A grammar of the idioms of the Greek language of the New Testament [microform]

/

'W

(Tbc

of Cbica^o
^libraries

cn-i; ^iblc Itnian QIcIL

9;.!

"''- .^^^^^^^
* ' : - '' ; "' f^: ;-.^&j^

*,

;^">?;^;/

' - "'2v. :''. -. '-

''*.';.-'.-'-'.' ''''.'-'*'' -';'

':','&" "/-"''''

/C-'^m :

' *.. '-"'- *' * il iH l r^V^3a : ^' 1 ^ .- - ' ' - -

? ' ) -..^:-. ->^ ; '. ;

RECOMMENDATIONS.

OF the value of Winer's Grammar of the N. T. Idioms there can be no doubt.

'&u

There is nothing like it* It is, beyond all question, a nonpareil of its kind.

MOSES STUART,
Prof . Sac. Lit. Theolog. Sem., Andover, Mass,

I am acquainted with some of the works of Winer, and consider him to be at the
head of the severe and critical schoo^,of sacred philologists. I believe his book on
the. Idioms of the N. T. to be an admirable one, not to be estimated in dollars and
cents, and shall warmly recommend iPto my students, as there is absolutely nothing

of the kind in the English language.

ALEX. M'CLELLAND, P. D.

Prof. Sac. Lit. Theolog. Sem. Dutch Ref. Church.
t

WINER stands at the head of the philolog-ians who have directed their attention to
the N. Test. His Grammar, when firfi published, was a mere pamphlet; in which
forrh it was translated by Profs. Stuart and Robinson. The work now offered to the
public by Profs. Agnew and Ebbeke, is not properly a Grammar, but a grammatical
treatise on the language of the N. T., designed to exhibit the usage of the sacred
writers with regard to the article, the prepositions and oilier particles, the moods,
tenses, participles, etc. etc. It is therefore, in effect, to a considerable extent, a
grammatical commentary on the N. T. It is a work of the highest authority, and of
the greatest practical usefulness, and should be regarded as the necessary companion
of a Lexicon on a student's table. The subscriber, therefore, can freely recommend
it to all who are engaged in the critical study of the New Test. The translators, as
far as can be inferred from the examination of a single sheet, have executed their
task with ability and success, and deserve the patronage of all the friends of sound
biblical interpretation. CHARLES HODGE, D. D.

Prof. Bib. Lit. Theolog. Sem., Princeton, N. J.

Having heard three courses of lectures from Prof. Winer, of Leipsic, and being
familiar with his views of N. T. philology, I take pleasure in stating the estimation
in which I hold his Gram, of the N. T. Greek. The critics of his own country as.
sign him the first place among- those who have made the language of the N. T. their
study. Sufficient proof of this is furnished by the references to his work on almost
every page of recent German commentaries on the N. Test. The genetic or philo-
sophic method applied to the German language by Grirnm, to the Sanscrit by Bopp,
and to the Hebrew by Ewald, has been successfully employed by Winer in investi-
gating the N. T. Greek. But his Grammar, especially the last two editions, has
high merits altogether independent of his method. To say nothing of his earlier

RECOMMENDATIONS.

labors in Hebrew, Chaldee and Rabbinic literature, his researches into the later com-
mon Greek, to which he has devoted his powerful mind during the very best period
of his life, prepare him to do more than any other man living, not only in the gram-
mar, but equally in the lexicography of the Greek of the N. Test. It is not sur-
prising, therefore, that his associates and rivals should assign him the highest rank
in favorite studies.

B. SEARS,
Prof. SacgLit. Baptist Theolog. Sem., Newton, Mass.

It gives me pleasure to know that a translation of Winer's celebrated work on the
Idioms of the N. T. is to be published. The character of the author, and the estab-
lished reputation of his work, make it desirable that it should be rendered thus ac-
cessible in its proper completeness, to American students. The translation seems to
me, judging from the specimen, to be executed in good style.

J. W. NEVINy
Prof. Sac. Lit. Theolog. Sem., AUeghenytown, Pa.

The work of Winer which you have translated is not so much a new edition of
that translated by Profs. Stuart and Robinson in 1825, as a new work, the whole be-
ing recomposed, and the plan enlarged, with very copious illustrations and references.
The smaller work has been a very useful help in the investigation of the sacred text.
I therefore anticipate, with much confidence, the great value and utility of the pre-
sent larger work, and am persuaded that, in translating it, you are rendering a very
important service to the biblical student. I shall cheerfully recommend it as I have
opportunity, and have no doubt that every lover of sacred learning will gladly lend
you his aid in the same way.

LEWIS MAYER, D. D.
Prof. Sac. Theol. in the Sem. of-Ger. Rcf. Church.

The undersigned have long regarded Winer's Grammar of the New Testament, as'
an important help to the critical student of the sacred volume; and have used it as a
text book in the Theological Seminary under their care. Nor is its utility confined
to the mere student of sacred philology. The frequency with which it is referred to
by even the most distinguished commentators of Germany, such as Tholuck, Ols-
hausen, and others, affords abundant evidence of the high estimation in which it is
held by those best competent to judge of its merits. An important service was ren-
dered to the American student by the translation of the earlier edition of this work
by Professors Stuart and Robinson; and the numerous additions since made by the
learned author, have doubtless in a great measure supplied the acknowledged de-
ficiencies of the former work, and greatly enhanced its value. Amid the increasing
attention to the language and idiom of the New Testament, by students of theology
in our country, the subscribers cherish the hope, that your version of this valuable
work will be rewarded by a ready and extensive sale.

S. S. SCIIMUCKER, D. D.
Prof. Christian Theology in the Theolog. Sem., Gettysburg, Pa.

C. P. KRAUTH, D. D.

President of Pennsylvania College.

A GRAMMAR

OF

IDIOMS OF THE GREEK LANGUAGE

OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT.

BY DIL GEO. BENEDICT WINER,

PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY AT LEIPSIC.

TRANSLATED BY

J. H. AGNEW AND O. G. EBBEKE.

P PI I L A D E L P II I A :
PUBLISHED BY HERMAN HOOKER,

Corner of Chesnut and 5th Streets.
1840.

J

ENTERED according to act of congress, in tlie year 3839, by HERMAN HOOKER, in the clerk's
oflice of the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.

LIBRARIES

(V. {

Philadelphia:

T. K. & P. G. COLLINS, Printers,
No. 1 Lodge Alley.

PREFACE.

THE translators of the present work have undertaken a task of no
small labor and difficulty, which only those can fully appreciate who
have experimented in the same field*. To accomplish a good translation
of any foreign work is not easy; and perhaps no European language
presents greater obstacles in the way of translation into smooth and cor-
rect English, than the German. There is so little attention to rhetorical

rules, owing in sqme measure to the nature of the language itself, so
much is sometimes expressed by a single compound word, and sentences
'are frequently so involved, that disruptions, circumlocutions, and para-
phrases, all become occasionally necessary. And, after all, the delicate
taste of a refined English scholar will probably be offended. Indepen-
dently of these considerations, which are, in some measure, applicable
to German writings in general, the difficulty of the present translation
is greatly enhanced by the almost numberless references and quotations.

It will be manifest to everyone that the work is the result of the most
laborious investigation, and the most extensive research. Every acces-
sible source of information, bearing on the subject, has been consulted,
and the whole critically and rationally compared.

Dr. Winer, it is probably known, commenced his labors in this depart-
ment some twenty-five years ago, and soon after published a small
Grammar, translated in 1825, by Professors Stuart and Robinson. At
the time of the original publication, he was Professor extraordinary at
Leipsic, his native city. In 1823, he became ordinary Professor of
Theology in the University of Erlangen, Bavaria, and on the death of
Tittmann, in 1832, he was recalled to Leipsic to supply his place, where
he remains at present, attracting crowds to his lectures. He is the
giant in the Theological faculty at Leipsic, as Hermann is in the clas-
sical.

PREFACE.

The volume now offered to the American scholar, is the fourth and
last edition (183&)-of Winer's .Grammar of the New Testament Idioms,
and may be regarded as almost perfect in its line. Theologians of his
own country assign him the first place in this department of philology,

and evince their estimation of his labors by references to his work on
almost every page of their commentaries. He hears the palm, by com-
mon consent, among those, who have devoted themselves to the study of
the language of the N. T.

The preceding remarks will probably be sufficient to justify the trans-
lation. We have indeed the embryo work translated by Professors Stu-
art and Robinson, whose labors in this department are worthy of all
praise, but that is confessedly a very insufficient aid, and was offered to
the public because there was then nothing better. In 1834, Professor
Stuart himself published a N. T. Grammar. That, however, although
abundantly useful to the student of the N. T., differs materially from the
present work, and is really, more properly than this, a Grammar. It is
a volume of 250 pages, one half of which is occupied by what he de-
nominates the formal part, exhibiting the common forms of declension,
paradigms of verbs etc. all that is ordinarily ranged under orthogra-
phy and etymology. This of Winer's, on the other hand, excludes the
formal, and may be regarded, in the language of Prof. C. Hodge, as a
" Grammatical Commentary on the N. T." and, we may add, a critical
treasury. Prof. Stewart remarks, " There is nothing like it. It is
beyond all question a nonpareil of its kind." Prof. Robinson's estima-
tion of it may be inferred from his constant reference to the preceding
edition in his Lexicon of the Greek Testament.

An examination of its pages will prove that it surpasses any thing
published in the English language, in the department of N. T. philo-
logy, and that it will be an invaluable auxiliary to the Theological
student.

The general classical scholar also will find it full of interest, both in
its numerous references to ancient authors, and in its copious illustration
of grammatical principles, in their application to the Greek language of
classical writers. There is a constant comparison, on all points, of

PREFACE. Vll

the xowri foajijci'os with the language of the N. T. in its syntactic
rules.

The entire text has been translated, and the notes with few excep-
tions. Some, deemed not very important, have been omitted, in order
to diminish the size of the book as much as possible*: without detracting-
from its value. Some have been introduced into the text, and others
contracted. The register of passages illustrated has been prepared
anew from the translation itself, and will be found to be more copious
than that in the German work. The letters sq., f. etc., after quota-
tions, have been omitted; and some small words when the sense was suf-
ficiently preserved without them.

The references to Stuart's Grammars, Robinson's Lex. etc., and to the
English idioms, are by the translators, although not distinguished by
brackets.

Some apology is probably due for the Greek type, especially the ac-
cents. It is not such as it ought to be, but will present no difficulty to
the student familiar with Greek. The principal defect would be found in
the lenis and asper beneath the circumflex. The impression is often so
faint as to amount to no impression at all. That errors will occur in
accentuation, quotation, reference etc. in a work which abounds with
them so much as the present, was to be anticipated ; for, with all possi-
ble care, letters will become displaced in being distributed and of course
be the occasion of mistakes even after a third or fourth proof.

The labor of translation has been about equally shared. For the
English dress the translator A. is alone responsible. His apology for
some errors must be necessary absence, part of the time, while the
work was in press.

With these observations, we submit the work to the theological and
classical public, believing that they will sustain this first effort to fur-
nish them with a work so erudite and critical one which every student
of the Bible, and especially every Minister of the Gospel, when aware
of its value, will desire to have always at hand as the constant com-
panion of his Greek N. Test.

PREFACE.

That God may bless this humble effort, and render it instrumental of

t: f

a clearer and more correct apprehension of the meaning of his revealed
will, is the prayer of the translators. ,

J. H. AGNEW,
O. G. EBBEKE.
Philadelphia, Sept. 2d, 1839.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION On the scope, mocle of treating, and history of the

Gram, of the N. T. 14. - - - Page 13

PART I. -ON THE GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T.

DICTIONi-

1. Various opinions about the character of the N. T. Diction - 21

" 2. Basis of the N. T. Diction - '"- . : - - 26

" 3. Hebrew-Aramaean complexion of the N.T. Diction 31

PART II. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

4. Grammatical character of the N. T. Diction ~^:~- ' 37

" 5. Orthography and Orthographic Principles - 41

" 6. Accentuation ------ 47

" 7. Interpunctiori - - -,$. - - - 51

" 8. Rare Inflections of the first and second Declensions - 56

" 9. Unusual Inflections in the third Declension 58

" 10. Declension of foreign and indeclinable Words - - 60

" 11. Inflection and comparison of Adjectives - 62

"12. Augment of Regular Verbs - - - - 63

"13. Unusual forms in the Tenses and Persons of Regular Verbs 66

" 14. Unusual inflections of Verbs in pi and Irregular Verbs - 70

" 15. Defective Verbs ------ 73

" 16. Formation of Words - - . - - 80

PART III SYNTAX.

CHAPTER I. OP THE USE OF THE ARTICLE.

" 17. Article with Nouns ------ 89

"18. Omission of the Article with Nouns ... 1Q3

" 19. Article with Adjectives - - - - - 112

" 20. Article as a Pronoun - - - - - 119

CHAPTER II. ON THE USE OP PRONOUNS.

"21. Use of Pronouns in general - 122

" 22. Use of the Personal and Possessive Pronouns - - 124

" 23. Use of Demonstrative Pronouns - 132

" 24. Use of the Relative Pronoun - - - - 136

CONTENTS.

" 25. Use of the Interrogative and of the Indefinite -n'f - - 139

" 26. Hebraisms in expressing some Pronouns . - - 141

CHAPTER III. USE OF THE NOUNS.

" 27. Number and Gender of Nouns - 143

" 28. Use of Cases in general - - - - - 147

" 29. Use of the Nominative and Vocative - 149

" 30. Use of the Genitive - - - - - 151

"31. Use. of the Dative - * - - - - _ 165

" 32. Use of the Accusative ' - - - - - 174

," 33. Connection between a Verb (neuter) and its dependent Noun by

means of Prepositions - ,, .... 181

" 34. Use of the Adjective ----- 183

" 35. Connection of the Adjective with a Noun ... 186

" 36. Of the Comparative of Adjectives - ... 189

" 37. Of the Superlative - - - - - - 194

"38. Of Numerals - - - - - - 196

CHAPTER IV. OF THE USE OF VERBS.

" 39. Active and Middle Voice ----- 198

" 40. Passive Voice ...... 205

" 41. Tenses ....... 208

" 42. Use of the Indie. Sub. and ; Optat. 221

" 43. Of the Conjunction v with the three Modes - - 237

" 44. Of the Imperative - . - - - - - 244

" 45. Of the Infinitive - - - - - 249

" 46. Of the Participle - - - - - 268

"47. Connection of the Subject and Predicate ... 279

" 48. Apposition - - - - - - 284

" 49. Impersonals - . - - - - 286

CHAPTER V. USE OF PARTICLES.

" 50. Particles in general - 287
"51. Prepositions in general, and those construed with the Genitive in

particular ------- 289

" 52. Prepositions with the Dative - 309

" 53. Prepositions with the Accusative .... 316

" 54. Interchange, accumulation and repetition of Prepositions - 324

" 55. Prepositions in Circumlocutions - . - - 334

" 56. Construction of Verbs compounded with Prepositions - 336

" 57. Conjunctions ...... 341

" 58. Adverbs ....... 359

" 59. Negative Particles ...... 366

" 60. Construction of the Negative Particles ... 384

" 61. Interrogative particles. ..... 390

CONTENTS. XI

APPENDIX. '

"62. Paronomasia and Play upon words - , - - 393 '

" 63. Attraction - - - -"* - , - 395

"64. Parenthesis, Anacoluthon and Oratio Variata - - 398
" 65. Irregular position of Words and Sentences; negligence in respect

to certain single Words - - - -' " - 413 f

" 66. Ellipsis, Breviloquence, Aposiopesis, Asyndeton '*' - - 426

"67. Pleonasm - . - - ' - <; - - - --443

" 68. Verse in the N. Testament ^ - - - - 455

ERRATA.

Many of the errata are attributable to the absence of one of the translators, and
some occurred even in the final correction by the printer. There is a frequent
omission of the lenis belonging to the initial vowel of a word, which will be readily
supplied by the scholar, and will therefore not be noted here.

It is desirable that the following corrections be actually made, or at least noted on the
margin of the page, before the book is used.

Page 42, line 13 from bottom, insert a

comma, after termination.
P. 8G, insert 4. at beginning of 1. 2.
P. 93, 1. C, for relative, read kindred.
" 1. 20, after seem to, read, make the

designation indefinite.
" 1. 23, read, this passage, and dele, in

which and occurs.
" 1. 25, for to, read of.
P. 94, 1. 10, for definite, read indefinite.
" ]. 11, for seen, read regarded.
" In the note, after where, insert, it is

alleged.

P. 95. 1. 4, dele, the following.
" I. 5, for consistent, the same.
" 1. SO, after kind, one.
" 1. 23, insert only, at the beginning

of the paragraph.
" 1. 25, dole, that it has no force, and

substitute, them.

" 1. 36, read might, instead of may.
P. 96, substitute opposition, for respect.
P. 97, 1. 4 from bott. for one, read a.
P. Ill, 1. 15 fr. bot. comma after first even.
P. 130, 1. 2 fr. bot. insert Eph. after e. g.
P. 132, 1. 24, for ought to, read might.
P. 141, 1. 15, insert so, after be.
P. 160 1. 16 fr. bot. dele the following are,
and insert before incorrectly, Heb.
xiii. 10. etc. to comedere.
P. 162, 1. 22, before thinking, the.
P. 163, 1. ult. read night for right.
P. 167, 1. 16, for 2 Pet. iv. 10. read 1 Pet.

iv. 9.

" 1. 17 fr. bot. parenthesis after 37.
P. 187, 1. 22, dele Rev. xiv. 10.
P. 188, 1. 12, read 1 Pet. i. 18.
P. 198, 1. 6, read 22 for 23.
P. 216, 1. 10 fr. bot. for Mr. read Mtt.
P. 227, 1. 20, dele such.
P. 231,1. 10 fr. bot. insert with, at be-
ginning of line.

P. 235, 1. 22, for may, read might.
P. 236, 1. 5 fr. bot. for be, read is.
P. 250, 1. J 5, for be, is.

P. 256, 1.5, read iii. 10. for x. 4.
P. 272, LI. dele in.

P. 281, 1. 16, insert fig. 2. at the beginning.
P. 288, 1. 17, for conjunctions, read con-
nectives.

^' 1. 23, for much, read far.

" 1. 10, 11, fr. bottom, read Erorter.

d. gr. Eintheil, u. gr. Verhaltn.
P. 290, 1. ult. Abh. for Ausg.
P. 294, 1. 1, for and, under.
P. 300, 1. 1, the asterisk belongs to Jas.

i. 13.

P. 301, 1. 21, for executed, read exerted.
P. 306. 1. 1 1, fr. bot. for ejfuta, read ejfecta.

" 1. ult. after Pet. insert i. 3.
P. 307, 1. 8 fr. bot. instead of from, read for.
P. 308, 1. 4 fr. bot. insert 03 after arch.
P. 314, 1. 22, parenthesis after temporally.
P. 324, 1. 5, comma after for.
P. 336, 1. 7, insert an, before adverbial.

" 1. 12, the, before place.
P. 342, 1. 24, parenthesis after etc.
P. 347, 1. 12, for arc, read or.
P. 349,1. 17, for expressing, read denoting.
P. 349, 1. 2 fr. bot. for, done to this time,

read hitherto assumed.
P. 350, 1. 1, for generally, read in all cases.
P. 351, 1. 16, for connection, read correc-
tion.

P. 351, 1. 4 fr. bot. for 3 read 13.
P. 359, 1. 17, for entensive, read extensive.
P. 360, 1, 15, for that, read what.

" 1. 10, fr. bot. for when, where.
P. 361, 1. 8 fr. bot. for as, read or.
P. 362, 1. 3 fr. bot. read, have the purpose

to do.
P. 364, 1. 11, dele to.
P. 368,1. 16, dele he.

" 1. 18, for when, where,
P. 376, 1. 14, for philology, read philolo-
gists.

P. 364, 1. 16, insert is, before perhaps.
P. 386, 1. 22, comma after the first not.
P. 387, 1. 23, for therefore, read however.

INTRODUCTION.

On the Scope, Mode of Treating, and History of the Grammar of the

New Testament.

1. THE idiom of the language of the New Testament, like every
other, presents two aspects for scientific investigation; as words connected
in discourse may be considered either severally, as to their origin and
signification, or as to their legitimate arrangement in sentences and pe-
riods. The former is the business of Lexicography; the latter belongs
properly to Grammar, which ought to be distinguished from the N. T.
Rhetoric.

The N. T. Lexicography, of which Synonymy is an essential part, but
only recently so acknowledged, has hitherto been conducted only in a
practical way: yet a Theory may be formed, which might be denomina-
ted Lexicology, a term lately introduced. We need not be surprised
that this theory has not yet been fully developed and cultivated, as even
the classical languages are without a Lexicology. Our exegetical theo-
logy also wants a theory of the higher and lower criticism. This has
operated very unfavorably on the Lexicography of the N. T., as will be
manifest on a close examination of even the most recent labors in this
department.

The N. T. Rhetoric, (a term which Glass and Bauer, author of
" Rhetorica Paulina," have used,) should unfold the peculiarities of each
author in his natural style, where he is untramrneled by rules, and dis-
plays his spirit and scope. In respect to this, much remains to be done,
especially as to the theory of Rhetorical Figures, which have been the
occasion of so much mischief in the interpretation of the New Testament.
The preparatory labors of Bauer* and Schulzef in this department, are

* Car. Lud. Bauer Rhetorica Paullina. Hal. 1782. 3 prts. 2 vols. 8vo. His Pliilo-
logia Thucidideo- Paullina. Hal. 1773, Svo. H. G. Tzschirner Observat, Pauli. Ap.
Epistolar. Scriptoris Ingenium Concernentcs. Viteb. 1800, 3 prts. 4to.

t J. Dan. Schulze der Schriflstdlerische Worth und Chardkter des Johannes. Wcis-
senfcls, 1803, Svo. Schriftsteller. Werth und Char, des Pctrus, Judas und Jacobus.
Weissenfcls, 1802, Svo. Ueber den Schriftst. Char, und Werth des Evang. Markus
in Keils und Tzschirners AnaleJct. Vol. ii. prt. 2. p. 104-151. Prt. 3. p. 69-132.
Vol. iii. prt. 1. p. 88-127.
2

14 INTKODUCTION.

not without their value. As to the discourses of Jesus and the Apostolic
Epistles, the argumentation in Biblical Rhetoric would be most advan-
tageously treated, after, the manner of the ancient rhetoricians, by not
dividing the New Testament Exegesis into too many distinct sciences,
which, when united, mutually illuminate each other. Comp. Gersdorf's
Beitrlige zur Sprachcharakterist. d. N. T. 1. Bd. p* 7. Keil's Lehrb.
d. Hermenentik, p. 28. C. J. Kellman's Diss. de usu Rhetorices Her-
meneutico. Gryph. 1766. 4to. It may be remarked, by the way, that
our Theological Encyclopedias are very imperfect in the representation
of exegetical theology.

2. A grammatical exhibition of the N. T. idiom, as far as it belongs
to the Greek language, would be rendered accurate by comparing it with
the grammatical structure of the later Greek, to which, both in time and
method, it is intimately related. As, however, this later language of the
Greek itself is not yet entirely fixed in its peculiarities, nor apprehended
as a whole,- and as the New Testament idiom also shows the influence of
a foreign language (the Hebrew- Aramaean) on the Greek, the N. T.
Grammar must be correspondently enlarged, and should scientifically
develope the laws according to which the native Jewish authors of the
New Testament wrote the Greek of their time.

Were it the object, for instance, to write a Grammar of the Egyptian
or Alexandrian dialect of the Greek language, as it existed among the
inhabitants of different countries who spoke Greek, it would be sufficient
to arrange all the peculiarities which render it a distinct dialect, yet in such
a way that, not only the several parts be connected like separate fragments,
but that the chief peculiarities be pointed out. It should be shown also,
under each section of the grammar, how this adjustment of the dialect
affected the general laws of the Greek language, by dispensing with
niceties, abusing analogies, etc. The New Testament idiom, as a cor-
ruption of the later Greek, if it required a special Grammar, could only
be represented as an idiom of an idiom; and the New Testament gram-
mar must presuppose a grammar of the later Greek. But the idea of a
N. Testament grammar so minute, cannot even be readily apprehended,
much less can it be well executed. For, in the first place, the grammar
of the later Greek language, especially as spoken by the people, is not
yet scientifically determined;* therefore the fundamental principles of a
New Testament grammar exist only ideally, not really. Besides, the
N. T. idiom exhibits the influence of the Hebrew- Aramaean, a language
not radically related. The New Testament grammar, therefore, must
be enlarged in two ways. As the reader of the New Testament brings
with him the general grammar of the Greek language, it must develope
the influence of the peculiarities of the later Greek on the New Testa-

* Useful matter, especially on Lexicography, will be found in Lobeck's Anamerk.
zu PhrynicM Eclog. Lips. 1820, 8vo. Irraisch zumHenxlian,and Fischer de Vitiis
Lexicor. N, T,

INTRODUCTION. . 15

ment, conformably with the above mentioned principles, and at the same
time also point out the modifications which the Hebrew- Aramaean has
introduced. These, however, must not be separated too nicely, as per-
haps Wahl has done in his Lexicon; since the N. T. writers, by mingling
the later Greek with the national (Jewish), have formed a syntax which
can be recognised and represented only in this union. This method of
treating the grammar of the N. T., after the grammar of the later Greek
shall have been formed as an independent thing, would undergo a change
only in this respect, that it would be then unnecessary to prove the pecu-
liarities of this later language by examples, with which the N. T. gram-
marian could not previously dispense. On the other hand, one part of the
subject which the grammar yet retains, viz. the Polemic, which is op-
posed to antiquated and deeply rooted" prejudices, may perhaps soon be-
come obsolete; yet it is still necessary now, by means of this negative
view of. the subject, to render the true character of the New Testament
idiom apparent. It is manifest that the old empirical grammar, to which
the ultra Fischerum s'apere is an abomination, has taken strong hold of
even celebrated interpreters of very recent date. A special grammar of
some particular N. T. writers, as of John and Paul, seems to be inad-
missible. The individuality of the diction, especially of those writers,
exhibits itself almost exclusively in favorite expressions; or belongs ap-
propriately to the department of rhetoric, as the observations of Black-
wall in his Crit. Sac. N. T. II. 2. 8. p. 322. sqq. ed. Lips, abundantly
show. To this department also are to be assigned most of the peculi-
arities in the position of words. These individualities are seldom found
in the grammar. On the whole then, Shulze and Shulz* have better
understood the nature of such characteristics of the language, than Gers-
dorf, whose well-known work contributes no great amount of certain re-
sults to verbal criticism.

3. Although the investigation of the N. T. diction is the indispen-
sable basis of all true exegesis, yet Biblical Philologists, until lately, have
almost entirely excluded the grammar of the N. T. from the circle of
their scientific inquiries. They have repeatedly investigated the lexico-
graphy of the N. T.; but, at mos.t, have touched upon the grammar when
it was connected with the doctrine of the N. T. Hebraisms.t Gasp.
Wyss (1650) and G. Pasor (1655) more clearly conceived the idea of a

* His remarks on the characteristics of the N. T. language may be seen in the
Essay on the Parable of the Steward, (Brealau, 1821, 8vo.) and in that on the Supper,
(Lips. 1824, 2 verb. Aufl. 1831, 8vo.) and also in his numerous Recensiones in the
T/ieolog. Annals of Wachler. In both those essays, which are of an exegetical na-
ture, the excellent remarks are out of place.

t Among the older interpreters of the Bible, G. F. Heupel is a remarkable excep-
tion. In his excellent and philosophical Comment, on Mark, (Strasburg, 1716, 8vo.)
there are many valuable grammatical observations. The knowledge of Greek dis-
played by J. F. Hombergk in his Parerga Sacra, Amdtel, 1719, 4to. relates particu-
larly to lexicography.

16 INTRODUCTION.

N> T. grammar; yet without being able to have it acknowledged as an
important part of exegetical discipline. After them, for a period of 160
years, Haab was the first who treated of the grammar of the N. T. dic-
tion, in a work devoted to that subject: but, apart from the fact that he
confined himself to the Hebraisms only, his uncritical work tended rather
to retard than promote the ; science.

The first writer who, to any great extent, collected and unfolded the
peculiarities of the N. T. diction, was the celebrated Sal Glass (ob. 1656)
in his Philologia Sacra, the third book of which is inscribed Gramma-
tica Sacra, and the fourth, Gram. Sacrss Appendix.* But as he sets
out with the Hebraisms, and touches on the N. T. idiom only as far as
connected with these, his essay, even leaving its defects out of view, can
be considered only a feeble effort in the history of the N. T. grammar.
Yet it reminds us of two men of celebrated name, while their works on
this subject are almost forgotten: so much so that they are scarcely quoted
in works of theological literature, and not even found in extensive libra-
ries. The one is Caspar Wyss, Prof. Gr. Ling, in Gymnas. at Zurich,
(ob. 1659) who wrote Dialectologia Sacra, in qua quicquid per univer-
sum N. T. contextum in Apostolica et voce et phrasi a communi Grsecor.
lingua eoque grammatica analogia discrepat, methodo congrua disponi-
tur, accurata definitur et omnium sacri contextus exemplorum inductions
illustratur. The peculiarities of the N. T. diction, considered in a
grammatical point of view, are arranged in this book under the following
heads: Dialectus Attica, lonica, Dorica, JEolica, Bceotica, Poetica, et
Hebraica. This is certainly inconvenient, as in this way similar things
are often separated, and treated of in four different places. Moreover,
the author's acquaintance with the Greek language was not above the
ordinary knowledge of his day, as the mention of a peculiar poetic dia-
lect evinces; and the inspection of what he calls Attic will render this
still more manifest. As a volume of examples, which in many parts is
very complete, the book is valuable; and his moderation in respect to the
grammatical Hebraisms of the N. T. was well worthy of imitation by
his contemporaries.

G. Pasor, Prof, of the Gr. Lang, at Franecker (ob. 1637) known by
his small lexicon of the N. T., which has been republished several times,
last by J. F. Fischer, left among his papers a grammar of the N. T.
His son, Matthias Pasor, Prof. Theol. at Groningen (ob. 1658) published
it with his own additions and improvements, under the following title:
G. Pasoris Grammatica Grseca Sacra N. T. in tres libros distributa.
Grb'ning. 1655, p. 787, 8vo. This work is a literary rarity,f although
better adapted to secure the author's fame with posterity than his N. T.
Lexicon. Georgi is the only one of the moderns known to me, who
made use of it. The whole is embraced in three books, as the title an-
nounces. The first is on the Doctrine of Forms; the second on Syntax,

* This Grammatica Sacra, in the edition of Dathe, is the first book.

t Even Foppen does not quote it among 1 the works of Pasor, in his Biblioth. Bel-
gica, torn. I. p. 342. Its rarity is proved by Salthen, Cat. Biblioth. lib, rar. p. 470,
and Dr. Gcrdcsius, Florileg. Hist. Crit, lib. rar. p. 272.

INTRODUCTION. 17

and the third contains seven Appendices: De Nominibus N. T.; De Ver-
bis N. T.; De Verbis Anomalis; De pialectis N. T.; De Accentibus;
' DePraxiGrammatica; De Numeris s&u.Arithmetica Grseca. The most
valuable are the second book, and the. appendix on Gr. dialects of the
N. T.; for in the first book, and in most' of the appendices which fill up
the third, the author has treated of familiar subjects and those belonging
to general grammar. It was entirely superfluous to write out complete
paradigms of nouns and verbs. The syntax has been accurately elabo-
rated, and so copiously treated as to exhaust the subject. The author
points out the Hebraisms, but very seldom introduces parallels out of the
native Greek writers. His syntax, however, excels all that have been
compiled since his day, and has left the work of Haab far behind it.
A complete index is wanting to this useful book.

During the period from Pa'sor to Haab, the grammar of the N. T. was
only cursorily treated of in writings on the style of the N. T.; as by
Leusden De Dialectis N. T., and Olearius De Stylo N. T. p. 257, 271.
These authors, however, confined themselves to Hebraisms, and included
among these much genuine Greek, which altogether perplexed the inves-
tigation of the grammatical style of the N. T. Georgi was the first
who proved many constructions to be genuine Graecisms which had usu-
ally been considered Hebraisms,- although he was not entirely free from
partisanship. His writings had'very little reputation. Fischer prefer-
red to circulate anew the works of Leusden and Vorst; and the well-
known work of Storr* extended its baleful influence, for many years,
over the N. T. exegesis.

Ph. H. Haab, of the school of Storr, now published his Heb. Gram-
mar, prefaced by F. G. Von Siiskind, Tubingen, 1715, 8vo. Overlook-
ing the 'purely Gr. elements of the N. T. diction, he directed his atten-
tion solely to grammatical Hebraisms; and in the arrangement, followed
the works of Storr and Weckherlin, (Heb. Gram. 2 vol.) If we adopt
the opinions of the reviewer in the Archives of Bengel (Vol. I. p. 406),
" the author has executed his task with an industry, judgment, accuracy,
and discriminating and comprehensive knowledge of language,' which
must secure for his work the approbation of all friends of a sound exe-
gesis of the N. T." Two critiques of learned men, who should be re-
garded as entirely competent and impartial judges in this department,
give a materially different and almost opposite view, in the New Theolog.
Annals, 1816, vol. ii. pp. 859-879, and in (of De Wette?) the All. Literal.
Zeitungi 1816, Nos. 39-41, pp. 305-326. After a frequent and pro-
tracted use of the book, I must acknowledge my agreement with them.
Its chief defect consists in this, that the author has not accurately dis-
tinguished between the pure Greek and the Hebrew elements of the N. T.
diction. Consequently he has represented as Hebraisms much that is
either the common property of all cultivated languages, or at least fre-
quently occurs in the Greek. From his predilection for Storr's Obser-
vations, he has also falsely interpreted many passages of the N. T. (see
proof below,') by representing them as Hebraisms. Besides, the whole

* Observat. ad Analog, ct Syntaxin Hebr. Stultg. 1779, 8vo. More precise gram-
matical observations, especially in relation lo enallage temporum, parlicularum, etc.
are found in J. G. Straube, Diss. de Emphasi Gr. Ling. N. T. by Van den Honert, p. 70-

18 INTRODUCTION.

is confused, the arrangement is in the highest degree arbitrary, and the
work begins with a section on Tropes! which has no relation at all to
grammar. It is not therefore too severe, when the second of the above
-..-_ mentioned reviewers concludes his criticism in these words: " Seldom
has a work come before the reviewer so entirely a failure, and against
the use of which every one should be seriously warned."

.4. The scattered remarks in commentaries on the N. T., in books
of observations, and in exclusively exegetical monographs (elucidations
of particular passages) which evince a commendable knowledge of books,
when brought together, exhibit no complete discussion of the department
of grammar. Besides, this uncritical empiricism, which, up to the be-
ginning of the present century, controlled the Greek philology, and which
even yet, for the most part, governs the Hebrew, renders them useless,
since it has given an uncertain and arbitrary character to the N. T. exe-
gesis. The rational method of treatment, which seeks out the ground
of all idiomatic expressions (even of the irregularities) in the thoughts
of the people and of the authors, has effected an entire change in the
study of the Greek language. This method must be applied to the N. T.
language, and confer on its grammar a scientific character, while it
elevates it to a certain organon, or system, of exegesis.

The empiricism of the Greek philology, in respect to grammar, shows
itself especially in the following things, (a) It apprehended the gram-
matical structure of the language only in its rudest features, and there-
fore left almost entirely undetermined the relation of kindred forms, in
which the peculiarities of the Greek are most apparent, e. g. of
the Aor. and Perf., of the Subjunc. and Optat. (&) In reference to all
the forms of speech of which it had acquired the general sense, it estab-
lished an unlimited analogy, according to which, one tense, one case, one
particle was used for another; yea, even those directly opposite, could be
mutually interchanged, e. g. prset. and fut., arto and rtpo's, etc. (c) It in-
vented a host of ellipses, and found something to be supplied in the
simplest sentences. The N. T. interpreters adopted this method of pro-
ceeding, which is to be found even now in the numerous Fischeri-Ani-
madver. ad Welleri Grammat. Gr. (Lips. 1798, etc. 3. Spec. 8.) They
even thought themselves justified in going farther than the Gr. philolo-
gists, because the Hebrew, which, in their estimation, the N. T. language
resembled and imitated, was characterised by no exact forms or regular
syntax. Of course they thought it unnecessary to treat of these particu-
larly.* What would naturally result from such principles, we now find
abundantly in the popular commentaries on the N. T. Storr has ac-
quired the merit of reducing to a kind of system this medley of rude
empirical canons of philology. Apart from every other consideration,
such principles would open an unlimited field to the fancy of the inter-
preter, and hence it became easy to find in the words of the sacred wri-

* See Prof. Franz Woken's Enallaga e N. T. Graci Tcxtus Pracipuis et Plurimis
Locis Exterminates. Vitcb. 1730, 8vo.

INTRODUCTION. 19

ters a sense directly the opposite of that intended to be conveyed.* The
Greek philologists first departed from this empiricism. Hermann^ the
pupil of Reitz, by his work De Emendenda Ratione Grammatical Gr.,
gave a powerful impulse to a rational investigation of the beautiful Gr.
language;! and for the last thirty years it has become so deeply rooted,
has produced so beneficial results, and recently has been so.- successfully
united with historical investigation,^: that the Gr. grammar of the pre-
sent day is materially different from that of former times. It has been
treated rationally; first, as the radical meaning of each grammatical
form (case, tense, mood}, or, in other words, the idea which gave rise to
each such form in the spirit of the Gr. nation, has been accurately ap-
prehended, and its various uses reduced to the primary signification.
Thus a host of ellipses was destroyed, and the enallage was restored to
its natural, i. e. narrow limits: secondly, as it was attempted to show how
deviations from the established laws of language, which were either com-
monly in use, or employed by only a few writers, resulted from the spirit
of the speaker or writer, or his mode of thought; as Anacoluthon, At-
traction, Construct ad Sensum, Bracliyologia. The language thus be-
comes a directly reflected image of the Greek thougJit, as a living idiom.
There is no stopping at the mere externals, but a reference of each form
and inflection of the language to the thinking soul, and an effort to ap-
prehend it in its existence in the mind itself. By this means every phrase
that cannot be conceived by the mind falls of itself, as when a writer,
wishing to speak of past time, uses future; when designing to say out,
says to; instead of learned, says more learned; intending to express a
cause, expresses a consequence; and for " I saw a man," says " I saw the
man." For a long time the Biblical philologists took no notice of all
these elucidations of the Gr. grammar and lexicography. They followed
Viger and Storr, and separated themselves entirely from the profane phi-
lologists, under the impression (by modern writers indeed nowhere dis-
tinctly expressed) that the N. T. Greek, being Hebraistic, could not be
an object of such philological investigations. No one would believe that
the Hebrew, like every other language, admitted and required a rational
mode of treatment. The rational view is now gaining ground. || It is
believed that the ultimate reasons of the phenomena of the Hebrew must
be sought out in the nation's modes of thought; and, above all, that a
plain, simple people could not contravene the laws of all human language.

* Sunt, says Tittman, (De Scriptor. N. T. Diligentia Gramm, Lips. 1813, 4to. in
Synonym. N. T, I. p. 206.) qui gramtnaticarum Icgum observationem in N. T. inter-
pretatione parum curent et, si scriptoris cujusdarn verba grammatice, i. e. ex legibus
linguae explicata sententiam . . . ab ipsorum opiriione nlienam prodant, nullam illaruin
legum rationem habeant, sed propria verborum vi neglecta scriptorem dixisse contcn-
dant, qua: talibus vcrliis nemo sana mente praiditus dicere unquam potuit.

t I prefer rational to pMlosophical, because the latter may be easily misunderstood.
Every merely empirical investigation is irrational, since it regards the language as
something external, and not as an image of thought. Comp. Titmann, p. 205, sq.

t G. Bernhardy Wisscn,sc/iaftl Syntax der Griec/i. Sprache. Berl. 1829, 8vo.

|| The rational investigation must rest on the historical, as we must first take a
survey of the whole extent of the language, before we can apprehend the reasons of
the several phenomena.

20 INTRODUCTION.

It is no longer therefore considered proper to give a preposition diverse
vineanings, according to one's own pleasure, in a context superficially ex-
amined. The transitions from the radical to the various derived signifi-
cations of each particle are carefully traced out; and the reception of sig-
nifications without such derivation is considered an unscientific postulate.

It must no,t be supposed that a Hebrew, instead of " this is my brother,"
could say, pleohastically, " this is of my brother," or " this is in the wise
man," instead of " this is a wise man:" but the origin of changes so con-
trary to rule must be sought for in the speaker's mode of thought, as with
every rational being each Deviation has its reason. Much less can we be
satisfied with this common-place remark that, with a Hebrew, non omnis
(which can only mean not every one) signifies the same as omnis non, i. e.
nullus. ^ rWe, should rather direct attention to something more correct
and philosophical.-,/

This rational mode of treating the Hebrew was commenced by some
observations of Fritzsche, Niedner, and others, but first carried out com-
pletely by Ewald. And although every thing in his work cannot be
received as true, yet the principle of the learned author is undoubtedly
correct. .Independently of Ewald, I have endeavored, especially in rela-
tion to the particles, to exhibit the subject rationally, in the new edition
of Simon's Manual Lexicon. It is to be hoped that the Syriac also, a
language of much interest, may soon be viewed with other than empi-
rical eyes.

The Grammar of the N. T. must also, by all means, aim at a rational
developement of the N. T. language,.and thus acquire for itself a scientific
basis, while it furnishes, at the same time, a similar one for Exegesis.
What the philologists have previously effected for the Greek must be read
with attention, although all their nice distinctions are not to be considered
correct. Especially must we be cautious about permitting them to regu-
late the text. Besides, this investigation is constantly progressing. Many
things require essential modifications (e. g. the doctrine of si, with sub-
junctive), and others are yet in dispute among the best philologists, e. g.
some modes of using av. Since 1824, Fritzsche has made some valuable
contributions to the N. T. Grammar, in his Diss. in 2 ep. ad Cor. (Lips.
1824), in his Comment, on Matt, and MarJe, and in his Conject. on N. T.
Lips. 1825, 2 Spec. 8. To these must be added the Treatise of Gieseler,
Bornemann in Rosenmuller's Exeget. Repert. Vol. IL and the Scholia
of the latter in Lucce Evang. Lips. 1830. 8vo. There are also many
grammatical questions discussed in the controversial writings between
Fritzsche and Tholuck.* On the other hand, but few of the numerous
critical, evangelical, and philological commentaries on the N. T. which
have recently appeared, treat exclusively of philology, and some have
omitted it entirely. H. G. Hb'lemann, in his Comment, de interpretat.
sacra cum prof ana felidter conjungenda, Lips., 1832. 8vo. has properly
estimated the best philological principles in their application to the N. T.

* Fritzsche Ueber die Verdienste Dr. Tholucks um die Schrifterklarung. Halle,
1831, 8vo. Tholuck Beitrage zur Spraclierklarung des N. T> Halle, 1832, 8vo.
Fritzsche Praliminarien zur Abbitte und Ehrenklarung, die icli gern dem Dr.
Tholuck gewahren mocUe. Halle, 1832, 8vo. Tholuck, Noch cin crnstcs Wort an
Dr. Fritzsche. Halle, 1832, 8vo.

PART I.

.
s.-

. t
ON THE GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OJf.tTHE N. Tr DICTION.

1. Fanows Opinions about the Character of the-N. T. Diction.
THE character of the N. T. diction, although pretty distinctly marked,

. ' t . *'V:.',-r<

has, for a long time, been misunderstood by Bib. philologists; or at least
incompletely and partially apprehended; as polemic considerations, to-
gether with an ignorance of the later Gr.' dialectology, rendered even
the best intellects incapable of perceiving the truth. About the be-
ginning of the 17th century, some learned men (Purists) made repeated
attempts to prove that the style of the N. T. accorded, in every respect,
with ancient Greek purity and elegance: whilst others (Hebraists) not only
recognised its Heb. complexion, but represented it as having a pervading
influence. Towards the close of this century, the latter opinion prevailed,
but not to the entire exclusion of the former, which found many able
advocates. About the middle of the 18th century, the party of the
Purists became entirely extinct, and the principles of the Hebraists,
modified in some particulars, were generally adopted. More recently, the
incorrectness of these views began to be discovered, and led to the true
middle course, which Beza and H. Stephens had already portrayed in its
general features.

The history of the various views about the Gr. style of the N. T., pro-
mulgated at different intervals, Morus briefly relates, in Acroas. academ.
sup. hermeneut. N. T. ed. Eichst'ddt. Vol. I. p. 216. sq. and Planck, with
some essential errors, in his Introduc. to Science of Theolog. Vol. 2. p.
45. Comp. Stange Theolog. Symmiltta II. p. 295. In respect to its
literature, see Walch Biblic. Theolog. IV. 276.* In conformity with
my own design, I offer the following remarks, and shall occasionally
correct the observations of those writers.

* See also Baumgarten Polemik. III. 176. J. Lami, in his De eriulit. Apostolor. p.
138, sq. gives the views of the Fathers about the N. T. style.
3

22

PART FIRST.

, After Th. Beza, in his treatise De dono linguss et apostol. sermone,
^Acts x. ( 46) had represented, in a very advantageous light, the He-
braisms of the' IC T. style, which it is well known he maintained, as
ejusmodi, lit nullo a,lio .idiomate tarn feliciter exprimi possint, imo inter-
dum ne exprimi quidem, yes, even as gemmse, quibus Apostoli scripta sua
exornarint; H> ; Stephens, in his Pref. to the ed. of N. T. 1576, first
controverted tn'ose qui in Ids scriptis inculta omnia et horrida esseputant-
He endeavored to prove by examples that the most elegant turns of ex-
pression occur in the N. T. style, and contended that these Hebraisms
give to it inimitable power and emphasis. Although those specified
niceties of the style belong more to the rhetorical than the grammatical
department, and the Hebraisms are too highly valued,- yet the judgment
of those two masters in Greek is nqt so incorrect as is generally sup-
posed, and comes, on the whole, Bearer the truth than that of many later
Exegesists. ;This partial view was "first opposed ; by Seb. Pfochen in
Diatribe de linguas Grsscss N. T. puritate (Amstel. 1629, edit. 2, 1633,
. 12mo.) in which, by numerous examples, he attempted to prove, Grsecos
aiictoresprofanos phrasibus etverbis loquutosesse, quibus scriptores N. T.
( 29. "8l 129.) Yet this juvenile Diatribe (the principles of which
Erasmus Sch mid adopted in part, as appeared in 1658) seems to have
excited, by its strong Purism, but little attention, A real, but indirect
occasion for a controversy about N. T. diction, was first given by Joach
Junge, rector at Hamburgh (1637, 1639); Jac. Grosse, minister of Ham-
burgh (1640), his opponent, although in the main not agreeing with
him, yet regarded his opinion about the Hellenism (not barbarism) of the
N. T. style as harmless. Danl. Wulfer, however, (1640) came out
against him with an Innocentia Hellenist, vindicata, (see. 1. a.) showing
the obscurity of his argument;*' and Grosse now opposed Wulfer, to whom
he pointed out many misapprehensions, and also Joh. MUSOJUS, Theolog.
Jener. 164142, who had represented Grosse as vacillating and incon-
sistent, but had dwelt principally on his dogmatism about verbal inspira-
tion. So that Grosse published, in all, five pamphlets in relation to the
purity and dignity (not elegance) of the N. T. Greek (1641-42).

Without regard to these controversies, so full of improper personalities
and so almost useless to science, Danl. Heinsius (1643) declared himself
in favor of the Hellenism of the N. T. language; and Th. Gataker
(1648) wrote decidedly against the Purism of Pfochen, learnedly indeed,
but with some exaggeration. Joh. Vorst (1658, 1665) next published a
clear and well digested collection of the N. T. Hebraisms, in which,
however, Hor. Vitringa soon after pointed out many imperfections.f J.
H. Bb'cler (1641) and J. Olearius (1668):j: pursued a middle course, dis-
tinguishing more carefully the Greek and Hebrew elements of the N.
T. style. Leusden agreed with them in most things, but was inferior
to Olearius in circumspection. It was now acknowledged by most phi-

* Grossc's Trias, p. 40.

f Vorst in the preface expresses his opinion: Sacros Codcl. N.T. talibus etvocabulis
et phrasibns, CJHSB hebrtenm linguam sapiant scatere plane. Comp. his Cogitata de
stylo N. T., in the preface of Fischer de Helwaismis.

\ J. Cocccji Strictures in Pfochen diatrib. appeared first in Rhcnford's collection.

1. OPINIONS ABOUT THE CHAKACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. 23

lologists that Hebraisms are a striking characteristic of the N . T. language,
which, while they impart to it no tinge of barbarism,, yet depart conj-
siderably from Gr. purity.* See WerenfeVs Opusc. I. p. 311. sq. This
view Mos. Solanus published, in a recent and very judicious controversy
with Pfochen. Even J. Heinr. Michaelis (1707), and Ant. Blackwall
(17.27) did not venture to deny the existence of Hebraisms, but en-
deavored to prove that the diction of the N. T. writers, Although not free
from Hebraisms, possessed all the qualities of an elegant style, and thus
equalled the classical purity. The latter celebrated scholar, in his workj
which abounds in useful observations, begins, tantiim abest, ut hebrais-
mos in N. T. reperiri infttiemur, ut eorum potius insignem, qua. hie
divinus abundat liber, copiam ad commoditatem ejus et elegffjifiam
majorem afferre accessionem arbitremur. .They, had little influence,
however, on the now prevalent views, 'a,s,the .learned Ch> Sjiegm. Georgi,
1732, in his Vinilictis Nov. Test, ab'^braismi^ returned, to the more
' '

strict Purism, and 'defended his arguments (1733-)4'tj-'anevY work, (Hiero-
criticus Sacer). J. Conr. Schwarz's Commentarii'&rit.et. Philol. linguse
Gr. JV. T. Lips. 1736, 4to., tended principally to pro.ve the. existence
of Greek purity, even in the expressions considered Hebraisms, and Elias
Palairet in his Observat. Philol. Crit.in.N. T. 1752, "Vya's the Tasit to side
with him in combating the N. T. Hebraisms.f By means .of the school
of Ernesti, a higher estimation '-of the N. T.. language became generally
prevalent in Germany.:): Comp. Ernesti's Institut. Interpret. I. 2. Cap. 3.
Most of the old controversies on this subject (those mentioned above
and others) are collected in. J. Rhenford's Diss. Philol. Theolog. de
stylo N. T. syntagma, Leov. 1702, 4to., and Taco Hajo Van den
Honert syntagma Dissert, de stylo N. T. Grseco, Amst. 1703, 4to.|j
Let us endeavor briefly to characterize the performances of those who
attribute classic purity to the N. T. diction. They generally aimed at
adducing passages from the native Greek authors, in which are found the
same words and phrases that occur in the N. T., which had been inter-

* B. Stolberg Desolecismis et barbarismis N. T. Vitel. 1681, 4to, 1685, 4to. intended
only to acquit the N. T. diction of the impurities attributed to it, yet also denied many
true Hebraisms.

t This work may be seen in the Biblotk, Bremen, nova Cl. 3 and 4.

\ The judgment of Ernesti on the N. T. diction (diss. de difficult, interpret, grammat.
N. T. 12,) may be mentioned here: Genus orationis in libris "N. T. esse e pure
greeds et ebraicam maxime consuetudinem referentibus verbis formulisque dicendi
mixtum et temperatum, id quidem adeo evidens cst iis, qui satis grsece sciunt, ut plane
misericordia digni sint, qui omnia bene grseca esse contendant.

|| The essays of Wulfer, Grosse, and Musaeus, although comparatively of little
importance, ought not to be overlooked in this collection, and the sententicB doct.viror.
de stilo N. T. by Junge, alone received. Comp. Blessig. Prasidia interpret. N. T. ex
auctorib.gr cec. Argent. 1778, 4to. and Mittenzwey locorum quorundam e Hutcltinsoni
ad Xenopli. Cyrop. notis, quib. purum et elegans N. T. dicendi genus dcfenditur,
refutatio. Coburg. 1763, 4to. An essay by G. C. Draudius De stylo N. T., in the
Primilt. Alsfeld. (Niiremb. 1736, 8vo.) I have not seen. See Ntulmucr Nachr. von
jetzl lebenden Tfieol. I. 253.

24 PART FIRST.

preted as Hebraisms. Iii so doing, they entirely overlooked the fact,
1.. That many expressions and. phrases, especially figurative, on account
of their simplicity'and naturalness, are the property of all, or at least of
many languages, and ought not therefore to be called Grsecisms or He-
braisms.*" 2. That : a distinction is to be made between prosaic and
poetical diction^ as between, those tropes employed by a single writer
once or twice fb'elevate his style (as lumina orationis), and those which
have become the comincm property of the language; and that if, in so
plain prose as that of the N. T., expressions of Pindar, JSschylus, Euripi-
des, etc. occur even repeatedly ,f this by no means proves the classical
purity of the N. T. style. 3. That if a phrase exist both in the Hebrew
and Greek, the education of the Apostles and N. T. writers renders it
probable that it was derived from the Hebrew rather than from the re-
fined language of the Greek classic writers.- 4. That those uncritical
compilers collected many passages from the Gr. authors, in which, indeed,
the same word occurs, but not in the same sense (Michaelis Einleit. Ins.
N. T. I. p. 151, translated by Dr. H. Marsh); or where only similar, but
not altogether the same phrases, are found. 5. That there was a free
reference to the Byzantine writers, into whose language, by means of the
church, some peculiarities of the N. T. diction may have been introduced.
This might be rendered probable by several instances: Comp. Niehbuhr
Index ad Agath. under fyfuovaeat,. 6. That many phrases, undeniably
Hebraisms, were passed over in silence. Their proof, therefore, was
incomplete and irrelevant. Most of them confined themselves to lexi-
cography. Georgi alone has treated the grammatical department with
a copiousness founded on extensive scholarship.

In confirmation of what has been said, I shall here adduce some strik-
ing examples. Comp. Mori Acros. I. c. p. 222, sq.

As to the first (!), Matt. V. 6. Ttfivuvtts xai Si^uvte; fvjv Sbxawavvyv*
Parallels are quoted from Xen. ^Esch. Lucian, Artemidor. to show that
S^rjv, in this tropical sense, is pure Greek. But it is so used in all lan-
guages, especially the Latin; and therefore can be as little considered a
Grsecism as a Hebraism. The same may be said of laBlt-w (xa-tsaBiuv)
figuratively to consume. This can no more be proved a Gracism from
Iliad xxiii. 182, than a Hebraism from Deut. xxxii. 22, sq. It is com-
mon to all languages. Parallels with ysvta in the sense of generation,
i. e. men of a certain generation (Georgi Vind. p. 39), %slg power, and
6 xvpws tfijj olxias, are of no avail for the same reason. It is ridiculous
to compare Matt. x. 27, xtipv^ute litl tfwv Swju.atfcov, with this passage of
^Esop, gnj>oj trii twos Stojuatfos Icri-wj. Many such superfluous and even
absurd observations occur in the essay of Pfochen.

As to the second consideration (2.), it is proved from Iliad xi. 241

. * The Hebrew, as well as the Hebraic Greek, participates with the language of
Homer, in its simplicity and perspicuity, except that the several forms are not here
called Hebraisms and there Groecisrns. There is a similarity between these lan-
guages, especially in popular intercourse, where there is most simplicity and clear-
ness, whilst the scientific diction, originating with learned men, is not so nearly
assimilated.

t Krebs Observat. Prsef. p. 3.

