. 10, p. 650), Торжоváros (Plut. Fab. Max. c. 9; Dio C.
34, c. 34), Kodpáros (Quadratus) Joseph. antt. 20, 6, 'OvopáτOS,
etc. As to Tiros and Tiros see Sinten. Plut. vit. II. 190. For
Þîì§, not Þýλığ, see Bornem. Acta, p. 198.
'Αβιά).
The accentuation ὁμοῖος, ἐρῆμος, ἑτοιμος, μῶρος (Boisson. Anecd. V. p. 94),
which grammarians (Greg. Cor. p. 12, 20 sqq.) refer to the Ionians and
earlier Attics, and which Bekker for instance follows, is certainly inad-
missible even in Attic prose (Poppo, Thuc. I. 213. II. I. 150; Bttm. I. 55);
still more so in the N. T. On the other hand, we must without doubt
52 invariably write toos; cf. Bornem. Luke, p. 4; Fr. Mr. p. 649. The N. T.
7th ed. MSS. have uniformly ow for etow, though they have always eis and never
ès. Thuc., on the other hand, who mostly uses ès, has cow 1, 134; see
Poppo, I. p. 212. Recent editors reject cow in Attic prose; see Schneider,
Plat. civ. I. praef. p. 53. (As to the poets, see Elmsley, Eurip. Med. p.
84 sq. Lips.) As to whether we should write in Jas. i. 15 åπoкveî or
åπokúεɩ, see below, § 15 p. 88.
او
In regard to the dim. Teкvíov as paroxytone, like rexvíov in Athen. 2. 55,
see Bttm. II. 441.; later editors, however, prefer réxvov in Athen. and
Plat. rep. 6. 495 d. In the N. T. the only part of Tekvíov that occurs is
the Plur. TeKvía; see Janson in Jahn's Archiv VII. 487. Hoíuviov (from
ποιμένιον) should be unhesitatingly preferred to ποιμνίον, Janson as above,
507. On úsporns. Bpadurns as oxytones, see Bttm. II. 417. This accord-
§ 6. ACCENTUATION.
53
ing to the grammarians is the old accentuation, an exception to the rule;
Lehm. has, on the other hand, spórηri 2 Cor. viii. 20, but ẞpadvrira
2 Pet. iii. 9. The later Greeks seem to have pronounced these words
regularly as paroxytones; Reiz, accent. inclin. p. 109. On ouκovv and
ovкoûv, apa and apa, see § 57, 3, pp. 510, 512.
2. Many forms, as is well known, of the same spelling but dif-
fering in meaning, are distinguished from each other by the
accents; as, εἰμί sum and είμι eo μύριοι ten thousand and μυρίοι
innumerable, Bttm. I. 278). The accented Codd. and even the
editors of the N. T. sometimes waver between these two modes
of accentuation. Thus for μével 1 Cor. iii. 14, Chrysost., Theod.,
Vulg., etc., read μeveî (Fut.), which Knapp and Lehim. have ad-
mitted into the text, cf. v. 13; Heb. i. 11. In Heb. iii. 16, there
is more authority for ríves than Tués, and accordingly recent
critics have almost unanimously preferred the former. For άsπeρeì
τῷ ἐκτρώματι 1 Cor. xv. 8, some Codd. have ὡςπερεί τῳ i.e. τινι
Èктρúμati, which Knapp has unnecessarily admitted into the text,
(it is clearly the correction of persons who took offence at the use
of the article here, and besides, has but little authority in its favor); 66
so in 1 Thess. iv. 6 ev тw πрáyμатt, just as unnecessary. In 1 Cor.
x. 19, many recent editors write ὅτι εἰδωλόθυτον τί ἐστιν, ἢ ὅτι
eïdwλov tí ẻotiv (Knapp and Mey.), because there is an emphasis
on τι (antithetic to οὐδέν), and the other accentuation εἰδωλόθυτόν
TI OTIV (Lehm.) produces ambiguity, since this might signify:
ἔστιν
that there is anything offered to idols. Yet even supposing the 51
former interpretation unquestionable, it is not necessary to reject 6th ed.
the usual accentuation, in so far as it gives the sense: that an
offering to idols is something (not only appears to be, but is in
reality). Critics still contend about the accentuation of John
vii. 34, 36, ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγώ, ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν οι ὅπου εἶμι ἐγώ,
etc. (as several Fathers and versions read); and in Acts xix. 38
almost all recent editors have accented ȧyópaɩɩ (adj. signifying
judicial) instead of ayopaîot. With regard to the first of these
passages, John's use of language (xii. 26; xiv. 3; xvii. 24) gives 53
the preference to eiuí (see Lücke on the passage, after Knapp, 7th ed
comm. isagog. p. 32 sq.); but in the second, the acute would
probably be correct, if we listen to Suidas, and with Kulencamp
read in Ammon. p. 4: ἀγόραιος μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἡμέρα, ἀγοραῖος δὲ
ở Epus ở ẻ Từ Tân ủyopas ; cf. Lob. paralip. p. 340.
In the same way we must decide on Rom. i, 30, where some
taking the word as active accent it θεοστύγεις, because θεοστυγεῖς
54
§ 6. ACCENTUATION.
must mean Deo exosi; but the analogy of adjectives like untρÓ.
κτονος aud μητροκτόνος (Bttm. II. 482) proves nothing respecting
adjectives in ns. Besides, Suidas says expressly that cooтUYEîs
means both οἱ ὑπὸ θεοῦ μισούμενοι and οἱ θεὸν μισοῦντες; (though
he distinguishes Oeoμons from coμions in signification). The
form beoσTuyeîs, which alone is according to analogy, (compound
adjectives in ns being oxytones,) is consequently the only correct
form. As to the active sense of the word, however, Suidas does
not appear to have quoted it as Greek usage, but only to have
adopted it in the preceding passage of Paul. At least, this mean-
ing of the word cannot be positively established from any Greek
author; see Fr. Rom. I. 84 sqq. To be sure, the word occurs but
a few times in all. On the other hand, there is good ground for
the distinction between Tpoxós (wheel), which the text and the
accented Codd. have in James iii. 6, and 7póxos (race), as accord-
ing to Grotius, Hottinger, Schulthess, etc., it should be read (see
Schäf. Soph. II. 307). The figure Tρoxòs yevéσews (joined to
proyíçovoa) is neither incorrect, nor in James particularly strange;
accordingly, no alteration of the accent is required.
In regard to other passages where alterations of accent have been pro-
67 posed, as 1 Cor. xiv. 7 (óµws for oμws), Col. i. 15 (πрштотÓKоs for πρшτó-
τοκος, see Mey.), or even James i. 17, πατὴρ τῶν φωτῶν for φώτων, these
proposals have originated partly in doctrinal prejudices, partly in ignorance
of the language. The last is positively absurd.
3. It is still an unsettled question whether in prose (for to poetry
peculiar considerations apply, cf. e.g. Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. I. 476)
the enclitic forms of the pronoun, where no emphasis is intended,
should be joined to a preposition: whether, for instance, we should
52 write παρά σου, ἔν μοι, εἴς με, and not παρὰ σοῦ, ἐν ἐμοί, etc. In
6th ed the editions of the N. T., even in Lehm.'s (and elsewhere also in
Greek books), we constantly find πρός με, πρός σε, but ἐν σοί, ἐν
ἐμοί, ἐπὶ σέ, εἰς ἐμέ, ἐπ᾿ ἐμέ, etc. ; and only in connection with
those enclitic forms in a few passages, Luke i. 43; Acts xxii. 8, 13;
xxiii. 22; xxiv. 19; cf. Bornem. on the last passage, (mostly at
54 the end of a sentence) from Cod. B and some others the orthotoned
7th ed. pronouns are noted as various readings. Partly on the authority
of ancient grammarians, and partly for the reason laid down by
Hm. emend. gr. gr. I. 75 sq. that in such combinations the pronoun
has the force of a noun, one must be disposed to decide generally
for the orthotoned form; (only πpós μe is defended by a portion
of the grammarians, and occurs frequently in Codd.) see also Bttm.
•
§ 7. PUNCTUATION.
55
I. 285 f.; Jacobs, Anthol. Pal. I. praef. p. 32; Mtth. Eurip. Orest.
384, Sprachl. I. 110; Krü. 76; also Ellendt, Arrian. I. 199. Yet
Reisig, conject. in Aristoph. p. 56, and Bornem. Xen. conviv. p. 163,
decide otherwise; and it must be confessed that good MSS. of
Greek authors (even besides the case of πpós μe) often have the
enclitic forms. Where the pronoun is emphatic, the enclitic forms
of course do not occur; accordingly Knapp and Schulz properly
give Jno. xxi. 22, τί πρὸς σέ.
In editions of the N. T. text, the enclitic forms are in general employed
agreeably to the established rules of grammarians; hence even Fr., not-
withstanding Hermann's authority (emend. rat. I. 71, 73), still writes ò
παῖς μου (Matt. viii. 6), ἐξ ὑμῶν τινες (Jno. vi. 64), ὑπό τινων (Luke ix. 7),
and not παῖς μου, ἐξ ὑμῶν τινές, ὑπὸ τινῶν. Lehm. began to accent the
pronoun in the last two instances, and also to write πоû čσTw, Matt. ii. 2;
μet' avtôv čotív, Mark ii. 19; but raîs pov he left unchanged. He has
been followed by Tdf. See, however, the judicious decision of Bttm. I. 65 f.
§ 7. PUNCTUATION.2
1. In all editions of the N. T. down to that of Griesbach inclu-
sive, the punctuation was not only deficient in consistency, but
also suffered from the mistake that in order to facilitate the under-
standing of the text editors punctuated too much, especially with
commas. In this way, too, they forestalled the reader and imparted
to the text their own exegetical views; cf. also Bttm. I. 68;
Schleiermacher, Hermeneut. S. 76.
68
The first person who directed keener attention to punctuation, 53
and attempted to reduce it to fixed principles, was Knapp. He 6th ed
has been followed, and with additional restrictions, by Schulz,
Lehm., and Tdf. (the last adhering mostly to Lchm.).3 None of
them, however, gave a general exposition of his principles.4
Punctuation was originally contrived as an aid in reading, espe-
cially in reading aloud, by marking the various resting-places for
1 Yet he (Lehm.) has printed in Acts xxvii. 44, èπí Tшwy; Jno. xx. 23, èáv TIVWV.
2 Cf. in particular Poppo, in the Allg. Lit. Zeit. 1826. 1 B. S. 506 ff.; Mtth. I. 172 ff.;
[Lipsius, as above, S. 81 ff.].
8 Among the editors of Greek authors I. Bekker has begun to punctuate with greater
moderation and consistency, and W. Dindorf still more sparingly. Both, however,
seem to have carried the exclusion of the comma too far.
4 Rinck has proposed (Stud. u. Krit. 1842. S. 554 f.) with regard to punctuation to
return to the principles of the ancient Greek grammarians ( Villoison, Anced. II. 138 sqq.).
This, however, would be hardly practicable.
55
7th ed.
56
§ 7. PUNCTUATION.
the voice. At present, however, independently of the circumstance
that punctuation is indispensable in any extended system of vocal
signs, its main object is to enable the reader in the act of reading
to understand correctly, so far as this depends on perceiving the
connection of the words (Bttin. as above). Punctuation therefore
must be regulated by the logical, or rather-since the thought
is clothed in language — by the grammatical and rhetorical, rela-
tions of the words to each other. Hence it is too much to expect
that the exegetical views of an editor should in no degree whatever
be suggested by his punctuation, as he has to employ not merely
commas, but colons and points of interrogation.
1
As to the proper use of the colon and period in the text of the
N. T. there can be no reasonable doubt; for, the omission of the
colon before the direct words of a speaker (Lchm. Tdf.) and the
substitution of a capital letter, is an innovation for which there
appears to be no sufficient ground. On the other hand, the pro-
priety of inserting or not inserting a comma is more uncertain.
69 Thus much, however, is clear, that only a grammatically complete
proposition ¹ having a close connection with another proposition
should be separated from it by a comma; and that for this special
purpose the comma was devised. But a grammatically complete
proposition comprehends not only a subject, a predicate, and a
copula, three elements that may be either expressed or under-
stood, but all qualifying words also which are introduced to
define these main elements more precisely, and without which the
54 proposition would convey but an imperfect sense.
Hence it was a
6th ed. mistake in Griesbach e.g. to separate the subject from the verb by
a comma whenever it was accompanied by a participle or consisted
56 of a participle with adjuncts (Mark vii. 8; x. 49; Rom. viii. 5;
7th ed. 1 Jno. ii. 4; iii. 15). It is a mistake to divide 1 Thess. iv. 9 πepì
δὲ τῆς φιλαδελφίας, οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε γράφειν ὑμῖν, Matt. vi. 16 μὴ
γίνεσθε, ὥςπερ οἱ ὑποκριταί (for μὴ γίν. conveys by itself no idea),
ν. 32 ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὑτοῦ, παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας
(the last words contain the most essential part of the statement),
xxii. 3 καὶ ἀπέστειλε τοὺς δούλους αὑτοῦ, καλέσαι τοὺς κεκλημένους
1 A grammatical proposition usually coincides with a logical, but not always. In
Luke xii. 17, for instance, and in John vi. 29 (see above) we find, logically, two prop-
ositions which, however, as the second is through the relative included in the first, form
grammatically but onc. The same remark applies to every condensed statement in
which two clauses are contracted into one. Also in 1 Tim. vi. 3, εἴ τις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ
καὶ μὴ προςέρχεται ὑγιαίνουσι λόγοις, we have, logically considered, two propositions; but
grammatically, they appear in this construction as only one (see above, near the close).
87. PUNCTUATION.
57
etc., 1 Thess. iii. 9 τίνα γὰρ εὐχαριστίαν δυνάμεθα τῷ θεῷ ἀνταπο-
δοῦναι περὶ ὑμῶν, ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ χαρᾷ etc., 1 Cor. vii. 1 καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ,
γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι, Acts v. 2 καὶ ἐνοσφίσατο ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς,
συνειδυίης καὶ τῆς γυναικός. But the notion of a complete proposi-
tion is still more comprehensive. Even a relative clause is to be
considered as a part of the preceding proposition when the relative
(pronoun or adverb) includes also the demonstrative, as Jno. vi. 29
ἵνα πιστεύσητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος, Matt. xxiv. 41 ᾗ οὐ δοκεῖτε
ὥρᾳ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρ. ἔρχεται, Luke xii. 17 ὅτι οὐκ ἔχω που συνάξω
τοὺς καρπούς μου ; or when there is an attraction of the relative,
as Luke ii. 20 ἐπὶ πᾶσιν οἷς ἤκουσαν (cf. Schäf. Demosth. II. 657) ;
or when the relative clause is so necessary a complement to a
foregoing word that both must be taken together to complete the
sense, as Luke xii. 8 πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ, Matt. xiii. 44 πάντα ὅσα
ἔχει ; or when the preposition is not repeated before the relative,
as Acts xiii. 39 ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν οὐκ ἠδυνήθητε etc., Luke i. 25.1 So
where the subject, predicate, or copula of a clause consists of
several words connected by kaí (or ovdé), all these words must be 70
regarded grammatically as a compound whole, though logically
they may form several clauses ; as, Mark xiv. 22 λαβὼν ὁ Ι. ἄρτον
εὐλογήσας ἔκλασε καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, Jno. vi. 24 Ι. οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκεῖ
οὐδὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, Matt. xiii. 6 ἡλίου ἀνατείλαντος ἐκαυματίσθη
καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν ῥίζαν ἐξηράνθη (so correctly Lehm.), 1 Tim.
vi. 3 ; Matt. vi. 26. Otherwise in Mark xiv. 27 πατάξω τὸν ποιμένα,
καὶ διασκορπισθήσεται τὰ πρόβατα, Matt. vii. 7 αἰτεῖτε, καὶ δοθήσεται
ὑμῖν. The comma is here required, because two complete prop-
ositions are connected by Kal. It is required also when two
propositions are separated by .)
Ο
Further, the comma is to be omitted between such clauses as
Luke xxiv. 18 σὺ μόνος παροικεῖς Ιερουσ. καὶ οὐκ ἔγνως etc., since
they both belong together and must be read without a pause, for
only in their connection do they convey the proper sense. Also
Mark xv. 25 ήν ὥρα τρίτη καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν, and Matt. viii. 8
οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰςέλθῃς, must be written
without punctuation. Finally, before anλá the comma can be
properly omitted if the following clause is incomplete, and has, as 55
it were, essential roots in the preceding; as, Rom. viii. 9 úµeîs Sè 6th ed.
οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν πνεύματι, and 4 τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περι- 57
πατοῦσιν ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (where Fr. retains the comm).
Εν
1 To omit the comma before every relative clause (as e.g. Bekker does in his edition
of Plato), seems to me to be going too far.
7th ed
8
58
87. PUNCTUATION.
;
2. On the other hand, we must not include too much in a gram-
matically complete proposition, and so omit commas where they
are necessary. Hence we remark:
a. The Vocative is never a constituent part of the proposition
with which it stands connected, but is to be regarded as its prelude,
particularly when the proposition is in the first or third person.
Hence we punctuate in Jno. ix. 2 ῥαββί, τίς ἥμαρτεν, Mark xiv. 36
ἀββᾶ ὁ πατήρ, πάντα δυνατά σοι, 2 Pet. iii. 1 ; Luke xv. 18; xviii.
11, etc.
Ο
b. A comma is properly put after a word which is the subject
of a clause immediately following, beginning with a conjunction,
and also of the principal clause ; as, Juo. vii. 31 ὁ Χριστός, ὅταν
ἔλθῃ, ποιήσει. Lehm. otherwise.
•
Ο
c. If a grammatically complete clause be followed by a supple-
mentary statement which might properly form a clause of itself,
they must be separated by a comma ; as, Rom. xii. 1 παρακαλῶ
ὑμᾶς παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν . . . . . τῷ θεῷ, τὴν
λογικὴν λατρείαν i.e. ἥτις ἐστὶν ἡ λογ. λ.), 1 Tim. ii. 6 ὁ δοῦς ἑαυ
τὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις. So also in
71 the case of participles, etc. ; as, Col. ii. 2 ἵνα παρακ. αἱ καρδίαι
αὐτῶν, συμβιβασθέντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ, Juo. ix. 13 ἄγουσιν αὐτὸν πρὸς
τοὺς Φαρισαίους, τόν ποτε τυφλόν, Rom. viii. 4 ἵνα τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ
νόμου πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν, τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν etc., verse
20; Eph. i. 12.
• •
•
d. When a single (logical) proposition contains a twofold con-
struction (e.g. an anacoluthon), it must be written with a comma
and read with a pause between the two parts; as, Jno. xv. 2 πâv
κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπόν, αἴρει αὐτό. By the addition of αὐτό
the words πᾶν κλῆμα καρπ. become a casus pendens which
is only the prelude to the proposition, and hence no one reads on
without a pause. Rev. iii. 12 ὁ νικῶν, ποιήσω αὐτὸν στύλον etc. ;
Heb. ix. 23 ανάγκη τὰ μὲν ὑποδείγματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, τούτοις
καθαρίζεσθαι. It is quite obvious that inserted complete clauses
must be separated from the principal clause by commas, Luke ix.
28; Acts v. 7, and elsewhere.
e. If a sentence contains ἀσυνδέτως (without και several words
following one another in the same construction, or simply enumer
ated in succession, they must be separated from each other by
commas; as, 1 Pet. v. 10 αὐτὸς καταρτίσει, στηρίξει, σθενώσει,
θεμελιώσει; Luke xiii. 14 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ἀρχισυνάγωγος, ἀγανακτῶν
ὅτι ..... ὁ Ἰησοῦς, ἔλεγε.
87. PUNCTUATION.
59
6th ed
If the use of the comma in all the cases specified be well founded, a
subordinate point, a half comma, would be desirable, to separate to the 58
eye those words which in a continuous proposition, though they do not 7th ed.
form, so to speak, a grammatical group, the reader might easily construe 56
together. Thus, for instance, every one in reading Luke xvi. 10 ó mưròs
ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ καὶ ἐν πολλῷ πιστός ἐστι will be apt to go wrong, as και excites
the expectation of a second expression co-ordinate with Tươтòs év éλ. The
same holds true of the following passages: Rom. iv. 14 ei yùp oi èk vópov
κληρονόμοι, Jas. v. 12 ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ ναὶ ναὶ καὶ τὸ οὐ οὔ, 1 Cor. xv. 47 ὁ
πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός, Heb. v. 12 ὀφείλοντες εἶναι διδάσκαλοι διὰ τὸν
χρόνον πάλιν χρείαν ἔχετε τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς, Jno. v. 5 ἦν τις ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖ
τριάκοντα καὶ ὀκτὼ ἔτη ἔχων ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ, Rom. iii. 9 τί οὖν ; προεχόμεθα;
οὐ πάντως (οὐ, πάντως). A half comma would at once remove all ambiguity.
As, however, no such point exists, we might employ an ordinary comma,
just as it is used in writing and print to distinguish 8,7 from ort. Modern
editors, however, do not punctuate at all in these passages, and this is
perhaps most advisable.
ου
3. It is on many accounts desirable that an editor's exposition
of a passage should not be introduced into the text by means of 72
punctuation. This is easily avoided where punctuation is unnec
essary, as for instance in Rom. i. 17; vii. 21; Matt. xi. 11. But
there are passages where punctuation-a period, a colon, a comma,
or even a mark of interrogation-is indispensable, and yet cannot
be employed without thereby adopting some distinct exposition of
the text. In Jno. vii. 21 sq., for instance, every editor must deter-
mine whether to prefer ἓν ἔργον ἐποίησα καὶ πάντες θαυμάζετε. διὰ
τοῦτο Μωσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν περιτομήν etc., with Chrysost. Cyril,
Euthym. Zigab., etc., or ἓν ἔργον . . . . . θαυμάζετε διὰ τοῦτο. Μωσης
etc., with Theophyl. and nearly all modern editors and expositors.
The former punctuation may still be defended, not indeed on the
ground that John (as Schulz has shown) usually begins but never
ends a clause with Sià ToûTo, but if the connection is understood.
thus: I have done one work, and ye are all surprised; therefore
(be it known to you) Moses gave you, etc.; i.e. I will remove your
surprise. Ye yourselves, according to the law of Moses, perform
circumcision on the Sabbath. If, now, that ceremony, extending
to but one part of the body, is not a desecration of the Sabbath,
then the healing, affecting as it does the entire man, will certainly
be allowable also. I acknowledge, however, that the usual punc-
tuation produces a far more simple explanation of the passage, as
Lücke also has shown. Heb. xi. 1 may be punctuated or dè
πίστις, ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις etc., so that the emphasis fall on
60 § 8. RARE FORMS OF FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS.
7th ed.
EoT, and thus the existence of faith, in the manner indicated by
59 the words in apposition, is historically proved. However, it now
appears to me more proper to omit the comma after TíoTIS, SO
57 that a definition of faith is given, the correctness of which is then
6th ed. illustrated by the succeeding historical examples; see Bleek on the
passage.
In punctuating Jno. xiv. 30 sq. expositors vary between
ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ..... ποιῶ. ἐγείρεσθε and οὐδέν·
ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα . . . . . ποιῶ, ἐγείρεσθε; and in punctuating, if the text of
the N. T. is to be punctuated at all, it will not be possible to
evade this difference. Compare further, Rom. iii. 9; v. 16; vi. 21 ;
viii. 33; ix. 5; xi. 31; 1 Cor. i. 13; vi. 4; xvi. 3; Acts v. 35
(see Kühnöl); Heb. iii. 2; Jas. ii. 1, 4, 18; v. 3 sq.
The same reason, viz. to avoid prejudicing the reader in advance in
favor of any one interpretation, may have been the chief motive with recent
editors (Tdf.) for excluding from the text altogether the parenthesis, for-
merly the source of so much abuse. Lchm. had still retained it. See
below, § 62.
A
73 § 8. RARE FORMS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS.
1. Masculine proper names in âs of the 1st Decl. mostly ori-
ental, but formed in accordance with well-known Greek analogy-
end in the Gen. Sing. uniformly in â; as, 'Iwavvâ Luke iii. 27,
'Iwvâ Matt. xii. 39; Jno. i. 43, etc. Κλωπᾶ Jno. xix. 25, Στεφανᾶ
1 Cor. i. 16; xvi. 15, Σíevâ Acts xix. 14, Kŋpâ 1 Cor. i. 12, ΣataVâ
Mark i. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 9, 'Emappa Col. i. 7.1
Likewise those ending in unaccented as make the Gen. in a;
as, Kaïápa Jno. xviii. 13, "Avva Luke iii. 2, 'Apéta 2 Cor. xi. 32
(Joseph. antiqq. 17, 3, 2; 18, 5, 1), Bapváßa Gal. ii. 1; Col. iv.
10, 'Ауρíππа² Acts xxv. 23; cf. Joseph. antiqq. 16, 2, 3; 16, 6, 7;
20, 7, 1, etc. (Σíλa Joseph. vit. 17, Mar0eía Acta apocr. p. 133),
Ιούδα often.
2
The same form in proper names is often used by Attic authors;
as, Maσkâ Xen. An. 1, 5, 4, Twßpúa Xen. C.5, 2, 14, Koµára Theocr.
5, 150 a., cf. Georgi, Hierocr. I. 156; Krü. 42; Ellendt, Arrian.
Al. I. 83; V. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 566; and on Boppâ, Luke
xiii. 29, Rev. xxi. 13, especially Bttm. I. 147, 199; Bekker, Anecd.
III. 1186.
1 So also ☺wuâ in the Act. Thom., Aovкâ Euseb. H. E. 3, 24, 'Epuâ Euseb. 3, 3.
2 On the other hand, we find occasionally 'Aурíππоυ in Joseph. (antt. 18, 7, 1 and 2 ;
18, 8, 8, etc.) and Euseb. H. E. 2, 19. Codd. of Xenoph. also vary between гwßpúov
and Γωβρύα.
;
§ 8. RARE FORMS OF FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS.
61
On the other hand, those in as pure have the usual Attic form
(e.g. Aiveías) in ov (Lob. prolegg. pathol. p.487 sqq.); as, 'Avôpéov
Mark i. 29; Jno. i. 45 (Joseph. antiqq. 12, 2, 3; Acta apocr. p. 158,
159), 'Hxiov Luke i. 17; iv. 25, 'Hoaton Matt. iii. 3; xiii. 14; Acts 60
xxviii. 25 and elsewhere, 'Tepepiou Matt. ii. 17; xxvii. 9, Zaxapiou 7th ed.
Ζαχαρίου
Matt. xxiii. 35; Luke i. 40 and elsewhere, Avoavíov Luke iii. 1,
Bapaxíov Matt. xxiii. 35. So always in Joseph. 'Ovías, 'Ovíov; in
other places Twßiov (Geo. Syncell. chronogr. p. 164; but usually 58
Twẞía). See, in general, Geo. Choerobosci dictata in Theodosii 6th ed
canon. ed. Gaisford, I. p. 42.
2
·
Several names of places that might have been declined according to the
1st Decl. are indeclinable in the N. T.; as, Kavâ (Dat. Jno. ii. 1, 11; Acc.
iv. 46), Βηθσαϊδά, Βηθφαγή, Γολγοθά, Ῥαμᾶ Βηθαβαρα Juo. i. 28 would
Paµâ.
not come under this head, since Origen uses it as a Neut. Plur.; recent
editors have printed ἐν Βηθανία. Λύδδα is unquestionably infected as 74
feminine in Acts ix. 38 (Aúddŋs), on the other hand in vs. 32 and 35 Aúồda
as Neut. Acc. has respectable Codd. in its favor; cf. my RW. II. 30.
Words in apxos¹ commonly follow in the N. T. and later Greek the first
declension, and end in apxŋs;² as, πaτριάрɣns Heb. vii. 4, Plur. Acts vii. 8,
9, coll. 1 Chron. xxvii. 22, Teтpápyns Matt. xiv. 1; Luke iii. 19; ix. 7,
coll. Joseph. antiqq. 18, 7, 1, terpápɣai Euseb. H. E. 1, 7, 4; πoλiτáPXNS
Acts xvii. 6; ¿0vápxns 2 Cor. xi. 32, coll. 1 Macc. xiv. 47, évápxy 1 Macc.
xv. 1, 2, ¿0vápxnv Joseph. antiqq. 17, 11, 4, éÐvápɣas Euseb. Const. 1, 8;
ἀσιάρχης, hence ἀσιαρχῶν Acts xix. 31, and ἀσιάρχην Euseb. Η. Ε. 4, 15,
11 (Asiarcha, Cod. Theodos. 15, 92); Ékatovтápɣns Acts x. 1, 22; xxi. 32;
xxii. 26, coll. Joseph. b. j. 3, 6, 2, Ékatovтápɣn Acts xxiv. 23; xxvii. 31 ;
Matt. viii. 13 where, however, a few Codd. have Ekatovτápxw, just as in
Joseph. b. j. 2, 4. 3, ἑκατόνταρχον is found besides ἑκατοντάρχην. On the
other hand, ékaróvтapɣos occurs almost without var. in the following pas-
sages: Matt. viii. 5, 8; Luke vii. 6; Acts xxii. 25; (the Gen. Sing. Luke
vii. 2, and Plur. Acts xxiii. 23, the former with the same accent and the
latter with a circumflex on the last, may be cases of KaTovтápɣns also).
1 The MSS. even of ancient Greek authors vary, indeed, between apxos and apxns,
but later critics, in them, give the form apxos the preference; cf. Bornem. Xen. conv. 1, 4;
Poppo, Xen. Cyrop. 2, 1, 22, p. 109. This also corresponds best with the etymology
(from apxós). So Tómaрxos, Aeschyl. Choëph. 662. Tuμvaσiápxns, however, is un-
doubtedly the correct reading in Aeschin. Tim. ed. Bremi I. 23.
2 That this was the predominant termination in the Apostolic age appears further
from the circumstance that the Romans in rendering such words into Latin gave to
them this or a similar form, when they might just as well have chosen the form in archus.
Hence Tetrarches, Hirt. bell. Alex. c. 67; Liv. epitom. 94; Horat. serm. 1, 3, 12; Lucan.
7, 227; Alabarches, Cic. Attic. 2, 17; Juven. Satir. 1, 130; Toparcha, Spartian. in Ha-
drian. 13; Patriarcha, Tertull. de anim. c.7, 55, and elsewhere. Cf. Schäf. Demosth. II.
151. Byzantine authors still more fully attest the predominance of this form.
62
§ 8. RARE FORMS OF FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS.
Finally, for σтраτопedάрx? Acts xxviii. 16 (Const. Man. 4412, etc.) the
better Codd. havе σтратодedáрxw. Elsewhere, besides, in the Greek Bible
στρατοπεδάρχῳ·
and in authors of the first Christian centuries we find the following vouchers
61 for the form αρχης : γενεσιάρχης Wisd. xiii. 3, κωμάρχης Esth. ii. 3, κυπριάρχης
7th ed. 2 Macc. xii. 2, тоπáρxηs Gen. xli. 34; Dan. iii. 2, 3; vi. 7; Euseb. H. E.
1, 13, 3, Oiaσápуns Lucian. peregr. 11, μepápxns Arrian. Tact. p. 30, paλay-
γάρχης ibid. p. 30, εἰλάρχης ibid. p. 50, ἐλεφαντάρχης 2 Macc. xiv. 12;
3 Macc. v. 4, 45, åλaßápɣns Joseph. antiqq. 19, 5, 1, yevápɣns Lycophr. 1307;
59 Joseph. antiqq. 1, 13, 4, raέıάpyŋs Arrian. Al. 2, 16, 11; Euseb. Constant.
6th ed. 4, 63 (though ibid. 4, 51 and 68 also ragíapyos; see Heinichen, index p. 585),
ιλάρχης Arrian. Alex. 1, 12, 11, 2, 7, 5, συριάρχης Acta apocr. p. 52, νομάρχης
Papyr. Taur. p. 24, yeiтoviάpxns Boisson. Anecd. V. 73. To quote from
the Byzantine writers all the compounds of this kind would be endless;
examples occur in almost every page. Of other compounds the form in
apxos is exclusively used in the N. T.; as, xiλiapxos in all passages (22).
75 On the other hand see xiλiápɣys in Arrian. Al. 1, 22, 9; 7, 25, 11 (Ellendt,
Arrian. II. 267), besides in Sept. Ex. xviii. 11, 25; Deut. i. 15; Num. i. 16,
where we find also δεκάδαρχος (δεκαδάρχαι Arrian. Tact. p. 98). In the
Byzantines kévraрxos Cedren. 1, 705, 708, vuктétapɣos Leo Diac. 6, 2, must
αρχος
be considered as isolated instances.
Dialectic inflection in the 1st Decl. occurs in Acts x. 1; xxi. 31 ; xxvii. 1,
where we find the Ionic form σñeiρηs from σπeîρa, only in the first passage
with some var. in the Codd. (cf. Arrian. acies contra Alanos, pp. 99, 100,
102); and in good Codd. we find μaxaípns Rev. xiii. 14; Heb. xi. 34, 37,
and μaxaípy Rev. xiii. 10; Luke xxii. 49; Acts xii. 2 (cf. Ex. xv. 9) [like-
wise póрns Acts xxvii. 30 in A and Sin., which Lehm. has adopted]; cf.
also Σαπφείρῃ Acts v. 1 (Lehm. Σαπφείρα), and συνειδυίης ν. 2, according
to good Codd. See Mtth. I. 183.
2. In the Second Declension the following forms occur:
2. Απολλώ in Acc. Sing. for ᾿Απολλών from 'Απολλώς (Acts
xviii. 24) Acts xix. 1; 1 Cor. iv. 6 (the Gen. regularly 'Aπoλλó
1 Cor. iii. 4; xvi. 12); cf. Bttm. I. 155, 199. Good Codd. (Bttm.
I. 155; Krü. 45) have Acts xxi. 1 Tǹv Kô (1 Macc. xv. 23; Joseph.
antiqq. 14, 7, 2), where the usual form Tv Kav has but little
authority. However, together with Kos, Ka is found as indeclin-
able in Strabo 10, 489; cf. further, Duker, Thuc. 8, 41.
b. Not, as Dat. (after the 3d Decl.) of vous, 1 Cor. i. 10; xiv.
15; Rom. vii. 25; and voós as Gen. for voû, 1 Cor. xiv. 19. Greek
authors, instead of vot, usually employ vów, or contr. v. Not
occurs besides only in Simplic. ad Aristot. phys. 31, 25; Philo I.
63 (Bekker, Anecd. III. p. 1196), the Byzantines (e.g. Malalas, see
index in Bonn ed. Theophan. 28), and the Fathers; see Lob.
Phryn. 453; Boissonade, Marin. p. 93 sq. Likewise λoós Acts
§ 8. RARE FORMS OF FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS. 63
xxvii. 9, as Gen. (for πλoû), as in Arrian. peripl. p. 176; Malalas,
5, p. 94; Cinnam. p. 86; cf. Lob. as above.
c. The Vocative Océ Matt. xxvii. 46 without var. (Judg. xxi. 3;
Wisd. ix. 1; Acta Thom. 25, 45, 57; Tipó0ee 1 Tim. i. 18; vi. 20),
of which scarcely an instance is to be found in Greek authors; cf.
Bttm. I. 151. Even the Sept. has usually Voc. Oeós.
d. We find the Plur. of oσTéov without contraction boréa Luke 62
xxiv. 39, and oσTéov Matt. xxiii. 27; Heb. xi. 22, and elsewhere. 7th ed.
The latter, however, occurs not very unfrequently in Greek prose:
Lucian. necyom. 15; Plat. Locr. 102 d. (cf. besides, Eurip. Orest.
404; Troad. 1177). 'Ooréa is more rare; cf. Plat. Locr. 100 b. ;
Aristot. anim. 3, 7; Menand. ed. Meineke, p. 196.
As Metaplasms we must notice:
1. O deoμós Plur. rà deoμá Luke viii. 29; Acts xvi. 26; xx. 23, only 60
once oi deoμoí Phil. i. 13, everywhere without var. In Greek authors, 6th ed
too, deoμoí is more rare than Seoµá Thom. Mag. p. 204 (Bttm. I. 210; cf. 76
Kühnöl, ad Act. p. 558).
2. From oáßßarov we find only Gen. Sing. and Plur. and Dat. Sing.,
but the Dat. Plur. σáßßaoɩ (which occurs also in Meleag. 83, 4) comes,
according to Passow, from a Sing. σáßßar, Gen. σáßßaros.
3. The Masc. σîros has in the Plur. (besides oîтoɩ) σîra Acts vii. 12 var.,
as often in Greek writers. (A Sing. σîrov was never in use; see Schäf.
Soph. Elect. 1366.) The best Codd., however, [Sin. also] give in Acts
vii. 12 orría, which has now been received into the text.
In regard to gender be it observed:
1. λuós in Luke xv. 14; Acts xi. 28, according to some good Codd.
(also according to a very few authorities in Luke iv. 25), is construed as
Fem., agreeably to the Doric dialect (Lob. 188); cf. Malalas 3, p. 60.
See Bornem. ad Acta, as above.
2. Báros is Masc. in Mark xii. 26 (though not without var.), and Fem.
in Luke xx. 37; Acts vii. 35, (Fr. Mr. p. 532). Compare in general,
Lob. paralip. 174 sq. ( nλós Const. Man. 2239, 2764, etc.).
1
3. Instead of ỏ vôros, the later form, some Codd. in Rom. xi. 10 have TÒ
vŵTov, the form used by the earlier writers; see Fr. on the
passage.
1 We find in the Sept. the Dat. Plur. also of this form, σaßßáTois 1 Chron. xxiii. 31 ;
2 Chron. ii. 4; viii. 13; Ezek. xlvi. 3, as well as in Joseph. antt. 16, 6, 4, together with
σáßßaσı. In the N. T. it occasionally appears among the var. as in Matt. xii. 1, 12,
according to good Codd.
64
§ 9. RARE FORMS OF THE THIRD DECLENSION.
77
§ 9. RARE FORMS OF THE THIRD DECLENSION.
Among these belong, 1. In the Singular:
a. The Genitive huíoous Mark vi. 23, from the Neut. ulov (used
as a substantive), instead of the usual form μloeos; cf. Dio Chr.
7,99; Schwartz, comment. p. 652; Bttm. I. 191.
b. The Dative γήρει (Ionic), for γήρεϊ Lukei. 36 (as οὔδει from
ovdos in Homer), for which the text. recept. has yýpa; cf. Ps.
xci. 15; Sir. viii. 6; Theophan. p. 36, and the Fathers, e.g. Theo-
doret. in Ps. cxix. (ed. Hal. I. 1393); Fabric. Pseudepigr. II. 630,
747; Boissonade, Anecd. III. 19.
c. The Accusative vyŷ Jno. v. 11, 15; Tit. ii. 8 (Lev. xiii. 15.).
The Attic authors use another contraction, iyiâ, but the former
occurs also in Plat. Phaed. 89 d., and similar forms in other passages
(Mtth. I. 288).
d. 'Aρréμwv, Acts xxvii. 40, has, according to A [Sin.] and sev-
eral other Codd., ȧpréµwva, which Lehm. has adopted (cf. yλŃxwvi
63 Homer. Cerer. 209), as also Lob. Soph. Ai. p. 171, in preference
7th ed. to the usual form ȧpréμova: appellativi declinatio sine dubio eadem
quae proprii (Anacr. fragm. 27, and Fischer's note).
61
6th ed.
2. In the Plural:
a. The Accusative in eûs (instead of éas) from Nom. Sing. in eus,
e.g. yoveîs, Matt. x. 21; Luke ii. 27; ypaµµaтeîs, Matt. xxiii. 34,
etc. So also in Attic writers; e.g. Xen. (see Poppo, Cyrop. p. 32
sq.; Weber, Dem. p. 492 and 513), though the Atticists reject it;
see Mtth. I. 235.
b. The Dative of the Numeral Svoív (Thom. M. 253), Matt.
xxii. 40; Luke xvi. 13; Acts xii. 6, follows wholly the analogy
of the 3d Decl. It occurs also in Thuc. 8, 101 (dvoìv nµépais),
in Plutarch, Aristotle, Hippocrates, and others, instead of the
usual Svoîv; see Lob. 210 sq.; Bttm. I. 276. In the Genitive, dúo
is always indeclinable; Matt. xx. 24; xxi. 31; Jno. i. 41; 1 Tim.
v. 19, etc., as sometimes in Greek authors, e.g. Lucian. dial. mort.
4, 1; Aesop. 145, 1. (Mtth. I. 337).
c. As uncontracted forms appear-contrary to the general
usage-ópéwv Rev. vi. 15 (Ezek. xi. 10; 1.Kings xx. 28; Isa.
xiii. 4, etc.), and xeλéwv Heb. xiii. 15 (Prov. xii. 14; xxxi. 31;
Wisd. i. 6; Ecclus. xxii. 27, etc.), the other cases being declined
regularly. Such genitives, however, are not unfrequent even in
Greek prose; cf. Georgi, Hierocr. I. 145; Poppo, Xen. C. p. 213;
"
§ 9. RARE FORMS OF THE THIRD DECLENSION.
65
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. 2, 1. As to the poets, see Ellendt, Lexic.
Soph. II. pp. x. xii.
d. The contraction of the Neut. ýµíon Luke xix. 8 (as a sub-
stantive, cf. Theophr. ch. 11), to which applies what we have said
above of ἡμίσους. The usual form is ἡμίσεα (which is the reading
here in some Codd.; Tdf., however, has nµíoca from B L [Sin.],
cf. Bttm. I. 248); cf. Fischer, prol. p. 667; Bttm. I. 191.
e. The contracted Gen. xv Jno. xxi. 8; Rev. xxi. 17, in-
stead of πnxéwv (as the Cod. Al. has in the first passage [and Cod.
Sin. in the last]). Inxov is a later form (see Lob. p. 246), yet
it occurs in Xen. An. 4, 7, 16, and frequently in Plutarch.
From κλeis we have the more common form κλeîda Luke xi. 52 and in
a few Codd. Rev. iii. 7; xx. 1 (frequently in Sept. Judg. iii. 25; Isa. xxii. 22)
for (the Attic) Kλev (Thom. M. p. 536; Lob. 460). Yet in the Plur.
Kλeîdas, Matt. xvi. 19, has more authority than κλeîs, which, on the other
hand, in Rev. i. 18 is the best attested reading. Just so epides 1 Cor. i. 11
and pets (as Nom. and Acc.) 2 Cor. xii. 20, occur; in Gal. v. 20, however,
the correct reading is probably epis. Kpéas has the regular Plur. contrac- 78
tion (Bttm. I. 196), kpéa, Rom. xiv. 21 ; 1 Cor. vii. 13 (Exod. xvi. 8, 12),
as in Xen. C. 1, 3, 6; 2, 2, 2. On the other hand, képas has κépara Rev.
v. 6; xiii. 1, 11; xvii. 12 (Amos iii. 14), Kepáτwv Rev. ix. 13; xiii. 1 (1 Kings
i. 50; ii. 29), and never the contracted κépa, кeрwν (Bttm. I. as above;
Bekker, Anecd. III. p. 1001). Lastly, répas has always répara Matt.
xxiv. 24; Acts ii. 43; v. 12; Jno. iv. 48; Teρáтwv, Rom. xv. 19, instead
of répa, repŵv, the forms which pass for Attic; see Moeris, p. 339; Bttm.
as above.
Note 1. In 1 Thess. v. 3 (Isa. xxxvii. 3) we find wdív for wdís, Nom. 64
Sing. of ¿dîves, like deλpív in later writers not unfrequent, see Bttm. I. 162 7th ed.
(cf. also kλedív Const. Porph. 14, 208).
Note 2. In several passages in good MSS. Aoûros, contrary to general
usage, is used as Neuter, Eph. ii. 7; iii. 8, 16; Phil. iv. 19; Col. ii. 2
(Acta apocr. p. 76), a peculiarity probably originating in the language of
the people, as the modern Greeks use indiscriminately both rò πλoûтos and
¿ πλοûτos, see Coray, Plutarch. vit. II. p. 58; Isocr. II. 103, 106. In the
same way we find rò ¿ŷλos 2 Cor. ix. 2 in Codd. B [and Sin.]; Phil. iii. 6
in A B [Sin.] (Clem. ep. p. 17 Ittig.) and perhaps rò xos Luke xxi. 25,
(if the Gen. be accented xovs, as it is by Lehm.), according to good Codd., 62
as Malal. p. 121, 436. Compare in later writers, Tò kλádos Theophan. 6th ed.
contin. ed. Bekker, p. 222; see, in general, Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p.
106. On the other hand, we find in later writers & Seînvos Luke xiv. 16
B D; see Hase, ad Leon. Diac. p. 239; Schäf. ind. Aesop. pp. 128, 163;
Boisson. Herod. Epim. p. 22, and Anecd. I. 51; and ô reîxos Ducas p. 266
Bonn.; Acta apocr. p. 84. The heteroclite oкóтOS (Poppo, Thuc. I. 225)
9
66
§ 10. FOREIGN AND INDECLINABLE WORDS.
is found only once as Masc. (Heb. xii. 18 σkóty, but not certain), else
always Neut. (okóTOUS, σkóteɩ) without a single var. noted. As to λeos,
which the Sept. sometimes use as Masc. (so too Philo I. 284), in N. T.
MSS. the Neut. predominates (var. only Matt. ix. 13; xii. 7; xxiii. 23;
Tit. iii. 5; Heb. iv. 16). áuẞos has, Acts iii. 10, Gen. Oáußov in C.
î
Note 3. The MSS. have several instances of v subjoined to the Acc.
Sing. in a or (λπídav, σvyyevv, cf. Sturz, dial. alex. p. 127; Lob. paralip.
p. 142), as Matt. ii. 10 åσrépav, Codd. [Sin and] Ephr. Jno. xx. 25, xeîpav
Cod. Alex., and in same Cod. Rev. xii. 13 apσevav, xiii. 14 eikóvav, xxii. 2
µîvav, Acts xiv. 12 Aíav according to several Codd., and Rom. xvi. 11
ovyyev, Heb. vi. 19 dopaλv (this also in Codd. Ephr. and Cantab.); Rev.
i. 13 πоdýрηv. Likewise in the Byzantine writers we find similar forms.
ποδήρην.
(see Index to Leo Grammat. p. 532; Boisson. anecd. V. 102), as also in
the Apocr. (Tdf. de evang. apocr. p. 137), and in Rev. Lchm. has received
into the text the forms quoted above. This subjoined v is probably not
to be considered, with Ross, as an original termination (transmitted in the
popular speech), but as an arbitrary extension of the v usual in the Acc.
of many sorts of words (Mtth. 208), Lob. paralip. as above. In adjectives
of two terminations in ŋs, this form is said to be Aeolic, Mtth. 289. More-
over, see also Bornem. on Acts as above.
ν
79 § 10. FOREIGN WORDS AND WORDS WHICH ARE INDECLINABLE.
1. In the case of certain Hellenized Oriental names the Sept.
and the N. T. writers have introduced a simple mode of inflection,
65 according to which the Gen., Dat., and Voc. coincide for the most
7th ed. part in one and the same form, and the Acc. is designated by v.
To this class of nouns belong the following: 'Inooûs, Gen. 'Inσoû
Matt. xxvi. 69, Dat. 'Iŋooû Matt. xxvi. 17,¹ Voc. 'Inooû Mark
i. 24, Acc. 'Inooûv Matt. xxvi. 4; Acts xx. 21. Aevt or Aevi's
(Luke v. 29), Acc. Aevtv Mark ii. 14. 'Iwons Gen. 'Iwon Matt.
xxvii. 56; Luke iii. 29, etc. (but B D and L have everywhere in
Mark 'Iwσŷτos), Bttm. I. 199. Like 'Inσoûs is declined the Egyp-
tian name eapons (Plat. Phaed. 274 d.) Mtth. I. 198. The word
Μωσής (Μωϋσῆς) is declined in two ways. The Gen. (also in the
63 Greek Fathers and Byzant. authors) is invariably Mwoéws (cf.
6th ed. Diod. S. Ecl. 34, p. 194, Lips.). As to the Dat., however, even
good Codd. vary between Mwσeî (also in Euseb. and Theophan.)
and Moon, cf. Matt. xvii. 4; Mark ix. 5; Luke ix. 33; Jno. v. 46;
ix. 29; Acts vii. 44; Rom. ix. 15; 2 Tim. iii. 8. The Acc. is
1 Along with these forms, the Codd. of the Sept. often have for the Dat. (Deut. iii.
21, 28; xxxi. 23) and even for the Gen. (Exod. xvii. 14) the form 'Iŋooî.
§ 10. FOREIGN AND INDECLINABLE WORDS.
67
Moonv, Acts vi. 11; vii. 35; 1 Cor. x. 2; Heb. iii. 3 (Diod. S. 1,
94); only Luke xvi. 29 has without var. Mwoéa (as Euseb. H. E.
1, 3, and often in Clem. Alex., Geo. Syncell., Glycas, etc.). All
these forms, with the exception of Mwoéws, may be derived un-
hesitatingly from Nom. Moons (see the analogies Bttm. I. 198,
210, 221). For Mwoéws, a Nom. Mooeús has been demanded;
but it does not occur, and after all it is not necessary, since "Apms
also has sometimes Gen. "Apews (Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. I. 224).
Outside of the N. T. the Gen. Moon is also found in LXX. and
Geo. Phrantz., and Mwooû in Bauer, glossar. Theodoret. p. 269.
Moon occurs as Voc. in Exod. iii. 4.
Μανασσῆ in Matt. i. 10
has Acc. Μανασσή, according to others Μανασσῆν.
The name of Solomon in text. rec. is declined Zoλopûvra Matt. i. 6,
Zoloμŵvros Matt. xii. 42; Luke xi. 31; Jno. x. 23; Acts iii. 11; v. 12
(like Ξενοφῶν, Ξενοφῶντος). But the better MSS. have Σολομῶνος, Σολα
µŵva, see Wetsten. I. 228; and this, being according to analogy and also
the received form in Joseph. ed. Havercamp, deserves probably to be
admitted into the text, since the termination ŵv, ŵvros implies derivation
from a participle (Bttm. I. 169; Lob. paralip. 347). But then we must
write in the Nom. (not Zoλopov, as Lchm. even has printed, but) Zooμúr 80
agreeably to the better authorities,¹ like Baßvλúv, etc. (cf. also Pappelb.
Cod. Diez. p. 9). Ποσειδῶν (Ποσειδώνος), being contracted from Ποσειδάων,
is not analogous. In the Sept. Zoλouúv is indeclinable; see 1 Kings iv.
7, 29; v. 12, 15, 16; vi. 18, and elsewhere.
7th ed.
2. Many Hebrew proper names which might have been inflected
according to the 3d Decl. are used in the Sept. and in the N. T.
as indeclinable; e.g. 'Aapóv Gen., Heb. vii. 11; ix. 4; Dat., Exod. 66
vii. 9; Acts vii. 40; Acc., Exod. vii. 8; cf. in particular Matt. i.
and Luke iii. 23 sqq.; besides Evμeóv Luke iii. 30, Zaλuv Luke
iii. 32, Kedpóv Jno. xviii. 1 var. So 'Iepix@, Gen. Deut. xxxii. 49;
Matt. xx. 29; Heb. xi. 30; Acc., Luke x. 30; xviii. 35 (Glyc.
p. 304).2 Iepovoaλnu, for which, however, in Matt. Mark and
Jno. the Grecized form 'Iepoσóλuua might on the authority of MSS.
be preferred, which is regularly declined as Neut., Matt. iv. 25; 64
Mark iii. 8; Luke xxiii. 7; Jno. ii. 23. It is Feminine only in 6th ed.
1 In Glycas Bekker has had printed, even in the new edition, Zoλoμŵvros, Zoλoµŵpta,
but for the Nom. Σολομών.
2 Elsewhere, on the other hand, we find a twofold mode of declining the word: a.
Gen. 'Iepixou 3 Esr. v. 44, Dat. 'Iepix Procop. de aedif. 5, 9; Theodoret. V. p. 81,
Hal., or 'Tepixoî Joseph. b. j. 1, 21, 4. Suid. under 'piyevýs; and b from 'Iepuroûs
(Ptol: 5, 16, 7), Gen. 'IepiкoûνTOS Strabo 16, 763, Acc. 'Iepuоûνта 16, 760, and usually
in Josephus.
68
§ 11. INFLECTION AND COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES.
1
Matt. ii. 3 (iii. 5?). The Sept. has only the form 'Iepovoaλýμ ;
Joseph., on the contrary, Iepoσóλvµa. Tò Táoxa, Luke ii. 41;
Juo. ii. 23; as in Sept. So also (Tò) σikepa Luke i. 15, and in
Sept. Lev. x. 9; Num. vi. 3; Isa. xxiv. 9, etc. (Euseb. praep. ev.
6, 10, has Gen. oikepos).2 The Hebrew Plural termination occurs
only in Heb. ix. 5, Xepovßíµ; this word, however, as in the Sept.,
is construed as Neut. (Gen. iii. 24; 1 Kings viii. 7; Ezek. x. 3,
etc.) like πνεύματα.
Also in Rev. i. 4 a whole phrase (the Greek equivalent for ) is
treated as indeclinable: ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, perhaps with
design (as the name of the immutable One) like ev, µnév, etc. in Greek
philosophical writings, even in Aristot. e.g. polit. 5, 3; Procl. theol. Plat.
2. ed. Hoeschel μetà toû év, xwpìs toû ev (Stollberg, de soloecis. N. T. p. 14
sqq.). On the other hand, in Creuzer's edition of the writings of Proclus
we find invariably ἐκ τοῦ ἑνός, ἐν τῷ ἑνί. Cf. also τὸν ὁ δεῖνα, Schäf.
Demosth. III. 282.
81
7th ed.
§ 11. INFLECTION AND COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES.
1. Adjectives of three terminations, particularly those in cos,
μlos, elos, alos, are not unfrequently (especially in Attic authors)
used as adjectives of only two terminations (Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl.
p. 77, Lips.; Monk, Eurip. Hippol. p. 56, and Eurip. Alcest. 126,
67 548,1043; Mtth. 295 ff.). In the N. T. we find Luke ii. 13 OTρaTià
ovpávios, Acts xxvi. 19, kóσμos 1 Tim. ii. 9; also Rev. iv. 3 îpıs
(Fem.) κυκλόθεν τοῦ θρόνου ὅμοιος (the best established reading)
oµapaydivw, etc.; see my exeget. Stud. I. 152. On the other hand,
in 1 Tim. ii. 8 óolovs xeipas (for óolas, which some Codd. in fact
have), ὁσίους may possibly be construed with ἐπαίροντας, though
that is not necessary (Fr. Rom. III. 16). Cf. also Tit. iii. 9 µáraιoi
referring to a Fem. subst., and Jas. i. 26 µáraios ǹ Opnσkeía.
On the other hand, later Greek has used adjectives of two termi-
nations as adjectives of three terminations; as, apyós Lob. p. 105,
1 So also in the Fathers; see Suicer, thes. II. 607 sqq.; Epiphan. haer. II. 19 gives
inflection even to the Plur. rà TÁOXα.
2 Most of these names are declined in Josephus, who generally, in conformity to the
genius of the Greek language, gives terminations to almost all proper names (of persons),
and consequently declines them; e.g. "Adauos, 'Iσµaîλos, Nŵxos, "Iσakos, and others.
The instances of undeclined foreign names, which Georgi, Hierocr. I. 138, produces from
Plato and Pausan., are partly not to the point, and partly prove nothing against the
tendency to inflection. Even Ptolem., besides the large number of declined names of
places, used some as indeclinable; Nobbe, schedae Ptolem. I. (Lips. 1841. 8vo.) p. 23 sq.
§ 11. INFLECTION AND COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES.
69
and paralip. p. 455 sqq., cf. Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. p. 242. Yet
this occurs in a quotation from Epimenides Tit. i. 12. Zvyyevýs,
és, forms a special feminine σvyyevis (substant.) Luke i. 36, which
on the authority of good Codd. Lehm. has adopted, Lob. Phryn.
451 sq. Cf. Malal. pp. 95, 96.
Alúvios has in the N. T. usually but two terminations; but in 2 Thess. 65
ii. 16; Heb. ix. 12 aiwvíav occurs in the text, and in the latter passage 6th ed.
without var.; also, according to some Codd., in 2 Pet. i. 11; Acts xiii. 48;
cf. Num. xxv. 13, Plat. Tim. 38 b. Beßaía Rom. iv. 16, etc., which the
fastidious Thom. M. 149 declares to be corrupt, is found in Isocr., Demosth.
(Weber, Dem. p. 133), Xenoph., etc., cf. Duker, Thuc. 2, 43. "Epquos,
which even in Attic varies (cf. Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. p. 262; Mtth. 306),
in the N. T. always has two terminations. As to dopaλŋv Heb. vi. 19,
i.e. dopalny [so too Lchm. in his stereotype ed., while in his larger ed. he
writes dopaλýv] see § 9. note 3, p. 66.
The N. T. Lexicons [Grimm, however, has it correctly] give youos as
an adjective of two terminations (Phil. iv. 3?) without sufficient reason,
since the Fem. in the form yvotos cannot be shown to occur.
2. On the Comparison of adjectives we have only to observe,
a. The Compar. Neut. of Taxús is тáxcov (Juo. xx. 4; 1 Tim.
iii. 14; Heb. xiii. 19, 23, etc.), for which in earlier Greek Oâσσov,
and in Attic OâTтov, was usual. Táxiov occurs regularly in Diod.
S., Dion. H., Plutarch and others, Lob. p. 77; Meineke, Menandr.
p. 144; cf. also 1 Macc. ii. 40; Wisd. xiii. 9.
b. In 3 Jno. 4 we find a double Comparative μegóτepos, and in
Eph. iii. 8 a Compar. formed from the Superlative èλaxioтóтepos 82
(cf. EXAXIOTÓTATOs Sext. Emp. 9, 406, and in Latin, minimissimus,
pessimissimus). Such forms belong specially to the diction of
poetry (Apoll. Rhod. 2, 368, pecóтepos), or to the later language
which sought thus to strengthen the Comparative that had become
weak to the popular mind; cf. KрELттÓTEроs Ducas 27, 29, 37,
μerovóтepos ibid. c. 27, and Malal. 18, p. 490, μeilóтepos Constant.
Porph. III. 257, Tλetóтepos Theophan. p. 567. Yet some such
instances are found even in earlier authors (see Wetst. II. 247),
though, as in the case of eoxaráтepos Aristot. Metaph. 10, 4, not 68
as already existing and current, but as arbitrary formations: see 7th ed.
Bttm. I. 274 f., Lob. Phryn. p. 136. In German compare the form
mehrere from mehr.
c. The Comparatives Kaτάτeρos Eph. iv. 9, áváτepos Luke xiv. 10,
èσwτepos Acts xvi. 24, from the adverbs káτw, ävw, eow, are ground-
lessly questioned by Bttm. I. 271. They are the undoubted read-
70
§ 12. AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION
ings in the N. T. and Sept., and not only occur frequently in later.
authors, as Leo Diac. 10, 1, but even in Attic, Mtth. 328.
On the form of the Comp. of other Adverbs derived from Adjec-
tives, as Teploσотéρws 2 Cor. i. 12; Gal. i. 14; Phil. ii. 28, etc.,
which is not unknown to classic Greek writers, see Bttm. II. 345;
Elmsley, Eurip. Herac. p. 100 Lips.
The Positive peμos 1 Tim. ii. 2 is not found in earlier Greek (Bttm.
I. 271, II. 343); Lob. pathol. p. 158 has shown that it occurs in Inscript.
Olbiopol. 2059, 24.
§ 12. AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION OF REGULAR VERBS.
1. A temporal Augment instead of the syllabic occurs,
a. In the Imperfect μeλλe Jno. iv. 47; xi. 51; xii. 33; xviii.
32; Luke x. 1; Acts xvi. 27; xxvii. 33; Rev. x. 4, with decided
preponderance of authority. On the contrary, eueλλe in Luke
66 ix. 31; Jno. vi. 71; Heb. xi. 8, is better attested. See in general
6th ed Böckh, Plat. Men. p. 148 sq.
b. In the Imperfect dúvaro Matt. xxvi. 9; Mark vi. 5, 19; xiv.
5; Jno. ix. 33; xi. 37; Luke viii. 19; xix. 3, with preponderance
of authority; there is good evidence on the other hand for édúvato
Luke i. 22; Acts xxvi. 32, and Rev. xiv. 3, and édúvacle 1 Cor.
83 iii. 2. The Aorist dvvýŋv is fully established in Matt. xvii. 16, 19;
Mark ix. 28; Luke ix. 40; 1 Cor. iii. 1. See on these current
Attic forms Georgi, Hierocr. I. p. 32; Bttm. I. 317; Jacobs, Achill.
Tat. p. 554; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. II. p. 208; Boisson. Aen. Gaz.
p. 173, and Anecd. V. p. 19; cf. Bornem. Act. p. 278.
c. But neither ýßovλóµŋv Acts xv. 37; xxviii. 18 nor ǹßovλýðŋu
2 Jno. 12 (Mtth. 375) is sufficiently attested; see Bornem. Act. 233.
2. The syllabic Augment in a verb beginning with a vowel oc-
curs, Jno. xix. 32 f. kaтéağav 1st Aor. from кaтáyvvμi (cf. Thom.
M. 498), and even in the other Moods, as kaтeaywσi Jno. xix. 31,
Btt. II. 97; ef. Thuc. 3, 89; Aristot. anim. 9, 43 ; Plat. Cratyl.
389 b. and c.¹ Also Fut. Kareάęw Matt. xii. 20 and Sept., to dis
tinguish it from the Fut. of the verb Karáуw. On the other hand,
instead of ewvnoάunu, in which verb the syllabic Augment is most
usual in Greek authors, we find Acts vii. 16 wvnoáμnv, as some-
times in classic Greek (Lob. 139); and for woa, éwoáµnv Acts
1 In Cinnam. p. 190, we find besides an unusual form of the Perfect, kaтeάynke.
OF REGULAR VERBS.
71
vii. 27, 39, 45, woa, woáµinv, see § 15. Cf. similar instances in
Poppo, Thuc. III. II. p. 407; Index to Leo Gramm. p. 533.
3. In verbs beginning with ev we find
a. Unaugmented eúdóŋσa preponderating, only in Matt. xvii. 5; 69
1 Cor. x. 5; Col. i. 19; Heb. x. 6, 8 is ŋúdóknσa favored by the 7th ed
Codd. Also εὐλόγησα predominant over ηὐλόγησα (Matt. xiv. 19;
Luke xxiv. 30; Heb. xi. 20, 21). Likewise Perf. evλóуnkev Heb.
vii. 6; εὔχοντο Acts xxvii. 29, εὐχαρίστησε Acts xxvii. 35, εὐπορεῖτο
Acts xi. 29; evρíσrew decidedly (only Mark xiv. 55 is ŋúpíσkOV
supported by good Codd.; further, cf. Acts vii. 46; Luke xix. 48),
cf. Lob. p. 140, and Soph. Ai. p. 123; Hm. Eurip. Bacch. p. 11;
Boisson. Philostr. epp. p. 75. Even in Attic the Augm. is defended
by Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 191, and it occurs frequently in the Apocr.
(Evang. Nicod. c. 20) and the Fathers.
b. With Augm. nixóμŋv preponderating Rom. ix. 3 (without
Augm. see Xen. Anab. 4, 8, 25; Cyrop. 3, 2, 15, yet not without
var.), nixapíornoav Rom. i. 21, núþópnoev Luke xii. 16 (doubt-
ful), nikaiρovv Mark vi. 31 (on the other hand Acts xvii. 21
doubtful), núþpávon Acts ii. 26 (from Sept.). Cf. generally Bttm.
I. 321; Poppo, Thuc. I. 227, also Lehm. Lucian II. p. 456. Evay-
yeλl. has the Augm. after ev, and that without var. Acts viii. 35,
40; xvii. 18; 1 Cor. xv. 1; Gal. iv. 13; Rev. x. 7, etc. (see Lob.
p. 269), even προευηγγελίσατο Gal. iii. 8. So also εὐαρεστεῖν Heb.
xi. 5 (yet Cod. A and several others, without Augm.). Of πроs- 84
Eúxeo@aι the forms nearly always have Augm. without var., as
πρоsnúğaтo Matt. xxvi. 44, πposnúxeTo Mark i. 35; Acts viii. 15;
Luke xxii. 41, etc.
4. The only verb beginning with or which occurs in past tenses,
oikodoμeiv, has, not indeed without var., but on vastly prepondera-
ting authority, the regular Augment; as, akodóµnce Matt. vii. 24; 67
xxi. 33, ᾠκοδόμητο Luke iv. 29, ᾠκοδόμουν Luke xvii. 28, ᾠκοδομήθη ih ed
Jno. ii. 20. Only in Acts vii. 47, good Codd. have olkodóμnoe, on
which later form see Lob. 153.
5. IIρоpητeveɩv has in Jude 14 with preponderating authority
the Augment after the preposition, as usual (Bttm. I. 335); but
the better Codd. give elsewhere forms like épopńτevσav Matt. xi.
13, ἐπροφητεύσαμεν Matt. vii. 22, επροφήτευσε Matt. xv. 7; Mark
vii. 6; Luke i. 67; Jno. xi. 51, èπроþýτevov Acts xix. 6. Schulz
ad Matt. vii. 22, advised that the latter should be everywhere re-
ceived into the text, and this Lehm. and Tdf. have done. In
later writers the Augment is often put before the preposition; as,
72
§ 12. AUGMENT AND REDUPLICATION
ἐπρόςθηκεν, ἐσυμβούλευον (see Index to Ducas, to Jo. Cananus and
others, in the Bonn ed.), kaτýXOUD Epiphan. Mon. 33, 16.¹ In
πρоÓητeúει, however, this is less surprising, as there was no sim-
ple onтeúew; cf. Num. xi. 25 f; Sir. xlviii. 13.
6. The Augment of the form εἴληφα (for the unusual λέληφα,
Bttm. I. 316), is transferred also to the 1st Aor., Kaтeiλńpen for
Kateλýþeŋ Jno. viii. 4, not without var. (see Maittaire, dialectt.
ed. Sturz, p. 58); traces of this already existed in Ionism.
7. A double Augment occurs,
a. In ȧTEKαTEσTáoŋ Matt. xii. 13; Mark iii. 5; Luke vi. 10, now
70 properly in the text (cf. Lucian, Philopat. c. 27 åπekatéotηOE,
7th ed. Ducas 29 атекатéσтησаv, Theophan. p. 374 ȧπекатéσтη, Cinnam.
p. 259 ȧvтekatéσTηv; see Dindorf, Diod. S. p. 539, and Schäf.
Plutarch. V. p. 198).2
85
p.
b. In cuŞev Juo. ix. 14, 30, avexen Luke i. 64 (Bttm. II. 250),
once even in Aor. Inf. ave@xoñvat Luke iii. 21. Good Codd. give,
further, many other forms in this verb, viz. votčev Rev. xii. 16
etc., voix@noav Rev. xx. 12, voiynu Acts xii. 10; Rev. xi. 19;
xv. 5, as in Sept. and later writers (Bttm. as above 251; Lob.
153), and with a threefold augment, Matt. ix. 30 vexnoav; Jno.
ix. 10; Acts xvi. 26; Acts ix. 8; Rev. xix. 11 vewyμévov (Nicet.
Eugen. 2, 84, 128, var.); var. Jno. ix. 14; Rev. xx. 12 (Gen.
vii. 11; viii. 6; Dan. vii. 10; 3 Macc. vi. 18). Cf. Thilo, Apocr.
I. 669.
c. In veixeole 2 Cor. xi. 1, 4, text. rec. (cf. Thuc. 5, 45, Herodi.
8, 5, 9) and ýveoxóµnv, for åveox. Acts xviii. 14 (cf. Her. 7, 159;
Thuc. 3, 28) exactly as in Greek writers, who in these forms
hardly admit the single Augm. (Bttm. II. 189); yet in 2 Cor. the
better Codd. have ἀνείχεσθε.
8. Εργάζομαι has, according to Codd., several times ἠργάσατο
for eipyúσaro Matt. xxv. 16; xxvi. 10; Mark xiv. 6; Luke xix. 16;
Acts xviii. 3 (Exod. xxxvi. 4). The same form occurs also in a
good MS. of Demosth. (Schäf. appar. V. p. 553); cf. Sturz, p. 125.
On the other hand, good Codd. (Lehm. and Tdf.) have from έXKOûv
in Luke xvi. 20, eiλkwµévos; cf. also Clem. Al. p. 348 Sylb.
9. The Augm. is for the most part entirely omitted in the forms
of the Pluperf.; as, Mark xiv. 44 Sedákel (xv. 10; Jno. xi. 57),
1 Epiphanii Mon. edita et inedita cura A. Dressel. Paris, 1843. 8vo.
2
Compare also προεφήτευον Leo Gramm. pp. 33, 35, and 36, ἐκατεσκεύασαν Canan.
462, éσvveμapтúρouv ibid. 478, howρioral Theophan. 112, éπpoéтaşa Theodor. Gramm.
40, 8. As to the Attic Authors, see V. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 55.
OF REGULAR VERBS.
73
6th ed.
Mark xv. 7 Tеπońкelσav (xvi. 9 ékßeßλýкei), Luke vi. 48 [var.; 68
Matt. vii. 25] τεθεμελίωτο, 1 Jno. ii. 19 μεμενήκεισαν, Acts xiv. 8
περιπεπατήκει (see Valcken. on the passage), vs. 23 πεπιστεύκεισαν.
In consistency, these forms are to be preferred in the N. T. text.
Ionic prose authors also (Her. 1, 122. 3, 42. 9, 22) and Attic (e.g.
Plato) drop the Augm. in the Pluperf. often, especially in forms
that would offend the ear (Bttm. I. 318), particularly in compounds
(cf. Acts xiv. 8); (see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 179; Poppo, Thuc. I.
p. 228; Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 272; Jacob, Lucian. Tox. p. 68;
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. pp. 265, 284); cf. Thuc. 8, 92; Xen. C.
3, 2, 24. As to the later writers see especially the Index to Joa.
Cinnam. Bonn ed.
10. The reduplication after the analogy of péµvnμai (Bttm. I.
315) appears in μvnoτeveσdaι Luke i. 27; ii. 5 µeµvnotevμévn, not,
however, without the opposition of good Codd. Cf. Sept. Deut.
xx. 7; xxii. 23 sqq. On peрavтioμévoi Heb. x. 22, see § 13, 1. b.
In the best Codd. the Aor. of the compound èraшxivoμai 2 Tim. i. 16,
is formed without the temp. Aug. éπawɣúvớŋ, and recent editors have ad-
mitted it into the text. So also Luke xiii. 13, åvoplúlŋ.
§ 13. RARE FORMS IN THE TENSES AND PERSONS OF REGULAR
VERBS.
1. a. Tenses which in other respects follow completely the 71
analogy of the 2d Aor., have in the Sept. the termination a and 7th ed.
so forth (of the 1st Aor.) (see Sturz, dial. Alex. p. 61; Valckenaer,
Herod. p. 649, 91; Dorville, Charit. p. 402; Wolf, Demosth. Lept. 86
p. 216), e.g. éïdaμev 1 Sam. x. 14, eîdav and epʊyav 2 Sam. x. 14,
εὗραν xvii. 20, ἐφάγαμεν xix. 42, ἐλθάτω Esth. v. 4 (Pror. ix. 5 ;
Amos vi. 2; 2 Chron. xxix. 17), etc. In the N. T. modern editors
have restored this form, agreeably to the concurrent testimony of
the best Codd.¹: Matt. xxv. 36 ½λbate, è§ýλoare, Matt. xxvi. 39
παρελθάτω, 2 Thess. ii. 13 εἵλατο, Acts vii. 10; xii. 11 ἐξείλατο,
vii. 21 ȧvelλato, Gal. v. 4 éğeπéo aтe, Rev. vii. 11 (Heb. iii. 17; Jno.
xviii. 6) ἔπεσαν, Jno. vi. 10 ἀνέπεσαν, Heb. ix. 12 εὑράμενος, (Epiph.
Opp. I. 619; Theodoret, Opp. II. 837, Hal.) cf. Acts ii. 23; xvii. 6;
xii. 7; xvi. 37; xxii. 7; xxviii. 16; Matt. vii. 13, 25; xi. 7 f.;
1 Respecting the MSS. which have this form, see Hug, Einleit. I. S. 238, 242, 244,
247, 249, 263; Scholz, curae crit. p. 40; Rinck, lucubratt. p. 37; Tdf. prolegg. ad Cod.
Ephraemi, p. 21.
10
74
§ 13. RARE FORMS IN THE TENSES
xvii. 6; xxii. 22; xxv. 36; xxvi. 39, 55; Luke ii. 16; xi. 52;
xxii. 52; Rom. xv. 3; 1 Cor. x. 8; 2 Cor. vi. 17; 1 Jno. ii. 19;
Rev. v. 8, 14; vi. 13. In the Codd. we find, to be sure, no sort
of consistency in respect either to the writers or to the words.¹
69 In many passages where this form appears in only a few Codd. it
6th ed. might be attributed to the transcribers,2 particularly where similar
flexions in a precede or follow; see Elmsley, Eurip. Med. p. 232
Lips.; Fr. Mr. 638 sqq. Further, it is found mainly in the 1st
Per. Sing. and Plur. or 2d or 3d Per. Plur. In the 2d Sing.,
on the other hand, the Imperative and the Partic., it very seldom
occurs. On instances of such Aor. in Greek authors (e.g. Orpheus)
see Bttm. I. 404. ПIрoséπeσа occurring in Eurip. Troad. 293
Seidler has changed into πposéeσov; and in Alcest. 477 undoubt-
edly Téσo should be read for Téσele, see Herm. on the passage.3
On the other hand, we find in Theophan. p. 283 éπeσav, Achill.
Tаt. 3, 17 KаTETÉσaµev, c. 19 πеρieπéσaμev, and Eustath. amor. Ism.
I. p. 4. should, on the authority of good Codd., be amended éxπéσELE,
see Jacobs p. 664; cf. besides Lob. 183; Mtth. I. 424 f. In the
72 Byzantine writers various forms of this sort unquestionably occur,
7th ed. e.g. ἦλθαν Malalas 18, p. 465 ; 12, p. 395, ἀνῆλθαν 15, p. 389, ηὕραμεν
18, p. 449, ἀπέλθατε Ducas 24, ἐξέλθατε Leo Gr. p. 343, ἐπεις έλθατε
87 ibid. p. 337. Cf. in general the Index to Ducas, p. 639, and to
Theophan. p. 682 sq. Bonn.
b. The past tenses of verbs beginning with p are found in the
best Codd. with a single p (cf. §5 No. 4); as, 2 Cor. xi. 25 èpaßdioOŋv,
Heb. ix. 19 ἐράντισε (x. 22 ἐραντισμένοι), Matt. xxvi. 67 ἐράπισαν,
according to AD 2 Tim. iii. 11 épúσato, according to AC [Sin.]
iv. 17 èpúolŋv; cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 18; Exod. v. 23; vii. 10; Lev.
xiv. 7,51; Num. viii. 7. Such forms are confessedly poetic, Bttm.
I. 84; Mtth. I. 124, yet they frequently occur also in the Codd.
of Greek prose, Bast, comment. crit. p. 788. In the Perf. the Codd.
αι
1 They are mostly verbs whose 1st Aor. is not in use.
2 'Avámeσal, which, according to good Codd., occurs in Luke xiv. 10; xvii. 7 (a trace
of it appears in Polyb. 6, 37, 4, ékтéσaµévois var.), must be the Imperat. of a similarly
formed Aor. Mid. (àvereoάunv). As, however, the latter nowhere occurs, àváñeσaι is
probably to be regarded as a mistake of the copyist (copyists often interchanged e and
ai) for àváπeσe, which, in fact, is the reading of the best Codd., and has been recently
received into the text; cf. also Rinck, lucubratt. p. 330. Besides, it is only the 2d Aor.
Act. of this verb that is found, Matt. xv. 35; Mark vi. 40; Luke xi. 37 ; xxii. 14
Jno. vi. 10, etc. The Fut. (as rieσα), for which Fr. Mr. p. 641 is disposed to take
these forms, does not accord well with the construction, particularly as in the second
passage Imperatives immediately follow.
8 On the other hand, a Greek inscription in Böckh, II. 220 has, distinctly, eúpeιav.
;
AND PERSONS OF REGULAR VERBS.
75
Al. [Sin.] and Ephraem. Heb. x. 22, give the reduplicated form
bepavτioµévoi, of which, besides the Homeric (Odyss. 6, 59) pep.v-
íæµéva, several examples occur in later writers, Lob. paralip. 13.
So in Matt. ix. 36 the Cod. Cantab. gives peppuévot, which Lehm.
has adopted.
c. The Futures of verbs in w sometimes are found (with un-
important var. in Codd.) in the contracted form; as, peTOIKIôs
μετοικιώ
Acts vii. 43, ἀφοριεῖ Matt. xxv. 32, ἀφοροῦσι Matt. xiii. 49, γνωριοῦσι
Col. iv. 9, καθαριεί Heb. ix. 14, διακαθαριεί Matt. iii. 12, ἐλπιοῦσι
Matt. xii. 21, pakaρiovoi Luke i. 48, etc. This is an Atticism
(though the same form was not foreign to the Ionians also); cf.
Georgi, Hieroc. I. p. 29; Fischer, Weller. II. p. 355; Mtth. I. p.
402. Οι βαπτίζω the common form βαπτίσει alone is used Matt.
iii. 11. On orηpicw see § 15. In the Sept. verbs in aço also are
inflected after the same analogy in the Future, e.g. èpyâтai Lev.
xxv. 40, ảρπậ xix. 13, etc. Such Attic Futures of contract verbs 70
some have wished to find in Matt. ii. 4 yevvârai, Jno. xvi. 17 @ewpeîte
(on account of öeσe following), Matt. xxvi. 18 πow; but all
these are Presents. See § 41, 2; cf. Fr. Mt. as above, Mtth. p. 403 f.
στηρίζω
d. Of verbs in aww, λevkaivo has in the Aor. the Attic form
(Bttm. I. 439) λevкâvaι Mark ix. 3, and Baokaivo Gal. iii. 1 in
var. has the equally classic form ἐβάσκηνα. But σημαίνω has for.
éonμava Acts xi. 28; Rev. i. 1, see below, § 15. Mwpaivo 1 Cor.
i. 20 and Enpaivo Jas. i. 11, have the a as verbs in paívw do regu-
larly. Respecting pâvai see § 15, p. 89.
6th ed
e. Futures Subjunctive are occasionally noted in individual
passages, from a greater or less number of Codd., e.g. 1 Cor. xiii. 3
καυθήσωμαι (adopted by Griesbach), 1 Pet. iii. 1 κερδηθήσωνται,
1 Tim. vi. 8 åpкeo0ŋowµeða (in both passages without much au-
thority). In the better class of authors such forms probably
originate with the transcribers, see Abresch in Observatt. misc. III.
p.13; Lob.721; but in later writers, and the Scholiasts particularly
(cf. Thuc. 3, 11 and 54), they cannot be rejected (see Niebuhr,
ind. ad Agath. p. 418, and ind. to Theophan. p. 682). In the
N. T., however, there is very little authority for these Subjunctives. 73
Quite isolated are evρýoys Rev. xviii. 14 and evρnowow Rev. ix. 6 7th ed
(yet an Aor. eupñoaι also occurs, see Lob. p. 721), yvwowvтaι Acts 88
xxi. 24 (yet cf. Lob. p. 735). (ömode Luke xiii. 28 and Swon
Jno. xvii. 2, are unquestionably Aor.)
(ὄψησθε
2. Peculiar personal endings are:
V
a. The 2d Per. Sing. Pres. and Fut. Pass. and Mid. in et for
76
§ 13. RARE FORMS IN THE TENSES
as, Bouλe Luke xxii. 42, Tapégei vii. 4 (var.), oye Matt. xxvii. 4
and Jno. xi. 40 (var.). Cf. also Matt. xxvii. 4; Acts xvi. 31;
xxiv. 8 (var.). In the two verbs oTTтeo@at and Boúλeobat this is
ὄπτεσθαι βούλεσθαι
the form invariably used in Attic (Bttm. I. 348); in other verbs
it seldom occurs, and almost exclusively in the poets (cf. Valcken.
ad Phoen. p. 216 sq.; Fischer ad Weller. I. p. 119, II. p. 399;
Georgi, Hierocr. I. p. 34; Schwarz ad Olear. p. 225), yet it appears
in good MSS. even of Attic prose, Bttm. as above; but cf. Schneider,
praef. ad Plat. civ. I. p. 49 sqq.
b. In the 2d Per. Sing. we find the original uncontracted form
not only in dúvaoai (Matt. v. 36; viii. 2; Mark i. 40) where it
continued to be the usual form, Bttm. I. 502 (yet cf. Súvŋ Mark
ix. 22; Rev. ii. 2, and var. Luke xvi. 2,1 which at first was used.
only by the poets, subsequently by prose authors also, e.g. Polyb.
7, 11, 5; Aelian. 13, 32, see Lob. 359), but we find it also in con-
tract verbs, oduvâσaι Luke xvi. 25 (Aeschyl. Choëph. 354), kavɣâo ai
Rom. ii. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 7, and катакаνXâσа Rom. xi. 18; cf.
Georgi, Hierocr. I. p. 184; Bttm. I. 347; Boisson. Anecd. IV.
479. See πívw below.
p.
c. In the 3d Per. Plur. of the Perfect av for aoi (from the
71 old termination avT); as, eyvakav Jno. xvii. 7, тетýρηкаν xvii. 6,
6th ed. elρnкav Rev. xix. 3, also Luke ix. 36 and Col. ii. 1 éúpakav in very
good Codd., likewise Rev. xxi. 6; Jas. v. 4. So also in Sept.,
e.g. Deut. xi. 7; Judith vii. 10 (Acta apocr. p. 235). This form
belongs to the Alexandrian dialect; cf. Sext. Emp. 1, 10, p. 261,
and the Papyri Taurin. p. 24 (кEKUρieνкav); but occurs also in
Lycophr. 252 (πéþρɩñav), in inscriptions and often in the Byzantine
writers (cf. Index to Ducas p. 639, to Codin. and Leo Gramm.);
see Bttm. I. 345. Tdf. has received it into the text in all the
above passages of the N. T. But in Rev. ii. 3 he has rejected [yet
not in ed. vii.] the form KeкоTíakes (Exod. v. 22) found in AC.
d. The 1st Aor. Opt. has the original Æolic termination ela, elas,
ειε, instead of αιμι ; as, ψηλαφήσειαν Acts xvii. 27, ποιήσειαν Luke
89 vi. 11. So very frequently (in 2d and 3d Sing. and 3d Plur.) in
Attic authors: Thuc. 6, 19. 8, 6; Aristoph. Plut. 95; Plat. rep.
I. 337 c.; Gorg. 500 c.; Xen. An. 7, 7, 30, etc.; see Georgi, Hierocr.
I. p. 150 sq.; Bttm. I. 354 f., and still more frequently in later
authors. See Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. p. 353.
74
7th ed.
e. The 3d Per. Plur. of the Imperative in Two av occurs repeat-
1 As to this form, which some would exchange for dúvą, compare Porson, Eurip. Hec.
257; Schäf. and Hm. Soph. Philoct. 787; Oudend. ad Thom. M. p. 252; Lob. p. 359.
AND PERSONS OF REGULAR VERBS.
77
edly in the N. T.; as, 1 Cor. vii. 9 yaμnoáтwσav, vii. 36 yapeiтwoav,
1 Tim. v. 4 µavdavéτwσav (Tit. iii. 14), cf. Acts xxiv. 20; xxv. 5.
The assertion of Elmsley, Eurip. Iphig. T. p. 232, ed. Lips., that
this form did not become usual till after Aristotle's time, has been
fully refuted by Mtth. I. 442 and Bornem. Xen. An. p. 38.
f. The 3d Per. Plur. of the historical tenses has often, in good
Codd., the termination oσav (Bttm. I. 346); as, Jno. xv. 22, 24
εἴχοσαν for εἶχον, xix. 3 ἐδίδοσαν for ἐδίδουν, 2 Thess. iii. 6 παρελά
Booav, and Rom. iii. 13 from Sept. édoλiovσav. This termination
is much used in the Sept. and by the Byzantines; as, Exod. xv. 27
ἤλθοσαν, Josh. v. 11 ἐφάγοσαν, Exod. xvi. 24 κατελίποσαν, xviii. 26
épívoσav, Niceph. Greg. 6, 5, p. 113 eldorav, Nicet. Chon. 21, 7,
p. 402 Kaτýλ0оoav, Niceph. Bryenn. p. 165 μerýλoσav, Brunck,
Analect. II. p. 47; cf. also 1 Macc. vi. 31; Cant. iii. 3; v. 7; vi. 8;
Josh. ii. 1; iii. 14; v. 11; vi. 14; viii. 19; Judg. xix. 11; i. 6;
Ruth i. 4; Lam. ii. 14; Ezek. xxii. 11; Exod. xxxiii. 8, etc., Fischer,
Weller. II. p. 336 sq.; Georgi, Hierocr. I. p. 165 sq.; Lob. Phryn.
349, and pathol. 485; Sturz, p. 58 sqq. In the N. T. however,
with the exception of Rom. as above, only single Codd. give this
form, and it may possibly be attributable everywhere to the Alex-
andrian transcribers.
3. Of contracted verbs we must note
a. The Future èxуe@ Acts ii. 17, 18 Sept., after the manner of
verbs in λ, μ, v, p, cf. LXX. Ezek. vii. 8; xxi. 31; Jer. xiv. 16;
Hos. v. 10; Zech. xii. 10; Bttm. I. p. 369. Were it accented
ékɣéw, it would be, according to Elmsley, the Attic Fut., as this
form is both Pres. and Fut.; see Bttm. II. 325. But in Sept. with
the same accent it is further inflected, exyeeîs, éxxeЄîтe, Exod. iv. 9;
xxix. 12; xxx. 18; Deut. xii. 16.
b. The usual forms of the two verbs draw, Teváw, in the
(Attic) literary language were Inf. dɩþŷv, πeɩŷv, and Indic. Sɩyŷs,
Sify, etc., Bttm. I. 487. In the N. T. we find instead diyâv, dipậ
Rom. xii. 20; Jno. vii. 37, πewâv Phil. iv. 12, Tewa Rom. xii. 20;
1 Cor. xi. 21, which first occurs after the time of Aristot. (Anim. 72
9, 31, cf. Sallier ad Thom. M. p. 699; Lob. 61). According to 6th ed.
the same analogy we find Fut. Teiáow (for weińow) Rev. vii. 16; 90
Jno. vi. 35 var. (Isa. v. 27; Psalm xlix. 12), and 1st Aor. éπeivao a
Mark ii. 25; xi. 12; Matt. xii. 1, 3; xxv. 35; Luke iv. 2. Both
forms are peculiarities of later Greek; see Lob. 204.
c. Of verbs in ew, retaining e in the Fut. etc. (Lob. paral. 435),
we find in the N. Τ. καλέσω, τελέσω (Bttm. Ι. p. 392), also φορέσω
78
§ 14. RARE INFLECTIONS OF VERBS IN MI
75
7th ed.
and épópeσa 1 Cor. xv. 49 (Sir. 11, 5; Palaeph. 52, 4). In the
classics the usual form is φορήσω ; yet even Isaeus has φορέσαι,
see Bttm. II. 315. (On the other hand evpópnσev Luke xii. 16.)
On ἀπολέσω and ἐπαινέσω, see below, § 15.
§ 14. RARE INFLECTIONS OF VERBS IN MI AND OF IRREGULAR
VERBS.
1. Of verbs in μ we find:
ν
a. Pluper. Act. EσTýкeσav Rev. vii. 11 var. for coτýкeiσav; cf.
Thuc. 1, 15 ξυνεστήκεσαν, Χen. An. 1, 4, 4 ἐφεστήκεσαν, Heliod.
4, 16 ẻḍkeσav, cf. particularly Jacobs, Achill. Tat. pp. 400, 622;
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. II. 77.
b. 3d Per. Plur. Pres. τιθέασι for τιθεῖσι Matt. v. 15, περιτιθέασι
Mark xv. 17, éπTITIOéaσi Matt. xxiii. 4. This is the better and more
usual form; cf. Thuc. 2, 34; Aristot. Metaph. 11. 1; Theophr.
plant. 2, 6; see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 145 sq., who adduces many
instances, and Mtth. I. 483; Schneider, Plat. civ. II. 250. Sim-
ilarly Sidoaσ Rev. xvii. 13, according to the best Codd.; cf. Her.
I. 93; Thuc. I. 42. The contracted forms Tileîσi and especially
Sidovσi belong to the later language; Lob. p. 244.
c. In the Imperf. the 3d Per. Plur. has the contracted form
édídovv for édídooav in compounds, Acts iv. 33; xxvii. 1; cf. Hesiod.
epy. 123. In the Sing. the form édídovv is more common; Bttm.
I. 509.
d. On the abbreviated but very (perhaps only) common Inf.
Perf. Act. éσrávai (for éσтnкévai) 1 Cor. x. 12, see Bttm. II. 26 f.,
cf. Georgi, Hierocr. I. 182 sq.
e. The Imperative Pres. Pass. in several Codd. is πepiloraσo
2 Tim. ii. 16; Tit. iii. 9 (ảþíoraσo 1 Tim. vi. 5 var.) for which
Teρitoтw etc. is more usual; see Th. M. p. 75; Mtth. I. 495.
f. There are weighty authorities for forms like iσrâμev Rom.
91 iii. 31, ovvioтôvтes 2 Cor. vi. 4; x. 18 (Niceph. Bryenn. p. 41,
cf. KаOLOTOV Agath. 316, 2), àπока01σтâ Mark ix. 12 (Dan. ii. 21;
2 Sam. xviii. 12; Fabric. Pseudep. II. 610; Evvorâ Plat. Tim. 33 a.)
from the form ioráw (Her. 4, 103, as ȧpiorów Joa. Cinnam. p. 121,
ἐφιστάω p. 65, καθιστάω p. 104); see Grammatici graeci, ed. Dind.
I. 251; Dorville, Charit. p. 542; Mtth. I. 482. Similarly eµTUTXŵV
πιπλών
(from ẻµπIπλáw) Acts xiv. 17, cf. éµπιπρŵv Leo Diac. 2, 1.
g. Optat. Pres. Son for Soin Rom. xv. 5; 2 Tim. i. 16, 18 (ii. 7);
Eph. i. 17; iii. 16; Jno. xv. 16, àπodan 2 Tim. iv. 14. This is a
AND OF IRREGULAR VERBS.
79
:
6th ed.
later form, (in Plat. Gorg. 481 a., Lys. c., Andoc. p. 215, T. IV. 73
recent editors have restored do, and in Xen. Cyr. 3, 1, 35 even
Schneider changed dams into Soins), see Sept. Gen. xxvii. 28;
xxviii. 4; Num. v. 21; xi. 29, etc., Themist. or. 8, p. 174d.; Philostr.
Apoll. 1. 34; Dio Chr. 20. 267; Aristeas, p. 120, Haverc. etc.,
which the ancient grammarians reject (Phryn. p. 345; Moeris
p. 117); cf. Lob. 346; Sturz, 52; Bttm. in Mus. antiq. stud. I. 238.¹
h. From βαίνω, 2d Aor. ἔβην, we find the Imperative ἀνάβα Rer. 76
iv. 1, kaтáẞa Mark xv. 30 var. (on the contrary Kaтáßno Matt. 7th ed.
xxvii. 40; Jno. iv. 49, μeтáßnot vii. 3; cf. Thom. Mag. p. 495, and
Oudendorp, h. 1.). Similarly Eurip. Electr. 113; Aristoph. Acharn.
262, and Vesp. 979; see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 153 sq.; Bttm. II. 125.
Quite analogous is àváσra Acts xii. 7; Eph. v. 14; cf. Theocrit.
24, 36; Menand. p. 48; Mein. Aesop. 62, de Fur. (but àváorηli
Acts ix. 6, 34, éπíoτη0 2 Tim. iv. 2), also àróσтa protev. Jac. 2.,
παράστα Acta apocr. 51.
i. The N. T. Codd. vary as to the form of the Perf. Part. Neut.
of lornui. Yet the better Codd. have in the two passages Matt.
ἵστημι.
xxiv. 15; Mark xiii. 14 [A.C. Sin. also in Rev. xiv. 1] ÉσTÓS (ÉσTηKÓS),
exactly as the oldest and best Codd. of Greek authors (Bttm. II.
208), and this form Bekker in Plato prefers throughout. Else-
where the uncontracted forms of this participle not unfrequently
occur in good MSS. of the N. T., as Matt. xxvii. 47 éσTηKÓTwv Mark
ix. 1; xi. 5, έσtηкús Jno. iii. 29; vi. 22, πаρeστηKóσw Mark xiv. 69,
and, for the most part, have been received into the text.
The (pretty well attested) form dúoy Jno. xvii. 2; Rev. viii. 3 (xiii. 16
Swowow) occurs also Theocrit. 27, 21, and is, according to some, Doric.
In Theocrit. indeed it has for a long time been corrected to dúou; yet
Súon occurs often enough in later writers (Lob. 721; cf. Thilo. Apocr.
I. 871; Index ad Theophan.), and probably may be classed among the
corrupt forms in which the popular speech indulged.
2. From eiuí we find:
a. The Imperat. τw for eσтw (which in the N. T. is also the
usual form) 1 Cor. xvi. 22; Jas. v. 12 (Ps. civ. 31; 1 Macc. x. 31;
cf. Clem. Alex. strom. 6, 275; Acta Thom. 3,7) Bttm. I. 520;
only once in Plato, rep. 2, 361 d., see Schneider, h. 1. According
to Heraclides (in Eustath. p. 1411, 22) the inflection is Doric.
The other Imperative form to occurs in Matt. ii. 13; v. 25; Mark
v. 34; Luke xix. 17 ; 1 Tim. iv. 15 (Bttm. I. 527).
1 This form is surprising also in the N. T., as it everywhere stands where otherwise
according to the idiom of the N. T. the Subjunctive would stand.
92
80
§ 14. RARE INFLECTION OF VERBS IN MI, ETC.
74
6th ed.
77
b. The form unu Imperf. Mid. 1st Per. Sing. (Bttm. I. 527),
which is rejected by the Atticists and became quite usual (par-
ticularly with av, as in the N. T. once in Gal. i. 10) only in later
writers (Lob. 152; Schäf. Long. 423; Valcken. in N. T. I. 478),
is the common form; as, Matt. xxv. 35; Jno. xi. 15; Acts x. 30;
xi. 5, 17; 1 Cor. xiii. 11, etc.; cf. Thilo, Acta Thom. p. 3; μela
for μev occurs (Matt. xxiii. 30) twice in very good Codd., and
has already been received into the text by Griesbach. Also Acts
xxvii. 37; Lchm., agreeably to A [Sin.] and B, adopted it. On the
other hand, in Gal. iv. 3; Eph. ii. 3 it has little authority. The
form does not occur in any good writer; yet see Epiphan. Opp. II.
333; Malal. 16, p. 404.
c. For ho0a Mark xiv. 67, Codd. of little weight have s, rare
in Attic, and almost doubtful (Bttm. I. 528). As to its use in
later Greek, see Lob. 149.
Note.
Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11; Jas. i. 17 (doubtful in 1 Cor. vi. 5),
7th ed. cf. Sir. 37, 2, is usually considered (with the ancient grammarians, cf. Schol.
ad Aristoph. Nub. 482) to be contracted from eveσr, and this opinion is
defended also by Fr. Mr. p. 642. It is probably better, however, with
Bttm. II. 375, to take it for the preposition ěvɩ (èv, èví with the accent
thrown back) which, like et, Tápa, etc., is used without elva; as the sup-
posed contraction would be harsh, and without example. Bttm.'s view,
moreover, is supported by the analogy of ert and rápa, the latter of which
can hardly be a contraction from πápeσrɩ, cf. Krü. 26. This evɩ is very fre-
quent in Attic, both in poetry and prose; Georgi, Hierocr. I. 152; Schwarz,
Comm. 486. The poets use it for eveɩɩ, as eɩ for erreiσi, Il. 20, 248 ;
Odyss. 9, 126; Tápa, however, is connected even with the 1st Person.¹
ενι
3. With the primitive verb inμ the following forms are con-
nected:
a. ȧþéшvraι Matt. ix. 2,5; Mark ii. 5; Luke v. 20, 23; vii. 47;
1 Jno. ii. 12. Ancient grammarians are not agreed in accounting
93 for this form. Some, as Eustathius (Iliad, 6, 590) consider it
equivalent to ȧpôvтaι, in the same way as åpén is used by Homer
for åpn. Others, more correctly, take it for the Preterite (instead
of ȧþeîvтai); so Herodian, the Etymol. Mag. and Suidas, — yet
with this difference, that the last ascribes it to the Doric dialect,
the author of the Etymol. to the Attic. Suidas is undoubtedly
1 The Etymol. M. p. 357, regards ěv, not as a contraction of eveσri, but as an ellipsis,
requiring the suitable person of the verb elval to be supplied. Moreover, whether ev
also occurs for evi, is doubtful, Hm. Soph. Trach. 1020.
§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS.
81
right; and this Perf. Pass. is traceable to the Perf. Act. åþéwra,
cf. Fischer, de vitiis lex. p. 646 sqq.; Bttm. I. 521.
b. йþɩe Mark i. 34; xi. 16 (Philo leg. ad Cajum p. 1021) is the
Imperf. of àpíw (cf. ȧplo Eccl. ii. 18, and àpíoμev Matt. vi. 12
var.), like čúvcov for vvíecav Iliad, 1, 273 (Bttm. I. 523), with
the Augm. on the preposition (which occurs elsewhere also in this
verb, as neon Plutarch, Sulla 28) for apic (Bttm. I. 521) see
Fischer, Weller. II. 480.
c. The 1st Aor. Pass. of ȧpínue in Rom. iv. 7 (Ps. xxxii. 1)
according to most Codd. is apé@noav. Some Codd., however, here
and in Sept. give åþeíðŋoav with Augm. which is the usual form
in Greek authors (Bttm. I. 541).
In Rev. ii. 20 åpeîs (Exod. xxxii. 32) from ¿péw has on the authority 75
of good Codd. been received into the text, like rideîs for Tions Bttm. I. 506. 6th ed
From ovvínu we have ovviovo Matt. xiii. 13 (3d Per. Plur.), 2 Cor.
x. 12 (either 3d Plur. or Dative Participle) and Participle ovviúv Matt.
xiii. 23 var. (Rom. iii. 11, from Sept. ovviŵv) for ovvies, which Lehm. and
Tdf. have in the text. The first form is from ovview, (which still survives
in the Inf. σvvieîv, Theogn. 565). The Participial form, however, espec- 78
ially common in Sept. (1 Chron. xxv. 7; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12; Ps. xl. 2; 7th ed
Jer. xx. 12) would perhaps more correctly be written συνίων (from συνίω,
see above, and Bttm. I. 523). Accordingly Lchm. has printed ovviovoi
Matt. xiii. 13. Cf. in general Fr. Rom. I. 174 seq.
4. From the verb κálŋμai we find Imperat. kálov Matt. xxii. 44;
Luke xx. 42; Acts ii. 34; Jas. ii. 3 (1 Sam. i. 23; xxii. 5; 2 Kings
ii. 2, 6, etc.) instead of ká@noo. Only in Mark xii. 36 has Tdf.
adopted from В кáliσov. The form κálov never occurs in the
earlier Greek authors, and therefore Moeris p. 234 and Thom. M.
p. 485 class it among spurious forms. So also κálŋ for κálŋoai
Acts xxiii. 3 (Lob. 395; Greg. Cor. ed. Schäf. p. 411).
§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS.
Not a few verbs present in the N. T. single forms, regularly
constructed, which are rejected for the most part by ancient gram-
marians, on the ground that they do not occur in Greek authors,
or only in the later. Among such forms are reckoned in particular
a number of Futures Active, for which standard writers use the
Futures Middle (Bttm. II. 84 f.; Monk, Eurip. Alcest. v. 159, 645);
but this subject has not yet been completely investigated. We
subjoin a list of all such forms as have been declared unclassical,
94
11
82
§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS.
but mark with an asterisk those about which the grammarians, and
in particular Thom. Mag. and Moeris, have been manifestly too
fastidious.
ἀγγέλλω.
ȧyyéλλw. The 2d Aor. Active and Passive, rare in the better
authors, are in many passages suspicious, Bttm. II. 94 f.; yet, see
Schäf. Demosth. III. 175; Schoem. Isae. p. 39. In the N. T. we
find ȧvnyyéλn 1 Pet. i. 12, and (from the Sept.) Rom. xv. 21,
Stayye (from Sept.) Rom. ix. 17, kaтηyyéλn Acts xvii. 13.
ἄγνυμι. On the Fut. κατεάξει Matt. xii. 20 and Aor. κατέαξα
see § 12, 2.
*äyw. On the 1st Aor. a, which occurs 2 Pet. ii. 5 in the com-
pound érážas, see Bttm. II. 98; Lob. p. 287, 735. In compounds.
also the form is not rare (2 Sam. xxii. 35; 1 Macc. ii. 67; Index
to Malal. under ayw; Schäf. ind. ad Aesop. p. 135) even in good.
76 prose authors Her. 1, 190; 5, 34; Xen. Hell. 2, 2, 20; Thuc. 2,
6th ed. 97; 8, 25.
*aipéw. The Fut. éλ, in comp. åpeλô Rev. xxii. 19, is rare,
see Bttm. II. 100. Yet it is found in Agath. 269, 5, and in the
Sept. frequently: Exod. v. 8; Num. xi. 17; Deut. xii. 32; Job
xxxvi. 7; cf. also Menand. Byz. p. 316. In opposition to Reisig,
Comm. crit. in Soph. Oed. C. p. 365, who claims it for Aristoph.
7th ed. and Soph., see Hm. Oed. Col. 1454 and Eurip. Hel. p. 127.
79
95
*акоúш. Fut. ȧkoúow Matt. xii. 19; xiii. 14; Rom. x. 14; Jno.
å k
xvi. 13, for accoúooμat, which even in the N. T. is the more frequent,
particularly with Luke, as Acts iii. 22 (vii. 37); xvii. 32; xxv. 22;
xxviii. 28, also Jno. v. 28. 'AkоÚσ occurs not only in poets.
(Anthol. gr. III. 134 ; Jac. Orac. Sibyll. 8, 206, 345), but occasion-
ally also in prose authors of the Kový, as Dion. H. 980, 4. Reisk.,
cf. Schäf. Demosth. II. 232; Wurm, Dinarch. p. 153; Bachmann,
Lycophr. I. 92. In Sept. cf. Isa. vi. 9; 2 Sam. xiv. 16.
άλλομαι varies between Aor. ἡλάμην and ἡλόμην Bttm. II. 108.
The same variation exists in the Codd. Acts xiv. 10 (even with
double λ), yet λaто preponderates.
ἁμαρτάνω, ἁμαρτέω. 1st Aor. ἡμάρτησα for 2d Aor. ἥμαρτον
Rom. v. 14, 16; Matt. xviii. 15; Luke xvii. 4; Rom. vi. 15 (1 Sam.
xix. 4; Lam. iii. 41 ¹) Thom. M. p. 420; Lob. p. 732; yet see Diod.
S. 2, 14 ȧµaρτýσas, Agath. 167, 18. Also the Fut. Act. ȧµapτnow
Matt. xviii. 21 (Sir. vii. 36; xxiv. 22; Dio Ch. 59, 20) is not very
common. Cf. Monk, Eurip. Alcest. 159; Poppo, Thuc. III. IV. 361.
¹ Still, in the Sept. the 2d Aor. Huapтov predominates. See especially 1 Kings viii.
47, ἡμάρτομεν, ήνομήσαμεν, ἠδικήσαμεν.
§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS.
83
*ávéxopai. Fut. àvégouai Matt. xvii..17; Mark ix. 19; Luke
ἀνέχομαι.
ix. 41; 2 Tim. iv. 3, for which Moeris from pure caprice would
have avaσxýooμal. The former occurs very frequently; cf. e.g.
ανασχήσομαι.
Soph. Elect. 1017; Xen. C. 5, 1, 26; Plat. Phaedr. 239 a.
ἀνοίγω
ávolyw. 1st Aor. voia Jno. ix. 17, 21, etc. for åvéwća (yet cf.
Xen. Hell. 1, 5, 13), 2d Aor. Pass. vobyn Rev. xv. 5, see § 12, 7.
ἀπαντάω. Fut. ἀπαντήσω (for ἀπαντήσομαι) Mark xiv. 13
(Diod. S. 18, 15). See Bttm. II. 114; Mtth. Eurip. Suppl. 774.
ἀποκτείνω. 1st Aor. ἀπεκτάνθη, ἀποκτανθῆναι Rev. ii. 13;
ix. 18, 20; xi. 13; xiii. 10; xix. 21; Matt. xvi. 21; Luke ix. 22,
etc.; cf. 1 Macc. ii. 9; 2 Macc. iv. 36. This form occurs indeed
in Homer, but belongs peculiarly to later Greek prose (Dio C. 65,
c. 4; Menander, Hist. p. 284, 304, Bonn ed.). See Bttm. II. 227,
Lob. 36, 757.1 (For the un-Attic Perf. ȧπéктαука seе 2 Sam. iv.
11; Bttm. 226 f.)
ἀπόλλυμι
åπóλλvµɩ. Fut. àπoλéow Matt. xxi. 41; Mark viii. 35; Jno. 80
vi. 39 ; xii. 25 ; cf. Lucian. asin. 33; Long. pastor. 3, 17 ; Bttm. II. 7th el
77
254. Yet see Lob. 746. (In 1 Cor i. 19, we find the regular form
ἀπολῶ.)
ἁρπάζω. Αor. ἡρπάγην 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4 for ἁρπάσθην (Rev. xii.
5) Thom. Mag. p. 424; Moeris, p. 50; Bttm. I. 372, Fut. ȧρπауýcоpai
1 Thess. iv. 17. (Also ȧρπáσw for åρπácoμai Jno. x. 28 is said
ἁρπάσω ἁρπάσομαι
to be a rare form; it occurs, however, in Xen. mag. eq. 4, 17.)
*av§ávo. The primitive form augw Eph. ii. 21; Col. ii. 19 is
frequent in Plato and Xen., Mtth. 541.
6th ed.
βαρέω. From this comes not only βεβαρημένος Matt. xxvi. 13; 96
Luke ix. 32, but also, contrary to Attic prose usage (Bttm. II. 88),
Bapoúμevoi 2 Cor. v. 4 (Mark xiv. 40), Bapeío0w 1 Tim. v. 16, and
the Aor. eßapńłŋv Luke xxi. 34; 2 Cor. i. 8, for which last the
Greek literary diction employs ẻßapúvěŋv (var. Luke as above).
K α
Bаokaivo. The Aor. Gal. iii. 1 is given in text. rec. ¿ßáσkave,
but in many Codd. ¿ßáσкŋve (without an ‹ subs.); cf. Bttm. I. 438.
The latter in Dio C. 44, 39; Herod. 2, 4, 11, and the later writers.
1 Αποκτέννεσθαι (others ἀποκτένεσθαι) occurring in Rev. vi. 11, and ἀποκτέννει (ἀπο-
Kтeveî var.) in 2 Cor. iii. 6 (Rev. xiii. 10) are considered as Aeolic, the Aeolians being
accustomed to change e before λ, u, v, p, σ into e, and double the following consonant;
therefore, Kтévvш for Kтelvw, like oπéppw for σnelрw, Koenig, Gregor. Cor. pp. 587, 597
Schaef., Mtth. I. 74; cf. Dindorf, pracf. ad Aristoph. XII. p. 14. Also in Tob. i. 18;
Wisd. xvi. 14, we find the first form among the var. A Present άπоктévw is probably
not, with Wahl, to be assumed for Matt. x. 28 and Luke xii. 4; xiii. 34. 'ATOKтEVÓv-
Twv in those passages (if not to be taken for an Aor. Particip., sec Fr. Mt. p. 383) may
be considered as a corruption of ȧπоктEVVÓVтWV, which a few, but good, Codd. have, and
which Lehm. and, in part, Tdf. have printed. Cf. besides, Bornem. ad Luc. p. 81.
Αποκτενόν-
84
§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS.
Biów. 1st Aor. Inf. Biwoat in 1 Pet. iv. 2, for which the 2d Aor.
βιόω.
Biovai is more usual in Attic, Bttı. II. 130 f., yet see Aristot. Nic.
9, 8; Plutarch. Opp. II. 367 f., and often in compounds, Steph.
Thes. II. 260, ed. nov. The other forms of the 1st Aor. are more
frequent, the participle Boas the most so.
βλαστάνω. Aor. ἐβλάστησα for ἔβλαστον Matt. xiii. 26; Jas.
v. 18 (Gen. i. 11; Num. xvii. 8, etc.; Acta apoc. p. 172); cf.
Bttm. II. 131. Since Aristotle's time the form is not unusual
even in the Greek literary language; Stephani Thes. II. 273.
*γαμέω.
yaμéw. Aor. éyáμnoa Mark vi. 17; Matt. xxii. 25; 1 Cor. vii. 9
stands for the older form ἔγημα (from γάμω), as Luke xiv. 20 ;
1 Cor. vii. 28; see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 29; Lob. 742. Yet éyáunoa
is found (if not in Xen. Cyr. 8, 4, 20) Lucian, dial. deor. 5, 4;
Apollodor. 3, 15, 3. Better attested is èyaµnonv Mark x. 12 (though
not fully established), 1 Cor. vii. 39; Lob. 742.
yêráo. Fut. yêráo (for yerárouai) Luke vi. 21. See Bttm.
II. 85, 134.
γίγνομαι. for. Pass. ἐγενήθην for ἐγενόμην Acts iv. 4; Col.
iv. 11; 1 Thess. ii. 14, etc.; cf. Thom. M. p. 189,- an originally
Doric form frequently found in the writers of the Kowý, Lob. 109;
Bttm. II. 136.
Siswμi. The 1st Aor. edwka is avoided in the 1st and 2d Per.
δίδωμ し
​Plur. by Attic writers, and the 2d Aor. used instead, Bttm. I. 509.
78 In the N. T., however, we find edúraμev 1 Thess. iv. 2, édúkaTE
ἐδώκατε
6th ed. Matt. xxv. 35; Gal. iv. 15, etc. as in Demosth. On Swơy see § 14,
1 Remark p. 79.
*Sióкw. Fut. diów for digopal Matt. xxiii. 34; Luke xxi. 12;
81 Bttm. II. 154. Yet cf. Dem. Nausim. 633 c.; Xen. An. 1, 4, 8
7th ed. (Krü. h. 1.); Cyr. 6, 3, 13.
δύναμαι.
Súvapai. We have merely to remark here that besides the
Aor. édvvý◊ŋv, the (Ion.) form dvváceny, with the Augm. 7 too,
is noted from B among the var. Matt. xvii. 16 (Bttm. II. 155).
Súw, Súvw. In several good Codd. we find Mark i. 32 the 1st
97 Aor. édvoa, which among the earlier Greeks has only a causative.
meaning, Bttm. II. 156. On the other hand the 1st Aor. Súvavтos,
as inferior authorities give in Luke iv. 40, is found also Ael. 4, 1;
Pausan. 2, 11, 7.
eld in the sense of know. Pret. oldaμev Mark xi. 33; Jno. iii. 2;
1 Cor. viii. 1, etc. for loμev (Poppo, Xen. An. 2, 4, 6), oldare Mark
x. 38; xiii. 33; 1 Cor. ix. 13; Phil. iv. 15 for lote, oldaow Luke
xi. 44; Jno. x. 5 for loaoi; see Bttm. I. 546 (yet cf. Aristoph. av.
§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS.
85
599; Xen. Oec. 20, 14). The 2d Per. Sing. oldas 1 Cor. vii. 16;
Jno. xxi. 15 is rather Ionic and Doric (for oiola), yet it occurs
Her. 4, 157; Xen. M. 4, 6, 6; Eurip. Alc. 790, and frequently in
later Greek; see Lob. 236 sq. The 3d Per. Plur. of the Plup. is
written deloav Mark i. 34; Jno. ii. 9; xxi. 4, etc. for decav;
Bttm. I. 547.
α
αν
eiπeîv (2d Aor. eiπov). 1st Aor. eira in the N. T. in the 2d Per.
Sing. Matt. xxvi. 25; Mark xii. 32, and frequently. This person
also occurs in Attic, Xen. Oec. 19, 14; Soph. Oed. C. 1509 (along
with eiπres, as often in Plato); but it is originally Ionic, see Greg.
Corinth. ed. Schäf. p. 481; Schäf. Dion. H. p. 436 sq. Imper.
ELTαTE Matt. x. 27; xxi. 5; Col. iv. 17, eiπáтwσav Acts xxiv. 20;
likewise very common in Attic, Plat. Lach. 187 d; Xen. C. 3, 2, 28.
We find, besides, in good Codd. 3d Per. Plur. Indic. eimav Matt.
xii. 2; xvii. 24; Mark xi. 6; xii. 7, 16; Luke v. 33; xix. 39;
xx. 2; Acts i. 11, 24; vi. 2; xxviii. 21, etc. (Diod. S. 16, 14; Xen.
H. 3, 5, 24 a var.), the Participle eras Acts vii. 37; xxii. 24 which
is chiefly Ionic, and even the more unusual 1st Per. eiña Heb.
iii. 10; Acts xxvi. 15 (eiπov, on the contrary, predominates in the
N. T.); see Sturz, dial. alex. p. 61.1 Recent editors have adopted
these forms wherever they are attested by several Codd. In com-
position we find άжеiπáµην 2 Cor. iv. 2 (Her. 6,100), and πроεíπaμev
1 Thess. iv. 6 (emaμev in the 1. Turin. Papyrus, p. 10). Eimóv
(not eîπov, see § 6, 1, k.) Acts xxviii. 26 (according to good Codd.)
is to be regarded as 2d Aor. Imperative, a form which we now.
find also in the text of Mark xiii. 4; Luke x. 40, while in other
passages eiπé preponderates. The 1st Aor. Pass. of this verb,
éppýОnv (from péw, see Bttm. II. 166), is sometimes written in MSS.
of the N. T. Matt. v. 21, 31, 33 éppéenv, as often in Codd. of later 82
(non-Attic) authors, though this form occasionally appears in Attic 7th ed.
writers also; Lob. 447 (but not in Plato, see Schneider, Plat. civ. 6th ed
II. p. 5 sq.).
LTT
éxxé∞, later form éxxúvw (Lob. 726). From it comes Fut.
ἐκχέω, ἐκχύνω
exec for excura Bttm. I. 396. See § 13, 3. a. p. 77.
*éλeáw for èλeéw occurs in several good Codd. in various pas-
79
sages of the N.T., as Rom. ix. 16, 18 ἐλεῶντος, ἐλεᾷ, Jude 23 ἐλεᾶτε. 98
Also Clem. Al. p. 54, Sylb. (the Florent. edition) has exea. Cf.
also Etymol. M. 327, 30.
18, also in good Codd.
Similar is λoyâv Rom. v. 13; Philem.
The latter has been adopted by Lehm.,
1 Eîñav occurs also in the well-known Rosetta inscription, at the end of line 8.
86
§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS.
and after him by Tdf. Fr., Rom. I. 311, declares all these forms
to be errors in copying.
λк. From this we find, as regularly in Greek authors, a Pres.
and an Imperf. Jas. ii. 6; Acts xxi. 30. On the other hand, for
the Fut. ego (Mtth. 573) the more unusual éλrúow occurs Jno.
xii. 32 from the other form éλków; cf. Job xxxix. 10.
* ἐπαινέω. Fut. ἐπαινέσω 1 Cor. xi. 22, for ἐπαινέσομαι ; see
Bttm. I. 388. Yet cf. Xen. An. 5, 5, 8; Himer. 20. In general,
however, this form is not uncommon; see Brunck, Gnom. p. 10,
64; Schaef. Demosth. II. 465; Stallb. Plat. Symp. p. 139.
* ἐπιορκέω. Fut. ἐπιορκήσω for ἐπιορκήσομαι Matt. v. 33. See
Btt. II. 85.
ἔρχομαι. The Fut. ἐλεύσομαι, both in the simple verb and its
compounds, is of frequent occurrence, but particularly in later
prose authors (Arrian. Al. 6, 12; Philostr. Apoll. 4, 4; Dio Chr.
33, 410; Max. Tyr. 24, p. 295); in Attic, on the contrary, eîµɩ is
used instead (Phryn. p. 37 sq.; Thom. M. p. 88, 336). Yet in the
earlier authors éλeúσoμai also is not altogether infrequent, Her.
1, 142; 5, 125; Lys. Dardan. 12 (p. 233, Bremi); see in general
Lob. 37 sq.; Schaef. Soph. II. 323; cf. Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. 210.
Instead of the Imperf. npxóμnv Mark i. 45; ii. 13; Jno. iv. 30;
vi. 17, etc. Attic authors commonly use the Imperf. of eiμ, Bttm.
II. 183; yet see Bornem. Luc. p. 106, cf. Thuc. 4, 120, 121; Xen.
An. 4, 6, 22. In Attic the imperatives O, Te from eiμ are used
for ἔρχου, ἔρχεσθε Jno. i. 47. Also ἐρχόμενος is said to be rare in
earlier Attic, Bttm. as above; yet it occurs in Plato, Crit. c. 15.
(ÿλƉe for èλýλvoe Gal. iv. 4; Jno. xix. 39, etc. has been too hastily
rejected by Thom. M. p. 418; see Sallier on the passage.)
èoliw. From the poetic form éσ0w (Bttm. II. 185) we find
the Participle o@wv among the var. Mark i. 6; Luke vii. 33, 34;
x. 7; xx. 47; xxii. 30, which Tdf., on the authority of (a few)
good Codd., has received into the text; see Praef. p. 21. From
Sept. cf. Lev. xvii. 10; xix. 26; Sir. xx. 16.
εὑρίσκω. Aor. Mid. εὑράμην for εὑρόμην Heb. ix. 12, see § 13, 1
(Paus. 7, 11, 1; 8, 30, 4, etc.; cf. Lob. p. 139 sq.). A 1st Aor.
evρnoa appears in the Subjunctive form euphons Rev. xviii. 14 and
99 evρnowow ix. 6 (as at least many Codd. have it), unless we take
83 these forms for the Subjunctive Fut. (see § 13, 1. e). Lob. 721,
however, produces a Participle evρýσavтos.
7th ed.
80
Saw. Fut. Snow Rom. vi. 2, 8; 2 Cor. xiii. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 11;
ζάω.
6th ed. Jno. vi. 51, 58 f. (σvšýow Rom. vi. 8; 2 Tim. ii. 11), Sýσoµaι Matt.
§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS.
87
iv. 4; Mark v. 23; Jno. vi. 51; xi. 25, etc. 1st Aor. enoa Rev.
ii. 8; Luke xv. 24; Rom. vii. 9, etc. (and often in Sept.). These
are principally later forms, which occur but seldom in early
authors (see Bttm. II. 192). The Aor. is peculiar to later writers.
Earlier authors used in the Fut. and Aor. the corresponding tenses
of Biów.
w. From the 1st Aor. ça, a later form, Bttm. II. 194; Lob.
744, we find the Subjunctive wσ Rev. iii. 9, where, however,
better Codd. have the Fut. novo. The Preter. ñía (Deut. xxxii.
17; Phot. biblioth. 222; Malal. pp. 136 and 137; Leo Gramm. p.
98, etc.; Lob. 744) in the form kaσ Mark viii. 3 is by no means
established, though Lehm has adopted it.
0 áλλo. 2d Aor. ȧveláλere Phil. iv. 10, a form not occurring
in prose, and everywhere rare, Bttm. II. 195.
loτnu. The Pres. iorávo Rom. iii. 31, and in composition
ἵστημι
ovviσrávo 2 Cor. iii. 1 (iv. 2); v. 12; vi. 4; x. 12, 18; Gal. ii. 18,
was used in Attic (Mtth. I. 482), but more frequently in later
Greek (e.g. Cinnam. 214 and 256 èpioтávei). On the later form
ioráw see § 14, 1, f. p. 78.
ἱστάω
a
κα
KатаKαίw. Fut. катaкańσoµaι 1 Cor. iii. 15; 2 Pet. iii. 10
(from Aoг. катeкáŋν Her. 1, 51; 4, 79) for кaтaкavėýσοµai Rev.
xviii. 8, which the Attics use, see Thom. M. p. 511; Bttm. II. 211.
Kатаλеíπ∞. 1st Aor. KaTéλenya Acts vi. 2; Lob. 714.
καταλείπω.
עע
V
кeρávvvμι. Perf. Pass. κekéρaoµaι Rev. xiv. 10, for the more
usual Kéкρаμaι; see Bttm. II. 214. Analogous is the Participle
képapa; see
σVYKEKEPAσμÉVοus Heb. iv. 2, in very good Codd.
κερδαίνω. Aor. ἐκέρδησα Matt. xxv. 20; xviii. 15, κερδῆσαι
Acts. xxvii. 21, кepdýσas Luke ix. 25, kepdńow Subj. 1 Cor. ix. 19,
20; Matt. xvi. 26 and frequently, forms peculiar to Ionic prose,
Bttm. II. 215; Lob. 740. In Attic the verb is inflected regularly;
cf. 1 Cor. ix. 21.
κλαίω. Fut. κλαύσω (properly Doric) for κλαύσομαι (as in
Sept. always) Luke vi. 25; Jno. xvi. 20; Rev. xviii. 9; cf. Babr.
98, 9; Bttm. II. 85, 220.
πτω
KλÉπTW. Fut. «λéw for kλéfoμaι Matt. xix. 18; Rom. xiii. 9,
Bttm. II. 85, 221. In Sept. never, but in Lucian, dial. deor. 7, 4.
κрá¿w. Fut.кpáğw Luke xix. 40 according to good authorities
for κεκράξομαι (as always in Sept.), Αor. ἔκραξα for ἔκραγον Matt. 100
viii. 29; xx. 30, etc., Bttm. II. 223.
*
κρέμα
*крéμаμaι. The form ¿§expéµeтo Luke xix. 48 in Codd. B [and
Sin.] of which Griesb. and Schulz take no notice, is undoubtedly
a mistake of the transcriber. Lehm. also has not noticed it.
88
§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS.
84
K
τω
крÚжTш. 2d Aor. Act. expuẞov Luke i. 24 (Phot. bibliothec.
7th ed. I. p. 143, Bekk.), see Bttm. II. 226.
kúw (to be pregnant) has the Fut. and Aor. regular in the forms
κυνήσω, ἐκύησα (Bttm. II. 230). So Jas. i. 18 άπεκύησε. In the
Pres. κvéw occurs, but not, as Eustath. p. 1548, 20 insists, only in
the sense of bring forth; see Lob. Aiac. p. 182 sq. and paralip. 556.
81 Hence in Jas. i. 15 άTокveî may be written as well as άтоkúеL, but
it is not necessary to prefer the former on account of the form of
the Aorist in vs. 18. The N. T. Lexicons recognize only the form
κυέω.
6th ed.
101
λάσκω.
λáoκw. To this belongs the Aor. éλáknoa Acts i. 18, usually
referred to the Doric Pres. λakéw; but Bttm. II. 233 derives it
directly from the 2d Aor. λakeîv, universally in use in Attic.
ια
*μcaívw has Tit. i. 15, according to good Codd., in the Perf.
Participle με μιαμμένοι for the usual μεμιασμένοι, cf. Lob. 35.
T
ViπT Jno. xiii. 6, 14, víπтoμai Matt. xv. 2. Instead of this
Pres. the earlier writers use vicw; see Bttm. II. 249; Lob. 241.
οἰκτείρω. Fut. οἰκτειρήσω Rom. ix. 15 (as if from οἰκτειρέω)
for oikтeρŵ; cf. Ps. ci. 15; Jer. xxi. 7; Mic. vii. 19, etc.; also in
the Byzantines, see Lob. 741.
ỏμvíw for oµvvμi (Bttm. II. 255) Matt. xxiii. 20 ff.; xxvi. 74;
Heb. vi. 16; Jas. v. 12. But in the better MSS. we find Mark
xiv. 71 óμvúvaι for oμvýew, and Griesb. received it into the text.
*ópáw. Imperf. Mid. &pouny Acts ii. 25 (from Ps. xvi.), for
which ewpoμny was used in Attic (Bttm. I. 325). From оπтεσÐαι
we find Luke xiii. 28, though not without var., the 1st Aor. Subj.
onobe, which occurs in Liban. and the Byzantines; see Lob. 734.
παίζω.
Taito. Aor. évéraığa Matt. xx. 19; xxvii. 31 (Sept. Prov.
xxiii. 35), for which in Attic erraioa was used; see Bttm. I. 372.
But éñaığa, πaîçaɩ Lucian, dial. deor. 6, 4, and encom. Demosth.
15; cf. V. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 378; and Lob. 240. The Fut.
παίξω Anacr. 24, 8.
παι
πέτομαι. Part. πετώμενον Rev. xiv. 6 in B for πετόμενον, from
the form Teтάopaι which occurs only in Ionic (Her. 3, 111) and
later writers (e.g. Lucian, dial. mort. 15, 3 var.), see Bttm. II. 271.
The Pres. πéтаpai, found even in Pindar, is cited by Wetst. and
Matthäi among the var. Rev. xii. 14.
πίνω. From the Fut. πίομαι the complete form πίεσαι is es-
tablished in Luke xvii. 8 (Bttm. I. 347), as in the very same
passage páуeo ai from payoual. Both are found also in Ezek.
φάγεσαι φάγομαι.
xii. 18; Ruth ii. 9, 14. On the Inf. iv Jno. iv. 9, which on the
§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS.
89
authority of good Codd. [also Sin.*] Lehm. and Tdf. [ed. II.] have
inserted in the text, see Fr. de crit. conformat. etc. p. 27 sq. Only
the form Tev is found in later writers, and this reading of several 85
Codd. [and Tdf. ed. VII.] might perhaps be adopted, if at least 7th ed
Cod. A vs. 7, 10 had not distinctly Tev, thus showing πîv vs. 9 to
be a mistake of the transcriber.
πίπτω. Aor. ἔπεσα, see § 13, 1 p. 73.
péw. Fut. peúow Jno. vii. 38 for peúσopal. In Attic, however,
pvýooμai is the usual form, Lob. 739; Bttm. II. 287. (As to the
1st Aor. pevσáτwσav Cant. iv. 16, also used only in later Greek,
cf. Lob. 739.) The regular and usual 2d Aor. éppúŋv occurs in
the compound παραρυῶμεν Heb. ii. 1.
σαλπίζω. Fut. σαλπίσω for σαλπίγξω 1 Cor. xv. 52, cf. also 82
Mechan. vett. p. 201 (Num. x. 3; also 1st Aor. éoáλmioa for 6th ed.
èσáλπıɣğa Xen. An. 1, 2, 17 is frequent in Sept.), see Phryn. 191;
Thom. M. p. 789.
onpaivo. 1st Aor. conμava Acts xi. 28; xxv. 27 (Judg. vii.
21; Esth. ii. 22; Plutarch, Aristid. 19; Menandri Byz. hist. pp.
308, 309, 358; Act. Thom. p. 32), which is found indeed even in
Xen. Hell. 2, 1, 28, but for which in early Attic èonunua was the
usual form, see Bttm. I. 438; Lob. 24. Cf. under paívw.
σKÉTтоμаι. The Pres. (Heb. ii. 6;
σκέπτομαι
Jas. i. 27; cf. Ps. viii. 5;
1 Sam. xi. 8; xv. 4, etc.) and Imperf. occur but seldom in Attic,
Bttm. II. 291.
* σπουδάζω. Fut. σπουδάσω for the usual σπουδάσομαι 2 Pet.
i. 15 ; Bttm. II. 85.
oτnplw. Imperat. Aor. according to good Codd. is στýpov
Luke xxii. 32; Rev. iii. 2, and Fut. 2 Thess. iii. 3 in B σTηpíσEL,
instead of the forms preferred by Greek authors, στńpičov and
στnρiğer, Bttm. I. 372; cf. Judg. xix. 5; Ezek. xx. 46, and often;
also coτýρioa 1 Macc. xiv. 14, etc.
Tvyxávw. Of the Perf. we find Heb. viii. 6 in text. rec. the
(properly Ionic, then Attic, Bttm. II. 301) form TÉTEυxe; but in
other Codd. the usual Attic TéтÚηke, and in A D [Sin.*] et al. TéTUXE.
On the latter see Lob. 395.
payeîv. Fut. payoμai Jas. v. 3; Rev. xvii. 16 [Jno. ii. 17]
(Gen. xxvii. 25; Exod. xii. 8, etc.), whence 2d Per. þáyeoaι Luke
xvii. 8. For this Greek authors use edoμai from edw, Bttm. II. 185.
φαίνω. 1st Aor. Inf. ἐπιφᾶναι (ἐπιφῆναι) Luke i. 79, contrary
to the best usage. In later Greek, however, similar forms occur;
Lob. 26; Thilo, Acta Thom. 49 sq. (Aclian, anim. 2, 11; and epil. 102
p. 396, Jac.).
}
90
§ 15. DEFECTIVE VERBS.
pavoкw. Hence érripaúσe Eph. v. 14; cf. Gen. xliv. 3; Judg.
φαύσκω.
xvi. 2; 1 Sam. xiv. 36; Judith xiv. 2. As to the analogical proof
of this form, not found in Greek authors, by means of the Subs.
Ürópavois, see Bttm. II. 312.
*
φέρω. Aor. Partic. ἐνέγκας Acts v. 2 ; xiv. 13 (ἐνέγκαντες Luke
xv. 23 var.) for everyкóv Bttm. II. 313; yet see Xen. M. 1, 2, 53;
86 Demosth. Timoth. 703 c.; Isocr. paneg. 40. The Indic. йveука
occurs frequently in Attic, as also the Imperat. forms with a Jno.
xxi. 10.
7th ed.
83
*þ0ávw. According to several Atticists the 2d Aor. ep0ŋv is to
be preferred to the 1st Aor. ep0aoa, which, however, often occurs
even in Attic writers (Bttm. II. 316), and prevails in the N. T.
Matt. xii. 28; Rom. ix. 31; 2 Cor. x. 14; Phil. iii. 16; 1 Thess.
ii. 16. In the last passage several Codd. have the Perf. ep0aкe.
þúw. 2d Aor. Pass. èþúŋv, queís Luke viii. 6, 7, 8 (since Hip-
pocrat. very much used), for which the Attics employ the 2d Aor.
Act. épvv, þús; see Bttm. II. 321. In Matt. xxiv. 32 and Mark
xiii. 28 very good Codd. have èкoʊm (Aoг. Pass. Subj.) for expÚŋ ;
and the former reading may be regarded as preferable; see Fr.
Marc. 578 sq.
χαίρω. Fut. χαρήσομαι for χαιρήσω Luke i. 14; Jno. xvi. 20,
6th ed. 22; Phil. i. 18 (Hab. i. 16; Zech. x. 7; Ps. xcv. 12, and often),
see Moer. 120; Thom. Mag. 910; Lob. 740 ; Bttm. II. 322. It
occurs also Diod. Exc. Vat. p. 95.
* χαρίζομαι.
xapitopai. Fut. xapiooμai Rom. viii. 32 is the non-Attic
form for χαριοῦμαι.
€
1
¿éw. Aor. άπóσато ¹ Acts vii. 27, 39 (Mic. iv. 6; Lam. ii. 7
and often, Dion. H. II. 759), for which the better writers used
éwσaтo with syllabic augment (Thom. M. p. 403; Pol. 2, 69, 9 ;
15, 31, 12). 1st Aor. Pass. àπóσ0ηv Ps. lxxxvii. 6; cf. Xen. Hell.
4, 3, 12; Dio C. 37, 47. Also Aor. Act. §ŵσev Acts vii. 45 for
which some Codd. have étéwoev (Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 181). That
remark, however, respecting the syll. augm. holds strictly only of
the Attic authors; see Poppo, Thuc. III. II. 407.
*
* ὠνέομαι. 1st Aor. ὠνησάμην Acts vii. 16, as frequently in
writers of the κowń (e.g. Plut., Pausan.), Lob. 139. In Attic
ἐπριάμην is preferred.
Note. The later verbal forms are not always used in the N. T. where
103 they might be expected. We find for instance míouai 2d Fut. from rivo,
1 After the Fut. wow (from čew). The Aorist form from the other Fut. wehow occurs
only in later authors, as c.g. the Particip. eiswehoas in Cinnam. p. 193.
§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS.
91
and not woîμai Rev. xiv. 10 (see Bttm. I. 395); Aor. kowŵσaι Mark vii.
15, 18 etc.; Moeris, ed. Piers. p. 434; Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 254; Fut.
φεύξομαι, θαυμάσομαι, and not φεύξω, θαυμάσω (Bttm. II. 85). Among
the various readings occurs Heb. iv. 15 Teтepapévov from the older form
πειράω instead of πεπειρασμένον from πειράζω; the former Taf. has received
into the text.
That the same forms sometimes come by inflection from entirely differ-
ent verbs is well known; we shall only specify éέévevoe Jno. v. 13, which
grammatically may come equally from Kvéw (Bttm. II. 248) and from
ἐκνεύω.
§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS.¹
7th ed
The N. T. contains a number of words never occurring in Greek 87
authors, but borrowed from the spoken language of the time, and
in part new formations (particularly in the writings of Paul).
The greater the number of these peculiar forms, the more necessary
it becomes to compare them with the established principles of
Greek derivation (from stems). In doing this, it will be instructive
to note analogies not altogether unknown to Greek authors, but 84
far more prominent in the idiom of the N. T. Our remarks will be 6th ed.
founded on the luminous exposition of Bttm., which comprehends
whatever is of essential importance (II. § 118 ff.), cf. Krü. § 41 ff.
1. A. DERIVATION BY TERMINATIONS.
BY TERMINATIONS. a. VERBS: Of
derivative verbs (mostly but not entirely from nouns) those in ow
and are peculiarly frequent. Forms in ow partly superseded
those in evw or iw; as, dekaтów (ƐckaтEÚw Xen. An. 5, 3, 9, etc.),
¿§ovdevów (é§oudevitw in Plutarch, yet see in general Lob. 182),
σαρόω (for σαίρω Lob. 89), κεφαλαιόω (κεφαλίζω Lob. 95), δυναμόω
and évdvvaµów (Lob. 605, note), àþvívów (ápuπvíčw Lob. 224), 104
ἀνακαινόω ἀνακαινίζω Isoer. Areop. c. 3), besides μεστόω, δολιόω.
From δεκατόω comes ἀποδεκατόω ; with ἀφυπνόω compare καθυπνόω
Xen. M. 2, 1, 30. Κραταιόω occurs also for κρατύνω, σθενόω for
σθενέω, ἀναστατοῦν for ἀνάστατον ποιεῖν; but χαριτόω is formed
from χάρις, δυνατόω from δύναμις (Lob. Phryn. 605).
Verbs in So come from the most diverse stems: oppiw from
ὄρθρος, αἰχμαλωτίζω from αἰχμάλωτος, δειγματίζω from δείγμα,
1 See Ph. Cattieri, Gazophylacium Graecor. (1651, 1708) ed. F. L. Abresch (Utr. 1757)
L. B. 1809, 8vo., but especially Bttm. ausf. Gr. II. 382 ff. (with Lobeck's additions), Lobeck,
Parerga to Phryn., and his other works referred to above, p. 3. Among expository
works we must mention chiefly Selecta e Scholis Valckenarii. Specimens of later for-
mations are to be found especially in the Byzantine authors.
1
92
+
§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS.
88
7th cd.
πελεκίζω from πέλεκυς, μυκτηρίζω from μυκτήρ, σμυρνίζω, ἀνεμίζω,
φυλακίζω, ἱματίζω, αναθεματίζω (also in Byzantine authors), θεα
τρίζω (Cinnam. p. 213), σπλαγχνίζομαι, αἱρετίζω, συμμορφίζω (Phil.
iii. 10 according to good Codd.). Σкоρπĺw (diaσкоρπí(w) has no
distinct stem in the Greek literary language; it was, however, a
provincial, perhaps a Macedonic, form (Lob. 218).
As to verbs in Cw from names of nations and persons, see Bttm.
II. 385. We have only to mention lovdata, with which compare
the later word daviditw, Leo Gram. p. 447.
W
There are also a few verbs in a to seldom or never occurring
elsewhere, e.g. νηπιάζω, σινιάζω (σήθω).
Also in ενω, as μεσιτεύω, μαγεύω, ἐγκρατεύομαι, αἰχμαλωτεύω
(Lob. 442), παγιδεύω, γυμνητεύω. The last is from γυμνήτης,
which, according to Bttm. II. 431, is only to be vindicated as a
collateral form of yuμvýs. From yuμvós, on the other hand, one
would expect yuuvírns, and accordingly the best Codd. [Sin. also]
have 1 Cor. iv. 11 yuuviтeuw, which therefore we must not, with
Fr. (conform. crit. p. 21) and Mey., take for an error of the copyist.¹
Among verbs in vvw, which signify a rendering what the
(concrete) root denotes (as iλapúvew, i.e. íλapòv πolεîv) Bttm. II.
387, σκληρύνω is to be noticed as a collateral form of σκληρόω,
which never occurs in the N. T.
Verbs in αινω (λευκαίνω, ξηραίνω, εὐφραίνω Bttm. II. 65 f. ; Lob.
prolegg. pathol. 37) require no special remark.
The formation of verbs in Ow, from primitives in ew, which is
not unknown in Attic (Bttm. II. 61; Lob. 151), seems to have
85 been practised more frequently in later Greek ; νήθω, κνήθω, ἀλήθω,
are not used at least by the earlier writers. Yet cf. Lob. 254.
6th ed.
Verbs in σκω (except εὑρίσκω and διδάσκω) are rare even in
105 the N. T. (Bttm. II. 59 f.). We find yηpáσkw as an inchoative
(Bttm. II. 393), but μelúσкw, causative from μelów, only in the
Pass. Γαμίσκω, equivalent to γαμίζω, is sufficiently attested only
in Luke xx. 34. Lastly, we note as altogether singular in forma-
tion γρηγορέω (from the Perf. ἐγρήγορα), with its cognate ἐγρηγορέω,
Lob. 119; Bttm. II. 158. With this verb,2 derived from a redu-
plicated Perfect, may be compared, however, éπIKеXELрéw Papyri
Taurin. 7, lin. 7.
1 Cf. Lob. Soph. Ai. p. 387. 'Oxo@peúw Heb. xi. 28 is, in some good Codd., written
¿λe☺peúw (from õλepos), and Lchm., and with him Tdf., has so printed. I am not
aware that the latter form of this Alexandrian word has been preserved anywhere else.
2 Döderlein on reduplication in Greek and Latin derivation in his Reden und Auf-
sätze II. no. 2.
§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS.
93
Το derivative verbs in ενω belongs also παραβολεύεσθαι Phil. ii. 30,
(which Griesb., Lehm., and others, agreeably to the weightiest critical
evidence, have admitted into the text). From Tapáßodos might have been
formed most naturally #apoßoλéîoba; but the termination evo was selected
to make the verb signify παράβολον εἶναι, as ἐπισκοπεύειν in later Greek
denotes éπíσкоov elvaι (Lob. 591), and, what is more to the purpose,
there is περπερεύεσθαι from πέρπερος. It would be unwarrantable to grant
admission to rapaßoλeveσdai only on the assumption of a simple verb
Boλeveσbai, (which certainly does not occur).
ει
2. b. SUBSTANTIVES: 1 Derived a. from Verbs (cf. Lob. paralip.
p. 397 sqq. and particularly lib. 3 of technologia p. 253 sqq.).
With the termination μos (Bttm. II. 398) from a verb in aco
is to be noted ȧyaoμós which does not occur in Greek authors,
like πειρασμός from πειράζω, ἐνταφιασμός from ἐνταφιάζω ; from
verbs in ιζω we find μακαρισμός, ὀνειδισμός (Lob. 551), βασανισμός, 89
παροργισμός, ῥαντισμός (ραντίζειν), σαββατισμός (σαββατίζειν), th ed
σωφρονισμός, ἀπελεγμός.
The most numerous formations, however, are those in μa (Lob.
as above 391 sqq.) and ois, the former mostly confined to the N. T.
yet always conformed to Greek analogy; as, βάπτισμα, ῥάπισμα
from βαπτίζειν etc., ψεῦσμα from ψεύδεσθαι, ἱεράτευμα, κατάλυμα
(καταλύειν), also ἐξέραμα (Lob. 64), ἀσθένημα, ἄντλημα, ἀντάλ-
λαγμα, ἀποσκίασμα, πρόςκομμα, απαύγασμα, ἥττημα, αἴτημα, κατόρ-
θωμα, στερέωμα from contract verbs (like φρόνημα, etc.), mostly
in the sense of product or state. Only avrλnua denotes an imple-
ment (as substantives in μos often do), and Kaтáλvμа the place
of KaтaλÚеw (Eustath. Odyss. p. 146, 33).
Substantives in ous, particularly numerous in the Epistle to the 106
Hebrews, nearly all belong to literary Greek. Only béλnois, κατά-
παυσις, πρόςχυσις, ἀπολύτρωσις, δικαίωσις, βίωσις, πεποίθησις Lob.
295 (éttiπólnois) require notice. As to πараσkevý, formed from
the stem of a verb in alw, see Bttm. II. 404. As to oixodoun, see
Lob. 490. As to the very common Sta@nen (from 1st Aor. of 86
Tiévai), see Bttm. II. 401; Lob. paralip. 374.
Among abstract nouns from verbs are some in μový. We find
in the N. T. πλŋoμový Bttm. II. 405. On the contrary, éπiλno μový
comes directly from ἐπιλήσμων. Πεισμονή, however (also in
1 Cf. G. Curtius, de nomin. gr. formatione linguar. cognat. ratione habita. Berol. 1842
(Zeitschr. f. Alterth. 1846, no. 68 f.).
2 The form xvoia appears to have been employed only in words compounded with
other nouns. Compare the N. T. word aiμatexxvola (Leo Gramm. p. 287) with alµa-
τοχυσία (Theophan. p. 510), φωτοχυσία and ῥινεγχυσία.
6th ed
94
§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS.
Pachym. II. 100 and 120), is another form of Tetoua, though
πεισμονή may be referred directly to πείθω, as πλησμονή to πλήθω.
Among abstract nouns in the N. T. derived from verbs in evw
must be mentioned ἐριθεία.
Verbal nouns with a concrete signification present little that is
peculiar. From verbs in açw, hw, vw, we find in the N. T. KтíσTηS
(paroxyt.) and the oxytones (Bttm. II. 408) βιαστής, βαπτιστής,
μεριστής, εὐαγγελιστής, γογγυστής, and ἑλληνιστής, forms rare or
90 unknown elsewhere. Only coλλußłoτńs, (which is not peculiar
7th ed. however to the N. T.), cannot be traced to a verb kоλλvßiew.
From τελειοῦν we have τελειωτής (cf. ζηλωτής and λυτρωτής).
From προςκυνεῖν comes προςκυνητής (Constant. Man. 4670). On
éπevdúτηs see Bttm. II. 411. The earlier writers prefer dɩwêтýρ to
διώκτης ; just as δότης appears as a secondary form by the side of
δοτήρ.
Very strange would be the formation of κατάνυξις from κατα-
vvorá¿w Rom. xi. 8 (from Sept.) as was formerly supposed. But
its connection with kaтavúσσew is evident from Dan. x. 9, Theod.,
and thus it very probably denotes stupefaction (
and thence torpor; see Fr. Excur. Rom. II. 558 sqq.
107
Ps. lx. 5),
From careless pronunciation arose the form Taμeîov, as all good
Codd. have Luke xii. 24 and many Codd. have Matt. vi. 6, for
Taμieîov (from Taμeów) see Lob. Phryn. 493 and paralip. 28, and
the compound γλωσσόκομον for γλωσσοκομεῖον οι γλωσσοκόμον
(from koμéw) without var., see Lob. 98 sq.
B. From Adjectives. Under this head come,
Various abstract nouns in της, οτης, as ἁγιότης, ἁγνότης, ἀδελ
φότης (Leo Gramm. p. 464), ἁδρότης, ἁπλότης, ἱκανότης, ἀφελότης
(ὠφέλεια in earlier authors), σκληρότης, τιμιότης, τελειότης, μαται
ότης, γυμνότης, μεγαλειότης, κυριότης, αἰσχρότης, πιότης (ἀγαθότης
Sept.), see Lob. 350 sqq. (åkаláρтηs Rev. xvii. 4 is not well
attested);
1 The connection of èpideía with ěpis is not prevented by the 0 alone (for that occurs
in the cognates ἐρέθειν, ἐρεθίζειν), but its whole structure is such that it can only be
referred to èpideów. But Fr. Rom. I. 143 sqq. has satisfactorily shown that èpideía even
in the N. T. is nothing else than the èpidela, labor for wages, already known to the Greeks.
Among carlier writers see Stolberg, de soloec. N. T. p. 136 sqq.
ειν
a sub-
2 'ExaŋvíÇew signifies in general to comport one's self as a Greek (Diog. L. I. 102), and
most usually to speak Greek, especially of foreigners, Strabo 14, 662; then often it has
no unfavorable secondary meaning, (erroneously de Wette, Bibel, reprinted from the
Hall. Encycl. S. 17), Xen. A. 7, 3, 25; Strabo 2, 98. 'Exλnvioths, therefore,
stantive which never occurs in Greek authors, means very naturally a Greek-speaking
non-Greek (e.g. a Jew). That in Christian Greek phraseology éλλŋvíÇew also signifies
to be a heathen (e.g. in Malalas p. 449) is a fact lying beyond our present inquiry.
§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS.
95
And such substantives in ovn (denoting mental qualities) as
ἐλεημοσύνη and ἀσχημοσύνη (from ἐλεήμων and ἀσχήμων, cf.
σωφροσύνη from σώφρων), οι άγιωσύνη, ἀγαθωσύνη, ἱερωσύνη,
μeyaλwouvn, with o, because the penult of the adjectives is short.
μεγαλωσύνη,
(Etym. M. p. 275, 44) ¹—all later words found only in Hellenistic 87
writers; cf. in general Lob. prolegg. pathol. p. 235 sqq.
,
1
Also among those in a which come from adjectives in os, pos
(Bttm, II. 415) are many later formations (Lob. 343); as, happia
(like αἰσχρία in Eustath. from αἰσχρός); and as εὐδαιμονία from
εὐδαίμων, so 2 Pet. ii. 16 παραφρονία from παράφρων (Lob. prolegg.
pathol. p. 238); some Codd., however, have the more usual
παραφροσύνη.2
Lastly, we often find Neuters of adjectives in cos used as substan-
tives; as, ὑποζύγιον, μεθόριον, ὑπολήνιον, σφάγιον (προςφάγιον),
etc., see Fr. Prälimin. S. 42.
6th ed.
y. From other Substantives (Bttm. II. 420 ff.) are derived eidw-
λεῖον (εἴδωλον), ἐλαιών (ἐλαία), μυλων Matt. xxiv. 41 var. (μύλος,
μúλn) Bttm. II. 422 f. and the Fem. Pacinoσa (Bttm. II. 427).
'Apedpov, peculiar to the N. T., comes from Spa. The Gentile
Fem. from Φοίνιξ is Φοίνισσα; therefore also Mark vii. 20 Συρο- 91
poívioσa, as from Kiλığ comes Kiλioσa (Bttm. II. 427). Perhaps, 7th ed.
however, the Fem. was also formed from the name of the country
Dowíên; for, a large number of good Codd. [Sin. also] have in
the above passage in Mark Zupopovíκioσa, cf. Fritzsche, and this 108
might come directly from an original form Φοινικίς, as βασίλισσα
is connected with Baolis, and, at least among the Romans, Sey-
thissa occurs for Σκυθίς, or in later Greek φυλάκισσα by the side
of puλarís. See in general Lob. prolegg. pathol. p. 413 sqq.
To the later and Latinizing formation belong, of Gentile and
Patronymic nouns, 'Hpwdiavós Matt. xxii. 16 and XpioTiavós Acts
xi. 26, etc. (cf. Kaιoapiavós Arrian. Epict. 1, 19, 19; 3, 24, 117).
In the earlier language, the termination avos was employed only
in forming Gentile names from cities and countries not Greek ;
Bttm. II. 429.
1 Yet in Glycas, p. 11, even in the later edition, μeyaλoσúvŋ is printed. Bttm. II. 420,
shows that nearly all substantives in woúvn belong to the later language. On the ter-
mination συνη in general, see Aufrecht in the Berl. Zeitschr. f. vergleich. Sprachforsch.
6 Heft; [and on the termination Tŋs G. Bühler, das griech. Secundärsuffix ans. Ein
Beitrag z. Lehre v. d. Wortbildung. Gött. 1858. 8vo.].
2 Of substantives derived from adjectives in ns, some, as is well known, end in a
instead of ela (Bttm. II. 416). In others, the spelling varies between a and ea, as in
какожabía (cf. Рoppo, Thuc. II. I. 154. Ellendt, pracf. ad Arrian. p. 30 sqq.
Demosth. p. 511). In regard to this word, however, the preponderance is for ea.
Weber,
96
§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS.
Among Diminutives deserves to be mentioned Bißrapídiov, pri-
marily from ßßλápiov, quoted by Pollux, instead of the older
forms βιβλίδιον and βιβλιδάριον (like ἱματιδάριον from ἱματίδιον),
Lob. pathol. 281. Tuvaιkápiov follows the usual analogy, but
seems to have been of rare occurrence in Greek authors; the same
may be said of ὠτάριον Mark xiv. 47 ; Jno. xviii. 10, κλινάριον,
παιδάριον. On diminutives in tov (of which ψιχίον is unquestion-
ably a later form), see Fr. Prälim. S. 43, and a dissertation De
vocib. in íov trisyllabis by Janson in Jahn's Archiv VII. 485 ff.
Substantives in nptov are properly Neuters of adjectives (Bttm. II. 412 f.);
as, ἱλαστήριον, θυμιατήριον, φυλακτήριον. (Such become still more numerous
in later writers, e.g. ȧvaкaλvπTÝрtov Niceph. Gregor. p. 667, Senrýpov
88 Cedren. II. 377, θανατήριον ibid. I. 679, ἰαματήριον Ι. 190, etc.) Φυλα-
6th ed. Kryptos, directly from puλakтýp, has like it an active meaning-guarding,
protecting. Daarnptov properly signifies something that propitiates, but
may be applied to the place where the propitiation is accomplished (just
as þvλakτýpιov denotes a guard-post), and consequently to the cover of
the ark of the covenant. In Rom. iii. 25 the signification propitiatory
offering (Index to Theoph. contin.) is equally appropriate, which Philippi
without sufficient reason has recently denied. A Fem. subst. of the same
sort is ζευκτηρία (cf. στυπτηρία). Σωτηρία is connected immediately with
σωτήρ; side by side with it occurs σωτήριον also as a substantive. Ὑπερῷον,
that is ὑπερώϊον, is to be regarded in like manner as a Neuter from ὑπερώϊος,
which, like πατρῷος from πατήρ, is formed from the preposition ὑπέρ, for
there is no intermediate adjective ὕπερος.
109
3. c. ADJECTIVES: a. To adjectives derived directly from a verbal
root belongs the fully established Telós 1 Cor. ii. 4; cf. édós from
ἔσω, βοσκός from βόσκω, φειδός from (φείδω) φείδομαι (Lob. Phryn.
p. 434). These derivatives are all oxytones, payos alone occurring
in the grammarians as also a paroxytone (Lob. paralip. 135), and
it is written as such in the N. T.
Among those in ωλός, ἁμαρτωλός is the most frequent (Bttm. II.
448). To be referred to the same formation, however, is eldwλov
92 Neut. from eldwλos (Lob. pathol. p. 134).
7th ed.
Verbals in Tos (Bttm. I. 443 ff.; Lob. paralip. 478 sq.; Mois-
zisstzig, de adject. graec. verbal. Conitz 1844, 4to.) correspond in
signification, sometimes to the Latin participle in tus, as yvworós
notus, σITEUTÓs saginatus, àπaldevros (untrained, awkward) cf.
DEÓTVEVσTOS inspiratus¹; sometimes to adjectives in bilis, as óparós,
That this word in 2 Tim. iii. 16 is to be taken in a passive sense, there can be no
doubt; this acceptation is confirmed by čμπvevσtos, though several derivatives of the
same class have an active signification, as εὔπνευστος, ἄπνευστος.
t
§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS.
97
δυςβάστακτος, ἀνεκτός, ἀκατάσχετος, ἀκαταπαυστός, ἀνεκδιήγητος,
ávekλáλntos; sometimes they have an active meaning (Fr. Rom.
II. 185), as aπтaιOTOS not stumbling, i.e. not sinning (certainly,
however, not aλáλŋros Rom. viii. 26).
Απείραστος (like the ἀπείρατος usual in Greek authors) means
either untempted, or that cannot be tempted; both amount to the
same thing in Jas. i. 13. Only malnтós Acts xxvi. 23, signifies
who is to suffer; cf. þEUктós, πрakтós Aristot. de anima 3, 9, p. 64
Sylb.; Cattier, gazophyl. p. 34. The verbal πρosýλvros, akin to
the forms ἔπηλυς, μέηλυς, is an extended formation of which no
example is to be found in classic Greek.
B. Among adjectives derived from other adjectives (or parti-
ciples) a few are deserving of special notice. Such are πeρiovσios,
Èπιοúσlos, like ěkovσios, ¿Deλovolos (Lob. Phryn. p. 4 sq.), which
are extended formations from èkov and éléλwv like the feminines
¿koûσa, éĐeλoûσa; but èπiοúσios [according to Leo Meyer, in Kuhn's
Ztschr. für vergleichende Sprachforschung. Bd. VII. Berl. 1858.
pp. 424 sq. 428, formed by means of the suffix to from èí and ovT,
and that denoting "what is éri," so that apros Toúσtos signifies
"bread that is serviceable, or suited, or necessary for life, for
subsistence, that which answers our needs, is adequate for them "]
has probably direct relation to the Fem. () πwoûσa sc. μépa, and
accordingly aprоs èπiovσios means bread for the following day, cf.
Stolberg, diss. de pane èπtovoi in his tractat. de soloecism. N. T.
p. 220 sqq.; Valcken. Select. I. 190; Fr. ad Mt. p. 267 sq. (also
against the derivation from ovcía, which would be grammatically 89
possible, cf. évoúσios). Besides, Teplovσios in the Bible does not 6th ed.
mean simply proprius, in opposition to what belongs to a stranger,
any more than πeριovσiaσμós in the Sept. means property merely.
ПIOTIKós (Mark xiv. 3; Jno. xii. 3) from Torós, according to 110
several ancient expositors equivalent to genuine. In classic authors
the word signifies convincing, probably also persuasive (Plat. Gorg.
455 a.; Diog. L. 4, 37; Dion. H. V. 631; Sext. Emp. Math. 2, 71;
Theophrast. metaph. 253 Sylb.), though in nearly all the passages
Codd. have TELOTIKós, and critics have usually given this the pref-
erence (see Bekker and Stallb. on Plato, as above; cf. Lob. Soph.
Ai. v. 151); in later writers faithful, trustworthy, of persons
(Lücke, Joh. II. 496; see Index to Cedren. p. 950). The tran- 93
sition to the signification genuine as the predicate of a material 7th ed.
object, is not impossible, particularly when it is considered that
technical expressions (such as váρdos πιστIкý may be), and espec-
13
98
§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS.
α
ially mercantile terms, are often strange.¹ Others, after Casaubon,
take TiσTIKós for drinkable (Fr. Mr. 598 sqq.) from Tπíoкw or the
root πίω, like πιστός drinkable Aeschyl. Prom. 480, πιστήρ, πίστρα,
Tíσтρоv, etc., quoted in old Lexicons. That the ancients drank
oil of spikenard, we are told by Athenaeus 15, 689. I cannot,
however, quite understand why both Evangelists subjoined this
epithet; if the thin, liquid nard used for pouring out (Mark
Kaтaɣéew) in no respect differed from what was drunk, it would
have been just as superfluous to add the epithet Toт. as to call
nard fluid. The vápdos λeπTý of Dioscorides, however, means fluid
nard, as opposed to thick, viscid nard. Besides, the drinkable nard
would not be suited to the manipulation indicated by aλeißew
in John. Lastly, Fritzsche's translation of TσT. (ad Mr. p. 601),
"qui facile bibi potest, lubenter bibitur," does not appear to be
sufficiently established, not to mention that TIOTIKós cannot be
τικός
positively shown to have signified drinkable. Even Torós itself
was not much in use (in Aeschyl. it occurs in a pun), and was
superseded by the unambiguous ποτός, πόσιμος.
y. To adjectives derived from substantives belong, among others,
σúρkivos and σaρkikóя. The former means fleshy 2 Cor. iii. 3 (as
pro-paroxytone adjectives in wos almost without exception denote
the material of which a thing is made, e.g. Xiwvos of stone 2 Cor.
iii. 3, ξύλινος wooden, πήλινος of clay, ἀκάνθινος, βύσσινος, etc.,
Bttm. II. 448), the latter (oaрKIKós) means fleshly. There is,
111 however, in Rom. vii. 14; 1 Cor. iii. 1 (2 Cor. i. 12); Heb. vii. 16,
where one might have expected σаρкiкós, preponderating or respec-
90 table authority for σápivos, and even Lchm. has placed it in the
text. But how easily might σapkiкós, which does not occur outside
of the N. T., be confounded in the Codd. with the very common
σáρkivos (Fr. Rom. II. 46 sq.)! Had Paul, however, written cáp-
Kivos, he must have intended some peculiar emphasis, somewhat
in the way that Mey., 1 Cor. as above, insists upon. But on the
one hand, a notion of the natural man for which only the material
term σáρkivos would be adequate finds no sanction in the doctrinal
teaching of Paul, while σαρκικός, as opposed to πνευματικός, fully
meets the demands even of the text in question; and on the other
6th ed.
1 They have in particular this peculiarity, that words elsewhere used only of persons
are transferred to articles of merchandise. Compare flat, properly equivalent to feeble,
and the expressions, "Sugar dull — white unasked for." Lob. paralip. 31 upholds
Scaliger's derivation from Tíσow (Fr. Mr. p. 595), as 7 after elsewhere also for
euphony's sake is thrown away (cf. πτέρνιξ, πέρνιξ, but particularly πίτυρον and the
Latin pisso). Mey. has not been induced to abandon the interpretation genuine.
§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS.
99
hand, 1 Cor. iii. 3, taken in connection with 2, shows that in both 94
passages Paul employed the same expression. In the passage from 7th ed.
Heb. (vii. 16) évтоλn σаρkívη is hardly admissible.1
Among oxytone adjectives in wos, expressing a notion of time
(Bttm. II. 448), are καθημερινός, ὀρθρινός, πρωϊνός, later forms for
which earlier authors used kalnuépios, etc. The like holds true
of ταχινός.
Some adjectives derived from substantives end in ecvós; as, σko-
τεινός, φωτεινός. But ἐλεεινός (a form not unfrequent in Attic
also V. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 456) comes from the verb èλeéw, as
ποθεινός from ποθέω (Bttm. ΙΙ. 448).
To the later adjectival formations specially belongs Kepaμikós
(κεράμειος, κεράμιος).
Among adverbs derived from verbs peidoμévws seems to be
peculiar to the N. T.
4. B. DERIVATION BY COMPOSITION. a. The N. T. con-
tains numerous compound substantives whose first part also is a
substantive. Although many of these compounds, however, cannot
be shown to have existed in the written language of the Greeks,
yet in their formation there is nothing noticeably at variance with
analogy. Compare in particular Sikatoкpiola (Leo Gr. p. 163),
αἱματεκχυσία, ταπεινόφρων (like εὐσεβόφρων, κραταιόφρων Constant.
Porphyr. II. 33, by later authors even ἰουδαιόφρων, ἑλληνόφρων
Cedren. I. 660; Theoph. I. 149) and TаTewоppoσúvn (cf. μaтaio-
7a7
απεινοφροσύνη ματαιο-
φροσύνη Constant. Man. 657), σκληροκαρδία, σκληροτράχηλος (from
which we find σκληροτραχηλία and σκληροτραχηλιᾶν in Constant.
Man.), ἀκροβυστία, ἀκρογωνιαῖος, ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος (cf. ἀλλο-
1 It might perhaps be assumed in general that the later popular Greek interchanged
these forms, and used σáρkivos also in the sense of σарkiкós: especially as not all adjec-
tives in vos signify the material of which a thing is made, cf. àveρúπivos (see Fr. Rom.
II. 47; Tholuck, Hebr.-Br. 301 f.). Somewhat similar in German is the expression
das Inwendige of man for das Innere. The former had originally a more restricted
meaning. Since, however, the term σаркiкós had already established itself undeniably
in the language of the N. T., the above assumption loses here all foundation.
2 Wenn dieses Wort anders von Búfw, Búw mit Etymol. m. abzuleiten ist, was neuer-
lich Fr. Rom. I. 136 bestritten hat, theils weil Búw nicht scheine tegere geheissen zu
haben (wie bei dieser Etymologie angenommen wird), theils weil das Wort nicht be-
stimmt das Glied bezeichne, dessen Extremität bedeckt sei, also nicht verstanden worden
sein würde. Jener erste Grund scheint mir durchgreifender als der zweite. Ich möchte
aber glauben, dass ἀκροβυστία nicht eine absichtslose Umbildung des griech. ἀκροποσθία,
sondern geflissentliche Umgestaltung sei, welche aus Schaam die Sache verdeckt aus-
drücken sollte àкрóВνσтоs vorn (an der Spitze) strotzend von Unbeschnittenen im
Gegensatz der Beschnittenen, deren vorderes Schaamglied glatt und straff war. Es ist
100
§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS.
112
1
91 τριοπραγμοσύνη Plato, rep. 4, 444 b.), ἀνθρωπάρεσκος (Lob. 621),
6th ed. ποταμοφόρητος (cf. ὑδατοφόρητος Const. Man. 409), καρδιογνώστης
(καρδιόπληκτος Theoph. I. 736, καρδιοκολάπτης Leo Gr. 441),
σητόβρωτος, ὀφθαλμοδουλεία, εἰδωλολάτρης, εἰδωλόθυτον (Cedren.
95 I. 286, cf. the abstract eidwλodvoía Theophan. 415), deoµopúλağ
Tth oil. (νωτοφύλαξ Theophan. I. 608), ορκωμοσία (cf. ἀπωμοσία, κατωμο-
σία), πατροπαράδοτος (θεοπαράδοτος Theophan. I. 627), ἰσάγγελος
(Theoph. I. 16), εὐπερίστατος, πολυποίκιλος, the Adverb παμπληθεί
(the Adj. παμπληθής is found in good authors), εἰλικρινής, εἰλι-
κрíveιa (Fuhr, Dicaearch. p. 198).
To the compound devreρóπρwTos in Luke vi. 1 (?) comes nearest
Sevтeρоdekáтη found in Jerome on Ezek. c. 45. As the latter means
second-tenth, so the former second-first.
Awdekúpuλos, the Neut. of which is used as a noun in Acts xxvi.
7, is sustained by Terρúpuλos Her. 5, 66.
More rarely is the first part of the compound a verb, as in
ἐθελοθρησκεία self-chosen worship ; cf. ἐθελοδουλία.
Compound adjectives whose first part is a privative exhibit
nothing anomalous, though perhaps many of them were not current
in written Greek (ἀμετανόητος, ἀνεξερεύνητος, ἀνεξιχνίαστος); only
ávéλeos Jas. ii. 13, which Lehm. on the authority of good Codd.
[Sin. also] has received into the text instead of ávíλews, is singular,
as the Greeks used avnλens, or at least aveλens (Lob. 710).
Ανέλεος would be formed like ἄνελπις, ἄπαις, and may have been
intended as a verbal antithesis to eλeos. Even Bttm. II. 467 con-
sidered the a of the verb ἀτενίζω, derived from the Adj. ἀτενής, to
be the so-called a intensive; but it is better to take it, with Lob.
pathol. I. 35, for a formative. See besides Döderlein, de äλpa
intensivo sermonis graeci, Erl. 1830, 4to.
b. When the last part of the compound is a verb-in compound
verbs therefore the verbal stem is regularly found unaltered
only in combination with the so-called old prepositions (Scaliger
in Lob. Phryn. 266; Bttm. II. 469 f.); in other cases with a
change so far forth as the verb strictly speaking first adopts its
ending from a noun formed out of the stem, as ἀδυνατεῖν, ὁμολογεῖ
σθαι, νουθετεῖν, εὐεργετεῖν, τροποφορεῖν, ὀρθοτομεῖν (cf. ὀρθοτομία
so in der Art euphemistischer Ausdrücke, dass sie allgemein gehalten werden; die,
unter welchen sie gangbar werden, verständigen sich bald über ihren Sinn.
1 Cf. ¿v0рwñoλáтpns Ephraem. p. 743, πνρσολάтρns Pachym. 134; Geo. Pisid. Heracl.
1, 14, 182, Yeudoλárpns Theodos. acroas. 2, 73, likewise Xploтоλáтpns frequent in Byzan-
tine authors.
§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS.
101
Theophan. cont. p. 812), ἀγαθοεργείν and ἀγαθουργεῖν, μετριο-
παθείν, etc.
This rule, however, has some undoubted exceptions; Scaliger 113
long ago pointed out dus@výoкw in Eurip. (cf. Bttm. II. 472).
EvdokЄiv, therefore, is directly formed from dokeîv, and not, as
Passow maintained, from an intermediate noun dókos (Fr. Rom.
II. 370); it arose simply from a combination of the words in
speaking; cf. Bttm. II. 470. The same remark applies to κapadokεîv
(not to be referred to Sokeúw, Fritzschior. opusc. p. 151); no noun 92
κapadókos exists. Even oµeípeo@at, which in 1 Thess. ii. 8 the 6th ed.
better Codd. [Sin. also] have instead of iµeípeolaɩ, might be ad-
missible, were it to be derived from ὁμοῦ, ὁμός and εἴρειν (Fr. Mr.
p. 792). To be sure, no verb of the kind with oμ. is to be found 96
elsewhere; for ὁμαδέω comes from ὅμαδος; and ὁμοδρομεῖν, ὁμοδο- 7th ed
ξεῖν, ὁμεννετεῖν, ὁμηρεύειν, ὁμοζυγεῖν, ὁμιλεῖν, even ὁμονοεῖν (Bttm.
II. 473), are likewise derived from nouns. Besides, the Genitive,
governed as above by the verb, would be strange (cf. Mtth. II. 907).
Perhaps, however, the first objection should not be pressed in the
case of a word formed in the language of the people. If μeipeo@ai,
which occurs in Nicand. Ther. 400 for ipeipeolau, were the original
form, µeipeσdai and óµeípeo¤ai might exist side by side as well as
δύρεσθαι and ὀδύρεσθαι; indeed ὀμείρεσθαι is perhaps the true
reading (Lob. Pathol. 72).
A formation peculiar to the Hellenistic idiom is προςωποληπτεῖν
(προςωπολήπτης, προςωποληψία Theodos. acroas. 1, 32, ἀπροςωπο-
λńπτws, Acta apocr. p. 86). A corresponding verb is akaтaληπтÉÎV
in Sext. Emp. I. 201; for the concrete derivative, however, compare
δωρολήπτης and εργολήπτης in the Sept. ; and for the abstract
προςωποληψία, cf. ἐρωτοληψία Ephraem. pp. 3104, 7890 ; Nicet.
Eugen. 4, 251.
2
προς
Many other compound nouns of this sort, in which, as in πpos-
ωπολήπτης, θανατηφόρος, the second part is derived from a verb
while the first denotes the object, etc. (Bttm. II. 478), occur in
the N. T. but are unknown to the Greeks: e.g. de§ioλáßos he who
takes position at one's right, hence an attendant.
From such compounds arise in turn, not only abstract nouns
(σκηνοπηγία even, belongs to this class, as though from σκηνοπηγός,
1 On these forms see Bttm. II. 457. Against oikovpyeîv and oikovρyós (Tit. ii. 5 var.)
cf. Fr. de crit. conform. p. 29.
2 Also αυθάδης is a compound of this description, from αὐτός and ἥδειν, ήδεσθαι Bttm.
II. 458.
102
§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS.
according to numerous analogies, as Kλvoπnyia), but also verbs:
λιθοβολεῖν from λιθοβόλος (cf. ἀνθοβολεῖν, θηροβολεῖν, ἡλιοβο-
114 λείσθαι, etc.), ὀρθοποδεῖν from ὀρθόπους, δεξιολαβεῖν Leo Gram.
p. 175 (Bttm. II. 479).
In decomposite verbs, the preposition which constitutes the double
composition is naturally put first, as ἀπεκδέχεσθαι, συναντιλαμβάνεσθαι.
Aιαжαρатρiẞn in 1 Tim. vi. 5 would violate this rule, if it must mean mis-
placed diligence or unprofitable disputing. For this word can only signify
continued (endless) hostilities, collisions; napadiaтpißn would be required
to express the former meaning. The majority of the Codd., however,
[Sin. also] have diaraparpiẞn and this Lehm. has printed. A transposition
of the prepositions is accordingly assumed (even by Fr. Mr. p. 796). Yet
Siaraрarpiẞn continued dissension, is not unsuited to the passage. The
other compounds beginning with Sarapa which occur, viz. 1 Kings vi. 4
διαπαρακύπτεσθαι, and 2 Sam. iii. 30 διαπαρατηρεῖν, would be regular ac-
cording to their respective import, if no doubt existed regarding the former;
93 see Schleusner, thes. philol. sub voc. The double compound TaρакаTаρÝKη
παρακαταθήκη
6th ed. and the compound аpа0ýkη are equivalent in meaning (Lennep ad Phalar.
ep. p. 198, Lips.; Lob. 312). The latter, however, is better established
97 in the N. T. The Codd. exhibit variations of both forms even in Thuc.
7th ed. 2, 72 (see the commentators), and in Plutarch. ser. vind. see Wyttenb.
II. 530. Cf. besides Heinichen, ind. ad Euseb. III. 529.
Many verbs, compound as well as decompound, are found in Biblical
Greek which do not occur in the classic language. In particular, verbs
which the older writers used as simple, appear strengthened with preposi-
tions which exhibit as it were to the senses the mode of the action (for
the later language loves, in general, what is graphic and expressive); e.g.
καταλιθάζειν to stone down to death, ἐξορκίζειν to get a declaration on oath
out of one, ἐξαστράπτειν to fash forth, ἐκγαμίζειν to give away (out of the
family) in marriage (elocare), διεγείρειν, ἐξανατέλλειν, ἐξομολογεῖν, and many
others; see my five Progr. de verborum cum praepositt. compositor. in
N. T. usu. Lips. 1834-43, 4to.
In the same way, and for the same reason, compound and double com-
pound adverbs (prepositions) were used in later Greek; as, éπávw, kat-
ενώπιον, κατέναντι. In Byzantine authors such formations are carried to a
greater extent than in Biblical Greek; cf. e.g. катeжάνw in Constantin.
Porphyrogen.
Note 1. Proper names, particularly such as are compounds, frequently
appear in the N. T. in those contracted forms which are péculiar to the
language of the people, and which are in part very bold (Lob. 434, cf.
Schmid on Horat. epp. 1, 7, 55); as, 'Aroλλús for 'Aоλλovios, 'Apreµâs for
Αρτεμίδωρος Tit. iii. 12, Νυμφᾶς for Νυμφόδωρος Col. iv. 15, Ζηνᾶς for
1 Keil in the Philologus II. 468 expressed his conviction that he had found this name
in an inscription in Böckh.
§ 16. FORMATION OF WORDS.
103
Ζηνόδωρος Tit. iii. 13, Παρμενᾶς for Παρμενίδης Acts vi. 5, Δημᾶς probably 115
for Δημέας, Δημήτριος οι Δήμαρχος Col. iv. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 10, probably
also Ολυμπᾶς for 'Ολυμπιόδωρος Rom. xvi. 15, Επαφρας for Επαφρόδιτος
Col. i. 7 ; iv. 12, and Ερμᾶς for Ερμόδωρος Rom. xvi. 14, Θευδάς for Θεόδωρος
i.e. Θεόδωρος, and Λουκᾶς for Lucanus (in Greek authors cf. Αλεξάς for
Αλέξανδρος Jos. bell. 6, 1, 8, Μηνας for Μηνόδωρος, Πυθᾶς for Πυθόδωρος,
Merpas Euseb. H. E. 6, 41). Many also in as not circumflexed appear
to be abbreviated; as, 'Aµmλías for Ampliatus Rom. xvi. 8, 'Avτíñas for
Αντίπατρος Rev. ii. 18, Κλεόπας for Κλεόπατρος Luke xxiv. 18, perhaps
Σίλας for Σιλουανός ; see Heumann, Poecile III. 314. Σώπατρος for Σωσί-
πaтρos Acts xx. 4 (which even some Codd. give) would be likewise a very
violent contraction, though nearer the beginning. Zarpos, however,
may be an original form. On the other hand, proper names in Xaos, which
probably not (Mtth. I. 149) the Dorians alone contracted into λas, occur
in the N. T. uncontracted: Nikólaos, 'Apxéλaos. Moreover, how even the
earlier Greeks contracted names of persons for the sake of euphony,
K. Keil has shown by examples in his spec. onomatolog. gr. (L. 1840, 8vo.)
p. 52 sqq. The German affords examples of similar abbreviations and
contractions in great numbers, some very forced, as Klaus from Nikolaus,
Käthe (Kathi) from Katharina; many of them have become independent
names which even occur in literature, as Fritz (Friedrich), Heinz (Hein-
rich), Hans, Max. Cf. Lob. prolegg. pathol. p. 504 sqq. In general, 94
however, on Greek names of persons see Sturz, Progr. de nominib. Graecor., 6th ed
also in his Opusc. (Lips. 1825, 8vo.), W. Pape, Wörterb. der griech. Eigen-
98
namen. Brschw. 1842, 8vo. (Hall. L. Z. 1843. No. 106-108), and the
Beiträge zur Onomatologie by Keil in Schneidewin, Philologus, vols. 2
and 3.
mostly sub-
Note 2. Latin words adopted into the Greek of the N. T.,
stantives denoting Roman judicial institutions, coins, or articles of dress,—
exhibit nothing peculiar with regard to form. Latin verbs made to assume
Greek forms make their first appearance later, in the Greek style of the
Pseudepigrapha, the Byzantines, etc. See Thilo, Acta App. Petri et Pauli,
Hal. 1837, 4to. I. p. 10 sq.
7th ed
99
7th ed.
95
6th ed.
116
PART III.
SYNTAX.
A. IMPORT AND USE OF THE SEVERAL PARTS OF SPEECH.
CHAPTER I.
OF THE ARTICLE.1
§ 17. THE ARTICLE AS A PRONOUN.
1. The article o, n, Tó was originally a demonstrative pronoun,
and is regularly employed as such in epic poetry, to which
belongs the quotation from Aratus in Acts xvii. 28: Toû yàp yévos
èoμév; cf. Soph. Oed. R. 1082 тŶs уàρ тé‡νка μnтрós (Mtth. 737.
For prose cf. Athen. 2, p. 37).
In prose on the other hand the article is ordinarily equivalent
to a demonstrative pronoun only -
a. In the current formulas ó µèv ... ô dé, oi pèv ... oi dé,² some-
times in reference to a subject previously mentioned: this... that,
the one. the other Acts xiv. 4; xvii. 32; xxviii. 24; Heb. vii. 20 f.;
Gal. iv. 23 (Schaef. Dion. 421), sometimes partitively without such
reference, Eph. iv. 11 ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας,
TOús dè, etc. (some... others).
b. In the course of narration, in the simple phrase ó dé, oi dé,
100 but he, etc. (as opposed to some other subject); as, Matt. xiii. 29
7th ed. ὁ δὲ ἔφη, ii. 9 οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες ἐπορεύθησαν, ii. 14; ix. 31; Luke
1 A. Kluit, vindiciae artic. in N. T. Traj. et Alcmar. 1768-1771. P. I. Tom. I.-III.,
P. II. Tom. I. II. 8vo. (the book itself is written in Dutch), T. F. Middleton, the doctrine
of the Greek Article applied to the criticism and illustration of the New Test. Lond. 1808,
8vo.; cf. Schulthess in the theol. Annal. 1808, S. 56 ff. E. Valpy, a short treatise on
the doctrine of the Greek Article, according to Middleton, etc., briefly and compendi-
ously explained as applicable to the criticism of the N. T., prefixed to his Greck Tes-
tament with English notes. Lond. 3rd ed. 1834, 3 Vols. 8vo. Emmerling's remarks on
the Article in the N. T. in Keil and Tzschirner's Analekt. I. II. 147 ff. are unimportant.
On the other hand, Bengel Matt. xviii. 17 discusses the subject briefly but to the purpose.
2 On the accentuation see Hm. Vig. p. 700. On the other side, Krüg. p. 83.
§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS, a. BEFORE NOUNS. 105
iii. 13; viii. 21; xx. 12; Jno. i. 39; ix. 38; Acts i. 6; ix. 40, etc. 117
(Xen. A. 2, 3, 2; Aesch. dial. 3, 15, 17; Philostr. Ap. 1, 21, 5;
Diod. S. Exc. Vat. p. 26, 29 etc.)
For oi pèv... oi dé are found also oi pèv ... ☎Moɩ dé Jno. vii. 12, oi pèv 96
äλλai dè... Étepoɩ dé Matt. xvi. 14 (Plato, legg. 2, 658 h.; Ael. 2, 6th ed.
34;
Palaeph. 6, 5), TIVÈS oi dé Acts xvii. 18, cf. Plato, legg. 1, 627 a. and Ast
on the passage. Similar expressions are still more diversified in Greek
authors (Mtth. 742).
·
Instead of the Article, the Relative also is employed in such antithetical
statements; as, 1 Cor. xi. 21 ôs µèv teiâ, ôs dè μevel, Matt. xxi. 35 öv µèv
édeιрav, ov dè åπékтeivav, etc., Acts xxvii. 44; Rom. ix. 21; Mark xii. 5;
cf. Polyb. 1, 7, 3; 3,76 4; Thuc. 3, 66; see Georgi, Hierocr. I. 109 sqq.;
Hm. Vig. 706. Once ôs µèv ... Mλos dé 1 Cor. xii. 8 (Xen. A. 3, 1, 35);
ồ µèv (Neut.) ... Kaì éтepov Luke viii. 5 ff.; in 1 Cor. xii. 28 an anacoluthon
μὲν
is easily perceived. See in general Bhdy. 306 f. (In Rom. xiv. 2 & dé is
not related to ὃς μέν, but ὁ is the Article belonging to ἀσθενῶν.)
2. In Matt. xxvi. 67; xxviii. 17 oi Sé is used of a second party
without a first's having been designated by oi pév. The former
passage ἐνέπτυσαν εἰς τὸ πρόςωπον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκολάφισαν αὐτόν, οἱ δὲ
ἐῤῥάπισαν would more regularly run thus: καὶ οἱ μὲν ἐκολάφ. ;
but as he writes éxoλáp. the author has no second distributive
clause definitely in mind as yet; but when he subjoins oi dè èpp.
it becomes self-evident that exoλáp. applies to a part only of the
actors ; cf. Xen. Η. 1, 2, 14 οἱ αἰχμάλωτοι . . . ᾤχοντο ἐς Δεκέλειαν,
oi d' és Méyapa, Cyr. 3, 2, 12; see Poppo ad. Cyr. p. 292; Bremi,
Demosth. p. 273.
273. So, in Matt. xxviii., it is first stated in general
terms οἱ ἕνδεκα μαθηταὶ ... ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προςεκύνησαν; that this,
however, is to be understood only of the greater number is clear
from what follows-oi dè édioraσav. In Luke ix. 19 oi Sé refers
regularly to the previously mentioned µalnτaí vs. 18, and should
seem to denote that all gave the answer which follows; but the
expressions ἄλλοι δὲ . . . ἄλλοι δέ show that the answer was given
by only a part of the disciples. Matt. xvi. 14 is more regular:
οἱ δὲ εἶπον· οἱ μὲν ᾿Ιωάννην . . . ἄλλοι δὲ . . . ἕτεροι δέ.
oi dè oi
dè...
§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS, a. BEFORE NOUNS.
1. When ó, n, Tó is employed as strictly an Article before a
noun, it marks the object as one definitely conceived,¹ whether in
1 Cf. Epiphan. haer. 1, 9, 4.— Herm. praef. ad Eurip. Iphig. Aul. p. 15: articulus
quoniam origine pronomen demonstrativum est, definit infinita idque duobus modis,
aut designando certo de multis aut quae multa sunt, cunctis in unum colligendis.
118
106 § 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS, a. BEFORE NOUNS.
101 consequence of its nature, or the context, or some circle of ideas
7th ed. assumed as known; as, Mark i. 32 őre edu & λos, Jno. i. 52 öeole
τὸν οὐρανὸν ἀνεῳγότα, 1 Cor. xv. 8 ὡςπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη καμοί
(the only abortion among the apostles), Acts xxvii. 38 èxßaλλóμevol
TÒV σîTOV Els Tηv Oáλaoσav the grain (which was the vessel's cargo),
Luke iv. 20 πτύξας το βιβλίον (which had been handed to him
97 vs. 17) άπоdoùs τŵ úπηρéτη (the beadle of the synagogue), Jno. xiii.
6th ed. 5 Báλλei üdwρ eis Tòv viπTĥpa the basin (that stood there, as usual),
cf. Matt. xxvi. 26 f.; Jno. vi. 3 àvñλ0ev eis tò öpos into the mountain
(situated just there on the farther shore vs. 1), 1 Cor. v. 9 eypaya
ẻv tỷ ẻπlotoλŷ (which Paul had previously written to the Cor.),
Acts ix. 2 ᾐτήσατο ἐπιστολὰς εἰς Δαμασκὸν πρὸς τὰς συναγωγάς to
the synagogues (there in Damascus), Rev. xx. 4 éẞaoiλevoav μETÀ
Χριστοῦ τὰ χίλια ἔτη the thousand years (the known duration of
the Messiah's kingdom), Jas. ii. 25 'Paàß ǹ tópvn úπodekaµévn
Tous ȧyyéλous the spies (mentioned in the history of Rahab), Heb.
ix. 19 λαβὼν τὸ αἷμα τῶν μόσχων καὶ τῶν τράγων with allusion
to Exod. xxiv. 8. So 1 Cor. vii. 3 Tŷ yʊvaikí ó ȧvýρ τýv ỏþeiλýv
ȧTоdidóтw the (i.e. matrimonial) attention due, vii. 29 ó Kaupòs σvve-
σταλμένος ἐστίν; cf. vs. 26 διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην. The Article
thus refers to known facts, arrangements, or opinions, Acts v. 37;
xxi. 38; Heb. xi. 28; 1 Cor. x. 1, 10; 2 Thess. ii. 3; Juo. i. 21;
ii. 14; xviii. 3; Matt. viii. 4, 12, or to something previously men-
tioned, Matt. ii. 7 (1); Luke ix. 16 (13); Acts ix. 17, (11); Jno.
iv. 43 (40); Acts xi. 13 (x. 3, 22); Jas. ii. 3 (2); Jno. xii. 12 (1);
xx. 1 (xix. 41); Heb. v. 4 (1); Rev. xv. 6 (1). Accordingly o
ἐρχόμενος is the Messiah, ἡ κρίσις the last) judgment, ἡ γραφή the
holy Scripture, ʼn owτnpía Christian salvation, ó πreipáčov the Tempter
-Satan, etc. So also of geographical designations, nepnuos the
desert, so called by way of eminence, 77, i.e. according to the
context, either the Arabian desert (of Mount Sinai) Jno. iii. 14;
vi. 31; Acts vii. 30, or the desert of Judea Matt. iv. 1; xi. 7.
119
•
To be particularly noticed, further, is the use of a Singular with
the Article to express in the person of a definite individual a
whole class; as when we say, the soldier must be trained to arms:
2 Cor. xii. 12 τὰ σημεῖα τοῦ ἀποστόλου, Matt. xii. 35 ὁ ἀγαθὸς
ἄνθρωπος
ÉκBÚλλЄι áуalá, xv. 11; xviii. 17; Luke x. 7; Gal.
iv. 1; Jas. v. 6. Allied to this is the Singular in parables and
allegories: Jno. x. 11 ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλὸς τὴν ψυχὴν αὑτοῦ τίθησιν,
where the Good Shepherd is brought forward as an ideal; Matt.
xiii. 3 ἐξῆλθεν ὁ σπείρων τοῦ σπείρειν (where Luther incorrectly
has, a sower). See Krü. 86 f.
§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 107
Note. According to Kühnöl the Article (cf. the emphatic das in
German) sometimes includes the force of the pronoun this (cf. Siebelis,
Pausan. I. 50; Boisson. Babr. p. 207), Matt. i. 25 ròv vióv for Toûrov Tòv 102
τοῦτον τὸν
vióv, Jno. vii. 17 yvwσerai tepì rŷs didaxŷs, vs. 40 èk toû õydov, Acts xxvi. 10 7th ed.
Tǹv πapà tŵv åpɣiepéwv éžovoíav daßóv, Mark xiii. 20; Acts ix. 2; but the
definite Article is quite sufficient in all such cases.
Heumann has gone
still further in conceding this import of the Article, and is followed by
Schulthess (n. krit. Journ. I. 285), who, with Kühnöl, quite erroneously
refers to Mtth. § 286, where this use of the Article, which can hardly
occur in prose (except Ionic), is not discussed. Col. iv. 16 årav åvayvwobân
πaρ vµîv ý ẻmισToλń we also say, when the letter is read (not the (this) letter
no such underscoring is needed, since the letter in hand could be the only
one thought of); some authorities add arn, but the ancient versions ought 98
not to be reckoned in. In 1 Tim. i. 15 even in German the Demonst. 6th ed.
Pronoun is not required, nor in vi. 13. In 2 Cor. v. 4 the Art. in ẻv Tậ
σκήνει is not put δεικτικῶς for τούτῳ, but simply refers back to σκηνos men-
tioned in vs. 1. In Col. iii. 8 åñóðeσde kaì vµeîs tà távta is not, all this
(or that) (intensive), but the whole, viz. what is immediately (a second
time) adduced. Also in Rom. v. 5 ý (è̟λñís) is simply the Article; see
Fr. Least of all must ὁ κόσμος be taken for οὗτος ὁ κόσμος; it means the
world as distinguished from heaven, the kingdom of heaven; not this world
as opposed to another κóσμos. The same judgment must be passed also
upon those passages which might be adduced as proofs of this usage in
classic authors, Diog. Laert. 1, 72 and 86. One cannot possibly compre-
hend how the apostles could have been induced, in certain passages where
they thought the demonstrative pronoun, to employ
article, which is much weaker in every instance.
propriety revolts against such a use of language.
the very characteristic of the later language in general (and of that of the
N. T. also).
not that, but the
One's sense of linguistic
Besides, explicitness is
By Greek authors, particularly Ionic and Doric (Mtth. 747; cf. Ellendt,
Lexic. Soph. II. 204), and afterwards by the Byzant. (Malal. p. 95, 102),
the Art. was sometimes used for the Relative. Some have asserted that
the same use is found in the N. T. in Acts xiii. 9 Zaûλos ó kaì HПaîλos (see 120
Schleusner s. h. v.); but incorrectly, for ó kaì II. is here equivalent to
καὶ
8 Kai Kaλоúμevos Пavλos (Schaef. L. Bos. p. 213), and the Article retains
its ordinary import, just as in Σ. 8 Tapoeús. Compare the similar Пîkos ó
Πίκος
kaì Zeús Malal. ed. Bonn. p. 19 sq.; Act. Thom. p. 34. On the other hand,
compare in Hellenistic writers, Psalt. Sal. xvii. 12 èv roîs кpíµaσi, và moleî
ẻπì Tǹv yêv, if the reading is correct. In Wisd. xi. 15, where ov the reading
of the Cod. Alex. is probably a correction, Tòv is to be regarded as the
Article.
2. The use of the Article which has just been discussed is
common to the Greek with all languages that possess an Article.
108
§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS.
The following cases on the other hand (cases where in German
the definite Art. is not used) are to be noticed as peculiar:
103
T
a. Rev. iv. 7 τὸ ζῶον ἔχον τὸ πρόςωπον ὡς ἀνθρώπου (Xen. C.
7th ed. 5, 1, 2 ὁμοίαν ταῖς δούλαις εἶχε τὴν ἐσθῆτα, Theophr. ch. 12 [19]
TOÙS Övvxas peɣáλovs ëxwv, Polyaen. 8, 10, 1 a.), Acts xxvi. 24
µeyáλy tŷ Pwvŷ ếpŋ, xiv. 10; 1 Cor. xi. 5 (Aristot. anim. 2, 8 and
10; Lucian. catapl. 11; D. S. 1, 70, 83; Pol. 15, 29, 11; Philostr.
Ap. 4, 44). We say, he had eyes like, etc.; he spoke with a loud
voice, etc. The Greek here by the Article designates what belongs
to the individual in a definite form, as is more obvious from Heb.
vii. 24 ἀπαράβατον ἔχει τὴν ἱερωσύνην he hath the priesthood as un-
changeable (predicate), Mark viii. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 12; iv. 8; Eph.
i. 18 and from Matt. iii. 4 εἶχε τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τριχῶν καμή
λov, Rev. ii. 18 (differing from the preceding examples by the
addition of the pronoun). From Greek authors, for the former
cf. Thuc. 1, 10 and 23; Plato, Phaedr. 242 b.; Lucian. dial. deor.
99 8,1; fugit. 10; eun. 11; D. S. 1, 52; 2, 19; 3, 34; Ael. anim.
6th ed. 13, 15; Pol. 3, 4, 1; 8, 10, 1; see Lob. Phryn. 265; Krü. Dion. .
H. 126. (The Art. is sometimes omitted e.g. in 2 Pet. ii. 14; cf.
Aristot. anim. 2, 8 and 10 with 2, 11.)
121
b. 1 Cor. iv. 5 τότε ὁ ἔπαινος γενήσεται ἑκάστῳ the praise which
is due him, Rom. xi. 36 avr@ Sóta eis Toùs al@vas, xvi. 27; Eph.
iii. 21; Gal. i. 5; 1 Pet. iv. 11; Rev. v. 13; Rev. iv. 11 ä§ios ei
λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμήν, Jas. ii. 14 τί τὸ ὄφελος ἐὰν πίστιν
Xéyn Tis exew the advantage to be expected, 1 Cor. xv. 32; 1 Cor.
ix. 18 Tís μoí Èotiv å μolós (Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 212). In
gencral the Art. here denotes that which is due, requisite, etc.,
Krü. 84. Accordingly it is often used where we employ a Pos-
sessive Pronoun; as, Rom. iv. 4 τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ ὁ μισθὸς οὐ λογίζεται
ό
his reward, ix. 22; Luke xviii. 15. Cf. Fritzsche, Aristot. Amic.
pp. 46, 99.
On the other hand, no example occurs of the use of the Art. discussed
by Mtth. 714 and Rost 438 in appellations (Schaef. Demosth. IV. 365);
for in Rev. vi. 8 ὄνομα αὐτῷ ὁ θάνατος, viii. 11 τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ἀστέρος λέγεται
ὁ ἄψινθος, xix. 13 κέκληται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, a name is nen-
tioned in every case which belongs individually and exclusively to the object.
3. Adjectives and participles used substantively are, like sub-
stantives, rendered definite by the Article; as, 1 Cor. i. 27 oi copni,
Eph. vi. 16 βέλη τοῦ πονηροῦ, Gal. i. 23 ὁ διώκων ὑμᾶς, Tit. iii. 8
οἱ πεπιστευκότες τῷ θεῷ, 1 Cor. ix. 13 οἱ τὰ ἱερὰ ἐργαζόμενοι, Malt.
x. 20; 2 Cor. ii. 2; x. 16; 1 Cor. xiv. 16; Heb. xii. 27.
§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS.
109
But the place of the noun may be occupied also by an indeclina-
ble part of speech, as an Inf. or an Adverb, 2 Cor. i. 17, or by a
phrase, Rom. iv. 14 οἱ ἐκ νόμου, Hel. xiii. 24 οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ιταλίας
(D. S. 1, 83), Acts xiii. 13 oí Tepì Пavλov, Phil. i. 27 Tà TEρì
vμav etc. 1 Cor. xiii. 10 (Krü. 92); and indeed (after 76) by a
whole proposition, Acts xxii. 30 yvŵvai tò tí katηyopeîtaι (iv. 21;
1 Thess. iv. 1; Luke xxii. 2, 23, 37), Mark ix. 23 eltev avtý tó·
εἰ δύνῃ ; Gal. v. 14 ὁ πᾶς νόμος ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ πεπλήρωται, ἐν τῷ·
άɣaπýσeis Tòν πλŋolov σov, Rom. viii. 26; xiii. 9; Luke i. 62;
[Matt. xix. 18]. (Sentences thus made prominent are usually 104
quotations or interrogations.) Cf. Plato, Gorg. 461 e. and Phaed. 7th ed
62 b.; rep. 1, 352 d.; Demosth. Con. 728 c.; Lucian. Alex. 20;
Mtth. 730 f.; Stallb. Plat. Euthyph. p. 55, and Men. 25. Even
an Adverb or a Genitive connected with the Art. (particularly the
Neut.) becomes a virtual Substantive (Ellendt, Arrian. Al. 1. 84;
Weber, Demosth. p. 237); as, Luke xvi. 26 oi èkeîlev, Jno. viii. 23
τὰ κάτω, τὰ ἄνω, Jno. xxi. 2 οἱ τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου, Luke xx. 25 τὰ
Καίσαρος, Jas. iv. 14 τὸ τῆς αὔριον, 2 Pet. ii. 22 τὸ τῆς ἀληθοῦς
rapovias, 1 Cor. vii. 33 và Tôi kéouou, 2 Pet. i. 3; 2 Cor. i. 16 ;
Phil. i. 5; Jno. xviii. 6, etc. Krü. 28, 93. So too, in German we
can say briefly, das droben, das des morgenden Tags (what will
happen to-morrow), die des Zebedäus (those belonging to him, e.g.
sons), see § 30, 3. Often, however, we must use a periphrasis; 100
was dem Kaiser gebührt; etc. As a mere periphrasis, like Tò TÊS 6th ad
dó§ns for ǹ dóğa 1 Pet. iv. 14, the neut. Art. is not used in the N.T.
(Huther in loc. [1st ed.] to the contrary.)
The Neut. ró is sometimes put before nouns to designate them in the
abstract, as sounds or combinations of sound: Gal. iv. 25 тò yàp "Ayap etc.,
the (word) Hagar:
In many connections a participle used substantively occurs with an article
(which is not admissible in German) as a definite predicate to an indefinite
subject, Gal. i. 7 τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς, Col. ii. 8 μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται
ó ovλayayŵv, also Jno. v. 32; Luke xviii. 9; or as a definite subject where,
logically, an indefinite was to be expected, Rom. iii. 11 ouk čotiv d ovviŵv
(Jno. v. 45), 2 Cor. xi. 4 εἰ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἄλλον Ἰησοῦν κηρύσσει. But in
Greek in all such cases the quality is conceived of as a definite concrete, 122
only the person, who is this concrete in action, remains indefinite. The
Tаρáσσovтes vμâs really exist, only as individuals they are not more closely
designated. If he that cometh (the preacher who will not fail to appear
1 Cf. in Latin sunt qui existimant as distinguished from sunt qui existiment; sec Zumpt,
S. 480.
110 § 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS.
among you, person and name are of no consequence), etc.; he that un-
derstandeth is not (to be found), etc. So Lucian. abdic. 3 ἦσαν. τινὲς οἱ
μανίας ἀρχὴν τοῦτ᾽ εἶναι νομίζοντες, Lysias bon. Aristoph. 57 εἰσί τινες οἱ
προςαναλίσκοντες, Dio Chr. 38, 482 ἤδη τινές εἰσιν οἱ καὶ τοῦτο δεδοικότες, and
the frequent cloìv oi Aéyovres Mtth. 713, also Xen. A. 2, 4, 5 8 ynσáμevos
οὐδεὶς ἔσται, Thuc. 3. 83 οὐκ ἦν ὁ διαλύσων, Porphyr. abst. 4, 18 οὐδείς ἐστιν
ó κоλáσwν, (Sept. Gen. xl. 8; xli. 8; Deut. xxii. 27; 1 Sam. xiv. 39). See
Bhdy. 318 f.; Hm. Soph. Oed. R. 107; Doederl. Soph. Oed. Col. p. 296;
Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 238. Acts ii. 47 o kúрιоs πроsεтíbeι тOús σwČoμévovs
105 tỷ ékkλŋoía means, he added to the church those that were being saved (in
7th ed. consequence of their believing), he increased the church by those in whom
preaching took effect; cf. Krü. 89.
Between Toλλoí and oi woλλoí put substantively (the latter is very rare
in the N. T.) we find the usual distinction. Oi Toλλoí means the (known)
many 2 Cor. ii. 17 contrasted with unity, Rom. xii. 5 oi toddoì èv oôµá
ẻoμev (1 Cor. x. 17), or opposed to a definite individual Rom. v. 15, 19, or,
without such contrast, the generality, the (great) mass, the vulgus (all but
a few) Matt. xxiv. 12; cf. Schaef. Melet. p. 3. 65.
S
4. Nouns rendered more distinctly definite by oûtos or ékeîvos as
adjectives,¹ always have the Article, inasmuch as they distinguish
some individual from the mass (not so in German nor in Eng-
lish): ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος Luke ii. 25, οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος xiv. 30, τὸν
ảypòv ékeîvov Matt. xiii. 44, èv èkeivy tŷ ýµépą Matt. vii. 22, ó κakòs
Soûλos ékeîvos Matt. xxiv. 48. Also in Luke vii. 44 the accredited
reading is βλέπεις ταύτην τὴν γυναῖκα, though ταύτην γυναῖκα,— as
the woman was present, according to Wolf in Dem. Lept. p. 263;
101 Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 243; Krü. 108, would be unexceptionable.
Names of persons also with oûTOs usually have the Article; as,
Heb. vii. 1; Acts i. 11; ii. 32; xix. 26 (vii. 40).
6th ed.
A noun with Tâs may either have the Art. or not; πâσa #ÓXIS
means every city, πâσa ý πóλis the whole city Matt. viii. 34 (Rom.
iii.19 ἵνα πᾶν στόμα φραγῇ καὶ ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος);
πᾶσαι γενεαί αll generations, whatever their number, πᾶσαι αἱ
yeveal Matt. i. 17 all the generations, known as a definite plural
123 either from the context or some other source. Cf. Sing. Matt. iii.
10; vi. 29; xiii. 47; Jno. ii. 10; Luke vii. 29; Mark v. 33; Phil.
i. 3; Plur. Matt. ii. 4; iv. 24; Luke xiii. 27; Acts xxii. 15; Gal.
vi. 6; 2 Pet. iii. 16 (where there is not much authority for the
Art.).
1 It is otherwise when these pronouns are predicates; as, Rom. ix. 8 Taûтa TÉKVA TOÛ
θεοῦ, Luke i. 36 οὗτος μὴν ἕκτος ἐστίν, Jno. iv. 18 τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας, ii. 11, etc. Cf.
Fr. Mt. 663; Schaef. Plut. IV. 377.
§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a., BEFORE NOUNS. 111
The following are not exceptions:¹ Matt. ii. 3 #âoa‘Iepooóλvµa
all Jerusalem (for 'Tepooóλvua is a proper name, see paragraph 5),
Acts ii. 36 mâs olkos 'Iopanλ the whole house of Israel (for this too
is treated as a proper name 1 Sam. vii. 2 f.; Neh. iv. 16; Judith
viii. 6). In Eph. iii. 15 Tâσa Tатρiá obviously means every race,
Col. iv. 12 év TaνTI DEλýμаTI TOû Beoû in every will of God (in
everything which God wills), 1 Pet. i. 15 év Táoŋ úvaσтpopî in
omni vitae modo.
Still less are the following instances to be considered as excep-
tional: Jas. i. 2 πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε, Eph. i. 8 ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ
(2 Cor. xii. 12; Acts xxiii. 1) all (full) joy, in all (full) wisdom 106
-for they are abstracts denoting a whole, where every wisdom 7th ed
and all wisdom substantially coincide, Krü. 106. Only in Epl. ii.
21 there is preponderating authority for Tâoa oikodoµń, though,
since the church of Christ as a whole is spoken of, the whole build-
ing is the proper translation; A C [Sin**] however, actually give
the Art., which owing to the Itacism might easily have fallen out.
Iâs joined to a participle not equivalent to a noun demands particular
notice: πâs opуigóμevos means every one angry (when, if, while he is angry),
cf. 1 Cor. xi. 4, but πâs 8 ỏpyisóμevos Matt. v. 22 every angry person i.q.
Tâs Östis opyilerai; cf. Luke vi. 47; xi. 10; Jno. iii. 20; xv. 2; 1 Cor.
ix. 25; 1 Thess. i. 7, etc.; Krü. 89. This distinction must guide our
judgment respecting the double reading Luke xi. 4 παντὶ ὀφείλοντι and
παντὶ τῷ ὀφείλοντι, see Mey.
STI
TOLOûTOS is joined to a noun without an Art. when such, any such, of this
sort, is meant; as, Matt. ix. 8 éέovσía Tolaúτη, Mark iv. 33 тоlαûтαι пaрaßoλai,
Acts xvi. 24 Tapayyedía тolαúтη, 2 Cor. iii. 12. When, on the other hand,
a particular object is pointed out as such a or of such a sort, the noun natu-
rally takes the Art. ; as, Mark ix. 37 ev Tŵv TOLOÚTWV Tαidíwv (with reference
to πaidíov in vs. 36 that represents childhood), Jno. iv. 23; 2 Cor. xii. 3, cf. 102
vs. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 13; Schaef. Demos. III. 136; Schneider, Plat. civ. II. 6th ed.
1.
p.
"EkaσTOS, which is seldom employed adjectively in the N. T., is always 124
joined to a substantive without an Art., Orelli, Isocr. Antid. p. 255, (9),
Luke vi. 44 ἕκαστον δένδρον, Jno. xix. 23 ἑκάστῳ στρατιώτη, Hel. iii. 13
KAÐ ÉKάστην ηµépav, Bornem. Xen. An. p. 69. In Greek authors the Art.
often accompanies nouns with KaσTOS; Stallb. Plat. Phileb. p. 93 and
Hipp. Maj. 164.
1 Only nouns of the class mentioned in § 19, 1. can, even when joined to mas (the
whole), dispense with the Article, e.g. râσa yî; cf. Thuc. ed. Poppo, III. II. p. 224.
In the N. T. this word always has the Article; as, Matt. xxvii. 45 ènì nâoav tùv yûv,
Rom. x. 18, etc. Finally, the passages Thiersch, de Pentat. Alex. p. 121, has quoted to
prove the omission of the Art. with râs (the whole) in the Sept., are for the most part
quite irrelevant.
112
§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS.
Τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα means the same Spirit; but αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα the Spirit
Himself, Krü. 107. Compare for the former Rom. ix. 21; Phil. i. 30;
Luke vi. 38; xxiii. 40; 2 Cor. iv. 13; for the latter Rom. viii. 26; 1 Cor.
xv. 28; 2 Cor. xi. 14; Jno. xvi. 27. In both cases the Art. is never
omitted in the N. T. with appellatives,- (Luke xx. 42; xxiv. 15 therefore
are no exceptions; Bornem. Schol. p. 158.)¹ as it is sometimes in Greek
authors, that is to say in the former case, especially in epic poetry, Hm.
Opusc. I. 332 sqq., and in later prose (index to Agath. ed. Bonn. p. 411);
in the latter case, even in the better prose authors, Krü. Dion. H. 454 sq.;
Bornem. Xen. An. p. 61; Poppo, index ad Cyr. sub verb.
5. Proper names, as they already denote a definite individual,
do not require the Art., nevertheless, as the established sign of
definiteness, it is often joined to them. First, in regard to geo-
graphical names :
a. The names of countries (and rivers) more frequently take
the Art. than those of cities (cf. die Schweiz, die Lausitz, die
Lombardei, das Elsass, das Tyrol, etc.).
107 The following never or very seldom occur without the Art.:
7th ed. Ιουδαία, 'Αχαΐα, Ιορδάνης, Ιταλία, Γαλιλαία, Μυσία, Ασία (Acts
ii. 9, yet see vi. 9; 1 Pet. i. 1), Zaµápeia (Luke xvii. 11), Zupía
(Acts xxi. 3), Kρńτn (yet Tit. i. 5). Only AlуUπтоs always is
used without the Art., and with Makedovía usage varies.
b. Names of cities most rarely have the Art. when connected
with a preposition (Locella, Xen. Ephes. pp. 223, 242), particularly
with ἐν, εἰς, or ἐκ; cf. the words Δαμασκός, Ιερουσαλήμ, Ιεροσό-
λυμα, Τάρσος, "Εφεσος, Αντιόχεια, Καπερναούμ in the concordance.
Only Καισάρεια, 'Ρώμη and Τρωάς vary strangely.
c. Sometimes it is to be observed that a geographical name,
when it occurs for the first time in the narration, has not the Arti-
cle, but takes it on being repeated; as, Acts xvii. 15 ëws 'A0ŋvŵv
first time, then vs. 16, xviii. 1, with the Art.; Acts xvii. 10 els
Βέροιαν, then vs. 13 ἐν τῇ Β. ; Acts xvi. 9 διαβὰς εἰς Μακεδονίαν, then
125 six times with the Art. (only in xx. 3 without it); Acts xx. 15
ἤλθομεν εἰς Μίλητον, vs. 17 ἀπὸ τῆς Μιλήτου.
103
Iepovoaλnu has the Art. only when accompanied with an adjective ;
Rev. iii. 12; Gal. iv. 25 f.; besides in Acts v. 28 in the Acc. (on the
contrary, Luke xxiv. 18; Acts i. 19, etc.). Ieporóλvµa occurs in the
oblique cases with the Art. only in Jno. (v. 2; x. 22; xi. 18).
6. The use of the Art. with names of persons (Bhdy. 317; Mdv.
6th ed. 17) can hardly be reduced to rule. A comparison of separate
1 In Matt. xii. 50 it is quite unnecessary with Fr. to take abrós for å avrós.
§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 113
passages will easily convince one of the capricious irregularity of
writers,¹ and that he cannot go far with the distinction (Hm. praef.
ad Iphig. Aul. p. 16; Fr. Mt. p. 797; Weber, Demosth. p. 414)
that a proper name is first introduced without the Art. but takes
it when repeated (cf. Matt. xxvii. 24, 58 with 62; Mark xv. 1, 14,
15 with 43; Luke xxiii. 1 ff. with 6 and 13; Jno. xviii. 2 with 5;
Acts vi. 5 with 8 f.; viii. 1 with 3 and ix. 8; Acts viii. 5 with 6,
12); 2 nor with that other (Thilo, Apocr. I. 163 sq.), 'proper
names when in the Nominative usually did not take the Art., but
frequently had it when in the oblique cases.' Hence the authority
of the best MSS. must decide mainly whether the Art. shall stand
or not. Proper names which are rendered definite by subjoined
names of kindred or of office, usually (even in the classics Ellendt, 108
Arrian. Al. I. 154, yet see Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 417 sq.; Diod. S. 7th ed
Exc. Vat. p. 37) dispense with the Art. (since they first become
definite by means of the predicate): Gal. i. 19 'Iákwßov тòv ådeλþòv
τοῦ κυρίου, Matt. x. 4 Ἰούδας ὁ Ισκαριώτης, ii. 1, 3 ; iv. 21; xiv. 1;
Mark x. 47; xvi. 1; Jno. xviii. 2; 1 Thess. iii. 2; Rom. xvi. 8 ff.;
Acts i. 13; xii. 1; xviii. 8, 17. Thus Pausan. e.g. 2, 1, 1; 3,9,1 1;
7, 18, 6; Aeschin. Tim. 179 c.; Diog. L. 4, 32; 7, 10, 13; 8, 58,
63; Demosth. Theocr. 511 c. and Apat. 581 b.; Phorm. 605 b., etc.;
Conon. 728 b.; Xen. Cyr. 1, 3, 8; 2, 1, 5; Diod. S. Exc. Vat. p.
20. 22. 39. 41. 42. 51. 69. 95 etc. On the other hand, with inde- 126
clinable names of persons where the case is not at once apparent
from a preposition, appended title, etc. (as in Mark xi. 10; Luke
i. 32; Jno. iv. 5; Acts ii. 29; vii. 14; xiii. 22; Rom. iv. 1; Heb.
iv. 7) perspicuity seems to require the Art.: Matt. i. 18; xxii. 42;
Mark xv. 45; Luke ii. 16; Acts vii. 8; Rom. ix. 13; xi. 25; Gal.
1 In German, as is well known, the use of the Article before names of persons is
provincial. Der Lehmann, common in Southern Germany, would sound strange in
Northern Germany.
2 Even a person who is mentioned for the first time may take the Article when one
well known to the reader, or otherwise sufficiently particularized.
3 Compare in particular the want of uniformity in the use of the Article with Пauλos
and Пérpos in the Acts. Пáros in Jno. has always the Article; but in the Acts,
never; in Matt. and Mark we find with few exceptions & Пáтos. Tíros has never
the Article.
4 That in the addresses of letters the names of persons are without the Article may be
seen from the collections of Greek letters, from Diog. L. (e.g. 3, 22; 8, 49, 80; 9, 13)
from Plutarch. Apophth. lac p. 191, from Lucian. parasit. 2, etc. Cf. 2 Jno. 1. The
address in 1 Pet. i. 1 Πέτρος . . . ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις, and also Rev. i. 4, are probably
to be referred to this rule. Even characterizing predicates dispense with the Article in
addresses, Diog. L. 7, 7 and 8.
15
114 § 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS.
iii. 8; Heb. xi. 17, etc. (Hence Paul in Rom. x. 19¹ would un-
doubtedly have written μὴ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ οὐκ ἔγνω ; had he regarded
104 'Topanλ as the object; cf. 1 Cor. x. 18; Luke xxiv. 21). In the
genealogies Matt. i. and Luke iii. this is observed throughout, but
also where the names are declinable. With regard to proper
names, too, the Codd. often vary.
6th ed.
7th ed.
.
It may be remarked here that the proper name 'Ioúda, where it is to be
taken as the name of a country, never runs in the Sept. ἡ Ἰούδα, τῆς Ἰούδας,
etc., but always yŷ 'Ioúda (1 Kings xii. 32; 2 Kings xxiv. 2), or the
inflected 'Iovdaía is used instead (2 Chr. xvii. 19). Hence in Matt. ii. 6
the conjecture Tys 'Ioúda is even philologically quite improbable.
7. A Substantive with an Article may be the predicate as well
as the subject of a proposition, since even the predicate may be
conceived of as a definite individual; (though from the nature of
the case the substantive which has the Art. will more frequently
be the subject). In the N. T. the predicate has the Art. much
more frequently than is usually thought, Krü. 91: Mark vi. 3 oux
OÛTÓS ÉσTW Ó TEKTOV is not this the (known) carpenter? vii. 15.
ἐκεῖνά ἐστι τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον those are the things that
defile etc. xii. 7 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ κληρονόμος, xiii. 11 οὐ γάρ ἐστε ὑμεῖς
109 οἱ λαλοῦντες, Matt. xxvi. 26, 28 τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου, τοῦτό
ἐστι τὸ αἷμά μου, Jno. iv. 42 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου, 1
Cor. x. 4 ἡ δὲ πέτρα ἦν ὁ Χριστός, xi. 3 παντὸς ἀνδρὸς ἡ κεφαλὴ
ὁ Χριστός ἐστι, xv. 56 ἡ δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ νόμος, 2 Cor.
iii. 17 ὁ κύριος τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν, 1 Jno. iii. 4 ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν
ἡ ἀνομία, Phil. ii. 13 ὁ θεός ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ; cf. also Matt. v. 13;
vi. 22; xvi. 16; Mark viii. 29; ix. 7; xv. 2; Jno. i. 4, 8, 50;
iii. 10; iv. 29;2 v. 35, 39; vi. 14, 50, 51, 63; ix. 8, 19, 20; x. 7;
xi. 25; xiv. 21; Acts iv. 11; vii. 32; viii. 10; ix. 21; xxi. 28, 38;
Phil. iii. 3, 19; Eph. i. 23; ii. 14; 1 Cor. xi. 3; 2 Cor. iii. 2; 1 Jno.
iv. 15; v. 6; Jude 19; Rev. i. 17; iii. 17; iv. 5; xvii. 18; xviii.
23; xix. 10; xx. 14. In the following passages the Codd. vary
more or less: Rev. v. 6, 8; Acts iii. 25; 1 Jno. ii. 22; 1 Cor. xv.
Jno. i. 21. In one instance, one of two nouns in the predicate has
not, and the other has, the Art.: Jno. viii. 44 8Tɩ YEÚσTNS ÉσTì
127 kaì ó πаτηρ avτoû (†eúdovs) he is a liar and the father of it (false-
hood). In Greek authors likewise the Article often occurs before
28;
1 Fr. ad 1. has quoted passages not to the purpose, and for Gal. vi. 6 he must have
meant vi. 16.
2 Probably also Jno. iv. 37; see Meyer.
3 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 115
the predicate; cf. Xen. M. 3, 10, 1; Plato, Phaedr. 64 c.; Gorg.
483 b.; Lucian. dial. m. 17, 1; see Schaef. Demosth. III. 280;
IV. 35; Mtth. 706 f. [A copious collection of examples (yet
without any real advance as respects the theory) is contained in
Dornseiffen, de articulo ap. Graec. ejusque usu in praedicato.
Amstel. 1856. 8vo.]
Hence it follows that the oft-repeated rule: the subject of a proposition.
may be known from its having the Art.' is incorrect, as Glassius and
Rambach (Instit. herm. p. 446) long ago perceived. Cf. besides, Jen. Lit.
Z. 1834, No. 207.
8. In the language of living intercourse it is utterly impossible
that the Article should be omitted where it is decidedly necessary
(cf., however, § 19), or employed where it is not demanded.¹ "Opos 105
can never denote THE mountain, nor rò opos a mountain (Külnöl 6th ed
on Matt. v. 1; Jno. xix. 32 and iii. 10). The N. T. passages-
and they were formerly very numerous — in which ó, ý, tó has been
taken for the indefinite Article 2 (as is pretended after the manner
of the Hebrew Art. Gesen. Lg. 655) may be easily disposed of by
the attentive student. 1 Thess. iv. 6 πλeovekteîv ev tập πрÁYμаTI
means to overreach in business (cf. im Handel u. Wandel), Jno.
ii. 25 ἐγίνωσκεν τί ἦν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ in the man with whom he
(at the time) had to do, (in every man), Krü. 84; cf. Diog. L. 6,
64 πρὸς τὸν συνιστάντα τὸν παῖδα καὶ λέγοντα ὡς εὐφυέστατός ἐστι . . . 110
eiπe, etc. to the person (to every one) recommending the boy, etc.,
Jno. iii. 10 σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ Ἰσραήλ Nicodemus is regarded
as the teacher of Israel Kar' èçoxýv, as he in whom all erudition is
concentred, so that the contrast kaì Taûтa où yivάσkels may be
made the more palpable (cf. Plato, Crit. 51 a. kaì où þýσeɩS TAÛTA
ποιῶν δίκαια πράττειν ὁ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ τῆς ἀρετῆς ἐπιμελόμενος Stallb.
Plat. Euth. p. 12; Valcken. Eur. Phoen. p. 552; Krü. 87). In Heb.
v. 11 ó λóyos is the (our) discourse, the exposition to be presented
by us; cf. Plato, Phaedr. 270 a.
0
ŏ
кат
On the other hand, the Article may sometimes, with equal
(objective) correctness,3 be either employed or omitted (Förtsch ad
1 Sturz, Lexic. Xenoph. III. 232, quotes passages even from Xenoph. where the Article
is alleged to be put for Tls. Here applies what Schäfer ad Plutarch. somewhere says:
tanta non fuit vis barbarae linguae, ut graecae ipsa fundamenta convellere posset.
2 This thoughtless rule is not vindicated by reference to such expositors as have
attributed to the Art. in certain passages a false emphasis (Glass. 138 sqq.) or have
pressed it unduly. The adjustment between the old view and the new, which Böhmer
(Introd. in Epist. ad Coloss. p. 291) thinks he has discovered, is unique.
8 Thus it is easy to explain why one language even regularly employs the Article in
7th ed.
116 § 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS.
T
Lys. p. 49 sq.) ; as, Jas. ii. 26 τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος νεκρόν the
body without spirit (χωρίς τοῦ πνεύματος would be without the
128 spirit-requisite for the individual body). In Luke xii. 54 good
Codd. have ὅταν ἴδητε νεφέλην ἀνατέλλουσαν ἀπὸ δυσμῶν, whereas
the text. rec. has τǹv veþéλŋv. Both readings are admissible.
With the Article the words mean, when you see the cloud (which
appears in the sky) rising from the west, if the direction of the
moving cloud is from the west. In Col. i. 16 év avt❖ Éktíodn
Tà πávτа signifies the (existing) all, the sum of things, all
things collectively (das All); πávта would mean, everything that
exists, cf. Col. iii. 8 where the two are united. The meaning is but
slightly altered by the Article; yet there is a difference between
the two conceptions. In Matt. xxvi. 26 we have λaßov o 'Inσoûs
Tòv äρTоv (which lay before him); but in Mark xiv. 22; Luke
xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 23 (according to the best Codd.) äprov bread,
or a loaf. Cf. besides, Matt. xii. 1 with Mark ii. 23 and Luke vi. 1;
Matt, xix. 3 with Mark x. 2; Luke ix. 28 with Mark ix. 2. We
106 find the same alternate omission and use of the Article in parallel
6th ed. clauses: Luke xviii. 2 τὸν θεὸν μὴ φοβούμενοι καὶ ἄνθρωπον μὴ
ἐντρεπόμενοι ; vs. 27 τὰ ἀδύνατα παρὰ ἀνθρώποις δυνατά ἐστι παρὰ
τῷ θεῷ; xvii. 34 ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς· εἷς 1 παραληφθήσεται,
κаì ó éтeρоs аþε¤ýσeтaι (one... the other; cf., however, Matt. vi.
καὶ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται
24; xxiv. 40 f.) ; 1 Jno. iii. 18 μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν λόγῳ μηδὲ τῇ γλώσσῃ
(according to the best Codd., cf. Soph. Oed. Col. 786 Xóyw µèv
ἐσθλά, τοῖσι δ᾽ ἔργοισιν κακά) ; 2 Tim. i. 10 ; 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15 ;
Rom. ii. 29; iii. 27, 30; Heb. ix. 4; xi. 38; Jude 16 and 19; Jno.
xii. 5, 6; Jas. ii. 17, 20, 26; Rev. xx. 1. Sec Porson, Eurip. Phoen.
p. 42, ed. Lips.; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 58 and his Lex. Soph. II.
247; cf. Plat. rep. I. 332 c. and d.; Xen. A. 3, 4, 7; Galen. temper.
1, 4; Diog. L. 6, 6; Lucian. Eunuch. 6; Porphyr. abstin. 1, 14.
(The antithesis ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς is nowhere fully es-
111 tablished Matt. xxviii. 18; 1 Cor. viii. 5; in both phrases the Art.
7th ed. is wanting without variant in Eph. iii. 15.)
J
But the necessity of the use and of the omission of the Article is obvious
in Luke ix. 13 οὐκ εἰσὶν ἡμῖν πλεῖον ἢ πέντε ἄρτοι καὶ ἰχθύες δύο, vs. 16
certain cases (οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, τοὺς φίλους ποιεῖσθαι) in which another does not (this
man, to believe in gods). Cf. Sintenis, Plut. Themist. p. 190: Multa, quae nos indefinite
cogitata pronuntiamus, definite proferre soliti sunt Graeci, ejus, de quo sermo esset,
notitiam animo informatam praesumentes. Such remarks Kühn. misuses, ad Mt. p. 123.
This gives support to my exposition of Gal. iii. 20, to which it has always been
objected that I have taken eîs for å eîs.
§ 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS. 117
λαβὼν τοὺς πέντε ἄρτους καὶ τοὺς δύο ἰχθύας; Rom. v. 7 μόλις ὑπὲρ
δικαίου τις ἀποθανεῖται, ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ τάχα τις καὶ τολμᾷ ἀποθανεῖν
for a righteous (upright, blameless) man... for the good man (he, namely,
who has proved himself such to him, his benefactor), etc. Rückert has
unquestionably misunderstood the passage. In Col. iii. 5 we find four nouns
in apposition without the Article, and then a fifth, λeovegia, marked by 129
the Article, as denoting a sin well-known and especially to be avoided,¹
one which the apostle further characterizes straightway,- for in rus etc.
I cannot find a reference to all the preceding nouns. In 2 Cor. xi. 18
Paul no doubt designedly wrote καυχῶνται κατὰ τὴν σάρκα, different from
Karà σάρka (as an adverbial expression), though all recent critics regard
both as equivalent. See besides Jno. xviii. 20; Rev. iii. 17, and in con-
nection with an apposition, Rom. viii. 23 υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, τὴν ἀπω
Aúтрwow тov σúμaros, waiting for adoption (that is) the redemption of the
body.
9. The Indefinite Article, (which, when necessary, was denoted
by rìs), is expressed [disputed by Meyer on Matt. viii. 19] in cer-
tain instances by the (weakened) numeral eis, as was especially
the case in the later writers; 2 as, Matt. viii. 19 πposeλov eis
προςελθὼν
γραμματεύς, etc., Rev. viii. 13 ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ.
But ev in Jno. vi. 9 is probably not genuine (cf. Matt. ix. 18),
and μíav ovкîv in Matt. xxi. 19 means perhaps one (solitary) fig-
tree. Εἷς τῶν παρεστηκότων iu Mark xiv. 47 resembles the Latin
unus adstantium; cf. Matt. xviii. 28; Mark xiii. 1; Luke xv. 26
(Herod. 7, 5, 10; Plutarch. Arat. 5 and Cleom. 7; Aeschin. dial. 107
2,2;3 Schoem. ad Isacum p. 249). In Jas. iv. 13 éviavròv eva the 6th ed.
numeral retains its signification; and still more in 2 Cor. xi. 2;
Matt. xviii. 14; Jno. vii. 21. See, in general, Boisson. Eunap.
345; Ast, Plat. legg. 219; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 398; Schaef.
Long. 399.4 In Matt. xviii. 24 eîs òpeiλétns µvρíwv Taλávτwv, there 112
1 Weber, Dem. p. 327. Another case, in which only the last of several connected
nouns has, for emphasis' sake, the Article, is discussed by Jacobitz, Lucian. pisc. p. 209,
ed. min.
2 So also sometimes the Heb. ; sec Gesen. Lg. S. 655. The use of efs in this
sense is founded on the above-mentioned peculiarity of the later language, a predilection
for expressiveness.
3 Tis Tŵv Taр. would have expressed the same meaning, ef. Luke vii. 36; xi. 1 and
τῶν παρ.
elsewhere, like suorum aliquis etc. in Latin. Both expressions are logically correct, but
not precisely alike. Unus adstantium implics a numerical unity -one of several.
4 Bretschneider tried, very infelicitously, to reduce to this head also 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12;
Tit. i. 6 μiâs yvvauds àvýp giving it the meaning, he shall be the husband of a wife, that
is, a married man. But besides the fact that the apostle's demand that none but mar-
ried men should undertake the supervision of a church is not sufficiently substantiated
by 1 Tim. iii. 4 f., no careful writer can use is for the indefinite Art. where an ambiguity
7th ed.
118 § 18. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS a. BEFORE NOUNS.
130 is probably a designed antithesis. Also in Mark xiv. 51 var. els
Tis unus aliquis (partitive in Mark xiv. 47; Luke xxii. 50; Jno.
xi. 49) rìs does not take away the arithmetical force of els (Hein-
dorf, Plat. Soph. 42; Ast as above, and Plat. Polit. 532; Boisson.
Marin. p. 15).
Note 1. In a few particular instances the use or omission of the Article
is characteristic of the individual style of the various writers. Thus Gers-
dorf (Sprachchar. I. 39, 272 ff.) has shown that the four Evangelists almost
always write ὁ Χριστός (the expected Messiah, like ὁ ἐρχόμενος), while
Paul and Peter employ Xplorós (as the appellation had become more of a
proper name). In the Epistles of Paul and Peter, however, those cases
must be excepted where a noun on which Xplorós depends precedes, (as,
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἡ ὑπομονὴ τοῦ Χρ., τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χρ.), since with
this noun the Art. is never wanting, Rom. vii. 4; xv. 19; xvi. 16; 1 Cor.
i. 6, 17; vi. 15; x. 16; 2 Cor. iv. 4; ix. 13; xii. 9; Gal. i. 7; Eph. ii. 13;
2 Thess. iii. 5, etc. Elsewhere, too, Paul not unfrequently employs the
Article before Xplorós, not merely when accompanied by a preposition,
but even when in the Nom., as in Rom. xv. 3,7; 1 Cor. i. 13; x. 4; xi. 3,
Similar diversity on this point occurs in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
see Bleek on v. 5.
etc.
Note 2. MSS. vary extremely in reference to the Article, particularly
in those passages where its use or omission is matter of indifference. Here
critics must be guided more by the authority of the Codd. than by the
supposed style of individual writers. Cf. Matt. xii. 1 σráxvas, Mark vi. 17
ἐν φυλακῇ (better attested than ἐν τῇ φυλ.), vii. 37 (ἀλάλους), x. 2 Φαρισαίοι,
x. 46 υἱός, xi. 4 πῶλον, xii. 33 θυσιῶν, xiv. 33 Ιάκωβον, xiv. 60 εἰς μέσον,
108 Luke ii. 12 ἐν φάτνῃ, iv. 9 ὁ υἱός, iv. 29 ἕως ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους, vi. 35 ὑψίστου,
6th ed. Jno. v. 1; Rom. x. 15; xi. 19; Gal. iv 24; 2 Pet. ii. 8, etc.
Note 3. Strange to say, most expositors when contrary to their custom
they have paid attention to the Article in the N. T.—have given an erro-
neous opinion respecting it. Bengel, to be sure, is an exception. But
Kühnöl is an example. After Krause (a sorry voucher), he supposes that
in Acts vii. 38 év Tŷ EKKλŋσíą, owing to the use of the Article, signifies
certa populi concio. This meaning may be rendered probable from the
context; but ỷ ẻκкλ. considered grammatically merely may (as Grotius
and others maintain) just as well denote the congregation by bp, and
113 the Article would be as regular in that case as anywhere. Again, the
7th ed.
would be occasioned, for men speak and write in order that others may understand. The
expression, there came a man, supposes also numerical unity, and every one thinks of
homo aliquis as homo unus; but μίαν γυναῖκα ἔχειν cannot be used for γυναίκα ἔχειν, as it
is possible to have several wives (at the same time, or one after another); and consc-
quently numerical unity alone is suggested to everybody. Besides, a person would
hardly say, the bishop must be the husband of a wife, for, a husband, or married.
§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS.
119
observation of the same scholar on Acts viii. 26 is but half true. H pos
(ódós) must have been used, if Luke wished to distinguish from the rest
one particular road known to his readers. But if his meaning was, this
(road) is (now) deserted, untravelled, lies waste, the Article would be as
little appropriate as in German. Expositors have taken notice of the Art. 131
also in 2 Thess. iii. 14 ôìà tŷs ẻmɩotoλŷs, and have on its account denied
the possibility of connecting these words with the following onpovode.
Perhaps even the omission of the Article in two Codd. may be thus ac-
counted for. Paul, however, might with perfect propriety say ôi Tŷs
ἐπιστολῆς σημειούσθε if at the time he presumed upon an answer from the
Thessalonians: Note him to me in the epistle (viz. which I hope to receive
from you, or which in that event you must send me).' Yet see Lünem.
Note 4. The place of the Article is immediately before the noun to
which it belongs; but conjunctions which cannot begin a sentence are
regularly inserted between the Article and its noun: Matt. xi. 30 ỏ yàp
ζυγός μου, iii. 4 ἡ δὲ τροφή, Jno. vi. 14 οἱ οὖν ἄνθρωποι etc. This is well
known, and needs no further illustration. Rost, 436; cf. Hm. Soph.
Antig. p. 146.
§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS.
1. Appellatives, which as expressing definite objects should have
the Article, are, not merely in the N. T. but in the best Greek
authors, employed in certain cases without it. (See Schaefer,
Melet. p. 4). This omission, however, only takes place when it
produces no ambiguity and leaves no doubt in the mind of the
reader whether the object is to be understood as definite or
indefinite, i.e.
a. With words which denote objects of which there is but one
in existence, and which therefore approximate closely to proper
names: thus cos is almost as common as ó λos, and yî (Earth)
not infrequent for y, (Poppo, Thuc. III. III. 46); hence the
abstract names of virtues and vices, etc., as ἀρετή, σωφροσύνη,
Kakia (see Schaef. Demosth. I. 329; Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 52;
Krü. 87), likewise the names of the members of the animal body
(Held, Plut. Aem. P. p. 248), very often dispense with the Article.
The Article is omitted also before many other appellatives, as 109
1 To which must be added the names of sciences and arts (as iжTikh, see Jacob, Lucian.
Toxar. p. 98), of magisterial dignities and offices (Schaef. Demosth. II. 112; Held,
Plutarch. Aem. P. p. 138), of seasons of the year, of corporations (Held, 1.c. p. 238), and
many others (Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 303 and ad Plutarch. Cleom. p. 199). See also
Krü. 87.
6th ed.
120 § 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS.
114 TÓλIS, άOTU (Schaef. Plutarch. p. 416; Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 111;
7th ed. Weber, Dem. p. 235), ȧypós (Schaef. Soph. Oed. R. 630), Seîπvov
(Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 490; Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 57), even
132 πаτýρ, µýτηp, ådeλpós (Schaef. Mel. 1.c. and Demosth. I. 328, also
Eur. Hec. p. 121; Plut. l.c.; Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 134), when from
the connection no doubt can exist as to what city, field, etc. is
meant. This omission of the Art., however, is more varied in
poetry than in prose (Schaef. Demosth. I. 329).
In the N. T., where in general this omission of the Art. is less
frequent than in Greek prose,¹ the following instances of abstracts 2
may be noted: 1 Tim. vi. 11; Rom. i. 29; Col. iii. 8, and in partic-
ular Sikaιoσúvη Matt. v. 10; Acts x. 35; Rom. viii. 10; Heb. xi. 33,
etc., άуáπn Gal. v. 6; 2 Cor. ii. 8, πioris Acts vi. 5; Rom. i. 5; iii. 28;
2 Cor. v. 7; 1 Thess. v. 8, etc., κакía 1 Cor. v. 8; Tit. iii. 3; Jas.
i. 21, πλeoveέla 1 Thess. ii. 5; 2 Pet. ii. 3, àµapría Gal. ii. 17; 1 Pet.
iv. 1; Rom. iii. 9; vi. 14, etc., owrnpía Rom. x. 10; 2 Tim. iii. 15;
Heb. i. 14; vi. 9. Here belong also, ayaóv Rom. viii. 28 (cf. Fr.
in 1.), πovnρóv 1 Thess. v. 22, kaλóv te kai kakóv Heb. v. 14.
Besides these, we often find in the N. T. without the Article the
concretes ἥλιος, γῆ (Earth), θεός, πρόςωπον, νόμος, etc., and many
others, at least when in connection with prepositions etc. they
form phrases of frequent occurrence (Kluit, II. 377; Heindorf,
Plat. Gorg: p. 265). We arrange them in the following list,
founded on the most approved readings:
os (Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 467), as in Matt. xiii. 6 λov åvareć-
λavros (Polyaen. 6, 5; Lucian. ver. hist. 2, 12; Aelian. 4, 1); particularly
when joined as genitive to another noun it expresses one idea, as åvaroλỳ
Míov sunrise Rev. vii. 2; xvi. 12; (Her. 4, 8), pŵs ÿλíov sunlight Rev.
xxii. 5 var. (Plat. rep. 5, 473 e.), dóŝa ýλíov splendor of the sun 1 Cor.
xv. 41; or when the sun is mentioned in an enumeration (in connection
with the moon and stars), as Luke xxi. 25 ἔσται σημεῖα ἐν ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ
kaì ❝orpois in sun, moon, and stars, Acts xxvii. 20 (Aesch. dial. 3, 17;
Plat. Crat. 397 d.).
mm, earth 2 Pet. iii. 5, 10; Acts xvii. 24, èπì yês Luke ii. 14; 1 Cor.
1 So we find in Greek authors usually yéveɩ by nation, πλhoei, etc., in the N. T. inva-
riably τ yével Acts iv. 36; xviii. 2, 24, also т Tλhoei Heb. xi. 12. In Greek authors
the omission of the Article before a Nom. even is not unusual, as λos édúeтo Xen. A.
1, 10, 15; Lucian. Scyth. 4; in the N. T., on the contrary, Mark i. 32 öte ědu 8 %λlos,
Luke iv. 40 δύνοντος τοῦ ἡλίου, Eph. iv. 26 ὁ ἥλιος μὴ ἐπιδυέτω. So also in the N. Τ.
8
T.
never σeλhn in the nominative, and there are more instances of the same kind.
2 The assertion (Harless on Eph. S. 320) that the Article can only be omitted before
abstracts when they denote virtues, vices, etc., as properties of a subject, is unproved,
and cannot be proved on rational grounds. Cf. also Krüg. in Jahn's Jahrb. 1838. I. 47.
§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS.
121
viii. 5; Eph. iii. 15 (Heb. viii. 4), åπ' äkрov yŷs Mark xiii. 27; cf. Jacobs,
Philostr. Imag. p. 266; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 91; Stallh. Plat. Gorg.
p. 257. But this word usually has the Art. when it signifies earth; in 133
the sense of land, on the other hand, the Art. is regularly wanting when 115
the proper name of the country follows, as Matt. xi. 24 Zodówv, [iv. 15] 7th ed.
Acts vii. 29 ἐν γῇ Μαδιάμ, vii. 36 ἐν τῇ Αἰγύπτου, xiii. 19 ἐν γῇ Χαναάν, etc. 110
(but Matt. xiv. 34 eis tǹv yñv Tevvnoopér). See below, 2. b. Van Hengel's
remark on 1 Cor. xv. p. 199 is not to the point.
ovpavós, oúpavoí, is seldom without the Article (cf. Jacobs in the Schulzeit.
1831, No. 119, and Schoem. Plutarch. Agid. p. 135): a. In the Gospels
only in the phrase ἐν οὐρανῷ, ἐν οὐρανοῖς, ἐξ οὐρανῶν, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, but by no
means always, even in this case (cf. Matt. vi. 1, 9; xvi. 19; Mark xii. 25;
Luke vi. 23, for John except in i. 32 constantly uses ek тoû oipavoî); h. By
Paul the Art. is regularly omitted in phrases like ἀπ᾿ οὐρανοῦ, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ
(ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ van Hengel on 1 Cor. xv. p. 199—is never used by
Paul); in 2 Cor. xii. 2 we find also eos тpírov oupavoù (Lucian. Philopatr.
12) see b. below, and Peter has even in the Nom. cúpavoí 2 Pet. iii. 5, 12;
c. The Article is never omitted in Rev.
θάλασσα, e.g. Acts x. 6, 32 παρὰ θάλασσαν, Luke xxi. 25 ηχούσης
Daλáoons kaì oáλov; cf. Demosth. Aristocr. 450 c.; Diod. S. 1, 32; Dio
Chr. 35, 436; 37, 455; Xen. Eph. 5, 10; Arrian. Al. 2, 1, 2, and 3; Held,
in Act. Philol. Monac. II. 182 sqq. Even év épulpâ faláσon Acts vii. 36;
ἐν ἐρυθρᾷ θαλάσσῃ
(on the other hand, we find the Art. in Heb. xi. 29). It regularly has
the Art., however, when opposed to.
μεσημβρία in the phrase κατὰ μεσημβρίαν southwards Acts viii. 26, περὶ
μeonμßpíav xxii. 6, cf. Xen. A. 1,7, 6 πрòs μeonµßpíav, Plat. Phaedr. 259 a.
Ev μeonμßp. So, in general, with the names of the quarters of the heavens,
Rev. xxi. 13 ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν, ἀπὸ βοῤῥᾶ, ἀπὸ νότου, ἀπὸ δυσμῶν (προς νότον
Strabo 16, 719, πрòs éσπéрαν D. S. 3, 28, πрòs аρктоv Strabo 15, 715 and
719; 16, 749, πрòs vóтov Plat. Crit. 112 c. Baoíλioσa vórov Matt. xii. 42,
where, however, it is a sort of proper name), or of a division of the day,
as Luke xxiv. 29; Acts xxviii. 23; Krü. 85.
ȧyopá (cf. Bremi, Lys. p. 9; Sintenis, Plutarch. Pericl. p. 80) Mark vii.
4 καὶ ἀπ᾿ ἀγορᾶς, ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται, οὐκ ἐσθίουσι. So in Greek authors
often, as Her. 7, 223; 3, 104; Lys. Agor. 2; Dion. H. IV. 2117,6; 2230,
2; Theophr. ch. 19; Plat. Gorg. 447 a.; Lucian. adv. ind. 4 and eunuch. 1,
particularly in the phrase λŋ@ovσns åyopâs Her. 4, 181; Xen. M. 1, 1, 10;
Anab. 1, 8, 1; Aelian. 12, 30; D. S. 13, 48 a.
ȧypós Mark xv. 21 épxóµevov åπ' άypov (Luke xxiii. 26), Luke xv. 25 zv
ó viòs év ȧypo. Here, however, the word means, not a single definite field.
ảypê.
(ảπò TOû ảyрoû), but is used generally, from the country (as opposed to the
town, etc.). So eis åypóv Mark xvi. 12, cf. Judg. ix. 27, ¿§ ȧypoù Gen.
xxx. 16; 1 Sam. xi. 5, etc.; Plat. Theaet. 143 a.; legg. 8, 844 c.
Ocós occurs frequently (cf. Hm. Aristoph. nub. v. 816; Bornem. Xen,
6th ed
122 § 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS.
conv. p. 142; Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. p. 121), and beyond comparison the
most frequently in the Epistles, without the Art., particularly when it is
134 dependent as a Gen. upon another (anarthrous) noun, as Luke iii. 2; Rom.
iii. 5; viii. 9; xv. 7, 8, 32; 1 Cor. iii. 16; xi. 7; 2 Cor. i. 12; viii. 5;
Eph. v. 5; 1 Thess. ii. 13, in the phrases Ocòs #aτýp 1 Cor. i. 3; 2 Cor.i. 2;
116 Gal. i. 1; Phil. i. 2; ii. 11; 1 Pet. i. 2, vioì or тékva Ocoû Matt. v. 9; Rom.
7th ed. viii. 14, 16; Gal. iii. 26; Phil. ii. 15; 1 Jno. iii. 1, 2 (where these nouns
111 are also without the Art.), with Prepositions åтò eoû Jno. iii. 2; xvi. 30;
6th ed. Rom. xiii. 1; 1 Cor. i. 30; vi. 19, ev 0e Jno. iii. 21; Rom. ii. 17, čk Deoû
Acts v. 39; 2 Cor. v. 1; Phil. iii. 9, karà Ocóv Rom. viii. 27, тapà De@
2 Thess. i. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 4, also with Adject. 1 Thess. i. 9 few CŵVTI Kai
ảλŋ¤ivậ. (In Jno. i. 1 feòs ŷv ỏ λóyos the Art. could not have been omitted
if John had intended to designate the λóyos as ó cós, because in this con-
nection Ocós alone would be ambiguous. But that John designedly wrote
Ocós is apparent, partly from the distinct antithesis πрòs тòv Оcóv verses 1, 2,
and partly from the whole description of the Aóyos. Similarly stands in
1 Pet. iv. 19 mươTÒS KTίOTηs without the Art.)
ιστὸς κτίστης
TVεûμа äуiov, seldom πveûμa coû Acts viii. 15, 17; Rom. viii. 9, 14; Heb.
vi. 4; 2 Pet. i. 21; 1 Cor. xii. 3, πveûμa Phil. ii. 1, also ev πveúμari Eph.
ii. 22; vi. 18; Col. i. 8, èv πv. ȧyią Jude 20. (The baptismal formula eis
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος is cited in Acta
Barn. p. 74 thus: εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς κ. υἱοῦ κ. ἁγίου πν.)
πατήρ, Heb. xii. 7 υἱὸς ὃν οὐ παιδεύει πατήρ, Jno. i. 14 μονογενούς παρὰ
πατρός, and in the formula θεὸς πατὴρ (ἡμῶν); μήτηρ only in the phrase ἐκ
κοιλίας μητρός Matt. xix. 12.
ἀνήρ (husband), 1 Tim. ii. 12 γυναικὶ διδάσκειν οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν
åv8pós Eph. v. 23 (but 1 Cor. xi. 3); Luke xvi. 18 πâs ó áæоλúWV TÝV
γυναίκα αὑτοῦ ..... πᾶς ὁ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν, does not
åæò åvdpòs
necessarily come under this head, though the first yový has the Art.; for
the last words are to be translated: he who marries a woman dismissed from
a husband. But in Acts i. 14 one would expect the Art. before yuvaiči
(see de W.), not so much in Acts xxi. 5; cf., however, above.
πрóсшπоν, е.g. Luke v. 12 πeoùν éπì πρóswπov, xvii. 16; 1 Cor. xiv. 25;
cf. Sir. 1. 17; Tob. xii. 16; Heliod. 7, 8 píπtei kavτòv éπì πpósшπоν, Achill.
Tat. 3, 1; Eustath. amor. Ismen. 7, p. 286 (Heliod. 1, 16), Acts xxv. 16
κатà πρÓSWπоν, 2 Cor. x. 7 (Exod. xxviii. 27; xxxix. 13, etc.).
κα
Seέiá, ȧpiorepá, and the like, in the formulas ek deέiov Matt. xxvii. 38;
xxv. 33; Luke xxiii. 33, èέ evwvúμwv Matt. xx. 21; xxv. 41; Mark x. 37;
Krü. 86.
ἐκκλησία, 3 Jno. 6 οἱ ἐμαρτύρησάν σου τῇ ἀγάπῃ ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας, 1 Cor.
xiv. 4 (èv èkkλnoía 1 Cor. xiv. 19, 35?).
त
Oávaros, Matt. xxvi. 38 ews Oavárov (Sir. xxxvii. 2; li. 6), Phil. ii. 8,
30 μéxpi lavárov (Plat. rep. 2, 361 c.; Athen. 1, 170), Jas. v. 20 ék Davátov
(Job v. 20; Prov. x. 2; Plat. Gorg. 511 c.), Luke ii. 26 un ideîv Oávarov,
§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS.
123
Rom. vii. 13 κατεργαζομένη θάνατον, i. 32 ἄξιοι θανάτου, 2 Cor. iv. 11 εἰς
Оávaτov тapadidóµela, etc.; cf. Himer. 21 perà Oávarov, Dion. H. IV. 2112, 135
2242; cf. Grimm, Buch der Weish. S. 26.
Oúpa, in the Plur.´éπì Oúpais ad fores Matt. xxiv. 33; Mark xiii. 29 ;
cf. Plutarch. Themist. 29; Athen. 10, 441; Aristid. Orat. Tom. II. 43
(on the other hand in the Sing. ènì rŷ Oúpa Acts v. 9).
Plutarch. Them. p. 181.
See Sintenis,
;
iv. 13, 14, 15 ; 117
iii. 11, 18, 21; 7th ed.
6th ed
vóμos, meaning the Mosaic law, Rom. ii. 12, 23; iii. 31;
v. 13, 20; vii. 1; x. 4; xiii. 8; 1 Cor. ix. 20; Gal. ii. 21;
iv. 5; Phil. iii. 6; Heb. vii. 12, etc.; always as a Gen. where the prin- 112
cipal noun has no Art.: pya vóμov, and the like. (In the Gospels, except
Luke ii. 23, 24, where, however, a qualifying Gen. follows, we find con-
stantly ó vóμos.) As to the Apocr., see Wahl, clav. 343. Also cf. Bornem.
Acta p. 201.
pua, meaning God's word, followed by fco Rom. x. 17; Eph. vi. 17;
Heb. vi. 5, and without eoû Eph. v. 26.
VEKpoί, the dead, always (except in Eph. v. 14) in the phrases eyeípew,
eyeípeσlai, avaσтvaι EK VEкρŵv Matt. xvii. 9; Mark vi. 14, 16; ix. 9, 10;
xii. 25; Luke ix. 7; xvi. 31; xxiv. 46; Jno. ii. 22; xii. 1, 9, 17; xx. 9;
xxi. 14; Acts iii. 15; iv. 2; x. 41; xiii. 30; xxvi. 23; Rom. iv. 24; 1 Cor.
xv. 20, etc., and also avάoraσis veкρŵv (both without Art.) Acts xvii. 32;
xxiv. 21; Rom. i. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13, 21, 42, etc. Only in Col. ii. 12;
1 Thess. i. 10 is a var. noted. (On the other hand, almost always ¿yeipeobai,
åvaotîvai ảπò tŵV VEKρŵv, Matt. xiv. 2; xxvii. 64; xxviii. 7.) Nekpoί else-
where designates dead persons (Luke vii. 22; 1 Cor. xv. 15, 29, 32, also
1 Pet. iv. 6 etc.), but oi veкpoí, THE dead, as a definitely conceived totality,
Jno. v. 21; 1 Cor. xv. 52; 2 Cor. i. 9; Col. i. 18. The Greeks, too,
regularly omit the Art. before this word.
μéơov, in the phrase (čorŋoev) ev µéơų Jno. viii. 3; Schoem. Plutarch.
Agid. p. 126, eis µéσov Mark xiv. 60 (but eis тò μéσov Jno. xx. 19, 26;
Luke iv. 35; vi. 8), èk µéσov 2 Thess. ii. 7; more commonly still where a
qualifying Gen. follows, Mark vi. 47 v μéow Ts Oaλáoons, Luke viii. 7
ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἀκανθῶν, Acts xxvii. 27 κατὰ μέσον τῆς νυκτός (Theophr. ch. 26).
See Wahl, clav. apocr. p. 326.
κόσμος, always in the phrases ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου Luke xi. 50 ; Heb.
iv. 3, πρò кαт. K. Jno. xvii. 24; 1 Pet. i. 20, àñò ktiσews kóoμov Rom. i. 20,
ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς κόσμου Matt. xxiv. 21; in the Epistles also ἐν κόσμῳ Rom. v. 13;
1 Cor. viii. 4; xiv. 10; Phil. ii. 15; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet. v. 9. The
Nom. is but rarely without the Art., as Gal. vi. 14 éμoì кóσμos éσTaúρWται;
and according to the best Codd. Rom. iv. 13 must be read: kλnpovóµov
είναι κόσμου.
KTίois, creation (i.e. thing created, the world), in the phrase d' ȧрxîs
1 The distinction alleged by van Hengel on 1 Cor. xv. p. 135 between veкpol and of
Veкpoí has no foundation (either in principle or in usage).
124
§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS.
KTίσEWS Mark x. 6; xiii. 19; 2 Pet. iii. 4. Yet Tâσa Kríσis 1 Pet. ii. 13;
136 Col. i. 15 (see Mey.) is everywhere distinguished from Tâσα Kríσis Mark
xvi. 15; Rom. viii. 22; Col. i. 23.
pa, as in 1 Jno. ii. 18 oɣárη pa orí; particularly with numerals, as
v pa тpírη Mark xv. 25; Jno. xix. 14, πepì тτpíτηv åρav Matt. xx. 3; Acts
x. 9, éws wpas évváτns Mark xv. 33, åπò ékтys åpas Matt. xxvii. 45, etc.; cf.
D. S. 4, 15; Held, Plut. Aem. P. p. 229. (In another relation pa xeiuépios
Aelian. 7, 13, pa λourpoû Polyaen. 6, 7.) But so with other nouns also
when joined to ordinal numerals, as πρúτη þvλaký Heliod. 1, 6; Polyaen.
2, 35; cf. Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 152, and åπò πρúτηs ηµéрas Phil. i. 5.
118 Kaιpós, in the phrases πрò καιрoû before the time Matt. viii. 29; 1 Cor.
7th ed. iv. 5, karù κaιрóν Rom. v. 6 (Lucian. Philops. 21) and ev kaip Luke xx. 10
113 (Xen. C. 8, 5, 5; Polyb. 2, 45; 9, 12, etc.), also ev kaipê éσxátų 1 Pet. i. 5
like év éoɣátaus nµépais 2 Tim. iii. 1; Jas. v. 3.
6th ed.
ȧpxý (Schaef. Demosth. III. 240), especially in the common phrases άπ
άpxns Matt. xix. 8; Acts xxvi. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Jno. i. 1; ii. 7, etc.
(Her. 2, 113; Xen. C. 5, 4, 12; Aelian. 2, 4), è̟ ȧpxŷs Jno. vi. 64; xvi. 4
(Theophr. ch. 28; Lucian. dial. mort. 19, 2, and merc. cond. 1) and ev
ȧpxy Jno. i. 2; Acts xi. 15; (Plat. Phaedr. 245 d.; Lucian. gall. 7). All
these regularly in the Sept. also.
kúptos, which in the Gospels usually designates God (the O. T. Lord, cf.
Thilo, Apocr. I. 169), and in the Epistles especially Paul's (in accordance
with the growth of Christian phraseology) most frequently Christ, the Lord
(Phil. ii. 11; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 24 ff.; Krehl, N. T. Wörterb. S. 360), like
Oeós often dispenses with the Article, particularly when it is joined to a
preposition (chiefly in established phrases like & Kupio) or occurs in the
Gen. (1 Cor. vii. 22, 25; x. 21; xvi. 10; 2 Cor. iii. 18; xii. 1) or pre-
cedes 'Inooûs Xplorós (Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 3; Gal. i. 3; Eph. vi. 23;
Phil. ii. 11; iii. 20). It had already become almost a proper name. It
has been erroneously maintained (Gabler, in his neuest. theol. Journ. IV.
S. 11-24) that the meaning of the word depends on the insertion or omis-
sion of the Article. Christ, the Lord, whom all knew as such and who
was so often mentioned, the apostles could most easily style kúpios, just
as Ocós nowhere occurs more frequently without the Article than in the
Bible; cf. my Progr. de sensu vocum kúpɩos et o kúpuos in Actis et Epist.
Apostolor. Erlang. 1828. 4to. Even in Paul's writings, however, the
Article predominates.
Stáßoλos the devil, usually has the Article. Only in 1 Pet. v. 8 we find
ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν διάβολος in apposition, and in Acts xiii. 10 υἱὲ διαβόλου.
1 'Ayyeλos does not belong to the class of words of which a list is given above. When
used in the Sing. without an Article, it always signifies an angel (one of the many), and
so in the Plur. ayyeλoi, angels, e.g. 1 Tim. iii. 16; Gal. iii. 19, etc.; on the other hand
οἱ ἄγγελοι the angels as a class of beings. Accordingly 1 Cor. vi. 3 ὅτι ἀγγέλους κρινοῦμεν
must be translated, that we shall judge angels, —not the angels, the whole multitude of
§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS.
125
That appellatives (particularly in the Nom.) are without the Article in 137
titles and superscriptions also, is easily accounted for; cf. Matt. i. 1 ẞíßλos
γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Mark i. 1 ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, Rev. i. 1 ἀποκάλυψις
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
2
1
7th ed.
114
6th ed
2. b. The Article is likewise often omitted before a noun followed
by a Gen. designating the singly existing object as something apper-
taining to this individual ¹ (Schaef. Soph. Oed. C. 1468; Bornem. 119
Xen. Cyr. p. 219; Schoem. ad Isacum p. 421; ad Plut. Agid. p.
105; Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 277; Herm. Lucian. conser. hist.
p. 290), e.g. Matt. [xvi. 18 πύλαι ᾅδου] xvii. 6 ἔπεσον ἐπὶ πρόςωπον
avтŵv cf. xxvi. 39 (Isa. xlix. 23 èπì пρósшπоν тîs ys; on the other
hand, Matt. xxvi. 67 eis тò πρósшñоv avτоû, Rev. vii. 11), Luke
i. 51 ἐν βραχίονι αὑτοῦ, Rom. i. 1 εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (where Rück.
still makes unnecessary difficulties), Eph. i. 20 év değiậ aúτoû (Heb.
i. 3; Matt. xx. 21), Luke xix. 42 èкрúßη åπò оplaλµôv σov, 1 Cor.
ii. 16 τls yàp eyva voûv kupiov, 1 Pet. iii. 12, 20; Jas. i. 26; Mark
viii. 3; xiii. 27; Rom. i. 20; ii. 5; Luke i. 5; ii. 4, 11; xiii. 19;
xix. 13; Heb. xii. 2; 1 Cor. x. 21; xii. 27; xvi. 15; Phil. ii. 16;
iv. 3; Eph. i. 4, 6, 12; iv. 30; 1 Thess. v. 8; 2 Thess. i. 9; ii. 2;
2 Pet. ii. 6; iii. 10; Jude 6 (Acts viii. 5), etc. The same occurs
very frequently in the Sept. also, as 1 Sam. i. 3, 7; iv. 6; v. 2;
Exod. iii. 11; ix. 22; xvii. 1; Cant. v. 1; viii. 2; Judith ii. 7,
11;
iii. 3, 9; iv. 11; v. 8; vi. 20; 1 Macc. ii. 50; v. 66; 3 Esr. i. 26.
(But in 1 Cor. iv. 14 és Téкva μоν åуаπηтá it was necessary to
omit the Article, since the Cor. were not alone the beloved children
of Paul. In Luke xv. 29 οὐδέποτε ἐντολήν σου παρῆλθον means a
command of thine, but in Acts i. 8 λήψεσθε δύναμιν ἐπελθόντος
τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος must be translated: ye shall receive power,
when the Holy Ghost shall have descended.)³
The Article is thus omitted sometimes when a numeral defines
angels, but — angels, who, and as many of them as, fall under the кρîσis. On viodeola
Rom. viii. 23, see Fr. against Rückert. That the word in apposition sometimes has the
Article, when the principal noun is anarthrous, has been remarked by Geel, ad Dion.
Chr. Olymp. p. 70.
1 Accordingly Jno. v. 1 έoρтǹ Tŵv 'Iovdaíwv could not be translated: the festival of the
Jews (Passover). The Article, however, has much authority in its favor, and has been
admitted into the text by Tdf. [ed. II. yet not in ed. VII.].
2 The Hebrew language, as is well known, does not in this construction employ an
Article before the governing noun. On this Hengstenberg, Christol. II. 565, founded a
new discovery, which Lücke on Jno. v. 1 has suitably appreciated.
8 Gersdorf, I. 316 ff., has not duly distinguished the cases. The Article is both used
and omitted in onc and the same clause, Luke xxiii. 46 eis xeîρás σov παρaтídeμαι тd
πνευμά μου etc.
126
§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS.
the noun more nearly; as, Acts xii. 10 Steλbóvтes πpúτηv þvλakǹv
καὶ δευτέραν, Mark xv. 25 ἦν ὥρα τρίτη καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν, xv.
138 33 ἕως ὥρας ἐννάτης, Luke iii. 1 ἐν ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας
6th ed.
etc., 2 Cor. xii. 2; Eph. vi. 2 (Phil. i. 5 var.); cf. from Greok
authors Lysias 7, 10 Tρiro eтel, Plato, Min. 319 c. and Hipp. maj.
286 b.; Antiph. 6, 42; Andoc. 4, 17; Diog. L. 7, 135, 138, 141 sqq.
(but 7, 150, 151, 153). See above, 1. a. under pa, p. 124.
By this usage may be defended also Matt. xii. 24 év tập Beeλhe-
βούλ, ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων, the reading found in all MSS. Fr.
(ad Mt. p. 774), without the authority of MSS., substituted èv B.
Tô apx. etc., as he deemed this omission of the Article strange.
In Greek authors such omission of the Article, especially when the
noun is preceded by a preposition, is by no means rare; cf. Xen. C. 6, 1,
13 περὶ καταλύσεως τῆς στρατιᾶς, Apol. Socr. 30 ἐν καταλύσει τοῦ βίου, Mem.
120 1, 5, 2 èπì teλevrŷ toû Bíov, 4, 3, 16; Plat. Phaedr. 237 c.; Lys. Agorat. 2
7th ed. ἐπὶ καταλύσει του δήμου τοῦ ὑμετέρου, and further on πατρίδα σφετέραν αὐτῶν
115 καταλιπόντες, Lucian. Scyth. 4 βίον αὐτῶν, Dio Chr. 38, 471 ὑπὲρ γενέσεως.
αὐτῆς, Strabo 15, 719 ὑπὸ μήκους τῶν ὁδῶν (17, 808), Thuc. 2, 38 διὰ μέγε
OOS TÊS TÓλEWS, 7, 72. So in German, also, the Article is usually omitted
θος πόλεως,
after a preposition, e.g. über Auflösung des Räthsels etc. In Greek authors,
however, in such cases even the Gen. is frequently anarthrous, or if not,
it precedes; as, tŵv xwρíwv xadeñórys; cf. Krü. Dion. H. p. 168; Jacobs,
Athen. p. 18 sq.; Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 130. (Xen. C. 8, 6, 16; Mem. 1, 4,
12; Thục. 1, 1; 6, 34; 8, 68).
3. c. When several consecutive nouns¹ connected by kal and
denoting different objects² agree in case and number, each of them
regularly takes the Article if they differ in gender; - not merely
when they signify persons, as Acts xiii. 50 τὰς σεβομένας γυναῖκας
... Kai TоÙS πρÓTOUS TŶS TÓλEWS (Luke xiv. 26; Eph. vi. 2; Acts
xxvi. 30), but also inanimate objects Col. iv. 1 Tò díkαlov kaÌ TηV
ισότητα τοῖς δούλοις παρέχεσθε, Rom. viii. 2 ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρ
Tías Kai TOû bavárov, Matt. xxii. 4; Luke x. 21; Rom. xvi. 17;
Phil. iv. 7; 1 Cor. ii. 4; Eph. ii. 1; Rev. i. 2; xiv. 7; Heb. iii. 6 ;
cf. Xen. C. 2, 2, 9 σὺν τῷ θώρακι κ. τῇ κοπίδι, Plut. virt. mul. p. 210
διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα κ. τὴν ἀρετήν, Dion. H. IV. 2245, 4 ἐπὶ τοῦ τόκου καὶ
¹ Benseler, Isocr. Arcopag. p. 290 sqq., has collected much from Isocrates on the repe-
tition and the non-repetition of the Article with connected nouns (Subst. Adject. Par-
ticip. also Infin.), but without throwing entire light on the subject. Cf. also Tholuck,
Literar. Anzeig. 1837, No. 5..
2 For a repetition of the Article is not admissible before connected nouns which, for
instance, are merely predicates of one and the same person, as in Col. iii. 17 7ộ 0eŵ xal
πатρí, 2 Pet. i. 11 тoû kuρlov ηµŵv kal owrîpos 'I. Xp., Eph. vi. 21; Mark vi. 3; Acts iii. 14.
§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS.
127
τῆς λοχείας, 2117, 17 τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ τὰ ὅπλα, 2089, 14 ; D. S. 1, 50,
51, 86; Philostr. her. 3, 2; Diog. L. 3, 18; 5, 51; Herod. 2, 10,
15; Strabo 3, 163; 15, 712; Plutarch. aud. poët. 9 in. and Themist.
8; Isocr. Areop. p. 334; Plat. Charm. p. 160 b.; Sext. Emp. adv. 139
Math. 2, 58.
In these connections the repetition of the Article appeared gram-
matically necessary, while at the same time the ideas connected
are mostly such as require to be grasped separately. See under 4.
Where, however, the ideas do not require to be sharply distin-
guished, or where an adjective is joined to the first noun and to be
extended also to the second, the repetition of the Article does not
take place even when the nouns differ in gender; and the one
Article that precedes serves alike for all the nouns that follow;
as, Col. ii. 22 τὰ ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων, Luke
xiv. 23 ἔξελθε εἰς τὰς ὁδοὺς καὶ φραγμούς, i. 6 ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς
Hải Sapa Tou Kupiou, Mark xii. 33; Rev. v. 12.
Such passages are to be found likewise in Greek authors, and 121
far more frequently indeed, in poetry (Hm. Eurip. Hec. p. 76) 7th ed
as well as in prose, without any very precise reference to the sense,
e.g. Plat. rep. 9.586 d. τῇ ἐπιστήμη καὶ λόγῳ, legg. 6,784 ὁ σωφρονῶν 116
kaì σwopovoûσa, 6. 510 c.; apol. 18 a.; Crat. 405 d.; Aristot. anal. 6th ed.
καὶ σωφρονοῦσα,
post. 1, 26; Thuc. 1, 54; Lycurg. 30; Lucian. parasit. 13; Herod.
8, 6, 11; Ael. anim. 5, 26; cf. also Krü. Dion. p. 140, and Xen.
Anab. p. 92, Bornem. Cyrop. p. 668.
When such nouns are disjoined by , the Article is invariably
repeated; as, Matt. xv. 5 τ πатρì ǹ Tŷ µηTρi, Mark iv. 21 úπò tòv
μόδιον ἢ ὑπὸ τὴν κλίνην, Rev. xiii. 17.
اد
When the connected nouns differ in number the repetition of the Article
is naturally and grammatically almost indispensable; as, Col. ii. 13 év Toîs
παραπτώμασι καὶ τῇ ἀκροβυστία, Eph. ii. 3 τὰ θελήματα τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῶν
Siavolov, 1 Tim. v. 23; Tit. ii. 12; Acts xv. 4, 20; xxviii. 17; Matt. v. 17;
Rev. ii. 19. Cf. Plato, Crito 47 c. rǹv dógav kaì toùs ètaívovs, Dion. H. IV.
2288, 1 ὑπὸ τῆς παρθένου καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτὴν γυναικών. Yet Xen. A. 2, 1, 7
ἐπιστήμων τῶν περὶ τὰς τάξεις τε καὶ ὁπλομαχίαν, Agath. 14, 12 τὰς δυνάμεις
καὶ πόλεμον. But 1 Cor. iv. 9 θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ ἀγγέλοις καὶ
ȧvoρúдois does not come under this head; the last two nouns without the
Art. particularize the T Koop: the world, angels as well as men.
4. d. If, however, such nouns connected by Kai are of the same
gender, the Article is omitted
1) When the connected nouns are regarded as only parts of one
whole, or members of one community (Engelhardt, Plat. Menex.
128 § 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS.
p. 253; Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 455); as, Mark xv. 1 ovμẞoúλov
συμβούλιον
ποιήσαντες οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς μετὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ γραμματέων
140 (where the elders and scribes are designated as only one class of
individuals, in distinction from the high priests), Luke xiv. 3, 21;
Col. ii. 8, 19; Eph. ii. 20; v. 5; Phil. i. 7; ii. 17; Acts xxiii. 7;
2 Pet. i. 10 (Xen. A. 2, 2, 5; 3, 1, 29; Plat. Phil. 28 e.; Dion.
H. IV. 2235, 5; Plutarch. aud. poët. 1 in. 12 in.).
2) When between the first noun and its Article a Gen. or some
other attributive intervenes, which also qualifies the second; as,
1 Thess. ii. 12 εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείαν καὶ δόξαν, iii. 7 ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ
θλίψει καὶ ἀνάγκῃ ἡμῶν, Rom. i. 20 ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ
Occóτns, Phil. i. 25; Eph. iii. 5. Cf. Dion. H. IV. 2246, 9 Tàs
αὑτῶν γυναῖκας καὶ θυγατέρας, 2089, 4 ; D. S. 1, 86 τὴν προειρημένην
Èπiμéλeιav Kai Tiμnv, 2, 18; Ael. anim. 7, 29; Aristot. eth. Nicom.
4, 1, 9; 7, 7, 1.¹
; 7, 7, 1.¹ So also when the common Genitive follows the
second noun ; as, Phil. i. 20 κατὰ τὴν ἀποκαραδοκίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα
122 μου, i. 7 ἐν τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ κ. βεβαιώσει τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 1 Pet. ii. 25
(on Phil. i. 19 see Mey.). Cf. Benseler p. 293 sq.
7th ed.
Under 1. it should be noted, that in a series of nouns forming a single
category, only the first has the Article; as, Acts xxi. 25 þvλáooeobai avtoùs
τὸ αἷμα καὶ πνικτὸν καὶ πορνείαν, Eph. ii. 18 τί τὸ πλάτος κ. μῆκος κ. βάθος
117 k. vos, Jno. v. 3; 1 Cor. v. 10; cf. Her. 4, 71 báñтovσi kaì tòv oivoxóov k.
6th ed. μάγειρον κ. ἱπποκόμον κ. διήκονον κ. ἀγγελιηφόρον, etc.; Plato, Euthyph. p.
7 c. For instances with proper names, see Acts i. 13; xv. 23.
5. On the other hand, the Article is used in the case under
consideration, commonly
a. When each of the connected nouns is to be regarded as inde-
pendent (Schaef. Dem. V. 501; Weber, Dem. 268), 1 Cor. iii. 8
ὁ φυτεύων καὶ ὁ ποτίζων ἕν εἰσιν, Acts xxvi. 30 ἀνέστη ὁ βασιλεὺς
καὶ ὁ ἡγεμών, etc., Mark ii. 16 οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι (two
separate classes of Christ's adversaries combined for one object),
Jno. xix. 6 οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ ὑπηρέται the high priests and the
(subordinate) attendants (with their attendants), ii. 14; xi. 47;
Mark ii. 18; vi. 21; xi. 9, 18, 27; xii. 13; xiii. 17; xiv. 43; Luke
i. 58; viii. 24; xi. 39, 42; xii. 11; xv. 6, 9; xx. 20; xxi. 23;
xxiii. 4; Acts iv. 23 ; vi. 4, 13; xiii. 43; xv. 6 ; xxiii. 14 ; xxv. 15;
Rom. vi. 19; Eph. iii. 10, 12; 2 Cor. xiii. 2; Phil. iv. 6; 1 Tim.
iv. 6; Jas. iii. 11; 1 Jno. ii. 22, 24; iv. 6; v. 6; Rev. vi. 15;
vii. 12; xiii. 10, 16; xxii. 1; cf. Xen. athen. 1,4; Lys. Agorat. 2;
1 In this case, even when the nouns are of different gender, as in Lysias in Andoc. 17
περὶ τὰ ἀλλότρια ἱερὰ καὶ ἑορτὰς ησέβει. Cf. above, 3.
§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS.
129
adv. Nicom. 3; Isocr. Areop. p. 352; permut. 736; D. S. 1, 30 141
(διὰ τὴν ἀνυδρίαν καὶ τὴν σπάνιν τῆς ἁπάσης τροφής) 3, 48; 5, 29 ;
17, 52 ; Plut. virt. mul. p. 214 ἔπεμψε τὴν γυναῖκα κ. τὴν θυγατέρα,
Acl. anim. 7, 29; Diog. L. 5, 52;1 Weber, Demosth. p. 395.
καί
So especially when the two nouns are connected by re... Kaí
oг kal... Kaí, and thus more prominently exhibited as independent
(Schaef. Demosth. III. 255; IV. 68) Luke xxiii. 12; Acts v. 24;
xvii. 10, 14; xviii. 5; Phil. iii. 10; Heb. ix. 2; cf. Ael. anim. 7,
29; Theophr. char. 25 (16); Thuc. 5, 72; Xen. C. 7, 5, 41; Mem.
1, 1, 4; Aristot. pol. 3, 5; Isocr. Demon. p. 1 and 12; permut.
738; D. S. 1, 69; 4, 46; Lucian. fug. 4; Arrian. Ind. 34, 5, etc.
Even in this case, however, if there be no special antithesis Greek
authors (according to good Codd.) sometimes omit the Article;
see Poppo, Thuc. I. 193 sq.; III. I. 895; Geel, Dion. Chr. Ol. p.
295 ; cf. Χen. M. 1, 1, 19 τά τε λεγόμενα καὶ πραττόμενα (where,
as an antithesis to these two participles, immediately follows Kai
Tà Quyên Bourceva) Thue. 5,27; Plat. rep. 6, 510 c. and Phaed. 123
78 b.; Dion. H. IV. 2242, 2; Diod. S. 1,50; 2, 30; Arrian. Ind. 7th ed.
5, 1; Dio Chr. 7, 119; Mr. Ant. 5, 1. Cf. also Mtth. 715.
When the influence of a disjunctive particle comes in, the repe-
tition of the Article is obviously necessary; as, Luke xi. 51 μEта§Ù
τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ τοῦ οἴκου, Matt. xxiii. 35 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 7 πῶς
γνωσθήσεται τὸ αὐλούμενον ἢ τὸ κιθαριζόμενον ; Matt. x. 14; xvii.
25; xxiii. 17, 19; Mark xiii. 32; Luke xiii. 15; xxii. 27; Jno. iii.
19; Acts xxviii. 17; Rom. iv. 9; 1 Cor. xiv. 5. Cf. Isocr. permut. 118
p. 746.
b. When the first noun is followed by a Gen., and the second,
therefore, is appended to an independent group; as, 1 Cor. i. 28
τὰ ἀγενῆ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὰ ἐξουθενημένα, ν. 10.
If each of the connected nouns has its Genitive, the repetition.
of the Article before the second noun is unnecessary, since the two
nouns are separated without it; as, Phil. i. 19 dià τns vμav denσews
καὶ ἐπιχορηγίας τοῦ πνεύματος, etc.
Note 1. Variants occur in a very great number of passages, e.g. Matt.
xxvii. 3; Mark viii. 31; x. 33; xi. 15; Luke xxii. 4; Acts xvi. 19; Rom.
iv. 2, 11, 19; 1 Cor. xi. 27; 1 Thess. i. 8.
1 We find the Article both used and omitted before nouns of the same gender in
Arrian. Εpict. 1, 18, 6 τὴν ὄψιν τὴν διακριτικὴν τῶν λευκῶν καὶ μελάνων . . . τῶν ἀγαθῶν καὶ
τῶν κακῶν. Somewhat differently in Acts vi. 9 τινὲς τῶν ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς τῆς λεγομένης
Λιβερτίνων καὶ Κυρην. καὶ ᾿Αλεξανδρ., καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ Κιλικίας καὶ 'Ασίας, where Κυρην. and
'Aλe§. combined with AßepT. constitute one party (with a synagogue in common), as
the other synagogue corporation was formed of the Asiatic and Cilician Jews.
6th ed.
17
130
§ 19. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE NOUNS.
Moreover, the view taken of the mutual relation of the connected nouns
142 may frequently be a matter of indifference; it depends upon the writer
how he will regard it; (in 1 Thess. i. 7 we find ἐν τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ
'Axata but in 8 kaì 'Aɣatą). Hence there are passages where the reader
would not miss the Article, e.g. 1 Tim. v. 5;1 while in others it might
perhaps be used, as in Eph. ii. 20 (Mey. in l.). See in general, Engelhardt,
Plat. Menex. p. 253; Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 395.
In Tit. ii. 13 ἐπιφάνεια τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ
Xp., for reasons which lie in the doctrinal system of Paul, I do not regard
owrŷpos as a second predicate by the side of coû, as if Christ were first
styled ὁ μέγας θεός and then σωτήρ. The Article is omited before σωτῆρος,
because the word is made definite by the Genitive uv, and the apposition
precedes the proper name: of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ."
Similar is 2 Pet. i. 1, where there is not even a pronoun with owτnpus. So
124 also in Jude 4 two different subjects may be referred to, since kúpios, as
7th ed. made definite by μov, does not require the Article in order to mean 'Iŋooûv
XPLOTòv ŐS ÉσTI Kúpios ýµŵv. (In 2 Thess, i. 12 we have simply an instance
Χριστὸν ἐστι κύριος
of κύριος for ὁ κύριος.)
r
...
119 Note 2. The omission of the Article in Luke x. 29 rís èorí µov πλŋσiov,
μου πλησίον,
6th ed. and 36 TÍS TOÚTWV πλησίον δοκεῖ σοι γεγονέναι τοῦ ἐμπ., seems strange, as
one would have expected å πλŋσíov (see Markland, Eur. Suppl. 110), since,
moreover, πλŋσíov is an adverb. A similar instance has been quoted by
Döderlein (Synon. I. 59) from Aeschyl. Prom. 938 ¿µoì 8 ëλaooov Zyvòs
ἢ μηδὲν μέλλει, where μηδέν appears to be put for τοῦ μηδέν. In both the
passages from Luke, however, the adverb also is allowable: who is near
me? See Bornem. in 1.
1 As the words run : προς μένει ταῖς δεήσεσι καὶ ταῖς προςευχαῖς, prayer is distributed
into its two kinds; without the repetition of the Article, prayer and petitions would be
blended into one.
•
•
2 In the above remarks I did not mean to deny that owrĥpos nuŵv can grammatically
be regarded as a second predicate dependent on the Article Toù; only, doctrinal con-
viction, deduced from Paul's teaching, that this apostle could not have called Christ the
great God, induced me to show that there is also no grammatical obstacle to taking kal
σωτ. Xploroû by itself as a second subject. Since the anonymous writer in Tholuck's
Liter. Anzeiger (as referred to) has not proved that, according to my acceptation of the
passage the Article must have been repeated before σwrĥpos (the passages quoted as
parallel are not analogous, see Fr. Rom. II. 268), still less that to introduce Christ as
8 μéyas eós is in harmony with Paul's representation of the relation of Christ to God,
I adhere to the above interpretation. Examples, such as those quoted § 19, 2, will at
once satisfy the impartial inquirer that the Article was not necessary before owτñpos;
and the fact that elsewhere owrhp is applied also to God, is nothing to the purpose.
Enough that σwrǹp ĥµŵv our Saviour is a perfectly definite predicate, just as his face is ;
πρόςωπον is applicable to a far greater number of individuals than σωτήρ. The words
S. 38: If the expression σwrǹp uŵv invariably occurred in the N. T. of a single definite
individual only etc. contain an arbitrary assumption. Matthies has contributed to the
discussion nothing decisive.
§ 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES. 131
§ 20. ARTICULUS PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES.
1. Attributives (Adjectives, Genitives, or Adjuncts formed with
Prepositions¹) annexed to a noun which has the Article, are placed
either
a. Between the Article and the noun, as ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος
Matt. xii. 35, τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα Matt. xviii. 20, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, ἡ τοῦ 143
θεοῦ μακροθυμία 1 Pet. iii. 20, ἡ ἄνω κλῆσις Phil. iii. 14, ἡ ἐν φόβῳ
ἁγνὴ ἀναστροφή 1 Pet. iii. 2, ή παρ' ἐμοῦ διαθήκη Rom. xi. 27, ἡ
κατ' ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις ix. 11, το καινὸν αὐτοῦ μνημεῖον Matt. xxvii.
60; cf. 2 Pet. ii. 7; Heb. v. 14; vi. 7. Or,
b. After the noun; in which case
a. If they are adjectives,2 or adjuncts with prepositions, they
uniformly take the repeated Article, but
B. If Genitives of nouns, they usually take it only aa. when
these additions are to be strengthened, or to be made more promi- 125
nent (1 Cor. i. 18 ó ráyos ở Tou araupo, Tit. ii. 10 Tà ô Sarkaria itted
Tην TоÛ σWτηρos nuov; see Schaef. Melet. p. 8, 72 sq.; Mtth. 727),3
particularly when relationship is added for distinction's sake, as
Jno. xix. 25 Μαρία ἡ τοῦ Κλωπά, Acts xiii. 22 Δαβὶδ ὁ τοῦ Ἰεσσαί,
1 Genitives of personal pronouns are joined to nouns, as is well known, without the
aid of the Article, as d πaîs μov. They blend, as it were, with the substantive.
2 It is obvious that this applies only to adjectives used as attributives to substantives.
In Luke xxiii. 45 ἐσχίσθη τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ μέσον, the word μέσον belongs to
the verb: was rent ... in the middle; τὸ μέσον καταπέτασμα would have a different mean-
ing. So the similar adjectives of space or number ἔσχατος, ὅλος, μόνος, ὀλίγος always
appear without the Article when they are not really epithets, either a. after the noun,
as Matt. xvi. 26 éàv tòv kóσµov öλov кeρdhon if he gain the whole world (the world wholly),
x. 30 ai Tρíxes T. KEPAλĤs Tâσαι ǹpilunµévai eioív (ix. 35; Jno. v. 22; Plato, epin. 983 a.),
Matt. xii. 4 οὐκ ἐξὺν ἦν φαγεῖν . . . εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις ; or b. before it, Matt. iv. 23 ;
Heb. ix. 7 μóvos & àρxiepeús, Jno. vi. 22; see Gersdorf, I. 371 ff., who has collected ex-
amples with little judgment. Cf. Jacob, Lucian. Al. p. 51; Krü. 104 f.; Rost, S. 435.
8 Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 55; Mdv. p. 12. This construction, however, gradually lost
its force, and many authors almost invariably put the Article before such a Genitive
even when no emphasis is intended. So, in particular, Demosth., Isocr. and Xen.
Ephes. The orators might have some reason for this in spoken discourse. Cf. Siebelis,
Pausan. I. 17.
4 The precise meaning of the above is: among the women called Mary, the (particular
one) of Clopas (the wife of Clopas). The Article is not used where the annexed Gen-
itive is not intended to convey any sharp distinction, as Luke vi. 16 'Ioúdav 'Iakúßov,
Acts i. 13 Ιάκωβος ᾿Αλφαίου, just as Her. 1, 59 Λυκοῦργος ᾿Αριστολαΐδεω and Dion. I.
comp. 1 Alovvoíov 'Aλe§ávdpov (in both passages, however, Schaef. would insert the Arti-
cle), or Aristot. polit. 2, 6 Ιππόδαμος Εὐρυφῶντος, and Thuc. 1, 24 Φάλιος Ερατοκλείδου
(Poppo, Thuc. I. 195), Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 3; cf. Hm. Vig. 701. On the other hand,
in Luke xxiv. 10 we must unhesitatingly read, with the most approved MSS., Mapía
132 § 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES
6th ed.
120 Matt. iv. 21; x. 2; Mark iii. 17; ßß. when the noun has already
its (personal) Genitive, as Matt. xxvi. 28 тò aîµá µov тò TĤs KalvĤjs
dɩaðýêŋs, yet the Art. here is not quite established.
144
126
7th ed.
c. Rarely such attributives, particularly if adjectives, are put
before the noun and its Article; as, Acts xxvi. 24 µeyáλy tŷ owvŷ
ἔφη see above § 18, Matt. iv. 23 περιῆγεν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ.
In case a. more than one attributive may be inserted between
the Article and the noun ; as, ὁ ἅγιος καὶ ἄμωμος ἄνθρωπος. The
Article then is usually not repeated. With qualifying Genitives
or adjuncts appended by means of Prepositions, there are instances
of the repetition of the Article; as, Luke i. 70 Sià σTóμATOS TŴV
ἁγίων τῶν ἀπ' αἰῶνος προφητῶν, 1 Pet. iv. 14 τὸ τῆς δόξης καὶ τὸ τοῦ
Оeοû πveûµa, i.e. the Spirit of glory and (consequently) the Spirit
of God, the Spirit of glory, which is no other than the Spirit of
God himself. Similar is Thuc. 1, 126 év Tŷ Toû Aiòs tŷ μeɣioτη
ἑορτῇ, and Plat. rep. 8, 565 d. περὶ τὸ ἐν ᾿Αρκαδίᾳ τὸ τοῦ Διὸς ἱερόν,
only that aí is wanting here.
In case b. also, there is no objection to the accumulation of
adjuncts, as Heb. xi. 12 ἡ ἄμμος ἡ παρὰ τὸ χεῖλος τῆς θαλάσσης, ἡ
ἀναρίθμητος, Rev. ii. 12 τὴν ῥομφαίαν τὴν δίστομον τὴν ὀξείαν, Kru.
102; except that when the last are not connected by кaí (§ 19, 4)
the Article must be repeated.¹
It will be necessary to explain here more minutely, and to con-
firm by examples, the case b. a.
a. Adjectives and possessive pronouns with the Article are
placed after the noun, either
Quite alone, as Jno. x. 11 8 Toiµǹv å kaλós, Acts xii. 10 èπì tηv
πύλην τὴν σιδηρᾶν, Jno. vii. 6 ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐμός, i. 9; iv. 11; xv. 1;
Luke ii. 17; iii. 22; viii. 8; Acts xix. 16; Eph. vi. 13; Col. i. 21;
2 Tim. iv. 7; 1 Cor. vii. 14; xii. 2, 31; 1 Jno. i. 3; Jas. i. 9 ; iii. 7
(in which case the adjective sometimes is subjoined for greater
perspicuity, cf. particularly Jas. iii. 7, sometimes is to be made
more emphatic, Bornem. Luc. p. xxxvi.; Mdv. 11). Or
When the governing noun is amplified by a Gen. or in some
other way, as Matt. iii. 17 ó viós μov ó ȧyaπηтós, 2 Cor. vi. 7 Sià
τῶν ὅπλων τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῶν δεξιῶν καὶ ἀριστερῶν, Jno. vi. 13 τῶν
tévтe äρtwv tŵν кρiðívæv, Matt. vi. 6; Luke vii. 47; Tit. ii. 11;
'Iаkúẞоν. In general cf. Fr. Mr. p. 696 sq. The collocation of words in Pausan. 2.
22, 6 τῆς Φορών ως Νιόβης does not occur in the N. Τ.
1 A rare repetition of the Article, in accordance with the above rules, occurs in Rev.
xxi. 9 ἦλθεν εἷς ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων τῶν ἐχόντων τὰς ἑπτὰ φιάλας (τὰς) γεμούσας (τῶν)
ἑπτὰ πληγῶν τῶν ἐσχάτων.
§ 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES.
133
Heb. xiii. 20, etc. (The N. T. writers liked to avoid the construction
TÒν μоvoy. Beoû vióv as intricate; cf. Jno. iii. 16; 1 Jno. iv. 9.)
τὸν
μονογ.
1
In the text. rec. of 1 Jno. v. 20 ń swǹ aiúvios we find the adj. 121
without the Article after the noun. The better Codd., however, 6th ed.
omit the Article before wń also. The common reading in itself
considered is by no means to be rejected, as in such cases later
writers begin to omit the Article (Bhdy. S. 323), although the
examples from Long. past. 1, 16; Heliod. 7,5; Diod. S. 5, 40 are 145
not quite parallel to that from John. Besides, (wǹ aióv. had
already come to be regarded as a single idea, cf. Jno. iv. 36. In
Luke xii. 12, Griesb. and Schott have rò yaρ пνеûμа äчov, but
Knapp and all recent editors give τὸ γὰρ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, without
noting any variants. In 1 Cor. x. 3; Gal. i. 4 rò ẞpôµа тveνµатIкóv
πVEVμATIKÓV
and ó alov Tovnpós are to be considered as blending together into
one leading idea; and auró and eveσt., as frequently, have been
inserted as epithets between the Article and the Substantive; cf.
1 Pet. i. 18. See also Heb. ix. 1 тò йylov Kooμkóv. With Jno.
ν. 36 ἐγὼ ἔχω τὴν μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ Ἰωάννου (a predicate: the
witness that I have is greater than, etc., Rost 435) may be com-
pared Isocr. Philipp. c. 56 тò σâµa Ovηtòv åπAνtes exoμev. Further,
cf. Schaef. Plut. V. 30.
κοσ
b. The Article is used with subjoined amplifications of the
principal noun consisting of a noun and preposition : 1 Thess. i. 8
ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, 2 Cor. viii. 4 τῆς διακονίας τῆς εἰς
τοὺς ἁγίους, Jas. i. 1 ταῖς φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ, Acts xr. 23
τοῖς κατὰ τὴν ᾿Αντιόχειαν . . . ἀδελφοῖς, τοῖς ἐξ ἐθνῶν, xxiv. 5 πᾶσι
τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις τοῖς κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην, iii. 16 ; iv. 2 ; viii. 1 ; xi. 22;
xxvi. 4, 12, 22; xxvii. 5; Mark iv. 31; xiii. 25; Jno. i. 46; Luke
xx. 35; Rom. iv. 11; vii. 5, 10; viii. 39; x. 5; xiv. 19; xv. 26,
31; xvi. 1; 1 Cor. ii. 11 f.; iv. 17; xvi. 1; 2 Cor. ii. 6; vii. 12;
ix. 1; xi. 3; Phil. i. 11; iii. 9; 1 Thess. ii. 1; iv. 10; 1 Tim. i. 14;
2 Tim. ii. 1; Eph. i. 15; Rev. xiv. 17; xvi. 12; xix. 14; xx. 13.
(Variants occur in Acts xx. 21; Luke v. 7; Jno. xix. 38; Rom.
x. 1.) For examples from Arrian (yet the like are to be found
in every page of the Greek prose authors) see Ellendt, Arrian 127
Al. I. 62.
This mode of annexing an attributive (by bringing it in after-
wards), as the more simple, is far more frequent in the N. T. than
the insertion of it between the Article and the noun. The LXX.
1 According to the testimony of good Codd. even the earlier writers in certain cases
did the same; cf. Schneider, Plat. civ. II. 319, and Krü. in Jahn's Jahrb. 1838. I. 61.
Th છે.
134 § 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES.
also, as a slight inspection will show, have regularly observed the
use of the Art. in this case.
c. Participles, as attributives, in as far as they have not entirely
dropped the notion of time, are not treated in this case altogether
like adjectives. They take the Article only when some relation.
already known or especially noteworthy (is qui, quippe qui) is
indicated, and consequently the idea expressed by the participle
146 is to be made more prominent, e.g. 1 Pet. v. 10 ó leòs . . . ô kaλéoas
ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν αἰώνιον αὑτοῦ δόξαν . . . ὀλίγον παθόντας, αὐτὸς καταρ-
τίσαι
Tíoaι God... who hath called us unto his eternal glory,... after
that we have suffered a while etc., Eph. i. 12 eis tò eivai ýµâs eis
ἔπαινον τοὺς προηλπικότας ἐν τῷ Χρ. we, the we who (quippe qui
122 have hoped (as those who have hoped), cf. vs. 19; Heb. iv. 3; vi. 18;
6th ed. Rom. viii. 4; 1 Cor. viii. 10; Jno. i. 12; 1 Jno. v. 13; 1 Thess. i. 10;
iv. 5; 1 Pet. i. 3; iii. 5; Jas. iii. 6; Acts xxi. 38; cf. Dion. H. III.
1922; Polyb. 3, 45, 2; 3, 48, 6; Lucian. dial. m. 11, 1 a.
On the other hand, the participle occurs without the Article in
Acts xxiii. 27 τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον συλληφθέντα ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων hunc
virum comprehensum (who was seized, after he had been seized),
2 Cor. xi. 9 ὑστέρημά μου προςανεπλήρωσαν οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ἐλθόντες
ȧπò Makedovias the brethren, after they had arrived, Acts iii. 26
ἀναστήσας ὁ θεὸς τὸν παῖδα αὑτοῦ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτόν, etc., God, hav
ing raised up (causing to appear) his Son, sent him, etc. (on the
other hand, Heb. xiii. 20), Rom. ii. 27 кρɩеî ý ẻк þúσews àкpoßvoτía
TÒV VÓμOV TEλоÛoa oé etc., if or thereby that it fulfils etc. Cf. Luke
xvi. 14; Jno. iv. 6, 39, 45; 1 Cor. i. 7; xiv. 7; 2 Cor. iii. 2; Heb.
x. 2; xii. 23; 1 Pet. i. 12 (Fr. Mt. p. 432; Stallb. Plat. apol. p. 14).
So Acts xxi. 8 εἰς τὸν οἶκον Φιλίππου τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ ὄντος ἐκ τῶν
ÉTTά is to be translated: qui erat, as being one of the seven (yet
some authorities give roû here, which introduces into the passage
a false emphasis), Rom. xvi. 1 cf. Demosth. Con. 728 c. EvğíÐeov
TOUTOVì ővť ýµîv ovyyevî, D. S. 17, 38 ó maîs ¿v è§ étŵv, 3, 23 tòv
πίπτοντα καρπὸν ὄντα καλόν, Philostr. Apoll. 7, 16 ἐν τῇ νήσῳ
ȧvúdρw ovσŋ πρórepov, Thuc. 4, 3; 8, 90; Demosth. Polycl. 710 b. ;
Isocr. Trap. 870; Lucian. Hermot. 81; dial. m. 10, 9; Alciphr.
3, 18; Strabo, 3, 164; Long. 2, 2; Philostr. Her. 3, 4 and Sophist.
1, 23, 1.
In Eph. vi. 16 τὰ βέλη τὰ πεπυρωμένα the Article is not fully established
(Lehm. has cancelled it); if it is not genuine, the meaning of the passage
is the darts, when they burn, or though they burn (to quench the darts of
Satan... burning as they are). In 2 Jno. 7 epxóμevov belongs to the
§ 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES.
135
predicate ; and in Gal. iii. 1 Ἰησοῦς Χρ. προεγράφη ἐν ὑμῖν ἐσταυρωμένος is 128
to be translated: Jesus Christ as one who has been crucified; cf. 1 Cor. 7th ed.
i. 23; (otherwise in Matt. xxviii. 5).
The above passage, 1 Pet. v. 10, ὁ θεός, ὁ καλέσας ἡμᾶς . . . ὀλίγον παθόν-
Tas is peculiarly instructive respecting the use and the omission of the Arti-
cle with Participles. Whether the Article is to be used or omitted before
the Participle, depends sometimes on the subjective view of the writer. 147
Rom. viii. 1 τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν etc., with a
comma after’Iŋσoû, means: to those who are in Christ Jesus, inasmuch as they
wall not after the flesh. On the other hand, τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν,
with greater prominence of the apposition, means: to those who are in Christ
Jesus, as persons who walk not etc., to those who walk not etc.; cf. Mtth.
718. The whole clause, however, p... avevμa is undoubtedly spurious.
When a Participle with the Article is subjoined in apposition to a noun,
or put in the Vocative (as if in apposition to ov), it sometimes denotes
ridicule or disapprobation, or prominently points out some peculiarity as a
subject of ridicule or disapprobation. Expositors of Greek authors have
frequently attributed to the Article itself a derisive force (articulus irrisi-
oni inservit, Valcken. Eur. Phoen. 1637; Markland, Eurip. Suppl. 110; 123
Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 12, and Apol. p. 70); this, however, lies only in 6th ed.
the thought and its special prominence (and in speaking may also be con-
veyed by the voice). Here, for instance, may be referred from the N. T.
Rom. ii. 1 τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πράσσεις ὁ κρίνων, Matt. xxvii. 40 ὁ καταλύων
τὸν ναόν... κατάβηθι ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ [Jno. v. 12] etc. See Hm. Eur.
Alcest. 708; Mtth. 722.
2. To the rule explained under b. there are unquestionable
indeed, well-nigh standing — exceptions, viz.
When an adjunct (consisting of a noun and preposition) which
in reality forms with the substantive but one leading idea, is to be
linked to the preceding noun simply by the voice, the grammatical
connective of the written language (i.e. the Article) is wanting,
e.g. Col. i. 8 δηλώσας ἡμῖν τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην ἐν πνεύματι your love
in the Spirit, see Huther, 1 Cor. x. 18 BéTTETE Tòv 'Iσpanλ Kaтà
σάρκα (opp. to Ισρ. κατὰ πνεῦμα), 2 Cor. vii. 7 τὸν ὑμῶν ζῆλον ὑπὲρ
èμoû, Eph. ii. 11. This takes place especially,
a. In the oft-recurring apostolic (Pauline) phrase, ev Xpioт@
᾿Ιησοῦ, or ἐν κυρίῳ, or κατὰ σάρκα, as Col. i. 4 ἀκούσαντες τὴν πί-
στιν ὑμῶν ἐν Χρ. Ι. καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, Eph.
i. 15 ἀκούσας τὴν καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστιν ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ Ι. καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην
τὴν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, Rom. ix. 3 τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα,
1 Thess. iv. 16 οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον the dead
in Christ (1.Cor. xv. 18), with which in vs. 17 is contrasted μeis
οἱ ζῶντες, for these are ζῶντες ἐν Χριστῷ (of the resurrection of
136 § 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES.
non-Christians Paul has here no occasion to speak), Phil. iii. 14;
Eph. iv. 1 (where Paul, if ἐν κυρίῳ is to be connected with παρακαλῶ,
would have placed this latter word after ὑμᾶς; δέσμιος ἐν κυρίῳ
129 gives the proper emphasis to the admonition that follows), ii. 21;
7th ed. vi. 21. Not unlike this is 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1 τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ
148 Θεσσαλονικέων ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ κυρίῳ, etc. Likewise in 1 Tim.
vi. 17 τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι 1 are to be connected. Cf.
besides, Acts xxvi. 4; Rom. xvi. 3, 8, 10; Eph. ii. 15; Phil. i. 1.
2
b. When the primitive verb was construed with a particular
preposition, or when the adjunct is half-implied in the noun (Held,
Plut. Timol. p. 419; Krü. 103), as Eph. iii. 4 δύνασθε νοῆσαι τὴν
σύνεσίν μου ἐν τῷ μυστηρίῳ (Josh. i. 7 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12; Esr. i.
31) cf. Dan. i. 4 συνιέντες ἐν πάσῃ σοφία; Rom. vi. 4 συνετάφημεν
αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον (vs. 3 ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς τὸν
θάνατον αὐτοῦ), Phil. i. 26 διὰ τῆς ἐμῆς παρουσίας πάλιν πρὸς ὑμᾶς,
2 Cor. ix. 13 ἁπλότητι τῆς κοινωνίας εἰς αὐτοὺς καὶ εἰς πάντας, Col.
124 i. 12 (Job xxx. 19) cf. Bahr in loc. ; Eph. iii. 13 ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσί
6th ed. μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (cf. vs. 1), 2 Cor. i. 6 ; Col. i. 24. So Polyb. 3, 48,
11 τὴν τῶν ὄχλων ἀλλοτριότητα πρὸς ῾Ρωμαίους, D. S. 17, 10 της
Αλεξάνδρου παρουσίας ἐπὶ τὰς Θήβας, Her. 5, 108 ἡ ἀγγελία περὶ
τῶν Σαρδίων, Thuc. 5, 20 ἡ ἐςβολὴ ἐς τὴν Αττικήν 2, 52 ἡ συγκομιδὴ
ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν εἰς τὸ ἄστυ 1, 18; Plutarch. Coriol. 24 ἡ τῶν πατρι-
κίων δυσμένεια πρὸς τὸν δῆμον, and Pomp. 58 αἱ παρακλήσεις ὑπὲρ
Καίσαρος. From the LXX. compare Exod. xvi. 7 τὸν γογγυσμὸν
ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ, which Thiersch considers as paene vitiosum !
Case a. is to be referred no doubt to the colloquial language,
which, having the more expressive aid of the voice, scarcely em-
ployed the Article anywhere; whereas the literary language, for
the sake of precision, could less easily dispense with it. Yet from
the literary language a few instances even of this omission of the
Article may be produced; cf. Polyb. 5, 64, 6 διὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς
δόξαν ἐκ τῆς ἀθλήσεως, Sext. Εmp. hypot. 3, 26 ζητοῦμεν περὶ τοῦ
τόπου πρὸς ἀκρίβειαν for τοῦ πρὸς ἀ., as appears from what precedes,
Thuc. 6, 55 ὡς ὅτε βωμὸς σημαίνει καὶ ἡ στήλη περὶ τῆς τῶν τυράννων
ΟΤΕ
1 According to Paul's view we are likewise probably to take δ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως
together in the quotation from the O. T. in Rom. i. 17 and Gal. iii. 11. In the former
passage he wishes to establish by the words of the prophet the proposition δικαιοσύνη
θεοῦ ἐκ πίστεως etc., and not ἡ ζωὴ ἐκ δικαιοσύνης. Cf. Rom. x. 6 ἡ ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοσύνη.
But in Heb. x. 38 ἐκ πίστεως must undoubtedly be joined to ζήσεται ; see Bleck.
2 Accordingly, in Rom. v. 2 there would be no objection in this respect to connecting
τῇ πίστει (which however Ichm. and Taf. have rejected) εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην. There
are, however, other difficulties.
§ 20, ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES.
137
ἀδικίας (where Bekker from conjecture has inserted ή before περί),
cf. Kru. Dion. p. 153 ; Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 234.
1
In classifying such constructions, however, we must be cautious ;' 149
many that seem to come under this head we shall find, on closer 130
examination, to be different; cf. Ellendt, Arrian. al. I. 315.
a) Sometimes, for instance, a slight transposition of the words
may have eusued, as 1 Tim. i. 2 Τιμοθέῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει,
where the words ἐν πίστει construed according to the sense with
γνησίῳ would mean genuine in faith ; cf. Xen. Α. 4, 3, 23 κατὰ τὰς
προςηκούσας ὄχθας ἐπὶ τὸν ποταμόν, i.e. κατὰ τὰς ἐπὶ τ. π. προςηκ.
ὄχθας. For several reasons, however, it is preferable to take ἐν
πίστει there as an adjunct to the compound notion, genuine child.
On the other hand, in 1 Pet. i. 2 it may be that the qualifying
clauses κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ ... εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμόν etc.
should be joined to ἐκλεκτοῖς.
Ο
7th ed.
b) Elsewhere the adjunct belongs as a closer limitation directly
to the verb, as Col. i. 6 ἀφ᾿ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε τὴν
χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (see Bar and Mey.), Rom. iii. 25 δν
προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι (see Fr.
and de Wette in l.) ; viii. 2 ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ
Ι. ἠλευθέρωσέ με ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου
where it is evident, partly from the antithesis νόμος τοῦ θανάτου (to
which νόμος τῆς ζωῆς correctly corresponds), and partly from vs. 3,
that ἐν Χριστῷ must be connected with ἠλευθέρωσε, as Koppe has
done; Phil. i. 14 τοὺς πλείονας τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐν κυρίῳ πεποιθότας
τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου (cf. a similar construction in Gal. v. 10 πέποιθα 125
εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν κυρίῳ and 2 Thess. iii. 4), as ἐν κυρίῳ has a real meaning 6th ed
only when joined to πεποιθότας; Jas. iii. 13 δειξάτω ἐκ τῆς καλῆς
ἀναστροφῆς τὰ ἔργα αὑτοῦ ἐν πραύτητι σοφίας, where the words ἐν
πραύτητι σοφίας are an explanatory adjunct to ἐκ τῆς καλῆς ἀνα-
στροφῆς. Further, cf. Rom. v. 8 ; 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; ix. 18; Phil. iii. 9 ;
iv. 19, 21; Col. i. 9; Eph. ii. 7; iii. 12; 1 Thess. ii. 16; Philem.
20; Heb. xiii. 20; Jno. xv. 11, see Lücke; 1 Jno. iv. 17; Jude 21.
Likewise in Acts xxii. 18 οὐ παραδέξονταί σου τὴν μαρτυρίαν περὶ
èμoû may be translated: they will not receive concerning me thy
testimony, i.e. in reference to me no testimony from thee; Tǹv
1 Harless on Eph. i. 15 and Mey. on Rom. iii. 25 etc., have taken the same view as
the above. Fr. also, who in his letter to Tholuck, S. 35, had declared it a blunder to
connect διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι, has stated (Rom. I. 195, 365) his altered
opinion, and also in Rom. vi. 4 the combination διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον,
which in p. 32 of his letter he had pronounced grammatically faulty, he has defended
as alone admissible.
18
138 § 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES.
μαρτυρίαν τὴν περὶ ἐμοῦ would be thy testimony to be given, or given,
concerning me. In Eph. v. 26 év pnuari does not belong to T
ἐν ῥήματι τῷ
λOUTρÊ TоÛ Üdaros, but the passage is probably to be arranged thus:
ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ, καθαρίσας τῷ λ. τ. ὕδ., ἐν ῥήματι. The καθαρίζειν
150 precedes the άyalew and denotes something negative, as the latter
denotes something positive; see Rück. and Mey. In Heb. x. 10 it
was not necessary to write διὰ τῆς προςφορᾶς τοῦ σώματος . . . τῆς
ἐφάπαξ ; the latter word may just as well be referred to ἡγιασμένοι;
see Bleek. On Eph. ii. 15 and Col. ii. 14 see § 31, note 1, p. 220.
In Eph. vi. 5 for τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα good Codd. have τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα
Kupiois, which Lehm. has adopted.
3. An appellative in apposition to a proper name,
131 a. Usually has the Article, e.g. Acts xxv. 13 'Aypinnas o ẞaoi-
βασι
7th ed. λeús, Luke ix. 19 'Iwávvnv Tov BаTTIOTηv, Acts xii. 1; xiii. 8; xxiii.