1. OPINIONS ABOUT THE CHARACTER OP THE N. T. DICTION. 25

(Comp. Georgi Vind. p. 122], and from Soph. Electr. 510, that xot,/j,dopat,
has the meaning of mortuum esse; that ajte^a, for proles occurs among
the Greeks, in Eurip. Ipheg. Aul. 524. Ipheg. Taur. 987, 659. Hec. 254.
and Soph. Electr. 1508. (See Georgi Vindic."p. 87. sq.); that rfot/ttuW
means regere, is proved by Anacr. Ixii. 7; that ISslv Saratov is good
Greek, by Soph. Electr. 205. (Schvvarz Com. p. 410.).-, For rto^tov
ftbetv, in a tropical sense, Matt. xx. 22, Schwarz adduces JEschyl. Agam.
1397. TLltftew irritum esse, which in Hebrew, is the usual meaning; is
compared with the figurative phrase of Plat. Phileb. p.77. B. Soxu qSovvi aoi>

itsrt-toxivai, xaOaftigii* rthyysiau viib -t&v vvv 817 hoyu>v. Comp* 26, 2.

As to the third consideration (3.), we shall certainly not err, if we. take
the phrase ywuaxew avSga, although not foreign to the Greek (Comp.
Jacob's ad Pliilostr. Immagg. p. 583), to be derived from the oft" used
#T ttf 1 **. German commentators consider it a Hebraism. Such also
are tsttiMyzva compassion, f^pa the land, in distinction from the water
(Fischer ad Leusden Dialecit. 31), ^aoj in the signification of shore,
tfi'oju.a, of a sword edge (Comp. Boissonade ad Nic. p. 282), jtuzvviw
to be stupid, silly, xv^os xvgiuv, siasgxsaOat, aj tbv xoapov. It is better
to derive them from the Hebrew than to attempt to 'prove them good
Greek by parallels from Herodot., ./Elian, Xenophon, Diodor. Siculus,
Philostratus, and others.

As to the fourth (4.), that ev in Greek writers denotes/the instrumental
cause, which with some restriction is true, Pfochen has attempted to
prove by examples, as, 7t\iu>v &v -toZ$ vavai (Xenoph.), ^OE....V vrji '^rXaiVj?
(Hesiod!) That /V^a is used by good Gr. writers for res, they would

prove by Plat. Leg. 7. 'tov-tu (j^afo; xai ^5 Sdyfiai'oj ax EC vac ^^iav JU-EO^W,

where /i^a-i-o? can be translated by dictum. Xog^d^n/, in relation to
men, is proved to mean to satiate, out of Plat. Rep. 2, where it relates
to sivine. That fythv ^\>y.r ( v iiivoc, is good Greek is proved by Eurip.
Ion. 1112, Time. vi. 27, and others, where l^tliv alone occurs in the
meaning of insidiari, to lie in wait for in order to kill. That o^a^a
in good Greek writers means peccalum (a sin) Schvvarz would prove by
Plat. Cratyl. p. 164, where 6<f. as elsewhere means debita (debts.} So
also are most of the quotations entirely irrelevant, by which Georgi
(Hierocril. p. 36, sq. 186, sq.) would prove that the best Greek writers
interchanged the prepos. els and ev, just as the N. T. writers do. Comp.
also Krebs. Obs. p. 14, sq. That sv^axsiv ^6.^ rfaga -gwt, is no Hebra-
ism, Georgi Vindic. p. 116 attempts to prove from Demosthenes, where
vgt,0xw *v\v E^r}v^v trv So^sav occurs, as if the Hebraism related to the
word only, and not to the entire phraseology. To find (i. e. the single
word by itself) instead of to acquire, is clearly no Hebraism. For
jiofri^ov sors, Palairet adduces Aristoph. Archarn. x^a-f^ ac^a-tos, and
similar phrases: for jtiit-ttw irritum esse, Schwarz cites Plat. Euthyphr.
c. 17. 6v ^a^at rtt-asrtat, 6, it, av sl-rtoi^. The well-known Merismus arto
fjuxgov j'w5 psydhov is claimed to belong to correct Greek language (Georgi
Find. p. 310 sq., Schwarz Comment, p. 917. Comp. Schafer ad Julian.
p. 21.) by quotations in which occurs ov-ts piyo, ov*s a^x^bv. But such
a Merismus in itself is not Hebraistic, but only the above mentioned es-
tablished formula, drto ^u.. $ psy. That Svo Svo, two and two, is a Gra3-
cism, is not proved by Aristoph. Nub. Tttiov jt^eov, more and more: pas-

26 PART FIRST.

'

sages must rather be adduced in which the cardinal repeated is used for
wck.Mo, wa age tj, ;etc; So also the phrase tiGwat, ds to, Z>ta is not proved
. to be pure Greek by the beautiful 6aau S'axovcras stsEfllpfv, as the latter is
an entirely different kind of! phrase. Yet these instances might be infin-
itely multiplied. What Georgi (Vindic. p. 25,) adduces from Adrian
Epictet. to proye-6 dSf^oj to mean alter (the other), appears especially
ridiculous.

As to the fifth (5.), the formula (rttiplgefv to rtpoauttov, and the word
ci/cotftgacyflat were proved by Schwarz p. 1245, out of Nicetas, to be pure
Greek. % ^n^f or continent, by Palairet, from Jo. Cinnam Hist. 4. p. 183.
Yet more singular is it, when Pfochen deduces the signification xowbs, im-
mundus, from Lucian DeMort. Peregrin, c. 13, where Lucian uses a
Judseo-Christian expression Satirically./-

As to the sixth (6.),> of the many words and phrases which those in-
terpreters pass over in silerice, comp. for example jtpoaurtov haftpdvsw,
cragf xal al/jia,, xagftbs ; tfijs 6ct$voj, itoj fl^vt}^, il;ef>XEaOat, s| otf^voj tfti'dj,
rtotsiv ?IEOJ (xdgivy'pita-.'twost-a'jtoxgivEaea,!, where no exact question pre-
cedes, slo^okoyEttftfat Osq to praise God. See 3.
'' After Salmasius, whose work De, Lingua Hellen. the moderns had
almost forgotten, Sturtz's essay De Dialecto JHexandrina (Lips. 1784.
4to. and Ger. 1788-93. 4to.) edit. 2. 1809. 8vo., led the way to a cor-
rect estimation of the Grecian basis of the N. T. diction. Copious re-
marks on this work are found in the Heidelberg Annals, 1810, vol. 18.
p. 266. On this subject Keil (Hermeneut. p. 11), Bertholdt (Introduc.
to Bib. 1, p. 155), Eichhorn (Introduc. N. T. vol. IV. p. 26), and
Schott (Isagoge in N T. p. 497), have written more satisfactorily than
many who preceded them, without however exhausting the subject, or
treating it with scientific accuracy. In both respects Planck Jr. has
surpassed his predecessors, and is the first who, avoiding the fundamen-
tal error of Sturz, has clearly developed the character of the N.T. style:
De, vera natura et indole orationis Grsscfe N. T. Commentat. Gott.
1810. 4to. (published in Comment. Theoll. v. Rosenmiiller I. 1. p. 112,
and translated in Bib. Repos. And. vol. I. p. 638.) Comp. also Pr.
Observatt. qiised. ad hist, verbi Gr. N. T. ibid. 1821. 4to. (and in
Commentatt. Theoll. v. Rosenmiiller 1. p. 193.) See Jill. Lit. Zeit.
1816. No. 29. p. 306. (De TVette.}

2. Basis of the Diction of the New Testament.

In the time of Alexander the Great and his successors, the Gr. lan-
guage underwent an internal change of a twofold nature: partly inasmuch
as a prosaic book language was formed (xoiv^ Swa^tfoj), which, while it
took the Attic for its basis, was distinguished from it by the intermixture
of many provincialisms,- and partly because there arose a language of

2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. 27

popular intercourse, in which were combined the formerly distinct dia-
lects of several Gr. tribes, but with a prominency pf the Macedonian.*
The latter (differing again in some measure in the different provinces of
Asia and Africa) constituted the primary basis of the style of the Sep-
tuagint and the Apocrypha, as well as of the New Testament. Its pe-
culiarities can be conveniently ranged under two heads, those of Lexi-
cography and Grammar.

The older writers on the Gr. dialects, especially on the xoivrj
are almost useless. The subject is briefly and well treated by Matthias
(Copious Gram. 1-8 translated by E. 'V. Blomfield,) and still more
fully by Bultmann, (ed. Robinson. And. : I. pp?lJ3-%Q;) but especially
see Planck, I. c. p. 13-23; Tittman Synon./.l.j). 20,2 and Bernhardy,
p. 28. The Jews in Egypt and Palestine^" learned the ; Qrek first by in-
tercourse with the Greeks, not from books.:}: ;Np : wonder then if, when
writing, they retained the peculiarities of the popular spoken language.
So the LXX, the N. T. writers, and the authors of many, (Palestine)''
Apocrypha. A few of the learned Jews, who valued and studied Greek
literature, approached nearer to the written language, as Philo and
Josephus.|| This popular Gr. language, it is true, cannot be perfectly
known, yet it must be supposed, from a comparison of the Hellenistic (in
as far as it is not Hebraized) with the later book language, that deviating
greatly from the ancient elegance, it had received numerous provincial
words and forms. It would also entirely neglect nice distinctions in
phrases and inflections, abuse grammatical constructions (forgetting
their origin and basis), and extend farther many corruptions which had
already appeared in the book language. But its chief peculiarity was, a
mixture of dialects formerly distinct, in which the dialect peculiar to each
province became the basis, (in the Alexand. Atticisms and Dorisms.) We
shall now endeavor more especially to point out the later elements' in the

* Sturz De Dial. Maced. el Alex. p. 26. sq.

t A nice discrimination cannot be made between what belongs to the Alexandrine
language, and what had become proper to the Gr. dialect of the inhabitants of Syria
and Palestine. Eichhorn, in his Einleit. Ins. N. T. IV. 124, is rather uncritical,, where
he assigns lu^sgio-Tiiv, winch is found in Detnosth., Polyb. and many writers since, to
the Alexandrian dialect, and also EVI'{EIV hospitio excipere, which both Xenoph. and
Homer employ.

t That the Jews, in the time of Christ, cultivated their Greek style by reading the
Septuagint, makes no essential difference. It is now generally acknowledged that a
superior education in the Greek language, cannot be attributed to the Apostle Paul.
He certainly had more aptness in the Greek than the oiher apostles, but this can be
accounted for by his travels in Asia Minor, and his intercourse with native Greeks,
some of whom were learned and of elevated rank.

|| That the style of the latter cannot be accounted the same with that of the Sep-
tuagint, or of the N. T., will be readily perceived by a comparison of the sections in
the earlier books of the Antiquities with the parallel ones of the Septnag. Here will be
seen the difference between the Jewish and Greek narrative style.

28 - PART SECOND.

Hellenistic Greek, as tp its lexical and grammatical peculiarities, the
former of which mostabound. In order to this, the observations of Sturz,
Planck and Lobe^k, must.&e consulted.* The quotations referred to
by them (principally out of Polyb., Plut., Jlrtemidor, dtppian, Helio-
dor, Lycophron, Sext. JSmpir., Jlrrian, Strab., etc.) will be here
omitted, but may be fouu.d in their works. f What seems to be exclur
sively an eleriierit of the pbp'uTar language, and is not found in any profane
Greek writer, I shall mark thus : (*) |

1. Lexical Peculiarities. The later dialect embraced, (a) Words
and forms*, of words of all Greek dialects without distinction, namely,
Jlttic : ftit instance, i'oaoj (Lob. p. 309), 6 axonos, astfos (Herm. Prsef.
ad fjoph. Ai.f. 19), 'qudhq, a^^uv (Lob. p. 151), jtgvpvu (Lob. p. 331),
tJVfwfj 2)oric : e. g. 7t,a, (7tt.to), xhipavos (Lob. p. 179), ^ A^oj, Ttota
(herb instead of jtoirj or yto'ct), also psppgdvos, which Zonaras quotes
from 2 Tim. iv. 13,. where, howevery our Codd. have nspfig. see Sturz
Zonarse glossse" sacrse Grimmse, 1820, 4to. P. II. p. 16; Ionic:
yoyyiSco (Lob. p. '358), pqGaa, Tt^vr}^ (in Aristot. see Lob. p. 431), jSa^oj
(Lob. p. 324), axo^TiL^v. Ionic and Doric is $vw in an intransitive
meaning (Heb. xii. 15.). As Macedonic, the following are pointed out
by the grammarians, jta^e^o^ a camp (Lob. p. 377), pvpy street ; as
originally, Cyrenaic pow6$ hill (Lob. p. 355) ; as Syracusan, the imperf.
sljtov (Fritzsche ad Mr, p. 515.). (b] It gave new meanings to words
found in the old language. Comp. jta^xo^slv to beseech, itaiSi-vstv cas-
tigare, evx^ia-tslv gratias agere (Lob. p. 18), apq-tug (*}descendingfrom
an obscure mother (Philo de temul, p. 248), avax^ivsw, avaTtlnttiv, ava-
xsla^at, to recline at the (able, artoxgi$?jvai, to answer (Lob. p. 108),
artotdaaeaSai, renunciare, valerejubere (Lob. p. 23), avyx^ivew to com-
pare (Lob. p. 278), 8tt^wv, at,p6vi>ov evil spirit, \\ t-vhov living tree,
SiaitovsiaSai, indignari,(*} &va<ftgoq>rj vila, xsfyuhis volumen, roll of books,
Ezr. vi. 2, Heb. x. 7; svax^^v one of celebrity (Lob. p. 333),

* OJcarius De stylo, p. 279, sq.

t The Fathers and the Roman law books have been scarcely referred to in the in-
vestigation of the later Greek. The latter will be often consulted in the succeeding 1
sections of this book.

t The Greek grammarians, especially Thorn. Mag., quote much as popular Greek,
which was not foreign even to the Attic book language, (e. g. 6ep,&to/;, Thorn. M. p.
437, and IgewS^a t, p. 363.) Indeed they are not free from great mistakes: Comp.
Oudendorp ad Thorn. M. p. 903. Much that was adopted into the written language
after Alexander's time, may have existed much earlier in the popular language,
as perhaps a-T^vtav, which occurs first in the poets of the new comedy. Moreover,
the N. T. writers use words and forms which tiie Atticists preferred, instead of those
denominated popular Greek, c. g. ^HS-TO'TMJ, Thorn. M. p. 921, h (not J,) ha~ha^, Thom.
M. 864.

|| Namely, as its proper, inherent signification. It is found in Iliad VIII. 166, in
the sense of lad daemon, and also in Dinarch adv. Demosth. 30, p. 155. Bekk.,
quoted by modern interpreters. The Byzantines use XO.X.QI; with Scti'jww, Agath. 114,4,
when they wish to be more specific.

2. BASIS OF THE N^ T. DICTION.

and Mzea.liw to feed, to nourish (*), *'SJ$V'M* pity : of soldiers, "(Sturaj^,;
187), o4/agM>/ (fish], sgsvysaSai, eloqttf (Lob.\-^&^t^S^^ 9a6 negotiis
distrahi (Lob. p. 415), gttutu* corpse (L6h?-|^75),"^c^ school (Lob.
401), ^oj a large shield (Lob. p. 366};>|%> ^r^ : (Lob.. p. 404),
ttapfaaia, confidence, etc. Especially was a :|rknsitiVe;nieanihg given to
neuter verbs: e.g. iw&intfaw (Mtt.xxviii. .19):^^^/3iyj^Gor. xxi. 14),
in the Septuagint even fjp, paaasvsw and others: compf'Deut. xxxii.
10, Ps. cxviii. 50,\ see Lydius De re mil. 6, 3^ ;lri ^S^tfor the use ;;at ?
least was changed, inasmuch as that word, formerly ptijfj ! ;us4a"f^women,
was applied to both genders, Lob. p. 151. Schafer inft. adl^^pj^Jp.'l^'i.
(c) Words and forms of words, which in the^ld' : "0reek;wete : tised';r"ar.|0j|r ?i ..
or only by poets, and in the higher style, uecaTtief the' nio^e u>ii^tri6! v
preferred forms, or were transferred alsp"to : 'the'prtfsaic style:' fo^instancie,
aySswtsw to govern (Lob. p. 120), --.fieoovvxitiov (Thom. -M.. pi '6,09, Lob>'
p. 53), djLajDffos, Itfij'tfts (Thorn. M. : 'p. 370), dksWwg. ; |L6fr'p. '229)^
j3E#M/ irrigare (Lob. p. 291), Eichhorn (Einleit. ing.N'.'T. IV. 127),
reckons here also the phrase !tfcw >e<, sv ty xa^5ta,;which. poets, especially -i, .
tragedians, used in solemn style, as it occurs in the N..T. in the dryest;.
prose. But the Homeric aV $%f-al a$ac is only a similar,' hot the same
formula. That which is quoted as a solemn formula, avvttjgEw EV tf-Jj xagSio,
is used also with emphasis in the N. T. On the other hand, xogdoiov is
to be considered as an instance of a wond which, by obliterating its acces-
sory meaning, passed over from the language of" common life into the
language of the books, (Lob. p. 74.) (<Z) Many words received another
form, mostly lengthened: for instance, ^si-otjcma, ixsalu, ava^
Schafer ad Plutarch, V. p. 11, ywEaia (yEj^Ma, Lob. p. 104),
(yXotfcfoxo^Etov, Lob. p. 98), EXTtttXac (rta^at, Lob. p. 45),
s^drtwa (ttsartivqi), at,Tf^/A.a (aiV^cftj), ^eva^a (^-uSoj, Sallier(Z Thom. Mag.
p. 927), artdvtiqGts (ttTtaj/i'^^tt), xonj^citj (xdv%ti(*.a), hv%viu (Kv%viov, Lob. p.
314), orttfcujta (o4'f)' tfvyjpugta (tfvyxv^cftj), ^.^iaai,of (|U.?i,icfc(stos), artotfi'acjca
(aTtotfi'acfe.f, Lob. p. 528), fiaaiMGGu (|3a(j(/'7i,ta), txxvvsw (sx^lfiv, Lob. p.
726), afi^xw (like scci-^xci, ^o stand), J^eatvdj (5\,tj/df, Lob. p. 187), olgyoj,
TJ, dv (agydj, dp, adjective of two terminations, see Lob. p. 105), o/offtft'o,
(voor<j, Thom. Mag. p. 626, Lob. p. 207), 7ietdopo.t, (rtsVo^at, Lob. p.
581), otxoSo^ (otxoSd|U,^cftj, d(,xo86pqfj.a, Thom. Mag. p. 645, Lob. p. 490),

f^vrtv^sw (a.$V7tvltiv, Lob. p. 224), Ssxa-tovv (Ssxa-fevsiv'), dgo-tgiav (dgovv,

Lob. p. 254), |3t,3xagi-'S(,ov (*) (fivptiSiov, jStjSxtSo^tov), fad&ov, Fritzsche ad
Mr. p. 638,) tyziov (4"^l)> vou^scfta (vou9i'^cr6ff, Lob. p. 512), xufartovtiZtw
(xatartovtovv, Lob. p. 361), ^oi^aTa's (for ^tot^as Lob. p. 452), ^i^Kji 1 ^
(for 4/t^ugoj, Thom. Mag. p. 927). The verbal forms in co pure, instead
of those in ^ : for instance, dfivw instead of opwpt,, see Thom. M. p. 648.
Also compare ugo for gwglw, Thom. M. p. 642, Lob. 205, Phot. Lex.

*Thc extended signification may be regarded as a Hebraism: -tupifav was com-
monly used corroapondcntly with V;wn like ^og-r^siv, which, by the Greeks, is not
applied to men. (See Solan us in Rhenford, p. 297.) It is undetermined whether
^KaWo for SiSJi-xtt belonged to the later popular Greek language, or was derived from
the Septuagint. The latter seems to rnc the more probable, ad &&;< corresponds
better with
4

30 PART FIRST.

p. 313, |3agn> fbfrfiagvveto Thorn. M. p. 142, <y<xgow for aaigsw Lob. p.
83, %ohav (#o?ioijo&ac), l%ov Icvat for il-swat, (Fortsch De locis Lysise, p. 60).
Active forms, also, appeared for the middle and deponent, which were
common in the older bopk,;language; for instance, q>gvda0sw, (Act. iv. 25,
from Ps. ii.) perhaps uyahfauv (Luc. 1, 47). Finally, for the members
of the human: body, forms originally diminutive became usual in the
language of conversation, as &-tlm>] comp. Fischer Proluss. p. 10, Lob.
p. 211.* (e) Entirely new words and formulas were constructed,!
mostly by composition: e. g. dM-otgwErtitixortos (*), w^oitd^taxos (Lob. p.
621), juoro^atyioj (atfgo$^atyios Lob. p. 136), ai/AaT/Exxvala^), faxaioxgiaia,
artof*,i;giov,.xad.ortot,etv (Lob. p. 199), alxf^a'KOTii^Etv (Thorn. Mag. p. 23,
Lob. p. 442), cn'* 1 tWi > goj>(*), Ex/AvxTft]^et,v(*), dhEXTtogofyuvtu (Lob. p. 229),
^Ew (Lob. p. 341), dvtartoxgwsaSai, (^Esop. 272, del Fur.),
(Lob. p. 182, Schafer Ind. ad JEsop. p. 135), dya^ugyew, dya-
Siuaxogrti^EW (Lob. p. 228), fyxgatevopao (*), (Lob. p. 442), dtxo-
j, oixoSsdrtoisiv (Lob. p. 373), h&opohsw, rtgoafydyiov (Sturz p. 191),
ia, xgaj3j3otT'o$ (Lob. p. 63, Sturz p. 175), rtsjtoi&iais (Lob. p. 295),
(Lob. p. 190), d^iTi-os (Lob. p. 28), pawy (*^)j xappvsiv (xcWa-
, Sturz p.. 123), dgotgiav, (see above,) attf^of^j(*), dyv6^i(*},fx-te-
(Lob. p. 311), jtE^sxi^siv (Lob. p. 341), drta^ajSaT'os (Lob. p. 313).
Especially rich was the later language in substantives in p, a : e. g.
scaf aMi^a, avtartpSopa, xa-to&u/jia, pdrtiapa, yewy/Aa, exfgapa, (Lob. p. 209),
|3ac?T'K} J ua,(*) (see Pasor Gramm. N. T. p. 571-74); and substantives
compounded with aw : e.g. {SvpfiaQij't'qs, ovpvsohltqs (Lob. p. 471); in
adjectives in tro$ ' e. g. ogflgH'os (Sturz. p. 186), o^^oj, afgwiVoj,
datgdxivog (Ssg^.ai'n'oj); inuerisin oco, t^w: e. g. dvaxawoa, a<J

comp- adverbs, as tidwto'tE (t,u3avt6$, sxdrmo-tE^, aaiBiodsv (EX isaiSta, Lob.
p. 93), xaOas (Stul'Z p. 74), tiavwxl (tfavoixlq, tiavoixqaua,, Lob. p. 515);
(see Sturz p. 1874). -^ ^ ater ^ orm ^ s ftf^ai'wj J'^eiv (for xaxwj, mov^ut
K X EIV}, (Lob. p. 389), as on the contrary for xa^o^oisiv (vide supra), the
older Greeks used the formula xahu$ tioulv. That the above register
contains many words which were formed either by the Jews, who spoke
the Greek, or by the N. T. authors themselves, (especially Paul, Luke,
and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews,) according to an analogy
which then prevailed, cannot be denied: Comp. especially b

* Abbreviated forms of proper names, which had existed before in the language
of the people, were introduced into the written language, as 3 AXsa;, zwavta for 'l
etc. The derivatives of Jg^eo-fi*j, were only slightly changed, as wavS^Euj,
for TmvJoKEuj, etc. Lob. 307.

t Suicer Sacra observat. p. 311, sq. has collected many such words from the Fathers-
} It is natural that the popular Greek language should adopt some foreign words,
with slight variations (appellatives) out of the other languages used in the different
provinces; but in an inquiry so general as the above, this is of no importance. In
respect to Egyptian in the Septuag. and elsewhere, sec Slurz De Dialccto Alex. p. 84.
So also Latin and Persian have been pointed out in the N. T. Comp. Clear. De. Stylo
N. 7'., p. 3GG, 3G8. Gcorgi Hierocr. T. I. p. 247, and T. II. De Latinismis N. T
Michael. Einlcit. N, T, pr-t. I. p. 170.

2. BASIS OF THE N. T. DICTION. .'-"? 31

tfagafidtys, v&otf6dipv ) .xgvaoQX't<vfaos', however,
we must not presume it decided, that there is i no trace of these words
remaining in the Greek authors. All of them have not been compared.

(2.) Grammatical Peculiarities. These are limited jn a great mea-
sure to the inflexions of nouns and verbs, which had beesri^either entirely
unknown, in some words unusual, or at least foreign to the Attic Greej(t
language; for in this respect the union of the dialects formerly separated
became manifest. Besides, the use of the Dual form became rare. In:
respect to Syntax, the later language has few peculiarities, 1 e. g. some
verbs are construed with a different case from that which followed them in
the earlier Greek: conjunctions which formerly took only the subjunctive
or optat. were construed with indicative; the use of the optat. in ora-
tione obliqua is not so frequent. But all that relates to this subject will
be more appropriately treated of in 4.

It is not to be questioned that even this later popular dialect had, in
some provinces, several peculiarities, as the old grammarians, who have
written especially on the Alexandrian dialect, assert; e. g. Irenaeus, De-
metrius Ixion, (see Sturz de dial. Maced. et Alex. p. 24, note 4. Comp.
p. 19.) Accordingly some would find Cilicisms in Paul's writings (Hi-
eron ad Algas. qussst. 10. torn, [V. ed. Martianay, p. 204); however the
four examples cited by this Father as such, are not decisive (Michaelis
Einleit. Ins. N. T. 2. prt. p.. 161). This question must'be dismissed, as
we have no other sources of Cilician Provincialisms, than those which
rest upon mere hypotheses. Comp. B. Stolberg De Cilicismis a Paulo
usurpatis, in his Exercitat. de solecismis et barbarismis Grsecse N. T.
dictionifalso tributis. Viteb. (1681) 1685, 4to.

8. Hebrew-JJramsean Complexion of the N. T. Diction.

The popular Greek dialect was not spoken or written by the Jews
without foreign intermixtures. Their Gr. style took not only the gene-
ral complexion of their mother tongue, which showed itself in monotony
and circumlocution, but more especially its inflexions. Both these were
more apparent when they translated directly from the Hebrew than when
they freely used Gr. idioms. Hebraisms and Aramceisms are more nu-
merous in Lexicography than Grammar. Lexical Hebraisms soon be-
came established; consisting in extension of meaning, imitation of whole
phrases, and analogous formation of new words to express similar signi-
fications, phrases, and words. Hence originated a Jewish Greek, which
native Greeks generally did not understand, and therefore despised.*

All the nations which, after Alexander's death, were subjected to Ma-

* See Hug's Einleit. Ins. N. T. 2 ed. prt. T. p. 137, translated by D. Fosdick, Jr.
Andover.

32 PART FIRST.

cedo-Grecian rulers, and by degrees adopted the language of their con-
querors in the intercourse of life, especially the Syrians and Hebrews,
spoke a more corrupt Greek than the native Grecians, and impressed on
it more or less of the stamp of their vernacular language. (Salmas. de
Ling. Hellen. p. 121.)* As it was usual to call the Jews who spake
Greek Hellenists, this oriental Gr. dialect, which originated with them,
acquired the name of Hellenistic idiom. (See Buttmann, ed. Rob. 1.
p. 18, note 12.) For this reason the diction of the Septuagint and of
the N. T. is called Hellenistic. It was not Drusius (ad Acts vi. 6) but
Scaliger (Animadvers. in Euseb. p. 134) who first adopted this appella-
tion. f

The Hebraisms of the N. T. have often been copiously collected, espe-
cially by Vorst, Leusden, in his Philol. Hebra. (of which J. F. Fischer
has published the Dissert, de Dialectis N. T. Sing, de ejus Hebraismis.
Lips. 1754, 1792, 8vo.) Olearius, De Stylo N. T. p. 232, and Hartmann
Linguist. JEinleit. in das Stud. d. A. T. p. 382, note. They were not
sufficiently guided by the principles of criticism.^ Almost all the pre-
ceding writers on the subject are guilty of the following defects:
-(a) They did not sufficiently attend to the Aramffian elements of the
N. T. diction. It is well known that, in the time of Christ, the Syro-

* That the later Greek became Latinized when the Romans began to write Greek,
is known: yet the Latin coloring- of the style is nowhere very evident (except per-
haps in Law-books), not even in Gr. translations of Lat. authors, as of Eutrop. by
Pseanius, of Cic. Cat. Maj. and Somn. Scip. by Theodorus, ed. Gctz. Nurmb. 1801,
8vo. This arose from the fact that these two languages are more nearly allied in
signification than the Hcb. and Gr., and also that those authors had studied Greek.

t It should be adopted as a technical term, since it is so suitable for the purpose:
'E\^svta-rn? in the N. T. denotes a Jew who spoke Greek (Acts vi. 1). See Wetsten
II. p. 490, Lob. p. 379, on IXA>W'V, Ixxwio-Tfjf. The conclusion of Salmasius from
Acts vi. 5, that the Hellenists of the N. T. were Jewish proselytes, is hasty, and
Eichstadt ad Mori Acroas. Hcrm. I. p. 227, seems to have followed him. The discus-
sion between D. Heinsius (Exercit. de Lingua Hellenist. L. B. 648, 8vo.) and Sal ma-
sius (Hellenistica L. B. 648, 8vo., Funus Lingua Hcllcn. ibid. 643, 8vo., Ossilcgium
Lingua Hellen, ibid. 643, 8vo.) about the name Dialectus Hellenistica does not relate
only to the word Hellenistic, but more particularly to the meaning of dialectus, for
which Salmasius will substitute character or stilus idioticus (De Hellenist, p. 250.)
Comp. Tittman Synonym, I. p. 259. Other writers about the meaning dialectus Hel-
lenist, see Walch Biblioth. Theol. IV .p. 278, Fabric. Biblioth. Greec. ed Harles. IV.
p. 893.

t A new work on the Hebraisms of the N. T. more critical and rational, is much
needed.

Much quoted by the Hebraists, might be considered both as Hebraism and Syri-
asm, e. g. EI? as an indefinite article, the frequent use of Parlic. with etvai for a finite
verb: but it is preferable to regard these and similar modes of expression as Ara-
maean, because in this language they arc more frequent and better established, and
occur almost exclusively in such later Heb. writings, whose style inclines to the Ara-
mjcan. These remarks relate only to the N. T. diction; for in the Septuagint we find
but few Arameeisnis, Comp. Olear. p. 308. Gcsen. Commentar. on Isa. I. 63.

3. HEBREW-ARAMJEAN COJIPLEXION OP THE N. T. DICTION. ,33

chaldaic, and not the old Hebrew, was the popular language of the Jews
of Palestine. For this reason, many current expressions in this dialect
must have found their way into the Greek spoken by the Jews. Among
the earlier writers, however, Olearius has a section especially De Chal-
dseo-Syriasmis N. T. p. 345. Comp. Geo^Hierocrit.l. p. 187, etc.
In later times much pertaining to this subject has, been collected by Boy-
sen (Krit. Erlaiiterungen des Grund Textes des N^-T* aus der Syr.
Uebersetz. Quedlinb, 1761, 8vo. 3 Stiicke.)^ Agreli (Oral, de Dictione
N. T. Wexion, 1798, and Otiola Syriaca, Lund. 1816, 4tp. p. 53-58),
and Hartmann ut supra, 382. Earlier writers have now and then ad-
verted to these Syriasms. (See Michaelis Einl. ins N. T. I. p. 138)
and Bertholdt's Einleit. I. p. 158. Henneberg, in whose Exegetical,
writings Syriac abounds, has not much advanced this comparative view,
and could not, because he was wanting in fixed principles. /Here belong
also the few Rabbinisms. See Olear. I. c. p. 360, Georgi 1. c. p. 221.
In explanation of them much can be gathered from Schottgen, Hor. Hebrse.
(b] They paid no attention to the dissimilarity in the style of several of
the N. T. writers; so that, according to their collections, it would seem
as if the whole N. T. were alike full of Hebraisms, although there is no
small difference in this respect. Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, and James,'
cannot possibly be considered as equally abounding in Hebraisms. Those
learned men also neglected to point out the connection between the N. T.
style and that of the.Septuagint, although, with all their similarity, many
discrepancies occur; and generally the style of the Septuagint is more
Hebraistic than that of the N. T. (c) They embraced much within the
circle of Hebraisms that was not foreign to the Greek prose, and was
common to many languages; and generally they seem to have had no
clear apprehension of what constitutes a Hebraism. See Tittmann de
causis contortar. interpretat. N. T. p. 18, sq. (Synon. 1. p. 269, sq.)
De Wette in der Ml. Lit. Zeit. 1816, No. 39, p. 306. They used the
word in a threefold sense: (1) For such words, phrases and constructions
as are peculiar to the Heb. (Aramaan) language, and not found in the
Greek prose, e. g. tfTtTiay^i'i/'^'atfflat, o^st^/iowa a^tlvat, rtpocHArtov hafifSuvsw.)

olxoSopslv (in a fig. sense), rtha-tvvsw ify xapSiav, rtopsvsaOai, ortttfw, ov

Ttoij (for dvSsis), tt-opohoysuaOat, -tivi and Hv iwt,, etc. (2) Such words,
phrases and constructions as are occasionally found among the Greeks,
but are imitations, by the N. T. writers, of the manner of their verna-
cular language, e. g. artsppu for proles (Schwarz Com. p. 1235.) Hebr.
if IT, avdyxy distress, oppression (Gomp. Diocl. Sic. 4, 43. Schwarz, p.

5. 2(

Dio.

191. Strab. etc.) Comp. H3fr. So also the formula

(Tagxvviov IvSvo. by Dion. Halic.) after plif tstoS. (3) Such as are equally

frequent in the Greek and Hebrew, and in regard to which it is doubtful

whether they are to be considered as parts of the Gr. language adopted

by the Jews, or as vernacular idioms: e. g. $ v *.d<S(SEt,v vopov, cu>a, ctsdcs,

uvY]% with appellatives (avqg fyovtvi), rtatj a slave, psyaTivvaiv to praise,

Siuxt-iv to pursue virtue. This latter remark is applicable to many

grammatical phenomena, which Haab has brought to view in his Hob.-

34 TAUT FIRST.

Greek Grammar. Finally, it is not to be doubted that the interpreters
introduced Hebraisms (Arameeisms) in many passages: e. g. Eph. v. 26.
ev pyjfiatt.Vva, ISI-ty 1#N (See Koppe), Matt. xxv. 23, %agq, convivium,
after the Arab, nnn .(See Fischer ad Leusden dialL p. 54), Matt. vi. 1.
Sixmoevvt] alms, after the Chald. HplS, Matt. xxi. 13. tyeal trader (Fischer
ad Leusden diall. p. 48.) Thus much abuse by the LXX. crept in.

It may be seen=from these observations, that in the N. T. there is a two-
fold Hebraism; the one perfect, the other imperfect. Under the former
we include such words, phrases and constructions as belong exclusively
to the Heb.-Aramaean language, and therefore were transferred from the
latter directly into the Hellenistic idiom, which is the diction of the
N. T.* Imperfect Hebraisms we denominate all words, phrases and
constructions which, although found in the Gr. prose, have probably been
transferred from the Hebrew- Arameean vernacular language. This
would seem to be the case, partly because the latter was more fami-
liar to the writers of the N. T., and they cannot be supposed to have
had a perfect knowledge of the written Gr. language; and partly because
the words, phrases, and constructions were more common in Hebrew than
Greek. De Wette felt this difference, and has thus expressed it: " The
difference is certainly essential, whether the form of speech be altogether
foreign to the Greek, or have some point of similarity, by which it can
be connected with it."

This whole investigation must be carried farther back, to the origin
of the so called Hebraisms. In this, however, the LXX are not to be
taken as authority, since as translators, they afford no certain specimens
of the pure Greek of the Jews; nor are the epistles of the N. T., because
the religious dialect of the Jews, even in the Greek, naturally approach-
ed the Hebrew, and had its type in the Septuagint. But we must con-
sider especially the narrative style of the Apocrypha, the Gospels, and
the Acts of the Apostles, in order to apprehend as clearly as possible the
influence of the vernacular language of the Jews on the Greek. It is
evident, in the first place, that the general character of the Heb.-Aramaean
expressions was imperceptibly impressed on the Gr. style, no less by the
original author, than by the translator. Then no one could free himself
from it without difficulty, and only by reflection and practice. It is as
if innate. This general character consists, partly in elucidation (there-
fore the use of the preposition instead of the forms of cases, which are
the result of more abstraction), and so in the circumstantiality of the ex-
pression (fysvytw drtb rtgotfiorts tfivoj, zyga^ Sid ^ftgoS'i'.j rtdv-tss drto [.uxgov
i'wj /wycaou, xui la-tat, xai ax^fw, etc., the accumulation of the pron. pers.
and demonstr. especially after a relat., the narrative formula XM tysvsiro,
etc.); partly in the simplicity, yea monotony, with which the Hebrew
(properly speaking rather a co-ordinate than a subordinate) constructs
sentences and connects them. Hence in the Jewish Greek so rare use
of conjunctions (whilst in this the native writers display great copious-
ness), the uniformity in the use of the tenses, the want of connection in

* Blessig defines thus: Hebraismus cst saline Hebrai Sermonis propria loquendi
ratio, cujusmodi in Gracam vel aliam linguam sine barburismi suspicionc transfcrrc
non licet.

3. HEBKEW-ARAMyEAN COMPLEXION OF THE N. T. DICTION. 35

the periods, or in clauses subordinate to the leading one, and the unfre-
quent occurrence of the participial construction so common with the
Greeks. In historical style, this manifest peculiarity .prevails, that the
very words of others are quoted, whilst the indirect introduction of the
speaker gives to the narrative of the Greeks so distinct a complexion,
and leads to the use of the Optat. in so many ways, -a, mood scarcely
known to the Jewish Greeks. This general Jewish Complexion must
give to the Greek of the Jews a very remarkable character: but what
are usually denominated Hebraisms, are particular words, phrases and
constructions.* The readiest deviations are: (a) To transfer to the fo-
reign language a vernacular word, which corresponds in its radical sense.
It is not then to be wondered at if the Jews used Swatocfw^ for aZms, as
npltf. More unquestionable examples are, o^si^pa debitum, answering
to peccatum, after the Aramse. Din, vvpfyvi bride, also daughter-in-law
Matt. x. 35, as rhl signifies both in Septu. Gen. xxxviii. 11, i'tj for primus
(in certain cases) as inx, E^opo^oyatuBai twt, also to praise one (thanking)
as h min Gen. xxix. 34, 2 Sam. xxii. 50, Septu., IvhoyElv to bless, i. e. to
make happy, as p3, t^tav to ask, also to entreat, as both are. expressed
by hti$, x-tlats for the created, comp. the Chald. rT"O, Sofa brightness,
as ifaD. The transfer of figurative significations is most frequent; as
jtotfaiov, sors,portio Matt. xx. 22, (D13), oxdv$aa.oi>, a stumbling-block
in a moral sense (Sftson), y&aaa for nation (p# *?), ZE^OS for language
(na&), ivuriiov Ttov dsov (m'rr 1 MS*?), according to the judgment of God,
xagSia evQela (m^ 1 ), rtsgijtaaew to wander from the way of life 686$,
0]T), comp. Schafer Ind. ad JEsop. p. 148, dvdOsfia not only that de-
dicated to God, but according to the Hebrew Din, that devoted to de-
struction, Rom. ix. 3, Deut. vii. 26, Jos. vi. 17, ^ E(V Matt. xvi. 19. to
declare to be permitted, after the Rabb. Yfiii. (&) The imitation in the
foreign language of certain very fluent phrases of the vernacular idioms,
by means of verbal transfer, as jtgoauftov bappdvew for NEW D'J3,
v for *

^p3, jtoilw i'foos (xdgw) peitd twos ft)) HDH

tovs 6ij>0atyiO'i>$, to atof.ia -t ivos (np>), yevE(s6ai, Oavdtov NIVD Dj?0, Talm.,
agtov 3>ayetv (cosnare) DnS SDK, <u>a exxeew (D1 }3&) fo 7cz7/, dviatrj^
dTis^a -tnl for Sjnr D'pH, vtoff Oavdtov for m'D']D, xa^Ttoj otf^voj for D'^H
li*} xct^Ttoj jsot^taj tor Jt33 " <1 ^^j od)i,?t)7;tta tt^'tEj'ci^ for NDin D3i^ fTalm.^
aTfyj^Eiv rtgoauttov avfov for VJ3 D-llS', ^acra ua^f for lU^n-S-D. (c) The
formation of derivatives in the foreign language for the expression of
similar vernacular words of the same root supposes more reflection and
design; e. g. crraay^nfi-tfflat from c^ay^m, like Dm from D'DI, <sxa,v8u-
tilew, (SxavSahiZeaeai, like ^DJ, S^JH, ayxawi&w from syxai'vta as ^H is
related to riDJn, avaQspa'ti^Eiv like D'lnn, ogOgigew like D'Ditfn, perhaps
Evurti&aeat, like piN'n. Comp. Fischer acZ Leusden diall. p. 27. n^o-
tfwrto^rti-Mj; departs still farther, as the Hebrew itself has no single word
equivalent to it.

Hence we may see how the style of the N. T., as its authors were not
so well acquainted with Greek Lit. as Philo and Josephus, and did not

* A Grojcism in Latin similar to this, is a teneris unguiculis (Fain. I. 6, 3.) which,
although a Greek formula, the Romans would at once understand, as the Greeks also
would the phrase Kagwo? KOIAWJ, although it sounded strangely.

36 PART FIRST.

aim at a correct Greek diction, acquired a Heb.-Aramsean coloring.
Consequently the whole tone of the discourse, especially the narrative
style, must have been displeasing to a cultivated Grecian ear, and indeed
a native Greek would either not understand many particulars at all, or
misunderstand them, e. g. dtyt&vai, o^Etto^ai'a,* ta^ocsumov happdvswi hoyuea-
0<u tj Sixaioavvqv, .etc. lii this way we account for the fact that such
Hebrew inflexions occur less frequently in the writers of the N. T. than
in the translators of the Oi'T., and less also in the cultivated Hellenistic
writers of the N. T. (Paul, Luke, John) than in those properly belong-
ing to Palestine (Matt, and Peter). It is thus also evident that all He-
braisms have not been unconsciously introduced into the language of .the
Apostles, (Van der Honert Syntax, p. 103.) They were obliged to re-
tain religious expressions (which constitute the greatest part of the He-
; brew of the N. T.) because they were closely connected with the reli-
gious ideas themselves, and Christianity was to be appended to ; Jildaism.f
Besides, the Greek in itself offered no symbols of the deep -religious
phenomena which the Christianity of the Apostles unfolded. But.Eichhorn
and Bretschneider (Prefat. dd'itexic. N. T. ed. 2. II. p. 12. ^exagge-
rate when they state that the N. T. authors thought all they wrote in
Heb. or Aramean. Only beginners do thus. We ourselves when writ-
ing Latin, gradually give up ^n a great measure, although not entirely,
thinking in German, (English) when we have reached a certain point of
acquaintance with the language. Men who had not studied the philo-
sophy of the Greek language, but constantly heard it spoken, and spoke
it themselves, must soon have acquired such a copia vocabulorum et
phrasium, and such tact in expressing themselves, that in writing, these
would naturally occur first, and not after having thought in Heb. and
Syro-Chaldaic words and phrases. The parallel between the N. T.
writers and beginners in writing Latin, is certainly undignified and in-
correct. It is also forgotten that the Apostles found a Jewish-Greek
idiom -already existing, and therefore constructed most phrases without
first thinking them out in the Hebrew.

Many Greek words are used by the N. T. writers with a very direct
reference to the Christian system, as technical religious expressions: so
that, from this arises the third element of the N. T. diction, viz. the pe-
culiarly Christian. See Olear. de Stylo IV. T. p. 380. ed. Schwarz.
Comp. especially the words egya, (t,Wcj 5 tii<$'tvvtiv sisXgia-tov, SwawvaOat,,
ixteysaOat,, oi i-xtex'tol, ol ayioi. (for Christians), d^oa-toKos, the construction
Evayy^i^EaOat, -two, (without an ace. of the thing), the appropriation of the
term pews-z^o^a to baptism. However, most of these expressions and for-

* Something analogous to this in the later writers is the phrase a.fyiva.1 nvi T'W a&KiW,
Plut, Pomp. 34. See Coraes and Schafer on this passage.

f Comp. Beza, Acts x., Rambach (Institut. Hermen. I. 2, 2), Pfaff. nottad Matt., p.
34, Olear. 341, Tittman de dilig. Gramm. p. 6. (Synon. I. p. 201), J. W. Schroder
de causis quare dictio pure Grccca in N. T. plerumque pr&termissa sit. Marb.
1768, 4to.

t The latter has recalled this opinion, at least in respect to Paul, (Grundlage des
Evang, Pietism, p. 179,)

4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION. 37

mulas are still found in the O. T. and writings of the Rabbins.* It will
therefore be difficult to prove that any thing was introduced by the Apos-
tles altogether peculiar to themselves. This A.postolic idiom is confined
rather to the sense of words and phrases, and lies on the surface of philo-
logy. The grammatical Hebraisms will be treated of in the next section.

4. Grammatical Character of the N. T. Diction.

* 'f '

In respect to the grammatical character of the N. T. diction, the two
elements of; the N. T. language above mentioned, must be carefully dis- v?;';-
tinguishe'd. The peculiarities of the later popular language of the
Greeks, which consist more in modes of inflex'ion than in syntactical con-
structions, 'constitute its basis. In the .'use^ of all the parts of speech,
Heb. inflexions and constructions are occasionally. combined: especially
is a predilection for the preposition discernible,'wheri the Greeks use only
the cases. The grammatical character ofHfe N. T. idioms throughout,
is in accordance.; with the laws of the Gr. language. Its authors have
adopted even many constructions peculiar td^ihe-^G reek (Attracjr.- of Rela-
tive and Preposit.), and observed many distinctions entirely unknown to
the Hebrew (e. g. of the negatives ov and pj.) -'iV . t -,x ; '

What the history of language in general teaches, that in\- - cotirse of
time, there is less change in form than signification, in grammar than
lexicography, is true of the Greek. The later popular language of the
Greeks, therefore, is distinguished by very few grammatical peculiarities,
and these occur principally in the forms. We find, for instance, numerous
flexions of nouns and verbs, which were either riot used at all in the earlier
Greek, and in later times were formed by abbreviation and extension of the
original forms, or belonged to the peculiarities of particular dialects.
Of the latter, are the following inflexions: (a) Attic, -fiOsaat, qfiovhyOyv,
q{t,sM*, /SoDft.Et' (j3ovx^) o-^Etj (w) Doric, <j ft.t,|tt6f as fern., iJVw (ta-tu), afylw
Ttai (a^EH/tfat); (c) JEolic, Optat. in Eta in the Aor. I.: this inflexion how-
ever was soon adopted in the Attic; (d} Ionic, y?jgst, oiifigqs, siita, Aor. 1.
As forms foreign to the earlier language may be mentioned: Dat. like
voo, Imperat. xdBov, Pert*, like lyvcoxav for lyvwxacfi, Aor. 2. and Imperf.
like xati B^Lrtoaajv , sSofaovtiav, Aor. 2. like (lu/.iv, '(j>uy<w, the subjunct. fut.
13. I.e. the impei-fect ^/j.e6a.

Here belong especially many tenses, which in other respects were
inflected regularly, but instead of which the older language used others:
e. g. ^ftagtffjffa for ^'jtiagfov, au|w for ca>iai>w, r>|a for ?xw, ^ayo^iat instead
of f'Seyiat, etc. The multiplication of the forms of tenses and modes of

* It is in the highest degree absurd to undertake to illustrate such expressions of
the Apostolical terminology by Greek authors. Comp. Krebs Observ. Fraf. p. 4.

5

38 PART FIRST.

verbs, of which, for euphony's sake, only few had been earlier in use, is
a characteristic of the later language. Further, it must not be overlooked
that many nouns received a new gender (^ for 6 jSowoj), and so had a
twofold declension (e. g. ttKovtos, Itaoj.) See 9, note.

There are very few syntactical peculiarities in the later language.
They display themselves mostly in a negligent use of the moods with
particles. In the.N. T., the following may be noticed as examples: oVo*
with ind. prset., st, with the subjunctive, iVa with indie, praes., constructions
of verbs like yei-ijcrtfac. with the ace., agoaxwew with the dat. (see Lob. p.
463), the dispensing with tW in forms like-^&w iVa, oilcojtW, etc., the use
of the gen. inh'nit. (*S jtoieiv) beyond the original and natural limit, and of
the subjunctive for optat. in the historical style after preterites, and above
all, the rare use of the optat., which has become entirely obsolete in the
late Greek. MSM,EW, &&fw, etc., are followed more frequently by the
aor. infin. (Lob. p. 747.). A neglect of the declensions begins to be ex-
hibited: comp. fTj xa$Mt (after evxo&ev), and even xa&sts, then also <w/a Jj,
sTj 7ta/3 sis (Leo. Tactic- 7, 83), (the *?$ remaining in the nom. without any
respect to the preposition, Trs.); so also p-tfa tiov sV, and similar instances,
which will occur to any one on reflection: 10, note. Still later, a mis-
apprehension of the meaning of cases and tenses showed itself in several
instances. Thus we find avv with the genitive in Niceph. Fact. (Hase ad
Leon. Diac. p. 38); similar to which, in the later Greek, is attb with the
ace., as also the interchange of the participles aor. and pres. by Leo.
Diac. and others. The nom. dual by degrees yielded entirely to the
plural.

The N. T. idiom, grammatically considered, has but little of a Hebrew
complexion. The grammatical construction of the Hebrew- A rameean
varies indeed essentially from that of the Greek; and this, of course, to
the Greek speaking Jews, would be an obstacle in the way of identifying
the syntactic constructions of their vernacular tongue with the Greek. Be-
sides, every one more easily appropriates to himself the grammatical
laws of a foreign language than the copiousness of words and phrases, or
the national complexion of the foreign idiom, because the rules of syntax
in relation to words and phrases are few, and by means of conversation
much oftener before the mind, especially the fundamental ones, which are
the basis of a correct, though not elegant style. The Jews would soon
apprehend the grammatical rules of the Greek of their time (which did
not partake of all the niceties of the Attic) sufficiently for their simple
mode of expression. Even the LXX. could express the Heb. construc-
tions most correctly in the Greek.* Some very common idioms, however,
when they did not interfere with the laws of the Gr. language, they have
retained; as the designation of the optative by means of an interrogative
expression of a wish, 2 Sam. xv. 4, 'tie, /AS xcrtaa-tytttt, xgrfriv', xxiii. 15;
Numb. xi. 29; Deut. xxviii. 67; Cant. viii. 1; or, where it could be done,

* Some Greek constructions had become habitual with them, as the article with
adjectives and adjective phrases after subst. (<5 KU^IOJ o Iv oiijavw), the attraction of the
relative, &c. The negatives are accurately distinguished throughout. The more
extended use of the Greek cases may be observed also in the better translations: e. g.
Gen. xxvi. 10, /Mtxfol/ hot/Mdn, it wanted hit little that) etc.

4. GRAMMATICAL CHARACTER OF THE N. T. DICTION.

39

they have translated in a manner correspondent with Gr.. analogy, as,
$a,vd* 9 &7to$wt*a$B Gen. iii. 4, pnnn mo (xliii. 3, Deut. xx. 17, 1 Sam.
xiv. 39, Isa. xxx. 19), or by an idiom already common in the Greek,
Jude xv. 2, (tiauv IIMOHW for n*0fe Wfe, Gen. xliii. 2, Ex. xxii. J7, xxiii.
26, 1 Sam. ii. 25, etc. Comp. also the infinit. with tov. The LXX.
have not generally adopted Heb. constructions diametrically opposed to
the genius of the Greek; the fern. e. g. for the neut. is found only in a
few passages, where they have superficially scanned the text, or designedly
given a literal translation, as Ps. cxix. 50, cxviii. 22.* We should not
presume that they used it intentionally for the neuter. In other places
they have manifestly joined the Heb. feminine gender with a feminine
subject, as Judg. xix. 30. On the other hand, in Neh. xiii. 14, lv tafutv]
is perhaps equivalent to taw-ty in this respect, hoc in genere (Xen. Cyrop.
8, 8, 5), or for this reason, (Comp. TUVT^ 6Vt propterea quod, Xen. Anab.
2, 6, 7. See also 1 Sam. xi. 2. The constructions of Heb. verbs with
prepositions are most frequently imitated: as q>siSsOetni litl iwi Deut. vii.
16, or Irtttfcva Ezeck. vii. 4, olxoSo^slv sv fivi Neh. IV. 10, (2 7103), erte-
gufdv sv XV^Q (niH'3 hxw) 1 Sam. x. 22. In the Greek, these imitations
certainly sound harshly, yet in this mutable idiom might find some point
of union, (as in German, bauen an etwas,fragnbei, etc.).

But even if yet more servile imitations of the Hebrew constructions
were to be found in the Septuag., it would be of no great importance in
considering the N. T. idiom. For, as already observed, the style of those
translators, who confined themselves to the very words with the most
rigid exactness, and sometimes did not understand them, does not furnish
the type for the Gr. style of the Jews, which they employed in their
ordinary writing and speaking. In a grammatical point of view, in
respect to the several rules of speech, the N. T. is wholly written in
Greek, and a few genuine Hebraisms are so lost as scarcely to be per-
ceptible. Here also belong, with more or less certainty, the use of the
preposition where the Greek employs only the termination of the cases:"]"

i a it -two;, laOisw 0*7(0

sv -tivc,, although many such things are remains of the ancient
simplicity, and occur even in the Greek, especially in the poets. They
are not totally opposed to the genius of the Greek, e. g. rtuvsw urto twos*
More particularly and distinctly may be specified on this head, (a) The
verbal imitations of Hebrew constructions, which are opposed to the Greek

* The translator of the Psalms is usually the most careless: of Nehemiah not much
better. Aquila, who translated syllable for syllable, and senselessly rendered the nota
ace. nX by <ruv, cannot be taken into the account at all in determining the grammatical
character of the Hellenistic Greek. For the sake of rendering- verbatim, he did not
hesitate to commit errors in grammar: e. g. Gen. i.5, Ixfaeo-tv S SEOJ T&T <f><TJ n^a.
Notwithstanding, he uniformly uses the article properly, and even the attrac. of rel.
which shows how familiar they had become in the Greek.

t The pretended plural, excell., the 3 essentiEe, such connections as yaKmy^ TOU deoij
incorrectly supposed to be circumlocutions for the superlative, the use of fern, for
neut., and perhaps also the presumed Hypallage TO. 'gn^a-m T; <ar,<; raurns for Tauta,
TO. '{n*. T. <>)?, are fictitious Hebraisms.

40 PART FIRST.

sense of propriety, as opohoysiv J-V -tint fikettew urtb sibi , caver e a, as
rto<r0T'o jtep3><M, the form of oath si Sofl^tfEtfae. in a negative sense.
(6) The repetition of a word to express distribution, as Svo 8vo bini, for
wa 8vo. (c] The imitation of the infin. absolute, (see above}, (d) The
indication of the quality by the genitive of an abstract noun, and the
frequent use of the infinitive with prepositions in historical style.

Those quoted Bunder (a) and (&) might be regarded as perfect Hebraisms.
But if we consider that most constructions in the N. T. are genuine Greek,
and that the N. T. writers have appropriated to themselves such syntactic
peculiarities of the Greek* as totally depart from the genius of the ver-
nacular language, (as the distinction of the different preterite tenses, the
construction of verbs with civ, attraction of the relative, as olxovo^ojv rfs-
rtiaf Eii fiat,, the singular connected with neuters, etc.) we shall not be
inclined to join in the cry about innumerable grammatical Hebraisms in
the N. T. But that the N. T. diction, in a grammatical respect, is much
less Hebraistic than the Septuagint (which is very natural) will be fully
established, when it is recollected that we find many vernacular expres-
sions (as the designation of optat. by means of quest.) in the Septuagint,
which do not occur at all in the N. T.f Very few genuine grammatical
peculiarities belonging to the several N. T. writers can be adduced.
The Apocalpyse however demands (but not altogether as a distinction)
special attention in a Grammar of the N. T. As to the rest, it is apparent
that, in the whole investigation of the grammatical character of the N. T.
diction, the various readings must be taken into view, and on the other
hand it is equally clear that verbal criticism of the several N. T. writers
can be well conducted only by those who possess a thorough knowledge
of their peculiarities in grammar and lexicography.

* The more minute niceties of the Attic style are not found in the N. T., both
because they were foreign to the popular language, to which the N. T. authors were
accustomed, and because the simple representation of these writers was not adapted
to them.

I Occasionally also we find, in the better translators of the O. T. and of the Pales-
tine Apocrypha, Greek constructions, instead of which the N. T. authors used
the Hebrew. Thus in 3 Esra vi. 10, Tob. iii. 8, the genitive occurs according to
the proper Gr. syntax.

PART II.

DOCTRINE OF FORMS,

5. Orthography and Orthographic Principles.

1. IN relation to orthography, especially of single words and forms, the
better manuscripts of the N. T. vary exceedingly (like those of Greek
authors, see Poppo ad Thucid. 1. p. 214); and frequently it cannot be
clearly determined which is correct. The editors of the text should adopt
a fixed rule and carry it out consistently. We notice the following :
(a) In many passages of the Text and in still more of the Codd., the
apostrophe is omitted: e. g. Acts xxvi. 25, d^d dto^aias in two MSS. of
Vienna, and Cod. Diez;* 2 Cor. xii. 14 dM.d vpus, Cod. Diez; Gal. iv. 7,
d?ad o>i6j, ibid. On the other hand, this omission is corrected by many
copyists: e. g. 2 John. v. dM-'^v in Cod. Diez. for which all other manu-
scripts UM.UJJV, Jud. 6, dsa' dtfoTi. Cod. Diez. Rom. vii. 13, dM,' ^, ibid.
That the same omission exists in the Ionic writers is well known, and for
this reason the older biblical philologists have called this phenomenon in
the N. T. an lonism: however it must not be concealed that the Attic
prose writers also neglected apostrophe, although all the examples which
Georgi quotes out of Plato (Hierocrit. N. T. I. p. 143) cannot be relied
on. See Buttmann ed. Rob. 30, p. 62, 63. Heupel ad Marcum. p. 33.
Benseler Exc. to his edit, of Isocr. Areop. p. 385 sq. Jacob's Pr&fat.
ad JElian. anim. p. 29, sq. Many words in the Codd. of the N. T. are
perhaps never apostrophized, as d'^a, Zvn, stf a, 3-V&, and in general the later
language could less easily have avoided the hiatus than the Attic. There-
fore we might be inclined in some passages, as James ii. 18, d

* Comp. Codic. MSS. Graec. Apost. Acta et Epistolas continentem in Biblioth. H.
F. de Diez asservatum descripsit. G. G. Pappelbaum. Berol. 1815, 8vo. Codd. Manuscr.
N. T. Grsec. Evangg. partcm conlin. dcscrips. contulit, etc. G. G. Pappelbaum, Berol.
1824, 8vo.

42 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OP FORMS.

av rfttftf. etc., to favor the omission of the apostrophe according to the in-
terpretation rightly preferred by the late commentators; whilst awSsgel
>ti$ would mean at dicat aliquis. 5Tet the Elision did not originally regard
the sense, and Herm. ad Eurip. Bacck. Prsef. p. 19, says: Certa et rninime
suspecta exempla docent, non impediri crasin interpunctione. In the
poetical passage quoted from Menander, 1 Cor. xv. 33 #g*?cj0' (for ajg^crtfa),
ofMkitu xaxai is written with Elision. Comp. Georgi Hierocr. I. p. 186,
although the best. Codd. of N. T. have #^<j*a, The Fathers of the
Church can hardly be taken into the account here. (&) As to the 5 in
OVT-OS, i*,s%ib and the v . t$&xvain,*bv, the editors have mostly followed
the established rule, which however is limited by modern grammarians.
(Buttm. ed. Rob. 26, p. 52, 53 115, p. 311, 6.) The authority of
the best Codd. is by all means to be preferred (since on this account they
are more minutely examinedf), if a fixed principle cannot be at once
established in the use of j and y, which philologists have not yet succeeded
in doing for the Greek prose. According to Bornemann, De gemina
Cyrop. recens. p. 89, with whom Poppo agrees in Index to Cyrop., oiVwj
should be written before a consonant, in the middle of a sentence. Ac-
cording to Frotscher ad Xen. Hier. p. 9, it is to be chosen as a stronger
form only at the end of a sentence, or when a peculiar stress is laid on
it. Bremi, addEschin. Ctesiph. 4to. (Gotha), judges otherwise: equidem
opinor, Codd. MSS. sequendos, si o-uVoj ante conson. offerant, quando
significat hoc modo, sic,' ovVw vero ante conson. scribenduin esse, si gra-
dum denotans cum adject, vel adverb., in quo ipsa qualitatis notio inest, in
unam quasi notionem confluat. Comp. also on this subject, Osann
Inscriptt. III. p. 116. Sehafer ad Demosth.I. p. 207.

Others will only acknowledge ovVwj, like exsivt*$, aM-co?, aiVcoj. See
Sehafer ad Plutarch V. p. 219: , however, seems to be the older ad-
verbial termination^ (Buttm. ed Rob. 26, p. 53, notes 1, 2), and it
cannot be comprehended why it should not be retained in ovta together
with oiiVwj, as well as in a$a. OvVca before a vowel is scarcely admissi-
ble, except in Ionic prose. About /!#* and /ts^is, see especially Jacobs
ad. Achill. Tat. p. 479. According to grammarians, ^e'^gt and d'^t
before a vowel, is Attic orthography (Thorn. M. p. 135, Phryn. ed. Lo-
beck, p. 14), and so the moderns print them, Comp. Stallbaum ad Plat.
Phozd. p. 183, ad Sympos. p. 128, Sehafer ad Plut. V. p. 268. How-
ever, good Codd. among the Attic writers, have frequently the form

* In reference to Cod. Diez. Pappelbaum, p. 13, says: otiraij, sic semper fere, licet
sequatur consonans. Comp. Ads xii. 8, xiii. 47, xxiv. 14; Rom. v. 18, 19, xi. 26; 1 Cor.
viii. 12. ix. 14, 26. It may perhaps be the case, that the better Codd. of the N. T.
adopt the older form OUTWI; most commonly before a consonant. See Wetsten I. 246.

5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 48

with s , and in the N. T. it should not be removed as belonging to the
later language, especially when the best MSS. agree. As. to the v'l$t&x.
before consonants (Poppo ad. Thuc. 1. p. 445, Benseler ad Jsocr. Ar-
eop. p. 185), Bremi's remark (ad JEschin. in Ciesipfa 3. according to
Herm. de emend. Gr. I. 23): Videntur prosaici Scriptores accuratiores
ante majorem interpunctionem vel si aliquo modo voc. aisequentibus sepa-
rare vellent, v par agog, addidisse, seems not improbable (Comp. Bense-
ler 185, Jacobs Prsef. ad JElian. Anim. I. p. 23. Buttm. ed. Rob. 26,
2. p. 52), although ancient grammarians affirm (BekJceri Anecd. III. p.
1400), that the Attics placed it generally before consonants 'as well as be-
fore vowels (Comp. Jacobs Prsef. ad jElian. Jlnim. p. 23). The manu-
scripts of the N. T. do not favor this difference. So Cod. Seidel. at
Breslau reads Act. i. 16, %v rtgosiitsv to rtvEvpa, I'D ayiov, iii. 16. IcrfEglcocfH'
*b ovopa avtov, iv. 8. slrttv <s6$ uv-tovs, etc. Comp. Cod. Diez. on Act.
ix. 4. xxiv. 7, Rom. v. 12, 1 Cor. iii. 19, vii. 28, x. 16, Gal. ii. 2, 1 Thes.
v. 7. Modern editors of Greek texts have returned to the old rule, as
Ellendt in his edition of Arrian.

(c) In compounds, whose former part ends in ^ Knapp (preceded by
Wolf) has substituted the fig. 5 for <y, and Schulz follows him in this, e. g.
jcte, t$$!gH'; however the observations of Buttmann I. p. 11, and of
Matthiae I. p. 26, limiting their rule, merit consideration. No great
value is to be put on this orthographical correction, as it has no historical
reason. Schneider in Plato, and Lachmann in N. T. have adopted w
etc. That it cannot have place in such words as c?
i'n', is apparent.

(a) For svexa, in manuscripts, or in the received text, in some places,
the properly Ionic swsxa or sl'vsxsv (see Wolf ad Dem. Lept. p. 388,
Georgi Hierocr. I. 182), in others, evtxsv is found; e. g. the latter, Matt.
xix. 5, 29, Rom. viii. 36; the former, Luc. iv. 18, 2 Cor. vii. 12. The
authority of good Codd. must here decide. Comp. Poppo Cyrop. p. 39,
and Ind. Cyrop., Buttmann ed. Rob. 27. 3. note 1, p. 54). (b] Ivvtv^-
xovtut-wEu Matt, xviii. 12, 13. Luc. xv. 4, 7, is to be written srEvjjxovtf.
according to good manuscripts (e. g. Cod. Cantabr.} and the Etymol.
Magn. See Buttm. ed. Rob. 70. 90. p. 114, Bornemann Ad Xen.
Anab. p. 47. Scholz has retained the usual orthography. So also fVatfos
according to Codd. Matt. xx. 5. Act. x. 30 (elsewhere nothing is observ-
ed, yet it stands in the Cod. Cypr. Mr. xv. 33, 34, and in other Codd.
Matt, xxvii. 45), a form which is very common in the Greek prose wri-
ters. See Schafer Melet. p. 32, Scholiast ad Apoll. Argon. II. 788.
(c) The well known discussion about the right mode of writing the ad-
verbs in c or 6 (Herm. ad Soph. Ai. p. 183) affects the N. T. only in
reference to tiawoixi, Act. xvi. 34. So this word appears JEscli. Dial. II.
1, Joseph. Antt. IV. 4, 4, on the contrary in Philo de Josepho, p. 562. B.
Blomfield Glossar. in jEsch. Prom. p. 131, is perhaps right

44 PAHT SECOND. DOCTRINE OP FOEMS.

when he wishes adverbs derived from the nominative in oj, to be written
only with i (auvoixl, properly Go,vot,xol.} Almost all the Codd. are for at.
See Poppo Thud. II. 1. 154. (d) Whether Aow'd or AajSt'S ought to be
written, see Gersdorf Sprachchar 1. 44, who is undecided, but approves
of the mode of writing with j3. In Codd. it is usually abbreviated A8.;
the older and better, however, where they wrote the name in full, have
now and then ^oiit'S (AaWg) as Knapp, Schulz, and Fritzsche. Mont-
faucon Palseogrctph. Graec. 5. 1, preferred the latter, (e) The name
Moses is (as in Septuag. and in Joseph.) written in the oldest Codd. of the
N. T. MoiitfjJ?, which Knapp has taken into the text. It is yet a ques-
tion whether, this properly Coptic form (comp. Scholz on Matt. viii. 4)
should not yield to the form Mwtf^j, which is more usual in the N. T. and
also passed over to the Greeks (Strabo 16, 760) and Romans, and is
adopted by Scholz. But if we adopt Mwi^y this mode of writing ought
to be carried through consistently. See Wetsten I. 347. (/) About
KO^OOCKXI! and Rojid^ap, see the interpretation of Col. i. 1. Not only the
coin of this city (Eckhel Doctrin. Numor. Vett. I. III. 147), but also the
better Codd. of the classics (Comp. Xen. Anab. I. 2, 6) have the former;
therefore Valckenaer ad Herod. VII. 30, decided in its favor, (g) In-
stead of Woj, Act. ix. 7, is better written E'I/EO? (comp. aivsus) as some
good Codd. have. Comp. Scholz de Cod. Cypr.p.61. (See Xen. Anab. 4,
5, 33. and Alberti ad Gloss. Gr. N. T. p. 69.) (A) levOij, 1 Cor. v. 7,
in text. rec. for which the better Codd. have l-evQn (Buttm.ed. Rob. p. 4P,
18, note 2), is uncommon, but is founded on an exception to (.he well
known analogy of the aspirate, (i) Instead of z^w^Eac'i^j, the good
Codd. have, Luc. xvi. 5, the form jc^o^i'KB't^ (Scholz at least has made
no remarks on Luc. vii. 41), which Zonaras rejects, and which occurs
but once in the manuscripts of Greek writers. See Lob. ad Phryn. p.
691.

"2. Whether such words as Sta ft, iW ti, Stays, uMaye, a.tiagTt,, should
be written thus, or connected, is a matter of dispute, and is hardly to be
decided on any acknowledged principles. The decision of this question
is of less importance, as the best MSS. themselves do not at all agree.
Knapp has printed most of such words united, and certainly in oft-occur-
ing formulas, two small words readily flow together in pronunciation, as
the Crasis in Sw, xaOd, &<st, wxi-ti, fd'^a, etc- show. Shulz, on the con-
trary, defends the mode of writing them separately. Would he also
write ? ys, -tot, vvv, ax eVt, etc.? Lachmann has done so, and printed even
it meg, and near it xulai-e,. How far the Codd. on the whole, favor the
junction, see Poppo Thuc. I. p. 455. Even Shulz has also printed Sea-
rtavtos, Mr. v. 5, Lu. xxiv. 53, and Schneider in Plat, follows the united
mode almost entirely. However, either method carried out systemati-
cally would produce many inconveniences, and as the oldest and best
Codd. of N. T. are written continua serie, and thus afford no aid, it would
be best in the N. T. to adopt the united mode in the following cases:

5. ORTHOGRAPHY AND ORTHOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLES. 45

(a) Where the language exhibits a clear analogy, e. g. ovxett, as
toiydg as toiwv, 60*15, comp, otn. (6) When the word occurs in the con-
nected form in other cases (in prose), *, xa,irte. (c) When an enclitic
follows a monosyllable or dissyllable without changing its meaning, ells,
itye, ogays; but Luke xi. 8. Stays iyv avatSttav, is an exception to the lat-
ter part of the observation, (d) Where the united o? disunited method
indicates different meanings, as batwuv, quicunque: ori the contrary, 6'y
fcj ovv, Matt, xviii. 4. quisquis igitur (Buttmann ed. Rob. 80. 1. p. 127.
77. 3. p. 124), although even ow in the Codd. appears generally dis-
united, and by the writers themselves is sometimes separated by the in-
terposition of a conjunction. See Jacobs Pref. ad JElian. Anim. p. 25.
Besides, as to particulars, much must be left to the judgment of the
editor: but for writing Siajtavtos, etc. he perhaps would .not have satis-
factory reason. '" :'f ;

The pronoun 6', ft, in our edition of the N. T., is written throughout
with the hypodiastole: Bekker, on the other hand, writes fai (as 00*1$,
yj T^J), while some (as Schneider ad Plat. Pref. p. 48) wish otft, conjunc.
to be written as the pron.j see Jen. Lit. Ze.it. 1809, IV. p. 174. The
latter mode has much in its favor: among other things, that the reader
is not obliged to submit to an interpretation put upon the text by the ed-
itor. Comp. John viii. 25. Still the advantage of this method is more
than counterbalanced by its inconveniences. It is therefore best for us
to adopt the hypodiastole, after the example of the ancients.

3. The Crasis occurs rarely, only in some oft returning formulas; the
most usual are, xayw, xai>, xaxsl, xuxfidEv, xaxsivos, also in xa^ot, Luc. i.
3. Act. viii. 19. 1 Cor. xv. 8; xaps, John vii. 28. 1 Cor. xvi. 4;

Matt, xxvii. 57; lovvav-tiov, 2 Cor. ii. 7. Gal. ii. 7. 1 Pet. iii. 9;
in 1 Thes. ii. 14 (see Griesbach), probably also in Luc. vi. 23. xvii. 30.
according to Knapp, is to be restored. On the contrary, cases like tavt-
Itftfi, xa$d, xa^artfg, are only improperly called crasis. The contraction
in the usual cases is not often omitted. Comp. about oo-tta, ^stxs'wv, voi,
8 and 9; ISee* o, also in Luc. viii. 38. according to the best Codd., as
often in Xenophon. See Buttm. ed. Rob. 29, pp. 60-62; Lob. p. 220.
The verb xa^vsw (Matt. xiii. 15. Act. xxviii. 27), for xatapvsw presents
a contraction of a peculiar kind. Comp. Lob. p. 340.

4. No trace of an Iota subscriptum is to be found in the Cod. Alex.,
in Cod. Cypr. nor in many others, (see Michaelis Einl. ins. N. T. I.
867). Knapp first mentioned its abuse in our editions of the N. T. It
must be unhesitatingly omitted: (a) In the crasis with *ae', if the first
syllables of the word which is contracted with it had no Iota (as

6

46 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

from xaL tVa), therefore in xoyw, xa/toi, xuxswo$, xav, xaxst, xaxel-
8t-v, etc.; see Herm. ad Fig. p. 526. Buttmann ed. Rob. 29. 2.
notes 2. 7. p. 60. Thiersch Gr. 38. note 1, defends the Iota subscrip-
tum, and Poppo has retained it in Thucyd. according to the best manu-
scripts (Thuc. II. 1. p. 149). (6) In the perf. 2, and aor. 1, act. of the
verb <Mgw and its compounds, also, e. g. qgxev, Col. ii. 14; agao, Matt. xxiv.
17; ooi/, Matt. ix. 6; jjgow, Matt. xiv. 12. See Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 172.
101. n. 2, and marg. n. Poppo Thuc. II. 1, 150. (c) In the Doric
infinitives, which are also used by the Attics (Matth. I. 148), tyv, S^v,
rt/ewvjv, %gijaai. According to some this takes place also in the infini-
tives of the contracted verbs in aw, e. g. 6gav, -t^w, inasmuch as these
formulas originated from the Doric -fi^dsv (as ^aeovv from ^aOotv. See
Reiz ad Lucian. IV. 393. ed. Bip.; Wolf in the Lit. Analect. II. p.
419; Elmsley ad Eurip. Med. V. 69, and Prssf. ad Soph. (Edip. R.
p. 9; Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. I. p. 14. Yet all the philologists have
not agreed in .this matter, and Buttm. ed. Rob. 105. 3. note 15. and
Schneider (Prs&fat. ad Plat. p. 58) have offered good reasons against it.
See Elmsley ad Med. p. 79. Lips. Schulz has preferred this mode of
writing, (d) rtg!jio$ has not much authority. See Buttm. ed. Rob. 64.
2. p. 107. ngcoC also should not have a Iota subscriptum. See about
the mode of writing this word, Buttmann ad Plat. Criton. p. 43. and
Lexilog. 17, 2. (e) As to ttavttj (not nav-ty) Act. xxiv. 3, see Buttmann
ed. Rob. 116. 9. note 8. p. 316, whom Schneider follows in Plato.
Accordingly, after the analogy of yt^, 6'^, the adverb #u$jj (Doric xevfyu)
Ephes. v.l 2 (comp. Xen. Conviv. V. 8) is not to be written xgvq>y, as
Lachmann does. All the better editions have not the Iota subscriptum.
Comp. Poppo Thuc. II. 1. 150.*

According to Sturz (de Dialect. Jllex. p. 116), the Alexandrians had
a peculiar Gr. orthography, which not only interchanged letters (e. g. <u
and e, E and ^, t, and ct, y and x), but added superfluous ones to strengthen
the forms of words, (e. g. HxzOs;, patftJilow, vvxtav, fyQdvviw, saajtsige, comp.
Poppo Thucid. I. 210), omitted them where they are regularly found
double (e. g. ym^iatfa, comp. Var. 2 Cor. 9, 10, SvasjS-^, adpuat,, avrd-
Tiay^a, ijn&a, aguaaT'o), and disregarded the method by which in Greek a
harsh concurrence of many dissimilar consonants is avoided, e. g. dw
hniAfyQei*;, arttx-tdvxatu, BV%U(,QV, avvxd^v/ji.^ (Buttm. ed Rob. 19 25.
p. 48.). These peculiarities arc found in old Egyptian MSS. of the Sep-
tuagint and N. T., e. g. Cod. Alex., Cod. Vatic., Cod. Ephrem. rescr.,
Cod. D. (Beza or Cantabr.), Cod. Bcerner. Cod. L. (see Hugs Einleit.
ins N. T. 2 Augs. 1 Thl. p. 256, sq.f Scholz Curse critt. in histor. text.

* We shall not be inclined to adopt in the N. T. the writing ^ov, ^iaav, which Jacobs
in JElian, Animal, has accepted after a good Codd.; nor any more a-ta'fyiv.
t Translated by D. Fosdick, Jr. Andovcr, Mass.

6. ACCENTUATION. 47

ewmgo-. p. 40), and in Coptic and Greco-Coptic monuments (Hug. I.
256), with more or less uniformity. They cannot, therefore, be at once
rejected as resulting from the caprice of the transcribers,' as Planck has
done in his de Orat. N. T. Indole. p. 25, note. Yet perhaps the most
of this orthography is not particularly Alexandrian, as similar things oc-
cur in many Codd. of Gr. authors, whose Egyptian origin cannot be
proved. r v'

6. Accentuation.

1. The accentuation of the text of the N. T. is not entirely conformed
1o legitimate principles, but, in many points, adapted to grammatical fan-
cies, which no one now regards. But few things here require notice.
The following may be selected:

(a) tSe, according to the old grammarians, is written only by the Attic
writers ISs, by the others (later) ISe (Mceris, p. 55, Fisch. Gregor. Cor.
p. 121, 286). It is so printed also in Griesbach's N. T. (except Gal. v.
2), and Lachmann has uniformly so written it. According to Borne-
mann's conjecture (Exeg. Repertor. II. 267), it should be written tSf,
where it is an imperative followed by an accus., but 18s, where it is only
an exclamation. It is better, however, in such matters, to follow the
old grammarians.

(&) Numerals compounded of sVoj, according to the old grammarians
(Thorn. Mag. 859, Moschopul. in Sched.], should have the accent on the
penult syllable, when they relate to time; in all other cases on the last.
By this rule, Acts vii. 23. must be accentuated, tiaaazaxovtat'tvis %e,6vo$,
and Act xiii. 18. tsdaagaxov-tas-tt} xgovov (on the ); on the contrary,
Rom. iv. 19, Exatovtai-'tris (on the ^), (camp. Jacob's Antholog. III. p.
251, 253). But in the manuscripts this is not observed, and the rule is
regarded as altogether doubtful. See Lob. p. 406. Ammonius, p. 136,
even gives the accent reversed. See Bremi. ad Msdiin. Ctesiph. p.
369, ed. Goth.

(c) K'/^vt and $oM<t|, some accentuate, x?Jgut, $om| (see Sch'afer ad
Gnom. p. 235, and ad Soph. Philoct. 562), because, according to the
old grammarians, the t and v, in norn. sing, were pronounced short (Bek-
ker Anecd. III. p. 1429); but opposed to this, see Herm. ad Soph. OEdip.
R. p. 145, and Schafer himself, ad Demost. IV. 84, Jacobs ad Acliill.
Tat. p. 531, Poppo Thuc. II. 1. 151. Still it is a question whether we
ought not, with these grammarians, to prefer the accentuation *^uf and
9om, in the later Greek. See Buttmann ed. Rob. 11. 4. p. 39, and
Lachmann has the former printed in his N. T.

48 TART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

Instead of rtovs, as the old editions have it, Knapp writes rtoi>$, as
the genitive moSoj has o short. See Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 765, Passow
II. 697.

(e) Griesbach and others have written jiafaa^ incorrectly; it should be

oaa4j as a is short. Schulz, although not uniformly, writes
l instead of; Stifys ( as i n ^4'j) because the first i is long, not by
' ppsition _;; but by nature. T^ij from tf^jSco, which mode Buttmann, ed.
Rob. ; 11. 1. 4. p. 39. approves, is similarly accentuated. Xguofia,
4-v^off, must be changed into x^la^a, VtJ#o$, see Reisig. de Construct. An-
tistr. p. 20; and. crtfito-oj perhaps into <rtv%o$. See Passow under this word.
On this subject the decision must rest upon the authority of carefully
written Codd., as, in pronunciation and accent, the xotv^ had many pecu-
liarities, and especially as the dialect had acquired a controlling influence.
Comp. Fritzsche Mr. p. 572.

(f) As the termination at is considered short in accentuation (Butt-
mann ed. Rob. 11. 4. 7. p. 39), we ought to write fa^ui,, ^4<u, x^tcu,
u/uaffeu, comp. Poppo Thuc. II. 1. 151. But Griesbach and Knapp, in
Acts xii. 14, have If aim incorrectly, as the is short. '

(} 'Eft0'a, in many editions, particularly in Knapp, is written tgtetia,
(Far. See. Matthai. small edit. Philemon, 2, 3), but as the word is de-
rived from gt6fvsiv, the former mode of writing is more correct. See
Buttmann ed. Rob. 11. 2. 6. p. 39.

(A) Schulz, Wahl, and others, in Matt. xxiv. 21, have written incor-
rectly fivhav for /ittfuoi', as they could have discovered in Passow. See
Buttmann ed. Rob. 11. 5. p. 39.

(i) As to ju<j0cot6$, see Schafer ad Dem. II. p. 88.

In Acts xxviii. 26, firtov 1. aor. imper. should be so accented, not
see Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 348, and Buttmann Exc. I. ad Plat.
Menon. Comp. the valuable opposite arguments of Wex in the Annals
of Philol. VI. 169; this circumflex accent, however, exists only among
the Attics. For hrtbv (the grave accent on o) in the Greek Bible, see
the express testimony of Charax by Buttmann, who calls the accentua-
tion Syracusan.

(Z) Proper names of persons, which are properly adjective or appel-
lative oxytones, for the sake of distinction, draw back the accent; there-
fore Ti'Ztjeoj not Tu^txos, *^fos not t&tAfji'oj, Egatftfos not EgatfT'os, which
has not been observed in Wahl's larger Lexicon. See Sylburg ad Pan-
san. S. 3. Reiz de Inclin. Accent, p. 116. Heyne ad Horn. II. VIII. p. ,
139-141; Schafer ad Dion.Hal. p. 265; Junkhanel adDemosth. Androt.
p. 108, sq. For the same reason also, the accent is changed in
for Tvt&v, Tgi;$>cov for

6. ACCENTUATION. 49

(m) Indeclinable oriental names have the accent regularly on the last
syllable; yet comp. 'louSa, a/wig, Zooj3aj37-, 'iwc&a^, '.Etaafag and the
form .'Eu'egeg Luc. iii. 29, Moffwo&a Luc. iii. 37; yet we have 'i^a/3^
in good Codd. Rev. ii. 20. The acute accent mostly occurs, even on
long vowels, as 'l<raa*, 'iff^a,, 'l<mij3, revvqaug, BjffltfatSa, Bs$(8a, Ejt-
/taaj. On the contrary, manuscripts have Kcwa, r^tf^/to*^ (although there
is more authority for the form reOa^avel. See Fritzsche ti& Marc. p. 626).
Bj?0^ay^ is found in Matt., although good manuscripts have B^oyif in
Marc. xi. 1, which however is strange, as words ending in^ generally
have the circumflex, as Nivsvij. It seems advisable (which 'however has
not hitherto been done by editors) to carry out a uniform mdcje of writing.
Josephus, with whom the declension is of primary importance, give.s the
grave accent to indeclinable words and oxy tones, e. g. 'AjBut (in N. T.
'Apia). In relation to liaafoj see Fritzsche ad Marc. p. 671. .

The accentuation fyolps , f^o s , l^ot/toj, which the grammarians (Gregor.
Cor. p. 12, 20, sq.) attribute to the loniansand Attics, and which Bekker
follows, ought not to be admitted in the Attic prose writers, (Poppo.
Thuc. I. 213,, II. 1, 150. Buttmann ed. Rob. 11, 4, p. 39,) much less
in the N. T. On the other hand, I think, Zgo$ is uniformly to be written.
Comp. Bornemann ad Luc. p. 4. So also in Apoc. x. 8, a,a/3 is correct,
not xojSe, (Buttmann ed. Rob. 103, 1. 4, c. p. 197.) The N.T. manu-
scripts uniformly give <j, for al'aw, although as uniformly els, not j.
Thucidides, however, who usually prefers !$, yet, 1, 134, has ctcfw, (see
Poppo. I. p. 212). Modern editors reject Jfofw in Attic prose. See Schneider
Plat. l,prsef. p. 53. .

In relation to the diminutive tsxvlov, as paroxytone, (as t^vLov by
Athen. 2. p. 55,) and d5i>T%, as oxy tone. See Buttmann ed. Rob. 10.
2. 3. p. 38.

2. As is well known, many forms, which in other respects are alike,
but differ in signification, are distinguished by means of the accents, e. g.
ei[nt sum, and sl^t, eo. The Codd. and also the editors of the N. T.,
vacillate occasionally between these two modes of accentuation. In
1 Cor. iii. 14. instead of julj/ft, Chrysost. Theod. Vulg. etc. read ju^m,
(ful.) which Knapp has received into the text. Comp. Heb. i. 12; 1 Cor.
v. 13. In Heb. iii. 16. several authorities have fives instead of T-WC'S,
the former of which modern critics have almost without exception pre-
ferred. In 1 Cor. xv. 8. instead of <bj7t^o 1-9 Ix^w^an, some Codd.
have wcf -tc? i. e. -eivt, dxi^w^an, which Knapp without reason has
admitted into the text, as in 1 Thess. iv. 6. J v * 9 ^dy^aJi,. This is cer-
tainly only a correction of those who disapprove of the use of the article,
and has, besides, very few authorities. Critics are not agreed about the
accentuation in Joh. vii. 34. 36. whether to adopt, 6'rfou c

50 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FOHMS.

, or ortov JTt/iu iyw, etc., as many of the Fathers and many
versions read. Acts xix. 38, some read fyo^aloi, others a/yo<uot. In the
former passage, the hpi should be preferred, because of John's style
(xii. 26. xiv. 3. xvii. 24.) See Liicke on this passage, agreeing with
Knapp Com. isagog. p. 32; in the latter, the difference of accentuation
might be regarded as merely imaginary. At least the old grammarians
exhibit contradictory views, so that, even if it had some foundation in
truth, it would n0.be possible to decide satisfactorily between the two
modes of writing. See Kuinb'l on this place.

So also as to Rom. i. 30. where some, who take the word in an active
sense, accentuate ^ooi'iJyftj; whilst accentuated thus, ^toui-vyEcj, it must
mean Deo exosi, a passive sense: but the analogy of the. adjectives w
tgoxtovos and /Mjtgoxtovos proves nothing in reference to adjectives in ^j.
(See Buttmann, ed. Rob. 11. 3. p. 39. and 28. 4. N. 9. p. 59.) Suidas
says expressly that Ssoatvyet j means both ot i?to sa pioufisvot,, and oL sbv
[uauvtss, although he accentuates ^EO^Ky^j or ^o^ticr^j, according to the
signification. Qeoatvysis, which is conformable to analogy, is unquestionably
correct. As to the active sense of the word, Suidas seems not to have
quoted it as genuine Greek, but only to have so interpreted it in the
above passage of Paul: this signification cannot, at least, be proved by
anj r Greek author. See Fritzsche on the Merits of Tholuck p. 19. and
Prelim, p. 44. The word indeed occurs but a few times. On the other
hand, the different accentuation of pvgiot, ten thousand, and ^v^Loi in-
numerable (1 Cor. iv. 15. xiv. 19.) has somewhat in its favor. Buttmann
ed. Rob. 70, p. 114. Boissonade ad Nicet. p. 157. Annals of Philol.
II. 18. The distinction between fgoz6$ (a wheel) as the text of Jas. iii.
6, and the accentuated Codd. have it, and ^0^0$ (a race], as according
to Grotius, Hottinger, Schulthess and others it ought to be read, is well
founded. See Schafer ad Soph. II. p. 307. The figure rf^o^oj yevtasa$
(connected with ^oy^aora) is neither incorrect, nor in James especially
striking, and therefore any correction of the accentuation is unnecessary.
As to the other passage, where there is a disposition to change the accent,
as 1 Cor. xiv. 7. 6jUw$ instead of o/ua;, Col. i. 15. rtgiftotoxos for Tt^wfoT'o-
xos, (see, on the other side, Baumgarten on this verse), it arises partly
from dogmatical opinions, partly from an ignorance of the subject, and is
therefore worthy of no attention.

3. It is still undecided whether, when the pronoun requires no em-
phasis, its enclitic form should be used with the preposition, so that jta^a,
oov, sv /tot, sis /E must be written, not Tta^a uov, Iv tyoi, etc. In editions
of the N. T. (as also in other Greek printing) rt^o'j as occurs in Matt.
xiv. 28; Tit. iii. 12. irtlas in Luc. i. 35. ^05 ^s in Matt. xi. 28; Luc. xi.

7. INTERPUNCTION. . 51

6. and in many other places; on the other hand, lv epoi in Matt. xi. 6.
xxvi. 31. cri* s> in Gal. ii. 3. ^ >a in Matt, xviii. 6. etc. Fritzsche
(ad Mtt. p. 771.) in all such places prefers the enclitic method. Comp.
Reisig. Conject. in Aristoph. p. 56. Herm. ad Soph. CEdip. R. p. 101.
Bornemann ad Xen. Conviv. p. 163. Valuable reasons for orthotony
may be seen in Bultmann ed. Rob. 8, sq.

Comp. Matth. ad Eurip. Orest. 384, his Gram. I-.^llOj Ellendt ad
Arrian, I. 199. It is manifest that, where there is ah, emphasis on the
pronoun, the enclitic form can have no place: so that Knapp and Schulz
have rightly accentuated John xxi. 22. -ei rfgoj as.

In editions of the N. T. text, there is an inclination to be governed
by the common rules of grammarians, therefore, contrary to Hermann's
will (De emend, rat. I. 73.) modern editors, except Lachmann, in such
instances as g^at; jw, *t tyi"" *wss, Joh. vi. 64. have written them so,
and not rtatj pov, lk fytwv twit- Comp. Mtt. ii. 2. rtS lolw, Mr. ii. 19,
wlw sale, Gal. i. 23. Comp. Buttmann ed. Rob. 11. 3. p. 39.

7. Interpunction.*

1. Up to the time of Griesbach (and even including himself), punctua-
tion in editions of the N. T. was not only deficient in internal consistency,
but also labored under this defect, that editors punctuated too much,
especially by commas, in order to facilitate the understanding of the text,
by which means they transferred to it their own preconceived, views. The
first who directed attention more particularly to punctuation, and en-
deavored to reduce it to fixed principles, was Knapp, whom Schulz and
Lachmann have recently followed, with still more restriction, yet not
with entire consistency .t This, however, will be reached with difficulty,
if ever; and therefore there ought to be an agreement on some funda-
mental principles, the more or less consistent application of which must
depend on the tact of the editors of the N. T. Since punctuation was
originally invented as an aid in reading, especially aloud,:}: by pointing

* Comp. especially Poppo in the Allg. Lit. Zeit. 1826. I. p. 506. and Matth. I. 172.

t Among the editors of Greek authors, I. Bekkcr, with greater moderation and
consistency, and W. Dindorf with still more rigidness, have recently begun to punc-
tuate; yet both seem to carry the exclusion of the comma loo far.

t Schafer is probably to be so understood, when he says, (ad Demost. II. p. 205,)
interpunctioncm hunc unum habere usum, ut regaf, promt ntiationem. Comp. Poppo.
T/mc. II. I. 146. Bultman Ausfuhrl. Sprachl. I. p. 68. If the only use of punctuation
in the Greek of the N. T. were to aid in reading aloud, it might easily be dispensed
with.

52 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

out the resting places for the voice, its principal aim can be no other
than to place the reader in a situation to apprehend the proper connection
of the words, and to understand them rightly, as far as the understanding
of them depends on it. Punctuation, therefore, must be based on a con-
sideration of the logical, or rather (as the thought is clothed in language)
of the grammatical and rhetorical relation of the words to one another.
It is, then, demanding too much, to require that the exegetical view of the
editor shall not appear in his punctuation; for in so doing, we demand
either what is impossible, or a punctuation so incomplete as to be only
applicable to a plain construction, but inapplicable to doubtful passages,
where the reader most needs assistance .

The colon and period can occasion no difficulty in the text of the N.
T.; the difficulty lies principally in properly locating the comma. How-
ever thus much is clear, that only a sentence grammatically complete,*
which is closely connected with another, should be separated from it by a
comma, and that for this purpose especially was the comma invented.
But to a grammatically complete sentence belong, not only the subject,
predicate and copula (which elementary constituents may be either ex-
pressed or implied), but also the particles which in the construction
describe more particularly those constituents, and without which the sense
would be incomplete. It was incorrect then in Griesbach always to
separate the subject from the verb by a comma, when it has a participle
joined with it, or when it consists of a participle with its adjuncts (Mr.
vii. 8. x. 49; 1 Joh. ii. 4. iii. 15.). In the following passages the comma
is incorrectly introduced: 1 Thess. iv. 9. rttgl 8s tfijj $i7iada.$ta;, oi>
%Et ygdfyew v[uv, Mtt. vi. 16. (MJ ywfaOe, wffrttg ol VTiox^ai (for
makes no sense of itself), Mr. v. 32. Sj av drtojwcriy -tv\v ywaixu av-tov, rta-
gextbs Ttoyou rto^vfiaj (the latter words contain the key to the sentence, and
are inseparable from the former), Mtt. xxii. 3. xal attest sthe *sj SovMs
avifu, xahsaat tfy XEX^^EVOV^ etc. 1 Thess. iii. 9. -tivu yag svzagwtiav 8vvd
1*9 0qi avtartoSovvat, rttgi vpwv, Irtl rtdcty tf^ 2agoi, etc. 1 Cor. vii. 1.
i/flgwTttp, ywat,x6$ JIMJ arftfEdtfat-. In this last sentence, even the voice
requires no pause. But the idea of a complete sentence is yet more
comprehensive. The relative clause itself must be regarded as part of

* The grammatical clause or sentence will generally correspond with the logical,
but not uniformly. Thus, in Lu. xii. 1. 7. Joh. vi. 29. (see a6oe), there are logically
two clauses, but by the relative, the second is included in the first, so that together
they make but one grammatical clause. The same is true of every Breviloquence,
where two clauses are combined in one. 1 Tim. vi. 3. tf TI? iTigoS&a.ffxa.'i.ti Jti /<*>)
V0ff-txprat uyiaboviri Xc'yoi?, logically consists of two clauses: but grammatically, the
two in this construction, become one. (See above.}

7. INTERFUNCTIOW. 53

the preceding sentence, when the relative (pronominal or adverbial) in-
eludes the demonstrative, Joh. vi. 29, wo. rttd-fEvdtjiis &l$ 6V artEdiefoev lxt.1-

Mtt. xxiv. 44. y wga o* SoxeltE 6 utof fa av9g. ^fitfcuj ^uk. xii. 17.
&x &o riS dwdfr tiis xartvs pv, or when there is an attraction of the
relative, Luk. ii. 20. ittl ttSaw oT? tfxaaav, (Comp. Schafer ad Demosth.
II. 657), or where the relative requires a preceding word to be supplied,
so that both are necessary to complete the sense, Luc. xii. 8. rfaj 05 av
o^ojtoy^tf^, Mtt. xiii. 44. rtdvea oaa i'^si, (thus Sliulz has it), or where be-
fore the relative the preposition is not repeated, Acts xiii. 39. d^o itdvlw
Zv &x &Jwij0i7*e, etc. Luk. i. 25. (Schulz here differs.)* Where the sub-
ject, predicate, or copula of a sentence consists of several words connected
by xal, ovSt, &c. all these words must be considered as a whole, in a
grammatical respect, although logically they are several clauses. So
Mr. xiv. 22. Jt|3wj/ 6 'I. agtfov f-u^oy^tjas exJMds xal edaxtv avtfolf, John vi.
24. 'l. ovx edit iv SXM wSs ot fjiaQijitai, wv-tov, Mt. xiii. 6. vfklmi avert eikuvtos
IxavfMrtiaQe xai 8ia to ^ E^JEIV piav sfygdv&q' 1 Tim. ,vi. 3. Mtt. vi. 2.6.
(Differently Mr. xiv. 27. rtafafo tov rtoipeva xai Siaaxogrtta&ias'tai, tartgo-
jSai'tt, Mat. vii. 7. a^elte, xai oo^dstat, vfuv where two complete clauses
are joined by xal, wherefore the comma must not be wanting. So always
before ^, if two clauses be separated by it.)

Finally, the comma must be omitted between such clauses as Luk. xxiv.
18. dv ftovoj TtagotjcEtj IsgoDj. xal ux syrcoj, etc. as they are intimately re-
lated and must be read together, because in this connection only do they
give the right meaning. In Mr. xv. 25. 1 should write, %v w^a i^Vj? xal
salavguaav avlov, without interpunction.

2. On the other hand, we must not include too much in a complete
grammatical clause, and thus omit commas where they ought to be placed.
The following remarks may therefore be made:

(a) The vocative is not an essential element of the sentence with which
it is connected, but is to be regarded as a sort of index, especially where
what is expressed after it is in the first or third person. Hence we punc-
tuate Joh. ix. 2. aj3j3o', tils vipagtev, Mr. xiv. 36. d|3|3a 6 rtatf^g, jtdvfa, 8i>-
va-ed tfot, 2 Pet. iii. 1. Luk. xv. 18. xviii. 11. etc.

(&) The comma should be placed after a word, which is the subject,
at the same time of the leading clause, and of that immediately succeed-
ing, which begins with a conjunction, Joh. vii. 31. 6 X^tffdj, Stav

(c) If to a clause grammatically complete another be added, which

* To omit the comma before every relative clause, as Bckker does in his edition
of Plat., is scarcely admissible.

7

54 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FOHMS.

would make sense of itself, they must be separated by a comma, Rom.

Xli. 1. rtagaxuhu vpa{ TtagoKJ^ofao t'a tfio^uatfa vfnuv ^vdlav ^wcfav ~ ^9
jyv \oyixviv Enifgeifw (i. 6. ^Vtj saifw y toy. &.) 1 Tim. ii. 6. 6 Sovf Aau-
i'iVa/ira'goj; irtag rtdviftov, #6 no^-evgiov jcagotj cSt'ocj. So also with par-

ticiples, Col. ii. 2. W Ttagcwc. at ssagStat awtuv aMytj3ij3ac&ai;T'$ ay dyeing,

John ix. 13. oyovrfw awtbv rtgo$ tovt ^agocfatous, ifov riots tvfyhov, JaS. V. 14.

(d) Every appositional clause in a sentence must be included in com-
mas, as it is a kind of parenthesis, Eph. iv. 1. rtc^axaXw ovv fytas ayw,
o Seapios iv xvglq, d|tos rtEgwtaf ^(Jai, etc. That such an apposition stands
in a totally different relation to the sentence from an epithet, every one
feels, and in reading, marks the distinction by his voice. Ciceronem, ele-
gantem scriptorem, pro. ceteris commendandum esse, all would read dif-
ferently from, summwn Ciceronem prss cet. etc. Lachmann, however,
has placed no comma there.

(e) When in a sentence there is a twofold construction (e. g. the
Anacoluthon.) it should not be either read or written without a comma.
Joh. XV. 2. rtav xhijpo* iv a'jitoi py $i=goj> xnpriov, ulpsv avi!6> By the intro-
duction of the tti)i'6, the rtav xh. -- xaprt. becomes a casus pendens,
which is only as it were an index to the sentence, and therefore no
one reads these words without a pause, Rev. iii. 12. QVMMV, fto^aa> av-tbv
atohov, etc.

CO When in a sentence there are several words in the same con-
struction, dcfwSe'tfcos (without xal) they must be separated from one another
by a comma. 1 Pet. v. 10. owtfoj xntiagtiiaii vpast ai?t]gi%Et>, adsvaasi'

t, Luk. Xlii. 14. artoxgiOsis $e o dg^Kjui/aycayoj, dyaj'axT'wv 6Vc

If in all these cases the comma could be justified, we should need a
half-comma, in order that the eye might see at once, those words in a
grammatical sentence which could be construed together, yet without
making (so to speak) a grammatical group. Thus in Lu. xvi. 10. <5 jtia-
z-os Iv liMxfotv xai w rfoMup rtus-tos eati, (asSchulz, Scholz and Lachmann
have written,) every one will err in reading, because the xai leads him
to expect a second word of the same construction with rttcfi'ds BV ax. The
difficulty presents itself in the following passages: Rom. iv. 14. ei yap 6t
fx vopov x^poi/OjU-oe,, Jas. V. 12. fao 8s vpuv to val vai xai if 6 ov oii. Heb.
iv. 16. I'vu Xaj3cO|ttaf ehsov X<M %v-pw tipco j u.f sl'j> etc. V. 12. otyt Movies ttvut
SiSdaxtikot, 8ta tfbv xpovov rtuhiv %psiav s^afa toil Si&diixstv vfaaf. By the aid
of a half-comma the difficulty would be at once removed. But as we
have no such punctuating point, the usual comma may be used without
hesitation, as in writing and printing 6, I'D is thus distinguished from 6Vt.

3. Although in many respects desirable that the exegetical view of the

7. INTERPUNCTION. 55

editor should not be transferred to the text by means of the punctuation,
(which in Rom. i. 17. vii. 21. Matt. xi. 11. can be easily avoided,) yet
there are passages where interpunction is necessary, and yet cannot be
made without indicating a particular mode of interpretation. For in-
stance, in Joh. vii. 21. every editor must decide,, whether he will punc-
tuate, EV epyoj/ Ertoitjtiu xal ftdvfsf Owv/AUgs'its. S* ilowto Mwtf^j SEOCOXEI/ v/^i/v

v, with Chrysost., Cyrill., Euthym., Zigab., etc., or IV fyy.

Si tfaVo. Macros, etc., with Theophyl. and nearly all modern
editors and interpreters. The old punctuation, with a period after dav-
ftd^Efs, might be advocated, not indeed on the ground that John always
begins, and never ends a sentence with &,<* tovto (as Schulz has proved,)
but because every one would apprehend the connection thus : 7 have
done one work, and ye all marvel. Moses therefore (know ye) gave
unto you, etc. i. e. I shall remove your marvel. You yourselves per-
form circumcision, according to the Mosaic law, on the Sabbath day: if
then this is not a breach of the sabbath, certainly the making a man
every whit whole on the sabbath is allowable, whereas circumcision
affects only a single member. However, 1 know very well that the com-
mon punctuation admits of an easier interpretation. Griesbach and
Knapp adopt the following punctuation of Heb. xi. 1. IVi't E ulem, &-
rttgopEvov vrtoataats, etc., which is probably correct, for the following
verses, to which the first is an introduction, do not point out the evidence
of the jticrtis, but its existence (together with its blissful consequences')

\ o 1 /

in the holiest men of the O. T. history. Besides yag in v. 2 would be
wholly superfluous, if we translated, with most interpreters, " Faith is the
substance, or evidence." Punctuated as above, the whole is consistent
and the parts well connected, thus, " There is a faith, a confidence, etc.:
for by it the elders obtained a good report." It should not be overlooked
that I'tftft stands in the beginning of the verse, although this in itself is
by no means decisive. Interpreters have also vacillated between the
following punctuations of Joh. xiv. 30. sq. l v > Zx l* rfftfr, daa,' Sva,
~~ Ttotco. sy(/gtf0 : and sSsv Q!M>I tva " ?tono, ivsif eadej and this
difference of punctuation, when it occurs in the N.T. text, is considered
a matter of no great moment. Comp. Luc. ix. 27. Rom. iii. 9. v. 16.
vi. 21. viii. 33. ix. 5. 1 Cor. vi. 4. xvi. 3. Mtt. xxvi. 4. Acts v. 35. (see
Kiinol,) Jas. ii. 4. 18. v. 3. Eph. iv. 17.

56 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OP FORMS.

8. Rare Inflections of the First and Second Declensions.

1. Proper names (mostly oriental, but formed according to the known
analogy of the Greek) of the first declension in aj, make the genitive
uniformly in a; e. g. Bo^ Luk. xiii. 29. Rev. xxi. 13. KAwrfa Joh. xix.
25. S^cwa 1 Cor. i. 16. xvi. 15. Sscsw* Acts xix. 14. K*?$a 1 Cor. i. 12.
Satfcwa Rev. iii. 9. 2 Thess. ii. 9. 'Erfaf a Col. i. 7.* So those termi-
nating in as unaccented, make it in a; e. g. Katanga Joh. xviii. 13. (Euseb.
H. E. I. 10), 'A$l*a 2 Cor. xi. 32. (Joseph. Antiq. XVII. 3, 2, XVIII.
5, 1, Euseb. H. E. I. 11), BagwjSa Gal. ii. 1. Col. iv. 10. "Aygirtrta Act.
xxv. 23, (Saot Joseph, mt. 17). The same form occurs often among the
Attics in proper nouns; e. g. Mogxa Xen. Anab. I. 5, 4, rwjSgva Xen.
Cyrop. V. 2, 14, nuflayoga Xenoph. ep. ad JEscldn. p. 789, Ko^a^a
Theocr. V. 150. CWp. Georgi Hierocr. I. p. 156, Matth. I. 190, 198,
Buttman ed. Rob. 34. IV. 3, 4, p. 69, Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. I. p.
83, and especially of Bo^a p. 149, Bekker Anecd. III. p. 1186. On the
other hand, there are found genit. in ov, as usual in the Attic language,
of nouns, whose ending in aj is preceded by a vowel, Ai/S^s'aj Mr. i. 29,
Joh. i. 45. (Joseph. Antiq. XII. 2, 3), Hjuaj Luc. i. 17. iv. 25. Hcrata?
Matt. iii. 3. 13. 14. Act. xxviii. 25: Zazagias Mt. xxiii. 35. Luc. i. 40.
Au<j<Waj Luc. iii. 1. So always in Joseph. "cWaj, 'Oviov, in other places
Twj3toD, Geo. Syncell. Chronogr. p. 164, but usually Toj3t. In the in-
scription of the Acta Andreas, this name is inflected in the genit.
See Thilo Act. Thorn, p. 68.

Words in ag^ojf are usually conformed in the N. T. and in the later
writers to the first declension, and end in a^^4 as rtai^iaga^j Heb. vii.
4. Ttar^ia^aj Act. vii. 8. 9. coll. 1. Paralip. xxvii. 22. tfafpap^j Mt. xiv.
1. Luc. iii. 19. ix. 7. coll. Joseph. Antiq. XVIII. 7. Li^pop^ac, Euseb.

* So ay** Act. Thorn, p. 75 Aouxa Euseb. H. E. III. 24.

t The manuscripts of the old Gr. writers vacillate between %<>? and "? ; yet
they rather prefer the form ctpxps- ^ <mi P- Poppo ad Xenoph. Cyrop. II. ], 22. p. 109.
This is most conformable to the etymology of ?. As Towag^o? .ZEschyl. Choe'ph.
662.

t That this was the prevailing termination in the later Greek seems clear from
this fact, that the Romans in transferring these words into their language, gave them
either this or a similar form, although they might as easily have terminated them in
arc/ius, c. g. Tetrarches Hirt. bell. Alexandr. c. 67, Liv. Epitom. 94, Horat. Serm. I.
3, 12, Lucan. VII. 227, Abelarches Cic. ad Attic. II. 17, Juven. Satir. I. 130, Topar-
cha Spavtian. in Hadrian. XII f., Ariarcha Cod. Thcodos. XV. 9, 2, Patriarcha by
Tertull. de Anim. c. VII. 55. Comp. Schafer ad Demostli. II. p. 151, Bockh Politi-
cal Economy, II. 133.

8. RARE INFLECTIONS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSIONS. 57

H. E. (ed. Vales. Mogunt. MDCLXX.) 1.7. p. 23. A., ftvdpxv 2 Cor.
xi. 32. coll. I Mace. xiv. 47. fevapxy 1 Mace. xv. 1. 2. i&dpxus Euseb.
de vit. Constant. I. 8. p. 409. D. ^vdpx^v Joseph. Jlntiq. XVII. 11.4.
aaidpzys, aatapx^v Act. xix. 31. and aaidpxijv Euseb. H. E. IV. 15. p.
131. 1). IxMwtdpzv Act. x. 1. 22. coll. Joseph. B. J. HI. 6. 2. Euseb.
H. E. IV. 15. p. 135. A. Bxatovtupxy AcL xxiv ' 23 ' xxvii * 81 * Mt> viii-
13. where however, txatovtdpxy is found, as in Joseph. B. J. II. 4. 3.
besides txarfovtdpxijv also fxutov'tapxov is found. A

On the other hand txatovtapxos occurs in the following passages: Matt. J:
viii. 5. 8. Lu. vii. 6 (the gen. sing, in Lu. vii. 2. and gen. plur. in Acts ^
xxiii. 23. the former with the same accent, and the latter with the ultima
circumflexed, can also be inflected from Ixotfoj'i'ap^j), Acts xxii. 26.
xxviii. 16. tffpafoTtsSap^ Acts xxviii. 16. where a few manuscripts also
have

The following examples may be adduced in favor of the form

2 Mace. xii. 2. tortdx Gen. xli. 34. Dan. iii. 2. iii. 6. 7.

Euseb. H. E. 1. 13. p. 32. B. iM-tpowtfap^s 2 Mace. xiv. 12. 3 Mace. v.
45. ahapdpxiis Joseph. Antiq. XIX. 5. 1. ysvdpxw Joseph. Antiq. I. 13. 4.
t&dpx'ris Arrian. Alex. II. 16. 11. Euseb. de Vit. Constant. IV. 63.
idem. IV. 51 and 68, also te&apxas (see Heinichen Index, p. 585), ihd
Arrian. Alex. I. 12, XI. 2. VII. 5. tfay^ar'ap^j Ducas cap. 16. c
ap^s in Malalas (also da/iifap^oj).

By others the form ag^oj is exclusively used; e. g. ^aia^^oj, in all the
passages quoted by Schleussner, except Apoc. xix. 18, where the gen.
plur. with the accent changed, might be derived from ajaiag^s- But we
find xMidgxiis in Arrian. Alex. 1. 22. 9. VII. 25. 11. See Ellendt ad
Arrian. II. p. 267. Also Septuag. Exod. xviii. 21. 25. Deut. i. 15. Num.
i. 16. where is SsxaSa^o?, and Leo. Diac. VI. 2. wxtertagxos*

A dialectic inflexion of the first dec. is found in Acts x. 1. xxi. 31.
xxvii. 1. cfrfft'g^j, Ionic, from artii^a. As to the first passage, there is
some uncertainty among the Codd. Comp. Arrian. Tact. p. 73, ed.
Scheffer.

2. In the second declension the subsequent forms occur.

(a) 'Artojaw in the accusative sing, instead of 'Arto^wv, from 'ArtoTaw?,
Acts xix. 1. 1 Cor. iv. 6. Comp. Acts xviii. 24. (The gen. is regu-
larly 'Artowwo 1 Cor. iii. 4. xvi. 12.) See Buttman ed. Rob. p. 72. 37.
note 2. Matt. i. 196. According to several manuscripts <tyv K. in Acts
xxi. 1. belongs here; although others have the usual form^j/ Kwv, as Cod.
Diez. See Matth. on the passage. Both these terminations occur in
Greek. (See Schol. ad Iliad. XIV. 255); KW, for instance, in Xen.
Ephes. 1. 11. Arrian. Alex. II. 5, III. 3. Strabo X.748, Joseph. Antiq.
XIV. 7, 2.