24; xxvi. 9; 2 Cor. xi. 32; Matt. xxvii. 2, etc. In such a case
the appellative always denotes a dignity, or the like, already known,
and thus renders definite the proper name which may be common
to many individuals. Agrippa the king, is properly that Agrippa
who among those called Agrippa is king, etc. Cf. § 18, 6, p. 112 sq.
b. On the other hand, in Acts x. 32 Zipwv Bupoeús Simon a
tanner (a certain Simon who was a tanner), Luke ii. 36 "Avva
προφήτις Anna a prophetess, viii. 3 Ιωάννα, γυνὴ Χουζᾶ, ἐπιτρόπου
'Hpádov, Acts xx. 4 Túïos Aepßaîos Gaius of Derbe (not the already
known Derbaan), x. 22. In all these instances a predicate in
apposition is simply annexed, without any precise intention of
distinguishing the person from others of the same name. Likewise
in Luke iii. 1 ἐν ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος .
must strictly be translated: of Tiberius as emperor. Gersd. p. 167
is incorrect. In Acts vii. 10 εναντίον Φαραώ βασιλέως Αἰγύπτου
does not mean: before Pharaoh, the (known or then) king of Egypt;
but before Pharaoh king of Egypt, i.e. before Pharaoh who was
king of Egypt. Cf. Plutarch. parallel. 15 Bрévvos Taλaтŵv Ba-
σιλεύς, c. 30 'Ατεπόμαρος Γάλλων βασιλεύς, etc.
With other words in apposition, also, the use or the omission of
the Article is determined by the general rule; and it is strange
that any one should assert, in absolute terms, that a word in ap-
126 position never has the Article. Your father, an unlearned man,
6th ed. would be expressed, to be sure, even in Greek without the Article;
but in the expression, your father, the field-marshal, the Article
stands with entire propriety. Grammatically this applies to Jno.
151 viii. 44. In general, the use of the Article may be regarded as
more common than its omission (Rost 439).
§ 20. ARTIC. PRAEPOSITIVUS, b. WITH ATTRIBUTIVES.
139
The Article may be omitted, in accordance with the principles
explained in § 19, even when the intention is to express a charac-
teristic predicate distinctive of the particular individual; as, Rom.
i. 7 ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, 1 Tim. i. 1 κατ' ἐπιταγὴν θεοῦ σωτῆρος
ἡμῶν, 1 Pet. v. 8 ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν διάβολος. So also if the appel-
lative predicate precedes the proper name, as κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός
2 Cor. i. 2; Gal. i. 3; Phil. iii. 20, etc.; although in the latter
case the Article is used for the most part, as 1 Cor. xi. 23 ο κύριος
Ιησούς, and 2 Tim. i. 10 τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ, Tit. iii. 4;
1 Thess. iii. 11; Philem. 5, etc.
4. A limiting attributive joined to an anarthrous noun (appel-
lative), properly dispenses with the Article ; as, Matt. vii. 11 δόματα
ἀγαθά, Juo. ix. 1 εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον τυφλὸν ἐκ γενετής, [Matt. ii. 1
μάγοι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν oriental magi], 1 Tim. iv. 3 ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν
εἰς μετάληψιν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας, i. 5 ἀγάπη ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας, Tit.
i. 6 τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα, Romn.
xiv. 17 δικαιοσύνη καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, cf. Plat.
rep. 2, 378 d. "Ηρας δὲ δεσμοὺς ὑπὸ υἱέος καὶ Ηφαίστου ῥίψεις 132
ὑπὸ πατρός, μέλλοντος τῇ μητρὶ τυπτομένῃ ἀμύνειν, καὶ θεομαχίας, 7th ed
ὅσας "Ομηρος πεποίηκεν, οὐ παραδεκτέον εἰς τὴν πόλιν, Theophr. ch.
29 ἔστι δὲ ἡ κακολογία ἀγὼν τῆς ψυχῆς εἰς τὸ χεῖρον ἐν λόγοις,
Aelian. anim. 11, 15 ἔοικα λέξειν ἐλέφαντος ὀργὴν εἰς γάμον ἀδικου
μένου. Cf. Stallb. Plat. rep. Ι. 91, 110, 152; Kru. 101.
Not unfrequently, however, it happens that such attributives are
joined to an anarthrous noun by means of the Article; and that
not merely when the noun belongs to the class specified in § 19, 1
(1 Pet. i. 21), but also in other cases, though never without adequate
ground ; e.g. 1 Pet. i. 7 τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως πολυτιμότερον
χρυσίου, τοῦ ἀπολλυμένου, which is to be resolved: more precious
than gold (that gold) which is perishable, Acts xxvi. 18 πίστει τῇ
εἰς ἐμέ by faith, namely, the faith in me, 2 Tim. i. 13 ἐν ἀγάπῃ τῇ
ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, Tit. iii. 5 οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων, τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, Rom.
ii. 14 ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα gentiles that have not the law, see
Fr. in l. (compare on the other hand, 1 Thess. iv. 5); ix. 30; Gal.
iii. 21 (compare here Liban. oratt. p. 201 b.), Heb. vi. 7; Phil. iii. 9.
In such passages, the noun is first presented to the mind as 152
1 Sο κλέπτης ἐν νυκτί might signify a nocturnal thief; but in 1 Thess. F. 2 with ὡς
κλέπτης εν νυκτί an ἔρχεται is to be supplied from the following clause : that the day of
the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night (cometh). Even adverbs are joined without
the article — that is to say, prefixed. to such anarthrous nouns, as μάλα χειμών Xen.
Hell. 5, 4, 14 a severe winter. See Krü. in Jahn's Jahrb. 1838, I. 57.
140
§ 21. THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL.
127 indefinite,¹ and is then rendered definite by the attributive, whose
6th ed. import receives, by this very construction, special prominence.
10
See further, Acts x. 41; xix. 11, 17; xxvi. 22; Phil. i. 11; iii.
6; 1 Tim. i. 4; iii. 13; iv. 8; 2 Tim. i. 14; ii. 10; Heb. ix. 2;
2 Jno. 7; Jude 4; Jas. i. 25; iv. 14; 1 Pet. v. 1. Cf. Her. 2, 114
ἐς γῆν τὴν σήν, Xen. M. 2, 1, 32 ἀνθρώποις τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς men, that
is the good, Hiero 3, 8 ὑπὸ γυναικῶν τῶν ἑαυτῶν, Μem. 1, 7, 5 ;
4, 5,11; Dion. H. IV. 2219, 4 εὐνοίᾳ τῇ πρὸς αὐτόν, 2221, 5 ὁπλισμὸς
ὁ τοῖς τηλικούτοις πρέπων, Aelian. anim. 3, 23 οὐδὲ ἐπὶ κέρδει τῷ
μeyloτw, 7, 27; Her. 5, 18; 6, 104; Plato, rep. 8, 545 a.; legg.
8, 849 b.; Demosth. Neaer. 517 b.; Theophr. ch. 15; Schneid.
Isocr. Paneg. c. 24; Arrian. Ind. 34, 1; Xen. Ephes. 2, 5; 4, 3;
Heliod. 7, 2; 8,5; Strabo 7, 302; Lucian. asin. 25, 44; scyth. 1;
Philostr. Apoll. 7, 30; cf. Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 409; Herm.
Lucian. conscr. hist. p. 106; Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 241; Schoem.
Plutarch. Cleom. p. 226; Mdv. S. 14.
In Phil. ii. 9 the text. rec. has ovομα тò vπèρ πâν ovoµa a name that is
above every name. Yet good Codd. [Sin. also] have the Article before
ovoμa: the name (which he now enjoys), which etc., the (known) dignity,
which etc.
133
7th ed.
153
CHAPTER II.
PRONOUNS.
§ 21. THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL.
1. In the use of the Pronouns the language of the N. T. deviates
from the earlier prose of the Greeks, or even from Greek usage
in general, only in these two particulars: First, it multiplies the
personal and demonstrative pronouns for the sake of greater
perspicuity (or emphasis) § 22 sqq. Secondly, it neglects-more
frequently than do the later Greeks even-many forms which
ranked rather among the luxuries of the language, or were not
felt by Orientals to be necessary (such as the correlatives őstes,
ὁπόσος, ὁποῖος, πηλίκος in indirect discourse); whereas those
modes of expression by which the Greek aimed at conciseness
(e.g. attraction), have become very frequent in the N. T. writers
1 This appears most plainly in sentences like Mark xv. 41 ἄλλαι πολλαὶ αἱ συναναβᾶσαι
αὐτῷ εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα.
§ 21. THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL.
141
§ 24. On the other hand it has been erroneously asserted that
autós in the N. T. is equivalent to the unemphatic he. Further,
the Hebraistic distribution of οὐδείς into οὐ. πᾶς occurs almost
exclusively in aphoristic propositions or set phrases.
2. It is a peculiarity common to the Pronouns, whether personal,
demonstrative, or relative, that they not unfrequently take a dif-
ferent gender from that of the nouns to which they refer, regard
being had to the meaning of the nouns, not to their grammatical sex 128
(constructio ad sensum). This happens especially when an animate 6th ed.
object is denoted by a neuter substantive or a feminine abstract ;
the Pronoun is then made to agree grammatically with the sex of
the object in question, either masc. or fem.; as, Matt. xxviii. 19
μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτούς, Rer. xix. 15
(cf. Exod. xxiii. 27; Deut. iv. 27; xviii. 14, etc.) Rom. ii. 14; Acts
xv. 17; xxvi. 17; Gal. iv. 19 τεκνία μου, οὓς πάλιν ὠδίνω, 2 Jno. 1
(similarly Eurip. Suppl. 12 éπтà yevvaiwv tékvwv, oüs, Aristoph.
Plut. 292), Jno. vi. 9 eσTi Taιdápiov èv âde, ds exe, as the majority 154
of better Codd. have for the common reading ő, Mark v. 41 (Esth.
ii. 9) ; Col. ii. 15 τὰς ἀρχὰς κ. τ. ἐξουσίας ... θριαμβεύσας αὐτούς,
Col. ii. 19 τὴν κεφαλὴν (Χριστόν), ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα, etc. (Jno.
xv. 26 does not come under this head, as πveûμa is merely in
apposition). For instances from Greek authors, see Mtth. 976;
Wurm, Dinarch. 81 sq.; Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 368; cf. Draken-
borch, Liv. 29, 12. There are variants in Rev. iii. 4; xiii. 14, etc.
Under this head comes also Rev. xvii. 16 καὶ τὰ δέκα κέρατα ἃ εἶδες καὶ 131
τὸ θηρίον, οὗτοι μισήσουσι, where, agreeably to the symbolical language 7th ed
of prophecy, kéρara and Onpíov are to be understood as denoting persons.
3. In the same way, these Pronouns when referring to a Singular
noun are put in the Plural, if that noun has a collective signifi-
cation, or is an abstract used for the concrete; as, Matt. i. 21 Tòv
λαὸν ... αὐτῶν, xiv. 14; Phil. ii. 15 γενεά, ἐν οἷς, 3 Jno. 9 ἡ ἐκκλησία
αὐτῶν, Eph. v. 12 σκότος (ἐσκοτισμένοι) ὑπ' αὐτῶν, Mark
vi. 46 . . . . τὸν ὄχλον, καὶ ἀποταξάμενος αὐτοῖς, Jno. xv. 6, see
Lücke in loc.; Luke vi. 17, cf. § 22, 3 (but Acts xxii. 5 does not
belong here); cf. Soph. Trach. 545; Thuc. 6, 91; 1, 136; Plat.
Tim. 24 b. and Phaedr. 260 a.; Xen. Cyr. 6, 3, 4; Diod. S. 18, 6.
This is very frequent in the Sept., Isa. lxv. 1; Exod. xxxii. 11,
33;
Deut. xxi. 8; 1 Sam. xiv. 34; cf. Judith ii. 3; iv. 8; Ecclus. xvi.8;
Wisd. v. 3, 7.¹ In Phil. iii. 20 év ovpavoîs, è§ oû, it was supposed
ἐξ
1 In this way some expositors (e.g. Reiche) explain also Rom. vi. 21 тívα каρπdy eŸXETE
τότε ἐφ᾽ οἷς (that is, καρποῖς) νῦν ἐπαισχύνεσθε. See, however, § 23, 2, p. 158.
142
§ 21. THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL.
that the opposite construction occurs, that is, a Sing. pronoun re-
ferring to a Plural noun (Bhdy. 295); but è où has become in
usage nothing more than an adverb, exactly equivalent in sense to
unde. On the other hand, in 2 Jno. 7 oûтós éσTW ỏ Tλávos, etc.,
appears a transition from the Plural µn óμoλoyoûvres, etc. to the
collective Singular.
a
ιν
Different from this is Acts xv. 36 κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν ἐν αἷς, where πᾶσα
Tóλs of itself (exclusively of the inhabitants), implies a plurality (mãoα
Tóλes) cf. Poppo, Thuc. I. 92, and 2 Pet. iii. 1 тaúrηv dŋ devтéρav vµîv
γράφω ἐπιστολήν, ἐν αἷς, etc., where δύο is implied in δευτέραν. I do not
know of an exact parallel, but the opposite construction TάVTES ÖSTIS,
which occurs not unfrequently, may be compared with it (Rost 468).
129 Note 1. According to some expositors (e.g. Kühnöl) the pronoun now
6th ed. and then refers to a noun not expressed till afterwards; as, Matt. xvii. 18
155 ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ, namely τῷ δαιμονίῳ, Acts xii. 21 ἐδημηγόρει πρὸς αὐτούς, cf.
vs. 22 duos (Fr. Conject. I. p. 18 sq.), see Gesen. Lg. S. 740; Bornem.
Xen. conviv. p. 210. But neither of these two passages proves anything
in respect to N. T. usage. In the former, aurą refers to the demoniac
himself, since in the Gospels, as is well known, the person possessed and
the demon possessing him are often put for each other— (against which it
is of no weight that Mark ix. 25 has ἐπετίμησε τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ);
in the latter passage, auroús refers to the Tyrians and Sidonians (deputies),
mentioned in verse 20, as even Kühnöl has acknowledged; cf. Georgi,
Vind. p. 208 sq. The verb Sŋµnyopeîv does not interfere with this, as the
king's statement was made in a full assembly of the people.
Note 2. The Neut. of the interrogative pronoun rís, and of the demon-
strative ouros (aúrós), are often employed adverbially, to denote wherefore
135 (why) therefore. The former is so used also in Latin and German: quid
7th ed. cunctaris? was zögerst du? and originally these pronouns were considered
α
α
a T
as real Accusatives (Hm. Vig. 882; Bhdy. 130). With regard to the
strengthened demonstrative αὐτὸ τοῦτο compare 2 Pet. i. 5 καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτα
σπоνền Tâσаν TарeisevéуKavтES (Xen. Anab. 1, 9, 21; Plat. Protag. 310 e.
aỶTà TaÛTa vûv yêw πapá σe), Mtth. 1041; Ast. Plat. legg. pp. 163, 169,
214. Gal. ii. 10 does not belong here, see § 22, 4. As to тí see passages
according to their various relations in Wahl, clav. 483. The Greeks use
also ő and å for di ő and Sử å (Mtth. 1062); but Mey. is wrong in trans
ferring to Acts xxvi. 16 the more poetic use of a (see § 39, note 1);
å
whereas he himself on Gal. ii. 10 rejects on this very ground the proposal
of Schott to take å for δι' ὅ! Likewise the distributive τοῦτο μὲν . . τοῦτο
Sé partly... partly Heb. x. 33 is used adverbially (Her. 1, 30; 3, 132;
Lucian. Nigr. 16); cf. Wetsten. II. 423 ; Mtth. 740. (On 1 Cor. vi. 11
TaûTá tives ηte, where two constructions are blended, see § 23, 5.)
a
[Note 3. Tí is used not as an interrogative, but as an exclamatory des-
§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
143
ignation of degree, in Matt. vii. 14 rí orevý how strait is the gate! Luke
xii. 49 rí Oéλw how would I (how much I wish!). This use is unknown
to the classics, but is found in the Sept., e.g. 2 Sam. vi. 20, where the
Hebrew is rendered in this way.]
§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
1. The personal pronouns, in accordance with Hebrew circum-
stantiality, are far more frequently employed in the Greek of the
N. T. than in the classics. Particularly,
Avтoû, σoû, etc., with substantives (especially in connection 156
with the Middle Voice § 38, 2), as Jno. ii. 12; Luke vi. 20; vii. 50;
xi. 34; xxiv.50; Matt. vi. 17; xv. 2; Mark xii. 30; 1 Pet. iii. 11;
Rom. ix. 17; xvi. 7; Acts xxv. 21, etc. (cf. 1 Macc. i. 6; Josh.
xxiii. 2; xxiv. 1; Neh. ix. 34);
The subject Acc. with the Inf., as Luke x. 35 ẻyà èv tô étavép- 130
Xeσoaí μe àтоdάow, Jno. ii. 24; Heb. vii. 24; Acts i. 3;
με
Oblique cases with a participle and at the same time with the
principal verb, as Mark x. 16 εναγκαλισάμενος αὐτὰ κατευλόγει τιθεὶς
TÀS XEîρAS ÊT' Aůrá, ix. 28; Acts vii. 21; Luke xvi. 2; 2 Pet. iii. 16;
(cf. below, no. 4.) So especially in the Apocalypse. On the other
hand, in Matt. xxii. 37 and Rev. ix. 21 the repetition of the pronoun
is probably to be charged to the account of the rhythm.
2
6th ed.
In connection with this tendency to multiply pronouns, only a
few passages occur where the pronoun is wanting when it might
have been expected, e.g. Acts xiii. 3 kaì èπɩlévтES Tàs Xeîpas AvToîs 136
¿TTÉλvσav (aνTOús), Mark vi. 5; Eph. v. 11; Phil. i. 6; 2 Thess. 7th ed.
iii. 12; Heb. iv. 15; xiii. 17; 1 Tim. vi. 2; Jno. x. 29; Luke xiv. 4
(cf. Demosth. Conon. 728b. ἐμοὶ περιπεσόντες . . . ἐξέδυσαν). On
the other hand, in Matt. xxi. 7 the better reading is éπeкáðισev,
and in 1 Cor. x. 9 πeipášew may be taken absolutely; in 2 Tim.
ii. 11 σùv auт@ would be heavy in an aphoristic saying. In 1 Pet.
ii. 11 ὑμᾶς, which appears in the MSS. now after παρακαλῶ now
after aπéɣeolaι, is certainly not genuine. In acclamations, such
as Matt. xxvii. 22 σтavρwońтw, the omission of the pronoun is very
natural (in German the Inf. would likewise be used without a
1 In the language of Homer, however, the possessive pronoun Es is quite parallel.
Later (and sometimes earlier) prose authors use also aurós thus abundanter. Schaef. ind.
Aesop. p. 124; Schoem. ad Isaeum, p. 382.
2 In Latin compare Sallust, Jug. 54, 1 universos in concione laudat atque agit gratias
(iis), Cic. Orat. 1, 15 si modo erunt ad eum delata et tradita (ei), Liv. 1, 11 and 20.
Cf. Kritz on the first passage.
144
§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
pronoun: kreuzigen !); yet the parallel passage Mark xv. 13 has
σтаÚρWσоV ανтóv. (In Greek authors the omission of the Pro-
σταύρωσον αὐτόν.
noun is carried much further; see Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 294;
Bremi, Lys. p. 50; Schaef. Demosth. IV. 78,157, 232; V. 556, 567.)
In Eph. iii. 18 тí тò πλáros, etc., the addition of avτês (άyáπŋs) would
hardly help the passage; see Mey. Many (e.g. Kühnöl) quite erroneously
hold the pronoun to be redundant in Matt. xxi. 41 κακοὺς κακῶς ἀπολέσει
αὐτούς. Without avroús the statement would be altogether general.
Auroús is required to connect it with the case in hand, with the yewpyoîs
spoken of.
2. Instead of the personal pronouns the nouns themselves are
sometimes employed: - either from the writer's inadvertence, or
157 with a view to relieve the reader's uncertainty when more than
one reference of the pronoun is possible, or because the noun
stands at a great distance; as, Jno. iii. 23 f.; x. 41; Luke iii. 19;
Eph. iv. 12; cf. 1 Kings ix. 1; xii. 1 (Xen. Eph. 2, 13; Thuc.
6, 105; D. S. exc. Vat. p. 29); Ellendt, Arrian. I. 55.
But in Jno. iv. 1'Inooûs is repeated because the apostle wishes
to quote the express words which the Pharisees had heard; cf.
1 Cor. xi. 23. Further, those passages in Christ's discourses must
not be referred to this head, in which, instead of the pronoun, the
name of a person or of an office is repeated for the sake of emphasis;
as, Mark ix. 41 ἐν ὀνόματι ὅτι Χριστοῦ ἐστε, Luke xii. 8 πᾶς ὃς ἂν
ὁμολογήσῃ ἐν ἐμοὶ ... καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁμολογήσει ἐν αὐτῷ,
Jno. vi. 40; 1 Cor. i. 8, 21; 1 Jno. v. 6; Col. ii. 11, and often.
Cf. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 5 e. ; Aeschyl. Prom. vinct. 312; Cic. fam.
2, 4. In all these instances the pronoun would be out of place,
131 and would mar the rhetorical effect. Least of all does the familiar
6th ed. appellation ỏ viòs Tоû ȧveρáπov, under which Jesus speaks of
C
himself in the Synoptic Gospels as of a third person, stand for ¿yó.
At other times the repetition of the noun is intended to denote
an emphatic antithesis ; as, Jno. ix. 5 ὅταν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ὦ, φῶς εἰμι
137 τοῦ κόσμου, xii. 47 οὐκ ἦλθον ἵνα κρίνω τὸν κόσμον ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα
Ti ed σώσω τὸν κόσμον (Xen. An. 3, 2, 23 οἳ βασιλέως ἄκοντος ἐν
τῇ βασιλέως χώρᾳ . . . οἰκοῦσι), Arrian. Al. 2, 18, 2; Kru. 114
(Liv. 1, 10, 1; 6, 2, 9; 38, 56, 3). Accordingly, even in the fol-
lowing passages no one will regard the repetition of the noun as
idle: Rom. v. 12 δι' ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον
εἰςῆλθε, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, Jno. x. 29 ὁ πατήρ
μου, ὃς δέδωκέ μοι, μείζων πάντων ἐστί· καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται ἁρπάζειν
ÈK TŶS XEIPÒS TOû патρÓя μον. Cf. besides, Acts iii. 16. See § 65.
ατ
§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
145
In Acts x. 7 the better Codd. have the personal pronoun (see Kühnöl
in loc.) and rô Kopvŋλíų is evidently a gloss. The passages which Bornem.
Xen. Anab. p. 190 quotes from Greek authors are not all to the point, nor
is the reading in all of them fully established.
The assertion that it is especially characteristic of Mark to repeat the
noun instead of the pronoun airós or ékeivos (Schulze in Keil's Analect.
II. II. 112) is not entirely correct. In Mark ii. 18 the nouns were indis-
pensable, (the writer could not put into the mouth of the inquirers an
¿keîvoɩ referring to his, the historian's, words) ; in vi. 41, and also in xiv. 67,
the pronouns would have been quite unsuitable; in ii. 27 the nouns were
employed for the sake of antithesis; in i. 34; iii. 24; v. 9; x. 46 we find
circumstantiality (as often in Cæsar), and not strictly the use of nouns for
pronouns. Compare Ellendt, as above.
1
3. The pronoun autós¹ is frequently so employed, through the
negligence of the writer, that in the propositions immediately pre-
ceding there is no substantive expressed to which it can be directly 158
referred.
Such cases may be reduced to four classes:
1) Autós in the Plur. very frequently refers to a collective noun,
particularly the name of a place or country (cf. § 21, 3), which
includes the idea of the inhabitants; as, Matt. iv. 23 év Taîs σvva-
γωγαῖς αὐτῶν, that is Γαλιλαίων (from ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν), ix. 35
(Luke iv. 15); Matt. xi. 1; 1 Thess. i. 9 cf. vs. 8; Acts viii. 5;
xx. 2 ; 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13 ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν Τρωάδα . ἀποταξάμενος
αὐτοῖς, ν. 19 θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ, μὴ
λογιζόμενος αὐτοῖς τὰ παραπτώματα, Jno. xvii. 2. This usage is
common enough in Greek authors, cf. Thuc. 1, 27, 136; Lucian.
Tim. 9; dial. mort. 12, 4; Dion. H. IV. 2117; Jacob, Lucian.
Toxar. p. 59.2
• •
Akin to this is, 2) the use of autós in reference to an abstract 132
noun to be deduced from a preceding concrete, or vice versû; as, 6th ed.
Juo. viii. 44 ψεύστης ἐστὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ (ψεύδους), see Lücke 138
in loc., Rom. ii. 26 ἐὰν ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου
φυλάσσῃ, οὐχὶ ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ (of such an ἀκρόβυστος) εἰς
περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται ; ef. Theodoret. I. 914 τοῦτο τῆς ἀποστο
3
1 Compare, in general, Hm. diss. de pronom. àvrós in the Acta Seminar. philol. Lips.
Vol. I. 42 sqq. and his Opusc. I. 308 sqq.
2 Simpler is the reference of autós in the Plur. to an abstract signifying in itself
nothing more than a community of individuals, as èxкλŋσíɑ. On this see § 21, 3. On
Col. iv. 15 according to the reading aurav, sce Mey. in loc.
8 The other explanation: father of the liar, appears neither grammatically simpler
nor preferable in meaning. Indeed, father of falsehood is a more comprehensive idca,
and John has a predilection for abstract expressions.
7th ed
19
146
§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
λικῆς χάριτος ἴδιον· αὐτοῖς γὰρ ἀποστόλοις) etc.1 In Luke
xxiii. 51 avтŵv refers to the Sanhedrim, implied in the predicate
βουλευτής verse 50. Cf. Jonah i. 3 εὗρε πλοῖον βαδίζον εἰς Θαρσίς
... καὶ ἀνέβη εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦ πλεῦσαι μετ᾿ αὐτῶν, etc., see above,
No. 2. Sallust. Cat. 17, 7 simul confisum, si coniuratio valuisset,
facile apud illos (that is, coniuratos) principem se fore. Similar
to this passage from Luke would be Matt. viii. 4 (Mark i. 44;
Luke v. 14) eis μаρтúριov av Toîs, if the pronoun referred to
the foregoing ἱερεῖ, and thus αὐτοῖς agreed with the Plur. ἱερεῦσι
understood; but, if the cured man has already received from the
priests permission to present the purification-offering prescribed
by the law, the priests would need no further μaprúpov of his
being cleansed. See 4) below.
159 3) AUTÓS sometimes refers to something implied in a preceding
word, or even in the verb of the sentence; as, 1 Pet. iii. 14 Tòv dè
φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθήτε, that is τῶν κακούντων ὑμᾶς, or those
from whom you must suffer (Táoɣew), see Hm. Vig. 714;2 Eph.
τ. 12 τὰ κρυφῆ γινόμενα ὑπ' αὐτῶν, that is τῶν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ σκότους
πоLOÚTOV verse 11; Acts x. 10. Cf. Aristoph. Plut. 566; Thuc.
1, 22, 1 and Poppo, in loc.; Heinichen, ind. ad Euseb. III. 539.
On Acts xii. 21 see § 21, note 1, p. 142.
4) Aurós sometimes has no antecedent grammatically implied
in what precedes, but must be referred to some subject assumed
to be known; as, Luke i. 17 avтòs πρoeλeúσetaι avтoû (i.e. before
the Messiah), see Kühnöl in loc.-(aúrós of an individual recog
nized in a certain circle as head or leader, as in avròs epa; so of
Christ in 1 Jno. ii. 12; 2 Jno. 6; 2 Pet. iii. 4). In Luke v. 17
εἰς τὸ ἰᾶσθαι αὐτούς, the pronoun expresses the general notion
the sick, those who required healing (among the persons present
in the synagogue); the pronoun cannot be referred to verse 15
(though this is done even by Bengel). On the other hand, autŵv
in Acts iv. 5 refers to the Jews, among whom the events occurred
(in verse 1, moreover, their priests et al. are mentioned; and
several times λaós in the same verse and sequel has pointed to
139 the Jews). In Matt. xii. 9 the pronoun refers to those (Galileans)
among whom Jesus was at the time; in Heb. iv. 8; viii. 8;
7th ed.
1 With the relative compare Testam. patr. p. 608 àтeкárva Tŷ Xavavíтidi Bnoové, ols
(Χαναναίοις) εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς μὴ ἀποκαλύψαι. Compare also the passage of an ancient poet
in Cic. orat. 2, 46, 193: neque paternum adspectum es veritus, quem (patrem) aetate
exacta indigem Liberum lacerasti, and Gell. 2, 30, 6.
2 Otherwise in Epiphan. II. 368 a. εὖξαί μοι, πάτερ, ὅπως ὑγιαίνων ... πίστευε, τέκνον,
τῷ ἐσταυρωμένῳ, καὶ ἕξεις ταύτην (ὑγείαν).
§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
147
6th ed.
xi. 28 it refers to the Israelites, suggested to the reader by the 133
antecedent particulars. The above-mentioned eis µaprúpiov avtoîs
Matt. viii. 4 comes under this head; those meant by avtoîs are
the Jews (the public, the community among whom the precepts
of Moses, à πposétage Mwüoîs, are recognized). In Jno. xx. 15
autóv presupposes that the inquirer knew who was meant, inas-
much as it was thought he had taken him away; or Mary in
answering, engrossed with the thought of the Lord, attributes to
the inquirer her own impressions. Cf. besides, Poppo, Xen. Cyr.
3, 1, 31; 5, 4, 42; Thuc. III. I. 184; Lehmann, Lucian. II. 325;
IV. 429; Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 286, and, generally, van Hengel,
annotat. p. 195 sqq.
In Luke xviii. 34 αυτοί refers to τους δώδεκα and αὐτούς in verse 31
(what intervenes being a statement of our Lord's). So also in Heb. iv. 13 160
αὐτοῦ relates to τοῦ θεοῦ in 12; and αὐτῆς in Luke xxi. 21 to Ἱερουσαλήμ
in 20. Lastly, in 2 Cor. vi. 17 èk µéσov avtŵv, in a somewhat transformed
quotation from the Old Test., refers to aπTo in verse 14; and in Rom.
x. 18 auτŵv suggests to every reader the preachers, who were also men-
tioned concretely in 15. On Acts xxvii. 14, where some have referred
avrns to the ship, see Kühnöl in loc. In Luke ii. 22 avrov points to mother
and child (Mary and Jesus). Expositors are not agreed whether in Heb.
xii. 17 αὐτήν refers to μετάνοιαν or to εὐλογίαν ; from the correlation be-
tween evρíoкew and ẻkýŋteîv, however, the former reference is the more
probable. In Matt. iii. 16 aur and en' aúróv relate unquestionably to Jesus.
A slight inadvertence of another sort appears in Matt. xii. 15; xix. 2
ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ ὄχλοι πολλοὶ καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτοὺς πάντας. Here the
pronoun grammatically refers to oxλot, but logically this reference can be
only a loose one: he healed them, that is the sick in the crowds, collectively
(xiv. 14 ἐθεράπευσε τοὺς ἀῤῥώστους αὐτῶν). Compare also Luke v. 17.
According to some expositors the demonstrative also is, in a similar way,
construed ad sensum in 2 Cor. v. 2. After ev Toure they supply σúμarı,
as being implied in ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους. But it is much
simpler to supply σkve, from verse 4. That the Greeks, however, did
employ the demonstrative as well as autós with a want of precision in the
reference is well known, cf. Mätzner, Antiph. p. 200. In fact, Acts x. 10
would be an instance of this, if the reading ékeivwv for aůτŵv were correct.
4. A repetition of this pronoun (avrós), and also of the other
personal pronouns, occurs,
a. When subjoined for the sake of perspicuity, in sentences
where the principal noun is followed by a number of other words;
as, Mark v. 2 ἐξελθόντι αὐτῷ ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου εὐθέως ἀπήντησεν αὐτῷ,
ix. 28; Matt. iv. 16; v. 40; viii. 1; xxvi. 71; Acts vii. 21; Jas.
148
§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
7th ed.
6th ol.
iv. 17; Rev. vi. 4 ; Col. ii. 13 καὶ ὑμᾶς νεκροὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς παρα
140 πτώμασιν καὶ τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς,
etc. Phil. i. 7. In the majority of these passages a participial con-
struction, equivalent to an independent clause, precedes; in this
same case even the Greek authors often add the pronoun, Paus.
8, 38, 5; Herod. 3, 10, 6. Further, cf. Plat. Apol. 40 d.; symp. c.
134 21; Xen. C. 1, 3, 15, and Oec. 10, 4; Paus. 2, 3, 8; Arrian. Epict.
3,1; also Cic. Catil. 2, 12, 27; Liv. 1, 2; Sall. Catil. 40, 1; Hm.
Soph. Trach. p. 54; Schwarz, Comment. p. 217. The pronoun is
used for the sake of emphasis in Jno. xviii. 11 Tо πотÝριоv o dédшкév
µοι Ó πaτÝρ, οv µǹ πíw avтó; Matt. vi. 4; 1 Pet. v. 10 (Acts ii. 23);
Rev. xxi. 6. (After a case absolute, the pronoun, in the case
161 required by the verb, is introduced almost indispensably; as, Rev.
iii. 12 ó VIKŵv, Tоnow avτóv, Jno. xv. 2; Matt. xii. 36; Acts vii. 40,
cf. Plat. Theaet. 173 d.; Ael. anim. 5, 34; 1, 48 a.)
b. This redundancy occurs more frequently in relative clauses,
as Mark vii. 25 γυνή, ἧς εἶχε τὸ θυγάτριον αὐτῆς πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον,
i. 7; Rev. vii. 2 οἷς ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἀδικῆσαι τὴν γῆν, etc., iii. 8 ;
vii. 9; xiii. 8; xx. 8; similar to which is Mark xiii. 19 exîyıs, oïa
οὐ γέγονε τοιαύτη ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως. So also with a relative
adverb, as Rev. xii. 6, 14 őπoυ exεi èкеî тóжоv etc.
K
In the Sept. (in accordance with the Hebrew idiom, see Gesen.
Lg. 743), such usage is far more frequent, as Exod. iv. 17; Lev.
xi. 32, 34; xiii. 52; xv. 4, 9, 17, 20, 24, 26; xvi. 9, 32; xviii. 5;
Num. xvii. 5; Deut. xi. 25; Josh. iii. 4; xxii. 19; Judg. xviii. 5, 6
1
Ruth i. 7; iii. 2, 4; 1 Kings xi. 34; xiii. 10, 25, 31; 2 Kings
xix. 4; Baruch ii. 4; iii. 8; Neh. viii. 12; ix. 19; Isa. i. 21; Joel
iii. 7; Ps. xxxix. 5; Judith v. 19; vii. 10; x. 2; xvi. 3; 3 Esr.
iii. 5; iv. 54; vi. 32, etc.; see Thiersch, de Pentat. alex. p. 126 sq.
Even in Greek prose, however, autós (Göttling, Callim. p. 19 sq.;
Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 550), or a demonstrative, is sometimes super-
added in a relative clause: Xen. C. 1, 4, 19; D. S. 1, 97; 17, 35;
Paus. 2, 4, 7; Soph. Philoct. 316 (cf. in Latin Cic. fam. 4, 3;
Acad. 2, 25; Philipp. 2, 8). Yet the demonstrative could very
seldom be found so closely connected with the relative as in most
of the preceding passages (which are almost all furnished by a
style that has a Hebraistic tinge).1 See, further, Hm. Soph. Philoct.
p. 58; Vc. Fritzsche, Quaest. Lucian. p. 109 sq.
In Acts iii. 13 the writer drops the relative structure in the second clause
1 In Aristoph. Av. 1238 the Cod. Rav. has oîs Ouréov avrois for the rec. oîs OUT.
AUTOús. On another accumulation of the pronoun see below, § 23, 3.
αὐτούς.
§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
119
(see just below). In Rom. vii. 21 the first quoí does not appear to me to
belong to the same proposition as the second, see § 61,5. Different also are
those passages in which with the pers. pron. still another word is joined by
which the relative is epexegetically defined, as Gal. iii. 1 oîs kar' ¿pbaλpoi's
Ἰησοῦς Χρ. προεγράφη ἐν ὑμῖν (in animis vestris) ἐσταυρωμένος (Lev. xv. 16;
xxi. 20; xxii. 4; Ruth ii. 2); Rev. xvii. 9 öπou ʼn yový kútyrai éπ'aútô,
xiii. 12; cf. Gen. xxiv. 3, 37; Judg. vi. 10; Exod. xxxvi. 1; Lev. xvi. 32; 141
Judith ix. 2. Likewise in Gal. ii. 10 8 kaì kotoúdara avrò roûto moiñow 7th ed
the emphasis in the subjoined auró, strengthened by roûro, is evident
(Bornem. Luc. p. LIV). We must not bring under this head 1 Pet.
ii. 24 ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν etc., where αυτός obviously
stands by itself, and gives additional force to the antithesis with dμapr.
ἡμῶν. In Matt. iii. 12 οὗ τὸ πτύον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ, the relative serres 162
instead of TOÚTov to connect what follows with the preceding clause, and
both pronouns are to be taken separately, as if it read, he has HIS winnow-
ing shovel in IIS hand. Eph. ii. 10 ois poŋrоiparev is to be considered 135
as an attraction for à ponт. Lastly, in Eph. ii. 21 v Kupių belongs 6th ed.
probably with εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον.
προητ.
Sometimes autós is repeated in quick succession, though referring to
different subjects: Mark viii. 22 φέρουσιν αὐτῷ Χριστῷ) τυφλὸν καὶ παρακα-
λοῦσιν αὐτὸν Χριστόν), ἵνα αὐτοῦ τυφλοῦ) ἅψηται, Mark ix. 27, 28. 5ο
ouros in Jno. xi. 37. See below, § 67.
ουτος
In a clause following a relative clause, and where os or its continued
influence might be expected, Greek authors frequently-indeed, almost
uniformly (Bhdy. 304) — employ kaì avτós (OûTos), the writer modifying
the construction, (Hm. Vig. 707; Ast. Plat. legg. p. 449; Boisson. Nic.
p. 32; Bornem. Xenoph. conv. p. 196; Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 68; rep.
I. 197; Foertsch, observ. in Lysiam, p. 67; Weber, Dem. 355; Teipel,
Scriptores Graec., Germ., Lat. a relativa verbor. construct. saepe neque
injuria semper discessisse. Coesfeld, 1841, 4to.; cf. Grotefend, lat. Gramm.
§ 143, 5; Kritz, Sallust. II. 540). From the N. T. may be quoted under
this head, 2 Pet. ii. 3 οἷς τὸ κρίμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ καὶ ἡ ἀπώλεια αὐτῶν οὐ
vvoτáče, Acts iii. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 6, with less appropriateness Rev. xvii. 2
μεθ᾿ ἧς ἐπόρνευσαν ... καὶ ἐμεθύσθησαν ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου τῆς πορνείας αὐτῆς, where
it was necessary to avoid the construction with the relative on account of
the nouns to be connected with the pronoun. In Hebrew, as is well
known, owing to its great simplicity, the continuing of a sentence without.
the relative is very common; yet an idiom foreign to the genius of the
language should not be introduced into the text by supplying with
the following clause. (In passages such as Jno. i. 6; Acts x. 36; Luke
ii. 36; xix. 2, to require the relative instead of autós or ouros, is to mis-
apprehend the simplicity of N. T. diction; particularly as even Greek
authors not unfrequently employ the same idiom; see Aelian 12, 18;
Strabo 8, 371; Philostr. Soph. 1, 25; cf. Kypke I. 347. On the other
150
§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
hand, in 1 Cor. vii. 13 for ἥτις ἔχει ἄνδρα ἄπιστον καὶ αὐτὸς συνευδοκεῖ
etc. the expression os ouvevd. etc. might have been used.)
In the N. T. 8 avrós, the same, takes after it a Dat. of the person when
it denotes the same (identical) with, as 1 Cor. xi. 5; cf. Her. 4, 119; Xen.
M. 1, 1, 13; 2, 1, 5; Cyr. 3, 3, 35; 7, 1, 2; Isocr. Paneg. c. 23; Plat.
· Menex. 244 b.; Dio. Ch. 332, 97.
Note. Aurós in the Nom., as is well known, never stands in classic Greek
for the unemphatic he (Krü. 109, 114). From the N. T. also¹ no decisive
142 passages can be produced to prove this usage [which Bttm. Gramm. des
7th ed. neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 93 f. wrongly concedes] (cf. Fr. Mt. p. 47); even
in Luke, who employs aurós the most frequently (cf., in particular, Luke
163 v. 16, 17; xix. 2), it never occurs without a certain emphasis. It denotes,
a. Self, in complex antitheses, and for all the three persons, as Mark
136 ii. 25 ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, Acts xviii. 19 ἐκείνους κατέλιπεν, αὐτὸς
6tù cd. Sè eiseλOwv, etc., Luke v. 37; x. 1; xviii. 39; 1 Cor. iii. 15; Mark i. 8
Jno. iv. 2 ; vi. 6; ix. 21 ; Lukevi. 42 πῶς δύνασαι λέγειν . . . αὐτὸς τὴν ἐν
τῷ ὀφθαλμῷ σοῦ δοκὸν οὐ βλέπων, Heb. xi. 11 πίστει καὶ αὐτὴ Σάῤῥα δύναμιν
εἰς καταβολὴν σπέρματος ἔλαβεν even Sara herself (who had been incredu-
lous), Jno. xvi. 27 avròs ô taτǹp piλeî vµâs he himself, of himself (without
entreaty on my part, verse 26), Rom. viii. 23. Aurós was thus used by
the disciples in speaking of Christ (compare the well known avròs ëpa):
Mark iv. 38; Luke v. 16; ix. 51; xxiv. (15) 36. Cf. Fischer, ind. The-
ophan. under avτós. See, in general, the Lexicons.
καλέσεις
b. Emphatic he, even he: Matt. i. 21 kaλéσes rò ovoµa avtoû 'Inooûv •
αὐτὸς γὰρ σώσει τὸν λαόν, xii. 50; Col. i. 17. Αὐτός is not used for the
unemphatic he also in Luke i. 22 (he himself, as distinguished from the
rest: éréyvwoav), ii. 28 (he Simeon, as distinguished from the parents of
Jesus, verse 27), iv. 15; vii. 5 (he, of himself, from his own resources),
Acts xiv. 12 (he Paul, as leader, verse 11), Mark vii. 36; [1 Thess. iii. 11;
iv. 16; v. 23; 2 Thess. ii. 16; iii. 16.] (On the antithesis in Rom. viii. 23
αὐτοὶ . . . ἐν ἑαυτοῖς see Fr. in loc.)
5. The reflexive pronoun éavтoû, etc., which originally (as com-
pounded of ĕ and aurós) belongs to the third person, and in the
N. T. is regularly so employed (frequently in antithesis and with
emphasis, 1 Cor. x. 29; xiv. 4; Eph. v. 28, etc.), is also, when no
ambiguity is to be apprehended, employed in reference to the first
and second persons. It is used
a. In the Plural, as well for the first person, Rom. viii. 23
(ἡμεῖς) αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς στενάζομεν, 1 Cor. xi. 31 ; 2 Cor. i. 9; x. 12;
Acts xxiii. 14, etc., as for the second, Jno. xii. 8 TоÙS TтWXоÙS TáνTOTE
ΟΤΕ
1 According to Thiersch, de Pent. vers. Alex. p. 98, the LXX often use the masc.
autós for he; but not auth or auró, instead of which the demonstrative is regularly cm-
ployed. In reference to the Apocrypha, Wahl, clavis p. 80, utterly denies such a use.
§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
151
ἔχετε μεθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν, Phil. ii. 12 τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε,
Matt. iii. 9; xxiii. 31; Acts xiii. 46; Heb. iii. 13; x. 25, etc.
b. In the Singular, though far less frequently (Blidy. 272), in
reference to the second person, as Jno. xviii. 34 áß' Éavтoû σù TOÛTO
Xéɣeis, where σeavтoû in Codd. B [Sin.] and others is undoubtedly
a correction; in Rom. xiii. 9; Matt. xxii. 39 Sept. and Gal. v. 14
σεαυτόν is preponderant.
This same usage is found in Greek authors (under b. in particular
cf. Xen. M. 1, 4, 9; C. 1, 6, 44; Aristot. Nicom. 2, 9; 9, 9; Aelian.
1, 21; Arrian. Epict. 4, 3, 11), see Locella, Xenoph. Eph. 164;
Bremi, Aeschin. oratt. I. 66; Hm. Soph. Trach. 451; Boisson.
Philostr. Her. p. 326; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 932; Held, Plut. Aem.
Paul. p. 130. Yet compare the assertion of an ancient grammarian,
Apollonius, in Wolf and Bttm. Mus. antiq. stud. I. 360 and Eustath. 143
ad Odyss. é. p. 240. (On éavrov etc. for aλλv see the Lexicons; 7th ed.
ἑαυτῶν ἀλλήλων
164
cf. Döderlein, Synon. III. 270.)
In the classic (Attic) writers avтoû etc. is of frequent occurrence as a
reflexive (Arndt, de pronom. reflex. ap. Graec. Neobrandenb. 1836, 4to.);
in many passages, however, the Codd. vary between avroû and avroû.¹ It
is the more difficult to determine on internal grounds which of these in
each particular case is the true reading, because in Greek a reflexive may
occur at a considerable distance from the principal subject," and because 137
it often depended entirely on the writer whether he would use a reflexive 6th ed
or not; see Bttm. 10 exc. ad Demosth. Mid. p. 140 sqq.;³ F. Hermann,
comm. crit. ad Plutarch. superst. p. 37 sq.; Benseler, Isocr. Areop. p. 220.
Likewise in the N. T., in which since Griesbach avroù has often been
adopted, cautious editors have frequently been at a loss in deciding whether
aŮToû or avтoû should be preferred. Sometimes either would be appropriate.
In Matt. iii. 16, for instance, εἶδε τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ . . . ἐρχόμενον ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν
might be used from the narrator's point of view; on the other hand, p
autóv would refer directly to the subject of the verb eide, that is, Jesus
(Krü. 110). In the N. T. it is, in general, unlikely that a reflexive should
be used in reference to a remote subject, that is, one which is not in the
1 In the later writers, as Aesop, the Scholiasts, etc. aùroû seems to predominate; see
Schaef. ind. ad Aesop. p. 124. Cf. Thilo, Apocr. I. 163.
2 Cf., however, Held, Plut. Timol. p. 373.
8 Bremi, in the Jahrb. der Philol. IX. S. 171, says: "On the use of auroû and auroû it
is easy to lay down rules, but in certain cases the decision will always remain doubtful;
and it is far more difficult in Greek than in Latin to hit the mark," etc. When the
reference to the subject predominates in the mind, the reflexive is used; but when the
subject is viewed as a more remote object, the pronoun of the 3d person. In Greck one
must yield rather to his individual impression, if you please, his mood at the moment."
Further, see some good remarks on reciprocal pronouns in general by Hoffmann, in the
Jahrb. d. Philol. VII. S. 38 ff.
152
§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
same proposition as the pronoun; this is owing to the simplicity of its
narrative style, which, in like manner, disdains to adhere closely to the
relative construction, see above p. 149. Accordingly, in Matt. in the
passage referred to and in Eph. i. 17 autóv, auroù, should be adopted with-
out hesitation, but avroû in Acts xii. 11; Heb. v. 7; Rom. xiv. 14; see
Fr. Exc. 5 ad Matt. p. 858 sqq. (where the view of Matthiae ad Eurip.
Iphig. Aul. 800 and Gramm. I. 355 is examined); Poppo, Thuc. III. I.
159 sq. On the other hand, it deserves attention, as remarked by Bengel,
appar. ad Matt. i. 21, that in the Codd. of the N. T. the prepositions åñó,
ἐπί, ὑπό, κατά, μετά, [ἀντί] are never written ἀφ', ἐφ', etc. before αυτου.
Hence, with Bleek (Epist. to the Heb. II. 69), it might be inferred that
the N. T. writers never employed the reflexive form auroû, (but used,
wherever necessary, éavroû instead of it). In fact, recent editors have
printed the form auroû almost everywhere; as the uncial Codd. of the
N. T. and of the Sept. that have diacritic marks recognize auroû almost
144 exclusively (Tdf. praef. N. T. p. 26 sq. [ed. vii. p. 58 sq.]). These Codd.,
7th ed.
to be sure, are not of greater antiquity than the eighth century, and the
165 expression "fere constanter" suggests the desirableness of a more accurate
collation. Now it is true that in most passages a reflexive is not absolutely
required; yet it is difficult to believe that Paul in Rom. iii. 25 could
have written εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ (in the face of ἐν αἵματι αὐτοῦ),
or Jno. in ix. 21 avτòs πeρì aνToù; compare also Eph. i. 9; Rom. xiv. 14;
Luke xix. 15; xiii. 34; Mark viii. 35; Rev. xi. 7; xiii. 2. Hence in the
N. T. also, the choice between auroû and auroû must be left to the discreet
judgment of editors.
6th ed.
6. The personal pronouns éyé, σú, ýµeîs, etc. are indispensable
in the oblique cases, but in the Nom. they are regularly employed
138 only when emphasis and mostly in consequence of an antithesis
is expressed or implied in them; as, Phil. iv. 11 èyà éµaßov év
οἷς εἰμὶ αὐτάρκης εἶναι, Jno. ii. 10 πᾶς ἄνθρωπος . . . σὺ τετήρηκας
eiµì
OÙ
etc., Rom. vii. 17; Luke xi. 19; Acts x. 15; Mark xiv. 29; Jno.
xviii. 38 f.; Gal. ii. 9; Acts xi. 14 ow0non où κai ó оiкós σov, Jno.
οἰκός σου,
x. 30; Acts xv. 10; 1 Cor. vii. 12; Luke i. 18; Matt. vi. 12 apes
ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν etc., Jno. iv. 10
Où Ầν ŸτησAS AνTóv (while I asked of thee, verses 7, 9), Mark vi. 37
SÓTE AUTOîs vμeîs payeîv (ye, since they themselves have no pro-
visions with them vs. 36), Jno. vi. 30; xxi. 22; Mark xiii. 9, 23;
1 Cor. ii. 3 f.; Matt. xvii. 19; 2 Tim. iv. 6.
So when the person is described by a word in apposition, as
Jno. iv. 9 πῶς σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὤν etc., Rom. xiv. 4 σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ κρίνων
¿λλótpiov oikétyv, Jno. x. 33; Acts i. 24; iv. 24; Luke i. 76; Eph.
iv. 1; or reference is made to some preceding description, as Jno.
v. 44 (42, 43); Rom. ii. 3; or such description is assumed as
§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
153
something known, as Jno. i. 30; Luke ix. 9 (I,-one who as king
is certain of what has taken place); Eph. v. 32 (I as apostle);
Jno. ix. 24; Gal. vi. 17; 1 Cor. xi. 23. Zú is used in addresses
particularly when one out of many is meant, as Jno. i. 43; Jas.
ii. 3; or when the person addressed is made prominent by an
attributive, as 2 Tim. ii. 1; Matt. xi. 23.
These pronouns nowhere occur wholly without emphasis and
where they might have been dispensed with (Bornem. Xen. Conv.
187). For when in Eph. v. 32, for instance, we find èyà dè XÉyw
eis Xpioτóv, but in 1 Cor. i. 12; Rom. xv. 8 λéyw dé, — in the
first passage an emphasis is intended, in the other two, none.
Moreover, the Codd. vary much with regard to the use or omission,
as well as the position, of these pronouns; and each case must
be decided, not according to any fancied peculiarity of style in
the separate writers (Gersd. I. 472 f.), but according to the nature
of the sentence.
The personal pronoun is both used and omitted in close succession in 166
Luke x. 23, 24 οἱ βλέποντες ἃ βλέπετε ... πολλοὶ προφῆται ... ἠθέλησαν
oi å
ideîv, à vμeis ẞλéTETE. Ouly the latter case, however, contains a real
antithesis (vues opposed to #popĥτaι, faoiλ., etc.); in the first, the ¿pad-
μοὶ βλέποντες ἃ βλέπετε are properly none other than those of which the
βλέπετε is predicated. Compare 2 Cor. xi. 29 τίς ἀσθενεῖ καὶ οὐκ ἀσθενῶ ; 145
τίς σκανδαλίζεται καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ πυροῦμαι; where it must be noticed that in 7th ed.
the latter member Tuрoûμα (which the apostle applies to himself) is a
stronger word than σκανδαλίζεσθαι. In 1 Cor. xiii. 12 τότε ἐπιγνώσομαι
καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην, some authorities add εγώ to the latter verb; but
incongruously, since the antithesis is expressed by the vox verbi.
It may be remarked, in passing, that in some books of the Old Test.
the emphatic i with a verb has been translated by the Sept. ¿yú eiµɩ,
with which the first person of the verb is then connected; as, Judg. xi. 27
ON N3 DN kaì vûv è̟yú eiμɩ ovx μapтov; cf. v. 3; vi. 18; 1 Kings ii. 2.
T T
T:
On avròs éyú (in Acts x. 26 kåуù avтós) see Fr. Rom. II. 75.
7. The possessive pronouns are sometimes to be understood
objectively; as, Luke xxii. 19 eun ȧváµvnois memoria mei (1 Cor.
xi. 24), Rom. xi. 31 т úμeтéρ eλée, xv. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 31; xvi. 17 139
(not in Jno. xv. 10). So also in Greek authors (especially the 6th ed.
poets) ; as, Xen. Cyr. 3, 1, 28 của của vài piria Tân Quận, Thục. 1, 77
Tò ημÉTEρov déos, 6, 89; Plato, Gorg. 486-a.; Antiphon. 6, 41, etc.
On the Latin cf. Kritz, Sallust. Cat. p. 243.
Instead of a possessive pronoun dios is occasionally employed in
the N. T. an impropriety similar to the use of proprius instead
of suus or ejus in later Latin (and of oikeios by the Byzantine
20
154
§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
writers, see e.g. Index to Agath., Petr. Patric., Priscus, Dexipp.,
Glycas, and Theophanes in the Bonn edit.), -as Matt. xxii. 5
ἀπῆλθεν εἰς τὸν ἴδιον ἀγρόν, without any emphasis (that is, without
any antithesis to κοινός oι ἀλλότριος), its parallel in the second
member is ἐπὶ τὴν ἐμπορίαν αὑτοῦ; xxv. 14 ἐκάλεσε τοὺς ἰδίους
Soúλous, Tit. ii. 9; Jno. i. 42. So oi idiot avopes, husbands, in Eph.
v. 22; Tit. ii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 1, 5, where oi ävdpes with or without
a personal pronoun was sufficient; cf. 1 Cor. vii. 2.1 Yet on the
whole this usage is but rare, and from Greek authors no appropriate
167 instance can be produced; for all that has been quoted by Schwarz,
Comment. p. 687, and Weiske, de pleon. p. 62, is unsatisfactory
or at most but plausible; so also D. S. 5, 40. Occasionally, vice
versa, σpéτepos is found for dios; see Wessel. Diod. S. II. 9. On
the other hand, the Fathers undoubtedly sometimes employ idios
for the personal pronoun, cf. Epiphan. Opp. II. 622 a.
In by far the greater number of passages in which idios is used,
there is an antithesis either evident or concealed; as, Juo. x. 3;
v. 18; Matt. xxv. 15; Acts ii. 6; Rom. viii. 32; xi. 24; xiv. 4, 5;
1 Thess. ii. 14; Heb. ix. 12; xiii. 12, also Matt. ix. 1. The parallels
in 1 Cor. vii. 2 ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἐχέτω, καὶ ἑκάστη τὸν
146 istov avspa exéтw mean: let each man have his wife, and let each
7th ed. woman have her own husband. Isocr. Demon. p. 18 σKÓTEL πρŵтov,
πῶς ὑπὲρ τῶν αὑτοῦ διῴκησεν· ὁ γὰρ κακῶς διανοηθεὶς ὑπὲρ τῶν
isiwv etc. Böhme, Kühnöl, and others, improperly regard idios
in Heb. vii. 27 also, as used for the simple possessive pronoun; to
ἰδίαι ἁμαρτίαι there, αἱ τοῦ λαοῦ (as ἀλλοτρίαι) are expressly op-
posed; cf. also iv. 10. When dios, as in Tit. i. 12 idios auтŵv
πроþýτηs (Wisd. xix. 12), is added to a personal pronoun, the
pronoun merely expresses the idea of possession (their poet),
and idios makes the antithesis, their own (not a foreign) poet.
Similarly in Aeschin. Ctesiph. 294 c.; Xen. Hell. 1, 4, 13; Plato,
Menex. 247 b. See Lob. Phryn. p. 441; Wurm, Dinarch. p.
70.
Kará with the Acc. of a personal pronoun is considered as a circumlo-
cution for the possessive pronoun, as Eph. i. 15 κal vμâs пioris your
faith, Acts xvii. 28 οἱ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς ποιηταί, xviii. 15 νόμος ὁ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς, xxvi. 3,
140 etc. This is in the main correct; it results, however, quite naturally from
6th ed. the signification of κατά: ἡ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πίστις is properly fides quae ad vos
1 Mey. attributes to these passages an emphasis which is either quite out of place
(Matt. xxv. 14), or which could have been fully expressed by the pronoun. Even this
strengthening of the pronoun by totos where there is no trace of an antithesis is foreign
to the classics.
§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
155
pertinet, apud vos (in vobis) est; cf. Aelian. 2, 12 † Kar' avтòv ¿perý, Dion.
H. I. 235 oi kal' uas xpóvo. Cf. § 30, 3, note 5, p. 193.
καθ'
30;
Note 1. The Genitive of the personal pronouns, especially poû and σoû
(more rarely vµŵv, ýµôv, avroû), is, even when no particular emphasis is
intended, very often¹ put before the governing substantive (and its Article);
as, Matt. ii. 2; vii. 24; viii. 8; xvi. 18; xvii. 15; xxiii. 8; Mark v.
ix. 24; Rom. xiv. 16; Phil. ii. 2; iv. 14; Col. ii. 5 ; iv. 18; 1 Cor. viii. 12;
1 Thess. ii. 16; iii. 10, 13; 2 Thess. ii. 17; iii. 5; 1 Tim. iv. 15; 2 Tim.
i. 4; Philem. 5; Luke vi. 47; xii. 18; xv. 30; xvi. 6; xix. 35, etc. Juo.
ii. 23; iii. 19, 21, 33; iv. 47; ix. 11, 21, 26; xi. 32; xii. 40; xiii. 1, etc. 168
1 Jno. iii. 20; Rev. iii. 1, 2, 8, 15; x. 9; xiv. 18; xviii. 5, etc. This
takes place even in connection with a preposition; as, Jno. xi. 32 éπeσev
avтoû eis ToÙS Tódas; yet in many such passages variants are noted. See,
in general, Gersdorf as above, 456 ff.
The Gen. of the pronoun is designedly put before the substantive, a. for
emphasis, Eph. ii. 10 αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν ποίημα, more emphatic than ἐσμὲν
yàp π. avтοû, Luke xii. 30; xxii. 53; b. for the sake of contrast, 1 Cor.
ix. 11 μέγα, εἰ ἡμεῖς ὑμῶν τὰ σαρκικὰ θερίσομεν, Phil. iii. 20 ; c. when the
Gen. belongs to two nouns,2 Jno. xi. 48 ýµŵv kaì tòV TÓTTOV Kai Tò ¤¤vos, Acts
xxi. 11; Luke xii. 35; Rev. ii. 19; 2 Cor. viii. 4; 2 Tim. iii. 10; Tit. i. 15;
1 Thess. i. 3; ii. 19 (D. S. 11, 16). (The form pov depending on a noun,
and placed after it, occurs only in such combinations as Rom. i. 12 πíoтews
ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ, xvi. 13 μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐμοῦ. The insertion of a per-
sonal pronoun between an article and a noun, as in 2 Cor. xii. 19 vπèp tŷs
vµŵv oikodoµîs, xiii. 9; i. 6, occurs on the whole but rarely. Cf. in general, 147
Krüger, Xen. Anab. 5, 6, 16.
7th ed.
When the noun is preceded by an adjective, the Genitive of the per-
sonal pronoun if placed before the noun is inserted between it and the
adjective; as, 2 Cor. v. 1 éπiyecos μv oixía, 2 Cor. iv. 16 ò ew nur
ἄνθρωπος.
Note 2. The Dative of the personal pronouns in easy and familiar
speech is sometimes in Greek and Hebrew (just as it is with us) appar-
ently superfluous (dativus ethicus, Bttm. 120, 2, and Dem. Mid. p. 9; Jacob,
Lucian. Toxar. p. 138). As instances of this usage from the N. T.— where
certainly it might have been expected - are enumerated sometimes Matt.
xxi. 5, a quotation from the Old Test., sometimes Matt. xxi. 2; Rev. ii. 5,
16; Heb. x. 34. But in the first of these last three passages, åyáyeté μoi
means bring him to me, and åyáyere alone would have been defective. In
Rev. ii. pxoμaí σoɩ Taxú signifies I will come (punishing, cf. 14 exw katà
8
1 Ο πατήρ μου and ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός is the usual order even in the N. Τ. Like-
wise the Gen. of autós is regularly (see, however, Rost p. 459) put after the substantive.
2 When this arrangement is not adopted, the pronoun must, for perspicuity, be re-
peated, Acts iv. 28 doan xelp σov кal ǹ Bovλý σоν πρоwρiσe, etc. Matt. xii. 47; from
the Sept., Luke xviii. 20; Acts ii. 17.
156
§ 22. PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.
σoû ỏλíya, and 16 μeravónσov) to thee, on thee (πì σé iii. 3) quickly. In
141 the third passage exeu éaurois vrapέw means repositam or destinatam sibi
6th ed. habere, for themselves, as belonging to themselves. Even in Matt. xxi. 5
ooi is not without force.
Note 3. Likewise ǹ vxý μov, σov, etc., is commonly regarded as a cir-
cumlocution for the personal pronoun (Weiske, Pleon. p. 72 sq.), now in
quotations from the Old Test., as Matt. xii. 18; Acts ii. 27; Heb. x. 38,
now in the N. T. itself, and this use of the word is usually considered as a
Hebraism (Gesen. Lg. S. 752 f.; Vorst, Hebr. p. 121 sq.; Rück. on Rom.
169 xiii. 1). In no passage of the N. T., however, does yvxý stand completely
devoid of meaning, any more than 2 in Hebrew (see my edition of
Simonis); it signifies the soul (the spiritual principle on which Christianity
operates 1 Pet. i. 9) in such expressions as 2 Cor. xii. 15 èкdaπavη¤ýσoμaι
ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, 1 Pet. ii. 25 ἐπίσκοπος τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, Heb. xiii. 17,
or the heart (the seat of the affections and desires), as in Rev. xviii. 14
ἐπιθυμίαι τῆς ψυχῆς σου, Matt. xxvi. 38 περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου, Acts
ii. 43 ἐγένετο πάσῃ ψυχῇ φόβος. Even in Rom. ii. 9 ψυχή is not a mere
redundancy ; it denotes that in man which feels the θλίψις and στενοχωρ.,
even should these come upon the body. In Rom. xiii. 1 πâσa yvxǹ ¿§ovoíais
ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω, the words πᾶσα ψυχή standing thus alone (cf.
1 Pet. iii. 20) may mean every soul, i.e. every person; but even in an
enumeration of the inhabitants in any place, so many "souls" (Lat. capita)
is not precisely the same as so many
66 men (persons). Cf. also Acts
iii. 23 Sept. And so the use of the word yvyn contributes everywhere to
vivacity or circumstantiality of discourse, which is totally different from
pleonasm. Besides, vxý is not unfrequently so used in Greek authors
also (cf. Xen. Cyr. 5, 1, 27; Aelian. 1. 32), particularly the poets (Soph.
148 Philoct. 714; Oed. Col. 499, 1207);² and this use must be deemed not
7th ed. a Hebraism, but a relic of antique vivacity of expression. See further
Georgi, Vind. p. 274; Schwarz, ad Olear. p. 28; Comment. p. 1439.3
""
1 See on the similar phrase w σo Im. Lucian. conscr. hist. p. 179 (e.g. Lucian.
pisc. 16 w iμiv endinάoaσa Thy díky). It is a sort of dativus incommodi, § 31, 4 b. ;
cf. 1 Kings xv. 20, LXX.
2 In these passages it is easy to discern the notion of anima, and I do not know why
Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 979, takes yuxʼn here for a mere circumlocution. Likewise the
passages from Plato which Ast, Lexic. Plat. III. 575, quotes, are deprived of their peculiar
shade of meaning by the canon: orationem amplificat.
8 Matt. vi. 25, where yuxh is opposed to owμa, can present no difficulty to any one
acquainted with the anthropological notions of the Jews. Likewise kapdía is not a mere
circumlocution in Acts xiv. 17 έμπιπλῶν τροφῆς κ. εὐφροσύνης τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, and
Jas. v. 5 ἐθρέψατε τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν, for otherwise it would have been possible to say,
he smote his heart, for him, etc. Yet kapdía is probably used here not merely as
is sometimes in a material sense, agreeably to the physiological views of antiquity .
to strengthen the heart, i.c. primarily the stomach, and through that the heart (even in
Greek the signification stomach in kapdía has not altogether disappeared), but includes
the idea of the pleasures of cating; see Baumgarten on the latter passage.
§ 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN.
157
§ 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN.
εἴδωλα.
142
6th ed
1. The pronoun ouros sometimes refers, not to the noun locally
nearest, but to one more remote, which, as the principal subject,
was mentally the nearest, the most present to the writer's thoughts
(Schaef. Demosth. V. 322; Stallb. Plat. Phaedr. p. 28, 157;
Foertsch, obs. in Lysiam p. 74); as, Acts iv. 11 orós ('Inσoûs
Χριστός verse 10, the nearest preceding noun being ὁ θεός ἐστιν ὁ
λίθος, 1 Jno. v. 20 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός, that is, ὁ θεός, not
Xplorós (which immediately precedes) as the older theologians on
doctrinal considerations maintained; for in the first place, aλnowòs
Aeós is a constant and exclusive epithet of the Father; and secondly,
a warning against idolatry follows, and aλŋlwòs Oeós is invariably
contrasted with edwλa. A passage admitting of question is Acts
viii. 26 avτη éσtiv epnuos, where some supply the nearest subject 170
Tála, and others ódós, see Kühnöl in loc. and my bibl. RWB. I.
S. 395; I prefer the latter decidedly. The construction is more
obvious in Acts vii. 19; 2 Jno. 7. (For examples from Greek
prose, see Ast, Plat. Polit. 417; legg. p. 77.) On the other hand,
ékeîvos in Acts iii. 13 must be referred to the nearest subject (Bremi,
Lys. p. 154; Schoem. Plut. Agid. p. 73; Foertsch, as above; Krü.
118). So also in Jno. vii. 45, where èkeivoɩ denotes the members
of the Sanhedrim (ảρxieρ. кaì Papio.) grouped together (by the
use of a single Article) as one body. For cûTOs and èkeivos so
connected that the former refers to the more remote subject and
the latter to the nearer, see Plut. vit. Dem. 3. (For exeîvos where
only one subject is spoken of and oûtos, or simply autós, was to be
expected, see 2 Cor. viii. 9; Tit. iii. 7.)
In Phil. i. 18 kaì èv ToÚTų xaípw, the demonstrative points merely to the 149
main thought Χριστὸς καταγγέλλεται; and in 2 Pet. i. 4 διὰ τούτων refers 7th ed
to ἐπαγγέλματα.
The Relative also is sometimes thought to refer thus to a more remote
subject (cf. Bhdy. 297; Göller, Thuc. II. 21; Siebelis, Pausan. III. 52;
Schoem. Isae. p. 242 sq.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 369, and, in regard to
Latin, Kritz, Sallust. II. 115) e.g. in 1 Cor. i. 8 (Pott, in loc.) where ös
is referred to eós as the principal subject vs. 4, though Ino. Xptor. im-
mediately precedes. This, however, is not necessary, either on account of
Tоû Kuрíoν ημov 'Ino. Xp. at the end of the vs. (cf. Col. ii. 11; Eph. iv. 12),
or of TOTÒS & BEós immediately following; for what is here asserted of God,
the calling εἰς κοινωνίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, is at the same time a calling to
Beßaιovolaι through Christ, which can take place only in the fellowship
158
§ 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN,
of Christ. To evade antiquarian difficulties this rule has been applied
also to Heb. ix. 4 (see Kühnöl in l.), and on doctrinal grounds to p' in
Rom. v. 12, but in both cases very erroneously. In Heb. v. 7, and 2 Thess.
ii. 9 there is no difficulty. In 2 Pet. iii. 12 Si v can very well be referred
143 to the nearest noun μépas, and in 1 Pet. iv. 11 to the principal subject
6th ed. Ocós. Ou Heb. iii. 6 oû oikos modern expositors are correct.
2. A demonstrative pronoun preceding a relative clause, if it
has no special emphasis, is usually included in the relative pronoun
(Krü. 124 f.). This occurs not only
a. When, if expressed, it would regularly or by attraction stand
171 in the same case with the relative, as a) Acts i. 24 àvádeičov dv
ἐξελέξω for τοῦτον ὅν, Rom. viii. 29 ; Juo. xviii. 26 συγγενὴς ἂν οὗ
άπéкоеv ПIÉтρOS Tò Tíov, 1 Cor. vii. 39; 2 Cor. xi. 12; Phil. iv. 11;
β) Acts viii. 24 ὅπως μηδὲν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ ὧν εἰρήκατε for τούτων ἃ
eip. xxi. 19; xxii. 15; xxvi. 16, 22; Luke ix. 36; Rom. xv. 18;
Eph. iii. 20; 2 Cor. xii. 17; cf. Isa. ii. 8; Wisd. xii. 14; Tob. i. 8;
xii. 2, 6. Plato, Gorg. 457 e.; Phaed. 94 c.; Isocr. Phil. p. 226,
and de pace 388; Plut. virt. mul. p. 202; Xen. A. 1, 9, 25; Dem. ep.
5 in. and Olyn. I. p. 2 a.; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 368. But also,
b. When the demonstrative would require a different case, as
Jno. xiii. 29 ἀγόρασον ὧν χρείαν ἔχομεν (ταῦτα ὧν), Rom. vi. 16;
Matt. xix. 11; Acts viii. 19; xiii. 37; 1 Cor. xv. 36; 2 Pet. i. 9,
cf. Xen. C. 6, 2, 1 απήγγειλας ὧν ἐδέου, Eurip. Med. 735 ἐμμένειν
å σov kλúw i.e. ToÚTоis å, see Elmsley in loc.; Lysias p. 152 Steph.
μὴ καταγιγνώσκετε ἀδικίαν τοῦ ... δαπανῶντος ἀλλ᾽ ὅσοι ... εἰθι-
σμένοι εἰσὶν ἀναλίσκειν for τούτων ὅσοι, see Stallb. Plat. rep. Ι. 139 ;
cf. Kritz, Sallust. II. 301. And in this instance even the prep-
osition on which the case of the demonstrative depends is also
omitted ; as, Rom. x. 14 πῶς πιστεύσουσιν οὗ οὐκ ἤκουσαν i.e. εἰς
τοῦτον οὗ, etc.1
150 If, when the demonstrative before the relative is omitted, a
7th ed. preposition precedes, the preposition belongs logically either,
a) To the relative clause; as, Rom. x. 14 TŵS ÉTIKαλéσOVTai eis
ὃν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν, νί. 21 τίνα καρπὸν εἴχετε τότε (viz. τούτων) ἐφ'
ols vûv éπaioxúveσe,² xiv. 21; Jno. xix. 37 (Sept.); Luke v. 25;
2
1 Similar to this would be 1 Tim. ii. 10 ἀλλ᾿ ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέ
βειαν, if we unite with Matthies in resolving ἀλλ' ὅ into ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τούτῳ ὃ πρ. But it is
simpler and casier to explain the passage by joining di ěpywv with кooμeîv verse 9.
Had Paul intended to convey the former meaning, he would have expressed himself
distinctly by writing ἐν ᾧ πρέπει etc.
2 Reiche has obviously stated more than the truth in asserting that in all other in-
stances the only demonstrative omitted, is one governed by a verb, and never one gov-
3
§ 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN,
159
2 Pet. ii. 12;¹ Soph. Phil. 957; Aristot. rhet. 2, 1,7; Isocr. Demon.
p. 2. Or,
b) To the demonstrative understood ; as, Juo. vi. 29 ἵνα πιστεύ
σητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος, xvii. 9 ; Rom. xiv. 22 ; 2 Cor. v. 10 ;
xii. 6; Gal. i. 8 f.; Heb. v. 8 (Num. vi. 21). Also Heb. ii. 18 év 144
ᾧ πέπονθεν αὐτὸς πειρασθείς, δύναται τοῖς πειραζομένοις βοηθῆσαι ύth 61
might be resolved thus: ἐν τούτῳ ὁ πέπονθεν ... δύναται . . . βοη- 172
θῆσαι. Cf. Xen. M. 2, 6, 34 ἐγγίγνεται εὔνοια πρὸς οὓς ἂν ὑπολάβω
εὐνοϊκῶς ἔχειν πρὸς ἐμέ, Anab. 1, 9, 25 ; Hell. 4, 8, 33 ; Demosth.
Con. p. 729 a. ; Olynth. I. p. 2; ep. 4 p. 118 b.; Plato, rep. 2, 375 d.
and Phaed. 61 c. ; Arrian. Alex. 6, 4, 3; Diog. L. 9, 67; 6, T. Or,
/
c) To both clauses ; as, 2 Cor. ii. 3 ἵνα μὴ λύπην ἔχω ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔδει
με χαίρειν, 1 Cor. vii. 39 ; x. 30 ; Jno. xi. 6; Rom. xvi. 2 (cf. Isocr.
Evag. p. 470 πλείους ἐν τούτοις τοῖς τόποις διατρίβειν, ἢ παρ᾽ οἷς
πρότερον εἰωθότες ἦσαν. Cic. Agrar. 2, 27). Also 1 Cor. vii. 1, and
Phil. iv. 11 may be so construed.
Relative Adverbs, in like manner, often include definite; as,
Jno. xi. 32 ἦλθεν ὅπου ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς (i.e. ἐκεῖσε ὅπου), vi. 62;
Mark v. 40 εἰςπορεύεται ὅπου ἦν τὸ παιδίον (cf. Bttm. Philoct. p.
107), 1 Cor. xvi. 6; Matt. xxv. 24 συνάγων ὅθεν οὐ διεσκόρπισας
for ἐκεῖθεν ὅπου, cf. Thuc. 1, 89. Still more free is the construction
in Jno. xx. 19 τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων ὅπου ἦσαν οἱ μαθηταί etc.
It has already been mentioned, that in such condensed sentences
(where a Greek would not properly supply a demonstrative, Krü.
124) a comma should not be inserted before the relative. In Jnc.
vi. 29 a comma would be absurd.
3. In emphatic passages the demonstrative is repeated in con-
nected clauses several times in succession ; as, Acts vii. 35 τοῦτον
τὸν Μωϋσῆν... τοῦτον ὁ θεὸς ἀπέσταλκεν ... οὗτος ἐξήγαγον . .
οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Μωϋσῆς ὁ εἴπας ... οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ γενόμενος ἐν τῇ
ἐκκλησίᾳ etc.; and, in a different spirit, Jno. vi. 42 οὐχ οὗτός
ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωσήφ ... πῶς οὖν λέγει οὗτος etc. See
Bornem. bibl. Stud. der sächs. Geistl. I. 66 f., who, among other 151
passages, quotes as parallel Xen. M. 4, 2, 28 καὶ οἵ τε ἀποτυγχά- 7th ed
νοντες τῶν πραγμάτων ἐπιθυμοῦσι τούτους ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν βουλεύεσθαι,
καὶ προίστασθαί τε ἑαυτῶν τούτους, καὶ τὰς ἐλπίδας τῶν ἀγαθῶν
erned by a noun ; cf. Jno. xviii. 26; Luke xxiii. 41. Besides, were the assertion correct,
it would prove nothing against the above explanation, see Fr. Moreover, ép' ofs might
perhaps also be taken in the sense discussed by Weber, Demosth.
p. 492.
1 Αγνοεῖν ἐν Porphyr. abst. 2, 53. Some also refer to this head Rom. vii. 6, supplying
ἐκείνῳ (νόμῳ) before ἐν ᾧ ; but ἐν ᾧ refers back to ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, and ἀποθαν. is annexed
absolutely to denote the modus of κατηργ. See Philippi.
160
§ 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN.
ἐν τούτοις ἔχουσι καὶ διὰ πάντα ταῦτα πάντων μάλιστα τούτους
άуаπŵσ. From Latin cf. Cic. Verr. 3, 9, 23 hunc in omnibus
stupris, hunc in fenorum expilationibus, hunc in impuris conviviis
principem adhibebat (Verres). This Anaphora occurs with a
relative adjective in Phil. iv. 8 ὅσα ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ, ὅσα σεμνά, ὅσα
δίκαια, ὅσα ἁγνά, ὅσα προςφιλῆ, ὅσα εὔφημα; cf., further, § 65.
4. It is far more common to repeat oûτos or ẻkeîvos in the same
clause after the subject, or the predicate if it precedes; the pro-
noun is inserted immediately before (more rarely after) the verb.
173 This occurs when the subject (or predicate) consists of several
words and is to be made more perspicuous or emphatic; as, Matt.
xxiv. 13 ὁ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος, οὗτος σωθήσεται, Jno. i. 18 ὁ μονογενὴς
υἱὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο, Mark vii. 15
τὰ ἐκπορευόμενα ἀπ' αὐτοῦ, ἐκεῖνά ἐστι τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον, vii.
20 ; xii. 40 ; 1 Cor. vi. 4 τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τούτους
Kalíčeтe, Rom. vii. 10, 15 f. 19 f.; ix. 6, 8; xiv. 14; Jno. v. 11;
145 xii. 48; Phil. i. 22 etc.; cf. Thuc. 4, 69 (Xen. conv. 8, 33; Ages.
4,4); Plato, Protag. p. 339 d.; Isocr. Evag. c. 23; Paus. 1, 24, 5;
Lucian. fug. 3; Ael. 12, 19, etc. See Schaef. Melet. p. 84; Jacob,
Lucian. Toxar. p. 78, 144, and Lucian. Alex. p. 7; Siebelis, Pausan.
I. 63; Weber, Demosth. 158. As to Latin see Kritz, Sallust. I. 171.
(The further strengthening of such emphasis by dè-Bttm. Demosth.
Mid. p. 152; Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 252 - does not occur
in the N. T. Neither do the sacred writers exhibit any trace of
that consequent anacoluthon which is not infrequent in the classics
-Schwarz, de discipulor. Chr. soloecism. p. 77; unless one
choose to refer the attraction in 1 Pet. ii. 7 to this head.)
6th ed.
Still more frequently are these pronouns thus used after a
protasis beginning with a conjunction or a relative; as, Jno. ix. 31
ἐάν τις θεοσεβής ἢ καὶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ ποιῇ, τούτου ακούει,
Jas. i. 23; Matt. v. 19; xii. 50; Phil. iii. 7; iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 2.
T
The repetition of the demonstrative pronoun in Luke xix. 2 Kaì AVTOS
ἦν ἀρχιτελώνης καὶ οὗτος ἦν πλούσιος, is deserving of attention. The
meaning is: he was a chief publican and besides (as such) was rich, isque
dives fuit (Mtth. 1040); Lchm. has adopted from B the reading kaì avròs
(v) A., which has less to recommend it. Cf., also, Xen. Cyr. 8, 3, 48.
The case is different when, for the sake of perspicuity, in a lengthened
sentence, a preceding substantive is again brought under the notice of the
reader by means of a pronoun; as, 2 Cor. xii. 2 oîda äv◊ρшñоV EV Xρioтą
.. πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατεσσάρων ... εἴτε ἐν σώματι ... ἁρπαγέντα τὸν τοιοῦτον
152 etc. (Plato, rep. 3, 398; Xen. C. 1, 3, 15) 1 Cor. v. 3, 5; Acts i. 21 f.
7th ed. cf. § 22, 4, p. 147.
'?
§ 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN.
161
5. A demonstrative pronoun is often placed before őτi, iva, and
similar particles, to give special prominence to the clause that
follows (particularly in Paul and John); as, 1 Tim. i. 9 eidùs TOûTO,
ὅτι etc. Acts xxiv. 14 ὁμολογῷ τοῦτό σοι, ὅτι etc. Rom. vi. 6;1
1 Cor. i. 12; xv. 50; 2 Cor. v. 15; x. 7, 11; 2 Thess. iii. 10; Phil. 174
i. 6, 25; Jno. xvii. 3; 2 Pet. i. 20; 1 Jno. i. 5; iii. 11, 23; iv. 9, 10;
v. 3, 11, 14; 2 Jno. 6; cf. Plato, Soph. 234 b. So eis ToûTo before
τοῦτο
íva Acts ix. 21; Rom. xiv. 9; 2 Cor. ii. 9; Eph. vi. 22; 1 Pet. iii. 9;
1 Jno. iii. 8, ἐν τούτῳ ὅτι 1, Jno. iv. 13, ἐν τούτῳ ἵνα Jno. xv.
1 Jno. iv. 17 (see Lücke in loc.), év ToÚTY êúv 1 Jno. ii. 3, év ToÚTO
ÖTаv 1 Juo. v. 2; cf. Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 461; Franke,
Demosth. p. 40.
•
то
8 ;
Likewise when an Infinitive (Mtth. Eurip. Phoen. 520; Sprachl.
1046) or a noun follows as predicate, a demonstrative is employed
for emphasis; as, 2 Cor. ii. 1 ἔκρινα ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο, τὸ μὴ πάλιν
ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν, vii. 11 αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ κατὰ θεὸν
XvπηОñvaι, 1 Cor. vii. 37; Eph. iv. 17; Jas. i. 27 (cf. Xen. Hell.
4, 1, 2, and Ages. 1, 8; Plat. Hipp. mai. 302 a.; Gorg. 491 d.; Isocr.
Evag. c. 3; Porphyr. abstin. 1, 13; Dion. H. VI. 667, and de Thuc.
40, 3; Epict. enchir. 31, 1 and 4; Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 261);
2 Cor. xiii. 9 τοῦτο καὶ εὔχομαι, τὴν ὑμῶν κατάρτισιν, 1 Jno. iii. 21; 146
v. 4 (cf. Achill. Tat. 7, 2 φάρμακον αὐτῷ τοῦτο τῆς . . . λύπης ἡ πρὸς στὸ εἰ
äλλov eis Tò πaleiv KoLvwvia, Plat. rep. 3, 407 a. ; Lucian. navig. 3;
Eurip. suppl. 510; cf. Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. p. 136; Ast, Plat.
Polit. p. 466).
Even εἰς τοῦτο is so used, as Acts xxvi. 16 εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὤφθην
σοι προχειρίσασθαί σε ὑπηρέτην καὶ μάρτυρα etc., and οὕτως 1 Pet.
ii. 15 (1 Cor. iv. 1), and évreû ev Jas. iv. 1.
Lastly, a demonstrative is thus prefixed to a participial construc-
tion; as, Mark xii. 24 οὐ διὰ τοῦτο πλανᾶσθε, μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφάς
etc., for this cause... because ye know not etc.; cf. Antiphon 6,
46 οὐκ ἀπεγράφοντο τούτου αὐτοῦ ἕνεκα, οὐχ ἡγούμενοί με ἀποκτεῖναι
etc., see Maetzner, Antiph. p. 219; Schoem. Isaeus p. 370.
The use of the demonstrative pronoun in such expressions as Acts i. 5
ov µetà todλàs Tautas nµépas after (in) a few days, is easily explained.
It does not depend, as Kühnöl thinks, on a transposition of woλús, but is
to be explained like the Latin ante hos quinque dies, etc.; cf. in Greek ús
ὀλίγων πρὸ τούτων ἡμερῶν (Achill. Τat. 7, 14), οὐ πρὸ πολλῶν τῶνδε ἡμερῶν
(Heliod. 2, 22, 97). Auraι huépai are, these very days just past; and ante
hos quinque dies strictly means: before these (reckoning from the present
1 In Rom. ii. 3 an amplified Voc. intervenes between TOûTO and the clause with ÖT.
6th ed
21
162
§ 23. THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN.
time) last past five days. The demonstrative, therefore, connects the
153 period specified with the present. Expositors and lexicographers are
7th ed. able to explain the force of the demonstrative in Jas. iv. 13 πopevoúsµeða eis
Tývde Tǹv tóλw into such and such a city, only by a reference to the well-
known ó deîva; but öde is also used by the Greeks in exactly the same
way, e.g. Plutarch. Symp. 1, 6, 1 tývde tǹv ǹµépav such and such a day.
[The full and ordinary demonstrative signification, however, is claimed,
both for the passage in James and for that in Plutarch, by Bttm. Gramm.
des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 90; and Huther on James, 2nd. ed., agrees with
him.]
175
The Plur. Taûra is not unfrequently in Greek employed in reference to
a single object, and stands therefore, strictly taken, for Toûтo (Plat. Apol.
19 d.; Phaedr. 70 d.; Xen. Cyr. 5, 3, 19; see Schaef. Dion. p. 80; cf. also
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 524; Stallb. Plat. Apol. p. 19 d.; Maetzner, Antiphon
p. 153).¹ Instances of this in the N. T. are 3 Jno. 4 (where several Codd.
give the correction raúrns) see Lücke, and also Jno. i. 51; but undoubt-
edly not Jno. xix. 36, see van Hengel, annotat. p. 85 sq.; in Luke xii. 4
the adverbial phrase μerò taûтa means afterwards. Nearly the same is to
be said of the well-known kaì raûra, idque, Heb. xi. 12. On 1 Cor. ix. 15
see Mey.2 In 1 Cor. vi. 11 Taûтa may have a contemptuous secondary
signification: kaì taûtá tives ĥte, and such a set, talis farinae homines
(Bhdy. 281; Stallb. Plat. Rival. p. 274); yet perhaps this was far from
the apostle's thought, and raûra is frequently used in reference to a series
of predicates of such a description, ex hoc genere fuistis; Kypke and
Pott in loc. have blended things quite dissimilar.
147 In 1 Jno. v. 20 Lücke thinks he finds a prozeugma of the demonstrative
6th ed. pronoun (cf. also Stud. und Kritik. II. S. 147 ff.): oûtós ẻσtwv å åλnbivòs
θεός, και (αὕτη ζωή αιώνιος, — not impossible, but in my opinion un-
necessary.
8
Note. Respecting the position of ouros and exeivos, it must be remarked
that the former, from the nature of the case, usually stands before, and the
latter after, the substantive ; as, οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος. Yet
the opposite order also occurs in the case of ouros (Matt. xxviii. 15 å λóyos
OûTOS, Luke i. 29 etc.) without essential difference of meaning, with ekeivos
(Luke xii. 47; Heb. iv. 11) particularly in the connecting phrases év ékeívais
ταῖς ἡμέραις, ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ οι ὥρᾳ, ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ (Gersdorf 433).
It must not, however, be imagined that a writer has so committed himself to
the one arrangement, that the other should be altered when it is confirmed
by approved Codd. or by the sense.
1 Fritzsche, quaestion. Lucian. p. 126, qualifies this remark as follows: Plur. poni de
una re tantummodo sic, si neque ulla emergat ambiguitas et aut universe, non definite
quis loquatur, aut una res plurium vi sit praedita.
2 In the same way èp' oîs and àve' ŵv are used in Greek, where the Sing. would suffice.
Fr. Rom. I. 299.
§ 24. THE RELATIVE PRONOUN.
163
§ 24. THE RELATIVE PRONOUN.
154
7th ed.
1. In accordance with the law of attraction (cf. Hm. Vig. 891
sqq.; Bhdy. 299 ff.), the relative pronoun ős (never in the N. T.
ÖSTIs),2 which by reason of the governing verb should stand in the
Accusative, is so drawn by the oblique case (Gen. or Dative) of the 176
preceding noun with which it has a logical connection (that of a
subordinate with a principal clause), as to pass over into this
oblique case. This peculiar construction, which gives a sentence
more internal unity and a certain periodic compactness, was fre-
quent even in the Sept., and in the N. T. it regularly occurs
(though not everywhere without var.); as, Luke ii. 20 èπì πâoi
οἷς ἤκουσαν, Jno. ii. 22 (iv. 50) ἐπίστευσαν τῷ λόγῳ ᾧ εἶπεν, Acts
iii. 21, 25; vii. 17; x. 39; xvii. 31; xx. 38; xxii. 10; Jas. ii. 5;
1 Pet. iv. 11; Jno. vii. 31, 39; xv. 20; xvii. 5; Mark vii. 13;
Luke v. 9; xix. 37; Matt. xviii. 19; 1 Cor. vi. 19; 2 Cor. x. 13;
xii. 21; 2 Thess. i. 4; Tit. iii. 6; Heb. vi. 10 (ix. 20); x. 1; Eph.
i. 8; ii. 10; Rev. xviii. 6, etc. (in all which cases the comma in
the text before the relative is to be rejected, see § 7, 1). Jude 15
περὶ πάντων τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν ησέβησαν deserves par-
ticular attention, see § 32, 1, p. 222.
There are, however, passages in which this construction is
neglected ; as, Heb. viii. 2 τῆς σκηνῆς τῆς ἀληθινῆς, ἣν ἔπηξεν ὁ
kúpios, and, according to good Codd., Mark xiii. 9; Jno. vii. 39;
iv. 50; Tit. iii. 5. Besides, compare the var. in Jno. xvii. 11;
Heb. vi. 10; Acts vii. 16; Rev. i. 20. So frequently in the Sept.
and the Apocrypha (Wahl, clav. p. 360), likewise in Greek authors;
see Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 30; Weber, Dem. 543; Krü. 121.
8
Eph. i. 6 τῆς χάριτος ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν (var. ἐν ᾗ), iv. 1 τῆς κλήσεως ἧς 118
ἐκλήθητε, 2 Cor. i. 4 διὰ τῆς παρακλήσεως ἧς παρακαλούμεθα, where ἧs seems Gib ed
to stand for, appear to transcend the above rule. But these passages
may be accounted for by the well-known expressions κλῆσιν καλεῖν, παρά-
κλησιν παρακαλεῖν, χάριν χαριτοῦν, ἀγάπην ἀγαπᾶν (§ 32, 2), and by the
equally well-known construction of the Passive; see Gieseler in Rosenm.
1 Cf. also the thorough treatise of G. T. A. Krüger (relating more directly to Latin)
in his Untersuch. a. d. Gebiete der lat. Sprachlehre. 3 Hefte. Braunschw. 1827, 8vo. ; K.
W. Kruger, in his Sprachl. 121, prefers the term assimilation.
2 The form ösTis occurs in the N. T. only as nominative.
8 Here, however, we may, with Wahl, consider the Gen. as dependent on the omitted
preposition diά; see § 50, 7, p. 421 sq.
164
§ 24. THE RELATIVE PRONOUN.
Repertor. II. 124. Also in Acts xxiv. 21 pwvns is eκpaga éorús etc.,
probably s is not used for (þwvŷ kрúšeiv Matt. xxvii. 50; Mark i. 26;
155 Rev. vi. 10, etc.) cf. Boisson. Nicet. p. 33, but pwvý means cry, exclamation
7th ed. (loud utterance); the construction accordingly resolves itself into the
phrase pwvnv κрάew (Rev. vi. 10 var.), which, though unusual, is not
inadmissible ; cf. Isa. vi. 4 φωνῆς ἧς ἐκέκραγον. (In Eph. i. 8 ἧς ἐπερίσσευσεν,
the verb is to be taken transitively, as yvwpíoas in vs. 9 shows.) That
attraction nevertheless may affect even the Dative of the relative (so as
177 to change it into a Gen.) is shown by G. Krüger, as above, 274 f.; cf.
Heinichen, Euseb. II. 98 sq. Accordingly Cod. A in 1 Tim. iv. 6 has
τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας ἧς παρηκολούθηκας. Many expositors, too, as recently
Fr. also, resolve Rom. iv. 17 κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσεν θεοῦ into κατ. θεοῦ ᾧ
¿πíσT.; but this is not necessary; see 2 below. On the other hand, Matt.
xxiv. 38 ἦσαν ... γαμοῦντες καὶ ἐκγαμίζοντες ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας εἰςῆλθε Νώε εἰς
τὴν κιβωτόν is probably contracted from ἄχρι τῆς ἡμ. ᾗ εἰςῆλθεν. Similarly
Luke i. 20; Acts i. 2,22. In Lev. xxiii. 15 άπò тîs ηµéρas Ŷs av πρosEvéYKηTE
etc. Bar. 1, 19, we find the same attraction of the Dative of the relative
when the two clauses are not merged into one; for though sỷµépas (on
which day) also occurs, yet in the Sept. the Dative of time predominates.
2. Sometimes the opposite construction occurs: that is to say,
the noun to which the relative refers is drawn into the construction
of the relative clause and put in that case in which the govern-
ing verb requires the relative to stand. When this occurs, the
noun cither
a. Precedes the relative clause; as, 1 Cor. x. 16 Tòv apтov dv
κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος; Matt. xxi. 42 (LXX.) λίθον
ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη, 1 Pet. ii. 7 ; Luke
xii. 48 παντὶ ᾧ ἐδόθη πολύ, πολύ ζητηθήσεται παρ' αὐτοῦ, probably
also Luke i. 72, 73 μνησθῆναι διαθήκης ἁγίας αὑτοῦ, ὅρκον ὃν
¿µоσε πρòs'Аẞрaáμ, but probably not Acts x. 36, see below § 62, 3.
(cf. Gieseler as above, 126; Krü. 224 f.); Or,
b. As respects position also is incorporated directly into the
relative clause ; as, Mark vi. 16 ὃν ἐγὼ ἀπεκεφάλισα Ιωάννην, οὗτός
¿σTɩ, Philem. 10; Luke xix. 37. Likewise Rom. vi. 17 úπηкOÚOATE
εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς; this may indeed be resolved into
149 εἰς τὸν τύπον διδ. ὃν παρ., an Acc. with a Passive, for ὃς παρεδόθη
úµîv — (for a similar attraction affecting the Acc. of a more remote
object see Demosth. Mid. 385 c. δίκην ἅμα βουλόμενοι λαβεῖν, ὧν
ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐτεθέαντο θρασὺν ὄντα, where ὧν is for ἅ, i.e. ἐν οἷς,
6th ed.
¹ And so, probably, should be taken Aristoph. Plut. 1044 táλaw ¿yà Tâs üßpews îns
ὑβρίζομαι.
2 Cf. Schmid in the Tübing. Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1831, II. 137 ff.
§ 24. THE RELATIVE PRONOUN.
165
to be joined with θρασ. ὄντα, and Dion. Hal. 9, 565 ἀγανάκτησις
ὑμῶν περὶ ὧν ὑβρίζεσθε ὑπὸ τῶν πολεμίων, Demosth. ep. 4 p. 118.)
or more simply (as Bornem., Rück., Fr., and others have main-
tained) ὑπηκ. (τῷ) τύπῳ διδ. εἰς ὃν παρ., since the construction
ÚπαкOVEш Tiví¹ is the only one admissible here. Some explain
even Acts xxi. 16 ἄγοντες παρ᾽ ᾧ ξενισθῶμεν Μνάσωνι etc. by 156
attraction: ἄγ. παρὰ Μνάσωνα . . . παρ' ᾧ ξεν., yet see § 31, 5.
On 2 Cor. x. 13 see § 59, 7, p. 530.
For both the constructions specified above there are additional
parallels: a) Hippocr. morb. 4, 11 τὰς πηγὰς ἃς ὠνόμασα, αὗται τῷ
σwμarɩ etc., Lysias bon. Arist. p. 649; Aelian. anim. 3, 13; Her.
2, 106; Soph. El. 653, and Trach. 283; Eurip. Bacch. 443 sqq. ;
Aristoph. Plut. 200; Alciphr. 3, 59, the well-known passage of
Virgil (Aen. 1, 577) urbem quam statuo vestra est, Terent. eunuch.
4, 3, 11; Sen. ep. 53; Wetsten. I. 468. From the Sept. Gen.
xxxi. 16 τὴν δόξαν ἣν ἀφείλετο ὁ θεὸς . . . ἡμῖν ἔσται, Num. xix. 22,
and from the Acta Petri et Pauli ed. Thilo I. 7 άркеî ημiv Tην
θλίψιν ἣν ἔχομεν παρὰ Πέτρου. b) Xen. A. 1, 9, 19 εἴ τινα ὁρῴη
κατασκευάζοντα ἧς ἄρχοι χώρας (χώραν ἧς ἄρχοι), Soph. Oed. C.
907; El. 1029; Eurip. Orest. 63; Electr. 860, and Hec. 986; Plat.
Tim. 49 e.; Demosth. ep. 4 p. 118 c.; Plut. Coriol. 9 (Evang. apocr.
p. 414; Acta apocr. p. 69); cf. Liv, 9, 2; Terent. Andr. prol. 3.
See, in general, Mtth. 1054 f.; Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 354.
Under b. would come also Rom. iv. 17 Kaтévavтɩ ou éπíoтevσe eoû, if
it were to be resolved into kaт. Beοû, & Éпíσт. This would be an extension
of the attraction, become so common, to the Dative, of which no doubt
occasional instances occur, Krü. 247 f. (Xen. Cyr. 5, 4, 39 йуETO TŵV ÉAVTOû
τῶν τε πιστῶν, οἷς ἥδετο καὶ ὧν (i.e. τούτων οἷς) ἠπίστει πολλούς) ; see
Fr. Rom. I. 237. But the passage may be explained more simply thus:
KAT. BEOû, Kaт. où èπíσт. (see above, 1 p. 164). The exposition proposed
κατ. θεοῦ, κατ. οὗ ἐπίστ.
Bretschn. Lex. man. p. 220 is artificial in more respects than one.
The mere incorporation of the antecedent into the relative clause with-
out a change of case occurred: Matt. xxiv. 44 ᾗ ὥρᾳ οὐ δοκεῖτε, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ
ȧvОpúтov eрxeтαι (Gen. ii. 17; Ex. x. 28; xxxii. 34; Num. vi. 13; xxx. 6),
Matt. vii. 2 ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε, μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν, Jno. xi. 6; Mark xv. 12
(Heb. xiii. 11); Luke i. 4. Here belongs, too, Rom. iv. 17, see above.
The Greeks generally inserted in the subsequent principal clause a cor-
responding demonstrative, and separated also the relative by some word
from the antecedent, Krü. 123.
Attraction with omission of the (demonstrative) word which occasioned it :
1 On úrakovew els particularly in Josephus, see Kypke, observatt. II. 167, though
exception can be taken to some of his examples.
7th ed
178
166
§ 24. THE RELATIVE PRONOUN.
a. With the intervention of a preposition; as, Heb. v. 8 qualev å& ûr
150 ¤ñabe, i.e. áñò toútwv à (ŵv) éπabe, Rom. x. 14; Jno. vi. 29; xvii. 9; 1 Cor.
6th ed. vii. 1 (Demosth. Euerg. 684 b. ȧyavakтýσaσa ¿p oîs ¿yù éteπóv0ew, Plat.
Cratyl. 386 a.; Xen. An. 1, 9, 25; Arrian. Al. 4, 10, 3; Lysias II. 242
ed. Auger.). See § 23, 2. And
b. Without a preposition; as, Rom. xv. 18 où τoλµńow λadeîv tɩ ŵv ov
κатЄɩруúσαто etc. Acts viii. 24; xxvi. 16 (Soph. Phil. 1227; Oed. R. 855).
179 Cf. § 23, 2; and the same place for attraction with an adverb of place
(G. Krü. 302 ff.).
3. Sometimes the relative pronoun agrees in gender and number
with the following noun which is predicate in the relative clause
157 (ôs... Éotí) annexed by way of explanation; (this, too, is a
7th ed. species of attraction, Hm. Vig. 708): Mark xv. 16 тîs avλĤS, Ő ÉOTI
πραιτώριον, Gal. iii. 16 τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστι Χριστός, 1 Tim.
iii. 15 ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία θεοῦ, Eph. vi. 17 ; i. 14 ;
Phil. i. 28 ; Eph. iii. 13 μὴ ἐκκακεῖν ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσί μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν,
„TIS ÉσTì dóça vµŵv (for ő), also 1 Cor. iii. 17 (where Mey., without
reason, makes a difficulty about oiries). Cf. also, Rev. iv. 5;
v. 6, 8 var. On the other hand, Eph. i. 23 τῇ ἐκκλησία, ἥτις ἐστὶ
Tò σŵµа aνtοû, 1 Cor. iv. 17; Col. i. 24; ii. 17.
Some have erroneously referred to this head Col. iii. 5 τis ÈOTIV
εἰδωλολατρεία (ἥτις for ἅτινα, viz. μέλη); the reference is only to
πλeoveğia (Huther in loc.). In Col. iii. 14 ő, the better attested
reading, appears to be a pure Neut. without reference to the
gender of the preceding or the following noun. On Eph. v. 5 see
note 1. In Matt. xxvii. 33, and similar passages, ő is quod sc.
vocabulum. With regard to Heb. ix. 9 expositors are divided in
opinion; but most of them now refer τis to ǹ πρwτη σKNνý verse 8,
so that this passage does not fall under the above rule. Com-
mentators differ still more widely in reference to Col. i. 27; but
it is better to connect ős with & Tλoûтos, as the principal noun,
than with μυστήριον.
It should seem, then, that the relative conforms to the gender
of the following noun mainly when the latter is viewed as the
principal subject; consequently, when the specific appellations are
given of things, which, in the principal clause, were mentioned in
general terms (Mark xv.; 1 Tim. iii., cf. Pausan. 2, 13, 4; Cic. pro
Sest. 42, 91 domicilia coniuncta quas urbes dicimus), especially
with names of persons (Gal. iii., cf. Cic. legg. 1, 7, 22 animal, quem
vocamus hominem), or where the relative should have been a
Neut. used absolutely (Eph. iii.). On the other hand, the relative
§ 24. THE RELATIVE PRONOUN.
167
retains the gender of the noun in the principal clause, when the
subordinate clause contains an explanatory amplification, a pred-
icate of the principal object (as in Eph. i.; 1 Cor. iv.); (cf. Bremi
on Nep. Thrasyb. 2). See, in general, G. Krü. as above, 90 ff.,
and, for the Latin, Zumpt, Grammat. § 372; Kritz, Sallust. I. 292.
4. The relative appears to be put for the interrogative in a
direct question,¹ Matt. xxvi. 50 éтaîpe, è¿' ô (that is, éπì τí Aristoph.
Lysistr. 1101) Tápel. This is an impropriety of declining Hellenism 180
(Schaef. Demosth. V. 285), which Lob. Phryn. p. 57 has substan-
tiated as respects other relative pronouns (Plat. Alcib. 1 p. 110 c.), 151
and which cannot be thought very surprising when the affinity 6th ed.
between the words qui and quis is considered. This usage is
unknown in classic prose. (In Plat. Men. 74 d. recent editors,
apparently without MS. authority, have substituted Tí. On Plat.
rep. 8, 559 a. see Stallb.) But it is not necessary, on this account,
to assume (with Mey.) that the above passage contains an aposi-
opesis, or, with Fr., to take the sentence as an exclamation: vetus 158
sodalis, ad qualem rem perpetrandam ades! By a question Jesus ith ed.
might effectively call the attention of Judas to the wickedness of
his design. (It would be more allowable in Mark ix. 11 AéyOVTES •
ő,Ti λéyoνow oi ypaμμaтeîs etc. to regard ő,7, with Lehm., as put
for Tí (that is, Sià Tí), just as in Heliod. 4, 16; 7, 14, quoted by
Lob. as above, ősTis is used in a direct question. But ő, never
occurs in the N. T. as an interrogative pronoun (certainly not
Jno. viii. 25, see § 54, 1), not even in an indirect question. As
őrt immediately follows the words quoted above, it might easily
have been written by mistake also before λéyovoɩ for Tí, see Fr.
If őr, however, be the true reading, it should rather be taken for
ÖTɩ because, see § 53, 10, 5, p. 456.)
Note 1. It is peculiar to Paul to connect sometimes two, three, or more
clauses by a repetition of the relative pronoun, even when it refers to
different subjects; as, Col. i. 24 f., 28, 29; Eph. iii. 11, 12; 1 Cor. ii. 7,
cf. 1 Pet. ii. 22. Elsewhere the relative in the Sing. is thought to point
to a series of nouns, and to be used, as it were, in a collective sense; as,
Eph. v. 5 ὅτι πᾶς πόρνος ἢ ἀκάθαρτος ἢ πλεονέκτης, ὅς ἐστιν εἰδωλο-
λárpηs etc. Cf. Fritzsche de conformat. crit. p. 46. But this is arbitrary,
and would suppose just such a forced explanation of Col. iii. 5 (see above).
Note 2. The relative clause beginning with os, ostis, is usually placed
after the clause containing the antecedent; where, however, the former
1"Os in an indirect question occurs in Soph. Ocd. R. 1068; see Ellendt, Lexic. Soph.
II. 372. Also cf. Passow, under the word.
168
§ 25. THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN,
clause is to be made prominent, it is put first (Krü. 123); as, 1 Cor. xiv. 37
ἃ γράφω ὑμῖν ὅτι κυρίου ἐστίν, Heb. xii. 6 ὃν ἀγαπᾷ κύριος παιδεύει, Rom. vi. 2
οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, πῶς ἔτι ζήσομεν, Mark viii. 34, etc.; with
a demonstrative in the second clause, Phil. iii. 7 ἅτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη, ταῦτα
ynuaι etc. Jas. ii. 10; Jno. xxi. 25; xi. 45; Matt. v. 39; Luke ix. 50;
Acts xxv. 18; 1 Cor. iv. 2; Heb. xiii. 11.
"
Note 3. The Neut. % before a whole clause, in the sense of as to etc.
(like quod in Latin), occurs in Rom. vi. 10 8 8è Ln, Cô Tô Dew, Gal. ii. 20
ồ dè vûv (ŵ év σapki, èv níotei (ŵ etc. cf. Mtth. II. 1063. In both passages,
181 however, o may also be taken for an objective case: quod vivit, vita, quam
vivit. See Fr. on Rom. as above.
Note 4. During the reign of empiricism it was believed by many expos-
itors that ős is used in prose, besides the well-known cases (Mtth. 742 f.),
for the demonstrative. Now, every beginner knows how to construe such
passages ; e.g. 2 Cor. iv. 6 ὁ θεὸς ὁ εἰπὼν ἐκ σκότους φῶς λάμψαι, ὃς ἔλαμψεν
ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις etc. In 1 Cor. ii. 9 and Rom. xvi. 27 the construction is
anacoluthic.
152
6th ed.
§ 25. THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN, AND THE INDEFINITE
PRONOUN ΤΙΣ.
1. Not only is the Interrogative Pronoun Tís, Tí ordinarily used,
even in indirect questions and after verbs of knowing, inquiring,
159 etc., while ősтis, ő,Ti is never so employed in the N. T. (Matt. xx. 22;
7th ed. Luke xxiii. 34 (Mark xiv. 36) Jno. x. 6; Acts xxi. 33; Rom. viii. 26;
Col. i. 27, etc.; cf. Xen. C. 1, 1, 6; 1, 3, 17; Mem. 1, 6, 4, etc.;
Hm. ad Aeschyl. p. 461; Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 823), but τí, in
particular, stands even in cases where the Greeks would certainly
have used ő,T, so that the interrogative is weakened apparently
into the German was (Eng. what); as, Matt. x. 19 do¤ýσeтαι vµîv
. . . τί λαλήσετε quod dicatis, Luke xvii. 8 ἑτοίμασον, τί δειπνήσω,
para, quod comedam (not quid comedam, which in this connection
would hardly be allowable in Latin), cf. Bhdy. 443. "O,т occurs
once, Acts ix. 6. The transition to this usage of rí appears in the
construction Mark vi. 36 тí þáywσiv oví éxovoi (Matt. xv. 32),
for which with little difference of meaning ὅ,τι φάγωσιν οὐκ ἔχ.
might have been employed, exactly as in Latin one may say either
non habent quid comedant or non hab. quod com. (Ramshorn, lat.
Gramm. 368). In the latter form of expression, exew and habere
simply convey the notion of having or possessing (that which they
might eat, they have not); the former comprises the notion of
inquiry (accordingly, habeo quid must sometimes be directly trans-
AND THE INDEFINITE PRONOUN TIZ.
169
τί
lated I know, what): inquiring what they should eat, they have
nothing (to cat). Similarly Xen. C. 6, 1, 48 our exw тí μeîçov eiπw,
Hell. 1, 6, 5; Soph. Oed. C. 317 oùк exw тí pô; see, in general, 182
Heindorf, Cic. N. D. p. 347. (The relative and interrogative are
combined in 1 Tim. i. 7 μὴ νοοῦντες μήτε ἃ λέγουσι μήτε περὶ τίνων
Siaßeßaιoûvтai non intelligentes nec quod dicunt nec quid asserant.
So in Greek authors are ri and 8,7 coupled in parallel clauses.
Cf. Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 248; II. 261; Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 641.).
Schleusner, Haab (S. 82 f.), and others, refer to this usage many ex-
amples which are of an entirely different nature; that is to say, in which
a. rís retains its interrogative force, and must be rendered in Latiu by quis
or quid, as Matt. vii. 9 rís čorai èέ vµŵv äv0pwños etc., quis erit inter vos
homo etc., cf. Matt. xii. 11; Luke xiv. 5; xi. 5 f.; or in which b. rus is not
an interrogative, but the indefinite aliquis, as 1 Cor. vii. 18 TEρITETµnµÉvos
Tis ékλýłŋ, µǹ Èπworáolw, was any one called that is circumcised (I suppose
the case), let him not become uncircumcised; Jas. v. 13 kakowabeî tis,
κακοπαθεί τις,
προςευχέσθω. It is inaccurately asserted that τις is used here for εἴ τις.
See appendix, § 64. In Jas. iii. 13 we must punctuate with Pott, Schott,
and others, τις σοφὸς . . . ἐν ὑμῖν ; δειξάτω etc. Likewise Acts xiii. 25 may
be read : τίνα με ὑπονοεῖτε εἶναι; οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐγώ. Still, I think the usual
acceptation of Tíva for ovτiva not to be rejected; cf. Soph. El. 1167;
Callim. epigr. 30, 2.
EL
Tís is used sometimes, when only two persons or things are spoken 153
of, for the more precise Tóτepos (which never occurs in the N. T. as an 6th ed.
adjective); as, Matt. ix. 5 τί γάρ ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον ; xxi. 31 τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο
Eπоínσe; Luke vii. 42; xxii. 27; Phil. i. 22. This occurs also in Greek
authors (Stallb. Phileb. p. 168), who do not make so nice a distinction 160
between rís and Tórepos as the Romans do between their quis and uter 7th ed
(though even as respects these last, exceptions are not wanting).
It ought not to be asserted that in phrases such as Luke xv. 26 Tí ein
Taûra, Jno. vi. 9; Acts xvii. 20, the Sing. of the interrogative is put for
the Plur. The Sing. Tí sums up the plurality into one comprehensive
whole: what (of what sort) are these things (hence also quid sibi volunt)?
On the other hand, in ríva èorí etc. (cf. Heb. v. 12) there is a definite
reference to the plurality: quae (qualia) sunt; cf. Plat. Theaet. 154 e.;
155 c. (Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. 101; Weber, Dem. 192).
The interrogative rí is sometimes placed at the end of the clause; as,
Jno. xxi. 21 oûtos dè Tí; The same occurs frequently in the orators with
πŵs; Weber, Demosth. 180 sq.
In the N. T. and the Sept. iva ri for what, wherefore, is also used as an
interrogative; as, Matt. ix. 4 iva tí vµcîs èvOrµéîode πovypá; xxvii. 46;
Luke xiii. 7, etc. The expression is elliptical (as ut quid in Latin) for:
iva rí yévηtai (after a past tense yévoɩro), sce IIm. Vig. 849; Lob. Soph. 183
22
170
THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN,
§ 25.
Aj. p. 107, and occurs not unfrequently in Greek authors, particularly the
later, Plat. apol. 26 d.; Aristoph. eccles. 718; Arrian. Epict. 1, 24 a. (cf.
Ruth i. 11, 21; Sir. xiv. 3; 1 Macc. ii. 7).
2. The indefinite pronoun Ts, Tɩ is joined to
a. Abstract nouns, in order (among other purposes) to soften
their import somewhat; as, Xen. Cyr. 9, 1, 16 TOÚTOUS ýyεîto ǹ
ἀκρατείᾳ τινὶ ἢ ἀδικίᾳ ἢ ἀμελείᾳ ἀπεῖναι — from a certain (a species
of) incontinence or injustice, etc., Plut. Coriol. 14. Hence, when
an unusual or a too bold figure of speech is used; as, Jas. i. 18
άπаруý τis quaedam (quasi) primitiae, Bttm. I. 579; Schoem.
Plutarch. Agis p. 73.
b. Numerals, when the number is to be taken approximately
only, and not precisely; as, Acts xxiii. 23 dúo Tivás some two
(about two), xix. 14, see Schaef. Demosth. III. 269; Mtth. 1080.
c. Adjectives of quality or quantity, for rhetorical emphasis; as,
Heb. x. 27 poßepá tis ékdíkŋois terribilis quaedam (Klotz on Cic.
Lael. p. 142, and Nauck in Jahın's Jahrb. Bd. 52 S. 183 f.), a
positively (or very) terrible punishment (cf. Lucian. philop. 8
φοβερόν τι θέαμα, D. S. 5, 39 επίπονός τις βίος, Aeschin. dial. 3, 17 ;
Xen. Cyr. 1, 6, 14; 6, 4, 7; Heliod. 2, 23, 99; Lucian. dial. m.
5, 1; Plutarch. Phoc. c. 13, cf. Boisson. Nicet. p. 268); hence Acts
viii. 9 µéyas tɩs some great personage (of a man Xen. Eph. 3, 2;
Athen. 4, 21, etc.). In these instances Tus is equivalent to the
emphatic a (Germ. ein: das war eine Freude, das ist ein Mann):
that was a joy (a great joy), that is a man (a clever man); cf.
Acts v. 36 Xéywv eival tiva éavтóv pretending to be somebody (of
154 importance); see Bhdy. 440; Krü. 129. To this corresponds
6th ed. quidam in Latin, and, where no substantive or adjective is to be
made prominent, aliquis; as, aliquem esse Cic. Att. 3, 15. (On
161 the other hand, Tâs Tis does not occur in the N. T. In 1 Cor. ix. 22
some would insert it, after a few authorities, instead of Távτæs
Tivás, see Boisson. Eunap. p. 127; but without necessity, and even
without critical probability. In Jno. xi. 49 els Tis unus aliquis
may have been used for emphasis.)
7th ed.
In Matt. xx. 20 the Neut. Ti aliquid may be used with emphasis for
aliquid magni (see Fr. in loc.), but probably not. On the other hand it
must be taken so in the phrase elvaí Tɩ Gal. ii. 6; vi. 3, etc. (the well-known
aliquid esse in Latin). The emphasis depends on the connection of the
passage (cf. Hm. Vig. 731), and is therefore of a rhetorical description.
In classic Greek τὶ λέγειν, τὶ πράσσειν, are especially frequent.
Note. When joined to a substantive, rès may stand either before or after
§ 26. HEBRAISMS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PRONOUNS. 171
it; as, rìs úvýp and ȧvýp ris Acts iii. 2; v. 1; x. 1. The latter order is the
more usual one in the N. T. On the other hand, it has been doubted 184
(Mtth. S. 1081) whether ris can stand at the very beginning of a propo-
sition; yet Hm. emend. rat. p. 95 makes no objection to this. In the N. T.
compare 1 Tim. v. 24 τινῶν ἀνθρώπων αἱ ἁμαρτίαι πρόδηλοί εἰσιν ... τισὶν δὲ
etc. Acts xvii. 18; xix. 31. The abbreviated forms 70v, 79 (Bttm. I. 301)
are not used in the N. T.; they have been unwarrantably introduced in
1 Cor. xv. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 6.
§ 26. HEBRAISMS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PRONOUNS.
1. Instead of ovdeis, µndels, we find sometimes in the N. T.,
according to the Hebrew idiom (Leusden, diall. p. 107; Vorst,
Hebr. p. 529 sq.; Gesen. Lg. 831), où (µǹ) ... πâs, the verb being
always connected directly with the negative; as, Matt. xxiv. 22 oùk
ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ, Rom. iii. 20 ἐξ έργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται
πάσα σάρξ, Luke i. 37 οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πᾶν ῥῆμα,
1 Cor. i. 29 öπws µǹ KAVɣÝONTAι Tâσa σúρ§, etc., cf. also Rev. xxi. 27
οὐ μὴ εἰςέλθῃ εἰς αὐτὴν πᾶν κοινόν, Acts x. 14 οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν
kolóv, Rev. ix. 4 (Judg. xiii. 4; Susan. 27).
eis
C
0
On the other hand, où Tâs (un Tâs) without an intervening
word denotes (like non omnis) not every; as, 1 Cor. xv. 39 ov
πᾶσα σὰρξ ἡ αὐτὴ σάρξ, Matt. vii. 21 οὐ πᾶς ὁ λέγων· κύριε, κύριε,
εἰςελεύσεται εἰς τὴν βασ. ... ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ποιῶν, etc. not every one that
calls me (readily) Lord, but (among such as do so) only he who
doeth the will etc.;¹ not the mere saying' Lord' fits for entering 155
the kingdom of heaven, but etc., Acts x. 41. So in the Plur. où 6th ed
Távtes non omnes Matt. xix. 11; Rom. ix. 6; x. 16.
This distinction is founded in the nature of the case: In the 162
former instance où negatives the notion of the verb (something el
negative is asserted in reference to πâs: every man ... will fail to
be justified; the predicate, will not be justified, applies to every
man, i.e. no man will be justified); 2 but in the latter case où
negatives the notion of wâs. On the whole, however, this mode 185
1 I cannot concur in Fr.'s explanation (see also Präliminar. S. 72 f.), according to
which où is here to be connected with the verb, so as to make the sense, no Lord-sayer.
The second clause ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ποιῶν by no means excludes saying Lord ; ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημα
TоÛ паTρÓS μou involves, on the contrary, the acknowledgment of Jesus as Lord.
τοῦ πατ P
2 Gesenius, as above, merely sets down this linguistic phenomenon, without troubling
himself to explain it. Ewald, on the contrary (S. 657), has at least indicated its proper
acceptation. See even Drusius, ad Gal. ii. 16, and Beza on Matt. xxiv. 22; Rom. iii. 20.
Gesenius's distinction between où нâs and µǹ πâs I have never comprehended.
172 $ 26. HEBRAISMS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PRONOUNS.
of expression is rare, and, as more expressive, appears to have
been purposely adopted in the passages in question, (which are
mostly aphoristic sayings). It is confined mostly to the rendering
of the O. T.; whereas the LXX. as translators have it fre-
quently.¹ (What Georgi, Vind. p. 317, adduces to show that this
construction is pure Greek, is wholly irrelevant. In all the pas-
sages he quotes, râs belongs to the substantive in the sense of whole,
as μηδὲ τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον, or full, complete, πᾶσα ἀνάγκη.)2
O
4
Strictly this Hebraism should be limited to the above expression
οὐ (μή) ... πᾶς ; for clauses with πᾶς ... οὐ (μή) 3 contain for
the most part nothing foreign to the classic idiom, or the reason
is obvious why the writer made choice of this particular turn of
expression. 1 Jno. ii. 21 πᾶν ψεῦδος ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστιν all
falsehood (every lie) is not of the truth any Greek might have
written. Juo. iii. 16 ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται,
ȧxx' etc. (var.) that every one believing on him may not perish, but
156 etc. In Eph. v. 5 πᾶς πόρνος ἢ ἀκάθαρτος ἢ πλεονέκτης . . . οὐκ ἔχει
6th ed. κληρονομίαν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, the apostle had perhaps
at the beginning of the sentence an affirmative predicate in mind
163 (Ezek. xliv. 9). Only in Eph. iv. 29; Rev. xviii. 22, and perhaps
Rev. xxii. 3 ovdév would have been more agreeable to a Greek ear.
186 In Matt. x. 29 (Luke xii. 6) occurs èv ẻέ autŵv ov teσêîtaɩ (vel) unum
non, ne unum quidem (contrasted with dúo: two for an assarion, and not
even one, etc.) Matt. v. 18. This construction (with a negative) occurs
7th ed.
•
1 For instance, Exod. xii. 16, 44; xx. 10; Deut. v. 14; xx. 16; Judg. xiii. 4 ; 2 Sam.
xv. 11; Ps. xxxiii. 11; cxlii. 2; Ezek. xxxi. 14 (Tob. iv. 7, 19; xii. 11). Quite as
frequently, however, they use the good Greek où ovdels (ovdév), Exod. x. 15; Deut.
viii. 9; Josh. x. 8; Prov. vi. 35 ; xii. 21; or just the simple oudeís, Josh. xxiii. 9.
2 If Schleusner means to prove from Cic. Rosc. Amer. 27 and ad famil. 2, 12 that non
omnis is equivalent to nullus, he cannot have looked at these passages.
3 That is, in the Singular; for in the Plural it is the current mode of expression in
classic Greek also. Under this head comes the passage which, to explain the above
Hebraism, Weiske, pleon. p. 58, has quoted from Plat. Phaed. 91 e. Tótepov, ěP'N, Távtas
τοὺς ἔμπροσθεν λόγους οὐκ ἀποδέχεσθε, ἢ τοὺς μέν, τοὺς δ᾽ οὔ ; do you receive not i.e.
reject — all, or dɔ you receive some and reject others? How otherwise should this (with
simplicity) have been expressed? In the Sept. cf. Num. xiv. 23; Josh. xi. 13; Ezek.
xxxi. 14; Dan. xi. 37.
4 When a writer attaches the negative to the verb at the beginning of his sentence
(où dikaiweńσetai), he has already, in advance, the subject in his mind (Tas), and might
therefore employ ovdeís. But if he begins with râs, either he has not decided whether
to use an affirmative or a negative verb, or it seems to him more suitable to make a
negative assertion in reference to every one (πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ... οὐ μὴ ἀπόληται) than an
8
affirmative in reference to no one. The statement, no believer shall perish, assumes as
it were an apprehension which the speaker means to obviate.
§ 26. HEBRAISMS IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN PRONOUNS. 173
also in Greek authors; as, Dion. II. comp. 18 (V. 122) píav oùk âv evpoi
τις σελίδα etc., antiqq. II. 980, 10 μία τε οὐ κατελείπετο (according to
Schaef.'s emendation), Plut. Gracch. 9, see Schaef. on this passage and
on Dionys. compos. p. 247; Erfurdt, Soph. Antig. p. 121. From the Hebr.
cf. Exod. x. 19; Isa. xxxiv. 16. This construction cannot be called either
a Hellenism or a Hebraism; it is everywhere designed to give greater
emphasis than resides in ovôcís¹ (properly the same in signification, but
weakened by usage).
1
• •
Luke i. 37 oùk ådvvatýσei tapà Оe❖ Tûv pôµa nothing, no thing (cf. 7
and in Greek πos), is doubtless taken from Gen. xviii. 14 of the Sept.
Matt. xv. 23 oỷk ůπekpíðŋ aʊtô λóyov is quite simple: he answered her not
a word (there is no need of eva here; just as we, too, do not emphasize the
a).² The Greeks, too, could employ the same mode of expression; and
its occurrence in 1 Kings xviii. 21 does not prove it to be a Hebraism.
2. The one, the other is expressed sometimes by eis
καὶ εἷς,
a. In antithesis, Matt. xx. 21; xxiv. 40; xxvii. 38; xvii. 4; Mark
x. 37; Jno. xx. 12; Gal. iv. 22 (but in Luke xvii. 34 ó eis... ó
éтepos, cf. xvi. 13; xviii. 10; Aesop. 119 de Fur.) (so in Heb.
Exod. xvii. 12; Lev. xii. 8; xv. 15; 1 Sam. x. 3, etc.), for
which Greek authors use eἷς μέν, εἷς δέ or εἷς μέν, ὁ δέ; see Fischer,
ad Leusden. diall. p. 35; Mtth. 742. What Georgi, Vind. p. 159 sq.,
and Schwarz, Comment. p. 421, quote as parallel to the N. T.
expression, are more properly enumerations, or calculations of a
sum total, e.g. eight, one ... one ... one etc.
חד
b. In reciprocal statements; as, 1 Thess. v. 11 oikodoµeîte eis tòV
eva, 1 Cor. iv. 6. This is rather Aramaic (Hoffmann, Gramm. Syr.
p. 330)—hence the Peschito also puts a double
for ἀλληλ.
(Matt. xxiv. 10; Jno. xiii. 35)-though not at variance with
Greek syntax, Her. 4, 50 èv πρòs ềv ovµßáλλew, Lucian. conscr.
hist. 2 ὡς οὖν ἕν, φασίν, ἑνὶ παραβαλεῖν, asin. 54. Compare also
the phrase ev ȧve' évós (Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 339; Bhdy. Dionys.
perieg. p. 853) and Kypke II. 339.
As cuneus cuneum trudit, some translate Matt. xii. 26 8 σaravâs Tòv 157
σaтavâν ékßáλλe the one Satan casts out the other; but note the Art. &... 6th ed.
TÒV. On the other hand, cf. Luke xi. 17.
The Heb. construction, a man ... to his friend or brother, is imitated by
1 Hence likewise oude eîs are conjoined, nemo quisquam, nemo unus (Matt. xxvii. 14
oùdè èv §îµa ne unum quidem, Jno. i. 3; Rom. iii. 10; 1 Cor. vi. 5) Hm. Vig. 467; Weber,
Dem. 501 (Xen. Cyr. 2, 3, 9; 4, 1, 14). In the Sept. this occurs frequently (particu-
larly for), Exod. xiv. 28; Num. xxxi. 49. Cf. besides où . . . TOTÉ 2 Pet. i. 21.
2 Nor will any discriminating student think eva necessary in the above passage
because eîs is clsewhere expressed (Matt. xxi. 24 ¿pwтhow iµâs kàyù λóyov ëva).
164
7th ed.
174
§ 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS.
187 the LXX. in Gen. xi. 3; xiii. 11; Judg. vi. 29; Ruth iii. 14; Jer. ix. 20
etc. but does not occur in the N. T.; cf. however, from Sept., Heb. viii. 11
οὐ μὴ διδάξωσιν ἕκαστος τὸν πλησίον (better πολίτην) αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν
ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ.
As to the Hebraistic circumlocution for the pronoun every by the repe-
tition of the noun, e.g. µépa kaì quépa, see § 54, 1, p. 463.
CHAPTER III.
THE NOUN.
§ 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS.
1. A Masculine noun in the Singular, with the Article, is often
used collectively to denote the whole class; as, Jas. ii. 6 τµáoαTE
TOV TTWXÓV (Plur. in 1 Cor. xi. 22), v. 6; Rom. xiv. 1; 1 Pet.
iv. 18; Matt. xii. 35. This construction is especially common with
national names; as, o 'Iovdaîos Rom. iii. 1 (so Romanus for Romani
frequently) Markland, Eurip. suppl. v. 659. The Singular in all
such cases presents the distinctive characteristic more exclusively
and more forcibly than the Plural,-designating, as the latter does,
a multitude of individuals.
ω
T
Similar to this construction is the use of the Singular to express,
in reference to a plurality, an object which belongs to each of the
individuals ; as, 1 Cor. vi. 19 ὅτι τὸ σῶμα ὑμῶν ναὸς τ. ἁγ. πνεύ
μatos (according to the best Codd.); Mark viii. 17 πeπwρwμévηv
EXETE TηV Kаρdíav (Jas. iii. 14; Luke i. 66; 2 Pet. ii. 14, etc.);
Matt. xvii. 6 πеσаν èπì πрóswπоv avтwv (Luke ii. 31; 2 Cor.
iii. 18; viii. 24) ;1 Rev. vi. 11 édóen avтoîs σTOλY λEUKŃ (Luke
xxiv. 4; Acts i. 10?); Eph. vi. 14 Teρiswσáμevoi тηv oσ fùv
ipv etc. This distributive Singular, as it may be called, is fre-
ὑμῶν
188 quent in classic Greek; as, Xen. A. 4, 7, 16 eixoν кvημîdas Kai
κράνη κ. μαχαίριον ... δόρυ etc. Cyr. 4, 3, 11; Eurip. Cycl. 225 ;
Thuc. 3, 22; 4, 4; 6, 58; Pol. 3, 49, 12; Ael. an. 5, 4; cf. Cic.
Rab. 4, 11; Sen. ep. 87. In the Sept. cf. Gen. xlviii. 12; Lev.
x. 6; Judg. xiii. 20; Lament. ii. 10; 1 Chron. xxix. 6; see also
V
1 The phrases ἀπὸ or πρὸ προςώπου αὐτῶν οι ὑμῶν, κατὰ πρ. πάντων etc. Luke ii. 31 ;
Acts vii. 45; Exod. xxxiv. 11; Deut. iii. 18; vii. 19; viii. 20, etc., I should prefer,
however, not to refer to this head, as they had already become adverbial.
§ 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS.
175
testam. patr. p. 565.1 In the N. T. the Plural is the usual con- 158
struction in this case (also Luke xxiv. 5; Acts i. 10). See in 6th ed.
general Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 264; Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 158.
The collective use of the Singular is not to be extended beyond its
natural bounds. In 1 Cor. vi. 5 διακρῖναι ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ
và
does not stand for rŷs adeλpórηtos; moreover, nothing would be gained in
this way, since ȧvà péoov between requires not a collective whole, but single
individuals (the case is different in Matt. xiii. 25). It ought to have run
ἀνὰ μέσον ἀδελφοῦ καὶ ἀδελφοῦ (Gen. xxiii. 15), or at least τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ
(see Grotius), cf. Pol. 10, 48, 1; or the construction is a concise inaccuracy.
Meyer's explanation takes for granted also an expression which is inac-
curate as it is without example.
2. Conversely, the Plural of class (masc. or fem.) is used
although the predicate refers primarily to only one individual,
when the writer wishes to keep the thought somewhat vague; as,
Matt. ii. 20 τεθνήκασιν οἱ ζητοῦντες τὴν ψυχὴν τοῦ παιδίου (Herod
the Great alone is meant, vs. 19), cf. Exod. iv. 19. See Aesch. Prom.
67; Eurip. Hec. 403; Aeschin. adv. Timarch. 21 and Bremi in loc.
Porson, Eur. Phoen. p. 36; Reisig, Conject. in Aristoph. p. 58, and
C. L. Roth, gramm. quaest. e C. Tacito. Norimb. 1829, 4to. § 1.
On the other hand, in Matt. ix. 8 ἐδόξασαν τὸν θεὸν τὸν δόντα
ἐξουσίαν τοιαύτην τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, the reference certainly is
not to Christ alone, but the expression must be taken as actually
universal, like Heb. ix. 23. In oi Ayoral Matt. xxvii. 44 a different
tradition from Luke xxiii. 39 must be recognized. Lastly, in 1 Cor.
XV. 29 vπèρ тŵν Veкρŵν cannot easily be referred to (the dead)
Christ (for then it would have been eis toùs verpoús), but (unbap-
tized) dead men are meant.
165
7th ed
The expression τὸ εἰρημένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις Acts xiii. 40 ; Jno. vi. 45
(ev ßißλú Tâν πродητŵν Acts vii. 42) is a general form of quotation, like
in Paul's Epistles, etc., employed when one does not wish, or is not able,
to indicate the passage precisely. Essentially similar is Matt. xxiv. 26 189
èv Toîs Taμeíois, opposed to ev Tŷ épýµw, cf. Liv. 1, 3 Silvius casu quodam
in silvis natus.
In Matt. xxi. 7 ἐπάνω αὐτῶν probably refers to ἱμάτια. There would,
however, be no intrinsic absurdity in referring it to the two animals, any
more than the expression ἐπιβεβηκὼς ἐπὶ ὄνον καὶ πῶλον, verse 5, is absurd.
We also say, loosely, he sprang from the horses, though only one of the
team, the saddled horse, is meant.
1 In 1 Thess. i. 7 ὥστε γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς τύπον πᾶσι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, the Singular is
used quite regularly, as Paul had in view the church as a whole. 1 Cor. x. 6, 11; 1 Pet.
v. 3 are passages of a different kind, where the Singular would be surprising.
176
§ 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS.
1
6th ed.
Quite erroneously has the Plural πToλaí in 1 Cor. xvi. 3 been taken
for the Singular (Heumann in loc.). Though this Plural may be thus
used of a single letter (Schaef. Plutarch. V. 446; Poppo, Thuc. 1, 132),
yet here the words δι᾽ ἐπιστολῶν are certainly to be joined to πέμψω ; and
the sending of several letters to different persons is in itself not at all
unlikely.
166 3. Not a few nouns which are used by us ordinarily in the
7th ed. Singular, were employed exclusively, or at least predominantly, in
159 the Plural; this is owing to the objects denoted by them having-
from a general or from a Grecian or a Biblical point of view-some
sensible or ideal manifoldness or comprehensiveness (Krü. 9f.);
as, aiŵves Heb. i. 2 world (iv), ovpavoí coeli (Schneider, lat. Gr.
II. 476) cf. 2 Cor. xii. 2, rà ayia the sanctuary Heb. viii. 2; ix. 8,
12, etc., ávaтoλai, Svoμaí (East, West) Matt. viii. 11; xxiv. 27
(Plato, def. 411 b.; epin. 990 a.; D. S. 2, 43; Dio. C. 987, 32;
Lucian. peregr. 39), τὰ δεξιά, ἀριστερά, εὐώνυμα, the right, the left
(frequently), Oúpat (fores, folding-door) Acts v. 19; Jno. xx. 19
(in Greek also Túλai, but Oúpaι is a regular Plural in Acts xvi. 26 f.;
Matt. xxiv. 33), kóλπoι bosom Luke xvi. 23 (22. Sing.) cf. Pausan.
6,1,2; Ael. 13, 31; also rà iuária of a (single) upper-garment,
Jno. xix. 23; xiii. 4; Acts xviii. 6; the names of festivals eyкaívia,
γενέσια, άζυμα (Παναθήναια, Saturnalia, Poppo, Thuc. III. IV. 20),
also yáμoi marriage Matt. xxii. 2; Luke xii. 36 (cf. Tob. xi. 20);
likewise ofóvia (Germ. Löhnung, soldier's pay) Rom. vi. 23 (Fr.
Rom. I. 428), and ȧpyúpia (pieces of money, Shekel-pieces) Matt.
xxvi. 15; xxviii. 12.
When the names of countries or cities are Plural, this is due
to their consisting (originally) of several provinces (as Galliae)
or settlements; as, ᾿Αθῆναι, Πάταρα, Φίλιπποι, probably also τὰ
Ιεροσόλυμα.1
...
Lastly, nouns denoting a feeling, disposition, or state, express
in the Plural the modes or acts in which the feeling, etc. manifests
itself, as, 1 Pet. ii. 1 ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν κακίαν . . . κ. ὑποκρίσεις
κ. φθόνους κ. πάσας καταλαλιάς, 2 Cor. xii. 20 ἔρις, ζῆλος,
θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, καταλαλιαί, ψιθυρισμοί, φυσιώσεις,
ἀκαταστασίαι, 2 Cor. xi. 23 ἐν θανάτοις πολλάκις, Eph. vi.
190 11; Gal. v. 20; 1 Pet. iv. 3; Jas. ii. 1 (2 Cor. ix. 6) Jude 13; 1 Cor.
vii. 2; Fr. Rom. III. 6; Kritz, Sallust. I. 76. So oikтipμol,
οικτιρμοί,
is more common than the Singular (only in Col. iii. 12 var.).
Here belongs also Eph. ii. 3 exμата TÊS σаρкós. See, in general,
θελήματα τῆς σαρκός.
1 Cf. Nobbe, schedae Ptolem. I. 22.
1
!
§ 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS.
177
Jacobs, Act. philol. Monac. I. 154 sq.; Schoem. Plutarch. Agis
p. 75 sq.; Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 368; Heinichen, Euseb. III. 18 sq. ;
Bldy. 62 f.
The Plural aipara Jno. i. 13 of blood as generative matter, has a direct
parallel only in Eurip. Ion. 693 in the poetic language; but it is as easily
accounted for in reference to a fluid as rà ïdara and rà yálakra Plat. legg.
10, 887 d. In Rev. xviii. 24 aipara is a real Plural, and accordingly does
not come under the above rule ; a remark true also of ai ypapai, rà iepà
ypáµµaтa, ai dianкaι Rom. ix. 4; Eph. ii. 12 (the covenants which God
in patriarchal times repeatedly renewed with Abraham, Jacob, through
Moses, cf. Wisd. xii. 21; 2 Macc. viii. 15). Similar is éπayyelíaɩ in Heb.
vii. 6. A Hebraistic Plur. majest. is not to be assumed in these words,
nor in Jno. ix. 3; 2 Cor. xii. 1, 7 or Heb. ix. 23, where the statements are 167
general. Tà cáßßara when only the weekly day of rest is meant, Matt. 7th ed.
xii. 1; Luke iv. 16, etc., is either a transfer of the Aramaean form
or framed after the analogy of names of festivals. More easily might ya
άyíwv, Heb. ix. 3, denoting the most holy place of the temple at Jerusalem,
be pronounced a Plur. excell., unless, with Erasmus and others, we prefer
the accentuation ȧyía áyíwv (cf. Seilaía Seilaíor Soph. El. 839). However, 160
though this portion of the Israelitish sanctuary is mentioned in the 6th ed.
Pentateuch under the designation τὸ ἅγιον τῶν ἁγίων (Exod. xxτί. 33;
Num. iv. 4), cf. Joseph. Antt. 3, 6, 4, yet in 1 Kings viii. 6 the holy of holies
is actually called rà äyıa tŵv åyíwv. Cf. the Latin penetralia, adyta (Vir.
Aen. 2, 297).
In reference to Phil. ii. 6 τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, where ἴσα is used adverbially,
compare the classic usage Iliad. 5, 71 ; Odyss. 1, 432; 15,520; Soph. Oed.
R. 1179; Thuc. 3, 14; Philostr. Ap. 8, 26, etc. See Reisig, Oed. Col. 526.
4. The Dual of nouns except the numeral dúo - does not
occur in the N. T., but in its stead only the Plural is used (with
Súo in Matt. iv. 18; xviii. 9; xxvi. 37; Juo. iv. 40; Acts xii. 6, etc.);
likewise in later Greek, generally, the dual-form is rare. Only in
Rev. xii. 14 τρέφεται καιρὸν καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ does the
Plural of itself denote two years; this, however, is an imitation of
the Chaldee y Dan. vii. 25 in the Greek versions, and in this
connection it may be remarked that the Chaldee regularly has no
dual (my Chald. Grammat. S. 77). Accordingly the Plural, placed
between one year and half a year, was allowably made to signify
two. In later Greek, xpóvos, xpóvoi, came more and more to
signify year, years. See also Evang. apoc. p. 60, 61; Epiphan.
Mon. 29, 28.
Bornem. supposes he has found a trace of the Dual in Acts xv. 12 in 191
the reading youμévo (v is added above the line) of one Cod. from which
33
';
178
§ 27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS.
Tdf. notes the reading έnyoúμevol, and joyously hails the discovery of this
number!
5. The Neuter, sing. or plur., is sometimes employed to denote
a person, when the writer purposely expresses himself in general
terms; as, 2 Thess. ii. 6 τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε (7 ὁ κατέχων), Heb.
vii. 7 τὸ ἔλαττον ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος εὐλογεῖται (Theodor. in loc.),
[Matt. xviii. 11], Luke i. 35; 1 Cor. i. 27, 28 và µwρà T. KÓσμοv...
κόσμου
τὰ ἀσθενῆ, τὰ ἐξουθενημένα (26 οἱ σοφοί), Juo. vi. 37 ; 1 Jno. v. 4
cf. 1; (1 Cor. xi. 5, but not Col. i. 20; Heb. vii. 19; Jno. iii. 6;
see the more recent expositors. In Rom. xi. 32 the established
reading is Tous Túvτas). Similarly, Thuc. 3, 11 тà кρáтισтA Èπì
τοὺς ὑποδεεστέρους ξυνεπήγον, Xen. A. 7, 3, 11 τὰ μὲν φεύγοντα καὶ
ἀποδιδράσκοντα ἡμεῖς ἱκανοὶ ἐσόμεθα διώκειν καὶ μαστεύειν, ἢν δέ τις
avoloτηтaι etc., Poppo, Thuc. I. 104; Seidler, Eurip. Troad. p. 61;
Kritz, Sall. II. 69.
ἐπ
168 6. The Neuter seems to be employed for the Feminine in Mark
7th ed xii. 28 ποία ἐστὶν ἐντολὴ πρώτη πάντων (for πασῶν, which is a
correction). But Távтwv has no relation to the gender of the
noun, but is equivalent to the general expression omnium (rerum);
cf. Lucian. piscat. 13 μla návrov nye åλnons piλooopia (according
to the common reading; otherwise Távтws), Thuc. 4, 52 Tás Te
ἄλλας πόλεις καὶ πάντων μάλιστα τὴν ᾿Αντανδρον, see d'Orville,
Charit. p. 549 sq.; Porson, Eur. Phoen. 121; Fr. Mr. 1. c.
161 On the other hand, we cannot say with d'Orville (p. 292 sq.)
6th ed. that in Acts ix. 37, λovoavres auτηv Oŋkav, the masc. Novo. is used.
for λovoacaι because the washing of corpses was the business of
women. The writer expresses himself in the most general terms
(Hm. Soph. Trachin. p. 39) and without reference to persons:
they washed and laid. Had Luke intended to refer to that custom
with historical precision, he would have employed more definite
language. Cf. Xen. M. 2, 7, 2 συνεληλύθασιν . . . ἀδελφαί τε καὶ
ἀδελφιδαὶ καὶ ἀνεψιαὶ τοσαῦται, ὥςτ᾽ εἶναι ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τεσσαρακαίδεκα
TOÙS ÈXEVÕéρоus the free (free persons) were fourteen, where
the Masculine is used though by the free (as it appears) females
are to be understood. Suet. Ner. 33 acceptum a quadam Locusta,
venenariorum inclita. (Luke xxii. 58, cf. Matt. xxvi. 71-the
accounts are different; see Mey.)
ευ
Neither is the Masculine used for the Feminine in the Sept. in Gen.
192 xxiii. 3 ἀνέστη ᾽Αβραὰμ ἀπὸ τοῦ νεκροῦ αὐτοῦ ... 4 θάψω τὸν νεκρόν
pov (15), though Sarah is meant; nor in the History of Susann. 61 éroínoav
αὐτοῖς ὃν τρόπον ἐπονηρεύσαντο τῷ πλησίον, though the reference is to
ον
§ 28. THE CASES IN GENERAL.
179
Susanna. In the former case we Germans also say: er begrub seinen
Todten (similarly in Soph. Antig. 830 φθιμένῳ — vulg. φθιμένα-τοῖς ἰσοθέοις
ἔγκληρα λαχεῖν μέγα), and in Greek corpse is always ὁ νεκρός, never in the
Feminine; see, further, Hm. Soph. Antig. p. 114, 176.
Note 1. In Rom. xi. 4, containing a quotation from the Old Test. (1 Kings
xix. 18), we find the Fem. Báaλ (IIos. ii. 8; Zeph. i. 4), probably with
no secondary contemptuous meaning as the feminine forms of names of
false gods are said to be used in Arabic and Rabbinic (?), see Gesen. in
Rosenm. Repertor. I. 139 and Tholuck in loc., and, on the other side, Fr.
Rom. II. 442; but Paul, quoting from memory, might easily write ǹ Búaλ
as he had occasionally found it in the Sept. (yet at present the Codd. vary),
though in this very passage the Sept. has rộ Báal. Rückert in loc. is in
perplexity as often elsewhere. After all, it was matter of indifference
whether the male or the female Baal was mentioned. Theile tries to
explain by the usage of the Sept. μoxadídes in the general address in Jas.
iv. 4; but see, on the other hand, de Wette. The omission of the words
μoiyoi kaì has no decisive external authority in its favor; and it would be
carrying deference to the (other) principal Codd. too far, to refuse to
admit errors of transcription even when similar words come together.
Note 2. A noun of any gender, taken merely as a word, is joined, of
course, to the Neuter Art.; as, Gal. iv. 25 Tò "Ayap, the (word) Hagar. 169
On the other hand, the Fem. should seem to be used for the Neut. in 7th ed.
ovaí Rev. ix. 12; xi. 14; probably, however, some such word as Oλîvis or
Taλaiπwρía floated before the mind of the writer.
кат
Note 3. On the adverbial use of a Fem. Adjective, as idía, kar' idíar, etc.,
see § 54, 1, p. 463.
§ 28. THE CASES IN GENERAL.
162
6th ed.
1. Foreigners found no difficulty in comprehending in the gen-
eral the respective import of the Greek cases (Hm. de emend. rat.
I. 137 sqq.; Bhdy. S. 74 ff.).¹ And even the Jews were able to
express in their language plainly enough the common relations 193
of case, although without the aid of terminations; the mode of
denoting the Genitive in particular, approximated in Aramaic to
that of the Occidental tongues. It remained, however, a matter
of more difficulty to learn to catch the impressions made upon a
Greek by the oblique cases in all their manifold and sometimes
far-extended applications. Such a use of cases, moreover, did not
1 A monograph on this subject is, J. A. Hartung, über die Casus, ihre Bildung und
Bedeut. in der griech. u. lat. Sprache. Erlang. 1831, 8vo. (Rumpel, üb. die Casuslchre
in Beziehung auf die griech. Sprache. Halle 1845, 8vo.)
180
§ 28. THE CASES IN GENERAL.
accord with the graphic and explicit phraseology of Orientals;
and we find, accordingly, that in the N. T., agreeably to the
Eastern idiom and sometimes in direct imitation of it, preposi-
tions are frequently employed where in classic Greek the simple
cases would have sufficed even in prose; for instance, didúvai èk,
ἐσθίειν ἀπό, μετέχειν ἐκ for διδόναι, ἐσθίειν, μετέχειν τινός (cf. § 30),
πολεμεῖν μετά τινος for τινί, κατηγορεῖν and ἐγκαλεῖν κατά τινος
(Luke xxiii. 14; Rom. viii. 33) for Twí, eyeipei Tivà eis Baoiλéa
Acts xiii. 22 (§ 32), βασιλεύειν ἐπί τινι οι τινά (3 ) for τινός,
à¤ŵos àπó т. for the Genitive alone (Krebs, obs. e Josepho p. 73 sq.).
[Hither may be referred also without hesitation μυεῖσθαι ἐν τ.
Phil. iv. 12 for Tví; see Wiesinger in loc.] From the Sept. cf.
φείδεσθαι ἐπί τινι οι τινος or ὑπέρ τινος (
1
9).
This use of prepositions with cases instead of cases alone, is, however,
in general characteristic of (antique) simplicity, and occurs therefore in
Greek, not only in the earlier poets, as Homer, but in prose writers also, as
170 Lucian; see Jacob, quaest. Lucian. p. 11 sq. IIence even from good writers
7th ed. many instances of the kind may be quoted, such as tαúei àñó, cf. Mtth. 833.
2. No case is ever in reality put for another (enallage casuum).
Sometimes, however, two cases can be used with equal correct-
ness in one and the same connection when the relation to be
expressed may be viewed in two different ways; for example
Ασσύριος τῷ γένει and τὸ γένος, προςκυνεῖν τινι to show reverence
to one, and προςκυνεῖν τινα to revere one, καλώς ποιεῖν τινα and τινι
(Thilo, Act. Thom. 38), evoxós Tivi and Tivos (Fr. Mt. p. 223),²
ὅμοιός τινος and τινι, πληροῦσθαί τινος (made full of something)
and τινι (filled with something). Also μιμνήσκεσθαί τι and τινος
(like recordari rei and rem); in the former case (with the Acc.)
163 I conceive of the remembering as directed (transitively) to the
6th ed object; with the Gen. (meminisse rei) the remembrance is con-
ceived of as emanating or coming from the object. It cannot be
said, therefore, that in any instance the Dat. or Acc. is put for
the Gen., or vice versa; but both cases, logically, are alike correct,
and it only remains to notice which construction has become the
more usual, or whether one of them belongs especially to the later
194 language or to any particular writer (as evayyeλiteobal Tiva,
προςκυνεῖν τινι).
1 As the Byzantines sometimes say: ἀγανακτεῖν οι ὀργίζεσθαι κατά τινος, or Dio
Chr. 38, 470 ὀργίζεσθαι πρός τινα.
2 The distinction which Schuef. Demosth. V. 323, lays down between these two con-
structions is not confirmed by the N. T. Cf. besides, Mtth. 850.
§ 29. NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE.
181
Perhaps the most absurd instance of enallage casuum that could be
alleged, would be 2 Cor. vi. 4 συνιστῶντες ἑαυτοὺς ὡς θεοῦ διάκονοι for
Siakóvous. Both expressions, indeed, can be used, but in different significa-
tions. I commend myself as instructor (Nom.) means: in the office of an
instructor which I have undertaken; but I commend myself as an instructor
(Acc.) means: as one who wishes or is able to be an instructor.
3. Every case, as such, stands in a necessary connection, ac-
cording to its nature, with the structure of the sentence in which
it occurs. This connection is most direct as regards the Nom. and
Acc., the former as the case of the subject, the latter as that of
the object; - for secondary relations, the Gen. and Dat. There
are also, however, casus absoluti i.e. cases which are not wrought
into the grammatical structure of the sentence, cases which are
grammatically isolated, and have only a logical connection with
the sentence. Nominatives absolute are the most frequent and
the most distinctly marked (Bengel on Matt. xii. 36). Real Ac-
cusatives absolute are more rare (§ 63. I. 2 d.), cf. Fr. Rom. III.
11 sq., for what is called an Accusative absolute is often dependent,
though loosely, on the construction of the sentence. As to Geni-
tives and Datives absolute, the import of these cases proves them
to be regular component parts of the sentence. See, in general,
A. de Wannowski, syntaxeos anomalae graecae pars de construc-
tione, quae dicitur, absoluta, etc. Lips. 1835, 8vo.; F. W. Hoffmann, 171
observata et monita de casibus absol. ap. Graecos et Lat. ita positis 7th ed.
ut videantur non posse locum habere. Budiss. 1836, 4to. (it treats
only of the Gen. and Dat. absolute); J. Geisler, de graecor. nom-
inativis absol. Vratisl. 1845, 8vo., and E. Wentzel, de genitivis et
dat. absol. Vratisl. 1828, 8vo. But the whole subject of the Nom-
inative absolute comes under the head of Structure of Sentences.
§ 29. NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE.
1. A noun considered simply and solely in itself is represented
by the Nominative; and is either subject or predicate in a sentence,
according to the latter's structure; as, Juo. i. 1 év áρxô ηv ó λóyos,
Eph. ii. 14 αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν.
Sometimes, however, a Nominative, without being wrought into 164
the structure of the sentence to which it belongs, is either placed 6th ed.
at its head as a sort of title or topic (Nom. absol.), or inserted as 195
a term of designation (Nom. tituli) as if it were an indeclinable
182
§ 29. NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE.
v
word: a. Acts vii. 40 ὁ Μωϋσῆς οὗτος ... οὐκ οἴδαμεν τί γέγονεν
αὐτῷ, see § 28, 3. b. Jno. xviii. 10 ἣν ὄνομα τῷ δούλῳ Μάλχος,
Rev. vi. 8; viii. 11; xix. 13 (Demosth. Macart. 669 b.), Luke xix.
29 πρὸς τὸ ὄρος τὸ καλούμενον Ελαιών. Cf. 1 Sam. ix. 9 τὸν
προφήτην ἐκάλει ὁ λαὸς ἔμπροσθεν ὁ βλέπων, Malal. 18, 482;
10, 247 see Lob. Phryn. 517.2 But Acts i. 12 áтò őρоνs тоû каλov-
μένου Ελαιώνος.
C
Usually, however, names, where an oblique case is necessary, take that
case, and so are construed as part of the sentence (and óvóμarı merely in-
terposed); as, Acts xxvii. 1 ἑκατοντάρχῃ ὀνόματι Ιουλίῳ, ix. 11, 12 άνδρα
'Avavíuv óvóμari eiseλóvтa (xviii. 2; Matt. xxvii. 32; Luke v. 27), xviii.
7 οἰκία τινὸς ὀνόματι Ιούστου, also Matt. i. 21, 25 καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ
'Inσovv, Luke i. 13 (as an apposition to ovopa), even Mark iii. 16 èπéОNKEV
ὄνομα τῷ Σίμων Πέτρον. (Different modes of expression are combined in
Plut. Coriol. 11.)
172 In Rev. i. 4 the Nom. 8 v K. ¿
7th ed. is designedly used as indeclinable.
O
v k. d épxóμevos (in the Immutable)
See § 10. p. 68.
2. Coincident with a. above is the use of the Nom. (with the
Article) in addressing, particularly in calling or commanding;
consequently, instead of the Vocative, which was intended for this
purpose (Fischer-Weller III. 1. 319 sq.; Markland, Eurip. Iph. Aul.
446). This use of the Nom. sometimes occurs, also, in the N. T.,
as Matt. xi. 26 ναι, ὁ πατὴρ (ἐξομολογοῦμαι σοι 25), ὅτι οὕτως
¿yéveto, Heb.i.8; x.7 (in the Sept. cf. Ps. xlii. 2; xxii. 2), especially
in the Imperat., as Luke viii. 54 ǹ πaîs eyeɩpe, Matt. xxvii. 29 xaîpe
å Baσiλeùs T. 'Iovd. Jno. xix. 3; Mark v. 41; ix. 25; Eph. vi. 1;
Col. iii. 18; Rev. vi. 10. This form of expression may have origi-
nally possessed some degree of roughness or harshness (Bhdy. 67),
and retains it even in Greek prose. Afterwards, however, it was
employed without special emphasis, and also in the kindest ad-
¹ In all earlier editions (including that of Lehm.) we find λay. I am not prepared,
with Fr., to pronounce this accent positively wrong. Luke, intending his Gospel for
foreign readers, in mentioning for the first time the Mount of Olives, well enough known
in Palestine, might naturally say, the so-called Mount of Olives, as in Acts i. 12. But
the expression πρὸς τὸ ὄρος τὸ λεγόμενον ἐλαιῶν would have to be resolved into το λεγό-
μενον ὄρος ἐλαιῶν ad mortem qui dicitur olivarum; and the Article before i would be by
no means necessary. Perhaps even the Syriac translator read 'Exaιóv; he renders the
above as he does Acts i. 12 : [A] AD? }; 150% but opos Tŵv ¿λ. Matt.
xxi. 1, simply ? a xxiv. 3 etc.
2 We find even τὴν ἀνθρωποτόκος φωνήν Theodoret. IV. 1304, τὴν θεός προς-
nyoplav III. 241; IV. 454, where the Romans (a circumstance which modern writers of
Latin generally overlook) always employ the Genitive.
§ 29. NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE.
183
·
dresses, as in Luke xii. 32 μὴ φοβοῦ, τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον, viii. 54
(Bar. 4, 5), even in prayers, as in Luke xviii. 11; Heb. x. 7.
On the other hand, Jno. xx. 28, though directed to Jesus (eiπev 196
auro), is rather exclamation than address; and, in the Greek
authors, such a Nom. has carly and strong prominence (Blidy. as
above, Krü. 12). So also Luke xii. 20 (according to the reading 165
äppwv, and 1 Cor. xv. 36, where appov has little authority in its 6th ed.
favor), likewise Phil. iii. 18, 19 πολλοὶ γὰρ περιπατοῦσιν, οὓς πολ-
λάκις ἔλεγον ... τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῦ Χρ., ὧν τὸ τέλος
ἀπώλεια ... οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες, perhaps also Mark
xii. 38-40 βλέπετε ἀπὸ τῶν γραμματέων, τῶν θελόντων ... καὶ
ἀσπασμούς . . . καὶ πρωτοκαθεδρίας οἱ κατεσθίοντες τὰς
οἰκίας ... οὗτοι λήψονται περισσότερον κρίμα (Jet here
the words οἱ κατεσθ. may also be joined with οὗτοι λήψονται).
Vocative and Nominative are united in Rev. xviii. 20.
3. In the N. T., however, the Vocative, with or more frequently
without &, is far more common than the Nom. in addresses. We
find only in addresses, Acts i. 1; xxvii. 21; xviii. 14; 1 Tim.
vi. 11, mostly of adjuration and censure (Lob. Soph. Aj. 451 sq.,
see Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 4), Rom. ii. 1, 3; ix. 20; 1 Tim. vi. 20;
Jas. ii. 20; Gal. iii. 1, or in exclamations, as Luke xxiv. 25; Acts
xiii. 10. On the other hand, in mere accosting or calling the
Vocative without & is employed, as Luke xiii. 12; xxii. 57; xxiii.
28; Matt. ix. 22; Jno. iv. 21; xix. 26; Acts xiii. 15; xxvii. 25.
Even at the beginning. of a speech, where & is regularly prefixed
by the Greeks, we find in the N. T. for the most part the Vocative
alone: Acts i. 16; ii. 14; iii. 12; xiii. 16; xv. 13 (see, however,
Franke, Demosth. p. 193).2
An adjective belonging to a Vocative is put in the Voc. also; as, Jas. 173
ii. 20 ☎ ävОрwжE Kevé, Matt. xviii. 32; Juo. xvii. 11 (but cf. Jacobs, Achill. 7th ed
av
Tat. p. 466); on apposition with the Vocative, however, see § 59, 8.
Note. Some have erroneously attributed to the language of the N. T.
a Hebraistic circumlocution for the Nominative,
a. by means of the Acc. with eis, in the phrases εἶναι oι γίνεσθαι εἴς τι,
(Leusden, diall. p. 132). By far the greater number of the passages ad-
duced are quotations from the Old Test. or expressions taken from it that
have become standing phrases (Matt. xix. 5; 1 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. v. 31:
1 Hm. praef. ad Eur. Androm. p. 15 sq. says, mihi quidem ubique nominativus, quem
pro vocativo positum volunt, non vocantis sed declarantis esse videtur: o tu, qui es
talis. This applies to some of the above passages but not to all, and ought probably
to be asserted primarily only of the poets.
2 On & before the Vocative, see, in general, Doberenz, Progr. Hildburgh. 1844, 4to.
184
§ 30. GENITIVE.
Heb. viii. 10, etc.). Besides, it was overlooked that the expression
197 yíveolai eis Ti fieri i.e. abire (mutari) in aliq. (Acts v. 36; Juo. xvi. 20;
Rev. viii. 11) may be used in Greek (Georgi, Vind. 337; Schwarz, Com-.
ment. 285), and is used, by the later authors at least, even in reference to
persons (Geo. Pachymer. I. 345 eis ovµµáxovs avтoîs yívovra); further, it was
not considered that in the Hebrew expression equivalent to eva eis T, the
does not properly express the Nom. but corresponds to our (turn or serve)
to or for something, (Heb. viii. 10; 1 Cor. xiv. 22, cf. Wisd. ii. 14; Acta
apocr. 169). In 1 Cor. iv. 3 éμoì eis éλáxiotóv éoтw signifies, to me (for me)
it belongs to what is of least importance, most insignificant (I rank it as
such). Eis ovdèv doyiσ0ĥvai Acts xix. 27 is similar: to be accounted as
166 nothing (Wisd. ix. 6).¹ In Luke ii. 34 keîraɩ eis пŵσw the preposition
6th ed. indicates in like manner the destination, and does not conflict with Greek
analogy, see Phil. i. 17 (16); 1 Thess. iii. 3, cf. Aesop. 24, 2 eis peíšová
σ péλecav éσopat, and the Latin auxilio esse (Zumpt, Gr. S. 549).
ὠφέλειαν ἐσομαι
See, further, § 32. 4. b. p. 228.
σου
b. by means of ev as an imitation of the Hebrew Beth essentiae (Gesen.
Lgb. 838; Knobel on Isa. xxviii. 16), in the passages Mark v. 25 yvvý tis
οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἷματος, Rev. i. 10 ἐγενόμην ἐν πνεύματι ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ
(Glass. I. 31), Eph. v. 9 å καpròs тoû pwτòs év táon άyalwoúvy (Hartmann,
linguist. Einl. 384), and Jno. ix. 30 év Toúty favμaoтóv čori (Schleusner,
under év). But, in the first passage, eiva èv p. is to be in the state of, etc.
In the second, yíveodai év tveúpati ev is to be present anywhere in spirit.
In the third, eivau év is equivalent to contineri, positum esse in (see the
expositors). The last passage may be aptly rendered: herein is a marvel-
lous thing. Gesenius too has attributed this Hebraistic construction to
Greek and Latin writers unwarrantably; for eîvai èv σopoîs, in magnis
viris (habendum) esse, assuredly contains nothing anomalous, but is quite
a natural combination, and is to be rendered, belong to the number of. 'Ev
and in would be equivalent to a Beth essentiae only in case the expression
were: èv σopą, in sapienti viro, for oopós, sapiens. But no reasonable
man can talk so, and in a word the Hebraistic Beth essentiae construction
174 is a pure figment of empirical grammarians; see my edition of Simonist
7th ed. p. 109, and Fr. Mr. p. 291 sq. The other examples adduced by Haab
(S. 337 f.) are so manifestly inadmissible that we will not tarry a moment
upon them.
198
§ 30. GENITIVE.
2
(the
1. The Genitive is acknowledged to be the whence-case
case denoting source, departure, or descent; cf. Hartung, Casus
1 Quite different the expression χρήματα εἰς ἀργύριον λογίζεσθαι Xen. C. 3, 1, 33.
T
2 With the entirely misunderstood, Exod. xxxii. 22, compare Ael. 10, 11
ἀποθανεῖν ἐν καλῷ ἐστιν. Should this too be taken for καλόν ἐστιν ?
§ 30. GENITIVE.
185
S. 12), and is most clearly recognized as such in connection with
words expressive of action, and accordingly, with verbs. Its most
common and most familiar appearance in prose, however, is in
connecting two substantives; here, through its gradually extended
signification, it denotes every sort of dependence or belonging ; 1
e.g. ο κύριος τοῦ κόσμου, Ιούδας Ιακώβου.
We shall consider first this use of the Genitive (in connection
with which even a Pronoun or the Article cf. § 18, 3 may hold the
place of the governing word). And since even this comprehends, 167
in plain prose alone, a great diversity of significations (Schaef. 6th ed
Eurip. Or. 48) exclusive of the common instances, to which
belong particularly the Gen. of quality, Rom. xv. 5, 13 etc., and
the partitive Genitive, Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 15,- we notice,
a. The Genitive of the Object after substantives which denote
an internal or an external operation-a feeling, judgment, action
(Krü. 30 f.); as, Matt. xiii. 18 параßоìn тоÛ σπεíроντоs paralle
of i.e. concerning the sower, 1 Cor. i. 6 μapтúpiοv тоû Xpicтоû tes-
timony concerning Christ (ii. 1 cf. xv. 15), viii. 7 ½ ovveídnois TOÛ
εἰδώλου consciousness about the idol, i. 18 ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ,
Matt. xxiv. 6 ảkoaì πoλéµwv rumors of wars (concerning wars), cf.
Mtth. 814; Acts iv. 9 eveрyecía àvОρúñоν towards (conferred on)
a man (Thuc. 1, 129; 7, 57; Plat. legg. 8, 850 b.), Jno. vii. 13;
xx. 19 þóẞos 'Iovdaiwv fear in reference to the Jews (Eurip. Andr.
1059), xvii. 2 égovσía πúons σаρkós power over (Matt. x. 1; 1 Cor.
ix. 12), 2 Pet. ii. 13, 15 µclòs àdixias wages for unrighteousness,
Rom. x. 2λos coû zeal for God (Jno. ii. 17; 1 Macc. ii. 58;
otherwise 2 Cor. xi. 2), Heb. ix. 15 åttoλútpwois tŵv пapaßúσewV
redemption from (Plato, rep. 1. 329 c.). Compare likewise Matt.
xiv. 1 (Joseph. antt. 8, 6, 5) Luke vi. 12 (Eurip. Troad. 895) Eph.
ii. 20; Rom. xv. 8; 2 Pet. i. 9; Jas. ii. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 15; Heb. x.
24. For examples from Greek authors, see Markland, Eur. suppl. 199
838; d'Orville, Char. p. 498; Schaef. Soph. II. 201; Stallb. Plat.
rep. II. 201, and Apol. p. 29; Poppo, III. I. 521.
The following phrases are of frequent recurrence in the N. T.: 175
аɣáжη тоû Оεоû оr Xpioтoû love to God, to Christ, Jno. v. 42; 1 Jno. 7th ed.
ii. 5, 15; iii. 17; 2 Thess. iii. 5 (but not Rom. v. 5; viii. 35; 2 Cor.
v. 14; Eph. iii. 19), póßos Oeoû or Kuρíov Acts ix. 31; Rom. iii. 18;
'If the Genitive is viewed not so much as respects its origin as abstractly, its nature
may be defined as follows (17m. Opusc. I. 175 and Vig. p. 877): Genitivi proprium est
id indicare, cujus quid aliquo quocumque modo accidens est. Cf. de emendanda rat.
p. 139. Similarly Mdv. 49. See, moreover, Schneider on Caesar, Bell. Gall. 1, 21, 2.
24
186
§ 30. GENITIVE.
2 Cor. v. 11 ; vii. 1; Eph. v. 21, πίστις τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ οι Ἰησοῦ
Mark xi. 22; Rom. iii. 22; Gal. ii. 16; iii. 22; Eph. iii. 12; Phil.
iii. 9; Jas. ii. 1; Rev. xiv. 12 (TiOτis åλnocías 2 Thess. ii. 13),
ÚπTAKOỲ TоÛ XρIoToû or T. TίOTEws etc. 2 Cor. x. 5; Rom. i. 5; xvi.
26; 1 Pet. i. 22 (2 Cor. ix. 13). But Sikalooúvn Oeoû, in the doc-
trinal phraseology of Paul (Rom. i. 17; iii. 21 f; x. 3 etc.) is,
agreeably to his teaching concerning θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν (cf. iii. 30;
iv. 5), — righteousness which God bestows (on man), and, the
meaning once fixed, δικαιοσ. θεοῦ might be predicated even of
believers themselves, 2 Cor. v. 21. Others, with Luther, understand.
the expression thus: the righteousness that avails before God
(quae deo satisfacit, Fr. Rom. I. 47), Sık. Taρà τ le. The pos-
sibility of this explanation lies in Sikatos Taρà Tô e Rom. ii. 13
antithetic to δικαιοῦσθαι, and still more immediately in δικαιούσθαι
παρὰ τῷ θεῷ Gal. iii. 11, or ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ Rom. iii. 20. Both
expressions would be appropriate according to the nature of the
δικαιούσθαι in question. But the interpretation δικαιοῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸν
ävОρwπov is the more rigorous, and in Rom. x. 3 a better antithesis
is gained if duc. Oeoû denotes righteousness which God imparts.
Compare also Phil. iii. 9 ἡ ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνη.
168 It is obvious from the preceding considerations that the decision between
6th ed. the Subjective and the Objective Genitive rests in many passages not with
the grammarian but with the exegete, and the latter in making it must
give careful attention to parallel passages also.
200
In Phil. iv. 7 eipývŋ beoû can only mean the peace (of soul) that God
gives, according to the custom of the apostles to wish their readers cipývyv
ảπò fcoû; and this parallelism is more decisive here than Rom. v. 1 eipývŋv
εἰρήνην
ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (according to which peace with God must be the
translation). Likewise in Col. iii. 15 eipývn Xploroû I take the Genitive
to be Subjective, cf. Jno. xiv. 27. That dikawooúvn Tíoτews (a single notion:
δικαιοσύνη πίστεως
faith-righteousness), Rom. iv. 13, signifies righteousness which faith brings
with it, is manifest from the more frequent expression ἡ δικ. ἡ ἐκ πίστεως
Rom. ix. 30; x. 6. In Eph. iv. 18 årλотpuμévo TŶs (wns Toù eoù is
God's-life; the life of Christian believers is so called as being a life com-
municated, inwardly excited, by God.
Whether the Genitive in the phrase εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ is to be
taken as Subjective (the Gospel made known by Christ), or Objective
(the Gospel concerning Christ), may be doubted. For my part I prefer
the latter, because in some passages we find the entire expression evayyédɩov
TOU BEOû TEρì TOû vioù auroû (e.g. Rom. i.3), of which the other is probably
but an abridgment; cf. also εὐαγγέλιον τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ Acts xx. 24,
and εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ Matt. iv. 23 ; ix. 35. Mey. (on
§ 30. GENITIVE.
187
Mark i. 1) declares himself now for one view, now for the other. Likewise
in Col. ii. 18 expositors are not agreed whether in Opŋokeía ¿yyéλov the 176
Gen. is to be taken as Subjective or as Objective; the latter is preferable: 7th ed
worship paid to angels, angel-worship; cf. Euseb. II. E. 6, 41 Opnokeía tŵv
δαιμόνων (var.), Philo II. 259 θρ. θεῶν ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ λατρεία Plat. Apol. 23 c.).
In 1 Tim. iv. 1 Sapovíov is undoubtedly a Subjective Genitive. But in
Baπtioμôv didaxŵs, Heb. vi. 2, if the latter be considered as the principal
noun (see below, 3. note 4), ẞanтiop. can only denote the object of the
Sidaɣý. In Rom. viii. 23 åπoλútpwσis toû σúparos, according to Paul's
teaching, appears rather to signify liberation of the body (from that dovλeía
Tŷs plupâs 21) than liberation from the body. Likewise in Heb. i. 3; 2 Pet.
i. 9 kalapioµòs tŵv åµapríŵv might mean purification of sins (removal of
sins, cf. Deut. xix. 13), just as one may say kabapíšovтai ai ópapríai (cf.
kalaíρew aiμa to remove by purification, Iliad 16, 667); but it is simpler
to take τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν as an Objective Genitive. In Rom. i. 7 ὑπομονὴ
pyov ȧyatov, 1 Thess. i. 3 vroμovỳ tŷs éλπídos, is simply: steadfastness of
well-doing, steadfastness of hope. Jas. ii. 4 is probably an indignant ques-
tion: would ye not in this become judges of evil thoughts (your own)?
2. But the Genitive is likewise employed, b. to denote relations
of dependence still more remote (cf. Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 108
sq.; Stallb. Plat. Tim. p. 241 sq.; Bhdy. 160 ff.). In this way, by
a kind of condensed expression, compound designations are formed
which must be resolved variously, according to the relation of the
ideas composing them. We distinguish,
a. The Genitive which expresses relations entirely external (of 169
place or of time); as, Matt. x. 5 ódòs élvŵv the way to the gentiles 6th ed
(Heb. ix. 8 cf. Gen. iii. 24. ở ô os Too girou Tậs Kas; Jer. ii. 18 ;
Judith v. 14) ¹, Jno. x. 7 Oúpa τŵν πроßáτшv dооr to the sheep (Mey.),
Matt. i. 11, 12 µeтoikeσía Вaßvλŵvos the carrying away to Babylon
(Orph. 200 π Tλóov Ağeivoio ad expeditionem in Axinum, 144
VÓσTOS Oľkolo domum reditus, Eurip. Iph. T. 1066 cf. Schaef. Melet.
p. 90; Seidler, Eurip. Electr. 161; Spohn, Isocr. Paneg. p. 2; Bttm.
Soph. Philoct. p. 67),2 Jno. vii. 35 ½ diaσπoρà Tŵv 'Exλývwv the
dispersion (the dispersed) among the Greeks, Mark viii. 27 kwµaι
Καισαρείας τῆς Φιλίππου towns about Caesarea Ph, situated on its
territory (Isa. xvii. 2), Col. i. 20 aîμa тоû σтauρoû blood of the 201
3
1 But Matt. iv. 15 dồds Oaλáoons undoubtedly way by the sea (of Tiberias).
2 Vice versa Plat. Αpol. 40 c. μετοίκησις τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦ τόπου τοῦ ἐνθένδε (away
from this place).
8 This finally comes back to the common topographical (Krü. 27) Genitive, as Jno.
ii. 1 Κανᾶ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, Acts xxii. 3 Ταρσὸς τῆς Κιλικίας, xiii. 13 f. ; xxvii. 5 ; Luko
iv. 26; cf. Xen. H. 1, 2, 12; D. S. 16, 92; 17, 63; Diog. L. 8, 3; Arrian. Al. 2, 4, 1, sce
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 151; Ramshorn, lat. Gr. I. 167 —and this is simply the Genitive
of belonging.
188
§. 30. GENITIVE.
α
cross i.e. blood shed on the cross, 1 Pet. i. 2 pavтioµòs aïμATOS
sprinkling (purifying) with blood, 2 Cor. xi. 26 kívồνvoi тотаµŵv
177 dangers on rivers (followed immediately by kívd. èv Tóλei, év Oα-
ith ed. λάσση etc.), cf. Heliod. 2, 4, 65 κίνδυνοι θαλασσών.
Designations of time: Rom. ii. 5 (Zeph. ii. 2) ηµépa ópyŷs day
of wrath, that is, day on which the punitive wrath of God will be
manifested, Jude 6 kρíois μeyáλns ýµépas judgment (at) on the
great day, Luke ii. 44 odòs uépas a day's journey (distance trav-
elled in a day, cf. Her. 4, 101; Ptol. 1, 11, 4), Heb. vi. 1 ó Tŷs
ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγος primary Christian instruction. So also
τεκμήρια ἡμερῶν τεσσαράκοντα Acts i. 3 according to D.1
An external (local) relation also is expressed in åλáßaσтρоV
μύρου Mark xiv. 3 aud κεράμιον ὕδατος verse 13, cf. 1 Sam. x. 3
ἀγγεῖα ἄρτων, ἀσκὸς οἴνου, Soph. Εl. 758 χαλκὸς σποδοῦ (see Schaef.
Longi Pastor. p. 386), Dion. H. IV. 2028 ảoþáλtov kaì tíoons
ȧyyeia, Theoph. Ch. 17; Diog. L. 6, 9; 7, 3; Lucian. asin. 37;
fugit. 31; Diod. S. Vatic. 32, 1. Under this head also comes Jno.
xxi. 8 τὸ δίκτυον τῶν ἰχθύων (11 μεστόν ἰχθύων), even ἀγέλη χοίρων
Matt. viii. 30 and Ekaтòv Báтoi èλalov Luke xvi. 6. See on this
Genitive of contents, Krü. 32.
᾿Ανάστασις νεκρῶν is nowhere in the N. Τ. equivalent to ἀνάστασις ἐκ
Veкpŵν, but denotes even in Rom. i. 4 the resurrection of the dead, absolutely
and generically, although consummated only in a single individual. The
doctrinal remarks of Philippi on this expression are mere trifling.
B. The more remote internal relations are especially expressed
by the Genitive in the writings of John and Paul; as, Jno. v. 29
170 ȧváσTαois Cwns, kρioews, resurrection to life, resurrection to judg
6th ed ment (Genitive of destination, Theodor. IV. 1140 iepwovvns xeipo-
Tovía to the priesthood, cf. Rom. viii. 36 Sept. πрóßата σpayîs),
Rom. v. 18 Sikalwois (wîs justification to life, Mark i. 4 ẞáπTIOμа
μετανοίας baptism engaging to repentance, Rom. vii. 2 νόμος τοῦ
ȧvdpós law of the husband, i.e. which lays down the relation to the
husband (cf. Dem. Mid. 390 a. o Tês Bλáßns vóμos the law of damage,
frequently in the Sept. as in Lev. xiv. 2 ó vóµos toû λeπρoû, vii. 1;
202 xv. 32; Num. vi. 13, 21, see Fr. Rom. II. 9), vi. 6 oŵµa тîs ȧµaprías
body of sin, i.e body which belongs to sin, in which sin has tenancy
and lordship (in which sin is carried into effect), very like σôμa
TŶs σaρkós Col. i. 22 body in which carnality permanently dwells;
1 Others, with less probability, take Яμeрŵr тeσσap. by itself: during forty days (Jacobs,
Achill. Tat. p. 640 sq.); yet see below, No. 11, p. 207.
:
§ 30. GENITIVE.
189
Rom. vii. 24 σôµа тоû Pavúтον ToÚTOV body of this death, i.e. which
(in the way described vs. 7 sqq.) leads to death, vss. 5, 10, and 13.
See, further, Tit. iii. 5.
In Luke xi. 29 rò onpéîov 'Iovâ is simply the sign once exhibited in Jonah
(now to be repeated in the person of Christ). In the same way must
Jude 11 be explained; but in Jno. xix. 14 napaσкevỳ тоû пáσxаa does not
mean the day of preparation for the Passover, but simply and naturally 178
the resting-day of the Passover (the day of rest belonging to the Paschal 7th ed
festival). In IIeb. iii. 13 árárη rês ȧpoprías is the Subjective Genitive,
and dµapría is to be taken as a personification (Rom. vii. 11 etc.). Yet
in 2 Thess. ii. 10 árárn rns ádikías is, deceit leading to unrighteousness. On
Eph. iv. 18 see Mey., and on Jas. i. 17 de Wette. Further, in Eph. iii. 1;
2 Tim. i. 8, Philem. 1, 9 dépos Xpioтoû a prisoner of Christ means one
whom Christ (the cause of Christ) has made and keeps a prisoner,' cf.
Wisd. xvii. 2; in Jas. ii. 5 oi #TWуоì тоû кóσμov (if the reading is correct)
the poor of the world signifies, they who in their position in the world are
poor, poor therefore in worldly goods (though κóoμos itself does not on
this account mean worldly goods). In Jno. vi. 45 didaktoì toû beoû in-
structed of God, that is by God, as in Matt. xxv. 34 oi etλoynuévоL тоû TαтρÓS
means blessed by the Father. In Eph. vi. 4, 11, 13 kupiov and coû are
genitivi auctoris, as also tôv ypaþŵv Rom. xv. 4. Likewise Phil. i. 8 év
σλáуXνois XрOTOù 'I. is to be taken as the Subjective Genitive, though
the more precise interpretation may be various. Cf. also Eph. vi. 4 and 171
Mey. Lastly, the correct interpretation of 1 Pet. iii. 21 does not depend 6th ed
so much on the Genitive συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς as on the meaning of επερώτημα;
sponsio would accord perfectly with the context, but this rendering has
not been lexically established either by de Wette or Huther. Ou Heb.
ix. 11 see Bleek. In 1 Cor. i. 27 тоû Kóσμov is the Subjective Genitive;
see Meyer. In 1 Cor. x. 16 Tò TотýρLOV Tηs Evλoyías means simply the cup
of blessing, that is, over which the blessing is uttered; and in 21 TоT. KUрíov 203
means cup of the Lord, where the closer relation of the Genitive is to be
gathered from 16, just as in Col. ii. 11 that of Xploroû is to be deduced
from 14. Mey. gives a correct decision on Col. i. 14. In Acts xxii. 3
νόμου depends on κ. ἀκρίβειαν.
1 As in Philem. 13 deσμol тoû evayy. means bonds which the Gospel has brought.
Without reference to the parallel passages the above might be rendered: a prisoner
belonging to Christ. Others translate it, a prisoner for Christ's sake. In the N. T. the
Genitive is frequently so explained (Mtth. 851; Krü. 31), yet always incorrectly. Heb.
xiii. 13 тdv åveidioµdv Xpioтoû péportes is: bearing the reproach which Christ bore (and
still bears). So also 2 Cor. i. 5 πEGIOσEVEL Tà malýµAтα тоû XрITTOû els quâs the sufferings
which Christ had to endure, i.e. from the enemies of divine truth, come (anew) abundantly
upon us; for, the sufferings which believers endure (for the sake of divine truth) are
essentially one with the sufferings of Christ, - only a continuation of them (cf. Phil.
iii. 10). So also probably Col. i. 24 ai exíveis тoû Xpiσтoû and 2 Cor. iv. 10. On the
first passage, which has been very variously explained, see Lücke, Progr. in loc. Col.
i. 24 (Götting. 1833, 4to.) p. 12 sq., and Huther and Mey. in loc.
190
§ 30. GENITIVE.
)
Some refer the Genitive očkov in Heb. iii. 3 to Tµýv, greater honor of
the house (i.e. in, from, the house), etc. This construction, though not
of itself inadmissible, is, for this writer, stiff, and clearly opposed to his
design; see Bleek.
On the Genitive of apposition in particular, as πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Γομόρρας
2 Pet. ii. 6 (urbs Romae), onpeîov Tepiтouns Rom. iv. 11, see § 59, 8, p. 531.
3. It was long usual to regard the Genitive of Relationship as a
Genitive with an ellipsis ; as, Μαρία Ιακώβου, Ιούδας Ιακώβου,
179 Aavid ó Toû 'Ieooal. But as the Genitive is the case of dependence,
7th ed. and as every relationship is a sort of dependence, there is no essen-
204
tial notion wanting in such expressions (Hm. Ellips. p. 120); only
the thought which the Gen. expresses in a very general way (Plato,
rep. 3, 408 b.) is left to be defined by the reader according to the
facts in the case. Most frequently this Gen. implies son or daughter;
as, Matt. iv. 21; Jno. vi. 71; xxi. 2, 15; Acts xiii. 22. But μýτnρ
is to be understood in Luke xxiv. 10; Mark xv. 47; xvi. 1, cf.
Matt. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40 (Aelian. 16, 30 'Oxvµπiàs ǹ 'Aλe§áv-
δρου sc. μήτηρ), πατήρ in Acts vii. 16 Εμμώρ τοῦ Συχέμ (cf. Gen.
xxxiii. 19; similar in Steph. Byzant. under Aaídaλa: ǹ TóλIS ÅTTÒ
Δαιδάλου τοῦ Ικάρου), γυνή in Matt. i. 6 ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου and Jno.
xix. 25 (see my RWB. II. 57 f.) cf. Aristoph. eccl. 46; Plin. epp.
2, 20 Verania Pisonis; adeλpós perhaps, in Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13
'Ioúdas 'Iakúẞov, if the same apostle is mentioned in Jude 1 (cf.
Alciphr. 2, 2 Τιμοκράτης ὁ Μητροδώρου sc. ἀδελφός). Such des-
ignation in the circle of the Apostles might have arisen from the
circumstance that James, the brother of Judas, was better known
or more prominent than the father of Judas. See, in general, Bos,
ellips. ed. Schaef. under the words; Boisson. Philostr. her. p. 307.
In 1 Cor. i. 11 oi Xλóns are, accordingly, Chloe's people, as in Rom. xvi. 10,
11 εἱ ᾿Αριστοβούλου, οἱ Ναρκίσσου. A more definite explanation must be
supplied by the facts of the case. Perhaps we should here understand, with
most expositors, the members of the household of these persons. Others
understand the slaves. To the original readers the expression was clear.
Further, see Valcken. in loc.
Note 1. It is not unusual, especially in Paul's style, to find three Gen-
itives connected together, and grammatically governed one by another.
172 Frequently, however, one of them is employed instead of an adjective:
Cub el. 2 Cor. iv. 4 τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Eph. i. 6 εἰς
ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ, iv. 13 εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας του πληρώματος τοῦ
XpurToû (where the last two Genitives go together), i. 19; Rom. ii. 4 ; Col.
i. 20; ii. 12, 18; 1 Thess. i. 3; 2 Thess. i. 9; Rev. xviii. 3; xxi. 6; Heb.
v. 12; 2 Pet. iii. 2, cf. Krüger, Xen. A. 2, 5, 38; Bornem. Xenoph. Apol.
§ 30. GENITIVE,
191
p. 44; Boisson. Bahr. p. 116. In Rev. xiv. 10 (xix. 15) olvos toû Ovpoû
must be taken together: wine of wrath, burning wine, according to an O.T.
figure. Four Genitives occur in Rev. xiv. 8 ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τῆς
πopveías avtîs, xvi. 19; xix. 15 (Judith ix. 8; x. 3; xiii. 18; Wisd. xiii. 5,
etc.). On the other hand, in 2 Cor. iii. 6 διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης οὐ γράμ
ματος ἀλλὰ πνεύματος the last two Genitives must, on account of verse 7,
be considered as both dependent on the principal noun. In Rom. xi. 33
all the three Genitives, in the same way, refer to Búbos.
7th ed.
Note 2. Sometimes, particularly in Paul's epistles, the Genitive (when
placed after) is separated from its governing noun by another word; as, 180
Phil. ii. 10 ἵνα πᾶν γόνυ κάμψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων
(Genitives subjoined in explanation of πᾶν γόνυ), Rom. ix. 21 ἢ οὐκ ἔχει
ἐξουσίαν ὁ κεραμεὺς τοῦ πηλοῦ; 1 Tim. iii. 6 ἵνα μὴ εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ
Siaßóλov (probably for emphasis), 1 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 7; Heb.
viii. 5; Jno. xii. 11; 1 Pet. iii. 21. Otherwise still in Rev. vii. 17. On
the other hand, in Eph. ii. 3 p.ev tékva þúσe ỏpys, a different position of
the words was hardly possible, if an unsuitable stress (pev púσel ték. ópy.)
was not to fall on púσe. See, in general, Jacob, Lucian. Tox. p. 46; Ellendt,
Arrian. Al. I. 241; Fr. Rom. II. 331.
ふ
​Note 3. Rarely two Genitives of different relations (particularly the
one of a person, the other of a thing), mostly also separated from each
other by position, are joined to a single noun (Krü. 33), e.g. Acts v. 32
ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν αὐτοῦ (Χριστοῦ) μάρτυρες τῶν ῥημάτων τούτων, 2 Cor. v. 1 ἡ
ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους, Phil. ii. 30 τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς λειτουργίας,
2 Pet. iii. 2 τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου, [Matt. xxvi. 28 τὸ
αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης,] Heb. xiii. 7, cf. Her. 6, 2 τὴν Ἰώνων τὴν ἡγεμονίην
τοῦ πρὸς Δαρεῖον πολέμου, Thuc. 3, 12 τὴν ἐκείνων μέλλησιν τῶν εἰς ἡμᾶς δεινῶν,
6, 18 ἡ Νικίου τῶν λόγων ἀπραγμοσύνη, Plat. legg. 3, 690 b. τὴν τοῦ νόμου
ἑκόντων ἀρχήν, rep. 1, 329 b. τὰς τῶν οἰκείων προπηλακίσεις τοῦ γήρως, Diog.
L. 3, 37 and very strained Plat. Apol. 40 c. μeroiknσis Tŷs YuxĤS TOÛ TÓTTOV
Toû évðévde, see Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 329; ad legg. p. 84 sq.; Lob. Soph. Aj.
p. 219; Bttm. Demosth. Mid. p. 17, and Soph. Philoctet. v. 751; Fritzsche,
quaest. Lucian. p. 111 sq.; Bhdy. 162; Mtth. 864 (Kritz, Sallust. II. 170).
To this head we may also refer 1 Pet. iii. 21 σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου the
flesh's putting away of filth (σàpέ åñoríßetai júπov), unless there be here
a transposition.
In a different way two Genitives are connected together in Jno. vi. 1
ἡ θάλασσα τῆς Γαλιλαίας τῆς Τιβεριάδος the Sea of Galilee, of Tiberias. 205
Under the last name alone it occurs the second time in Jno. xxi. 1. Per-
haps for the sake of foreign readers John annexed the more definite to
the more general designation (cf. Pausan. 5, 7, 3) that they might determine
the locality more certainly. Beza in loc. takes a different view. Kühnöl's
suspicion, that the words Ts Tiß. are a gloss, is hasty. The explanation 173
of Paulus, however, setting sail from Tiberias — if not at variance with 6th ed.
192
§ 30. GENITIVE.
classic prose, is opposed to the style of the N. T. (cf. Bornem. Acta p. 149),
which, in such circumstances, prefers to the simple case the more vivid
mode of expression by means of the preposition. Tiß. cannot be made to
depend on the ἀπό in ἀπῆλθεν.
Note 4. The Genitive, when placed before the governing noun, either a.
belongs to two nouns at the same time, as in Acts iii. 7 avroû ai Búσeis kai
Tà σpʊpá, Jno. xi. 48, or b. is emphatic (Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 118;
Mdv. 13), as e.g. in 1 Cor. iii. 9 θεοῦ γάρ ἐσμεν συνεργοί, θεοῦ γεώργιον,
θεοῦ οἰκοδομή ἐστε, Acts xiii. 28 τούτου (Δαυίδ) ὁ θεὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ σπέρματος
181 ήγαγε σωτήρα Ἰησοῦν, Jas. i. 26 εἴ τις ... τούτου μάταιος ἡ θρησκεία, iii. 3 ;
7th ed. IIeb. x. 36; Eph. ii. 8. The emphasis is not unfrequently founded in an
206
expressed antithesis: Phil. ii. 25 τὸν συστρατιώτην μου, ὑμῶν δὲ ἀπόστολον
kaì deltovpyòv tŷs Xpeías μov, Matt. i. 18; Heb. vii. 12, 1 Pet. iii. 21 ;
Eph. ii. 10; vi. 9; Gal. iii. 15; iv. 28; 1 Cor vi. 15; Rom. iii. 29; xiii. 4.
The Genitive, however, for the most part contains the principal notion :
Rom. xi. 13 évŵv åπóσтоλos apostle of the Gentiles, 1 Tim. vi. 17 éπì πλoúтov
ådŋdótηtɩ upon riches which are perishable, Tit. i. 7; Heb. vi. 16; 2 Pet.
ii. 14. That the placing of the Genitive before the governing noun belongs
to the peculiarities of diction of a particular author (Gersdorf 296 ff.),
though not in itself impossible (since emphatic combinations are weakened
by individual writers), at least cannot be shown to be probable. Cf. more-
over, Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 243. Heb. vi. 2 is a difficult passage; ßaπioµÂV
διδαχῆς (depending on θεμέλιον) certainly belong together, and διδαχῆς
cannot be torn away so strangely and regarded as the governing noun to
all four Genitives, as Ebrard still maintains. But the question is, whether
we should here admit a transposition for διδαχῆς βαπτισμών, as most later
expositors do. Such a transposition, however, would be at variance with
the whole structure of the verse; and if ẞanтioμοì didaɣôs is translated
doctrinal baptisms, baptisms in connection with instruction, to distinguish
them from the legal baptisms (lustrations) of Judaism, this appellation is
confirmed as distinctively Christian by Matt. xxviii. 19 BarríoaνTES AUTOÚS
... didáσkovtes avtoús. Ebrard's objection, that Christian baptism is dis-
tinguished from mere lustrations, not by instruction, but by the forgiveness
of sins and regeneration, amounts to nothing, for Matt. xxviii. says nothing
about the forgiveness of sins. As regards the use of the word Barтioμós,
and in the Plural too, what Tholuck has already remarked may be used
also in support of the above explanation.
Note 5. Kühnöl and others consider Tepi with the Acc. in Mark iv. 19
αἱ περὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἐπιθυμίαι as a circumlocution for the Genitive. But,
though Mark might have written ai Tŵv λoɩπŵν π0., yet the former
expression is not only more definite, but Tepi obviously retains its force:
cupiditates, quae circa reliqua (rel. res) versantur (Heliod. 1, 23, 45
ἐπιθυμία περὶ τὴν Χαρίκλειαν, Aristot. rhet. 2, 12 αἱ περὶ τὸ σῶμα ἐπιθυμίαι),
just as (with the Gen.) in Jno. xv. 22. It is another thing when, in
§ 30. GENITIVE.
193
1
$
Greek authors, Tepi with the Acc. is used as a circumlocution for the 174
Genitive of an object to which a certain quality is ascribed, e.g. Diod. S. 6th ed
11, 89 ἡ περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν ἀρχαιότης, and again τὸ περὶ τοὺς κρατῆρας ἰδίωμα (cf.
Schaef. Julian. p. VI. and Dion. comp. p. 23). With more reason might
it be said that in 1 Cor. vii. 37 éžovoía repì raû iôíov beλýparos this prepo-
sition is used with the Gen. as a circumlocution for the Genitive, because
the Genitive alone might also have been employed; but power over (with
respect to) his own will, is at all events the more definite and full expression.
Expositors find a similar circumlocution for the Gen. by means of aπó and
ἐκ in Acts xxiii. 21 τὴν ἀπὸ σοῦ ἐπαγγελίαν, 2 Cor. viii. 7 τῇ ἐξ ὑμῶν ἀγάπῃ.
This, however, is literally amor qui a vobis proficiscitur, promissio a te 182
profecta, and is more precise than rŷ vµŵν åуúy, which might also mean 7th ed.
amor in vos. So Thuc. 2, 92 ἡ ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων βοήθεια, Dion. I. IV.
2235 πολὺν ἐκ τῶν παρόντων κινήσας ἔλεον, Plato, rep. 2, 363 a. τὰς ἀπ' αὐτῆς
Evdokiμnσeis, Demosth. pac. 24 b.; Polyaen. 5, 11; D. S. 1, 8; 5, 39; Exc.
Vat. p. 117; Lucian. conscr. hist. 40; cf. Jacobs, Athen. 321 sq. and Anthol.
pal. I. 1, 159; Schaef. Soph. Aj. p. 228; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 329. Also
.Rom. xi. 27 пaρ' èμoû diαðýín must be explained in the same way. Cf.
Xen. C. 5, 5, 13; Isocr. Demon. p. 18; Arrian. Al. 5, 18, 10 (Fr. in loc.
and Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 193). On Jno. i. 14 see Lücke. None of these
passages contains an unmeaning circumlocution. And in 1 Cor. ii. 12 où
τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου ἐλάβομεν, ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ θεοῦ, the apostle
has of set purpose employed in the parallel τὸ ἐκ θεοῦ (not τὸ πν. θεοῦ or τὸ
coû). No tolerably attentive reader will admit the alleged circumlocution
for the Gen. by means of ev (see Koppe, Eph. p. 60), in proof of which
1 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. ii. 21; Tit. iii. 5; 2 Pet. ii. 7 are adduced. Nor does
Kará constitute a mere circumlocution for the Genitive in the examples
usually quoted. In Rom. ix. 11 ἡ κατ᾽ ἐκλογὴν πρόθεσις means the purpose
according to, in consequence of, election. In Rom. xi. 21 oi κarà prow
Kλádoι are the branches according to nature i.e. the natural branches. So
Heb. xi. 7 ἡ κατὰ πίστιν δικαιοσύνη. In Heb. ix. 19, too, κατὰ τὸν νόμον,
if referred to πάσης ἐντολῆς, would not be put for του νόμου, as Bleek per-
ceived. Yet, see above, § 22, 7. More pertinent examples are found in
Greek writers; as, Diod. S. 1, 65 ǹ katà tǹv åpɣyv åπóbeσis the abdication
of the government (literally, as regards the government), 4, 13; Exe. Vat.
p. 103; Arrian. Al. 1, 18, 12; Mtth. 866. On evayy, karà Mar0. etc. see 207
Fr. (cf. instances in the nova biblioth. Lubec. II. 105 sq.). It is quite
erroneous to take τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα 1 Pet. i. 11 for τὰ Χριστοῦ
παθήματα (v. 1). It means (similar to περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος vs. 10)
the sufferings (destined) for Christ.
It is a different matter, when a Genitive dependent on a noun is ren-
dered by means of a preposition because the (corresponding) verb prefers
this construction; as, kowwvía vµŵv eis rò evayyéλtov Phil. i. 5 cf. iv. 15.
1 2 Cor. ix. 2 ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν ζῆλος ἠρέθισε τοὺς πλείονας is referable to attraction.
25
194
§ 30. GENITIVE.
7th ed.
So probably also éπepúτημa eis Ocóv (after God) 1 Pet. iii. 21, cf. 2 Sam.
xi. 7 ἐπερωτἂν εἰς θεόν.
175 4. The same sort of direct dependence occurs in the connection
6th ed. of the Genitive with verbal adjectives and participles whose signi-
fication is not such that they (the verbs from which they come)
could regularly govern the Genitive (2 Pet. ii. 14 µeσтoùs μoixaλídos,
Matt. x. 10 ἄξιος τῆς τροφῆς, Heb. iii. 1 κλήσεως μέτοχοι etc. see
No. 8; Eph. ii. 12 §évoi tŵv Sialŋêŵv ctc.); as, 1 Cor. ii. 13 λóyoɩ
διδακτοὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου, see above, p. 189, 2 Pet. ii. 14 καρδίαν
γεγυμνασμένην πλεονεξίας cf. Iliad. 5, 6 λελουμένος ὠκεανοιο, Soph.
183 Αj. 807 φωτὸς ἠπατημένη, 1353 φίλων νικώμενος, and with 1 Cor.
especially Soph. El. 344 keivns didakтá, with 2 Pet. Philostr. her.
2, 15 θαλάττης οὔπω γεγυμνασμένοι, 3, 1 Νέστορα πολέμων πολλῶν
γεγυμνασμένον, 10, 1 σοφίας ἤδη γεγυμνασμένον, see Boisson. Philostr.
her. p. 451. We resolve all these Genitives by a preposition :
taught of (by) the Holy Spirit, bathed in the ocean, inured to the
sea, etc.
And perhaps in the simple language of antiquity the
Genitive in such constructions was regarded as the whence case;
see Hartung, S. 17. According to this view the two following
passages also are easily explained: Heb. iii. 12 kapdía тоνηрà ȧπι-
orías a heart evil (with respect to) unbelief (where àπioтía is that
which establishes the πονηρία; substantively πονηρία ἀπιστίας the
Genitive (of apposition) would seem quite natural; similarly Wisd.
xviii. 3 ἥλιον ἀβλαβῆ φιλοτίμου ξενιτείας παρέσχες, see Monk, Eurip.
Alcest. 751; Mtth. 811, 818. Secondly, Jas. i. 13 ȧπeíρаσTOS KAKŵV,
which most expositors render: untempted (that cannot be tempted)
by evil (cf. Soph. Antig. 847 äkλauтos píλæv, Aeschyl. Theb. 875
κакÔν ȧтρуμоves Schwenck, Aeschyl. Eumen. 96); Schulthess,
however, translates it: inexperienced in evil. The parallelism
with Teɩpáče does not favor the last interpretation. The active
acceptation in the Aethiopic version, not tempting to evil, is to be
rejected more on the ground that the πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα fol-
lowing would be tautological (for the apostle, as the dé shows,
208 must intend to say something different from àπeíp.), and also that
άπеíρ. does not occur in the active sense, than, as Schulth. thinks,
on account of the Genitive kakov.1 The Genitive has great latitude
of import, at least in the poets and in such writers as approach a
poetic or rhetorical diction. 'Aπelρ. кaкŵν might denote not temp-
ting in respect to evil, just as well as in Soph. Aj. 1405 Xovтpŵv
1 On the active and passive acceptation of verbals see Wex, Soph. Antig. I. 162.
§ 30. GENITIVE.
195
ooíwv èπríkaipos suitable for holy washings, or in Her. 1, 196 πaplévoi
yúµwv wpaîaι ripe for marriage.
Paul's expression Kλŋroì 'Inσoû Xplorоû Rom. i. 6 should not be brought
under this rule, as is still done by Thiersch. It means, according to the
apostle's view of Kλños elsewhere, Christ's called, i.c. called (by God) who
are Christ's, belong to Christ. On the other hand, we may refer to this
head oμolós Tivos Jno. viii. 55 (this adj. regularly governs the Dat. [which
case, indeed, even in the passage just mentioned Lchm. placed in the text,
but against the balance of authorities and against Cod. Sin. also]) Mtth. 873 ; 176
Schneider, Plat. civ. II. 104; III. 46 (on similis alicuius and the like, 6th ed.
see Zumpt, lat. Gr. S. 365 f.), and yyús with the Gen. Jno. xi. 18; Rom.
x. 8; xiii. 11; Heb. vi. 8; viii. 13, etc., the usual construction here, along
with which, however, ¿yyús tɩɩ occurs; see Bleek, Hebr. II. II. 209; Mtth.
812. Even adjectives compounded with our are sometimes followed by 184
the Genitive; as, σúμμoppos тns elkóvos Rom. viii. 29 (Mtth. 864).
7th ed.
5. Most closely related to the simple Genitive of dependence
after substantives and in reality only an expansion of that Genitive
into a clause, is the very common εἶναι oι γίνεσθαί τινος. This
construction has a still more diversified use in Greek prose (Krü.
28 f.; Mdv. 57 f.; Ast, Lexic. Platon. I. 621), than in the N. T.;
and was formerly explained by assuming that a preposition or a
substantive was understood.
In the N. T. may be distinguished,
a. The Genitive of the whole, of the class (Plur.) and of the
sphere (Sing.) to which one belongs, 1 Tim. i. 20 v éσTìv Tμevaîos
of whom is (to whom belongs) Hym., 2 Tim. i. 15; Acts xxiii. 6
(1 Macc. ii. 18; Plato, Protag. 342 e.; Xen. A. 1, 2, 3), 1 Thess.
ν. 5, 8 οὐκ ἐσμὲν νυκτὸς οὐδὲ σκότους . . . ἡμεῖς ἡμέρας ὄντες belonging
to the night, to the day, Acts ix. 2.
b. The Genitive of the ruler, master, possessor, etc., Matt. xxii.
28 τίνος τῶν ἑπτὰ ἔσται γυνή ; 1 Cor. iii. 21 πάντα ὑμῶν ἐστιν
(Xen. A. 2, 1, 4; Ptol. 1, 8, 1), vi. 19 oùк EσTè avтŵv ye are not
your own— do not belong to yourselves, 2 Cor. iv. 7 iva ý úπeρßoλǹ
τῆς δυνάμεως ἢ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν that . . . may be God's and
not of us, x. 7 Xpiσтoû eivai, Rom. viii. 9 (similarly 1 Cor. i. 12 of
heads of parties èyó eiu IIaúλov, cf. Diog. L. 6, 82). Close to 209
this comes Acts i. 7 ovx vµâv èσтi yvâvai etc. it does not belong to
you it is not in your power to know (Plato, Gorg. 500 a.; Xen.
Oec. 1, 2), Mark xii. 7 huv eoтаι η Kλпρоvoμía (Matt. v. 3), 1 Pct.
iii. 3, further Heb. v. 14 teλeiwv ẻotìv ý otepeà τpopý belongs to
(is for) mature persons, etc.
εσται
196
§ 30. GENITIVE.
6th ed.
• •
c. The Genitive of a quality in which one participates (sing.
abstract), in diversified applications, 1 Cor. xiv. 33 oùk čotiv åka-
ταστασίας ὁ θεός, Heb. x. 39 ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς ἀλλὰ
TίOTEws etc. (Plato, apol. 28 a.). Likewise the concrete Gen. Acts
ix. 2 Twàs Tŷs ódoû ovτas, particularly the Genitive of age, Mark
v. 42 îv étŵv Súdeка, Luke ii. 42; iii. 23; Acts iv. 22; Tob. xiv. 2,
11; Plato, legg. 4, 721 a. In these passages the subject is a person,
but in the following it is a thing: Heb. xii. 11 тâσa πaideía ov
Sоκεî xaρâs εival is not (matter) of joy (this, however, might be
referred also to a.), 2 Pet. i. 20 πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύ
σEWS OÙ YiveTaι. Moreover, this construction of eiµí, when persons
are the subject, is sometimes made more animated, in Oriental
style, by the insertion of υἱός or τέκνον; cf. 1 Thess. v. 5 ὑμεῖς υἱοὶ
φωτός ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ἡμέρας. 1
εινα
The same relations are expressed by the Genitive when the verb
εἶναι is omitted, Phil. iii. 5 ἐγὼ . . . φυλῆς Βενιαμίν.
6. The Genitive, as the clearly defined case of departure, motion
185 whence, appears, too, in the diction of the N. T., joined to verbs
7th ed. (and adjectives), with a diversity of application natural to this rela-
177 tion. (This diversity, however, is more copious in Greek prose, and
in the N. T. the Gen. is frequently strengthened by prepositions.)
As separation from is related to proceeding from, and as that
which departs and is separated may often be conceived as a part
of the remaining whole, the Genitive, because the case of procecd-
ing from, is also naturally the case of separation and of partition.
The former, the Genitive of separation and removal, as the more
limited, we shall illustrate first.
As words which express the idea of separation or removal are
usually construed with the Genitive by the Greeks even in prose,-
e.g. ἐλευθεροῦν τινος to free from something, κωλύειν, ὑποχωρεῖν,
παύειν, διαφέρειν, ὑστερεῖν τινος, see Mtth. 829 ff., 845; Bhdy. 179 f.
(although in such circumstances suitable prepositions are pretty
frequently inserted), so in the N. T. also the following verbs
are construed with the Genitive: μετασταθῆναι Luke xvi. 4, ἀστοχεῖν
1 Tim. i. 6, Taveσ0ai 1 Pet. iv. 1, kwλvew Acts xxvii. 43 (cf. Xen.
C. 2, 4, 23; Anab. 1, 6, 2; Pol. 2, 52, 8 a.), diapépeiv Matt. x. 31;
1 Cor. xv. 41 etc. (Xen. C. 8, 2, 21, cf. Krü. Dion. H. p. 462), άπо-
210 σтeρéîolai 1 Tim. vi. 5,2 also vorepeîv to be behind one 2 Cor. xi. 5;
1 We Germans also say both du bist des Todes and du bist ein Kind des Todes. But
this does not prove that the former expression is elliptical (Kuinoel ad Heb. x. 39).
2 Lachm., on the authority of good Codd., has adopted in Acts xix. 27
μέλλειν τε
§ 30. GENITIVE.
197
xii. 11, see Bleek on Heb. iv. 1 and §évoi tôv dialŋkôv Eph. ii. 12.
The interposition of prepositions, however, predominates :
a. With verbs of disjoining, freeing, and being free, invariably
(Mtth. 665; Bhdy. 181); as, xpisen có Rom. viii. 35 ; 1 Cor.
vii. 10; Heb. vii. 26 (Plat. Phaed. 67 c., but Polyb. 5, 111, 2);
λúew ảπó Luke xiii. 16; 1 Cor. vii. 27; èλevßepoûv åπó Rom. vi. 18,
22; viii. 2, 21 (Thue. 2, 71, also with e Mtth. 830); puerlai
Matt. vi. 13 (2 Sam. xix. 9; Ps. xvi. 13 f.), with ek Luke i. 74;
Rom. vii. 24, etc., Exod. vi. 6; Job xxxiii. 30; Ps. lxviii. 15; σúče‹v
άπó Rom. v. 9 (Ps. Ixviii. 15), and more frequently with ex, as in
Jas. v. 20; Heb. v. 7 (2 Sam. xxii. 3f.; 1 Kings xix. 17); AUTроÛV
άπó Tit. ii. 14; Ps. cxviii. 134 (but λ. Twos Fabric. Pseudepigr.
I. 710); кalapíče àπó 1 Jno. i. 7; 2 Cor. vii. 1; Heb. ix. 14,
accordingly kalaрòs àπó Acts xx. 26, cf. Toh. iii. 14; Demosth.
Neaer. 528 c. (with èk Appian. Syr. 59) and à¤âos àπó (T2 TEP)
Matt. xxvii. 24, cf. Krebs, observ. 73; Gen. xxiv. 41; Num. v. 19,
31, with Dat. Josh. ii. 17, 19 f.; similarly λove‹ àπó (concisely
λούειν ἀπό
for by washing cleanse from) Acts xvi. 33; Rev. i. 5.
b. Where the construction with the Genitive alone is also used:
25, ἀναπαύεσθαι ἐκ τῶν κόπων Rev. xiv. 13, παυσάτω τὴν γλῶσσαν
ȧπò какоû 1 Реt. iii. 10 (Esth. ix. 16; Soph. Electr. 987; Thuc. 7, 186
73); voтepeîv åπó Heb. xii. 15 is probably a pregnant construction. 7th ed.
The notion of separation and removal lies at the basis also of the Hel-
lenistic construction кρúπтew (TI) åπó Tivos Luke xix. 42 (for which classic 178
authors use κρÚTTEL TIά Tɩ); it is properly a constructio praegnans (cf. Sept. 6th ed.
Gen. iv. 14; xviii. 17; 1 Sam. iii. 18, etc.). To verbs of remaining behind
anything (ὑστερείν τινος) may be referred 2 Pet. iii. 9 οὐ βραδύνει ὁ κύριος
8
τῆς ἐπαγγελίας οὐ βραδύς ἐστι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας), cf. ὑστέρουν τῆς βοηθείας
Diod. S. 13, 110. Even the Syriac has joined èπayy. with ẞpad.
7. The Genitive of proceeding from and of derivation occurs in
prose in its simplest form in apxoμaí Tivos I begin from (with) some-
thing (Hartung, 14), déxoµai Twos I receive from somebody (Hm.
Vig. 877), déoμaí Tivos I beg of some one (Mtth. 834), ȧkoúw Tivós I
hear from somebody; then γεύομαί, ἐσθίω τινός (e.g. ἄρτου, μέλιτος) Ι
taste, eat, of something, ỏvívnµí Tivos I derive advantage, enjoyment, 211
from something; finally didwμi Tivos, Xaµßávw twós I give, take, of
something; Hm. Opusc. I. 178. The Genitive denotes in all these
cases the object out of which hearing, eating, giving etc. comes;
καὶ καθαιρεῖσθαι τῆς μεγαλειότητος αὐτῆς. Still I agree with Mey in thinking
this reading (which most probably is an error of the transcribers, see Bengel) too weak
for the style of the passage.
198
§ 30. GENITIVE.
from which that proceeds which is eaten, tasted, given, etc.; and,
in the last expressions, indicates the mass, the whole, of which a
part is enjoyed, given, etc. Consequently these Genitives may be
regarded also as Genitivi partitivi; for when the whole, or the ob-
ject simply, is meant, the strict Object-case, the Accusative, is used.
In the diction of the N. T. the Genitive, in many of those construc-
tions, is strengthened by a preposition. As respects details we notice,
a. Aéopai has without exception the Genitive of the person (Matt.
ix. 38; Luke v. 12; viii. 28; Acts viii. 22, etc.), the object of re-
quest being subjoined in the Acc.; as, 2 Cor. viii. 4 Seóµevoɩ ýµŵv
την xúρiv etc. (Weber, Demosth. p. 163).
1
b. Of verbs of giving with the Genitive we have only one instance,
Rev. ii. 17 Swow avт@ тoû µávva (where some Codd. have 8. a. pa-
YÊîV ÚπÒ TOû µ.
Yeîv άπò тоû μ. as a correction). On the other hand, in Rom. i. 11;
1 Thess. ii. 8 the apostle could not have written μeтadidóvaι xapí-
σμaтos or evαyyeλíov (Mtth. 798), as in the first passage a partic-
ular charisma as a whole (in fact he says xápioμá Ti) is meant;
and in the second, the Gospel as something indivisible. Paul did
not purpose to communicate a portion of (from) a spiritual gift,
or a portion of (from) the Gospel.
τι
c. Verbs of enjoying or partaling : προςλαμβάνεσθαι τροφῆς Acts
xxvii. 36, μεταλαμβάνειν τροφῆς Acts ii. 46; xxvii. 33 f., γεύεσθαι
τοῦ δείπνου Luke xiv. 24 (figuratively Heb. vi. 4 γεύεσθαι τῆς δωρεάς
187 T. Éπovρavíov, yeveσlai lavárou Matt. xvi. 28; Luke ix. 27; Heb. ii.
7th ed. 9, etc.), and with Gen. of pers. Philem. 20 èyú σ ou ỏvaíµŋv ev kupiw
ουί
(cf. also Odyss. 19, 68), Rom. xv. 24 ἐὰν ὑμῶν... ἐμπλησθῶ.
But γεύεσθαι governs also the Acc.: Jno. ii. 9 ἐγεύσατο τὸ ὕδωρ,
179 IIeb. vi. 52 (as frequently in Hebraizing Greek, Job. xii. 11; Sirach
xxxvi. 24; Tob. vii. 11; but probably never in Greek authors).8
6th ed.
3
1 This very passage clearly shows the distinction between the Genitive and the Acc.,
for καὶ δώσω ψῆφον λευκήν follows; cf. Heliod. 2, 23, 100 έπεῤῥόψουν ὁ μὲν τοῦ ὕδατος,
ὁ δὲ καὶ οἶνον.
2 Bengel, on Heb. vi. 4, appears to trifle in attempting to make a distinction in this
passage between yeúeolaι with the Gen. and with the Acc.
•
·
3 In the sense of eating up, consuming, payeîv and dooíew have regularly the Acc.
(Matt. xii. 4; Rev. x. 10): cf., for distinction, 1 Cor. ix. 7. They also take the Acc.
when one's food in general, merely, is described, of which he ordinarily makes use,
ἐσθίων ἀκρίδας καὶ μέλι ἄγριον,
which he lives upon; e.g. Mark i. 6 v 'Iwávvns
Rom. xiv. 21; Matt. xv. 2; 1 Cor. viii. 7; x. 3 f. (Jno. vi. 58), cf. Diog. L. 6, 45. It
may be stated generally, that lodíew Ti would in no passage be found to be entirely without
justification (cf. even 2 Thess. iii. 12) and thus the absence of èolíew Twvós (together with
από or ἔκ τινος would cease to be strange. Luke xv. 16 ἀπὸ τῶν κερατίων ὧν ἤσθιον οἱ
χοιροι is probably an attraction. Besides, we find ἐσθίειν, πίνειν τι regularly in the
Sept. also; only in Num. xx. 19 làv toû úðarós σov níwμev occurs.
§ 30. GENITIVE.
199
Verbs of eating of as well as giving and taking of are, morcover, 212
in the N. T. invariably joined to their nouns by prepositions :
a) By από ; as, Luke xxiv. 42 ἐπέδωκαν αὐτῷ ... ἀπὸ μελισσίου
κηρίου, xx. 10 ; Matt. xv. 27 τὰ κυνάρια ἐσθίει ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων τῶν
Taidiwv (cf. ebay and payeîv ȧnó Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 706),
Luke xxii. 18 οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γεννήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου, cf. Jer.
li. (xxviii.) 7, Acts ii. 17 ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τ. πνεύματός μου (LXX.), r. 2
καὶ ἐνοσφίσατο ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς, Jno. xxi. 10 ἐνέγκατε ἀπὸ τῶν ὀψα
ρίων, Mark xii. 2 ἵνα ... λάβῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ καρποῦ τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος.
K
va
1
b) By ẻ; as, 1 Cor. xi. 28 ẻ Too áp Touẻo ĐT, Ix. 7 (2 Sam.
xii. 3; 2 Kings iv. 40; Sir. xi. 17; Judith xii. 2); Jno. iv. 14
ὃς ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος, vi. 50 ὁ ἄρτος ... ἵνα τις ἐξ αὐτοῦ φάγῃ,
1 Jno. iv. 13 ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος αὑτοῦ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν. But we must
not refer to this head Heb. xiii. 10 payeîv èk Ovσiaorηpíov, as if it
were equivalent to ἐκ θυσίας; for θυσιαστ. means altar. To eat
of the altar is simply equivalent to, of the sacrifice (offered on the
altar). Probably there is no instance of oíew άπó or éx in classic
Greek; but arоλave àπó Twos is akin to it, Plat. rep. 3, 395 c.;
10, 606 b.; Apol. 31 b.
μου,
K
c) Of verbs of perceiving, ȧkoúw is construed with the Genitive
of the person (to hear from-out of-one), to hear one; as, Matt.
xvii. 5; Mark vii. 14; Luke ii. 46; Jno. iii. 29; ix. 31; Rev. vi. 1,3;
Rom. x. 142— (the object is expressed in the Acc., Acts i. 4 îv ýкoú-
σατέ
σaré pov, Lucian. dial. deor. 20, 13). Yet we find likewise úkovεL 188
Tɩ ȧπó in 1 Jno. i. 5, éx in 2 Cor. xii. 6 (also Odyss. 15, 374), πapú 7th ed
in Acts x. 22, where in classic Greek the Gen. alone would have
been sufficient. A Genitive of the thing occurs with ảкоúw in
Jno. v. 25 ; Heb. iv. 7 ἀκ. φωνής, Luke xv. 25 ἤκουσε συμφωνίας
καὶ χορῶν, Mark xiv. 64 ἠκούσατε τῆς βλασφημίας, 1 Macc. x. 34;
Bar. iii. 4 (Lucian. Halc. 2; gall. 10; Xen. C. 6, 2, 13, etc.). On the 180
other hand, the Accusative follows in Luke v. 1 åκovew tòv Xóyov 6th ed.
τ. θεοῦ, Jno. viii. 40 τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἣν ἤκουσα παρὰ τ. θεοῦ etc. In
the last passages the object is referred to as a connected whole, and
the hearing meant is intellectual; while in the previous passages
1 Otherwise in 1 Cor. x. 4 ἔπινον ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, where Flatt's
explanation is a failure.
2 Others, Rück. and Fr., take the Genitive of the person here оû ок коvσav thus: of
whom (de quo) they have not heard (as aкoveш Tiós is used also in Iliad. 24,490). This
does not appear to me probable (the construction in this sense is entirely poetical),
much less necessary: one hears Christ when one hears the Gospel in which he speaks;
and thus aкove Xploτóv Eph. iv. 21 is said of those who have not heard Christ in person.
Philippi on the passage is superficial.
213
200
§ 30. GENITIVE.
the object is primarily certain sounds only, or words received by
the bodily ear. Cf. Rost 532 f.
In
The Genitive with τυγχάνειν ἐπιτυγχάνειν) which invariably occurs in
the N. T. (on the Acc. see Hm. Vig. 762; Bhdy. 176),¹ as in Luke xx. 35 ;
Acts xxiv. 3; xxvii. 3, etc., is perhaps in its origin to be explained by the
preceding rule; yet we find it also where the whole object is meant.
the same way the earlier Greek authors almost always construe kλŋpovoµeîv
(inherit, also participate in) with the Genitive (Kypke II. 381), but the
later and the N. T. writers connect with it the Accusative of the thing;
as, Matt. v. 4; xix. 29; Gal. v. 21 (Polyb. 15, 22, 3) see Fischer-Well.
III. I. 368; Lob. Phryn. 129; Mtth. 802.
Λαγχάνειν has the Accusative in Acts i. 17; 2 Pet. i. 1 ισότιμον ἡμῖν
λαχοῦσι πίστιν (where πίστις does not mean faith in an ideal sense, the faith
in which every Christian gets a share by his conversion, but the subjective
faith of these Christians) Mtth. 801. But in Luke i. 9 the Gen. is used (to
obtain by lot); cf. Brunck, Soph. Electr. 364; Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 803.
8. In the foregoing examples we already perceive that the notion
of proceeding from something slides over into that of participation
in something; but the partitive import of the Genitive is still more
plainly disclosed in such combinations as μετέχειν τινός, πληροῦν
τινος, θιγγάνειν τινός. With the Genitive are construed,
a. Words that express the notion of having a share, partaking,
wanting (wishing to partake) Mtth. 797; as, kotvwveîv Heb. ii. 14,
κοινωνός 1 Cor. x. 18; 1 Pet. v. 1, συγκοινωνός Rom. xi. 17, μετέχειν
1 Cor. ix. 12; x. 21; Heb. v. 13, μетаλаµẞável Heb. vi. 7; xii. 10,
μéToxos Heb. iii. 1, also xpýčew 2 Matt. vi. 32; 2 Cor. iii. 1, etc.,
πρоsdεîolaι Acts xvii. 25. But Kowwveiv also takes--and in the
189 N. T. more commonly-the Dat. of the thing; as, 1 Tim. v. 22 µm
7th ed. kolvάvel åµapтíais àλλoтpíais, Rom. xv. 27; 1 Pet. iv. 13; 2 Juo. 11
214 (Wisd. vi. 25), and in a transitive acceptation eis, Phil. iv. 15 ovde-
μία μοι ἐκκλησία ἐκοινώνησεν εἰς λόγον δόσεως. Cf. Plat. rep. 5, 453 b.
δυνατή φύσις ή θήλεια τῇ τοῦ ἄῤῥενος γένους κοινωνῆσαι εἰς ἅπαντα
Tà épya. Act. Apocr. p. 91. The Dat. of the thing with Kolvwveîv
and μeréxew sometimes occurs in Greek authors (Thuc. 2, 16;
Demosth. cor. c. 18) Poppo, Thuc. III. II. 77; and, in respect to
Kowvwveiv, is to be explained probably from the notion of community
implied in the word (1 Tim., as above, cannot be resolved into
1 But according to good authoritics [Sin. also] èπiTvyxávew has the Acc. in Rom.
xi. 7; see Fr.
2 Though in Luke xi. 8 several Codd. have drov xpáseɩ, neither from this, nor from
the construction xphlew тi (Mith. 834), should it be concluded, as is done by Kühnöl,
that xp. is construed with the Acc. also (in the sense of desiring, demanding).
χρήζειν Ti
§ 30. GENITIVE.
201
μηδέν σοι καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀλλοτρ. κοινὸν ἔστω). Further, 181
μeтéxew is once construed with the interposition of èí, 1 Cor. x. 17 6th ed.
ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν. 'I am not aware that a similar instance
is to be found in any Greek author.
b. Words of abounding, filling,¹ being empty, wanting (Mtth.
826 ff.); as, Rom. xv. 13 ὁ θεὸς πληρώσαι ὑμᾶς πάσης χαρᾶς καὶ
εἰρήνης, Luke i. 53 πεινῶντας ἐνέπλησεν ἀγαθῶν, Acts r. 28 πεπλη
ρώκατε τὴν ῾Ιερουσαλὴμ τῆς διδαχῆς ὑμῶν (ii. 28 Sept.), Juo. ii. 7
γεμίσατε τὰς ὑδρίας ὕδατος (vi. 13), Matt. xxii. 10 ἐπλήσθη ὁ γάμος
ávakeiµévwv (Acts xix. 29), Jno. i. 14 πλńρns xápitos, 2 Pet. ii. 14
ὀφθαλμοὶ μεστοὶ μοιχαλίδος, Luke xi. 39 τὸ ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν γέμει
ἁρπαγῆς καὶ πονηρίας, Jas. i. 5 εἴ τις ἡμῶν λείπεται σοφίας (Matthiae,
Eurip. Hippol. 323), Rom. iii. 23 távtes votepoûvtal Tŷs dó§NS TOû
Oεoû (cf. Lob. Phryn. p. 237), see also Acts xiv. 17; xxvii. 38; Luke
xv. 17; xxii. 35; Jno. xix. 29; Rom. xv. 14, 24; Rev. xv. 8.
Verbs of fulness are but rarely joined to aπó (Luke xv. 16 èπe
θύμει γεμίσαι τὴν κοιλίαν αὑτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν κερατίων, xvi. 21) or
èk (yeµíšeiv èk Rev. viii. 5; xоρтáč. é× Rev. xix. 21, but xopтáČELV
τινός Lam. iii. 15, 29, μεθύειν and μεθύσκεσθαι ἐκ Rev. xvii. 2, 6 cf.
Lucian. dial. d. 6, 3). Altogether solecistic is Rev. xvii. 3 yéμov
тà óvóµata cf. 4. [This solecism is probably to be explained by
the analogy of πeπλŋρwµévoi kаρπòν Siкαιοσ. Phil. i. 11 and the
like.] The Dat. after πλŋpoûv, µeðúσkeσlai etc. rests on a concep-
tion essentially different; see § 31, 7. How 1 Cor. i. 7 vστeρeîσOaι
èv µndevì Xapíoµarı must be taken, is obvious; cf. Plat. rep. 6, 484 d.
2
Verbs of touching (Mtth. 803) so far forth as the touching 190
affects only a part of the object; as, Mark v. 30 aтo Twv iμariwv 7th ed.
(vi. 56; Luke xxii. 51; Jno. xx. 17; 2 Cor. vi. 17, etc.), Heb. xii. 20 215
κἂν θηρίον θίγῃ τοῦ ὄρους (xi. 28). Under this head comes also
Luke xvi. 24 βάπτειν ὕδατος, Bhdy. 168 (βάπτειν εἰς ὕδωρ Plato,
Tim. 73 e.; Ael. 14, 39).
d. Verbs of laying hold of, when only a part of the whole is
taken hold of; as, Matt. xiv. 31 ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἐπελάβετο αὐτοῦ,
To this head may be referred also λovσios with the Gen. Eurip. Orest. 394. In
the N. T., however, the preposition è is always used; as, Eph. ii. 4 πλoúσis év èλéci
(rich in mercy), Jas. ii. 5. Cf. πλουτείν, πλουτίζεσθαι ἔν τινι 1 Tim. vi. 18; 1 Cor. i. 5, etc.
2 On πλŋðúve‹ àπó Athen. 13, 569 sec Schweighaeus. add. et corrig. p. 478. In Matt.
xxiii. 25 ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν (cup and platter) ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς καὶ ἀκρασίας is probably to be
rendered they are filled from plunder, their contents arise from plunder. Luke, on the
other hand, transfers the fulness to the Pharisees themselves, and therefore writes: 7d
ἔσωθεν ὑμῶν γέμει ἁρπαγής etc. Likewise ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆς in Juo. xii. 3 ἡ οἰκία ἐπληρώθη
ÈK TÊS ČσµÊS TOû μúpov does not stand for the Genitive, but denotes that wherefrom the
filling of the house came; it was filled from (by) the odor of the ointment (with fragrance).
26
202
§ 30. GENITIVE.
cf. Theoph. ch. 4 (with his hand he could take hold of Peter, just
in the act of sinking, by a part of the body only, perhaps by the
arm), Luke ix. 47; in a different application Mark ix. 27 кpaτýσas
αὐτὸν τῆς χειρός, Acts iii. 7 πιάσας αὐτὸν τῆς δεξιᾶς χειρός (by the
hand), cf. Plato, Parm. 126; Xen. A. 1, 6, 10; hence usually with
the Genitive of a limb; as, Luke viii. 54 κρаτýσAS TÊS XEIρÒS Avτês,
Acts xxiii. 19 (Isa. xli. 13; xlii. 6; Gen. xix. 16). On the other
hand, κρατεῖν οι λαμβάνειν, ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαί τινα always denotes
182 seize, apprchend one, i.e. his whole person; as, Matt. xii. 11; xiv. 3;
6th ed. xviii. 28; Acts ix. 27; xvi. 19; [xviii. 17. Yet it is doubtful
whether iλaµßáveolaι is ever joined to an Acc. of the person,
since (according to the analogy of Luke xiv. 4 eriλaßóμevos láσaтO
autóv) the Acc. in Acts ix. 27 is probably governed by yayev, in
xvi. 19 by eλкvσаv, in xviii. 17 by TUTTOV. See also Mey. on
Acts ix. 27 (3d ed.), and Bttm. Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr.
p. 140]. The same distinction is observed in the figurative use of
these verbs; as, Genitive, Heb. ii. 16; Luke i. 54; 1 Tim. vi. 2
(Xen. C. 2, 3, 6); Accusative, 2 Thess. ii. 15; Col. ii. 19, etc. But
êpateîv hold fast Heb. iv. 14 and vi. 18 and èπiλaµßáveolai lay hold
of 1 Tim. vi. 12, 19 (Ael. 14, 27), are construed with the Genitive;
in both instances, however, with reference to a good which is des-
tined for many (óμoλoyía, ëλπis), and which the individual, for
his respective part, holds fast or attains. See, in general, Mtth.
803 f. In an ideal sense eiλaµßáveσlai is construed with a
double Genitive ; as, Luke xx. 20 ἵνα ἐπιλάβωνται αὐτοῦ λόγου that
they might catch him by a word, 26 ἐπιλαβέσθαι αὐτοῦ ῥήματος (ef.
literally Xen. A. 4,7,12). Lastly, to this head is to be referred the
construction exeolaí tivos, hold by, adhere to anything (pendere
ex), Bleek, Heh. II. II. 220 f.; Mtth. 803, and ȧvtéxeoðaí tivos.
Both these verbs are thus used in the N. T. only in a figurative
sense; as, Heb. vi. 9 τὰ κρείσσονα καὶ ἐχόμενα σωτηρίας, Matt. vi. 24
τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθέξεται καὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου καταφρονήσει, 1 Thess. v. 14 άντέ-
χεσθε τῶν ἀσθενῶν, Tit. i. 9 ἀντεχόμενος τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ
λόγου. Also ἀνέχεσθαί τινος endure any thing or any one, comes
under this head, for it denotes properly to hold by a person or
thing (Matt. xvii. 17; Heb. xiii. 22; Eph. iv. 2), cf. Kypke II. 93;
likewise ἔνοχός (ἐνεχόμενος) τινος, as Matt. xxvi. 66 ἔνοχος θανάτου,
or 1 Cor. xi. 27 ἔνοχος τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου (Jas.
216 ii. 10), for in all cases a being held by, bound to, something is
expressed, in the first passage, to a punishment which must be
191 suffered, in the second, to a matter for which satisfaction is due.
7th ed. See Fr. Mt. p. 223; Bleek, Hebr. II. I. 340 f.; cf. § 31, pp. 210, 213.
§ 30. GENITIVE.
203
!
Note 1. The partitive Genitive is sometimes governed by an adverb;
as, Heb. ix, 7 añα тоû éviavтou once a year, [Matt. xxviii. 1 oyè σaßßáτwv],
Luke xviii. 12; xvii. 4 (Ptol. geogr. 8, 15, 19; 8, 29, 31; 8, 16, 4, etc.)
cf. Mdv. 54.
Note 2. The partitive Genitive occurs not merely in dependence, it also
makes its appearance sometimes as subject; as, Xen. A. 3, 5, 16 óπTÓTE ...
σπείσαιντο καὶ ἐπιμίγνυσθαι σφῶν τε πρὸς ἐκείνους καὶ ἐκείνων πρὸς αὐτούς and
(some) of them have intercourse with those; of those, with them, Thuc. 1, 115
(Theophan. I. 77). In the N. T. a similar construction occurs in Acts xxi. 16
συνῆλθον καὶ τῶν μαθητῶν σὺν ἡμῖν (cf. Pseudarist. p. 120 Haverc. ἐν οἷς καὶ
βασιλικοὶ ἦσαν καὶ τῶν τιμωμένων ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως). Ιn such cases,
In
however, the Genitive is regularly accompanied by a preposition; as, Jno.
xvi. 17 εἶπον ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ etc.
9. Moreover, the Genitive is easily to be recognized as the whence
case when joined
a. to verbs of accusing, arraigning (sentencing) as Genitive of
the thing (Mtth. 848), e.g. Acts xix. 40 Kivdvvevoμev èɣkaλeîobai
στάσεως, xxv. 11 οὐδέν ἐστιν ὧν οὗτοι κατηγοροῦσί μου, Luke xxiii.
14 οὐδὲν εὗρον ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τούτῳ αἴτιον ὧν κατηγορεῖτε κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ
(yet we find also πeρí тivos de aliqua re Acts xxiii. 29; xxiv. 13,
cf. Xen. Hell. 1, 7, 2, like xpíveo @ai Teρí Tivos Acts xxiii. 6; xxiv. 21);
for the offence of which one is accused is that from, out of which 183
the kaтηуopeîv arises, or proceeds. We must not, however, fail to 6th ed.
mention that the two preceding verbs are usually in Greek authors
construed differently, viz. Kaтnуореîv тiós тi (a construction which
can hardly be proved to occur in the N. T. from Mark xv. 3, cf.
Lucian. necyom. 19) and Ėykarêu Trí TMtth. 849 f1
b. to Kaтaкaνxãolai boast one's self of a thing (borrow glory
from something) Jas. ii. 13. On the other hand, the construction
ÉTTAIVEîv Tivá TIVOS (4 Macc. i. 10; iv. 4; Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 661)
does not occur in the N. T.; for in Luke xvi. 8 rîs àdiκías is
undoubtedly to be joined to οἰκονόμος, and the object of ἐπαινεῖν is
expressed only in the clause oтi þроvíμws èπoinσev. In general, 217
see on the former construction (Sintenis) in the Leipz. L. Z. 1833,
I. 1135. Like èraweîv the verb μoev has in later Greek the
Genitive of the thing (Liban. Oratt. p. 120 d.; Cantacuz. I. 56).
c. to verbs signifying to emit an odor (smell, breathe hard), Mtth.
1 How кaтnуopeîv (properly, maintain, assert against one) comes by the Genitive of a
person (Matt. xii. 10; Luke xxiii. 2, etc.), is obvious; but karayivwokei tiós 1 Jno.
iii. 20 f. is construed exactly in the same manner (Mtth. 860). Instead of ¿ynadeîv timi
(Sir. xlvi. 19) we find in Rom. viii. 33 ¿укаλ. Kaтά TIVOS, which is as easily accounted
for as kaτnуopeîv eis Tiva Maetzner, Antiph. 207.
204
§ 30. GENITIVE.
856; for in oÇew Twos the Genitive denotes the substance from
which the öğew emanates. In the N. T. this Gen. occurs only in a
192 figurative sense, Acts ix. 1 éµπvéwv úπeiλîs Kaì þóvov panting with,
7th ed. breathing of, threatening and slaughter, cf. Aristoph. eq. 437 oûtos ñôn
Kakias kal ovKOþavтías πveî Heliod. 1,2; Ephraem. 2358. Different
from this are φόνον πνέοντες Theocr. 22, 82, θυμὸν ἐκπνέων Eurip.
Bacch. 620, where the direct object is expressed: breathing murder,
courage, the verbs being used as transitive.
10. The Genitive appears to be removed a little farther from its
original import, when joined
a. to verbs of feeling, in order to denote the object towards
which the feeling is directed; as, σπλαγχνίζεσθαί τινος Matt.
xviii. 27. But in German also, sich jemandes erbarmen, we find
the Genitive construction; and in Greek the object was unquestion-
ably conceived as operating upon the feeling subject, consequently,
as the point from which the feeling proceeds, i.e. is generated.
Most verbs of this kind, however, are construed with the Acc.,
conformably to a different conception of the relation; see § 32, 1
and Hartung, S. 20.
b. to verbs of longing and desiring (Mtth. 824 f.), where we
commonly say, long for something, hanker after, etc. But the
Greek conception of èπðvμeîv Tivos (except in connections where
the Gen. can be taken partitively, as émiovμ. σopías, to desire of
wisdom) was such that the longing, the desire, proceeds from
the good in question, the good things of themselves entice men
to longing. In the N. T. éπOuμeîv invariably (in Matt. v. 28
alone we find a var.) takes the Genitive; as, Acts xx. 33 apyvρíov
184 ἢ χρυσίου ἢ ἱματισμοῦ οὐδενὸς ἐπεθύμησα (1 Tim. iii. 1), so also
6th ed. ὀρέγεσθαι 1 Tim. iii. 1 εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ
(Isocr. Demon. p. 24 opex0ñvai тŵν каλŵν éруwv Lucian. Tim. 70),
Heb. xi. 16, and iμeipeolau 1 Thess. ii. 8. Likewise in the Sept.
and the Apocrypha (Wisd. vi. 12; 1 Macc. iv. 17; xi. 11, etc.) we
find ἐπιθυμεῖν τινος the rule (ὀρέγεσθαι does not occur there at
all), though the verb already begins to be joined as transitive to
the Acc. Exod. xx. 17; Deut. v. 21; vii. 25; Mic. ii. 2; Job xxxiii.
20, cf. Wisd. xvi. 3; Ecclus. xvi. 1. The verb TITо0εîv appears
constantly with the Acc. even in the earlier Greek (because the
218 construction was thus resolved in thought: ποθεῖν or πόθον ἔχειν
èπi T, after something, cf. Fr. Rom. I. 31), Plat. legg. 9, 855 e.;
Diod. S. 17, 101; cf. 2 Cor. ix. 14; Phil. i. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 2. Like-
wise Tewν and Sv, which in Greek authors regularly take the
$ 30, GENITIVE.
205
1
Genitive, are joined in the N. T. in a figurative sense (in reference
to spiritual blessings) with the Acc. (piλooopíav dry. Epist. Socr.
25 p. 53 Allat.) Matt. v. 6 πεινῶντες καὶ διψῶντες δικαιοσύνην.
The difference between these two constructions is obvious: ôy.
piλoooplas incans to have a thirst for philosophy, while Sy.
pıλooopíav represents philosophy as something indivisible which 193
one wishes to get possession of.
Next to the verbs already mentioned follow, c. those of thinking
of, remembering (Mtth. 820); as, Luke xvii. 32 µvnμoveveтe тŷS
γυναικὸς Λώτ, [1 Thess. i. 3], Luke i. 72 μνησθῆναι διαθήκης, Acts
xi. 16; 1 Cor. xi. 2; Luke xxiii. 42; Heb. xiii. 2; Jude 17; 2 Pet.
iii. 2 (also vπоµiμvýσкeiv тivà TEρí Tivos 2 Pet. i. 12). We, too,
say: einer Sache gedenken, think of a matter, for this process is
simply the seizing, laying hold of, a particular with the memory.
Correspondingly, in the case of forgetting a thing, Heb. xii. 5 èκλé-
λησθε τῆς παρακλήσεως, vi. 10 ἐπιλαθέσθαι τοῦ ἔργου ὑμῶν, xiii. 2,
16. But ȧvaµµvýσкeσdai Heb. x. 32; 2 Cor. vii. 15; Mark xiv. 72
and μvnμovevec Matt. xvi. 9; 1 Thess. ii. 9; Rev. xviii. 5 often
govern the Accusative (Mtth. 820), yet rather in the sense of having
present in the mind, holding in remembrance (Bhdy. 177); èπiλav-
Oάveolaι likewise is joined to this case in Phil. iii. 14, so sometimes
in the Sept. (Deut. iv. 9; 2 Kings xvii. 38; Isa. lxv. 16; Wisd.
ii. 4; Ecclus. iii. 14), and even in Attic (Mtth. 821). This double
construction rests on a different view of the relation, of which
there is a glimpse also in Latin. Verbs of mentioning do not
take the Genitive in the N. T.; but we find, instead, µvnμov. πeρí
Heb. xi. 22 (cf. µiµvýσкeodai πeρí Xen. C. 1, 6, 12; Plut. paedag.
9, 27; Tob. iv. 1).
7th ed
d. Further, the transition is easy to verbs of caring for or neg-
lecting (Mtth. 821), Luke x. 34 Ėpen on a Tou (1 Tim. iii. 5),
1 Cor. ix. 9 µn tŵv Boŵv µéλei Tŵ Dew; (Acts xviii. 17; Plut.
paedag. 17, 22), Tit. iii. 8 iva opovтíšwoi kaλŵv epywv, 1 Tim. v. 8
τῶν ἰδίων οὐ προνοεῖ, 1 Tim. iv. 14 μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος
(Heb. ii. 3), Heb. xii. 5 µǹ ỏλyúρei taideias kupiov. Under this
head comes also þeídeolaι (Mtth. 822),² Acts xx. 29 µǹ perdóμevoi 185
ToÛ Toiµvíov not sparing the flock, 1 Cor. vii. 28; 2 Pet. ii. 4. etc.
1 In the Sept. this verb is found with the Dat. Ex. xvii. 3 édíynoev d λads &dati (for
water). Likewise in Ps. Ixii. 2 the Cod. Vat. has édiynoé σoɩ (0eŵ, al. σe) ʼn Yuxh μov.
2 In Latin parcere alicui. But in the Greek peídeo@ai, judging from the construction,
lies rather the notion of restraining one's self from, sibi temperare etc. In the Sept.,
however, this verb also takes the Dative, and is construed with prepositions.
6th ed.
206
§ 30. GENITIVE.
1
219 On the other hand, we find uée also with repi in Matt. xxii. 16;
Jno. x. 13; xii, 6, etc. (Her. 6, 101; Xen. C. 4, 5, 17; Hiero, 9, 10,
etc.; Wisd. xii. 13; 1 Macc. xiv. 43, cf. Strange in Jahn's Archiv
II. 400).
c. Lastly, verbs of ruling (Mtth. 838) take the Genitive as the
simple case of dependence (for to this the notion of preceding also
reduces itself, Hartung, S. 14): Mark x. 42 oi dokuûvтes äрxei tŵv
ἐθνῶν κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν (Rom. xv. 12 LXX.), cf. also κυριεύειν
Rom. xiv. 9 ; 2 Cor. i. 24, αὐθεντεῖν 1 Tim. ii. 12, καταδυναστεύειν
Jas. ii. 6, άvoυπатEÚеI Acts xviii. 12 etc. verbs all derived from
nouns, and whose construction is to be resolved thus: kúpióv TIVOS
εἶναι, ἀνθύπατόν τινος εἶναι. On the other hand, βασιλεύειν τινός
194 (Her. 1, 206 and Sept.) never occurs in the N. T.; but we find
7th ed. instead, conformably to the Heb. idiom (by with verbs of ruling,
Ps. xlvii. 9; Prov. xxviii. 15; Neh. v. 15) Bao. èπi Tivos Matt.
ii. 22; Rev. v. 10, or èπí τiva Luke i. 33; xix. 14, 27; Rom. v. 14;
cf. Lob. Phryn. 475.
Verbs of buying and selling take the Genitive of the price (Bhdy. 177 f.
Mdv. 67 f.) ; as, Matt. x. 29 οὐχὶ δύο στρουθία ἀσσαρίου πωλεῖται — xxvi. 9
ýdúvato Toûto πрalŵvai wodλov, xx. 13; Mark xiv. 5; Acts v. 8 (Plato
apol. 20 b.) 1 Cor. vi. 20; cf. Rev. vi. 6 Bar. i. 10; iii. 30 (but Matt.
xxvii. 7 ἠγόρασαν ἐξ αὐτῶν viz. ἀργυρίων, Acts i. 18), Acts vii. 16 ὠνήσατο
TiμĤs ȧpyvpíov (with èk Palaeph. 46, 3, 4). Also under this head comes
Jude 11 τῇ πλάνῃ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ μισθοῦ ἐξεχύθησαν for reward (Xen. C. 3,
2, 7; Plat. rep. 9, 575 b.). Agreeably to the construction with è, and
still more in view of the fundamental import of the Genitive, this genitivus
pretii might be reduced to the notion of proceeding from (cf. Eng. proceeds),
as that which is bought for a price comes to us, as it were, out of the price
given. But it is probably more correct to refer this construction to the
Genitive of exchanging, and to compare such phraseology as åλλáoσew ṛí
TIVOS (Hartung, 15; Mtth. 483); for one buys or sells in exchange for so
much money. Hence in Greek ȧvrí [cf. Heb. xii. 2, 16] is the preposition.
of price.
(A different view will be found in Hm. Opusc. I. 179; see on the
other hand Prüfer de graeca et lat. declinat. 98 sq.) However, the con-
struction ἀλλάσσειν, διαλλάσσειν τί τινος does not itself occur in the Greek
Bible, but in Rom. i. 23 we find the more explicit åλλáoσeiv tɩ ev Tivi, as
in the Sept. (after the Heb.) Ps. cv. 20. 'Aλλáoσew tí tivi comes
nearest to this (Her. 7, 152; Sept. Exod. xiii. 13; Lev. xxvii. 10, and
frequently). Moreover, words of valuing, estimating, etc. stand on the
same footing with verbs of buying, etc., and govern in like manner the
Genitive (Krü. 44) ; cf. ä§ios Matt. iii. 8; x. 10; Rom. i. 32, åέioûv 2 Thess.
i. 11; 1 Tim. v. 17; Heb. iii. 3, etc.
§ 30. GENITIVE.
207
2
11. The Genitive of place and of time is employed without being 186
directly governed by a single word, yet in accordance with the 6th ed.
primary import of the case (Hm. Vig. 881; Hartung, 32 ff.) and 220
in obvious connection with the structure of the sentence; as, Aesch.
Prom. 714 λαιᾶς χειρὸς σιδηροτέκτονες οἰκοῦσι Χάλυβες on the left
hand (Her. 5, 77), Xen. Eph. 5, 13 ẻkeivŋs tŷs nµépas that day,
Philostr. her. 9, 3 f. xepôvos in winter, 'of a winter,' Thuc. 3, 104
(Mtth. 857 f.). The N. T. writers, in this case, almost invariably
employ a preposition. Only in certain standing phrases do they
use the Genitive alone (which is strictly a partitive Genitive); as,
often νυκτός by night, also μέσης νυκτός Matt. xxv. 6, ἡμέρας καὶ
VUKTÓS Luke xviii. 7; Acts ix. 24 (Xen. A. 2, 6, 7), xeovos Matt.
xxiv. 20 (joined with σαββάτῳ), Luke xxiv. 1 ὄρθρου βαθέος, τ. 19
μὴ εὑρόντες, ποίας (ὁδοῦ) εἰςενέγκωσιν αὐτόν (by) what way, sis.
4 (exeims se. ðôou), Gal. vi. 17 Tàu Youtou (Thuc. 4. 98) cf. the
German des weitern. (But for the very reason that the Genitive 195
of time is confined in the N. T. to simple and current phrases,
Acts i. 3 ἡμερῶν τεσσαράκοντα in D must not be translated within
forty days (Mtth. 858), see above 2, a. Had such been Luke's
meaning, he would undoubtedly have employed a preposition.)
Rev. xvi. 7 ἤκουσα τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου λέγοντος is certainly not to be
referred to this head (I heard speaking from the altar, cf. Soph. El. 78;
Erfurdt, Soph. Oed. R. 142; Bttm. Philoct. 115; Bhdy. 137); but, in
accordance with the analogous expressions in verse 5 and vi. 3, 5, it must
be translated I heard the altar speaking; see Bengel in loc.
This pros-
opopoeia may be attributed to the strangely mysterious character of these
visions, see de Wette. The reading ἤκ. ἄλλου ἐκ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου λέγ.
is a manifest correction. On Tißepiádos Jno. vi. 1 see above, p. 191.
Note. Genitives absolute, which often occur in the historical style even
in the N. T., are not in their original application properly absolute, but
come under the Genitive as the case defining time, cf. Hartung, S. 31
(hence they correspond to Ablatives absolute in Latin). Subsequently,
however, they are used in a more extended reference, especially to
specify the cause and condition (also involved in the Genitive). We
have merely to remark here, that they sometimes occur where the nature
of the verb following would lead one to expect a different oblique case:
Luke xvii. 12 εἰςερχομένου αὐτοῦ ... ἀπήντησαν αὐτῷ, xxii. 10, 53; xviii.
40 ἐγγίσαντος αὐτοῦ. ἐπερώτησεν αὐτόν, Mark xi. 27 ; Acts iv. 1; xxi. 17 ;
2 Cor. xii. 21; Jno. iv. 51. This is usual likewise in Greek authors,
partly because at the beginning of the sentence the writer had not yet
decided on the principal verb, and partly because the regular construction.
would often render the expression clumsy, cf. Her. 1, 41; Thuc. 1, 114;
7th ed
208
§ 31. DATIVE.
221 3, 13; Xen. A. 2, 4, 24; Mem. 4, 8, 5; Pol. 4, 49, 1; Xen. Eph. 4, 5;
Heliod. 2, 30, 113; Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. II. 21; Schaef. Apollon. Rh.
II. 171 and Dem. II. 202; Poppo, Thuc. I. 2, 119; Siebelis, Pausan. II. 8;
Hoffmann, Pr. de casib. absol. p. 1. Likewise 2 Cor. iv. 18 alúviov Bápos
187 δόξης κατεργάζεται ἡμῖν, μὴ σκοπούντων ἡμῶν τὰ βλεπόμενα might have
6th ed. been expressed thus: µǹ okotovσi tà Bλe. By the former construction,
however, the participial clause is brought out with more prominence and
force. Cf. Xen. C. 6, 1, 37. Finally, Genitives absolute are exceptionally
used when the subject of the principal clause (in the Nominative) is the
same as that of the secondary clause; as, Matt. i. 18 µvnorevbeíσns TĤs μnTpòs
αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτούς, εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα,
where the writer probably had contemplated another termination of the
sentence. So perhaps Rev. xyii. 8. In Greek authors such instances are
rare; 'yet see Her. 5, 81; Plat. rep. 8, 547 b.; Pol. 31, 17, 1, cf. Poppo,
Thuc. I. 119 sq.; Wannowski, p. 61 sqq. In the Sept. notice Gen. xliv. 4;
196 Exod. iv. 21; v. 20; xiv. 18; cf. Acta apocr. p. 68, 69; Epiphan. vit.
7th ed.
p. 326, 340, 346 (in the 2d vol. of the Works of Epiphan. ed. Colon.); in
Latin, Suet. Tib. 31. In all these instances Genitives absolute appear as
fixed forms of expression, their grammatical origin being no longer taken
into consideration.
222
§ 31. DATIVE.
In Greek the Dative is the more comprehensive in its import,
because it represents the Ablative also, which in Latin is a sep-
arate casc (cf. Hm. emend. rat. p. 140). Its relation to a sentence
is not (in general) close and essential, like that of the Acc. or even
the Gen.; but it serves merely to complete and extend, inasmuch
as it points out the object (mostly a person) towards which an
action tends, to which it has reference, yet on which it does not
directly terminate. Hence the Dative frequently accompanies an
Acc. of the object; as, 2 Cor. ix. 2 πроðνµía îν кavɣôμаι Maкedóow,
Acts xxii. 25 πρoéteivav avtòv toîs iµáow (Kuin. in loc.), xxív. 5;
Jno. vi. 13. In a looser application (to things) the Dative denotes
what in any way accompanies the action, as motive, power, cir-
cumstance (of time and place), etc.
1. We shall first consider the Dative as the case of reference
(of the more remote object, as it is commonly called) when joined
to transitive verbs — as, διδόναι (δωρεῖσθαί) τί τινι, γράφειν τί τινι
(2 Cor. ii. 3), evayyeλíçeolaí tɩví TI (Luke ii. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 7),
1 From the Latin compare Ablat. absol. in Cic. Phil. 11, 10; fam. 15, 4, 18; Caes. b.
gall. 5, 4; civ. 1, 36; 2, 19; 3, 21.
§ 31. DATIVE.
209
opeiλew Twi Ti Matt. xviii. 28; Rom. xiii. 8 (cf. Rom. i. 14; viii.
12, contrary xv. 27), óμoloûv Tivá Tivi Matt. vii. 24; xi. 16, катаλ-
λάσσειν τινά τινι 2 Cor. v. 18, ἐγείρειν θλίψιν τοῖς δεσμοῖς Phil.
i. 17, all which present no difficulty,-and especially to intransitive
verbs and their cognate adjectives.
Its force is more or less distinct,
a. In ἀκολουθεῖν, ἐγγίζειν, κολλᾶσθαί, στοιχεῖν (Rom. iv. 12 etc.),
dedéolai (Rom. vii. 2; 1 Cor. vii. 27), évτvyxávei Tivi etc., also
εὔχεσθαί τινι Acts xxvi. 29.
b. In μεριμναν Matt. vi. 25, ὀργίζεσθαι τ. 22, μετριοπαθεῖν τινι
Heb. v. 2, in μéµpeolaι Heb. viii. 8 (Krü. 21), p0oveîv Gal. v. 26.
e. In πιστεύειν, πεποιθέναι, ἀπιστεῖν, ἀπειθεῖν, ὑπακούειν, ὑπήκοος,
ἐναντίος, etc.
d. In προςκυνεῖν, λατρεύειν (not Phil. iii. 3), δουλοῦν.
e. In ἀρέσκειν, ἀρκεῖν Matt. xxv. 9 ; 2 Cor. xii. 9, ἀρκετός and
ikavós Matt. vi. 34; 1 Pet. iv. 3; 2 Cor. ii. 6.
f. Further, in gevíčeolaí τıvı 1 Pet. iv. 12 (Thuc. 4, 85) be sur- 188
it .
prised at a thing (the surprise being in reference to the thing),
ȧπоλоуeîσ Oαí (2 Cor. xii. 19; Acts xix. 33 cf. 1 Pet. iii. 15) and
διαλέγεσθαί τινι (Acts xvii. 2; xviii. 19), διακατελέγχεσθαί τινι
Acts xviii. 28 (doyμatíčew twí cf. Col. ii. 20), where the person to
whom the conversation, defence, etc. is addressed, is indicated by
the Dative. Also ὁμολογεῖν and ἐξομολογεῖσθαί τινι (Jas. v. 16),
even in the sense of praise (?in) Luke x. 21; Rom. xiv.
11;
Heb. xiii. 15, since every act of praise to God is a confession made
to him, that we recognize him as the High and Mighty One. So
in one instance also alveîv Twi Rev. xix. 5 according to the best
Codd. [Sin. too], cf. Ecclus. li. 12; in this case, too, was
probably in mind, unless the construction is ad sensum like eiπeîV
αἴνεσιν.
g. In kрiveolaí Matt. v. 40, Siaxpíveolaí Tivi Jude 9 (Jer. xv. 10)
to go to law, to contend with one.
197
7th ed.
h. In verbs of likeness or similarity-under another point of
view Matt. xxiii. 27 óμoláčeтe Tápоis KEKоviaμévois, vi. S; Heb.
ii. 17; 2 Cor. x. 12 cf. öμorós, loos Twí Matt. xi. 16; Jno. ix. 9;
1 Jno. iii. 2; Acts xiv. 15; Matt. xx. 12; Phil. ii. 6; cf. Fr. Arist.
amic. p. 15 (öμotos also once with the Genitive, Jno. viii. 55; Mtth.
873; cf. § 30, 4), and verbs of participating in; as, 1 Tim. v. 22;
1 Pet. iv. 13 cf. Luke v. 10; Rom. xv. 27 (these verbs have more
frequently the Gen. § 30, 8). Likewise opiλeir Tum Acts xxiv. 26.
ὁμιλεῖν τινι
i. In verbs of using, as xpñolaι Acts xxvii. 17; 1 Cor. ix. 12, 15; 223
27
210
§ 31. DATIVE.
189
7th ed.
(on the contrary, once 1 Cor. vii. 31 with the Acc. in the best Codd.
[also Sin.*], as sometimes in later writers e.g. Malal. p. 5; Thcophan.
p. 314; Böckh, corp. inscript. II. 405-nct Xen. Ages. 11, 11-
cf. Bornem. Act. p. 222. But in Acts xxvii. 17 the Acc. has little
authority).
k. In στήκειν (ἑστηκέναι) τινί, to stand fast for a thing 2 Cor.
i. 24; Gal. v. 1 (var.), or a person Rom. xiv. 4.
Пposkuveîv (reverence and worship) invariably governs the Dative in
Matt. Mark and Paul (Matt. iv. 10 is a quotation from Deut. vi. 13);
while in the other N. T. writers it has sometimes the Dat. (Jno. ix. 38;
Acts vii. 43; Heb. i. 6; Rev. iv. 10; vii. 11; xiii. 4, etc.), sometimes the
Acc. (Luke iv. 8; xxiv. 52; Jno. iv. 23; Rev. ix. 20; xiv. 11); similarly
YoνUTETEîv Tiva Mark (i. 40) x. 17; Matt. xvii. 14 (and λarpeúew twά some-
times, Mtth. 886). The Dative after πрosʊveîv is peculiar to later Greek
alone; Lob. Phryn. p. 463; cf. Bos, ex. phil. p. 1 sqq.; Kypke, obs. I. 7 sq.
Xaípew, which in Greek authors is often construed with the Dative (Fr.
Rom. III. 78 f.), and sometimes also in the Sept. (Prov. xvii. 19, cf. Bar.
iv. 37), is never so used in the N. T. (on Rom. xii. 12 see below, No. 7;
in 1 Cor. xiii. 6 the Dat. depends on σúv) but for the most part with ¿πi over.
The phrases ἀποθανεῖν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, τῷ νόμῳ Rom. vi. 2; Gal. ii. 19,
θανατοῦσθαι τῷ νόμῳ Rom. vii. 4, νεκρὸν εἶναι τῇ ἁμ. vi. 11, in antithesis to
Lŷv Tivi (Tậ de Rom. vi. 10 cf. 1 Pet. iv. 10) signify: to be dead to (for)
sin, the law etc. cf. Rom. vii. 4 εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ and ἀπογενέσθαι
Tŷ áμарT. 1 Pet. ii. 24. In the same way, in Rom. vi. 20 ¿λ€ú0€рoɩ Tĥ
δικαιοσύνη is contrasted with δουλοῦσθαι τῇ δικαιοσύνη (verse 18 cf. 19, 20) :
when ye were slaves to sin, ye were free to (relatively to) righteousness,
so far as righteousness is concerned, freemen.
1
In κаTaкρive Twvà Oaváry Matt. xx. 18 (cf. 2 Pet. ii. 6), an expression.
6th ed. unknown to classic Greek, we find a Dative of the thing after a verb of
198 sentencing: to condemn one to death, i.e. by sentence adjudge to death.
The classical Greek construction is κατακρίνειν τινὰ θανάτου οι θάνατον
(Mtth. 850; Heupel, Mr. 285), or катакр. тivì ávarov Her. 6, 85 (to award
death). Analogous is karadıkášeiv tivà Oavátų, Lob. Phryn. p. 475; cf.
also evoxos Tŷ кpíσe Matt. v. 21 f. amenable to the court (§ 30, 8). Cf.
Bleek, Heb. II. I. 340.
ειν
2. Closely connected with this is the Dative dependent on elvai
(ὑπάρχειν) and γίνεσθαι (not on the predicates joined to them);
224 for ἐστί or γίνεταί μοι φόβος can only mean: the φόβον εἶναι or
yíveolaι applies, refers, to me. From it result the following uses:
1 This construction is unknown also in the O. T. Of the parallel passages quoted
by Bretsch. one, Sus. 41, is kaтékρivav αŮтǹν àπоlaveîv, and the other, vs. 48, is absol.
κατεκρίνατε θυγατέρα Ισραήλ.
ко
1
8 31. DATIVE.
211
a. Without a predicate, eival rivi expresses property (possession),
γίνεσθαί τινι impartation: Luke ii. Τ οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος they lad
no room, Acts viii. 21; x. 6; iii. 6; xxi. 23; Matt. xviii. 12; Luke
i. 14 ἔσται χαρά σοι, Matt. xvi. 22 οὐ μὴ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο this will
not befall thee, Acts xx. 3, 16; ii. 43 éyéveтo πúσŋ †ʊxô þóßos
fear fell upon, Rom. xi. 25. Elliptically 1 Cor. vi. 13; v. 12; 2 Cor.
vi. 14; Jno. ii. 4 (Krü. 59).
b. With a predicate (mostly a substantive), elvai or yíveolai
Tivi denotes what quality for a person a thing has or receives,
objectively as well as subjectively (i.e. in his own opinion); as,
1 Cor. viii. 9 μήπως ἡ ἐξουσία ... πρόςκομμα γένηται τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν,
i. 18 ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῖς μὲν ἀπολλυμένοις μωρία ἐστίν etc.
ix. 2; xiv. 22; Rom. ii. 14; vii. 13; 1 Cor. iv. 3; ix. 3; Phil.
i. 28. But become (redound) to (Krü. 59) is usually expressed in
the N. Τ. by είναι οι γίνεσθαι εἴς τι.
3. Substantives derived from verbs governing a Dative some-
times take the same case, instead of the ordinary Genitive; as,
2 Cor. ix. 12 evxaρioтíai т@ De❖ (not 11), somewhat like euxai TOîs
Oeoûs Plat. legg. 7, 800 a., see Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. 1. 154 Lips. ;
Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. 101, and rep. I. 372; Ast, Plat. Polit. 451;
Bornem. Xen. Cyr. 374; Fr. Mr. p. 63. Compare besides 7ò eiwbòs
avro Luke iv. 16; Acts xvii. 2 (Plat. legg. 658 e. Tò eos nμiv)
and Tò evπáρedрov т@ Kupię 1 Cor. vii. 35. The case is different
in Luke vii. 12 υἱὸς μονογενὴς τῇ μητρί a son who was to his mother
an only son (thus not strictly for the Genitive, cf. Tob. iii. 15
μOVOYEVÈS TÊ TAтρí, Judg. xi. 34), with which the Dative of rela-
tionship-cf. Luke v. 10; Rom. iv. 12 (Bttm. Philoct. p. 102 sq.;
Boisson. Nic. p. 271; Ast, Plat. Polit. 451, 519, also legg. p. 9) -
is not to be confounded. On Rom. iv. 12 see § 61, 5, p. 555.
Also in Matt. xxvii. 7 ἠγόρασαν τὸν ἀγρὸν ... εἰς ταφὴν τοῖς ξένοις
for a burying-ground for strangers, the Dative belongs to the substantive;
cf. Strabo 17, 807 пρòs éπídeiέiv Toîs ¿évols. See Schoem. Isae. p. 264: 139
Krü. 68 f. But in 1 Cor. vii. 28 the Dative may be referred to the verb th ed.
of the sentence. Yet see Bhdy. S. 88.
190
6th ed.
4. The Dative, without being directly involved in the significa-
tion of a verb or noun, expresses the relation of the action to some
one: 2 Cor. ii. 12 оÙк еσуηка аveσw тê πνeúμатí pov for my spirit
(1 Cor. vii. 28), or Luke xviii. 31 távтa тà Yeypaµµéva ... Tân viê 225
Tоû ȧv¤рóπov which were written for him (that they might receive
fulfilment in him), (Matt. xiii. 14; Jude 14). Cf. besides, Matt.
xiii. 52; Phil. i. 27; 1 Tim. i. 9; Rev. xxi. 2. Especially deserv-
ing of notice are,
212
§ 31. DATIVE.
a. The Dative of opinion or decision (cf. above, No. 2); as,
Plato, Phaed. 101 d. εἴ σοι ἀλλήλοις ξυμφωνεί ή διαφωνεῖ; Soph.
Oed. C. 1446. So in the expressions Acts vii. 20 doтelos To Be,
2 Cor. x. 4 Suva và t điện See also 1 Cor. ix. 2. Cf. Wyttenb.
Plat. Phaed. as above; Erfurdt, Soph. Oed. R. 615; Krü. 61.
1
;
b. The Dative of interest, 2 Cor. v. 13 εἴτε ἐξέστημεν, θεῷ· εἴτε
owþpovoûµev, úµîv (Rom. xiv. 6; 1 Cor. xiv. 22), or, more definitely,
the dativus commodi and incommodi, Juo. iii. 26 σv µеµаρтúρηкas,
to whom, in favor of whom (Luke iv. 22; Rom. x. 2; 2 Cor. ii. 1
cf. Xen. M. 1, 2, 21). On the other hand, Matt. xxiii. 31 µаρтν-
PEîTE ÉAUTOîs ŐTi vioí èσte etc., against yourselves, cf. Jas. v. 3.
Cf. besides, Heb. vi. 6; Jude 1; Rom. xiii. 2. On Rev. viii. 3, see
Ewald. But Eph. v. 19 λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς — ἀλλήλοις—ψαλμοῖς,
etc., is a simple Dative of direction: speaking to one another, etc.)
5. The preceding illustrations suffice to show that the Dative is
as closely related to the prepositions els (Engelhardt, Plat. Menex.
p. 360) 2 and πpós (cf. Ast, Plat. legg. p. 558), as the Gen. is to
the prepositions é and άo. Hence in many phrases one of the
former prepositions is used instead of the Dative. Thus we find,
as every one knows, not only λέγειν τινί and πρός τινα (the latter is
in Matt. and Mark the usual indeed almost invariable expression,
sce Schulz, Parab. v. Verwalt. S. 38) cf. páčew Tiví Rev. vii. 2;
xiv. 15, φωνεῖν τινι Rev. xiv. 18, but also εὔχεσθαι θεῷ Acts
xxvi. 29 (Xen. Cyr. 5, 2, 12; Demosth. Conon. 729 c.; Plut. Coriol.
9; Xen. Eph. 4, 3), and exeσ0αι πρòs Оeóv 2 Cor. xiii. 7 (Xen.
M. 1, 3, 2) cf. Phil. iv. 6, Boâv Tivi Luke xviii. 7 and B. πρós Tiva Hos.
vii. 14, eúdeolaí Tivi (Acts v. 4; Ps. xvii. 45; lxxvii. 36; Jer.
v. 12, but not in Greek authors) and reúd. πρós Tiva (to lie against
one, to be false towards one) Xen. A. 1,3,5, нATAλλÚTTEIV Tivi and
200 πρós Tiva Xen. vectig. 6, 8; Joseph. antt. 14, 11, 3,³ eúdokeîv els tiva
7th ed. 2 Pct. i. 17 and Twi in Greek writers (Pol. 4, 22, 7; 1 Macc. i. 43),
226 µúxeolaí Tivi Xen. A. 4, 5, 12; Plato, rep. 3, 407 a. and πρós TIVA
Juo. vi. 52; Iliad. 17, 98; Plato, Lach. 191 d.; Lucian. conv. 42,
and often (also in Sept.), ὁμιλεῖν τινι and πρός τινα Luke xxiv. 14;
4
1 Toùs πTWXOÙS tậ kóoµợ, as Lehm. and Tdf. read Jas. ii. 5, would be similar.
2 In modern Greek the Acc. with els serves very commonly as a circumlocution for
the Dative, even in its simplest relations; as, λéyw eis tòv píxov pov dico amico meo,
(German, gegen in. Fr.), sec v. Lüdemann, Lehrb. 90.
3 Col. i. 20 аπокaтαλλ. eis would be analogous, if this were not designedly a pregnant
construction; scc Mey.
4 So besides Tapaßáλλeiv tí tivi (Her. 4. 198) also Ti Tpós Ti occurs (Joseph. Ap. 2. 15).
Otherwise Mark iv.30 ἐν ποίᾳ παραβολῇ παραβάλωμεν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, see Fr.;
but the reading here varies.
§ 31. DATIVE.
213
1
6th ed
Xen. M. 4, 3, 2. The construction with a preposition doubtless 191
attracted the N. T. writers, through the influence of the explicit
and graphic idiom of their vernacular tongue, and hence where
the Dat. commodi or incommodi would have been sufficient for
native Greek authors, we find eis: Acts xxiv. 17 èλenμocúVAS TOIŃ-
σων εἰς τὸ ἔθνος μου, Luke vii. 30 τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἠθέτησαν
eis éavroús to their own harm (so that eis also signifies contra).¹
On the other hand κηρύττειν or εὐαγγελίζεσθαι εἰς, being constantly
followed by the Plural of the noun, denotes to make known among,
Mark xiii. 10; 1 Pet. i. 25; Luke xxiv. 47 (Paus. 8, 5, 8). In
Matt. xx. 1 μolovo lai eis Tòv aμπеλova means hire, not for,
but into his vineyard. In the same way, the construction is preg
mant in Mark viii. 19 τοὺς ἄρτους ἔκλασα εἰς τοὺς πεντακιςχιλ. broke
(and divided) among the etc. Likewise in Matt. v. 22 évoxos eis
Tηv yéevvav liable into Gehenna, i.e. to go, be cast (on the other
hand τῇ κρίσει, τῷ συνεδρίῳ). Also Rom. viii. 18 τὴν μέλλουσαν
δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡμᾶς is an abridged expression (see Fr.)
similar to the Hebrew 1 Sam. iii. 7. Lastly, in the phrases
ὠφέλιμος πρός τι
¿PÉλiµOS πPÓS Tɩ 1 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Tim. iii. 16 (with els Xen. Oec. 5,
11 cf. xpýσiμos eis Wisd. xiii. 11), EVDETOS ES Tɩ Luke xiv. 35 (Dion.
H. de Thuc. 55, 3, with πpós Pol. 26, 5, 6; D. S. 5, 37) the preposi-
tion with the Acc. must not be regarded as put for the Dative, since
useful, adapted, for, to something is quite an appropriate expression,
while the Dative would be more suitable in reference to the Person.
Yet cf. Luke ix. 62 var.
The phrase πιστεύειν εἴς οι ἐπί τινα (Acts ix. 42; xxii. 19) obviously
means in Christian phraseology more than oтevew tɩí (credere, confidere
alicui), and is to be taken as pregnant: in faith to resign one's self unto
any one, to profess one's self a believer on one, fide se ad aliquem applicare.²
Likewise rapadidóvar eis (to deliver up to any one) is not simply equivalent 227
to πaρ. Tivi, but rather denotes deliver into the power of, surrender to. Matt. 201
x. 17; hence it is used with Oávaros Matt. x. 21; 2 Cor. iv. 11, exîvis Matt. 7th ed
xxiv. 9, åκaðapoía Rom. i. 24 etc.; cf. Xen. Hel. 1, 7, 3. The construction
ἑαυτοὺς παρέδωκαν τῇ ἀσελγείᾳ εἰς ἐργασίαν ἀκαθαρσίας πάσης etc. Εph. iv. 19
requires no explanation.
1 In Luke viii. 43 the text. rec. has eis larpоùs πρosavaλwσara Eλov Tòv Biov, but the
best Codd. [Sin. too] have larpoîs. The latter must be preferred, as the former appears
to be a correction. In Greek authors, that is to say, the verb is usually construed with
eis, Xen. Cyrop. 2, 4, 9; Aclian. 14, 32.
2 ПiσтEVEL Év Xplor is to be understood in the same way, yet this expression cannot
be unquestionably established from Gal. iii. 26; Eph. i. 13; we find, however, in Mark
i. 15 πιστ. ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, which is not essentially different. Further, ἡ πρός τινα
Tloris, and the like (Schwarz, Comment. p. 1102), do not prove the expression mσtevew
πpós or eis Tiva to be pure Greek.
214
§ 31. DATIVE.
Note. The Dat. is related also to μerá. Accordingly, in the N. T. we
find πολεμεῖν μετά τινος Rev. xii. 7 ; xiii. 4 for πολεμεῖν τινι, also κρίνεσθαι μετά
Twos 1 Cor. vi. 6 (7). In other relations a circumlocution for the Dat. is
192 formed, a. By means of ἐνώπιον Acts vi. 5 ἤρεσεν ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ πλήθους
6th ed. (Gen. xxxiv. 18; xli. 37; 2 Sam. iii. 36, etc.) cf. 1 Jno. iii. 22, πрosкUVELV
¿vúπlov toû deoû (Luke iv. 7; Rev. xv. 4). This, like almost all construc-
tions with evάov (?), is Hebraistic. b. After πéñоɩα by èv Phil. iii. 3,
or mi with Dat. Mark x. 24; 2 Cor. i. 9 and with Acc. Matt. xxvii. 43
(1 Macc. x. 77), [or lastly by eis, yet only in Gal. v. 10]. c. After åkoλoveîv
by ỏñíσw Matt. x. 38; see § 33.
That the Dative can be employed precisely for the local πpós or
els with the Acc. has been denied by Bornem. (in Rosenm. Reper-
tor. II. 253 and in the neu. krit. Journ. d. theol. Literat. VI. 146 f..
cf. also ad Anab. p. 23), and also by Mey. on Acts ii. 33. It is
true, the examples adduced from Greek poets by Fr. (Conject. I.
42) do not establish the rule (for prose), and the N. T. passages
may be explained differently: in Acts ii. 33 and v. 31 yoûv TŶy
değiậ may signify by (his) right hand; in Rev. ii. 16 σo is simply
a Dat. incommodi; even Acts xxi. 16 might be rendered (after
Beza and Glass.) adducentes secum, apud quem hospitaremur Mna-
sonem, so that Mváowvi dependent on ayovтes as Acc. of the object
(Mváowva k.t.h.) would be incorporated into the relative clause.
But the latter rendering has little probability.¹ Sooner could we,
according to Bornem.'s more recent suggestion (Luke p. 177 sq.),
resolve the attraction in the above passage thius: ἄγοντες (ἡμᾶς)
228 παρὰ Μνάσωνά τινα . . .
παρ' ᾧ ξενισθῶμεν (as to ἄγειν παρά τινα
cf. Her. 1, 86; 3, 15); even this, however, is not the easiest way.
The construction ayew Tví bring to one may indeed be unusual
(yet see the Note) in Attic prose, but in later prose authors we
find expressions entirely similar, as poirâv Tv Philostr. Soph. 2,
1, 14 (Wyttenbach, Plutarch. Mor. IV. 339), кew Tivi Plutarch.
202 Acm. 16, 1, eispépei tivá Tivi Malal. 10, p. 231. On Acts xxi. 16
7th ed. especially, however, cf. Xen. Eph. 3, 6, p. 63 πóтeρov ǹyóμnv 'Aßpo-
1 Not precisely on account of the annexed predicate apx. μant? (Bengel's n. Archiv
III. 175), as that refers to Mnason to show that Paul could trust him perfectly; but
rather because it is not credible that his companions would have brought a host for
Paul with them from Caesarea, as there were in Jerusalem so many trustworthy Chris-
tians. According to this view one would have to assume that this Mnason was either
accidentally present in Caesarca, or that he had a residence in two places at the same
time. By dropping secum, which is not implied in ǎyovres, the statement would become
simpler they brought (introduced) Mnason in Jerusalem after their arrival; but then
the position of the words would not be suitable.
§ 31. DATIVE.
215
κόμη, and Epiph. vit. p. 340 d. ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν ᾿Αθανασίῳ τῷ πάππα.
See also Bldy. 95; Held, Plut. Aem. P. p. 200. Hence vyoûv Tŷ
değiâ may without hesitation be translated: raise To the right hand;
cf. vs. 34 (of Acts ii.) кúloυ èk değiŵv pov; cf. Lucian. asin. 39.
'Iep.
In Luke ii. 41 επορεύοντο ... εἰς Ἱερ. τῇ ἑορτῇ is not to the festival 193
(Luth. auf das Osterfest), but either on account of the f. (see below, 6 c.), 6th ed.
or, as a loose expression, at the f. (as we also say: they made a yearly
journey at Easter to ... to attend divine service). There would be more
reason for referring to the preceding rule Mark xiv. 53 ovvépxovrai avtų
convenerant eum, and Jno. xi. 33 roùs ouveλlóvras avry 'Iovdaíovs (Fr. Mr.
648). Still, as appears to me, in both these passages the Dative is really
governed by σúv: the second signifying simply, who had come with her;
and the first, they came with him, that is, with Jesus (verse 54), see BCrus.
Further, different from the foregoing construction is that of the Dative
joined to verbs of coming in an ideal sense; as, Acts xxi. 31 ȧvéßn dáois
Tô xiliάpxy compare our tidings came to him. A similar usage occurs
frequently and indisputably in Greek authors; as, Plutarch. Brut. 27 µéλ-
λοντι αὐτῷ διαβαίνειν . . . ἧκεν ἀγγελία περὶ τῆς μεταβολῆς, and Pomp. 13 τῷ
Σύλλᾳ πρώτη μὲν ἦλθεν ἀγγελία. Cf. ἀνάγειν τί τινι to bring a thing before
one (notify to), Malal. 3 p. 63; 10 p. 254.
6. In a wider use the Dative of the thing is employed of every
thing in reference to which an action or a state comes to pass.
Accordingly, it is used
T
a. To designate the sphere to which a general predicate is to be
conceived as confined (cf. Bhdy. 84; Krü. 74); as, 1 Cor. xiv. 20
μὴ παιδία γίνεσθε ταῖς φρεσίν, ἀλλὰ τῇ κακίᾳ νηπιάζετε children
in understanding, children in reference to malice (Plat. Alcib. pr.
122 c.), Rom. iv. 20 évedvvaµólη Tŷ Tíoтe he grew strong in faith, 229
Phil. ii. 8 oxýμaτi evρeleìs ¿s äveρwπos, iii. 5; Matt. v. [3] 8;
σ
1 Cor. vii. 34;
(Pol. 20, 4, 7);
xi. 29; Acts vii. 51; xiv. 8; xvi. 5; xviii. 2; xx. 22; Rev. iv. 3;
Heb. v. 11; xi. 12; xii. 3; 1 Pet. iii. 18; v. 9
Gal. i. 22; Rom. xii. 10 f.; Col. ii. 5; Eph. iv. 18,
23 (Mtth. 898; Fr. Rom. III. 68). Such a Dat. is intercalated
in Eph. ii. 3 μev tékva þúσeɩ ỏpyês as respects nature, naturally,
children of wrath.
b. Of the rule, or standard, according to which something takes
place; as, Acts xv. 1 ἐὰν μὴ περιτέμνησθε τῷ ἔθει Μωϋσέως (on
the other hand, xvii. 2 Kaтà Tò eiwlós, and more frequently Kaтà
1 Yet ayew Tivi (cf. πрosάyew Twl § 52, 4, 14.) is not in all these cases used in a purely
local or material sense; but rather means introduce to one's acquaintance. Similarly
poiTây TIVI (to attend one as teacher), different from poirâv #pós T. Epict. ench. 33, 13.
216
$ 31. DATIVE.
7th ed.
élos) cf. Xen. C. 1, 2, 4; Sext. Emp. 2, 6; Strabo 15, 715 (Tob.
iii. 8; 2 Macc. vi. 1).
c. Of the occasion or cause (on account of); as, Rom. xi. 20 Tŷ
203 ἀπιστίᾳ ἐξεκλάσθησαν because of unbelief (cf. 30 ἠλεήθητε τῇ τού-
тwv ảπeideíą), Gal. vi. 12; Col. i. 21—also of the motive (through,
from, etc.) 1 Cor. viii. 7 τῇ συνειδήσει τοῦ εἰδώλου ὡς εἰδωλόθυτον
éoliovoi, 2 Cor. i. 15; Rom. iv. 20. See Diog. L. 2, 57; Heliod. 1,
12, 33; Paus. 3, 7, 3; Joseph. antt. 17, 6, 1; cf. Ast, Plat. Polit.
p. 392; Goeller, Thuc. p. 157, 184, etc.; Mtth. 894 f.; Bhdy. 102 f.;
Krü. 73.
The use of the Dative in Rev. viii. 4 ἀνέβη ὁ καπνὸς τῶν θυμιαμάτων
ταῖς προςευχαῖς τῶν ἁγίων, etc. is more strange, and has given rise to
numerous conjectures. The simplest translation probably is: there went
up the smoke of the incense (of the angels) for the prayers, i.e. the ascend-
194 ing smoke availed for the prayers, to attend and render them more accept-
6th ed. able (on the representation see Ewald in loc.). Expositors who supplied
σúv took the same view of the expression. On the other hand the rendering
inter preces sanctorum is by no means justifiable. In 2 Cor. vii. 7 the Dat.
τῷ πράγματι
TO πрáуμатɩ is certainly allowable, yet harsh for the language of the N.T.;
ẻv TÔ TрáyμɑTɩ has good authorities in its favor, and the ev was probably
omitted, either because it was absorbed by the eivai or because èv πavтì ...
was taken with πράγματι.
7. In the uses adduced under 6. the Dative of direction, and
consequently (according to Greek views) the Dative proper, is still
to be detected more or less clearly; but this case, by a further
outward extension of its import to whatever accompanies the
action, passes over altogether into the Ablative,
d. When it designates the mode and manner, as casus modalis
(Bhdy. 100 f.), 1 Cor. xi. 5 προςευχομένη ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ
with the head uncovered, x. 30; Col. ii. 11; Phil. i. 18; 2 Pet. ii. 4
(Jude 6), also Rom. viii. 24 Tŷ exπídi éow¤nµev (and Eph. v. 19);—
or the instrument (casus instrumentalis Mdv. 45, yet ef. Krü. 72),
as 1 Pet. i. 18 οὐ φθαρτοῖς, ἀργυρίῳ ἢ χρυσίῳ, ἐλυτρώθητε, Gal. ii. 13
ὥςτε . . OVVATŃXON AVTŵv tŷ vπokpiσei (2 Pet. iii. 17 cf. Zosim. 5,
6), Eph. i. 13; Col. ii. 7; Phil. iii. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 7 Tís σтρаTEVETαι
230 idíois ofwvíos TOTé with his own resources, at his own expense,
Heb. vi. 17 èμeoíтevσеv öρкæ, i. 3; Rom. xv. 18, likewise Acts
i. 5 εβάπτισεν ὕδατι (xi. 16), Jno. xxi. 8 τῷ πλοιαρίῳ ἦλθον, Μark
vi. 32 (though elsewhere we find ev Tλoi, Matt. xiv. 13; Acts xxviii.
11; D. S. 19, 54), Acts xii. 2; Rom. i. 20; iii. 24; Tit. iii. 7; Eph.
v. 19, etc. To this head may also be referred Heb. xii. 18 öpos kekaU-
§ 31. DATIVE.
217
(Exod. iii. 2; Deut.
In Rom. xii. 12 Tŷ
μévov πvρligni ardens, burning in, with, fire,
iv. 11; ix. 15; cf. Lob. Paralip. p. 523 sq.).
ExTridi xalpovтes is through (in) hope rejoicing. In reference to
Senoei in 2 Cor. ix. 14 I now agree with Mey. We often find ev or
diú (especially of persons) used for the instrumental Dative; as,
Rom. xv. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 23, 26 f.
7th el
A virtual Ablative will be perceived also in µélúokeσbai oïvų Eph. v. 18
(Prov. iv. 17), and in #λŋpovolaí Tivi Rom. i. 29; 2 Cor. vii. 4 (Eurip. 204
Herc. fur. 372, cf. #λýpηs τwí Eurip. Bacch. 18—oftener with the Gen.
Bhdy. 168, in later writers πλŋobévres ¿yvoią Malal. p. 54). (But in Eph.
iii. 19 cis with the Acc. is not used for the Ablative. The preposition ex-
presses rather: filled up to the fulness, etc.)
8. In all these (6 a. et seq.) relations, however, prepositions are
not rarely and sometimes even more usually employed, both in
Greek prose, and still more in N. T. Greek, — with or without a
modification of the meaning; viz.
For a. ev, 1 Pet. iv. 1 ἐν σαρκὶ παθών in connection with σαρκὶ
Tao., Tit. i. 13 cf. ii. 2; diapépew ev Tivi 1 Cor. xv. 41 (Soph. Oed.
C. 1112; Dion. H. ep. p. 225. Krü.).
For b. κατά, as almost always κατὰ τὸ ἔθος, εἰωθός Luke iv. 16 ;
Acts xvii. 2.
For c. Sá with the Acc. see § 49 c. p. 398 sq.
For d. διά or ev also μετά. Thus we find instead of βαπτίζε
olaι üdaтı usually èv üdarı (in water) Matt. iii. 11; Juo. i. 26,31
(but also ἐν πνεύματι), for βίᾳ always μετὰ βίας Acts r. 20; Ixir.
7 ; for πίστει also διὰ πίστεως, etc. But in Eph. ii. 8 τῇ χάριτι
¿σte σeσwoµévoi dià Tis Tríoтews and Rom. iii. 24 the Dat. expresses
the motive, Sià Tíor. the subjective means; and in 2 Pet. iii. 5 dià
refers to the material means, the Dat. to the immaterial. For
παντί τρόπῳ Phil. i. 18 we find ἐν παντὶ τρόπῳ 2 Thess. iii. 16.
On the other hand, in 2 Pet. ii. 3 the Dat. is used of the means,
and ev denotes the state (the disposition).
When, however, N. T. expositors took ev simply for a nota dativi (ef. 195
Blomfield, Aeschyl. Agam. 1425, and Eurip. Med. p. 628), even where a 6th ed.
Dative proper (not an Ablative) is required, they went too far, and their
opinion could not find even a remote support in the Hebrew idiom. Most 231
of the passages quoted are plausible only because in such connection else-
where the Dative of a person is commonly employed (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 11;
iii. 1; i. 18), but in reality they are quite irrelevant. In Acts iv. 12
dedoµévov év åv0pórols is most certainly: given (promulged) among men,
28
218
§ 31. DATIVE.
cf. 2 Cor. viii. 1;¹ Gal. i. 16 åтoкadúfai tòv viòv avtoû ev ¿µoí to reveal his
son in me (ἐν τῷ πνεύματί μου) ; 1 Juo. iv. 9 ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ
¿v ýµîv, the love of God was manifested in (respect to, on) us which differs
unquestionably from to us; 1 Cor. xiv. 11 8 λadov év époì ẞápẞapos ac-
cording to me, in my estimation (meo judicio, cf. Jacobs, Athen. p. 183;
Döderlein, Oed. Col. p. 529; Wex, Soph. Antig. v. 549); 1 Cor. ii. 6 σopíav
daλoûµev év toîs Teheίois means: among or with, before, (coram see Plat.
symp. 175 e., frequently in the orators § 48 a.) them that are perfect, etc.
(i.e. when we have to deal with such) cf. Judith vi. 2. Baumgarten has
in the main correctly explained 2 Cor. iv. 3 ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμένοις ἐστὶ κεκα-
205 λvμµµévov: is hid in (among, with) them that perish. On oµodoyeîv ev tivɩ
7th ed. see § 32, 3 b. Acts xiii. 15 and Col. ii. 13 require no explanation, and Eph.
ii. 5 νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασι is not grammatically parallel to the last
passage. In Eph. i. 20 évýpynoev év Xplorê is quite regular: (power) which
he exhibited in Christ (by raising him from the dead). Matt. xvii. 12
ἐποίησαν ἐν αὐτῷ ὅσα ἠθέλησαν (Mark ix. 13 ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ is : they did,
perpetrated on him, cf. Mark xiv. 6; Jno. xiv. 30; Luke xxiii. 31; 1 Cor.
ix. 15 (Gen. xl. 14; Judith vii. 24). Likewise correct is the expression
2 Cor. x. 12 μeтpeîv kavтoùs év éavroîs: measuring themselves on (with)
themselves, though in Greek authors the Dative alone is in use, Aristot.
rhet. 2, 12; Herod. 1, 6, 2.
9. Time, as that substratum with which all events are connected,
is expressed by the Dative in answer to the question When;
whether it denotes,
a. A space of time; as, Luke viii. 29 woλλoîs Xpóvois σvvηρπákεĽ
autóv within (during) a long time, Acts viii. 11; xiii. 20; Rom.
xvi. 25; Juo. ii. 20 (not Eph. iii. 5); cf. Joseph. antt. 1, 3, 5 TÒ
ὕδωρ ἡμέραις τεσσαράκοντα ὅλαις κατεφέρετο, Soph. Τrach. 599
μaкρo xpóvo, Aeschin. ep. 1. p. 121 c.; Diod. S. 19, 93.
b. Or (more frequently) a point of time, at which something takes
place; and that, too, in words that directly signify the notion of
time or a division of time (with a numeral or Genitive annexed,
196 Krü. 57), as Luke xii. 20 Taútη Tŷ VUKTí, Mark vi. 21 'Hpwdŋs Toîs
6th ed. γενεσίοις αὑτοῦ δεῖπνον ἐποίησε, Matt. [xiv. 6 γενεσίοις γενομένοις
according to Lachmann's reading, sustained also by Cod. Sinait.]
xx. 19 Tŷ TρiTη ηµépα ȧvaσtýσetal, xxvi. 17; Luke xiii. 16; Acts
232 vii. 8; xii. 21; xxi. 26; xxii. 13; xxvii. 23, or in names of festivals
(Wannowski, p. 86) Luke xiii. 14 Tậ σαßßáτw ¿ÐEρátevσe (xiv. 1),
Matt. xii. 1 Toîs σáßßaσι etc. Cf. Plat. conv. 174 a.; Mdv. 48.
1 So also in Diog. L. 1, 105 τί ἐστιν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἀγαθόν τε καὶ φαῦλον, where, too,
the Latin translator has: quidnam esset hominibus bonum etc. Cf. besides, Fabric.
Pseudepigr. I. 628 douλevσovσi èv Tuîs èxopoîs autŵv, Arrian. Epict. 1, 18, 8.
ν
§ 31. DATIVE.
219
Yet év is inserted, regularly in the last case, and frequently also
in the first especially with ἐσχάτη ημέρα οι ἡμέρα τῆς κρίσεως),
even in Luke (iii. 1; i. 26), cf. Krü. 57; the expression Tŷ éоPTÔ
or Taîs éopTaîs without ev is rare even in Greek authors (Wan-
nowski, 88).
The Dative of place is not deeply rooted in the N. T. Before names
of cities év is always put; as, év Póµη, èv Túpų Acts xvii. 6; xix. 1; Rom.
i. 7; 2 Tim. i. 17; iv. 20, etc. But ódós occasionally dispenses with the
preposition; as, Jas. ii. 25 érépa od ekßaλovoa (where, however, the prepos.
was hardly necessary) cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 2, 16, óôų поpрeveσ0αι 2 Pet. ii. 15;
Acts xiv. 16 (trop.) cf. Lucian. Tim. 5 ôdų ßadíšew (Fr. Rom. III. 140 sq.),
στοιχεῖν τοῖς ἴχνεσι Rom. iv. 12 (βαίνειν ἴχνεσι Plut. Sol. 30), with which
are to be classed also the figurative expressions Tоp. To póßy Acts ix. 31;
xiv. 16; Prov. xxviii. 26; 2 Sam. xv. 11; 1 Macc. vi. 23; Bar. i. 18; ii. 10;
iv. 13; Tob. i. 2; iv. 5 (interchangeably with Top. v 1 Pet. iv. 3, etc.)
and even πеρTaтeîv тoîs edeσi Acts xxi. 21; 2 Cor. xii. 18, Gal. v. 16;
Rom. xiii. 13. Generally, even in Greek prose, the use of the Dativus 206
localis is very limited; see Mdv. 48; Poppo, Thuc. 1, 143.
7th ed.
10. The Dative (of a person) with Passives instead of vπó, πaρá,
etc. with the Gen., is but seldom employed (and then usually with
the Perfect) : Luke xxiii. 15 οὐδὲν ἄξιον θανάτου ἐστὶ πεπραγμένον
avτ@ (Isocr. paneg. c. 18). Yet this construction is not entirely
the same as that with irró etc.; it denotes the person not by
whom something has been done, but to whom what has been done.
belongs (Mdv. 45; Krü. 72; Benseler, Isocr. Evag. p. 13). It is
used in particular witlr eupiokеσ0αι 2 Cor. xii. 20; 2 Pet. iii. 14;
Rom. x. 20 Sept. ; cf. besides Luke xxiv. 35 (Jas. iii. 18) Phil. iv. 5
(Acts xxiv. 14), also 2 Pet. ii. 19 where & Tis TтηTа means, by
τις ἥττηται
what a man is overcome, to what he is inferior, (in classic Greek
ἡττᾶσθαί τινος). But in Acts xvi. 9 ὤφθη ὅραμα τῷ Παύλῳ means
became visible to him (as often elsewhere ỏþ0îvaí tɩvɩ appear to
one). In Jas. iii. 7 τῇ φύσει τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ means rather by the
nature of man (ingeniis hominum). In general, the Dative of a
thing with Passives (probably also in Rom. xii. 16, see Fr. in loc.)
is less surprising, as it coincides with the Dative of the means.
In Heb. iv. 2 Toîs ȧkovσaσw indicates probably the persons with or
in whom the un σνукр. Tŷ πíσre occurred. Lastly, Matt. v. 21 ff.
éppý◊ŋ Toîs apxalois should be translated: to them of old time;
see Tholuck, Bergpr. 158 f. The above use of the Dative (of a
pers.) after Passives is known likewise in Greck prose, but it is
especially frequent after participles; cf. Dem. Olynth. 3, p. 12 c. ; 233
220
§ 31. DATIVE.
Theocrin. 507 c.; coron. 324 a.; Conon. 731 b.; Diog. L. 8, 6;
Philostr. her. 4, 2.
Note 1. The Dative in Col. ii. 14 ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ' ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς
δόγμασι, is noticeable. Some expositors explain it ὃ ἦν ἐν τοῖς δόγμασιν
quod constabat placitis (mos.), conformably to Eph. ii. 15 Tòv vóμov TÔV
197 ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασι καταργήσας — an explanation correct doubtless as re-
6th ed. spects the sense, but at variance with the grammar; for according to it
Paul must have written: χειρόγρ. τὸ ἐν τοῖς δόγμασι. Now in the first
Tò
place as regards Eph. ii. 15 the expression Tv Evroλav év dóyμaσ must
undoubtedly be taken as one idea: commandments in (individual) ordinances,
cf. § 20, 2. And in Col., all things considered, Sóyuaσt cannot be taken.
otherwise than as closely connected with τὸ καθ' ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον : the
bond (in force) against us through the ordinances, and Paul perhaps em-
ployed the word dóypaσɩ in this passage to bring out the notion with prom-
inence. Meyer's explanation: what has been written with commandments
(Dat. like what has been written with letters), is the more forced, because
the word xepoypapov has acquired from usage so distinct and independent
a meaning that it can scarcely take such a Dative after it, as if equivalent
to γεγραμμένον.
Note 2. What Kühnöl remarks on Matt. viii. 1, viz. that Datives absolute
are sometimes put for Genitives absolute, as καταβάντι αὐτῷ for καταβάντες
αὐτοῦ, Matt. xxi. 23 ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ for ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ, was indeed formerly
believed, in general, even by scholars (Fischer, Well. III. a. p. 391;
Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. II. 304; Heupel, Mark p. 79). In reality, however,
all such Datives (at least in the better class of authors, Wannowski, p.
207 91 sqq.) may be as easily explained from the nature of the Dative, as the
7th ed. Genitive absolute is from the nature of the Genitive; see Blidy. 82; Stallb.
Plat. Protag. 60; Rost, Gr. 712 f. The remark cannot with the slightest
plausibility be applied to the passages quoted above from the N. T., as
both καταβάντι and ἐλθόντι follow the verb ἀκολουθεῖν; at the same time
it must be confessed that the author might also have written: KαTαßávтos
avтoû ýkoλoúðŋoav avtų öxλol Toλλoí, cf. Matt. viii. 28; Mark v. 2 var.
There is only this peculiarity in these constructions, that in all avro is
repeated (because several other words are inserted between the Dative of
the participle and the governing verb). In the passages quoted by Kypke
I. 47 from Pausan. and Joseph., either there is simply a pronoun joined
to the participle, or the pronoun is directly connected with the verb (Joseph.
antt. 8, 13, 4); accordingly, they do not prove the point in question.
Even in Acts xxii. 6, 17 the Datives are not properly absolute. In the
latter passage μοι ὑποστρέψαντι, precisely as in vs. 6, belongs with ἐγένετο.
234 Then follows a quite different construction (with the Genit. absol.): accidit
mihi reverso, cum precabar in templo, etc. Cf. Paus. 3, 10, 7 and 25, 3.
Note 3. Two Datives, the one of a person and the other (explaining,
more closely defining) of a thing, occur in 2 Cor. xii. 7 ¿dółŋ µoɩ σkódow
§ 32. ACCUSATIVE.
221
Tỷ σapki a thorn was given me for (in) the flesh (Exod. iv. 9; Gen. xlvii. 24)
cf. in IIomer dídov oi ývív xepoív; Reisig, Soph. Oedip. C. 266; Elmsley,
Eurip. Bacch. p. 49, 80, ed. Lips.; Bornem. Xen. conviv. p. 214; Jacobs,
Achill. Tat. p. 811; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 278. The two Datives in Eph. iii. 5;
Rom. vii. 25; IIeb. iv. 2; Rev. iv. 3 are of a different nature, and require
no remark.
Note 4. A very singular Dative occurs in 2 Cor. vi. 14 più yíveoße éte-
ροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις, where some understand σύν, while others attribute 198
this meaning to the Dative itself. But, though the Dat. is sometimes to 6th ed.
be resolved by with (Reitz, Lucian. VI. 599, Bip.; Mtth. 907; cf. Polyaen.
8, 28), this is an entirely different case. The apostle seems to have
expressed himself elliptically, and to have suited the Dative rather to the
thought than to the words. He evidently means: μὴ γίν. ἑτερ. καὶ οὕτως
ὁμοζυγοῦντες (συζυγ.) ἀπίστοις do not put yourselves into an unsuitable yole,
that is, be not united in the same yoke with unbelievers.
§ 32. ACCUSATIVE.
1. The Accusative is strictly the Objective Case when joined to
transitive verbs (active, middle, or deponent); as, KÓπTEш TηV
θύραν, κόπτεσθαι τ. κεφαλήν, φυλάσσειν τ. κῆπον, φυλάσσεσθαι τὰς
évToλás. It must be remarked, however, that,
a. Not only in later and especially in Biblical Greek, many 208
neuter verbs received a transitive (causative) meaning (palŋTEú- Tik ed
ειν τινά § 38, 1.) ; but,
b. In general, certain classes of verbal notions which we con-
sider as either entirely or mainly intransitive, were regarded by
the Greeks as transitive.
Such are,
α. Verbs denoting an affection of the mind; as, èλeeîv Matt. ix.
27; Mark v. 19; Phil. ii. 27, etc. (Plato, symp. 173 c.; Ael. 13, 31)
and oikтeiρew Rom. ix. 15, LXX. (Soph. El. 1403; Xen. C. 5, 4, 32;
Lucian. abd. 6; Tim. 99), èπaιoxúveolaí Tiva and Tɩ Mark viii. 38;
Heb. xi. 16; Rom. i. 16 (Plat. Soph. 247 c.; cf. aioxúveolai Soph. 235
Oed. R. 1079; Eurip. Io 1074); the last once takes èri, Rom.
vi. 21 cf. Isocr. permut. 778. On the contrary, onλayxvíçeodaı is
regularly construed with érí, only once does it govern the Gen.
Matt. xviii. 27, see § 33. 'Evтρéπeσ0αi Tiva, to reverence one, Matt.
xxi. 37; Luke xviii. 2; Heb. xii. 9, is a later construction, from
the time of Plut.; earlier authors said évтp. TIVI.
B. Verbs denoting to treat one well or ill (harm, benefit), or to
speak well or ill of one: ἀδικεῖν, βλάπτειν, ὠφελεῖν, λυμαίνεσθαί,
vßρíčew Tivú (Xen. Hell. 2, 4, 17; Lucian. pisc. 6); èπnpedÇew
222
§ 32. ACCUSATIVE.
Tivá (with Dat. pers. Xen. M. 1, 2, 31), λodopeîv Tiva Jno. ix. 28;
Mtth. 871, Braopnμeîv тiva Matt. xxvii. 39; Acts xix. 37; Rev.
xiii. 6, etc., yet also es Tiva Luke xii. 10; cf. Demosth. cor. nav.
p. 715 c.; Diod. S. 2, 18 and LXX. hist. Drac. 9 (like the Greek
ὀνειδίζειν εἴς τινα and ὑβρίζειν εἴς τινα Lucian. Tim. 31) and ἔν τινι
2 Pet. ii. 12 (in Greek authors also Tepi Tivos Isocr. permut. 736),
ỏveidíšeiv Tivá Matt. v. 11 (LXX. cf. Rom. xv. 3) Schaef. Plutarclı.
V. 347 (earlier writers say ὀνειδίζ. τινί οι εἴς τινα), κακῶς ἐρεῖν τινα
Acts xxiii. 5 (Plat. Euthyd. 284 e.; D. S. Vat. p. 66), also KATA-.
pâolai Tiva Matt. v. 44; Jas. iii. 9 (Wisd. xii. 11; Ecclus. iv. 5,
etc., with Dative Xen. A. 7, 7, 48). All these constructions are
finally grounded on the simple λέγειν οι εἰπεῖν τινα, Jno. i. 15 ; viii.
27; Phil. iii. 18, etc. (Jud. vii. 4); cf. Hm. Soph. Oed. C. 1404;
Mtth. II. 929. On the other hand, we find kaλŵs Toleîv with the
199 Dative of a person, Luke vi. 27 (Acts xvi. 28 μndèv πрúns σεaνт
σεαυτῷ
6th ed. kakóv is of another kind, and this, with similar expressions, is fre-
quent in Greek writers, Lys. accus. Agor. 41; Xen. C. 5, 4, 11;
5, 5, 14; 8, 7, 24), and also ev Toleîv Mark xiv. 7. In Greek prose
the Acc. is here always preferred, see Biblioth. Brem. nova I. 277.
Yet cf. Odyss. 14, 289 ὃς δὴ πολλὰ κάκ' ἀνθρώποισιν ἐργει. But
toleiv tivá tɩ to do something to one occurs also in the N. T. Matt.
xxvii. 22; Mark xv. 12. Cf. Aristoph. nub. 258 sq.
7. 'Oμvýεiv Tivá Jas. v. 12 (oupavóv) swear by, cf. Hos. iv. 15;
Xen. C. 5, 4, 31; Herod. 2, 10, 3.
Yet in the N. T. these verbs are not invariably connected with
the obj. Acc.; many still vary, as in Greek authors, between a
transitive and a neuter construction: kλaiew with Acc. Matt. ii. 18
Sept., but èπi Tiva Luke xix. 41; xxiii. 28; Tevbeîv Tiva 2 Cor.
πενθείν τινα
xii. 21, but πí Tɩɩ Rev. xviii. 11; KÓπтEσlai Tiva Luke viii. 52
209 (Eurip. Troad. 628; 1 Macc. ii. 70) and èπí Tiva Rev. i. 7; xviii. 9;
7th ed. evdokeîv Tiva Heb. x. 6, 8 Sept. (Lev. xxvi. 34; Ps. li. 18), usually
εὐδοκεῖν τινα
ἔν τινι. Ομνύειν is mostly treated as neuter, and construed with
KaTá TIOs, Heb. vi. 13, 16 (Amos viii. 14; Zeph. i. 5; Isa. xlv. 23;
236 Schacf. Long. p. 353) or ev Tivi Matt. v. 34 ff.; Rev. x. 6 (Jer. v.
2, 7; Ps. lxiii. 12). But in 2 Cor. i. 11 euxap. (Tivi) TI occurs for
EvXaρIOTEîV (Tivi) èπí Tivi (in a Passive acceptation); and in 2 Cor.
ix. 2; xi. 30 we find kavɣâolar with the Acc. of the thing.
With Jude 15 τῶν ἔργων ἀσεβείας αὐτῶν ὧν (ἃ) ἠσέβησαν compare Zeph.
iii. 11 τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων σου ὧν ἠσέβησας εἰς ἐμέ (ἀσεβεῖν τι Plato, legg. 12,
941 a. is of another description, Mtth. 923).
Ιερουργεῖν, ἐργάζεσθαι and εμπορεύεσθαι are real transitives, and as ἱερ.
§ 32. ACCUSATIVE.
223
Ovoíav is a proper expression (Palaeph. 5, 3 cf. Acta apocr. 113), so iep.