(&) Noi, in the dative (as of 3 dec.) from iwj, 1 Cor. i. 10. xiv. 15.
Rom. vii. 25. for usual Gr. form 1/09 or v $, and 1/06$ in the genit. instead
of vS 1 Cor. xiv. 19, Euseb. H. E. X. 4, Lob. p. 453. Besides in the
N. T. the form voi is found only in the Fathers, in Simplicius ad Aristot.

58 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

PJiys. XXXI. 25, Phil. Leg. Allegor. p. 58 (Bekker Anecd. III. p. 1196),
and the Byzantine historians (e. g. Malala. see index of ed. Bonn.),
Fischer ad Wetter. II. p. 181. Lob. p. 453. Soyaooj Acts xxvii. 9. in
genit. instead of 70.01). Comp. Arrian. Peripl. Erythr. p. 176, Malala.
V. p. 94, Lob. p. 453. sq.

(c) fs, in the vocative, Matt, xxvii. 46. Jud. xxi. 3 (Act. Thom. xxv.
45, 57). Of this scarcely an example is to be found in the Gr. writers.
Comp. Buttmann ed. Rob. p. 71. 35. note 2. Even the LXX. have
usually 0fdj.

(d) 'Osfltt in Lu. xxiv. 3. and ootwv Matt, xxiii. 27. Heb. xi. 22.
plurals from datl ov are found in the uncontracted form. The latter form,
however, often occurs in Gr. prose authors. Lucian. Nekyom. 15. Plat.
Phced. p. 73. D. Comp. aZsoEurip. Orest. 404. Troad. 1177. 'Ogtsa
is more uncommon. Comp. Aristot. Anim. III. 7. Menand. ed. Mei-
neke. p. 196.

As metaplasms we may notice, (1) 68^0?, plur. *<* Ssapd Lu. viii. 29.
Acts xvi. 26. xx. 23; only once 6t Si-a^oi Phil. i. 13. without any varia-
tion. In the common Greek Seapou is also more unusual than Ssapd.
Thom. M. p. 204. Buttmann ed. Rob. p. 92. 56. 6. Kiinol ad Acts. p.
558. (2) From (tdppatov occurs only the gen. sing, and plur. and dative
sing.*' tfa/3/3arft, dat. plur. (which is found also in Meleag. LXXXIII. 4.)
according to Passow comes from a sing. crajSjSaiyafoj. (3) altos, m. plur.
(altoi and) cftVa Acts vii. 12. A sing, altov has never occurred. See
Schlifer ad Soph. Elect. 1366. (4) According to the manuscripts M^OS
is sometimes feminine, Lu. iv. 25. xv. 14. Acts xi. 28. as according to
the Doric dialect (Lob. p. 188) the popular language used the word.
Valckener Schol. I. p. 100. 483. Comp. Malala. III. p. 60. In the
two latter passages, the authorities for q TI^IOJ are so good, that it proba-
bly ought to be adopted in the text. (5) pa^oy as masc. in Mr. xii. 26.
(not however without variations), as fern. Lu. xx. 37. Acts vii. 35.
(Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 532).

9. Unusual Inflections in the Third Declension.

1, The following peculiarities occur in the singular:
(a) The gen. yj^iaov^ Mr. vi. 23. from the substantively used
Comp. Dio. Chrysost. VII. p. 99. Schwarz Comment, p. 652. Buttmann
ed. Rob. 51. p. 87. N. 5. The common form is qpiasos, see Fischer
Prolus. p. 667.

* In the Septuagint we also find from this form the dat. plur. a-a.^a,foit 1 Chron.
xxiii. 31. 2 Chr. ii. 4. viii. 13. Ezek. xlvi. 4. as in Joseph, together with ff&g&ttri.

9. UNUSUAL INFLEXIONS IN THE THIRD DECLENSION. 59

(6) The dat. y^gac (Ionic) for y^so Luke i. 36. (as ovSet from ovSog in
Homer) instead of which the received text has y^<j. Comp. Ps. xci.
14. Eccles. viii. 50. 1 Kings xi. 4. and the Fathers, e. g. Theodoret on
Ps. cxix. ed. Hal. I. p. 1393. Fabric. Pseudepigr. II. 630. 747.

(e) The ace. vywj Joh. v. 11. 15. Tit. ii. 18. Lev. xiii. 15. Among
the Attics is found another contraction, iyiaj yet the former occurs in
Plat. Phced. p. 189. D. Legg. III. p. 684. C. etc. See Eustath. ad
Odyss. IV. p. 196. Heindorf ad Plat. Charmid. p. 64. Matth. I. 288.

2. In the plural, (a) The ace in SEJ instead of *aj, from nom. suj; e. g.
s Mtt. x. 21. Luc. ii. 27. ygappatels Mtt. xxiii. 34. So also among
the Attics; e. g. Xenophon. (See Poppo ad Cyrop. p. 32), although the
Attic grammarians reject this form. See Matth. I. 235.

(&) The dat. of the numeral $v<si, in Matt. xxii. 40, Lu. xvi. 1 3, Acts
xii. 6, is inflected according to the analogy of the third declension. It
is also found in Thucid. 8, 101. (Svaiv $^tgat$,) Plutarch, Aristotle, Hip-
pocrates, and others, instead of the usual form Svotv. See Thorn M. p.
253, Lob. p. 210, Buttmann ed. Rob. p. 113. 70. 2. In the gen., 8
occurs as indeclinable, Mtt. xx. 24, xxi. 31. Joh. i. 40. 1 Tim. v. 19. as
sometimes among the Greeks, e. g. ^Elian. V. H. 4. 31. Svo e-t^v, Lucian.
dial.mort. 4, 1.

(c) The uncontracted forms, 6gsuv and #tx!cov contrary to the common
form, occur in Rev. vi. 15. Heb. xiii. 15. whilst the other cases are
regularly inflected. Such genitives however are not unfrequent in Greek
prose. Aristot. Problem. 26, 55. Comp. Georgi Hierocr. I. 145. Poppo
ad Xen. Cyrop. p. 213. Jacobs ad Achill. Tat. 2, 1.

(d} Of the contraction of the neut. J/u<7, Lu. xix. 8. used substan-
tively, the same may be said, as of qpiaovs above, in 1. (a). The usual
form is the uncontracted ^o'rfsa. Comp. Fischer ProZ. p. 667. Buttm. ed.
Rob. p. 87. 51. N. 5. Dindorf has adduced some instances of the latter
form, from a manuscript.

(e) The contracted gen. rf^wj/, Joh. xxi. 8. Rev. xxi. 17. for rt^a'wv.
The former is a later mode of inflection. See Lob. p. 246, yet it is found
in Xen. Jlnab. 4, 7. 16. and more frequently in Plutarch.

Besides the usual form xtelS* from xtel j, in Rev. iii. 7. comp. LXX.
Judg. iii. 25. Is. xxii. 22. there occurs also xtetv, in Rev. xx. 1. although
several manuscripts here read xteiba,: also in the plural tfaj XM-IJ, Mtt.
xvi. 19, (also *ji5off) Rev. i. 18. (Act. Thorn, p. 14). SeeTh. Mag. p.
536, Butt. ed. Rob. p. 98, 658, Lob. p. 460, Greg. Cor. ed. Schafer, p.
157, xteiv is found in Lysias, p. 7. So Jf^foj, 1 Cor. i. 11. and egj
(nom and ace.) 2 Cor. xii. 20. Gal. v. 20. Tit. iii. 9. occur together.

60 .' PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

contracted regularly from x gsa,s (Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 89. 54. 1.)
in Rom. xiv. 21. 1 Cor. viii. 13. (Exod. xvi. 8. 12); as in Xen. Cyrop. 1.
3, 6, 2. 2, 2. On the other hand lg a j has xegnta, in Rev. v. 6. xiii.
11. xvii. 12. (Amos iii. 14, Ps. Ixix. 52), xsgowov, Rev. ix. 13. xiii. 1.
(1 Kings i. 50. ii. 29), never in the contracted form jclga, xs&v. Buttm.
as above; Bekker Anecd. III. p. 1001. Finally, i-s'gaj has always the
full form tflgatf a, Acts ii. 43. v. 12; Mr. xiii. 22; John iv. 48, and tflgafa,
Rom. xv. 19; (Joel ii. 30; Ex. xi. 10), for tsgn and tegXv. The latter
flexions are considered Attic. Mger. p. 369, Buttmann and others.

NOTE 1. 'iiStV for liSt'f, nom. sing, of ci&Wf, occurs once, in 1 Thess.
v. 3. (Is. xxxvii. 3). So S&fyiv is not unusual in later writers. Butt.
ed. Rob. p. 75. 41, 4.

NOTE 2. An unusual gender is given to Tthovtos in many passages in
good manuscripts. For instance, it occurs as a neuter in Ephes. ii. 7.
iii. 8. 16; Phil. iv. 19; Col. ii. 2. This was derived from the popular
language; as the modern Greeks also use ^6 yaoiji'oj and 6 jthovt . pro-
miscuously. See Coray Plutarch Vit. p. 58. Isoc. II. 103. 106. Both
6 &EOJ, and to sfaos occur, the latter more frequently; as in the LXX and
in Ducas. p. 122, pdaavov for jSatfavoj. On the contrary 6 fowti/ojin modern
authors. See Hase ad Leon. Diac. p. 239. Schafer, Ind. ad JEso-p.
p. 128. 163. and otuxo? in Ducas, p. 266. Bonn. The Heteroclite axo-
tfo? (Poppo Time. I. p. 225) occurs only once in Heb. xii. 18. (COCOT^) as
a masc.: in all other places as a neuter (axotovs,

10. Declension of Foreign and Indeclinable Words.

1. For some oriental names adopted in the Greek, the LXX, and the
N. T. writers have introduced a simple mode of inflection, in which the
gen. dat. and voc. have usually one form, and the ace. terminates in v.
To these belong, 'jfytfoijf, gen. 'l^ofotJ, Mtt. xxvi. 69. dat. 'iqaov, Mtt. xxvi.
17.* voc. 'Jfyrfov, Mr. i. 24. ace. 'lyaovv, Mtt. xxvi. 4. Acts xx. 21. Aaui
or Am?, Lu. v. 29, ace. AEVW, Mr. ii. 14. 'iwuijf, gen. 'locftj, Mtt. xxvii.
56; Mr. xv. 40; Lu. iii. 29. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 90. 56. 1. N. 1. A
parallel flexion with 'l^tfoij is the Egyptian name a^oif (Plat. PJiced. p.
274.) Matth. I. 198. We find in the N. T. a twofold flexion of the word
MCOCJ^J: () Gen. Mwaawj, John ix. 29, Acts xv. 1; Heb. ix. 19; (Diod.
Sic. eel. 34), dat. Mwtfst, Mr. ix. 4; Lu. ix. 33; (both occur also in Eu-
sebius); ace. Mea^'a, Lu. xvi. 29: (Euseb. H. E. 1, 2, and often in Georg.
Syncell). (b) Dat. Mcotf#, Mtt. xvii. 4; John v. 46, ix. 29; Acts vii. 44;
ace. MCOCJ^I/, Acts vi. 11; 1 Cor. x. 2. Diod. Sic. 1, 94. The latter forms

* Besides these forms, the Codd. Septuag. often have 'intro? for the dat. and even
for gen. Ex. xvii. 14.

10. DECLENSION OF FOREIGN AND INDECLINABLE WORDS. 61

(Comp. gen. Muaov, Euseb. 7,21) are regularly derived fromnom.
(Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 84, 49) and for the former, a nom. Moaev; is not
required: neither does it occur. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 90. 1. N. 1.*
makes, in Mtt. i. 10, ace. McwatftJjJ : according to others Ma-

The name of Solomon in the common text is inflected Soko^wvT'a, Mtt.
i. 6. Sojwytwj/i-os, Mtt. xli. 42; Lu. xi. 31; John x. 23; Acts iii. 11. 5.
12. (as SEVO^WV, gsi/o^wvfoj); but the better manuscripts have 2oho/*<Zvof,
Sojio^cSi/a. See Wetsten. 1, 228. This form ought to be in the text, as
wv, uvfof indicate a participial derivation, Buttm. ed. Rob. 41. 5. 8. N.
6. pp. 75. 77. Then we ought, properly speaking, to write Soxo^wv
according to the best authorities (Comp. Pappelb. Cod. Dies. p. 9), like
Baj3i>xwj/, etc., since iLoantSuv (nosaSwvos) as contracted, for noijEtSacov is
not a parallel case. In the Septuagint, Soa,<ytw is indeclinable. 1 Kings
iv. 7. 29. v. 12. xv. 16. vi. 18.

2. Many Hebrew proper names which might be inflected after the
third declension, occur as indeclinable in the Septuagint and N. T. e. g.
'AotSv genitive, in Heb. vii. 11, ix. 4; dat. in Exod. vii. 9. Acts vii. 4;
ace. Ex. vii. 8. Comp. Mtt. i. and Luk. iii. 23. See also SD^EWV Luk. iii.
30, Sajt/tiwv Luk. iii. 33. 'ist#w, genit. Deut. xxxii. 49; Mtt. xx. 29;
Heb. xi. 30; ace. Luk. x. .30, xviii. 35.f 'le^ovea^tjn, for which in Mtt.,
Mr. and John the form 'legoeoHupa, might be preferred, on the authority
of manuscripts, which is regularly inflected as neuter in Mtt. xx. 17;
John xi. 55. ^6 rtdazn Lu. ii. 41, as in the Septuagint;^: also
Luk. i. 15, and almost uniformly in the Septuag. Comp. Lev. x. 9 oi
Euseb. praep. ev. 6, 10, gen. oixtgos.\\ The Hebraic plural termination
occurs only in Heb. ix. 5, x*<>pipi where, as in the Septuagint (Gen. iii.
24), it is construed as a neuter, like

In Rev. i. 4, a whole phrase, viz. drto 6 uv xal 6 %v, xal 6
used as equivalent to m'rr, the name of the immutable, is, with propriety,
treated as indeclinable, like iv, wdw, etc. in the Gr. philosophers, e. g.

* In the printed text of Josephus we find only gen. Mwuo-la);, dat. MwiJo-w, ace. MODU-
o-fly. In Theodoret. occur also gen. Mtoa-n and Mwg-oij. See Bauer Glossar. Theod. p.
269.

t In other places a double inflection occurs: (a) Gen. 'legj^ou 3 Esr. v. 44; dat. 'i*gtx$
Procop. de adif. 5, 9. Theod. V. p. 81. Hal. or 'ugixpT Joseph, belljud. 1, 21, 4. Suid.
at 'n^ysvfit, and (6) from 'IBJ%<?, gen. 'is^ovvray Strab. 16, 763. ace. 'l^w-n*
Strab. 16, 760. and usually in Josephus.

t So also in the Fathers. See Snicer the*. II. 607. Epiphan. Haer. II. p. 19. even
uses Ti TTao-^tt, in the plural.

II Most of these names are declined in Josephus, as he gives terminations to almost
all proper names and therefore inflects them. e. g. "A&a^, Wafaof , etc.
8

62 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

Aristbt. Polit. 5, 3. Procl. Theol. plat. 2, ed. Hoeschel, ^tfa tov &;>
X<*&s fov sv (Stollberg de Solo.c. N. T. p. 14.) while, in Creutzer's
edition of the writings of Proclus, EX tov tvb$, iv ^9 Ivi, are uniformly
printed. Comp. also -tov 6 Sewa Schafer ad Demosth. III. 282.

11. Inflection and Comparison of Adjectives.

1. Adjectives of three terminations, especially those in
j, are often used with only two, particularly by the Attics. (Elmsley
ad Eurip. Heracl. p. 77. Lips. Monk ad Eurip. Hippol. p. 55. ad
Eurip. Alcest. 126. 548. 1043. ' Jacobs ad Antliol. III. p. 141. 216.
ad Philostr, 345. Poppo ad Time. I. 101. Jacobs ad Lucian. Tax.
p. 84.) Luk. ii. 13, o^arta ovgavtoj and Acts xxvi. 19, out of the N. T.
fall under this head: perhaps also Rev. iv. 3, Tgcs (fern.) xvxh6esv -fov
6govov 6/totos (the correct reading) tf/ta^ayStV^, etc. See more in Winer's
Exeget. Stud. I. 152. In 1 Tim. ii. 8, baiovs %i-iga$, instead of ocrt'aj, as
some Codd. have it; although the 6<jtouj might be construed with trtaigovtas.
On the other hand, the later Greek uses adjectives of two termina-
tions, as of three, as a^yoj, Lob. p. 105. Comp. Ellendt. ad Arrian.
JLlex. I. p. 242. This occurs also in Tit. i. 12, in a quotation from
Epirnenides, if the reading be correct.

in the N. T. has only two terminations, although in 2 Thess.
ii. 16. Heb. ix. 12 aiwlav occurs, and in the latter verse invariably:
Comp. Numb. xxv. 13. Plat. Tim. p. 37. Bekk. /3E/3ai,'a, Rom. iv. 16.
which the scrupulous Thorn. Mag. p. 149, denounces, is found in Isocr.,
Demosth., Xen. and others. Comp. Duker ad Thuc. 2, 43; i'^/tof, in
reference to which the Attics vacillate, (see Ellendt. ad Arrian. Jilex. I.
p. 262,) is uniformly of two terminations in the N. T.

2. On the comparison of adjectives the following remarks are sub-
mitted :

(a) Taxvs in the cornp. neut. makes td^iov, (Johnxx. 4. Heb. xiii. 19.
23. 1 Tim. iii. 14.) for which aow>, and among the Attics Snttov was
usual. The former occurs regularly in Diod. Sic. 20, 92. 2, 5. Dion.
Hal. Plut. Lob. p. 77. Meinecke ad Menand. p. 144. fc'ee also 1 Maccab.
ii. 40; Sap. xiii. 9.

(&) In 3 John iv. .is a double comp. ju.ioi'sgo$, and in Eph. iii. 8, a
comparative formed from the superlative sjta^wr'oVjfos, comp. shuziato-
-tuTtos, Sext. Emp. 9, 406. Such formations appertain especially to poetic
diction (Apoll. Rhod. 3. 187. jmotfffoy), or to the later language, as

11. INFLECTION AND COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES. 63

f, Ducas 27. 29. 37. ^E^OJ/OT-^OJ, ibid. c. 27. 1 Modal. 18. p.
490; yet several examples are found in the earlier, (see Wetsten. II. 247.)
These, however, as Aristot. Metaph. 10. 4. are not primary forms, but
arbitrary. See Buitm. ed. Rob. p. 113, 69, 3, N. 3. Lob. ad Phryn. p.
136. Comp. in Ger. mehrere from meltr, (in Eng. lesser from less. Trs.}

(c) The comparatives xa-t^ts^ Eph. iv. 9, wu-tsgos Luk. xiv. 10, Itfw-
tfEgoj Acts xvi. 24, from the adverbs xdta, dVw, eao, are questioned by
Buttmann ed. Rob. p. 112, 69. 2. marg. note. They are found, however,
uniformly in the N. T. and in the Septuagint, frequently in the later
Greek, as Leo. Diac. 10, 1. and also in the best style of some of the
Fathers.

(d) On the comparative form of the adverb, as itegtaisoifsgcos in 2 Cor.
i. 12. Gal. i. 14. which is not unknown to the Greeks, see Buttm. ed.
Rob. p. 311. 115. 5. Elmsley ad Eurip. Heracl. p. 100. Lips.

12. Augment of Regular Verbs.

1. The temporal augment instead of the syllabic occurs:
(a) In the imperfect ^EME Joh. iv. 47. vi. 71. xii. 33. xviii. 32. Heb.
xi. 8. in the last verse without any variation of the MSS. or Codd. and
in the others with none of any importance. On the contrary, in Acts
xvi. 27. 33. Rev. x. 4. I> ^E is found invariably. In Luk. x. 1. accord-
ing to the best Codd. ought to be written ,fttme. See Bockh ad Plat.
Mem. p. 148.

(6) The imperfect J8wa*o has a preponderating authority in Matt.
xxvi. 9. Mr. iv. 33. v. 3. vi. 5. 19. xiv. 5. Joh. xi. 37. and in Lu. i. 22.
viii. 19. xix. 3. Joh. ix. 33. xii. 39. has all the MSS. and Codd. in its
favor: on the other hand, in Acts xxvi. 32. they all agree in eSivnto. In
Mtt. xvii. 16. 19. Lu. ix. 40. the aor. ^vv^v uniformly occurs. In re-
spect to these current Attic forms, see Georgi Hieroc. I. p. 32. Buttm.
ed. Rob. p. 132. 83. N. 5. Jacobs ad Achil. Tat. p. 554. Ellendt ad
Arrian. Alex. II. p. 208.

2. The syllabic augment occurs in a verb beginning with a vowel,
Joh. xix. 32. xa-teo^av aor. 1. from xntdywfM (see Thorn. M. p. 498.)
and it is even found in other moods than the indie. Ka^oy^ Joh. xix. 31.
Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 134. 84. N. 5. Passow 1. 1196. Comp. Thuc. III.

64 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

89. Aristot. Amm. IX. 43. Plat. Cratyl. p. 268. D. a.* In Acts vii. 16.
as sometimes among the Greeks, Lob. p. 139. Avyadp.^ instead of Iwq-
adpqv, which latter form is the most common with the Greeks: and in
Acts vii. 27. 39. 45. is I'wca for wcja. See similar examples in Poppo ad
Thuc. III. II. p. 407.

3. Of verbs beginning with sv there is preponderating evidence
for tvSoxqcta (only yvSoxqaa, in Lu. iii. 22. without variation, and in Col.
i. 19. on the authority of good Codd.), sfaoyqaa (in Mr. x. 16. however,
imperf.) and decisive for tv^axov (only Mr. xiv. 55. var.
), comp. Lob. p. 140. Herm. ad Eurip. Bacch. p. 11. (The
augmented form as existing among the Attics is contended for by Elmsley
ad Eurip. Med. 191. 2. in the Apocrypha (Evang. Nicod. c. 20), and
in the Fathers it occurs more frequently). The authority for qvxovto
Acts xxvii. 29. qvxopcv Rom. ix. 3. with augment, is very considerable.
In Xen. Andb. IV. 8. 24. it occurs without the augment. In Acts xxvii.
35. all agree in wxagiatqaf from ivxagidtuv, while in Rom. i. 21. the
majority have yvxagicrtqeav. Without variation we find evtyogtjaiv Luk.
xii. 16. but yivrio^lto Acts xi. 28. Hv$gdvdq in Acts ii. 26. from the
Septuagint, is perhaps to be preferred. Comp. Buttm. ed. Rob. 84.
5. and N. 2. Matth. I. 381. Poppo ad Tkuc. I. 227. Lehmann ad
Lucian. II. p. 456. Eaiayy^?. has the augment after w, without varia-
tion, Acts viii. 35. 40. x.vii. 18. 1 Cor. xv. 1. Gal. i. 8. iv. 13. Rev. x.
7. See Lob. p. 269. even Ttgofi^yyaju'tfaT'o Gal. iii. 8. so also has tvagm-
fslv Heb. xi. 5. Yet Cod. A. and many others without any augment.
The tenses of rtgoasvxeaOai, take the augment almost without variation, as
rcgo<tt]v%crto Mtt. xxvi. 44. Tt^oatjvx^o Mr. i. 35. except that in Acts xxi.
5. some Codd. have

4. ngojHjttvsiv, according to rule (Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 136. 86. 1.)
takes the augment after the preposition in Jude 14. without any variation:
yet pretty good Codd. in most passages, give the forms Ijt^o^-ttwav Mtt.
xi. 13. ertgofyqia-vae Mtt. xv. 7. vii. 22. Mr. vii. 6. Luk. i. 67. Job. xi. 51.
Acts xix. 6. .Schulz ad Matt. vii. 22. who adopts this form, is certainly
not to be followed. By later writers the augment is frequently placed
before the preposition, as sri^oad^xsv, eavppovfavov, see index to Ducas, ed.
Bonner. p. 639.

5. The augment of the form O,^<j>a (for ^H'T^O. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 132.
83. N. 3.) is transferred to the aor. 1. xaTfe^qQij instead of

* Even in the fut. we find the form wrtafyi (Mtt. xii. 20.) for x.A'ra.^ta, among the
Attics; tlic better to distinguish it from the fut. of x.ara.ytiv.

12. AUGMENT OF REGULAR VERBS. 65

Job. viii. 4. is invariably found. See Maittaire Dialectt. ed. Sturz. p.
58. Traces of this are found in the lonisms, Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 54.
27. 2. Note 1.

6. A double augment occurs,

(a) In drttxafsatdei] Mtt. xii. 13. Mr. iii. 5. Lu. vi. 10. according to
good Codd. and therefore ought to be received into the text. Comp. Lu-
cian Philoputr. c. 27. urttxatsa'ttiae, Ducas. 29. drtexa-feattjaav, and Din-
dorf ad Diod. Sic. p. 539, and Schafer ad Plut. V. p. 198.

(6) In (M>e<p%ev Job. IX. 14. 30. nvi^n -kuk' * 64< dve^flijaav Mtt. IX.
30. Job. ix. 10. Acts xvi. 26. (Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 293. oj'yw.); even once
in the inf. aor. uvecpxerjvat, Luk. iii. 21. Yet the Codd. present many dif-
ferent formations, e.g. iJWtfev Job. ix. 14. 30. Rev. xii. 16. qvoizOqaw
Rev. xx. 12. yivoiyr)v Rev. xi. 19. xv. 5. as in the Septuag. and later
Greek writers (Buttm. Lob. p. 153). With a triple augment we find in
Rev. xx. 12. qvHpzO*!) .Rev. xix. 11. qvsqyiAevoir, John ix. 14. qvtytsv,
(Gen. vii. 11. viii. 6. Dan. vii. 10. 3 Mace. vi. 18. Comp. Philo.
Apocr. I. p. 669.).

() In yvtizEtOe 2 Cor. xi. 1. 4. (comp. Thucid. V. 45. Xen. Cyrop.
V. 6. 34. Herodian. VIII. 5. 9.) and ^tszofi^v for avs<sx- Acts xviii. 14.
(comp. Thuc. III. 28. Herod. VII. 159.) corresponding with Greek
usage, which, in these forms, scarcely recognises a single augment,
Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 137. N. 6. p. 283. CH/EZW. Yet good Codd. in 1 Cor.
write avefxeaQs, Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 163. 84. 2.

7. On the authority of Codd. ygydaato occurs several times for

Mtt. xxv. 16. xxvi. 10. Mr. xiv. 6. as also in a good manuscript of Demos.
(Schafer Appar. V. p. 553.) Comp. Sturz p. 125.

8. In the pluperfect the augment is usually wanting, as Mr. xv. 7.
jtErfoMjxEKrcw, xvi. 9. xj3j3?ujxt, Luk. vi. 48. tfsfls^EjuWo, Mr. xiv. 44.
SsSAxst, (Mr. xv. 10. Job. xi. 57.), Acts xiv. 8. rtegtt<o*i}jest, 1 Job. ii.
19. pfptvyxBi.aav, without any material variation; and consistency would
require that these forms be admitted into the text. Ionic (Herod. 1. 122.
III. 42. IX. 22.) and Attic prose writers (e. g. Plato) often omit the aug-
ment in the pluperf. when euphony requires it (Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 132.
83. N. 6.), especially in compounds. See Georgi Hierocr. 1. 179. Poppo
Thuc. I. 228. Bornemann ad Xen. Anab. p. 272. Jacob, ad Lucian.
Tox. p. 68. Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. I. 265. 284. Comp. Thuc. VIII.
92. Xen. Cyr. III. 2. 24.

66 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

13. Unusual Forms in the Tenses and Persons of Regular Verbs.

1. (a) Tenses, which are usually formed after the analogy of the aor.
2. have, in the Septuagint, the termination a (the aor. 1. ending). (See
Sturz Dial. Jllzx. p. 61. Valckenaer ad Herodot. p. 649. 91. Dorville
ad Charit. p. 402. Wolf ad Demosth. in Sept. p. 216.) e. g. ei
1 Sam. x. 14. etywyav 2 Sam. x. 14. wgav XVli. 20. tydya/juv xix. 42.
tfco Esth. v. 4. Comp. Prov. ix. 5. Amos vi. 2. 2 Chron. xxix. 17.
Transcribers have omitted this form in some places in the N. T.; and on
the authority of good Codd. it should be restored in the following pas-
sages:* Mtt. xxv. 36. fo$ats, Luc. vii. 24. ^f^owe, Mt. xxvi. 39.
^atfo, Act. vii. 10. xii. 11. fls^a-r'o, vii. 21. dvaaai'o, Gal. V. 4.
Rev. vii. 11. 1-VtEcav, Hebr. ix. 12. Evgdpsvos, (Epiph. Opp. I. 619. The-
odoret. Opp, II. 837. Hal.) and others. In some other passages, where
this form is found in only a few Codd. it may be attributed to the trans-
cribersjf especially when similar flexions in a preceded or followed.
See Elmsley ad Eurip. Med. p. 232. Lips. Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 638.
These mostly occur in the 1 pers. sing, and plur., 2 pers. plur., or 3
pers. plur., while the 2 pers. sing., infin. and particip. are scarcely found.
For examples of such aorists in the Greek (e. g. Orpheus), see Buttm.
ed. Rob. p. 158. 96. N. 1. marg. note. The itgoatrtsao which occurs
in Eurip. Troad. 293. Seidler has changed into rtgoasjteaov, and instead of
rtsaetE in Alcest. 477. we certainly ought to read Ttsaot,. See Hermann
on this place. In Achill. Tat. III. 17. on the other hand, we find xu-ft-
rt<saju,v, and in c. 19. fH-giErtiaapev: and ExttectMs in Eustath. Amor. Ism.
I. p. 4. ought to be corrected, on the authority of good Codd. See Ja-
cobs p. 664. Lob. 183. Matth. I. p. 424. Among the Byzantine writers
such forms undoubtedly occur, e. g. ij^ai/ Malala XVIII. p. 465. XII.
p. 305. av^av XV. p. 389. yvgapEv XVIII. p. 449. art&Scrtf Ducas.
XXIV. Comp. the Index to Ducas p. 639. Bonn.

(&) Of verbs, which begin with g, some, according to very good Codd.

* See Hug. Einl. I. p. 257. Scholz Cures. Crit. p. 40. about the manuscripts which
have this form.

t 'AvaTTHc-ai, which a few Codd. have in Luk. xiv. 10. xvii. 7. (see a trace of it in
Polyb. VI. 37. 4. IxTrea-rtjulvoif Var.), must be the impcrat. of a similar aor. Midd.
(avawEo-a^Jiv). But as the latter does not exist, this form is probably a mistake of a
transcriber for av^Ba-s, which the best Codd. really have: e and &i are often inter-
changed. Besides, only the 2 aor. of this verb occurs, Mtt. xv. 35. Mr. vi. 40. Luk.
xi. 37. Joh. vi. 10. The fut. (like wiWai) for which Fritzsche ad Mi: p. 641. takes
these forms, will not suit well, as in both passages imperatives immediately follow.

18. UNUSUAL FORMS IN THE TENSES, &C. 67

have a single in the prseter. as 2 Cor. xi. 25. egaftSiefriv, Heb. ix. 19.
sgdvttae; x. 22. awti,op<-vot,, Mt. xxvi. 67. Igditiaav* Such forms are po-
etic, Buttmann ed. Rob. p. 50. 21. N. 2., but also occur often in the
Codd. of prose writers. Bast Comment. Grit. p. 788. Cod. Alex, has in
perf. (Hebr. x. 22.) the reduplicated form fa^wtiapivot,, of which only
one example is found in Homer. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 132. 83. note 4.
(e) The futures of verbs in tco, with very little variation of the Codd.
are found in the contracted form: ^iiotx^ Act. vii. 43. a$otoiJ<jt Mt. xiii.
49. yvw^ioiJcrc. Col. iv. 9. a^o^sl Mt. xxv. 32. xo&agist Hebr. ix. 14. SMXO,'
Sagisi Mt. iii. 12. IXrttoiJcfc Mt. xii. 21. paxugtovac, Luc. i. 48. This is
Attic: See Fischer ad PFeller. I. p. 208. Georgi Hierocr. I. p. 29.
Maitt. de Dial. p. 46. Such forms, however, are not foreign to the loni-
ans. Of j8o.7ti't|co, the common fut. form jSarttficfEe, occurs only in Mt. iii.
11. In the Septuag. the futures of verbs in a are also inflected ac-
cording to the above analogy, e. g. igyatao Lev. xxv. 40. a^ria, Lev. xix.
13. Some would find such Attic futures of contracted verbs in Mt. ii. 4.
(here see Fritzsche), Job. xvi. 17. ^eco^tVs (because of the fut.
following) and Mt. xxvi. 18. rtotw: but these are probably not to
be regarded as such.

(d) Of verbs in awo, fovxawa in the aor. has the Attic form (Buttm. ed.
Rob. p. 172. 101. N, 2.) tevxavat, in Mr. ix. 3. and fiaaxaivt* in Gal.
iii. t. has s^daxvjva, in some variations. From a^aivu the aor. sV/^icw/a
occurs in Acts xi, 28. Rev. i. 1., see below^ 15., pagawo 1 Cor. i. 20.
and f^gat'vw Jam. i. 11. are regular.

(e) Here and there, in some passages from more or less Codd. the
futures subjunctive are marked with the signs of variation in the Codd.
as 1 Cor. xiii. 3, xavefaopai, (thus in Griesbach and Knapp) 1 Pet. iii. 1.
xegtyoJiawtai, I Tim. vi. 8. d^xea9t]a^E9a, etc. In the better authors
these forms may have been introduced by transcribers. See Abresch in
Observatt. Misc. III. p. 13. Lob. p. 721; in the later, they are perhaps
allowable. (See Niehbuhr ind. ad Agath. p. 418.) There are two so
important Codd. for the subjunctive in 1 Cor. that the change may be
justified. Here also belong Jwg^j Rev. xviii. 14, and iv^aoaw Rev.
ix.. 6; (yet an aor. IU^OM is also found. See Lob. p. 721): perhaps also
yitfi*eu Acts xxi. 24. Comp. Lob. p. 735. For this, however there
is not much authority.

2. The following peculiarities in the inflection of the persons occur :
(o) The second person praes. and fut. pas. and med. in e t for y : e. g.
Luc. xxii. 42, *(*# Luc. vii. 4, (variation), ^ Mt. xxvii. 4,

* Comp. Job. xix. 23. a^f, according to good manuscripts, for

68 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FOHMS.

(var.) John xi. 40. In the two verbs orttsaSni and povteoSai, this form is
usual among the Attics, Plat. Phil. p. 376. A. Isocr. Phil. p. 218. C.
Arrian. Epict. 1, 29. 2, 5; in others it occurs but seldom, and almost
exclusively in poets. (Comp. Valkenaer ad Phoen. p. 216. Fischer
ad Wetter. I. p. 119, II. p. 399. Georgi Hierocr. I. p. 34. Schwarz ad
Olear. p. 225.) Good manuscripts however have it also in Attic prose
writers. See Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 200. 103. III. 3. Comp. Schneider
Prxf. ad Plat. I. p. 49.

(&) In the same person, the original uncontracted form is found; not
only in Svvaeai, Mtt. v. 36. viii. 2; Mr. i. 40. ix. 22. where it is usual,
Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 217. 106. N. 2, (see, however, Svvy Rev. ii. 2,*
which was confined originally to the poets, but occurs also in the later
prose writers ; e. g. Polyb. 7, 11 ; JElian V. H. 13, 32; Lob. p. 359),
but also in contracted verbs ofiwaarat Luc. xvi. 25 (TEschyl. Choepk. 354)
xavxaao') Rom. ii. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 7, and xataxavxaaut, Rom. xi. 18. Comp.
Georgi Hierocr. I. p. 184. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 199. 103. III. 1.
marg. n.

(e) The perfect in the 3 pers. plur. has av instead of owe, from the old
termination uvti: e. g. fyvuxuv John xvii. 7, stgijxav Rev. xix. 3. Col. 21.
awgaxav in A. and D., John xvii. 6, fe^ijxav in B. D. L. Rev. xxi. 6.
So also in the Septuag. e. g. Deut. xi. 7; Judith vii. 10. This form belongs
to the Alexandrian dialect: Comp. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 1, 10, p. 261,
but it is also found in Lycophron 252, in inscriptions, and in the Byzantine
writers. (Index to Ducas, p. 639.) See Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 201. 103.
N. 3. There is no weighty authority for it in the N. T. except in the
first two passages.

(d) The aor. 1. opt. instead of the termination aipc, has the original
^Eolic eca, taj, fts : as tyqhafyriasiav Acts xvii. 27, Ttowjcjaiav Lu.Vi. 11.
This form occurs frequently among the Attics, in the 2. and 3. pers. sing.
and 3. plur. Thuc. 8, 6; Aristoph. Pint. 95. Pint. Cratyl. p. 265. C.
Gorg. p. 312, A. and others. Georgi Hierocr. I. p. 150, Buttm. ed. Rob.
p. 199. 103. II. 4: still more frequently in the later writers, Ellandt.
ad Arrian. Alex. I. p. 353.

(e) The 3. pers. plur. imperfect tuaav occurs several times in the N.
T. e. g. 1 Cor. vii. 9. ya^adtuaav, vii. 36, yctyiatVcocrai/, 1 Tim. v. 4, ^cw-
aveVco<jow Tit. iii. 14. Comp. Acts xxiv. 20, xxv. 5. The assertion of
Elmsley ad Eurip. Ipheg. Taur. p. 232, ed. Lips, that this form first

* As to this form, which they would exchange for Suva, comp. Person ad Eurip.
Hec. 257. Schilfer ad Soph. Philoct. 798. Oudend. ad Thorn. M. p. 252. Lob. p. 359.
For the subjunc. we find Mvy in the Septuag. Esth. vi. 13. Job. xxxiii. 5. and by the
grammarians it is accounted Attic.

13. UNUSUAL FORMS IN THE TENSES, &C. 69

came into use in the time of Aristotle, has been sufficiently refuted by
Matth. I. 442. and Bornemann ad Xenoph. Anab. p. 38.

(f) For the 3. pers. plur. of the historical tenses (Bekker Anecd.
91, 14), among the variations, there often occurs the termination oaav, as
John xv. 22. el%o<tw for slxov, 2 Thess. iii. 6. rfa^ajSoucw, and Rom. iii.
13. in a quotation from the O. T., eSofaovaav, a form which is very fre-
quent in the Septuagint and Byzantine authors: e. g. Ps. Ixx. 2. foSoaav,
Jos. v. 11. Efyayooav, Exod. xvi. 24. xat&iftoaav, xviii. 26.xglvo(so,t> ) Niceph.
Greg. 6, 5. p. 113. dSoaw, Nicet. Chon. 21. 7. p. 402. pstfasoaav, Brunck
Analectt. II. p. 47. Comp. 1 Mace. vi. 31; Cant. iii. 3. v. 7. vi. 8; Jos.
ii. 1. 22. iii. 14. v. 11. vi. 14. viii. 19j Jud. xix. 11. i. 6; Ruth i. 4;
Thren. ii. 14; Ezek. xxii. 11; Exod. xxxiii. 8. Fischer ad Welter II.
p. 336. Georgi Hierocr. I. p. 165. Lobeck p. 349. Maittaire p. 226.
Sturz p. 60. There is not much authority for it in the N. T., and proba-
bly it may have originated with the Alexandrine copyists.

3. In respect to contracted verbs the following remarks may be made :
() The fut. 2. ex%sZ, Acts ii. 17. 18. is formed like verbs in 7,, ^u, v, g;
comp. Septuag. Ezek. vii. 8. xxi. 31; Exod. xxx. 18. xxix. 12. Buttm.
ed. Rob. p. 157. 95. Note 16. If however it be accented thus IX^E'W,
it will be, according to Elmsley, the Attic fut. 2. ax^ao, as the pres. and
fut. are alike. See Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 156. 95. N. 12.

(b) Of the verbs St^aw and rtcwuo, the forms S^fy, jtswvjv inf., and
5^1%, Si^, etc. ind. were the usual forms in Attic style. Buttm. edi Rob.
p. 213. 105. N. 5. For these, in the N. T. we find S^av, 5i$$ Rom.
xii. 20. John vii. 37., mewfr Phil. iv. 12., ,tewq, Rom. xii. 20. 1 Cor. xi.
21; which form belongs almost exclusively to the later writers (Athen.
3, 474. Comp. Sallier ad Thorn. M. p. 699. Lob. p. 61.). According
to the same analogy occurs the fut. Ttewa'au (instead of ^ 8t ^ tf o) Rev.
vii. 16. (Jes. v. 27. Ps. xlix. 12.) and aor. 1, ertibaaa, Mr. ii. 25. xi. 12.
Mt. xii. 1. 3. xxv. 35. Luk. iv. 2. John vi. 35. Both forms are peculiar
to the later Greek. See Lob. p. 204. '

(c) Of the verbs in eco, which retain e in the fut. etc. there occur in
the N. T., BOX!.,** (Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 154. 95. N. 3.), ^l<j 1 Cor.
xv. 49. and ^ etf a, (Sir. 11, 5. PalaBph. 52, 4.); but in Luk. xii. 16.
e^otftev. Among the Greeks $o^tf is the common form. Comp. Etym.
Magn. ed. Sylburg p. 130. and Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 153. 95. 4. See
below

9

70 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

14. Unusual Inflections of Verbs in pi and Irregular Verbs.

1. Of the verbs in pi occur: (a) Pluperfect act. Itfi'TjxEtfcw Rev. vii.
11. for tia^xsiaaai Mt. xii. 46 (without var.) yet comp. Thuc. 1, 15.
iwltfi'iJxEtfcM.', Xen. Anab. 1, 4. 4. tfytaTtyxsaav, Heliod. 4, 16. i<pxE<suvi Ja-
cobs ad Ac/till. Tat. p. 400. 622. Ellendt. ad Jlrrian Alex. II. p. 77.
Lehmann ad Lucian. II. p. 107.

(b) Third pers. plur. prses. ti&ugi for tt&iai Mt. v. 15. ttsgiti&nai
Mr. xv. 17. Ettttt&iaat, Mt. xxiii. 4. This form is better and more usual:
Comp. Thuc. 2, 34. Aristoph. Vesp. 564. Aristot. Metapli. 11, 1.
Theophrast. plant. 2, 6. See Georgi Hierocr. I. p. 145, who quotes
many examples, and Matth. I. 483. Schneider ad Plat. civ. II. p. 250.
Similar is 1,860,0 1 Rev. xvii. 13. according to the best Codd. Comp.
Herod. 1, 93. Thuc. 1, 42. The contracted forms tidstcii,, but especially
StfiotJtJt, belong to the later language. Lob. p. 244.

(c) In the irnperf. the 3 plur. has s8i8ow (according to the contracted
form) for ZSiSoaav Acts iv. 33. xxvii. 1. Comp. Hesiod.lgy. 123. The
singular eSiSovv is more frequent. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 222. 107.
Note I. 6.

(d) About the contracted, but very common inf. perf. act. sa-tdvai for
!tf*cwu 1 Cor. x. 12. See Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 226. 107. N. II. 3.
Georgi Hierocr. I. p. 182.

(e) Imper. praes. pass, ou^'oow'o 1 Tim. vi. 5. rtsgurffcwo. 2 Tim. ii. 16.
Tit. iii. 9. instead of which a$i,Wo is more usual: See Thorn. Mag. p.
75. Matth. I. 495.

(/) Forms like awia-tuvees 2 Cor. vi. 4. x. 18. (comp. xu&a-tZv Agath.
316, 2.), UTtoxa&rtct, Mr. ix. 12. (Dan. ii, 21. 2 Reg. xviii, 12. Fabric.
Pseudep. II. 610.) from <** (Herod. 4, 103.) See Grammatici Graeci
ed. Dindorf I. p. 251. Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 542. Matth. I. 482. Similar

iav from f/Artirthda Acts xiv. 17. comp. spjtirtguv Leo Diac. 2, 1.

Optat. pra;s. 8c3'/7 for 5ot^ Rom. xv. 2. 2 Tim. i. 16. 18. ii. 7. Ephes.
i. 17. iii. 16. John. xv. 16. a^oSo^ 2 Tim. iv. 14. This is a later form
(Plat. Gorg. p. 481: Lys. c. Andoc. p. 215. T. IV.) Recent editors
have K> and Xen. Cyrop. 3, 1, 35. S^j is changed by Schneider into
Sow??. See LXX. Gen. xxvii. 28. xxviii. 4. Numb. v. 21. xi. 29. Ruth
iv.9. Themist. or. 8. p. 174. D. Philostr. Apol. 1, 34. Bio. Chrys. 20.
p. 497., which is rejected by the old grammarians. Phrynich. p. 345.
Moer. p. 117. Comp. Lob. p. 346. Sturz p. 52. Buttm. in Mas. Antiq.
stud. I. 238.*

* This form occurs also strangely in the N. T., as it stands where, according to
N. T. idiom, the subjunc. would be proper.

14. UNUSUAL INFLECTIONS OF VERBS, &C. 71

(A) From jScuVw aor. 2. e^v] the imperative form is avdfia, Rev. iv. 1.
ajSa Mr. xv. 30. On the contrary xaTfdjS^i, John iv. 49. petdptjStt, vii.
3. Comp. Thorn. Mag. p. 495, and Oudendorp on this passage. Similar
Eurip. Electr. 113. Aristoph. Acharn. 262, and Vesp. 979. See Georgi
Hierocr. I. p. 153. Thilo Jlcta Thorn, p. 19. Matth. I. 544. Entirely
analogical dvdata, Acts xii. 7. Ephes. v. 14. Comp. Theocrit. 24. 36.
Menand. p. 48. Meinecke JEsop. 62. de Fur. (on the other hand a
Acts ix. 6. 34., ljtl<rtvf&i> 2 Tim. iv. 2., also Fabric. Apocr. I. p. 71. d

(i) The N. T. Codd. differ in the mode of writing the perf. part. neut.
of L'a^fit; yet the better ones, in two passages Mtt. xxiv. 15. Mr. xiii.
14, have iWoj, like the oldest and best of the Greek Codd. (Buttm. ed.
Rob. p. 226. 107. II. 3. and marg. n.), and Bekker prefers it in Plato
throughout. Comp. Passow. I. 1128. The uncontracted forms of this
participle also occur sometimes in the manuscripts of the N. T., as Mtt.
xxvii. 47. latyxotw Mr. ix. 1. xi. 5. Itfi^xwf John iii. 29. vi. 22.
Mr. xiv. 69., and here and there are adopted in the text.

The apparently well established form 8w^ John xvii. 2. Rev. viii. 3.
xiii. 16. which occurs in Theocr. 26, 2. and is according to some Doric
for 89, Fischer (ad Weller, p. 174.) and Matth. 1. 388, take to be an
error of the transcribers: Comp. Ast. ad Theophr. Char. p. 130. Schitfer
ad Bucol. p. 226, and Index ad Horn. Od. p. 154. It is found however
frequently in the later writers (Lob. p. 721. comp. Thilo Apocr. I. p. 871),
and yet it may be considered as one of the corrupt forms, which the
popular language had introduced.

2. Of slfii we find; (a) fou imper. for Ha-nu 1 Cor. xvi. 22. Jas. v. 12.
(Ps. civ. 31. comp. Acta Thorn. III. 7.) Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 233. 108.
IV. 1. and marg. note, only once in Plat. Rep. II. p. 361. D. See
Schneider on this passage, torn. i. p. 117. According to Heraclides
(Eustath. p. 1411. 22.) this flexion is Doric. The other imper. form l'^ h
see Mt. ii. 13. v. 25. Mr. v. 34. Luc. xix. 17. 1 Tim. iv. 15. (Buttm. ed.
Rob. ibid.)

(Z>) V H.(MJV, 1. sing. imp. mid., which was rejected by the Atticists, and
first came into frequent use among the later writers (especially with dV,
as once in N. T. Gal. i. 10.) occurs in Acts x. 30. xi. 5. 17. xxii. 19,
20. Job. xi. 15. xvi. 4. xvii. 12. 1 Cor. xiii. 11. Mtt. xxv. 35. etc.
Comp. Thilo Acta Thorn, p. 3. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 233. 108. IV. 2.
Lob. p. 152. Schafer ad Long. p. 423. Valckenaer Schol. in N. T. I.
478. In good Codd. foeO* for ^M/ is found twice in Mtt. xxiii. 30, and
is received into the text by Griesbach. There is little authority for it
in Eph. ii. 3.; nor does it occur in any .good writer. Yet see Epiphan.
Opp. II. 333. Malala XVI. p. 404. Nieb.

73 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

(c) For yaeo, in Mr. xiv. 67. only a few Codd. have fa, which seldom,
if ever, occurs among the Attics. (Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 238. 108. IV.
1. and marg. note. As to its use by the later writers see Lob. p. 149.

NOTE. In Gal. iii. 28. Col. iii. 11. Jas. i. 17. eW is generally taken to
be the contracted form ofevttrti by the ancient grammarians, see Schol.
ad Jiristoph. Nub. 482. which, however, could present but one view of
etymological principles, and Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 642. maintains this
view. It is better perhaps, with Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 319. 117. B. 3.,
to consider it the apostrophic preposition Ivt (h, Ivi) which, like J'^t,
rt, etc. is used without ttvat,, as the above contraction is very difficult
and without example. Buttman's opinion is strengthened by the analogy
of 6rft and jtdga, although the latter can scarcely be taken for a contrac-
tion of 7ta<m. Besides this, !Vt is very frequent in Attic poets and
prose writers, Georgi Hierocr. I. 152. Schwarz Comment, p. 486. The
poets also use it for sVscffc, as era for Ijti-iai II. 20. 248. Odyss. IX. 126.;
is even connected with the first person, pron.*

3. The following forms occur in union with the radical verb t
(a) 'A$i^< Mtt. ix. 2. 5. Mr. ii. 5. Lu. v. 20. 23. vii. 47. 1 Joh. ii. 12.
The ancient grammarians are not agreed about this form. Some, as
Eustathius ad III. VI. 590. regard it as equivalent to d^wi/rcu, as in Ho-
mer d^ for d$y : others more correctly call it the prast. for d<j><-tWat, as
Herodian, the Etymol. Magn. and Suidas. This last assigns it to the
Doric, and the author of Etym. Mag. to the Attic dialect. Suidas is
undoubtedly correct. This form as perf. pass, is derived from the perf.
act. a$suxa. See Fischer Prol. de Vitiis Lex. p. 646. Buttm. ed. Rob.
p. 231. 108. marg. n. Matth. I. 487.

(&) In Mr. i. 34. xi. 16. (Phil. Leg. ad Caium. p. 1021.) fas is the
imp. of d(j><,', with the augment on the preposition, instead of d^Lst or
jj$i (Buttm. ed. Rob.) See Fischer ad Well. II. 480. Similar to this
is |wtoi> for %wis<sw Iliad 1. 273. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 231. 108. 1. 3. 5.

On the authority of good Codd. d$t$ from d$E is received into the
text in Rev. ii. 20. (comp. Exod. xxxii. 32.), like tLQslf for -fLe^. Buttm.
ed. Rob. p. 218. 106. N. 5., p. 221. 107. N. I. 2.

From avvty/M occurs, in Mtt. xiii. 13. awtovat (3 pers. plur.), in 2 Cor.
x. 12. (either 3 plur. or dat. particip.), and in Mtt. xiii. 23. awiuv partic.
(Rom. iii. 11. from the Septu. <nwwi>) instead of cwteoj. The former is
derived from <wil, which is still found in the infin. ewnlv, in Theogn.

* The Etymol. M. p. 357. considers m, not as contracted for EVEO-TI, but as an ellip-
sis, BO that the proper person must be supplied from the verb s7vat.

t Comp. Harles as to some forms of the present tense of rt6f*t and !'/wi in See-
bodc's Archiv. f, Pkilol. 1. Heft.

14. UNUSUAL INFLECTIONS OF VERBS, &C. 73

565. The participial form, which prevails in the Septuag. 1 Chron. xxv.
7. 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12. Ps. xii. I. Jer. xx. 12. (comp. Fabric. Pseudep.
I. 711.), is most correctly written awiuv, from owuo. (Buttm. ed. Rob. p.
234. 108. V. 1.), as it cannot be derived from

4. In Mtt. xxii. 44. Mr. xii. 36. Lu. xx. 42. Acts ii. 34. Jam. ii. 3.
(1 Sam. i. 23. xxii. 5. 2 K. ii. 2. 6.) occurs xdOov for xdOyao, imper. from
xa<%iat. This is not found among the ancient Greeks, and has there-
fore been placed among spurious forms by Mceris. p. 234. and Thorn.
Mag. p. 485. See Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 232. ^ 108. II. 3. So X d6y for
xdetjaai, Acts xxiii. 3. Lob. p. 395. Gregor. Cor. ed. Schafer p. 411. and
Buttm. ibid.

15. Of Defective Verbs.

Of many verbs there are found in the N. T. regularly built forms,
which occur in none of the Greek writers, except perhaps the later, and
therefore are rejected by the ancient grammarians as spurious. Among
these are to be reckoned a number of fut. act. for which better writers
use the fut. mid. (Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 259. 113. 4. and N. 7. Monk, ad
Eurip. Alcest. v. 159. 645.) The investigation of this subject is still
very incomplete. Below will be found a list of spurious forms; and those
will be included in parentheses, in respect to which the grammarians,
especially Thorn. Mag. and Mraris are too scrupulous.

"Ayvu/u. In reference to the fut. xntedl-tt, Mtt. xii. 20. and the aug-
mented form of the aor. xai-la|a. See 12. 1. b.

("Ayo. About the aor. 1. ijfa, which occurs 2 Pet. ii. 5. in the com-
pound Jjta|oj, see Buttm. ed. Rob. 114. p. 264. Lob. p. 287. 735.
This form is not unfrequent in compounds (2 Mace. ii. 67. 2 Sam. xxii.
35. Index to Malala ed. Niebuhr, under oiyw Schafer ind. ad JEsop. p.
135. Fabric. Pseudep. II. 593. 594.) even in good prose writers, Herod.
I. 190. V. 34. Xen, Hell II. 2. 20. Thuc. II. 97. VIII. 25.

('Atglea. Fut. Ixw, in comp. d$aw Rev. xxii. 19. (Codd. also d^cu^uw).
This form is rare (see Buttm. ed. Rob. 114. p. 265.), but occurs
Agath. 269. 5. and in the Septuagint oftener: Exod. v. 8. Num. xi. 17.
Deut. xii. 32. Job xxxv. 7. Comp. Agath. p. 269. Menand. Byz. p. 316.
in opposition to Reisig. Com. Grit, in Soph. (Ed. C. p. 365. who attri-
buted it to Aristoph. and Soph. See Herm. ad (Ed. Col. 1454. Matth.
I. 524.

74 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

Fut. dxovtfco Mtt. x'rii. 14. xii. 19. instead of dxovaopai, (which
is also more frequent in the N. T. especially in Luke: John v. 28. Act.
iii. 22. vii. 37. xvii. 32. xxv. 22.). The former occurs not only in poets
(Anthol. Gr. III. 134. Jac. Orac. SylilL VIII. p. 695. 721.), but also
occasionally in prose writers of the xowyj, as Dion. Hal. p. 980. Reisk.
Corny. Schafer ad Demosth. II. 232. Wurm ad Dinarch. p. 153. In
the Septuagint, comp. Isa. vi. 9.)

'A/cagT'ew. Aor. 1. ^tta^tfa for aor. 2. tffAagtov Rom. v. 14. 16. Mtt.
xviii. 15. (Luc. xvii. 4. var.) Thorn. Mag. p. 420. Lob. p. 732. See
Diod. Sic. II. 14. a^ia^aas, Agath. 167. 18. Septuag. Thren. 3. 42.
The fut. act. a^a^aa Mt. xviii. 21. Rom. vi. 15. is not very usual.
Comp. Monk, ad Eurip. Alcest. 159.

('Avs%o].iai,. Fut. dj/lfojuow Mt. xvii. 17. Mr. ix. 19. Luc. ix. 41. 2 Tim.
iv. 3. for which Mcer. whimsically demands avaazn^ ^ 1 - The former is
very frequent. Comp. Soph. Electr. 1017. Xen. Cyrop. 5, 1. 25. 7, 7. 47.

Avot'yW' Aor. 1. yjvoi^a John ix. 17. 21. etc. for ws^a. Comp. Xen.
Hell. 1. 5. 13.), Aor. 2. ^o^ Rev. xv. 5. See 12. 6.

'Artavfdto. Fut. drfcw^tfw (for drfav^rfOjUcu), Mr. xiv. 13. (Diod. Sic.
XVIII. 15.) See Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 259. 113. 4. and N. 7. Matth.
ad Eurip. Suppl. 774.

'ArtoxTteivu. Aor. 1. artexi?dv?j, artoxtav^rqvui, Rev. ii. 13. ix. 18. 20.
xi. 13. xiii. 10. xix. 21. Mt. xvi. 21. Luc. ix. 22. Comp. 1 Mace. ii. 9.
2 Mace. iv. 36. This form occurs indeed in Homer, but particularly be-
longs to the later prose writers (Dio Cass. 65. 4. Menander Hist. p. 284.
304. ed. Bonn.) See Buttm. ed. Rob. 114. p. 288. xt EMU. Lob. p. 36.
757.* The unattic perf. arttxtayxa, see 2 Reg. iv. 11. Buttm. ibid.

'' ' AitoMjufii. Fut. drtote'tfw Mt. xxi. 41. Mr. viii. 35. John vi. 39. xii. 25.
comp. Lucian Asin. 33. Long. Past. III. 17. Bultm. ed. Rob. p. 294.
114. OMV/.U. Lob. p. 746. 1 Cor. i. 19. occurs the usual form drfoa.w.

'Agrfafw. Aor. feTtdyqv 2 Cor. xii. 2. 4. for fajtdoSqv (Rev. xii. 5.)
Comp. Thorn. Mag. p. 424. Moar. p. 52. Buttm. ed. Rob. 114. p. 268.
Fut. agrtcty^cfojtiat 1 Thess. iv. 17. (dgrtafftt for agrtuaopat, John X. 28. is
a rare form; Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 259. 113. 4. and N. 7.; it occurs
however among the Attics.)

* 'ATroKTtvvEcrflai (alias amxrwiffQai) Rev. vi. 11. and amxrEWctt (anoxr'wEi. var.)
2 Cor. iii. 6. is considered JEolic, as the jEolians usually changed EI before x, ^cc, v, f,
a; into e, and doubled the following 1 conson. as XTEVVW for XTE.'VIM, a-ifi^ca for a-mi^ca
Kcenig ad Gregor. Cor. p. 587. 597. Schafer, Matlh. I. 74. Comp. Dindorf Prof, ad
Aristoph. xii. p. 14. We cannot, with Wall], adopt a present form anoxrivta in Mtt.
x. 28. Luk. xii. 4; aTroxTsvovrcav might be taken for a corruption of awcxTEvvovTwv, as a
few good Codd. have it, unless we regard it as part. aor. See Fritzsche ad Mtt. p.
383. Comp. Borncman Sehol. ad Luc. p. 81.

15. OF DEFECTIVE VERBS. 75

The ground form aiifw occurs in the imperf. <qv%e 1 Cor. Hi.
6. var. instead of the usual qv^avs. It is in the older language more po-
etic than prosaic, Matth. I. 541. Put. owtes (for oif^a) is found Ephes.
ii. 21. Col. ii. 19. Comp. Xen. Cyrop. V. 5. 33. Dio Cass. 46. 4.

Eaaxaiva. Aor. is Gal. iii. 1. in the received text sfidaxave, but in many
Codd. inflected ipfaxqvs. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 172. 101. N. 2. The
latter Dio Cass. XLIV. 39. Herodian II. 4. 11.

Btow. Inf. aor. jScwtfcu. 1 Pet. iv. 2. for which, except the participle, the
aor. 2. PMV&I is more in use among the Attics, see Buttm. ed. Rob. 114.
p. 270. also Xen. (Econ. IV. 18.

BTiatftfcwo. Aor. sphuirtyau for efihatrtov Mt. xiii. 26. (Gen. i. 11. Num.
xvii. 8.) Buttm. edit. Rob. 114. p. 271.

(rajie'a. Aor. eya^rfa Mr. vi. 17. Mt. xxii. 25. 1 Cor. vii. 9. instead
of the older form ey^a (from ya/tw) as occurs Luc. xiv. 20. 1 Cor. vii.
28. See Georgi Hierocr. I. p. 29. Lob. p. 742. Buttm. ed. Rob. 114.
p. 271. ayapftfo, occurs Xen. Cyrop. VIII. 4. 20. Lucian Dial. Deor.
V. 4. For eyapfi&iv Mr. x. 12. 1 Cor. vii. 37. the older Attics use the
med. y^|tta|tt^i'.

Tf^aco. Fut. yEA,a<jw for ys^arfcyiat Luc. vi. 21. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 259.
113. 4. and N. 7. Matth. I. 550.

riyvofini,. Aor. pass. EytM^v for lyst/o^i/ Act. iv. 4. Col. iv. 11.
1 Thess. ii. 14. Comp. Thorn. Mag. p. 189. an originally Doric form,
which is oftener found in the writers of the xowq. Lob. p. 109. Buttm.
ed. Rob. 114. p. 272.

At'Sw/tc. Aor. 1. eSuxa is avoided by the Attics in the first and second
person, and aor. 2. is used for it (Buttmann ed. Rob. p. 222. 107. N.

1. 8.). In the N. T. we find however IS^xa^Ev 1 Thess. iv. 2. ISwxatfs
Mt. xxv. 35. Gal. iv. 15. also in Demosth. About Sw^ see above.
14. 1. note.

(AIWXW. Fut. Stwfco for Stwfo^cu Mt. xxiii. 34. Luk. xxi. 12. See
Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 259. 113. 4. and N. 7. Comp. Xen. Anab. I. 4.
8. and Bornemann on this passage. Matth. [. 559.)

EZSw in the meaning of to Imow. Praet. ol'Sa^av Mr. xi. 33. John iii.

2. 1 Cor. xiii. 1. for lapw (Poppo ad Xen. Anab. II. 4. 6.), oi'ScWs Mr.
x. 38. xiii. 33. 1 Cor. ix. 13. Phil. iv. 15. for tats, otfiaaw Luk. xi.44.
Joh. x. 5. for law. See Buttm. ed. Rob. 114. p. 277. (Comp. Plat.
Alcib. p. 83. Xen. GEc. 20, 14.). The second person sing. oJSaj 1 Cor.
vii. 16. John xxi. 15. is rather Ionic and Doric (for <<#), yet it is found
in Codd. Xen. Mem. IV. 6. 6. Eurip. Alcest. 790. and more frequently
in later writers. Lob. p. 236. The 3 persn plur. pluperfect yfaw is
written in Mr. i. 34. John ii. 9. xxi. 4. for ao,v Buttm. ibid.

76 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

. (Aor. 2. artcc) aor. 1. Hrto. in the N. T. in the 2 pers. sing.
Mt. xxvi. 25. Mr. xii. 32. The same form occurs sometimes also among
the Attics, Xen. (Econ. 19, 14. Soph. (Ed. C. 1509. but it is originally
Ionic; see Greg. Corinth, ed. Sch'afer p. 481. Schafer ad Dion. p. 436.
Iinper. elriats Mt. x. 27. xxi. 5. Col. iv. 17. eirtdtaaw Act. xxiv. 20.
Buttm. ed. Rob. 114. p. 278. In good Codd. occur besides: partic.
sirtas Act. xxii. 24., 3. pers. plur. indie, etjtav Mr. xi. 6. xii. 7. 16. Luk.
xix. 39. xx. 2. Act. i. 10. (Diod. Sic. 16. 44. Xen. Hell. III. 5. 24.).
See Sturz de Dial. Alex. p. 6.* In compounds, arisiftd^v occurs 2 Cor.
iv. 2. (Herod. 6. 100.) see Matth. I. 569. Iwndj/ (not elrtov, see 6. 1. &.)
Act. xxviii. 26. is according to good Codd. to be considered as the im-
per. aor. 2. a form which might well be taken into the text, Mr. xiii. 4.
Luk. x. 40. whilst in other places Itite prevails. The aor. 1. pass, of
this verb IP/JJJ^V (from /., see Buttmann ibid.) is written in the N. T.
l/3p>/ according to good manuscripts, as also often in the Codd. of the
later (not Attic) authors, although this form occurs now and then also
among the Attics, Lob. p. 447. (but not in Plato, see Schneider ad
Plat. II. p. 5.)

, later form sxxvvo Lob. p. 726. Fut. $x%su Act. ii. 17, 18. for
Buttm. ed. Rob. 114. p. 307. %<*. according to the LXX.
Comp. Jer. xiv. 16. Hos. v. 10. Zach. xii. 10.

('Erfawaco. Fut. sriatveou 1 Cor. xi. 22. for irtaweaopai, see Buttm. ed.
Rob. p. 259. 113. 4. and N. 7. Comp. Xen. Cyrop. I. 4. 16. Anab.
V. 5. 4. Himer. 20. This form is not very rare, see Brunck ad Criwm. p.
10. 64. Schafer ad Demosth. II. 465. Stallbaum ad Plat. Symp. p. 139.)

('Ertto^xfo. Fut. rttojjcftt for Erfcog5M7rfo j aa& Mt, iv. 33. See Buttm. ed.
Rob. p. 259. 113. 4. and N. 7.).

'Egxopai. The fut. itev6o/j.at, occurs very often in the simple verbs, and also
in the compounds. It is found especially in the later prose writers (Arrian
Alex. 6. 12. Philostrat. Apoll. 4. 4. Chrysost. Orat. 33. p. 410. Max.
Tyr. Diss. 24. p. 295.); the Attics on the contrary say / (Phryn. p.
37. Thorn. Mag. p. 88. 336. 'Ex<vrfo/ta& is however in the older writers
unusual, Herod. I. 142. V.125. Lys. Dardan. 12. (p. 233. ed. Bremi.)
Lob. p. 37. Scbffifer ad Soph. II. 323. Comp. Elmsley ad Eurip. He'
racl. 210. The Attic writers use commonly the imperf. of /, Buttm.
ed. Rob. 114. p. 281, for the imperf. tjzxopyjv, Mr. i. 45. ii. 13. John
iv. 30. vi. 17. see Bornemann ad Luc. p. 106. comp. Plat. Legg. III.
p. 685. A., for the imper. sgxov, egx*o& John i. 40. 47. the imperat. of

* At the end of the 8th line of the inscription at Rosctta tt<ira.\ occurs.

15. OF DEFECTIVE VERBS. , 77

J$t, life (Thorn. Mag. p. 418. rejects too hastily jja^e instead of
Gal. iv. 4. John xix. 39. See Sallier on the passage.).
'EugMjxw. Aor. rned. Jvga^v for Ju^o'^v Heb. ix. 12. see 13. 1. (Pau-
san. vii. 11.1. viii. 30. 4. Lob. p. 139.). In the subjunctive form sv^aijt
Rev. xviii. 14. and ^v^auaiv ix. 6. (as at least many Codd. read), an aor.
1. Evgyaa seems to prevail, unless we take these forms for subjunct. fut.
(see 13. 1.) Lob. p. 731. however quotes a participle svgytsavitos.

Za'w. Fut. ^<jw Rom. vi. 2. 8. 2 Tim. ii. 11. John vi. 58. var. (Job
viii. 17. 2 Kings iv. 7.) ^ffo^at Mt. iv. 4. Mr. v. 23. John xi. 25. vi. 51.
Aor. 1. egijaa, Rev. ii. 8. Luk. xv. 24. Rom. vii. 9. (and often in the
Septuag.); all these are later forms, which occur only rarely among the
earlier writers (see Buttm. ed. Rob. 114. p. 283.), the latter made use
of the corresponding tenses of j3tdw instead.

'Hxa. Aor. 1. )?!a (later form Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 470. faa Lob. p.
744.) conjunct, sjfwcrc Rev. iii. 9. where however better Codd. have the
fut. $|<n>crt. The prseter. ?>xa (Deut. xxxii. 17. Phot. Bibliotli. 222. Ma-
lalas p. 136 and 137. Lob. p. 724.) in Mr. viii. 3. in the form <ijxaat,, is
not well established.

aM.tt, aor. 2. uv&dhEtE Phil. iv. 10. which form does not occur in
prose, and is generally rare, Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 173. 101. N. 4.

o. Fut. xafaxcwjcro^ae. 1 Cor. iii. 15. 2 Pet. iii. 10. (from aor.
, which occurs Herod, iv. 79. i. 51.) for jcatfasccu&j-sojicw, which
the Attics use, and which occurs in Rev. xviii. 8. See Thorn. Mag. p.
511. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 286. 114. *obu.

Aor. 1. xcw&Et^a Acts vi. 2. Lob. p. 714.
Perf. pass, xextgagpat, Rev. xiv. 10. for the more usual
See Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 286. 114.

. Aor. ixe'gfiqtfa Mt. xxv. 20. xviii. 15. *cg8q0at Acts xxvii. 21.
Luk. ix. 25. xsgSqaio subjunctive 1 Cor. ix. 19. 20. Mt., xvi. 26.
are forms which are peculiar to the Ionic prose, Matth. I. 599. Among
the Attics the verb is inflected regularly. See Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 286.
114.

Kx.aua. Fut. xT-owtfw (Doric) for xhavaop. (as always in the Septuag.)
Luk. vi. 25. John xvi. 20. Rev. xviii. 9. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 287. 114.

K&MHO. Fut. asjts'4-w for se^o/toc Mt. xix. 18. Rom. xiii. 9. Buttm. ed.
Rob. p. 259. 113. 4. and N. 7.; not so in the Septuag., on the contrary
Lucian. Dial. Dear. VII. 4.

Kgafc. Fut. X ga|a or xgafo^at Luk. xix. 40. according to some autho-
rities for * 6 *sat 0fuu , (as always in the Septuag.), aor. ^a for l x ^ov
Mt. viii. 29. xx. 30. Comp. | ffo | Exod. xxii. 23. Num. xi. 2.

afMw. The form i|6*^e> e *o Luk. xix. 48. in the Cod. B., which
10

78 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OP FORMS.

Griesbach and Schulz have not mentioned, is probably a mistake in
writing.)

K^rtrfco. Aor. 2. act. Ix^vftov Luk. i. 24. (Phot. Biblioth. I. p. 142.
Bekker.) see Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 147. 92. 8. p. 159. 96. marg. note.

Aarfxa. Here belongs the aor. frdxqaa Act. i. 18. which is usually re-
duced to the Doric praes. jiax'. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 289. 114. on the
contrary takes it for a formation from the aor. 2. haxstt,. This aor. 2. is
generally in use among the Attics.

NoVttfco. John xiii. 16. 14. Mt. xv. 2. The older writers use viu> for
this present. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 293. 114.

OwetfEtgco. Fut. otxtBigqaa Rom. ix. 15. (as from dwctfstglco) for ofoT'sgw.
Comp. Ps. iv. 2. ci. 15. Jer. xxi. 7. Mich. vii. 19. also in Byzant. see
Lob. p. 741.

'Ctyiww for o^wijtt (Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 294. 114.) Mt. xxiii. 2CLxxvi.
74. Heb. vi. 16. Jas. v. 12. In Mr. xiv. 71. on the contrary, in the
best manuscripts dpvvvui occurs for tyvvsw, and so Griesbach has re-
ceived it into the text.

('O^aw. Imperf. med. wgw^v Acts ii. 25. (from Ps. xvi.) for which the
Attic is lu^w/wyi/ Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 294. 114. From ortfi-a^cw the sub-
junctive aor. 1. o4-fff^, which occurs in Liban. and the Byzantines, is
found in Luk. xiii. 28. but not without variations. See Lob. p. 734.)

IIa*w. Aor. li/firtaefa Mt. xx. 19. xxvii. 31. (Septuag. Jud. xvi. 26. xix.
25. Prov. xxiii. 35.) instead of which the Attics inflected stttMaa- See
Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 295. 114. On the contrary Lucian. Dial. Deor.
6. 4. has ?rtai|. Comp. Lob. p. 240. The fut. Ttatfw Anacr. 24.

IlsT'o^at. Part. TtftuiMivov Rev. xiv. 6. var. for rt^o^svov according to
the form rtetdopat,, which occurs only in Ionic (Herod, iii. 111.) and the
later writers, see Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 297. 114. The form of the pre-
sent rtstafat, and TtEfajitcM, which already existed in Pindar, is quoted by
Wetst. and Matthai among the variations Rev. xii. 14.

From the fut. rtiopat, is found Luk. xvii. 8. the complete form
Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 298. 114. So also q>dyeacM ibid, from $oyo-
Both also Ezek. xii. 18.

Aor. Jfrfsrfa. See 13. 1.

'Pe'co. Fut. /Wrfw John vii. 38. for fjsvaopnt,, but among the Attics usu-
ally /'vjjtftytat Lob. p. 739. (aor. 1. which also occurs only in the later
writers. See Cant. iv. 16. feved-tuaw Lob. p. 739.)

Sa7,rti'w. Fut. rfcartt'uw for sa^rti-'ylw (Xen. Anab. I. 2. 17.) 1 Cor. xv.
52. comp. Mechan. Vitt. p. 201. Num. x. 3. aor. 1. ZadMusa occurs fre-
quently in the Septuagint. See Phryn. p. 191. Thorn. Mag. p. 789.
Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 300. 114.

15. OF DEFECTIVE VERBS. 79

Aor. 1. iowwa, Acts xi. 28. xxv. 27. (Esth. ii. 22. Jud. vii.
21. Menandri Byz. Hist. p. 308, 309, 358. Plutarch. Aristid. 19.) Act.
Thorn, p. 32. which is found also Xen. Hell. 2. 1. 28. for which how-
ever the older Attics more usually inflect. ea^va', see Buttman. ed. Rob.
p. 172. 101. 4. N. 2. Lob. p. 24. Comp. $niva below.

Sxfrttfo/mt. The pres. (Heb. ii. 6. Jas. i. 27. comp. 1 Sam. xi. 8. xv.
4.) and the imperfect occur but seldom in the Attic writers, Buttm. ed.
Rob.

(SrtovSafc. Fut. tfrtouSauw for the usual ffrtouSfttfo^at 2 Pet. i. 15. Buttm.
ed. Rob. p. 259. 113. 4. and N. 7.

S-rtfgt'^w. Imp. aor. is aifaaw according to the variation Luc. xxii.
32. Rev. iii. 2. instead of at^^ov which is preferred by the Greeks
Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 148. 92. N. 1. Comp. Jud. xix. 5. Ezek. xx. 46.
so as Itftffljgtffa 1 Mace. xiv. 14.

*aystV. Fut. $dyopai, Jas. v. 3. Rev. xvii. 16. (Gen. xxvii. 25. Exod.
xii. 8.), 2 pers. $ayac Luk. xvii. 8.j the Greeks use for it the fut. of
J?Sw: JfSo^ucu. See Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 282. 114. <j0tw

*aoVco, Irtttyavat (sTt^vat^ Luk. i. 79. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 305. 114.
Many similar forms occur in later writers Lob. p. 26. Philo. Act. Thorn.
49. (jElian. Anim. II. 11. and epil. p. 396. Jac.)

Of which -erfKjiavofst, in Ephes. v. 14. comp. Job xli. 10. Jud.

xvi. 2. Gen. xliv. 3. See Buttm. ed. Rob. on the analogical evidence
that this form is not found in Greek writings.

(*!gw Particip. aor. IWyxaj Acts v. 2. xiv. 13. sveyxwtss Luk. xv. 23.
(for ivsyxuv, hsyxovtis Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 305. 114. See Xen. Mem.
I. 2. 53. Demosth. c. Timoth. 51. (Isocr. Paneg. 40.). The indicat.
tfveyxa occurs more frequently among the Attics, also the forms of the
imperative, which have , John xxi. 10.

*iw. Aor. 2. pass. l$vqv, $vet$ Luc. viii. 6. vii. 8. (since the times of
Hippocrat. very usual) for which the Attics use the aor. 2. act. l$w,
tf>s. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 306. 114. Mt. xxiv. 32. Mr. xiit. 28. good
Codd. have ixtyvy for exfyvy. The former is the subjunctive aor., which
may be preferred in these passages.

Xab<o. Fut. ^ag^crojiiac. for ^aigijtfw Luk. i. 14. Phil. i. 18. John xvi.
20. 22. (Hab. i. 15. Zach. x. 7. Ps. xcv. 11.) Mo3r. p. 120. Thorn. Mag.
p. 910. Lob. p. 740. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 307. 114. It is found also
Diod. Exc. Vat. p. 95.

Fut. za&aoput, Rom. viii. 32. is not an Attic form for

'a^s'w. Aor. ttrfiotjafo Acts vii. 27. 39. (for which among Greeks usu-
ally augm. syllab. lAawto Thorn. Mag. p. 403. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 308.

80 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

114. Xen. Cyrop. VI. 1. 26. Thuc. II. 89. See Poppo on this pas-
sage, 7, 52. Polyb. ii. 69. 9. xv. 31. 12.) Comp. Mich. iv. 6. Thren. ii. 7.
Here belongs also the aor. act. s^uesv. Acts vii. 45. The above obser-
vation about the augm. syllab. is only to be made in regard to the Attic
writers. See Poppo ad Thuc. III. II. 407.

('QVEO/KU* Aor. 1. Avqadpyv Acts vii. 16. as often in the writers of the
xoivr/, (e. g. Plut., Pausan.), Lob. p. 189., but even now and then among
the Attics, Poppo ad Thuc. III. II. 407. The Attics preferred general-
ly IjtQnpaiv. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 308. 114.

The later verbal forms are not always used in the N. T. where we
should expect them: e. g. rft'cytac, fut. 2. from rftVw, not rtwvpat, Rev. xiv.
18. See Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 158. 95. N. 18. p. 298. 114. rtivo. Aor.
xoivuaat, Mr. vii. 15. 18. Mcer. ed. Piers, p. 434. Lacella ad Xen. Ephes.
p. 254. Fut. q>ev!;oft,ai) ^onyiatfcyiat, not ^>i;|w, ^ow^duw, Buttm. ed. Rob.
p. 305. 114.

16. On the Formation of Words.*

As the N. T. contains many words (especially in Paul's writings) not
known to the written language of the Greeks, but introduced from the
popular language, and even some newly formed, it will be necessary to
compare those formations peculiar to the N. T. with the established laws
for the formation of Greek words. We shall thus at the same time
advantageously consider analogies, not entirely unknown to the Greeks,
but much more prominent in this idiom. The basis of this representa-
tion will be the luminous and essentially complete exhibition of Buttmann
ed. Rob. p. 319. 118.

A. Derivation by Endings.

1. VERBS. Derivative verbs in o and t are most frequent. The
former in some degree took the place of forms in uuco or tco, e. g. fiaxai-ow
(Stxa-tfvu Xen. Anab. 5, 3, 9.), ^ouSfvow (sf-ouSm^co Plut. yet see Lob. p.
182), oagoQ (for tfaiigto Lob. p. 89), o.$vitv6v> (a$vrtvia Lob. p. 224.), wa-

* See Ph. Cattieri Gazophylacium Oracor. (651, 708.) ed. F. L. Abresch. (Utr.
1757.) L. B. 1809. 8vo. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 319. 118. Lobeck Parerga zu Phry-
nich., and among the interpreters Selecta e scholis Valckenarii. Our N. T. Lexicons
do not always direct attention sufficiently to this subject so intimately connected with
exegesis.

16. ON THE FORMATION OF WORDS. 81

xaiv6u> (avaxatW^w Isocr. Areop. C. 3.), ^stfi'ow, So^idw. 'ArfoSfxatfou is
formed after the first, but with atyvrtv. comp. xaGvrtvoa Xen. Mem. 2, 1,
30. Kgo.T'cuoa occurs besides for xgafvvQ, a^svoa for o&vea, dvaatatovv
for dvaata-tov rtoiEtV; evSwafioa is to be derived from ivSvvapos, since the
simple fiwajwoG) cannot be proved from writings subsequent to the apostles,
Lob. p. 605, note. From xdpis zapitou is formed. The verbs in t|o are
derived from the most different roots, 6giv from og^oj, dwpa&a'tLfa from
(,yna,?i%a from Sziyjua, rtEJcxt'w from rtsTiEXvj, fnvxt^i^o from
il&jlpa.'tiZa, di/a>E/ta*tw, ffTt^cwy^W^ij^ai, dtgEtftfw;
.) Jms in the Greek language no distinct root; it was
generally a provincialism, or perhaps a Macedonic formation. (Lob. p.
218.) There occur some rare verbs in'aw if indeed found at all else-
where: 6. g. i/jfTtta^cu, 0inaw (<j^w), SO also in awco, e. g.
yUjUv^i'EvtO) Eysepow'f'Utyicu, at^jUaXw^fvw. (Lob. p. 442. j, rt

The formation of verbs in ^w from those in *w, which occur also
among the Attics (Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 254. 112. 11. Lob. p. 151.), was
probably more common in the later language; vqdu, xi^tfio, 0X470 w, at
are not found in the earlier writers. Comp. Lob. p. 254. Verbs in
except ivgiaxu and $t,8daxu, are rare in the N. T. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 254.
112. 10. rtygotfsea occurs as an inchoative, and pf9vaxua.s a causative,
only in the passive; yapiaxto, see v. a. yapt-iv (ya^^M/), in Mr. xii. 25. is
certainly improperly used for ya^ci^w, as ixyap'crxco Luk. xx. 34. for
w'|. /See Fritzsche d Jlfr. p. 530. Finally, y?yoE'w from the perf.
, is altogether singular in its formation; as also Ey^yoglw. Lob.
p. 119. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 277. 116. l

Phil. ii. 30., received into the text by Griesbach and
others on the best critical evidence, belongs to the derivative verbs in
EVW. ILaguj3ohtZ<i6at, can be most directly formed from 7ta^a/3o5\,oj; but the
termination tva is adopted to express the meaning rtagdpohov ttvai,, as
frtioxortsvsw by the later writers for IrtLaxortov slvat, (Lob. p. 591.), and
still more resembling it, TtBgrtEgeveaOai from

2. NOUNS, (a) Those derived from verbs. With the termination
from a verb in <xw, we notice dytaty^os, not found in the Greek writers,
as TtstgatfjUoj from Ttstga^co, E-i/tfa^tatf/Aos from Evfa^ta^co; from verbs in t^w
occur jtiaxagKtyioj, 6viSKj|ttoj) (Lob. p. 511.) rtagogynjiuoj, /jowi'KJ / u6j from
/jai/f^w, aajSpa-ifiapbs from aa/3j3ai't^w, ffw^oi/Kr/KOf, anlfXEy^oj. The most
frequent formations are those in jua and stj, the former almost peculiar to
the N. T. idiom, but always formed according to the analogy of the
language, as pdrttitipa,, fidrtiapa from Pare-tlga, etc., <$>va(*a from'
xatdhvpu (xatnlwEw), dff^sj^ia, d'i/T'X,5;/toi,

82 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OP FORMS.

sglftytafrom contracted verbs (like g^oV^a). The latter
of these words are mostly taken in an abstract sense, (corresponding to ihe
infin.) except that oWjwftita signifies an instrument (as nouns in ^oj frequently
do) and xutdhvpu the place of the xa-tohvs-w (Eustath. ad Odys. IV. 146. 33.).
The nouns in cfty, which are most frequent in the epistle to the Hebrews,
are almost all found in the Greek writers, except ee^g
Xvtfif,* drtohvfgto6(,$, Sixatuctis, /3t'w<Jij, rtartoi^fftj Lob. p. 295.
In respect to rtagaaxwYj, see Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 325. 119. N. 5. c, and
as to olxoSopvi Lob. p. 490. To the abstract nouns belong some in ^OMJ,
in the N. T. Ttxacr^o^, on the contrary ETta^o^oj^ is directly derived from
lrtaj(tyiioj>, but rtftttytowy pre-exists in rtf^a, although it can be referred
back to jti-feeiv as jtMiepovri to rt^^w/.f The concrete nouns present
very few peculiarities: from verbs in aw, IK>, t>w, occur as rare forms

JT'^ff, evayyjfc.itfi'fljj, yoyyuffi'jjj, and Ifl.TWfj/tffT'^jJIjI but
(which however, is not peculiar to the N. T.) has no root
verb xoM.vfitstV' Tetetovv forms etteMtfa (comp. ^COT^J and ji/utfgufijs).
Instead of Stwx^s the earlier writers rather say Siux^p, as Sotftjg for
SoV^s. The formation xa-tdw^ from xatavvatdZu, Rom. xi. 8. (from the
Septuagint), which Wahl has received in the Clav. rain., is very strange.
But that the noun was formed in connection with xa-tavvaaew, is proved
by Dan. x. 9. Theod., and so xafaaw&s might signify obstupefaction
(nSjnn Ps. lix. 3.) and consequently torpor. \\ The method of writing
T'ttjctao^, instead of tapislov, from tfa/ufvw, Lob. p. 493, originated in a
careless pronunciation. Yet in Luk. xii. 24. all the Codd., and in Mtt.
vi. 6, many good ones have it: as they also write, without any variation,
'y^uxjtfdjsoiitoi/ for yhuaaoxopslov or 'yXwatJoxd^u.toj', from sco/uw. Lob. p. 98.
(6) Those derived from adjectives. Here belong partly, some abstracts

* The form xve-ta. seems to have been usual only in words compounded with appella-
tives: a(/M.ttT6p^ui7ta in N. T. comp. with <j>WTopu<ri'a and geveyxuo-ict.

j 'Ejifleut also belongs to nouns derived from verbs in even. We may either take it
in the sense usual in the Greek book language, or derive it from IJI^EIVJ in the
latter case, we must suppose the intermediate forms ejifloj, IgtSeusiv, which is not with-
out difficulty.

t 'EAXijw'siy primarily means to use the language and manner of the Greeks (Diog.
L. I. 8, 4.), most frequently to speak Greek, viz. by those who are not native Greeks;
and then it has no bad sense (De Wettc's Bible, in Hal. Enclyc. p. 17, is incorrect),
Strabo 2, 98. Xen. Anal. 1. 3. 25. ' EXXEVIO-THJ, a noun which is not found among the
Greeks, very naturally therefore, means a foreigner who speaks Greek, e. g. a Jc\v.

|| Fritzsche the elder in the Hall. Literaturzcit. 1834. Ergzsbl. Nr. 64. contends for
the signification pain (compunctio, dolor}. But xafttv. would at least be violent pain.
And further the spirit of pain (Rom. xi. 8.), for a spirit full of evil, is rather far-
fetched.

16. ON THE FORMATION OF WORDS. 83

in ^J, otf?$, as
in earlier writers),

taiot^j, xuptoi^s, (wc^oT'ifj, rt^s see Lob. p. 350. (d^a^s Rev. xvii.
4. is not established), partly, those in awtj as Efoypoavvq (from eteynuv, as
from <jw<j>eo', the former even in Diog. L.), especially oya^cocrii^,
with a because the a adj. is short (Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 327. 1 19.
B. N. 9. b. c. Etym. Mag. p. 275. 44.), both later, and only Hellenistic
Greek words. Also among those in ta, which originate from adject, in
oj, oy, are many later formations (Lob. p. 343.) e. g. E*a$ta, as
nvSatpovia from tvSaipuv, so occurs in 2 Pet. it. 16. jta^a^ovia from rtagd-
(jigcoi/. Some Codd. have the more usual Tia^a^oavvrj* Finally, the
neuters of adject, in to j have frequently become substantives, as oi7to|i5-
yiov, p&ogwv, vrio^viov, afydywv, etc. Fritzsche Prcdimin. p. 42.

(d] Those derived from other nouns are, according to Buttm. ed. Rob.
p. 328. 1 19. 12, 10. 2. hSateLV (iiSahov), fhutuv (foaia) , juvXcov, ([Avhos, pvfai)
and the feminine jSafftMucra. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 328. 119. 12. 3. e.
'A<j>sSpwf, which is peculiar to the N. T. originates from Sga. The gentil.
fem. from $otVt| is 3>owt.0aa, so Mr. vii. 26. Svgofyolviaaa, as KAi| becomes
KtWrfa. But perhaps the feminine was formed from the name of the coun-
try <j?otW;7, for many and good Codd. have in Mr. 'Svgofyowtxtaaa, (comp.
Fritzsche on the passage,) and this would be derived immediately from
a ground form ^owwis, as jSacaxicrtfa is related to jSacraij, and instead of
Sxi&ts, at least among the Romans, occurs also Scythissa, or as among the
Greeks from fyvhaxls also q>vhdxt,aaa. 'HgcoStowoj Mt. xxii. 16. and X^t'crtfc-
cm>s Acts xii. 26. (comp. Ka^a^caj/oj Arrian. JEpict. 1,19. 4, 13.) of Gen-
tile and Patronym. belong to the later latinising formation. In the earlier
language the termination ow/oj was used only in the formation of names
of cities and countries not Grecian. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 328. 119. 12,
74. A. Of the diminutives may be noticed ptphagtSoov, from
which Pollux quotes, instead of the older forms fitphudtov and p
(like tuat iSngiov from ipatidkov), Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 330. 119. B. 6. a.
Twaixd^Lov is after the usual analogy, yet it may be a rare form among
the Greeks, as u-tdgtov Mr. xiv. 47. in some Codd. See Fritzsche on this
passage and on xhwdgiov. On the diminutives in iov see Fritzsche
Prsslimin. p. 43. Of these, -4/t^Joi/ is unquestionably a later form.

The substantives in ygiov are properly neuters from adjectives, as

g immediately from

* Of nouns derived from adj., some have the termination 10, for EI. Buttm. ed. Rob.
p. 327. 119. B. a. Others vacillate between (tt and ia, as nanova^a.. Comp. Poppo
Thuc. II. I. 154. Ellendt. praf. ad Arrian. p. 30. As to this word, however, sta. has
the most in its favor.

84 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

ufa, has, like it, an active signification, one who protects, one who guards.
'iTiaocz'Tjgt.oj/ means properly that which reconciles, but can be referred to
the place where the reconciliation is effected (like qvhuxtqgiov a watch-
house], and thence to the covering of the ark of the covenant, the mercy-
seat. That it means operculum in the Septuagint, no one will believe
but Wahl. In Rom. iii. 25. the signification a propitiation is just as
good. A fem. subst. of this kind is givx-fij^ta., comp. (m^tf^'a: rfwi^ta
is immediately related to rfwi 1 ^, and ffw^^toi/ also occurs as a substantive.
'Vrttgcpov, i. e. vrfcput'op is to be treated as a neuter of vjts^iof, which, like
rta-tgopos from Ttdi'jjg, is formed from the preposition *, as there is no
intermediate adjective vrtEgoj. So wdyawv, (the Greeks themselves had
xafayaiov Lob. p. 297,) is derived from aw, see Fritzsche ad Mr. p.
611, whilst the more usual ow/wyEoi/ comes from the adverb av

8. ADJECTIVES, (a) To those derived immediately from the primitive
form of a verb, belong, perhaps, rtt0d$ 1 Cor. ii. 4. comp. JSojfromc'Sw,
/3octe6j from j3dtfxw, <j>fiS6j from (qetSu) fyuSopat,. I would by all means
allow it in Paul, although it is well conjectured that it ought to be re-
jected.* Verbals in -tot (Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 33'?. 119. 13. i. p. 371.
134. 8. 9.) which in signification are sometimes equivalent to theLat.
partic. in tus, as yvu<snb$ notus, aitEvtbs saginatus, artaidevtos unaptus,
comp. Stortvivo-tos inspirutusrf sometimes to adjectives in bilis, as o^owdj,
xowarfoi/ucf'r'oj, and sometimes have an active sense, as arf-
one who offends not, i. e. who does not sin, belong to this head.
signifies, either not attempted, or which cannot be attempted,
like arfEt'paT'oj which is usual among the Greeks. Buttm. ed. Rob. ibid.
Only Tta^foj means Acts xxvi. 23. he who shall suffer, comp. $evxt6$,
ftpaxtos Aristot. de anima 3, 9. p. 64. Silb. Cattier. Gazophyl. p. 34. The
verbal rtpoafovtos is most intimately connected with forms like Jfrf^vj,
jU.li'^Mjf, and is an augmented form of which no examples occur in the
Greek language.

(b) Among the adject, which are formed from other adject, (particip.)
there are some worthy of remark, e. g. ttegwvaios and Ijtiovews from
Ttegtoojcra/, ertwvda, as SXOVOLOS from lxwj<, sxovcsu Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 330.
119. 13. . Lob. p. 4. 'Erttovrfio; is, that which is appointed for the
following day (bread), comp. Valckenaer Select. I. p. 190. Fritzsche ad
Mt. p. 267. (also against the derivation from ovala). But ytf^toijutoj no

* Our latest commentaries and lexicons have treated this word very unsatisfacto-
rily. Pott copies, in part verbatim from Valckenosr's Selecta, and Heydenreich re-
peats the most unfortunate opinion of Storr.

t That this word in 2 Tim. iii. 6. is to be taken in a passive sense, is evident from
E^TrvEuo-rof, and cannot be doubted, although many similar derivatives have an active
signification, as EV

16. ON THE FORMATION OP WORDS. 85

more means only and merely proprius, as VYahl has it, than
atfjioj, in the Septuagint, only property.. UMIXOS (Mr. xiv. 3. John xii.
3.) from TtKjf o$ means according to many old interpreters pure, genuine.
Among the ancient Greeks that word means convincing, also persuading
{Plat. Gorg. p. 455. A. Fext. Emp. advers. Matth. ii. 71. Theophrast.
Metapli. p. 253. Sylb.), although many Codd. have in almost all the pas-
sages rtsiattxos (See Bekker and Stallbaum on Plat.}, in the later wri-
ters it meansya^A/wZ, credible, Liicke John ii. 421. The transition to
pure would not seem impossible, when we reflect that technical expres-
sions (arid such is vagSoj rfttfi 1 .), especially mercantile terms, are often
singular. It would be more appropriate to translate Ttie-e- drinkable,
from fttftiaxti or the root rto, like rftcrtfoj drinkable in ^Eschyl. Prom,
470. jtia-t^, jtiatga, nlafgov, etc. which old lexicographers adduce. That
the ancients did drink the oil of spikenard, is asserted by Athen. 15. p.
689. Yet I cannot well understand why both Evangelists should apply
this epithet,- since if the liquid ointment of nard, which they used to pour
out (Mr. xcwajfclstt/), did not differ materially from the drinkable nard,
the adjective jtia-eixos would be as superfluous as to say liquid or fluid
nard. But the vdgSos faitny of Dioscor. is fluid, which distinguishes it
from a solid, adhesive nard ; and besides the drinkable nard of John
would not be adapted to the manipulation, which is denominated afotfyetv.
Finally, Fritzsche's interpretation of rite*, (ad Mr. p. 601.) as qui facile
bibi potest, lubenter bibitur, appears to me not well founded; nor is
xbt certainly to be found any where with the meaning drinkable.
itself was not much in use (in JEschyl. it occurs in a quibble), and gave
place to the unequivocal rto-fof.

(c) Among others aagxivos and gagxixbs belong to the adjectives derived
from substantives. The former can only mean, of or belonging to flesh
(as ftisuj/oj of wood, xgifftvof of barley. See Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 331.
119. J3. a.) the latter fleshly, carnal: and it is surprising that Gries-
bach did not at once substitute gagxvxbt for adgxwos in Rom. vii. 14.
1 Cor. iii. 1. Heb. vii. 16. Yet even Lachmann has retained the latter.*
Among the adjectives of time in w>$ (Buttm. ed. Rob. ibid.) are xaBv}-
/tegwdj, 60gn>oV, Tt^aiVdj, which are later forms instead of xadqusgios, etc.
the earlier: comp. tuxi,v6$. From $1^ is derived Sasxd$v*.o$ (comp.
tffga'<f)t>a,os Herod, v. 66.), the neuter of which is used substantively in
Acts xxvi. 7. Ksgapixos (ajfga^toj, xegdpioi) belong to the later adjec-
tive formations.

* We may perhaps suppose that the later language of the people used these two
forms interchangably.
11

86 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OP FORMS.

B. Derivation by Composition.

(a) There are many derivatives (nouns) whose first part is a noun; yet
there is nothing in their composition contrary to analogy, although but
few similar formations occur in the Greek written language; comp.

atoj, aM.oi?gio7ti,<3xorto$ (cofllp. a.MotfgiOTtga^cov in Plato),
JLob. p. 621. Ttotfo/to^og^T'of, xagStoyvcoxji^j, (fjft'djSgwT

(comp. 4'ev5o?iai'^j, Theodos. Acroas. ii. 73.)

is regularly formed from aipa. Buttm, ed. Rob. p. 333.
120. 2.; 2w<j>c5uV?7 is written with an w according to the best Codd.
although the form xgioty. may not be without analogy, Lob. p. 691.
About cried'tys see Buttm. ed. Rob. ibid. Asm-spoSexaV^ Hieron in Ezek.
c. 45. is most similar to the composition Ssvtfportputos Luk. vi. 1. The
latter signifies second first, the former second tenth. The first part of
the compound is more rarely a verb, as in teaoepijtixEia, voluntary wor-
ship: comp. 0j-xoSoW(x. The inseparable priv. as the first part of the
compound presents nothing unusual; the intensive, appears only in the
familiar verb atviZew. See Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 335. 120. N. 11.
Doderlein de ah$a intensive sermonis Grasci. Erl. 1830. 4to.

(6) Where the latter part of the compound is a verb, it appears as an
unchanged root only in composition with the old prepositions (Buttm. ed.
.Rob. p. 336. 121. 2.); in other cases it is so changed that the verb as-
sumes its ending from a noun derived from the root, as aSwcrtuv, 6/ttoJio-
ysiaOai*, vovOfteiv, svepystsiv, tfpOTto^opEtj;, etc.* 'QpelpzaQat, (as the better
Codd. have for tpeipt-adat, 1 Thes. ii. 8.) is rather opposed to this, if it
be derived from Spoil, o^to? and pg; Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 792. At least
no verb of the kind occurs with 6^. comp. o^aSs'w from 6>aSos, o^oSpo^sci/,
owpsvtw, opolvyeiv, opt-tew, etc. A genitive, which in the above passage
is governed by the verb, would also be strange (comp. Matth. II. 907.)
Yet perhaps the former ought not to be too strongly urged in a word de-
rived from the popular language. But if (ii-ipeaOat,, as it is found in
Nicand. Ther. 402. for l^ipstsdai, were the original form, ^LpsaBai, opsi-
pt-tiBai would stand together as well as SvpeaQai, and oSvptaeai,. The word
will always be a riddle.

A formation peculiar to the Hellenistic language is

Theodor. Acroas. I. 32.

* On apparent exceptions, as xaAoTroiETV, dyafloTroiEfv, see Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 336.
121. 3. N. 3.

16. OIY THE FORMATION OF WORDS. 87

A corresponding verb is dxatafoirtifetv Sext. Emp. hypoth. I. 210.; comp.
for the concrete derivative Swgo^rf^s and dgyo^rtT^f Septuag., Soy^oj/oj^rt-
jtyj Justin. M. Apol. 2. p. 30. Gotz. The N. T. has many such compo-
sitions unknown to the Greeks, like rtgocjwrfotojrt^j, in which the second
part is a nominal form derived from a verb, but where the first indicates
the object (Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 338. 121. 6.) e. g. Set-mafias, who takes
the right side of some one, therefore satelles. From them originate
again : () Abstract nouns, where belong ora^i/ontyyta (from ax^vo'
etc. (6) Verbs, like ^eo^o^slv from %i6op6ho$ (comp.
etc.), ogSotfoSatV from

In verbs compounded of two or more prepositions, the preposition
which forms the double compound is placed first, as atfsxSexsadat,, awuv-
tfoappdvEadckt" AKxctagaT^tjS;} 1 Tim. vi. 5. would not be conformable to
this, if the meaning were, false assiduity, or unprofitable disputation;
since this compound could only mean continued (endless) hostilities, and
in -thi* sense tfagaSiowgij^ must be taken. Nevertheless a majority of
the Codd. is for Siuaag. Therefore a transposition of the prepositions in
this compound is made, Fritzsche Comment, in Mr. p. 796. Such a
transposition, however, might have been made by the transcribers. But
on the whole, in this passage Stonsa^. would admit the sense continued
dissensions. The other compounds with Siarfaga. which occur in 1 Kings
vi. 4. Sictagaji:iWEtf0a&, 2 Sam. iii. 30. Siavtaga-tyztcv would, as to the
meaning, be regular, were there no doubt in relation to the former. See
Schleussner Thes. PJdlol. on this word. The compound isagajcatfafoj:^
and sfagafl^ have the same signification. Lob. p. 312. The hitter form
is the most frequent in the N. T. The two forms vacillate in the Codd.
also in Plutarch Ser. Vind. See Wyttenb. II, p. 530. Heinichen ind.
ad Euseb. III. p. 529.

Single as well as double compound verbs frequently occur in the Greek
of the Bible, which are not found in other Greek writers. Especially are
verbs, which earlier writers used in the simple form, augmented by pre-
positions which represent the mode of action sensibly; (as the later lan-
guage was particularly fond of the perspicuous and the expressive.).
Thus xafaKiQdZu, to stone down, %ogxigeiv as if, to swear (in the judicial
sense. Trs.), to take an oath from one, ^an-f^d'a-feiv to lighten forth,
to marry OUt (elocare),

NOTE. Proper names, especially those which are compounded, occur
often in the N. T. in the contractions peculiar to the popular language,
which are often very forcible (Lob. p. 434.), as 'A^f^a? for "A&eptiasas
Tit. iii. 12.; Nu^dj for Ni^oScogos Col. iv. 15.; Zqvds for zpoSg Tit.

QevSds

.,

for 0i58a0f, i. e.^ o$o$ and Aovxas for Lucanus (among the Greeks,
comp. 'Ataias for 'AjUiavSgos, JVfyi/dj for MqvoSugoi). Many in a? without
circumflex are found abbreviated, e. g. 'A^cnu'os for Ampliatus Rom. xvi.

88 PART SECOND. DOCTRINE OF FORMS.

8. 'Avtltfas for 'Avtftstowgoj Rev. ii. 13. Ktaotfas for KM-otintgos Luk. xxiv.
18. perhaps Saas from Saouowoj, see Heumann Poscile III. p. 314.
Sutfafpoj from Swcnitfai'pos Acts xx. 4. (as some Codd. have), although
more contracted in the beginning of the word, might be very forcible,
but the former can also he an original form. On the contrary the pro-
per names in bao$, which perhaps are not only contracted by the Dori-
ans in xaj (Matth. I. 149.), are written in the New Testament without
abbreviation Ntxo^aoj, 'Ap#!xao$. (About the contraction in the verb
for xa'tajAvfiv Se JLob. p. 340.).

PART III.

SYNTAX.

CHAPTER I.

ON THE USE OF THE ARTICLE.*

17. The Article with Nouns.

IT is easy to apprehend the fundamental law, that the article stands
before a noun which designates a definite object, (comp. Epiph. Acer. 1,
9, 4.), yet it must be, and always should have been equally important to
the critic and the exegesist, to be acquainted with the various uses of this
part of speech in the N. T. The following instances may be noted.

1. An appellative noun (subst. or adj. and partic. used substantively),
is definite, or takes the def. article: (a) When it designates an object, of
which there is but one, as 6 tjhio$, % yfj, <% Sixawavvy, -to wya66v the good
(abstractly), virtue. In such cases the object is characterized as definite,
by this unity of existence. Examples from the N. T. are unnecessary.
(&) When out of a whole class of objects, it distinguishes a single one to
be thought of separately. This must be either an object already known
to the reader, or brought to view in a preceding sentence. Comp. Herm.
ad Soph. Ajac. 1206. ad ced. R. 838. (c) When a word, which
properly designates an individual of a class, in the singular the genus,
expresses the object merely as existing, without respect to the number
of such objects, Schafer ad Long. p. 373, (yet see Engelhardt ad Plat.

* A. Kluit Vindiciezartic.in N. T. Trai. et Alcmar. 768. 771. P. I. Tom. I. III. P.
II. Tom. I. II. 8vo. J. Middleton on the Gr. article. Schulthesa in den Theol. Annul.
1808. p. 56. E. Valpy on the Gr. artic. in his N. T. Lond. 3. edit. 1834. 3 vols. 8vo.

90 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OP THE ARTICLE.

Euthyphr. p. 100),* as o tftfpai'uoi^s the soldier, 6 rfoj/^/joj the base. Comp.
Mt. xii. 35. 6 oya^oj ojgwfoy tse tfoii aya^oa) Sqawvgov t^oM.si> tfa aya^a,
Luk. x. 7. Horn. iv. 6. Gal. iii. 20. iv. 1. also 1 Thess. iv. 6. i-v tu

in business.^ Here belong also o cfot^v 6 xa^oj John x. 11.

Luk. viii. 5., where the concrete idea of the good shepherd,
etc. (therefore the genus) is expressed. So always in fables, apologues
and parables. Comp. Exod. xxiii. 1.

Examples under (&) are Mt. xxvi. 27. (Luk. xxii. 17. Mr. xiv. 23. the

article is to be used according to the best Codd.) xajSwv to vso-efaov the

cup which stood before the master of the house, to hand it around; Luk.

iv. 20. ott<v(;a$ 1*6 /3t/3fo'oj> dtfoSov? tw ictyp^ft closed the book and gave it

again to the (appointed) servant, who handed it to him, v. 17. Luk. ix.

16. xa/3w lav; csivts a^ouy, namely the loaves mentioned v. 13., Acts ix.

7. elfjjhSsv tit <tvp> olxidv into the house, which was described to him v.

11.; John iv. 43. psta -gas Svo ^lpa$ stivp&ev Ixsl^tv, namely after the two

days mentioned v. 40.; John xiii. 5. pdhtet, -ffScop sis tbv vtrt-gyjpa into the basin,

which usually stood in the room; John ii. 14. svpsv Iv ^9 tepip tovs rtohwv-

faf jSoas xai ftpofiatn the cattle dealers, who kept the market in the temple

(but who properly should have remained out of the lepbv), as we are used

to say: the cloth-makers (who are accustomed to visit the fair) I found in

King-street; v. 36. ify paptvplav, the testimony, to which I appeal (v. 31.)

and by which I approve myself to you; Jas. ii. 25. 'PaajS ^ jtopvy vrtoSst;-

npsvri it oi) 5 oyy&ouj namely, those of whom we are at once reminded in

the familiar history, by the mention of the name Rahab: Mr. i. 7. s

6 iaxvgotegos /*ow.with a direct reference to Christ; Rev. xx. 4.

fitta 'toy %,e,i<Mov *a %ufaa the thousand years, i. e. the definite period of

a thousand years for the reign of the Messiah, Jas. ii. 14. ti -to O^TIOJ,

lav rtle-tw heyy ?<,<; l%tw the advantage, which could be expected (comp.

ii. 16. 1 Cor. xv. 32.), 1 Cor. iv. 5. 4 fas oertawos yt.vv\Gvtw txdtrtq dnd

toil sov the deserved praise (as Mt. v. 12. Rom. iv. 4. 1 Cor. ix. 18.)

o^tKj^o'j; John vii. 24. f^v Stxalw xgtaw xgwatE not a righteous judgment,

but the righteous judgment, i. e. that which in the present case is the

right, in opposition to the unjust one, which they had given, comp. v. 23.;

Acts V. 37. avEdTftj 'louSaj 6 rcaifoxtoj Iv fat j ijficgats -f^ artoyga^j of the

(then the last) census known to the reader; xxi. 38. <5 o

* Herm. pr&f. ad Eurip. Ipheg. Aul. p. 15. Articulus quoniam origine pronomcn
demonstrationis est, definit infinita idque duobus modis, aut designando certo de inul-
tis aut quse multa sunt cunctis in unum colligendis.

t In the plural, it is plain that, e. g. Mtt. xxiv. 28. of &srSt, when particular eagles
are not meant, must signify the whole species. On the other hand, in Heb. vi. 16.
( xa.ro. rov f4iiovt>t opyWt', men swear, etc. i. e. whoever of men swears, etc.

17. THE ARTICLE WITH NOUNS. 91

Itj tfjp Hgijupy tf o v s tfai^asc^Mt'ouj aivSgas tfwv titxagiuv the known
four thousand men (the event occurred not long before), see Kiinb'l on
this passage; xxvii. 38. ExfiaMopwot, tbv altov sis nqv ahaaaa,v the grain,
which made up the cargo (it was an Alexandrian ship with a cargo of
grain), Acts xi. 13. h8e nbv uyy&ov the angel, which Luke mentioned
above x. 3. 22. (where the author forgets, that these words are directed
to Peter, who was not yet acquainted with this angel); Acts xvii. 1. Srtav
vjv t; awayuyv] tuv 'lovSniw the Jews' synagogue, namely of this city, which
in consequence of the small Jewish population had only one synagogue :
as we say of a village: the church stands on a hill, etc.; Heb. xi. 28.
6 faoSgsvuv, the destroyer, which is spoken of in the second book of Moses.
Comp. also 1 Cor. x. 10. 1 Cor. xv. 8. wcrrtaga ^9 Ixig&iuvti, (where tq
(twi) is unnecessary), to me as the after birth, (late born,) namely among
the apostles; Jas. ii. 20. 26. % rttWtj za&s tZv igyuv vexgd Etjtfi not: with-
out works, (comp. v. 17), but without the works, produced especially by
faith. 2 Cor. i. 17. /t^c ago, *$ l3\.a<j>pia ixptjad^v, where &<*$. is used
objectively as an inherent property of human nature, as they say in Ger-
man, the avarice has dominion over him, the drunkenness conquers him;
yet % fra$p. here might refer to the levity with which he had been charged;
Luk. xviii. 15. jtpoasfypov awtq xal to, f3ps$ij t namely, which they had, their
children,- John vi. 3. iwifo&e sis *o opoj on the mountain which was ttepuv
tfa 3U near the shore, where Jesus had landed, comp. Mt. xxv. 29. also
the easy passages Mt. ii. 11. xiii. 2. John xx. 1. xxi. 20. vi. 10. Luk. v.
14. 21. 1 Cor. x. 1. Acts. ix. 2. 1 Cor. v. 9. Mr. vii. 24. John xii. 12.
xiii. 4. xviii. 15. Mt. viii. 4. (Fritzsche Quat. Ev. I. p. 307) Heb. v. 4.;
in Rom. ix. 4. it is not necessary to lay, after PFahl, an unusual stress
on the article, 'o Ip^o^oj is the Messiah,* % xplais the judgment of the
world by Messiah, Mt. xii. 41., ^ vo/Ao^s^a, Rom. ix. 4. the giving of the
law on mount Sinai, % aatqpia the salvation (of the Messiah, Christian),
% ypafyrj the (holy) scripture, 6 rtEipd%uv satan, etc. ^ J'p^oj is according to
the context sometimes the Arabian desert (Arabia Petrsea) John. iii. 14.
vi. 31. Acts vii. 30. at other times the xcw' alo^v so called, desert of Judah
Mat. iv. 1. xi. 54. Comp. the oft-recurring doxology am-^ (xvpiq, ^9)
rj Sofa (xai if b xpatfoj.) to him be the glory, viz. that which belongs to him
alone, Rom. xi. 36. xvi. 27. Ephes. iii. 21. Gal. i. 5. Phil. iv. 20. 2 Tim.
iv. 18. 1 Pet. iv. 11. (comp. Rev. iv. 11. a| t0 j, , xvpis, ^apetv -e^v $6%av
xal tv\v i^^v xai ify SvvafMvrf V. 13. ^ lujtoyttt xai, % tfejwf xai ^ Sofa xui, -t 6

* See LQcke on o Tr^n-rn^ John i. 21.

t Comp. Xen. Anab. 5. 6, 34. t n v M KW eirmdsvat, Lucian diall. dear. 15, rnv

, Heliod. MHi. 1, 21, 40. Cor. -riv^nr Z^iy, for which in N. T. we find only

. Luk. xvii. 9. Acts ii. 47. 2 Tim. i. 3.