TÒ Evayyéλov Rom. xv. 16 in a figurative sense, is quite correct. 'Eμπо-
Ἐμπο-
peveolar has not only an Acc. of the merchandise but an Acc. of a person,
Eμπ. тiva Ezek. xxvii. 21; this in 2 Pet. ii. 3 means: make merchandise
(gain) of you. Lastly, with Rev. xviii. 17 oσo Tùv bádacoav épyúlovτai
compare Appian. Pun. 2; Boisson. Philostr. p. 452. Similar is yv épyáš.
γῆν
Paus. 6, 10,1.
Evayyeλíčeσbai (of Christian preaching) is employed in the N. T. quite
like a transitive with the Acc. of a person; as, Luke iii. 18; Acts vìii. 25 ;
xiv. 21; compare especially εὐαγγ. τινά τι Acts xiii. 32. Yet εὐαγγ. τινι
also occurs Luke iv. 18; Rom. i. 15; Gal. iv. 13; 1 Pet. iv. 6.
Baokaíveiv fascinare also is construed with the Acc. Gal. iii. 1. In the
signification invidere it has the Dat. (Philostr. epp. 13) Lob. 463.
ancient grammarians are not agreed among themselves on the distinction
between the constructions, see Wetsten. II. 221 sq. Παραινείν, which in
Gr. writers usually governs the Dat. of a person (Aesch. dial. 2, 13; Pol. 5,
4, 7), has the Acc. in Acts xxvii. 22. On the other hand, we find in Rev.
ii. 14 didάokei Tɩví (var.), as in some later writers; see Schaef. Plut. V. 22.
Þvλáoσeodai, to beware of, likewise governs the Acc. in Acts xxi. 25;
2 Tim. iv. 15 (as frequently in Greek authors, Xen. M. 2, 2, 14; Lucian.
asin. 4; D. S. 20, 26), as if to observe, keep a watch on, some one for one's
self; on the other hand, in Luke xii. 15 åπó follows it—a construction
not unknown also to the Greeks (Xen. Cyr. 2, 3, 9).
In a similar way, poßeîolaɩ to be afraid in reference to something, to 200
fear something (for one's self) is usually construed with the Acc., but 6th ed.
sometimes has åñó (to be afraid of, sibi ab al. timere); as, Matt. x. 28
μὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτενόντων τὸ σῶμα φοβηθῆτε δὲ μᾶλλον τὸν
δυνάμενον, etc. Greek authors say φοβ. ὑπό τινος or τινι (Jet compare φόβος
άTÓ TIVOS Xеn. Cyr. 3, 3, 53; 6, 3, 27). Doßeîσlαɩ åπó is an imitation of
· •
Jer. i. 8). According to this analogy are) יָרֵא (מִפְּנֵי or) מִן the Hebrew
construed also ẞλéπe åπó (praegnanter) Mark viii. 15; xii. 38, and pos-
éxew ȧró Matt. xvi. 6. On the other hand, Phil. iii. 2 ẞλETTETE TηY KATATOμÝV
etc. observe, keep your eye on (ẞXλéπew Tɩ as signifying to beware of, could
receive no confirmation from øvλáoσcolaí tɩ, since the Mid. voice here is 210
essential). To beware is here but a derivative meaning.
Þeúyew governs the Acc. in a figurative sense in 1 Cor. vi. 18; 2 Tim.
ii. 22 (to flee a vice, i.e. to shun); but once it has årró, 1 Cor. x. 14 φεύγετε
ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρείας. This last construction is otherwise very usual in
the N. T. (as in the Sept.), and peúyei åñó tivos means either to flee from
one in various senses (Jno. x. 5; Rev. ix. 6; Mark xiv. 52; Jas. iv. 7),
or (including the result of fleeing) to escape Matt. xxiii. 33. In Greek
authors, peúуew åπó occurs only in a strictly local sense, Xen. Cyr. 7, 2, 4;
Mem. 2, 6, 31; Plato, Phaed. 62 d.; Pol. 26, 5, 2.
On xoîσbaí rɩ see § 31, 1, i. p. 209 sq.
7th ed.
237
224
§ 32. ACCUSATIVE.
The Acc. of the place to which, after verbs of motion, was confined
in the classics, after the full use of prepositions had been introduced,
mostly to poetry (Mtth. 747). From the character of the language
of the N. T., one would expect only a preposition in such a case.
Even Acts xxvii. 2 μέλλοντι πλεῖν τοὺς κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν τόπους
(where, however, in several good Codd. [Sin. also] eis is inserted)
forms no exception; it must be rendered: sail the places along the
Asiatic coast. In this signification Tλeiv is used by the best authors.
(as a strictly transitive verb) with the Acc. (also of places on the
coast), cf. Poppo, Thuc. 6, 36.
1
2. Neuter verbs expressing a feeling or act, frequently take an
Acc. of a noun which is either from the same root or from one of
kindred signification. Such nouns, inasmuch as they merely denote
substantively the notion of the verb, are virtually implied in it.
They are never annexed, except when the meaning of the verb has
to be extended (Hm. Soph. Philoct. 281; Eurip. Androm. 220 sq.;
Krü. 16 f.) either by an (Objective) Genitive, as 1 Pet. iii. 14 TÒν
φόβον αὐτῶν μὴ φοβηθῆτε (Isa. viii. 12), Col. ii. 19 αὔξει την
αὔξησιν τοῦ θεοῦ (Plat. legg. 10, 910d, ἀσεβεῖν ἀνδρῶν ἀσέβημα,
1 Macc. ii. 58 (yλwσai (ŷλov vóμov, Judith ix. 4); or by means
of an Adjective, as Matt. ii. 10 ἐχάρησαν χαρὰν μεγάλην σφόδρα,
Jno. vii. 24 τὴν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνετε, 1 Tim. i. 18 ἵνα στρατεύῃ τὴν
201 Kaλǹv σтρareíav (Plutarch. Pomp. 41), Mark iv. 41 èþoßýłnσav
6th ed. þóßov µéyav, 1 Tim. vi. 12; 2 Tim. iv. 7; Rev. xvii. 6; 1 Pet. iii. 6
(LXX. Gen. xxvii. 33; Zech. i. 15; Jon. i. 10; iv. 1, 6; Wisd. ix. 3).
This, too, is very common in Greek authors, see Fischer, Well.
III. I. 422 sq.; Bhdy. 106 f.; Ast, Plat. Polit. 316; Weber, Dem. 471,
238 especially Lob. Paralip. 501 sqq. (Mtth. 744 f., 910 f., 941) cf. Plato,
V
Protag. 360 b. αἰσχροὺς φόβους φοβοῦνται, Xen. M. 1, 5, 6 δουλεύειν
211 δουλείαν οὐδεμιᾶς ἧττον αἰσχράν, Her. 5, 119 μάχην ἐμαχέσαντο
7th ed. loxvρýv (magnam pugnavimus pugnam Terent. Adelph. 5, 3, 57)
Plat. Apol. 28 b. τοιοῦτον ἐπιτήδευμα ἐπιτηδεύσας, p. 36 c. εὐεργετεῖν
τὴν μεγίστην εὐεργεσίαν, Alciphr. 2, 3 δεῖταί μου πάσας, δεήσεις
Lysias 1 ; Theomnest. 27 πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ ἄλλους κινδύνους μεθ'
úµôv èkivồúvevσe (Plato, conv. 208 c.), Demosth. Neaer. 517b.; ep.
p.121b.; Aristot. polit. 3, 10; rhet. 2, 5, 4; Long. 4, 3; Aeschin.
ep. 1, 121 b.; Lucian. asin. 11; Philostr. Apoll. 2, 32. Further
see Georgi, Vind. 199 sqq.; Wetst. II. 321 (Gesen. Lg. 810). This
1 Wahl's parallels from Xen. Hell. 4, 8, 6; Pol. 3, 4, 10 only confirm the phrase
πλεῖν τὴν θάλασσαν, τὰ πελάγη, of which instances already existed in 1 Macc. xiii. 29 ;
Ecclus. xliii. 24.
§ 32. ACCUSATIVE.
225
construction occurs with the passive in Rev. xvi. 9 ἐκαυματίσθησαν
οἱ ἄνθρωποι καῦμα μέγα (Plato, Euthyd. 275 e. ὠφελεῖται τὴν μεγί
σтην ¿péλeiav, Plutarch. Cacs. 55 a.).
We find the same construction in a relative clause in Jno. xvii. 26
ἀγάπη ἣν ἠγάπησάς με, Eph. ii. 4; Mark x. 38 τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι
βαπτισθῆναι.
From this must be distinguished the case in which the kindred
noun denotes the objective result of the action, consequently a
concrete idea, as διαθήκην διατίθεσθαι (Judg. ii. 2), μαρτυρίαν
μαρτυρεῖν, πλοῦτον πλουτεῖν (Dan. xi. 2), ψήφισμα ψηφίζεσθαι,
áµapтávew áµаpríav (1 Jno. v. 16), meaning, make a covenant,
bear a testimony, etc., Ewald, Gr. 595. For here the noun
does not necessarily require the support of an adjective, etc. (as
aloxçàv áµаρт. áμapтávew Soph. Phil. 1249; Plato, Phaed. 113 e.;
Lucian. Tim. 112; Dio Chr. 32, 361) cf. Eph. iv. 8 (Sept.) xμα-
λótevσev aixµaλwolav (Judg. v. 12; 2 Chron. xxviii. 17; Demosth.
λώτευσεν
Steph. 2, 621 b.). Yet constructions of this sort occur, for the
most part, only through the interposition of a relative clause; as,
Jno. v. 32 ἡ μαρτυρία, ἣν μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ, 1 Jno. v. 10 ; Heb.
viii. 10 αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη, ἣν διαθήσομαι (π. 16, but viii. 9 διαθήκην
TOLEîv), Acts iii. 25; Luke i. 73; 1 Jno. ii. 25; Mark iii. 28; cf. Isocr.
Aegin. 936; Lucian. paras. 5. That such Hebrew and Greek
expressions, however, possess greater fulness and vividness than
our general phrases, make a covenant. bear testimony, there can be
no doubt.
Finally, to be separated altogether from the preceding combina-
tions are those in which the substantive denotes something object-
ive and material which exists independently of the action of the
verl); as, φυλάσσειν φυλακάς (posts) Xen. A. 2, 6, 10 ; φόρον φέρειν
Aristoph. av. 191; Aristot. pol. 2, 8; Lucian. paras. 43. Compare
from the N. Τ. Luke ii. 8 φυλάσσοντες φυλακὰς τῆς νυκτός, viii. 5
τοῦ σπεῖραι τὸν σπόρον αὐτοῦ, Matt. xiii. 30 δήσατε δεσμὰς πρὸς τὸ 239
κατακαῦσαι bind bundles, Matt. vii. 21 ὅςτις ᾠκοδόμησεν τὴν οἰκίαν
auToû, Luke vi. 48 cf. also 1 Pct. iv. 2 (àкony ȧкovew Obad. 1). In
these cases sometimes no different expression can be used (cf. ¿πо- 202
στόλους ἀποστέλλειν, legatos legare Cic. Vatin. 15, γράμματα γρά- 6th ed.
peiv Dem. Polycl. 710 b.), and the connection of the noun and the
verb is purely etymological and historical. On the whole phrase- 212
ology under this head, which is far more diversified in classic 7th ed.
Greek, see Wunder on Lobeck's Sophocl. Aj. S. 37 ff.
29
226
§ 32. ACCUSATIVE.
240
Akin to this construction is opкov opvóvaι Luke i. 73 (Demosth. Apat.
579 c.), Bioûv xpóvov 1 Pet. iv. 2 (v Bíov D. S. exc. Vat. p. 49), dépew
(πλnyùs) todλás, ỏλíyas, which further takes an Acc. of a person (cf. Luke
xii. 47). Cf. Wunder, as above, 86. On Luke ii. 44 0ov μépas ¿dóv
ἦλθον ἡμέρας οδόν
they went a day's journey, or Acts viii. 39 éπropeúeto tǹv ¿dòv avtoû (cf. ¿dòv
Badice Plut. Coriol. 9; LXX. 1 Sam. vi. 9; Num. xxi. 33; Exod. xiii. 17),
scarcely any remark is necessary; yet see Wunder, 41 f.
Analogous is the construction with the Dative; as, φωνεῖν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ
Acts xvi. 28, and Boâv or кpáčew pwvy μey. Mark xv. 34; Matt. xxvii. 50;
Acts vii. 60, ὅρκῳ ὀμνύναι Acts ii. 30, χαρᾷ χαίρειν 1 Thess. iii. 9 (ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι
Xapa ȧvekλaλýτų 1 Pet. i. 8), knpuoσew pwvy peɣáλŋ Rev. v. 2 [text. recept.];
also Tоí faváry μeλλev åπоvýσкew Jno. xii. 33; xviii. 32. Cf. Aristot.
pol. 3, 9; Plut. Coriol. 3 (Jonah i. 16; Acta apocr. 4) Krü. 17 (Bengel, Apoc.
xviii. 2) cf. § 54, 3, p. 466.
भ
3. Instead of the Accusative of the object, in many cases a prep-
osition, év (), is said to be used, according to the Hebrew construc-
tion; but the passages adduced, when more closely examined, soon
show the admissibility of the preposition in its proper import:
a. In Acts xv. 7 ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν ἐξελέξατο διὰ τοῦ στόματός μου
ȧкоvσαι тà čovη etc., is not to be referred to, but év μîv
signifies among us (the Apostles); for, in the first place, the sin-
gular pov is immediately used of Peter, and again, notice is to be
μου
taken of Tà évη (as the apostolic field of labor): God made choice
among us, that the heathen should be instructed through me. See
also Olshausen in loc. On the Hebrew, which in the Sept.
is sometimes rendered ẻλéy. ¿v (1 Sam. xvi. 9; 1 Kings viii. 16;
1 Chron. xxviii. 4; Neh. ix. 7), but which Gesenius has not even
deemed it necessary to explain, see Ewald, Gr. 605.
b. 'Oμoλoyeîv év Matt. x. 32; Luke xii. 8 to make confession in
one, i.c. (according to another construction) about one. Bengel
otherwise. The Hebrew expression by in Ps. xxxii. 5 has not
quite the same meaning.
4. Two Accusatives are used,
a. One of a person and the other of a thing (Mtth. 930, 932),
uniformly after verbs of clothing and unclothing Juo. xix. 2; Matt.
xxvii. 28, 31; Mark xv. 17; Rev. xvii. 4, of (feeding and) giving
to drink Mark ix. 41; 1 Cor. iii. 2,¹ of anointing Rev. iii. 18 (Heb.
i. 9), of loading Luke xi. 46, of adjuring (by) Acts xix. 13; 1 Thess.
v. 27, of reminding (ȧvaμiμvýokeш) 1 Cor. iv. 17 (Xen. C. 3, 3,
1 To this class belongs also wulÇew Num. xi. 4; Deut. viii. 16; Wisd. xvi. 20, for
which we find in Jambl. Pyth. 13 ψωμίζειν τινά τινι. On the other hand, in 1 Cor. xiii. 3
ψωμίζειν πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντα means to feed out all my goods, bestow in food.
§ 32. ACCUSATIVE.
227
213
37; Her. 6, 140; but ȧvaµv. Tivá TIOs Xen. C. 6, 4, 13), of teach-
ing Juo. xiv. 26, of asking and inquiring Matt. vii. 9; Jno. xvi. 23; 203
1 Pet. iii. 15 (alteîv), Matt. xxi. 24 (Lob. Paralip. 522), Mark iv. 10 fith st
(éρwτâv). On the other hand, evayyeλíçeobai is construed only 7th ed.
in Acts xiii. 32 with two Accusatives, cf. Heliod. 2, 19; Alciphr.
3, 12; Euseb. H. E. 3, 4, var. For κρύπτειν τινά τι (Mtth. 937)
the construction KρÚπтEW тI άπо Twos is invariably used, Col. i. 26;
Luke xviii. 34; xix. 42, or at least indicated. Aidúcκew is once
Διδάσκειν
joined, but according to a somewhat uncertain reading, to ev TIVI
of the person, Rev. ii. 14 (as if instructing at a person).¹ Other
and better Codd. have édídaσke To Baλák, cf. Thilo, Apocr. I. 656
( Job xxi. 22). Besides aireîv Tivá Ti, we find aiTeîv Ti Tapú
αἰτεῖν τινά τι, τι παρά
oг ȧπó Twos Acts iii. 2; ix. 2; Matt. xx. 20 (Xen. A. 1, 3, 16).
Further, Xpiew Twά with the Dative of the material occurs Acts
x. 38, as aλeipe uniformly, Mark vi. 13; Jno. xi. 2, etc.; vπоµ·
μνήσκειν τινὰ περί τινος 2 Pet. i. 12, also περιβάλλεσθαι ἐν Rer.
iii. 5; iv. 4, nupicoμévos év Matt. xi. 8; Luke vii. 25 (Dat. in Plat.
Protag. 321 a.). For ἀφαιρεῖσθαί τινά τι we find ἀφαιρ. τι ἀπό
Twos Luke xvi. 3.
Heb. ii. 17 iλáoкeobai tàs åµaprías (cf. Ecclus. xxviii. 5; Dan. ix. 24
Theodot.) expiare peccata is perhaps to be explained by supposing that the
expression ἱλάσκεσθαι τὸν θεὸν τὰς ἁμαρτίας had begun to be used. In
1 Sam. iii. 14 ¿§idao0ýoetai ddıkía oikov 'Hλi, the verb is strictly passive.
The same view essentially may be taken (Mtth. 927, 939; Rost 497 f.
503) of the Accusative of a pronoun (тí, rò avτó, távτa) or neuter adjective
(µéya, etc.), which is joined to many verbs along with the Acc. or Gen. of
a person (as, ẞλáπta Luke iv. 35, ¿peλeîv Gal. v. 2 cf. Lucian. Tim. 119, 211
ådikeîv Acts xxv. 10; Gal. iv. 12; Philem. 18, µvnoðîvai 1 Cor. xi. 2) : there
is however this difference, that in these instances the use of two Accusa-
tives was arrested, as it were, in the first stage. So we Germans say :
jem. etwas, viel u.s. w. fragen, but not on this account: jem. eine Nachricht
fragen. Hither I refer also Matt. xxvii. 44. Instances of intransitive
verbs which are construed with such Accusatives of a thing and have
thus become (to a limited extent) transitives, it is scarcely necessary to
adduce; yet see 1 Cor. ix. 25 távтa éykpateứeral, xi. 2; Phil. i. 6; ii. 18;
2 Cor. vii. 14 (cf., however, 1 above) Matt. ix. 14; Rev. v. 4, etc. Fr.
explains in the same way also Rom. vi. 10 ô å☎éðaver and Gal. ii. 20 ò vêv
Lô év σapkí, see above, § 24, note 3, p. 168.
1 This construction cannot be certainly established in reference to the Hebrew by
2 Chron. xvii. 9, as this probably means teach in Judah. In Acts vii. 22
éñaideúen ráon copia is not put for nãoav copíav (cf. Diod. S. 1, 91); but the Dative
is employed to denote the means of training, whereas ἐπαιδ. πᾶσαν σοφίαν πould be
edoctus est (institutus ad) sapientiam. The true reading of the passage, however, is
probably év π. σopig, cf. Plat. Crito 50 d.
228
§ 32. ACCUSATIVE.
b. An Acc. of the Subject and of the Predicate (Mtth. 934 f.);
as, Jno. vi. 15 ἵνα ποιήσωσιν αὐτὸν βασιλέα, Luke xix. 46 ὑμεῖς
αὐτὸν οἶκον) ἐποιήσατε σπήλαιον λῃστῶν, Heb. i. 2 ὃν ἔθηκε κληρο
νόμον (i. 13), Jas. v. 10 ὑπόδειγμα λάβετε τῆς κακοπαθείας ... τοὺς
214 προφήτας, Heb. xii. 9 τοὺς τῆς σαρκὸς πατέρας εἴχομεν παιδευτάς,
7th ed. Phil. iii. 7 ταῦτα (κέρδη) ἥγημαι ζημίαν, 2 Pet iii. 15 τὴν τοῦ κυρίου
ἡμῶν μακροθυμίαν σωτηρίαν ἡγεῖσθε, Luke i. 59 ἐκάλουν αὐτὸ . . .
Zaxaplav, vs. 53 (Pol. 15, 2, 4). So, in particular, with verbs of
204 making, naming (appointing), constituting, viewing as, etc., Matt.
iv. 19; xxii. 43; Jno. v. 11; x. 33; xix. 7; Acts v. 31; vii. 10;
XX. 28; Luke xii. 14; Rom. iii. 25; vi. 11; viii. 29; 1 Cor. iv. 9;
ix. 5; 2 Cor. iii. 6; Eph. ii. 14; Phil. ii. 29; Tit. ii. 7; Heb. vii. 28;
xi. 26; Jas. ii. 5; Rev. xxi. 5; 2 Sam. ii. 5, 13; iii. 15.
6th ed.
•
The Acc. of the Predicate (of destination) is, however, sometimes
annexed with the preposition eis,- Acts xiii. 22 yeɩpev avтoîs Tòv
ήγειρεν αὐτοῖς τὸν
Δαυίδ εἰς βασιλέα, vii. 21 ἀνεθρέψατο αὐτὸν ἑαυτῇ εἰς υἱόν, for,
as, a son,¹ xiii. 47 (cf. also the Passive λoyiçeolai eis Ti Acts xix.
27; Rom. ii. 26; ix. 8, § 29, 3. Note), or with es, as 2 Thess. iii. 15
καὶ μὴ ὡς ἐχθρὸν (τοῦτον 14) ἡγεῖσθε (η 2η). This is a Hebraistic
construction (Ewald, Gr. 603), and is frequently imitated in the
Sept., Isa. xlix. 6; 2 Kings iv. 1; Judith iii. 8; v. 11; Gen. xii. 2;
xliii. 17; 1 Sam. xv. 11; Esth. ii. 7; iv. 4. What has been ad-
duced from classic Greek as parallel to the construction with eis
is different from it, as the eis of destination in Her. 1, 34 Távtes
τοῖσι χρέονται ἐς πόλεμον, or Eurip. Troad. 1201 οὐ γὰρ εἰς κάλλος
Túxas daiµwv Sídwo, or Alciphr. 3, 28. On the other hand, real
τύχας δαίμων δίδωσι,
parallels occur in later writers, c.g. Niceph. Constant. p. 51, ed.
Bonn.: ὁ τῆς πόλεως ἅπας δῆμος . . . ἀναγορεύουσιν εἰς βασιλέα
242 Αρτέμιον, p. 18 εἰς γυναῖκα δίδωμί σοι αὐτήν, Geo. Pachym. I. 349
τὴν ἐκείνου ἔκγονον λαβὼν εἰς γυναῖκα, Theophan. contin.
eis
p. 223
kexpioμévos eis Baoiλéa. See, in general, the Index to Pachym.,
Leo Grammat. and Theophan. in the Bonn edition; Acta apocr.
p. 71. To the latter mode of expression may also be referred Heb.
xi. 8 λαμβάν. εἰς κληρονομίαν, and perhaps Acts vii. 53 ἐλάβετε τὸν
νόμον εἰς διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων ye received the law for ordinances
of angels, i.c. as ordinances of angels, see Bengel in loc. ; yet els
here may be more easily explained by Matt. xii. 41. In Phil. iv. 16,
however, the construction εἰς τὴν χρείαν μοι ἐπέμψατε is obviously
a different thought from τὴν χρείαν μ. ἐπ., and so does not belong
here.
1 On the other hand, cf. Xen. Anab. 4, 5, 24 mwλous els darμdy Bañileî тρepoμévovs,
whereas Arrian, Alex, 1, 26, 5 τοὺς ἵππους, οὓς δασμὸν βασιλεῖ ἔτρεφεν, sce Ellendt, in loc.
§ 32. ACCUSATIVE.
229
Essentially the same as the preceding constructions are Luke ix. 14
κατακλίνατε αὐτοὺς κλισίας ἀνὰ πεντήκοντα (in rows of 50), Mark vi. 39
ἐπέταξεν αὐτοῖς ἀνακλῖναι πάντας συμπόσια συμπόσια (in separate parties).
These Accusatives are most simply understood as predicative. See § 59.
5. Verbs which in the Active voice govern the Acc. both of a per-
son and of a thing, retain as is well known the latter in the Passive; 215
as, 2 Thess. ii. 15 παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε, Luke xvi. 19 ἐνεδιού- ki al
σKето Tорþúраv, Heb. vi. 9; cf. Phil. iii. 8; 1 Cor. xii. 13 (without
els!). So also in the constructions considered under 2: Luke xii.
48 δαρήσεται ὀλίγας (cf. δέρειν τινὰ πληγάς), Mark x. 38 τὸ
βάπτισμα, ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι, βαπτισθῆναι, Rev. xvi. 9 (cf. Lucian.
Tox. 61; Dion. Hal. IV. 2162, 8). On the other hand, the Pred
icate Acc. passes over into a Nominative: Heb. v. 10 πроsayорevleis 205
. . ἀρχιερεύς, Matt. v. 9 αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ θεοῦ κληθήσονται, Jas. iv. 4
ἐχθρὸς θεοῦ καθίσταται.
6th ed.
Further, the Accusative of the thing is retained by such verbs
as, in the Active, govern a Dative of the person along with the
Accusative of a thing, they being treated when put in the Pas-
sive altogether like causal verbs; as, Gal. ii. 7 TеTIGTEνμаι TÒ
εὐαγγέλιον (from πιστεύω τινί τι, in the Passive πιστεύομαί τι), 1 Cor.
ix. 17; Rom. iii. 2; 1 Tim. i. 11;1 see Fischer, Well. III. I. 437;
Mtth. 946. The same analogy is followed by Teρixeiμaι Acts xxviii.
20 τὴν ἅλυσιν ταύτην περίκειμαι (from ἅλυσις περίκειταί μοι) Heb.
v. 2 (d'Orvill. Charit. p. 240; Mtth. 947). Accordingly, in general,
the Accusative with Passives indicates the more remote object,
particularly that part of the Subject where the quality denoted by
the verb resides; as, 1 Tim. vi. 5 dieḍ0apµévoɩ Tòv voûv (as if from
διαφθείρ. τινὶ τὸν νοῦν), 2 Tim. iii. 8; Jno. xi. 41 δεδεμένος τοὺς 213
πόδας καὶ τὰς χεῖρας, Phil. i. 11 πεπληρωμένοι καρπὸν δικαιοσ., 2 Cor.
iii. 18 Tηv auTηv eiкóva μeтаμорpoúμela, Heb. x. 22 f. on which cf.
τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα,
Valcken. ad Herod. 7, 39; Hartung, Casus 61.
Whether Matt. xi. 5 πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται, Hel. iv. 2 ἐσμὲν εὐηγγελισμένοι
(verse 6) cf. 2 Sam. xviii. 31; Joel ii. 32 also come under this rule or should
be referred to evayyeλíšeobαi tiά Tɩ, remains doubtful; yet see § 39, 1.
6. The Accusative employed to denote a material object only in
a mediate or remote way was by degrees more and more extended,
and gave rise to elliptical constructions of various sorts, which we
must resolve by prepositions and the like. This phraseology is
but slightly used in the N. T. It is mainly in specifications of
1 On the other hand, e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 34 оùк èπIтρÉTETAι AÙTAîs λaλeîv, Acts xxvi. 1.
་
230
§ 32. ACCUSATIVE.
time and place that the Acc. as an Objective case is still perceptible
to us; as, Luke xxii. 41 άπεσπάσθη ἀπ' αὐτῶν ὡςεὶ λίθου βολήν
he withdrew from them a stone's cast (as if by his withdrawing
he made the distance of a stone's cast), Jno. vi. 19 èλnλakóтES S
σταδίους εἴκοσι πέντε (Mtth. 950), 1 Pet. iv. 2 τὸν ἐπίλοιπον ἐν σαρκὶ
βιῶσαι χρόνον, Jno. ii. 12 ἐκεῖ ἔμειναν οὐ πολλὰς ἡμέρας, Luke i. 75;
ii. 41; xv. 29; xx. 9; Juo. i. 40; v. 5; xi. 6; Matt. ix. 20; Acts
xiii. 21; Heb. xi. 23; iii. 17; Mdv. 33 f. The Acc. is thus in the
N. T. commonly employed to denote the duration of time (but in
Jno. v. 5 eτŋ is governed by exwv, see Mey.); sometimes also the
216 (approximate) point of time, as Jno. iv. 52 èx¤ès pav éßdóµnv
7th ed. únкev auTòv ó TUρETÓS, Acts x. 3; Rev. iii. 3 (where more fre-
quently Tepi with the Acc. is used) Krü. 13 f.
When the Acc., annexed as a detached word or phrase to other
words, gives a closer specification as respects sort, number, degree,
sphere as Juo. vi. 10 ἀνέπεσαν οἱ ἄνδρες τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὡσεὶ
TEVTAKIσxíλıοi (in number), cf. Isocr. big. 842; Aristot. pol. 2, 8;
Ptol. 4, 6, 34 (many others in Lob. Phryn. p. 364 sq. and Paralip.
528), Jude 7 τὸν ὅμοιον τούτοις τρόπον ἐκπορνεύσασαι, Matt. xxiii.
37 ὃν τρόπον ὄρνις ἐπισυνάγει, 2 Tim. iii. 8 (Plat. rep. 7, 517 c. ;
206 Plut. educ. 4,4; 9,18), Acts xviii. 3 σкηνoπoiòs tǹv téxvnv (Lucian.
6th ed. asin. 43; Agathi. 2, 46; Acta apocr. p. 61)-it resembles most nearly
the Passive construction under 5.1 This accusative, however, is
very rare in the N. T.; even in Acts xviii. 3 the best Codd. [Sin.
also] have T Téxvn, cf. § 31. On the other hand, a number of
strictly adverbial Accusatives, which were probably very current
in the language of conversation, have found their way into the
244 N.T.; as, µakpáv (afar), µátŋv (in cassum), वýv (this moment)
yet, τὴν ἀρχήν (Jno. viii. 25), δωρεάν, τὸ τέλος (1 Pet. iii. 8), cf.
$54,1. See, in general, Hm. Vig. p. 882 sq. To the same class of
constructions belong also parenthetic phrases, such as Rom. xii. 18
εἰ δυνατόν, τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν, μετὰ πάντων ἀνθρώπων εἰρηνεύοντες, ix. 5
(i. 15) Heb. ii. 17; v. 1; Rom. xv. 17; Mtth. 734; Mdv. 36 f.
How the Acc. of quality coincides with the Dative has already been
noticed. Thus тộ ảpilµộ is used for ròv åpiðμóv. Usually, however, we
find the Acc. in classic Greek where in the N. T. the Dative is employed;
e.g. rò yévos (natione) Xen. Cyr. 4, 6, 2; Herod. 1, 8, 2; D. S. 1, 4; Arrian.
Al. 1, 27, 8 and rộ yéve Mark vii. 26; Acts iv. 36 (Palaeph. 6, 2; 11, 2),
ἐκλύεσθαι τῇ ψυχῇ Heb. xii. 3 and τὴν ψυχήν Diod. S. 20, 1, βραδεῖς τῇ
kapdíų Luke xxiv. 25, but ẞpadùs ròv voûv Dion. II. de Lys. p. 243 Lips.
1 On the IIebrew cf. Ewald 591 f.
§ 32. ACCUSATIVE.
231
See Krü. 15; Lob. Paralip. 528 (Wetst. N. T. I. 826). In Demosth. ep.
4
p.
T
118 b. we find θρασὺς τῷ βίῳ and μὴ πολίτης την φύσιν side by
side. For Toûrov Tòν Tрóπov even Greek prose authors more frequently
employ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον.
Very extraordinary is the expression ôôòv adóσons in Matt. iv. 15
(from Isaiah) which is rendered by the way. Passages such as 1 Sam. vi. 9
ei ódòv ópíwv avrŷs πорeúσeтαι (Wunder on Lob. Sophocl. Aj. 41 f.) Num.
xxi. 33; Exod. xiii. 17 (cf. Luke ii. 44), do not authenticate that Acc.
without government (by a verb), in an address containing Vocatives.
Such a construction would quite exceed the limits of prose composition
(Bhdy. 114 f.). What Thiersch p. 145 sq. remarks, is not decisive. Should
we perhaps read oi ¿dòv Padáσons (oikoûvres), with the Sept.? It is difficult
to maintain with Mey. that elde in verse 16 is the governing verb. The
topographical difficulties of the usual interpretation are not invincible;
only we must not, as in the prophet, take répav тoû 'Iopôávov as an in- 217
dependent clause, as that would not apply to this passage in Matthew.
7th ed
7. In some passages the Accusative is said to be used absolutely,
when on closer examination the grammatical reason for the Acc.
can be discovered in the structure of the sentence. Thus in Rom.
viii. 3 τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου ... ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέμψας
κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν is properly equivalent to τὸ ἀδύν. τοῦ
νόμου ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός, πέμψας . . . καὶ κατακρίνων etc. (where
ádúvaтov does not require to be taken in a passive sense); this,
however, may also be a Nominative put at the commencement
(cf. Wisd. xvi. 17). In Acts xxvi. 3 the Aсс. уvάσтηv Öνтa is
Acc. γνώστην ὄντα
undoubtedly to be explained as an anacoluthon, which, when 207
participles are annexed, is of frequent occurrence; see § 63, I. 2 a. 6th ed.
Schwarz, de soloec. p. 94 sq., has adduced nothing altogether of the 245
same kiud. In Luke xxiv. 46 f. ἔδει παθεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν ... καὶ
κηρυχθῆναι ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ μετάνοιαν ... ἀρξάμενον ἀπὸ
Iepovoaλnu, the Acc. (in the construction of the Acc. with the
Infinitive) is in itself grammatically clear; only the reference of
ȧρžáμevov is loose: beginning (viz. the înpúσowv), or, imperson-
ally, that it should be begun; cf. Her. 3, 91. See besides Kypke
I. 344 sq. In Rev. i. 20 the Accs. depend on ypávov verse 19,
as has long been admitted. Lastly, in Rev. xxi. 17 èµéтρnσE Tò
τεῖχος τῆς πόλεως ἑκατὸν τεσσαρ. πηχῶν, μέτρον ἀνθρώπου etc.,
the last words are a loose apposition to the clause ἐμέτρ. τὸ τεῖχος
etc.; cf. Mtth. 916. Further, cf. Matthiae, Eurip. Med. p. 501;
Hartung, S. 54; Wannowski, Syntax. anom. p. 128 sqq. On an
Acc. in apposition to a whole clause, as Rom. xii. 1, see § 59, 9.
232
§ 33. CONNECTION OF A VERB (NEUTER)
33. CONNECTION OF A VERB (NEUTER) WITH ITS DEPENDENT
NOUN BY MEANS OF PREPOSITIONS.
A considerable number of verbs, particularly such as denote an
affection or a tendency of the mind, are connected with their
predicate by means of a preposition. In this respect the diction
of the N. T. sometimes accords with classic usage, and sometimes
displays more of a Hebrew and Oriental tinge. We arrange the
verbs in question as follows:
·
a. Verbs of rejoicing or grieving, which in Greck authors are
frequently construed with the Dative alone (Fr. Rom. III. 78 sq.),
take for the most part the preposition éπí with the Dat. (cf. Wurm,
Dinarch. p. 40 sq.), as xaípew Matt. xviii. 13; Luke i. 14; Acts
xv. 31; 1 Cor. xiii. 6; Rev. xi. 10 (cf. Xen. C. 8, 4, 12; D. S. 19,
55; Isocr. permut. 738; Arrian. Ind. 35, 8), evþpaíveσbai Rev.
xviii. 20 (Ecclus. xvi. 1; 1 Macc. xi. 44; Xen. conv. 7, 5), oud-
λυπεῖσθαι Mark iii. 5 (Xen. Mem. 3, 9, 8 ; cf. χαλεπῶς φέρειν ἐπί
218 Tivi Xen. II. 7, 4, 21); but sometimes also ev (λUπeîv év Jacobs,
7th ed. Achill. Tat. p. 814), as xaípew Lukè x. 20; Phil. i. 18 (Col. i. 24.
cf. Soph. Trach. 1119), evppaíveo@at Acts vii. 41, άyaλλiâo@ai 1 Pet.
i. 6 (but ảɣáλλeo@ai èπí Xen. Mem. 2, 6, 35; 3, 5, 16).
συλ
Of verbs of being angry, ȧyavakтeîv is construed with πepí (to be
246 angry on account of some one) Matt. xx. 24; Mark x. 41; but (like
ȧуаvактеîv éπí Lucian. abdic. 9; Aphthon. progymn. c. 9 p. 267)
ỏрyíčeσðaι Éπí Tivi Rev. xii. 17; cf. Joseph. bell. jud. 3, 9, 8 (in the
Sept. even opvíçeodai év Tivi Judg. ii. 14, in later Greek writers
opyíčeσdai Katá Tivos as Malal. p. 43, 102, 165, etc.). The opposite,
evdokεîv, is construed, in imitation of the Hebrew 7 and after
the example of the Sept., with év (to have pleasure in), whether
used in reference to persons Matt. iii. 17; Luke iii. 22; 1 Cor. x. 5
or things 2 Cor. xii. 10; 2 Thess. ii. 12 (0éλew èv Col. ii. 18 cf. 1 Sam.
xviii. 22 ?); in classic Greek the Dative alone would be sufficient.
208 'Aρкeîσlaι, which usually takes a Dative (Luke iii. 14; Heb. xiii. 5),
6th ed. is once, 3 Jno. 10, construed with èí.
בְּ
b. Verbs denoting wonder, amazement, take éri with the Dative;
so Oavμúčew Mark xii. 17; Luke xx. 26, ẻкπλýσσeσ0αι Matt. xxii.
33; Mark i. 22; xi. 18; Luke iv. 32; Acts xiii. 12, which is also
very common in Greck authors. Oavμúčew Teρi Tivos Luke ii. 18
(Isacus 3, 28 cf. Schoem. ad Isacum p. 244) or even diá Ti on
account of something Mark vi. 6, as Aelian. 12, 6; 14, 36 Davμáčew
τινὰ διά τι. But θαυμάζειν ἐν τῷ χρονίζειν Luke i. 21 may mean
WITH ITS DEPENDENT NOUN, ETC.
233
during his tarrying; yet cf. Sir. xi. 21. On çeviçeodai tivi see
above, § 31, 1, f. p. 209.
c. Of verbs signifying to pity, σπλαγχνίζεσθαι usually takes ἐπί
either with the Acc., Matt. xv. 32; Mark vi. 34; viii. 2; ix. 22,
or with the Dat., Luke vii. 13; Matt. xiv. 14, only once Matt. ix. 36
it takes πepí; but êλeeîolai is used as a transitive, see § 32,1,b.a.
d. Verbs of relying on, trusting, hoping, boasting, are construed
with éπí, év, eis; as, πéπоila èπí Tivi Mark x. 24; Luke xi. 22;
2 Cor. i. 9 (Agath. 209, 5; 306, 20), èπí tɩ or tiva Matt. xxvii. 43;
2 Thess. iii. 4, with ev Phil. iii. 3; πOTEÚεw èπí Tivi Rom. ix. 33;
1 Pet. ii. 6 Sept. (on TOTEúew eis or ení Tiva believe on one, see
above, § 31, 5), èxπíčew èπi with Dat. Rom. xv. 12; Phil. iv. 10
(Pol. 1, 82, 6) and with Acc. 1 Tim. v. 5; 1 Macc. ii. 61, eis Jno.
v. 45; 2 Cor. i. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 5; Ecclus. ii. 9 (Herod. 7, 10, 1;
Joseph. bell. jud. 6, 2, 1, ý els tiva èλπís Plut. Galba c. 19), év 1 Cor.
xv. 19 (Xen. C. 1, 4, 25; Mem. 4, 2, 28; Pol. 1, 59, 2 èxπída exew
ἔν καυχᾶσθαι ἐπί τινι
Ĕv T.), Kavɣ⤤αi èπí Tivi Rom. v. 2 (Ps. xlviii. 7; Ecclus. xxx. 2;
D. S. 16, 70, similarly σeμvúveolaι Diog. L. 2, 71; Isocr. big. p.
840 and quoiovolat Diog. L. 6, 24), more frequently èv Rom. ii.
17, 23; v. 3; 1 Cor. iii. 21; Gal. vi. 13 (Ps. cxlix. 5; Jer. ix. 23),
but not kaтá 2 Cor. xi. 18 see Mey. in loc., also not úπép 2 Cor.
vii. 14 cf. ix. 2.
7th ed.
247
e. Of verbs of sinning, offending against, áµaprávew is connected
by els with the object sinned against, Matt. xviii. 21; Luke xvii. 4; 219
1 Cor. vi. 18 etc., cf. Soph. Oed. C. 972; Her. 1, 138; Isocr. panath.
p. 644; permut. p. 750 and Aegin. p. 920, 934; Mr. Anton. 7, 26;
Wetsten. I. 443; on the other hand, apapтáv. πρós тiva Joseph.
antt. 14, 15, 2, πeрí тiva Isocr. permut. 754 (ȧµaρT. TIví 1 Sam.
xiv. 33; 1 Kings viii. 31, 33; Judg. x. 10).
τιν
f. The verbs apéσкew please, and paviva appear (so and so),
instead of the Dative of the person to whom something gives
pleasure or appears (in such or such a light), are connected with
the noun by the Hellenistic preposition vwπTIOν; as, Acts vi. 5
ἤρεσεν ὁ λόγος ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ πλήθους (Deut. i. 23), Luke
xxiv. 11 ἐφάνησαν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν ὡςεὶ λῆρος τὰ ῥήματα. In the
Sept. ἀρέσκειν occurs also with ἐναντίον τινός Num. xxxvi. 6; Gen.
xxxiv. 18; 1 Macc. vi. 60.
g. Of verbs of seeing, Bλéπew is often construed with eis (intueri)
Jno. xiii. 22; Acts iii. 4, which is not unknown to classic Greek
also; see Wahl.
There is properly speaking a redundancy when verbs of following are
30
234
§ 34. ADJECTIVES.
construed with the preposition µerá or σúv (cf. comitari cum aliquo in Latin
209 inscriptions), Rev. vi. 8; xiv. 13; see Wetst. N. T. I. 717; Lob. Phryn.
p. 354; Schaef. Dem. V. 590; Hm. Lucian. p. 178; Krü. 63. The phrase
άкоλove oπíσw Twvós (x) Matt. x. 38 (Isa. xlv. 14) is Hebraistic.
6th ed.
Substantives derived from such verbs are in the same way connected
with the object by means of prepositions; as, TíσTIS Ev Xpioтų Gal. iii. 26;
Eph. i. 15 etc., пароvσíα прòs iµâs Phil. i. 26, 0λíveis vπèρ vµŵv Eph. iii. 13,
Lĥλos vπèρ èµoû 2 Cor. vii. 7, see Fr. Rom. I. 195, 365 sq.
§ 34. ADJECTIVES.
1. Although the two sorts of nouns, substantive and adjective,
are distinct from each other in thought, yet the latter (including
participles) enter the sphere of substantives far more abundantly
in Greek than, for instance, in Latin. This they do whether they
have or have not the Article, and in every gender; sometimes
owing to an original ellipsis, and sometimes without an ellipsis,
248 by virtue of the Gender, whether masculine or neuter, peculiar to
them (Kri. 2 f.); as, ἡ ἔρημος (γῆ), τῇ ἐπιούσῃ ἡμέρᾳ), διοπετές
(ἄγαλμα) Acts xix. 35, τὸ σηρικόν (ΰφασμα ?) Rev. xviii. 12, ὁ σοφός,
ὁ κλέπτων Eph. iv. 28, βασιλικός, ὁ ἄρχων, ἀλλότριοι strangers, και
κοποιοί evil-doers, τὸ ἀγαθόν (τὸ πνευματικόν, ψυχικόν 1 Cor. xv. 46?).
с
On adjectives which have become substantives by an ellipsis, see § 64.
Among expressions relating to persons, as σopós, oi σopoí, the following
are characteristic of the N. Τ.: ὁ πιστός the believer, πιστοί believers, ἅγιοι,
¿KλEKTOί, åµaρTwλoć Rom. xv. 31; xvi. 2; 1 Cor. vi. 2; 2 Cor. vi. 15; 1 Tim.
i. 15; v. 10; 2 Tim. ii. 10; Heb. xii. 3; Matt. xxiv. 22; so even with
an attributive Adjective, Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 2 kλŋtoîs åɣíois, or with a
220 Gen. Rom. viii. 33 èkλeKTOì deoû. In all these cases persons are indicated
7th ed. to whom the quality in question belongs; and there is no necessity for
supplying ἄνθρωποι (οι ἀδελφοί). Likewise where ὁ ἀληθινός 1 Jno. v. 20
is used of God, or å ayos тoû eoû Luke iv. 34 of Christ, or å τovηρós of
the devil, there is no ellipsis of those substantives, but the notion is gram-
matically complete: the True, the Holy One of God; and what individual
is distinctively so called in Biblical diction, must be ascertained from
other sources.
2. Especially frequent and diversified are Neuters used substan-
tively (Krü. 3). Many of these even regularly take the place of
a substantive derivable (but not always actually existing) from the
root; and this, not only in reference to things sensible, péoov, eoxa-
τον, μικρόν, βραχύ, ὀλίγον, φανερόν, κρυπτόν, ἔλαττον, ἄρσεν, etc.,
especially with a preposition (eis тò µéσov Mark iii. 3; Jno. xx. 19,
§ 34. ADJECTIVES.
235
μετὰ μικρόν Matt. xxvi. 73, ἐν ὀλίγῳ Acts xxvi. 29, ἐν τῷ φανερῷ
Matt. vi. 4, eis pavepóv Mark iv. 22), but also mental and abstract,
particularly with a Gen. annexed, as Rom. ii. 4 TÒ XPηOTÒV T. Dεoû
θεού
(ἡ χρηστότης), Hel. vi. 17 τὸ ἀμετάθετον τῆς βουλής, Rom. viii. 3 ;
ix. 22; 1 Cor. i. 25; 2 Cor. iv. 17; Phil. iii. 8 тò vπeρéxov тŶS
yváσews, iv. 5 Tò èπTLELKÉS ÚμÔv. Instead of the Gen. another con-
struction is selected in Rom. i. 15 τὸ κατ' ἐμὲ πρόθυμον (τὸ πρόθυμον 210
purpose Eur. Iphig. 983). The Plurals of adjectives are regularly 6th ed.
concretes, and denote whole classes of things (persons); as, và
ὁρατὰ κ. ἀόρατα Col. i. 16, ἐπουράνια and ἐπίγεια Jno. iii. 12 ; Phil.
ii. 10, тà Baléa Rev. ii. 24, apxaîa 2 Cor. v. 17. Such adjectives,
moreover, sometimes are made more specific by the context: thus,
¿πоvρávia Jno. as above heavenly truths, Phil. ii. 10 heavenly beings,
Eph. ii. 6; iii. 10 heavenly places (i.q. oùpavoí, cf. var. Eph. i. 20)
ete. In Rom. i. 20 và Gópara toi Đeou the Plural refers to the par-
tition that follows, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος δύναμις καὶ θειότης, and Philippi has 249
explained the word more correctly than Fr. (On Eph. vi. 12 πvev-
ματικὰ τῆς πονηρίας, see Note 3.
The expression тò dоKíμLov тs Tíσтews in 1 Pet. i. 7 does not come under
this head, as dokúptov of itself is a substantive, (no adjective dokúpos exists);
further, compare on this passage and on Jas. i. 3, Fr. Prälim. S. 44. In
Rom. i. 19, too, tò yvwσtòv toû eoû is not simply i.q. ǹ yvŵσɩs 7. 0., other-
wise it would not be easy to see why Paul did not employ ǹ prwσis, so
usual to him; but the meaning is either what is known (to mankind) of
God, or what is knowable (may be known) of (about) God. (In reference
to the latter meaning of yvworós, which Thol. questioned, see Soph. Oed.
R. 362; Hm. Plat. rep. 7, 517 b.; Arrian. Epict. 2, 20, 4, cf. Schulthess,
theol. Annal. 1829, S. 976.) I prefer the former as the simpler. Paul
is speaking of the objective knowledge, of the sum of that which is known.
of God (from what source see verse 20). This objective yvwσróv becomes
subjective, in as far as pavepóv eori èv avroîs. This shows, too, why Paul
did not use ǹ yvŵσis here.
The preceding mode of expression, which flows quite simply from the 221
nature of the Neuter, is not unknown to the Greeks. The later prose 7th ed
authors in particular adopted it from the technical language of philosophy.
At the same time, the examples collected by Georgi (Hierocrit. I. 39)
must be carefully sifted. The following may serve as unquestionable
parallels: Demosth. Phil. 1. p. 20 a. tò tŵv deŵv evµevés, and de fals. leg.
213 a. τὸ ἀσφαλὲς αὐτῆς, Thuc. 1, 68 τὸ πιστὸν τῆς πολιτείας, 2, 71 τὸ
ἀσθενὲς τῆς γνώμης, Galen. protrept. 2 τὸ τῆς τέχνης ἄστατον and τὸ τῆς
βάσεως εὐμετακύλιστον, Heliod. 2, 15, 83 τὸ ὑπερβάλλον τῆς λύπης, Plat.
Phaedr. 240 a.; Strabo 3, 168; Philostr. Ap. 7, 12; D. S. 19, 55; Diog.
p.
236
§ 34. ADJECTIVES.
L. 9, 63. This construction with the participle is especially characteristic
of Thuc. (and the Byzantines). Cf. Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 253; Niebuhr,
ind. ad Dexipp. Eunap. and Malch. An abstract noun and neuter adjectives
in connection occur in Plutarch, Agis 20 ἡ πολλὴ εὐλάβεια καὶ τὸ πρᾷον καὶ
φιλάνθρωπον.
1
ΤΟ
3. On the other hand, a notion which should naturally be ex-
pressed by an adjective as an epithet, is sometimes, by a change
211 of construction, brought out by a substantive. Yet the N. T. is
6th ed. by no means poor in adjectives; it can show a considerable number
which do not occur in the (early) Greek authors, and some of
which have been formed by the apostles themselves (èπiοúσios, σap-
250 κικός, πνευματικός, παρείσακτος, πύρινος, ἀκατάκριτος, ἀκρογωνιαῖος,
ἀνεπαίσχυντος, αὐτοκατάκριτος, ἀχειροποίητος, βρώσιμος, ἐπιπόθητος,
εὐπερίστατος, ἰσάγγελος, κατείδωλος, κυριακός, ταπεινόφρων etc.).
This substitution of a substantive for an adjective takes place,
a. In such a way that the substantive which is the principal word
stands in the Genitive: 1 Tim. vi. 17 μn Tikévαi éπì πλOÚTOV
adnλóτηTI not to trust in the uncertainty of riches i.e. in richest
which are uncertain, Rom. vi. 4 ἵνα ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπα
τήσωμεν, vii. 6.
This form of expression, however, is not arbitrary, but is designed
to give greater prominence to the main idea, which if expressed
by an adjective would recede more into the background. It is
rhetorical, therefore, not grammatical. Cf. Zumpt, Lat. Gramm. S.
554 and examples from Greek authors in Held, Plut. Timol. p. 368.
Properly only those passages come under this head in which, to the
substantive that is followed by a Genitive, a verb is joined which from
the nature of the case suits rather the substantive in the Genitive, and
consequently points it out as the principal noun (as, ingemuit corvi stupor,
or the above ἐλπίζ. ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητι). On the other hand, such pas-
sages as the following are to be decidedly excluded from this class: 2 Col.
ii. 5 βλέπων τὸ στερέωμα τῆς πίστεως, 2 Cor. iv. 7 ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνάμεως
222 ᾖ τοῦ θεοῦ, Gal. ii. 14 ὀρθοποδεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ii. 5, also
7th ed. 2 Thess. ii. 11 πέμπει ἐνέργειαν πλάνης. In Heb. ix. 2 ἡ πρόθεσις τῶν ἄρτων
1 On the case in which an adjective as a predicate is expressed by means of a substan-
tive for rhetorical reasons, as in 2 Cor. iii. 9 el ǹ diakovía tŷs kатакрíσews dóέα, see § 58.
κατακρίσεως δόξα,
2 Fr. Rom. I. 367 sq. has objected to this separation, which however he appears to
have misunderstood. In passages of the second kind the statement is merely logical,
in those of the first it is rhetorical. When it is said, live according to the truth of the
Gospel, we are to understand the words in their proper and natural meaning (the truth
of the Gospel is the rule of life); but when it is said, corvi stupor ingemuit, the statement
is figurative, like, his blood called for vengeance. Cic. N. D. 2, 50, 127 belongs to the
second class, and foedo odore would be the less exact expression.
§ 34. ADJECTIVES.
237
:
signifies the setting before, exposition, of the bread; and in 1 Pet. i. 2
άyiaσµùs πveúμaros, as a glance at the context will show, is not synonymous
with πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Lastly, the phrase λαμβάνειν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύ
paros in Acts ii. 33; Gal. iii. 14 means: obtain the promise of the Spirit,
which happens when the promised blessing itself is received (kopíεobai
Tην éπαууeλíαv), when the promise becomes fulfilment.
b. Far more frequently so that the noun which expresses a quality
(mostly moral) stands in the Genitive: Luke iv. 22 Xóyoɩ TŶs
χάριτος, xvi. 8 οἰκονόμος τῆς ἀδικίας, xviii. 6 κριτὴς τῆς ἀδικίας,
Col. i. 13 υἱὸς τῆς ἀγάπης, Rev. xiii. 3 ή πληγὴ τοῦ θανάτου mortal
wound, Rom. i. 26 πáðŋ ȧτiµías, 2 Pet. ii. 10; Jas. i. 25; Heb. i. 3.¹
This, in prose, is a Hebraistic mode of expression, (and is to be 251
attributed not merely to the want of adjectives in Hebrew, Ewald 212
572, but to the peculiar vividness of the Oriental languages). 6th ed.
In the more elevated style, however, there are instances of the same
construction even in Greek authors, see Erfurdt, Soph. Oed. R.
826, cf. Pfochen, diatr. p. 29; but the examples in Georgi, Vind.
p. 214 sqq. are nearly all useless.2 In later writers it intrudes into
plain prose, Eustath. Gramm. p. 478.
If in such expressions a Gen. of a personal pronoun be annexed, it is
rendered as belonging to the entire idea ; as, Heb. i. 3 τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως
avrov by his mighty word, Col. i. 13; Rev. iii. 10; xiii. 3. It is common
to go still further, and to assert (e.g. Vorst, Hebraism. p. 570 sq.; Storr,
observ. p. 234 sq.) that when two nouns combined denote one principal
notion, the demonstrative pronoun also, according to the Hebrew idiom (?),
agrees grammatically with the governed noun; as, Acts v. 20 rà pýμara 223
ῥήματα
τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης for ταῦτα these words of life, xiii. 26 ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας Tth ed
ταύτης this doctrine of salvation, Rom. vii. 24 ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου
Izebo, Ha le
3
TOÚTOV, cf. the Peschito . But this rule (which
even Bengel has adopted) is imaginary. In Rom. vii. ToÚTOV may have
been construed with σóparos by Paul himself; but it is not without ap-
1 But 2 Thess. i. 7 ǎyyeλoɩ duváμews avтoû are angels of his power, i.e. who serve his
power.
2 The Genitive of material does not come under this head. The expression Xílov
rpiós e.g. was to the Greeks like our ram of stone, and it is only the Latin idiom that
would require the use of the adjective here. Likewise doμn evwdías Phil. iv. 18 (cf.
Aristot. rhet. 1, 11, 9) is probably fragrance of sweet odor, and not quite equivalent to
εὐώδης. That 1 Cor. x. 16 τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας and Rom. i. 4 πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης
are not to be explained by the above rule, is now admitted by the best expositors.
For still more unsatisfactory examples, see Glass. I, 26 sq.
3 Some attempt to prove this to be a Hebraism by Ezra ix. 14 na
where, however, there is no necessity whatever for construing
substantive.
niasinn “asa,
with the second
238
§ 34. ADJECTIVES.
-
propriate sense, if connected with Oavárov. As the apostle had already
said much of Oávaros (verse 10 ff.), he might naturally refer to it; see
de Wette in loc. Likewise in Acts xiii. σwrp 'Inooûs had already been
expressed in verse 23, and accordingly ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης means:
the word of this (through Christ effected) salvation. In Acts v. the pronoun
refers to the salvation which the apostles were then engaged in preaching.
Even the Hebrew construction, as op Isa. ii. 20 or
Ps.
lxxxix. 21, which, though according to the rule, is at the same time much
more natural as both words are properly one, has not been literally trans-
lated so in the Sept. Cf. Isa. as above, rà ẞdeλúyμara avтoû rà ȧpyvрâ,
βδελύγματα αὑτοῦ
252 Deut. i. 41 τὰ σκεύη τὰ πολεμικὰ αὐτοῦ, Ps. as above, ἐν ἐλαίῳ ἁγίῳ. In
fact it is not easy to perceive, how Luke and Paul, in statements so simple,
came to employ such an irregular construction. What Georgi, Vind. p.
204 sqq., and Munthe, obs. Acts v. 20, quote from Greek authors, loses all
plausibility when closely examined (Fr. Exc. 1. ad Mr. p. 771 sq.).
Note 1. The Hebraism (Gesen. Lehrgeb. S. 661; Vorst, Heb. 282 sq.)
213 according to which the Neuter of an adjective is expressed by its Feminine,
6th ed. is said to occur in Luke xi. 33 eis kputtǹv tilŋoi. Absurd! KρUTτý had
already become a substantive, signifying a covered place or passage, a
subterraneous receptacle, vault (Athen. 5, 205); and this meaning is quite
appropriate in the passage. On the other hand, Matt. xxi. 42 (Mark
xii. 11) παρὰ κυρίου ἐγένετο αὕτη (τοῦτο), καὶ ἐστὶ θαυμαστὴ (θαυμαστόν)
is a quotation from Ps. cxvii. 23; even the Sept., however, may have
referred the Feminine to kepaλǹ ywvías (Wolf, cur. ad h. 1.).
Note 2. We must here mention another Hebraistic (Vorst, Hebraism.
467 sqq.) circumlocution (as it is called) for certain concrete adjectives
when employed as substantives, viz. by the use of viós or TéкVOV followed
by a Genitive of the abstract; as, vioì ảπe0eías Eph. ii. 2 i.e. the disobedient,
vioì pwrós Luke xvi. 8; Jno. xii. 36, tékva pwrós Eph. v. 8, tékva ỏpyŷs ii. 3,
τέκια ὑπακοῆς 1 Pet. i. 14, τέκνα κατάρας 2 Pet. ii. 14, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας
2 Thess. ii. 3. Every one must feel that these expressions are not mere
circumlocutions, but phrases which bring out the meaning with greater
vivacity and force. This phraseology is traceable to the vivid imagination
of Orientals, which even in the realm of ideas represents the most intimate
224 relationship (derivation or dependence) under the image of son or child
7th ed. (Ecclus. iv. 11). Children of disobedience, therefore, are those who belong
to åπéíðeiɑ as a child to its mother those in whom disobedience has
απείθεια
become predominant and a second nature (compare in Hebrew, Deut.
iii. 18; xxv. 2; 2 Sam. xii. 5; Ps. lxxxix. 23). (The expressions tuîdes
iaτρŵv, dvoτývwv — especially in Lucian-Schaef. Dion. 313, grammatically
ἰατρῶν, δυστήνων
rather resemble υἱοὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων. Παῖς οι τέκνον joined to an abstract
noun, as in the preceding quotations, neither Schwarz nor Georgi has been
able to vindicate by any passage from Greek prose. For an instance
from ecclesiastical authors, see Epiphan. Opp. I. 380 b. oi vioì rĤs åλŋ¤ivîs
§ 35. COMPARATIVE.
239
TOTEws. Strictly similar phraseology is not to be expected in modern
European languages; child of death, for instance, is derived from the
diction of the Bible. In the more elevated style, however, a few such
expressions are used: every one is the offspring of his age. See, in
general, Steiger on 1 Pet. as above; Gurlitt in Stud. u. Kritik. 1829,
S. 728 f. Of a different nature is 2 Thess. ii. 3 å ävĺpoπos tîs ápaprías —
not i.q. ó áµaproλós — the man of sin, that is, he who peculiarly belongs
to sin, the representative of sin, its personification.)
Note 3. In Eph. vi. 12 the expression TÙ VEUpatikÒ TÊS Toropías is 253
peculiar. The Greek idiom to which expositors here refer (see Koppe
in loc.; Fischer, Weller. III. I. 295), πaplevikoi for πapbévoɩ (Lob. Paralip.
305 sq.), was in the better period merely poetical, and is not quite analogous.
In the Byzantines, however, we find e.g. ǹ iππɩý for iππоs (Ducas, p. 18);
and (rà) Saiμóvia, which was originally an adjective but which in later
Greek is used substantively along with daípoves, affords in the main a
proper analogy. A Genitive joined to it e.g. rà Saysóvia roû dépos would
present no difficulty. But in the above passage of Eph. the abstract
appears to have been purposely chosen as a contrast to pòs aipa kai
σάρkа: your struggle is not against outward but against spiritual adrer-
saries. If, however, any one is unwilling to take avevμarikά for verμаτа, 214
it can only be regarded as a collective Plural, like rà Aŋorpikά in Polyaen. 6th ed
5, 14 (robber-hordes, from rò λŋorρikóv the robber class or profession)
Lob. Phryn. 242, and rendered: the spiritualities of wickedness, wicked
spiritual powers; see Mey. in loc.
§ 35. COMPARATIVE.¹
1. Degrees of Comparison are expressed exactly as in classical
Greek; that is, by means of the appropriate form of the adjective,
that with which the comparison is made being subjoined in the
Genitive, or, especially when it is a whole clause,2 connected by ý: 225
Jno. iv. 12 μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ; i. 51; xiii. 16 ; Mark Tubed
où eî
xii. 31; 1 Cor. i. 25; 1 Tim. v. 8; Heb. xi. 26; Jno. iv. 1 πλeiovas
µaðŋtàs πoleî ǹ 'Iwávvns, 1 Cor. xiv. 5; 1 Jno. iv. 4; Rom. xiii. 11
ἐγγύτερον ἡμῶν ἡ σωτηρία ἢ ὅτε ἐπιστεύσαμεν, 2 Pet. ii. 21 ; 1 Cor.
ix. 15; Klotz, Devar. 583. After Theiwv or eλáTTwv before a
numeral, is often omitted (Mtth. 1019); so in Acts xxiv. 11 où
πXelovs eioí µoi Ĥµépai dekadúo, iv. 22 ; xxiii. 13; xxv. 6; cf. Ter. Ad.
2, 1, 46 plus quingentos colaphos infregit mihi. See Lob. Phryn.
410 sq.; Held, Plut. Aem. p. 261. The contrary in Luke ix. 13.
1 Cf. in general G. W. Nitzsch de comparativis graecae linguae modis, in his edition
of Plat. Ion. Lips. 1822, 8vo.
2 In such a case we find in the Sept. the Genitive of the Infinitive also, Gen. iv. 13.
240
§ 35. COMPARATIVE.
κου
It is sometimes doubtful whether the Genitive following a Comparative
contains the second member of the comparison, or is altogether independent
254 of the comparison. In Heb. iii. 3 πλeíova tiµǹv exeɩ Toû olkov etc. it
is probably most correct to take očkov in the former way; but 1 Cor. xiii. 13
µeíswv ToÚTWV ǹ åуáжŋ may be rendered: (greater) the greatest (of) among
these is love; see No. 3. Cf. besides, 1 Cor. xii. 23; Luke vii. 42 (Lucian.
fug. 6).
The Comparative is strengthened by annexing µâdλdov,¹ 2 Cor. vii. 13
περισσοτέρως μᾶλλον (Plato, legg. 6, 781 a.), Phil.i. 23 πολλῷ μᾶλλον κρεῖσσον
(much more better), and in reference to another comparison, Mark vii. 36
ὅσον αὐτοῖς διεστέλλετο, αὐτοὶ μᾶλλον περισσότερον ἐκήρυσσον, see Fr. in loc. ;
also by ἔτι Heb. vii. 15 περισσότερον ἔτι κατάδηλον (still more evident), Phil.
i. 9; lastly, by Toλú, as 2 Cor. viii. 22 Toλù σπovdaιóτepov. All these are
very common in Greek authors (Krü. 79): on µâλλov see Wyttenb. Plut.
215 I. 238; Ast, Plat. Phaedr. p. 395; legg. p. 44; Boisson. Aristaen. p. 430 sqq.
6th ed.
(in Lat. cf. Cic. Pis. 14 mihi ... quaevis fuga potius quam ulla provincia
esset optatior); as to erɩ cf. Plat. pol. 298 e.; Xen. M. 1, 5, 6; Cyr. 5, 4,
20; Anab. 1, 9, 10, and as to rolú Xen. M. 2, 10, 2; Lucian. Tim. 50.
In Greek authors sometimes rɩ Toλú are conjoined: Xen. M. 2, 1,
C. 1, 6, 17; Anab. 7, 5, 15.
226
7th ed.
27;
π
Also when prepositions are employed after the Comparative they are
designed to give it additional force; as, Luke xvi. 8 þрoviµúтepov vñèρ
TOUS VOUS TÊN DUrós, Heb.iv. 12 ; Judg. xi. 25 ; xv.2 ; xviii. 26; Heb.ix. 23
KρEITTOOL Ovσiais Taρà тaúтas, i. 4; iii. 3; xi. 4; xii. 24; Luke iii. 13.
Compare, in reference to παρά, Thuc. 1. 23 πυκνότερον παρὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ πρὶν
xpóvov µvnμovevóµeva, Dio C. 38, 97. See IIm. Vig. 862.
2. Instead of the Comparative form, the Positive is used,
a. With µâλλov, partly when the Comparative form seemed
uncouth, partly 'when more emphasis was required (Krü. 78), Acts
xx. 35 μακάριόν ἐστι μᾶλλον διδόναι ἢ λαμβάνειν, 1 Cor. xii. 22 ;
Gal. iv. 27.
b. With a preposition following which contains the notion of
comparison; as, Philostr. Apol. iii. 19 παρὰ πάντας Αχαιους μέγας.
So Luke xiii. 2 ἁμαρτωλοὶ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς Γαλιλαίους (though
ápap., to be sure, has no comparative), Heb. iii. 3. In the Sept.
Tаρú and vπéρ are often thus used: Exod. xviii. 11; Num. xii. 3;
Hagg. ii. 9; Eccl. iv. 9; ix. 4; 1 Sam. i. 8.
c. With following; as, Aristot. probl. 29, 6 πаρакатаÐýÊηV
1 Mâλλov is not joined to the Superlative, and in 2 Cor. xii. 9 ½diora ovv µârλov
καυχήσομαι ἐν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις μου, the word μᾶλλον belongs to the whole expression
diσтa Kaux. etc., rather, then, will I glory most gladly, etc., i.e. than, repining, beseech
God to remove the ἀσθεν. (verse 8 f.). The word ήδιστα indicates the degree of καυχάσθαι,
while μâλλov forms the antithesis to what precedes.
§ 25. COMPARATIVE.
241
αἰσχρὸν ἀποστερῆσαι μικρὸν ἢ πολὺ δανεισάμενον (Held, Plut. Timol.
317 sq.). This, on the whole, is of rare occurrence; but the
analogous βούλομαι οι θέλω ἤ, malle, became a current phrase,
Her. 3. 40; Polyb. 13, 5, 3; Plut. Alex. 7; Sulla 3. This usage
may be most simply explained by supposing that (owing to the
Comparative construction) had come to be regarded as a pro-
portional particle, presupposing, or to a certain extent directly
expressing, a comparison;¹ cf. Plaut. rud. 4, 4, 70 tacita bona est
mulier semper quam loquens, Tac. ann. 3, 17.
. • •
εσ
255
Now, in the N. T. we find not merely éλo 1 Cor. xiv. 19 and
AVOITEλEîn satius est quam Luke xvii. 2 (Tob. iii. 6), but, as in
Greek authors (Lys. affect. tyr. 1), this use of is extended to
other connections ; as, Luke xv. 7 χαρὰ ἔσται ἐπὶ ἑνὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ
μετανοοῦντι ἢ ἐπὶ ἐνενηκονταεννέα δικαίοις greater joy than etc., cf.
Num. xxii. 6 loxúeɩ oûtos ǹ ýµeîs. With adjectives we find only a
single example, but in both relations, Matt. xviii. 8 kaλóv σoí éσTw
εἰςελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ζωὴν χωλὸν ἢ κυλλόν, ἢ δύο χεῖρας
eis
ἔχοντα
Bλnonvaι etc. Mark ix. 43, 45. On the other hand, this construc-
tion is of frequent occurrence in the Sept., Gen. xlix. 12; Hos. ii. 7;
Jon. iv. 3, 8; Lam. iv. 9; Tob. xii. 8; Ecclus. xxii. 15, and there
it was suggested by the Hebrew, which also makes the comparison
follow the adjective in the preposition. In Greek authors com- 216
pare with Luke xvii. (above) ζῆν ἀταράχως συμφέρει ἢ τὸ τρυφᾶν 6th ed
etc. Acsop. 121 de Fur. (Tob. vi. 13), in Adject. and Adr. Thuc.
6, 21 αἰσχρὸν βιασθέντας ἀπελθεῖν ἢ ὕστερον ἐπιμεταπέμπεσθαι,
Plut. Pelop. 4 τούτους ἂν ὀρθῶς κ. δικαίως προςαγορεύσεις συνάρχοντας
✈ékεívovs, Aesop. 134 de Fur. See d'Orville, Char. p. 588; Boisson.
Marini Procl. p. 78; Kypke I. 89; II. 228 and Nitsch 1. c. p. 71.
Luke xviii. 14 with the reading κατέβη οὗτος δεδικαιωμένος ... ἢ ἐκεῖνος,
would according to the preceding idiom be free from difficulty; cf. Gen.
xxxviii. 26 δεδικαίωται Θάμαρ ἢ ἐγώ (only a comparison is not quite suitable
here). All the better Codd., however, readyáp (see also Matthäi, small
ed., in loc.), which is without a parallel. Yet on Hermann's theory
(followed also by Bornem. in loc.) the passage may be perhaps resolved
thus this one went away justified... or (went) then the other etc.? The
yáp must have been annexed, as elsewhere to interrogative words (also to
, e.g. Xen. C. 8, 3, 40; Soph. Electr. 1212 f.), for emphasis. Probably 227
the reading in some Codd. ep (which in Jno. xii. 43 does not differ from ) 7th ed.
1 The explanation given by Hermann, Vig. 884 and Schaef. ind. Aesop. p. 138, cf.
Held, Plut. Tim. p. 317, is more artificial. The earlier grammarians supplied µâλλov
before the Positive.
31
242
§ 35. COMPARATIVE.
256 is rather a correction of yáp than the origin of it. Lehm., Tdf. in his
first edition, and Mey. read Tap' èkeîvov [so too Cod. Sin.], which would be
quite free from difficulty (justified beyond i.e. to the neglect of the other).
اد
στι
3. The Comparative places over against the object compared but
one thing as comparable, whether this one thing be an individual
or a complex whole; as, Juo. xiii. 16 oùк eσтi Soûλos μeíčwv Toû
κυρίου, ν. 20 μείζονα τούτων δείξει αὐτῷ ἔργα, x. 29. If the Genitive
annexed denotes all things of the same kind, as Mark iv. 31 μkρó-
Teρos túντwv Tâν σπеρμáтшv, verse 32; Luke xxi. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 19;
τερος πάντων τῶν OTTE
τepµáτwv,
Eph. iii. 8, it is to be understood of course with the exception of
the thing compared: smaller than all (other) seeds; and the Com-
parative may be rendered also by the Superlative: the smallest of
all seeds. This mode of expression occurs also in Greek authors:
Demosth. falsa leg. 246 b. πávтwv tŵv äλλwv xeiρw πоλíτηv, Athen.
3, 247 πάντων καρπῶν ὠφελιμώτερα, Dio Chr. 3, 39 ἁπάντων πιθα-
VOTEρоs, sce Jacobs, Anthol. III. 247.
In 1 Cor. xiii. 13 μeilov тоÚтov åуánη the Comparative is not put for
the Superlative; but the meaning is: the greater of (among) these is love,
and the Comparative is employed because the other two graces were re-
garded as forming but a single class in contrast with love.
4. The Comparative is not unfrequently used when the object
of comparison is not expressly mentioned; Reiz, de accent. inclin.
p. 54; Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 418, 538; Stallb. Phileb. p. 120 and rep.
1, 238; Mtth. 1021 f.; Kri. 77.
In such cases this may ordinarily be gathered easily from the
context, Jno. xix. 11; Acts xviii. 20; 1 Cor. vii. 38 (cf. vs. 36 f.)
xii. 31; Heb. ii. 1; vi. 16; ix. 11; Jas. iii. 1; 1 Pet. iii. 7; or the
expression has become a current phrase, as oi πλeloves the majority
217 (in an assembly), Acts xix. 32; xxvii. 12; 1 Cor. ix. 19, etc. But
6th ed. sometimes the peculiar force of the Comparative recedes still
farther from view; in such passages earlier expositors regarded
the Comparative as put for the Positive or Superlative: 2 Tim.
i. 18 BéλTIOV σù yiváσkeis thou knowest better, sc. than I (Lucian.
pisc. 20 ἄμεινον σὺ οἶσθα ταῦτα); Acts xxv. 10 ὡς καὶ σὺ κάλλιον
¿πiyivάokeis, better than thou art willing to appear to know it
257 (according to the supposition in verse 9 of his being guilty); 2 Cor.
viii. 17 τὴν μὲν παράκλησιν ἐδέξατο, σπουδαιότερος δὲ ὑπάρχων more
1
1 In Greek authors also the Comparative is not used for the Positive in sentences
like Lucian. epp. Sat. 3, 32 τὸ ἥδιστον καὶ συμποτικώτερον καὶ ἰσοτιμία, etc., oι
11 ds av μeyaλopwvbтepos aνтŵv v кal Oрaobrepos, Her. 2, 46 etc. (IIeusing. Plut.
educ. p. 3). Cf. also Heinichen, Euseb. H. E. 1. 210 sq.; Herm. Lucian. conscr. hist. p. 284.
ων
§ 35. COMPARATIVE.
243
7th ed.
eager sc. than to require an exhortation; vii. 7 STE μe μâλλov
Xapĥvaι more sc. than for the (mere) arrival of Titus (verse 6), 228
cf. verse 13; Acts xxvii. 13 άσσον παρελέγοντο την Κρήτην nearer
sc. than (verse 8) it had been possible; Phil. ii. 28 σTTоvdaιOTÉρws
éπeµfa avтóv sc. than I should have done, had you not been made
uneasy by the news of his illness (verse 26); i. 12 тà Kat' èµè µâλλov
εἰς προκοπὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐλήλυθεν more (rather) for the advance-
ment sc. than, as we feared, for the hinderance; Jno. xiii. 27 ô
ποιεῖς ποίησον τάχιον more quickly than thou seemest disposed to
do, hasten the execution, see Lücke in loc. (Senec. Agamn. 965
citius interea mihi edissere, ubi sit gnatus, cf. ocius Virg. Aen. 8,
554). In 1 Tim. iii. 14 τάχιον (ἐλπίζων ἐλθεῖν πρός σε τάχιον) is
generally rendered as the Positive (ev Táɣet Lehm. is a cor-
rection), while some take it as equivalent to ós TáxiσTα. The
meaning is: I write this to thee, hoping (though I hope) to come
to thee more quickly, sooner i.e. than thou wilt need these instruc-
tions. The reason of his writing notwithstanding, is contained in
éàv dè ẞpadúva etc., cf. verse 15. Heb. xiii. 19 that I may be re-
stored to you sooner (than would be the case without your prayers); 1
xiii. 23 if he come sooner (than the date of my departure); Rom.
xv. 15 TOλμηρÓTeρov éypaya iµîv more boldly (frankly) sc. than,
from
your Christian attainment (verse 14), was necessary. On Mark
ix. 42 see Fr. in loc. Acts xviii. 26 does not require explanation.
In 1 Cor. vii. 38 the relation between the Positive κaλŵs moleî and
the Comparative Kрeîσσov TоLet is plain from verse 36 f. Likewise
TEρiσσOTÉρws, so much used by Paul, never occurs without a com-
parison. Its comparative force is obvious in 2 Cor. i. 12; ii. 4;
vii. 13; xi. 23; Phil. i. 14; Gal. i. 14; Heb. ii. 1; vi. 17; but in
1 Thess. ii. 17 περισσ. ἐσπουδάσαμεν τὸ πρόςωπον ὑμῶν ἰδεῖν etc.,
the ground of the comparison lies probably in the clause: άπoр&α-
νισθέντες ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν πρὸς καιρὸν ὥρας. The being deprived of their
personal intercourse for a time (which Paul calls being bereaved),
had made his desire stronger than it would have been had he sus-
tained no such relation to them. In 2 Pet. i. 19 the comparative 218
force of ßeßaióτepov can be determined only on hermeneutical 6th ed.
grounds; but the discordance even of the most recent expositors,
shows how occult the reference here is. On the other hand, there
can be little doubt that in 2 Pet. ii. 11 after μeiloves" than those 258
ToλµŋTai avládes" ought to be supplied. On Eph. iv. 9 see Mey.
¹ Böhme, who expresses the meaning of the passage correctly in his translation, affirms
nevertheless in his comments: non est comparat. stricte intelligendus.
244
§ 35. COMPARATIVE.
kai
Acts xvii. 21 λέγειν τι καὶ ἀκούειν καινότερον is peculiarly characteristic.
The Comparative indicates that they desired to hear something newer (than
even what was deemed new), and is well fitted to portray the thirst of
the Athenians after news. Generally, however, the Greeks employed the
Comparative (usually veórepov) in asking the news; thus denoting not
merely something new (Positive), but something still more fresh than what
229 had, up to that moment, been news; Her. 1, 27; Eurip. Orest. 1327;
7th ed. Aristoph. av. 254; Theophr. ch. 8, 1; Lucian. asin. 41; D. Sic. Exc. Vat.
p. 24; Plat. Protag. 310 b. and Euthyphr. c. 1, see Stallb. in loc.
In Matt. xviii. 1 (Mark ix. 34; Luke ix. 46; xxii. 14) Tŵv äλλwv at
once suggests itself as the ellipsis (μéyotos would have implied three grades
of four even among the Twelve; Ramshorn, lat. Gr. 316). In the same
way, in Matt. xi. 11 ὁ δὲ μικρότερος ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τ. οὐρ., that is, ὁ μικρότερος
(Twv) äλλwv (the Comparative appears to be chosen here as corresponding
to the preceding μείζων), cf. Diog. L. 6, 5 ερωτηθεὶς τί μακαριώτερον ἐν
åvOpútois, “PN, evтvɣoûvтa åπoðaveîv, Bauer, glossar. Theod. 455; Boisson.
Philostr. 491. Other expositors after μukpórepos understand 'Iwávvou Toû
BаπтIσтоû; see, in general, Mey. Likewise in Acts xvii. 22 κarà máνтα
távta
ὡς δεισιδαιμονεστέρους ὑμᾶς θεωρῶ the particle ὡς does not appear to
belong to the Comparative as an intensive, but the passage must be ren-
dered In all respects (at every step, as it were) I behold you as more
religious people (than others are, sc. aλλov; the Athenians as is well
known were reputed to be such; see the expositors in loc.). The word
Dewpŵ was designedly chosen, compare verse 23; and fewpeîv ós, though
unusual, can hardly be considered as improper.
a
:
Note 1. When it is asserted that pŵros is used for the Comparative
(πρότερος) where only two are spoken of e.g. Rev. xxi. 1 εἶδον οὐρανὸν καινὸν
... ὁ γὰρ πρῶτος ουρανός etc. prius coelum, Heb. x. 9 ἀναιρεῖ τὸ πρῶτον,
ἵνα τὸ δεύτερον στήσῃ, Matt. xxi. 36 ἀπέστειλεν ἄλλους δούλους πλείονας τῶν
TрÓTшv, Acts i. 1; 1 Cor. xiv. 30, the assertion is true only from a Latin
point of view, for the Greeks are accustomed, even when there is a distinct
reference to two only, to employ πρώτος, δεύτερος, not πρότερος, ὕστερος
(cf. Jacobs, Aelian. anim. II. 38), just as with us the former, the latter
belong rather to the language of books than to that of the people. Like-
wise pros with the Genitive, as in Jno. i. 15, 30 πрŵтós μov (cf. Ael.
anim. 8, 12), and the Adverb xv. 18 πрûтоv vμov, is properly not prior me,
prius vobis; but the Superlative merely includes the Comparative, as is
remarked by Hm. on Eurip. Med. ed. Elmsley, p. 343: Graecos ibi super-
lativum pro compar. dicere, ubi haec duo simul indicare volunt, et maius
219 quid esse alio et omnino maximum. Cf. also Fr. Rom. II. 421, not. It
6th ed. is an entire mistake when in Luke ii. 2 αὕτη ἡ ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο
259 ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου, even recent expositors take πρώτη for
Tроréρa and make the Genitive yeμov. etc. dependent on this Comparative:
took place before Q. was governor. On this view Luke's language is not
§ 35. COMPARATIVE.
245
only ambiguous (for the rendering: this took place as the first under the
administration of Q. presents itself as the most obvious and natural), but
also awkward if not ungrammatical. And Huschke (über d. zur Zeit d.
Geburt J. Chr. gehalt. Census. Bresl. 1840, 8vo.) has not succeeded in
adducing a really similar construction; he merely proves (what everybody
admits) that puros is followed by the Genitive of a noun.
The error of
Tholuck (Glaubwürdigk. d. evang. Geschichte, S. 184) in regarding Jer. 230
xxix. 2 in the Sept. as parallel, has been exposed by Fr., as above.
Note 2. Two Comparatives which are correlative, as in Rom. ix. 12 ó
μeíšov dovλevσel T áσσovi (Sept.), cf. 1 Cor. xii. 22; 2 Cor. xii. 15; Phil.
i. 23 sq., or joined with a word expressing proportion, as in Heb. i. 4 Toσoúry
κρείττων γενόμενος ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα (x. 25), require
no explanation. Cf. Xen. C. 7, 5, 7; Mem. 1, 4, 10; Plato, Apol. 39 d.
In the N. T. no instance occurs of two Comparatives connected by
(Krü. 77). On the other hand, we find Positives with pov in 2 Tim.
iii. 4 φιλήδονοι μᾶλλον ἢ φιλόθεοι.
1
7th ed
5. Sometimes, in comparative sentences, a part is compared not
with the corresponding part but with the whole (Bhdy. 432); as,
Jno. v. 36 μαρτυρίαν μείζω τοῦ Ἰωάννου, witness greater than John,
that is, greater than that of John; so Her. 2, 134 πʊрaµída kai
οὗτος ἀπελείπετο πολλὸν ἐλάσσω τοῦ πατρός, i.e. than that of luis
father; and Lucian. salt. 78 τὰ δι᾽ ὀμμάτων φαινόμενα πιστότερα
εἶναι τῶν ὤτων δοκεῖ.
eivaι Tŵv wтwv Soket. There is here no proper ellipsis (as the
earlier philologists supposed); for had the speaker's thought coin-
cided exactly with ours, he would have said TŷS TOû 'I., TŶS TOÛ
πατρός, etc. Rather must we regard the construction in question
as a condensed form of expression quite in accordance with the
genius of the Greek language, and of frequent occurrence, not
merely with strict Comparatives (Hm. Vig. 717; Schaef. Melet.
127; Mtth. 1016), but also in other comparative sentences; Franke,
Demosth. p. 90; Weber, Demosth. p. 399; Fr. Conjectan. I. 1 sqq.
and Mr. p. 147, see § 63. In Latin, cf. Juven. 3, 74 sermo promptus
et Isaeo torrentior, Cic. ad Brut. 1, 12; Orat. 1, 44, and in Hebrew, 260
Isa. Ivi. 5 (1 Esdr. iii. 5). Matt. v. 20 èàv un teρioσevon vµâv ý
δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων etc. may also be explained in
this
way without violence; (Jesus could speak of a dikaιoo. ypaµµ.,
for their conduct assumed for itself this title of honor, and was
looked up to and esteemed by the people as ps). On the other
hand, 1 Cor i. 25 τὸ μωρὸν τοῦ θεοῦ σοφώτερον τῶν ἀνθρώπων, is
1 Only when several such parallel clauses follow each other is the Article omitted in
the last; as, Plat. Gorg. 455 e. ἡ τῶν λιμένων κατασκευὴ ἐκ τῆς Θεμιστοκλέους ξυμβουλῆς
γέγονε, τὰ δ᾽ ἐκ τῆς Περικλέους, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐκ τῶν δημιουργών. Cf. Sibelis, Pausan. IV. 291.
246
§ 36. SUPERLATIVE.
220 easily accounted for without the usual (but forced) solution (Pott,
6th ed. Heydenreich, Flatt, in loc.): the foolishness of God is wiser than
men (are); that is, what appears foolishness in God's arrange-
ments is not only wisdom, but is even wiser than men, outshines
all the wisdom of men.
231
7th ed.
§ 36. SUPERLATIVE.
1. Instead of the Superlative, we find, in elevated style, one
instance of the Positive accompanied by a generic substantive:
Luke i. 42 evλoynµévn où ev yvvaığív, blessed (art) thou among
women. This is primarily a Hebrew idiom (Gesen. Lg. 692) which
strictly means: Among women thou art the (only) one that can
be called blessed, the blessedness of others cannot be compared to
thine; hence, with rhetorical emphasis, highly blessed. This is not
without parallel in Greek poetry (though the passages adduced
by Külnöl are not appropriate); as, Eurip. Alcest. 473 & pira
γυναικῶν (ὦ φιλτάτα) see Monk in loc., Aristoph. ran. 1081 ὦ σχέτλι
ἀνδρῶν, still more Pind. Nem. 3, 80 (140) αἰετὸς ὠκὺς ἐν πετανοῖς,
cf. also Himer. orat. 15, 4 oi yevvaîoi Tâν Tóvwv, and Jacobs, Ael.
anim. II. 400. The case is different in Matt. xxii. 36 Tola ÉvτоλỲ
µeyáλn év Tậ vóµæ; which kind of commandment is great in the law?
so that others seem insignificant in comparison, not precisely the
greatest, see BCrus. in loc. Likewise in Luke x. 42 Tν άɣabyν
µepída ¿¿eλéğato, the Positive is not put for the Superlative; the
meaning is: She has chosen the good part (in reference to the
kingdom of heaven; that which alone truly deserves this name);
Fr. Conject. I. 19 is in error. Matt. v. 19 ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ποιήσῃ ..
OÛTOS µÉYAS Kλŋŋσetaɩ will be called great, a great one, not ex-
261 actly the greatest (opposed to eλáxioτos which precedes.) Cf. Hm.
Aeschyl. p. 214.
2. Of the well-known Hebrew mode of expressing the Super-
only the following examples occur in, עֶבֶד עֲבָדִים, קְדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים,lative
the N. Τ. : Heb. ix. 3 ἡ (λεγομένη) ἅγια ἁγίων the most holy place
(which, however, as it had already assumed the character of a
standing designation, scarcely comes under this head), Rev. xix. 16
βασιλεὺς βασιλέων, κύριος κυρίων, the highest king, lord, 1 Tim. vi.
15. But none of these expressions is a pure Hebraism; in the
Greek poets also we find such a doubling of adjectives (used sub-
stantively): Soph. Electr. 849 deixaía deixaiwv, Oed. R. 466 äppηT'
ȧpрýτæv, Soph. Phil. 65, kakа какŵν Soph. Ocd. C. 1238, see
§ 36. SUPERLATIVE.
247
Blidy. 154; Wex, Antig. I. 316. The phrase Baoiλevs Baoiλéwv
too, is very simple, and more emphatic than ó µéɣiotos Baoiλ€ÚS ;
cf. Aeschyl. suppl. 524 avag ávúктwv, and, even as a technical
designation, Theophan. contin. 127, 387 ó äpxwv tôv åpxóvтwv.
See also Hm. Aesch. p. 230; Georgi, vind. 327 and Nova Biblioth.
Lubec. II. 111 sq. In reference to the kindred expression oi aioves
Tŵv alávov, see the passages in the concordance.
3. What were formerly adduced¹ as Hebraistic circumlocutions 221
for the Superlative, are for the most part either,
a. Figurative expressions which appear in all languages (and
the explanation of which in the present comes under the depart-
ment of N. T. Rhetoric); e.g. Heb. iv. 12 ó óyos тoû beοû тoμÓтE-
ρος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν δίστομον, Matt. xvii. 20 ἐὰν ἔχητε πίστιν
ὡς κόκκον σινάπεως the least faith, iv. 16 καθημένοις ἐν χώρᾳ καὶ
σkia Oaváтov in the darkest shadow. Cf. Matt. xxviii. 3; Rev. i.
14; xviii. 5. Or,
σκιᾷ θανάτου
6th ed.
232
7th ed.
b. Constructions which have nothing to do with the Superlative;
as, Col. ii. 19 av§nois Tоû Deοû not a divine, i.e. extraordinary,
increase, but God's increase, i.e. not merely acceptable to God, but
produced by God (cf. 1 Cor. iii. 6); 2 Cor. i. 12 év áπλóтηTI Kai
eiλikρivelą Deoû not perfect sincerity, but sincerity which God
effects, produces; Jas. v. 11 Téλos Kuρíoυ not glorious end, but the 262
end which the Lord reserved (for Job); Rev. xxi. 11 Tóλs exovo a
Tǹv dóğav Tоû Оcoû not great glory, but simply and strictly the
glory (splendor) of God; see Ewald in loc.; 1 Thess. iv. 16 σáλπIY§
θεοῦ not great or far-sounding trumpet (σάλπιγξ φωνῆς μεγάλης
Matt. xxiv. 31), but trumpet of God, i.e. trumpet which sounds at
God's command, or less restrictedly (as it is without the Article) a
trumpet as used in the service of God (in heaven); so also Rev.
XV. 2 Kiðάрαι тоû eoû harps of God, as they sound in heaven (to
the praise of God), cf. 1 Chron. xvi. 42.
In Rom. i. 16 Súvaµis Оeoû means, as expositors have long been
agreed, the power of God (power in which God works); and there
1 See, especially, Pasor, Grammat. p. 298 sq. The Hebrew mode of expression
33 is used likewise by the later Greek poets; see Boisson. Nic. Eugen. p. 134,
383. Cf. Sept. σpódρa opódpa Exod. i. 12; Judith iv. 2. On the Rosetta inscription
19 we find μέγας καὶ μέγας. Essentially the same is the expression (μικρὸν) ὅσον ὅσον
Heb. x. 37 a very little while (Hm. Vig. 726), literally, little how very, how very! In
Greek authors it occurs with a substantive annexed, as in Aristoph. vesp. 213 door doov
oríλny as big (that is, as small) as a drop; hence it is used precisely like quantillum.
The simple door occurs also with a limiting genitive in Arrian. Indic. 29, 15 σmeipovoi
bσov Tŷs xúpns. The passages adduced by Wetst. and Lösner as parallel do not establish
8σov σov, but merely the simple funpòv öσov. On the other hand, cf. Isa. xxvi. 20.
σε
248
§ 37. NUMERALS.
is no ground for charging Bengel with having intended by his
"magna et gloriosa" to countenance the Hebraism in question.
He merely gives prominence, in his way, to two qualities which a
virtus dei will exhibit, referring to 2 Cor. x. 4. Lastly, doTEÎOS
T@ 0e❖ Acts vii. 20, used in reference to Moses, does not express
the Superlative, so much as intensity rather; it is to be translated
fair for (before, in the judgment of) God, that is, to be sure,
admodum formosus (cf. 2 Cor. x. 4 and Sturz, Zonarae glossae
sacrae P. II. Grimmae, 1820, 4to. p. 12 sqq.). In Hebrew
and
are used in precisely the same manner (Gesen. Lg.
233 695), cf. Gen. x. 9; Jon. iii. 3 (Sept. wóλis μeɣáжη Tô Оew). See
7th ed. Fischer, proluss. 231 sqq.; Wolle, de usu et abusu avgýoews nomi-
222 num divinor. sacrae, in his comment. de parenthesi sacra, p. 143 sqq.;
but the use of the Dative is not, in itself, to be esteemed a Hebraism,
cf. Heind. Plat. Soph. 336; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 479 a.
6th ed.
263
Haab (S. 162) is quite mistaken in maintaining that even the word
Xplorós, annexed to a substantive, merely gives intensity to its signification,
e.g. Rom. ix. 1; 2 Cor. xi. 10 åλýleia Xpioтov, ev Xplore the most unques-
tionable truth. So other expositors would understand Col. ii. 18 Opηokela
τῶν ἀγγέλων as cultus perfectissimus ; cf. 2 Sam. xiv. 20 σοφία ἀγγέλου.
Note. The strengthening of the Superlative by άνTшv (Weber, Demosth.
p. 548) occurs in the N. T. only in Mark xii. 28 πрúтη πúvтwv, cf. Aristoph.
av. 473.
§ 37. NUMERALS.
1. In expressing the day of the week, els is always used for the
ordinal numeral πρῶτος, as Matt. xxviii. 1 εἰς μίαν τῶν σαββάτων,
Mark xvi. 2 πρwt Tŷs μiâs σaßßárov, Luke xxiv. 1; Jno. xx. 1,
19; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 2. The passages which have been
quoted as analogous from Greek authors, merely prove that els is
used of the first member in divisions and enumerations (Weber,
Demosth. p. 161), when deútepos or åλλos, or tlie like, follows; as,
Her. 4, 161; Thuc. 4, 115; Herod. 6, 5, 2 sqq. (Georgi, vindic.
54 sqq.).¹ In this case eis no more stands for Tρŵтоs than in
Latin unus, when followed by alter, tertius, etc., stands for primus
(cf. also Rev. ix. 12 with xi. 14 and Gal. iv. 24). In the quota-
tion from Her. 7, 11, 8 els retains its proper signification, unus,
and probably also in Paus. 7, 20, 1, where Sylb. renders it by una.2
1 Also Foertsch, observ. in Lysiam p. 37, has been able to adduce only passages of this
kind. On Diog. L. 8, 20 see Lobeck, Aglaopham. p. 429.
2 Chishull, antiq. asiat. p. 159, translates µą rîs Bovλîjs: die concilii prima.
§ 37. NUMERALS.
249
The preceding use of the numeral is Hebraistic (Ewald, krit. Gr.
496; on the Talmud, see Wetsten. I. 544; in the Sept. cf. Exod.
xl. 2; Num. i. 1, 18; Ezra x. 16 f.; 2 Macc. xv. 36) and has in
classical Greek a parallel in compound numerals ; as, eis kaì тpiŋKO-
σTós (Her. 5, 89) one and thirtieth. We, too, use in like manner
the cardinal numeral in giving the year, page, etc. mainly for
brevity's sake, as in the year eighteen, page forty, etc.
νιαυτ
τριηκο-
For the cardinal one the Singular of a substantive is sometimes used
alone; as, Acts xviii. 11 èkáliσev éviαvтòv kaì pôvas ¿§ (Joseph. antt.
15, 2, 3), Rev. xii. 14 тpéperaι éκeî Kaiрóv (but Jas. iv. 13). This, how- 234
ever, is not an ellipsis (cf. § 26, 1), as the number one is implied in the 7th ed.
Singular. A similar usage is found in all languages.
2. In 2 Pet. ii. 5 we find an abbreviated use of the ordinal: 223
őydoov Nŵe...épúλage Noah as eighth, i.e. with seven others. 6th ed
In the same way Plat. legg. 3. 695 c. λαβὼν τὴν ἀρχὴν ἕβδομος,
Plutarch. Pelop. c. 13 εἰς οἰκίαν δωδέκατος κατελθών, Appian.
Pun. p. 12 (2 Macc. v. 27), cf. also Schaef. Plutarch. V. 57 and
Demosth. I. 812. Greek authors usually add aurós; see Kypke 264
II. 442; Mtth. 1037.
3. Cardinals when repeated assume a distributive signification;
as, Mark vi. 7 Súo dúo йpέaтo àπOσTÉλλew, binos misit, in pairs,
two and two. Instead of this the Greeks say κатá or άvà dúo (Krü.
75); the latter¹ occurs, for instance, in Luke x. 1, and in Mark as
above in Cod. D as a correction. This repetition is properly He-
braistic (see Gesen. Lg. 703; cf. Gen. vii. 3, 9, and thence Leo,
Gramm. p. 11), and the simplest form of expressing distribution,
cf. Lob. pathol. p. 184. Yet solitary instances of a similar usage
occur in Greek (poetry), e.g. Aeschyl. Pers. 981 µvpía µvpía, i.e.
κατὰ μυριάδας ; and the combination in Mark vi. 39, 40 ἐπέταξεν
αὐτοῖς ἀνακλἶναι πάντας συμπόσια συμπόσια ... ἀνέπεσον
πρασια πρασιαί is analogous.
The following expressions are singular: avà eis KaσTOS Rev. xxi. 21
and εἷς καθ' εἷς (or καθεῖς) Mark xiv. 19; Jno. viii. 9 (like ἓν καθ᾽ ἕν), ὁ
kab eis Rom. xii. 5 (3 Macc. v. 34), for which Greek authors, preserving
the regimen, use κať eva (1 Cor. xiv. 31; Eph. v. 33). Yet compare årà
Téoσapes Plut. Aem. 32 (see, however, Held), eis κabeis (Bekker writes
Kaleis) Cedren. II. 698, 723, els map' eis Leo, Tact. 7, 83 and simply kabels
Theophan. contin. p. 39 and 101, and other quotations from late writers in
1 For this avά the Syriac version always employs the repeated numeral, e.g. Mark vi.
40 ảvà ékarov soi son
On the other hand, we find in
Act. apocryph. 92 ἀνὰ δύο δύο.
32
250
§ 37. NUMERALS.
Wetst. I. 627, also Intpt. ad Lucian. Soloec. 9. In these phrases the prep-
osition serves merely as an adverb; Hm. de partic. av p. 5 sq. A different
view is taken by Döderlein, Pr. de brachylogia serm. gr. et lat. (Erlang.
1831, 4to.) p. 10.
4. The well-known rule, that in combinations of numbers kai
is commonly inserted when the smaller number precedes, but
omitted when the greater precedes (Mtth. 339; cf. the Inscript. in
Chishull, antiq. asiat. p. 69 sq.) cf. 1 Cor. x. 8; Jno. vi. 19; Acts
i. 15; vii. 14; xxvii. 37; Rev. iv. 4; xix. 4,1 ought not, partic-
235 ularly the latter part of it (Schoem. ad Isaeum 332; Krü. 74), to
7th ed. be taken too strictly; for there are exceptions to it everywhere, in
the N. T. at least several undoubted ones: Jno. ii. 20 Teooаρáкоνта
καὶ ἓξ ἔτεσιν (without var.), v. 5 τριάκοντα καὶ ὀκτὼ ἔτη (according
to preponderating authority), Gal. iii. 17; Luke xiii. 11, 16; Acts
xiii. 20; Rev. xi. 2. Similar instances again and again occur in
Greek authors ; as, Her. 8, 1 εἴκοσι καὶ ἑπτά, Thuc. 1, 29 ἑβδομή
224 κοντα καὶ πέντε, Dion. Hal. IV. 2090 ὀγδοήκοντα καὶ τρεῖς. In Sept.
6th ed. cf. 1 Kings ix. 28; xv. 10, 33; xvi. 23, 28; Gen. xi. 13 (in Judg.
265 x. 4 Tuf. has given in one verse, тρiákovтa kaì dúo vioì and Tρiú-
κοντα δύο πώλους).
πεντι
5. When érávo is joined to a cardinal to denote above, more than,
the cardinal does not stand in the Genitive after énáva, but is put
in the case which the verb of the sentence requires; as, Mark xiv.
5 πραθῆναι ἐπάνω τριακοσίων δηναρίων, 1 Cor. xv. 6 ὤφθη ἐπάνω
πEVTAKOσíois údeλpoîs. Precisely so (without a case) the Greeks use
ἔλαττον Plato, legg. 9, 856 d. μὴ ἔλαττον δέκα έτη γεγονότας (Thuc.
6, 95), πλéov (Рaus. 8, 21, 1), πepí (Zosim. 2, 30), eis or ès (Appian.
civil. 2, 96, but compare Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. 68), μéxpɩ (Aeschin.
fals. leg. 37 ed. Bremi), úπép (Plut. virt. mul. 208, Lips. ; Jos. antt.
18,1,5); see Lob. Phryn. 410 sq.; Gieseler in Rosenmüller's Repert.
II. 139 ff.; Sommer in the allg. Schulzeit. 1831, S. 963. Latin
constructions such as occisis ad hominum millibus quatuor, Caes.
b. gall. 2, 33, from the historians, are well enough known.
Note 1. That the Neuters Seúreрov, тpírov, etc., signify also the second
time, the third time, etc., it is superfluous to remark. They are sometimes
accompanied by Toûтo, as тpírov тOÛTо eрxoμaι 2 Cor. xiii. 1 this is the
third time I come, or, now I am coming for the third time, cf. Her. 5, 76
τέταρτον τούτο.
Note 2. For the numeral adverb éπTάKIS we find the cardinal in Matt.
1 Three numerals are sometimes found thus combined; as, Rev. vii. 4 éκaTdV TEσσαρá~
κοντα τέσσαρες xiv. 3 ; xxi. 17; Jno. xxi. 11 εκ. πεντήκοντα τρεῖς.
§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES.
251
□-
xviii. 22 in the formula éws‚éßdoµŋkovtákis ÉπTá seventy times seven (times),
compare in Sept. Gen. iv. 24 and 2 Ps. cxix. 164 (for 3) Ewald
498. Taken strictly it means: seventy times (and) seven, that is, seventy-
seven times; but this would not suit the passage. Moreover, that ews is
not to be joined to ἑπτά but to ἑβδομηκ., appears from the preceding έως
ÉTTάKIS. (How variously numeral adverbs are expressed in the Sept. may
be seen from the following passages: Exod. xxxiv. 23; Deut. xvi. 16;
2 Kings vi. 10; Neh. vi. 4; 2 Sam. xix. 43.)
CHAPTER IV.
236
7th ed.
266
THE VERB.
§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES.
1. As on the one hand the Active voice of transitive verbs not
infrequently assumes also an intransitive (apparently reflexive)
signification, so on the other many intransitive verbs have become 225
transitives (causatives) ;-
6th ed
Sometimes in consequence of composition, as diaßaivew Heb. xi.
29, πaρéрxeodaι Luke xi. 42; and sometimes by simple adaptation,
as μαθητεύειν τινά 1 Matt. xxviii. 19 (θριαμβεύειν τινά 2 Cor. ii.
14?), Baoiλevei Tivá 1 Sam. viii. 22; 1 Kings i. 43; Isa. vii. 6;
1 Macc. viii. 13 (Lob. Soph. Aj. 385). See § 32, 1, pp. 221 sqq.
Those transitive verbs which are frequently or even generally
employed as intransitive, are restricted to certain classes of mean-
ings that may be easily gathered from the following examples:
ἄγειν ἄγωμεν let us go), παράγειν Matt. xx. 30 ; 1 Cor. vii. 31,
Tepláуew Acts xiii. 11, ßáλλew Acts xxvii. 14 (precipitate itself,
rushi), éπißáλλew Mark iv. 37 (beat into), ảπорρíπтew Acts xxvii. 43
(throw themselves off), «λivew Luke ix. 12 (incline itself, decline),
ἐκκλίνειν Rom. xvi. 17, ἀνατέλλειν, βλαστάνειν, αὐξάνειν (Lob.
Soph. Aj. p. 89 sq. 382 sqq.), σтρépew Acts vii. 42, ȧvaσтρépew
Acts v. 22 return), and especially ἐπιστρέφειν ; ἐκτρέπειν, παρα-
Sidóvaι Mark iv. 29; 1 Pet. ii. 23 (commit, consign one's self),
άπéɣew be at a distance, éréxew Acts xix. 22 (hold one's self
back, i.e. stay), ὑπερέχειν, σπεύδειν. In the N. Τ. ἀνακάμπτειν,
πрокóжтеш are only intransitive. In all these cases (which are
προςτάττειν τινά
1 Here belongs also πρоsтáттew Tivά to commission one, Acta apocr. p. 172.
252
§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES.
267
for the most part verbs of motion) the Greeks considered nothing
as omitted (not even éautóv), but the verb denotes the action
absolutely: he plunges, Germ. stürzt, into the sea, he turns; where,
however, as no object is mentioned, the reader can only refer the
action back to the subject. See, in general, Bos, Ellips. p. 127 sqq.;
Ntth. 1100 ff. ; Bhdy. 339 f. ; Krü. 134 f. ; Poppo, Thue. I. 186;
Fr. Mr. p. 138. On Sidóval and its compounds in particular, see
Jacobs, Philostr. p. 363, and on mapéɣew Ast, Plat. polit. p. 470 ;
Wyttenb. Plut. mor. 1, 405.
Jno. xiii. 2 τοῦ διαβόλου βεβληκότος εἰς τὴν καρδίαν must not be referred
to this head, whether the received reading or that adopted by Lchm. and
Tdf. be followed; ẞáλλew has in any case an Active signification; see
Kypke.
237 Many verbs have some of their tenses transitive (causative), and some
7th ed. intransitive. So lornue with its compounds (Bttm. II. 207), of which it
is sufficient to remark, that the 1st Aor. Pass. σтaðîvaι Mark iii. 24 and
the 1st. Fut. oralnooμal Matt. xii. 25, 46 share the intransitive meaning
stand, and that in Acts xxvii. 28 the 1st Aor. Siaσrýoavres [after which
vaûv or kavroús is not with Bttm. (Gramm. des neutest. Sprachgebr. p. 41.)
to be supplied] signifies stood off; (cf. Malal. 2 p. 35 orýoas for oτás). In
Heb. xii. 15 Sept. púew even in the Pres. is intransitive (Iliad. 6, 149).
226
6th ed.
In 1 Pet. ii. 6 πepiéxei év tŷ ypapî is contained (stands) in the Scripture,
Teρiéɣe appears to have rather a passive than an intransitive signification;
cf. Joseph. antt. 11, 4, 7; Malal. 9, 216; 18, 449; see Krebs, observ. 198.
On the impersonal use of certain verbs (in 3d pers. Sing.), as ẞpovτâ,
λέγει, φησί, see § 58, 9, p. 522.
2. The Middle Voice (of transitive verbs) 1 refers back the action
to the acting subject, either
1 See L. Küster, de vero usu verborum medior. ap. Graecos, and J. Clerici, diss. de
verbis Graecor. mediis, both reprinted in the work of Dresig, to which we refer below.
IIm. emend. rat. p. 178; Bhdy. 342 ff.; Rost, 562 ff.; Krü. 140 ff. are more philosophic.
Especially cf. Poppo, Progr. de Graecor. verbis mediís, passivis, deponentibus rite dis-
cernendis. Fref. a. V. 1827, 4to., and Mehlhorn's critique on it in Jahn's Jahrb. 1831, I.
14 ff.; Sommer in Jahn's Jahrb. 1831, II. 36 ff.; J. H. Kistemaker, de origine ac vi verbor,
depon. et medior. gr. ling. in the Classical Journal No. 44 (Dec. 1820), No. 45 (March
1821). A monograph on this subject in reference to the N. T. is, S. F. Dresigii com-
mentar. de verbis med. N. T. nunc prim. editus cura J. F. Fischeri. Lips. (1755) 1762,
8vo. On the whole, however, scholars have hitherto represented too many verbs as
middle; a great many such verbs, on account of the constant use of their Aorist Passive,
may be fairly regarded as passive, since in Greck as well as in Latin the passive may
be used as reflexive. Thus in κινέομαι, ἐγείρομαι, διακονεῖσθαι, ἁγνίζεσθαι, μεθύσκεσθαι,
δογματίζεσθαι (Col. ii. 20), ἀτιμάζεσθαι Fr. (Rom. I. 72), συσχηματίζεσθαι, the thought
is undoubtedly passive, not middle, as moveri etc. in Latin. Under this head come
still more appropriately ὀρέγεσθαι (appetitu ferri), βόσκεσθαι γαsci, ete.; also αἰσχύνεσθαι.
Compare, in general, Rost's preface to the third edition of his Greek Dictionary, p. 9 sq.
and his Gramm. p. 270. Sommer, as above.
§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES.
253
a. Simply as the immediate object, as Novopaι I wash myself,
κρύπτομαι I conceal myself Juo. viii. 59, ἀπάγχομαι I lang myself
Matt. xxvii. 5, πapaσкevášoμai 1 Cor. xiv. 8;¹ or,
b. Mediately, in case the action is done to or in any way for the 268
subject ; as, ἐξαγοράζομαι I buy for myself, προέχομαι I hold before
myself (Fr. Rom. I. 171), víπтομaι тàs Xeîpas I wash for myself the
hands, my hands Mark vii. 3, oтúοµai тǹv µúxa‹pav xiv. 47, Eiska-
λoûμai Acts x. 23 I call in to myself, ȧπwbéoμai I push away for 238
myself (from me). Compare besides Tepiπolîolai, koµíšeσdai,
περιποιεῖσθαι, κομίζεσθαι,
καταρτίζεσθαι, ἐπικαλεῖσθαι (θεόν) Fr. Rom. II. 403, and the
following passages: Matt. vi. 17; Luke vi. 7; x. 11; Acts v. 2 f.;
ix. 39; xviii. 18; xix. 24; xxv. 11; Gal. iv. 10; 1 Pet v. 5;
2 Thess. iii. 14; Heb. x. 5.
Sometimes a verb is used in the Active voice of material, and in
the Middle of mental objects; as, kaтaλaµßáve to seize, kaтA-
λαμβάνεσθαι to comprehend, ανατιθέναι put up, ανατίθεσθαι to pro-
pound; probably also Staßeßacoûσlaι 1 Tim. i. 7; Tit. iii. 8 ; cf.
Aristot. rhet. 2, 13. Оn πроßλéπeσlai see below, 6, p. 258.
7th ed
At other times a new signification grows out of the Middle, as
Teiloμaι I persuade myself i.e. obey, àπоλúομai solvo me i.e. discedo,
παύομαι I cease, φυλάσσομαί τινα I guard one in reference to myself
i.e. I beware of him; 2 thoroughly transitive arе параiтоûμai Ti
(I deprecate something in my own behalf) I decline, aipoûµaι I 227
take for myself, I choose, àтeiπáµηv тi I renounced 2 Cor. iv. 2,
ÈKтρéπoμaí Tɩ 1 Tim. vi. 20, ảπodídoµaí тɩ (I give away something
from myself) I sell something, àπокρívoµaι (I give out a decision
from myself) I answer, éπikaλoûµaι kaíoapa Acts xxv. 11 (I call
upon the emperor in my behalf) I appeal to. So XUτρów properly
ELIT
1 What verbs regularly express this reflexive meaning by the Middle must be learned
from observation. In many (we should rather say in most, see Rost 563), the reflexive
sense is never expressed by the Middle, but by the reflexive pronoun autóv etc. sub-
joined, see Bttm. 122, 2. Thus in Matt. viii. 4 deikvúelv éautóv is used to denote show
himself, cf. Her. 3, 119; átokтeivel éautóv is always employed to express kill himself
(Jno. viii. 22); cf. further, Jno. xxi. 18; 1 Cor. iii. 18; 2 Thess. ii. 4; 1 Jno. i. 8 (in
contrast with a passive Matt. xxiii. 12; 1 Cor. xi. 31, or an active Luke ix. 25; xxiii.
35), see Küster, de verb. med. p. 56. Lexicographers should no longer defer an accu-
rate investigation of the subject. See also Poppo. as above, p. 2, note; Krü. 146.
Þvλáoσeobai as a Middle means also sibi (aliquid) custodire (Heind. Plat. Gorg.
p. 323), and was used of that which one retains in his mind, by Hesiod. op. 263, 561.
On the other hand, in the sense of (legem) sibi observare, as in Luke xviii. 21 according
to the reading of several Codd. (ταῦτα πάντα ἐφυλαξάμην ἐκ νεότητος), it probably
does not occur in classical Greek, but frequently in the Sept. Yet in Luke xviii. 21
the better reading [sustained by Cod. Sin. also] is ¿púλağa.
6th ed
254
§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES.
means I liberate, acting as master; but Aurpоûpaι I liberate for
myself another's captive, Luke xxiv. 21.
When such Middle verb is construed with the accusative of any thing
or quality belonging to the subject, the pronoun is sometimes in the N. T.
added to the substantive ; as, Matt. xv. 2 οὐ νίπτονται τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν,
Rom. ix. 17 ὅπως ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν δύναμίν μου (in Greek authors
¿ñideíkvvµai is often so used, Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. p. 9; Schoem. ad
269 Plutarch. Agid. p. 144), Acts vii. 58 åπélevтo тà iµátia aνTŵv (where Tdf.
without sufficient authority omits the pronoun), Heb. vi. 17; Eph. ii. 7;
1 Pet. iv. 19. In such instances the pronoun is redundant, and Greek
authors usually dispense with it, which the N. T. writers also frequently
do, as in Acts ix. 39; Mark vii. 3; xiv. 47.
By the usage under b. is likewise 2 Cor. iii. 18 ýµeîs távtes ... Tǹv Sóžav
Kνρíον Kатоπтρilóμevoi to be explained: as it were sibi intueri, beholding
(for ourselves) the glory of the Lord (as in a mirror), like Philo II. 107.
In Rom. iii. 25 оv πроéОето & eòs etc., recent expositors have likewise
taken notice of the Middle; yet Philippi seems to have reached the true
exposition more nearly than Fr.
3. Finally, c. the Middle frequently denotes an action that takes
place by order or with the permission of the subject, a relation
239 expressed in German by the auxiliary verb (sich) lassen, and in
7th ed. Latin usually by curare (cf. Sommer in Seebode, krit. Biblioth.
1828, II. 733); as, adiкeîolai to allow one's self to be wronged,
and ảπоσтeρeîσbai to allow one's self to be robbed (both in 1 Cor.
vi. 7), àπoypáþeolaɩ to allow one's self to be registered, get enrolled
Luke ii. 1. Cf. further Barтileolaι, yaμeîolai, and many others.
Examples of Middle verbs that in this case, too, assume a new
and independent transitive signification, are: daveíčoμaι pecuniam
mutuo dandam sibi curare i.e. mutuam sumere Matt. v. 42, μioloû-
μat allow something to be hired out to one's self i.e. hire Matt. xx. 1.
μαι
In some Middle verbs the reciprocal meaning is combined with the
reflexive (Krü. 143); as, Bovλeveσlai to consult with one another Jno. xii.
10, ovvтíðeσlaι to settle, agree, among themselves Jno. ix. 22, kpíveσðɑɩ be at
law, have a lawsuit 1 Cor. vi. 1 (in the quotation from the O. T. in Rom.
iii. 4 also ?).
4. Although the import of the Middle is sharply defined and
peculiar, yct in practice, even among the best Greek authors, the
forms of the Middle often blend with those of the Passive; -
not merely,
a. That those tenses which have no separate form in the Middle
are borrowed from the Passive (the Present, Imperf., Perf., Pluperf.,
§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES.
255
see Bttm. I. 368), and that the 1st Aor. Passive in several verbs 228
serves at the same time as 1st Aor. Middle, as in poßeîolai, 6th ed
κοιμᾶσθαι, πορεύεσθαι, ἁγνίζεσθαι (Acts xxi. 24, 26; cf. also § 39,
2); but
b. Some tenses peculiar to the Middle assume a Passive signi-
fication. These are the Future (Monk, Eurip. Hippol. p. 169,
Lips.; Boisson. Eunap. p. 336; Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 192; Stallb. Plat.
Crit. 16 and rep. II. 230; Isocrat. Areopag. ed. Benseler, p. 229;
Weber, Demosth. p. 353);¹ and, though far more rarely and, 270
especially in prose, not beyond question, the Aorist (d'Orville,
Charit. p. 358; Abresch, Aristaen. p. 178; Mtth. 1107 and ad Eurip.
Hel. 42; yet cf. Schaef. Gnom. 166; Lob. 320).
This usage, it has been thought, occurs in the N. T.: Gal. v. 12
ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς, yet here the
Middle affords a very good sense (see my Com. in loc.); 1 Cor.
X. 2 Kai TáνTES BаTтioavто, which, however, (see Mey.) may be
very suitably rendered: they all allowed themselves to be baptized
(the reading eßaπτíolŋσav, which is found in very good Codd.
[Sin. also], is probably an emendation); the same applies to 1 Cor.
vi. 11 ἀπελούσασθε. 1n Acts xv. 22 ἐκλεξαμένους, even if it were to
be joined to ἄνδρας, would not be equivalent to ἐκλεχθέντας (see
Kühnöl in loc.; Schwarz, Comm. p. 499), but would retain the
Middle signification: who suffered themselves to be chosen, who 240
(voluntarily) accepted the mission; (èkλex¤évтas would mean:
(ἐκλεχθέντας 7th ed
who were chosen, even without their consent).2 But it is more
probable that ἐκλεξαμένους should be referred to ἀπόστολοι and
πреσẞúтeρоL, and translated: after they had chosen from among
themselves persons; see Elsner, observ. I. 429. Cf. § 63, I. 1, p. 567.
5. The Active is sometimes employed in Greek authors where
the Middle form might have been expected, (Poppo, Thuc. I. 1. 185;
Locella, Xen. Eph. p. 233; Bttm. Soph. Philoct. p. 161; Siebelis,
Pausan. I. 5; Weber, Demosth. 252 sq.). From the N. T., however,
the following passage has been erroneously referred to this head:
2 Cor. xi. 20 el tis vµâs Kaтadovλoî if one brings you into bondage
unto himself (sibi) (Gal. ii. 4, Middle as a var.). The Apostle
wished to say generally: if he brings you into bondage, makes you
slaves. He speaks merely of enslavement; to whom and how,
1 According to Sommer, as above, the Fut. Middle was itself, perhaps, originally
Passive, and afterwards, on account of its more convenient form, preferred to the Fut.
Pass. Cf. Rost, 561 f.
2 So perhaps Plutarch, orator. vit. 7 (V. 149, Lips.) TσTEVσáµevos Tηv diolknow
τῶν χρημάτων.
256
§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES.
ποιείσθαι
must be gathered from the context. Likewise, in Luke xii. 20
the Active is used with strict propriety: ἀπαιτοῦσιν ἀπὸ σοῦ they
require of thee (where only the taking away of the yuxń was to
be expressed). On the other hand we sometimes find, at least in
the text. recept., πoliv, where classic Greek authors would have
employed Toitolai¹ (Küster, p. 37 sqq. 67 sqq.; Dresig, p. 401 sqq.;
229 Krü. 141), e.g. ovvwpooíav Toleiv Acts xxiii. 13 (Polyb. 1, 70, 6;
6th ed. Herod. 7, 4, 7), μovǹv πоiεîv Jno. xiv. 23 (Thuc. 1, 131 and Poppo),
271
πрóðеσ Tоιеîv Eph. iii. 11;2 but in the first two passages Lchm.
has restored the Middle. Likewise euploke is used in the meaning
of consequi for evрíσкeσ0αι, see Fr. Mt. p. 390.3
241
5
Occasionally the Middle and Active are used interchangeably,*.
7th ed. as Luke xv. 6 συγκαλεῖ τοὺς φίλους, vs. 9 συγκαλεῖται τὰς φίλας etc.
according to Lehm. (Tdf. has the Active here also); it depended
here on the writer (Franke, Demosth. p. 95), whether he would
say, called together to himself, or generally, called together, the
latter being perfectly intelligible. Compare also Jas. iv. 2 f. ai-
τεῖτε καὶ οὐ λαμβάνετε, διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖσθε, 1 Jno. iii. 22 ; cf. v.
¹In Mark ii. 23 ¿♪dy πoleîv (where Codd. vary) is probably not put for ¿ådv moieîodai
Her. 7, 42 (according to πopeíav moleîσdaι Luke xiii. 22), as the meaning make a journey
is here rather unsuitable. The translation must be quite literal: they made by plucking
ears a pathway in the field. Lchm. in accordance with his theory has printed ddoπoleiv,
after B.
2 The Middle of Tolev seldom occurs in the N. T. (almost exclusively in the Acts
and Paul's Epistles), but then it always clearly exhibits a Middle signification. As
the lexicons do not usually distinguish the Middle and Active, we shall here annex the
phrases in which the Middle occurs : Acts i. 1 τὸν πρῶτον λόγον ἐποιησάμην, viii. 2 ἐποι
ήσαντο κοπετόν, xxv. 17 αναβολὴν ποιεῖσθαι, xxvii. 18 ἐκβολὴν ποιεῖσθαι, Rom. i. 9; Eph.
i. 16 ; 1 Thess. i. 2 ; Philem. 4 μνείαν τινὸς ποιεῖσθαι, 2 Pet. i. 15 μνήμην τινὸς ποιεῖσθαι,
i. 10 ἐκλογὴν ποιεῖσθαι βεβαίαν, Jude 3 σπουδήν ποιεῖσθαι, Phil. i. 4; 1 Tim. ii. 1 δέησιν
ποιεῖσθαι, Rom. xv. 26 κοινωνίαν ποιεῖσθαι, Eph. iv. 16 τὸ σῶμα τὴν αὔξησιν ποιεῖται, Heb.
i. 3 δι' ἑαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. Το illustrate Greek
To illustrate Greek usage much
has been collected by Dresig, p. 422 sqq.; see also V. Fritzsche, Aristoph. I. 538 sq.
The distinction between the Act. and the Mid. has been stated by Blume, ad Lycurg.
p. 55, thus: Est moleîv, quotiescunque accusativus substantivi abstracti accedit, aliquid
efficere, purare, faciendum curare, cause, bring to pass, institute, moιîσbaι ipsum facere cum
substantivis junctum periphrasin facit verbi, quod aut notatione aut certe notione
nomini apposito conveniat. (On λóуov πoliv and Tolciobal, see Weber, Demosth.
p. 295.)
Kal ěxwv év
8 In Jno. v. 5 ἦν ἄνθρωπος ... τριάκ. καὶ ὀκτὼ ἔτη ἔχων ἐν τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ it cannot be
said that ἔχων is put for ἐχόμενος. Rather might ἔχειν ἐν ἀσθεν. be considered as
equivalent to ĕxeiv dolevŵs (kakŵs). But according to verse 6 ěxwv is probably to be
joined as transitive to ἔτη.
4 The distinction between the Active and the Middle is forcibly marked e.g. in Dion.
H. IV. 2088 τόν τε ἀετὸν ἀνεσωσάμην, καὶ τὸν στρατοπεδάρχην ἔσωσα.
5 In the same way along with karaλaµßáveñdai móλw, etc. (to capture, take possession of),
Kataλaµßáveiv móλ is also used; cf. Schweighäuser, Lexic. Polyb. p. 330.
§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES.
257
περι-
14 f. See Mtth. 1996 (Foertsch, Lys. p. 39).2 In 1 Cor. ix. 5
άγεσθαι might be more appropriate. Περιάγειν τινά siguifies to 272
lead about for exhibition, or to conduct, 2 Macc. vi. 10; Pol. 12, 4, 230
14; but to lead about with one (in one's company), is expressed 6th ed.
by Tepláɣeolai. However, the Active is used perhaps in this sense
περιάγεσθαι.
in Xen. C. 2, 2, 28. Moreover, it would not be surprising that
foreigners, not possessing in such matters the delicate perception of
native Greeks, should sometimes fail to observe the precise shade
of meaning conveyed by the Middle voice; particularly as, even
among natives, its use appears to have often depended on the
culture and taste of individual writers. Kabáπтw, an Active alto-
Καθάπτω,
gether peculiar to the later language (see Passow), stands for the
Middle in Acts xxviii. 3 (yet not without var.).
In such cases as Matt. xxvi. 65 diéppnέe tà iµária avrov, Acts xiv. 14,
the expression Suppýšato тà iµátia might also have been used in Greek,
see above; yet the former is not an anomaly, Bhdy. 348. The distinction
between Tapéɣew and rapéɣeobaι (Rost, 564; Krü. 141; cf. Küster, No. 49)
is not uniformly observed even by the Greeks; yet the suitableness of the
Middle will be easily recognized in Acts xix. 24; Col. iv. 1; Tit. ii. 7, and
in Acts xvi. 16 ἐργασίαν πολλὴν παρείχε τοῖς κυρίοις αὑτῆς μαντευομένη
the Active is more appropriate than the Middle, as the writer is speaking
of a gain which the damsel procured actually only, not designedly.
7th ed.
6. On the other hand, the Middle occurs with éaur@ Jno. xix. 24 242
διεμερίσαντο ἑαυτοῖς (for which we find in Matt. xxvii. 35 διεμερίσαντο
alone), cf. Xen C. 1, 4, 13; 2, 1, 30; Lycurg. 11, 8; 17, 3, and
with éavrov, instead of the Active with éauróv (Plat. Protag. p. 349a.;
Blume, Lycurg. p. 90). In Tit. ii. 7 σeavтòv паρеɣÓμEVOS TÚпOV
the use of the Middle in the sense of prove one's self (in any mental
or moral quality) was so established, that the writer employed it
even where σεαυτόν (on account of τύπον had to be distinctly
expressed; cf. Xen. C. 8, 1, 39 παράδειγμα . . . τοιόνδε ἑαυτὸν παρεί
χετο. For other examples of the Middle with ἑαυτῷ, ἑαυτόν, seu
Schaef. Dion. Hal. p. 88; Bornem. Xen. Anab. 76 sq.; Bhdy. 347;
1 In Mark xiv. 47 we find σπασάμενος τὴν μάχαιραν, but in Matt. xxvi. 51 ἀπέσπασε
τὴν μάχαιραν αὐτοῦ.
ταπεινοῦν
2 Under this head might be classed also those Actives, accompanied by the reflexive
pronoun, for which the Middles are also actually in use in a reflexive sense; as, TATTEIVOÛν
éauróv Phil. ii. 8; Matt. xviii. 4 cf. Taπevovodai Jas. iv. 10 (Wetst. II. 271), douλour
ἑαυτόν 1 Cor. ix. 19, ζωννύειν ἑαυτ. Juo. xxi. 18, γυμνάζειν ἑαυτ. 1 Tim. iv. 7 etc. But
in all these passages the reflexive pronoun is employed antithetically (Krü. 146), and
in Jno. xxi. e.g. the Mid. would even be incorrect. So Keiрew éaut. would mean,
κείρειν ἑαυτ. shear
himself, Keipeσat shear himself. Besides, the Active with autóv was probably chosen
where the identity of the Passive and Middle forms would have occasioned ambiguity.
258
§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES.
Mehlhorn, as above, 36; Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 189; cf. also Epiphan.
Ι. 380 ὁπλισάμενος ἑαυτόν. In Tit. i. 5 ἐπιδιορθώσῃ, according to
the received text (where, however, better Codd. have éπidiop¤woŋs),
would be exactly equivalent to the Active. As little can a Middle
signification be recognized in ἀπεκδύεσθαι Col. ii. 15, ἀμύνεσθαι
273 Acts vii. 24 (cf. Dion. H. I. 548), ápµóçeσeat 2 Cor. xi. 2 (Lösner,
Observ. p. 320 sq.). Perhaps also πроéxeσ0α Rom. iii. 9 is used
for the Active. Similar instances occur in later writers, Schaef.
Plutarch. V. 101; Meineke, Index ad Cinnam. 244.1 To this head.
are referred also Eph. v. 13 πᾶν τὸ φανερούμενον φῶς ἐστι, and
i. 23 τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι πληρουμένου. But in the first
passage pavepovolat occurs immediately before as a Passive, and
the apostle continuing his argument connects paveρoúμevov with
231 parepoûтai; the former, therefore, must be taken in the same sense
6th ed. with the latter, as Harless and Mey. in loc. have explained: all
things when reproved are made manifest by the light, for everything
that is made manifest is light. In i. 23 πλnрovμ. might also be
taken in a Passive sense (as has been done by Holzhausen); but
then, as Harless has well shown, rà Távта év Tâσι would create.
difficulty. I take πλŋpovolaι, therefore, as Middle (Xen. Hell.
5, 4, 56; 6, 2, 14; Demosth. Polycl. 707 b.), the fulness of him who
filleth all, where the Middle signification is not entirely lost: from
himself, with himself, he filleth all. Likewise in Heb. xi. 40 the
Middle προβλέπεσθαι is employed correctly: προβλέπειν would be
the bodily act of seeing beforehand; the Middle expresses the act
of mental providing. (Similar is the distinction in Greek authors
between προοράσθαι and προϊδέσθαι.)
r
A distinction between the use of the Act. and Mid. appears in the verb
ẻvepyeîv, the Active of which is used by Paul of personal action (1 Cor.
xii. 6; Gal. ii. 8; Eph. i. 11, etc.), and the Middle of non-personal (Rom.
vii. 5; Col. i. 29; 2 Thess. ii. 7, etc.). Hence in 1 Thess. ii. 13 ős must
not be referred to θεός but to λόγος.
243 7. From Middle verbs are to be carefully distinguished Deponent.
These, under a Passive (or Middle) form, have a transitive or a
neuter signification; and their Active forms either do not occur
at all (in prose), or have, by usage, exactly the same meaning
(Rost 267.) ; as, δύνασθαι, δωρεῖσθαι, γίγνεσθαι, βιάζεσθαι, ἐντέλ-
7th ed.
2
1 In the passages selected by Schweighäuser, Lexic. Herod. II. 185, the distinctive
import of the Middle Voice can be for the most part detected.
2 Only in later authors do we find e.g. the Active of Avμalveolai, see Passow. On the
other hand, the Active of dwpeîobal occurs even in Pindar, Olymp. 6, 131. In the N. T.
we find even evayyeλí(w, as frequently in the Sept.
§ 38. ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES.
259
λεσθαι, εὔχεσθαι, ἐνθυμεῖσθαι, ἐργάζεσθαι, εὐλαβεῖσθαι, μάχεσθαι,
μέμφεσθαι, φείδεσθαι, ἀσπάζεσθαι, ἔρχεσθαι, ἡγεῖσθαι, ἰᾶσθαι, λογί
Çεolaι, πроaiтiâolai, and many others. With regard to Deponents 274
it must be remarked that,
a. Though most of them have in the Aorist the Middle form
(Middle Deponents, as αἰτιᾶσθαι, ἀσπάζεσθαι, ἐργάζεσθαι, φείδεσθαι),
yet not a few have in that tense the Passive (Passive Deponents),
as βούλεσθαι, δύνασθαι, ἐπιμελεῖσθαι, εὐλαβεῖσθαι, σπλαγχνίζεσθαι,
μωμασθαι, etc.
b. Others combine both forms, though then (in prose) either the
one form or the other predominates. Among these is apveîobat, on
which (in opposition to Bttm.) see Poppo, Thuc. III. IV. 209. In
the N. T. only its Aor. Mid. npvntáµŋv occurs, which in Greek prose
authors is precisely the rarer form. On the other hand, diaλéyeoðaı
has always the Passive Aor. in biblical Greek.
c. Sometimes in Middle Deponents, along with the Aor. (or
Perf.) Mid. (with an Active signification), the Aor. or the Perf.
Pass. with a Passive signification is in use; as, éÐeáðŋv Matt. vi. 1;
ἐθεάθην
Mark xvi. 11 (Thuc. 3, 38) cf. Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 594 sq., along
with leaσáµŋv I saw; lány Matt. viii. 13; Luke vi. 17 (Isa. liii. 5;
Plat. legg. 6, 758 d.) and lapai Mark v. 29 (on the other hand, 232
ἰασάμην Active); ἐλογίσθην often (cf. Xen. C. 3, 1,33), ἀπεδέχθησαν (ith ed
Acts xv. 4 (Aor. Mid. Luke viii. 40; Acts xviii. 27) cf. 2 Macc. iii. 9.,
πаρητημévos Luke xiv. 19 (Aor. Mid. Heb. xii. 19, 25), éppú¤¤nv
2 Tim. iv. 17 (Aor. Mid. Col. i. 13; 2 Pet. ii. 7, etc.), èxapio Onv
1 Cor. ii. 12; Phil. i. 29 (Pluperfect, Her. 8, 5; Aor. Mid. often
in N. T., see, in general, Rost, p. 566).
d. The Fut. Pass. of λoyiloμat with a Passive meaning occurs
in Rom. ii. 26, likewise ia@noeτα Matt. viii. 8, àπapvη¤ýσoµai
Luke xii. 9. Even the Pres. of the first of these is used passively,
Rom. iv. 5, cf. Ecclus. xl. 19 (not 2 Cor. x. 2); so also of Biáceolai
βιάζεσθαι
Matt. xi. 12, cf. Poppo, Thuc. I. 184; III. I. 31.
e. The Perf. Pass. elpyaouaι is sometimes used actively 2 Jno. 8
(Demosth. Conon. 728 a. Xen. M. 2, 6, 6; Lucian. fugit. 2), and
sometimes passively Jno. iii. 21 (Xen. M. 3, 10, 9; Plat. rep. 8,
566 a.) Rost, as above. On the other hand, йpvnμaι 1 Tim. v. 8,
Evтéтaλμaι Acts xiii. 47 (Herod. 1, 9, 23; Pol. 17, 2, 1; 1 Sam.
xxi. 2; Tob. v. 1, etc.), and dédeyμai Acts riii. 14, have only an
Active meaning. See, in general, Bttm. II. 51; Bhdy. 341, but
especially Poppo in the programme mentioned above, and Rost,
Gramm. S. 266 ff.
260
§ 39. THE PASSIVE.
That among verbs usually called Deponent there are many to be
244 regarded as Middle, has been noticed by Rost, Gramm. S. 268 f. and
7th ed. Mehlhorn, as above, S. 39. With regard to woλireveolaι this is already
275 admitted. But кráoμail acquire for myself, åywvíčoµμai (Rost 268), Brášeσbai,
μεγαλαυχεῖσθαι, and perhaps δέχομαι, ἀσπάζομαι (according to Passow a
Deponent Middle), should be also considered as Middle, as in all of them
a reflexive meaning is more or less apparent. Inpovoda Eph. i. 23 is by
Mey. [in 1st and 2d ed.; not so in 3d] called a Deponent, but improperly.
Yoтepeîolaι occurs only in the N. T. as synonymous with the Active.
Lastly, μaívoμaι as well as ýτráoμai must, as among the Greeks, be taken
Passively; Sommer, as above, p. 36.
§ 39. THE PASSIVE.
1. When a verb governing the Gen. or Dat. of a person, as
πιστεύειν τινί, κατηγορεῖν τινος, is construed in the Passive, the
Grecks generally make the noun denoting the person the Subject
(Krü. 137); as,
a. Gal. ii. 7 πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον i.e. πεπιστευμένον ἔχω
τὸ εὐαγγ. (Actively πιστεύειν τινί τι), Rom. iii. 2 ἐπιστεύθησαν (the
Jews vs. 1) τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ, 1 Cor. ix. 17 οικονομίαν πεπίστευμαι
cf. Diog. L. 7, 34 πιστευθέντες τὴν ἐν Περγάμῳ βιβλιοθήκην, Pol.
3, 69, 1 πεπιστευμένος τὴν πόλιν παρὰ ῾Ρωμαίων, 31, 26, 7 ; Herod.
7, 9, 7; Demosth. Theocr. 507 c.; Appian. civ. 2, 136; Strabo 4,
197; 17, 797, and often. Likewise, in the signification to believe
some one (πιστεύειν τινί), the Passive πιστεύομαι signifies I am
believed,¹ e.g. Xen. A. 7, 6, 33; Isocr. Trapez. p. 874; Demosth.
233 Callip. 720 a., Baoiλevopai Aristot. Nic. 8, 11. It is otherwise in
6th ed. 1 Tim. iii. 16 ἐπιστεύθη (Χριστὸς ἐν κόσμῳ, which cannot be
referred to πιστεύειν Χριστῷ, but presupposes the phrase πιστεύειν
Χριστόν, as in 2 Thess. i. 10 ἐπιστεύθη τὸ μαρτύριον ἡμῶν is referable
to πιστεύειν τι, 1 Juo. iv. 16. Under this head come also the
following passages: Acts xxi. 3 ἀναφανέντες τὴν Κύπρον when it
appeared in sight, i.e. àvapaveîoav éxovtes tǹv K., Heb. xi. 2 év
ταύτῃ ἐμαρτυρήθησαν οἱ πρεσβύτεροι (μαρτυρεῖν τινι), Acts xvi. 2
etc., Heb. xiii. 16 evapeσTeîтai o Oeós (Bleek in loc.), likewise viii. 5
KAÐÒS KEXPNµÁTIOтaι Mwüons (Matt. ii. 12, 22; Joseph. antt. 3, 8, 8)
and Matt. xi. 5 (Luke vii. 22) πтwɣоl evαyyeλíÇоvrat, Heb. iv. 2-
the latter passages because the construction εὐαγγελίζεσθαί τινι (see
276 Fr. Mtth. p. 395) and xρημatičew tivi (Joseph. antt. 10, 1, 3; 11,
1 The reverse aπισтoûμαι Wisd. xii. 17.
§ 39. THE PASSIVE.
261
8, 4) is the usual one; probably also Col. ii. 20 tí ós Côvtes Év
κόσμῳ δογματίζεσθε (δογματίζειν τινί 2 Macc. x. 8) see Mey. In
3 Jno. 12 the Passive papтupeîolai is construed also with the Dative
of a person.
b. Of verbs governing the Genitive, only the Passive Kaтηуoроûμaι
occurs, Matt. xxvii. 12 ἐν τῷ κατηγορεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχιερέων, 245
Acts xxii. 30 τὸ τί κατηγορεῖται ὑπὸ (παρὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων (2 Macc. id el
x. 13). On the other hand, I can find no sufficient reason for
taking keɣápio pai 2 Cor. ii. 10 passively, as Mey. does [yet in the
4th ed. he has it correctly].
In Rom. vi. 17 ὑπηκούσατε ... εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς, this con-
struction is perhaps combined with an attraction (for ὑπηκ. εἰς τύπον
διδαχῆς, ὃν παρεδόθητε, i.e. παραδοθέντα ἔχετε) ; Jet see above, § 24, 2, p. 164.
1
Heb. vii. 11 ὁ λαὸς ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς ἱερωσύνης) νενομοθέτηται may probably be
referred to voμobeтeîv Tɩɩ: the people have received the law (founded) on
the priesthood, cf. viii. 6. On the other hand, the passages quoted from
the Sept. as parallel to vopoberev Tivá (T) do not belong here, as in that
construction the verb always signifies: guide some one in accordance with
law, e.g. Ps. cxviii. 33 νομοθέτησόν με τὴν ὁδὸν τῶν δικαιωμάτων σου, Σχίν. 8
xxiv.
νομοθετήσει ἁμαρτάνοντας ἐν ὁδῷ. But the Byzantine writers use νομοθετεῖν
Twa (in reference to a country or people), Malal. p. 72, 194. The regular
construction of the Passive occurs in Deut. xvii. 10 oσa àv voμoberηby σol.
2. In the N. T. many verbs which in the Middle signification
have uniformly in classical Greek the 1st Aor. Middle, take instead
of that the 1st Aor. Passive (cf. § 38, 4), as: àπeкpiðŋ¹ (the
prevailing form), especially in the Partic. àπоêρideís (Aor. Middle
ȧтекρívато Mark xiv. 61; Luke iii. 16; xxiii. 9; Jno. v. 19;
xii. 23; Acts iii. 12, and frequently in var. as Jno. i. 26; xii. 34;
xviii. 34),2 cf. Sturz, dial. alex. p. 148 sq.; Lob. Phryn. 148 sq.;
Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 305. In like manner Sexρion, Matt. xxi. 21;
Mark xi. 23; Rom. iv. 20 (but èkpíoŋ in a Passive sense in Acts
xxvii. 1). In other passages Aorists still regarded as Aor. Pass. for 234
Middle, viz. προςεκλίθη Acts v. 36, ἐνεδυναμώθη Rom. iv. 20, παρε-
Sólŋte vi. 17, TaжTELάonтe 1 Pet. v. 6; Jas. iv. 10, are really ac-
cording to classic (and even N. T.) usage Passive Aorists; just as
in Latin servari, delectari, are used for (taking German as the
standard) servare se, delectare se, cf. Rost 568.3 The same remark 277
1 Yet we find the form aπexplon in the MSS. of Xen. A. 2, 1, 22. On Plato Alc. 2
p. 149 b. see Phryn. as above. In authors after the age of Alexander it occurs frequently.
2 From which we find the Fut. àжокρilσоμаι Matt. xxv. 37, 45 and in the Sept.
3 The Aor. Mid. of such verbs is usually employed only with the Ace, in the reflexive
construction mentioned § 38, 2. Thus loweŋy means me sercari (servatus sum): but
one says èowodµŋv τò σŵµа corpus meum (mihi) servavi.
6th ed
262
§ 39. THE PASSIVE.
246
7th ed.
applies to the 2d Aoг. Kaтaλλayýτo 1 Cor. vii. 11; 2 Cor. v. 20
(cf. Rom. v. 10), and to the Fut. (πрos)коλλŋŋoeraι Matt. xix. 5
(Eph. v. 31).
Eph. i. 11 ěkλŋpólnμev (see Harl. in loc.) and Acts xvii. 4 πposekλy-
półnoav are obviously to be taken Passively.
3. That the Perfect (Mtth. 1097) and the Plup. Passive have
also a Middle signification is admitted on all hands since the old-
fashioned Perf. and Plup. Middle disappeared from the grammars;
Bttm. 1. 362. In tlie N. T. compare Acts xiii. 2 (eis) ồ πρos-
προς-
KÉKλημαι AVTOÚs whereunto I have called them for myself, xvi. 10
προςκέκληται ἡμᾶς ὁ κύριος εὐαγγελίσασθαι αὐτούς the Lord has called
us for himself etc. (cf. Exod. iii. 18; v. 3), xxv. 12 Kaioaρa ÈπTIKÉKλY-
oar thou hast called for thyself upon Caesar (appealed to him), Rom.
iv. 21 ὃ ἐπήγγελται, δυνατός ἐστι καὶ ποιῆσαι (ὁ θεός), Heb. xii. 26 ;
Jno. ix. 22 συνετέθειντο οἱ Ιουδαίοι, 1 Pet. iv. 3 πεπορευμένους ἐν
oi
Év
úσeλyeíais (1 Sam. xiv. 17; 2 Kings v. 25; Job xxx. 28; Zeph.
iii. 15; Demosth. Nicostr. 723 c. etc.). (On the Perf. Passive of
Deponents, see § 38, 7, p. 259.)
On the other hand, in 1 Pet. iv. 1 Téπavтαι dμaprías (which is usually
rendered peccare desiit, cf. Xen. C. 3, 1, 18) may be also taken as Passive:
he has rest from sin, is preserved from it, see Kypke in loc. Phil. iii. 12,
however, in no event comes under this head. IIoλirevoµai (Acts xxiii. 1)
may according to Poppo's theory be considered as a Deponent (since the
Active in an intransitive sense is to be found); yet see above, p. 260. In
Rom. xiv. 23 Kaтaкéкρiтαι was undoubtedly employed by the apostle in a
Passive sense.
The Perf. Passive is said to be used for the Perf. Active in Acts xx. 13
οὕτω γὰρ ἦν ὁ Παῦλος) διατεταγμένος, and 2 Pet. i. 3 τῆς θείας δυνάμεως
... TÙ πρÒS Swǹv dedwpnµévns (cf. Jensii lectt. Lucian. p. 247). But in
the first passage, Star. is Middle (as in Polyaen. 6, 1, 5; Joseph. antt. 4, 2,
3 and elsewhere): so had he appointed; and in 2 Pet. i. 3 the Perf. comes
from the Deponent¹ Swpéoμai. Further, cf. Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 179 sqq.
235 Note 1. The Fut. Pass. is used in a very singular manner in Acts xxvi. 16
6th ed. εἰς τοῦτο ὤφθην σοι, προχειρίσασθαί σε ὑπηρέτην καὶ μάρτυρα, ὧν τε εἶδες, ὧν
278 te ¿p0ýroµaí σo. Agreeably to the parallelism the passage might be trans-
1 Markland (explicatt. vett. aliquot locor. in the Leipsic reprint of his edition of
Eurip. supplic. p. 324 sq.) refers to this head also the passage, famous in the Predesti-
nation controversy, Acts xiii. 48, which he punctuates к. èñíoтevσav, Öool HoаV TEтAYμÉVOI,
eis (whv aiúv. and translates: et fidem professi sunt, quotquot (tempus, diem) constitu-
erant, in vitam aeternam. This interpretation, however, should find with unprejudiced
expositors as little approval as most of those which come from English philologists,
(who at any rate give more attention to the N. T. than the German).
§ 39. THE PASSIVE.
263
lated: what thou hast seen, and what I will cause thee to see, ¿¿0ýσopai
being taken in a causative sense (see Doederl. Soph. Oedip. C. p. 492 ;
Bornem. in Rosenm. Rep. II. 289). The other interpretation, followed in
general by Schott, Kühnöl, Heinrichs, Mey., de Wette: de quibus (in refer-
ence to which) or quorum caussa tibi porro apparebo, would on the whole
be more suited to the context, and is certainly simpler than the former.
As to av for å by attraction, see § 24, 2, p. 165 sq.
α
Note 2. As in the Hellenistic language many verbs which in classic Greek 247
are neuter are used transitively (see above, p. 251), expositors affirm that leb
the Passive also, conformably to this causal signification, is occasionally to
be taken just like the Hebrew Hophal. But of this there is no certain or
even probable instance. In Gal. iv. 9 γνόντες θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπ᾽
avroû even the antithesis requires the passage to be rendered: knowing God,
or rather known (recognized) by God, see my Comment. in loc. 1 Cor. viii. 3
εἴ τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν θεόν, οὗτος ἔγνωσται ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ should not be translated, as
by Erasm., Beza, Nösselt, Pott, Heydenreich, et al.: is veram intelligen-
tiam consecutus est; but the meaning is: whoever imagines he knows any-
thing (that is where a yvŵois qvorovσa exists) has not yet known as one
ought to know, but if any one loves God (cf. the preceding words ý åyáπŋ
oikodoμeî), he (has not only known as he ought to know, but) is known by
Him (God), (is himself an object of the highest and truest, that is of
divine, knowledge). In 1 Cor. xiii. 12 ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ
ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην, the latter undoubtedly refers to the
knowledge of God, and Nösselt has correctly rendered the passage: there
we shall know all perfectly (not ἐκ μέρους, not as if ἐν αἰνίγματι), eren
as perfectly as God knows us.¹ It has not yet been shown from Biblical
Greek that ywvwoкew denotes cognoscere facere, edocere; and probably Pott
ywóσkew
was not satisfied himself when he quoted Jno. v. 42; Rom. ii. 18.
meaning, however, meets us in a passage adduced by Stephanus in his
Thesaurus from Demosth. cor. (p. 345 c.) : ώμολόγηκε νῦν γ᾽ ὑμᾶς ὑπάρχειν
ἐγνωσμένους ἐμὲ μὲν λέγειν ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρίδος, αὐτὸν δ᾽ ὑπὲρ Φιλίππου ;
but it disappears if we read huâs, as Dissen does, on the authority of a Cod.,
nos esse cognitos (i.e. de nobis constare), me quidem verba facere pro
patria, etc.
This
Note 3. Frequently it has seemed doubtful whether a particular verbal
form is Middle or Passive. The decision is grammatical only in so far as it 236
can be shown that the verb in question was never used either in the Pas- 6th ed.
sive or in the Middle, or that in the Middle it had an Active signification. 279
Hence in Rom. i. 24 åriµáleoda is properly regarded as Passive; so too
οἰκοδομεῖσθαι 1 Cor. viii. 10, παύεσθαι 1 Pet. iv. 1, ἀνανεοῦσθαι Eph. iv. 23.
On the other hand, 1 Cor. i. 2 οἱ ἐπικαλούμενοι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου can only
I be Middle. In other passages either the context must decide,
as in
1 A similar antithesis of the Active and Passive occurs in Phil. iii. 12 f. Cf. Arrian,
Epict. 3, 23, 8 δύναταί τις ὠφελῆσαι καὶ ἄλλους μὴ αὐτὸς ὠφελημένος; Liban. ep. 2.
264
§ 40. THE TENSES.
2 Cor. ii. 10 where кeɣápioμai (Mey. to the contrary [in his earlier edd.])
is to be regarded as Middle, and Rom. iii. 9 where poéxeo@au clearly
cannot be Passive; or the known usage of the writer elsewhere, as in
Eph. vi. 10 in respect to èvduvaμovole.
248
7th ed
1
3
§ 40. THE TENSES,
1. With regard to the Tenses of the verb, N. T. grammarians and
expositors ¹ have been guilty of the greatest mistakes.2 In general,
the tenses are employed in the N. T. exactly in the same manner
as in Greek authors, 4 viz. the Aorist marks simply the past (merely
occurrence at some former time―viewed too as momentary), and is
the tense usually employed in narration; the Imperfect and Pluper-
fect always have reference to secondary events connected in respect
to time with the principal event (as relative tenses); the Perfect
brings the past into connection with the present, representing an
action in reference to the present as concluded. No one of these
tenses strictly and properly taken can stand for another, as com-
237 mentators often would have us believe.5 But where such an inter-
6th ed. change appears to take place (cf. Georgi, Vind. p. 252 sqq. Hiero-
280 crit. I. 58 sq.) either it is merely apparent, and a sufficient reason
(especially a rhetorical one) can be discovered why this and no other
tense has been used, or it is to be set down to the account of
a certain inaccuracy peculiar to the language of the people, which
did not conceive and express relations of time with entire precision
1 Cf. Bertholdt, Einleit. VI. 3151: "In the use of the tenses, it is well known that
the N. T. writers pay very little regard to the rules of grammar."
2 Occasioned in part by parallel passages which it was thought must be considered
as exactly alike grammatically. The abuse of parallelism in exposition ought some-
time to be exhibited separately.
The three principal tenses with the Greeks were the Present, the Perfect, and the
Future: Plut. Isid. c. 9 èyw eiµɩ tò yeyovds kal òv kal éσbμevov, cf. Odyss. 16, 437.
4 Cf., besides the well known grammatical works (especially Hm. emend. rat. p. 180 sqq. ;
Schneider, Vorles. über griech. Gramm. I. 239 ff.; Krü. 147 ff.), L. G. Dissen, de tempo-
ribus et modis verbi gracci. Gött. 1808. 4to.; H. Schmidt, doctrinae tempor. verbi
gr. et lat. expositio histor. Hal. 1836-1842. 4 Abthl. 4to. An earlier dissertation by
G. W. Oeder, Chronol. grammat. Gött. 1743 (in Pott, Sylloge VII. 133 sqq.) is of little
use. On the other hand, the enall. temp. was combated in A. zum Felde, de enall. pracs.
temp. in S. S. usu. Kil. 1711. 4to., and in Woken's work, mentioned above (p. 8, Note 1);
cf. also the views of Aristides in Georgi, Vind. 252.
5 The arbitrary interchange of tenses (enallage temporum) is accounted a IIcbraism,
as it is imagined that in Hebrew the Preterite is indiscriminately used for the Future,
and vice versa. But the incorrectness of this opinion has been already shown by Gesenius
(Lehrgeb. S. 760 sqq.), and still more thoroughly by Ewald (Krit. Gr. 523 (E).
§ 40. THE TENSES.
265
(Krü. 158 f.). The latter occurs chiefly in the interchange (or
combination) of those tenses which, like the Preterites, denote one
and the same principal relation of time.
2. Accordingly the PRESENT tense, which expresses present time 249
in all its relations (particularly in rules, maxims, and principles of th ed
permanent validity, cf. Jno. vii. 52), is used
Ӧ
a. Only in appearance for the Future (exactly as in Latin, German,
etc.) when an action still future is to be designated as as good as
already present, either because it is already firmly resolved upon or
because it follows according to some unalterable law; as, Matt. xxvi.
2 οἴδατε, ὅτι μετὰ δύο ἡμέρας τὸ πάσχα γίνεται is the Passover)
καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται εἰς τὸ σταυρωθῆναι (is delivered,
an event which as a divine decree is fixed), Jno. xiv. 3 éàv Tоpevlâ
. . . πάλιν ἔρχομαι καὶ παραλήψομαι (xxi. 23), Matt. xvii. 11 Ηλίας
μὲν ἔρχεται (a point of Jewish Christology) καὶ ἀποκαταστήσει
πάντα cf. Jno. vii. 42, Luke xii. 54 ὅταν ἴδητε τὴν νεφέλην ἀνατέλλου
σαν ἀπὸ δυσμῶν, εὐθέως λέγετε· ὄμβρος ἔρχεται (in reference to a
meteorological principle founded on experience), Col. iii. 6 di â
ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας (according to a
law of God's moral government), Heb. iv. 3; 1 Cor. iii. 13; xv. 2;
Eph. v. 5. Hence the expression épɣeтaι åpа öтe, used by Jesus
Jno. iv. 21; xvi. 2, and the Jewish designation ó épxóμevos (x1)
for the Messiah. The phrase in John otov eiuì èyó followed by the
Fut., Jno. xii. 26; xiv. 3; xvii. 24, may be also brought under this
head, if we do not prefer the interpretation where I am, where I
have my home. It would be a mistake in translating these passages
to substitute the Future for the Present preferred by the writer.
Cf. Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 153; Krü. 149, and as to Latin, Ramshorn
p. 401. In other passages the Present is employed to denote what
is just about to take place, what one is on the point of doing, that for
which he is already making preparation (Hm. Vig. 746 and Soph. 281
Oed. C. 91; Bekker, specim. Philostr. p. 73 sq.; Schoem. ad Isaeum
p. 202); as, Jno. x. 32 διὰ ποῖον αὐτῶν ἔργον λιθάζετέ με (they
had already taken up stones), Jno. xiii. 6 κύριε, σύ μου νίπτεις τοὺς
Tódas; (he had already prepared to wash them), xiii. 27; ¹ xvi. 17 238
(vπáуw), xvii. 11; xxi. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 31; 2 Cor. xiii. 1; Rom.
XV. 25. See, in general, Held, Plutarch. Tim. p. 335 sq.
1
10 Toleîs, wolnoov táxiov quod (jam) facis, quo jam occupatus es, id (fac) perfice
ocius; cf. Arrian. Epict. 4, 9, 18 moiel & moleîs, 3, 23, 1, and Senec. benef. 2, 5 fae, si
quid facis; see Wetsten. I. 931. The command or recommendation here is not conveyed
in the verb, but in the adverb annexed.
6th ed
34
266
§ 40. THE TENSES.
او
Many other passages have been referred to this head with still less
plausibility. In Jno. iii. 36 the thought is weakened, if exa be taken for
ἕξει. The notion which John attached to wń not only admits, but almost
requires, the Present. And apart from this, the expression exew Swiv
alúviov might very well be used of one who indeed is not yet in the enjoy-
ment of eternal life, but who in the certainty of his hope already as it
250 were possesses it.¹ So also Jno. v. 26; Matt. v. 46 have been correctly
7th ed. explained by Fr. On the other hand, we must not with him regard Matt.
iii. 10 as a general maxim: every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit,
is hewn down (is wont to be hewn down). These words are connected by
οὖν with ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται, and require to be rendered
with a special reference to the preceding dévdpa: the axe is already lying
at the root of the trees; accordingly every tree etc. is, (will be) to a cer-
tainty, hewn down; i.e. from the fact of the axe's being already applied,
it may be inferred what fate awaits the bad trees. 1 Cor. xv. 35 πôs
ẻyeípovrai oi vekpoí treats of the resurrection of the dead, not as a fact
(of the future), but as a doctrine: in what manner does the resurrection
of the dead (according to thy teaching) take place? cf. vs. 42. In the
same way we can say: Christ is the Judge; the punishments of the damned
are eternal etc. In like manner Matt. ii. 4 ποῦ ὁ Χριστὸς γεννᾶται (i..
where is the birthplace of the Messiah ?) and Jno. vii. 52. In 2 Cor. v. 1
οἴδαμεν, ὅτι, ἐὰν ἡ ἐπίγειος ἡμῶν οἰκία τοῦ σκήνους καταλυθῇ, οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ θεοῦ
exoμev, the Future έoμev would have been inexact; the instantaneous
entrance into a new habitation, the moment the karaλúcσbaι takes place, is
intended to be expressed. In Matt. vii. 8 the Present (of what usually
occurs, Krü. 148) is connected, in a statement of universal application, with
the Future, cf. Rom. vi. 16; Gal. ii. 16. On the other hand, in Matt. iii. 11
the Present and the Future (of one about to come) are intentionally dis-
tinguished: the Present refers to the predicted, permanent (and already
282 present) personality; the Future, Barríoe, to a particular function which
he is to execute. Lastly, in the parallel passages Matt. xxiv. 40 and Luke
xvii. 34 we find in the former the Present, & cîs πaρaλaµßáveraι, but
in the latter the Future, εἷς παραληφθήσεται; in the one passage the
fact introduced by the Fut. (σovra) is by a vivid conception regarded as
present (see what follows); in the other, it is depicted in all its parts as
future. Cf. besides, Jno. xvi. 14, 15; Heb. i. 11.
་
VET
b. For the Aorist as a historical tense, only when the narrator
wishes to represent the past vividly, as though it were just taking
place (Longin. c. 25; Mtth. 1135f.; cf. Zumpt, lat. Gramm. S. 431.);
Jno. i. 29 τῇ ἐπαύριον βλέπει καὶ λέγει (vs. 32 καὶ ἐμαρτύ
ρησεν), i. 44 εὑρίσκει Φίλιππον καὶ λέγει (ἠθέλησεν just before
...
1 In what immediately follows, oùк oveтaι (why, the Apostle very accurately dis-
tinguishes the Future from the Present.
§ 40. THE TENSES.
267
6th el
cf. 46, xiii. 4 f. ; Matt. xxvi. 40 ἔρχεται πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς καὶ εὑρίσκει 239
αὐτοὺς καθεύδοντας. Such a Present is often introduced abruptly
between Aorists, Jno. ix. 13; xviii. 28; xix. 9; Acts x. 11; Mark
v. 15; or Present and Aorist are combined in the same verse, as
Mark vi. 1; ix. 2; xi. 15; Jno. xx. 6, 19. In the first three Gospels
one Evangelist uses the Present, while in the corresponding nar-
rative another employs the Aorist; with Matt. xxi. 13 cf. Mark
xi. 17 f., and with Matt. xxii. 23 cf. Mark xii. 18. This Present
occurs also in the Apocalyptic visions; as, Rev. xi. 9; xii. 2. As 251
to the Sept., in which this usage is extremely rare, see Thiersch
p. 187. Suddenness in a series of past events is indicated with
striking effect by the Present in Matt. ii. 13 αναχωρησάντων αὐτῶν
ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου φαίνεται κατ᾿ ὄναρ, etc.
Similar instances occur in Xen. Hell. 2, 1, 15; Cyr. 4, 6, 4; 10; 5, 4, 3;
Ages. 2, 19-20; Thuc. 1, 48; 2, 68; Paus. 1, 17, 4; 9, 6, 1; Arrian. Al.
7,17,5; Dion. H. IV. 2113; Achill. Tat. 4, 4, p. 85; Jacobs, Xen. Ephes.
5, 12, p. 113; cf. Abresch, Aristaen. p. 11 sq.; Ast, Plat. Phaedr. p. 335;
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. II. 68.
7th ed.
c. Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108),
viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier
period but still continues, a state in its duration; as, Juo. xv. 27
ἀπ' ἀρχῆς μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ, viii. 58 πρὶν ᾽Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμι (cf.
Jer. i. 5 πρὸ τοῦ με πλάσαι σε ἐν κοιλίᾳ, ἐπίσταμαί σε, Ps. lxxxix. 2),
2 Pet. iii. 4; 1 Jno. iii. 8. To this head may be referred likewise
Acts xxv. 11 εἰ μὲν ἀδικῶ καὶ ἄξιον θανάτου πέπραχά τι (cf. Xen. C.
5,2,24); aduca, however, denotes a quality existing in reference to 283
the judge, ädikós eiμi, see Bhdy. 370; Mtth. 1137. In Juo. viii. 14
there is first an Aorist and then a Present: oida πóðev ĥλ0ov…….
ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ οἴδατε, πόθεν ἔρχομαι.
In 1 Jno. iii. 5 the sinlessness of Jesus is considered as still present to
faith (see Lücke); but in Acts xxvi. 31 ovdèv lavárov åέiov †) deoµŵv πpáσσEL
does not refer to Paul's past life, but to his conduct in general: this man
(so simple an enthusiast) does nothing bad; see Bengel in loc. (Külmöl is
wrong); cf. Jno. vii. 51. Recent expositors have admitted that in Heb.
ii. 16 èmλaµß. is not to be taken as a past tense (Georgi, Vind. 25;
Palair. 479); likewise cisíaow in ix. 6 is a pure Pres. In 1 Cor. xi. 30
ko₁uŵvтaι is properly translated by Bengel obdormiunt (later critics have
all either rendered it as a past tense, or taken no notice of it; yet even
in Byzantine writers koâobal signifies only to fall asleep, expire, and not
to be dead). On mapáɣeraɩ in 1 Jno. ii. 8 see Lücke. In Juo. v. 2 no
expositor of any judgment will admit the possibility even that eorí stands
for v. On the other hand, the use of the Present does not necessarily
268
§ 40. THE TENSES.
prove that the locality was still in the same condition when the author
wrote; cf. Schoem. Plutarch. Agid. p. 135 sqq.
The Present in dependent clauses may appear to stand for the Imperfect;
as, Jno. ii. 9 οὐκ ᾔδει, πόθεν ἐστίν, iv. 1 ἤκουσαν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ...
240 ποιεῖ καὶ βαπτίζει, Mark v. 14 ἐξῆλθον ἰδεῖν, τί ἐστι τὸ γεγονός, xii. 41 ; xv. 47 ;
6th ed. Jno. i. 40; v. 13, 15; vi. 5, 24, 64; Luke vii. 37; xix. 3; Acts iv. 13;
1
ix. 26; x. 18; xii. 3; Heb. xi. 8, 13— (the Preterite, found in most of
these passages according to a greater or smaller number of Codd., is a
manifest correction.) But the use of the Present in such cases is a pure
Greek construction (see Vig. p. 214 sq.; cf. below § 41 b. 5), founded
252 properly in a mingling of the oratio recta and oratio obliqua (Porson,
7th ed. Eurip. Orest. p. 36 Lips.), cf. Pol. 5, 26, 6; 8, 22, 2 and 4; Ael. 2, 13 ext.;
Long. past. 1, 10 and 13. In these passages the Imperf. or the Aor. might
have intimated that what was inquired about or heard was already past
at the time when the inquiry or the hearing took place; cf. Jno. ix. 8 oi
θεωροῦντες αὐτὸν τὸ πρότερον, ὅτι τυφλὸς ἦν, Luke viii. 53; Matt. xxvii. 18;
Acts iv. 13.
3. The IMPERFECT, as in Greek prose authors (Bhdy. 372 f. ; Krü.
149 ff.), is used
•
ων
a. When a past action is to be designated in relation to another
simultaneous action as then going on (Bremi, Demosth. p. 19);
as, Jno. iv. 31 év TÔ µETA§Ù ÝρWTWV autóv (viii. 6, 8), vi. 21; Luke
284 xiv. 7 ἔλεγε ἐπέχων, πῶς τὰς πρωτοκλισίας ἐξελέγοντο how
they (then) were choosing out, xxiv. 32 kapdía ýμŵν кaloμévη v
ἐν ἡμῖν, ὡς ἐλάλει ἡμῖν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, Acts viii. 36 ὡς ἐπορεύοντο κατὰ
τὴν ὁδόν, ἦλθον ἐπί τι ὕδωρ, x. 17; xvi. 4; xxii. 11; Luke vi. 19 ;
Jno. v. 16; xii. 6.
K
b. To denote a continuous or statedly repeated past action (Mtth.
1117, 1133; Schoem. ad Plut. Agid. p. 137; Held, Plutarch. Aem.
P. p. 267) ; as, Jno. iii. 22 ἐκεῖ διέτριβε μετ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐβάπτιζεν,
Rom. xv. 22 ένεκοπτόμην τὰ πολλὰ τοῦ ἐλθεῖν, 1 Cor. x. 4 ἔπινον
γὰρ ἐκ πνευματ. ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας (where ἔπιον denotes simply
the past and completed action; but eπwov the continuation of it
during the journey through the wilderness), xiii. 11 őre ňµŋv výπIOS,
ὡς νήπιος ἐλάλουν, Acts xiii. 11 περιάγων εζήτει χειραγωγούς, Matt.
xiii. 34 xwρìs πaρaßoλĤs oỷk ẻλáλeɩ (during his ministry), cf. Luke
v. 15 ; vi. 23; viii. 41, 52; xvii. 28; xxiv. 14, 27; Matt. iii. 5 ; xxvii.
39; Mark i. 7, 31; Jno. v. 18; vii. 1; xi. 5; xiii. 22 f.; xii. 2; xxi.
18; Acts vi. 1, 7 (Thuc. 1, 29); ix. 20; xi. 20; xviii. 25; xxvi. 1,
11; xxviii. 6; Rev. i. 9; 1 Pet. iii. 5; 2 Pet. ii. 8; Heb. xii. 10;
1 On the still more extended use of the Present in parenthetical clauses for a Pret-
erite, see Bttm. Gr. § 124, Note 6, and ad Philoct. p. 129.
§ 40. THE TENSES.
269
Col. iii. 7, etc. So Xen. A. 1, 2, 18; 4, 5, 18; 5, 4, 24; 6, 3, 3;
Mem. 1, 1, 5; Apol. Socr. 14. Accordingly the Imperfect denotes
a custom or habit; as, Mark xv. 6 κατὰ ἑορτὴν ἀπέλυεν αὐτοῖς ἕνα
déoμcov, xiv. 12 (Demosth. Phil. 2. 27 b.); cf. Hm. Vig. 748.
1
c. To express an action commenced in time past but not com-
pleted ¹ (Schaef. Demosth. I. 337 and Plutarch. IV. 398; Poppo,
Thuc. III. I. 646; Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. p. 282; Maetzner, Antiph.
p. 220; Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 178); as, Luke i. 59 ékáλovv avтò
Zaxapíav (the mother objects, and he is called Jolm), Matt. 241
iii. 14 ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης διεκώλυεν αὐτόν cf. vs. 15, Acts vii. 26 συνήλ- 6th ed.
Xaσoev avtoùs eis eipývnv (Moses) cf. vs. 27 (according to good 253
Codd. [Sin. too], see Fritzsche de crit. conformat. p. 31). Similar 7th ed.
instances occur in Eurip. Iph. T. 360; Herc. f. 437; Her. 1, 68;
Thuc. 2, 5; Demosth. Mid. 396 h.; Xenoph. A. 4, 5, 19; Mem. 1,
2, 29; Paus. 4, 9, 4; cf. Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 337, note. On
the other hand, Heb. xi. 17. (πposéþeрev) does not come under this
head; but Gal. i. 13 probably would, if πоρ¤¤îv be rendered destroy;
yet see my Com. in loc.
d. Sometimes also in narration apparently for the Aorist, when
events are described at which the narrator was present; as, Luke
x. 18 ἐθεώρουν τὸν σατανᾶν ὡς ἀστραπὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεσόντα.
The narrative thus becomes more graphic and animated than it 285
would be with the Aorist, which simply reports and confines within
a single point of time; cf. also Acts xvi. 22 ékéλevov paßdíčew (cf.
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 620) they gave orders (while I was present)
etc. (Mtth. 1117). Accordingly this may be referred to No. 1.
Cf. Hm. Soph. Oed. C. p. 76; Soph. Aj. p. 139; Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 155;
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 225; Schoem. Plut. Agid. p. 84, 142; Mtth.
1138; Bhdy. 373. In no case is it necessary to take this tense for
the Pluperfect; (yet see Poppo, as above; Bornem. Xen. Anab.
p. 5;
Krüger, Dion. H. p. 304). In Acts iv. 13 èðaúµašov èπeɣívwokóv
τε αὐτοὺς, ὅτι σὺν τῷ Ἰησοῦ ἦσαν must be closely taken together:
they marvelled and recognized (roused by their very wonder to more
attentive observation) that, etc. Kühnöl is wrong, following Raphel,
annot. II. 37.
In many passages Codd. vary between the Imperfect and the Aorist, e.g.
Mark vi. 12; xiv. 70 (see Fr. in loc.), Acts vii. 31; viii. 17, as in Greek
authors also the forms of these two tenses are often interchanged (cf.
1 Hm. Soph. Aj. 1106: in eo, quod quis voluit facere, nec tamen perfecit, quod aptius
adhiberi tempus potest, quam quod ab ea ipsa ratione nomen habet, imperfectum ?
Cf. Mdv. 112.
1
270
§ 40. THE TENSES.
Boisson. Eunap. p. 431 and Philostr. her. p. 530), and sometimes differ
very little in meaning (Schaef. Plutarch. IV. 346; Siebelis, Pausan. IV.
290). It often depends on the writer whether he will regard the action
as momentary or as continued, —as a point or a period in time, Kühner
II. 74 (Matt. xxvi. 59 ἐζήτουν ψευδομαρτυρίαν ... καὶ οὐχ εὗρον, but Mark
II.74
xiv. 55 kaì ovx evρισkov, cf. Matt. xix. 13 with Mark x. 13); and thus,
particularly in (later) Greek writers, the Imperfect of verbs of saying,
going, sending is not unfrequently used where the Aorist appeared to be
requisite, Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 570 sq.; Held, Plutarch. Tim. p. 484 sq.;
cf. Mark ii. 27; iv. 10; v. 18; vii. 17; x. 17; Luke iii. 7; vii. 36; viii.
9, 41; x. 2; Acts iii. 3; ix. 21.
οὐχ
The Imperfect and the Aorist are connected with appropriate distinction
in Luke viii. 23 κατέβη λαῖλαψ . . . καὶ συνεπληροῦντο καὶ ἐκινδύνευον, χν. 28 ;
Mark vii. 35; xi. 18; Jas. ii. 22; Matt. xxi. 8 f.; Jno. vii. 14; xii. 13, 17;
xx. 3; Acts xi. 6 f.; xxi. 3 (Jno. i. 5); Philem. 13, 14; 1 Cor. xi. 23 (in
the same way the Imperfect and Perfect in 1 Cor. xiii. 11) cf. Thuc. 7, 20,
254 44; Xen. A. 3, 4, 31; 5, 4, 24; Plutarch. Agis 19; Arrian. Al. 2, 20, 3;
7th ed. Reisig, Soph. Oed. C. p. 254 sq.; Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p. 29; Ellendt, Arrian.
242 AI. II. 67 sq.
1
6th ed. The Imperfect might appear to be put for the Present (yet see Mehl-
286 horn, Anacr. p. 235 sq.; cf. Fuhr, Dicaearch. p. 156 sq.) in Col. iii. 18
ὑποτάσσεσθε τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, ὡς ἀνῆκεν, ἐν κυρίῳ, ut par est, and in Eph.
V.
4 (μὴ ὀνομαζέσθω ἐν ὑμῖν) αἰσχρότης ἢ μωρολογία ἢ εὐτραπελία, ἃ οὐκ
ἀνῆκεν (immediately before, καθῶς πρέπει) var. But it must be rendered:
ut oportebat, ut par erat, as it should have been (already hitherto), see
Mtth. 1138; Bornem. Schol. p. 181; for every such exhortation, strictly
speaking, involves the assumption that what is enjoined has not hitherto
been observed² (Krü. 150). Cf. § 41 a. 2. On Eph. as above, see ibid.
In Matt. xxvii. 54 v refers to one now dead: he was God's Son.
4. The PERFECT is employed in strict accordance with its proper
import, whenever the past is to be put into relation with the
present; that is, when something past is intended to be represented
as something just now (in the present) completed: (I have com-
1 The following passage is particularly instructive: Diod. S. Exc. Vat. p. 25, 9 sqq.
ὁ Κροῖσος μετεπέμπετο ἐκ τῆς Ἑλλάδος τοὺς ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ πρωτεύοντας . . . μετεπέμψατο δὲ
καὶ Σόλωνα, etc. Cf. also Plat. Parmen. 126 c. ταῦτα εἰπόντες ἐβαδίζομεν καὶ κατελάβομεν
τὸν ᾿Αντιφῶντα etc., and from the LXX. Num. xxxiii. 38 f. ἀνέβη 'Ααρὼν καὶ ἀπέθανεν ...
Ααρὼν ἦν τριῶν καὶ εἴκοσι καὶ ἑκατὸν ἐτῶν, ὅτε ἀπέθνησκεν.
2 To take àvîjkev, as Huther does, for a Perfect with the meaning of the Present, is as
unnecessary as it is grammatically inadmissible. Should κalkеv, тρоsîjкev also be
καθήκεν, προςηκεν
regarded as Perfects? Must then the Perfect ĥa, elsewhere rare, have established itself
just in these forms even in Attic? Besides, no passage can be adduced in which these
words necessarily have the meaning of a Present, — provided only a reader acquires the
power of keeping the German mode of thought subordinate to the Greek.
$ 40. THE TENSES.
271
6h છે.
manded, my command is at present one previously given).¹ Here
the result of the action is usually, but not necessarily (Krü, 151),
conceived of as permanent. The following instances are especially
instructive: Luke xiii. 2 δοκεῖτε, ὅτι οἱ Γαλιλαῖοι οὗτοι ἁμαρτωλοὶ
παρὰ πάντας ἐγένοντο, ὅτι τοιαῦτα πεπόνθασιν that these
Galileans were sinners because they have suffered, i.e. suffered not
merely once or in time past (that would be the Aor.), but that they
stand recorded among the historical examples of those who have
been cut off by (a violent) death; iv. 6 őri éμoì πapadédoтaI
(ǹ éžovoía) i.e. I am in possession of it, after having received it,
commissam habeo potestatem (the Aorist would denote it was
delivered to me, which would leave it uncertain whether the pos-
session of it still continued); v. 32 οὐκ ἐλήλυθα καλέσαι δικαίους 255
I am not here (on earth) in order to, etc. (in Matt. ix. 13 in nar- 7th ed
243
rative style: oùк Hλloν I came not, was not sent), cf. vii. 20, 50;
Rom. vii. 2 ἡ ὕπανδρος γυνὴ τῷ ζῶντι ἀνδρὶ δέδεται νόμῳ is bound
(accordingly belongs to), Gal. ii. 7 TеTíoтevμai тò evayyéniov con-
creditum mihi habeo, etc. (his apostolic functions continue, he is
still in the exercise of them), likewise 1 Thess. ii. 4 xalis Sedoki- 287
μάσμεθα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πιστευθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, 1 Cor. xi. 15 ἡ
κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται (γυναικί) she has (by a fxed arrange-
ment of nature) hair for, etc., Heb. x. 14 µiâ πроsÒорậ TETEλEIWKEV
εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους (where the contrast μια ... τετε-
λeiwkev must not be overlooked), Jno. xix. 22 d yéypapa, yéypaḍa,
Mark x. 40; xi. 21; xvi. 4; Luke xiii. 12; Jno. vii. 19, 22; viii.
33; xiii. 12;2 xv. 24; xix. 30; xx. 21; Acts viii. 14; Rom. iii. 21;
v. 2; ix. 6; 1 Cor. ii. 11; iv. 4; vii. 14 f.; 2 Cor. iii. 10; vi. 11;
Col. ii. 14; iii. 3; Heb. i. 4; iii. 3; vii. 6, 14; viii. 6, 13; ix. 18,
26; xii. 2; 1 Jno. v. 9 f.; 3 Jno. 12; 1 Pet. iv. 1; Rev. iii. 17.
Hence in quotations from the O. T. prophecies the very frequent
use of γέγραπται, οι κεχρημάτισται Heb. viii. 5, or εἴρηκε Heb. i. 13;
iv. 4, etc.³
1 Hm. emend. rat. p. 186: yéypapa tempus significat praeteritum terminatum prae-
senti tempore ita, ut res, quae perfecto exprimitur, nunc peracta dicatur, illudque jam,
peractam rem esse, praesens sit. Poppo in his Progr. Emendanda et supplenda ad
Matthiaci gram. gr. (Frkf. on the Oder, 1832) p. 6, thus defines the nature of the Perfect:
actionem plane praeteritam, quae aut nunc ipsum seu modo finita est aut per effectus
suos durat, notat.
2 Γινώσκετε, τί πεποίηκα ὑμῖν; where the finished action (ἔνιψα) is represented,
according to its symbolical import, as continuing its influence down to the present.
Cf. xv. 18.
8 Likewise in 2 Cor. xii. 9 εἴρηκέ μοι· ἀρκεῖ σοι ἡ χάρις μου the Perfect refers to a
statement (of the Lord's) which was to be expressed as not merely having been made,
272
§ 40. THE TENSES.
We find the Perfect and Aorist joined together (cf. Weber,
Demosth. 480) in Luke iv. 18 ἔχρισέ με εὐαγγελίσασθαι, ἀπέσταλκέ
μe înρûçaι he anointed me... and hath sent me (the former viewed
με κηρύξαι
as what took place once; the latter, as still present in its effects),
Mark xv. 44 Πιλᾶτος ἐθαύμασεν εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκε· καὶ ... ἐπηρώτησεν
αὐτόν, εἰ πάλαι ἀπέθανε (the latter referring to the event, the act
of dying; the former, to the effect, the being dead), Heb. ii. 14
ἐπεὶ τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκε σαρκός και αἵματος, καὶ αὐτὸς
μετέσχε (at his incarnation) τῶν αὐτῶν, 1 Cor. xv. 4 ὅτι ἐτάφη
(an event that once took place, long past) kai őтi ẻɣýYeρтaι TŶ
Tрlтη nμépа (continues in its effects in the new life of Jesus),
2 Cor. i. 19; ix. 2; Acts xxi. 28; Jno. viii. 40; iv. 38; xiii. 3;
1 Jno. i. 1.1 Characteristic are the following passages also: Col.
i. 16 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα (the act of creation) ... τὰ
πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται (doctrinal view of the
completed and now existing creation), Jno. xvii. 14; xx. 23 (Mey);
1 Cor. xv. 27; Col. iii. 3.
ται
The Perfect simply for the Aorist in narration occurs in Rev.
V. 7 λ0€ Kai eiλnpe (Tò Bißriov) without var., viii. 5. The
Perfect is thus used purely with the signification of an Aorist
particularly in later writers (especially the Scholiasts, Poppo, Thuc.
256 III. II. 763), Schaef. Demosth. I. 468; Wyttenbach, Plut. Mor. I.
7th ed. 321 sq. (Lips.); Lehrs, quaestion. epic. p. 274; Index to Petr.
244 Patric. in the Bonn edition, p. 647; Bhdy. 379. Less remarkable
6th ed is 2 Cor. xi. 25 ... ἔλαβον, ἐῤῥαβδίσθην ... ἐλιθάσθην ... ἐναυάγησα,
288 νυχθήμερον ἐν τῷ βυθῷ πεποίηκα, Heb. xi. 28 πίστει πεποίηκε
τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὴν πρόςχυσιν τοῦ αἵματος (nothing but Aorists
precede and follow) cf. also verse 17. In such enumerations of
detached facts, it was a matter of indifference whether the Aorist
or the Perfect should be employed, they are both alike suitable
(I was stoned, I suffered shipwreck, I have spent a day, etc.). In
Mark iii. 26 nobody will take μeµépiotai after åvéßŋ for an Aorist
because in vs. 25 the Aor. pepion occurs.
The Perfect is used for the Present,
a. Only in so far as the Perfect denotes an action or state whose
commencement and occasion were completed in time past (Hm.
Vig. 748); as, Jno. xx. 29 ὅτι ἑώρακάς με, πεπίστευκας, where the
origin of his (still existing faith) is intended to be indicated, iii. 18;
but as still in force (he has given me an answer, and I must rest satisfied with it). I
do not see what Rückert could here find strange. Meyer is now right.
1 Cf. Lucian. dial. d. 19, 1 ἀφώπλισας αὐτὸν καὶ νενίκηκας.
§ 40. THE TENSES.
273
xi. 27 ; v. 45 Μωϋσῆς, εἰς ὃν ἐλπίκατε, in whom you have placed
your hope) hoped, and still hope (in quo repositam habetis spem
vestram). Similar instances are, 2 Cor. i. 10 eis ôv λπíкаμev,
1 Tim. vi. 17; Jude 6. As to éópaxa Jno. ix. 37, etc., see note
further on. 2 Tim. iv. 8 ήγαπηκότες τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ who have
loved, and therefore now love. The Pluperf. of such verbs has
naturally the signification of the Imperfect, Luke xvi. 20. To
this head we must by no means refer Jno. i. 34 kůуyò éάρaka Kal
μеμаρтÚρηκа, where the latter Perfect appears to denote that the
testimony concerning Christ given by John at the baptism stands
complete, continues firm and valid: I have seen and have testified.
Essentially the same explanation applies to the Perfects in Heb.
vii. 6 (9), where it is manifest that more than a mere fact is in-
tended to be related.
T
V
7th ed.
289
b. After clauses which convey a supposition (ei, èáv with a Fut.
or Aor., seldom with a Particip.) to express an action still future,
but viewed in this event as (occurring forthwith and so) wholly
completed ;1 as, Eurip. El. 686 εἰ παλαισθεὶς πτῶμα θανάσιμον
πеσεî, тéОvηкa èyó, Soph. Philoct. 75 and Liv. 21, 43 si eundem
animum habueritis, vicimus, cf. Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 156; Ast, Plat.
Polit. p. 470; Hm. Aristoph. nub. p. 175 sq.; Matthiae, Eurip.
Mcd. p. 512 and Gr. 1125 f.; Krü. 152. In the N. T. see Rom.
xiv. 23 ὁ διακρινόμενος, ἐὰν φάγῃ, κατακέκριται is condemned,
the sentence of condemnation has been (at the same moment) and 257
remains pronounced against him, he lies under condemnation,
iv. 14; 1 Cor. xiii. 1; 2 Pet. ii. 19, 20, and with a Participle Jno.
iii. 18 ὁ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, Rom. xiii. 8. On the other
hand, the Perfect is not used for the Fut. in Jno. v. 24 μerаẞéẞηкеV
ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωὴν; the passage has no reference at all to
a future event, but to something that has already occurred 245
(exei Conv alávov), cf. 1 Jno. iii. 14; Lücke, Comment. II. 52. 6th ed.
Further, in Jno. xvii. 10 Christ uses the word Sedóğaoμai prolep-
tically in reference to the disciples, who already believe, cf. xvi. 11;
but in xiv. 7 καὶ ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι γινώσκετε αὐτὸν καὶ ἑωράκατε αὐτόν must
be rendered: from henceforth ye know him and have seen him,
not with Kühnöl: eum mox accuratius cognoscetis et quasi oculis
videbitis, cf. Demosth. Lacrit. 597 a. ȧveρúπw, dv nμeîs ouтe yivé
σкоμеV оvÐ ÉшwράкаµеV TÓжотe. See, further, Lücke in loc.
α €
γι
1 The N. T. does not contain a clear instance of the Hebrew prophetic Perfect (Gesen.
Lg. 764), which in the Sept. is usually rendered by a Future. Akin to it is the usage
of the Greek augurs, who begin with the Fut. but continue in the Aorist, Iliad. 4,
158 sqq.; Pind. Pyth. 4, 56; Isthm. 5, 51, see Böckh not. crit. p. 462.
35
274
§ 40. THE TENSES.
>
In Jas. v. 2 ὁ πλοῦτος ὑμῶν σέσηπε, καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια ὑμῶν σητόβρωτα
yéyover the Perf. is not put for the Pres. or Fut.; but the case indicated
by the Apostle in ταλαιπωρ. ὑμῶν τ. ἐπερχομ. is viewed as already present,
and consequently the one of the riches as already completed. In Jno.
xvii. 22 dédwka does not signify tribuam; Christ contemplates his life as
terminated, his disciples have already assumed his place. In Luke x. 19
Sédwka and Siswi would be equally appropriate; Tdf. justly prefers the
former.
That the Perf. is used also for the Pluperf. (which is not impossible),
Haab p. 95 erroneously attempts to prove by Jno. xii. 7 eis Tv μépav Toû
ἐνταφιασμοῦ τετήρηκεν αὐτό; for here τετήρηκεν is to be regarded as strictly
a Perfect (she has kept it, and accordingly uses it now), since Jesus means
figuratively to represent this anointing as that which prepares him for the
grave. The reading, however, is doubtful.
That the Perfects (and Aorists) of many verbs have inherently, and
according to established usage, the signification of the Present, is well
known; and is explained by the (inchoative) primary meaning of these
verbs (Fr. Rom. I. 254; Bengel on Rom. iii. 23); as, кéктημaι I possess,¹
290 from kтáoμaι I acquire; kekoíµnuar (I have fallen asleep) I am asleep, from
κοιμάομαι fall asleep ; οἶδα I know, from εἴδω I see; ἕστηκα I stand, from
iornμi place, properly, I have placed myself (hence also 2 Thess. ii. 2
ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ Χρ. cf. Palair. in loc., Rom. ix. 19 τίς ἀνθέστηκε who
resists him? cf. xiii. 2; 2 Tim. iv. 6 ¿péotŋke); likewise couka Jas. i. 6, 23.
The Plup. of such verbs then naturally becomes equivalent to an Imperfect,
258 as eiotýkeloav Matt. xii. 46, ydew Jno. ii. 9; xx. 9, etc. Also кékpaya from
7th ed. kpálev has the meaning of a Present (Jno. i. 15), see Bttm. II. 57; Bhdy.
279, and kúpaкa sometimes signifies: I (have got a sight, and) see Jno.
ix. 37; 1 Jno. iv. 20. But in Phil. iii. 7 ynuai (Mtth. 1139) is to be
taken as properly a Preterite antithetical to yoûμaι verse 8.
246 On the other hand the Present йw means, I have come, I am here (Mtth.
6th ed. 1136) Jno. ii. 4; iv. 47; 1 Jno. v. 20, and so ȧkoúw may be sometimes
rendered by audisse 1 Cor. xi. 18 (Xen. A. 5, 5, 8; Mem. 3, 5, 9; Plat.
Gorg. 503 c.; Philostr. Apoll. 2,8; see Lucian. fug. 7; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 9 sq.;
Franke, Demosth. p. 62). This, however, is the case only when the hear-
ing (in effect) continues; as we too say: I hear thou art sick, cf. 2 Thess.
iii. 11 and Schoem. Plutarch. Cleom. p. 246.2 To denote the act of hear-
1 In the N. T. this verb, in other tenses besides the Perfect, is occasionally translated
incorrectly by possess. Luke xviii. 12 should be rendered, of all I acquire, quae mihi
redeunt; and xxi. 19 by perseverance acquire, or you will acquire, your souls; they will
then for the first time become your true property, not to be taken away. Schott now
explains the passage rightly. As to 1 Thess. iv. 4, see de Wette. Yet ктwμaι appears
κτώμαι
to signify possideo in Aesop. 142, 2. As to кoμŵvтaι 1 Cor. xi. 30, which also is usually
considered as equivalent to Keкоíμηνтαι, see above, 2 c, p. 267.
2 Just so πuvėávoμai I understand, Demosth. Calipp. p. 719 c. etc.
§ 40. THE TENSES.
275
ing completed in time past, a Greek must say åkýкoα. 'Aπéу”, in the
same way, may be translated by accepisse, Matt. vi. 2, 5, 16; Phil. iv. 18,
it is properly, however, like weghaben in German (have already, or in full,
received), Wyttenbach, Plutarch. Mor. II. 124; Palair. p. 25.
5. The AORIST (E. A. Fritsch, de aoristi vi ac potest. Frcf. 1837.
4to.; H. Schmidt, der griech. Aorist in s. Verhältnissen zu d. übrigen
Zeitformen. Halle, 1845. 8vo.) is used,
a. In narration for the Pluperfect (Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 157; Jacob,
Lucian. Toxar. p. 98 and Lucian. Alex. p. 106; Kühner, Gr. II.
79):
a. in subordinate clauses specifying time; as, Acts v. 21 os
ἤκουσαν τ. λόγους . . . διηπόρουν, Luke vii. 1 ἐπειδὴ ἐπλήρωσεν τὰ
ῥήματα . . . εἰςῆλθεν (ii. 39; xxii. 66 ; Jno. vi. 16 ; ix. 18 ; xiii. 12;
xxi. 9; Acts xxi. 26), cf. Thuc. 1, 102 οἱ 'Αθηναῖοι . . . ἐπειδὴ ἀνε-
χώρησαν . . . ξύμμαχοι ἐγένοντο, Aesch. ep. 1. p. 121 c. ; Mdr. 113 f.
β. in relative clauses ; as, Acts i. 2 εντειλάμενος τοῖς ἀποστόλοις
οὓς ἐξελέξατο, ix. 35 [Matt. ii. 9 ὃν εἶδον, xxvii. 55 αἵτινες ἠκο
Xoú¤ŋoav] Jno. xi. 30; iv. 45, 46; Luke xix. 15; xxiv. 1; Mdv.
114. Thus probably are the Aorists to be rendered also in a clause
with ŐT, Jno. vi. 22; see the expositors. The reason of this usage
is, that the Greeks (who in such cases seldom or never employ the
Pluperfect, Bhdy. 380) viewed the occurrence merely as past, not
in relation to another occurrence also past. The Aor. is thus used
in independent clauses, when they contain supplementary remarks, 291
Matt. xiv. 3 f. Whether this also applies to Jno. xviii. 24, cannot
be decided on grammatical grounds. In Matt. xxvi. 48 edwкev is
probably not to be rendered as a Pluperf. (Fr.), see BCrus. and
Mey. On the contrary, the Pluperf. is regularly employed in such
clauses even in the N. T.: Jno. xi. 19, 57; viii. 20; Acts ix. 21;
Mark xiv. 44; Matt. vii. 25.
With very great want of judgment Haab S. 95 (cf. also Pasor S. 235)
refers to this head a number of other passages, in which either the Aor. 259
retains its original import, or is owing to a somewhat different account of 7th ed.
one Evangelist which must not be arbitrarily harmonized with the others'
narrative; as, Jno. xviii. 12 ovvéλaßov Tòv 'Inσoûv. According to the other
Evangelists (Matt. xxvi. 50 f.; Mark xiv. 46) the seizing and binding
preceded Peter's striking with his sword. John, however, may wish to
imply that Peter interposed with his sword at the moment when the guard
were laying hands on Jesus. On Matt. xxvii. 37 каì èпélŋкаν èпávw Tŷs
κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένην de Wette very appropriately
remarks: "This, as respects the matter of fact, is to be considered as a 247
Plup. (though we must admit it to be possible that the narrator of this, 6th ed.
276
§ 40. THE TENSES.
not himself an eye-witness, may have supposed that the affixing of this
superscription did not take place until this time), but according to the
language it is a simple preterite. The narrator here does not observe the
order of time. That the Evangelist does not exactly follow the order of
time is obvious besides from this, that after he has made the soldiers sit
down to watch Jesus, he proceeds vs. 38 to introduce the crucifixion of the
two robbers : τότε σταυροῦνται, κ.τ.λ. Should this also be regarded as a
Plup.?" In Mark iii. 16 éréОηKE TO Zíμwv ovoμa IIéтpov is not to be
translated by imposuerat; for Mark had not yet recorded the circumstance,
and it must not be thus as a matter of course supplied from John (i. 43).
Also in Acts vii. 5 Swkey is not to be taken as a Plup. ; this is manifest
from the antithesis: he gave not but promised. It seems equally un-
necessary to take the Aor. as Plup. in Acts iv. 4; viii. 2; xx. 12.¹ As
to Mark xvi. 1 compared with Luke xxiii. 56, see Fr.
• •
That the Aorist stands for the Perfect cannot be shown with certainty
from any passage. Luke i. 1 ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν . . . ἔδοξε καμοί
must be taken in the narrative style: as many undertook I too de-
termined, etc. So also ii. 48 τέκνον, τί ἐποίησας ... ἐζητοῦμέν σε. More
plausible instances are the following: xiv. 18 ἀγρὸν ἠγόρασα, 19 ζεύγη βοών
Αγόρασα etc., Phil. iii. 12 οὐχ ὅτι ἤδη ἔλαβον ἢ ἤδη τετελείωμαι, Jno. xvii. 4
ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὸ ἔργον ἐτελείωσα, etc. But in all these the
action is exhibited merely as come to pass, as occupying a single point of
292 time past, simply as gone by, (in Luke, as above, in contrast with a present
action) I bought a field, a yoke of oxen, etc. In Phil. as above in particular,
aßov seems to denote merely the attaining of the goal as an honorable
achievement, while Tereλ. denotes its consequences. Likewise in Rom.
xiv. 9; Rev. ii. 8 the Aorists are simply narrative, and in reference to the
death of Christ the Perfect could not even be used here. In Mark xi. 17
the Perf. is now in the text; but the Aorist also would be appropriate, see
Fr. As to Greek usage, cf. Böckh, Pind. III. 185; Schaef. Eurip. Phoen.
p. 15; Mtth. 1118. It often depends on the writer which of the two
260 tenses he will use, as the difference between them is sometimes very
7th ed. slight, cf. Xen. Mem. 1, 6, 14; Dion. H. IV. 2320; Alciphr. 3, 46. (The
Codd. occasionally vary- as well those of the Greek authors, see e.g.
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 434, 566, as those of the N. T. — between the Aorist
and the Perfect, e.g. Jno. vi. 32; 1 Cor. ix. 15).2
1 Markland (explicatt. vett. aliq. loc. in the Leipzig reprint of his edition of Eurip.
Suppl. p. 326) erroneously refers to this head Matt. xxviii. 17 of dè édíoraσav also,
ἐδίστασαν
on which see Valcken. annot. crit. p. 350.
2 If in Matt. xxi. 20 πŵs be taken as an exclamation (quam), ¿¿hpavraι might have
been expected instead of ¿¿npávon, as in Mark xi. 21 according to good Codd. But the
latter passage is not entirely parallel, and Matt. xxi. 20 is probably to be rendered:
how did the fig-tree wither suddenly? They desire an erplanation of what (according to
this Evangelist's narrative) had taken place before their eyes. The disciples therefore
allude to the fact of Enpai., and not to the consequences.
§ 40. THE TENSES.
277
1
W
b. It is only in appearance that the Aorist is used for the Future 248
(Hm. Vig. p. 747. cf. above 4.b.),¹ e.g. Jno. xv. 6 èàv µý tɩs μeivŋ 6th ed.
ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ὡς τὸ κλῆμα in such case (should that have
happened) he (was) is cast away, not he will be cast away (the not
abiding has this as its instantaneous consequence: whoever has
severed himself from Christ, resembles a branch broken off and
thrown away. With this Baneñvai the Presents ovváyovow etc. are
connected). Cf. as to this passage Hm. de emend. p. 192 sq. and
Vig. as above. Rev. x. 7 ὅταν μέλλη σαλπίζειν, καὶ ἐτελέσθη τὸ
μvoτýρcov, in the mouth of the angel describing the future: then is
finished the mystery, 1 Cor. vii. 28. Cf. Eurip. Med. 78 åπwλó
μεσθ᾽ ἄρ᾽, εἰ κακὸν προςοίσομεν νέον παλαιῷ, Plat. Gorg. 481 a.
The Aor. never occurs in this sense without an antecedent clause.
In Jno. xvii. 18 åπéσтeiλa is I sent them forth (which took place
when the apostles were chosen). In xiii. 31 Jesus says: vûv édo§á-
σθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, the traitor Judas having gone away and as
it were already completed his treason. In Mark iii. 21 égéσTη has
ἐξέστη
the force of the Present insanit, cf. vs. 22. Jude 14 is a verbatim
quotation from the (Greek) book of Enoch, and the Aor. represents
the coming of Christ as having already taken place. In Rom.
viii. 30 ésóğaσe is used, because he in reference to whom God has
completed the Sikaιoûv has also already obtained from God the 293
δοξάζεσθαι, (though the δόξα as an actual possession will not be
imparted to him until later).
sense.
1. Nowhere in the N. T. does the Aorist express what is wont to be
done (Schaef. Demosth. I. 247; Wex, Antig. I. 326; Mdv. 110). In Luke
i. 51 God's μeyaλeîa (vs. 49) are spoken of as already accomplished, only
the respective parallel members must not be taken too rigidly in a historical
In Jno. viii. 29 οὐκ ἀφῆκέ με μόνον ὁ πατήρ means the Father left
me not alone (on the earth), that is, he granted me, besides having sent me
(Tréμas), also (hitherto) his unceasing aid. In 1 Jno. ii. 27 it is equally
unnecessary to take édídaģev as denoting wont to teach; Lücke in his 2d
ed. has correctly explained the passage. As to Rom. viii. 30 see above.
Heb. x. 5, 6 is a verbatim quotation from Ps. xl. applied to the fact of 201
Christ's εἰςερχ. εἰς τὸν κόσμον. Heb. i. 9 (Sept.) ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην etc. 7th ed
contains the reason for the annexed διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέ σε ὁ θεός, and the
former is as strict an Aorist as the latter. Sooner might Jas. i. 11
ἀνέτειλεν ὁ ἥλιος σὺν τῷ καύσωνι καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν χόρτον etc. be referred
to this head (cf. 1 Pet. i. 24), as has already been done by Piscator; but
1 In 1 Cor. xv. 49 épopéσauer might seem to stand for the Fut. Perf.; but Paul places
himself in the point of view of the Parousia, and speaks in the narrative style of the life
passed on earth.
278
§ 40. THE TENSES.
the Aorists are narrative (representing the fact as having taken place),
and taken together indicate the rapid succession of the events: the sun
rose, and (immediately) withered etc. (Bornem. Xen. Apol. p. 53),
scarcely was the sun risen, when it withered. Moreover, passages such
as Eph. v. 29 form the transition to this use of the Aorist, which can be
easily traced to the primary import of the tense (IIm. de emend. rat.
249 187). In Jas. i. 24 κατενόησεν ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπελήλυθε καὶ εὐθέως ἐπελάθετο
6th ed. ¿πoîos v neither the Aorist nor the Perfect is put for the Present, but the
case supposed for illustration in vs. 23 is assumed as matter of fact, and
the Apostle falls into the strain of narration.
2. Quite unnecessarily Pott maintains that in 1 Cor. ix. 20 ¿yevóμnv
τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὡς Ἰουδαῖος the Aor. is used for the Present. The Apostle
states how he has hitherto acted. Heumann on 1 Cor. iv. 18, and many
expositors on Jas. ii. 6 τμάoare (which even Gebser renders by the
Present), have made the same mistake. Tholuck's present view of Jno.
xv. 8 éduέáo◊ŋ is more correct than his former opinion; the Aorist is
proleptic, as in Eph. ii. 6; Rom. viii. 30. In Matt. iii. 17 (xii. 18; xvii. 5;
2 Pet. i. 17) Sept. the Aorist evdókŋoa may be taken naturally: my good
pleasure fixed upon him, I took him into favor; see Mey. Hm. Vig.
746, No. 209, treats merely of poetic usage, and his remarks have with
great discrimination been rendered still more clear and precise by Moller
in the Zeitschrift f. Alterth.-Wiss. 1846, No. 134–136.
υνεπ
"
او
In epistles ypaya, as is well known, is used for ypápw, like scripsi in
Latin, in reference to the epistle which is just being written. In the same
way ereµya misi is used, out of regard for the fact that to the receiver of
294 the epistle the TéμTO has become an eneμya. As to the latter, compare
in the N. T. Acts xxiii. 30; Phil. ii. 28, åvéπepya Philem. 11, probably
also ovveπéµyaµev 2 Cor. viii. 18 (Demosth. ep. 3; Alciphr. 3, 30 and 41);
as similar, ßovλýłŋv 2 Jno. 12. On the other hand, not even ypaya in
1 Cor. v. 11 can be quoted as an instance of that use. This Aorist, rather,
refers in all cases either to a previous epistle (1 Cor. v. 9; 2 Cor. ii. 3, 4, 9 ;
vii. 12; 3 Jno. 9), or to an epistle already brought to its conclusion (Rom.
xv. 15; Philem. 19; Gal. vi. 11; 1 Pet. v. 12), or even to a series of
verses just finished (1 Cor. ix. 15; 1 Jno. ii. 21,26; v. 13).
in course of being written ypápw is more usual, 1 Jno. ii.
iv. 14; xiv. 37; 2 Cor. xiii. 10, etc. As to 1 Jno. ii. 13 f. see Lücke.
In the Greek writers also this use of the Aor. (or Perf.) for the Pres. is
not carefully observed; cf. Diog. L. 7, 9. See Wyttenbach, Plut. Moral.
I. 231 sq. Lips.
For an epistle
12, 13; 1 Cor.
262 3. Lastly, the Aor. is not employed de conatu¹ (Kühnöl) in Mark ix. 17
7th ed. йveyka Tòv vióv pov. These words denote: I brought my son to thee (and
ἤνεγκα μου.
I present him now to thee). That λe Jno. xi. 44 need not be thus
1 Schaef. Plut. IV. 398 declares himself against IIm. Soph. Aj. 1105. Yet cf. IIm.
Iphig. Taur. p. 109.
§ 40. THE TENSES.
279
explained, has been perceived by Kühnöl himself; and Tholuck very prop-
erly takes no notice of such an interpretation. On Matt. xxv. 1 see Mey.
1
έν
6. The FUTURE ¹ does not always denote pure and actual futurity,
but sometimes what is possible (as futurity and possibility are 250
closely related) and in fact what may or should take place (ethical bed.
possibility), Hm. Vig. p. 747; Jacob, Lucian. Tox. p. 134; Krü.
156. This is particularly the case in questions. Owing, however, to
the great resemblance between the Future and the Aor. Subjunctive
and the variations in MSS., the passages in question are not all
established. Luke xxii. 49 κύριε, εἰ πατάξομεν ἐν μαχαίρᾳ are ue to
smite, etc.? (strictly, shall we with thy permission-smite, wilt
thou allow us to smite ? cf. Eurip. Io 771 εἴπωμεν ἢ σιγῶμεν ; ἢ τί
δράσομεν ;), Rom. x. 14 πῶς οὖν ἐπικαλέσονται, εἰς ὃν οὐκ ἐπίστευ
σαν ; how can they call, etc. ? iii. 6 ἐπεὶ πῶς κρινεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ;
Jno. vi. 68; Matt. xii. 26; 1 Tim. iii. 5; 1 Cor. xiv. 16 (Plat. Lys. 213 c.
τί οὖν δὴ χρησόμεθα, Lucian. Τox. 47 πῶς οὖν ... χρησόμεθα τοῖς
Tароûσi). On the other hand, in Matt. vii. 24 óμouóow retains the
simple force of the Fut., as does Toλunow in Rom. xv. 18. In Rom.
v. 7 something is expressed which is never likely to take place.
1 Cor. viii. 8 is similar. In Rom. vi. 1 and 15 the Subjunctive is 295
the preferable reading, as also in Luke iii. 10; Jno. vi. 5; but in
Rom. vi. 2 the authority for Chooμev predominates, and the Future
here forms a distinct contrast to the Aor. άe@ávoμev. Mark iv. 13
and 1 Cor. xiv. 7 are strict Futures. In Matt. vii. 16 ényvéσ €σ be
does not contain a precept (ye shall), but a simple reference to
what time itself will show: by their fruits ye will know them (as
ye observe them, in the course of your observations). In Rom.
vi. 14 the Fut. expresses an assurance and is essentially connected
with the Apostle's reasoning. 1 Cor. xv. 29 èπεì τí πоɩńoovoiv
ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν
οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν is probably to be rendered: else
(if Christ is not risen) what will they do (what are they about to do,
what do they purpose) who get themselves baptized over the dead (are
therefore in such case deluded)? The Pres. Totoûσw is manifestly
a correction. The phrase Tí ovv époûμev always means quid dice-
mus? not quid dicamus. 1 Cor. xiv. 15 πposeúсоμаι тô πνεúμатI,
προςεύξομαι δὲ καὶ νοΐ expresses not a resolution (προςεύξωμαι is 263
probably only a correction), but a Christian maxim which the be- 7th ed.
1 The 3d Fut. Раss. кекрážоμа occurring once (Luke xix. 40) in not a few Codd.
stands for the 1st Fut., which in this verb is not in use, and has not the meaning which
this form has in other cases (Mtth. 1118 f.; Mdv. 114; Janson, de gracci serm. paulo
post futuro. Rastenburg, 1844. 4to.).
280
§ 40. THE TENSES.
liever intends to follow, and is more decided than the Subjunctive.
In 2 Cor. iii. 8 éσraι refers to future Sóğa. (As to such phrases as
θέλεις ἑτοιμάσομεν and τί αἱρήσομαι οὐ γνωρίζω, where the Subjune-
tive also would be suitable, see § 41 a. 4, p. 285 and b. 4, p. 299.)
In the phrase épeî tɩs dicat aliquis 1 Cor. xv. 35; Jas. ii. 18, the
Fut. denotes a merely supposable case. But the Greek idiom is
here more precise than the Latin: some one will say, I foresee it,
I expect nothing else. So èpeis oûv dices igitur Rom. ix. 19; xi. 19.
Heb. xi. 32 ἐπιλείψει με διηγούμενον ὁ χρόνος is decidedly to be taken
as a Future: time (I foresee) will fail me (deficiet me tempus,
Philostr. her. p. 686 éπiλeisei μen pwvý, cf. also longum est nar-
251 rare for the German-Latin idiom longum esset etc.).¹ Also in Luke
6th ed. xi. 5 τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἕξει φίλον καὶ πορεύσεται πρὸς αὐτὸν μεσονυκτίου
the Fut. is appropriately used; take away the interrogative form
and the ordinary Future remains: none of you will go to his
friend at midnight, such importunity will never take place. Lastly,
in Matt. v. 39, 41; xxiii. 12 the notion of possibility is connected
rather with STIs than with the Fut.; and in Jas. ii. 10 the best
Codd. [Sin. also] have the Subjunctive. (It would be altogether
incongruous to take the Future as indicating nothing more than a
wish in Rom. xvi. 20; Phil. iii. 15; iv. 7, 9, 19; Matt. xvi. 22.)
296
•
On the use of the Fut. for the Imperative, see § 43, 5, p. 315.
Some interpreters have preposterously asserted that the Fut. is used for
the Preterite in Rev. iv. 9 ὅταν δώσουσι τὰ ζῶα δόξαν . . . τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ
τοῦ θρόνου ... πεσοῦνται οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι, etc. ; but the passage
must be rendered: when (as often as) the beasts shall give glory ... shall
fall down.
On the other hand, the Fut., in expressing general truths,
sometimes very nearly assumes the import of the Present; as, Gal. ii. 16
ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ, Rom. iii. 20 : this is a rule which
(since the introduction of Christianity) will hold true in the world. Sub-
stantially so also in Rom. iii. 30 ἐπείπερ εἷς ὁ θεός, ὃς δικαιώσει περιτομὴν
ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῦν
¿k tíσtews etc., where Sikalovv is regarded as an act of God which in the
Christian method of salvation will be constantly thus realized. In Luke
i. 37 åduvatýσe is used, in an allusion to the O. T., of that which belongs
to no particular time, but will always hold true (Theocr. 27, 9; see Hm.
emend. rat. p. 197), cf. Rom. vii. 3. But in Matt. iv. 4 ýσeral after Deut.
viii. 3 denotes rather a rule established by God: shall live.
Note 1. The connection of different tenses by κаí (Popрo, Thuc. I. I.
274 sq.; Reisig, Oed. Col. 419; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 700; Stallb. Plat.
Euthyphr. p. 59 a.), which has already been illustrated incidentally in the
1 The case is different when the thought is expressed in the Optative with iv, as in
Dion. H. 10, 2086 ἐπιλείποι ἄν με ὁ τῆς ἡμέρας χρόνος.
୪
§ 41. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
281
above examples, is partly to be accounted for by the fact that when an 264
7th ed.
author is writing without rigorous exactness any one of several tenses
may be employed without difference in the sense; and is partly intentional
(Heb. ii. 14; 1 Cor. x. 4; xv. 4; Jas. i. 24; Jno. iii. 16; Phil. iii. 7 sq.;
1 Pet. iv. 6, etc.). The former, perhaps, is the case in Rev., as iii. 3
xi. 10; xii. 4; xvi. 21, etc. In none of these passages are the tenses used
incorrect; and should any one discover something altogether extraordinary
in such combinations (as e.g. Eichhorn, Einl. ins N. T. II. 378), he would
only betray his defective knowledge of the Greek language. See my
exeget. Studien I. 147 f.
Note 2. The tenses are used in the significations above elucidated for
the most part only in the Indicative (and Participle) (Hm. emend. p. 189).
In the other moods, particularly the Subjunctive, Optative, Imperative, the
Aorist rarely denotes past time (1 Pet. iv. 6?), but generally retains, in
distinction from the Present, only the notion of transientness or instanta-
neousness (cf. Pres. and Aor. Jno. iii. 16) Hm. Vig. 748, without refer-
ence to any definite time, Rost 587; Mdv. 109.
;
§ 41. THE INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE MOODS.' 252
6th ed.
1. According to Hermann, these moods are distinguished from
each other as follows: The Indicative denotes what is actual, the
Subjunctive and Optative what is possible merely: the Subjunc-
tive, what is objectively possible (the realization of which depends
on circumstances); 2 the Optative, what is subjectively possible
(simply conceived of, as e.g. a wish),3 Hm. emend. rat. I. 205 sqq.;
ad Vig. 901 sq., more fully de particula av p. 76 sq.; cf. also Schnei-
der, Vorles. I. 230 ff.5 With Klotz, ad Devar., we have adhered to
4
1 Cf. K. H. A. Lipsius, comm. de modorum usu in N. T. P. I. Lips. 1827. Svo.
2 “In conjunctivo sumitur res experientia comprobanda...; conjunctivus est debere
quid fieri intelligentis ac propterea exspectantis quid eveniat" Hm. partic. av p. 77.
8 Klotz, Devar. II. 104: Optativus modus per se non tam optationis vim in se continet,
quam cogitationis omnino, unde proficiscitur etiam omnis optatio. Im. partic. av
p. 77: Optativus est cogitantis quid fieri, neque an fiat neque an possit fieri quaerentis.
4 P. 77: Apertum est, in indicativo veritatem facti ut exploratam respici, in con-
junctivo rem sumi experientia comprobandam, in optativo veritatis rationem haberi
nullain, sed cogitationem tantummodo indicari. How Kühner combines this distinction
between the Subjunctive and Optative with an original temporal import of both cannot
be here explained in detail (Griech. Gr. II. 87 f.).
5 In the following works views quite different from this are maintained : W. Scheuerlein,
über den Charakter des Modus in der gr. Sprache. Halle 1842. 4to. (a Program).
W. Baumlein, über die gr. Modi und die Partikeln rev u. &v. Heilbronn 1846. 8vo. (see
Jahn, Jahrb. Bd. 47. S. 353 f. and Zeitschr. f. Alterthumswiss. 1848. 104-106; 1849.
30-33). Aken, Grundzüge der Lehre von Tempus u. Modus im Griech. Güstrow 1850.
297
36
282
§ 41a. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
265 this theory, as nothing in all respects better seems yet to have been
7th ed. propounded; - least of all by Madvig.
298
In the N. T. these moods in their main distinctions, are employed
with strict propriety (Hwiid to the contrary;-whom Kühnöl ad
Acta p. 777 quotes with approval). Only it is noticeable that the
Optative, as in the later Greek authors who do not aim at classic
refinement, is partially set aside (more still than in Josephus),
and in certain constructions is superseded by the Subjunctive.¹
a. IN INDEPENDENT PROPOSITIONS.
2. The use of the INDICATIVE in independent propositions is very
253 simple even in classic Greek. In reference to the N. T., accordingly,
we have on this head but two remarks to make:
6th ed.
κα
КЕ
a. The Imperfect Indicative is sometimes employed, as in Latin
(Zumpt, S. 446), where we should use the Subjunctive; as, 2 Cor.
xii. 11 ἐγὼ ὤφειλον ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν συνίστασθαι debebam commendari
I ought to have been commended, Matt. xxv. 27 edeɩ σe Badeîv thou
oughtest to have put etc. (2 Cor. ii. 3; Acts xxiv. 19; xxvii. 21),
Matt. xxvi. 9 ήδύνατο τοῦτο πραθῆναι etc., xxvi. 24 καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ
eỉ oùê ẻyevvýðŋ it were good for him (would have been), satius erat,
2 Pet. ii. 21 κρείττον ἦν αὐτοῖς μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης
(Aristoph. nub. 1215; Xen. Anab. 7, 7, 40; Philostr. Apoll. 7, 30;
Lucian. dial. mort. 27, 9; Diog. L. 1, 64), Acts xxii 22 où yàp
KаÐÑKEV AỶTÒV Gîv he should not have lived (i.e. he ought to have
been put to death long ago), non debebat or debuerat vivere, cf.
Mtth. 1138 f.; Stallb. Plat. Symp. p. 74. The Greeks and Latins
here merely state what, independently of circumstances, was proper,
what should or should not have taken place; and the reader, by
combining this statement with the actual fact, infers the disapproval
of the latter. The Germans (and English) start from the present
state of the matter, and by the Subjunctive express disapproval of
its origin. Both moods therefore are correct in thought. It must
not, however, be supposed that in such Greek constructions there
is an omission of av; for such expressions to the mind of a Greek
exclude all thought of a condition under which something would
have been good or must have happened; see Hm. partic. άv § 12.
4to. Cf. also Dorderlein on Moods and Conjunctions, in his Reden u. Aufsätze.
Erlangen 1843. 8vo. nr. 9.
1 Modern Greek has, as is well known, wholly given up the Optative; and it is still
a question how far it was used in the popular speech of the ancient Greeks. It is often
the case that certain forms and constructions embodying refinements of the literary
diction are persistently shunned by the people.
§ 41a. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 283
'Eßovλóµnv etc. vellem, (without av), is to be explained some-
what differently, e.g. Acts xxv. 22 éßovλóµŋv kaì aνTÒS TOû ȧV0ρúπOv 266
ȧkovσaι I too should wish to hear the man (the account of him having 7th ed
awakened my curiosity), Aristoph. ran. 866; Aeschin. Ctesiph.
274 b.; Arrian. Epict. 1, 19, 18; Lucian. dial. mort. 20, 4; abdic.
1; Char. 6, etc. There is expressed here, not a desire which has
been active at some former time merely (under different circum-
stances) volebam, but a wish still felt by the speaker. This, how-
ever, is not stated directly (volo), for this can be done only when
the performance is viewed as dependent solely on the will (1 Tim.
ii. 8; 1 Cor. xvi. 7; Rom. xvi. 19, etc.); nor by means of eßovλóμnv
av, for this would imply the counterpart but I will not, Hm. partic.
av p. 66 sq., nor yet by the much weaker Bovhoíμnv av (Xen. Oec. 299
6, 12; Krü. 163), velim, I could wish; but definitely: I was
wishing, wished, that is, if it were proper, if thou wouldst permit
it (and wish accordingly on this assumption), Bhdy. S. 371;
Kühner II. 68, (a conditional clause, therefore, being understood).¹
So also Rom. ix. 3 ηὐχόμην γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀνάθεμα εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ
Χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου optarem ego etc., and Gal. iv. 20,
see my Comment. in loc. (It is otherwise in 2 Cor. i. 15; Philem.
13, 14, where the Aorists express what actually took place, and in 254
2 Jno. 12 ἠβουλήθην.)
αν
In Jno. iv. 4 etc. ede is to be taken as a genuine Imperf. Indicative,
denoting a real fact. On the contrary, in Heb. ix. 26 éneì del avτòv
woλλákis πaßeîv the particle av might have been expected, as something is
expressed that according to a certain supposition must have taken place.
The Codd., however, do not give it, and it can be omitted,—just as we
say: for (otherwise), if that were the design, he must have often suffered
(cf. Hm. Eurip. Bacch. p. 152; Bhdy. 390, see § 42, 2). In Rom. xi. 6;
1 Cor. vii. 14; v. 10, the Indicatives Pres. after éneí (otherwise, alioquin)
are usually rendered as Subjunctives. The meaning, however, of the first
two passages is simply this: then (in that case i.e. if eέ epywv) grace is no
longer grace; then (in case the husband is not sanctified in the wife) are
your children unclean. But in 1 Cor. v. 10 nearly all the better Codd.
[Sin. also] read peiλere. See, further, Ast, Plat. legg. p. 162 sq.; Stallb.
Plat. Euthyphr. p. 57.
In 1 Cor. vii. 7 θέλω πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν the Indic.
1 Schoemann ad Isaeum p. 435 takes a different view: Addita particula &v voluntatem
significamus a conditione suspensam: vellem, sí liceret; omissa autem particula etiam
conditionis notio nulla subintelligitur, sed hoc potius indicatur, vere nos illud voluisse,
etiamsi omittenda fuerit voluntas, scilicet quod frustra nos velle cognovimus. This
nice distinction, however, might not be applicable to all passages.
6th ed
284
§ 41a. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
θέλω is not used, as Pott maintaius, for θέλοιμι or ἤθελον. Paul actually
entertained this wish, directing his attention meantime merely to the
advantage that would thus accrue to men (Christians), and not to the
obstacles. Had he referred to the latter he must have said: I could wish,
267 or I could have wished, velim or vellem. Baumgarten has understood the
7th ed, passage correctly. In the same way we must explain 1 Cor. vii. 28, where
φείδομαι is likewise explained by Pott as equivalent to φειδοίμην ἄν. Αl
All
recent expositors have correctly explained 2 Cor. xii. 9 åpкeî σoɩ ý xápis
pov, which Luther inaccurately renders: be satisfied with my grace. The
force of the Indicative has been exaggerated in another way in 1 Cor. v. 7:
Kalós éσтe älvpoi esse debetis; incorrectly, see Mey.
3. The Indicative Pres. sometimes occurs also b. in direct ques-
tions where in Latin the Subjunctive (in German the auxiliary verb
sollen) would be used ; as, Juo. xi. 47 τί ποιοῦμεν ; ὅτι οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρω-
300 TOS TOXλà onμeîa toieî, quid faciamus? what are we to do? Lucian,
pisc. 10; asin. 25. The Ind., however, here strictly denotes that
something must undoubtedly be done (forthwith); so we say,
what are we doing? more resolute and emphatic than what shall
we do? Ti moiâμev is the question of one who invites to delibera-
tion (cf. Acts iv. 16); тí πоιοûpev, on the contrary, is the language
of one who on behalf of those concerned assumes the determination
not only in general to do something, but also to do something definite,
and desires simply to draw out a declaration of the specific thing.
[That this distinction is not artificial, as Bttm. Gramm. d. N. T.
Sprachgebr. S. 180 asserts, has been justly acknowledged by Mey.,
also, in loc.] On this (rhetorical) Ind. Pres., which mainly occurs
in conversation, see Heind. Plat. Gorg. p. 109 and Theaet. p. 449;
Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 141; Bhdy. 396.
The Greeks go still further, and even say Tívoμev we drink i.e.
we are to drink, when they mean to proceed to drink forthwith, when
the cup has been already lifted up (Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 559).
Gal. vi. 10 however, épyalóµeða тò ảɣalóv, which is the reading
255 in good Codd. viz. AB and which Lehm. has printed [but only in
his stereotyp. ed.] can hardly serve as an instance of this usage;
see Mey. As to Jno. xxi. 3, cf. § 40, 2, p. 265.
6th ed.
The meaning of 1 Cor. x. 22 ǹ πapalnλoûμev тòv kúpιov; which Schott
still renders by the Subjunctive, is probably or do we provoke God? is
that the meaning of our conduct, to awaken God's wrath? Tapal. expresses,
not what is still to take place (as Rück. takes it [and recently even Bttm.
Gramm. d. N. T. Sprachgebr. S. 181 considers as not inappropriate]), but
what is already actually taking place. Rom. viii. 24 8 ẞλéttel tis, tí kaì
¿λíže; is not (Schott) quare insuper speret? for dropping the question
§ 41a. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
285
the passage means, not. he may no longer hope for; but he no longer
hopes for. On the Ind. Fut. for the Subjunctive, see § 40, 6, p. 279.
• •
The Indicatives in Jas. v. 13 κακοπαθεί τις ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀσθενεῖ τις ἐν
uiv, denoting a case represented as real, are attended with no difficulty:
some one is afflicted among you,. some one is sick among you, etc.
Demosth. cor. 351 c. (where a point of interrogation is not necessary, 268
Krü. 160). In Greek authors, even a Preterite is used in this way,
7th ed.
Mtth. 1155.
4. The SUBJUNCTIVE is used in independent propositions
a. When an invitation or resolution (conjunct. adhortativus)
is expressed (Mtth. 1169); as, Jno. xiv. 31 eyeípeσbe, aywμev
ἐντεῦθεν, xix. 24; 1 Cor. xv. 32 φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν, αὔριον γὰρ
ἀποθνήσκομεν, Phil. iii. 15 ὅσοι οὖν τέλειοι, τοῦτο φρονῶμεν, 1 Thess.
v. 6 μen kaì výpoμev, Luke viii. 22. The Codd. occasion-
ν. γρηγορῶμεν καὶ νήφωμεν,
ally vary between the Subjunct. and the Fut. Heb. vi. 3; 1 Cor.
xiv. 15; Jas. iv. 13, but in the first two passages there is prepon-
derating evidence in favor of the Subjunctive.
CATA
ai
b. In undetermined questions (conjunct. deliberativus, Mtth. 1170;
Bhdy. 396; Kühner II. 102 f.); as, Mark xii. 14 dôµev ǹ µn Sŵµev;
shall we give or not give? Rom. vi. 1 étiµévwμev Tŷ ȧµapтíą; 1 Cor.
xi. 22; also in the 3d and 2d Pers., as Luke xxiii. 31 ei èv tô vypộ 301
ξύλῳ ταῦτα ποιοῦσιν, ἐν τῷ ξηρῷ τί γένηται ; and Matt. xxvi. 54
πῶς πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαί ; how shall the Scriptures be fulfilled?
xxiii. 33 πws púynтe (Juo. v. 47 var.). Under this head comes the
Subjunctive in certain set phrases; as, Luke ix. 54 0éλers elπWμEV
πÛρ катаẞηναι àñò тоû оỷρaνоû; (Hm. de ellips. p. 183) wilt thou
that we, are we to bid etc., Matt. xiii. 28; xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12;
Luke xxii. 9. Cf. Eurip. Phoen. 722 Boúλei трáπwμaι dîjľ ódoùs
ἄλλας
äλλas Tivás; Xen. Mem. 2, 1, 1 Boúλei okoπŵμev; Aesch. Ctesiph.
297 c.; Lucian. dial. m. 20, 3. See also Matt. vii. 4 äþes ékßáλw Tò
κáρpos etc. 1 Cor. iv. 21. It is a mistake to supply in such cases
iva orőπws (Lehmann, Lucian. III. 466). There is no ellipsis, any
more than, for example, in the German es scheint sie kommen, it
seems they are coming. In some passages, Codd. have the Fut.,
which, in these phrases, Greek authors do employ (Lucian. navig.
26), though not very frequently; see Lob. Phryn. p. 734, and Fr.
Matt. p. 465, 761 (from the Sept. see Heb. viii. 5) cf. e.g. Exod.
xxv. 40 ὅρα ποιήσεις κατὰ τὸν τύπον etc.
σ
In questions, the Future instead of the Conjunct. deliberativus of the 256
3d Pers. is, according to the testimony of the Codd., more frequent in the 6th ed.
N. T., see above, § 40, 6, and is to be retained even in Rom. x. 14f.;
286 § 41a. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
although in Greek authors the Subjunctive, in this person also, not un-
frequently occurs (Stallb. Plat. Men. p. 103; Krü. 161): Soph. Aj. 403
πολ τις φύγῃ; Οed. Col. 170 ποῖ τις φροντίδος ἔλθῃ; (1st Pers. vs. 311);
Plato, Soph. 225 a.; Arrian. Epict. 3, 22, 96. In Luke xi. 5 the Fut. Ind.
and the Subjunctive are connected, τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἕξει φίλον καὶ πορεύσεται
πрòя aνтóν... Kaì eiтy avтQ; see Mtth. 1171; IIm. partic. av p. 87; Stallb.
πρὸς αὐτόν καὶ εἴπῃ αὐτῷ;
Plat. Phileb. p. 26 and Phaed. p. 202; Bornem. Luc. p. 147; Bmln. p. 182.
Respecting Jas. iv. 15 ἐὰν ὁ κύριος θελήσῃ καὶ ζήσωμεν (ζήσομεν) καὶ
ποιήσωμεν (ποιήσομεν) τοῦτο ἢ ἐκεῖνο a learned controversy has been carried
on between Fritzsche (Leipz. Literatur-Zeit. 1824. S. 2316 and n. krit.
Journ. V. S. 3 ff.) and Bornem. (n. krit. Journ. VI. S. 130 ff.). The former
would make the conclusion begin at kaì wońooμev (adopting this as the
preferable reading); the latter would make it begin at kaì ýowuev (re-
269 taining also Tońσwμev). Fritzsche renders the passage: if the Lord will
7th ed. and we live, we shall also do this or that; Bornem.: if it please the Lord,
let us seek our support, let us do this or that. Every one must feel that
there is something incongruous in the expression if God will, we will
live; and B. himself has perceived this, as he translates ýo. we will use
life! But this explanation appears forced, and not warranted by biblical
usage. There is nothing remarkable in the occurrence of kai at the be-
ginning of the apodosis (2 Cor. xi. 12). With regard to this, therefore,
I must agree with Fr. But he should not have asserted that woɩýσoμev
302 is far better attested than Cooper. The critical authorities are nearly
equal. Only from Cod. Meerm. (by Dermout) Toińσoμev (but not Čýσoµev)
has been adduced, [and Cod. Sin. has Tonooμev together with ýooμev].
Considering the ease with which a mistake in transcribing might occur, we
should probably adopt as the most suitable reading: ἐὰν ὁ κύριος θελήσῃ
καὶ ζήσωμεν, καὶ ποιήσωμεν etc. (vs. 13).
5. The OPTATIVE is used in independent propositions when a
wish is expressed; as, Acts viii. 20 тò ȧpyúpióv σov oùv ooì ein eis
άπóλelav, Rom. xv. 5; Philem. 20 éyó σov ovalμnv, 1 Pet. i. 2;
2 Pet. i. 2; 1 Thess. iii. 11 f.; v. 23; 2 Thess. iii. 5; (in 2 Cor.
ix. 10; 2 Tim. ii. 7 the Futures are to be restored, as is the Imperat.
Xaẞéro in Acts i. 20). As to the Sept. see some remarks in Thiersch
p. 101. Cf. 1 Kings viii. 57; Ps. xl. 3; Tob. v. 14; x. 12; xi. 16.
Instead of the Optative, the Hebrew frequently employs a question to
denote a wish; as, 2 Sam. xv. 4 tís µe kataσtýσeɩ kpɩrýv utinam quis me
constituat! This construction, however, occurs also in Greek poets, Fr.
Rom. II. 70. Yet it is on insufficient grounds that Rom. vii. 24 rís µe
pérerai etc. has been taken as a wish expressed in the form of a question.
A question expressive of perplexity and conscious helplessness is here
peculiarly appropriate, and requires no μετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος.
§ 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 287
b. USE OF THESE THREE MOODS IN DEPENDENT PROPOSITIONS. 257
6th ed
1. The particles of design iva and oπws (both which, however,
strictly signify quo modo, ut; - respecting un see below, § 56),
are quite naturally construed with the Subjunctive and Optative
(according to the distinction above pointed out between the two
moods), as every design refers to the future, and, consequently, to
something still to be carried into effect. The Indicative they can
take so long as the writer thinks correctly-only in the Future
tense.1
In the N. T. these particles are usually followed by
7th ed
a. The Subjunctive, and then a. not only after the Present, as
Matt. vi. 2 ποιοῦσιν ... ὅπως δοξασθῶσιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, 2 Tim.
ii. 4 οὐδεὶς στρατευόμενος ἐμπλέκεται ταῖς τοῦ βίου πραγματείαις,
ἵνα τῷ στρατολογήσαντι ἀρέσῃ, 10 πάντα ὑπομένω διὰ τ. ἐκλεκτούς, 270
Iva Kai avтol σwтnpías Túxwoi (Mark iv. 21; Luke viii. 12; Rom.
xi. 25; 1 Jno. i. 3; Heb. ix. 15; 1 Cor. vii. 29; Gal. vi. 13; the
Subjunctive here denoting-Hm. Vig. 850 — what was regarded
as a consequence actually about to take place, what was in fact and
immediately designed, consequently what is objectively possible),
and after the Imperat. and the Fut., as 1 Tim. iv. 15 év TOÚTOLS 303
ἴσθι, ἵνα σου ἡ προκοπὴ φανερὰ ᾖ, Matt. ii. 8 ἀπαγγείλατέ μοι, ὅπως
KауÒ ÈXOÀν πроsкνvýσw avтŵ, v. 16; xiv. 15; Acts viii. 19; xxiii.
κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν προςκυνήσω αὐτῷ,
15; 1 Cor. iii. 18; 1 Jno. ii. 28; Jno. v. 20 μeitova тоÚтwv deiğer
αὐτῷ ἔργα, ἵνα ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε, Phil. i. 26, also after the Conjunct.
adhort. or deliber., as in Rom. iii. 8; Luke xx. 14; Jno. vi. 5, etc.,
-all in accordance with the preceding remarks, and quite regular
(Hm. Vig. 850); - but also B. after the Preterite, when the latter
denotes a really past time 2 (cf. Gayler, de partic. gr. sermon. negat.
p. 176 sq.), and there occasionally can be perceived a reason for
selecting this mood instead of the Optative (Hm. Vig. 791: Krü.
166). Accordingly, in the following passages the Subjunctive
may denote an action still continuing either in itself or in its
results, or one frequently recurring (Hm. Vig. 850 and ad Eurip.
Hecub. p. 7; Heind. Plat. Protag. § 29; Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 103;
3
1 See, in gencral, Franke in the Darmstädter Schulzeit. 1839. S. 1236 ff.; Klotz,
Devar. II. 615 sqq.
2 For where a Perfect has the sense of a Present, va or Sπws with the Subjunctive
cannot be surprising, Jno vi. 38; Luke xvi. 26; Acts ix. 17; 1 Jno. v. 20.
8 Many other distinctions have been laid down by 'er in the epist. crit. ad Gesenium
(Lips. 1831. 4to.) p. 22 sqq. The question arises, however, whether such nice distinc-
tions are consistent with the character of a living language.
288 § 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
Ast, Plat. legg. p. 93; Klotz, Devar. II. 618): 1 Tim. i. 16 ýλeńOŋv,
ἵνα ἐν ἐμοὶ πρώτῳ ἐνδείξηται Ι. Χριστὸς τὴν πᾶσαν μακροθυμίαν,
τς. 20 οὓς παρέδωκα τῷ σατανᾷ, ἵνα παιδευθῶσι μὴ βλασφημεῖν,
Tit. i. 5 κατέλιπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ, ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ,
ii. 14 ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν περὶ ἡμῶν, ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς, Rom.
vi. 4 συνετάφημεν αὐτῷ, ἵνα ... καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περι
iva kaì ýµeîs
πατήσωμεν, 1 Jno. iii. 5 ἐφανερώθη, ἵνα τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἄρῃ,
258 vs. 8 εφανερώθη, ἵνα λύσῃ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου, ν. 13 ταῦτα ἔγραψα
6th ed iµiv, iva e idre; cf. Luke i. 4 (Plat. Crit. 43 b.; rep. 9, 472 c.; legg.
2, 653 d.; Xen. Mem. 1, 1, 8; Aelian. 12, 30). In other passages,
e.g. Acts v. 26 ἤγαγεν αὐτούς ... ἵνα μὴ λιθασθῶσιν, Acts ix. 21
εἰς τοῦτο ἐληλύθει, ἵνα . . . ảyáyŋ, the Subjunctive may denote an
intended result of the occurrence of which the speaker entertained
no doubt whatever; cf. Mark viii. 6 ἐδίδου τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὑτοῦ, ἵνα
Tapalŵσi (that they might ... which they could not refuse to do),
xii. 2; Acts xxv. 26 προήγαγον αὐτὸν ἐφ' ὑμῶν, ὅπως τῆς ἀνακρίσεως
γενομένης σχῶ τί γράψω. (The Optative would express a design
of uncertain result, Mtth. 1182, 1184.) Lastly, the construction
in Matt. xix. 13 προςηνέχθη αὐτῷ τὰ παιδία, ἵνα τὰς χεῖρας ἐπιθῇ
271 αὐτοῖς, Mark x. 13 προςέφερον αὐτῷ παιδία, ἵνα ἅψηται αὐτῶν is
7th ed. perhaps to be explained by the fact that the Greeks in narration
sometimes introduce the opinions of another in direct discourse, or
304 at least as though he himself were still present, and consequently
employ the same moods which he would have used (Heind. Plat.
Protag. p. 502, 504; Poppo, Xen. Cyrop. p. 189 sq. and Thuc. I. I.
141 sq.); so here: that he may lay his hands upon them, instead
of might lay (Optative). The reader is thus more vividly made
as it were a beholder of the scene described (Klotz, as above, pp.
618 sq. 682); cf. Jno. xviii. 28; Matt. xii. 14. As, however, the
Optative never occurs in the N. T. in this (B.) very common
construction, we are by no means warranted in ascribing to the
sacred writers this nice distinction. They seem, rather, to have
unconsciously avoided the Optative - a mood which becomes more
and more rare in the later language, and in the popular speech
perhaps never conformed to the rules of literary Attic-even where
a more cultivated taste in such matters would have certainly given
it the preference (e.g. Jno. iv. 8; vii. 32; Luke vi. 7; xix. 4;
2 Cor. viii. 6; Heb. ii. 14; xi. 35; Phil. ii. 27, etc.). Even Plu-
tarch, in the above construction, usually employs the Subjunctive,¹
1 Even in the carlier authors particles of design are more frequently construed with
the Subjunctive after a Preterite than was formerly admitted. See Bremi, Lys. exc. 1.
p. 435 sqq.
§ 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
289
and in the Hellenistic language it is everywhere the predominant
mood, as may be seen from every page of the Sept., Apocrypha,
Pseudepigrapha, etc. (Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 47).
εστ
b. The Indicative Future (after a Pres. and Perf. cf. Hm. Vig.
851); as, Rev. xxii. 14 μακάριοι οἱ ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, ἵνα
éoтaι ý éžovola avrov etc. (the Subjunctive immediately follows),
iii. 9; vi. 11; xiv. 13 (var.); Jno. xvii. 2 edwκas avтô è§ovoíav …….
lva... Swσ ei avтoîs (al. dúon), 1 Pet. iii. 1; 1 Cor. xiii. 3 (var);
Gal. ii. 4 (var.). Compare, further, the variants in Rev. viii. 3;
ix. 20; xiii. 16; xiv. 13, (on the other hand, in the O. T. quota-
tion Eph. vi. 3 the construction is continued in the oratio directa
at eon, which accordingly must not be supposed to depend on va.
In the same way may be explained also the var. éžavaorýσei and
kalíσeσ0e in Mark xii. 19 and Luke xxii. 30). The Fut. with
ὅπως never occurs in the N. Τ. (for ὅπως ... ζήσεται Mark v. 23
has little authority); but this is a construction not unfrequent in 259
Greek authors, as Xen. A. 3, 1, 18; Theophr. char. 22; Isocr. 6th ed.
perm. 746; Dem. Mid. 398 b.; Soph. Philoct. 55; cf. Bornem.
Xen. Anab. p. 498; Klotz as above, p. 683 sq.; Gayler de partic.
negat. p. 211, 321; Rost 647 f., and the Fut. then usually denotes
a continuing state, while the Aor. Subjunct. is used of something
quickly passing by. This construction with iva also appears cor-
rect to Elmsley, Eurip. Bacch. p. 164; see, on the other hand, 305
Hm. Soph. Oed. Col. 155, and de partic. av p. 134; Klotz, Devar.
II. 630 (in all the passages referred to this head va may be 272
conveniently rendered by ubi or where). Instances of this con- 7th ed.
struction actually occur in the later writers (Cedren. II. 136), the
Fathers (Epiph. II. 332 b.), and the Apocrypha (Evang. apocr. p.
437; Thilo, apocr. 682); cf. Schaef. Demosth. IV. 273. In the
N. T. this mood, according to the above passages, is pretty well
established, though owing to Itacism the forms of the Ind. and of
the Subj. might easily have been interchanged.
c. Lastly, the use of iva in connection with the Present Ind.,¹ of
which two instances occur almost without var. 1 Cor. iv. 6 iva
μάθητε . ἵνα μὴ φυσιοῦσθε, and Gal. iv. 17 ζηλοῦσιν ὑμᾶς . . . ἵνα
AUTOÙS ENλOÛTE,-is very surprising; for the Pres. Ind. after a par-
ticle of design seems illogical. Hence Fr. Matt. p. 836 sq. asserted
that in both passages "va is not the Conjunction, but the Adverb
ubi; and this opinion, after Fr. had exchanged it as respects the
1 Valckenaer's note on 1 Cor. confounds the Indic. Preterite, Future, and Present,
and is consequently useless.
37
290 § 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
і
6th ed.
first passage for another (Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 186 sqq.),¹ Mey.
has taken up again: under which circumstances you (then) are
not puffed up,-where (in which case) you are zealous in regard
to them. But, apart from the fact that in the whole Greek Bible va
never once occurs as an Adverb of place, the Pres. in both passages
would be surprising, and also in the first passage où would rather
be expected. Moreover in both passages, as Mey. himself admits,
iva denoting design is far more in accordance with the Apostle's
meaning. I think, therefore, that this use of iva with the Ind.
Pres. must be regarded as an impropriety of later Greek,2-although
the passage from Acta Ignat. ed. Ittig. p. 538 does not furnish satis-
factory proof, as aπоλoûvтaι might be taken for the Attic Fut. if
necessary, and in Geopon. 10, 48, 3; Himer. 15, 3 the Ind. may
have arisen easily from the Subjunct. by a mistake of the scribe.
On the other hand, in later works iva with the Ind. Pres. occurs
so frequently as to preclude the supposition that every instance is a
mistake of transcribers; see Malal. 10, p. 264 éπɩтρéyas iva Távtes
. . βαστάζουσιν, 12, p. 300 ἐποίησε κέλενσιν ἵνα ... χρηματίζουσι,
Acta Pauli et Petri 7 προάγει, ἵνα μία πόλις ἀπόλλυται, 20 ἐδίδαξα
306 ἵνα τῇ τιμῇ. ἀλλήλους προηγοῦνται, Acta Pauli et Thecl. p. 45 ἵνα
260 váμoι µǹ vívovтai åλλà oüтws μévovou, Evang. apocr. p. 447.3 And
this construction has further forced its way even into the N. T.,
273 good Codd. having in Jno. xvii. 3 íva ... ywvwokovσi. [Cf. besides,
7th ed. Gal. vi. 12 ἵνα μὴ διώκονται, Tit. ii. 4 ἵνα σωφρονίζουσιν, Rev. xiii. 17
iva μý Tis dúvaтat in Tischendorf's text, and 2 Pet. i. 10 iva Toleîσde
in Lachmann's.] Either, therefore, Paul actually wrote thus (yet
see Bengel on 1 Cor. iv.), or the forms were introduced in these
passages by transcribers at an early date. It is worthy of remark,
however the case may be, that in both instances the verb ends in ow.
τις
va
When the Optative (after a Pres.) follows iva, as in Eph. iii. 16 κáμтW
τὰ γόνατά μου πρὸς τὸν πατέρα τοῦ κυρίου ... ἵνα δῴη ὑμῖν etc. (where,
however, very good Codd. [Sin. too] have da) i. 17, iva is not strictly a
particle of design; but the clause which it commences expresses the object
of the wish and prayer (that he may give), and the Opt., as modus optandi,
is selected on this very account; see Harless on Eph. i. 17. Yet the Opt.
is used even after iva or öπws in order that, when it depends on a clause
1 He adopts the emendation ἕνα μὴ . . . φυσιοῦσθαι (for ἵνα μὴ ... φυσιοῦσθε); but
against this see Meyer.
2 Modern Greek, e.g. in the Confess. Orthod., usually puts the Ind. Present after vá
or dià vá.
8 Xen. Athen. 1, 11 Iva λaußávwv µèv πρáтtel (which Sturz still adduces in his Lexic.
Xenoph.) was long ago changed into λaµßárwμev прáттEL. See Schneider in loc.
§ 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
291
expressive of a wish, Soph. Philoct. 325 and Aj. 1200; see Hm. on the
latter passage, and Wex, epist. crit. p. 33. (In Eph. as above, it is un-
necessary, with Lehm. and Fr. Rom. III. 230, to read dog, an Ionic form
of the Subjunctive which is not sufficiently established in the N. T.)
2. In HYPOTHETICAL sentences four kinds of construction occur
(Hm. Vig. 834, 902):1
a. Pure condition: if thy friend comes, give him my regards (the
case is put as real). Here the Indicative is used with ei; "quae
particula per se nihil significat praeter conditionem," Klotz, Devar.
455, cf. p. 487.
b. Condition with assumption of objective possibility (where
experience will decide whether or not it is real): if thy friend come
(I do not know whether he will come, but the result will show).
Here éáv (el av see Hm. partic. av p. 95 sqq.) with the Subjunctive
is used.
c. Condition with assumption of subjective possibility, the condi-
tion existing merely in thought: if thy friend should come (the
case being conceivable and credible) I should be pleased to present 307
my respects to him. Here ei with the Optative is used.
d. Condition believed to be contrary to the fact: were there a
God, he would govern (but there is not). Had God existed from
eternity, he would have prevented evil (but he has not existed).
Here e with the Indicative is used, the Imperf. in the first case,
the Aor. or (much more rarely) the Plup. in the second (Krü. 170);
in the conclusion likewise one of these two tenses. Why a Preterite 261
is used has been explained by Hm. Vig. 821, compare with this Stallb. 6th ed
Plat. Euthyphr. p. 51 sq. In general, see Klotz, Devar. p. 450 sqq.
For éáv we sometimes find, as in Jno. xii. 32; xvi. 33; xx. 23; Luke 274
iv. 7 (where, however, Tdf. has made no remark), in good Codd. (as B) 7th ed.
äv, respecting which cf. Hm. Vig. 812, 822. It is also by no means rare
in Greek authors, even in Attic, though these prefer, which does not
occur in the N. T.
1 See also ad Soph. Antig. 706; ad Soph. Oed. C. 1445; ad Eur. Bacch. 200.
Klossmann, de ratione et usu enuntiator. hypothet. linguae gr. Vratisl. 1830. Kiesling,
2 Programm. de enunciatis hypothet. in lingua. gr. et lat. Cizae, 1835. '45. 4to. Reck-
nagel, zur Lehre von den hypothetischen Sätzen mit Rücksicht auf die Grundformen
derselben in der griech. Sprache. Nürnberg, 1843 ff. III. 4to. Besides, it can easily be
conceived that, in many sentences, either ei or éáv might be used with equal propriety,
the selection depending on the writer. The later writers are not careful to discriminate
between them. It may be worthy of remark, that Euclid almost always uses ear with
the Subjunctive of a case in Mathematics (respecting which no future experience is
needed to decide).
292 § 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
The diction of the N. T. will be found entirely in accordance
with the preceding rules; e.g.
ΤΟ
a. a. Matt. xix. 10 εἰ οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ... οὐ
συμφέρει γαμῆσαι, 1 Cor. vi. 2; ix. 17; Rom. viii. 25 ; Col. ii. 5 (Pres.
followed by Pres.) ; Matt. xix. 17 εἰ θέλεις εἰςελθεῖν εἰς τὴν ζωήν, τήρει
τὰς ἐντολάς, viii. 31; xxvii. 40 ; Jno. vii. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 9 (Pres. fol-
lowed by Imperat.); Rom. viii. 11 εἰ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἐγείραντος Ἰησοῦν
... οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, ὁ ἐγείρας ... ζωοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματα, ὑμῶν,
Matt. xvii. 4; Acts xix. 39; Jno. v. 47 (Pres. followed by Fut.); 1 Cor.
xv. 16 εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται if the dead do
not rise (I assume the case), then is Christ also not risen, xiii. 1;
2 Pet. ii. 20 (Rom. iv. 14) (Pres. followed by Perf.) cf. Demosth. ep. 3,
p. 114 b. ; Matt. xii. 26 εἰ ὁ σατανᾶς τὸν σατανᾶν ἐκβάλλει, ἐφ' ἑαυτὸν
ἐμερίσθη, cf. vs. 28; Luke xi. 20 (Pres. followed by Aor.) cf. Orig. de
die domin. p. 3 Jani: εἰ δὲ τοῦ ἔργου ἀπέχεις, εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν δὲ οὐκ
εἰςέρχῃ, οὐδὲν ἐκέρδανας. β. Acts xvi. 15 εἰ κεκρίκατέ με πιστὴν τῷ
κυρίῳ εἶναι, εἰςελθόντες . . . μείνατε Perf. followed by Imperat. ;
2 Cor. v. 16 εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι
γινώσκομεν (Perf. followed by Pres. ; cf. Demosth. c. Boeot. p. 639 a.);
Jno. xi. 12 εἰ κεκοίμηται, σωθήσεται (Perf. followed by Fut.), Rom.
vi. 5 ; 2 Cor. ii. 5 εἴ τις λελύπηκεν, οὐκ ἐμὲ λελύπηκεν (Perf. followed
by Perf.); vii. 14 εἴ τι αὐτῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κεκαύχημαι, οὐ κατῃσχύνθην
(Perf. followed by Aor.). γ. Rom. xv. 27 εἰ τοῖς πνευματικοῖς αὐτῶν
308 ἐκοινώνησαν τὰ ἔθνη, ὀφείλουσι etc., 1 Jno. iv. 11 (Aor. followed by
Pres.); Jno. xviii. 28 εἰ κακῶς ἐλάλησα, μαρτύρησον περὶ τοῦ κακοῦ,
Rom. xi. 17,18; Col. iii. 1; Philem. 18 (Aor. followed by Imperat.);
Jno. xiii. 32 εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ ὁ θεὸς δοξάσει αὐτὸν ἐν
262 éauтô, xv. 201 (Aor. followed by Fut.). 8. Matt. xxvi. 33 el
6th ed.
Ο
23
1 In this passage: εἰ ἐμὲ ἐδίωξαν, καὶ ὑμᾶς διώξουσι· εἰ τὸν λόγον μου ἐτήρησαν, καὶ τὸν
ὑμέτερον τηρήσουσι, the translation if they persecuted me, they will persecute you also, etc. is
the only correct one. The words appear to me to be simply a special application of
the preceding thought, οὐκ ἔστι δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ : your lot will be like
mine; there is but a single alternative: persecution or acceptance. The words them-
selves leave it for the moment undecided which of the two has befallen Jesus. What
follows, however, shows how Jesus wished to be understood. Only it must not be
overlooked that Jesus speaks of the conduct of the Jews in general, without reference to
individual exceptions. According to a new exposition put forth by rector Lehmann
in the Prog. lucubrationum sacrar. et profan. Pt. I. (Lübben, 1828. 4to.) a vis proportio-
nalis is to be attributed to ei: quemadmodum me persecuti sunt, ita et vos persequentur ;
quemadmodum (prout) meam doctrinam amplexi observarunt, ita et vestram, etc. But
this import of the particle should have been established by decisive examples (in Jno.
xiii. 14, 32 such force it obviously has not). The writer seems to have confounded the
simple comparative ut... ita (the parallel antithesis of two clauses standing in necessary
correlation) with the proportional prout, according as. There is a difference between
§ 4lb. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
293
πάντες σκανδαλισθήσονται ἐν σοί, ἐγὼ οὐδέποτε σκανδαλισθήσομαι 275
(Fut. followed by Fut. like Isocr. Archid. p. 280; Porphyr. abstin. 7th ed
1, 24); yet in Jas. ii. 11, where according to the received text
the Fut. is followed by the Perf., probably the true reading would
give Present tenses in the protasis. Such construction with the
Fut. would approximate most nearly to that with éáv (Krü. 171);
but if all shall be offended in thee is a more decided statement than
if all should be offended. In the latter, it is still altogether uncer-
tain whether they will be offended; in the former, this is assumed
as a future fact (Christ has distinctly assured his disciples of this),
cf. Hm. Vig. p. 900.
b. 'Eúv if an objective possibility with the expectation of a decision
is to be expressed, always therefore in reference to something future
(Hm. Vig. 834); as, Jno. vii. 17 ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν,
γνώσεται etc., Matt. xxviii. 14 ἐὰν ἀκουσθῇ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος,
ἡμεῖς πείσομεν αὐτόν. Hence the consequent clause usually contains
a Fut. (Matt. v. 13; Rom. ii. 26; 1 Cor. viii. 10; 1 Tim. ii. 15;
or, what is equivalent, an Aor. with où μý Acts xiii. 41; Jno.
viii. 51 f.) or an Imperat. (Jno. vii. 37; Matt. x. 13; xviii. 17;
Rom. xii. 20; xiii. 4), more rarely a Pres., and then either in the
seuse of a Fut. (Xen. A. 3, 2, 20) or denoting something permanent,
Matt. xviii. 13; 2 Cor. v. 1, or a general truth, Mark iii. 27; 1 Cor.
ix. 16; Jno. viii. 16, 54; Acts xv. 1 (Diog. Laert. 6, 44; 10, 152).
Perfects in the conclusion become equivalent in sense to Presents, 309
Rom. ii. 25; vii. 2; Jno. xx. 23 (on Rom. xiv. 23 and Jno. xv. 6
see § 40, 4 b. 5 b.). The Aor. in the conclusion occurs in 1 Cor.
vii. 28 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ γήμῃς, οὐχ ἥμαρτες thou hast not sinned, thou art
not in this case a sinner. Cf. Mtth. 1203; Klotz, Devar. II. 451 sq.
The Subjunctive depending on èáv may be a Subj. Pres. or a Subj.
Aor. The latter (on the whole the more usual) is, for the most
part, rendered in Latin by the Future Perfect.
That éáv 1 Cor. vii. 11, as Rück. maintains, refers to an event (possibly)
already past, is a mistake, cf. Mey. In 2 Cor. x. 8 also Mey. has corrected
Rückert's concessive acceptation of éáv.
c. El with the Optat. to denote subjective possibility (Hm. partic.
av p. 97); and, a. When a condition is regarded as frequently re-
curring (Klotz p. 492; Krü. 172), as 1 Pet. iii. 14 ei Kaì пáσ XOLTE
the two: In a free translation the first may be put for ei, but the latter is not compre-
hended in the import of ei or si; and every one must perceive that in the passage in
question L. really takes ei in two senses, first simply as ut and then as prout. See also
Lücke in loc.
294 § 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
263
6th ed.
as,
dià
διὰ δικαιοσύνην, μακάριοι even if ye should suffer. Πάσχειν is desig
nated here not as something occurring in the future, but merely
as something that may very probably occur, regarded without any
276 reference to definite time (and in general as often as it may occur).
7th ed. Elsewhere only in parenthetical clauses, but with the same reference;
1 Cor. xv. 37 σπείρεις . . . γυμνὸν κόκκον, εἰ τύχοι (if it should
so chance), oíTOU (Dem. Aristocr. 436 c.; Lucian. navig. 44; amor. 42;
Toxar. 4, see Jacob on the last passage, and Wetst. on 1 Cor. xv.),
1 Pet. iii. 17 κρεῖττον ἀγαθοποιοῦντας, εἰ θέλοι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ,
πáoɣew, cf. Isocr. Nicocl. p. 52. B. After a Preterite when the
condition is represented as the subjective purpose of the agent; as,
Acts xxvii. 39 κόλπον τινὰ κατενόουν ἔχοντα αἰγιαλὸν εἰς ὃν ἐβουλεύοντο,
εἰ δύναιντο, ἐξῶσαι τὸ πλοῖον, also Acts xxiv. 19 οὓς ἔδει ἐπὶ σοῦ
παρεῖναι καὶ κατηγορεῖν, εἴ τι ἔχοιεν πρός με if they had anything
against me (in their minds), Krü. 171. In Acts xx. 16 the Optat.
might, in the same way, be expected; yet even in Greek authors
sometimes (and that not merely in standing phrases, as ei duvaτóv
ÉσTɩ above) in orat. obliq. the Ind. is used; as, Ael. 12, 40 èínpúxon
τῷ στρατοπέδῳ, εἴ τις ἔχει ὕδωρ ἐκ τοῦ Χοάσπου, ἵνα δῷ βασιλεῖ
Teiv. cf. Engelhardt, Plat. apol. p. 156. Further, see no. 5 below.
(After éáv in orat. obliq. nobody will expect the Opt. in the N. T.
Acts ix. 2; Jno. ix. 22; xi. 57, Bttm. § 126, 8; yet cf. Hm.
Vig. 822.)
310
For examples to d. see § 42.
The exceptions to these rules in the N. T. text are but very few, and
occur for the most part only in particular Codd. They are the following:
a) ei is used with the Subjunctive¹ in 1 Cor. ix. 11 ei ýµcîs vµŵv Tà
σαρκικὰ θερίσωμεν (according to good Codd.), xiv. 5 ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ
(al. Siepµnvevei) except (in case that) he interpret, Rev. xi. 5 var. (Sir.
xxii. 26). The use of this mood after ei by Attic authors was long denied,
but it is now admitted to occur even in prose; see Hm. Soph. Aj. 491 and
de partic. av p. 96; Poppo, Cyrop. p. 209 and Emend. ad Mtth. Gramm.
(Frkf. on the Oder, 1832) p. 17; Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 463; Klotz, Devar.
II. 500 sqq. The distinction between ei with the Subjunctive and cάv or
ẻáv
1 Luke ix. 13 probably means: unless perhaps we are to buy some, and the mood does
not depend on ei, as elsewhere after the phrase sπep ei av Mtth. 1205. Plat. Cratyl.
425d. εἰ μὴ ἄρα δὴ
ἀπαλλαγεῖμεν.
.
• •
καὶ ἡμεῖς . ἀπαλλαγῶμεν would be similar; but others read
•
2 In 1 Thess. v. 10 the text. rec. with all the better Codd. [Sin. also], has iva, elte
γρηγορῶμεν εἴτε καθεύδωμεν, ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν, where (after a Pret. in the principal
clause) a more exact writer would have used the Opt. in both passages; cf. Xen. A. 2,
1, 14. Yet iva with the Subj: is here used according to b. 1, and the Subj. in the
secondary clause is accommodated to this.
§ 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
295
v is thus defined by Hm. (de partic. av p. 97 and ad Soph. Oed. R. p. 52 sq.
cf. Klotz as above 501): ei puts the condition simply, but when used with
the Subjunctive represents it as depending on the result; éúv also does
the latter, but less decisively, inasmuch as the av represents the condition
as dependent on accidental circumstances, if anyhow or perhaps. This
will suit both the passages above quoted: èkròs ei più dieppínveúg nisi si 277
interpretetur, on which the result will decide, refertur ad certam spem 7th ed.
atque opinionem, futurum id esse (vel non esse). On the other hand, éáv 264
would make the matter doubtful: unless he perhaps, which may be the 6th ed.
case, interpret. This would be manifestly unsuitable, as the gift of inter-
preting did exist, and was frequently exercised, vs. 26 f. In later prose
this Subjunctive became more and more frequent (Jacobs, Achill. Tat.
p. 681 and Athen. p. 146; Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 185; Jacob, Lucian.
Tox. p. 53; Jacobitz, Index p. 473; Schaef. Ind. ad Aesop. p. 131), par-
ticularly in Byzantine authors (Index to Malalas and Theophanes), also
in the Hellenistic writings (Thilo, Acta Thom. p. 23), and almost uniformly
in the Canon. Apost. and the Basilic. (in the Sept. cf. Gen. xliii. 3,
4).
In these writers a fixed distinction between ei with the Subj. and the same
particle with the Ind., cannot be traced, (many doubt whether such a dis-
tinction existed even in Attic, Rost S. 632; cf. Mtth. 1210 f.); consequently
it is uncertain whether Paul had in view the nice discrimination specified
above.
b) éáv is followed by the Indicative (Klotz p. 468), and not only — a. by
the Ind. Present (Sept. Lev. i. 14; Acta apocr. 259) according to good
Codd. in Rom. xiv. 8 ἐὰν ἀποθνήσκομεν, τῷ κυρίῳ ἀποθν., a general truth:
cum morimur (without reference to the fact that time will decide whether
we die or not), 1 Thess. iii. 8 (in Gal. i. 8 the Ind. has little authority),' or 311
Future, Jno. viii. 36 càv ó viòs vµâs èλevbepúσre, Acts viii. 31 (where, how-
ever, there is preponderant authority for the Subj.), Luke xi. 12 éàv airýσe
wóv according to many uncial Codd. cum petet, not petierit, vi. 34; see Klotz
pp. 470, 472 sq. The same (cf. Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 678, 687) occurs
several times, as in Exod. viii. 21 (Lev. iv. 3), Malalas 5, p. 136; Cantacuz.
1, 6, p. 30; 1, 54, p. 273 (Basilic. I. 175; Thilo, Acta Thom. p. 23; Schaef.
ind. ad Aesop. p. 131), in which passages, to be sure, forms so slightly
distinguished from each other hardly permit a positive decision; but also,
B. by the Ind. Preterite, as in 1 Jno. v. 15 eàv oïdaμev without var. cf.
Ephraemius 6298 (even when the Pret. is strictly Pret. in signification, as
in Job xxii. 3; Theodoret. III. 267; Malalas 4, p. 71 èàv kåkeívn ýßoúλeto,
Nili ep. 3, 56 av eldes, Ephraem. 5251), see Jacobs, Act. Monac. I. 147;
cf. Hase, Leon. Diac. p. 143; Schaef. ad Bastii ep. crit. p. 26; Poppo, Thuc.
III. I. 313 and III. II. 172.2
1 In all these passages the form might casily have arisen from a mistake in transcrib-
ing (Fr. Rom. III. 179); Klotz p. 471 sqq. has, however, adduced examples from good
writers to which this would not apply.
2 Editors of early writers have usually corrected such passages (see also Bhdy. Dionys.
296 § 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
dè
Sometimes éáv and ei are connected in two parallel clauses; as, Acts
ν. 38, 39 ἐὰν ᾗ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἡ βουλὴ αὕτη ἢ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο, καταλυθήσεται
(should it be from men, and this the result will show), ei dè èk Deoî ẻσtiv,
οὐ δύνασθε καταλῦσαι αὐτό (if it is of God, a case I assume), Luke xiii. 9
278 κἂν μὲν ποιήσῃ καρπόν... εἰ δὲ μήγε ... ἐκκόψεις si fructus tulerit ;... sin
kầv
7th ed. minus (si non fert) etc. (Plat. rep. 7, 540 d.), Gal. i. 8f.; see Hm. Vig. 834;
Jacob, Lucian. Tox. p. 143; Weber, Dem. p. 473.
Weber, Dem. p. 473. Cf. Her. 3, 36; Xen.
265 C. 4, 1, 15; Plat. Phaed. 93 b.; Isocr. Evag. p. 462; Lucian. dial. m. 6, 3 ;
6th ed. Dio Chr. 69, 621. In most cases of this nature ei or éáv repeated might
be used with equal propriety, though the choice of the one conjunction or
the other would obviously proceed from a different conception of the rela-
tion; see Fr. Conject. I. 25. In two mutually subordinate clauses ci and
ἐάν are distinguished from each other in Jno. xiii. 17 εἰ ταῦτα εἴδατε,
µakápioí čσte, èàv toiîte autá, if ye know... in case ye do, and 1 Cor.
έστε, ἐὰν
vii. 86 εἴ τις άσχημονεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν παρθένον αὑτοῦ νομίζει, ἐὰν ᾖ ὑπέρακμος etc.
Rev. ii. 5; cf. Krü. 172.
€
3. Particles of time (Krü. 175) which 1) in narration denote a
definite past event (when, while, etc.) are naturally construed
with the Indicative Pret. or historical Pres. ; as oтe Matt. vii. 28;
ix. 25; Mark xi. 1; xiv. 12; Luke iv. 25; 1 Cor. xiii. 11; os Matt.
312 xxviii. 9; Luke i. 23; vii. 12; Jno. iv. 40; Acts xvi. 4, etc., óóте
Luke vi. 3, víka 2 Cor. iii. 15 (Lehm. and Tdf.) cf. Klotz p. 613.
So likewise éws and ews où 1 Matt. i. 25; ii. 9; Jno. ix. 18; Acts
xxi. 26, etc.; Mtth. 1197 f. Those which 2) denote a future event
(when, as soon as, until) likewise govern, a) if they refer to a dis-
tinctly conceived event, the Indicative (Fut.); as, Juo. iv. 21
ἔρχεται ὥρα, ὅτε . . . προςκυνήσετε τῷ πατρί, Luke xvii. 22
ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι, ὅτε ἐπιθυμήσετε, xiii. 35; Jno. v.25; xvi. 25; see
Hm. Vig. 915. After ews the Pres. Ind. is in a few instances used
for the Fut. (§ 40, 2); as, Jno. xxi. 22; 1 Tim. iv. 13 ews épxoµaɩ
(like ews éπávetov Plut. Lycurg. c. 29).2 The Pres. Ind. after öтe
p. 851), sometimes without MS. authority (Arist. anim. 7, 4 p. 210 Sylb.). On the
other hand, we find in Dinarch. c. Philocl. 2, even in Bekker's edition, éàv ... eïλnpe,
which, according to Klotz's remarks, is not to be altered.
1 This phrase (equivalent to our until) is not peculiar to later prose, except when
used without av. Even in Her. 2, 143 we find ews où àméde§av, and in Xen. A. 1, 7, 6;
5, 4, 16 etc., μéxpis où, so frequently in Plutarch., more fully μéxpi Toúтov, ews oû
Palaeph. 4, 2.
2 In the sense of as long as, ews denoting something actual is used as naturally with
the Ind. Jno. ix. 4 (xii. 35 var.; Plat. Phaed. 89 c.; Xen. C. 1, 6, 9; 7, 2, 22; Plutarch.
educ. 9, 27 etc.; Klotz, Devar. II. 565). The same mood is used after the Imperat. in
Matt. v. 25 ἴσθι εὐνοῶν τῷ ἀντιδίκῳ σου ταχύ, ἕως ὅτου εἶ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, where the
Subjunctive might have been expected, as a merely possible case is indicated. This
statement, however, contains a general truth, in which the case in question is represented
§ 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
297
ΤΟ
6th ed.
differs from this. That is employed in general truths; as, Jno.
ix. 4 ἔρχεται νὺξ ὅτε (i.e. ἐν ᾗ) οὐδείς δύναται ἐργάζεσθαι, Hel.
ix. 17 ἐπεὶ μήποτε ἰσχύει (διαθήκη), ὅτε ζῇ ὁ διαθέμενος, see Hm.
as above, 915. b) If, however, the future event is only (objec-
tively) possible, though viewed as under certain circumstances sure 279
to take place, the Subjunctive with a particle of time compounded 7th ed.
with ἄν (ὅταν, ἐπάν, ἡνίκα ἄν) is usually employed, see § 42. The
same construction is used, when the particle of time indicates a
duration or a future repetition (őtav, óσákis äv), or a point of time
till which something is to continue (ews av) Mtth. 1199. In the
latter case, however, the Subjunctive alone with ews, ëws ov, äxpi,
πρív, etc. often occurs, particularly in the later authors; as, Mark 266
xiv. 32 καθίσατε ὧδε, ἕως προςεύξωμαι until I shall have prayed,
2 Pet. i. 19 καλῶς ποιεῖτε προςέχοντες ... ἕως οὗ ἡμέρα διαυγάσῃ,
Luke xiii. 8 άφες αὐτὴν καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἔτος, ἕως ὅτου σκάψω περὶ αὐτήν,
xii. 50; xv. 4; xxi. 24; xxii. 16; xxiv. 49 (Heb. x. 13); 2 Thess.
ii. 7; 1 Cor. xi. 26; xv. 25; Gal. iii. 19; Eph. iv. 13; Luke ii. 26
μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον, πρὶν ἢ ἴδῃ τὸν Χριστόν. See Plutarch. Cat. min.
59 ἄχρις οὗ τὴν ἐσχάτην τύχην τῆς πατρίδος ἐξελέγξωμεν, Caes. 7
µÉXPIS Oû KATATTOλeµnėĥ Katiλívas, Plato, Eryx 392 c.; Aesch. dial.
2, 1; Lob. Phryn. p. 14 sq.; Stallb. Plat. Phileb. p. 61 sq.; Held, 313
Plutarch. Timol. p. 369 sq.; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 568. The lucid
distinction which Hm. lays down, part. άv p. 109 sq. (restricting it,
however, immediately, p. 111) cf. Klotz, Devar. 568, however easily
it finds support in the preceding passages, would vanish again as
respects the N. T. on a comparison of the passages with ews av
§ 42, 5. In Rev. xx. 5 οἱ λοιποὶ . . . οὐκ ἔζησαν, ἕως τελεσθῇ τὰ
xínia éτŋ does not mean, till they were completed (narratively),
but is a concise expression: they remained (and remain) dead, till
the thousand years shall be completed. 3) The Opt. (without av)
occurs but once in the N. T. after a particle of time in orat. obliq.
Acts xxv. 16 οὐκ ἔστιν ἔθος ῾Ρωμαίοις χαρίζεσθαί τινα ἄνθρωπον εἰς
ἀπώλειαν, πρὶν ἢ ὁ κατηγορούμενος κατὰ πρόςωπον ἔχοι τοὺς κατη
γόρους, τόπον τε ἀπολογίας λάβοι etc. See Klotz p. 727. In
other places, where this mood might be expected, we find the
Subjunctive, as in Matt. xiv. 22; Acts xxiii. 12, 14, 21; Mark ix. 9;
Luke ii. 26; Rev. vi. 11; this may be in part accounted for by a
blending of the orat. recta and obliqua, see below, no. 5. With
as real. On the other hand, in Luke xvii. 8 diaкóvei μoi, ews páyw kal níw (ăv is omitted
in the better Codd. [Sin. also]) the Subjunctive is employed in reference to an uncertain
limit in the future.
30
298 § 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
280
7th ed.
6th ed.
Matt. as above, cf. Thuc. 1, 137 Tηv àσþáλeiav elvai µŋdéva èкßîvai
ἐκ τῆς νεώς, μέχρι πλοῦς γένηται, Alciphr. 3, 64; Poppo, Thuc.
I. I. 142; Krü. 177. Once indeed in such a case, Mark vi. 45
(which Fr. has left wholly unnoticed), the Indicative even is fully
established, which is to be accounted for in a similar way; see Mey.
In Luke xiii. 35 ἕως ἥξει, ὅτε εἴπητε the Subjunctive is joined also
with ore, a construction that could hardly be vindicated by Attic prose
(Klotz 688); but (de eventu) it is not incorrect: quando dixeritis. The
Ind. Fut. would be more suitable in the mouth of Christ, and would cor-
respond better to get (Diod. S. Exc. Vat. 103, 31 Lips.). Besides, compare
as to ore with the Subjunctive, Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 100 and in Act.
Monac. I. II. 147.
TE
4. INTERROGATIVES in indirect questions are construed,
a. With the Indicative, when the question refers to a matter of
fact i.e. to the existence of something (is it? is it not?) or to the
condition of something existing (how? where? wherefore? etc.),
whether the principal clause contain a Pres. or a Pret. (Plut. Arist.
7 ; Xen. A. 2, 6, 4; Plat. Phil. 22 a.; rep. 1, 330 e. ; conv. 194 e. ;
Diog. L. 2, 69; Klotz, Devar. 508); as, Mark xv. 44 éπηράτNO EV
αὐτόν, εἰ πάλαι ἀπέθανεν, Matt. xxvi. 68 ; Jno. i. 40 εἶδον ποῦ μένει,
267 Mark v. 16 διηγήσαντο αὐτοῖς, πῶς ἐγένετο τῷ δαιμονιζομένῳ, Acts
xx. 18 ἐπίστασθε . . . πῶς μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐγενόμην (he had actually
314 been with them), 1 Thess. i. 9 ἀπαγγέλλουσιν, ὁποίαν εἴςοδον ἔσχο-
μεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Jno. ix. 21 πως νῦν βλέπει, οὐκ οἴδαμεν, νε. 15 ; x. 6
oùk éyvwσav tíva v à èλáλer what it was (meant), iii. 8; vii. 27;
xx. 13; Acts v. 8; xii. 18; xv. 36; xix. 2; Luke xxiii. 6; Col.
iv. 6; Eph. i. 18; 1 Cor. i. 16 ; iii. 10; 2 Thess. iii. 7; 1 Tim. iii. 15,
also Jno. ix. 25 (where ȧuaρrwλòv eivai had been asserted): whether
he is a sinner or not. In such instances the Latin language, as is
well known, taking a different view of the case employs the Subjunc-
tive. The tense of the direct question is introduced into an indirect
question in Acts x. 18 ἐπυνθάνετο, εἰ Σίμων ἐνθάδε ξενίζεται, Heb.
xi. 8; cf. Plat. apol. 21 b. πóρovv, Tí TOTE Xéyet, Plutarch. Opp. II.
208 b., 220 f., 221 c., 230 f., 231 c. etc.; Polyb. 1, 60, 6; 4, 69, 3 ;
Diog. L. 6, 42; 2, 69, and, in general, very frequently, not to say uni-
formly, in Greek authors.
ΠΟΤΕ
b. With the Subjunctive, when something objectively possible,
something which may or should take place, is to be expressed (Klotz,
1 In Greck the Objective is expressed in the Objective mood; in Latin, the Objective,
made to depend on the act of asking and inquiring, is for that reason put as a mere
conception interrogo quid sit. Cf. Jen. L. Z. 1812. no. 194.
§ 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
299
Devar. 511) ; as, Matt. viii. 20 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἔχει, ποῦ τὴν
keþaλǹv kλívŋ where he may lay, ubi reponat, Krü. 166; Rom.
viii. 26 τί προς ευξώμθα καθὸ δεῖ, οὐκ οἴδαμεν what we should
pray for (as to the var. πposevgóuela, see Fr. in loc.), Matt. vi. 25;
x. 19; Mark xiii. 11; Luke xii. 5, 11; Heb. viii. 3; 1 Pet. v. 8;
cf. Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p. 202 and rep. I. 72; Xen. Mem. 2, 1, 21;
Cyr. 1, 4, 13; Anab. 1, 7, 7; 2, 4, 19; Isocr. paneg. c. 41; Plat.
rep. 368 b. Likewise after a Pret., as in Acts iv. 21 undèv cúpí-
σκοντες τὸ πῶς κολάσωνται αὐτούς, Luke xix. 48 ; xxii. 2 ; Mark
iii. 6 συμβούλιον ἐποίουν . . . ὅπως αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσι, xi. 18; xiv. 1,
40., where the Opt. might be used (Lucian. dial. d. 17, 1; 25, 1
etc., Kühner II. 103; Hm. Vig. 741), but the Subjunctive is used
inasmuch as there is a reference to the direct question they put to
each other: TS AŮTòV ÅTоXÉσwμev (deliberative Subjunct. cf. Thuc.
2, 52.).
α
σ
In such cases the Fut. Ind. also may be used for the Subjunctive (owing
to the affinity between these two forms ¹); as, Phil. i. 22 rí aipńooμaι 281
(without var.), ov yvwpíźw what I am to choose, Mark ix. 6, see Demosth. 7th ed
funebr. 152 b.; Thuc. 7, 14; Herod. 5, 4, 16; Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. 151. 315
On the other hand, there is the testimony of the most distinguished Codd.
[Sin. also] for åpéon in 1 Cor. vii. 32, 33, 34. But in Mark iii. 2 Tарeτýpovν
aůτóv, ei... Oepaπevσeɩ means: whether he will (would) heal, and the Fut.
is necessary, as in 1 Cor. vii. 16. See Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 249.
c. The Optative is used to denote subjective possibility — a mere
conception; hence in narration after a Pret. if a person is introduced
with a question referring simply to his idea alone; as Luke xxii. 23
ἤρξαντο συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτούς, τὸ τίς ἄρα εἴη ἐξ αὐτῶν who he might 268
be i.e. whom they should regard as, i. 29 (2 Macc. iii. 37); iii. 15; 6th ed
viii. 9; xv. 26; xviii. 36; Acts xvii. 11 édé§AVTO Tòv Xóyov ..
ἀνακρίνοντες τὰς γραφάς, εἰ ἔχοι ταῦτα οὕτως whether these things
εί
were so, xxv. 20; cf. Her. 1, 46; 3, 28, 64; Xen. A. 1, 8, 15; 2,
1, 15; C. 1, 4, 6, and Hm. as above, 742. See, further, Acts xvii. 27
•
•
και
ἐποίησε . πᾶν ἔθνος . ζητεῖν τὸν θεόν, εἰ ἄραγε ψηλαφήσειαν f
haply they might feel after etc., Acts xxvii. 12 (Thuc. ii. 77) see
Mtth. 1213; Klotz p. 509.
Acts xxi. 33 ἐπυνθάνετο, τίς ἂν εἴη καὶ τί ἐστι πεποιηκώς throws
especial light on the distinctive import of the moods in dependent clauses.
after rís etc. That the prisoner had committed some offence was certain,
or was assumed by the centurion as certain, and τí ẻστɩ π. inquires after the
1 Hm. Eurip. Io p. 155: ubique in conjunctivo inest futuri notatio, cujus ille cumque
temporis sit. Cf. Bmln. 106 f.
300 § 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE.
matter of fact of the Teπоinкévaι; but who the prisoner might be was a point
on which the centurion wished then for the first time to form an idea.
Cf. Χen. Eph. 5, 12 ἐτεθαυμάκει, τίνες τε ἦσαν καὶ τί βούλοιντο, Stallb.
Plat. Euthyphr. p. 107; Jacob, Lucian. Tox. 139. See also Dio Chr. 35,
429; 41, 499; IIeliod. 1, 25, 46; 2, 15, 81.
In the phrase οὐδείς ἐστιν ὅς οι τίς ἐστιν ὅς (of similar import), even fol-
lowed by the Fut., the Indicative is always and properly used; as, Matt. x. 26
οὐδέν ἐστι κεκαλυμμένον, ὃ οὐκ ἀποκαλυφθήσεται there is nothing covered,
which shall not be revealed (though the Romans would have said: nihil est,
quod non manifestum futurum sit), xxiv. 2; 1 Cor. vi. 5; Phil. ii. 20; Acts
xix. 35; Heb. xii. 7 (Judith viii. 28; Tob. xiii. 2); cf. Vig. p. 196 sq.;
Blidy. 390. The Subjunctive occurs only once in connection with the
Iud. : Luke viii. 17 οὐ γάρ ἐστι κρυπτόν, ὃ οὐ φανερὸν γενήσεται, οὐδὲ ἀπόκρυφον,
ὃ οὐ γνωσθήσεται καὶ εἰς φανερὸν ἔλθῃ (BL [Sin.] have ὃ οὐ μὴ γνωσθῇ καὶ
ồ
eis pavepòv čλôŋ). See below, § 42, 3 b. The passage adduced by Lob.
Phryn. 736 from Joseph. Antt. 13, 6 is also not fully established. As to
the import of this Subjunctive, see below, § 42, 3 b, p. 307.
In Jno. vii. 35 the Fut. Indic. is quite according to rule: Tоû oûтos µéλλei
πορεύεσθαι (λέγων), ὅτι ἡμεῖς οὐχ εὑρήσομεν αὐτόν; whither will this man go,
that (according to his statement, vs. 34) we shall not find him? In oux
316 evpno. the words uttered by him (vs. 34) are repeated in the tense and
mood of direct discourse. Acts vii. 40 (a quotation from the O. T.) is also
282 quite correct: ποίησον ἡμῖν θεούς, οἳ προπορεύσονται ἡμῶν qui antecedant
7th ed. (see Mtth. 1145), Phil. ii. 20; 1 Cor. ii. 16; cf. Demosth. Polycl. 711 b.;
Plat. Gorg. 513 etc.; Xen. Hell. 2, 3, 2; Aristot. Nic. 9, 11.
The use of the Indic. Fut. after ei or ei apa, also, is worthy of notice in
cases such as Acts viii. 22 δεήθητι τοῦ θεοῦ, εἰ ἄρα ἀφεθήσεταί σοι ἡ ἐπίνοια
τῆς καρδίας σου, Mark xi. 13 ἦλθεν, εἰ ἄρα εὑρήσει τι ἐν αὐτῇ he came, if haply
he might find etc. (in Latin, si forte... inveniret). The words are here
expressed in the mood which the speaker himself would employ: I will
go and see, whether I shall find, etc. The Ind. Fut. after einws Rom. i. 10
is of a different description, but equally well established.
In Eph. v. 15 if the sense had been: take heed how you may (can) walk
269 exactly the Subjunctive or Fut. Indicative must have been employed.
5th ed. With the Indic. Pres. the question refers to the manner in which the
ȧKрißis πEρITUTEîv, as a Christian duty, is carried into effect; see how you
realize the ȧkpiß. πeρiñaт., how you set about living accurately. Cf.
Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 209.' 1 Cor. iii. 10 ékaσtos Bλetétw tŵs étroikodoµeî is
not exactly similar to the preceding, inasmuch as in this passage after
äλλos éñoikodoµeî there can be no doubt that reference is made to a matter
of fact.
5. The Optative in the oratio obliqua (Hm. Soph. Trach. p. 18)
but rarely appears: Acts xxv. 16 πρὸς οὓς ἀπεκρίθην ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν
ἔθος Ρωμαίοις χαρίζεσθαί τινα ἄνθρωπον, πρὶν ἢ ὁ κατηγορούμενος
§ 41b. INDICATIVE, SUBJUNCTIVE, AND OPTATIVE. 301
κατὰ πρόςωπον ἔχοι τοὺς κατηγόρους τόπον τε ἀπολογίας λάβοι
etc.; and indeed the instances in which the words of another are
indirectly quoted are rare in the N. T. When such instances
occur the Indicative is commonly used; either because the inter-
mediate clause where the Optative night have been expected is
uttered in the person of the narrator (Binln. 270) Luke viii. 47;
Matt. xviii. 25; Mark ix. 9; Acts xxii. 24, or because by a ming-
ling of two constructions the mood of the oratio recta is used for
that of the oratio obliqua (which was perhaps in special accordance
with colloquial usage); as, Acts xv. 5 ¿§avéoτngúv tives tôiv ...
Φαρισαίων, λέγοντες ὅτι δεῖ περιτέμνειν etc., Luke xviii. 9 εἶπε καὶ
πρός τινας τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς, ὅτι εἰσὶ δίκαιοι (on the con-
trary, Mtth. 1222), Acts xii. 18 ἦν τάραχος οὐκ ὀλίγος ... τί ἄρα
ỏ IIÉTρOS ÉYÉVETO, ix. 27; xxiii. 20; 1 Cor. i. 15. Something
similar occurs in Attic authors (though for the most part in
lengthened sentences) Isocr. Trapez. 860; Demosth. Phorm. 586
and Polycl. 710, 711; Lys. caed. Eratosth. 19; Xen. Cyrop. 2, 4,
3; 3, 2, 27; 4, 5, 36; Hell. 2, 1, 24, and later writers Aelian. 11,
9; Diog. L. 2, 32, 74; Pausan. 6, 9, 1. See Heindorf, Plat. Soph. 317
p. 439 sq.; Mtth. 1224 sq.; Bhdy. 389.
च
Note 1. The consecutive particle ste is usually construed with the
Infin. (as the simple Infin. may be employed in a consecutive sense), cf.
§ 44. Yet the Finite verb is used, not only where se begins a new
clause (in the sense of quare, itaque), — sometimes in the Indic. as in 283
Matt. xii. 12; xix. 6; xxiii. 31; Rom. vii. 4; xiii. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 27; xiv. 22; 7th ed.
2 Cor. iv. 12; v. 16; Gal. iii. 9; iv. 7; 1 Thess. iv. 18; 1 Pet. iv. 19, etc.
(Gayler de partic. negat. p. 218 sq.), and sometimes in the Conjunct.
exhort. as in 1 Cor. v. 8 and the Imperat. as in 1 Cor. iii. 21; x.12; Phil.
ii. 12; iv. 1; Jas. i. 19, etc. (Soph. El. 1163; Plutarch. Them. c. 27),—
but also where the clause with STe forms a necessary complement to the
preceding clause, as in Jno. iii. 16 οὕτως ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε . . .
edwкev, Gal. ii. 13 (but in Acts xiv. 1 outws STE with Inf.). This construction
is very common also in Greek authors. Thus sTe occurs with a Finite
verb after outw in Isocr. Areopag. p. 343, 354; de big. p. 838; Aegin.
p. 922; Evag. 476; Lysias pro Mantith. 2, and pro mil. 17; Xen. C. 1. 4,
15; 2, 2, 10; Diog. L. 9, 68, after eis Toσoûrov in Isocr. de big. p. 836;
Soph. Oed. R. 533; see Gayler as above, 221 sq. Cf. Schaef. Plutarch. V.
248. The distinction at least in the better authors seems to be this: STE
with the Indic. presents the facts in succession purely externally as ante- 270
cedent and consequent; while with the Inf. it brings them into closer 6th ed.
connection as issuing one from the other, Klotz 772; cf. Bmln. 88.
Note 2. "Opeλov (peλov) is in the N. T. (as in later Greek) treated
302 $42. THE CONJUNCTION "AN WITH THE THREE MOODS.
ασ
ατ
quite as a particle, and construed with the Indic.; a. Of the Preterite,
1 Cor. iv. 8 opeλov èẞaσidevσare would that ye did reign, Imperf. 2 Cor.
xi. 1 ὄφελον ἀνείχεσθέ μου μικρόν would that ye had patience with me for a
little; b. Of the Fut. Gal. v. 12. With this construction of pedov cf.
Arrian. Epictet. 2, 18, 15 öpeλóv tis μetà taútηs ekоiμýon, Gregor. orat.
28 (Exod. xvi. 3; Num. xiv. 2; xx. 3). When opeλov had once come to
be regarded as a particle, the former construction was just as correct in
thought as the Imperf. or Aor. Indic. after ee, Mtth. 1161; Klotz, Devar.
516 (aor. de re, de qua, quom non facta sit olim, nunc nobis gratum fore
significamus, si facta esset illo tempore); the Fut., however, took the place
of the Opt. In Rev. iii. 15 some Codd. have opeλov &vxpòs eïns, others is.
Both readings make equally good sense.
318
§ 42. THE CONJUNCTION "AN WITH THE THREE MOODS.¹
1. The particle av, which in general imparts to the expression
the impress of being dependent on circumstances (a fortuita qua-
dam conditione), and accordingly conditional and fortuitous (Hm.
284 Vig. 903, 820; de partic. av p. 10 sq.), forte, si res ita ferat, perhaps,
perchance (should the case occur),2 is used with one of the three
moods either in an independent or a dependent clause. Yet its
use in the N. T. (as in gencral in later Greek) is far less copious
271 and diversified than in classic (Attic) writers; in particular, it is
never found joined with a participle. In independent and simple
clauses av occurs in the N. T.,
6th ed.
3
1 Compare, as to the use of this particle, the following monographs: Poppo, Pr. de
usu partic. v apud Graecos. Fref. ad Viad. 1816. 4to. (also in Seebode's Miscell. crit.
I. 1), Reisig de vi et usu av particulae in his edit. of Aristoph. nub. (Lips. 1820. 8vo.)
p. 97–140. I have mainly followed the theory of Hermann, from which the views of
Buttmann, and still more those of Thiersch (Acta Monac. II. 101 sqq.), partly differ.
It is most fully expounded in libb. 4 de particula év, which are printed in the London
edition of Stephanus's Thesaurus, as well as in Hermann's Opuscul. Tom. IV., and
which were also published separately in Leipsic, 1831. 8vo. With Hermann on all the
main points Klotz Devar. II. 99 agrees, while Hartung Partik. II. 218 ff. widely dissents
from both. The opinion hitherto accepted respecting the import of av has been com-
pletely reversed by B. Matthiae in his Lexic. Eurip. I. 189 sqq.; he pronounces it to be
rather a corroborating and affirming particle, and gives us to understand that his view
is a divina et qua nihil unquam verius exstitit descriptio. Further, compare Bäumlein
on the Greck Moods (see above p. 281) and Moller in Schneidewin, Philolog. VI. 719 ff.
2 Perhaps the halt of the South of Germany may also be compared with it.
8 In the Sept. &v does not occur more seldom than in the N. T. (Bretschneid. Lexic.
p. 22 says: multo rarius). It occurs in hypothetical clauses, where it is required. It
is also sometimes construed with the Optative, as in Gen. xix. 8; xxxiii. 10; xliv. 8,
and with the Participle in 2 Macc. i. 11; 3 Macc. iv. 1. It occurs on almost every page.
As to a in the Apocrypha, see Wahl, Clav. apocr. p. 34 sqq.
§ 42. THE CONJUNCTIÓN 'AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 303
a. With the Aorist Indic. to indicate that something on a certain
condition would have taken place (in which use a hypothetical
proposition is implied in the context) Mith. 1154 f.; Rost 600 f.;
as, Luke xix. 23 διὰ τί οὐκ ἔδωκας τὸ ἀργύριόν μου ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν ;
καὶ ἐγὼ ἐλθὼν σὺν τόκῳ ἂν ἔπραξα αυτό, I should had the διδόναι
Tò ȧpyúp. ¿πì Tỳν тρúπ. occurred) have collected it with interest.
Here the omitted protasis may be easily gathered from the ques-
tion διὰ τί . . . τράπεζαν.
Tрúmeçav. The same remark applies to the parallel
passage in Matt. xxv. 27 ἔδει σε βαλεῖν τὸ ἀργύριόν μου τοῖς τραπε-
тò
ζίταις, καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐγὼ ἐκομισάμην ἂν τὸ ἐμὸν σὺν τόκῳ, and Heb. x. 2
ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο προςφερόμεναι, where we may supply from
vs. 1: if these sacrifices had perfected forever the offerers,-com-
pletely cleansed them from sin (Xen. A. 4, 2, 10; Thuc. 1, 11; 319
Plat. symp. 175 d.; rep. 8, 554 b.; Aristot. rhet. 2, 2, 11; Diog.
L. 2, 75). Cf. Sept. Gen. xxvi. 10; Job iii. 10, 13 (Pluperf. 2 Sam.
xviii. 11).
In direct
b. With the Optative, when subjective possibility is attached to
condition (opinio de eo, quod ex aliqua conditione pendet, Hm.
partic. av 164 sqq.),¹ Acts xxvi. 29 evğaíµnv àv tập be♣ (I could
willingly pray God, i.e. were I to be guided by what I feel—were
I to follow the wish of my heart). This phrase (corresponding to
βουλοίμην ἄν) occurs in Dio C. 36, 10, and εὔξαιτ' ἄν τις in Xen.
hipparch. 8, 6, ws äv ¿yw evçaíµnv Diog. L. 2, 76. We find a
similar phrase, ağıóσap' äv, in Liban. oratt. p. 200 b.
questions: Acts ii. 12 Aéyovтes Tí av Oéλol Toûтo elvai; what may
this perhaps mean? (I assume it must mean something), xvii. 18 285
τί ἂν θέλοι ὁ σπερμολόγος οὗτος λέγειν ; (it being assumed that
his words have some meaning or other), Luke vi. 11; Gen. xxiii. 15;
Deut. xxviii. 67; Job xix. 23; xxv. 4; xxix. 2; xxxi. 31; Ecclus.
xxv. 3. Cf. Od. 21, 259; Xen. C. 1, 4, 12; Diog. L. 2,5; Krü. 163.
δυναίμην,
Acts viii. 31 is equivalent to a hypothetical construction: mus ar diraiunr,
ἐὰν μή τις ὁδηγήσῃ με ; for without a question it would run: οὐκ ἂν δυναίμην,
ef. Xen. Apol. 6 ἢν αἰσθάνωμαι χείρων γιγνόμενος ... πῶς ἂν...
πῶς ἂν... ἐγὼ ἔτι ἂν
ἡδέως βιοτεύοιμι ;
αν
We find av (according to most Codd. [Sin. included]) without a mood
(Hm. partic. ἄν, p. 187) in 1 Cor. vii. 5 μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε ἀλλήλους, εἰ μή τι
ầv ék ovµþúvov, except perhaps in case of mutual consent.
2. After conditional clauses with ei we find äv in the apodosis
1 Klotz p. 104: Adjecta ad optativum ista particula hoc dicitur: nos rem ita animo
cogitare, si quando fiat, i.e. rem, si fiat, ita fieri oportere ex cogitatione quidem nostra
Cf. Mdv. 148 f.
7th ed.
304 $42. THE CONJUNCTION 'AN WITH THE THREE MOODS.
with the Indicative to denote hypothetical reality (Rost 627;
Mtth. 1147 f.), and then,
a. With the Imperf. (usually), when I would do it is to be
expressed, a. After an Imperf. in the antecedent clause, as in Luke
vii. 39 οὗτος εἰ ἦν προφήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν ἄν etc. were he a prophet,
272 he would know, xvii. 6; Matt. xxiii. 30 (Fr.); Jno. v. 46; (viii. 19);
6th ed viii. 42; ix. 41; xv. 19; xviii. 36; Gal. i. 10; Heb. viii. 4, 7;
1 Cor. xi. 31; Acts xviii. 14; cf. 2 Macc. iv. 47; Valckenaer ad
Luc. xvii. 6. B. After an Aor. in the antecedent clause, as in Heb.
iv. 8 εἰ γὰρ αὐτοὺς ᾿Ιησοῦς κατέπαυσεν, οὐκ ἂν περὶ ἄλλης ἐλάλει if
J. had given them rest, he would not speak etc. (in the words pre-
320 viously quoted vs. 5) cf. in vs. 7 the Pres. ópíčeɩ; Gal. iii. 21 (cf.
Jer. xxiii. 22; Baruch iii. 13).
b. With the Aor., when I would have done it is to be expressed
(Hm. Vig. 813), Matt. xi. 21 εἰ ἐγένοντο ... πάλαι ἂν μετενόησαν
if... had been done, they would have repented long ago, 1 Cor. ii. 8;
Rom. ix. 29; Sept. Gen. xxx. 27; xxxi. 27, 42; xliii. 9; Judg.
xiii. 23; xiv. 18; Isa. i. 9; xlviii. 18; Ps. 1. 18; liv. 13; Judith
xi. 2, etc. (in the conditional clause also the Aor. is used); Juo.
xiv. 28 εἰ ἠγαπᾶτέ με, έχάρητε ἄν if ye loved me, ye would have
rejoiced, xviii. 30; Acts xviii. 14 (the Imperf. in the conditional
clause, Bar. iii. 13); Matt. xii. 7 εἰ ἐγνώκειτε . . . οὐκ ἂν κατεδικάσατε
had ye known, ye would not have condemned (the Pluperf. in the
conditional clause, cf. Demosth. Pantaen. p. 624 b.; Liban. oratt.
p. 117 c.); Judg. viii. 19; Job iv. 12. In this case the Plup.
also is used instead of the Aor. with av, as in 1 Jno. ii. 19 củ
ἦσαν ἐξ ἡμῶν, μεμενήκεισαν ἂν μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν mansissent (atque adeo
manerent), Juo. xi. 21 (vs. 32 Aor.) xiv. 7 (Soph. Oed. R. 984;
Aeschin. Ctes. 310 a.; Demosth. cor. 324 a.; Plat. Phaed. 106 c.;
Diog. L. 3, 39; Aesop. 31, 1; Lucian. fugit. 1; cf. Hm. partic. äv
p. 50). See in general Hm. partic. av I. cap. 10. The translators
of the N. T. have sometimes been ignorant of this distinction of
tenses, and sometimes have passed it over without notice. (The
consequent clause with av is absorbed by an interrogative clause in
286 1 Cor. xii. 19 εἰ ἦν τὰ πάντα ἓν μέλος, ποῦ τὸ σῶμα ; Heb. vii. 11 εἰ
7th ed. τελείωσις διὰ τῆς . . . ἱερωσύνης ἦν, τίς ἔτι χρεία etc. for οὐκέτι ἂν ἦν
χρεία etc. As to av in the interrogatory apodosis, see Wisd. xi. 26
πῶς ἔμεινεν ἄν τι, εἰ μὴ σὺ ἠθέλησας; On Acts viii. 31 see above.)
In Mark xiii. 20 εἰ μὴ κύριος ἐκολόβωσε ... οὐκ ἂν ἐσώθη πᾶσα σάρξ
neither of the Aorists is put for the Imperf., but the sense is: had not the
Lord shortened those days (in his decree), all flesh would have perished
§ 42. THE CONJUNCTION “AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 305
(might be regarded as already perished). In Heh. xi. 15 ei pèv ékeivŋs
ἐκείνης
ἐμνημόνευον... εἶχον ἂν καιρὸν ἀνακάμψαι the Imperf. is used in the
principal clause probably because it refers to a continued (past) action
(Mtth. 1147; Mdv. 117); in Latin also the Imperf. is used in the same
way (Zumpt, Gramm. 454) haberent: had they in mind ... they had
opportunity (during their life) to return (and would not therefore, at the
end of their life vs. 13, have made this profession). The Aor. would have
represented the exew kaιpóv as something occurring once, and quickly
passing by. Another view of the Imperf. in hypothetical clauses (Franke,
Demosth. p. 59, 74) is not to the purpose.
äv
In the consequent clause av may be omitted also, particularly
with the Imperf. (Hm. Eurip. Hec. 1087; Soph. Elect. p. 132, and 321
partic. av p. 70 sqq.; Bremi, exc. 4 ad Lys. p. 439 sq.; Mtth. 1152), 273
and in later Greek was more and more frequently omitted, without 6th ed
designing in all cases to express the emphasis (the positiveness) orig-
inally included in this construction without av (Kühner II. 556).¹
The several examples may be arranged as follows:
a.) Imperf. in the condition, Imperf. in the conclusion; as, Jno.
ix. 33 εἰ μὴ ἦν οὗτος παρὰ θεοῦ, οὐκ ἠδύνατο ποιεῖν οὐδέν were le not
from God, he could do nothing, Diog. Laert. 2, 24;. Lycurg. orat.
8, 4; Plat. sympos. 198 c.; Gorg. 514 c. In Juo. viii. 39 the Codd.
are about equally divided as to the omission or insertion of av; if.
it was used by the writer, it may have been merged by transcribers
in the vûv which immediately follows.
b.) Aorist in the conclusion, with the omission of v in the
condition ; as, Gal. iv. 15 εἰ δυνατὸν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν ἐξορύξαντες
ἐδώκατέ μοι, where there is not much authority for ἆν.
c.) Aorist in the condition, Imperf. in the conclusion; as, Jno.
xv. 22 εἰ μὴ ἦλθον ... ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ εἶχον if I had not come, they
would not have sin, cf. Diog. Laert. 2, 21.
d.) Pluperf. in the conditional clause (Judg. viii. 19), Imperf.
in the principal clause ; as, Jno. xix. 11 οὐκ εἶχες εξουσίαν οὐδεμίαν
κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ, εἰ μὴ ἦν σοι δεδομένον ἄνωθεν thou wouldst not have ... if it
had not been given thee, Acts xxvi. 32; Rom. vii. 7 non cognoram
... nisi diceret; also, in the immediately preceding Tv áuapтíav
etc., where ἔγνων is to be repeated with εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου.
This omission of av occurs especially with xaλòv îv, édeɩ, èxpîv 287
etc. Mdv. 119; Bmln. 140 f.; cf. Matt. xxvi. 24 kaλòv v avτ@, ei oùк Ith ed.
eyevvýon etc., see above, § 41 a. 2. a, p. 282.
1 Similar are such sentences in Latin as Flor. 4, 2, 19 peractum erat bellum sine
sanguine, si Pompeium opprimere (Caesar) potuisset, Horat. Od. 2, 17, 27; Liv. 34, 29 ;
Cic. fam. 12, 24, 2; Tac. annal. 3, 14; Sen. consol. ad Marc. I. See Zumpt, Gr. S. 447.
34
306 § 42. THE CONJUNCTION "AN WITH THE THREE MOODS.
2 Cor. xi. 4 εἰ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἄλλον Ἰησοῦν κηρύσσει... καλῶς ἀνείχεσθε
is rendered if he ... preached, ye would bear with etc. (Cod. B alone has
ȧvéxeobe, and it has been so printed by Lehm.). Here one would certainly
expect ěkýρvoσev, but as several words intervene the writer might easily
have fallen into such an anacoluthon (if ... preaches another Jesus
ye
would bear with it ȧveíx., as if he had written. ékýpvooev. As, however, he
had used κηρύσσει, consistency required ἀνέχεσθε), or in order not to hurt
the Corinthians he designedly changes the harsh ȧvéxeobe into the hypo-
thetical and consequently softer åveíx.; in which case, to be sure, one
322 would so much the more have expected av, as the antecedent clause does
not correspond with a hypothetical period (cf. also Klotz, Devar. 487 sq.).
We find something similar in Diog. L. 2, 69 εἰ τοῦτο φαῦλόν ἐστιν, οὐκ
ἂν ἐν ταῖς τῶν θεῶν ἑορταῖς ἐγίνετο. The passage in Demosth. Neaer.
815 a. is of another kind. (That in Rom. iv. 2 exei Kaúxnua is not put.
ἔχει καύχημα
for eixev av, as Rück. maintained, is apparent to one who attends to
Paul's reasoning, and has been correctly shown by Köllner among recent
expositors.)
او
αν
274 3. In relative clauses after ös, ÖSTIS, ÖσOS, ÖTTоv etc., av is used,
6th ed. a. With the Indicative when some matter of fact, something
certain therefore, is spoken of," sed cujus vel pars aliqua, vel ratio
et modus dubitationem admittunt" (Hm. Vig. 819)¹; as, Mark
vi. 56 őπov äv eiseπopeveto wherever he entered, ubicunque intrabat
(it might be in different places and repeatedly), oσoi àvýπTOVTO
avтoû as many as at any time touched him; Kalóтi av Acts ii. 45;
iv. 35, os av 1 Cor. xii. 2. In all these instances with a Pret., as
in Gen. ii. 19; xxx. 42; Isa. lv. 11; 2 Sam. xiv. 26; Ezek. i. 20;
x. 11; Esth. viii. 17; 1 Macc. xiii. 20, and also in Greek authors,
as Lucian. dial. m. 9, 2, and Demon. 10; Demosth. I. Steph. p. 610 b.
(Agath. 32, 12; 117, 12; 287, 13; Malal. 14, 36). On the other
hand, the Present Ind. (which Klotz p. 109 sqq., in opposition to
Hm., declares to be inadmissible) in the N. T. in Luke viii. 18;
x. 8; Jno. v. 19 has not any great external evidence in its favor.
and in Mark xi. 24 the Ind. without av is to be restored, from Codd.
[Sin. also], as by Lchm. In the Sept. the Present often occurs,
in Ps. ci. 3; Prov. i. 22; Lev. xxv. 16.
57
a
In Matt. xiv. 36 we find ooot avтo, éσwlnoav, instead of the parallel
in Mark vi. 56 ὅσοι ἂν ἧπτοντο, ἐσώζοντο. Both constructions are proper,
according as the writer regarded the fact as in every respect definite or
not. The first must be rendered: all who (as many as) touched him, of
I
1 Klotz p. 145: In his locis quum res ipsa, quac facta esse dicatur, certa sit, pertinet
illud, quod habet in se particula av incerti, magis ad notionem relativam, sive pronomen,
sive particula est.
1
§ 42. THE CONJUNCTION 'AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 307
the persons then surrounding him, vs. 35. Mark does not limit the nar- 288
ration to any particular place (as őñov tv eiseñopeúero shows), but says 7th ed
generally all who at any time touched him. Cf. Hm. de part. av p. 26.
b. With the Subjunctive, when the statement relates to some-
thing objectively possible, that is, regarded as only conditionally
liable to occur, and then a. In the Aorist (most frequently), of
what may perhaps occur at a future time, where in Latin the
Fut. Perf. would be used; as, Matt. x. 11 eis îv 8 âv tóλíý kóµŋv 323
çiséλOŋte into whatever city ye may have entered, in quamcunque
urbem, si quam in urbem, xxi. 22 %oa av airýonte quaecunque
petieritis, xii. 32; Mark ix. 18; xiv. 9; Luke x. 35; Acts ii. 39;
iii. 22, 23; viii. 19; Rom. x. 13; xvi. 2; Jas. iv. 4; 1 Jno. iv. 15;
Rev. xiii. 15, etc. For examples from Greek authors, see Bornem.
ad Luc. p. 65. From the Sept. cf. Gen. xxi. 6,12; xxii. 2; xxiv. 14;
xxvi. 2; xxviii. 15; xliv. 9 f.; Exod. i. 22; ix. 19; x. 28; Lev.
v. 3, 15, 17; xi. 32; xx. 6, 9, 16 ff.; Num. v. 10; vi. 2; Deut.
xvii. 9; Isa. xi. 11. The Fut. for the Subjunctive occurs in Deut.
v. 27; Jer. xlix. 4; Judg. x. 18; xi. 24 (Malch. hist. p. 238; Cinnam.
I. 6, ed. Bonn.); Mtth. 1220. B. In the Present, in reference
to what may have already taken place or usually takes place, or
is to be represented as continuous; as, Gal. v. 17 íva µǹ, à âv
OÉλNTE, TAÛTA Tоinтe (what you may happen to desire), Col. iii. 17
πᾶν ὅ,τι ἂν ποιήτε, 1 Thess. ii. 7 ὡς ἂν τροφος θάλπῃ etc., Luke
ix. 57; Jno. ii. 5; v. 19; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Jas. iii. 4; Col. iii. 23. 275
See, in general, Hm. part. av p. 113 sqq.; Vig. 819. In the Sept. 6th ed.
cf. Gen. vi. 17; xi. 6; 1 Sam. xiv. 7; Lev. xv. 19; Exod. xxii. 9;
(much more rare than the Aor.).
In 2 Cor. viii. 12 a double construction occurs: ein πро◊νµía пρókeιтαι,
καθὸ ἐὰν ἔχῃ, εὐπρόςδεκτος, οὐ καθὸ σὐκ ἔχει. The distinction is obvious:
the positive exeu in the proportion specified (kaðó) may still be viewed as
various, according to what he may (perchance) have; the negative ovk exeɩ
is simple and definite. Cf. Lev. xxiv. 20; xxv. 16; xxvii. 12; xi. 34
πᾶν βρῶμα, ὃ ἔσθεται, εἰς ὃ ἂν ἐπέλθῃ ὕδωρ.
In Attic prose av is commonly employed where relatives are construed
with the Subjunctive; yet there are well-established passages in which av
is omitted (Rost 660 f.), and Hm. partic. av p. 113 has shown when it
must be omitted; cf. Schaef. Demosth. I 657; Poppo, observ. p. 143 sqq. ;
Jen. Lit.-Zeit. 1816, April, no. 69, and ad Cyrop. p. 129, 209, but see Bmln.
212 ff. In the N. T. we find according to good Codd. [Sin. also] in Luke
viii. 17 οὐ γάρ ἐστι ... ἀπόκρυφον, ὃ οὐ γνωσθῇ (al. γνωσθήσεται) καὶ εἰς
pavepòv ëλ0ŋ, which is to be rendered: which may not become known
Ө
and come to light. The relative here points to a perfectly definite con-
d
·
308 § 42. THE CONJUNCTION 'AN WITH THE THREE MOODS.
αν
ception, and not to anything whatever, quodcunque. On the other hand,
one might have expected ἄν in Jas. ii. 10 ὅστις ὅλον τὸν νόμον τηρήσῃ, πταίσῃ
289 dè év éví, yet it is not necessary, inasmuch as the writer conceives the case
7th ed. as altogether definite: qui (si quis) ... custodiverit. So also in Matt. x. 33.
On the other hand, in Matt. xviii. 4 Lehm. has already adopted the Fut.
οι
4. In indirect questions av is used with the Optative (after a Pret.
324 or histor. Pres.); as, Luke i. 62 évévevov TO Tатρí, Tò Tí àv Oéλoi
kaλeîodai autóv how he may perhaps wish him to be called (assumed
that he has a wish in the case; Tí éλoi etc. would be, how he
would wish him to be called), Acts v. 24; x. 17; xxi. 33 (see above
§ 41, b. 5), Luke vi. 11 διελάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, τί ἂν ποιήσειαν τῷ
'Iŋooû what they might do to Jesus, quid forte faciendum videretur
(pondering in doubtful mood the different possibilities), ix. 46;
Jno. xiii. 24 according to the reading νεύει τούτῳ Σίμων Π. πυθέσθαι
Tís àv ein tepì oû Xéyeɩ (who it might be, whom they should perhaps
regard). The better reading, however, is veveɩ ... kaì Xéyeɩ aʊTÊ •
λέγει αὐτῷ·
Eitè tís ẻσTIV Teρì ov Xéyeɩ. See Klotz p. 509; cf. Esth. iii. 13.
5. After the particles of time av followed by a Subjunctive (Mtth.
1194 f.) is used if an (objectively possible) action is to be expressed,
a case which can or will occur, but in regard to which there is no
certainty when (how often) it will occur (Hm. partic. av p. 95 sqq.).
• •
Thus, a. ὅταν i.e. ὅτ' ἄν, Matt. xv. 2 νίπτονται τὰς χεῖρας, ὅταν
aρтov èσ íwo i when (i.e. as often as) they eat, Jno. viii. 44; 1 Cor.
iii. 4; Luke xi. 36; xvii. 10 ötav toiŃONTE πúvta, Xéyete when ye
shall have done, Matt. xxi. 40 őтav ëλeŋ ỏ kúρLOS τί ποιήσει
276 quando venerit. So usually with the Aorist Subjunctive for the
6th ed. Lat. Fut. exact., as in Mark viii. 38; Jno. iv. 25; xvi. 13; Rom.
xi. 27; Acts xxiii. 35; 1 Cor. xv. 27; xvi. 3; 1 Jno. ii. 28, also
Heb. i. 6 (as Böhme and Wahl have already pointed out), while
the Subj. Present for the most part denotes a frequently repeated
action not limited to any particular time (Mtth. 1195), or exhibits
something in itself future simply as a fact, 1 Cor. xv. 24 (along
with the Subj. Aor.). Similar to this are ývíka av 2 Cor. iii. 16
(when... it shall have turned), ooáris av (as often as) 1 Cor. xi. 25,
26 (Pres.), ós av as soon as Rom. xv. 24; 1 Cor. xi. 34; Phil. ii. 23.
b. The conjunction until that, as ews av ¹ in Matt. x. 11 èreî µel-
νατε, ἕως ἂν ἐξέλθητε, Jas. v. 7; Luke ix. 27, ἄχρις οὗ ἄν in Rev.
ii. 25 (Gen. xxiv. 14, 19; Josh. ii. 16; xx. 6, 9; Exod. xv. 16;
Isa. vi. 11; xxvi. 20; xxx. 17; Tob. vii. 11, and often); cf. Soph.
1
1 We find in parallel clauses in Exod. xv. 16; Jer. xxiii. 20 éws with the Subj. and
ews av, according to the common text.
§ 42. THE CONJUNCTION 'AN WITH THE THREE MOODS. 309
Oed. R. 834; Xen. C. 3, 3, 18 and 46; An. 5, 1, 11; Plat. Phaed.
59 e. etc., and usually in Attic prose, Rost 617. Further cf. § 41 b.
3, 2) b). Ipìv av does not occur in the N. T.
7th ed
The Fut. after ὅταν in Rev. 4, 9 ὅταν δώσουσι τὰ ζῶα δόξαν ... πεσοῦνται
oi elkoσi tévσapes etc., occurs according to a well-established reading for
the Subjunctive quando dederint, as in Iliad. 20, 335 ¿AX' ¿vaxwpĵoal, ote 325
κεν ξυμβήσεαι αὐτῷ. Other Codd. have δῶσι oι δώσωσι. In Luke xi. 2 ; 290
xiii. 28; Matt. x. 19 there is preponderant authority for the Subjunctive.
In Rom. ii. 14 the Ind. Pres. πolî after őrav is very doubtful (or rather a
transcriber's mistake for Ton), and we should read with Lchm. and Tdf.
Towow. On the other hand, in Mark xi. 25 στýkete is supported by good
Codd., and the Ind. can be as well tolerated (since it is intended to express
a specification of time only externally: cum statis precantes) according
to Klotz, Devar. 475 sq., as it is attested by Codd. in Lycurg. 28, 3.¹ In
this case the Ind. Pres. or Fut. after örav sometimes occurs even in early
authors, see Klotz as above, and pp. 477 sq. 690,2 where formerly critics
would not tolerate it (Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 61; Achill. Tat. 452;
Mtth. 1197); in later authors (cf. e.g. Exod. i. 16; Act. Apocr. 126) it
frequently occurs (Jacobs in Act. Monac. I. 146; Schaef. ind. Aesop. 149).
More singular appears, in Mark iii. 11, oτav with an Indicative Preter.
(Imperf.) in narration : τὰ πνεύματα ... ὅταν αὐτὸν ἐθεώρει, προςέπιπτεν
whenever they saw him (quandocunque), without var.; in Rev. viii. 1 with
var. A Greek would probably have here employed (ore, dróтav with)
the Optative, Hm. Vig. 792;3 yet in the former passage the Ind. can be
accounted for as easily as in oσo av TTоvтo, see above, 3 a. Cf. Gen.
xxxviii. 9; 'Exod. xvii. 11; Num. xi. 9; 1 Sam. xvii. 34; Ps. cxix. 7;
Thiersch p. 100 (and ývíka åv Gen. xxx. 42; Exod. xxxiii. 8; xxxiv. 34; 277
xl. 36, óπóte éáv Tob. vii. 11, éáv Judg. vi. 3, where likewise a repeated 6th ed.
past act is expressed), also Polyb. 4, 32, 5; 13, 7, 10 (see Schweigh. on the
last passage); Aristid. Lept. § 3, 6; cf. Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 313. In the
Byzantine authors, orar even in the sense of when (in reference to an indi-
vidual fact in time past) is construed with the Ind. Aor., as in Ephraem. 7119,
5386, 5732; Theoph. p. 499, 503. Cf. also Tdf. in the Verhandel. p. 142.
ΠΟ
6. The particle of design oπws with av denotes a purpose the
accomplishment of which is still doubtful, or is regarded as depend-
ing on circumstances, ut sit, si sit (see Hm. Eurip. Bacch. 593,1232;
1 Bekker has conjectured dot. Others read or' èv, and Blume says distinctly: indica-
tivus per grammaticas leges h. 1. ferri nequit.
2 The passages adduced by Gayler de partic. negat. p. 193 sq. may be regarded for
the most part as uncertain.
8 Fr. Mr. p. 801 insists on writing or' av, in order to show that av here belongs to the
verb in the sense of always. Cf. Schaef. Demosth. III. 192. Yet see Klotz, Dev. 688 sq.
In the Sept. even ås av occurs with the Ind. Pret. where a definite past action is
spoken of, as in Gen. vi. 4; xxvii. 30 ŵs àv è§ĝλ0ev 'Iaкúß, etc.
310
§ 43. THE IMPERATIVE.
partic. av p. 120 sq.) ut, si fieri possit, ut forte (cf. Bengel, Acts
iii. 19; Rom. iii. 4) Isocr. ep. 8, p. 1016; Xen. Cyr. 5, 2, 21; Plat.
Gorg. 481 a.; conv. 187 e. ; legg. 5, 738 d. etc; Demosth. Halon.
32 c.; see Stallb. ad Plat. Lach. p. 24; Krü. 167. This applies
291 well to the two N. T. passages which come under this head (Acts
7th ed. xv. 17; Rom. iii. 4 are quotations from the O. T.; and in Matt. vi. 5
326 av is expunged on the authority of many Codd.): Acts iii. 19 öπws
ἂν ἔλθωσιν καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως ut forte (si meae admonitioni μετανο-
ÝOATE KAÌ ÈTIOTρéfaτe parueritis) veniant tempora etc., Luke ii. 35.
In both the quotations from the Sept. too, particularly in Acts
xv., the meaning is plain. Besides cf. Gen. xii. 13; xviii. 19;
1. 20; Exod. xx. 20, 26; xxxiii. 13; Num. xv. 40; xvi. 40;
xxvii. 20; Deut. viii. 2; xvii. 20; 2 Sam. xvii. 14; Ps. lix. 7;
Hos. ii. 3; Jer. xlii. 7; Dan. ii. 18; 1 Macc. x. 32.
αν
"Av after conjunctions and relatives never occurs with the Optative in
the N. T. (but in Sept. Gen. xix. 8 — cf., however, xvi. 6 — xxxiii. 10;
2 Macc. xv. 21); but once with the Inf. 2 Cor. x. 9 iva µn Sóέw ús äv
ἐκ
Kooßeîv vµâs that I may not seem to terrify you; which in oratio recta
(Hm. de partic. av p. 179; Krü. 311) would run: os av expoßoîμ iµ.
tamquam qui velim vos terrere.
EL
αν
According to the best and most numerous authorities čáv frequently
occurs for åv in the N. T. text after relatives (as in the Sept. and Apocryph.
see Wahl, clav. apocryph. p. 137 sq.; Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 8, occasionally
in the Byzantines, e.g. Malalas 5. p. 94, 144); as, Matt. v. 19 (not vii. 9);
viii. 19; x. 42; xi. 27; Jno. xv. 7; Luke xvii. 33; 1 Cor. vi. 18; xvi. 3;
Gal. vi. 7; Eph. vi. 8, etc., and not unfrequently in the Codd. of Greek
authors, even Attic. Recent scholars (in opposition to Schneider, Xen.
Mem. 3, 10, 12) uniformly write av for éáv (see Schaef. Julian. p. V; IIm.
Vig. 835; Bremi, Lys. p. 126; Boissonade, Aen. Gaz. p. 209; Stallb.
Plat. Lach. p. 57; a more moderate judgment is given by Jacobs, Athen.
p. 88; yet see the same author in Lection. Stob. p. 45 and on Achill. Tat.
p. 831 sq., cf. also Valckenaer ad 1 Cor. vi. 18). The editors of the N. T.
278 have not yet ventured to do this; and there may really be in éáv for av a
6th ed peculiarity of the later (if not even of the earlier) popular language much
like the Germ. etwan in relative clauses: was etwan geschehen sollte
(when something occurs as it should be). Cf. Luke x. 8.
§ 43. THE IMPERATIVE.
1. The Imperative usually denotes an exhortation or command,
but sometimes mere permission (permissivus) or leave (Krü.
§ 43. THE IMPERATIVE.
311
163) 1, as in 1 Cor. vii. 15 εἰ ὁ ἄπιστος χωρίζεται, χωριζέσθω he may 327
depart (on the part of the Christian partner it cannot and ought
not to be hindered), xiv. 38 εἴ τις ἀγνοεῖ, ἀγνοείτω (renunciation of
further effective instruction). Where, however, this acceptation 292
7th ed.
is necessary, must be determined on hermeneutical, not on gram-
matical, grounds; and neither in Matt. viii. 32, on account of the
parallel passage Luke viii. 32, nor in Jno. xiii. 27 or 1 Cor. xi. 6,
can the Imperative be taken as simply permissive. On the former
passage cf. BCrus. ; in the latter κειράσθω like κατακαλυπτέσθω is
to be understood of logical necessity (the one requires the other).
On the other hand, Matt. xxvi. 45 KabeúdeтE TO MOLTOV Kai ȧva-
πаúεσde was probably uttered permissively by Jesus in the tranquil,
gentle, resigned mood resulting from the prayer: sleep on then and
take your rest. The notion of irony is incompatible with the grave
earnestness of the moment. Perhaps, however, there may be some-
thing of that in Matt. xxiii. 32, and the tone of the discourse loses
in force by a permissive interpretation. In Rev. xxii. 11 all is
exhortation: let every one by adhering to his present course grow
ripe for Christ's approaching judgment; the fate of all is, as it
were, already determined.
2. When two Imperatives are connected by kai, the first contains
sometimes the condition (supposition) under which the action.
denoted by the second will take place, or the second expresses an
infallible result (Mtth. 1159) 2; as, Bar. ii. 21 Kλívate тòv åμov
κλίνατε τὸν
ὑμῶν ἐργάσασθαι τῷ βασιλεῖ . καὶ καθίσατε ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, Epiphan.
II. 368 ἔχε τοὺς τοῦ θεοῦ λόγους κατὰ ψυχήν σου καὶ χρείαν μὴ ἔχε
'Eripaviov. In the N. T. this explanation has been applied to Eph.
iv. 26. (from Ps. iv. 5.) ópyíčeσle kaì µǹ åµaptávete be angry and 279
sin not i.e. if ye be angry ye do not sin (Rü.), Jno. vii. 52 èpeúvnσov 6th ed.
kaì ide search, and thou wilt see (Kü.), cf. divide et impera. In
Hebrew, constructions of this sort are certainly frequent; Ewald,
1 According to Moller (Schneidewin, Philolog. VI. 124 ff.) the Imper. Pres. only should
be so used. This, it is true, is found in the above passages of the N. T.; but the
question in reference to the N. T. will not be regarded as thereby decided.
2 What Bornem. on Luke xxiv. 39 adduces from Greek authors, is of a different
nature. This mode of expression, however, cannot be considered as thereby a Hebra-
ism; see Gesen. Lgb. S. 776 (where, however, some passages are quoted which remain
doubtful, as Ps. xxxvii. 27, or which at any rate ought to have been separated from
the others Gen. xlii. 18; Isa. viii. 9). With Eph. iv. 26 (p. 312) those passages have
no analogy, otherwise the words of Paul must mean if ye are angry, yet do not sin,
or even if ye would not sin, then be angry. It is therefore surprising that, notwith-
standing this, Zyro (Stud. u. Krit. 1841. 3 Heft S. 685) has had recourse again to this
alleged Hebraism.
312
§ 43. THE IMPERATIVE.
krit. Gramm. 653. But in Jno. vii. the expression is more forcible.
than kai öчe (Lucian. indoct. 29) would have been. The result
of the search is so certain, that the exhortation to search is at the
same time an exhortation to see. We find the regular construction
328 in Luke x. 28. In the passage from Eph. Paul's meaning is un-
questionably this: we should not let anger lead us into sin, cf.
vs. 27 (sce Bengel and BCrus. in loc.); vs. 31 cannot be urged
against this. It is only the grammatical acceptation of the expres
sion that is doubtful. It is either logically a single proposition
ὀργιζόμενοι μὴ ἁμαρτ. divided into two grammatically, or ὀργίζεσθε
must be taken permissively (cf. the similar passage Jer. x. 24). For,
the assertion (Mey.) that of two closely connected Imperatives the
293 one cannot denote a permission and the other a command, is incor-
7th ed. rect; we may say with perfect propriety: Well, then, go (I give
you leave), but do not stay out above an hour.
1 Tim. vi. 12 αγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς πίστεως, ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου
Suns (where the asyndeton is not without special force) must be rendered
simply: fight the good fight of faith, lay hold of (in and by that fight)
eternal life; cf. Mark iv. 39, see Fr. 'Emiλauß. Ts (wns is not here ex-
hibited (though it might have been) as the result, but as the very essence,
of the contest; and midaµß. does not signify attain, receive. In 1 Cor.
xv. 34 ἐκνήψατε δικαίως καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε are obviously two exhortations,
one of which (Aor.) is to be carried into effect at once, while the other
(Pres.) requires continuous effort.
Constructions like Jno. ii. 19 λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον, καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις
ἐγερῶ αὐτόν, Jas. iv. 7 ἀντίστητε τῷ διαβόλῳ, καὶ φεύξεται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν (vs. 8),
Eph. v. 14 (Sept.) ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός, may
be resolved like two Imperatives connected by κaí: if ye resist the devil,
he will, etc. But this, grammatically, requires no remark, as the Impera-
tive has here its ordinary import (hortatory), and the structure of these
sentences can, indeed must (as incomparably more forceful), be retained in
the translation also. Cf. Lucian. indoct. 29 Toùs Kovpéas Toúтovs èñíσkeyaι
kaì őfeɩ, dial. d. 2, 2 cvpvēµa Baîve kai öye, Plato, Theaet. 149 b.; rep.
5, 467 c.; see Fr. Mt. as above. Even recent expositors quite erro-
neously take the Imperative in Jno. ii. 19; xx. 22 for the Fut., supporting
their view by a reference to the IIeb. in such passages as Gen. xx. 7
xlv. 18 (Glass. Philol. sacr. I. 286). Inasmuch as every command extends
into future time, the Fut. tense, as a general expression of futurity, may
be used for the Imperative (see no. 5); but the special form (the Impera-
tive) cannot, in turn, he employed for the more general (Fut.). Such
280 a substitution would occasion a confusion of tongues, and the observation
6th ed. above alluded to, like so many others, is the offspring of the closet, not of
;
attention to the phaenomena of living speech. Olshausen has correctly
§ 43. THE IMPERATIVE.
313
opposed Tholuck (and Kühnöl) on Jno. xx. 22, and Tholuck has rectified 329
his error.
In Luke xxi. 19 the Fut. is the better reading; see Meyer.
3. In the N. T. the distinction between the Aorist Imperative
and Present Imperative is in general maintained (Hm. emend. rat.
p. 219 and Vig. 748, cf. H. Schmid de imperativi temporib. in ling.
grace. Viteb. 1833, 4to. and especially Bmln. 169 ff., and in reference
to the latter, Moller in Schneidewin Philologus VI. 115 ff.). For
a. The Aorist Imperat. (cf. § 40 note 2.) denotes an action that
is either transient and instantaneous (Ast, Plat. polit. p. 518; Schaef.
Demosth. IV. 488), or to be undertaken but once; as, Mark i. 44
σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ, iii. 5 ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρά σου, vi. 11 ἐκτινάξατε
τὸν χοῦν, Juo. ii. 7 γεμίσατε τὰς ὑδρίας ὕδατος etc., xi. 41 λύσατε
αὐτὸν (Λάζαρ.) κ. ἄφετε αὐτὸν ὑπάγειν, 1 Cor. v. 13 ἐξάρατε τον 24
πονηρὸν ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, Acts xxiii. 23 ἑτοιμάσατε στρατιώτας διακο- ith ed
olovs forthwith make ready to march. Besides these, see Mark
ix. 22, 43; x. 21; xiii. 28; xiv. 15, 44; xv. 20; Luke xx. 24;
Juo. ii. 8; iv. 35 ; vi. 10; xi. 39; xiii. 29; xviii. 11; xxi. 6; Acts
iii. 4; vii. 33; ix. 11; xvi. 9; xxi. 39; xxii. 13; 1 Cor. xvi. 1;
Eph. vi. 13, 17; Col. iii. 5; Tit. iii. 13; Philem. 17; Jas. iii. 13;
iv. 8, 9; 1 Pet. iv. 1; 2 Pet. i. 5, 10. When something to be
carried into effect at once is expressed, sometimes vûv or vvví is
added to the Aorist Imperat.; as, Acts x. 5; xxiii. 15; 2 Cor.
viii. 11. The Aorist Imperat. is used also when dy strengthens the
injunction, as in Acts xiii. 2; 1 Cor. vi. 20 (Judith v. 3; vii. 9;
Bar. iii. 4; Xen. C. 1, 3, 9; Soph. El. 524; Klotz, Devar. 395).
b. The Present Imperat. denotes an action already begun and
to be continued (Poppo, Thuc. III. II. 742), or one that is per-
manent and frequently recurring. Hence it is commonly employed
in the measured and dispassionate language of laws and moral
precepts, e.g. Rom. xi. 20 μ inλoppóver (as thou now art), xii. 20
ἐὰν πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός σου, ψώμιζε αὐτόν (constantly in such case),
xiii. 3 θέλεις μὴ φοβεῖσθαι τὴν ἐξουσίαν ; τὸ ἀγαθὸν ποίει, Jas. ii. 12
οὕτω λαλεῖτε καὶ οὕτω ποιεῖτε, ὡς διὰ νόμου ἐλευθερίας etc., 1 Tim.
iv. 7 τοὺς βεβήλους και γραώδεις μύθους παραιτοῦ, cf. Jas. iv. 11 ;
v. 12; 1 Tim. iv. 11, 13; v. 7, 19; vi. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 1, 8, 14; Tit.
i. 13; iii. 1; 1 Cor. ix. 24; x. 14, 25; xvi. 13; Phil. ii. 12; iv. 3,
9; Eph. ii. 11; iv. 25, 26, 28; vi. 4; Juo. i. 44; xxi. 16; Mark
viii. 15; ix. 7, 39; xiii. 11; xiv. 38. Hence in ordinary discourse
the Present Imperat. conveys more softness and reserve of expres‐
sion, and frequently denotes merely advice (Moller as above, 123 f.). 330
Accordingly the Present and the Aorist Imperat. are sometimes
40
314
§ 43. THE IMPERATIVE.
used together, to denote respectively the distinctions above specified;
as, Jno. ii. 16 ἄρατε ταῦτα ἐντεῦθεν, μὴ ποιεῖτε τὸν οἶκον τοῦ
πατρός μου οἶκον ἐμπορίου, 1 Cor. xv. 34 ἐκνήψατε δικαίως
καὶ μὴ μαρτάνετε, Acts xii. 8 περιβαλοῦ τὸ ἱμάτιόν σου κ.
281 ἀκολούθει μου, Rom. vi. 13 μηδὲ παριστάνετε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν
6th ed. ὅπλα ἀδικίας τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἀλλὰ παραστήσατε ἑαυτοὺς τῷ θεῷ ὡς ἐκ
verpŵv Cŵvтas, Mark ii. 9; Jno. v. 8, 11; ii. 8 ; cf. Plato, rep. 9, 572 d.
θὲς τοίνυν πάλιν νέον υἱὸν ἐν τοῖς τούτου αὖ ἤθεσι τεθραμμένον.
Τίθημι. Τίθει τοίνυν καὶ τὰ αὐτὰ ἐκεῖνα περὶ αὐτὸν γιγνόμενα (Mtth.
1128), Xen. C. 4, 5, 41; Demosth. Aphob. 2, p. 557 c. and 588 a. ;
Eurip. Hippol. 475 sq. and Heracl. 635.
•
•
4. Occasionally this distinction may seem to be disregarded (1
Pet. ii. 17), and the Aorist Imp. in particular appear to be employed
where the Present Imp. would have been strictly required (Bhdy.
393). It must be remembered, however, that in many cases it
depends on the writer whether or not he will represent the action
as occurring in a point of time and momentary, or as only com-
mencing, or likewise continuing. Neither must it be overlooked
that the Aorist Imp. is in general more forcible and stringent than
the Present Imp. (sce no. 3), and the strengthening of discourse
295 is mainly a subjective matter; cf. Schoem. ad Isaeum p. 235.¹
7th ed. In accordance with these principles we must judge of the following
passages: μeivate èv èµoi Jno. xv. 4 etc. (also µévete Luke ix. 4;
1 Jno. ii. 28, µéve 2 Tim. iii. 14, μevéтw 1 Cor. vii. 24.etc.), 1 Jno.
ν. 21 φυλάξατε ἑαυτοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων (similarly 1 Tim. vi. 20 ;
2 Tim. i. 14., on the other hand 2 Pet. iii. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 15), Heb.
iii. 1 κατανοήσατε τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν,
Mark xvi. 15 πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα κηρύξατε τὸ
εὐαγγέλιον, Jno. xiv. 15 τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐμὰς τηρήσατε, Jas. v. 7
μακροθυμήσατε ἕως τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ κυρίου, cf. Matt. xxviii. 19;
2 Tim. i. 8; ii. 3; iv. 2; 1 Pet. i. 13; ii. 2; v. 2. The Aorist Imp.
will be found quite suitable in all these passages. In Rom. xv.
11 (Sept.) Jno. vii. 24 the Present Imp. and the Aorist Imp. even
of the same verb are thus connected together. In many passages
331 the reading varies e.g. Acts xvi. 15; Rom. xvi. 17; as also in the
Codd. of Greek authors these two forms are often interchanged,
1 In opposition to Schaef. Demosth. III. 185 he remarks: tenuissimum discrimen esse
apparet, ut saepenumero pro lubitu aut affectu loquentis variari oratio possit. Nam
quid mirum, qui modo lenius iusserat: σкоTEîтe (Demosth. Lept. 483), eundem statim
cum majore quadam vi et quasi intentius flagitantem addere: λoyiocole. Et plerumque,
si non semper, apud pedestres quidem scriptores, in tali diversorum temporum con-
junctione praes. imperativus antecedit, sequitur aoristus.
§ 43. THE IMPERATIVE.
315
Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 99, 222, especially where they differ only in
a single letter. Sometimes also one of these two Imperatives has
become obsolete, thus λáße is constantly employed, not λáußave;
λάβε λάμβανε
or one of the forms predominates, as in the N. T. pépe over everyKe.
See Bmln. 172.
Respecting the Imperat. (Pres.) after μý, see § 56, 1, p. 501 sq.
The Perf. Imp. is used when an action, complete in itself, is represented
as to continue in its effects, as in Mark iv. 39 in Christ's address to the
troubled sea: #epiμwσo be (and remain) still! Cf. also eppwoo, eppwole 282
Acts xxiii. 30; xv. 29. See Hm. emend. rat. p. 218; Mtth. 1126 f.; 6.b ed
Bmln. 174. Cf. Xen. M. 4, 2, 19; Thuc. 1, 71; Plato, Euthyd. 278 d.
and rep. 8, 553 a.
5. The Imperative may also be superseded by other forms of ex-
pression:
(my command is, or
étéţei тô µiapó Dem.
a. By the phrase-originally elliptical
see) that thou do not tarry. We find őπws
Mid. 414 c. (oπws with Fut. Indic. Mdv. 126), Eurip. Cycl. 595;
Aristoph. nub. 823, (less frequently with the Subjunctive, Xen.
C. 1, 3, 18; Lucian. dial. d. 20, 2). In the N. T. (the weakened
§ 44,8) va is thus used with the Subjunctive in Mark v. 23 iva
¿XOWV ẺTTLĐŶS TÀs Xeîpas avtŷ, also in 2 Cor. viii. 7 (but not in 1 Cor.
v. 2; 1 Tim. i. 3); and in the 3d Pers. in Eph. v 33 ʼn yuvǹ iva
pоßñтαι тòv äv♪pa (an Imperative precedes). In the Greek poets,
however, va occurs in the same connection (Soph. Oed. C. 155),
and also in later prose ; as, Epict. 23 ἂν πτωχὸν ὑποκρίνεσθαί σε 206
θέλῃ ὁ διδάσκαλος), ἵνα καὶ τοῦτον εὐφυῶς ὑποκρίνῃ, Arrian. Εpict. 7th ed
4, 1, 41; and in the Byzantines even with the Ind. Pres., Malal.
13 p. 334, 16 p. 404. In Latin cf. Cic. fam. 14, 20: ibi ut sint
omnia parata.
b. By a negative question with the Future (Hm. Vig. 740; Rost
678): wilt thou not come immediately? Aristoph. nub. 1296 oùk
ἀποδιώξεις σεαυτὸν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας; Xen. Cyr. 2, 3, 22. Cf. Acts
xiii. 10 οὐ παύσῃ διαστρέφων τὰς ὁδοὺς κυρίου; 4 Macc. F. 10 οὐκ
¿¿uπvwσes; This construction, however, is for the most part more
forcible than the Imperative.
c. In categorical sentences by the Future (especially in the
negative form): thou shalt not touch it, Matt. vi. 5 oùк čoŋ ws
Úπокρɩтαí, v. 48 (Lev. xi. 44). In Greck authors this mode of
expression passes as milder than the Imperative, Mtth. 1122; Bhdy.
378; Sintenis, Plut. Themist. 175 sqq.; Stallb. Plato, rep. II. 295;
Weber, Demosth. p. 369 sq.; (as to the Latin, see Ramsh. S. 421). 332
316
§ 43. THE IMPERATIVE.
But in Hebrew it has established itself in the emphatic diction of
legislation (Ewald, krit. Gr. 531); hence in quotations from the
Old T. : Matt. v. 21, 27, 33 οὐ φονεύσεις, οὐ μοιχεύσεις, Luke iv. 12 ;
Acts xxiii. 5; Rom. vii. 7; xiii. 9; 1 Cor. ix. 9 (Heb. xii. 20
Sept.). Only the fifth commandment Tíμa Tòv πатéρа etc. (from
Sept.) Matt. xv. 4; xix. 19; Eph. vi. 2, etc. is expressed in the
Imperat. In Rom. vi. 14 the Fut. expresses simple expectation.
This form of expression may be in itself either stern or mild; -
depending on the tone with which it is uttered.
d. By the Infinitive: to proceed! This, not to mention antique.
and epic diction, occurs in Greek prose, and not only when a com-
mand is uttered with excitement or imperious brevity (Hm. Soph.
Oed. R. 1057; Schaef. Demosth. III. 530; Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 146;
Blidy. 538),¹ but also in requests, wishes, and prayers (Bremi,
Dem. 230; Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 388; Fr. Rom. III. 86; Mdv. 155.
Compare the ancient form of salutation xaípew Acts xv. 23; Jas.
283 i. 1). Expositors have often been over-ready to discover this usage
6th ell. in the N. T. (Georgi, Hierocr. I. I. 58); altogether incorrectly in
ELITEV T
1 Thess. iii. 11; 2 Thess. ii. 17; iii. 5, where as the accent shows
Imperatives occur. In other passages the change of construction,
in sentences of some length, has been overlooked: in Luke ix. 3
we find μήτε ῥάβδον . . . ἔχειν, as if μηδὲν αἴρειν had been employed
in the preceding part of the sentence; both constructions might
have followed eiπev πρòs avтoús, and the writer certainly thought of
ἔχειν as an Infinitive depending on εἶπεν. In the parallel passage
Mark vi. 8 f. we find another change of structure. Cf. Arrian. Al.
4, 20, 5 σὺ νῦν φύλαξον τὴν ἀρχήν· εἰ δὲ . . . σὺ δὲ . . . παραδοῦναι.
Similarly Rom. xii. 15, see § 63. In other passages also the regu-
lar grammatical connection has been misunderstood: in Rev. x. 9
δοῦναι undoubtedly must be joined with λέγων ; in Col. iv. 6 εἰδέναι
297 is an Inf. clucidating the preceding predicates of Xóyos. Only in
Zih ed. Phil. iii. 16 #XÒV ….. TỆ AUTÊ OToyev is the Inf. most easily taken
for the Imperat.; it points out here with peculiar effect the un-
changing law of progress for the Christian life. Cf. Stallb. ad Plat.
Gorg. 447 b.
To the imperative va under a. Gieseler in Rosenm. Repert. II. 145
refers the use of a ἵνα in John etc., as in Jno. i. 8 οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς ἀλλ᾽
ivα μаρτvρýon but he was to bear witness; ix. 3; xiii. 18. But the
333 construction can only have this meaning when iva signifies in order that ;
TV
1 Thus in laws and moral rules in Hesiod. opp. et dd., in Theognis, in Hippocrates,
in Marc. Anton. See Gayler, partic. negantt. p. 80 sq.
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
317
1
and then an ellipsis, at least of a general kind, as yéyove Touro,¹ underlies
the usage, though John himself in consequence of frequent use regarded it
in particular passages as nothing more than but in order that, cf. Fr. Mt.
840 sq. An expositor, on the contrary, if he wishes to do his duty, can and
must in every case give naturally the special ellipsis from the context; as,
Jno. i. 8 he himself was not the light of the world, but he came (λev vs. 7)
that he might bear witness; ix. 3 neither hath this man sinned nor his
parents, but he was born blind that... might be made manifest (cf. 1 Jno.
ii. 19). In xiii. 18 there is probably an aposiopesis, which may be easily
explained psychologically: I speak not of you all, I know those whom I
have chosen, but (I have made this choice) that... might be fulfilled etc.;
see BCrus. (if we do not prefer to suppose that Jesus, instead of giving
utterance to the painful fact in his own language, continues in the words
of the Psalmist, cf. 1 Cor. ii. 9). In Jno. xv. 25 épíonσáv pe dwpear in the
quotation shows that pepionkaow must be repeated before iva. In Mark
xiv. 49 the coming forth of the Jews against Jesus, in the manner de-
scribed in vs. 48, is understood as predicted. Lastly, in Rev. xiv. 13 from
ἀποθνήσκοντες the word ἀποθνήσκουσι may be supplied before ἵνα etc.
στ
Note. In the N. T. text it is occasionally doubtful, whether a verbal
form that answers equally for the Imperat. and (the 2d person of) the 284
Indic. is to be taken for the former or the latter; e.g. Heb. xii. 17 čσTE, 6ib ed
ὅτι καὶ μετέπειτα θέλων κληρονομῆσαι τὴν εὐλογίαν ἀπεδοκιμάσθη, [xiii. 23]
1 Cor. vi. 4 βιωτικὰ μὲν οὖν κριτήρια ἐὰν ἔχητε, τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους ἐν τῇ
ἐκκλησία, τούτους καθίζετε, i. 26; xi. 26; Rom. xiii. 6; Eph. ii. 22 ;
Phil. ii. 15, 22; Jno. xiv. 1; 1 Pet. i. 6; ii. 5. In all such cases the
decision must depend on the context; and the question belongs not to
Grammar but to Hermeneutics.
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.2
298
7th ed.
1. The Infinitive, inasmuch as it expresses the idea of the verb
purely and simply i.e. without reference to a subject, is least
qualified of all the verbal forms to figure as a part of speech in a 334
grammatical sentence. It is so used, a. in expressing a concise,
hurried command (§ 43, 5 d.) ; or, b. when introduced adverbially;
subjoined absolutely. Under b. comes only the phrase s
éπоs eiπeiv Heb. vii. 9 (Krü. 178). To c. may be referred (Krü.
éños
179) Phil. iv. 10 ἀνεθάλετε τὸ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ φρονεῖν as to your regard
or, c.
1 To say that there is nothing to be supplied (as de Wette docs), is not satisfactory ;
at any rate it must be shown how and by what means iva assumes that import.
2 K. E. A. Schmidt on the Infinitive. Prenzlau, 1823. 8vo.; M. Schmidt on the Infin.
Ratibor, 1826. 8vo.; Eichhoff on the Infin. Crefeld, 1833. Svo. Cf. Mehlhorn in the
allgem. Lit. Z. 1833. Ergzbl. nr. 110.
318
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
for me, though another construction also is possible here. But an
Inf. which is added to a clause as its complement (infinit. epexe-
geticus), generally to express design (Rost 687), is related to the
last use, or rather coincides with it essentially, Matt. ii. 2 Ðoµev
προςκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ (in order) to worship him (after ἔρχομαι Matt.
xi. 7; xx. 28; Heb. ix. 24; Rev. xxii. 12; Jno. iv. 15; Luke
i. 17, and Téμw oг àπоσтéλλw Mark iii. 14; 1 Cor. i. 17; xvi. 3,
and, besides, Acts v. 31; Rom. x. 7; 1 Cor. x. 7); 2 Cor. xi. 2
ἡρμοσάμην ὑμᾶς ἑνὶ ἀνδρὶ παρθένον ἁγνὴν παραστῆσαι τῷ Χριστῷ,
Col. i. 22; 2 Cor. ix. 5; x. 13, 16; Jno. xiii. 24 VEVEL TOÚTO TUO éσ0αι
(cf. Diod. S. 20, 69), Rev. xvi. 9 où μeтevóŋoav doûvai avтê dóğav,
2 Pet. iii. 2 (1 Sam. xvi. 1) Phil. iv. 12.
In other passages it
denotes the result (as, in the early language, design and result
were not yet distinguished, Bmln. S. 339) Col. iv. 6 ó λóyos úµŵv...
ἅλατι ἠρτυμένος . . . εἰδέναι πῶς etc. seasoned with salt, to know
(so that ye may know), Heb. v. 5; or the mode of carrying into
effect, as in Acts xv. 10 τί πειράζετε τὸν θεὸν ἐπιθεῖναι ζυγὸν ἐπὶ τὸν
TρúɣnλOV Tŵν μalnτŵv imponendo jugum, Heb. v. 5 (1 Pet. iv. 3).
Lastly, in Eph. iii. 6 the Infin. clause gives the substance of the
μvoτýριov vs. 4; cf. also Eph. iv. 22. In Greek authors this lax
use of the Inf. is carried much farther, Schaef. Soph. II. 324;
Jacob, Lucian. Tox. 116; Held, Plut. Acm. P. 185 sq. The Inf.
of design is particularly frequent (Soph. Oed. C. 12; Thuc. 1, 50;
4, 8; Her. 7, 208; Plut. Cim. 5; Arrian. Al. 1, 16, 10; 4, 16, 4)
285 Mtth. 1234; Krü. 186 (though the Greeks, after verbs of going
6th ed. or sending, still more frequently employ the Participle, cf. Acts
viii. 27; xxiv. 11).
·
Such relations are more distinctly denoted sometimes by ste before the
Inf., as in Luke ix. 52; Matt. xxvii. 1. On the above passage in Matt.
9 where the explanation of Fr. is very far-fetched cf. Strab. 6, 324; Schaef.
ed. ad Bos ellips. p. 784, and Soph. Oed. Col. p. 525; Mtth. 1232. In the
Byzantine writers ösre with the Inf. instead of the Inf. alone is peculiarly
common, e.g. Malal. p. 385 ἐβουλεύσατο ὥστε ἐκβληθῆναι τὴν πενθεράν, p. 434.
Cf. also Heinichen, ind. ad Euseb. III. 545. A parallel to Luke, as above,
occurs in Euseb. Η. Ε. 3, 28, 3: εἰςελθεῖν ποτε ἐν βαλανείῳ ὥςτε λούσασθαι.
335 This extended use of the particle in the later language it is better to rec-
ognize in the N. T. also, than to consent to forced interpretations. Ns
before the Inf. occurs only in Acts xx. 24 οὐδενὸς λόγον ποιοῦμαι, οὐδὲ ἔχω
τὴν ψυχήν μου τιμίαν ἐμαυτῷ, ὡς τελειῶσαι τὸν δρόμον μου μετὰ χαρᾶς τη
order to finish my course etc., see Bornem. Schol. p. 174
E sq.
Other forms of the Infin. epexeget. are more naturally annexed
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
319
to a proposition or a clause, and assume the form of a grammati-
cally governed word, which they were considered to be in part by
earlier grammarians:1 a. Mark vii. 4 πολλὰ ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν
â
(observanda acceperunt), Matt. xxvii. 34 edwкav autų mieîv öços,
Eph. iii. 16 (Thuc. 2, 27; 4, 36; Lucian. asin. 43; Diog. L. 2, 51).
b. 1 Cor. ix. 5 exoμev éovolov yuvaîka Tepláуew, ix. 4; Luke viii.
8 о exшv 3тα àкove ȧкovéтw, ii. 1; Acts xiv. 5; Eph: iii. 8; Heb.
xi. 15 Kαιpòs ȧvakáμfa, iv. 1 (Plato, Tim. 38 h.; Aesch. dial. 3, 2)
Mtth. 1235. In this construction a subject even may be added to
the Inf., as in Rom. xiii. 11; cf. Schoem. Plut. Cleom. 187.
"
The Inf. is construed with Adjectives in 2 Tim. i. 12 SvvaTÒS
τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι (Thuc. 1, 139.), Heb. xi. 6 ; vi. 10 οὐκ
adiкos Ó ОEÒS éπiλaléolai etc., 1 Pet. iv. 3; 1 Cor. vii. 39; Mark
i. 7; 2 Cor. iii. 5; Luke xv. 19; Acts xiii. 25; Heb. v. 11; 2 Tim.
ii. 2; Luke xxii. 33. Cf. Ast, Plat. legg. p. 117; Stallb. Plat.
Euthyd. 204; Weber, Demosth. 261; Bhdy. 361.
...
2. But the Inf. may also enter into the construction of a sentence
as an integral part of it; and then its nature as a noun more or less
clearly appears. In such cases it is used sometimes as the subject
and sometimes as the object. It serves as subject (Mtth. 1239) in
sentences such as Matt. xii. 10 εἰ ἔξεστι τοῖς σάββασι θεραπεύειν
is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day (is healing etc. lawful)?
xv. 26 οὐκ ἔστι καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων, 1 Thess. iv. 3 288
τοῦτό ἐστι θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ . . . ἀπέχεσθαι . ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας (where fith ed
ó áɣiaoµòs vµŵv precedes, which also might have been expressed by
an Inf.), Acts xx. 16 ὅπως μὴ γένηται αὐτῷ χρονοτριβῆσαι (Weber, 336
Dem. 213), Matt. xix. 10; Eph. v. 12; Phil. i. 7; Gal. vi. 14; Jas. 300
i. 27; Rom. xiii. 5; 1 Cor. xi. 20; Heb. vi. 6; ix. 27; 1 Pet. ii. 15. 7th ed.
If in such cases the Infin. itself has a subject, whether a substantive,
adjective, or participle, this is usually connected grammatically
with the Inf. and put in the Accusative; as, Matt. xvii. 4 Kaλóv
éσTW ημâs ŵde eivat, xix. 24; Jno. xviii. 14; 1 Cor. xi. 13; 1 Pet.
ii. 15; Acts xxv. 27; Luke ix. 33; xviii. 25. Cf. Matthiae, Eurip.
Med. p. 526; Schwarz, de soloec. discip. Ch. p. 88 sq. When the
subject is subjoined to the leading clause (Phil. i. 7 Síkalov éμoì
1 Likewise by those who thought that in the example adduced under b. ěxoμev
¿¿ovσíav πepiάyei, a Toû is omitted before the Inf. (Haitinger in Act. Monac. III. 301):
this is put when the Inf. is regarded definitely as a Gen. (noun); without rod it is the
Inf. epexeget. The two constructions are somewhat differently conceived, Mtth. 1235.
So in Latin, Cic. Tusc. 1, 41: tempus est abire (cf. Ramshorn S. 423), in other passages
abeundi. See in general Stallb. Plat. Phil. p. 213 and Euthyphr. p. 107. (As in Luke
i. 9 we find λaxe тоû Ovμiâσai, so in Demosth. Neaer. 517 c. λayxável Bovλevew.)
320
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
W
ار
TоÛTо Oроvεîv etc.), the adjectives construed with the Infin. stand
either in the Acc. (Matt. xviii. 8 καλόν σοί ἐστιν εἰςελθεῖν εἰς τὴν
Swηv xwλòv ǹ kuλλóv), or in the case of the subject, according
to an attraction common in Greek authors; as, 2 Pet. ii. 21 кpeîтtov
ἦν αὐτοῖς, μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἢ ἐπιγνοῦσιν
Èπiστρéfαi, Acts xv. 25 (var.) cf. Thuc. 2, 87; Demosth. funebr.
153 a., 156 a.; Xen. Hier. 10, 2; Bhdy. 359; Krü. 180 (Zumpt
505). In Heb. ii. 10 both constructions are united: πρEEV
αὐτῷ ... ἀγαγόντα . . . τελειώσαι cf. Mark ix. 47 ; Matt. xviii. 8
(Plut. Coriol. 14).—
It is further to be remarked that
a. The Inf. in this case sometimes has the Article: viz. where it serves
directly as a verbal noun, which takes place not only in sentences such as
Rom. vii. 18 τὸ θέλειν παράκειταί μοι, τὸ δὲ κατεργάζεσθαι τὸ καλὸν οὔ, 2 Cor.
vii. 11 αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὸ κατὰ θεὸν λυπηθῆναι πόσην κατειργάσατο ὑμῖν σπουδήν,
Phil. i. 21, where the finite verb with its adjuncts forms a complete predi-
cate; but also in the impersonal phrases kaλóv, aioxpóv čσtɩ etc. (Rost 681),
if special force is intended to be given to the notion expressed by the Inf.
e.g. 1 Cor. vii. 26 καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ οὕτως εἶναι, Gal. iv. 18 καλὸν τὸ ζηλοῦσθαι
ẻv Kaλų TÁVTOTE, Rom. xiv. 21; 1 Cor. xi. 6. In the former case the
Article could hardly be omitted; but in the latter kaλòv åv¤púπų ovτws
elvai it is good for a man so to be (cf. 1 Cor. vii. 1; xiv. 35) would have
been less forcible in expression. Phil. i. 29 may also be reckoned in the
second class; in 1 Thess. iv. 6 one such Inf. with the Article is followed
by another without it (cf. Plat. 'Gorg. 467 d.; Xen. Cyr. 7, 5, 76); but in
Rom. iv. 13 the Inf. Tò Kλŋpovóμpov elvai appears as a species of apposition
to ǹ éπayуeλía. In Greek authors compare with the above, Plat. Phaed.
62 d.; Gorg. 475 b.; Xen. M. 1, 2, 1; Diod. S. 1, 93.
b. Instead of the Inf., especially when its subject is to be expressed with
special force, a complete clause also is used with ẻáv, ei, iva (according to
the import); as, Mark xiv. 21 καλὸν ἦν αὐτῷ, εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη, 1 Cor. vii. 8
καλὸν αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, ἐὰν μείνωσιν ὡς κἀγώ, Jno. xvi. 7 συμφέρει ὑμῖν, ἵνα ἐγὼ
301 áπéλ0. Respecting iva, see below, no. 8. This is in part a general
7th ed. peculiarity of the (later) popular language, which prefers circumstantiality;
287 in part it is to be referred to the Hellenistic tinge of the N. T. diction.
6th ed. Yet something similar occurs in Greek authors, as in Isocr. Nicocl. p. 40, 46.
Likewise, when the Inf. is joined with or in the sense of it is lawful,
or it is possible etc. to ..., the Inf. is itself the subject; as, Heb. ix. 5 (Ast,
lexic. Plat. I. 622 a.). But 1 Cor. xi. 20 may (in opposition to Wahl and
337
1 A difference in meaning between an Inf. with the Art. and without it is certainly
not to be assumed. In German, too, none such exists between das Beten ist segensreich
and beten ist segensreich. Yet the Inf. becomes more forcible when used as a substantive
with the Article.
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
321
Mey.) be further rendered: when ye come together, it is (means) not to eat
the Lord's Supper. Toûro in resumption of the Gen. abs. is not required.
3. The Inf. denotes the object (predicate) in all cases when it
is requisite to complete the meaning of a verb, not only after
θέλειν, δύνασθαι, τολμῶν, ἐπιχειρεῖν, σπουδάζειν, ζητείν, etc., but
also after verbs of believing, hoping (I hope to come, etc.), saying,
asserting. The regular usage need not be proved from the N. T.,
and therefore we have merely to remark,
2
1;
a. If, in such case, the Inf. has its own subject different from
that of the principal verb, such subject with all its attributives is
put in the accusative (Acc. with Infin.); as, 1 Tim. ii. 8 Boúroμai
προςεύχεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας, 2 Cor. xiii. 7 ; Heb. vi. 11 ἐπιθυμοῦμεν
ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὴν αὐτὴν ἐνδείκνυσθαι σπουδὴν etc., 2 Pet. i. 15 ;
1 Cor. vii. 10; Acts xiv. 19 voµío avтes avтòv тeovával, 2 Cor. xi. 16
μή τίς με δόξῃ ἄφρονα εἶναι, Rom. xv. 5 ὁ θεὸς δῴη ὑμῖν τὸ αὐτὸ
opoveîv, 2 Tim. i. 18. Yet, more frequently we find a complete
clause with "va after verbs of entreating, commanding, etc. (see
no. 8), with or after verbs of saying, believing (Matt. xx. 10;
Acts xix. 26; xxi. 29; Rom. iv. 9; viii. 18; Gal. v. 10), and
always in the N. T. after exπiw. If, on the other hand, the Inf.
and the principal verb have one and the same subject, the quali-
fying words, if such there be, are subjoined in the Nominative; as,
Rom. xv. 24 ἐλπίζω διαπορευόμενος θεάσασθαι ὑμᾶς, 2 Cor. x. 2
Séοµаι тò µǹ πаpov lappĥoaι (Philostr. Apoll. 2, 23), Rom. i. 22;
Phil. iv. 11; 2 Pet. iii. 14; Jude 3 (Luke i. 9?),3 which is a kind
of attraction; cf. Krüger, gramm. Untersuch. III. 328 ff. The
subject itself is then not repeated; as, Jas. ii. 14; 1 Cor. vii. 36. 338
Even in this construction, however, the Accusative (with Inf.)
may be used, yet only when the subject is repeated in the form of 302
a pronoun (Hm. Vig. 743), though this does not often occur; as, 7th ed.
Rom. ii. 19 πέποιθας σεαυτὸν ὁδηγὸν εἶναι τυφλῶν, Phil. iii. 13 ἐγὼ
ἐμαυτὸν οὐ λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι, Luke xx. 20 ὑποκρινομένους,
Éavtovs dikalovs eivai, Acts xxvi. 2; Rev. ii. 2, 9, perhaps also Eph. 288
iv. 22 (where, as appears to me, àтоléσ0αι iµâs depends on didá- 6th ed.
1 In opposition to Bornem. Schol. p. 40 see Fr. Rom. II. 376; cf. Blume, Lycurg. p 151.
2 If the governed substantive to which the Inf. refers be in the Dative, the noun
accompanying the Infin. may also be in the Dative, as in Acts xxvii. 3 ... 7 Пaúλ
τῷ Παύλῳ
χρησάμενος ἐπέτρεψεν πρὸς τοὺς φίλους πορευθέντι ἐπιμελείας τυχεῖν, unless the Dative
here is a correction; see Bornem. On the other hand, we find in Luke i. 74 Toû doûvaι
ἡμῖν ἀφόβως ἐκ χειρὸς ἐχθρῶν ῥυσθέντας λατρεύειν αὐτῷ etc.
8 So also in 1 Tim. i. 3 Topevóuevos belongs to таρеkáλeσα. If connected with
πрosμeîvaι it would necessarily, in such proximity, appear in the Accusative.
41
322
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
χθητε) cf. Her. 2, 2; Xen. C. 5, 1, 21 νομίζοιμι γὰρ ἑαυτὸν ἐοικέναι
etc., 1, 4, 4 (where sce Poppo); Anab. 7, 1, 30; Mem. 2, 6, 35;
Diod. S. 1, 50; Exc. Vat. p. 57; Philostr. Apoll. 1, 12; see Krüger
as above, S. 390. Yet in the former passages this construction
was preferred probably for the sake of antithesis (see Plat. symp.
c. 3, and Stallb. in loc., cf. Krüger as above, S. 386 f.) or of per-
spicuity: I deem not that I myself have already etc. For the same
reason, also, vuâs, in Eph. as above, appears to be employed, since
in vs. 21 another subject, Jesus, has intervened. Later writers,
however, use this construction even when no antithesis is intended,
cf. Heinichen, Euseb. H. E. I. 118.
b. After verbs of saying, (asserting), believing, the Inf. is some-
times used when the assertion etc. refers not to something that
really is, but to something that should be (such verbs containing
rather the notion of advice, claim, or command; see also Elmsley,
Soph. Oed. T. p. 80; Mtth. 1230); as, Acts xxi. 21 Xéywv, µn
περιτέμνειν αὐτοὺς τὰ τέκνα he said they ought not to circumcise their
children (he commanded them not to circumcise etc.) xv. 24?
Tit. ii. 2 ; Acts xxi. 4 τῷ Παύλῳ ἔλεγον μὴ ἀναβαίνειν εἰς Ἱεροσο
they said to Paul that he should not go up (advised him not to go)
etc. cf. Eurip. Troad. 724. In all these cases if the statement
were resolved into direct address the Imperative would be used:
μὴ περιτέμνετε τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν. Compare on this Inf. (which even
recent writers still explain by supposing the omission of dev, see
in opposition Hm. Vig. 745) Lob. Phryn. p. 753 sqq.; Bttm. Demosth.
Mid. p. 131; Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. p. 81; Jen. Lit. Zeit. 1816.
No. 231; Bhdy. 371. Too many passages, however, of the N. T.
have been referred to this head. Rom. xiv. 2 ôs µèv tiσtevei payeîv
Távтa means: one man has confidence to eat, and the may is already
implied in πιστεύειν. In xv. 9 δοξάσαι denotes, not what the
Gentiles should do, but what they actually do; see Fr. In ii. 21 f.
and Eph. iv. 22 f. (see above) the verbs to make known and to be
instructed, on which the Infinitives depend, inherently denote as
well what is (and must be believed) as what ought to be (should
be done); and, in the same way, we can say: they preached to
339 them not to steal; ye have been taught to lay aside. In Acts x. 22
XpημaτĺÇeσ0αι occurs, which is almost uniformly employed to denote
the direction of an oracle, a divine injunction. Finally, when
after verbs of beseeching the Inf. must be rendered by may, such
303 import is comprehended in the meaning of those verbs in the
7th ed. context in question, as in 2 Cor. x. 2 déoµai тò µǹ πaρòv Oaрpĥoaι
•
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
323
Tŷ Teπoinσel, as if, I beseech you in reference to my not being
bold, that is, to see that I be not hold.¹
c. The Article is put before the Inf. when it is the object, to
make it a substantive, and thus give it greater prominence (Rost 289
682) Rom. xiii. 8; xiv. 13 (Luke vii. 21 var.); 1 Cor. iv. 6; 2 Cor. 6th ed
ii. 1; viii. 10; Phil. iv. 10; cf. above, 1 (Hm. Soph. Aj. 114);
especially at the beginning of the sentence (Thuc. 2, 53; Xenoph.
M. 4, 3, 1), 1 Cor. xiv. 39 tò λaλeîv yλwooais µǹ kwλúete (cf. Soph.
Phil. 1241 ὅς σε κωλύσει τὸ δρᾶν). In Phil. ii. 6 οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν
ÝYÝσATO TÒ Elvai loa Oe, the Inf. with the Article is the im-
mediate object of ýyýσ., and ȧρπaуμ. is predicate, cf. Thuc. 2, 87
οὐχὶ δικαίαν ἔχει τέκμαρσιν τὸ ἐκφοβῆναι, and Bhdy. 316.
είνα
Especially deserving of attention is the use (in Luke peculiarly fre-
quent) of the Inf. with the Acc. after éyéveтo, as in Mark ii. 23 ¿yéveto
παραπορεύεσθαι αυτόν accidit, ut transiret, Acts xvi. 16 ἐγέν. παιδίσκην τινὰ
... ἀπαντῆσαι ἡμῖν, xix. 1 ἐγέν. Παῦλον διελθόντα . . . ἐλθεῖν εἰς Ἔφεσον, iv. 5 ;
ix. 3, 32, 37, 43; xi. 26; xiv. 1; xxi. 1, 5; xxii. 6; xxvii. 44; xxviii. 8,
17; Luke iii. 21 f.; vi. 1, 6; xvi. 22 etc.2 Here the Infinitive clause is
to be considered as the (extended) subject of éyévero, just as after ovvéßŋ
(see just below), and in Latin after aequum est, apertum est, etc. (Zumpt,
Gr. 505): Jesus' passing by came to pass, etc. The construction is good
Greek, though the frequent use of éyévero with the Iuf., instead of the
historical tense of the particular verb, is primarily an imitation of the
Hebrew In Greek we find a grammatical parallel in ovvéßŋ rǹv
πόλιν. eivaɩ kupieúovσav Diod. S. 1, 50; 3, 22, 39; Plat. legg. 1, 635 a. ;
Demosth. Polycl. 709 c.; Dion. H. IV. 2089, and frequently, particularly
in Polybius (also 2 Macc. iii. 2), which occurs also once in Acts xxi. 35. 340
The germ of the former construction may be seen in Theogn. 639 woλλáki
….yíɣveraɩ evpeîv epy åvdpŵv, with which Matt. xviii. 13 agrees most
closely. It appears in its full form in Plat. Phaedr. 242 b. Tò Saiμóvióv
τε καὶ τὸ εἰωθὸς σημεῖον μοι γίγνεσθαι ἐγένετο; and especially in later writers,
e.g. Codin. p. 138 ¿yévETO Tòv Baoiλéa ålvµéîv, Epiphan. Monach. ed.
Dressel p. 16 ἐγένετο αὐτοὺς ἀναβῆναι εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ.
>
The use of the Acc. with the Inf., as has been already remarked, is
elsewhere in the N. T. comparatively rare. A clause with or is more
kal
OTL
1 In 2 Cor. ii. 7 ὥςτε . . . χαρίσασθαι καὶ παρακαλέσαι the two Infinitives in the same
way denote what should be, and not what actually takes place. Yet even here dev is
not to be supplied, but the clause with ikavóv extends its influence to these Infinitives :
The reproach is sufficient, that you may now, on the contrary, forgive him etc.
2 The same construction is followed in Acts xxii. 17 ἐγένετό μοι ὑποστρέψαντι εἰς
Ἱερουσαλὴμ γενέσθαι με ἐν ἐκστάσει, where the Infin. might have been joined directly
to
• • •
μοι úñоσт. (accidit mihi), and perhaps would have been joined to it had not the writer
been led to depart from this construction by the intervention of the Gen. abs. кal прos-
προς
ευχομένου μου ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ.
324
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
304 common, quite after the manner of the later (popular) language, which
7th ed. resolves condensed constructions, and prefers the more circumstantial and
perspicuous. Hence in Latin e.g. ut where the more ancient language
employed the Acc. with the Inf.; hence, especially, the quod after verbs
dicendi and sentiendi which in the period of declining Latin (particularly
in the extra-Italian provinces) becomes more and more frequent. In Ger-
man the concise construction, "He said I had come too late," is resolved
in the speech of the people into "He said that I," etc. Moreover, it must
290 not be overlooked that after verbs dicendi the N. T. likes to introduce
6th ed. what is said in the oratio recta, according to the graphic idiom of Oriental
tongues.
4. The Inf. rendered an unmistakable substantive by means
of the Article is also employed in the oblique cases.
When so
used it appears in the N. T. most frequently (far more so than in
Greek authors) in the Genitive. Sometimes,
a. it depends on nouns or verbs which elsewhere also govern
the Genitive : 1 Cor. ix. 6 οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν τοῦ μὴ ἐργάζεσθαι;
1 Pet. iv. 17 ὁ καιρὸς τοῦ ἄρξασθαι τὸ κρίμα etc., Acts xiv. 9 πίστιν
ἔχει τοῦ σωθῆναι, xx. 3 ἐγένετο γνώμη τοῦ ὑποστρέφειν, Luke xxiv.
25 βραδείς τῇ καρδίᾳ τοῦ πιστεύειν, Acts xxiii. 15 ἕτοιμοι τοῦ
averi (Sept. Ezek. xxi. il ; 1 Macc. v. 39); Luke i. 9 ěraXe Tou
θυμιάσαι (1 Sam. xiv. 47) ; 2 Cor. i. 8 ὥςτε ἐξαπορηθῆναι ἡμᾶς καὶ
τοῦ ζῆν, 1 Cor. xvi. 4 ἐὰν ᾖ ἄξιον τοῦ κἀμὲ πορεύεσθαι if it be
worthy of my going also. Cf. also 1 Cor. x. 13; 2 Cor. viii. 11;
Luke xxii. 6; Phil. iii. 21; Rom. vii. 3; xv. 23; Heb. v. 12;
Rev. ix. 10 (Sept. Gen. xix. 20; Ruth ii. 10; Neh. x. 29; Judith
ix. 14, etc.). Sometimes the Codd. vary between the Inf. with Toû
and without it, as in Rev. xiv. 15 (in other passages we find, in
parallel phrases, sometimes the one and sometimes the other, Heb.
v. 12; 1 Thess. iv. 9). For passages from Greek authors, see
Georgi, vind. 325 sq.; Mtth. 1256. (In these, several words fre-
quently intervene between the Article and the Inf.; but this does
not occur in the N. T., owing to the simplicity of its diction. See
Demosth. funebr. 153 a., 154 c.; Aristocr. 431 a.)
Under this head come also Luke i. 57 ἐπλήσθη ὁ χρόνος του τεκεῖν
avtýv, ii. 21, cf. Sept. Gen. xxv. 24; xlvii. 29, as in writing Greek the
341 author regarded the Gen. as depending immediately on xpóvos. In Hebrew
the construction is somewhat different, the Inf. with being used; see
Ewald 621.
Sometimes, b. it is construed with entire clauses, to express
design (see Valcken. Eurip. Hippol. 48; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 56;
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
325
ôv
Schaef. Demosth. II. 161; V. 368; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 338; Mtth.
1256 f.), where the earlier philologists supplied éveka (cf. Dem.
funebr. 156 b.) or xáp, as Luke xxiv. 29 eisîλlev тoû peîvai oùr
αὐτοῖς, Matt. xxiv. 45 ὃν κατέστησεν ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκετείας αὐτοῦ
τοῦ δοῦναι αὐτοῖς τὴν τροφήν, iii. 13 παραγίνεται ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην
Toû Baπtioðĥvat,
Tôi Barrio Đa, xiii. 3; Luke ii. 27; v. 7; xxi. 22 ; xxii. 31 ;
Acts iii. 2; xxvi. 18; 1 Cor. x. 13; Heb. x. 7; Gal. iii. 10; with 305
a negative in Acts xxi. 12 παρεκαλοῦμεν . . . τοῦ μὴ ἀναβαίνειν αὐτὸν ith ed
eis 'Iepovoaλýµ, Jas. v. 17; Heb. xi. 5. This construction is espe-
cially peculiar to Luke (and Paul). But in Greek prose, partic-
ularly after the time of Demosthenes, parallel instances occur;
and this use of the Genitive results so surely from the primary
import of the case itself (Blidy. 174 f.), that no one should venture
to find in it either an ellipsis or a Hebraism. Cf. Xen. C. 1, 6, 40
τοῦ δὲ μηδ᾽ ἐντεῦθεν διαφεύγειν, σκοποὺς τοῦ γιγνομένου καθίστης.
Plat. Gorg. 457 e. φοβοῦμαι οὖν διελέγχειν σε, μή με υπολάβῃς οὐ
πρὸς τὸ πρᾶγμα φιλονεικοῦντα λέγειν, τοῦ καταφανὲς γενέσθαι etc.
Strabo 15,717; Demosth. Phorm. 603 b.; Isocr. Aegin. 932; Thuc. 291
1, 23; 2, 22; Heliod. 2, 8, 88; 1, 24, 46; Dion. H. IV. 2109; 6th ed.
Arrian. Al. 2, 21, 13; 3, 25, 4 and 28, 12. An Inf. with, and
another without Toû, are connected in the same principal clause
in Luke ii. 22 f. If a subject is expressed in this construction it
is put in the Acc. Luke v. 7.
In Phil. iii. 10 also this Inf. denotes design, where roû yvwvaɩ is con-
nected with vs. 8 and resumes the thought there expressed. (In the
Sept. this Inf. occurs on every page, cf. Gen. i. 14; xxiv. 21; xxxviii. 9;
xliii. 17; Judg. v. 16; ix. 15, 52; x. 1; xi. 12; xv. 12; xvi. 5; xix. 3;
xx. 4; Ruth i. 1, 7; ii. 15; iv. 10; Neh. i. 6; 1 Sam. ix. 13, 14; xv. 27;
2 Sam. vi. 2; xix. 11; Jonah i. 3; Joel iii. 12; Judith xv. 8; 1 Macc.
iii. 20, 39, 52; v. 9, 20, 48; vi. 15, 26.)
Different from this, and more closely connected with the notion of the
Genitive hence to be referred to a. is the use of the Inf. with Toû
after verbs signifying to be distant from, to restrain or debar from, to
prevent from; for these verbs contain the inherent power of directly
governing the Gen., and accordingly are uniformly followed by the Gen.
of a noun, as Rom. xv. 22 ἐνεκοπτόμην ... τοῦ ἐλθεῖν, Luke iv. 42 καὶ
κατεῖχον αὐτὸν τοῦ μὴ πορεύεσθαι (cf. Isocr. ep. 7, 1012 ἀπέχειν τοῦ τινας
άπоктEίVEL, Xen. M. 2, 1, 16; A. 3, 5, 11), with a pleonastic negative 342
(§ 65) Acts xiv. 18 μόλις κατέπαυσαν τοὺς ὄχλους τοῦ μὴ θύειν αὐτοῖς (cf.
παύειν τινά τινος and παύεσθαι followed by Inf. with του Diod. S. 3, 33 ;
Phalar. ep. 35, also novɣáčew TOû TOLEν Malalas 17, p. 417), xx. 27 ovx
ὑπεστειλάμην τοῦ μὴ ἀναγγεῖλαι ὑμῖν πᾶσαν τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. vs. 20),
326
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
1 Pet. iii. 10 παυσάτω τὴν γλῶσσαν αὑτοῦ ἀπὸ κακοῦ καὶ χείλη αὑτοῦ τοῦ μὴ
λαλῆσαι δόλον, Luke xxiv. 16 οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἐκρατοῦντο τοῦ μὴ ἐπιγνῶναι αὐτόν
(Xen. Laced. 4, 6), Rom. vi. 6 ; Acts x. 47 (Sus. 9 ; 3 Esr. ii. 24 ; v. 69,
70; Gen. xvi. 2; Act. Thom. § 19; Protev. Jac. 2 etc.). Perhaps also
φεύγειν and ἐκφεύγειν τοῦ ποιῆσαι is best explained in this way (as φεύγειν
τινός is used), Xen. A. 1, 3, 2. Cf. Bhdy. 356; Bttm. exc. II. ad Demosth.
Mid. p. 143.
In Rom. i. 24 παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς ... εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι
τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς the Inf. depends directly on the noun ἀκαθαρσ.,
306 and there is nothing strange in the omission of τήν before ἀκαθ. (xv. 23 ;
Ti ed. 1 Cor. ix. 6). The Gen. indicates in what this ἀκαθ. consisted : commisit
6th ed.
impuritati, quae cernebatur in etc. Fr. with more detail says: virgula
post ἀκαθαρσ. collocata ante του mente repete ἀκαθαρσίαν. The need of
this I cannot perceive, as ἀκαθαρσ. and ἀτιμάς. stand close together, and
the Gen. may naturally be understood of the sphere of the ἀκαθαρσ. In
the same way, too, in Rom. viii. 12 the Inf. τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆν is to be
understood as depending on ὀφειλέτην, in conformity to the regular phrase
ὀφειλέτην εἶναί τινος ; see Fr. Matt. p. 844. Finally, in Luke i. 73 τοῦ
δοῦναι in the same way is most naturally connected with ὅρκον, cf. Jer. xi. 5.
It soon became usual, however, to employ this construction more
loosely, not only a) After verbs involving the idea of entreaty)1
292 command,2 determination, and thus indirectly of design, Acts xv. 20
κρίνω ἐπιστεῖλαι αὐτοῖς τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι to send them the direction
to abstain, Luke iv. 10 (from the Sept.) τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὑτοῦ ἐντε-
λεῖται περὶ σοῦ τοῦ διαφυλάξαι, Acts xxvii. 1 (where it would be
forced to connect τοῦ ἀποπλεῖν with the following παρεδίδουν), cf.
Ruth ii. 9 ; 1 Kings i. 35 ; 1 Macc. i. 62; iii. 31; v. 2; ix. 69;
Malal. Chron. 18, 458; Ducas p. 201, 217, 339, a.; Fabric. Pseudepigr.
I. 707; Vit. Epiph. p. 346;- but also, b) For epexegesis, where
an Inf. with or without sTe might have been used, and the im-
port of the Gen. is lost by blending result and design. Very fre-
343 quently so in the Sept. ; ( with the Inf. denotes both design and
result; as to eis with the Inf. see afterwards). In the N. T. com-
pare Acts vii. 19 οὗτος κατασοφισάμενος . . . ἐκάκωσε τοὺς πατέρας
ἡμῶν τοῦ ποιεῖν ἔκθετα τὰ βρέφη etc., so that they cast out (cf.
Thuc. 2, 42, and Poppo in loc.), and what is still harsher iii. 12
ὡς πεποιηκόσι τοῦ περιπατεῖν αὐτόν (1 Kings xvi. 19). In both
1 Cf. Malalas 14, 357 ᾐτήσατο ἡ Αὔγουστα τὸν βασιλέα, τοῦ κατελθεῖν εἰς τοὺς
ἁγίους τόπους, 17, 422 πυκνῶς ἔγραφε τοῖς αὐτοῖς πατρικίοις τοῦ φροντισθῆναι τὴν
πόλιν, 18, 440 κελεύσας τοῦ δοθῆναι αὐταῖς χάριν προικὸς ἀνὰ χρυσίου λιτρῶν εἴκοσι etc.
18, 461.
2 A construction parallel to κελεύειν ἵνα.
§ 44. TIIE INFINITIVE.
327
these passages Fr.'s exposition (Matt. p. 846) is undoubtedly to be
rejected; otherwise, many passages of the Sept. would either be
inexplicable, or would admit of but a very forced interpretation.
Cf. in particular Josh. xxii. 26 είπαμεν ποιῆσαι οὕτω τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι,
1 Kings xiii. 16 où µǹ Súvwµai тoû êmioтpé↓ai (1 Macc. vi. 27),
xvi. 19 ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτοῦ, ὧν ἐποίησε τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ πονηρόν
etc., Judith xiii. 20 ποιήσαι σοι αὐτὰ ὁ θεὸς εἰς ὕψος αἰώνιον τοῦ
ἐπισκέψασθαί σε ἐν ἀγαθοῖς, 1 Macc. vi. 59 στήσωμεν αὐτοῖς τοῦ
πορεύεσθαι τοῖς νομίμοις, Joel ii. 21 ἐμεγάλυνε κύριος τοῦ ποιῆσαι.
How diversified the use of the Inf. with Toû in the Sept. is, may be
seen from the following passages (which can easily be classified and which
exhibit more or less distinctly the relation denoted by the Genitive) :
Gen. xxxi. 20; xxxiv. 17; xxxvii. 18; xxxix. 10; Exod. ii. 18; vii. 14; 307
viii. 29; ix. 17; xiv. 5; Josh. xxiii. 13; Judg. ii. 17, 21, 22; viii. 1; ix. 24, 7th ed.
37; xii. 6; xvi. 6; xviii. 9; xxi. 3, 7; 1 Sam. vii. 8; xii. 23; xiv. 34;
xv. 26; 1 Kings ii. 3; iii. 11; xii. 24; xv. 21; xvi. 7, 31; Ps. xxxix. 14;
Jonah i. 4; iii. 4; Mal. ii. 10; 3 Esr. i. 33; iv. 41; v. 67; Judith ii. 13;
v. 4; vii. 13; Ruth i. 12, 16, 18; iii. 3; iv. 4, 7, 15. See also Thilo, Act.
Thom. p. 20; Tdf. in the Verhandeling. p. 141. Cf. Acta apocr. p. 68, 85,
124, 127, etc. This Infin. is by no means unfrequent in Byzantine authors;
as, Malal. 18, 452; 18, 491; cf. Index to Ducas p. 639, where p. 320 even
εἰ βούλεται τοῦ εἶναι φίλος occurs, cf. p. 189, and p. 203 δύναται τοῦ
ἀνταποκριθῆναι. This use of του must be recognized as an extravagance of
declining (Hellenistic) Greek, unless forced interpretations be preferred.
In Hellenistic writers this construction appears to have become the
counterpart of the Inf. with in its manifold relations; and, as generally 293
takes place in established phrases, they no longer thought of the original 6th ed.
Genitive force. Analogous to this, moreover, is the Byzantine usage of
inserting ὥστε before the Inf. after such verbs as βουλεύεσθαι, δοκεῖν etc. ;
see Index to Malalas, Bonn ed.,2 cf. above, no. 3.
8
In Rev. xii. 7 ἐγένετο πόλεμος ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Μιχαὴλ καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ 344
τοῦ πολεμῆσαι (where the received text has the correction ἐπολέμησαν)
a construction occurs which I am unable to explain (Lücke, too, in his
Einleit. in die Offenbar. Joh. 2 Aufl. S. 454 f., was unable), unless we
may consider ὁ Μιχ. καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοῦ as a parenthesis - awkward to be
which compelled the writer to resume then the ἐγέν. πόλεμος in
the construction тоû πодeµ. Fr.'s exposition (Matt. p. 844) appears to
me artificial. It would, however, be still more inadmissible to take Tоû
sure
1 In Aesop. 172 de Fur. we find queλλev avròs ToÛ KaTalûσai TaÚTηy, where Schäf
thinking solely of the above use of the Genitive Inf. (no. 4 b.) would reject the Toû.
2 Even native Greeks could consider this Inf. after such verbs as dúvaµaι, Oéλw etc. as
a sort of Genitive, inasmuch as the action expressed by the Inf. always depends on the
principal verb as a part depends on the whole.
328
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
Toλeμ. for an imitation of the (later) Hebrew on
pugnandum iis erat,
as Ewald and Züllig do. For even in the Sept. that construction is in no
passage rendered so strangely. If ἐγένετο τοῦ πολεμῆσαι alone were the
reading, there would be a parallel in Acts x. 25 (see just below), and the
construction would be tolerably explicable. Perhaps, however, the passage
contains an ancient gloss, or something fell out of the text, at an early
period, before Tоû Toλep. There is no plausibility in the proposal of
Bornem. (Jen. L. Z. 1845, nr. 183) to read: éyévero toλéµios èv tô vúpavậ
8 Mixańλ etc.; and with Hengstenberg boldly to supply had war before
Μιχαήλ
Tοû πоλ. would be to make John chargeable with a strange latitude in the
use of words. Acts x. 25 ἐγένετο τοῦ εἰςελθεῖν τὸν Πέτρον, where τοῦ is
critically established, cannot be compared to the usage mentioned by Gesen.
308 Lehrgeb. S. 786 f., for according to this it must have run: éyév. ó Héтpos
7th ed. Toû ciseλbeîv; this would be an extreme use of the Inf. with Toû¹ which in
Luke certainly would be very surprising. Bornem. considers the whole
clause as spurious, but the reader is referred to B. himself for the
manner in which he thinks the text should be made up. Likewise in
Luke xvii. 1 ανένδεκτόν ἐστι τοῦ μὴ ἐλθεῖν τὰ σκάνδαλα some Codd. omit
the rou. If it is genuine (both Lehm. and Tdf. have retained it), the Genitive.
is owing probably to the notion of distance or exclusion implied in ȧvév-
The view of Mey. is different.
SEKT., cf. above, no. 4 b.
то
5. The Dative of the Inf. denotes the cause, according to the
294 inherent import of that case, see § 31, 6 c. (Mtth. 1258; Schaef.
6th ed. Demosth. II. 163; Stallb. Plat. Tim. p. 203), 2 Cor. ii. 13 oùí čσуNKA
ἄνεσιν τῷ πνεύματί μου τῷ μὴ εὑρεῖν Τίτον because I found not
etc.; cf. Xen. C. 4, 5, 9; Demosth. pac. 21 c., funebr. 156 b., ep. 4 p.
119b.; Achill. Tat. 5, 24; Lucian. abdic. 5; Diog. L. 10, 27; Liban.
ep.8; Athen. 9,375; Joseph. antt. 14, 10,1; Simplic. in Epict. enchir.
c. 38, p. 385; Schweigh. Agath. 5, 16. This Inf. is understood by
some as denoting design in 1 Thess. iii. 3 т µndéva oalveolai év
345 Taîs Oxí↓eo in order that no one be shaken etc., as it were' for the
not being shaken' (Schott. in loc.), a thought which is subordinate
to the eis Tò OTηpigai, and therefore was not expressed by a repetition
of this form. No such Dat. Infin., however, occurs in Greek; and
we must read with good Codd. [Sin. included] тò µndéva oaiveolai,
which has now been received into the text. See above, 1. Remark.
6. The Infinitive in an oblique case is often joined to a preposition,
particularly in narration, and rather more frequently in the N. T.
than in Greek authors. The Article is then never omitted (Hm.
Under this
1 Cf. Acta apocr. p. 66 ὡς ἐγένετο τοῦ τελέσαι αὐτοὺς διδάσκοντας etc.
head would come also Acts ii. 1 if the reading were καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις
τοῦ συμπληροῦσθαι.
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
329
3
Vig. 702; Krü. 94),¹ though several words may be inserted between
the Article and the Inf. (Acts viii. 11; Heb. xi. 3; 1 Pet. iv. 2);2
as, Matt. xiii. 25 év tập kabeúdei тoùs ȧvěpáπous while men slept,
Gal. iv. 18; Luke i. 8; Acts viii. 6 (Xen. Cyr. 1, 4, 5; Ifiero 1,
6); iii. 26 evλoуoûνта úµâs Év т❖ ȧтоотрépew etc. by turning away,
in that he turns away (Heb. iii. 12); Phil. i. 23 ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων
eis tò ávaxûoai desire towards departing (to depart), Jas. i. 19
Bpadùs els tò λaλñoai slow to speak, 1 Cor. x. 6 eis tò µǹ eîvai 309
ÚµÂS ÉπIÐVµNTÀS Kakŵv to the end that ye be not etc., ix. 18; 2 Cor. 7th ed.
iv. 4; vii. 3; Matt. xxvi. 2; Luke iv. 29; Acts vii. 19 (Xen. C.
1, 4, 5; An. 7, 8, 20) Rom. iv. 18 (see Philippi), 1 Thess. ii. 16;
2 Cor. viii. 6 εἰς τὸ παρακαλέσαι ἡμᾶς Τίτον so that we besought Titus
(lit., unto the beseeching etc.), Rom. vii. 5; Heb. xi. 3 ; Heb.
ii. 15 Sià TavтÒS TOû v (through) all their life-time, Phil. i. 7 dià
Tò exeiv µe ev tŷ Kapdíą vµâs because I have you etc., Acts viii. 11;
xviii. 2; Heb. vii. 23; x. 2; Luke ii. 4; Mark v. 4 (Xen. C. 1, 4,
5; Mem. 2, 1, 15; Aristot. rhet. 2, 13; Pol. 2, 5, 2); Jas. iv. 15
ȧvтì Tоû Xéуew ipas instead of your saying (Xen. Apol. 8; Plat. 295
Matt. vi. 8 πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι before your
rep. 1, 343 a.);
asking, Luke ii. 21; xxii. 15; Acts xxiii. 15 (Zeph. ii. 2; Plato,
Crit. 48d.);
Matt. vi. 1 πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς in order to be
seen of them, 2 Cor. iii. 13; 1 Thess. ii. 9; Luke xviii. 1 exeyev
παραβολὴν πρὸς τὸ δεῖν πάντοτε προςεύχεσθαι in reference to etc.;
Matt. xxvi. 32 μµетà тò Êyeρ¤ñvai μe after my resurrection, when I 346
shall have been raised, Luke xii. 5; Mark i. 14; Acts vii. 4 ; xv. 13
(Herod. 2, 9, 6; 3, 5, 10); 2 Cor. vii. 12 εἵνεκεν τοῦ φανερω
Oñvaι тην oπоvềηv vμŵv (Demosth. fun. 516 a. b.; Plato, Sis. 390 b.;
D. S. exc. Vat. p. 39. Also inscript. Rosett. 11).
€
4
Paul with peculiar frequency expresses purpose by the Infinitive with
eis or após, while in such cases the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
prefers a derivative noun; see Schulz, Hebräerbr. S. 146 ff. But cf. also
1 Cor. vii. 35.
1 On the other hand, cf. Theodoret. III. 424 àяd кußevel тd ovoμa, IV. 851 napà
σvykλw0eσ0αι, Psalt. Sal. 4, 9. Similar constructions sometimes occur in Greek prose
(Bhdy. 354; Kühner II. 352), but it is uncertain.
2 Yet not so many, and not entire clauses even, as frequently in Greek authors
(Xen. Occ. 13, 6; Cyr, 4, 5, 9; 7, 5, 42 etc.). The adjuncts, too, are uniformly put
after the Inf. An Inf. with ăxpɩ or µéxpɩ never occurs; with eveкa only once.
8 The rendering of the Inf. with eis by so that is unobjectionable, as eis is elsewhere
employed to express alike either aim or result; cf. Eurip. Bacch. 1161.
4 Against the other exposition, according to which tuâs is taken as the subject, see
van IIengel in loc. Even where the subject is placed after the Infinitive the proper
construction is always to be determined by the context, e.g. Simplic. enchir. 13 p. 90
διὰ τὸ πολεμίους μιμεῖσθαι τοὺς συγγυμναστάς. Cf. Jno. i. 49.
6th ed.
42
330
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
If in this construction of the Inf. with a prep. a subject be annexed, it
is put in the Acc. even when it is one and the same with the subject of
the principal clause ; as, Heb. vii. 24 ὁ δὲ διὰ τὸ μένειν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
exe, Luke ii. 4. Predicates also stand then in the Acc.; as, Luke xi. 8
δώσει αὐτῷ διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοῦ φίλον; but cf. Χen. Cyr. 1, 4, 3 διὰ τὸ
φιλομαθὴς εἶναι ... αὐτὸς ἀνηρώτα, Mtth. 1284. Yet the attraction, which
properly accounts for the Nominative, is also in other circumstances omitted
in Greek authors.
The Inf. (without the Article) after πρiv or πρìv й (Reitz, Lucian. IV.
501 ed. Lehm.), may be considered as Inf. nominascens; e.g. Jno. iv. 49
κατάβηθι πρὶν ἀποθανεῖν τὸ παιδίον μου is equivalent to πρὸ τοῦ ἀποθ. etc.
The Inf. with this particle is employed not only in connection with a Fut.
310 or Imperf. in reference to a still impending fact (Mtth. 1200) Matt. xxvi. 34
7th ed. (Acts ii. 20); but also in reference to past events (Xen. C. 3, 3, 60; An.
1, 4, 13; Herod. 1, 10, 15) in connection with Preterites, Matt. i. 18; Acts
vii. 2; Jno. viii. 58. As to πpiv й cf. Her. 2, 2; 4, 167.
7. The well-known distinction between the Inf. Pres. and Inf.
Aor., as well as between the Inf. Aor. and Inf. Fut. (Hm. Vig.
p. 773),¹ is for the most part very clearly observed in the N. T.
The Inf. Aorist is employed,
a. In narration after a Preterite on which it depends (in accord-
ance with that parity of tenses carefully observed in Greck, sce
Schaef. Demosth. III. 432; Stallb. Phileb. p. 86 and Phaed. p. 32);
as, Mark ii. 4 μὴ δυνάμενοι προςεγγίσαι αὐτῷ ... ἀπεστέγασαν, xii.
296 12 ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν κρατῆσαι, ν. 3 οὐδεὶς ἠδύνατο αὐτὸν δῆσαι, Luke
6th ed. xviii. 13 οὐκ ἤθελεν οὐδὲ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐπᾶραι, Jno.
347 vi. 21; vii. 44; Matt. i. 19; viii. 29; xiv. 23; xviii. 23; xxiii. 37 ;
xxvi. 40; xxvii. 34; Mark vi. 19, 48; Luke vi. 48; x. 24; xv. 28;
xix. 27; Acts x.10; xvii. 3; xxv. 7; Col. i. 27; Gal. iv. 20; Philem.
14; Jude 3. This is quite regular, and requires no proof froin
Greck authors, Mdv. 188. (Sometimes, however, we find the Inf.
Pres., as in Jno. xvi. 19; Acts xix. 33; Luke vi. 19, and in parallel
passages the Inf. Pres. is used in Matt. xxiii. 37, while in Luke
xiii. 34 the Inf. Aor.) Likewise the Inf. Aor. is uniformly con-
nected with the Imp. Aor.; as, Matt. viii. 22 άpes тOÙS VEкpоÙS
θάψαι τοὺς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς, xiv. 28 ; Mark vii. 27.
1 Stallb. Plat. Euthyd. p. 140: Aoristus (Infin.) quia nullam facit significationem
perpetuitatis et continuationis, prouti vel initium vel progressus vel finis actionis verbo
expressae spectatur, ita solet usurpari, ut dicatur vel de co, quod statim et e vestigio
fit ideoque ctiam certo futurum est, vel de re semel tantum eveniente, quae diuturnitatis
et perpetuitatis cogitationem aut non fert aut certe non requirit, vel denique de re brevi
et uno veluti temporis ictu peracta.
844. THE INFINITIVE.
331
b. After any tense, when an action (rapidly) passing, completed
at once, or instantly to begin, is to be expressed (IIm. Vig. as
above); as, Mark xiv. 31 ἐάν με δέῃ συναποθανεῖν σοι, xv. 31 ἑαυτὸν
οὐ δύναται σῶσαι, Matt. xix. 3 εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀνθρώπῳ ἀπολῦσαι τὴν
γυναίκα, 1 Cor. xv. 53 δεῖ τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσίαν.
Cf. Jno. iii. 4; v. 10; ix. 27; xii. 21; Acts iv. 16; Rev. ii. 21;
2 Cor. x. 12; xii. 4; 1 Thess. ii. 8; Eph. iii. 18. Under this head
comes also Jno. v. 44 (πɩστeúew signifies to exercise faith, to become
a believer).
c. In particular, after verbs of hoping, promising, commanding,
wishing, and many others, the Greeks frequently employ the Inf.
Aor. (Lob. Phryn. p. 751 sq.; Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 153; Ast,
Theophr. char. p. 50 sq.; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 525, 719; Weber,
Demosth. 343, especially Schlosser, vindic. N. T. locor. adv. Marc-
land. Hamb. 1742, 4to. p. 20 sqq.), viz. where the action is to
be designated merely as brought to pass ("ab omni temporis
definiti conditione libera et immunis," Stallb. Plat. Euthyd. p. 140;
Weber, Dem. as above); whereas the Inf. Pres. has reference to 311
the continuance of the action, or represents it as just now occurring, 7th ed.
and the Inf. Fut. (after verbs of hoping, promising) represents it as
not to occur till some future time of indefinite remoteness (Held,
Plutarch. Timol. p. 215 sq.; cf. Stallh. Plat. Crit. p. 138; Pflugk,
Eur. Heracl. p. 54 sq.). In the N. T. èxπíw is uniformly followed
by the Inf. Aor. [since only in Acts xxvi. 7 is the Infin. Future
found as the solitary variant of Cod. B], and none of the examples
will occasion any difficulty, especially as it often depends upon the
writer how he will view the action; as, Luke vi. 34 Tар' &v èλTTIGETE
ἀπολαβεῖν, Phil. ii. 23 τοῦτον ἐλπίζω πέμψαι, ὡς ἂν ἀπίδω etc. vs.
19; 2 Jno. 12 ελπίζω γενέσθαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, 3 Jno. 14; Acts xxvi. 7;
Rom. xv. 24; 1 Tim. iii. 14; 1 Cor. xvi. 7; 2 Cor. x. 15.2 Like-
wise èπayyéλcoat is usually construed with the Inf. Aor.; as, 297
Mark xiv. 11 èπŋyyeiλato avtê doûval, Acts iii. 18; vii.5; similarly 6th ed
όμνυμι, Aets ii. 30 ὅρκῳ ὤμοσεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς ἐκ καρποῦ τῆς ὀσφύος
аÚтоÛ каlíσαι ènì тоû Oρóvоv; on the other hand, see Inf. Fut. in
1 It is less probable that the Inf. Aor. is intended to designate the action as rapidly
passing (im. Soph. Aj. p. 160; Krüg. Dion. II. p. 101, and others); this clement hardly
comes to view in the case of a hope or a command.
2 For an Inf. Perf. after ἐλπίζω see 2 Cor. v. 11 ἐλπίζω καὶ ἐν ταῖς συνειδήσεσιν ὑμῶν
Tepaveρwσlai that I have been made manifest, where exige is not exactly equivalent to
vouífw, but indicates an impression still requiring confirmation; but the Inf. Perf. after
the preceding тepaveρúμeba needs no explanation. Cf. Iliad. 15, 110 hồn vôr Exñoµ'
"Apnï ye πîjµa Tetúxoaι, appropriately quoted by Mey. Further, cf. below (no. 7, end).
318
332
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
Heb. iii. 18; Weber, Demosth. 330. After Keλevew the Inf. Aor.
is more frequent than the Inf. Pres., the latter being used for the
most part in reference to a continued action; as, Acts xvi. 22
ἐκέλευον ῥαβδίζειν, xxiii. 35 ἐκέλευσε αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ πραιτωρίῳ φυλάσ-
σeσðaɩ, xxiii. 3; xxv. 21 etc. Пapakaλeiv has the Inf. Aor. in
Παρακαλεῖν
Rom. xii. 1; xv. 30; 2 Cor. ii. 8; Eph. iv. 1, etc.; but the Inf.
Pres. in Rom. xvi. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 10; 1 Tim. ii. 1.
This explains also the use of the Inf. Aor. after rouos and ev eroiµų
exew (in reference to the future), as in 2 Cor. x. 6; xii. 14; 1 Pet. i. 5 ;
Acts xxi. 13, which is more frequent than the Inf. Pres. The former
on the whole rare in Greek authors; yet cf. Dion. H. III. 1536 (Joseph.
antt. 12, 4, 2; 6, 9, 2). In the N. T. πрív also is uniformly used with the
πρίν
Inf. Aor.; and when πρiv refers to the future, the Inf. Aor. has the mean-
ing of the Fut. exact. See IIm. Eurip. Med. p. 343.
Whether in the N. T. the Inf. Aor. ever has the force of a Preterite,
except in the use considered in 7 a., is questionable. In Rom. xv. 9
τὰ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι τον θεόν this might seem at first to be the
case, as the Inf. depends on Aéyw vs. 8 (Mdv. S. 187) and corresponds to
312 a Perfect yeyevñoreau, while Paul would certainly have expressed continuous
7th ed. glorifying by a Present. Probably, however, he merely wished to express
the act of glorifying without reference to time at all. Likewise in 2 Cor.
vi. 1 it is not necessary to take déέaobai as a Preterite, as even Mey. does
[yet not in the later editions], though the connection which Fr. Rom. III.
241 suggests between vi. 1 and v. 20 is somewhat far-fetched. Probably
in later Greek the Inf. Perf. quite superseded the Inf. Aor. in such cases,
as being more expressive; see p. 334 below, no. 7, end.
The Inf. Present is generally employed to express an action just
taking place, or (in itself or its results) continuing, or frequently
repeated; as, Jno. ix. 4 ἐμὲ δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πέμψαντός
με, vii. 17 ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, xvi. 12 οὐ δύνασθε
Baσтáčew aρтi, iii. 30; Acts xvi. 21; xix. 33; Gal. vi. 13; 1 Cor.
xv. 25; 1 Tim. ii. 8; Tit. i. 11; Phil. i. 12. Hence it is used in
general maxims; as, Luke xvi. 13 οὐδεὶς οἰκέτης δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις
349 Sovλevel, Mark ii. 19; Acts v. 29; Matt. xii. 2, 10; Jas. iii. 10,
Verbs of believing, are construed with the Inf. Pres. to ex-
press something which already exists or at least has already com-
menced (Hm. Soph. Oed. C. 91); as in 1 Cor. vii. 36; Phil. i. 17
(16). See Ast, Plat. legg. p. 204. As to keλeve with the Inf.
Pres. see above.
etc.
If this distinction is not always rigorously observed where it
might be expected, this may be explained by the circumstance
that in many cases it depends entirely on the writer whether he
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
333
will represent an action as continuing, or as transient and occupy- 298
ing only a point of the past (cf. Luke xix. 5; Matt. xxii. 17); and 6th ed.
by the fact that some writers are negligent in such matters. Hence
in parallel passages we sometimes find the Inf. Aor. and Inf. Pres.
employed in the same relation; as, Matt. xxiv. 24 cf. Mark xiii. 22;
Matt. xiii. 3 cf. Luke viii. 5, also Jude 3. The like occurs even
in the better Greek authors; as, Xen. Cyr. 1, 4, 1 el ti Toû Baciλéws
δέοιντο, τοὺς παῖδας ἐκέλευον τοῦ Κύρου δεῖσθαι διαπράξασθαι
a o ai
σφίσι· ὁ δὲ Κῦρος, εἰ δέοιντο αὐτοῦ οἱ παῖδες, περὶ παντὸς ἐποιεῖτο
ιαπράττεσθαι, 6, 1, 45 ἦν ἐμὲ ἐάσης πέμψαι, 46 ἐκέλευσε
πέμπειν, 2, 4, 10 οὓς ἄν τις βούληται ἀγαθοὺς συνεργούς ποιεῖσθαι
. . . οὓς δὲ δὴ τῶν εἰς τὸν πόλεμον ἔργων ποιήσασθαί τις βούλοιτο
σvveрyοùs πроlúµovs (cf. Poppo in loc.), Demosth. Timocr. 466 a.
μὴ ἐξεῖναι λῦσαι μηδένα (νόμον), ἐὰν μὴ ἐν νομοθέταις, τότε δ᾽ ἐξεῖναι
τῷ βουλομένῳ ... λύειν. Cf. also Arrian. AL. 5, 2, 6. We find
a perceptible distinction, however, between the Inf. Pres. and the
Inf. Aor. in parallel clauses e.g. in Xen. C. 5, 1, 2. 3; Mem. 1, 1,
14; Her. 6, 177 etc., see Mtth. 944; Weber, Demosth. 195, 492.
In the N. T. cf. Matt. xiv. 22 ἠνάγκασε τοὺς μαθητὰς ἐμβῆναι εἰς
τὸ πλοῖον (quickly passing action) καὶ προάγειν (continued)
autóv etc. Luke xiv. 20; Phil. i. 21. See in general Maetzner, 313
Antiphon p. 153 sq.
It appears, on the whole, that where the Inf. Pres. and Inf. Aor. may
be used indiscriminately, the latter is the more common (as being the less
definite), particularly after exw possum (IIm. Eur. suppl. p. 12 praef.), díraµai,
Svvatós eiµi, Oéλw, etc. In the Codd. of Greek authors the Inf. Pres. and
Inf. Aor. are not unfrequently interchanged, see Xen. C. 2, 2, 13; Arrian.
Al. 4, 6, 1; Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 904, 941, etc. So likewise in the N. T.,
cf. Jno. x. 21; Acts xvi. 7; 1 Cor. xiv. 35; 1 Thess. ii. 12.
θέλω,
7th ed.
The preceding remarks will also account for the use of the Inf. Aor. after
hypothetical clauses, as in Juo. xxi. 25 ἅτινα, ἐὰν γράφηται καθ᾽ ἕν, οὐδὲ αὐτὸν
oiμai tòv kóoμov xwpñσaɩ non comprehensurum esse, where some unneces- 350
sarily would insert av; cf. Isocr. Trapez. 862; Demosth. Timoth. 702 a. ;
Thuc. 7, 28; Plat. Protag. 316 c. (in some of which cases, it is true, ci
with the Opt. precedes). The expression is more confident (without år),
see Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 43; cf. Lösner, obs. p. 162 sq. The Inf. Fut.
(that is, also without av, cf. IIm. partic. av p. 187) is not singular in such
constructions, Isocr. ep. 3 p. 984.
As to the construction of µéλλew, in particular, with the Inf., that verb
in Greek authors is most frequently used with the Inf. Fut. (cf. also
Ellendt, Arrian. Al. II. 206 sq.), more rarely with the Inf. Pres. (cf. Dion.
H. IV. 2226, 8; Arrian. Al. 1, 20, 13; 5, 21, 1, and Krüger, Dion. p. 498).
334
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
This, however, is not very surprising as the notion of futurity is already
implied in μέλλειν, and the construction is analogous to that of ἐλπίζειν.
It is still more rarely used with the Inf. Aor. (Plat. apol. 30 b.; Isocr.
Callim. p. 908; Thuc. 5, 98; Paus. 8, 28, 3; Ael. 3, 27). This last con-
struction, indeed, some ancient grammarians (e.g. Phrynich. p. 336) pro-
nounce to be un-Greek, or rather un-Attic; but they have been thoroughly
299 confuted with a considerable number of undoubted examples by Böckh,
6th ed. Pind. Olymp. 8, 32; Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. p. 117; Bremi, Lys. p. 745 ff.,
cf. also Hm. Soph. Aj. p. 149. In the N. T. we most frequently find after
μéλew, a. the Inf. Pres. (in the Gospels always); only in a few passages,
b. the Inf. Aor., and that mostly in reference to transient actions, as in
Rev. iii. 2 μέλλει ἀποθανεῖν, iii. 16 μ. ἐμέσαι, xii. 4 μ. τεκεῖν, Gal. iii. 23 τὴν
µéλλovσav ñíσtiv åtтokaλv&¤ñvai, cf. Rom. viii. 18 (but 1 Pet. v. 1); c. more
rarely the Inf. Fut., viz. in Acts xi. 28 Auòv µéyav µéddeiv ëocolaɩ, xxiv. 15
ἀνάστασιν μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι νεκρῶν, xxvii. 10 (xxiv. 25).
The Perfect Inf. is frequently employed, especially in narration,
to denote a past event in its relation to present time; as, Acts
xvi. 27 ἔμελλεν ἑαυτὸν ἀναιρεῖν, νομίζων ἐκπεφευγέναι τοὺς δεσμίους
had fled, and accordingly were away, xxvii. 13 dó§avтes тŷs πρolé-
σEWS KEKPATηKÉVai they had (already) obtained their purpose (and
were thus in possession of the advantages), viii. 11; xxvii. 9;
xxvi. 32; Heb. xi. 3; Rom. iv. 1; xv. 8, 19; Mark v. 4; Jno.
314 xii. 18, 29; 2 Tim. ii. 18 (1 Pet. iv. 3) 2 Pet. ii. 21. In several
7th ed. of these passages, after verbs of saying, supposing, thinking, a Greek
author would perhaps have considered the Inf. Aorist as sufficient,
Mdv. 187. On. 2 Cor. v. 11 see p. 331 note 2; as to 1 Tim. vi. 17
see § 40, 4 a. p. 273.
8.That the N. T. writers sometimes (see below, p. 338 sq.) use iva
where, according to the syntax of (the written) Greek prose, simply
the Inf. (Pres. or Aor., not the Perf.) should be expected, was
351 correctly admitted by the earlier biblical philologists, but has been
resolutely denied by Fr. (exc. I. ad Matt., yet see Rom. III. 230),
whom Mey., and almost nobody else hitherto, has followed.¹ In
such phrases as the following, Matt. iv. 3 elé, iva oi Xílo OûTOL
ἄρτοι γένωνται, xvi. 20 διεστείλατο τοῖς μαθηταῖς, ἵνα μηδενὶ εἴπωσιν
etc., and particularly Mark v. 10 παρεκάλει αὐτὸν πολλά, ἵνα μὴ
αὐτοὺς ἀποστείλη etc., the original meaning of ἵνα might indeed le
retained, and the phrases rendered: speak (a word of power), to the
1 On the other hand, Tittmann, Synon. II. 46 sqq., Wahl (also in the Clav. apocryph.
p. 272), and Bretschneider agree with me in the view for which I contend. Besides,
compare Robinson, a Greek and English Lexicon of the N. T. (New York, 1850. 8vo.)
p. 352 sq.
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
335
α
1
end that these stones become bread; he charged his disciples, to the end
that they should tell no man; he besought him much, to the end that
he would not send them away. Still, it would be strange, in the
first place, that in so many passages, instead of the object of the
entreaty or of the command, which was to be expected, the design
should be stated, which in such connections usually merges itself
in the object. Again, the possibility of the foregoing interpretation
shows merely how close the affinity is in such a case between the
design and the object, and how easily therefore va might have come
to be employed to denote the latter. It is accordingly much simpler
to believe that the later language, in accordance with its genius,
resolved the more condensed construction with the Inf. into a sep- 300
arate clause and to some extent weakened the import of iva.¹ just 6th ed
as the Romans employed their ut after impero, persuadeo, rogo,
much as the object of the command, request etc. is always something
to be accomplished, and therefore the purpose of the person com-
manding or beseeching.2 Traces of this use of iva already occur 315
in writers of the Kowý. That is to say, in these writers,
a. "Iva after verbs of desiring and beseeching already begins to
pass over into a that of the objective clause 3; as in Dion. H. I. 215
δεήσεσθαι τῆς θυγατρὸς τῆς σῆς ἔμελλον, ἵνα με πρὸς αὐτὴν ἀγάγοι, ΙΙ. 352
666 sq. κραυγή ἐγένετο καὶ δεήσεις . . . ἵνα μένῃ etc., Charit. 3, 1
παρεκάλει Καλλιῤῥόην ἵνα αὐτῷ προςέλθῃ, Arrian. Εpict. 3, 23, 27
(see Schaef. Melet. p. 121). In the Hellenistic writers this use is
quite common; as, 2 Macc. ii. 8; Sir. xxxvii. 15; xxxviii. 14;
3 Esr. iv. 46; Joseph. antt. 12, 3, 2; 14, 9, 4; Ignat. Philad. p. 379;
Cod. pseudepigr. I. 543, 671, 673, 730; II. 705; Act. Thom. 10,
24, 26; Acta apocr. p. 36.4 As to va after verbs of commanding
•
inas-
1 Weakened, because originally Iva was employed only where a direct design was to
be expressed: I come, in order to help thee. Even worthy to be kept the earlier writers
express not by iva (Matt. viii. 8; Jno. i. 27; vi. 7, etc.), but by the Inf., perhaps with
ESTE (Mtth. 1238). But it does not follow that the weakened ira yet coincides altogether
with STE. It appears rather to be for the most part still recognizable as an extension
of co consilio ut. Hence there is no inconsistency in maintaining the above rule on
one page, and on the next denying that iva is to be considered as equivalent to Ste
(sec § 53, 10).
2 Those who vehemently combat this view should at least confess that the use of iva
in the cases mentioned is not in accordance with the (older) prose diction of the Greeks.
This is the least requirement of grammatical fairness.
8 A solitary instance in the earlier authors (Demosth. cor. 335 b.) is àtioûr ira.
4 In the Acts Luke has never employed this construction, but after èpwrâv and wapa-
kaλeîv always uses the Inf., see viii. 31; xi. 23; xvi. 39; xix. 31; xxvii. 33. In the
Gospel also he has in v. 3 the Inf. with épwrâv, which occurs also in Jno. iv. 40; 1 Thess.
v. 12. Matthew usually connects тарakаλeîv with the direct words of the individual
entreating.
7th ed
336
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
1
and directing, ¹ sec Hm. Orph. p. 814; cf. Leo Philos. (in epigram-
mat. gr. libb. 7, Fref. 1600, fol. p. 3) elπè kaσiyvýτņ κpatepoùs iv a
θῆρας ἐγείρῃ, Malal. 3 p. 64 ; Basilic. I. 147, κελεύειν and θεσπίζειν
iva (3 Esr. vi. 31; Malal. 10 p. 264), éπiтpéπeiv iva Malal. 10 p. 264,
Sidúo new iva Acta Petri et Pauli 7.2 Accordingly in the N. T. also
we may cease to insist on the strict force of iva, and may render it.
in the following passages simply by that, just as in Latin praecipe,
rogavit, imploravit ut etc.: Luke x. 40 eiπòv avtŷ iva µoi ovvAVTI-
λúßηтaι (iv. 3; Mark iii. 9; Jno. xi. 57; xiii. 34; xv. 17), 2 Cor.
xii. 8 τὸν κύριον παρεκάλεσα ἵνα ἀποστῇ ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ (Mark v. 18 ;
viii. 22; Luke viii. 31; 1 Cor. i. 10; xvi. 12; 2 Cor. ix. 5), Mark
301 vii. 26 nρára avròv iva Tò Saip. Exßáλn (Jno. iv. 47; xvii. 15; Luke
6th ed. vii. 36), Luke ix. 40 ἐδεήθην τῶν μαθητῶν σου ἵνα ἐκβάλωσιν (xxii.
32), Phil. i. 9 προςεύχομαι ἵνα ἡ ἀγάπη ὑμῶν περισσεύῃ,
K
•
b. Moreover, déλeiv iva also simply means: will (wish) that,³ cf.
316 Arrian. Ep. 1, 18, 14; Macar. hom. 32, 11; Cod. pseudepigr. I. 704;
7th ed. Thilo, Apocr. I. 546, 684, 706; Tdf. in the Verhandel. p. 141. If
Matt. vii. 12 ὅσα ἂν θέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν means, wish with the
design that they do, one cannot understand why Oéλew va did not
become a common construction in the language, since féλew may
353 be always so taken. And ought Mark vi. 25 Oêλw iva μoi des Thu
κεφαλὴν Ιωάννου to be rendered: I will in order that thou give me?
What is the proper object of choice here? Is it not the obtaining
of John's head? Why then that circumlocution? And how
affected it would be to render Mark ix. 30 οὐκ ἤθελεν ἵνα τις γνῷ,
he would not, in order that any one should know! That nobody
should know was precisely his object of choice. Cf. also Acts
xxvii. 42 βουλὴ ἐγένετο, ἵνα τοὺς δεσμώτας ἀποκτείνωσι, Jno. ix. 22
συνετέθειντο οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἵνα ... ἀποσυνάγωγος γένηται, xii. 10
1 In the N. T. Keλeveш is never construed with Iva.
2 An analogous construction is the Inf. with roû after verbs of beseeching, exhorting,
commanding, as in Malal. 17, 492 πυκνῶς ἔγραφε τοῖς αὐτοῖς πατρικίοις τοῦ φροντισθῆναι
τὴν πόλιν, 18, 440 κελεύσας τοῦ δοθῆναι αὐταῖς χάριν προικὸς ἀνὰ χρυσίου λιτρῶν εἴκοσι
etc., 461 ᾔτησε πᾶς ὁ δῆμος τοῦ ἀχθῆναι πάνδημον, p. 172. Index to Ducas in the Bonn
D.
ed. p. 639 sq.
3 Hence the modern Greek circumlocution for the Inf. : θέλω νὰ γράφω οι γράψω,
for γράφειν, γράψαι. In general how far modern Greek goes in its application of the
particle vá which occurs even in the Byzantine writers, e.g. Cananus (cf. also Bois-
sonade, Aneed. IV. 367) — a few passages from the Orthodox Confession will show:
p. 20 (cd. Normann) πρέπει νὰ πιστεύωμεν (p. 24, 30), p. 36 λέγεται νὰ κατοικᾷ, p. 43
ἐφοβεῖτο νὰ δουλεύη (scrupled cf. Matt. i. 20), p. 113 ἠμπορεῖ νὰ δεχθῇ, p. 211 θέλει, ἐπιθυμᾷ
νὰ ἀποκτήσῃ, p. 235 ἔχουσι χρέος νὰ νουθετοῦσι, p. 244 εἴμεσθαν χρεωφειλέται νὰ ὑπογένωμεν.
In the above passages, therefore, the modern Greek translator has almost always retained
the la in the form νά.
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
337
(Sir. xliv. 18), and, as an isolated instance of the commence-
ment of such construction among the Grecks, Teles in Stob. serm.
95 p. 524, 40 ἵνα Ζεὺς γένηται ἐπιθυμήσει. Under this head comes
also Toteîv va in Jno. xi. 37; Col. iv. 16; Rev. iii. 9 (analogous
to Tolεîv Toû with Inf., see above, no. 4) and Sidóvaι iva in Mark
x. 37; see Krebs in loc. Lastly,
αι
ó
c. In Matt. x. 25 ἀρκετὸν τῷ μαθητῇ, ἵνα γένηται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος
avrov, does the interpretation satis sit discipulo non superare magis-
trum, ut ei possit par esse redditus seem easy and agreeable? Cf.
Juo. i. 27; vi. 7; Matt. viii. 8 (Inf. Matt. iii. 11; 1 Cor. xv. 9;
Luke xv. 19, etc.). In John iv. 34 ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν, ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ
θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με does the use of ἵνα seem to be completely
justified by the translation meus victus hoc continetur studio, ut
Dei satisfaciam voluntati? In that case σTovdáčew íva must have
been the ordinary and most natural construction. That in Jno.
xv. 8 the clause with va cannot express the design with which
God glorifies himself (Mey.), has already been shown by Lücke;
cf. also xvii. 3. To resolve also Matt. xviii. 6 ovμpépei aiтe, va
κρεμασθῇ μύλος ὀνικὸς ... καὶ καταποντισθῇ etc. into συμ. αὐτῷ
κρεμασθῆναι μύλον ὀν. ... ἵνα καταποντ. etc. (by an attraction),
would, I greatly fear, be generally thought very forced. And
Meyer's opinion is too manifestly a shift. See also Luke xvii. 2; 302
xi. 50; Jno. xvi. 7; 1 Cor.. iv. 2, 3; Phil. ii. 2; likewise Luke 6th ed.
i. 43 πόθεν μοι τοῦτο, ἵνα ἔλθῃ ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου etc., on which
passage Hm. partic. av p. 135 remarks: fuit haec labantis linguae
quaedam incuria, ut pro infinitivo ista constructione uteretur. In
fact, in all these phrases every unprejudiced scholar must perceive
that the clause with va contains what, in classical Greek, would
have been expressed by the simple Inf. (Mtth. 1235), just as in
Latin (especially of the silver age) aequum est ut, mos est ut, expedit
ut was employed, where the mere Inf. (as subject) would have
been sufficient, see Zumpt S. 522. Sometimes the construction 317
with va and that with the Inf. are found connected, as in 1 Cor. 7th ed
ix. 15 καλὸν γάρ μοι μᾶλλον ἀποθανεῖν, ἢ τὸ καύχημά μου ἵνα τις
354
Kevάoŋ, where it is easy to perceive what led the apostle to alter
the construction; yet in this passage the iva is not fully estab-
lished. Thus the traces of the ancient function of the particle of
design still exhibited in the examples adduced under a., and even
under b. also, have entirely disappeared in the passages last illus-
1
1 Analogous is Arrían. Epictet. 1, 10, 8 πрŵтóν è̟otiv, Iva èyw koμnow. Cf. besides,
Acta apocr. p. 8, 15, 29.
•
338
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
trated. And so we see how modern Greek, gradually extending
the usage, forms every Infin. by means of vá. How far popular
Greek had already declined in the second century, appears from
many parts of Phryn., and in particular p. 15 sq. Lobeck's cd.
·
μοι
What Wyttenbach, Plutarch. Mor. I. 409 Lips. (p. 517 Oxon.), has ad-
duced from Greek authors to prove the alleged lax use of iva for üste, is
not all to the point. In Teίew iva (Plut. apophth. 183 a.) the verb is not
regarded as supplemented by the clause with va (by persuasion to effect.
that), but as independent: to speak persuasively in order that. Tí pot
τοιοῦτο συνέγνως, ἵνα τοιαύταις με κολακεύσῃς ἡδοναϊς (Plut. fort. Alex.
p. 333 a.) means: what hast thou discerned in me of the kind in order to
flatter? that is, concisely: what could lead you to flatter me? In Adv.
Colot. p. 1115 a. (240 ed. Tauchn.) ποῦ τῆς ἀοικήτου το βιβλίον ἔγραφεν,
iva μὴ τοῖς ἐκείνου συντάγμασιν ἐντύχης, what was properly but result is
attributed to the writer as design; so we too say: In what desert then
did he write his book, to keep you from obtaining it? In Liban. decl. 17
p. 472 οὐδείς ἐστιν οἰκέτης πονηρός, ἵνα κριθῇ τῆς Μακεδόνων δουλείας ἄξιος πο
slave is bad, in order to be judged worthy, — iva is not used for ós after an
intensive (so bad as to be), but denotes the design which the slaves' Tovηpía
might have occasioned see § 53, 10, p. 461. These passages are not exactly
parallel to the above constructions from the N. T., but they exhibit the
gradual transition to them. The phrase oрa öπшs does not come under
this head, and the ows also after verbs of beseeching, commanding, etc.
(Matt. viii. 34; ix. 38; Luke vii. 3; x. 2; xi. 37; Acts xxv. 3; Philem. 6,
etc.), which is not uncommon in Greek authors (Schaef. Demosth. III.
416; Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 439; Holwerda, emendatt. Flav. p. 96 sq.),
303 is usually otherwise explained, Mtth. 1231; Rost S. 648. Yet see Titt-
6th ed. mann, Synon. II. 59.
?
Further, John's use of iva (cf. Lücke I. 603, 11. 632 f., 667 f.) deserves
special attention; in particular where iva refers complementally to a
demonstrative pronoun. Two cases are to be distinguished:
355 a. 1 Jno. iii. 11 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν that we should love,
vs. 23, cf. vi. 40. Here the telic force of iva is clearly discernible (in the
manner stated above p. 334 sq.), as in iv. 34 èµòv ßpôµá čotiv iva tolâ tò
Déλŋμa Tоû Tɵyavros that I may do (strive to do), vi. 29. In these
passages nobody will consider iva as equivalent to ori. On the other hand,
b. Jno. xv. 8 ἐν τούτῳ ἐδοξάσθη ὁ πατήρ μου, ἵνα καρπὸν πολὺν φέρητε
certainly equivalent to the construction with the Inf. (èv T καρπòv πoλùv
318 φέρειν ὑμᾶς). The same applies to xvii. 3 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή, ἵνα
7th ed. ywóσkwow etc., xv. 13; 1 Jno. iv. 17; 3 Jno. 4; like Luke i. 43 Tó0cv pou
τοῦτο, ἵνα ἔλθῃ for τὸ ἐλθεῖν τὴν μ. see p. 337. To these may be added the
1 Schweigh. is wrong in adducing in his Lexic. Epictet. p. 356 the passage from
Arrian. Epict. 2, 1, 1 as an instance of this construction.
§ 44. THE INFINITIVE.
339
phrase xpeíav exew iva Jno. ii. 25; xvi. 30; 1 Jno. ii. 27 (Ev. apocr. p. 111)
as well as Jno. xviii. 39. On the other hand, viii. 56 ¾yadudvaro iva lòg
is not he rejoiced in order to see; yet still less is it that (or) he saw, but
that he should see; a thought which, although va implies the idea of
purpose (design), could hardly have been expressed in Greek by means
of iva alone. In Jno. xi. 15 va is simply a particle of design.
Finally, the construction ἔρχεται oι ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα, ἵνα δοξασθῇ xii. 23 ;
xiii. 1; xvi. 2, 32 means: the time is come in order to, that is, the time
appointed for the purpose, that etc. True, in a Greek author in the same
sense the Inf. ἐλήλ. ἡ ὥρα (τοῦ) δοξασθῆναι, perhaps ὥςτε δοξ., would have
been employed.¹ Cf. Ev. apocr. p. 127.
As to Rom. ix. 6 οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι ἐκπέπτωκεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, where a
clause with orɩ seems to be used as a periphrasis for the Inf., see § 64, I. 6.
a
Εσ
Note 1. It sometimes appears as if the Inf. Act. were used for the Inf.
Pass. (d'Orville, Charit. p. 526) e.g. 1 Thess. iv. 9 Tepì rês pidadeλpías ov
χρείαν ἔχετε γράφειν ὑμῖν (IIeb. v. 12), but v. 1 οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε ὑμῖν
ypápeσ0 ai; cf. also Heb. vi. 6. Both constructions, however, are equally
proper, (Active, ye have no need to write to you, that is, that I (one) write
to you; as if: ye have no need of one's writing etc.). In such connections
the Inf. Act. is perhaps even more frequent in classical Greek; see
Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. p. 151 Lips.; Jacobs, Philostr. Imagg. 620, also
as respects xp and deî in particular, Weber, Demosth. 306. Cf. especially
Theodoret. II. 1528; IV. 566.
Note 2. "Orɩ occurs with the Inf. in Acts xxvii. 10 Dewpŵ öтI µETÀ TOλÑS
ζημίας οὐ μόνον τ. φορτίου καὶ τ. πλοίου, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν μέλλειν
ἔσεσθαι τὸν πλοῦν (cf. Xen. Hell. 2, 2, 2 εἰδώς, ὅτι, ὅσῳ ἂν πλείους συλλεγῶσιν 301
ἐς τὸ ἄστυ, θᾶττον τῶν ἐπιτηδείων ἔνδειαν ἔσεσθαι, Cyr. 1, 6, 18, 2, 4, 15 ; 6th ed
An. 3, 1, 9; Plato, Phaed. 63 c.; Thuc. 4, 37), which is a blending of two 356
constructions (Hm. Vig. 500) : μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι τὸν πλοῦν and ὅτι μέλλει
creσlai å mλoûs. So especially after verbs sentiendi and dicendi, Schaef.
ad Bast. ep. crit. p. 36; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 479; Wyttenb. Plutarch. Moral.
I. 54; Boissonade, Philostr. 284 and Aen. Gaz. p. 230; Fritzsche, quaest.
Lucian. p. 172 sq. This so frequently occurs in the best authors (even
in short sentences, Arrian. Al. 6, 26, 10), that it almost ceased to be felt
by the Greeks as an anacoluthon, and to the or may be attributed merely
a vis monstrandi, as when it introduces the oratio directa, cf. Klotz, Devar. 319
p. 692. (Similarly iva with the Inf. 3 Esr. vi. 31.)
7:h ed
Note 3. A trace of the Hebrew Inf. Absol. presents itself from the
Sept. in Matt. xv. 4 Oavátų televtátw (Exod. xix. 12; Num. xxvi. 65),
and in the diction of the N. T. itself in Rev. ii. 23 åπoкtevû ev Oaváty (cf
i), and Luke xxii. 15 èmɩOvµía èelúµŋoa etc. So frequently in the
1 The Subjunctive excludes the possibility of taking va in these cases for where
(Hooger. partic. I. 525 sq.); as, otherwise, it would be necessary to regard the Subj. Aor.
as exactly equivalent to the Fut. (Lob. Phryn. 723). Yet see Tittmann, Synon. II. 49 sq.
340
§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
Sept. the Inf. Absol. is expressed by the Ablative of a nomen conjugat.
annexed to a verb, in a manner not altogether foreign to the Greek idiom
($ 54, 3), as in Gen. xl. 15; xliii. 2; 1. 24; Exod. iii. 16; xi. 1; xviii. 18;
xxi. 20; xxii. 16; xxiii. 24; Lev. xix. 20; Num. xxii. 30; Deut. xxiv. 15;
Zeph. i. 2; Ruth ii. 11; Judith vi. 4 (test. patr. p. 634). See, in general,
Thiersch p. 169 sq. How in still other passages the Sept. expresses the
Inf. Absol., see below, § 45, 8, p. 354.
Note 4. There is nothing singular in a concurrence of several Infinitives
in a single sentence, one depending on another, somewhat as in 2 Pet.
i. 15 σπουδάσω ἑκάστοτε ἔχειν ὑμᾶς ... τὴν τούτων μνήμην ποιεῖσθαι.
vµâs
In Greek authors three Infinitives not unfrequently occur thus in im-
mediate succession; Weber, Demosth. 351.
§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
1. The verbal character of the Participle appears, partly in its
directly governing the same case as its verb (Luke ix. 16 λaßiov
τοὺς ἄρτους, 1 Cor. xv. 57 τῷ διδόντι ἡμῖν τὸ νίκος, Luke viii. 3
ἐκ τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐταῖς, 2 Cor. i. 23 φειδόμενος ὑμῶν οὐκ ἦλθον,
1 Cor. vii. 31; Heb. ii. 3; Luke xxi. 4; ix. 32, etc.); partly in its
regularly retaining the element of time, which can be done more
357 completely in Greek than in Latin and German on account of its
copiousness in participial forms. The temporal force of the parti-
ciples corresponds, moreover, to the observations made in § 40 upon
the separate tenses.
The simple and ordinary use of the Participle is exemplified,
a. of the Present, in Acts xx. 23 тò пveûμа diaμаρтúρeтai µоi
λέγον etc., Rom. viii. 24 ἐλπὶς βλεπομένη οὐκ ἔστιν ἐλπίς, 1 Thess.
ii. 4 θεῷ τῷ δοκιμάζοντι τὰς καρδίας, 1 Pet. i. 7 χρυσίου τοῦ ἀπολλυ-
μévov, Heb. vii. 8-something now present or uniformly occurring
at all times (Schoem. Plut. Agid. p. 153; Schaef. Plut. V. 211 sq.).
b. of the Aorist, in Col. ii. 12 τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐγείραντος Χριστὸν
305 ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, Rom. v. 16 δι᾽ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος (something that
6th ed. occurred once by itself), Acts ix. 21.
1
c. of the Perfect, in Acts xxii. 3 ἀνὴρ γεγεννημένος ἐν Ταρσῷ, ἀνα-
τεθραμμένος δὲ ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ (past facts still operative), Juo.
xix. 35 ὁ ἑωρακώς μεμαρτύρηκεν, Matt. xxvii. 37 ἐπέθηκαν τὴν
aiτíav avтoû yeyрaμμévηv, Acts xxiii. 3; 1 Pet. i. 23; 2 Pet. ii. 6;
Jno. v. 10; vii. 15; Eph. iii. 18.
d. of the Future (rare in the N. T.) in 1 Cor. xv. 37 nẻ tò oŵµa
320 τὸ γενησόμενον σπείρεις, viewed from the past, Heb. iii. 5 Μωϋσῆς
7th ed.
§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
341
πιστὸς ... ὡς θεράπων εἰς μαρτύριον τῶν λαληθησομένων of those
things which were to be spoken (revealed); cf. Acts viii. 27; xxiv. 11;
Luke xxii. 49.
Moreover, the Present Participle is used a) for the Imperf. in
connection with a past tense; as, Acts xxv. 3 πарeкáλovν aỶTòv
παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν
αιτούμενοι χάριν, Rev. xv. 1 εἶδον ἀγγέλους ἑπτὰ ἔχοντας πληγάς,
Heb. xi. 21 Ἰακὼβ ἀποθνήσκων ... ηὐλόγησεν, Acts vii. 26 ὤφθη
avтoîs μaxoμévois, xviii. 5; xx. 9; xxi. 16; 1 Pet. ii. 23; 2 Cor.
iii. 7 (Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 264); also of a continued state of
things, Acts xix. 24; 1 Pet. iii. 5. b) of that which will imme-
diately or infallibly occur; as, Matt. xxvi. 28 rò aiµα тò πеρì πоλλóv
ἐκχυνόμενον, vi. 30 τὸν χόρτον αὔριον εἰς κλίβανον βαλλόμενον, 1 Cor.
xv. 57; Jas. v. 1. Accordingly, ó épxóμevos used of the Messiah,
8, is not venturus, but he that cometh (the coming one), he of
whom it is firmly believed that he is coming, Matt. xi. 3; Luke
vii. 19, etc.
T
भ
>/
Likewise ov, joined to a Preterite or an adverb of time, is not un-
frequently an Imperfect Participle; as, Jno. i. 49; v. 13; xi. 31, 49;
xxi. 11; Acts vii. 2; xi. 1; xviii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 28; 2 C. viii. 9; Eph. ii. 13
νυνὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ὑμεῖς οἱ ποτε ὄντες etc. Col. i. 21 ; 1 Tim. i. 13 μὲ
τὸ πρότερον ὄντα βλάσφημον. Cf. Aristot. rhet. 2, 10, 13, πρὸς τοὺς
μυριοστὸν ὄντας, Lucian. dial. mar. 13, 2 ὀψὲ ζηλοτυπεῖς ὑπερόπτης πρότερον 358
v. But in Jno. iii. 13 v (see Lücke and BCrus. in loc.) means: who
(essentially) is in heaven, who belongs to heaven.' The same applies to
i. 18. But ix. 25 őтe Tupλòs ŵv äρri Bλén is probably: I being blind
(from my infancy), a blind man; only in so far as a reference to a previous
condition is included in apri, can it perhaps also be trauslated, whereas I
was. An undoubted Present occurs in 1 Cor. ix. 19 èλeúðepos wv èk távtwV
ἐλεύθερος ἐκ πάντων
đâσw ¿µavtòv ¿doúλwoa being free (though I am free), I made myself
servant (the Apostle's elevbepía was something permanent). On the other
hand, in Rev. vii. 2 εἶδον . . ἄγγελον ἀναβαίνοντα (which Eichhorn strangely
enough declared to be a solecism) I saw him ascend (while he was ascend-
ing) an Imperf. Part. is quite appropriate, as denoting something not at
the moment completed. But in xiv. 13 årо0výσKOVтES can only be the
Present Part.
In many passages formerly the Present Part. was improperly taken for
the Future, in most of which the force of the Present is quite sufficient: 306
in connection,
10 Wv ev Tậ oup., in the signification of qui erat in coclo, would nearly coincide in
sense with 8 è тoû Oỷρ. KATAßás. It must here, however, denote something special and
more emphatic, and a climax in these predicates is not to be overlooked. Yet & v
does not form a third predicate co-ordinate with the two others, but is, as Lücke cor-
rectly observes, explanatory of the predicate & vids Tuû àvop.
6th ed.
342
§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
a. with a Pres. or Imperat., as Rom. xv. 25 Toреúομаι Siαкоvaν TOîs
ȧyíois (the diakoveîv begins simultaneously with the journey), 1 Pet. i. 9
ἀγαλλιᾶσθε . . . κομιζόμενοι as receiving (they are so already in the assurance
of faith), Jas. ii. 9. As to 2 Pet. ii. 9 see Huther.
b. with an Aor. (Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 234), as 2 Pet. ii. 4 Tapédwкev eis
321 крίow тηpоνpévovs as those who are kept (contemplated from a present point.
7th ed. of view), Acts xxi. 2 εὑρόντες πλοῖον διαπερῶν εἰς Φοινίκην on her passage
to, bound for (Xen. Eph. 3, 6 in.), Luke ii. 45 vπéoтpepav eis 'Iepovo. åva-
Čηtoûvtes aútóv seeking him (which began already on the way back), Mark
viii. 11; x. 2 (Fut. Part. in reference to an action only purposed, Acts
xxiv. 17; xxv. 13).
c. with a Perf., as Acts xv. 27 ἀπεστάλκαμεν Ἰούδαν καὶ Σίλαν...
åñayyéλλovтas tà avтá announcing, with the announcement (they assumed
the character of announcers simultaneously with their entrance on their
journey), 1 Cor. ii. 1; Demosth. Dionys. 739 c.; Pol. 28, 10, 7. In 2 Pet.
iii. 11 toútwv távtwv λvoµévwv means, since all these things are dissolving,
that is, are by their nature destined for dissolution; the doom of dissolution
is already as it were inherent in them. Avoŋooμévwv would express only
mere futurity: as their dissolution will at some time take place. The
Apostolic (Pauline) terms of årоλλúμevo, oi owlóuevo (subst.) denote:
359 those who are perishing, those who are becoming saved etc., not merely at
some future time but already, inasmuch as they refused to believe and
therefore are the prey of eternal death. As to Acts xxi. 3, see no. 5.
d. with a Conjunct. exhortat., as Heb. xiii. 13 èέeрxúμelα... тòv оveldiσμòv
αὐτοῦ φέροντες, where the bearing etc. is annexed directly to the ἐξερχ.,
whereas the Fut. Part. would have removed it to some indefinite and
distant time. Cf. also 1 Cor. iv. 14.
Still less can the Pres. Part. take the place of the Aorist. In 2 Cor. x. 14
οὐ γὰρ ὡς μὴ ἐφικνούμενοι εἰς ὑμᾶς ὑπερεκτείνομεν ἑαυτούς means: as though
we reached not unto you (which, however, is the case). In 2 Pet. ii. 18
ảπодeúуoνтas, which Lchm. has already adopted, denotes that the escaping
has only just begun; such persons are most liable to be misled. As to
Eph. ii. 21 and iv. 22, see Meyer.
(
The Aorist Part., in the course of a narration, expresses either
a simultaneous action (Krü. 155), Acts i. 24 πρоseνžúμеvoi elπov
praying they said (the prayer follows), Rom. iv. 20; Eph. i. 9;
Col. ii. 13; Phil. ii. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 5; or a previously past action,
where we should expect the Plup., Matt. xxii. 25 о πрŵτоs yаµnoas
Éteλeútnσe, Acts v. 10; xiii. 51; 2 Pet. ii. 4; Eph. i. f.; ii. 16.
If the principal verb refers to something future, the Aor. Part. is
equivalent to the Latin Fut. exact.; as, 1 Pet. ii. 12 íva . . . èk tŵv
καλῶν ἔργων ἐποπτεύσαντες δοξάσωσιν τὸν θεόν, iii. 2; Eph. iv. 25
ἀποθέμενοι τὸ ψεῦδος λαλεῖτε ἀλήθειαν, Mark xiii. 13; Acts xxiv.25;
1
$45. THE PARTICIPLE.
343
Rom. xv. 28; Heb. iv. 3; Hm. Vig. 774.
Likewise the Perf. Part.
has sometimes in narration the sense of a Plup. ; as, Jno. ii. 9 oi
διάκονοι ᾔδεισαν οἱ ἠντληκότες, Acts xviii. 2 εὑρὼν Ἰουδαῖον . . . προς-
φάτως ἐληλυθότα ἀπὸ τ. Ιταλίας, Heb. ii. 9; Rev. ix. 1.
The Aor. Part. never stands for the Fut. Part. :-not in Jno. xi. 2
(where the Evangelist alludes to an event long past, which he narrates
for the first time in chap. xii.); also not in Heb. ii. 10, where ayayóvra 307
refers to Christ sojourning in the flesh, who even while on earth led many 6th ed
to glory (a work which began with his very appearance). As to Heb. 322
ix. 12 see below, 6. It is a misuse of parallel passages to translate Mark 7th ed.
xvi. 2 åvateíλavtos Toû ýλíov: as the sun rose (so Ebrard still), because
Jno. xx. 1, cf. Luke xxiv. 1, has oкorías eri ouons. Such minute discrep-
ancies in the gospels one must have the courage to tolerate. As to Jno.
vi. 33, 50 ἄρτος ὁ καταβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, compared with ἄρτος ὁ καταβὰς
ẻk Toû oỷpavoû in verses 41, 51, see Lücke. Neither is the Aor. Part. used
for the Perf. Part. in 1 Pet. i. 13.
The Perf. Pass. Part. Kareyvwoμévos in Gal. ii. 11 is erroneously rendered 360
reprehendendus. According to grammar and the context it means blamed,
see Mey. Likewise in Rev. xxi. 8 éẞdeλvyμévos is abominated. On the
other hand, in Heb. xii. 18 the Pres. Part. Vnλapóμevov denotes touchable,
for what is touched has the property of touchableness, as rà ẞλeñóμeva
means things visible. Cf. Kritz, Sallust. II. 401 sq.
ἠλεημένοι
Aor. and Perf. Participles are connected and the distinction between
them maintained: 2 Cor. xii. 21 τῶν προημαρτηκότων κ. μὴ μετανοησάντων,
1 Pet. ii. 10 of ouк ηλenμévoi vûv dè èλen évres (Sept.) - the former denoting
a state, the latter a fact. As to 1 Jno. v. 18 see Lücke; cf. Ellendt, Arrian.
Al. I. 129. The connection of the Pres. Part. and the Aor., as in Jno.
xxi. 24; Heb. vi. 7, 10, or of the Perf. Part. and the Pres., as in Col. ii. 7,
in a single proposition, hardly requires to be mentioned.
2. As respects grammatical construction, the Participle is used
either a. as a complement to the principal clause, as in Matt.
xix. 22 ảπîλ0ev Xuñoúμevos (Rost 701); or b. it forms for the
sake of periodic compactness a secondary clause, and can be re-
solved by a relative or by a conjunction (Rost 703; Mtth. 1311 ff.),
Jno. xv. 2 πᾶν κλῆμα μὴ φέρον καρπόν which does not bear fruit,
Rom. xvi. 1 συνίστημι Φοίβην, οὖσαν διάκονον, Luke xvi. 11 etc. ;
Rom. ii. 27 ȧkроßνσтíα тòν vóμov тeλoûσa if it (thereby, that it)
fulfils, Acts v. 4 ovxì µévov ooì eµeve; when it remained (unsold),
did it not remain thine? Rom. vii. 3; 2 Pet. i. 4; 1 Tim. iv. 4
(Xen. M. 1, 4, 14; 2, 3, 9; Plat. Symp. 208 d.; Schaef. Melet.
p. 57; Mtth. 1314), Acts iv. 21 àπéλvoav avtoùs µndèv eúpíOKOVTES
etc. because they found nothing, 1 Cor. xi. 29; Heb. vi. 6 (Jude 5;
344
§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
Jas. ii. 25), Xen. M. 1, 2, 22; Lucian. dial. m. 27, 8; Rom. i. 32
οἵτινες τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες οὐ μόνον etc. though they
knew etc. (had become well aware), 1 Cor. ix. 19; 1 Thess. ii. 6;
Jas. iii. 4 etc.; cf. Xen. M. 3, 10, 13; Philostr. Apoll. 2, 25; Lucian.
dial. in. 26, 1. Most frequently in narration the Participle is to
be resolved by a particle of time; as, 2 Pet. ii. 5 oydoov Nôe . . .
ἐφύλαξεν, κατακλυσμὸν κόσμῳ ἐπάξας, as when he brought upon
the world, Luke ii. 45 µǹ eúpóvтes úπéσтрeɣav after they had not
found, Phil. ii. 19; Acts iv. 18 KaλéσavтES AUTоùs Taρnyуeiλav, Matt.
ii. 3; Acts xxi. 28 ἐπέβαλον ἐπ' αὐτὸν τὰς χεῖρας κράζοντες while
they cried etc., Rom. iv. 20 ἐνδυναμώθη τῇ πίστει δοὺς δόξαν τῷ
θεῷ etc.
361 When Participles are used limitatively (although), this import is often
308 indicated by kaiтoι or kaiπep prefixed, as in Phil. iii. 4; Heb. iv. 3; v. 8;
6th ed. vii. 5; 2 Pet. i. 12; cf. Xen. C. 4, 5, 32; Plat. Protag. 318 b.; Diod. S.
323 3,7; 17,39. Sometimes this meaning is made prominent by an antithetical
όμως (Krü. 202), 1 Cor. xiv. 7 ὅμως τὰ ἄψυχα φωνὴν διδόντα . . . ἐὰν διαστολὴν
μὴ δῷ, πῶς γνωσθήσεται τὸ αὐλούμενον etc. things without life, although
giving out sound, will nevertheless not be understood, unless etc.
7th ed.
3. The connecting of two or more Participles in different rela-
tions (co-ordinate or subordinate one to another) without the
copula kai with one and the same principal verb, is particularly
frequent in the narrative style. This takes place not only,
a. When one Participle precedes, and another follows, the finite
verb, as Luke iv. 35 ῥῖψαν αὐτὸ τὸ δαιμόνιον εἰς μέσον ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ᾿
αὐτοῦ, μηδὲν βλάψαν αὐτόν throwing him down after he had
thrown him down), the evil spirit came out of him without doing
him any harm, x. 30; Acts xiv. 19; xv. 24; xvi. 23; Mark vi. 2;
2 Cor. vii. 1; Tit. ii. 12 f.; Heb. vi. 6; x. 12 f.; 2 Pet. ii. 19 (Lucian.
Philops. 24, and Peregr. 25); but more frequently,
b. When the Participles immediately follow one another without
a copula, as Matt. xxviii. 2 ἄγγελος κυρίου καταβὰς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ,
προςελθὼν ἀπεκύλισε τὸν· λίθον etc., Acts v. 5 ἀκούων ᾿Ανανίας
τοὺς λόγους τούτους, πεσὼν ἐξέψυξε, Luke ix. 16 λαβὼν τοὺς πέντε
ἄρτους ..., ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εὐλόγησεν, 1 Cor. xi. 4 πᾶς
ἀνὴρ προςευχόμενος ἢ προφητεύων κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων, καταισχύνει
etc. every man that prayeth or prophesieth with his head covered
etc.. Luke vii. 37 f.; xvi. 23; xxiii. 48; Acts xiv. 14; xxi. 2; xxv.6;
Mark i. 41; v.25-27; viii. 6; Col. i. 3 f. εὐχαριστοῦμεν . . . προςευχό
μEVOL... ȧкоÚσavтes while we pray,... since (after) we heard, 1 Thess.
i. 2 f.; Heb. i. 3; xi. 7; xii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 58; Jno. xiii. 1 f.; Col.
μενοι
§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
345
ii. 13; Phil. ii. 7; Philem. 4; Jude 20, etc.
Nothing is more fre-
Cyr. 4, 6, 4; Plato,
quent in Greck authors, cf. Xen. Hell. 1, 6, 8;
rep. 2, 366 a.; Gorg. 471 h.; Strabo 3, 165; Lucian. asin. 18; Alex.
19; Xen. Eph. 3, 5; Alciphr. 3, 43 in.; Arrian. Al. 3, 30, 7; see
Heindorf, Plat. Protag. p. 562; Hm. Eurip. Io p. 842; Stallb.
Plat. Phileb. § 32, and Plat. Euthyphr. p. 27; Apol. p. 46 sq.;
Boisson. Aristaenet. p. 257; Jacob ad Lucian. Tox. p. 43; Ellendt,
Arrian. Al. II. 322, etc. (In several passages sometimes a smaller
and sometimes a greater number of Codd. have the copula kai, as
in Acts ix. 40; Mark xiv. 22, etc.)
Thre Participles stand otherwise related to each other in Luke ii. 12
εὑρήσετε βρέφος ἐσπαργανωμένον κείμενον ἐν φάτνη ye shall find a child 362
swaddled, lying in a manger, where the first Part. takes the place of an
adjective.
4. When the Participle is employed merely as a complement or
predicate, it fills sometimes the office discharged in Latin and Ger-
man by the Inf. (Rost 694 ff.), viz. in the well-known phrases:
6th ed
324
7th ed.
a. Acts v. 42 oРк Éπаúονто didáσKOVтes (xiii. 10; Heb. x. 2; Rev.
iv. 8), Acts xii. 16 éπéµeve époúwv, Luke vii. 45 (2 Macc. v. 27),
2 Pet. i. 19 & kaλŵs Toleîte πposéxovtes, Acts x. 33; xv. 29; Phil.
iv. 14; 3 Jno. 6 (Plato, symp. 174 e.; Phaed. 60 c.; Her. 5, 24, 26), 309
2 Pet. ii. 10; 2 Thess. iii. 13; b. Mark xvi. 5 eidov vεavíσ KOV кaðýµevov,
Acts ii. 11 úкovoμev λaλoúvтwv auTôv, vii. 12; Mark xiv. 58. Logi-
cally, the Participle is in these instances as appropriate, at least,
as the Infinitive; the Greeks used the former to mark a nice.
distinction which other nations failed to note. Ouк èπavoνTo
Οὐκ ἐπαύοντο
didáσкovтes is, teaching (or, as teachers) they did not cease;¹ eidov
кalýμevov they saw him (as one) sitting. The Part. denotes an
action or a state already existing, not first occasioned or produced
by the principal verb; see, in general, Mtth. 1228; Krü. 191 ff.²
We further specify the following instances as of less frequent
occurrence: Under a. 1 Cor. xiv. 18 evxapiσтw tô Đeŵ túvtWv
iµŵv µâλλov ylwooais Xaλŵv (rec.) ³ that I speak (as one
3
1 It would make no essential difference to regard this use of the Part. in the nomina-
tive, with G. T. A. Krüger (Untersuch. aus dem Gebiete der lat. Sprachl. III. 356 ff.,
404 ff.), as attraction. Further, cf. Hm. emend. rat. p. 146 f.
2 More precise distinctions on this head as to Greek are laid down by Weller, Bemer-
kungen zur gr. Syntax. Meiningen, 1845. 4to.
8 Lehm. and Tdf. on the authority of many uncial Codd. [Sin. also] give λaλŵ;
then we have two unconnected clauses side by side: I thank God, I speak more than you
all (for that I speak more than you all), cf. Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 71. The Cod. Alex.
omits both λαλῶν and λαλῶ.
44
346
$ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
speaking), cf. Her. 9, 79; Acts xvi. 34 yaλλɩúσUTO TETIσTEVKÒS
T 0e (Eurip. Hipp. 8; Soph. Phil. 882; Lucian. paras. 3; fug.
12; Dion. H. IV. 2238); but Rom. vii. 13 does not come under
this head, see Rück. cf. Heusing. Plut. paedag. p. 19; Under b.
Luke viii. 46 ἐγὼ ἔγνων δύναμιν ἐξεληλυθυῖαν (Thuc. 1, 25
γνόντες . . . οὐδεμίαν σφίσιν ἀπὸ Κερκύρας τιμωρίαν οὖσαν, Xen.
C. 1, 4, 7, see Monk, Eurip. Hipp. 304 and Alcest. 152),¹ Heb.
363 xiii. 23 γινώσκετε τὸν ἀδελφὸν Τιμόθεον ἀπολελυμένον ye lenow
that... is set at liberty, Acts xxiv. 10 èk TOXλŵV ÉTÔV ÖVTа σE
κριτὴν τῷ ἔθνει τούτῳ ἐπιστάμενος, cf. Demosth. ep. 4 p. 123 etc.
(but in Luke iv. 41 ᾔδεισαν τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι, where also
in Greek prose the Participle would probably have been employed,
cf. Mehlhorn in Allg. L. Z. 1833, no. 110, yet see Elmsley, Eurip.
Med. 580), 2 Jno. 7 οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν
κόσμον, 1 Jno. iv. 2 πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ
Enλvóтa.2 As to verbs dicendi with a Part. see Mtth. 1289;
310 Jacobs, Aelian. anim. II. 109. In Greek prose the verb aixíveσ0αι
also is especially so used, e.g. Xen. C. 3, 2, 16 aioxvvoíµeľ äv co
μὴ ἀποδιδόντες, 5, 1, 21 αἰσχύνομαι λέγων, Mem. 2, 6, 39; Diog.
L. 6, 8; Liban. oratt. p. 525 b. Yet just here we see with what
propriety the Participle is chosen in the cases just noted. For this
verb is also construed in Greek authors with the Inf. But there
is an essential difference between the two constructions; see Poppo,
Xen. Cyr. p. 286 sq.3 The Part. is used only when a person is now
doing (or has done) something of which he (at the moment of
acting) is ashamed; but the Inf., when shame in view of something
to be done (but not yet actually performed) is to be expressed
(cf. e.g. Isocr. ad Philipp. p. 224, and big. p. 842; Xen. M. 3, 7,5).
Luke, observing this distinction, has written correctly xvi. 3
Èπaιтeîv aloɣúvoμai to beg I am ashamed (Sir. iv. 26; Sus. 11);
had the speaker already begun to beg, ἐπαιτῶν αἰσχύνομαι must
have been used. "Apxoμat is uniformly in the N. T., and commonly
in Greek authors, construed with the Infin., as he began speaking
is less appropriate than he continued speaking. Yet see Rost 698.
6th ed.
325
7th ed.
1 Eph. iii. 19 γνώναι τὴν ὑπερβάλλουσαν τῆς γνώσεως ἀγάπην τοῦ Χριστοῦ cannot
be referred to this head, as many expositors refer it; for the Part., by its position between
the article and substantive, is too clearly marked as an adjective. For another reason,
also, Phil. ii. 23 ἵνα ἰδόντες αὐτὸν πάλιν χαρῆτε must not be referred to the above
construction. The sense is that ye, beholding him, may again rejoice.
:
2 The passage of Isocr. Paneg. c. 8, usually adduced as a parallel (even still by Muh.
1289), was corrected by Iier. Wolf, cf. Baiter in loc. Weber, Demosth. p. 278, discusses
another matter.
8 With πuveávoμal both constructions coincide; see Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 145.
§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
347
'Akoúew, which also is occasionally construed with a predicative Part.,
and that not merely in the literal sense of immediate hearing as in Rev.
v. 13; Acts ii. 11, but also in that of learning, being informed (through
others) as in Luke iv. 23; Acts vii. 12; 2 Thess. iii. 11 åkoúopév Tivas
πepiñaтoûνтas etc., 3 Jno. 4 (Xen. C. 2, 4, 12),¹ is in the latter sense fre- 364
quently construed with ort, once [by Paul] with the Acc. with the Inf.,
1 Cor. xi. 18 ἀκούω σχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν (ὑπάρχοντα), [once also by
John, xii. 18 ἤκουσαν τοῦτο αὐτὸν πεποιηκέναι τὸ σημεῖον] ; cf. Χen. C. 1,
3, 1; 4, 16. The construction is different in Eph. iv. 22 if ¿ñоbéœÐɑι
ὑμᾶς . . . τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον depends on ἠκούσατε or ἐδιδάχθητε in vs. 21
(that ye must put off'); see § 44, 3,
3, p. 322.
The use of the Part. examined in this section is in Greek authors, even
prose writers, much more diversified than in the N. T. (see Jacobs, Anthol.
III. 235, and Achill. Tat. p. 828; Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 500; Schaef. Eurip.
Hec. p. 31). The construction of naveola with the Inf. is disapproved
even by ancient grammarians, though erroneously, see Schaef. Apoll. Rhod.
II. 223; Ast, Theophr. char. p. 223 sq.
6th ed.
Also in 1 Tim. v. 13 ἅμα δὲ καὶ ἀργαὶ μανθάνουσι περιερχόμεναι the
Part. is by nearly all recent expositors thought to be used for the Inf.:
they learn (accustom themselves) (to be) going about idle etc. This gives
a suitable meaning. But in all cases where the Part. joined to pav¤ávei
refers to the subject, that verb signifies to perceive, comprehend, observe,
remark something which is already existing, as in Her. 3, 1 diaßeßλnµévos
vñò ³Aµáois où µavlávas (see Valcken. in loc.), Soph. Antig. 532; Aesch.
Prom. 62; Thuc. 6, 39; Plut. paed. 8, 12; Dion. II. IV. 2238; Lucian. 326
dial. d. 16, 2;2 but in the sense of learn it is used with the Inf., Phil. iv. 11 7th ed
also 1 Tim. v. 4; Mtth. 1228.
3
The preceding construction, then, must 311
have been incorrectly extended beyond the proper bounds. Perhaps,
however, μανθ. is to be connected with ἀργαί, and περιερχόμεναι to be taken
as a proper Part. (they learn idleness, going about etc.). Apyai μ. would
then be a concise expression, like what sometimes occurs elsewhere also
with an adjective (Plat. Euthyd. 276 b. ci åµabeîs üpa σodoì parlávovou,
and more frequently didáσkei Twà σopóv), which does not like the Part.
include the notion of tense or mood. This exposition, which Beza,
Piscator, and others adopted and which IIuther has recently approved, is
supported by this, that in the sequel åpyaí is repeated as the leading word,
and to the climax φλύαροι καὶ περίεργοι a Part. is likewise annexed, λαλοῦσαι
τὰ μὴ δέοντα.
1 Cf. Rost, in his griech. Wörterh. I. 143.
4
2 In Xen. C. 6, 2, 29 ëws àv µálwμеv úsρоñóтαι yevóμevoι (a passage which would not
be altogether decisive), λάθωμεν was long ago substituted for μάθωμεν.
8 Matthies has passed over the grammatical difficulty in silence. Leo, after Casaubon.
ad Athen. p. 452, would render μavbávovoi by solent; but he has not observed that this
meaning belongs only to the Preterite.
4 Under this head comes also Dio Chr. 55, 558 ὁ Σωκράτης ὅτι μὲν παῖς ὢν ἐμάνθανε
λιθοξόος τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς τέχνην, ἀκηκόαμεν (Socrates learned us stone-cutter etc.).
348
§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
A verb of the kind specified under a. is once construed with an Adjec-
tive-which cannot be thought strange, Acts xxvii. 33 Teσσapeskaιdekúтηv
365 σήμερον ἡμέραν προςδοκῶντες, ἄσιτοι (ὄντες) διατελείτε, cf. Χen. C. 1,
5, 10 ἀναγώνιστος διατελεῖ, Hell. 2, 3, 25.
eis
Some erroneously think the Part. used for the Inf. in 1 Tim. i. 12 TɩσTóv
με ἡγήσατο θέμενος εἰς διακονίαν. The meaning is : he counted me faith-
ful, in that he appointed me to the ministry (by that very act showing that
he counted me faithful). In another sense, indeed, féodau eis Siakovíav
might also have been employed.
σοντ
5. Present participles are frequently used (in the narrative.
style) with the verb εἶναι, and in particular with ἦν or ἦσαν (yet
also with the Fut.): sometimes, as it seems, simply for the cor-
responding person of their finite verb (Aristot. metaph. 4, 7;
Bldy. 334),¹ as in Mark xiii. 25 oi àσTéρes Tоû оỷρavoû ễσ оV TAI
TITTOVTES (where immediately follows, as a parallel clause, kai
ίπ
αἱ δυνάμεις αἱ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς σαλευθήσονται, — Matt. has πεσοῦνται),
Jas. i. 17 πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθέν ἐστι καταβαῖνον etc., Luke v. 1;
Acts ii. 2; sometimes, and indeed more frequently, to express con-
tinuance (rather a state than an act),2, which might also be indi-
cated, though less sensibly in reference to the past, by the form of
327 the Imperfect ³ (cf. Beza ad Matt. vii. 29), as Mark xv. 43 îν πρоs-
7th ed. Sexóμevos Tǹv Baσiλeíav тoû eoû (Luke xxiii. 51), Acts viii. 28 v
6th ed.
οί
3
τε ὑποστρέφων καὶ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ ἅρματος αὑτοῦ (au Imperf.
312 immediately follows), i. 10; ii. 42; viii. 13; x. 24; Matt. vii. 29;
Mark ix. 4; xiv. 54; Luke iv. 31; v. 10; vi. 12; xxiv. 13. Hence
this construction is used especially where there is a reference to
some other circumstance, as in Luke xxiv. 32 κарdía μν Kalo-
µévŋ ĥv èv ýµîv és éλáλei etc., or to what is customary, as in Mark
ii. 18 ἦσαν οἱ μαθηταὶ Ἰωάννου ... νηστεύοντες (they used to fast),
to which exposition Mey. without reason objects. Also in Luke
xxi. 24 ῾Ιερουσαλὴμ ἔσται πατουμένη ὑπὸ ἐθνῶν duration seems
intended to be expressed, while the two Futures preceding, TeσOÛV-
ται audl αἰχμαλωτισθήσονται, denote transient occurrences, cf. Matt.
xxiv. 9. In other passages elva is not the mere auxiliary verb:
Mark x. 32 ĥoav év tŷ ódŵ ávaßaívovтes eis 'Iepoo. they were to
be on the road (cf. vs. 17), going up to Jerusalem (Lucian.
1 In some tenses (as the Perf. and Plup. Pass. Plur.) this circumlocution, as is well
known, has become predominant and figures in the paradigm of the verb.
2 What Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 34 says of the distinction between this construction and
the finite verb amounts to this.
3 It is a characteristic of popular diction to expand concise expressions for the sake
of greater clearness or force; sec § 44, 3, p. 324.
1
§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
349
dial. mar. 6, 2), v. 5, 11 (Hm. Soph. Philoct. p. 219) ii. 6; Luke 366
ii. 8; xxiv. 53; Mark xiv. 4 yoúv Tives ayavaктоûvтes there were
some (present) who had indignation; or the Part. has assumed
rather the nature of an adjective, as in Matt. xix. 22 v ëxwv
Kтýμата he was possessed of property, ix. 36; Luke i. 20 (cf. Stalib.
Plat. rep. II. 34). Perhaps also the verbal idea was sometimes
dissected into a Part. and Subst. verb in order to give it in the
form of a noun more prominence (Mdv. 204), 2 Cor. v. 19 (see
Mey.), 1 Cor. xiv. 9; Col. ii. 23. In Luke vii. 8 èyà äv@pwπós eiμi
ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος the Part. appears to be not directly de-
pendent on cival, but an epithet belonging to a substantive. In
Jno. i. 9 ἦν . . . ἐρχόμενον are not to be taken together, but έρχό-
μevov belongs as an attributive to avoρwπov, see Meyer. Moreover,
this use of the Pres. Part. is not uncommon in Greek authors;
and they (particularly Herodot.) employ thus the other Participles
also besides the Pres., cf. Eurip. Herc. fur. 312 sq. ei µèv olevóvtwv
τῶν ἐμῶν βραχιόνων ἦν τις σ᾽ ὑβρίζων, Her. 3, 99 ἀπαρνεόμενος
ἐστιν, Xen. An. 2, 2, 13 ἦν ἡ στατηγία οὐδὲν ἄλλο δυναμένη, Herod.
1, 3, 12 κρατήσας ἦν τοῖς ὅπλοις (where προςηγάγετο precedes),
Lucian. eunuch. 2 δικασταί ψηφοφοροῦντες ἦσαν οἱ ἄριστοι. See
Reiz, Lucian. VI. 537 Lehm.; Couriers, Lucian. asin. p. 219;
Jacob, quaest. Lucian. p. 12; Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 597; Boisson.
Philostr. 660, and Nicet. p. 81; Mtth. 1302. In later writers (e.g.
Agath. 126, 7; 135, 5; 175, 14; 279, 7 etc., Ephraem. see Index
under eiva) and in the Sept. it occurs much more frequently,
though in the Sept. the Hebrew seldom gave occasion to this con-
struction. On the other hand, the circumlocution of the Part.
and to be for the finite verb became established, as is well known,
in Aramaean; and so in Palestinean authors a national predilection 328
for the above construction may have prevailed.
7ch ode
Acts xxi. 3 ἐκεῖσε ἦν τὸ πλοῖον ἀποφορτιζόμενον τὸν γόμον cannot be
rendered, with Grotius, Valckenaer and others: eo navis merces expositura
'erat, but means: thither the vessel was unlading its cargo i.e. in the nar-
rative style thither it was going in order to unload, (to take èkeîσe for
Keî-cf. Bornem. Schol. p. 176-is unnecessary). That the phrase v
åπop. refers to what the ship was just then freighted with is not to be 313
overlooked.
6th ed.
In Luke iii. 23 ĥv... åpxóμevos are not to be joined together, but v
ἐτῶν τριάκοντα forms the principal predicate, and ἀρχόμενος is annexed as
a closer limitation. The idiom mentioned in Vig. p. 355 is not similar.
Of one who is entering on his thirtieth year it cannot be said: he is begin-
ning thirty years; he is, rather, on the point of terminating thirty years.
350
§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
"
367 In Jas. iii. 15 οὐκ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ σοφία ἄνωθεν κατερχομένη ἀλλ᾽ ἐπίγειος, ψυχική
etc. the Part. is employed adjectively, and or belongs likewise to the
adjectives following; cf. Franke, Demosth. p. 42.
Ὑπάρχειν with the Part. in Acts viii. 16 μόνον βεβαπτισμένοι ὑπῆρχον εἰς
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, is not a mere circumlocution for the finite verb,
for Beẞarт. hoav would be the regular expression, there being no other
form for the Plup. In Jas. ii. 15 λetőμevoɩ is annexed as a predicate to
γυμνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν. In part, however, Luke xxiii. 12 προϋπήρχον ἐν ἔχθρα
ὄντες might be referred to this head, for which πρότερον ἐν ἔχθρα ἦσαν
might have been used. See as to these combinations of vπápɣew with the
Part. v, Bornem. Schol. p. 143.
Tívoμaι also (in the sense of cîvai) is never in the N. T. employed with
a Part. (Heind. Plat. Soph. 273 sq.; Lob. Soph. Aj. v. 588) to form a
periphrasis of this sort. In Heb. v. 12 yeyóvate xpeíav éxovtes signifies:
γεγόνατε χρείαν ἔχοντες
ye have come to have need. In Mark ix. 3 τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἐγένοντο στίλβοντα
means: became shining. In the same way are to be explained Luke
xxiv. 37; 2 Cor. vi. 14; Rev. xvi. 10; but in Mark i. 4 éyéveto 'Iwávvys
(exstitit Joannes) is to be taken by itself, and the Participles that follow
are added as explanatory. Just so Jno. i. 6.
The construction in the following passages cannot by any means be
taken as a circumlocution for a finite verb: θεός ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν
etc. Phil. ii. 13; 1 Cor. iv. 4, etc. (usually with the omission of the copula,
Rom. viii. 33; Heb. iii. 4, etc.) it is God that worketh etc., cf. Fr. Rom. II.
212 sq.; Krü. 191.
6. Greek prose authors seldom take the liberty of omitting the
Subs. verb in such constructions, so as to make the Part. stand
exactly for a finite verb; and then it is done only in simple tense
329 and mood forms (see Hm. Vig. 776; Mtth. 1303; Siebelis, Pausan.
7th ed III. 106; Wannowski, synt. anom. 202 sq.).2 Expositors, disregard-
ing the corrections of Greek philologers (Hm. Vig. 770, 776 sq.;
Bremi in the Philol. Beitr. a. d. Schweiz. I. 172 ff.; Bornem. Xen.
conv. p. 146 and Schol. in Luc. p. 183; Döderlein, Soph. Oed. Col.
p. 593 sq; Bhdy. 470), have often and unhesitatingly assumed such
a usage in the N. T. But in nearly all the passages so explained,
314 a finite verb either precedes or follows, to which the Part. is to be
joined (and then merely the usual punctuation of the text must not
be minded); or there is an anacoluthon, owing to the writer's
6th ed.
1 Cf. Fr. Rom. I. 282. As to the Byzantine use of Participles simply for finite verbs,
see Index to Malalas, in the Bonn ed. p. 797. (We are not speaking here of the poets;
see e.g. Hm. review of Müller's Eumenid. S. 23.)
2 The restriction under which Mehlhorn in the Allg. Lit. Z. 1833. no. 78 maintains
this ellipsis, can neither be fully justified on philosophic grounds, nor can instances be
found, especially in later authors, to support it.
§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
351
having lost sight of the construction with which he began (Poppo,
Thuc. III. III. 138). Several such passages have been correctly 368
explained by Ostermann in Crenii exercitatt. II. 522 sq.
0
a. In 2 Cor. iv. 13 exovтes must be joined to the TOTEUоper fol-
lowing: as we have ... we also believe. In 2 Pet. ii. 1 both ȧpvoú-
μενοι and επάγοντες are to be connected with παρειςάξουσιν; they
are not, however, co-ordinate with each other, but éπáуovтes is an-
nexed to the clause οἵτινες ... ἀρνούμενοι. In Rom. v. 11 åλλà
καὶ καυχώμενοι has not so close a correspondence to σωθησόμεθα,
that κavxóμela (var.) was to have been expected; but the meaning
appears to be but not only shall we be saved (simply and actually),
but while we, so that we etc. (expressive.of the joyous consciousness
of the saved). In 2 Cor. viii. 20 σteλλóµevor is to be connected, as
to the sense, with ovveréμaμev in vs. 18. In Heb. vi. 8 expé-
vetéµyaµev
povoa does not stand for expépe, but this Part. corresponds to
TLOÛσa and TiKTOUσa in vs. 7, and by dé is placed in opposition.
to both; but an eσrí is to be supplied with adókiμos and каTÁPAS
éyyús. In 2 Pet. iii. 5 ovveσTŵσa is a proper Part. (attributive),
and the preceding ἦσαν avails also for ἡ γῆ. In Hel. vii. 2 έρμη
νευόμενος must be joined to Μελχισ. in vs. 1., as ὁ συναντ. and ᾧ
èµépiσev are parenthetical clauses, and the principal verb in the
sentence follows all the predicates in vs. 3 μévei iepeús etc. In
Eph. v. 21 Úπоτaσσóμevoι, like the other Participles in vss. 19, 20,
certainly belongs with the principal verb πληροῦσθε ἐν πν., and is
not to be taken for an Imperative, as has been done by Koppe, Flatt,
and others; the ai yuvaîkes etc. in vs. 22 is then joined, without
a special verb (for úπотúσσeσe is undoubtedly a gloss), to uπо-
Taσσóμevoi, as a further illustration. Likewise in 1 Pet. v. 7 the
Participles are connected with the foregoing Imperative in vs. 6;
and 1 Pet. iii. 1 refers back to ii. 18, where the Part. is to be joined
to the Imperat. in vs. 17. In the same way in 2 Thess. iii. S èpya-
ζόμενοι is to be joined to ἐν κόπῳ καὶ μόχθῳ, and this again cor-
responds to δωρεάν as an adjunct to the verb ἄρτον ἐφάγομεν. In
Heb. x. 8 Xéywv belongs to the verb following in vs. 9, eipnкev. 330
In x. 16 didous may very well be connected with diabnooμat. Rom. 7th ed.
vii 13 has long since been correctly explained. 1 Pet. iv. S needs
no explanation.
b. Acts xxiv. 5 begins with the Part. evpóvres Tòv ävôpa, and
vs. 6 should have continued exратýσаμev avтóv etc.; instead of
this the writer annexes this principal verb to the interposed relative
clause ὃς καὶ ... ἐπείρασε. In 2 Pet. i. 17 λαβὼν γὰρ παρὰ θεοῦ
352
§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
etc. the structure is interrupted by the parenthetical clauses porns
1
evdókηoa; and the apostle continues in vs. 18 with Kai Taúтηv
369 τὴν φωνὴν ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν, instead of saying, as he intended, ἡμᾶς
εἶχε ταύτην τὴν φωνὴν ἀκούσαντας, or something similar (Fr. diss.
315 in 2 Cor. II. 44). In 2 Cor. v. 6 Oappoûvres, after several interme-
6th ed. diate clauses, is resumed in Oappoûμev dé vs. 8. In vii. 5 ovdeµíav
ἔσχηκεν ἄνεσιν ἡ σὰρξ ἡμῶν, ἀλλ' ἐν παντὶ θλιβόμενοι, ἔξωθεν
μάχαι etc., ήμεθα (from ἡ σὰρξ ἡμῶν) may be supplied (Hm. Vig.
p. 770); but an anacoluthon may also be assumed (Fr. as above,
p. 49), as if Paul had written in the previous part of the sentence
οὐδεμίαν ἄνεσιν ἐσχήκαμεν τῇ σαρκὶ ἡμῶν. In v. 12 ἀφορμὴν διδόντες
must be taken as a Part., but the foregoing clause must be under-
stood as if it had run οὐ γὰρ γράφομεν ταῦτα πάλιν ἑαυτοὺς συνι
σтávovтes, or, what comes to the same thing, the more general
λέγομεν, γράφομεν, be deduced from συνιστάνομεν ; see Mey. in loc.
In 1 Pet. ii. 11 άπéɣeole is the reading now adopted, with which
in vs. 12 exovtes is regularly connected; and in Acts xxvi. 20
ἀπήγγελλον was long ago substituted for ἀπαγγέλλων. As to Rom.
xii. 6 ff.; Heb. viii. 10, and 1 Pet. iii. 1, 7 see § 63. (In Rev. x. 2
exwv is subjoined independently and ẻori can be supplied.)
In Rom. iii. 23 too, πάντες . . . ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ, δικαιούμενοι
Swpeáv etc., the Part. cannot stand for a finite verb (even Ostermann
explains it ὑστεροῦνται καὶ δικαιοῦνται), but the Apostle as his words show
conceived the connection thus: and come short of the glory of God, in
that (since) they are justified freely; the latter is proof of the former.
In 1 Cor. iii. 10 ὁ δρασσόμενος τοὺς σοφοὺς ἐν τῇ πανουργίᾳ αὐτῶν, a
quotation from the Old Test., does not form a complete sentence, but
contains merely the words suited to the Apostle's purpose, cf. Heb. i. 7.
What the Apostle quotes incompletely we ought not to wish to complete
by annexing an eorí. As to 1 Pet. i. 14, see Fr. Conject. I. 41 sq.; the
Part. μὴ συσχηματιζόμενοι may be taken as depending on ἐλπίσατε, or, as
331 I prefer, may be connected with yevýОnte vs. 15 as parallel to katà tòv
7th ed. kaλéσavta etc. As little reason is there in proverbs, such as 2 Pet. ii. 22
ἐστί.
κύων ἐπιστρέψας ἐπὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐξέραμα and ὓς λουσαμένη etc., to change the
Part. into the finite verb. The words run: a dog, that turns to his own
vomit, as if spoken deukTukŵs in reference to a case under observation; just
as we say in German e.g. ein räudiges Schaf! ('a black sheep,' Eng.)
when a bad man makes himself conspicuous among the good.
In another way a Part. was taken for a finite verb, when the Part.
1 Yet it may also be assumed that Peter wished to say: receiving from God honor and
glory he was declared to be the beloved Son of God, but interrupts the construction with
the direct quotation of the words uttered by the voice from heaven.
§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
353
seemed to express an action following that denoted by the finite verb
(Bähr in Creuzer Melet. III. 50 sq.). In the N. T., however, there is no
single established instance of this usage. In Luke iv. 15 oldaσkev ... 370
dogalóμevos útò Túvтov means: he taught being glorified of all, — while he
was glorified of all (during his teaching). Jas. ii. I el dè πposowoλytteûte, 316
ἁμαρτίαν ἐργάζεσθε ἐλεγχόμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου etc. is: ye commit sin, while 6th ed
(since) ye are convicted, being convicted (as πpOSWπOÀNπTOÛVTES); Gebser
is wrong. In Heb. xi. 35 ἐτυμπανίσθησαν οὐ προςδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν
not accepting the deliverance (offered them), #posôeg. denotes something
preceding rather than following the rupraví.; cf. Heb. ix. 12. Acts
xix. 29, too, does not contain the use of the Aor. Part. in narration men-
tioned by Hm. Vig. 774; as ὥρμησάν τε ὁμοθυμαδὸν εἰς τὸ θέατρον, συναρ
πάσαντες Γάϊον καὶ ᾿Αρίσταρχον means either, after they had seized along
with themselves (from their quarters) or, while they seized along with them.
In Luke i. 9 ἔλαχεν τοῦ θυμᾶσαι εἰςελθὼν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ κυρίου, the Part.
probably belongs to the Inf. (as the Vulgate takes it): entering into the
temple to burn incense; Mey. is artificial. As to Rom. iii. 23, see abore,
p. 352. Rom. ii. 4 requires no elucidation. Likewise the peculiarity oc-
casionally found in Greek authors, according to which the principal notion
is expressed by a Part. and the secondary by a finite verb (Mtth. 1295 f.;
Hm. Soph. Aj. 172; Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 136), has by some been un-
warrantably forced upon the N. T.; such critics having quite forgotten
that the usage in question could not occur independently of any limitation
involved in the nature of the ideas to be expressed. To explain 2 Cor.
ν. 2 στενάζομεν ... ἐπιποθοῦντες as put for ἐπιποθοῦμεν στενάζοντες is emi-
nently infelicitous; the Part. must be regarded as subjoined to the verb,
and explained as causal like στενάζομεν βαρούμενοι in vs. 4.
7. The Present Part. (with the Article) is often used substan-
tively, and then, as a noun, excludes all indication of time. In
Eph. iv. 28 ὁ κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω is not for ὁ κλέψας (as
some Codd. have); but, let the stealer i.e. the thief steal no more,
Heb. xi. 28. So also when it is accompanied with an Acc. of the
Object, or other adjuncts; as, Gal. i. 23 ó diwкwv ýµâs TOTÉ our
former persecutor, Matt. xxvii. 40 ó kataλúwv tòv vaóv the destroyer
of the temple (in his imagination), Rev. xv. 2 oi viкôvтES EK TOÛ
Onpíou (which Eichhorn, Einl. N. T. II. 378, mentions as singular!),
xx. 10; Gal. ii. 2 (oi Sokoûvtes see Kypke II. 274; cf. also Pachym. 332
I. 117, 138, etc.); 1 Thess. i. 10; v. 24; 1 Pet. i. 17; Rom. v. 17; 7th ed.
Jno. xii. 20 (xiii. 11); cf. Soph. Antig. 239 out' eidov ostis v ó
δρῶν, Paus. 9, 25, 5 ὁποῖα ἐστιν αὐτοῖς καὶ τῇ μητρὶ τὰ δρώμενα,
Diog. L. 1, 87 Bpadéws éyxeiper Tоîя праттоμévоis (faciendis), Soph.
Electr. 200 Tаûта πрáoσwv, Plat. Cratyl. 416 b. ó тà óvóμaтA
Tileis, Demosth. Theocrin. 508 b. and frequently in the orators
7
45
354
§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
ὁ τὸν νόμον τιθείς (legislator), ὁ γράφων τὴν μαρτυρίαν (Bremi,
Demosth. p. 72) Strabo 15, 713; Arrian. Al. 5, 7, 12; Poppo, Thuc.
371 I. I. 152; Schaef. Eurip. Orest. p. 70; Demosth. V. 120, 127; poet.
gnom. 228 sq., and Plutarch. V. 211 sq.; Weber, Demosth. 180;
Bornem. Schol. p. 10; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 22; Maetzner ad
Antiphont. p. 182. Likewise in Acts iii. 2 oi eisπopevóμevol is used
substantively, those entering; one cannot regard it with Kühnöl
317 (Matt. p. 324), on the ground that μéλovтas eisiévai occurs in
6th ed. vs. 3, as the Present Part. used for the Fut. The more precise
expression is quite appropriate in vs. 3, as the person addressing
the two apostles detained them a short time during their eistévai.
(In other passages, when there is a distinct reference to past time,
the Aorist Part. is used substantively; as, Jno. v. 29; Acts ix. 21;
2 Cor. vii. 12, etc., cf. ó ékeívov TEKOV Eurip. Electr. 335, oi Tŵv ióvtwv
TEKÓVTES Aeschyl. Pers. 245,- Aristoph. cccl. 1126 ý еµỳ кeктηµÉVN,
Lucian. Tim. 56.)
Such Present Participles with the Article show themselves to be com-
plete substantives when a Genitive is joined to them, as in 1 Cor. vii. 35
πρὸς τὸ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν συμφέρον (Demosth. cor. 316 c. τὰ μικρὰ συμφέροντα τῆς
Tóλews); see Lob. Soph. Aj. 238 sq.; Held, Plut. Aem. p. 252.
8. In quotations from the Old Test. a Part. is occasionally con-
nected with some person of the same verb (and placed before it);
as, Acts vii. 34 idwv eîdov from Exod. iii. 7 (cf. Lucian. dial. mar.
4, 3), Heb. vi. 14 εὐλογῶν εὐλογήσω σε καὶ πληθύνων πληθυνῶ σε
(from Gen. xxii. 17), Matt. xiii. 14 Bλéπovtes Bλévere (from Isa.
vi. 9). This construction is extremely frequent in the Sept., as
Judges i. 28; iv. 9; vii. 19; xi. 25; xv. 16; Gen. xxvi. 28;
xxxvii. 8, 10; xliii. 6; Exod. iii. 7; 1 Sam. i. 10; iii. 21; xiv. 28;
1 Kings xi. 11; Job vi. 2; Ruth ii. 16; 1 Macc. v. 40; Judith
ii. 13 (see Thiersch p. 164 sqq.), and is a Hellenizing of the Hebrew
Inf. Absolute (Ewald, krit. Gr. 560 ff.), though the LXX, once
accustomed to the construction, sometimes employ it even where
the Hebrew contains no Inf. Absol., as in Exod. xxiii. 26. This
mode of expression, however, was judiciously chosen, although in
Greek prose, with the exception of that isolated idov eidov in Lucian,
no perfectly satisfactory parallels can be shown (Georgi, vind. p.
196 sq. has mixed together things dissimilar);¹ for in the instances.
1 Some passages have been quoted according to erroneous readings. Plat. Tim. 30c.
runs thus : τίνι τῶν ζῴων αὐτὸν εἰς ὁμοιότητα ὁ ξυνιστὰς ξυνίστησε. Likewise Plat. Lach.
185 d. σкoτоúμevoɩ σкотoûμev is questioned by recent critics, and Mtth. 1301 proposes
to read: σкожоÛμеν & σкотоÛuev. Yet the singularity here consists more in the con-
nection of the Middle and Active.
§ 45. THE PARTICIPLE.
355
apparently corresponding the Part. carries its own idea, as in Her. 333
5, 95 peúywv èkpeúyeɩ fuga evadit (Diod. Sic. 17, 83), and still 7th ed
more in Xen. Cyr. 8, 4, 9 ύπακούων σχολῇ ὑπήκουσα, Lucian. 372
parasit. 43 φεύγων ἐκεῖθεν ... εἰς τ. Ταυρέου παλαίστραν κατέφυγε,
see Gataker de stylo c. 9;² Lob. paralip. p. 522. The later wri-
ters are the first to imitate this construction, as Anna Alex. 3, 80;
Euseb. H. E. 6, 45. Originally this Participle implied an emphasis,
though subsequently it may have become weakened. In the three 318
passages quoted above, this emphasis is perceptible. We express Ghed-
it by the voice and the position of the words, or by a corresponding
abverb, etc. well have I seen, — surely (richly ?) will I bless thee,
with your own eyes shall ye see, etc. Acts xiii. 45 is a construc-
tion of another sort: οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀντέλεγον τοῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ Παύλου
λεγομένοις, ἀντιλέγοντες καὶ βλασφημοῦντες, where ἀντέλεγον is
taken up again in the Part. and strengthened by Braop.
Eph. v. 5 τοῦτο ἴστε γινώσκοντες probably does not come under this
head, but ïore refers to what is stated in vs. 3 f., and ywóσk. is construed
with or this, however, ye know, aware (considering) that, etc. That
1 Pet. i. 10, 12; Acts v. 4 do not come under this rule, is obvious to every
one. Finally, it passés comprehension that Kühnöl should adduce Heb.
x. 37 8 épxóuevos na (he omits, it is true, the Article) as an instance of
the above usage.
#
Note 1. On Participles used absolutely, see § 59. Such is also TUXÓV,
1 Cor. xvi. 6, which is inserted in the clause as an adverb, Xen. A. 6, 1,
20; Plato, Alcib. 2, 140, etc.
Note 2. Sometimes two finite verbs are so closely connected by kai,
that the first has, logically, the force of a Part., e.g. Matt. xviii. 21 woσákis
ἁμαρτήσει εἰς ἐμὲ ὁ ἀδελφός μου καὶ ἀφήσω αὐτῷ, i.e. ἁμαρτήσαντι τῷ ἀδελφῷ.
This distribution of a single (logical) clause into two grammatical clauses is
a peculiarity of Oriental diction, and is of frequent occurrence; see § 66, 7.
Note 3. Luke and Paul (still more, however, the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews) are peculiarly fond of participial constructions. Paul
accumulates Part. on Part.; cf. 1 Thess. ii. 15 f.; Tit. ii. 12, 13; 2 Cor.
iv. 8-10. In narration, however, the use of Participles appears on the
whole less frequent and less diversified in the N. T. than in Greek his-
torical authors. The historical discourse of the N. T. runs on in simple
1 It is hardly necessary to remark that the phrase idov olda (scio me vidisse) Athen.
6, 226; Arrian. Ind. 4, 15 does not come under this head. Cf. also àkovσas olda Lucian.
dial. mort. 28, 1.
2 This author has rightly set aside the passage from Aeschyl. Prom. 447. But he
found himself finally compelled to let the instance from Lucian. dial. mar. stand.
Accordingly, viewed linguistically, it approximates the Hebrew mode of expression, a
fact which Thiersch should not have questioned.
356
§ 46. THE PARTICLES IN GENERAL.
334 clauses (which are joined together especially by the oft-recurring Kat)
7th ed. and disdains the periodic structure in which the Greeks were so expert.
Yet cf. Bornem. Xen. Cyrop. p. 465.
373
CHAPTER V.
THE PARTICLES.
§ 46. THE PARTICLES IN GENERAL.
1. Although propositions and periods can be formed by means
of those inflections of the noun and verb whose syntax has been
discussed in the preceding pages― (propositions, in particular, by
319 means of Cases, the use of which is so varied in Greek; periods,
6th ed. by means of Infinitives, Participles, etc.)-yet those inflections.
alone do not suffice for the great diversity of relations which give
origin to propositions and periods. Hence language possesses
besides a vast stock of so-called particles, by whose aid it becomes
possible to construct all conceivable propositions and all their con-
ceivable combinations. Particles are divided, as is well-known,
into Prepositions, Adverbs, and Conjunctions (Rost S. 717);
though respecting the boundary-lines which separate these three
species from each other, grammarians have not yet been able to
agree. Cf., in particular, Hm. emend. rat. p. 149 ff.
Interjections are not words, but sounds; and lie quite beyond the limits
of Syntax, and indeed of Grammar.
2. Without attempting to settle the dispute among grammarians
respecting the boundaries of these three classes of particles, we see
at once as much as this:
1) That the classification must be made not on the basis of the
words but of their signification; as it has long been acknowledged
that prepositions e.g. often assume the nature of adverbs, and vice
versâ (Hm. as above, p. 161), -in fact, that the prepositions are
adverbs originally.
2) That all particles either serve merely to complete the struc-
ture of a simple proposition and confine their import within its
374 limits, or are designed to join one proposition to another. The
latter are properly called Conjunctions; and if the grammarian
§ 46. THE PARTICLES IN GENERAL.
357
7th ed.
pays regard to the language (expressed thought) rather than to
the (pure) thought, he may reckon among them the comparative
particle ὡς ώςπερ), the particles of time (ἐπεί, ὅτε, ὁπότε, etc.),
the negative particle of design un etc., so far forth as they are also 335
connectives; so that these particles, according to their import,
may be classed either as adverbs or as conjunctions. The power
of adverbs and prepositions, however, is confined to the limits of a
simple proposition; the structure of this they serve to complete.
Prepositions denote only relations (of substantives); adverbs, inhe-
rent attributes (of terms of quality or condition, and consequently
of adjectives and verbs, inasmuch as the latter are compounded of
the copula and a term of quality or condition). See, especially,
Hm., as above, 152 ff.
We shall perhaps never succeed in effecting a thoroughly satisfactory
classification of the particles, since in this matter language practically does.
not coincide perfectly with the philosophical method of pure theory.
Much light is shed on the relation of particles to the structure of sentences
by Grotefend, Grundzüge einer neuen Satztheorie. Hannover, 1827. 8vo.;
Krüger, Erörterung der grammat. Eintheilung und grammat. Verhältn.
der Sätze. Frft. a. M. 1826. 8vo. Cf. also Werner in the n. Jahrb. f. Philol.
1834. p. 85 ff.
3. The great copiousness of the Greek language in particles, as 320
developed in the elegant literary Attic, is shared by the N. T. dic- úth ed.
tion to but a limited extent; for not only was the (later) popular
language of the Greeks in general more frugal in the use of par-
ticles, but the N. T. authors also, as they imparted a Jewish tinge
to their presentations of thought, did not feel impelled to employ
the niceties of Greek composition in the structure of periods.
From the nature of the case, however, while they could easily
dispense with the great variety of conjunctions, they could least
dispense with the prepositions. In treating of particles, N. T.
Grammar, if it will avoid encroaching on the department of Lexi-
cography, should not take up the particles separately and explain
in detail all their various significations, but should endeavor
rather, primarily to give only a clear and discriminating deline-
ation of the various modifications of thought which the particles.
are employed to designate; and then in every instance to point
out how far these varieties of meaning have been expressed by
the N. T. writers through the use of the abundant store of particles
which the Greek language supplied. At the same time, however,
it will take pains to exhibit in its leading traits, so far as the exist
358
§ 47. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC.
ing state of N. T. Lexicography and Interpretation may permit,
the mutual dependence of the significations of the principal parti-
375 cles, and emphatically to protest against the arbitrariness of what
is called enallage particularum.
The general subject of the Greek particles had never been in any
considerable degree exhaustively treated even down to quite recent times,
either as respects the facts (especially in reference to the various periods.
336 of the language) or still less as respects their philosophy. The works of
7th ed. Mt. Devarius (Reusmann's edition, Lips. 1793. 8vo.) and H. Hoogeveen
(Amsterd. 1769. II. 4to. condensed by Schütz, Lips. 1806. 8vo.) are no
longer satisfactory, especially as they entirely omit the prepositions. On
the other hand, J. A. Hartung, Lehre v. d. Partikeln der griech. Spr. Erlang.
1832 f. II. 8vo. merits recognition. Still more helpful are the acute re-
searches with which R. Klotz has enriched his edition of Devarius (Lips.
1835. 1842. II. 8vo.); [cf. also W. Bäumlein, Untersuchung üb. griech.
Partikeln. Stuttg. 1861. 8vo.]. Schraut, on the other hand, die griech.
Partikeln im Zusammenhange mit den ältesten Stämmen der Sprache
(Neuss, 1848), is too fanciful. A comparative treatment is given by E. A.
Fritsch, vergleich. Bearbeit. d. griech. u. lat. Partikeln. Giessen, 1856. 8vo.
For the biblical particles a Lexicon Particularum to the Sept. and the
Apocrypha is a desideratum, as the concordances and Schleusner also in
his Thesaur. Philol. have entirely omitted these words. (Bruder, as is
well known, has carefully inserted the particles in his N. T. Concordance.)
Tittmann's treatise on N. T. Particles (de usu particular. N. T. Cap. 1, 2,
Lips. 1831. II. 4to., also in his Synonym. N. T. II. 42 sqq.) is not thoroughly
to be commended; moreover it was interrupted by the death of the acute
and learned author, who however did not pay due attention to the actual
usage of the language.
321 § 47. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL,¹ AND SUCH AS GOVERN
6th ed.
THE GENITIVE IN PARTICULAR.
1. The prepositions correspond to the cases; hence each accord-
ing to its signification is connected with a particular case, viz.
with that case whose primary meaning accords with the primary
meaning of the preposition. Prepositions are employed where the
cases are insufficient to indicate a relation (for these relations are
extremely diversified), and sometimes also where a case would
376 have sufficed indeed, but on account of the variety of its uses did.
1 Cf. IIm. de emend. rat. p. 161 sqq; B. G. Weiske, de praeposition. gr. comment.
Gorlic. 1809 f.; K. G. Schmidt, quaestion. grammat. de praeposition. gr. Berol. 1829. 8vo.;
Döderlein, Reden u. Aufs. II. nr. 3; Bhdy. S. 195 ff.; Schneider, Vorles. S. 181 ff.
§ 47. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC.
359
not appear to the speaker to be definite enough for his purpose.
They are relatively more numerous in the N. T. than in Greek
prose, because the apostles had not such an inherent sense as
cultivated native Greeks of the extended application of the
cases; besides, the Oriental prefers the more vivid expression ;
and moreover, the Hebrew-Aramaic language indicates by means
of prepositions nearly all those relations which are designated in
Greek by cases alone.
2. In treating of prepositions it is necessary, in the first place, 337
to seize with clearness and precision the true primary meaning of 7th ed
each from which all its applications emanate as from a common
centre, and to trace back to this all the various shades of meaning
the preposition may have assumed,―i.e. to show how the transi-
tion to every such application was effected in the mind of the
speaker or writer; and secondly, to take cognizance of the case,
and the necessity for it, which is joined to a given preposition,
either in general or in a particular range of significations (Bern-
hardi, allg. Sprachl. I. 164 f.), and in turn to make use of this
knowledge in fixing the limits of the signification of the prep
ositions themselves. The former, viz. the determination of the
primary meaning of the prepositions as exhibited now in their
construction with the Gen. now with the Dat. etc., will set in its
true light the mutual interchange of prepositions, which in the
N. T. has been thought to be wholly unlimited. The latter must
be performed without a passion for over-strained refinements, and
with a recognition at the outset of the fact that, according to the
special, and according to the more or less precise, perception of a
relation to be expressed (particularly if mental), one and the same
preposition may be construed with several different cases (cf. Hm.
emend. rat. 163).
6th ed.
In treating of prepositions in the N. T., it is only necessary to
add first, a notice of how far later Greek, and in particular the
popular language, extended the use and import of prepositions,
obliterated their nicer distinctions, and was led probably even into 322
improprieties in employing them; further, to pay constant regard
to the Hebrew-Aramaic, which delights in the use of prepositions
and presents numerous relations under aspects different from the
Greek (cf. e. g. ομόσαι ἔν τινι, ἀποκτείνειν ἐν ῥομφαία); and finally,
not to leave out of sight the distinctively Christian view which 377
underlies the use of many prepositions (e.g. ἐν Χριστῷ οι κυρίῳ).
The maltreatment of the prepositions until a few decades ago on the
360
§ 47. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC.
1
part of N. T. philologists in Lexicons and Commentaries (e.g. Koppe's
N. T.) was really horrible; but it found precedent and support in the
purely empirical treatment of the Hebrew prepositions current until Ewald's
time, see my exeget. Stud. I. 27 ff. Wahl was the first to pursue a better
course; and almost everybody now has begun to be ashamed of the license
just described.
As respects in particular the comparative predominance of the Greek
element and of the Hebrew-Aramaic in the use of the prepositions, it must
not be overlooked, 1) that many constructions which the N. T. writers
adopted through the influence of their mother tongue, occur also in Greck
poets and later prose writers, so diversified is the use of the Greek prepo-
338 sitions; 2) that though in the more Hebraistic portions of the N. T.
7th ed. (particularly in the Revelation) the exposition from the Hebrew suggests
itself, yet we must not on that account explain the Greek prepositions in
all the books indiscriminately by a reference to the Hebrew; for simul-
taneously with the Greek prepositions a multitude of special linguistic
relations had been communicated to the Apostles, and close observation
shows that as respects the relations expressed by prepositions the Apostles
had already become accustomed to think in Greek; 3) that, especially in
Paul (and John), the un-Hellenic application of several prepositions (e.g.
iv) is closely connected with doctrinal phraseology, and belongs to the
Apostolic (Christian) element in N. T. diction.
323
6th ed.
378
3. The proper and the metaphorical significations of each prepo-
sition must be accurately distinguished. The former always refer
primarily to local relations (Bernhardi I. 290); and if these are
conceived in great multiplicity by a nation, a corresponding multi-
plicity of prepositions is the result. The simple relations of place
are but two, that of rest and that of motion (or even merely of
direction, which is viewed as more or less a motion). The latter,
however, comprises motion towards and motion from. The notion
of rest is denoted by the Dative; that of motion towards, by the
Accusative; that of motion from, by the Genitive.
ἀμφί,
Locul designations to which single prepositions correspond are,
a) of rest: in ev, by the side of παρά, upon ἐπί, over ὑπέρ, under
(ὑπό), amid (with) μετά, before πρό, behind μετά, on up on) ανά,
about ȧupí, around Tepí, over against ȧvrí; b) of (direction)
motion towards a point: into eis, towards κaтá, to πρós, upon èπí,
to beside Tapá, under vπó; c) of (direction) motion from: out of
¿k, from àñó, from under iπó, down from kaτá, from beside πapá.
To the last division may be referred through relating to space (diá)
1 Tittmann, de scriptor. N. T. diligentia gramm. p. 12 (Synon. I. 207): nulla est, ne
repugnans quidem significatio, quin quaecunque praepositio cam in N. T. habere dicatur.
§ 47. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC.
361
(cf. Progr. de verbor. cum praeposs. compositor. in N. T. usu V.
p. 3), for which the Hebrew uses, and the German sometimes aus
(e.g. aus dem Thore gehen).
4. Language deals at first with the ideas of time by taking local
relations as the pattern; hence temporal senses also are put upon
most of the prepositions. Not till later does the transition ensue
to immaterial, purely ideal relations, which every nation conceives
under forms more or less material. This produces a correspond-
ing diversity in national modes of expression. A Greek, for
instance, says, Xéyew πepí twos; a Roman, dicere de aliqua re;
λέγειν περ τινος
a Hebrew, 7; a German, über etwas sprechen. The first views
the object as a central point which the speaker as it were encom- 339
passes (to speak about a thing); the Roman, as a whole of which 7th ed.
the speaker imparts something to the hearer (de as it were to speak
off something from the object); the Hebrew, as the ground on
which the speaker stands (to speak on something); the Gerinan,
as something lying before the speaker over which his discourse
extends (for über governs in this connection the Accusative).
The notion of origin, and consequently of cause, is most naturally
implied in the prepositions from, out of (άπó, úπÓ, πаρά, Èк); that
of occasion, and consequently also of motive, in πρós, els (e.g. on
the report), éπi with the Dat. and did with the Acc. (on account of).
Here èí refers to the basis on which something rests; hence we
also use the word ground for reason. Design and aim expressed
by to are denoted by èπí with the Dat., or by eis or πpós with the Acc.
Condition is expressed by éπi with the Dat., just as we say by a 379
similar metaphor: auf Lohn Recht sprechen. The object which
underlies an emotion is indicated by eri with the Gen., as in German
sich freuen über (rejoice over), stolz sein auf (pride one's self on).
To speak in reference to an object is Xéyew πepí Twos (see above).
The rule, or standard, is expressed either by after (πρós, каτú) or
by from (èк); in the former construction, the rule is conceived as
something after, according to, which a thing is to shape itself; in
the latter, as that from which the thing regulated is derived.
Lastly, the means finds natural expression in Stú with the Gen., 324
sometimes in èv.
5. One preposition may sometimes, no doubt, be employed for
another; but we must deduct from instances of this class all those
in which an immaterial relation may be expressed with equal pro-
1 As to the primary import of the Latin de, sec Heidtmann in the Zeitschr. f. Alterth.
Wiss. 1846. no. 109 f.
6th ed.
46
362
§ 47. THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC.
priety by several different prepositions,¹ (loqui de re and super re,
ζῆν ἔκ and από τινος, ὠφελεῖσθαι ἀπό and ἔκ τ. Χen. Cyr. 5, 4, 34 ;
Mem. 2, 4, 1, also ἐπί τινι, ἀποκτείνεσθαι ἀπό and ἔκ τινος Rev. ix. 18,
ἀποθνήσκειν ἔκ τινος Rev. viii. 11 and ὑπό τ., ἀποθνήσκειν ὑπέρ aud
περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, ἀγωνίζεσθαι περί and ὑπέρ τινος, ἐκλέγεσθαι ἀπὸ
340 and ẻk tŵv µaðŋtŵv).² This cannot be called enallage of preposi-
ἐκ μαθητῶν).
7th ed. tions. On the other hand, particularly in expressing local relations,
the more comprehensive preposition may be used for the more
restricted, as Luke xxiv. 2 ἀποκυλίζειν τὸν λίθον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου,
but Mark xvi. 3 ἐκ τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου ; the latter agrees better
with the precise facts of the case: out of the door-cut into the
rock). This is sometimes attributable to the fact that it does not
seem to be everywhere necessary to speak with entire precision,
sometimes the author may through negligence have used the more
indefinite term for the more definite. The interchange of preposi-
tions is only apparent when any of them is employed praegnanter,
i.e. when it includes also a second relation, the antecedent or con-
380 sequent of that which it strictly expresses, as κaтоIKEîv eis TηV TÓMIV,
εἶναι ὑπὸ νόμον; or in case of an attraction, as αἴρειν τὰ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας
Matt. xxiv. 17, ἀποτάξασθαι τοῖς εἰς τὸν οἶκον Luke ix. 61. ·
•
An arbitrary interchange of prepositions (of which the earlier N. T.
commentaries are full, and which was upheld in part by an abuse of
parallel passages, especially in the gospels) — would never have entered
the imagination of critics, had they been accustomed to consider language
as a living instrument of social intercourse. It is really preposterous
to suppose that any one could have said, 'he is travelling to Egypt' for
'he is travelling in Egypt' (eis for év); or, all is for him' instead of 'all
is from him.' In expressing by, for instance, dia and ev are not thoroughly
equivalent to each other, particularly διὰ Ι. Χριστοῦ and ἐν Ἰ. Χριστῷ,
In Latin, also, per (before names of persons) and the Ablative (of things)
are usually distinguished. Close observation shows in general how cor-
rectly the N. T. writers discriminate between those prepositions even which
1 Thus Paul sometimes employs different prepositions in parallel clauses, to give
variety to his discourse ; as, Rom. iii. 30 ὃς δικαιώσει περιτομὴν ἐκ πίστεως καὶ ἀκροβυστίαν
διὰ τῆς πίστεως, Eph. iii. 8 f.
2 Sometimes in different languages the same relation, because viewed under different
aspects, is expressed by prepositions of exactly opposite significations. Thus Germans
say, zur Rechten; the Romans, Greeks, and Hebrews, a dextra ctc. Even one and
the same language may express a relation, especially if ideal, by opposite prepositions.
We say on the condition and under the condition. In South Germany they say, relation
or friend to (zu) one; in Saxony, relation or friend of (von) one. How ridiculous it
would be to infer from such instances, that of (von) is sometimes equivalent to to (zu),
and on to under!
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL, ETC.
363
are closely allied (e.g. Rom. xiii. 1 οὐκ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ἀπὸ θεοῦ, αἱ δὲ
οὖσαι ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν). And we ought to honor them and 325
ourselves by recognizing everywhere their scrupulous care.
υπ
Where either of two prepositions might be employed with equal pro-
priety, a preference for one in the N. T. is perhaps to be attributed to the
Hellenistic tinge of its diction; this, at least, the critic must take into
consideration as a possibility. Planck, however (articuli nonnulli Lex.
nov. in N. T. Goett. 1824. 4to. p. 14), is mistaken in supposing that åyaðòs
πρós τɩ (Eph. iv. 29) is less correct Greek than es Tɩ. The former con-
struction is of frequent occurrence, e.g. Theophr. hist. plant. 4, 3, 1 and 7;
9, 13, 3; Xen. Mem. 4, 6, 10, etc.; see Schneider, Plat. civ. II. 278.
6th ed
With such prepositions as in different significations govern different
cases, it is sometimes possible, when immaterial relations are to be ex- 341
pressed, to use either of two cases with equal correctness (as éπí with 7th ed
Gen. or Acc.). Sometimes the Codd. vary between the two; see Rom.
viii. 11. In the N. T. this has been erroneously said to hold frequently
in reference to Stá; see below, § 47, i, d. p. 381, cf. § 49 c. Purely external
relations, on the contrary, sustain no such interchange in careful writers;
only very late, especially the Byzantine, authors indulge in it, and con-
found e.g. µerá with the Gen. and with the Acc.; see the word in the Index
to Malalas in the Bonn ed., cf. Schaef. Ind. ad Aesop. p. 136; Boisson. 381
Anecd. IV. 487; V. 84.2 Indeed the later writers have already become
so devoid of an appreciation of the cases as to begin to connect prepositions
even with cases altogether foreign to them, — åñó, for instance, with Acc.
and Dat., karά with Dat., σúv with Gen.; see Index to Leo Gramm. and
Theophan.3
The attempt, recently revived, to explain this alleged interchange of
cases in the N. T. by the circumstance that Hebrew has no cases, is to be
rejected, if for no other reason, because apart from a very small number
of doubtful exceptions the N. T. writers exhibit a correct perception of
the differences between the cases.
The position of prepositions is more simple in the N. T. than in the
classics, Mtth. II. 1399 f. They are uniformly placed immediately before
the noun, and only those conjunctions which never stand at the beginning
of a clause intervene between preposition and substantive; as, dé Matt.
xi. 12; xxii. 31; xxiv. 22, 36; Acts v. 12, yúp Jno. iv. 37; v. 46; Acts
viii. 23; Rom iii. 20, Te Acts x. 39; xxv. 24, ye Luke xi. 8; xviii. 5, μév
and μèv yap Rom. xi. 22; Acts xxviii. 22; 2 Tim. iv. 4.
1 Hence I cannot admit what Lücke, Apokal. II. 458, says about an irregular and
inconsistent use of prepositions in the N. T.
2 In close succession μerá signifying with takes the Acc. and then the Gen. in Acta
apocryph. p. 257.
8 The case is different with ev followed by the Acc.; see Schaef. Dion. comp. p. 305;
Ross, inscriptt. gr. I. 37.
364
$ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
326
6th ed.
PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
a. 'Avτí (Lat. ante), of which the local meaning is (directly)
before, in front of, over-against, denotes figuratively barter, exchange
(Plato, conv. 218 e.), in which one thing is given for, instead of,
another (tooth for tooth, Matt. v. 38), and in consequence assumes
its place. It governs the Genitive, that being the case of (issuing
from and) exchange (see above, p. 206), e.g. 1 Cor. xi. 15 ý kóµn
ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται (τῇ γυναικί ) her hair for, instead of, a
covering (to serve her as a covering, cf. Lucian. philops. 22; Liban.
ep. 350), Heb. xii. 16 ὃς ἀντὶ βρώσεως μιᾶς ἀπέδοτο τὰ πρωτοτόκια
αὑτοῦ, vs. 2 ἀντὶ τῆς προκειμένης αὐτῷ χαρᾶς ὑπέμεινε σταυρόν (for
the joy that was set before him, against this setting death on the
cross), Matt. xx. 28 δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν,
xvii. 27 ἐκεῖνον (στατῆρα) λαβὼν δὸς αὐτοῖς ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ,
ii. 22 'Αρχέλαος βασιλεύει ἀντὶ Ἡρώδου in place of Herod, cf.
342 Her. 1, 108; Xen. A. 1, 1, 4; 1 Kings xi. 44. Hence ȧvtí is the
preposition chiefly used to denote the price for, in exchange for,
which one gives or receives an article of merchandise (Heb.
882 xii. 16); then, to denote requital (Lev. xxiv. 20) and reward
(bordering on the causal sense, like the Germ. ob) e.g. åvľ ôv
(as a recompense) for this (that), i.e. because, Luke i. 20; xix. 44;
Plat. Menex. 244; Xen. A. 5, 5, 14; 1 Kings xi. 11; Joel iii. 5;
or on which account (wherefore) Luke xii. 3; ȧvтì TOÚTOV Eph.
v. 31 (Sept.) therefore, for this, cf. Pausan. 10, 38, 5. 'Avrí is used
in Jno. i. 16 ἐλάβομεν . . . χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος in a peculiar applica-
tion, referable, however, to its primary import: grace over, upon,
grace (Theogn. sent. 344 åvт' åviŵv úvías), strictly grace against,
for, grace, grace in the place of that which preceded, therefore
grace uninterrupted, unceasingly renewed.
7th ed.
b. 'ATÓ, èк, πарú, and úró, all denote issuing, proceeding from
the generic import of the Genitive-but with some diversity as
respects the previous mutual relation of the objects in question.
Beyond doubt è indicates the closest connection; Tó, one less
close; πapá (de chez moi, 2), and especially àπó,¹ one still
more distant. Accordingly, these prepositions may be ranged in
1
1 The distinction between ó and èk is perceptible in Luke ii. 4 (cf. also Acts
xxiii. 34); but in Jno. xi. 1 (see Lücke in loc.) and Rev. ix. 18 åró and é are employed
as synonymous. Cf. also Luke xxi. 18 with Acts xxvii. 34. On the other hand, in
the parallel passages Mark xvi. 3 and Luke xxiv. 2 àπó and è are respectively used,
out of the door, the more precise (and suitable) expression, and (away) from the sepul-
chre, the more loose; sec p. 362.
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
. 365
the following order, proceeding from the most intimate connection
to the more remote: ἐκ, ὑπό, παρά, ἀπό. Further, if merely the
idea of proceeding from is to be expressed, úró is used. If the
proceeding is definitely thought of as from a person, πapú or vπÓ
is required. If the person is to be indicated only in a general
way as the point of departure, Taрú is used; if represented strictly
as the efficient, producing cause, úπó is selected, and hence is the 327
regular preposition after passives. Finally, the idea of distance 6th ed
and separation attaches itself to άπó; so that both ảπó and k
express disjoining and removal, while these notions are not directly
implied by παρά and ὑπό
Пapá is used properly in reference to objects proceeding from
one's vicinity or sphere of power (rapá with Gen. used antitheti-
cally to πpós with Acc. in Lucian. Tim. 53), e.g. Mark xiv. 43
παραγίνεται ὄχλος πολὺς ... παρὰ τῶν ἀρχιερέων from the chief
priests (near whom, about whom, they served; cf. Lucian. philops.
5; Demosth. Polycl. 710 b.), xii. 2 iva πaρà tôv yewpyôv Xáßŋ
аяò тоû каржоû рart of the produce which was in the hands of the
husbandmen ; Jno. xvi. 27 ὅτι ἐγὼ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον (cf. i. 1
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν), τ. 41 (Plat. rep. 10, 612 d.); Στ. 26, 343
Eph. vi. 8; Luke ii. 1; 2 Pet. i. 17. Accordingly, it is joined to 7th ed.
verbs of inquiring and asking Matt. ii. 4, 16; Mark viii. 11; Jno. 383
iv. 9, of learning 2 Tim. iii. 14; Acts xxiv. 8 (Xen. C. 2, 2, 6;
Plat. Euth. 12 e.), the matter to be learned etc. being viewed as
in some one's (mental) possession (áró Mark xv. 45; Gal. iii. 2
expressing this more indefinitely; ek Tvos Xen. Oec. 13, 6 with
greater precision). It is only in later writers that mapá is used
after Passive verbs as exactly equivalent to vπó (Bast, ep. crit.
p. 156, 235; Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. II. 172). In Acts xxii. 30 T
κατηγορεῖται παρὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, Luke could hardly have said ὑπὸ
τῶν Ἰουδαίων (they had as yet laid no formal charge, had not yet
taken measures for a regular prosecution), the meaning is: of
what he is accused on the part of the Jews. Matt. xxi. 42 πаρà
KUρíον ÉYÉVETO AŰrn (Sept.) means: this is from the Lord (divinitus,
through means under God's control); and Jno. i. 6 éyéveto äv@pw-
πος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ : he made his appearance, sent from
God, cf. vs. 1 ἣν πρὸς τὸν θεόν.
EK
In no passage of the N. T. do we find wapά with Gen. used for aρá
with Dat., as is sometimes assumed in Greek authors (Schaef. Dion. comp.
p. 118 sq.; Held, Plut. Tim. p. 427). In 2 Tim. i. 18 eupíoкew implies
the notion of procuring; (otherwise in Luke i. 30 eupes xápu Tарà т bew
366.
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
with God.) Mark v. 26 is to be explained by attraction; probably, how-
ever, in iii. 21 oi rap' avroù are his kindred (those descended from him,
those belonging to him), see Fr. in loc. cf. Susann. 33. As to apά in a
circumlocution for the Gen. see § 30, 3, note 5. That rà πap' iμôv Phil.
iv. 18, and Tà Tap' auтôv Luke x. 7, are not strictly equivalent to тà vμv
(vµétepa), avtŵv, is obvious; in both passages the phrase is accompanied
by a verb of receiving (having received the things sent from you i.e. your
presents; eating what is set before you from (by) them).
'Ek originally denotes issuing from within (the compass, sphere,
of) something (antithetic to eis Luke x. 7; xvii. 24; Herod. 4, 15,
10; Aesch. dial. 3, 11), e.g. Luke vi. 42 exßaλe Tην Soкòv EK TOÛ
ὀφθαλμοῦ (it was ἐν τῷ ὀφθαλμῶ), Matt. viii. 28 ἐκ τῶν μνημείων
328 ἐξερχόμενοι, Acts ix. 3 περιήστραψεν αὐτὸν φῶς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ,
6th ed. Matt. i. 16 ¿§ ĥs (Mapías) ¿yevvýðn 'Inooûs, vs. 3; 1 Pet. i. 23.
Concisely in Luke v. 3 ἐδίδασκεν ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου out of the ship
(speaking from on board) cf. ii. 35. Allied to this is the use of
ẻ to denote the material out of which a thing is made, Matt.
xxvii. 29; Rom. ix. 21; cf. Herod. 8, 4, 27; Ellendt, Arrian. Alex.
I. 150; then, the mass or store out of which a thing is taken, Jno.
384 vi. 50 φαγεῖν ἐξ ἄρτου, Luke viii. 3 ; 1 Jno. iv. 13 ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος
7th ed.
OL
aỷтoû dédwкev ỷµîv he hath given us of his Spirit; further, the class
to which one belongs, (out) of which one is, Jno. vii. 48 un TIS ÉK
τῶν ἀρχόντων ἐπίστευσεν; iii. 1 ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων, xvi. 17
ElπоV ÈK τŴν μalητŵv (Tives), 2 Tim. iii. 6; 2 Jno. 4; Rev. ii. 10,
344 or the country from which one derived his origin, Acts xxiii. 34,
the progenitor from whom one is descended, Εβραῖος ἐξ ῾Εβραίων
(Plato, Phaedr. 246 a., cf. dovλérdovλos D.S. exc. Vat. p. 31), cf.
Heb. ii. 11; lastly, the situation, state out of which one comes,
Rev. ix. 20, or (by brachylogy) out of which he undertakes some-
thing, 2 Cor. ii. 4 ἐκ πολλῆς θλίψεως ... ἔγραψα ὑμῖν. Sometimes
ék is used in a local sense, like the Latin ex for de (down from),
Aets xxviii. 4 κρεμάμενον τὸ θηρίον ἐκ τῆς χειρός (Judith viii. 24 ;
xiv. 11; Odyss. 8, 67; Her. 4, 10; Xen. M. 3, 10, 13), Acts xxvii. 29,
or, with less precision, Heb. xiii. 10 payeîv è тоû Ovoiασтηpiοv
from the altar (what was laid as an offering upon the altar);
1
2
1.Mark xvi. 3 does not come under this head: see above, no. 5, p. 362. Besides, it
must not be forgotten that the same relation may be conceived somewhat differently
in different languages, and yet with equal propriety: e.g. Rom. xiii. 11 ¿yep0îvaɩ è§
Enуov, (aufstehen vom Schlafe) arise out of, from, sleep. In Rev. vi. 14 èk is probably
used designedly, as the mountains are rooted in the earth. It is certainly so used in
Juo. xx. 1.
2 In the N. T. Kataßaívei ÈK TOû épovs is unique, Matt. xvii. 9 (Exod. xix. 14;
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
367
sometimes it denotes mere direction, from, Matt. xx. 21 va кaðí-
σwow... els èk değiôv etc., Heb. i. 13 (Bleck in loc.), where the Germ.
says on (to) the right, zur Rechten, the Lat. a dextra, the Hebr. 2.
In making such specifications it is a matter of indifference whether
the mind proceeds from the object to be located (towards itself),
or from itself towards the object. The former conception the
Greeks have adopted (ek değiâs), the latter, the Germans; cf.
Goeller, Thuc. 8, 33. For analogous expressions see Thuc. 1. 64;
3, 51, and Her. 3, 101 oikéovoi πρòs vóтov ávéμov. When used
of time, ẻ denotes the point of departure of a temporal series
since which something continues to exist, Acts xxiv. 10 èk Toλλôv
ÉTŵV ÖVTA σE KPIτýv etc. Jno. vi. 66; ix. 1; Acts ix. 33; Gal. i. 15,
ἐξ ἱκανοῦ Luke xxiii. 8 (like ἐκ πολλοῦ). Here the Greek says
out of, viewing the time specified, not as we do as a point from 385
which something is reckoned, but by a more vivid conception as an 329
expanse out of which something extends (as e nµépas, ¿§ éτovs etc.).
Figuratively, this preposition denotes every source and cause out
of which something issues (hence ex and dia are related, Franke,
Dem. p. 8; Held, Plut. Tim. 331, cf. Fr. Rom. I. 332), and is
applied either to things or persons, Acts xix. 25; Rom. x. 17 ;
2 Cor. ii. 2; iii. 5. Under this head the following applications.
of é deserve attention: Rev. viii. 11 àπоovýσKELV EK TÔν údúтwv
(ix. 18; Dio C. p. 239, 27, cf. Iliad. 18, 107), Rev. xv. 2 vikâv
EK TIVOS (victoriam ferre ex aliq. Liv. 8, 8 extr.), 1 Cor. ix. 14 345
ÈK TOû evayyeλíov ¿ŷv (Luke xii. 15 cf. with άró Aristot. pol. 3, 3,2 7th ed.
ex rapto vivere Ovid. Met. 1, 144), Luke xvi. 9 Tonσate Eavтoîs
φίλους ἐκ τοῦ μαμωνᾶ τῆς ἀδικίας, Rom. i. 4 ορισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐξ
ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν (source out of which convincing evidence flows,
cf. Jas. ii. 18). Its use in reference to persons 3 is especially fre-
xxxii. 1), for which in other passages we find катаß. ånd тoû opovs, Matt. viii. 1; Mark
ix. 9; Luke ix. 37.
1 The N. T. passages formerly adduced to show that ek means statim post do not
establish the assertion. Luke xi. 6 signifies come in from a journey; xii. 36 return
from the wedding; Jno. iv. 6 fatigued from (by) the journey; 2 Cor. iv. 6 out of darkness,
light etc. In many of these passages to render è immediately after would be altogether
unsuitable; in others it would obtrude a specification of time where the writer thought
primarily only of the condition from, out of which, etc. Least of all can ek be translated
immediately after in Heb. xi. 35.
2 Z₁v èk Toû dikalov Demosth. Eubul. 540 b., which Wahl quotes in his Clavis, does
not come under this head.
8 This use is very extended, particularly in Herodot., sec Schweighaeus. Lex. IIerod.
p. 192. Further, cf. e.g. Diog. L. 1, 54; Philostr. Soph. 2, 12 etc. and Sturz, Lexic. Xen.
II. 88.
6th ed.
368
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
quent and diversified; compare besides, Jno. iii. 25 éyéveto SýtnOLS
ẻk tŵv µalŋtwv 'Iwúvvov (Plato, Theaet. 171 a.), Matt. i. 18 év
γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου, Jno. vii. 22 οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ Μωϋσέως
ἐστὶν (ἡ περιτομή), Rom. xiii. 3 ἕξεις ἔπαινον ἐξ αὐτῆς (ἐξουσίας),
Jno. x. 32 πολλὰ καλὰ ἔργα ἔδειξα ὑμῖν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός μου, vi. 65
(Her. 8, 114), xviii. 3; 1 Cor. vii. 7; 2 Cor. ii. 2; Rom. v. 16
(Fr. inaccurately translates it by per); most of all in reference to
sovereigns, rulers, magistrates, Xen. An. 1, 1, 6; Cyr. 8, 6, 9; Her.
1, 69. 121; 2, 151; Polyb. 15, 4, 7. 'Ek is specially employed
to express the mental state, the disposition out of which something
springs, 1 Tim. i. 5 (Rom. vi. 17), Mark xii. 30; Phil. i. 16;
1 Thess. ii. 3 (Plato, Phil. 22 b.; Xen. An. 7, 7, 43 ẻk tŷs fuxôs
píλos v, Arrian. Ep. 3, 22, 18; Aristoph. nub. 86); then the
occasion, Rev. xvi. 21 ἐβλασφήμησαν τὸν θεὸν ἐκ τῆς πληγῆς (but
not, as Meyer thinks [yet no longer, 4th ed.], in 1 Cor. x. 17) and
the ground (ratio), Rev. viii. 13- for each is the source of its
consequence (Lucian. asin. 46; Demosth. Con. 727 b.);¹ the basis
386 of a judgment (from which a judgment is deduced), Matt. xii. (33)
37 see Kypke in loc., Rev. xx. 12; Xen. C. 2, 2, 21 and 3, 6;
Aesop. 93, 4 (by a different metaphor we say judge according to,
on, cf. èv 1 Jno. iii. 19; v. 2), and consequently the standard,
2 Cor. viii. 11. 'Ex, moreover, sometimes denotes the price of a
thing, Matt. xxvii. 7 ǹyópaσav è§ avtŵv (ȧpyvpíwv) ȧypóv (Palacph.
46, 3), inasmuch as the property is viewed as accruing to us out
of the money (given for it), cf. Matt. xx. 2 (where the expression
is abbreviated). As to é epyov elvai and similar phrases in Gal.
iii. 10; Rom. iii. 26; iv. 14, 16; Phil. i. 17; Tit. i. 10, see my
Comment. on the first passage. In general, the phrase eîvai ék
330 TIOs partakes of all the diversified significations of the preposition,
6th ed. cf. e.g. 1 Cor. xii. 15 ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ χείρ, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ; by
an opposite conception we say belong to the body.
That ek never stands for ev (as has been assumed even in Greek authors
346 occasionally, see Poppo, Thuc. 2, 7; 8, 62) is beyond question. As to
7th ed. the attraction in Matt. xxiv. 17 aïpew тà èk Tŷs oikías see § 66, cf. Poppo,
Thuc. III. II. 493.
Tó signifies from under, out from under (nn) e.g. Hesiod.
theog. 669 Zeus̟ ... ÚπÒ XOоvòs e etc. Plato, Phaedr. 230 b.
1 Other passages adduced (e.g. by Bretschn.) to prove that è means on account of,
are to be excluded. Rom. v. 16 is casily referrible to the idea of source. Acts xxviii. 3
may be rendered, gliding forth out of the heat; recent editors, however, read aró.
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
. 369
It commonly accompanies Passive verbs¹-in order to designate
the subject from whom the action proceeds, who had the power,
therefore, to do or to omit it, and Neuter verbs also which can be
used as Passives; as, 1 Cor. x. 9 Úπò TÔν Öḍewv åπúλovто, Matt.
xvii. 12; 1 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Cor. xi. 24; cf. Demosth. Olynth. 3, p.
10 c.; Lucian. Peregr. 19; Xen. Cyr. 1, 6, 45; An. 7, 2, 22; Lysias
in Theomnest. 4; Pausan. 9, 7, 2; Plat. apol. 17 a. and conv. 222 e.;
Philostr. Apoll. 1, 28; Polyaen. 5, 2, 15, and Porson, Eur. Med.
p. 97; Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 880. In these instances the forces
which have produced death, destruction, etc., are regarded as effi-
cient causes, killing, destroying, etc.; if, on the contrary, dró had
been used (cf. Ta0eîv úró Matt. xvi. 21), they would have been 387
designated merely as that from which a result ensued (occasional
causes). In the former case, the Active construction, the serpents
destroyed, etc. might have been directly substituted; in the latter,
it would be inaccurate. Cf. the difference between BráπтEσlai
βλάπτεσθαι
άπÓ TIOs and úπÓ Twos in Xen. C. 1, 3, 30; Aeschin. dial. 2, 11.
See, in general, Engelhardt, Plat. Apol. p. 174 sq.; Lehmann,
Lucian. VIII. 450; II. 23; Schulz vom Abendm. S. 218. Further,
πó is applied not merely to persons or animate beings, but also
to inanimate agencies, 1 Cor. vi. 12; Col. ii. 18; Jas. i. 14, etc.
The meaning of 2 Pet. i. 17 φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ τοιᾶςδε ὑπὸ τῆς
μeyadoπpeπoûs dóέns is simply: when such a voice was borne to him by the
exalted Majesty. All other expositions are arbitrary.
whether what
'Aπó means, locally, from in the widest sense
has come from anything, may have been previously on, with, at, or
beside (even in) the object in question, principally, therefore, 331
the opposite of èπí with the Acc. Diog. L. 1, 24; as, Luke xxiv. 2 6th ed.
εὗρον τὸν λίθον ἀποκεκυλισμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου, Matt. xiv. 29
καταβὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ πλοίου coming down from the ship (he was on the
ship), iii. 16 ávéßη åπò тоû üdаTоs up from the water (not out of
the water), 'xv. 27 τῶν ψιχίων τῶν πιπτόντων ἀπὸ τῆς τραπέζης
(they were on the table), Acts xxv. 1 ἀνέβη εἰς ῾Ιεροσόλυμα ἀπὸ 347
1 2 Pet. ii. 7 ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν ἀθέσμων ἀναστροφῆς ἐῤῥύσατο would be an instance of the
transition if the words were taken as they stand (out of the power of the conduct of the
lawless, under the influence of which Lot had been left) cf. Iliad. 9, 248 éρú‹œÐαι vπd
Tρúwv opvμaydoû, 23, 86. See, in general, IIm. Eurip. Hec. p. 11. But the usual mode
of connecting und TŶs with Kaтажоνоуμеvоν is to be preferred. Moreover, in Luke
viii. 14 also, úπó after a Passive is to be recognized (Active Matt. xiii. 22 and Mark
iv. 19), where Bornem. has proposed another, but not a satisfactory (construction and)
exposition, in which, however, Mey. concurs.
7th ed.
47
370.
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITII THE GENITIVE.
Kaicapeías from (not out of) Caesarea. In its developed appli-
cation (whether in the realm of matter or of mind) ȧró specially
indicates,
a) Separating, letting go, desisting, Matt. vii. 23 ároушреîте ȧπ
ἐμοῦ, Luke xxiv. 31 ἄφαντος ἐγένετο ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν, Heb. iv. 4 κατέ-
παυσεν ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων, Rev. xviii. 14 (cf. also ἀποκρύπτειν,
паρакаλÚπтεш ȧró Matt. xi. 25; Luke ix. 45, and the pregnant
phrases in Col. ii. 20; Rom. ix. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 2; Acts viii. 22;
2 Cor. xi. 3 and the like), and consequently, remoteness, Jno.
xxi. 8 (Rev. xii. 14; cf. Xen. An. 3, 3, 9; Soph. Ocd. Col. 900).
Far more frequently,
b) Proceeding from, in any respect, especially temporal ori-
gin and commencement from...forward, since Matt. ix. 22; xxv.
34; 2 Tim. iii. 15; Acts iii. 24, or the commencement of a series
Matt. ii. 16; Luke xxiv. 27; Jude 14 (ảπò ... ews Matt. i. 17;
xi. 12; Acts viii. 10, àπò... eis 2 Cor. iii. 18); hence the source,
material, or mass, from which anything comes, Matt. iii. 4 (Lucian.
388 dial. deor. 7,4; Her. 7, 65), Acts ii. 17 (Seрt.) Éкỵεŵ ảπò τоÛ TVEÚ-
μaτós μov, Luke vi. 13; xv. 16; Jno. xxi. 10; Matt. vii. 16. Further,
ματός μου,
ȧπó expresses derivation under manifold aspects Jude 23, descent
(from a people or country), hence place of abode, sect Matt.
xxi. 11; xxvii. 57; Jno. xi. 1; xii. 21; Acts ii. 5; xv. 5; Heb.
vii. 13 (Polyb. 5, 70, 8; Plut. Brut. c. 2; Her. 8, 114); especially
does it indicate, concretely, the personal point of departure of an
efficiency (viewed merely as such, not as a conscious and self-
moved power, to denote which Tapá is used with Neuter verbs
Schulz, Abdm. S. 215 ff.,¹ and vπó 2 with Passives, in the N. T. as
παρ
1 After verbs of receiving, borrowing, etc. àñó merely designates simply and in general
the whence : Matt. xvii. 25 ἀπὸ τίνων λαμβάνουσι τέλη; it is lings who are the λαμβά-
VOVTES; Taρά would have indicated the immediate source, and would have been employed
in this passage had the tax-gatherers been the λaußávovres. In the expression λaußáveiv
Taρά Twos, the Tis is always viewed as active (as giving or tendering); in λaμßávelv
¿TÓ Tшos, merely as the proprietor. In 3 Jno. 7 the apostle would have used rapά
and not από (τῶν ἐθνῶν) if the meaning had been that the Gentiles had actually tendered
a gratuity. In Col. iii. 24 ἀπὸ κυρίου ἀπολήψεσθε τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν the reward is indi-
cated as proceeding from the Lord; Tapà kʊp., which Paul might have employed here,
would have denoted the Lord's direct communicating of the reward. On the other hand,
Christ says in Jno. x. 18 with precision, ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔλαβον παρὰ τοῦ πατρός.
Paul likewise, in 1 Cor. xi. 23, writes Tapéλaßоν àтd тоû кuрíoυ I received from the
Lord, not the Lord himself has (directly, personally, in an aπоkáλvis) communicated
it to me; Tapá, which some uncial Codd. give, is undoubtedly a correction; see Schulz,
as above, 215 ff.; cf. N. theol. Annal. 1818. II. 820 ff.
2 The Codd. occasionally vary between àπó and iπó, as in Mark viii. 31; Rom. xiii. 1,·
which is frequently the case in those of Greek authors also, Schaef. Melet. p. 22, 83 sq.
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
371
332
બધું તા.
well as in Greck authors ¹) c.g. Acts xxiii. 21 Tỳν άπò σоû êжayye- 348
Míav (see above, § 30, 3, note 5), Rom. xiii. 1 où yúp ẻotiv éovoía 7th ed
εἰ μὴ ἀπὸ θεοῦ (immediately followed by αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ τοῦ
θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν), Matt. xvi. 21 παθεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων 38
(Lucian. dial. deor. 6, 5; Plat. Phaed. 83 b.), Mark xv. 45 yuous
ἀπὸ τοῦ κεντυρίωνος, Matt. xii. 38 θέλομεν ἀπὸ σοῦ σημεῖον ἰδεῖν,
Acts ix. 13; Gal. i. 1; 1 Cor. iv. 5; 2 Cor. vii. 13; 1 Jno. ii. 20;
iv. 21; Col. iii. 24; 2 Thess. i. 9,—and, abstractly, the efficient
power itself, and may therefore be rendered through, Acts xx. 9
KATEVEXÕEÌS ÚπÒ TOû ÜTVOU, Rev. ix. 18. Further, it signifies the
occasion, Acts xi. 19 (Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 128, 598; Stallb. Plat.
rep. II. 180), and the motive, Matt. xiv. 26 ȧmò Tоû þóßov ëxpаžav
for fear, xiii. 44; Luke xxi. 26; xxii. 45; xxiv. 41; Acts xii. 14;
Plutarch. Lysand. 23; Vig. p. 581,—the (objective) cause, propter,
Matt. xviii. 7 (according to some Heb. v. 7 also; see Bleck), or
prae (in negative expressions), Acts xxii. 11 oùr évéßλetov åπò
Tŷs dóεns Toû parós on account of (for) the splendor (his not
seeing arose from the splendor), Luke xix. 3; Jno. xxi. 6, see
Kypke in loc. (Acts xxviii. 3 var.), cf. Held, Plut. Tim. 314 (Judith
Schweighaeuser, Lexic. Polyb. p. 69, and others. Further, we find àrd for úró after
Passives in later writers more and more frequently (especially in the Byzantines; see
e.g. Index to Malalas in the Bonn edit.); in earlier authors this interchange is on the
whole rare, yet see Poppo ad Thuc. III. I. 158; Bhdy. 224.
1 In Jas. i. 13 and Оeоû meiрάfoμai ineans simply, I am tempted (through influences
proceeding) from God, and is a more vague expression than d eоû eiрásoμar which
would be identical with θεὸς πειράζει με. The words that follow, πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς
ovdéva, merely show that the apostle has also in mind a direct temptation by God (cf.
Hm. Soph. Oed. Col. 1531; Schoemann, Plutarch. Cleom. p. 237); the phrase and Oeoû
is very frequently a sort of Adverb, divinitus. In Luke vi. 18 the words пyevμ. ȧkal.
signify the malady itself; had the expression been e.g. oxλovμevoι àñò vóowv, it would
have presented no difficulty. In Luke ix. 22; xvii. 25, àπodokiµá(eσdaι àñó is simply:
to be rejected on the part of the elders. That in Acts xii. 20 dià тd тρépeσbai aùTŵy Tì¡V
τὸ τρέφεσθαι αὐτῶν τὴν
χώραν ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλικῆς (Arist. pol. 4, 6) ἀπό is not used instead of ὑπό, is quite obvious.
Schneckenburger, ad Jac. i. 13, who asserts that it is, has in general not discriminated
with sufficient care. As to Matt. xi. 19 see Fr. in loc. and Lehmann, Lucian. VI. 544;
2 Cor. vii. 13 does not at all come under this head; àπó there means from (through
influence proceeding from). In Acts x. 17 (text. rec.) oi àπeσтaλµévoi ànd Toû Koprnλíov
(Arrian. Epict. 3, 22. 23) is simply: those sent from C., the deputation from C.; whereas
άTEσT. ŮTÓ (which some Codd. [Sin. also] give as a correction) would be more definite:
those whom he (in person) had sent; cf. 1 Thess. iii. 6 èxóvтos Tiμoléov #pòs Яµâs à¤'
suŵy (they had not sent him). In 1 Cor. i. 30 ds éyevý0n oopía ĥµîv ånd Osoû who became
to us wisdom from God, úró is not necessary, cf. Her. 5, 125 (see also Stallb. Plat. rep. 103).
Finally, in Jas. v. 4 ὁ μισθὸς ὁ ἀπεστερημένος ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν, probably από was used designedly:
on your part, by you (though not solely or directly). (Both prepositions occur together
in significations obviously different in Luke v. 15 according to some Codd. and in
Rom. xiii. 1, cf. Euseb. H. E. 2, 6, p. 115, Heinichen.)
372
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
ii. 20; Gen. xxxvi. 7 etc.; Her. 2, 64). Acts xvi. 33 is a pregnant
construction : ἔλουσεν ἀπὸ τῶν πληγών he washed and cleansed
them from their stripes, i.c. from the blood with which they were
covered in consequence of the blows. Matt. vii. 16 is evidently,
from their fruits (objectively) will the knowledge be derived
(Arrian. Epict. 4, 8, 10), (the case is different in Luke xxi. 30
áp έavтŵv yivάσkeтe, 2 Cor. x. 7, where the subjective power
whence the knowledge comes is indicated; ap' éavтoû, indeed,
often signifying sponte)..
>
по
Schleusner and Kühnöl maintain that åró denotes also 1) in, Acts
333 χν. 38 τὸν ἀποστάντα ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Παμφυλίας who had left them in
6th ed. Pamphylia. But the obvious meaning is: who had left them (as they
390 were proceeding) out of Pamphylia. This is quite different from v II.,
349 which might have implied that Marcus remained in P. but separated from
7th ed. Paul, cf. xiii. 13. 2) de, Acts xvii. 2 διελέγετο αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν ;
but this means: starting (in his discourses) from the Scriptures, or draw-
ing his arguments from the Scriptures (cf. Epiphan. Opp. II. 340 d.); cf.
Acts xxviii. 23. Nor is the signification de supported by Her. 4, 53. 195
(Schweighaeuser, Lexic. Herod. I. 77). 3) per, Acts xi. 19 Siaoπapévtes
åñò tŷs Odí↓ews, which however means owing to the persecution, the
persecution being the occasion or incidental cause. 4) modo, instar,
2 Tim. i. 3 åπò πрoуóvwv, see also Flatt in loc. The phrase signifies, from
my forefathers (Polyb. 5, 55, 9), with the sentiments inherited from them.
On such passages as Jno. xi. 18; Rev. xiv. 20 see § 61, 5 remark p. 557.
c. 'Aµpi does not occur in the N. T.
d. IIpó before (in a wider sense than avrí), locally in Acts v. 23;
Jas. v. 9, also Acts xiv. 13, cf. Heliod. 1, 11, 30; Boeckh, Corp.
inscript. II. 605. It is more frequently used temporally, either
with nouns of time, 2 Tim. iv. 21 πρò xeiμŵvos, Jno. xiii. 1; 2 Cor.
xii. 2; Matt. viii. 29, and the Inf. of verbs, Matt. vi. 8; Jno. i. 49,
or with personal pronouns and names of persons, Jno. v. 7 πρо
éuoû, x. 8; Rom. xvi. 7. It is used figuratively in Jas. v. 12 mрò
Távτwv ante omnia, 1 Pet. iv. 8 (Xen. M. 2, 5, 3; Herod. 5, 4, 2).
As to the original use of this preposition, explaining its construction
with the Gen., see Blidy. p. 231.
Περί.
πρὸ
προ
e. IIepi. The fundamental meaning of this preposition may be
discerned in its construction with the Dative. With that case it
denotes encircling, shutting in, on several or on all sides (closely
related to audí, which signifies shutting in on both sides). Hence
it is different from Tapá, which merely indicates that one object.
is near to, beside another. Hepi with the Gen. is used in prose
:
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
373
almost exclusively in a figurative sense (yet cf. Odyss. 5, 68),¹ to
designate an object as the centre of activity, around which the
activity is conceived as moving, - e.g. contending, drawing lots,
caring, about anything, Matt. vi. 28; Mark xiii. 32; Jno. x. 13;
xix. 24;2 and then quite usually deciding, knowing, hearing, 391
speaking, about, concerning (de, super), see above, p. 361. At
other times it is to be rendered by for (as pray for one), Jno. 334
xvi. 26; Acts viii. 15; Heb. xiii. 18; Luke xix. 37; 1 Thess. i. 2;
6th ed.
or on account of, Jno. xv. 22; Acts xv. 2; xxv. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 18
(although many traces of about are to be discerned in these cases), 350
or in reference to, Matt. iv. 6; Rom. xv. 14; 1 Cor. xii. 1; Jno. 7th ed.
vii. 17; Demosth. Ol. 1, § 11. In the last sense Tepi with its
substantive is put at the beginning of a sentence in appearance
absolutely, as an exponendum (Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 157 and Tim.
p. 97), 1 Cor. xvi. 1 πeρì tŷs λoyías etc. quod ad pecunias attinet,
although these words are grammatically connected with STEP
διέταξα ; and still more perceptibly in 1 Cor. xvi. 12 περὶ 'Απολλώ,
πολλὰ παρεκάλεσα αὐτόν, ἵνα ἔλθῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς etc. (cf. Papyri Taur.
1, 6, 31; de is similarly used e.g. in Cic. fam. 3, 12). Sometimes
Teρí appears to signify superiority, over and above, prae, as in the
Homeric Teρì Távтwv ëµµievai äλλov (Blidy. 260).3 Some (Beza)
have taken it in this sense in 3 Jno. 2 Teρì Távтwv evxoμaí σe etc.
above all (Schott); Lücke, in support of this explanation, quotes
a passage from Dion. H. II. 1412 (where, however, πеρì áπúνтшV
means in reference to etc.). Still, it seems to ine that the impossi-
bility of connecting Tepi TávтT. with the Infinitives which follow
(Bengel and BCrus. in loc.) has not yet been shown.
f. IIpós. The meaning from (something) hitherwards, which
accords with the primary force of the Genitive, flows from its local
1 That the local sense around is not without example in (later) prose writers, has
been shown by Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 269; cf. Schaef. Dion. comp. 351. Accordingly,
in Acts xxv. 18 Teplou might be joined with oralévτes (as is done by Mey.), cf. vs. 7
περιέστησαν οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων καταβεβηκότες Ἰουδαῖοι.
་
2 Verbs of caring for, etc. are construed also with vπép, see vπép, below. As to the
distinction between the two constructions, Weber, Demosth. p. 130 says: Tepí solam
mentis circumspectionem vel respectum rei, nép simul animi propensionem etc. signi-
ficat. Verbs of contending (about or for anything) have the same double construction.
Hence in one and the same passage repí and vπép are sometimes contrasted, Franke,
Demosth. p. 6 sq.
Even here, however, as the construction was originally viewed the preposition
undoubtedly bears the signification around. Surpassing around all is he who by his
superiority so encircles, as it were, all, that no one can emerge from the mass. Before
all marks the relation only on one side; Tepl, on all sides.
374
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
392
use, Hm. Vig. p. 863, and is evident also from examples like Tò
ποιεύμενον πρὸς τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων Her. 7, 200, πάσχομεν πρὸς
avtŷs Alciphr. 1, 20 (Bhdy. 264) and eîvai πpós Tivos to be on one's
side, cf. ad Herenn. 2, 27 ab reo facere. Hence πpòs époû, like e
πρὸς ἐμοῦ,
re nostra, to my advantage, according to my interest, Lob. Phryn.
20; Ellendt, Arrian. I. 265. IIpós in this sense gives way in the
N. T. to aπó and ẻ; it is used only once, Acts xxvii. 34 TOÛTO
(taking nourishment) πρὸς τῆς ὑμετέρας σωτηρίας ὑπάρχει is for
(conducive to) your deliverance, strictly, is on the side, as it
were, of your deliverance. A similar expression occurs in Thuc.
3, 59 οὐ πρὸς τῆς ὑμετέρας δόξης non cedet vobis in gloriam.
1
K
g. 'Eri. The primary import of eπi, which might justify its
being used with the Gen., has almost disappeared, unless we choose
to translate e.g. Luke iv. 29 ὄρους, ἐφ' οὗ ἡ πόλις αὐτῶν ᾠκοδόμητο
up from which (on which upwards) was built (D. Sic. 3, 47; Polyb.
10, 10, 5). Usually érí indicates the being upon, above, a place
(point or level), whether the object is regarded as at rest or in
motion, Matt. x. 27 κηρύξατε ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων, xxiv. 30 ἐρχόμενον
335 èπì Tŵv veþeλŵv, ix. 2, 6; Acts v. 15; viii. 28; Rev. xiii. 1; 1 Cor.
6th ed. xi. 10; Luke xxii. 21, especially ènì Ts yns (opposed to ev Tậ
351
toupavy) cf. Xen. An. 3, 2, 19; Arrian. Al. 1, 18, 15. Applied to
waters, it may refer not merely to their surface, Rev. v. 13 ènì T.
Daλáoons,² but also to their coasts or banks (cf. Arrian. Al. 1, 18,
10) Juo. xxi. 1 èπì tŷs Daλáoons by the sea, on the sea-shore (Polyb.
1, 44, 4; Xen. An. 4, 3, 28; 2 Kings ii. 7, cf. the Hebrew b). It
is further applied to elevated objects (up) on which something is
placed e.g. on the cross Acts v. 30; Jno. xix. 19. On the other
hand, the local sense of beside, near, alleged in N. T. Lexicons,
7th ed.
2
1 Wittmann, de natura ct potest. praep. rí. Schweinf. 1846. 4to. In most cases the
Latin language employs in for it. The German auf, which is applied both to heights
and to plains, corresponds to the Greek word in many respects. Mark viii. 4 èπ' èpnµías
entirely resembles the German auf dem Felde, though we do not employ auf in that
particular phrase. Cf. Matt. iv. 1 ἀνήχθη εἰς τὴν ἔρημον.
>
2 Here belongs also Jno. vi. 19 (it seems that in Matt. xiv. 25 èπì tùy Oάλ. must be
rend) πepɩwateîv èπl tîs baλ. to walk on the sea, cf. Lucian. philops. 13 BadíÇew è' üdatos,
vera hist. 2, 4 éπì toû teλáyous dialéovtes (Job ix. 8). By itself èπl ↑. 0ɑλ. might indeed
also be translated on the edge of the sca. This assuredly Fr. Mt. p. 502 did not mean
to deny.
3 Even in the case of things on the same level, the Greck, by a conventional or
ethical conception which we not seldom share, speaks of an above. Above the door (Her.
5, 92) might, for instance, be applied to a person who stands near the door inside the
room; on the other hand, under the door to one outside, at the door. Cf. as to the
kindred vrép Bhdy. S. 243. The relation is conceived very differently in different
languages.
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
375
cannot be certainly established. In Luke xxii. 40 Tómos refers to
a hill (though we also say on the spot); in Matt. xxi. 19 ẻπì rîs
ὁδοῦ means on the way ; in Acts xx. 9 ἐπὶ τῆς θυρίδας is upon the
window; in Jno. vi. 21 τὸ πλοῖον ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς is used of
the landing of a vessel, and èπí refers to the rising shore; yet see
what has been said before.
The figurative meanings of èπí are quite plain. It is used,
a) Of authority and superintendence over etc.; as, Matt. ii. 22
βασιλεύειν ἐπὶ Ἰουδαίας, Rev. xi. 6; Acts viii. 27 εἶναι ἐπὶ πάσης
TĤs yášns, vi. 3; xii. 20; Rom. ix. 5 elvaɩ èñì πáντшv, Eph. iv. 6; 393
cf. Polyb. 1, 34,1; 2,65, 9; Arrian. Al. 3, 5, 4; Reitz, Lucian. VI.
448 Bip.; Schaef. Demosth. II. 172; Held, Plutarch. Timol. 388.
b) Of the subject, the ground-work as it were, of an action; as,
Jno. vi. 2 σημεῖα ἃ ἐποίει ἐπὶ τῶν ἀσθενούντων which he wrought
on the sick (cf. Mtth. 1368); particularly of speaking, Gal. iii. 16 ov
Xéyeɩ... ós Éπì πoλλŵv as of (upon) many (speaking of many),
cf. scribere, disserere super re, and Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 2, 24;
6, 25; Epict. ench. 3; Heind. Plat. Charm. 62; Ast, Plat. legg.
p. 114; Schoem. Plutarch. Agid. p. 76; Ellendt, Arrian. I. 436.
352
c) Of presence, before (coram), particularly before judges, mag-
istrates, etc. (in the phrase bring up before), Matt. xxviii. 14;
[Mark xiii. 9]; Acts xxiii. 30; xxiv. 20; xxv. 9; 1 Cor. vi. 1;
1 Tim. vi. 13 (cf. Ael. 8, 2; Lucian. catapl. 16; Dio. C. p. 825;
Schoem. Isae. 293); and then in general, 1 Tim. v. 19 èπì μартúρшv
ἐπὶ μαρτύρων
before (with) witnesses (Xen. Hell. 6, 5, 38; vectig. 3, 14; Lucian.
philops. 22; Mätzner, Antiph. p. 165);¹ also 2 Cor. vii. 14 (before, i.e.
in presence of, Titus), see Wetst. I. 443, 562; Schaef. Mclet. p. 105. 336
d) In a related sense, with names of persons, of the reign, Acts 6th ed.
xi. 28 éπì Kravdiov under Claudius, Mark ii. 26 (Raphel. and
Fr. in loc.), Luke iii. 2 (Her. 1, 15; Aeschin. dial. 3, 4; Xen. C.
8, 4, 5, etc.; Bremi, Demosth. p. 165; Schweigh. Lexic. Herod.
I. 243; Sturz, Lexic. Dion. Cass. p. 148); likewise simply of the
lifetime (èπ' èμoû in my time), especially of prominent characters,
Luke iv. 27 èπì 'Exoσaiov (Xen. C. 1, 6, 31; Plat. rep. 10, 599 e. ;
Crit. 112 a.; Alciphr. 1, 5 ènì тŵν πроуóνшv, Arrian. Epict. 3, 23,
27); also with words denoting conditions and events (Xen. C.
8,7,1;
8, 7, 1; Herod. 2, 9, 7) Matt. i. 11 èπì Ts μетоLKEσías Baß. at
ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβ.
the time of the exile; lastly, directly of time, Heb. i. 1 èπ' éoxúτOV
ἐσχάτου
1 The phrase in full would be, Èπì σTÓµаTOS dúo μapтipwv etc. Matt. xviii. 16; 2 Cor.
xiii. 1 (after the Hebrew). Even here, strictly, ení means simply with: with
(on) the testimony of... witnesses.
7th ed.
376
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
394
тŵν ýμерŵv тоÚTwv in these last days, 1 Pet. i. 20; 2 Pet. iii. 3, cf.
Num. xxiv. 14; Gen. xlix. 1 (èπì Tŵv úρxaiwv Xxpóvwv Aristot. polit.
3, 10; Polyb. 1, 15, 12; Isocr. paneg. c. 44); and in general, of
that with which something else is connected, Rom. i. 10 éπì Tŵν
ἐπὶ τῶν
πроsενxŵν μov at (in) my prayers, 1 Thess. i. 2; Eph. i. 16. The
import of ἐπί is not quite the same in Mark xii. 26 ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου
at the bush, i.e. concisely, at the passage relating to the bush.
...
>!
Sometimes éπí in a local sense is also used with verbs of direc-
tion, and even with verbs of motion (Bhdy. 246) to, towards, forth
upon, as, Matt. xxvi. 12 βαλοῦσα τὸ μύρον ἐπὶ τοῦ σώματος ο
(over) my body, Acts x. 11 σκεῦός τι . . . καθιέμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς let
down on (to) the earth, Mark xiv. 35 éπIπтеv èπì TŶs yns upon the
earth, Heb. vi. 7. So very frequently in Greck authors, Her. 1,
164; 2, 73. 75. 119; 4, 14; 5, 33; Xen. Cyr. 7, 2, 1, and Hellen.
1, 6, 20; 3, 4, 12; 5, 3, 6; 7, 1, 28 etc.; Sturz, Lexic. Xen. II. 258;
Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. I. 339; Wittmann, de natura et potestate
pracpositionis èí. Schweinfurt, 1846. 4to. In this application
èπí originally includes the notion of remaining on, upon, see Rost
553 (somewhat differently explained in Krü. 302).1 Such passa-
ges as Rev. x. 2; Luke viii. 16; Jno. xix. 19; Acts v. 15 (Ti0évai
¿πì τоû etc.) are traceable, like ponere in loco, to a different view
of the action,
h. Merá properly signifies among, amidst (µéoos), Luke xxiv. 5
τί ζητεῖτε τὸν ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν; Marki. 13. Hence it denotes
with (together with), Luke v. 30 μetà tŵv teλwvŵv ¿obiete, Jno.
xx. 7; and that in reference to personal association, Jno. iii. 22;
xviii. 2; Acts ix. 39; Matt. xii. 42; Heb. xi. 9,2 and alternate
action, Jno. iv. 27 λαλεῖν μετά τινος, vi. 43 γογγύζειν μετ᾿ ἀλλήλων,
Matt. xviii. 23 ovvaipei λóyov μeтú Twos, cf. Rev. ii. 16, 22; Luke
353 xii. 13; especially if intellectual or moral, Matt. xx. 2 ovμowveîv
7th ed. μETú Tivos, ii. 3; Luke xxiii. 12; Acts vii. 9; Rom. xii. 15; 1 Jno.
i. 6 (eivaι μeтá TIVOS Matt. xii. 30, cf. Xen. C. 2, 4, 7); sometimes
337 where we should employ on or towards, erga, as Luke x. 37 ó Toinσas
TÒ ÉλEOS μet' Éμoû, i. 72 (; probably not Acts xiv. 27), for we
regard the individual towards whom kindness is shown as the
object, not as the partner, of the act. But perá is applied also to
things, Luke xiii. 1 ὧν τὸ αἷμα ἔμιξεν μετὰ τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν, Matt.
1 This distinction was perceived by so early a writer as Bengel (on Heb. vi. 7).
2 Under this head comes also the Hebraistic πληρώσεις με εὐφροσύνης μετὰ τοῦ
πроsúжоν σoν Acts ii. 28 Sept. (77), which must not be taken in a merely local
signification.
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
377
xxvii. 34, especially to express equipment, accompaniment, envi-
ronment, Luke xxii. 52 égeknλúbate µeтà paɣaiρŵv, Jno. xviii. 3;
Matt. xxiv. 31 (Dem. Pantaen. p. 628 c.; Herod. 5, 6, 19); then
of accompanying actions and circumstances, particularly states of
mind (Bhdy. 255), Heb. xii. 17 µetà dakpúwv ékšnτijoas (Herod.
1, 16, 10), 1 Tim. iv. 14; Matt. xiv. 7; Mark x. 30; Acts v. 26;
xvii. 11 ἐδέξαντο τὸν λόγον μετὰ πάσης προθυμίας, Matt. xiii. 20 ;
xxviii. 8; 2 Cor. vii. 15 (Eurip. Hippol. 205; Soph. Oed. C. 1636;
Alciphr. 3, 38; Arist. magn. Mor. 2, 6; Herod. 1, 5, 19); lastly, 395
of the inward connection of spiritual objects, Eph. vi. 23 ȧyúπη
μετὰ πίστεως. In good prose μετά never designates the instrument
as such (Kypke I. 143),1-in 1 Tim. iv. 14 μetà èπidéσews TŵV
μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν
Xepav is with, amid, the laying on of hands (simultaneously with
the act of imposition), Matt. xiv. 7 μeð öρкoυ interposito jureju-
rando (Heb. vii. 21)—yet it borders on this signification in Luke
xvii. 15 μετὰ φωνῆς μεγάλης δοξάζων (essentially equivalent to φωνῇ
peyúλy or ev pwvŷ µ.), and perhaps in Acts xiii. 17;2 (cf. Polyb.
1, 49, 9 ήθροιζε μετὰ κηρύγματος, Lucian. philops. 8 βοηθεῖν τινι
μετὰ τῆς τέχνης, as σύν is used in other writers, at least in poets,
Blidy. S. 214). As to Matt. xxvii. 66, however, see Fr. It never
signifies after; 3 in Mark x. 30 µeтà diwyµŵv is, amid persecutions,
as μетà KIVSÚ Vwv is amid dangers, Thuc. 1, 18 a. Kühnöl and
BCrus. crroneously render perά with the Gen. in Matt. xii. 41 by
contra; the meaning is: the men of Nineveh will appear at the
judgment with this generation, i.e. when this generation appears
before the judgment-seat, the Ninevites will appear also; for what
purpose (against) we are first told by the words that follow. (The
use of the Gen. with μerá is accounted for by the fact that what-
ever attends or surrounds any one bears to him a certain relation
of dependence.)
i. Atá. Its primary meaning is through, 1 Cor. xiii. 12 (Plat.
Phaed. 109 c.); but with the idea of going through is connected
always, in the local sense, that of going forth or out from (thus in 354
Hebrew and Arabic is the only preposition for the local through ;
cf. also Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 191 èkþe̟úyew di aivos, Matt iv. ±
1 The meaning of μerà λúxvov Fabric. Pseudepigr. II. 143 is: with a light, i.e. fur-
nished with a light, carrying it with him, cum lumine, not lumine. On the other hand,
cf. Leo Gramm. p. 260 μαχαίριον ἐπιφέρεται βουλόμενος ἀνελεῖν σε μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, p. 275 etc.
2 Yet μerá here is probably to be understood of the accompaniment: with upraised
arm, as he held up his arm over them (to protect them).
8 Fabric. Pseudepigr. II. 593 µerà тoû ¿à¤eîv is undoubtedly an error in transcribing,
for Tò éλteîv. Further, the passages collected by Raphel. Mr. 1.c. prove nothing.
7th ed.
48
378
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
• •
ἐκπορεύεσθαι διά from Deut. viii. 3, and διεξέρχεσθαι Plat. rep.
338 10,621 a.); 1 hence Stá governs the Genitive. It is applied to space
6th ed. in simple expressions, Luke iv. 30 αὐτὸς διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐπο-
peúeтo (Herod. 2, 1, 3), 1 Cor. iii. 15 σwenσeτAI
ὡς διά πυρός,
Rom. xv. 28 ἀπελεύσομαι δι᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς Σπανίαν i.e. through your
city (Thuc. 5, 4; Plut. virt. mul. p. 192 Lips.), Acts xiii. 49 die-
φέρετο ὁ λόγος δι' ὅλης τῆς χώρας from one extremity to the other
396 (throughout, Odyss. 12, 335; Plat. symp. p. 220 b.), 2 Cor. viii. 18
οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος . . . διὰ πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν.
ó
From this local through, in Greck as in all languages, the transi-
tion is casy to the instrument (whether animate or inanimate), as
that through which the effect as it were passes (cf. in particular
1 Pet. i. 7), that which intervenes between the volition and the
deed, e.g. 3 Jno. 13 οὐ θέλω διὰ μέλανος καὶ καλάμου γράφειν, 2 Jno.
12 (Plut. vit. Solon. p. 87 e.), 2 Cor. vi. 7; 1 Cor. xiv. 9; 2 Thess.
ii. 2 dià Xóyov, di ẻπiotoxîs, by word of mouth, by letter, Heb.
xiii. 22 Sià Bçaɣéwv étéσteiλa iµîv paucis scripsi vobis, see § 64;
thence it is applied to immaterial objects, as in 1 Cor. vi. 14 µâs
ἐξεγερεῖ διὰ τῆς δυνάμεως αὑτοῦ, Rom. iii. 25 ὃν προέθετο ἱλαστήριον
διὰ τῆς πίστεως, Rom. ii. 12; Jas. ii. 12 κρίνεσθαι διὰ νόμου; to
persons, as in Acts iii. 16 ἡ πίστις ἡ δι' αὐτοῦ, 1 Cor. iii. 5 διάκονοι,
δι' ὧν ἐπιστεύσατε, Heb. iii. 16 οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωϋ-
σέως. Thus in particular in the expression διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
of the (mediatorial) agency of Christ in all its manifestations,
Rom. ii. 16; v. 1; 2 Cor. i. 5; Gal. i. 1; Eph. i. 5; Phil. i. 11,
Tit. iii. 6 etc.,² as also in dià Tveúμatos (åylov) Rom. v. 5; 1 Cor.
xii. 8; Eph. iii. 16. To this (instrumental) use may be referred
likewise 2 Tin. ii. 2 διὰ πολλῶν μαρτύρων intervenientibus multis
testibus, through the interposition i.e. here in the presence of many
witnesses, Heb. vii. 9 διὰ ᾽Αβραὰμ καὶ Λευὶ δεδεκάτωται through
Abraham (that is, in the person of Abraham as representative of
the whole Israelitish people, when Abraham was tithed Levi also
was tithed). Atá but rarely indicates the causa principalis,3 1 Cor.
1 Cf. Kühner II. 281 and my 5th Progr. de verbis composit. p. 3.
2 This expression comes essentially under the same head when it is joined to praising,
thanking, etc. Rom. i. 8; vii. 25; xvi. 27; Col. iii. 17. Not merely the benefits for
which thanks are offered are procured through Christ, but even the thanksgiving itself
is offered (if so as to be acceptable to God) through Christ who lives with God and
continues the work of mediation for his people. The Christian does not give thanks
in his proper person, but through Christ, whom he regards as the mediator of his prayer
as well as of salvation. Philippi on Rom. i. 8 is unsatisfactory; Bengel on the same
passage is better.
8 As to the Latin per for a, see Hand, Tursell. IV. 436 sq. The wrong done through
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
379
6th ed.
i. 9 (Gal. iv. 7 var.), in other words but rarely seems to be equiv
alent to úró or Tapá; but even in such cases it does not designate 355
the author as such, i.e. as the one from whom something proceeds, 7th ed
but rather as the person through whose effort, or kindness etc. 339
something accrues to one cf. Gal. i. 1 (without specifying whether 397
it flows from him directly or indirectly). We may add with Fr.
(Rom. I. 15): est autem hic usus ibi tantum admissus, ubi nullam
sententiae ambiguitatem crearet; thus in Gal. i. 1, after the discrim-
inating use of aπó and diá, diá alone is employed in summing up,
and employed too of God. Many passages, however, have been
erroneously referred to this class: in Jno. i. 3, 17 the doctrine of
the Logos justifies the per of mediate agency, cf. Origen in loc.
(Tom. I. 108 Lommatzsch); in Rom. i. 5 di où is explained from
xv. 15; Rom. xi. 36, owing to the prepositions èk and eis, admits
no other interpretation; on Gal. iii. 19 see my Comment.; in Rom.
v. 2 nobody will be misled by Fr's. remarks; in Heb. ii. 3 Christ
is viewed as commissioned by God to proclaim salvation; as to
1 Pet. ii. 14 see Steiger in loc.2
To the idea of instrumentality diá can also be referred when
used of the state of mind in which one does something, e.g. di úπо-
μovĤs àπeкdéɣeσÐai, тpéɣew Rom. viii. 25; Heb. xii. 1; Plut. educ.
5,3;3 probably also 2 Cor. v. 7 dià Tíσтews TерIжатоÛμеν. Hence
Stá serves as a circumlocution for an adjective, 2 Cor. iii. 11 eử tò
καταργούμενον (ἐστὶ διὰ δόξης (i.e. ἔνδοξον) Mtth. II. 1353. Διά
is more loosely used of one's equipment, and of the circumstances
me, and the wrong done by me, may on the whole express quite the same thing; yet the
wrong-doer is viewed in these expressions under two different aspects. Probably diá
is employed purposely in Matt. xxvi. 24 τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ δι᾽ οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται
(the betrayer was merely an instrument, cf. Rom. viii. 32) and in Acts ii. 43 toλλá te
τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐγίνετο, as the efficient cause was God himself
(Acts ii. 22; xv. 12), cf. dià xeiρŵv v. 12; xiv. 3. That this more precise mode of
expression is not observed everywhere and by all writers does not invalidate this
exposition.
1 Nearly to the same effect is the remark of Bremi on Corn. Nep. 10, 1, 4. Even
conceded that diά and úró are wholly identical, it would not follow that Gal. iii. 19
(νόμος) διαταγείς δι᾽ ἀγγέλων represents the angels as authors of the Mosaic Law (as
Schulthess persisted in asserting). To justify any departure from the plain meaning-
ordained through angels - far other and more solid reasons must be assigned than those
urged by Schulthess.
2 At first sight τίνας παραγγελίας ἐδώκαμεν ὑμῖν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ 1 Thess. iv. 2
appears strange. But as the Apostle was not acting in his private capacity, but as
moved by Christ, the charges he issued were properly charges given through Christ.
3 Xen. C. 4, 6, 6 is of a different sort.
dakрúwv is, properly, through many tears.
similar; see above, μerá p. 376 sq.
Also in 2 Cor. ii. 4 ypata vµîv dià moλλŵr
Amid many tears is an expression somewhat
380
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
and relations under which he does something, e.g. 1 Jno. v. 6
ἐλθὼν δι᾽ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος came by means of water and blood, Heb.
ix. 12 (yet see Bleek in loc.), Rom. ii. 27 σè Tòv dià yρáµµaтos Kal
περιτομῆς παραβάτην ὄντα with letter and circumcision, i.e. not-
withstanding that thou wast in possession of a written law etc.,
356 iv. 11; xiv. 20 ó dià πроsкóμμатоs éσ0íwv he who eateth with offence
(giving offence), (Markland, Lys. V. 329 Reisk.).
7th ed.
398
Applied to time, Sià denotes, a) During (i.e. within a space
of time), Heb. ii. 15 Sià TavтòS TOû Sîv (Xen. Cyr. 2, 1, 19; Mem.
310 1, 2, 61; Plat. conv. 203 d.); even though the action takes place
but once or occasionally within the period mentioned, as in Acts
v. 19; xvi. 9 etc. (of which laxer use no instances are to be found
in literary Greek, Fr. in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 164 sq.).
6th ed.
b) After,¹ as di étŵv tλeióvwv Acts xxiv. 17, properly interjectis
pluribus annis, many years intervening,2 i.e. after the lapse of many
years (see Perizon. Aelian. p. 921 ed. Gronov.; Blomfield, Aesch.
Pers. 1006; Wetst. I. 525, 558), and Gal. ii. 1, cf. Her. 6, 118;
Plat. legg. 8, 834 e.; Arist. anim. 8, 15; Polyb. 22, 26, 22; Geopon.
14, 26, 2; Plutarch. Agis 10; Lucian. Icar. 24, also Sept. Deut.
ix. 11. Lastly, Mark ii. 1 di ýμepov after (some) days (Theophr.
plant. 4, 4 di nµepŵv twvwv), cf. Sià xpóvov Plat. Euthyd. 273 b. ;
Xen. Cyr. 1, 4, 28 (Raphel, Kypke, and Fr. in loc.).
The following significations have been erroneously attributed to diá:
a. Into (in with the Acc.): 1 Cor. xiii. 12 BλéπоμEv Si ésóπTроv is said
agreeably to a popular notion; the look passes through the mirror, iuas-
much as the form appears to be standing behind the mirror.
b. Cum: 1 Cor. xvi. 3 di èπIOTOÀŵV TOÚTOUS TéµÝw åπeveykeîv etc. is to
be rendered, by means of letters, so as to recommend them by letters
(Syriac ). To be sure, the Apostle means at the same time
1 No one will deny this signification who is not trying to find in the above passage
of Gal. confirmation of his own previous decision respecting the chronology of Paul's
travels. That the preposition can have this meaning becomes plain, whether, with
Muh. 1352, we derive it from the notion of distance which did in a local sense denotes,
or from the notion of passing through a succession of points of time (which are thereby
indicated as travelled through, gone over), Hm. Vig. 856. The assertion that did is
thus applied only to a period of time after which something occurs as its result, is a
subtilty which has no foundation in usage, and a misapplication of the notion of means
(itself figurative) to explain a temporal use of the preposition, a usc always most
closely connected with its local and primary import. Even, however, were the alleged
restriction to be admitted, it would not be impossible to apply the expression dià dekaT.
¿Tŵv in Gal. ii. I to a journey the necessity of which Paul felt in consequence of an active
ministry of fourteen years. At least, karà àñокάλ. in vs. 2 could not be urged as a
decisive argument on the other side.
2 Her. 3, 157 diaλiπv hμépas déka, Isocr. perm. p. 746.
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
381
that they themselves should take the letters with them; but still the
import of the Preposition is strictly preserved.
c. Ad: 2 Pet. i. 3 kaλéoavros ģµâs diù dóĝŋs kaì ¿perês is not ad relig.
Christ. adduxit eo consilio, ut consequeremini felicitatem etc., but called
us by (means of) glory and might, so that in this call God's power and 399
majesty were exhibited (vs. 4, cf. 1 Pet. ii. 9). Some Codd. [Sin. also]
give δόξῃ καὶ ἀρετῇ.
7th
d. On account of, for did with the Acc. (only thus in very late writers,
e.g. Acta apocr. p. 252): In 2 Cor. ix. 13 ôtá denotes rather the occasion 357
which gives rise to the δοξάζειν; whereas what follows, ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποταγῇ, Tib ed.
means, for i.e. on account of the obedience. In 1 Cor. i. 21 oúk čyvo ó
κόσμος διὰ τῆς σοφίας τὸν θεόν may very well be rendered: by means of
their (boasted vs. 20) wisdom (it did not conduct them to this result);
though the interpretation of others, in consequence of (sheer) wisdom, if
taken thus: by the possession of wisdom (see above), is grammatically 341
admissible. But dià rês popías which immediately follows is decisive in 6th ed.
favor of the former explanation. Rom. vii. 4 0аvaτú0ηTE TO vóµy dià Toû
σώματος Χριστοῦ is elucidated by verses 1-3: Ye were made deal to the
law through the body of Christ; with the death of the body of Christ
(which had reference to the law) ye are made dead (slain) to the law.
That in 1 Cor. xi. 12 διὰ τῆς γυναϊκός is not used for διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα (πlich
would introduce here an extraneous thought) is the more clear from the
circumstance that it is manifestly to be taken as corresponding to ẻK TOû
åvdpós; the distinction between èk and diά is obvious. In 2 Cor. viii. 8
(Schott) διὰ τῆς ἑτέρ. σπουδῆς is to be joined to δοκιμάζων, see Bengel.
Heb. xi. 39 (Schott) πάντες μαρτυρηθέντες διὰ τῆς πίστεως is, who through
the faith have obtained a good report. Likewise the rendering per
(Schott) in exhortations and adjurations (by), Rom. xii. 1; xv. 30; 1 Cor.
i. 10; 2 Cor. x. 1; 2 Thess. iii. 12, is entirely unfounded. To exhort or
adjure one through the mercies of God, through the name of Christ, means:
referring to, reminding of etc.; Stá indicates the consideration held out
to strengthen the exhortation.
k. Kará. Its primary import is down, de (down upon, down
from), cf. κάτω (Xen. A. 4, 2, 17 ἁλλόμενοι κατὰ τῆς πέτρας, 1, 5, 8
τρέχειν κατὰ πρανοῦς γηλόφου, Her. 8, 53): Matt. viii. 32 ὥρμησε
πᾶσα ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρημνού (Galen. protrept. 2 κατὰ κρημνών,
Dio Chr. 7, 99; Porphyr. abstin. 4, 15; Aelian. 7, 14; Pausan. 10,
2, 2), 1 Cor. xi. 4 ȧvǹp katà kepaλîs exwv haring (a veil hanging)
down from his head; cf. also, in a tropical use, 2 Cor. viii. 2
Kaтà Bálovs #Twуeíа poverty reaching down to the depth. It
1
1 To the same head is to be referred also Acts xxvii. 14 ἔβαλε κατ' αὐτῆς ἄνεμος
TUOWVIKÓS. The tempestuous wind rushed (from above) down upon the island. In
Mark xiv. 3 κατέχεεν αὐτοῦ κατὰ τῆς κεφαλῆς (holding the Hask of ointment over his
382
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
400 passes from this to denote the level over (through) which some-
thing extends; and thus differs essentially from the local év (with
which by late writers it is often confounded, cf. Ellendt, Arrian.
Alex. I. 855), as in Luke iv. 14 ἐξῆλθεν καθ᾽ ὅλης τῆς περιχώρου,
Acts ix. 31, 42; x. 37, cf. Arrian. Alex. 5, 7, 1 and Indic. 13, 6.
Figuratively, it is applied to hostile movement directed against
something, as in Matt. x. 35; xxvii. 1; Acts vi. 13; 1 Cor. iv. 6;
xv. 15; Rom. viii. 33 (the opposite of vπép Rom. xi. 2; cf. viii. 34;
2 Cor xiii. 8); and is the preposition usually employed to express
358 this relation. Yet primarily it seems, like the German gegen, to
7th ed. denote merely thitherwards; while avri, like contra, includes the
notion of hostility in its local signification even. In oaths and
adjurations, as in Matt. xxvi. 63; Heb. vi. 13, 16, катà ОEоû (Schaef.
τά
Long. p. 353 sq.; Bhdy. 238) probably means down from God,
calling God down, so to speak, as witness or avenger (Krü. 294).
Kühner II. 284 takes a different view.
342
1. Tép, in its local signification, denotes the being above (over)
6th ed. a place (properly without immediate contact, Xen. M. 3, 8, 9 ó
ἥλιος τοῦ θέρους ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν στεγῶν πορευόμενος, Herod. 2,
6,19); hence in geographical diction the expression situated above
a place, imminere urbi, Xen. A. 1, 10, 12; Thuc. 1, 137 (Dissen,
Pind. p. 431). In the N. T. it is used only in a figurative sense: 1
and 1) most nearly approaching its local import in 1 Cor. iv. 6
ἵνα μὴ εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθε, if rendered: that one be not
puffed up above the other (so that he fancy himself raised above
the other); still related also to the local sense, 2) to the advantage
of, for the benefit of, for (the opposite of kará Mark ix. 40; Rom.
viii. 31) any one (die, suffer, pray, care, exert one's self, etc., see
401 Benseler, Isocr. Areopag. p. 164 sq.) Jno. x. 15; xi. 50; Rom. v. 6;
ix. 3 (cf. Xen. A. 7, 4, 9; Diod. Sic. 17, 15; Strabo 3, 165; Eurip.
Alcest. 700, 711), Luke xxii. 19; 2 Cor. v. 21; Phil. iv. 10; Heb.
v.1; vii. 25; xiii. 17; Col. i. 7, 24, probably also 1 Cor. xv. 29,–
originally as if bending over one to protect and defend him (cf.
head) good Codd. [Sin. also] omit the preposition. As to kaтaxéeiv katá tivos, see
Plat. rep. 3, 398 a.; Apollod. 2, 7, 6.
1 Unless 1 Cor xv. 29 ВаπтíČelαι vπÈρ тŵν verpay be rendered: cause themselves to
be baptized over the dead. The passage can only be elucidated by antiquarian research.
It is strange, however, that Mey. should declare the above explanation inadmissible
because úπéρ occurs nowhere else in the N. T. in a local sense. Might not the preposi-
tion be used in this most simple local sense in a single passage only? The comment
of van Ilengel, Cor. p. 136, is worthy of attention, though it, too, contains an arbitrary
restriction.
§ 47. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE GENITIVE.
383
2
μúɣeσðαι vπéρ TIOs Xen. C. 2, 1, 21; Isocr. paneg. 14);¹ also
eivaι vπéρ Tivos to be for one, Mark ix. 40; Rom. viii. 31; x. 1;
Blume, Lycurg. p. 151. In most cases one who acts in behalf of
another takes his place, 1 Tim. ii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 15; hence vπép
is sometimes nearly equivalent to ȧvrí instead, loco (sec, especially,
Eurip. Alcest. 700) Philem. 13 (Thuc. 1, 141; Polyb. 3, 67, 7).²
3) Tép denotes the subject on (over) which one speaks, writes,
decides, etc., Rom. ix. 27; Phil. i. 7; 2 Cor. viii. 23 (see Joel i. 3;
Plutarch. Brut. 1; Mar. 3; Plat. Apol. 39 c.; legg. 6, 776; Demosth. 359
1. phil. p. 20 a.; Arrian. Al. 3, 3, 11; 6, 2, 6; Arrian. Epict. 1, ith ed
19, 26; Polyb. 1, 14, 1; Dion. H. V. 625; Aeschin. dial. 1, 8;
Aelian. anim. 11, 20 and often), or for, in reference to, which one
gives thanks, praise, Eph. i. 16; v. 20; Rom. xv. 9, on which one
prides one's self, 2 Cor. vii. 4; ix. 2; xii. 5; 2 Thess. i. 4 (cf. in
Latin super, in Hebrew ; the phrase de aliqua re loqui, too, is
akin, see under Teрí); hence in general, with regard to a matter, 343
e.g. 2 Cor. i. 6, 8; 2 Thess. ii. 1 èрwτâμev úµâs úπèρ Tis Tароvolas 6th ed.
τοῦ κυρίου (cf. Χen. C. 7, 1, 17 ὑπέρ τινος θαῤῥεῖν to have full con-
fidence in reference to one). Akin to this is the causal siguification
on account of, for the sake of, 2 Cor. xii. 8 (Hebrew, yet cf.
Latin gratia, and Xen. C. 2, 2, 11, and even the German für, which
often suits such passages and presents the same meaning under
different aspects) Rom. xv. 8 vπèρ åλ礤ías Оcoû (Philostr. Apoll.
1, 35; Xen. A. 1, 7, 3, etc.), under which head come also Jno.
xi. 4 ὑπὲρ τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ for the glory of Godl, gloriae divinae
illustrandae causa, 2 Cor. xii. 19 vπèρ тîs vµŵv oikodoµîs for your 102
edification, Rom. i. 5; 3 Jno. 7 and, with a difference of application,
Phil. ii. 13 θεός ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν . . . ὑπὲρ τῆς εὐδοκίας because of his
benevolence, in order to satisfy his benevolence. In 2 Cor. v. 20
ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ πρεσβεύομεν . . . δεόμεθα ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ, probably
1 Hence properly different from Tepí, which simply means, on account of one, viewed
as the object, the cause of the death, the prayer, etc.; see Schaef. Demosth. I. 189 sq. ;
cf. Reitz, Lucian. VI. 642; VII. 403 sq. ed. Lehm.; Schoem. Isae. p. 234; Franke,
Demosth. p. 6 sq. In the Codd. of the N. T., however, as in Greek authors, the two
prepositions are frequently interchanged, see on Gal. i. 4, Rom. i. S, and the writers them-
selves do not adhere to the distinction. The two prepositions are appropriately used
together in 1 Pet. iii. 18 (Eph. vi. 18). Cf. Thuc. 6, 78.
2 Still, in doctrinal passages relating to Christ's death (Gal. iii. 13; Rom. v. 6, 8;
xiv. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 18, etc.) it is not justifiable to render inèρ µv and the like rig
orously by instead of on account of such parallel passages as Matt. xx. 28 (Fr. Rom.
I. 267). 'Avтí is the more definite of the two prepositions. Trép signifies merely for
men, for their deliverance; and leaves undetermined the precise sense in which Christ
died for them.
8 So with aloxúveobal, àɣavakteîv, etc. Stallb. Plat. Euthyd. p. 119.
384
§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE.
Téρ means both times (see de Wette in opposition to Mey.) for
Christ i.e. in his name and behalf (consequently, in his stead),
cf. Xen. C. 3, 3, 14; Plato Gorg. 515 c.; Polyb. 21, 14, 9; Marle
floril. p. 169 sq., see above, no. 2) at the end. Others take the second
vπéρ as in solemn asseverations (Bhdy. 244, whose explanation of
this use, however, is assuredly erroneous) by Christ, per Christum.
In Eph. vi. 20 the phrase рeσßeúew vπéρ is used in reference to
a thing: to act as an ambassador for the gospel (in the cause of
the gospel), cf. Dion. H. IV. 2014; Lucian. Toxar. 34.
I
7th ed.
§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE.
a 'Ev.¹ 1) In its local signification (see Spohn, Niceph. Blemmid.
p. 29 sqq.), this preposition refers to an expanse within the bounds.
of which anything exists. Hence, according to different concep-
tions of the relation, it signifies
360 a) First of all in or (when applied to surfaces, heights, etc.)
on, Matt. xxiv. 40 ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ, xx. 3 ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ, Luke xix. 36;
Rev. iii. 21; Jno. iv. 20; 2 Cor. iii. 3. The same relation is fre-
quently expressed by èπí with greater precision.
b) Then (of many) among, Matt. xi. 11; Acts ii. 29; iv. 34;
xx. 25; Rom. i. 5; 1 Cor. v. 1; 1 Pet. v. 1; ii. 12. With this
is connected ἐν denoting retinue, Luke xiv. 31 ἐν δέκα χιλιάσιν
403 ảπaνтñσai, Jude 14 (Neh. xiii. 2; 1 Sam. i. 24; 1 Macc. i. 17);
as well as clothing (and armor, cf. Eph. vi. 16; Krebs, Obs. 26)
344 Matt. vii. 15; Mark xii. 38; Jno. xx. 12 (Aelian. 9, 34; Her. 2,
6th ed. 159; Callim. Dian. 241; Mtth. II. 1340). In a more general use
èv is applied to that with which one is furnished, which he brings
with him, Heb. ix. 25 eisépɣerai év alµaтi, 1 Cor. iv. 21; v. 8;
2 Cor. x. 14; Rom. xv. 29 (Xen. C. 2, 3, 14).
c) Less strictly in, at, sometimes of direct cohesion, Jno. xv. 4
κλῆμα ἐὰν μὴ μείνῃ ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ, sometimes of mere proximity (by,
παρά), καθίζειν εἶναι) ἐν δεξιᾷ θεοῦ at on the right hand, Heb.
i. 3; viii. 1; Eph. i. 20; Plutarch. Lysand. 436 b.; Dio C. 216, 50
1'Ev is used (apparently) with the Gen. in Heb. xi. 26, according to the reading
admitted into the text by Lehm. from A and other Codd., Tŵv év Alyúπtou Onσavpŵv.
Such constructions, by no means råre in Greek authors, must, as is well known, be
considered as elliptical: év yn Alyúπтoυ. Usually, however, only such words as vaós,
éoρтh, оîкos are omitted; and in the passage in question there is a predominance of
authority for Tŵv Alyúπтоυ Onσaupŵv; [so Sin. also]. As to the most ancient use of
this preposition (in Homcr), see Giscke in Schneidewin's Philolog. VII. 77 ff.
1
§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE.
385
1
(much more frequently thus used in Greek authors, Xen. C. 7, 1,
45; Isocr. panath. p: 646 and Philipp. p. 216; Plat. Charm. 153 b. ;
Diod. S. 4, 78; 17, 10, cf. comm. on Lucian. VI. 640 Lehm.; Jacob,
Lucian. Alex. p. 123). On the other hand, it signifies in in Jno.
x. 23 and Luke ii. 7, probably also in Jno. viii. 20, where yagoþvλák.
denotes the treasury as an apartment (or locality), and Luke
xiii. 4, as it was usual to say in Siloam, because the fountain was
surrounded with buildings; perhaps also Matt. xxvii. 5, see Mey.
in loc. That in forms of quoting, as év Aavid Heb. iv. 7; Rom.
ix. 25 (in Cic. or. 71; Quint. 9, 4, 8) and even Rom. xi. 2 év 'Hλią
(see van Marle and Fr. in loc. cf. Diog. L. 6, 104), év should be
rendered by in, is obvious.
d) Before, apud, coram (Isocr. Archid. p. 276; Lysias pro mil.
11; Arrian. Epictet. 3, 22, 8; Ast, Plat. legg. 285), -a rendering,
however, which is unnecessary in 1 Tim. iv. 15 (where, besides,
πâσw must be read without év). This meaning, however, it bears
πᾶσιν
in 1 Cor. ii. 6 (xiv. 11), see above, § 31, 8 (cf. Demosth. Boeot.
p. 636 a.; Polyb. 17, 6, 1; 5, 29, 6; Appian. civ. 2, 137),2 also
1 Cor. vi. 2 ἐν ὑμῖν κρίνεται ὁ κόσμος (in the orators ἐν ὑμῖν is
often used thus for apud vos, judices, see Kypke in loc.), as well
as év óplarμoîs Tw. before one's eyes (ante oc.), see Palair. and 361
Elsner on Matt. xxi. 42-a phrase used in this passage of the Sept. 7th ed.
figuratively.
Εν
2) By an easy transition év is employed to denote temporal 404
relations, where we use sometimes in, sometimes on (e.g. of festi-
vals) Matt. xii. 2; Jno. ii. 23, sometimes at (with a substantive
denoting an event) Matt. xxii. 28; 1 Pet. i. 7, also 1 Cor. xv. 52
Év Tŷ éσXátη Oáλπıyуı at the last trumpet (as soon as it sounds),
1 Thess. iv. 16; Heb. iii. 8, and with the Inf. of verbs, Matt. xiii. 25;
Luke ix. 36; xvii. 11. Where it signifies within (Wex, Soph.
Antig. p. 167) Jno. ii. 19 it may also be rendered by in (Her. 2, 29),
and differs then obviously from διά; for ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις (Plato
1 To render ev in Heb. ix. 4 by juxta quam, would be to favor archæology at the
expense of grammar. Where ev in a local sense is joined to personal names (in the
Plur.), it signifies not so much with as among, in the midst of, (a number, a company,
etc.). As to 1 Pet. v. 2 Tò èv vμîv пolμviov, Pott's rendering is quite admissible: the
flock existing in the countries where you reside (cf. diá Rom. xv. 28). Grammatically it
would be possible also to join τὸ ἐν ὑμῖν to ποιμάνατε (quantum in vobis est, as much
as in you lies), or, which would undoubtedly be far-fetched, to render rò èv vµîv поíμVIOV
the flock entrusted to you, as eîvai, keîodai ěv Tivi means, to rely on, depend on, one.
2 In explaining 1 Cor. as above, Rückert pronounces év éuoí exactly the same as quol
one of those superficial remarks which, so nakedly stated, one could hardly have
expected from a scholar at the present day.
49
386
§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE.
6th ed.
345 Menex. 240 b.) does not mean that three whole days are to be
spent on something, but only that something is to take place within
that space of time, consequently before its expiration. Cf. besides,
ev & while, during the time that, Jno. v. 7; Mark ii. 19; Thuc. 6,55;
Plato Theaet. 190 e.; Soph. Trach. 925 (ev ToÚT interea Xen.
C. 1, 3, 17; 3, 2, 12), èv oîs during which Luke. xii. 1. Closely
related to the temporal signification is the ev of subsistence (i.e.
positive and continued existence) Heb. vi. 18 év ois adúvaтov Yeú-
oaolai Ocóv whereupon, these two assurances being matters of
fact, etc., Rom. ii. 12 év vóμg uapтov under (during the existence,
while in possession, of) the law; also of condition, Luke viii. 43
yvvǹ ovoa év þúσeɩ aïµatos, Rom. iv. 10; Phil. iv. 11 (see Elsner
in loc.; Kühner II. 274), and that, too, inward, Luke iv. 36; Tit. i. 6,
particularly of the state of mind or feeling, 1 Tim. ii. 2; 2 Cor.
ii. 1; viii. 2; Luke i. 44, 75; Eph. i. 4 (Heb. xi. 2); 2 Pet. ii. 3;
lastly,
-the ev of occupation, 1 Tim. iv. 15 év toútos ïoði, Col.
iv. 2 cf. Eph. vi. 20 (Mey. in loc.), neut. év oîs Acts xxvi. 12. Cf.
Xen. C. 3, 1, 1; 5, 2, 17; Soph. Oed. R. 570; Plato Phaed. 59 a.
and Stallb. in loc.
3) The figurative use of èv, to which we have already made
some incidental reference, is extremely diversified, perceptibly
exhibiting the progressive deterioration of the language as well
as a Hebrew coloring. For év is used to indicate not merely that
in which something else is (ideally) contained, consists, appears
1 Pet. iii. 4; Eph. iv. 3 (ii. 15), 2 Thess. ii. 9 (1 Cor. xi. 25),
Phil. i. 9, but also, with great variety of application,
a) The basis on which, or the sphere (range, personal or imper-
sonal) in which, some power acts, 1 Cor. ix. 15 iva ovro (vs. 13 f.)
yévntai év éµoí that it should be so done on me (in my case), iv. 2,
405 6 ἐν ἡμῖν μάθητε learn in us, Jno. xiii. 35 ἐν τούτῳ γνώσονται, Xen.
C. 1, 6, 41 (Luke xxiv. 35; 1 Jno. iii. 19), Rom. xiv. 22 ó µǹ
κρίνων ἐν ᾧ ἐν τούτῳ ὃ) δοκιμάζει, 1 Thess. v. 12 κοπιῶντες ἐν ὑμῖν
who labor upon you, Rom. i. 9 λaтpeúew ev tô evayyeλíw (1 Thess.
iii. 2 σvvepyòs ev t❖ evayyeλiw var.), 1 Cor. vii. 15; to denote an
ethical relation, 2 Cor. iv. 2 πеρɩжATOÛνtes Év tavoνpyłą (Eph. ii. 3,
362 10; v. 2), Rom. vi. 2 Cîv èv åµapríą (Fr. in loc.), Col. iii. 7 (Cic.
7th ed. fam. 9, 26), cf. 1 Cor. vi. 20; 2 Thess. i. 10; 1 Jno. ii. 8; in a
more extended sense, of the object in (on, at) which one rejoices,
glories etc., χαίρειν, καυχᾶσθαι, ἐν see § 33 p. 232.
b) The measure or standard (Thuc. 1. 77; 8, 89) in, according
to, which something is executed, Eph. iv. 16 (Heb. iv. 11), cf. the
§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE.
387
Hebrew. Many understand it so in Heb. x. 10 év & Deλýμati
ýyiaoµévoi éoµév according, in conformity, to which will. Here,
however, év is more precise than kará: It is founded in the will
of God, that we are sanctified through Christ's sacrificial death.
In no other passage does the meaning secundum occur, although
even the most recent N. T. Lexicons give copious examples in
support of it. 'Ev èµoí according to my judgment, 1 Cor. xiv. 11,
is properly: to me (in my conception) cf. Wex, Antig. p. 187. In
Rom. i. 24; viii. 15; xi. 25 (var.); Phil. ii. 7 ev denotes condi-
tion. 1 Thess. iv. 15 may be translated: this I say unto you in
a word of the Lord, cf. 1 Cor. ii. 7; xiv. 6. In πeρiπатeîv év σоpią 346
περιπατεῖν σοφίᾳ
and similar phrases, copía is not represented as a rule according 6th ed
to which, but as an ideal possession, or even a sphere within which
to walk (see above). To understand ev Xpior, Ev Kupiw, as mean-
ing according to the will or example of Christ, would be to take
a flat view of the apostle's conception. Lastly, 1 Tim. i. 18 va
στρατεύῃ ἐν αὐταῖς ταῖς προφητείαις) τὴν καλὴν στρατείαν is
probably to be interpreted, conformably to the figure, in proph
esyings, equipped with them so to speak (as the actual warrior
is in arms).
c) The (external) occasion, Acts vii. 29 ëpʊyev ev tŵ Xóyw TouTŲ
at (on) this saying, Xen. equestr. 9, 11; hence sometimes the
ground, cause, Matt. vi. 7 ἐν τῇ πολυλογίᾳ αὐτῶν εἰςακουσθήσονται
on account of their much speaking (properly on their etc.), cf.
Aelian. anim. 11, 31; Dio C. 25, 5, and ev TOúr Jno. xvi. 30 there-
fore,¹ probably also 1 Cor. iv. 4 (cf. Plutarch. glor. Athen. c. 7 èv
TOÚTOLS); Ev ♣ (for ev ToÚTO Oтi) because Rom. viii. 3 see Fr. In 406
many languages, however, a concomitant is assigned thus as a
cause: in Latin, propter strictly means near; and the German
weil (because) is properly a particle of time (during). 'Ev in
1 In Heb. xi. 2 év TaÚTY (Tŷ Tíore) denotes not the ground, but the (ideal) posses-
sion in hac (constituti), cf. 1 Tim. v. 10 (Jno. viii. 21). In Heb. ii. 18 év à mémovbev
is undoubtedly to be resolved by ev TOUT o in eo quod, see above p. 159.
This same
meaning occurs in 1 Pet. ii. 12. In Heb. vi. 17 év & may be referred to рнos preceding,
though (as sometimes èp') the rendering quapropter, quare, would not be inappropriate.
In Rom. ii. 1 év & may be rendered dum, or better, with the Vulgate, in quo (in qua re)
judicas etc., which gives a sense quite in point, cf. Fr. In Luke x. 20 év ToÚTY . . . ÖTI
means, at this (rejoice) that, cf. Phil. i. 18. I am not aware of there being in any Greek
author an unquestionable instance of ev Tour, ev, in the sense of therefore, because.
The passages adduced in Sturz, Lexic. Xenoph. II. 162, admit of another meaning. Xen.
A. 1, 3, 1 -a passage which Kypke, II. 194, refers to this head- has in the best editions
ET TOUT. Likewise Plat. rep. 5, 455 b., where Ast explains év & by propterea quod, is
ἐπὶ τούτῳ.
susceptible of another exposition; see Stallb. in loc.
388
§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE.
363 the sense of propter is never joined to names of persons (see my
7th ed. Comment. ad Gal. i. 24, cf. Exod. xiv. 4);¹ and in general too many
passages have been referred to this head, as Eph. iii. 13; Jno.
viii. 21; Jas. i. 25; 2 Cor. vi. 12; Heb. iv. 11.
d) The instrument and means (principally in the Rev.), not
merely (as in the better Greek prose authors, see Bttm. Philoct.
p. 69; Boeckh, Pind. III. 487; Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 195, and the
uncritical collections in Schwarz, Comment. p. 476; Georgi, Vind.
153 sq.) where the German in also (or auf) is admissible, as raíеw
347 év πuρí Rev. xvii. 16 (1 Cor. iii. 13), cf. 1 Macc. v. 44; vi. 31
6th ed. (ñoaι év Tédais Xen. A. 4, 3, 8; cf. Judg. xv. 13; xvi. 7; Sir.
σε
xxviii. 19; Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 104, каλÚπтew ev iμario Ael. anim.
11, 15), μετρεῖν ἐν μέτρῳ Matt. vii. 2, ἁλίζειν ἐν ἅλατι Matt. v. 13;
Rev. vii. 14; Jas. iii. 9; Heb. ix. 22, but also, through the influence
of the Hebrew, in circumstances quite different from this, where
in Greek authors the Dative would be employed alone as the casus
instrumentalis, as Luke xxii. 49 taтáoσew év µaxaípa, Rev. vi. 8
ἀποκτεῖναι ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ, xiii. 10 ; xiv. 15 κράζειν ἐν μεγάλη φωνῇ (2 Pet.
ii. 16), Matt. vii. 6 катаπатеîv ev тoîs Toσív, Luke i. 51; Mark
407 xiv. 1; Rom. xv. 6, especially in the Rev. (cf. Judg. iv. 16; xv. 15;
xx. 16, 48; 1 Kings xii. 18; Josh. x. 35; Exod. xiv. 21; xvi. 3;
xvii. 5, 13; xix. 13; Gen. xxxii. 20; xli. 36; xlviii. 22; Neh. i. 10;
1 Macc. iv. 15; Judith ii. 19; v. 9; vi. 4, 12, etc.). Yet such
constructions occasionally occur even in Greek authors; as, Himer.
eclog. 4, 16 ἐν ξίφει, Hippocr aphor. 2, 36 ἐν φαρμακείῃσι καθαί-
364 peo0ai, Malal. 2 p. 50.3 'Ev is so used with personal designations,
7th ed.
2
1 In 2 Cor. xiii. 4 àσ0evoûµev èv avto, as frequently èv Xpior (so variously under-
stood by expositors), denotes fellowship with Christ, the relation of elva év Xpiotŵ
(see below, p. 389). The apostle is not weak for Christ's sake (out of regard as it were
for the interest of Christ, to prevent the possible falling away of the Corinthians); but
weak in Christ, i.e. in and conformably to (apostolic) fellowship with Christ (who
likewise was in a certain sense àσlevhs; see what precedes). The phrase designates
concisely a state which results from being in Christ; just as the Cv and duvardv elvai are
referred to fellowship with Christ (ovv). Just as little docs Eph. iv. 1 8 d霵íos èv kupiw
mean the prisoner for Christ's sake. Somewhat more remote is Phil. i. 8 èπɩñolŵ távtas
ὑμᾶς ἐν σπλάγχνοις Χριστοῦ I., see Bengel.
2 It would be a mistake to suppose that in Eph. ii. 15 (§ 31, note 1, p. 220) and vi. 4 év
denotes the instrument. In the latter passage maideía kal vovleσía rupíou is the sphere
in which the children are trained, cf. Polyb. 1, 65, 7. Even in the expression ¿^^ádoσeiv
Tɩ ěv Tɩɩ Rom. i. 23, I cannot with Fr. adopt the meaning per, nor do I think that the
Hebrew with is to be so understood. To change something in gold is either an
abbreviated expression, or gold is conceived as that in which the exchange is effected.
The ev of price is similar; see above and p. 390.
8 Many passages that might be adduced under this head from Greek authors, are to
§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE.
389
408
Matt. ix. 34 ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων ἐκβάλλειν τὰ δαιμόνια, Acts
xvii. 31 kpívei év úvôpí in a man, cf. Thuc. 7, 8, 2; Mtth. II. 1341,
not Jno. xvii. 10; 2 Thess. i. 10, or by any means Acts xvii. 28.1
The phrase ouóoai ev Tivi Matt. v. 34 ff. does not signify jurare per 348
(see Fr. in loc.), but more simply: swear by (on) something. So 6th ed.
likewise in other passages év does not properly signify through :
1 Cor. vii. 14 ἡγίασται ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ ἄπιστος ἐν τῇ γυναικί means, he
is sanctified in the wife, the foundation rather than the means
of sanctification being indicated. In Rom. xv. 16 év πνeúµатı ȧɣiç
and not Sià TV. άy. is employed designedly, in the Holy Spirit
(an internal principle). Related to this is 1 Cor. xv. 22 év tậ
Αδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσι, Acts iv. 2 ἐν Ἰησοῦ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τὴν
ἐκ νεκρῶν καταγγέλλειν. Least of all does ἐν Χριστῷ (κυρίῳ) ever
signify per Chr. (Fr. Rom. I. 397, the precise expression for which
is dɩà 'Ino. Xp.), Rom. vi. 11 (ŵvtes tâ Deô év Xp. 'I. (the Chris-
tian lives not merely through Christ, beneficio Christi, but in Christ,
in soul-nourishing fellowship with Christ), vi. 23; 2 Cor. ii. 14;
but this phrase invariably refers, for the most part in an abbre-
be otherwise explained, as ὁρᾶν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς Lucian. Phalar. 1, 5, ἐν ὄμμασιν ὑποβλέπειν
Lucian, amor. 29 (cf. Wex, Antig. I. 270), Porphyr. de antro Nymphar. p. 261 àµpopéwv,
ἀμφορέων,
ἐν οἷς . . . ἀρυόμεθα, Lucian. asin. 44 ὡς τεθνηκὼς ἐν ταῖς πληγαϊς (under the blows), Plat.
Tim. 81 c. тeОрaµµévns év yáraktι brought up on milk (cf. Jacobs, Athen. p. 57). In
Lucian. conscr. hist. 12 for év ákovтíų povevei recent editors on the authority of MSS.
give évì ảk. P.; on the other hand, in Lucian. dial. mort. 23, 3 all the Codd. but one
have kabikóμevov év tĥ þáßdw (not so Ael. 2, 6), yet Lehmann considers the preposition
even in this passage as suspicious (cf. Lucian. Lapith. c. 26). See, besides, Engelhardt,
Plat. Menex. p. 261; Dissen, Pind. p. 487.
1 In Jno. xvii. 10 δεδόξασμαι ἐν αὐτοῖς undoubtedly signifies more than δι' αὐτῶν. He
would have been glorified through them, if they had merely accomplished some external
achievement conducive to the glory of Christ; he is glorified in them, in so far as they
in their own persons, in themselves, glorify Christ. In the same way to live and have
one's being in God, appears to express man's subsistence, his being rooted as it were,
in the divine power, with greater precision than could be done by did. When ev and
diá are joined together in one and the same sentence, diá expresses thus the external
means, while v points to what was wrought in or on one's person, and as it were cleaves
to him, Eph. i. 7 ἐν ᾧ (Χριστῷ) ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ (where
Mey. is wrong), iii. 6. Even when things, and not persons, are in question, the dis-
tinction between è (referring to mental states or powers) and diá (of the means) is
perceptible; as, 1 Pet. i. 5 τοὺς ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ θρουρουμένους διὰ πίστεως, see Steiger in
loc., i. 22 ἡγνικότες ἐν τῇ ὑπακοῇ τῆς ἀληθείας διὰ πνεύματος, Heb. x. 10. Lastly, pas-
sages in which ev and did in reference to things are interchanged in the same proposition,
Col. i. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 4 ff. 8; 1 Cor. xiv. 19, merely show that both prepositions are
identical as respects the sense. Even ἐν in Matt. iv. 4 ἐν παντὶ ῥήματι does not appear
to be exactly equivalent to ení in èn ápтw μóv; but the latter (èri) denotes the basis,
èv the (spiritual) element, of life. At all events, through or by means of would be an
inaccurate translation.
390
§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE.
1
viated way, to the being in Christ eivai èv Xpioтâ (1 Thess. ii. 14;
Rom. viii. 1; xvi. 11; 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. i. 22), and Luther's
"barbarous" translation (Fr. II. 85) ¹ is to be retained. So like-
wise in 1 Cor. xii. 3 ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν is to be rendered quite
365 literally, speaking in the Spirit of God, the element in which the
speaker lives (Rom. ix. 1; xiv. 17; Col. i. 8).
7th ed.
e) The price, after the analogy of the Hebrew, Rev. v. 9 ȧyo-
púšεiv év тâ auari (1 Chron. xxi. 24). The value of the thing
purchased is contained in the price (to which the ex of the price
then corresponds).
6
Even in the most recent Lexicons the significations of this preposition
have been unwarrantably multiplied or its real significations incorrectly
applied to passages of the N. T. The interpretations which have been
given to the phrase év óvóμarí Tivos in particular are Protean. The èv here
causes no difficulty, for it simply means in. And something takes place
in a person's name' when it is comprehended or embraced in his name,
is to be set down to his personal activity, cf. Acts iv. 7 (not to his who is
the nearest, the immediate, subject, cf. Jno. v. 43). Only the various verbs
which are limited by év óvóμarı require the expositor's attention, in order
that the various senses may be traced back severally in the simplest
manner to the literal meaning of the phrase. This task has not yet
been performed satisfactorily (yet better by Harless, Eph. S. 484, than by
van Hengel, Philip. p. 161 sq.), not even by Mey. Phil. ii. 10 seems to
require separate treatment: ovoμa here refers to ovoμa in vs. 9, and ev
ovóμarı denotes the name upon which those that bow the knee unite, on
which united all (πâv yóvʊ) worship. The name which Jesus has received
moves all to united adoration. In Tit. iii. 5 év does not indicate the finis
or consilium; but epya rà èv Sikaloσúvy mean, works performed in the
409 spirit of a díkalos; as to Luke i. 17; 1 Cor. vii. 15 see below. In Mark
ix. 50 eipnveúete év åλλýλois, the rendering erga is not necessary; we, too,
ἀλλήλοις,
1 In so far as the Christian abides (by faith) in living (inward, hence v) fellowship
with Christ, he will do everything in the consciousness of this fellowship, and through
the strength which this fellowship confers, i.e. in Christ, in the Lord; as a Christian,
in a Christian spirit, etc., as the words are frequently rendered, expresses much less than
the pregnant phrase in Christ. So in Rom. xvi. 12 who labor in the Lord, conscious of
their fellowship with the Lord (unworldly коTiâv is meant), 1 Cor. xv. 18 who fell asleep
in Christ, in conscious, steadfast fellowship with Christ (cf. 1 Thess. iv. 16; Rev. xiv. 13),
Rom. ix. 1 (a passage which even Bengel misunderstood) speak the truth in Christ (as
one living in Christ), xiv. 14 persuaded in the Lord (of a truth of which one in living
union with Christ is assured). As to 1 Cor. iv. 15 see Mey. In the same way eúploke-
olai év Xp. Phil. iii. 9 is to be explained. See besides, Rom. xv. 17; xvi. 2, 22; 1 Cor.
vii. 39; Phil. iv. 1 (Eph. vi. 1), 1 Pet. v. 10. Fr. Rom. II. 82 sqq. is essentially right,
though his remarks are not free from misapprehensions nor from unnecessary matter.
Sce, besides, v. Hengel, Cor. p. 81.
§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE.
391
say: among (one another) yourselves. The following interpretations appear
still more inadmissible:
1
a. ex,¹ Heb. xiii. 9 év ois oùк peλnonoav oi repitarýσavres unde (Schott)
nihil commodi perceperunt (cf. opeλéîσbai åñó Aeschin. dial. 2, 11). If v 349
ols is to be joined to ¿peλýl., the preposition indicates the profit that would 6th ed
have originated therein or attached thereto, Xen. Athen. rep. 1, 3; Demosth.
Pantaen. 631 a. ; but ἐν οἷς belongs to περιπατήσαντες. Matt.i.20 τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ
yevvnév means, that which has been begotten in her (in ejus utero).
b. pro, loco, Rom. xi. 17 (Schott) évekevtpíobns èv avtoîs (kládois) means: 366
grafted on the branches (of which some had been cut off).
7th ed.
c. with. In Acts xx. 32 év Tois yaoμévous signifies, among (with) the
sanctified. Acts vii. 14 μετεκαλέσατο τὸν πατέρα αὑτοῦ Ἰακὼβ ... ἐν ψυχαῖς
¿ßdoµ. means, (consisting) in seventy souls; is used in the same way
in Deut. x. 22; I do not, however, know of an instance in a Greek author.
Fr.'s explanation of these words (ad Mr. p. 604) appears to me too far-
fetched, and it has been rejected by Wahl also. In Eph. vi. 2 TS ÉσTìV
Evтoλý πρúτη ÉV èrayyeλía undoubtedly means not merely, annexa, addita
promissione, but the first in promise, i.e. in point of promise (not èv rášel
Chrysost.). So also Mey.
d. by (of). In Eph. iv. 21' eye ev avτų édidáxonte if ye were taught in
him is closely connected with ảπоléσ0αι etc. following, and consequently
means, conformably to fellowship with Christ, as believers in Christ.
As to ev for eis, see § 50, no. 4, p. 413 sq.
b. Zúv with as distinguished from μerá indicates a more inti-
mate union; 2 as, among persons, partnership in calling, faith,
fortune, etc. Acts ii. 14; xiv. 4, 20; 1 Cor. xi. 32. Hence it is
generally used in reference to spiritual fellowship, as that of be-
lievers with Christ, Rom. vi. 8; Col. ii. 13, 20; iii. 3; 1 Thess.
iv. 17; v. 10; or that of believers with Abraham, Gal. iii. 9
(oúy denoting in all these cases not mere resemblance, but actual
association). Then in reference to things it denotes powers com-
bining and co-operating with a person, 1 Cor. v. 4; xv. 10. It
would be extended to a less intimate connection in 2 Cor. viii. 19
with the collection; yet here èv seems the preferable reading. On 410
the other hand, cf. Luke xxiv. 21 σὺν πᾶσι τούτοις τρίτην ταύτην
ἡμέραν ἄγει σήμερον along with all this, i.e. joined to all this is the
additional fact that etc. (Neh. v. 18; cf. Joseph. antt. 17, 6, 5).
1 Fischer, Weller. p. 141, adopts this meaning even for wive èv àpyúpw, Xpvoŵ etc.
(Isocr. paneg. c. 30; Diog. L. 1, 104, bibere in ossibus Flor. 3, 4, 2). With equal
reason might it be asserted that in German auf is the same as ron because we say auf
silbernen Tellern essen, which, according to the analogy of 'aus silbernen Bechern
trinken,' is equivalent to von silbernen Tellern.'
2 Krü. 287 “σúv Tivi denotes rather coherence; μeтá Tivos, rather co-existence."
392
$ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE.
6th ed.
T
c. 'Emi. The primary, local, import is upon, above, (applied
both to heights and plains): 1 Matt. xiv. 11 véx◊n ý kepaλǹ éĦÌ
πívakı, Mark i. 45 éπ' èpýµos tótоis (see above, èπi with Gen.; cf.
ávúyew eis tηv pnμov Matt. iv. 1), vi. 39; Luke xxi. 6; Rev.
xix. 14, also Juo. iv. 6 ẻπì tỷ πηy? on (at) the well (the rim of
the well rises above the well itself), Rev. ix. 14 (Xen. An. 1, 2,
350 8; 5, 3, 2; Cyr. 7, 5, 11; Isocr. paneg. c. 40; Dio C. 177, 30; see
above, § 47 g.).2 Sometimes it significs at (on) Juo. v. 2 éπì tŷ
367 πроßаTIKη at the sheep-gate, Acts iii. 10, 11; Matt. xxiv. 33 éπì
7th ed. Oúpais (Xen. C. 8, 1, 33, yet see note 3 p. 374); it is applied also in
this sense to persons, Acts v. 35 πρáoσeiv ti èπí τɩɩ inflict some-
thing on one (do something to), cf. Spâv тɩ èπí Tivi Her. 3, 14;
Acl. anim. 11, 11. Lastly, it signifies (contiguity) at, with either
in reference to place (apud) Acts xxviii. 14 èπ' avтoîs ètiµeîval,
or to time Heb. ix. 26 ènì ovvтeλela тŵv aiwvwv sub finem mundi;
and so Phil. i. 3 εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ μνείᾳ ὑμῶν on every
remembrance of you, Mark vi. 52 où σvvîкav èπì TOîs άρTOIS, 2 Cor.
ix. 6 σπείρειν, θερίζειν ἐπ᾽ εὐλογίαις with blessings, so that blessings
attend; and in another application in Heb. ix. 15 Tŵv ẻπì Tŷ πρÓτn
Siαρńкη таρаßáoewv with (under) the first covenant (during the
existence of the first covenant). In this sense it is applied also
to persons, Heb. x. 28 (Sept.) èπì тρioì µáρTvσi with (before) three
witnesses, adhibitis testibus. It likewise indicates what is closely
connected (in time), what follows on some event, Xen. C. 2, 3, 7
ảvéotη éπ' avtô Þepaúλas directly after (Appian. civ. 5, 3; Paus.
7, 25, 6; Dio C. 325, 89, and 519, 99; cf. Wurm, Dinarch. p. 39 sq.;
Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. I. 30). Some explain in this way Acts
xi. 19 ἀπὸ τῆς θλίψεως τῆς γενομένης ἐπὶ Στεφάνῳ (see Alberti
in loc.); but ẻπí there means rather upon (on account of) or
against (Matthäi in loc.), cf. Schaef. Plutarch. V. 17; Maetzner,
Antiph. p. 288.
411
し
​5/
Figuratively éπí denotes, in general, the foundation on which
an action or state rests, Phil. iii. 9; so in Matt. iv. 4 v èπ' äρтæ
Sept. (corresponding to ev pýμari) after the Hebrew by
T T
Deut.
1 According to Krü. 303 è̟πí with Gen. indicates rather an accidental and more loose
connection; πrl with Dat., the notion of belonging to.
2 The signification upon is perceptible also in Luke xii. 53 ěσovтaι ... Taтhp ép việ
πατὴρ ἐφ'
kal vids ẻπl warpí the father will be upon him, that is, as a load, oppressing, agreeably
to the vulgar idiom; cf. the German, Vater und Sohn liegen sich auf dem Halse.
Against, however, here expresses the meaning correctly. I cannot, however, decide
with Wahl to apply the same meaning to Luke xxiii. 38. Rom. x. 19 is of quite a
different sort.
§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE.
393
viii. 3 (though it is thus used also in Greek authors, Plato Alcih.