92 ' PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE ARTICLE.

etc. and the well known forms: sxsl It-tat, 6

xal o/Spuy^uoj -guv d6vtw Mt. viii. 12. Luk. xiii. 28. etc. there will
take place the wailing and gnashing of teeth, which they deserve.

Between rfo?ao&and ot ttoM.oi. taken absolutely (in the latter sense rare
in the N. T.) the usual distinction is made. The latter signifies, the
many (as known), either in definite contrast with a unity. Rom. xii. 5.
ot Ttojaot IV aZ>pa lofisv (1 Cor. x. 17.), or with a single one, Rom. v. 15.
19.; or without any such contrast, the multitude, the (great) mass, (with
the exception of a few) Mt. xxiv. 12., and hence in 2 Cor. ii. 17. the
vulgus doctor. Christ., the body of Christian teachers. See Schafer
Melet. p. 3, 65. ot ofoao?, O l aM.o<-, ot, itavtet need no elucidation.

It is singular that interpreters, when they use the article in the N. T.
contrary to their custom, have mostly erred in judgment. So Kiinol
after Krause (a wretched guide, where grammatical accuracy is required)
in iv -tvj Ixxtyalq. Acts vii. 38., when he maintains that, because of the
article, a certain assembly of people is meant. The context perhaps
would justify this meaning, but ^ exx^a. only grammatically considered,
may as well signify the assembly (as Grotius and others interpret)
h$r\W bnp, and the article would then be as legitimately used as in any
case. So Acts viii. 27. v\ S^P-OS (<5S6j). In 2 Thess. iii. 14. also, the inter-
preters have placed much dependence on the article in Sta T^J Irtwi'otojj,
and therefore deny the possibility of connecting these words with the
following ay [*e wv ads. The omission of the article in two Codd. may per-
haps be accounted for in this way. Paul could very well say, SK* tq$
frtiat. crt^Ei., if he then expected an answer from the Thessalonians: de-
scribe him to me in the letter, viz. that which I expect from you, or
which you have to write to me.*

2. In the above mentioned passages the German language also pre-
fixes the article, while it is contrary to its genius to use it in the following
places, Acts xxvi. 24. 6 <$j?rftfo? ^yaM? -t q>v>vfi e^ (comp. xiv. 10. Lucian
Catapl. 11. Diod. Sic. 1, 70. 83. Polyb. 15,29.) 1 Cor. xi. 5. mpo^-
tsvovtia axa'taxai'iwTt'tcp. ty xs^a 1 ^, Rev. II. 18. s%uv 4 ov j o^atyioij avtov wj
<j>a,oya rtvp6$. The article is used here, because the particular head and
eyes of the person mentioned are intended, which should be more
minutely described by means of a predicate, as .if it were said, "with his
voice, which is strong, with his head, which is uncovered." In the last
example we can come nearest to the Greek, " he had his eyes as fire"
\. e. the eyes, which he had, were as fire. Rev. iv. 7. uovs%ov to
wj av^tpuriog (some Codd. leave out the article), Heb. vii. 24.
i' '#& "tv[V tcpaavvtiv Mr. Vlll. 17. JVc. rtsrtupafAevtjv J'^stff "i vjv xapftiav

&V, Mt. lli. 4. ?(,% -to I'vSvpa avTfov arto tfpi^wv xa/wjhQv. Heb. V. 14. The
Greek expression is more particular than the German. Comp. as parallels
Xen. Cyrop. 5, 1. 2. bpoluv tnis 60^0-1,5 E^E T'JJ* ia&fla, Theophr. Char.

* Bengel on this passage, gives an entirely different interpretation of Jia TJ
,., in which, however, the article retains its force.

17. THE ARTICLE WITH NOUNS. 93

12. (19) fovs owxas jusyatous e%w, Eurip. Electr. 737. Thuc. 1, 23. 6, 86-
^Elian. Anim. 13, 15. Diod. Sic. 1, 52. 2, 19. 54. 3, 34. 49. Lucian.
Eunuch. 11. and dial dear. 8, 1. Isocr. ep. 7. p. 1012. Polyaen. 8, 10.
1. Galen temper. 2, 6. Plat. Phsedr. p. 242. B. Polyb. 3, 4. 1. See
Kriiger ad Dion. Hal. p. 126. Poppo ad Time. III. 1. p. 115. and
about a relative use of the article, Herrn. ad Soph. Electr. 294.

3. That participles in an absolute sense, as substantives, (comp.
6rteipduv, 6 SIMXUV vfnas Gal. 1> 23.) or resolved by Ae te/io, have the
article, is well understood (Matth. II. 717.): 1 Cor. ix. 13. ovx oi'Scwe,

6V i 6 b -fa t ga gyao|U.vo{. ax ^oi) tfgoi) Ifl^doucru'; o c tf 9 ^tvaiaafr^i^ rtgotf-
sgiSoj/tfEs ^9 ^utfuxtfT'^gbw av/jL^s^ovfai, that they, who labour in holy
things (o bgouyoi!) etc. 2 Cor. ii. 2. am tfb's IOT'IV o e-u^pabVcov pe, st pf o
Jivrfou^avoj e| >oi); Mt. x. 20. Phil. ii. 13. On the other hand the po-
sition of the article before the participle in the following passages will be
striking, because it is contrary, to the genius of our language, and seems
even to violate a logical rule: John v. 32. aM.oj lafiv <5 ^apr-upwi/ rtspi
Gal. i. 7. -fives lie iv o I tapdaaovfss ti^uaj, Col. ii. 8. /3^.7tf /u.^ 'tis
Acts ii. 47. o xvpi>o$ rtpoasitfesi T! o v s s^
2 Cor. xi. 4. eipev yap o sp%6(ji.svo; ahhov 'iqaovv

etc. In the first three passages the aiuoj and fives seem to mark the
distinction indefinitely. The passage in Acts ii. 47., Stolz translates,
" The Lord added daily saved to the church," (in the German saved is
without the article in Stolz's translation). In those passages of John
in which 6 fj-a^-tv^v occurs, it refers to the definite witness (God) :
there is another who bears witness to me (Doederlein ad (Ed. C. p.
475.) comp, John v. 45. In Gal. and Col. the oc tagdaeov-ft s afi d tne
avhuyayuv are directly thought of as such, and the whole mode of expres-
sion is similar to the known Greek hslv 61 h.t-yovtts (comp. Matth. II.
713.) Lysias pro ban. Aristoph. 57. eloi 8s fives ot rtgoavatiaxovtes, etc.

Lucian. tflbdic. 3. yjadv fives ot, pavias ^X^v fovf' sivai vo/j.iovfes, etc. In

Acts oi> a^o^voi are the particular persons, who accepted the Christian
faith and were saved by it: the Lord added daily to the church, (namely)
those who (by their faith) were saved (from eternal destruction). Not dis-
similar in Plat. Menex. p. 236. B. fat, /'Wiotaj> 'A$yv(uoi aigEia^ai ton
fgovv-ta, Polyaen. 5, 1. 1. Diog. L. 2, 3. 6. Demosth. adv. Nicostr. p. 723.
A. Ellendt. c-d Arrian. Alex. II. 235. Stallbaum ad Plat. rep. II. 122.
(1 Sam. xiv. 39. Gen. xl. 8. xli. 8. Zeph. iii. 13.). Finally, in 2 Cor. the
apostle contemplates the case, that a false teacher will appear; in a concrete
sense: if he who appears (he, whom I have definitely before my rnind
as appearing among you), preaches, etc. See Matth. II. Bernhardy p.
318. On the infinitive with the article, see below, 44.
12

94 PART THIKD. ON THE USE OF THE AKTICLE.

The connection in Luk. xviii. 9. sl^s #poj tftraj faj tfstfoiOo'tas 1$' l
is easily explained. Here the ^M/EJ are some who cannot be more pre-
cisely designated, yet in ot tfeaoie. are characterized by a definite pro-
perty: some, and they were such as trusted, etc. Comp. Acts xix. 14.
Herm. ad Soph. R. 107. Doderlein ad (Ed. Col. p. 296.

4. In many of these .passages interpreters explain 6 as the indefinite
article (comp. Kiihnb'l on John xix. 32.),* which was to be found formerly
even in the Gr. writings, but which in the N. T. they reduced to the
Hebrew. But on the one hand the Hebrew article n is never used as a
definite article (see Ewald 568. and Simon. Lex. Heb. Winer's ed. 239. in
opposition to Gesen. Lehrgeb. 655. who had not seen what appeared in
the Ne^i) TheoL Jinnal. 1808. p. 220.); on the other hand it is inconceiv-
able that a language, which once possesses and feels the definite article,
should ever use it as an indefinite. How could a rational man, instead
of " / saw a mountain," say " I saw the mountain?" Even children and
uneducated persons in German (in English also), use the article correct-
ly, and it would be a revolution of the laws of thought, to express as de-
finite, that which is conceived indefinitely. Cases, however, where it is
indifferent whether the article be used or not, must not be confounded
with those which are here the subject of remark. The use or the omis-
sion of the article in such instances depends on the manner in which the
mind has conceived the proposition, but has no influence on the principal
idea. We must therefore distinguish between an objective and subjec-
tive use of the article. (Comp. Sintenis ad Plut. Themist. p. 190.)

Passages in which it is of no material importance whether the article
be prefixed or not, are Jas. ii. 26. ^6 trw/ia ^wptj rtvv/.ia-to$ vsxpov saifw,
the body without spirit is dead: %upis -tov GVSV. would be, without the
spirit, viz. that spirit which is usually connected with the human body.
Heb. v. 11. tfepi, ov itoJJvs q[uv 6 Tio'yoj sermo, quern instituere deberemus.
Without the article it would be a protracted discourse. One Cod. wants
the art. in this passage. Comp. Heindorf ad Plat. Protag. p. 511.
Luke xii. 54. reads, in good Codd. otav iSyts vEfy&yv avu-ttM.ovauv urtb
Sutfpwv: the received text has -t^v vsty.', either is admissible. With the
art. the words mean, if you see the cloud (which appears in the sky)
rising in the ivest, if the clouds be moving from that direction. Col. i. 16.
sv av-t<j> ixtladtj if a jtdvt a, signifies ihe (existing) all, the whole of things;
jtdvta would be, every thing which exists. The sense is not affected by
the article, but the two ideas differ in the conception of the mind. In
respect to John i. 31. the judgment of Matthai is correct. Mtt. xx. 26.
6 v aptoj> (which was lying there, which was left), but

* Sturz Lexic. Xenoph. III. p. 232. adduces passages from Xenoph. where the ar-
ticle must be taken for n';.

17. THE ARTICLE WITH NOUNS. 95

Mr. xiv. 22. Luke xxii. 19. 1 Cor. xi. 23. ap-tov bread, or a ^//"(accor-
ding to the best Codd.) Comp. Mt. xii. 1. with Mr. ii. 23. Luke vi. 1.
Mt. xix. 3. with Mr. x. 2. Luke ix. 28. with Mr. ix. 2.

In the following parallel sentences the use of the article is not always
consistent, e.g. Luke xviii. 2. t?6v $tbv py q>oj3ov/*evoc xai av^purtov ^
evtpsrtoiAsvos, V. 27. tfa aSvva-ta, rtapu d^pwrtot-j Svvuitd Itftft rtagd 9 ^9, XX.
25. artoSoTfs tfa Katffa^oj Kat'ora^t jsat I'a -t ov ^sov tcp -9 (some Codd. how-
ever have t^ Kat'tf.), Luke xvii. 34. laovtat Svo e?ti xhivris /^ia?, Tj* rtaga-
/^(J^rffT'ac, #at <5 eVfpoj a^f^tfEtfas, 1 John iii. 18. ^iwj ayartiopE-v ^079 ^51
z-'jj ya,w<rtf<j? (according to the best Codd. 2 Tim. i. 10. (Rom. iii. 10. from
the Septuagint) 1 Cor. ii. 14. 15. Rom. ii. 29. vi. 19. Mt. vi. 24. xxiv. 40.
also Heb. xi. 38. See Person ad Eurip. Phoen. p. 42. ed. Lips. Ellendt
ad Arrian. Alex. I. p. 58. Fortsch com. de locis Lysise. p. 49. Comp.
Plat. rep. 1. p. 332. C. Xen. Anub. 3. 4. 7. Galen temper. 1. 4. Diog. L. 6.
1. 4. Lucian Eunuch. 6. Liban. Oratt. p. 118. I). Porphyr. Abstin. 1. 14.

On the other hand the use and the omission of the article is clear to every

one, in Lllke ix. 13. ovx haiv VIIMV rttelov ^ rtsvte agi'ot, xai t^^-uEj 8vo*
V. 16. 7iaj3wi> i 1 oi) j Tts-j'i'E agtfoDj scat i 1 oi j Svo t^vaj Rom. V. 7. ^toTaj yap
i/iifp S t x at OD T^tj arto^ai'at.T'af., ai7tp yap i 1 o i) ay a^- oi; T'a^a i 1 !.? jcai) -toTi^ta
drto^avi-iv for good (honest) man in civil society for the kind, i. e. the
benefactor, whom he has, etc. Riickert has certainly misunderstood this
passage. On Mt. xxii. 28. see Frhzsche.

In a few passages, where we would say (in German) a, (in Eng. with-
out any artic. either def. or indef.) the article is used in Greek, and none
but an attentive reader could discern that it has no force: e. g. John ii.

25. ot) %$sLa,v i%ev I/TO I'cj /ttap-r'a'p^cr^ rtept, Tfov uvOpuftov, avtbs yap eyuvuaxsv
tlv\v sv T'CJ wOpurtcp- In the Greek here, what we express generally and
abstractly, is, by a lively representation, conceived as concrete and real:
the man, with whom he had (each time) to do, who came to meet him.
No reasonable objection can be made to the use of the singular in this
case. To demand the plural, because not only one individual, but many
at the same time often came to him, is to act the pedant, and to misap-
prehend the nature of the singular. The preceding plur. oi rtoxW v. 23.
is not to be taken into consideration here, because the evangelist would
express a universal proposition, not applicable only to the present case.
That the tov may be taken for -twos is certain; comp. Herm. ad Vig. p.
703., but with the above interpretation, this is unnecessary. John iii.
10. sv si 6 StSacrxaxoj iS Icpa^, the latest interpreters translate, " Art
thou a teacher of Israel?" taking no notice of this striking article.
Schmieder's interpretation (Program, in Gal. iii. 19. p. 4.) is not admis-
sible: nor can we believe that the article, which in thousands of places .
in the N. T. is used correctly, is in this single passage to be translated a.
The article here is rather to be taken rhetorically: ""Art thou the teacher
of Israel, and knowest not these things'/" For the sake of contrast Jesus
calls Nicodemus, -not SiSaax. but t- 6 v^StSaax. See Fritzsche ad Mr. 613.

Comp. Plat. Crito. p. 51. A. xai ou $>jj<rs favfa jtotZv Slxaia rtpditsiv, I, ty

and Mr. xiv. 18. Valckenter ad Eurip.

* This supports my interpretation of Gal. iii. 20. where I am charged with taking-
? for o Ei? .

96 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE ARTICLE.

Phcen. p. 552. Stallbaum ad Plat. Eidhyphr. p. 12. See Liicke on this
passage, in respect to a recently proposed interpretation.

NOTE 1. In some few cases the use or the omission of the article in-
dicates the individual style of the different authors. Gersdorf in Sprach-
charactcristick 1. Thl. p. 39. 272. has proved that the four Evangelists
write almost uniformly 6 Xptffi'os, the expected Messiah, like 6 ipxopsvos',
but Paul and Peter X/ncrfoj, because with them the word had become more
of .a proper name. In the epistles of the two latter however, those cases
must be excepted, where the preceding noun, on which X/JKJ^OJ depends,
or a pronoun following, which relates to XPKST'OS (2 Cor. iv. 4. Col. iv. 3.
Horn. vii. 4. 1 Cor. i. 17.) takes the article; e. g. 2 Thess. iii. 5. stj ^v
vitopovriv t5 Xpj.<j*a, and especially the well known and established formu-
la tfo lualxtoy T!OV

NOTE 2. In respect to the article (he manuscripts vary much (espe-
cially in John, see Eichh. Einleit. II. 275.), particularly in passages
where its use or omission is a matter of indifference: and here the critic
must be guided more by the value of the Codd. than by a supposed man-
ner of the individual authors; e. g. Mtt. iv. 4. some Codd. read ovx art'
dg-rw nova, Zqaetao <5 a?>0torfof, others avegurtof. Both are correct according
to the sense. The latter means, " by bread alone no man lives." Comp.
Mtt. xiii. 22. Luke viii. 14. Mt. xii. 1. cf^a^naj, Mr. iii. 28. /sxac^^tat
(where d& jSxaor^^. is to be preferred), vi. 17. sv q>v%axfi (better than ev ty
tyvhuxy), ix. 38. 'Icoaj/wjf (better than o a lav.), x. 2. <agt,fftuoi, x. 46. vL6$,
xi. 4. rttoxoj/, xii. 33. ^va^v, xiv. 33. 'laxwjSoy, 60. si; psaov, Luke ii. 12. t v
fydlvvi) iv. 9. 6 wos, iv. 29. i'coj oafygvos toy ogouf, IV. 38. rts v&sgu fov St l u<oj'oj,
vi. 35. v-fyiatov, Mr. XV. 12. 6V Xs'yei'E /SatfWu'a tuv ^.lovSalw, X. 33. -tol j y^a/t-
patsvat,, vi. 8. tj o86v (more correctly t^v o5w), Gal. iv. 24. and others.

The editors of the N. T. hitherto have not paid suflicient attention to
such passages, only pointing out the variations.

NOTE 3. The indefinite article, in some passages, is denoted by the
numeral tlj, as among the later Greeks.* Mt. viii. 39. rtgoas'^uv 1$
yga/*/j.aT?svs, etc. John vi. 9. 1'tjtfi rtMdgi,ov ev Z>8s Mt. xxi. 19. Rev. viii. 13.
but Mr. xiv. 47. is ttj -guv ttagsa'fqxo'tuv as in the Latin: unus adstantivm.
Comp. Lucian. dial., mart. 3. 1. Herodian. 7. 5. 10. JEschin. dial. 2. 2.f
and Jas. iv. 13. in savtov evu the numeral retains its signification, still
more in Rom. ix. l6. and 2 Cor. xi. 2. also John vii. 21. comp. Boisson-
nade ad Eunap. 345. Ast. ad Plat. Legg. 219. Jacobs ad Achill. Tat.
p. 898. Schafer ad Long. 3994 ETs tftj unus aliquis are sometimes

* So also the Heb. inK ee Gesen. Lclirgcb, p. 655. This use of iT; depends on
the above mentioned peculiarity of the later language, for the purpose of more em-
phatic expression.

t Tif TV nages-mx. might be taken as equivalent to the Latin suorum aliquis.
Comp. Luk. vii. 36. xi. 1.

t Bretschneidcr refers to this rule, 1 Tim. iii. 2. 12. Tit. i. 6. jwia? yuvaixof av^: fie
sJtall be a man of a wife, or a husband. But independently of the fact that 1 Tim.

17. THE ARTICLE WITH NOUNS. 97

connected together, Mr. xiv. 51. (partitive Mr. xiv. 47. John xi. 49.)
See Heindorf ad Plat. Soph. 42. Ast. ad Plat. Polit. 532. and ad Plat.
Legg. p. 50. Boisson. ad Marin. p. 125.

5. The noun which is rendered definite by the use of the article, may
be the predicate as well as the subject of a sentence, although more
frequently the latter. In the N. T. however, the predicate is found
oftener with the article, than is usually supposed.* We remark the
following passages : Mr. vi. 3. 6vx, outfos l<s-tw 6 ttxTtuv is this not the
(known) carpenter? vii. 15. Ixelva la-tt. -ta xotvovvta, tbv av^gortov that is it,
that the man, etc. xii. 7. 6i>tfos la-tw o xhygovoftos, xiii. 11. oi> yag eate

6t hahovvtss, Mt. XXvi. 26. 28. join! 6 ttrti I'D ffto|tta jttou, tfotrr'o ftf-r't tto
^ou, John iv. 42. ov-tog satw 6 ffw*^ itov xocf/nou, 1 Cor. X. 4. ^ SE
, yv o Xgitftfos, xi. 3. Ttavfoj avSgoj ^ xatjiatoj o Xgitffoj SUi't, XV. 56. ^
'jjf djitagtfia.j o vo/toj, 2 Cor. iii. 17. 6 xvgt.o$ to jtvev^d ia-tiv, 1 John

iii. 4. ^ djttagtfta tflfi'ti/ $7 dvopia,, Phil. ii. 13. 6 ^EOJ itfi'ii' 6 svsgyuv, Ephes.

ii. 14. avT'os yag lui-tv ^ st^vi? -fywwf. CoOTp. Mat. v. 13. vi. 22. xvi. 16.

Phil. iii. 3. 19. Ephes. i. 23. ii. 14. 15. 1 Cor. xi. 3. 2 Cor. iii. 2. Rev.

1. 17. ii. 23. iii. 17. xviii. 23. xix. 10. xx. 14. Tit. iii. 8. 2 Pet. i. 17.
Acts iv. 11. vii. 32. viii. 10. 87. ix. 21. 22. xxi. 28. 38. 1 John iv. 15.
v. 1. 6. 7. Jud. 19. John i. 4. 8. 19. 25. 33. 34. 50. iv. 29. v. 35. 39.
vi. 14. 50. 51. 58. 63. 69. vii. 26. 41. viii. 12. 18. ix. 8. 19. 20. x. 7.
14. 24. xi. 25. 27. xiv. 6. 21. xv. 1. 5. xviii. 33. Mr. viii. 29. ix. 7. xv.

2. The Codd. vacillate more or less in the passages Rev. iv. 5. v. 6. 8.
Acts iii. 25. 1 John ii. 22. 1 Cor. xv. 28. John i. 21. Once are nouns
with and without the article connected in the predicate John viii. 44. 6Vt
-keva-tys EatL xai 6 rtatY] d.vtov (4/s-uSouj) he is a liar and the father of lies.
The article before the predicate is also found frequently in Greek writers,
comp. Xen. Mem. 1, 3. 2. 3, 1. 8. 3, 10. 1. 3, 14. 7. 4, 5. 7.; see Schafer ad
Demosth. III. 280. IV. 35. Matth. II. 706. (see subj. and predicate at
the same time without the article, in Mt. xx. 16. xxii. 14. Comp. JElian.
Anim. 3, 24. cutfux tfoi^wi' $1)015 dya^>j, Jamblich. protrept. 9. p. 139.)

iii. 4. does not clearly prove the requisition of the Apostle to be that only married
men should hold offices in the Church, no reflecting writer could use & for the indef.
artic. where the meaning would be equivocal; as we write and speak to be understood.
There came a man implies at the same time numerical unity, and every one under
aliquis homo, conceives also of unus homo; but p.ia.v yvvctixa, ep^Eiv cannot stand for
yvvctina, E^EIV as we may have a plurality of wives (at the same time or in succession),
and consequently every one connects the idea, of numerical unity with play. More-
over no one would say a bisfiop shall be the husband of one wife, instead of a husband,
or married man.

* John iv. 37. Iv rturca 6 Xoyo? Icrnv o dXnSwos, on, etc. the adjective is not a predicate,
but an epithet: in eo inest (locum habct) vox ilia vera, (thai true saying).

98 PART TI1IKD. ON THE USE OF THE ARTICLE.

Hence it is perceived that the oft repeated rule, " the subject of a sen-
tence may be known by having the article prefixed, is incorrect, as Glass
and Rambach (Insit. herm. p. 446.) had discovered. Comp. Jen. Lit.
Zeitung, 834. No. 207.

6. The use of the article, where an appellative name becomes the
predicate, is worthy of special notice. (Matth. II. 714. Schafer ad
Demosth. IV. 365. Rev. Vl. 8. 6 xa^trjfiEvog Ertdvu avtov, ovo/to, uwtcp 6 aw
T'OJ, viii. 11. xa.1 to ovopa, tov atftflgos isys-fai, 6 &fyw$os (here, however, the
Codd. vary), xix. 13. xatel-tai to ovopa dwtov 6 &oyoj -fov &ov. So even in
the accusative. Comp. Xen. Cyrop. 3, 3. 4. avaxaiovvt^ -tbv Eix^yli^v

<tbv aVSga tbv a-ya^ov, AnOO. 6, 6. 7. sri^s^ovai pcM-ew ?bv AffirtTtoy, dva-

xahovvtss *6v jtgoSotqv, (see Mt. ii. 23. John i. 43. etc.) In these pas-
sages it is intended to be expressed that <5 a.oyoj ?. 0., a dvai?o$, etc. as a
definite predicate, belongs to the individual specified, and to no other. It
must not be rendered, " His name is death," as this would allow the
application of the name death to others also, but " His name (alone) is
the death." (In the German, the article is expressive, and denotes the
distinction indicated in our language by " alone" TV'S.)

7. In respect to geographical names, the following remarks may be
made, observing by the way that when several are connected together,
the last dispenses with the article, (a) Names of countries and rivers
take the article more frequently than those of cities. The following,
seldom if ever occur without the article : 'loixWa, 'A%nia, 'logdvy$,
'Italia, ralfoala, E&vvla, Mvala, ralatla (see 2 Tim. iv. 10.), 'Aala (1
Pet. i. 1. Acts. vi. 9.), Sa^agta (Luk. xvii. 11.), Sugt'a (Acts xxi. 3.)
Only Atyurttfoj always wants the article, and in MuxeSovta the practice
varies. (/;) Names of cities very seldom take the article, if dependent
on prepositions, (Locella ad Xen. Ephes. p. 223. 242.) particularly on iv,
1,5, sx. Comp. Actjiiatfjcoj, 'is^ouaa?!.^, Tagrftfj, "E^EOOJ, 'Ai/i'td^ia, Kartsg-
vaovfj, in the Concordance. Only T-u^oj and 'PW^ vary very remarkably.
(c % ) It may be observed that a geographical name, when it first occurs, is
without the article, but on being repeated, takes it. Acts. xvii. 15. 05
'A&jvuv the first time, then xvii. 16. xviii. 1. with the article, Acts xvii.
10. EIJ Btgoiav, xvii. 13. Iv ty Big. Acts XVI. 4. SJajSaj eif MaxsSovlav,
six times with the article (only Acts xx. 3. without it), Acts xx. 15. fo-

, XX. 17. &rtb

8. The use of the article with names of persons (Bernhardy 317.) can
scarcely be reduced to rule. By a comparison of several passages, we
shall be convinced that writers vary at discretion, and that the observa-

17. THE ARTICLE WITH NOUNS. 99

tion (comp. Herm. prssf. ad Ipliig. Aid. p. 16.) that proper names when
first introduced are without the article, but afterwards take it, is of no
very general application. Comp. Acts viii. 1. with 3. and ix. 8. Acts vi.
8. comp. v. 9. Acts viii. 5. comp. v. 6. 12. 29. 85. John xviii. 2. comp.
vers. 5. 15. 16. The same is true of the remark (Thilo Apocr. I. p. 163.)
that proper names in the nominative are usually without the article, but
in the oblique cases have it.* The authority of the best manuscripts
must determine whether tho article is proper or not.f Proper names,
limited by names of kindred or of office, usually want the article: Gal.

i. 19. 'lasucujSoj/ tbv aS&fybv tfo-D xvgiov, Mt. X. 4. 'loijSaj o 'itfssagiwi'^j, Mt.

ii. 3. 4. 21. Mr. x. 47. Rom. xvi. 7. Acts. i. 13. xviii. 8. 17. So often
in Pausan. e. g. 3, 9. 1. 2, 1. 1. 7, 18. 6. For the sake of perspicuity,
the article seems to be especially necessary in names of persons which
are indeclinable, where the case is not known by means of a preposition,
or of some appended name of office etc. Mr. xv. 45. Mt. i. 18. xxii.
42. Acts vii. 8. Rom. ix. 13. Luk. ii. 16. (On the contrary John iv. 5.
Mr. xi. 10. Luk. i. 32. Acts ii. 29. vii. 14. xiii. 22. Heb. iv. 7. In the
genealogical register Mt. i. Luk. iii., this is observed throughout; but
also in declinable proper names. In respect to proper names the Codd.
also vary.

It may here be remarked that the proper name 'lovSa, when the name
of the country, is never written ^ 'lovSa, tv^ lou. etc. but always % yj 'lovSa
1 Kings xii. 32. 2 Kings xxiv. 2. or as in 2 Chron. xvii. 19. ^ 'lovSata.
Therefore the conjecture of tq s lovda in Mt. ii. 6. is without any
probability.

9. Nouns with ovtos and txsivos, as they are rendered definite by these
pronouns, always take the article in the N. T.: for instance when the
demonstr. pronoun becomes an adjective to the substantive. Otherwise
Rom. ix. 8. -tuv-tu tixva fov Sew these are children of God, where -tavta,
is the subject, but -ttxvo, the predicate. Comp. Gal. iii. 7. (iv. 24.), 1
Thess. iv. 3. Luk. i. 36. xxi. 22. John iv. 18. 54. and Lys. caed. Eratosth.
6. yyovpevos tonnfijv (hoc, sc. quod nobis genitus sit infans), tftxcuof^fa
p.fyi(rt9]v swat,, Isocr. JEgin. p. 385. Heliod. Mill. 1, 22. Lucian. Asin.
13. Plat. Apol. p. 18. A. Xen. Cyrop. 1, 5. 3. Plat. Men. p. 75. B.
Gorg. 510. D. Arrian. Alex. 5. 6. 9. Fritzsche ad Mt. p. 663. Schafer
ad Plutarch IV. p. 377. But that, in this construction, the article can-

* Comp. especially the variation in the word mfooj in the Acts.

t We may satisfy ourselves that the superscriptions of epistles are without the
article, by referring to Diog. Laert. 3, 15. 8, 1. 26. 4, 4. 9, 1. 9. Plat. ApopMh. Lac,
p. 191. Comp. 2 John. i. 1. Pet. i. 1.

100 PA.RT THIRD. ON THE USE OP THE ARTICLE.

not stand before the predicate (Bremi ad Lys, p. 436.) is too confidently
affirmed, since it depends on the manner in which the mind conceives of
the predicate. Comp. Bluine Animadvss. ad Poppo de locis Time, ju-
dicia (Stralsund 1825. 4to.) p. 4. not., Engelhardt ad Plat. Lachet. 1.
Stallbaum ad Plat. Phad. p. 149.

In one case, where ov*oj is a real adjective, some Codd. omit the
article, viz. Luk. vii. 44. /Sxlrfstj ^ajv-t^v ywcuxa (see Greisbach Symbol.
Crit. I. p. 118.) Comp. in the text of the Byzantine Malckihist. p. 246.
ed. Bonn. ^avT 1 ^ rtohst,, Menandri hist. p. 360. xa-ta tuvt'qv d&uv. But
perhaps Luke wrote tavtyv -fr/v yw., as the article might easily have been
dropped. Where the pronoun is used adjectively with proper names, the
latter take the article. Heb. vii. 1. Acts i. 11. xix, 26. Comp. Acts ii.
32. xiii. 17.

The judgment of Gersdorf I. 447. about tav-ta jtdvta, and ?tdvta -tavta
is singularly strange. Which of the two forms shall be adopted the
sense must determine: tauta, ftdvfa means, these all, or altogether, so that
rtdvtu is more nearly related to the verb; rtdvta, to/vita is all these, giving
more prominency to the totality. On the authority of the manuscripts
the former is established in most cases; but for Ttdvta tuvna in Mtt. xxiii.
36. xxiv. 2. Mr. xiii. 4. 1 Cor. x. 11. Luke xxi. 36. are very respecta-
ble Codd.; and in some of these passages it ought to be received, although
there will always be difference of opinion about it.

10. In relation to tins, ttavtss with nouns having the article, it may be
remarked: (a) In the singular, the substantive to which rtn$ belongs has
the article, when the advective expresses the totality of the particular
object of thought, and is translated by whole, e. g. jtaaa, % rfo;u? Mt. viii.
34. So7i.oju.wv Iv rtdaq fy Sof?? in all (his) glory, Mt. vi. 29. viii. 32. xxi. 10.
Mr. iv. 1. Luke ii. 1. John viii. 2. (See Gersdorf p. 380.) Where,
however, rtaj signifies one object out of the whole class, and is translated
by each or every, the noun does not take the article, as among the Gr.
writers: e. g. rta? ai^gurtoj, rfaffa rtdiUf Mt. iii. 10. xiii. 47. Luke iii. 5.
John ii. 10. Acts iii. 23. and others. (See Gersdorf p. 374.)

The following passages cannot be considered exceptions: Mt. ii. 3. xa.1
jtatfa 'IsgotfoMyia fj,Eit' dwtov (itfaga;^^); for 'leg. as a noun does not want
the article (some authorities have rtatfa^'lag.); Acts ii. 36. rta; 01x05 'ltfg(j?v.
(1 Sam. vii. 2. 3. Neh. iv. 16.) the whole house of Israel, where olxo$
'Icrgcwja,, according to the style of the N. T. has taken the nature of a pro-
per name (rta$ 'lag. all Israel], and therefore stands sometimes in the Sep-
tuag. without the article, as Judith viii, 6.; Jas. i. 2. ytciaa %<*%d all joy (as
rtarfa a&vfesiu among the Greeks, comp. 2 Cor. xii. 12. and Wahl II. 275.
Robinson's Gr. andEng. Lex. p. 633.); to this may also be referred Acts
xxiii. 1. 3.; 1 Pet. i. 15. Ivrtday dvaaif^o^ can be interpreted with Semler:

17. THE ARTICLE WITH NOUNS. 101

in omni vitss humanse modo. Much less is the construction of the participle
with rtd$ 6 to be regarded as an exception, since xas 6 6gyi.o,uavoj Mt. \.
22. is equivalent to ytas otftftj ogy^etat,, and the article indicates that
the participle is to be used substantively: while &&$ ogyi. would mean,
every one being angry (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 4.). Participles connected with
rtaj in such a sense, in the N. T., as well as in the Greek writers, have
the article. Comp. Luke vi. 47. xi. 10. xviii. 14. John iii. 20. vi. 40.
xv. 2. xvi. 2. Rom. ix. 33. I Cor. ix. 25. Gal. iii. 13. 1 Thess. i. 7.
2 Tim. ii. 19. 1 John ii. 23.

The received text in Luke xi. 4. has Ttavti dfyeihovtt,, but it certainly
ought to be ft. ^9 6$6. see Gersdorf p. 393.; unless we translate, every
one, if he injure us.

Some, as Wahl in his Clavis, incorrectly teach, that ytaj with a noun
which has the article, must sometimes be translated by various, different.
(Comp. Schweighaiiser Lexic. Polyb. p. 457.), e. g. Mt. ix. 35. rtsgtjjyev
6 'l70. ^dj Ttmstj jtatfaj, lie went through different cities, Acts x. 12. Ttdvtu
*a tetgdrtoSa tfijs yijf, various quadrupeds of the earth. The article will
not allow this translation: and the Hebrew also in Sp, when it has this
sense, always omits the article.

When Ttaj qualifies a noun limited by the article, it stands, with few
exceptions, before the article: ftav *6 e&vo^ rtaj o avOgartos. Except Gal.
v. 14. 6 rtaf vopos and (which Gersdorf p. 881. has overlooked) Actsxx.
18. -fov rtdvta, %%6voi>. 1 Tim. i. 16. ify itdsav ^ascgoOoyuay Comp. Hero-
diau. 1. 14. 10. Stallbaurn ad Phileb. p. 48.

(6) In the plural, nouns qualified by ftdvtss, riaaai, etc. usually take the
article, in the N. T. when the noun denotes a class of things, or a num-
ber supposed to be known to the reader, as Rom. i. 5. i v rfatft 1-01$ t>rf t
Mt. xiii. 32. ii. 16. rtdvtas T^J TtatSaj, all the children (of the city of
Bethlehem), iv. 24. rtdvta$ tovs xaxu$ Hzovtas, all the side (whom they
had), ix. 35. xi. 13. xii. 23. xxi. 12. Mr. v. 12. Rom. i. 5. xv. 11. Col.
i. 4. 2 Cor. i. 1. viii. 18. Ephes. i. 15. iii. 18. Phil. iv. 22. 2 Pet. iii. 16.;
hence where a limiting genit. follows, Mt. ii. 16. xxiv. 30. Luke i. 75.
xii. 18. xxiii. 49. 1 Cor. xiii. 3. 1 Thess. iii. 13. Col. ii. 3.

On the other hand, the article is wanting where a plurality is expressed,
embracing all the individuals, Rom. v. 12. TtdvtEs av^rioi, all men (all
who belong to the gender of men), comp. V. 18. (Demosth. c. Callicl.
p. 734. B.) 1 Cor. vii. 7. 1 Thess. ii. 15. Acts xxii. 15. Gal. vi. 6. &
rtaaw dya^ots in good of any kind (bonis quibuscunque), 1 Tim. ii. 4.
1 Thess. ii. 15. Acts xxii. 15. Tit. iii. 2. or where the noun is a proper
name, Acts xvii. 21. 'A^iwot ituve^. In Luke xiii. 4. also rtdvtns dv0gw-
aj xatoixovv-tas, according to 18. 4. .might be deemed correct, if
13

102 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE ARTICLE.

the better Codd. had not the article. But it is strange (Gersdorf p. 389.)
to consider the position of the article a peculiarity of a single writer !

In a construction such as Acts viii. 40.

rta<j<xj, it is manifest that the last word belongs properly to the pre
dicate (verb); comp. xvi. 26. 1 Cor. x. 1. xv. 7. xvi. 20. Xen. Hell- 2. 3.
40. Thuc. 7. 60. Matth. II. 726. Where rfaWts belongs to the subject,
the construction rtdvtes ct, avflgwtot is the usual one: yet in Acts xxvii. 37.
we find yjpev iv ^9 rCKalcp cU rtacfac fyixui,, we were, all the souls.

1 1. C O wvTtos, signifies the same, e. g. Luke vi. 38. -e$ 01*11*9 &&& Rom. ix.
21. Phil. i. 30. and then the article is never omitted in the N. T.*, Ephes.
iv. 10. awtb$ means he. On the other hand, where dui'oj ipse is placed before
a substantive, the latter (as it is definitely conceived) has always the arti-
cle in the N. T.: John xvi. 27. avtb$ 6 itu-nfa Rom. viii. 26. avtb to
rtvEvpu, 1 Cor. xv. 28. CUUT'OJ 6 vtdj, 2 Cor. xi. 14. ouii'oj o aatavas 1 Thess.
iv. 16. o-ikoj 6 xvgw$ Rev. xxi. 3. uvtos 6 ^oj (Luke xx. 42. is not
a real exception, as here a proper name follows, Goller ad Thuc. I. 237.
Bornemann Luc. p. 158. see Xen. Anab. 2. 1. 5.). About Mr. xvi. 14.
see Fritzsche. Among the Greek writers the article is frequently omit-
ted in this construction. See Kriiger ad Dion. Hal. p. 454. Bornemann
ad Xen. Anab. p. 61. Poppo. ind. ad. Cyrop. comp. Xen. Cyr. 5, 2. 29.

I, 4. 7. Diog. Laert. 9, 7. 6.

The article is never found connected with sxaatos, which is not often
used adjectively in the N. T. (Orelli ad Isocr. Antid, p. 255.) Luke vi.
44. sxaatov SevSgov, John xix. 23. Ijcatjfp tf^gaftwi 1 ^, Heb. iii. 13. xa Q^
sxdotyv o^sgcw (Isocr. Paneg. 22.). In the Greek writers it occurs fre-
quently. Comp. Poppo ad Xen. Cyrop. 1, 2. 5. Bornemann ad Xen.
Anab. p. 69. Stallbaum ad Phileb. p. 93.

Nouns connected with tfonnkos take the article, where a certain such
a one (who has been mentioned before) is meant, 2 Cor. xii. 2. 3. olSa
av^gtortov BV XgttfT'9 -- agTtaytvtu "tov toiov'tov -- xai, olSa -tov tfoiov-tov
dV^wrtoj', Mr. ix. 37. dj l&v sv tuv tfoiovfcw TtatSt'wv fo't^-r'ae. verse 36.; on the
other hand Mt. ix. 8. Qovaiuv tfo(,ovt"/?v, such a power, Mr. iv. 33. vi. 2.
Acts xvi. 24. 1 Cor. xi. 16. Heb. xiii. 16. Comp. Schtifer ad Demosth.
III. p. 136. Engelhardt ad Plat. Lacli. p. 14. Schneider ad Plat. civ.

II. p. 1.

* As occasionally in Gr. writers. See Wex ad Soph. Antig. II. 226. especially in
the later (Byzant.) prose writers. See Index, ad Agath. ed. Bonn. p. 411.

18. OMISSION OP THE ARTICLE WITH NOUNS. 103

18. Omission of the Article with Nouns.

1. In some cases, not only in the N. T. but also in the best Gr. writers,
the article is wanting to appellatives, which, because definitely conceived,
ought to have it. See Schafer Melet. p. 4. This, however, is the case
only when the omission occasions no obscurity in the subject, nor leaves
the reader in doubt whether the word is to be taken definitely or indefi-
nitely. (a) In words denoting an object of which but one exists, and
which therefore are nearly assimilated to proper names; as ^'uo$, which
occurs almost as often as 6 TJ'MOJ, and yjj not seldom for y y>J (earth).
Hence the abstract nouns of the virtues and vices,* as agetq, gu^oavvri,
xaxta, (see Schafer ad Demos. I. p. 329. Bornemann ad Xen. Conviv. p.
52.) and the names of the members of the animal body are very often
without the article (Held ad Plut. JEm. Paul. p. 248.). This is the
case also with many other appellatives, where there can be no doubt as
to what object is intended; although it is more frequent with poets than
prose writers (Schafer ad Demos. I. 329.): e. g. rtouj, aWu (Schafer ad
Plut. p. 416. Poppo ad Time. III., I. p. 111.) fygt s (Schafer ad
Soph. (Ed. Tyv. 630.}, even rtowafc, rf^ (Schafer Mel I. c. and
ad Demosth. I. p. 328. ad Eurip. Hec. p. 121. ad Plutarch 1. c.
Stallbaum ad Plat. Crit. p. 134.). The following passages may be re-
ferred to for instances of abstract nounsif Stxaioavv^ Mt. v. 10. Acts x.
35. Rom. viii. 10. Heb. xi. 33, dya^ John v. 42. Gal. v. 6. 2 Cor. ii.
8., rtt'rf* t$ Acts vi. 5. Rom. i. 5. iii. 28. 2 Cor. v. 7. 1 Thess. v. 8., xaxia,
1 Cor.v. 8. Eph. iv. 31. Jas. i. 22., ttteove&a 1 Thess. ii. 5. 2 Pet. ii. 3.,
a/tagrfta Gal. ii. 17. 1 Pet. iv. 1. Rom. iii. 9. vi. 14. comp. 1 Tim. vi. 11.
Col. iii. 8. etc.; also^'/uoj, yjj, 9s6s, rtgoauiftov, v6f*.b$, and many others, at least
when, with prepositions, they have become common formulas (Kluit II.
p. 377. Heindorf ad Plat. Gorg. p. 265.). They are arranged below
according to the most approved readings.

"HMOS Mt.xiii. 6. Mr. iv. 6. (Xen. Anal. 1, 10. 15. ^Eschin. Dial. 3.
17. ^Elian. v. hist. 4. 1. Poly an. 6. 5. comp. Held ad Plut. Timol. p.
467.), especially if, connected as a genitive with another noun, it ex-
press one idea, as dvu-to^ foiov sunrise Rev. vii. 2. xvi. 12. (Herodot. 4.

* Here are also to be referred the names of sciences and arts, as Imr <x (see Jacob
ad Lucian. Ztear. p. 98.), of dignities and offices (see Schafer Appar.ad Demos. II.
p. 112. Held ad Plut. Mm. Paul. p. 138.), and of corporations (ibid. p. 238.).

t It is an assertion not capable of proof on any rational grounds (Harless on
.Ep/jes. p. 320.), that the article is omitted before abstract nouns, only when they dc-
note virtues, vices, &c. as attributes of a subject.

104 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE ARTICLE.

8.) (j>wj jftlov sunlight, Rev. xxii. 5. S6$u foiov sunshine, 8o|a a^vtis I Cor.
xv. 41. or where the sun is named in connection with the moon, Luke
xxi. 25. rffat cr^Eta Iv yuq xai es^vvi xal aa-t^ots in sun, moon and stars,
Acts xxvii. 20.

r^ 2 Pet. iii. 5. 10. Acts xvii. 24. fai yfc Mt. xxviii. 18. Luke ii. 14.
(Ileb. viii. 4. art' axgov y?j$ Mr. xiii. 27. Comp. Jacobs <# Philoctr.
Imag. p. 226. Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. I. p. 91.. Stallbaum arf PZ.
p. 257. But this word usually takes the article,
/oj, ovgovot do not take the article (a) in the Evangelists, in the for-
mula EV dvgav$, sv ovgowotj, l| dvguvuv, E| oiigowoa): but COmp. Mt. vi. 1. 9.
xvi. 19. Mr. xii. 25. Luke vi. 23. and John, with the exception of i. 32.
writes always ex -eov dvgcwov : (&) in Paul the article is more frequently
omitted than used, even 2 Cor. xii. 2. w j -tgrfov ovgavov, and Peter has
ovgavol even in nom. 2 Pet. iii. 5. 12.; (c) in Rev. the article occurs
without exception, only in vi. 14. the manuscripts vacillate.

., 6. g. Acts X. 6. 32. rtagd ^aXatfcfavj Luke xxi. 25. 7ovffJ75 ^a-
comp.Diod.Sic. 1, 32. Xen. Ephes. 5., 10. Arrian. Alex.
2. 1. 6. Held in Act. Philol. Monac. If. p. 182. Even Acts vii. 36. li>

(Heb. xi. 29. has the article.).

in tlie formula xata, pegtippglav towards south, Acts viii.- 26.
ttv xxii. 6. comp. Xen. Anab. 1. 7. 6. ytgo? ^s a^fj.j3^iav. So
also art 3 dwatfoXTJs Rev. xxi. 13. rtgoj voi'oy, Diod. Sic. 3. 27. 48. Tt^oj
Itfrts'gav Diod. Sic. 3. 27. rt^oj agxtov Strabo 16. p. 749. 715. 719. simi-
lar to: towards west, etc.

Nil Mt. xxv. 6. jitlo^s vuxi'oj about midnight, on the other hand Acts
xxvii. 27. xcwa juacfov t % s vvx*6s (comp. Arrian. A?ea\ 1. 20. 10. d^t
vvx-to$ Heliod. ^/V7t. 10. 6. Sia rtau^j wsuT'of through the whole night],
a (comp. Bremi ad Lys. p. 9.) Mr. vii. 4. xai drib dyo^aj, eav pri
ovx sa&ovat,. As in the Greek writers after Herod. 7, 223.
3, 104. JEschin. Agor. 2. Dion. Hal. torn. iv. 2117, 6. 2230, 2. Lucian.
Eunuch. 1, especially in the formula ft^^ova^s dyogaj Xen. Mem. 1,1.
10. Anab. 1,8.1. Herod. 4, 181. ^Elian. V. H. 12. 30. Diod. Sic. 13, 48.

'Aygoj Mr. XV. 21. dyyagsv ovtii tfwat St^ova sg%6[ivov art' aygov

Luke xxiii. 26.) Luke xv. 25,; here is not meant from a certain field
i-o-D ay^oii), but expressed generally ,frpm the country, in distinction from the
city. So ft? dy^o'j/ Mr. xvi. 12. and EV y^9 Luke xv. 25. (jf dy^oi;
Lysias caid. Eratostli. 11. 'j/ dy^w 20.).

EOS occurs often (comp. Herm. ad Aristoph. Nub. V. 116. Bornemann
ad Xen. Conviv. p. 141. Jacob, ad Lucian. Toxar. p. 121.) and most
frequently in the epistles without the article, especially where it depends
as a genitive on another noun which has no article. Luk. iii. 2. Rom.

18. OMISSION OP THE ARTICLE WITH NOUNS. 105

iii. 5. 18. viii. 9. xv. 7. 8. 32. 1 Cor. iii. 16. xi. 7. 2 Cor. i. 12. viii.'5.
1 Thess. ii. 13. in the formulas 6j jtaiffa 1 Cor. i. 3. 2 Cor. i. 2. Gal.
i. 1. Phil. i. 2. ii. 10. 1 Pet. i. 2. vioc, or texva tov Mt. v. 9. Rom. viii.
14. Gal. iii. 26. Phil. ii. 15. 1 John iii. 1. 2. Rom. viii. 16. (where
these nouns occur also without the article), $sov ^s^ovifos Acts xviii. 21.
(comp. fy SB 6f >,% Xen. Cyrop. 5, 4. 21., ^V $eb$ Stfiyay 7, 1. 9.), in con-
nection with prepositions ?t6 &ov John iii. 2, xvi. 30. .Rom. xiii. 1. 1 Cor.
i. 30. vi. 19., Ii/ -69 John iii. 21. Rom. ii. 17., l x &OV Acts v. 39. 2 Cor.
v. 1. Phil. iii. 9., xata -sbv Rom. viii. 27., &?tb eov 1 Thess. i. 4., also
with adj. 1 Thess. i. 9. ^9 l^vtt, xai a^^iv^ Rom. ix. 26. (John i. 1. 6j
%v 6 ^0705 the article could not have been omitted, if John would denote
the 7a>'yos as O^EOJ, for in this connection f6? alone was doubtful. But
that John intentionally wrote ^65, the directly antithetic sentence rfgos
<tov sbv vers. 1. 2. shows, as well as the entire characteristics of the ?,6yo$ ].

Ilvsvfjia ayiov, seldom jtvsvpu EOV Acts viii. 15. Rom. viii. 9. 14. 1 Cor.
xii. 3., if tf6 rtvi-vpa a.yi,ov be not taken objectively (the holy spirit,
who is butane], but rtvsvpa ayiov subjectively a holy spirit, i. e. a partici-
pation of the holy spirit, ttvsvpa aytoy is however, almost to be con-
sidered as a proper name.

Hatfa John i. 14. povoyf-vovs rfaga rfowgos and in the formula s6j tint fa
(^wv) ; wiviz only in the formula ex xot&ia s wtgos Mt. xix. 12. Acts
xiv. 8. Gal. i. 15.

(husband] 1 Tim. ii. 12. ywaixi, SiSdaxeiv dvx rtrterto, oi>8e
d^Sgoj; Luk. xvi. 18. does not belong here exactly: rtaj

6 artofcuwv t ^v yvvuixu av'f ov ytaj 6 &rtoh&v/j.evi]v artb avS%b$

yap<Zv, although ywrj the first time takes the article; for the last words
must be translated: he who marries one who is dismissed by her husband.
In Ephes. v. 23. approved Codcl. omit the article. On passages which
contain an enumeration, as Mt. xix. 29. (Luk. xiv. 26.) comp. Held ad
Plut. ^Em. Paul. p. 261.

n^orfWTtov, e. g. Luk. v. 12. rtsauv trtl rtgotforfov xvii. 16. Acts xxv. 16.
1 Cor. xiv. 25. Comp. Heliodor. JEik. 7, 8. ^ koatbv i-rti Tt^a^ov,
Acliill. Tat. 3, 1. Eustath. amor. Ismen.1. p. 286. (Heliod. JEtli. 1, 16.)

'O^^a^dj in formulas like iv o^a^olg fa& v Mt. xxi. 42. za ^' 6^av
p>i) 5 Gal. iii. 1. A rt 6 d<3>atyiwv Luk. xix. 42. (var.) Comp. Herod. 1, 120.
5, 106. Diod. Sic. 13, 16. 14, 51. Polyb. 3, 108.

'Exx^aia 3 John vi. ol Ip.a^v^ao.v aov ty aydrty svuitiov sxxtojaias',
comp. fleb. ii. 12. (1 Cor. xiv. 4. 19. 35. ^ ix^ain, like h ofcu at the
house, at home].

Aurtvov John xm. 2. ^sLrivov ywopevov when the meal was prepared.
Comp. Jacobs ad Achill. Tat. p. 490. Bornemann ad Xen. Conviv. p.

106 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE ARTICLE.

57. (whose quotations however are not always appropriate.) Schneider
ad Xen. Cyrop. 2, 3. 21.

aratfoj Mt. xxvi. 38. j'ws Ouvdiov Phil. ii. 8. 30. p#t> Swdtov Jas. v.
20. x Savatov, Luk. ii. 36. [tq ISsiv ^avatov, Rom. i. 32. a|iot ^avai'ov, 2
Cor. iv. 11. ij Odvatov rtagafiiSo^E^a. Comp. Athen I. p. 170. p,E%gi,$avd-
fov, Himer. 21. ^i-d S-CM/CWOV, Dion. Hal. IV. 2112. 2242.

vgu in plural fat ^vs ante fores Mt. xxiv. 33. Mr. xiii. 29. Comp.
Plutarch Themist. 29. Aristid. Orat. Plat. I. Tom. II. p.. 43. (in the
singular sjtl tfy vgq, Acts v. 9.) See Sintenis ad Plutarch Them. p. 181.

Nojtoj of the .Mosaic /M> Rom. ii. 12. 23. iii. 31. iv. 13. 14. 15. v. 13.
20. vii. 1. x. 4. xiii. 8. 1 Cor. ix. 20. Gal. ii. 21. iii. 11. 18. 21. iv.
5. Phil. iii. 6. etc. always so in the genitive, where the principal noun
has no article (I'gya vopav). (In the Evangelists, except Luk. ii. 23. 24.,
where however a qualifying genitive follows, always o yo^os).

Nexgoi, the dead always (with the exception of Ephes. v. 14.) in the
formula eyiigsw, lysi^se^^ avactifvjvat, EX vexgwv Mt. xvii. 9. Mr. vi. 14.
16. ix. 9. 10. xii. 25. Luk. ix. 7. xvi. 31. xxiv. 46. John ii. 22. xii. 1.
9. 17. xx. 9. xxi. 14. Acts iii. 15. iv. 2. x. 41. xiii. 30. xxvi. 23. Rom.
i. 4. iv. 24.; there is bnt one variation in Col. ii. 12. 1 Thess. i. 10.
(On the other hand almost always lystgEoS-ao, dmtffijrat axb tuv vsxgwv
Mt. xiv. 2. xxvii. 64. xxviii. 7.) The Greek writers omit also regularly
the article before this word. Comp. Thuc. 4, 14. 5, 10. Lucian ver. hist.
I, 34.

in the formulas anb xatapo^s xoopov Mt. xiii. 25. Heb.. iv. 3.,
octyioD John xvii. 24. 1 Pet. i. 20., d?t' d^^j xoa^ov Mt.
xv. 21., in the epistles also iv xotpcp Rom. v. 13. 1 Cor. viii. 4. Phil. ii.
15. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 1 Pet. v. 9.