1, 105 c.; Alciph. 3, 7; cf. sustentare vitam). Here belongs also
ÉTÌ TÔ ỏνóμatí Twos (Lucian. pisc. 15; cf. Schoem. Isae. p. 463 sq.)
to do something upon the name of some one, i.e. in doing it to
rely upon, or have reference to, the name of some one.
The ex-
pression has various applications in the N. Τ. : ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ιησ.
Xp. to teach upon (in) the name of Christ (Luke xxiv. 47; Acts
iv. 17; v. 28, 40), i.e. by referring to him as the source of doctrine
and authority; to cast out demons upon (in) the name of Christ,
Luke ix. 49, i.e. making the efficacy of the exorcising depend on
his name (uttered on the occasion as a solemn form); baptism
upon (in) the name of Christ is baptism founded on the acknowl-
edgment of his name, Acts ii. 38; to receive any one upon (in)
the name of Christ, Matt. xviii. 5, i.e. because he bears his name,
confesses him, etc.
Special senses of ¿πí are
a) Over, of superintendence, Luke xii. 44 ẻπì тоîs vπáрxovσi
KATAσTÝσEL Aνтóv, cf. Xen. C. 6, 3, 28 (as elsewhere with Gen.
Lob. Phryn. p. 474 sq.)..
Π
b) Over, to, of addition to something already existing, Luke
iii. 20 προςέθηκε καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ πᾶσι, Matt. xx. 20 ἄλλα πέντε
τάλαντα εκέρδησα ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς in addition to those fire talents (if ἐπ' 351
avToîs is genuine), Luke xvi. 26 èπì πâσi TоÚTоis besides, over and 6th ed.
above, all this, Lucian. conscr. hist. 31; Aristoph. plut. 628 (cf.
Wetsten. and Kypke in loc.), Phil. ii. 17; Col. iii. 14; Eph. vi. 16
(cf. Polyb. 6, 23, 12). Hence in Jno. iv. 27 èπì TоÚT λov oi 368
ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἦλθον
µalŋτal upon this, as Jesus spoke thus with etc., came the dis- 7th ed.
ciples. It is used somewhat differently in 2 Cor. vii. 13 èπì tŷ
παρακλήσει περισσοτέρως μᾶλλον ἐχάρημεν besides my consolation,
I rejoiced, etc..
c) Over, of the object after verbs denoting an emotion, as
θαυμάζειν, ἀγαλλιᾶν, πενθεῖν, λυπεῖσθαι, ὀργίζεσθαι, [μακροθυμεῖν],
μeтavοeîv, Luke i. 47; xviii. 7; Mark iii. 5; xii. 17; Matt. vii. 28;
Rom. x. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 21; Rev. xii. 17; xviii. 11 (Plat. symp.
217 a. and 206 b.; Isocr. paneg. 22; Lucian. philops. 14; Aristot.
rhet. 2, 10,1; Palaeph. 1,8; Joseph. antt. 5, 1, 26 a.). With exa-
pɩoteîv it signifies to give thanks over (for), 1 Cor. i. 4; 2 Cor.ix. 15;
Phil. i. 3 sq.; Polyb. 18, 26, 4. It is also employed with verbs of
speaking, Rev. x. 11 πро‡ηтεûσai èπì λaoîs (xxii. 16 var.), Jno.
xii. 16 ταῦτα ἦν ἐπ' αὐτῷ γεγραμμένα (Her. 1, 66; Paus. 3, 13, 3; 412
cf. Schoemann, Plut. Agis p. 71).
50
394
§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE.
1
d) On, of a supposition or condition (Xen. symp. 1, 5; Diod.
S. 2, 24; Lucian. conscr. hist. 38;, Aesop. 21, 1): èπ' èxπídi on
(in) hope, 1 Cor. ix. 10 (Plat. Alcib. 1, 105 b., èπ' èλπíoi Dio.
Chr. 1003, 21; Herod. 3, 12, 20), Heb. ix. 17 èπì vекpois (on
one's death) after men are dead, when death has taken place. It
is used also of motive, Luke v. 5 ἐπὶ τῷ ῥήματί σου χαλάσω τὸ
SíKTUOV on thy word, induced by thy word, Acts iii. 16 èπì Tỷ TίOTEL
on account of the faith, xxvi. 6; Matt. xix. 9 (1 Cor. viii. 11
var.); cf. Xen. Mem. 3, 14, 2; Cyr. 1, 3, 16; 1, 4, 24; 4, 5, 14;
Her. 1, 137; Lucian. Hermot. 80; Isocr. areop. 336; Dio Chr.
29, 293. Hence ed' wherefore, on which account, Diod. S. 19, 98
(ép' Teр Dio C. 43, 95, etc.), and because 2 Cor. v. 4; Rom.
v. 12; probably also Phil. iii. 12 (on this account that, for ènì тоÚтO
Or see Fr. Rom. I. 299 sq.), eo quod.3
>
2
e) To, for, of aim and issue, 1 Thess. iv. 7 oỷk ékáλeσev ènì
ἀκαθαρσίᾳ to uncleanness, Gal. v. 13 (like καλεῖν ἐπὶ ξενίᾳ Xen.
An. 7, 6, 3, and the like; see Sintenis, Plutarch. Them. p. 147),
2 Tim. ii. 14; Eph. ii. 10, cf. Xen. An. 5, 7, 34; Mem. 2, 3, 19;
Plat. rep. 8, 389 b.; Diod. S. 2, 24; Arrian. Alex. 1, 26, 4; 2, 18,
9; Diog. L. 1, 7, 2; cf. Index to Dio C. ed. Sturz p. 148 sq., ac-
cording to some ep♣ Phil. iii. 12 unto which (for which).
f) After, of the rule, model, Luke i. 59 κaλeîv ẻπì тậ óvóμati
after the name (Neh. vii. 63). To this head, probably, belongs
352 also Rom. v. 14 ἐπὶ τῷ ὁμοιώματι τῆς παραβάσεως 'Αδάμ αd (Vulg.
6th ed. in) similitudinem peccati Ad.; for other explanations, see Meyer.
369 2 Cor. ix. 6, however, we cannot with Philippi (Röm.- Br. S. 172)
7th ed. understand in the same way; see above, p. 392.
When i with Dat. in a local sense is joined to a verb of direction or
motion (Matt. ix. 16; Jno. viii. 7, not Matt. xvi. 18; Acts iii. 11), the phrase
413 includes together with the idea of motion that of tarrying and resting also.
d. Пapú beside i.e. properly near, at the side of, used of place,
with the Dative of the thing only in Jno. xix. 25 (Soph. Oed. C.
1 Yet several of these passages may be referred to the more general signification at,
with (sec above), as is done by Fr. Rom. I. 315.
2 Απολεῖται ὁ ἀσθενῶν ἀδελφὸς ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ γνώσει (where, however, good authorities
[Sin also] read év) is, properly, perishes on thy knowledge i.e. because thy knowledge is
urged, — briefly, through thy knowledge. But èí does not therefore, as Grotius Rom.
v. 12 maintains, strictly mean through.
3 The Greeks usually employ the Plural, ep' oîs (but èñì râde Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I.
211). Rothe (Versuch über Röm. v. 12ff. p. 17 ff.) has recently asserted that in the
N. T. this èp & should be uniformly rendered on the supposition, on the understanding,
on condition, that, in as far as. There is no passage, however, in which this would not
be artificial and forced; cf. Rückert, Comment. zu Röm. 2 Aufl. I. 262.
§ 48. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE.
395
1160; Plato Ion 535 h.), elsewhere with the Dat. of the person
(Krü. 299); sometimes denoting
a) What is externally near, by, with, Luke ix. 47, or what is
in one's vicinity, province, custody, 2 Tim. iv. 13 þeλóvηv úπéλTTOV
таρà Kúρπæ, 1 Cor. xvi. 2 (Aristot. pol. 1, 7), Luke xix. 7 (where
Tаρà áμарт. belongs to Karaλvσai), Col. iv. 16; Rev. ii. 13; Acts
x. 6; xviii. 3. Sometimes, and more frequently,
b) In reference to what is ideally near one, in one's possession,
power, capacity, etc. (penes); as, Matt. xix. 26 πapà åv¤púπoiS
τοῦτο ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν, παρὰ δὲ θεῷ πάντα δυνατά, Rom. ii. 11 οὐ
γάρ ἐστι προςωποληψία παρὰ θεῷ, ix. 14; Luke i. 37 (παρὰ τοῦ
Оeoû is a clerical mistake) cf. Demosth. cor. 352 a. ei èσTI πap' èµol
Tis éμπeiρía, Jas. i. 17; 2 Cor. i. 17, especially of the judgment,
Acts xxvi. 8 Tí άTIOтоv Kρíveтαι Tаρ' úμiv etc. (apud vos), Rom.
xii. 16 μὴ γίνεσθε φρόνιμοι παρ' ἑαυτοῖς (Prov. iii. 7) before your-
selves (as judges), in your own estimation, in your own eyes,
1 Cor. iii. 19; 2 Pet. iii. 8 (Her. 1, 32; Plato Theaet. 170 d. ;
Soph. Trach. 586; Eurip. Bacch. 399, and Electr. 737; Bhdy. 257).
So likewise 2 Pet. ii. 11 οὐ φέρουσι κατ᾿ αὐτῶν παρὰ κυρίῳ (before
the Lord as Judge) βλάσφημον κρίσιν were the words π. κυρ.
genuine, and, substantially, 1 Cor. vii. 24 ékaσTOS Év ❖ èkλýėn, Ev
TοÚTO μevéтw πapà le with, before God, on the plane of God's judg
That Trapá with the Dat. denotes strictly direction towards,¹
cannot be established (Wahl in his Clav.) by Luke ix. 47, still less
by Luke xix. 7 (see a) above).
ment.
e. IIpós has the same primary import as Tapá, but is used in
the N. T. only in its local sense: at, by, in the (immediate) vicin-
ity of; as, Jno. xviii. 16 πpòs Tŷ Oúpa, xx. 11, 12; Mark v. 11 (to 414
adduce instances of the same use of πpós from Greek authors
would be superfluous; for the assertion of Münter, Symbol. ad
intptat. ev. Joa. p. 31, is untrue). So likewise Rev. i. 13 TEρLE-
ζωσμένος πρὸς τοῖς μαστοῖς ζώνην girded about at the breasts with
a girdle (Xen. C. 7, 1, 33). In Luke xix. 37 ¿yyilovтos žồn πρòs
ἐγγίζοντος ἤδη πρὸς
τῇ καταβάσει τοῦ ὄρους τῶν ἐλαιῶν is to be rendered: as he was 370
already close to etc. (In the Sept. Tpós with the Dative occurs 7th ed.
much more frequently than in the N. T.)
f. IIepí and úró are never used in the N. T. with the Dative.
1 If mapá with the Dat. is employed with a verb of motion, the same attraction must
be acknowledged which occurs when ev is so used. But in Xen. A. 2, 5, 27, which
Kühner adduces as the only instance, recent editors on the authority of Codd. give
mapà Tioσapépvny. On the other hand, see Plutarch. Themist. c. 5 and Sintenis in loc.
It cannot, however, be denied that in the Dative itself the notion of whither is originally
contained (p. 214). Cf. Hartung über d. Casus. S. 81.
396
§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE
353
6th ed.
415
§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE.
a. Els (the opposite of ex Rom. i. 17; v. 16).
a) In the local sense it denotes not merely into, in among (Luke
x. 36; Acts iv. 17, likewise Mark xiii. 14 eis rà opn as we say, into the
mountains), or (of countries and cities) to (into) Matt. xxviii. 16;
Acts x. 5; xii. 19, etc., but also (of levels) on Mark xi. 8 eorρwσav
eis Tηv ódóv, Acts xxvi. 14; Rev. ix. 3, and even simply to (ad),
thitherward (of motion or direction) Mark iii. 7 (Polyb. 2, 23, 1),
Matt. xxi. 1; Juo. xi. 38 pxeтαι eis тò μnueîov cometh to the
tomb, cf. vs. 41; iv. 5 cf. vs. 28; xx. 1 cf. vs. 11; Acts ix. 2; Luke
vi. 20 ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς εἰς τοὺς μαθητάς towards his disciples,
Rev. x. 5 (els тòv oùρavóv) Xen. Cyr. 1, 4, 11; Aeschin. dial. 2, 2.
In reference to persons it hardly signifies to (πρós or is Mdv. 33;
Bhdy. 215), but among, inter, Acts xx. 29; xxii. 21; Luke xi. 49;
Rom. v. 12; xvi. 26; Plato Prot. 349 a.; Gorg. 526 b. (when it
occasionally approaches the import of the Dative, Luke xxiv. 47,
see above, § 31, 5); 1 in one passage, into a person's house, Acts
xvi. 40 eisîλÐov eis tǹv Avdíav (according to many [minuscule]
Codd.) see Valcken. in loc. cf. Lys. orat. 2 in. Strabo 17, 796;
Fischer, Well. III. II. p. 150; Schoem. Isae. 363, and Plutarch.
Agis p. 124, (but the better Codd. [Sin. also] give πρós).
b) Applied to time, eis signifies sometimes a point, limit for, at
which Acts iv. 3 (Herod. 3, 5, 2), or up to, till which, Jno. xiii. 1;
2 Tim. i. 12;2 sometimes a period (for, during, like éni) Luke
xii. 19 eis Toλλà ëтŋ (Xen. M. 3, 6, 13).
c) Used tropically, of ideal relations, it denotes any aim or end;
as, Acts xxviii. 6 μηδὲν ἄτοπον εἰς αὐτὸν γινόμενον unto, towards
(on) him, cf. Plut. Moral. p. 786 c.; hence, a. the measure, amount
(Bhdy. 218) which something reaches, 2 Cor. x. 13 eis тà äµeтρa
ἄμετρα
kavɣâσlaι, iv. 17 (Lucian. dial. mort. 27, 7), cf. also the well-
known εἰς μάλιστα and εἰς τρίς. B. the condition into which
something is brought, Acts ii. 20; Rev. xi. 6; Heb. vi. 6; cf. like-
371 wise Eph. ii. 21 f. y. the result, Rom. x. 10 (xiii. 14), 1 Cor.
7th ed. xi. 17 εἰς τὸ κρεῖττον συνέρχεσθε. 8. the direction of the feelings
1 Likewise in 1 Cor. xiv. 36; 2 Cor. x. 14 eis is more appropriate than πpós, inasmuch
as in all these passages ideal reaching to one (his knowledge or intercourse with him)
is spoken of.
(The more expressive) ews (or µéxpi) is oftener used in this sense; and many
passages adduced in Lexicons under the signification usque ad are not purely temporal,
but include the eis of purpose, aim, Gal. iii. 17, 23; Eph. iv. 30.
§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE.
397
views, etc. and the deportment towards (erga and contra), 1 Pet.
iv. 9 piλóćevo eis aλλλovs, Rom. viii. 7 (Her. 6, 65), xii. 16;
Matt. xxvi. 10; 3 Jno. 5; Col. iii. 9; 2 Cor. viii. 24; x. 1; Luke
xii. 10, to which sense likewise Col. i. 20 ȧTоKатаλλÚTTEW TI Eis
αυτόν may be referred (cf. διαλλάττειν πρός τινα Demosth. ep. 3, 354
p. 114; Thuc. 4, 59 etc.);¹ further, the direction both of the 6th ed
thoughts, Acts ii. 25 Aavid λéyeɩ eis autóv aiming at (referring to)
him (dicere in aliquem, cf. Kypke in loc.), Eph. i. 10; v. 32; Heb.
vii. 14; cf. Acts xxvi. 6,2 and of the desires (after something) Phil.
i. 23 and of the will in general; and then, the occasion Matt.
xii. 41 εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα ᾿Ιωνᾶ at the preaching; the purpose and
end in view (Bhdy. 219) Luke v. 4 xaλúσate тà díkтva vµôv eis
ἄγραν for a draught (to catch), 2 Cor. ii. 12 ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν Τρωάδα
eis tò evayyéλov for the gospel i.e. in order to publish it, Acts
ii. 38; vii. 5; Rom. v. 21; vi. 19; viii. 15; ix. 21; xiii. 14; xvi. 19;
Heb. x. 24; xii. 7; 1 Pet. iv. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 12; 2 Cor. ii. 16; vii. 9;
Gal. ii. 8; Phil. i. 25 (eis ő for which Col. i. 29; 2 Thess. i. 11;
cf. 1 Pet. ii. 8, eis Tɩ Matt. xxvi. 8). In this way are explained
also the phrases ἐλπίζειν, πιστεύειν εἴς τινα, as well as the passages
in which els relating to persons signifies for, Rom. x. 12 #λOUTÔV
eis Távтas, Luke xii. 21; 1 Cor. xvi. 1 etc. (and thus borders on
the Dat. see a) above), and lastly, the looser connections where
c's is rendered in reference to, as respects, with regard to (Bhdy. 416
220; Bornem. Xen. Cyr. p. 484) Acts xxv. 20; 2 Pet. i. 8; Rom.
iv. 20; xv. 2 (of things, Xen. Mem. 3, 5, 1; Philostr. Apoll. 1, 16),
2 Cor. xi. 10; Eph. iii. 16; iv. 15; Rom. xvi. 5 (of persons).
Sometimes subjective and objective purpose, aim and effect, cannot
be separated, Heb iv. 16; Luke ii. 34; Rom. xiv. 1; Jude 21.
The German zu, for, to, includes both. Further, cf. § 29, 3 note.
The following alleged significations of eis are to be rejected: Sub (Rom.
xi. 32 cf. Gal. iii. 22); cis here retains the signification of in, as we can
say included in just as well as under; With (of the instrument), in Acts
xix. 3 εἰς τὸ Ἰωάννου βάπτισμα (ἐβαπτίσθημεν) is a direct answer to the
question εἰς τί οὖν ἐβαπτίσθητε; strictly the answer should have been,
unto that unto which John baptized. The expression is abbreviated there-
1 It is not necessary to consider this phrase pregnant, as Fr. Rom I. 278 does. It
is obviously founded on the same conception as the expression preferred by Greek
authors διαλλάττειν πρός τινα.
2 Likewise oμórai els 'Iepoσóλvµa Matt. v. 35 is substantially to be referred to this
signification; see Fr. in loc.
8 But in Jno. iv. 14 ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον is probably to be rendered into, though
B Crusius is of a different opinion.
398
§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE.
fore, or rather, inexact.
Nor can is be strictly rendered before, coram
in Acts xxii. 30 (see Kühnöl), cf. Heind. Plat. Protag. 471; Stallb. Plat.
372 symp. p. 43 sq.; but eornoav (avтòv) eis aŬTOús is: introduced (placed)
7th ed. him among them, in the midst (eis pérov). In 2 Cor. xi. 6 év navrì pave-
pwlévtes eis vµâs is very nearly: towards you (erga), as elsewhere πpós is
used. That eis is ever equivalent to diά with Gen. is a fiction; and eis
Siarayàs åyyéλwv Acts vii. 53 is most simply rendered upon the injunctions
of angels (which, indeed, as respects sense amounts to in consequence of
such injunctions), unless the interpretation proposed § 32, 4 b. p. 228 be
preferred. As to eis for èv see § 50, 4, p. 414 sq.
1
355 b. 'Avá upon, up along ¹ (Bhdy. 233 f.), occurs in the N. T.
6th ed. chiefly in the phrase ȧvà μéσov with Gen. of place, through the
417
midst of, (in) between, Mark vii. 31; Matt. xiii. 25, and figura-
tively with Gen. of a person, 1 Cor. vi. 5 Siaкpîvaι åvà µéσoV TOÛ
ådeλþoû. Then, with numerals, in a distributive sense; as, Jno.
ii. 6 ὑδρίαι χωροῦσαι ἀνὰ μετρητὰς δύο ή τρεῖς containing tuo or
three metretae apiece, [Matt. xx. 9], Luke ix. 3; x. 1; Mark vi. 40
(where Lehm. [and Tdf.] following Codd. B. [Sin.] give kaтá);
so frequently in Greek authors. The preposition thus gradually
assumes the nature of an adverb (Bhdy. 234). This distributive
signification probably grew out of such phrases as ȧvà Tâv éтTOS
every year, year by year.
IIug, in the Freiburger Zeitschr. VI. 41 f., proposed to render the above
passage from John: containing about two or three metretae; but he has
not succeeded in establishing such a use. In Polyb. 2, 10, 3 and Dio
Cass. 59, 2 ¿vá manifestly signifies each, apiece. In Polyb. 1, 16, 2 nobody
will believe that the writer intended to state the strength of the Roman
legion indefinitely, as merely 'about' 4000 foot and 300 cavalry. In Her.
7, 184 ἀνὰ διηκοσίους ἄνδρας λογιζομένοισι ἐν ἑκάστῃ νηΐ is a pleonastic ex-
pression, similar to others of frequent occurrence — 200 apiece ... in each
ship, (at the rate of etc.). Rev. iv. 8 èv kať ềv avtŵv éxov åvà ttépvyas ɧ
is similar. Moreover, the Greeks use èπí with the Acc. to express about,
for, a numerical amount.
c. A with the Acc. indicates the ground (ratio), not the design
(not even in 1 Cor. vii. 2),2 and signifies on account of (even in
1 Hm. de partic. ěv p. 5: Primum ac proprium usum habet in iis, quae in al. rei
superficie ab imo ad summum cundo conspiciuntur: motus enim significationem ei
adhaerere quum ex co intelligitur, quod non est apta visa quac cum verbo elvai com-
poneretur, tum docct usus ejus adverbialis, ut å^^' &va è éspávwv. Further, cf. Spitzner
de vi et usu praepositt. ȧvà et кaтά. Viteb. 1831.
2 That is to say, it is only per consequens that the notion of design is implied in dià
Tàs Topveías: on account of fornications let every man have his own wife. Fornications are
§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE.
399
Jno. vii. 43; x. 19; xv. 3 etc.), or, when the motive of an action
is meant, out of, from, Matt. xxvii. 18 dià plóvov out of (from)
envy, Eph. ii. 4 διὰ τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην Diod. S. 19, 54 διὰ τὴν
πρÒS TOÙS ÝTUXηkóтas eλeov, Aristot. rhet. 2, 13; Demosth. Conon.
730 c.). As to Rom. iii. 25, which even Reiche has misunder- 373
stood, see Bengel. In Heb. v. 12 dià tòv xpóvov is, on account 7th ed.
of the time, considering the time (you have enjoyed Christian
instruction;¹ not, as Schulz renders it, after so long a time).
Sometimes Stá with Acc. denotes apparently the means (ground
or motive and means are very closely connected, cf. Demosth. cor.
354 a.; Xen. M. 3, 3, 15; Liv. 8, 53; and in the poets dá is
sometimes used with the Acc. even in a local sense, see Bhdy.
236): Jno. vi. 57 κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα καὶ ὁ τρώγων με ζήσεται 356
Si éué, just as in Long. pastor. 2 p. 62 Schaef. Sià Tàs vúμpas 6th ed
noe, Plut. Alex. 668 e. But the passage strictly means, I live
by reason of the Father, that is, because the Father lives, cf. Plat.
conv. 283 e.; Fr. Rom. I. 197, who adduces as parallel Cic. Rosc.
Am. 22, 63 ut, propter quos hanc suavissimam lucem adspexerit,
eos indignissime luce privaret. Passages more or less similar are
Demosth. Zenoth. 576 a.; Aristoph. Plut. 470; Aeschin. dial. 1, 2; 418
Dion. H. III. 1579; cf. Wyttenb. Plut. Mor. II. p. 2 Lips.; Sintenis,
Plutarch. Themist. 121; Thuc. ed. Poppo III. II. 517. But Heb.
v. 14; vi. 7 by no means belong here, nor (as de Wette and Ewald
still maintain) Rev. xii. 11 évíknoav dià tò aîµa, cf. vii. 14 and
what immediately follows, καὶ οὐκ ἠγάπησαν τὴν ψυχήν etc. As
to Rom. viii. 11 (where the reading, indeed, varies) see Fr., and
as to Jno. xv. 3 Mey. in loc. In 2 Cor. iv. 5; Heb. ii. 9; 2 Pet.
ii. 2 (where Schott still renders it by per, which gives a false sense
even; Bengel otherwise) Rev. iv. 11, Sià is quite appropriately
translated for the sake of. So too in Rom. viii. 202 (where Schott
has per again). But in Rom. xv. 15 dià Tηv xúpi την doleîσúv μoi
τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι
the ground of this regulation, inasmuch as they are to be prevented. In Greek authors
also design sometimes in the same way attaches itself to diά; see the annotators on
Thuc. 4, 40 and 102.
1 The phrase is used thus, essentially, in Polyb. 2, 21, 2 and elsewhere, see Bleck on
the above passage. Schulz insists in applying the temporal sense of dia to Heb. ii. 9
likewise. But dià тd πálnμa тoû lavárov means, on account of the suffering of death,
and is elucidated from the well-known connection, recognized by the apostolic writers,
between the sufferings and the exaltation of Christ.
2 Here διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα constitutes an antithesis to οὐχ εκοῦσα, not voluntarily, but
by reason of him that subjected,-by the will and command of God. Probably Paul
intentionally avoided saying διὰ τοῦ ὑποτάξαντος, equivalent to ὁ θεὸς ὑπέταξε αὐτήν.
Adam's sin was the proper and direct cause of the paraιóτNS.
400
§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE.
the preposition must not, in consideration of xii. 3 Sià Ths xápiтоs
Tĥs doleions μot, be understood in this sense; both expressions are
τῆς δοθείσης μοι,
proper. 1 Jno. ii. 12 is correctly rendered by Lücke. 2 Pet. ii. 2
needs no comment. In 2 Pet. iii. 12 Sử v may be referred to ý
Tоû Оεоû μéрa, and translated on account of; yet if referred to
πaрovσía, as is done by Bengel, it gives sense. Lastly, in Gal.
iv. 13 δι' ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός is probably not to be understood
(Schott) of the state, condition (di ào¤evelas), but means: on
account of weakness, owing to a weakness; see Mey.
d. Kará. The local (primary) meaning is,
a) down upon (down along, cf. Aeschin. dial. 3, 19), passing
374 on, through, over (Xen. C. 6, 2, 22); as, Luke viii. 39 åπîìße каÐ
7th ed. ὅλην τὴν πόλιν κηρύσσων, xv. 14 λιμὸς κατὰ τὴν χώραν throughout
the country, all over the country, Acts viii. 1 (2 Macc. iii. 14;
Strabo 3, 163); Acts v. 15 èxpépeiv katà Tтàs πλaтeías through the
streets, along the streets, viii. 36 (Xen. An. 4, 6, 11), Luke ix. 6;
xiii. 22; Acts xi. 1; xxvii. 2 (Xen. C. 8, 1, 6, Raphel. in loc.).¹
1
Uniformly of horizontal extension. So even in Acts xxvi. 3 Tà
419 κατὰ τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἔθη καὶ ζητήματα the customs etc. extending
throughout the Jews (common among the Jews).2
357 b) on to, towards, Phil. iii. 14 (Kaтà σKOTóv towards the mark),
6th ed. Acts viii. 26; xvi. 7; Luke x. 32 (Aesop. 88, 4; Xen. C. 8, 5, 17);
likewise mercly of the direction (geographical position, versus),
Acts ii. 10 της Λιβύης τῆς κατὰ Κυρήνην, xxvii. 12 λιμένα βλέποντα
Kaтà λíẞa (Xen. An. 7, 2, 1). Accordingly, kатà πρósштóν тIVOS
signifies to one's face i.e. before one's eyes, Luke ii. 31; Acts iii. 13;
so also kaт' óþaλµoús Gal. iii. 1 (Xen. Hist. 1, 14 like kaт' oµµa
Eurip. Androm. 1064, κат' öμpaтa Soph. Ant. 756). Likewise in
Rom. viii. 27 kаTÀ DEÒV EVTUyxável does not mean (in a local
sense) apud deum, but, properly, towards God, before God.³
1 Kard in its local signification is not properly synonymous with èv (as even Kühnöl
on Acts xi. 1 asserts). Karà Thy Tóλ means, throughout the city; кal' ¿dóν along the
road, on the road (as on a line). Even кaт' olkov, where the primary meaning recedes
farthest from view, is used to express a different conception from ev otky (as zu Hause,
at home is different from im Ilause, in the house). Besides, raтá has established itself in
many phrases where probably v might have been used.
2 Hence comes the meaning with, among, as oi кαð vµâs Toral Acts xvii. 28, cf.
xiii. 1 and other passages; see above, p. 193. Kard with a personal pronoun is em-
ployed thus, especially in later authors, as merely a circumlocution for a possessive
pronoun; see Hase, Leo Diac. p. 230.
8 Against this explanation, adopted also by Fr. Krehl and others, various objections
have recently been raised, particularly by Mey. and Philippi. The most unimportant
of all is that then xar' auтóv would be used. The emphasis implied in the substantive
§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE.
401
Closely connected with this is the temporal use of the preposition,
sometimes as in Acts xvi. 25 κatà тò peσovúktiv towards midnight,
and sometimes as in Matt. xxvii. 15 κaľ éopτýv during the festival,
i. 20 Kaт' övap during a dream, secundum quietem (Herod. 2, 7, 6,
KaTà þŵs by daylight Xen. C. 3, 3, 25, Kaтà Bíov Plato, Gorg. 488 a.),
Heb. ix. 9 also iii. 8 (Sept.) κaтà tǹv ýµéρav тoû teipaoμoû in the
day etc., and Kaтà Tò avтó at the same time Acts xiv. 1.
4
Hence it is employed of both place and time in a distributive
sense, first with plural nouns, as Kaтà þvλús by tribes, Matt. xxiv. 7
KaTà TÓTOUS, Acts xxii. 19, Kaтà dúo in pairs 1 Cor. xiv. 27 (Plato,
ep. 6, 323 c.), Mark vi. 40 var.; afterwards frequently with singular
nouns, as in Acts xv. 21 Kaтà Tóλ from city to city (Diod. S.
19, 77; Plutarch. Cleom. 25; Dio Chr. 16, 461; Palaeph. 52, 7),
Kat' èviavtóv yearly Heb. ix. 25 (Plato, pol. 298 e.; Xen. C. 8, 6, 375
16, κaтà µñvа Xen. An. 1, 9, 17; Dio C. 750, 74), κaľ nµépav 7th ed.
daily Acts ii. 46; 1 Cor. xvi. 2 (Hm. Vig. 860).¹
ат
Used figuratively kaтá is the preposition of reference and direc- 420
tion to something: either generally, as in Eph. vi. 21 tà kat' èµé
quae ad me pertinent, Acts xxv. 14, or in limitation of a general
expression (Her. 1, 49; Soph. Trach. 102 and 379) Eph. vi. 5 oi
κатà σáρка Kúριot as respects the flesh, so far as concerns the flesh,
Rom. ix. 5 ἐξ ὧν (Ιουδαίων) ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα (1 Pet. iv. 14),
Acts iii. 22; Rom. vii. 22 also xi. 28 and xvi. 25; or specially
κα
a) the measure, the standard, according to, in conformity to,
as in Eph. iv. 7; Matt. xxv. 15; Jno. ii. 6; Luke ii. 22 κaтà vóμov,
Heb. ix. 19 (Xen. Cyr. 5, 5, 6), Acts xxvi. 5; Rom. xi. 21 KAтà 358
púow, Matt. ix. 29 katà tǹv tíotiv vµŵv according to your faith, 6th ed
as it deserves, 2 Cor. iv. 13; Rom. ii. 2 κатà ảλýleιav, Matt. ii. 16
Kaтà XρóvοV according to the time. Hence it denotes similarity,
sort (pattern), Heb. viii. 8 f. συντελέσω . . . διαθήκην καινήν, οὐ κατὰ
Tǹv Siałýêŋv, ŷv èπоíŋσa etc. (1 Kings xi. 10), Acts xviii. 14.
Likewise with names of persons kaтá тiva usually signifies accord-
ing to some one's opinion Col. ii. 8 (Eph. ii. 2); 2 Cor. xi. 17, or
will Rom. xv. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 8; cf. Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 91, or
is easily felt, and is indicated visibly, too, by the position of κaтà 0e6v, though the point
of principal moment lies in vrèp ayiwv. The translation, according to God, introduces
an entirely unnecessary idea into the passage, since of the Spirit no different intercession
can be thought of.
¹ Also кať čavтóv for one's self is usually referred to this use (see e.g. Passow), but
erroneously, as the phrase is not distributive. Kal' avтóv, and the like, properly means
in reference to one's self, whereby something is restricted to a single subject; hence for
one's self, adv. seorsum. As to exei K. Éavтóv, see Fr. Rom. III. 212.
402
$ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE.
a
according to some one's pattern and example, as in Gal. iv. 28.
κатà 'Iσаáк in the same way as Isaac, ad exemplum Isaaci, 1 Pet.
i. 15; Eph. iv. 24 (Plato, Parm. 126 c.; Lucian. pisc. 6, 12; eunuch.
13; Dio C. 376, 59; cf. Kypke and Wetst. on Gal. as above, Marle,
floril. p. 64 sq.). It is used of authors: Tò Kaтà Maтaîov évayyé-
Mov the gospel (the evangelic history) as recorded by Matthew
(according to Matthew's understanding and exposition of it).
As to εἶναι κατὰ σάρκα, κατὰ πνεύμα Rom. viii. 5, see the expositors.
In the (Pauline) phrase κaт' äveрwπоv after the manner of man,
in (ordinary) human fashion, (with contexts of various descrip-
tions), kaтá is used more generally: Rom. iii. 5; Gal. i. 11;
iii. 15; 1 Cor. ix. 8; 1 Pet. iv. 6 (see Wiesing. in loc.), see Fr.
Rom. I. 159 sq.¹ Cf. in connection with the same use of Katú,
421 Rom. iv. 4 Kaтà xáρ by way of grace, 1 Cor. ii. 1 кað úπeρOXÒV
376 Móyov, Phil. iii. 6; Eph. vi. 6; Rom. xiv. 15; Acts xxv. 23 àvspáσi
Tih ed. τοῖς κατ' ἐξοχὴν τῆς πόλεως.
b) the occasion (and the motive), a sense closely allied to the
preceding (hence in Rom. iv. 4 Kaтà xáρw may be rendered also,
of (out of) grace), Matt. xix. 3 åπоλûσαι тην yνvaÎKA KATà TâσAV
airiav for every cause, on every ground (Kypke in loc., cf. Paus. 5,
10,
2
', 2; 6, 18; 2, 7), Rom. ii. 5; Acts iii. 17 xaтà άyvolav Éπpá§ATE
in consequence of ignorance (Raphel. in loc.), Phil. iv. 11 ovx őtɩ
Kaľ vσTéρnow Xéyw from (in consequence of suffering) want, Tit.
iii. 5; 1 Pet. i. 3 kaтà tò avtoû ëλeos,² Eph. i. 5; Her. 9, 17 (KaTÀ
τό
Tò exlos) etc. cf. Diog. L. 6, 10; Arrian. Al. 1, 17, 13. Also in Heb.
xi. 7 ἡ κατὰ πίστιν δικαιοσύνη the righteousness which proceeds
from faith.
c) the intention, purpose, for, to (Jno. ii. 6), 2 Tim. i. 1; 3 Tit.
i. 1 (cf. Rom. i. 5 eis), and the (necessary) result, 2 Cor. xi. 21
1 In 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10 λυπεῖσθαι κατὰ θεόν and λύπη κ. θ. is not sorrow produced by
God (Kypke in loc.), but, as Bengel aptly says, animi Deum spectantis et sequentis, to
sorrow according to God i.e. after the mind and will of God. In the passage that
But
follows Paul might in the same way have written ἡ κατὰ τὸν κόσμον λύπη.
τοῦ κ
TоÛ KÓσμOV λún has a meaning somewhat different: the sorrow of the world, i.e. as
the world (those who belong to the world) possesses and experiences it (of course about
the things of the кóσμos). Bengel in like manner has duly appreciated the difference
between these two expressions. In 1 Pet. iv. 6 катà ȧvēράтоus means after the manner
of men, and is more closely defined by the annexed σаρkí; just so kaтà leóv means
after the manner of God, which is more closely defined by πνεύματι (for God is πνεύμα).
2 Accordingly Haтά sometimes stands parallel to the Dat. (instrum.), as in Arrian.
Αl. 5, 21, 4 κατ᾽ ἔχθος τὸ Πώρου μᾶλλον ἢ φιλίᾳ τῇ ᾿Αλεξάνδρου. See Fr. Rom. I. 99.
8 Matthies gives an artificial exposition with the remark that it cannot be shown that,
Kaтá expresses object. This import, however, is very naturally involved in the original
meaning of this preposition. Moreover, see Mtth. 1356, 1359.
§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE.
403
6th ed.
Kaт' ÚTIμíav Xéуw to (as a, by way of) reproach (Her. 2, 152;
Thuc. 5, 7; 6, 31). The signification cum must be rejected,
though Kará may sometimes be translated with. In Rom x. 2 359
ζῆλος θεοῦ ἀλλ᾽ οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν is real for God, but not according
to knowledge, i.e. not as zeal resulting from knowledge manifests
itself (cf. above, кaт' άyvolav), 1 Pet. iii. 7. In Heb. xi. 13 Kaтà
Tíσтív áπéðavov etc. means: they died in (according to) faith,
without having received etc.; it was in accordance with faith
(with the nature of Trioris) that they died having seen only from
afar the fulfilment of the promises. The idea of Kaтà Tíoтw is
contained in the second participial clause.
e. Trép with Acc. signifies beyond, away-over (Her. 4, 188;
Plato, Crit. 108 e.; Plut. virt. mul. p. 231 Lips.). In the N. T. it
never occurs in reference to place, but is always used figuratively,
beyond, over and above in number, rank, quality; as, Acts xxvi. 13
φῶς περιλάμψαν . . . ὑπὲρ τὴν λαμπρότητα τοῦ ἡλίου, Matt. x. 24
OVK ÉσTI µAÐηTǹs vπèρ Tòv didáσkaλov, Philem. 16; Matt. x. 37 å
Piλŵv πаTÉρa úπèρ èµé (Aesch. dial. 3, 6), 2 Cor. i. 8 (Epict. 31,
37) ; Gal. i. 14, also 2 Cor. xii. 13 τί γάρ ἐστιν, ὃ ἡττήθητε ὑπὲρ
TÀS XOLTÀS ÉKKλNoías inferior beyond the other churches (gradation 422
downwards). Concerning ép after comparatives, see § 35, 1.
皆
​f. Merá denotes motion into the midst of something, Iliad 2, 376.
Then it signifies motion after, behind, something; in prose, how-
ever, it more frequently means behind, after (post) of a state of
rest, Heb. ix. 3 µetà tò deútepov KATAπÉTаσµа (Рaus. 3, 1, 1). In
all other passages of the N. T. where it occurs it signifies after in
regard to time, (the opposite of pó), even in Matt. xxvii. 63
where the popular expression presents no difficulty, see Krebs,
obs. p. 87 sq.- and 1 Cor. xi. 25 μeтà тò deiπvñoa, which must 377
not, in consideration of Matt. xxvi. 26 (ẻσlióvтwv avtŵv), be 7th ed.
rendered by during; on the other hand, cf. Luke xxii. 20. So
too, the familiar expression μe ηµépav interdiu (Ellendt, Arrian.
Al. 4, 13, 10) properly denotes post lucem, after daybreak.
g. Ilapá. The primary import is beside, along, of a line or
extended space, Matt. iv. 18 περιπατῶν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν ..
eide etc. walking along the sea-side (Xen. C. 5, 4, 41; A. 4, 6, 4;
6, 2, 1; Plato Gorg. 511e.), xiii. 4 éπeσe πaρà tǹv ódóv fell (along)
by the wayside. Then it is used also of a point of space,-
belonging, however, to an extended object; as, epxeodai πapà TǹV
Oáλaooav to the sea-side Matt. xv. 29; Acts xvi. 13, píπTew or
Tiðévai Taρà ToÙS Tódas T. to beside the feet Matt. xv. 30; Acts
404 $ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE.
360
6th ed.
iv. 35; cf. Held, Plutarch. Timol. 356. It is used only thus also
with verbs of rest, as of sitting, standing, lying, (being situated)
παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν οι τὴν λίμνην οι παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν (propter mare,
viam) Matt. xx. 30; Luke v. 1 sq.; xviii. 35; Heb. xi. 11; Acts
x. 6 ᾧ ἐστιν οἰκία παρὰ θάλασσαν (vs. 32), cf. Χen. A. 3, 5, 1; 7,
2, 11; Paus. 1, 38, 9; Aesop. 44, 1; Hartung d. Casus S. 83.
Further, Tapá means beside the mark or aim, and consequently
(as the context may determine), sometimes above, as in Rom.
xii. 3 (to which Fr. compares Plutarch. Mor. 83 f. Davμаoтaì Tаρ'
ồ Ô), sometimes below, as in 2 Cor. xi. 24 TEUTĆKIS Teco aparoura
Taρà µíav forty (with the omission of one) less one, Joseph. antt.
4, 8, 1 (cf. Heb. ii. 7 Sept.), Blidy. 258. In the former sense it
is used figuratively,
a) in comparisons, as in Luke xiii. 2 åµаρтwλol Taρà Távтas
423 above all (more than all, see vπéρ, cf. § 35, 2 b.), iii. 13; Heb. i. 9
(Sept.); iii. 3 (Dio Cass. 152, 16; analogous to which is aλos
Tаρá 1 Cor. iii. 11 other than, equivalent to the ordinary aλλos ʼn,
cf. Stallb. Phileb. 51); Rom. xiv. 5 кρíveι μéρav πаρ' nµéрav
to judge (esteem) one day above another, i.e. to prefer one day to
another.
b) against: Acts xviii. 13 πapà vóµov (Xen. M. 1, 1, 18; Lucian.
Demon. 49); Rom. i. 26 Tapà púow (praeter naturam Plat. rep.
5, 466 d.; Plut. educ. 4, 9); iv. 18 map' èxmida (praeter spem,
Plato pol. 295 d.); xvi. 17; Heb. xi. 11 (Thuc. 3, 54; Xen. A. 2,
5, 41; 5, 8, 17; 6, 4, 28; Philostr. Apoll. 1, 38); compare the
expressions overstep, transgress, the law. The opposite would be:
Kaтà þúσɩ etc., cf. Xen. M. as above, Plut. educ. 4, 9.
c) in Rom. i. 25 Tаρà тòν ктíσaνта with the omission of the
Creator (consequently, instead of the Creator). In one passage
Tapá indicates the ground or reason: 1 Cor. xii. 15 [16] Tаρà
TOUTO therefore, strictly with (beside) this, since this is so, Weber,
Demosth. p. 521 (Plut. Camill. 28; Dio C. 171, 96; Lucian. paras.
378 12 and often). In Latin, as is well-known, propter (from prope,
cf. propter flumen) became the ordinary causal preposition, (Vig.
p. 862; Vkm. Fritzsche, quaestion. Lucian. p. 124 sq.; Maetzner,
Antiph. p. 182).
7th ed.
h. IIpós to, towards, with verbs of motion or mere direction
(Acts iv. 24; Eph. iii. 14; 1 Cor. xiii. 12 πρóswπov πρòs πρóswπov
1 Such expressions as Polyb. 1, 55, 7 ἐν τῇ παρὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν κειμένῃ πλευρᾷ τῆς
Zikeλías situated (extending) towards, alongside of, Italy, constitute the transition to
this use of the preposition.
§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE.
405
face turned to face). Sometimes the force of the Acc. seems to
disappear and πpós means with, particularly before names of per-
sons, as in Matt. xiii. 56; Jno. i. 1; 1 Cor. xvi. 6 (Demosth. Apat.
579 a.); even here, however, πpós denotes (ideal) annexation.
But the appropriateness of the Acc. is still perceptible in Mark
iv. 1 ὁ ὄχλος πρὸς τὴν θάλασσαν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἦν on the land towards
the sea (by the sea-side), ii. 2; still more in Acts v. 10; xiii. 31;
Phil. iv. 6; see Fr. Mr. p. 201 sq., cf. Schoem. Isae. p. 244. The
Latin ad, as is well-known, has both significations.
The temporal applications πρòs kaiрóv for a time Luke viii. 13;
Jno. v. 35; Heb. xii. 10 f., and πρòs éσπéрav towards evening Luke
xxiv. 29 (Wetst. I. 826), are seen at a glance to be warranted;
(cf. above, éπí § 47, g, d) p. 375, and § 48, c. p. 392).
Figuratively, Tpós denotes the end towards which something is
directed, and consequently the result, issue, as 2 Pet. iii. 16 à ...
στρεβλοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτῶν ἀπώλειαν, Heb. v. 14; ix. 13 ;
1 Tim. iv. 7 (Simplic. in Epict. 13 p. 146), Jno. xi. 4; but espe-
cially the direction of the mind towards something, e.g. Heb. i. 7 424
πρὸς τοὺς ἀγγέλους λέγει in reference to speaking with regard to
them), Luke xx. 19; Rom. x. 21 (not Heb. xi. 18), like dicere in
aliquem; cf. Plutarch. de ei ap. Delph. c. 21; Xen. M. 4, 2, 15;—
in particular
a) disposition towards one, erga and contra,¹ as in Luke xxiii. 12; 361
1 Thess. v. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 2; vii. 12; Acts vi. 1; Heb. xii. 4; Col. 6th ed.
iv. 5; Rev. xiii. 6.
b) design (direction of the will) and object (purpose, behalf),
as in 1 Cor. x. 11; xii. 7; Matt. vi. 1; Heb. vi. 11; Acts xxvii. 12;
Hence πρòs τí wherefore (quo consilio)
2 Cor. xi. 8; 1 Pet. iv. 12.
Jno. xiii. 28; cf. Soph. Aj. 40.
c) consideration for something, Matt. xix. 8 Mwσns πρòs TηU
σкλŋроkaρdíaν vµŵv éπéтρeyev etc. out of regard to, on account of,
the hardness of your hearts (Polyb. 5, 27, 4; 38, 3, 10).
d) the rule after, according to, which one is guided, Luke xii. 47;
Gal. ii. 14; 2 Cor. v. 10; Lucian. conser. hist. 38; Plat. apol. 40 e.;
Aeschin. dial. 3, 17; and hence the standard according to which
a comparison is instituted, as in Rom. viii. 18 оùк аžia тà πаlýμатa
τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ πρὸς τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι compared
to, as if applied to a standard of comparison, Bar. iii. 36 (Thuc.
1 Thus used but seldom except in verbs already containing the notion of hostility,
as in Sext. Empir. 3, 2 (Dio C. 250, 92). This remark is necessary to qualify the
statement in my Observatt. in. epist. Jac. p. 16.
406
$ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE.
379
7th ed.
6,31; Plat. Gorg. 471 e.; Hipp. maj. 281 d. ; Isocr. big. p. 842;
Aristot. pol. 2, 9, 1; Demosth. ep. 4, 119 a; cf. Wolf, Leptin. p. 251;
Jacobs, Aelian. anim. II. 340).
That in such expressions as διατίθεσθαι διαθήκην πρός τινα, διακρίνεσθαι
πρός τινα, εἰρήνην ἔχειν πρός τινα (Rom. v. 1), κοινωνία πρός τι 2 Cor. vi. 14
(cf. Philo ad Caium 1007; Himer. eclog. 18, 3) etc. (see Alberti, observ.
p. 303; Fr. Rom. I. 252) the preposition drops the meaning cum, and
signifies simply towards, has already been acknowledged by Bretschn. and
Wahl. Also in Heb. iv. 13 рòs öv ýµîv ó λóyos, the preposition denotes
direction; and Kühnöl might have reserved his remark, 'πpós signifies
cum' (cf. Elsner in loc.). Schleusner's rendering of the phrase evɣeolau
πрòs beóv by precari a deo, deserves to be mentioned only as a striking
instance of unlimited empiricism.
i. IIepí about, around. Primarily of place, as in Acts xxii. 6
περιαστράψαι φῶς περὶ ἐμέ α light shone round about me, Luke
425 xiii. 8; also with verbs of rest, as in Mark iii. 34 of Teρì avτòv
καθήμενοι, Matt. iii. 4 είχε ζώνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφύν about his loins.
Then of time, as in Mark vi. 48 περὶ τετάρτην φυλακήν about the
fourth watch (circa in Latin), Matt. xx. 3 (Aeschin. ep. 1, 121 b.) ;
Acts xxii. 6. Lastly, of the object around which an action or a
state revolves, as it were, as in Acts xix. 25 oi weρì tà tolaûta
épуúraι (Xen. Vectig. 4, 28); Luke x. 40 (Lucian. indoct. 6);
1 Tim. vi. 4 vooŵv teρì Yntńoeis (Plat. Phaed. 228 e.). Hence it
is sometimes equivalent to in reference to, as in Tit. ii. 7; 1 Tim.
i. 19; 2 Tim. iii. 8 (Xen. Mem. 4, 3, 2; Isocr. Evag. 4; errorem
circa literas habuit, and similar expressions, occur in Quintil. and
Sueton.). Cf. above, § 30, 3, note 5 p. 192, and Ast, Plat. legg. p. 37;
but especially Glossar. Theodoret. p. 317 sqq. Worthy of notice,
further, is the phrase of πepì Tòv Пaûλov Paul and his companions
362 Acts xiii. 13,2 like of Tepì Eevodovтa Xen. An. 7, 4, 16, of Teρì
6th ed. Kéжрота Xen. Mem. 3, 5, 10, an expression which in later authors
denotes the leader alone, Hm. Vig. 700. So probably in Jno. xi. 19
1 Merá in such phrases is used also by Greek authors, though this use seems to
become more common in the later language, Malal. 2, 52 επολέμησαν μετ᾿ ἀλλήλων, 13
p. 317, 337; 18 p. 457.
2 Greek writers, as is well known, employ aupí likewise in this circumlocution; but
in simple prose Tepí is in general far more frequent. That the expression of repl rdv
Пaûλov means not only the 'surroundings' (followers, companions, etc.) of Paul, but
also includes Paul himself, arises probably from the pictorial nature of the preposition,
which denotes what encompasses, and thus Paul's company. An expression somewhat
analogous to this is used in German, e.g. Müllers (genit.) i.e. Müller and his household.
(In Franconia they say, die Müllerschen, the Müllers, also including the head of the
family.)
§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE.
407
αἱ περὶ Μάρθαν καὶ Μαρίαν is to be interpreted; for the αὐταῖς
following can only refer to the two sisters. Examples (but with-
out precise discrimination) are adduced also by Wetst. I. 915 sq.;
Schwarz, Comment. p. 1074; Schweigh. Lexic. Polyb. p. 463. See
also Bhdy. 263.
k. 'Tπó originally denotes local motion, underneath, Matt. viii. 8
ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰςέλθης, Luke xiii. 34 ἐπισυνάξαι τὴν νοσσιὰν 380
ÚTTÒ TÀS πTÉρVYаs (Xen. C. 5, 4, 43; Plutarch. Thes. 3); also rest, 7th ed.
i.e. the being (extending) under a surface, as in Acts ii. 5 oi vπò
Tòv oúpavóv, Luke xvii. 24 (Plat. ep. 7, 326 c.), 1 Cor. x. 1 (Her.
2, 127; Plut. Themist. 26; Aesop. 36, 3),¹ also in Rom. iii. 13
(Sept.) ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν under their lips (cf. Her.
1,12 katakρúπtelv væò tǹv Oúρηv). Then figuratively (Bhdy. 267;
Boissonade, Nic. p. 56), Rom. vii. 14 πeπpaµévos úπò τηV áµaρTíav
sold under sin, into the power of sin, Matt. viii. 9 ëxwv úπ' éµavτòV
OтρаTITаs (Xen. C. 8, 8, 5) under me i.e. subject to my power,
1 Pet. v. 6; often in the phrase eivai or yíveolai úπó Ti to be under, 426
given up to, something, Matt. viii. 9; Rom. iii. 9; 1 Tim. vi. 1;
Gal. iii. 10; iv. 2, 21 (Lucian. abdic. 23). It is applied to time
in Acts v. 21 úπò тòv oρeроv (Lucian. amor. 1) close upon, towards
(like the local expression vπò Tò TeîXOS). Similar instances are
of frequent occurrence in Greek authors ; as, ὑπὸ νύκτα, ὑπὸ τὴν
ew etc. (see Alberti, observ. p. 224; Ellendt, Arrian. Alex. I. 146;
Schweigh. Lexic. Polyb. p. 633). The Romans, too, use sub in
the same way.
öρĺpov
1. 'ET 1) Of place: motion upon (over a level surface) Matt.
xxvii. 45 σκότος ἐγένετο ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν, xiv. 19 ἀνακλιθῆναι ἐπὶ
TOÙS XóρTOUS, Acts vii. 11 (xvii. 26); on or to, coming from above
or below, accordingly down upon Matt. x. 29 ènì yv, Acts iv. 33,
up upon Acts x. 9 åvéßn éπì tò Sŵµa, Matt. xxiv. 16; 1 Pet. ii. 24
(Xen. C. 3, 1, 4), also on (upon) Jno. xiii. 25 èmininteiv ènì Tò
σTĥlos on the breast (Jno. xxi. 20); up before (a high court)
Matt. x. 18; Luke xii. 11; in general, of the end towards, after,
at (which one advances, strives, arrives, etc.) Luke xv. 4; xxii. 52;
Acts viii. 36; Phil. iii. 14 (var.) Xen. Cyr. 1, 6, 39; An. 6, 2, 2;
Kypke in loc., rarely merely to (of persons) Mark v. 21; Acts i. 21.2 363
From this primary import we may easily explain the application 6th ed.
1 Accordingly Eurip. Alcest. 907 λûtai te piλwv tŵv inò yaîav, which Monk changed
into ird yaías, may probably be tolerated. Cf. Matthiae, Eurip. Hec. 144. The phrase
is certainly not peculiar to later Greck (Palacph. 10, 1).
2 From such passages must be distinguished Luke x. 9 ἤγγικεν ἐφ' ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία
Toû OeOû. Here a heavenly gift is spoken of which comes down on men; cf. Acts i. 8.
408
§ 49. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE.
of the preposition in Acts x. 10 ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ' αὐτὸν ἔκστασις (ν. 5),
i. 26 ἔπεσεν ὁ κλῆρος ἐπὶ Ματθίαν, ν. 28 ἐπαγαγεῖν ἐπί τινα τὸ αἷμα
ȧveρáπov Tivós, Jno. i. 33 and elsewhere. The German auf, almost
universally applicable as it is, is very similar (only, in rendering
Matt. xxvii. 29 ἐπέθηκαν κάλαμον ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιάν, a German would
say, in die rechte Hand; better Codd., however, [Sin. also] give
èv Tŷ değiậ, and the common reading cannot be defended by Rev.
xx. 1). It is only in appearance that eπí with the Acc. is joined
to verbs of rest; as in Matt. xiii. 2 ὁ ὄχλος ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλὸν εἱστήκει
stood (had placed themselves) upon the shore, cf. Odyss. 11, 577;
Diod. S. 20, 7. In Matt. xix. 28 кaliσeσle éπì Súdeка Oрóvovs (Paus.
1, 35, 2), 2 Cor. iii. 15 κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν κεῖται, Acts x. 17;
381 xi. 11, the same remark applies to the use of eri as to that of
7th ed. eis in similar circumstances; see § 50, 4 b.; Ellendt, Arrian. Alex.
427
II. 91.1
2) of the time over which something extends; as, Luke iv. 25
éπì eτη Tрía for, during, three years, Acts xiii. 31; xix. 10; Heb.
xi. 30; cf. Her. 3, 59; 6, 101; Thuc. 2, 25; Xen. C. 6, 2, 34;
Plat. legg. 12, 945 b.; Strabo 9, 401. Hence ép' ooov Matt. ix. 15;
2 Pet. i. 13 (Polyaen. 6, 22) as long as. More rarely of the point
of time towards which, at which, something takes place, Acts iii. 1
see Alberti in loc.
3) Figuratively: a) of the number and degree to which some-
thing amounts, as in Rev. xxi. 16 ἐπὶ σταδίους δώδεκα χιλιάδων
where we use up to (Her. 4, 198; Xen. C. 7, 5, 8; Polyb. 4, 39, 4)
Rom. xi. 13 ep' öoov in quantum i.e. quatenus. b) of superin-
κατ
1 Jas. v. 14 πрosevέáσ0wσav èπ' auróv may mean let them pray over (upon) him (folding
their hands over him in prayer, cf. Acts xix. 13), or pray down upon him, or even over
him, for èní is very often used with Acc. where the Dat. or Gen. might have been
expected. A recent expositor should not have rejected this exposition so lightly. In
Luke v. 25 é' d KаTÉKEITO (as the best Codd. [Sin. also] read) may be explained either
according to the preceding remark, or thus: upon (over) which (a level) he lay. Morcover
what is said above seems sufficient to justify the reading, furnished by good authority
[also by Cod. Sin.] and already adopted by Lehm., in Jno. xxi. 4 čotn éñì tdv aiyıanóv
(cf. Xen. Cyr. 3, 3, 68, see above in the text), which Matthäi erroneously calls a semi-
graecam correctionem. Elsewhere certainly the difference between érí with Acc. and èπí
with Gen. or Dat. is sometimes inconsiderable. When it is supposed, however, that in
Mark xv. 24 (we also say über die Kleidung loosen) Phil. ii. 27 (sorrow upon sorrow
so that one sorrow comes upon another already present) the Acc. stands for the Gen.
or Dat., a closer examination of the passages shows at once the incorrectness of the
supposition. But in Luke xxiii. 28; Rev. xviii. 11 the Dat. also might certainly have
been employed, cf. Luke xix. 41; Rev. xviii. 20, and in Rev. v. 1 the Acc. would have
been even more correct. These two constructions, though, are based on somewhat
different views of the matter. We also say über eine Sache freuen (to rejoice over a thing).
§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS.
409
tendence and power over, Rev. xiii. 7 ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία ἐπὶ πᾶσαν
Quλýv, Heb. iii. 6; x. 21 (Xen. C. 4, 5, 58), cf. Luke ii. 8; xii. 14,
Baoiλevew èπí Tiva Luke i. 33; Rom. v. 14; cf. Malal. 5 p. 143.
c) of the heart's direction, the disposition, hence towards (Franke,
Dem. 127), erga and contra, Matt. x. 21; Luke vi. 35; 2 Cor. x. 2; 364
Rom. ix. 23 (not 1 Pet. iii. 12), Sturz, ind. to Dio C. p. 151; hence 6th ed.
to trust, hope, upon Matt. xxvii. 43; 2 Cor. ii. 3; 1 Tim. v. 5;
1 Pet. i. 13, but also onλayxvíceolai éπi Tivi, to have compassion
on (towards) one, Matt. xv. 32; Mark viii. 2. d) of the direction
of thought or discourse, Mark ix. 12; Heb. vii. 13 (Rom. iv. 9),
or the will, and consequently of the intention and aim, Luke,
xxiii. 48 (Plat. Crit. 52 b.), Matt. iii. 7 (Xen. M. 2, 3, 13; Cyr.
7, 2, 14; Fischer, ind. ad Palaeph. under éí), Matt. xxvi. 50
ép' (Plato, Gorg. 447 b.), also when aim and result coincide,
Lastly, it is used in a very general sense: in ref-
erence to, as Matt. xxv. 40, 45 (as to Rom. xi. 13 see a)). On 428
TIσTÒS Éπí Tɩ Matt. xxv. 21, see Fr. in loc.
Heb. xii. 10.
§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ACCUMULATION, AND REPETITION OF
PREPOSITIONS.
1. The same preposition is employed in the same sentence or
in parallel passages (especially of the first three Evangelists) with
different cases to denote different relations; as, Heb. ii. 10 Sử ôv
τὰ πάντα καὶ δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα, Rev. v. 1; xi. 10 ; xiv. 6 ; cf.
1 Cor. xi. 9, 12 οὐκ ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα,— ἀνὴρ διὰ τῆς γυναικός.
Cf. Demosth. Philipp. 2 p. 25 c. To this more remotely may be
referred Heb. xi. 29 διέβησαν τὴν ἐρυθρὰν θάλασσαν ὡς διὰ
ξηράς, where the Acc. is governed by the compound διαβαίνειν,
after which, however, diá itself governs the Genitive (cf. Josh.
xxiv. 17 oùs Taрýλ0оμеv di aνTŵv, Wisd. x. 18). The distinction
between such different cases, in itself delicate, sometimes almost
wholly disappears in practice; as, Matt. xix. 28 őτav кalloŋ ...
ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ, καθίσεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐπὶ δώδεκα θρόνους,
xxiv. 2 οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον, Mark xiii. 2 οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ
rifos ẻ mì xí@ (ef. Josh. v. 15 in one and the same clause e
VÛV ČστηKAS Éπ' avтоû, Gen. xxxix. 5; xlix. 26; Exod. viii. 3;
xii. 7; Jon. iv. 10), Rev. v. 1, 13; vi. 2, 16; vii. 1; xiii. 16. In
the same way Greek authors employ ἀναβαίνειν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἵππους
and éπì тŵv iππшv (Вornem. Xen. conv. p. 272) the one as often
382
7th ed.
52
410
§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS.
T
as the other (Sept. even avaßaívei èπì тaîs oikiais Joel. ii. 9). In
Rev. xiv. 9 we find λαμβάνει τὸ χάραγμα ἐπὶ τοῦ μετώπου αὐτοῦ
ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ, xiii. 1. Cf. also Diog. L. 2, 77 . . . ἐπὶ τί
ἥκου; ἔφη ἐπὶ τῷ μεταδώσειν etc., Pol. 6, 7, 2 τραφέντας ὑπὸ
τοιούτοις, but 10, 25, 1 τραφεὶς καὶ παιδευθεὶς ὑπὸ Κλέανδρον.
In general, see Jacobs, Anthol. III. 194, 286; Bhdy. 200 f. Such
apparent indifference as respects case occurs most frequently with
ἐπί (Schneider, Plat. civ. I. 74), cf. ἐλπίζειν ἐπί τινι and τινα
1 Tim. iv. 10; v. 5, πeπoilévai èπí Tivi and Twa 2 Cor. i. 9; ii. 3,
καταστῆσαι ἐπί τινος and τινι Luke xii. 42, 44 (κόπτεσθαι ἐπί τινα
Rev. i. 7 and èπí Tv xviii. 9 var.), ó éπ TOû KOLTODOS Acts xii. 20
and ó éπì Taîs äρкvσι Xеn. Cyг. 2, 4, 25; see Lob. Phryn. 474 sq.
429 Moreover, see as to éπí used of aim with Gen. Bremi, Aesch. p. 412,
6th ed.
T
with Dat. and Acc. Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 59, as to ep' avтOû and
ép' éavτ@ Schoem. Isae. p. 349, as to mapá with Gen. instead of
365 Dat. Schaef. Dion. p. 118 sq. Hence in detached instances, where
an exact parallel may not be found in Greek authors (Luke i. 59
kaλeîv ẻπí Tivi cf. Ezra ii. 61; Neh. vii. 63 etc.), we are not au-
thorized to pronounce the construction un-Greek, particularly if
something analogous can be adduced (Mtth. 1374), or if the case
employed can be easily conceived as connected with the preposition
in question. On the other hand, the N. T. writers never use èπl
Κλαυδίῳ οι Κλαύδιον for ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου, nor construe ἐπί of con-
dition (stipulation) with the Gen. or Acc. It was not till a later
period that different cases, which though construed with the
383 same preposition conveyed different significations, began to be
7th ed. confounded in the written language of the Greeks, so that e.g.
μeтá with Gen. and μerá with Acc. came to be used in the same
sense, see above, p. 363.
That in the same sentence the same preposition with the same case
should be used in different relations and senses cannot be considered any
more strange in Greek than in any other language, e.g. Luke xi. 50 iva
ἐκζητηθῇ τὸ αἷμα πάντων τῶν προφητῶν ... ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης ἀπὸ τοῦ
αἵματος "Αβελ etc., Rom. xv. 13 εἰς τὸ περισσεύειν ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἐλπίδι ἐν
δυνάμει πνεύματος ἁγίου, Jno. ii. 23 ἦν ἐν τ. Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐν τῷ πάσχα ἐν
τῇ ἑορτῇ, 2 Cor. vii. 16 χαίρω ὅτι ἐν παντὶ θαῤῥῶ ἐν ὑμῖν, xii. 12 ; 1 Cor.
iii. 18; Rom. i. 9; Eph. i. 3, 14; ii. 3, 7; iv. 22; vi. 18; Phil. i. 26;
ii. 16; 1 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Thess. i. 4; Col. i. 29; ii. 2; iv. 2; Heb. v. 3;
ix. 11 f.; Jno. iv. 45 (xvii. 15); Acts xvii. 31; 2 Pet. i. 4 (Philostr. her.
4, 1; Arrian. Epict. 4, 13, 1).
2. The two different prepositions in the same sentence in Philem.
§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS.
411
5 ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην καὶ τὴν πίστιν, ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν κύριον
Ἰησοῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους are usually explained by refer-
ring, in regard to the sense, the words πρὸς τὸν κύριον to πίστιν,
and εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους to ἀγάπην ; — a chiasmus in which there
would be nothing inherently surprising, cf. Plat. legg. 9, 868 b.
(see Ast, animadv. p. 16), Horat. Serm. 1, 3, 51 and the exposi-
tors in loc. It is simpler, however, to take πiors in the sense of
fidelity, and to let both πρὸς τ. κ. and εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους depend
upon it alike, without making any distinction between the prepo-
sitions; see Meyer. Though some Codd. give eis in the former 430
clause, this is only a correction, occasioned by the endeavor to
make the phraseology uniform and by the circumstance that
elsewhere faith in Christ is always called πίστις ἡ εἰς Χριστόν.
Yet the expression Tíσтw exew πρós τiva is quite unobjectionable,
and occurs at least in Epiphan. Opp. II. 335 d. As to Luke v. 15;
Jno. vii. 42; 2 Cor. x. 3; 1 Thess. ii. 3; Rom. iv. 18; x. 17;
Eph. iv. 12; 1 Jno. iii. 24; 1 Thess. iv. 7; 1 Pet. ii. 12, no remark
is required. On 1 Cor. iv. 10; 2 Cor. iv. 17; iii. 5; xiii. 3; 1 Cor.
xii. 8 see the more recent expositors. On the other hand, in
1 Thess. ii. 6 οὔτε ζητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώπων δόξαν, οὔτε ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν οὔτε
ȧT' aλλwv the two prepositions are quite synonymous, as also in
Jno. xi. 1; Acts xxiii. 34. In Rom. iii. 30 Paul certainly does not
have in view any difference of meaning (between ex TiσTews and
διὰ τῆς πίστεως), as doctrinally considered πίστις may with equal
propriety be conceived of either as the source or as the means of
blessedness (Gal. iii. 8; Eph. ii. 8). Cf. from Greek authors Paus.
7, 7, 1 αἱ ἐκ πολέμων καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς νόσου συμφοραί, Isocr. permut.
738; Arrian. Al. 2, 18, 9; Diod. S. 5, 30; Schaef. Gnom. p. 203 366
and Soph. I. 248; Bornem. Xen. Mem. p. 45. As little difference
is there between the two prepositions in 2 Jno. 2 Thν àλýletav тην
μένουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν ἔσται, and in Exod. vi. 4 ἐν ᾗ (γ)
Kai TаρÝKησαν Èπ' auris, Jon. iv. 10. Lastly, in 2 Cor. iii. 11 the
distinction urged by Billroth between dià dóğns and ev dóğn will 384
hardly stand the test of usage, see above, p. 386. As to Suá of 7th ed.
condition (state), see p. 379 sq. On the other hand, the difference
of import between xará and éπí in 1 Cor. xi. 4, 10 and between
ék and diá in 1 Pet. i. 23 is manifest.
3. Prepositions of kindred signification are substituted for each
other in parallel passages in the Gospels and elsewhere; as, Matt.
xxvi. 28 (Mark xiv. 24) αἷμα τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυνόμενον, on the
contrary, Luke xxii. 20 τὸ ὑπὲρ πολλ. ἐκχ.; Matt. vii. 16 μήτι
6th ed.
412
§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS.
Πο
συλλέγουσιν ἀπὸ ἀκανθῶν σταφυλήν, on the contrary, Luke vi. 44
οὐκ ἐξ ἀκανθ. συλλέγουσι σῦκα ; Matt. xxiv. 16 φευγέτωσαν ἐπὶ τὰ
ὄρη (up to) cf. Palaeph. 1, 10, but Mark xiii. 14 φευγ. εἰς τὰ ὄρη
(into) ; Jno. x. 32 διὰ ποῖον αὐτῶν ἔργον λιθάζετέ με; vs. 33 περὶ
καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε; Heb. vii. 2 ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην ἀπὸ πάντων
ἐμέρισεν Αβραάμ, vs. 4 ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην ᾿Αβρ. ἔδωκεν ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων;
Rom. iii. 25 εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὑτοῦ, on the contrary,
vs. 26 πρὸς τὴν ἔνδειξιν τ. δικ. αὑτοῦ. Cf. Χen. Cyr. 5, 4, 43 πρὸς
431 αὐτὸ τὸ τεῖχος προςήγαγον
οὐκ ἐθέλω ὑπ᾽ αὐτὰ τὰ τείχη ἄγειν.
K
Here belongs also Heb. xi. 2 ἐν ταύτῃ (τῇ πίστει) ἐμαρτυρήθησαν οἱ
πρεσβύτεροι, vs. 39 πάντες μαρτυρηθέντες διὰ τῆς πίστεως (through
faith, i.e. ut instructi fide); here the phrases εὔχεσθαι, προς-
εύχεσθαι, εὐχαριστεῖν, δέησις περί οἳ ὑπέρ τινος (Rom. x. 1 ; 2 Cor.
i. 11; Eph. vi. 18; Col. i. 3, 9 ; 1 Cor. i. 4; Eph. i. 16 ; cf. Acta
apocr. p. 53) ;. here too the expression sufer or die περὶ οι ὑπὲρ
ἁμαρτιῶν (the former signifying on account of, the latter for, sins)
1 Cor. xv. 3 ; 1 Pet. iii. 18. Sometimes even the good Codd. vary
between ὑπέρ aud περί, as in Gal. i. 4, as these prepositions were
often interchanged by the transcribers. Cf. Weber, Dem. 129.
(Recent editors have proposed, assuredly without sufficient reason,
to correct the reading in Eurip. Alcest. 180, where οὗ θνήσκειν πέρι
occurs instead of the elsewhere more usual véρ, see Monk in loc.)
Sometimes we find in parallel phrases a preposition now inserted and
now omitted; as, 1 Pet. iv. 1 παθόντος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν σαρκί, and immediately
afterwards ὁ παθὼν ἐν σαρκί, Luke iii. 16; Acts i. 5 ; xi. 16 βαπτίζειν
ὕδατι, but βαπτ. ἐν ὕδατι Matt. iii. 11 ; Jno. i. 26, 33. This difference
in phraseology does not affect the sense, but each form of expression arose
from a different conception: πάσχειν ἐν σαρκί means, suffer in the flesh
(body); πάσχειν σαρκί means, suffer according to (as respects) the flesh
(§ 31, 6). Βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι signifes, baptize in water (immersing);
βαπτίζειν ὕδατι, baptize with water. Here, and in most other passages,
367 the identity of the two expressions in sense is manifest; yet we must not
6th ed. consider one as put for the other. Cf. besides, Eph. ii. 1 veкpoì toîs tapa-
385 πτώμασι but Col. ii. 13 νεκροὶ ἐν τοῖς παραπτ., 2 Cor. iv. 7 ἵνα ἡ ὑπερβολὴ
τῆς δυνάμεως ἢ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ μὴ ἐξ ἡμῶν, Matt. vii. 2 ; cf. Luke vi. 38 ;
1 Jno. iii. 18.
7th ed.
2
4. It was formerly supposed (Glassii Philol. sacr. ed. Dathe
1 But invariably only βαπτίζ. ἐν πνεύματι.
2 So in Arist. anim. 4, 10, p. 111 Sylb. λαμβάνεσθαι τριώδοντι is, caught with a trident
(like τῇ χειρί with the hand); but ληφθῆναι ἐν τῷ τριώδοντι, immediately following,
is caught on the trident. Schneider and Bekker, however, read in the latter passage
ληφθῆναι ἄν.
§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS.
413
I. 412 sq.) that in the N. T. the prepositions év and els especially
were used indiscriminately for each other (see also Sturz, Lexic.
Xen. II. 68, 166). The former, it was said, was employed agree-
ably to the Hebrew idiom with verbs of motion or direction to
denote into, as Matt. x. 16 ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς ὡς πρόβατα ἐν μέσῳ
λύκων, Jno. v. 4 ἄγγελος κατέβαινεν ἐν τῇ κολυμβήθρα, Luke vii. 17 432
ἐξῆλθεν ὁ λόγος ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ, Mark v. 30 ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ἐπιστρα
φείς, Romn. v. 5 ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν,
Luke v. 16; Jno. viii. 37; 1 Cor. xi. 18, etc. (in Rev. xi. 11 the
reading is very uncertain, and Mark i. 16; 1 Tim. iii. 16 do not
come under this head). The latter, it was imagined, was used
with verbs of rest to signify in, as Acts vii. 4 (ỷ yî) eis îv úµeîs
νῦν κατοικεῖτε, Mark ii. 1 εἰς οἰκόν ἐστι, Jno. i. 18 ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν
κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ix. 7 νίψαι εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν etc.1
This they do
a. Now first in reference to ev: the Greeks also, particularly
Homer, sometimes use év with verbs of motion to indicate at the
same time the result of the motion, that is, rest.
from a love of terseness peculiar to the Greek race. It is only in
later writers, however, that such use of ev appears in prose (for
Thuc. 4, 42; 7, 17; Xen. H. 7, 5, 10 have now been emended on
MS. authority, Mtth. 1343), e.g. Aelian. 4, 18 katŷλbe IIλátwv èv
Zukelia i.e. he came (and dwelt) in Sicily, Paus. 6, 20, 4 avтoÌ
κομίσαι φασὶ τῆς Ἱπποδαμείας τὰ ὀστᾶ ἐν Ὀλυμπία, 7, 4, 3 etc. ;
Alciphr. 2, 3, p. 227 Wagn.; Xen. Eph. 2, 12; Arrian. Epict. 1,
11, 32; Aesop. 16, 127, 343 de Fur.; Dio Cass. 1288, 23; cf.
Heind. Plat. Soph. p. 427 sq.; Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 178 sq.; Schaef.
Demosth. III. p. 505. The same explanation applies likewise to
Matt. x. 16; Rev. xi. 11,³ and perhaps also (with BCrus.) to Jno. 368
v. 4, especially if these words are a later addition; for the other 6th ed.
1 The above observation must be confined to the two cases specified; for when ev
and els might according to different conceptions be used with equal propriety, it could
not be said that one is put for the other, e.g. τοῦτο ἐγένετό μοι, οι τοῦτο ἐγένετο εἰς ἐμέ.
2 The same remark applies to the Hebrew when it appears to be joined to verbs
of motion, see my exeg. Studien I. 49 ff. Further, cf. Krebs, obs. 78 f.
ἥκω ἐν does
not come under this head (Lucian. paras. 34; cf. Poppo, Thuc. III. II. 891). Neither
can Perfects or Pluperfects with év, as KaTaTeQevyévai év tónų Plat. Soph. 260 c.; Thuc.
4, 14, etc., be considered as parallel with the above examples. They show, however,
the origin of this usage, cf. Bhdy. 208; and in good writers the usage is generally
confined to such cases only, Krü. S. 286. Finally, the (not infrequent) construction
ěpxeodai év Luke ix. 46; xxiii. 42; Rev. xi. 11, etc. is perhaps to be also excepted
when it denotes come (arise) in.
ביא
3 The fact that isépxeolai év appears to be an imitation of the Hebrew makes
no difference, as this Hebrew expression is undoubtedly to be explained in the same
way.
414
§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS.
7th ed.
ἐν
exposition, went down in the pool (into the depths, to produce the
386 тapaxý, see Lücke), is opposed by the consideration, that then in
so circumstantial a narrative a descent of the angel from heaven
433 would first of all have been mentioned. In all other passages
the substitution of év for eis is merely apparent: Luke vii. 17
means went forth (spread) in all Judea; Mark v. 30 éπioтpapeis
Ev T❖ öxλ turned him about (turned around) in the crowd, Luke
ν. 16 ἣν ὑποχωρῶν ἐν ταῖς ἐρήμοις continued retired in the solitary
places. If the reading is genuine in Matt. xiv. 3, életo èv puλaky
exactly corresponds to the Latin ponere in loco (for which we,
according to a different but equally correct conception, say put
into); similar is Jno. iii. 35 Távta dédwkev év Tŷ xeiρì avтoû, 2 Cor.
viii. 16 (Iliad. 1, 441; 5, 574; cf. also Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. I.
598). In the same way, Matt. xxvi. 23 ó éµßápas év тậ трUßXiq
is, he that dippeth in the dish, an expression as correct as the Ger-
man in die Schüssel eintaucht, dippeth into the dish (cf. Aesop.
124, 1). In 1 Cor. xi. 18 ovvepx. Év Éккληoíą means, meet in an
assembly (as we say, meet in the market-place, in company, etc.).
In Phil. iv. 16 ὅτι καὶ ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ . . . εἰς τὴν χρείαν μου ἐπέμψατε
èv
the expression is abbreviated: ye sent to me (when I was) in Thes-
salonica (cf. Thuc. 4, 27 and Poppo, in loc.). As to Jno. viii. 37.
there may be doubt how ev vuîv is to be taken, see Lücke; but
there can be no doubt that ev is not put for eis. As to Jas. v. 5
see de Wette. In Matt. xxvii. 5 év tô vaộ is, in the temple. In
Rom. v. 5 the use of the Perfect was sufficient to indicate the
correct interpretation (cf. Poppo, Thuc. 4, 14).¹
b. More surprising still are the passages adduced in support of
the assertion that els is used for ev. Even in Greek authors els is
not unfrequently construed with verbs of rest; and then the idea
of motion (preceding or accompanying) was originally included,
agreeably to the principle of breviloquentia mentioned above (Heind.
Plat. Protag. p. 467; Acta Monac. I. 64 sq.; II. 47; Schaef.
Demosth. I. 194 sq.; Schoem. Plutarch. Agis 162 sq.; Hm. Soph.
Aj. 80; Jacobs, Ael. anim. p. 406, and, as to Latin, Hartung on
the Cases S. 68 ff.), as Xen. Cyr. 1, 2, 4 νόμῳ εἰς τὰς ἑαυτῶν χώρας
ἕκαστοι τούτων πάρεισιν, Aelian. 7, 8 Ηφαιστίων εἰς Εκβάτανα
àπé¤ave, Isaeus 5, 46 (cf. Acts xxi. 13),2 Diod. S. 5, 84 Siaтpißwv
1 Passages of Greek authors in which some have erroneously thought èv is put for
els, have been more correctly explained by Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 247. As to eis for
év, see ibid. II. 91. As to Latin phrases in which in with Ablat. appeared to be used
for in with Acc., see Kritz, Sallust. II. 31 sq.
2 Els xwplov Tĥs 'Apкadías Ovhoкel Steph. Byz. p. 495 Mein. is to be explained in a
different manner.
§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS.
415
6th ed
387
ich o
eis Tàs výσous Paus. 7, 4, 3. (The use of eis with such verbs as 434
ἵζειν, καθέζεσθαι — καθῆσθαι - Mark xiii. 3, cf. Eurip. Iph. Τ. 620,
T.
is of a somewhat different nature, see Bttm. Dem. Mid. p. 175; 369
Schweigh. Lexic. Herod. I. p. 282; Valcken. Herod. 8, 71 etc.;
Poppo, Thuc. III. I. p. 659; Fr. Mr. p. 558.) In this way are to
be explained the following passages: Mark ii. 1, where we say in
German also er ist ins Haus, i.e. he has gone into the house and
is now there (Her. 1, 21; Arrian. Al. 4, 22, 3; Paus. 8, 10, 4 and
Siebelis in loc.; Liv. 37, 18? Curt. 3, 5, 10; Vechner, hellenol.
p. 258 sq.) cf. xiii. 16; Luke xi. 7; Acts viii. 40 Þíλitππos eúpéln
εἰς "Αζωτον Philip was found conducted to Azotus (cf. vs. 39 πνεύμα
KUρíον йржаσe Tòv Di., see Wesseling. Diod. Sic. II. 581; cf.
Esth. i. 5; Evang. apocr. p. 447); Acts vii. 4 eis v úμeîs vûv
KaTOIKEÎTE (Xen. A. 1, 2, 24; Xen. Eph. 2, 12; Theodoret. Opp.
I. 594), Mark x. 10 (where the position of the words is to be
noted); probably also Acts xviii. 21 deî μe Tv éоpтηv тηv éρxoµévηv
ποιῆσαι εἰς Ἱεροσ., but the genuineness of these words is suspected
and the more recent editors have omitted them, [they are wanting,
too, in Cod. Sin.]; Jno. xx. 7 évtetuλvyµévov eis éva tóπov wrapt
together (and put) into one place. On the other hand, in Acts
xii. 19 εἰς Καισάρειαν belongs grammatically to κατελθών. In Acts
xx. 14 eis signifies to. In Acts xix. 22 ἔπεσχε χρόνον εἰς τὴν ᾿Ασίαν,
probably eis is not used simply in a local sense: he remained in
Asia; but, he remained for Asia, in order to labor there longer.
The only admissible interpretation of Acts iv. 5 συναχθῆναι αὐτῶν
TOÙS äρXOVτas ... els ‘Iepoo. is that of Beza; yet the good Codd.
[Sin. excepted] give v. In Acts ii. 39 the oi eis parрáv are those
dwelling at a distance, — afar off. In Jno. i. 18 ó ŵv els tÒV
KÓλTOV (though here said in reference to God) is probably to be
referred to the primary (external and local) import: who is
(laid) upon (unto) the bosom.¹ In Jno. ix. 7 eis tǹv koλvµßíj0pav
is as respects sense to be connected also with unaye, cf. vs. 11: go
into the pool and wash thyself (cf. Luke xxi. 37) see Lücke, though
νίπτεσθαι εἰς ὕδωρ by itself is as correct as in Cato R. R. 156, 5
in aquam macerare, or sich in ein Becken waschen (Arrian. Epict. 435
1 Cf. with this as analogous in aurem, oculum dormire Terent. Heaut. 2, 2, 101; Plin.
epp. 4, 29; Plaut. Pseud. 1, 1, 121. De Wette rejects the above explanation, "as here at
least quite inadmissible." But why should not such figurative expressions, transferred
from human relations to God, be taken in the sense which primarily belongs to them,
the sense in which they had their origin? The phrase is in existence; when transferred
to immaterial relations it is taken just as it stands, without further thought respecting
the physical relation in which it originated.
416
§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS.
7th ed.
3,22,71).¹ Still more easy of explanation is Mark i. 9 Barтloon
εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην. In Luke viii. 34 ἀπήγγειλαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν etc.
tòv
means, they carried the news into the city (for which we find a
more circumstantial statement in Matt. viii. 33: ȧπeλóvTES ELS TÈV
Tóλv ȧπýууeiλav úvтa etc.). Not unlike this is Mark i. 39; cf.
πόλιν ἀπήγγειλαν πάντα
Jno. viii. 26. In Mark xiii. 9 kai eis ovvaywyàs Sapnoeole, where
è though it has some slight MSS. support is clearly a correction,
388 the words eis ovvaywyás cannot well (Mey.) be joined to the
preceding πaρadwσovor without quite destroying the parallelism.
The most literal rendering, ye shall be beaten into the synagogues,
370 presents no archaeological difficulty; still, one would have sooner
expected the beating in the synagogues. The pregnant construc-
tion, however: brought into the synagogues, ye shall be beaten, is
harsh for Mark. Luke iv. 23 ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν γενόμενα εἰς Καπερ
vaoúμ may be rendered: done (towards) unto Capernaum, cf.
Acts xxviii. 6; and ev, which some good Codd. give, is undoubtedly
a correction.2 See, generally, Beyer de praeposs. év et eis in N. T.
permutatione. Lips. 1824. 4to.³
6th ed.
5. If we turn now, further, to several passages of the N. T.
Epistles where these prepositions (particularly év for eis) are sup-
posed to be interchanged when used in an ideal sense (cf. also
Rück. Gal. i. 6), probably nobody will find any difficulty with
2 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. iii. 12; 2 Pet. ii. 13;- quite as little with
Eph. i. 17 ; vi. 15. In Phil. i. 9 ἵνα ἀγάπη ... περισσεύῃ ἐν ἐπι
yvoσe means in knowledge; the purpose, on the other hand, is
first expressed by els tò dokiµáçeiv vs. 10. So too in Philem. 6 öπws
ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεώς σου ἐνεργής γένηται ἐν ἐπιγνώσει. In Jas.
v. 5 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σφαγής means — as is plain from its parallelism with
¿¤noavpioate èv éoxátais ýµépais vs. 3—in the day of slaughter,
which also makes good sense, see Theile in loc. In Eph. ii. 16
ν.
1 Jer. xli. (xlviii.) 7
cast) them into the pit.
ian gin-by bunyi, čopažev avtoùs eis rò opéap he slew (and
Cf. 1 Macc. vii. 19.
2 Soph. Αj. 80 ἐμοὶ ἀρκεῖ τοῦτον ἐς δόμους μένειν can no longer be adduced, as
Lob. has shown that the true reading is év dóμois. See also Wunder on Lobeck's edit.
S. 92 f. As to Xen. C. 2, 1, 9, however, see Bornem, in the Index, under eis. Also
Lycurg. 20, 3 diaкaptepeîv els rǹv maтpída is not: they were stedfast in their country.
8 Originally and ès (eis) may have been one and the same preposition, as in Pindar
we find agreeably to the Acolic dialect è with Acc. for eis; see Pindar ed. Böckh, I.
p. 294, 378, ctc. As little, however, can be argued from this in support of an inter-
change of these two prepositions in the cultivated written language of the Greeks with
its established forms, as that in German at the present day vor and für may be arbitra-
rily interchanged because in the earlier language they were properly only one and the
same word.
§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS.
417
0
ἑν ἑνὶ σώματι points to εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον ; accordingly, he 436
reconciles to God ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι those κτισθέντας εἰς ἕνα ἄνθρ.
In Rom. i. 24 εἰς ἀκαθαρσ. is to be joined directly to παρέδωκεν,
and ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθ. is in their lusts, cf. vs. 27 ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν.
In 1 Cor. i. 8 év Tŷ yμ. is construed with ȧveykλýrous, and this is in
apposition to úµâs. In the same way, in 1 Thess. iii. 13, év Tŷ na-
ρουσίᾳ, which is parallel to ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ, depends directly on
ἀμέμπτους. In 2 Thess. ii. 13 εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ... εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν
¿ɣiασµÊ πVEÚμATos etc. means, chosen to salvation in sanctification
of the Spirit; ȧyaoμ. Tv. is the spiritual state in which the being
chosen to salvation is realized. 1 Jno. iv. 9 is simply: in this was
manifested the love of God on (as respects) us. On the other hand, in
Romn. ii. 5 θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν ἐν ἡμέρα ὀργῆς is an abbrevia
ted expression: thou art treasuring up to thyself wrath (which will
break forth) on the day of wrath. And 1 Thess. iv. 7 oỷk ékáλEO EV
ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλὰ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ is put for ὥςτε εἶναι 389
(ỷµâs) év áɣiaoµộ. 1 Cor. vii. 15 and Eph. iv. 4 may also be the
explained in the same way; others, however, understand ev to
refer to the ethical nature of the λños, see, especially, Harless
on the latter passage. Moreover, in 1 Cor. the Perfect is not to
be overlooked. As to didóvai év тaîs κapdíais 2 Cor i. 22 and the 371
like (Rom. v. 5) no remark is necessary after what has been said 6th ed.
above, p. 414. Finally, eis is not put for ev in Rom. vi. 22 exЄTE
τὸν καρπὸν ὑμῶν εἰς ἁγιασμόν; the εἰς manifestly designates the
moral goal. Similar is Rom. xiii. 14. In Eph. iii. 16 êратаιοûσðar
eis Tòv čow äveрwπоv means, to become strong in regard to the in-
ward man. In general, it is inherently improbable that in clearly
conceived doctrinal statements the apostles should have perplexed
the reader by employing èv for eis or eis for ev. At least, they
could have written eis with as much ease, certainly, as the exposi-
tors who are trying to smuggle it in.
The alleged usage of indiscriminately interchanging these prepositions
is not sustained by an appeal to Suidas and the Fathers;¹ nor by the fact
that sometimes in parallel passages eis and ev exchange places, as Matt.
xxi. 8 ἔστρωσαν τὰ ἱμάτια ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ, but Mark xi. 8 εἰς τὴν ὁδόν; Matt.
xxiv. 18 ὁ ἐν τῷ ἀγρῷ μὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω, Mark xiii. 16 ὁ εἰς τὸν ἀγρόν etc. ;
Mark i. 16 ἀμφιβάλλοντες ἀμφίβληστρον ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, Matt. iv. 18 βαλλ. 437
1 The words of 2 Cor. xii. 2 åρπayévтa ëws тpítov oùpavoû are quoted by Clem. Alex.
paedag. I. p. 44 Sylb. thus: èv Tρíτæ åρπaσbels ovpave; on the other hand, those of
Prov. xvii. 3 SokiµáGeтαι év kaµívo apyvpos etc. are quoted by him in Strom. II. p. 172
as follows: dokiμ. εἰς κάμινον.
•
53
418
§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS.
7
1
ἀμφίβλ. εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν the former means, they cast the net about
(waved it about) in the sea; the latter, they cast it into the sea; different
stages and acts of their business are indicated. In Rom. v. 21 èẞaoíλevoev
ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ in death, which is actually present; but ἵνα ἡ
χάρις βασιλεύσῃ διὰ δικαιοσύνης εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον unto life, as the end to be
attained; probably, however, eis L. aiúv. depends directly on dɩk. see Fr.;
cf. besides 2 Cor. xiii. 3. It must, however, be admitted that the limitation
according to which els is construed with verbs of rest and ev on the other
hand with verbs of motion, is overlooked by writers of the later period,
especially by the Scholiasts and Byzantines, and so ev and eis are em-
ployed without distinction, and ev even begins to predominate with verbs
of motion, see Leo Diac. ed. Hase p. XII.; Blume, Lycurg. p. 56; Niebuhr,
ind. to Agath., also the indices to Theophan. and to Menandri hist. in the
Bonn ed. The modern Greeks, in fact, have retained but one of these
prepositions. Cf. further, Argum. ad Demosth. Androt. § 17; Theodoret.
Opp. II. 466, 804; III. 869; Epiphan. haer. 46, 5; Pseudepiph. vit. proph.
pp. 241, 248, 332, 334, 340, 341; Basilic. I. 150; III. 496, also the Sept.
390 the Apocr. and the Pseudepigr.³ in many passages. Yet in the N. T.
7th ed. there is at least no instance more anomalous than those which occur in
the earlier writers of the κοινή,
372 6. It is especially characteristic of Paul to use several preposi-
6th ed tions referring to one and the same substantive, in order that
together they may define his idea on all sides, e.g. Gal. i. 1 Iaûλos
ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἀπ᾿ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι' ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλὰ διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ
Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατρός etc. i.e. an apostle sent forth in no respect
by human authority (not from men, as the ultimate authority;
not through any man, as intermediate authority); Rom. iii. 22
(πεφανέρωται) δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς
Távтas Kai éπì Távтas, i.e. is most completely imparted to all be-
lievers (is manifested unto all and over (upon) all), Syriac!
Lo
(Bengel in loc. is arbitrary, following the ancient
expositors; Rück. helpless) ; xi. 36 ἐξ αὐτοῦ θεοῦ) καὶ δι' αὐτοῦ
Kai eis AỦTÒV Tà Távтa, i.e. the world bears every possible depend-
ent relation to God, it is from (out of) him, inasmuch as he
438 created it (the First Cause); through him, inasmuch as he is
1 Compare Hm. on Böckh's Behandl. d. Inschrift. S. 181 f.
2
Niceph. Constant. p. 48 τυφλώσας ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ ἐξέπεμψε, Theophan. p. 105 Γρηγόριος
παῤῥησιαστικώτερον ἐδίδασκεν... εἰς τὸ εὐκτήριον τῆς ἁγίας ἀναστάσεως, p. 62, 65, 68;
eis
Malal. 18, 467.
8 Cf. Wahl, Clav. apocr. pp. 165, 195; Fabric. Pseudepigr. I. 598, 629; Brtschn. lexic.
man. p. 139; Acta apocr. pp. 5, 13, 38, 65, 66, 68, 71, 88, 91, 93, 94, 263, and on almost
every page.
$ 50 INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS.
419
(perpetually) efficient upon it; to him, inasmuch as he is the
ultimate End to which all things are directed ;1 Col. i. 16 ἐν αὐτῷ
(Χριστῷ) ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ... τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν
ἔκτισται, i.e. the universe stands in necessary and complete rela-
tion to Christ; first, historically (Aor.) : in him was the world
created, inasmuch as le, the divine λόγος, was the personal ground
of the divine creative act (just as in Christ God redeemed the
world); then of the world as subsisting (Perf): all things have
been created through (hy) him (as mediate person), and to (for)
him (as κύριος πάντων in the most comprehensive sense); in
vs. 17 πρὸ πάντων refers back to δι' αὐτοῦ, and ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν
is explanatory of εἰς αὐτόν. Eph. iv. 6 εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων
ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν ἡμῖν, i.e. God is the
God and Father of all in every conceivable relation, (ruling) over
all, (working) through all, (dwelling) in all (filling them with his
Spirit). 2 Pet. iii. 5 γῆ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ δι᾽ ὕδατος συνεστῶσα τῷ θεοῦ
λόγῳ out of water (as the material in which it lay contained) and
through water, i.e. through the action of the water, which partly
retired to the low places, and partly formed the clouds in the sky.
In the parallel clauses in 1 Cor. xii. 8 f. spiritual gifts are referred,
by the use of διά, κατά, ἐν, to the πνεῦμα from which they all origi- 391
nate: διά designates the Spirit as mediate agent; κατά, as disposer
(vs. 11); ev, as container. The antithesis between ἐκ (or ἀπό) and
εἰς (the point from and the point towards) is easily perceived, Rom.
i. 17; 2 Cor. iii. 18 (cf. in a local reference Matt. xxiii. 34). (In
1 Cor. viii. 6, where the corresponding prepositions refer to differ-
ent subjects – θεὸς ἐξ οὗ and κύρ. I. Χρ. δι' οὗ - there cannot
be a moment's doubt respecting the propriety and import of the
prepositions.)
7th ed.
The following instances in Greek authors deserve notice as parallel: 373
Mr. Anton. 4, 23 ἐκ σοῦ (ὦ φύσις) πάντα, ἐν σοὶ πάντα, εἰς σὲ πάντα, Heliod. 6th ed
2, 25 πρὸ πάντων καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν, Philostr. Apoll. 3, 25 τοὺς ἐπὶ θαλάττῃ τε
καὶ ἐν θαλάττῃ, Isocr. big. p. 846 τὰ μὲν ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν, τὰ δὲ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, τὰ δὲ δι'
ὑμᾶς, τὰ δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, Acta Ignat. p. 368 δι' οὗ καὶ μεθ᾽ οὗ τῷ πατρὶ ἡ δόξα.
Other instances may be seen in Wetst. II. 77 and Fr. Rom. II. 556.
7. When two or more substantives dependent on the same prep- 439
osition immediately follow one another joined together by a copula,
1 Theodoret has thus explained the passage: αὐτὸς τὰ πάντα πεποίηκεν, αὐτὸς τὰ
γεγονότα διατελεῖ κυβερνῶν . . . εἰς αὐτὸν ἀφορᾶν ἅπαντας προςήκει ὑπὲρ μὲν τῶν ὑπαρξάντων
χάριν ὁμολογοῦντας, αἰτοῦντας δὲ τὴν ἔπειτα προμήθειαν, αὐτῷ δὲ χρὴ καὶ τὴν προςήκουσαν
ἀναπέμπειν δοξολογίαν.
420
§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS.
เ
the proposition is most naturally repeated, if the substantives in
question denote things which are to be conceived as distinct and
independent, Weber, Demosth. p. 189 (as to Latin, see Kritz,
Sallust. I. 226; Zumpt, Gr. S. 601 f.); but not repeated, if the
substantives fall under a single category, or (if proper names)
under one common class:
και
a. Luke xxiv. 27 ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ Μωσέως καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν
προφητῶν (Acts xv. 4); 1 Thess. i. 5 ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ
Kai Ev πλпρоÓоρía Toλλ, Jno, xx. 2;1 2 Tim. iii. 11; Acts xxviii. 2;
καὶ ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ,
Mark vi. 4; x. 29; xii. 33; Rev. vi. 9. Hence it is almost always
repeated when two nouns are connected together by kai... Kai
(Bremi, Lys. p. 3 sq.) or тe καί, as in Acts xxvi. 29 καὶ ἐν ὀλίγῳ
Kai Ev Tоλλ (the two are incompatible with each other), Luke
xxii. 33; 1 Cor. ii. 3; Philem. 16; Acts xvii. 9; cf. Xen. Hier.
1, 5 (but Soph. Trach. 379); Phil. i. 7 év Te тoîs deσμoîs μov kal
Ev Tŷ ȧπоλoyia, Acts xxv. 23 etc. (cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 6, 16; Thuc.
8, 97; Diod. S. 19, 86; 20, 15; Paus. 4, 8, 2).2
• •
b. Jno. iv. 23 év πveúμaтi kaì ảλŋleíą (two aspects of one com-
prehensive notion) see Lücke, Luke xxi. 26 åπò þóßov kaì πρosdo-
Kías τŵν ÉTTEρXоuévwv (essentially one state of mind), Eph. i. 21;
1 Thess. i. 8; Acts xvi. 2; xvii. 15 (cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 2, 7; Arist.
Eth. Nic. 7, 11 in.; Thuc. 3, 72; 2, 83; Paus. 10, 20, 2), also when
the substantives are connected by Te... Kaí, as in Acts xxviii. 23 àπó
τε τοῦ νόμου Μωσέως καὶ τῶν προφητῶν, i. 8; xxvi. 20 (Franke,
Demosth. p. 65), Paus. 10, 37, 2; 25, 23; Xen. Hell. 1, 1, 3; Herod.
6, 3, 2. For instances with proper names, see Acts vi. 9 tôv ảπò
392 Κιλικίας καὶ 'Ασίας, xiv. 21 ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς τὴν Λύστραν καὶ Ικό-
νιον καὶ 'Αντιόχειαν, xvi. 2 ; ix. 31; Matt. iv. 25.
7th ed.
I
ő
If the substantives are connected disjunctively or antithetically,
the preposition is in the former case usually, and in the latter
always, repeated, Col. iii. 17 ὅ τι ἐὰν ποιῆτε ἐν λόγῳ ἢ ἐν ἔργῳ,
ii. 16; Matt. vii. 16; xvii. 25; Luke xx. 4; Jno. vii. 48; Acts iv. 7;
viii. 34; Rom. iv. 9; 1 Cor. iv. 3, 21; xiv. 6; Rev. xiii. 16; cf.
Paus. 7, 10, 1 (the contrary only in Heb. x. 28 ẻπì dvoìv ǹ тPLOT
μάρτυσιν, 1 Tim. v. 19); Rom. iv. 10 οὐκ ἐν περιτομῇ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν
440 ȧkpoẞvoría, vi. 15; viii. 4; 1 Cor. ii. 5; xi. 17; 2 Cor. i. 12; iii. 3;
1 On this passage Bengel remarks: ex praepos. repetita colligi potest, non una fuisse
utrumque discipulum.
2 As to the various cases in which Greek prose writers repeat a preposition after
Tε κаí, seе Sommer in the Jahrb. f. Philol. 1831. S. 408 f.; cf. Stallb. Phileb. p. 156;
Weber, Dem. 189.
§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS.
421
1
Eph. i. 21; vi. 12; Jno. vii. 22; xvii. 9, etc. (Alciphr. 1, 31).¹ 374
Lastly, in comparisons the preposition is always repeated, Acts 6th ed.
xi. 18; Rom. v. 19; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 2 Thess. ii. 2; Heb. iv. 10
(as to Greek authors, see Schaef. Julian. p. 19 sq.; Held, Plut.
Aem. 124; Krü. 284). In general, there is a greater tendency
to repeat the preposition in the N. T. than in Greek prose (Bhdy.
201; Krüg. 284 f.; Schoem. Plutarch. Cleom. p. 229), which
frequently or usually omits the preposition, not only before a noun
simply connected with one preceding (Bornem. Xen. conv. 159),
but also after aλλá or (Schaef. Dem. V. 569, 760; Plutarch.
IV. 291; Poppo, Thuc. III. IV. 493; Weber, Dem. 389; Franke,
Dem. 6) before words in apposition (Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 112,
247; cf. Bornem. Schol. p. 173) and in answers (Stallb. Plat.
sympos. p. 104 sq.; Gorg. p. 38; rep. I. 237). On the other hand,
the following passages are singular even in the N. T.: Acts xxvi.
18 ἐπιστρέψαι ἀπὸ σκότους εἰς φῶς καὶ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σατανᾶ ἐπὶ
Tòv Оeóv, vii. 38; 1 Cor. x. 28; Heb. vii. 27, but cf. Aristot. Eth.
Nicom. 10, 9, 1 περί τε τούτων καὶ τῶν ἀρετῶν, ἔτι δὲ καὶ φιλίας etc.
(see Zell, Aristot. Eth. p. 442); Lysias 1, in Theomnest. 7; Dion.
H. IV. 2223, 1; Diog. L. prooem. 6; Strabo 16, 778; Diod. Sic.
5, 31; Plutarch. Sol. c. 3.
In Jude 1 is not to be repeated from the preceding clause before
'Inσoû Xpiore, as that would be harsh; but 'Iŋo. Xp. is the dativus commodi:
kept for Christ. Before a noun in apposition the preposition is regularly
not repeated, Luke xxiii. 51; Eph. i. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 4; it is only in cases
of epexegetic apposition that the repetition can take place, Rom. ii. 28
† èv tậ pavepų èv tŷy σapkì tepitoµń, Jno. xi. 54, (in 1 Jno. v. 20 there is
no apposition). So also in the classics, though usually only when the
word in apposition is separated from the principal substantive, Fritzsche,
quaest. Lucian. p. 127; Mtth. 1402.
The repetition of the preposition before each of a series of nouns suc-
ceeding one another without connectives, as in Eph. vi. 12 åλλà πρÒS TÀS
ἀρχάς, πρὸς τὰς ἐξουσίας, πρὸς τοὺς κοσμοκράτορας ... πρὸς τὰ πνεύμ.
etc., Jno. xvi. 8 (cf. Arist. rhet. 2, 10, 2), is of a rhetorical nature or
serves to give greater prominence to the several particulars, see Dissen, 393
Pind. p. 519.
The preposition with which the antecedent is construed, is usually in
Greek authors not repeated before the relative, as Plat. legg. 10, 909 d.
ἀπὸ τῆς ἡμέρας, ἧς ἂν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτῶν ὄφλῃ τὴν δίκην, 12, 955 b. ἐν ἱεροῖς
οἷς ἂν ἐθέλῃ, 2, 659 b. ἐκ ταὐτοῦ στόματος, οὗπερ τοὺς θεοὺς ἐπεκαλέσατο etc.
αν
1 But in such antitheses the preposition is not repeated before an adjective, as 1 Pet.
i. 23 οὐκ ἐκ σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς ἀλλὰ ἀφθάρτου.
7th ed.
441
422
§ 50. INTERCHANGE, ETC. OF PREPOSITIONS.
Plat. Phaed. 21; Gorg. 453 e.; Lach. 192 b.; Thuc. 1, 28; Xen. conv
4, 1; An. 5, 7, 17; Hiero 1, 11; Aristot. probl. 26, 4 and 16; Paus. 9, 39,
4; cf. Bremi, Lys. p. 201; Schaef. Soph. III. 317; Dion. comp. p. 325;
Melet.
p. 124; Demosth. II. 200; Heller, Soph. Oed. C. p. 420; Ast, Plat.
legg. p. 108; Wurm, Dinarch. p. 93; Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 291; Bhdy. 203 f.
275 So, in the N. T., Acts xiii. 39 ἀπὸ πάντων, ὧν οὐκ ἠδυνήθητε ... δικαιωθῆναι,
6th ed. δικαιοῦται, xiii. 2 ἀφορίσατε... εἰς τὸ ἔργον, ὃ προςκέκλημαι αυτούς, Luke
i. 25; xii. 46; Matt. xxiv. 50; Rev. ii. 13 (not 1 Cor. vii. 20); on the
contrary, Jno. iv. 53 év ékeívy tŷ “pa, év ŷ eîπev, Acts vii. 4; xx. 18 (Jon.
iv. 10) cf. Demosth. Timoth. 705 b. èv Toîs xpóvois, év ois yeyраπтαι Tην
Tiμηv Tŵv piaλŵv ỏþeíλwv, Aristot. anim. 5, 30; Plat. Soph. 257 d.; Xen.
Cyr. 1, 2, 4; Diog. L. 8, 68; Heinich. Euseb. II. 252. As to the Lat.
see Ramshorn S. 378; Beier, Cic. offic. I. 123. The Greek authors, also,
readily repeat the preposition when the relative is separated by several
words from the antecedent, Her. 1, 47; Xen. vectig. 4, 13; Lucian. necyom.
9; Dio Chr. 17, 247.
ν
In Greek authors, and especially in the poets, a preposition belonging
to two successive nouns is sometimes, as is well known, expressed only
once and that before the second noun, Hm. Vig. p. 854; Lob. Soph. Aj.
v. 397 sq., the comment. on Anacr. 9, 22; Kühner II. 320 etc.
Such an
instance has been supposed to occur in Phil. ii. 22 (Heinich. Euseb. II. 252)
ὅτι, ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον, σὺν ἐμοὶ ἐδούλευσεν etc. But the passage contains
rather a variatio structurae. Paul uses où uoí, bethinking himself that
he cannot well say éμoì édoúλevσev: he has, as a child serves his father,
served with me, etc. See, in general, the opposite remarks of Bhdy. p. 202;
cf. however, Franke, Dem. p. 30.
Note 1. It is a peculiarity of later Greek, in particular, to combine a
preposition with an adverb, especially of place or time (Krü. 266 f.), —
either so as to make the preposition modify the meaning of the adverb, as
in ἀπὸ πρωΐ Acts xxviii. 23, ἀπό πέρυσι 2 Cor. viii. 10 ; ix. 2, ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι Matt.
xxvi. 29, åñò tóte Matt. iv. 17 [xvi. 21] xxvi. 16 [Luke xvi. 16], ékπadaı
2 Pet. ii. 3, vжeρλíav 2 Cor. xi. 5; xii. 11 (cf. népev Xen. Hiero 6, 9);
or so as to blend with an expressive adverb a preposition that seemed
weakened by diversified usage (cf. in German: oben auf dem Dache), as
ὑποκάτω, ὑπεράνω, κατέναντι. Sometimes also an adverb is strengthened
by the preposition, as Taρavтíka. To this class belong likewise such nu-
merals as épáraέ Rom. vi. 10 etc. (Dio Cass. 1091, 91; 1156, 13, analogous
to ἐςάπαξ Franke, Demosth. p. 30, πρὸς ἅπαξ Malal. 7, p. 178), ἐπὶ τρίς
394 Acts x. 16; xi. 10 (among the examples adduced by Kypke II. 48 is the
7th ed. analogous eis rpís, which occurs in Her. 1, 86; Xen. Cyr. 7, 1, 4; cf. Hm.
Vig. p. 857). Many of these compounds are to be found only in writers
442 that flourished after the time of Alexander,¹ some only in Scholiasts, Lob.
1 Yet ès àel, és émeita, ès òyé, and the like, occur even in Thuc. 1, 129, 130; 4, 63 ;
8, 23. As to and μакрóleν, and the like, sec § 65, 2, p. 603.
§ 51. USE OF PREPOSITIONS IN CIRCUMLOCUTIONS.
423
Phryn. p. 46 sqq.; cf., however, Kühner II. 315; several, such as úπò πépvơi
(for which προπέρυσι οι ἐκπέρυσι), are not to be met with even there.
Further, cf. Sept. πò öпшlev (2) 1 Sam. xii. 20 and Thilo, Act.
Thom. p. 25. (Consistency in the mode of writing these compounds, whether
connected Krü. 266 or separated, has not been observed even by the most
recent editors of the N. T.)
The
Note 2. The antique usage of employing (simple) prepositions without
a case for adverbs, has been retained, with certain restrictions, in the prose 376
style of all periods, Bhdy. 196. In the N. T. we find but a single example 6th ed.
of this : 2 Cor. xi. 23 διάκονοι Χριστοῦ εἰσίν ;— ὑπὲρ ἐγώ Ι more.
instances which Kypke adduces in loc. are not all similar. Usually in
prose such prepositions are supported by a dé or ye (perà dé is especially
frequent) Bhdy. 198. IIpós in addition, besides, may be best compared
with the above passage, e.g. Dem. 1 Aphob. 556a.; Franke, Demosth. p. 94.
The form av with the accent thrown back for èví (ev), including the
substantive verb, occurs several times, see p. 80; Bornem. (Stud. u. Krit.
1843. S. 108 f.) attempted, but on insufficient grounds, to introduce año
far from (Bttm. IL. 378) in Matt. xxiv. 1.
§ 51. USE OF PREPOSITIONS IN CIRCUMLOCUTIONS.
1. When a preposition with a noun forms a circumlocution for
an adverb or (mostly with the aid of the article) for an adjective,
the propriety of such a use of the preposition must be shown by a
reference to its fundamental signification;¹ a merely empirical
treatment might lead to erroneous conclusions. Note, then,
a. 'Аπó; e.g. άπò μépovs Rom. xi. 25; 2 Cor. i. 14 in part (from
a part hitherwards), åñò µiâs (yvúµns) Luke xiv. 18 unanimously
(proceeding from one determination), with one mind.
b. 4tá with the Genitive usually denotes a mental state viewed
as something mediate, a means: in Heb. xii. 1 di vπоμоvis may 443
be rendered, with (through) patience, patiently, assidue (similarly
Rom. viii. 25 δι᾽ ὑπομονῆς ἀπεκδεχόμεθα etc., cf. δι' ἀφροσύνης
imprudenter Xen. C. 3, 1, 18, di' evλaßeías timide Dion. H. III. 395
1360, see Pflugk, Eur. Hel. p. 41), cf. also e.g. di' ảopaλeías Thuc. 7th ed.
1, 17. Of a different nature is Heb. xiii. 22 dià ßpaɣéwv èπéσteiXA
iµîv breviter-properly by means of few (words), paucis- cf. dià
Вρaxvτáτwv Dem. Pant. 624c., and below, § 64,5. Used adjectively
1 This is not altogether without difficulty, chiefly because in different languages
different views of the same relation predominate, e.g. årò µépovs zum Theil, in part,
èk değiŵv zur Rechten, on, at, to the right, ab oriente gegen Osten, on, to, towards the
East. Many phrases, too, arise from abbreviation.
424
§ 51. USE OF PREPOSITIONS IN CIRCUMLOCUTIONS.
2 Cor. iii. 11 ei тò κатаρуоúμеvоv Sià Sóns etc. (above, p. 379), it
denotes a quality with which something is invested.
c. Els expresses a degree (unto) which something reaches,
Luke xiii. 11 eis tò tavteλés completely (perfectly) wholly (Aelian.
7, 2, eis kúλλiotov Plat. Euthyd. 275 b., ès тò åкpißés Thuc. 6, 82);
this, however, can hardly be called a periphrasis for the adverb.
è§
d. 'Ek, e.g. èk µépovs 1 Cor. xii. 27 ex parte (forth from a part).
'Ek is used especially of the standard (secundum), as in èk TŴV
vóμwv secundum leges, legibus convenienter (rule of conduct drawn
as it were out of the laws); hence è ioórnтos according to equality,
377 equally 2 Cor. viii. 13, èk µéтpovby measure, moderately Jno. iii. 34;
6th ed. cf. ¿¿ údíkov injuste Xen. Cyr. 8, 8, 18, è loov Her. 7, 135; Plato,
rep. 8, 561 b., èk πρosŋkóvτwv Thuc. 3, 67; see Ast, Plat. legg.
p. 267; Bhdy. 230. It also denotes the source: è ȧváyкns Heb.
vii. 12; cf. Thuc. 3, 40; 7, 27; Dio C. 853, 93 (springing out of
necessity i.e. necessarily); the same explanation applies to ể
ovμþúvou 1 Cor. vii. 5 ex composito, which, however, under a
different aspect (in consequence of an agreement), nearly comes
under the first use. In the phrases oi èk tiσtews Gal. iii. 7, oi èk
περιτομῆς Acts x. 45, ὁ ἐξ ἐναντίας Tit. ii. 8, οἱ ἐξ ἐριθείας Rom.
ii. 8, and the like, è designates party (dependence on), and con-
sequently belonging to those of the faith, who belong to the faith;
who, as it were, side with faith. Cf. Polyb. 10, 16, 6; Thuc. 8, 92.
A relation altogether material is expressed in Mark xi. 20 è piçŵv
(out) from the roots, radicitus. The temporal èk TρíTоu Matt.
ἐκ τρίτου
xxvi. 44 (1 Macc. ix. 1; Babr. 95, 97; 107, 16; Evang. apocr.
p. 439; cf. è voтépov Her. 1,108) and the like (where the German,
on the other hand, says zum Dritten) for the third time, is doubt-
less most simply, out of the third, (commencing) from the third;
in later authors we find likewise è πрúтηs Babr. 71, 2, ẻ
δευτέρης 114, 5.
444 c. 'Ev. Instances in which ev with a substantive may be taken
adverbially, as ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, ἐν ἐκτενείᾳ, ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ Matt. xxii. 16;
Mark xiv. 1; Col. iv. 5; Acts xvii. 31 (èv díky Plat. Crat. p. 419 d.,
év Táɣet Thuc. 1, 90),¹ need explanation the less, because we too
can employ in with the corresponding substantive. The substan-
tives usually denote abstract ideas, particularly qualities or dispo-
sitions in which one does something. The use of this preposition
1 But in Jno. iv. 23, the words ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, dependent on προςκυνήσουσιν,
must not be resolved and degraded into the adverbs πνευματικῶς καὶ ἀληθῶς ; but ἐν
denotes the sphere in which the πроsкνvеîv is exercised.
§ 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS.
425
with a substantive for an adjective is equally plain, as epya rà ẻv 396
δικαιοσύνῃ, τὸ μένον ἐν δόξῃ ἐστί) 2 Cor. iii. 11, and the like.
2. f. 'Emi is frequently construed with the Gen. of abstract
nouns which denote either a quality with which a person acts in
a given way (ém' adelas with fearlessness), or an objective notion
with the actual existence of which something accords, as in Mark
xii. 32 èπ² àλŋ¤eías in accordance with truth, truly (Dio C. 699,
65; 727,82). With the Dat. éπí indicates, as it were, the ground
on which something rests, Acts ii. 26 ý σúp§ μoV KATAOKηVÚσEL
Èπ'ÈXπídı with, in hope, confidence (in God); hence securely,
tranquilly. The phrases ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, ἐφ' ὅσον, ἐπὶ πολύ present
no difficulty.
7th ed
g. Κατά. The expression ή κατὰ βάθους πτωχεία 2 Cor. viii. 2
is probably to be rendered, poverty extending to the lowest level,
the deepest poverty (cf. Strabo 9, 419); Xen. Cyr. 4, 6, 5 is not
parallel to this, & Kaтà yês means: terra conditus. Probably the
adverbial phrase κal' őλov properly signifies throughout (in uni-
versum), in general, as kaтá with the Gen. has sometimes this
meaning. The use of κará with the Acc. of a substantive in
circumlocutions for adverbs, as κατ᾽ ἐξουσίαν, κατ' ἐξοχήν, κατὰ 378
yvôow, requires no explanation, see Schaef. Long. p. 330 (cf. Kaтà 6th ed
τάχος Dio. C. 84, 40, 310, 93, κατὰ τὸ ἰσχυρόν Her. 1, 76, καθ'
opμýv Soph. Philoct. 562, Kaтà tò άVETTLσTημOV Aeschin. dial. 3, 16,
Kатà тò оρeóv Her. 7, 143), see Bhdy. 241. As to кат' Éкλоyηu
ἡ κατ' ἐκλογὴν
πρóðeσis Rom. ix. 11, oi kaṛà qúow kλúdoɩ xi. 21, see § 30, 3,note 5.
h. IIpós with the Acc., e.g. Jas. iv. 5 πрòs þ¤óvov invidiose, cf.
πρòs oруý Soph. El. 369 (properly, according to envy, according
to anger); besides, πpòs ȧкpíẞetav Sext. Emp. hypot. 1, 126 for
ἀκριβῶς.
As to the use of the prepositions ék, κará etc. in circumlocutions for 445
certain cases, especially the Genitive, see § 30, 3, note 5 p. 192 sq.
§ 52. CONSTRUCTION OF VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH
PREPOSITIONS.
1. Our attention here will naturally be confined to those com-
pound verbs in which the preposition preserves its peculiar and
independent force, and so directly governs a noun different from
that governed by the transitive verb; as, èxßanλew to cast out from,
avaþéρew to bring up upon, etc. Accordingly, we do not speak
54
426 § 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS.
of those in which the signification of the preposition is either ob-
scured (e.g. ἀποδέχεσθαι, ἀποκρίνεσθαι, ἀποθνήσκειν), or blended
with that of the verb into one general idea (e.g. µeтadidóvaι impart,
προάγειν τινά praeire aliquem, precede some one, ἀποδεκατοῦν τι to
tithe something, ovykλeíeiv ri enclose something), or, approximating
397 to the nature of an adverb, serves to give intensity to the verb (e.g.
7th ed. ἐπιζητεῖν, διατελεῖν, διακαθαρίζειν, συντελεῖν, perpugnare).
The full import of the compound verbs of the N. T., and how far they
may be employed for simple verbs, has not yet been investigated thoroughly
and on rational principlès; cf., however, C. F. Fritzsche: Fischer's and
Paulus's Observations on the precise Import of the Prepositions in Greek
Compound Verbs, etc. Lips. 1809. 8vo.; Tittmann de vi praepositionum
in verbis compos. in N. T. recte diiudicandis, Lips. 1814. 4to. (also in
Synonym. N. T. I. 218 sqq.); J. v. Voorst de usu verbor. c. praeposs.
compositor. in N. T. Leid. 1818. 2 Spec. 8vo. ; Theol. Annal. 1809. II.
474 ff. (Brunck, Aristoph. nub. 987; Zell, Aristotel. ethic. p. 383; Stallb.
Plat. Gorg. p. 154). Till very lately translators and expositors of the
N. T. appeared to vie with each other in disregarding the exact import of
compound verbs (cf. e.g. Seyffarth de indole ep. ad Hebr. p. 92). With
a view to check such recklessness I have commenced a new inquiry into
the subject: De verbor. c. pracposs. compositor. in N. T. usu, Lips. 1834 ff.
4to.; hitherto five articles have appeared. (As to Greek authors in
general, cf. Cattier, Gazophylac. sec. 10, p. 60 sqq. ed. Abresch ; C. F.
446 Hachenberg, de significat. praepositionum graec. in compositis. Traj. ad
Rh. 1771. 8vo.)
379 2. Compound verbs in which the preposition retains its dis-
6th ed. tinctive force may have one or another of the three following con-
structions:
a. The preposition may be repeated before the noun, as Matt.
vii. 23 ἀποχωρεῖτε ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ, Heb. iii. 16 οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου,
see Born. Xen. conv. p. 219 and my second Progr. de verb. compp.
p. 7 sqq.; or
b. Another preposition of substantially the same import may
be used before the noun, as Matt. xiv. 19 àvaßλéyas els tòV
οὐρανόν, Mark xv. 46 προςεκύλισε λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν ; οι
c. The compound verb may, without the intervention of a prep-
osition, directly govern a case such as its import requires, and
such at the same time as the preposition also commonly governs;
as, Mark iii. 10 ἐπιπίπτειν αὐτῷ, Luke xv. 2 συνεσθίει αὐτοῖς, etc.
Accordingly, verbs compounded with aπó, kaтá (ayainst), πрó,
take the Gen.; those compounded with Tepi (Matt. iv. 23 πepiάyew
Tǹv Taλıλaíav, Acts ix. 3), the Acc.
§ 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS.
427
3. Which of these modes of construction is the regular one,
must be learned from usage. Sometimes two of them, or all three
together, occur (cf. éπißúλλew, likewise parallel passages such as
Matt. xxvii. 60 and Mark xv. 46; Juo. ix. 6 and vs. 11; Acts
xv. 20 and vs. 29). Yet it must not be overlooked that even in
this case usage has often established a distinction. Thus no one 398
will regard it as an indifferent matter whether verbs compounded 7th ed.
with e's be construed with a noun by the insertion of the preposi-
tion eis (πpós), or with a case alone without a preposition.2 For
instance, èкTĺπTew in its proper sense takes èx; but when used
figuratively (like spe excidere), it governs the Gen. (Gal. v. 4;
2 Pet. iii. 17; Philostr. Apoll. 1, 36; yet see Diod. S. 17, 47).³
So πρospéρew Tшví of persons means, offerre alicui (aliquid); but
πρOSPÉρELV Éπì Tràs ovvaywyús to bring before the synagogue(author- 447
ities), Luke xii. 11.4 Cf. also πposépɣeσbaí тivi adire aliquem and
προςέρχ. πρὸς τὸν Χριστόν 1 Pet. ii. 4; ἐφιστάναι τινί (of persons)
Acts iv. 1, and èpiotávai éπì tǹv oikiav xi. 11. See, in general,
έφιστάναι τὴν οἰκίαν
my second Progr. de verb. compp. p. 10 sqq.
7
4. The usage of the N. T. is more particularly as follows:
1) After verbs compounded with aπó,
Όπιπτ
a) for the most part nó is repeated (cf., in general, Erfurdt,
Soph. Oed. R. p. 225): so after åπéρxeσ¤αi (followed by a personal
noun) Mark i. 42; Luke i. 38; ii. 15; Rev. xviii. 14 (Lucian. 380
salt. 81), after άπожÍπтеш Aсts ix. 18 (in a material sense, cf. 6th ed.
Her. 3, 130; Polyb. 11, 21, 3; in a figurative sense it does not
occur in the N. T.), åpioτávai desistere a, or to withdraw from a
person, Acts v. 38; Luke ii. 37; xiii. 27; 2 Cor. xii. 8; 1 Tim.
vi. 5 etc. (Polyb. 1, 16, 3) but 1 Tim. iv. 1, see below, άπорpaví-
Leola 1 Thess. ii. 17, àπоσTâolai Luke xxii. 41; Acts xxi. 1
(Polyb. 1, 84, 1; Dion. H. judic. Thuc. 28, 5), after ȧpopíleiv Matt.
xxv. 32, àπoßaivew Luke v. 2 (Polyb. 23, 11. 4, etc.), àπоɣwpeîv
Matt. vii. 23; Luke ix. 39, àpaɩpeîolai Luke x. 42; xvi. 3 (Lucian.
Tim. 45), àπaípeo@ai Matt. ix. 15, àπаλλáттeo@ai Luke xii. 58;
1 So άπоσтĥναi deficere with amó in Xen. C. 5, 4, 1 and with the Gen. alone in 4, 5, 11.
2 In prose εἰςιέναι οι εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς is usually employed in a local sense, e.g. εἰς τὴν
oikiav; but with Twvá or Twí (like incessere aliquem) in reference to desires, thoughts,
etc. Demosth. Aristocr. 446 b.; Herod. 8, 8, 4, etc. Yet see Talck. Eurip. Phoen.
1099. As to eisépxeodai in particular, see my second Progr. de verb. compp. p. 11 sq.
3 In Greek authors àπéxeodαi abstinere usually takes the Gen.; but in the N. T. it is
sometimes followed by aró, Acts xv. 20; 1 Thess. iv. 3; v. 22.
4 Cf. πρὸς τοῖς ἱστοῖς τροχιλίαι προςήρτηντο Polyb. 8, 6, 5; 3, 46, 8, but (fig.) 9, 20,
5 προςαρτᾶν πολλά τινα τῇ στρατηγίᾳ.
428
§ 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS.
399
7th ed.
Acts xix. 12, άπокрÚTтеiv Matt. xi. 25, πоσтρépew Rom. xi. 26
Sept., once also after the figurative άπovýσkew Col. ii. 20 (cf.
Porphyr. abstin. 1, 41), which elsewhere, in the composite sense
of dying to, is construed with the Dat. (see immediately below).
b) after åπоλaµßúvei, πapá is used (with personal nouns), Luke
vi. 34; cf. Diod. S. 13, 31; Lucian. pisc. 7 (aró, when the verb
signifies to take away by force, Polyb. 22, 26, 8).
c) the Genitive follows àπopeúyeɩ 2 Pet. i. 4 (but not in 2 Pet.
ii. 20), άπаλλотριοûv Eph. ii. 12; iv. 18 (Polyb. 3, 77, 7), úþioтúvai
(deficere a) 1 Tim. iv. 1 (Polyb. 2, 39, 7; 14, 12, 3), àπоσтeрeîσlai
(fig.) 1 Tim. vi. 5.
d) the Dat. is used after åπоvýoke to die to a thing, Gal. ii. 19;
Rom. vi. 2, (in Rom. vi. 10 the Dat. is to be taken differently);
similar is ἀπογίνεσθαι ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις 1 Pet. ii. 24.
2) Verbs compounded with ȧvá in the local sense of up (to),
are construed with,
a) eis, when the place to which the motion is directed is indi-
cated, e.g. àvaßaive to go (travel) up to Luke xix. 28; Mark
448 x. 32 (Her. 9, 113), or go up (upon a mountain, into heaven etc.)
Matt. v. 1; xiv. 23; Mark iii. 13 (Herod. 1, 12, 16; Plat. Alcib.
1, 117 b.; Dio C. 89, 97), avaßλéπew Matt. xiv. 19 (Mark vii. 34;
Luke ix. 16) Acts xxii. 13, àváyew Matt. iv. 1; Luke ii. 22;
Acts xx. 3 (Herod. 7, 10, 15), ávaλaµßáveoðai Mark xvi. 19, ȧva-
πiπTEW Luke xiv. 10, åvaþépe‹ Matt. xvii. 1; Luke xxiv. 51,
ȧvaxopeîv Matt. ii. 14; iv. 12 etc., ávépxeobai Jno. vi. 3; Gal. i. 18.
b) ρós, principally when the point at which the motion ter-
minatos is a person; as, ἀναβαίνειν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Juo. xx. 17,
ἀνακάμπτειν Matt. ii. 12, ἀναπέμπειν Luke xxiii. 7 ἀναβλέπ. πρός
Tiva Plat. Phaed. 116 d.; Arrian. Epict. 2, 16, 41), yet eπl riva is
also used in such cases Luke x. 6 (ȧvакáµπтeш cf. Diod. S. 3, 17),
or the Dat. Luke xxiii. 11 ἀναπέμπειν τινί.
c) éπi, when the goal of the action is to be designated definitely
as an eminence or as a surface on which the motion terminates,
(Polyb. 8, 31, 1 àvaþépei èπì tǹv åyopáv (up) to the market, on
the other hand ἀναβαίνειν ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν like the Latin ascendere
Polyb. 10, 4, 6, ἀναβαίνειν ἐπὶ δικαστήριον frequently in Greek
authors). Thus we find ἀναβιβάζειν ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλόν Matt. xiii. 48
(Xen. C. 4, 2, 28; Polyb. 7, 17, 9), ẻπì Tо KTĥvos Luke x. 34
(Palaeph. 1, 9; Xen. C. 4, 5, 16; cf. 7, 1, 38), åvakλíveσlai Èπì
τοὺς χόρτους Matt. xiv. 19, ἀναπίπτειν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν Matt. xv. 35 or
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς Mark viii. 6, αναβαίνειν ἐπὶ τὸ δῶμα Luke v. 19, ἐπὶ
§ 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS.
429
σuкoμoρćav xix. 4 (cf. Xen. C. 4, 1, 7; 6, 4, 4; Her. 4, 22; Plut.
educ. 7, 13; Arrian. Epict. 3, 24, 33; Lys. 1; Alcib. 10; Paus. 6, 381
4, 6), ȧvapéρew èπì Tò §úλov upon the wood (cross) 1 Pet. ii. 24,1 6th ed.
ȧvαкáμπтelv éπí Luke x. 6 (Plut. educ. 17, 13).
ELV
3) Verbs compounded with avτí (against) are regularly fol-
lowed by the Dat., as Matt. vii. 2; Luke xiii. 17; Jno. xix. 12;
Rom. xiii. 2 etc.; yet see Heb. xii. 4 ȧvtaywvišeσdai πρós тi (cf.
vs. 3 ἡ εἰς αὐτὸν ἀντιλογία), similar to which is ἀντικεῖσθαι πρός
Polyb. 2, 66, 3; Dio C. p. 204 and 777.
ý
4) Verbs compounded with ẻ are sometimes followed by that
preposition (i.e. when out of is to be expressed), and sometimes
merely by aπó or waρá (i.e. when merely direction from or from
the vicinity of is indicated): thus ékßáλλew èk Matt. xiii. 52; Jno.
ii. 15; 3. Juo. 10, etc. (Plat. Gorg. 468 d.) and amó Matt. vii. 4,
ékkλíveiv åttó 1 Pet. iii. 11; Rom. xvi. 17, ékkóπtel èk Rom. xi. 24
(Diod. S. 16, 24), èktitteiv èκ Acts xii. 7 (Arrian. Ind. 30, 3), 449
ÈкλéуeσÐαι ÈK Jno. xv. 19 (Plat. legg. 7 p. 811 a.), ÉKπоρеÚεσÐαι ÈK
Matt. xv. 11, 18; Rev. ix. 18 (Polyb. 6, 58, 4) and άπó Mark vii. 15 400
(var., not Matt. xxiv. 1) or πapá Jno. xv. 26, expeúуew èk Acts th ed.
ἐκφεύγειν ἐκ Tub
xix. 16, ἐξαίρειν and ἐξαιρεῖν ἐκ 1 Cor. v. 2; Acts xxvi. 17, ἐξέρχεσθαι
èk Matt. ii. 6; Acts vii. 3 etc. (Her. 9, 12) or Taρá Luke ii. 1.
On the other hand these verbs are but rarely construed with the
Genitive, never when used in a local sense except èépxelai Matt.
x. 14 (and even there not quite indubitably, see the variants; yet
cf. ekßaíveiv Tivós Jacobs, Philostr. p. 718); when used figuratively,
however, the Gen. is constant with KπITTEW (like spe excidere)
Gal. v. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 17; Plat. rep. 6, 496 c.; Lucian. contempl.
14 (yet with ex Her. 3, 14; Dio C. p. 1054, 57), and èкêρéµao Oaι
Luke xix. 48. Lastly, expeúyeɩ even in a physical sense takes
the Acc. (of the force): 2 Cor. xi. 33 ¿кþeúуeiv тàs xeîpás tIVOS
(Sus. 22), cf. Her. 6, 40 and frequently; è occurs after this verb
merely to denote locality in Acts xix. 16 ἐκφυγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου, cf.
Sir. xxvii. 20.
5) The construction of verbs compounded with ev is very sim-
ple: when they signify direction to (towards) something, they
are followed by eis; when they denote rest in, or on, a place, they
are followed by év, e.g. éµßaivew eis Matt. viii. 23; xiv. 22; Jno.
vi. 17 (Her. 2, 29; Plat. Crat. 397 a.), èußáλλew eis Luke xii. 5
(Dio C. p. 288, 79; Plat. Tim. 91 c.; Lucian. Tim. 21), éµßáπTTELV
els Mark xiv. 20 (but with ev Matt. xxvi. 23 dip in the dish),
1 With the Acc. alone we find àvaßalvew Iππоv, Dion. H. 2252, 7; Pausan. 10, 19, 6.
430
§ 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS.
éµẞnéπew eis Matt. vi. 26; Acts i. 11, épíπтew eis Luke x. 36
(Her. 7, 43; Plat. Tim. 84 c.; Lucian. Hermot. 59) 1 Tim. iii. 6,
éμTTÚεw eis Matt. xxvi. 67; xxvii. 30, but évènμeîv év 2 Cor. v. 6,
èvolkeîv év 2 Cor. vi. 16; Col. iii. 16 (with Acc. Her. 2, 178), évepyεîv
èv Phil. ii. 13; Eph. i. 20 etc., évypáþew év 2 Cor. iii. 2 (like ¿yyλú-
φειν ἐν Her. 2, 4), ἐμμένειν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ) Heb. viii. 9. At the
same time, in both significations the construction with the Dat.
occurs not unfrequently, cf. èµßλéteiv tiví (of a person) Mark
x. 21, 27; Luke xxii. 61; Jno. i. 36, 43 (Plat. rep. 10, 609 d. ;
Polyb. 15, 28,3), éµπтúew тiví Mark x. 34; xiv. 65; xv. 19, éµµéveiv
ἐμμένειν
Tivi (TiOTEL) Acts xiv. 22 (Xen. Mem. 4, 4, 4; Lycurg. 19, 4;
382 Lucian. Tim. 102). 'Evтpuþâv to revel in something is construed
6th ed. in Greek authors with the Dat. alone (e.g. Diod. S. 19, 71); on
the other hand, in 2 Pet. ii. 13 év is repeated. In Rom. xi. 24
éykevтpíšew is construed first with eis and then with the Dat.
6) Still more simple is the construction of verbs compounded
with eis, such as εἰςάγειν, εἰςπορεύεσθαι, εἰςφέρειν, εἰςέρχεσθαι; viz.
450 they uniformly repeat eis, cf. Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 210; yet see Hm.
Eurip. Ion p. 98, and my second Progr. de Verb. compp. p. 13.
V.
ειν
7) Of the verbs compounded with èrí, some are construed with
that preposition (more rarely with els), and some with the Dative
alone; yet many take either construction indifferently: èπißáλλELV
ἐπι
eis (into) or ¿πí тɩ (upon Plat. Prot. 334 b.) Mark iv. 37; Luke
36;
ix. 62, also with the Dat. of the person 1 Cor. vii. 35; Mark
401 xi. 7; Acts iv. 3 (Polyb. 3, 2, 8; 3, 5, 5),¹ èπißaívei èπí or els
7th ed. Acts xxi. 6; xx. 18 (Matt. xxi. 5), also with a local Dat. Acts
xxvii. 2 (Polyb. 1, 5, 2; Diod. S. 16, 66), èπißλéteiv étí Luke
i. 48; Jas. ii. 3; Plut. educ. 4, 9 (with eis Plat. Phaedr. 63 a.),
ÉπTIKEîσ Oαi èπí Tv Jno. xi. 38, also with the Dat. of the person.
1 Cor. ix. 16, èπIπíπтELV Éπí Tɩ Luke i. 12; Acts x. 10, or ẻπí Tɩɩ
Acts viii. 16, or with the Dat. of the person Mark iii. 10; Acts
xx. 10 (Polyb. 1, 24, 4), ἐπιῤῥίπτειν ἐπί τι 1 Pet. v. 7, ἐπιτιθέναι
èπí Tɩ Mark iv. 21; Matt. xxiii. 4; Acts ix. 17 etc., or with the
Dative, mostly of the person Luke xxiii. 26; Mark vii. 32; Acts
ix. 12; 1 Tim. v. 22 etc., rarely of the thing Jno. xix. 2 (Lucian.
Tim. 41, 122), èπéρxeσ0αι èπí тi Luke i. 35; Acts viii. 24; xiii. 40
or with the Dative of the thing Luke xxi. 26, ἐπαίρειν ἐπί or εἴς τι
Jno. xiii. 18; Luke xviii. 13, èπoikodoµeîv èπí Tɩ 1 Cor. iii. 12 or
ἐπιπίπτειν ἐπ
τινι
1 (n étißádλew tàu xeîpa èní tiva and Tɩɩ (Lucian. Tim. 10) in particular, see Fr.
Mr. p. 637. We find in a material sense in Polyaen. 5, 2, 12 wolą móλei BOÚλOITO
ἐπιπλεύσαι.
§ 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS.
431
Tɩɩ Eph. ii. 20, but also ev Col. ii. 7, èπɩdeîv ẻπí τɩ Acts iv. 29,
ἐπιφέρειν with the Dat. of the thing Phil. i. 17, ἐφικνεῖσθαι εἴς τινα
2 Cor. x. 14, éþúλλeσlai èπí тiva Acts xix. 16 (1 Sam. x. 6; xi. 6).
On the other hand, éπvypúþew is construed with ev, 2 Cor. iii. 2
cf. Plat. de lucri cupid. p. 229 etc.; Palaeplı. 47, 5 (differently in
Num. xvii. 2; Prov. vii. 3). 'ETEKTEίveolar Phil. iii. 14 (stretch
one's self out after) and, when joined to names of persons, éπipai-
veiv and èπiþaúew invariably take the Dative alone, Eph. v. 14;
Luke i. 79 (cf. Gen. xxxv. 7); so also does éπipéρe in the sense
of adding something to something, Phil. i. 17. 'Emiokiάčew has
sometimes the Dative of the person, as in Acts v. 15 and probably
in Mark ix. 7 (to make a sheltering shade for one, cf. Ps. xc. 4),
and sometimes the Acc. Matt. xvii. 5; Luke ix. 34 (overshadow,
envelope, as transitive). In the Sept. we find also éπioniú. èπí
ἐπισκιάζ. ἐπί
Tɩva Ps. cxxxix. 8; Exod. xl. 29.
8) Of the verbs compounded with Stá, there are but few in
which the preposition is particularly prominent: cf. in the N. T.
diaπоρeúεσlai dià σтоpíμwv Luke vi. 1, cf. D. S. exc. Vat. p. 30
(but we find also diaπорeveolaι Tóλes, yet in the sense of obire, 451
Acts xvi. 4), diépxeolai diú Matt. xii. 43; 2 Cor. i. 16 to pass
through (and consequently out of) something, cf. Strabo 8, 332,
and the pregnant diaowei di daros 1 Pet. iii. 20.
are construed like transitives, with the Acc., e.g.
through Acts xxvii. 5, likewise diépxeolai when it signifies pass 6th ed.
through Luke xix. 1; Acts xv. 3, diaßaiveiv Heb. xi. 29 etc.
Most of them
Siamλeiv sail 383
9) Verbs compounded with Kaтá which denote an action de-
scending upon a local point, take ȧró or és when the terminus
a quo is to be expressed, e.g. καταβαίνειν ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ Luke
ix. 54; 1 Thess. iv. 16, κатаß. EK тоû оup. Juo. iii. 13; vi. 41;
when the terminus ad quem is to be indicated (Dio C. 108, 23;
741, 96) they take ẻπí, eis, or πpós, according to the respective
nature of the point in view, Luke xxii. 44; Mark xiii. 15; Acts
xiv. 11, perhaps the Dative alone in Acts xx. 9 катаþéрeobaι ÜTVÖ.]
On the other hand, καθῆσθαι, καθίζειν, κατατιθέναι ἔν τινι signify 402
to set down on some place, etc. Kaтnуopeîv to accuse, in as far 7th ed
as the notion of Kaтá is retained, is usually construed with the
Gen. of the person; kaтηyoρeîv ti kaтá tivos occurs once, Luke
xxiii. 14, and similarly eykaλeiv Kaтá TIVOS Rom. viii. 33; cf. Soph.
Philoct. 328. Analogous to kатηуорeîv with the Gen. is Rom.
1 As we find elsewhere kaтapéρeolaι eis Sπvov or o' vπу, see Kühnöl in loc. Other-
wise un might also be taken as Ablative.
اد
432
§ 52. VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS.
xi. 18 KаTAKAVɣâodal Tivos boast against something cf. Jas. ii. 13,
and κатаμаρтурeiv Tivos Matt. xxvi. 62; xxvii. 13; but KaтakaνXx.
κατά τινος Jas. iii. 14.
10) Verbs compounded with μerá in which this preposition
signifies trans, as μεταβαίνειν, μεταμορφοῦν, μετασχηματίζειν, μετα-
νοεῖν, μετοικίζειν etc., naturally take eis to denote passing over into,
cf. Vig. p. 639.
11) Verbs compounded with παρά, are followed by ἀπό or παρά
(yet see § 47 pp. 365, 369 ff.) when the place whence is to be ex-
pressed, e.g. Acts i. 25 ἀφ' ἧς ἀποστολῆς) παρέβη (Deut. xvii. 20 ;
Josh. xi. 15, etc.), according to others és (Deut. ix. 12, 16);
πаρаλаµßáveiν àπó Tíos 1 Cor. xi. 23 and Taρá T. 1 Thess. iv. 1;
2 Thess. iii. 6, таρаþéρeiv àтó T. Mark xiv. 36; Luke xxii. 42,
πаρéрXеσÐαι ȧπó T. Matt. v. 18; Mark xiv. 35.
12) Most verbs compounded with Tepi have become regular
transitives, and accordingly govern the Acc.; as, πеρiéрxeσlai
1 Tim. v. 13 (obire), TepiCwvvúva Eph. vi. 14, Teρiiσrávaι Acts
xxv. 7. In a material sense, with Tepi repeated, we find once
452 πepiaσtpáπtew Acts xxii. 6 (in the parallel passage Acts ix. 3 it
is used as transitive), περιζώννυσθαι Rev. xv. 6 (περὶ τὰ στήθη),
Teρɩkeîσ0αι Mark ix. 42; Luke xvii. 2 (πeρɩσπâo@ai Luke x. 40),
but with Dat. περιπίπτειν (λῃσταῖς, πειρασμοῖς) Luke x. 30 ; Jas.
i. 2 (Thuc. 2, 54; Polyb. 3, 53, 6; Lycurg. 19, 1) and weρikeîodaɩ
Heb. xii. 1.
13) Of verbs compounded with πрó, only πρожорeúεσlαι Luke
i. 76 repeats the preposition: προπορεύσῃ πρὸ προςώπου κυρίου
(Deut. ix. 3); in the Sept. éváriov is also used Ps. lxxxiv. 14;
xcvi. 3 and eμπроσ0еv Gen. xxxii. 16; Isaiah lviii. 8. So in Luke
i. 17 προελεύσεται ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ (but in xxii. 47 προήρχετο αὐτούς).
Further, sce above, No. 2.
14) Verbs compounded with πpós repeat that preposition when
towards in a local sense is to be indicated, e.g. πроSTÍπте πрòs
TOÙS Tódas TIós Mark vii. 25; cf. Dio C. 932, 82; 1275, 53 (but
προςπίπτειν τοῖς γόνασι Diod. S. 17, 13), προςτίθεσθαι πρὸς τοὺς
384 πατέρας Acts xiii. 36; also προςκολλᾶσθαι πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα cleave
6th ed. to his wife Mark x. 7; Eph. v. 31. On the other hand, with ẻπl
in Matt. vi. 27 πρоsтiðévαι Éπì тỳν λikiav. More rarely the Dat.
προςτιθέναι ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν.
alone is used, e.g. προςέρχ. ὄρει Heb. xii. 22, προςπίπτειν οἰκίᾳ Matt.
vii. 25 (Xen. eq. 7, 6; Philostr. Apol. v. 21), and of direction,
πроsÓwνеîv Tivi call to Matt. xi. 16; Acts xxii. 2, cf. Diod. S. 4,
48 (but πроsшveîv Tiva call one hither Luke vi. 13). On the other
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
433
hand, the Dat. alone is almost invariably used when the object ap- 403
proached is a person, е.g. πросπĺπтEW τwi (to fall down before 7th ed.
one) Mark iii. 11; v. 33; Acts xvi. 29, πрospéρew Twí (Philostr.
Apol. v. 22), πроséρxeσÐαí Tivi to draw near to one, or when
the approaching is itself to be taken figuratively, e.g. πрosáɣew
Tŵ De❖ to bring to God 1 Pet. iii. 18 (in Sept. πposάyeiv tậ kupiw
frequently), πposkλíveσðal rivɩ to attach one's self to Acts v. 36
cf. πρoséɣew Twi Heb. vii. 13; Acts xvi. 14, πposeúɣeolaí Tivi Matt.
vi. 6; 1 Cor. xi. 13, προςτιθέναι λόγον τινί Heb. xii. 19, προςτίθεσθαι
Tŷ èkkλŋolą Acts ii. 41. If the verb implies rest (πpós rɩɩ), it is
τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ
construed either thus with the Dat. alone, as πρоsμévei тiví Acts
xi. 23; 1 Tim. v. 5, πposedρeúe‹ 1 Cor. ix. 13 (Polyb. 8, 9, 11; 38,
5,9), πρoskaρtepeîv Mark iii. 9; Col. iv. 2; Rom. xii. 12; cf. Polyb.
1, 55, 4; 1, 59, 12; Diod. S. 20, 48 etc., or (in strictly local rela-
tions) with ev, e.g. πposµévei èv 'Epéoų 1 Tim. i. 3.
15) Verbs compounded with oúv but rarely repeat that preposi-
tion Col. ii. 13 (σvkwotтoleîv), or take instead of it μerá (Weber,
Demosth. 210) Matt. xxv. 19 (ovvaípew), 2 Cor. viii. 18 (ovμπÉμ-
πειν), Matt. xx. 2 (συμφωνεῖν), xvii. 3 (συλλαλεῖν), Mark xiv. 54 ; 453
they are most frequently construed with the Dat. alone, instances
of which occur on nearly every page of the N. T. (also in 1 Cor.
xiii. 6; Jas. ii. 22, not in Rom. vii. 22). In classical Greek this
construction is almost the only one used. Acts i. 26 ovуkaтEÝM
φίσθη μετὰ τῶν ἕνδεκα ἀποστόλων is a pregnant expression.
16) of the verbs compounded with úró none repeat the prepo-
sition; but when they denote direction towards (vπáуew, vπоσтρÉ-
pew etc.) they take eis or πρós, and when the vπó means under,
as in úπоπλeî, they are used as transitives.
17) Verbs compounded with Tép are for the most part used
absolutely. Only vπeρevтvyɣávew repeats vπép Rom. viii. 26 (var.),
cf. Judith v. 21; Sir. xxxvi. 27; and vπeppрoveîv is construed with
παρά in Rom. xii. 3. Υπερβαίνειν in 1 Thess. iv. 6 and ὑπεριδεῖν
in Acts xvii. 30 are used transitively in a figurative sense.
Note. The N. T. contains no decided instance of the usage, not very
rare in Greek authors, according to which the preposition of a compound
verb influences also a second verb (Franke, Dem. p. 30).
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
1. Conjunctions, particles designed to connect words and sen-
tences, classify themselves according to the various species of
55
434
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
connection, which are the same in all cultivated languages and are
385 eight in number (Krü. 308); cf. O. Jahn, grammaticor. gr. de
conjunctionibus doctrina Gryph. 1847.
6th ed.
ι αν
The primitive conjunctions are monosyllabic: καί, τοι, τε, δέ, μέν,
404 ovv. Many are obviously derived from pronouns or adjectives:
7th ed, ὅτε, ὅτι, ὡς, τοι, ἀλλά etc. Others are compound: ἐάν (εἰ ἄν),
ἐπεί, ὥστε, γάρ (γε ἄρα), τοίνυν etc. Some are construed with a
454 particular mood according to their signification (ei, éáv, iva, öπws,
Te etc.). See, in general, Hm. emend. p. 164 sqq.
The principal conjunctions (of all the various classes) used in
Greek prose are employed in the N. T., and in their legitimate
senses.1 But Toi, unv (by themselves) do not occur; many com-
pounds also, the more refined niceties of expression (e.g. yoûv),
were unnecessary in the style of the N. T.
It is further to be specially remarked, that causal conjunctions (as oтt,
èπeí, èπeidń) originally designated for the most part something present,
either tangible or temporal; a connection of ideas observable also in
the case of prepositions (p. 360 sq.), and which occurs likewise in Latin
and German (quod, quoniam, quando, quandoquidem, weil).
a
ка
2. The most simple and most general connection of words and
sentences, the mere coupling of contiguous words and sentences,
is formed by kai and Te (et and que), the latter of which occurs
oftenest in Luke, particularly in the Acts, and then in the Epistle
to the Hebrews: Matt. ii. 13 παράλαβε τὸ παιδίον καὶ τὴν μητέρα
αὐτοῦ καὶ φεύγε εἰς Αἴγυπτον, Acts x. 22 ἀνὴρ φοβούμενος τ. θεόν,
μαρτυρούμενός τε ὑπὸ ὅλου τοῦ ἔθνους, iv. 13 θεωροῦντες . ἐθαύμα
ζον, ἐπεγίνωσκόν τε αὐτούς etc. The distinction between καί and
Te is this: kai is conjunctive (of something co-ordinate), Te is
adjunctive (of something accessary). Says Hermann, xaí con-
jungit, Te adjungit; with which cf. Klotz, Devar. II. 744.2 Hence
Te denotes rather an internal (logical) relation; kaí, rather an
external.
Observation shows that in the N. T. also Te designates something
ΤΕ
1 Schleiermacher, Hermen. S. 66 goes too far; on S. 130 his opinion is more correct.
It is only in reference to the position of certain conjunctions that the language of the
N. T. departs from the earlier prose.
2 Cf. the different views of philologists as to kai and Te (originating in Toι Hm. Soph.
Trach. 1015) Hm. Vig. 835; ad Eurip. Med. p. 331; Hand de partic. Te, Jen. 1832.
2 Progr. 4to.; Bhdy. 482 f.; Sommer in the n. Jahrbüch. f. Philol. 1831. III. 400 f. ;
Hartung, Part. I. 58 ff.
As to the Latin que, see Zumpt, Gr. § 333; Hand, Tursellin. II. 467 sq.; cf. Bauer-
meister, über die Copulativpartikeln im Latein. Luckau, 1853. 4to.
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
435
additional, supplementary, explanatory, flowing from what precedes, or
even its details (Rost 722 f.), Jno. vi. 18; Acts ii. 33, 37; iv. 33; v. 42;
vi. 7; viii. 13, 28, 31; x. 28, 48; xi. 21; xii. 6; xv. 4, 39; xix. 12; xx. 7;
xxi. 18; Rom. xvi. 26; hence usually something of inferior importance,
Jno. iv. 42; Acts xvi. 34. Sometimes, however, Te has the effect to give 455
prominence : in Heh. ix. 1 εἶχε καὶ ἡ πρώτη (διαθήκη) δικαιώματα λατρείας
τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν, the last particular is subjoined by re as something
specific and implied in Sık. λarp.; but when the author in vs. 2 sqq. speaks 405
of the sanctuary in detail, he takes this specification as his leading idea. 7th ed.
There is nothing strange in this; for that which is not co-ordinate (κaí) 386
with what precedes but is merely annexed to it, may just as well, accord- tib ed
ing to circumstances, be more important as less; cf., further, Heb. xii. 2.
Indeed, it may be remarked generally (Klotz 1. c.), that the private views
of the writer often have much to do in deciding him to choose τe; and
that re and dé were early interchanged in the N. T. by transcribers (Acts
vii. 26; viii. 6; ix. 24; xi. 13; xii. 8, 12; xiii. 44; xxvi. 20, etc.).
3. In the N. T., as in the Biblical style generally, the simple
connection by means of kai¹ is often chosen, even where in a more
artificial diction some more specific conjunction would have been
employed. This circumstance led the earlier biblical philologists
to the erroneous assumption, that in the N. T. Kai, like the Hebrew
1, was a sort of conjunction-general, combining in itself the signifi-
cations of all conjunctions whatever, and of many adverbs besides
(see still Schleusner's lexic. under the word).
But in the N. T., as in Greek authors (Klotz, Devar. II. 635),
Kai has only two significations: and and also.2 These significa-
tions, however, comprehend several shades of meaning, which we
express by special words: thus also is intensified into even, vel,
adeo (Fr. Rom. I. 270; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 50). In many
passages, however, this is not the case, but kai as a simple copula
was chosen by the writer either in accordance with the simplicity
of Biblico-Oriental thought, or designedly on rhetorical grounds;
sometimes both causes concur. A translator should not efface the
coloring of the style by employing more specific conjunctions.
1 The and uniting separate clauses deserves perhaps special mention only in the case,
often overlooked, where a writer tacks one O. T. quotation to another e.g. Acts i. 20
γενηθήτω ἡ ἔπαυλις ἐν αὐτῇ (Ps. lxix.), καὶ τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν ... ἕτερος (Ps. cix.);
Heb. i. 9 f. (see Bleek); Rom. ix. 33.
•
2 Klotz, as above: In omnibus locis, ubicunque habetur kaí particula, aut simpliciter
copulat duas res, aut ita ponitur ut praeter alias res, quae aut re vera positae sunt aut
facile cogitatione suppleri possunt, hanc vel illam rem esse aut fieri significet, et in
priore caussa und reddi solet, in posteriore etiam, quoque, vel, sicuti res ac ratio in
singulis locis requirit.
436
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
456
In the narrative style, especially of the first three Gospels, the several
facts are usually strung together in simple succession by kaí; whereas the
use of Sé or οὖν, μετὰ τοῦτο, εἶτα, etc. instead would give more variety,
and participial and relative constructions would distinguish with greater
clearness principal from subordinate matters: Matt. i. 24 f. Taρéλaßev rèv
γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν, καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ
övoμa avтoû 'Inσoûv, iv. 24 f.; vii. 25, 27; Luke v. 17, see § 60. The case
in which a specification of time is given and then the event attached to it
by κaí, deserves particular attention; as, Mark xv. 25 v öpa тpítη kai
éσтaúρwσav auTóv (a supplementary statement, as it were, to vs. 24) it
was the third hour and (when) they crucified him; where ore was early
406 substituted as a correction. From this we must distinguish Luke xxiii. 44
7th ed. ἦν ὡσεὶ ὥρα ἕκτη καὶ σκότος ἐγένετο, where if ὅτε were used the time would
387 be brought out as the principal matter, and the event regarded as subor-
6th ed. dinate; both, however, are to be represented as co-ordinate, hence κaí.
This structure of a sentence is found also in Greek authors (Mtth. 1481;
Mdv. 214), e.g. Plat. symp. 220 c. non v μeonμßрía каì aveрwтоι nobávovтo,
ἤδη μεσημβρία καὶ ἄνθρωποι ᾐσθάνοντο,
Arrian. Al. 6, 9, 8 ἤδη πρὸς τῇ ἐπάλξει ἦν καὶ . . . ὤθει, Thuc. 1, 50; Xen.
A. 1, 1, 8. Still more unlike is the case when, in prophetic announcements,
the time is first specified and then a clause annexed with κaí, a con-
struction which imparts greater solemnity to the discourse: Luke xix. 43;
Heb. viii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 52. In exhortations also, like aireîte kai dołýσeral
iµîv, Luke x. 28 Toûto toleɩ kaì lýoŋ, the co-ordination of the two verbs
is more forcible than such a construction as TOUTO TOLν ýon (Franke,
Demosth. p. 61). Cf. Demosth. olynth. 3, 11 c. Ôpâte Taûť outwS ÖTWS ...
καὶ δυνήσεσθε ἐξιέναι καὶ μισθὸν ἕξετε.
In such sentences as 1 Cor. v. 2 ... and ye are puffed up, Matt. iii. 14
I have need to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me, Jno. vi. 70
have I not chosen you...? and one of you is a traitor, xi. 8; xiv. 30;
Heb. iii. 9, surprise or sorrow is more eloquently expressed by the simple
and than by the more sonorous however, nevertheless, notwithstanding; in
the mere contraposition of the clauses the contrast speaks as it were for
itself. On the other hand, in Matt. xxvi. 53 Sokeîs, oтi où dúvaμaι ǎρтi
παρακαλέσαι τ. πατέρα μου καὶ παραστήσει μοι πλείω δώδεκα λεγεώνας ἀγγέλων;
Heb. xii. 9 οὐ πολὺ μᾶλλον ὑποταγησόμεθα τῷ πατρὶ τ. πνευμάτων καὶ ζήσομεν ;
Jas. v. 18; Rev. xi. 3, that which was the object or aim of the first act,
and might have been so represented (iva ...), is by means of the consecu-
tive ka raised to independence as a result, since the writer wished to
457 impart to it the greatest possible emphasis. A Greek author to produce
such effect would probably have laid out the sentence from the outset as
où tŵ
follows: οὐ πολὺ μᾶλλον ὑποταγέντες τῷ πατρὶ….. ζήσομεν ; See, further,
Rom. xi. 35; Mark i. 27; Matt. v. 15; cf. Ewald 653 (Sept. Ruth i. 11;
Jonah i. 11). From later Greek may be quoted Malal. 2. p. 39 èkéλevoe
καὶ ἐκαύθη ἡ μυσερὰ κεφαλὴ τῆς Γοργόνος.
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
437
As to the other uses of kaí, inasmuch as they are referrible to the signi-
fications and and also, we have only to note:
σ
a. Kaí before interrogatives, Mark x. 26 kai rís dúvarai olivai; Luke
x. 29; Jno. ix. 36; 1 Pet. iii. 13; 2 Cor. ii. 2 (familiar enough from the
Greek authors, Plat. Theaet. 188 d.; Xen. Cyr. 5, 4, 13; 6, 3, 22; Lucian.
Herm. 84; Diog. L. 6, 93; D. S. exc. Vat. p. 30; the Latin et, too, is so
used), comes under the signification and. We also say, Und was
was that er?
And what did he do?-in an abrupt, hurried question, barring further
discussion. On the other hand, κaí never occurs in the N. T. before the
Imperative to imply urgency (Hoogeveen, doctr. partic. I. 538 sqq.; Har-
tung I. 148). All the instances formerly alleged in support of this usage
are of a different nature. In Matt. xxiii. 32 the κaí is consecutive: ye
profess to be sons etc., fill ye up then etc. In Luke xii. 29 κaí denotes
also or and (consequently). In Mark xi. 29 κaí is and; in 1 Cor. xi. 6
also. The strengthening kaí after interrogatives, as in Rom. viii. 24 & yàp 407
Bλéttei tis, tí kaì èλííeɩ; why doth he yet hope for? is reducible to the 7th ed
βλέπει
sense of also.
b. Kaí never occurs strictly as adversative. In the first place, passages
in which kaì oủ, kaì µý (Fr. Mr. p. 31), kaì ovdeís, etc. occurs
Matt. xi. 17; 388
xii. 39; xxvi. 60; Mark i. 22; vii. 24; ix. 18; Jno. iii, 11, 32; vii. 30 6th ed.
(on the contrary, vs. 44); x. 25; xiv. 30; Acts xii. 19; Col. ii. 8, etc.
must be set aside, as in these the contrast lies in the negation, and is neither
strengthened by dé nor weakened by a simple κaí (Schaef. Dem. I. 645).
Even in such sentences as Mark xii. 12 ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν κρατῆσαι κ. ἐφοβήθησαν
τὸν ὄχλον, 1 Thess. ii. 18 ἠθελήσαμεν ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ... καὶ ἐνέκοψεν ἡμᾶς
å σatavâs, Jno. vii. 28; 1 Jno. v. 19, the writer probably viewed the two
particulars as co-existing side by side, though we are more inclined to
emphasize the opposition. And in Acts x. 28; Matt. xx. 10 (the first
supposed that they would receive more; and they also received every man
a denarion) we also employ and to give prominence to an unexpected
result, see above. No one now will think it strange that in 1 Cor. xii. 4,
5, 6 Sé and κaí are used alternately. Lastly, in 1 Cor. xvi. 9 two circum-
stances (òne favorable and one unfavorable) detaining Paul in Ephesus.
are united; kaί therefore is the simple copula.¹
c. The epexegetical, more closely defining, kai namely (Hm. Philoct. 458
1408; Bremi, Demosth. p. 179; cf. Vc. Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. p. 9;
Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 33 sq.; Weber, Demosth. p. 438) is primarily only
and (and indeed), Jno. i. 16 out of his fulness have we all received, namely
(that is) grace for grace, 1 Cor. iii. 5; xv. 38; Eph. vi. 18; Gal. vi. 16;
Heb. xi. 17; Acts xxiii. 6. But this force has been attributed to κaí in
too many passages: in Matt. xiii. 41; xvii. 2; xxi. 5 κaí is simply and.
1 So early a scholar as Hoogeveen perceived that but (however) is not the proper
meaning of kαí: sciant non ex se sed ex oppositorum membror. natura hanc (notionem)
nactam esse κaí particulam (doctr. particul. I. 533).
1
438
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
In Mark xi. 28 the true reading [sustained also by Cod. Sin.] is probably.
In Matt. iii. 5 to render kaì ʼn πeρixwρos Toû 'Iopdávov by namely the country
about the Jordan, would be to join an incongruous adjunct to 'Iovdaía, as
the two geographical notions do not exactly coincide nor is the former
comprehended in the latter. The phraseology resembles, All Hesse and
the Rhine-region; all Baden and Breisgau, cf. Krü. 318. In the expres-
sion leòs καì Taтýρ the meaning of kaí is simply and (at the same time),
not namely, that is.
K
d. It may be doubted whether κaí ever signifies especially (Bornem.
Luc. 78; Fr. Mr. p. 11) when to a general term one that is special and
strictly speaking already included in the former is added: in Mark i. 5
ἐξεπορεύετο πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες, xvi. 7 the
specification is made prominent by its very position, but kaí simply signifies
and. Cf. Heb. vi. 10. On the other hand, when a special term precedes,
Kaí is sometimes put immediately before the general expression which
includes the former, as in Matt. xxvi. 59 oi åpxɩepeîs koì oi #peoßútepol
408 kaì rò ovvédpiov öλov and (in one word, to sum up) the whole sanhe-
7th ed. drim, see Fr. Mt. 786; Mr. 652; cf. Vc. Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. p. 67,
Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 83 and rep. II. 212. Kai stands at the close of an
entire exposition (before the final result) in Heb. iii. 19 (and according
to some Codd. in 1 Cor. v. 13).
κα
e. When κaí signifies also (which is not the case e.g. in Eph. v. 2),¹ it
389 may be sometimes translated by precisely, just, very (eben, ja) (Hm. Vig.
6th ed. 837; Poppo, Thuc. III. II. 419): Heb. vii. 26 TOLOÛTOS yàp žµîv kaì
πрежеν ȧрxieρεús, oocos etc. for such a high priest just became us, vi. 7;
1 Pet. ii. 8 (Jno. viii. 25), Col. iii. 15; 2 Cor. iii. 6; 2 Tim. i. 12. Else-
where it might be rendered by vicissim 1 Cor. i. 8; Phil. ii. 9; but also
is quite sufficient.
K
f. When κać occurs in the secondary clause after a particle of time
(ότε, ὡς), as in Luke ii. 21 ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν ἡμέραι ὀκτὼ τοῦ περιτεμεῖν αὐτόν,
καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς, or vii. 12 ὡς ἤγγισε τῇ πύλῃ τῆς πόλεως,
kaì idov ¿¿ekoµíleto tebvnkús, Acts i. 10; x. 17, the proper construction
459 would be: ἐπλήσθ. δὲ ἡμέραι . . . καὶ ἐκλήθη, ἤγγισε τῇ πύλῃ ... καὶ ἐξεκομ.
On the other hand, in Jno. i. 19 we must not (as even BCrus. does) join
ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν . . . καὶ ὡμολόγησε, but ὅτε ἀπέστειλαν etc. is to be connected
with αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία etc., see Lücke in loc. On και commencing a
parenthesis, e.g. Rom. i. 13 (Fr. in loc.), see § 62, 1.
p. 448; and on kaì dé, no. 7 p. 443. In Luke xix. 42 and Acts ii. 18 we
find kai ye et quidem, and that without a word intervening, a usage that
does not occur in the earlier written language. As to later authors, see
Klotz, Devar. II. 318.
ẻorìv ỷ
On kaì yáp see no. 8
1 As to kai also after relatives (Heb. i. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 23, etc.), sec Klotz, Devar. II.
636; but, in general, Krü. 319. The exact meaning of the also, even, must always be
gathered from the context. Kaí is repeated several times in succession by way of
climax in 1 Cor. xv. 1 f.
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
439
1
4. Connection in the form of correlation takes place, when two
words or clauses are joined as corresponding to each other, by
means of και ... καί (τε . . . τε Acts xxvi. 16) or τε ... καί. The
first formula (kaí ……. Kaí) is used when the writer from the very
first conceives both members as co-ordinate, et ... et (both and,
as well... as); the latter, when he appends to the first member a
econd (et... que, not only
que, not only... but also) Klotz, Devar. II. 740;
Matt. x. 28 ὁ δυνάμενος καὶ ψυχὴν κ. σῶμα ἀπολέσαι, 1 Cor. x. 32
ἐπρόςκοποι καὶ Ἰουδαίοις κ. Ελλησιν καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, Phil. iii. 10 ;
v. 3; Acts xxi. 12 таρекаλоûµеv ýµeîs te kaì oi èvтóπiol, Luke ii. 16
· ἀνεῦρον τήν τε Μαριὰμ καὶ τ. Ἰωσὴφ καὶ τὸ βρέφος etc., Kru. 327.
n the former case, the members are combined as into one whole
or compact group); in the latter, the second member is to be
viewed as something added to the first, while the respective im-
portance of each is not thereby pronounced upon (Rost 134, 5 c.);
ef. Acts iv. 27; v. 24; Rom. i. 14; Heb. xi. 32 etc. In the course
of lengthened enumerations, groups (pairs) are thus formed by 409
τε ... καί (... και), as in Heb. xi. 32 Βαράκ τε καὶ Σαμψών κ. Ti od
Ιεφθάε, Δαυΐδ τε κ. Σαμουὴλ κ. τῶν προφητῶν, 1 Cor. i. 30 ; Heb.
vi. 2; Acts ii. 9, 10; Phil. i. 7.
7th
Kai... Kaí connect not merely things similar but also things contrasted,
as in Jno. vi. 36 καὶ ἑωράκατέ με καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε the seeing and the not
believing both occur, in xv. 24, probably also in xvii. 25. On the other
hand, in 1 Cor. vii. 38 the co-ordination of the contraries is disturbed in
the second member by a comparison. On the correspondence between
Te and Sé, according to which the latter particle denotes, along with con-
nection, some opposition (lenis oppositio Klotz, Devar. II. 741) as in Acts 390
xxii. 28 and the chief captain answered... but Paul said, xix. 3, see Stallb. 6th ed.
Plat. Phileb. p. 36, and rep. II. 350; Hm. Eur. Med. p. 362 sq.; Klotz
1.c. Te and kai are placed either immediately together between the two 460
words thus formed into a group, as in Luke xxi. 11 þóßηtρά te kai onµeîa,
Acts ix. 18, or are separated by one or two of the connected words, as in
Luke xxiii. 12 ὅ τε Πιλᾶτ. καὶ ὁ Ἡρώδης, Jno. ii. 15; Acts ii. 43 πολλά τε
τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα, x. 39 ἔν τε τῇ χώρᾳ τ. Ἰουδαίων καὶ Ἱερουσαλήμ, Rom.
i. 20; Acts xxviii. 23 etc., in which case the article, preposition, or adjec-
tive serves also for the second member. Otherwise in Phil. i. 7 EV TE TOÎS
deoμoîs μov kaì èv Tỷ ȧmoλoyía etc. (In Acts xix. 27; xxi. 28 we find Te
μου τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ
kać in one and the same clause, que etiam, a combination rare in Greek
authors, though not to be rejected.)
1 Such passages as Mark ii. 26 καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν, Jno. v. 27, where
καí ... kαí are not parallel to each other but the second signifies also, do not come
under this head, cf. Soph. Philoct. 274.
440
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
5. Correlation is brought out with greatest precision in the form
of comparison: ὡς (ὥςπερ, καθώς)... οὕτως; frequently και is sub-
joined to the latter to increase its force, as in Jas. ii. 26 Sπеρ
τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος νεκρόν ἐστιν, οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν
ÉруWV VEкρÚ ÉσTW, Jno. v. 21; Rom. v. 18, 21; 1 Cor. xv. 22; 2 Cor.
Sometimes, in fact,
place of the compara-
>/
i. 7; Eph. v. 24; Heb. v. 3; 2 Pet. ii. 12.
kal in the second member actually takes the
ative particle, as in Matt. vi. 10 γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου ὡς ἐν
оvρav@ Kai Éπì yns, Jno. vi. 57; x. 15; xiii. 33; xvii. 18; Acts
vii. 51; see Bornem. Luke 71.
The popular style likes to introduce κaí elsewhere into comparisons,
though also is already implied in the comparative particle; as, 1 Cor. vii. 7
θέλω πάντας ανθρώπους εἶναι ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν, Luke xi. 1 ; Acts vii. 51; xv. &;
xxvi. 29. Accordingly κaí is repeated in both members in Rom. i. 13
ἵνα τινὰ καρπὸν σχῶ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν καθὼς καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν, Matt.
xviii. 33; Col. iii. 13; Rom. xi. 30 (var.), Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 372; Klotz,
Devar. II. 635; Fr. Rom. I. 39; II. 538 sq.
1
ка
6. Disjunction comes next under consideration. Simple dis-
junction is effected by " (which is often repeated, especially in
impassioned discourse, Rom. viii. 35) and by ǹ кal or even (Matt.
vii. 10; Luke xviii. 11; Rom. ii. 15; xiv. 10; 1 Cor. xvi. 6; cf.
Fr. Rom. I. 122). Correlative disjunction, on the other hand, is
expressed by ... ἤ, εἴτε ... εἴτε, sive sive, whether single
410 words or entire clauses are contrasted, Matt. vi. 24; 1 Cor. xiv. 6
7th ed. (TO ... ½. Rom. vi. 16), Rom. xii. 6; 1 Cor. xii. 13; 1 Pet.
iv. 15, etc.
• •
In the N. T. is never put for kaí, nor κaí for ½, Marle, floril. 124, 195;
461 cf. Schaef. Demosth. IV. 33.2 There are cases, however, in which both
391 particles, each agreeably to its import, may be used with equal correctness
6th ed. (Poppo, Thuc. III. II. 146), e.g. 1 Cor. xiii. 1 and 2 Cor. xiii. 1 (cf. Matt.
xviii. 16), also Heraclid. as quoted by Marle. When dissimilia are joined
together by kal (Col. iii. 11), they are merely placed in connection as
individual objects, and not exhibited expressly as different or opposite.
1 According to the nature of the thoughts, the second clause, annexed by means of
Kaí, is either to be considered as supplementary (Bengel on Rom. ii. 15) and is of less
importance than the first, or aí involves an enhancement as in 1 Cor. (Klotz, Devar.
II. 592).
2 As to aut for et, see Hand, Tursell. I. 540. On the other hand, disjunction by ž
may in a manner include union by kai. When we say: Whoever murders father or
mother is guilty of the most heinous crime, we mean of course at the same time that
whoever murders both his parents is not less guilty. The minus includes the majus.
³ On kal ... kai vel ... vel, sec Schoem. Isac. p. 307.
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
441
»
x
M
In Matt. vii. 10 by kaì éúv a second case is introduced to which the speaker
proceeds (further); but the better reading [supported too by Cod. Sin.]
is probably kal. In Luke xii. 2 we must supply κai ouôèv крUTTÓν. In
ή καί.
ovồèv kputtóv.
Matt. xii. 27 Schott has correctly rendered kai by porro. In a sentence
constructed like Matt. xii. 37 or would be quite inappropriate; no less so
in Rom. xiv. 7. It has been urged by Protestants, on controversial
grounds, that is used for κaí in 1 Cor. xi. 27 ds av éσbig ròv äρTOV TOUTOV
πívη TÒ TOTÝρtov тoû Kupiov. But, not to mention that in this passage
several good Codd. give κaí (as in vss. 26, 28, 29), may be explained
from the mode then current of partaking of the Lord's Supper, without
giving countenance to the Catholic dogma of the communion in oue kind,
see Bengel and Baumgart. in loc. Should any one insist, however, that
proves a real distinction in the administration of the sacrament, even
more would follow (looking at the matter philologically) than the Catholic
interpreters could consent to take, viz. that the cup alone might be suffi-
cient in the communion. In Acts i. 7 (x. 14); xi. 8; xvii. 29; xxiv. 12;
Rom. iv. 13; ix. 11; Eph. v. 3 is employed in negative clauses (Thuc. 1,122;
Aelian. anim. 16, 39; Sext. Empir. hypot. 1, 69; Fr. Rom. III. 191 sq.;
Jacobs, Philostr. imag. p. 374 and Aelian. anim. p. 457), where in Latin
also aut is used for et (Cic. Tusc. 5, 17; Catil. 1, 6, 15; Tac. Annal. 3,
54 etc.; Hand, Turs. I. 534), and in oux vµôv ẻσtiv yvôvaι xpóvovskaιpoús
the negation applies equally to γνώναι χρόνους and γνῶναι καιρούς (the atten-
tion may be directed to the one or the other), so that the sense is exactly
equivalent to yv. Xpóν. Kai kaipoús. When, lastly, kuí and occur in par-
γν. χρόν. καὶ καιρούς.
ň
allel passages (Matt. xxi. 23; Luke xx. 2), the relation was differently 411
conceived by the different writers. It would be a manifest abuse of 7th ed.
parallelism to attempt to prove from this that the two particles are
synonymous. Besides, these two particles have been not unfrequently
interchanged by transcribers (Jno. viii. 14; Acts x. 14; 1 Cor. xiii. 1 etc.; 462
Maetzuer, Antiph. p. 97). Cf. also Fr. Mr. 275 sq.; Jacob, Lucian. Alex.
p. 11; whereas Tholuck, Bergpred. S. 132 f., reaches no very clear result.
7. Antithesis is expressed sometimes by the simple adversatives
(δέ, ἀλλά), sometimes by a concessive construction (μέντοι, ὅμως,
ảλλá ye). A mutual relation of contrast, and consequently a
combination of antithetical clauses, was originally indicated by
µèv ... dé (1 Pet. iii. 18; iv. 6); but this relation was ultimately weak-
ened into mere correspondence (Rom. viii. 17; 1 Cor. i. 23), and 392
became logically even inferior to parallelism by means of kal...
kal (Hartung II. 403 ff.).
The particles åλλá and Sé differ in general like sed and autem (vero), see
1 Even according to our mode of communing it is conceivable that one may receive
the bread devoutly, but the cup with sensuous (perhaps sinful) distraction. Accord-
ingly we, too, could say, Whoever receiveth bread or cup unworthily.
6th ed.
56
442
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
Hand, Tursellin. I. 559, cf. 425: The former (the Neut. Plur. of äλdos
with a different accent, Klotz, Devar. II. 1 sq.), which may often be trans-
lated by yet, nevertheless, imo, expresses proper and strict opposition
(cancelling a previous statement or indicating that it is to be disregarded);
the latter (weakened from Sý Klotz, 1. c. p. 355) connects while it con-
trasts, i.e. adds another particular different from what precedes (Schneider,
Vorles. I. 220). When a negation precedes, we find ouk ... åλλá not...
but, and also ov (uń) δέ not
but (but rather), e.g. Acts xii. 9, 14;
Heb. iv. 13; vi. 12; Jas. v. 12; Rom. iii. 4, ovπw . Sé Heb. ii. 8 (Thuc. 4,
86; Xen. C. 4, 3, 13; cf. Hartung, Partik. I. 171; Klotz, Devar. II. 360).
On ảλλú and Sé we remark specially that,
•
• •
a) áλá is used when a train of thought is broken off or interrupted,
whether by an objection (Rom. x. 19; 1 Cor. xv. 35; Jno. vii. 27; Klotz,
Devar. II. 11; cf. Xen. Mem. 1, 2, 9; 4, 2, 16; Cyr. 1, 6, 9), or by a cor-
rection (Mark xiv. 36; 2 Cor. xi. 1), or by a question (Heb. iii. 16; cf.
Xen. C. 1, 3, 11; Klotz II. 13), or by an encouragement, command,
request (Acts x. 20; xxvi. 16; Matt. ix. 18; Mark ix. 22; Luke vii. 7;
Jno. xii. 27; cf. Xen. C. 1, 5, 13; 2, 2, 4; 5, 5, 24; Arrian. Al. 5, 26, 3;
see Palairet p. 298; Krebs p. 208; Klotz, Devar. II. 5); for in all these
instances something different is advanced subversive of what precedes.
Cf. also Juo. viii. 26 and Lücke in loc. In a consequent clause (after
conditional particles) dá, like the Latin at, gives it an adversative em-
phasis, and so strengthens it: 1 Cor. iv. 15 èàv μvpíovs taidaɣwyoùs Exηte
ἐν Χριστῷ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ πολλοὺς πατέρας (yet not, still), 2 Cor. iv. 16 ; xi. 6;
xiii. 4; Col. ii. 5 (cf. Her. 4, 120; Xen. C. 8, 6, 18; Lucian. pisc. 24;
Aelian. anim. 11, 31; see Kypke II. 197; Niebuhr ind. ad Agath. p. 409;
Klotz, Devar. II. 93). (The case is different in Rom. vi. 5 ei oúμpuтo
412 γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα
7th ed.... surely we shall be also etc., see Fr. in loc.) The use of ảλλά, when
463 after a negative question it absorbs the answer no, as in Matt. xi. 8 ri
ἐξήλθατε θεάσασθαι; κάλαμον ὑπὸ ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον; ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε
ideîv; and 1 Cor. vi. 6; x. 20; Jno. vii. 48 sq., requires no explanation
(see Schweigh. Arrian. Epict. II. II. 839; Raphel. ad 1 Cor. as above).
In Phil. iii. 8 ảλλà µèv ovv signifies at sane quidem; åλλá opposing the Pres.
yoûμai as a correction to the Perf. ynμa. In Rom. v. 14, 15 åλλá occurs
393 twice in succession, in different relations; in 1 Cor. vi. 11 it is repeated
6th ed. several times, emphatically, in one and the same relation.
1
¹'AXX' after a direct or indirect negation, which occurs (occasionally in the Sept.
e.g. Job vi. 5 and) three times in the N. T. (Luke xii. 51; 2 Cor. i. 13 and 1 Cor. iii, 5,—
but in the last passage is probably spurious), must according to the careful investigation
of Klotz, Devar. p. 31 sqq., who followed Krüger (de formulae aλλ' et affinium par-
½
ticular. post negation. vel negat. sententias usurpatar. natura et usu. Brunsvic. 1834.
4to.), be referred to aλλo and not to aλλά. (In Luke as above I am not come on earth to
ἄλλο
bring - aught but division.) It is no valid objection to this exposition, that in 2 Cor.,
as above, àλλά itself precedes, cf. Plat. Phaed. 81 b.; see Klotz p. 36.
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
443
ท
b) dé is frequently employed when merely something new is subjoined,
something other and different from what precedes, though not strictly
something contrasted (Herm. Vig. 845); this occurs in 2 Cor. vi. 15 sq.;
1 Cor. iv. 7; xv. 35 even in a succession of questions (Hartung I. 169;
Klotz, Devar. II. 356). Hence, in the first three Gospels kaí and dé are
sometimes found respectively in parallel passages; in 2 Cor., however, as
above, a clause commencing with is inserted in a series of clauses con-
taining Sé. Like the German aber, dé is used in particular where an
explanation is annexed, whether as an integral part of a sentence, as in
1 Cor. ii. 6 σοφίαν λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις, σοφίαν δὲ οὐ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου,
iii. 15; Rom. iii. 22; ix. 30; Phil. ii. 8, or as a complete sentence in itself,
as in Jno. vi. 10; ix. 14; xi. 5; xxi. 1; Gal. ii. 2; Eph. v. 32; Jas. i. 6
and where, after a parenthesis or digression, the train of thought is
resumed (Hm. Vig. 846 sq.; Klotz II. 376; Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 141 sq.);
2 Cor. x. 2; ii. 12; v. 8; Eph. ii. 4; cf. Plat. Phaed. p. 80 d.; Xen. An.
7, 2, 18; Paus. 3, 14, 1 (autem Cic. off. 1, 43; Liv. 6, 1, 10). In an
explanation which is at the same time a correction, such as 1 Cor. i. 16,
the adversative force of the particle is still perceptible. Sometimes dé
introduces a climax, as in Heb. xii. 6, or indicates successive steps in the
discourse, as in 2 Pet. i. 5-7. As to dé in the apodosis [Acts xi. 17], see
Weber, Demosth. p. 387, particularly after participles (supplying the place
of the protasis) as in Col. i. 21 (Klotz II. 374), see Jacobs, Aelian. anim.
I. 26 praef. Aé used several times in succession in didactic discourse must
be interpreted according to the requirements of each particular case, as in
1 Pet. iii. 14 sqq. (the third Sé, however, is dropped by Lchm.) see Wies-
inger. In narration often several clauses are connected together simply
by dé, as in Acts viii. 1-3, 7-9.
...
kać……. Sé (in one and the same clause), as often in the best authors (Weber, 413
Demosth. p. 220), is equivalent to et ... vero, atque etiam, and also (Krü. 7th ed.
319 “kai means also; dé, and"; Hartung I. 187 f. maintains the reverse), 464
Matt. xvi. 18; Heb. ix. 21; Jno. vi. 51; xv. 27; 1 Jno. i. 3; Acts xxii. 29;
2 Pet. i. 5; Schaef. Long. p. 349 sq.; Poppo, Thuc. III. II. 154; Ellendt,
Arrian. Al. I. 137. The opposite phrase dè κaí (2 Pet. ii. 1) means but also.
•
As to μév (weakened from unv2), there is nothing peculiar in N. T.
usage, for μév... Sé ... Sé in Jude 8 (not in 2 Cor. viii. 17) requires no
explanation. Where, however, μév åλλá correspond, as in Rom. xiv. 20
etc. (cf. Iliad 1, 22 sqq.; Xen. C. 7, 1, 16), the second clause is made
more strongly prominent, Klotz, Devar. II. 3. Further, when μév... kai
καί
correspond, as in Acts xxvii. 21 f., there exists an unmistakable anacol-
uthon, Hm. Vig. 841; Maetzner, Antiph. 257. As to μév without dé
following, see § 63, I. 2, e. p. 575. Finally, on the unauthorized insertion
of µév before dé (Wahl, Clav. p. 307), see Fr. Rom. II. 423, cf. Rost 731.
Heb. vi. 14
1 In Greek authors, also, dé occurs frequently, as is well known, in narration.
2 This occurs in the N. T. only in the pure Greek combination
(and even there not without var.), used to introduce an oath (Hartung, II. 376, 388).
444
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
Antithesis expressed by means of yet, however, is of very rare occurrence
in the N. T. John uses μévтo most frequently where others would have
employed a simple dé. He once strengthens μévrou by prefixing ouws
(xii. 42). Elsewhere ouos is used but twice, by Paul, 1 Cor. xiv. 7;
Gal. iii. 15. We find kairotye in Acts xiv. 17, referring to something that
394 precedes, and meaning although, quamquam [cf. also Jno. iv. 2]. In the
6th ed. N. T. there is nothing peculiar in the use of åλλá ye (Luke xxiv. 21 ;
1 Cor. ix. 2 etc.) but yet, but certainly, Klotz, Devar. II. 24 sq., except
that both particles are placed in immediate succession, which could scarcely
occur in classic authors, Klotz, as above, p. 15. The correlation though
... yet, is expressed by εἰ καί ... ἀλλά in Col. ii. 5 εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ
ἄπειμι, ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι σὺν ὑμῖν εἰμί, and by εἰ καί ... γε in Luke
xviii. 4. In general, ei kai means if also, si etiam, quamquam (designat-
ing something as matter of fact); but kaì ei even if, etiam si (putting
something merely as a case supposed), cf. Hm. Vig. 832; Klotz, Devar.
II. 519 sq.
8. The temporal relation of clauses is expressed by ås, Őte (őtav),
ἐπεί, μέχρι, πρίν
Eπel, or by ews, μéxρi, πρiv (§ 41 b. 3, p. 296 sq. and § 60). An
inference is indicated by οὖν, τοίνυν, ὥςτε (μενούν), and more
sharply by ἄρα, διό (ὅθεν), τοιγαροῦν, (οὐκοῦν only in Juo. xviii. 37).
The causal relation is denoted by ὅτι, γάρ (διότι, επεί), while ὡς,
Kaðús, Kalóтi (subjoining a clause) are rather explanatory than
argumentative. Lastly, a condition is expressed by ei (eïye, eiπep),
éáv, § 41 b. 2, p. 291 sq.
a. The most usual and most strictly syllogistic of the illative particles
is ovv, [Val. Chr. Fr. Rost üb. Ableitung, Bedeutung u. Gebrauch der
414 Partikel ovv. Gött. 1859. 4to.]. Its reference can be discovered with more
7th ed. or less facility from the context in each instance, e.g. Matt. iii. 8, 10;
465 xii. 12; 1 Cor. xiv. 11 (see Mey. in loc.); Matt. xxvii. 22; Acts i. 21;
Rom. vi. 4. But like the German nun (Eng. then, now), it is very often
used to indicate the mere continuance of a narration (when what follows
depends upon what precedes chronologically merely), Jno. iv. 5, 28; xiii. 6;
cf. Schaef. Plutarch. IV. 425. Moreover, like the German also (therefore,
thus) or nun (now), it is used especially after a digression to resume the
train of thought (Heind. Plat. Lys. p. 52; Bornem. Xen. Mem. p. 285;
Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 42; Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 413; Poppo, Thuc.
III. IV. 738) 1 Cor. viii. 4; xi. 20, or when a writer proceeds to explain,
(even by examples) as in Rom. xii. 20. "Apa accordingly, quae cum ita
sint, rebus ita comparatis, serves, no doubt, primarily to introduce leviorem
conclusionem, as it is used principally in conversation and the language of
ordinary intercourse (Klotz, Devar. II. 167, 717); but in later Greek
the use of this particle was extended, and individual writers, at least,
employ it to indicate even a strictly logical inference. It inclines towards
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
445
its primary import when used in the apodosis (after a conditional clause)
(Matt. xii. 28; 2 Cor. v. 15; Gal. iii. 29; Heb. xii. 8; cf. Xen. Cyr. 1, 3,
2; 8, 4, 7); so also when it expresses an inference from some singular
averment (cf. 1 Cor. v. 10; xv. 15, where it may be rendered by indeed,
that is, Klotz 169; cf. Stallh. Plat. rep. I. 92; Hoogeveen, doctrina particul.
I. 109 sq.) or proceeding (Luke xi. 48). In the N. T. Paul employs this
particle most frequently, especially when analyzing the import of a quota-
tion from the O. T., Rom. x. 17; Gal. iii. 7 (cf. Heh. iv. 9), or summing
up a
discussion, Rom. viii. 1 (Gal. iv. 31 var.); though in these cases he
as often uses ouv. In questions apa refers either to an assertion or fact
previously mentioned, Matt. xix. 25; Luke viii. 25; xxii. 23; Acts xii. 18;
2 Cor. i. 17, or to some thought existing in the mind of the questioner
Matt. xviii. 1, and which suggests itself more or less distinctly to the 395
reader. It then signifies, such being the case, under these circumstances, 6th ed.
rebus ita comparatis, and sometimes, of course, obviously, Klotz II. 176.
Likewise ei apa si forte Mark xi. 13; Acts viii. 22 and eì ăpa 1 Cor.
vii. 14 may be referred to this signification (Klotz, as above, 178). *Αρα
ouv combined, and that as the first words of a sentence (see, on the other
hand, Hm. Vig. 823), so then, hinc ergo (where apa is illative and ovv
continuative, cf. Hoogeveen, doctr. part. I. 129 sq.; II. 1002), is a favorite
expression of Paul's, Rom. v. 18; vii. 3; viii. 12; ix. 16, etc. I know of
no instances of this combination in Greek authors: in Plat. rep. 5, p.
462 a. the recent texts read (in the question) ap' ov, cf. Schneider in loc.;
Klotz, Devar. II. 180. Paul and Luke employ dió (di %) most fre-
quently. Toívov assuredly now, therefore, and rotyapov (strengthened Toryάp,
Klotz II. 738) wherefore then, are rare. As to ste and its construction,
see p. 301.
b. "Orɩ refers in general to some matter of fact under consideration, and
hence signifies both that and because, quod; in the latter case, it is some- 466
times rendered still more forcible by a preceding dià TOûTO (propterea quod). 415
Occasionally it is used elliptically, Luke xi. 18 if Satan also is divided 7th ed.
against himself, how will his kingdom stand? (I ask this) because ye say,
by Beelzebub etc.; i. 25; Mark iii. 30 (Acta Apocr. p. 57); Bornem. Luc.
p. 6. Likewise in Jno. ii. 18, where it amounts to the same thing to trans-
late it in consideration of the fact that (seeing that), Fr. Mt. p. 248 sq.
But in Matt. v. 45 orɩ simply means because. (Sometimes it seems doubtful
whether or means because or that; the decision then rests on hermeneutical
grounds.) The compound Stór (chiefly found in later Greek) for this
reason that, or simply because, Fr. Rom. I. 57 sq., is used most frequently
by Paul and Luke.
τι
Túp is in cultivated prose the most common causal particle, and corres-
ponds to our for. Originally (it is contracted from ye and apa, ap), it
expresses in general a corroboration or assent (ye) in reference to what
precedes (apa) (see Hartung I. 457 ff.; Schneider, Vorles. I. 219; Klotz,
446
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
Devar. II. 232 f.): sane igitur, certè igitur, sane pro rebus comparatis
(enim in its primary import), and from this fundamental signification arose
its causal force. In consequence of its original signification yáp serves-
passing over what is familiar first of all and very naturally
a) to introduce explanatory clauses, whether they appear in the form
of supplementary statements (sometimes of digressions) Mark v. 42; xvi. 4;
1 Cor. xvi. 5; Rom. vii. 1, or blend with the current of the discourse 2 Cor.
iv. 11; Rom. vii. 2; Jas. i. 24; ii. 2; Heb. ix. 2; Gal. ii. 12. Táp is then
to be rendered by that is, Klotz 234 sq. Explanatory in a wide sense
every confirmation or proof (even Heb. ii. 8) may be said to be which we
introduce by for (though the German ja comes nearer than denn to the
primary import of yάp Hartung I. 463 ff.): Matt. ii. 20 go into the land of
Israel; for they are dead etc. This is especially the case in those passages
where it was supposed that something is to be supplied before yάp for?
396 Matt. ii. 2: where is the born king of the Jews? (he that is born king of
6th ed. the Jews?) for we have seen his star, xxii. 28; 1 Cor. iv. 9; 2 Cor. xi. 5;
Phil. iii. 20; 1 Pet. iv. 15; 2 Pet. iii. 5. Hence what Klotz says p. 240
is in point: Nihil supplendum est ante enuntiationem eam, quae infertur
per partic. yap, sed ut omnis constet oratio, postea demum aliquid tacita
cogitatione adsumendum erit, sed nihil tamen alieni, verum id ipsum, quod
ea sententia quae praecedit yáp particulae enuntiavit (for we have seen his
star, he must have been born, therefore, somewhere). Likewise,
2
467 b) in replies and rejoinders (Klotz p. 240 sq.) the original import of
416 yúp is prominent; for in Jno. ix. 30 èv yàp toútų lavµaotóv čoτw etc. the
7th ed. reply refers primarily to the statement of the Pharisees in vs. 29 (apa),
and then subjoins an affirmation (ye): sane quidem mirum est etc. in
this at least, it is assuredly wonderful. So also in 1 Cor. viii. 11; ix. 9, 10;
xiv. 9; 1 Thess. ii. 20, in all which cases nothing is to be supplied before
yáp.³ Equally unnecessary is it to supply anything in exhortations (Klotz
242) Jas. i. 7: for let not that man think etc.; here apa refers back to å
yàp diakpivóμevos etc., and ye combines a corroboration with the inference.
On the other hand,
3
1 Si sequimur originem ipsam ac naturam particulae yáp, hoc dicitur conjunctis istis
particulis: Sune pro rebus comparatis, ac primum adfirmatur res pro potestate particulae
ye, deinde refertur eadem ad antecedentia per vim particulae ăpa.
2 This practice of supplying something has been carried to an extent quite pedantic,
e.g. Matt. iv. 18; xxvi. 11; Mark iv. 25; v. 42; 2 Cor. ix. 7. If it were maintained
that between the propositions, "He makes clothes, for he is a tailor," we must supply,
"One need not wonder at this," every body would regard it as ridiculous. As to the
Latin nam, see Hand, Tursell. IV. 12 sqq.
8 In Acts xvi. 37 Παῦλος ἔφη· δείραντες ἡμᾶς δημοσίᾳ ἀκατακρίτους, ἀνθρώπους Ῥωμαίους
ὑπάρχοντας ἔβαλον εἰς φυλακήν, καὶ νῦν λάθρᾳ ἡμᾶς ἐκβάλλουσιν; Paul immediately
answers the question himself, οὐ γάρ, ἀλλὰ ... αὐτοὶ ἡμᾶς ἐξαγαγέτωσαν : non sane
pro rebus comparatis. The apa contained in yáp glances back at the circumstances pre-
viously described; while the ye founds upon them a corroboration continet (as Klotz
says p. 242) cun adfirmatione conclusionem, quac ex rebus ita comparatis facienda sit.
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
447
1
c) in questions yáp seems to deviate farthest from its original import.
And in fact the origin of this use may have been afterwards forgotten,
and yáp have been regarded as the sign of a question urgent because
justified by the connection (Klotz 247). However, the essentially infer-
ential force of yúp (apa!) is still perceptible in many passages: igitur
rebus ita comparatis, adeo. In Matt. xxvii. 23 Pilate's question rí yàp
κακὸν ἐποίησεν; refers to the demand of the Jews σταυρωθήτω in vs. 22.
From this Pilate infers the opinion which he in the question imputes to
the Jews: quid igitur (since you demand his crucifixion) putatis eum mali
fecisse? So in Jno. vii. 41 (surely you do not think then that the Messiah
comes out of Galilee? num igitur putatis, Messiam etc.?) The reference
of this yap to something preceding is in all cases plain;—even in Acts
xix. 35; viii. 31. It is usual in this case also to supply something before
the question, even though only a nescio or miror, Hm. Vig. 829 and ad
Aristoph. nub. 192; Wahl, Clav. 79 sq. See in opposition, Klotz 234,
247. Lastly, Klotz 236, 238 appears to be right in contradicting the 397
current assertion, that even in prose authors (such as Her. see Kühner 6th ed
II. 453) it is not unusual, in the lively movement of thought, to put yáp
with the causal clause before the clause it is intended to substantiate (see
Matthiae, Eurip. Phoen. p. 371; Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p. 207; Rost, Gr.
7382); in reference to the N. T. (Fr. 2 diss. in 2 Cor. p. 18 sq.; Tholuck 468
on Jno. iv. 44 and Heb. ii. 8) this observation was in fact unnecessary.
Meyer has, beyond doubt, correctly explained Jno. iv. 44. In Heb. ii. 8
the words ἐν γὰρ τῷ ὑποτάξαι τὰ πάντα contain the proof of there being
nothing which was not put in subjection to him according to God's purpose, 417
indirectly therefore of vs. 5 that the world to come also is put in subjection 7th ed.
to him; while vûv de ouro etc. shows that this subjection has at least
begun to be carried into effect. The Scriptural promise must be distin-
guished from its actual fulfilment, which, however, has already commenced.
2 Cor. ix. 1 stands in obvious connection with viii. 24. 1 Cor. iv. 4 ovdè
ἐμαυτὸν ἀνακρίνω· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ δεδικαίωμαι
is to be translated: I am conscious, to be sure, to myself of nothing, yet etc.
d) yάp occurs several times in succession with change of reference:
Rom. ii. 11-14; iv. 13–15; v. 6, 7; viii. 5 f.; x. 2–5; xvi. 18 f.; Jas. i. 6,
7; ii. 10; iv. 14; 1 Cor. iii. 3-5; ix. 16 f.; Heb. vii. 12-14 (Lycurg. 24,
1; 32, 3) see Engelhardt, Plat. Apol. p. 225; Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian.
183 sq. In such passages yáp often gives the ground of a series of separate
thoughts subordinate one to another (Jas. i. 6; 1 Cor. xi. 8; Rom. viii. 5 ff.),
1 The energy which resides in such questions with yap proceeds from their being
prompted by the very words of the other party, or by the circumstances; a right being
thus conferred to demand an answer, e.g. 1 Cor. xi. 22.
2 Hm. Eurip. Iphig. Taur. p. 70: saepe in ratione reddenda invertunt Graeci ordinem
sententiarum, caussam praemittentes: quo genere loquendi saepissime usus est Hero-
dotus. Cf. also Hoogeveen I. 252.
448
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
398
see Fr. Rom. II. 111. Sometimes, however, the same words are repeated
with yap in order to introduce some addition to what has been said, Rom.
xv. 27 (not 2 Cor. v. 4).
Kai yap is equivalent either to etenim (merely connecting) or nam etiam
(giving prominence) Klotz, Devar. II. 642 sq. This latter signification
has frequently been overlooked by expositors, even those of the N. T.
(Weber, Demosth. p. 271; Fr. Rom. II. p. 433). Thus in Jno. iv. 23;
Acts xix. 40; Rom. xi. 1; xv. 3; xvi. 2; 1 Cor. v. 7; 2 Cor. ii. 10, etc.;
in several of these passages even Wahl renders kaì yáp by etenim. Te yap
γάρ
in Rom. vii. 7 means for also, or for indeed, Hm. Soph. Trach. p. 176;
Schaef. Dem. II. 579 and Plutarch. IV. 324; Klotz, Devar. II. 749 sqq.;
but in Heb. ii. 11 (Rom. i. 26) Te and κaí correspond, and in 2 Cor. x. 8
there is probably an anacoluthon, Klotz 1.c. 749.
'Еí passed from a particle of time into a causal particle, like our since
and the Latin quando. 'Eredý answers entirely to quoniam (from quom-
quum-jam). 'Eneiπep since indeed (Hm. Vig. 786) occurs only in Rom.
iii. 30 (yet not without var.), see Fr. in loc. ['Eneidýneр forasmuch as,
since now (Aristot. Phys. 8, 5; Dion. Hal. 2, 72; Philo ad Caj. § 25 and
used by the best Greek authors, see Hartung, Partikell. I. S. 342 sq.)
occurs in the N. T. only in Luke i. 1.]
Kaos and us, in appended clauses, denote explanation rather than strict.
confirmation, and resemble the Latin (quoniam) quippe, siquidem, and
the antiquated (Germ.) sintemal. On ós (in 2 Tim. i. 3; Gal. vi. 10;
Matt. vi. 12 it means as) cf. Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 336; Stallb. Plat. sympos.
p. 135; Lehmann, Lucian. I. 457; III. 425 etc.
,
As to ep' on this account that, see p. 394.
6th ed. c. Ei has the compound forms eye if that is since, quandoquidem (when no
469 doubt exists) and errep if indeed (when no decision is implied), Hm. Vig. p.
834; cf. Klotz. Devar. II. 308, 528, which occur almost exclusively in Paul.
The distinction pointed out is obvious in most passages; as to Eph. iii. 2,
see Mey. 1 Pet. ii. 3, and probably also 2 Thess. i. 6, appears to be of a
418 rhetorical nature. On these passages, as well as Rom. viii, 9; Col. i. 23,
7th ed. see Fr. Prälimin. S. 67 f. Ei itself retains the signification if, even
where in point of meaning it stands for reí since (Acts iv. 9; Rom.
xi. 21; 1 Jno. iv. 11; 2 Pet. ii. 4, etc.); the sentence is in form conditional:
if (as is actually the case), and the categoric force for the moment does
not come into view. Sometimes there is a rhetorical reason for this usage
(Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 195; Bornem. Xen. conv. p. 101). So also in
expressions in which it may be rendered by that, see § 60, 6. Ei denoting
a wish, if only, O that, for which Greek authors usually employ eie or ei
yáp (Klotz, Devar. II. 516), occurs, according to the punctuation adopted
by recent editors, in Luke xii. 49 καὶ τί θέλω; εἰ ἤδη ἀνήφθη and what do
I wish? (answer) if it were (only) already kindled; see Mey. [in his
earlier eds.] in loc. With regard to the Aorist, see Klotz l.c.: si de aliqua
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
449
re sermo est, de qua, quum non facta sit olim, nunc nobis gratum fore
significamus, si facta esset illo tempore. Such a question, however, seems
rather artificial in the mouth of Jesus. Of the objections which Mey.
brings against the common exposition, How I wish that it were already
kindled! the second, so far as usage goes, is less forcible than the first.
[But Mey. now (4th ed.) acknowledges the common interpretation to be
correct.]
9. Final clauses are expressed by means of the conjunctions iva,
öπws (ws). Objective clauses,¹ which as they express the object
of the principal clause in the form of a perception or judgment
merely unfold its predicate, and consequently assume the place of
the Objective case in a simple sentence (Thiersch, gr. Grammat. S.
605), I see that this is good, I say that he is rich, are introduced
by or or is. Yet conjunctions are the less indispensable for both
ὅτι
kinds of clauses as both may be conveniently expressed by means
of the Infinitive, § 44.
"Or is the proper objective particle, like quod and that. It is used in
this sense e.g. also after solemn asseverations, as in 2 Cor. xi. 10 čσtw
ἀλήθεια Χριστοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, Gal. i. 20 ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ, 2 Cor. i. 18 πιστὸς
¿ cós, Rom. xiv. 11, for these include the idea I aver, cf. Fr. Rom. II.
242 sq. In this way, too, is or to be taken when it introduces direct
discourse, Mdv. p. 222; cf. Weber, Demosth. p. 346.
Os (Adv. from the pronoun os Klotz, Devar. II. 757) likewise signifies,
after verbs of knowing, saying etc., how, ut (Klotz p. 765) Acts x. 28 470
ἐπίστασθε, ὡς ἀθέμιτόν ἐστιν ἀνδρὶ Ἰουδαίῳ ye know, how that) it is unlawful
for a Jew. Thus the two conjunctions orɩ and is, when used in objective 399
sentences, proceed from different conceptions of the object, but coincide 6th ed
in sense.
"Oπws, like ut (quo), besides being an adverb (how, rus Klotz, Devar.
II. 681, cf. Luke xxiv. 20), has become a conjunction. "Iva was originally 419
a relative adverb, where, whither (Klotz, as above, p. 616). From local 7th ed.
direction it was transferred to direction of the will (design), and thus
resembles the Latin quo. In the N. T. is expressing design (Klotz p. 760)
occurs only in the well-known phrase ús éños eineîv, Heb. vii. 9; cf. Mtth.
1265, which, however, recent grammarians are inclined to explain other-
wise, Klotz II. 765; Madv. 164. (How iva in the N. T. is used also
instead of the simple Inf., see p. 334 sqq.)
10. The regular use of all these conjunctions, framed as they
were to express the several relations of clauses, would be quite
annulled, had the N. T. writers actually employed one conjunction
1 Weller, über Subjects... und Objectssätze etc. Meining. 1845. 4to.
57
450
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
471
for another if with them dé often were equivalent to yáp, yáp to
ovv, va to ste, etc.¹-as expositors, following indeed the scholiasts
οὖν, ὥστε,
(Fischer ad Palaeph. p. 6) and earlier philologists, long assumed
(Pott, Heinrichs, Flatt, Kühnöl, Schott, even D. Schulz), and as
the Hermeneutics of the time (Keil, Hermen. S. 67) taught.
But such interchange is in every instance only apparent. It
rests in part on the circumstance, that the relation of two senten-
ces to each other may be conceived sometimes in several ways 2;
and thus the particular logical connection in a given passage may
depend on the conception of the individual (or nation, see below
on "va), one which is unfamiliar to the reader; and in part on a
400 conciseness of expression foreign to the genius of our language.
6th ed. Wherever the apostles use a dé they have always thought somehow
of a but; and it is the expositor's duty to reproduce for himself in
420 like manner the connection of thought, and not for convenience'
Ith ed. sake to imagine an interchange of conjunctions perhaps of opposite
import. For how absurd to suppose that the apostles actually used
for when they intended to say but, or but when they should have
written for! Any child can distinguish such relations. And how
stupid they must have been to think of employing instead of for
its opposite therefore! None but expositors who had never accus-
tomed themselves to view language as living speech, or who shrank
from the labor of precise thought, could have indulged such an
1 Even the better expositors are not free from this arbitrariness: thus Beza in 1 Cor.
viii. 7 takes àλλά for itaque. See in opposition to such interpretation my Progr. Con-
junctionum in N. T. accuratius explicandar. caussae et exempla. Erlang. 1826. 4to.
It is really strange to see how the commentaries (till within a few decades) undertake
again and again to dictate to the apostles, and force upon them almost always some
other conjunction than that actually employed in the text. Were we to reckon up
the passages, there would certainly remain e.g. in Paul's epistles not more than six or
eight in which the apostle has selected the right particle, and not required the subsequent
aid of an expositor. This has made the interpretation of the N. T. very arbitrary.
Are we not to believe that Paul and Luke knew more Greek than many of their
domineering expositors? No one in this matter can appeal to the Hebrew who has
not a most irrational idea of that language. Such arbitrary substitutions of one thing
for another are impossible in any human speech. Besides, the arbitrariness of the
interpreters was the more manifest, because different expositors often attributed to a
conjunction senses entirely different in the same passage: (in 2 Cor. viii. 7 e.g ảnλá
according to some is put for yáp; according to others, for our etc.; in Heb. v. 11 kal
according to some is put for àλλá, but according to others means licet. In Heb. iii. 10
Kühnül leaves it optional whether dé is taken for kai or in the sense of nam). Thus
purely private opinion has here the freest range. Moreover, the translators of the books
of the N. T. (even the excellent Schulz in the Epistle to the Hebrews) deserve censure
for rendering the conjunctions most capriciously.
2 Cf., as to such a case, Klotz II. p. 5, and the remarks made below (after explaining
obv), p. 455 sq.
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
451
imagination; and it is no honor to biblical exegesis that such
principles so long found approval. In human thought connected
ideas are always related ideas. Whenever, therefore, a conjunc-
tion is used in a sense apparently foreign to it, the very first en-
deavor must be to show the process by which the writer's mind
passed from the primary to the unusual signification. But this
was not thought of; had serious thought been given to it, the
delusion of which we have been speaking would have vanished in
a moment.
1
As the unlimited interchange of conjunctions is a pure fiction,
so too is the notion that they are weakened; according to which
even the more forcible particles, as for, but, are represented as
being quite superfluous or mere particles of transition (see e.g.
no. 3 below). Recent exegetes, indeed, have abandoned this 472
arbitrary but convenient rule of interpretation. We will there-
fore single out only a few especially specious passages, in which
the conjunctions employed were for a long time not acquiesced
in, or where even the better expositors are not agreed about the
connection of thought.
1. Αλλά does not stand
a) for ov: In 2 Cor. viii. 7 åλλá simply means but, at: from Titus,
to whom he had given instructions, Paul turns to exhort his readers on
their part to do what was desired; for the clause with iva is to be taken
imperatively. Eph. v. 24 is not an inference from vs. 23; but. the state-
ment in vs. 22, that wives should be subject to their husbands ós T
kupių, is proved in vss. 23, 24 first from the position of Christ and of the
husband, both being kepadaí, but secondly-and this is the main argument
from the claim (to be obeyed) which, as for Christ so for the husband,
flows from this position. And vs. 24, so far from being a mere repetition
of what is stated in vs. 22, concludes the argument, and explains &πoτáσσ.
τοῖς ἀνδρ. ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ. The expressive apposition also, αὐτὸς σωτήρ etc.,
does not interrupt the train of thought; whereas the exposition of Mey.,
who regards these words as an independent sentence, introduces a state-
ment that obstructs the line of argument. As to Acts x. 20 (Elsner in
loc.), see above, no. 7. p. 442.
T
b) for εἰ μή: In Mark ix. 8 οὐκέτι οὐδένα εἶδον, ἀλλὰ τὸν Ἰησοῦν μόνον 421
means, they no longer saw any one (of those that they had previously 7th ed.
seen, vs. 4), but (they saw) Jesus alone. In Matt. xx. 23 (Raphel and 401
Alberti in loc.) dołnσerai, borrowed from doûval, is to be repeated after 6th ed.
ảλλά, and the conjunction signifies but.
c) for sane, profecto: neither in Jno. viii. 26 see no. 7 p.442, nor in xvi. 2,
where it denotes imo or at as in Acts xix. 2; 1 Cor. vi. 6. Rom. vi. 5,
where ållá (kai) occurs in the apodosis, does not come under this head.
452
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
2. Aé never means
f
a) therefore, then: In 1 Cor. xi. 28 it signifies but, in antithesis to vs. 27
ȧvaέíws èofiev, but let a man examine himself (in order to avoid bringing
on himself such guilt). In 1 Cor. viii. 9 a practical restriction, in the form
of an admonition, is annexed to the general principle laid down in vs. 8:
but see to it that this liberty do not become etc. In Rom. viii. 8, if Paul
had intended to present θεῷ ἀρέσαι οὐ δύνανται as an inference from what
precedes he might have continued with therefore (as Rück. explains dé);
but he passes from ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν to the other aspect of the matter θεῷ
ἀρέσαι οὐ δύνανται, — a transition which would have surprised no one had
473 there been no parenthetical clause. In Jas. ii. 15 Sé, if genuine, means
jam vero, atqui.
τις
b) for (Poppo, Thuc. II. 291; Ind. ad Xen. Cyr., and Bornem. ind. ad
Xen. Anab.; see, on the other hand, Hm. Vig. 846; Schaef. Demosth.
II. 128 sq.; V. 541; Lehm. Lucian. I. 197; Wex, Antig. I. 300 sq.):1
In Mark xvi. 8 eixe dé is merely explanatory; the cause of this Tрóμos κai
ἔκστασις is stated in the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ ; some good Codd., however,
which Lehm. follows, [Sin. also] have yάp in the first passage. In Jno.
vi. 10 the words v dè xóρros etc. are also a supplementary explanation ;
see above. In 1 Thess. ii. 16 p0aσe dé forms a contrast to the intention
of the Jews ȧvatλnp. avtŵv т. åµapr.: but (as, in fact, they would have it
so) the punishment for this is come on them. In Matt. xxiii. 5 #λarúvovoɩ
δέ etc. are special illustrations of πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν ποιοῦσι πρὸς τὸ
Dealîvaι; the yáp, adopted by the more recent editors, probably owes its
origin to scribes who were troubled by dé. In 1 Tim. iii. 5 ei dé ris etc.
means, but if one etc.; the sentence, as will be seen by referring to vs. 6,
is a parenthetical antithesis to τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου προϊστάμενον. In 1 Cor. iv. 7
who distinguisheth thee (declares thee pre-eminent)? but what hast thou,
that thou didst not receive? i.e. but if thou appealest to the pre-eminence
which thou possessest, I ask thee, hast thou not received it? In 1 Cor.
vii. 7 (Flatt, Schott) dé signifies potius. In 1 Cor. x. 11 eypápn dé, as
ἐγράφη
even the leading position of the verb indicates, forms an antithesis to the
statement that precedes: all these things happened etc.; but they were
written etc. In 1 Cor. xv. 13 dé is a genuine adversative: if Christ is
422 risen, then the resurrection of the dead is a reality; but if the resurrection
7th ed. of the dead is not a reality, then (by converse reasoning) neither is Christ
risen. Verse 14 contains a further inference: but if Christ is not risen,
402 then etc. The one statement of necessity establishes or invalidates the
6th ed. other. In 2 Pet. i. 13 dé forms the antithesis to the words kaíñep eidóras
etc. On Phil. iv. 18 see Mey.
1 In the sense of namely, that is, both conjunctions coincide: by means of dé a new
clause is annexed which is part of the statement; while by means of yáp a clause is
presented as a confirmatory illustration of what precedes. The latter mode of expres-
sion is often in substance equivalent to the former, see Hm. Vig. p. 845.
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
453
c) Nor does it ever serve as a mere copula or particle of transition:
Matt. xxi. 3 (Schott) say, the Lord hath need of them; and straightway
he will send them, i.e. these words will not be without effect; but, on the
contrary, he will straightway etc. In Acts xxiv. 17 the narration proceeds
by means of dé to another event. In 1 Cor. xiv. 1 Sé means but: but the
διώκειν τὴν ἀγάπην must not prevent you from ζηλοῦν τὰ πν. On 2 Cor.
ii. 12 Meyer's opinion is more correct than de Wette's; Paul refers to
vs. 4. In 1 Cor. xi. 2 it would be a mistake to regard, as Rück. does, dé
as indicating merely the advance to a new topic (Luther has not translated
it at all, while Schott renders it by quidem); the words connect themselves
(directly) with the exhortation immediately preceding, μyŋraí pov yíveo0e: 474
yet (while I thus urge you, I do not mean to blame you) I praise you etc.
Likewise in Rom. iv. 3 Luther and many other translators have neglected
Sé (at the beginning of a quotation where the Sept. has κaí); but Paul is
probably as little chargeable as James (ii. 23) with having used the adver-
sative particle wantonly or without meaning. It renders èniorevσe more
forcible, not to say almost antithetic.
3. Tap is incorrectly taken
a) for the adversative but (Markland, Eur. suppl. vs. 8; Elmsley, Eur.
Med. 121; see, on the other hand, Hm. Vig. 846; Bremi in the n. krit.
Journ. IX. 533): In 2 Cor. xii. 20 I say all that for your edification; for
I fear etc. (this is the very reason that I say it). In Rom. iv. 13 the
clause with yúp confirms the last words of the preceding verse, èv åkpoẞvoτía
πίστεως τοῦ πατρός etc. In Rom. v. 6 f. the first yáp simply refers to
the fact which attested the love of God (vs. 5), Christ's dying for the
ungodly; the second yáp explains, a contrario, how death (of the innocent)
for the guilty evinces transcendent love; the third yáp substantiates the
remark μόλις ὑπὲρ δικαίου etc. 1 Cor. v. 3 means: and ye, have ye not
felt yourselves compelled to exclude the man? for I (for my part), absent
in body,... have already decided etc. It was, therefore, surely to be
expected that ye, who have him before your eyes, would have applied the
(milder) punishment of exclusion. Pott understands yáp here in the sense
of alias! As to 1 Cor. iv. 9 see above, p. 446 a). 2 Cor. xii. 6 is: of myself
I will not boast; for if I should desire to boast, I shall not be a fool (there-
fore, I might do so). In Phil. iii. 20 µwv yap etc. stands in closest rela-
tion to oi rù èiyeia ppov. they that mind earthly things! (a summary of
vs. 19), for our conversation is in heaven (on this very account I warn
you against them, vs. 18 f.). In Rom. viii. 6 the clause with yáp states
the reason why οἱ κατὰ πνεῦμα (vs. 4) τὰ τοῦ πν. φρονοῦσιν, which is, that
the φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός leads to death, but the φρόν. τοῦ πν. to life ; vs. 5,
423
however, is confirmatory of vs. 4. In Col. ii. 1 Bengel had already in-
7th ed.
dicated the correct interpretation. Heb. vii. 12 (Kühnöl: autem) appends
the reason for vs. 11: for change in the priestly succession and abolition
of the law necessarily go together, see Bleek in loc. 2 Pet. iii. 5 explains
454
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
(Pott) how such men can come forward with such frivolous assertions as
403 in vss. 3, 4. Heb. xii. 3 enforces the preceding resolution 7péɣwμev etc., by
6th ed. reference to the example of Christ.
b) for therefore, then: Bengel's remark throws light on Luke xii. 58:
yáp saepe ponitur, ubi propositionem excipit tractatio. 1 Cor. xi. 26
elucidates the expression is rηv éµηv åváμvηow vs. 25. In Rom. ii. 28
475 the connection is this: the uncircumcised, who lives agreeably to the law,
may convict thee, who, though circumcised, transgressest the law; for it
is not what is external (like circumcision) that constitutes the real Jew.
On Heb. ii. 8 see above, p. 447.
c) for although: as in Jno. iv. 44 (see Kühnöl); but yap is simply for;
πаτрís can only mean Galilee, vs. 43.
d) for on the contrary: 2 Pet. i. 9 (Augusti). Aé might have been
used, if the apostle had intended to say: but he, on the contrary, who lacks
these (virtues) etc. With yáp, the sentence confirms (illustrates) the
foregoing οὐκ ἀργοὺς ... Χριστοῦ ἐπίγνωσιν a contrario (μή): for he that
lacks these, is blind. This interpretation supplies, too, a more forcible.
reason for the exhortation in vs. 10.
e) for aλ' oμws nevertheless: 2 Cor. xii. 1 (where indeed the reading
is extremely uncertain; yet the common reading dý is not so decidedly
incorrect as Mey. insists) to boast (xi. 22 ff.) is not expedient for me surely;
for I will (I will, that is to say, Klotz, Devar. II. 235) now come to visions
and revelations of the Lord. Paul in this passage contrasts (cf. vs. 5)
boasting of himself (of his own merits) with boasting of the divine marks
of distinction accorded him. Of these last he will boast, vs. 5. Accordingly,
the meaning is: yet glorying in self is not expedient; for now will I come
to a subject for glorying that excludes all self-glorification and renders it
superfluous.
LT
f) for the mere copula: In Rom. iii. 2 πрŵтоν µèv yap commences the
proof of the statement Toλù κaтà пάνтα трÓжоVν. Acts ix. 11 inquire in the
house of Judas for Saul of Tarsus; for, behold, he prayeth (thou wilt
therefore find him there), and he hath seen a vision (which has prepared
him to receive thee), cf. Bengel in loc. In Acts xvii. 28 TOû yàp yévos
etc. is a verse quoted verbatim from Aratus, where, moreover, yáp may be
taken as confirmatory of ἐν αὐτῷ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν. In Acts
iv. 12 the clause ovde yàp övoµá čστw etc. serves to unfold, and thus to
establish, the statement ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐδενὶ ἡ σωτηρία; and what the second
clause adds to the first the attentive reader will easily perceive. In Acts
xiii. 27 we may, with Bengel, Meyer, and others, restore the connection
thus: to you, ye (foreign) Jews etc. is this word of salvation addressed;
for those at Jerusalem have despised this Saviour. It is more probable,
424 however, that Paul intended to proceed thus: for he is proved to be the
7th ed. Messiah foretold to our fathers, cf. vss. 29, 32 ff. The recital of the facts
in which the prophecies were fulfilled, impairs, however, the formal com-
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
455
pactness of the reasoning. At all events yúp is not a mere particle of
transition, as Kühnöl asserts. In 2 Cor. iii. 9 it appears to me that the
words ei yàp ʼn diak. etc. go so far towards establishing the apostle's thought
ας διακονία τῆς δικαιοσύνης expresses something more definite than διακονία 476
Tоû TVεúμаTOS: if the ministration of death was glorious, ... how shall not
the ministration of the Spirit be much more glorious? Fr.'s exposition,
in his diss. Corinth. I. p. 18 sq., seems to me artificial. In Matt. i. 18 404
(Schott), after the words τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χρ. ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν, the details 6th ed
commence as is not unusual with yáp namely.
4. Οὖν is falsely taken
a) for but: Acts ii. 30 (Kühnöl) πроp. оvv vπápx. is simply an inference
from the sentence that precedes: David died and was buried. He there-
fore, in his character of prophet, referred to Christ's resurrection in the
words which he used apparently in reference to himself. Acts xxvi. 22
is not antithetic to vs. 21; but Paul, reviewing his apostolic life up to this
imprisonment, concludes: by the help of God, therefore, I continue until
this day, etc. Even Kühnöl, in his Comment. p. 805, accurately renders
our by igitur; but in the index ouv is represented as here denoting sed,
tamen! In Matt. xxvii. 22 tí ovv totýσw 'Inoovv is: what then shall I do
with Jesus (since you have decided in favor of Barabbas)?
ουν
ουν
αν
b) for for. In Matt. x. 32 râs ouv ostis is not confirmatory of the clause
πολλῶν στρουθίων διαφέρετε ὑμεῖς, but resumes and continues the main
thought vs. 27 kηрúέaтe etc. кaì µn poßeîole. Fr. is of a different opinion.
κηρύξατε καὶ φοβεῖσθε.
In the parallel passage, Luke xii. 8 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν· πᾶς ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ
etc., the Sé is substantially the same in sense but more expressive. In
1 Cor. iii. 5 rís oùv čσrìv ... 'Arоλλús; who, then (to follow out your party-
strifes), is ... Apollos? In 1 Cor. vii. 26 ovv introduces the yvóμŋ which
the apostle proposes in vs. 25 to give.
c) for a mere copula, or as wholly superfluous: Rom. xv. 17 (Köllner)
becomes at once plain by a reference to vss. 15, 16 (dià tǹv xápwv etc).
The ov in Matt. v. 23 is entirely overlooked even by Schott; but it
unquestionably introduces, however, a practical inference (admonition)
from vs. 22 (the punishableness of anger etc.). It is more difficult to
determine the connection in Matt. vii. 12, and even the more recent ex-
positors differ widely from each other. Tholuck's exposition is probably
correct, though his review of the various interpretations is far from com-
plete. In Jno. viii. 38 καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν ἃ ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ποιεῖτε the
ouv is far from being redundant; it contrasts with sad irony the conduct
of the Jews (you also, therefore) with the conduct of Jesus, representing
both as following the same principle.
Of the preceding four conjunctions Sé and our are the most closely
allied; and hence there are passages where either might have been em-
ployed with equal propriety (e.g. Matt. xviii. 31), though even in the
mere continuation of discourse (in narration) they are not strictly equiv-
456
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
477 alent. Instead of: Jesus found two fishermen, who... And (but) he said
125 to them etc., I can also say: Jesus found... So (then) he said to them.
7th ed. The change does not greatly affect the sense, but still there is a difference
of conception between the two. In the first case, to the coming and finding
them the speaking is annexed as something new and different; in the last,
the thought is this: he said then (availing himself of the opportunity) to
them. If in such an instance the narrator employs dé, it cannot be asserted
that he ought to have used ov; or vice versa. Táp and dé, also, can
sometimes be used with equal propriety (see 10, 2, b) p. 452): In Jno.
vi. 10 the evangelist wrote: Jesus said, make the people recline; now (but)
there was much grass in the place. He might also have written: for
there was much grass, etc. In the latter case he represents the circum-
405 stance as the incidental cause of the direction; in the former, it is given
6th ed. as merely explanatory; see Klotz II. 362; cf. Hm. Vig. 845 sq. Here
also then there is a difference of conception in the two cases. Consequently
we may not adduce parallel passages, such as Luke xiii. 35, cf. Matt.
xxiii. 39, as proof of the perfect equality of dé and yáp. Even, however,
if in such cases dé and ovv, Sé and yáp, are pretty nearly equivalent, it does
not follow that they are interchangeable in all, even their more precise,
significations. On the other hand, yάp and åλá are particles of far too
definitive a nature to admit of their being used for each other at will, or
even being unimportant. Finally, even in the most ancient Codd. (and
versions') numerous variations are found, in respect to the conjunctions
Sé and yap Matt. xxiii. 5; Mark v. 42 ; xii. 2; xiv. 2; Luke x. 42; xii. 30;
xx. 40; Jno. ix. 11; xi. 30, etc.; Rom. iv. 15 (Fr. Rom. II. 476), dé and
ov Luke x. 37; xiii. 18; xv. 28; Jno. vi. 3; ix. 26; x. 20; xii. 44;
xix. 16; Acts xxviii. 9 etc., ovv and yáp Acts xxv. 11; Rom. iii. 28.
5. "Or is not equivalent
a) to do wherefore (as the Hebrew, but likewise erroneously, is
sometimes rendered; see my Simonis under the word, yet see Passow
478 under őrı): In Luke vii. 47 nothing but a blind hostility to the Catholics
(see Grotius and Calov. in loc.) could misinterpret ör, see Mey. in loc.
As to 2 Cor. xi. 10 see above, no. 9 p. 449.
Nor is this particle used for Sià rí in direct question (Palairet, observ.
125; Alberti, observ. 151; Krebs, observ. 50; Griesbach, commentar.
crit. II. 138; Schweigh. lexic. Herod. II. 161 [Bttm. Gramm. des N. T.
1 These latter, therefore, where conjunctions are concerned, ought not to be cited in
a critical apparatus as authorities without great caution. Yet in general, nothing has
been treated so negligently by the earlier critics as the ancient versions; even the
better known and most accessible are, ten to one, brought forward incorrectly,—when,
that is to say, either from the nature of the language or the principles on which they
were executed they can be made to furnish no evidence respecting a various reading.
But it is to be regretted that even in the most recent editions this part of the critical
apparatus still appears unsifted.
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
457
Sprachgebr. S. 218]) in Mark ix. 11; even de Wette so understands it, and
in support of his opinion refers to the passages which Krebs adduces from
Josephus, not considering that there 8 T (3,7, as Lchm. printed it) is
used as a pronoun in an indirect question, a usage that assuredly does
not require proofs from Josephus (Kypke I. 178). But as to this passage, 426
see above, p. 167. Fr. was disposed on very slight authority to read rí
ovv (from Matt.), which is undoubtedly a correction. In Mark ix. 28 the
best Codd. (even the Alex. [but not Sin.]) give dà rí, as in Matt. xvii. 19.
In Mark ii. 16 Cod. D at least gives the same [likewise Cod. Sin.], yet
Lachm. reads rí öri. But őr, though admitted as the true reading, would
not necessarily be an interrogative. As to Jno. viii. 25 (Lücke), see
§ 54, 1 p. 464.
b) to quanquam: Kühnöl renders Luke xi. 48 though they killed
them, yet ye etc. Beza had already given the right exposition of the
passage. In Matt. xi. 25 Kühnöl has himself, in the fourth edition, given
up this interpretation; and in his third edition also explains correctly
Jno. viii. 45. ·
ΤΕ
c) to ore. As to 1 Jno. iii. 14, see BCrus. In 1 Cor. iii. 13 (Pott)
ὅτι obviously specifies why ἡ ἡμέρα δηλώσει etc. Everybody is aware that
or and ore have often been interchanged by the transcribers (cf. Juo. xii. 41;
1 Cor. xii. 2; 1 Pet. iii. 20, etc.); see Schaef. Greg. Cor. p. 491; Schneider,
Plat. rep. I. 393; Siebelis, ind. Pausan. p. 259. Accordingly in the Sept.
wherever or appears to have the meaning of when or as, we must un- 400
6th ed.
hesitatingly read ore (even in 1 Kings viii. 37), as the recent editions give
on good manuscript authority in all the passages quoted by Pott on 1 Cor.
as above.
d) to profecto: In Matt. xxvi. 74 orɩ is recitative; on the other hand,
in 2 Cor. xi. 10 it means that (as after solemn oaths), see above, no. 9
p. 449. In Rom. xiv. 11 (from Isa. xlv. 23) the sense is: I swear by my
life, that etc.
Lastly, for a refutation of the assertion that orɩ is equivalent to os,
as according to some is the case in Matt. v. 45, see Fr. in loc. Vs. 45
declares that by åɣañâv τoùs ¿x¤poús etc. they will become children of their
Father in heaven, and proves this from that Father's treatment of the
πονηροί.
6. "Iva to the end that, in order that (sometimes preceded by a prepara-
tory eis roûto, Jno. xviii. 37; Acts ix. 21; Rom. xiv. 9, etc.), is said to be 479
frequently employed in the N. T. EKßarikus to denote the actual consequence
(Glass. ed. Dathe I. 539 sqq.), as it has sometimes been taken in Greek
authors also, see Hoogeveen, doctr. particul. I. 524 sq., the annotations on
Lucian. Nigr. 30; Weiske, Xen. Anab. 7, 3, 28; cf. also Ewald, Apocal.
p. 233. Now even if this were possible as a general principle, inasmuch
as the Latin ut denotes both design and result (though the gradual weak-
ening of iva in later Greek see § 44, 8 is no proof of it), yet no one will
58
458
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
deny that expositors have made most immoderate use of this principle and
are chargeable with great exaggeration. The alleged use, wholly unknown
e.g. to Devar., was denied by Lehmann, Lucian. Tom. I. 71, and afterwards
by Fr. Matt. exc. 1, and by Beyer in the n. krit. Journ. IV. 418 ff.;
yet cf. also Lücke, Comment. on Jo. II. 371 f.; Mey. on Matt. i. 22. Beyer's.
view was combated by Steudel in Bengel's n. Archiv IV. 504 f.; and
Tittmann, Synon. II. 35 sqq., has also declared himself in favor of iva
427 EKBATIKÓV.2 Others, as Olshausen, bibl. Comment. II. 250 and Bleek, Heb.
7th ed. II. I. 283, are for admitting the ecbatic sense at least in single passages;
3
[Bttm., too, (Gramm. des N. T. Sprachgebr. S. 206) asserts that there
are passages of the N. T. where iva has more of the ecbatic sense than of
the final, and where we shall come nearer the author's thought if we
translate it by so that (i.e. sre with Inf.).] In the first place, most ex-
positors have hitherto overlooked the fact that their judgment of the use
of iva is often to be shaped in accordance with Hebrew teleology, which
interchanges historic results with divine designs and decrees, or rather
represents every (important, and especially every surprising) event as
ordered and designed by God (cf. e.g. Exod. xi. 9; Isa. vi. 10, Knobel
in loc.; cf. Rom. xi. 11; see BCrus. bibl. Theol. S. 272; Tholuck, Ausleg.
d. Br. a. d. Röm. 3 Aufl. S. 395 ff.), and that on this account va may
oftentimes be used in the biblical dialect where we, agreeably to our
407 conception of the divine government of the world, should have employed
6th ed. STE. Other passages have not been examined attentively enough; else
it would have become evident that even according to the ordinary modes
480 of thought iva is employed there correctly. In still other passages it has
escaped observation that sometimes the expression to, in order to, is em-
ployed for rhetorical reasons, by a sort of hyperbole (e.g. so then I must
go there in order to get sick! cf. Isa. xxxvi. 12; Ps. li. 6; Liv. 3, 10;
Plin. Paneg. 6, 4; I have, then, built a house in order to see it burn
down!); or lastly, that iva merely expresses (what in the regular course
1 If indeed with Kühnöl (Hebr. p. 204) we lay it down as a principle that Iva denotes
consilium only saepius, we shall easily make up our minds to take the conjunction
ἐκβατικώς.
2 IIe thinks that even in Attic poets he has found instances of the kind. But
Aristoph. nub. 58 deûp' ěλ0' iva κλáņs is obviously not one; and Aristoph. vesp. 313
receives its explanation in the remark soon to be made above. Likewise in Mr. Anton.
7, 25 iva is undoubtedly Teλikóv. How unceremoniously Tittmann disposes of the N. T.
in order to make out his theory is apparent from his treatment (p. 45) of Jno. i. 7,
where in fact no unprejudiced expositor will take the second iva as ekßaтIKÓV. Even
Kühnöl has not done so.
3 To assert that the Israelites uniformly confounded design and result (Unger de
parabol. p. 173), would be saying too much. This took place only in their religious
views of events (in devout speech, BCrus. Jo. I. 198). When these did not influence
them the sharp distinction between in order that and so that must certainly have made
itself felt by the Israelites. Their having in their language a special expression for so
that shows that they had a correct notion of the distinction.
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
459
of nature and life is) the necessary result, one which is therefore so to
speak unconsciously intended by the person that does some given act (cf.
Lücke, Jo. I. 603; Fr. Rom. viii. 17), see below on Juo. ix. 2.
Passing over those examples which will be readily understood by the
attentive reader (as 1 Pet. i. 7, where Pott from mere habit as it were
takes iva for őste), we select the following, in which iva is supposed even
by good expositors to be used de eventu:
TOTE
In Luke ix. 45 (the divine) purpose is indicated by iva (cf. Matt. xi. 25):
that they might not at that time perceive it (otherwise, they would have
been perplexed with regard to Jesus). In Luke xiv. 10 va corresponds
to μýroтe vs. 8, and very clearly expresses design (not without reference.
to the application of the parable): be humble, in order that thou mayest
be deemed worthy of his heavenly kingdom; the result is indicated wholly
in TÓTE CσTaι etc. As to Mark iv. 12 (Schott) see Fr. and Olsh. and below, 428
τότε ἔσται
p. 461. Cf. also Luke xi. 50; Matt. xxiii. 34 f. In Jno. iv. 36 the sense 7th ed.
is this is so ordered in order that etc. In Jno. vii. 23 (Steudel) the words
ἵνα μὴ λυθῇ ὁ νόμος Μωϋσέως express the design underlying the custom
περιτομὴν λαμβάνει ἄνθρωπος ἐν σαββάτῳ. Jno. ix. 2 is to be explained by
the Jewish theory of final causes, which in its national exaggeration the
disciples shared. Severe, inexplicable, bodily afflictions must be divinely
ordained penalties for sin who then by his sin has moved the penal justice
of God to cause this man to be born blind? The necessary consequence
(though undesignedly induced) of åμapráve is meant, see Lücke in loc.
In Jno. xi. 15 ἵνα πιστεύσητε is added to δι' ὑμᾶς by way of explanation:
I rejoice on your account (that I was not there), to the end that ye may
believe, i.e. now ye cannot but believe. In Jno. xix. 28 iva means in order
that, whether with Luther we join ἵνα τελ. ἡ γραφή to πάντα ἤδη τετέλ. (so
Mey.), or with Lücke and de Wette to the following λéya; in the latter case
iva denotes a purpose attributed by John to Jesus. As to Jno. xvi. 24 see
Lücke. In Rom. xi. 31 iva does not indicate the design of the åπeɩboûrτes,
but God's decree which linked itself to this unbelief cf. vs. 32, to bring
them salvation (not as merited, but) out of mercy. In connection with
the divine plan, then, unbelief is designed etc., cf. also vs. 11. In the 408
same way is v. 20 f. to be explained, and probably also 2 Cor. i. 9. The 6th ed.
same teleological view clearly finds place in Jno. xii. 40 in a quotation
from the O. T. Rom. ix. 11 only requires attention to be plain; and it is
fairly surprising that Reiche should still take iva as ecbatic. The meaning 481
of 2 Cor. v. 4 is obvious; and it passes comprehension how even Schott
could render iva by ita ut. In 1 Cor. v. 5 εἰς ὄλεθρον τῆς σαρκός shows
how an intention of promoting the good of the veμa is connected with
the apostolic παραδοῦναι τῷ Σατανά; beyond contradiction, therefore, ἵνα
denotes in order that. In 1 Cor. vii. 29 the words ira kaì oi exovтes etc.
indicate the (divine) purpose of å kaɩpòs ovveσtaλμévos etc. The same
applies to Eph. ii. 9. In Eph. iii. 10 iva yvwpion etc. is probably de-
νε
460
§ 53. CONJUNCTIONS.
pendent grammatically on roû åжокeкрνμμévоv in vs. 9, see Mey. In Eph.
iv. 14 iva etc. expresses the negative design of what had been stated in
vss. 11-13.
As to Gal. v. 17 (Usteri, BCrus.) see Mey. 1 Cor. xiv. 13 d dadŵv
γλώσσῃ προςευχέσθω, ἵνα διερμηνείῃ means : let him pray (not in order to
make a display of his xápioμa twv ydwooŵr, but) with the intention, for
the purpose, of interpreting (the prayer). 1 Jno. iii. 1 behold, how great
love the Father has shown us (with the intention) that we should be called
children of God; see Lücke; BCrus. is not decided. In Rev. viii. 12 iva
expresses the object contemplated in the λÝTTEσbaι of the sun etc.; for
πλŃτт. does not denote, as many suppose, the actual darkening of the
heavenly bodies, but is the O. T. used in reference to the wrath of
God, see Ewald in loc. In Rev. ix. 20 the intention of μeravoeîv is ex-
pressed in va uń: they did not amend, in order no longer to serve demons
etc. The discernment of the fact that the objects of their worship were
429 mere demons and wooden idols, should have led them to μetávola, in order
7th ed. to emancipate themselves from so degrading a worship. In 1 Thess. v. 4
с
(Schott, BCrus.) va denotes design on the part of God, see Lünemann.
Under the telic sense comes also John's expression éλýλv◊ev ǹ wpa iva Jno.
xii. 23: the hour is (by God's decree) come (consequently is present in
order) that I etc., cf. xiii. 1; xvi. 2, 32. Inaccurate expositors took iva
in these passages as in 1 Cor. iv. 3; vii. 29 for ore or oтav. 2 Cor. vii. 9
(Rück., Schott) ye were brought into sorrow, in order that (God's purpose)
ye might be spared a more severe chastisement.
Ye did not rather mourn,
in order that ... might be expelled? Here, it is true, sre might also be
used if αἴρεσθαι were regarded as the natural result of πενθήσαι. Paul,
however, conceives of it as the end: ye should have mourned with this
end in view, to expel him. In 2 Cor. xiii. 7 the double iva indicates the
aim of Paul's prayer: first negatively, then positively. The correct ex-
position of Rom. iii. 19 is probably now to be regarded as settled; see
also Philippi. Only BCrus. still hesitates. As to Rom. viii. 17 see p. 459.
In 2 Cor. i. 17, however, iva preserves its meaning, whether we explain
the passage: what I resolve, do I resolve according to the flesh, that (with
482 the intent that) the yea with me may be (unalterably) yea, and the nay nay
(i.e. merely to show my own consistency)? or thus: in order that with
me there should be (found) yea yea, and nay nay (that both should be
found with me at the same time, that I should afterwards deny what I had
409 affirmed). In 2 Cor. iv. 7 va vπepßoλn etc. refers to God's purpose
6th ed the fact that ἔχομεν τὸν θησαυρὸν τοῦτον ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν. In
Heb. xi. 35 the words ἵνα κρείττονος ἀναστάσεως τύχωσιν indicate the
purpose with which those persons refused the άroλúrρwois. On Heb.
xii. 27 see Bleek and de Wette. In Rev. xiv. 13 (Schott) probably
ἀποθνήσκουσι (from ἀποθνήσκοντες) is to be repeated before ἵνα ἀναπαύσωνται.
Ewald and de Wette are of a different opinion, cf. above, § 43, 5, p. 317.
§ 53, CONJUNCTIONS.
461
That the expression ἵνα (όπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθέν in Matt. or ἡ γραφή,
ỏ λóyos in John, which was for some time reduced to a mere ita ut, has
in the mouth (of Jewish teachers and so) of Jesus and the apostles (when
used in reference to an event which has already occurred) the more precise
sense of in order that it might be fulfilled, cannot be doubted; cf. also Olsh.
and Mey. on Matt. i. 22. But it certainly was not meant by this that God
had caused an event to occur, or impelled men inevitably to act in a certain
manner, for the very purpose of fulfilling the prophecies (Tittm. Synon.
II. 44); the expression is very far from implying any sort of fatalism,
Lücke Jo. II. 536. With this expression, moreover, is Mark iv. 12 also
to be classified: all things are done to them in parables, in order that they 420
may see and yet not perceive etc., for: in order that the declaration (in 7th ed.
Isa. vi. 10) may be fulfilled: they will see and yet not etc. We too are
accustomed to interweave such quotations with our discourse, when they
may be presumed to be well known. Jesus cannot intend to assert the
general impossibility of understanding such parables (for then it would
have been strange indeed to speak in parables at all); but means that to
persons who do not comprehend parables so very plain might be applied
the saying of the prophet: he sees and understands not; and that there
would be such men had been expressly predicted.
τι
In the defective diction of the Apocalypse iva is apparently used once,
xiii. 13, for ❝STE or us, after an adjective including the notion of intensity:
magna miracula, i.e. tam magna, ut etc. This would be as admissible at
least as őrɩ after an intensive, cf. Ducas p. 34, 28, p. 182; Theophan. cont.
p. 663; Cedren. II. 47; Canan. p. 465; Theod. H. E. 2, 6, p. 847 ed.
Hal., and my Erlang. Pfingstprogr. 1830, p. 11. Yet see p. 338. It is
otherwise in 1 Jno. i. 9 (a passage misconstrued even by de Wette and
Schott) he is faithful and just, in order to forgive us (with a view to 483
forgive, that he may forgive); cf. in German: er ist scharfsinnig, um
einzusehen. This expressed thus: er ist scharfsinnig, so dass er einsieht,
conveys in substance the same meaning, yet exhibits the thought under
an aspect somewhat different. Here belong also the passages quoted by
Tittmann (Synon. II. 39) from Mr. Anton. 11, 3; Justin. M. p. 504.
Bengel's remark on Rev. as above: iva frequens Joanni particula; in
omnibus suis libris non nisi semel, cap. 3, 16 ev., ste posuit etc. is indeed 410
correct, yet is not to be understood as if John used iva indiscriminately for 6th ed.
STE. The reason why sTe so seldom occurs in John is partly owing to
the doctrinal turn of his writings, and partly to the fact that he
result by other constructions.
expresses
1 Bengel, on Matt. i. 22, says, in the doctrinal phraseology of his time yet in the main
correctly, ubicunque haec locutio occurrit, gravitatem evangelistarum tueri debemus et,
quamvis hebeti visu nostro, credere ab illis notari eventum non modo talem, qui
formulae cuipiam veteri respondeat, sed plane talem, qui propter veritatem divinam non
potuerit non subsequi ineunte N. T.
462
$ 54. ADVERBS.
Some insist that ἵνα is used for ὅτι in Mark ix. 12 γέγραπται ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἵνα πολλὰ πάθῃ καὶ ἐξουδενωθῇ. But the words probably
mean, in order that he suffer; this must be understood as an answer to
the question, and epɣeraι or éλeúσeraι supplied before it. Nobody will be
misled by the passage which Palairet (obs. 127) has quoted from Soph.
Αj. 385 οὐχ ὁρᾷς, ἵν᾿ εἶ κακοῦ; where ἵνα is an adverb. (Some take ὅπως
for őrt, ús in Xen. C. 3, 3, 20; 8, 7, 20, see Poppo in loc.)
Many render also oπws in order that erroneously by ita ut (Kühnöl, Act.
129; Tittm. Synon. II. 55, 58). In Luke ii. 35 (BCrus. ?) it is hardly
necessary to refer to the Hebrew teleology to discover the meaning of the
conjunction. Acts iii. 19 is plain if oπws åπоσтeíλη тòv Xp. vs. 20 be
understood of the opening of the kingdom of heaven, as vs. 21 requires.
What was remarked in reference to iva p. 457 sq. elucidates Matt. xxiii. 35.
Philem. 6 is connected with vs. 4: I make mention of thee in my prayers, in
order that etc. Meyer's objections to this reference are groundless. In
Heb. ii. 9 (Kühnöl) the clause with oπws receives so much light from
431 vs. 10 that scarcely any expositor is now likely to render the ows by ita
On όπως πληρωθῇ see above, p. 461.
7th ed. ut.
484
Os as a particle of comparison always means in the N. T. as, not so
(for ourws), as in 1 Pet. iii. 6 Pott might have learnt even from Bengel.
Nowhere also in the N. T. is there a reason for writing it is — a form,
moreover, very rare (Heind. and Stallb. Plat. Protag. c. 15) in prose
writers (with the exception of the Ionic). In Heb. iii. 11; iv. 3 (Sept.)
ús may be rendered by that, so that; in which sense it is sometimes used
with the Indicative even in good Greek authors (Her. 1, 163; 2, 135).
On Mark xiii. 34 and similar passages, see Fr.; to assume there with Mey.
an anacoluthon is quite unnecessary.
§ 54. ADVERBS.
1. Adverbs are so indispensable in defining closely relations of
quality, that we can easily understand how it is that the N. T. wri-
ters, though inferior to the Greek prose authors as respects the
use of conjunctions, have yet mastered pretty well the resources
of the Greek tongue in adverbs, considered extensively; it is only
when it is viewed intensively, i.e. as respects the finer shades of
thought conveyed by several of the simple adverbs (e.g. av) and by
adverbial compounds, that their usage betrays them to be foreigners
who did not feel the need of such refinements.
Derivative (adjectival) adverbs are the more numerous in the
N. T., because the later Greek had derived from many adjectives
411 adverbial forms previously unknown, and had adopted into ordi-
6th ed. nary prose other words of the class which had hitherto been used
*
§ 54. ADVERBS.
463
only in poetry. Cf. ȧkalpws (Sir. xxxii. 4), àvagíws (2 Macc.
xiv. 42), ἀνόμως 2 Macc. viii. 17), ἀποτόμως (since Polyb.),
EKTEVOS (likewise; Lob. Phryn. 311), аπерioтúσтws (likewise;
Lob. 415), éтoíuws (for which the Attic language at least used
ἐξ ἑτοίμου), εὐθύμως (since Polyb.), ἐσχάτως (cf. Lob. 389), εὐ
apéσTws (Arrian. Epict. 1, 12, 21), Kevos (Arrian. Epict. 2, 17, 6
(εἰς κενόν), προςφάτως, τελείως, πολυτρόπως and πολυμερώς, ῥητῶς,
Ovikŵs in the biblical sense.
Among the remaining adverbs also some belong to later prose,
and give offence to the grammarians; e.g. úπepékeiva see Thom.
Μ. 336, οὐρανόθεν, παιδιόθεν, μακρόθεν Lob. 93 sq.
The use of the adjective (or partic.) Neut.¹ for the correspond-
ing adverb, which became more and more common in later Greek,
does not exceed in the N. T. the limits observed in the earlier 432
7th ed.
prose: cf. πρῶτον, ὕστερον, πρότερον and τὸ πρότερον, πλησίον,
τυχόν, ἔλαττον, πολύ, τὸ νῦν ἔχον Acts xxiv. 25 for the present (Vig.
p. 9, cf. Hm. p. 888), τοὐναντίον, λοιπόν and τὸ λοιπόν (Hm. Vig.
706), ταχύ, πυκνά, ἴσα, μακρά, πολλά (often, σφόδρα) and τὰ πολλά
(for the most part), for most of which no adverbial forms existed.
In general, there is nothing peculiar in the N. T. diction in re-
gard to the use of adjectives, with or without prepositions (ellip-
tically or not), for adverbs: cf. e.g. Tоû λOCTOû (Hm. as above; 485
van Marle, forileg. p. 232 sq.), πεζῇ, πάντη, καταμόνας, κατ' ἰδίαν,
ἰδίᾳ, καθόλου, εἰς κενόν, and the Lexicons under the words. In-
stead of κατὰ ἑκούσιον Philem. 14 (Num. xv. 3) ἑκουσίως, ἑκουσίᾳ
or è§ ěkovoías is more common in Greek. It is not necessary to
speak of genuine Greek compounds, such as Tараɣρñμµа; on the
other hand, in conformity with the genius of the Hebrew-Aramaic
tongue, abstract substantives with prepositions, instead of adverbial
forms actually existing, are more frequent than in Greck authors:
e.g. év áλnocía Matt. xxii. 16, éπ àληleías Luke xxii. 59 (for
ἀληθῶς), ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ Acts xvii. 31 for δικαίως, see above, § 51.
In 2 Cor. iv. 16 ǹµépą kaì ǹµépą, as a circumlocution for the
adverb daily (καθ' ἡμέραν οι τὸ καθ' ἡμέραν, common in the Ν. Τ.),
would be without example in the N. T. cf. Di pi, see Vorst, Hebr.
307 sq.; Ewald, kr. Gr. 638.2 Probably, however, Paul designedly
used the expression day by day, to indicate the progress of avakai-
νοῦσθαι; whereas καθ' (ἑκάστην) ἡμέραν ἀνακαινοῦται might be
taken also in another sense. Further, we find an analogous con-
1 However, what Im. Eurip. Hel. p. 30 sq. says in elucidation of this use of neuters,
deserves consideration.
2 Cf. ĥµépą τî ñuépa Georg. Phrantz. 4, 4, p. 356.
464
§ 54. ADVERBS.
412
struction (though only in a local sense) in Mark vi. 39 éπétağev
ἀνακλίναι πάντας συμπόσια συμπόσια catervatim, cf. Exod.
viii. 14, vs. 40 ȧvéтeσоv траσiai paolai areolatim, see § 37, 3.
ἀνέπεσον πρασιαὶ π
These words are strictly in apposition, cf. Luke ix. 14. What
Georgi in his Vindic. p. 340 has collected is of another sort.
When a simple accusative of a noun (substantive) is used adverbially,
6th ed. this use arises strictly from an abbreviated construction (Hm. Vig. 883).
Besides the well-known ɣápw, under this head come
a. τηv åpρxýv throughout, altogether (Vig. 723), which is probably so to
be taken also in Jno. viii. 25 (see Lücke's careful examination of the
passage): altogether what I also say unto you (I am entirely what in my
discourses I profess to be). The context furnishes no ground whatever
for preferring the interrogative to the categoric interpretation; Meyer's
exposition is complicated, and appears to me least satisfactory of all.
b. åkμýν used in later Greek for er, as in Matt. xv. 16; see Lob.
Phryn. 123 sq.
Adverbs may
be joined not only to verbs, but also to nouns, as in 1 Cor.
433 xii. 31 кať úñeрßoλèv å§òv vµîv deíkvvµi, see no. 2, and 1 Cor. vii. 35 πpòs
7th ed. τὸ εὐπάρεδρον τῷ κυρίῳ ἀπερισπάστως.
1
2. The adverbial notion is sometimes expressed concretely as
adjectival, and subjoined to the substantive (Mtth. 1001; Kühner
486 II. 382). This takes place not only when it is to the substantive
(not to the verb) that a predicate (logically) belongs (though in
German an adverb is used), but also where such reference to the
substantive appears to be more favorable to perspicuity: 2 Acts
xiv. 10 ἀνάστηθι ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας σου ὀρθός, Mark iv. 28 αὐτομάτη
й уn каρтодореî, Acts xii. 10 (Iliad. 5, 749), Rom. x. 19 πр@TOS
Mwüons λéyeɩ (as the first), 1 Tim. ii. 13; Jno. xx. 4 etc.; Luke
3
1 So Jno. iv. 18 тoûтo àλŋlès elρnkas this hast thou spoken as (something) true, hoc
verum dixisti. On the other hand, т. àλŋoŵs.elp. (which Kühnöl demands) would be
ambiguous. Cf. Χen. vectig. 1, 2 ὅπως δὲ γνωσθῇ, ὅτι ἀληθὲς τοῦτο λέγω, Demosth.
Halon. 34 b. τούτό γε ἀληθὲς λέγουσιν.
2 Cf. especially Bremi, Exc. 2, ad Lys. 449 sq., Mehlhorn, de adjectivor. pro adverbio
positor. ratione et usu. Glogav. 1828. See also Vechner, Hellenol. 215 sqq.; Zumpt,
lat. Gramm. §§ 682, 686; Kritz, Sall. I. 125; II. 131, 216. In Latin this form of
expression is in general still more prevalent. Eichhorn (Einleit. ins N. T. II. 261)
makes an erroneous application of the rule in supposing that Jno. xiii. 34 évtoλýv
kawǹy dídwµι can signify, anew (kaivŵs) will I give you the commandment. But in that
case John must at least have written (ταύτην) τὴν ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι. Even the
position of the words precludes taking µóvov adverbially in Jno. v. 44; see Lücke.
8 Ordinal adjectives are used for adverbs only when first, second, etc. refer to the
person; that is, when something is expressed which the person did before all other
persons (was the first to do); but when the person is represented as doing a first act,
in distinction from other subsequent acts of the same person, the adverb must be used.
Cf. also Kritz, Sallust. II. 174.
§ 54. ADVERBS.
465
dè
xxi. 34 μήποτε ἐπιστῇ ἐφ' ὑμᾶς αἰφνίδιος ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη (var.
αιφνιδίως), Acts xxviii. 13 δευτεραῖοι ἤλθομεν εἰς Ποτιόλους, 1 Cor.
ix. 17 εἰ γὰρ ἑκὼν τοῦτο πράσσω ... εἰ δὲ ἄκων etc. Cf. also Luke
v. 21; 1 Cor. ix. 6, etc. With these adjectives the construction
described is frequent, not to say predominant, in Greck authors
(cf. in regard to avтóμaros Her. 2, 66; Lucian. necyom. 1; Xen.
An. 5, 7, 3; 4, 3, 8; Cyr. 1, 4, 13; Hell. 5, 1, 14; Dion. H. 1, 139;
Wetst. I. 569, in regard to πрŵтоs Xen. An. 2, 3, 19; Cyr. 1, 4, 2;
Paus. 6, 4, 2; Charit. 2, 2, as to devтep. Her. 6, 106; Xen. Cyr.
5, 2, 2; Arrian. Al. 5, 22, 4; Wetst. II. 654, as to aipvidios Thuc.
6, 49; 8, 28, subitus irrupit Tac. hist. 3, 47); yet with other 413
adjectives not uncommon: Xen. Cyr. 5, 3, 55 avròs Tapeλavvwv 6th ed.
παρελαύνων
τὸν ἵππον ... ἥσυχος κατεθεᾶτο etc. 6, 1, 45 εὖ οἶδ', ὅτι ἄσμενος
ἂν πρὸς ἄνδρα ... ἀπαλλαγήσεται (Demosth. Zenotl. 576 b.; 2 Macc.
x. 33; Pflugk, Eurip. Hel. p. 48; see, on the other hand, Acts
xxi. 17), 7, 5, 49 εἰ ταῦτα πρόθυμός σοι συλλάβοιμι (var.), 4,
2, 11 ἐθελούσιοι ἐξιόντες, Dio Chr. 40, 495 πυκνοὶ βαδίζοντες,
Isocr. ep. 8 TEλEVTV (at last, finally) vπeoxóμny, cf. Palair. 214;
Valcken. Her. 8, 130; Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. 156; Krü. 210 f
How far it is correct to say that adjectives are used instead of adverbs 434
is obvious from the preceding observations. To suppose, also, that adverbs
7th ed.
are used instead of adjectives is a mistake (Ast,' Plat. polit. p. 271), as 487
in Matt. i. 18 ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν, xix. 10 εἰ οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
(LXX. Rom. iv. 18) 1 Pet. ii. 15; 1 Thess. ii. 10 ús oσíws K. Sikaiws Kai
ἀμέμπτως ὑμῖν ἐγενήθημεν, vs. 13; Rom. ix. 20 τί με ἐποίησας οὕτως ; In
the first of these passages elva is not the simple copula (as in aurŋ or
TOLOûTÓ ÉσTi), but denotes to be of a certain condition or character, stand,
comparatum esse.2 In Rom. ix. 20 ourws denotes the manner of woŵv,
the consequence of which is his being now the person that he is. Cf.
Bremi, Aesch. Ctesiph. p. 278; Bhdy. S. 337 f.; Hm. Soph. Antig. 633;
Wex, Antig. I. 206; Mehlhorn in the allg. Lit.-Zeit. 1833. Ergzbl. no. 108;
Lob. Paralip. p. 151; as to Lat. Kritz, Sallust. Cat. p. 306 sq. Likewise
in 1 Cor. vii. 7 ἕκαστος ἴδιον ἔχει χάρισμα, ὃς μὲν οὕτως, ὃς δὲ οὕτως the
adverbs are in place: each has his own (peculiar) gift, one after this
manner, another after that.
A closer approximation to adjectives is found
a. In certain local adverbs, such as ἐγγὺς εἶναι, χωρίς τινος εἶναι Eph.
ii. 12, πóßów elvaι Luke xiv. 32 (Krü. 244).
1 His article in the Landshuter Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. und Kunst III. II. 133 ff.
I have not had an opportunity of comparing.
2 In Jno. vi. 55 there is a variant. Recent editors have preferred åλnohs, see Lücke;
who, however, ably combats at the same time the opinion that aλŋows and ảλŋ☺ýs are
synonymous.
59
466
§ 54. ADVERBS.
b. In adverbs of degree annexed to substantives (v being understood);
as, μúλa σтраτηyós Xen. Hell. 6, 2, 39, see Bhdy. 338. Usually they are
placed before the noun, but sometimes after it. Even ancient expositors
thus understood 1 Cor. xii. 31 καὶ ἔτι καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν ὁδὸν ὑμῖν δείκνυμι:
a super-eminent (more excellent) way. Such an adverbial adjunct is placed.
after the noun in 1 Cor. viii. 7 tỷ ovveidńoei ews äpti toû eidwλov, Phil. i. 26;
2 Pet. ii. 3, probably also in 2 Cor. xi. 23; see Mey.
3. The adverbial notion of intensity is not unfrequently ex-
pressed by joining to a verb a participle of the same verb (see § 45,
8), or a cognate noun in the Dative (Ablative): Luke xxii. 15
ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα I have earnestly desired, Jno. iii. 29 χαρᾷ χαίρει
impense laetatur, Acts iv. 17 àæeiλý àπeiλnowμeða let us straitly
threaten, v. 28 παραγγελία παρηγγείλαμεν ὑμῖν, xxiii. 14 ἀναθέματι
414 ȧveð¤µатíoaμev we have bound ourselves under a great curse, Jas.
6th ed. v. 17, from Sept. Matt. xiii. 14 (Isa. vi. 9); Matt. xv. 4 Oaváro
TEλEUTÚTO (Exod. xxi. 15). This form of expression is of frequent
occurrence in the Sept. and the Apocr., and is there an imitation
of the Hebrew Infinitive absolute, cf. Isa. xxx. 19; lxvi. 10; Deut.
488 vii. 26; Exod. xxi. 20; Josh. xxiv. 10; 1 Sam. xii. 25; xiv. 39;
Sir. xlviii. 11; Judith vi. 4 (Vorst, Hebr. p. 624 sq.); yet it is
sometimes found in Greck authors also (Schaef. Soph. II. 313;
435 Ast, Plat. Epin. 586; Lob. Paralip. 524) e.g. Plat. symp. 195 b.
7th ed. φεύγων φυγῇ τὸ γῆρας, Phaedr. 265 d. ἐμοὶ φαίνεται τὰ μὲν ἄλλα
παιδιᾷ πεπαῖσθαι, Phot. cod. 80, 113 σπουδῇ σπουδάζειν, Soph.
Oed. R. 65 ὕπνῳ εὕδοντα, Ael. 8, 15 νίκῃ ἐνίκησε.
Of a different nature are those passages in which the Dative of the noun
is accompanied by an adjective (or any other adjunct); as, raîs μeɣíσTais
τιμαῖς ἐτίμησαν, ζημιούτω τῇ νομιζομένη ζημίᾳ (Schwarz as above). These
coincide with the mode of expression explained in § 32, 2; cf. Xen. A. 4,
5, 33; Plut. Coriol. 3; Aristoph. Plut. 592; Aeschyl. Prom. 392; Hom.
hymn. in Merc. 572. From the N. T. see 1 Pet. i. 8 åɣadλı⤤¤ xapậ
ἀνεκλαλήτῳ etc.
T
Even the expression γάμῳ γεγαμηκώς in Demosth.
Boeot. 639 a. has no connection with the construction in question; it
means, as it were, having espoused by marriage i.e. living in lawful wedlock,
as yaµcîolaɩ alone is applied also to concubinage. Even Xen. An. 4, 6, 25
οἱ πελτασταὶ δρόμῳ ἔθεον I would except, as δρόμος denotes a particular
sort of rapid advance: at a run, on the trot. As to Soph. Oed. C. 1625
(1621), see Hm. in loc.
1 Lob., as above, shows that in Greek authors this form of expression is used only
in a figurative sense, not in a physical, as in Jer. (xxvi.) xlvi. 5. Moreover, in Latin
the well-known occidione occidere is analogous to this construction.
§ 54. ADVERBS.
467
•
4. Certain adverbial notions the Greeks were accustomed to
regard as verbal; accordingly, the verb which was to have been
qualified by one of these notions, they made, in the form of an
Infinitive or Participle, to depend on it as principal verb (Mtth.
1279 ff.; cf. Kritz, Sallust. 1, 89): Heb. xiii. 2 eλaóv Twes Čevi-
σavres they (escaped their own-notice as entertaining) enter-
tained unconsciously, unawares (Wetst. in loc.; cf. also Joseph.
bell. jud. 3, 7, 3; Toh. xii. 13),¹ Acts xii. 16 èπépeve kpoúwv he
knocked persistently (Jno. viii. 7) cf. Lösner, obs. 203; Mark
xiv. 8 προέλαβε μυρίσαι antevertit ungere, she anointed before-
hand (Kypke in loc.; pláva also is sometimes used with the Inf.
see Wyttenbach, Juliani orat. p. 181; cf. rapere occupat Horat. Od.
2, 12, 28), Matt. vi. 5 þɩλoûσɩ πрosЄúɣeσ¤αι they love to pray (cf.
Ael. 14, 37 φιλῶ τὰ ἀγάλματα . . . ὁρᾶν Wetst. and Fr. in Ioc.,
ópâv)
Luke xxiii. 12, see Bornem. Whether é also (ééλw? Hm. 489
Soph. Philoct. p. 238) is used as a finite verb to denote the adver-
bial notion gladly, with pleasure, cheerfully (sponte), has lately
been questioned, (that the Partic. of léλw is so used is well known,
cf. Mey. on Col. ii. 18).² And in fact Jno. viii. 44 tàs éπilvµías 415
τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν θέλετε ποιεῖν must be rendered: the lusts of 6th ed.
your father ye will (are resolved and inclined to) do (carry into 436
effect), either in general (your hearts impel you to follow the will of
Satan) or because ye go about to kill me (vs. 40). The Plural here,
which troubles de Wette, has already been explained by Lücke.
In Jno. vi. 21, also, the interpretation given by Kühnöl and others
is necessary only in case an attempt (for which there is no author-
ity) is made to harmonize the narrative of this evangelist with
that of Matt. and Mark. At the same time this must be admitted,
that neeλov Toño ai they purposed, were inclined, to do (Arist. polit.
6, 8) when from the context it is obvious that the sense is not
confined to the mere act of will,3 may signify they did it designedly,
spontaneously, gladly, e.g. Isocr. Callim. 914 où dustuxnoáons tŷs
· πόλεως προκινδυνεύειν ὑμῶν ἠθέλησαν who were willing to expose
1 Yet in Ael. 1, 7 οὗτοι, ὅταν αὑτοὺς λαθόντες ὑοςκυάμου φάγωσι, we find the
construction which corresponds to German usage. The Inf. instead of the Part. after
davoável occurs in Leo, Chronogr. p. 19.
2 In 2 Pet. iii. 5 λavoável Toûto éλovтas I prefer the rendering latet eos hoc (what
follows) volentes, i.e. volentes ignorant, to the other: latet eos (what follows), hoc (what
precedes) volentes, i.e. contendentes; since the former brings out more clearly the guilt
of the mockers. In Col. ii. 18 also éλwv is not to be taken as an adverb.
8 In Jno. vi. 21 the matter appears according to John's account not to have gone
beyond a mere act of the will.
7th ed.
468
§ 54. ADVERBS.
themselves to danger for you (and have proved their willingness
by their deeds), who cheerfully encountered dangers in your
cause (Xen. Cyr. 1, 1, 3). The phrase ééλovoi Toleiv, however,
when it does not indicate a mere act of the will, signifies according
to the nature of the case: they do willingly, cheerfully (Demosth.
01. 2 p. 6 a. ὅταν μὲν ὑπ᾽ εὐνοίας τὰ πράγματα συστῇ καὶ πᾶσι
ταὐτὰ συμφέρει ... καὶ συμπονεῖν καὶ φέρειν τὰς συμφορὰς καὶ
µiéveiv è0 éλovσiv oi äveρwтoi), or they do it of their own accord,
spontaneously (Xen. Hier. 7, 9 ὅταν ἄνθρωποι ἄνδρα ἡγησάμενοι
ἱκανὸν . . . στεφανῶσι . . . καὶ δωρεῖσθαι ἐθέλωσι) Cf. besides
Stallb. Plat. symp. p. 56, and Gorg. p. 36; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 28.
According to this, Mark xii. 38; Luke xx. 46 Twv €λÓ VT W V
πEPITATEÎV ÉV σtoλaîs who wish to go about i.e. who love to go
about, would not be bad Greek (though Tŵv piλoúvτwv Tep. would
be preferable); yet this expression is perhaps to be referred pri-
490 marily to the Hebraistic éλeiv tı delectari re, as in Mark Oéλew is
immediately followed by the Accusative ȧorаoμous as its object.
·
E
5. In Hebrew, adverbial notions are to a still greater extent
regarded as verbal; since in that language they not only are
grammatically construed with the verb (which shows that the two
are essentially connected), as in bub po i.e. he sent again, which
is imitated in Luke xx. 11 f. πρоsébeто Tɵfai (but in Mark
416 xii. 4 we find καὶ πάλιν ἀπέστειλεν), Acts xii. 3 προςέθετο συλλα
6th ed.
Beîv Kaì Пéтρov besides he apprehended Peter also, Mark xiv. 25
var. thus frequently in Sept. προςτιθέναι and Mid. προςτίθεσθαι
437 Gen. iv. 2; xi. 6; Exod. x. 28; xiv. 13; Deut. iii. 26; xviii. 16;
7th ed. Josh. vii. 12, etc., likewise with Inf. Pass. Judges xiii. 21), but also
both are used as finite verbs and joined together by and: he does
much and weeps (Ewald 631).2 This last construction has been
retained in particular phrases through all periods of the language;
whereas in other cases this mode of expression (as it were a ev
Sià Svoîv with verbs) passes over perceptibly into the other, which
becomes predominant. In the N. T. also it was thought that
instances of that former and more simple construction were to be
1 Cf. also Orig. c. Marcion. p. 35 Wetst. rà diralws èv taîs ypapaîs eipnµéva BobλEL
adixws voeîv thou art inclined to understand, understandest designedly.
2 The Sept. reproduce verbatim only a few of these Hebrew constructions, e.g. Judg.
xiii. 10 éráxuvev ʼn yuvǹ kal ědpaμe, 1 Sam. xxv. 42; Ps. cv. 13; Dan. x. 18; Hos. i. 6.
Cf. on the other hand, Gen. xxvi. 18; xxx. 31; Job xix. 3; Ps. xxxii. 3. The phrase
is also rendered in the Sept. by the Part.: Gen. xxxviii. 5 #posleîoa ěti étekev
vibv etc., xxv. 1 тposléμevos 'Aßрaൠĕλaße yuvaîka, Job xxix. 1; xxxvi. 1. It occurs
once also in Luke xix. 11. Besides, cf. Thiersch de Pentat. alex. p. 177.
§ 54. ADVERBS.
469
found,¹ as Rom. x. 20 àтотоλµậ κal Xéyei speaks out boldly, Luke
vi. 48 eσkaye kaì èẞálvve he dug deep (Schott), Col. ii. 5 xaípwv
kaì Вλéπwv seeing with joy (Beng. and Schott) etc. But in many
passages referred to this head this explanation is quite inadmissi-
ble, as in 2 Cor. ix. 9 ἐσκόρπισεν, ἔδωκε τοῖς πένησιν which must
be rendered: he dispersed abroad, he gave to the poor (Ps. cxii. 9),
-in others it is unnecessary, as in Luke vi. 48 he dug and deep-
ened (crescit oratio, Beza); Jno. viii. 59 èκpúßŋ kaì ¿¿ñλbev ék
Toû iepoû (BCrus.) means: he hid himself and went forth i.e. either
withdrew from their sight, rendered himself invisible (according
to which a miraculous àpaviouós of Christ is narrated), or he
concealed himself and went (soon after) away (Lücke, Mey.).
The narrator might easily from his point of view combine thus,
and connect by kal, two events not precisely simultaneous, yet
following one another in rapid succession. Perhaps we should
prefer, with Bengel, the first of the two explanations given, as 491
the one more in accordance with the character of this evangelist,
and in fact established if the words διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν are
genuine. In Acts xv. 16 the word avaσrpéyw has nothing cor-
responding to it either in the Sept. or in the Hebrew (Amos
ix. 11); probably to the apostle as he makes the quotation it
means, (to him) I will turn (myself) again (as also in many
passages of the O. T. must by itself be rendered, e.g. Jer. xii. 15
to them, antithetic to Jehovalı's turn-
ing away from them and have mercy on them; Sept. ȧvaoтpéyw
Kai eneηow aνTOús), as iterum is already contained in the com-
pounds ἀνοικοδομήσω, ἀνορθώσω. Likewise in Matt. xviii. 3 ἐὰν
μὴ στραφῆτε καὶ γένησθε etc. and Acts vii. 42 ἔστρεψεν ὁ θεὸς
κаì таρédwкe this verb appears independently: to turn i.e. accord-
ing to the connection, respectively turn about, repent, and turn
away. In Luke i. 68 the absolute construction of ÉπеσкéаTо (TEP) 438
is obvious. The above passage from Rom. is more like the Latin 7th ed.
audet dicere; in which construction the idea of the first verb is 417
not conceived of as subordinate. Render: he makes bold and
says; άπотоλ. indicates the frame of mind, λéyew its result, the
utterance of the mental state in the bold saying. In Col. as above
Paul probably means to say two things: 2 in spirit I am present
I will return אָשׁוּב וְרִחַמְתִּים
¹ Every discriminating reader will perceive that the constructions from Xen., Plaut.,
and Persius, which Külnöl on Luke vi. 48 has adduced as analogous, are of a different
nature.
2 In the quotation by Wetst. from Joseph. bell. jud. 3, 10, 2 the Codd. read xaipa
καὶ βλέπων or simply βλέπων.
6th ed.
470
§ 54. ADVERBS.
caí
1
with you, rejoicing (over you, ovv vuiv) and beholding your order
etc. To the general statement is annexed one that is special. It
is also possible that in Bλéπwv etc. the ground of the joy is sub-
joined, and xal is to be rendered namely, that is. As, however,
the rejoicing is something caused by Béπev, the adverbial notion
expressed independently by a finite verb could in no event precede
the principal notion; nor could such a form of expression be
supported, on careful consideration, by Hebrew analogy.2 Jas.
iv. 2 poveveтe Kai nλoûтe does not mean: ye envy even to the death
492 (Schott), mortally, but as Stolz renders it, ye kill and envy; sce
Kern in loc. In Rev. iii. 19 the two verbal notions can easily be
taken each by itself. Others, even Züllig, find here a hysteron-
proteron; Hengstenberg on the passage is right.
439
7th ed.
418
6th eu.
3
Against the rendering of Mark x. 21 ἠγάπησεν αὐτὸν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ blande
eum compellavit (also Schott), see Mey. in loc.
6. As prepositions without a case are sometimes used as adverbs
(see § 50, note 2, p. 423), so on the other hand, and still more
frequently, adverbs (especially of place and time) are connected
with cases as äua (even in Her. 6, 118 apa т σTρаT) which in
later Greek became almost a preposition (äµa avтoîs Matt. xiii. 29
equivalent to σùv avtoîs, cf. Lucian. Asin. 41, 45; Polyb. 4, 48, 6
etc. see Klotz, Devar. II. 97 sq.), eas of time and space (Klotz II.
564, cf. ἕως τούτου - for which the Greeks use ἄχρι, μέχρι, or in a
1 Where the adverbial idea is promoted grammatically to an independence which
does not logically belong to it, it can maintain such independence only by following
the principal verb; cf. Plut. Cleom. 18 εἰςελθὼν καὶ βιασάμενος equivalent to βίᾳ εἰςελθών.
2 The Hebrew verbs which when placed before other finite verbs are taken adverbially,
express either an idea considered independently, as Job xix. 3 ye are not ashamed and
ye deafen me, or a general idea which is more precisely defined by one more special, as:
he made haste and ran to meet the Philistines; he turned back and dug etc. In like manner
1 Sam. ii. 3; which poetic passage, however, cannot be used in explaining the prose
of the N. T.
3 Gebser gains nothing by appealing to Jas. i. 11 and iii. 14 in support of this inter-
pretation. In i. 11 ἀνέτειλεν ὁ ἥλιος . . . καὶ ἐξήρανε expresses the rapid scorching of
the herbage more aptly than avaтeíλas é§hpave, cf. veni vidi vici, not veniens vidi, or
veni vidensque vici. To rise and to scorch is one act; not, after he is risen, he sets
about scorching.' It is precisely by expressing each of the moments by a finite verb
that their rapid succession is more graphically represented. The second passage,
iii. 14 μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας, I render (and Wiesinger concurs
with me) do not glory and lie against the truth; Karà Tôs ảλ. belongs properly to κатα-
kavxâσdai (Rom. xi. 18). But the apostle to explain kатαк. thrusts in forthwith a
stronger expression. By resolving it into μὴ κατακαυχώμενοι ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθ.
we gain only the tautology κατὰ τ. ἀλ. ψεύδεσθαι, while the κατά in κατακαυχ. is wholly
neglected.
8 54. ADVERBS.
471
local sense ews eis, éws èπí; yet cf. Diod. S. 1, 27 éws ¿keavoû),
also with names of persons (even unto, to Luke iv. 42; Acts ix. 38;
cf. Lament. iii. 39), xwpis (Jno. xv. 5 separated from, µǹ µévovτes
èv époí vs. 4, cf. Xen. C. 6, 1, 7; Polyb. 3, 103, 8, then very fre-
quently without and besides), πλnoíov Jno. iv. 5 with Gen., as in
Sept. cf. Xen. Mem. 1, 4, 6; Aeschin. dial. 3, 3 (in Greek authors
also with Dat.), but πаρañλŋσíov Phil. ii. 27 with Dat. (with very
slight variation of Codd.), éyyús with Gen. Jno. iii. 23; vi. 19;
xi. 18 etc. and with Dat. Acts ix. 38; xxvii. 8, ỏyé with Gen. Matt.
xxviii. 1, ἔμπροσθεν with Gen., ὀπίσω (exclusively Hellenistic),
ὄπισθεν with Gen., ὑπερέκεινα and ἔλαττον ditto, and also ἔσω and
ego with Gen. Several of these are so frequently construed with
a case, that they may be taken directly as prepositions; just as
in ἕως, χωρίς, ἄχρι, μέχρι, the adverbial meaning is already per-
ceptibly receding, and in ävev (in the N. T.) has entirely disap- 493
peared.
Under this head comes also Phil. ii. 15 μéσov yevεâs σKоλiâs (cf. Theophan.
p. 530), which Lchm. and Tdf. have properly admitted into the text. But
in Matt. xiv. 24 τὸ πλοῖον ἤδη μέσον τῆς θαλάσσης ἦν the word μέσον is an
adjective: navis jam media maris erat, see Krebs in loc.
In general,
the use of adverbs with the Gen. in the N. T. diction appears very simple
if we compare with it the far bolder constructions employed in the Greek
of all periods, see Bhdy. 157 f.
Combinations such as ἕως ἄρτι, ἕως πότε, ἕως ὅτου, ἕως πρωί, ἕως έξω, ἕως
Káтw and the like, are, indeed, especially common in later prose authors
(in Sept. cf. Ews TÓTE Neh. ii. 16, ews Tivos, ews où Gen. xxvi. 13), but
some such had already been sanctioned by earlier writers, Bhdy. 196;
Krü. 266 f. As to adverbs with the article instead of nouns, see
§ 18, 3 p. 109.
7. Adverbs of place, even when not in relative clauses (§ 23, 2),
are (originally by force of an attraction, Hm. Vig. 790, ad Soph.
Antig. 517; Wex, Antig. I. 107; Weber, Demosth. p. 446; Krüger,
grammat. Untersuchungen III. 306 ff.) interchanged by good
prose writers; particularly adverbs of rest are joined to verbs of
motion when at the same time continuance in a place is to be
expressed, Hm. as above, Blidy. 350 (see above, on év, § 50, 4)
cf. Matt. ii. 22 éдоßýeŋ èкеî àπeλoeîv, xvii. 20; xxviii. 16. So in
the later writers ἐκεῖ came to be used freely for ἐκεῖσε, ποῦ and
ὅπου for ποῖ and ὅποι, οὗ for whither. They are thus used in the
Sept. and even in the N. T. (where e.g. oπot never occurs); as, 440
Jno. xviii. 3 ὁ Ἰούδας . . . ἔρχεται ἐκεῖ μετὰ φανῶν καὶ λαμπάδων
ÈKEî
.
7th ed
472
§ 54. ADVERBS.
K
419 (Arrian. Epict. 24, 113),¹ Rom. xv. 24 vþ iµâν πρоπeµÞ0ĥvaι
6th ed. è ke (to Spain), Jno. vii. 35; iii. 8 (πóbev eрxетаι каì πоû úπáɣεi),
viii. 14; xi. 8; Luke xxiv. 28; Jas. iii. 4; Rev. xiv. 4, etc. This
is an abuse easily to be explained in the language of conversation
(in ὧδε and ἐνθάδε, ἐνταυθοῖ, the meanings hic and huc coalesced
still earlier, Krü. 268), and which ought not to be denied in the
written language of the N. T.2
With respect to other adverbs of place, not only does cow stand
494 for within (evdov does not occur in the N. T.) Jno. xx. 26; Acts
v. 23 (Ezek. ix. 6; Lev. x. 18), but also èkeîσe for èkeî Acts xxii. 5
ἄξων καὶ τοὺς ἐκεῖσε ὄντας (see Wetst. in loc. cf. especially oἱ
ÉKЄîσE OйKÉOVTеs Hippocr. vict. san. 2, 2 p. 35, and the Index to
Agathias, to Menander, and to Malal. ed. Bonn.). On the other
hand, Acts xiv. 26 ὅθεν ἦσαν παραδεδομένοι τῇ χάριτι, as even
Luther saw, is quite regular, cf. Mey. (and the emendation by
Hemsterhuis, neoav, inadmissible in any case); and in Acts xxi. 3
èkЄîσe retains its meaning, as does oπov in Luke xii. 17. The
adverbs ἔξωθεν, ἔσωθεν, κάτω, in prose usage, as is well known,
represent both relations, from without and without, downwards
and beneath, etc.
Further, how the usage of the later prose writers keeps pace with
that of the N. T. may be seen from the collections of Lob. Phryn.
p. 43 sq. 128; Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 9. Cf. besides, Buttm. Philoct.
p. 107; Stallb. Plat. Euthyphr. p. 95 sqq.; Schoem. Plutarch.
Cleom. p. 186; Hartung, Casus S. 85 ff., also Kypke and Elsner
on Matt. ii. 22.
3
That adverbs of place (relat.) are also used with reference to
persons is well known, cf. Rev. ii. 13 παρ' ὑμῖν, ὅπου ὁ σαταν.
1 Her. 1, 121 ẻλowv èneî plainly signifies: having arrived there (cf. the preceding to
Xaípwv ès Пépoas), and so might exeσbaι in Jno. xviii. 3 perhaps be rendered. Heb.
vi. 20 öπоν πрóôрoμos eisîλte may mean, where entered; see Böhme, whom Bleek has not
understood.
2 Many passages, to be sure, have been referred to this head which are of another
sort, e.g. Matt. xxvi. 36; Luke xii. 17, 18. Here èke and of certainly mean: there,
where. Not so Luke x. 1, where Hölemann's translation ubi iter facere in animo erat is
false because ěpxeσdai does not mean iter facere. Cf. Im. Soph. Antig. p. 106.
8 It is, indeed, not to be overlooked that forms such as roû, πoî, also èkeî, èkeîoe,
might be easily exchanged by transcribers, as actually happens often in MSS. of Greek
authors (Schaef. Eurip. Hec. 1062). Nevertheless, in the case of the N. T. the number
of such variations noted is extremely small. Also corrections, as Acts xxii. 5 èkeî,
very rarely occur, since the readers were too much accustomed to such use of these
adverbs to take offence at it. Besides, the old (Homeric) language coincides with the
later prose in the interchange of local adverbs, while Attic prose keeps the forms more
distinct.
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
473
KаTоIKEL Vechner, hellenol. p. 234. Besides, we find them used
occasionally with a loose reference, Jno. xx. 19 т. Ouрôv KEKλEL
θυρών κεκλει
σμévwv őπov hoav oi pantai there (of the chamber) where, Mark
ii. 4; cf. Matt. ii. 9 (Krü. 268).
OTT
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
441
7th ed.
6th ed.
1. The Greek language has, as is well known, two orders of 420
negatives, ού, οὔτε, οὐκέτι (οὐδείς) etc., and μή, μήτε, μηκέτι (μηδείς)
etc. The distinction between the two has been most fully unfolded 495
by Hermann (ad Vig. p. 804 ff.; cf. Mtth. II. 1437 ff; Mdv. 235 ff.).
Où, for instance, is used when something is denied in plain terms
and directly (as a matter of fact); un, where something is denied
as mere matter of thought (according to supposition, and under
conditions): the former is the objective, the latter the subjective
negation.¹ And this distinction is in substance observed also in
the N. T.;2 as will be clear first of all,
1 Cf. besides, L. Richter, de usu et discrim. particul. où et μn. Crossen, 1831-1834,
3 Commentatt. 4to.; F. Franke, de particulis negantib. linguae gr. Rintel. 1832-1833,
2 Comment. 4to. (reviewed by Benfey, in n. Jahrb. f. Philol. XII. 147 ff.); Bäumlein, in
d. Zeitschr. f. Alterthumswiss. 1847. nr. 97-99, and remarks, highly instructive on the
general subject also, concerning particular uses of both forms of negation in Hm. Soph.
Ocd. R. 568; Ajac. 76; Philoct. 706; Eurip. Androm. 379; Elmsley, Eurip. Med. p. 155
Lips.; Schaef. Demosth. I. 225, 465, 587, 591; II. 266, 327, 481, 492, 568; III. 288,
299; IV. 258; V. 730; Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p. 43, 144. (The theory of Hermann is
combated on the ground of Thiersch's principles by Hartung, Lehre von den griech.
Partik. II. 73 ff., and he is followed by Rost, Gramm. 743; in the main, however, ho
at last agrees with Herm., and the doubt through which he was led to his views has
been solved by Klotz, Devar. II. 666. G. F. Gayler's essay, particular. gr. sermonis
negantium accurata disputatio, Tubing. 1836. 8vo., is an industrious collection of ex-
amples, but is deficient in clearness.) On the difference between non and haud in Latin
see Franke I. 7 sq., the review in Hall. L. Z. 1834. no. 145, and Hand, Tursell. III. 16 ff.
(who at the same time explains où as the qualitative, un as the modal negation). The
comparison of the Heb. with uh (Ewald, 530) can be less perfectly carried through;
precisely in the more delicate relations the correspondence fails.
2 That the N. T. authors observed almost invariably this in itself delicate difference,
is, due not to their theoretical knowledge, but to the sense of propriety they acquired by
much intercourse with those who spoke Greck; precisely as we also learn the some-
times conventional difference between the synonyms of our mother tongue. In par-
ticular instances, however, a foreigner might well be expected to err, since even
Plutarch (Schaef. Demosth. III. 289; Plutarch. V. 6, 142, 475), Lucian (Schaef. Demosth.
I. 529; Schoemann, Plutarch. Agis p. 93; Fritzsche, quaestion. Lucian. p. 44), Pausan.
(Franke, I. 14), Aelian (Jacobs, Acl. anim. p. 187), cf. Mdv. 245; Mith. 1444, are said
to have sometimes interchanged the two negatives. Cf. also on 8тι µý for dтi où Ellendt,
praef. ad Arrian. I. 24 sq. I would not, however, assert that in these passages gram-
matical acuteness might not repeatedly be able to discover the reason for où or µh;
60
474
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
a. From the examination of a few passages in which the two neg
ó
atives occur together. Juo. iii. 18 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν οὐ κρίνεται,
442 ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν etc. (cf. Hu. as
7th ed. above 805); xрíveσbaι is denied as matter of fact by où, i.e. it is
asserted that in fact a judgment does not take place. The second
πιστεύων, however, is negatived by the particle μή merely as a
496 supposed case, for ò µǹ TiσT. means, who (ever) does not believe,
421 if one does not believe (ó où TIOTEÚшV would indicate a definite in-
6th ed. dividual who does not believe); hence follows also ori μ TETTίOT.,
since a case is merely supposed (quod non crediderit). This usage
is not contradicted by 1 Juo. v. 10 ὁ μὴ πιστεύων τῷ θεῷ ψεύστην
πεποίηκεν αὐτόν, ὅτι οὐ πεπίστευκεν εἰς τὴν μαρτυρίαν etc. Here
the apostle in the last words passes suddenly from the mere
supposition (ὁ μὴ πιστ.) to the matter of fact: the μὴ πιστεύειν
had already begun, and John pictures to himself now an actual
unbeliever.
0
Mark xii. 14 ἔξεστι κήνσον . . . δοῦναι ἢ οὐ; δῶμεν, ἢ μὴ δῶμεν ;
where, in the first instance, inquiry is made as to the objective
reason for paying tribute; in the second, a subjective principle is
expressed are (ought) we to give etc. Cf. Hm. Vig. 806, on
Aristoph. Thesmoph. 19, and Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 270.
Eph. v. 15 βλέπετε πῶς ἀκριβῶς περιπατεῖτε, μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι ἀλλ᾽
ὡς σοφοί; the μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι etc. is the direct explanation of πῶς, and
like that dependent on ẞXéπETE,—hence the subjective negation.
2 Cor. x. 14 οὐ γάρ, ὡς μὴ ἐφικνούμενοι εἰς ὑμᾶς, ὑπερεκτείνομεν
Éavtoús we do not overstretch ourselves (objectively negatived), as
though we had not reached to you, a mere supposition; in point of
fact it is not so. Cf., on the other hand, 1 Cor. ix. 26.
Rom. xi. 21 εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τῶν κατὰ φύσιν κλάδων οὐκ ἐφείσατο,
μήπως οὐδὲ σοῦ φείσεται if God spared not matter of fact, he
has in reality not spared them), so (it is to be feared) lest he also
spare not thee. Here the apostle might have uttered the sentence
categorically, so will he also not spare thee; but he prefers to give
it a milder turn by using μήπως : lest perhaps οὐδὲ σοῦ φείσεται
become true; and every apprehension is subjective (Rev. ix. 4).
Cf. Plat. Phaed. 76 b. φοβοῦμαι, μὴ αὔριον τηνικάδε οὐκέτι ῇ ἀνθρώ
πων οὐδεὶς ἀξίως οἷός τε τοῦτο ποιῆσαι, p. 84 b. οὐδὲν δεινόν, μὴ
φοβηθῇ, ὅπως μὴ ... οὐδὲν ἔτι οὐδαμοῦ ᾖ, Thuc. 2, 76 ; see
µý…….ovdèv },
Gayler pp. 427, 430.
while we must never forget that sometimes there is no stringent reason in favor of où
or uh, but either negative may be used according to the author's view of the case, Hm.
Vig. 806.
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
475
1 Jno. v. 16 ἐάν τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἁμαρτάνοντα ἁμαρτίαν
μὴ πρὸς θάνατον ... πᾶσα ἀδικία ἁμαρτία ἐστὶ καὶ ἔστιν ἁμαρτία
οὐ πρὸς θάνατον (in the former clause μή is used as following up
a subjective observation and dependent on éàv dy, in the latter ou,
since an objectively valid principle is asserted, an idea dogmatically
real is laid down).
7th ed.
6th ed.
Jno. vi. 64 εἰσὶν ἐξ ὑμῶν τινες, οἳ οὐ πιστεύουσιν· ᾔδει γὰρ
ó
Ἰησ., τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ μὴ πιστεύοντες, the former clause conveying a
matter of fact, the second a supposition, who they were that would
not believe, qui essent, qui non crederent. Cf. besides Rom. v. 13 ; 497
Jno. v. 23; xiv. 24; xv. 24; Acts iv. 20; x. 14; xxv. 17 f; 1 Jno.
iv. 8; v. 12; 3 Jno. 10; 2 Thess. iii. 10; Gal. iv. 8; 2 Cor. ii. 13; 443
Heb. iv. 2, 15.1
b. But the same result which these passages give follows also 422
from those in which μή occurs alone: Matt. xxii. 25 μὴ ἔχων
σπέρμα ἀφῆκε τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ, where μὴ ἔχων
is used with reference to the law that made this provision ἐάν τις
ἀποθάνῃ μὴ ἔχων etc. vs. 24): not having, he left behind etc., as
one not having in the sense of the law, he left etc. (οὐκ ἔχων would
exhibit the not having as if narrating something purely a matter
of fact); in Mark xii. 20 we find in the narrative form οὐκ ἀφῆκε
σπέρμα. Col. i. 23 εἴγε ἐπιμένετε τῇ πίστει ... καὶ μὴ μετακινού-
μενοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἐλπ., where the not being moved away in a proposi-
tion beginning with eye) is put as a condition, consequently as
something only supposed. 2 Thess. i. 8 διδόντος ἐκδίκησιν τοῖς μὴ
εἰδόσι θεὸν καὶ τοῖς μὴ ὑπακούουσι τῷ εὐαγγ.; the statement here
is general: such as know not God, whoever they are, wherever
such are to be found (consequently a supposition), cf. ii. 12. Rom.
xiv. 21 καλὸν τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα (the not eating as something sup-
posed: if any one eat not; τὸ οὐ φαγεῖν would represent the not
T
1 Passages from Greek authors in which où and un appear together in the same main
proposition, with more or less obvious difference, are e.g. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 1, 3,
68 ταῦτα οὐκ ἀπολογουμένου ἦν, ἀλλὰ κακοῖς ἐπιπληροῦντος κακὰ καὶ μηκέτι μετρίως,
ἀλλὰ ἄρδην ἐπισπωμένου τὰς ἀπορίας, 2, 60 λεκτέον, ὡς εἰ μηδέν ἐστι ῥητορικῆς τέλος,
οὐδέν ἐστι ῥητορική (2, 107), 2, 110; hypotyp. 3, 1, 2, Lucian. catapl. 15 ἐγὼ ἅτε μηδὲν
ἔχων ἐνέχυρον ἐν τῷ βίῳ, οὐκ ἀγρόν, οὐ συνοικίαν, οὐ χρυσόν etc. Soph. Αntig. 686
οὔτ᾽ ἂν δυναίμην, μήτ' ἐπισταίμην λέγειν, Philoct. 1048; Demosth. Callicl. 736 b. ;
pac. 23 a.; Phorm. 604 a.; Xen. C. 2, 4, 27; Aristot. polit. 6, 8; rhet. 1, 11, 31; 2, 2,
and 15; Lucian. dial. mort. 16, 2; adv. indoct. 5; Strabo 3, 138; 15, 712; Himer. oratt.
23, 18; Plutarch. Pompej. 23; apophth. p. 183 f.; Aelian. anim. 5, 28; Joseph. Antt.
16, 9, 3. Cf. besides, Gayler p. 291. From the Fathers, cf. Origen c. Marc. p. 26
Wetst. ; from the apocrypha, Acta apocr. p. 107. Particularly noteworthy is Agath.
· 2, 23 ἐφ' ὅτῳ ἂν σώματι μὴ θᾶττον καταπταῖεν οἱ ὄρνεις ἢ οἱ κύνες οὐ κ αὐτίκα ἐπιφοιτῶντες
διασπαράξαιεν etc.
476
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
eating as something objective, an actually existing practice it
may be). Rom. xv. 1 ὀφείλομεν δὲ ἡμεῖς . . . καὶ μὴ ἑαυτοῖς ἀρέσκειν
(vs. 3 narratively: καὶ γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐχ ἑαυτῷ ἤρεσεν). Hence,
naturally, with the Optative when a mere wish is expressed (Franke
I. 27), Mark xi. 14 μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα μηδείς καρπὸν
púyoi (yet some Codd. read here þáyn), 2 Tim. iv. 16; and in
Imperative sentences, Rom. xiv. 1 τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα τῇ πίστει προς-
498 λαμβάνεσθε, μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν (xii. 11); Phil. ii. 12,
where some erroneously refer the words un os év Tŷ Taρovoíą etc.
to ὑπηκούσατε, in which case οὐ would have been indispensable.
In accordance with the difference above defined, un in general
will express the weaker (cf. also Hm. Philoct. 706), and où, as
categorical, the stronger negation. Nevertheless μn is also at times
more emphatic than où (Hm. Soph. Antig. 691), inasmuch as, if
444 (even) the supposition is denied, more is expressed than if the
7th ed. actual existence of a thing (as a fact) is denied. See under
no. 5. In like manner is the Latin haud sometimes the stronger,
sometimes the weaker negation, Franke I. 7; cf. Hand, Tursell.
III. 20.
Where ou belongs to a single word (verb) to which in the language
there is a negative directly antagonistic, it coalesces with that word and
expresses this exactly contrary idea, as ouk čâv to prevent Acts xvi. 7, ov
423 féλci nolle 1 Cor. x. 1. See Franke I. 9 sq., cf. under no. 6. Oỷ combined
6th ed. with nouns into one idea obliterates their meaning altogether: Rom. x. 19
παραζηλώσω ὑμᾶς ἐπ᾽ οὐκ ἔθνει over a no-nation, ix. 25 καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν
μου λαόν μου καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην, 1 Pet. ii. 10 - (all quota-
tions from O. T.); cf. Thuc. 1, 137 où diáλvois the not breaking (the
bridge had not been broken), 5, 50 ý oůk éέovoía, Eurip. Hippol. 196 oủk
ȧπódeiέis, see Monk in loc.; Sturz, ind. ad Dion. Cass. p. 245; Fr. Rom. II.
424. How this combination differs from that with μή ἡ μὴ διάλυσις), see
Franke, as above, I. 9. Numerous examples of both in Gayler p. 16 sqq.
The simple, accented, ou no (Matt. v. 37; Jas. v. 12; 2 Cor. i. 17 f.)
occurs in answer to a question only in Matt. xiii. 29; Jno. i. 21, (for
instances from Greek writers, see Gayler p. 161); the fuller form oůk
eywye would have been more usual.
2. Let us consider now those cases, the most frequent of all, in
which a negation is expressed by uń; this takes place:
a. In (wishes) commands, resolutions, encouragements, and
that not only with verbs of the sort, that is to say Imperatives and
Subjunctives, Matt. vii. 1 μὴ κρίνετε, Gal. v. 26 μὴ γινώμεθα κενό-
Sogo, 2 Thess. iii. 10, see § 56, 1, but also with words which are
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
477
considered as integral parts of the command, etc., 1 Pet. v. 2
ποιμάνατε ... μὴ ἀναγκαστῶς, 1 Pet. i. 13 f. ; 1 Tim. v. 9; Luke
vi. 35; 1 Cor. v. 8; Rom. xiii. 13; Phil. ii. 4, 12; Heb. x. 25;
Acts x. 20.
b. In telic clauses, with iva Matt. vii. 1; xvi. 20; Rom. xi. 25;
Eph. ii. 9; Heb. xii. 3; Mark v. 43; 2 Cor. v. 15; vii. 9; Eph. 499
iv. 14, or oπws Luke xvi. 26; 1 Cor. i. 29; Matt. vi. 18; Acts
viii. 24; xx. 16. So also with single words of such clauses,
Rom. viii. 4; Eph. ii. 12 [?]; Phil. i. 27 f.; iii. 9; 2 Thess. ii. 12;
Heb. xii. 27.
c. In conditional sentences (Hm. Vig. 805), with ei Jno. xv. 22
εἰ μὴ ἦλθον, ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ εἴχοσαν, xviii. 30 εἰ μὴ ἦν οὗτος κακὸν
ποιῶν, οὐκ ἄν σοι παρεδώκαμεν, Matt. xxiv. 22; Acts xxvi. 32 ;
Rom. vii. 7; Jno. ix. 33, and with éáv Matt. v. 20; xii. 29; Rom.
x. 15; 2 Tim. ii. 5, not only with reference to the whole proposi-
tion, but also with single words which are considered as condi-
tional, 1 Tim. v. 21 ; Tit. i. 6 εἴ τις ἐστὶν ἀνέγκλητος ... μὴ ἐν
κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας, ii. 8 ; Jas. i. 4, 26.
In all these cases the necessity of the subjective negation is
clear; for every condition, design, purpose, command, falls within
the province of what is merely conceived of.
In conditional sentences où occurs not infrequently; in the N. T. 445
pretty often, in the older writers with logical necessity only where 7th ed.
but a single word of the conditional sentence (hardly the verb
merely Krü. 271) is negatived, so that the negation coalesces with
this word into a single idea, Hm. Vig. 833; Eurip. Med. p. 344;
Soph. Oed. C. 596; Schaef. Plut. IV. 3961; Mehlhorn, Anacr.
p. 139; Bremi, Lys. p. 111; Schoemann, Isae. p. 324 sq.; e.g. 424
Soph. Αj. 1131 εἰ τοὺς θανόντας οὐκ ἐᾷς θάπτειν if thou hinderest 6th ed.
(Iliad. 4, 55), Lys. Agor. 62 εἰ μὲν οὐ πολλοὶ (i.e. ὀλίγοι) ἦσαν,
Thuc. 3, 55 εἰ ἀποστῆναι ᾿Αθηναίων οὐκ ἠθελήσαμεν, Her. 6, 9.
Cf. Gayl. p. 99 sqq.; Mtth. 1440; Krü. 271. (On the analogous
őπшs où see Held, Plut. Timol. 357.) According to this there is
nothing strange in Matt. xxvi. 42; Luke xvi. 31; Jno. v. 47;
Rom. viii. 9; 1 Cor. vii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 10, 14; 1 Tim. iii. 5; v. 8;
Rev. xx. 15, etc., and as little in 2 Cor. xii. 11 ei kai ovdév eiμi.
On the other hand, Lipsius (de modor. in N. T. usu p. 26 sqq.)
has adduced a number of other passages, which contradict the
1 Schaef. Demosth. III. 288: où poni licet, quando negatio refertur ad sequentem
vocem cum eaque sic coalescit, unam ut ambae notionem efficiant; un ponitur, quando
negatio pertinet ad particulam conditionalem. Cf. Rost, Gr. S. 745.
478
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
above canon, or appear to do so; since, indeed, generally in the
N. T. if not is expressed more frequently by ei où than by ei µń,
which latter phrase most commonly signifies except.1 We divide
500 these passages into four classes:
7th ed.
a) Such as have nothing to do with the question: Luke xii. 26
εἰ οὐδὲ ἐλάχιστον δύνασθε, τί περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν μεριμνᾶτε; for εἰ
here is conditional only in appearance; in reality it is equivalent
to èπeí, Krü. 271. Translate if (as is clear from the alleged cases),
i.e. since you cannot do even the least etc. (hence always eauµášw
el où cf. Kühner II. 406). So also Rom. xi. 21; Jno. iii. 12;
v. 47; x. 35; Heb. xii. 25; 2 Pet. ii. 4; cf. Soph. Oed. Col. 596
εἰ θέλοντάς γ' οὐδὲ σοὶ φεύγειν καλόν si, quum te volunt recipere,
ne tibi quidem decorum est exsulem esse, and Aeschin. ep. 8 e' dè
οὐδὲ σὺν ἐκείνῳ διέγνωκας ἐξιέναι etc., Sext. Empir. Math. 7, 434
Ei ov8 AUTÒ TOûTo del etc. Xenoph. A. 7, 1, 29; Aesop. 23, 2, see
εἰ οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ᾔδει
Bhdy. 386; Franke, Demosth. p. 202; Gayl. 118; Hm. Aeschyl.
II. 148.
Ει
b) Such as, when viewed more closely, are in unison with the
above canon: not only 1 Cor. xi. 6 ei yàp oỷ кATAKAλÚTTTETAI yvvý,
κατακαλύπτεται γυνή,
kaì keiρáo¤w if a woman is unveiled, she ought also to be shorn,
2 Thess. iii. 10, but also Jno. x. 37 ei où πoɩŵ тà éруа тоû πаτρÓS
ποιῶ ἔργα τοῦ πατρός
μου, μὴ πιστεύετέ μοι· εἰ δὲ ποιῶ, κἂν ἐμοὶ μὴ πιστεύητε, τοῖς ἔργοις
ei dè kầv toîs
TLOTEÚσate if I omit the works of my Father (and thus withhold
from you the proofs of my divine mission) etc.; but if I do them
etc., Juo. iii. 12; Rom. viii. 9; Rev. xx. 15; cf. Lys. accus. Agor.
446 76 ἐὰν μὲν οὖν φάσκῃ Φρύνιχον ἀποκτεῖναι, τούτων μέμνησθε ... ἐὰν
8' оỷ þúσêη, ëρeσle avтóv etc. but if he denies it, Sext. Empir.
Math. 2, 111 εἰ μὲν λήμματά τινα έχει . . . εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔχει etc. but if
dè
he is destitute of them, 9, 176 εἰ μὲν οὐκ ἔχει, φαῦλόν ἐστι τὸ θεῖον
... εἰ δὲ ἔχει, ἔσται τι τοῦ θεοῦ κρεῖττον, hypotyp. 2, 5. 160. 175 ;
Lucian. paras. 12; Galen. temper. 1, 3; Mr. Anton. 11, 18 p. 193
Mor. (cf. also Euseb. de die dom. p. 9 Jani). Nor is there any-
thing to object against 1 Cor. xv. 13: ei áváσtаσIS VEкρŵV OÙк
éσTɩ if the resurrection of the dead is a chimera, etc.; cf. in the
preceding context πῶς λέγουσι τινες ὅτι ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν;
On vs. 16 cf. Philostr. Apoll. 4, 16, p. 154.
εσ
K
c) Cases in which the proposition with ei où merely negatives
425 the idea which is expressed affirmatively in a corresponding propo-
6th ed. sition, without the où coalescing with the negatived word into a
1 ei où and el µh are well distinguished in a single sentence in Acta Thom. p. 57 ed.
Thilo.