"i2ga, as 1 John ii. 18. laxd-etj tiga lati especially with numerals : fy
uga t^i-tvi Mr. XV. 25., drib tfaqs wgaj Acts Xxiii. 23., scoj w^aj swat'/is
Mr. xv. 33., drto flx-tys t2^s Mt. xxvii. 45. etc. Comp. Diod. ic. 3, 14.
Held ad Pint. JEm. Paid. p. 229. This occurs also in other nouns con-
nected with ordinal numbers. See below 2. &. (In another relation uga
./Elian. V. H. 7, 13., &^a Kovt^ov Polyaen. 6,7.). So also Ttgcdt'^
'/i Heliod. 1, 6. Polyaen. 2, 35. Comp. Ellendt. ad Jlrrian. Jilex. 1,
152. and fab Tt^-t^ ypsgas Phil. 1, 5.

Katgos in the formula Tteo xatgov before the time Mt. viii. 29. 1 Cor.
iv..5. and iv xuie,^ Luk. xx. 10. (Polyb. 2, 45. 9, 12. etc.), also fr xai%$
1 Pet. i. 5. as h taxd-tals y/Agai$ 2 Tim. iii. 1. Jas. v. 3. Iv la-
%govq> Jude 18.

*? (Schtefer ad Demosth. III. 240.) especially in the very usual
form art 1 axis Mt. xix. 8. Acts xxvi. 4. 2 Thess. ii. 13. 1 John. i. 1.

18 OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE WITH NOUNS. 107

etc. (Herod. 2, 113. Xen. Cyrop. 5, 4. 12. ^Elian. V. H. 2, 4.) and
EV agxfi John i. 2. Acts xi. 15.

Kvgtof, which, in the Evangelists, usually signifies God (the O. T.
Lord, comp. Thilo. Apocr. I. p. 169.), but in the Epistles, especially of
Paul, when the style of Christianity more prevailed, most frequently
Christ, the Lord of the Church, wants the article as often as Osbs, par-
ticularly when it depends on a preposition, as in the common formula sv
KvgtV It has almost become a proper name. It has been attempted to
determine the signification of the word by the use or omission of the ar-
ticle (G abler in his last Theolog. Journ. IV. p.. 11-24.); but the Apos-
tles could easily call Christ, xvgws (without the article), the Lord, whom
all knew as such, and who was often so denominated, as 6? occurs no
where more frequently without the article than in the Bible. Comp.
Winer's Program, de sensu vocum xvgws and 6 xvgto$ in Actis et Epist.
Apostolor. Erlang. 1828. 4to. .

the Devil, usually has the article, but in 1 Pet. v. 8. occurs
Zv Sta/3oft,ojin apposition, and in Acts xiii. 10. vie 8taj3da.ov.

That appellatives (especially in the nom.) do not take the article in
titles and superscriptions is very evident. Comp. Mtt. i. 1. pifaos yeve-
ctecoj 'l^tfoii Xgc.tfT'O'u, Mr. i. 1. a^X'fj ttov svayyEXhtov, Rev. i. 1.

2. (&) The article is frequently omitted, when a noun denoting an object
of which the individual referred to possesses but one, is clearly defined
by means of a genitive following it (Engelhardt ad Plat. Menex. p. 277.
Herm. ad Lucian. consecr, hist. p. 290.)*, e. g. Mt. xvii. 6. (xxvi. 39.)

ertsasv ETil rtgoaartov avtov (comp. Jes. xlix. 23. sjtl rtgotturtov tfjjs y^j, On

the other hand Rev. vii. 11. Mt. xxvi. 67.), Luke i. 51. Iv fSgaxtovtani-tov,
Ephes. i. 20. l v S&S, wtov (Heb. i. 13. Mt. xx. 21.), Luke xix. 42. EX-
gvj3t] artb dtySalkfAuv tfou, xxiii. 46. i$ %tga,s dov rfaga^ercyiac to rtvv[t.d fiovj
1 Cor. ii. 16. -tl^ ya ?yj/w vovv xvguov, 1 Pet. iii. 12. 20. 2 Pet. iii. 3. Jas.
i. 26. Luke i. 5. xiii. 19. xix. 13. Heb. xii. 2. Mr. viii. 3. 1 Cor. xii. 27.
x. 21. xvi. 15. Phil. ii. 16. iv. 3. Ephes. i. 4. iv. 30. Rom. i. 20. xi. 34.
Col. iii. 10. 1 Tim. v. 10. 1 Thess. v. 8. 2 Thess. i. 9. Mr. xiii. 27. etc.
So Luke ii. 4. 11. sis ttfaw AajSi'S, 2 Pet. ii. 6. Tto^stj SoS6ju.wv xai ro^oppaj
and Acts viii. 5. sis rtofav t^ So/iagw'aj, Acts vii. 29. Iv yy MaSta^, vii.
36. EV yjj Aiyvrttov, Rom. ii. 5. ev yfji'tga, ogy^f, 2 Thess. ii. 2. w qpsga tfov
XgtrfT'o'u, etc., also in the Septuagint very frequently, Cant. v. 1. viii. 2.
Judith ii. 7. 14. iii. 3. 9. iv. 11. v. 8. vi. 20. 1 Mace. ii. 50. v. 66. 3 Esr.
i. 26. Exod. iii. 11. 19. ix. 22. xvii. 1. Neh. xiii. 26. 1 Sam. i. 3. 7. iv.
6. v. 2. (On the other hand 1 Cor. iv. 14. wj tixvo, pov is as children

* The Heb, language, in this case, places no article before the governing noun.

108 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OP THE ARTICLE.

of me, Luke xv. 29. ovStrtots wtohyv oov 7tocg?jtooi>, a laio of thee.
Comp. Gal. iii. 24. 1 Cor. iv. 16. xi. 1.)* The article is omitted also
when the noun is limited by a numeral, Phil. i. 5. ajtb rtpwt^j ^jws'gaj, Acts
xii. 10. see above Mr. xv. 25. 2 Cor. xii. 2. (here the article is often
found); comp. above 1. a. under wa. According to this usage, Mt. xii.
24. ev tfp j3^j(3oi)(S, ag^ovi't tfwv Saipoviw, as all the manuscripts have it,
may be justified. Fritzsche writes, instead of this, & j3esh. 1-9 d'g#. *. 8.
which is more in accordance with rule.

For the same reason, the article might be dispensed with in the case
above mentioned, 17. 2. Heb. vii. 24. &rtugdfianov sxti-f^v Isgaavvqv, and
therefore it is sometimes wanting in the N. T. in such instances as 1 Tim.
ii. 8. srtaigovtas oaiovs #ftga$, 2 Pet. ii. 14. dq>9ah[*ov$ e%ovta$ psa^ovs pot,%a-
T-t'Sof. So xdgw Hxtw, for which we also find -gyv %a%. e%. among Greek
writers.

This omission is not without examples among Greek authors, especially
when a preposition stands before the noun, comp. Xen. Cyrop. 6, 1. 13.
rtegi jcat'cA'uo'fws tfjjj (jT'ga.T'tajj Apol. Socr. 30. Iv xatahvast' -tov j3t,ov,
Mem. 1, 5. 2. Ijtl tstevty -tov pwv, ^Eschin. Agorat. 2.
i?ov Sryiov itov viAp.Tfegov, and farther below Ttatfgt'S

Lucian. Scyth. 4. $Lov fwtuv, Strabo 15. p. 719. v
uv obtiv, Soph. Philoct. 888. Sixj^Egsio, tov vo^pa-tos (see Herm. on this
passage), Xen. Mem. 4, 3. 16. j/o^w rtohsus (according to the law, the
custom of the city), Thuc. 2. 88. Sia ^sys^of rfs TtoXfcaj, 3. 70. Sta rth?jo$
tqs fyfjuds, Lucian. Abd. 7. Strabo 17. 808. Heliod. JSEth. 1. 1., see Sch'a-
fer ad Soph. (Ed. Col. 1468. Engelhardt ad Plat. Menex. 277. We
also often omit the article after a preposition in German. In such
cases however, in Greek, the genitive also is usually without the article,
or if it take it, is usually placed before the other noun, as -guv %agluv
xafortotys, comp. Kriiger ad Dion. Hal. p. 163. Jacobs ad Athen. p. 18.
Poppo ad Thuc. III. 1. p. 130. (Xen. Cyrop. 8,. 6. 16. Mem. 1, 4. 12.
Thuc. 1, 1. 6, 34. 8, 68.)

3. (c) Several nouns of the same case and number, connected by
take each the article, if they be of different genders,! as Actsxiii. 50.
ryvvtuxas -- xni tfovs rtgt!i>i!ov$ tfijj rtoXscoj, C()I. iv. 1. >gb Sixalov
'a -goif SoiTtotj Ttttgl^acf^E, Rom. viii. 2. ayto ifov vopov
xal tov uvd*tov, xvi. 17. Phil. iv. 7. (Ephes. vi. 2. 1 Cor. ii. 4. vii. 8.
Rev. i. 2. xiv. 7. Mt. xxii. 4. Luke xiv. 26.) vii. 5. x. 21. Heb. iii. 6.
comp. Dion. Hal. IV. 2245. 4. ejti tov toitov xal tq$ho%slas, 2117. 17.

* Gersdorf I. 316. has not decided on these cases.

t On this subject Beriseler ad Isocr. Areop. p. 290. has cited many passages out
of Isocr.

18. OMISSION OF THE ARTICLE WITH NOUNS. 109

xai to, 6Vtta, 2089, 14. Diod. Sic. 1, 50. 51. 86. Philostr. Her. 3, 2.
Dion, compos. 10. Diog. L. 3, 14. 5, 2. 14. Herodian. 2, 10. 15. Strabo
3, 163. 15, 712. Plutarch aud. poet 9. in., vit. Solon, p. 87. Isocr. Areop.
p. 334. Plat. Charm, p. 160. B. Sext. Emp. adv. Math. 2, 58. Demosth.
Mid. 38. In these connections the repetition of the article seemed gramma-
tically necessary, but at the same time the connected ideas are generally
such, that they must be separately apprehended. See 4. (rf) below. Even
in nouns of different genders, where the ideas are not to be separated,
the article is not repeated. Col. ii. 22. ^a sv-td^na^a xai SiSacrxaTa'aj tfwv
dj^gwTtcov, Luke XIV. 23. Eft^e ti$ tfaj oSo^j xai (Jigayiiiovj, Rev. \. 12. Mr.
xii. 33. (var.) Luke i. 6. xxiii. 49. Such passages often occur among
the Greeks, both poets (Herm. ad Eiirip. Hec. p. 76.) and prose writers,
without regard to the sense, e. g. Plat. rep. 9. p. 586. tfi sjtte-f^fty xai

?ioy9, 8. p. 557. ot rtcuSfj tfs xai yvvaix$, Legg. 6. 78-4. <5 aufygovuv xai tfw-

fygovovoa, Aristot. Metaph. 14. 3. Analyt. past. 1. 26. Plat. rep. 6. p.
510. C. Oral. p. 405. D. Thuc. 1. 54. Plut. Themist. 8. Herodian 8. 6.
11. Corny. Kriiger ad Dion. p. 140.

When the connected nouns are of different numbers, the repetition of
the article is both natural and grammatical, Col. ii. 13. iv 101$ rfagarfT'w-

jwatfo xai tvj axgopvcftiq,, Ephes. ii. 3. tfa ^f^tatfa tfj?? aagxb$ xai twv Stavot-

uv, 1 Tim. v. 23. Tit. ii. 12. Acts xv. 4. 20. Rev. ii. 19. Comp. Dion.

flat. IV. 2238. 1. vrib tf^ij rtag&vov xai tfiov rtsgi avty[v yvvaixwv. On the

other hand Agath. 14, 12. ^aj Swaps^ xai

4. (cZ) But if such nouns are of the same gender, the article is mostly
omitted: (a) When the nouns thus connected are considered only as part
of a totality (Matth. II. p. 714. Engelhardt ad Plat. Menex. p. 253.
Helclad. Plutarch Timol. p. 455.) Mr. xv. 1. avppofatov rtoifawees ot dg-
%IEC$ ju.ci'a ttuv rtgeapwtegav xai yga/.<./.ia-tuv (where the Elders, Scribes,
and Pharisees, in distinction from the high priests, are represented as one
class of individuals), Col. ii. 8. 19. 2 Thess. iii. 2. 1 Pet. ii. 25. iii. 4.
Rom. i. 20. Phil. ii. 17. 25. Ephes. ii. 20. Tit. i. 15. 1 Tim. iv. 3. 7.
Hebr. iii. 1. Luke. xiv. 3. 21. (comp. Herod. 1, 65. 4, 71. Plat. rep. 5.
p. 451. D. 7. p. 532. B. Dion. Hal. IV. p. 2235. 5. Dio Chrys. 4. p. 178.
Theophr. Char. 24. extr. Plutarch aud. poet. 1, 12. in.). (j3) Especially
where xai introduces a full explanation, Col. iii. 17. tvzazus-tovvtts 7-9 ^9
xai rta-tgl Deo, qui idem pater est (1 Pet. i. 3. Phil. iv. 20. Ephes. i. 3.
2 Cor. i. 3. 2 Pet. i. 11. ii. 20.). ( y ) When between the first noun and
its article there is a genitive, or some other qualifying or limiting word,
which relates also to the second noun, 1 Thess. ii. 12. v^ wtov pw
teinv xai So|aj>, iii. 7. ertt jiday i-jj ti$ft, xai avdyxy ^uwi/, Phil. i. 19. Sta

wv &-?jrfw$ xai rti>%otfy(a$, {. 25. Ephes. iii. 5. comp. Dion. Hal. IV.
14

110 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE ARTICLE.

p. 2246, 9. tfccj awt^T yvvalxas xat, $vyafsga;, p. 2089, 4. Diod. Sic. 1, 86.
iffy rtgotigq/ASiifiv 7t&,u/\.taz' xal tip^v, 2, 18. 2, 30. Polyb. 83, 16. 2.

JElian. Areim. 7, 29. Aristot. Eth. Nicom. 4, 1. 9. 7, 1. 1.* (8) When
adjectives and participles connected by xat, are predicates of the same
subject, Acts iii. 14. fyictV ifov ayiov xal dtxaiov (namely Christ) ijgvqciaaSs)
Mr. ix. 25. ^6 jtvsv^ia tfo aR.a7.oi/ xat ^co^dr, Acts ii. 20. -f^v vjpsgav xvgiov
'f'Yiv psyoiK'qv xal i-Ttifyavij, Phil. ill. 3. ij^netj sgfASV at, rtvsv/.iat't, -9 hatigsvovtet
xal xav%iofivoi, Iv Xgtji'w ""Iqaov xal ovx ev aagxt, rtrtoi$6-t$, John xxi. 24.
6 jiia^'rtjs 6 juagi'i^coi/ ytagt tfoikwj' xal y^a'^aj, Luke vi. 49. comp.
Anim. 2, 32. Diod. Sic. 3, 27. So even &MM John x. 1. o
jaEvoj --- aM,a, o.i>aj3a,wav, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 12. and Doederlein ad
CEclij). Col. p. 496.

When several proper names intimately related are connected together,
only the first usually receives the article. Acts i. 13. xv. 23.

5. On the other hand, in this case the article is introduced: (a) When
each of the connected nouns is to be regarded as existing by itself (Schil-
fer ad Dem. V. p. 501.), Mr. ii. 16. uo y gap pat sot xai ol rpagiaaioi, (the two
opposing classes of the antagonists of .Christ joined themselves for one
purpose), John xix. 6. ot a^^t^l^ xai ot vrftjge-tac, the higli priests and
the (subordinate) servants (with their servants), v. 5. vi. 21. xi. 9. xviii.
27. xii. 13. xiii. 17. xiv. 43. Mt. ii. 18. Luke xviii. 24. xi. 39. 42. xv.
6. 9. xx. 20. xxi. 23. xxii. 4. xxiii. 2. 4, xii. 11. i. 58. Acts. iv. 23. vi.
4. 13. xiii. 43. Rom. vi. 19. 1 Thess. iii. 11. Jas. iii. 11. Phil. iii. 10.
Ephes. iii. 10. 12. (where on account of the article no Hendiadys is to
be adopted), 1 John ii. 22. 24. iv. 6. v. 6. 2 John 9. 3 John 5. John
xi. 47. 57. ii. 14. 2 Cor. xiii. 2. 1 Cor. iii. 8. Acts v. 24. xv. 6. 22. 23.
(xvii. 18.) xxiii. 7. 14. xxv. 15. Rev. vi. 15. xiii. 10. 16. xxii. 1. xi. 4.
comp. Dion. Hal. IV. 2132, 10. 2239, 7. Xen. Athen. 1, 4. ^Eschin.
Agorat. 2. adv. Nicom. 3. Isocr. Areop. p. 352. -permut. 736. 746. Diod.
Sic. 1, 30. (Sto. f'/]v avvSgiav xat, ify drtavw 1^5 drtas^j T'gotf^j), 3, 48. 5, 29.
17, 52. Diog. L. 5, 2. 14. f So also with it -- xat, or xat, -- xai,
where the two nouns as independent are rendered more prominent (Schix-
fer ad Demosth. III. 255. IV. 68.) Acts xvii. 10. 14. xviii. 5. Heb. ix.
2. comp. Dion. Hal. IV. 2116, 9. 2164, 2. ^Elian. Anim. 7, 29. Theophr.
Char. 25. (16.) Thuc. 5, 72. Arrian. lud. 34, 5. Diod. Sic. 1, 69. 4, 46.
Dion. Hal. IX. p. 1923. Isocr. Perm. p. 738. although even in this case

* In this case, even where the nouns differ in gender, Lysias in Andoc. 17. lias
TTEf i v<i aXXoTgict hpa. aal log-raff ritrsiSei.

t In Arrian. Epictet. 1, 18. G. ?v o-^iv rvv ^ta^nmtiv T>V tevtiZv no.} fAt'Ka.vwv rS/v
ayaQcvv, xai ?S>v HuxZv, the correspondent terms have the article in the one case, in the
other, not,

18.' OMISSION OP THE ARTICLE WITH NOUNS. Ill

the article is omitted by Greek writers (according to good Codd.) if there
exist no proper antithesis, see Poppo Time. 1. p. 195. comp. Xen. Memor.
1, 1. 19. < *s teyopsva, xal ri^a-tto^ia (where immediately follows, as an
antithesis of these two participles, xal la eiyy povhopsva), Thuc. 5," 87.
Dion. Hal. IV. 2242, 2. Diod. Sic. 1, 50. 19, 59. Arrian. Ind. 5, 1.
Plat. Euthyplir. c. 8. rep. 6. p. 510. C. Dion. Hal. IX. p. 1905. Dio. Chr.
7. p. 256. Mr. Anton. 5, 1. cowzp. Matth. II. 715. When the first word
has a pronoun with it, which also belongs to the second, such omission
is easily explained, Rom. i. 20. % tfs cuSto? av-tov Svva,ac,$ xal Ostdi'^j; comp.
iv. 3. When a particle of separation occurs, the repetition of the arti-
cle is a matter of course, Luke xi. 51. ^foli) foiJ Ovaiaattigiov xal tov
oixov, Mt. xxiii. 35. Rom. iv. 12. (Z>) When a genitive, beyond which
the first article can have no effect, follows the first noun, the article must be
repeated, 1 Cor. i. 28. >ta dysvy tH xoapu xal -ta s^ovOevqi-isi/a (without var.).

Variations occur in ihe following passages, Mr. viii. 31. xi. 15. x. 33.
Acts xvi. 19. Col. ii. 3. 1 Cor. xi. 27. 1 Thess. i. 8. 1 Tim. iv. 6. It
is frequently of no importance whether we so understand the relation of
the connected nouns or not: it depends on the apprehension of the writer,
and therefore there are passages in which the reader would not feel the
want of the article: e. g. 1 Tim. v. 5. Tit. iii. 4. Rom. ii. 20. and others
in which it might perhaps be used. Eph. iii. 18. See Engelhardt ad Plat.
Menex. p. 253. Poppo ad Thuc. III. [. p. 395. In Tit. ii. 13. Eri^dv^ia

tfiyj Sof^j tfov fj,sya.%ov Otov xal tfwr''/j^oj yfiwv 'l^tfoi; XgttfT'oiN I do not con-

sider cfwitygos, for reasons which depend on Paul's system of doctrine, as
a second predicate of OEOV, as if Christ were first called jucyaj. Os. and
then tfw? 1 ^. The article is omitted before tfw^g., because the word is
limited by the genitive ^wv, and the apposition is before the proper name:
of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. So Jude 4. will admit
of two subjects, as xvgto;, because limited by ^wwv, does not receive the
article: 'i^<r. X. 05 son xvgws y/.iuv. In 2 Thess. i. 12., we may easily
suppose xvgvos instead of <5 xvgw*;. (As to Tit. ii. 13. it is entirely in ac-
cordance with the laws of the language to consider autijg. as a second
predicate of Oeov, and translate xal, even the great God, even our Sav.,
etc. Nor is this at all inconsistent with Paul's doctrinal views, but ra-
ther conformable to them. In reference to Jude and 1 Thess. similar
observations may be made. Trs.)

The article is both inserted and omitted in a series of connected
nouns, Acts vi. 9., awes TW tx -tys efumycoy^s tfrjj XEyo.uEv/js AtjSsgtfcVcov xal
' xai 5 A?i,c|av8^., xal t(av arto Ki^tjciaj xal 'AtfJaj, where Kugjp. 'Ajtsf-

%. and At{3e^. constitute one party (with a synagogue in common.).

The omission of the article in Luk. x. 29. is singular: *(,$ t<stl pov 7t^-
and xxxvu ^tj T'OVT'COV -- Tt^aiov Soxii soi ycyo^grttt ^ov ^CITT;., where
we should expect <5 ythyalov, as Tt^aiov is likewise an adverb (see Mark-
land adEurip. Suppl. 110.). Doderlein (Synon. I. 59.) has cited a similar
instance : Msch. Prom. 940. u.oi S' Ukueaov Z^voc, % ^Sev ^sjisiet, where
pySsv seems to be put for ^oii ^8ev In both these cases, however,
might be taken as an adverb: who (is) stands near to me.

112 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE ARTICLE.

19. The Article with Adjectives-

Words qualifying nouns which have the article, are placed either be-
tween the article and noun, as to aywv rtvtv/j,u, % cu>u> xTioJtftj, y Ttag'
(Rom. xi. 27. ix. 11.), cU ahyQivot, rtgoaxwytai, (John iv. 23.),

ftwcrijcus (Acts ii. 11.), fy tov Osov naxgoBvpiu] or after the noun.
The latter is uniformly* the case, if the qualifying terms be adjectives,
or nouns with prepositions, except that, if the noun be in the genitive, the
article is generally repeated, when these qualifying or limiting words are
designed to be more specific and distinct ( I Cor. i. 18. 6 xo'yoj 6 tov etavgoy,
Tit. ii. 10. variat. Phil. iii. 11. var. See Schafer Melet. p. 8. 72. Matth.
II. 727. f) especially in distinguishing relationship, as John xix. 25.
Mctt'a 07 tov K?uo7ta,:j: Acts xiii. 22. Aa/StS 6 tov 'itcrcW, Mtt. iv. 21. X. 2.
Mr. iii. 17., and also when the noun itself has its own (personal) genitive,
Mt. xxvi. 28. to afya pov to ty; xuwys Sta0^^j. Between the article and
noun, there may be more than one qualifying term, 6 ayto$ xal api*/j.o$
m/flgwTtoj. The article then is not repeated according to 18. d. 8. This
however occurs once with a limiting genitive, 1 Pet. iv. 14. ^6 tys Sofys
xal to tS OEOV rtvevpa) i. e. the spirit of glory, and (consequently) of God
the spirit of glory, which is no other than the spirit of God himself.
Similar to this is Pind. Nem- 8, 51. tdv 'ASgdatov tavts

* It is plain that this rule can apply only to adjectives which are construed with
nouns: In Luk. xxiii. 45. ea-^ls-Bs TO HaTo-ntTac-fAa. rou vaou [A.EO-OV, [* k a- o v qualifies the
verb, it was rent in the midst, and TO psa-ov would mean a quite different thing. Similar
are Mt. xvi. 26. la.v -rov n6a-^.ov 6'Xov xEaS^s-ji, Mt. x. 30. ix. 35. John. v. 36. Such adjec-
tives (of quantity) are often placed before nouns which have the article. Mt. iv. 23.
yrBgtj>EV 6' \ v T>)v ra?i(Xai'av. See Gersdorf 1. 371. whose collection is generally uncritical.
Comp. Jacob, ad Lucian. Alex. p. 51. Matth. II. 724.

t Stallbaum ad Plat, Gorg. p. 55. Yet this construction by degrees became less
frequent, and many writers placed the article before such a genitive, almost uniformly,
even where it was not emphatic. So Demosth. Isocr. and Xcn. Ephes. Orators might
have had good reasons for so doing in their spoken discourses. Comp. Siebelis ad
Pausan. I. p. 17.

i The meaning of the above passages is: among ike women whose name is Mary,
that one of Clopas, daughter of CLopas. The article is not employed when the quali--
fying gen. does not indicate any strong emphasis: Luk. vi. 16. 'lov &*v 'lax^frju, Mr.xv.
47. jvUfi'd 'laii-n, Acts i. 13. 'laxofiw 'AX<f>i'ou, occur without variation, as in Herod. 1,
59. Auufyw 'AjKTToXtti'S'Ew, and Dion. Comp. 1 AiovCo-t'oo 'AKE^avfyot; (in both Schilfer
wishes the article), Thuc. 1, 24. OaXioj 'Egavoxtetiou (Poppo Thuc. I. p. 195.), ^Thilo
ad Act. Thorn. Mag. p. 3. Comp. Herm. ad Vig. p. 701. Yet in Luk. xxiv. 10. we must
read, with the best MSS. M/ 'ia,)ico@ov. Comp. Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 696. The po-
sition of the words found in Paus. 2, 22. T$ <s>i>^wn<a^ N<80? does not occur in N. T.

19. THE ARTICLE WITH ADJECTIVES. 113

See Dissen. in loc. When the qualifying words are placed after the
noun, there may also be several, but they must all have the article re-
peated with them,* Heb. xi. 12. % a^oj % ^a^a to

To illustrate the subject more minutely (See Schafer Melet. p. 8.) :
(a) Adjectives and possess, pron. with the article are placed after the
noun, either when alone, as John x. i. 6 Ttot^i/ 6 xaxoj, Acts xii. 10. sTti

tip rtvhvjv i'/iv aioagav, John vii. 6. o xcugos 6 -fyia'tfagos, John i. 9. IV. 11. XV.

1. Luk. ii. 17. iii. 22. via. 8. Rev. ii. 12. 1 Cor. vii. 14. xii. 2. 1 John
i. 3. James i. 9. iii. 7. (where the adjec. is sometimes placed after for
the clearer elucidation (comp. especially James iii. 7.), sometimes in
order to more specific expression, or where the governing noun is itself
limited by a genitive or in some other way, Mt. i. 25. tov v'iov cu>?% -tbv
rtPiAitoitoxov, John vi. 13. -tuv risvts ag'ttov T'WV xgiOwuv, Mt. lli. 17. vi. 6.
Tit. ii. 11. Heb. xiii. 21. Luk. vii. 47. etc. The construction ibv. [tovoy.
dwtijs vlbv is not much used by the N. T. writers. Comp. John iii. 16. 1
John iv. 9. In the text. rec. 1 John v. 20. ^ m duoj/>$, the adjective
occurs after the noun, without the artic. The Codd. however, vary much
here. The vulgate is by no means to be disregarded, as later writers
began, in such cases, to omit the article (Bernhardy p. 323.), even
although the examples Long. Past. 1, 16. Heliod. JEtli. 7. 5. Diod. Sic.
5. 40. are not parallel with that of John. Besides w^ cuwj/tos had become
one idea. In Luk. xii. 12. Griesbach and Schott have to <yag rive-G^a
aytov, but Knapp, Schulz and Sholz to yag aytoy rtvsvpu, without notice of
any variation jS^uijaa rivsvfiatixbv and aiuv rtovygbs in 1 Cor. x. 3. Gal. i.
4. are to be considered as one principal subject, which avtb and svsat.
qualify. Comp. Schafer ad Pint. V. 80.

(Z>) The article is repeated when the principal noun is modified by
a preposition followed by another noun: 1 Thess. i. 8. ^ itiants vpuv
2 Cor. Vlll. 4. >t^ Siuxovtas *^j sis it oil f ayi/'ouj, Jas. i. 1.

ev -r'-ij SmffrtogS, Acts XV. 23. -toi$ xaita, j^v
fotf s| a^-rcoj/, XXIV. 5. Ttttcft fotj Ioi)oaoc,s I'otj sca-r'a it-^v
Acts xi. 22. xii. 20. xxvi. 4. xii. 22. xxvii. 5. iii. 16. iv. 2. viii. 1. Mr.
iv. 31. xiii. 25. 1 Thess. iv. 10. Rom. iv. 11. vii. 5. 10. viii. 39. x. 5.
xiv. 19. xv. 26. 31. xvi. 1. 2 Cor. ii. 6. vii. 12. viii. 22. ix. 1. xi. 3. 1
Cor. ii. 11. 12. iv. 17. xvi. 1. 1 Tim. i. 14. 2 Tim. ii. 1. John i. 46.
xii. 21. Ephes. i. 10. 15. Rev. xiv. 17. xvi. 12. xix. 14. xx. 13. Rom.
xiv. 19. Luk. i. 70. xx. 35. (Variations are found in Acts xx. 21. Mr.
xv. 43. Luk. v. 7. Rom. x. 1. John xix. 38.) For instances from Arrian.

* A rave accumulation of the article, under the above rule, is found in Rev. xxi. 9.

114 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE ARTICLE.

(every page of the Greek prose writers furnishes some) see Ellendt. ad
Arrian. Alex. I. p. 62. This mode of connection (placing the qualifying
term after the noun) as the more simple, occurs in the N. T. more fre-
quently than the introduction of such terms between the art. and noun.
The LXX. also uniformly repeat the article in such cases.

(c) Participles which still retain the idea of time, are not, in this
case, altogether equivalent to adjectives. Hence the article is employed
only when some relation well known or particularly worthy of remark
(is, qui, qitippe qui} is indicated, and when, consequently the par-
ticipial meaning is more prominent: e. g. 1 Pet. v. 10. 6 so? o

ttj sis 'tyv nl&vwv avtov So|ai> ohiyov Tta^-ovfaj? avi?6$ xatag-

God who has called us unto his eternal glory after we have suf-
fered awhile, etc. Ephes. i. 12. i$ ^6 Hvai ^aj ELS Irtuivov tfov$
rtgorjMixoitas tv tqi Xg. we, ivho first trusted in Christ (as those who have
trusted). Comp. v. 19. Heb. iv. 3. vi. 18. Rom. viii. 4. 1 Cor. viii. 10.
John i. 12. 1 John v. 13. 1 Thess. i. 10. iv. 4. 1 Pet. i. 3. Jas. iii. 6. Acts
xxi. 38. Cowp.Dion. Hal. 9. p. 1922. Polyb. 3. 45. 2. 3, 48. 6. Lucian
dial. mart. 11, 1. a. (Where the nominative of the participle is used for
the vocative, according to 28. it has the article.)

Participles without the article occur Acts xxiii. 27. tov avSga, -tovTiov
tfuJiXE^^cVr'a vrtb iuv 'louScu'wv hunc virum comprehension (who is seized,
after lie was seized], 8, 26. 6 aoj dvaaY'/fou? tov rtalSu av'tov d.Ttia-t&i'K^v
a-ui'oj'5 etc. God, when he had raised up his son, sent him, etc. (Heb. xiii.
20.), Rom. ii. 27. xgwso q tx $iirfco$ d.xgoj3v<i?iu, fov v6f.iov t&ovtju, as, etc.
since, or by this, that it fulfils. Comp. John. iv. 6. 39. 45. xv. 2. Rom.
xvi. 1. 1 Cor. i. 7. Heb. x. 2. Luk. xvi. 14. (Strabo 15. 717. and Fritz-
sche on Mt. p. 432. Stallbaum ad Plat. Apol. p. 14. Buttmann, 125.
144.) Acts xxi. 8. slg tor olxov 'iHXXtrfou T?OV ^va.yjs'kiGiiov, ovfoj sx t^v Eri'ta
is also to be thus translated qui essct (yet many authorities have here
tfoi), which gives to the passage a false emphasis) comp. Diod. Sic. 17,
38. 6 ria^s uV ?i afwr, iii. 23. ?ov rtlrt'tov'ta xagrtbv cWa xahov, Philostr.
Jlpoll. 7, 16. Iv -ty vfacp di/ufigco, ovtiy rtgoi'cgoj', TllUC. 8, 90. Diag. L. 8,

14. 2, 5. Diod. Sic. 5, 34. 19, 34. Dion. Hal. IV. 2033. Lucian. Hermat.
81. dial. mort. 10, 9. Alciphr. 3, 10. Strabo 3. 164. Isocr. Trapez. p.
870. Longi. Past. 2. 2. Philostr. Her. 3, 4. and Soph. 1, 23, 1. Demosth.
adv. Polycl. p. 710. B. In Ephes. vi. 16. the article in to, j3l^ i-a jtsjivgu-
pwu is not established; then it means: the darts, if they burn, or although
they burn (quench the fiery darts of satan.) See also 1 Pet. i. 4. 12.
(In 2 John 7. l^^isrov stands for the infinitive).

The above passage, 1 Pet. v. 10. 6 Oeos 6 xahsaas ^ta? otiyov rta-

will be a guide for using and omitting the article with participles.

19. THE ARTICLE WITH ADJECTIVES. 115

Sometimes it is optional with the writer whether he use the article with
the participle or not. Rom.viii. 1. tots HvXg- 'l^oroy, ^ xa^a gdgxa jts girta-
i-oiitfM/, etc., if thus punctuated, would mean, to them who are in Ch. Jes.,
as they wallc not after the flesh: on the other hand, punctuated thus, tfots
lv Xg. Ivj. JIMJ xat. tfag. rfcgwta*. it means, with greater prominence of the
apposition, to those who are in Ch. Jes., as those who walk not, etc.

When the participle with the article is placed in apposition with a
principal noun, or is used in the vocative (as in appos. with av), it some-
times expresses ridicule or displeasure, or brings out prominently to view
some property, as an. object of derision or indignation. Interpreters of
Gr. authors have often ascribed to the article a power of ridicule (articu-
lus irrisioni inservit. See Valckenaer ad Eurip. Phcen. 1637. Markland
ad Eurip. Suppl. 110. Stallbaum ad Plat. Euthyphr. p. 12, ad Apol.
p. 70.), which lies however only in the thought and its special promi-
nence, (by the speaker also expressed in the voice). To this may be
referred out of the N. T. Rom. ii. 1.

2. Of these qualifying terms or adjuncts some unsuspected exceptions are
foundjwhere a clause consisting of a noun with a preposition, and making with
the substantive but one principal idea, is connected with the preceding noun
only by means of the voice, while the grammatical bond of union in the
written language (the article) is wanting : e. g. Rom. ix. 8. vrti- e, i^v
fiov T!UV avyyevuv xa^a tidgxa (see below), 2 Cor. vii. 7. tbv vpuv
[Aov,Co\.i. 8. So especially (a) in the oft repeated apostolical
(Paulin.) formula sv Xgwtf<p 'iqaov, ol sv xv^lq e. g. Col. i. 4. axovaavtss
j^v rtltrtiv v/tuv lv Xg. 'I'/ycf. xai j^v aydrtqv -f^v stj rtdv-tag T'oij aytovj, Ephes.
I. 15. axovtlag #571; xa^r vj.<,a$ rtLaitw EV tcj> xvgiq I^cf. xai irp> uydrtviv ^vfv stj
rtui"ta$ T'OIJJ dytoDj, 1 Cor. iii. 1. Also 1 Tim. vi. 17. Vot? rthovaiois EV ^9

vvv aiuvi, are to be connected (yet this reading is not well established, a
good authorities have toy vvv d^os), Ephes. ii. 11. fymj jto-te to, e^vvj tv
1 Cor. X. 18. |3^,e'7tai > E tbv Iff^a-^ xata adgxu. (opp. Itf^a^ xa-ta,
, Ephes. ni. 13. v ^cu^ ^i^scfhv pov vrtsg <vfj.uv comp. ver. 1. Col. i.
24.* (&) Where the primitive verb was already construed with a certain
preposition, or the adjunct clause arose out of the tendency of the sub-
stantive (Held ad Pint. Timol. p. 419.), Ephes. iii. 4. bvvae^e voq<s<u t^v
cv ^9 jttutfi'^^t'qj (3 Esr. i. 31.), corny. Dan. i. 4. swiivtm lv
2 Cor. IX. 13. artho'tirj-ti, tys xoivwias sis ttvi'oijf, xai ei$ rtdvtas,
Col. i. 12. Comp. Job. xxx. 19. Acts viii. 21. and Bilhr on this passage.
So Polyb. 3, 48. 11. ^ v ^^v o%hw a^otgioi'^fa Tt^oj 'PW^CKOD? , Diod. Sic.
17, 10. T% AteZdvSgov Ttagoutft-'aj Iril tfaj 0>;j3aj, Herod. 5, 108. #

* In Rom.i. 17. and Gal. iii. 12. also, the quotat.from the O.T. o'#xfo;i*

in conformity with Paul's views, oiijrht to be read in connection. In the former pas-
sage, the apostle designs, by the words of the prophet, to confirm the sentence J t -
Jtaiocww flaou IK TriWswj, etc. not h &>> Ix, SUrtiocwflj. Comp. Reich and Usteri on this
passage.

116 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OP THE ARTICLE.

tiuv Sagfiuov Thuc. 5, 20. y IjSotoJ j ify A't'ttx^v, Plut. Coriol. 24.

levsio* 7toj ?bv driftoi', "Kit. Pomp. 58. at rtat

The case in (a) may probably be referred to the language of
conversation, which, as it expresses itself by the living voice, seldom
uses the article, while the written language which requires more exact-
ness, cannot well dispense with it.

Yet we must be cautious in classifying such passages, as on closer in-
spection, we shall find many to belong elsewhere, which seem to belong
here. (Comp. Ellendt. ad Arrian. Alex. I. p. 315.) Sometimes, for in-
stance, () there has been a slight transposition of words, as 1 Tim. i. 2.
TtjuoOs'ip yi/^tfMp Ttsxvij Iv Tila-fti, where the words EvrtititEt,, according to the
sense, belong to yvij<tt<p, genuine in faith (in respect to the faith, comp.
1 Cor. iv. 17.), perhaps otherwise Col. iv. 7. Tu^weoj 6 dyarf^i'os aSsi.q>b$
: fodxovos xai <jvv8ovho$ (Ephes. vi. 21), comp. Xen. Jinab. 4, 3. 23.

^a$ Irii tbv rtOT?a/*t6v, 1. e. xa-tu tfdf srtt/ tf. yt.

The qualifying terms in 1 Pet. i. 2. X atu jtgoyvucsw $EOV t$
fjavtictpov etc. are probably to be connected in the same way with ,
v. 1. (&) In other passages the adjunct clause more immediately qualifies
the verb, as Col. l. 6. a^> ^5 gyjusgas iqxovGa^ xal Ifieyvaits if^v 'X.a^iv tfoi>

see Biihr in loc., 1 Thess. iv. 16. ol vexe,ol Iv x<
rte<*>tov not the dead in Christ, the contrasted clause is ^
not all the Jewish or Pagan dead, to whom the discourse has no
reference: Rom. viii. 2. o vop.os 'tov fftvfvp.a'fof tys ^w>Js tv X^c.o'i'9 'l^o 1 .
fasv^sgidGE jiis diTto tfou vofiov t!v\$ a l uctg / r'(,aj ^ai T'o-ii ^avd^ov, where partly the
opposite clause vop. T'OU av. (with which VO[AO$ tvjs ^^ correctly corres-
ponds), partly v. 3. shows, thaU*/ Xg. must be connected with fasv> (as
Koppe has done), Phil. 1. 14. tfo-uj rtTisiova; tuv dSEhfyuvsvxvgicprtsrtoi.^ro'tas
8tf}/.Ms fjiov. (Comp. a similar construction Gal. v. 10. ytETto^a st's
sv xv^lq, and 2 Thess. iii. 4.), Ephes. i. 18. rft'j letw ft l^Ttls -t^

awtov xal I'tj o TtXotJT'os T'^J 6d|^j T'TJJ x^goj^OjWtaj outfoxi sv I'otj aytotj

which hope aracZ which riches is in the saints (christians), in

their possession, Jas. iii. 13. Ssilai'io lx T^S xav/Js aj/atfT'^o^j

where the words Iv rtgav-t. <so$. are expletive of lx
Here may belong also 1 Thess. i. 1. -tftlxi
hov. Iv ^9 Ttat'^t etc. viz. %aLe,siv or some such word. Besides comp.
Rom. v. 8. vi. 4. (comp. Fritzsche on the merits of Tholuck p. 31.) 1
Cor. ii. 7. Philom. 20. Rom. xvi. 3. comp. Phil. iv. 21. iii. 14. Ephes.
ii. 7. (where t$' i^as is to be connected with vrfa^a^.) iii. 12. 1 Thess.

ii. 16. John xv. 11. 1 John iv. 17. Jud. 21. Also Acts xxii. 18. 01)
rtagaSeZowtni aov -t^v /j,a.gi!vgMv its^t I pay can be translated: they will not
accept thy testimony about me, i. e. in reference to me no testimony from

19. THE ARTICLE WITH ADJECTIVES. 117

theej tqv pagt. t^v rttgi |U.oiJ would be, thy testimony concerning me which

is to be or has been given. In Ephes. v. 26. h fj^aift, does not belong

to tfqj xoufgci <fov vSat'og, but it is to be divided thus 1 : iva, aii-f^v aytacr^,

xvagk0u$ 7^9 %. if. v.- EI> fjjifiaTfi,, the xa$aglfw precedes aytaf. and is nega-

tive as the latter somewhat positive. In Heb. x. 10. it was not necessary

to write Sia tv^ jt%oaq>ogas tov aupatos -- tf^? e^artaf. The last word

relates just as well to yyiaapevos. About Ephes. ii. 15. see 31. note 1.

Finally, there are passages, where good manuscripts have the article and

where it is wanting only in the received text, e. g. Rom. ix. 3. tZ,v

avyysvMV pov tZv xato, adgxo, (according to DEFS. Syr. Theodoret. etc.),

Ephes. vi. 5. for -eol $ xv^iois xatu adgxu in good Codd. T'ots xa-tu a. xve,loi$.

The omission of the article in the above mentioned cases can be con-

firmed by a few instances out of Greek authors. Comp. Polyb. 5, 64. 6.

Sta iviv Hov Ttai'gos So|av EX t^ a^X^tfECoj, vSext. Emp. liypot. 3 S 26. fytfovftev

rtsgl -tov "toitov rtgooaxgifiMv for itov tig. a. as is clear from the preceding,

Xen. Cyrop. 8, 8. 16. fa jimdpsv. sjtl tgdrteZav (the pastry for the table),

Ancib. 1, 4. 4. ^6 pev<jG>$v (-tcixos rieo I'ijj KtXtxtaj 2vevveai,$ sl%e (on the

other hand immediately 1-6 Sa ?|w 1-6 rtgb -gfa Svgtas etc.) Xen. Ephes. 2,

12. Polyb. 6, 90. 14. Thuc. 2, 20. Comp. Kriiger ad Dionys. p. 153.

Poppo ad Thuc. III. I. p. 324.

3. An appellative in apposition with a proper name usually takes the
article: e. g. Acts xxv. 13. 'Aygt'rfrfas 6 /Sowars, -Luis. ix. 19. 'icoamjv
ifbv partttatriv. Acts xxvi. 9. xiii. 8. The appellative here indicates
an already familiar office, and by that means limits the proper name,
which is common to many others. Agrippa the king, is, among those of
that name, the one who is king etc. Comp. Ellendt. ad-Aman Alex. I.
p. 154. Matth. II. 720. On the other hand Acts x. 32. Stfuav pvgasvs
Simon a tanner, (a certain Simon who was a tanner), Luk. ii. 36. 'Awa,
ttgotyyTfis Anna a prophetess, Acts xx. 4. raioj A^jSaro? Gaius of Derbe
(not the known Derbean), Also Luk. iii. 1. i v ?* ytevtrexatfixdiHp *%$
yyepovias T^E^IOD Kaltia%o$ must properly be translated : of Tiberius as
the emperor. Gersdorf p. 167. is incorrect. Acts vii. 10. svwtiov *agati
^a<ralwj 'AtyvTtT'oD does not mean : before Pharaoh, the (known or the
then) king of Egypt, but before Pharaoh, Icing of Egypt, i. e. before
Pharaoh who was king of Egypt. Comp. Plutarch I. p. 309. B. Bgs'woj
ro^oiSv /Sacral p. 313. 'Ai'srfojttagos TaMuov jSarfita-uj etc. The general
rule also regulates the use or omission of the article with other words in
apposition; and it is singular that any should assert, that the word in
apposition has no article. Your father, an unlearned man, etc., the
Greek would express without an article, but in your father, the field
15

118 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE ARTICLE.

marshal, it would be used legitimately, as in John vi. 4. vii. 2. In a
grammatical point of view, John via. 44. belongs here. In the last
case the article may be omitted according to 18. Comp. Rom. i. 7,
Ephes. i. 2. 1 Pet. v. 8.

4. If the qualifying term be connected with an anarthrous noun, it is
also anarthrous (without the article), e. g. John ix. 1. slSsv av

EX yEVS-ttj^) 1 .Tim. iv. 3. a 6 ^-565 HxtiGEV ti$ fiE'fa^^iv (.(.era
1. 5. dyart^ ix xa^agas xagSia$, 'lit. i. 6. tfixva t%u>v rtiG'tdi p. 1 // Iv
iu oltfcoT'taf ^ avvrto'tax'ta, Rom. XIV. 17. Sixo-toevvv] xai zl^vq xo.i
sv ttvEvpaiH, ayJ&j, comp. Plat. rep. 2, 17. p. 378. D. "H%a$ SE
vrtb vii o^ xai 'Hqjai-'cfT'ou pi'fyets'vrtb rt at go $ ,
EIV xal reo/j.a%!,as) ocfaj "O^^oj rts-rtoi'/jX

) Theophr. Char* 30. (28.) sa^t, Ss v\ xaxo^ojua ayuv tys ^v%tjg si;
sv ^,oyo6j, ^Elian. Aniin. 11, 15. eoixa %i%tw Ehityaveos sgy/iv 15

i;.*). Comp. Stallbaum ad Plat. rep. I. p. 91. 110.. 152. It
often occurs, however, that such qualifying terms are connected with the
anarthrous noun by means of the article; and not only when the latter
comes under the class in 18. 1. 1 Pet. i. 21., but in other cases also,
yet not without good reason: e. g. 1 Pet. i. 7. iW 7?6 SOXL/MOV v^v tfjjs iil-
Tft/AO'i'fgov %gvtiiov, 4 ov aTtoM-vpEvov, which must be resolved:
$. 6 ea-tw artoM.v^vov, more precious than gold, which is perishable,
Acts xxvi. 18. rtiatfEi ty fi$ l^z, by faith, namely, in me, 2 Tim. i. 13.
EV rtia-tsixai aydrty ty Iv X^KJT'IJI 'irjaov, Tit. iii. 5. ovx ef tgywv tfwv ev Stxat-
oavvy, Gal. iii. 21. (comp. Liban. Oratt. p. 201. B.) In all these pas-
sages, the conception of the noun is indefinite, but by means of the ad-
junct acquires more definiteness. Comp. Jas. iv. 14. Phil. i. 11. iii. 6.
1 Tim. i. 4. iii. 13. iv. 8. 2 Tim. i. 14. ii. 10. 2 John vii. Jude. 4. Jas.
i. 25. Acts x. 41. xix. 11. xxvi. 22. Rom. ix. 30. Similar Jer. i. 25.
v6/j,o$ 6 1% XSDrfgi-'as, Xen. Mem. 2, 1. 32. av^Jijto^ tots aya^ot?, to men,
namely to the good, Hier. 3, 8. vrtb yvvuixuv tZiv IO/UTW, -Mem. 1, 7. 5.

Dion. Hal. IV. 2219, 4. EVVOUO, ty rtgbg av-tov, 2221, 5. orfTatfp)? o T'OCJ 'tvi'
7,(.5co-ufoi5 rtglrtwv, ^Elian. Anitll. 3, 323. ovs erti xi^EU ^9 /isytrf'r'oj, 7, 27

Theophr. Char. 15. Isocr. Pancg. 24. Plat. Crit. 12. Arrian. I/id. 34, 1.
Xen. Ephes. 2, 5. 4, 3. Heliod. JElli. 7, 2. 8, 5. Pausan. 7, 8. Strabo 7.
302. Lucian. Asin. 25, 44. Scyth. 1. Herod. 1, 8. Demosth. c. Neser. p.
517. Comp. Held ad Plutarch Timol. p. 409. Hermann ad Lucian.

* So KXETTTD! EV vujtTi could mean nightly thief: but in 1 Thcss. v. 2. egx. sral ou ^ f
the following clause, is to be connected with <j HX. Iv v. the day of the Lord so comes,
as a thief in the night conies.

19. THE ARTICLE WITH ADJECTIVES. 119

conscr. hist. p. 106. Where a relative follows, this is strange to no one:
Acts XV'ii. 31. Kgif^aev qfiEgav, Iv y /ilM.ot x^ivew tviv oixovpsvqv --- Iv
etc. day on which, etc. Corny. Mr. xv. 41. d'j

,
at.

The vulgar text in Phil. ii. 9. has ovo^a <to -uTtsg staV wopa, a name,
ivhkli is above every name. Good Codd. place the article before oVcyia:
/te name (which he now possesses) which is, etc., the (known) dignity,
etc.

20. The Article as a Pronoun.

1. The use of the article as a pronoun for the definite the,* which in
the ancient language was so common, in prose and in the N. T., is re-
duced to the following cases: () It is found most frequently in the dis-
tributives 6 /.lev, 6 8s (Schafer ad Dion, compos, 421.) Mt. xiii. 23. xxii.
5. Acts xvii. 32. xxviii. 24. Gal. iv. 23. Instead of fa 8e is used Mt.
xvi. 14. aM-ot, 8s, tVcgot 8s, comp. Plat. legg. 2. p. 658. B. ./Elian. V. H
2, 34. Palaeph. 6. 5. Matth. II. 742.

In Mt. xxvi. 67. xxviii. 17. fa SE occurs without fa (t.ev preceding.
That it must be translated alii, not nonmdli, Lachman rightly remarks,
ad Ludan I. p. 149. ivsrttvaav fig to rtgoaurtov cuu-tov -- fa Ss Ip/jartujai',
would be more regularly fa fj,sv eveiM., but in writing the Ivsm., the au-
thor had not the second member of the sentence before his mind. Comp.
Xen. Hell. 1, 2. 14. fa aiz/AUha'tot -- c^^ovfo EJ ksxehzMv, oi 5' Mlyaga,
see Bornemann ed. Xen. Cyrop. 3, 2. 12. and Schol. in Luc. p. 59. To
Acts xvii. 18. i-H/i-j -- ol e, comp. Plat. legg. I. p. 627. A. and Ast.
in loc.

More frequently the relative is used in 1 Cor. xi. 21. 5? /ASV rtsiva,, 6'j
Sfi ^E^vct-, Mt. xxi. 35. 6V /.dv tSsigav, 6V 8s artextswav, etc. Acts xxvii. 44.
Rorn. ix. 21. (Mr. xii. 5. according to Fritzsche), comp. Polyb. 1, 7. 3.
Thuc. 3. 66. see Georgi Hierocrit. [. p. 109. Herm. ad Vig. 706., once
05 H.EV ttTi^oj 5c, 1 Cor. xii. 8. (comp. Xen. Anab. 3, 1. 35.) S (ju-v
(neutr.) -- xat, ett^ov, Luke viii. 5. 1 Cor. xii. 28. an anacoluthon is ea-
sily recognized. See Bernhardy p. 306. In Rom. xiv. 2. 6 SE does not
relate to Sj ^sv, but is the article to

2. (1} The simple y St, fa 8s, in narration, are put for this, these, but
he, but they, in reference to persons just named, present to the writer's

* What Hcinichen on Euseb. II. E. torn. I. p. 95. quotes from the Fathers, has no
parallel in the N. T. Yet comp. Theodoret v. 2. TOV SI Iv TO. Teavra. lysvs-ro. On the
accent of o, , etc., when the article has the force of a pronoun, see Passow II. p.
274.

120 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE ARTICIiE.

mind. Mt. ii. 5. ol Ss elrtov, but they said, ii. 14. 6 SE s
iv. 20. Mr. xii. 14. Luke viii. >21. John xix. 29. (on Mt. xxviii. 17. see
Fritzsche.). Comp. ./Eschin. dial. 3, 15. 17. Xen. Anab. 2, 3. 2. Phi-
lostr. Apoll. 1, 21. 5, 21.

The article stands for he or tJtis in the poet, cit'at. from Aratus, Acts
Xvii. 28. tov yag ylj/oj iujttlj/. Comp. Soph. ./2W. T^/r. 1175. T-^J ya
itsfvxa Mt%6f See Georgi Hierocrit. I. p. 176. (where, however, things
very unlike are thrown together), Locella ad Xen. Ephes. p. 281. Matth.
II. 737. 'For the prose, comp. Athen. 2. p. 37.

3. Finally, under this head are included those cases, in which a genit.,
a noun with a preposition, or an adverb depends on the article. Among
the most simple are the phrases in Heb. xiii. 24. oi artb t^s 'itfaTa'aj, those
from Italy (Diod. Sic. 1, 83.), Rom. iv. 14. oi tx vbpov, Phil. iv. 22. Mt.
xxvi. 51. Phil. i. 27. t<* jts^i v^v, ii. 23. iv. 18. Luke xix. 42. Acts iv.
22. ta xdtu John viii. 23., which very often occur also in the Gr. wri-
ters, (Matth. II. 719.). The article is placed before a genitive to express
the relation of kindred, John xxi. 2. o? tov Zej3i-atov, 1 Cor. i. 11. tuv
XM^J (see below 30. 3. note), but most frequently in the neuter (comp.
Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. I. p. 84. II. p. 307. Poppo ad Thuc. III. II. p.
723.), Mt. xxi. 21. to ttjs avxqs, Jas. iv. 14. to ttjf avgwv, 1 Cor. x. 24.
2 Pet. ii. 22. (see Schlifer ad Dem. I. 214.) Rom. ii. 14. ta toy t>6pov,
viii. 5. to, T'JJS tfagxoj, Luke ii. 49. ta tov rtaT'gos, XX. 25. ta toy Kattfagoj,
Mt. xvi. 23. ta tov &oi> (comp. Georgi Hierocr. I. 52.), Rom. xiv. 19.
to, tys Etfjjj^j. This construction is not a mere circumlocution (for ^ avx'/j)
iytfa^l, % Et^v^), comp. Matth. II. 735. Schafer ad Julian, or. p. 12.,
nor can we suppose a de'lnite noun to be understood; the expression is
rather indefinite, as, e. g. that, with (in) the fig tree.

The heutr. to before a whole clause, particularly frequent in Luke and
Paul, is a genuine article, Luke ix. 46. slayj^s StoaoyicfjU&j Iv 013^0^, to
tis av sly /.<,si%uv avtuv (Ast. ad Plat. rep. p. 319. Bremi ad Demosth. p.