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
479
single opposed idea: 1 Cor. ix. 2 εἰ ἄλλοις οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος,
¿λλáye ûµîv eiµɩ, si aliis non sum apostolus, vobis certe sum. Luke
xi. 8, cf. xviii. 4. But even in such oppositions later writers use
εἰ οὖ, e.g. Sext. Empir. Math. 11, 5 εἰ μὲν ἀγαθόν ἐστιν, ἓν τῶν τριῶν
γενήσεται, εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀγαθόν, ἤτοι κακόν ἐστιν, ἢ οὔτε κακόν
ἐστιν οὔτε ἀγαθόν ἐστιν, Diog. L. 2, 36 εἰ μὲν γάρ τι τῶν προςόντων
λέξειαν, διορθώσονται, εἰ δ᾽ οὔ, οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, where the sense is 501
not: if, however, they be silent about it, but, if they do not say
something useful,¹ cf. Judg. ix. 20; Judith v. 21; Demosth. epp.
p. 125 a.; Basilic. II. 525, and Poppo Xen. Anab. p. 358.
d) Cases in which où likewise antithetically denies, without,
however, an express affirmative proposition preceding: Jas. ii. 11
εἰ οὐ μοιχεύσεις (with reference to the preceding μὴ μοιχεύσης),
φονεύσεις δέ, γέγονας παραβάτης νόμου if thou dost not commit adul
tery, yet if thou killest,2 i. 23; iii. 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 22 eï Tis où piλeî
τὸν κύριον, ἤτω ἀνάθεμα (where the rendering, if any one hateth
the Lord, would probably not represent the apostle's meaning);
2 Jno. 10 εἴ τις ἔρχεται πρὸς ὑμᾶς καὶ ταύτην τὴν διδαχὴν οὐ φέρει,
Luke xiv. 26.
ει
For the later prose writers, then, who in general use ei où (as
the stronger and more expressive form) much oftener than the
older writers (who were rather frugal in its use), we may state the
rule thus (cf. also Anton, Progr. de discrim. particul. où et μń,
Gorlic. 1823, 4to. p. 9): where not in a conditional proposition is
emphatic, ei où (as in Latin si non) is used; but where if not
stands without emphasis on the negation, ei μn (as in Latin nisi): 447
e.g. if thou dost not commit adultery (with reference to the pre-
ceding uǹ μox.), if any man loveth not the Lord (as he ought),
if I am not an apostle unto others, Jno. i. 25 if thou art not the
Christ, cf. vs. 20. The emphasis is brought out by an antithesis,
either open (1 Cor. ix. 2) or concealed (1 Cor. xvi. 22). It lies,
however, in the nature of the case that où then negatives only a
part of the conditional proposition, not the proposition itself.
4
1 Macar. homil. 1, 10. Cf. also éáv Diog. L. 1, 105 càv véos wv тdv olvov o
ἐάν ἐὰν νέος τὸν οἶνον οὐ φέρῃς,
γέρων γενόμενος ὕδωρ οἴσεις.
2 Equivalent to el où μoixeúwv čσn, poreúwv dé, cf. Arrian. Epict. 1, 29, 35; 2, 11, 22.
On the contrary, Thuc. 1, 32 εἰ μὴ μετὰ κακίας, δόξης δὲ μᾶλλον ἁμαρτίᾳ . . . ἐναντία
τολμῶμεν.
8 Mehlhorn, as above, gives the rule: ubi simpliciter negatio affirmationi ita opponatur,
ut negandi part. voce sit acuenda, semper où poni, ubi contra verbum voce inprimis,
notandum μm esse debere. Cf. also Poppo on Xen. Anab. as above.
4 Cf. also e.g. Aesop. 7, 4 εἰ οὐ σοὶ τοῦτο προςέφερεν, οὐκ ἂν ἡμῖν αὐτὸ συνεβούλευες
'if it were not useful to thee, thou wouldst not advise us to it.
7th ed.
480
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
"OSTE (Krü. p. 272 f.) of a consequence even when represented as mere
matter of fact is used in the N. T. always with un and the Infinitive, Matt.
viii. 28; Mark i. 45; ii. 2; iii. 20; 1 Cor. i. 7; 1 Thess. i. 8. Only in
2 Cor. iii. 7 is there a logical ground for it in the conditional proposition;
Engelhardt, Plat. apol. p. 219.
426 After or and reí because (in direct discourse) où follows regularly, Jno.
6th ed. viii. 20, 37; Rom. xi. 6; Luke i. 34; Bäumlein S. 773; or μn in con-
502 ditional discourse occurs in Jno. iii. 18. On the contrary, we have in Heb.
ix. 17, in direct discourse, διαθήκη ἐπὶ νεκροῖς βεβαία, ἐπεὶ μήποτε ισχύει,
ὅτε ζῇ ὁ διαθέμενος, which Böhme explains thus : μήποτε seems here to
negative even the idea of ioxúew; consequently in general to deny more
strongly than oйTOTE. Yet Böhme's rendering of μýtoтe by nondum is
erroneous; it means, never, never at all (Heliod. 2, 19). And perhaps
the author gave the preference to μýroтe on this account also, because he
is speaking in general terms and not of any particular testament. How-
ever, in later authors the subjective negation frequently occurs in connection
with errei (or) quandoquidem, not only where something is clearly desig-
nated as a subjective reason (as is perceptible even in Aelian. 12, 63; cf.
besides, Philostr. Apoll. 7, 16; Lucian. Hermot. 47), but also where an
objectively valid reason is assigned (Gayl. 183 sqq.; Mdv. p. 245; on
Lucian and Arrian in particular, Ellendt, Arrian. Al. I. praefat. p. 23 sqq.,
cf. also Ptol. geogr. 8, 1, 3), in so far as the reason falls back at last on a
supposition. Others (Bengel, Lchm.) take μýroтe in Heb., as above, as
an interrogative, as indeed èéí often introduces a question, Rom. iii. 6
1 Cor. xiv. 16; xv. 29; Klotz, Devar. p. 543. This seems to me, however,
to be too rhetorical for the style.
3. e. In relative clauses with av (ẻáv), Luke viii. 18 ôs àv µǹ ëx?,
Acts iii. 23 (Sept.) Tâσa vxý, йтis èàν µǹ ȧkoúon, Rev. xiii. 15
оσо aν µǹ πρоskuvńowow, Luke ix. 5. In all these cases nothing
is denied as a matter of fact of particular subjects, but the lan-
guage is only conditional and supposed: whoever hath not (may
not have). Relative clauses without av have regularly où, Jno.
iv. 22 προςκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε, Luke xiv. 27 ὅςτις οὐ βαστάζει,
Rom. x. 14; 1 Cor. v. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 10; 1 Jno. iv. 6, etc., so far
forth as they deny something as matter of fact; on the other hand,
448 un occurs sometimes in such cases when the negation refers only
to a supposition (assumption, condition) (Hm. Vig. 805; Krü.
271), 2 Pet. i. 9 ᾧ μὴ πάρεστι ταῦτα, τυφλός ἐστιν whoso lacketh,
if any man lack, etc. In 1 Tim. v. 13; Tit. i. 11 тà µǹ déοvta
and à un Seî (cf. Rom. i. 28; Soph. Phil. 583) express merely a
moral conception: quae, si quae non sunt honesta; whereas à
où deî would denote positively inhonesta, the kind of unseemly
things objectively present, cf. Gayl. 240 f. In Col. ii. 18 µý before
7th ed.
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
481
ἑώρακεν
óparev¹ is expunged by the more recent critics; only Tisch. in
the 2d [and 7th] Leipzig ed. restores it, and undoubtedly it has 503
the greatest amount of external authority on its side (Mey. states
the authorities imperfectly). If the negation [which is wanting,
moreover, in Cod. Sin."] be genuine (some authorities have où),
μn must be used because even the relative clause is viewed by 427
Paul subjectively, as μηδεὶς ὑμ. καταβραβευέτω.2
Frequently ős is followed by ou, where, since apparently a mere sup-
position is uttered, some have expected µý (Lipsius de modis p. 14), as in
Matt. xxiv. 2 οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον, ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται (but
here μý is not indispensable, inasmuch as the words deny a matter of fact);
and also where in Latin the Subjunctive would stand, and therefore µý
would have been expected, Matt. x. 26 οὐδέν ἐστι κεκαλυμμένον, ὃ οὐκ
ȧπокаλvplýσeтα, Luke viii. 17; xii. 2; Matt. xxiv. 2; cf. 1 Kings viii. 46.
For instances from Greek authors (Hm. Vig. p. 709) see Eur. Hel. 509 sq.
ἀνὴρ γὰρ οὐδεὶς ὧδε... ὃς ... οὐ δώσει βοράν, Lucian. sacrif. 1 οὐκ οἶδα,
εἴ τις οὕτω κατηφής ἐστι, ὅστις οὐ γελάσεται, Soph. Οed. R. 374 οὐδεὶς ὃς
οὐχὶ τῶνδ᾽ ὀνειδιεῖ τάχα. In all these cases the relative clause is considered
as a definite, objective predicate, as if it were said ȧvèp ovdeìs de où dúσel
Bopáv; even in construction with the Optative, Isocr. Evagor. p. 452 oủk
ἔστιν, ὅςτις οὐκ ἂν Αἰακίδος προκρίνειεν, also p. 199; Plut. apophth. p. 196 c.
Closely allied to this is the phrase τίς ἐστιν, ὃς οὐ followed by the Pres
indic. Acts xix. 35; Heb. xii. 7; cf. Dion. comp. 11 ed. Schaef. p. 120,
which in sense is equivalent to ovdeís éotiv, ôs où (for which Strabo 6, 286
has οὐδὲν μέρος αὐτῆς ἐστιν, ὃ μὴ ... τυγχάνει); on the other hand, οὐδείς
ẻoτw, ôs oỶ with the Preterite, is beyond the range of those cases in which
one would expect µý, Xen. An. 4, 5, 31; Thuc. 3, 81; Lucian. Tox. 22;
asin. 49; cf. Heind. Plat. Phaed. p. 233; Weber, Demosth. 356 sq. See
also Gayl. p. 257 sqq., who, it must be confessed, has not discriminated
sufficiently.
6th ed.
4. f. With Infinitives (Mtth. 1442; Krü. 273), not only such as
depend on a verb of thinking, speaking, commanding, wishing (of 449
course also in the construction of the Accusative with the Infini- 7th ed.
tive) Matt. ii. 12; v. 34, 39; Luke ii. 26; v. 14; xx. 7; xxi. 14;
Acts iv. 17 f. 20; v. 28; x. 28; xv. 19, 38; xix. 31; xxi. 4;
xxiii. 8; xxvii. 21; Rom. ii. 21 f; xii. 3; xiii. 3; 1 Cor. v. 9, 11;
1 Cf. Philostr. Apoll. 7, 27 dieλéyeto à µǹ èkelvw πрožßaive quae illi haud prodessent.
From the Sept. may be adduced Exod. ix. 21 ὃς μὴ προςέσχε τῇ διανοίᾳ εἰς τὸ ῥῆμα
κυρίου in opposition to δ φοβούμενος τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου vs. 20 ; thus just like εἰ δὲ μή in
antithesis. Où and un after relat. in parallel propositions, see Arrian. Epict. 2, 2, 4.
2 In propositions with particles of time (Gayler, p. 185 sqq.) un does not happen to
occur in the N. T.; several times où is quite regularly joined to the Indicative of time,
Jno. ix. 4; xvi. 25; 2 Tim. iv. 3; Acts xxii. 11.
61
482
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
2 Cor. ii. 1; x. 2; Heb. ix. 8, etc., or by which a design is ex-
pressed 2 Cor. iv. 4 ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα . . . εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι,
tà
1 Thess. ii. 9 ἐργαζόμενοι. πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἐπιβαρῆσαι, Acts xx. 27 οὐχ
504 vπeσтeiλáµηv тoû µǹ ȧvayyeîña, 1 Pet. iv. 2,- but also where the
ὑπεστειλάμην
Infinitive is the subject of a proposition, 2 Pet. ii. 21 креîттоv ĥv
اد
avtoîs µǹ Èπeyvwkévaι, Luke xvii. 1, or, being joined to a prepo-
sition, is resolvable into a finite verb with où, Jas. iv. 2 our exεTE
διὰ τὸ μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς ὅτι οὐκ αἰτεῖσθε ὑμεῖς), Luke viii. 6 ;
Acts xxviii. 18; Heb. x. 2. But in that first case èπeуvæk. is
denied only as a supposition (in fact they had known), and in the
second the cause is represented not objectively, but as primarily
the thought of the speaker. Precedents from the classics for all
428 this, see in Gayler 294 sqq.; cf. Rost 750; Bäumlein nr. 99, S.
6th ed. 788 f. Also those parts of speech which belong essentially to the
Infinitive clause are negatived by un, e.g. 2 Cor. x. 2.
The cases in the Infinitive construction in which où is, and can
or must be, used have been pointed out by Rost 747 f.; Krü. 274;
Bäumlein S. 778. In Jno. xxi. 25 ἐὰν γράφηται καθ᾽ ἕν, οὐδ᾽ αὐτὸν
οἶμαι τὸν κόσμον χωρῆσαι τὰ γραφ. βιβλία the negation belongs to
οἶμαι, cf. Χen. M. 2, 2, 10 ἐγὼ μὲν οἶμαι, εἰ τοιαύτην μὴ δύνασαι
φέρειν μητέρα, ἀγαθά σε οὐ δύνασθαι φέρειν. In Heb. vii. 11 τίς
ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδ. ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ
οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν ᾿Ααρών λέγεσθαι the negation does not belong
to the Infinitive, but negatives the words karà T. Tá§. 'Aap. Oử
is often in dependent clauses joined thus to a single word, Krü.
S. 270.
..
•
When after a verb of understanding or saying, in direct discourse etc.,
the assertion, observation etc. is expressed in a clause with ort, the negation
is made by οὐ, Luke xiv. 24 λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι οὐδεὶς τῶν ἀνδρῶν γεύσεται
τοῦ δείπνου, xviii. 29 ; Jno. v. 42 ἔγνωκα ὑμᾶς ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ
exere etc., viii. 55; Acts ii. 31 etc. The proposition with or stands here
as a pure objective proposition just as in indirect question (§. 41, 4), as if
it were οὐδεὶς ... γεύσεται, τοῦτο ὑμῖν λέγω, while the Infinitive construction
brings it into immediate connection with, and consequently dependence
on, λéyw, ópû etc. Cf. Krü. 253, 270; Mdv. 235.
5. g. With Participles (Gayl. 274 sqq.; Krü. 274 f.) µn is used
not only when they belong to a proposition which, as expressing
command, design, condition, etc., requires the subjective negation
(see no. 2), Eph. v. 27; Phil. i. 28; ii. 4; iii. 9; 2 Thess. ii. 12;
Heb. vi. 1; Jas. i. 5; Tit. ii. 9 f.; Rom. viii. 4; xiv. 3; Matt.
xxii. 24; Acts xv. 38; Luke iii. 11; 2 Cor. xii. 21; cf. Soph. Oed.
$55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
483
C. 1155, 980; Plato, rep. 2, 370 e.; Xen. Cyr. 1, 4, 26; Krü. 275, 450
but also under other circumstances:
7th ed.
a. when they refer, not to particular persons, but to a supposed 505
genus: Matt. xii. 30 ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἐστίν he who is
not with me i.e. whoever belongs to this class of men that I have
in mind, si quis non stet a meis partibus, Hin. Vig. 805; Mtth.
1441 sq.; Krü. 174 (ó oùí v μer' èμoû would mean a particular
individual who actually was not with him), Matt. xxv. 29; Luke vi.
49; Jno. x. 1; xii. 48; xx. 24 [?]; Rom. iv. 5; xiv. 22; Jas. ii. 13;
iv. 17; 1 Jno. ii. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 37; hence with πâs Matt. xiii. 19;
Jno. xv. 2. Also 2 Jno. 7 πολλοὶ πλάνοι εἰςῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον οἱ
µǹ óµoλoyoûvtes ’Inσoûv Xp. etc. belongs here; the words do not
mean many deceivers - namely, those who do not confess (oi oux
oμoλ.)-but, many deceivers, all those who do not confess, quicun-
que non profitentur.
B. when they apply to particular persons indeed, but ascribe to
them a quality only conditionally or in thought: Luke xi. 24
ὅταν . . . ἐξέλθῃ . . . διέρχεται δι᾽ ἀνύδρων τόπων ζητοῦν ἀνάπαυσιν,
Kai un evρlokov Xeye if he finds it not, in case he does not etc., Rom.
ii. 14; Gal. vi. 9 θερίσομεν μὴ ἐκλυόμενοι, Luke xii. 47 ἐκεῖνος ὁ
δοῦλος (vs. 45 f.) ὁ μὴ ἑτοιμάσας μηδὲ ποιήσας πρὸς τὸ θέλημα δαρή- 429
σera (this is propounded as one of two possible cases); 1 Cor. 6th ed.
x. 33 πάντα πᾶσιν ἀρέσκω, μὴ ζητῶν τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ συμφέρον I seel to
please all, (supposition) as one who, inasmuch as I etc., ix. 21;
2 Cor. vi. 3; Rom. xv. 23; 1 Thess. iii. 1, 5 (against Rückert see
Lünemann in loc.); Jno. vii. 15 πῶς οὗτος γράμματα οἶδε μὴ
μеμаOηús; since he can't have learned (since we, surely, know
him to be such a one as has never learned? cf. Philostr. Apoll.
3, 22 ὃς καὶ γράφει μὴ μαθὼν γράμματα). Luke vii. 33 ἐλήλυθεν
Ιωάννης μήτε ἐσθίων ἄρτον μήτε πίνων οἶνον without having eaten ...
drunken (spoken from the position of those who, observing this,
are introduced as saying so); οὔτε ἐσθίων οὔτε πίνων would express
the predicates as pure matters of fact. In Luke iv. 35 Tò Sayμóviov
ἐξῆλθεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ μηδὲν βλάψαν αυτόν, by the last words the author
does not mean to relate a mere matter of fact (οὐδὲν βλάψ. αὐτόν
and did not harm him), but to exclude merely the thought that
the evil spirit had in any way injured the possessed: he had not
(as one might perhaps have thought) injured him.
Thus μn is very often to be understood: Acts v. 7; xx. 22;
Heb. iv. 15; xi. 8; Matt. xxii. 12. Cf. what Klotz says, Devar.
p. 666 quibus in locis omnibus propterea un positum est, non ov,
484
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
7th ed.
T
So
quod ille, qui loquitur, non rem ipsam spectat sed potius cogita-
tionem rei, quam vult ex animo audientis amovere (Plut. Pompej.
506 c. 64); Hm. Vig. 806. In Matt. xviii. 25 µǹ exоvтos aνтοû ảπо-
δοῦναι ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ πραθῆναι etc. the first words
express a fact, indeed, as he had not; but in this construction they
451 are put in close relation with exéλ.: he commanded, because that
man had not, because he knew that the man had not, etc.
also Acts xxi. 34; Luke ii. 45; xxiv. 23; Acts ix. 26; xiii. 28;
xvii. 6; xxvii. 7, 20; 1 Pet. iv. 4; 2 Pet. iii. 9; cf. Plut. Pompej.
c. 23 and Alex. 51; Polyb. 17, 7, 5; 5, 30, 5. On Rom. ix. 11 see
Fr. Acts xx. 29 οἶδα ὅτι εἰσελεύσονται . . . λύκοι βαρεῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς,
eis vµâs,
μὴ φειδόμενοι τοῦ ποιμνίου is, as the Future shows, to be taken
altogether as an ideal picture. Also Heb. ix. 9 µǹ dvváµevai katà
ovveídnoiv teλeiwoai etc. is spoken in the view of the writer; had
it been où Suváμ. an actual inherent property would have been
signified (not being able), but such offerings Israelites would not
have presented. 1 Cor. i. 28 ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεὸς τὰ μὴ ὄντα, ἵνα τὰ
ὄντα καταργήσῃ, where τὰ οὐκ ὄντα would signify (Hm. Vig. 889)
the non-existing (as a single negative idea), but тà μn övтa must
mean which were reckoned as things that did not exist; the ovтa is
negatived as a supposition, not spoken actually of nonentities.¹ In
2 Cor. iv. 18 (even in the second proposition, which is categorical)
to τὰ βλεπόμενα stands opposed τὰ μὴ βλεπ., not τὰ οὐ βλεπ.
(Heb. xi. 1). This last would denote what actually is not seen
430 (тà ảóρaтa), but rà µǹ ßλeñ. expresses, in conjunction with µǹ
σKOTOÚVτWV ηµŵr, the subjective view of the believer, cf. Heb. xi. 7.
Also in 2 Cor. v. 21 τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν
éπоínσe, the μn. yv. carries us back to the conception of him who
makes him ἁμαρτία; τὸν οὐ γνόντα would be objective and equiva
lent to Tov ȧyvooûvтa,2 Isae. 1, 11 and Schoem. in loc. 2 Cor. vi. 3
does not read οὐδεμίαν ἐν οὐδενὶ διδόντες προςκοπήν, because this
would exhibit merely an actually existing characteristic, but
μηδεμίαν ἐν μηδενὶ διδ. πρ. because the characteristic is regarded,
in connection with πаρakaλoûμev vs. 1, as subjectively adhered
to and continually striven after. Cf. besides, Luke vii. 30; Jno.
vii. 49; 1 Cor. ix. 20 f. So with os in subjective speech, 1 Cor.
iv. 7 Tí kavɣâσai és µỳ λaßóv; iv. 18; vii. 29; 2 Cor. x. 14; 1 Pet.
ii. 16; Gayler 278 sq. (otherwise 1 Cor. ix. 26, see below).
6th ed.
1 Μὴ ὄντα and οὐκ ὄντα are united in Xen. An. 4, 4, 15.
2 The remark of Rückert on this passage, that in Greek oú never stands between the
article and participle but always uh, is wholly empirical, and false besides, and has been
properly refuted by Mey.
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
485
• •
with
1
On the other hand, où with participles (and adjectives)·
which it occurs far less frequently negatives actually and with-
out qualification (Gayl. 287 sq.; Mtth. 1442), and hence stands
especially with predicates which are denied of definite persons:
Phil. iii. 3 ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή, οἱ πνεύματι θεῷ λατρεύοντες ... 452
καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες (the ἡμεῖς, since they actually are th ed
507
πνεύμ. θεῷ λατρ., are denied to be ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες) ; 1 Pet.
ii. 10 ὑμεῖς . . . οἱ οὐκ ἐλεημένοι, νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες, Rom. ix. 25
(LXX.); Heb. xi. 35 ἔλαβον γυναῖκες ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν
οὐ προςδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν (not accepting, i.e. disdaining);
Col. ii. 19 εἰκὴ φυσιούμενος . . . καὶ οὐ κρατῶν, although the sen-
tence is imperative (vs. 18 μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς καταβραβευέτω and ἃ μὴ
ἑώρακεν etc.), yet with οὐ κρατ. the apostle passes over to a pred-
icate actually existing, Acts xvii. 27; Luke vi. 42; 1 Cor. ix. 26
ἐγὼ οὕτω πυκτεύω, ὡς οὐκ ἀέρα δέρων (οὐκ ἀέρα δέρ. a concrete
predicate which Paul attributes to himself, ὡς is qualitative; ὡς μὴ
ά. δ. would be as if I would not beat the air), Gal. iv. 27 (LXX)
εὐφράνθητι στείρα ἡ οὐ τίκτουσα etc. thou that bearest not! of a
historic person; see besides 1 Cor. iv. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 8 f.; Acts
xxvi. 22; xxviii. 17; Heb. xi. 1, (adjectives with où Rom. viii. 20;
Heb. ix. 11) ; cf. Χen. Cyr. 8, 8, 6; Her. 9, 83; Plato, Phaed.
80 e.; Demosth. Zenothem. p. 576 b.; Strabo 17, 796 and 822;
Diod. S. 19, 97; Philostr. Apol. 7, 32; Aelian. 10, 11; Lucian.
Philops. 5; peregr. 34.
In 1 Pet. i. 8 both the negatives are used together: ὃν οὐκ
εἰδότες ἀγαπᾶτε, εἰς ὃν ἄρτι μὴ ὁρῶντες πιστεύοντες δὲ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε
etc.; the ouk eld. expresses the negative idea (personally) un-
known as a matter of fact; the un op. means, although ye see not,
referring to the conception of the persons addressed: believing,
ye rejoice in him, and the thought that ye see him not does not
restrain you from rejoicing. (In like manner où and un are con-
strued with participles in one and the same sentence in Lucian.
indoct. 5 καὶ ὁ κυβερνᾶν οὐκ εἰδὼς καὶ ἱππεύειν μὴ μεμελετηκώς
etc., cf. also Lycurg. 11, 9 and Blume in loc.). In Rom. i. 28 431
we find παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν, ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ
καθήκοντα, but in Eph. v. 3 f. πορνεία καὶ πᾶσα ἀκαθαρσία ...
Τ
¹ The difference between où and μn with participles is well illustrated by Plat. Phaed.
63 b. ἠδίκουν ἂν οὐκ ἀγανακτῶν injuste facerem ego, qui non indignor; on the other
hand, ἠδ. ἂν μὴ ἀγαν. (according to Olympiod. injuste facerem si non indignarer.
Cf. also Joseph. antt. 16, 7, 5 ὁ δὲ Φερώρας εἰς μέσον ἀπείληπτο, μηδὲν εὔσχημον εἰς
ἀπολογίαν ἔχων ... ἀκοῦσαι δ᾽ οὐ πιστευόμενος.
6th ed.
486
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
T
μηδὲ ὀνομαζέσθω ἐν ὑμῖν ... ἢ εὐτραπελία, τὰ οὐκ ἀνήκοντα. The
latter (in apposition) is to be resolved, which are unseemly
things (which a Christian is bound to shun), actions which are not
seemly (as indeed some Codd. [so too Cod. Sin.] have: à ouk
ἀνῆκεν). Gal. iv. 8 τότε οὐκ εἰδότες θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε etc. is a
glance at a past historic fact, and our eid. form a single idea:
ignorantes deum, άeo; on the contrary, 1 Thess. iv. 5 тà ë0vŋ
508 τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν, and 2 Thess. i. 8 τοῖς μὴ εἰδόσι θεόν, in
dependent construction.
0
Sometimes, however, μń would appear to stand for où, but Rom. iv. 19
καὶ μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει οὐ κατενόησε τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα etc. means, he
regarded not his body, quippe qui non esset imbecillis; Karevóηore expresses
a fact, but the being weak in faith only a supposition, which is to be denied
(oйk ȧσbevýσas would mean, strong in faith). According to another con-
struction, it might, indeed, also have run thus: ok hʊévnσev... ÜSTE
453 Karavoñoaι etc., cf. Plut. reg. apophth. p. 81 Tauchn. On the other hand,
7th ed. Heb. vii. 6 ὁ δὲ μὴ γενεαλογούμενος ἐξ αὐτῶν δεδεκάτωκε τὸν ᾿Αβραάμ is
probably to be explained on the principle, that in antitheses (cf. vs. 5),
where a peculiarly strong negation is intended (and the negative is ac-
cented), the Greeks use un (by which even the supposition is denied).
See above, no. 1 and Hm. Soph. Antig. 691, which will be quoted presently.
In Luke i. 20 ἔσῃ σιωπῶν καὶ μὴ δυνάμενος λαλῆσαι the subjective negation
is so much the more fitting, as a particular condition is designated as but
just announced, and consequently existing but in thought (on). So also
Acts xiii. 11. The connection of the subjective and objective negatives
appears strangest in Acts ix. 9 ήν ἡμέρας τρεῖς μὴ βλέπων καὶ οὐκ ἔφαγεν
οὐδὲ ἔπιεν (cf. Epiphan. Opp. II. 368 etc. ἦν δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς μὴ δυνάμενος
λaλñoα). But here the not eating and not drinking are related as matters
of fact; whereas the ẞhérev, which from vs. 8 one might have supposed
to be returning, is as a supposition denied antithetically. The remark of
Hm. Soph. Antig. 691 is applicable here: μý fortius est, quia ad oppositum
refertur; nam oʊk câv simpliciter est prohibere, µǹ câv autem dicitur, quum,
quem credas siturum, non sinit. Accordingly où ẞλéry there would have
meant blind outright; µǹ Bλéπwv affirms not seeing of one who had had
his sight and might be supposed to have it again. Cf. also Jno. vii. 49 å
ὄχλος οὗτος, ὁ μὴ γινώσκων τὸν νόμον, where the ὄχλος is denied an attribute
which it could and should have had; µǹ ywóσk. conveys a censure, ov
yivóσk. would be a simple predicate: unacquainted with the law. See
besides, Luke xiii. 11; Mark v. 26; Acts ix. 7 (cf. vs. 3).
Although, then, it may be quite true as Schaef. says, Demosth. III. 495 :
in scriptis cadentis graecitatis vix credas, quoties participialis constructio
(especially that of the Genit. absol.) non où etc., ut oportebat, sed µý etc.
adsciscat, cf. also Plut. V. 6; Thilo, Acta Thom. p. 28, and above, p. 473
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
487
note 2, yet it is indispensable to scrutinize sharply every passage even from
the writers of the Kowý, before asserting that μn stands for où (Fr. Rom. 432
II. 295); in particular, as has been already remarked, it should not be 6th ed.
overlooked that often much depends, especially in the construction of
negatives with participles, on the mode in which the author conceives of
his subject, Hm. Vig. 804, 806; Mtth. 1437, 1441. On the general subject 509
cf. also Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 244; Bähr in Creuzer, Melet. III. 20;
Schaef. Eurip. Med. 811 ed. Porson.¹
7th ed.
6. Continued negation is, as is well known, expressed by the 454
compound negatives οὐδέ, μηδέ, and οὔτε, μήτε? The difference
between the two words has often been discussed in modern phi-
lology, but has not yet been developed in all its relations and with
complete unanimity; see especially Hm. Eurip. Med. 330 sqq.
(also in his Opusc. III. 143 sqq.) and ad Philoctet. p. 140, then
Franke, comm. II. 5 sqq.; Wex, Antig. II. 156 sqq.; Klotz, Devar.
II. 706 sqq.³ 3
Undoubtedly ovdé and oure run parallel with the conjunctions.
Sé and Te, and must be explained primarily from their meaning;
accordingly we may say with Herm. that oure, unre are adjunctive,
ovdé, undé disjunctive (dé is properly but, and denotes an opposi
tion, Franke II. 5), i.e. the latter add negation to negation, the
former divide a single negation into parts (which last of course
are mutually exclusive). For instance, Matt. vii. 6 un dŵтe TÒ
ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί, μηδὲ βάλητε τοὺς μαργαρίτας etc. give not and
cast not (two different actions are equally denied, i.e. interdicted);
Matt. vi. 26 οὐ σπείρουσιν οὐδὲ θερίζουσιν οὐδὲ συνάγουσιν etc.
ovdè
they sow not, and they reap not, and they gather not. On the other
-
1 On Aelian. 3, 2 δ δὲ μηδὲν διαταραχθεὶς εἶπεν, 14, 33 ὃς οὐδὲν διαταραχθεὶς εἶπεν,
see Fr. Rom. II. 295. Elsewhere où is taken for un with particip. sometimes in Plut.,
sce Held, Plutarch. Tim. p. 457 sq., also in Aelian, see Jacobs, Aelian. anim. II. 187.
In like manner οὐ seems to me to stand for μή in Basilic. I. 150 παίδων οὐχ ὑπόντων si
filii non exstant. As it stands it means, since children are not in existence. (Polyb. 7, 9,
12 тŵv leŵv où dóvтwv dµîv kaì huîv which Gayler quotes, p. 591, is merely a conjectural
reading of Casaubon.) In Lucian. saltat. 75, on the contrary, the transition from μnte
into oure is owing to an anacoluthon. Lastly, où and un are differently construed with
participles in Aelian. anim. 5, 28; see Jacobs in loc.
2 Where oudé does not refer to a preceding negation, it denotes, as is well known,
also not, or not even (Klotz, Devar. 707). On the latter meaning see Franke II. 11.
8 Cf. Hand, de partic. Te dissert. 2 p. 9 sqq.; Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. p. 69 sq.; Stallb.
Plat. Lach. p. 65, also Jen. Lit.-Zeit. 1812. no. 194 S. 516 and Hartung, Partik. I. 191 ff.
4 Benfey in the new Jahrb. f. Philol. XII. 155: "AS TE... Te connects only ideas or
propositions which are mutually complementary and combine into one whole, so OŬTE...
OŬTe can connect only such. This higher unity or complex whole is divided by the
negatived complementary parts; in these neither the negation of the one nor of the
other is a whole, but each must be supplemented."
488
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
hand, Matt. xii. 32 οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι
OUTE ÉV TÊ μÉXλovTi forgiveness will not be imparted, neither in this
433 world, nor in that which is to come (the single negation où ȧþе0.
is distributed into two parts on the basis of time); Luke ix. 3
510 μηδὲν αἴρετε εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν μήτε ῥάβδον μήτε πήραν μήτε ἄρτον
μήτε ἀργύριον.
6th ed.
?.
In this acceptation, then, the following particles are usually
correlative:
a. Où ... oùdé Matt. vi. 28; vii. 18; Luke vi. 44; Jno. xiii. 16;
xiv. 17; Acts ix. 9; Rom. ii. 28, un... μndé Matt. vi. 25; x. 14;
xxiii. 9 f.; Mark xiii. 15; Luke xvii. 23; Jno. iv. 15; Acts iv. 18;
Rom. vi. 12 f.; 2 Cor. iv. 2; 1 Tim. i. 3 f., où ... oůdé ... ovdé Matt.
xii. 19; Jno. i. 13, 25, μή ... μηδέ . . . μηδέ Rom. xiv. 21; Col.
ii. 21; Luke xiv. 12 (not ... nor ... nor);
b. Οὐ ... οὔτε . .
i. 7, μή . . . μήτε .
.
...
1
οὔτε Matt. xii. 32, μή ...
μήτε
..
Jno. viii. 19; ix. 3; Acts
(ten times), Matt. xi. 18
μήτε . . . μήτε 1 Tim.
μήτε ... μýτe Jas. v. 12 (unre three times),
Matt. v. 34 ff. (µýτe four times) not ... neither ... nor etc.; but
455 still more frequently without a simple negation preceding, Jno.
Tth ul. v. 37 οὔτε φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκηκόατε πώποτε οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἐωράκατε,
Matt. vi. 20; xxii. 30; Luke xiv. 35;
xv. 10; 1'Thess. ii. 5 f.; Rom. viii. 38
ἦλθε 'Ιωάννης μήτε ἐσθίων μήτε πίνων, Acts xxvii. 20; Heb. vii. 32
neither ... nor etc.
nor etc. Accordingly, ovre and µýte regularly refer to
another οὔτε and μήτε (or τε or καί) 3 just as Te . . τε (τε . . .
Kaí) correspond to each other; but ovdé and undé connect them-
selves with a preceding où or un, as in fact Sé always refers
to something that precedes. Hence it may be laid down as a
principle (resulting from the respective import of Te and dé),
that οὔτε . . . οὔτε denote a more intimate connection than οὐ ...
ovdé. Klotz, Devar. 707 sq. In this correlation, however, it is a
4
1 In Judges i. 27 we find où followed by oudé fourteen times.
...
•
21 Cor. vi. 10 οὔτε ... οὔτε ... οὔτε . . . οὔτε . . . οὔτε . . . οὔτε . . . οὔτε ... οὔτε ...
où ... où etc. is remarkable only for the accumulation of negatives. For that there
is nothing singular in où coming after ouтe, even though it be not supported by the
passage quoted by Gayl. 386 from Soph. Antig. 4 f., cf. (Dio C. 205, 6; 412, 59) Klotz
1. c. 711. See also no. 9 below, p. 500.
8 As to a single unre with the suppression of the other, see Hm. Soph. Philoct.
p. 139 sq. and in general, Franke II. 13 sq.
4 Cum oйre et ad priora respicere possit et ad sequentia, aptior connexio est singulorum
membrorum per cas particulas, multo autem dissolutior et fortuita magis conjunctio
membrorum per οὐδέ . . . οὐδέ particulas, quia prius οὐδέ nunquam respicit ad ea quae
sequuntur sed ad priora... alterum autem ovdé per aliquam oppositionis rationem,
quam habet dé particula, sequentia adjungit prioribus, non apte connexa, sed potius
fortuito concursu accedentia. On this account, however, dé is still stronger than T←.
Franke II. 6, 15.
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
489
•
matter of indifference whether the things denied are individual
words (conceptions) merely, or entire sentences; and entire sen-
tences are with as much propriety rendered negative by ovтe . . .
OйTe Acts xxviii. 21 (Plato, rep. 10, 597 c.; Phaedr. 260 c.), as
individual words are by où... oudé. In the latter case, it is true,
the verb serves for all the negative members. Matt. x. 9 µn 511
κτήσησθε χρυσὸν μηδὲ ἄργυρον μηδὲ χαλκόν, 2 Pet. i. 8 οὐκ ἀργοὺς
ovdè àкúρπоνs кadioτηow etc., Matt. xxii. 29; xxiv. 20; xxv. 13;
1 Juo. iii. 18. In Matt. x. 9 the other form of negation might
have been employed, if the evangelist had said μηδὲν κτήσ. μήτε
Xpvσòv μÝτe äрy. etc., cf. Franke II. 8. Further, Matt. vi. 20, and 434
Matt. x. 9 compared with Luke ix. 3, throw especial light on the 6th ed
distinction between οὐδέ and οὔτε.
•
The succession οὔτε ... οὔτε . kaì où Jno. v. 37 f., as the interpretation
which has latterly become usual connects the clauses, would be no more
liable to grammatical objection than oure... Te où Hm. Soph. Antig. 759;
Poppo, Thuc. III. I. p. 68; yet the clause with κaí... où does not sustain
quite the same relation as if oure were employed. I consider it, therefore,
preferable not to comprehend κaí ... où in the partition. See Mey. in loc.
From what has been said it follows further,
α) οὐδέ ... οὐδέ, μηδέ . . . μηδέ, in the sense of neither . . . nor
(when a single negation does not precede), cannot be correlative 456
(on Thuc. 1, 142 see Poppo in loc., and on Xen. Anab. 3, 1, 27 7th ed.
the same author's Index to the Anab. p. 535); but where one
negation is annexed to another, or where a series of negations
occurs, the first is expressed by où or un, and only in this way is
a foundation laid for the antithetical disjunctive Sé.2 Mark viii. 26
λέγων, μηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώμην εἰςέλθῃς μηδὲ εἴπῃς τινί etc. cannot
signify neque... neque; but the first undé denotes ne... quidem,
and the second also not (nor), see Mey. in loc. Cf. Eurip. Hippol.
1052 and Klotz, Devar. 708. The case is different when the first
oudé connects the clause to what precedes, as e.g. in the case of
οὐδὲ γάρ in Gal. i. 12 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρ. παρέλαβον αὐτὸ
ovdè édɩdáx¤ŋv, yet on this passage see below, p. 492.
b) as oure and unre always introduce co-ordinate members of a
partition, μήτε is incongruous in Mark iii. 20 ὥςτε μὴ δύνασθαι
μήτε ἄρτον φαγεῖν, for μὴ φαγ. here is dependent on δύνασθαι.
3
1 Hence Mtth. 1444 does not express himself with accuracy.
2 On ovdé and µndé after an affirmative sentence, see Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. p. 64 sq. ;
Franke, p. 6, 8 sq.
8 That even in the latest edition of Griesbach's N. T. μre should remain unchanged,
62
490
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
As the text now stands it can only mean: that they neither had
512 power, nor ate (the first μn being used for μnte). The sense,
however, obviously is that they were not able (not) even [so much
as] to eat; accordingly, undé must be restored on the authority of
the better Codd. (see Fr. in loc.), which has been done by Lehm.
and Tdf., but not by Scholz. In the same way we must read in
Mark v. 3 οὐδὲ ἁλύσει, in Luke xii. 26 οὐδὲ ἐλάχιστον δύνασθε, in
vii. 9 οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ, and in Luke xx. 36, where οὐδὲ γὰρ
ȧπоðаvεîv éтí dúvavrai (as good Codd. read) is not parallel to the
preceding sentence ovтe ... oυre, but the confirmation of it: neque
435 enim.2 Cf. also Matt. v. 36. In these passages also Scholz re-
printed the old mistakes.
6th ed.
οὔτε
οὔτ
c) as ouтe... Ooйre introduce negative members of a partition,
and these mutually exclude each other (Hm. Med. p. 332), the
reading of some Codd. [Sin. also] OTE oida O'TE Éπíσтaμaι (which
ὔτε ἐπίσταμαι
Lehm. and Tuf. [2d ed., not so 7th] have received into the text)
in Mark xiv. 68 cannot be supported: neque novi neque scio can
hardly be said, the verbs being nearly identical in sense. Cf.
Franke II. 13; Schaef. Demosth. III. 449; Fr. in loc. Griesb. has
457 received into the text our оîda ovdè éπíσтаpai; cf. Cic. Rosc. Am. 43
non (not neque) novi neque scio, which according to the mean-
ing of the two verbs is very suitable.3
7th ed.
d) o❝re may indeed follow ou, so far forth as où as respects sense
is to be taken for oure, see Hm. as above, p. 333 sqq. 401 and Soph.
Antig. p. 110, in opposition to Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 4, 5 and Soph.
Oed. T. 817; cf. Franke II. 27 sq.; Maetzner, Antiphon p. 195 sq.;
Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 444; Klotz, as above, 709 sq.4 Accord-
is remarkable. What is still more strange, however, is, that Griesbach and Schulz have
not even noted the var. undé given by approved Codd. See, on the other hand, Scholz
in loc.
1 On the same ground ovdé should be printed also in Act. apocr. p. 168. Yet Döder-
lein, Progr. de brachylogia serm. gr. p. 17, considers oure correct in such case, maintain-
ing that inasmuch as тe like raí may denote etiam this negation also may be used in
the sense of ne quidem. See in opposition Franke II. 11.
• 2 Bornem. insists on construing oure with the following κal (see no. 7 below, p. 494),
but the clause καὶ υἱοί etc. goes with ἰσάγγελοι γάρ.
3 When oŬTE ... OŬTe is used, it is true "the two notions are regarded as forming
one compound thought" (Mey.); but this supposes that there actually are two notions,
which may be connected affirmatively by as well... as.
"In rare cases, and in virtue of a rhetorical figure, it is allowable to drop the com-
plementary particle of the one où, and so impart to the member thus stripped of its
complementary symbol greater apparent independence, and consequently greater
rhetorical force; just as we may say in poetry Not father nor mother, instead of Neither
father nor mother," etc. Benfey, as above, 155. Cf. IIm. 1.c. 333, 401 and Franke (who
differs somewhat) II. 27, (also Döderlein, Progr. de brachylogia p. 6).
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
491
ingly, oйre¹ in Rev. ix. 21 is unassailable, Mtth. 1448; though the
usage in question passes as poetical, Franke II. 28. The same 513
correlation is to be recognized in Rev. v. 4 οὐδεὶς ἄξιος εὑρέθη
ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλέπειν αὐτό (as Tdf. also reads), cf. Klotz,
Devar. II. 709 sq. and the passage adduced there from Aristot.
polit. 1, 3, though the writer might also have said: ovdeis ä§.
εὑρέθη οὔτε ἀνοίξαι τὸ βιβλίον οὔτε βλ. But μή . . . μήτε cannot
be tolerated in Eph. iv. 27, where the best MSS. [also Sin.] unite
in giving undé, which Lehm. has admitted into the text. This
usage is a sort of anacoluthon; in employing où the writer had
not yet the subsequent parallel member in view. Sometimes it
may even have been adopted purposely, in order to give promi-
nence to the first word. In Rev. xii. 8 also oudé appears to me
the more correct expression, and it has been adopted by Knapp.
On the other hand, in Juo. i. 25 εἰ σὺ οὐκ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς οὔτε Ηλίας
οὔτε ὁ προφήτης linguistic propriety does not require that οὐδέ
should be employed (cf. Hm. Soph. Philoct. p. 140), yet the better
Codd. [Sin. also] give it. Likewise in Rev. v. 3 ovdeís ỷdúvato év tộ 436
οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, οὐδὲ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον 6th ed
οὐδὲ βλέπειν αὐτό the relation of the negations is appropriate :
no one ... nor on the earth, nor ... to open
to open ... nor (not even) to
look upon it.
•
nor
e) as to ouтe (several times) ... oỷdé Acts xxiv. 12 f. according
to Lehm. and Boruem. from Codd. B [and Sin.] see Hm. Soph. Oed.
C. 229; Franke II. 14 sqq.; Klotz, Devar. II. 714. The oudé is
not correlative to oure, but commences a new sentence: they
neither found me in the temple ... nor in the synagogues,
can they (and they can not) etc. Most of the Codd., however, 458
give οὔτε vs. 13. Then οὔτε ... ευρόν με
Then οὔτε ... εὑρόν με... οὔτε παραστῆσαι 7th ed.
Súvavтaι are regular correlates, and to the first proposition belong
οὔτε ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς οὔτε κατὰ πόλιν as subordinate members.
On Luke xx. 36, see p. 490.
That in negative sentences the subordinate members are introduced by
, has already been stated, § 53, 6. On the other hand, in Acts xvii. 29,
according to the reading (adopted by Bornem.) of Cod. D ouк opeíλoμev
νομίζειν οὔτε χρυσῷ ἢ ἀργύρῳ etc., the ή is co-ordinate with οὔτε, a usage
of which another example could hardly be found, Mtth. Eurip. VII. 178.
1 Οὐ μετενόησαν ἐκ τῶν φόνων αὐτῶν, οὔτε ἐκ τῶν ... οὔτε ἐκ τῆς ... οὔτε ἐκ τῶν
etc. (instead of the regular οὐ μετεν. οὔτε ἐκ τῶν φόνων οὔτε etc.) is as allowable as
Odyss. 9, 136 ff. ἵν᾽ οὐ χρεὼ πείσματός ἐστιν, οὔτ᾽ εὐνὰς βαλέειν, οὔτε πρυμνήσι᾽ ἀνάψαι,
or Odyss. 4, 566, see Klotz, Devar. 710. A var. in Rev. as above has not been noted.
492
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
However, as Te... is used (Klotz, Devar. II. 742 sq.), ovre...may
also be allowable. But the other authorities omit oure in this passage.
It is more difficult to say whether or not μήτε, οὔτε can be
used after μηδέ, οὐδέ. Almost all recent philologists decide in the
514 negative, see Mtth. II. 1446 (Engelhardt, as above, p. 70; Leh-
mann, Lucian. III. 615 sq.; Franke II. 18, and others), on the
ground that when the stronger expression oudé (Mtth. 1444, 1446)
precedes, the weaker oure cannot follow, cf. also Fr. Mr. p. 158.1
Yet in the various editions of Greek authors there occur many
passages in which oudé is followed by an ouтe (Thuc. 3, 48; see
Poppo in loc.; Lucian. dial. mort. 26, 2; catapl. 15; Plat. Charm.
171 b.; Aristot. physiogn. 6, p. 148 Franz); they are usually
emended, however, commonly with more or less MS. authority.
That ούτε and μήτε cannot be strictly parallel with οὐδέ and μηδέ,
may hold as a general rule (though the reason alleged does not
appear to me decisive); yet, when these particles have nothing to
do with οὐδέ (οι μηδέ) as a conjunction, οὔτε (μήτε) may follow
ovôé (undé) in the two following cases (cf. also Döderlein in Pas-
sow's Lexicon under oudé):
• •
a) When oudé means ne quidem (Klotz, Devar. 711; cf.
2 Macc. v. 10) or neither (also not), or connects the negative
clause to which dé points with a preceding clause.2 In Gal. i. 12
437 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ ... παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην the common
ed. reading is to be retained, if the passage is rendered: for neither
did I receive it, nor was I taught it, or neque enim ego (for où
yáp) accepi didicique (-ve), cf. Hoogeveen, doctr. particul. II.
980 sq. See Plat. Charm. 171 b.; Hom. in Cerer. 22 (Hm. emend.
p. 39); Lysias orat. 19 p. 157 Steph. The ovdé of good Codd.
[even Sin.] for ovтe is probably a correction.
459
b) When the ouтe (μnte) following oudé (undé) is not co-ordinate
7th ed. with the latter, but is subordinate to it, e.g. I harbor no enmity
and I do not counterwork the plans of others nor their undertakings,
Xen. Mem. 2, 2, 11 μηδ' ἕπεσθαι μηδὲ πείθεσθαι μήτε στρατηγῷ
μýтe aλλ аρXоUTI (where, however, the first two words are suspi-
cious), Cyrop. 8, 7, 22 μήποτ᾽ ἀσεβὲς μηδὲν μηδὲ ἀνόσιον μήτε
TOIŃσNTE µŃte Bouλeúσnte, Plato, legg. 11, 916 e. The negation
1 Oŭre after ovdé is upheld by Bornem. Xen. A. p. 26; Hand, as above, p. 13.
2 Iland, as above: intelligitur, nexum, quem nonnulli grammatici inter oudé et ouтE
intercedere dixerunt, nullum esse, nisi quod où in voc. oùdé cum ovre cohaereat. Nam
si in aliquibus Hom. locis ista voce. hoc quidem ordine nexa videntur exhiberi, in iis
dé pertinet ad superiora conjungenda. Cf. Hartung I. 201; Klotz p. 711.
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
493
TE
undé is here divided into two members (uýтe... μýтe) Dem.
Callipp. 718 c.; Judith viii. 18; cf. Held, Plut. Timol. p. 433 sq.;
Mtth. 1445; Kühner II. 440. Accordingly Acts xxiii. 8 µǹ eivai
ἀνάστασιν, μηδὲ ἄγγελον (μηδὲ εἶναι μήτε ἄγγ.) μήτε πνευμα
would be admissible, and would find additional support in và 515
åµþóτeрa immediately following.¹ Tdf. has so printed the text
in his 2d [and 7th] Leipsic edition. The sentence would be sim-
pler, indeed, with undè πv., or, as the better Codd. [Sin. also]
have it, µýte äyy. µýte πV.; and this last has been preferred by
Lehm. and Bornem. The more usual reading, however, might
easily have been introduced as a correction for the more unusual.
In 1 Thess. ii. 3, owing to the notions connected, ouk ék Tλávηs
οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ appears to me more suitable
(the better Codd. too [Sin. also] have this reading, and Lchm. has
so printed); and in general, I think that in this case accurate
writers would for the sake of perspicuity use instead of oυTE,
see § 53, 6, p. 440 sq.
>
In 1 Cor. iii. 2 the best Codd. [Sin. also], instead of the transcriber's
error οὔτε as in the received text, give ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἔτι νῦν δύνασθε ne nunc
quidem (cf. Acts xix. 2; Lucian. Hermot. 7; conscr. hist. 33 and Fr. Mr.
p. 157), so in 2 Thess. ii. 2 εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως σαλευθῆναι... μηδὲ θροεῖσθαι
µýte dià tveúμaros etc. (Lchm. and Tdf.). In 2 Thess. iii. 8 ovdé is the
only correct reading. In Luke vii. 9; xii. 27; Acts xvi. 21 Griesb. prop-
erly adopted ovde, which should be adopted too in Acts iv. 12. In Jas.
iii. 12 recent editors (Lchm. and Tdf. also) give oûte åλukòv yλUKÙ πoiñσai
Swp. This reading can only be supported on the assumption that James
had in mind as the antecedent member οὔτε δύναται συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι
etc. - harsh on any view it must be confessed ; otherwise we must read
ovdé which some Codd. give. [So Cod. Sin. also, but with ourws preceding.]
Passages like Luke x. 4 μὴ βαστάζετε βαλλάντιον, μὴ πήραν μηδὲ ὑπο- 438
δήματα (not ... nor . . . neither), Matt. x. 9 μὴ κτήσησθε χρυσὸν μηδὲ ib ed
ἄργυρον μηδὲ χαλκὸν εἰς τὰς ζώνας ὑμῶν, μὴ πήραν εἰς ὁδόν, μηδὲ δύο
Xiт@vas, μndè úrodnμara etc., present nothing that is singular.
It may be incidentally remarked further, that the distinction between 460
ovdé, µŋsé, and kaì oủ, kaì µý, which is explained by Engelhardt, Plat. Lach. 7th ed.
p. 65, and still more aptly by Franke II. 8 sq. (kaì ov, kaì µý after affirma-
tive sentences and not, yet not, et non, ac non), as it appears to have a
1 See Hoogeveen, doctr. particul. I. 751. Kühnöl insists on rendering тà àµpóтepa tria
ista, but by no means vindicates that rendering by Odyss. 15, 78 àµpóтeроv kûdós te kal
àyλain kal ŏvelap, since the first two words here, united by тe kаí, are regarded as
a single notion. In Acts, as above, were we to read µndé, àµpórepa still could not mean
tria; but the writer regards ayy. and πveûμa, agreeably to their logical import, as one
leading conception.
494
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
516
logical foundation, is observable likewise in the N. T., cf. kaì où Jno. v. 43 ;
vi. 17; vii. 36; Acts xvi. 7; 2 Cor. xiii. 10, κaì µý Jas. i. 5; iv. 17; 1 Pet.
ii. 16; iii. 6; Heb. xiii. 17.
For passages in Greek authors which especially illustrate the difference
between οὐδέ and οὔτε, see Isocr. Areop. p. 345 οὐκ ἀνωμάλως οὐδὲ ἀτάκτως
οὔτε ἐθεράπευον οὔτε ὠργίαζον etc., permut. p. 750 ὥςτε μηδένα μοι πώποτε
μηδ' ἐν ὀλιγαρχίᾳ μηδ᾽ ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ μήτε ὕβριν μήτε ἀδικίαν ἐγκαλέσαι,
Her. 6, 9; Isocr. ep. 8, p. 1016; Xen. Ages. 1, 4; Demosth. Timocr. 481 b.
Cf. Mtth. p. 1445.
7. In two parallel propositions, sometimes ouтe (unre) is fol-
lowed, not by another negative, but by a simple copula (kal or
τε), e.g. Jno. iv. 11 οὔτε ἄντλημα ἔχεις, καὶ τὸ φρέαρ ἐστὶ βαθύ,
as in Latin nec haustrum habes et puteus etc. (Hand, Tursell. IV.
133 sqq.), 3 Jno. 10, cf. Arrian. Al. 4, 7, 6 èyà o❞te tηv äɣav
ταύτην τιμωρίαν Βήσσου ἐπαινῶ ... καὶ ὑπαχθῆναι ᾿Αλέξανδρον
ξύμφημι etc., Paus. 1, 6, 5 Δημήτριος οὔτε παντάπασιν ἐξειστήκει
Πτολεμαίῳ τῆς χώρας, καί τινας τῶν Αἰγυπτίων λοχήσας διέφθειρεν,
Lucian. dial. mar. 14, 1; Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 20 (Te is the more
frequent, Jacobitz, Lucian. Tox. c. 25; Weber, Demosth. p. 402 sq.)
see Hartung, Partik. I. 193; Klotz, Devar. p. 713, 740; Götting.
Anzeig. 1831, S. 1188. On the other hand, in Jas. iii. 14 the
negation is omitted the second time, or rather affects also the
anexed clause: μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας.
So also in 2 Cor. xii. 21; Matt. xiii. 15; Mark iv. 12; Jno. xii. 40;
Acts xxviii. 27; cf. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 2, 20; Diod. S. 2, 48;
Aelian. anim. 5, 21; Gataker, Advers. miscell. 2, 2, p. 268; Jacobs,
Aelian. anim. II. 182; Boissonade, Nicet. p. 390. The converse
construction many expositors have asserted is found in Eph. iv. 26
ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε for μὴ ὀργ. καὶ μὴ) ἁμαρτ. So in
Greek authors (even prose) ovdé and ovre are frequently used in
the second member of a sentence, and have to be supplied in
the first, see Schaef. Bos, ellips. p. 777; Hm. Soph. Aj. 239, 616;
Döderlein, brachylog. p. 5 sq.; Poppo, Thuc. III. IV. 841. This
construction, however, which would be extremely harsh for the
prose of the N. T., is not necessary in the preceding passage
(especially as it does not run unтe άµаρт.), see § 43, 2, p. 311 sq.
On the other hand, in Luke xviii. 7, according to the accredited
reading ὁ θεὸς οὐ μὴ ποιήσῃ τὴν ἐκδίκησιν τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν αὑτοῦ ...
439 καὶ μακροθυμεῖ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς, especially if the latter verb means
6th ed. delay, the negative particle would be omitted in the second clause,
461 and merely the interrogative un num would have to be repeated.
Bornem. in the sächs. bibl. Studien I. 69.
7th ed.
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
495
Ovdè... dé Heb. ix. 12 hardly needs a remark, as où ... dé is of so very
frequent occurrence.
8. It has frequently been laid down as a rule, that sentences 517
which contain a single negation followed by aλλá (dé), or in which
où (un) forms an antithesis to a preceding affirmative sentence
(Matt. ix. 13 Sept.; Heb. xiii. 9; Luke x. 20), are not always (as
e.g. Mark v. 39 τὸ παιδίον οὐκ ἀπέθανεν ἀλλὰ καθεύδει, where the
latter thought exactly overturns the first, Matt. ix. 12; x. 34;
xv. 11; 2 Cor. xiii. 7) to be understood as purely negative, but
(in consequence of a construction which, though Hebraistic, occurs
also in Greek prose) must be rendered: not so much... as (non
tam... quam, où тOσOÛTOV... öσov Heliod. 10, 3; Xen. Eph. 5, 11,
οὐχ οὕτως . . . ὡς Dio Chr. 8, 130, οὐ μᾶλλον ἢ Xen. Hell. 7, 1, 2),
or not only ... but also, non solum ... sed etiam,' cf. Blackwall,
auct. class. sacr. p. 62; Glass. I. 418 sqq.; Wetst. and Kypke ad
Matt. ix. 13; Heumann on 1 Cor. x. 23 f.; Kuinoel, Acta p. 177;
Haab, Gr. 145 ff.; Bos, ellips. p. 772 sq., and others (Valcken. Opusc.
II. 190; ad Dion. H. IV. 2121, 10; Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. p. lxix.);
e.g. Acts v. 4 οὐκ ἐψεύσω ἀνθρώποις, ἀλλὰ θεῷ not so much to men
(the apostle Peter), as to God etc.; 1 Cor. xv. 10 où èyà dě
(ἐκοπίασα), ἀλλ᾽ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ σὺν ἐμοί, Augustine: non
ego solus, sed gratia Dei mecum (Jno. v. 30); 2 Luke x. 20 µn
χαίρετε ὅτι . . . χαίρετε δὲ ὅτι etc. nolite tam propterea laetari ...
quam potius.
But in the passages from the N. T. referred to this head, when
more closely considered, either
1 The first sense, non tam quam, is the one by far most commonly assumed in
the N. T., as the examples which follow show; and an apparent warrant for it might
be found in the fact, that in N. T. Greek the relative negation non solum ... sed is fre-
quently expressed, but non tam quam in point of fact never.
·
2. No wonder expositors have been partial to such a weakening of the preceding idiom,
since even philologists supposed it necessary to soften a strong expression in passages
of the ancients where there was not the slightest occasion. Thus Dion. H. IV. 2111
δόξῃ τὸ ἀνδρεῖον ἐπιτηδεύων οὐκ ἀληθείᾳ is still translated by Reiske: te fortitudinis
studiosum esse opinione magis quam re ipsa. For a similar impropriety, see Alberti,
observ. p. 71. As to the misapprehension of Palairet (ohs. p. 236) in reference to
Macrob. Saturn. I, 22, see my grammatische Excurse S. 155. Cic. off. 2, 8, 27 also
is easily disposed of according to the preceding remarks. Moreover, any one may see
in Glass. as above, p. 421, how the older Biblical interpreters allowed themselves to be
influenced even by doctrinal considerations in explaining this idiom. In 1 Pet. i. 12
the weakening of où ... dé into non tam quam (see Schott even in the latest edition)
arises from misunderstanding diakoveîv. Flatt in 1 Cor. vii. 4 wanted to have even the
simple où restricted by a μóvov. On 1 Cor. ix. 9 the passage of Philo quoted by ex-
positors throws sufficient light.
• •
496
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
Ӧ
440 a. an unconditional negation is plainly intended, as may be
6th ed. gathered from a careful examination of the context: Matt. ix. 13
462 eλeov Deλw kai où Ovolav, where Christ, using the words of the
7th ed. prophet (Hos. vi. 6), really wishes to have mercy (a state of heart)
518
put in the place of sacrifices (mere symbols), cf. what follows: où
γὰρ ἦλθον καλέσαι δικαίους, ἀλλ᾽ ἁμαρτωλούς ; Jno. vii. 16 ἡ ἐμὴ
διδαχὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμή, ἀλλὰ τοῦ πέμψαντός με, where Jesus speaks
of the origin of his doctrine (vss. 15, 17, 18): my doctrine (which
ye consider mine, cf. vs. 15) belongs not to me, but to God, has
for its author not me, but God, (Christ calls it ǹ èµǹ did. in refer-
ence to the opinion of the Jews, who in the words πῶς οὗτος γράμ-
ματα οἶδε, μὴ μεμαθηκώς; assumed it to be something acquired by
means of study),¹ cf. Jno. v. 302; xii. 44; Jno. vi. 27 épyáÇeσ0e
μὴ τὴν βρῶσιν τὴν ἀπολλυμένην, ἀλλὰ τὴν βρῶσιν τὴν μένουσαν εἰς
ζωὴν αἰών., ἣν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρ. ὑμῖν δώσει, where Jesus censures
the conduct of the people who had come to him as the Messiah,
and the thought: not so much for ordinary food as for heavenly
(Kühnöl) would be absurd. As to vs. 26 see Lücke. In 1 Cor.
vii. 10 Paul makes a distinction between the Lord's injunctions
and his own, as he does in vs. 12, inverting the order; for he
alludes there to Christ's declaration Matt. v. 32. Recent exposi-
tors are right. As to 1 Cor. xiv. 22 cf. 23 no doubt can exist;
cf. besides, 1 Cor. x. 24 (Schott) and Mey. in loc., Eph. vi. 12;
Heb. xiii. 9; 1 Cor. i. 17 and Mey. in loc. Likewise in 2 Cor. vii. 9
χαίρω οὐχ ὅτι ἐλυπήθητε ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἐλυπήθητε εἰς μετάνοιαν in the
first clause AuπηОñνaι is denied in itself (the thought so far as
contained in AUTηe.) and absolutely, but to be taken up again in
the second clause with an added limitation eis μeтávoιav. So in
non bonus sed optimus (see the note below), non cancels good (in
the positive) (good he is not), in order straightway to put in its
place the only correct term optimus, (which of course comprehends
the bonus also). Or,
b. in other passages, the absolute negation is on rhetorical
1 Bengel: non est mea, non ullo modo discendi labore parta.
2 Similar to this would be to say e.g. of a biblical expositor abounding in ancient
quotations, Thy learning is not thy learning, but Wetstein's. The first thy learning is put
only problematically; and to infer from it that the speaker means actually to ascribe
to the party concerned (that) learning in some degree or in a certain respect, is an infer-
ence purely grammatical not logical. Hm. Eurip. Alcest. p. 29 had already glanced at
non bonus sed optimus (Fr. díss. in 2 Cor. II. p. 162). Of a similar kind are the passages
cited by Heumann as above: Cic. Arch. 4, 8 se non interfuisse sed egisse, and Vell.
Pat. 2, 13 vir non saeculi sui sed omnis aevi optimus. Cf. also 2 Cor. vii. 9.
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
497
6th ed.
grounds employed instead of a conditional (relative), not for the
purpose of really (logically) cancelling the first conception, but in
order to direct undivided attention to the second, so that the first 519
may comparatively disappear (cf. Mey. on Acts v. 4): 1 Thess.
iv. 8 (Schott) rejecteth not man, but God.¹ Of course he rejects 463.
the apostle also, who announces the divine truth; but the inten- 7th ed.
tion was to present to the mind with full force the fact, that it is 441
properly God, as the real author of the truth announced, who is
rejected. The force of the thought is immediately impaired if
rendered: he rejects not so much man as God. To give such a
translation would be like diluting e.g. an asyndeton (the nature
of which also is rhetorical) by subjoining a copula. Therefore it
appears to me that oùê . . . ảλλá, when it logically means non tam
... quam, is always a part of the rhetorical coloring of the com-
position, and for that reason is to be preserved in the translation
(as is done by all good translators). The speaker has chosen this
negative designedly, and the expression is not to be judged of
grammatically merely. Whether, however, such is actually the
case, is to be determined not according to the impressions of the
interpreter, but by the context and the nature of the connected
thoughts. In this way the following passages are to be treated:
Matt. x. 20 (Schott) οὐχ ὑμεῖς ἐστε οἱ λαλοῦντες, ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα
τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν, Mark ix. 37 (Schott) ὃς ἐὰν ἐμὲ δέξηται, οὐκ ἐμὲ
δέχεται, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με, 1 Cor. xv. 10 περισσότερον
αὐτῶν πάντων ἐκοπίασα· οὐκ ἐγὼ δέ, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ σὺν ἐμοί,
Jno. xii. 44 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ πιστεύει εἰς ἐμέ, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸν
Téμavтá μe, Acts v. 4 (cf. Plutarch. apophth. Lac. 41; see Duker,
Thuc. 4, 92); Luke x. 20 (where many MSS. insert a pâλλov
after dé); 2 Cor. ii. 5 (Schott). As to Luke xiv. 12 f. see Bornem.
and de Wette in loc.2
d
1 Cf. Demosth. Euerg. 684 b. Яynoaµévn ißplovaι ovn èµé (but he had been abused
actually) ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὴν τὴν βουλὴν) καὶ τὸν δῆμον τὸν ψηφισάμενον etc., Aesop. 148, 2
οὐ σύ με λοιδορεῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ πύργος, ἐν ᾧ ἵστασαι. Klotz, Devar. p. 9: οὐκ ἐκινδύνευσεν,
àλλěñadev est: non periclitatus sed passus est, quibus verbis hoc significatur: non dico
istum periclitatum esse sed passum, ita ut, cum ille dicatur passus esse, jam ne cogitetur
quidem de eo, quod priori membro dictum est.
2 Against this view, propounded in the first edition of this work in accordance with
the remarks of de Wette (A. L.-Z. 1816 nr. 41 S. 321) and those of a critic in the Theol.
Annal. 1816 S. 873, Fr. dissert. in 2 Cor. II. 162 sq. declared himself. His objections
were examined by Beyer in the n. krit. Journ. d. Theol. 3 B. 1 St.; but Fr. discussed
the subject anew in his 2d excursus on Mr. p. 773 sq. I had written the above in sub-
stance before I received this excursus, and it agrees essentially with the opinion expressed
in the second edition of this Grammar S. 177, and in my grammat, Excurse S. 155.
63
498
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
520
442
6th ed.
When (οὐ μὴ ... ἀλλὰ καί are correlative, as in Phil. ii. 4 μὴ τὰ ἑαυτῶν
ἕκαστος σκοποῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἑτέρων ἕκαστος, the original plan of the
464 sentence intended où ... åλλá, and κaí was introduced because the writer
7th ed.
on reaching the second member determined to soften and qualify the
thought. Passages of a similar sort are not unfrequent in Greek authors,
see Fr. Exc. 2 ad Mr. p. 788; cf. Thuc. ed. Poppo III. III. 300, (on
the Latin non ...
sed etiam or quoque, see Ramshorn S. 535 f.; Kritz, Vell.
Pat. p. 157 f.). The converse is où µóvov ... åλλá (without κaí, see Leh-
ἀλλά καί,
mann, Lucian. II. 551), when the writer drops μóvov, and, instead of a
thought parallel to the first, subjoins one that is stronger (which usually
includes the former), see Stallb. Plat. symp. p. 115; Fr. as above, 786 ff.
and Klotz, Devar. p. 9 sq. So Acts xix. 26 ötɩ ov µóvov 'Epéσov, åìlà
σχεδὸν πάσης τῆς ᾿Ασίας ὁ Παῦλος οὗτος πείσας μετέστησεν ἱκανὸν ὄχλον that
he not only at Ephesus, but in all Asia etc., where strict propriety required:
but also in other places, cf. 1 Jno. v. 6 οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ
vdati kaì tậ aiµari. On the Lat. non solum (modo)...sed, see Hand,
Tursell. IV. 282 sqq.; Kritz, Sallust. Cat. p. 80. The second member is
heightened in a different way in Phil. ii. 12; in 1 Tim. v. 23 µŋkétɩ vdpo-
πótel, ảλλ' oïvų ỏλíy xpŵ is to be rendered, Be no longer a water-drinker
(vsρоπотЄîv cf. Her. 1, 71; Athen. 1. 168), but use a little wine; isроπотÉîν
differs from vdwp πívew, and signifies to be a water-drinker i.e. to drink
water usually and exclusively. One who uses a little wine ceases of course
to be a water-drinker in this sense, and it is quite unnecessary here to
supply μóvov. Matthies in loc. is not accurate.
9. Two negatives employed together in one principal clause ¹
(Klotz, Devar. p. 695 sqq.; E. Lieberkühn, de negationum graec.
cumulatione. Jen. 1849. 4to.), either
a. Produce an affirmation, Acts iv. 20 où Svváµeða ýµeîs, à
εἴδομεν καὶ ἠκούσαμεν, μὴ λαλεῖν, non possumus... non dicere,
i.e. we must declare (cf. Aristoph. ran. 42 ouTοι µà тην Аýμптρа
δύναμαι μὴ γελᾶν), 1 Cor. xii. 15 οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ
owμaтos it is still, for all that, of the body (belongs to it). In the
first passage the particles of negation belong to different verbs
(dvváµeða is first denied and then λaλeiv), in Syriaci ji
-orallSo] }}? Sseso ? o?; in the last, our eσTw consti-
tutes a single idea which is negatived by the first où, the not
belonging to the body is denied, (cf. our eivai used thus in a nega-
Meyer and BCrusius have decidedly agreed with me in the various passages adduced
above; but I take especial pleasure in the remarks of my acute colleague Klotz ad
Devar. p. 9 sq. in support of my view. As to non... sed, cf. Kritz, Sallust. Jug. p. 533 ;
Hand, Tur. IV. 271.
1 The two negatives equivalent to an affirmative in Rom. xv. 18, which occur in two
different clauses blended by attraction, require no special notice.
§ 55. NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
499
tive clause in Demosth. Androt. 420 c.; Aelian. 12, 36). See 521
besides, Matt. xxv. 9 text. rec. Cf. Poppo, Thuc. III. IV. 711;
Mtth. II. 1449. Or,
6th ed
b. They both produce but a single negation (which is the more
frequent case), and serve (originally) only to make the principal
negation which would have sufficed alone more distinct and forci- 465
ble, and to impart to the sentence a negative character through- 7th ed.
out:1 Jno. xv. 5 χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν non potestis 443
facere quidquam, i.e. nihil pot. fac. (Dem. Callip. 718 c.), 2 Cor.
xi. 8 παρὼν . . . οὐ κατενάρκησα οὐδενός, Acts xxv. 24 ἐπιβοῶντες
μὴ δεῖν αὐτὸν ζῆν μηκέτι, Mark xi. 14 μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ
σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγῃ, 1 Cor. i. 7 ὥςτε ὑμᾶς μὴ ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν
μndevi xaρíoμari, Matt. xxii. 16; Mark i. 44; v. 37; vii. 12 ;
ix. 8; xii. 34; xv. 4 f.; Matt. xxiv. 21; Luke iv. 2; viii. 43 (51
var.); x. 19; xx. 40; xxii. 16; Jno. iii. 27; v. 30; vi. 63; ix. 33;
xvi. 23 f.; xix. 41; Acts viii. 16, 39; Rom. xiii. 8; 1 Cor. viii. 2
(var.); 2 Cor. vi. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 3; 1 Pet. iii. 6; 1 Jno. i. 5;
Rev. xviii. 4, 11, 14, etc.2 So in particular where the notion every,
always, every time, everywhere, is added to the negative clause
for its necessary or rhetorical amplification (Böcklı, nott. Pind.
p. 418 sq.), or where the negation is decomposed, Matt. xii. 32
οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι.
In this way a single sentence may contain a series of negatives:
Luke xxiii. 53 οὗ οὐκ ἦν οὐδέπω οὐδεὶς κείμενος, Mark v. 3 (cf.
Aelian. anim. 11, 31 ὡς οὐδεπώποτε οὐδένα οὐδὲν ἀδικήσας, Plat.
Parmen. 166 a. ὅτι τἄλλα τῶν μὴ ὄντων οὐδενὶ οὐδαμὴ οὐδαμῶς οὐδε
μίαν κοινωνίαν ἔχει, Phaed. 78 d.; Her. 2, 39 οὐδὲ ἄλλου οὐδενὸς
ἐμψύχου κεφαλῆς γεύσεται Αἰγυπτίων οὐδείς, Lysias pro Mantith.
10; Xenoph. A. 2, 4, 23; Plat. Phil. 29 b. and soph. 249 b.; Lucian.
chronol. 13; Dio C. 635, 40; 402, 35; 422, 24); see Wyttenb. Plat.
Phaed. p. 199; Ast, Plat. polit. p. 541; Boisson. Philostr. Her.
p. 446 and Nicet. p. 243, especially also Hm. Soph. Antig. p. 13;
3
1 As in popular German; yet the accumulation of negatives is genuine German, and
has been expelled from the language of the educated only through the influence of the
Latin, which so thoroughly pervades our literary culture. As to Latin, see Jani, ars
poet. lat. p. 236 sq.
2 In the Sept. cf. Gen. xlv. 1; Num. xvi. 15; Exod. x. 23; Deut. xxxiv. 6; Josh.
ii. 11;
1 Sam. xii. 4, especially Hos. iv. 4 ὅπως μηδεὶς μήτε δικάζηται μήτε ἐλέγχῃ μηδείς.
Transcribers have in such sentences sometimes omitted a negative, see Fr. Mr.
p. 107.
8 But this mode of expression is not always employed, cf. Acts x. 14 ovdémoтe ĔPAYOV
πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ ἀκάθαρτον (without var.), 1 Jno. iv. 12.
4
♦ Klotz, Devar. II. 698: in hac enuntiatione ita repetita est negatio, quod unumquodque
orationis membrum, quia eo amplificabatur sententia, quasi per se stare videbatur.
500
§ 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
• • •
Gayl. p. 382 sq. When oudé ne quidem is employed, it is usual
522 in Greek to prefix another negative to the verb (cf. Stallb. Plat.
rep. I. 279; Poppo, Thuc. III. II. 460). So Luke xviii. 13 ok
ἤθελεν οὐδὲ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐπᾶραι.
In 1 Cor. vi. 10, after several antecedent partitive clauses (OUTE, OUTE,
où, où), the negative is once more repeated for the sake of perspicuity with
466 the predicate Baoiλeíav beоû où κλпpovoμýoovoi. The best Codd., how-
7th ed. ever, [Sin. also] omit it, and Lchm. has expunged it. In Rev. xxi. 4 å
θάνατος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι, οὔτε πένθος οὔτε κραυγὴ οὔτε πόνος οὐκ ἔσται ἔτι, the
writer might also without hesitation have dispensed with the second ov.
444 What comes nearest, however, is Aesch. Ctesiph. 285 b. oudé ye & πovηpos
γε πονηρὸς
6th ed. ouk av TOTE Yévoɩto dnμoσía xonoτós, see Bremi in loc. (c. 77), cf. also Plat.
rep. 4, 426 b. and Hm. Soph. Antig. as above. On the other hand, ouk
ĕσTai ËTI OŰTE TÉV◊os etc. would be quite according to rule. In Acts xxvi. 26
the text. rec. gives λανθάνειν αὐτόν τι τούτων οὐ πείθομαι οὐδέν; but the better
Codd. omit either ovdév or tɩ. [Yet ovoév with T is found in Cod. Sin.*]
On the pleonasm of μý after verbs in which the idea of negation is
already contained, see § 65, 2, p. 604.
€
Note. A peculiar kind of negation is formed with ei in oaths by virtue
of an aposiopesis of the apodosis; as, Mark viii. 12 åµv λéyw iµîv, ei
δοθήσετει τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ σημεῖον i.e. no sign will be given ; Heb. iii. 11 ;
iv. 3 Sept. ὤμοσα, εἰ εἰςελεύσονται εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου. This is an
imitation of the Hebrew □ (cf. Gen. xiv. 23; Deut. i. 35; 1 Kings i. 51;
ii. 8; 2 Kings iii. 14, etc.), and a form of imprecation must always be
supplied as the apodosis: in the last passage, then will I not live, not be
Jehovah; in passages where the speaker is a man, so may God punish me
(cf. 1 Sam. iii. 17; 2 Sam. iii. 35), then will I not live, and the like; Ewald
krit. Gr. 661, (cf. Aristoph. equit. 698 f. ei µǹ o' ékpáyw... ovdéttote Biwσoμaι,
Cic. fam. 9, 15, 7 moriar, si habeo). 'Eáv is thus used in Neh. xiii. 25 ;
Song of Sol. ii. 7; iii. 5 Sept. Of the opposite, eàv un or el un (affirmatively),
no instance occurs in the N. T. (cf. Ezek. xvii. 19), for most unwarrantably
has Haab S. 226 referred to this head Mark x. 30; 2 Thess. ii. 3.
§ 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
1. The (subjective) negative µý ne (with its compounds) is used
in independent sentences to express a negative wish or a warning,
and is construed
523 a. With the Optative (Aor.)- the mood which would be used
also without the negation when a negative wish is expressed
(Franke I. 27), e.g. in the frequently recurring uǹ yévoiтo Luke
xx. 16; Rom. iii. 6; ix. 14; Gal. ii. 17 (Sturz, dial. Alex. 204 sq.),
§ 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
501
and in µn avroîs λoyɩodeln 2 Tim. iv. 16 (Plat. legg. 11, 918 d.).
So also μŋkéтi, according to the text. rec., Mark xi. 14 μŋkéTI ÈK
σοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγοι may no one ever again etc.
The Subjunctive pay, however, would here be more appropriate
in the mouth of Christ, if it only had more external authority
in its favor. Besides, see Gayler p. 76 sqq. 82.
6th ed.
b. When a warning is expressed, it is construed a) sometimes
with the Imperative Present, usually where something permauent
and which a person is already doing is to be indicated (Hm. Vig. 467
809), Matt. vi. 19 µǹ Onσavpišete vµîv, vii. 1 µǹ кplvere, Jno. v. 14 7th ed.
μηKéтi ȧµáρтave, cf. Matt. xxiv. 6,1 17; Jno. xiv. 1; xix. 21; Mark
xiii. 7, 11; Rom. xi. 18; Eph. iv. 28; 1 Tim. v. 23; 1 Pet. iv. 12; 445
B) sometimes with the Subjunctive Aorist, when something tran-
sient, which should not be begun at all, is to be expressed (Hm.
as above), Luke ri. 29 ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντός σου τὸ ἱμάτιον καὶ τὸν
χιτῶνα μὴ κωλύσῃς, Matt. x. 34 μὴ νομίσητε (do not conceive), ὅτι
îìÐov etc., vi. 13; Luke xvii. 23; Acts xvi. 28. So in legislative
prohibitions, Matt. vi. 7; Mark x. 19; Col. ii. 21, where not the
repetition or continuation, but the action itself (though done but
once) is interdicted, and absolutely. The Aor. Imperat., which
specially has this signification, and is not at all rare in later writers
(Gayl. p. 64),2 does not occur in the N. T. (and is doubtful in the
Sept. also). On the other hand, the Pres. Imperat. also is often
used in reference to what should not be begun at all (Hm. as
above, Franke I. 30); cf. Matt. ix. 30; Eph. v. 6; 1 Tim. v.
1 Jno. iii. 7. In general, see Hm. de praeceptis Atticistar. p. 4 sqq.
(Opusc. I. 270 sqq.); cf. Soph. Aj. p. 163; Bhdy. 393 f.; Franke
I. 28 sqq. The Imperat. and Subjunctive are both employed in
one sentence in Luke x. 4.
22;
The Pres. Imperat. is also construed with μn in Rom. xiii. 8 µundevì
μηδὲν ὀφείλετε ; for owing to the subjective negatives ὀφείλ. cannot be
taken as an Indicative. Reiche's observations on the other side are a
strange mixture of obscurity and half-truth. And if he means to say that
the subjective negatives are used in the same way in some of the passages
adduced by Wetstein, he is very much mistaken; for in these passages
the Inf. or Participle is employed, both of which regularly take µý.
As to où with the Fut. Indic., partly in passages from the O. T. law, as
1 There must here be a comma after dpâre, as H. Stephanus correctly remarked in
the preface to his edition of the N. T. of 1576. If dρâтe μn be immediately connected,
Opoñσle must be substituted for epocio0e. Tdf. [in his 2d ed.] has not attended to
this. [In his 1st ed. and 7th he has it correctly.]
2 Cf. Bremi, excurs. 12 ad Lys. p. 452 sqq.
524
502 § 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
Matt. v. 21 où poveúσeɩs, xix. 18; Acts xxiii. 5; Rom. xiii. 9, and partly
in the N. T. style itself, Matt. vi. 5 ouk ëσeσbe STEρ оi vπокрiтaí, where
µý with the Subjunctive might have been expected, cf. § 43, 5. Not unlike
this is Xen. Hell. 2, 3, 34; see Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 204; Franke I. 24.
(On μn with the Fut. Indic. in a mildly prohibitive sense, see Weber,
Demosth. p. 369.)
When μn in a prohibitive sense is joined with the third Person
(as frequently in laws, see Franke, as above, p. 32), the Imperat.
is used (always in the N. T.), not the Subjunctive (Hm. Soph. Aj.
p. 163): the Present Imper. when what is forbidden has already
commenced, and the Aorist Imper. when something which has not
468 yet commenced is to be avoided (in future also); as, Rom. vi. 12 μn
Till ed. οὖν βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι, xiv. 16; 1 Cor.
ατα
vii. 12, 13; Col. ii. 16; 1 Tim. vi. 2; Jas. i. 7; 1 Pet. iv. 15; 2 Pet.
iii. 8; on the other hand Matt. vi. 3 µǹ yvwтw ǹ àpiσtepá σov etc.,
xxiv. 18 μὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω ὀπίσω, Mark xiii. 15 μὴ καταβάτω εἰς τὴν
oikiav (probably also in Matt. xxiv. 17 according to good Codd.
[Sin. also], where the text. rec. has Kaтaßauvéтw). Cf. Xen. C.
7, 5, 73; 8, 7, 26; Aeschin. Ctes. 282 c.; Mtth. II. 1157; Kühner
446 II. 113. (Instances from the Sept., therefore, are not needed
6th ed. here; otherwise, besides Deut. xxxiii. 6 and 1 Sam. xvii. 32, many
could be found, as Josh. vii. 3; 1 Sam. xxv. 25; 2 Sam. i. 21;
Judges vi. 39.)
525
If a dehortation in the 1st Pers. (Plur.) is to be expressed, µń
takes the Subjunctive, and either the Pres. or the Aor. according
to the distinction indicated above (Hm. Soph. Aj. p. 162), e.g.
Jno. xix. 24 μὴ σχίσωμεν, but 1 Jno. iii. 18 μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν λόγῳ (as
some were doing), Gal. vi. 9; 1 Thess. v. 6; Rom. xiv. 13; 1 Cor.
x. 8. In Gal. v. 26 the Codd. vary, some having µn yivóμeða
κενόδοξοι γενώμεθα.
kevódoğol (text. rec.), others yeváμela. The better [Sin. also]
favor the former, (and Lchm. and Tdf. have so printed). The
apostle may mean to reprove a failing already existing in the
churches, as seems probable also from what precedes. Mey. takes
a different view. From Greek authors, see evidence for the use
of the 1st Pers. Plur. Subj. in Gayler 72 sq.
2. In dependent clauses µý (µýπws, µńπоτe etc.) is used,
TÒ
a. In the sense of in order that not (for which iva un is more
commonly employed), with the Subjunctive after Pres. and Imperf.
1 Cor. ix. 27 ὑπωπιάζω μου τὸ σῶμα μήπως . . . ἀδόκιμος γένω-
μαι, 2 Cor. ii. 7; xii. 6; Matt. v. 25; xv. 32; Luke xii. 58 and
frequently; with the Optative after a Preterite, Acts xxvii. 42 Tŵv
§ 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
503
στρατιωτῶν βουλὴ ἐγένετο, ἵνα τοὺς δεσμώτας ἀποκτείνωσι, μή τις
ŠKкоλνµßýσas dia púyou, but good Codd. [Sin. also] have here
diapúyn, which Lehm. and Tdf. have adopted (Bhdy. 401; Krü.
168). The latter reading, however, may be a correction or an
error of transcribers. The Subj. is also used in the O. T. quota-
tion Matt. xiii. 15; Acts xxviii. 27, where, however, as a permanent
result is meant, it is less questionable. The Indic. Fut. (along
with a Subj. Aor.) Mark iv. 12 Sept. μýжоте еmioтpéywoi kai
ἀφεθήσεται (according to good Codd.) [as also the Fut. βληθήση
Matt. v. 25] it is not necessary to regard as likewise dependent
on μýroтe, though even then the Fut. would be quite proper, see
Fr. This applies to iáooμaι Acts xxviii. 27 (Born. ¡áowpai) cf.
Luke xiv. 8f. In Matt. vii. 6 Lehm. and Tdf. read μýrоTE KATA-
Taτýσоvow, where Griesb. and Scholz have not noted any var.
OT
ισ
b. In the sense of that not, lest, after öpa, ẞhéte or poßoûµμal,
and the like (Hm. Vig. 797; Rost, Gr. 650 f.). In this connection
the particle is followed
a) by the Indicative, when the suspicion (apprehension) that
something is, will be, or has been, a matter of fact, is also ex-
pressed: Present Indic. Luke xi. 35 σκόπει, μὴ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν σοὶ
σκότος ἐστίν (Hm. Soph. Αj. 272 μὴ ἐστί verentis quidem est ne
quid nunc sit, sed indicantis simul, putare se ita esse, ut veretur, 469
cf. Gayl. 317 sq.); Protev. Jacobi 141; Future Indic. Col. ii. 8 7th ed
βλέπετε, μή τις ἔσται ὑμᾶς ὁ συλαγωγών ne futurus sit, ne existat,
qui etc. Heb. iii. 12; Mark xiv. 2; Her. 3, 36; Plat. Cratyl. 393 c.;
Achill. Tat. 6, 2 (p. 837 Jac.); Xen. C. 4, 1, 18 etc. (cf. Stallb. 447
Plat. rep. I. 336); Preterite Indic. after a Pres. Gal. iv. 11 poßoûµaι 6th ed
ὑμᾶς, μήπως εἰκῆ κεκοπίακα (may have labored), see Hu. Eurip.
Med. p. 356; Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 135; Stallb. Plat. Menon p. 98 sqq.; 526
cf. Thuc. 3, 53; Plato, Lys. 218 d.; Diog. L. 6, 5; Lucian. Piscat.
15 (Job i. 5), see Gayl. 317, 320.
B) by the Subjunctive (Gayl. 323 sqq.), when the object of a
1 We cannot with de Wette pronounce this acceptation inappropriate on the ground
that "simply a general warning is here expressed." That is just the question. An
injunction to examine carefully lest such might be the case, Jesus might certainly give
to his contemporaries, according to the assumption elsewhere made in the N. T. respect-
ing their predominant religious character; and this injunction is in reality general.
Let every one take care lest the second of the cases mentioned in vs. 34 should apply
to him. The apprehension that Jesus would thus be countenancing the doctrine of the
complete depravation of man's reason is groundless; and Niemeyer (Hall. Pred.-Journ.
1832. Nov.) should not have been induced by such apprehension to take the Indicative
for the Subjunctive, an interpretation which he supports, moreover, by passages of
a totally different nature.
504
§ 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
mere apprehension, which may perhaps prove groundless, is indi
cated: by the Present Subj. Heb. xii. 15 Sept. πIOкожоÛVTES . .
μή τις ρίζα πικρίας . . . ἐνοχλῇ (Hm. Soph. Αj. 272 μὴ ᾖ verentis
est, ne quid nunc sit, simulque nescire se utrum sit nec ne signi
ficantis); usually by the Aorist Subj. in reference to something still
future, Matt. xxiv. 4 βλέπετε, μή τις ὑμᾶς πλανήσῃ, 2 Cor. xi. 3
φοβοῦμαι, μήπως . . . φθαρῇ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν, xii. 20 ; Luke xxi. 8;
Acts xiii. 40; 1 Cor. viii. 9; x. 12. The same mood is employed
in narration after a Pret. Acts xxiii. 10 εὐλαβηθεὶς μὴ διασπασθῇ
... èkéλevoe, xxvii. 17, 29, as after words of fearing (where the
fear appears to be well founded, Rost S. 650) even in the best
Greek prose authors, Xen. A. 1, 8, 24 Κύρος δείσας, μὴ ὄπισθεν
γενόμενος κατακόψῃ τὸ Ἑλληνικόν, Cyr. 4, 5, 48 πολὺν φόβον ἡμῖν
παρείχετε, μή τι πάθητε, Lysias caed. Eratosth. 44 ὃ ἐγὼ δεδιὼς μή
TIS TÚÐNTAI ÉTTE¤úµоνv aνтòv úπoλéσai, cf. also Thuc. 2, 101; Plato,
Euthyd. 288 b.; Herod. 4, 1, 3; 6, 1, 11; see Mtth. II. 1189;
Bornem. Xen. sympos. p. 70; Gayl. 324 f. The Indic. Fut. and,
Subjunct. are connected in 2 Cor. xii. 20 f. poßoûμai, μýπws oùx
οἵους θέλω εὕρω ὑμᾶς κἀγὼ εὑρεθῶ ὑμῖν ... μὴ πάλιν ἐλθόντος
úµâs vµîv
μου ταπεινώσει με ὁ θεός etc.
In this way we must judge of elliptical passages also (Gayl. 327), such
as Matt. xxv. 9 μήποτε οὐκ ἀρκέσῃ ἡμῖν καὶ ὑμῖν lest there be not enough, i.e.
7th ed. it is to be feared that there may not be enough (according to the text. rec.,
70
where, however, recent critics read µýïote où µǹ åpкéσŋ, though without
decidedly preponderant authority; and then μTore is taken by itself: no,
in no wise). Rom. xi. 21 εἰ ὁ θεὸς τῶν κατὰ φύσιν κλάδων οὐκ ἐφείσατο,
μήπως οὐδὲ σοῦ φείσεται (far better supported than φείσηται) if God has
not spared, (I fear and presume) that he will not spare thee also, ne tibi
quoque non sit parciturus, cf. Gen. xxiv. 39.
ǹ
In Gal. ii. 2 ἀνέβην . . . ἀνεθέμην ... μήπως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον,
Fr. (Conject. I. note, p. 50) considered the translation ne operam meam
luderem aut lusissem faulty in two respects: because instead of Tρéx
(after a Preterite) the Optative was to be expected; while the Indic.
448 Spaμov here would mean, what the apostle cannot have intended to say,
6th ed. that he had labored in vain. Hence Fr. took the words as a direct question:
num frustra operam meam in evangelium insumo an insumsi? He himself,
527 however, afterwards felt that this explanation is forced, and in the Opuscula
Fritzschiorum p. 173 sq. gave a different rendering. The difficulty in
regard to rpéxw entirely disappears, so far as the N. T. is concerned;
indeed, the Pres. Subj.' is even appropriate, as Paul is speaking of apos-
1 That Tpéxw is Indicative [as is assumed again by Bttm. Gramm. des N. T. Sprachgebr.
S. 303 and even Mey. Aufl. 4] Usteri and Schott inferred from the fact that espaμov
§ 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
505
tolic activity, still continued. And the Pret. Indic. papov would be
justified by the assumption that Paul gave to the whole sentence the same
turn of expression that he would have employed, had he uttered the words
in a direct form: in order that I run not or have run (for might run, or
might have run), cf. above, p. 288. Still simpler, however, is the inter-
pretation now adopted by Fr., who takes the Preterite in a hypothetical
sense, cf. Mtth. II. 1185; Hm. de partic. äv p. 54: ne forte frustra cucur-
rissem (which might easily have been the case, had I not propounded my
doctrine in Jerusalem). But of course, it is not allowable to refer åv‹Ðéµqv
(as Fr. does) to an intention of Paul to instruct himself (for not the mere
exposition of his views could have secured him from having run in vain,
but only the assent of the apostles); on the contrary, Paul must have been
satisfied in his own mind that his views were correct, and only have designed
to obtain the very important declaration of the apostles in his favor, without
which his apostolic labors for the present and the past would have been
fruitless, see de Wette in loc.
In 1 Thess. iii. 5 μws is construed with both Indic. and Subjunct.:
ἔπεμψα εἰς τὸ γνῶναι τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν, μήπως ἐπείρασεν ὑμᾶς ὁ πειράζων καὶ
eis tò
ó
εἰς κενὸν γένηται ὁ κύπος ἡμῶν I sent to ascertain your faith. (fearing)
lest haply the tempter have tempted you, and my labor be fruitless. The
different moods here are obviously justifiable. The temptation (to waver 471
in faith) might have already taken place; but whether the apostle's labor 7th ed
had been rendered fruitless by it depended on the result of the temptation,
as yet not known to him, and might be dreaded as impending. Fr.'s
interpretation (Opusc. Fritzschior. p. 176): ut ... cognoscerem, an forte
Satanas vos tentasset et ne forte labores mei irriti essent, appears to me
harsh, as μýπws would thus be taken in two senses. And I can by no
means admit that according to my interpretation the Fut. yevýσerai would
be required instead of yénra. On the contrary, the Fut. denoting an
γένηται.
apprehension which cannot be verified, and in any event will not be verified
at some definite future time, would be far too explicit. See also Hm. Soph.
Aj. p. 48 and partic. av p. 126 sq.; Mtth. II. 1186.
Note. Verbs of fearing are regularly followed by the simple un. μýπws,
etc. not by ἵνα μή : hence in Acts v. 26 ἵνα μὴ λιθασθῶσιν must not be
connected with époßouvтo Tòv λaóv, as is done by most expositors (even
Mey.); but it is dependent, rather, on yayev avtoùs où μetà Bías, and the 449
words ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ τὸν λαόν are to be considered as parenthetical.
6th ed.
3. The intensive où µń (in reference to what in no wise will 528
or should take place) is construed sometimes, and indeed most
follows; forgetting that two different moods, according to different conceptions, may
be and sometimes are connected with one and the same particle. (See the passage to
be quoted immediately: 1 Thess. iii. 5.)
1 Thus οὐ μή regularly refers to the future (Matt. xxiv. 21 οἵα οὐ γέγονεν . . . οὐδ᾽
où µn yévnτai). Moreover, it is now the prevalent opinion of scholars, that this idiom
64
506 § 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
frequently, with the Subjunct. Aorist, sometimes with the Sub-
junct. Present (Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 51, see below), and sometimes
also with the Indic. Fut. (Bengel on Matt. v. 18 is mistaken), sce
Ast, Plat. polit. p. 365; Stallb. Plat. rep. II. 36 sq.; Ellendt, Lexic.
Soph. II. 409 sqq.; Gayl. p. 430 sqq. The difference between the
Subj. Aor. and the Fut. Indic. (which alone occur in the N. T.)
is defined by Hm. Soph. Oed. Col. ver. 853 thus: Conjunctivo Aor.
locus est aut in eo, quod jam actum est (see, however, Ellendt as
above, p. 411 sq.), aut in re incerti temporis, sed semel vel brevi
472 temporis momento agenda; Futuri vero usus, quem ipsa verbi
7th ed. forma nonnisi in rebus futuris versari ostendit, ad ea pertinet,
quae aut diuturniora aliquando eventura indicare volumus aut
non aliquo quocunque, sed remotiore aliquo tempore dicimus
futura esse. The inquiry whether this distinction is observed in
the N. T., is rendered difficult by the variations of MSS., of which,
in many passages, some have the Indic. Fut., and some the Aor.
Subj. So far as can be ascertained by the present apparatus of
various readings, the Subj. is established in Matt. v. 18, 20, 26;
x. 23; xviii. 3; xxiii. 39; Mark xiii. 2, 19, 30; Luke vi. 37;
xii. 59; xiii. 35; xviii. 17, 30; xxi. 18; Juo. viii. 51; x. 28;
xi. 26, 56; 1 Thess. iv. 15; 1 Cor. viii. 13; 2 Pet. i. 10; Rev. ii. 11;
iii. 3, 12; xviii. 7, 21 f.; xxi. 25, 27. There is a preponderance
of evidence for the Subj. in Matt. xvi. 28; xxvi. 35; Mark ix. 41;
xvi. 18; Luke i. 15; ix. 27; xviii. 7, 30; xxii. 68; Jno. vi. 35;
529 viii. 12, 52; xiii. 8; Rom. iv. 8; Gal. v. 16; 1 Thess. v. 3. There
is at least as much evidence for the Subj. as for the Fut. in Mark
xiv. 31; Luke xxi. 33; Matt. xv. 5; xxiv. 35; Gal. iv. 30; Heb.
x. 17; Rev. ix. 6 (xviii. 14).¹ The authorities decidedly favor
is to be considered as elliptical: οὐ μὴ ποιήσῃ for οὐ δέδοικα or οὐ φόβος, οὐ δέος ἐστί
(there is no fear) µǹ π. see Ast, Plat. polit. p. 365; Matthiae, Eurip. Hippol. p. 24 ;
Sprachl. II. 1174; Hm. Soph. Oed. C. 1028; Hartung II. 156. This involves, indeed,
the assumption that the Greeks lost sight of the origin of the expression; for in many
passages "there is no fear that" is not appropriate, (in the N. T. Matt. v. 20; xviii. 3;
Luke xxii. 16; Jno. iv. 48). Earlier Hm. (Eurip. Med. p. 390 sq.) had explained the
phrase differently, cf. also Gayl. p. 402. The connective οὐδὲ μή (καὶ οὐ μή) occurs in
the N. T. only in Rev. vii. 16 (var.), but frequently in the Sept. e.g. Exod. xxii. 21 ;
xxiii. 13; Josh. xxiii. 7; and ovdels un in Wisd. i. 8. Generally, où un is of very
frequent occurrence in the Sept., and its prevalence may probably be referred to that
effort after expressiveness, characteristic of the later language. The instances have
been collected by Gayl. p. 441 sqq. It is not the fact, however, that in the N. T.
(Hitzig, Joh. Marc. S. 106) Mark and the Revelation display a predilection for où µh.
A concordance will prove the contrary.
1 It must not be overlooked that sometimes the Future form may be occasioned in
MSS. by a preceding or following Future, as in Jno. viii. 12 où µǹ πeρiwaтhσei... àλṛ
ἕξει.
§ 56. CONSTRUCTION OF NEGATIVE PARTICLES.
507
the Fut. in Luke x. 19; xxii. 34; Jno. iv. 14; x. 5. The Fut. is 450
established (without var.) in Matt. xvi. 22 où μn čoтai σol Toûтo 6th ed.
(absit) ne tibi accidat hoc. Accordingly the Subj. is indisputably
predominant in the N. T. (cf. Lob. Phryn. p. 722 sq.), and this is
no less the case in Greek authors, see Hartung, Partik. II. 156 f.
Hermann's rule on the whole does not apply to the N. T.; for
although several passages might be interpreted in accordance with
it, yet others in turn are at variance with it, and the Aor. is em-
ployed where the Fut. should have been used, as e.g. 1 Thess.
iv. 15 ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ
κυρίου οὐ μὴ φθάσωμεν τοὺς κοιμηθέντας, where the point of time
is very definitely in mind viz. on the day of Christ's second coming;
and Heb. viii. 11, where in où μn didá§wow there is reference to a
precise time (the Messianic period, vs. 10), and duration also is
indicated, cf. Rev. xxi. 25. In fact, the Subj. Aor. in the sense
of the Future had become usual in later Greek, cf. Lob. as above,
p. 723; Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 57. Mdv. also S. 127 discovers no
perceptible difference between the Fut. and the Aor. in this con-
struction. (Gayl. 440 sqq. has catalogued all the passages in the
Sept. where où µý occurs.)
The statement of Dawes, however, which recognizes no difference of
meaning between the Aor. and Fut. in this construction, but as respects
the former allows only the 2d Aor. Act. (and Mid.) in Greek texts, has
been almost universally rejected (see Mtth. II. 1175 f.; Stallb. Plat. rep.
II. 343; on the other hand, Bhdy. 402 f.), and cannot be applied to the
N. T., where the 1st Aor. is as frequent as the 2d Aor. even in verbs 473
that have a 2d Aor. in common use, (var. see Rev. xviii. 14).
7th ed
Sometimes où un is followed, according to a few Codd., by a Present
Indic., viz. in Jno. iv. 48 ἐὰν μὴ σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ἴδητε, οὐ μὴ πιστεύετε, and
Heb. xiii. 5 Sept. où un σe èукuтаλeinw; indeed, one Cod. (quoted by
Griesb.) has in Rev. iii. 12 the Optative, où µǹ ééλo. The last is un-
doubtedly only a mistake of a transcriber, misled by the ear (the case is
different in the orat. obliq. in Soph. Philoct. 611, Schaef. in loc.; cf. also
the same on Demosth. II. 321), and the Subjunctive was long ago restored.
Likewise in Heb. as above, eykataλíπw is undoubtedly the true reading.
But in Jno. iv. 48 perhaps the reading ought to be reŋte, as the Subj. 530
Present is so used in Greek authors also, as in Soph. Ocd. Col. 1024 oùs
οὐ μή ποτε χώρας φυγόντες τῆς δ᾽ ἐπεύχωνται θεοῖς (according to Im.
and others), Xen. C. 8, 1, 5; An. 2, 2, 12 (see Hm. Eurip. Med. Elmsl.
p. 390; Stallb. Plat. polit. p. 51; Ast, Plat. pol. p. 365), and, as in the
passage from John, after a conditional clause with eáv in Xen. Hier. 11, 15
ἐὰν τοὺς φίλους κρατῇς εὖ ποιῶν, οὐ μή σοι δύνωνται ἀντέχειν οἱ πολέμιοι, and
77
508
§ 57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES.
In John, however, there is pre-
must be added] for Tiσtevσnte,
frequently in Demosth. (Gayl. p. 437).
ponderant MS. authority [to which Sin.
which Lehm. and Tdf. have adopted. What Hm. Iphig. Taur. p. 102
says of an Indic. Pres. after où μn, the received text would hardly substan-
tiate. As to Luke xviii. 7 see § 57, 3 and p. 494.
This intensive où µý is used also in dependent clauses: not merely in
relative clauses Matt. xvi. 28; Luke xviii. 30; Acts xiii. 41, but also in
451 objective clauses with or Luke xiii. 35; xxii. 16; Matt. xxiv, 34; Jno.
6th al xi. 56 τί δοκεῖ ὑμῖν, ὅτι οὐ μὴ ἔλθῃ εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν ; what think ye ? that he
will not come to the feast? Likewise in direct question with rís, Rev. xv. 4
Tís où µǹ poßηon; Cf. with the former passages, Xen. C. 8, 1, 5 TOûTO yàp
εὖ εἰδέναι χρή, ὅτι οὐ μὴ δύνηται Κύρος εὑρεῖν etc. Thuc. 5, 69 ; and with
the latter, Neh. ii. 3 διὰ τί οὐ μὴ γένηται πονηρόν etc. On οὐ μή in an
interrogative clause, without an interrogative pronoun, construed with a
Subjunctive or a Future (Ruth iii. 1), see § 57, 3, p. 511 sq.
Note. Not..., no one..., nothing... except, is commonly expressed by
ov..., ovdeís
οὐδείς . . .,
ovdév ... ei µý, as in Matt. xi. 27; xxi. 19; Luke iv. 26;
Jno. xvii. 12, etc. (Klotz, Devar. p. 524). More rarely the negation is
followed by Tλýν, as in Acts xx. 23; xxvii. 22; is found only in Jno.
xiii. 10 text. rec.: ὁ λελουμένος οὐκ ἔχει χρείαν ἢ τοὺς πόδας νίψασθαι. Most
Codd. have ei un, and this Lehm. has adopted. The latter, however, may be
a correction of the rarer ", which yet occasionally occurs, Xen. C. 7, 5, 41.
§ 57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES.
1. In the N. T., interrogative sentences (cf. Krü. 250 f.) which
commence neither with an interrogative pronoun, nor with a
special interrogative adverb (πws, ποû etc.),
474 a. if direct, have usually no interrogative particle (Jno. vii. 23;
7th ed. xiii. 6; xix. 10; Acts xxi. 37; Luke xiii. 2; 1 Cor. v. 2; Rom.
531
ii. 21; Gal. iii. 21, etc.).¹ Sometimes, however, contrary to the
usage of the written language of the Greeks, el is employed before
a question in which the inquirer merely discloses his uncertainty,
without intimating that he expects a reply (see no. 2).
b. if indirect, they are introduced by ei (which is here, too, the
conditional conjunction).2
1 Hence it is sometimes matter of dispute among commentators whether a particular
sentence is to be taken as interrogative or not, e.g. Jno. xvi. 31; Rom. viii. 33; xiv. 22;
1 Cor. i. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 1; xii. 19; Heb. x. 2; Jas. ii. 4; or how many words are
comprehended in an interrogation, e.g. Jno. vii. 19; Rom. iv. 1. On this, Grammar
can ordinarily give no decision.
2 How ei acquires the general force of an interrogative particle, see Hartung, Partik.
II. 201 ff.; cf. Klotz, Devar. 508.
§ 57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES.
509
πότερον
In direct double questions Tóreρov... is used only once, Jno.
vii. 17; elsewhere the first question is without an interrogative
particle, Luke xx. 4; Gal. i. 10; iii. 2; Rom. ii. 3, etc., and only
the second has й,- if negative, ou Matt. xxii. 17; Luke xx. 22,
oruń Mark xii. 14; cf. Bos, Ellips. p. 759; Klotz, Devar. 576 sq.
Sometimes, moreover, is used in an interrogative sentence which
refers to a preceding categorical sentence (like the Latin an, see
Hand, Tursell. I. 349) 2 Cor. xi. 7 εἰ καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ
τῇ γνώσει ... ἡ ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησα ἐμαυτὸν ταπεινῶν; or did I
commit an offence? Rom. vi. 3 (Dio C. 282, 20) etc. cf. Lehmann,
Lucian. II. 331 sq.
6; Jon. iv. 4, 9; Joel i. 2;
Perhaps this use originated
(Mey. on Matt. xii. 10); cf.
2. The following are instances of the singular use of ei in direct
questions (especially in Luke): Acts i. 6 èπηρúτwv avtòv Xéyovtes •
κύριε, εἰ . . . ἀποκαθιστάνεις τὴν βασιλείαν ; Luke xxii. 49 εἶπον· 452
Kúpie, el Taтážoμev ev paxaípą; Matt. xii. 10; xix. 3; Luke xiii. 23; 6th ed.
Acts xix. 2; xxi. 37; xxii. 25; Mark viii. 23 (on Matt. xx. 15
see Mey.); cf. Sept. Gen. xvii. 17; xliii. 6; 1 Sam. x. 24; 2 Sam.
ii. 1; xx. 17; 1 Kings xiii. 14; xxii.
Tob. v. 5; 2 Macc. vii. 7; Ruth i. 19.
in an ellipsis: I should like to know
the indirect inquiry in German, ob das wahr ist? But at the
period of which we are treating ei had attained to all the rights of
a direct interrogative (cf. Schneider, Plat. civ. I. 417), like the
Lat. an which later writers also use in direct question; and it
would be affectation to insist on taking e as equivalent to the
indirect an (Fr. Mt. p. 425; Mr. p. 327). The si by which this 532
el is rendered in the Vulgate has become in the same way a direct,
from an indirect (Liv. 39, 50), interrogative particle. That even
in Greek authors el is sometimes used in direct questions (Hoogev.
doctr. partic. I. 327) was asserted again by Stallb. Phileb. p. 117,
but denied correctly in regard to Attic prose by Bornem. Xen.
Apol. p. 39 sq., and Stallb. recalled his statement, Plat. Alcib.
I. 231; cf., further, Herm. Lucian. conser. hist. p. 221; Fr. Mr.
p. 328, and Klotz, Devar. 511. In the passage, Odyss. 1, 158, ad- 475
duced by Zeune, Vig. p. 506, ei was long ago corrected into ; in 7th ed.
Plato rep. 5, 478 d. all good Codd. have evrós for ei, and in Aristoph.
nub. 483 (Palairet, observatt. p. 60) ei does not mean num, but
an in an indirect question. So also in Demosth. Callicl. p. 735 b.
On the other hand, Dio Chr. 30, 299 εἴ τι ἄλλο ὑμῖν προςέταξεν,
ἐπέστειλεν ἢ διελέχθη; where follows the answer: πολλὰ καὶ
δαιμόνια — is probably corrupted (Reiske proposes ἦ τι ἄλλο),
510
§ 57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES.
or it is to be taken as an indirect question: but if he gave you any
other injunction? (may be asked, some one will perhaps ask).
Schneider, even in Plat. civ. 4, 440 e., retains on manuscript
authority el, which recent editors had changed into (ảλλ') ; but
he explains this use of the particle in (only apparently) a direct
question by an ellipsis, and has expunged the mark of interrogation.
(Some have wanted to take or also as a direct interrogative in
the N. T., but without sufficient reason, see § 53, 10, 5 p. 456 sq.).
The interrogative apa is originally apa strengthened, and in an inter-
rogative sentence, distinguished as such by the voice, denotes the conclusion
from something preceding, whether a negative answer is expected (where
apa is equivalent to num igitur), or an affirmative (ergone) Klotz, Devar.
180 sqq.¹ The former is the more usual in prose (Hm. Vig. 823), and
occurs in the N. T. Luke xviii. 8 apa evρýσeɩ tǹv níotiv ènì tôŷs yŷs; will
he then find faith on the earth? and apάye Acts viii. 30, cf. Xen. Mem.
3, 8, 3 ἆραγε, ἔφη, ἐρωτᾷς με, εἴ τι οἶδα πυρετοῦ ἀγαθόν; οὐκ ἔγωγ᾽, ἔφη. On
the other hand, in Gal. ii. 17 åpa might be rendered by ergone: is Christ
therefore a minister of sin? (cf. Schaef. Melet. p. 89; Stallb. Plat. rep.
453 II. 223; Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 415). Others read apa without a question;
6th ed. this is opposed, however, by the fact that Paul invariably makes a ques-
tion precede un yévoiro, see Mey. in loc.
To the interrogative particles, Tŵs, Tóτe, woû, etc., which are appropriated
533 to direct questions, correspond, as is well known, in indirect questions
476
(and discourse) the relative forms oπws, oπóтe, orov, etc. (Bttm. II. 277).
Even Attic authors, however, do not always observe the distinction (see
Kühner II. 583; Hm. Soph. Antig. p. 80; Poppo, ind. ad Xenoph. Cyrop.
under wŵs and πоû), and later writers neglect it frequently. In the N. T.
the interrogative forms are predominant even in indirect discourse (Tóbev
Jno. vii. 27, πoû Matt. viii. 20; Jno. iii. 8; on Tŵs see Wahl, Clav. 439).
"Oπov in the N. T. is employed rather as a strict relative.
3. In negative interrogative sentences,
a. où where an affirmative answer is expected (Hartung, Partik.
II. 88) is commonly equivalent to nonne, as in Matt. vii. 22 ov
7th ed. T o óvóμатɩ πρоεÓηтеúσaper; have we not? etc. xiii. 27; Luke
xii. 6; xvii. 17; Jas. ii. 5; Heb. iii. 16; 1 Cor. ix. 1; xiv. 23.
Sometimes, when the speaker himself assumes a negative answer,
où is used with an expression of indignation and reproach, Acts
xiii. 10 οὐ παύσῃ διαστρέφων τὰς ὁδοὺς κυρίου τὰς εὐθείας; wilt thou
not cease etc.? The tone employed indicates, as with us, the par-
1 A different view is taken by Leidenroth, de vera vocum origine ac vi per linguar.
comparationem investiganda (Lips. 1830. 8vo.) p. 59 sqq. Further, see on apa and
apa Sheppard in the Classical Museum, no. 18.
§ 57. INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES.
511
ticular cast of the question: WILT thou not cease? (i.e. thou wilt
cease wilt thou not?) is nonne desines? but, wilt thou not CEASE?
(i.e. wilt thou persist?) is non desines? The où here negatives
the verb (non desinere i. q. pergere), see Franke I. 15. Cf. Plut.
Lucull. c. 40 οὐ παύσῃ σὺ πλουτῶν μὲν ὡς Κράσσος, ζῶν δ' ὡς Λού
KOUλλos, λéywv dè és Káтwv; So also Luke xvii. 18; Mark xiv. 60.
Оuk apa in Acts xxi. 38 means non igitur, art thou not therefore
(as I supposed, but as I now see denied) etc. Klotz, Devar. 186,
(nonne, as the Vulgate renders it, would rather be, in connection
with nevertheless, ap' où or ovкovv, see Hm. Vig. 795, 824).
b. Mń (µýti) is used, when a negative answer is presumed or
expected (Franke as above, 18).¹ Jno. vii. 31 µǹ πλelova onµeîa
Tońσe; surely he will not do more signs will he? (that is not
conceivable), xxi. 5; Rom. iii. 5 (Philippi is incorrect), ix. 20;
xi. 1; Matt. vii. 16; Mark iv. 21; Acts x. 47, etc. Both inter-
rogatives are (in accordance with the above distinction) used con-
secutively in Luke vi. 39 μήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν ;
οὐχὶ ἀμφότεροι εἰς βόθυνον πεσοῦνται; The assertion of Hu. (Vig.
789), that μn sometimes anticipates an affirmative answer, has
been contested by Franke 1. c. and others; some interpreters,
however, have wanted to take it so sometimes in the N. T. (Lücke,
Joh. I. 602; cf. Fr. Mtth. p. 432). But the speaker always has
his eye on a negative answer, and would not be surprised if he
received such: Jno. iv. 33 has any one brought him anything to 534
eat? (I can't believe it, especially here in the country of the
Samaritans !), viii. 22: will he kill himself? (yet we cannot believe
that of him), cf. Matt. xii. 23; Jno. iv. 29; vii. 26, 35. Occa- 454
sionally there exists an inclination to believe what is asked; but 6th ed.
inasmuch as the question is put negatively, the speaker assumes
the appearance, at least, of wishing a negative reply. Some have
taken μή in the sense of nonne likewise in Jas. iii. 14 εἰ ζῆλον πικρὸν
ἔχετε ... μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε καὶ ψεύδεσθε κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας - but
incorrectly. The sentence is categorical: do not boast (of your
Christian knowledge, vs. 13) against the truth.
occurs in a question, où belongs to the verb of the sentence, and
un alone is interrogatory, as in Rom. x. 18 μn oỷк коvσav; did
they fail to hear? (i.e. it can't be that they did not hear, can it?)
vs. 19; 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5; xi. 22 (Judg. vi. 13; xiv. 3; Jer. viii. 4;
Xen. Mem. 4, 2, 12; Plat. Meno p. 89 c. and Lysias 213 d.; Acta
Apocr. p. 79). On the other hand, où un is merely a strengthened 477
1 As to the Latin num, see Hand, Tursell. p. 320.
When μὴ οὐ
7th ed.
512
§ 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS.
form of a simple negation which may stand either interrogatively
or not: Jno. xviii. 11 où µỳ πíw avтó; shall I not drink it? Arrian.
Epictet. 3, 22, 33, see § 56, 3, 505 sq.
Acts vii. 42 μὴ σφάγια καὶ θυσίας προςηνέγκατέ μοι ἔτη τεσσαράκοντα ἐν
Tỷ phμ; (from Amos): did ye offer to me... in the wilderness? (ye did
not, did ye?); the narrative then proceeds with kaì aveλáßere, because the
question implies: ye brought me no offerings for forty years and ye (even)
took up etc. A different view is given by Fr. Mr. p. 66. On the other
hand, see Mey. The passage in Amos has not yet been itself duly ex-
plained. Perhaps the prophet follows a different tradition from that
contained in the Pentateuch. As to Luke xviii. 7 see above, p. 494.
In Matt. vii. 9 τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος, ὃν ἐὰν αἰτήσῃ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἄρτον,
μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ; two questions are blended: who is there among
you that... would give? and, would one if asked for give (surely
he would not give, would he)? Cf. Luke xi. 11 and Bornem. in loc.
•
•
Note. As to Jno. xviii. 37 see, in particular, Hm. Vig. 794. Ovkovv is
non (nonne) ergo with or without a question, ovkoûv ergo (the negation
being dropped). Now if we read the above passage interrogatively ouKOVV
ožkovv
Baσideùs eî σú; it will mean, art thou then not a king? nonne ergo
(Hm. Vig. 795) rex es? and the speaker thinks of an affirmative answer
(after the words of Jesus Baoiλeía ý čµý etc.), see no. 3. But ovκoûv
(as editors have it) Baσideùs el σú is simpler: thou art a king then, ergo
535 rex es (perhaps with a touch of irony, see Bremi, Demosth. p. 238) with
or without a question (Xen. Cyr. 2, 4, 15; 5, 2, 26. 29; Aristot. rhet. 3,
18, 14, etc.). Ovkov gets the meaning of therefore, then, accordingly
because originally oukoûv also was regarded as interrogative, thou art a
king then? (is it not so? is that not true ?), see Hm. Vig. p. 794 sq.; cf.
Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 432 sq.¹ A question appears to me more suitable
to the speaker as a magistrate, and Lücke has expressed the same opinion.
At all events, oùкoûv cannot signify non igitur, as Kühnöl and Bretschneider
maintain; in that case it would require to be written separately oủk ovv.
455 B. STRUCTURE OF PROPOSITIONS AND THEIR COMBINATION
6th ed.
INTO PERIODS.
478
7th ed. § 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS, IN GENERAL.
1. The necessary parts of a simple sentence are Subject, Predi-
cate, and Copula. As, however, the Subject and the Predicate
may be supplemented and enlarged in a variety of ways by means
1 Rost 742 and Gayl. p. 149 are opposed to distinguishing the words by means of
accentuation.
§ 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS.
513
of adjuncts; so again the Predicate is frequently, and the Subject
sometimes, blended with the Copula. The limits of the Copula
are never doubtful; but it may sometimes be uncertain which and
how many words constitute the Subject or the Predicate, as in
Rom. i. 17; 2 Cor. i. 17; xi. 13; xiii. 7. In this event we en-
counter not a grammatical but a hermeneutical inquiry.
The Infinitive (by itself), when it stands for the Imperative (Phil.
iii. 16), see § 43, 5 p. 316, is not a complete sentence, because every gram-
matical indication of the subject is wanting, which in other moods is given
by the person of the verb.
2. The Subject and the Predicate are regularly nouns (includ-
ing Infinitives used as substantives, Phil. i. 22, 29; 1 Thess. iv. 3);
but sometimes whole clauses take their place: Luke xxii. 37 TÒ
γεγραμμένον δεῖ τελεσθῆναι ἐν ἐμοί, τό· καὶ μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη,
1 Thess. iv. 1 παρελάβετε παρ' ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν,
Matt. xv. 26 οὐκ ἔστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων etc. The 536
case of the Subject (in independent sentences) is, as everybody
knows, the Nominative, (in dependent the Accusative, Acc. with
Inf.); yet the Partitive Genitive also may elliptically stand as the
Subject, Acts xxi. 16 see § 30, 8, note 2. On the other hand, the
alleged use of èv as nota nominativi, in imitation of the Hebrew ?
essentiae, does not merit a moment's consideration, and the latter
itself is a grammatical figment; see § 29, note, p. 184.
Deserving of distinct mention is the Predicate which consists of a Par-
ticiple with the Article, as in Matt. x. 20 οὐ γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ οἱ λαλοῦντες,
Jno. v. 32; xiv. 28; Phil. ii. 13; Rom. viii. 33; Gal. i. 7, etc.; this is to
be carefully distinguished from the participle without the article, cf. Mtth.
717; Fr. Rom. II. 212 sq.
3. The Copula, as is well known, regularly agrees with the
Subject in number, the Predicate in number and gender; except
that when the Predicate consists of a substantive it may differ in
gender and number from the Subject, e.g. 2 Cor. i. 14 kaúɣnµa
ὑμῶν ἐσμέν, 1 Thess. ii. 20 ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἡ δόξα ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ χαρά, Jno. 479
xi. 25 èyí eiμɩ ǹ ȧváσтασis Kaì η gan, viii. 12; 2 Cor. iii. 2; Rom. 7th ed.
vii. 13 ; Eph. i. 23 ἥτις (ἡ ἐκκλησία) ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ (see § 24,
3); 1 Cor. xi. 7; Col. iv. 11; Luke xxii. 20.1 Yet deviations 456
from the preceding rule occur, even in prose, when the writer pays
6th ed.
more regard to the meaning of the subject than to its grammatical
1 Instances in which the Neuter has a depreciatory force, as in 1 Cor. vi. 11 Taûrá
TIVES TE, grammatically considered, come likewise under this head.
65
514
§ 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS.
form. This takes place more frequently in Greek than in Latin.
Consequently
a. A Singular Predicate (Copula) is joined to a Neuter Plural,
mostly when the Subject is lifeless, and may be regarded as a mass
(Bhdy. 418; Mtth. 761); as, Jno. x. 25 тà epya... μаρт.νρеî περì
μαρτυρεῖ
ἐμοῦ, 2 Pet. ii. 20 γέγονεν αὐτοῖς τὰ ἔσχατα χείρονα τῶν πρώτων,
Acts i. 18; xxvi. 24; Juo. ix. 3; x. 21; iii. 23; xix. 31; Rev.
viii. 3. But
σι
a) when prominence is to be given to the plurality and diver-
sity of the objects (Weber, Demosth. p. 529), the Pred. is put
in the Plural, as Juo. xix. 31 iva KaтEаywσiv aurav (of the three
persons crucified) τὰ σκέλη (previously ἵνα μὴ μείνῃ τὰ σώματα
is used, cf. also vi. 13; Rev. xxi. 12; xx. 7; Xen. An. 1, 7, 17);
seldom otherwise, 1 Tim. v. 25 τὰ ἄλλως ἔχοντα (ἔργα) κρυβῆναι
οὐ δύνανται, Rev. i. 19 ἃ εἶδες καὶ ἃ εἰσίν (but immediately
afterwards à pérλei yíveolai), Luke xxiv. 11 (not Rom. iii. 2, see
§ 39, 1 a.). In 2 Pet. iii. 10 Sing. and Plur. are united. Likewise
537 in Greek authors (Rost 475; Kühner II. 50) the Plural of the
verb is not unfrequently used, especially when instead of the Neut.
another substantive, Masculine or Feminine, may be in the mind
(Hm. Soph. Elect. p. 67; Poppo, Thucyd. I. I. 97 f. and Cyrop.
p. 116; yet see Schneider, Plat. civ. I. 93); yet in other cases also,
cf. Xen. Cyr. 2, 2, 2; Anab. 1, 4, 4; Hipparch. 8, 10; Thuc. 6,
62; Ael. anim. 11, 37; Plat. rep. 1, 353 c.
B) neuters, however, which denote or refer to animate objects,
especially persons, are almost always construed with a Plural
Pred.; as, Matt. x. 21 επαναστήσονται τέκνα ἐπὶ γονεῖς καὶ θανατώ
σουσιν αὐτούς, Jas. ii. 19 τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν,
Jno. x. 8 οὐκ ἤκουσαν αὐτῶν τὰ πρόβατα, Mark iii. 11; v. 18;
vii. 28; Matt. vi. 26; xii. 21; 2 Tim. iv. 17; Rev. iii. 2, 4; xi. 13,
18; xvi. 14; xix. 21 (Matt. xxvii. 52 πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμη
µévæv ȧyíwv nyéponσav, Rev. xi. 13). In other passages the Codd.
μένων ἠγέρθησαν,
vary remarkably, and there is a preponderance of authority for the
Sing. in Mark iv. 4; Luke iv. 41; viii. 38; xiii. 19; Juo. x. 12;
1 Jno. iv. 1; Rev. xviii. 3; indeed, in Luke viii. 2 is found without
var. ἀφ' ἧς δαιμόνια ἑπτὰ ἐξεληλύθει, νε. 30 εἰςῆλθεν δαιμόνια πολλά,
and in 1 Jno. iii. 10 φανερά ἐστιν τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὰ τ. τοῦ
Siaẞóλov. Cf. also Eph. iv. 17 and Rom. ix. 8. The Sing. and
Plur. are connected in Jno. x. 4 τὰ πρόβατα αὐτῷ ἀκολουθεῖ, ὅτι
480 οἴδασιν τὴν φωνὴν αὐτοῦ, 27 τὰ πρόβατα τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούει
7th ed. kai ȧkoλovlovol poi, Rev. xvi. 14; cf. 1 Sam. ix. 12. Lastly
σ
§ 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS.
515
in Rev. xvii. 12 τὰ δέκα κέρατα δέκα βασιλεῖς εἰσίν the Plur. of the
verb is more appropriate, on account of the Predicate noun, cf.
1 Cor. x. 11. The use of the Plural Pred. with animate Subjects
is the rule in Greek authors also, cf. Xen. Cyr. 2, 3, 9 Tà Côα
ἐπίστανται, Plat. Lach. 180 e. τὰ μειράκια ἐπιμέμνηνται, Thuc. 1,
58; 4, 88; 7, 57; Eur. Bacch. 677 f.; Arrian. Alex. 3, 28, 11;
5, 17, 12; see Hm. Vig. 739.
•
In general, the construction of Neuters with Plural verbs is more
frequent in Greek prose authors than is usually supposed (though the 457
Codd. vary noticeably), Reitz, Lucian. VII. 483 Bip.; Ast, Plat. legg. 6th ed
p. 46; Zell, Aristot. Ethic. Nicom. p. 4 and 209; Bremi, exc. 10 ad Lys.
p. 448 sq.; Held, Plutarch. Aem. Paull. p. 280; Ellendt, praef. ad Arrian.
I. 21 sq.; Bornem. Xen. Cyrop. p. 173, but chiefly in later writers, and
that without any distinction (Agath. 4, 5; 9, 15; 26, 9; 28, 1; 32, 6;
39, 10; 42, 6, etc.; Thilo, Apocr. I. 182; Boisson. Psell. p. 257 sq.; Dresser,
ind. to Epiphan. monach. p. 136). The proposal of Jacobs (Athen. p. 228,
cf. also Heind. Cratyl. p. 137) to substitute the Singular in all such pas-
sages was apparently retracted subsequently by that scholar himself (cf.
Jacobs, Philostr. imag. p. 236), though where Codd. offer the Singular 538
we may, with Boisson. Eunap. p. 420, 601, give it the preference.
ELVO
What was said of the Singular of the Pred. after Neuters applies only
to the form of the verb; if the Predicate consists of elvai or yíveolau with
an adjective, the latter is put in the Plur. while the verb is Sing., as in
Gal. v. 19 φανερά ἐστιν τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, 1 Cor. xiv. 25 τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς
καρδίας αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται.
ô
१
4. b. Collectives denoting animate objects are construed with
a Plural Pred. : Matt. xxi. 8 ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος ἔστρωσαν ἑαυτῶν
Tà iµária (Mark ix. 15; Luke vi. 19; xxiii. 1), 1 Cor. xvi. 15
οἴδατε τὴν οἰκίαν Στεφανᾶ, ὅτι ... εἰς διακονίαν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἔταξαν
ἑαυτούς, Rev. xviii. 4 ἐξέλθετε ἐξ αὐτῆς, ὁ λαός μου (Hesiod. scut.
327), also ix. 18 ἀπεκτάνθησαν τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀνθρώπων, siii. 9
(but Sing. viii. 8 f., 11); Luke viii. 37; Acts xxv. 24. Elsewhere
the Plur. and the Sing. of the verb or Pred. occur in connection, as
in Jno. vi. 2 ήκολούθει αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς, ὅτι ἑώρων (xii. 9 f.,
12 f., 18), Luke i. 21 ἦν ὁ λαὸς προςδοκῶν καὶ ἐθαύμαζον, Acts
xv. 12 (1 Cor. xvi. 15). The Plural, in reference to a Collective,
occurs in Luke ix. 12 ἀπόλυσον τὸν ὄχλον, ἵνα ἀπελθόντες . . . κατα-
Xúowo etc. When the Pred. consists of an adjective with elva,
the adjective is of course not only Plur. but also in the gender of
the persons, as in Jno. vii. 49 ὁ ὄχλος οὗτος . . . ἐπάρατοί εἰσιν.
ó
On the other hand, attributives in such constructions may stand
either in the Plur. or the Sing. ;-in the Sing. when they precede
516
§ 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS.
the Substantive, as Mark ix. 15 πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἰδόντες . . . ἐξεθαμβή
481 Onoav (Luke xix. 37; Acts v. 16; xxi. 36; xxv. 24), Luke xxiii. 1
7th ed. ἀναστὰν ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος ἤγαγον αὐτόν. Yet in the N. Τ. the
regular construction of Collectives with a Sing. Pred. is the more
usual. The Plural construction often occurs in the Sept. also, as
in Judg. ii. 10; Ruth iv. 11; 1 Sam. xii. 18 f.; 1 Kings iii. 2;
viii. 66; xii. 12; Isa. li. 4; Judith vi. 18 (Xaós is almost invariably
construed with a Plural verb), and it is by no means rare in Greek
authors ; as, Her. 9, 23 ὥς σφι τὸ πλῆθος ἐπεβοήθησαν, Philostr.
her. p. 709 σтрρатòs älvμоi noаv, Thuc. 1, 20; 4, 128; Xen. Mem.
4, 3, 10; Aelian. anim. 5, 54; Plutarch. Mar. p. 418 c.; Pausan.
7,9,3; see Reitz, Lucian. VI. 533 Lehm; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 446;
Krüger, Dion. H. p. 234; Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 529 sq.; Ellendt,
Arrian. Alex. I. 105.
Ο
458 Here belongs in the main also 1 Tim. ii. 15 σωθήσεται δὲ ἡ γυνὴ) διὰ
6th ed. τῆς τεκνογονίας, ἐὰν μείνωσιν (αἱ γυναῖκες) ἐν πίστει, for ἡ γυνή which is to
539 be supplied is to be understood of the whole sex. But in Jno. xvi. 32 iva
σκορπισθῆτε ἕκαστος εἰς τὰ ἴδια, the Plural verb is not the immediate pred-
icate of KaσTos, but kaσтos is annexed to the Plural as explanatory, as
in Acts ii. 6 kovov els ékaotos tŷ idíų diadékti, Rev. xx. 13 (v. 8) 1 Pet.
iv. 10; Acts xi. 29; see Hes. scut. 283; Aelian. anim. 15, 5; Var. Hist.
14, 46; Wesseling, Diod. Sic. II. 105; Brunck, Aristoph. Plut. 784; Jacobs,
Achill. Tat. p. 622. Similar to this is Acts ii. 12 and 1 Cor. iv. 6 iva µn
εἷς ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἑνὸς φυσιοῦσθε κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου. On the other hand, in
Acts ii. 3 a suggestion of the Singular subject for ékáðiσe (for ékáðioav is
obviously a correction, to conform to pŋσav) is contained in épéva
ÉKασTOV AUTŵV. Other instances of a transition from the Plur. of a verb
to the Sing. have been collected by Heind. Plat. Protag. p. 499; Jacobs,
Aelian. anim. II. 100.
ex
καθή
Collectives have influenced only the gender of the Pred. in Luke x. 13
εἰ ἐν Τύρῳ καὶ Σιδῶνι ἐγενήθησαν αἱ δυνάμεις ... πάλαι ἂν ἐν σάκκῳ κ
μενοι (the inhabitants) μετενόησαν.
Note 1. Some have thought that a preceding Sing. verb construed with
a (Masc. or Fem.) Plural Subject (the schema Pindaricum, Mtth. 766;
Hm. Soph. Trach. p. 86) occurs in Luke ix. 28 éyéveto... úseì ýµépaι ỏKTú.
ἡμέραι
But ἐγένετο is to be taken by itself, and ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτώ as a detached
expression of time inserted parenthetically, see § 62, 2. On the other
hand, in Luke ix. 13 cloív is not construed with #λéov, but the latter is an
unconnected insertion (cf. Xen. Anab. 1, 2, 11), and cioív belongs to apro.
That the Imperat. aye, which is nearly a pure interjection, is connected
with a Plural subject without disturbing the construction, in Jas. iv. 13
ἄγε νῦν οἱ λέγοντες and v. 1 ἄγε νῦν οἱ πλούσιοι, is obvious. This
usage is frequent in Greek prose authors, e.g. Xen. Cyr. 4, 2, 47; 5, 3, 4;
§ 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS.
517
Apol. 14; cf. Alberti, observ. on Jas. iv. 13; Palairet, observ. p. 502 sq.;
Wetsten. N. T. II. 676; Bornem. Xen. Apol. p. 52 (similar to which is
the Latin age, Hand, Tursell. I. 205). Likewise pépe is so used Himer.
orat. 17, 6.
σ
Note 2. Here may be introduced also a remark, in passing, on the
usage according to which a Plural verb and pronoun are employed by an 482
individual speaker in reference to himself (Glass. I. 320 sqq.). The libed
communicative force is still manifest in Mark iv. 30 mus poiwowpev
τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ ἐν τίνι αὐτὴν παραβολῇ θῶμεν; Jno. iii. 11. It
occurs much more frequently in the Epistles (as among the Romans scrip-
simus, misimus), where the author speaks in his apostolic character, as in
Rom. i. 5; cf. vs. 6 (otherwise explained by van Hengel, Rom. p. 52),
Col. iv. 3 cf. the immediately following dédeua, Heb. xiii. 18 cf. vs. 19;
Gal. i. 8. Only it is necessary to distinguish from this usage the case in
which the writer really includes other persons, though it may be difficult
in particular instances to specify when and what persons he means besides
himself, and at any rate that cannot be determined on grammatical grounds. 540
In Eph. i. 3 ff. and 1 Cor. iv. 9 the Plural proper is undoubtedly used. 459
As to Jno. xxi. 24 see Mey. (In 1 Cor. xv. 31 according to the reading 6th ed.
καθ' ἡμέραν ἀποθνήσκω, νὴ τὴν ἡμετέραν καύχησιν, ἣν ἔχω, the Sing. and the
Plur. would be used together; but iμerépav [which also Cod. Sin. gives]
is here unquestionably to be preferred.)
KETÒV
5. Such sentences as the following are not to be regarded as
instances of grammatical discord between the Subj. and Pred. :
Matt. vi. 34 ἀρκετὸν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἡ κακία αὐτῆς, 2 Cor. ii. 6 ἱκανὸν
τῷ τοιούτῳ ἡ ἐπιτιμία αὕτη. The Neuters here are used as sub-
stantives: a sufficiency for such a one is, like triste lupus stabulis
(Virg. ecl. 3, 80) a sad thing for the folds, (Ast, Plat. polit. p. 413;
Hm. Vig. p. 699). Instances in Greek authors are: Her. 3, 36
σοφὸν ἡ προμηθίη, Xen. Hi. 6, 9 ὁ πόλεμος φοβερόν, Diog. L. 1, 98
kaλòv ýovɣía, Xen. M. 2, 3, 1; Plat. legg. 4, 707 a.; Plut. paedag.
4,3; Lucian. philops. 7; Isocr. Demon. p. 8; Plat. conviv. p. 176 d.;
Aristot. rhet. 2, 2, 46 and eth. Nic. 8, 1, 3; Lucian. fug. 13; Plut.
mul. virt. p. 225 Tauchn.; Aelian. anim. 2, 10; Dio Chr. 40. 494;
Sext. Emp. math. 11, 96. Cf. Georgi, Hierocr. I. 51; Wetsten.
I. 337; Kypke, obs. I. 40; Fischer, Well. III. a. p. 310 sq.; Elmsley,
Eurip. Med. p. 237, ed. Lips.; Held, Plut. Timol. p. 367 sq.; Kühner,
Gr. II. 45; Waitz, Aristot. categ. p. 292. In Lat. cf. Ovid. amor.
1, 9, 4; Cic. off. 1, 4; famil. 6, 21; Virg. eclog. 3, 82; Aen. 4,
569; Stat. Theb. 2, 399; Vechner, Hellenol. p. 247 sqq. (As to
the rhetorical emphasis sometimes involved in this use of the
Neuter, see Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 396.)
518
§ 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS.
Of a different sort, but also deserving of notice, is the construction in
1 Pet. ii. 19 τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις ; cf. τοῦτό ἐστιν ἀνάμνησις Demosth. and upon
it Schaefer appar. V. 289; Herm. Lucian. conscr. hist. p. 305.
6. If the Subject, or the Pedicate, or both, be compound (Mtth.
760), the grammatical form of the Predicate is determined accord-
ing to the following rules:
σμεν,
a. If the Subject is composed of the 1st Person and 3d, the verb
is put in the 1st Pers. Plur., as Jno. x. 30 èyà κai ó πатỳρ év éσ μεv,
1 Cor. ix. 6 ἢ μόνος ἐγὼ καὶ Βαρνάβας οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐξουσίαν etc.
483 (1 Cor. xv. 11); Matt. ix. 14; Luke ii. 48 (Eurip. Med. 1020);
7th ed. but in Gal. i. 8 we find ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται,
the latter Subject being regarded as the more exalted, Isae. 11, 10.
When, on the other hand, to the 2d Pers. is annexed a 3d, the
541 former receives the preference as the more important, and the
verb (which precedes) is put in the 2d Pers., as in Acts xvi. 31
σωθήσῃ σὺ καὶ ὁ οἶκός σου xi. 14.
b. When the several Subjects Sing. are of the 3d Person, or are
impersonal objects,
a) the Pred., if it follows, is regularly put in the Plural, as in
Acts iii. 1 Πέτρος καὶ Ἰωάννης ἀνέβαινον, iv. 18; xii. 25; xiii. 46;
xiv. 14; xv. 35; xvi. 25; xxv. 13; 1 Cor. xv. 50; Jas. ii. 15;
and its Gender is Masculine when there is a Masc. among the
Subjects, 2 Pet. iii. 7. An adjective belonging to them all agrees
sometimes only with the first or the principal Subject, as in Acts
v. 29 ἀποκριθεὶς Πέτρος καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι εἶπαν ; in the opposite
case, Acts iv. 19, the Adj. is in the Masculine when the nouns are
460 of different sex, as Acts xxv. 13 'Aурíπаs кai Beρvíkη Kaтývтηo AV
... ἀσπασάμενοι τὸν Φῆστον, Jas. ii. 15. When the disjunctive
½ is used, a Singular Pred. also follows several Subjects, as in Matt.
v. 18; xii. 25; xviii. 8; Eph. v.
6th ed.
or
5.
ő
προς-
B) if the Pred. precedes, it is put either in the Plural, in case
the author had in mind a plurality of Subjects, Mark x. 35 πpos-
πορεύονται αὐτῷ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάννης, Juo. xxi. 2, hence with
καί . . . καί οι τε . . . και Luke xxiii. 12 ἐγένοντο φίλοι ὅ τε Πιλᾶτος
kai ó 'Hρwdns (Acts i. 13; iv. 27; v. 24; xviii. 5), Tit. i. 15
μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νοῦς καὶ ἡ συνείδησις ; or in the Singular, if
the Subjects are to be conceived separately, 1 Tim. vi. 4 è§ ŵv
γίνεται φθόνος, ἔρις, βλασφημίαι etc. Rev. ix. 17 (Thuc. 1, 47; Plat.
Gorg. 503 e.; 517 d.; Lucian. dial. mort. 26, 1; Quint. inst 9,
4, 22); 1 Cor. xiv. 24 ἐὰν εἰςέλθῃ τις ἄπιστος ἢ ἰδιώτης (so com-
monly when there is a disjunction by 1 Cor. vii. 15; 1 Pet.
§ 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS.
519
iv. 15) [?]; Acts v. 38; .xx. 4; 1 Cor. vii. 34; or only the first Sub-
ject, usually as the principal one, is specially taken into consider-
ation, Juo. ii. 2 ἐκλήθη (καὶ) ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, iv. 53 ;
viii. 52; xviii. 15; xx. 3; Acts xxvi. 30; Luke xxii. 14; Matt.
xii. 3; Philem. 23; Rev. i. 3; xii. 7, etc.; Plat. Theag. 124 e. ;
Paus. 9, 13, 3; 9, 36, 1; D. S. exc. Vat. p. 25; Mdv. S. 3 f. In
such case a predicate participle or adjective is put in the Plural,
as in Luke ii. 33 ἦν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ θαυμάζοντες, Rev.
viii. 7. Cf., in general, Herm. Vig. p. 194; d'Orville, Charit. 497;
Schoem. Isae. 462. When the Subjects are connected by Greek
authors usually employ the Plural of the verb, cf. Porson, Eurip.
Hecub. p. 12, Lips.; Schaef. Melet. p. 24; Schoem. Isae. p. 295
(exactly as after äλλos äλ and the like, see Jacobs, Philostr.
p. 377). The distinction which Matth. Eurip. Hec. 84; Sprachl.
II. 768 set up, is not perceptible, at least in the N. T. (The Sing. 542
is used quite regularly in the following arrangement, el dè veÛμа
ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ ἢ ἄγγελος . . . Acts xxiii. 9.)
A
By means of this construction very decided prominence is imparted to 484
one subject out of several in Jno. ii. 12 xatéßŋ eis Kapapravì'µ airòs kai oi 7th ed.
µaðŋraì aúroû, iv. 12, 53; Luke vi. 3; viii. 22; Acts vii. 15, and the pro-
priety of using the Singular Pred. here is obvious. This mode of expression
is of frequent occurrence in Hebrew (Gesen. Lehrg. 722), and (even in
the form αυτός τε καί or καὶ αὐτὸς καί Ruth i. 3, 6) is not rare in Greek
authors, Matth. Eurip. Iphig. A. 875; Weber, Demosth. 261; Fr. Mr.
p. 70, 420; cf. Demosth. Euerg. 688 a. ei Stoμeî ènì IIaλadio avтòs Kaì ý
γυνὴ καὶ τὰ παιδία etc. Alciphr. 1, 24 ὡς ἂν ἔχοιμι σώζεσθαι αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ γυνὴ
καὶ τὰ παιδία.
7. When several Subjects or Predicates are united in a single
proposition, the copulative particle is, according to the most simple
construction, put before the last; whereas the disjunctive must
stand before each of the successive words, as in Matt. vi. 31 Tí
φάγωμεν ἢ τί πίωμεν ἢ τί περιβαλώμεθα ; Luke xviii. 29 ὃς ἀφῆκεν
οἰκίαν ἢ γυναῖκα ἢ ἀδελφοὺς ἢ γονεῖς ἢ τέκνα. Even the copulative
is sometimes used in this manner, as in Rom. ii. 7 7ois Sóžav κal
Tiμην кai तαpolav (nтovoi, xi. 33; xii. 2 (Lucian. Nigr. 17), see
Fr. Rom. II. 553. When such a series of words is introduced by
ds, this particle is used but once, at the beginning; in 1 Pet. iv. 15,
on the other hand, the repetition of ὡς before ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος
separates this predicate from those that precede, and gives it inde-
pendent prominence. The connecting particle is thus not unfre- 461
quently repeated before each word of a whole series (polysyndeton), 6th od
520
§ 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS.
a usage which is partly to be considered as merely an imitation
of the Hebrew mode of expression (Ewald, krit. Gr. 650) Matt.
xxiii. 23; Rev. xvii. 15; xviii. 12; xxi. 8, and partly seems to
arise from an effort to secure due attention to the import of each
word, as in Rom. vii. 12 ἡ ἐντολὴ ἁγία καὶ δικαία καὶ ἀγαθή, ix. 4
ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ αἱ διαθῆκαι καὶ ἡ νομοθεσία καὶ ἡ
λατρεία καὶ αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι, Luke xiv. 21 τοὺς πτωχοὺς καὶ ἀναπήρους
καὶ τυφλοὺς καὶ χωλοὺς εἰςάγαγε, 1 Pet. i. 4 ; iii. 8; Jno. xvi. 8 ;
Acts xv. 20, 29; xxi. 25; Phil. iv. 12; Rev. ii. 19; v. 12; vii. 9,
12; viii. 5; Philostr. Apoll. 6, 24; D. S. exc. Vat. p. 32. So in
particular with proper names, Acts i. 13; xiii. 1; xx. 4; Matt.
iv. 25; Jno. xxi. 2. On the other hand, the connective of the
different parts of a single sentence is entirely omitted (asyndeton),
a. In enumerations, 2 Tim. iii. 2 ἔσονται οἱ ἄνθρωποι φίλαυτοι,
φιλάργυροι, ἀλαζονες, ὑπερήφανοι, βλάσφημοι etc., 1 Cor. iii. 12
ἐποικοδομεῖ ἐπὶ τὸν θεμέλιον χρυσόν, ἄργυρον, λίθους τιμίους, ξύλα,
XóρтOV, Kаλáμηv, 1 Pct. iv. 3; Heb. xi. 37; 1 Tim. i. 10; iv. 13,
15 (Cic. fam. 2, 5; Attic. 13, 13); Rom. i. 29 ff.; ii. 19; Phil.
iii. 5; Jno. v. 3; 1 Cor. xiii. 4-8; xiv. 26; 2 Cor. iv. 8 f.; Jas. v. 6;
543 1 Pet. ii. 9; Matt. xv. 19 (Col. iii. 11 is peculiar). Similar are
Demosth. Phil. 4 p. 54 a. and Pantaen. p. 626 a.; Plat. Gorg.
p. 503 e.; 517 d.; rep. 10 p. 598 c.; Lycurg. 36, 2; Lucian. dial.
mort. 26, 2; Heliod. 1, 5.
7th ed.
b. In parallelisms and antitheses, which thus receive additional
prominence, 2 Tim. iv. 2 éπíotηdi evkaipws ȧkaipws (like nolens
485 volens, honesta turpia, digni indigni, ävw kútw, Aristoph. ran. 157
åvdpŵv yvvaikŵv, Beier, Cic. off. I. 135; Kritz, Sall. I. 55; II. 323),
1 Cor. iii. 2 γάλα ὑμᾶς ἐπότισα, οὐ βρῶμα, vii 12; Juo. x. 16;
Jas. i. 19. Yet asyndeton in such cases is not necessary, Col. ii. 8 ;
1 Cor. x. 20; cf. Fr. Mr. p. 31 sq. who, however, has drawn a
distinction between the two modes of expression which seems to
me too subtile.
When some of the Subjects are in the Plural, the verb following is put
in the Plural, Acts v. 17, 29. This, however, seems not to be indispensable,
Diod. S. 20, 72 δάκρυα καὶ δεήσεις καὶ θρῆνος ἐγένετο συμφορητός, Xen.
rep. Ath. 1, 2.
Note. When several substantives either in the Subject or the Predicate
are connected by κaí, the first sometimes denotes an individual compre-
hended in the second as its genus, as Zeus kaì coí. After the second,
therefore, λooί was supplied; but the intention of the expression is to
give prominence to the individual as the principal subject, as in Acts v. 29
§ 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS.
521
¿ Пéτρos kai oi åróσroλoi (Theodoret. III. 223; see Schaef. Sophocl. II.
314, 335), i. 14; Mark xvi. 7; Matt. xvi. 14 (yet see Mey. in loc.) ef.
Mark x. 41.
кат
This schema κar' ¿έoxýv (Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 221) is an established idiom
in Greek authors, cf. Plat. Protag. p. 310 d. 3 Zeû kai deví (Plaut. capt.
5, 1, 1; Jovi diisque ago gratias), Iliad. 19, 63 "Eктopi Kai Tрwoi, Aeschin.
Timarch. p. 171 c. Σόλων ἐκεῖνος, ὁ παλαιὸς νομοθέτης, καὶ ὁ Δράκων καὶ οἱ
oi
KATÀ TOÙS XPÓVOVvs èkeivovs voµobéral, Aristoph. nub. 412 (Chrysippus et
Stoici Cic. Tusc. 4, 5, 9), see Ast, Theophr. char. p. 120; Stallb. Plat. 462
Protag. p. 25. On Eurip. Med. 1141, which Elmsley adduced in support.
6th ed
of this idiom, see Hm. Med. p. 392 ed. Lips., besides Locella Xen. Ephes.
p. 208.
(Of a different yet kindred nature is the Latin phrase exercitus
equitatusque, Caes. b. gall. 2, 11.)
8. If two predicative verbs have a common object, and both
verbs govern the same case, the object is expressed only once, as
in Luke xiv. 4 láσαTо avтòv Kaì àπéλvoev, Matt. iv. 11. In Greek
authors, too, the object is regularly but once expressed even when
the verbs govern different cases, Krü. 227. In the N. T., when
the verbs govern different cases, the object is usually repeated in
the form of a pronoun, as in Luke xvi. 2 povýσas avτòv eiπev avτÔ,
yet cf. Acts xiii. 3 ἐπιθέντες τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῖς ἀπέλυσαν, Eph. r. 11 544
μὴ συγκοινωνεῖτε τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς ἀκάρποις, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐλέγχετε,
2 Thess. iii. 15; 1 Tim. vi. 2, see § 22, 1 p. 143.
εί
9. Of the three constituent parts of a proposition, the subject
and the predicate are indispensable; but the simple copula is im-
plied in the mere juxtaposition of the subject and predicate: ó feòs
σopós (which in Greek can only mean, God is wise). The same
holds also when the subject and the predicate are extended, as in
Heb. v. 13 πᾶς ὁ μετέχων γάλακτος ἄπειρος λόγου δικαιοσύνης, 2 Cor.
i. 21; Rom. xi. 15; see § 64, 2. But as the predicate is usually
blended with the copula, so the subject may be implied in the 486
copula, or in the blended copula and predicate. This takes place, 7th ed.
independently of any special context,
a. When the verb is in the 1st or 2d Pers. (where the subjects
are conceived as present, Mdv. p. 6) usually, as in Jno. xix. 22 ò
γέγραφα, γέγραφα, Rom. viii. 15 οὐκ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας, 25
here even the pronouns èyw, oú are expressed only when emphasis
is intended, see § 22, 6. If now the name of the subject be
annexed to the pronoun of the 1st or 2d Pers., as in Gal. v. 2 èyw
Пaûλos λéуw vuîv (Eph. iii. 1; Rom. xvi. 22; 2 Cor. x. 1; Philem.
19 ; Rev. i. 9 ; xxii. 8, etc.), Gal. ii. 15 ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι . .
66
522
§ 58. THE PROPOSITION AND ITS PARTS.
εἰς Χριστ. Ἰησ. ἐπιστεύσαμεν (2 Cor. iv. 11) Luke xi. 39, the
adjunct is in apposition.
b. When the verb is in the 3d Pers. (impersonally), and then
a) a Plur. Active is used, if merely (acting) subjects generally
are meant (Mdv. S. 7); Matt. vii. 16 µýtɩ ovλλéyovow úπò ȧкav-
Oŵv σтapuλýv; do they (people) gather etc., does one gather etc.
Jno. xv. 6; xx. 2; Mark x. 13; Acts iii. 2; Luke xvii. 23; Rev.
xii. 6. See Fischer, Weller. III. I. 347; Duker, Thucyd. 7, 69;
Bornem. Schol. p. 84.
σ
B) a Sing. Active, when no definite subject is meant (Mdv.
S. 7) of which the verb is predicated, but only the action or con-
dition is designated as a fact: vel, Вρovтa (Jno. xii. 29 Bрovτn
yíveTai) it rains, etc. (cf. Germ. es liutet), 1 Cor. xv. 52 σаλπíσeɩ
there will be a sound of trumpets, also 2 Cor. x. 10 ai èπioToλaí,
pnoi, Bapeîai, it is said (Wisd. xv. 12). Yet, according to the
concrete conception of the Greeks, this idiom may, strictly, be
elliptical: ὕει, βροντᾷ Ζεύς (Xen. Η. 4, 7, 4), σαλπίσει ὁ σαλ-
TUуKTÝS, like the ȧvayváσeral of the orators, see § 64, 3. On (the
parenthetical) pnoí, not infrequent in Greck authors, see Wolf,
Demosth. Lept. p. 288; Wyttenbach, Plut. mor. II. 105; Boisson.
463 Eunap. p. 418, (in Latin inquit, ait is similar, see Heindorf, Horat.
6th ed. sat. p. 146; Ramshorn, Gramm. S. 383).
545 7) More frequently, however, in such impersonal sense a Sing.
Passive is used (Mdv. S. 8), as in 1 Cor. xv. 42 σπεíρeтαi èv ploрpâ,
ἐγείρεται ἐν ἀφθαρσία (see v. Hengel in loc.), 1 Pet. iv. 6 εἰς τοῦτο
Kaì veкρоîs evŋyyeλioon etc., Matt. vii. 2, 7; v. 21, etc. This form
is connected with the 3d Pers. Plur. Active in a parallelism in
Luke xii. 48 ᾧ ἐδόθη πολύ, πολὺ ζητηθήσεται παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ᾧ
παρέθεντο πολύ, περισσότερον αἰτήσουσιν αὐτόν.1
1,
The forms of quotation, Aéya 2 Cor. vi. 2; Gal. iii. 16; Eph. iv. 8 etc.,
pnoí 1 Cor. vi. 16; Heb. viii. 5, elρnke Heb. iv. 4 (cf. the rabbinic
see Surenhus. βιβλ. καταλλ. p. 11), μαρτυρεῖ Heb. vii. 17 (εἶπε 1 Cor. xv. 27),
were probably never intended by the N. T. writers to be taken imper-
487 sonally; but for the most part the Subject (ô cós) is directly or indirectly
7th ed. contained in the context. In 1 Cor. vi. 16 and Matt. xix. 5, however, in
connection with φησί and εἶπεν there is an apostolic ellipsis of ὁ θεός).
Lastly, in Heb. vii. the best authorities [Sin. also] give μapropeîral.
There is nothing at all impersonal in Juo. xii. 40 (one acquainted with
1 It cannot, however, be inferred from this that the 3d Plural Active strictly has a
Passive sense (as in Chald., see my Gram. § 49), for even in Luke xii. 20 àπaιтoûσw
may be taken concretely; see Bornem, in loc.
§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC.
523
the Scriptures easily supplies ó cós), 1 Cor. xv. 25 (0₁ scilicet Xpurós
from αὐτόν), Rom. iv. 3, 22 ἐπίστευσεν ᾿Αβρ. τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς
δικαιοσύνην sc. τὸ πιστεῦσαι from ἐπίστευσ., Jno. vii. 51 ἐὰν μὴ ἀκούσῃ where
ó vóµos is to be repeated, which is personified as a judge; in 1 Juo. v. 16
from αἰτήσει the word αιτούμενος (θεός) might be supplied as the Subject
of Súσe (Lücke) more suitably than airŵv: lastly, in Heb. x. 38 làv
úπoσteíληraι it would perhaps be most simple to educe the general term
ἄνθρωπος from ὁ δίκαιος.
Είν
TOT
The Predicate is involved in elva when it signifies existere, Matt.
xxiii. 30 ei ηµeða ev taîs ηµépais rŵν πατéρwv etc., Juo. viii. 58; Rev. xxi. 1
ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι. In this sense adverbs are then annexed for closer
specification in 1 Cor. vii. 26 καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ οὕτως εἶναι.
§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE IN ITS SUBJECT AND
PREDICATE: ATTRIBUTIVES, APPOSITION.
1. The Subject and the Predicate of a proposition may be ex-
tended in a great variety of ways by adjuncts: And first of all
attributively, most commonly by means of adjectives, see no. 2.
Personal nouns in particular which denote office, character, etc.,
receive, with little extension of signification, general personal 546
attributives in the substantives ἄνθρωπος, ἀνήρ, γυνή etc. (Mtth.
967) Matt. xviii. 23 ώμοιώθη ... ἀνθρώπῳ βασιλεῖ, xiii. 45; xx. 1;
xxi. 33 (Iliad. 16, 263 äveрwπоs ódiτηs, Xen. Cyr. 8, 7, 14; Plato,
Gorg. 518 c.); Acts iii. 14 ᾐτήσασθε ἄνδρα φονέα χαρισθῆναι ὑμῖν,
i. 16; Luke xxiv. 19 (Plat. Ion. p. 540 d. avǹp σтpaτnyós, Thuc. 464
1,74; Palaeph. 28, 2 àvǹp áλieús, 38, 2; Plat. rep. 10, 620 b.; Xen. 6th ed.
Hi. 11, 1; see Fischer ind. ad Palaeph. sub ȧvýp, Vechner, Hellenol.
p. 188. Cf. on the Hebrew idiom, my Simonis p. 54.). On the
other hand, in 1 Cor. ix. 5 yvvaîka is to be taken predicatively; it
would be wrong, also, to refer to this head passages in which the
attributive is strictly an adjective, as in Acts i. 11; xvii. 12; xxi. 9
(Nep. 25, 9); Jno. iv. 9. In the addresses avôpes 'Iopanλîtaι
Acts ii. 22, avspes 'A¤nvaîoɩ xvii. 22; xix. 35 the emphasis lies on
avspes, and renders the address one of respect (cf. Xen. An. 3, 2,
2). Similar forms of address are frequent in the Greek orators.
2. Adjectives (and participles) annexed to substantives attrib-
utively to supplement their meaning regularly stand after them,
Luke ix. 37 συνήντησεν αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς, Rev. xvi. 2 ἐγένετο ἕλκος 488
Kakòv kai tovnρóv, Matt. iii. 4; Jno. ii. 6; 2 Tim. iv. 7 Tòv ảyŵva 7th ed.
TÒV KaλÒV йyávio pai, Luke v. 36 ff.; Phil. iv. 1; Rev. vi. 12, 13,
since the thing itself presents itself to the mind before its Predi
524 $ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC.
e/
cate. When, however, the adjective is to receive any degree of
prominence, as directly or indirectly antithetical, it is put before
the substantive; and this is peculiarly frequent in the didactic style:
Matt. xiii. 24 ώμοιώθη ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ἀνθρώπῳ σπείραντι
καλὸν σπέρμα (vs. 25 ἔσπειρεν ζιζάνια), Luke viii. 15 τὸ (πεσὸν ἐν
τῇ καλῇ γῇ (vss. 12, 13, 14); Jno. ii. 10 πρῶτον τὸν καλὸν οἶνον
τίθησιν, καὶ ὅταν μεθυσθῶσιν, τότε τὸν ἐλάσσω (Rom. i. 23 ; xiii. 3;
Mark i. 45; Matt. xii. 35); 1 Cor. v. 6 öτi μiкpà šúµŋ öλOV TÒ
φύραμα ζυμοί (Jas. iii. 5); 1 Pet. iv. 10 ἕκαστος καθὼς ἔλαβεν
χάρισμα εἰς ἑαυτοὺς αὐτὸ διακονοῦντες ὡς καλοὶ οἰκονόμοι (the κακοὶ
oik. do not do so), Heb. x. 29 (cf. vs. 28); viii. 6; Rom. vi. 12
μὴ βασιλευέτω ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐν τῷ θνητῷ ὑμῶν σώματι (just because
the σῶμα is θνητόν, it would be absurd to allow such dominion),
2 Pet. i. 4; Mark xiv. 6; Heb. ix. 11, 12; 1 Tim. i. 19; 1 Cor.
v. 7; 2 Cor. v. 1; 1 Pct. iv. 10, 19.
1 Pct. iv. 10, 19. Hence in the apostolic dic-
tion καινή κτίσις, καινὸς ἄνθρωπος, and for the most part ἡ καινὴς
Siałýкη. But even the adjective put after the substantive may be
emphatic when made prominent by the article, Jno. iv. 11 TÓÐEV
ἔχεις τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν; x. 11 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός, or when
placed at the end of the sentence, as in Mark ii. 21 ovdeìs... èπI-
ράπτει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν, Juo. xix. 41; Mark xvi. 17 γλώσσαις
547 λaλńoovσi Kawaîs. In one and the same verse we find an adjective
preceding and another following the substantive, Tit. iii. 9 papàs
ζητήσεις . . . μáxas voμikás. In general, it must not be forgotten
that it often depends on the writer whether he will emphasize the
adjective or not. Thus in Jno. xiii. 34; 1 Jno. ii. 7, 8 kawỲν
evroλýv might have been put in distinct antithesis to the old com-
mandments, but the Apostle says Évтokǹv kawýv, a commandment
which is new. In Rev. iii. 12 we find тîs кawîs 'Iepovo. but xxi. 2
Ἱερουσ. καινήν; and in 2 Pet. iii. 13 καινοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ γῆν καινήν,
it was sufficient to emphasize the adjective by position merely the
first time. In Acts vii. 36; Heb. xi. 29 we find ẻpv0pà láλaooa,
but in the Sept. frequently θάλασσα ἐρυθρά.
•
When two or more adjectives connected by κaí belong to one substantive,
they are put before or after it, in accordance with the preceding distinc-
465 tions, as in 1 Tim. ii. 2 va рeμоv kaì novɣιov Bíov diάywμev, Matt. xxv. 21
6th ed. δοῦλε ἀγαθὲ καὶ πιστέ, Luke xxiii. 50 ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ δίκαιος, Acts xi. 24 ;
भ
Rev. iii. 14; xvi. 2. Such arrangements of words as in Matt. xxiv. 45
ὁ πιστὸς δοῦλος και φρόνιμος, Heb. x. 34, are to be accounted for by the
circumstance, that the writer afterwards introduces a second adjective to
complete the sense, or has reserved it for the end of the sentence for the
sake of force.
§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC.
525
3. Two or more adjectives regularly are connected by kai and
joined to their substantives, 1 Pet. i. 4 eis kλnpovoμíav äplaρтov
καὶ ἀμίαντον καὶ ἀμάραντον, vs. 19; 2 Pet. ii. 14 etc. When the
copula is omitted, it is either because the intention of the writer 489
is to enumerate single qualities separately deserving of attention 7th ed
· (§ 58, 6) 1 Tim. iii. 2 . δεῖ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίληπτον εἶναι,
νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον etc. Tit. i. 6 ; ii. 4 f. ; Phil. ii. 2 ; Rev.
v.1 (Job i. 8) see § 58, 7, perhaps with climax Luke vi. 38 (Mtth.
998); or because one of the adjectives is more closely related to
the substantive, and forms with it as it were one notion, 1 Pet.
i. 18 ἐκ τῆς ματαίας ὑμῶν ἀναστροφῆς πατροπαραδότου, Jno. xii. 3
μύρου νάρδου πιστικῆς πολυτίμου, where νάρδος πιστική designates,
commercially as it were, a certain sort of spikenard, which is
then declared to be πολύτιμος, Juo. xvii. 3 ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν
μóvov åλnowòv Oeóv, Gal. i. 4; 1 Cor. x. 4; Rev. i. 16; ii. 12; xii. 3;
xv. 6; xx. 11, (which is sometimes obvious from the mere position
of the words, as in Jno. vii. 37 ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ μεγάλη
τῆς ἑορτῆς, Heb. ix. 11). Cf. Her. 7, 23 σίτος πολλὸς ἐφοίτα ἐκ
τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἀληλεσμένος, Dion. H. IV. 2097 συναγαγόντες ἰδιωτικὸν
σvvédpiov πatpikóv, see Mtth. 998; Dissen, Pindar. ed. Goth. 303 sq.; 548
Hm. Eurip. Hec. p. 54; Elmsley, Eurip. Med. 807; Bornem. Xen.
Cyr. p. 71; cf. (Nep. 25, 9, 14; Cic. parad. 5, 2) Kritz, Sallust.
Jug. 172. (When the second Predicate is a real participle, a
connecting kal is of course not to be expected, Acts xxvii. 6
εὑρὼν πλοῖον ᾿Αλεξανδρῖνον πλέον εἰς τὴν Ιταλίαν, Mark xiv. 14;
Rev. x. 1.)
When Toλús is annexed to a substantive that already has an adjective,
it will either be construed according to the preceding rule, as in Jno. x. 32
πολλὰ καλὰ ἔργα ἔδειξα, 1 Tim. vi. 9, or written as in Acts xxv. 7 πολλά
τε καὶ βαρέα αιτιώματα, where the word expressing the quality is made
prominent many and (that, too,) heavy etc. Cf. Her. 4, 167; 8, 61; Xen.
Mem. 2, 9, 6; Lys. 26, 1, see Mtth. 998. Under this head come also
Jno. xx. 30 πολλὰ καὶ ἄλλα σημεία (but xxi. 25 ἄλλα πολλά), and Luke
iii. 18 #ολλà kaì Teра (which is not unknown also in Greek authors, see
Kypke on the first passage) many and other, for which we say many other.
4. From the natural rule, that an adjective must agree with its
substantive in gender and number, there is sometimes a deviation,
when the writer allows regard for the thought to prevail over that
for the grammatical form. That is
a. Neuter or Feminine substantives that signify persons have
Masculine adjectives joined to them (Hm. Vig. p. 715), Rev.
526
§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC.
Τ
xix. 14 τὰ στρατεύματα... ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ... ἐνδεδυμένοι
βύσσινον λευκὸν καθαρόν, ν. 6; Eph. iv. 17, 18; 1 Cor. xii. 2; Mark
ix. 26 (Xen. Mem. 2, 2, 3 αἱ πόλεις . . . ὡς παύσοντες, Cyr. 1, 2,
466 12; 7, 3, 8; Joseph. antt. 6, 11, 6; cf. Liv. 7, 2; still more bold
6th ed is Aristid. Ι. 267 extr. Jebb. ἅμιλλα καὶ σπονδὴ τῶν ἑκατέρωθεν
μεγίστων πόλεων, καλούντων τι ὡς αὐτούς), Rev. xi. 15 ἐγένοντο
φωναὶ μεγάλαι ... λέγοντες (v. 13 f.); iv. 8 τὰ τέσσαρα ζῶα, ἓν
καθ' ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ . . . καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν
ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες.
In Eph. iv. 18 ἐσκοτισμένοι does not belong to the subordinate clause
400 καθὼς καὶ τὰ ἔθνη, but to ὑμᾶς; and 2 Jno. 4 εὕρηκα ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου
περιπατοῦντας only borders upon the above usage.
7th ed.
b. Collectives (cf. § 58, 4) in the Sing. sometimes have adjec-
tives after them in the Plural, as in Acts v. 16 συνήρχετο τὸ
πλῆθος τῶν πέριξ πόλεων Ιερ. φέροντες ἀσθενεῖς etc. (xxi. 36; Luke
xix. 37; cf. Diod. S. 5, 43; Xen. Eph. 1, 3; Palairet, observ.
p. 201); iii. 11 συνέδραμεν πᾶς ὁ λαὸς . . . ἔκθαμβοι, Juo. xii. 12;
Rev. vii. 9; xix. 1 (Philostr. Apoll. 2, 12); Luke ii. 13 πλῆθος
549 στρατιᾶς οὐρανίου αἰνούντων τὸν θεόν etc. On the other hand,
in Rev. iii. 9 τῶν λεγόντων is not an epithet of συναγωγῆς, but to
be taken partitively. The Sing. and Plural connected, occur in
Mark viii. 1 παμπόλλου ὄχλου ὄντος καὶ μὴ ἐχόντων, τί φάγωσι,
Aets xxi. 36 ; cf. Diod. S. 14, 78 τοῦ πλήθους συντρέχοντος . . . καὶ
τοὺς μισθοὺς πρότερον ἀπαιτούντων, Virg. Αen. 2, 64 undique visendi
studio Trojana juventus circumfusa ruit certantque illudere capto.
Further, see Poppo Thuc. I. 102 sq.; Bornem. Xen. Apol. p. 36;
Anab. p. 354; Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 811; Hm. Lucian. conscr.
hist. p. 301; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 103 sq.; Mtth. 976 f.
Noteworthy is the connection of two genders in Rev. xiv. 19 ἔβαλεν εἰς
τὴν ληνὸν τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν μέγαν, as even Tdf. reads, (ληνός is some-
times Masc., Sept. Gen. xxx. 38, 41, Vat.).¹ But in Acts xi. 28 Luke
undoubtedly wrote λιμὸν μεγάλην . . . ἥτις, see Bornem. in loc. In Phil.
ii. 1 all recent editors [with the exception of Lehm. and Tdf. 7th ed.] have
substituted εἴ τινα for εἴ τις σπλάγχνα.
5. When an adjective refers to two or more substantives of
different genders or numbers, it is
a. Usually repeated with each substantive, as in Mark xiii. 1 ἴδε
1 Lücke (Apokal. II. 464) wants either to read with a single Codex τοῦ μεγάλου
(which is probably a correction), or to assume a constructio ad sensum, the writer in
using τον μέγαν having thought only of θυμὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. Lücke himself confesses that
the latter assumption is pretty violent and harsh. See also Matthäï's small edition, p. 63.
§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC.
527
ποταποὶ λίθοι καὶ ποταπαὶ οἰκοδομαί, Jas. i. 17 πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ
καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον, Rev. xxi. 1 οὐρανὸν καινὸν καὶ γῆν καινήν,
Jno. xi. 33; Acts iv. 7; 1 Cor. xiii. 2; Eph. i. 21; 1 Pet. ii. 1;
2 Pet. iii. 13 (3 Esr. iii. 5); cf. Aristot. Nicom. 7, 9, 1; Demosth.
pac. 23 b. Or
b. Used only once: preceding, in the gender and number of
the first substantive, Luke x. 1 eis tâσav tóλiv Kai тóπоv, 1 Thess.
v. 23; Rev. xiii. 7; vi. 14; vii. 9; cf. Diod. S. 1, 4 μetà toλλñs
KAKOTAÐElas Kai Kivdúvwv, Dem. Con. 728 a.; Plutarch. mor. 993 a. ;
on the other hand, when placed after the substantives, it is some-
times in the Plur. and sometimes in the Sing., and its gender is
that of the nearest or principal substantive, as in Heb. ix. 9 dôŵpá 467
τε καὶ θυσίαι προςφέρονται μὴ δυνάμεναι etc. iii. 6 ἐὰν τὴν παῤῥησίαν 6th ed
καὶ τὸ καύχημα μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν κατάσχωμεν (var.), Rev. viii. 7. 550
Cf. Iliad. 2, 136 sq. αἱ ἡμέτεραί τ' ἄλοχοι καὶ νήπια τέκνα εἵατ' ἐνὶ 491
μεγάροις ποτιδέγμεναι, Thuc. 8, 63 πυθόμενος ... καὶ τὸν Στρομβι- 7th ed.
χίδην καὶ τὰς ναῦς ἀπεληλυθότα, Xen. Cyr. 7, 5, 60. If the
substantives are of the same gender, or if the adjective employed
has not different forms to express different genders, it is usually
expressed but once; with the first substantive as in Acts ii. 43;
Matt. iv. 24; Mark ii. 15; Eph. i. 21; 1 Cor. xi. 30 (2 Pet. i. 10);
Rev. vi. 15, or with the second as in 2 Cor. . 6.
T
भ
The Plural of an adjective which belongs to two substantives may
appear to be used in 1 Pet. i. 18 οὐ φθαρτοῖς ἀργυρίῳ ἢ χρυσίῳ ἐλυτρώθητε;
but p0apr. must be regarded as a substantive, and apy. and xp. as explan-
atory specifications in apposition to it: not with corruptible things, silver
or gold etc.
6. Predicative amplifications, which we introduce by as or for,
to, are very frequent: 1 Tim. ii. 7 eis ò été‡ŋv èyà kîpu§, 1 Cor.
x. 6 таûта TÚTоι ýμŵν éуevýОnoav, vs. 11; xv. 26; Matt. i. 18;
Jno. iii. 2; xii. 46; 2 Tim. i. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 5 avтoì is X1001 GOVTES
οἰκοδομεῖσθε οἶκος πνευματικός, 1 Cor. ix. ἢ ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα περιά-
γειν, Rom. iii. 25 ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον, Jas. v. 10 ὑπόδειγμα
λάβετε . . . τοὺς προφήτας, Aets vii. 10; xix. 19; xx. 28; xxv. 14;
xxvi. 5; Luke xx. 43; 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23; 2 Cor. iii. 6; 1 Jno.
iv. 10, 14 (2 Thess. ii. 13 according to the reading amaρxiv) Heb.
i. 2; xii. 9; 2 Pet. iii. 1; Rev. xiv. 4. Sometimes such a Predi-
cate is made prominent by the comparative particle és, as in 2 Cor.
x. 2 λογιζομένους ἡμᾶς ὡς κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦντας, 1 Cor. iv. 1;
cf. 2 Thess. iii. 15; 1 Tim. v. 1 f.; or the Hebraistic construction.
with eis is adopted, as in Acts xiii. 22 ἤγειρεν τὸν Δαυΐδ αὐτοῖς εἰς
528
§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC.
Baoiλéa, vs. 47; vii. 21; see p. 228. On making the Predicate
precede, see § 61.
The Predicate is sometimes an adjective, as in Heb. vii. 24 åπαρáßαтov
exei tǹv iepwoúvny, Mark viii. 17; Heb. v. 14; 1 Cor. xii. 22; Matt. xii. 13
άπTEKаTEστáðη († xeìp) vyins, Acts xiv. 10; xxvii. 43; xxviii. 13; Rom.
x. 19; 1 Cor. iv. 9; ix. 17; Mark iv. 28; or a pronoun, as in Rom. ix. 24
οὓς (σκεύη ἐλέους) καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς, Jno. iv. 23; Heb. x. 20. On the
other hand, a Predicate is sometimes annexed to a pronoun, as in 1 Pet.
iii. 21 ὃ (ὕδωρ) καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σώζει.
Such Predicates are sometimes to be taken proleptically (Bornem. Luc.
p. 39; Krü. 210), as in Matt. xii. 13 åпeкαтeσтálŋ vyɩns i.e. üste yevéolat
vyɩŷ (Luke xiii. 35 var.) Phil. iii. 21; 1 Cor. i. 8; 1 Thess. iii. 13.
551 7. Especially diversified are the appositive adjuncts,¹ which, an-
468 nexed asyndetically, are intended mainly to define more closely one
6th ed. nominal (or pronominal) notion by another. But apposition is,
492
a. Synthetic, in the case of proper names which are distin-
guished by the species or genus, or, if they belong in common to
a plurality of persons or of objects, by a distinctive quality: Matt.
iii. 6 ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ, Heb. xii. 22 προςεληλύθατε Σιὼν ὄρει,
Acts x. 32 οἰκία Σίμωνος βυρσέως, Heb. vii. 4 δεκάτην ᾽Αβραὰμ
ἔδωκεν . . . ὁ πατριάρχης, Acts xxi. 39 ; Rev. ii. 24.
7th ed.
b. Partitive (Rost 484): 1 Cor. vii. 7 ekaσтos idov exei xápioμa,
¿ µèv ovτws, ó dè ouτws, Matt. xxii. 5; Acts xvii. 32; xxvii. 44,
more simply in Acts ii. 6 ἤκουον εἰς ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ etc.,
Eph. iv. 25.
c. Parathetic, when some characteristic of a person or thing is
expressed: Luke xxiii. 50 Ιωσήφ, ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς καὶ δίκαιος, Jno.
xiii. 14 εἰ ἐγὼ ἔνιψα ὑμῶν τοὺς πόδας, ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος,
viii. 40; Heb. ix. 24; Acts xxii. 12; Jas. i. 8; Matt. xiv. 20;
Rom. vii. 19; cf. 1 Pet. v. 1, etc.
•
d. Epexegetic, when a more precise expression is added, which
we should introduce by namely, that is to say: Eph. i. 7 év ₫
ἔχομεν (vs. 10) τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμά
των, 1 Pet. v. 8 ὁ ἀντίδικος ὑμῶν, διάβολος, Eph. i. 18; ii. 15 ;
iv. 13; Phil. iv. 18; 1 Cor. v. 7; 2 Cor. v. 1; vii. 6; Rom. viii. 23;
Jno. vi. 27; vii. 2; Mark xii. 44; Acts viii. 38; 1 Jno. v. 20;
Jude 4; Rev. xii. 1, etc. So also after pronouns, as in Jno. ix. 13
1 Well-considered views are contained in J. D. Weickert's Progr. on Apposition in
German, Lübben, 1829. 4to. Further, cf. Mehlhorn de Appositione in Graeca ling.
Glog. 1838 (Sommer in the Zeitschr. für Alterthumswiss. 1839. nr. 125 f.), Rost,
Gramm. 482 f.
§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC.
529
ἄγουσιν αὐτὸν . . . τόν ποτε τυφλόν, 1 Thess. iv. 3 τοῦτό ἐστι θέλημα
Tôi Đâu, ở ấy cao mòn vuôr (Xen. Cyr. 2, 2.15 ; Plat. rep. 9, 583 d. ;
Gorg. 478 c.) ; 2 Cor. ii. 1 ἔκρινα ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο, τὸ μὴ . . . ἐλθεῖν
(Rost 486); Eph. i. 19 eis nuâs ToÙS TIσTEÚοVras, Rom. xiv. 13;
2 Cor. xiii. 9; Phil. iii. 3; Jas. i. 27; 1 Pet. i. 21; ii. 7 (2 Pet.
iii. 2); 1 Jno. ii. 16; iii. 24¹ etc. (Bornem. Luc. p. 114 sq.) ;
1 Cor. xvi. 21 ὁ ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου i.e. τῇ χειρί μου Π.
(Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 74; Krü. 213 f.; Rost 483; cf. Cic. parad. 4,
8; Fam. 5, 12; Liv. 4, 2; 7, 40). Appositive adjuncts occur even
after adverbs, as in Luke iv. 23 ☎de ẻv tŷ πaтpidi σov (Aeschyl.
Choeph. 654) ; Jas. iv. 1 πόθεν πόλεμοι καὶ μάχαι; οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν,
ex τwv ηdovŵv etc. Mark viii. 4; Eph. i. 19; 1 Pet. ii. 7, 15.
Several words may be joined by apposition to one and the same
subject, Rev. xii. 9; xiii. 16; and so sometimes an apposition con-
sists of several parts, 2 Thess. ii. 3 sq. On the other hand, in 2 Pet.
ii. 18 we are not (with Lehm. and Tdf.) to find in Toùs ev πλávη
ἀναστρεφομένους an apposition to τοὺς ὀλίγως ἀποφεύγοντας, but
that second Accusative depends on aπоpeúy. [see Huther and
Wiesinger in loc.].
552
An apposition occurs also in Mark viii. 8 ήραν περισσεύματα κλασμάτων 493
Enтà σTvpídas they took up remnants, seven baskets; and in Matt. xvi. 13, 7th ed.
according to the reading τίνα με λέγουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι εἶναι, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ
åv pórov; the last words would be an apposition, see Bornem. Luc.
p. LII. To reject μé on the sole authority of Cod. B [and Cod. Sin.]
(for versions cannot be counted here) with Fr. [Tdf.] and others [Lchm.
puts it in brackets] I consider rash. Mé here may be cumbersome, but
I cannot regard it as inadmissible: who do people say that I, the Son
of Man, am? He himself had always styled himself the Son of Man,
and now desires to hear what idea the people have of him as the Son of
Man. As to other passages, in which the Dutch critics in particular
have taken offence at such appositions and made hasty alterations in
the text, see Bornem. diss. de glossem. N. T. cap. 5 prefixed to his Scholia
on Luke.
We must likewise refer to the head of Apposition the well-known use 469
of aλλos before a substantive, which occurs not only in Homer, e.g. Odyss. 6th ed
2, 412 μήτηρ δ' ἐμοὶ οὔτι πέπυται οὐδ᾽ ἄλλαι δμωαί i.e. nor other persons
(that is) servants, 1, 132 (cf. Thiersch, Gr. p. 588), but also in prose
authors, e.g. Plato, Gorg. 473 c. evdayµovičóµevos víò tŵy toλitŵv kaì Tŵv
δ
1 The personal pronoun included in a verb takes an apposition in 1 Pet. v. I waρаKaλŵ
(èyà) d ovµñρeoẞúтероs кal µáρrus etc. cf. Lucian. d. deor. 24, 2; Thuc. 1, 137; Xen.
Hell. 2, 3, 42. To this head may be referred also 1 Cor. vi. 11 taùtá tives ĥte (vµeîs,
Tivés you, i.e. some).
67
530 § 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC.
ἄλλων ξένων and the rest (namely) foreigners, Xen. An. 5, 4, 25 οἱ πολέμιοι
ὁμοῦ δὴ πάντες γενόμενοι ἐμάχοντο καὶ ἐξηκόντιζον τοῖς παλτοῖς· καὶ ἄλλα
δόρατα ἔχοντες, 1, 5, 5; cf. Elmsley, Eurip. Med. p. 128 sq. Lips. Jacobs,
;
Athen. p. 22 sq.; Krüger, Dion. p. 139; Poppo, Cyrop. p. 186; Vlc.
Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. p. 54 sq.; Zell, Aristot. ethic. p. 62. This is
probably not to be applied to Jno. xiv. 16 καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν;
but the analogous ἕτερος does appear to be so used in Luke xxiii. 32 ήγοντο
δὲ καὶ ἕτεροι δύο κακοῦργοι σὺν αὐτῷ ἀναιρεθῆναι, where from the
expression Jesus also seems to be called κακουργος (cf. x. 1 ἀνέδειξεν ὁ
κύριος καὶ ἑτέρους ἑβδομήκοντα δύο). See Thuc. 4, 67; Antiph. 6. 24.
Abbreviation combined with apposition occurs in 2 Cor. vi. 13: τὴν
αὐτὴν ἀντιμισθίαν πλατύνθητε καὶ ὑμεῖς, instead of τὸ αὐτό, ὅ ἐστιν
αντιμισθία, see Fr. diss. in 2 Cor. II. 113 sqq.
Epexegetical apposition may likewise be introduced by τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, as in
Rom. vii. 18 ἐν ἐμοὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου, Acts xix. 4; Mark vii. 2 ;
Heb. ix. 11; xi. 16; xiii. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 20; Philem. 12. An apposition
is annexed with emphasis by αὐτός in Eph. v. 23 ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ
τῆς ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος.
An apposition appears to be incorporated into a relative clause in
1 Jno. ii. 25 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία, ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο ἡμῖν τὴν ζωὴν
τὴν αἰώνιον, probably also in Phil. iii. 18 and 2 Cor. x. 13, see Mey. in
loc. cf. Plat. Phaed. 66 c. τότε . . . ἡμῖν ἔσται οὗ ἐπιθυμοῦμεν . . . φρονήσεως,
Hipp. maj. 281 c. οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐκεῖνοι; ὧν ὀνόματα μεγάλα λέγεται . . . Πιττακοῦ
558 καὶ Βίαντος, . . . φαίνονται ἀπεχόμενοι, rep. 3, 402 c. ; 7, 533 c. ; Apol. p. 41 a. ;
Lucian. Eunuch. 4.
1
494
8. That words in apposition, being co-ordinated with their prin-
7th ed. cipals, agree with them in case is the well-known rule. It does
not extend to gender or number (Ramshorn, S. 294); since, in
particular, a neuter (abstract) may be put in apposition with a
personal noun, a plural with a collective singular, a singular with
a plural, as Phil. iv. 1 ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί . . . χαρὰ καὶ στεφανός
μov, 1 Cor. iv. 13; xv. 20; Col. iii. 4; Phil. iv. 18; Rev. i. 6;
xvi. 3 (Soph. Oed. C. 472; Eurip. Troad. 432 ; Plin. epp. 9, 26
Demosthenes, illa norma oratoris et regula, Liv. 1, 20, 3 virgines
Vestae, Alba oriundum sacerdotium, 1, 27, 3; 8, 32, 5), 1 Cor. i. 2
τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χρ., τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ,
1 Jno. v. 16 δώσει αὐτῷ ζωήν, τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσιν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον,
470 cf. 1 Kings xii. 10; Xen. Mem. 2, 3, 2; Hi. 3, 4. Cf. Vig. p. 41.
6th ed.
μου,
1
1 Bornemann's exposition (bibl. Studien der sächs. Geistl. I. 71), according to which
αὐτῷ is referred to him that asks, and τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσι is taken for a Dativ. commodi
(he will give him life for them etc.), appears to me artificial. Αὐτῷ cannot well be
referred to ἀδελφὸς ἁμαρτάνων ἁμαρτίαν μὴ πρὸς θάνατον, as αἰτεῖν here manifestly denotes
intercession.
§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC.
531
•
Still greater discordance occurs in the apposition contained in
Col. iii. 5 νεκρώσατε τὰ μέλη .. πορνείαν, ἀκαθαρσίαν etc., where
the vices are placed beside the members employed in the indulgence
of them, the results beside the instruments. See Matth. 974. But
even from the agreement of the apposition with the noun in case
(apart from what has been established above by 1 Cor. xvi. 21),
there are exceptions:
a. It is a very common grammatical usage to annex the apposi-
tion in the genitive to the noun on which it depends (Bengel on
Jno. ii. 21), as in 2 Pet. ii. 6 πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Γομόρρας
(Odyss. 1, 2; Thuc. 4, 46; Krü. 97, like urbs Romae, flumen Rheni
in Latin, cf. also Hoffmann, Grammat. Syr. p. 298), Luke xxii. 1
ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων (2 Macc. vi. 7 Διονυσίων ἑορτή), ii. 41; Jno.
xiii. 1; 2 Cor. v. 5 Tòv appaßôvа тоû πVеÚμаTos the earnest of the
Spirit (consisting in the Spirit), the Spirit as an earnest (Eph.
i. 14), Rom. iv. 11 onμeîov éλаßе πеρɩтоµns (where some au-
thorities give πeρɩтoµýν as an emendation), Jno. ii. 21; xi. 13;
Acts ii. 33; iv. 22; Rom. viii. 21; xv. 16; 1 Cor. v. 8; 2 Cor. v. 1;
Eph. ii. 14; vi. 14, 16 f.; Col. iii. 24; Heb. vi. 1; xii. 11; Jas.
i. 12; 1 Pet. iii. 3, etc. Under this head comes also Eph. iv. 9
κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα (μέρη) τῆς γῆς (ar, mm) to the lower
parts i.e. the earth, or which constitute the earth (similar is
Isa. xxxviii. 14 εἰς τὸ ὕψος τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, cf. Acts ii. 19 ἐν τῷ 554
οὐρανῷ ἄνω . . . ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κάτω). The Apostle iufers from ἀνέβη
a kaтéẞη: now Christ strictly and properly came down on earth
(and from it ascended again); this, contrasted with heaven, which
is here called os, is spoken of as a deep or lower region. Christ's 495
descent into Hades (to which the expression is referred in Evang. 7th ed.
Apocr. p. 445) as an isolated fact cannot here be taken into
consideration; it would be too restricted to refer the expression
aixμaλwτevei aixuaλwolav to that. Finally, in Rom. viii. 23 also
αἰχμαλωτεύειν αἰχμαλωσίαν
the interpretation of ảπарɣǹ тоÛ πνEÚμатоs the Spirit as first-fruits,
that is, of God's gracious gifts, has not yet been conclusively
disproved, even by Mey. and Philippi. The main argument against
it, that the Genitive after aπapуý is always (in biblical diction?
yet cf. Exod. xxvi. 21; Deut. xii. 11, 17) partitive, is merely
mechanical. According to this, we could never say: my first-
fruits, first-fruits of the Pentecost etc. Living languages cannot
be pent up within so narrow bounds, cf. Fr. Rom. II. 175. The
Spirit is unquestionably a divine gift, as well as σωτηρία οι κλη
povoμla, and may with perfect propriety be regarded as the first-
532
§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC.
fruits of the gifts of God; and this view is favored by the phrase
ἀῤῥαβὼν τοῦ πνεύματος more than Philippi is ready to admit Ou
the other hand, πveûμa to signify the fulness of heavenly gifts here-
after is not current in biblical usage.1 As for the rest, the Genitivus
471 appositionis is easily explicable from the nature of the Genitive
6th ed. (the sign of circumcision, the Genitive of the closer specification
of a general notion), and is not unfrequent in the Oriental idiom
(Gesen. Lehrg. 677; Ewald 579), while in Greek it appears to be
confined to the above geographical expression (and even this is
on the whole rare). Not one of the instances adduced from Thuc.
by Bauer, Philol. Thuc. Paull. p. 31 sqq., is entirely certain.2 In
Latin, however, cf. besides the expressions, quite usual in ancient
languages but unnoticed by the moderns, verbum scribendi, voca-
bulum silentii, Cic. off. 2, 5 collectis ceteris causis, eluvionis, pesti-
lentiae, vastitatis rel. (i.e. quae consistunt in eluv., pestilentia, etc.).
555 b. Sometimes we find the Nominative where the structure of
the sentence would lead us to expect a different case, as in Jas.
iii. 8 τὴν γλῶσσαν οὐδεὶς δύναται δαμάσαι· ἀκατάστατον κακόν,
μeoтn loû. The last words are to be regarded as a sort of excla-
mation, and, therefore, annexed in an independent construction,
cf. Mark xii. 40; Phil. iii. 18 f. So also might Rev. i. 5 àπò 'Inσoû
Χριστοῦ, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός be taken. In Luke xx. 27 προςελθόντες
τινὲς τῶν Σαδδουκαίων, οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι etc., τῶν
ȧvτiλeyóvTwv would have been more precise, and nothing is gained
496 by a reference to Bhdy. S. 68 (Mey.). Moreover, the passage
7th ed. (Thuc. 1, 110) adduced by Bornem. in loc. is not entirely analo-
gous. There is, however, some similarity in Corn. Nep. 2, 7
illorum urbem ut propugnaculum oppositum esse barbaris, where
the gender (as in the above instance the case) is conformed to
that, not of the substantive to which it in sense belongs, but of a
subordinate substantive. Further, a parallel construction in the
N. T. would be Mark vii. 19 according to the reading kalapilwv.
On the other hand, Demosth. Aristocrat. 458 a. ópậ ... TÊS TÓXEWS
τῆς πόλεως.
οἰκοδομήματα καὶ κατασκευάσματα τηλικαῦτα καὶ τοιαῦτα, ὥςτε ...
προπύλαια ταῦτα, νεώςοικοι, στοαί etc. appears to be an intentional
1 It would be a great mistake to consider as an apposition the second Genitive in
Col. ii. 17 ἅ ἐστι σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The words are
undoubtedly to be so explained as to make Xploтoû a part of the predicate, and
dependent on orí: but the body is of Christ, belongs to Christ, is in, with, Christ.
2 In the passages adduced by Mey. on Eph., as above, [1st. and 2d edns.] from Erfurdt's
Soph. Antig. 355 and Schaef. Apollon. Rhod. schol. p. 235, there is nothing connected
with the Gen. apposit.
§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC.
533
anacoluthon. And it is in general quite intelligible how even a
word in apposition, if it is to be introduced as independent, is put
in the Nominative without regard to the construction, a sort
of detaclied insertion.
In 2 Cor. xi. 28 ½ éñwσvoraσís μov etc. is not an abnormal apposition to
Xwpis tŵv tapektÓS — such a solecism is not to be credited to Paul,
παρεκτός
— but
Subject Nominative, and as such rendered prominent.
The apposition to a Vocative stands in the Nominative in Rom. ii. 1
☎ ävОρwπe πâs ó kpívov, Rev. xi. 17; xvi. 7; cf. Bar. ii. 12; Acta apocr.
p. 51, 60; the epexegesis in these cases is not construed with the Vocative,
but introduced independently. Cf. Bhdy. S. 67. In Matt. vi. 9 the adjunct
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς could not have been annexed to πάτερ by means of the
article in any other manner than it is, since the article has no Voc. form.
9. An apposition sometimes refers, not merely to single words,
but also to whole clauses (Erfurdt, Soph. Oed. R. 602; Monk,
Eurip. Alcest. 7; Matth. Eurip. Phoen. 223; Sprachl. II. 970 f. ;
Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 228; Krü. 215); and the nouns of which it
consists, in the Nom. or Acc. according to the form of the sentence, 472
may then frequently be resolved into an independent proposition 6th ed.
(Wannowski, syntax. anoin. p. 47 sqq. 197 sq.):
a. Substantives in the Acc. (cf. also Lob. paralip. p. 519), as in
Rom. xii. 1 παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς, παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν
ζῶσαν, ἁγίαν, εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν, i.e.
ἥτις ἐστὶ λογ. λατρ. qui est cultus etc., 1 Tim. ii. 6 ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν
ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις ; — and in the
Nominative, as in 2 Thess. i. 4 f. ESTE ýμâs avтoùs èv iµîv кavɣ⤤ai
ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑπομονῆς ὑμῶν καὶ πίστεως ἐν 550
πᾶσι τοῖς διωγμοῖς ὑμῶν καὶ ταῖς θλίψεσιν, αἷς ἀνέχεσθε, ἔνδειγμα
TŶs dɩKaias кpiσews Tоû leοû etc. (cf. Sueton. Calig. 16 decretum est,
ut dies... Parilia vocaretur, velut argumentum rursus conditae
urbis, Curt. 4, 7, 13 repente obductae coelo nubes condidere solem,
ingens aestu fatigatis auxilium, Cic. Tusc. 1, 43, 102; Hor. sat.
1, 4, 110; Flor. 3, 21). See Eurip. Orest. 1105; Herc. fur. 59; 497
Electr. 231; Plat. Gorg. 507 d.; as to Latin, Ramshorn 296. 7th ed.
Bengel incorrectly applies this usage to Eph. i. 23 тò πλńρwµa etc.
where occurs a perfectly simple appositive relation (to σôμa aʊTOû).
b. A Neuter adjective or participle refers to the whole clause in
2 Tim. ii. 14 διαμαρτυρ. ἐνώπιον τοῦ κυρίου μὴ λογομαχεῖν, εἰς οὐδὲν
χρήσιμον, Mark vii. 19 καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζον
πάντα τὰ βρώματα which namely ἐκπορ. εἰς τ. ἀφ.) purges all sorts
of food; yet see above, 8 b. cf. § 66, 3 g. (On the other hand,
534
§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC.
we must not with Mey. take ȧvакаλUTтóμеvоv in 2 Cor. iii. 14 for
such an impersonal apposition; it is an attributive to káλvµµa.)
In Rev. xxi. 17 μέτρον ἀνθρώπου is annexed as a loose apposition to
ἐμέτρησε τὸ τεῖχος etc. A construction similar, but not exactly the same,
is adduced by Mdv. S. 23.
10. The word in apposition naturally follows the main substan-
tive, but for the sake of emphasis is sometimes separated from it
by several intervening words; as, 1 Cor. v. 7 Tò пúσуа ημwν ÚπÈρ
ýµŵv ¿Túơn, Xpioтós, Rom. viii. 28; 2 Cor. vii. 6; Heb. vii. 4;
Stallb. Plat. Euthyd. p. 144; Weber, Demosth. p. 152; Jas. i. 7 f.
μὴ οἰέσθω ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος, ὅτι λήψεταί τι παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου, ἀνὴρ
Si↓νXOS, ȧKATÚσTаTоs etc. we say he, a double-minded man. Rom.
δίψυχος,
vii. 21 does not belong here; and as to 2 Cor. xi. 2 see Mey. against
Fr. The apposition precedes, for an obvious reason, in 1 Pet. iii. 7
οἱ ἄνδρες συνοικοῦντες . . . ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ. But of
a different nature is, for example, Tit. i. 3 Kaт' ÈπITAYηV TOû σWTĤPOS
ἡμῶν θεοῦ. Here the Predicate σωτὴρ ἡμῶν is the principal noun,
but is explained epexegetically (since elsewhere Christ is so called)
by the appositive Oeós. So also in Rom. iv. 12; 1 Tim. ii. 3;
θεός.
2 Tim. i. 10; Acts xxiv. 1; 1 Pet. iii. 15; v. 8; 2 Pet. i. 11; ii. 20
(iii. 7); Rev. ix. 11; Jno. vi. 27; Luke ii. 1; Jude 4; Heb. ii. 9 ;
cf. Aeschin. ep. 6, p. 124 b.; Paus. 1, 10, 5; Alciphr. 3, 41; D. S.
exc. Vat. p. 60. Frequently also in Latin, as in Cic. orat. 1, 18;
Liv. 1, 14; 10, 35; 27,1; Caes. b. gall. 4, 1, 10; afr. 98; Suet.
Tib. 2; Galb. 4; Otho 1; Nep. 20, 1; 22, 3.
557 Under this head come also adjectives or substantives placed at the
beginning of a sentence, when corresponding to epexegetical apposition
473 they herald the contents of the sentence (Krü.215f; Mdv. 229): Heb. viii. 1
6th ed. κεφάλαιον ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις τοιοῦτον ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα (Lycurg. orat. 17, 6),
where it is not necessary to supply ἐστί. Cf. Rom. viii. 3; 1 Pet. iii. 8.
11. In conclusion, we must advert to the irregularities (sole-
cisms) of government and apposition which occur in the Revelation
(especially in the descriptions of visions), and which, from their
number and nature, give the style the impress of considerable
harshness; see, besides the well-known works of Stolberg and
498 Schwarz (see above, p. 8), my exeget. Stud. I. 164 ff.¹ They are
7th ed.
1 What Hitzig (on Joh. Marcus. Zürich, 1843. 8vo. S. 65 ff.) has collected respecting
the language of the Revelation, serves a special critical purpose, and too much is put
down to the account of the Hebrew element. A more moderate view is taken by Lücke,
Apokal. II. 448 ff., who, however, in this particular sets too high a value on Hitzig's
merits.
§ 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC.
535
partly intended, and partly traceable to the writer's negligence.
From a Greek point of view they may be explained as instances
of anacoluthon, blending of two constructions, constructio ad
sensum, variatio structurae, as should always have been done,
instead of attributing them to the ignorance of the author, or pro-
nouncing them to be mere Hebraisms, since most of them would
be anomalies even in Hebrew, and in producing many of them
Hebrew could have had only an indirect and incidental influence.
But with all his simplicity and Oriental tone of diction, the author
understands and observes very well the rules of Greek syntax, and
even in imitating Hebrew expressions proceeds judiciously (Lücke
S. 447). Besides, examples analogous to many of these irregu-
larities occur in the Sept., and even in Greek authors; though
certainly not in such thick succession as in the Revelation. In
reference to particulars we remark:
Rev. ii. 20 is probably to be construed thus: ὅτι ἀφεῖς τὴν γυναῖκά
σου 'Ιεζάβελ· ἡ λέγουσα ἑαυτὴν προφῆτιν καὶ διδάσκει καὶ πλανᾷ
etc. who, while she pretends to be a prophetess, teaches and seduces
etc. The blending of two constructions explains vii. 9 εἶδον, καὶ
ἰδοὺ ὄχλος πολὺς ... ἑστῶτες ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου
...περιβε
βλημένους (where the writer, in using the Nom. had ιδού, and
in using the Acc. περιβ. had εἶδον, in his mind, and blended both
constructions together, cf. iv. 4; xiv. 14; Judith x. 7; Stallb.
Plat. Euthyphr. p. 32).1 In Rev. v. 11 f. ήκουσα φωνὴν ἀγγέλων 558
. . . καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν μυριάδες μυριάδων . . . λέγοντες, the last
word does not refer to μυριάδες but to ἄγγελοι (as the words καὶ
ἦν . . . μυρ. are to be considered parenthetical), as if the writer
had commenced φωνὴν ἐπῆραν ἄγγελοι etc. Similar are Thuc. 7,
42 τοῖς Συρακουσίοις ... κατάπληξις οὐκ ὀλίγη ἐγένετο
ὁρῶντες, Achill. Tat. 6, 13 πειρατήριον ταῦτα εἶναί σοι δοκεῖ . .
ἄνδρα τοιοῦτον λαβοῦσα, Plat. Phaed. p. 81 a. οὐκοῦν οὕτω μὲν 474
ἔχουσα εἰς τὸ ὅμοιον αὐτῇ τὸ ἀειδὲς ἀπέρχεται τὸ θεῖόν τε ..., of 6th ed.
ἀφικομένῃ ὑπάρχει αὐτῇ εὐδαίμονι εἶναι, πλάνης . . . ἀπηλλαγ
μένῃ, ὥςπερ δὲ λέγεται κατὰ τῶν μεμυημένων, ὡς ἀληθῶς τὸν λοιπὸν
χρόνον μετὰ θεῶν διάγουσα, instead of διαγούσῃ.) Elsewhere we 199
find λέγων, λέγοντες iv. 1 ; ix. 13 sq. ; xi. 15 with φωνή, φωναί etc., the Tib ed
reference being to the speakers themselves. Λέγων is even used
1 In Rev. xiv. 14 εἶδον, καὶ ἰδοὺ νεφέλη λευκὴ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν νεφέλην καθήμενον ὅμοιον υἱῷ
ανθρώπου, ἔχων etc., probably καθήμενον is not the Acc. Masc., but the Neuter used
substantively on the cloud something like unto a human being etc. Afterwards the
construction immediately passes into the Masculine.
536 § 59. EXTENSION OF A SIMPLE SENTENCE, ETC.
α
quite absolutely xi. 1; xiv. 7; xix. 6, as in the Sept. correspond-
ing to Gen. xv. 1; xxii. 20; xxxviii. 13; xlv. 16; xlviii. 2;
Exod. v. 14; Josh. x. 17; Judges xvi. 2; 1 Sam. xv. 12; 1 Kings
xii. 10, (and even Rev. v. 12 might be so taken). The anomalous
apposition (§ 59, 8 b.) in Rev. iii. 12 appears more strange: Tò
ὄνομα τῆς πόλεως τοῦ θεοῦ μου, τῆς καινῆς ῾Ιερ., ἡ καταβαίνουσα
ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ . . . καὶ τὸ ὄνομα μου το καινόν (where, however, ή
Kaтaßaívovσa etc., as it cannot well be taken for a Nominat. tituli,
interrupts the structure as a significant parenthesis, as if for autî
ἐστὶν ἡ κατ.); and that also in xiv. 12 ὧδε ὑπομονὴ τῶν ἁγίων ἐστίν·
Oi τηpoûνTES Tàs Évroλás etc. (i. 5), where there is an abrupt
transition to a new sentence, somewhat as in Jas. iii. 8 Tỳν yλŵσoav
οὐδεὶς δύναται ἀνθρώπων δαμάσαι, ἀκατάσχετον κακόν, μεστὴ τοῦ
θανατηφόρου. Likewise in Rev. viii. 9 ἀπέθανεν τὸ τρίτον τῶν
κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ, τὰ ἔχοντα ψυχάς, ix. 14; xvi. 3
probably the apposition is purposely inserted in an independent
form; see besides xx. 2. In Rev. xxi. 11 f. there is a repeated
change of construction: first we find karaẞaívovoav regularly
construed with tỶu tóλ vs. 10; then follows ά pworýp etc., as
an independent parenthetic clause; vs. 12 reverts to Tóλes, but
the attributive forms part of a new sentence, exovaa etc. Cf. Cic.
Brut. 35 Q. Catulus non antiquo more sed hoc nostro eruditus ;;
multae literae, summa ...comitas etc. On the combination of
two constructions, each of which is allowable, in xviii. 12 f.;
xix. 12, see § 63 II. 1. That in xvii. 14 [?] is less harsh. In i. 5 f.
Tô ảyaπŵvтɩ etc. is connected with avτŵ ý dóğa etc.; the author,
however, instead of writing xai Tоinσavтi etc., inserts this thought
as an independent clause. The connection of two genders in xiv. 19
we noticed above, no. 4 b. Still more singular is the construction.
in xi. 4 οὗτοί εἰσιν αἱ δύο ἐλαῖαι καὶ αἱ δύο λυχνίαι αἱ ἐνώπιον τοῦ
κυρίου ἑστῶτες (for ἑστῶσαι is manifestly a correction), v. 6
559 (iv. 8; xiv. 1 var.); the attributives, however, are construed ad
sensum, since the substantives denote living creatures of the mas-
culine gender. As to i. 4 see p. 68.
α
•
(Inaccuracies of a different kind have been occasionally noticed in the
previous part of this Grammar. With Sidάokew Twí p. 227, may be classed
xix. 5 αἰνεῖν τῷ θεῷ. The conjunction ἵνα is frequently in good Codd.
p. 289 sq.
construed with the Indic. Present, xiii. 17; xx. 3.)
§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
537
§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES: PERIODS.1
500
7th ed.
1. In continued discourse, connection between propositions is
the rule; want of connection (asyndeton), the exception. The 475
latter sometimes grammatical, and sometimes rhetorical.
a. Absence of grammatical connection occurs not only with
sentences which begin new (i.e. the larger) sections, the commence-
ment of which the want of connection is intended to indicate, as
in Rom. ix. 1; x. 1; xiii. 1; Gal. iii. 1; iv. 21; vi. 1; Epl. vi. 1,
5,10; Phil. iv. 1, 4; 1 Tim. iii. 1, 14; v. 1; vi. 1, 3; 2 Tim. ii. 14;
iv. 1; 1 Pet. v. 1; 2 Pet. iii. 1; 1 Jno. ii. 1; iv. 1 f.; but also in
uninterrupted discourse in the case of individual sentences, some-
times in narration where mere sequence passes for chronological
connection, sometimes in the didactic style, particularly with in-
junctions, maxims and the like, which, although running on one
common thread of discourse, yet present themselves as individually
independent. The former class are of most frequent occurrence
in John, and constitute one of the peculiarities of that writer's
style, cf. the oft-recurring λέγει οι εἶπεν αὐτῷ, ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ i. 38,
40, 42, 44, 46 f. 49, 52; ii. 4 f. 7, 8; iii. 3; iv. 7, 11, 15, 17, 19,
21, 25, 26, 34, 50; i. 26, 49 f.; ii. 19; iii. 3, 5, 9, 10, iv. 13, 17;
though it is not to be denied that by asyndeton (cf. xx. 26; xxi. 3),
especially where it runs through several verses, the narration gains
much in liveliness and impressiveness (as it is often accompanied
with the praesens historicus), Jno. iii. 3-5; iv. 9-11, 15-17;
v. 6–8; xx. 14-18, and the grammatical asyndeton is combined
with the rhetorical.
6th ed.
Didactic asyndeton occurs in the sermon on the mount, Matt. v.
vi. and vii., also in James, but most frequently in John (in Christ's
discourses and in the 1st Epistle). The discourse incessantly 560
begins anew, as it were; and in translating, it is unjustifiable to
insert a connecting particle. Cf. Jno. ii. 7; iii. 30-33; v. 43, 45;
vii. 17, 18; x. 3, 4, 17 f.; xv. 2-24; 1 Jno. i. 6, 8-10; ii. 4, 6,
9 f. 15, 18 f.; iii. 1 f. 4-10, 18-20; iv. 4-10, 12; v. 1 f. 5 f. 9 f.
12, 16-19; Jas. i. 16-18; iv. 7-10; v. 1-6, 8-10; Rom. xii. 9,
14, 16, 21; 1 Tim. iv. 11-16; v. 14, 22-24; Matt. x. 8.
2. b. Rhetorical asyndeton, of which even Longinus 19; Gregor.
Cor. in Walz rhet. graeci VII. II. 1211; Quintil. institut. 9, 3, 50
sq. treat, and which is correctly classed among rhetorical figures
1 Schleiermacher, Hermeneutik, S. 116 f.
68
538
§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
7th ed.
(Glassii philol. sacra I. 512 sq.; Bauer, rhetor. Paull. II. 591 sqq.;
501 cf. Hand, lat. Styl. p. 302),¹ is naturally found more frequently in
the epistles than in the historical books of the N. T., but has not
always been considered by expositors from the right point of view.
Since it produces in general a sharp and rapid advance in the dis-
course, it gives to the style liveliness and force. The following
476 different sorts of rhetorical asyndeton (Bhdy. S. 448; Kühner II.
6th ed. 459 f.) between sentences (for as to asyndeton within a sentence,
see § 58, 7) may be distinguished. The connecting particles are
omitted,
561
a) When in impassioned discourse a series of parallel clauses
are annexed to each other; particularly in a climax (Reiz and
Lehmann on Lucian v. hist. 2 § 35), where the repetition of the
connective would make the discourse drag. Mark iv. 39 oiúta,
πεφίμωσο, 1 Cor. iv. 8 ἤδη κεκορεσμένοι ἐστέ· ἤδη ἐπλουτήσατε,
Xwpis ýµŵv èẞaoiλeúσate, xiii. 4–8; xiv. 26; 1 Thess. v. 14; 1 Pet.
ii. 17; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 2 Cor. vii. 2; Jas. v. 6; 1 Pet. v. 10 etc.
Similar is Demosth. Phil. 4, p. 54 a.; Pantaen. 626 a.; Xen. Cyr.
7, 1, 38; Weber, Demosth. p. 363.
b) In antitheses, where the force of the contrast is thus made
to strike the reader more pointedly: 1 Cor. xv. 43 f. σTеiρeтαι èv
ἀτιμίᾳ, ἐγείρεται ἐν δόξῃ, σπείρεται ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, ἐγείρεται ἐν δυνάμει,
σπείρ. σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἐγείρ. σῶμα πνευματικόν, Jas. i. 19 πᾶς ἄνθρω-
πος ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι, cf. further, Mark
xvi. 6; Jno. iv. 22; vi. 63; viii. 41, Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 144 and
Plat. Protag. p. 52. So, in general, in the counterpoising of sen-
tences, as Acts xxv. 12 καίσαρα ἐπικέκλησαι, ἐπὶ καίσαρα πορεύσῃ,
cf. Eurip. Iphig. Aul. 464.
c) Especially when a reason or explanation is subjoined to a
statement (Krü. p. 223), or an application or exhortation is de-
duced from what has been said (Stallb. Plat. Alcib. 2 p. 319),
Rev. xxii. 10 μὴ σφραγίσῃς τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου
TоÚTOυ· Ó Kαιρòs èyyús éστw, Jno. iv. 24; viii. 18; xvii. 17; Rom.
vi. 9; 1 Cor. vii. 4, 15; 2 Cor. xii. 11; Rev. xvi. 6, 15; 1 Pet.
v. 8; 2 Pet. ii. 16 (Rev. xiv. 5 var.); Heb. iii. 12 ẞλéπeтe (cf. vss.
7-11) μήποτε ἔσται ἔν τινι ὑμῶν καρδία πονηρὰ ἀπιστίας, 1 Cor.
vi. 18; v. 7, 13; vii. 23; 2 Cor. xi. 30 (see Mey.); Jno. xii. 35.
1 See Dissen 2 excurs. to the Gotha ed. of Pindar; also Hm. in Jahn's Jahrbb. I. 54 ff. ;
further Nägelsbach's Notes on the Ilíad, p. 266 ff. As to Latin, cf. Ramshorn, S. 514 f.
For the Hebrew, many examples (which, indeed, require sifting) are given by Nolde,
Concordant. particul. p. 313 sqq.
§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
539
As a distinct species of asyndeton that construction deserves notice,
which, after a declaration, appends a discussion of it by repeating
the substantive without και, as in Jno. x. 11 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ
καλός· ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλὸς τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ τίθησιν ὑπὲρ τῶν προβά
тwv, xv. 13; 1 Cor. viii. 2. In such passages we need only supply
in thought a ὅτι (γάρ) or οὖν (ώςτε), in order to feel how the
expression would thus be weakened, cf. Lys. in Nicomach. 23;
Aesch. Ctesiph. 48 (Kritz, Sallust. I. 184). Lastly, the amplifica- 502
tion of a thought is not unfrequently introduced asyndetically, as
in Heb. xi. 3.
Clauses appended ȧovvdéros, the expositors, in accordance with a prev-
alent impropriety, are fond of bringing into connection with what precedes
by the insertion of particles, and thus the rhetorical effect of the omission
of the conjunction is entirely overlooked, e.g. 1 Cor. iii. 17; vii. 23; Jas.
v.. 3, see Pott in loc. With similar impropriety the copyists have often
inserted a connective.
7th ed.
3. Sentences are connected with each other most simply by the
copulative particles kaí and Te (negatively by oudé), which denote
nothing beyond mere annexation (see § 53). Hence in historical
style, according to Oriental simplicity, the transition from one fact
to another is often made by them, -- by xaí in the Gospels and the
Acts, Te (Mdv. S. 212) being used almost exclusively in Acts; cf. 477
Kaí Matt. iv. 23-25; vii. 25; viii. 23-25; ix. 1-4; xiii. 53-58; 6th ed.
Mark i. 13; ii. 1 f.; Jno. ii. 7 f. 13-16; iii. 22; ir. 27; v. 9;
Acts ii. 1-4; xii. 7-9, 24-26; Te Acts xii. 6, 12, 17; xiii. 4, 40,
50, 52; xiv. 11-13, 21; xv. 4, 6; xvi. 23, 34; xvii. 20; xviii. 4,
26; xix. 2 f. 6, 11; xx. 3, 7; xxv. 2; xxvii. 3, 8, 29; xxviii. 2.1
In particular, after a specification of time in an independent clause
the event is annexed by καί, as in Mark xv. 25 ἦν ὥρα τρίτη καὶ
ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν, Juo. xi. 55 ἦν ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα καὶ ἀνέβησαν
Tоλλoi, iv. 35 etc. (cf. § 53, 3). With the Greeks this became an
established form when the specification of time was to be made
prominent, see Mdv. 213 f.
Narration is continued, however, still more regularly by means
of the well-defined connecting particles dé and ovv (sce § 53).562
Thesc, since the first adds something other, different, new, and the
second indicates the sequence, are in a loose application peculiarly
adapted to the historical style. Hence the N. T. writers, by an
1 What Rost, S. 723 f., says of this Te connecting clauses in Attic prose scarcely finds
corroboration in Luke.
540
§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
οὖν and δέ) ;
interchange of καί, δέ, οὖν, imparted to their narration a certain
variety, which even in the Gospels veiled the Hebraistic complex-
ion. Cf. Jno. ii. 1 (και twice); 2 (δέ); 3 (καί) ; 8 (καί), 8 f.
(dé); iv. 4 (dé); 5 (ovv); 6 (dé and ovv); 39 (dé); 40 (ovv);
41 (καί) ; 42 (τε); Acts xii. 1-3 (δέ four times); 5
β (δέ) ; 7 (και twice and δέ) ; 8 (δέ twice and καί) ;
and δέ); 10 (καί twice and δέ); 11 (καί) ; 12 (τε);
(καί and δέ) ; 15 (δέ three times); 16 (δέ twice); 17 (δέ, τε, aud
καί); 18 (δέ); 19 (δέ and καί); 20 (δέ twice); 21, 22 (δέ); 23
(dé and kai); 24 f. (Sé); xxv. 1 (oûv); 2 (te); 4, 5 (oûv); 6,
7 (δέ), etc.
9 (καί twice
13 (δέ); 14
Not much more characteristic, yet aiming at greater diversity, is the
503 connection, in the historical style, effected by τότε (especially in Matt.),
7th ed. μετὰ τοῦτο οι ταῦτα (especially in John and Luke), ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις
etc. (in isolated cases εἶτα).
The polysyndeton between clauses not purely narrative is designed to
give them prominence as individual portions of a compound sentence, e.g.
Jno. x. 3 τούτῳ ὁ θυρωρὸς ἀνοίγει καὶ τὰ πρόβατα τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούει
καὶ τὰ ἴδια πρόβατα φωνεῖ κατ᾿ ὄνομα καὶ ἐξάγει αὐτά vss. 9, 12 ; cf. Acts
xiii. 36; xvii. 28 ; 1 Cor. xii. 4 fr.
...
K
4. The connection of sentences is more close when it is based
on a contrast: either in general, when two sentences are joined
together, like an arsis and thesis, by μέν . . . δέ (Mdv. 215) οι καί
και (Mdv. 212), negatively by οὔτε ... οὔτε, as Acts xxii. 9
τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο, τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν, xxiii. 8; xxv. 11;
i. 5 (cf. § 53, 7); Mark ix. 13 καὶ Ἠλίας ἐλήλυθεν καὶ ἐποίησαν
αὐτῷ ὅσα ἤθελον, Jno. ix. 37 see $ 53, 4; or when an affirmative
sentence is opposed to a negative, or vice versa, as Jno. iii. 17 οὐκ
ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα
478 σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος, Rom. ix. 1 ἀλήθειαν λέγω ἐν Χριστῷ, οὐ ψεύδομαι,
6th ed. cf. § 55, 8.
563
ó
To this form of expression (antithesis) are likewise to be referred,
a. Comparative sentences, as Matt. xii. 40 ώςπερ ἦν ᾿Ιωνᾶς ἐν τῇ
κοιλίᾳ τοῦ κήτους τρεῖς ἡμέρας κ. τρεῖς νύκτας, οὕτως ἔσται ὁ υἱὸς
τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τ. γῆς, Matt. v. 48 ἔσεσθε ὑμεῖς τέλειοι, ὡς
ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν τέλειός ἐστιν, Juo. iii. 14 καθώς Μωϋσῆς ὕψωσεν .
οὕτως ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ, Luke vi. 31 καθὼς θέλετε, ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὑμῖν
οἱ ἄνθρωποι . . . καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς ὁμοίως.
b. Temporal sentences (see $ 53,8), as Luke i. 23 ὡς ἐπλήσθησαν
αἱ ἡμέραι . . . ἀπῆλθεν, Acts xxvii. 1; Jno. iv. 1; Matt. xvii. 25
ὅτε εἰςῆλθεν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν ... προέφθασεν, vi. 2 ὅταν οὖν ποιῇς
ἐλεημοσύνην, μὴ σαλπίσῃς ἔμπροσθέν σου, etc.
§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
541
c. Even conditional sentences (§ 53, 8) 1 Cor. ix. 17 el ékòv
τοῦτο πράσσω, μισθὸν ἔχω, Luke vii. 39 εἰ ἦν προφήτης, ἐγίνωσκεν
ἄν, Juo. vii. 17 ἐάν τις θέλῃ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ ποιεῖν, γνώσεται etc.
That these also are properly to be referred to this head, is apparent
from the structure, elsewhere examined, that occurs in Jas. v. 13
κακοπαθεί τις ἐν ὑμῖν, προςευχέσθω, where the conditional clause
makes its appearance as independent: some one among you is
afflicted (I suppose the case), let him pray; 1 Cor. vii. 21 Soûλos
Ékλý‡ns, µý σoi μeλéтw, cf. Jas. ii. 19 f.; Mdv. 224. Here ei has
by some been unwarrantably supplied; and it is equally inadmis-
sible to regard the first clause as interrogative, see above, p. 285;
cf. Bhdy. 385; Dissen, Demosth. cor. p. 284 sq. So in Latin Terent.
Eunuch. 2, 2, 21 negat quis, nego; ait, ajo. Heind. Horat. serm.
1, 1, 45; Kritz, Sall. II. 349.
5. In the cases just adduced a.-c. (as well as in causal sen-
tences) a protasis and apodosis are contrasted (Luke i. 1; v. 4;
Matt. iv. 3; v. 13; Heb. ii. 14, etc.), though the beginning of the
latter is not in most cases specially marked, as it is in German by 504
so(hence sometimes it is doubtful where the apodosis begins, 7th ed.
as in Jas. iii. 3 f.; iv. 15, etc.); for when ourws seems to be em-
ployed for this purpose, or when eiтa, Tóтe, and in hypothetical
constructions aλλá, dé (Jacobs, Ael. anim. p. 27 sq. praef.), apa
(ovv? see § 63), is put before the apodosis, as in Mark xiii. 14;
Matt. xii. 28; Jno. vii. 10; xi. 6; xii. 16; 1 Cor. i. 23; xv. 54;
xvi. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 4; 1 Thess. v. 3, etc., it is intended to give
prominence to the apodosis, by ouτws in particular to refer again
to the circumstances expressed in the protasis.
It is only in comparative sentences that
a. Α οὕτως οι καί before the apodosis corresponds often to the
¿s, wsπEP, Kałws of the protasis, Rom. v. 15; 2 Cor. xi. 3; 1 Thess.
ii. 7; Matt. xii. 40; Jno. v. 21; xv. 4, 9; xx. 21 (OUтws is the
most regular correlate of ὥςπερ). Οὕτως after a conditional
clause was formerly thought to be purely pleonastic. But in Rev.
xi. 5 oûтws means hoc modo (see the sentence preceding), and in
1 Thess. iv. 14 it refers to the similarity of the lot of believers to
that of Christ (àπélave κaì ȧvéorn); and these instances have no
resemblance to those adduced by Mtth. 1457. (Still less is OUTWS 564
redundant after participles in Jno. iv. 6; Acts xx. 11; see § 65, 9.) 479
In the case of grouping of protasis and apodosis, the protasis is 6th ed.
usually repeated in a distinct form after the apodosis, so as to
produce apparently a double apodosis, as in Rev. ii. 5 μetavónσov •
μετανόησον·
ανε
542
i
§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
εἰ δὲ μὴ (μετανοεῖς), ἔρχομαί σοι ταχύ . . ., ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσης, where
the length of the sentence occasioned the repetition. This, how-
ever, is probably not the case in Matt. v. 18, see § 65, 6, p. 612.
6. Objective, consecutive, final, and causal sentences are con-
ceived as distinctly dependent on, and consequently subordinate
to, a leading clause, and are accordingly presented in the form of
dependent sentences introduced respectively by őτɩ, ws, by ❝STE,
és (not iva, see § 53, 10, 6 p. 457 sq.) also ovv, apa, by iva or
Öπws, by ɣáρ, Öтi etc. see § 53 (where the relation of grammatical
dependence is sometimes expressed also by the indirect moods of
the verb). Causal are akin to objective sentences; hence both
are introduced by ori (quod), signifying either because or that.
El (like the Latin si) is so used apparently in one class of cases,
after verbs denoting an affection of the mind, where the objec-
tive or might have been expected (Hoogeveen, doctr. partic.
ed. Schütz, p. 228 sq.; Jacob, Lucian. Toxar. p. 52; Mdv. 225),
e.g. Mark xv. 44 ἐθαύμασεν εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκεν miratus est si jam
mortuus fuerit, 1 Jno. iii. 13 μὴ θαυμάζετε, εἰ μισεῖ ὑμᾶς ὁ κόσμος
cf. Fr. Marc. p. 702. But or is employed when the occasion of
surprise (grief etc.) is a positive matter of fact, ei when it hovers
before the speaker's mind as merely a possibility, seems to him
doubtful, or at least is to be represented as doubtful: marvel not,
if the world hate you (Weber, Demosth. p. 535; Mtth. 1474 f.
Rost 622). Similar is Acts xxvi. 8. Sometimes modesty or dif
fidence has led to the selection of this latter form of expression,
505 just as we sometimes hear: he begged him if he would not promise
7th ed. (Germ. er bat ihn, ob u.s.w.). Cf. with this Acts viii. 22.
The affinity of objective and relative sentences is illustrated in Acts
πίν. 27 ἀνήγγελλον, ὅσα ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς μετ᾿ αὐτῶν καὶ ὅτι ἤνοιξεν etc.
;
7. a. Relative sentences still more distinctly assume a dependent
character when they are of an appositive nature, whether more or
less requisite to complete the sentence; as, Matt. ii. 9 ¿ àorýp,
ὃν εἶδον, προῆγεν αὐτούς, Rom. v. 14 Αδάμ, ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλ
λοντος, 1 Cor. i. 30 Χριστῷ, ὃς ἐγενήθη σοφία ἡμῖν etc., Acts i. 2 ;
xv. 10. But the form of a relative clause is adopted in two other
when the discourse, particularly a narration, is con-
tinued by ős and that is resolvable into kai oûtos, as in Acts xiii. 43
ἠκολούθησαν πολλοί ... τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τῷ Βαρνάβα, οἵτινες
προςλαλοῦντες ἔπειθον αὐτούς etc., Acts xvi. 24 ἔβαλον εἰς φυλακὴν
565 παραγγείλαντες τῷ δεσμοφύλακι . . . ὃς παραγγελίαν τοιαύτην etc.,
cases: α.
§ 60, CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
543
6th ed
Luke x. 30; Acts iii. 3; xiii. 31; xiv. 9; xvi. 14, 16; xvii. 10;
xix. 25; xxi. 4; xxii. 4; xxiii. 14; xxviii. 23; B. when the Subject
or Predicate is a relative sentence, e.g. Acts xiii. 25 ἔρχεται, οὗ 480
οὐκ εἰμὶ ἄξιος τὸ ὑπόδημα λῦσαι, vs. 48 ἐπίστευσαν, ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγ
τό
μένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, vs. 37 ; Juo. xi. 3 ὃν φιλεῖς, ἀσθενεῖ, Matt.
x. 27; xxiii. 12; Jno. i. 46; iii. 34; xv. 7; 1 Juo. ii. 5; iv. 6;
Acts xiii. 37; Rom. viii. 25. In this case the relative clause is
often placed before the principal, as in Jno. iii. 34; xiii. 7; 1 Jno.
iii. 17; Acts x. 15; Rom. viii. 25, or there is a reference from
the latter to the relative clause by means of a demonstrative, as
in Matt. v. 19; Luke ix. 26 ; Juo. v. 19; 1 Jno. ii. 5.
Not unfrequently several relative clauses are combined, as in 1 Pet.
iii. 19-22,- either as co-ordinate, as in Acts xiv. 15 f.; i. 2 f.; iii. 2 f.;
xxvii. 23; xxiv. 6, 8 (Tdf.), or as subordinate one to another, as in Acts
xiii. 31 (Ἰησοῦς) ὃς ὤφθη τοῖς συναναβᾶσιν αὐτῷ... οἵτινες νῖν εἰσὶν
μάρτυρες αὐτοῦ etc. xxv. 15 f.; xxvi. 7; Rom. i. 2, 5, 6.
b. Indirect interrogative sentences (which in classic Greek were
marked by the special form of the interrogatives ὅςτις, ὁποῖος,
ὁπόσος etc.), as Jno. vi. 64 ᾔδει τίνες εἰσὶν οἱ μὴ πιστεύοντες, Matt.
x. 11 ἐξετάσατε τίς ἄξιός ἐστιν, Jno. iii. 8 οὐκ οἶδας πόθεν ἔρχεται
κ. ποῦ ὑπάγει, Acts x. 18 ἐπυνθάνετο εἰ Σίμων ἐνθάδε ξενίζεται, Luke
xxii. 23 ἤρξαντο συζητεῖν πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς τὸ τίς ἄρα εἴη ἐξ αὐτῶν ὁ
τοῦτο μέλλων πράσσειν, Acts xxv. 20 ἀπορούμενος ἐγὼ . . . ἔλεγον,
εἰ βούλοιτο πορεύεσθαι etc. Cf. on this Schleiermacher, Hermen.
S. 131.
8. We have thus far spoken of the connection of sentences
with each other by certain single connective words, among which,
speaking somewhat loosely, the relatives also may be reckoned;
but connection may also be effected by means of forms of inflection, 500
especially the Infinitive and the Participle, in such a manner as to 7th ed.
render grammatically the subordinate clauses constituent parts
of the principal clause :
a. 1 Cor. xvi. 3 τούτους πέμψω ἀπενεγκεῖν τὴν χάριν (ἵνα
ἀπενέγκωσι), Mark iv. 3 ἐξῆλθεν ὁ σπείρων τοῦ σπείραι, Acts
xxvi. 16 εἰς τοῦτο ὤφθην σοι, προχειρίσασθαί σε, Phil. i. 7 διὰ
τὸ ἔχειν με ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμᾶς (ὅτι ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ κ. ἔχω), Acts xviii. 2;
xxvii. 9 ; xix. 1 ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ τὸν ᾿Απολλὼ εἶναι ἐν Κορίνθῳ, xx. 1
μετὰ τὸ παύσασθαι τὸν θόρυβον . . . ὁ Παῦλος ἐξῆλθεν. Especially
do Infinitives with prepositions serve to give compactness and
roundness to sentences, and so too the Acc. with the Inf. which
544
§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
566
usually represents an objective clause ; as, Heb. vi. 11 ἐπιθυμοῦμεν
ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὴν αὐτὴν ἐνδείκνυσθαι σπουδήν, 1 Tim. ii. 8 βούλομαι
προςεύχεσθαι ἄνδρας etc. § 44, 3, p. 321.
b. 2 Cor. vii. 1 ταύτας ἔχοντες ἐπαγγελίας καθαρίσωμεν ἑαυτούς,
Luke iv. 35 ; Acts xxv. 13 κατήντησαν ἀσπασόμενοι τὸν Φῆστον,
Acts xxr. 1 Φήστος ἐπιβὰς τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ . . . ἀνέβη, Luke iv. 2 ἤγετο
ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ πειραζόμενος, Acts xii. 16 ἐπέμενε κρούων (§ 45,
4). Particularly are participles in the Gen. abs. employed thus
to denote accessory circumstances, local or temporal (§ 30 note,
p. 207), e.g. Acts xxv. 13 ἡμερῶν διαγενομένων τινῶν ᾿Αγρίππας
καὶ Βερνίκη κατήντησαν, x. 9 ἐκείνων τῇ πόλει ἐγγιζόντων ἀνέβη
Πέτρος, Luke iv. 40 δύνοντος τοῦ ἡλίου πάντες . . . ἤγαγον, ix. 42
ἔτι προςερχομένου αὐτοῦ ἔῤῥηξεν αὐτὸν τὸ δαιμόνιον, Mark xiv. 3 καὶ
481 ὄντος αὐτοῦ ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ, κατακειμένου
6th ed. αὐτοῦ, ἦλθεν γυνή etc. And this gradually became so usual a
mode of expression, that it was employed even when the subject
was the same as that of the principal clause, see p. 208. Besides,
one and the same principal sentence frequently contains several
participial constructions co-ordinate or subordinate one to another,
by which means the structure of the sentence is rendered more
organic, c.g. Acts xii. 25 Βαρνάβας καὶ Σαῦλος ὑπέστρεψαν ἐξ
Ιερουσαλήμ, πληρώσαντες τὴν διακονίαν, συμπαραλαβόντες
καὶ Ἰωάννην, xvi. 27 ἔξυπνος γενόμενος ὁ δεσμοφύλαξ καὶ ἰδὼν
ἀνεῳγμένας τὰς θύρας τῆς φυλακῆς, σπασάμενος μάχαιραν
ἤμελλεν ἑαυτὸν ἀναιρεῖν, νομίζων ἐκπεφευγέναι τοὺς δεσμίους,
xxiii. 27 τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον συλληφθέντα ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων
καὶ μέλλοντα ἀναιρεῖσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐπιστὰς σὺν τῷ στρατεύ
ματι ἐξειλάμην αὐτόν, μαθών etc. Acts xiv. 19; xviii. 22 f.; xxv. 6f;
2 Tim. i. 4; Tit. ii. 13; 1 Cor. xi. 4; Luke vii. 37 f.
Hence in general it must be noticed, that in this manner com-
pound sentences receive not merely greater variety, but also a
greater degree of periodic compactness. This latter result is
effected still more decidedly by the blending of two independent
propositions into one, Attraction (§ 66), for which purpose relatives
possess very extensive aptitude (§ 24). Attraction, too, is itself
very diversified, and occurs even in the N. T. in many forms, from
507 the simple (as in Luke v. 9 ἐπὶ τῇ ἄγρᾳ τῶν ἰχθύων, ᾗ συνέλαβον,
7th ed. Acts iv. 13 ἐπεγίνωσκον αὐτοὺς ὅτι σὺν τῷ Ἰησοῦ ἦσαν) to the
complex, as in Rom.iii. 8 τί ἔτι κἀγὼ ὡς ἁμαρτωλὸς κρίνομαι ; καὶ
μή, καθώς βλασφημούμεθα καὶ καθώς φασίν τινες ἡμᾶς λέγειν, ὅτι
ποιήσωμεν τὰ κακά, ἵνα ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀγαθά ;
§ 60. CONNECTION OF SENTENCES.
545
Note. In contrast with this intertwining of clauses stands the practice
of forming a proposition where a simple Infinitive would have sufficed;
as, Mark xiv. 21 καλὸν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος, 1 Juo. v. 2
å
ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν, ὅτι . . ., ὅταν τὸν θεὸν ἀγαπῶμεν (ii. 3), Acts xxvii. 42
τῶν στρατιωτῶν βουλὴ ἐγένετο, ἵνα τοὺς δεσμώτας ἀποκτείνωσιν (on the other 567
hand, vs. 12), Rev. xix. 8. This mode of expression is not always adopted
from a love of amplification (a peculiarity of the later language), but is
employed sometimes to give more forcible prominence, and sometimes to
attain a more flexible construction.
9. By these various means of connection, the style of the N. T.
is shaped into an organic structure which is by no means destitute
of variety, though it is inferior in this respect to the style of Greek
authors. In this way are constructed periods even of considerable
length, particularly in Luke (and especially in the Acts), e.g. Luke
i. 1–3 ; Acts xii. 13 f. ; xv. 24–26; xvii. 24 f.; xx. 9, 20 f. ; xxiii. 10;
xxvi. 10-14, 16-18; Rom. i. 1-7; 1 Pet. iii. 18-22; Heb. ii. 2–4;
2 Pet. i. 2-7. At the same time it must be admitted that, after
the beginning of a long period has been made, the thread of the
arrangement is frequently broken, and the sentence terminates in
some kind of anacoluthon or remains quite unfinished Rom. iii. 8;
xii. 6-8; xvi. 25 f. 27; Mark vi. 8 f.; Gal. ii. 4 f.; 2 Pet. ii. 4-8;
2 Thess. ii. 3 f.; see § 63, or at least is commenced anew 2 Pet.
ii. 5 sq.; Eph. v. 27; Jno. viii. 53; Rev. ii. 2, 9. The N. T. writers, 482
further, have desisted from one mode of constructing ramified 6th ed
sentences, in that they regularly do not incorporate quotations,
though but of small extent, in an indirect form, but express them
directly, and without introducing them always by otɩ as an external
connective or by λéyov, as in Matt. ix. 18; xxvi. 72; Mark xi. 32;
Luke v. 12; Jno. i. 20; xxi. 17; Gal. i. 23; Acts iii. 22; v. 23,
etc. They often, even when they begin with an indirect quotation
of others' words, pass over very soon into the oratio directa, as in
Luke v. 14; Acts i. 4; xxiii. 22; see § 63. The same takes place.
in particular after verbs of requesting; in which case instead of
subjoining the request indirectly, by means of an Inf. or a clause
with iva (§ 44, 8), the precise words of the petitioner are stated,
as in Luke xiv. 18 ἐρωτῶ σε, ἔχε με παρητημένον, vs. 19 ; v. 12;
Jno. iv. 31; ix. 2; Phil. iv. 3; Acts ii. 40; xvi. 15; xxi. 39;
Matt. viii. 31; xviii. 29; 1 Cor. iv. 16. However, what the style
loses thus in compactness, it gains on the other hand in animation
and vividness. Further, see Schleiermacher, Herm. 131.
Note. It is interesting to notice, in parallel sections, especially in the
69
546
§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
first three gospels, the variety as respects the structure and connection of
508 sentences. Luke will be found by such comparison invariably the most
7th ed.
expert writer, and more careful than the others also in the selection of his
words; (he prefers, for instance, idiomatic expressions, verba composita
and decomposita). This subject, however, belongs to N. T. Stylistics.
568 § 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES, ESPECIALLY WHEN
IRREGULAR (HYPERBATON).
1. The arrangement of the individual words of a sentence is,
in general, determined by the order in which the conceptions are
formed, and by the specific relation which the different parts of
the sentence (as groups of words) bear to each other. This rela-
tion requires, for instance, that the adjective should regularly be
placed in immediate contact with its substantive, the adverb with
its verb or adjective, the Genitive with its governing noun, the
preposition with its case, and one member of an antithesis with
the other. In particulars, however, the connection of a clause
with what precedes (cf. Heb. xi. 1; 1 Tim. vi. 6; Col. ii. 9;
Phil. iv. 10), the greater (rhetorical) emphasis to be given to a
word, even to a greater or less degree the requirements of euphony,
regulate the respective position of the words. Sometimes, how-
ever, the arrangement depends on the nature or the conventional
importance of the ideas (e.g. terra marique, etc.). It is not nec-
essary that the word to be emphasized should be placed at the
commencement of the clause; it may even stand at the end (see
e.g. Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 74), and in any case in that position
which from the nature of the sentence gives it the most striking
prominence. For example, intentional connection with what pre-
483 cedes causes a relative pronoun, even in an oblique case, usually
6th ed. to begin the clause etc. The position of words is determined
therefore, by the laws of the succession of thought and by rhetorical
aims (Hm. Soph. Trach. p. 131). And although these leave great
latitude to the spontaneous mental movements of the writer, and
are never felt by the practised author as trammels; yet just because
the arrangement of words decidedly serves logical and rhetorical
purposes, only a small part of it usually becomes so habitual with
an individual writer that it can be considered as a prominent
characteristic of his style.¹
1 No very thorough treatise is known to me on the arrangement of words in Greek.
Kühner's attempt, however, to vindicate for this subject (under the name of Topik) its
§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
547
2. The arrangement of words in the N. T. is in the main deter- 509
7th ed.
mined by the same principles as in the Greek prose authors, for
569
these principles are but to a very small extent confined to any
particular nation. It must be remarked, however, that
a. The arrangement of words is bolder and more diversified in
the didactic writings, particularly those of Paul, than in the his-
torical books; since in the former the rhetorical element is more
influential, while in the (synoptical) gospels the Hebraistic type
of arrangement predominates.
b. Especially in the narrative style, a wide separation of the
two principal parts of a sentence, the Subject and the verb (Pred-
icate), is avoided; and, in accordance with the Hebrew mode of
expression, sometimes the verb is advanced nearer to the Subject,
sometimes, when the Subject is complex, only the principal Subject
precedes the verb, and the others follow (see § 58, 6), lest the
attention should be kept too long in suspense. Relative clauses,
too, are if possible so placed as to be introduced only after the full
enunciation of the principal clause. On the whole, the arrange-
ment of words in the N. T. is simple and free from all affectation,
as well as from stiffness or monotony. Gersdorf, in his well-known
work, has professed to point out numerous peculiarities of indi-
vidual N. T. writers; but on strict examination it will be found
that a) he has not duly investigated the several particulars on
which the arrangement of words is in every case dependent; and
b) under the impression that it might become the invariable usage
of a writer to place e.g. the adverb before or after the verb, he has
propounded and partly executed a species of critical inquiry that
merits the charge of prejudgment. A philosophical work on this 484
subject would be a great acquisition to verbal criticism.
It is not a matter of indifference whether a writer employs тò πvevμa
τοῦ θεοῦ οι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ (cf. § 20, 1), or, without the articles,
πνεῦμα θεοῦ οι θεοῦ πν. Every individual passage of the N. T. must be
elucidated according to its respective stylistic conformation. To lose sight
due place in grammar deserves thanks (ii. 622 ff.); Mdv. also has collected some observa-
tions on the subject (Syntax, S. 258 ff.). In regard to Latin, special inquiries were
previously instituted in connection with the doctrine of sound, and the subject is ably
though briefly handled by Zumpt, Grammat. S. 626 ff.; cf. also Hand, Lehrb. des lat.
Styls S. 307 ff.; Gernhard, commentatt. gramm. P. 8 (Jen. 1828. 4to.). On the ancient
languages in general, see H. Weil, de l'ordre des mots dans les langues anciennes etc.
Paris, 1844. 8vo. As respects the habitude of individual writers in the arrangement
of words, Tzschirner, for instance, who strove after a prose rhythm, could not fail to
be recognized in any one of his writings.
6th ed.
548
§ 61. POSITION OF WORD'S AND CLAUSES.
of this, neglecting the Codd. (as well as the ancient versions, and the
more or less free quotations in the Fathers), and invariably to attribute
to a writer one and the same arrangement of words, is empirical pedantry.
If the adjective is usually placed thus : φόβος μέγας, ἔργον ἀγαθόν, or the
570 adverb in reference to its adjective thus: xaleπòs λíav, μeɣáλy opódpa
510 (Strabo 17, 801), the arrangement is very natural. The opposite arrange-
7th ed. ment either aims at giving prominence to the adjectival or adverbial notion,
which with many writers may be caused by an antithesis habitual to them
(kaλà epya is used for the most part by Paul); or the (antithetical) nature
of a particular adjectival notion may require that it should precede, like
ἄλλος, εἷς, ἴδιος, etc. That ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος should occur more frequently
than ouros o av@poros is likewise not surprising. The latter arrangement
implies an emphasis on the pronoun (this man, no other), which is in place
only when one is speaking SELKTIKOS or intensively. The predominance
of the latter arrangement in John (Gersdorf 444 f.) is, in the first place,
by no means decided, and secondly, the reason for such arrangement may
be easily perceived in all the passages in which it occurs. Ταῦτα πάντα
Luke xii. 30 and πáνтα таûтa Matt. vi. 32 are not exactly of the same
import (Gersd. 447 f.): the former means THESE THINGS all together;
the latter, ALL these. In the first expression, távra is a closer specification
of raura; in the second, távra is pointed out demonstratively by means
of ταῦτα. Πάντα ταῦτα is undoubtedly the more rare, much like omnia
haec in Latin, yet in Matt. xxiii. 36; xxiv. 33 f.; Luke vii. 18 it is the
better established reading, cf. Bengel on Matt. xxiv. 33. That the
narrators when they subjoin something chronologically say èv èkeivais taîs
μépais and the like, will not be considered by any observant reader as an
arbitrary deviation from the usual sequence: ǹ módis ékeivŋ. To what
purpose are remarks such as: táλw, ékeîbev etc. are placed sometimes
before and sometimes after?¹ Finally, I cannot imagine how Gersdorf
(S. 335) could so misjudge the place of the adjective in Matt. xiii. 27;
xv. 20 as even to be inclined to correct the text. When we find in Matt.
xv. 34 πόσους ἄρτους ἔχετε; οἱ δὲ εἶπον· ἑπτὰ καὶ ὀλίγα ἰχθύδια but in
Mark viii. 7 καὶ εἶχον ἰχθύδια ὀλίγα, the antithesis with ἑπτὰ required that
ỏλiya should precede; whilst in the latter passage bread and fish are con-
trasted: they had also in fish a small provision. That Paul writes in
1 Tim. v. 23 οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ and James iii. 5 ὀλίγον (var. ἡλίκον) πῦρ, nobody
probably will think strange who studies language with attention. In
Jno. v. 22 τὴν κρίσιν πᾶσαν δέδωκε τῷ υἱῷ, πᾶσαν is very appropriately
485 placed immediately before Sédwкe, as it belongs to it (he gave it to him not
6th ed. in part, but wholly, 1 Cor. xii. 12), cf. also Matt. ix. 35; Rom. iii. 9; xii. 4;
1 Even the more precise remark of van Hengel, Philipp. p. 201, on máλ as used in
Paul's epistles, I cannot admit as a canon according to which critical or exegetical
inquiries could implicitly be conducted. As to Phil. ii. 28 I adhere to the exposition
propounded in § 45, 4 note 1 p. 346.
§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
549
Acts xvi. 26; xvii. 21; 1 Cor. x. 1 (Xen. Hell. 2, 3, 40; Thuc. 7, 60 etc.).
Along with the arrangement πᾶσα ἡ πόλις occurs also ὁ πᾶς νόμος Gal. v. 14,
Tòv távтa Xpóvov Acts xx. 18; 1 Tim. i. 16 (Thuc. 4, 61; Isocr. Dem. 571
p. 1; Herod. 1, 14, 10; Stallb. Phil. 48). On the simple precedence of
an emphatic word (Jno. vi. 57; viii. 25; ix. 31; xiii. 6; Rom. vii. 23;
xiii. 14; 1 Cor. xii. 22; xiv. 2; xv. 44; Luke ix. 20; xii. 30; xvi. 11;
Heb. x. 30; Jas. iii. 3; 1 Pet. iii. 21; 2 Pet. i. 21), no remark is neces-
sary. Yet see under 3. The order in the apostolic benediction xápis 511
ipîv kaì cipývŋ, uniformly adhered to as it is (in 1st and 2d Pet. also), is 7th sd.
certainly intended to point out xápis as the principal and more comprehen-
sive idea, to which epývn is added as a consequent. The Vocative, with
or without &, either precedes the sentence,
that is, when it expresses a
cry Mark xiv. 37, or as an address is intended to rouse the attention for
what follows Matt. viii. 2; xv. 28; xviii. 32; xxv. 26; Mark ix. 19; Luke
viii. 48; xxiv. 25; Jno. vi. 68; xiii. 6; xxi. 15 sqq.; Acts i. 11; ii. 29;
v. 35; vii. 59; ix. 13; xiii. 10; xxv. 24; Rom. ix. 20); Gal. iii. 1; 1 Tim.
vi. 20,
or is intercalated into the sentence, when, that is, the attention
of the person addressed is assumed, and what follows is to be referred
solely to him Matt. ix. 22; xvi. 17; xx. 31; Jno. xii. 15; Acts i. 1 ;
xxvi. 19, 24, 27; Gal. i. 11; Phil. i. 12; iii. 17; Philem. 20; 2 Pet. i. 10;
Rev. xv. 4. The Vocative in this case stands after one word or several,
according as they are or are not connected in sense Matt. xvi. 17; Jno.
xii. 15; Rev. xv. 4, etc.; sometimes, when supplementary, it stands at the
end of the sentence Luke v. 8; Jno. xiv. 9; Acts xxvi. 7.
3. The grounds of every unusual arrangement (transposition)
of words, when it originates in the writer's free choice. may with
greater or less distinctness be ascertained. The following cases
are to be distinguished:
a. When the unusual position of the words is occasioned by
rhetorical causes, and is consequently intentional, as in 1 Pet. ii. 7
the appositive (Weber, Demosth. p. 152) TOTS TOTEúovσw is reserved
for the conclusion, because the condition as believers, if we believe,
thus obtains greater prominence, particularly as it is brought so
close to the antithetical aπεooûσi.¹ Cf. 1 Jno. v. 13, 16; Jno.
xiii. 14; Rom. xi. 13; Heb. vi. 18 (Stallb. Plat. Euthyd. p. 144),
also Heb. vii. 4 ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην ᾽Αβραὰμ ἔδωκεν ἐκ τῶν ἀκροθινίων, ὁ
πатрiáрxns unto whom Abr. gave even a tenth, the patriarch,
xi. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 4. Other instances of the same sort are Heb.
vi. 19 ἣν ὡς ἄγκυραν ἔχομεν τ. ψυχῆς ἀσφαλῆ τε καὶ βεβαίαν καὶ
eisepxoµévnv etc. x. 34; 1 Pet. i. 23; 1 Cor. xiii. 1 ểàv taîs yλáo-
1 Cf. with this Demosth. fals. leg. 204 c. εἰμὶ τοίνυν ὁ κατηγορῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐγὼ τούτων,
τούτων δ᾽ οὐδεὶς ἐμοῦ.
550
§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
σαις τ. ἀνθρώπων λαλῶ καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων, Acts xxiv. 17; xxvi. 22.
The Genitive in particular is put last, 1 Thess. i. 6; Jno. vii. 38;
1 Tim. iii. 6, etc. In giving a word precedence (see above, no. 2),
antithesis is manifest in 1 Cor. x. 11 ταῦτα τύποι συνέβαινον ἐκείνοις,
ἐγράφη δὲ πρός etc. Luke xvi. 12; xxiii. 81; Jno. ix. 17 ; xxi. 21,
likewise in 2 Cor. ii. 4 οὐχ ἵνα λυπηθῆτε, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀγάπην ἵνα
yvŵte, xii. 7; 1 Cor. ix. 15; Acts xix. 4; Rom. xi. 31; Col. iv. 16;
Gal. ii. 10 (Cic. div. 1, 40; Mil. 2 fin.; Krü. 236), as well as in
1 Cor. vi. 4 βιωτικὰ μὲν οὖν κριτήρια ἐὰν ἔχητε such postpone-
ment of éáv is frequent in Demosth., see Klotz, Devar. p. 484);
Rom. xii. 3 ἑκάστῳ ὡς ἐμέρισεν μέτρον πίστεως, 1 Cor. iii. 5; viii. 7;
512 Juo. xiii. 34 (Cic. off. 2, 21, 72); 2 Thess. ii. 7 μόνον ὁ κατέχων
ἄρτι ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται, finally in Rom. viii. 18 οὐκ ἄξια τὰ
παθήματα τ. νῦν καιροῦ πρὸς τ. μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι,
Gal. iii. 23; Heb. x. 1; 1 Cor. xii. 22.
7th ed.
b. At other times we find a closer specification, which only
occurred to the writer after the sentence had been arranged,
572 brought in afterwards; as, Acts xxii. 9 τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο, τὴν
δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι, iv. 33 μεγάλῃ δυνάμει
ἀπεδίδουν τὸ μαρτύριον οἱ ἀπόστολοι τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ
κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, Heb. xii. 11; Jno. iv. 39 ; vi. 66 ; xii. 11; 1 Cor.
486 x. 27; Luke xix. 47; 1 Pet. i. 13; 2 Pet. iii. 2 (Acts xix. 27);
6th ed. cf. Arrian. Αl. 3, 23, 1 τοὺς ὑπολειφθέντας ἐν τῇ διώξει τῆς στρα
τιᾶς. To this head should probably be referred also Rev. vii. 17.
In 2 Pet. iii. 1 ἐν αἷς διεγείρω ὑμῶν ἐν ὑπομνήσει τὴν εἰλικρινῆ
διάνοιαν the words spaced out are thrust into the current of the
sentence as a subjoined closer specification of διεγείρω.
c. Words which are to be joined together in sense, are placed
near each other; as, Rom. ix. 21 ἔχει ἐξουσίαν ὁ κεραμεὺς τ. πηλοῦ
ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φυράματος ποιῆσαι etc., 1 Pet. ii. 16; 1 Cor. ii. 11.
In Eph. ii. 3 φύσει belongs to τέκνα, and accordingly has the most
suitable place.
d. Sometimes the transposition is unavoidable; as, Heb. xi. 32
ἐπιλείψει γάρ με διηγούμενον ὁ χρόνος περὶ Γεδεών, Βαράκ τε
καὶ Σαμψών etc. where, since a long series of names follows with
which in vs. 33 a relative clause is to be connected, no other
arrangement was possible, vi. 1, 2; 1 Cor. i. 30.
e. An effort to keep unimportant words in the background, is
manifest in Heb. iv. 11 ἵνα μὴ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τις ὑποδείγματι πέσῃ
etc. v. 4; 1 Pet. ii. 19; Acts xxvi. 24. So perhaps in 1 Cor.
v. 1 ὥςτε γυναῖκά τινα τοῦ πατρὸς ἔχειν (that the wife one has of his
§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
551
father), Luke xviii. 18. See Weber, Demosth. pp. 139, 251. Like-
wise in Heb. ix. 16 ὅπου διαθήκη, θάνατον ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ
διαθεμένου, the main thought θάνατον ἀνάγκη would have been
weakened if the last word had been placed anywhere else.
Occasionally in the more dexterous N. T. writers the aurium
judicium even, on which Cicero laid so much stress, may have
exerted an influence, and produced a more flowing and rhythmical
arrrangement.
On the collocation of the same or similar words, as κακοὺς κακῶς ἀπολέ
σεl, see § 68, 1; cf. Kühner II. 628.
The antecedent position of the Predicate (e.g. in Jno. i. 1, 49 cf. vs.
47; iv. 19, 24; vi. 60; Rom. xiii. 11; 2 Pet. i. 10, 14, 19; Phil. iii. 20;
ii. 11; 1 Jno. i. 10; Rev. ii. ) is everywhere to be judged of according
to the principles stated above. It is quite natural also, that, particularly
in sentences having an exclamatory character, as well as in macarisms, the
predicate should be placed at the beginning (the omission of the substan-
tive verb being in such sentences the predominant usage), e.g. Matt. xxi. 9
εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου, xxiii. 39 ; Luke i. 42, 68 ; 2 Cor.
i. 3; 1 Cor. ii. 11 [?]; 1 Pet. i. 3; Matt. v. 3 μakápioi oi #twɣoì tô πveúμati,
4-11; xxiv. 46. So also regularly in forms of praise in the O. T. (72, 513
7) Gen. ix. 26; 1 Sam. xxvi. 25; 2 Sam. xviii. 28; Ps. cvi. 48, etc.
But only an empirical expositor could regard this position as an unalter-
able rule; for, when the subject constitutes the principle notion, especially
when it is antithetical to another subject, the predicate may and must be
placed after it, cf. Ps. lxvii. 20 Sept. And so in Rom. ix. 5, if the words
ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητός etc. are referred to God, the position of the
words is quite appropriate, and even indispensable, which, with many
others, Harless on Eph. i. 3 has failed to see.
As to placing in particular the Genitive before the governing noun, see
§ 30, 3, note 4, p. 192. Careful writers avoid such arrangement if misap-
prehension could arise from it. Hence in Heb. vi. 2 Banтioμov didaxis is
βαπτισμῶν
not instead of Sidax. ẞaπт., especially as in the other groups the position
of the Genitive is in accordance with the rule. In the passages adduced
by Tholuck from Thuc. and Plut. ambiguity is impossible.
7th ed
573
4. Formerly, attention to the arrangement of words in the N. T. 487
was restricted to those cases in which parts of sentences are found 6th ed.
separated from those words with which they belong logically
(1 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Pet. ii. 7; Rom. xi. 13; Heb. ii. 9), which
was denominated Trajection. Such restriction was not so much.
1 See on such trajections in Greek, Abresch, Aristaenet. p. 218; Wolf, Demosth.
Lept. p. 300; Reitz, Lucian. VII. 448 Bip.; Krüger, Dion. Hal. p. 139, 318; Engelhardt,
Euthyphr. p. 123 sq.
552
§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
to be censured, as the almost entire neglect to inquire into the
reasons which, in each particular case, gave occasion to the so-
called trajection. By such (rather instinctive) reasons the N. T.
writers were invariably guided. Very seldom indeed have they
transposed words, either when the nature of the ideas (Quintil.
instit. 9, 4, 24) suggested the arrangement of the words (Matt.
vii. 7; Jno. vii. 34; Rev. xxi. 6; xxii. 13; Matt. viii. 11; Heb.
xiii. 8), or in phrases where according to the nature or importance
of the ideas (sometimes not without regard to ease of utterance)
the order of words had been fixed conventionally. Thus: avôpes
ἄνδρες
καὶ γυναῖκες Acts viii. 3 ; ix. 2, γυναῖκες καὶ παιδία or τέκνα Matt.
xiv. 21; xv. 38; Acts xxi. 5, Cŵvтes K. vekρoí Acts x. 42; 2 Tim.
iv. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 5, νύκτα κ. ἡμέραν Acts xx. 31; xxvi. 7, νυκτὸς κ.
nuépas 1 Thess. ii. 9; iii. 10, σáρ§ к. aîµa Matt. xvi. 17; Gal. i. 16;
Jno. vi. 54, 56, ἐσθίειν (τρώγειν) κ. πίνειν Matt. xi. 18; Luke
vii. 34; xii. 45; 1 Cor. xi. 22, 29, Вpŵois к. Tóσis Rom. xiv. 17;
574 Col. ii. 16, ếpyw k. λóyw Luke xxiv. 19 (Fr. Rom. III. 268),
oùρavòs kaì ʼn y Matt. v. 18; xi. 25; xxiv. 35; Acts iv. 24, etc.
ὁ ἥλιος κ. ἡ σελήνη Luke xxi. 25 ; Rev. xxi. 23, ἡ γῆ κ. ἡ θάλασσα
Acts iv. 24; xiv. 15; Rev. vii. 1, 3; xiv. 7, etc., right... left Matt.
514 xx. 21; xxv. 33; Mark x. 40; Luke xxiii. 33; 2 Cor. vi. 7; Rev.
7th ed. x. 2, Soûλoɩ... èXeúlepoɩ 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. iii. 28; Eph. vi. 8,
δοῦλοι
'Iovdaîoi K. "EXλnues Acts xviii. 4; xix. 10; Rom. iii. 9; 1 Cor.
i. 24 (cf. Rom. ii. 9 f.) and the like. Deviations from this order
occur but sparingly (cases, indeed, may be conceived in which the
reverse order corresponds better with the truth, cf. Rom. xiv. 9;
Heusinger, Plut. educ. 2, 5); and if there is exclusive or predom-
inant MS. authority for the opposite, it must be unhesitatingly
adhered to, e.g. Eph. vi. 12 alua K. σúpέ, Heb. ii. 14; Matt. xxiii.
15 ή θάλασσα κ. ή ξηρά, Acts ix. 24 ἡμέρας κ. νυκτός Luke xviii. 7;
Rom. xv. 18 λóyw K. eрyw (Diod. S. exc. Vat. p. 23), Col. iii. 11
'Elλǹv к. 'Iovdaîos. (Cod. D has in Matt. xiv. 21; xv. 38 [and in
the latter passage Cod. Sin. also] Taidia kaì yvvaîkes, cf. Caes. b.
gall. 2, 28; 4, 14.) In the N. T. the order oi πódes kaì ai xeîpes
seems to predominate, as in Matt. xxii. 13; Jno. xi. 44; xiii. 9;
Acts xxi. 11. Only in Luke xxiv. 39 f. we find the opposite Tàs
χειράς μου καὶ τοὺς πόδας (perlaps with reference to the fact that
only the hands of persons crucified were pierced, and were there-
fore considered principal parts, just as Jno. mentions only the
hands). In Rom. xiv. 9 the order veкρoì κal (@vres is determined
by the preceding ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἔζησεν.
§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
553
The arrangement of words in the N. T. is more unrestrained,
when a series of ideas is framed. For then general and special
conceptions etc. are not grouped together, but the words follow
one another according to some loose association of ideas, or even 488
6th ed.
a resemblance in sound, Rom. i. 29, 31; Col. iii. 5. See, in gen-
eral, Lob. paralip. p. 62 sqq.
K
It is necessary to be cautious in applying to such abnormal arrangements
the name of hysteron proteron (cf. Odyss. 12, 134 ràs pèv öpa Opévaσa
Tekoûσά тe, Thuc. 8, 66; Nitzsch on the Odyss. I. 251 f.). We remark in
τεκοῦσά TE,
passing, that on Jno. i. 52 ἀγγέλους θεοῦ ἀναβαίνοντας καὶ καταβαί
vovras Lücke has stated the right view of the matter; and that vi. 69
TETLOTEúkaµev kaì éyvóskaµev (cf. x. 38) must not on account of 1 Jno. iv. 16
ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν (Jno. xvii. 8) be considered as an inversion of
thought, see BCrus. in loc. Likewise, in other passages of the N. T. it
would be a mistake to suppose there is a hysteron proteron: In 1 Tim.
ii. 4 πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν the
comprehensive ultimate end is first mentioned, and then the immediate (as
the means of attaining the former),- (κaí and therefore). In Acts xiv. 10,
however, λaro kaì Teρieπáтel is quite as possible as a matter of fact, as in 575
iii. 8 περιπατῶν καὶ ἁλλόμενος. In 2 Pet. i. 9 μυωπάζων is sul joined as a
more exact definition. The hysteron proteron which Bornem. Acts xvi. 18
has adopted from Cod. D, rests on too little authority. Further, see
Wilke, Rhetor. 226.
5. f. Sometimes, however, single words were misplaced through
inadvertency, or still more, because the ancients, expecting none.
büt intelligent readers, were released from the necessity of minute
accuracy. Such irregularity occurred not unfrequently in prose
writers in the use of certain adverbs (Stallb. Plat. Phaed. p. 123),
to which, from the sense, every reader could at once assign the 515
proper position, even though the author's arrangement might not be 7th ed.
the most logical. This applies to dei in Isocr. Paneg. 14 dieTéλeσav
κοινὴν τὴν πόλιν παρέχοντες καὶ τοῖς ἀδικουμένοις ἀεὶ τῶν Ἑλλήνων
Éπaµúvovσav, Xen. Oec. 19, 19; Thuc. 2, 43, etc. (see Krüger, Dion.
p. 252; Schaef. Demosth. II. 234); also to Tоλλáris Stallb. Plat.
rep. I. 93 ; to ἔτι Rom. v. 6 ἔτι Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν
(instead of eri Övт. ݵ. àσ0.) cf. vs. 8; Plato, rep. 2, 363 d.; Achill.
Tat. 5, 18 and Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 300 sqq.; lastly, to oμws 1 Cor.
xiv. 7 ὅμως τὰ ἄψυχα φωνὴν διδόντα ... ἐὰν διαστολὴν τοῖς
φθόγγοις μὴ δῷ, πῶς γνωσθήσεται τὸ αὐλούμενον etc. instead of τὰ
ἄψυχα, (καίπερ) φων. διδ., ὅμως, ἐὰν μή etc., and Gal. iii. 15 ὅμως
ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ instead of ὅμ. οὐδεὶς
ά0εтЄî (see Bengel, and my Comment. in loc.), cf. Plato, Phaed.
ETL
70
554
§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
489
6th ed.
91 c. φοβεῖται μὴ ἡ ψυχὴ ὅμως καὶ θειότερον καὶ κάλλιον ὂν τοῦ
σάμATOS πρоаπоλλúŋтaι, see Hm. and Lob. Soph. Aj. 15; Doederlein,
Soph. Oed. C. p. 396; Pflugk, Eurip. Androm. p. 10 and Hel. p. 76.1
Likewise the transposition of a negative is not altogether rare.
in Greek authors (especially the poets, see Hm. Eurip. Hec. vs. 12).
Then, however, there is either a suppressed antithesis, e.g. Plat.
Crit. 47 d. πειθόμενοι μὴ τῇ τῶν ἐπαϊόντων δόξῃ, legg. 12, 943 a. ;
Xen. M. 3, 9, 6; cf. Kühner II. 628;2 or the negative, instead of
576 being joined to the word denied, is prefixed to the whole sentence,
as in Plato, Apol. 35 d. ἃ μήτε ἡγοῦμαι καλὰ εἶναι μήτε δίκαια,
Xen. Eph. 3, 8 ὅτι μὴ τὸ φάρμακον θανάσιμον ἦν ; so also in Acts
vii. 48 ἀλλ' οὐχ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐν χειροποιήτοις κατοικεῖ. Further,
many expositors 3 think they find a misplaced negative also in
Rom. iii. 9 τί οὖν ; προεχόμεθα; οὐ πάντως, i.e. by no means
516 (πúvτws ou 1 Cor. xvi. 12). This interpretation is unavoidable,
(πάντως οὔ
whether we translate πроexóμela have we an advantage? or have
we a pretext? The linguistic admissibility of this signification is
proved from Theogn. 305 (250 f.) and Epiphan. haer. 38, 6, as
well as by analogies such as oùdèv Távтws Herod. 5, 34, 65; 5 only
a transposition, strictly speaking, is not to be thought of. The
phrase is rather to be understood thus: no, assuredly; no, by no
means; and the difference between où Távτws when it meant not
7th ed.
4
1 We must not, however, with Fr. Mr. p. 19, refer to this head ev¤éws (evðús). In
Mark ii. 8; v. 30 it belongs to the participle beside which it stands. Elsewhere, Mark
i. 10; ix. 15, it is put at the beginning of the sentence (see above in the text), and `is
easily to be construed with the principal verb. Also ráλw in 2 Cor. xii. 21 is not
transposed, but made to precede the whole sentence: lest again, when I come, God
humble me.
So, probably, also σxedóv in Heb. ix. 22 (as if, and almost) applies to the
sentence all things are purged with blood. Cf. Galen. protrept. c. 1 và mè ăn ra sau
oxeddv äτexva návт' èσrí. Aristot. polit. 2, 8; Lys. ed. Auger I. p. 204.
2 What Valckenaer, schol. N. T. II. 574, has adduced, is not all well selected. As to
other passages, in which even recent scholars assert erroneously the existence of a
trajection of the negation (e.g. Thuc. 1, 5; 3, 57), see Sintenis, Plut. Themist. p. 2.
* I do not understand on what grounds some of these expositors assert that Grotius's
rendering: not in all points, is unwarranted. As little do I understand how où távtws
omnino non is called a Hebraism. 3 too in immediate connection means non omnis;
où râs for ovdeís is always so separated that the verb is negatived by the où, see § 26, 1.
35 №3, however, with the omission of the verb, which Koppe quotes in loc., I do not
remember to have found in the O. T.
4 Οἱ κακοὶ οὐ πάντως κακοὶ ἐκ γαστρὸς γεγόνασιν,
ἀλλ᾽ ἄνδρεσσι κακοῖς συνθέμενοι φιλίην.
5 But où πávv (µǹ ñávʊ) means everywhere, not particularly. It is sometimes mild as
to the expression, but strong as to the sense, a sort of litotes, see Weber, Demosth.
p. 340; Franke, Demosth. p. 62. In Rom., as above, the context and tone of the pas-
sage prevent us from rendering où Távтws in the same way, by a species of litotes
(earnest or ironical), not entirely.
§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
555
1
entirely and when it denoted entirely not, was probably indicated
by the mode of utterance. Hence it was without reason that
van Hengel despaired of giving a satisfactory exposition of the
passage, and concluded that there must be an unnoted corruption
of the text. On the other hand, in 1 Cor. v. 9 f. eypaya iµîv ...
μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις, οὐ πάντως τοῖς πόρνοις τοῦ κόσμου
TOÚTOU, the expression où Távτws signifies non omnino (Sext. Emp.
Mathem. 11, 18), and the last words are a corrective explanation
of µǹ ovvavaμ. Tóрvois: to have no intercourse with fornicators,
not absolutely with the fornicators of this world, for then must ye
needs go out of the world (but, strictly, with impure members of
the church). So Luther. Likewise Heb. xi. 3 els tò µǹ èk paivo-
μένων τὰ βλεπόμενα γεγονέναι is erroneously supposed to contain
a transposed negation. It is, however, correctly rendered by
Schulz: so that things which may be seen have not come of 490
things visible; cf. also Bengel in loc. That which is denied is, 6th ed.
ἐκ φαινομένων τὰ βλεπόμενα γεγονέναι, and to this sentence the 577
negative is prefixed quite according to rule. The instance to
which appeal is made of a transposition of a negation in 2 Macc.
vii. 28 ὅτι οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ θεός is uncertain, as only
Cod. Alex. has that reading. Tdf. has printed § oùк Övтwv. Lastly,
2 Cor. iii. 4 f. πεποίθησιν . . . ἔχομεν, οὐχ ὅτι ἱκανοί ἐσμεν etc. must
not be explained thus: or ovx (µń) etc. Rather is it to be ren-
dered this confidence have we...; not (referring to 2 Cor. i. 24)
that we are sufficient through ourselves, but our sufficiency is from
God. In 2 Cor. xiii. 7 Paul states the aim of evxóµela ... µndév
in the words οὐχ ἵνα ἡμεῖς δόκιμοι φανῶμεν, first negatively: not
that I (if ye abstain from evil) may appear approved (as your
teacher). In 1 Jno. iv. 10 the propriety of the arrangement oùx
ŐT is obvious. In Rom. iv. 12 the negation is not misplaced, but
the singularity consists in the repetition of the article before σTO-
χοῦσιν ; a negligence of style which Fr. has tried to conceal by
an artificial exposition, but which Philippi freely admits. In 517
regard to 1 Cor. xv. 51 πάντες (μὲν) οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ 7th el
áλλaynσóμela, even after the remarks of Fr. de conformatione text.
Lachm. p. 38 sq. and of van Hengel Cor. p. 216 sqq., I can only
agree with Mey. That is to say, vs. 52 shows that aλáTTEσÐαi
is not applied in the wider sense (to the risen also), but in the
narrower, as opposed to eyeípeolai. The passage can only be
rendered: we shall all (the generation whom Paul addressed)-
not fall asleep,—but all be changed. Had Paul supposed that
:
556
§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
some of the πάντες might die, they would then belong to the νεκροῖς,
vs. 52, and hμeîs would be an inexact antithesis. Any doubt
respecting Paul's having been able to foretell a thing of this sort
cannot induce me to assign to åλλátт. in vs. 51 a signification
different from what it has in vs. 52. Mey. has answered all other
objections. That in Rom. xiii. 14 τῆς σαρκὸς πρόνοιαν μὴ ποιεῖσθε
εἰς ἐπιθυμίας is not put for μὴ εἰς ἐπιθ. is doubtless on any sup-
position clear, see Fr. in loc. Translators, including Luther, have
taken the liberty to make a transposition in 2 Cor. xii. 20; but
the arrangement in Greek is perfectly regular.
In Rom. xv. 20 οὐχ ὅπου according to Bengel is used instead of ὅπου οὐκ
for greater force, and according to BCrus. it is a milder, more modest,
form of expression; whereas it is simply the only correct expression: ouтws,
578 οὐχ ὅπου ... ἀλλά etc. In Rom. viii. 12 où T σapкí suggests without help
the antithesis aλλà Tô πνeúμati. To the (appropriate) variation in the
ἀλλὰ πνεύματι.
position of the negative in Rom. ii. 14 ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα and νόμον
μn exovтes Bengel had already directed attention, see also Mey. in loc.
Some critics have thought that there is a hyperbaton in 2 Tim. ii. 6
τὸν κοπιῶντα γεωργὸν δεῖ πρῶτον τῶν καρπῶν μεταλαμβάνειν. The Apostle
491 according to vs. 5 appears to mean to say: the husbandman that first
6th ed laboreth, must be partaker of the fruits, i.e. the husbandman must first
labor, before he be partaker of the fruits; so that рŵтоv belongs to Komiâv,
and the sentence should run accordingly, cf. Xen. C. 1, 3, 18 & σÒS πρÔτOS
πατὴρ τεταγμένα ποιεῖ, i.e. ὁ σὺς πατὴρ πρῶτος τετ. π. To get rid of the
hyperbaton, Grotius makes pŵrov signify demum, which is inadmissible.
Later expositors, laying the emphasis on кOT. as purposely placed first,
explain the passage thus: the laboring (not the idle) husbandman has the
first right to partake of the fruits, see, especially, Wiesinger in loc. Similar
and even more remarkable hyperbata are not unfrequent in Greek prose
see Plat. rep. 7, 524 a.; Xen. Cyr. 2, 1, 5; cf. Bornem. Xen. Anab. p. 21;
Franke, Demosth. p. 33.
In Greek authors one or more words of a relative sentence are some-
times put before the relative (Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 109), for the sake of
emphasis, see above, no. 3. Several expositors have attributed this idiom
to Acts i. 2, and punctuated the passage thus: roîs ȧTоσтóλois, Sià Tνεúμатos
ἁγίου οὓς ἐξελέξατο ; but with little probability, as ἐντέλλ. διὰ πνεύμ. ἁγ. was
here (in reference to the sequel of the Acts) the only point of importance
in Luke's mind; while èkdéy. dià Tоû TV. fell within the range of the pre-
518 vious history of the Gospel, and did not need to be stated here for the
7th ed. first time. The general reference contained in oûs éέeλé§., by which
primarily the apostles are indicated, is not superfluous, as it was by that
previous election that they had been prepared to receive the directions
Sià тоû πV., seе Valcken. in loc. There would be more ground for such
§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
557
punctuation in Acts v. 35 προςέχετε ἑαυτοῖς, ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τούτοις τί
μéλλETE πρáσσew (see Bornem. in loc.), although the usual mode of con-
necting the words gives a suitable meaning: take heed to yourselves in
regard to these men, what ye intend to do.
On the other hand, it is inconceivable that Luke could have written in
Acts xxvii. 39 κόλπον τινὰ κατενόουν ἔχοντα αἰγιαλόν for αἰγ. ἔχοντα κόλπον
Tivá. Grotius long ago remarked: non frustra hoc additur, sunt enim
sinus quidam maris, qui litus non habent, sed praeruptis rupibus cinguntur ;
see also Bengel. Moreover, aly. exovra must be regarded as directly
joined to the relative clause eis ov etc.: which had a beach, on which they
determined to land, i.e. a beach of such a description as may have induced
them to attempt a landing. It would be equally harsh to construe, as
some do, Rom. vii. 21 εὑρίσκω ἄρα τὸν νόμον τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν τὸ καλὸν
ὅτι ἐμοὶ τὸ κακὸν παράκειται thus: τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ τὸν νόμον ποιεῖν, τὸ καλόν. 579
It has always appeared to me most natural to take the words thus: eup.
ἄρα τὸν νόμον, τῷ θέλ. ... ὅτι ἐμοὶ τὸ κακὸν παράκειται invenio hanc legem
tò
(normam) volenti mihi honestum facere, ut mihi etc. See also Philippi
in loc.
Many also find a trajection, sanctioned by long usage and even affecting
the case (Mtth. 867), in Jno. xii. 1 πрò è§ ημepŵν тоû ñáσɣa six days before
the Passover, and xi. 18 ἦν ἡ Βηθανία ἐγγὺς τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων ὡς ἀπὸ σταδίων
SEKаTÉνTE about fifteen furlongs off, cf. xxi. 8; Rev. xiv. 20. That is, it is
thought that if the prepositions stood in the right place the language
would run ἓξ ἡμέραις πρὸ τοῦ π., and ὡς σταδίους δεκ. ἀπὸ Ἱεροσ. (Luke 492
xxiv. 13). But probably in local specifications Greek phraseology pro- 6th ed.
ceded from a different view of the matter, åñò oradíwv dek. (properly:
situated at a distance of fifteen furlongs i.e. where the fifteen furlongs
terminated, at the end of fifteen furlongs), as in Latin e.g. Liv. 24, 46
Fabius cum a quingentis fere passibus castra posuisset; Ramshorn S. 273.¹
If now it were necessary to specify besides the speaker's position, it was
added to the phrase in the Genitive. The same applies to specifications
of time. As it was usual to say πрò è§ ǹµeрŵv vor sechs Tagen, before
(the last past) six days, the form of expression was retained when it was
necessary to indicate the point of time from which the period in question
was counted, as πрò è§ ηµeρŵv тоû пáσɣa (cf. Evang. apocr. p. 436 f.).
But whatever explanation we may give of the construction, both these
forms of expression (the temporal and the local) were of frequent occur-
rence in later Greek, cf. Ael. anim. 11, 19 πρò tévτe ηµepŵv toû åpavioOîvai
Tηv Eλíkηv, Xen. Eph. 3, 3; Lucian. Cronos 14; Geopon. 12, 31, 2; Achill.
Tat. 7, 14 (and Jacobs in loc.); Epiphan. Opp. II. 248 a. ; Strabo 10, 483;
15, 715 καταλαβεῖν ἄνδρας πεντεκαίδεκα ἀπὸ σταδίων εἴκοσι τῆς πόλεως, 519
Plutarch. Philop. 4 ἦν ἀγρὸς αὐτῷ καλὸς ἀπὸ σταδίων εἴκοσι τῆς πόλεως, Diod. 7th ed.
1 Polyaen. 2, 35 τοὺς πολλοὺς ἐκέλευσεν ἀπὸ βραχέος διαστήματος ἕπεσθαι is
also illustrative.
558
§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
S. 2, 7; Acta apocr. p. 39, 61; see Reiske, Const. Porphyrog. II. 20 ed.
Bonn; Schaef. Long. p. 129. Kühnöl directs attention to the following
passages of the Sept. : Amos i. 1 πρὸ δύο ἐτῶν τοῦ σεισμοῦ, iv. 7 πρὸ τριῶν
μηνῶν τοῦ τρυγητοῦ, with Sing. πρὸ μιᾶς ἡμέρας τῆς Μαρδοχαϊκῆς ἡμέρας,
2 Macc. xv. 36 (Joseph. antt. 15, 11, 4; Plut. symp. 8, 1, 1). Such phrases
(in a temporal sense) are also composed with perá, as in Plut. Coriol. 11
μεθ' ἡμέρας ὀλίγας τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς τελευτῆς, Malal. 4, p. 88 μετὰ νβ' ἔτη τοῦ
teλeutĥoal tǹv IIaσipáŋv, Anon. chron. (before Malal. ed. Bonn.) p. 10
µetà dúo ëtη TOû KATAKλVOµOû, see Schaef. ad Bos, ellips. p. 553 sq.
δύο ἔτη κατο
takλvoµoû,
6. The position of certain particles and enclitic pronouns is
580 fixed with greater or less precision in Greek, according to their
importance in the sentence. For instance, μέν (μενοῦνγε, μέντοι),
οὖν, δέ, γάρ, γε, τοίνυν, ἄρα, ought not to begin a sentence (ἄρα
also ought not to begin an apodosis, Xen. C. 1, 3, 2; 8, 4, 7).
With regard to most of these this rule is observed likewise in the
N. T.;¹ and Sé, yáp, ovv, have sometimes the 2d, sometimes the
3d, sometimes even the 4th place (though the Codd. do not every-
where agree). They occupy the 3d or 4th place, particularly,
when it is necessary to avoid separating words that are intimately
connected [especially prepositional phrases], as in Gal. iii. 23 πρò̟
τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν, [Heb. i. 13 πρὸς τίνα δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων], Mark i. 38
εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐξελήλυθα, Luke vi. 23; xv. 17 ; 2 Cor. i. 19 ὁ τοῦ
493 θεοῦ γὰρ υἱός, Acts xxvii. 14 μετ᾿ οὐ πολὺ δὲ ἔβαλε etc., Jno. viii. 16
6th ed. καὶ ἐὰν κρίνω δὲ ἐγώ, 1 Jno. ii. 2 οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον,
1 Cor. viii. 4 περὶ τῆς βρώσεως οὖν τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, 2 Cor. x. 1
ÔS KATÀ TρÓSWTOν µèv taπewós, Jno. xvi. 22; Acts iii. 21. Cf. on
Sé (Her. 8, 68; Aelian. anim. 7, 27; Xen. M. 2, 1, 16; 5, 4, 13;
Diod. S. 11, 11; Thuc. 1, 6, 70; Arrian. Al. 2, 2, 2; Xen. eq. 11, 8;
Lucian. eunuch. 4; dial. mort. 5, 1; Sext. Emp. math. 7, 65;
Strabo 17, 808) Hm. Orph. p. 820; Boisson. Aristaenet. p. 687;
Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 302; III. I. 71; Stallb. Phileb. p. 90; Franke,
Demosth. p. 208; on yáp Schaef. melet. crit. p. 76; V. Fritzsche,
quaest. Lucian. p. 100; on μév Hm. Orph. as above, Bornem.
Xenoph. conv. p. 61; Weber, Demosth. 402. On the other hand,
apa (see Hm. Soph. Antig. 628) is frequently, contrary to Greek
usage, placed first, as in Luke xi. 48; Rom. x. 17; 2 Cor. v. 15;
Gal. ii. 21; v. 11 etc.; so also apa ovv in Rom. v. 18; vii. 3;
2 Thess. ii. 15; Eph. ii. 19, etc. Likewise μevovvye begins a period
τα
1'Epŋ, inserted in the direct discourse of a third party, occurs only in Acts xxiii. 35;
but onoí in Matt. xiv. 8; Acts xxv. 5, 22; xxvi. 25, etc. Usually we find in the N. T.
¿ Maûλos ěpn, 8 dè ěpn, before the oratio recta, which in Greek authors is the more rare
usage, Mdv. S. 260.
§ 81. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
559
7th ed
in Luke xi. 28; Rom. ix. 20; x. 18; see Lob. Phryn. p. 342; so
also Toívvv in Heb. xiii. 13. The latter very seldom begins a 520
sentence in the better authors; for instances in later writers, see
Lob. Phryn. I.c. They are especially frequent in Sext. Emp., as
in Math. 1, 11, 14, 25, 140, 152, 155, 217, etc. Among the By-
zantines, cf. Cinnam. p. 125, 136, ed. Bonn.'
Whether the indefinite ris can stand as the first word of a clause has
been doubted, Mtth. Eurip. suppl. 1187 and Sprachl. 1081. Though from
the nature of the case it may rarely begin a sentence, yet approved critics 581
have with high probability established its claim to the first place in Soph.
Trach. 865, and Oed. R. 1471 (cf. vs. 1475), Aeschyl. Choeph. 640 (Hm.).
In prose cf. Plat. Theaet. 147 c.; Plut. tranq. c. 13. In the N. T. rìs
beginning a sentence is established in Matt. xxvii. 47; Luke vi. 2; Jno.
xiii. 29; 1 Tim. v. 24; Phil. i. 15.
Αλλά ye yet at least are, in the more ancient authors, always separated
by a word (though it be but a particle), Klotz, Devar. p. 15 sq. This rule
is not observed in Luke xxiv. 21 ἀλλά γε σὺν πᾶσι τούτοις τρίτην ταύτην
ημépav aye, see Bornem. in loc.
dè
Moreover, µév is regularly placed after the word to which according to
the sense it belongs.2 There are, however, some exceptions to this rule :
Acts xxii. 3 ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι ἀνὴρ Ἰουδαῖος, γεγεννημένος ἐν Ταρσῷ τῆς Κιλικίας,
ἀνατεθραμμένος δὲ ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ (for ἐγώ ε. ά. Ι. γεγενν. μέν etc.), Tit.
å. ’I.
i. 15 πάντα μὲν καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς, τοῖς δὲ μεμιασμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις οὐδὲν
καθαρόν for τοῖς μὲν καθαρ. πάντα καθ. etc. or πάντα μὲν καθ.... οὐδὲν δὲ 491
καθ. τ. μ., 1 Cor. ii. 15.
1 Cor. ii. 15. Cf. Xen. M. 2, 1, 6; 3, 9, 8; Ael. anim. 2. 31;
Diog. L. 6, 60, see Hm. Soph. Oed. R. 436; Hartung, Partik. II. 415 f.
Yet good Codd. have omitted µév in the above three passages of the N. T.
[Cod. Sin. also in the first two; yet in the second, corrector C has added
μév], and recent editors have accepted their authority. Might it not have
been expunged because it was displeasing?
The proper position of Te is after the word which stands parallel to
another, as in Acts xiv. 1 Ἰουδαίων τε καὶ Ἑλλήνων πολὺ πλῆθος, ix. 2;
xx. 21; xxvi. 3. It is, however, not unfrequently inserted with more
license, as in Acts xxvi. 22 (Elmsley, Eurip. Heracl. 622, yet cf. Schoem.
Isae. p. 325); and, in particular, it stands immediately after a preposition
or article, as in Acts x. 39; ii. 33; xxviii. 23; Jno. ii. 15, etc., in which
1 But μévтo always stands after some other word that commences the sentence. It
is otherwise in later writers, see Boissonade, Anecd. II. 27.
2 When several words have a grammatical connection, as article and noun, preposi-
tion and noun, μév may be placed immediately after the first, eg. Luke x. 2 8 µèv
Deploμós, Heb. xii. 11 πpòs μèv Tò mарóv, Acts i. 1; viii. 4 etc. (Demosth. Lacrit. 595 a.).
So also μèv ovv in Lysias pecun. publ. 3 év μèv obv Tŵ TOλéμw. Cf. Bornem. Xen. conv.
p. 61.
61. This holds also of other conjunctions, see above, p. 363. Also the names of
a single person are separated by such conjunctions, Jno. xviii. 10 Zíμwv ovv Пéтρos.
6th ed.
560
§ 61. POSITION OF WORDS AND CLAUSES.
case it sometimes emphasizes them as belonging to the two parallel mem-
bers alike, as in Acts xxv. 23 σúv te xiλiápɣvis kaì åvdpáσw, xiv. 5; x. 39;
cf. Plat. legg. 7, 796 d. eis te toλiтeíav kaì idíovs očkovs, Thuc. 4, 13 and
the examples collected by Elmsley as above (also Joseph. antt. 17, 6, 2)
521 and Ellendt, lexic. Soph. II. 796. See, in general, Sommer in Jahn's
7th ed. Archiv I. 401 ff. In the same way ye is placed after an article or mono-
syllabic particle in Rom. viii. 32; 2 Cor. v. 3; Eph. iii. 2, cf. Xen. M. 1,
2, 27; 3, 12, 7; 4, 2, 22; Diod. S. 5, 40; see Matthiae, Eurip. Iphig. Aul.
498; Ellendt, as above, I. 344.
582
Many expositors, e.g. Schott, find a trajection of the κal (even) in Heb.
vii. 4 ᾧ καὶ δεκάτην ᾿Αβραὰμ ἔδωκεν, for ᾧ δεκάτην καὶ ᾿Αβρ. ἔδ. But the
emphasis in this passage lies in the giving of a tenth, and Schulz has
correctly translated it.
1
7. Violent transpositions of clauses ¹ have been thought to occur
a. Acts xxiv. 22, where Beza, Grotius, and others, in explaining
the words ὁ Φήλιξ, ἀκριβέστερον εἰδὼς τὰ περὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ, εἴπας, ὅταν
Λυσίας καταβῇ, διαγνώσομαι etc., include ειδώς in the clause εἴπας
etc. and render thus: Felix, quando accuratius... cognovero,
inquit, et Lysias huc venerit etc. But the arrangement here is
quite regular, as later expositors have perceived. Cf. Bornem. in
Rosenm. Repert. II. 281 f.
ει
b. 2 Cor. viii. 10 οἵτινες οὐ μόνον τὸ ποιῆσαι ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ θέλειν
προενήρξασθε ἀπό πέρυσι, where an inversion has been assumed :
non velle solum sed facere incepistis (Grotius, Schott, Stolz, and
others),2 on account of vs. 11 ý πρоðνµíα тoû éλev. This is
wrong. The willing strictly indicates merely the decision (to col-
lect), and if πρoevýpέaole is spoken comparatively, that is with a
reference to the Macedonian Christians, may be put before Toñoai,
as expressing a point of more importance: Not only in execution,
but even in intention, ye were before the Macedonians. So much
495 the more fitting is it now, that the collection be quite completed.³
6th ed. It might have been quite possible for the Corinthians to have been
first prompted by the decision of the Macedonians to a similar
decision. Mey. in loc. (1st ed.) subtilizes and finally arrives at the
1 On this subject sce W. Kahler, satura duplex de veris et fictis textus sacri trajec-
tionib. ex Evangg. et Actis Apost. collect. Lemgov. 1728. 4to., and E. Wassenbergh, de
transposit. salub. in sanandis vett. scriptor. remedio. Franecq. 1786. 4to. (also reprinted
in Seebode's Miscell. Crit. I. 141 sqq.).
2
Syriac Ššąb of Ú) „čná bojuâ of pašpá
8 I cannot admit that in this sense vs. 11 must have run, kal étiteλéσate td moiñσai :
the Oéλew, was, of course, completed long ago, but it is necessary to complete the
ποιησαι also.
§ 62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE; PARENTHESES.
561
exposition propounded by Fritzsche (diss. in Cor. II. 9), which de
Wette ably combats. This last critic has recently reproduced the
above explanation [which Mey. also has adopted in his 2d, 3d, and
4th eds.], and I recall the view that I formerly upheld. As to Jno.
xi. 15, see above, § 53, 10, 6, p. 459. (In Mark xii. 12 there is
nothing whatever of the nature of a trajection. To the double
clause is annexed, after its conclusion, the ground of the first
member, and then in raì ápévres etc. the result is expressed. 522
Similar is Mark xvi. 3. In Phil. i. 16 f. the two clauses should, 7th ed.
on the best testimony [Sin. also], be thus arranged: oi pèv è
ἀγάπης . . . οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας, thus in converse relation to vs. 15 ; 583
this can perplex no reader.)
When, in the arrangement of individual clauses, the dependent are placed
before the principal, e.g. telic clauses, as in Matt. xvii. 27; Acts xxiv. 4;
Jno. i. 31; xix. 28, 31; 2 Cor. xii. 7; Rom. ix. 11 (see Fr. Rom. II. 297),
relative clauses, as in Mark xi. 23; Jno. iii. 11; Rom. viii. 29 etc., con-
ditional clauses, as in 1 Cor. vi. 4; xiv. 9, the grounds of such arrangement
are obvious to every attentive reader, cf. Kühner II. 626. Here belongs,
probably, also 1 Cor. xv. 2 τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν εἰ κατέχετε; see
Mey. in loc.
§ 62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES; PARENTHESES.
1. Interrupted sentences are those whose grammatical flow is
obstructed by the insertion of a clause complete in itself;¹ as,
Acts xiii. 8 ἀνθίστατο αὐτοῖς Ελύμας ὁ μάγος — οὕτως γὰρ μεθερ
μηνεύεται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ — ζητῶν διαστρέψαι etc., Rom. i. 13 οὐ
· où
θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν ὅτι πολλάκις προεθέμην ἐλθεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς — καὶ
ἐκωλύθην ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο — ἵνα τινὰ καρπὸν σχῶ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν. The
clause thus inserted is denominated a parenthesis,2 and is usually
separated visibly from the rest of the period by the well-known
parenthetical marks. According to the preceding definition the 496
1 The definition given in Ruddimann's Instit. II. 396, ed. Stallb. is not amiss: paren-
thesis est sententia sermoni, antequam absolvatur, interjecta. Wilke's definition
(Rhetor. S. 226) is too comprehensive.
2 Ch. Wolle, comment. de parenthesi sacra. Lips. 1726. 4to.; J. F. Hirt, diss. de
parenthesi et generatim et speciatim sacra. Jen. 1745. 4to.; A. B. Spitzner, comment.
philol. de parenthesi libris V. et N. T. accommodata. L. 1773. 8vo.; J. G. Lindner,
2 comment. de parenthesibus Johanneis. Arnstad. 1765. 4to. (A work de parenthesibus
Paullinis is a desideratum.) Cf. also Clerici ars crit. II. 144 sqq. Lips.; Baumgarten,
ausführl. Vortr. über die Hermeneutik S. 217 ff.; Keil, Lehrbuch der Hermen. S. 58 f.
(mostly incorrect).
8 To throw away all external marks of a (true) parenthesis, and yet retain inter-
6th ed.
71
562
§ 62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE; PARENTHESES.
name of parentheses cannot be applied, in the first place, to inserted
subordinate clauses, even though of considerable length, if they
are connected in construction with the principal clause by a rela-
tive or as Gen. absol. (Rom. xvi. 4; ix. 1; 1 Pet. iii. 6; 1 Cor. v. 4;
584 Luke i. 70; ii. 23; Eph. vi. 2; Acts iv. 36), still less to clauses
in apposition, such as Juo. xiv. 22; xv. 26; 1 Pet. iii. 21; 2 Jno. 1;
Acts ix. 17; Mark vii. 2; 1 Cor. ix. 21, or to clauses annexed by
way of explanation or reason to a concluded sentence, such as
523 Jno. iv. 6, 8, 10; xi. 2, 51 f.; xiii. 11; xviii. 5; xix. 23; Mark
7th ed. vii. 3 f. 26; Matt. i. 22 f.; Luke i. 55; Acts i. 15; viii. 16; Rom.
viii. 36; 1 Cor. ii. 8; xv. 41; Gal. ii. 8; Eph. ii. 8; Heb. v. 13;
viii. 5; vii. 11; Rev. xxi. 25, or lastly, to those with which the
continuation of the discourse, beyond the alleged parenthesis, is
graminatically connected, as 1 Cor. xvi. 5 èλevooμai πρòs iµâs,
ὅταν Μακεδονίαν διέλθω (Μακεδονίαν γὰρ διέρχομαι), πρὸς ὑμᾶς δὲ
τυχὸν παραμενῶ, where, indeed, Μακεδ. and ὑμᾶς, διέρχ. and παραμ.
stand obviously in mutual relation, Gal. iv. 24; Heb. iii. 4; Jno.
xxi. 8; Rom. ix. 11; Mark v. 13; vii. 26. Parentheses are in-
troduced either asyndetically or by kai (Fr. Rom. I. 35) dé or yáp
Rom. i. 13; vii. 1; Eph. v. 9; Heb. vii. 11; Jno. [xvii. 10]
xix. 31; 1 Tim. ii. 7; Acts xii. 3; xiii. 8; 1 Jno. i. 2, and after
them the construction either proceeds regularly, or is resumed
(sometimes with some alteration) by the repetition of a word from
the principal clause, with or without a conjunction, as in 2 Cor.
v. 8; 1 Jno. i. 3. It does not, however, follow from the latter
circumstance, that a series of words may be regarded as a paren-
thesis, as Eph. i. 13 ἐν ᾧ καὶ ὑμεῖς, ἀκούσαντες τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας,
τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς σωτηρίας ὑμῶν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ πιστεύσαντες ἐσφραγίσθητε
etc. ii. 11 ff.; 1 Cor. viii. 1 (see Mey.); 2 Cor. v. 6 ff.; Juo. xxi. 21;
so too, where the construction which had been commenced is not
grammatically resumed, but the thread of discourse is continued
in a new and independent form, the structure is not parenthetic,
but anacoluthic (§ 63), e.g. Rom. v. 12 ff.
Εν
2. The number of parentheses in the N. T. is not small, but not
so large as earlier expositors and editors (even Knapp) assumed.
Besides the insertion of single words, which is common also in
Greek and Latin authors (cf. nudius tertius), as in 2 Cor. viii. 3
κατὰ δύναμιν, μαρτυρῶ, κ. παρὰ δύναμιν αὐθαίρετοι, Heb. x. 29 πόσῳ,
punction, would be inconsistent. But in by far the greatest number of cases, commas
suffice for distinguishing inserted words. Round brackets seem to be most suitable as
parenthetical marks.
§ 62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE, PARENTHESES.
563
2
1
6th ed.
δοκεῖτε, χείρονος ἀξιωθήσεται τιμωρίας, 2 Cor. x. 10 αἱ μὲν ἐπιστολαί,
φησίν, βαρεῖαι (see above, § 58, 9), xi. 21; Rom. iii. 5, there are
in the historical books frequent explanations respecting place,
time, occasion etc. expressed parenthetically, as in Acts xii. 3 585
προςέθετο συλλαβεῖν καὶ Πέτρον —ἦσαν δὲ ἡμέραι τῶν ἀζύμων
ὅν etc., i. 15 ; xiii. 8; Luke ix. 28 ἐγένετο μετὰ τ. λόγους τούτους,
ὡςεὶ ἡμέραι ὀκτώ, καί etc. (cf. Isocr. Phil. p. 216; Lucian. dial. 497
mar. 1, 4), Acts v. 7 ἐγένετο δέ, ὡς ὡρῶν τριῶν διάστημα, καὶ ἡ
γυνή etc., Matt. xv. 32 (cf. Lucian. dial. mar. 1, 4; Schaef. Demosth. 524
V. 388); Luke xxiii. 51; Jno. iii. 1 ἦν ἄνθρωπος, Νικόδημος 7th ed.
ὄνομα αὐτῷ, ἄρχων τῶν Ἰουδαίων, xix. 31 (Diog. L. 8, 42); Luke
xiii. 24 πολλοί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ζητήσουσιν etc. Sometimes the nar-
rator interrupts with such an explanation the direct discourse of
another: Mark vii. 11 ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος· κορβᾶν, ὅ ἐστιν δῶρον,
ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, Jno. i. 39 οἱ δὲ εἶπον αὐτῷ· ραββί, δ
λέγεται ἑρμηνευόμενον διδάσκαλε, ποῦ μένεις; 3 Sometimes
an exhortation is thrust in in the same way, as Matt. xxiv. 15 f.
ὅταν ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα . . . ἑστὸς ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ, ὁ ἀναγινώσκων
νοείτω, τότε οἱ ἐν τῇ Ιουδαία etc.
3. There is no parenthesis in Juo. xi. 30 : vs. 30 is so far con-
nected with vs. 29 as it was necessary to mention the place to
which Mary went; and after the narrator has completed the
account of her going out, he passes in vs. 31 to her attendants
1 Aristoph. Acharn. 12 πῶς τοῦτ᾽ ἔσεισέ μου, δοκεῖς, τὴν καρδίαν ; Villois. anecd. I. 24
πόσων, οἴεσθε, θυγατέρας ἐξέδωκεν ;
...
2 The Greek idiom to which this has been compared by Kühnöl and others (the so
called schema Pindaricum, see Fischer, Weller. III. 345 sq.; Vig. p. 192 sq.; Hm. Soph.
Trach. 517; Boeckh, Pindar. II. II. 684 sq.; J. V. Brigleb, diss. in loc. Luc. ix. 28, Jen.
1739. 4to.) lies too remote, being almost exclusively poetic (Kühner II. 50 f.), and its
application is not favored by ἐγένετο, usually employed absolutely nowhere ἐγένοντο
ἡμέραι ὀκτώ etc.). Further, Matt. xv. 32 also is to be explained in the same way as
Luke ix. 23 : ὅτι ἤδη ἡμέραι τρεῖς, προς μένουσί μοι according to the best Codd., where
Fr., overlooking the loose manner in which such specifications of time are introduced,
has printed (from D) : ἤδη ἡμέραι τρεῖς εἰσι καὶ προς μέν. etc., which is a manifest cor-
rection. On Mark viii. 2, however, he has admitted the correctness of the common
text. See also his letter Ueber die Verdienste Tholuck's S. 17. Also Luke xiii. 16 v
ἔδησεν ὁ σατανᾶς, ἰδοὺ δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ ἔτη etc. I have no hesitation in taking, with
Bengel, in the same way.
3 Different from this is the case in which the writer subjoins incidentally such an
explanation to the words of another, and then proceeds in his own person, Jno. ix. 7
ὕπαγε νίψαι εἰς τ. κολυμβήθραν τοῦ Σιλωάμ, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται ἀπεσταλμένος. ἀπῆλ-
Oev ovv etc., i. 42, 44; Matt. i. 22 f.; xxi. 4 f. In all these cases there is no trace of
a parenthesis. Matt. ix. 6 is not so much a parenthesis as a blending of the oratio
directa and indir.; and in Heb. x. 8 the author introduces, indeed, his own words in
the midst of the quotation, but he does this by means of a relative clause.
564 § 62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE; PARENTHESES.
who went out also. In Jno. xix. 5 the narrative proceeds quite
regularly, for the change of subject does not render a parenthesis
necessary. In Matt. xvi. 26 also parenthetical marks appear to
be unnecessary (though Schulz has retained them); for vs. 26
586 adds to τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν ζημιωθῇ an illustration of the value of the
Yuxý. In vs. 27 the reference is to vss. 25 and 26 inclusively;
no interruption of the construction can be perceived. In xxi. 4f.
a remark is added by the narrator; but in vs. 6 the simple nar-
rative continues. Similar is Jno. vi. 6. In Jno. i. 14 probably
the words καὶ ἐθεασάμ. . . . πατρός were not regarded by the author
as an insertion; but, after the completion of the complex sentence,
498 the summary πλńρηs xáρ. K. aλŋo. is added in grammatical inde-
pendence, somewhat as in Phil. iii. 19 or Mark xii. 40.
6th ed.
Luke
vii. 29 f. contain no parenthesis (Lchm.), but words of Christ,
who previously, and again in vs. 31, is speaking. In Mark iii. 17
the assumption of a parenthesis is not sufficient to explain the
construction, but vss. 16-19 are expressed in oratio variata, see
525 § 63 II. 1. There is no parenthesis in Jno. vi. 23; it is con-
7th ed. nected with őrɩ in vs. 22. The proposal of Ziegler (in Gabler's
Journ. für theolog. Lit. I. 155) to include in a parenthesis the
words kaì ĥoav... yvvaikŵv Аcts v. 12 ff. has, very properly, found
no favor with editors (except Schott); and those critics also who
have suspected something spurious in vss. 12-15 (Eichhorn, Beck,
Kühnöl) have been too precipitate. The words sтe Kатà Tàs
πλατείας ἐκφέρειν τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς etc. are very aptly connected with
vs. 14; the two facts, that the people held the apostles in high
estimation, and that the number of believers increased, readily
explain why the sick were brought out into the streets. The
words, indeed, connect themselves with vs. 14 far more neatly than
with vs. 12. Are we to understand by Toλλà onμeîa Kaì Téρaта
(Ev Tập λaậ) merely the preceding events, the effect of which
was ❝STE Éκþéρeiv etc.? To assume this would be to sacrifice the
perspicuity of the narrative. For what else could those Toλλà
onμeîa have been but miracles of healing? Thus in the words.
ESTE KATά etc. what had been only briefly indicated in vs. 12 recurs
in another connection to be narrated more in detail (vs. 15 f.).
Accordingly, I cannot bring myself to make with Lehm. vs. 14 a
parenthesis. On the other hand, in Acts x. 36 Tòv λóyov is probably
to be connected with vs. 37, and the words ouros etc., which as
a complete sentence express a leading thought that Peter could
not well annex by a relative, form a parenthesis; and in vs. 37
ν
§ 62. INTERRUPTED STRUCTURE; PARENTHESES.
565
the speaker, after this interruption, proceeds by an amplification
of the thought.
•
4. In the Epistles also parentheses, especially short ones, occur,
which contain sometimes a limitation, 1 Cor. vii. 11, sometimes a 587
corroboration, 1 Tim. ii. 7; 1 Thess. ii. 5, sometimes a reason or
more precise explanation, Rom. vii. 1; 2 Cor. v. 7; vi. 2; x. 4;
xii. 2; Gal. ii. 8; Eph. ii. 5; v. 9; Jas. iv. 14; 2 Thess. i. 10 ;
1 Jno. i. 2; 1 Tim. iii. 5, or any thought whatever that obtruded
itself upon the writer (Col. iv. 10; Rom. i. 13). But we find in
the Epistles some parentheses also of greater length, as in Heb.
vii. 20 f. oi µèv ɣáp .. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, since καθ' ὅσον οὐ χωρίς
ópkwµooías vs. 20 is obviously connected with vs. 22 KATÀ TOCOÛTO
KрEÍTTOVOS etc.; and in Rom. ii. 13–15, since vs. 16 év ýµépą őtE
kρɩveî etc. is after all most appropriately connected with κρilýσovтaι
vs. 12, for xpweî glances back at кρilýσovтαι. Vss. 13-15, however,
constitute an independent group of thoughts, appended to vs. 12
as explanatory: it is the doing, not the hearing, of the law which
is required, vs. 13; but the righteous heathen even are doers of 499
the law, vss. 14, 15. But many lengthened insertions are not
parentheses but digressions, inasmuch as they check merely the 526
progress of thought and not the sequence of construction.
1 Cor. viii. 1-3 Paul, after grammatically concluding the clause
περὶ δὲ . . . ἔχομεν, allows himself, from ἡ γνῶσις to ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, το
digress on yvwois in relation to ȧyárn, and, resuming the thread
of the discourse, returns in vs. 4 Teρì τns Bpwoews ouv etc. to vs. 1.
Similar digressions occur in 1 Cor. xv. 9, 10 and 2 Cor. iii. 14-18
(iv. 1 is connected with iii. 12). In Rom. xiii. 9 f. by kai тоÛто
ειδότες Paul returns to μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε, which is to be men-
tally repeated. Finally, in most of the passages usually adduced
as parentheses, there is neither parenthesis nor digression: In
Tit. i. 1f. κατὰ πίστιν is connected with ἀπόστολος, and the
destination of Paul's apostleship is fully brought out in the clause
κ. πίστ. . . . αἰωνίου, while to ζωῆς αἰων. is appended the relative
clause as far as Oeoû. Likewise in Rom. i. 1-7, where event
Schott in his last edition assumes two parentheses, the whole
passage flows with one unbroken thread, only the main conceptions.
in vss. 3 f. 5, 6 are amplified by relative clauses. So also in Col.
iii. 12-14, where ἀνεχόμενοι (corresponding to ἐνδύσασθε) is a
modal specification of μακροθυμίαν (perhaps also of πραότητα), but
is itself re-enforced by xalos etc. Only ovтw kaì vµeîs may appear
to interrupt the structure, as the thought is already expressed
6th ed.
566 § 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE.
through kabús in the connection of the preceding clause; but if
Xapilóμevor be there supplied, the construction becomes regular.
In Heb. xii. there is the less ground for regarding vss. 20, 21 as
588 a parenthesis (Lchm.), since in vs. 22 πposeλnλúlaтe is repeated
from vs. 18; so that a new sentence begins, an affirmative opposed
to the negative group of sentences vss. 18-21. In 1 Cor. i. 8 ős
refers to Xplorós vs. 7, and vss. 5 and 6 contain no parenthesis.
In Rom. xvi. 4 the two connected relative clauses occasion no real
break in the structure and cannot be regarded as parenthetic. In
1 Pet. iii. 6 ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι is connected with ἐγενήθητε, and the
words is... Téκva are not parenthetic. In Eph. iii. 5 ô érépais
etc. is joined to ev μvoτпpíw тOû X. vs. 4; and in 2 Pet. i. 5
(Schott) αὐτὸ τοῦτο δὲ σπ. παρειςενέγκαντες stands parallel to ὡς
πάνта... Sεdwpnμévns etc., and vs. 4 is an explanatory relative
clause to the words διὰ δόξης καὶ ἀρετῆς. Οn 1 Jno. iv. 17 ff. ;
Eph. i. 21 hardly any remark is required. In Eph. ii. 11 oi Xey....
χειροπ. is an apposition to τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί, and the repetition of
ŐT in vs. 12 cannot convert what precedes into a parenthesis.
Lastly, anacolutha occur in Col. iii. 16; 2 Pet. ii. 4-8 (in the lat
ter passage occasioned by vs. 8, see § 63, I. 1 p. 569) and 1 Tim. i. 3 ff.
In Eph. iii. 1 ff. the Predicate is not å déoµws, for then, if the meaning
were ego
Paulus vinculis detineor, the article would be omitted; and the
500 sense I am the prisoner of Christ (kar' ¿έoxýv), does not recommend itself.
6th ed. The simplest mode of explaining the passage is, after Theodoret, to rec-
527 ognize in Toútov xáρw vs. 14 the resumption of the thought interrupted in
7th ed.
vs. 1; especially as the intercession vs. 14 sqq. finds its appropriate occa-
sion in the very fact that Paul had been by his imprisonment withdrawn
from his personal labors, and Toútov xápw also in vs. 1 receives its natural
import. With far less probability others join iv. 1 to iii. 1, since there
ὁ δέσμιος seems to refer to ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος. Cf. Cramer, translation of Eph.
p. 71 ff., who quotes and tests other conjectures, and Harless.
§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES;
ANACOLUTHON, ORATIO VARIATA.
I. 1. Anacoluthon 1 occurs when the construction with which a
¹ Hm. Vig. 894 sqq. (who explains poetic anacolutha almost exclusively); Poppo,
Thuc. I. I. 360 sqq.; Kühner II. 616 ff.; Mdv. 253 ff.; F. Richter, de praccip. gracc.
lingu. anacoluth. Mühlh. 1827 f. 2 spec. 4to. ; v. Wannowski, Syntax. anomal. graec.
pars cet. Lips. 1835. 8vo.; F. W. Engelhardt, Anacoluth. Plat. spec. 1-3, Gedani 1834 ff.
4to. (cf. Gernhard, Cic. offic. p. 441 sq.; Matthiae, de anacoluth. ap. Ciceron. in Wolf,
Analect. lit. III. 1 sqq.). For the N. T. Fritzsche, Conjectan. spec. 1 (Lips. 1825. 8vo.)
p. 33 sq.
§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE. 567
sentence began is not grammatically pursued;-either because 589
the writer is wholly diverted from the structure adopted at the
beginning by something intervening (especially by parentheses,
see Beier, Cic. off. II. 365), or because for the sake of a preferable
mode of expression (Weber, Demosth. 538) he frames the close of
his sentence otherwise than the commencement required.¹ Hence
anacolutha are sometimes involuntary, sometimes intentional.
To the latter class belong also those which have a rhetorical ground
(Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 221), or which originate, as Hm. Vig. 895
expresses it, a motu animi vel ab arte oratoris vim aliquam captante.
In writers of great mental vivacity and activity, more taken up
with the thought than with the expression, anacolutha are most
frequently to be expected. Hence they are especially numerous
in the epistolary style of the Apostle Paul. We specially point
out the following: Acts xv. 22 ἔδοξεν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις ...
ἐκλεξαμένους ἄνδρας ἐξ αὐτῶν πέμψαι ... γράψαντες διὰ χειρὸς
αὐτῶν (Lys. in Eratosth. 7 ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς ... ὥςπερ . πεποιη-
κότες, Antiphon. p. 613 Reisk. ἔδοξεν αὐτῇ βουλομένῃ βέλτιον
εἶναι μετὰ δεῖπνον δοῦναι, ταῖς Κλυταιμνήστρας τῆς τούτου μητρὸς
ὑποθήκαις ἅμα διακονοῦσα, vice versa Plat. legg. 3, 686 d. ἀπο
βλέψας πρὸς τοῦτον τὸν στόλον, οὗ πέρι διαλεγόμεθα, ἔδοξέ μοι
πάγκαλος
Táуkaλos elvaιas, in general, often with edoce-, Plat. Apol. 501
21c.; Xen. Cyr. 6, 1, 31; Lucian. Astrol. 3; Schwarz, soloecism. p.
86 sq.);2 Acts xx. 3 ποιήσας μῆνας τρεῖς, γενομένης αὐτῷ ἐπιβουλῆς τ
μέλλοντι ἀνάγεσθαι εἰς τὴν Συρίαν, ἐγένετο γνώμη, etc. In
Rom. xvi. 25-27 τῷ δυναμένῳ . . . μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χρ.,
ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, Paul is led away from the intended con-
struction by his extended statement respecting God in vss. 25, 26,
and, instead of immediately annexing ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, forms
a relative clause out of the contents of the doxology, as if the Dative
De concluded a sentence. Similar is Acts xxiv. 5, where expатý-
•
6th ed
528
oaμev vs. 6 should without anything further have been added to
the participle evpóvtes tòv åvdpa тOÛTOV; Luke, however, led astray 590
by the relative clause òs κaí etc. has made it, too, a part of the
relative sentence: ὃν καὶ ἐκρατ.
More remarkable are the ana-
colutha in periods of smaller extent: 3 as in Acts xix. 34 èmiyVÓVTES,
ἐπιγνόντες,
1 Accordingly, in 1 Jno. i. 1 ff. there is no anacoluthon, as vs. 3, by a grammatically
regular repetition of the words of the first verse after the intermediate clause vs. 2, is
connected strictly with the beginning of the sentence.
D • >
2 In Latin cf. Hirt. bell. afric. 25 dum haec ita fierent, rex Juba, cognitis. non est
visum, etc. Plin. ep. 10, 34.
8 One of the most singular is perhaps that adduced by Kypke II. 104: Hippocr. morb
568
§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE.
Ο
ὅτι Ἰουδαῖός ἐστι, φωνὴ ἐγένετο μία ἐκ πάντων (instead of ἐφώνησαν
ἅπαντες), Markix. 20 ἰδὼν ὁ παῖς) αὐτόν, τὸ πνεῦμα εὐθὺς ἐσπάραξεν
αὐτόν (instead of ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος ἐσπαράχθη), to which Fr.
compares Anthol. pal. 11, 488 (?) κἀγὼ δ' αὐτὸν ἰδών, τὸ στόμα μου
δέδεται, see also Plat. legg. 6, 769 c. Further, iu Luke xi. 11 τίνα
ἐξ ὑμῶν τὸν πατέρα αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς ἄρτον, μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ ;
the question, will he give? pre-supposes a protasis: a father when
asked for bread by his son, or, a father whom his son asks for bread
(Matt. vii. 9). So too in Acts xxiii. 30 μηνυθείσης μοι ἐπιβουλῆς
εἰς τὸν ἄνδρα μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι, where the construction should have
continued μελλούσης ἔσεσθαι; whereas μέλλειν might have been
employed, had the clause been introduced somehow thus: μηνυ
σάντων ἐπιβουλήν, etc. Cf. § 45, 6. Probably the construction
was intentionally altered in 1 Cor. xii. 28 οὓς μὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ
ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον διδασκάλους
etc., where Paul at first meant to write οὓς μὲν . . . ἀποστ., οὓς δὲ
προφ. etc. ; but instead of employing mere juxtaposition, he pre-
ferred an arrangement according to rank, so that now οὓς μέν
stands quite isolated, and the subsequent abstracts also, ἔπειτα
δυνάμεις, are appended to the simple ἔθετο, which alone the writer
still had in his mind. Likewise in Tit. i. 3 the Apostle, by the
introduction of τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ in connection with ἐφανέρωσε δὲ
etc., seizes on a more suitable turn of expression. Cf. besides
2 Cor. vii. 5 (1 Cor. vii. 26). Still more incoherent are the com-
posite parts of an anacoluthic period in Juo. vi. 22 τῇ ἐπαύριον ὁ
ὄχλος . . . ἰδών, ὅτι . . . (ἄλλα δὲ ἦλθε πλοιάρια . . .), ὅτε οὖν εἶδεν
529 ὁ ὄχλος etc., where εἶδεν in consequence of the words inserted
7th ed. has acquired a more comprehensive object than belonged to idúv.
In Gal. ii. 6 ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν, οὐδέν
502 μοι διαφέρει — ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προςανέθεντο, where the
Apostle should have continued in the Passive, but is so disturbed
by the parenthetic clause that he frames a new sentence with yúp.¹
6th ed.
· ·
vulg. 5, 1 ἐν Ἡλίδι ἡ τοῦ κηπωροῦ γυνὴ πυρετὸς εἶχεν αὐτὴν ξυνεχὴς καὶ φάρμακα πίνουσα
οὐδὲν ὠφελέετο. Cf. also Bar. 1, 9 μετὰ τὸ ἀποικίσαι Ναβουχοδονόσορ τὸν Ιεχονίαν .
καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτόν, etc. Act. apocr. p. 69.
•
1 In sense IIerm.'s explanation (Progr. de locis ep. ad Gal. p. 7) agrees with this.
He assumes, however, an aposiopesis after ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκ. ... τι. See in opposition,
Fritzsche, 2d Progr. p. 13. (Fritzschior. Opusc. 211 sq.). The latter considers the words
ἀπὸ . . . τι, with which as he thinks vs. 5. should conclude, as parallel to διὰ δὲ τοὺς
παρειςάκτους ψευδαδ., and renders : propter irreptitios autem et falsos sodales (se circumcidi
non passus est), quippe qui .. . quibus ut . . . a viris autem, qui auctoritate valerent
(circumcisionis necessitatem sibi imponi non sivit). See, on the other hand, Meyer. I
have found no reason to give up my view of the passage.
•
•
§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE.
569
、
we did
So in vs. 4 f. διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρειςάκτους ψευδαδέλφους . . . οἷς οὐδὲ 591
πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ etc., the parenthetical insertion in
vs. 4 occasioned the anacoluthon. The Apostle might either have
said: on account of the false brethren (to please them)
not cause Titus to be circumcised; or, we could by no means (in
this respect) give way to the false brethren. The two constructions
are here blended. In Rom. ii. 17 ff., vss. 17-20 constitute the
protasis, and vs. 21 begins the apodosis. Paul, having continued
through several clauses the thought which he brought out as
protasis, loses sight of ei vs. 17, and in appending the apodosis
vs. 21 falls into another construction by means of ovv, which
particle indicates an anacoluthon. The explanation differs but
little, if ovv be taken for a conjunction employed to resume and
sum up the protasis (Klotz, Devar. II. 718 sq.), as it very frequently
in Greek authors begins the apodosis. For the words ó didúokov
etc. о înρúσσwv etc., whether they be taken as a question or as a
reproachful assertion, alter the natural course of the sentence.
That is to say, after the protasis ei dé etc. the sentence would
simply' run thou shouldst carry into effect this knowledge of the
law by a corresponding conduct (cf. vs. 23). That the construction
selected by Paul is more forcible is obvious.2 The anacoluthon
in the following passages is harsher: In 2 Pet. ii. 4 the protasis
εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἀγγέλων οὐκ ἐφείσατο etc. las no grammatical apodosis.
The Apostle meant to say: neither (much less) will he spare these 530
false teachers. But as one instance of divine punishment sug- 7th ed.
gested itself to his mind after another (vss. 4-8), he first in vs. 9 592
reverts with an altered construction to the thought (generalizing 503
it also) which was to form the apodosis. In Rom. v. 12, to the 6th ed.
words ὥςπερ δι' ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰςῆλθε
one might have expected the apodosis: οὕτω δι᾽ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου
(Χριστού) δικαιοσύνη καὶ διὰ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ἡ ζωή. But, by the
0
1 To repeat, with Fr. (Progr. I. in ep. ad Gal. p. 24, Opusc. p. 178 sq.), after dià dè
τοὺς παρειςάκτους ψευδαδ., the words οὐκ ἠναγκάσθη περιτμ. (ὁ Τίτος) is no easier at all.
Paul, unless we regard him as an inexpert writer, could only omit these words in case
the appended relative clauses had made him lose sight of the commencement of the
period. But in this way the explanations of the sentence, which is at any rate irregular,
amount pretty much to the same thing. Besides, there would be no singularity of
style in the statement: but not even Titus ... was compelled to be circumcised. And
because of the fulse brethren stealthily brought in, he did not allow himself to be compelled (to
be circumcised).
2 In a graminatical point of view cf. Xen. C. 6, 2, 9, where the commencement érel
δὲ . . . ἦλθον etc. § 12 is resumed in the words ὡς οὖν ταῦτα ἤκουσεν ὁ στρατὸς τοῦ Κύρου,
and the apodosis connected with it.
72
570 § 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE.
explanation annexed in vss. 12-14 to eisîλDev ǹ åµаρтía κal ó
Oúvaros, the regular construction is broken off (though in os eσTI
TÚπTOS TOÙ μÉXXOVTOs an intimation of the antithesis is given); and
besides, the Apostle recollects that not merely a simple parallel
between Adam and Christ might be drawn (SπEρ ... OÜTWS), but
that something greater and more pervasive has proceeded from
Christ than from Adam. Hence the epanorthosis Tоλ µâλλov,
which was noticed by so early an expositor as Calvin. The con-
nection is resumed in the words ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὡς τὸ παράπτωμα etc.
vs. 15, which logically absorb the apodosis, and in ei yàp . . . úπélavov
the substance of the protasis vs. 12 is briefly recapitulated. After
this Paul combines vs. 18 the twofold parallel (likeness and un-
likeness) in one final result. In a similar way must be explained
1 Tim. i. 3 ff. Kalws πарeкáλeσa entirely wants an apodosis,
which escaped the attention of Paul while he was introducing
directly into the protasis the object of πаρaкaλeîv. The apodosis
should ruu thus: οὕτω καὶ νῦν παρακαλῶ, ἵνα παραγγείλῃς etc.
To consider vss. 5-17 as a parenthesis, as even Bengel does, is
wholly unnatural; it is still more absurd, however, to take' κalús
for an untranslatable particle of transition (Heydenreich). Many
ancient and modern expositors regard Rom. ix. 22 ff. as a very
singular and in part double anacoluthon; see the different views
in Reiche. But it is probably simpler to join raì íva vs. 22 to
veуkev, and at the end of vs. 23 to conceive the apodosis as
suppressed: If God, determined to show forth his wrath, bore with
all long-suffering the vessels of his wrath, ... also in order to
make known the riches etc....: what then? what shall we say?
(must not, then, all censure be silent?). The bearing of the σKEÚN
opyŵs is not merely regarded as a proof of his μakpol., but, at the
same time, as occasioned by the purpose of bringing to view the
riches of his glory which he destined for the σkeúŋ èλéovs. The
instant destruction of the σkeúŋ opyŵs (in this case the unbelieving
Jews) would have been perfectly just; but God endured them
with long-suffering (thus tempering his justice with kindness),
both the aim and the result of this being the more striking display
593 (by the contrast) of the greatness of his grace towards the σkeún
531 éxéovs. The Sé in vs. 22 is not oûv, and hence the continuation of
ἐλέους.
7th ed. the thought expressed in vss. 20, 21 is not probable. That God
is perfectly free in bestowing the tokens of his grace, had been
sufficiently stated. The creature cannot contend with the Creator,
- that is enough. But, resumes Paul, God is not so rigorous as
§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE.
571
he might be, and have no fear of the censure of men. [It is 504
probably still simpler, without supplying an apodosis, to take ei . . . 6th ed
veykev as the condition, and Kai (sc. йveykev) iva vs. 23 as the
conclusion: if God ... endured . . ., he endured them also or at
the same time to the end that, etc.] As to Acts x. 36 see above,
§ 62, 3 p. 564. On Rom. xii. 6 ff. see below, II. 1 p. 578. Col. i. 21
is in any event an anacoluthon, whether we read with Lehm. άπо-
KaтηλXÚYNтe, or with the text. геc. ȧπокαтýλλaέev. On 2 Pet.
i. 17 see § 45, 6 b. p. 351, and on 1 Cor. xii. 2 Meyer.
TT
In several other passages where expositors have thought they found an
anacoluthon, I can discover nothing of the sort. Rom. vii. 21 epiʊko apа
εὑρίσκω ἄρα
τὸν νόμον τῷ θέλοντι ἐμοὶ ποιεῖν τὸ καλόν, ὅτι ἐμοὶ τὸ κακὸν παράκειται, where
according to Fr. (Conject. p. 50) there is a blending of two constructions,
has by this scholar been subsequently explained otherwise, that is, in
accordance with Knapp's view; see above, § 61, 5 p. 557. Likewise, in
Heb. viii. 9 there is no blending of two constructions (Fr. Conject. p. 34).
The quotation from the Sept. ἐν ἡμέρα ἐπιλαβομένου μου τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν
may be an unusual expression, but it is not incorrect. The form of the
expression was unquestionably occasioned by the Hebrew (for it is a
quotation from Jer. xxxi. 32) 7. The participle is used
instead of the Infin., as in Jer. xxix. 2; cf. Bar. ii. 28. In 1 Pet. ii. 7
άлoûσ dé is grammatically connected with the words of the quotation,
οὗτος ἐγενήθη etc. In Rom. i. 26, 27 a decision is difficult because the
reading varies between ὁμοίως δὲ καί and ὁμοίως τε καί. The former
appears to have more external evidence in its support; and Bornem.
(neues theol. Journ. VI. 145) has preferred it (as well as Lehm.), and
endeavored to vindicate it by the frequent recurrence of the expression in
the N. T. Matt. xxvi. 35; xxvii. 41 (Mark xv. 31); Luke v. 10; x. 32;
1 Cor. vii. 3 f.; Jas. ii. 25, and also in Greek authors, as Diod. Sic. 17,
111. But as none of these passages is preceded by re, they are inadequate;
cf., however, the passage quoted by Fr. from Plat. symp. 186 e. y Tε ovv
ἰατρικὴ ... ὡςαύτως δὲ καὶ γυμναστική.
wsαÚTWs de Kai yuvaσTIKÝ. Grammatically, therefore, the
reading supported by the most authoritative Codd. may be defended, and
would even be very appropriate, as the Apostle obviously wishes to give
the greater prominence to what was done by the appeves (he dwells on it
in vs. 27, severely condemning the wickedness). Now comes the question
whether either or both of these two readings causes an anacoluthon?
With the reading oμ. Te κaí [Cod. Sin.] there is no more an anacoluthon
than in the Latin nam et feminae ...et similiter etiam mares. On the 594
other hand, if we read oµ. dè kai the natural sequence is broken, exactly
as in Latin et feminae similiter vero etiam mares. Klotz, Devar. II. 532
740. In Heb. iii. 15 we must probably seek for the apodosis in vs. 16 7th ed.
Tíves yáp quinam etc., as Bleek, Tholuck, and others have done. In 2 Cor.
•
572 § 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE.
viii. 3 αυθαίρετοι is connected with ἑαυτοὺς ἔδωκαν vs. 5. In 1 Cor. v. 11,
in the words τῷ τοιούτῳ μηδὲ συνεσθίειν we ought not with Erasmus to find
an anacoluthon, but an intensive repetition of συναναμίγν. In Jas. ii. 2 f.
the anacoluthon disappears, if vs. 4 καὶ οὐ etc. be taken interrogatively,
as is done now by most critics, and also by Lehm. Jno. xiii. 1 contains
no grammatical anacoluthon; the difficulty must be disposed of hermeneu-
505 tically. 1 Cor. ix. 15, if ἵνα before τις is spurious (Taf. has restored it),
6th ed. would be not so much an anacoluthon as an aposiopesis, see Mey. Lastly,
in Eph. iii. 18 the participles are probably to be connected with the clause
ἵνα ἐξισχύσητε etc., see Mey. in loc.
2. The anacolutha hitherto elucidated are of such a nature that
they might occur in any language. But in Greek certain peculiar
species of anacoluthon became established by usage, which must
now be mentioned:
a. If a sentence is continued by means of participles, these,
when at a distance from the governing verb, not unfrequently
assume an abnormal case (see Vig. p. 337 sqq.; Rost 704), e.g. Eph.
iv. 2 f. παρακαλῶ ὑμᾶς . . . περιπατῆσαι . . . ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων
ἐν ἀγάπῃ, σπουδάζοντες etc. (as if the exhortation were direct:
περιπατήσατε), also i. 18 (where Meyer makes unnecessary dif-
ficulties); Col. iii. 16 ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνοικείτω ἐν ὑμῖν
πλουσίως, ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ διδάσκοντες καὶ νουθετοῦντες
ἑαυτούς etc. ; ii. 2 ἵνα παρακληθῶσιν αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν συμβιβα
σθέντες ἐν ἀγάπῃ etc. (as if παρακαλεῖσθαι were referred to the
persons themselves), Col. ii. 10 [?]; 2 Cor. ix. 10 f. ὁ ἐπιχορηγῶν ...
χορηγήσαι καὶ πληθύναι τὸν σπόρον ὑμῶν . . . ὑμῶν, ἐν παντὶ πλου
τιζόμενοι etc. ; vs. 12f. ἡ διακονία (ἐστὶ) περισσεύουσα διὰ
πολλῶν εὐχαριστιῶν, διὰ τῆς δοκιμῆς τ. διακονίας ταύτης δοξάζοντες
τὸν θεόν (as if ὅτι πολλοὶ εὐχαριστοῦσιν had preceded) cf. Xen.
Cyr. 1, 4, 26. See also 2 Cor. i. 7; vii. 5; Phil. i. 29 f.; iii. 10;
2 Pet. iii. 3; Acts xxvi. 3; Jude 16. Cf. in general, Markland,
Lys. p. 364, Reiske Vol. V.; Buttm. Soph. Philoct. p. 110; Seidler,
Eurip. Iphig. T. 1072; Kühner II. 377 f.; Schwarz, soloecism. p. 89,
also Stall. Plat. apol. p. 135 sq. and sympos. p. 33. Some of the
anacolutha of this sort may be considered as intentional. The
595 thoughts when expressed by the Nom. of participles receive-
greater prominence; whereas the oblique cases merge them rather
in the sentence as a whole (singularly so in Jude 16), and are
marked as accessory. But most of them are occasioned by the
author's having intended, in the preceding part of the sentence,
to employ a different substantive, kindred in sense. Besides, cf.
Evang. apocr. pp. 169, 445.
§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE.
573
p.
Of another sort are Mark xii. 40; Phil. iii. 18 f., on which see § 59, 8 b. 533
532. In Rom. xiii. 11 καὶ τοῦτο εἰδότες is connected with ὀφείλετε vs. 8 ; 7th ed.
and 1 Pet. ii. 16 connects itself, as the ideas suggest, with the Imperative
ὑποτάγητε in vs. 13.
6th ed.
b. Frequently after a participle the construction passes over into
a finite verb, which is apt to be accompanied by dé; as, Col. i. 26
πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸ μυστήριον τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον
ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ... νυνὶ δὲ ἐφανερώθη instead of νυνὶ δὲ φανερωθέν
(cf. Her. 6, 25 ; Thuc. 1, 67), 1 Cor. vii. 37 ὃς ἕστηκεν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ,
μὴ ἔχων ἀνάγκην, ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἔχει (instead of ἔχων).1 We must 506
not, with Meyer, refer to this head 1 Cor. iv. 14; nor Eph. ii. 3,
where ήμεν is parallel to ἀνεστράφημεν. This transition occurs
without Sé in Eph. i. 20 κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν ... ἣν ἐνήργησεν ἐν τῷ
Χριστῷ, ἐγείρας αὐτὸν ... καὶ ἐκάθισεν, 2 Cor. vi. 9 ; Jno. v. 41;
Col. i. 6 (Paus. 10, 9, 1). As to 2 Juo. 2 see below, II. 1 p. 578. An
effort to attain a more simple structure, or to give prominence to
the second thought (particularly in 2 Cor. vi. 9; cf. Xen. Cyr.
5, 4, 29), is not unfrequently the cause of such an anacoluthon.
Heb. viii. 10 (from the O. Τ.) is to be explained thus: αὕτη ἡ
διαθήκη, ἣν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραὴλ ... διδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς
τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς. Το
render καί before ἐπιγρ. by etiam, as some (Böhme, for instance)
do, is forced, and far from being favored by x. 16. As to Jno.
i. 32 τεθέαμαι τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον... καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν
(cf. vs. 33 ἐφ᾿ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ' αὐτόν),
the correct explanation has already been indicated by BCrus. Cf.
also Schaef. Dion. H. p. 31 and Demosth. II. 75; V. 437,573, also
Plutarch. IV. 323; Blume, Lycurg. p. 147; Mtth. S. 1527 f. In
the Codd. in such passages the participle is sometimes found as a
correction, e.g. in Eph. as above, where Lchm. nevertheless has
adopted καθίσας as genuine. A kindred sort of anacoluthon
occurs in 2 Cor. v. 6 ff. θαῤῥοῦντες οὖν πάντοτε... θαῤῥοῦμεν δὲ
καὶ εὐδοκοῦμεν, where Paul, after several intermediate clauses,
repeats θαῤῥοῦντες, which he intended to construe with εὐδοκ., in 596
the form of the finite verb.
Επ
c. A clause, which had begun with őr, concludes with the
(Acc. and) Infin., as if that particle had not been employed at all;
as, Acts xxvii. 10 θεωρῶ, ὅτι μετὰ ὕβρεως καὶ πολλῆς ζημίας .
μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι τὸν πλοῦν cf. Plat. Gorg. 453 b. ἐγὼ γὰρ εὖ
1 The case examined by Hm. Soph. El. p. 153, and Buttm. Demosth. Mid. p. 149, is
different.
574 § 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE.
τι
ἴσθ᾽ ὅτι, ὡς ἐμαυτὸν πείθω, εἴπερ . . . καὶ ἐμὲ εἶναι τούτων ἕνα, see
above, § 44, note 2, p. 339. On the other hand, in Aelian. 12, 39
the construction paoì Zeμípaμuv is founded on an Acc. with the
534 Inf., but is followed by péya éppóvei, as if öτ had preceded. Similar
7th ed. is Plaut. Trucul. 2, 2, 62. With this may be compared also Jno.
viii. 54 ὃν ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι θεὸς ὑμῶν ἐστι (where θεὸν ὑμῶν εἶναι
might have been used). This, however, is rather to be considered
as Attraction; see below.
d. The principal verb in the sentence does not regularly cor-
respond to the Nominative or Acc. placed at the beginning of the
sentence (casus pendentes, Wannowski, Syntax. anomal. p. 54 sq.;
sec, however, H. L.-Z. 1836. I. 338); as, 1 Jno. ii. 24 vµeîs, ò
ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ἐν ὑμῖν μενέτω, and vs. 27 καὶ ὑμεῖς, τὸ χρίσμα
ồ èλáßεтε Úπ' aνтoû èv úµîv µévei and you, the anointing, which...
abides in you. In both passages, vµcîs, if placed in the relative
clause (Lehm.), would in that position of precedence be too em-
phatic. Luke xxi. 6 ταῦτα ἃ θεωρεῖτε, ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι, ἐν αἷς
οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ etc. these things which ye behold,
there will come days in which (even to the last stone they will be
507 destroyed) not a stone (of them) will be left on another. So also
6th ed. in Jno. vi. 39; vii. 38; xv. 2; Matt. vii. 24; xii. 36; Rev. ii. 26;
iii. 12, 21; vi. 8. Cf. Exod. ix. 7; Xen. Cyr. 2, 3, 5; Oec. 1, 14;
Ael. 7, 1. 2 Cor. xii. 17 μή τινα ὧν ἀπέσταλκα πρὸς ὑμᾶς, δι
αὐτοῦ ἐπλεονέκτησα ὑμᾶς ; for, have I sent to you any one of those
etc. in order to defraud you? Rom. viii. 3 Tò àdúvaтov тоû vóμov,
ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένει ... ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέμψας ... κατέκρινε τὴν
åµaptíav év tŷy σapкí, what to the law was impossible... God con-
demned, sending his Son, sin in the flesh, for, that God did, and
condemned etc. Here, however, Tò ádúv. may also be regarded as
a predicate placed before a proposition complete in itself, and may
be resolved ὃ γὰρ ἀδύνατόν ἐστι, like Heb. viii. 1 κεφάλαιον ἐπὶ τοῖς
λεγομένοις, τοιοῦτον ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα etc. see § 32, 7 p. 231; cf.
Kühner II. 156.
T
νατον
Several critics, Olsh. among them, have supposed that there is an Accus.
absol. (?) in Acts x. 36 τὸν λόγον ὃν ἀπέστειλε τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ etc. the
597 word, which (or which word) he sent first to the children of Israel (namely,
the word vs. 35 év tavтì ë0vel etc.). Yet see § 62, 3 p. 564.
An anacoluthon peculiar to the N. T. sometimes occurs, where the
writer proceeds in the words of an O. T. statement instead of in his own,
e.g. Rom. xv. 3 καὶ γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐχ ἑαυτῷ ἤρεσεν, ἀλλά, καθὼς γέγραπται,
οἱ ὀνειδισμοὶ τῶν ὀνειδιζόντων σε ἐπέπεσαν ἐπ᾿ ἐμέ (instead of but, to please
§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE.
575
God, he submitted to the cruelest reproaches) vs. 21; ix. 7; c£ 1 Cor.
ii. 9; iii. 21; Heb. iii. 7. Yet see below, § 64, 7 p. 598.
e. Under the head of anacoluthon comes also the use of µév
without a subsequent parallel clause (made prominent by dé),
Hm. Vig. 841 sq. In this case either
a) the parallel member is easily to be supplied from the clause
with μév, being in a manner included in it, as in IIeb. vi. 16 äveρwπо
μὲν γὰρ κατὰ τοῦ μείζονος ὀμνύουσι men swear by the greater, but
God can swear only by himself, cf. vs. 13 (Plat. Protag. 334 a.), 535
yet this μév is doubtful [and wanting also in Cod. Sin.]; Col. ii. 23 7th ed
ἅτινά ἐστι λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας ἐν ἐθελοθρησκεία και etc. which,
indeed, have an appearance of wisdom, but in fact are not (Xen.
An. 1, 2, 1), Rom. x. 1, where perhaps Paul purposely avoided
the painful antithesis (which is brought out in vs. 3 but softened
by a compliment), see further 1 Cor. v. 3. Cf. Xen. Hier. 1, 7;
7, 4; Mem. 3, 12, 1; Plat. Phaed. 58 a.; Aristoph. pax 13; see
Stallb. Plat. Crit. p. 105; Held, Plutarch. A. Paull. p. 123. Or
B) the antithetic member is evidently added, but in another
construction ; as, Rom. xi. 13 f. ἐφ' ὅσον μὲν οὖν εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ἐθνῶν
ἀπόστολος, την διακονίαν μου δοξάζω, εἴπως παραζηλώσω μου τὴν
σάρκα etc. Here the clause with δέ lies wrapt up in εἴπως παραζ.,
instead of Paul's writing regularly: inasmuch as I am the apostle
of the Gentiles, I glorify mine office (preaching zealously to the
Gentiles), but I have in this the benefit of the Jews in view (I will
thus render the Jews emulous), I am, indeed, in fact an apostle
to the Gentiles, but at the same time in purpose an apostle to the 508
Jews. Or
6th ed.
y) the construction is entirely broken off, and the parallel clause
must be gathered by the reader from the sequel, e.g. Acts i. 1 Tòv
μὲν πρῶτον λόγον ἐποιησάμην περὶ πάντων . . . ἀνελήφθη. Now the
writer ought to proceed: and the history from this point of time
(the Ascension) I will narrate now in the second part of my work;
but by the mention of the apostles vs. 3 he is led to refer to Christ's
appearance after his resurrection, and connects immediately with
this the continuation of the narrative. Rom. vii. 12 @sre o μèv vóμos 598
ἅγιος καὶ ἡ ἐντολὴ ἁγία καὶ δικαία καὶ ἀγαθή the law, indeed, is holy,
and the commandment is holy etc. but åµapria, made active in the
σápğ, misuses it (in the way indicated vs. 8). This thought the
Apostle brings out in vs. 13 by a different turn of expression. Cf.
further, Rom. i. 8; iii. 2; 1 Cor. xi. 18 (in all these cases πрŵтоν
µév, see below), Heb. ix. 1; 2 Cor. xii. 12 (see Rück. in loc.), Acts
0
576 § 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE.
iii. 13; xix. 4 (in the last passage μév is not fully established),
xxvi. 4. Instances in Greek writers are, Eurip. Orest. 8; Xen.
C. 2, 1, 4; 4, 5, 50; Mem. 1, 2, 2; 2, 6, 3; Plato, Apol. 21 d. ;
Reisig, Soph. Oed. Col. p. 398; Locella, Xen. Ephes. p. 225 and
many others.
In Luke viii. 5 ff.; Jno. xi. 6; xix. 32; Jas. iii. 17
the correlative particle is not entirely omitted, only for dé we find
sometimes eπera (Heind. Plat. Phaed. p. 133; Schaef. melet. p. 61),
sometimes kai; and that even in Greek authors pèv ... ÉπTEITα,
ἔπειτα,
μὲν . . . καί (Thuc. 5, 60 and 71), μὲν ... Te are used correlatively,
is well known, and not strange, cf. Ast, Plat. legg. p. 230; Matthiae,
Eurip. Orest. 24; Baiter, ind. ad Isocr. pancg. p. 133; Weber,
Demosth. 257; Maetzner, Antiph. pp. 209, 257. Sometimes the
clause with dé is somewhat remote, as in 2 Cor. ix. 1, 3 (Thuc. 2,
536 74), probably also in 1 Cor. xi. 18 (see just below); or as respects
expression is not completely parallel, as in Gal. iv. 24, 26.
7th ed.
Rom. i. 8 πрŵτоv µèv evɣapiotŵ etc. is unquestionably an anacoluthon.
The Apostle when he used this phrase had in mind a δεύτερον οι εἶτα,
which, however, in consequence of a change in the thought does not follow.
The remark of Wyttenbach (Plut. Mor. I. 47, ed. Lips.) is applicable here:
si solum posuisset #рŵrоv, poterat accipi pro maxime, ante omnia (so it is
rendered by nearly all expositors); nunc quum µév addidit, videtur voluisse
alia subjungere, tum sui oblitus esse. Cf. also Isocr. Areopag. p. 344;
Xen. M. 1, 1, 2; Schaef. Demosth. IV. 142; Maetzner, Antiph. p. 191.
In 1 Cor. xi. 18 πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ συνερχομένων ὑμῶν etc., ἔπειτα δέ is
probably implied in vs. 20 ff.; and Paul properly meant to write: In the
first place, I hear that when ye come together there are divisions among
you, and further, that irregularities occur at the Lord's Supper. Paul
conceives the latter from a different point of view than the divisions.
Rom. iii. 2 Tholuck has already correctly explained.
Likewise in Matt. viii. 21 ἐπίτρεψόν μοι πρῶτον ἀπελθεῖν καὶ θάψαι etc.
509 there is nothing corresponding to πpûrov; yet we, too, say: let me first
6th ed. (in the first place) go and bury, — whereupon every one readily supplies
according to the context: I will then return (and follow thee, vss. 19, 22).
When in the combination Te... καί a πρῶτον is inserted after τε, as in
Rom. i. 16; ii. 9 f., it means primarily, chiefly. In 2 Cor. viii. 5, too,
599 πρῶτον
καί does not stand for πρῶτον ... ἔπειτα ; see Mey.
• •
0
An anacoluthon similar to that with μév occurs sometimes with kai where
it ought to have been repeated (as well ... as also). Thus in 1 Cor. vii. 38
ὥστε καὶ ὁ ἐκγαμίζων καλῶς ποιεῖ, ὁ δὲ μὴ ἐκγαμίζων κρεῖσσον ποιεῖ the sen-
tence is strictly speaking so laid out that καὶ ὁ μὴ ... καλῶς ποιεῖ ought to
follow. But Paul, while intending to express himself thus, corrects him-
self and employs the comparative, and then the adversative particle appears
more appropriate. There is, however, weighty evidence against Sé; and
§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE.
577
it
may have been introduced by transcribers for the reason just mentioned,
instead of the original καί.
II. 1. Different from anacoluthon is the oratio variata (Jacob,
Lucian. Alex. p. 22; Jacobs, Aelian. p. 6; Bremi, Aeschin. II. 7 ;
Mtth. 1530 ff.). It takes place when, in parallel sentences and
members of sentences, two (synonymous) constructions have been
adopted, each of which is complete in itself heterogeneous structure.
It occurs in accurate writers particularly when the continuance
of the previous construction would have been heavy, obscure, or
not quite suited to the thought (Engelhardt, Plat. Menex. 254 ;
Beier, Cic. off. II. 38); sometimes, also, regard for variety of
expression has had influence.
We subjoin, in the first place, some instances of a simple
description : 1 Jno. ii. 2 ἱλασμὸς περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, οὐ περὶ
τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου (where,
either instead of the last words the writer might have used Teρi
τῶν ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου, or instead of the first, περὶ ἡμῶν), similar 537
are Heb. ix. 7; Acts xx. 34 (1 Kings iii. 1; iv. 30; Lucian. parasit. 7th ed.
20); Eph. v. 33 καὶ ὑμεῖς οἱ καθ᾽ ἕνα ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα
οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φόβηται τὸν ἄνδρα (cf. § 43,
5, and Jno. xiii. 29); Eph. v. 27 ἵνα παραστήσῃ ἑαυτῷ ἔνδοξον τὴν
ἐκκλησίαν, μὴ ἔχουσαν σπῖλον. . . ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ᾖ (ἡ ἐκκλησία) ἁγία κ.
ἄμωμος, ef. Acta apocr. p. 179 ; Phil. ii. 22 ὅτι, ὡς πατρὶ τέκνον,
σὺν ἐμοὶ ἐδούλευσεν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον that, as a child a father, he
served (me in my apostolic calling, more appositely) with me etc.,
Rom. iv. 12 (Ael. an. 2, 42); Luke ix. 1 ; i. 73 f. 2 ; Rom. i. 12;
cf. Mtth. 1529 f.; Schwarz, soloec. p. 89 sq. ; 1 Cor. xiv. 1 ζηλοῦτε
τὰ πνευματικά, μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε (where Paul might
have written τὸ προφητεύειν), cf. vs. 5 and vs. 11; Rev. iii. 18 ; 600
Acts xxii. 17.
?
The following are bolder: Mark xii. 38 f. τῶν θελόντων ἐν στολαῖς
περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀσπασμοὺς (ἀσπάζεσθαι) ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς etc. ; 510
Jno. viii. 53 μὴ σὺ μείζων εἶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ᾿Αβραάμ, ὅςτις 6th ed
ἀπέθανε; καὶ οἱ προφῆται ἀπέθανον, where the regular construction
required the continuation of the interrogative form: καὶ τῶν
προφητῶν, οἵτινες ἀπέθ.; 1 Cor. vii. 13 γυνή, ἥτις ἔχει ἄνδρα
1 Jno. xi. 52 (ἤμελλεν ἀποθνήσκειν) οὐχ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους μόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα καὶ τὰ τέκνα . . .
ovvayáyn eis év does not come under this head. There was here no more convenient
mode of expression for the second clause.
2 On the other hand, in Luke i. 55 the words τῷ ᾿Αβραάμ etc. belong to μνησθῆναι
ἐλέους, especially on account of εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
73
578 § 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE.
ó
ἄπιστον καὶ οὗτος συνευδοκεῖ (καὶ συνευδοκοῦντα) οἰκεῖν μετ᾿ αὐτῆς,
μὴ ἀφιέτω αὐτόν, see above, p. 150; cf. similar instances in Luke
xvii. 31 and Jno. xv. 5. In Rom. xii. 6 sq. ἔχοντες δὲ χαρίσματα
κατὰ τὴν χάριν . . . εἴτε προφητείαν κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως,
εἴτε διακονίαν ἐν τῇ διακονίᾳ, εἴτε ὁ διδάσκων ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ,
εἴτε ὁ παρακαλῶν ἐν τῇ παρακλήσει the construction (Acc. governed
by ἔχοντες) is kept up only as far as ἐν τῇ διακ., then commences
a new construction with concretes, for which Paul might have
written εἴτε διδασκαλίαν . . . παράκλησιν etc. In 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff.
Paul enumerates the sufferings attendant on the apostolic calling,
by which he had proved himself to be the servant of Christ, and
that in no ordinary degree. First, ἐν κόποις περισσοτ. etc. is
simply appended, each particular is enhanced by an adverb of
degree, then follow narrative Aorists and Perfects vs. 24 f.; Paul
then returns to substantives with the instrumental Dative and thre
instrumental év by turns, vss. 26, 27. See, further, Jno. v. 44 ;
Phil. i. 23 f. ; 1 Jno. iii. 24.
The alteration in the construction is manifestly intentional;
namely, for the purpose of bringing out the thought more forcibly
than would have been done by a uniform structure, in 2 Juo. 2
διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν μένουσαν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ μεθ' ἡμῶν ἔσται εἰς τὸν
αιώνα.1 Also in Rom. ii. 9 sq. the first time in reference to
538 misery) ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχήν is used, the second time in reference
7th ed. to salvation) the more appropriate personal Dative. The oratio
variata occurs in connection with an ellipsis, in 2 Cor. viii. 23 ;
Rom. ii. 8 ; xi. 22 and Mark vi. 8 παρήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς, ἵνα μηδὲν
αἴρωσιν εἰς ὁδόν ... ἀλλ᾽ ὑποδεδεμένους σανδάλια (sc. πορεύ
601 εσθαι) καὶ μὴ ἐνδύσασθαι (here ἐνδύσησθε is the better reading)
δύο χιτώνας, see Fr. in loc. In Rom. xii. 2 we should probably
read the Inf. συσχηματίζεσθαι, and not the Imperat. συσχηματίζεσθε.
1 Mark ji. 23 can hardly, with Fr., be brought under the head of variatio structurae,
if measured by the standard of cultivated prose: ἐγένετο παραπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν ... διὰ
τῶν σπορίμων, καὶ ἤρξαντο οἱ μαθηταί etc. for ἄρξασθαι τοὺς μαθητάς. The latter
construction would be too heavy for the narrative style of the Evangelists. Besides,
ἐγένετο stands in no necessary relation to άρξασθαι τοὺς μαθ. (as if, it came to pass that,
as he . . ., the disciples plucked ears); but Mark meant: It came to pass, that he went
Still
through the grain fields on the Sabbath-day, and (then) the disciples plucked etc.
less can I perceive in 1 Cor. iv. 14; Eph. ii. 11-13 or even in Phil. i. 13 any remarkable
alteration of the construction. No writer expresses himself with such painful nicety
as never to say, I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you,
instead of, not to shame you ... but . . . to warn. But in Acts xxi: 28 (Fr. conject. I.
42 sq.) ἔτι τε shows that Luke wished to give prominence to what follows, and hence
the independent construction of this new clause.
§ 63. BROKEN AND HETEROGENEOUS STRUCTURE.
579
From Greek authors many similar instances might be adduced.
Thus Paus. 1, 19, 5 τοῦ Νίσου λέγεται θυγατέρα ἐρασθῆναι Μίνω
καὶ ὡς ἀπέκειρε τὰς τρίχας τοῦ πατρός, 5, 1, 2; 8, 22, 4 Πείσανδρος
δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ Καμιρεὺς ἀποκτεῖναι τὰς ὄρνιθας οὐ φησίν, ἀλλὰ ὡς ψόφῳ
KEO TÚI CỨU CÔ CÓ Lev củTús. Thue. 8, 78; Xen. M. 2, 7, 8 ; Hell.
2, 3, 19; Anab. 2, 5, 5; Aelian. anim. 10, 13. As to Mark xii. 38f.
cf. especially Lys. caed. Eratosth. 21. From the Sept. may be
quoted Gen. xxxi. 33; Judg. xvi. 24; 3 Esdras iv. 48; viii. 22, 80 ; 511
Neli. x. 30. In Mark iii. 14 ff., with the principal words étoiŋoe 6th ed
Súdeka, Iva etc. vss. 14, 15, which are complete in themselves, is
connected first the detached statement vs. 16 καὶ ἐπέθηκεν ὄνομα
TO Zíμwvi etc. in reference to the chief apostle, then follow in
vss. 17-19 the names of the rest in direct dependence on éπoinσev,
and only in vs. 17 is subjoined a similar statement, which no more
breaks the flow of the discourse than in vs. 19 ôs Kai Taрédwкev
etc. does. The whole structure would be regular had Mark said
in vs. 16 Σίμωνα, ᾧ ἐπέθηκεν ὄνομα etc.
Under this head comes also the transition from a relative construction
to a personal, as in 1 Cor. viii. 6 εἷς θεὸς ... ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς
αὐτόν, 2 Pet. ii. 3 οἷς τὸ κρίμα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ καὶ ἡ ἀπώλεια αὐτῶν
ov vvoráče, Rev. ii. 18, see above, p. 149; Weber, Demosth. p. 355 sq.
Essentially similar is Luke x. 8 εἰς ἣν ἂν πόλιν εἰςέρχησθε, καὶ δέχωνται (οἱ
πολῖται) ὑμᾶς etc.
On Rev. vii. 9 εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ ὄχλος ... ἑστῶτες...περιβεβλημένους,
cf. xiv. 14, see above, § 59, 11 p. 535. Both passages contain a blending
of two constructions, as in Rev. xviii. 12 f., where are appended to rov
yóμov first appositive Genitives, then an Acc. (Tâv úλov), afterwards.
(к. iππшν etc.) Genitives again, lastly (yvxàs åvep.) another Acc. On the 539
other hand, in ii. 17, in accordance with the proper distinction of cases, 7th ed.
first a Gen. and then an Acc. are made to depend on Swow.
2. Moreover, the transition (very frequent in Greek prose
authors) from the oratio obliqua to the recta, and vice versa,
deserves special attention (d'Orville, Charit. p. 89 and 347; Heind.
Protag. p. 510 sq.; Jacobs, Aelian. p. 46, 475; Ast, Plat. legg.
p. 160; Held, Plutarch. Timol. p. 451; Bornem. Xen. Mem. p. 253;
Fr. Marc. p. 212): Acts xxiii. 22 átéλvoe tòv veavíav tapayyeixas
παραγγείλας
μηδενὶ ἐκλαλῆσαι, ὅτι ταῦτα ἐνεφάνισας πρός με, vss. 23, 24 εἶπεν·
ἑτοιμάσατε . . . κτήνη τε παραστῆσαι, Luke v. 14 παρήγγειλεν αὐτῷ 602
μηδενὶ εἰπεῖν, ἀλλὰ ἀπελθὼν δεῖξον, Mark vi. 9 ; cf. Xen. Hell. 2,
1, 25; An. 1, 3, 14 and the passages from Joseph. in Kypke I.
229 sq. ; Mark xi. 31 sq. ἐὰν εἴπωμεν· ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ἐρεῖ· διατί οὖν
580
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
ע
οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ; ἀλλ᾽ εἴπωμεν· ἐξ ἀνθρώπων; ἐφοβοῦντα
Tòv λaóv (where the narrator proceeds in his own words). With
Acts i. 4 cf. Lysias in Diogit. 12 ἐπειδὴ δὲ συνήλθομεν, ἤρετο αὐτὸν
ἡ γυνή, τίνα ποτὲ ψυχὴν ἔχων ἀξιοῖ περὶ τῶν παίδων τοιαύτῃ γνώμῃ
χρῆσθαι, ἀδελφὸς μὲν ὢν τοῦ πατρός, πατὴρ δ᾽ ἐμός etc. (Geopon.
1, 12, 6). See also Jno. xiii. 29; Acts xvii. 3; on the other hand,
in Matt. ix. 6 the narrator intercalates τότε λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ
among the words of Christ, cf. Mark ii. 10; Luke v. 24. This
explanation is the simplest. Meyer is artificial.¹
し
​512 A transition from the Sing. to the Plur., and vice versa, occurs in Rom.
6th ed. iii. 7 f.; xii. 16 ff. 20; 1 Cor. iv. (2) 6 f. (Aelian. 5, 8); 2 Cor. xi. 6;
Jas. ii. 16; Gal. iv. 6 f. (vi. 1); Schweigh. Arrian. Epict. II. I. 94, 278;
Matthiae, Eurip. Orest. 111; Schaef. Demosth. IV. 106; Schwarz, soloec.
107. Likewise Rom. ii. 15 ἐν τ. καρδίαις αὐτῶν, συμμαρτυρούσης αὐτῶν
TŶS OVVEιdýσews may be referred to this head. The transition from
the Sing. to the Plur. in Luke v. 4 is intentional, see Bornem.'in loc. As
to the Plur. in apposition with a Sing. in 1 Jno. v. 16 see § 59, 8 p. 530.
A heterogeneous appositive construction occurs in Rev. i. 6 èmоínσev
quâs Baσideíav iepeîs tŵ beŵ, see § 59, 8. So also in other construc-
tions the Greek authors sometimes place concretes and abstracts in
juxtaposition, see Bremi, Aeschin. Ctesiph. § 25; Weber, Demosth. 260.
Cf. also Caes. civ. 3, 32 erat plena lictorum et imperiorum provincia.
ασ
540
7th ed.
603
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES; ELLIPSIS,2
APOSIOPESIS.
I. The erroneous and variable notions about Ellipsis (and
Pleonasm) current until very recently, and derived from the
uncritical compilations of L. Bos³ and his followers (cf. Haab
p. 276 ff.), and of N. T. philologists in particular, were first cor-
1 Matt. xvi. 11 πῶς οὐ νοεῖτε, ὅτι οὐ περὶ ἄρτων εἶπον ὑμῖν· προςέχετε δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς ζύμης
Tŵv Papioaiwv etc. is of a different sort, as here only the direct words of Jesus, used in
vs. 6, are as such repeated. Likewise Jno. x. 36 contains nothing remarkable.
2 See K. F. Krumbholz, de ellips. in N. T. usu freq. in his operar. subseciv. lib. 1.
Norimb. 1736. 8vo. no. 11; F. A. Wolf, de agnitione ellipseos in interpretatione libror.
sacror. Comment. I.-XI. Lips. 1800-1808. 4to. (Comm. I.-VI. have been reprinted in
Pott, Sylloge commentt. theol. IV. 107 sqq.; VII. 52 sqq.; VIII. 1 sqq.), an uncritical
collection. Cf. besides, Bauer, Philol. Thucyd. Paull. 162 sqq.; Bloch, on the Ellipses
in Paul's Epistles, in his Theologian Part I. (Odensee 1791).
3 Lamb. Bos, Ellipses graecac. Franecq. 1712. 8vo.; Traj. ad Rh. 1755. 8vo.; ed.
C. Schoettgen, 1713, 1728. 12mo.; ed. J. F. Leisner, Lips. 1749, 1767. 8vo. ; ed.
N. Schwebel, Norimb. 1763; c. nott. C. B. Michaelis, Hal. 1765. 8vo.; c. prior. editor.
suisq. observatt. ed. G. H. Schaefer, Lips. 1808. 8vo. (reprinted at Oxford 1813. 8vo.),
cf. Fischer, Weller. III. I. 119 sqq.; III. II. 29 sqq.
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
581
•
rected, and sound views established, by Herm. de ellipsi et pleo-
nasmo in Wolf and Buttmann's Mus. antiq. studior. Vol. I. fasc. I.
pp. 97–235, and in Herm. Opusc. I. 148–244, and especially in his
notes on Vig. 869 sqq.¹ We shall mainly follow him in this dis- 513
cussion, which, however, is primarily intended merely to lay down 6th ed.
the various classes of ellipses, since Glassius and Haab have
already accumulated examples in great abundance.2
3
1. Ellipsis (not including Aposiopesis, 'to be treated under No.
II) consists in the omission of a word the meaning of which must
be supplied in thought (in order to complete the sentence). The
omission of such a word (whether out of convenience or an effort
to be concise) 4 is allowable only when, in what is uttered, an 604
indubitable intimation of the omitted word is given (Hm. opusc.
p. 218), either by means of the particular structure of the sentence 541
or by virtue of a conventional usage.5 In accordance with the 7th ed.
three constituent parts of every simple sentence, such omissions.
may be arranged under the three main classes of Ellipses of the
Subject, of the Predicate, and of the Copula (Hm. Vig. 870 sq.).
A real i.e. entire ellipsis of the predicate, however, does not, and
probably cannot, occur (Hm. Vig. 872), since the possible predi-
cates are too various for the speaker to leave this part of his
sentence to be supplied by the reader. Accordingly there remain
but the other two sorts of ellipses, and those of the subject are
naturally the more limited.
The case in which a word or phrase of a preceding clause must be
repeated in a subsequent connected clause, either unchanged or altered to
suit the construction (Glass. I. 632 sqq.), cannot be called an ellipsis, there
being here no actual omission of the word (Hm. Vig. 869; Opusc. 151
sq.; Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 282). Examples:
1 Ellipsis in Latin is discussed by J. W. Schlickeisen, de formis linguae latinae
ellipticis. Mühlhausen, 1830 and 43. two Pr. 4to. An earlier work of J. G. Lindner on
Latin Ellipses (Frkft. a. M. 1780. 8vo.) is of little value even as a collection of examples.
2 How much the books of Scripture have been compelled to suffer from expositors
in the matter of Ellipsis Hm. Opusc. p. 217 intimates, when he terms these books,
cercos flecti quorundam artibus.
8 Hm. opusc. p. 153: ellipseos propria est ratio grammatica, quae posita est in eo,
ut oratio, etiamsi aliquid omissum sit, integra esse censeatur, quia id, quod omissum
est, necessario tamen intelligi debeat, ut quo non intellecto sententia nulla futura sit.
4 The omission of a word may also sometimes arise entirely or partly from a rhetor-
ical cause. See below, no. 3.
5 Neither of these can, for instance, be shown by those expositors who, to get over
the historical difficulty in Jno. xviii. 31, would supply hoc die (festo) in connection with
ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔξεστιν ἀποκτεῖναι οὐδένα.
• It must not be overlooked that this mode of expression gives style greater periodic
582
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
1
•
καὶ
a. 2 Cor. i. 6 εἴτε θλιβόμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν σωτηρίας sc. θλιβόμεθα (v. 13;
vii. 12) ; Luke xxii. 36 ὁ ἔχων βαλλάντιον, ἀράτω ... ὁ μὴ ἔχων sc. βαλλάντιον
(κ. πήραν), Jas. ii. 10 ; Jno. iv. 26; xii. 28 δόξασον σοῦ τὸ ὄνομα.
ἐδόξασα καὶ πάλιν δοξάσω sc. τὸ ὄνομά μου. Cf. also Rom. iii. 27; viii. 4;
xi. 6; xiii. 1 (αἱ δὲ οὖσαι sc. ἐξουσίαι, which but few authorities add), Jno.
iv. 53; Acts xxiii. 34 ; 1 Cor. vii. 3 f. ; xi. 25 (cf. vs. 23) ; xv. 27 ; 2 Cor.
xi. 11; Rev. ii. 9. So especially in answers: Jno. xviii. 5 τίνα ζητεῖτε ; ...
514 Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον, vs. 7; Luke xx. 24 τίνος ἔχει εἰκόνα καὶ ἐπιγραφήν ;
6th ed. ἀποκριθέντες εἶπον· Καίσαρος, vii. 43 ; Matt. xxvii. 21; Heb. v. 4 οὐχ ἑαυτῷ
τις λαμβάνει τὴν τιμήν, ἀλλὰ καλούμενος ὑπὸ τ. θεοῦ sc. λαμβάνει τ. τιμ. (but
λαμβ. in the sense of receive).
605 b. Mark xiv. 29 εἰ πάντες σκανδαλισθήσονται, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐγώ (σκανδαλισθή-
σομαι, cf. Matt. xxvi. 83); Eph. v. 24 ὥσπερ ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ
Χριστῷ, οὕτω ... αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν (ὑποτασσέσθωσαν); 2 Tim. i. 5
ἥτις ἐνῴκησεν ἐν τῇ μάμμῃ σου ... πέπεισμαι δέ, ὅτι καὶ ἐν σοί (ἐνοικεῖ); Rom.
xi. 16 εἰ ἡ ἀπαρχὴ ἁγία, καὶ τὸ φύραμα (ἅγιον); Heb. v. 5 ὁ Χρ. οὐχ ἑαυτὸν
ἐδόξασεν . . . ἀλλ᾽ ὁ λαλήσας πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐδόξ. αὐτόν) ; 1 Cor. xi. 1 μιμηταί
542 μου γίνεσθε, καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ (μιμητής εἰμι); xiv. 27 εἴτε γλώσσῃ τις
7th ed. λαλεῖ, κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς (λαλείτωσαν), cf. 1 Pet. iv. 11; Luke
xxiii. 41 ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κρίματι εἶ· καὶ ἡμεῖς μὲν δικαίως (ἐσμέν sc. ἐν τῷ κρίματι
τούτῳ) ; 1 Cor. ix. 12, 25 ; xi. 16; 2 Cor. iii. 13 καὶ οὐ καθάπερ Μωϋσῆς
ἐτίθει κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὸ πρόςωπον ἑαυτοῦ (τίθεμεν καλ. ἐπὶ τὸ πρ. ἡμῶν), cf.
besides Matt. xx. 23; xxvi. 5; Jno. xiii. 9; xv. 4, 5; xvii. 22; xviii. 40 ;
Rom. i. 21; ix. 32; xiv. 23; Phil. ii. 5;
x. 25; xii. 25; Rev. xix. 10; Matt. xxv. 9.
1 Cor. vii. 21 δοῦλος ἐκλήθης, μή σοι μελέτω, if, as is most natural, τῆς
δουλείας be supplied (Lob. paralip. p. 314), see Meyer, who has overlooked
the fact that even in my fifth edition I made this suggestion. The greatest
accumulation of such indispensable repetitions occurs in Rom. xii. 6 ff.
2
iii. 4; Heb. (ii. 13) v. 5;
Under this head comes also
c. Neither is there any real ellipsis when an affirmative word is to be
supplied from a foregoing negative, a case of frequent occurrence in
Greek authors (e.g. Thuc. 2, 98, 3 πορευομένῳ αὐτῷ ἀπεγίγνετο μὲν οὐδὲν
compactness; whereas the repetition of the same or a similar expression would in
most cases be very heavy.
1 1 Jno. iii. 20 also would, according to Lücle's exposition, come under this head, as
γινώσκομεν (οἴδαμεν) is supplied before the second ὅτι, vs. 19. I confess, however, that
to me this explanation seems very forced. Why might not a transcriber have added,
from inadvertence, a second ὅτι ? Lehm. has with A rejected the second ὅτι. But it
may just as well have been omitted because it was not,understood. Or why may not
the author himself have repeated the ὅτι, as in Eph. ii. 11 f. ? see Fr. Progr. ad Gal.
p. 5 (Fritzschiorum opusc. p. 236). The passage has never yet. been satisfactorily
explained.
2 This case, in which the verb is construed, not with the principal subject, but with
the subject of the secondary clause, may be regarded as a sort of attraction, see Krüger,
gramm. Untersuch. III. 72, who at the same time adduces many similar examples, as
Xen. C. 4, 1, 3; Thuc. 1, 82 ; 3, 67.
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
583
τοῦ στρατοῦ εἰ μή τι νόσῳ, προςεγίγνετο δέ, see Stallb. Plat. apol. p. 78 ;
sympos. p. 80, and Euthyd. p. 158; Maetzner, Antiph. p. 176, on the Lat.
cf. Bremi, Nep. p. 345; Kritz, Sallust. II. 573); as, 1 Cor. vii. 19
περιτομὴ οὐδέν ἐστι, ἀλλὰ τήρησις ἐντολῶν θεοῦ (ἐστί τι οι τὰ πάντα ἐστί),
iii. 7 ; 1 Cor. x. 24 μηδεὶς τὸ ἑαυτοῦ ζητείτω, ἀλλὰ τὸ τοῦ ἑτέρου sc. ἕκαστος.
Otherwise in Eph. iv. 29; 1 Cor. iii. 1. Frugality of expression is carried
still farther in Mark xii. 5 καὶ πολλοὺς ἄλλους, τοὺς μὲν δέροντες, τοὺς δὲ
åπokteivovtes, where from these two Participles a finite verb is to be
borrowed that combines both verbal notions, such as maltreat (cf. Fr.
in loc.). Also in Rom. xiv. 21 καλὸν τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα μηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον,
μηδὲ ἐν ᾧ ὁ ἀδελφός σου προςκόπτει etc., after the second μηδέ, the general
word Toleîv (Aristot. Nicom. 8, 13, 6), or such an expression as make use
of, is probably to be supplied. As to Phil. ii. 3 see below, p. 587 (Lob.
paralip. p. 382). In IIeb. x. 6, 8 ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ
εὐδόκησας the general notion θυσίας is to be educed from ὁλοκ. for περὶ ἁμ.,
as in Heb. x. 38 the general term äveρwños is to be gathered from díkaios
(cf. Kühner II. 37). In Rev. vi. 4 we must abstract from λaß. 7. eip. ¿k
τῆς γῆς the concrete οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς as a subject for σφάξουσι.
Yet here, too, the omission is but partial. (For examples of all the 515
preceding cases from Latin, see Lindner, lat. Ellips. S. 240 ff.) At the 6th ed
same time, in all these cases the incompleteness of the sentence (viewed
grammatically and logically) renders it obviously necessary to supply 606
something. This is not the case in Jno. viii. 15 ὑμεῖς κατὰ τὴν σάρκα
κρίνετε, ἐγὼ οὐ κρίνω οὐδένα, where on the contrary the second clause is so
concluded by ovdéva that nothing whatever requires to be supplied: ye
judge according to the flesh, but I judge no one (not merely, no one
according to the flesh, but absolutely no one). To supply κarà Tηv σáρka 543
from the foregoing clause could only be justified by incongruity in the 7th ed.
sense without such addition. This, however, I am as unable to discover
as Olshausen and Lücke. On the meaning, see especially BCrus. in loc.
αν
After ei dè un or ei dè µý ye (Matt. vi. 1; Luke x. 6; xiii. 9; 2 Cor.
xi. 16 etc.; cf. Plat. Gorg. 503 c.; Phaed. 63 c.; Hoogeveen, partic.
gr. I. 345 sq.), and after the expression (current with Paul) où μóvov
dé (….. åldà kaí), it is peculiarly common to supply a preceding word
or phrase; as, Rom. v. 3 οὐ μόνον δέ (sc. καυχώμεθα ἐπ' ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης
vs. 2), ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμεθα etc., τ. 11 καταλλαγέντες σωθησόμεθα ... οὐ
μόνον δέ (καταλλαγέντες σωθησ.), ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμενοι, viii. 23; 2 Cor.
viii. 19. In Rom. ix. 10 οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ῥεβέκκα etc. something to
be gathered from a more distant part of the context appears to be wanting.
It is easiest to supply it from vs. 9; cf. vs. 12: and (not only) Sarah
received a divine promise respecting her son, but also Rebecca, who was
yet the mother of two legitimate sons, etc. In Greek cf. Diog. L. 9, 39
πεντακοσίοις ταλάντοις τιμηθῆναι, μὴ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ χαλκαῖς εἰκόσι.
Lucian. vit. auct. 7 οὐ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἢν θυρωρεῖν αὐτὸν ἐπιστήσῃς, πολὺ
584
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
607
TIσTOTÉρų XPηon Tŵv Kuvŵv, Toxar. 1 (Kypke, obs. II. 165; Hoogeveen,
partic. II. 956). Analogous is the expression où μóvov ye... áλλá used
μόνον γε ἀλλά
by earlier authors, e.g. Plat. Phaed. 107 b. où μóvov y', ë‡n ó Zwkpáтns (sc.
ἀπιστίαν σε δεῖ ἔχειν περὶ τῶν εἰρημένων), ἀλλὰ ταῦτά τε εὖ λέγεις etc., Meno
71 b.; legg. 6, 752 etc., see Heind. and Stallb. Plat. Phaed. as above.
The clause after où μóvov dé is (by repetition) expressed in 2 Cor. vii. 7.
Also the use of κäv, in the sense of vel certe (Vig. 527; Boisson. Philostr.
epp. p. 97), is referable to an omission, e.g. Mark vi. 56 iva käY TOÛ
κρασπέδου ... ἅψωνται (properly ἵνα ἅψωνται αὐτοῦ, κἂν τοῦ κρασπέδου
awvтai), 2 Cor. xi. 16, as also el kaí in 2 Cor. vii. 8 cf. Bengel in loc.
καν
Still less is it to be considered as an ellipsis when, in one and the same
principal clause, a word used only once is to be supplied twice (in different
phrases) : Acts xvii. 2 κατὰ τὸ εἰωθὸς τῷ Παύλῳ εἰςῆλθε πρὸς αὐτούς (Παύλος),
xiii. 3 ἐπιθέντες τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῖς ἀπέλυσαν (αὐτούς). In Rom. ii. 28 οὐχ ὁ
ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν οὐδὲ ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ περιτομή the predicative
Ἰουδαῖος and περιτομή must be supplied also to the subject ὁ ἐν τῷ φαν.
Cf. further Acts viii. 7.
Note. It may sometimes happen that a word is to be supplied in the
preceding from the subsequent context (Hm. opusc. 151; Jacob, Lucian.
Alex. p. 109; Lindner, lat. Ellips. S. 251 ff.), cf. 1 Cor. vii. 39. But in
516 Rom. v. 16 to supply παραπτώματος after ἐξ ἑνός from ἐκ τῶν πολλῶν παρα-
6th ed. πтwμάτwv may now be regarded as out of date, see Philippi in loc. And
in 2 Cor. viii. 5 dwкav serves, as usual, also for the clause beginning with
kaì oỷ, only with the latter it must be taken absolutely: and they did not
give as (in extent) we hoped, but their own selves gave they etc. Only in
Mark xv. 8 ἤρξατο αἰτεῖσθαι καθὼς ἀεὶ ἐποίει αὐτοῖς it may seem as if it
were necessary to supply ποιεῖν after αἰτεῖσθαι, from ἐποίει; but the words
544 properly run: to entreat according as he always did for them, from which
7th ed. the object of request may be gathered, but not grammatically supplied.
As to Eph. iv. 26, however, where some would supply μn from the second
member also in the first, see p. 311.
2. The most frequent real omission is that of the simple copula
εἶναι:
a. In the form éσrí, more rarely in the form (yet cf. Stallb.
Plat. rep. I. 133), because it is obviously suggested by the juxta-
position of subject and predicate (Rost 473 f.; Krü. 240 f.; cf.
Wannowski, syntax. anom. p. 210 sq.) Heb. v. 13 wâs ó μeтéxwv
γάλακτος ἄπειρος (ἐστὶ λόγου δικαιοσύνης, ix. 16 ; x. 4, 18; xi. 19 ;
Mark xiv. 36; Rom. xi. 16; xiv. 21; 2 Cor. i. 21; Phil. iv. 3;
Eph. i. 18; iv. 4; v. 17; 2 Thess. iii. 2; 1 Pet. iv. 17, particularly
in questions Luke iv. 36; Acts x. 21; Rom. iii. 1; viii. 27, 31;
2 Cor. ii. 16; vi. 14; Rev. xiii. 4; Heb. vi. 8 (cf. Kritz, Sallust.
I. 251) and exclamations Acts xix. 28, 34 µeyáλn ʼn "Apteµis
8 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
585
'Epeoíwv, but especially in certain set forms of expression Jas.
i. 12 µakúpios ȧvýp, ős etc. (Matt. v. 3, 5–10; xiii. 16; Luke i. 45;
Rom. iv. 8; xiv. 22; Rev. xvi. 15; cf. 1 Pet. iv. 14), dîλov ötl
1 Cor. xv. 27; 1 Tim. vi. 7, ȧváyŋ with Infin. Heb. ix. 16, 23;
Rom. xiii. 5, TOTÒS ó cós 1 Cor. i. 9; x. 13; 2 Cor. i. 18 or
πiotòs
πιστὸς ὁ λόγος 1 Tim. i. 15 ; iii. 1 ; 2 Tim. ii. 11, ὁ κύριος ἐγγύς
Phil. iv. 5, ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τ. τροφῆς Matt. x. 10 ; 1 Tim. v. 18
cf. Rev. v. 2, ἔτι μικρόν Jno. xiv. 19, μικρὸν ὅσον ὅσον Hel. x. 37,
ei Suvaтóv Matt. xxiv. 24; Rom. xii. 18; Gal. iv. 15, pa with
Infin. Rom. xiii. 11 (Plat. ap. p. 42), tí yúp Phil. i. 18; Rom. iii. 3,
οὖν τί
Tí oŵv Rom. iii. 9; vi. 15, tí éµoì κ. σoí Mark v. 7; i. 24; Luke
viii. 28; Jno. ii. 4 (Her. 5, 33; Demosth. aphob. 564 b.; Arrian.
Epict. 1, 1, 16; 2, 19, 16), tí tò őpeλos 1 Cor. xv. 32; Jas. ii. 14,
16, ¿ ovoµa or ovoμa avτô, where the name follows, Luke ii. 25;
Jno. i. 6; iii. 1, etc. (Demosth. Zenoth. p. 576 b.), cf. besides Acts
xiii. 11; ii. 29. In the latter, as in the former, brevity and com-
pactness are in place, cf. Vig. p. 236.¹ The Subjunctive is to 608
ỷ
be supplied after iva in (Rom. iv. 16) 2 Cor. viii. 11, 13.
τί
b. More rarely is the substantive verb omitted in other forms:
as εἰμί 2 Cor. xi. 6 εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τῇ γνώσει
(λογίζομαι μηδὲν ὑστερηκέναι τῶν ὑπερλίαν ἀποστόλων precedes), 2
eloí Rom. iv. 14; xi. 16; 1 Cor. xiii. 8; i. 26 (see Mey.); Rev.
xxii. 15; Heb. ii. 11 (Schaef. melet. p. 43 sq.), éoμév Rom. viii. 17; 517
2 Cor. x. 7; Phil. iii. 15 (Plin. epp. 6, 16), el Rev. xv. 4 (Plat. 6th ed.
Gorg. 487 d.), eσTo Rom. xii. 9; Col. iv. 6; Heb. xiii. 4, 5 (Fr.
Rom. III. 65) also after xápis To e Rom. vi. 17; 2 Cor. viii. 16;
ix. 15 (Xen. A. 3, 3, 14), en in wishes Rom. i. 7; xv. 33; Jno.
xx. 19, 21, 26; Matt. xxi. 9; Luke i. 28; Tit. iii. 15. Two dif
ferent forms of this verb are omitted at the same time in Jno.
xiv. 11 ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί, xvii. 23. In 545
narration the Aorist also is suppressed, e.g. 1 Cor. xvi. 9 (Xen. 7th ed.
An. 1, 2, 18; Cyr. 1, 6, 6; Thuc. 1, 138, etc.). On the Future
see p. 586. In all cases in the simple diction of the N. T. it is
easy (in Greek authors it is frequently more difficult, see Schaef.
melet. p. 43 sq. 114) to perceive from the connection what words.
are to be supplied. Hitherto, however, expositors have been very
lavish of their ellipses of the substantive verb, and have in par-
C
1 Under this head comes also the phrase Tí (čσTI) ÖTI Mark ii. 16; Acts v. 4 (Bar.
iii. 10); Fr. Mr. p. 60.
2 More simply in Mark xii. 26 Sept. yw & Oeds 'Aßpaáμ Acts vii. 32. Also 2 Cor.
viii. 23. Cf. Soph. Antig. 634.
74
586
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
ticular transformed in this way a multitude of Participles into
finite verbs, cf. § 45, 6 p. 350.
1
Likewise the Imperative plural oré¹ is, according to the whole tone
of the sentence, omitted in passages such as Rom. xii. 9 (1 Pet. iii. 8);
and to explain the Participle årоσтUуouvтes by an anacoluthon is unneces-
With evλoynròs & eos etc. Rom. ix. 5; 2 Cor. i. 3; Eph. i. 3
we must supply, not ori (Fr. Rom. I. 75), but (cf. 1 Kings x. 9; Job i. 21)
εἴη οι ἔστω.
sary.
Likewise, where èσrí etc. is more than a mere copula, where it denotes
existence, permanence, it is sometimes wanting (Rost 474) 1 Cor. xv. 21
Si úvОρúπov & Оávaros (exists) vs. 40; Rom. iv. 13.
It is thus sufficient to supply eîvai or yíveolaι even in most of
those passages where an oblique case or a preposition seems to
require a more definite verb; as, 1 Cor. vi. 13 тà ẞρóµата Tŷ
κοιλίᾳ καὶ ἡ κοιλία τοῖς βρώμασι, Acts x. 15 φωνὴ πάλιν ἐκ δευτέρου
609 πρòs aντÓν (ẻyéveto, cf. vs. 13), Matt. iii. 17 (Jno. xii. 28 λev
φωνή), 1 Cor. iv. 20 οὐκ ἐν λόγῳ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν
Svvápeι (cf. ii. 5), Rom. x. 1; xi. 11; 2 Cor. iv. 15; viii. 13 (Mey.),
1 Pet. iii. 12; Heb. vii. 20. The preposition or case suggests the
particular verbal notion to be supplied: (whose final doom) leads
to burning, is destined for, results in, etc. As in the last passage
éyéveto is obviously sufficient, so in the first and second, in accord-
ance with the simplicity of the style, nothing more than èorí is to
be supplied. The same applies to 1 Cor. v. 12 Tí yúp µoi kai toÙS
518 ἔξω κρίνειν ; (Arrian. Εpict. 2, 17, 14 τί μοι νῦν τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους
6th ed. μάχην παραφέρειν ; 4, 6, 83) and Jno. xxi. 22 τί πρός σε ; (see
Hm. opusc. p. 157 sq. 169; Bos, ellips. p. 598; cf. the Latin hoc
nihil ad me, quid hoc ad me, Kritz, Sallust. II. 146). Also in
546 Jno. xxi. 21 οὗτος δὲ τί; ἔσται γενήσεται) is sufficient. The
connection points to a Future. Cf. 1 Pet. iv. 17. Lastly, under
this head comes the expression ἵνα τί sc. γένηται οι γένοιτο, Hm.
Vig. 849.
7th ed.
1 Mey. thinks that èoré is to be supplied also in Eph. i. 13 after ev &. But this ev ậ
seems rather to be taken up again after the clause ȧkovσavтes etc. in the second év ♣.
For εἶναι ἐν Χριστῷ can hardly be introduced between ἀκούσαντες and πιστεύσαντες.
2 What is suppressed is always that which is the most simple; and although here
and there in a phrase elsewhere elliptical a writer inserts a specific verb, it does not
follow that this very verb is the verb to be supplied. Thus Antipater, in the Greek
Anthology, says: εἴ τί τοι ἐκ βίβλων ἦλθεν ἐμῶν ὄφελος. Yet we must not on that
account, with Palairet p. 415, supply 0 in the phrase Tí po тd õpeλos, but merely
ἦλθε τί μοι τὸ
the simple corí. In the same way, in Lucian. merc. cond. 25 we find τí kordy Xúpą
kal ŏv; but it does not follow from this that kоwóν must be supplied in the phrase Tí
èμol kal σol; see Fr. Mr. p. 33.
σοί
T
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
587
,
>/
Verbs which express the predicate (or a part of it) as well as
the copula (Hm. p. 156 sq.) can be suppressed only when some
intimation of them is given in the structure of the sentence (Bar.
iv. 1). Cf. the familiar phrases Twelve for a dollar, manum de
tabula, haec hactenus, etc. Thus in Acts ix. 6 rec. ó kúρLos πρòs
autóv it is easy to supply eine (vs. 15), which is suggested in pòs
είπε
autóv, as in ii. 38; xxv. 22 (Aelian. 1, 16 var.).¹ In Rom. iv. 9
ὁ μακαρισμὸς οὗτος ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομὴν ἢ καὶ ἐπὶ ἀκροβυστίαν ; the
meaning is obviously: does it have reference to etc. ; yet we must
supply, not TITTEL with Theophylact, but rather λéyerai (Fr. in
loc.), cf. vs. 6 (Xéyei els Tiva Eurip. Iphig. T. 1180). Acts
xviii. 6 τὸ αἷμα ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν ὑμῶν, Matt. xxvii. 25 τὸ
aîµa avτоû é‡' ỷµâs (2 Sam. i. 16; Plato, Euthyd. 283 e.) sc.
énéтw cf. Matt. xxiii. 35 (though oro is sufficient).2 In Rom.
v. 18 ὡς δι' ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα
supply ȧπéßŋ impersonal: res cessit, abiit in etc., and in the fol-
lowing οὕτω καὶ δι᾿ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς 610
Sikaiwow Swns, (according to vs. 19) ȧπоẞýσеTal (Fr.), or rather
ἀπέβη also (Mey.). In 2 Cor. ix. 7 ἕκαστος, καθὼς προῄρηται τῇ
καρδίᾳ, μὴ ἐκ λύπης, supply δότω, suggested by the whole context.
In Luke xxii. 26 ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως, the word ποιήσετε, iuferred
from kupiеúοvσw etc., is most naturally to be supplied; perhaps
even eσeσ0e might suffice. But in Phil. ii. 3 with undèv KATà
ἐρίθειαν it is enough to repeat φρονοῦντες. In Gal. ii. 9 δεξιὰς
ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρνάβᾳ κοινωνίας, ἵνα ἡμεῖς μὲν εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ
δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν, since the passage relates to preachers of the
gospel, we may readily supply εὐαγγελιζώμεθα, εὐαγγελίζωνται
(2 Cor. x. 16, like kηpúttew eis Tiva 1 Thess. ii. 9), and not with
Fr. and Mey. the less significant Tорev@@μev, TорEνowσw etc. In
Rev. vi. 6 the complement of the cry, xoîvię oitov dŋvapiov kal
τρεῖς χοίνικες κριθῶν δηναρίου a measure of wheat for a denarion !
is as obviously suggested by the Genitive of price (p. 206), as in
similar forms of expression with us. As to the epistolary forms
of salutation in Rev. i. 4 Ιωάννης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ
Ασίᾳ, Phil. i. 1 Παῦλος πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις . . . τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις 519
1 This ellipsis has a wide range in Greek and Latin, e.g. Charit. 6, 1 тaûтa µèv oûv
oi avopes, Val. Flacc. 5, 254 vix ea. Cf. also Cic. N. D. 2, 4, 11 augures rem ad
Senatum, and many similar instances especially in the epistolary style, Cic. fam. 4, 8;
7,9; Attic. 15, 8 and 17; 16, 9, particularly ad Attic.
2 In Greek authors also, when similar imprecations occur, e.g. és repaλýv σoι Aristoph.
pac. 1063, тρаπéo0w is usually supplied (see Bos p. 657 sq.), agreeably to Mosch. 4,
123; Phalar. ep. 128.
6th ed
!
588
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
547 sc. χαίρειν λέγει, or Acts xxiii. 26 Κλ. Λυσίας τῷ κρατίστῳ ἡγεμόνι
7th ed. Þýλıkı xaípew sc. Xéyei, xv. 23; Jas. i. 1, see Fr. Rom. I. 22.
In the proverb 2 Pet. ii. 22 ὃς λουσαμένη εἰς κύλισμα βορβόρου, the
requisite verb is implied in eis, and moтpéfaσa may easily be supplied,
conformably to what precedes. But it is precisely in proverbs, where
brevity of expression is necessary, that specific verbs are (by conventional
usage) suppressed, cf. yλauk' eis 'A0nvas, fortuna fortes, and Bhdy. p. 351.
Grotefend, ausf. lat. Gramm. II. 397 f.; Zumpt, lat. Gramm. p. 610.
3. The subject is wholly wanting (Krü. 232) only,
a. When it is self-evident; because the predicate, owing to the
nature of the case or to conventional usage, can refer to but one
(definite) subject, e.g. βροντᾷ ὁ Ζεύς), σαλπίζει (ὁ σαλπιγκτής),
ȧvayvwσeтai (Demosth. Mid. 386 b.) sc. scriba, see above, § 58,
9 p. 521 sq. From Jewish phraseology may be included under
this head the formulas of quotation λέγει Heb. i. 7, εἴρηκε iv. 4,
Önol viii. 5 (vii. 17 rec. µapтupeî), see above, § 58, 9 p. 522. As
to Heb. xiii. 5 see Bleek.
b. When an expression is introduced the subject of which is
at once supplied by every reader's knowledge or memory; as, Jno.
vi. 31 ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν sc. ὁ θεός, 2 Cor.
ix. 9 (Ps. cxii. 9); 1 Cor. xv. 27 (but in vs. 25 the subject is
611 Xρioτós), Col. i. 19; Juo. xii. 40; xv. 25; Rom. ix. 18 f.; see
v. Hengel, Cor. p. 120 sq. As to Jno. vii. 51 see p. 523. On
1 Tim. iii. 16 see a few lines below; and as to Matt. v. 38 see
below, no. 6 Remark, p. 598.1
Nothing is omitted when the third person Plur. is used impersonally,
as in Jno. xx. 2 par tài kúp rov CK Tôi unpco (cf. § 58, 9 p. 522) ; for the
general subject, people or men, is properly speaking already contained in
the person. See also Luke xii. 20 and Bornem. in loc. The same applies
to the Gen. Absolute, as in Luke viii. 20 årŋyyéλn avтų λeyóvтwv ie.
they saying, cf. 1 Kings xii. 9; 1 Chron. xvii. 24; Thuc. 1, 3; Xen. C. 3,
3, 54; Diog. L. 6, 32; Doederlein, Soph. Oedip. Col. p. 393; Valcken.
Herod. p. 414; Schaef. Demosth. V. 301.
€
ν
In 1 Tim. iii. 16, according to the reading ös, the subject to the relative
clauses that follow would be wanting, unless, with recent editors, we begin
the apodosis with duk. But that is unadvisable on account of the paral-
lelism. It is more likely that all these members are co-ordinate, and that
the apostle took them from some hymn (as such were in use even in the
1 Sometimes when the subject is omitted a rhetorical reason has influence, inasmuch
as it is concealed out of disappointment and vexation. To this might perhaps be
referred Rom. ix. 19 and 2 Pet. iii. 4 (sce Gerhard).
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
589
apostolic church), and suppressed the subject, familiar to every one, all
the more readily because he was concerned here only with those predicates
which involved the μvorýpiov. (As to the simple aurós in reference to a 548
well-known subject, see § 22, 3 p. 146.) On 1 Cor. vii. 36, see § 67, 1.
7th ed.
Under a. come also Heb. xi. 12 diò kaì ¿p' évòs èyevvýbŋoav, where the 520
term children (descendants) is readily supplied, and indeed is already im- 6th ed
plied in yevvâobai (cf. Gen. x. 21); and Rom. ix. 11 μýτw yàp yevvqØévтov
μηδὲ πραξάντων, where, moreover, the notion of τέκνων or υἱῶν is sufficiently
intimated in 'Peẞékka έ évòs Koírny exovoa etc. vs. 10. In Luke xvi. 4
Ρεβέκκα ἐξ κοίτην
the subject is the debtors, cf. vs. 5.
When the subject is not omitted, but has to be repeated from the context
(not Heb. viii. 4), there is room sometimes for a difference of opinion, as
in Rom. vii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 25 (Heb. ix. 1). The decision in such cases
is not grammatical, but hermeneutical.
4. On the other hand, often but a part of the subject or of the
predicate (if it consists of something besides the copula, see above,
no. 2) is expressed, and the portion omitted is to be supplied from
what is expressed in accordance with conventional usage; as, Acts
xxi. 16 συνῆλθον καὶ τῶν μαθητῶν there came also at the same
time (some, tivés) of the disciples; with èk or άπó in Luke xi. 49
ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενοῦσι (τινάς), xxi. 16; Jno. xvi. 17; xxi. 10; vi. 39; 612
Rev. ii. 10 (v. 9); xi. 9,¹ cf. p. 203; Heindorf, Plat. Gorg. p. 148;
Vlc. Fritzsche, quaestion. Lucian. 201; Jno. iv. 35 öтi eтi тетрáμпvós
ἐστι (χρόνος), Xen. Hell. 2, 3, 9; Luke xii. 47 f. ἐκεῖνος ὁ δοῦλος
δαρήσεται πολλάς ... ὀλίγας cf. 2 Cor. xi. 24. The notion
of stripes is implied in Sépeuv; accordingly λnyás is readily sug-
gested (and this elliptical phrase is of frequent occurrence in
Greek authors, Xen. A. 5, 8, 12 τοῦτον ἀνέκραγον ὡς ὀλίγας παίσειεν,
Aelian. anim. 10, 21 μаoтiyoûσi Tоλλaîs, Aristoph. nub. 971;
Schol. ad Thuc. 2, 39 (oi πλeíovas éveɣkóvtes), cf. Jacobs, Achill.
Tat. p. 737; Ast, Plat. legg. p. 433; Valcken. ad Luc. 1.c., and
something similar in Bos under aïñioµa, (cf. also the German: er
zählte ihm zwanzig auf, he counted him out twenty).
•
The ellipsis is carried still further in 2 Cor. viii. 15 ỏ тò TOXÙ
οὐκ ἐπλεόνασε, καὶ ὁ τὸ ὀλίγον οὐκ ἠλαττόνησε (from Exod. xvi. 18
cf. vs. 17), where exwv may be supplied. Later writers employ
this idiom (the Article with an Accusative) in various forms, e.g.
Lucian. Catapl. 4 ó rò ¿úλov, Bis Acc. 9 å тηv σúρıyya, dial. m.
10, 4 (Bhdy. 119), and it has been as fully sanctioned by usage
in their case as in the case of the phrases specified above. See
1 Some have infelicitously applied this ellipsis to Jno. iii. 25.
590
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
Bos, ellips. p. 166. Some expositors infelicitously apply it to Matt.
iv. 15. In Rom, xiii. 7 ἀπόδοτε πᾶσι τὰς ὀφειλάς, τῷ τὸν φόρον,
τον φόρον etc. the most natural ellipsis is ἀποδιδόναι κελεύοντι 1.e.
ἀπαιτοῦντι. In 1 Cor. iv. 6 ἵνα ἐν ἡμῖν μάθητε τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ
yéуρаπтαι, if we reject opoveîv as spurious, an Infin. is wanting
(per ellipsin, not as Mey. maintains [in his earlier eds. ; but not
so in the 4th.] per aposiopesin); it will be sufficient to supply the
549 general expression: to go beyond what etc., to exalt yourselves.
7th ed. On the other hand, in 1 Cor. x. 13 úπèp ô dúvao@e nothing is to be
supplied; the verb is used absolutely, as posse often is in Latin.
Luther correctly renders the passage: über euer Vermögen, (above
that ye are able).
521 In 1 Pet. ii. 23 παρεδίδου τῷ κρίνοντι δικαίως some supply κρίσιν from
6th ed. Kpivovт, which in itself is not impossible; yet rapedídov probably is here,
as often, to be taken reflexively he committed himself (his cause) to him
that judgeth righteously. There is no ellipsis whatever in Matt. xxiii. 9
πατέρα μὴ καλέσητε ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, call not any man) your father on the
earth, i.e. do not employ on the earth, i.e. among and of men, the appel-
lation "
our father;” and 1 Tim. v. 9 χήρα καταλεγέσθω μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν
ÉέýKOVтa yeyovvîa etc. is: as a widow let no one be enrolled who is less than
613 sixty years of age; widows entered on the list are, according to vs. 16,
those who received support from the funds of the church.
5. It is common, in particular, to omit substantives in certain
fixed phrases or in special contexts, and to express their adjectives
merely, which latter of themselves conduct the mind to the sub-
stantives, cf. Bhdy. 183 ff. Examples:
ἡμέρα (Bos under the word) in the expressions, ἡ ἑβδόμη Heb.
iv. 4 (of the Sabbath), ews or μéxpɩ τĥs σńμeρov Matt. xxvii. 8;
2 Cor. iii. 15 (2 Chron. xxxv. 25; Malal. 12, 309, generally in the
Sept. and the N. T. µépas is added), ǹ avρiov Jas. iv. 14; Matt.
vi. 34; Acts iv. 3, 5 (3 Macc. v. 38), ǹ é§îs Acts xxi. 1; Luke
vii. 11, Tŷ èxoµévŋ Luke xiii. 33; Acts xx. 15, tŷ ètioúon Acts
xvi. 11, tỷ étépą (postridie) Acts xx. 15, Tỷ тpíTη Luke xiii. 32
(Xen. C. 5, 3, 27; Plut. paedag. 9, 26 τǹv µéonv téµveiv).¹
ódós (Fischer as above, 259 sq.; Lob. paralip. p. 363): Luke
xix. 4 ἐκείνης ἤμελλε διέρχεσθαι, v. 19 μὴ εὑρόντες ποίας εἰςενέγκω
ow avτóv (Cic. Att. 9, 1 qua ituri sint, Cic. divin. 1, 54, 123),²
1 In Acts xix. 38 ȧyópaιoi ayovтal (Strab. 13, 629) most expositors supply uépal,
which is quite appropriate.
2 The local meaning of the Gen. that way (cf. Germ. des Wegs) is questioned by
Bornem. Luc. p. 37, 118, who wants to read in the two passages πolą, èkelvŋ; yet Hm.
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
591
iii. 5 σTai Tà σKоλià els eveías etc. (where, however, in the
second member ódoús follows) cf. Lucian. dial. m. 10, 13 evleîav
ékelvηv πρоïóvтes, Paus. 8, 23, 2, Lat. compendiariâ ducere Senec.
ep. 119, rectâ ire.¹
522
6th ed.
ὕδωρ (Bos p. 501 sqq.) : Matt. x. 42 ὃς ἐὰν ποτίσῃ . . . ποτήριον 550
Yuxpoû, Jas. iii. 11; Epict. ench. 29, 2; Arrian. Epict. 3, 12, 17 7th ed.
and 15, 3; Lucian. mors Peregr. 44, just as we say a glass of
port, a bottle of sherry, etc. We find also Oeppóv sc. dop Aristoph. 614
θερμόν
nub. 1040; Arrian. Epict. 3, 22, 71, etc. So in Latin frigida Plin.
ep. 6, 16, calida Tac. Germ. 22, gelida Hor. serm. 2, 7, 91.
ἱμάτιον (Bos p. 204 sq.): Juo. xx. 12 θεωρεῖ δύο ἀγγέλους
EV NEVKOîS KaleÇoµévoνs in white garments, Matt. xi. 8; Rev.
xviii. 12, 16; cf. Sept. Exod. xxxiii. 4; Arrian. Epict. 3, 22, 10
EV KOKKIVOIS TеρITатŵv and Wetst. I. 381, 958; Bos p. 204.
γλώσσα : Rev. ix. 11 ἐν τῇ ἑλληνική.
avpa (Bos p. 49; cf. Lob. paralip. p. 314): Acts xxvii. 40
ἐπάραντες τὸν ἀρτέμονα τῇ πνεούσῃ ef. Lucian. Hermot. 28,
(similarly τῷ πνέοντι sc. ἀνέμῳ Lucian. Char. 3).
α
Xópa (Bos p. 560 sqq.): è§ évavrías ex adverso Mark xv. 39,
which is used likewise in a figurative sense Tit. ii. 8. The same
word is usually supplied in Luke xvii. 24 ἡ ἀστραπὴ ἡ ἀστράπτουσα
ἐκ τῆς ὑπ᾽ οὐρανὸν εἰς τὴν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανὸν λάμπει (Sept. Job xviii. 4;
Prov. viii. 28). nopewń Luke i. 39 early became a substantive,
the highlands, the hill country, Xen. Cyr. 1, 3, 3; Ptol. Geogr.
5, 17, 3; 6, 9, 4.
pa time, is regarded as omitted in the phrase ap's 2 Pet.
Vig. p. 881 found no fault with this local Gen. which became established in the Pro-
nominal adverbs οὗ, ποῦ. And many instances of this very phrase τῆς αὐτῆς ὁδοῦ
(cf. Bhdy. 138) are cited, and that not merely from poets (Krü. Sprachl. II. 2. S. 157) ;
cf. in particular, Thuc. 4, 47, 2 and Krü. on the passage, and Thuc. 4, 33, 3. If any
one wishes to bring this local Gen. nearer to the primary import of the Gen. (§ 30, 1),
he may take it perhaps thus: out or forth from that (way). But probably it connects
itself more simply with the use mentioned in § 30, 11
p. 207.
1 Many adverbial expressions arose from an ellipsis of dós (Bttm. ausf. Sprachl.
II. 341) or xúpa (Bos p. 561), such as idíą, kaт' idiav, dnμooía Acts xvi. 37 etc., which
no longer suggest to the mind their origin, Bhdy. 185 f. Such an adverbial expression
also is and μiâs Luke xiv. 18, which cannot be discovered in the literary language of
the Greeks, but was probably current in the language of conversation. It is equivalent
to with one mind (èk µiâs ¥vxns Dion. H. II. 1058) or with one voice (uno ore, èê µâs
owvîs Herod. 1, 4, 21). Wahl, clav. p. 45, after Camerar. is too artifical. It is possible,
moreover, that the Greeks did not understand any substantive at all originally, but
employed the Feminine (as an abstract, Ewald, Heb. Gr. 645), just as independently
as the Neuter, see Schaef. Bos p. 43 and the Review in the L. Lit. Zeit. 1825. no. 179;
this, however, Hm. opusc. p. 162 will not admit.
ἐκ
592
$ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
iii. 4; Luke vii. 45; Acts xxiv. 11, which, indeed, had already
become completely an adverb (cf. however, Matt. xv. 28). The
same applies to è avτôs Mark vi. 25; Acts x. 33 etc., which many
write as one word, ἐξαυτῆς.
Sóμos (or oikos) Acts ii. 27, 31 eis adov, cf. Bos p. 14; Vechner,
δόμος οἶκος)
Hellenol. p. 124 sq., but the best Codd. [Sin. also] give eis adηv.
y: Matt. xxiii. 15 ǹ §npá (opposed to ǹ láλaooa) the continent,
dry land (Kypke in loc.). The same substantive would have to
be supplied in Heb. xi. 26 oi èv Aiyúπтov Oŋoavpoí (Lehm.). Cf.
Her. 8, 3; Diod. S. 12, 34. But the reading of Aiyúπтоν Onσavрoi
[which Cod. Sin. also gives] is better supported.
χείρ in ἡ δεξιά, ἡ ἀριστερά Matt. vi. 3 etc., δεξιὰν διδόναι Gal.
ii. 9 (Xen. A. 1, 6, 6 ; 2, 5, 3), ἐν δεξιᾷ, ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιάν Eph. i. 20 ;
Matt. xxvii. 29.
δραχμή: Acts xix. 19 εὗρον ἀργυρίου μυριάδας πέντε, as we
say he is worth ten thousand. Cf. Lucian. eun. 3 and 8; Achill.
T. 5, 17. So also the names of measures are omitted Ruth iii. 15.
ὑετός: Jas. v. 7 μακροθυμῶν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ (καρπῷ), ἕως λάβῃ
πρώϊμον καὶ ὄψιμον.
The ellipsis in all these expressions has been sanctioned by long
551 usage, and for that very reason is plain, especially in particular
7th ed. contexts, to all who are familiar with the language (cf. he put
615 down red, he sat on the right, he came in a coach and six). Other
omissions are more special (peculiar to the usus loquendi of a
city or community), е.g. πроßаtɩký (Túλŋ Neh. iii. 1) Jno. v. 2
(just as they say in Leipsic, to go out at the Grimma), yet see
Bos under the word πύλη. Such also are οἱ δώδεκα, οἱ ἑπτά
oi oi
(διάκονοι) Acts xxi. 8 ; cf. in Greek οἱ τριάκοντα (τύραννοι).
523 To this head have been referred incorrectly many expressions and phrases.
6th ed. in which an adjective or neuter pronoun is used independently without any
ellipsis (Krü. S. 3), e.g. rò iepóv (which at an early period had become a
substantive) the temple, Tò dioTerés Acts xix. 35, rò σnpikóv Rev. xviii. 12,
in biblical diction rò άytov the holy place (in the tabernacle and the temple),
τὸ ἱλαστήριον etc., τὰ ἴδια one's own possession) Jno. i. 11, τὰ σά what is
thine Luke vi. 30, тà Katúτepa Tês yŷs Eph. iv. 9 (where, however, good
Codd. [Sin. also] add µépn), tò tpítov tŵv ktioμátwv Rev. viii. 9 etc., and
the adverbial expressions ἐν παντί, εἰς κενόν, τὸ λοιπόν (§ 54, 1). Likewise
in Heb. xiii. 22 λóywv is not to be supplied after ẞpaxéwv, any more than
verbis or the like is to be understood after paucis, or (in quotations) róty
after év érépo Acts xiii. 35; Heb. v. 6. Also in 1 Cor. xv. 46 Tò πveνμATIKÓV
πνευματικόν
and Tò vxikóv are used as substantives, and oua is not to be understood.
Lastly, with ἐν τῷ μεταξύ Jno. iv. 31 χρόνῳ is not to be supplied, but τῷ
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
593
peragú is the Dat. of rò μeragú (Lucian. dial. d. 10, 1).
Even the Gen.
of kindred, such as Σώπατρος Πύρρου Acts xx. 4, Ιούδας Ἰακώβου, Εμμυρ
TOû Zvxéu (§ 30, 3), is not elliptical, but the Gen. expresses the general
notion of belonging to, just as we say: Prussia's Blücher (Hm. opusc.
p. 120; Kühner II. 118 f.). For instances from Greek and Roman authors,
see Vechner, IIellenol. p. 122 sq.; Jani, ars poet. p. 187 sq.
But even
were viós, adeλpós, and the like, actually omitted in such expressions, it
would still be a complete perversion to supply viós before the Genitive in
Gal. iii. 20 de μeoirns évòs ouK OT, (Kaiser de apologet. ev. Joa.
consiliis II. 8). A word can be omitted only when the notion it expresses
is conveyed by the context, or may be presumed to be known to the
reader. But when it is said: the mediator is not of one, the expression
does not even remotely intimate that precisely the word son is to be sup-
plied. The sentence by itself merely means: does not appertain to a
single individual. And that he appertains to him as son (instead of what
surely must be regarded as most obvious, in his very function of mediator)
is left. wholly to conjecture!
On the other hand, a number of (transitive) verbs have, in a
similar way, rid themselves in the course of time of the case of the
noun in union with which they formed a current phrase, and are
now used all alone to express the same meaning, e.g. diayew to
live (in an ethical sense) Tit. iii. 3, strictly, to spend sc. Tòv Bíov 552
1 Tim. ii. 2. So frequently in Greek authors, Xen. C. 1, 2, 2; 7th ed.
8, 3, 50; Diod. S. 1, 8. Similarly, Siaтpíßeiv sojourn in a place 616
Jno. iii. 22, strictly, spend sc. тòv xρóvov, see Kühnöl in loc. Cf.
in Latin agere, degere (Vechner, Hellenol. p. 126 f.). Evµßáλλeiv
Tivi or Tρós Tia Acts iv. 15; xvii. 18 to confer, consult with one,
originally ovμßáλλew Xóyovs sermonem conferre Ceb. 33; by the
older Greeks chiefly in the Mid. συμβάλλεσθαι. Προςέχειν τινί
pay attention to etc., sc. Tòv voûv, cf. in Latin advertere, attendere.
Similar is éπéxew Luke xiv. 7; Acts iii. 5. So perhaps also évéxewV
Mark vi. 19; Luke xi. 53, where, however, it is sometimes ex-
plained to be angry, supplying xóλov (Her. 1, 118; 6, 119); but
no instance can be found of the suppression of this Acc.
Επι- 524
Tilévai Tivi (Tàs xeîpas) Acts xviii. 10; cf. Xen. M. 2, 1, 15; Cyr. 6th ed.
6, 3, 6. Evλλaµßávei, concipere, to become pregnant Luke
i. 31. Many verbs when used thus by themselves have become
technical terms, as e.g. Siaкoveîv Jno. xii. 2 to serve at table, πрos-
pépeiv Heb. v. 3 to offer, πроsкνveîv to worship Juo. xii. 20; Acts
viii. 27, λαтρеúew Phil. iii. 3; Luke ii. 37; Acts xxvi. 7, kaλeîv
invite 1 Cor. x. 27 (Xen. Cyr. 2, 2, 23; 8, 4, 1), кpoúew knock
(at a door) Matt. vii. 7 etc., πpоßáλλеw to put forth (of trees), a
75
594
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
horticultural term, Luke xxi. 30. Nautical terms are alpei weigh
sc. тàs άykúpas Acts xxvii. 13 (Bos p. 15) Thuc. 2, 23, like the
Latin solvere Caes. gall. 4, 23, and Kaтéxew eis Acts xxvii. 40, see
Wahl under the word.
!
We must, however, be careful not to refer to this head such
verbs as either contain in themselves a complete notion, or in a
given context are intended to express nothing more than the
action which they denote, and are used absolutely, as ev yaoтρì
exeiv to be pregnant, Siopúoσew to break through, to break in Matt.
vi. 19, oтpwvvúei kavтô sibi sternere Acts ix. 34 to make one's bed,
ȧπоσTÉλew to send (personally or by letter) Luke vii. 19; Acts
xix. 31 (Vechner, Hellenol. p. 126), µǹ éxew to be poor 1 Cor. xi.
22;
Boisson. Philostr. epp. p. 128 (habere Jani, ars poët. p. 189),
ἀγοράζειν καὶ πωλεῖν Rev. xiii. 17. [Just so in ἀποκτενεῖτε etc.
Matt. xxiii. 34 the actions expressed are conceived absolutely;
see Mey. ad loc.] For examples of verbs used abstractly, set c.g.
1 Cor. iii. 1; x. 13; Heb. xii. 25; Col. ii. 21; Phil. ii. 12; Jas.
iv. 2 f. As to Táoxew in particular, see Wahl, clav. p. 387; cf.
Weber, Demosth. p. 384. Also Luke ix. 52 őste étoiµáσai avтŵ
is probably to be rendered: to prepare for him, what? appears
from the context, and §evíav from Philem. 22 is not to be supplied.
In the same way the verbs are used in 1 Cor. xi. 4 katà kepaλîs
exov (cf. 2 Cor. v. 12) and Rev. xxii. 19 èáv Tis áþéλy ảπò tŵv
λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου, where to supply τι betrays an utter want of
philological discernment. Lastly dúvaolai, used absolutely, sig-
nifies to be able, have power, and does not require an Infin. to
complete its sense, not even in 1 Cor. x. 13 (where dúv. úπeveykeîv
follows immediately) cf. Rom. viii. 7; 1 Cor. iii. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 8.
553 (Substantives with the Article are also used thus technically in
7th ed. doctrinal terminology, and with them a Gen. of the Person —
617 coû— has been looked for; as, y ópyý Rom. iii. 5; v. 9; xii. 19;
θεοῦ
1 Thess. i. 10; ii. 16, тò Oéλnμa Rom. ii. 18.)
Adjectives used attributively with substantives can be omitted only in
very rare instances. It is quite conceivable, for example, that in the
phrase λαλεῖν ἑτέραις or καιναῖς γλωσσαῖς the adjective was dropped through
frequent use, and that yλwooaîs λaλeîv alone became a technical expression
(de Wette on Acts, S. 33). But beyond the range of local and individual
usage (somewhat like libri, namely Sibyllini, or bishop in partibus for in
part. infidelium) nothing of this sort occurs; since, owing to the diversity
of epithets that may be joined to a substantive, it would not do to leave
the reader to guess the precise one to be supplied. In 2 Pet. ii. 10 ỏπíow
σαρκὸς πορεύεσθαι does not need to be completed by ἑτέρας from Jude 7;
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
595
*
the phrase is intelligible as it stands. In 1 Cor. vi. 20 yopáobŋte tyµÑs
the epithet peyáλns is not omitted, but the words mean simply: ye have
been bought with a price; the emphasis lies upon the verb bought, not
obtained for nothing. In Matt. xii. 32 ôs âv etπŋ λóyov karà TOû vioû Toû
ἀνθρώπου we must not supply βλάσφημον ; to speak a word against one,
is a phrase complete in itself. In Rev. ii. 6, also, the rendering hoc
(laudabile) habes does not assume the omission of some similar word in
the Greek. A more plausible instance would be Acts v. 29 ó Hérpos kai
οἱ ἀπόστολοι, i.e. οἱ ἄλλοι or λοιποὶ ἀπ. and the like; yet on this see above,
§ 58, 7 note, p. 520 sq.
It would be preposterous also to supply, for instance, eva in Matt. xv. 23 525
οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῇ λόγον or ἑνί in Luke vii. 7 εἰπὶ λόγῳ, or τινῶν in Mark th ed
ii. 1 di' îµepŵv (Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 440), or even woλúv in Luke xviii. 4
¿ì xpóvov. The notion of one is contained in the Singular, and that of
several in the Plural. Cf. Lucian. Herm. Taλávτov for one talent, and eun.
6 µépav unum diem (in Latin, ut verbo dicam), Lucian. Alex. 15 µépas
oikoi eμeivev, Xen. Eph. 5, 2; Charit. 5, 9. With Luke xviii. in particular,
cf. the well-known xpóvą Schoem. Isae. p. 444.
Note. It would be the most absurd of all to admit the existence of an
ellipsis of adverbs or conjunctions; and yet this has been done in a variety
of cases by N. T. expositors. Of such interpreters Hm. opusc. p. 204
says: qui si cogitassent, adverbia conjunctionesque proprietatibus quibus-
dam et sententiarum inter se consociationibus ac dissociationibus indicandis
inservire, quae nisi disertim verbis expressae vel propterea intelligi ne-
queant, quod, si ellipsi locus esset, etiam aliena intelligi possent: numquam
adeo absonam opinionem essent amplexi, ut voculas, quarum omissio longe
aliter quam adjectio sententias conformat, per ellipsin negligi potuisse cre-
derent. But ignorance of the nature of the moods is in part at the bottom
of this opinion. Thus with éλeis einwμev Luke ix. 54; Heb. viii. 5, etc.
some have wanted to supply a iva or oπws, (see in opposition Hm. p. 207,
cf. § 41, 4 b. p. 285); so also el or éáv in sentences like 1 Cor. vii. 21 554
δοῦλος ἐκλήθης, μή σοι μελέτω (Hm. p. 205; cf. § 60, 4 c. p. 541) ; so ἄν 7th ed
(Schwarz, soloec. p. 125) in Jno. xv. 22 εἰ μὴ ἦλθον . . . ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ εἶχον 618
and similar sentences (Hm. p. 205, see § 42, 2 p. 303 sq.); and so µóvov
frequently in the expression oйk ... åλλá cf. § 55, 8 p. 495 sq. or 1 Cor.
ix. 9.1 It was likewise thought that was omitted after the comparative
in Jno. xv. 13 ; 3 Jno. 4 (BCrus.), but the clauses with iva in both passages
ei
αν
In Rom. iv. 9, before
1 Μὴ τῶν βοῶν μέλει τῷ θεῷ; Paul takes into view here only the spiritual sense of
the law, and considers it from the same point as Philo, who says: où yàp vπèρ Tŵν
ἀλόγων ὁ νόμος ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν νοῦν καὶ λόγον ἐχόντων, see Mey. The πάντων following
ought to have deterred from such a weakening of the statement.
†кaí an etiam, a μóvov is not required; and in iii. 28 μóvov, in the juxtaposition of
πίστει and χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (since in Paul's view πίστει and ἔργοις are mutually
exclusive antitheses), would be quite superfluous, and would render the sentence
cumbersome. On Rom. iv. 14, see Fr. in loc.
596
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
are added by way of explanation to the demonstrative pronoun, the Genitive
of which is dependent on the comparative. Likewise in instances such.
as Acts iv. 22 ἐτῶν ἦν πλειόνων τεσσαράκοντα, xxiii. 13, 21; xxiv. 11;
xxv. 6; Matt. xxvi. 53 is not to be supplied (though it is elsewhere
used in such a construction). The Greeks had become accustomed to
abbreviate the phrase in this manner, and probably did not regard the
word λeloves here as a comparative (more than), but as an annexed
specification, just as elsewhere the neuter (adv.) πλéov is inserted even
without government, see Lob. Phryn. p. 410 sq.; cf. Mtth. S. 1019.
Lastly, some wanted (Pott still) in 2 Pet. iii. 4 å¤'îs oi tatépes ékoyuý◊ŋoav,
πάντα οὕτως διαμένει ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως to supply ὡς before the last words,
which would give an appropriate meaning indeed, but would be entirely
526 arbitrary. Two termini a quo are united here in a single sentence, one
6th ed. closer and one more remote, in so far, that is, as oi Tarépes is understood
πατέρες
of those very fathers (see in particular Semler) who had received the
promise of the Tapovσía. (There would be a half ellipsis in a particle, if
où stood for outw, cf. especially Withof, opusc. Ling. 1778. 8vo. p. 32 sqq.
But in Jno. vi. 17 an ouπw after the preceding on is to say the least
unnecessary: it had already become dark, and Jesus had not come. In
Jno. vii. 8 oйπw is in fact only a correction; if we read ouк, we cannot
remove the ethical difficulty of the passage by introducing a grammatical
one in its place, (see also Boisson. Philostr. her. p. 502; Jacobs, Philostr.
imagg. 357, and Aelian. anim. II. 250). It does not follow that oử is used
for ouπw in Mark vii. 18 because ouπw occurs in Matt. xv. 17; but in the
latter passage also où is the better supported reading. In Mark xi. 13 not
is completely sufficient. Against the admission of another sort of half
ellipsis, that is, of verba simplicia for composita, see my program de verbor.
simpl. pro compositis in N. T. usu et caussis. L. 1833. 4to.)
παρουσία.
6. Sometimes a partial ellipsis of both the subject and the
predicate occurs in one and the same sentence. Gal. v. 13 μόνον
619 μὴ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν εἰς ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκί (κατέχητε, τρέψητε, Oecum.
555 аπоxрýσnσle). The subject as in the second person is obvious
7th ed. from the preceding éλý◊ŋte; and that part of the predicate which
forms the copula (KaTÉXOVтes etc., re, Hm. Vig. 872) is easily
gathered from els àpopμnv (cf. Jacobs, Philostr. p. 525). Matt.
xxvi. 5 (Mark xiv. 2) μὴ ἐν τῇ ἑορτῇ sc. τοῦτο γενέσθω οι τοῦτο
Towμev, unless we prefer repeating from vs. 4 the two verbs
KρаτŃσ. K. ȧTOKтEίV. These words, and Gal. as above, are no
more an aposiopesis (Mey. on Gal. [in the earlier eds.]) than the
German aber nur nicht am Feste (not on the feast day). On
the partial ellipsis in sentences with μń, see Klotz, Devar. II. 669.
In 2 Cor. ix. 6 probably with TоûTO dé is to be supplied λéyw (Gal.
iii. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 15) or pnuí (1 Cor. vii. 29; xv. 50) Bos
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
597
p. 632 sq.; `Franke, Demosth. 83; cf. Hm. Aeschyl. II. 362, or
even λογίζεσθε, (for Meyer's previous connection of this τοῦτο δέ
with ó σreípov following produces a limping construction, as he
himself has felt; and his present view, that TOÛTO dé is an Acc.
Abs., is far-fetched). So too in the phrase oux öTI (……. årλá),
designed to prevent a misapprehension, I say, I mean, was orig-
inally understood before or (Schaef. Bos 775; Hm. Vig. 804),
Jno. vii. 22 οὐχ ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ Μωϋσέως ἐστίν (ἡ περιτομή), ἀλλ' ἐκ
Tŵν Taтéρwv, vi. 46; 2 Cor. i. 24; iii. 5; Phil. iv. 17; 2 Thess.
iii. 9. The phrase, however, became so established by use that
its origin was no longer thought of, and so Paul could write in
Phil. iv. 11 : οὐχ ὅτι καθ᾽ ὑστέρησιν λέγω. By the side of this
οὐχ ὅτι might be placed οὐχ οἷον ὅτι: Rom. ix. 6 οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι
ἐκπέπτωκεν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ, i.e. οὐ τοῖον δὲ λέγω, οἷον ὅτι non tale
(dico), quale (hoc est) excidisse etc. And the oἷον ὅτι of the
later writers (Schaef. Gregor. Cor. p. 105) might then be com-
pared, and as respects circumstantiality of expression the phrases
adduced by Lob. Phryn. p. 427 s olov, olov STEр. Moreover, 527
two explanations of that Pauline phrase have been propounded:
a. It has been rendered: but it is impossible that; for the Te
usually attached to olov in this sense is in the first place not
essential, and secondly it is wanting in the passage adduced by
Wetst. from Gorgias Leont. σοὶ οὐκ ἦν οἷον μόνον μάρτυρας
eùpeîv, cf. also Kayser, Philostr. Soph. p. 348,¹ and in the third
place probably also oux olóv te dé might be read (Aelian. 4, 17),
and the construction with the Inf. ἐκπεπτωκέναι τὸν λόγον had
been resolved by őr, after the fashion of the later language (cf.
in Latin dico quod) 2; de Wette's objection falls to the ground,
if we take Móyos Оcoû as Fr. does. b. Some, with Fr., consider
6th ed.
620
oux olov, as it is often used in later writers, a negative adverb:
by no means, no such thing (properly où TоLOÛTóv čσTI OTI the thing 556
is not such that), Polyb. 3, 82, 5; 18, 18, 11. To be sure, the 7th ed.
finite verb then always follows without or; but Paul may either
have employed or pleonastically (like s őrt), or have used and
construed the phrase in the sense of multum abest ut, far from
being the case that. Meyer's solution is in no respect more
plausible.
1 Examples of the personal ofós éσri, such as Mey. adduces from Polybius, have no
connection with the idiom here examined. Cf. Weber, Demosth. p. 469.
2 On the relation of the Infinitive construction to a clause with dri, see Krü. 253.
598
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
6th ed.
In Rom. ix. 16 ἄρα οὖν οὐ τοῦ θέλοντος οὐδὲ τοῦ τρέχοντος etc., where it
is enough to supply èorí, the subject of the impersonal sentence (therefore
it is not of him that willeth, does not depend on the will; see, on civaí
Tɩos, above, p. 195) is to be gathered from the context: viz. the attain-
ment of Divine mercy, vs. 15. Similar is Rom. iv. 16 dɩà Toûto èk tíotews
(ẻorí), iva katà xápiv (n), therefore from faith proceeds that of which
I speak, namely (primarily gathered from vs. 14) ʼn kλŋpovoµía. As to
Rom. v. 18 see above, no. 2 p. 587.
In Matt. v. 38 ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος, the
subject and part of the predicate are likewise omitted; although an indica-
tion of the latter is contained in åvrí. The words, however, are borrowed ·
from Exod. xxi. 24, where dúous precedes. In such well-known expres-
sions as the familiar and almost proverbial passages of the law, even a
verb may have been suppressed that could not elsewhere have been
omitted without ambiguity; see under 3, b. p. 588.¹
7. Even whole propositions are sometimes omitted by ellipsis
(Hm. opusc. p. 159; Vig. 872):
μήπως.
a. Rom. xi. 21 εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τῶν κατὰ φύσιν κλάδων οὐκ ἐφείσατο,
μήπως οὐδὲ σοῦ φείσεται sc. δέδοικα οι ὁρᾶτε, which, however, is
suggested in μýπws. In Matt. xxv. 9 the text. rec. [and Cod. Sin.]
has μnπотe оuk, but there is a preponderance of authority † for
the reading μήποτε οὐ μή, according to which μήποτε would be
528 taken by itself (as dehortatory) by no means! sc. Sâμev vs. 8 or
YevéσOW TOûTO, cf. Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 9; Exod. x. 11. In Luke
xvi. 8 there is not so much an omission of noi or eon as rather
an annexation in oratio recta of the further discourse of him to
whom the expression őτ opovíμws étroinċev belongs. Similar to
this is v. 14. In Greek prose eon, or the like, is suppressed only
either where a ó dé, oi Sé indicates the speaker (Aelian. 9, 29;
anim. 1, 6), or where the mere structure of the sentence indicates
that some one (else) speaks, as frequently in dialogues. Van
Hengel (annotatt. p. 8 sqq.) is wrong in thinking that this ellipsis
621 (ěpn ó cós) occurs in Matt. xxiii. 34; see, on the other hand, Fr.
Bengel's remark on 1 Cor. ix. 24 is a mistake. In Matt. xvi. 7
διελογίζοντο ἐν ἑαυτοῖς λέγοντες· ὅτι ἄρτους οὐκ ἐλάβομεν it is far
more suitable to supply before őrɩ the simple sentence Taûra Xéyeɩ
1 Akin to this Acc. in a passage of the law is that employed in all languages in
demands, e.g. maî λopvíav, see Bos p. 601.
[† The contrary statement is made on p. 504. Où µh, although supported by B C D
and by the majority of the less important authorities, recommended by Grsb., and adopt-
ed by Lchm., Tisch. 2d and 7th, Alf., Treg., de Werte, Mey. et al., has been abandoned
by Tisch. 8th ed. for ouk, which is supported by (besides N) AL Z 33 etc.-J. H 1.]
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
599
and render öri by because, than to take or for the particle intro-
ducing the oratio recta. In Jno. v. 6, 7, the answer äveрwπоv 557
οὐκ ἔχω, ἵνα . . . βάλῃ με εἰς τὴν κολυμβήθραν does not seem to nth ed
eis
correspond directly to the question θέλεις ὑγιὴς γενέσθαι; so that
a simple yes, certainly, may be supposed to be omitted. But the
sick man does not stop at this simple affirmation, but immediately
proceeds to state the obstacle which has hitherto opposed his wish.
On passages such as Jno. i. 8 οὐκ ἦν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα
μaρтuρńσŋ, ix. 3, see p. 316 sq.
.
b. Sometimes a long protasis is followed by no apodosis, e.g.
2 Thess. ii. 3 f. ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον . . . ὅτι ἔστιν
Ocós, it is necessary to understand from vs. 1: the Taрovoía Tоû
Kuρíov does not arrive. The long protasis ¹ involves this omission.
So, in particular, the apodosis is wanting to a protasis with STEP
in Matt. xxv. 14; Rom. v. 12; ix. 22 ff. see § 63, I. 1 p. 569 sq.
iva
1
Likewise, in quotations from the O. T. there sometimes seems to be an
ellipsis of an entire sentence, as in 1 Cor. i. 31 iva, kabùs yéɣpaπтaι, d
καθώς γέγραπται,
καυχώμενος ἐν κυρίῳ καυχάσθω. After ἵνα a γένηται or πληρωθῇ may be
understood. The apostle, however, unconcerned about the grammatical
sequence, attached the words of Scripture directly to his own as integral
parts of the statement, just as in Rom. xv. 3 he introduces in direct dis-
course the words of Christ from Ps. lxix., cf. xv. 21. In 1 Cor. ii. 9 f.,
however, we must not with Mey. [eds. 1st and 2d] take vs. 10 for the
apodosis to a plaλuós etc.; but Paul, instead of saying, in continuity
with ἀλλά, τοῦτο ἡμῖν etc., annexes the antithesis directly to the words of
the quotation, so that ảλλá remains without grammatical sequence.
II. Aposiopesis, or the suppression of a sentence or part of a
sentence in consequence of emotion (of anger, cf. Stallb. Plat.
Apol. p. 35,2 sorrow, fear, etc., cf. Quintil. 9, 2, 54; Tiberius and
Alexander de figuris in Walz, rhetor. graec. VIII. 536, 450), in 529
which case the gestures of the speaker supply what is wanting 6th ed.
(Hm. p. 153), occurs, not merely in forms of oaths (§ 55, note 622
p. 500) in which it became usual, but also after conditional clauses
in the following passages: Luke xix. 42 εἰ ἔγνως καὶ σύ, καίγε ἐν
τῇ ἡμέρᾳ σου ταύτῃ, τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην σου, if thou also hadst known
what concerns thy peace! sc. how fortunate that would have been
1 To this some refer also Jas. iii. 3 (according to what is undoubtedly the true
reading [supported also by Cod. Sin.] ei dé). But the apodosis is probably contained
in the words kaì öλov тd owµa. See the careful discussion by Wiesinger in loc.
2 Like the well-known quos ego or the German: warte, ich will dich ·
! Eng.
mind, or I'll—! The aposiopesis may occur even in the form of a question, e.g. Num.
xiv. 27 ews Tivos Thy σvvaywynν тǹν πоvпρàν Taúτηy; cf. Acts xxiii. 9 Lehm.
600
§ 64. DEFECTIVE STRUCTURE.
*
(for thee); xxii. 42 πάτερ, εἰ βούλει παρενεγκεῖν τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο
ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ· πλήν etc. In both passages sorrow has suppressed the
apodosis. Acts xxiii. 9 οὐδὲν κακὸν εὑρίσκομεν ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ
558 τούτῳ· εἰ δὲ πνεῦμα ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ ἢ ἄγγελος ... we find nothing
7th ed. evil in this man; but if a spirit has spoken to him or an angel —
(which the Pharisees utter with gestures expressive of reserve),
sc. the matter is significant, or requires caution. Others take the
words interrogatively (Lclım.): if, however, . . . has spoken? how
then? what is to be done in that case? See, in general, Fr.
Conject. I. 30 sq. The addition μὴ θεομαχῶμεν found in some
Codd. is a gloss. Bornem. has quietly retracted his earlier con-
jecture. Moreover, it may be doubted whether in the preceding
passage an aposiopesis really occurs, or merely a break in the
discourse at vs. 10. In Jno. vi. 62 the apodosis, suggested readily
by vs. 61, is omitted with an air of triumph: how strange will
that appear to you! In Mark vii. 11 ὑμεῖς λέγετε· ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος
τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί· κορβᾶν ... ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς· καὶ
OÙKÉTI ȧþíεTE etc. the apodosis is to be supplied from vs. 10: then
he does right in keeping his vow, and consequently ye release him
in this case from the obligation тμâv тòv Taтéρa etc., see Krebs
Tiµâv ma
in loc.¹ 2 Thess. ii. 3 ff. is an anacoluthon, and not an aposiopesis.
Lastly, in Phil. i. 22 the assumption of an aposiopesis (Rilliet) is
quite inadmissible. An aposiopesis is in Greek authors 2 also most
frequent after conditional clauses (Plat. sympos. 220 d.). Indeed
when two conditional clauses correspond to each other it is quite
common to suppress the apodosis after the first (Poppo, Xen. Cyr.
p. 256; Stallb. Plat. Gorg. p. 197), the speaker hastening on to
the second clause as the more important, as in Plat. Protag. 325 d.
ἐὰν μὲν ἑκὼν πείθηται· εἰ δὲ μή — εὐθύνουσιν ἀπειλαῖς καὶ πληγαῖς,
623 rep. 9, 575 d. οὐκοῦν ἐὰν μὲν ἑκόντες ὑπείκωσιν· ἐὰν δὲ μή etc.
Thuc. 3, 3. So Luke xiii. 9 κἂν μὲν ποιήσῃ καρπόν· εἰ δὲ μήγε,
530 eis Tò μéxλov ékkóseis avτýv if it bear fruit, well (let it remain);
6th od. but if not, then cut it down (though here apes avτýv may be
1 Many expositors find an aposiopesis (?) also in the parallel passage Matt. xv. 5
ὃς ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρὶ· δῶρον ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς· καὶ οὐ μὴ τιμήσῃ τὸν
πατέρα αὑτοῦ
πaтÉρа aúтοû — that is, he acts properly (in conformity to the law). But perhaps [yet
see Meyer's objections] we should, with Grotius and Bengel, regard the apodosis as
commencing with ral où μh: whoever says to his parents he is not obliged also
(in such case) to honor his parents, he is thereby also (in that case) released from the
commandment τίμα τὸν πατέρα. The και then would not be pleonastic.
•
2 From the O. T. cf. Exod. xxxii. 32; Dan. iii. 15; Zech. vi. 15; see Kuster, Erläuter.
der heil. Schrift, S. 97.
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
601
supplied from what precedes). (On the omission after el dè µń
or ei dè µń ye of the entire conditional clause, to be supplied from
the context preceding, see above, p. 583.)
As an aposiopesis öpa µý might also be regarded in Rev. xix. 10; xxii. 9,
with which may be compared the forms of dehortation or deprecation,
frequent in the tragedians, un raura Eurip. Io 1335, più σú ye etc. Yet
see above, p. 583 sq.
In Rom. vii. 25 to the complaint τίς με ρύσεται ἐκ τοῦ σώματος του 559
Davátov Toútov; is annexed, in an overpowering burst of joy, a brief thanks Ith ed
be to God! — also a species of aposiopesis. In unimpassioned style, Paul
would have said: thanks be to God that he has already liberated me, etc.
Also in 2 Cor. vii. 12 äpa ei kaì čypaya iµîv some have assumed a res-
ervation, where Billroth still wants to supply xaλeñóv тɩ. Paul would thus
have purposely omitted the word, because the affair still gave him pain.
But eypaya is of itself complete.
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES; PLEONASM
(SUPERFLUITY),¹ DIFFUSENESS.
1. A Pleonasm 2 is the opposite of an ellipsis, as redundance is
the opposite of deficiency. A pleonasm, accordingly, would be
exemplified in the addition of a word that is not intended to add
anything to the meaning of the sentence (Hm. opusc. I. 217, 222). 624
In point of fact the earlier philologists not only believed in the
existence of superfluous words, especially particles (Hm. opusc.
p. 226), but Kühnöl on Matt. v. 1 (cf. Weiske, pleon. p. 34) goes
so far as to maintain that Tò opos may be used for opos. But as
this (pleonasm of the definite article) is a downright absurdity,
so is the existence of expletives in the Greek literary language a
figment. In general, pleonasm, which takes place chiefly in pred-
1 See Fischer, Weller. III. I. 269 sqq.; B. Weiske, Pleonasmi graeci s. commentar.
de vocib., quae in sermone Graeco abundare dicuntur. Lips. 1807. 8ro.; Poppo, Thucyd.
I. I. 197 sqq.; in reference to the N. T. Glass. Phil. sacra I 641 sqq. (it relates, how-
ever, more to the O. T., and is on the whole meagre); Bauer, Philol. Thucyd. Paull.
p. 202 sqq.; Tzschucke, de sermon. J. Chr. p. 270 sqq.; Haab S. 324 ff.; J. II, Maii
diss. de pleonasmis ling. graec. in N. T. Giess. 1728. (10 sheets). This writer had
intended to write a work on Pleonasms in general; see his observatt. in libr. sacr. I. 52.
Another work, by M. Nascou, announced in a Prodromus (Havn. 1787. 8vo.), failed,
in like manner, to make its appearance.
2 Glassius, as above, has sensible remarks on the definition of a pleonasm; cf. also
Flacii clavis script. sacr. II. 4, 224, and my 1st Progr. de verbis compos. p. 7 sq.
Quintil. instit. 8, 3, 53 gives a simple, but, rightly understood, adequate definition :
pleonasmus vitium, cum supervacuis verbis oratio oneratur.
76
602
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
icates (Hm. as above, p. 219), consists in ingrafting into a sentence
531 words the full import of which has been already conveyed in
6th ed. another part of the same sentence (or period), either by the same
or by an equivalent expression. Even this, however, is done
intelligently only when,
•
a From carelessness, or from want of confidence in the reader's
attention, the same thing is (particularly in extended sentences)
repeated nonne tibi ad me venienti nonne dixi? Here nonne is
intended in reality to be thought but once. So Col. ii. 13 καὶ
560 ὑμᾶς νεκροὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς παραπτώμασι . . . συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς
7th ed. σύν αὐτῷ, Matt. viii. 1 ; Eph. ii. 11 f. ; Phil. iv. 15 var. [Matt. iv. 16]
(Vechner, Hellenol. p. 177 sq.), Mark vii. 25 yvvý,ĥs eîxev tò Ovɣá-
θυγά
τριον αὐτῆς πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον, Rev. vii. 2, see § 22, 4 p. 147 sq.
(Demosth. Euerg. 688 b. οὗτοι ᾤοντο ἐμέ, εἰ πολλά μου λάβοιεν
ἐνέχυρα, ἄσμενον ἀφήσειν με τοὺς μάρτυρας), 1 Cor. vii. 26 νομίζω
τοῦτο καλὸν ὑπάρχειν ὅτι καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ, Rev. xii. 9 (?) cf.
V. Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. 14 sq. ; 2 Tim. iv. 9 σπούδασον
ἐλθεῖν πρός με ταχέως, 2 Cor. viii. 24 τὴν ἔνδειξιν τ. ἀγάπης ...
ἐνδεικνύμενοι (yet see § 32, 2 p. 224) cf. Plato, legg. 12, 966 b.
τὴν ἔνδειξιν τῷ λόγῳ ἀδυνατεῖν ἐνδείκνυσθαι (Xen. Cyr. 8,
2,5). To this head may be referred also Rom. ix. 29 Sept. &s
Γόμορρα ἂν ώμοιώθημεν (in the parallel member ὡς ... ἂν
ἐγενήθημεν), as well as λογίζεσθαί οι ἡγεῖσθαί τινα ὡς 2 Cor. x. 2 ;
2 Thess. iii. 15; Lucian. Peregr. 11 (instead of the Acc. alone,
ef. η η Job xix. 11), as even in Greek authors we find νομίζειν
os (yet see Stallb. Plat. Phileb. p. 180) and the like. Different
are Luke xx. 2 εἶπον πρὸς αὐτὸν λέγοντες, Mark xii. 26 πώς
εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς λέγων, Acts xxviii. 25 τὸ πνεῦμα ἐλάλησεν...
λέγον etc. In all these passages the Participle serves to introduce
(as frequently in the Sept.) the direct discourse (cf. the well-known
ἔφη λέγων Döderlein, Synon. IV. 13), which might assuredly be
amexed immediately to εἶπον, εἶπε. Different from this, again,
are Matt. xxii. 1; Luke xii. 16, and still more Luke xiv. 7; xvi. 2;
xviii. 2, etc.
Ο
Another mode of introducing the direct discourse, Luke xxii. 61
625 ὑπεμνήσθη τοῦ λόγου τοῦ κυρίου ὡς εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Acts xi. 16 ἐμνήσθην τοῦ
ῥήματος τοῦ κυρίου, ὡς ἔλεγεν, is to be referred to circumstantiality (see
below, no. 4 p. 606 sq.), like the usage of even Attic authors, Xen. Cyr. 8,
2, 14 λόγος αὐτοῦ ἀπομνημονεύται, ὡς λέγοι, see Bornem. schol. p. 141, and
is not to be deemed a pleonasm.
2. Or when b. one of the synonymous expressions has, from
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
603
wáλiv
ρι 0
"
€
0
7th ed
usage, partially lost its meaning,¹ as in aπ' oúpavóðev (Iliad. 8,
365), goxos aλλov (Hm. Homer. hymn. in Cerer. 362), or a
repetition, originally emphatic, has in course of time become
weakened, as aλı avois (Hm. Vig. 886). So in the N. T. ȧrò
μaкрóbev Matt. xxvi. 58; Mark xv. 40; Rev. xviii. 10 (Wetst. I.
524 sq.), àπò ävweev Matt. xxvii. 51; Mark xv. 38, ěteita μetà
τοῦτο Jno. xi. 7 εὐθέως παραχρῆμα Acts xiv. 10 Cod. D) cf. ἔπειτα 532
μετὰ ταῦτα Dem. Neaer. 530 etc., εἶτα μετὰ τοῦτο οι ταῦτα Arist. Gib ed
rhet. 2, 9, 13; Plat. Lach. 190 e. For similar instances, see Poppo,
Thuc. III. I. 343; III. II. 38;2 in Latin deinde postea Cic. Mil. 561
24, 65, post deinde, tum deinde etc. Vechner, Hellenol. p. 156 sqq.
Also Luke xix. 4 πроСраµàν ëμπроσееv (Xen. C. 2, 2, 7; 7,
1, 36), iv. 29 ἐκβάλλειν ἔξω, Luke xxiv. 50 ἐξάγειν ἔξω, Rev.
iii. 12 (Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 337; Bornem. schol. 166 sq.), Acts xviii. 21
πáλIν åνакάμπтеw (Сеb. 29, cf. Kritz, Sallust. I, 88), Mark
vii. 36 µâλλov πеρισσÓTEρOV (§ 35, 1 p. 240, cf. Hm. opusc. 222;
Vechner, Hellenol. p.166 sqq.), Luke xxii. 11 èpeîTE Tŵ O i K o deσTTÓTη
τῆς οίκιας
Tŷs oikias³ (Bornem. in loc.), Rev. xviii. 22, cf. Odyss. 14, 101
συῶν συβόσια, Her. 5, 64 στρατηγὸν τῆς στρατιῆς, Plato, legg. 2,
671 d.; Cedren. I. 343; Theocr. 25, 95; Jno. xii. 13 rà Bata Tov
poivikov (Baïa of itself signifies palm branches), Acts ii. 30
ὅρκῳ ὤμοσεν θεός,
орка μоσеν & Oeós, cf. Exod. xxv. 12. See Jacob, quaest.
Lucian. p. 10; Bornem. Xen. conv. 186; Pflugk, Eurip. Hec.
p. 18; Lob. paralip. 534 sqq.
K
μ
V
3
To this head are to be referred the established schemata:
a. that κaí is used after particles of comparison, Acts xi. 17 626
εἰ τὴν ἴσην δωρεὰν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς ὡς καὶ ἡμῖν, 1 Cor. vii. 7
θέλω πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἶναι ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν (see above, p. 140);
for the also is already implied in the comparison, which makes
this very declaration that something takes place also in the case
of a second object.
1 From the department of Etymology may be adduced, as instances of the same
nature, the double comparatives μefóтepos etc., see § 11, 2 p. 69. In German, cf.
mehrere, for which pedantic purists would substitute, both in writing and speaking,
mehre.
2 Cf. from later writers ἀπὸ πανταχόθεν Const. Μanass. p. 127, ἀπὸ πρωΐθεν οι μηκόθεν
Theophan. cont. 519, 524, é dvouó0ev Nicet. Annal. 18, p. 359 d., èk яaidóbev or vide
Malal. 18, p. 429; 5, p. 117, éveка πерí Cedren. 1, p. 716, πepì ... Eveкa Niceph. Cpolit.
p. 6, 35, åve' ☎v éveka Theophan. cont. p. 138, àve v or Deut. xxviii. 62. On the
last examples, see Hm. opusc. 220.
el
เ
3 Oikodoμsîv olkov Luke vi. 48 is no more a pleonasm than aedificare domum, as both
verbs acquired at a very early period, from usage, the signification of to build (generally).
See other instances of the sort in Lobeck, paralip. p. 501 sq.
604
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
K
B. that an additional negative is annexed to a verb of negation
in a clause dependent on that verb and supplementing it, 1 Jno.
ii. 22 ὁ ἀρνούμενος, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός, Luke xx. 27
ἀντιλέγοντες, μὴ εἶναι ἀνάστασιν (Xen. C. 2, 2, 20 ; An. 2, 5, 29 ;
Isocr. Trapez. 360; Dem. Phorm. 585; Thuc. 1, 77), Heb. xii. 19
οἱ ἀκούσαντες παρῃτήσαντο μὴ προςτεθῆναι αὐτοῖς λόγον (Thuc.
5, 63), Gal. v. 7 τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψε τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι (Eurip.
Hec. 860). Cf. further Luke iv. 42; Acts xx. 27; 1 Pet. iii. 10
(Thuc. 5, 25; 7, 53; Plat. Phaed. 117 c.; Demosth. Phaenipp.
654 b.; see Vig. pp. 459, 811; Alberti, observ. p. 470 sq.; Thilo,
Act. Thom. p. 10; Bttm. exc. 2 in Mid. p. 142 sqq.; Mtth. 1242 f.).
The German employs a similar construction in the conversational
style; and this usage in Greek may be accounted for by the cir-
cumstantiality peculiar to familiar discourse, since in these verbs
the force of the negation gradually became less sensible, and thus
was expressly renewed in the dependent clause, cf. Mdv. S. 248.
Recent writers, indeed, maintain that this mode of expression ist
562 not to be considered as pleonastic (Hm. opusc. p. 232; Klotz,
7th ed. Devar. p. 6681); yet logically one of the negatives is undeniably
superfluous. (But even in the N. T. the negation is not always
subjoined, e.g. after verbs of hindering Luke xxiii. 2; Acts viii. 36
[1 Thess. ii. 16]; Rom. xv. 22; cf. Mtth. 1243; Mdv. 248; Klotz,
Devar. p. 668.)
533
6th ed.
:
On the other hand, the following constructions are different from the
preceding Acts x. 15 máλw ẻk devrépov (cf. Jno. iv. 54), Juo. xxi. 16
πáλw deútepov (Plut. Phil. c. 15), Gal. iv. 9 πáλv ävw0ev (Isocr. Areopag.
p. 338 wádiv éέ åpxŵs), rursus denuo (Hand, Tursell. II. 279); in all
which passages a more definite word is added as explanatory. Still greater
difference is there in Acts v. 23 according to the reading roùs púλakas eέw
ἑστῶτας πρὸ τῶν θυρῶν (Xen. Cyr. 7, 1, 23) ; also in Luke ii. 36 αὕτη ἦν
πρoßeßnkvîa èv ĥµépais modλaîs (cf. i. 7, 18), for the meaning is: she
was for advanced (Lucian. Peregr. 27 πоpρwτáτW YŃρWS πρоßEẞnkús); Rev.
ix. 7 τὰ ὁμοιώματα τῶν ἀκρίδων ὅμοια ἵπποις, for ὁμοιώματα signifies
627 forms, cf. Ezek. x. 22; 1 Pet. iii. 17 ei éλoi Tò féλŋµa тoû beoû si
placuerit voluntati divinae, since éλnua means the will itself and Oéλew
the operation of the will (like the stream streams etc.) cf. Jas. iii. 4. In
Jno. xx. 4, however, πpоédpaμev Táxιov Tоû IIérpov is to be taken thus:
he ran on before, faster than Peter (closer specification). In 2 Pet. iii. 6
ὕδατι would not be superfluous even if ὑδάτων were supplied with δι' ὧν ;
ιο
1 Non otiosam esse negationem in ejusmodi locis, sed ita poni infinitivum, ut non
res, quae prohibenda videatur, intelligatur, sed qua vi ac potestate istius prohibitionis
jam non fiat.
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
605
>
it would designate water as an element, whereas údaro (cf. Gen. vii. 11)
would signify the concrete (separate) bodies of water. Cf. further, Jude 4.
As to Heb. vi. 6 see my 3d Progr. de verbb. compos. p. 10. That Luke
XX. 43 πоTÓSιov Tŵv Todŵν σov (Heb. i. 13) footstool of thy feet, Gen.
xvii. 13 ó oikoyevǹs tŷs oikías σov (Deut. vii. 13) are not, on account of the
Gen. annexed, entirely similar to the preceding examples, is obvious.
Lastly, such passages as Mark viii. 4 ûde ... èπ' épquías, xiii. 29 ¿yyùs …….
Tì Oúpais, 2 Tim. ii. 10 do not properly fall under the notion of pleonasm
(Heinichen, Euseb. II. 186), but of apposition. Likewise Mark xii. 23
ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει, ὅταν ἀναστῶσι can hardly be called diffuseness, as the last
clause here is an application of the general v T avaσT. to the brothers
mentioned in vs. 20 ff. See Lob. paralip. p. 534. As a half pleonasm
might boun evwdías Eph. v. 2 (both derivatives of ow) be regarded, and
compared perhaps to raidwv añαis (Eurip. Androm. 613; Hm. opusc.
p. 221). But it signifies an odor of sweet smell; ỏoµý is the smell as
inhaled, evwdía is its quality.
•
•
Ӧ
απ
6th ed.
3. c. Lastly, many redundancies are attributable to a blending
of two constructions, Hm. opusc. p. 224; Vig. p. 887; as, Luke
ii. 21 ὅτε ἐπλήσθησαν ἡμέραι ὀκτώ ... καὶ ἐκλήθη τὸ ὄνομα (instead
οἱ ἐπλήσθ. δὲ ἡμ. καί, οι ὅτε ἐπλ. . . . ἐκλήθη), vii. 12 ὡς ἤγγισε 563
τῇ πύλῃ τῆς πόλεως, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐξεκομίζετο τεθνηκώς, Acts x. 17. Το Tth ed
this head might be referred also Rom. ix. 29 (see under a.); and
it is even possible that or before the oratio recta originated in
this way (Rost, Gr. 641). With more assurance may we explain
thus the pleonastic negation in the phrase Kтòs ei µý (Devar. 1,
74) : 1 Cor. xiv. 5 μείζων ὁ προφητεύων ἢ ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσαις, ἐκτὸς
ei µǹ Siepµnveún except he interpret, xv. 2; 1 Tim. v 19. The 534
Germans in colloquial speech often employ a similar mode of
expression: alle waren zugegen, ausgenommen du nicht; ich
komme nicht, bevor du nicht gesagt hast etc. In the preceding
quotation, either ἐκτὸς εἰ διερμηνεύῃ οι εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ might have
been used. On that and other similar phrases (such as Tλ ei
µn) much has been collected by Lob. Phryn. p. 459; cf. also
Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 869; Doederlein, Oed. Col. p. 382 sqq. On
the other hand, in the expression el dè un ye, when it seems to
mean, but if not, otherwise (after a negative clause) Matt. vi. 1;
ix. 17; 2 Cor. xi. 16, the negation cannot be considered as pleo-
nastic according to the original import of the phrase; see Fr. 628
Mt. p. 255.
4. The greater part of what has been called pleonasm in the
N. T. (and out of it) is circumstantiality or more frequently
fulness of expression (Hm. opusc. p. 222 sqq. and Vig. 887;
606
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 204 sqq.); the former of which arises from the
writer's endeavor to be rightly understood, and the latter is de-
signed to give vividness, force (solemnity), sonorousness to style.
It must also be remembered that the N. T. diction is to a great
extent conversational, or akin to it; and that the above-mentioned
peculiarities are pre-eminently characteristic of Oriental expres-
sion. Such phraseology differs from pleonasm in this, that every
word and part of a word in a sentence contains something intended
to add to the general meaning, though it may not be absolutely
necessary for the logical completeness of the thought, e.g. Mark
i. 17 ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων, for which Matt.
iv. 19 has ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων. The opposite is not
ellipsis, but conciseness.
In the first place, as respects circumstantiality the following
cases are to be distinguished:
ע.
;
a. A word, only required once to complete the thought, is
repeated in every parallel member where it might have been simply
understood : 1 Heb. ii. 16 οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται, ἀλλὰ
σπέρματος ᾿Αβρ. ἐπιλαμβάνεται, Juo. xii. 3 ἤλειψεν τοὺς
πόδας τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἐξέμαξε ταῖς θριξὶν αὐτῆς τοὺς πόδας
αὐτοῦ, Rev. xiv. 2 ἤκουσα φωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ . . . καὶ ἡ φωνή,
V коνσα, ix. 21; xvi. 18; 1 Cor. xii. 12; xv. 54; Phil. ii. 16
564 iv. 17; Jno. x. 10; Rev. ix. 1 f.; Mark i. 40; Matt. xviii. 32, cf.
7th ed.
in Greek authors, Xen. Mem. 2, 10, 3; Demosth. Zenoth. 576 c.;
Long. 2, 3; Lucian. Cynic. 9; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. 117; Poppo,
Thuc. III. II. 23; in Latin the expressions, especially frequent in
Jul. Caesar, in ea loca, quibus in locis; dies, quo die etc. Such
repetitions ensure perspicuity, particularly when several words in-
tervene. Sometimes repetitions have a rhetorical aspect, see no. 5.
b. The usual or indispensable instrument (e.g. a human limb)
is expressly mentioned along with the action in point: Acts
535 xv. 23 ypáfavtes dià xeipòs autŵv (they were to deliver it), xi. 30
6th ed. (2 Cor. xi. 33) ; xix. 11 ; iii. 18 προκατήγγειλε διὰ στόματος πάντων
629
тŵν проÓητν, xv. 7; Luke i. 70 etc. Cf. from the poets, Eurip.
Ion 1187 xepoiv éкxéwv σπovdás (var.), Hec. 526 f.; Theocr. 7, 153
Toσσì xoρeûσαι, see Lob. Aj. p. 222 f. (Wunder, Recens. p. 17 sq.).
But in Rom. x. 15 (Sept.) ὡς ὡραῖοι οἱ πόδες τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων
1 We must judge differently many of the repetitions used by the orators who had in
view the delivery before the people of what they had written; cf. Foertsch, de locis
Lysiae, p. 29. Of a different nature also is the repetition of the same word in Plat.
Charm. 168 a.
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
607
eipývnu the notion of arrival, implied in wódes, is very far from
being superfluous; and in 1 Jno. i. 1 ô éwpákaµev тоîs ¿þ0aX-
μoîs ηµŵv (Luke ii. 30) an emphasis is obviously intended in
the last words, like to see with one's own eyes (Hesiod. theog. 701;
Thuc. 2, 11; Aristot. mirab. 160; Heliod. 4, 19; see Bremi, Aesch.
I. 124; cf. Jani ars poet. p. 220 sq.). And in Mark vi. 2; Acts
v. 12 it is to be considered that the miracles in question were
wrought by the laying on of hands. But analogous to this (cir-
cumstantial) form of expression is Luke i. 76 πроπореуσŋ πρо
πрOSŃπον KUρlov, ix. 52 (3), a phrase used also as precisely
equivalent to before (in reference to inanimate objects): Acts
xiii. 24 πрò πроsάπον тŶs eisódov avtoû, cf. Sept. Num. xix. 4
ἀπέναντι τοῦ προςώπου τῆς σκηνῆς, Ps. xxxiv. 6 κατὰ πρόςωπον
ἀνέμου.
c. An action which according to the nature of the case precedes
another, is also expressed separately, and generally by a participle:
Matt. xxvi. 51 ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἀπέσπασεν τὴν μάχαιραν
αὐτοῦ, ii. 8 ὅπως κἀγὼ ἐλθὼν προςκυνήσω αὐτῷ (xiv. 33), Jno.
vi. 5 ἐπάρας τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ θεασάμενος etc., Matt. xiii. 31
ὅμοια κόκκῳ σινάπεως, ὃν λαβὼν ἄνθρωπος ἔσπειρεν etc. vs. 33;
Acts xvi. 3 (Xen. Eph. 3, 4 ὁ δὲ αὐτὸν λαβὼν ἄγει πρὸς τὸν ᾿Ανθίαν,
see Locella p. 141), Jno. vi. 15 γνοὺς ὅτι μέλλουσιν ἔρχεσθαι καὶ
áρπášeιv avтóv, Matt. xix. 21. Likewise in 1 Cor. ii. 1 xảyà EXOWv
πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, ἦλθον οὐ etc. the participle was not necessary.
What Bornem. Cyrop. 5, 3, 2 has adduced is of a different nature,
as in his passages the participle is separated by several words from
its verb. On the other hand, in Luke i. 31 ovλλýýn év yaσTρÌ
kaì tégŋ vióv etc. no one will find a mere redundancy of language;
the momentous nature of the favor vouchsafed her is expressed
by specifying its several particulars. In Luke xxiv. 50 éπúpas
τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ εὐλόγησεν αὐτούς the participle denotes the sym-
bolical gesture of the person blessing. In Eph. ii. 17 èλóv marks
a particular both important and demanding distinct consideration;
so too in Luke xii. 37. Likewise in Jno. xxi. 13 éρxeтaι 'Inσoûs 565
καὶ λαμβάνει τὸν ἄρτον καὶ δίδωσιν αὐτοῖς every separate act of the rib ed.
wonderful occurrence is designedly specified, and, as it were,
placed before the eyes. In Jno. xi. 48 ἐλεύσονται οἱ Ρωμαῖοι 630
refers to the approach of the Roman armies. See, further, Matt.
viii. 3, 7; ix. 18; xxvii. 48; Luke vi. 20 (Ael. 12, 22); Jno. xv. 16;
Rev. xvi. 1, 2. And in Acts viii. 35 avoiças ó DIMITTOS Tò σTÓμа
αὑτοῦ καὶ ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς γραφῆς ταύτης εὐηγγελίσατο etc. prob-
608
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
$
ably avoiĝas Tò σróμa etc. serves for the (solemn) introduction of
an important discourse; as undoubtedly is the case in Matt. v. 2
(see Fr. in loc.). Cf. in general, Fischer, de vitiis lexic. p. 223 sqq. ;
Pflugk, Eurip. Hel. p. 134.
d. A word which we are accustomed to think is implied in
536 another is also explicitly stated: Acts iii. 3 nρóra èλenμoovv v
6th ed. λaßeîv (see Wetst. in loc. and Boisson. Eunap. p. 459; cf. Vir.
Aen. 5, 262 loricam... donat habere yiro), Mark i. 17 Tonow
ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων, see above, p. 606 ; cf. Εxod.
xxiii. 15; Demosth. ep. 3, p. 114 b. Kai тoùs avaiσ0ýτovs ȧvVEKTOÙS
ποιεῖν δοκεῖ γίνεσθαι.
e
στ
e. In the course of a narration the Hebraistic kaì éyéveтo is
prefixed to particular occurrences: Matt. vii. 28 kaì éyéveto, ŐTE
συνετέλεσεν ... ἐξεπλήσσοντο, for which a Greek author would
say simply, kai őтe or ŐTE dè σVVET. etc.¹ On the other hand, in
Jno. xi. 11 ταῦτα εἶπεν, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο λέγει αὐτοῖς, neither ταῦτα
eiπTev nor μeтà TOûTO is superfluous; the latter indicates a pause.
To c. might be referred also the use of the participle åvaσtás, as in
Matt. ix. 9 åvασтàs ỷкоλοú◊ŋoev avr@, Mark ii. 14; vii. 24; Luke i. 39
(similar to the Hebrew ). But although here åvaσrás was not nec-
essary, yet this participle is by no means redundant in other passages
which expositors bring under the same rule. Thus in Matt. xxvi. 62 ·
ἀναστὰς ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἶπεν αὐτῷ means obviously: he stood up from indig-
nation, he rose (from his seat); similar is Acts v. 17; Mark i. 35 πρwề
ἔννυχον λίαν ἀναστὰς ἐξῆλθε rising in the morning, while it was still very
dark, etc.; Luke xv. 18 ἀναστὰς πορεύσομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου (I will
arise and go) I will forthwith, etc. In general, too many participles in
the N. T. have been represented as redundant; and though the decision
631 may occasionally be doubtful, yet very many of them express notions
which were they not expressed would be missed. Thus in 1 Cor. vi. 15
ἄρας οὖν τὰ μέλη τοῦ Χριστοῦ ποιήσω πόρνης μέλη; (see Bengel in loc.
566 Aristoph. eq. 1130; Soph. O. R. 1270), 1 Pet. iii. 19 roîs èv puλakî πveúμaoɩ
Ti ed, πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν. In Luke xii. 37 παρελθὼν διακονήσει αὐτοῖς drawing
avtoîs
near, he will serve them, even tested by our Western notions, is more
striking and vivid than if παρελθών had been omitted, (παρελθών in Ael.
2, 30 likewise, does not seem to me redundant). Cf. in general, Schaef.
7th હતુ.
1 This always occurs when an additional specification of time precedes the principal
clause, and the principal verb is then appended either by kaí (see on this Fr. Mt. p. 341),
as in Matt. ix. 10; Luke v. 1, 12; ix. 51, or more frequently without a copula, as in
Matt. xi. 1; xiii. 53; xix. 1; xxvi. 1; Mark iv. 4; Luke i. 8, 41; ii. 1 etc. This
usage is most frequent in Luke's Gospel. To render this κaí by also, even, is far from
a happy thought, Born. Schol. p. 25. Besides, this èyévero is pleonastic, as the speci-
fication of time might be directly joined to the principal verb.
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
609
Soph. I. 253, 278; II. 314; Demosth. IV. 623; Pflugk, Eurip. Hel. p. 134;
Mtth. 1300 f.
Further, with Acts iii. 3 under d. may be compared Acts xi. 22 ἐξαπέ-
στειλεν Βαρνάβαν διελθεῖν ἕως Αντιοχείας (where the ancient versions
drop the Inf. as superfluous, though it undoubtedly existed in the text),
which, however, properly signifies: they sent him out with the commission
to go etc. Similar is Acts xx. 1 ἐξῆλθεν πορευθῆναι εἰς τὴν Μακεδονίαν he
departed to go, to Macedonia. Cf. also Caes. civ. 3, 33. On the other hand, 537
I cannot with Born. find a mere redundancy in oi dè katagɩbévtes toû bith ed,
αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν Luke xx. 35. The τυχεῖν denotes something not
strictly implied in karağıovσłaı preceding, and is required to render the
expression complete and perspicuous. Cf. Demosth. cor. p. 328 b. κατ'
αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἄξιός εἰμι ἐπαίνου τυχεῖν, and Bos, exercit. p. 48; Bornem.
schol. p. 125.
καταξιοῦσθαι
Such idioms as Mark xi. 5 τί ποιεῖτε λύοντες τὸν πῶλον, Acts xxi. 13 τί
ποιεῖτε κλαίοντες καὶ συνθρύπτοντές μου τὴν καρδίαν, in comparison with the
usual τί λύετε, κλαίετε, appear to be, in like manner, circumstantial. But
what do ye loosing properly denotes: what is your intention in loosing,
quid hoc sibi vult? ποιεῖν, therefore, has not here the general meaning of
do, which is already contained in every special verb; and the phrase Tí
λύετε (for) what loose ye? may with more probability be regarded as
abbreviated, than the preceding phrase as redundant.
5. Fulness of expression, by which the writer aims sometimes
at didactic or rhetorical force (solemnity), sometimes at graphic
vividness, occurs generally in one of the following forms:
a. The same word is once and again repeated in parallel members
(Xen. An. 3, 4, 45) : Eph. ii. 17 εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην ὑμῖν τοῖς
μακρὰν καὶ εἰρήνην τοῖς ἐγγύς, Jno. vi. 63 τὰ ῥήματα . . . πνεῦμά
ἐστιν καὶ ζωή ἐστιν, Col. i. 28 νουθετοῦντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον
καὶ διδάσκοντες πάντα ἄνθρωπον, Jno. i. 10 ; ix. 5 ; xiv. 26,
27; xv. 19; xix. 10; Matt. xii. 37; Rom. v. 12; xiv. 14; 1 Cor.
i. 24, 27; xiii. 11; 2 Cor. xi. 26; Rom. (iii. 31) viii. 15 ok
ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας ... ἀλλὰ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας
(in Heb. xii. 18, 22 the repetition was essential to perspicuity); 632
1 Cor. x. 1 f. οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν πάντες ὑπὸ τὴν νεφέλην ἦσαν καὶ
πάντες διὰ τῆς θαλάσσης διῆλθον, καὶ πάντες εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν
ἐβαπτίσαντο καὶ πάντες ... καὶ πάντες etc. (Caes. bell. gall.
1, 31), Phil. iii. 2; iv. 8; 2 Cor. vii. 2; 1 Cor. xiv. 24; Rev.
viii. 7, 12 ; 1 Cor. vi. 11 ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε,
ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε, i. 20 ; iv. 8; 1 Tim. v. 10 ; 2 Cor. vi. 2 ἰδοὺ
νῦν καιρὸς εὐπρόςδεκτος, ἰδοὺ νῦν ἡμέρα σωτηρίας (Arrian. Εpict. 567
3, 23, 20), xi. 20; Eph. vi. 12, 17; v. 10 ; 1 Jno. i. 1; Rev. xiv. 8;
7th ed.
77
610
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
xviii. 2 (likewise the polysyndeton in Rev. vii. 12; Rom. ii. 17 f.;
1 Cor. xiii. 2 may be referred to this head). So often in earnest
addresses ; as, Matt. xxv. 11 κύριε, κύριε, ἄνοιξον ἡμῖν, xxiii. 37 ;
Luke viii. 24; x. 41; xxii. 31; Acts ix. 4, and demands Jno.
xix. 6; Krüg. Dion. p. 11. In all these cases it was not to be
left to the reader to repeat in thought a word employed once, but
as often as it is to be understood the writer expresses it, in order
to render its importance perceptible (especially ẻ παраλλýλov
Rom. xi. 32; 1 Cor. xv. 21).
b. Especially often (particularly by John) is a thought, intended
to be brought out with great precision, expressed affirmatively in
one member of a sentence and negatively in another (parallelismus
antitheticus, see Hm. opusc. p. 223): Juo. i. 20 wμoróynσe kai oỷk
ἠρνήσατο, Eph. v. 15 μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι ἀλλ' ὡς σοφοί, vs. 17 ; Jno. i. 3 ;
iii. 16; x. 5 (xviii. 20); xx. 27; 1 Jno. i. 6; ii. 4, 27; Luke
i. 20; Acts xviii. 9; 1 Tim. ii. 7; Jas. i. 5, 23; 1 Pet. i. 23; v. 2;
538 Heb. vii. 21; x. 37 (Sept.); xii. 8; Rev. ii. 13; iii. 9 (Deut.
6th ed.
xxviii. 13; Isa. iii. 9; xxxviii. 1; Ezek. xviii. 21; Hos. v. 3);
cf. Eurip. El. 1057 φημὶ κοὐκ ἀπαρνοῦμαι, Ael. an. 2, 43 οὐκ
ἀρνοῦνται οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἀλλ᾽ ὁμολογοῦσι, especially in the orators,
Dem. fals. leg. p. 200 c. páσw κаì оỷк ȧπокρúоµаι, see Maii
observ. sacr. II. 77 sqq.; Kypke I. 350 sq.; Poppo, Thucyd. I. I.
204; Hm. Med. ed. Elmsley p. 361 and Soph. Oed. Col. p.
Philoct. p. 44; Jacob, quaest. Lucian. p. 19; Weber, Demosth.
p. 314; Boisson. Eunap. p. 164 sqq.; Maetzner, Antiph. p. 157.
σ
41;
c. In the following combinations graphic effect is aimed at:
Acts xxvii. 20 περιῃρεῖτο ἐλπὶς πᾶσα, Rom. viii. 22 πᾶσα
ÝKTÍσIS OVO Tevášei kal σ vv wdível, Matt. ix. 35; cf. Diod. S. IV.
41 π ε ρ ι νιψάμενος τὸ σῶμα πᾶν, Strabo 11, 500 πολλαῖς συμ-
Tanpoμevos nyaîs, Lucian. paras. 12; Long. 4, 15; Cic. sen. 18
consurrexisse omnes, Liv. 33, 29 cum omnia terrore et fuga com-
plessent, see my 2d Progr. de verb. compos. p. 21 sq.
π
d. Likewise the forms of address in Acts i. 11 avôpes Taxiλaîoi,
633 iii. 12 avspes 'Iopanλîtaɩ, ii. 14; v. 35; xiii. 16 have the same
(courteous) force (men of Israel!) as the well-known avopes
Αθηναῖοι, which itself occurs in Acts xvii. 22, or ἄνδρες δικασταί.
See § 59, 1 p. 523.
Every single word was indispensable in 2 Cor. ii. 16 oîs µèv ỏσµǹ Davátov
eis Oávatov, oîs dè doµǹ (wŶs eis (wýv. A savor of death unto death, a savor
of life unto life, means: an odor of death which, from its nature, can
bring nothing else than death, etc.
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
611
Redundancy of expression is often erroneously supposed to exist in
passages where synonymes are found connected in order to express (as
frequently in Demosth.) a single main idea, see Schaef. Demosth. I. 209,
320, 756; Plutarch. IV. 387; V. 106; Weber, Demosth. p. 376; Franke,
Demosth. p. 12; Bremi, Aeschin. I. 79; Lucian. Alex. ed. Jacob p. 24;
Poppo, Thuc. III. I. 619; Schoem. Plut. Agis 171; cf. Lob. paralip. 61 sq.
But Paul, from whom the examples in question have mostly been taken, 568
is not in the habit of combining in one sentence really synonymous expres-
7th edi
sions, (not even in Eph. i. 5, 19; ii. 1; iv. 23; 1 Cor. i. 10; ii. 4;
1 Tim. ii. 1; v. 5; cf. Jas. iii. 13; Jno. xii. 49; 1 Pet. i. 4; iv. 9 1 Juo.
i. 1, etc.; Fr. Rom. II. 372). A more careful study of Greek, but especially
of apostolic diction, precludes a supposition according to which e.g. the
apostolic salutation χάρις, ἔλεος καὶ εἰρήνη, would become extremely fat.l
Likewise there is nothing pleonastic in the combinations Ovμòs oprês
Rev. xvi. 19, πέλαγος τῆς θαλάσσης Matt. xviii. 6, ἐπιφάνεια τῆς παρουσίας
2 Thess. ii. 8, σñλáyxva éλéovs or oikтipμoû Luke i. 78; Col. iii. 12. The
second of these was correctly rendered aequor maris by so early a critic
as Wetstein; éλayos, that is, denotes the expanse (of the sea), and is thus
applied to the surface of a river also, see Schwarz, commentar. p. 1067.2
And oλáyɣva is a comprehensive expression which is more closely defined
by the Genitive. The parallelismus membrorum, which occasionally 539
occurs in the N. T. (see § 68, 3), has nothing to do with pleonasm. As 6th ed.
to the parallel distribution of doctrinal particulars in Rom. iv. 25; x. 10,
see de Wette on the first passage.
6. The pleonasm of entire sentences is inconceivable. When
a sentence is expressed a second time with but slight alteration,
the writer's object always is to give to a thought peculiar force, or
to exhibit it under different points of view. This occurs in 2 Cor.
xii. 7 τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι, ἐδόθη 634
iva
μοι σκόλοψ . . . ἵνα με κολαφίζῃ, ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι (where
the last words are omitted, it is true, in good Codd. [also Sin."],
but surely only because they seemed superfluous), Rev. ii. 5
μετανόησον καὶ τὰ πρῶτα ἔργα ποίησον· εἰ δὲ μὴ (μετανοεῖς),
ἔρχομαί σοι ταχὺ καὶ κινήσω τὴν λυχνίαν σου ἐκ τοῦ τόπου αὐτῆς,
ἐὰν μὴ μετανοήσης (ef. Plat. Gorg. 514a. ἡμῖν ἐπιχειρητέον
ἐστί . . . θεραπεύειν, ὡς βελτίστους αὐτοὺς τοὺς πολίτας ποιοῦντας·
1 Schäfer's remark, Demosth. I. 320, usus (synonymorum) duplex, gravior alter,
ut vim concilient orationi, alter levior, ut vel aures expleant vel numeros reddant
jucundiores," has reference primarily only to the orators.
2 The investigation of N. T. synonymes (begun not infelicitously by Bengel) has lately
been prosecuted, rather on the principle of free combination than historically, by
Tittmann (de synonymis N. T. lib. I. Lipsiae 1829. 8vo.). Further, cf. also the col-
lections and remarks in Bornemann's diss. de glossem. N. T. p. 29 sqq.
612
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
7th ed.
• •
T
ἄνευ γὰρ δὴ τούτου, ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν εὑρίσκομεν, οὐδὲν
ὄφελος ἐὰν μὴ καλὴ κἀγαθὴ ἡ διάνοια ᾖ τῶν μελλόντων
etc. Stallb. Plat. apol. p. 23). On 1 Cor. xiv. 6 see Mey. On
1 Cor. vii. 26, see above, no. 1 p. 602. On the other hand, in 1 Jno.
ii. 27 ὡς τὸ αὐτὸ χρίσμα διδάσκει ὑμᾶς καί, καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν
ὑμᾶς, μενεῖτε ἐν αὐτῷ the resumptive phrase καθώς etc. is so far
from being a pleonasm, that it could hardly have been dispensed
with. Similar is Rev. x. 3, 4. Cf. as to such expressions Hm.
569 Eurip. Bacch. 1060 and Soph. Antig. 691; Philoct. 269, 454;
Reisig, conject. Aristoph. p. 314 sq.; Heind. Plat. Phaed. p. 52
and Cic. nat. d. 1, 16; Schaef. Demosth. V. 726; Mtth. 1541 f.
Of a different nature is Rev. ii. 13 οἶδα που κατοικεῖς· ὅπου ὁ θρόνος
τοῦ σατανᾶ, where ὅπου ὁ θρόνος etc. is immediately annexed to
explain (as if in answer to) ToÛ KaтOLKETS. So might also Mark
ii. 24 be taken; but rí here is probably why? On the other hand,
2 Cor. vii. 8; Jno. xiii. 17 do not come under this head; and in
1 Cor. i. 22 the clause éπeidǹ kaì 'Iovdaîoi ... popíav is manifestly
not a mere repetition of ἐπειδὴ γὰρ . . . τὸν θεόν vs. 21, any more
ràp
than nμeîs dè înρúσσoμev etc. vs. 23 is a mere echo of the words
in vs. 21 εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεός etc. And in Rom. vi. 16 οὐκ οἴδατε, ὅτι
ᾧ παριστάνετε ἑαυτοὺς δούλους εἰς ὑπακοήν, δοῦλοί ἐστε ᾧ ὑπακούετε
would not have been a mere uttering of idem per idem, even had
ἤτοι ἁμαρτίας εἰς θάνατον ἢ ὑπακοῆς εἰς δικαιοσύνην not been
straightway annexed to doûλo as a closer specification. As little
do the two members of the sentence Rom. vi. 6 ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ
σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς τῇ ἀμαρτίᾳ com-
pletely coincide in sense; the latter is the aim, concretely expressed,
of what, designated generally, is the karapyn@ñvai of the oŵµa TÊS
ápaρrías. 1 Pet. ii. 16, however, does not remotely come under
this head; 2 Pet. iii. 4 also is of a different nature. On Matt.
540 v. 18 there may be a difference of opinion, inasmuch as Távta in
6th ed. the last clause may be either referred to the law (Olsh., Mey.), or
explained with Fr. universally: donec omnia (quae mente fingere
queas) evenerint. The latter, however, is not very plausible.
7. We subjoin now several other passages in which, although
from of old N. T. expositors have been accustomed to assume the
635 existence of pleonasms, neither pleonasm nor redundancy of any
sort occurs. And first of all, there is a statement to which cur-
rency has been given even by recent commentators, and which is
propped up with misunderstood parallels from Greek authors, that
in the N. Τ. many verbs, viz. ἄρχεσθαι, δοκεῖν, θέλειν, τολμᾶν,
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE,
613
Súvaolaι, when joined with an Infin., are often used pleonastically;
Kühnöl on Luke i. 1 represents even èπixeipeîv to be one of them;
cf. Weiske, pleon. under the words. The whole rule is founded
in error. In the first place
a. With regard to Luke i. 1 ἐπιχειρεῖν in the clause ἐπειδήπερ
πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν etc., is no more used
without special meaning than is the Latin aggredi in aggressus
sum scribere (though even philologers share that view, see Herbst,
Xen. mem. p. 38, and on the other side, Heind. Plat. soph. p. 450).
Luther well renders it: sintemal es sich viele unterwunden haben
(whereas many have taken it upon them) etc. So in all the passages
from the classics adduced by Kühnöl.
b. So also тоλμâv (Weiske p. 121 sq.), to undertake something,
always implies some matter of difficulty or importance, sustinere,
to take upon one's self (Blume, Lycurg. p. 89), Rom. v. 7; 1 Cor.
vi. 1. In Jno. xxi. 12, however, it simply means audere, make
bold to; and it is only respecting the ground of their not venturing
to interrogate Jesus that doubt may be entertained. The assertion 570
of Markland, Lys. p. 159 ed. Taylor, ought not to have misled 7th ed.
any expositor.
OKE
c. As to SokЄîv cf. Fr. Matt. iii. 9 and the earlier critic J. D.
Michaelis in the Nov. Miscell. Lips. IV. 45. In 1 Cor. x. 12 ó
Soκâv éσTávaι is obviously, he that thinketh he standeth, cf. Gal. vi. 3.
In Mark x. 42 οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν τῶν ἐθνῶν means, they who pass
for the rulers of the nations, are recognized as such (similar are
Gal. ii. 9; Susann. 5; Joseph. antt. 19, 6, 3. The parallel passage
Matt. xx. 25 has merely oi apxoUTES). Luke xxii. 24 Tís avtŵv
dokεî eivaι µeíčov quis videatur habere (habiturus esse) princi-
patum, who was to be judged to have the pre-eminence (over the
rest); the matter is still future and so merely an object of con-
jectural judgment. 1 Cor. xi. 16 el Tis dokeî piλóveikos eîvai if
any one thinks (it allowable) to be contentious, or (Mey. and
de Wette) if any one seems to be contentious, is an urbane ex-
pression. Luke viii. 18 d dokeî êxew what he thinks he has. On
1 Cor. iii. 18; vii. 40; viii. 2; xiv. 37; Heb. iv. 1 (where Böhme
regards Sokeî as used elegantius, while Kühnöl and Bleek judge
more correctly) no remark is required. Cf. in general, Bornem. 636
schol. p. 52 sq.
d. Most of the passages in the Gospels where critics have con-
sidered apxeo@ai as pleonastic (cf. too Valcken. Selecta I. 87),
have been correctly explained by Fr. Mtth. p. 539 sq. cf. p. 766.
614
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
541 In regard to Luke iii. 8 Bengel hints at the truth: omnem excusa-
6th ed. tionis etiam conatum praecidit. In particular, it is quite absurd
to regard this verb as redundant in Luke xii. 45; xxi. 28; 2 Cor.
iii. 1. In Jno. xiii. 5 paro indicates the commencement of the
action whose completion is related in vs. 12. Acts xxvii. 35 is
explained by vs. 36: Paul's apɣeolai éσ¤iew was an invitation to
the rest to do the same. In Acts xi. 15 Kühnöl adduces as a
reason why ἄρξασθαι λαλεῖν must be equivalent to λαλεῖν : ex
x. 43 patet, Petrum jam multa de rel. chr. disseruisse etc. But
ἄρχεσθαι λαλ. primarily designates only the commencement of the
discourse, which for that very reason has not yet been completed
(Peter intended to continue to speak, x. 44 ἔτι λαλοῦντος τοῦ Π.).
But why this commencement is to be referred solely to the first
six or eight words is not apparent. Moreover, it must not be
overlooked that ἐν τῷ ἄρξασθαί με λαλεῖν in an address, Acts xi.,
is stronger, as if: scarcely had I uttered a few words, when etc.
In Acts xviii. 26 ἤρξατο is to be connected with ἀκούσαντες δὲ αὐτοῦ
etc. following. On Acts ii. 4 see Meyer. Likewise in Acts xxiv. 2
the discourse of Tertullus, which to judge from the introduction
vs. 3 was undoubtedly intended to be of greater length, probably
was interrupted by the corroboration of the Jews vs. 9, and Paul
himself broke in immediately after; or vs. 2 is to be taken thus:
as soon as he was called, Tertullus beyan etc. (began his dis-
course forthwith).
e. In regard to Oéλew (Gataker, Mr. Ant. 10, 8) in Jno. v. 35,
see Lücke's careful examination of the subject. More plausible
571 is 2 Tim. iii. 12 πάντες οἱ θέλοντες εὐσεβῶς ζῆν ἐν Χριστῷ.
7th ed. But the meaning of these words is: all who determine, who are
minded, to live piously etc. In Heb. xiii. 18 the import of OéoVTES
is obvious. Jno. vii. 17 was correctly understood by Kühnöl.
And in Jno. vi. 21 that expositor has rejected Bolten's arbitrary
explanation; a difference between it and Mark vi. 51 will have to
be acknowledged. In 1 Cor. x. 27 Kaì OÉNETE Tоρеúεσ0αι is: and
you are willing, decide, to go (instead of declining the invitation).
On 1 Pet. iii. 10 see Huther.
ЄT
f. In opposition to Kühnöl, who considers Súvaolaι in Matt.
ix. 15 as pleonastic, see Fr. By BCrus. it is erroneously made
637 to signify be allowed or desire. Still less should the authoritative
word redundat mislead us in Luke xvi. 2 and Jno. vii. 7. In the
latter passage, in particular, there is obviously an intended
difference between δύναται μισείν and μισεί.
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
615
6th ed.
Among nouns erroneously supposed to be sometimes used pleonastically,
must be specially mentioned pyov when followed by a Genitive (Boisson.
Nicet. p. 59) e.g. Rom. ii. 15 epyov vópov, Eph. iv. 12; 1 Thess. i. 3 (see
Koppe); see in opposition Fr. on Rom. as above. In 1 Thess., as above,
the very parallelism of ἔργον τῆς πίστεως with κόπος τῆς ἀγάπης forbids our
taking pyov as a pleonasm; see de Wette in loc. The correct view of
Eph., as above, has already been given by Flatt. From the Greek
authors, also, no instance of pyov as a pleonasm can be adduced. In
Polyaen. 1, 17 epyov Toû λoylov undoubtedly means the matter of the oracle,
the deed foretold in the oracle. In Diog. L. prooem. 1 rò rŷs pɩdooopías
epyov is the occupation of philosophizing, the cultivation of philosophy, cf. 542
just afterwards äpέai piλooopías (in Latin cf. virtutis opus Curt. 8, 14, 37,
proditionis opus Petr. fragm. 28, 5), not precisely the fabric, system, of
philosophy. Χρήμα is different from ἔργον, and even χρήμα with a Genitive
is not properly a pleonasm, see Passow under the word. As to ovopa
(very frequently regarded as pleonastic, see Kühnöl on Jno. p. 133) Wahl
has already given the true view (cf. v. Hengel, Philipp. p. 160), see also
my Simon. lexic. Hebr. under ; yet this word certainly requires a more
precise handling than it has yet received in N. T. Lexicons. (As to a
periphrastic use of ovoµa in Greek poets, see Mtth. 965.) In Col. ii. 16
ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων is no more pleonastic than in
respect (or in the matter) of holidays, new moons, etc. Lastly, in Rom.
vi. 6 oŵµa rês åµaprías is a single composite idea, the body of sin, i.e. the
(human) body;, respecting the relation of which to sin no reader of Paul's
epistles can be at any loss. See above, p. 188.
7th ed.
8. Nearly all the earlier expositors asserted, that by a sort of
half pleonasm kaλeîolai is used for eivai (Graev. lection. Hesiod.
p. 22; Porson, Eurip. Hippol. v. 2; Blomfield, Aesch. Pers. p. 128;
on the other hand, Ellendt, lexic. Soph. I. 912), in which use at
the same time there was thought to be a Hebraism (7, esse).
But Bretschn. lex. man. p. 209 sets the matter right by saying:
sum videlicet ex aliorum sententia. Cf. van Hengel, Cor. p. 53 sq. 572
As to see my Simon. lex. p. 867. In the N. T. кaλɛîobaɩ
καλείσθαι
always signifies to be named, to be called, Jas. ii. 23; Matt. v. 19;
xxi. 13, especially in reference to names of honor, which denote.
the possession of a certain dignity, Matt. v. 9; Luke i. 76; 1 Jno.
iii. 1; Rom. ix. 26. It is used even as antithetical to eivai (to be), 638
1 Cor. xv. 9 (even so much as to bear the name of an apostle),
Luke xv. 19. Nor can ovoµáčeσdai Rom. xv. 20 (1 Cor. v. 1);
Eph. i. 21; iii. 15; v. 3 be weakened down to a mere esse; (it
is even emphatic, as undé in the last passage shows). It is an
1 The passages adduced by Schwarz, Comment. p. 719 sq., from Greek authors to
616
§ 65. REDUNDANT SENTENCES.
6th ed.
utter perversion when many expositors render even Heb. xi. 18
ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα: existet tibi posteritas ; (Schulz,
too, very inaccurately translates it: thou wilt receive offspring).
Evρíoκeolaι also is said (see Pott on 1 Cor. iv. 2; cf. the
annotators on Plut. educ. 13, 5), like xx (cf. on the other hand
my Simonis p. 575), often to be used instead of eivat. But these
two verbs are always distinguished from each other by this, that
είναι denotes the quality of a thing in itself, while εὑρίσκεσθαι
denotes that quality as found, discovered, recognized, in the subject.
Matt. i. 18 evpéen ev yaoтpì ëxovoa it proved (it appeared) that
she was with child (v ev yaoтpì exovoa might have been previously
543 said), Luke xvii. 18 οὐχ εὑρέθησαν ὑποστρέψαντες δοῦναι δόξαν τῷ
Deŵ ei µǹ ó úrλoyevǹs oûtos; were none found (as it were, did
θεῷ μὴ ἀλλογενὴς
none show themselves) who returned? Acts viii. 40 MITTOS
εὑρέθη εἰς "Αζωτον Philip was found (ef. πνεύμα κυρίου ἥρπασε τὸν
Þíλ. vs. 39) at Ashdod (properly, transported to Ashdod, by the
πνеûμа Kúρ. that carried him away), Rom. vii. 10 cúpéon μoi ǹ
ἐντολὴ ἡ εἰς ζωὴν αὕτη εἰς θάνατον it proved, appeared (from Paul's
personal experience vss. 8-10) that the commandment for life had
become to me a commandment for death, Gal. ii. 17 el dè ...
εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί but if we ourselves were found sinners
(before God and man), 1 Cor. iv. 2; 2 Cor. v. 3; Phil. iii. 9
Rer. xii. 8 οὐδὲ τόπος εὑρέθη αὐτῶν ἔτι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ neither was
their place any more found (any more to be seen) in heaven, as
we say every trace of them was blotted out (cf. Rev. xvi. 20 ;
xvii. 21 ; xx. 11), 1 Pet. ii. 22 ouse cupé An Soros G T Gioan
avтoû nor was guile found in his mouth, no guile could be detected
in his words (Rev. xiv. 5). Phil. ii. 7 was correctly rendered by
Luther. The Greek passages adduced as parallel, by Kypke 1. 2 ;
Palairet p. 198; Schwarz et al., prove nothing. In Mr. Anton.
9, 9 τὸ συναγωγὸν ἐν τῷ κρείττονι ἐπιτεινόμενον εὑρίσκετο etc.
573 evρlokoμai retains its proper meaning: was found. Hierocl. in
7th ed. carm. Pythag. p. 88 ed. Lond. ȧpxǹ µèv τŵv åpetŵv ʼn opóvnois
evρlokeTaι is: prudentia virtutum principium esse deprehenditur,
639 i.e. it is found by the considerate that etc.; Eurip. Iph. Taur. 777
(765) ποῦ ποτ᾽ ὄνθ' εὑρήμεθα; ubi tandem esse deprehendimur
(deprehensi sumus)? whither does it turn out that we have wan-
dered? In Joseph. antt. 17 (not 7), 5, 8 eupiok. refers to those
very persons in whose opinion Herod wished to avoid standing
prove that καλεῖσθαι or ὀνομάζεσθαι is used for εἶναι, dispose of themselves for an atten-
tive reader. The attempt to take nominari for esse in Cic. Flacc. 27 is truly ridiculous.
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
617
unfavorably. Cf. also Soph. Trach. 410; Aj. 1114 (1111); Diod.
Sic. 3, 39; 19, 94; Athen. I. 331; Schweigh. Philostr. Apoll. 7,
11; Alciphr. 1, 30. In Ignat. ad Rom. 3 Xéɣeobai Xpioтiavóv and
εὑρίσκεσθαι χριστιανόν are contrasted 1
9. Among the particles, os in particular has frequently been
regarded as pleonastic, as in 2 Pet. i. 3 ós Távтa ýµîv Tês belas
δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ . . . δεδωρημένης. But ώς combined with the par-
ticiple in the construction of the Gen. absol. imparts to the verbal
notion the impress of subjectiveness, of a persuasion or purpose.
Hence the preceding passage, taken in connection with vs. 5,
must be rendered: persuaded (reflecting) that the divine power
has bestowed on us all things,... earnestly endeavor etc., youμevoi,
ὅτι ἡ θεία δύναμις . . . δεδώρηται (1 Cor. iv. 18), cf. Xen. C. 3, 3, 4
ús eipnuns ovσns on the understanding of there being peace, 3, 1, 9
és Táληoñ ÉPOûVтos assured that I am telling the truth, cf. 6, 1, 37 ;
Mem. 1, 6, 5; Strabo 9, 401; Xen. Eph. 4, 2 ; Dion. Hal. III. 1925 ; 544
see Ast, Plat. Polit. p. 320; Loesuer, obs. p. 483; Lob. Soph. Aj.
p. 203; Fr. Rom. II. 360. (In Greek authors this particle is thus
connected also with the Acc. absol., e.g. Xen. C. 1, 4, 21; An. 7,
1, 40.) 's is likewise, with the same import, put before a Dative
governed by a verb, Acts iii. 12 ἢ ἡμῖν τί ἀτενίζετε ὡς ἰδίᾳ δυνάμει
πεποιηκόσιν etc. In Rom. xv. 15 ὡς ἐπαναμιμνήσκων, the parti-
ós
cle és means as (of the characteristic): as one who reminds you
according to the grace of God.
A
6th ed
In Rom. ix. 32 ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, the expression
ἐκ πίστεως denotes the objective standard ; ὡς ἐξ ἔργων, the purely imagi-
nary. 2 Cor. xiii. 7 ; Juo. vii. 10; Philem. 14 also are to be traced back
to a comparison. And Matt. vii. 29 v didáσкwv ús éέovoíav exwv, Jno. i. 14
dó§av ús μovoyevoûs tapà ñaτpós, mean simply: as one having authority,
as of the only begotten etc., and even in these instances the particle does.
not of itself indicate what exists revera, though, if we regard the sense, 640
this idea is implied in the comparison (exactly as, altogether as, like, i.e.
the true, perfect glory of the Son of God, etc.).
In reference to ós éπí Acts xvii. 14 we have to remark, that is joined
to a preposition of direction (èñí, πρós, eis) expresses either the actual 574
purpose of taking a certain direction, or even the mere pretence or 7th ed
assumed appearance of doing so, Kühner II. 280. In the preceding
passage, Beza, Grotius, and others have understood it in the latter sense;
1 The same applies to the Latin invenire (e.g. Cic. Lael. 12, 42), which Schwarz in
the like clumsy way represents as equivalent to esse. Even in Malalas εὑρίσκεσθαι, in
most passages, still retains clearly the signification of inveniri, e.g. 14 p. 372. So also
in Theophan.; see the Index in the Bonn edition.
78
618
§ 65. REDUNDANT STRUCTURE.
с
the former interpretation, however, is simpler and more suited to the
context. As parallel instances, cf. Thuc. 5, 3; 6, 61; Xen. An. 1, 9, 23;
7, 7, 55; Diod. S. 14, 102; Polyb. 5, 70, 3; Arrian. Al. 2, 17, 2; 3, 18,
14. See besides, Ellendt, Lexic. Soph. II. 1004. Also in ús őrɩ, in im-
mediate succession¹ (as it were, as that), is properly indicates that the
statement introduced by őrt is a mere report, an alien or even pretended
opinion, Isocr. Busir. argum. p. 520 κатηуóроvν avтou ús ÖTI Kαvà dayμóvia
εἰς φέρει. So also 2 Thess. ii. 2 εἰς τὸ μὴ σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς . . . μήτε δια λόγου
μήτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς... ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου. In 2 Cor. xi. 21,
likewise, this import of us is perceptible (see Mey. in loc.), and in 2 Cor.
v. 19, if the statement be regarded as the substance of the Siakovía TŶs
καταλλαγῆς conferred. In the earlier authors, too, os or is thus used
Xen. II. 3, 2, 14; Dion. H. III. 1776.2 Among the later (Theodoret. epp.
p. 1294) see Thilo, Act. Thom. p. 10 sq. and Lehrs de Aristarch. p. 34.
Similar, but decidedly pleonastic, is ós va in Byzantine writers, as in
Duc. 8. p. 31, 127; Jo. Canan. p. 467, 470 f: Still more strange is iv oπws
Constant. Man. p. 62; Geo. Acropol. p. 62. (As to the earlier s olov,
see Bast, ep. crit. p. 43; Hm. opusc. I. 219 sq.)
545 Ourws also has been said to be redundant in Jno. iv. 6 (Kühnöl): å
6th ed. Ἰησοῦς κεκοπιακὼς ἐκ τῆς ὁδοιπορίας ἐκαθέζετο οὕτως. But this adverb is
frequently employed thus after a participle to repeat the participial notion:
wearied with the journey, sat down thus (sic ut erat, in consequence of this
fatigue), Xen. A. 4, 5, 29; C. 5, 2, 6; 7, 5, 71; Hellen. 7, 4, 20; Arrian.
Al. 5, 27, 13; Ellendt, Arrian. I. 4. On ourw at the beginning of an
apodosis, see § 60, 5 p. 541.
ὅπως
10. A half pleonasm of a particle is found by Palairet p. 305,
after Glassius, in Acts xiii. 34 μηκέτι μέλλοντα ὑποστρέφειν εἰς
διαφθοράν, where μηκέτι is supposed to stand for the simple μή
(as Christ had never gone to corruption). But the phrase els
Siaplорàv úπоσrpép. denotes, as so early a critic as Bengel per-
641 ceived, simply to (die and) be buried. The quotation from Aelian.
12, 52 is of no force; μŋkéтi there signifies: no longer (as hitherto),
just like ovKérɩ in Jno. xxi. 6. Many used to teach a half pleo-
nastic use of oỶKÉTɩ also; but likewise erroneously. In Rom.
vii. 17 νυνὶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγὼ κατεργάζομαι αὐτό, ἀλλ' ἡ . . . ἁμαρτία is :
575 now, however, after having made this observation vs. 14
sqq., it is
7th ed. no longer I that do the evil, i.e. I can no longer consider myself
the primary cause of it, cf. vs. 20. Rom. xi. 6 ei dè xáρiтi, oνKéтI
χάριτι, οὐκέτι
1 In Aristot. Pol. 3, 7 ås örɩ is used differently; that is, is corresponds to an ante-
cedent οὕτως.
2 For separated, so that Er in the course of the sentence resumes ás, both particles
were used at an early period, Schoem. Isae. p. 294; Jacobs, Achill. Tat. p. 566.
§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE.
619
¿§ épywv is: if by grace, then (it is) no more (further) of works,
i.e. the latter thought is annihilated by the former, it can no longer
exist. Rom. xiv. 13, 15; 2 Cor. i. 23; Gal. ii. 20; iii. 18 are
plain. In Jno. iv. 42 oйkéтi derives elucidation from vs. 41,
where διὰ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ is antithetical to διὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς
γυναικός vs. 39; two motives for πιστεύειν are distinguished,
an earlier and a later. As to Jno. xv. 15 see Lücke. Moreover,
Xen. A. 1, 10, 12 cannot be adduced in support of such a use of
Oỷkétɩ, and still less (µnkéтi) Xen. Eph. 1, 13 (in Paus. 8, 28, 2
recent editors give our eσт, yet see Siebelis in loc.). Cf. also
Lucian. Parasit. 12; Sext. Emp. Math. 2, 47; Arrian. Epict. 3,
22, 86. Likewise on Aelian. Anim. 4, 3 Jacobs admits that ovKÉTI
is used for the simple negation paullo majore cum vi.
§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES
(BREVILOQUENCE, CONSTRUCTIO PRAEGNANS, ATTRACTION,
ETC.).
1. The inherent predilection of the Greeks for terseness aud
compactness of discourse exhibits itself even in prose in various
modes of expression, some of which are to be found in the N. T.
They all, however, agree in this, that an intermediate member
not absolutely essential to the sense is omitted, and the other
parts of the sentence are drawn together into one compound whole.
Cf. Mtth. 1533 ff.; Doederlein, de brachylogia serm. gr. et lat. 546
Erlang. 1831. 4to. This breviloquence is akin to ellipsis, yet
different from it, inasmuch as in an elliptical sentence the gram-
matical structure always indicates the omission of a definite
individual word, while in breviloquence the break is always
covered up by the structure.
To breviloquence belong the following cases:
a. To a protasis is joined an apodosis without a direct connection:
Rom. xi. 18 εἰ δὲ κατακαυχᾶσαι, οὐ σὺ τὴν ῥίζαν βαστάζεις, ἀλλὰ ἡ
píla oé but if thou... then know or reflect that, not thou, etc.
1 Cor. xi. 16. The full structure would be: ἴσθι (διανοοῦ), ὅτι
où σú etc.; cf. Clem. ad Cor. I. 55. The sentence could not be
called elliptical unless it ran thus: εἰ δὲ κατακ., ὅτι οὐ σύ etc. ;
then or would point to an actually omitted word, such as, know
or consider. In like manner, in Latin, scito is often suppressed
between the protasis and the apodosis, Cic. or. 2, 12, 51. Cf. also
1 Jno. v. 9 εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία
ή
6th ed
642
020
$ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE.
1
576 τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν, we must consider that the testimony of God
7th ed. etc., or, we must much more receive the testimony of God, which
etc.; 1 Cor. ix. 17. (In Rom. ii. 14, however (Fr.), the protasis
and the apodosis are connected without any difficulty.) In Matt.
ix. 6 ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε, ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ... (τότε
λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ ἐγερθεὶς ἂρόν σου τὴν κλίνην, where the
words inserted by the Evangelist do not belong to the structure
of the sentence: that ye may know... stand thou
stand thou up and take etc.,
i.e. the paralytic shall at my command immediately rise up, I
command the paralytic: Stand up etc. (analogous to this are the
constructions so frequent in the orators, such as Dem. cor. 329 c.
ἵνα τοίνυν εἰδῆτε, ὅτι αὐτός μοι μαρτυρεῖ . . . λαβὼν ἀνάγνωθι τὸ
Výpioμa öλov, see Kypke and Fr. in loc.). Jno. ix. 36 kaì Tis
ἐστι, κύριε, ἵνα πιστεύσω εἰς αὐτόν ; sc. I wish to know, in order
that etc., cf. i. 22.
A breviloquence similar to that in sentences with iva takes place when
through a an event is referred to a prophetic prediction, as in Jno.
xv. 25; xiii. 18; Mark xiv. 49; cf. 1 Cor. ii. 9., Yet in such passages
what is wanting before iva may usually be supplied from the preceding
context, see Fr. exc. 1. ad Matt. p. 841.
b. To a general predicate, the appropriate verb of which is
omitted, a special verb (with its predicate) is directly annexed:
Phil. iii. 13 f. ἐγὼ ἐμαυτὸν οὐ λογίζομαι κατειληφέναι, ἓν δέ, τὰ μὲν
ὀπίσω ἐπιλανθανόμενος, τοῖς δὲ . . . κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω etc. for ἓν δὲ
ποιῶ, κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω, cf. Liv. 35, 11 in eos se impetum facturum
et nihil prius (facturum), quam flammam tectis injecturum.
2 Cor. vi. 13 τὴν δὲ αὐτὴν ἀντιμισθίαν... πλατύνθητε καὶ
ὑμεῖς fur τὸ δὲ αὐτό ὅ ἐστιν ἀντιμισθία etc. see Fr. diss, in 2 Cor.
II. 115; as to the Acc., however, cf. Hm. opusc. I. 168 sq. Similar
is Jude 5 ὅτι ὁ κύριος λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον
643 τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν. Here the verb to be connected
547 with τὸ δεύτ. would properly have been οὐκ ἔσωσε (ἀλλά etc.) :
6th ed. the Lord, after having delivered them, did, on a second occasion
(when they were in need of his helping grace), refuse them his
delivering grace and destroy them etc. Cf. further Rom. xi. 23
δυνατός ἐστιν ὁ θεὸς πάλιν ἐγκεντρίσαι αὐτούς. The αὐτοί are
those that grew upon the stock Kaтà púσw; they therefore cannot
be ingrafted on the stock again. In strictness the language ought
to run: again to unite them to the stock, viz. by ingrafting.
880
On the other hand, Col. iii. 25 ὁ ἀδικῶν κομιεῖται ὃ ἠδίκησε could hardly
in accordance with the genius of the Greek language be regarded as
§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE.
621
brachylogical. It denotes (according to the signification of koμíšeobα)
pretty nearly: he will reap the wrong; not that he will suffer the same
wrong which he has committed, but its fruits, the reward of it, the wrong
in the form of penalty. Cf. Eph. vi. 8. Similar to this are Juo. xii. 5
διὰ τί τοῦτο τὸ μύρον οὐκ ἐπράθη . . . καὶ ἐδόθη πτωχοῖς ; - and (the proceeds) 577
given to the poor (strictly, and in the form of money arising from the sale 7th ed
given to the poor), and 1 Cor. xv. 37.
...
c. Acts i. 1 ὧν ἤρξατο ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν ἄχρι ἧς
ýµépas etc., i.e. what Jesus began, and consequently continued,
to do and to teach until the day etc. (vs. 22?); much like Luke
xxiii. 5 διδάσκων καθ' ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας, ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλι
Xalas éws ¿de beginning from Galilee and continuing to this place,
and Matt. xx. 8; Jno. viii. 9; Strabo 12, 541. The construction
proposed for these last passages by Fr. : διδάσκων ἕως ὧδε, ἀρξάμ.
ȧπò т. Taλiλ. (Lucian. somn. 15), is too artificial. The assertion
of Valckenaer, however, and Kühnöl, that in Acts i. 1 äpxeolaí is
pleonastic, seems to be a mere makeshift.
2. Brachylogy appears with especial frequency, and was noticed
by the ancient grammarians,
d. in what is called constructio praegnans (which connects a
preposition with a verb that includes another as consecutive); as,
2 Tim. iv. 18 owσei eis Tηv Baoiλelav will save me into his kingdom,
i.e. save me, translating me into etc. Acts xxiii. 24; 1 Pet. iii. 20
(Her. 7, 230; Xen. A. 2, 3, 11; Polyb. 8, 11; Lucian. asin. 56
etc., cf. my 5th comment. de verb. compos. p. 9), 2 Tim. ii. 26
ἀνανήψωσιν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου παγίδος, Matt. v. 22 ἔνοχος ἔσται
εἰς τὴν γέενναν (§ 31, 5 p. 213), Rom. viii. 21 ἐλευθερωθήσεται ἀπὸ
τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης etc. (see Fr.
in loc.), Acts v. 37 ἀπέστησε λαὸν ἱκανὸν ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ, ΣΣ. 30;
2 Cor. xi. 3 μήπως . . . φθαρῇ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος,
Tà
Acts viii. 40 Þín. evpéon eis "AÇ@TOV (Rom. vii. 10).
Acts xxiii. 11; Luke iv. 38; xviii. 3; Gal. v. 4;
ix. 3 (xv. 28); xvi. 20; 1 Cor. xii. 13; xv. 54; 2 Cor. x. 5; Heb. 644
ii. 3; x. 22; Eph. ii. 15; 1 Tim. v. 15; 1 Pet. iii. 10. According
to some, Heb. v. 7 also comes under this head, see Bleek in loc.
(Ps. xxii. 22 Hebr.; Ps. cxvii. 5 Sept.); with more certainty
Mark vii. 4¹ does. This species of conciseness occurs frequently
1
See, further,
Rom. vii. 2;
1 The passage must be rendered: (on returning) from the market (like Arrian. Epict.
3, 19, 5 ἂν μὴ εὕρωμεν φαγεῖν ἐκ βαλανείου), if they have not washed themselves, they
eat not. To refer BarTlowvTaι to the food (as Kühnöl does), would be opposed not so
much by the usus loquendi (for Barrioμós, derived from Barrí§., is in vs. 4 obviously
622
§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE.
548 in Greek prose, cf. Markland, Eurip. suppl. 1205; Stallb. Plat.
6th ed. Euthyphr. p. 60; Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 292 sq.; on the Hebr., how-
ever, see Ewald S. 620. Expressions such as κρύπτειν οι κλείειν
τι ἀπό τινος (1 Jno. iii. 17), μετανοεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς κακίας (Acts viii. 22)
578 or ẻk тŵv epywv etc. (Rev. ix. 20 f.; xvi. 11), åπoßλéπelv and
7th ed. ȧpopâv eis Heb. xi. 26; xii. 2, πаρaλaµßávei eis Matt. iv. 5,
ἀσφαλίζεσθαι τοὺς πόδας εἰς τὸ ξύλον (Acts xvi. 24), συγκλείειν
TOÙS TÚVτas els àπeibelav (Rom. xi. 32), originate in like manner
from a constructio praegnans, though by us it is scarcely felt.
On BaTTilew Twvà els Tiva, see Fr. Rom. I. 359. In general, cf.
βαπτίζειν
further Fr. Mr. p. 322, also § 50, 4 p. 413 sq.
τινα,
ǹ
e. in what is called Zeugma (synizesis), when two nouns are
construed with a single verb, though only one of them, the first,
directly suits it (cf. Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 429 sq.): 1 Cor. iii. 2 yáλa
ὑμᾶς ἐπότισα, οὐ βρῶμα, where ἐπότισα suits γάλα only, and for
Вpôμa we must educe from this verb the idea to feed, cf. Acta
apocr. p. 60 ; Luke i. 64 ανεώχθη τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ . . . καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα
avтoû, where properly éλúen (cf. Mark vii. 35) must be understood
for yλwooa (and a few authorities have it), see Raphel in loc.1
In 1 Tim. iv. 3 κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων, the word
κελευόντων (or with the Scholiast in Matthaei εἰςηγουμένων) must
be deduced from кwλ. (i.q. кeλevew μn) for the latter Inf.; [in the
same way in 1 Thess. ii. 8 the simple verb Soûval from the foregoing
compound μεταδοῦναι must be supplied with ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν
ψυχάς]. And lastly, 1 Cor. xiv. 34. Cf. Soph. Oed. R. 242;
Eurip. Phoen. 1223; Plat. rep. 2, 374 b. (yet see Stallb. in loc.);
645 Protag. p. 327 c.; Demosth. cor. § 55, see Dissen in loc.; Arrian.
Al. 7, 15, 5. In Greek authors, sometimes from the first verb
must be deduced one of exactly the opposite import for the second
member of the sentence, Kühner II. 604; Stallb. Plat. Cratyl.
p. 169. This was applied to Jas. i. 9, 10, where it was thought
ταπεινούσθω (or αἰσχυνέσθω) was to be understood with ὁ δὲ
applied to things), or by the Mid. voice, for this might signify wash for themselves, as
by the circumstance that in this way a very ordinary thought, and an unexpected one
in the connection, is introduced. For, the washing of articles of food brought from
the market was not a mere precept of Pharisaism, but a proceeding required by the
nature of the case and by the spirit of the Mosaic laws concerning purification.
1 That άvolyew yλwoσav could be employed in plain prose is not proved by what
has been adduced by Segaar in loc. We may remark also, in passing, that the zeugma
usually quoted from Her. 4, 106 disappears in the edition by Schweighäus. in which
the text is : ἐσθῆτα δὲ φορέουσι . . . γλῶσσαν δὲ ἰδίην ἔχουσι. As, however, there is
dè
dè
no MS. authority for exovo, later editors have with reason declined to follow him.
2 The passage quoted by Hottinger in loc. from Plat. rep. 2, 367 d. runs as follows,
§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE.
623
1 p.
Thouolos. But this is unnecessary; and the thought is finer if
Kavɣáo0w is made to apply also to the second member, see my
Observ. in ep. Jac. p. 6. On 1 Cor. vii. 19 see above, § 64, 583.
For examples of Greek and Latin zeugmata, see d'Orville, Charit.
p. 440 sq.; Wyttenb. Plut. moral. I. 189 sq. ed. Lips.; Schaef.
Dion. p. 105; Engelhardt, Plat. apol. p. 221; Bremi, exc. 3 ad
Lys.; Vlc. Fritzsche, quaest. Lucian. p. 132; Funkhaenel, Demosth.
Androt. p. 70; Hand, lat. Styl. p. 424 f.
6th ed
f. in comparisons (Jacobs, Anthol. pal. III. 63, 494; Achill. 549
Tat. p. 747; Fr. Mr. p. 147), i.e. with the Comparative (cf. § 35,
5 p. 245) and in constructions with adjectives of resemblance, e.g.
Rev. xiii. 11 εἶχε κέρατα δύο ὅμοια ἀρνίῳ (properly ἀρνίου 579
répaσı),¹ as in Iliad. 17, 51 Kóμaι Xapíтeoσw óµoîaι, Wisd. ii. 15; 7th ed
vii. 3; 2 Pet. i. 1 τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσι πίστιν (for ἰσότ. τῇ
ἡμῶν πίστει, Jude 7. Cf. also Xen. Cyr. 5, 1, 3 όμοίαν ταῖς δούλαις
εἶχε τὴν ἐσθῆτα, 6. 1, 50 ἅρματα ἐκ τοῦ ἱππικοῦ τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ ὅμοια
ἐκείνῳ (i.e. τοῖς ἐκείνου), Iliad. 1, 163 οὐ μέν σοί ποτε ἴσον ἔχω
yépas (i.e. loov T σ), Arrian. Epict. 1, 14, 11; Mtth. 1016.
This breviloquence in comparisons is, however, in the Greek
authors much more diversified still, see Xen. Cyr. 5, 4, 6; 2, 1, 15;
Hier. 1, 38; Isocr. Evag. c. 14; Diod. S. 3, 18; Ael. anim. 4, 21;
Dion. H.I.111; see Wyttenb. Plut. Mor. I. 480 sq.; Schaef. Apollon.
Rhod. II. 164; melet. p. 57; Demosth. III. 463; Stallb. Plat.
Protag. p. 153; rep. I. 134, also Heinichen, Euseb. II. 154. In
the N. T. under this head come also 1 Jno. iii. 11 f. avтη ½ åɣyeλía
ἣν ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους· οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν
ẻk Toû πovηpoû v etc. Strictly, there is nothing to be supplied
ὦμεν οι ποιῶμεν would not suit ού), but the comparison is
expressed carelessly, and the reader easily sets it to rights for
himself: that we love each other, not as Cain was of the wicked one 646
etc. will, or should, it be with us.²
Luke xiii. 1 ὧν τὸ αἷμα Πιλᾶτος ἔμιξε μετὰ τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν (for μετὰ
in the recent editions, agreeably to MS. authority: Toût oùv aùtò éñaíveσov dikaloσúvns,
Ὁ αὐτὴ δι᾽ αὑτὴν τὸν ἔχοντα ὀνίνησι καὶ ἀδικία βλάπτει; and is thus no longer
similar.
1 Rev. ix. 10 probably does not come under this head. The comparing of tails to
scorpions is nearly in the style of the poet, and is sustained by other passages, see
vs. 19 and cf. Züllig in loc.
4 Cf. Demosth. Mid. p. 415 a. οὐ γὰρ ἐκ πολιτικῆς αἰτίας, οὐδ᾽ ὥσπερ ᾿Αριστοφῶν ἀποδοὺς
τοὺς στεφάνους ἔλυσε τὴν προβολήν not on account of a political offence, and did not like A.
...quash the proceeding, i.e. nor acting in the way by which A. quashed the im-
peachment. In opposition to Reiske, who would here insert ös, see Spalding in loc.
624
§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE.
580
τοῦ αἵματος τῶν θ. 3) may also be referred to this head, though not neces-
sarily; see Meyer.
3. g. It may be considered as breviloquence also, when a word
which should have a clause of its own is directly appended (or
even prefixed) to a clause as an apposition; e.g. 2 Tim. ii. 14;
Rom. viii. 3 etc. (see § 59, 9 p. 533) and (according to the usual
reading) Mark vii. 19 εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζον
πάντα τὰ βρώματα. Akin to this is the proleptic use of adjectiva
effectus (in a sort of apposition), as in Soph. Oed. Col. 1202 τῶν
σῶν ἀδέκτων ὀμμάτων τητώμενος for ὥςτε γενέσθαι ἄδερκτα.
This usage is not merely poetic and oratorical, Schaef. Demosth.
I. 239; V. 641; Erfurdt, Soph. Antig. 786; Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 278;
Heller, Soph. Oed. Col. p. 522 sqq.,- but is used also in prose, Ast,
Plat. legg. p. 150 sq.; Plat. polit. p. 592; Vlc. Fritzsche, quaestion.
550 Lucian. p. 39, 57; Weber, Demosth. 497. See, in general, Meyer
6th ed. de epithet. ornantt. p. 24 and Alilemeyer Pr. on the poetic prolepsis
of the Adject. Paderborn 1827. 4to. From the N. T. might be
referred to this head, Matt. xii. 13 (ἡ χείρ) ἀπεκατεστάθη ὑγιής
(Bornem. schol. p. 39; Stallb. Plat. Protag. p. 76; my Simonis
p. 262), Rom. i. 21 ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία, 2 Cor.
iv. 4 θεὸς ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων, 1 Thess. iii. 13
στηρίξαι τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν ἀμέμπτους etc., Phil. iii. 21 μετα-
σχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα... ἡμῶν σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι etc. (where
some Codd. subjoin after ἡμῶν: εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτό), 1 Cor. i. 8.
This construction, however, is hardly admissible, at least in respect
to Rom. i. and 2 Cor. iv. In the former passage the import of
ἀσύνετος (having reference to ἐματαιώθησαν preceding is less
strong than that of σκοτίζεσθαι (as Flatt perceived), and in 2 Cor.
Paul probably conceives of enlightenment as proceeding from a
general faith in Christ. Because they did not turn to Christ, but
at once rejected him, they did not obtain enlightenment.
7th ed.
With the instances first adduced must be classed also Luke xxiv. 47
ἔδει παθεῖν Χριστὸν ... καὶ ἀναστῆναι . . . καὶ κηρυχθῆναι ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ
647 μετάνοιαν, . . . ἀρξάμενον ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλήμ, where the participle (as frequently
ἐξόν, παρόν Vig. p. 329) is used absolutely and impersonally: whilst (so
that it was begun, cf. Her. 3, 91 ἀπὸ δὲ Ποσειδηίου πόλιος . . . ἀρξάμενον
ἀπὸ ταύτης μέχρι Αἰγύπτου . . . πεντήκοντα καὶ τριηκόσια τάλαντα φόρος ἦν,
see J. L. Schlosser, vindicat. N. T. locor., quor. integritatem J. Marcland.
suspectam reddere non dubitavit (Hamb. 1732. 4to.) p. 18 sq. This
English critic (ad Lysiam p. 653, Reiske VI.) wanted to read ἀρξαμένων.
A sort of breviloguence occurs in Acts i. 21 ἐν παντὶ χρόνῳ, ἐν ᾧ εἰς
§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE.
625
8
ῆλθε καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς for εἰσῆλθε ἐφ' ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐξῆλθε
åpμv. But such diffuseness would have been intolerable to every
classic author also, cf. Eurip. Phoen. 536 és olkovs eisîλße kaì ¿λ (where
to be sure the arrangement is more simple) and Valcken. in loc. See
also Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 289.
Note. In Acts x. 39 there would in like manner be a brachylogy in the
words καὶ ἡμεῖς μάρτυρες πάντων ὧν ἐποίησεν ..., ὃν καὶ (the reading
according to the best authorities [Cod. Sin. also]) ȧveiλov крeμáσaνtes éπì
gúλov, if the meaning were: we are witnesses of all that he did, also of this,
that they put him to death. But this acceptation is not necessary. Besides,
whatever opinion others may hold, kai here means nothing else than
etiam (adeo), and the rendering tamen (Kühnöl) is in this connection
very doubtful. Likewise Luke xxiv. 21 τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει σήμερον,
cf. 2 Cor. xii. 14; xiii. 1, could only be regarded as a brachylogy by taking
German as the standard. In Greek the numeral was considered simply
as a predicative adjunct, cf. Achill. Tat. 7, 11 Jac. Tpirn Taúrηv пμépav
γέγονεν ἀφανής, Dion. Hal. IV. 2005 τριακοστόν ἔτος τοῦτο ἀνεχόμεθα etc.
sce Bornem. Luc. p. 161 and on analogous cases Krü. 237. Further,
there is no brachylogy in 1 Cor. i. 12 ἕκαστος ὑμῶν λέγει· ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι
Παύλου, ἐγὼ δὲ ᾿Απολλώ, ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ, ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ. In these four 581
statements Paul intended to comprehend all the declarations current in 7th ed
the church respecting religious partisanship; each uses one of the following 551
expressions. Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 26. Lastly, 1 Cor. vi. 11 Taûrá tives ỷte,
rightly understood, contains no brachylogy, see § 58, 3 p. 513.
6th ed.
4. But the Greek language has a method of blending sentences
and parts of sentences so as to give discourse still greater com-
pactness and conciseness, viz. by means of what is called Attraction
(Bttm. Gr. § 538, 1), which can be termed a species of brachylogy
only under one point of view. The name of Attraction, as is well
known, has been given by modern grammarians to that mode of
expression by means of which two portions of discourse (especially
clauses), logically (in sense) connected, are also grammatically
(formally) blended. A word (or assemblage of words), which
properly belongs to but one of these portions (clauses), is gram- 648
matically extended to the other, and so applies to both at once
(to the one clause, logically, and to the other, grammatically), as
urbem, quam statuo, vestra est; where urbs properly belongs to
vestra est (for there are two propositions: urbs vestra est, and
quam statuo), but is attracted by the relative clause and incorpo-
rated into it, so as now to belong to both clauses, logically to vestra
est, and grammatically to quam statuo. See Hm. Vig. p. 891 sqq.,¹
1 Hm. as above: Est attractio in eo posita, si quid eo, quod simul ad duas orationis
partes refertur, ad quarum alteram non recte refertur, ambas in unam conjungit. Cf.
79
626
§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE.
in particular G. T. A. Krüger, gramm. Untersuch. 3 Theil. The
copious diversity of this mode of expression encountered in Greek
authors, does not, indeed, occur in the N. T.; yet even there we
find not a few instances of attraction which were not recognized
as such by the carlier expositors, and which, to say the least,
created no small difficulty in interpretation (see e.g. W. Bowyer,
Conjectur. I. 147).
5. Attraction in general, so far as it affects the connection of
sentences or clauses, may be reduced to three principal sorts:
Either, 1. something is attracted from the dependent by the prin-
cipal clause; or, 2. the principal clause transfers something to
the dependent (accessory) clause; or, 3. two clauses, predicated
of one and the same subject, are blended into one.
The 1st sort comprehends such constructions as the following:
a. 1 Cor. xvi. 15 οἴδατε τὴν οἰκίαν Στεφανᾶ ὅτι ἐστὶν ἀπαρχὴ
Tîs ’Axalas, Acts ix. 20 èkýpvoσev tòv ’Inooûv öti oûtós ẻotiv å viòs
TOû coû. This is very frequent, when objective clauses follow a
verb of observing, knowing, showing, or declaring, as Mark xi. 32;
xii. 34; Acts iii. 10; iv. 13; xiii. 32; xv. 36; xvi. 3; xxvi. 5;
1 Cor. iii. 20; xiv. 37; 2 Cor. xii. 3 f.; 1 Thess. ii. 1; 2 Thess.
582 ii. 4; Jno. iv. 35; v. 42; vii. 27; viii. 54 (Arrian. Al. 7, 15, 7);
7th ed. xi. 31; Rev. xvii. 8 (Gen. i. 4; 1 Macc. xiii. 53; 2 Macc. ii. 1;
1 Kings v. 3; xi. 28, etc.). Also when interrogative clauses follow,
552 as Luke iv. 34 oîdú σe, tís eî, Mark i. 24 (see Heupel and Fr. in
6th ed. loc.; Boissonade, Philostr. cpp. p. 143), Luke xix. 3 ¿deîv tòv’Inσoûv,
Tís ÈOTI, cf. Schaef. ind. Aesop. p. 127;1 Jno. vii. 27 TOûTOV
οἴδαμεν, πόθεν ἐστίν (Kypke in loc.), Acts xv. 36 ἐπισκεψώμεθα
τοὺς ἀδελφούς ... πῶς ἔχουσι, 2 Cor. xiii. 5 ; Jno. xiii. 28
(Achill. Tat. 1, 19; Theophr. char. 21; Philostr. ep. 64). And
the same form of anticipation occurs from clauses with iva, un etc.
649 Col. iv. 17 βλέπε τὴν διακονίαν, ἵνα αὐτὴν πληροῖς, Rev. iii. 9 ποιήσω
αὐτούς, ἵνα ἥξουσι, Gal. vi. 1 σκοπῶν σεαυτόν, μὴ καὶ σὺ πειρασθῇς,
iv. 11 φοβοῦμαι ὑμᾶς, μήπως εἰκῆ κεκοπίακα εἰς ὑμᾶς (cf. Diod. S.
4, 40 τὸν ἀδελφὸν εὐλαβεῖσθαι, μήποτε . . . ἐπίθηται τῇ βασιλείᾳ,
tòv
Soph. Oed. R. 760 δέδοικ᾽ ἐμαυτόν μὴ πόλλ᾽ ἄγαν εἰρημέν᾽ ᾖ μοι,
Thuc. 3, 53 ; Ignat. ad Rom. I. φοβοῦμαι τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην, μὴ
avτý µe ȧdikńon, Varro R. R. 3, 10, 6; Caes. b. gall. 1, 39; cf.
Krü. S. 164 f.). In the Passive 1 Cor. xv. 12 XpiσтÒS KηρÚσσETαι
•
Krüg. as above, S. 39 f. Many draw a distinction between assimilation and attraction,
cf. Hand, Lat. Styl. 376 ff.
11 Cor. xv. 2 does not come under this head, sec § 61,7 p 561.
§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE.
627
ŏтɩ èk vekρŵv èyýyepтal. See, in general, J. A. Lelimann de graec.
ling. transp. (Danz. 1832. 4to.) p. 18 sqq.; Schwartz, de soloec.
p. 97.1 As to Hebr. see Gesen. Lgb. 854.
b. Rom. i. 22 φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράνθησαν, 2 Pet. ii. 21
κρεῖττον ἦν αὐτοῖς μὴ ἐπεγνωκέναι ... ἢ ἐπιγνοῦσιν ἐπιστρέψαι
etc. § 44, 2 p. 320; Kühner II. 355. This sort of attraction has
not been adopted in Acts xv. 22, 25 (Elsner, obs. I. 428 sq.) ;
xxvi. 20; Heb. ii. 10; 1 Pet. iv. 3; Luke i. 74; cf. Bremi, Aeschin.
fals. leg. p. 196.
c. Acts xvi. 34 ἠγαλλιάσατο πεπιστευκὼς τῷ θεῷ, 1 Cor.
xiv. 18 εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ πάντων ὑμῶν μᾶλλον γλώσσαις λαλῶν
(var.), see § 45, 4 p. 345.
d. The most simple attraction, but one of very frequent occur-
rence, is that in which a relative, instead of being put in the case
(Acc.) required by the verb of the relative clause, is made to
correspond to the verb of the principal clause, and consequently
is put in the case governed by it: Juo. ii. 22 ἐπίστευσαν τῷ λόγῳ
@ eiπev (for ov), see § 24, 1 p. 163.
e. Lastly, under this head would come 1 Pet. iv. 3 åρкeтòS Ó
παρεληλυθὼς χρόνος τὸ βούλημα τῶν ἐθνῶν κατειργάσθαι, if, with
Wall, we were to resolve it thus: ἀρκετόν ἐστιν ἡμῖν, τὸν χρόνον .
kareupy. cf. Bttm. § 138, 1, 7 But there is no need of such nicety.
On the other hand it should not be said that in Phil. i. 7 SíkaιOV
ἐμοὶ τοῦτο φρονείν etc. attraction is neglected (δίκαιός είμι τ.
opov.) Mtth. 756, for the Greeks also use dikaιóv OT with the
Infin. impersonally; only they are less accustomed to connect
with it the Dat. of the person, than to connect the personal word
with the Infin. and put it in the Acc. Her. 1, 39. The former is
the more simple and natural construction.
2) The simplest form in which a subordinate clause exerts an 583
attraction on the principal clause is when the relative pronoun, 7:b ed
which should agree in number and gender with the noun of the
principal clause, agrees in these respects with the noun of the
subordinate clause ; as, 1 Tim. iii. 15 ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶν
ἐκκλησία, Rom. ix. 24 (σκεύη ἐλέους) οὓς καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς. In
the following cases the attraction is carried still farther:
1 Anticipation is properly to be admitted only when the author applied beforehand
to the subject the subsequent predication in the accessory clause. On the contrary,
particularly when parenthetic clauses intervene, e.g. Acts xv. 36 the construction
ἐπισκεψώμεθα τοὺς ἀδελφούς may at first have been alone intended, and πῶς ἔχουσιν
subjoined merely for further explanation.
628
§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE.
650
a. 1 Cor. x. 16 τὸν ἄρτον δν κλῶμεν οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ
σώματος etc., Juo. vi. 29 ἵνα πιστεύσητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος,
sec § 24, 2 a. pp. 164, 166, or Mark vi. 16 òv ẻyà ảπekeþúλioα
'Iwávvηv, ovтós éσTw, see § 24, 2 b. p. 164, cf. Matt. vii. 9.
b. 1 Jno. ii. 25 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία, ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο
ἡμῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον for ζωή in apposition to ἐπαγγελία
553 (see § 59, 7 p. 530), Philem. 10 f.; Rom. iv. 24 àλλà xaì di' nµâs, ols
μέλλει λογίζεσθαι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν etc. (Rev. xvii. 8 var. ?).
Luther understood Phil. iii. 18 also thus. Cf. further, Fr. Mr.
328; Stallb. Plat. rep. I. 216; II. 146; Kühn. II. 515.
6th ed.
e. Matt. x. 25 ἀρκετὸν τῷ μαθητῇ, ἵνα γένηται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος
αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὁ δοῦλος ὡς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ for καὶ τῷ δούλῳ (ἵνα γέν.)
ὡς ὁ κύρ. etc.
d. Rom. iii. 8 τί ἔτι ἐγὼ ὡς ἁμαρτωλὸς κρίνομαι ; καὶ μή, καθὼς
βλασφημούμεθα καὶ καθὼς φασί τινες ἡμᾶς λέγειν, ὅτι ποιήσωμεν
τὰ κακά, ἵνα etc., where the apostle ought to have made ποιεῖν
κакá еtс. dependent on kaì μn, but, misled by the parenthesis,
appends it to λéyew in oratio recta. The same construction occurs
not unfrequently in Greek authors, particularly in connection
with a relative clause, see Hm. Vig. 743; Krüg. Unters. 457 ff. ;
Dissen, Dem. cor. 177, and on the Latin usage, Beier, Cic. off. I.
50 sq.; Grotefend, ausf. Gr. 462 f.
3) Two interrogative clauses following one another as predicates
of one and the same subject are blended into one; as, Acts xi. 17
ἐγὼ δὲ τίς ἤμην δυνατὸς κωλύσαι τὸν θεόν ; but I, who was I? had
I power to withstand God? Cf. Cic. N. D. 1, 27, 78 quid censes,
si ratio esset in belluis, non suo quasque generi plurimum tributuras
fuisse? Luke xix. 15 Tís Tí dɩeπpayμateúσaтo; Mark xv. 24
Tís Ti äρn; see Hm. Soph. Aj. 1164; Eurip. Io 807; Lob. Soph.
Aj. 454 sq.; Ellendt, lexic. Soph. II. 824; Weber, Demosth. p. 348
(as to Latin, Grotefend, ausf. Gram. II. 96; Kritz, Sallust. I. 211).
For other modes of blending interrogative clauses by attraction,
see Kühner II. 588 f. An interrogative and a relative clause
are blended in Luke xvi. 2 Tí TOûтo άkoúw teρì σoû; quid est quod
de te audio, see Bornem. in loc. Similar is Acts xiv. 15 rí Taûta
ποιείτε ;
Luke i. 73 also I consider as an attraction: prova dialýкns ȧyías
αὑτοῦ, ὅρκον (for ὅρκου) ὃν ὤμοσε etc. Others, as Kühnol, find here a
double construction of µvnovai, which in the Sept. is also construed with
the Acc. Gen. ix. 16; Exod. xx. 8, a view previously adopted by ar
651 anonymous writer in the Alt. und Neu. for 1735. S. 336 f. 2 Pet. ii. 12
§ 68. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE.
629
å
ἐν οἷς ἀγνοοῦσι βλασφημοῦντες is probably to be resolved: ἐν τούτοις, ἃ 584
ἀγνοοῦσι, βλασφ. A similar construction, βλασφ. εἴς τινα, is of frequent th ed
occurrence (§ 32, 1 p. 222), cf. 2 Sam. xxiii. 9, p Isa. viii. 21
(to which perhaps may be compared also pukтnpićew ev tiɩ 3 Esr. i. 49;
see, on the other hand, 2 Chron. xxxvi, 16), though ảyvoeîv ev TIVI
also is not without example in later writers; see Fabricii Pseudepigr.
II. 717.
τινι
6. But attraction is also confined to a single clause. In this
case it is especially noticeable that two local prepositions are
blended into one, and thus the clause gains in terseness (Hm.
Vig. 893), Luke xi. 13 ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει πνεῦμα ἅγιον
for ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν οὐρανῷ δώσει ἐξ οὐρανοῦ πν. ἅγ., [Matt. xxiv. 17
τὰ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ for τὰ ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας,] Col. iv. 16
τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἐπιστολὴν ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀναγνῶτε (not the letter
written from Laodicea, but) the letter written to Laodicea and
sent again from Laodicea.¹ Cf. besides, Luke ix. 61 (Mark v. 26). 554
So too with adverbs of place, as an instance of which may be 6th ed.
considered Luke xvi. 26 oi ékeilev (Franke, Demosth. p. 13).
With passages of the former class may also be numbered Heb.
xiii. 24 ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰταλίας (i.e. οἱ ἐν τῇ Ιταλία
¿πò TÊS 'ITAλías); yet it might be also rendered: those from Italy,
the Italian Christians (who were with the writer of the letter).
A critical argument concerning the place where the letter was
written should never have been found in these words. On the
other hand 2 Cor. ix. 2 and Phil. iv. 22 are also intelligible with-
out assuming an attraction. Such condensed expression is very
frequent in Greek authors, cf. Xen. Cyr. 7, 2, 5 åρπaσóμevol tà
ἐκ τῶν οἰκιῶν, Thuc. 2, 80 ἀδυνάτων ὄντων ξυμβοηθεῖν τῶν ἀπὸ
θαλάσσης Ακαρνάνων, Demosth. Phil. III. 46 etc. τοὺς ἐκ Σεῤῥίου
τείχους . . . στρατιώτας ἐξέβαλεν, Paus. 4, 13, 1 ἀποῤῥίψαι τὰ ἀπὸ
Tηs Tраπéns, Demosth. Timocr. 483 b.; Xen. An. 1, 2, 18; Plat.
apol. p. 32 b.; Thuc. 3, 5; 7, 70; Lucian. eurruch. 12; Theophr.
char. 2; Xen. Eph, 1, 10; Isocr. ep. 7 p. 1012 (Judith viii. 17 ;
Sus. 26). See Fischer, Plat. Phaed. p. 318 sq.; Schaef. Demosth.
IV. 119; Hm. Soph. Electr. 135 and Aeschyl. Agam. vs. 516;
Ast, Theophr. char. p. 61; Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 176 sq.; III. II. 389;
Weber, Demosth. 191, 446.
7. On the other hand, sometimes a clause is grammatically 652
resolved into two, which are connected by κai: Rom. vi. 17 xápis
1 Ignorance of the frequency of this usage has determined several expositors, in spite
of the context, to adhere to the translation the epistle (written by Paul) from Laodicea
630
§ 66. CONDENSED AND EXPANDED STRUCTURE.
τῷ θεῷ, ὅτι ἦτε δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὑπηκούσατε δέ etc. (for which
ὄντες ποτὲ δοῦλοι τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑπηκούσατε ἐκ καρδίας might have
585 been used), Luke xxiv. 18 σὺ μόνος παροικεῖς ῾Ιερουσαλ. καὶ οὐκ
7th ed. yvws, where, in a language to which the participial construction
is peculiarly congenial, it would have been more correct to say:
σù μóvos пaροiкŵv 'Iep. oùk éyvws, Matt. xi. 25 probably also 1 Cor.
iv. 4. See Fr. Mt. pp. 287, 413; Gesen. on Isa. v. 4. Cf. with
this, what Bttm. § 136, 1 has remarked on clauses connected by
μév and dé; and as to parataxis in general, Kühner II. 415 f. In
some of these passages, however, the former construction may
have been adopted with the design of giving to the first clause its
full prominence. This becomes still more apparent from Jno. iii. 19
αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ κρίσις, ὅτι τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον καὶ ἠγάπησαν
οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος etc,, see BCrus. and in particular
Lücke in loc., cf. also vi. 50. Thus also John in vii. 4 ovdels tɩ èv
κρυπτῷ ποιεῖ καὶ ζητεῖ αὐτὸς ἐν παῤῥησίᾳ εἶναι prefers to com-
bine in parallelism the two irreconcilable acts (nobody does both
at the same time), than to write oudeis... Toleî nTwv autós etc.
ποιεῖ ζητῶν αὐτός
On Matt. xviii. 21 see above, § 45, note 2 p. 355. But in
1 Pct. iv. 6 the two clauses dependent on va are to be regarded
as co-ordinate; only in this connection spíveolar must be under-
stood correctly..
555
Corresponding to this idiom, only more limited, would be the figure of
6th ed. speech ev Sià Svoîv (hendiadys), by which instead of one substantive with
an adjective or Genitive (of quality) two substantives are used, the quality
of the thing being thus for the sake of emphasis raised to a grammatical
equality with the thing itself: pateris libamus et auro, i.e. pateris aureis.
This is substantially an appositive relation: pateris et quidem auro, pat.
h. e. auro, see Fr. exc. 4 ad Mt.; Teipel in the Archiv f. d. Stud. d. neuern
Sprachen 10 Bd. 1 Heft. For a more exact view of the subject, see
C. F. Müller in Schneidewin, Philol. VII. 297 ff. Expositors have in fact
asserted the existence of this figure in the N. T. (Glass. philol. sacra I.
18 sq.), and some of them in the most unmeasured and injudicious terms
(Heinrichs), e.g. Matt. iii. 11; Acts xiv. 13; Jno. i. 14; iii. 5; Heb. vi. 10.
But even a sifted collection of examples (Wilke, Rhet. S. 149) does not
furnish one that is unquestionable. Either the two notions connected
together are really distinct, as in 2 Tim. iv. 1; 2 Pet. i. 16; or the second
1 Others, as finally Fr. also, lay the stress on the Preterite Te, that ye WERE (that
this is past); and this exposition may urge the position of re in its favor.
But on
this interpretation Paul would at any rate have expressed himself somewhat artificially,
since re primarily designates their state only as having formerly existed, not from the
present point of view as terminated, (ye were servants, not ye have been).
§ 67. ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS. 631
substantive is epexegetical (consequently, supplementary), as in (Rom. 653
i. 5) Acts i. 25; xxiii. 6; Eph. vi. 18, cf. also 2 Cor. viii. 4 (κaí and indeed,
namely p. 437 c.), — a construction which, even though of the same genus
with hendiadys, is of a different species. (Interpreters have wholly erred
in wanting to find a hendiadys in the verb also, e.g. Phil. iv. 18.)
§ 67. ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS IN A
SENTENCE (HYPALLAGE).
1. Occasionally an irregularity may be noticed in the relation
of individual words in a sentence. This occurs sometimes as
constructio ad sensum (very frequent in Greek authors), - an
irregularity which, to the reader who attentively observes the
connection, cannot render the meaning either difficult or doubtful;
at other times it may be characterized as an inadvertence on the
part of the writer, who, busied with his thoughts, disregards
accuracy of expression.
We notice,
a. The constructio ad sensum (πρὸς τὸ σημαινόμενον οι κατὰ
σúveow), examples of which have already been adduced in con-
nection with the predicate and attributive § 58, and in connection
with the pronouns § 21 (cf. also Rev. iii. 4).
586
7th ed.
b. The subject is omitted, and has to be indirectly supplied
from the preceding context: 1 Cor. vii. 36 yaµeitwoav viz. the
two young persons who have associated together; as inferred
from the preceding mention of a marriageable daughter. In Gal.
i. 23 μόνον ἀκούοντες ἦσαν the notion of church members is to be
gathered from Taîs ÈKKλŋolais vs. 22 (cf. Caes. gall. 4, 14). There
would be a similar instance in 1 Tim. ii. 15, if in èàv μeivwow ev
πίστει the word τέκνα were to be supplied from τεκνογονίας pre-
ceding. This is grammatically admissible, cf. Plat. legg. 10
p. 886 d., where γενόμενοι is referred to θεογονίαν, as if the expres-
sion Dewv yéveσis had been employed, see Zell, Aristot. ethic.
p. 209; Poppo, Xen. Cyr. p. 29, 160; Küster (Reisig) Xen. Occon.
p. 247 sq., yet see above, § 58, 4 p. 516. In 1 Tim. v. 4 probably 556
for μανθανέτωσαν the subject χήραι is to be deduced from the
collective Tis xýpa, see Huther in loc., as a Plur: often refers to 654
Tís (Rev. xiv. 11), see Herbst, Xen. mem. p. 50. On the other
hand, in Rom. xiii. 6 λειτουργοὶ θεοῦ εἰσιν refers to οἱ ἄρχοντες vs. 3.
c. Sometimes there is a sudden change of subject: Jno. xix. 4 f.
ἐξῆλθεν οὖν πάλιν ὁ Πιλάτος καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Ἴδε ἄγω ὑμῖν
6th ed.
632
§ 67. ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS.
P
αὐτὸν ἔξω . . . ἐξῆλθεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἔξω . . . καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς νίκ.
Pilate, cf. xix. 38; Luke xix. 4 προδραμὼν . . . ἀνέβη ἐπὶ συκομορέαν
(Ζακχαῖος), ἵνα ἴδῃ αὐτόν (᾿Ιησοῦν), ὅτι ἐκείνης ἤμελλε (᾿Ιησοῦς)
Siéρxeobai, cf. xiv. 5; xv. 15; xvii. 2; Mark ix. 20; Acts vi. 6;
x. 4; Rom. x. 14 f.; Judith v. 8. On 1 Jno. v. 16, see § 58, 9
p. 523. In Greek prose authors this transition from one subject
to another is not uncommon: Her. 6, 30 ỏ dè (Histiaeus) our' àv
ἔπαθε κακὸν οὐδέν, δοκέειν ἐμοί, ἀπῆκέ (Darius) τ᾽ ἂν αὐτῷ τὴν αἰτίην,
Demosth. c. Phorm. p. 587 a. ὃς οὐκ ἔφασκεν οὔτε τὰ χρήματα έντε-
θεῖσθαι τοῦτον (Phormion), οὔτε τὸ χρυσίον ἀπειληφέναι (Lampis),
587 Plutarch. Poplic. compar. 5 ... πposéλaßev (Poplicola) ooa dóvтa
ἀγαπητὸν ἦν νικῆσαι· καὶ γὰρ τὸν πόλεμον διέλυσε (Porsena) etc.,
vit. Lysand. 24 ἄλλο δ᾽ οὐδὲν ἐχρήσατο (Agesil.) αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸν
πόλεμον· ἀλλὰ τοῦ Χρόνου διελθόντος ἀπέπλευσεν (Lysand.) εἰς
τὴν Σπάρτην etc., Ages. 40 τὴν βασιλείαν ᾿Αρχίδαμος . . . παρέλαβε,
καὶ (sc. αΰτη) διέμεινε τῷ γένει, Artax. 15 τοῦ κροτάφου τυχὼν
κατέβαλον τὸν ἄνδρα, καὶ τέθνηκεν (οὗτος) etc., Lysias caed. Eratosth.
10 ἵνα τὸν τιτθὴν αὐτῷ (παιδίῳ) διδῷ καὶ μὴ βοᾷ τὸ παιδ.). Cf.
Poppo, observ. in Thuc. p. 189; Schaef. Demosth. IV. 214 and
Plutarch. IV. 281, 331; V. 86, 295; Stallb. Plat. Gorg. 215;
Maetzner, Antiphon 145; Schoem. Is. 294. As to Hebrew usage,
see Gesen. Lgb. 803.
7th ed.
T
d. Words referring to something antecedent are used in a loose
reference. On aúrós see § 22, 3 p. 145 sq. So in Gal. ii. 2 auToîs
refers to 'Ieporóλvμa vs. 1, but the inhabitants are meant. Sim-
ilarly in Acts xvii. 16; 2 Pet. iii. 4 avroû is to be understood of
Christ, who has not been expressly named, but is intimated in
παρουσία. In Jno. xv. 6 αὐτά refers to the Sing. τὸ κλῆμα, which
is in apposition to εἴ τις. In Acts iv. 7 autoús, in a different way,
refers, not to avrov vs. 5, but to vss. 1 and 2. In Acts x. 7 avτ@
refers, not to Simon vs. 6, but to Cornelius vss. 1-5, as is indicated
even by some MSS., which read To Kopvnλío, a manifest gloss.
In Acts vii. 24 Taтágas тòv AlyÚTTIOV, no Egyptian had been pre-
viously mentioned; the ἀδικῶν is merely hinted in ἀδικούμενον,
and that he was an Egyptian is assumed as known from the con-
nection. Lastly, in 2 Jno. 7 ouros refers to Toλλoì Tλávo, and
sums up in one person the plurality. Vice versa, in 1 Jno. iv. 4
αὐτούς refers to ἀντιχρίστου vs. 3. The reference of αὐτοῦ in Jno.
655 xx. 7, of auтóv vs. 15, and of keîvoι Jno. vii. 45 to the nearest
subject, is more simple, see p. 157. It is an inaccuracy of con-
struction also when a pronoun, especially a relative, serves in a
§ 67. ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL Words.
633
single form for two cases 1 Cor. ii. 9 â óþ¤aλµòs oùk eldev kaì oûs
οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρ. οὐκ ἀνέβη Sept. Fundamentally
this falls under the class of constructions treated of in § 64, I. 1
p. 581 sqq. The like occurs frequently in Latin also, Kritz,
Sallust. I. p. 67; II. p. 295 sq.
e. Of two parallel members of a sentence, the first is sometimes ex-
pressed in such terms as to appear to comprehend the second, though
from the nature of the case that is impossible: Acts xxvii. 22 ¿roßoλǹ 557
ψυχῆς οὐδεμία ἔσται ἐξ ὑμῶν πλὴν τοῦ πλοίου would literally mean: there 6th ed
shall be no loss of life except of the ship; instead of which should have
been said there shall be no loss of life, only loss of the ship. Similar is
Gal. i. 19 ἕτερον τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ
Kupíov, if, with Fr. Matt. p. 482, we choose to render it: alium apostolum
non vidi, sed vidi Jacobum etc., that is, so that it would be necessary 588
merely to repeat eîdov with 'Iák. ; yet see my Comment. and Mey. in loc.¹ 7th ed
Nearly the same use of εἰ μή occurs in Rev. xxi. 27 οὐ μὴ εἰςέλθῃ . . . πᾶν
κοινὸν καὶ ὁ ποιῶν βδέλυγμα ... εἰ μὴ οἱ γεγραμμένοι ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς,
ei oi
where the γεγραμμένοι are not to be counted under πᾶν κοινόν. The
meaning is rather: nothing profane shall enter; only they who are written
etc. shall enter, ix. 4. Cf. 1 Kings iii. 18 ouk čotiv ovleis µeľ ηµŵv πaρèέ
ἀμφοτέρων ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ.
2. The very structure of the sentence has been disturbed by
the inadvertence of the writer in Luke xxiv. 27 ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ
Μωσέως καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν προφητῶν διηρμήνευεν αὐτοῖς ἐν πάσαις
ταῖς γραφαῖς τὰ περὶ αὑτοῦ. Here it can hardly be assumed that
to Moses and the prophets are opposed certain other books of the
O. T. to which Jesus passed, nor, with Kühnöl, that Jesus first
quoted the statements of the prophets, then, as a separate pro-
ceeding, began to interpret them (see van Hengel, annot. p. 104) ;
but probably Luke meant to say: Jesus, beginning from (with)
Moses, went through all the prophets; see also BCrus. in loc.
Instead of this, having από in mind, he annexes πάντες προφῆται
in the Genitive. Meyer's device is unsatisfactory. In connection
with this passage may be taken Acts iii. 24 πάντες οἱ προφῆται ἀπὸ
Σαμουὴλ καὶ τῶν καθεξῆς ὅσοι ἐλάλησαν καὶ κατήγγειλαν etc.
kai
Luke might have said, all the prophets, Samuel (as the first) and all
his successors (in order) etc., or, all the prophets from Samuel
downwards, as many of them etc. As the words now stand, they
1 In Heb. xii. 25 εἰ ἐκεῖνοι οὐκ ἐξέφυγον ... πολὺ μᾶλλον ἡμεῖς etc those who
(Kühnöl also) render woλù µâλλov by multo minus repeat for the apodosis èxdevšóµeða
alone. But the phrase retains its signification multo magis, and the entire negative
notion oйк èкpeu§. is to be repeated after it. Cf. Caes. gall. 1, 47.
80
634 § 67. ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS.
656 contain an unmistakable tautology. For even the division, pro-
posed by Casaubon and adopted by a host of expositors (including
Valckenaer), τῶν καθ. ὅσοι ἐλάλ. does not help the passage
essentially. Still we have all the prophets from Samuel on, and
then, as if not already included in the foregoing, the whole succes-
sion that followed Samuel and prophesied. The expedient that
van Hengel (as above, p. 103) suggests, supplying ews 'Iwávvov
558 (Matt. xi. 13), is arbitrary, and gives only the equally inappropri-
6th ed. ate sense from Samuel and the succeeding prophets... to John,
whilst it was to be expected that two boundaries of this series.
would be mentioned. Hengel thus gains at last merely Luke's
brachylogy already explained p. 621) : ἄρχεσθαι ἀπὸ . . . ἕως.
3. Formerly critics went much farther in discovering such inac-
curacies resulting from inadvertence. Namely,
a. A false reference of the attributive to the substantive, affecting
589 the grammatical form of the former, was thought to exist not
Tth ed only in Acts v. 20 τὰ ῥήματα τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης (for ταῦτα), Rom.
vii. 24 see above, p. 237 sq., but also (Bengel on Luke xxii. 20;
Bauer, Philol. Thucyd. Paul. p. 263) Eph. ii. 2 Kатà TÒV арXOVтⱭ
τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀέρος, τοῦ πνεύματος etc. instead of τὸ πνεῦμα,
iii. 2; 2 Cor. iii. 7; Luke viii. 32; xxii. 20; and this supposed
species of hypallage 1 was supported by examples from ancient
authors. In a sentence of some length, containing a variety of
relations, such inaccuracy, especially on the part of an unpractised
writer, would be quite possible. In the poets also passages might
be pointed out, which without some such assumption admit of
only a forced interpretation, cf. Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 73 sq.; Hm.
Vig. 891 and Soph. Philoct. p. 202 and Eurip. Hel. p. 7; Krüger,
grammat. Untersuch. III. 37 f. But in prose such instances are
extremely rare (Poppo, Thuc. I. I. 161; Bornem. Xen. Anab.
p. 206; Heinichen, Euseb. II. 175); in the N. T. there is not a
single one that is unquestionable, see F. Woken, pietas crit. in
hypallagas bibl. Viteb. 1718. 8vo. Luke viii. 32 disposes of itself.
As to Eph. iii. 2, see my Progr. de Hypallage et Hendiadyi in N. T.
libris. Erlang. 1824. 4to. p. 15 and Harless in loc. In Eph. ii. 2,
where the apostle might most easily have strayed from the correct
construction, πveûμa is that spirit which pervades and rules men
of the world, and of which Satan is regarded as the lord and
master, see Mey. in loc. Heinichen, Euseb. II. 99, insists on the
1 Cf. Glass. philol. sacr. I. 652 sqq.; Jani, ars poet. lat. p. 258 sqq. On the other
hand, cf. Elster, de Hypallage. Helmst. 1845. 4to.
§ 67. ABNORMAL RELATION OF INDIVIDUAL WORDS. 635
Εν
existence of hypallage. In 2 Cor. iii. 7 el diaкovía тoû baváтov 657
ἡ διακονία τοῦ θανάτου
ἐν γράμμασιν. ἐντετυπωμένη ἐν λίθοις, Paul might in contrast
with διακονία τοῦ πνεύματος lave said with greater simplicity : ἡ
διακονία τοῦ γράμματος ἐντετυπωμένου ἐν λίθοις. But the present
connection of the words is not incorrect. Moses' ministry of
death was in so far itself ἐν λίθοις ἐντετυπωμένη, as it consisted in
communicating laws threatening and inflicting death, and in
administering them among the people. The letter of the law
contained the ministry which Moses had to execute. Moreover,
there is a grammatical resemblance between this passage and Tac.
annal. 14, 16 quod species ipsa carminum docet, non impetu et
instinctis nec ore uno fluens. In Heb. ix. 10 èπikeíμeva is certainly
not construed with δικαιώμασι instead of ἐπικειμένοις, but δικαι
ώμασι is in apposition to ἐπὶ βρώμασιν etc., and ἐπικείμενα cor-
responds to un Suváμevai, the neuter being selected because both,
Sŵpa kaì Ovolai, are here included. According to the other
reading, dikaιwµata, which is well supported [by Cod. Sin. also], 559
éπikelμevα can be referred to that appositive word quite regularly. 6th ed.
There is more appearance of irregular reference in Luke xxii. 20,
where τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον might have been construed with
ev T alμati. But it is not probable that in so short a sentence 590
ἐν αἵματι.
Luke should have employed éxxvvóμevov from inadvertence. It is 7th ed.
more likely that, as he had connected didóμevov with oŵµa, he
joined ἐκχυν. to ποτήριον, meaning the contents of the cup, and
this metonymy is easier still than the other, τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ
Sialkη. This anomaly is obviously not of a grammatical, but of
a logical kind, (although to pour out a cup may be said with entire
correctness). Yet Schulthess (on the Lord's Supper, S. 155 f.)
need not have grown so warm over the matter. In Heb. vi. 1
even Kühnöl has rejected the hypallage, alleged by Palairet and
others. On Jno. i. 14 λnpns xápiros etc. see § 62, 3 p. 564,
and on 2 Cor. xi. 28 and Rev. i. 5, § 59, 8 pp. 532, 533. In 2 Cor.
iv. 17 αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης cannot be taken for αἰωνίου βαρ. δόξης,
for the reason that this would destroy the harmonious arrangement
at which the apostle manifestly aimed (παραυτίκα, αἰώνιον, ἐλαφρόν,
Bápos, Oxíyıs, dóğa). On 1 Cor. iv. 3 see Meyer against Billroth
and Rückert. In Acts xi. 5 εἶδον καταβαῖνον σκεῦός τι, ὡς ὀθόνην
μεγάλην, τέσσαρσιν ἀρχαῖς καθιεμένην etc. must not be regarded
as an hypallage, on being compared with x. 11 (кadiéμevov); the
participles may be referred with equal propriety to σkevos or to
οθόνη. It is difficult to decide on 2 Cor. xii. 21 μή . . . πενθήσω
π
C36
§ 68. REGARD TO SOUND, ETC.
πολλοὺς τῶν προημαρτηκότων καὶ μὴ μετανοησάντων etc. We
658 naturally ask, why not all impenitent sinners? Did Paul intend
to say: тoùs µǹ μeтavońσavтas? As, however, in vs. 21 a different
class of sins is named from that in vs. 20, we may, with Mey.,
conclude that the πρоημаρтηкóтes are more closely characterized
by μὴ μετανοησάντ. as those that have remained impenitent only
in reference to sins of sensuality, mentioned immediately after.
b. Akin to hypallage is antiptosis, which some (including
Kilol) ând in Heb. ix. 2 πρόθεσις ἄρτων, as if for ἄρτοι προθέσεως
(cf. as to this remarkable figure Hm. Vig. p. 890; Soph. Electr.
p. 8; Blomfield, Aeschyl. Agamemn. 148, 1360; Wyttenb. Plat.
Phacd. p. 232), nearly as the following passages have been un-
derstood: Plotin. Enn. 2, 1 p. 97 g. πрòs тò ẞоúλημа тоû àπOTE-
λέσματος ὑπάρχειν προςήκει for πρὸς τὸ τοῦ βουλήματος ἀποτέλεσμα,
or Thuc. 1, 6 οἱ πρεσβύτεροι τῶν εὐδαιμόνων for οἱ εὐδαίμονες τῶν
πрeoß. (see Scholiasts). But that N. T. passage is to be rendered
quite simply the exposition of loaves (the sacred usage of laying
out loaves). Valcken. even wants to take ý rрúπeçα кaì ǹ πρóð.
ἄρτ. for ἡ τράπ. τῶν ἄρτων τῆς προθ. Lastly, it is altogether
wrong to take, as do some (including Bengel), diwкwv vóμov
Sikawσúvηs in Rom. ix. 31 for Sikaioσúvŋv vóμov, see Fr. in loc.
In reference to other alleged incongruities of this description, cf.
the instructive 1st Exc. of Fr. on Mark, p. 759 sqq.
:
560 § 68. REGARD TO SOUND IN THE STRUCTURE OF SENTENCES;
6th ed. PARONOMASIA AND PLAY UPON WORDS (ANNOMINATIO), PAR-
ALLELISM, VERSE.
591
7th ed.
1. The general euphony of the N. T. style (in which cacophony
but rarely appears, 1 Cor. xii. 2, cf. Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 105 and paralip.
p. 53 sq.) was not for the most part the result of design. Only,
in regard to paronomasia and annominatio, many instances may
have been intentional. Paronomasia,¹ which as is well known
consists in the combination of words of similar sound, and is one
of the favorite fancies of Oriental writers,2 is peculiarly frequent
in the Epistles of Paul, partly, it should seem, accidentally, and
partly studied by the writer in his desire to impart genial liveliness
1 See Glassii philol. sacr. I. 1335-1342; Ch. B. Michaelis, de paronomas. sacra. Hal.
1737. 4to., also Lob. paralip. 501 sqq. A solid and exhaustive monograph is J. F.
Buttcher's de paronomasia finitimisque ei figuris Paulo Ap. frequentatis. Lips. 1823. 8vo.
2 See Verschuir, dissertat. philol. exeg. p. 172 sqq.
§ 68. REGARD TO SOUND, ETC.
637
to the expression, or greater emphasis to the thought; as, Luke
xxi. 11 και λιμοὶ καὶ λοιμοὶ ἔσονται (cf. the German Hunger
und Kummer), Hesiod. opp. 226; Plutarch. Coriol. c. 13, see
Valcken. in loc. ; Acts xvii. 25 ζωὴν καὶ πνοήν (cf. the German
leben und weben, Hülle und Fülle, Saus und Braus, rädern und
ädern, Varr. R. R. 3, 2, 13 utrum propter oves, an propter aves,
see Baiter, Isocr. Paneg. p. 117); Heb. v. 8 ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾽ ὧν
ἔπαθεν (seine Leiden leiteten ihn zum Gehorsam, cf. Her. 1, 207),
see Wetst. and Valcken. in loc. ; Rom. xi. 17 τινὲς τῶν κλάδων
ἐξεκλάσθησαν. Thus, in a series of words, the paronomastic
are placed next to each other, as in Rom. i. 29, 31 (πορνεία,
πονηρία) φθόνου, φόνου . . . ἀσυνέτους, ἀσυνθέτους (Wetst. in loc.).
In other passages words of similar derivation are placed together;
as, 1 Cor. ii. 13 ἐν διδακτοῖς πνεύματος, πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ
συγκρίνοντες, 2 Cor. viii. 22 ἐν πολλοῖς πολλάκις σπουδαῖον, ix. 8
ἐν παντὶ πάντοτε πᾶσαν αὐτάρκειαν, Acts xxiv. 3 ; 2 Cor. x. 12
αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἑαυτοὺς μετροῦντες, Rom. viii. 23 αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς
στενάζομεν, Phil. i. 4 (Xen. mem. 3, 12, 6 δυςκολία καὶ μανία πολ-
λάκις πολλοῖς ... ἐμπίπτουσιν, 4, 4, 4 πολλῶν πολλάκις ὑπὸ
τῶν δικαστῶν ἀφιεμένων, An. 2, 4, 10 αὐτοὶ ἐφ' ἑαυτῶν ἐχώρουν,
2, 5, 7 πάντη γὰρ πάντα τοῖς θεοῖς ὕποχα καὶ πανταχῆ
πάντων ἴσον οἱ θεοὶ κρατοῦσι, Polyb. 6, 18, 6; Athen. 8, 352 ;
Arrian. Epict. 3, 23, 22 ; Synes. prov. 2, p. 116b. πάντα παν-
ταχοῦ πάντων κακῶν ἔμπλεα ἦν, see Krü. Xen. An. 1, 9, 2 ;
Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 138, 380; Boisson. Nicet. 243; Beier, Cic. off. 592
I. 128; Jahn, Archiv II. 402). Matt. xxi. 41 κακοὺς κακῶς 7th ed
ἀπολέσει αὐτούς he will miserably destroy those miserable fellows
(Demosth. Mid. 413 b. εἶτα θαυμάζεις, εἰ κακὸς κακῶς ἀπολῇ,
adv. Zenoth. 575 c.; Aristophan. Plut. 65, 418; Diog. L. 2, 76;
Alciphr. 3, 10; cf. also Aeschyl. Pers. 1041; Plaut. Aulular. 1,
1, 3 sq. and Schaef. Soph. Electr. 742; Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 471 and 561
paralip. 8, 56 sqq.; Foertsch, de locis Lysiae p. 44).¹
Writers occasionally use strange or uncommon words, or forms,
for the purpose of producing a paronomasia (Gesenius LG. S. 858)
e.g. Gal. v. 7 πείθεσθαι ... ἡ πεισμονή (see my Comment. in
loc.), cf. die Bisthümer sind verwandelt in Wüstthümer, die Abteien
1 See also Doederlein, Progr. de brachylogia p. 8 sq. Especially a large collection of
such paronomastic combinations will be found in E. A. Diller, Progr. de consensu
notionum qualis est in vocibus ejusd. originis diversitate formarum copulatis. Misen.
1842. 4to.
6th ed.
638
§ 68. REGARD TO SOUND, ETC.
660 sind nun - Raubteien (Schiller in Wallenstein's Lager), Verbes-
serungen nicht Verböserungen.¹
2. Annominatio is akin to paronomasia, but differs from it in
this that it adds to a regard for the sound of words, a regard to
their meaning also (as, in German: Träume sind Schäume);
consequently for the most part it consists of antitheses, e.g. Matt.
xvi. 18 σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω etc.,
Rom. v. 19 ώςπερ διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἁμαρτωλοὶ
κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί, οὕτω καὶ διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς δίκαιοι
κατασταθήσονται, i. 20 τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ... καθορᾶται, Phil.
iii. 2 f. βλέπετε τὴν κατατομήν, ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή
(Diog. L. 6, 24 τὴν Εὐκλείδου σχολὴν ἔλεγε χολήν, τὴν δὲ
Πλάτωνος διατριβὴν κατατριβήν), iii. 12; 2 Cor. iv. 8 ἀπο-
ρούμενοι, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐξαπορούμενοι, 2 Thess. iii. 11 μηδὲν
ἐργαζομένους, ἀλλὰ περιεργαζομένους (cf. Seidler, Eurip.
Troad. p. 11), 2 Cor. v. 4 ἐφ᾽ ᾧ οὐ θέλομεν ἐκδύσασθαι, ἀλλ᾽
ἐπενδύσασθαι, Acts viii. 30 ἆρά γε γινώσκεις, ἃ ἀναγινώσκεις;
Jno. ii. 23 f. πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ... αὐτὸς δὲ
Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐπίστευεν ἑαυτὸν αὐτοῖς, Rom. i. 28 ;. iii. 3 ; xi. 17 ;
xii. 3; xvi. 2; Eph. i. 23; iii. 14, 19; Gal. iv. 17; 1 Cor. iii. 17;
vi. 2; xi. 29, 31; xiv. 10; 2 Cor. iii. 2; v. 21; x. 3; 1 Tim. i. 8 f. ;
2 Tim. iii. 4; iv. 7; 3 Jno. 7 f.; Rev. xxii. 18 f. [Matt. vi. 16].
In Philem. 20 the allusion in ὀναίμην to the name of the slave
593
Ονήσιμος2 is less obvious. Moreover, the same remark made
7th ed. above respecting strange words may be repeated here, and is per-
562 haps applicable to Gal. v. 12; cf. my Comment. in loc., and also
6th ed.
ΤΟ
à
1 In the Agenda of Duke Henry of Saxony, 1539, it is said in the preface respecting
the Popish parson: sein Sorge ist nicht Seelsorge, sondern Meelsorge.
• • •
2 An annominatio in which regard is had solely to the meaning occurs in Philem. 11
Ονήσιμον τὸν ποτέ σοι ἄχρηστον, νυνὶ δὲ σοὶ καὶ ἐμοὶ εὔχρηστον etc. Still more
latent would be the annominatio in 1 Cor. i. 23 : κηρύσσομεν Χριστὸν ἐσταυρωμένον,
Ἰουδαίοις μὲν σκάνδαλον, ἔθνεσι δὲ μωρίαν, αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς κλητοῖς σοφίαν,
where Paul is said to have had in view the words by chald. cruz, ή σκάνδαλον,
30 stultus, and is sapientia (Glassi philol. I. 1339). I am not aware, however, of
such a word as born in Chaldaic; and it is only in Aethiopic that pro signifies
cross. The whole statement is an instance of learned trifling. Equally improbable
is Jerome's conjecture on Gal. i. 6, that in μετατίθεσθε the apostle makes an allusion
to the Oriental etymology of the name Γαλάται (from by or 3), see my Comment.
in loc. and Boettcher as above, S. 74 sq.
In the discourses of Jesus, which were
delivered in Syro-Chaldaic, many verbal allusions may have disappeared in the process
of translating into Greck, cf. Glass. 1.c. p. 1339. But the attempt of modern critics to
restore some of them, as in Matt. viii. 21 (Eichhorn, Einl. ins N. T. I. 504 f.) and Jno.
xiii. 1 (μεταβῇ, πo, Fo), must be pronounced decidedly infelicitous.
§ 68. REGARD TO SOUND, ETC.
639
Terent. Hecyr. prol. 1, 2 orator ad vos venio ornatu prologi, sinite 661
exorator sim.
That similar instances of paronomasia and annominatio would not be
wanting in native Greek authors, particularly the orators, was naturally
to be expected. Collections of them have been make by Tesmar, institut.
rhetor. p. 156 ff.; Elsner, in diss. II. Paul. et Jesaias inter se comparati
(Vratisl. 1821. 4to.) p. 24; Bremi, exc. 6 ad Isocr.; Weber, Demosth.
p. 205. Cf. (further): Demosth. Aristocr. 457 b. ἀνθρώπους οὐδὲ ἐλευθέ
ρους ἀλλ᾽ ὀλέθρους, Plato, Phaed. 83 d. ὁμότροπος τε καὶ ὁμότροφος,
Aesch. Ctesiph. § 78 οὐ τὸν τρόπον ἀλλὰ τὸν τόπον μόνον μετήλλαξεν,
Strabo 9, 402 φάσκειν ἐκείνους συνθέσθαι ἡμέρας, νύκτωρ δὲ ἐπιθέσθαι,
Antiph. 5, 91 εἰ δέοι ἁμαρτεῖν ἐπί τῳ, ἀδίκως ἀπολῦσαι ὁσιώτερον ἂν εἴη τοῦ
μὴ δικαίως ἀπολέσαι, Diod. S. 11, 57 δόξας παραδόξως διασεσώσθαι,
Thuc. 2, 62 μὴ φρονήματι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ καταφρονήματι (Rom.
xii. 3), Lys. in Philon. 17 ; Xen. Α. 5, 8, 21 ; Plat. rep. p. 580 b. ; Lach.
A.
p. 188 b. ; Diod. Sic. Exc. Vat. p. 27, 5 ; Appian. civ. 5, 132 τῶν νυκτο-
φυλάκων ἔθος καὶ εἶδος, Diog. L. 5, 17 ; 6, 4; Aelian. anim. 14, 1 ; see
Btti. Soph. Philoct. p. 150; Lob. Soph. Aj. p. 138. In the Sept. and
Fathers cf. especially Sus. 54, 55 εἰπόν, ὑπὸ τί δένδρον εἶδες αὐτούς . . . ὑπὸ
σχίνον. Εἶπε δὲ Δανιήλ . . . σχίσει σε μέσον. 58, 59 εἶπεν· ὑπὸ πρῖνον.
Εἶπε δὲ Δανιήλ ... τὴν ῥομφαίαν ἔχων πρίσαι σε μέσον (cf. Africani ep.
ad Orig. de hist. Susan. p. 220 ed. Wetsten.), 3 Esr. iv. 62 ἄνεσιν καὶ
ἄφεσιν, Wisd. i. 10 ὅτι οὖς ζηλώσεως ἀκροᾶται τὰ πάντα καὶ θρούς
γογγυσμῶν οὐκ ἀποκρύπτεται, xiv. 5 θέλεις μὴ ἀργὰ εἶναι τὰ τῆς σοφίας σου
ἔργα (cf. Grimm, Comment. on the Book of Wisdom, Introd. p. 40), Acta
apocr. p. 243 ἐξ ἀπειρίας μᾶλλον δὲ ἀπορίας, Macar. hom. 2, 1 τὸ σῶμα
οὐχὶ ἓν μέρος ἢ μέλος πάσχει. As to Latin, see Jani, ars poet.
423 sq.
3. Parallelismus membrorum, the well-known peculiarity of 594
Hebrew poetry, occurs also in the N. T. when the style rises to 7th ed.
the elevation of rhythm. This parallelism is sometimes synonymous,
as in Matt. x. 26 ; Jno. i. 17 ; vi. 35; xiv. 27 ; Rom. ix. 2 ; xi. 12,
33; 1 Cor. xv. 54; 2 Thess. ii. 8; Heb. xi. 17; Jas. iv. 9; 2 Pet.
ii. 3, etc., and sometimes antithetic, as in Rom. ii. 7; Jno. iii. 6,
20 f.; 1 Pet. iv. 6; 1 Jno. ii. 10, 17, etc. See, in particular, the
hymn in Luke i. 46 ff.; cf. § 65, 5 p. 611 (E. G. Rhesa, de paral-
lelismo sententiar. poet. in libris N. T. Regiom. 1811. II. 4; J. J.
Snouk Hurgronje, de parallel. membror. in J. Chr. dictis observando.
Utr. 1836. 8vo.). Sometimes dogmatical statements which might
be expressed in a single proposition are divided in this way into 563
parallel members, Rom. iv. 25; x. 10. Likewise 1 Tim. iii. 16, 6th ed.
where parallelism is accompanied with entire similarity of the 662
640
§ 68. REGARD TO SOUND, ETC.
clauses, appears to be a quotation from one of the hymns of the
apostolic church.
1
4. The Greek verses or parts of verses ¹ found in the N. T. are
of two sorts: they either belong to Greek poets and are quoted
as theirs; or they make their appearance suddenly and without
any sign of quotation, whether because they were current poetic
utterances of unknown authorship, or, as is more frequently the
case, were let fall by the writer unconsciously, which sometimes
occurs even in good prose writers, but was pronounced a blemish
by the ancient teachers of rhetoric.2 The apostle Paul alone has
inwoven poetic quotations into his discourses, and in three passages
(J. Hoffmann de Paulo apost. scripturas profanas ter allegante.
Tubing. 1770. 4to.):
a. In Tit. i. 12 there occurs an entire hexameter, from Epi-
menides of Crete (idios avτŵv πроþýτns cf. vs. 5) :
0
|
Κρητες αει ψεν σται, κακα | θηρια | γαστέρες | αργαί.
b. Acts xvii. 28 contains the half of an hexameter:
ap |
του γαρ
και γενος | εσμεν,
595 cf. Arat. Phaenom. 5, where the conclusion of the verse runs thus:
7th ed. ὁ δ᾽ ἤπιος ἀνθρώποισι (δεξιὰ σημαίνει), so that a spondee occurs
in the fifth foot, as frequently happens, particularly in Aratus 10,
12, 32, 33.
c. In 1 Cor. xv. 33 there is an Iamb. trimeter acatalectus
(senarius) :
ήθη
φθειρου σιν η θη χρησθ' ὁμιλιαι | κακαι,
where, as often takes place, spondees are used in the odd feet 1
and 3 (Hm. doctr. metr. p. 74³). The quotation is from the
well-known comic poet Menander, and, according to H. Stephanus,
from his Thais (see Menandri Fragm. ed. Meineke p. 75, and Fragm.
1 Loeffler, de versib. qui in soluta N. T. oratione habentur. L. 1718. 4to.; Kosegar-
ten, de poetarum effatis graec. in N. T., also his Dissertatt. acad. ed. Mohnike
p. 135 sqq.
2 Cf. Cic. orat. 56, 189 (a passage erroneously quoted by Weber, Demosth. p. 208),
Quintil. Instit. 9, 4, 52. 72 sqq.; Fabric. biblioth. latin. ed. Ernesti II. 389; Nolten,
Antibarb. under the word versus; Jacob, Lucian. Alex. p. 52 sq.; Dissen, Demosth.
cor. p. 315; Franke, Demosth. p. 6, likewise the Classical Journ. no. 45, p. 40 sqq. I
have never seen the dissertation of Loeffler (Moeller) de versu inopinato in prosa. L. 1668.
That condemnation of poetic insertions in prose, has been qualified and corrected by
Hm. opusc. I. 12! 579
8 In Hm. doctr. metr. p. 139 impari sede is probably a misprint for pari.
§ 68. REGARD TO SOUND, ETC.
641
comic. gr. ed. Meineke vol. 4 p. 132). However, the best Codd. 663
of the N. T. [Sin. also] give xpηorá without elision.
1
5. To the second of the above-mentioned classes ¹ belong
564
a. The hexameter in Jas. i. 17, which even the old commentators 6th ed
had recognized :
πασα δοσις αγαθη και παν δωρημα τελειον
(where, in the second foot in the arsis, os might be used as long);
see the commentators in loc. Schulthess tried to arrange the rest
of the passage into two metrical verses; but the rhythm is harsh,
and the use of poetic words does not in James warrant us in
inferring the presence of verses and restoring them by means of
violent alterations and transpositions.
On the other hand b. an unmistakable hexameter occurs in
Heb. xii. 13 in the words
θας ποιησατε
ησατε
και τροχι
Tрoxilas op eas
τοις ποσιν | ὑμων :
And c. in Acts xxiii. 5 the words quoted from the Sept. may
be scanned as an Iamb. trimet. acatal. :
άρχοντα του λαου σου ουκ ερεις | κακως,
but, owing to the thrice occurring spondee in the 1st, 3d, and 4th 596
feet, it would be offensive to a Greek ear.
Lastly, in Jno. iv. 35 the words TeTPÁµNVOS
rhythm of a trimeter acatalect., if read thus:
7th ed.
ἔρχεται have the
τετραμηνος εστι χώ θερισμος ερχεται.
xo Pepio μos Epxletal.
θεριο σμός ερ
The first foot is an anapaest (Hm. doctr. metr. p. 119 sq.). As
to xả for rai ô, see Bttm. I. 122.
1 Hunting for such verse is so much the more a matter of idle curiosity, as prosaic
rhythm is different from poetic and sometimes does not permit these passages to appear
as verse; Hm. as above, p. 124; Thiersch in the Munich gel. Anzeigen 1849. Bd. 28
nr. 118. We have adduced such passages only as by themselves furnish a complete
thought. For half or incomplete sentences containing a rhythm, see the Classical
Journal, as above, p. 46 sq. Also in 2 Pet. ii. 22 some have, by combining the two
proverbs, framed Iambic verses, see Bengel.
81
INDEX.
I. INDEX OF PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS.
The Figures refer to Pages.
Abbreviations popular 102.
Abnormal relation of words in a sen-
tence 631 sqq.
in
Abounding verbs of, with the gen. 201.
Absolute cases 181; gen. 207 sq.; dat.
220; acc. 181, 231, 574.
Abstracts often without the art. 120
the plur. 176; joined to concretes 530.
Accentuation 49 sqq.; distinguishes
forms 53 sq.; of enclitic pron. 54.
Accusative the, with trans. verbs 221
sqq.; of kindred signification 224; of
place after verbs of motion 224; of
object, not expressed by év (2) 226;
double 226 sqq.; after passives 229; as
remote object 229 sqq.; specification of
time and place 230; of closer speci-
fication 230; adverbial 464; absolute
181, 231, 574; with infin. 321; after
öri 573; of neut. pron. or adj. added
to verb 227.
Accusing verbs of, with the gen. 203.
Active Verbs transitive 251 etc.; for
reflexives 251; for passives 252; for
middle 255 sq.
Adjectives inflection and comparison
of 68 sqq.; derivative and compound
96 sqq.; with subst. and art. 131 sq.;
used as subst. take the art. 108 sq.;
neut. as subst. 95, 234, 517; with the
voc. 183; subst. used for 236 sq.;
alleged Hebr. use of fem. for neut.
238; comparison of 239 sqq.; used
for adverbs 463; position of 523 sqq.;
two or more without a copula 525;
referring to substs. of different gend.
or numb. 526 sq.; predicate 528; can
they be omitted? 594 sq.; of result,
proleptic use of 624; supposed ab-
normal relation of 634 sq.
Adverbs in or et 43 sq.; used with art.
for nouns 109; relative often include
def. 159; prepositions combined with
422 sq.; prepositions used for 102,423;
N. T. writers masters of 462; use of
adjs. and substs. for 463 sq.; are they
used for adjs.? 465; adverbial notions
expressed by the dat. or the part.
466; treated as verbal 467 sq.; used as
prepositions 470 sq.; of place inter-
changed 471 sq.; irregular position of
553; no ellipsis of 595.
Aeolisms 36, 76, 83.
Alexandrian dialect 21; orthography
48; version (Sept.) 31 sq. 37 sq.
Amplification 523 sqq.; predicative 527.
Anacoluthon punctuation of 58; 168;
in the Rev. 535 sq.; 566 sqq.; instances
of peculiarly Greek 572 sqq.
Annominatio 637 sq.
Antiptosis 636.
Antithesis 441 sqq. 538, 540 sq.
643
644
ENGLISH INDEX.
Aorist used for pluperf. 275; for perf.? | Attraction of the relative 163; by the
276; only in appearance for fut. 277 ;
never in N. T expresses what is wont
to be etc. 277; for pres.? 278; de
conatu? 278sqq.; aor. mid. for pass.?
255; aor. pass. for mid.? 261; Acolic
form of 1st aor. opt. 76; 2d aor. with
ending a 73 sq.
Apodosis how introduced 541; doubled
541 sq.; omitted 599; in condensed
structure 619.
Aposiopesis 599 sqq.
Apostrophe rare use of in N. T. 40 sq.
Apposition use of art. with words in
138; kinds of 528 sq.; construction
relative 164; of the relative by a
noun following 166; in structure 544,
625 sqq.
Augment temp. for syllab. 70; of verbs
beginning with ev 71; double 72;
omitted 72 sq.
Beth essentiae 38, 184, 513.
Blended constructions as causing re-
dundancies 605.
Breviloquence (brachylogy) 619 sqq.
Breathings over P 48.
Broken and heterogeneous structure
566 sqq.
206.
of 529 sq.; so-called gen. of 531; to Buying etc. verbs of, take gen. of price
the voc. put in nom. 533; to a whole
clause 533; position of 534; in bre-
viloquence 624.
Aramaisms in N. T. 27 sq.
Arrangement of words etc. see Position.
Article the, as a pron. 104 sq.; before
nouns 105 sqq.; generic 106; not used
for a pronominal adj. 107; not used
for rel. pron. 107; for possess. pron.
108; peculiarly Greck use of 108 sq.;
with adjs. and parts. used as substs.
108; with Toλλoí 110; with oûTos or
ẻkeîvos 110; with râs 110 sq.; with
TOLOÛTOS 111; with exaσтos 111; with
ἕκαστος
autós 112; with proper names 112;
with the pred. 114; indefinitely? 115;
when optional 115 sq.; the indef. (rìs)
expressed sometimes by es? 117; its
use or omission sometimes a character-
istic of style 118; variation of MSS. as
to use of 118; omission of with nouns
denoting single objects etc. 119 sq.;
with abstracts 120; with nouns ren-
dered def. by a gen. 125; with a
numeral 125 sq.; its use and omission
with nouns connected by kaί 126 sqq.;
by 127; with attributives 131 sqq. ;
with attrib. part. 134; with a part.
in a derisive force 135; when omitted
with adjuncts 135 sqq.; use of with
words in apposition 138; with an at-
tributive joined to an anarthrous noun
139 sq.; with the infin. 320, 324.
Asyndeton 58, 520, 537 sqq.
Atticisms 36.
Cardinals repeated assume a distributive
sense 249; use of the sing. to signify
one 249; arrangement of in combina-
tions 250.
Caring for verbs of, with the gen. 205.
Cases in general 179 sqq.; no enallage
of 180; absolute 181, 220, 231. Cf. Ab-
solute cases.
Cause dative of 216.
Chiasmus 411.
Cilicisms in N. T. 27.
Circumlocutions use of prepositions
in 423 sqq.
Circumstantiality of style 605 sqq.
Clause necessary contents of a grammat-
ical 56 sq., 512; want of connection
of clauses 537 sq.; connection of by
particles 539 sqq.; contrasted 540;
connected by forms of inflection (infin.
or part.) 543; position of 546 sqq.,
of a relative 167, 542; rhetorical trans-
position of 549; trajection of 551 sq.,
560; one expressed twice 610; one
resolved into two 629 sq. Cf. Structure
of sentences.
Collectives with a plur. pred. and with
a sing. 515 sq.; with plur. adj. 526.
Comma use of 56 sqq.; a half comma
desirable 59.
Comparative of adverbs 69 sq.; of adj.
sometimes formed by the pos. with µâλ-
ENGLISH INDEX.
645
λov a prep. or 240; strengthened by
µãλλov 240; strengthened by a prep.
240; used for the pos.? 242; for the
superl.? 242; in loose reference 245.
Comparison, of adjectives 69; abbre-
viated 245, 623.
Compound words formation of 99 sqq.;
substantives 99 sq. 101; adjectives 100;
verbs 100 sq. 102; adverbs 102; proper
names 102 sq.
Conjunctions use of 433 sq.; conjunc-
tive 434 sqq.; disjunctive 440 sq.; ad-
versative441 sq.; temporal, inferential,
causal 444 sqq.; final and objective
449; not interchanged, nor weakened
449 sqq.; position of 119, 558 sq.; no
ellipsis of 595.
Constructio ad sensum 141, 147,
513 sqq. 525 sqq. 631.
Constructio praegnans 621.
Construction see Structure of sentences.
Contraction 46, 102.
Defective Verbs 81 sqq.
Demonstrative pronouns neut. used
adverbially 142; irregular reference
of 157; included in the relative 158;
repetition of 159 sq.; before ori, Iva
etc. 161; before a pred. infin. or a
subst. 161; before a particip. constr.
161; the plur. for sing. 162; position
of 162; omitted in cases of attraction
165 sq.; in loose reference 632.
Deponent Verbs 258 sq.
Derivation by terminations of verbs
91, of substantives 93, of adjectives 96;
by composition: of substantives 99, of
adjectives 100, of verbs 100 sq.
Desiring verbs of, take the gen. 204.
Dialect the Alexandrian 20, 21; the
Hellenistic 28; the Christian 35.
Digressions 565.
Diminutives 96.
Discord supposed, between subj. and
pred. 517.
Copula agrees in number with subj. Disjoining verbs of, take prep. 197.
513 sq.; omitted 521, 584 sq.
Correlation 440.
Crasis 46.
Dative the, of pers. pron. apparently
pleonastic 155; after verbs 208 sq.;
after elva and yíveolaι 210; after
substantives 211; of relation (opinion,
interest, commodi and incommodi) 211
sq.; eis and ev in periphrasis for 212,
217; for the local #pós and eis 214;
related to μeTά 214; with verbs of
μετά
coming 215; in reference to which (the
sphere, the standard, the cause and
motive) 215 sq.; instrumental 216;
use of èv, katá, did etc. for 217; of
time, whether a point or a period 218;
of place 219; with passives 219; ab-
solute 220; double 220 sq.; of the
infin. 328; after v 384 sqq.; after
σúv 391; after èrí 392 sq.; after πapá
394; after πpós 395.
Dawes's rule 507.
Declension rare forms of the 1st 60;
of the 2d 62; of the 3d 64; declension
of foreign words 66; of adjectives 68.
Defective structure 580 sqq. Cf. Struc-
ture of sentences.
Distributives how expressed in N. T.
249.
Doric forms etc. 36.
Dual the, not found in N. T. 177.
Elision comparatively rare in N. T. 40.
Ellipsis with adj. 234; 580 sqq.; of the
copula 584 sq. ; of the subj. 588; list of
substs. often omitted 590; of the noun
with trans. verbs 593; none of adv.
or conj. 595; partial of both subj.
and pred. in the same clause 596; of
a whole proposition 598; in quotations
from O. T. 599.
Enallage of gend. in pronouns 141; of
numb. in the same 141; of the gend.
and numb. of nouns 174 sq.; of cases
180; of tenses 264; of prep. 361, 411;
of numb. with verbs 515; of gend.
with verbs 517.
Enclitics how to be written 54; position
of 558.
Enjoying verbs of, with the gen. 197.
Epexegetical apposition 528; gen. 531.
Extension of subj. or pred. of a prop.
523 sqq.
646
ENGLISH INDEX.
Feeling verbs of, with the gen. 204.
Feminine the, is the neut. used for?
179, 238; in contempt 179.
Foreign Words declens. of 66 sq.
Forms rare of the 1st or 2d declens.
60 sq.; of the 3d declens. 64 sq.; of
regular verbs 73 sq.; of verbs in
etc. 78 sq.
Fritzsche K. F. A. 10.
μι
Fulness of expression 605, 609 sqq.
Future the, Attic 75; subjunctive 75;
mid. for pass. 255; ethical (may or
should) 279; 3d fut. pass. 279; not
used for the pret. 280; sometimes
nearly equiv. to the pres. 280; of a
supposable case 280; supposed equiv.
to the optat. 280; for the impera. 315.
Gataker Thom. 14.
Gender of Nouns new 36, 63, 65;
174 sqq.; the neut. used of a person
178; supposed interchange of 178 sq.;
supposed contemptuous force of fem.
179;
a noun of any gend. taken
merely as a word is treated as neut.
179.
και
Genitive the, of pron. position of 155;
import and use of 184 sqq.; objective
185; and subjective 186; of remote
dependence 187 sqq.; of local and
temporal reference (see below) 187 sq.;
of relationship 190, 593; several gov.
one by another 190; separated from
governing noun 155, 191; two of dif-
ferent signif. (pers. and thing) 191;
placed before its noun 192, 551; sup-
posed use of περί, από, ἐκ, παρά, ἐν,
Kaтá, eis in circumlocution for 192 sq.;
with adjs. and parts. 194; after eîvai
or yíveolaι 195; of separation and
removal 196; with verbs of the senses,
and of beginning, receiving, begging,
giving etc. 197 sq.; partitive 200 sqq. ;
gov. by an adverb 203; partit. gen. as
subject 203; with verbs of accusing,
boasting, smelling 203 sq.; with verbs
of feeling, longing, remembering, car-
ing for, ruling 204 sqq.; of price 206;
of place and of time 207; absol. 207,
544; of material 237; with the compar.
239 sq.; of apposition 531.
Georgi Ch. Sgm. 15.
Giving verbs of, with the gen. 197.
Grammar N. T., scope and treatment
of 1 sq.; history of 5 sqq.; works upon
10 sq.; grammat. peculiarities of later
Gr. 26 sq.; of the language of the
N. T. 36 sq.
Greek later, peculiarities of 20 sqq.
Haab Ph. H. 6.
Hebraisms opinions on 13 sqq.; errors
of writers concerning 29 sq.; definition
of 30; perfect and imperfect 31; speci-
fied 32 sqq. 38 sq.; in connection with
certain pronouns (râs) 171 sq.; eis
and è in supposed circumlocution for
the nom. 183; supposed Hebr. use of
a fem. adj. for neut. 238; supposed
use of viós etc. for adjs. (employed as
subs.) 238; Hebr. superl. 246; sup-
posed Hebr. interchange of tenses 264;
in use of imperatives 311.
Hellenistic Dialect the term 28; its
peculiarities cf. 22 sqq.
Hendiadys 630.
Heterogeneous Structure 577 sq.
Hiatus 40 sq.
Hypallage 634.
Hyperbaton 555 sq.
Hypodiastole the 46.
Hypothetical Sentences, four kinds
of etc. 291 sqq.
Hysteron Proteron 553.
Imperative the, 3d pers. plur. of 76;
usual import of 310; permissive 311;
two connected by kal 311; aor. and
pres. distinguished in N. T. 313 sq.;
perfect 315; substitutes for 315 sq.
Imperfect the use of 268 sqq.; appar-
ently for the aor. 269; never for the
pluperf. 269; conjoined with the aor.
270; apparently for the pres. 270.
Impersonal Verbs 522, 588.
Indeclinable Words accent of 52; 61,
67.
Indefinite (article) pron. (rls) sometimes
expressed by efs 117; use of 170; po-
sition of 170 sq.
ENGLISH INDEX.
647
Indicative the, distinguished from the Masculine supposed to be used for the
subjunc. and the opt. 281; imperf.
sometimes used for our subjunc. 282;
pres. in direct questions to be distin-
guished from the subjunc. 284; after
particles of design 289; with ẻáv 295 ;
with particles of time 296; with inter-
rogatives in indirect quest. 298; after
ei, ei äpa, elπws 300; in the orat. obliq.
301; with opeλov 301 sq.; with ăv
302 sqq.
Infinitive the, for the imperat. 316; ep-
exegetic 318, 326; as the subject 319;
as the object 321 sq.; in the oblique
cases, especially to express design 324
sq.; with the art. 320, 323, 324; after
éyéveto 323; with ẻσrí 320 sq.; with
ἐστί
the acc. 321, 323; with roû 324 sqq.;
with T 328; with preps. 328 sq.;
after πρiv 330; pres. and aor. dis-
tinguished in N. T. 330 sq.; perf. 331,
334; with µéλλew 37, 333; Iva some-
times used for 320, 334 sqq.; scme-
times gives place to a clause with el,
éáv etc. 320; in modern Gr. 336; act.
apparently for pass. 339; after 871 339,
573; in imitation of Hebr. infin. absol.
339; as a means of connection 543.
Interjections 356.
Interrogative, neut. of rís used adver-
bially 142; particles, how construed
298,508 sqq.; clauses 543, two interrog.
predicates blended 628.
Interrupted Structure 561 sqq.
Ionic forms 36, 62, 81 sq.
Iota subscript 46 sq.
?
Jews the, how learned Greek 20 sqq.;
Jewish Greek 27 sqq.
Language two aspects of 1; of N. T.
history of opinions concerning 12 sqq.;
basis of 20 sqq.; Hebrew-Aramaic
tinge of 27 sq.; grammatical character
of 35 sqq.
Latin its influence on Byzantine Greek
28; Lat. terminations of patronymics
95; words in N. T. Greek 103.
Letters interchange of in Alex. orthog. 48.
Lexicography 1.
Lexicology 1.
fem. 178.
Metaplasms 63.
Middle Voice its force 252 sqq.; of
mental objects 253; in a new signifi-
cation 253, 254; with acc. often has
the pron. expressed 254; expressive
of the subject's order or permission
254; in reciprocal sense 254; tenses
sometimes in pass. sense 254 sq.; ac-
tive sometimes used for 255; act. and
mid. sometimes interchangeable 256;
with caur 257; apparently for active
258; mid. verbs to be distinguished
from deponent 258 sq.; too many
verbs regarded as in 252.
Moods lax use of with particles 36; use
of in independent propositions 282 sq.;
in dependent propositions 287 sqq.;
with particles of design 287; in hy-
pothetical sentences 291; with parti-
cles of time 296; with interrogatives
298; in oratio obliqua 300; with ESTE
301; with ǎv 302 sqq.; after condi-
tional clauses 303; in relative clauses
306; in indirect questions 308; after
particles of time 308. Cf. Imperative,
Indicative, Infinitive, etc.
Names of persons, from oxytones throw
back the accent 51; indeclinable ac-
cented on last 52; contracted 102 sq.;
with the art. 112 sq.
Negation (473 sqq.) continued 487; un-
conditional, in antithesis or followed
by aλλá 496; in oaths expressed by
αλλά
el 500; in interrogative sentences 510.
Negative Particles 473 sqq. ; objective
and subjective 473; use of un 476 sq.;
in relative clauses with &v 480; with
the infin. 481; with participles 482;
in succession 487 sqq.; after an affirm-
ative sentence or followed by anná
495; two in a single clause 498; with
the moods 500 sqq.; in dependent
clauses 502; the intensive où µń 505 sq.;
in interrog. sentences 510.
Neuter used of persons 178; for the fem.
178; verbs connected with their pred.
nouns by preps. 232 sq.; plur., when
joined to a sing. and when to a plur.
verb 514; adj. used as subst. 517;
648
ENGLISH INDEX.
neut. adj. or part. referring to a whole
clause 533.
N. T. Grammar, Language, etc. see
Grammar, Language etc.
Nominative the, absolute 181, 574;
titular 181 sq.; for the voc. 182; in
300 sq.; with av 303; in indirect quest.
308, 310.
Oratio Variata 577 sqq.; mingling of
orat. rect. and obliq. 301, 545, 579.
Ordinals a peculiar abbreviated use of
249. Cf. Numerals.
exclamations 183, 532; supposed cir- | Orthography variations of in MSS. 40;
cumlocution for by means of els 183;
by means of ev 184.
Nouns, proper with altered accent 50 sq.;
derived from verbs 93 sq.; in
μos 93;
in μα and σis 93; in
μονη 93; derived
from adjectives 94 sq.;
in oτης 94 ; in σvvn 95; in
in
της
τŋs 94;
a 95; in
ηριον
nplov 96; in âs 102 sq.; proper with the
art. 112; list of anarthrous 120 sqq.;
used instead of the pron. 144; ante-
cedent incorporated into the relative
clause 164; Hebr. repetition of for
every 174, 463; several plur. in Greek
though sing. in English 176; of kindred
signification, with verbs 224; substi-
tuted for adjs. 236; list of often omitted
Cf. Abstracts, Collectives,
590 sqq.
Gender, Number, etc.
Number: use of plur. pronouns referring
to a sing. noun 141; of nouns, col-
lective use of the sing. 174; plur. of
category 175; plur. used in Greek,
though we use the sing. 176; dual
does not occur in N. T. 177; use of
plur. to signify two 177; neut. sing.
or plur. used of persons 178; use of
sing. to signify one 249; of the pred.
differing from that of the subj.513 sqq.;
plur. used of himself by speaker 517.
Numerals 248 sqq.; use of card, for ord.
in expressing first day of week 248 ;
ordinal, abbreviated use of 249; car-
dinal in distributive sense 249; ar-
rangement of in combinations 250;
construction of with ἐπάνω 250.
Object gen. of 186; a single belonging
to two verbs 521.
Optative the, distinguished from the
indic. and subjunc. 281; use of in
independ. prop. 286; in depend. prop.
288; after Iva 290 sq.; after el 293;
after a particle of time 297; after an in-
terrogative 299; in the oratio obliqua
Alexandrian 43, 48.
Parallelism antithetic 610, 639; not
pleonastic 611; synonymous 639.
Parataxis 630.
Parathetic apposition 528.
Parentheses in N. T. 562 sq.; in the
historical books 563 sq.; in the epistles
565.
Paronomasia 636 sq.
Partaking verbs of, with the gen. 200.
Partitive gen. 200 sqq., as subject 203,
513; partitive apposition 528.
Participle the, as a subst. takes the art.
108, 353; as an attributive, takes or
omits the art. 134; its verbal character
340; use of pres. 341 sqq. 353; fut.
340; aor. 342 sq.; perf. pass. 343;
construction of 343; to be resolved
by a particle of time 344; with KalToL
Οι καίπερ
Oг Kаlπер 344; two or more in differ-
ent relations without a copula 344;
apparently for an infin. yet different
345 sq.; periphrastic construction with
elvaι 348 sq.; is it ever used for the
είναι
finite verb 350 sqq.; with the gen. 354;
in imitation of the Hebr. infin. absol.
354; absolutely, referring to a clause
533 sq.; with the art. as pred. 513;
a means of connection between
clauses 543; in abnormal case, par-
ticularly the nom. 572.
Particles the, lax use of in N.T. 36; how
certain should be written 45; of design,
how construed 287; of time 296, 308;
in general 356 sqq.; how classified 356;
comparatively frugal use of in N. T.
357; works on 358; position of 558;
no ellipsis of 595. Cf. Interrogative,
Negative etc.
Pasor G. 5.
Passive the, with the dat. 219; with the
acc. 229, 260; 1st aor. used for the
ENGLISH INDEX.
649
classic 1st aor. mid. 261; perf. and
pluperf. in mid. sense 262; perf. sup-
posed to be used for perf. act. 262; fut.,
singular use of 262 sq. ; is it ever used
like the Hebr. Hophal? 263; forms,
how to be distinguished from the same
in the middle voice 263.
Paul his knowledge of Greek 21; his
doctrinal system as a guide to his
language 98, 130; his use of the art.
with Xplorós 118; his multiplication
of relatives 167; his use of the gen. of
more remote internal relations 188;
his separation of the gen. from its
noun 191; his use of the infin. with
eis or πρós 329; fond of participial
constructions 355; his doctrinal use
of prepositions 360; his accumulation
of prepositions 418; his bold arrange-
ment of words 547; his use of paren-
theses 565 sq.; and anacolutha 567 sq.;
fond of paronomasia 636.
Perception verbs of, with the gen. 199.
Perfect the, pass. for mid. 262; pass.
said to be used for act. 262; its import
and use 270 sq.; in connection with
the aor. 272; for the aor. in narration
272; how far used for the pres. 272 sq.;
prophetic 273; supposed use of for
pluperf. 274; in sense of pres. 274.
Periodic Structure in the N. T. 545.
Personal Pronouns multiplied in
N. T. 143; occasionally omitted 143;
occasional use of nouns for 144; loose
reference of 145 sq.; repetition of 147
sq.; in nom. always emphatic 152;
position of 155; dat. apparently su-
perfluous 155; ñ 4vxń μov etc. in
circumlocution for? 156.
Persons rare forms of, in regular verbs
75 sqq.
Pfochen Seb. 13.
Place gen. of 207; dat. of 219; acc. of
after verbs of motion 224; as a speci-
fication 230.
Pleonasm 601 sqq.; causes of 602; for
the most part circumstantiality or
fulness 605 sq.; supposed instances
of examined 612 sqq.
Pluperfect augment of omitted 72;
pass. in mid. sense 262; of certain
verbs. equiv. to imperf. 274; when
expressed by the aor. 275.
Plural the, of category 175; of certain
nouns used for the sing. 176; of names
of countries and cities 176; of nouns
denoting a feeling etc. 176; Hebr. plur.
maj. or excellentiae 177; for the dual
177; neut. used of a person 178; used
of himself by the speaker 517.
Polysyndeton 519, 540.
Position of words and clauses 546 sqq. ;
how determined 546; works on 546 sq.;
in N. T. simple 547; in the apostolic
benediction 549; of the vocative 549;
causes of unusual 549; of the predicate
551; of the gen. before its noun 155,
192, 551; trajection 551 sq.; hysteron
proteron 553; irregular, of single
words, particularly certain adverbs
and negatives 553 sq. ; of πρó, àñó etc.
in specifications of place and time
557 sq.; of particles and enclitic pro-
nouns 558; supposed transposition of
clauses 560; as affected by a regard
to sound 636 sq. Cf. Adjectives, Ap-
position etc.
Positive the, with μâλλov a prep. or
instead of the compar. 240; for the
superl. 246.
Possessive Pronouns 143 sqq.; some-
times to be taken objectively 153;
idios used for 153 sq.; circumlocutions
for 154 sq.
Predicate the art. with 114; its connec-
tion with the subj. 512 sqq.; a clause
as 513; consisting of a part. with the
art. 513; grammat. discord between
pred. (or copula) and subj. 513 sqq.;
grammat. form of compound 518; sev-
eral, how connected 519; several with
a common object 521; indispensable
521; extended by adjuncts 523 sqq.;
527; when placed first 551.
Prepositions predilection for in N. T.
32, 38, 180; compound 102; connect-
ing a (neut.) verb with its dependent
noun 232 sq.; for adverbs 250, 423 ;
general remarks on 358 sqq.; the
proper sense of to be distinguished
from the metaphorical 360; inter-
change of 361 sq. 411 sq.; interchange
650
ENGLISH INDEX.
of cases with 363; position of 363;
with the gen. 364 sqq.; with the dat.
384 sqq.; with the acc. 396 sqq.; the
same in the same sentence used to de-
note different relations 409; different
in the same sentence 410 sq.; kindred
substituted for each other in parallel
passages 411 sq.; èv and eis not used
indiscriminately 413 sqq.; accumula-
tion of by Paul 418; repetition of
419 sq.; omitted before the relative
421 sq.; combined with adverbs 422;
in circumlocutions 154, 192, 423;
after compound verbs 425 sqq.; two
blended into one 629.
Present the, its force 265; only in ap-
pearance for the fut. 265; for the aor.
in narration 266 sq.; conjoined with
the aor. 267; may include also a past
tense 267; in dependent clauses ap-
parently for the imperf. 268; perfs.
and aors. equiv. to 274; with force of
perf. 274. Cf. Aorist, Future, Perfect.
Prophetic Perfect the Hebr. 273.
Pronouns enclitic 54; indef. expressed
sometimes by els 117; use of in N. T.
140 sqq.; differing in gend. or numb.
from their noun 141; in supposed
reference to a following noun 142;
neuter used adverbially 142; personal
and possessive 143 sqq.; repetition of
147 sq.; demonstrative 157 sqq.; rela-
tive 163 sqq.; interrogative and in-
definite 168 sqq.; Hebraisms in con-
nection with 171 sqq.; in loose refer-
ence 632 sq. Cf. Demonstrative, Per-
sonal etc.
Proper Names throw back the accent
51; contracted forms of 102; with
the art. 112 sqq.
Proposition see Clause and Structure.
Protasis 291. Cf. Apodosis.
Prozeugma of the demonstr. pron. 162.
Punctuation of the N. T. 55 sqq.
Purists the, history of 12 sqq.; a criti-
cism of their efforts 16.
Questions rel. pron. put for interrog. in
direct 167; the subjunc. in undeter-
mined 285; indirect 298 sq. 308, 543;
negative 510 sq.; with the fut. for the
imperat. 315; brachylogy in 628. Cf.
Interrogative.
Quotation peculiar biblical formula of
522.
Redundant Structure 601 sqq.
Reduplication 72 sq.; of verbs in p
74 sq.
Reflexive Pronoun used in reference
to the 1st and 2d pers. 150 sq.; with
the middle voice 257.
Relative Pronouns thought to refer
sometimes to the more remote noun
157; include the demonstrative 158;
attraction with 163 sq.; agree some-
times with following noun 166; for
interrogative 167; multiplied by Paul
167; before whole clauses 168; not
used for demonstrative 168.
Relative Clauses position of 167; use
of 542 sq.
Revelation book of, its irregularities of
style 534.
Rhetoric (stylistics) of N. T. 1 sq.
Ruling verbs of, with the gen. 206.
Schema κaт' ¿oxhν 520.
Sentence see Clause, and Structure.
Septuagint its Greek style 31 sq. 37 sqq.
Singular (the distributive) for the plural
174.
Smelling verbs of, with the gen. 203.
Structure of Sentences: of a simple
512 sqq.; of compound 518 sq.; by
extension of subj. or pred. 523 sqq. ;
their connection 537 sqq.; asyndeton
537; polysyndeton 519, 540; position of
words and clauses in 546 sqq.; inter-
rupted (parenthetic) structure 561 sqq.;
broken and heterogeneous (anacolu-
thon 566, oratio variata 577) 566 sqq.;
defective (ellipsis 580, aposiopesis 599)
580 sqq.; redundant (pleonasm 601,
blended 605, circumstantiality 605,
fulness 609) 601 sqq.; condensed and
expanded (breviloquence 619, con-
structio praegnans 621, attraction 625,
hendiadys 630) 619 sqq.; irregularities
of relating to single words (hypallage)
631 sqq.; regard to sound in (parono-
ENGLISH INDEX.
651
masia 636, annominatio 638, paral-
lelism 639, verse 640) 636 sqq. Cf.
Clauses, Asyndeton, Attraction, Posi-
tion, etc.
Style (stylistics) in N. T. 1 sq. 31, 33,
35, 37 sq.; of individual writers 4, 29,
33, 39, 118, 546 sq. Cf. Paul etc.
Subject the, in relation to the art. 115;
gen. of 186; relation to the sentence
512 sqq.; a partitive gen. may be used
for 203, 513; relation of copula and
predicate to 513 sqq.; compound 518;
one rendered prominent 519, 520;
may be implied 521 sq.; extension of
523 sqq.; wanting 588, 631; sudden
change of 631 sq.
Subjunctive the future 75, 86; dis-
tinguished from the indic. and the
optat. 281; in independent proposi-
tions 285 sq.; in dependent proposi-
tions 287 sqq.; in hypothetical sen-
tences 291 sq.; after particles of time
compounded with av 297, 308; after
interrogatives 298; after &STE 301; in
relative clauses with av 307; with iva
for the imperat. 315; with va for the
infin. 334 sqq.
Substantives see Nouns.
Superlative the, circumlocution for 246;
Hebr. modes of expressing 246 sq.;
strengthened by πάντων 248.
Synizesis 622.
Synonymes 611.
Time gen. of 207; dat. of 213; acc. of
229 sq.; particles of, how construed
296 sq., with av 308.
Touching laying hold of, verbs of take
the gen. 201.
Trajection (transposition) of words 513
sqq.; of clauses 560.
Transition from a participial constr. to
a finite verb 573; from or to the
(acc. with) infin. 573; from a relative
constr. to a personal 579; from oratio
obliq. to rect. and vice versa 579; from
the sing. to the plur. and the reverse
580. Cf. Structure of sentences.
Verbs augm. and redupl. of 70 sqq.; rare
forms in tenses and persons of regular
73 sqq.; in verbs in μ and irregular
verbs 78 sqq.; list of defective 82 sqq. ;
later forms of not always used in N. T.
90; same forms may come from dif-
ferent 91; derivative 91; compound
100; decomposite 102; intransitives
with acc. of thing 227; neut. used
transitively 251, 263; compounded with
prepositions, how construed 425 sqq. ;
with amó 427; with àvá 428; with
avrí 429; with K 429; with év 429;
with eis 430; with ní 430; with ôid
431; with kaтá 431; with μeтá 432;
with rapá 432; with πepí 432; with
πрó 432; with πpós 432; with σúv 433 ;
πρός
σύν
with úπó 433; with vπép 433; in cir-
cumlocutions for adverbs 467 sq. C£
Active etc.; Tenses etc.
Syntax peculiarities of, few in later and Verbal substantives 93 sqq. (cf. nouns);
N. T. Greek 27; 36 sqq.
Technical Terms religious in N. T. 35.
Tenses rare forms in 73 sqq.; how far
interchanged 264; import and use of
the pres. 265 sq.; imperfect 268 sq.;
perfect 270 sq.; aorist 275 sq.; force of
in the moods 281 ; future 279 sq.; dif-
ferent connected 280 sq. Cf. Aorist etc.
Thinking of verbs expressing take the
gen. 205.
adjectives 96 sq.
Verses found in N. T. 640 sq.
Vocative use of nom. for 182; most fre-
quently without & 183; position of 549.
Voices see Active, Middle, Passive.
Vorst J. 14.
Words see Derivation, Position, Paro-
nomasia etc.
Wyss Caspar 5.
Zeugma 622.
II. INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND FORMS.
The Figures refer to Pages.
a privative, intensive, formative 100.
-a, -a in the gen. 60.
a in forms of 2d aor. 73.
ἅ for δι᾽ ἅ 142.
Ααρών 67.
'Αβιά accent 52.
ἀγαθοεργείν 26.
ἀγαθοποιεῖν 25.
ἀγαθὸς πρός τι and εἴς τι 363.
ἀγαθουργεῖν 25, 101.
ἀγαθωσύνη 25.
ἀγαλλιᾶν 24.
ἀγαλλίασις 25.
ἀγανακτεῖν constr. of 232.
Αγαρ, το 179.
ἀγγέλλω forms of 82.
ἄζυμα 176.
-αζω verbs in 92.
ἀθῶος ἀπό τ. 180, 197.
Αἴγυπτος always has art. 112.
αἷμα 30 ; αἷμα ἐκχέειν 33 ; αἵματα 177.
αἱματ εκχυσία 25, 26, 99.
αἰνειν with dat. 536.
-αινω aor. of verbs in 75 ; verbs in 92.
αἴρειν sc. τὰς ἀγκύρας 594.
αἱρετίζω 26.
αἱρέω forms of 82 ; αἱροῦμαι 253.
αἰσχύνομαι with part. and with infin. 346.
αἰτεῖν constr. of 227.
αἴτημα 24.
ἀγάπη without art. 120; θεοῦ οι Χριστοῦ 185. αἰχμαλωτεύειν 25.
αἰχμαλωτίζειν 25.
αἰῶνες 176 ; οἱ αἰῶν. τῶν αἰών. 247.
ἄγγελος art. with 124; ἄγγελοι and οἱ ἄγγ. αἰώνιος infec. 69.
124.
ἀγενεαλόγητος 25, 26.
ἀκαίρως 463.
ἀκατάριτος 236.
ἀκολουθεῖν ὀπίσω 214, 234.
ἀκουτίζω 26.
τὰ ἅγια 176, 177; ἡ ἅγια ἁγίων 246 ; οἱ ἀκμήν 464.
ἅγιοι 35, 234; ἅγιον, το 592.
ἁγιασμός 93.
ἁγιότης 25.
ἁγνίζεσθαι 252.
ἀγνοεῖν ἐν 629.
ἁγνότης 25.
ἄγνυμι forms of 82.
ἀκούω forms of 82; constr. of 199 sq. 347 ;
signific. of 274.
ἀκρόβυστος, ἀκροβυστία 24, 99.
ἀκρογωνιαῖος 236.
ἀλάλητος 23, 97.
ἀγορά without art. 121.
ἀγόραιοι accent 53 ; sc. ἡμέραι 590.
ἀγριέλαιος 25.
¿ypós without art. 121.
ἀλείφειν constr. of 227.
ἀλεκτοροφωνία 25.
ἀλέκτωρ 23.
Αλεξάς 25.
ἄγω forms of 82; ἄγε with plur. subject | ἀλήθειν 22.
516; ἄγ. τινί 215; ἄγωμεν 251.
ἀγωνίζομαι 260.
ἀδελφός supposed ellipsis of 593.
ἀδικεῖσθαι 254.
αδροτής 52 sq.
ἀεί position of 553.
ἀετός 22.
...
ἀλλά distinguished from δέ 441 sq. ; in
abrupt transitions 442 ; οὐκ ἀλλά
442; ἀλλ᾽ ἤ 442 ; not used for οὖν
451 ; nor for εἰ μή 451 ; nor for sane
451; after a single neg. 495; before
apod. 541 ; ἀλλά γε 559 ; ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα 620.
ἀλλάσσειν constr. of 206.
652
GREEK INDEX.
653
άλλομαι forms of 82.
ἄντικρυς 42.
ἄλλος in apposition 529; position of 548; ἀντίλυτρον 25.
omitted 595.
ἀλλοτριο επίσκοπος 25, 99.
ἅμα 470.
Αντίπας 103.
άντλημα 93.
ἀνάγαιον οι ανάγαιον 43.
ἁμαρτάνω, ἁμαρτέω forms of 82; constr. of ανώτερος 69.
233.
ἁμαρτία without art. 120.
ἀμφί does not occur in Ν. Τ. 372.
-αν for ασι in perf. 76; ἂν in infin. omits
subscr. 47.
ἂν force and use of 302 sqq. ; omission of
282, 305 sq. 307, 333, 595; for ἐάν 291;
in relative clauses 306; in indirect
question 308.
ἀναμιμνήσκειν constr. of 205, 226 84.
ἀντιλέγειν 23.
ἄξιος, ἀξιοῦν constr. of 206.
ἀπάγγομαι 253.
ἀπαίδευτος 96.
απαντάω forms of 83.
ἀπάντησις 24.
απαράβατος 25.
απαρτισμός 24.
ανά with the acc. 398 ; constr. of verbs ἀπείραστος 97.
compounded with 428.
ἀνάβα 79.
ἀνάγκη 30.
ἀνάθεμα 24, 32.
ἀναθεματίζειν 33.
ἀνακαινόω 26.
ανακάμπτειν 251.
ἀνακεῖσθαι 23.
ἀνακλίνειν 23.
ἀνανεοῦσθαι 263.
ἀναξίως 463.
ἀνάπεσαι 74.
ἀναπίπτειν 23.
ἀναστρέφειν 251, 469.
ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν 188.
ἀνάστημα 24.
ἀνατέλλειν 251.
ἀνατίθημι 253.
ανατολαί 176.
ἀνέλεος 100.
ἀνεπαίσχυντος 236.
ἄνευ 471.
ἀνέχομαι augm. of 72 ; forms of 83.
ἀνὴρ φονεύς etc.) 30; without art. 122;
άνδρες in addresses 610.
ἁμαρτάνειν ἁμαρτίαν 225.
ἀνθρωπάρεσκος 25.
ἀπελπίζειν 24.
ἀπερισπάστως 463.
ἀπέχω 275 ; ἀπέχεσθαι constr. of 427.
από in alleged circumloc. for the gen. 193;
with verbs of eating, taking etc. 199;
with verbs of fulness 201; meaning of
etc. 364 sq. 369 sq.; distinguished from
ἐκ 364; distinguished from ὑπό 369;
distinguished from παρά with passives
370; with verbs of receiving etc. 370;
constr. of verbs compounded with 427
sq.; trajection of with the gen. of
place? 557; ἀπὸ ἄνωθεν 603; ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι
422; ànd népvoɩ 422; ànd πpwt 422;
ἀπὸ τότε 422 ; ἀπὸ μακρόθεν 603 ; ἀπὸ
μέρους 423; ἀπὸ μιᾶς 423, 591; ἀπὸ
μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου 18.
ἀποβλέπειν εἰς 622.
ἀπογράφεσθαι 254.
ἀποδίδομαι 253.
ἀποθνήσκειν constr. of 210, 226, 227, 428.
ἀποκαθίστημι augm. of 72.
ἀποκεφαλίζειν 25.
ἀποκρίνομαι 23, 253, 261.
ἀποκτείνω forms of 83; signif. of 253.
ἀποκνεῖ and ἀποκύει 88.
ἀπολέσω 83.
ἀνίστημι σπέρμα τινί 33; ἀνάστα 79; ἀναστάς ἀπολαμβάνειν constr. of 428.
redundant? 608.
ἀνοίγω augm. of 72 ; forms of 83 ; ἀν. τοὺς
ὀφθαλμούς etc. 33 ; γλῶσσαν 622.
ἀνόμως 463.
-avos ending of patronym. nouns 95.
ἀνταπόδομα 25.
ἀνταποκρίνεσθαι 25.
ἀντί of price 206 ; with the gen. 364; constr.
of verbs compounded with 429.
ἀπόλλυμι forms of 83.
᾿Απολλώς 62, 102.
ἀπολύομαι 253.
ἀποπίπτειν constr. of 427.
ἀποῤῥίπτειν 251.
ἀποστασία 24.
ἀποστέλλειν 594.
ἀποστερεῖσθαι with gen. 196; signif. of 254
ἀποτάσσεσθαι 23.
654
GREEK INDEX.
ἀποτόμως 463.
άπταιστος 97.
ἀπώσατο 90.
ἄρα meaning and use of 444 sq.; before
apod. 541, 542; position of 558; apa
οὖν 445, 558.
apa interrog. 510.
αργός, -η, -ον, 24, 68.
ἀργύρια 176.
ἀρέσκειν constr. of 233.
ἀρεσκεία accent 51.
τὰ ἀριστερά 176.
ἀρκεῖσθαι constr. of 232.
ἀρνεῖσθαι 259.
ἀροτριάν 24.
ἁρπάζω forms of 83.
ἄρσεναν 66.
ἄρσην 22.
Αρτεμις 102.
Αρτέμων infec. 64.
ἄρτον φαγεῖν 33.
ἀφυπνόω 26.
Αχαΐα art. with 112.
ἀχειροποίητος 236.
ἄχρι oι ἄχρις ? 42 ; constr. of 297, 471.
or
Βάαλ, ἡ 179.
βαθμός 22.
βαίνω forms of 79.
βαλάντιον form of 43.
βάλλειν 251 sq.
βαπτίζω constr. of 216, 217, 412; mid. 254,
255, 621 ; βαπτ, τινὰ εἴς τι 622.
βάπτισμα 25, 35, 93.
βαπτισμός 621.
βαρέω 24; forms of 83.
βασιλεύειν constr. of 180, 206.
βασίλισσα 24, 95.
βασκαίνω forms of 83; constr. of 223.
βάτος, ἡ 36 ; ὁ 63.
βεβαία 69.
βεμβράνας 22.
ἀρχή without art. 124; τὴν ἀρχήν altogether Βηθαβαρα decl. 61.
464.
-apxns 61.
-αρχος 61 sq.
Βηθσαϊδά indecl. 61.
Βηθφαγή 52; indecl. 61.
βιβλαρίδιον 24, 96.
ἄρχομαι constr. of 346; alleged pleonasm βιόω forms of 84; χρόνον 226.
of 612 sq. ; peculiar use of 633.
Ασία art. with 112.
βλάπτειν constr. of 227.
βλαστάνω forms of 84 ; 251.
ἀσπάζομαι 259, 260.
ἀστέραν 66.
ἀστοχεῖν with gen. 196.
ἀσφαλῆν 66, 69.
ἀσφαλίζεσθαι τοὺς πόδας εἰς etc. 622.
ἀτενίζειν 24, 100.
ατιμάζεσθαι 252, 263.
αὐθεντείν 23.
αὐξάνω forms of 83, 251.
aupa ellipsis of 591.
αὐτοκατάκριτος 236.
αὐτός in loose reference 145 sq. 632 ; sub-
joined to the subject 147 sq. 519; sub- |
βλασφημεῖν constr. of 222, 629.
βλέπειν ἀπό 39; τι 223; εἰς 233.
βοᾶν constr. of 212.
βόσκεσθαι 252.
βουλεύεσθαι 254.
βούλομαι aug. of 70; ἐβουλόμην without
ἄν 283.
βουνός 22.
βραδυτής 52 sq.
βρέχειν 23.
Γαλιλαία art. with 112.
γαμέω forms of 84 ; mid. 254.
γαμίσκω 92.
joined to the relative 148; repeated 149; | γάμοι 176.
καὶ αὐτός for ὅς 149 ; unemphatic? 150; | γάρ origin and signification of 445 sq. ; in
δ αυτός 112; with dat. 150; αὐτός ἐγώ
153; αὑτοῦ or αὐτοῦ ? 151 sq. ; αὐτοῦ
before the governing subst. 155; in
apposition 530; αὐτὸ τοῦτο adv. 142.
ἀφεδρών 95.
ἀφίδω 45.
ἀφίημι, ἀφίω, ἀφέω 81.
ἀφιστάναι constr. of 427.
ἀφορῶν εἰς 622.
explanations 446, and going before
447; in rejoinders 446; in questions
447 ; repeated 447 sq. ; not to be taken
for but 453; nor for therefore 454; nor
for although 454; nor for on the contrary
454; nor for nevertheless 454; nor as
a mere copula 454; sometimes equiv.
to dé 452, 456; position of 558; in-
troducing parenth. 562.
GREEK INDEX.
655
Γεθσημανή οι νεΐ 52.
γελάω forms of 84.
γένει and τῷ γένει 120.
γενέσια 24, 176.
γεννήματα 23, 25.
γεύεσθαι constr. of 36, 198 ; θανάτου 33.
γῆ without art. 120 ; ellipsis of 592.
γηράσκω 92.
γήρει dat. 64.
δευτερόπρωτος 100.
δή with imperat. 313.
Δημας 103.
διά with gen. 377 sq. 423 sq. ; with verbs of
praising etc. 378; denoting the causa
principalis? 378; used of time 380;
with acc. 398 sq. ; in circumlocutions
423 ; construction of verbs compounded
with 431.
| διάβολος without art. 124.
διάγειν sc. τὸν βίον 593.
διαθῆκαι 177.
γίγνομαι forms of 84; construed with εἰς | διαβεβαιόω 253.
183 sq.; with gen. 195 sq. ; with dat.
210sq.; ἐγένετο with acc. and inf. 323 ;
never used, periphrastically 350 ; with
prcd. adj. 515 ; ellipsis of 586; καὶ
ἐγένετο pleonastically 608.
γινώσκειν signific. 263 ; ἄνδρα 18.
διαθήκην διατίθεσθαι 225.
διακονεῖν 593.
διαλλάσσειν constr. of 206.
γλώσσα 32 ; ellipsis of 591 ; γλωσσαῖς λα- | διαπαρατριβή 102.
γλωσσόκομον 24, 94.
λεῖν 594.
γνήσιος infec. 69.
διαπλεῖν with acc. 431.
διαπονείσθαι 23.
διαπορεύεσθαι constr. of 431.
γογγύζω 22.
γονυπετεῖν τινα 210.
Γολγοθᾶ indecl. 61.
τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα 177.
αἱ γραφαί 177.
γράφω in the preterite 278.
γρηγορῶ 26, 92.
γυμνητεύειν 25.
γυναικάριον 96.
γυνή ellipsis of 190.
δαίμων, δαιμόνια 23, 239.
Δαυΐδ spelling of 44.
δέ meaning and use of 441, 443 ; distin-
guished from αλλά 441 sq. ; μὲν . . . δέ
.
διασκορπίζειν 25.
διατρίβειν sc. τον χρόνον 593.
διδάσκειν τινί 223 ; ἐν 227.
δίδωμι forms of 78, 79, 84; constr. of. 180,
197, 198.
διεγείρειν 102.
διέρχεσθαι with acc. and with διά 431.
δικαιοκρισία 25, 99.
δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως 136.
δικαιοσύνη 32 ; etc. 35 ; without art. 120;
θεοῦ 186 ; πίστεως 186.
διό 445.
διότι 445.
διορύσσειν 594.
διψᾶν etc. 17, 77 ; with acc. 204 sq.
διώκειν 30 ; forms of 84.
διώξω
441, 443 ; οὐ (μὴ) . . . δέ 442 ; οὔπω . . .
où
dé 442; kal... dè 443; dè... kai 443; | diwęw 84.
και
never means therefore 452; nor for | δοκεῖν alleged pleonasm of 612 sq.
452, nor is it a mere particle of transi- |
tion 453 ; as related to γάρ 456 ; after
a single neg. 495, 539 sq.; position of
558; introducing parenth. 562.
δειγματίζειν 25, 26.
δεῖπνος, ὁ 65.
δεκατοῦν 24.
δεξιά without art. 122 ; τὰ δεξιά 176.
δεξιολαβεῖν 102.
δεξισλάβος 101.
δέομαι constr. of 198.
δερμάτινος 26.
δεσμός plur. forms of 63.
δεύτερον 250.
|
δολιόω 26.
δόμος ellipsis of 592.
δόξα 32 ; ἡ 108.
δραχμή ellipsis of 592.
δύναμαι aug. of 70; forms of 76, 84 ; with
infin. 321, 327, 333; used absolutely
590, 594 ; alleged pleonasm of 613.
δυνάμεις 32.
δυναμόω 26.
δύνῃ 76.
dúo inflec. 64; with plur. 177; dúo dúo 249.
δυσί 64.
δυσμαί 176.
δύω, δύνω forms of 84.
656
GREEK INDEX.
δωδεκάφυλος 100.
δῴη 78.
δωμα 23.
δωρεάν 230.
δώση 79.
éáv sometimes &v, never v 291; constr. of
291, 293, 294 sq.; ẻàv ... ei 296; for
dv after relatives 310 ; ἐὰν μή in oaths
500; position of 550; supposed ellipsis
of 541, 595.
195 sq.; with dat. 210; with pred.
adj. 515; éσtí with infin. 320.
-evos adjectives in 99.
eineîv forms of 85; fut. 279, 280; elρηкE
sc. 8 Deós 522; pŋ in direct discourse
558; ellipsis of 598; einóv 22, accent
51.
etreр 448.
elπws with ind. fut. 300.
eiphun Deoû 186.
-es plural ending 64.
ἑαυτοῦ 150; ἑαυτόν and ἑαυτῷ with the εἰς never is 52 ; in supposed circumlocution
mid. 257.
ἐγάμησα 84.
ἐγγύς constr. of 195, 471; ἐγγὺς εἶναι
465.
ἐγείρομαι 252.
ἐγενήθην 84.
ἐγκαίνια 176.
ἐγκαινίζειν 33.
éуkaλeîv constr. of 203, 431.
ἐγκεντρίζειν constr. of 430.
ἐγκρατεύομαι 25.
ἔγραψα equiv. to γράφω 278.
èyw never unemphatic 152 sq.
ede a real imperf. indic. 283.
ἐδώκαμεν 84.
εθελοθρησκεία 100.
ἐθνικῶς 463.
ἐθύθη 44.
ņ
-e in 2d pers. sing. pass. for ʼn 75 sq.
el with subjunc. 36; constr. of 291 sq.; and
éáv distinguished 295, 296; with ind.
fut. 300; for éπeí 448; denoting a wish
448; in oaths 500; supposed ellipsis
of 595; in direct quest. 508, 509; ар-
parently for ὅτι 542; εἰ ἄρα 445 ; εἰ
δὲ μή γε 583, 605 ; εἰ καί distinguished
from kal el 444; el µń 478 sq. 633, rule
μή
for use of 479, not used affirm. 500; ei
où 478 sq., rule for use of 479.
-ela etc. in 1st aor. opt. 76.
εἴγε 448.
εἰδέα 48.
eidw know, forms of 84; perf, 274,
εἰδωλολάτρης 100.
εἰδωλολατρεία 26.
εἰδωλόθυτον 26, 100.
εἱλίσσειν 22.
eiµí forms of 79; with part. in periphrasis
348 sq.;
of 584; with eis 183 sq.; with gen.
with advbs. 465; omission
|
|
for the nom. 183; as a sign of the dat.?
212; of the acc.? 228, 527; in cir-
cumlocutions 228, 424, 527; with infin.
how rendered 329; with acc. 396 sq.;
used for ev? 414; with few, ка0íÇeσ0αι
etc. 415; els rpís 422; constr. of verbs
compounded with 430.
els and i els 116; els as an indef. art. (Tis)?
117 ; for πρῶτος 32, 248 ; εἷς καθ᾽ εἷς
249; εἷς . . . οὐ 172; εἷς ... καὶ εἷς 173;
position of 548.
εἰσέρχεσθαι constr. of 427 ; εἰς τὸν κόσμον 18.
elow, čow 52.
€Îτα 540; before apod. 541.
εἴτε εἴτε 440.
...
è in circumlocutions 193, 424; use of with
gen. 366 sq.; distinguished from ảπó
364; with verbs of fulness 201; never
put for ev 368; constr. of verbs com-
pounded with 429; in local attraction
629.
kaσTos always without art. 111; with plur.
pred. 516.
Éкатóνтαрxos 61.
ἐκβάλλειν ἔξω 603.
ἐκγαμίζειν 102.
èкeî for èkeîσe 471.
ἐκεῖ
ẻkeîvos with noun and art. 110; referring
to the nearest subject 157; position
of 157, 162; repeated 160.
¿keîσe for Èkeî 472,
ἐκέρδησα 87.
ἐκκακεῖν 25.
ÉKKλŋola without art. 122.
ἐκλέγεσθαι ἔν τινι 226.
οἱ ἐκλεκτοί 35, 234.
ἐκμυκτηρίζειν 25.
taλai 24, 422.
EKTÍπTEL Constr. of 427.
Kπλhσσεσbαι constr. of 232.
GREEK INDEX.
657
Έκραξα 89.
ἔκρυβαν 88.
ἐκτένεια 25.
ἐκτενῶς 25, 463.
ἐκτὸς εἰ μή 605.
ἐκτρέπειν 251, 429.
ἐκχέω forms of 85 ; ἐκχέω fut. 77.
ἔκτρωμα 25.
ἐκχύνειν 24.
Ελαιών οι Ελαιών ? 182.
ἐλάκησα 88.
ελαχιστότερος 69.
ἐλεάω 85.
ἐλεεινός 99.
ἐλεέω forms of 85 ; constr. of 233.
ἔλεος gend. 66.
ἐλευθεροῦν constr. of 196,19%.
ἐλεύσομαι 86.
ἕλκω forms of 86.
ἑλληνίζειν, ἑλληνιστής 28, 94.
ἐλπίζειν constr. of 233, 321, 331, 410.
ἐμόs used objectively 153.
ἐμπορεύεσθαι constr. of 222, 429.
ἔμπροσθεν 471.
ἐνώπιον 214; τοῦ θεοῦ 32.
ἐνωτίζεσθαι 33.
ἐξάγειν ἔξω 603.
ἐξανατέλλειν 102.
ἐξάπινα 24.
ἐξαστράπτειν 102.
ἐξεκρέμετο 87.
ἐξένευσε 91.
ἐξέρχεσθαι ἐκ τῆς ὀσφύος τινός 33.
ἐξ οὗ uluence 141 sq.
ἐξομολογεῖσθαι 102; constr. of 30, 32, 209.
ἐξὺν είναι 24.
ἐξορκίζειν 102.
ἐξουδενός 26.
ἐξουθενεῖν 25.
ἐξυπνίζειν 24.
ἔξω 471.
ἐξῶσεν 90.
ἔοικα 274.
ἐπαγγελίαι 177.
ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι with infin. 331.
ἐπαινέσω 86.
ἐπαινέω forms of 86 ; constr. of 203.
έπαιξα 88.
ev and Beth essentiae 184,513, hebraistically | ἐπαισχύνομαι augm. of 73 ; constr. of 221.
for acc. of object ? 226; in alleged | επάν 297.
circumloc. for gen. 193; alleged sign | ἐπάνω 102, 250.
ἐπεί 448 ; with indic. pres. 283.
étel ăpa 445.
ἐπειδή 448.
ἐπειδήπερ 448.
of the dat. 217; ἐν Χριστῷ 359, 360, | Επαφρᾶς 103.
388, 390; with dat. in local use 384;
temporal 385; fig. uses 386 sq.; ap-
parently with gen. 384; ἐν ᾧ, ἐν τούτῳ
387; distinguished from διά 389; ἐν
ὀνόματί τινος 390; used for εἰς ? 4135q.
415; originally identical with εἰς 416 ;
in adverbial and other circumlocu-
tions 424; construction of verbs com-
pounded with 429.
Ένατος 43.
ἐνδύσασθαι Χριστόν 30.
ἔνεγκας 90.
;
ἕνεκα forms of 43 ; with infin. 329.
ἐνέπαιξα 88.
ἐνεργεῖν 258, 430.
ἐνέχειν sc. χόλον ? 593.
ἔνι 80, 423.
ἐννενήκοντα 43.
ἐννεός οι ἐνεός 44.
ἔνοχος constr. of 180, 202, 210, 213.
ένταλμα 25.
ἐντεῦθεν looking forwards 161.
ἐντρέπεσθαι constr. of 221, 429.
ἐντρυφάν constr. of 430.
.
ἐπεὶ μή 480.
ἐπείπερ 448.
ἔπειτα μετὰ τοῦτο 603.
ἐπέκεινα accent 52.
ἐπεκτείνεσθαι constr. of 431.
ἔπεμψα equiv. to πέμπω 278.
ἐπενδύτης 25.
ἐπέχειν 593.
ἐπηρεάζειν constr. of 221.
ἐπί with gen. 374; with dat. 392; ἐφ᾽ ᾧ
394; ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόμ. τινος 393; with acc.
407 sq.; with different cases in the
same sentence 409; ἐπί τρίς 422, in
circumlocutions with gen. and dat. of
abstracts 425 ; constr. of verbs com-
pounded with 430.
ἐπιγαμβρεύειν 26.
ἐπιθυμεῖν constr. of 204, 430.
ἐπικαλοῦμαι 253, 263, 430.
ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι constr. of 202, 430 sq.
83
658
GREEK INDEX.
ἐπιλησμονή 93.
ἐπιορκέω forms of 86.
ἐπιούσιος 97, 236.
ἐπιποθεῖν constr. of 204, 430.
ἐπιπόθητος 236.
ἐπισκιάζειν constr. of 431.
ἐπιστέλλειν 23.
ἐπιστολαί of a single ep. 176.
ἐπιστρέφεσθαι 26, 251.
Επιστροφή 26.
ἐπίταδε accent 52.
ἐπιτιθέναι τινί sc. τὰς χεῖρας 593.
ἐπιφάναι 89.
ἐπιφαύσει 90.
ἐπιφέρειν constr. of 431.
ἐπιχειρεῖν pleonastic ? 613.
ἐπουράνια, τα 235.
ἐργάζομαι 72, 222, 259.
ἔργον as a pleonasm ? 615.
ἐρεύγεσθαι 23.
ěpnuos accent 52; inflection 69; † 106.
ἐρίθεια, ἐριθεία 51, 94.
ěpis inflection 65.
'Epuâs 103.
ἐῤῥήθην, ἐῤῥέθην 85.
ἔρχομαι forms of 86 ; ἔρχεται ὥρα, ἵνα 339 ;
ὁ ἐρχόμενος 341.
έρωτᾶν 22, 30, 32, 335.
ἔσθησις 23.
ἐσθίω forms of 86 ; constr. of 180, 198 sq.
ἔσθω 23, 86.
ἑστάναι 78.
ἔσχατος without art. 131.
ἐσχάτως 463; ἔχειν 26.
ἔσω not εἴσω 52; 471, 472.
ἐσώτερος 69.
ἕτερος in appos. 530; ἑτέρῳ, ἐν 592.
ἔτι in comparison 240; position of 553.
ἕτοιμος accent 52; with aor. infn. 332.
ἑτοίμως 463.
εὐ augm. of verbs beginning with 71.
ευσχήμων 23.
Εύτυχος accent 51.
εὐχαριστεῖν 23, 222.
εὔχεσθαι aug. of 71 ; 212, 259.
-εύω verbs in 92.
ἐφάπαξ 422
ἔφη in direct disc. 558 ; omitted 598.
ἔφθασα 90.
ἔφιδε 45.
ἐφιστάναι constr. of 427.
ἐχθές 24, 45 ; cf. 48.
ἔχω with gen. 202; with infin. 333; ἐν
γαστρὶ ἐχ. 594; μὴ ἔχειν 594.
-éw verbs'in with e in the fut. 77.
ἐωνησάμην 70.
ἕως and ἕως οὗ constr. 296; ἕως ἂν 308;
ἕως as a prep. 470; ἕως ἄρτι, πότε etc.
471.
ζάω forms of 86; constr. of 226, 227.
ζῆλος, το 65.
Ζηνας 102.
ζήσω 86.
ζητεῖν ψυχήν 33.
ζωὴ αἰώνιος 133.
* in comparisons 240 sq. ; * ... * καί 440 ;
never for και 440, yet cf. 441; co-
ordinate with οὔτε 491 sq. ; after neg.
508 ; in questions 509; repeated 519;
supposed ellipsis of 595 sq.
ἡγέομαι ὡς 602.
ήγησις 24.
ήκα 87.
ἥκω 87, 274.
ήλιος anarthrous 119 sq.
ἡμάρτησα 82.
ήμεθα 80.
ἡμεῖς never unemphatic 153.
ἤμελλε 70.
ἡμέρα ellipsis of 590; ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ 468.
εὐαγγελίζειν 24, 35 ; aug. of 71 ; constr. of ἡμίση, -εα, -εια 65.
180, 213, 223, 227, 229, 260.
εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ 186.
εὐαρέστως 463.
εὐδοκεῖν 25, 101, 212, 222, 232.
εὐθέως position of 554.
εὐθύμως 463.
εὐπερίστατος 236.
εὐλογεῖν 32.
εὑράμην 86.
ἥμισυ infection 64.
ἡνίκα constr. of 296 ; ἡνίκα ἄν 297.
ήξα 87.
ἤρεμος 70.
-ηριον substantives in 96.
ἠρχόμην 86.
Ηρωδιανός 95.
ἧς for ἦσθα 80.
ἤτοι . . . * 440.
...
εὑρίσκω forms of 86; constr. of 219 ; εὑρί- ἡττάομαι 260.
σκεσθαι for είναι ? 616.
ήτω 79.
GREEK INDEX.
659
ἤφιε 81.
ἦχος, τό 65.
Odλaoσa without art. 121.
θάλλω 87.
θάμβος, gen. θάμβου 66.
θανατηφόρος 101.
Bávaros 29; without art. 122.
OavμáÇew constr. of 232.
θεάομαι 259.
θεατρίζειν 25, 26.
θεόπνευστος 96.
0éλw with inf. 37, 321, 327, 333; léλw
malle 241; not for ήθελον 284; followed
by subjunc. 285, 595; Iva 336 sq.; used
adverbially? 467; pleonastic? 612 sq.
Deós, eé vocative 63; without art. 121 sq.;
ellipsis of 522, 588.
DEоσтVyhs 23; accent 53.
evdâs 103.
θλίψις, θλίψις 50.
θρησκος accent 50.
θριαμβεύειν 23, 251.
θυμὸς ἀρχῆς 611.
Oúpa without art. 123; in plur. 176.
θυρεός 23.
-Ow verbs in 92.
-la nouns in 95.
ἰάομαι 259.
idé and tde 49.
dios for poss. pron. 153 sq.; added to a
pers. pron. 154; position of 548; idíą, |
κατ' ἰδίαν 591 ; τὰ ἴδια 592.
ieplooa 24.
Ιεριχώ 67.
Ιεροσύλημα 25.
ἱερουργείν constr. of 222.
Iepovoaλhμ form and inflec. 67 sq.; use of
art. with 112; plur. 176.
-iw fut. of verbs in 75; deriv. of verbs in
91 sq.
ἵημι forms of 80.
'Inooûs inflection 66.
ἱκεσία 24.
iλáσkeσðaι constr. of 227.
ἱλαστήριον 96, 592.
ἵλεως 22.
iμária 176; ellipsis of 591.
ἱματίζω 26.
iμelpeolaι 101; constr. of 204.
Iva 449; with ind. pres. 36; constr. of
287 sq.; with subjunc. for imperat. 315;
|
weakened 36, and for infin. 334 sqq. ;
John's use of 338 sq. 461; is it used
ἐκβατικῶς ? 457 sq. ; ἵνα πληρωθῇ 461;
apparently for sTe or &s after adject.
461; for bri? 462; supposed ellipsis
of 285, 595; in breviloquence 620,
ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα 620 ; ἵνα τί uhurefore 169, sc.
γέν. 586.
-vos adjectives in 99.
'Iopòávns art. with 112.
'Ioúda use of art. with 114.
'Iovoaía art. with 112.
|
toa used adverbially 177.
|
ἰσάγγελος 236.
toos accent 52; toa adv.177; constr. of 209.
ioτávw 87.
ἱστάνω
iσráw 78.
ἱστάω
loτnμ forms of 78, 79, 87; signif. of 252;
perf. 274.
'Iranía art. with 112.
'Iwons inflection 66.
καθάπτω 257.
καθαρίζειν constr. of 197.
kalapós constr. of 197.
καθ' εἷς 249.
κάθῃ 81.
kálnμai forms of 81; constr. of 431.
καθημερινός 26.
kalí el constг. of 415, 431.
ELV
κάθου 81.
καθώς 26 ; καθὼς . . . οὕτως 440.
kai 434 sqq.; connecting numerals 250;
- connecting diff. tenses 280; at the
beginning of an apodosis 286, 438;
connecting imperatives 311; distin-
guished from T€ 434; uses of 435 sq. ;
with interrogatives 437; adversative
437; epexegetic 437; meaning espec-
ially? 438; after a particle of time
438; kal... kaí 439; in comparisons
440, 603; never for 440; kal... dé
443; καὶ εἰ distinguished from εί καί
444; kal yáp 448; кal où, kal µń 493;
in schema кaт' ¿§oxhv 520 sq. 539 sq.;
transposed? 560; introducing parenth.
562; anacoluthic use of one for two
576; kal éyéveтo Hebraistically 608.
Kapós without art. 124.
Kaioάpela art. with 112.
καίτοι, καίπερ with part. 344, καίτοιγε
444.
какlа without art. 120.
kakla
660
GREEK INDEX.
καλεῖν, ἐπί τινα 410, 593 ; καλεῖσθαι for κλαίω 87 ; constr. of 222.
εἶναι ? 615 ; καλέσω fut. 77.
καλοποιεῖν 25, 26 ; constr. of 222.
καμμύειν 24.
κάν vel certe 584.
Kava accent 52; indecl. 61.
καραδοκεῖν 101,
κλᾶν τὸν ἄρτον 35.
κλαύσω 87.
κλείς infection 65.
κλείειν τι από τινος 622.
Κλεόπας 103.
κλέπτω 87.
καρδία as a circumlocution for the pers. κλέψω 87.
pron. 156 ; εὐθεῖα 32.
καρπὸς κοιλίας 33 ; ὀσφύος 33 ; χειλέων 33.
κατά with acc. of pers. pron. equiv. to
poss. pron. 154 ; in circum. for gen.
193; with gen. 381 sq. ; with acc.
400 sq. ; in local sense 400; in tem-
poral 401; in distributive 401; figu-
ratively 401 sq. ; καθ' ἑαυτόν 401 ; in
circumlocutions 425 ; καθ' ὅλου 425 ;
;
κληρονομείν constr. of 200.
οἱ κλητοί 35.
κλίβανος 22.
κλίμα acc. 50.
κλινάριον 96.
ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός 33.
κοιμᾶσθαι 267 ; perf. 274.
κοινωνεῖν constr. of 200.
| κολλυβιστής 94.
constr. of verbs compounded with 431. | Κολοσσαί spelling 44.
κατάβα 79.
κατάγνυμι aug. of 70.
κατακαήσομαι 87.
κατακαίω 87.
κατακαυχάσθαι constr. of 203, 432.
κατακρίνειν constr. of 210.
καταλαμβάνω 253.
καταλείπω 87.
καταλιθάζειν 102.
κατάλυμα 25, 93.
κατάνυξις 94.
καταποντίζειν 24.
καταστολή 23.
κατεαγῶ 70.
κατέαξαν 70.
κατείδωλος 236.
κατέναντι 102.
κατενώπιον 102.
κατέχειν εἰς 594.
κατηγορείν constr. of 180, 203, 260, 431..
κατόρθωμα 25.
κατώτερος 69.
κείρειν 257.
καυχάσθαι constr. of 222, 233.
κεκέρασμαι 87.
κέκτημαι 274.
κελεύειν with infin. 332, 336.
εἰς κενόν 592 ; κενώς 463.
κεραμικός 99.
κεράννυμι 87.
κεφαλίς 23.
κέρας inflection 65.
κερδαίνω 87.
κήρυξ οι κήρυξ ? 50.
κινέομαι 252.
κόλποι 176.
κοράσιον 24.
κόσμιος inflection 68.
κόσμος 26 ; without art. 123.
κράββατος 25, 43.
κράζω 87, 274; 3d fut. pass. 279.
κράξω 87.
κρατείν constr. of 202.
κρέας inflection 65.
κρέμαμαι 87.
κρίμα accent 50.
κρούειν 593.
κρύπτω 88; constr. of 227, mid. 253 ; τι
από τινος 622.
κτάομαι 260 ; perf. 274.
κτίσις 32 ; without art. 123.
κτιστῇ, κτίστῃ 51.
κτίστης accent 51, 94; without art. 122.
κυριακός 236.
κύριος κυρίων 18; without art. 124.
κύω and κυέω 88.
κωλύειν with gen. 196.
Κως, Κῶ 62.
λαβέ, λάβε 49.
λαβών pleonastic ? 607.
λαγχάνειν constr. of 200.
λάθρα 47.
λαῖλαψ not λαίλαψ 50.
λαλιά 23.
λαλεῖν γλωσσαις 594.
λαμβάνειν constr. of 202 ; τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν
237.
λαμπάς 23.
λάσκω 88.
GREEK INDEX.
661
λατρεύειν 593.
λέγειν constr. of 212 ; ellipsis of 587 ; λέγει
sc. ὁ θεός 522, 588 ; λέγων used absol.
535 sq. ; pleonastically 602.
Aevt or Aevts inflection 66.
λιθοβολεῖν 25, 26, 102.
λιμός, ή, 22, 36, 63.
λογία 25.
λογίζεσθαι εἰς 228.
λογίζομαι 259 ; ὡς 602.
λοιβή 23.
λοιπόν, το 592.
λουεῖν ἀπὸ 197; λούεσθαι 253.
Λουκᾶς 103.
λυχνία 24.
Λύδδα infection 61.
λύειν 32 ; constr. of 197.
λυτροῦν constr. of 197; act. and mid.
253.
-μα substantives in 25, 93.
μαθητεύειν 23 ; constr. of 221, 251.
Μακεδονία art. with 112.
μακράν 230.
μακρόθεν 463.
μᾶλλον in comparison 240, 603 ; πολὺ
μᾶλλον 633.
μάμμη 25.
Μανασσή infection 67.
μανθάνειν with infin. and part. 347.
μαρτυρίαν μαρτυρεῖν 225.
μάταιος inflection 68.
μάτην 230.
μαχαίρης 62.
μεγαλύνειν 30.
μεγαλωσύνη 26.
μεθύσκεσθαι constr. of 201, 217, 252.
μέθυσος 23.
μειζότερος 27, 69.
μέλει constr. of 205.
μελίσσιος 24.
μέλλειν with inf. 37, 334; aug. of 70.
μεμιαμμένοι 88.
μέν 443; position of 558, 559; without δέ
575 sq. ; μὲν . . . ἀλλά 443; μὲν . . . δέ
540; μὲν ... ἔπειτα 576; μὲν ... καί 576.
μενούν γε 558.
μέντοι 444, 558, 559.
μεσημβρία without art. 121.
μεσιτεύειν 25.
391; with acc. 403 ; constr. of verbs
compounded with 432; μετὰ τοῦτο οι
ταῦτα 540.
μετανοεῖν ἀπό or ἐκ 622.
μεταξύ, ἐν τῷ 592.
μετασταθῆναι with gen. 196.
μετέχω constr. of 180, 201.
μετοικεσία 24.
μετρεῖν ἐν 218,
μετριοπαθεῖν 101.
μέχρι and μέχρις 471.
μή etc. distinguished from οὐ 473 sq. ; use
of 476 sqq. ; with imperat. 476; in
conditional clauses 477 sq. ; in relative
clauses 480 sq.; with infin. 481, with
participles 482 sq. ; apparently for οὐ
486 sq.; in continued negation 487 sq.;
in antith. 495 sq. ; in independ. prop.
500 sq.; in prohibitions 502; in de-
pend. prop.502 sq. ; after δρα, βλέπε etc.
503, 601; after verbs of fearing 505 ;
in questions 511; ellipsis with 596;
redundant 604 ; in εἰ μή 633; in ἐκτὸς
εἰ μή 605 ; in εἰ δὲ μή γε 605 ; μὴ .
ἀλλά 595 ; μὴ . . . ἀλλὰ καί 498 ; μὴ οὐ
511 ; μὴ ... πᾶς for μηδείς 171.
•
μηδέ 487 sqq. ; must be preceded by μή
489; distinguished from και μή 493;
μηδὲ . . . μήτε 492.
μηθέν 44.
μηκέτι supposed use of for μή 618.
μήν 434, 443.
μήποτε 480.
μήπως with indic. pret. 504 sq. ; with both
indic. and subjunc. 505.
μήτε 487 sqq. ; used after μηδέ ? 492.
μήτηρ without art. 122; omitted 190.
μιαίνω 88.
μιμνήσκεσθαι with gen. or acc. 180, 628.
μισθαποδοσία 24.
μισθωτός 51.
μνημονεύειν constr. of 205.
μοιχαλίς 24.
-μονή substantives in 93.
μονόφθαλμος 24.
μόνος without art. 131 ; supposed ellipsis
of 495, 595.
-μος substantives in 93.
μοσχοποιεῖν 26.
μυκτηρίζειν ἐν 629.
μέσος without art. 123, 131 ; μέσον as an μύριοι, μυρίοι 53.
adv. 471.
μπρος accent 52.
μετά with gen. 376; distinguished from σύν | Μωϋσῆς spelling 44; infection 66.
662
GREEK INDEX.
y in the accusative 66.
ν ἐφελκυστικόν 41.
νεκροί without art. 123.
νηπιάζω 92.
νίκος 24.
νίπτω 88.
νοΐ, νοός 62.
νομοθετεῖν 261.
νόμος without art. 123.
νοσσιά 24.
νοσσοί 24.
νουθεσία 24.
vous inflection 62.
Νύμφας 102.
νύμφη 32.
νυνί 23 ; with imperat. 313.
νυχθήμερον 25.
νῶτος ὁ and το 63.
ξενίζεσθαι constr. of 209.
ξενοδοχεύς 25.
ξηρά, ή 18, 592.
ξύλον 23.
ξυράω 24.
& with participle derisively 135; with an
δ
acc. elliptically 589; ὁ μὲν
μὲν ... ὁ δέ
104 ; δ δέ without δ μέν 104; ὁ ὢν κ. ὁ
ἦν κ. ὁ ἐρχόμενος 68.
8 for δι' ὅ 142 ; before a clause 168.
ὅδε apparently equiv. to δ δεῖνα 162.
ὁμολογεῖν constr. of 39, 209, 226.
ὁμολογία 35.
όμως 334, 444; transposed 553.
ὀνειδίζειν with the acc. 222.
ὀνειδισμός 24.
ὄνομα as an alleged pleonasm 615; ἐν
ὀνόματί τινος 390; ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόμ. 394.
ὀνομάζεσθαι not esse 615 sq.
ὄπισθεν 471.
ὀπίσω 471.
ὁποῖος 543.
δπόσος 543.
ὅπου for ὅποι 471, 472 ; 510.
ὀπτασία 24.
όπως constr. of 287 sq. 542 ; with ἂν 309 sq. ;
ὅρα ὅπ. 338; meaning and use 449 ;
ὅπως πληρωθῇ 461; not equiv. to ὥστε
462; in indirect quest. 510; supposed
ellipsis of 285, 595.
δράω 88; perf. in sense of pres. 274.
ὀργή, ἡ sc. τοῦ θεοῦ 594.
ὀργίζεσθαι constr. of 232.
ὀρέγεσθαι 252.
ἡ ὀρεινή 591.
ὀρέων 64.
ὀρθοποδεῖν 26, 102.
ὀρθοτομεῖν 26.
ὀρθρίζω 26, 33.
ὀρθρινός 25.
ὅρκον οι ὅρκῳ 226, 603; εἰς 397.
ὁρκωμοσία, ἡ 24.
ὁδός 32; ellipsis of 590; ὁδὸν θαλάσσης | ὁροθεσία 25.
231.
οἰκοδεσποτείν 25.
οἰκοδεσπότης 25.
oikodoμeîv 30; augm. of 71; pass. 263;
οἶκον 603.
οικοδομή 24, etc. 35.
οικτείρω 88.
οἰκτιρμοί 176.
ὀλίγος without art. 131.
ολοθρεύω, ολεθρεύω 92.
ὁλοκαύτωμα 33.
ὁλόκληρος 25.
ὅλος without art. 131.
Ολυμπᾶς 103.
ὁμείρεσθαι οι ὀμείρεσθαι 101.
ὁμιλεῖν constr. of 212.
ὀμνύω 88; constr. of 222.
ὁμοιάζειν 25.
duotos accent 52; inflec. 68; constr. of 180,
195, 209.
ὁμοιόω ὡς 602.
os supposed remote reference of 157 sq.;
for interrog. 167; position of clause
with 167 sq. ; for demons. 168 ; before
a clause 168; ds av with the moods
306 sq. ; ὃς μὲν . ὃς δέ 105; ὅ for δι'
% 142.
ὁσάκις ἄν 297, 308.
• •
-οσαν in 3d plur. hist. tenses 77.
ὅσον ὅσον 247.
ὀστέα, ὀστέων 63.
ὅστις occurs in Ν. Τ. only in nom. 163;
ὅστις ἄν 306, 480, 543.
ὀστράκινος 26.
-οσύνη substantives in 95.
ὅταν with indic. 36 ; with the moods 297,
308, 309.
ὅτε with the indic. 296; with the subjunc.
298; confounded with ὅτι 457 ; ὁπότε
constr. of 296.
ὅτι with infin. 339, 573; meaning and use
of 445, 449; not equiv. to διό 456,
GREEK INDEX.
663
nor διὰ τί 456, nor quanquam 457, nor
Οτε 457, nor profecto 457, nor us 457 ;
542; pleonastic? 597; before the orat.
rect. 605 ; ὡς ὅτι 618.
ὅ,τι mode of writing 46 ; as interrog. in
N. T. 167, 168.
οὐ etc. distinguished from μή 473 sqq. ;
combining with verbs 476 ; with nouns
476; in conditional sentences (εἰ ού)
477; after ὅτι and επεί because 480; in
relative clauses 480 sq.; with partici-
ples 485 ; in continued negation 48854.;
οὐ ... οὔτε 490 ; in antith. (οὐ ... ἀλλά)
495,497 ; οὐ ... ἀλλὰ καί 498; οὐ μόνον
ἀλλά 498; with fut. ind. 315, 501 ;
οὐ μή 505 sq. ; Dawes's rule 507; with
pres. indic. 507 ; in questions 510 sq. ;
οὐκ ἄρα 511; οὐ μή disting. from μὴ οὐ
511 sq. ; οὐ πάντως and πάντως οὐ 554 ;
οὐ πάνυ 554 ; οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καί 583
sq. ; not for οὔπω 596; οὐχ ὅτι... ἀλλά
597; οὐχ οἷον ὅτι 597 ; οὐ ... πᾶς 30,
171 sq.; où πâs 171.
ου το 476.
oû whither 471, 591.
οὐαί, ἡ 179.
οὐδέ without a preceding neg. 487 ; in con-
tinued negation 487; must be preceded
by οὐ 489, 500 ; οὐδὲ ... οὐδέ 489;
after οὔτε 491 ; distinguished from καὶ
οὐ 493, and from οὔτε 487, 494; οὐδὲ
δέ 495; οὐδέ ne quidem 500 ;
οὐδὲ μή 506, 539 sq.
οὐδὲ εἷς 173.
· • •
οὐδείς ἐστιν ὅs with indic. 300.
οὐθείς etc. 44.
|
|
-
)
|
|
|
of time 161; position of 162, 548;
ταῦτα 162; ταῦτα πάντα 548.
οὕτως and οὕτω 41 ; repeated 160; looking
forwards 161 ; for οὗτος ? 465 ; before
apod. 541; after condit. clauses 541;
with part. 541; in anaphora 618.
ὀφείλημα 32 ; ὀφειλήματα ἀφιέναι 30, 33.
ὄφελον constr. of 301 sq.
όψάριον 23.
ὀψέ 471.
ὄψησθε 88.
ὄψιμος 24.
ὀψώνιον 23 ; -ια 176.
-ow verbs in 91.
παθητός 97.
παιδάριον 96.
παιδεύειν 22.
παιδιόθεν 26, 463.
παίζω 88.
παῖς 30.
πάλιν position of 548, 554; δεύτερον οι ἐκ
δευτέρου 604; ἄνωθεν 604.
πανδοχεύς 25.
πανοικί 26, 44.
πάντα ταῦτα and ταῦτα πάντα 548.
πάντη, πάντῃ 47.
πάντων with the compar. 242; with the
superl. 248.
πάντοτε 26.
παρά in comparisons 240 ; distinguished
from ἀπό 364 sq. ; after passives 365 ;
with gen. 365 sq.; with dat. 394; with
acc. 403; constr. of verbs compounded
with 432.
παραβάτης 26.
οὐκέτι supposed half pleonastic use of 618. | παραβολεύεσθαι 93.
οὔκουν and οὐκοῦν 512.
οὖν uses of 444 ; allied to δέ 455; not equiv.
to but 455; nor for 455 ; nor super-
fuous 455 ; as connective 539 sq. ;
before apod. ? 541, 542; position of 558.
οὐράνιος infection 68.
οὐρανόθεν 463.
οὐρανός without art. 121; οὐρανοί 176.
οὔτε . . . οὔτε 487 sq. 540; οὔτε ... οὔτε ...
...
· ..
καὶ οὐ 489 ; οὔτε after οὐ 490; οὔτε
ἤ 491 ; οὔτε after οὐδέ ? 492; diff.
between and οὐδέ 494; οὔτε και
494.
οὗτος with a noun and art. 110; remote
reference of 157; repetition of 159 sq.;
looking forwards 161; in expressions
παραδιατριβή 102.
παραδίδοσθαι absol. 35.
παραθήκη, παρακαταθήκη 102.
παραινείν constr. of 223.
παρακαλεῖν 22; with infn. 332 ; constr.
with 335.
παραλαμβάνειν εἰς 622.
παραπλησίον 471.
παρασκευάζομαι 253.
παραφρονία 24.
παρεμβολή 22.
παρέχειν, παρέχεσθαι 257.
Παρμενᾶς 103.
παρρησία 23.
...
πᾶς art. with 111; πᾶς οὐ (μή) 172;
πάντη and πάντῃ 47 ; πάντα and τὰ
664
GREEK INDEX.
πάντα 116 ; πάντων with the compar. | πληροφορία 25.
242; with the superl. 248 ; πάντα | πλησίον, ὁ 24, 130, 471.
ταῦτα and ταῦτα πάντα
548 ; παντί,
πλησμονή 94.
ἐν 592.
πλούς 62.
πάσχα 68.
πάσχειν 35, 594; constr. of 412.
πατήρ without art. 122 ; ellipsis of 190.
πατριάρχης 26.
Παύλος use of art. with 113.
πλούσιος constr. of 201..
πλοῦτος gend. 65 ; πλοῦτον πλουτείν 225.
πνεῦμα etc. without art. 122; τὸ πνευματικόν
592..
ποία 22.
παύεσθαι with gen. 196, 262; παύομαι mid. ποιεῖν, ποιεῖσθαι 256; not pleonastic 609 ;
253, 263.
παχύνειν 18.
πείθειν ἵνα 338.
πείθομαι 253.
πειθός 24, 96.
πεινᾶν etc. 77 ; constr. of 204 sq.
πειράω 91.
πεισμονή 93 sq.
πέλαγος τῆς θαλάσσης 611.
πελεκίζω 26.
πέμπω in the preterite 278.
πεντεκοστή 26.
πεπειραμένος 91.
πέποιθα constr. of 214, 233, 410.
πεποίθησις 25.
πέρατα τῆς γῆς 30.
περί in circumlocutions ? 192 sq. ; with
gen. 372; distinguished from ὑπέρ 373,
411 sq. ; with acc. 406 ; constr. of verbs
compounded with 432.
περιάγειν 257.
περίκειμαι constr. of 229.
περιπατεῖν 32.
περισπάσθαι 23.
περισσοτέρως '70, 243.
πετάομαι 24.
πέτομαι 88.
πηχῶν 65.
πιάζω 22.
πίεσαι 88.
Πιλάτος accent 52 ; use of art. with 113.
πίνω 88 ; fut. πίομαι 90.
πίπτω 89.
πιστεύειν constr. of 213, 229, 233, 260.
πιστικός 97.
πίστις etc. 35; without art. 120.
πλατύνειν τὴν καρδίαν 30.
πλείν with acc. 224.
πλέον 596.
πλεονεξία without art. 120.
πληγή ellipsis of 589.
πλήν 508.
πληροῦν, πληροῦσθαι 180, 201, 217, 260,
ποιεῖν ἔλεος μετά τ. 33; ποιεῖν ἵνα 337.
ποίμνιον accent 52.
πολεμεῖν μετά τ. 180, 214.
πολιτεύεσθαι 262..
πολλάκις position of 553.
πολυμερῶς 463.
πολύς with other adj. 525, e.g. πολλὰ καὶ
ἄλλα and ἄλλα πολλά 525; πολλοί and
οἱ πολλοί 110; πολύ in comparison 240;
πολὺ μᾶλλον 633; πλέον 596.
πολυτρόπως 463.
πορεύεσθαι ὀπίσω 30
πόρρω είναι 465.
ποταπός 24.
πότε for ὁπότε 510.
πότερον . . . * 509.
ποτήριον 32.
ποῦ 471, 508, 510.
πούς. accent 50.
πρᾷος 47.
πραΰς, πραΰτης 45.
πρηνής. 22.
πρίν with subjunc. 297; with infin. 330, 332.
πρό 372; with gen. of time 557; constr. of
verbs compounded with 432.
προβάλλειν 593.
προβατική: sc. πύλη 592.
προβλέπειν, προβλέπεσθαι 258.
προέχεσθαι 264.
προκόπτειν 251.
πρός for the simple dat. ? 212, 214; with
gen. 373; with dat. 395; with acc.
404 sq.; in circum. 425; verbs com-
pounded with 432.
προςέρχεσθαι constr. of 427, 432.
προςέχειν τινί sc. τόν νοῦν 593.
προςήλυτος 24, 26, 97.
προςκυνείν constr. of 36, 210, 593.
προςτίθημι adverbial constr. of 468.
προςφάγιον 25.
προσφάτως 463.
προςφέρειν constr. of 427, 432, 593.
προςφωνεῖν with dat. 36; and acc. 180.
GREEK INDEX.
665
προσωποληπτεῖν 33, 48, 101.
προσωπολήπτης 101.
προσωποληψία 48, 101.
-σκω verbs in 92.
Σολομών infec. and accent 67.
Σπανία 25.
πρόςωπον without art. 122, cf. 174; Hebr.
σπείρης 62.
use of 607 ; πρόςωπον λαμβάνειν 30, 33.
σπέρμα 30.
προφητεύειν augm. of 71.
σπίλος 25.
πρύμνα 22.
πρωΐ 47.
πρωϊνός 26.
σπλάγχνα 18; with gen. 611.
σπλαγχνίζεσθαι 30, 33; constr. of 221, 233.
σπουδάζω: 89.
στάμνος 23.
"
πρώρης 62.
πρῶτος for πρότερος 244 ;. for eἷς 248. sq.
πτύον 24.
πτώμα 23.
πύλη ellipsis of 592.
πως 508, 510.
p past tenses of verbs beginning with 74.
'Pauâ indecl. 61.
ραντίζειν 24, 74.
Ράπισμα 25.
ραφίς 25.
ρεύσω 89.
ῥέω 89.
ῥῆμα without art. 123.
ῥήσσω 22.
δύεσθαι constr. of 197.
ῥύμη 22, 23.
Ρώμη use of art. with 112.
σ and s 41 sq.
σάββατον infec. 63; τὰ σάβ. 177.
σαλπίζω 89 ; σαλπίζει sc. ὁ σαλπ. 522.
Σαμάρεια art. with 112.
σάρκινος and σαρκικός 98.
πᾶσα σάρξ 33.
σαροῦν 24.
σεβάζεσθαι 23.
σημαίνω 89.
σθενόω 26.
Σίλας 1.03.
σινιάζω 26, 92.
-σις substantives in 93.
· σιτομέτριον 25.
σιτος infection 68.
σκανδαλίζειν 33.
σκάνδαλον 32.
σκέπτομαι 89.
σκηνοπηγία 26, 101.
σκληροκαρδία 26, 99.
σκληροτράχηλος 26, 99.
σκληρύνω 92.
στέγειν 23.
στήκω 24, 26 ;. with dat. 210.
στηρίζω 89 ; στηρίζειν πρόσωπον αὑτοῦ 33.
στόμα 18, 30..
στρέφειν for an adverb ? 469.
στρηνιάν 25.
στρωννύειν ἑαυτῷ 594.
σύ when expressed 152.
συγγενίς 69.
συγκρίνειν 23.
συγκυρία 24.
συλλαμβάνειν concipere 593.
συμβάλλειν τινί or πρός τινα sc. λόγους 593.
συμμαθητής 25.
συμπολίτης 25.
σύν 391; distinguished from μετά 391;
constr. of verbs compounded with 433.
-συνη substantives in 95.
συνίημι forms of 81.
συνιοῦσι 81.
συνίστημι 23.
συντίθεσθαι 254.
Συρία art. with 112.
Συροφοίνισσα, Συροφοινίκισσα 95.
σχολή 23.
σώζειν constr. of 197.
Σώπατρος 103.
ταμεῖον 24, 94.
ταπεινοφροσύνη 26, 99.
ταπεινόφρων 236.
ταρταροῦν 25.
ταῦτα referring to a single object 162;
ταῦτα πάντα and πάντα ταῦτα 518.
ταχύς comparison of 69.
τε distinguished from και 434; τε .. ΤΕ
•
439 ; τε . . . δέ 439'; τε καί 439 ; τε γάρ
448, 539 sq.; position of 559; with
πρῶτον 576.
τεκνίον accent 52.
τέκνον with gen. of abstracts 238.
τελέσω fut. 77.
σκορπίζειν 22.
σκότος, ὁ 22, 66.
τέρας 65.
84
666
GREEK INDEX.
τέσσερες etc. 43.
τέτευχε 89.
της, -οτης substantives in 94.
τίθημι forms of 78.
Τίμων accent 51.
τίς, τί in indirect quest. and for the relat.
168 sq. ; for πότερος 169 ; τίς ἐστιν ὅς
τίς ἐστιν ὅς
with indic. 300, and οὐ 481; τί used
adverbially 142; in exclamations 142;
τί ὅτι 585.
τις, τι (indef. not used for et τις 169; with
subst. and adjs. 170 sq.; position of
170, 559; τι aliquid (magni) 170 ; του,
τῳ not used in Ν. Τ. 171 ; τι as acc.
with verbs 227.
Τίτος and Tίτος 52; never has art. 113.
το before entire clauses 109; before a word
as a sound 109, 179; before the infin. |
320; τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν and the like 230.
τοι 434.
τοιγαροῦν 445.
τοίνυν 445, 559.
τοιοῦτος use of art. with 111.
τολμαν alleged pleonasm of 612 sq.
τος verbals in 96 sq.
|
|
423; constr. of verbs compounded
with 433.
ὑπεράνω 422.
ὑπερέκεινα 463.
ὑπερλίαν 422.
ὑπερῷον 96.
ὑπό with gen. 364, 368 sq. ; confounded
with ἀπό 370 sq. ; with acc. 407; constr.
of verbs compounded with 433.
ὑποκάτω 422.
ὑπομιμνήσκειν constr. of 227.
ὑποπιάζω for ὑπωπιάζω 43.
ὑποπόδιον 26.
ὑπωπιάζω 43.
ὑστερεῖν 196, 260.
ὑψοῦν τῇ δεξιᾷ 215.
φαγεῖν 89; constr. of 198 sq.
φάγεσαι 89.
φάγος accent 51.
φαίνω 89; φανῆναι constr. of 233.
φαύσκω 90.
φείδεσθαι constr. of 180, 205.
φειδομένως 99.
φειδός 96.
τότε as a connective 540; before apod. φέρω 90.
541.
τοῦτο used adverbially 142; τοῦτο μὲν ...
τοῦτο δέ so used 142; τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν ep-
exegetical 530.
τρίτον 250.
Τρόφιμος accent 51.
τροχός accent 54.
Τρωάς use of art. with 112.
φεύγειν constr. of 223.
|
Φῆλιξ accent 52.
φησί sc. δ θεός 522, 588 ; in direct discourse
558 ; ellipsis of, or of ἔφη 598.
φθάνειν 23, 90.
φιάλη 22.
φοβεῖσθαι constr. of 223.
φοίνιξ or φοίνιξ? 50.
τυγχάνω 89 ; constr. of 200; supposed to | φορέσω fut. 77 sq.
be pleonastic 609.
τυχόν 355.
τωσαν in imperat. 76 sq.
Ύαλος 22.
ὑβρίζειν with the acc.
ύγι accusative 64.
ὕδωρ ellipsis of 591.
θετός ellipsis of 592.
υἱὸς θανάτου 33; υἱός with abstr. gen. 238 ;
supposed to be omitted 190, 593; 8
υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου not equiv. to εγώ 144.
Υμέναιος accent 51.
-ννω verbs in 92.
ὑπακούειν εἰς 165.
ὑπάρχειν with part. 350.
φρυάσσειν 24.
φυείς 90.
φυλακίζω 26.
φυλακτήριον 26.
φυλάσσειν νόμον 30 ; φυλακάς 225 ; φυλάσ-
σεσθαι constr. of 223; signification of
253.
φυσιοῦσθαι 24.
φύω intrans. 22, 252; forms of 90.
φωνεῖν φωνῇ 226.
χάρις ὑμῖν etc. 549.
χαίρω 90; constr. of 210, 232; χαίρειν in
salutation 316.
χαρήσομαι 90.
χαρίζομαι 90, 261, 264.
ὑπέρ with gen. 382 sq. ; distinguished from | χαρίσομαι 90.
περί 383; with acc. 403 ; as an adverb | χείλος 18, 30, 32.
GREEK INDEX.
667
χειλέων uncontr. 64.
χείρ ellipsis of 592.
Χερουβίμ 68.
χορτάζειν 23.
χρεωφειλέτης 44.
χρήζειν constr. of 200.
χρηματίζειν 23, 260.
χρῆσθαι constr. of 209 sq.
χρίειν constr. of 227.
χρίσμα accent 50.
Χριστιανός 95.
Χριστός and ὁ Χριστός 118 ; supposed use
of to intensify 248.
χρόνος year 177.
χρυσοδακτύλιος 26.
-χυσία 93 note.
χώρα ellipsis of 591.
χωρίζειν constr. of 197.
χωρίς 471 ; χωρίς τινος εἶναι 465.
ψεύδεσθαι constr. 212.
ψεύσμα 24.
ψήφισμα ψηφίζεσθαι 225.
ψιθυριστής 24.
ψιχίον 24.
ψωμίζειν 23 ; with the acc. 226 note.
-w in the acc. 62.
ὠδίν 65.
ωοθέω 90.
lov as an imperf. part. 341.
νέομαι aug. of 70, 90.
ωνησάμην 70, 90.
Ντάριον 24, 96.
&pa without art. 124; ellipsis of 591 sq.
ὡρώμην 88.
ὡς (not ὥς 462) constr. of 296, 448, 449 ;
with infin. 318; always as (not οὕτως)
462; before a series 519; before a
pred. 527 ; supposed pleonastic 617;
force of, particularly before gen. abs.
617; with a prep. of direction 617 sq.;
ὡς . . . καί 440 ; ὡς ὅτι 618 ; ὡς (ὥς περ)
&s
•
• •
οὕτως 440; ὡς ἄν 308, 309 note;
ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν 317, 449.
ωσάμην 71.
ὥσπερ in prot. without apod. 599.
ώςτε constr. of 301, 318, 327 ; with a neg-
ative 480.
ωτίον 25.
ὠφελεῖν constr. of 227.
ψυχή never redundant 156; τὸ ψυχικόν 592. | ὠφέλιμος constr. of 213.
III. INDEX OF PASSAGES IN THE N. T. EXPLAINED
OR CITED.
The Figures refer to Pages; those followed by an Asterisk indicate passages not
merely referred to or quoted, but commented upon.
Matt. i 1
125
Matt. iii. 5
68, 268, 438*
Matt. i. 3
366
Matt. iii. 6
528
Matt. i. 6
67, 190
Matt. iii. 7
409
Matt. i. 10
67
Matt. iii. 8
206, 444
Matt. i. 11
187*, 375*
Matt. iii. 9
151
Matt. i. 12
187*
Matt. iii. 10
110, 266*, 444
Matt. i. 16
366
Matt. iii. 11 75, 217, 266*, 337, 412*, 630
Matt. i. 17
110*, 370
Matt. iii. 12
75, 149*
Matt. i. 18 113, 192, 208*, 330, 368, 455*
|
Matt. iii. 13
325
>> ""
465*, 527, 616*
Matt. iii. 14
Matt. i. 19
330
Matt. iii. 15
Matt. i. 20
Matt. i. 21
391*, 401
141, 150, 182 |
461, 562, 563
436
Matt. iii. 16
Matt. iii. 17
269, 436*
.269
147*, 151*, 369*
132, 232, 278*, 586
Matt. i. 22
Matt. i. 24
Matt. i. 25
107, 182, 296, 436
Matt. iv. 1
Matt. iv. 3
•
106*, 374, 392, 428
334*, 541
Matt. iv. 4
87, 280*, 377, 389*, 392
Matt. ii. 1
113, 139
Matt. iv. 5
622
Matt. ii. 2
55, 155, 318*, 446*
Matt. iv. 6
373
Matt. ii. 3
68, 111*, 113, 344, 376
|
Matt. iv. 10
210
Matt. ii. 4
75, 110, 266*, 365
Matt. iv. 11
521
Matt. ii. 6
114, 429
Matt. iv. 12
428
Matt. ii. 7
106
Matt. iv. 15
121, 187*, 231*, 590
Matt. ii. 8
287, 607
Matt. ii. 9
104, 275, 296, 473, 542
Matt. ii. 10
Matt. ii. 12
Matt. ii. 13
Matt. ii. 14
Matt. ii. 16
66, 224
260, 428, 481
79, 267, 434
104, 428
365, 370, 401*
Matt. ii. 17
61
Matt. iv. 16
Matt. iv. 17
Matt. iv. 18
Matt. iv. 19
Matt. iv. 21
Matt. iv. 23
Matt. iv. 24
Matt. iv. 25
147, 247, 602
422
177, 403*, 417*, 446
228, 606
113, 132, 190
131, 132, 145, 186, 426, 539
110, 436, 527, 539
67, 420, 520, 539
Matt. ii. 18
222
Matt. ii. 20
175, 446*
Matt. v. 1
Matt. ii. 22 206, 260, 364*, 375, 471, 472 | Matt. v. 2
115, 428
608
Matt. iii. 3
61
Matt. v. 3
Matt. v. 4
195, 215, 551, 585
Matt. iii. 4
108, 370, 406*, 523 | Matt. v. 5
200, 551
551, 585
668
N. T. INDEX.
669
Matt. v. 6
205*, 551, 585
Matt. vi. 18
Matt. v. 7
551, 585
Matt. vi. 19
Matt. v. 8
215, 551, 585
Matt. vi. 20
Matt. v. 9
122, 229, 551, 585, 615
Matt. vi. 22
Matt. v. 10
120, 551, 585
Matt. vi. 24
477
501, 594*
488, 489
114
116, 202, 440
Matt. v. 11
222, 551
Matt vi. 25
Matt. v. 13
114, 293, 388, 541
Matt. vi. 26
156, 209, 299, 488
57, 430, 487*, 514
Matt. v. 15
78, 436
Matt. vi. 27
Matt. v. 16
287
Matt. vi. 28
432
373, 488
Matt. v. 17
127
Matt. vi. 29
110
Matt. v. 18
172, 432, 506, 518, 542,
Matt. vi. 30
341
""
در
Matt. v. 19
552, 612*
160, 246*, 310, 543, 615
Matt. vi. 31
519
Matt. vi. 32
Matt. v. 20
245*, 477, 506 |
Matt. vi. 34
Matt. v. 21
85, 210, 219*, 316, 502, 522
Matt. v. 22
111*, 209, 213*, 455, 621
Matt. vii. 1
Matt. v. 23
455*
Matt. vii. 2
Matt, v. 25
79, 296*, 502 |
Matt. vii. 4
Matt. v. 26
506
Matt. vii. 6
200, 548*
209, 517, 590
476, 477, 501
165, 388, 412, 429, 522
285, 429
388, 487*, 503
Matt. v. 27
316
Matt. vii. 7
57, 522, 552, 593*
Matt. v. 28
204
Matt. vii. 8
266
Matt. v. 31
85
Matt. vii. 9 169*, 227, 310, 512*, 568, 628
Matt. v. 32
56, 496
Matt. vii. 10
440, 441*
Matt. v. 33
85, 86, 316
Matt. vii. 11
139
Matt. v. 34
222, 389*, 481, 488
Matt. vii. 12
336*, 455
Matt. v. 35
Matt. v. 36
Matt. v. 37
Matt. v. 38
397*
76, 490
476
588, 598*
Matt. vii. 13
73
Matt. vii. 14
143*
Matt. vii. 15
Matt. vii. 16
384
279*, 370, 372*, 411, 420,
Matt. v. 39
168, 280*, 481
((
511, 522*
Matt. v. 40
147, 209
Matt. vii. 18
488
Matt. v. 41
280*
Matt. vii. 21
Matt. v. 42
254*
Matt. vii. 22
Matt. v. 44
222
Matt. vii. 23
171*
71, 110, 510*
370, 426, 427
Matt. v. 45
445*, 457* | Matt. vii. 24 71, 155, 209, 225, 279*, 574
Matt. v. 46
266
Matt. vii. 25
73, 275, 432, 436, 539
Matt. v. 48
315, 540
Matt. vii. 27
436
Matt. vii. 28
296, 393, 608
Matt. vi. 1 31,121, 259, 329*, 405,583, 605
Matt. vii. 29
348, 617*
Matt. vi. 2
275*, 287, 540
Matt. vi. 3
502, 592
Matt. viii. 1
147, 220*, 367, 602
Matt. vi. 4
148, 235
Matt. viii. 2
Matt. vi. 5
275*, 310, 315, 467*, 502
Matt. viii. 3
76, 549
607
Matt. vi. 6
Matt. vi. 7
94, 132, 433
387*, 501
Matt. viii. 4
106, 146*, 147*, 253*
Matt. vi. 8
209, 329*, 372
Matt. viii. 5
Matt. viii. 7
61
607
Matt. vi. 9
121, 533*
Matt. viii. 8 57, 61, 155, 259, 335, 337, 407
Matt. vi. 10
440
Matt. viii. 9
Matt. vi. 11
97*
Matt. viii. 11
407*
176, 552
Matt. vi. 12
81, 152, 448*
Matt. viii. 12
Matt. vi. 13
197, 501
Matt. vi. 16
56, 275*, 638
Matt. viii. 13
Matt. viii. 19
Matt. vi. 17
143, 253
Matt. viii. 20
106
61, 259
117, 310, 576
299*, 510
670
N. T. INDEX.
Matt. viii. 21
576*, 638 | Matt. x. 18
407
Matt. viii. 22
330, 576
Matt. x. 19
Matt. viii. 23
429, 539
Matt. x. 20
Matt. viii. 24
539
Matt. x. 21
168, 299, 309
108, 497, 513
64, 213, 409, 514
Matt. viii. 25
539
Matt. x. 23
506
Matt. viii. 28
220, 366, 480
Matt. x. 24
Matt. viii. 29
87, 124, 330, 372
Matt. x. 25
Matt. viii. 30
Matt. viii. 31
188
292, 545
Matt. x. 26
Matt. x. 27
Matt. viii. 32
311*, 381
Matt. x. 28
Matt. viii. 33
416
Matt. x. 29
403
337*, 628*
300*, 481, 639
85, 374, 455, 543
83, 223, 439
172*, 206, 407
Matt. viii. 34
110, 338
Matt. x. 30
Matt. x. 32
131
226*, 455*
Matt. ix. 1
154, 539
Matt. x. 34
Matt. ix. 2
80, 374, 539 |
Matt. x. 35
Matt. ix. 3
539
Matt. x. 37
495, 501*
32, 382
403
Matt. ix. 4
169, 539
Matt. x. 38
214, 234
Matt. ix. 5
80, 169
Matt. x. 42
310, 591
Matt. ix. 6
47, 374, 563*, 580*, 620*
Matt. ix. 8
111, 175*
Matt. xi. 1
Matt. ix.
608
Matt. xi. 3
Matt. ix. 10
608
Matt. xi. 5
145, 608
341
229, 260
Matt. ix. 12
495
Matt. xi. 7
73, 106*, 318
Matt. ix. 13
66, 271*, 495, 496*
Matt. xi. 8
Matt. ix. 14
Matt. ix. 15
227, 518
408*, 427, 614*
Matt. xi. 11
Matt. xi. 12
Matt. ix. 16
394
Matt. xi. 13
Matt. ix. 17
605
Matt. xi. 16
Matt. ix. 18
117, 442, 545, 607
Matt. xi. 17
Matt. ix. 20
230
Matt. xi. 18
227, 442, 591
59, 244*, 384
259, 363, 370
71, 634
209, 432
488, 552
437
Matt. ix. 22
183, 370, 549 | Matt. xi. 19
51,371
Matt. ix, 25
296
Matt. xi. 21
304*
Matt. ix. 27
221
Matt. xi. 23
153
Matt. ix. 29
401*
Matt. xi. 24
121
Matt. ix. 30
72, 501
Matt. xi. 25 370, 428, 457, 459, 552, 630
Matt. ix. 31
104
Matt. xi. 26
182
Matt. ix. 34
389
Matt. xi. 27
Matt. ix. 35
131, 145, 186, 548, 610
Matt. xi. 29
310, 508
215
Matt. ix. 36
75, 236, 349
Matt. ix. 38
198, 338
Matt. xii. 1
63, 77, 116, 118, 177, 218
Matt. xii. 2
85, 332, 385
Matt. x. 1
185
Matt. xii. 3
77, 519
Matt. x. 2
132
Matt. xii. 4
131, 198
Matt. x. 4
113 Matt. xii. 7
66, 304*
Matt. x. 5
187*
Matt. xii. 9
146*
Matt. x. 8
537
Matt. xii. 10
203, 319*, 332, 509*
Matt. x. 9
489, 493
Matt. xii. 11
169, 202
Matt. x. 10
194, 206, 585
Matt. xii. 12
63, 301, 444
Matt. x. 11
307*, 308, 543
Matt. xii. 13
72, 528
Matt. x. 13
293
Matt. xii. 14
288
Matt. x. 14
129, 429, 488
Matt. xii. 15
147*
Matt. x. 16
413
Matt. xii. 18
156, 278*
Matt. x. 17
213
Matt. xii. 19
82, 488
Matt. x. 31
196
N. T. INDEX.
671
Matt. xii. 20
Matt. xii. 21
70, 82
Matt. xiii. 52
211, 429
75, 514
Matt. xiii. 53
539, 608
Matt. xii. 23
511
Matt. xiii. 54
539
Matt. xii. 24
126
Matt. xiii. 55
539
Matt. xii. 25
252, 518
Matt. xiii. 56
405, 539
Matt. xii. 26
173*, 279, 292
Matt. xiii. 57
539
Matt. xii. 27
441*
Matt. xiii. 58
539
Matt. xii. 28
90, 292, 445, 541
Matt. xii. 29
Matt. xii. 30
Matt. xii. 32
307, 488*, 499, 595*
477 Matt. xiv. 1
376, 483* | Matt. xiv. 2
Matt. xiv. 3
61, 113, 185
123
202, 275, 414*
Matt. xii. 33
Matt. xii. 35
Matt, xii. 36
368
106, 135, 174, 524
148, 181, 574
Matt. xiv. 6
Matt. xiv. 7
Matt. xiv. 8
218
377*
558
Matt. xii. 37
368, 441, 609
Matt. xiv. 11
392
Matt. xii. 38
Matt. xii. 39
Matt. xii. 40
371
60, 437
540, 541
Matt. xiv. 13
216
Matt. xiv. 14
233,
141, 147
Matt. xiv. 15
287
Matt. xii. 41
228, 377*, 397*
Matt. xiv. 19
71, 407, 426, 428
Matt. xii. 42
67, 121, 376
Matt. xiv. 20
528
Matt. xii. 43
Matt. xii. 46
431
274
Matt. xiv. 21
552
Matt. xiv. 22
297, 333*, 429
Matt. xii. 50
112, 150, 160
Matt. xiv. 23
330, 428
Matt. xiv. 24
471*
Matt. xiii. 2
408*
Matt. xiv. 25
374
Matt. xiii. 3
106*, 325, 333
Matt. xiv. 26
371
Matt. xiii. 4
403*
Matt. xiv. 28
330
Matt. xiii. 6
57, 120
Matt. xiv. 29
369*
Matt. xiii. 13
81
Matt. xiv. 31
201*
Matt. xiii. 14
61, 82, 211, 354, 466 | Matt. xiv. 33
607
Matt. xiii. 15
494, 503
Matt. xiv. 34
121
Matt. xiii. 16
585
Matt. xiv. 36
306*
Matt. xiii. 18
185*
Matt. xiii. 19
483
Matt. xv. 2
88, 143, 198, 254, 308*
Matt. xiii. 20
377
Matt. xv. 4
316, 339, 466
Matt. xiii. 22
369
Matt. xv. 5
127, 506, 600*
Matt. xiii. 23
81
Matt. xv. 7
71
Matt. xiii. 24
524*
Matt. xv. 11
106, 429, 495
Matt. xiii. 25
175, 329*, 385, 398
Matt. xv. 16
464*
Matt. xiii. 26
84
Matt. xv. 17
596*
Matt. xiii. 27
510, 548
Matt. xv. 18
429
Matt. xiii. 28
285
Matt. xv. 19
520
Matt. xiii. 29
104, 470, 476 | Matt. xv. 20
548
Matt. xiii. 30
225
Matt. xv. 23
173*, 595*
Matt. xiii. 31
607
Matt. xv. 26
319, 513
Matt. xiii. 33
607 Matt. xv. 27
199, 369*
Matt. xiii. 34
268*
Matt. xv. 28
549, 592
Matt. xiii. 41
437
Matt. xv. 29
403*
Matt. xiii. 44
57, 110, 371
Matt. xiii. 45
Matt. xiii. 47
Matt. xiii. 48
Matt. xiii. 49
Matt. xv. 30
523 Matt. xv. 32
110 Matt. xv. 34
428 Matt. xv. 35
75 Matt. xv. 38
403*
168**, 233, 409, 502, 563
548*
74, 428
552
672
N. T INDEX.
598*
205
580*
Matt. xvi. 6
Matt. xvi. 7
Matt. xvi. 9
Matt. xvi. 11
223, 580 | Matt. xviii. 21
82, 233, 355
250*
Matt. xviii. 22
Matt. xviii. 23
330, 376, 523
Matt. xviii. 24
117*
Matt. xvi. 13
529*
Matt. xviii. 25
301, 484*
Matt. xvi. 14
105, 521
Matt. xviii. 27
204, 221
Matt. xvi. 16
114
Matt. xviii. 28
117, 202, 209
Matt. xvi. 17
549, 552
Matt. xviii. 29
545
Matt. xvi. 18
125, 155, 394, 443, 638
Matt. xviii. 31
455
Matt. xvi. 19
Matt. xvi. 20
32, 65, 121
334*, 477
Matt. xviii. 32
183, 549
Matt. xviii. 33
440
Matt. xvi. 21
83, 369, 371, 422
Matt. xvi. 22
211*, 280*, 507*
Matt. xvi. 26
87, 131*, 564*
Matt. xix. 1
Matt. xix. 2
608
147*
Matt. xvi. 27
564*
Matt. xix. 3
116, 331, 402*, 509
Matt. xvi. 28
198, 506, 508
Matt. xix. 5
Matt. xix. 6
Matt. xvii. 1
428
Matt. xix. 8
Matt. xvii. 2
437
Matt. xix. 9
Matt. xvii. 3
433
Matt. xix. 10
Matt. xvii. 4
66, 173, 292, 319
Matt. xix. 11
Matt. xvii. 5
Matt. xvii. 6
71, 199, 278*, 431
Matt. xix. 12
74, 125, 174 |
Matt. xix. 13
183, 262, 522*
301
124, 405*
394
292, 319, 465
158, 171
122
270, 288*
Matt. xvii. 9
123, 366
Matt. xix. 17
292
Matt. xvii. 11
265*
Matt. xix. 18
87, 109, 502
Matt. xvii. 12
218*, 369
Matt. xix. 19
316
Matt. xvii. 14
210
Matt. xix. 21
607
Matt. xvii. 15
155
Matt. xix. 22
343, 349*
Matt. xvii. 16
84
Matt. xix. 24
319
Matt. xvii. 17
83, 202
Matt. xix. 25
445
Matt. xvii. 18
142*
Matt. xix. 26
395
Matt. xvii. 19
Matt. xvii. 20
152, 457 Matt. xix. 28
247*, 471 | Matt. xix. 29
408, 409
43, 200
Matt. xvii. 24
85
Matt. xvii. 25
420,
Matt. xvii. 27
129, 370*, 540
364, 561
Matt. xx. 1
213*, 254, 523
Matt. xx. 2
368*, 376, 433
Matt. xx. 3
124, 384, 406
Matt. xviii. 1
Matt. xviii. 3
244, 445
469*, 506
Matt. xx. 8
621
Matt. xx. 9
398
Matt. xviii. 4
45, 257, 308
Matt. xx. 10
321, 437*
Matt. xviii. 5
Matt. xviii. 6
393*
337*, 611*
Matt. xx. 12
209
Matt. xx. 13
206
Matt. xviii. 7
371
Matt. xx. 15
509
Matt. xviii. 8
241, 320, 518
Matt. xx. 18
210
Matt. xviii. 9
Matt. xviii. 11
177
Matt. xx. 19
88, 218
;
178
Matt. xx. 20
170*, 227
Matt. xviii. 12
211
Matt. xx. 21
122, 125, 173, 367, 552
Matt. xviii. 13
232, 293
Matt. xx. 22
32, 168
Matt. xviii 14
Matt. xx. 23
Matt. xviii. 15
Matt. xx. 24
Matt. xviii. 16
Matt. xx. 25
Matt xviii. 17
Matt. xviii. 19
163
117
82, 87
375, 440
106, 293 | Matt. xx. 28
Matt. xx. 29
318, 364, 383
451, 582
64, 232
613
67
N. T. INDEX.
673
Matt. xx. 30
Matt. xx. 31
87, 251, 404 | Matt. xxii. 44
549
81
78, 430
Matt. xxiii. 4
Matt. xxi. 1
182, 396
Matt. xxiii. 5
452*, 456
Matt. xxi. 2
155*
Matt. xxiii. 8
Matt. xxi. 3
453*
Matt. xxiii. 9
Matt. xxi. 4
563, 564
Matt. xxiii. 10
155
488, 590*
488
Matt. xxi. 5
85, 155, 156*, 430, 437
Matt. xxiii. 12
253, 280*, 543
Matt. xxi. 6
564
Matt. xxiii. 15
Matt. xxi. 7
143, 175*
Matt. xxiii. 20
Matt. xxi. 8
270, 417, 515
Matt. xxiii. 23
Matt. xxi. 9
Matt. xxi. 11
551, 585
370
Matt. xxiii. 25
Matt. xxi. 13
31, 267, 615
Matt. xxiii. 27
Matt. xxiii. 30
552, 592*
88
66, 520
201*
63, 209
80, 304, 523
Matt. xxi. 19
117*, 375*, 508
Matt. xxiii. 31
151, 212*, 301
Matt. xxi. 20
276*
Matt. xxiii. 32
311*, 437*
Matt. xxi. 21
261
Matt. xxiii. 33
223*, 285
Matt. xxi. 22
307*
Matt. xxiii. 34 64, 84, 419, 459, 594*, 598
Matt. xxi. 23
220, 441
Matt. xxiii. 35
61, 129, 459, 462, 587
Matt. xxi. 24
173, 227
Matt. xxiii. 36
548
Matt. xxi. 31
64, 169
Matt. xxiii. 37
230, 330
Matt. xxi. 33
71, 523
Matt. xxiii. 39
456, 506, 551
Matt. xxi. 35
105
Matt. xxi. 36
244
Matt. xxiv. 1
429
Matt. xxi. 37
221
Matt. xxiv. 2
300, 409, 481*,
Matt. xxi. 40
308*
Matt. xxiv. 4
504
Matt. xxi. 41
83, 144*, 637*
Matt. xxiv. 6
185*, 501*
Matt. xxi. 42
164, 238, 365*, 385
Matt. xxiv. 7
41, 401
Matt. xxiv. 9
213, 348
Matt. xxii. 1
602
Matt. xxiv. 10
173
Matt. xxii. 2
176
Matt. xxiv. 12
110
Matt. xxii. 3
56
Matt. xxiv. 13
160
Matt. xxii. 4
126
Matt. xxiv. 15
79, 563
Matt. xxii. 5
154, 528
Matt. xxiv. 16
407, 412
Matt. xxii. 10
201
Matt. xxiv. 17
362, 368, 501, 502, 629*
Matt. xxii. 12
483
Matt. xxiv. 18
417, 502
Matt. xxii. 13
552
Matt. xxiv. 20
207, 489
Matt. xxii. 16
95, 206, 424, 463, 499
Matt. xxii. 17
333, 509
Matt. xxiv. 21
Matt. xxiv. 22
123, 499, 505
363,
171, 234, 477
Matt. xxii. 22
74
Matt. xxiv. 24
65, 333, 585
Matt. xxii. 23
267
Matt. xxiv. 26
175
Matt. xxii. 24
482
Matt. xxiv. 27
176
Matt. xxii. 25
84, 342, 475*
Matt. xxiv. 30
374
Matt. xxii. 28
195, 385, 446
Matt. xxiv. 31
Matt. xxii. 29
489
Matt. xxiv. 32
247, 377
90
Matt. xxii. 30
488
Matt. xxii. 33
Matt. xxii. 36
Matt. xxii. 37
Matt. xxii. 39
Matt. xxii. 40
Matt. xxii. 42
Matt. xxii. 43
Matt. xxiv. 33
232 Matt. xxiv. 34
246* Matt. xxiv. 35
143 Matt. xxiv. 38
151 Matt. xxiv. 40
64 Matt. xxiv. 41
113 Matt. xxiv. 44
228 Matt. xxiv. 45
116, 173, 266*, 384
57, 165
325, 524
123, 176, 392, 548
508
506, 552
164*
95
85
674
N. T. INDEX.
Matt. xxiv. 46
Matt. xxiv. 50
551 Matt. xxvi. 37
422
Matt. xxvi. 38
Matt. xxvi. 39
Matt. xxv. 1
279
Matt. xxvi. 40
Matt. xxv. 6
207
Matt. xxvi. 42
Matt. xxv. 9
209, 504*, 582, 598*
Matt. xxvi. 43
177
122, 156
73, 74, 125
267, 330
477
83
Matt. xxv. 11
610
Matt. xxvi. 44
71, 424*
Matt. xxv. 13
489
Matt. xxvi. 45
311*
Matt. xxv. 14
154, 599
Matt. xxvi. 48
275*
Matt. xxv. 15
154, 401
Matt. xxvi. 50
167*, 275, 409
Matt. xxv. 16
72
Matt. xxvi. 51
607
Matt. xxv. 19
433
Matt. xxvi. 53
436, 596
Matt. xxv. 20
87, 393*
Matt. xxvi. 54
285*
Matt. xxv. 21
409, 524
Matt. xxvi. 55
74
Matt. xxv. 23
30
Matt. xxvi. 58
603
Matt. xxv. 24
159*
Matt. xxvi. 59
270, 438*
Matt. xxv. 26
549
Matt. xxvi. 60
437
Matt. xxv. 27
282*, 303
Matt. xxvi. 62
432, 608*
Matt. xxv. 29
483
Matt. xxvi. 63
298, 382
Matt. xxv. 32
75, 427
Matt. xxvi. 65
257
Matt. xxv. 33
122, 552
Matt. xxvi. 66
202
Matt. xxv. 34
|
189*, 370 |
Matt. xxvi. 67
74, 105*, 125, 430
Matt. xxv. 35
77, 80, 84
Matt. xxvi. 69
66
Matt. xxv. 36
73, 74
Matt. xxvi. 71
147, 178*
Matt. xxv. 37
261
Matt. xxvi. 72
545
Matt. xxv. 40
409
Matt. xxvi. 73
235
Matt. xxv. 41
122
Matt. xxvi. 74
88, 457*
Matt. xxv. 45
261, 409
Matt. xxvii. 1
Matt. xxvi. 1
608
Matt. xxvii. 2
Matt. xxvi. 2
265*, 329
Matt. xxvii. 4
Matt. xxvi. 4
66
Matt. xxvii. 5
Matt. xxvi. 5
Matt. xxvi. 8
582, 596*
397
Matt. xxvii. 7
318, 382
138
47, 76
253*, 385, 414*
206, 211*, 368*
Matt. xxvii. 8
590
Matt. xxvi. 9
70, 206, 282
Matt. xxvii. 9
61
Matt. xxvi. 10
Matt. xxvi. 11
72, 397
446
Matt. xxvii. 12
261
Matt. xxvii. 13
432
Matt. xxvi. 12
376*
Matt. xxvii. 14
173*
Matt. xxvi. 15
176
Matt. xxvii. 15
401*
Matt. xxvi. 16
422
Matt. xxvii. 18
268, 399*
Matt. xxvi. 17
66, 218, 285
Matt. xxvii. 21
582
Matt. xxvi. 18
Matt. xxvi. 23
Matt. xxvi. 24
Matt. xxvi. 25
75
414*, 429*
282*, 305, 379*
85
Matt. xxvii. 22
143, 222, 444, 455*
Matt. xxvii. 23
Matt. xxvii. 24
447*
47, 113, 197
Matt. xxvii. 25
587
Matt. xxvi. 26
Matt. xxvi. 28
106, 114, 116, 403
114, 132, 191, 341, 411
Matt. xxvii. 28
226
Matt. xxvii. 29
182, 366, 408, 592
Matt. xxvi. 29
422
Matt. xxvii. 30
430
Matt. xxvi. 32
329*
Matt. xxvii. 31
88, 226
Matt. xxvi. 33
292*, 582
Matt. xxvii. 32
182
Matt. xxvi. 34
330
Matt. xxvii. 33
166
Matt. xxvi. 35
506, 571
Matt. xxvi. 36
472
Matt. xxvii. 34
Matt. xxvii. 35
319, 330, 376
257
N. T. INDEX.
675
Matt. xxvii. 37
Matt. xxvii. 38
Matt. xxvii. 39
275*, 340 | Mark i. 22
232, 437
122, 173
222, 268
Mark i. 24
66, 585, 626
Mark i. 26
164
Matt. xxvii. 40
79, 135, 292, 353*
Mark i. 27
436
Matt. xxvii. 41
Matt. xxvii. 43
Matt. xxvii. 44
Matt. xxvii. 45
571
Mark i. 29
61
214, 233, 409
175*, 227
Mark i. 31
268
Mark i. 32
84, 106, 120
43, 111, 124, 407
Mark i. 34
81, 85, 145
Matt. xxvii. 46
63, 169
Mark i. 35
46, 71, 608*
Matt. xxvii. 47
79, 559
Mark i. 38
Matt. xxvii. 48
607
Mark i. 39
46, 558
416
Matt. xxvii. 50
164, 226
Mark i. 40
76, 210, 606
Matt. xxvii. 51
603
Mark i. 41
344
Matt. xxvii. 52
514
Mark i. 42
427
Matt. xxvii. 54
270*
Mark i. 44
146*, 313, 499
Matt. xxvii. 55
275
Mark i. 45
86, 392, 480, 524
Matt. xxvij. 56
66, 190
Matt. xxvii. 57
370
Mark ii. 1
380*, 413, 415*, 539, 595
Matt. xxvii. 58
113
Mark ii. 2
405, 480
Matt. xxvii. 60
427
Mark ii. 4
330, 473
Matt. xxvii. 62
113
Mark ii. 5
80
Matt. xxvii. 63
403
Mark ii. 6
349
Matt. xxvii. 64
123
Mark ii. 8
554*
Matt. xxvii. 66
377
Mark ii. 9
314.
Mark ii. 10
580
Matt. xxviii. 1
203, 248, 471
Mark ii. 13
Matt. xxviii. 2
344
Mark ii. 14
Matt. xxviii. 3
247
Mark ii. 15
Matt. xxviii. 5
135
Mark ii. 16
Matt. xxviii. 7
123, 276
Mark ii. 18
86
66, 608
527
128, 457, 585
128, 145, 348*
Matt. xxviii. 8
377
Mark ii. 19
Matt. xxviii. 9
296
Mark ii. 21
332, 386
524
Matt. xxviii. 12
176
Mark ii. 23
116, 256*, 323*, 578*
Matt. xxviii. 14
293, 375
Mark ii. 24
Mark ii. 25
612*
77, 150
Matt. xxviii. 16
396, 471
Mark ii. 26
375, 439*
Matt. xxviii. 17
105*
Mark ii. 27
145, 270
Matt. xxviii. 18
116
Matt. xxviii. 19
23, 141, 192, 251, 314 Mark iii. 2
299*
Mark iii. 3
234
Mark i. 1
125, 187
Mark iii. 5
72, 232, 313, 393
Mark i. 4
188*, 350*
Mark iii. 6
299
Mark i. 5
Mark i. 6
438
86, 198
Mark iii. 7
396
Mark iii. 8
67
Mark i. 7
148, 268, 319
Mark iii. 9
336, 433
Mark i. 8
150
Mark iii. 10
426, 430
Mark i. 9
416
Mark iii. 11
309*, 433, 514
Mark i. 10
554*
Mark iii. 13
Mark i. 13
60, 376, 539
Mark iii. 14
Mark i. 14
329
Mark iii. 15
428
318, 579
579
Mark i. 15
213
Mark iii. 16
Mark i. 16
413, 417*
Mark iii. 17
Mark i. 17
606, 608
Mark iii. 18
182, 276*, 564, 579*
132, 564*, 579
564, 579
676
N. T. INDEX.
Mark iii. 19
579
Mark v. 34
Mark iii. 20
480, 489*
Mark v. 37
79
499
Mark iii. 21
277*, 366*
Mark v. 39
Mark iii. 22
277
Mark v. 40
Mark iii. 24
145, 252 | Mark v. 41
495*
159
141, 182
Mark iii. 26
272 Mark v. 42
196, 446, 456, 477
Mark iii. 27
293 | Mark v.
43
477
Mark iii. 30
445
Mark vi. 1
267
Mark iii. 34
406
Mark vi. 2
344, 607
Mark vi. 3
Mark iv. 1
405*
Mark vi. 4
Mark iv. 3
543
Mark vi. 5
Mark iv. 4
514, 608
Mark vi. 6
114, 126
420
70, 143
232
Mark iv. 10
227, 270
Mark vi. 7
249*
Mark iv. 12
459, 461*, 494, 503*
Mark vi. 8
316, 545, 578*
Mark iv. 13
Mark iv. 19
279
192*, 369
Mark vi. 9
579
Mark vi. 11
313
Mark iv. 21
127, 287, 430, 511
Mark vi. 13
227
Mark iv. 22
235
Mark vi. 14
123
Mark iv. 25
446
Mark vi. 16
123, 164, 628
Mark iv. 28
464, 528
Mark vi. 17
Mark iv. 29
251*
Mark vi. 19
84, 118
70, 330, 593*
Mark iv. 30
212, 517
Mark vi. 21
Mark iv. 31
133, 242
Mark vi. 23
128, 218
64
Mark iv. 32
242
Mark iv. 33
111
Mark vi. 25
336*, 592
Mark iv. 37
251*, 430 | Mark vi. 31
71
Mark iv. 38
150
Mark vi. 32
216
Mark iv. 39
312, 315*, 538
Mark vi. 34
233
Mark iv. 41
224
Mark vi. 36
168*
Mark vi. 37
152*
Mark v. 2
147, 220
Mark vi. 39
229*, 249, 392, 464*
Mark v. 3
330, 490, 499 |
Mark vi. 40
74, 249, 398, 401, 464*
Mark v. 4
50, 329, 334 |
Mark vi. 41
145
Mark v. 5
349
Mark vi. 45
298
Mark v. 7
585
Mark vi. 46
141
Mark v. 9
145
Mark vi. 47
123
Mark v. 10
334*
Mark vi. 48
330, 406*
Mark v. 11
349, 395
Mark vi. 52
392
Mark v. 13
514, 562
Mark vi. 56
201, 306*, 584*
Mark v. 14
268
Mark v. 15
267
Mark vii. 2
Mark v. 16
298
Mark vii. 3
Mark v. 18
270, 336
Mark vii. 4
530, 562
253, 254, 562
121, 319*, 621*
Mark v. 19
221
Mark vii. 6
71
Mark v. 21
407
Mark vii. 11
563, 600*
Mark v. 23
Mark v. 25
Mark v. 26
87, 289, 315
184*, 344
344, 366*, 486, 629
Mark vii. 12
499
Mark vii. 13
163
Mark vii. 14
199
Mark v. 27
344
Mark vii. 15
91, 114, 160, 429
Mark v. 29
259
Mark v. 30
Mark v. 33
155, 201, 413, 414*, 554*
Mark vii. 17
| Mark vii. 18
270
91, 596*
110, 433 Mark vii. 19
532, 533*, 624
N. T. INDEX.
677
Mark vii. 20
160 | Mark ix. 22
76, 233, 313, 442
Mark vii. 24
437, 608
Mark ix. 23
109
Mark vii. 25
148, 432, 602
Mark ix. 24
155
Mark vii. 26
95, 230, 336, 562
Mark ix. 25
142, 182
Mark vii. 27
330
Mark ix. 26
526
Mark vii. 28
514
Mark ix. 27
149, 202
Mark vii. 31
398
Mark ix. 28
143, 147, 149, 457
Mark vii. 32
430
Mark ix. 30
336*
Mark vii. 34
428
Mark ix. 34
244
Mark vii. 35
270, 622
Mark vii. 36
150, 240, 603
Mark ix. 37
111*, 497
Mark vii. 37
118
Mark ix. 39
Mark ix. 40
Mark viii. 1
526
Mark ix. 41
Mark viii. 2
233, 409, 563
Mark ix. 42
313
382, 383
144, 226, 506
243, 432
Mark viii. 3
87, 125
Mark ix. 43
241, 313
Mark viii. 4
374, 529, 605
Mark ix. 45
241
Mark viii. 6
288*, 344, 428 |
Mark ix. 47
320
Mark viii. 7
548*
Mark ix. 50
390*
Mark viii. 8
529*
Mark viii. 11
342, 365
Mark x. 2
116, 118, 342
Mark viii. 12
Mark viii. 15
500*
223, 313
Mark x. 6
124
Mark x. 7
432*
Mark viii. 17
108, 174, 528
Mark x. 10
415*
Mark viii. 19
Mark viii. 22
Mark viii. 23
Mark viii. 26
213*
149*, 336
509
489*
Mark x. 12
84
Mark x. 13
270, 288, 522*
Mark x. 16
Mark viii. 27
Mark viii. 29
187* Mark x. 17
114 Mark x. 19
143
210, 270, 348
501
Mark viii. 31
370
Mark x. 21
313, 430, 470*
Mark viii. 34
168
Mark x. 24
214, 233
Mark viii. 35
83
Mark x. 26
437
Mark viii. 38
221, 308
Mark x. 27
430
Mark x. 29
420
Mark ix. 1
79
Mark x. 30
377*, 500
Mark ix. 2
116, 267
Mark ix. 3
75, 350*
Mark x. 32
348*, 428
Mark ix. 4
348
Mark x. 34
430
Mark ix. 5
66
Mark x. 35
518
Mark ix. 6
299
Mark x. 37
122, 173, 337
Mark ix. 7
Mark ix. 8
114, 313, 431
451*, 499
Mark x. 38
84, 225, 229
Mark x. 40
271, 552
Mark ix. 9
123, 297, 301, 367
Mark x. 41
232, 521
Mark ix. 10
123
Mark x 42
206, 613*
Mark ix. 11
167*, 457*
Mark x. 46
118
Mark ix. 12
78, 409, 462*
Mark x. 47
113
Mark ix. 13
Mark ix. 15
218, 540
515, 516, 554*
Mark ix. 17
Mark ix. 18
278*
307, 437
Mark xi. 1
Mark xi. 4
296
118
Mark xi. 5
79, 609*
Mark ix. 19
83, 549
Mark xi. 6
85
Mark ix. 20
568*, 632
Mark xi. 7
430
678
N. T. INDEX.
Mark xi. 8
396, 417
Mark xiii. 1
Mark xi. 9
128
Mark xiii. 2
117, 526
409, 506
Mark xi. 10
113
Mark xiii. 3
415
Mark xi. 12
77
Mark xiii. 4
85
Mark xi. 13
300*, 445, 596*
Mark xiii. 7
501
Mark xi. 14
Mark xi. 15
476, 499, 501*
Mark xi. 16
267
81
Mark xiii. 9
Mark xiii. 10
Mark xiii. 11
152, 163, 375, 416*
213
Mark xi. 17
267, 276
Mark xi. 18
128, 232, 270, 299
Mark xi. 20
424*
Mark xiii. 14
Mark xiii. 15
Mark xiii. 16
Mark xi. 21
271, 276
Mark xiii. 17
Mark xi. 22
186
Mark xiii. 19
114, 299, 313, 501
79, 396*, 412, 541
431, 488, 502
415, 417
128
124, 148, 506
Mark xi. 23
261, 561
Mark xiii. 20
107, 304*
Mark xi. 24
306
Mark xiii. 22
333
Mark xi. 25
309*
Mark xiii. 23
152
Mark xi. 27
128, 207
Mark xiii. 25
133, 348
Mark xi. 28
438
Mark xiii. 27
121, 125
Mark xi. 29
437
Mark xiii. 28
90, 313
Mark xi. 31
579
Mark xiii. 29
123, 605
Mark xi. 32
545, 579*,
579*, 626
Mark xiii. 30
506
Mark xi. 33
84
Mark xiii. 32
129, 373
Mark xiii. 33
84
Mark xii. 2
456,
199, 288, 365*
Mark xiii. 34
462
Mark xii. 4
Mark xii. 5
Mark xii. 7
468
105, 583
85, 114, 195
Mark xiv. 1
Mark xiv. 2
Mark xii. 11
238
Mark xiv. 3
299, 388, 424
456, 503, 596*
97*, 188, 381*, 544
Mark xii. 12
Mark xii. 13
330, 437, 561*
128
|
Mark xiv. 4
Mark xiv. 5
349*
70, 206, 250
Mark xii. 14
285*, 474*, 509
Mark xiv. 6
72, 218, 524
Mark xii. 16
Mark xii. 17
85
232, 393
Mark xiv.
222
Mark xiv. 8
467*
Mark xii. 18
267
Mark xiv. 9
307
Mark xii. 19
289
Mark xiv. 11
331
Mark xii. 20
475
Mark xiv. 12
269, 285, 296
Mark xii. 23
605*
Mark xiv. 13
83, 188
Mark xii. 24
Mark xii. 25
161*
121, 123
Mark xiv. 15
313, 525
Mark xii. 26
63, 376*, 585
Mark xiv. 19
249
Mark xii. 28
178*, 248
Mark xiv. 20
429
Mark xiv. 21
320, 545
Mark xii. 30
Mark xii. 31
Mark xii. 32
143, 368
239
85, 425
Mark xiv. 22
57, 116, 345
Mark xiv. 24
411
Mark xii. 33
118, 127, 420
Mark xiv. 25
Mark xiv. 27
468
57
Mark xii. 34
499, 626
Mark xiv. 29
Mark xii. 36
81
Mark xiv. 31
152, 582*
331, 506
Mark xii. 38
183, 223, 384, 468*, 577
Mark xiv. 32
297*
Mark xii. 39
183
Mark xii. 40 160, 183*, 532, 564,
579
Mark xii. 41
Mark xii. 44
Mark xiv. 33
Mark xiv. 35
268 Mark xiv. 36
528 Mark xiv. 37
118
376*, 432
58, 168, 432, 442, 584
549
N. T. INDEX.
679
Mark xiv. 38
Mark xiv. 40
313
Mark xv. 46
83, 299
Mark xv. 47
426, 427
190, 268
Mark xiv. 43
128, 365*
Mark xiv. 44
72, 275, 313
Mark xvi. 1
113, 190, 276
Mark xiv. 46
275
Mark xvi. 2
248, 343*
Mark xiv. 47
96, 117, 118, 253, 254
Mark xvi. 3
362*, 364*, 366, 561
Mark xiv. 49
317%, 620
Mark xvi. 4
271, 446
Mark xiv. 51
118
Mark xvi. 5
345*
Mark xiv. 52
223
Mark xvi. 6
538
Mark xiv. 53
215
Mark xvi. 7
438, 521
Mark xiv. 54
348, 433
Mark xvi. 8
452*
Mark xiv. 55
71, 270
Mark xvi. 9
73
Mark xiv. 58
345
Mark xvi. 11
259
Mark xiv. 60
118, 123, 511
Mark xvi. 12
121
Mark xiv. 61
261
Mark xvi. 15
124, 314
Mark xiv. 64
199
Mark xvi. 17
524
Mark xiv. 65
430
Mark xvi. 18
506
Mark xiv. 67
80, 145
Mark xvi. 19
428
Mark xiv. 68
490
Mark xiv. 69
70
Luke i. 1
276*, 448*, 541, 545, 613*
Mark xiv. 71
· 83
Luke i. 2
545
Mark xiv. 72
205
Luke i. 3
545
Luke i. 4
165, 288
Mark xv. 1
113, 128
Luke i. 5
125
Mark xv. 2
114
Luke i. 6
127
Mark xv. 3
203
Luke i. 8
329, 608
Mark xv. 4
499
Luke i. 9 50, 200*, 319, 321, 324, 353*
Mark xv. 5
499
Luke i. 12
430
Mark xv. 6
269
Luke i. 13
182
Mark xv. 7
73
Luke i. 14
90, 211, 232
Mark xv. 8
584*
Mark xv. 10
Mark xv. 12
Luke i. 15
72 Luke i. 17
165, 222 | Luke i. 18
68, 506
318,
61, 146, 432
152
Mark xv. 13
144
Mark xv. 14
113
Luke i. 20
Luke i. 21
164, 349, 364*, 486*, 610
*
232*, 515
Mark xv. 15
113
Luke i. 22
70, 150*
Mark xv. 16
166*
Luke i. 23
296, 540
Mark xv. 17
78, 226
Luke i. 24
88
Mark xv. 19
430
Luke i. 25
57, 422, 445
Mark xv. 21
121*
Luke i. 26
219
Mark xv. 24
408*, 628
Luke i. 27
73
Mark xv. 25
57, 124, 126, 436*, 539
Luke i. 28
585
Mark xv. 30
79, 313
Luke i. 29
161, 299
Mark xv. 31
331, 571
Luke i. 30
365*
Mark xv. 33
126
Luke i. 31
593*, 607*
Mark xv. 34
226
Luke i. 32
Mark xv. 38
603
Luke i. 33
Mark xv. 39
591*
Luke i. 34
Mark xv. 40
190, 603 | Luke i. 35
Mark xv. 41
Mark xv. 43
Mark xv. 44
Mark xv. 45
140
113, 348
Luke i. 36
272*, 298, 542
113, 365, 371
Luke i. 37
Luke i. 38
Luke i. 39
113
206, 409
480
178, 430
64, 69, 110
171, 173*, 280*, 395
427
591, 608
Mark xiv. 70
269
680
N. T. INDEX.
Luke i. 40
61
Luke ii. 28
Luke i. 41
608
Luke ii. 30
Luke i. 42
246*, 551
Luke ii. 31
Luke i. 43
337*, 338
Luke ii. 33
Luke i. 44
386
Luke ii. 34
Luke i. 45
585
Luke ii. 35
Luke i. 46
639
Luke ii. 36
Luke i. 47
393, 639
Luke ii. 37
Luke i. 48
75, 430
Luke ii. 39
150*
607
174, 400
519
184*, 397
310, 366, 462*
41, 138, 149, 604*
427, 593
· 275
Luke i. 51
125, 277*, 388
Luke i. 53
Luke i. 54
201, 228
202
Luke ii. 41
Luke ii. 42
68, 215*, 230, 531
196
Luke ii. 44
Luke i. 55
562, 577*
Luke ii. 45
Luke i. 57
324
Luke ii. 46
Luke i. 58
128
Luke ii. 48
188*, 226*, 231
342, 344*, 484
199
276, 518
Luke i. 59
228, 269*, 394*, 410
Luke i. 62
109, 308*
Luke iii. 1
61, 126, 138*, 219
Luke i. 64
72, 622*
Luke iii. 2
41, 60, 122, 375
Luke i. 66
174
Luke iii. 5
591
Luke i. 67
71
Luke iii. 7
270
Luke i. 68
469*, 551
Luke iii. 8
614
Luke i. 70
132, 562, 606
Luke iii. 10
279
Luke i. 72
164, 205, 376
Luke iii. 11
482
Luke i. 73 164, 225, 226, 326*, 577, 628*
Luke iii. 13
105, 240, 404
Luke i. 74
197, 627
Luke iii. 14
232
Luke i. 75
230, 321, 386
Luke iii. 15
299
Luke i. 76
152, 432, 607, 615
Luke iii. 16
261, 412*
Luke i. 78
611
Luke iii. 18
223, 525*
Luke i. 79
89, 431
Luke iii. 19
Luke iii. 20
Luke ii. I
254*, 319, 365, 429, 534, 608
Luke iii. 21
Luke ii. 2
244*
Luke iii. 22
· 61, 144
393
72, 323
132, 232
Luke ii. 4
125, 329, 330, 364* |
Luke iii. 23
196, 349*
Lnke ii. 5
73
Luke iii. 27
60
Luke ii. 7
211*, 385
Luke iii. 29
52, 66
Luke ii. 8
225, 349, 409
Luke iii. 30
67
Luke ii. 10
208
Luke iii. 32
67
Luke ii. 11
125
Luke iii. 37
52
Luke ii. 12
118, 345*
Luke iv. 2
77, 499, 544
Luke ii. 13
68, 526
Luke iv. 3
336
Luke ii. 14
120
Luke iv. 6
271*
Luke ii. 15
427
Luke iv. 7
214, 291
Luke ii. 16
4, 113, 439
Luke iv. 8
210
Luke ii. 17
132
Luke iv. 9
118
Luke ii. 18
Luke ii. 20
232
57, 163
Luke iv. 10
326
Luke ii. 21
Luke ii. 22
324, 329, 438*, 605*
147*, 325, 401, 428
Luke iv. 12
Luke iv. 14
316
382
Luke iv. 15
145, 150, 353*
Luke ii. 23
Luke ii. 24
Luke ii. 25
123, 562
123, 325
585
Luke iv. 16
177, 211, 217
Luke iv. 18
43, 223, 272*
Luke iv. 20
Luke ii. 26
122, 297, 481
Luke iv. 22
106
212, 237
Luke ii. 27
64, 325
Luke iv. 23
347, 416*, 529
N. T. INDEX.
681
Lnke iv. 25
61, 63, 296, 408* | Luke vi. 16
Luke iv. 26
Luke iv. 27
187, 508
375
Luke vi. 17
Luke vi. 18
Luke iv. 29
71, 118, 329, 374, 603
Luke vi. 19
131, 190
141, 259
371*
268, 330, 515
Luke iv. 30
378
Luke vi. 20
143, 396, 607
Luke iv. 31
348
Luke vi. 21
84
Luke iv. 32
232
Luke vi. 23
121, 268, 558
Luke iv. 34
234, 626
Luke vi. 25
87
Luke iv. 35 50, 123, 227, 344*, 483*, 544
Luke vi. 27
222
Luke ir. 36
386, 584
Luke vi. 29
501
Luke iv. 38
621
Luke vi. 30
592*
Luke iv. 40
Luke iv. 41
84, 120, 544
346, 514
Luke vi. 31
540
Luke vi 34
Luke iv. 42
325, 471, 604
Luke vi. 35
Luke vi. 37
Luke v. 1
199, 348, 404, 608
Luke vi. 38
Luke v. 2
404, 427
Luke vi. 39
Luke v. 3
335, 366*
Luke vi. 42
295, 331, 428
45, 118, 409, 477
506
112, 412, 525
511
150, 366*, 485
Luke v. 4
397*, 541, 580*
Luke vi. 44
Luke v. 5
394
Luke vi. 47
111, 412, 488
111, 155
Luke v. 7
325
Luke vi. 48
73, 225, 330, 469*, 603
Luke v. 8
549
Luke vi. 49
483
Luke v. 9
163, 544
Luke v. 10
209, 211, 348, 571
Luke vii. 1
Luke v. 12
122, 198, 545, 608
Luke vii. 3
Luke v. 14
146*, 481, 545, 579, 598
Luke vii. 4
Luke v. 15
268, 371, 411
Luke vii. 5
Luke v. 16
150, 413, 414* |
Luke vii. 6
275
338
76
150*
61
Luke v. 17
146, 147, 150, 436
Luke vii. 7
Luke v. 19
207*, 428, 590 |
Luke vii. 8
Luke v. 20
80
Luke vii. 9
442, 595
349*
490, 493
Luke v. 21
465
Luke vii. 11
590
Luke v. 23
80
Luke vii. 12
211*, 296, 438*, 605
Luke v. 24
580
Luke vii. 13
233
Luke v. 25
158, 408*
Luke vii. 16
190
Luke v. 27
182
Luke vii. 17
413, 414*
Luke v. 29
66
Luke vii. 18
548
Luke v. 30
376
Luke vii. 19
341, 594
Luke v. 32
271*
Luke vii. 20
271
Luke v. 33
85
Luke vii. 21
323
Luke v. 36
430, 523
Luke vii. 22
123, 260
Luke v. 37
150
Luke vii. 25
227
Luke vii. 29
110, 564*
Luke vi. 1
100*, 116, 323, 431
Luke vii. 30
Luke vi. 2
Luke ví. 3
Luke vi. 6
Luke vi. 7
559
296, 519
323
253, 288
Luke vii. 31
Luke vii. 33
Luke vii. 34
Luke vii. 36
213*, 484
564
86, 483*
51, 86, 552
117, 270, 336
Luke vi. 8
123
Luke vii. 37
268, 344, 544
Luke vi. 10
72
Luke vii. 39
Luke vi. 11
76, 303, 308* | Luke vii. 42
304*, 541
169, 240
Luke vi. 12
Luke vì. 13
185, 348
370, 432*
Luke vii. 43
Luke vii. 44
582
110
86
682
N. T. INDEX.
Luke vii. 45
Luke vii. 47
345, 592
80, 132, 456* |
Luke ix. 13
Luke ix. 14
116, 239, 294*, 516*
229*, 464
Luke vii. 50
143, 271
Luke ix. 16
106, 116, 340, 344, 428
Luke ix. 19
Luke viii. 2
Luke viii. 3
514
Luke ix. 20
138, 340, 366
Luke ix. 22
Luke viii. 5
105, 225, 333, 576
Luke ix. 25
Luke viii. 6
90, 482
Luke ix. 26
Luke viii. 7
90, 123
Luke ix. 27
105*, 138
549
83, 371*
87, 253
543
198*, 308, 506
Luke viii. 8
90, 132, 319
Luke ix. 28
58, 116, 516**, 563
Luke viii. 9
270, 299
Luke ix. 31
Luke viii. 12
287
Luke ix. 32
Luke viii. 13
405*
Luke ix. 33
Luke viii. 14
369
Luke ix. 34
Luke viii. 15
524
Luke ix. 36
Luke viii. 16
376
Luke ix. 37
Luke viii. 17
Luke viii. 18
300, 307*, 481
306, 480*, 613* | Luke ix. 40
Luke ix. 39
Luke viii. 19
70
Luke ix. 41
70
83, 340
66, 319
431*
76, 158, 385
367, 523
427
70, 336
83
Luke viii. 20
588*
Luke ix. 42
544
Luke viii. 21
105
Luke ix. 45
Luke viii. 22
285, 519
Luke ix. 46
Luke viii. 23
270
Luke ix. 47
370, 459*
244, 308, 413
202, 395
Luke viii. 24
128, 610
Luke ix. 49
393*
Luke viii. 25
445
Luke ix. 50
168
Luke viii. 28
198, 585
Luke ix. 51
150, 608
Luke viii. 29
63, 218*
Luke ix. 52
318, 594*, 607
Luke viii. 30
514
Luke ix. 54
285*, 431, 595
Luke viii. 31
336
Luke ix. 57
307
Luke viii. 32
311, 634
Luke ix. 61
362, 629
Luke viii. 34
416*
Luke ix. 62
213, 430
Luke viii. 37
515
Luke viii. 38
514
Luke x. 1 70, 150, 249, 398, 472*, 527, 529
Luke viii. 39
400
Luke x. 2
270, 338, 559
Luke viii. 40
259
Luke x. 4
43, 493, 501
Luke viii. 41
268, 270
Luke x.
6
428, 429, 583
Luke viii. 43
213, 386, 499
Luke x. 7
86, 106, 366*
Luke viii. 46
346
Luke x. 8
306, 310, 579*
Luke viii. 47
301
Luke x. 9
407*
Luke viii. 48
549
Luke x. 11
253
Luke viii. 51
499
Luke x. 13
516*
Luke viii. 52
222, 268
Luke x. 18
269
Luke viii. 53
268
Luke x. 19
274*, 499, 507
Luke viii. 54
182, 183, 202
Luke x. 20
Luke x. 21
Luke ix. 1
577
Luke x. 23
Luke ix. 3
316*, 398, 488, 489
Luke x. 24
Luke ix. 4
314
Luke x. 28
Luke ix. 5
480
Luke x. 29
Luke ix. 6
400
Luke x. 30
Luke ix. 7
61, 123
Luke x. 32
Luke ix. 9
153*
Luke x. 34
Luke ix. 12
251*, 515
Luke x. 35
232, 387*, 495*, 497
126, 209
153
153*, 330
130**, 437
67, 344, 432, 543
400, 571
205, 428
46, 143, 307
436
N. T. INDEX.
683
Luke x. 36
Luke x. 37
Luke x. 40
Luke x. 41
Luke x. 42
130*, 396, 430
Luke xii. 12
376, 456
Luke xii. 13
85, 336, 406, 432
Luke xii. 14
610 | Luke xii. 15
246*, 427, 456
Luke xii. 16
133
-376
228, 409
223, 367
71, 78, 602
Luke xii. 17
Luke xi. 1
117, 440
Luke xii. 18
57, 472
155, 472*
Luke xi. 2
309
Luke xii. 19
396
Luke xi. 3
97*
Luke xii. 20
183, 218, 256*, 522*, 588
Luke xi. 4
111
Luke xii. 21
397
Luke xi. 5
169, 280*, 286
Luke xii. 24
94
Luke xi. 6
367*
Luke xii. 26
478*, 490
Luke xi. 7
415
Luke xii. 27
493
Luke xi. 8
363,
45, 200*, 330, 479
Luke xii. 29
437
Luke xi. 10
111
Luke xii. 30
155, 456, 548*, 549
Luke xi. 11
512, 568*
Luke xii. 32
183
Luke xi. 12
295*
Luke xii. 35
155
Luke xi. 13
629*
Luke xii. 36
176, 367*
Luke xi. 17
41, 173
Luke xii. 37
Luke xi. 18
445*
Luke xii. 42
Luke xi. 19
152
Luke xii. 44
607, 608*
410
393, 410
Luke xi. 20
292
Luke xii. 45
Luke xi. 22
31, 233
Luke xii. 46
552, 614
422
Luke xi. 24
483*
Luke xii. 47
Luke xi. 28
559
Luke xii. 48
162, 226, 405, 483*, 589*
164, 229, 522
Luke xi. 29
189*
Luke xii. 49
143*, 448*
Luke xi. 31
67
Luke xii. 50
297
Luke xi. 33
238*
Luke xii. 51
442*
Luke xi. 34
143
Luke xii. 53
392*
Luke xi. 35
503
Luke xii. 54
116*, 265
Luke xi. 36
308
Luke xii. 58
427, 454, 502
Luke xi. 37
74, 338
Luke xii. 59
506*
Luke xi. 39
128, 201, 522
Luke xi. 42
128, 251
Luke xiii. 1
Luke xi. 44
84
Luke xiii. 2
376, 623*
240, 271*, 404*, 508
Luke xi. 46
226
Luke xiii. 4
Luke xi. 48
Luke xi. 49
445, 457*, 558
396, 589
Luke xiii. 7
Luke xi. 50
123, 337, 410, 459
Luke xi. 51
Luke xi. 52
129
65, 74
Luke xiii. 8
Luke xiii. 9
Luke xiii. 11
385*
169
297, 406
Luke xiii. 12
296*, 583, 600*
250, 424*, 486
183, 271
Luke xi: 53
593*
Luke xiii. 13
73
Luke xiii. 14
58, 218
Luke xii. 1
386*
Luke xiii. 15
129
Luke xii. 2
441*, 481
Luke xiii. 16
197, 218, 250, 563
Luke xii. 3
Luke xii. 4
364*
83, 162*
Luke xiii. 17
429
Luke xiii. 18
456
Luke xii. 5
299, 329, 429
Luke xiii. 19
125, 514
Luke xii. 6
172*, 510
Luke xiii. 22
256, 400
Luke xii. 8
57, 144, 226*, 455*
Luke xiii. 23
509
Luke xii. 9
259
Luke xiii. 24
563
Luke xii. 10
222, 397
Luke xiii. 27
110, 427
Luke xii. 11
128, 299, 407, 427* | Luke xiii. 28
75, 88, 309
684
N. T. INDEX.
Luke xiii. 29
60
Luke xvi. 11
549
Luke xiii. 32
590
Luke xvi. 12
550
Luke xiii. 33
590
Luke xvi. 13
64, 173, 332
Luke xiii. 34
83, 152, 330, 407
Luke xvi. 14
134, 343
Luke xiii. 35 296, 298*, 456, 506, 508, 528
Luke xvi. 16
422
Luke xvi. 18
122*
Luke xiv. 1
218
Luke xvi. 19
229
Luke xiv. 3
128
Luke xvi. 20
72, 273*
Luke xiv. 4
143, 202, 521
Luke xvi. 21
201
Luke xiv. 5
169, 632
Luke xvi. 22
Luke xiv. 7
268*, 593, 602
Luke xvi. 23
176, 323
176*, 344
Luke xiv. 8
459, 503
Luke xvi. 24
201
Luke xiv. 10
Luke xiv. 12
Luke xiv. 16
69, 74, 428, 459*
488, 497
69
Luke xvi. 25
76
Luke xvi. 26
109, 287, 393*, 477, 629
Luke xvi. 29
67
Luke xiv. 18
276*, 423, 545, 591*
Luke xvi. 31
123, 477
Luke xiv. 19
259, 276*
Luke xiv. 20
84
Luke xvii. 1
328, 482*
Luke xiv. 21
128, 520
Luke xvii. 2
241*, 337, 432, 632
Luke xiv. 23
127
Luke xvii. 4
82, 203, 233
Luke xiv. 24
198, 482
Luke xvii. 6
304
Luke xiv. 26
126, 479
Luke xvii. 7
74
Luke xiv. 27
480
Luke xvii. 8
88, 89, 168, 297*
Luke xiv. 30
333
Luke xvii. 10
308*
Luke xiv. 31
41, 384
Luke xvii. 11
112, 385
Luke xiv. 32
465
Luke xvii. 12
207
Luke xiv. 35
213*, 488
Luke xvii. 15
377
Luke xvii. 16
122
Luke xv. 2
426
Luke xvii. 17
510
Luke xv. 4
297, 407
Luke xvii. 18
511*, 616*
Luke xv. 6
128, 256*
Luke xvii. 22
45, 296
Luke xv. 9
128, 256*
Luke xvii. 23
488, 501, 522
Luke xv. 14
Luke xv. 15
63, 400*
632
Luke xvii. 24
366, 407, 591
Luke xvii. 25
371
Luke xv. 16
198*, 201, 370
Luke xvii. 28
71, 268
Luke xv. 17
201, 558
Luke xvii. 31
578
Luke xv. 18
58, 608*
Luke xvii. 32
205
Luke xv. 19
319, 337, 615
Luke xvii. 33
310
Luke xv. 23
90
Luke xvii. 34
116, 173, 266*
Luke xv. 24
87
Luke xv. 25
121, 199
Luke xviii. 1
Luke xv. 26
117, 169, 299
Luke xviii. 2
329*
116, 221
Luke xv. 28
270, 330, 456
Luke xviii. 3
621
Luke xv. 29
Luke xv. 30
125*, 230
155
Luke xviii. 4
444, 479, 595
Luke xviii. 6
237
Luke xviii. 7
207, 212, 393, 494*, 506,
Luke xvi. 2
76, 143, 521, 602, 614, 628*
>>
""
508, 552
Luke xvi. 3
227, 346*, 427
Luke xviii. 8
Luke xvi. 4
196, 589
Luke xviii. 9
Luke xvi. 6
155, 188
Luke xviii. 10
Luke xvi. 8
203*, 237, 238, 240, 598*
Luke xviii. 11
Luke xvi. 9
367
Luke xviii. 12
510*
109, 301
173
58, 183, 440
203, 274*
Luke xvi. 10
59
Luke xv. 7
Luke xvii. 13
330, 430, 500
241*
N. T. INDEX.
685
Luke xviii. 14
241* Luke xx. 14
287
Luke xviii. 15
108 Luke xx. 16
500
Luke xviii. 17
506
Luke xx. 19
405
Luke xviii. 18
551
Luke xx. 20
128, 202*, 321
Luke xviii. 21
253 Luke xx. 22
509
Luke xviii. 25
319
Luke xx. 24
Luke xviii. 27
116
Luke xx. 25
313, 582
109
Luke xviii. 29
482, 519
Luke xx. 26
Luke xviii. 30
506, 508
Luke xx. 27
Luke xviii 31
211*
Luke xx. 34
Luke xviii. 34
147*, 227
Luke xx. 35
Luke xviii. 35
67, 404
Luke xx. 36
Luke xviii. 36
299
Luke xx. 37
Luke xviii. 39
150
Luke xx. 40
Luke xviii. 40
207
Luke xx. 42
Luke xx. 43
Luke xix. 1
431
Luke xx. 46
202, 232
532*, 604
92
133, 200, 609*
490*, 491
63
456, 499
81, 112
527, 605
468*
Luke xix. 2
149, 150, 160*
Luke xx. 47
86
Luke xix. 3
70, 268, 371, 626
Luke xix. 4 207, 288, 429, 590, 603, 632*
|
Luke xxi. 3
242
Luke xix. 5
333
Luke xxi. 4
340
Luke xix. 7
395*
Luke xxi. 6
392, 574*
Luke xix. 8
65
Luke xxi. 8
504
Luke xix. 11
468
Luke xxi. 11
439, 637
Luke xix. 13
125
Luke xxi. 12
84
Luke xix. 14
206
Luke xxi. 14
481
Luke xix. 15
152, 275, 628
Luke xxi. 16
589
Luke xix. 16
72
Luke xxi. 18
364, 506
Luke xix. 17
79
Luke xxi. 19
274*, 313
Luke xix. 23
303*
Luke xxi. 21
147*
Luke xix. 27
206, 330
Luke xxi. 22
325
Luke xix. 28
428
Luke xxi. 23
128
Luke xix. 29
182
Luke xxi. 24
297, 348*
Luke xix. 35
155
Luke xxi. 25
65, 120, 121, 552
Luke xix. 36
384
Luke xxi. 26
Luke xix. 37 163, 164, 373, 395*, 516, 526
Luke xxi. 28
Luke xix. 39
85
Luke xxi. 30
371, 420*, 430
614
372, 594*
Luke xix. 40
87, 279*
Luke xxi. 33
506
Luke xix. 41
222, 408
Luke xxi. 34
83, 464
Luke xix. 42
125, 197, 227, 438, 599*
Luke xxi. 37
415
Luke xix. 43
436
Luke xix. 44
364*
Luke xxii. 1
531
Luke xix. 46
228
Luke xxii. 2
109, 299
Luke xix. 47
550
Luke xxii.
324
Luke xix. 48
71, 87, 299, 429
Luke xx. 2
Luke xx. 4
85, 441, 602
420, 509
Lnke xxii. 9
Luke xxii. 10
Luke xxii. 11
285
207
603
Luke xxii, 14
74, 519
Luke xx. 7
Luke xx. 9
481
230
Luke xxii. 15
329, 339, 466*
Luke xxii. 16
Luke xx. 10
124, 199
Luke xxii. 18
Luke xx. 11
468*
Luke xx. 12
105, 468
Luke xxii. 19
Luke xxii. 20
297, 499, 506, 508
199
116, 153*, 382
403, 411, 513, 634, 635*
686
N. T. INDEX.
Luke xxii. 21
Luke xxii. 23
374 Luke xxiii. 39
109, 299*, 445, 543 | Luke xxiii. 40
175
112
Luke xxii. 24
244, 613*
Luke xxiii. 41
159, 582*
Luke xxii. 26
587*
Luke xxiii. 42
205, 413
Luke xxii. 27
129, 169
Luke xxiii. 44
Luke xxii. 30
86, 289
Luke xxiii. 45
Luke xxii. 31
325, 610
Luke xxiii. 46
43, 436*
131*
125
Luke xxii. 32
89, 336
Luke xxiii. 48
Luke xxii. 33
319, 420
Luke xxiii. 50
344, 409
524, 528
Luke xxii. 34
507
Luke xxiii. 51
146*, 348, 421, 563
Luke xxii. 35
43, 201
Luke xxiii. 53
499
Luke xxii. 36
43, 582*
Luke xxiii. 56
276
Luke xxii. 37
Luke xxii. 40
109, 513
375*
Luke xxiv. 1
207, 248, 275
Luke xxii. 41x
71, 230*, 427
Luke xxiv. 2
362, 364*, 369
Luke xxii. 42
76, 432, 600
Luke xxiv. 4
174
Luke xxii. 44
431
Luke xxiv. 5
175, 376
Luke xxii. 45
371
Luke xxiv. 10
131, 190
Luke xxii. 47
432
Luke xxiv. 11
233, 514
Luke xxii. 49
62, 279*, 341, 388, 509
Luke xxiv. 13
348, 557
Luke xxii. 50
118
Luke xxiv. 14
212, 268
Luke xxii. 51
201
Luke xxiv. 15
112, 150
Luke xxii. 52
74, 377, 407
Luke xxiv. 16
326
Luke xxii. 53
Luke xxii. 57
155, 207
183
Luke xxiv. 18
57, 103, 112, 630
Luke xxiv. 19
523, 552
Luke xxii. 58
178*
Luke xxiv. 20
449
Luke xxii. 59
463
Luke xxiv. 21 114, 254*, 391*, 444, 559, 625
Luke xxii. 61
430, 602
Luke xxiv. 23
484
Luke xxii. 66
275
Luke xxiv. 25
183, 230, 324
Luke xxii. 68
506
Luke xxiv. 27
268, 370, 420, 633*
Luke xxiii. 1
113, 515, 516
Luke xxiv. 28
Luke xxiv. 29
472
121, 325, 405*
Luke xxiii. 2
Luke xxiii. 4
203, 604
128
Luke xxiv. 30
71
Luke xxiv. 31
370
Luke xxiii. 5
621*
Luke xxiv. 32
268, 348
Luke xxiii. 6
113, 298
Luke xxiv. 35
219, 386
Luke xxiii. 7
67, 428
Luke xxiv. 36
150
Luke xxiii. 8
367*
Luke xxiv. 37
350
Luke xxiii. 9
261
Luke xxiv. 39
63, 552*
Luke xxiii. 11
428
Luke xxiv. 41
371
Luke xxiii. 12 129, 350*, 376, 405, 439,
Luke xxiv. 42
199
""
>>
Luke xxiii. 13
467, 518
113
Luke xxiv. 46
123, 231*
Luke xxiii. 14
180, 203, 431
Luke xxiii. 15
Luke xxiii. 26
Luke xxiii. 28
219
121, 430
183, 222, 408
Luke xxiv. 47
Luke xxiv. 49
Luke xxiv. 50
Luke xxiv. 51
Luke xxiv. 52
213, 393, 396, 624*
297
143, 603, 607*
428
210
Luke xxiii. 31
Luke xxiii. 32
Luke xxiii. 33
218, 285, 550 | Luke xxiv. 53
530*
122, 552 | John i. 1
122*, 181, 365, 405, 551
349
Luke xxiii. 34
168
John i. 2
Luke xxiii. 35
Luke xxiii. 38
253 John i. 3
392' John i. 4
122, 124
173, 379*, 610
114
N. T. INDEX.
687
John i. 5
270
John i. 6
149, 350, 365*, 585
John ii. 10
John ii. 11
John i. 7
458*
John ii. 12
John i. 8
114, 316*, 317*
John ii. 13
John i. 9
132, 349*
John ii. 14
110, 152, 524
61, 110
143, 230, 519
106, 128, 539
539
John i. 10
609
John ii. 15
429, 439, 539, 559
John i. 11
592*
John ii. 16
314, 539
John i. 12
134
John ii. 17
John i. 13
177*, 488
John ii. 18
John i. 14 122, 193, 201, 564*, 617*, 630
John ii. 19
John i. 15
222, 244*, 274
John ii. 20
John i. 16
364*, 437*
John ii. 21
John i. 17
379*, 639
John ii. 22
John i. 18
160, 341, 413, 415*
John ii. 23
89, 185
312, 385*, 537
71, 218, 250
531
123, 163, 627*
67, 68, 155, 385, 410, 638
445*
John i. 19
438*
John ii. 24
John i. 20
479, 545, 610 |
John ii. 25
143, 638
115*, 339
John i. 21
106, 114, 476
John i. 22
620
John iii. 1
John i. 25
479*, 488, 491
John iii. 2
John i. 26
217, 261, 412*, 537 |
John iii. 3
366, 563, 585
84, 122, 527
537
John i. 27
335, 337
John iii. 4
John i. 28
61
John iii. 5
John i. 29
266
John iii. 6
John i. 30
153, 244*
John i. 31
John i. 32
John i. 33
John iii. 8
217, 561 John iii. 9
121, 266, 573 | John iii. 10
408, 412*, 573 | John iii. 11
331, 537
537, 630
178, 639
298, 472, 510, 543
John i. 34
273*
John iii. 12
John i. 36
430
John iii. 13
John i. 38
537
John iii. 14
537
114, 115*, 537
437, 517, 561
235*, 478
341*, 431, 537
106*, 540
John i. 39
105, 563
John iii. 16
133, 172*, 281, 301, 610
John i. 40
230, 268, 298, 537
John iii. 17
John i. 41
64
John iii. 18
John i. 42
154, 537, 563
John iii. 19
John i. 43
60, 153, 430
John iii. 20
John i. 44
266, 313, 537, 563
John iii. 21
537, 540
272, 273, 474*, 480
129, 155, 630
111, 639
122, 155, 639
John i. 45
61
John iii. 22
268, 376, 539, 593*
John i. 46
133, 267, 537, 543
John iii. 23
144, 471, 514
John i. 47
86, 551
John iii. 25
368
John i. 49
329, 341, 372, 537, 551
John iii. 26
212*
John i. 50
114
John iii. 27
499
John i. 51
162, 239 |
1
John i. 52
537, 553
John iii. 29
John iii. 30
79, 199, 466*
332, 537
John ii. 1
John ii. 2
John ii. 3
61, 187, 540 John iii. 32
519, 540 John
> 4. 33
John iii. 31
537
437, 537
155, 537
John ii. 4
211, 274, 537, 585
John ii. 5
307
540 John iii. 34
John iii. 35
John iii. 36
424*, 543
414
266*
John ii. 6
John ii. 7
John ii. 8
398*, 401, 402, 523
201, 313, 537, 539
313, 314, 537, 540
John iv. 1
144*, 239, 268, 540
John iv. 2
150, 444
John ii. 9
85, 198, 268, 274, 343, 540
John iv. 4
283*, 540
1
688
N. T. INDEX.
John iv. 5
113, 396, 444, 471, 540 | John v. 4
413*
John iv. 6 134, 367*, 392*, 540, 541, 562,
John v. 5
>> >>
618*
John v. 6
John iv. 7
537
John v. 7
John iv. 8
288, 562
John v. 8
John iv. 9
88, 152, 365, 523, 537
John v. 9
John iv. 10
John iv. 11
152*, 537, 562
132, 494*, 524, 537
| John v. 10
John iv. 12
239, 519
John v. 11
John v. 12
John iv. 14
199, 397*, 507
John v. 13
John iv. 15
318, 488, 537
John v. 14
John iv. 16
537
John v. 15
John iv. 17
537
John v. 16
John iv. 18
110, 464*
John v. 18
John ív. 19
537, 551
John v. 19
John iv. 20
384
John v. 20
John iv. 21
183, 265, 296, 537
John v. 21
John iv. 22
480, 538
John v. 22
John iv. 23 111, 210, 420*, 424*, 448, 528 |
John v. 23
59, 230*, 250, 256*
537
372, 386, 537, 599*
314, 537
539
331, 340
64, 160, 228, 314
135
91, 268, 341
501
64, 268
268
154, 268
261, 306, 307, 543
242, 287
123, 440, 541
131, 548*
475
John iv. 24
538, 551
John v. 24
273*
John iv. 25
308, 537
John v. 25
199, 296
John iv. 26
537, 582
John v. 26
John iv. 27
876, 393*, 539
John v. 27
266
439*
John iv. 28
396, 444
John v. 28
82
John iv. 29
114, 511
John v. 29
188, 354
John iv. 30
86
John v. 30
495, 496, 499
John iv. 31
268, 545, 592*
|
John v. 32
109, 225, 513
John iv. 33
511*
John v. 35
114, 405, 614
John iv. 34
337*, 338, 537
John v. 36
John iv. 35
313, 539, 589, 626, 641*
John v. 37
133*, 245*
488, 489
John iv. 36
133, 459*
John v. 38
489*
John iv. 37
114, 363
John v. 39
114
John iv. 38
272
John v. 41
365
John iv. 39
134, 540, 550
John v. 42
185, 263, 482, 626
John iv. 40
177, 296, 335, 540
|
John v. 43
390, 494, 537
John iv. 41
540, 619
John v. 44
152, 331*, 464*, 573, 578
John iv. 42
114, 435, 540, 619%
John v. 45
109, 233, 273*, 537
John iv. 43
106
John v. 46
363,
66, 304
John iv. 44
John iv. 45
John iv. 46
447, 454
134, 275, 410
61, 275
John v. 47
285, 292, 477, 478
John vi. 1
191*, 207
John iv. 47
70, 155, 274, 336
John vi. 2
John iv. 48
65, 506, 507*
John vi. 3
John iv. 49
79, 330*
John vi. 5
375*, 515
106, 428, 456
268, 279, 287, 607
John iv. 50
163, 537
John vi. 6
150, 564
John iv. 51
207
John vi. 7
335, 337
John iv. 52
230
John vi. 9
117, 141, 169
John iv. 53
422, 519, 582
John vi. 1073,74, 230*, 313,443, 452*, 456*
Jolin iv. 54
604
John vi. 13
132, 201, 208, 514
John vi. 14
John v. 1
John v. 2
John v. 3
118, 125*
112, 267*, 392*, 592*
128, 520
John vi. 15
John vi. 16
John vi. 17
114
228, 607
275
86, 429, 494, 596*
N. T. INDEX.
689
John vi. 18
John vi. 19
435
John vii. 14
230, 250, 374*, 471
John vii. 15
John vi. 21
268, 330, 375*, 467*, 614
|
John vii. 16
270
340, 483*, 496
496*
John vi. 22
79, 131, 275, 568*
John vi. 23
564*
John vii. 17 107, 293, 332, 373, 509, 537,
>>
541, 614
John vi. 24
57, 268
John vii. 18
537
John vi. 26
496
John vii. 19
271, 508
John vi. 27
496*, 528, 534 | John vii. 21
59*, 117
John vi. 29
57, 159, 166, 338, 628
John vii. 22
271, 368, 421, 597
John vi. 30
152
John vii. 23
459*, 508
John vi. 31
106*, 588* | John vii. 24
John vi. 32
276
John vii. 26
224, 314
511
John vi. 33
343
John vii. 27
298, 442, 510, 626
John vi. 35
77, 506, 639
John vii. 28
437
John vi. 36
439*
John vii. 30
437
John vi. 37
178
John vii. 31
58, 163, 511*
John vi. 38
287
John vii. 32
288
John vi. 39
83, 574, 589
John vii. 34
53, 552
John vi. 40
144, 338
John vii. 35
187*, 300*, 472, 511
John vi. 41
343, 431
John vii. 36
53, 494
John vi. 42
159
John vii. 37
77, 293, 525
John vi. 43
376
John vii. 38
89, 550, 574
John vi. 45
175, 189*
John vii. 39
163
John vi. 46
597
John vii. 40
107
John vi. 50
114, 199, 343, 366, 630
John vii. 41
417*
John vi. 51
86, 87, 114, 313, 443
John vii. 42
265, 411
John vi. 52
212
John vii. 43
399
John vi. 54
552
John vii. 44
330, 437
John vi. 55
465*
John vii. 45
157*, 632
John vi. 56
552
John vii. 48
442,
366, 420
John vi. 57
399*, 440, 549
John vii. 49
442, 484, 486*, 515
John vi. 58
John vi. 60
86, 198
551
John vii. 51
John vii. 52
267, 523*, 588
265, 266, 311*
John vi. 62
159, 600*
John vi. 63
114, 499, 538, 609
John viii. 3
123
John vi. 64
124, 268, 475*, 543
John viii. 4
72
John vi. 65
368
John viii. 6
268
John vi. 66
367, 550
John viii. 7
394, 467
John vi. 68
279, 549
John viii. 8
268
John vi. 69
553*
John viii. 9
249, 621
John vi. 70
436*
John viii. 12
John vi. 71
70, 190
John viii. 14
John viii. 15
John vii. 1
268 John viii. 16
John vii. 2
John vii. 3
John vii. 4
John vii. 6
John vii. 7
John vii. 8
John vii. 10
528
John viii. 18
79 John viii. 19
292, 630* John viii. 20
132 John viii. 21
614* John viii. 22
596* John viii. 23
506, 513
267, 441, 472
583*
293, 558
538
304, 488
275, 385*, 480
541, 617 John viii. 25 46, 167*, 230, 438, 457, 464*
387, 388
253, 511*
109
John vii. 12
105
"" >>
John vii. 13
185* John viii. 26
549
416, 442, 451
87
690
N. T. INDEX.
John viii. 27
John viii. 29
John viii. 33
222 | John ix. 41
304
277*
271
John x. 1
483
John viii. 36
295
John x. 3
154, 537, 540
John viii. 37
413, 414*, 480
John x. 4
514, 537
John viii. 38
455*
John x. 5
·
84, 223, 507, 610
John viii. 39
305
John x. 6
168, 298*
John viii. 40
199*, 272, 528
| John x. 7
114, 187*
John viii. 41
538
John x. 8
372, 514
John viii. 42
304
John x. 9
540
John viii. 44
114*, 138, 145*, 308, 467*
John x. 10
606
John viii. 45
457
John x. 11
106*, 132, 524, 539
John viii. 51
293, 506
John x. 12
514, 540
John viii. 52
506, 519
John x. 13
206, 373
John viii. 53
545, 577*
John viii. 54
293, 574*, 626
John x. 15
382, 440
John viii. 55
195*, 209, 482
John x. 16
520
John viii. 56
339*
John x. 17
537
John viii. 58
267, 330, 523
John x. 18
370
John viii. 59
253*, 469*
John x. 19
399
John x. 20
456
John ix. Í
139, 367
John x. 21
333, 514
John ix. 2
58, 459, 545
John x. 22
112
John ix. 3
177, 316, 317*, 488, 514
John x. 23
John ix. 4
296, 297, 332, 481
John x. 25
John ix. 5
144, 609
John x. 27
John ix. 6
427
John x. 28
John ix. 7
413, 415*, 563 | John x. 29
John ix. 8
114, 268 | John x. 30
67, 385
437, 514
514
83, 506
143, 144, 242
152, 518
John ix. 9
209
John x. 32
265*, 368, 412, 525
John ix. 10
72
John x. 33
152, 228, 412
John ix. 11
155, 415*, 427, 456
John x. 35
478
John ix. 13
58, 267, 528
John x. 36
580
John ix. 14
72, 443
John x. 37
478*
John ix. 15
298
John x. 38
553
John ix. 17
83, 550
John x. 41
144
John ix. 18
275, 296
John ix. 19
114
John xi. 1
364*, 370, 411*
John ix. 20
114
John xi. 2
John ix. 21
83, 150, 152, 155, 298
John xi. 3
227, 343*, 562
543
John ix. 22
254, 262, 294, 336
John xi. 4
383*, 405
John ix. 24
John ix. 25
John ix. 26
153
298*, 341*
155, 456
John xi. 5
268, 443
John xi. 6
159, 165, 230, 541, 576
John xi. 7
John ix. 27
331
John xi. 8
603
436, 472
John ix. 28
222
John xi. 11
608*
John ix. 29
66
John xi. 12
292
John ix. 30
John ix. 31
John ix. 33
72, 184*, 446*
160, 199, 549
70, 305*, 477, 499
John xi. 13
531
John xi. 15
80, 339*, 459*
John xi. 18
112, 195, 372, 471, 557*
John ix. 36
John ix. 37
John ix. 38
437, 620*
273, 274*, 540
105, 210
John xi. 19
275
John xi. 21
304
John xi. 25
87, 114, 513
N. T. INDEX.
691
John xi. 26
John xi. 27
John xi. 30
275, 456, 563* | John xii. 41
506 | John xii, 36
273 John xii. 40
238
155, 459, 494, 522*, 588
457
John xi. 31
341, 626
John xii. 42
444
John xi. 32
155, 159*, 304
John xii. 43
241*
John xi. 33
215*, 527
John xii. 44
456, 496, 497
John xi. 37
70, 149, 337
John xii. 46
527
John xi. 38
396*, 430
John xii. 47
144
John xi. 39
313
John xii. 48
John xi. 40
76
John xii. 49
160, 483
611
John xi. 41
396
John xi. 44
229, 278*, 313, 552 | John xiii. 1 155, 339, 344, 372, 396, 460,
John xi. 45
168
""
"" ""
531, 572, 638
John xiii. 2
252*
John xi. 47
128, 284*
John xiii. 3
272
John xi. 48
John xi. 49
John xi. 50
155, 192, 607* |
John xiii. 4
176*, 267*
118, 170*, 341
John xiii. 5
106, 614*
382
John xiii. 6
549,
88, 265*, 444, 508
John xi. 51
70, 71, 562
John xiii. 7
543
John xi. 52
577
John xiii. 8
506
John xi. 54
421
John xiii. 9
552, 582
John xi. 55
539
John xiii. 10
508
John xi. 56
506, 508*
John xiii. 11
John xi. 57
72, 275, 294, 336
John xiii. 12
John xiii. 14
John xii. 1
John xii. 2
123, 557*
268, 593*
John xiii. 16
John xiii. 17
John xii. 3
9.7*, 201*, 525*, 606 | John xiii. 18
353, 562
271, 275
88, 292, 528, 549
239, 242, 488
296*, 612
316, 317*, 430, 620
John xii. 5
116, 621*
John xiii. 22
John xii. 6
116, 206, 268
John xiii. 24
John xii. 7
274*
John xiii. 25
John xii. 8
150
John xiii. 27
233, 268
308*, 318
407*
243*, 265, 311*
John xii. 9
John xii. 10
John xii. 11
John xii. 12
John xii. 13
John xii. 15
John xii. 16
John xii. 17
123, 515 | John xiii. 28
254*, 336 | John xiii. 29
191, 550 John xiii. 31
106, 515, 526 | John xiii. 32
270, 603* | John xiii. 33
549 John xiii. 34
393, 541
John xiii. 35
123, 270
405*, 626
158*, 313, 559, 577, 580
277*
292*
440
336, 464*, 524*, 550
173, 386
John xii. 18
334, 347, 515 | John xiv. 1
317, 501
John xii. 20
353, 593*
John xiv. 3
265
John xii. 21
331, 370
John xiv. 7
273*, 304
John xii. 23
261, 339*, 460*
John xiv. 9
549
John xii. 25
83
John xiv. 11
585
John xii. 26
265
John xiv. 15
314
John xii. 27
442
John xiv. 16
530
John xii. 28
582*, 586
John xiv. 17
488
John xii. 29
334, 522
John xiv. 19
585
John xii. 32
86, 291
John xiv. 21
114
John xii. 33
70, 226
John xiv. 22
562
John xii. 34
261
John xiv. 23
256
John xii. 35
296, 538
John xiv. 24
475
692
N. T INDEX.
John xiv. 26
227, 609 | John xvi. 31
John xiv. 27
186, 609, 639
John xvi. 32
508
339, 460, 516*
John xiv. 28
304* 513
John xvi. 33
291
John xiv. 30
60, 218, 436, 437
John xiv. 31
285
John xvii. 2
75, 79, 145, 185*, 289
John xvii. 3
161, 290, 337, 338, 525
John xv. 1
132
John xvii. 4
276*
John xv. 2 58, 111, 148, 343*, 483, 537,574
John xvii. 5
163
John xv. 3
399, 537
John xvii. 6
76
•
John xv. 4
John xv.
5
John xv. 6
John xv.
7
314, 384, 471, 537, 541, 582
John xvii. 7
76
John xv. 8
471*, 499*, 537, 578, 582
141, 277*, 293, 522, 537, 632*
310, 537
161, 278*, 337*, 338*, 537
John xvii. 8
553
John xvii. 9
159, 166, 421
John xvii. 10
273*, 389*, 389, 562
John xvii. 11
163, 183, 265
John xv. 9
537, 541
John xvii. 12
508
John xv. 10
153*, 537
John xvii. 14
272
John xv. 11
137, 537
John xvii. 15
336, 410
John xv. 12
537
John xvii. 17
538
John xv. 13
338, 537, 539, 595*
John xvii. 18
277*, 440
John xv. 14
537
John xvii. 22
274*, 582
John xv. 15
537, 619
Jolin xvii. 23
585
John xv. 16
John xv. 17
John xv. 18
78, 537, 607
336, 537
537
John xvii. 24
123, 265
John xvii. 25
439
John xvii. 26
225
John xv. 19
John xv. 20
304, 429, 537, 609
163, 292*, 537
John xviii. 1
67
John xv. 21
537
John xviii. 2
113, 376
John xv. 22 77,192*,305*,373,477,537,595
John xviii. 3
106, 368, 377, 471, 472*
John xv. 23
537
John xviii. 5
113, 582
John xv. 24
77, 271, 439, 475, 537
John xviii. 6
John xv. 25
John xv. 26
317*, 588, 620
141, 365, 429, 562
John xviii. 7
John xviii. 10
73, 109
582
98, 182, 559
John xv. 27
267, 443
John xviii. 11
John xviii. 12
148*, 313, 512*
275*
John xvi. 2
265, 339, 451*, 460 | Jolin xviii. 13
60
John xvi. 4
John xvi. 7
124
320, 337
John xviii. 14
John xviii. 15
319
519
John xvi. 8
421, 520 | John xviii. 16
395
John xvi. 11
273
John xviii. 20
117, 610
John xvi. 12
332
John xviii. 22
226
John xvi. 13
82, 308
John xviii. 23
292
John xvi. 14,
266
John xviii. 24
275
John xvi. 15
266
John xviii. 26
158, 159
John xvi. 17
75, 203, 265, 366*, 589
John xviii. 28
267, 288
John xvi. 19
330
John xviii. 30
304, 477
John xvi. 20
87,90, 184
John xviii. 31
531*
John xvi. 22
90, 558
John xviii. 32
John xvi. 23
227, 499
John xviii. 34
70, 226
151, 261
John xvi. 24
459, 499
John xviii. 36
304
John xvi. 25
John xvi. 26
296, 481
373
John xviii. 37
444, 457, 512*
John xvi. 27
John xvi. 30
112, 150*, 365
122, 339, 387*
John xviii. 38
John xviii 39
John xviii. 40
152
339
582
N. T. INDEX.
693
John xix. 2
226, 430 | John xx. 26
123, 472, 537, 585
John xix. 3
John xix. 4
John xix. 5
77, 182
John xx. 27
610
631
John xx. 28
183*
564, 631*
John xx. 29
272*
John xix. 6
128, 610
John xx. 30
525
John xix. 7
228
John xix. 9
267
John xxi. 1
191, 374*, 443
John xix. 10
508, 609
John xxi. 2
109, 190, 518, 520
John xix. 11
242, 305*
John xxi. 3
John xix. 12
429
John xxi. 4
John xix. 14
124, 189*
John xxi. 5
John xix. 16
456
John xxi. 6
265, 284, 537
85, 408
313, 371, 618
511
John xix. 19
374, 376
John xxi. 8
65, 188, 216, 370, 557, 562
John xix. 21
501
John xxi. 9
275
John xix. 22
271, 521
John xxi. 10
90, 199, 370, 589
John xix. 23
111, 176, 562
John xxi. 11
250, 341
John xix. 24
257, 285, 373, 502
John xxi. 12
613*
John xix. 25
60, 131*, 190, 394
John xxi. 13
607*
John xix. 26
183
John xxi. 14
123
John xix. 28
459*, 561
John xxi. 15
85, 190, 549
John xix. 29
201
John xxi. 16
John xix. 30
271
John xxi. 17
John xix. 31
70, 514*, 561, 562, 563
John xxi. 18
John xix. 32
70, 115, 576
John xxi. 20
John xix. 35
340
John xix. 36
John xix. 37
John xxi. 21
162 John xxi. 22
158 John xxi. 23
313, 604
545
253, 257, 268
407*
169, 550, 562, 586*
55, 152, 296, 586
John xix. 38
632
John xix. 39
86
John xxi. 24
John xxi. 25
265
343, 517
168, 333*, 482*, 525
John xix. 41
499, 524
Acts i. 1 183, 244, 256, 549, 559, 575*, 621*
John xx. 1
106, 248, 343*, 366*, 396
Acts i. 2
164, 275, 542, 543, 556*
John xx. 2
420, 522, 588*
Acts i. 3
John xx. 3
270, 519
Acts i. 4
John xx. 4
69, 464, 604* | Acts i. 5
John xx. 6
267
Acts i. 6
John xx. 7
376, 415*, 632
Acts i. 7
John xx. 9
123, 274
Acts i. 8
John xx. 11
395, 396
Acts i. 10
143, 188, 207, 575*
199, 545, 580
161*, 216, 412*, 540
105, 509
195*, 441*
125*, 407, 420
174, 175, 348, 438
John xx. 12
173, 384, 395, 591*
Acts i. 11
John xx. 13
298
Acts i. 12
John xx. 14
537
Acts i. 13
85, 110, 430, 523, 549, 610
182*
113, 128, 131, 190, 518, 520
John xx. 15
John xx. 16
147*, 537, 632 | Acts i. 14
537 Acts i. 15
John xx. 17
201, 428, 537 | Acts i. 16
John xx. 18
537
Acts i. 17
John xx. 19 123, 159, 176, 234, 248, 267,
Acts i. 18
""
""
185,
473*, 585
Acts i. 19
John xx. 21
271, 541, 585
Acts i. 20
John xx. 22
312
Acts i. 21
John xx. 23
272, 291, 293 | Acts i. 22
John xx. 24
483
John xx. 25
66
Acts i. 24
Acts i. 25
122, 521
250, 562, 563
183, 523
200*
88, 206, 514
112
286, 435
160, 407, 444, 624
85, 152, 158*, 342*
164, 621
432, 631
694
N. T. INDEX.
Acts i. 26
408, 433* | Acts iii. 13
Acts iii. 14
148, 149, 157*, 400, 575
Acts ii. 1
328, 539
Acts iii. 15
126, 523
123
Acts ii. 2
Acts ii. 3
348, 539
Acts iii. 16
133, 144, 378, 394*
516*, 539
Acts iii. 17
402*
Acts ii. 4
539, 614
Acts iii. 18
606
Acts ii. 5
370, 407
Acts iii. 19
Acts ii. 6
154, 516, 528
Acts iii. 20
Acts ii. 9
112, 439
Acts iii. 21
Acts ii. 10
400, 439
Acts iii. 22
Acts ii. 11
345, 347
Acts iii. 23
Acts ii. 12
303*, 516
Acts iii. 24
Acts ii. 14
183, 391, 610
Acts iii. 25
Acts ii. 17
77, 199, 370
Acts iii. 26
Acts ii. 18
77, 438
Acts ii. 19
531
Acts iv. 1
Acts ii. 20
330, 396
Acts iv. 2
Acts ii. 22
379, 523
Acts iv. 3
Acts ii. 23
73, 148
Acts iv. 4
Acts ii. 24
31
Acts iv. 5
Acts ii. 25
88, 397*
Acts iv. 7
Acts ii. 26
71, 425* |
Acts iv. 9
Acts ii. 27
Acts ii. 28
156, 592
201, 376*
Acts iv. 11
Acts iv. 12
Acts ii. 29
113, 384, 549, 585
Acts iv. 13
310*, 462*
462
163, 462, 558
82, 307, 401, 545
156, 307, 480
370, 633*
114, 163, 225
134*, 329*
207, 427
123, 133, 389
396, 430, 590
84, 276
146*, 323, 415, 590
390, 420, 527, 632*
185*, 448
114, 157*
217*, 454*, 493
268, 269*, 434, 544, 626
Acts ii. 30
226, 331, 455*, 603
Acts iv. 15
Acts ii. 31
482, 592
Acts iv. 16
593*
284, 331
Acts ii. 32
110
Acts iv. 17
Acts ii. 33
214*, 237*, 435, 531, 559
Acts iv. 18
Acts ii. 34
81, 215
Acts iv. 19
Acts ii. 36
111*
Acts iv. 20
Acts ii. 37
435
Acts iv. 21
Acts ii. 38
393*, 397, 587
Acts ii. 39
307, 415
Acts iv. 22
Acts iv. 23
Acts ii. 40
545
Acts iv. 24
393, 396, 466*, 481
344, 481, 488
518
475, 481, 498*
109, 299, 343*
43, 196, 239, 531, 596
128
152, 404, 552
Acts ii. 41
433
Acts iv. 27
439, 518
Acts ii. 42
348
Acts iv. 29
45, 431
Acts ii. 43
65, 156, 211*, 379*, 439, 527
Acts iv. 33
78, 407, 435, 550
Acts ii. 45
306
Acts iv. 34
Acts ii. 46
198, 401*
Acts iv. 35
Acts ii. 47
110
Acts iv. 36
384
306, 403
120, 230, 562
Acts iii. 1
408* 518
Acts v. 1
62, 171
Acts iii. 2
171, 227, 325, 354*, 522, 543
Acts v. 2
Acts iii. 3
270, 354, 543, 608, 609
Acts v. 4
253,
57, 62, 90, 199
212, 343*, 355, 495*, 497, 585
Acts iii. 4
233, 313
Acts v. 5
344, 408
Acts iii. 5
593
Acts v. 7
58, 483, 563
Acts iii. 6
211
Acts v. 8
206, 298
Acts iii. 7
192, 202
Acts v. 10
342, 405
Acts iii. 8
553
Acts v. 12
65, 67, 363, 379, 564*, 607
Acts iii. 10
Acts iii. 11
Acts iii. 12
66, 392, 626
67, 392, 394, 526
183, 261, 326*, 610, 617
Acts v. 13
564
Acts v. 14
564*
Acts v. 15
374, 376, 400*, 431, 564*
N. T. INDEX.
695
Acts v. 16
Acts v. 17
520, 608
Acts vii. 29
Acts v. 19
176, 380
Acts vii. 30
516, 526 | Acts vii. 27
71, 90, 269
121, 387*
106*
Acts v. 20
237*, 238*, 634
Acts vii. 32
114, 585
Acts v. 21
407*
Acts vii. 33
313
Acts v. 22
251*
Acts vii. 34
354
Acts v. 23
372, 472, 545, 604
Acts vii. 35
63, 67, 159
Acts v. 24
129, 275, 308, 439, 518
Acts vii. 36
Acts v. 26
217, 288, 377, 505*
Acts vii. 37
Acts v. 28
112, 201, 393, 408, 466, 481
Acts vii. 38
121, 524
82, 85
118, 421
Acts v. 29
332, 518, 520, 595*
Acts vii. 39
40, 71, 90
Acts v. 30
374
Acts vii. 40
Acts v. 31
Acts v. 32
214*, 228, 318
191*
Acts vii. 41
Acts vii. 42
67, 110, 148, 182, 300*
43, 175, 251, 469*, 512*
232
Acts v. 35
60, 392, 549, 557*, 610
Acts vii. 43
Acts v. 36
170*, 184, 261, 433*
Acts vii. 44
75, 210
66
Acts v. 37
106, 621
Acts vii. 45
71, 90, 174
Acts v. 38
296*, 427, 519
Acts vii. 46
71
Acts v. 39
122, 296*
Acts vii. 47
71
Acts v. 40
393
Acts vii. 48
554
Acts v. 42
345*, 435
Acts vii. 51
Acts vii. 53
215, 440
228*, 398*
Acts vi. 1
28, 268, 405
Acts vii. 58
254
Acts vi. 2
85, 87
Acts vii. 59
549
Acts vi. 3
375
Acts vii. 60
226
Acts vi. 4
128
Acts vi. 5
28, 103, 113, 120, 214, 233
Acts viii. 1
113, 133, 400, 413
Acts vi. 6
632
Acts viii. 2
256, 276, 443
Acts vi. 7
268, 435
Acts viii. 3
Acts vi. 8
113
Acts viii. 4
Acts vi. 9
112, 129*, 420
Acts viii. 5
113, 443, 552
559
113, 125, 145
Acts vi. 11
67
Acts viii. 6
113, 329, 435
Acts vi. 13
128, 382
Acts viii. 7
Acts viii. 8
Acts vii. 2
Acts vii. 3
330, 341
429
Acts viii. 9
Acts viii. 10
Acts vii. 4
329, 413, 415, 422
Acts viii. 11
Acts vii. 5
Acts vii. 8
Acts vii. 9
Acts vii. 10
276*, 331, 397
61, 113, 218
61, 376
73, 138*, 228, 527
Acts viii. 12
Acts viii. 13
Acts viii. 14
Acts vii. 11
Acts vii. 12
Acts vii. 14
Acts vii. 15
407
63, 345, 347
113, 250, 391*
519
Acts viii. 15
Acts viii. 16
443, 584
443
170*, 443
114, 370
218, 329, 334
113
348, 435
259, 271
71, 122, 373
350*, 430, 499, 562
Acts viii. 17
Acts viii. 19
122, 269
46, 158, 287, 307
Acts viii. 20
286
Acts vii. 16
Acts vii. 17
Acts vii. 19
Acts vii. 20
Acts vii. 21
70, 90, 163, 190, 206
163
157, 326*, 329
212, 248
73, 143, 147, 228*, 528
Acts viii. 21
211
Acts vii. 22
Acts vii. 24
227*
258, 632
Acts viii. 24
Acts viii. 25
Acts viii. 26
Acts viii. 27
Acts viii. 28
Acts viii. 22 198, 300, 370, 445, 542, 622
158*, 166, 430, 477
223
119*, 121, 157*, 400
318, 341, 375, 593*
Acts vii. 26
48, 269, 341, 435
Acts viii. 30
348, 374, 435
510, 638
696
N. T. INDEX.
Acts viii. 31 295, 303*, 304, 335, 435, 447 | Acts x. 16
422
Acts viii. 34
420
Acts x. 17
268, 308, 371*, 408, 438, 605
Acts viii. 35
71, 607*
Acts x. 18
Acts viii. 36
268, 400, 407, 604
Acts x. 20
268, 298, 543
41, 442, 451, 477
Acts viii. 38
528
Acts x. 21
584
Acts viii. 39
226, 415, 499
|
Acts x. 22
61, 138, 199, 322*, 434
Acts viii. 40
71, 415*, 616*, 621
Acts x. 23
253*
Acts x. 24
348
Acts ix. I
Acts ix. 2
204*
Acts x. 25
328*
106, 107, 195, 196, 227, 294,
|
Acts x. 26
153
>>
396, 552, 559
Acts x. 28
435, 437, 449*, 481
Acts ix. 3
323, 366, 426, 432, 486
Acts x. 30
43, 80
Acts ix. 4
610
Acts x. 32
121, 138*, 404, 528
Acts ix. 6
41, 79, 168, 587*
Acts x. 33
345, 592
Acts ix. 7
44, 486
Acts x. 35
120, 574
Acts ix. 8
72, 113
Acts x. 36
149, 164, 564*, 574*
Acts ix. 9
486*, 488
Acts x. 37
382, 564*
Acts ix. 11
182, 313, 454*
Acts x. 38
227
Acts ix. 12
182, 430
Acts x. 39
163, 363, 439, 559, 560, 625*
Acts ix. 13
371, 549
Acts x. 41
123, 140, 171
1
Acts ix. 15
587
Acts x. 42
Acts ix. 17
106, 287, 430, 562
Acts x. 45
Acts ix. 18
427, 439
Acts x. 47
Acts ix. 20
268, 626
Acts x. 48
50, 552
424
326, 511
435
Acts ix. 21 114, 161, 270, 275, 288, 340,
""
""
354, 457
Acts xi. I
1
341, 400
Acts ix. 24
207, 435, 552
Acts xi. 5
42, 80, 635*
Acts ix. 26
268, 484
Acts xi. 6
270
Acts ix. 27
46, 202, 301
Acts xi. 8
441
Acts ix. 31
185, 219, 382, 420
Acts xi. 10
422
Acts ix. 32
Acts ix. 33
61, 323
367
Acts xi. 11
408, 427
Acts xi. 13
106, 435
Acts ix. 34
Acts ix. 35
Acts ix. 37
79, 594*
61, 275
178*, 323
Acts xi. 14
152, 518
Acts xi. 15
124, 614*
Acts ix. 38
61, 471
Acts ix. 39
253, 254, 376
Acts xi. 16
Acts xi. 17
Acts xi. 19
Acts ix. 40
105, 345
Acts xi. 20
205, 216, 412*, 602
80, 443, 603, 628*
371, 372*, 392*
268
Acts ix. 42
213*, 382
Acts xi. 21
Acts ix. 43
323
Acts xi. 22
Acts xi. 23
435
133, 609*
335, 433
Acts x. 1
61, 62, 171
Acts xi. 24
Acts x. 3
230
Acts xi. 26
Acts x. 4
632
Acts xi. 28
Acts x. 5
313, 396
Acts xi. 29
Acts x. 6
121, 211, 395, 404
Acts xi. 30
Acts x. 7
145, 632*
Acts x. 9
124, 407, 544
Acts xii. 1
524
95, 323
63, 75, 89, 334, 375*, 526
71, 516
606
113, 138, 540
Acts x. 10
146, 147, 330, 408, 430
Acts xii. 2
62, 216, 540
Acts x. 11
Acts x. 13
267, 376*, 635
586
Acts x. 14
171, 441, 475, 499
Acts x. 15
152, 543, 586, 604
Acts xii. 3
Acts xii. 5
Acts xii. 6
Acts xii. 7
268, 468*, 540, 562, 563
540
64, 177, 435, 539, 540
73, 79, 429, 539, 540
N. T. INDEX.
697
Acts xii. 8
314, 435, 539, 540 | Acts xiii. 43
128, 542
435
Acts xii. 9
442, 539, 540
Acts xiii. 44
Acts xii. 10
72, 126, 132, 464, 540
Acts xiii. 45
355*
Acts xii. 11
73, 152, 540
Acts xiii. 46
151, 518, 539
Acts xii. 12
435, 539, 540
Acts xiii. 47
228, 259, 528
Acts xii. 13
540, 545
Acts xiii. 48
69, 262*, 543
Acts xii. 14
50, 371, 442, 540
Acts xiii. 49
Acts xii. 15
540
Acts xiii. 50
Acts xii. 16
Acts xii. 17
345, 467*, 540, 544
539, 540
Acts xiii. 51
378*
126, 539
342
Acts xii. 18
45, 298, 301, 445, 540
Acts xiv. 1
301, 323, 401*, 559
Acts xii. 19
Acts xii. 20
396, 415*, 437, 540 |
371, 375, 410, 540
Acts xiv. 3
379
Acts xiv. 4
104, 391
Acts xii. 21
142*, 146, 218, 540
Acts xiv. 5
319, 560
Acts xii. 22
142, 540
Acts xiv. 8
73, 215
Acts xii. 23
540
Acts xiv. 9
324, 543
Acts xii. 24
Acts xii. 25
539, 540
518, 539, 544
Acts xiv. 10
48, 82, 108, 464, 528, 553*
|
Acts xiv. 11
431, 539
Acts xiv. 12
66, 150*, 539
Acts xiii. 1
Acts xiii. 2
400, 520
Acts xiv. 13
Acts xiii. 3
Acts xiii. 4
262*, 313, 422
143, 521, 584* |
539
Acts xiii. 8
138, 561, 562, 563
Acts xiv. 14
Acts xiv. 15
Acts xiv. 16
Acts xiv. 17
90, 372, 630
257, 344, 518
209, 543, 552, 628
78, 156, 201, 444*
219
Acts xiii. 9
107*
Acts xiv. 18
325
Acts xiii. 10 124, 183, 315, 345, 510*, 519
|
Acts xiv. 19
Acts xiii. 11
251, 268, 486, 585
Acts xiv. 20
321, 344, 544
391
Acts xiii. 12
232
Acts xiv. 21
223, 420, 539
Acts xiii. 13
109, 187, 372, 406*
Acts xiv. 22
430
Acts xiii. 15
183, 218
Acts xiv. 23
73
Acts xiii. 16
183, 610
Acts xiv. 26
472
Acts xiii. 17
377
Acts xiv. 27
376, 542
Acts xiii. 19
121
Acts xiii. 20
218, 250
Acts xv. 1
215, 293
Acts xiii. 21
230
Acts xv. 2
373
Acts xiii. 22 113, 131, 180, 190, 228, 527
Acts xv. 3
431
Acts xiii. 23
192* 238
Acts xv. 4
127, 259, 420, 435, 539
Acts xiii. 24
607
Acts xv. 5
301, 370
Acts xiii. 25
169*, 319, 543
Acts xv. 6
128, 539
Acts xiii. 26
237*, 238*
Acts xv. 7
226*, 606
Acts xiii. 27
454*
Acts xv. 8
440
Acts xiii. 28
484
Acts xv. 10
152, 318* 488, 512
Acts xiii. 29
454
Acts xv. 12
Acts xiii. 30
123
Acts xv. 13
Acts xiii. 31
405, 408, 543
Acts xv. 16
Acts xiii. 32
223, 227, 454, 626
Acts xv. 17
Acts xiii. 34
618*
Acts xv. 19
Acts xiii. 35
592*
Acts xv. 20
Acts xiii. 36
432, 540
Acts xv. 21
Acts xiii. 37
Acts xiii. 39
Acts xiii. 40
158, 543
57, 422
175, 430, 504
Acts xv. 22
Acts xv. 23
Acts xv. 24
* Acts xiii. 41
293, 508
Acts xv. 25
177, 379, 515
183, 329
469*
141, 310
127, 326*, 427, 520
255*, 567, 627
128, 133, 316, 588, 606
322, 344, 545
320, 545, 627
481
401*
88
698
N. T. INDEX.
Acts xv. 26
Acts xv. 27
545
342*
Acts xvii. 20
169
Acts xvii. 21
71, 244*, 549
Acts xv. 29
315, 345, 427, 520
Acts xvii. 22
244*, 523, 610
Acts xv. 31
232
Acts xv. 36
142*, 298, 626, 627*
Acts xvii. 24
Acts xvii. 25
120, 545
200, 637
Acts xv. 37
70
Acts xvii. 26
407, 539
Acts xv. 38
Acts xv. 39.
372*, 481, 482
435
Acts xvii. 27
76, 299*, 485
Acts xvii. 28
104, 154, 389, 400*, 454*
""
>>
"
540, 640*
Acts xvi. 2
260, 420
Acts xvii. 29
Acts xvi. 3
Acts xvi. 4
Acts xvi. 5
607, 626
268, 296, 431
215
Acts xvii. 30
441, 491*
433
Acts xvii. 31
163, 389*, 410, 424, 463
Acts xvii. 32
82, 104, 123, 528
Acts xvi. 7
Acts xvi. 9
333, 400, 476*, 494
112, 219*, 313, 380
Acts xviii. 1
112
Acts xvi. 10
262*
Acts xviii. 2 120, 182, 215, 329, 343, 543
Acts xvi. 11
590
Acts xviii. 3
72, 230, 395
Acts xviii. 4
539, 552
Acts xvi. 13
403
Acts xviii. 5
129, 341, 518
Acts xvi. 14
433, 543
Acts xviii. 6
176*, 587
Acts xvi. 15
292, 314, 545
Acts xviii. 7
182
Acts xvi. 16
257*, 323, 543
Acts xviii. 8
113
Acts xvi. 18
553
Acts xviii. 9
610
Acts xvi. 19
202
Acts xviii. 10
593*
Acts xvi. 21
332, 493
Acts xviii. 11
.249
Acts xvi. 22
Acts xvi. 23
269*, 332
539
Acts xviii. 12
206
Acts xviii. 13
404
Acts xvi. 24
69, 111, 542, 622 | Acts xviii. 14
72, 183, 304, 401
Acts xvi. 25
401*, 518
Acts xviii. 15
154
Acts xvi. 26
Acts xvi. 27
Acts xvi. 28
63, 72, 176, 549
70, 334*, 544
222, 226, 501
Acts xviii. 17
113, 202, 205
Acts xviii. 18
Acts xvi. 29
Acts xvi. 31
Acts xvi. 33
433
76, 518
197, 372*
Acts xviii. 19
Acts xviii. 20
Acts xviii. 21
Acts xviii. 22
Acts xvi. 34
44, 346, 435, 539, 627
Acts xviii. 24
Acts xvi. 37
41, 73, 446*, 591
Acts xviii. 25
253
150, 209
242
415, 603
544
62, 120, 341
268
Acts xvi. 39
335
Acts xviii. 26
243, 539, 614*
Acts xvi. 40
396
Acts xviii. 27
259
Acts xviii. 28
209
Acts xvii. 2 209, 211, 215, 217, 372*, 584*
Acts xvii. 3
Acts xvii. 4
330, 580
262
Acts xix. 1
62, 219, 323, 543
Acts xvii. 6
61, 73, 219, 484
Acts xix. 2
Acts xix. 3
539,
298, 451, 493, 509
397*, 439, 539
Acts xvii. 9
Acts xvii. 10
Acts xvii. 11
420
112, 129, 543
299*, 377
Acts xix. 4
Acts xix. 6
Acts xix. 10
Acts xvii. 12
Acts xvii. 13
Acts xvii. 14
Acts xvii. 15
523
82, 112
129, 617*
112, 420
Acts xix. 11
Acts xix. 12
Acts xix. 13
Acts xix. 14
530, 550, 576
71, 539
408, 552
140, 539, 606
428, 435
226, 408
60, 170
Acts xvii. 16
112, 632
Acts xvii. 18
71, 105, 171, 303*, 593*
Acts xix. 16
Acts xix. 17'
132, 429, 431
140
1
N. T. INDEX.
699
Acts xix. 19
Acts xix. 22
Acts xix. 24
527, 592 | Acts xxi. 3
251*, 415*
Acts xxi. 4
112, 260*, 270, 349*, 472
322*, 481, 543
253, 257, 341
Acts xxi. 5
Acts xix. 25
Acts xix. 26
367, 406, 543
110, 321, 498*
| Acts xxi. 6
Acts xxi. 8
122, 323, 552
430
134*, 592*
Acts xix. 27
44, 184*, 196, 228, 550
Acts xxi. 9
523
Acts xix. 28
Acts xix. 29
Acts xix. 31
594,
Acts xix. 32
584
201, 353*
61, 171, 335, 481
242
Acts xxi. 11
155, 552
Acts xxi. 12
325, 439
Acts xxi. 13
332, 609*
Acts xxi. 16 165, 203, 214*, 341, 513, 589*
Acts xix. 33
209, 330, 332
Acts xxi. 17
207, 405
Acts xix. 34
567, 584
Acts xxi. 18
435
Acts xix. 35 234, 300, 447, 481, 523, 592
Acts xxi. 19
158
Acts xix. 37
222
Acts xxi. 21
Acts xix. 38
53, 590*
Acts xxi. 23
Acts xix. 39
292
Acts xxi. 24
Acts xix. 40
203, 448
Acts xxi. 25
Acts xxi. 26
219, 322*
211
75, 255
128, 223, 520
218, 255, 275, 296
Acts xx. 1
543, 609*
Acts xxi. 28
114, 272, 344*, 439, 578*
Acts xx. 2
145
Acts xxi. 29
321
Acts xx. 3
112, 211, 324, 428, 539, 567
Acts xxi. 30
Acts xx. 4
Acts xx. 7
103, 138*, 519, 520, 593
248, 435, 539
Acts xxi. 31
86
62, 215*
Acts xxi. 32
61
Acts xx. 9
341, 371, 375*, 431, 545 | Acts xxi. 33
168, 299*, 308
Acts xx. 10
430Acts xxi. 34
484
Acts xx. 11
541
Acts xxi. 35
323
Acts xx. 12
276
Acts xxi. 36
Acts xx. 13
262*
Acts xxi. 37
516, 526
509
Acts xx. 14
415*
Acts xxi. 38
106, 114, 134, 511*
Acts xx. 15
112, 590
Acts xxi. 39
313, 528, 545
Acts xx. 16
211, 294, 319, 477
Acts xx. 17
Acts xx. 18
112
298*, 422, 430, 549
Acts xxii. 2
Acts xxii. 3
432
187, 189*, 340*, 559*
Acts xx. 20
Acts xx. 21
Acts xx. 22
Acts xx. 23
325, 545
66, 559
215, 483
63, 340, 508
Acts xxii. 4
Acts xxii. 5
543
141, 472
Acts xxii. 6
Acts xxii. 7
121, 220, 323, 406*, 432
Acts xx. 24
186, 318
Acts xxii. 9
73
540, 550
Acts xx. 25
Acts xx. 26
384
197
Acts xxii. 10
163
Acts xxii. 11
Acts xx. 27
325, 482, 604
Acts xx. 28
228, 527
Acts xx. 29
205, 396, 484*
Acts xx. 30
621
Acts xx. 31
Acts xx. 32
Acts xx. 33
Acts xx. 34
577 Acts xxii. 22
Acts xx. 35
240
Acts xxii. 24
Acts xxii. 12
Acts xxii. 13
Acts xxii. 15
Acts xxii. 17
552 Acts xxii. 18
391* Acts xxii. 19
204 Acts xxii. 21
268, 371*, 481
528
54, 218, 313, 428
110, 158
220*, 323*, 577
137*
213*, 401
396
282*
85, 301
Acts xx. 38
163
Acts xxii. 25
61, 208, 509
Acts xxii. 26
61
Acts xxi. 1
62, 323, 427, 590
Acts xxii. 28
439
Acts xxi. 2
342*, 344 | Acts xxii. 29
443
700
N. T. INDEX.
Acts xxii. 20
109, 261, 365*, 398* | Acts xxv. 2
Acts xxv. 3
Acts xxiii. 1
111, 262
Acts xxv. 4
Acts xxiii. 3
81, 332, 340
Acts xxv. 5
Acts xxiii. 5
222, 316, 502, 641*
Acts xxv. 6
Acts xxiii. 6
195, 203, 437, 631
Acts xxv. 7
Acts xxiii. 7
128
Acts xxv. 9
Acts xxiii. 8
481, 493*, 540
Acts xxiii. 9
519, 599, 600*
Acts xxiii. 10
504, 545, 600 |
Acts xxv. 10
Acts xxv. 11
Acts xxv. 12
539, 540
338, 341
540
77, 540, 558
239, 344, 540, 544, 596
330, 373, 432, 525*, 540
375
227, 242*
203, 253, 267*, 456, 540
262*, 538
Acts xxiii. 11
621
Acts xxv. 13
Acts xxiii. 12
297
Acts xxv. 14
Acts xxiii. 13
239, 256, 596
|
Acts xxv. 15
Acts xxiii. 14 44, 128, 150, 297, 466*, 543
Acts xxv. 16
Acts xxiii. 15
287, 313, 324, 329
Acts xxv. 17
Acts xxiii. 19
202
Acts xxv. 18
Acts xxiii. 20
Acts xxiii. 21
Acts xxiii. 22
Acts xxiii. 23
301
Acts xxv. 20
193*, 297, 371, 596
Acts xxv. 21
Acts xxiii. 24
Acts xxiii. 26
Acts xxiii. 27
Acts xxiii. 29
54, 545, 579 |
61, 170*, 313*, 579
138, 579, 621
588
134*, 544
203
Acts xxv. 22
Acts xxv. 23
Acts xxv. 24
138, 342, 518, 544
401, 527
128, 373, 543
122, 297, 300
256, 475
168, 373*
299, 397, 543
143, 332
82, 283*, 558, 587
60, 402, 420, 560
363, 499, 515, 516, 549
Acts xxv. 26
Acts xxv. 27
288*
89, 319
Acts xxiii. 30
Acts xxiii. 34
278, 315, 375, 568*
364, 366, 411, 582
Acts xxvi. 1
Acts xxvi. 2
229, 268
321
Acts xxiii. 35
308, 332, 558
Acts xxvi. 3
154, 231*, 400, 559, 572
Acts xxvi. 4
Acts xxiv. 1
Acts xxiv. 2
534
614*
Acts xxvi. 5
Acts xxvi 6
Acts xxiv. 3
Acts xxiv. 4
Acts xxiv. 5
Acts xxiv. 6
Acts xxiv. 7
Acts xxiv. 8
Acts xxiv. 9
Acts xxiv. 10
47, 200, 637
561
133, 208, 351, 567*
351*, 543, 567*
217
76, 365, 543
614
346, 367
Acts xxvi. 7
Acts xxvi. 8
Acts xxvi. 9
Acts xxvi. 10
124, 133, 136, 576
401, 527, 626
100, 331,543,549, 552, 593
394, 397
395*, 542
138
107, 545
Acts xxvi. 11
Acts xxvi. 12
268, 545
133, 386, 545
Acts xxvi. 13
Acts xxvi. 14
403, 545
396, 545
Acts xxiv. 11
239, 318, 341, 592, 596
Acts xxiv. 12
441, 491
Acts xxvi. 15
Acts xxvi. 16
85
142, 158, 161, 166, 262*
Acts xxiv. 13
Acts xxiv. 14
203, 491
161, 219
""
""
439, 442, 543, 545
Acts xxiv. 15
334
Acts xxiv. 17 550, 213, 342, 380*, 453
Acts xxiv. 19
54, 282, 294*
Acts xxiv. 20
Acts xxiv. 21
77, 85, 375
123, 164, 203
Acts xxvi. 17
Acts xxvi. 18
Acts xxvi. 19
Acts xxvi. 20
Acts xxvi. 22
141, 429, 545, 550
139*, 325, 421, 545
68, 549
352, 420, 435, 627
133, 140, 158, 455*, 485,
550, 559
95.
"
"
Acts xxiv. 22
Acts xxiv. 23
560*
61
Acts xxiv. 25
334, 342, 463
Acts xxiv. 26
209
Acts xxvi. 23
Acts xxvi. 24
Acts xxvi. 25
Acts xxvi. 26
Acts xxvi. 27
97*, 123
108, 132, 514, 549, 550
40, 558
500*
549
Acts xxv. 1
369*, 540, 544 Acts xxvi. 29 209, 212,235, 303*, 420*, 440
N. T. INDEX.
701
Acts xxvi. 30
Acts xxvi. 31
Acts xxvi. 32
Acts xxvii. 1
Acts xxvii. 2
126, 128, 519
267*
70, 305, 334, 477
62, 78, 182, 261, 326*, 540
62, 78, 182, 261, 326*, 540
224*, 400, 430
Acts xxviii. 24
Acts xxviii. 25
Acts xxviii. 26
Acts xxviii. 21
Acts xxviii. 23
85, 489
121, 372, 420, 422, 439,
""
""
"
543, 559
104
Acts xxvii. 3
200, 321*, 539
Acts xxviii. 27
61, 602
51, 85
494, 503
·
Acts xxvii. 5
133, 187, 431*
Acts xxviii. 28
82 ·
Acts xxvii. 6
525
Acts xxvii. 7
484
Rom. i. 1
125, 545, 565
Acts xxvii. 8
471, 539
Rom. i. 2
543, 545, 505
Acts xxvii. 9
63, 334, 543
Rom. i. 3
186, 545, 505
Acts xxvii. 10
334, 339*, 573
Rom. i. 4
123, 188*, 237, 367*, 545, 565
Acts xxvii. 12
Acts xxvii. 13
Acts xxvii. 14
Acts xxvii. 17
242, 299, 400, 405, 545
243*, 334*, 594*
147, 251*, 381*, 558
209, 210, 504 |
Rom. i. 5
""
Rom. i. 6
120, 186, 379*, 383, 384, 402,
517, 543, 545, 565, 631
195*, 517, 543, 545, 565
Rom. i. 7 124, 139, 219, 234, 545, 565, 585
Acts xxvii. 18
256
Rom. i. 8
Acts xxvii. 20
Acts xxvii. 21
Acts xxvii. 22
Acts xxvii. 23
120, 484, 488, 610
87, 183, 282, 443, 481
223, 508, 633*
Rom. i. 9
Rom. i. 10
Rom. i. 11
218, 543
Rom. i. 12
378, 383, 575, 576*
386, 410
200, 376*
198*
155, 577
Acts xxvii. 25
183
Rom. i. 13
438, 440, 561, 562, 565
Acts xxvii. 27
123
Rom. i. 14
Acts xxvii. 28
252*
Rom. i. 15
209, 439
223, 230, 235
Acts xxvii. 29
71, 366, 504, 539
Rom. i. 16
221, 247, 576*
Acts xxvii. 30
62
Rom. i. 17
59, 136*, 186*, 396, 419, 513
Acts xxvii. 31
61
Rom. i. 19
235*
Acts xxvii. 33
44, 70, 198, 335, 348
Acts xxvii. 34
Acts xxvii. 35
Acts xxvii. 36
Acts xxvii. 37
364, 374*
71, 614*
198
80, 250
Rom. i. 20 123, 125, 128, 216, 235*, 439, 638
Rom. i. 21
Rom. i. 22
71, 582, 624*
321, 627
Rom. i. 23
206, 388*, 524
Rom. i. 24
213, 263*, 326*, 387, 417*
Acts xxvii. 38
106, 201
Rom. i. 25
404*
Acts xxvii. 39
294, 557
Rom. i. 26
Acts xxvii. 40
64, 591, 594|
Rom. i. 27
Acts xxvii. 42
336, 502*, 545
Rom. i. 28
Acts xxvii. 43
Acts xxvii. 44
196, 251*, 528
105, 323, 528
Acts xxviii. 2
Acts xxviii. 3
Acts xxviii. 4
Acts xxviii. 6
420, 539
257*, 368*, 371
Rom. i. 29
Rom. i. 30
Rom. i. 31
Rom. i. 32
366
268, 396*, 416
Rom. ii. 1
Rom. ii. 2
Acts xxviii. 8
323
Rom. ii. 3
Acts xxviii. 9
456
Rom. ii. 4
Acts xxviii. 11
216
Rom. ii. 5
Acts xxviii. 13
465, 528
Rom. ii. 7
Acts xxviii. 14
Acts xxviii. 16
Acts xxviii. 17
Acts xxviii. 18
Acts xxviii. 20
127, 129, 323, 485
70, 482
392
62, 73
Rom. ii. 8
Rom. ii. 9
Rom. ii. 10
Rom. ii. 11
237, 404, 571*
417, 571*
480, 485, 638
120, 217, 520, 553, 637
53*
553, 637
123, 206, 344*
135, 183, 387*, 533
401
152, 161*, 183, 509
190, 235, 353
125, 188*, 402, 417*
187*, 519, 639
424, 578
156*, 552, 576*, 578
578
395, 447
229
Rom. ii. 12
123, 378, 386*, 447
702
N. T. INDEX.
Rom. ii. 13
186*, 447, 565* | Rom. iv. 9 129, 321, 409, 420, 587*, 595*
Rom. ii. 14 139*, 141, 211, 309, 447, 483
Rom. iv. 10
>>
556*, 565*, 620
Rom. iv. 11
Rom. ii. 15
440, 565*, 580*, 615
Rom. iv. 12
386, 420
133, 190, 380, 531
209, 211, 219, 534, 555*, 577
Rom. ii. 17
76, 122, 233, 569*, 610
Rom. iv. 13
Rom. ii. 18
Rom. ii. 19
Rom. ii. 20
263, 569*, 594
321, 520, 569*
569*
"" ""
Rom. iv. 14
")
"} ""
Rom. ii. 21
322*, 481, 508, 569*
Rom. ii. 22
481
Rom. iv. 15
Rom. iv. 16
123, 186*, 320, 441, 447,
453*, 586
59, 109, 123, 273, 292, 368,
447, 585, 595
123, 447, 456
69, 368, 585, 598*
Rom. ii. 23
123, 233, 569
Rom. iv. 17
164, 165*
Rom. ii. 25
293
Rom. iv. 18
Rom. ii. 26
145, 228, 259, 293
Rom. iv. 19
329, 404, 411, 465
50, 486*
Rom. ii. 27
134*, 343*, 380*, 454*
Rom. iv. 20 215*, 216, 261, 342, 344, 397
Rom. ii. 28
Rom. ii. 29
421, 454*, 488, 584**
116
Rom. iv. 21
262
Rom. iv. 22
523**
Rom. iv. 24
123, 628
Rom. iii. 1
174, 584
Rom. iv. 25
611, 639
Rom. iii. 2 229, 260*, 454*, 514, 575, 576
Rom. iii. 3
Rom. iii. 4
585, 638
254, 310, 442
Rom. v. 1
186*, 378, 406
Rom. v. 2
583,
136*, 233, 271, 379
Rom. iii. 5
594,
122, 402, 511, 563
Rom. v. 3
233, 583*
Rom. iii. 6
Rom. iii. 7
279, 480, 500
580
| Rom. v.
Rom. v. 6
Rom. iii. 8
287, 580, 628*
Rom. v. 7
Rom. iii. 9
59, 60, 120, 258*, 264*, 407,
Rom. v. 8
Rom. v. 5 453, 107, 185, 378, 413, 414,
124, 382, 383, 447, 453*, 553
117*, 279*, 447, 453*, 613
137, 383, 553
417
""
"" ""
548, 552, 554*, 585
Rom. v. 9
Rom. iii. 10
173
81, 109
Rom. v. 10
Rom. v. 11
197, 594
262
351*, 583*
77, 407*
Rom. iii. 11
Rom. iii. 13
Rom. iii. 18
Rom. iii. 19
"" ""
Rom. v. 13
Rom. iii, 20
185
110, 460
171, 186, 280* |
Rom. v. 12 144, 158*, 394, 396, 562, 569*
599, 609
Rom. v. 14 82,206,394*, 409,442, 542, 570
Rom. iii. 21
Rom. iii. 22
Rom. iii. 23
Rom. iii. 24
186*, 271
186, 418**, 443
201, 274, 352, 353
216, 217*, 352*
Rom. v. 15
Rom. v. 16
Rom. v. 17
353
Rom. v. 18 188, 440, 445, 558, 570*, 587*
85, 123, 475, 570
110, 442, 541, 570*
60, 82, 340*, 368, 396, 584*
Rom. iii. 25 96*, 137,152*,228, 254, 378,
Rom. v. 19
>>
399, 412, 527
Rom. v. 20
Rom. iii. 26
Rom. iii. 27
Rom. iii. 28
Rom. iii. 29
368, 412
116, 582
120, 456, 595*
192*
Rom. v. 21
Rom. vi. 1
110, 421, 587, 638
123, 459
397, 418*, 440
279, 285
Rom. iii. 30 116, 186, 280*, 362*, 411*,448 |
Rom. vi. 3
Rom. iii. 31
78, 87, 123, 609
Rom. vi. 4
Rom. vi. 5
Rom. vi. 2 86, 168, 210, 279*, 386, 428
136, 137, 236, 288, 444
292, 442*, 451
136, 509
Rom. iv. 1
113, 334, 508
Rom. vi. 6
161, 188*, 326, 612*, 615
Rom. iv. 2
Rom. iv. 3
306*
453*, 523*
Rom. vi. 8
49, 86, 391
Rom. iv. 4
Rom. iv. 5
Rom. iv. 7
Rom. iv. 8
35, 108, 402*
186, 483
81
506, 585
Rom. vi. 9
Rom. vi. 10
Rom. vi. 11
Rom. vi. 12
Rom. vi. 13
538
168**, 210, 227, 422, 428
210*, 228, 389*
488, 502, 524**
314, 488
N. T. INDEX.
703
Rom. vi. 14
Rom. vi. 15
Rom. vi. 16
Rom. vi. 17
Rom. vi. 18
Rom. vi. 19
120, 279*, 316* | Rom. viii. 20
82, 279, 420, 585 | Rom. viii. 21
158, 266, 440, 612* Rom. viii. 22
164*, 261*, 368, 585, 629* | Rom. viii. 23
58, 399*, 485
197, 531, 621
124, 610
117*, 150, 187*, 528, 531*
Rom. vi. 20
197, 210
128, 210 397
210*
""
""
""
583, 637
Rom. viii. 24
Rom. viii. 25
216, 284*, 340, 437*
292, 379, 423, 543
Rom. vi. 21
60, 141, 158*, 221
Rom. viii. 26 97, 109, 112, 168, 299*, 433
Rom. vi. 22
Rom. vi. 23
197, 417*
176, 389
Rom. viii. 27
122, 400*, 584
Rom. viii. 28
120, 534
158, 195, 228, 561
Rom. vii. 4
Rom. vii. 5
Rom. vii. 6
Rom. vii. 1
Rom. vii. 2 188*,
Rom. vii. 3
123, 446, 562, 565, 589
209, 271*, 293, 446, 621
280, 324, 343, 445, 558
118, 210*, 301, 381*
133, 189, 258, 329
159, 236
Rom. viii. 29
Rom. viii. 30
Rom. viii. 31
Rom. viii. 32
277*, 278
382, 383, 584
90, 154, 379, 560
Rom. viii. 33 60, 180, 203, 234, 350, 382,
431, 508, 513
"" ""
Rom. viii. 34
382
Rom. vii. 7
189, 305*, 316, 448*, 477 |
Rom. viii. 35
185, 197, 440
Rom. vii. 8
575
Rom. viii. 36
188, 562
Rom. vii. 9
87
Rom. viii. 38
488
Rom. vii. 10
133, 160, 189, 616*, 621
Rom. viii. 39
133
Rom. vii. 11
189
Rom. vii. 12
520, 575*
Rom. vii. 13 41, 123, 189, 211, 346, 351,
|
Rom. ix. 1
Rom. ix. 2
248*, 390*, 537, 540, 562
639
""
>>
Rom. vii. 14
513, 575
98, 407*, 618
Rom. ix. 3 32, 71, 135, 283*, 370, 382, 621
Rom. ix. 4
Rom. vii. 15
Rom. vii. 17
160
152, 618
Rom. ix. 5
177*, 520
60, 230, 375, 401, 551*, 586*
Rom. ix. 6
160, 171, 271, 339*, 597*
Rom. vii. 18
320, 530
Rom. ix. 7
Rom. vii. 19
160,
528
Rom. ix. 8
Rom. vii. 20
618
Rom. ix. 10
40, 575
110, 160, 228, 514
583*
Rom. vii. 21
Rom. vii. 22
59, 149, 534, 557*, 571*
401, 433
Rom. vii. 24 37, 189*, 197, 237*, 286*, 634
Rom. ix. 11 131, 193*, 425, 441, 459, 484,
""
"
>>
Rom. vii. 25
62, 221, 378, 601*
Rom. ix. 12
Rom. ix. 13
561, 562, 589*
245, 583
113, 549
Rom. ix. 14
395, 500
Rom. viii. 1
135*, 390, 445
Rom. ix. 15
66, 88, 221
Rom. viii. 2
126, 137*, 197
Rom. ix. 16
Rom. viii. 3 231*, 235*, 387*,534,574*,624
Rom. ix. 17
Rom. viii. 4 57, 58, 134, 420, 477, 482, 582
Rom. ix. 18
Rom. viii. 5
56, 402, 447, 453
Rom. ix. 19
Rom. viii. 6
Rom. viii. 7
Rom. viii. 8
453
397, 594
452*
Rom. ix. 20
Rom. ix. 21
Rom. ix. 22
Rom. viii. 9
57, 122, 195, 448, 477, 478
Rom. ix. 23
85, 445, 598*
82, 143, 254
85, 588
274*, 280*, 588
183, 465*, 511, 549, 559
105, 112, 191, 366, 397, 550
108, 235, 570*, 599
409, 570*
Rom. viii. 10
120
Rom. ix. 24
528, 627
Rom. viii. 11
292, 363, 399
Rom. ix. 25
385, 476, 485
Rom. viii. 12
209, 326*, 445, 556*
Rom. ix. 26
615
Rom. viii. 14
122
Rom. ix. 27
383
Rom. viii. 15
387, 397, 521, 609
Rom. ix. 29
304, 602, 605
Rom. viii. 16
122
Rom. ix. 30
139, 186, 443
Rom. viii. 17
441, 459, 460, 585
Rom. ix. 31
90, 636*
Rom. viii. 18
213*, 321, 334, 405*, 550 | Rom. ix. 32
582, 617*
704
N. T. INDEX.
Rom. ix. 33
233, 435
Rom. xi. 36
108, 379*, 418*
Rom. x. 1
133, 383, 412, 537, 575*, 586
Rom. xii. 1
58, 231, 332, 381*, 533*
Rom. x. 2
Rom. x. 3
185**, 212, 403*, 447
186*, 447, 575*
Rom. xii. 2
Rom. xii. 3
519, 578
400, 404, 433, 481, 550, 638
Rom. x. 4
123, 447
Rom. xii. 4
548
Rom. x. 5
133, 447
Rom. xii. 5
110, 249
Rom. x. 6
136, 186
Rom. xii. 6
352, 440, 545, 578*, 582
Rom. x. 7
318
Rom. xii. 7
Rom. x. 8
195
Rom. xii. 8
545, 578*
545
Rom. x. 10
120, 396, 611, 639
Rom. xii. 9
537, 585, 586*
Rom. x. 12
397
Rom. xii. 10
215
Rom. x. 14 199, 82, 158*, 166, 279*, 285*,
Rom. xii. 11
476
"
")
480, 632
Rom. xii. 12
210, 217*, 433
Rom. x. 15
Rom. x. 16
118, 477, 606
171
Rom. xii. 14
537
Rom. xii. 15.
376
Rom. x. 17
Rom. x. 18
Rom. x. 19
123, 367, 411, 445, 558
111, 147*, 511*, 559
114*, 392, 393, 442, 464*,
Rom. xii. 16
219, 395*, 397, 537, 580
Rom. xii. 18
Rom. xii. 19
230, 585
594
""
"" ">
Rom. x. 20
Rom. x. 21
476*, 511, 528
· 219, 469*
405
Rom. xii. 20
77, 293, 313*, 444, 580
Rom. xii. 21
537
Rom. xiii. 1 122, 156*, 363, 370, 371,
Rom. xi. 1
Rom. xi. 2
Rom. xi. 4
448, 511
382, 385
179*
>>
""
"
537, 582*
Rom. xi. 6
283*, 480, 582, 618*
Rom. xiii. 2
Rom. xiii. 3
Rom. xiii. 4
212, 274, 301, 429
313, 368, 481, 524
192, 293
Rom. xi. 7
200
Rom. xiii. 5
319, 585
Rom. xi. 8
94
Rom. xiii. 6
317, 631*
Rom. xi. 10
63
Rom. xiii. 7
590*
\
Rom. xi. 11
Rom. xi. 12
Rom. xi. 13
458, 459, 586
639
192*, 408*, 409, 551, 575*
Rom. xiii. 8 47,123,209,273,323,499, 501*
Rom. xiii. 9
Rom. xiii. 11
87, 109, 151, 316, 502, 565
Rom. xi. 15
Rom. xi. 16
Rom. xi. 17
521
582*, 584, 585
200, 292, 391*, 637, 638
""
""
Rom. xiii. 13
Rom. xiii. 14
Rom. xi. 18 76, 292, 431*, 470, 501, 619*
Rom. xi. 19
118, 280*
Rom. xiv. 1
Rom. xi. 20
216*, 313*
Rom. xiv. 2
Rom. xi. 21
193*, 401, 425, 448, 474*,
Rom. xiv. 3
""
"
478, 504*, 598*
Rom. xiv. 4
195, 239, 319, 366*, 551,
565*, 573*, 585
219, 477
396, 397, 417, 549, 556*
174, 397, 476
105, 322*
482
152, 154, 210
Rom. xi. 22
Rom. xi. 23
363, 578
620*
Rom. xiv. 5
154, 404*
Rom. xiv. 6
212
Rom. xí. 24
154, 429, 430
Rom. xiv. 7
441
Rom. xi. 25
42, 211, 287, 423*, 477
Rom. xiv. 8
295*
Rom. xi. 26
Rom. xi. 27
Rom. xi. 28
Rom. xi. 30
Rom. xi. 31
Rom. xi. 32
Rom. xi. 33
Rom. xi. 35
428
131, 193*, 308
401
216, 440
60, 153*, 459*, 550
178, 397*, 459, 610, 622
191*, 519, 639
436
Rom. xiv. 9
Rom. xiv. 10
Rom. xiv. 11
Rom. xiv. 13
Rom. xiv. 14
Rom. xiv. 15
Rom. xiv. 16
Rom. xiv. 17
161, 206, 276, 457, 552*
440
209, 449, 457*
323, 502, 529, 619
152, 160, 390*, 609
383, 402, 619
155, 502
139, 390*, 552
N. T. INDEX.
705
Rom. xiv. 19
Rom. xiv. 20
133 | Rom. xvi. 1ɔ
380, 443
Rom. xvi. 16
Rom. xiv. 21 65, 158, 198, 320, 475*, 488 |
103
118
Rom. xvi. 17 126, 251, 314, 332, 404, 429
Rom. xv. 16
Rom. xv. 17
Rom. xv. 18
>>
""
Rom. xv. 19
Rom. xv. 20
Rom. xv. 21
Rom. xv. 22
498, 552
65, 118, 334
556*, 615
82, 575, 599
268, 325, 604
583*, 584
Rom. xvi 18
">
>> 55
Rom. xiv. 22
Rom. xiv. 23
159, 386, 483, 508, 585
| Rom. xvi. 19
262, 273*, 293, 582
Rom. xvi. 20
447
283, 397
280*, 621
Rom. xvi. 22
Rom. xv. 1
476
Rom. xvi. 25
Roin. xv. 2
397
Rom. xvi. 26
390, 521
218, 401, 545, 507*
186, 396, 435, 567*
Rom. xv. 3
74, 118, 222, 448, 574*, 599
Rom. xvi. 27
108, 168, 378, 545, 567*
Rom. xv. 4
Rom. xv. 5
153*, 189*
78, 185, 286,321, 401
1 Cor. i. 2
263*, 234, 530
Rom. xv. 6
Rom. xv. 7
388
118, 122
1 Cor. i. 3
122, 124
1 Cor. i. 4
393, 412
Rom. xv. 8
122, 153, 185, 334, 383
1 Cor. i. 5
201, 566
Rom. xv. 9
Rom. xv. 11
Rom. xv. 12
Rom. xv. 13
Rom. xv. 14
Rom. xv. 15 243*,
322*, 332*, 383
314
206, 233
185, 201, 410
201, 373
278,379,399*,455,617* |
223*, 455, 531
230, 390, 455*
158, 166, 216, 217, 279,
"" "" ""
1 Cor. i. 9
1 Cor.
1 Cor. i. 10
1 Cor. i. 11
134, 201, 480, 439
144, 157*, 417*, 438, 528,
378, 585
62, 336, 381*, 611
65, 190*
60, 153, 161, 195, 625*
60, 118, 508
301
60, 298, 443
118, 318, 496
131, 185, 211, 217
83
1 Cor. i. 6
118, 185*, 566
1 Cor. i. 7
1 Cor. i. 8
566*, 624
1 Cor. i. 12
1 Cor. i. 13
1 Cor. i. 15
1 Cor. i. 16
1 Cor. i. 17
1 Cor. i. 18
1 Cor. i. 19
Rom. xv. 23
324, 326, 483
1 Cor. i. 20
Rom. xv. 24 198, 201, 308*, 321, 331, 472*
1 Cor. i. 21
Rom. xv. 25
Rom. xv. 26
265, 342*
133, 256
1 Cor. i. 22
75, 609
144, 381*
612*
1 Cor. i. 23
Rom. xv. 27
200, 209, 292, 448
1 Cor. i. 25
Rom. xv. 28
343, 378*, 385, 621
1 Cor. i. 26
Rom. xv. 29
Rom. xv. 30
Rom. xv. 31
Rom. xv. 32
Rom. xv. 33
384
332, 381
133, 234
122
585
1 Cor. i. 27
1 Cor. i. 28
1 Cor. i. 29
1 Cor. i. 30
135, 441, 541, 612, 638
235, 239, 245*
317, 585
108, 178, 189*, 609
129, 178, 484*
171, 477
122, 371*, 439, 542, 550
1 Cor. i. 31
599*
Rom. xvi. 1
133, 134, 343
1 Cor. ii. 1
185, 342, 402, 607
Rom. xvi. 2 159, 234, 307, 390, 448, 638
1 Cor. ii. 3
Rom. xvi. 3
136
1 Cor. ii. 4
Rom. xvi. 4
562, 566*
1 Cor. ii. 5
Rom. xvi. 5
185, 397
1 Cor. ii. 6
Rom. xvi. 7
143, 372
1 Cor. ii. 7
Rom. xvi. 8
Rom. xvi. 10
103, 113, 136
1 Cor. ii. 8
Rom. xvi. 11
136, 190**
66, 190*, 390
Rom. xvi. 12
390*
1 Cor. ii. 9
1 Cor. ii. 10
1 Cor. ii. 11
152, 420
96, 126, 611
420, 586
218*, 385, 443
137, 167, 193. 387
168, 317, 575, 599, 620, 633*
133, 271, 550, 551
304, 562
599*
Rom. xvi. 13
155
1 Cor. ii. 12
Rom. xvi. 14
103
1 Cor. ii. 13
193*, 259
194*,
637
89
706
N. T. INDEX.
116
116, 559
1 Cor. ii. 14
1 Cor. ii. 15
1 Cor. v: 7 44,284, 448, 524, 528, 534, 538
1 Cor. v. 8
120, 301, 384, 477, 531
1 Cor. ii. 16
125, 300
1 Cor. v. 9
1 Cor. v. 10
1 Cor. iii. 1
46, 70, 98, 217, 583, 594
1 Cor. v. 11
1 Cor. iii. 2
70, 226, 493*, 520, 594, 622*
1 Cor. v. 12
1 Cor. iii. 3
99, 447
1 Cor. v. 13
1 Cor. iii. 4
62, 308, 447
1 Cor. iii. 5 378, 437, 442, 447, 455*, 550
1 Cor. vi. 1
1 Cor. iii. 6
247
1 Cor. vi. 2
1 Cor. iii. 7
583
1 Cor. vi. 3
1 Cor. iii. 8
1 Cor. iii. 9
1 Cor. iii. 10
I Cor. iii. 11
1 Cor. iii. 12
128
1 Cor. vi. 4
106, 278, 481, 555*
128, 129, 283, 445
278*, 481, 572*
211, 586
313, 438, 538
254*, 375, 613
234, 292, 385, 638
60, 160, 317, 550, 561
124*
192
1 Cor. vi. 5
80, 173, 175*, 300, 398
1 Cor. vi. 6
1 Cor. vi. 7
1 Cor. vi. 10
298, 300*
404*
430, 520
265, 388, 457*
53
87, 150, 378, 443
1 Cor. vi. 11 41, 142, 162*, 255, 442, 513,
529, 609, 625
369
211, 586
378
214, 442, 451
214, 254*
488, 500*
1 Cor. iii. 13
1 Cor. iii. 14
""
>>
1 Cor. iii. 15
1 Cor. vi. 12
1 Cor. iii. 16
1 Cor. iii. 17
1 Cor. iii. 18
1 Cor. iii. 19
1 Cor. iii. 20
122
166, 539, 638
253, 287, 410, 613
352*, 395
626
1 Cor. iii. 21
195, 233, 301, 575
1 Cor. vi. 13
1 Cor. vi. 14
1 Cor. vi. 15
1 Cor. vi. 16
1 Cor. vi. 18
1 Cor. vi. 19
1 Cor. vi. 20
1 Cor. iv. 1
161, 527
1 Cor. iv. 2
1 Cor. iv. 3
168, 337, 386, 580, 616
184*, 211, 337, 420, 460, 635
1 Cor. vii. 1
1 Cor. vii. 2
1 Cor. iv. 4
271, 350, 387*, 447*, 630
1 Cor. vii. 3
1 Cor. iv. 5
108, 124, 371
1 Cor. vii. 4
1 Cor. iv. 6 62, 173, 289*, 323, 382*, 386*
1 Cor. vii. 5
""
""
1 Cor. iv. 7
516, 580, 590*
76, 443, 452* 484
1 Cor. vii. 7
"" ""
1 Cor. iv. 8
302*, 538, 609
1 Cor. vii. 8
1 Cor. iv. 9 127*, 228, 446, 453, 517, 528
1 Cor. vii. 9
1 Cor. iv. 10
411
1 Cor. vii. 10
1 Cor. iv. 11
92
1 Cor. vii. 11
1 Cor. iv. 13
530
1 Cor. vii. 12
1 Cor. iv. 14 125, 278, 342, 485, 573, 578*
1 Cor. vii. 13
47, 118, 192, 608
183, 522*
223, 233, 310, 538
122, 163, 174, 195*
206, 313, 386, 595*
57, 159, 166, 320
154*, 176, 398*
106, 571, 582
495, 538
303*, 424*
283*, 368, 440, 452*, 465*
528, 603
320
77, 84, 292, 477
197, 321, 496*
262,293, 565
152, 496*, 502, 520
150, 502, 577
1 Cor. iv. 15
442*
1 Cor. vii. 14
132, 271, 283*, 389*, 445
1 Cor. iv. 16
545
1 Cor. vii. 15
311*, 386, 417, 518, 538
1 Cor. iv. 17
133, 166, 167*, 226
1 Cor. vii. 16
85, 299
1 Cor. iv. 18
278, 484, 617
1 Cor. vii. 18
169*
1 Cor. iv. 20
586
1 Cor. iv. 21
1 Cor. v. 3
1 Cor. v. 4
1 Cor. v. 1
1 Cor. v. 2
285, 384, 420
384, 480, 550*, 615
315, 429, 436*, 508
160, 453*, 575
1 Cor. vii. 23
1 Cor. vii. 19
1 Cor. vii. 20
583*
422
1 Cor. vii. 21
541, 582*, 595
1 Cor. vii. 22
124
538, 539
1 Cor. vii. 24
391, 562
1 Cor. vii. 25
314, 395*
124, 455
1 Cor. v. 5
1 Cor. v. 6
160, 459*
1 Cor. vii. 26 106, 320*, 455*, 523, 568, 602
524
1 Cor. vii. 27
197, 209
N. T. INDEX.
707
1 Cor. vii. 28 84, 205, 211, 277, 284*, 293*
1 Cor. vii. 29 596, 106, 287, 459*, 460, 484
1 Cor. vii. 31
1 Cor. vii. 32
1 Cor. vii. 33
1 Cor. vii. 34
1 Cor. vii. 35
1 Cor. ix. 25
111, 227, 582
474, 484, 485*
43, 502
1 Cor. ix. 26
210, 251, 340
1 Cor. ix. 27
299
109, 299
215, 299, 519
1 Cor. x. 1
106, 407, 476*, 549, 609
1 Cor. x. 2
67, 255*
211, 329, 354, 430, 464
1 Cor. x. 3
133, 198
1 Cor. vii. 36 77, 242, 296, 321, 332, 631* |
1 Cor. x. 4 114, 118, 199, 268*, 281, 525
1 Cor. vii. 37
161, 193*, 483, 573*
1 Cor. x. 5
1 Cor. vii. 38
242, 243, 439*, 576*
1 Cor. x. 6
1 Cor. vii. 39 84, 158, 159, 319, 390, 584
1 Cor. x. 7
1 Cor. vii. 40
613
1 Cor. x. 8
1 Cor. x. 9
1 Cor. viii. 1
1 Cor. viii. 2
I Cor. viii. 3
1 Cor. viii. 4
84, 562, 565*
499, 539, 565*, 613
263*, 565*
123, 444, 558, 565
1 Cor. x. 10
i
71, 232
175, 329*, 527
318
74, 250, 502
143*, 369
106
1 Cor. x. 12
1 Cor. x. 13
1 Cor. viii. 5
1 Cor. viii. 6
1 Cor. viii. 7
>>
>> "
1 Cor. viii. 8
1 Cor. viii. 9
116, 120
149, 419*, 579
185*, 191, 198, 216, 450,
466, 550
279
1 Cor. x. 14
1 Cor. x. 16
1 Cor. x. 17
1 Cor. x. 18
211, 452*, 504
1 Cor. x. 19
1 Cor. x. 20
1 Cor. viii. 10
134, 263*, 293
1 Cor. x. 21
1 Cor. viii. 11
1 Cor. viii. 12
1 Cor. viii. 13
394, 446
155
65, 506
1 Cor. x. 22
1 Cor. x. 23
1 Cor. x. 11 175, 405, 452*, 515, 527, 550
78, 301, 504, 613*
324, 325, 585, 590*, 594*
223**, 313
118, 164, 189*, 237, 628
110, 201, 308
114, 135*, 200
53
442, 520
124, 125, 189*, 200
284*
1 Cor. x. 24
1 Cor. x. 25
495
496, 583
313
1 Cor. ix. 1
510
1 Cor. ix. 2
1 Cor. ix. 3
1 Cor. ix. 4
211, 212, 444, 479*
211
319, 511
1 Cor. x. 27
1 Cor. x. 28
550, 593*, 614*
1 Cor. x. 29
1 Cor. x. 30
1 Cor. ix. 5 228, 257*, 319, 511, 523*, 527
1 Cor. x. 32
1 Cor. ix. 6
324, 326, 465, 518
1 Cor. x. 33
1 Cor. ix. 7
198, 199, 216*
1 Cor. ix. 8
402
1 Cor. xi. 1
1 Cor. ix. 9
205, 316, 446, 495, 595*
1 Cor. xi. 2
1 Cor. ix. 10
1 Cor. ix. 11
1 Cor. ix. 12
45, 394, 446
155, 294
185, 200, 209, 582
1 Cor. xi. 3
421
150
159, 216
439
483*
582*
205, 227, 453*
114, 118, 122
1 Cor. xi. 4 111, 344*, 381*, 411, 544, 594
1 Cor. xi. 5
1 Cor. ix. 13
1 Cor. ix. 14
84, 108, 433
367
1 Cor. xi. 6
108, 150, 178, 216*
311*, 320, 437*, 478*
1 Cor. xi. 7
122, 513
1 Cor. ix. 15 162, 209, 218, 239, 276, 278,
1 Cor. xi. 8
447
337*, 386*, 550, 572
1 Cor. xi. 9
409
>>
>>
1 Cor. ix. 16
"
1 Cor. ix. 17
1 Cor. ix. 18
>>
293, 430, 447
229, 260, 292, 465, 528,
541, 620
108, 137, 329
1 Cor. xi. 10
374, 411
1 Cor. xi. 12
381*, 409
1 Cor. xi. 13
1 Cor. xi. 15
319, 433
271*, 364*
1 Cor. ix. 19
87, 242, 257, 341*, 344
1 Cor. xi. 16
1 Cor. ix. 20
1 Cor. ix. 21
1 Cor. ix. 22
1 Cor. ix. 24
87, 123, 278*
87, 483, 484, 562
170
313, 598
1 Cor. xi. 17
582, 613*, 619
396, 420
1 Cor. xi. 18 274*, 347, 413, 414*, 575, 576*
1 Cor. xi. 20
1 Cor. xi. 21
319, 320*, 444, 576
77, 105
708
N. T. INDEX.
1 Cor. xi. 22
""
86, 174, 285, 447, 511, | 1 Cor. xiv. 7
552, 594*
54, 129, 134, 279, 344*,
>>
1 Cor. xi. 23 116, 139, 144, 153, 270, 370*
1 Cor. xiv. 8
""
"" >>
432, 438, 582
1 Cor. xiv. 9
1 Cor. xi. 24
153
1 Cor. xiv. 10
1 Cor. xi. 25
1 Cor. xi. 26
308*, 386, 403*, 582
42, 297, 308*, 317*, 454* |
444, 553*
253
349, 378, 446, 561
1 Cor. xiv. 11 217,218*,385, 387*, 441 577
123, 633
1 Cor. xiv. 13
1 Cor. xi. 27
1 Cor. xi. 28
202, 301, 441*
199, 452*
1 Cor. xiv. 15
1 Cor. xi. 29
1 Cor. xi. 30
343, 552, 638
267*, 274, 527
1 Cor. xiv. 16
1 Cor. xiv. 18
460*
62, 279*, 285
108, 279, 480
1 Cor. xiv. 19
345*, 627
62, 122, 241, 389
1 Cor. xi. 31
150, 253, 304, 638
1 Cor. xiv. 20
215*
1 Cor. xi. 32
1 Cor. xi. 34
391
308*
1 Cor. xiv. 22
184, 211, 212, 301, 496
1 Cor. xiv. 23
496, 510
1 Cor. xiv. 24
518, 609
1 Cor. xii. 1
373
1 Cor. xiv. 25
122, 515
1 Cor. xii. 2 132, 306, 457, 526, 571, 636
1 Cor. xiv. 26
520, 538, 625
1 Cor. xii. 3
122, 390*
1 Cor. xiv. 27
401*, 582*
1 Cor. xii. 4
1 Cor. xii. 5
1 Cor. xii. 6
1 Cor. xii. 7
437, 540
437
258, 437
405
I Cor. xiv. 30
1 Cor. xiv. 31
1 Cor. xiv. 33
1 Cor. xiv. 34
1 Cor. xii. 8
105, 378, 401, 411, 419*
1 Cor. xii. 9
1 Cor. xii. 12
419*
548, 606
1 Cor. xiv. 35
1 Cor. xiv. 36
244
249
196
229, 622
122, 320, 333
1 Cor. xii. 13
1 Cor. xii, 15
229, 440, 552, 621
368*, 404*, 498*
1 Cor. xiv. 37
1 Cor. xiv. 38
1 Cor. xiv. 39
396
168, 278, 613, 626
1 Cor. xii. 16
1 Cor. xii. 19
404*
304
1 Cor. xv. 1
311*
323
71, 438
1 Cor. xii. 22
240, 245, 528, 549, 550
1 Cor. xv. 2
1 Cor. xii. 23
1 Cor. xii. 27
1 Cor. xii. 28
240
125, 424*
105, 568*
1 Cor. xv. 3
1 Cor. xv. 4
1 Cor. xii. 31
132, 242, 265, 464, 466*
1 Cor. xv. 6
1 Cor. xv. 8
1 Cor. xiii. 1
1 Cor. xiii. 2
273, 292, 440, 441, 549
1 Cor. xiii. 3
1 Cor. xiii. 4
44, 527, 610
75, 226*, 289
520, 538
1 Cor. xv. 9
1 Cor. xv. 11
1 Cor. xv. 12
1 Cor. xv. 13
265, 561, 605
412
272*, 281
250
46, 53, 106, 171
337, 565, 615*
518
123, 626
123, 452*, 478*
1 Cor. xv. 14
452*
1 Cor. xiii. 5
520, 538
1 Cor. xv. 15
123, 185, 382, 445
1 Cor. xiii. 6
1 Cor. xiii. 7
1 Cor. xiii. 8
210, 232, 433, 520, 538
520, 538
520, 538, 585
1 Cor. xv. 16
292*, 478
1 Cor. xv. 18
1 Cor. xv. 19
1 Cor. xiii. 10
109
1 Cor. xv. 20
135, 390*
233, 242
123, 527, 530
1 Cor. xiii. 11
80, 268, 270, 296, 609
1 Cor. xv. 21
123, 586*, 610
1 Cor. xiii. 12 153*, 263*, 377, 380*, 404*
1 Cor. xv. 22
1 Cor. xiii. 13
240*, 242*
1 Cor. xv. 23
1 Cor. xv. 24
1 Cor. xiv. 1
453*, 577*
1 Cor. xiv. 2
1 Cor. xiv. 4
1 Cor. xiv. 5
549
122, 150
294*, 129, 239, 577, 605*
1 Cor. xv. 25
1 Cor. xv. 26
389, 421, 440
527
124, 308
297, 332, 523*, 588*, 589
1 Cor. xv. 27 272, 308, 522, 582, 585, 588
527
1 Cor. xv. 28
1 Cor. xiv. 6
387, 420, 440, 612
1 Cor. xv. 29
112, 114
123, 175, 279*, 382*, 480
N. T. INDEX.
709
2 Cor. i, 11
2224, 412
1 Cor. xv. 31
1 Cor. xv. 32
1 Cor. xv. 33
153*, 517
108, 123, 285, 585
2 Cor. i. 12 70, 98, 122, 243, 247*, 420
2 Cor. i. 13
1 Cor. xv. 34
41, 640-
312*, 314
2 Cor. i, 14
2 Cor. i. 15
1 Cor. xv. 35
266*, 280*, 442, 443
2 Cor. i. 16
442*
423*, 513
216, 283*
431
1 Cor. xv. 36
1 Cor. xv. 37
158, 183
294*, 340, 621
2 Cor. i. 17 109, 395, 445, 460*, 476, 513
2 Cor. i, 18
1 Cor. xv. 38
437
2 Cor. i. 19
1 Cor. xv. 39
171
2 Cor. i. 21
1 Cor. xv. 40
586
2 Cor. i. 22
1 Cor. xv. 41
1 Cor. xv. 42
120, 196, 217, 502
123, 266, 522
2 Cor. i, 23
449, 476, 585
272, 476, 558
521, 584
417
340, 619
2 Cor. i. 24
1 Cor. xv. 43
533
1 Cor. xv. 44
549
2 Cor. ii. 1
1 Cor. xv. 46
234, 592*
2 Cor. ii. 2
1 Cor. xv. 47
50
2 Cor. ii. 3
1 Cor. xv. 49
78, 277%
2 Cor. ii. 4
1 Cor. xv. 50
161, 518, 596
2 Cor. ii. 5
1 Cor. xv. 51
555*
2 Cor. ii. 6
1 Cor. xv. 52 89,123,385*,436,522*, 555*
2 Cor. ii. 7
206, 210, 555, 597
161, 212, 323, 386, 482, 529
108, 367, 368, 437
159, 208, 278, 282, 409, 410
243, 278, 366, 379*, 550
292, 497
133, 209, 517*
46, 323, 502
1 Cor. xv. 53
331
2 Cor. ii. 8
120, 332
1 Cor. xv. 54
541, 606, 621, 639
2 Cor. ii. 9
1 Cor. xv. 56
1 Cor. xv. 57
""
">
1 Cor. xv. 58
1 Cor. xvi. 1
1 Cor. xvi. 2
1 Cor. xvi. 3
1 Cor. xvi. 4
133, 313, 373*, 397
248, 307, 395, 401, 541
60, 176*, 308, 310, 318,
114
340, 341
344
2 Cor. ii. 10
2 Cor. ii. 12
2 Cor. ii. 13
2 Cor. ii. 14
2 Cor. ii. 16
2 Cor. ii. 17
1 Cor. xvi. 5
380*, 543
324*
446, 562*
2 Cor. iii. 1
1 Cor. xvi. 6
159, 355*, 405, 440
2 Cor. iii. 2
2 Cor. iii. 3
2 Cor. iii. 4
1 Cor. xvi. 7
1 Cor. xvi. 9
1 Cor. xvi. 10
1 Cor. xvi. 12
1 Cor. xvi. 13
283, 331
437*, 585
124
62, 336, 373, 554
313
2 Cor. iii. 5
2 Cor. iiì 6
1 Cor. xvi. 15
1 Cor. xvi. 17
1 Cor. xvi. 21
1 Cor. xvi. 22
2 Cor. i. 2
2 Cor. i. 3
2 Cor. i. 4
60, 125, 185, 515, 626
153*
529*, 531
79, 479*
2 Cor. iii. 7
2 Cor. iii. 8
2 Cor. iii. 9
2 Cor. iii. 10
2 Cor. ii. 11
2 Cor. iii. 12
2 Cor. iii. 13
2 Cor. iii. 14
122, 139
2 Cor. iii. 15
2 Cor. i. 5
551, 586
163
189*, 378
2 Cor. iii. 16
2 Cor. iii. 17
2 Cor. iii. 18
161, 278
261, 264*, 448
145, 211*, 397*, 143, 153*
145, 328*, 475
23, 251, 389
397, 584, 610*
110
87, 200, 508, 614
114, 134, 430, 431, 513, 638
98*, 384, 420
319, 367, 411, 597
83, 191*, 228, 438, 527
341, 480, 634, 635*
280*
236, 455*
43, 271
379, 411*, 424, 425
111
329, 582*
46, 534*, 565
296, 408, 565, 590
40, 308*, 565
114, 565
555*
124, 174, 229, 254*, 370,
2 Cor. i. 6
136, 155, 383, 527, 582*
419, 565
>>
2 Cor. i. 7
2 Cor. i. 8
2 Cor. i. 9
2 Cor. i. 10
440, 572
83, 324, 383, 403
233, 123, 150, 214, 410, 459
233, 273
2 Cor. iv. 1
565*
2 Cor. iv. 2 41, 85, 87, 253*, 386, 405, 488
2 Cor. iv. 3
218*
710
N. T. INDEX.
2 Cor. iv. 4
118, 190, 329, 482, 624*
2 Cor. vii. 1
2 Cor. iv. 5
2 Cor. iv. 6
399
168, 367*
2 Cor. vii. 2
2 Cor. vii. 3
2 Cor. iv. 7
195*, 236, 412, 460*
2 Cor. vii. 4
2 Cor. iv. 8
2 Cor. iv. 9
2 Cor. iv. 10
355, 485, 520, 638
2 Cor. vii. 5
355, 485
2 Cor. vii. 6
189, 355
2 Cor. vii. 7
2 Cor. iv. 11
123, 213, 446, 522
2 Cor. iv. 12
2 Cor. iv. 13
2 Cor. iv. 15
2 Cor. iv. 16
2 Cor. iv. 17
301
112, 351*, 401
586
155, 442, 463*
235, 396, 411, 635*
2 Cor. vii. 8
2 Cor. vii. 9
2 Cor. vii. 10
2 Cor. vii. 11
>>
"" ""
2 Cor. iv. 18
208*, 484*
186, 197, 344, 544
538, 609
49, 329
217, 383
352*, 568, 572
528, 534
135, 216*, 234, 243*, 584
584, 612
397, 402*, 460*, 477, 496*
402*
161, 320
2 Cor. vii. 12 43, 133, 278, 329, 354, 405,
2 Cor. vii. 13
2 Cor. vii. 14
582, 601
240, 243, 371, 393*
227, 233, 292, 375*
2 Cor. v. 1 122, 155, 191, 266*, 293, 524,
2 Cor. vii. 15
"
>> >>
2 Cor. v. 2
2 Cor. v. 3
528, 531
147*, 353*
2 Cor. vii. 16
560, 616
2 Cor. viii. 1
205, 377
410
218
2 Cor. v. 4 83, 107*, 353, 394, 448, 459,
2 Cor. viii. 2
638
2 Cor. viii. 3
>>
""> >>
2 Cor. v. 5
531*
2 Cor. viii. 4
2 Cor. v. 6
352*, 430, 562, 573*
2 Cor. viii. 5
2 Cor. v. 7
2 Cor. v. 8
2 Cor. v. 10
2 Cor. v. 11
2 Cor. v. 12
2 Cor. v. 13
2 Cor. v. 14
41, 120, 379, 565
443, 562
159, 405
186, 331*, 334
41, 87, 352*, 594
212, 582
185
2 Cor. viii. 6
2 Cor. viii. 7
2 Cor. viii. 8
2 Cor. viii. 9
2 Cor. viii. 10
2 Cor. viii. 11
2 Cor. viii. 12
2 Cor. v. 15
161, 383, 445, 477, 558
2 Cor. viii. 13
2 Cor. v. 16
2 Cor. v. 17
292, 301
235, 390
2 Cor. viii. 15
2 Cor. viii. 16
2 Cor. v. 18
2 Cor. v. 19
2 Cor. v. 20
209
145, 349, 618*
262, 383*
2 Cor. viii. 17
2 Cor. viii. 18
2 Cor. viii. 19
2 Cor. v. 21
186, 382, 484*, 638
2 Cor. viii. 20
2 Cor. viii. 22
2 Cor. vi. 1
332
2 Cor. viii. 23
381*, 386, 425
562, 571*
133, 155, 198, 631
122, 572, 576**, 584*
288, 329*
193*, 315, 450, 451*
381*
157, 341
323, 422, 480, 560*
313, 324, 368, 560*, 585
424*, 585, 586
589*
414, 585
242*, 443
278, 378, 433
391, 583
53, 351*
240, 637
383, 578, 585
307*
2 Cor. vi. 2
2 Cor. vi. 3
2 Cor. vi. 4
522, 565, 609
483, 484*, 499
78, 87, 181*, 389
2 Cor. viii. 24
2 Cor. ix. 1
174, 397, 602
133, 447*, 576
2 Cor. vi. 6
2 Cor. vi. 7
389
132, 378, 389, 552
2 Cor. ix. 2 65, 193*, 208, 222, 233, 272,
"" >"
2 Cor. vi. 8
389
2 Cor. ix. 3
2 Cor. vi. 9
573
2 Cor. ix. 5
383, 422, 629
576
318, 336
2 Cor. vi. 11
271
2 Cor. ix. 6
176, 392*, 394, 596*
2 Cor. vi. 12
388
2 Cor. ix. 7
2 Cor. vi. 13
530*, 620*
2 Cor. ix. 8
446, 587*
637
2 Cor. vi. 14
211, 221*, 350, 406, 584
2 Cor. ix. 9
2 Cor. vi. 15
41, 234, 443
2 Cor. ix. 10
469*, 588
286, 572
I
2 Cor. vi. 16
2 Cor. vi. 17
430
2 Cor. ix. 11
211, 572
74, 147*, 201
2 Cor. ix. 12
211, 572
N. T. INDEX.
711
2 Cor. ix. 13
118, 136, 186, 381*, 572*
2 Cor. xii. 1
2 Cor. ix. 14
204, 217
2 Cor. xii. 2
2 Cor. ix. 15
393, 585
""
" ""
2 Cor. xii. 3
•
2 Cor. x. 1
381, 397, 521, 558
2 Cor. xii. 4
2 Cor. x. 2 259, 321, 322*, 409, 443, 482
2 Cor. xii. 5
" ""
527, 602
2 Cor. xii. 6
2 Cor. x. 3
2 Cor. x. 4
2 Cor. x. 5
2 Cor. x. 6
411, 638
212, 248, 565
186, 621
332
2 Cor. x. 7
122, 161, 195, 372*, 585
2 Cor. x. 9
2 Cor. x. 10
2 Cor. x. 11
310*
522*, 563
161
2 Cor. xii. 7
2 Cor. xii. 8
2 Cor. xii. 9
2 Cor. xii. 10
2 Cor. xii. 11
2 Cor. xii. 12
2 Cor. xii. 13
2 Cor. xii. 14
2 Cor. x. 12 81, 87, 150, 209, 218*, 331, 637
2 Cor. x. 13
2 Cor. xii. 17
2 Cor. xii. 15
124, 177, 454*
83, 121, 126, 160, 176, 372,
417, 565
111, 626
83, 331, 626
383, 454
199, 159, 453*, 502
177, 220*, 550, 561, 611
336, 383, 427
118, 209, 240, 271, 284
232
197, 282*, 422, 477, 538
106, 111*, 410, 575
403*
41, 332, 625
2 Cor. x. 14
""
"} "
2 Cor. x. 15
2 Cor. x. 16
2 Cor. x. 18
163, 165, 318, 396, 530
90, 342*, 384, 396, 431,
2 Cor. xii. 18
156, 245
158, 574*
219
474*, 484
331
109, 318, 587
78, 87
2 Cor. xii. 19
2 Cor. xii. 20
2 Cor. xii. 21
""
""
155, 209, 383*, 598
65, 176, 219, 453*, 504, 556*
163, 207, 222, 343, 393, 482,
494, 504, 554*, 635*
2 Cor. xi. 1
2 Cor. xi. 2
2 Cor. xi. 3
2 Cor. xi. 4
2 Cor. xi. 5
72, 302*, 442
117, 185, 258, 318, 534
133, 370, 504, 541, 621
72, 109, 306*
196*, 422, 446
2 Cor. xi. 6
398*, 442, 580, 585*
2 Cor. xiii. 1
2 Cor. xiii. 2
2 Cor. xiii. 3
2 Cor. xiii. 4
2 Cor. xiii. 5
2 Cor. xiii. 7
250*, 265, 375, 440, 625
128
411, 418
86, 388*, 442, 541
212, 321, 460*, 495, 513,
626
2 Cor. xi. 7
2 Cor. xi. 8
2 Cor. xi. 9
2 Cor. xi. 10
208, 509*
44, 405, 499
134*
248**, 397, 449, 456*
555*, 617
""
2 Cor. xiii. 8
2 Cor. xiii. 9
2 Cor. xiii. 10
382, 594
155, 161, 529
278, 194
2 Cor. xi. 11
2 Cor. xi. 12
582
158, 286
Gal. i. 1
122, 371, 378, 379, 418*
2 Cor. xi. 13
111, 513
Gal. i. 3
124, 139
2 Cor. xi. 14
112
Gal. i. 4
133, 383, 412, 525
2 Cor. xi. 16
321, 583, 584, 605
Gal. i. 5
108
2 Cor. xi. 17
401
Gal. i. 6
638
2 Cor. xi. 18
117, 233
Gal. i. 7
109, 118, 513
2 Cor. xi. 20
255*, 609
Gal. i. 8
159, 295, 296, 517, 518*
2 Cor. xi. 21
40, 402*, 563, 618
Gal. i. 10
80, 304, 509
2 Cor. xi. 22
454
Gal. i. 11
2 Cor. xi. 23 176,217,243, 423*, 466, 578*
|
Gal. i. 12
2 Cor. xi. 24
369, 578, 589
Gal. i. 13
2 Cor. xi. 25
74, 272
Gal. i. 14
2 Cor. xi. 26
188*, 217, 578, 609
Gal. i. 15
2 Cor. xi. 27
578
Gal. i. 16
2 Cor. xi. 28
533*
Gal. i. 18
2 Cor. xi. 29
153*'Gal. i. 19
2 Cor. xi. 30
222, 538
Gal. i. 20
2 Cor. xi. 32
60, 61, 138
Gal. i. 22
402, 549
489, 492*
269*
70, 243, 403
367
218*, 552
428
113, 633*
449
215, 390
2 Cor. xi. 33
429, 606
Gal. i. 23
108, 353*, 545, 631*
712
N. T. INDEX.
Gal. i. 24
Gal. ii. 1
60, 380*
Gal. iv. 10
Gal. ii. 2
353, 380, 443, 504*, 632*
Gal. iv. 11
Gal. ii. 4
255, 289, 545, 569*
Gal. iv. 12
Gal. ii. 5
236
Gal. iv. 13
Gal. ii. 6
170*, 568*
Gal. iv. 15
Gal. ii. 7
46, 229, 260*, 271*
Gal. iv. 17
Gal. ii. 8
258, 397, 562, 565
Gal. iv. 18
388 Gal. iv. 8
Gal. iv. 9
475, 486*
263*, 604
253
503*, 626***
227*
71, 223, 400*
84, 305, 585
289*, 638
320, 329
Gal. ii. 9
152, 587*, 592, 613
Gal. iv. 19
141
Gal. ii. 10
142, 149*, 550
Gal. iv. 20
283, 330
Gal. ii. 11
343*
Gal. iv. 21
407, 537
Gal. ii. 12
446
Gal. iv. 22
173
Gal. ii. 13
216, 301
Gal. iv. 23
104
Gal. ii. 14
45, 236, 405
Gal. iv. 24
118, 248, 562, 576
Gal. ii. 15
521
Gal. iv. 25
Gal. ii. 16
171, 186, 266, 280 |
Gal. iv. 26
109*, 112, 179*
576
Gal. ii. 17
120, 500, 510*, 616*
Gal. iv. 27
240, 485*
Gal. ii. 18
87
Gal. iv. 28
192, 402**
Gal. ii. 19
Gal. ii. 20
210, 428
168, 227, 619
Gal. iv. 30
506
Gal. iv. 31
445
Gal. ii. 21
123, 558
Gal. v. 1
210
Gal. iii. 1 75, 83, 135*, 149*, 183, 223
Gal. v. 2
227, 521
"" "" ""
400, 537, 549
Gal. v. 4
73, 427, 429, 621
Gal. iii. 2
365, 509
Gal. v. 6
120
Gal. iii. 7
424*, 445
Gal. v. 7
604
Gal. iii. 8
71, 114, 411
Gal. v. 8
637
Gal. iii. 9
301, 391
Gal. v. 10
137, 214, 321
Gal. iii. 10
325, 368, 407
Gal. v. 11
558
Gal. iii. 11
123, 136, 186
Gal. v. 12
255, 302, 638
Gal. iii. 13
383
Gal. v. 13
Gal. iii. 14
237*
Gal. v. 14
Gal. iii. 15
192, 402, 444, 553*
Gal. v. 16
Gal. iii. 16
166*, 375, 522
Gal. v. 17
Gal. iii. 17
596,
250, 396
Gal. v. 19
Gal. iii. 18
123, 619
Gal. v. 20
Gal. iii. 19
Gal. iii. 20
Gal. iii. 21
124, 297, 379*
116, 593*
123, 139, 304, 508
Gal. v. 21
Gal. v. 26
Gal. iii. 22
186, 397
Gal. vi. 1
Gal. iii. 23
334, 396, 550, 558
Gal. vi. 3
Gal. iii. 26
122, 213, 234
Gal. vi. 6
394, 596*
109, 151, 549
219, 506
307*, 460
515
65, 176
200
209, 476, 502*
537, 580, 626
170*, 613
110, 114
Gal. iii. 28
80, 552
Gal. vi. 7
310
Gal. iii. 29
445
Gal. vi. 9
483, 502
Gal. vi, 10
Gal. iv. 1
106
Gal. vi. 11
Gal. iv. 2
407
Gal. vi. 12
284, 448
278
216, 290
Gal. iv. 3
80
Gal. vi. 13
233, 287, 332
Gal. iv. 4
86
Gal. vi. 14
Gal. iv. 5
123
Gal. vi. 16
Gal. iv. 6
580
Gal. vi. 17
123, 319
437
153, 207
Gal. iv. 7
301, 379, 580
N. T. INDEX.
713
Eph. i. 3
410, 517, 551, 586
|
Eph. iii. 11
Eph. i. 4
125, 342, 386
Eph. iii. 12
Eph. i. 5
342, 378, 402, 611
Eph. iii. 13
Eph. i. 6
125, 163, 190|
Eph. iii. 14
Eph. i. 7
389*, 528
Eph. iii. 15
Eph. i. 8
111*, 163, 164* |
167, 256
128, 137, 167, 186
136, 166*, 234, 388
404, 566*, 638
111*, 116, 121, 615
Eph. iii. 16 65, 78, 290*, 319, 378,397, 417*
Eph. i. 9
152, 342 Eph. iii. 18
Eph. i. 10
397, 528 | Eph. iii. 19
Eph. i. 11
258, 262 | Eph. iii. 20
Eph. i. 12
Eph. i. 13
58, 125, 134
213, 216, 528, 562, 586*
| Eph. iii. 21
128, 144, 331, 340, 572*
185, 217*, 346*, 638
158
108
Eph. i. 14
166, 410, 531
Eph. iv. 1 136*, 152, 163, 332, 388*, 566*
Eph. i. 15
133, 135, 137, 154*, 234
|
Eph. iv. 2
Eph. i. 16
256, 376, 383, 412
|
Eph. iv. 3
Eph. i. 17
78, 152, 290, 416
|
Eph. iv. 4
202, 572*
386, 572*
417, 584
Eph. i. 18
108, 298, 572, 584
Eph. i. 19
134, 190, 421, 529, 611
Eph. i. 20
125,218*, 235, 384, 430,573,592 | Eph. iv. 8
Eph. i. 21
Eph. i. 23
420, 421, 527, 566, 615 |
114, 166, 167*, 258*, 260*,
513, 533, 638
Eph. ii. 1
126, 412, 611
Eph. ii. 2
238*, 401, 634*
Eph. ii. 3
80, 127, 176, 191*, 215*, 238,
>>
"" "}
Eph. ii. 4
Eph. ii. 5
Eph. ii. 6
Eph. ii. 7
Eph. ii. 8
Eph. ii. 9
Eph. ii. 10
Eph. ii. 11
Eph. ii. 12
>> >> ""
Eph. ii. 13
386, 410, 550*, 573
201*, 225, 399, 443 | Eph. iv. 18
218*, 565 | Eph. iv. 19
235, 278
Eph. iv. 21
65, 137, 254, 410 | Eph. iv. 22
192, 217*, 411, 562
|
""
Eph. iv. 25
459, 477 | Eph. iv. 23
149*, 155, 163, 192, 386, 394
135,313,562,566*, 578, 582, 602
177*, 194, 197, 428, 465, 477,
375, 419*
401
225, 522
69, 243, 531*, 592
104
144, 157, 411, 615
190*, 297, 528
460*, 477
397
256, 386
161, 514, 526
186*, 189, 215, 428, 526*
213
199*, 391*
318, 321*, 322*, 342, 347*,
410
215, 263*, 611
313, 342, 528
|
Eph. iv. 6
Eph. iv. 7
Eph. iv. 9
| Eph. iv. 11
|
Eph. iv. 12
Eph. iv. 13
Eph. iv. 14
|
Eph. iv. 15
Eph. iv. 16
|
Eph. iv. 17
Eph. iv. 26
120, 311*, 313, 494*, 584
|
Eph. iv. 27
312, 491*
566, 578
Eph. iv. 28
118, 341, 578
|
Eph. iv. 29
Eph. ii. 14
114, 181, 228, 531
Eph. iv. 30
Eph. ii. 15 136,138,
220*,386,388, 528, 621|
Eph. iv. 31
Eph. ii. 16
342, 416*
Fph. ii. 17
607*, 609
Eph. v. 2
234, 313, 353*, 501
172, 363, 583
125, 396
312
386, 438, 605*
Eph. ii. 19
558
Eph. v. 3
Eph. ii. 20
128, 130, 185, 431 | Eph. v. 4
441, 485*, 615*
270
Eph. ii. 21 83, 111*, 136, 149*, 193,342,396
Eph. v. 5
122, 128, 166, 167, 172*, 265,
Eph. ii. 22
122, 317
"
>> "",
Eph. v. 6
Eph. iii. 1
189, 521, 566*
Eph. v. 8
Eph. iii. 2
448, 560, 634|
Eph. v. 9
Eph. iii. 4
136
Eph. v. 11
355*, 518
501
238
184*, 562, 565
143, 521
Eph. iii. 5
128, 218, 221, 566*
Eph. v. 12
47, 141, 146*, 319
Eph. iii. 6
318, 389
Eph. v. 13
258*
Eph. iii. 8
65. 69, 242, 319, 362
Eph. v. 14
79, 90, 123, 312, 431
Eph. iii. 10
128, 235*, 362, 459*
Eph. v. 15
300*; 474*, 610
90
714
N. T. INDEX.
Eph. v. 17
584, 610 | Phil. i. 15
559
Eph. v. 18
217
Phil. i. 16
Eph. v. 19
212*, 216, 351
Phil. i. 17
Eph. v. 20
184, 332, 368, 561
184, 209, 332, 368, 431
351, 383
Eph. v. 21
Phil. i. 18 90, 157, 216, 217*, 232, 387, 585
186, 351*
Phil. i. 19
128, 129
Eph. v. 22
154, 351
Phil. i. 20
128
Eph. v. 23
122, 451, 530Phil. i. 21
320, 333
Eph. v. 24
Eph. v. 26
Eph. v. 27
Eph. v. 28
150
Eph. v. 29
278
440, 451*, 582* | Phil. i. 22
30, 123, 138* Phil. i. 23
482, 545, 577 | Phil. i. 25
Phil. i. 26
Phil. i. 27
Eph. v. 31
183, 262, 364*, 432*
Phil. i. 28
Eph. v. 32
153*, 397, 443
Phil. i. 29
Eph. v. 33
249, 315, 577
Phil. i. 30
160, 169, 299*, 513
240*, 245, 329*, 397, 578
128, 161, 397
136, 234, 287, 410, 466
109, 211, 477
166, 211, 477, 482
259, 320, 513
112, 572
Eph. vi. 1
182, 390, 537 |
Eph. vi. 2
126, 316, 391*, 562 |
Eph. vi. 3
Eph. vi. 4
189*, 313, 388* |
Phil. ii. 1
Phil. ii. 2
289* Phil. ii. 3
Phil. ii. 4
122, 526
Eph. vi. 5
138, 537, 401* |
Phil. ii. 5
Eph. vi. 6
402
Phil. ii. 6
155, 337, 525
583, 587*
477, 482, 498
582
177*, 209, 323*
Eph. vi. 8
310, 365, 552, 621
Phil. ii. 7
342, 345, 387, 616
Eph. vi. 9
192
Phil. ii. 8
122, 215, 257, 443
Eph. vi. 10
264, 537
Phil. ii. 9
Eph. vi. 11
176, 189
Phil. ii. 10
Eph. vi. 12 235, 239*, 421, 496, 552, 609
Phil. ii. 11
Eph. vi. 13
132, 189*, 313
Phil. ii. 12
Eph. vi. 14
174, 432, 531
Phil. ii. 13
Eph. vi. 15
416
Phil. ii. 15
Eph. vi. 16
108, 134*,384, 393, 531
Phil. ii. 16
Eph. vi. 17
709,
123, 166, 313
Phil. ii. 17
140*, 438
191*, 235*, 390*
122, 124, 551
151,301,313,476*, 477,493, 594
114, 350*, 383*, 430, 513
122, 123, 141, 317, 471
125, 410, 606
128, 393
Eph. vi. 18
122, 383, 410, 412, 437, 631
Phil. ii. 18
40, 227
Eph. vi. 20
384*, 386
Phil. ii. 19
331, 344
Eph. vi. 21
126, 136, 401* |
Phil. ii. 20
300
Eph. vi. 22
161
Phil. ii. 22
317, 422*, 577*
Eph. vi. 23
124, 377
Phil. ii. 23
Phil. ii. 25
Phil. i. 1
136, 587
Phil. ii. 27
Phil. i. 2
122
Phil. ii. 28
45, 308*, 331
221, 288, 408*, 471
70, 243*, 278, 346*, 548
49, 192
Phil. i. 3
110, 392*, 393
|
Phil. ii. 29
Phil. i. 4
256, 637
Phil. ii. 30
228
93, 122, 191
Phil. i. 5
109, 124, 126, 193
Phil. i. 6
143, 161, 227
Phil. iii. 2
Phil. i. 7
128, 148, 319, 329*, 383, 420,
Phil. iii. 3
>
"" ""
439, 543, 627*
>>
Phil. i. 8
Phil. i. 9
189*, 204, 388
240, 336, 386, 416*
Phil. iii. 4
Phil. iii. 5
Phil. i. 10
Phil. i. 11
Phil. i. 12
Phil. i. 13
Phil. i. 14
Phil. iii. 6
133, 140, 201, 229, 378 Phil. iii. 7
243*, 332, 549 | Phil. iii. 8
63, 578 Phil. iii. 9
137*, 243
416
"
223*, 609, 638
114, 209, 214, 216, 233, 485*,
529, 593, 638
344, 582
196, 215, 520
65, 123, 140, 402
160, 168, 228, 274*, 281
229, 235, 442*
122, 133, 137, 139, 186, 390,
392, 477, 482, 616
N. T. INDEX.
715
Phil. iii. 10 439,
Phil. iii. 12
Phil. iii. 13
92, 129, 189, 325*, 572 | Col. i. 24
262, 263, 276*, 394, 638 | Col. i. 26
321* Col. i. 27
Phil. iii. 14 136, 205, 400*, 407, 431*, 620 |
136, 166, 167, 189, 232, 382
227, 573
166*, 168, 330
167, 609
Col. i. 28
Phil. iii. 15
280*, 285*, 585
Col. i. 29
167, 258, 397, 410
Phil. iii. 16
90, 316*, 513
Phil. iii. 17
549
Col. ii. 1
76, 453
Phil. iii. 18 532, 573, 183, 222, 530, 628
|
Col. ii. 2
Phil. iii. 19
Phil. iii. 20
114, 183, 532, 564
183, 222, 530, 628
Col. ii. 5 155, 215, 236, 292, 442, 444, 469*
58, 65, 410, 572*
124, 139, 141*, 155, 446,
Col. ii. 7
216, 343, 431
""
"" ""
453*, 551
Col. ii. 8
109, 128, 401, 437, 503*, 520
Phil. iii. 21
324, 528, 624
Col. ii. 9
546
Col. ii. 10
572
Phil. iv. I
301, 390, 523, 530, 537
Col. ii. 11
Phil. iv. 3
69, 125, 313, 439, 545, 584
Col. ii. 12
Phil. iv. 4
537
Col. ii. 13
Phil. iv. 5
Phil. iv. 6
219, 235, 585
128, 212, 405
344,
""
Col. ii. 14
144, 157, 189*, 216
127, 148, 218, 342, 391, 412,
47, 138, 220, 271
123, 190, 340
433, 602
Phil. iv. 7
126, 186*, 280
Col. ii. 15
141, 258
Phil. iv. 8
160, 609
Col. ii. 16
420, 502, 552, 615*
Phil. iv. 9
160, 280*, 313
Col. ii. 17
166, 532*
Phil. iv. 10
Phil. iv. 11
""
""
Phil. iv. 12
Phil. iv. 14
87, 233, 317*, 323, 382, 546
152, 158, 159, 321, 347, 386,
402*, 507
77, 180, 318, 520
155, 345
Col. ii. 18
"
""
Col. ii. 20
187*, 190, 232, 248*, 369,
467*, 480*
Col. ii. 19 83, 128, 141, 202, 224, 247*, 485*
209, 252, 261, 370, 391, 428
Col. ii. 21
488, 501, 594
Phil. iv. 15
84, 193, 200, 602
Col. ii. 22
Phil. iv. 16
Phil. iv. 17
228*, 414*
597, 606
Col. ii. 23
127
349, 575*
Phil. iv. 18
237*, 275*, 366*, 452, 528,
Col. iii. 1
"
530, 631
Col. iii. 3
Phil. iv. 19
65, 137, 280*
Col. iii. 4
292
271, 272, 391
530
Phil. iv. 21
137
Phil. iv. 22
629
Col. iii. 6
Col. iii. 7
Col. i. 3
344*, 412
Col. iii. 8
Col. i. 4
135
Col. iii. 9
Col. i. 6
137, 573
Col. i. 7
60, 103, 382
Col. iii. 11
Col. iii. 12
Col. i. 8
122, 135*, 390*
Col. iii. 13
Col. i. 9
Col. i. 12
Col. i. 13
137, 412
136
237, 259
Col. iii. 14
Col. iii. 15
Col. iii. 16
Col. i. 14
189
Col. iii. 17
Col. i. 15
54, 124
Col. iii. 18
Col. i. 16
116*, 235, 272*, 389, 419* |
Col. iii. 23
Col. i. 17
150, 419*
Col. iii. 24
Col. i. 18
Col. i. 19
123
71, 588
Col. iii. 25
Col. i. 20
178, 187*, 190, 212*, 397
Col. iv. 1
Col. i. 21
132, 216, 341, 443, 571
Col. iv. 2
Col. i. 22
Col. i. 23
188*, 318
124, 448, 475* | Col. iv. 5
Col. iv, 3
Col. iii. 5 117*, 166*, 167, 313, 531*, 553
265*
269, 386
107*, 116, 120
397
80, 440, 520, 552
176, 565, 611
440, 565*
166*, 393, 565
186*, 438
430, 566, 572
126, 307, 378, 420
182, 270*
307
370*, 371, 531
620*
126, 257
386, 410, 433
517
405, 424
716
N. T. INDEX.
Col. iv. 6
Col. iv. 9
Col. iv. 10
75
60, 565
298, 316*, 318*, 585 1 Thess. iv. 1
1 Thess. iv. 2
1 Thess. iv. 3
109, 432, 513
C
84, 379*
319*, 427, 513, 529
Col. iv. 11
84, 513
1 Thess. iv. 4
274
Col. iv. 12
Col. iv. 14
103, 111*
103
1 Thess. iv. 5
134, 139, 486
1 Thess. iv. 6 53, 85, 115*, 171, 320, 433
Col. iv. 15
102, 145
1 Thess. iv. 7
394*, 411, 417*
Col. iv. 16
107*, 337, 395, 550, 629*
1 Thess. iv. 8
Col. iv. 17
85, 626
1 Thess. iv. 9
497*
56, 324, 339*
Col. iv. 18
155
1 Thess. iv. 10
1 Thess. iv. 14
133, 332
541*
1 Thess. i. 1
136
1 Thess. iv. 15
387*, 506, 507*
1 Thess. i. 2
256, 344, 373, 376
1 Thess. iv. 16 135*, 150, 247*, 385, 390, 431
1 Thess. i. 3
155, 187*, 190, 205, 615*
1 Thess. iv. 17
83, 135*, 391
1 Thess. i. 5
420
1 Thess. iv. 18
301
1 Thess. i. 6
550
1 Thess. i. 7
1 Thess. i. 8
1 Thess. i. 9
1 Thess. i. 10
111, 130, 175*
133, 145, 420, 480
1 Thess. v. 1
1 Thess. v. 2
339
139*
122, 145, 298
123, 134, 353, 594
1 Thess. ii. 1
1 Thess. ii. 3
133, 626
368, 411, 493*
1 Thess. ii. 4
1 Thess. ii. 5
1 Thess. ii. 6
1 Thess. ii. 7
271, 340
120, 488, 565
344, 411*
307, 541
1 Thess. v. 3
1 Thess. v. 4
1 Thess. v. 5
1 Thess. v. 6
1 Thess. v. 8
1 Thess. v. 10
1 Thess. v. 11
1 Thess. v. 12
1 Thess. v. 14
1 Thess. ii. 8
1 Thess. ii. 9
101, 198*, 204, 331, 622*
205, 329, 482, 552, 587
1 Thess. v. 22
65, 506, 541
460*
195*, 196
285, 502
120, 125, 195*
294*, 391
173
335, 386*
202, 405, 538
120, 427
1 Thess. v. 23
150, 286, 527
1 Thess. ii. 10
1 Thess. ii. 12
1 Thess. ii. 13
1 Thess. ii. 14
""
1 Thess. ii. 15
1 Thess. ii. 16
"" >>
1 Thess. ii. 17
465
128, 333
122, 191, 258*, 465, 551
46, 84, 154, 369, 390, 410
355
1 Thess. v. 24
353
1 Thess. v. 27
226
2 Thess. i. 1
136
2 Thess. i. 4
163, 383, 410, 533
90, 137, 155, 329, 452*,
594, 604
243*, 427
2 Thess. i. 6
122, 448*
2 Thess. i. 7
2 Thess. i. 8
1 Thess. ii. 18
437
2 Thess. i. 9
1 Thess. ii. 19
155
2 Thess. i. 10°
1 Thess. ii. 20
446, 513
2 Thess. i. 11
237*
475*, 486
125, 190, 371
260, 386, 389, 565
206, 397
2 Thess. i. 12
1 Thess. iii. 1
1 Thess. iii. 2
1 Thess. iii. 3
483
113, 386
184, 328*
>>
"" ""
1 Thess. iii. 5
483, 505* 2 Thess. ii. 3
1 Thess. iii. 6
371*
"" ""
1 Thess. iii. 7
128
1 Thess. iii. 8
295
2 Thess. ii. 4
2 Thess. ii. 6
1 Thess. iii. 9
1 Thess. iii. 10
1 Thess. iii. 11
1 Thess. iii. 13
155, 417*, 528, 624
2 Thess. ii. 10
2 Thess. ii. 11
57, 226
155, 552
139, 150, 316
2 Thess. ii. 7
2 Thess. ii. 8
2 Thess. ii. 9
2 Thess. ii. I
2 Thess. ii. 2
125, 274, 370, 378*, 421,
493, 618
106, 238, 239*, 499, 500,
529, 545, 599*, 600
253, 626
123, 258, 297, 550
611, 639
60, 158, 386
189*
130*
383
178
236
N. T. INDEX.
717
2 Thess. ii. 12
232, 475, 477, 482
1 Tim. iii. I
2 Thess. ii. 13
2 Thess. ii. 15
73, 124, 186, 417*, 527
1 Tim. iii. 2
202, 229, 558
1 Tim. iii. 4
2 Thess. ii. 16
2 Thess. ii. 17
69, 150
155, 316
1 Tim. iii. 5
•
1 Tim. iii. 6
1 Tim. iii. 12
2 Thess. iii. 2
2 Thess. iii. 3
584
89
1 Tim. iii. 13
1 Tim. iii. 14
2 Thess. iii. 4
137, 233
2 Thess. iii. 5
118, 155, 185, 286, 316
1 Tim. iii. 15
1 Tim. iii. 16
2 Thess. iii. 6
2 Thess. iii. 7
2 Thess. iii. 8
2 Thess. iii. 9
77, 432
298
351*, 493
597
"
1 Tim. iv. 1
1 Tim. iv. 3
2 Thess. iii. 10
161, 475, 476, 477, 478
1 Tim. iv. 4
2 Thess. iii. 11
274, 347, 638
1 Tim. iv. 6
2 Thess. iii. 12
2 Thess. iii. 13
143, 198, 381
1 Tim. iv. 7
345
2 Thess, iii. 14
2 Thess. iii. 15
119*, 253, 477
228, 521, 527, 602
1 Tim. iv. 8
1 Tim. iv. 10
1 Tim. iv. 11
2 Thess. iii. 16
150, 217
1 Tim. iv. 12
1 Tim. iv. 13
1 Tim. i. 1
1 Tim. i. 2
139
137*
1 Tim. iv. 14
1 Tim. iv. 15
1 Tim. i. 3 315, 321*, 433, 488, 566, 570*
""
1 Tim. i. 4
1 Tim. i. 5
140, 488
139, 368, 570*
1 Tim. iv. 16
1 Tim. i. 6
196
1 Tim. i. 7
169, 253, 488
1 Tim. v. 1
1 Tim. v. 4
1 Tim. i. 8
638
1 Tim. v. 5
1 Tim. i. 9
161, 211, 638
1 Tim. i. 10
520
1 Tim. v. 7
1 Tim. v. 8
1 Tim. i. 11
229
1 Tim. v. 9
1 Tim. i. 12
348*
1 Tim. v. 10
1 Tim. i. 13
1 Tim. i. 14
341
133
1 Tim. v. 13
1 Tim. v. 14
1 Tim. i. 15
1 Tim. i. 16
1 Tim. i. 18
1 Tim. i. 19
•
1 Tim. i. 20
107, 234, 585
288, 549
224, 387*
406, 524
195*, 288
1 Tim. v. 15
1 Tim. v. 16
1 Tim. v. 17
1 Tim. v. 18
1 Tim. v. 19
1 Tim. v. 21
1 Tim. ii. 1
1 Tim. ii. 2
256, 332, 611
70, 386, 524, 593*
1 Tim. v. 22
1 Tim. ii. 3
1 Tim. ii. 4
1 Tim. ii. 6
1 Tim. ii. 7
1 Tim. ii. 8
534
553*
58, 383, 533
527, 562, 565, 610
68*, 283, 321, 332, 544
1 Tim. v. 23
1 Tim. v. 24
1 Tim. v. 25
1 Tim. vi. 1
1 Tim. vi. 2
1 Tim. ii. 9
1 Tim. ii. 10
1 Tim. ii. 12
68
158*
122, 206
1 Tim. vi. 3
1 Tim. vi. 4
1 Tim. ii. 15
293, 516*, 631*
1 Tim. vi. 5
1 Tim. vi. 6
1 Tim. ii. 13
464
204, 537, 585
117*, 525
117
205, 279, 452*, 477, 565
>
191*, 430
117*
140
69, 243*, 331, 537
166**, 243, 298, 627
123, 124, 260*, 413, 538,
588*, 639*
187*, 427, 428
139, 622*
343
128, 164
257, 313, 405
140, 213
410
313, 537
537
296, 313, 520, 537
205, 377*, 537
79, 155, 287, 385, 386,
520, 537
537
527, 537
77, 347, 631*
130, 233, 409, 410, 433, 611
313
205, 239, 259, 477
477, 590*
234, 387, 609
347*, 432, 480*
537
621
83, 590
206
585
64, 313, 375*, 420, 605
477
200*, 209, 430, 501, 537
127, 498*, 501, 537, 548
171, 537, 559
514
407, 537
143, 202, 502, 521
56, 57, 537
406, 518
78, 102, 196, 229, 427, 428
546
718
N. T. INDEX.
1 Tim. vi. 7
1 Tim. vi. 8
585
2 Tim. iii. 15
1 Tim. vi. 9
75
525
2 Tim. iii. 16
120, 370
96*, 213, 416
1 Tim. vi. 11
1 Tim. vi. 12
1 Tim. vi. 13
1 Tim. vi. 15
120, 183, 313
202, 224, 312*
107, 375
246
2 Tim. iv. 1
537, 552, 630
2 Tim. iv. 2
2 Tim. iv. 3
2 Tim. iv. 6
79, 314, 520*
83, 481
152, 274
1 Tim. vi. 17
136*, 192*, 236*, 273, 334
2 Tim. iv. 7
132, 224, 523, 638
1 Tim. vi. 18
201
2 Tim. iv. 8
273*
1 Tim. vi. 19
202
2 Tim. iv. 9
602
1 Tim. vi. 20
183, 253, 314, 549
2 Tim. iv. 10
103
2 Tim. iv. 13
22, 395
2 Tim. i. 1
402
2 Tim. iv. 14
78
2 Tim. i. 3
2 Tim. i. 4
2 Tim. i. 5
2 Tim. i. 8
2 Tim. i. 10
2 Tim. i. 11
372*, 448*
155, 544
582*
189, 314
116, 139, 534
527
2 Tim. iv. 15
223, 314
2 Tim. iv. 16
476, 501
2 Tim. iv. 17
74, 259, 514
2 Tim. iv. 18
621*
2 Tim. iv. 20
2 Tim. iv. 21
2 Tim. i. 12
319, 396, 438
2 Tim. i. 13
139
Titus i. 1
2 Tim. i. 14
140, 314
Titus i. 2
219
372
402, 565*
565*
2 Tim. i. 15
195
Titus i. 3
534*, 565*, 568*
2 Tim. i. 16
2 Tim. i. 17
73, 78
219
Titus i. 5
Titus i. 6
112, 258*, 288
117*, 139, 386, 477, 525
2 Tim. i. 18
78, 242*, 321, 365* Titus i. 7
192
202
2 Tim. ii. 1
368
2 Tim. ii. 2
332, 480*
2 Tim. ii. 3
69, 154*, 640*
217, 313
Titus i. 9
133, 153, 313
Titus i. 10
160, 319, 378*
Titus i. 11
314
Titus i. 12
2 Tim. ii. 4
287
Titus i. 13
2 Tim. ii. 5
477, 556*
Titus i. 15
88, 155, 518, 559*
2 Tim. ii. 6
2 Tim. ii. 7
556*
78, 286
Titus ii. 2
217, 322
2 Tim. ii. 8
313
Titus ii. 4
290, 525
2 Tim. ii. 10
140, 234, 287, 605
Titus ii. 5
101, 154
2 Tim. ii. 11
86, 143, 585
Titus ii. 7
Titus ii. 8
228, 257*, 406
64, 424, 477, 591
2 Tim. ii. 14
313, 394, 533, 537, 624
Titus ii. 9
2 Tim. ii. 16
78
Titus ii. 10
154, 482
131, 482
2 Tim. ii. 18
334
Titus ii. 11
132
2 Tim. ii. 22
223*
Titus ii. 12
127, 344, 355
2 Tim. ii. 26
621
Titus ii. 13
130*, 344, 355, 544
Titus ii. 14
197, 288
2 Tim. iii. 1
124
2 Tim. iii. 2
520
Titus iii. 1
313
2 Tim. iii. 4
2 Tim. iii. 6
245, 638
366
Titus iii. 3
120, 593*
Titus iii. 4
139
2 Tim. iii. 8
66, 229, 230, 406
Titus iii. 5 66,139,163,189, 193, 390*, 402
2 Tim. iii. 10
2 Tim. iii. 11
2 Tim. iii. 12
155
74, 420
614*
Titus iii. 6
163, 163, 378
Titus iii. 7
Titus iii. 8
2 Tim. iii. 14
314, 365
Titus iii. 9
157, 216
108, 205, 253
68, 78, 524
N. T. INDEX.
719
Titus iii. 12
Titus iii. 13
102
Heb. iii. 1
194, 200, 314
103, 313
Heb. iii. 2
60
Titus iii. 14
77
Heb. iii. 3
67, 190*, 206, 240*, 271, 404
Titus iii. 15
585
Heb. iii. 4
350, 562
Heb. iii. 5
340*
Philem. 1
189*
Heb. iii. 6
Philem. 4
256, 345
Heb. iii. 7
Philem. 5
139, 155, 410*
Heb. iii. 8
Philem. 6
338, 416, 462*
Heb. iii. 9
Philem. 9
189*
Heb. iii. 10
126,158, 409, 527
575
385, 401*
436
85, 450
Philem. 10
164, 628
Heb. iii. 11
462, 500
Philem. 11
278, 638
Heb. iii. 12
Philem. 12
530
Heb. iii. 13
194*, 329, 416, 503, 538
111, 151, 189*
Philem. 13
189*, 270, 283*, 383
Heb. iii. 15
571*
Philem. 14
270, 283*, 330, 463, 617
Heb. iii. 16
53, 378, 426, 442, 510, 571*
Philem. 16
Philem. 17
403, 420
313
Heb. iii. 17
73, 230
Heb. iii. 19
438
Philem. 18
85, 227, 292
Philem. 19
278, 521
Heb. iv. 1
Philem. 20
137, 198, 286, 549, 638
Heb. iv. 2
197, 319, 613
87, 219*, 221, 229, 260, 475
Philem. 22
594
Heb. iv. 3
123, 134, 265, 343, 344, 462, 500
Philem. 23
519
Heb. iv. 4
Heb. iv. 7
Heb. iv. 8
Heb. i. 1.
375*
Heb. iv. 9
Heb. i. 2
176*, 228, 438, 527
Heb. iv. 10
Heb. i. 3 125, 187*, 216, 237*, 256, 344, 384
Heb. iv. 11
Heb. i. 4
Heb. i. 6
Heb. i. 7
Heb. i. 8
Heb. i. 9
435,
Heb. i. 10
Heb. i. 11
240, 245, 271
210, 308
352, 405*, 588
182
226, 277*, 404 |
435
53, 266
Heb. iv. 12
Heb. iv. 13
Heb. iv. 14
Heb. iv. 15
271, 370, 522, 588, 590*
113, 199, 385
146*, 304*
445
154, 421
162, 386, 388, 550
240, 247
147*, 406*, 442
202
91, 143, 475, 483
Heb. iv. 16
66, 397
Heb. v. 1
230, 382
Heb. i. 13
228, 271, 367*, 558, 605
Hcb. v. 2
209, 229
Heb. i. 14
120
Heb. v. 3
410, 440, 593*
Heb. v. 4
Heb. ii. 1
89, 242, 243
Heb. v. 5
Heb. ii. 2
545
Heb. v. 6
106, 550, 582*
318, 582*
592*
Heb. ii. 3
205, 340, 379*, 545, 621
Heb. v. 7
152, 158, 197, 371, 621
Heb. ii. 4
545
Heb. v. 8
Heb. ii. 6
89
Heb. v. 10
Heb. ii. 8
442, 446, 447*, 454
Heb. ii. 9 198*, 343, 399*, 462*, 534, 551
Heb. v. 11
Heb. ii. 10
Heb. ii. 11
320, 343*, 409, 627
366, 448*, 585 |
14
159, 166*, 344, 637
115*, 215, 319, 450
Heb. v. 12 59, 169, 190, 324, 339, 350*, 399*
Heb. v. 13
Heb. v.
229
200, 521, 562, 584*
120, 195*, 399, 405, 528
Heb. ii. 13
582
Heb. ii. 14
200, 272*, 281, 288, 541, 552
Heb. vi. 1
Heb. ii. 15
Heb. ii. 16
329*, 380
202, 267*, 606
Heb. vi. 2
188*, 482, 531, 550, 635
187*, 192*, 439, 550, 551*
Heb. vi. 3
Heb. ii. 17
Heb. ii. 18
209, 227*, 230 |
159*, 387*
Heb. vi. 4
Hcb. vi. 5
285
122, 198*
123, 198
Heb. vi. 6 212, 319, 339, 343, 344, 396, 605
720
N. T. INDEX.
Heb. vi. 7 131, 139, 200, 343, 376, 399, 438 | Heb. ix. 1
Heb. vi. 8
Heb. vi. 9
195, 351*, 584 | Heb. ix. 2
120, 202, 229
"" ""
Heb. vi. 10
163, 205, 319, 343, 438, 630
Heb. ix. 3
Heb. vi. 11
321, 405, 544
Heb. ix. 4
Heb. vi. 12
442
Heb. ix. 5
Heb. vi. 13
222, 382, 575
Heb. ix. 6
Heb. vi. 14
354*, 443
Heb. ix. 7
Heb. vi. 16
88, 192, 222, 242, 382, 575* |
Heb. ix. 8
Heb. vi. 17
216, 235, 243, 254, 387*
Heb. ix. 9
133, 435*, 575
129, 140, 236, 435*, 446,
636*
177*, 246*, 403
67, 116, 158*, 385*
68, 320
267*
131, 203*, 577
176*, 187, 482
166*, 401, 484*, 527
Heb. vi. 18
134, 202, 386*, 549
Heb. ix. 10
635*
Heb. vi. 19
66, 69, 549
Heb. ix. 11
189,242,410, 485,524,525, 530
Heb. vi. 20
472*
Heb. ix. 12
"
"
Heb. vii. 1
110
Heb. ix. 13
Heb. vii. 2
351, 412
Heb. ix. 14
Heb. vii. 3
488
Heb. ix. 15
Heb. vii. 4
61, 412, 528, 534, 549*, 560*
Heb. ix. 16
Heb. vii. 5
344, 486
Heb. ix. 17
69, 73, 86, 154, 176*, 353,
380, 495, 524
405
75, 197
185*, 287, 392*
551*, 584, 585
297, 394*, 480*, 549
Heb. vii. 6
71, 177*, 271, 273*, 486*
Heb. ix. 18
271
Heb. vii. 7
178
Heb. ix. 19
74, 106, 193*, 401
Heb. vii. 8
340
Heb. ix. 20
163
Heb. vii. 9
Heb. vii. 11
273*, 317*, 378*, 449*
67, 261*, 304*, 482*, 562
Heb. ix. 21
443
Heb. ix. 22
388, 554*
Heb. vii. 12
123, 192, 424*, 447, 453*
Heb. ix. 23
58, 175, 177, 240, 585
Heb. vii. 13
370, 409, 433, 447
Heb. ix. 24
318, 528
Heb. vii. 14
271, 397, 447
Heb. ix. 25
384, 401*
Heb. vii. 15
240*
Heb. ix. 26
271, 283*, 392*
Heb. vii. 16
Heb. vii. 17
Heb. vii. 19
98, 99
522, 588
178
Heb. ix. 27
319
Heb. x. 1
163, 550
Heb. vii. 20
104, 565*, 586
Heb. x. 2 43,134, 303*, 329, 345, 482, 508
Heb. vii. 21
Heb. vii. 23
377, 610
329
Heb. x. 4
Heb. vii. 24
108*, 143, 330, 528
Hcb. vii. 25
Heb. vii. 26
Heb. vii. 27
382
197, 438*
154*, 421
Heb. x. 5
Hcb. x. 6
Heb. x. 7
584
253, 277*
71, 222, 277*, 583*
182, 183, 325
Heb. x. 8
71, 222, 351*, 563*, 533*
Heb. x. 9
244
Heb. vii. 28
228
Hcb. x. 10
138*, 387*, 339
Heb. x. 12
Heb. viii. 1
384, 534, 574
Heb. x. 13
344
297, 344
Heb. viii. 2
Hcb. viii. 3
163, 176*
299
Heb. x. 14
271
Heb. x. 16
225, 351*, 573
Heb. viii. 4
40, 121, 304, 589
Heb. viii. 5 191, 260, 271, 285, 522, 562,
Heb. x. 17
Heb. x. 18
506
584
""
>> "}
Heb. viii. 6
Heb. viii. 7
Heb. viii. 8
Hcb. viii. 9
Heb. viii. 10
588, 595
89, 261, 271, 524
304
146*, 209, 436
225, 401, 430, 571*
184, 225, 352, 573*
Heb. x. 20
528
Heb. viii. 11
Heb. viii. 13
174, 507*
195, 271
Heb. x. 21
Heb. x. 22
Hcb. x. 24
Heb. x. 25
Heb. x. 27
Heb. x. 28
409
73, 74, 75, 229, 621
185, 397
151, 245, 477, 582
Heb. x. 29
170*
392*, 420
524, 562
N. T. INDEX,
721
Heb. x. 30
Heb. x. 32
Heb. x. 33
549 | Heb. xii. 10
200, 268, 405, 409
205
Heb. xii. 11
142
Heb. xii. 13
Heb. x. 34
155, 524, 549
Heb. xii. 15
Heb. x. 36
192
Heb. xii. 16
Heb. x. 37
247*, 355, 585, 610
Heb. xii. 17
196*, 531, 550, 559
641*
22, 197*, 252*, 504
206, 364
147*, 317, 377
Heb. x. 38
136*, 156, 523*, 583*
IIeb. xii. 18
566, 609,
66, 216*, 343*
Heb. x. 39
196
Heb. xii. 19
259, 433, 604
Heb. xii. 20
201, 316, 566*
Heb. xi. 1
59*, 484, 485, 546
IIch. xii. 21
566*
Heb. xi. 2
260, 386, 387*, 412
|
Heb. xii. 22
432, 528, 566*, 609*
Heb. xi. 3
329, 334, 539, 555*
Heb. xii. 23
134
Hcb. xi. 4
240
Heb. xii. 24
240
Heb. xi. 5
Heb. xi. 6
71, 325
319
Heb. xi. 7
193*, 344, 402*, 484
Heb. xii. 25
Heb. xii. 26
Heb. xii. 27
259, 478, 582, 594, 633*
262
108, 460, 477
Heb. xi. 8
70, 228, 268, 298, 483
Heb. xi. 9
Heb. xi. 11
376
150*, 404
Heb. xiii. 2
Heb. xiii. 4
205, 467*
585*
Heb. xi. 12
120, 132, 162, 215, 589*
Heb. xiii. 5
232, 507*, 585, 588
Heb. xi. 13
268, 403*
Heb. xiii. 7
191
Heb. xi. 15
305*, 319
Heb. xiii. 8
552
Heb. xi. 16
204, 221, 530 |
Heb. xiii. 9
391*, 495, 496
Heb. xi. 17
549,
114, 269*, 437, 639
Heb. xiii. 10
199, 366*
Heb. xi. 18
405, 616**
Heb. xiii. 11
Heb. xi. 19
584
Heb. xiii. 12
Hcb. xi. 20
71
Heb. xiii. 13
559,
Heb. xi. 21
71, 341
Heb. xiii. 15
Heb. xi. 22
63, 205
Heb. xiii. 16
Heb. xi. 23
230
Heb. xiii. 17
Heb. xi. 26
228, 239, 384*, 592, 622
Heb. xiii. 18
Heb. xiii. 19
517,
Heb. xi. 28
92, 106, 147*, 201, 272, 353
Heb. xiii. 20
165, 168
154
189*, 342*
64, 209, 530
143, 156, 382, 494
373, 517, 614
69, 243*
133, 134, 137
205, 260
Heb. xi. 29
121, 251, 409, 431, 524
Heb. xiii. 22
202, 378*, 423*, 592*
Heb. xi. 30
67, 408
Heb. xiii. 23
Heb. xi. 32
280*, 439, 550* | Heb. xiii. 24
69, 243*, 317, 346*
109, 629*
Heb. xi. 33
120
Heb. xi. 34
62
James i. 1
133, 316, 588
Heb. xi. 35
288, 353*, 367, 460*, 485*
James i. 2
111, 432
Heb. xi. 37
62, 520
James i. 3
235
Heb. xi. 38
116
James i. 4
477
Heb. xi. 39
381, 412*
James i. 5
>
201, 482, 494, 610
Heb. xi. 40
258*
James i. 6
274, 443. 447
James i. 7
446*, 447, 502, 534
Heb. xii. 1
344, 379, 423*, 432
James i. 8
Heb. xii. 2
Heb. xii. 3
Heb. xii. 4
125, 206, 271, 364*, 435, 622
215, 230, 234, 429, 454*, 477
405, 429
James i. 9
James i. 10
James i. 11
528, 534*
132, 622*
622*
75, 277*, 470*
Heb. xii. 5
Heb. xii. 6
Heb. xii. 7
Heb. xii. 8
Heb. xii. 9
205
168, 443
122, 300, 397, 481
445, 610
221, 228, 436, 527
James i. 12
James i. 13
James i. 14
James i. 15
531, 585
97, 194*, 371*
369
88
James i. 16
537
91
722
N. T. INDEX.
James i. 17
""
54, 80, 189, 348, 395, 527, | James iv. 2
James i. 18
537, 641*
88, 170*, 537
James iv. 3
James iv. 4
James i. 19
301, 329, 520, 538
James iv. 5
James i. 21
120
James iv. 7
256, 470*, 482, 594
256
179*, 229, 307
425*
223, 312*, 537
James i. 23
160, 274, 479, 610
James i. 24
278*, 281, 446
James iv. 8
James iv. 9
James i. 25
James i. 26
James i. 27
140, 237, 388
68, 125, 192, 477
89, 161, 319, 529
""
ور
>>
James ii. 1
James ii. 2
60, 176, 186
446, 572*
James iv. 14
James iv. 15
James iv. 10
James iv. 13
117*, 162*, 249, 285
516, 517
109, 140, 447, 565, 590
286*, 329*, 541
312, 313, 537
313, 537, 639
257, 261, 537
James iv. 17
147, 483, 494
James ii. 3
James ii. 4
81, 106, 153, 430
60, 185, 187*, 508, 572*
James v. 1
341, 516, 537
James ii. 5
163, 189*, 201, 212, 228, 510
James v. 2
274*, 537
James ii. 6
\
James ii. 9
342, 353*
86, 174, 206, 278* | James v. 3
James v. 4
60, 89, 124, 212, 537, 539
James ii. 10 168, 202, 280, 308*, 447, 582
James v. 5
James ii. 11
293, 479*
James v. 6
James ii. 12
313, 378
James v. 7
James ii. 13
100*, 203*, 432, 483
James v. 8
James ii. 14
108, 321, 585
James v. 9
James ii. 15
350*, 452, 518
James v. 10
James ii. 16
James ii. 17
580, 585
116
James v. 11
James v. 12
James ii. 18
60, 280*, 367
"" "" ""
James ii. 19
514, 541
James v. 13
76, 371*, 537
156*, 414, 416*, 537
106, 174, 520, 537
308, 314, 592*
537
372, 537
228, 527, 537
59, 79, 88, 222, 313, 372*,
442, 476, 488
169*, 285*, 541*
247*
James ii. 20
116, 183
James v. 14
408*
James ii. 22
270, 433
James v. 16
209
James ii. 23
453*, 615
James v. 17
325, 466
Jaines ii. 25
106, 219, 344, 571
James v. 18
84, 436
James ii. 26
116*, 440
James v. 20
122, 197
James iii. 1
James iii. 2
242
479
1 Pet. i. 1
112, 113
1 Pet. i. 2
122, 137*, 188*, 237*, 286
James iii. 3
192, 541, 549, 599*
1 Pet. i. 3
134, 402, 551
James iii. 4
James iii. 5
James iii. 6
James iii. 7
307, 344, 472, 604
524, 548
54, 134
132, 219*
1 Pet. i. 4
520, 525, 611
1 Pet. i. 5
124, 332, 389
1 Pet. i. 6
232, 317
1 Pet. i. 7 139*, 235*, 340, 378, 385, 459
James iii. 8
James iii. 9
James iii. 10
James iii. 11
James iii. 12
James iii. 13
511,
532*, 536
222, 388
332
128, 591
493*
137*, 169, 313, 611
1 Pet. i. 8
1 Pet. i. 9
1 Pet. i. 10
1 Pct. i. 11
226, 466, 485*
156*, 342*
355
193*
•
1 Pet. i. 12
:
1 Pet. i. 13
James iii. 14
174, 432, 470, 494*, 511*
1 Pet. i. 14
>
James iii. 15
350*
1 Pet. i. 15
82, 134, 355, 495
314, 343, 409, 477, 550
238, 352*, 477
111*, 402
James iii. 17
576
1 Pet. i. 17
353
James iii. 18
219
1 Pct. i. 18
133, 216, 525, 527*
James iv. 1
161, 529
James iv. 11
1 Pet. i. 19
1 Pet. i. 20
525
123, 376
313
N. T. INDEX.
723
1 Pet. i. 21
1 Pet. i. 22
186, 389
""
"" ""
1 Pet. i. 23
340, 366, 411, 421, 549, 610
1 Pct. iv. 2
1 Pet. i. 24
277
1 Pet. iv. 3
529
1 Pet. iv. 1 120, 196, 217, 262*, 263*, 271,
313, 412*
84, 225, 226, 230, 329, 482
176, 209, 219, 262, 318, 319,
1 Pet. i. 25
213
"" "" ""
1 Pet. iv. 4
1 Pet. ii. 1
176, 527
1 Pet. iv. 5
334, 520, 627*
484, 549
552
1 Pet. ii. 2
1 Pet. ii. 3
1 Pet. ii. 4
204, 314
448*
1 Pet. iv. 6 123, 223, 281, 402*, 441, 522,
""
122, 421, 427
1 Pet. iv. 7
630*, 639
397
1 Pet. ii. 5
317, 527
1 Pet. iv. 8
1 Pet. ii. 6
233, 252*
1 Pet. iv. 9
1 Pet. ii. 7 160, 164, 529, 549*, 551, 571*
1 Pet. iv. 10
1 Pet. ii. 8
397, 438
1 Pet. iv. 11
1 Pet. ii. 9
381, 520
1 Pet. iv. 12
1. Pet. ii. 10
343, 476, 485
1 Pet. iv. 13
1 Pet. ii. 11
143, 352
1 Pet. iv. 14
1 Pet. ii. 12 108, 342, 352, 384, 387, 411
1 Pet. iv. 15
1 Pet. ii. 13
124
1 Pet. iv. 17
1 Pet. ii. 14
379
1 Pet. iv. 18
1 Pet. ii. 15
161, 319, 465, 529
1 Pet. iv. 19
108, 351, 372
397, 611
210, 516, 524*
108, 158*, 163, 582
209*, 405, 501
200, 209
109, 132, 401, 585
440, 446, 502, 518, 519*
324, 584, 586
174
51, 122, 254, 301, 524
1 Pet. ii. 16
484, 494, 550, 573*, 612
1 Pet. ii. 17
314*, 538
1 Pet. v. 1
140,200,334,384,528,529, 537
1 Pet. ii. 19
518, 550
1 Pet. v. 2
314, 385*, 477, 610
1 Pet. ii. 22
167, 616*
1 Pet. v. 3
175
1 Pet. ii. 23
251*, 341, 590*
1 Pet. v. 5
253
1 Pet. ii. 24
149*, 210, 407, 428, 429*
1 Pet. v. 6
261, 407
1 Pet. ii. 25
128, 156
1 Pet. v. 7
351*, 430
1 Pet. v. 8
124, 139, 299, 528, 534, 538
1 Pet. iii. 1
1 Pet. iii. 2
1 Pet. iii. 3
1 Pet. iii. 4
75, 154, 289, 351*, 352
131, 342*
195, 531
386
1 Pet. v. 9
123, 215
1 Pet. v. 10
1 Pet. v. 12
58, 134*, 135, 148, 390, 538
278
1 Pet. iii. 5
134, 154, 233, 268, 341
2 Pet. i. 1
1 Pet. iii. 6
224, 462, 494, 499, 562, 566*
2 Pet. i. 2
1 Pet. iii. 7
1 Pet. iii. 8
1 Pet. iii. 9
1 Pet. iii. 10
1 Pet. iii. 11
1 Pet. iii. 12
1 Pet. iii. 13
1 Pet. iii. 14
242, 352, 403, 534
230, 520, 534, 586
46, 161
197, 326, 604, 614
143, 429
125, 409, 586
437
146*, 224, 293*, 443
2 Pet. i. 3
2 Pet. i. 4
2 Pet. i. 5
2 Pet. i. 6
2 Pet. i. 7
130, 200*, 623
286, 545
109, 381*, 545, 617*
157,343,410,428,524, 515,566*
142, 313, 443, 545, 566*
443, 545
443, 545
2 Pet. i. 8
2 Pet. i. 9 158, 185, 187, 454*, 480*, 553*
2 Pet. i. 10
397, 489
1 Pet. iii. 15
1 Pet. iii. 17
""
>>
1 Pet. iii. 18
1 Pet. iii. 19
1 Pet. iii. 20
">
1 Pet. iii. 21
1 Pet. iii. 22
209, 227, 534
294, 604*
215, 373, 383, 412, 433*
دو
""
2 Pet. i. 11
2 Pet. i. 12
"
"" ""
441, 545
543, 545, 608
2 Pet. i. 13
2 Pet. i. 14
""
125, 156, 431, 457, 530, 543,
131,
545, 621
189*, 191*, 192, 194*, 528,
543, 545, 549, 562
543, 545
2 Pet. i. 15
2 Pet. i. 16
2 Pet. i. 17
2 Pet. i. 18
2 Pet. i. 19
128, 256, 290, 313, 506, 527,
549, 551
69, 126, 534
205, 227, 344
408*, 452*
551
89, 256, 321, 340
212, 278*, 351*, 365, 369*
243*, 297, 345, 551
6,30
352*
724
N. T. INDEX.
2 Pet. i. 20
2 Pet. i. 21
161, 196
122, 173, 549
1 John i. 7
197
1 John i. 8
253, 537
1 John i. 9
461*, 537
2 Pet. ii. 1
351*, 443*
1 John i. 10
537, 551
2 Pet. ii. 2
399, 400
2 Pet. ii. 3 120, 149, 217*, 223*, 386, 422,
1 John ii. 1
537
>>
"" ""
466, 579, 639
1 John ii. 2
2 Pet. ii. 4 205, 216, 342*, 448, 478, 545,
1 John ii. 3
"}
>>
566, 569*
2 Pet. ii. 5 82, 249*, 342, 344*, 545, 566, 569
2 Pet. ii. 6 125, 190, 210*, 340, 531, 545, |
566, 569
1 John ii. 4
1 John ii. 5
>
1 John ii. 6
1 John ii. 7
558, 577*
161, 545
483, 537, 610
40, 185, 543
537
124, 524*
2 Pet. ii. 7 131, 193, 259, 369*, 545, 566, 569
1 John ii. 8
267, 386, 524
2 Pet. ii. 8
118, 268, 545, 566, 569
1 John ii. 9
537
2 Pet. ii. 9
2 Pet. ii. 10
2 Pet. ii. 11
342, 569*
237, 345, 594*
243*, 395*
1 John ii. 10
639
1 John ii. 12
80, 146, 278, 400
1 John ii. 13
278
2 Pet. ii. 12
159, 397, 440, 628*
1 John ii. 15
185, 537
2 Pet. ii. 13
185*, 416, 430*
1 John ii. 16
529
2 Pet. ii. 14 108,174,192,194*,201,238,525
1 John ii. 17
639
2 Pet. ii. 15
2 Pet. ii. 16
2 Pet. ii. 18
2 Pet. ii. 19
2 Pet. ii. 20
185*, 219
95, 388, 538
342*, 529*
219*, 273, 344
273, 292, 428, 514, 534
1 John ii. 18
124, 537
1 John ii. 19
1 John ii. 20
1 John ii. 21
1 John ii. 22
2 Pet. ii. 21
239, 282, 320, 334, 482*, 627
1 John ii. 24
2 Pet. ii. 22
109, 352, 588*, 641
1 John ii. 25
1 John ii. 26
2 Pet. iii. 1
2 Pet. iii. 2
2 Pet. iii. 3
58, 142*, 527, 537, 550*
190, 191, 205, 318, 529, 550
376, 572
1 John ii. 2
73, 74, 304*, 317
371
172*, 278
114, 128, 604
128, 574*
225, 530, 628*
1 John ii. 27 277*, 339, 574*, 610, 612*
287, 308, 314
278
""
2 Pet. iii. 5
2 Pet. iii. 4 124, 146, 267, 588, 591, 596*,
612, 632*
120, 121, 217*, 351*, 419*,
1 John iii. 1
122, 460*, 537, 615
1 John iii. 2
122, 209
1 John iii. 4
"
""
446, 453*, 467*
1 John iii. 5
2 Pet. iii. 6
604*
1 John iii. 6
2 Pet. iii. 7
2 Pet. iii. 8
2 Pet. iii. 9
518
395, 502
197, 484
2 Pet. iii. 10
87, 120, 125, 514
2 Pct. iii. 11
2 Pet. iii. 12
2 Pet. iii. 13
2 Pet. iii. 14
2 Pet. iii. 15
2 Pet. jii. 16
2 Pet. iii. 17
342*
121, 158*, 400*
524*, 527
219, 321
228
110, 143, 405
216, 314, 427, 429
1 John iii. 7
1 John iii. 8
1 John iii. 9
1 John iii. 10
1 John iii. 11
1 John iii. 12
1 John iii. 13
1 John iii. 19
1 John iii. 20
1 John i. 1 124, 272, 567*, 607*, 609, 611
1 John iii. 22
1 John i. 2
562, 565
1 John iii. 23
1 John iii. 14
1 John iii. 17
1 John iii. 18
114, 537
267*, 288, 537
537
501, 537
161, 267, 288, 537
537
514, 537
161, 338*, 623*
623*
542
273, 457
40, 185, 543, 622
116, 412, 489, 502*, 537
368, 386, 537, 582
155, 203, 537, 582*
214, 256
161, 338
1 John i. 3
132, 287, 443, 562, 567*
1 John iii. 24
161, 411, 529, 578
1 John i. 5
161, 199, 499
1 John i. 6
376, 537, 610
1 John iv. 1
514, 537
•
N. T. INDEX.
725
1 John iv. 2
1 John iv. 4
346
3 John 7
239, 537, 632*
3 John 8
1 John iv. 5
537
3 John 9
1 John iv. 6
128, 480, 537, 543
3 John 10
1 John iv. 7
1 John iv. 8
537
475, 537
3 John 12
370*, 383, 638
638
51, 141, 278
232, 429, 475, 494
261*, 271
3 John 13
1 John iv. 9
133, 161, 218*, 417*, 537
3 John 14
378
331
1 John iv. 10
161, 527, 537, 555
1 John iv. 11
292, 448
Jude 1
1 John iv. 12
499, 537
Jude 3
1 John iv. 13
161, 199, 366*
Jude 4
1 John iv. 14
527
Jude 5
1 John iv. 15
114, 307
Jude 6
1 John iv. 16
260, 553
Jude 7
190, 212, 421*
256, 321, 330, 333
130*, 140, 528, 534, 605
125, 188*, 216, 273
230, 594, 623
343, 620*
1 John iv. 17
137, 161, 338, 566
Jude 8
443
1 John iv. 20
274*
Jude 9
209*
1 John iv. 21
371
Jude 11
Jude 13
189, 206
176
1 John v. 1
178, 537
Jude 14
41, 71, 211, 277*, 370, 384
1 John v. 2
161, 368, 545
Jude 15
1 John v. 3
161
Jude 16
1 John v. 4
161, 178
Jude 17
1 John v. 5
537
Jude 19
163, 222
116, 572*
114, 116
205
1 John v. 6
114, 128, 144, 380*, 498
Jude 20
122, 345
1 John v. 9
271, 537, 619
Jude 21
137, 397
1 John v. 10
225, 474*
Jude 23
85, 370
1 John v. 11
161
1 John v. 12
475, 537
Rev. i. 1
75, 125
1 John v. 13
134, 278, 288, 549
Rev. i. 2
126
1 John v. 14
161, 256
Rev. i. 3
519
1 John v. 15
295
Rev. i. 4
68, 113, 182*, 536, 587
1 John v. 16 225, 475*, 523*, 530*, 537, 549
Rev. i. 5
197, 532, 536*
1 John v. 17
537
Rev. i. 6
530, 580
1 John v. 18
343, 537
Rev. i. 7
222, 410
1 John v. 19
437, 537
Rev. i. 9
268, 521
1 John v. 20
133*, 157*, 162, 234, 274,
Rev. i. 10
184*
""
"" ""
287, 421*, 528
Rev. i. 13
66, 395*
1 John v. 21
314
Rev. i. 14
247
Rev. i. 16
525
2 John 1
113, 141, 562 | Rev. i. 17
114
2 John 2
411*, 578
Rev. i. 18
65
2 John 4
366, 526
Rev. i. 19
514
2 John 6
146, 161
Rev. i. 20
163, 231*
2 John 7 134*, 140, 142*, 157,346,483,632*
2 John 8
259
Rev. ii. 2
76, 321, 545
2 John 10
479
Rev. ii. 3
76
2 John 11
200
Rev. ii. 5
155*, 296, 541*, 611
2 John 12
70, 278, 283, 331, 378
Rev. ii. 6
Rev. ii. 8
595*
87,276
3 John 2
373*
Rev. ii. 9
3 John 4
69, 162, 338, 347, 595*
Rev. ii. 10
3 John 5
3 John 6
397
122, 345
Rev. ii. 11
Rev. ii. 12
321, 545, 551, 582
366, 589
506
132, 525
726
N. T. INDEX.
Rev. ii. 13 83,103,395,422,472, 610, 612* | Rev. v. 12
127, 520, 536
Rev. ii. 14
Rev. ii. 16
Rev. ii. 17
223, 227
155, 214*, 376 |
Rev. v. 13
108, 347, 374, 409, 526
Rev. v. 14
74
198, 579*
Rev. ii. 18
Rev. ii. 19
108, 579
127, 155, 520 | Rev. vi. 2
Rev. vi. 1
199
409
Rev. ii. 20
52, 81, 535*
Rev. vi. 3
199
Rev. ii. 21
331
Rev. vi. 4
148, 583*
Rev. ii. 22
376
Rev. vi. 6
206, 587*
Rev. ii. 23
339
Rev. vi. 8
29, 108, 182, 234, 388, 574
Rev. ii. 24
235, 528
Rev. vi. 9
Rev. ii. 25
308
Rev. vi. 10
420
164, 182
Rev. ii. 26
574
Rev. vi. 11
83, 174, 289, 297
Rev. vi. 12
Rev. iii. 1
155
Rev. vi. 13
Rev. iii. 2
89, 155, 334, 514
Rev. vi. 14
Rev. iii. 3
230, 281, 506
Rev. vi. 15
Rev. iii. 4
514, 631
Rev. vi. 16
523
74, 523
366*, 527
64, 128, 527
409
Rev. iii. 5
227
Rev. iii. 7
65
Rev. vii. 1
409, 552
Rev. iii. 8
148, 155
Rev. vii. 2
120, 148, 212, 341*, 602
Rev. iii. 9
87, 289, 337, 526*, 610, 626
Rev. vii. 3
552
Rev. iii. 10
237
Rev. vii. 4
250
. Rev. iii. 12
58 112, 148, 506, 507*, 524,
Rev. vii. 9
148, 520, 526, 527, 535*, 579
""
>>
536*, 574, 603
Rev. vii. 11
73, 78, 125, 210
Rev. iii. 14
Rev. iii. 15
Rev. iii. 16
524
155, 302
334
Rev. vii. 12
Rev. vii. 14
Rev. vii. 16
Rev. iii. 17
114, 117, 271
Rev. vii. 17
Rev. iii. 18
Rev. iii. 19
226, 577
470*
Rev. viii. 3
Rev. iii. 21
384, 574
Rev. viii. 4
Rev. viii. 5
128, 520, 610
388, 399
77, 506
191, 550
79, 212, 289, 514
201, 272*, 520
216*
Rev. iv. 1
79, 535
Rev. viii. 7
519, 527, 609
Rev. iv. 3
68, 215, 221
Rev. viii. 8
515
Rev. iv. 4
Rev. iv. 5
Rev. iv. 7
227, 250, 535
114, 166
108
Rev. viii. 9
515, 536, 592
Rev. viii. 11 108, 182, 184, 362, 367, 515
Rev. iv. 8
345, 398, 526, 536
Rev. iv. 9
280*, 309
Rev. viii. 12
Rev. viii. 13
460*, 609
117, 368
Rev. iv, 10
210
Rev. iv. 11
108
Rev. ix. 1
343, 606
Rev. ix. 2
606
Rev. v. 1
408, 409, 525
Rev. ix. 3
396
Rev. v. 2
Rev. v. 3
Rev. v. 4
226, 585
491*
227, 491*
Rev. ix. 4
171, 474, 633
Rev. v. 6
Rev. v. 7
Rev. v. 8
65, 114, 166, 526, 536
272*
74, 114, 166, 516
Rev. ix. 6
Rev. ix. 7
Rev. ix. 10
75, 86, 223, 506
Rev. ix. 11
Rev. ix. 12
604*
324, 623*
534, 591
179, 248
Rev. v. 9
390, 589
Rev. ix. 13
65
Rev. v. 10
Rev. v. 11
206
Rev. ix. 14
392, 536
535*
Rev. ix. 17
518
N. T. INDEX.
727
Rev. ix. 18 83,362,364*, 367,371,429,515 | Rev. xiii. 7
Rev. ix. 19
623
Rev. xiii. 8
Rev. ix. 20
83, 210, 289, 366, 460*, 622
Rev. xiii. 10
Rev. ix. 21
143, 491, 606
Rev. xiii. 11
409, 527
148
62, 83, 128, 388
65, 623*
Rev. xiii. 12
149
Rev. x.
1
525
Rev. xiii. 13
461*
Rev. x. 2
352*, 376, 552
Rev. xiii. 14
62, 66
Rev. x. 3
612
Rev. xiii. 15
307, 480
Rev. x. 4
70, 612
Rev. xiii. 16
79, 128, 289, 409, 420, 529
Rev. x. 5
396
Rev. xiii. 17
127, 290, 536, 594
Rev. x. 6
222
Rev. x. 7
71, 277*
Rev. xiv. 1
43, 79, 536
Rev. x. 9
155, 316*
Rev. xiv. 2
Rev. x. 10
198
Rev. xiv. 3
Rev. x. 11
393
Rev. xiv. 4
Rev. xiv. 5
Rev. xi. 1
536
Rev. xiv. 6
606
70, 250
472, 527
538, 616
88, 409
Rev. xi. 2.
43, 250
Rev. xiv. 7
Rev. xi. 3
436
Rev. xiv. 8
Rev. xi. 4
536*
Rev. xiv. 9
Rev. xi. 5
294, 541*
Rev. xiv. 10
126, 536, 552
191, 609
410
87, 91, 191*
Rev. xi. 6
375, 396
Rev. xiv. 11
Rev. xi. 7
152
Rev. xiv. 12
210, 631
186, 536*
› Rev. xi. 9
267, 589
Rev. xiv. 13
197, 234, 289, 317*, 341*,
Rev. xi. 10
232, 281, 409
390, 460*
""
""
Rev. xi. 11
413
Rev. xiv. 14
535*, 579
Rev. xi. 13
83, 514
Rev. xiv. 15
212, 324, 388
Rev. xi. 14
179, 248
Rev. xiv. 17
133
Rev. xi. 15
526, 535
Rev. xiv. 18
155, 212
Rev. xi. 17
533
Rev. xiv. 19
526, 536
Rev. xi. 18
514
Rev. xiv. 20
372, 557
Rev. xi. 19
72
Rev. xv. 1
341
Rev. xii. 1
528
Rev. xv. 2
247*, 353, 367*
Rev. xii. 2
267
Rev. xv. 4
214, 508, 549, 585
Rev. xii. 3
525
Rev. xv. 5
72, 83
Rev. xii. 4
281, 334
Rev. xv. 6
106, 432, 525
Rev. xii. 5
83
Rev. xv. 8
201
Rev. xii. 6
148
Rev. xii. 7
214, 327*, 519
Rev. xvi. 1
607
Rev. xii. 8
491, 616
Rev. xvi. 2
523, 524, 607
Rev. xii. 9
529, 602
Rev. xvi. 3
530, 536
Rev. xii. 11
399
Rev. xvi. 6
Rev. xii. 13
66
Rev. xvi. 7
538
207*, 533
Rev. xii. 14
88, 148, 177*, 249, 370
Rev. xvi. 9
225, 229, 318
Rev. xii. 16
72
Rev. xvi. 10
350
Rev. xii. 17
232, 393
Rev. xvi. 11
622
Rev. xvi. 12
120, 133
Rev. xiii. 1
65, 374, 410
Rev. xvi. 14
514
Rev. xiii. 2
152
Rev. xvi. 15
538, 585
Rev. xiii. 3
237*
Rev. xvi. 18
606
Rev. xiii. 4
210, 214, 584
Rev. xvi. 19
191, 611
Rev. xiii. 6
222, 405
Rev. xvi. 20
616
728
N. T. INDEX.
Rev. xvi. 21
Rev. xvii. 2
Rev. xvii. 3
281, 368 Rev. xix. 16
Rev. xix. 21
149, 201
201
246*
83, 201, 514
Rev. xx. 1
65, 116, 408
Rev. xvii. 4
94, 226
Rev. xx. 2
536
Rev. xvii. 6
201, 224
Rev. xx. 3
536
Rev. xvii. 8
208, 626, 628 |
Rev. xx. 4
106
Rev. xvii. 9
Rev. xvii. 12
149
Rev. xx. 5
297*
65, 515
Rev. xx. 7
514
Rev. xvii. 13
78
Rev. xx. 8
148
Rev. xvii. 14
536
Rev. xx. 10
353
Rev. xvii. 15
520
Rev. xx. 11
525, 616
Rev. xvii. 16
89, 141, 388
Rev. xx. 12
72, 368
Rev. xvii. 18
114
Rev. xx. 13
133, 516
Rev. xx. 14
Rev. xviii. 2
609
Rev. xx. 15
114
477, 478
Rev. xviii. 3
190, 514
Rev. xviii. 4
449, 515
Rev. xxi. 1
Rev. xviii. 5
155, 205, 247
Rev. xxi. 2
Rev. xviii. 6
163
Rev. xxi. 4
Rev. xviii. 7
506
Rev. xxi. 5
Rev. xviii. 8
29, 87
Rev. xxi. 6
Rev. xviii. 9
87, 222, 410
Rev. xxi. 8
Rev. xviii. 10
603
Rev. xxi. 9
Rev. xviii. 11
222, 393, 408, 499
Rev. xxi. 11
Rev. xviii. 12 234, 520, 536, 579*, 591, 592
Rev. xviii. 13
Rev. xxi. 12
244, 523, 527
211, 524
500*
228
76, 148, 190, 552
343*, 520
132
247*, 536*
536*, 514
579*
Rev. xxi. 13
41, 60, 121
Rev. xviii. 14 75, 86, 156, 370, 427, 499,
Rev. xxi. 16
408*
"}
""
""
506, 507
Rev. xxi. 17
43, 65, 231*, 250, 534*
Rev. xviii. 16
591
Rev. xxi. 21
249
Rev. xviii. 17
223
Rev. xxi. 23
552
Rev. xviii. 20
Rev. xviii. 21
183*, 232, 408
506, 616
Rev. xxi. 25
506, 507, 562
Rev. xxi. 27
171, 506, 633*
Rev. xviii. 22
172, 506, 603
Rev. xviii. 23
Rev. xviii. 24
114, 506
177*
Rev. xxii. 1
Rev. xxii. 2
128
66
Rev. xxii. 3
172
Rev. xix. 1
526
Rev. xxii. 5
120
Rev. xix. 3
76
Rev. xxii. 8
521
Rev. xix. 4
250
Rey. xxii. 9
598, 601
Rev. xix. 5
209, 536
Rev. xxii. 10
538
Rev. xix. 6
536
Rev. xxii. 11
311*
Rev. xix. 8
545
Rev. xxii. 12
318
Rev. xix. 10
114, 582, 598, 601
Rev. xxii. 13
552
Rev. xix. 11
72
Rev. xxii. 14
289
Rev. xix. 12
536
Rev. xxii. 15
585
Rev. xix. 13
108, 182
Rev. xxii. 16
393
Rev. xix. 14
Rev. xix. 15
133, 392, 525* | Rev. xxii. 18
141, 191* Rev. xxii. 19
638
82, 594

NON
CIRCULATING

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 06939 5567