236.), XXii. 2. xai e<qtovv -- to rtwj olv i'^wiJW wvtov, Rom. Vlii. 26. tbyag

ti rtgotfE-u|coju.fa ovx olSa^sv, Acts iv. 21. xxii. 30. Mr. ix. 23. Luke
i. 62. v. 1. xxii. 23. 37. Gal. v. 14. 1 Thess. iv. 1. In all these passa-
ges tb is used to direct attention to the following clause (equivalent to
namely), which is to be considered the same as one word. Comp. Stall-
baum ad Plat. Eutliyphr. p. 55. and ad Plat. Men. p. 25. Ast. ad Plat.
Polit. p. 319. Matth. II. 730. Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 372.

According to Kunoel the article sometimes stands for the pronominal
adjective this (comp. Siebelis ad Pausan. I. p. 50.) Mt. i. 25. tbv vtbv for
tovtov -toy vlbv, John vii. 17. yj/wosfat rtago tqs 8180.^?} V. 40. tx toy ci^ot;,
Acts xxvi. 10. frjv rtaga, tuv a^ie.^uv f$ov0lav xa/3wj>, but generally it is

* 20. THE ARTICLE AS A PRONOUN. 1*21

sufficient to render it by the definite article. Heumann has been still
more liberal in this view of the article, and is followed by Schulthess
(Neu. Krit. Journ. I. 285.) who has improperly animadverted on Matth.
286.,' where this use of the <5, which could scarcely occur in prose (ex-
cept Ionic), is not the subject of remark. Acts ix.\ 2. tfwa? #ijj 65<n) ovtas,
any of the sect, viz. of the sect known and pointed out in [laOi}*. tov xvg.
ver. 1.; in Col. iv. 16. 6Vav avayvuaGfi rfa/3 vyiiv % ErttortfotoJ, we would say:
when the letter (not the letter) shall have been read. Some authorities
have oiV7 here, but the old versions should not be taken into the account.
In 1 Tim. i. 15. also, we do not even in German require the demonstr.
pron., nor any more in vi. 13., 2 Cor. v. 4. (see Schulz in Zoc.) Col. iii.
8. &rt6ei-a9 xal vfistf *<* ttuvta is. not, this or that all (intensive), but as
we also can say, the whole, i. e. the entire depravity of the character.
In Rorn.'v. 5. fy (a'a-rtts) is only the article, although eveh Tholuck takes
it for avfrj. Comp. Fritzsche on the merits of TholucJc, p. 27. c o xoa-
pog can^ by no means, be taken for oCtfoj 6 x6a.', it is the world in distinc- .
tion from the Jdngdom of heaven, not this world in distinction from an-
other x6a/j,o$. Thus also must we judge about those passages, which
may be. adduced as proof of this use of language by the Greeks, Diog.
L. 1, 3. 4. 1, 5. 5. Moreover, it is not easy to be seen, why the Apos-
tles, in any passages, where they thought the demonstr. pron., should
not use it, but rather the much more impotent article. The ^ense of
propriety (the Sprachgefiihl, the feeling of the right and wrong] in lan-
guage also, revolts at it (Comp. Giiller ad Time. II. 318.); and in general
it is certainly the character of the later (also of the N. T.) language to
write expressively.

Among the Greeks, viz. the Ionic and Doric writers, the article some-
times stands for the relative, Matth. II. 747. In the N. T. it is so
used also. Some would so interpret the 6 in Acts xiii. 9. Sai&oj 6 xal
Havhog (see Schleusner's Lex. N. T. at 6), but incorrectly, since 6 x. n.
is here equivalent to 6 xai xuhovpsvos n. (Schafer ad L. Bos. p. 213),
and the article has its usual signification. How Schleusner could enu-
merate here such examples as 6 fytuv Luke xi. 10. -tu tov Osov, etc. i^
not easily seen, and would seem surprising, if we had not been accus-
tomed to find so much that is strange in his Lexicon N. T., even after
his latest improvements. Comp. on t the contrary, out of Hellenistic
writers, Psalt. Sal. 17, 12. EV tots x^puGt, .tu rtoiu fal t^v yvjv, if the'
reading is correct.

122 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE ARTICLE.

CHAPTER II.

ON THE USE OF THE PRONOUNS.
21. The Use of the Pronouns in general.*

1. THE pronouns personal, demonstr. and relative often differ in gender
from the noun to which they relate, as the idea expressed by them, and
not their grammatical gender, is taken into view. This takes place
uniformly when a neuter noun denotes things which have life; in which
case, the pronouns take the grammatical gender, of these objects, as
masc. or fern.: e. g. Mt. xxviii. 19. pa^a* stoats rtdvtu to, l^vy, j3urtT?iov-
?j &v 't ov s , Gal., iv. 19. txv!,a /ion, 01) s rtdhw loSt'vco (similar in Eurip.
Suppl. 12. fatd ywcuiov tsxvuv o v j, Aristoph. Pint. 292.), John vi. 9.
itftft rtaiSdgiov EV <ZSs, oV %Et, (as the better Codd. have, instead of the vulg.
o.) comp. 2 John 1. Acts. xv. 17. Mr. v. 41. Rom. ii. 14. comp. Gen.
iii. 15. JElian V. II. 2, 1. (John xv. 26. does not belong here, as AVIV/AO,
is only in apposition.) For instances from Greek, see Matth. II. 976.
Bernhardy 294. Wurm. ad Dinar ch. p. 81. comp. Drakenborch ad Liv.
29j 12.

Here belong also Rev. xvii. 16. xal la SC'KCC xlgafa, a <?? xal tb
o v -f o i, ;tu05;cfoi>0t, where by xsgatu and ^gi'ov persons are to be understood,
according to the symbolic style of -prophecy.

2. Pronouns referring to a noun singular are also put in the plural, if
the nonn be a collective, or an abstract used for a concrete: e. g. Mt. i.

21. >tbv ho.bv dvtwv, Phil. ii. 15. ysvsdlv oij, 3 John 9. $j txx^dua

dufiov, Ephes. v. 12. cxo-tos (t-tfjcoi'ts jucj/ot) vTt 1 avtuv, Mr. vi. 46.
<tbv O%KOV. xul ttrtotala'jttEvoj a v f o I j (Acts xxii. 5. does not belong
here.) Comp. Thuc. 6, 91. Plat. Pkaedr. p. 260. A. Xen. Mem. 2, 1.
31. Biod. Sic. 18, 6. (this occurs very frequently in the Septuag.). The
opposite case, where a singular pronoun related to a plural noun, was

* Walil (Clav. II. 183.) is in error when he refers to this head, 2 Pet. iii. 16. Iv TCU?
iTntrToTui'i'sTrEjjJ TOUT^V, Iv olj etc., as \ve must then supply a y^af^f^atrt from limrv. Such
a thing is impossible in prose, because of the nearness of the relative. See Bengcl
on the passage. Some interpreters also explain Rom. vi. 21. nva, xagwov EJ^STE TOTS
!<}>' off (viz. ifj/olj, as implied in fw$f ) vvv iircua-xyvtirdi. See Welsteii and Reichc on this
passage. Comp. 23, 2.

21. THE USE OF THE PRONOUNS IN GENERAL. 123

supposed to exist in Phil. iii. 20. Col. ii. 19. (Bernhardy 295.); i v
vms, & ; but il ov, in the usage of the language, has become an adverb,
and signifies untie, whence.

Different from this is Acts xv. 36. X aHq, rtaaav jtouv, Ij/aTj, where
rtcfo. of itself, independently of the inhabitants, includes a multitude, comp.
Poppo Time. I. 92. and 2 Pet. iii. 1. tav-tqv TJSt] Ssvtsgav %(*,& ygdfyu ETtus-
Ho^yv, lv cu$ etc., where S-^o is implied in Sc-m'egav. Some refer hither
Rom. vi. 21., but certainly incorrectly.

NOTE 1. According to some commentators (e. g. Kiinol) the pronoun
occasionally relates to a noun expressed in the following sentence: e. g.
Mt. xvii. 18. ErtrtiprjaEV avTtcp, viz. ^5 SaifAOvtcp, Acts xil. 21. ffij^^yogst
rtgoj awtovs, comp. vr. 22. 6 S^ioj. See Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 740. Bornernann
ad Xen. Convw. p. 210. But these two passages are no proof of the
N. T. usage. In the former UVHQ relates to the demoniac himself, as it
is well known that, in the evangelists, the possessed, and the daemon who
possesses him, are interchanged. That Mr. ix. 25., has EttETf. t> riv.
&xa9a.^c>, is of no weight against this opinion. In the latter, avtovs
relates to the ambassadors mentioned (or implied) in the preceding part
of the narrative, as Kiinol himself has ackdovvledged. Comp. Georgi
Find. p. 208.

NOTE 2. Kiinol finds a transposition of the pronouns in Luk. xi. 39.

Ho 1-auOsv vp,wv yEjUst artayTyj xal riovrj^ua^ as he construes v(.iuv With a^Ttay^J

but manifestly in opposition to all proper arrangement. The passages
from Mt. v. 16. x. 30. xiii. 16. prove nothing, as in them the pronouns
are not separated from their nouns, but only precede them.

NOTE 3. The neuter of the interrog. pron. nis, and of the demonstr.

o i

owtos (wutfoj ovtoi) are often used adverbially, for why (for what), therefore:
the former is also used in Latin and German, quid cunctaris, tvas zogcrsik
du (why do you tarry?), and originally these pronouns were probably con-
ceived by the mind as proper accusatives, (Herm. ad Vig. p. 882. Barn-
hardy 130.) As to the demonstrative, comp. 2 Pet. 14. xal, uv * 6 * ov-t o
GrtuSyv rtaaav rtagtissvsyxavtss, (Xen. AllCtb. 1, 9. 21. Plat. Protag. p.
SlO.E.au^a favta, vvv faa ria^d GC] Matth. II. 1041. Ast. ad Plat,
legg. p. lb'3. 169. 214. On it see. passages according to their various
relation in Wahl II. 560. The distributive -tov-to ^,EV i-oii-o 8s
partly partly Heb. x. 33. (Herod. 1, 30. 3, 132. Lucian Nicr. 10.)
comp. Wetsten. II. 423. Matth. II. 740. is an adverbial construction.
(About 1 Cor. vi. 11. tav-fa HIVES foe, where a mingling of two construc-
tions takes place, see 23. 4.)

124 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE PRONOUNS.

22, Use of the Personal and Possessive Pronouns.

I. The personal pronouns imitate the circumstantiality of the Hebrew,
much more frequently in the N. Tr than in other Greek,* namely the
ojwtov, aov etc. with subst. Luk. x. 27. xxiv. 50. Mt. vi. 17. xv. 2. xix.
20. xxvi. 39. Mr. xii. 30. (comp. 1 Mace. i. 6. Jos. xxiii. 2. xxiv. 1.
Neh. ix. 34.), the subject, accusative with the infinit., as Luk. x. 35.
lyw iv #9 Tiav&e,%saotaL p E <xrfoiotfw, John ii. 24. Heb. vii. 24., the oblique
cases with participle and principal verb at the same time Mr. x. 16.
fj'ayxtt^Kjaju.Ej/oj avtfa, tft^sij T'O.J %st,ga$ srt awta yvhoyst a-utfa (where it is
unnecessary to change the received reading), ix. 28. Acts vii. 21. Luk.
xvi. 2. (comp. below n. 4.) On the other hand in Mr. xiii. 27. drfotjtf SXE?

T'OIJJ dyyfl.ot> avtfov XM> srtitivvd^zi T'OVJ Ex'kBX'fQvs uv-fov etc. the pronoun

seems in both cases almost necessary (although many Codd. omit it), on
Mr. xiv. 14. (var.} see, Fritzsche. In Rev. ix. 21., the repetition of
avt&v is perhaps unintentional. From the propensity to accumulate the

it JL 1 */

pronoun, there occur only a few passages in which it is wanting, where
we might have expected it; e. g. Acts xiii. 3. xal Irt&ivtEt -r-Aj x^^s
avtfoZ$ a>jt%'v6a*v (a/vtovt)) Mr. vi. 5. implies, v. 11. 1 lim. vi. 2. John x.
29. Luk. xiv. 4. (Comp. Demosth. adv. Conon. p. 728. B. epol ri^iJtE-

(j^gj _ lls'SDtfow). In Mt. xxi. 7. the better reading is Ijtsxd&tiEv and

in 1 Cor. x. 9. jtEt^d^stv must be taken absolutely, comp. also 2 Tim. ii.
11. Heb. xi. 19. In cases like that in Mt. xxvii. 22. ^cM^uO^a, the
omission of the pron. is very natural; yet the parallel Mr. xv. 13. has
tft'a/ugwtfoi' a>vt 6 V' Among the Greeks the omission of the pron. is carried
much farther. See Jacobs Anthol. Pal. III. 294. Bremi ad Lys. p. 50.
Schtifer ad Demosth. IV. p. 78. 157. 232. V. 556. 567.

In Ephes. iii. 18. <el to Tthdtos, to supply ov?% (aya^s) would scarcely
suffice, see Riickert on this v. It is a mistake with many (e. g. Schleus-
ner and Kiinol) in Mat. xxi. 41., xnxovg xaxu$ urtohssoi awtols, to consider
the pron. as redundant. Without <Woi>$ the sentence would be altogether
general; awtov? connects it with -yswgyots in the foregoing clause, and
we must therefore construe OWT'OUJ xaxovs xuxZ>$ arto/u them wicked, lie will
miserably destroy.

2. Instead of the personal pronouns the nouns themselves are some-
times used, either in consequence of the negligence of the writer, or in
order to prevent uncertainty as to the noun to which the pronoun refers,
John x. 41. Luk. iii. 19. (Xen. Eph. 2, 13. Thuc. 6, 105.) in John

* The possessive pron, of in the Homeric language is entirely parallel. The later
prose writers use UTOJ thus very frequently. Schilfer ind, ad JEsop, p. 124.

22. USE OP THE PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 125

iv. 1., however, 'l^tfoij is repeated because the apostle intended to quote
verbally what the Pharisees had heard. Nor can we bring under this
head passages, in which instead of the pronoun, the proper name of a
person or of a title of office is repeated for the sake of emphasis : Mr.

IX. 41. v dvofia'tc, o-ttXgtcrtov eats, Mt. X. 23. -wj av sJtJty ^'j toy dv^w--

rtov, Luk. xii. 8. o iwj foi) d^wTtou 0/j.ohoyrjasi, Iv awtc>, Luk. ix. 26. John
vi. 40. ix. 5. xi. 22. xii. 47. Ephes. iv. 16. Comp. Plat. Euthyphr. p.
31. Stallbaum JEscliyl. Prom, vinct. 312. The pronoun here would be
.out of place, and would destroy the rhetorical effect. The following
passages fall under this rule, Rom. v. 12. &' s vb j di>^g. fy a^a^tf ta atj
tfbv xotipov darj^s, xai c. a it ?j $ a.,aa.gtfi/'a$o ^aj/afoj John X. 29. 2 Cor..
iii.,17. Comp. 1 Kings xii. 1.

In Acts x. 7. the better Cocld. have the pers. pron. See Kiinol in loc.
The passages quoted by Bornemann ad Anab. p. 190. are not all of the
same description, and the reading is not well established.

It is not altogether true that it is peculiar to Mark to repeat the noun
instead of the pronouns ojwto$ and exstvos (Schulze in Reils Analect. II.
II. 112.) The nouns would be indispensable in Mr. ii. 18. (the writer
could not put into the mouth of the inquirers, an sxstvoi,, referring to
themselves), and in vi. 41. xiv. 66, the pronouns would have been very
inappropriate. The use of the noun in Mr. ii. 27. is the result of con-
trast. Circumlocution (as frequently in Cffisar), not nouns for pron.,
occurs in Mr. i. 34. iii. 24. v. 9. x. 46. Comp. Ellendt. ad Arrian.
Jllex. I. p. 55.

. In antitheses as Luk. xi. 17. oixo$ tri 1 olxov Ttirt-tst,, to require the pron.
is entirely to misapprehend the genius of the language (comp. cuneus
cuneum trudit}; in the preceding rtuau paafaeiu >'
Avould be intolerable.

3. The pron. cwfoj (comp. Hermann diss. de pron. uv * 6 j in den Actis
Seminar, pltilol. Lips. Vol. I. p. 42.), through the carelessness of au-
thors, is sometimes so situated, that it cannot be referred to any noun in
the immediately preceding sentences. It refers: (1) To a collective name
of a place, country, or society, when at the same time, the idea of the
inhabitants, or of the members of the society is included, Mt. iv. 23.
v -tw,$ avvwyayats awtuv, namely roa(Aca'j> from Q^V 'triy Tahfaatav IX. 35.
Luk. iv. 15. 1 Thess. i. 9. Acts viii. 5. xx. 2. 2 Cor. ii. 13. 3 John ix.
Hyga^a ty IxscTw^tVaM,' 6 ^aort^coffiW a -Or 1 w v. Mt. xi. 1. admits of another
interpretation (see Fritzsche on the v.), although the usual one seems to
me the more simple. This usage is more frequent among Greek wri-
ters, comp. Thuc. 1, 27. 136. Lucian. Tim. 9. dial. mart. 12, 4. Dion.
Hal. IV. 2117. Herodian. 7, 8. Jacob, ad Lucian. Toxar. p. 59. (2) To
an abstract noun derived from a preceding concrete: John viii. 44.
e<s*l xui, 6 Ttdfjte avtov (4-ev8owj), or the opposite, Rom. ii. 26.
16

126 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE PRONOUN.

lav ^ axgopva-tiu * Soxatufta'fu tfov v6pov fyvhdaar], ov%l y uxg.uv 1 ov (of such
an d^d^-utf'r'of concr. from abst.) at$ rtsgrtop'/jv ^oynj^Mtfac,; comp. Theod.
I. 9 1 4. T'oiji'o tfjjij drtocfz'oa.i/jfjjs ^agt.i'os t'Siov uv if oo $ yag. (drtorf. tfo^otj)
etc. Comp. Testam. pair. p. 608. Cic. Orat. 2, 46. ne#we paternum
g-wefff (patrem) etc. Luk. xxiii. 51. a-fowi/ refers to the Synedrium, which
is indicated in the predicate j3ou^Ei)^s v. 50., in Luk. v. 14. there is a trans-
ition in (Wots from sing, (i^ isgu the single priest) to the plur. (the college of
priests). In relation to the last two verses, comp. Sallust Cat. 17. 7. Ter.
Eun. 2, 1, 19. (3) To some words plainly pointed out by the verb, or
by a preceding word in the sentence 1 Pet. iii. 14. tbv 81 $oj3oy dit -e w v
M $o|3^T'E, namely tuv xuxovvtav i^aj, or of those from whom you must
suffer, (rtdti%sw} see Hermann ad Vig. p. 714. OtherwiseEpiphan.il. p.
368. A.; Ephes. V. 12. tfa x^vfyij ywopeva, 'urt' qMTtuv namely -guv -fa f'^yo. I'OD
6x6tov$ itoiovvnw or l'yot,s tov ax. ver. 11. Acts xii. 24. Comp. Aristoph.
Plutus 566. Thuc. 1, 22. 1. and Poppo in loc. Heinichen ind. adEuseb.
III. p. 539. (4) To a subject not grammatically indicated in any thing
preceding, but supposed to be known; Luk. i. 17. aitfoj rtgosjiEvcJai'ac
a-u 4 o v (i. e. before the Messiah) see Klinb'l in loc. (Comp. 1 John ii. 12.
2 John ver. 6.; in Luk. v. 17. st$ I'D iaa^nt, dwtovs the pronoun expresses the
general idea the sick, those who need to be cured (among those present
in the synagogue). The pronoun cannot well be referred to verse 15,
(although Bengel does so). On the other hand in Acts iv. 5. avtuv re-
fers to the Jews, among whom was the scene of the history (but in ver. 1.
their priests also are mentioned), in Mt. xii. 9. to the Gallileans, among
whom Jesus lived, in Heb. xi. 28. to the Israelites, of whom the reader
was reminded by the preceding circumstances, comp. viii. 8. and in John
xx. 15. the avtbv implies the xvgmv expressed in ver. 13. Comp. Poppo ad
Xen. Cyrop. 3, 1. 31. 5, 4. 42. ad Thuc. III. I. p. 184. Lehmann ad
Lucian. II. p. 325. IV. 429. Hengel annotat. p. 195.

In Luk. xviii. 34. avitoi relates to ol SwSsxa ver. 31. so as Heb. iv. 13.
to -tov $fov ver. 12. and Luk. xxi. 21. av-t^t to 'Itgovgarfp ver. 20.
On Acts xxvii. 14. where some have referred avt^ to the ship, see Kiinol.
Luk. ii. 22. av-tuv refers undoubtedly to mother and child (Mary and
Jesus).

4. The same pronoun is repeated: (a) in sentences, where many other
words follow the principal noun, in order to render the relation clearer:
e. g. Mr. V. 2. s^s^ovft, avtcj> sx T'oi rfTiot'ou ai^'ws artyvtijtiev a ti -t 9, IX. 28.
Mt. viii. 1. xxvi. 71. Rev. vi. 4. In all these cases the participial con-
struction precedes, which is equivalent to a proper sentence, and in this
case, the Greeks often add the pronoun. Pausan. 8, 38, 5. Herodian. 8,

22. USE OF THE PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 127

6. 10. Comp. Plat. ApoL p. 40. 1). Symp. c. 21. Xen. Cyrop. 1, 3. 15.
Arrian. Epict. 3, 1. Liv. 1,19. Schwavz Comment, p. 217. (&) Verbosity
in relative clauses occurs more frequently, as Mr. vii. 25. ywy, ?j #s i-o
a-D * 57 j rtVv/Aa axd^agfov, i- 7. Rev. vii. 2. olj sSd^ a-u tf o t j
r^i/ y?Ji/ (where the reading varies but little), iii. 8., similar Mr.
xiii. 19. -xr4'J ottt v ysyove tf o o a v t ^ art' ugz f /j$ xtfitiU><;. So also with
a relative adverb, Rev. xii. 6. 14. 6'rfou I'^st ex si tortov etc. This
is much more frequent in the Septuag. (according to the Hebrew idiom,
see Gesen. Lelirgeb. 734.) Exocl. iv. 17. Lev. xviii. 6. 1 K. xiii. 10. 25.'
Jos. iii. 4. xxii. 19. Jud. xviii. 5. 6. 2 K. xix. 4. Baruch. ii. 17. Judith
v. 19. x. 2. xvi. 3. Neh. viii. 12. ix. 19. Joel iii. 7. 3 Esr. iii. 5. iv.
54. vi. 32. But in Gr. prose also, av-tos or Ixtlvos is sometimes repeated
in a relative sentence, (Gottling ad Callim. p. 19. Ast. ad Plat. Polit.
p. 550. Xen. Cyrop. 1, 4. 19. Diod. Sic. 1, 97. 17, 35. Pausan. 2, 4. 7.
Soph. Philoct. 316. comp. in Lot Cic. Fam. 4, 3. Acad. 2, 25. Phil. 2,
8.),- yet the demonstrative could very seldom be found so much like a
relative, as in the sentences above.* See Fritzsche Quaest. Lucian. p.
109. Wunder ad Soph. Philoct. p. 58.

In Acts iii. 13., in the second clause, the relative construction is
omitted. Those passages also, in which another word is connected with
dutfof, epexegetically defining the relative, are of a different kind: Mt.
iii. 12. oj tf6 fttvov Iv zsigi avTtov cujus erit ventildbrum sc. in manu ejus
Rev. xvii. 9. {jitovq ywrj xd^f/i-tai, erf' uvtuv, comp. Gen. xxiv. 3. xxxviii.
20. Judg. vi. 10. Judith, ix. 2. perhaps also Gal. iii. 1. 1 Pet. ii. 24.
does not belong here, 6j tfaj d j wagi > i / aj '/jpuv av -t 6 j avqvfyxw etc., where
airtbs is evidently unconnected with another word, and gives to the an-
tithesis with djuag? 1 . r/inuv more emphasis.

Sometimes avtbs is repeated, although relating to a different subject:
Mr. viii. 22. fysgovaw a-in^ (X^ttfi'ip) tvyKov x. rtagaxahovdw avtav (X^ttfi'dj'),
tVa a^i'oi; (tvtyhov) a^qtac, Mr. ix. 27. 28. So oiJT'of John xi. 37. Comp.
below 65, 7.

Frequently, indeed almost uniformly (Bernharcly 304) in Gr. authors,
xai and avz'ds (ov-tos) occur in a sentence which succeeds a relative clause,
where we should naturally expect 05, because the writer changes the
construction (Herm. ad Vig. p. 708. Heindorf ad Plat. Hipp. mai. p.
145. Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 449. Poppo ad Xen. Cyrop. p. 478. Bois-
sonnade ad Nic. p. 32. Bornemann ad Xen. Conv. p. 196. Stallbaum
ad Plat. Protag. p. 68. Comp. Grotefend Latin Grammar 143, 5.
Kritz. ad Sallust. II. p. 540.) In the N. T. may here be reckoned 2 Pet.

11. 3. CHJ to x^L^a iKrtcacu ovx d^yst, xai q artJiteuu a v t w v ov wd'fd^at,-

Acts in. 13. 1^ Cor. viii. 6. Rev. xvii. 2. ^' ^ i^vevaavxai, l^-
ix tov olvov ^j rtogvsias avtg where the relative construction

^* Aristoph. Av. 1238. Cod. Rav. has oT, Qurlov * l V9 1 t instead of the roc. oT s

O.VTOU;.

128 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OP THE PRONOUN.

must be avoided on account of the nouns to be connected with the pro-
noun. In Hebrew, because of its simplicity, the construction without
the relative is very frequently continued; yet a construction foreign to
the character of the language should not be introduced into the text, by
adding lEW to the following clause. (In passages like John i. 6. Acts x.
36. Luk. ii. 36. xix. 2. to demand the relative instead of avfoj or ov-to^
is to misapprehend the simplicity of the N. T. diction, especially as Gr.
authors themselves often use the same, jfElian. V. H. 12, 18. Strabo 8,
371. Philostr. Soph. 1, 25. Comp. Kypke I. 347.)

e O (Woj, the same is followed by a dat. of the person in the N. T.,
translated the same with, e. g. 1 Cor. xi. 5. Comp. Xen. Mem. 1,1. 13.
2, 1. 5. Cyrop. 6, 2. 11. 7, 1. 2. Herod. 4, 119. Isocr. Paneg. c. 23.
Polyb. 3, 95.

NOTE. In the casus rectus av*6s among the Greeks is not used for the
mere unemphatic he; nor is there a single passage in the N. T. which
decidedly indicates such a use, not even in Luke, who employs it most
frequently (comp. Luk. v. 16. 17.), yet never without some emphasis.
'AI^OS either denotes Jesus, (he, the Teacher and Master, in distinction
from the disciples) in Mr. iv. 38. Luk. v. 16. ix. 51. xxiv. 36., or is intro-
duced either to resume the subject, or to exhibit it more strikingly, in the
second member (Mt. vi. 4. xii. 50.), or to express a distinct antithesis;
e. g. Luk. V. 37. xai uv i 6 j (o otVoj) IxxvO^dETfa-ii, xal 01, adxol artohovvtM,
Mr. i. 8. vi. 45. Luk. xviii. 39.

5. The pronoun savtov etc., which, by its origin, belongs to the third
person, is often applied to the first and second persons where no uncer-
tainty could result: () To the first person plur. Rom. viii. 23. fasts
ontoi h sttUT'ots atevdZontv, 1 Cor. xi. 31. 2 Cor. i. 9. x. 12. Acts xxiii.
14. (6) To the second pers. plur. John xii. 8. tovs 'jttuxovs jtdveote
ezzte /"-' sa/V'tiavi Phil. ii. 12. tyy tawtHtv ffuif^giay 5Ctti'gya^Ci^ comp.
Mt. iii. 9. xxiii. 31. Acts, xxiii. 46. (c) To the second pers. sing. John
xviii. 34. d<j>' tawtov av nov^o Tisyctj, Mt. xxiii. 37. (Rom. xiii. 9. and Mt.
xxii. 39. are O. T. passages quoted from the Septuag.) The same usage
occurs among the Greeks, see Viger. p. 165. Sturz. Lexic. Xen. II. p.
5. Bremi adJEscliin. Oratt. I. p. 66. Locella ad Xen. Epli. 164. Herm.
ad Soph. Track. 451. Boissonnade ad Philostr. Her. p. 326. Jacobs
ad Achill. Tat. p. 932. Held ad Pint. JEm. Paul. p. 130. Schafer ind.
ad JEsop. p. 131. Yet compare the opinion of an ancient gramma-
rian, Apollonius, in Wolf and Buttmann Mus. antiq. studior. I. p. 360.
and Eustath. ad Odyss. 5. p. 240.

In the N. T. avitov etc., instead of the reflexive av-tov, is found more
frequently than in Gr. authors,* and the Codd. vary very much in the

* Later writers, as yEsop, the Scholiasts etc. differ in this usage of the N. T. See
Schafer ind. ad yEsop. p. 124. Thilo Apocr. I. 163.

22. USE or THE PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 129

mode of writing these two pronouns. Only the editors of the N. T. have
not generally noted this, and therefore we must be guided less by the
N. T. text, than by that of Gr. writers. The distinction between avtov
and avtov on internal grounds is more difficult, because in Greek there
occurs a reference to a more distant subject (com/?. Held ad Pint' Timol.
p. 373.), and because it depends entirely on the writer, in many cases,
whether he makes a reference or not. See Buttm. 10. Exc. acl Demosth.
Mid. p. 140.* F. Hermann com crit.^ ad Pint, super st. p. 37. Thus in

Mt. iii. 16. zl -to TtvBvf.ia 'tov Osov g%6/Avov n; ' a $ i? 6 v would

be said in the person of the narrator, a $ ' , i> * 6 v on the other hand
would relate to the subject of the verb slSs, viz. Jesus. In the N. T.
the reference to a distant subject, one not in the same clause with the
pronoun, on account of the simplicity of the narrative, is not very proba-
ble, just as it dispenses with the relative construction, see above, p. 143.
So in Mt. iii. 16. we should undoubtedly write as in the vulgar text, av-

tfoi'j'but in John i. 48. zlSsv Igzopsvov rtgo$ av-tbv In Acts xxv. 21.

also uv-tbv is correct. In Mt. xxiii. 37. I prefer avtqv to avt^v, with
Fritzsche, which Schulz also has had printed; in Eph. i. 17. lv IrtiyvagEt,
uv-tov even if it relate to Osbs, is certainly right (the apostle utters it
in Ms own person): comp. Acts xxi. 19. Col. i. 20. See Fritzsche Exc.
5. ad. Mt. p. 858. (where also the view of Matthiae ad Eurip, Ipliig.
Aul. 800, and Gram. I. 278. is examined), Poppo ad Time. III. I. p. 159.
For comparison we quote from the Greeks, Diocl. Sic. 17, 64. ^v rfgoj
av-tbv tvvoluv, xvih 15. Arrian. Epict. 1, 19. 11. 1, 23. 8. Herodian. 1,
17. 9. 2, 4, 13. 4, 11. 13. Polyb. 1, 18. 3. 2, 7. 2. 3, 14. 10.

6. The personal pronouns syw, GV, etc. are often used in Greek, where
no antithesis is intended. Corny. Bornemann ad Xen. Conviv. p. 187.
Wex ad Antig. I. 177. So Mr. xiii. 9. jS^c^ b vpsis savtovs (if the
reading be right, see Fritzsche in loc.] Ephes. v. 32. ^6 nvotr&ov toy-to

jtu'ya Its-tlv' lyw Se Tityco rtj Xgc.ff-z'ov (coinp. Tic-yco 8s 1 Cor. i. 12. Rom. XV. 8.).

But usually in the N. T. they imply an emphasis, and are placed some-
times before, sometimes after the principal words, accordingly as the
structure of the sentence places the accent: Luke xvii. 8.
(when /have eaten) ^ayccfat xai Tttscrat av , John xxi. 22. td
f.dvw tft Ttgoj tf ; av uxohov^Ei, ^ot, tJwu (do thy duty) follow me, Acts
iii. 12. r t <yju.lv -tL fasviZe-tE, etc. (on us; you should rather look to God,
direct your thoughts to him, ver. 13.), Mr. vi. 37. Sof afoot; {, p si $ $,-
ysiv, give ye (as they have nothing to eat) to eat, xiii. 23. fy t ^ 8e j3?ia-
rtfte. See yet 1 John iv. 19. 1 Cor. xv. 36. John iii. 26. v. 44. xii. 34.
Luke xi. 19. Mr. xiii. 23. Rom. ii. 3. 17. In respect to the use and
omission, as well as the position of these pronouns, the Cocld. vary very
much: the decision on this subject depends not on a fancied usage of par-
ticular authors (Gersdorf I. 472.), but on the nature of the sentence.

* Sen Brcnii in d. JuJirl. tier Phlld. IX. p. 171. Hoffmann idem. VII. p. 38.

130 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OP THE PRONOUN.

In Luke x. 23, 24., the pronoun is both inserted and omitted in two
Successive clauses, oi /3^rtovfas jSXeVei'E -- TtoWUM rtgo$j}tfou -- qO&yaa.v
iSsiv, vpzts p?Jrtt. Only in the latter case, however, is there a
real antithesis (vp^s contrasted with rtgotyjjifui,, /3owa. etc.), in the former
the otyOa&pol pkErtovtss 5 j3x are properly speaking no other than those of
which the ptijtrfs is predicated. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 29. *{,$ foQsvzt xai
ovx dadsvu, ft's ex(ttvSa'hi^ifa>t> xai> ovx syw rtvgovpw ', in this sentence we
must not overlook the fact that in the latter member rtvgovpat (which the
Apostle predicates of himself) is a stronger term than axavSa^. In the
passage 1 Cor. xiii. 12. i-ofs Ertvyvuxsopat, xaGu>$ xai Ertfyv&aOviv, some au-
thorities add gyw to the last verb, but unnecessarily, as the antithesis is
expressed by means of the vox verbi.

It may be remarked that, in some books of the 0. T. the LXX. have
translated the emphatic "O3N with the verb, by lyw dpi, which is then
followed by the first pers. of the verb: e.g. Judg. xi. 27. Tixon $h
\DJ81 xai vvv yw i-ipt, ov%i qpugtov, COinp. V. 3. VI. 18. 1 Kings ii. 2.

7. Instead of the possessive pronoun, i(,o$ is often used in the N. T.
even abusively, as proprius for suus or ejus in the later Latin (and in
the Byzantines olxEtos, see e. g. B. Index to dtgath., Petr. Patric., Pris-
cus, Dexipp. ed. Bonn.), e. g. Mt. xxii. 5. dri-^sv el$ tbv ISiov dy^ov,
without any emphasis (and without antithesis of xowbs or a^d^^toj), Mt.
xxv. 14. Exdteas <tov$ ldl,ov$ Sovhovs, 1 Pet. iii. 1. (So also Septuag. Prov.
xxvii. 8. Jas. vii. 10.). Yet on the whole it occurs but seldom, and no
appropriate example of it can be adduced from Gr. authors (since what
Schwarz Comment, p. 687. and Weiske de Pleon, p. 62. quote, is alto-
gether unsatisfactory, or at least only specious, as also Diod. Sic. 5, 40.;
here and there also we find <r$sVEgo? for J'S>j, see Wesseling ad Diod. Sic.
II. p. 9. The Fathers, on the other hand, sometimes use i'Stos as a per-
sonal pron. cowip. Epiph. Opp. II. p. 622. A.). In most passages there
is an antithesis either evident or concealed, John x. 3. Mt. xxv. 15. Acts
ii. 6. Rom. xi. 24. xiv. 4, also Mt. ix. 1. The parallel sentence 1 Cor. vii. 2.
i'xaafoj T^I/ avtov yvvalxa e%i;a>, xai sxda^T; 't bv il> oov txvSga g^atfa is, let edcJl
one have his wife, and let each (woman} have her oivn husband. Bo'hme,
Kunol and Wahl take JSt-o? in Heb. vii. 27. very improperly for the mere
possessive. When i'Scoj is connected with a personal pron. as Tit. i. 12.
I8to$ av-tuv rtgofyfaqs, the pronoun expresses the idea of possession (their
poet}, but J'Stos makes the antithesis their own poet, not a foreign one.
Similar JEschin. adv. Ctesiph. 143. Xen. Hell. 1, 14. 13. Plut. Menex.
247. B. See Lobeck ad Phrynich. p. 441. Wurm. ad Dinarch. p. 70.
About John v. 18. Rom. viii. 32. see Tholuck.

cl with the ace. of a person, pron. is considered a circumlocution
for the posses, pron., e, g. i. 15. ^ xa& ipus rttaitig, your faith, Acts xvii.
28. 6t xu& v^ittj rtotyfat, xviii. 15. i>6po$ 6 x^' upas, etc. This, on the

22. USE OF THE PERSONAL AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 131

whole, is true, but it results very naturally from the. signification of this
prepos.: ^ xa^ vpu$ rtiatis means properly fides qiise, ad vos pertinet, apud
vos (in vobis) est, comp. JElian. V. PI. 2, 42. % xa^ avtdv dgEtf^, Dion.
Hall. 2. 1. fa xu^ fads xgovoi. Comp. 30. note 5.

NOTE 1. The gen. of a personal pron., especially pov and aov (seldom
jjiiQv, vpav, avtov) is very frequently placed before the governing noun
(with the artic.) where there is no special emphasis: Mt. ii. 2. vii. 24.
xii. 49. xvi. 18. xvii. 15. xxiii. 8. Mr. v. 30. ix. 24. Rom. xiv. 16. Phil.
ii. 2. iv. 14. Col. ii. 5. iv. 18. 1 Cor. viii. 12. 1 Tliess. ii. 16. iii. 10. 13.
2 Thess. ii. 17. iii. 5. 1 Tim. iv. 15. 2 Tim. i. 4. Philem. ver. 5. Luke
vi. 47. xii. 18. xv. 30. xvi. 6. xix. 35. John ii. 23. iii. 19. xxi. 33. iv. 47.
ix. 11. xxi. 26. xi. 32. xii. 40. xiii. 1. 1 John iii. 20. Rev. iii. 1. ii, 8.
15. x. 9. xiv. 18. xviii. 5.; yet in many such passages variations are noted.
See Gernsdorf 456. The genitive is intentionally placed before (a)
Ephes. ii. 10. uiniov ydg lapsv Ttoi'^a, with more emphasis than sa^sv
y. ft- avtov Luke xii. 30. xxii. 53.; (J) 1 Cor. ix. 11. peya, si fazls
v p w v tfql tiagxwa ^egiaopsv, for the sake of the contrast: Phil. iii. 20.;
(c) John xi. 48. ^<Zv xui, tbv tbrtov xai to t&j/oj, where the genit. belongs
to two nominatives,* Acts xxi. 11. Rev. ii. 19. 2 Cor. viii. 4. 2 Tim. iii.
10. Tit. i. 15. Luke xii. 35. (Diod. Sic. 11, 46.). Also comp. 1 Thess.
i. 3. ii. 19. (ipov, depending on a noun and placed after it, occurs only in
connections like Rom. i. 12. Ttt'ffi'scoj v^v tie xac, I/.IQV, xvi. 13. ^tflga av-
tov xal Ejitoi).). The insertion of the personal pronoun between the arti-
cle and the noun, as in 2 Cor. xii. 19. vitle, -z% vpZ>v otxoSo^?, xiii. 9,
i. 6. is on the whole rare. Comp. Kriiger on Xen. Anab. 5, 6. 16.
Rost Grammar p. 464.

NOTE 2. As to oiji'oj and Ixtlvos it may be remarked that the former
is usually placed before, and the latter after the noun, ovfo? 6 avO^jio^
6 avflgortoj IXEWO$. Yet the opposite of this occurs, in respect to oiir'of
Mt. xxviii. 15. Mr. xv. 39. Luke i. 2,9., without a material change of the
sense, and in respect to Ixstvos in the formulas of transition (Gersdorf

433.), Iv Ixswats tats yps^uis, Iv Ixsivy ty ^,wg<y, Iv IxsLvat ^9 xaigu. We

must not, however, suppose that an author is so bound to the one position,
that we must reject the other, although the sense or good Codd. allow it.

NOTE 3. The possessive pronouns are sometimes to be taken objectively,
e. g. Luke xxii. 19. ^ Ipy ava^v^if memoria mei (1 Cor xi. 24.), Rom.
xi. 31. ^9 v[AET?gq> f/u'st, 2 Tim. iv. 6. 1 Cor. xv. 31. So also in the Gr.

writers (especially in poetry): Xen. Cyrop. 3, 1. 16. svvota
V?? 5 i- e. ty e i s ipt, Soph. Phil. 1255. *bv obv qo

Thuc. 6, 89. Plat.

Gorg. p. 486. A. Xen. Cyrop. 8, 3. 32. About the Latin, comp. Krite
ad Sallust. Lat. p. 243.

NOTE 4. A superfluous dative of the pers. pron. is sometimes found in
the familiar, easy style of both the Greeks and Hebrews (therefore dot.

* Where it has not this position, the pron. must be repeated for the sake of per-
spicuity. Acts iv. 28. Va f, xs i s Xtt ,' j, OU M ^ ., etc. Luke xviii. 20. Mt.,
xii. 47. Acts ii. 17.

132 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OP THE PKONOUW.

ethicus, Buttm. 120, ,2. ad Demoslh. Mid. p. 9. Jacob, ad Lucian. Toxar.
p. 138.). Out of the N. T., where certainly this usage was to be ex.-
pected, may be mentioned Mt. xxi. 5. a qubtat. from the 0. T., and Mt.
xxi. 2. Rev. ii. 16. Heb. x. 34. But in Mt. xxi, 2. ayuys-tB p.oi means
bring Mm to me, and aydy. alone would have .been defective; in Rev. ii.
16. l^opul got, tazv, I shall quicldy come (to you) upon you (punishing);
comp. ver. 14. J'^w jcowa aov oju'ya, ver. 16. ^sfavor^ov] in Heb. x. 34. l%^v
luwtols vrtag%cv repositam or destinatam siui habere. The dat. here is
not altogether pleonastic. (For the similar formula faa rfot, see Herm.
ad Lucian. conscr. hist. p. 179. e. g. Lucian. pise. 16. $ v

NOTE 5. C H 4^ [.wv, aov, etc. is usually considered a circumlocution for
the pers. pron. (see Weiske Pleon. p. 72.) both in quotat. from the O. T.,
as Mt. xii. 18. Acts ii. 27. Heb. x. 38., and in originally N. T. passages,
and thus used is a Hebraism (Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 752. Vorst. Helir. p.
121.). In no passage of the N. T. however, is 41^77 entirely without
significancy, any more than t#3J in the Heb. (see Winer's Simon.") but
denotes the soul (the spiritual principle) in such phrases as 2 Cor. xii. 15.
sxSartawri&qtioiAai' vrt'eg tuv tyv%uv vft&v, 1 Pet. ii. 25. lirtiaxortos ^u>v >$>v%iiv
vpuv, or the, heart (the seat of the affections and desires), as in Rev. xviii.

14. fiTttJhjjlUCM T^f 4 W ^? OOVj Mt. XXVI. 38. jtg(,Vl)7tOJ \dttlV Vj 'fyvX'/l fAOV. -

"Vvzri would be a mere circumlocution in cases where not the soul alone,
but the whole man, including the body, is intended, and here perhaps
Rom. ii. 9. ought to belong: but 4u#^ there is that of man which feels the
05U4K and the 0-esvo%^. This use of the word ^v%^ tends to perspicuity
or even circumstantiality of the discourse, from which pleonasm differs
entirely. It is also found so frequently in the Gr. writers, comp. Xen.
Cyrop. 5, 1. 26. Polyb. 3, 116. ^Elian. V. H. 1, 32., especially poets,
and we recognise in it not a Hebraism, but a peculiarity of the old lan-
guage, which was eminent for perspicuity. See Georgi Vind. p. 274,
Schwarz ad Olear. p. 28. Comment, p. 1439.

23. Use of the Demonstrative Pronoun.

1. The pronoun ovto; sometimes refers, not to the nearest, but to a
more remote noun, which is the principal subject, and therefore*p<s7/e/[.o-
logically nearest to the writer, and most immediately before his mind
(Schafer ad Demosth. V. 322. Stallbaum ad Plat. Phsedr. p. 28. 157.):
Acts iv. 11. ovto$ (I'/iaov? Xgtcrtos ver. 10.) EGUV 6 TH&OJ, 1 John v. 20.
OXJT'O? <siw u ax^M'Off ^sdj, viz. 6 ^tdj c'crf^, not X^tcrifd?, as the old Theo-
logians, from dogmatical views, interpreted; since fayO. Os6^ is a constant
and exclusive epithet of the Father, and a warning against idolatry fol-
lows; faqd. Ot6$ is contrasted with aiSw^. (Dr. Winer seems to have for-*

23. USE Or THE DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUN. 133

gotten here, that if, as he affirms, the epithet toqewbs in the N. T. is ex-
clusively applied to God, in distinction from Christ, on the other hand
the fwi) atwvtoj is just as exclusively predicated of Jesus Christ. And
what he says about the contrast between the true God and idols, is of no
weight, unless it be first established that the Apostle does not intend here
to assert that Christ is God: for if he proclaims Jesus to be the true God
and eternal life, then the contrast is quite as striking and strong between
Xgifftfof and idols as between them and oj. Trs.) The passage in Acts viii.
26. ailf/i sa-tiv w<>$ is doubtful, where some supply the nearest subject
raa, others 6Soj, see Kiinol in loc. and Winer's Biblical Lexicon I. p.
462. I unhesitatingly prefer the latter. Acts vii. 19. 2 John 8. are
more simple. (Passages from Greek prose writers, see in Ast ad Plat.
Polit. p. 417. Legg. p. 77.). In Acts iii. 13. exiivos must be referred
to the nearest subject (see Bremi ad Li/s. p. Io4.), and probably also in
John vii. 45., where sxslvot, denotes the members of the Sanhedrim
(a2t. x. $agiff.) collectively, as one college. Ovtos and Ixtlvos thus
connected relate, the former to the remote, the latter to the nearer sub-
ject. See Plut. vit. Demost. 3.

The same is thought to be the case with the relat. pron. in 1 Cor. i.
8. (Bernhardy 297. Goller ad Time. II. 21. Siebelis ad Pausan. III. p.
52., and about the Latin, Kritz ad Sallust. II. p. 115. see Pott in loc.),
where oj is referred to 0a6j as the principal subject, ver. 4., although 'Itja.
Xgicr-s'. immediately precedes; but this is not necessary, not even on ac-
count of the following rtKjtfoj 6 dsb$. To avoid antiquated difficulties, this
canon has been applied to Heb. ix. 4. (see Kiinoel in loc.), and from dog-
matic views, to Rom. v. 13., but to both incorrectly. On 1 John ii. 3.
and iii. 24. see Liicke. Heb. ix. 2. 2 Thess. ii. 9. are uncontroverted.

2. The demonstrative pron. is often included in the relat. (Hoogeeven
ad Vig. p. 119.): e.g. John xiii. 29. ayogaaov Z>v xgeiav EXO^BV (tav*a,
v), Acts viii. 24. xxvi. 16. xxi. 24. Eph. iii. 20. John xviii. 26. Luke
xxiii. 41. Rev. xx. 4. (comp. Xen. Cyrop. 6, 2. 1. drf^yyEaaj <Zv Se6v,
Achill Tat. 2, 7. *j}j <Zv erta^e Kvjtvjs, Stallbaum ad Plat. rep. I. p. 139.
In such a case, if a preposition precede the relative, it belongs logically
either to the relative clause, like Rom. x. 14. jtu$ ijtixahEOovtat, sis ov
ovx irtiatsvaav, vi. 21. twa xagrtov ai'^sra tfofa (nearly tovtuv) E<J>' oT? vvv
(comp. Soph. Philoct. 957. avuv yta^'fco 8ai^ v $ u v eipeg-
);* John xix. 37. (Septuag.) Luke v. 25. 2 Pet. ii. 12.),f or to the

* When Reiche remarks that, in all other examples, only the demonstrative which
should have been governed by a verb, is omitted, and never one dependent on a noun,
he manifestly goes too far. Comp. xviii. 26. Luke xxiii. 41.

* Some reckon here Rom. vii. 6., but bS belongs to *>>*, and avdav. absolutely, is
added to xtmigy. to designate the mood.

17

134 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE PRONOUN.

demonstrative which ought to be supplied, John vi. 29. i
si $ ov dftsa-fsasv sxsti/os, John xvii. 9. 2 Cor. v. 10. Heb. v. 8. comp.
Diod. Sic. 1, 32. avv cu$ 7totV(u xoprta,i$ for avv io.v-t- ay etc., Xen.
Mem. 2, 6. 34. T&ZZ. 4, 8. 33. Demosth. adv. Conon. p. 729. A. Arrian
Max. 6, 4. 3. Diog. L. 9, 11. 6. 6, 2. 8. Sext. Erap. dt>. Math. 2, 36.
Ilerodi. I, 4. 7., or to both clauses, 2 Cor. ii. 3. 'i va ^ ^vrtyv I&w a$' <Zv
sSsc, as xai%f(.v, comp. 1 Cor. x. 30. John xi. 6. Phil. iv. 11. Instances
with a relative adverb, John xi. 32. ifisv ojtov ijv 6 'J^ffoSf, Mr. v. 40,
atjjto^vEfcu ortov rjv ro rfcu5toj> (comp. Buttmann acZ Ph'doct. p. 107.)
John vi. 62. Mt. XXV. 24. ai)ya<yu)i< 6^-s v oi> SiEOpcd^rttuas for ejcft^si/ ortov.
Comp. Thuc. 1, 89. and Henri, ad Soph. Oed. Col. p. 247. Still more
free is the construction, John xx. 19. ^wv ugwj> xExhaaf.<.v<Z>v 6'rfou ^aav oi
p,a&7}T!o,ti, etc. That in such compound sentences no comma should be
placed before the relative, has been mentioned above; in John vi. 29. ifc
would be absurd.

3. Ovr'of, ixfivo; and av^oj sometimes stand after the subject or a pre-
ceding predicate, and immediately before the verb, if the former consist
of several words, e. g. Mt. xxiv, 13. o vrtopslvas etj tf&.oj, o^oj (jw^jJuEtfai,
vi. 4. o rtat'/ig 6ov o /3^87tiov -- dui'os drtoSwast crot (where there is no suf-
ficient reason for omitting the pronoun), Mr. vii. 15. ^a Ixjto^jop.tva <W
avtov, ixctva, Jcfi^t 1*00 xoivovvfa -fov av^toTtov, vii. 20. Xli. 40. 1 Pet. V.

10. 1 Cor. vi. 4. T^OIJJ iloD^-sv^julvouj v fy exxhtjOiq., 'tov-fov^xa^^F.ifE (Xen.

Conv. 8, 33. Ages. 4, 4.) Acts ii. 23. (^Elian. V.H. 12. 19. t^vjto^^av
2a7t$w tavtqv uvaygdfysi,). See Schafer Melet. p. 84. Schwarz Com-
ment. 1009. Matlh. II. 1046. Jacob ad Lucian. Toxar. p. 78. 144.
and ad Lucian. Alex. p. 7. Siebelis ad Pausan. I. p. 63. About the
Latin, see Kritz ad Sallust. I. p. 171. (The more extended strengthen-
ing of this emphasis by 8e does not occur in the N. T. Buttm. ad Demosth.
Mid. p. 152. Engelhardt ad Plat. Menex. p. 252.) These pronouns are
found thus more frequently after antecedent clauses, which begin with
a conjunc. or a relat. John ix. 31. Jas. i. 13. Mt. xii. 50. Comp. Waht

11. 223.

XIX

The repetition of the demonstr. pron. is worthy of remark, in Luke
IX. 2. xai aittb j ^v a.^i't 'f^wwyj xai ov'foftjv rtXotxJtoj. The sense is,
he was a chief publican, and (as such) a rich (man), Matth. II. 1040.

For the sake of perspicuity the same pronoun is repeated in long sen-
tences, 1 Cor. v. 3. 2 Cor. xii. 2. Comp. in the Greek Fritzsche ad
Mr. p. 14. V. Fritzsche Question. Lucian. p. 14. 110.

4. Before 6Vt, iVa, and similar particles, the demonstrative pronoun
often occurs, when the following sentence should be particularly noiiced

23. USE OP THE DEMONSTRATIVE PKONOUN. 135

(especially in Paul and John): 1 Tim. i. 9. siou$ toy-to, o-tt,, etc. Acts xx.
29. jyco yag oiSa i-oii-o, 6V t, etc. 6'owzp. Acts xxiv. 14. John vi. 29. Rom.
vi. 6. xi. 25.)* 2 Cor. v. 14. x. 7. 11. 1 Cor. i. 12. xv. 50. 2 Pet. i. 20.
1 John i. 5. iii. 11. 23. iv. 9. 10. v. 2. 3. 11. 14. Phil. i. 6. 25. So tis
tovto before ft/a Acts ix. 21. Rom. xiv. 9. 2 Cor. ii. 9, Ephes vi. 22.

1 Pet. iii. 9. 1 John iii. 8., tv tov*q> 6V t 1 John ii. 3. 5. iii. 16. 19. iv. 13.
tv toy*?, ivu John xv. 8. 1 John iv. 17. (see Liicke in Zoc.) For the
sake of emphasis also, the demonstrative is used, where an infinitive
(Matth. ad Eurip. Pkcen. 520. Sprachl. II. 1046.) or a nominative pre-
dicate follows: 2 Cor. ii. 1. Ix^va t^av-tci -tov'to , to fiyj jtdhw iv hvitvi
rtgbs vfias i^stv, 1 Cor. vii. 37. Ephes. iv. 17. Jas. i. 27. (comp. Xen.
Hell. 4, 1. 2. Plat. Hipp. mai. p. 302. A. Gorg. p. 491. D. Arrian.
Epict. 31, 1. 4. Porphyr. abstin. 1,13. Dion. Hall, de Time. 40, 3.),

2 Cor. xiii. 9. T'OIJT'O xai sai^o^ou, I'^v -Ujttuij' jsaT'a'g-i'KH!', 1 John iii. 24. v. 4.
(comp. Achill. Tat. 7, 2. fydgpaxov av-tc> -fovto ty$ -- a/urt^s ^ rfgoj aMioj;

sis tb rtal^slv xowwiu, Plat. rep. 3. p. 407. Lucian. navig. 3. Eurip.
Suppl. 512. cowzjo. Jacob ad Lucian. Toxar. p. 136. Ast. ad PZai. Polit.
p. 466.); and even si; tovto is so used in Acts xxvi. 16. fl$ lov-to yug

ufySyv aot, Tt^o^Eigt'tfoKJ^at cff vTi'/i^s-fviv xal pdgtvga, etc. and oiVwf 1 Pet. ii.

15. and svtfv&v Jas. iv. 1. Finally, the demonstrative thus precedes a
participial construction in Mr. xii. 24. o Sia tovto
, etc. therefore, because you know not, etc.

The use of the pron. demonstr. in phrases such as Acts i. 5. ov

'tMj-t'aj -jjfjitEgaj offer (in) o. few days, presents no difficulty; it de-
pends not on a transposition of rtofcuj, hut is to he interpreted as the Latin
ante Jws quinqve dies, etc., comp. in Greek wj oXi'ywj/ jte,b rov-guv ^UE-
fu>v (Achill. 7^. 7, 14.), ov ago xoMuv twos v^it^v (Heliod. JEth. 2,
22. 97.). Avtav jipigat, are those days just passed, and ante hos qi/inqiie
dies means properly, before the last past five days (reckoning from the
present). Therefore the pronoun connects the time specified with the
present. Interpreters and Lexicographers explain the demonstrative in
Jas. iv. 13. Ttogeutfio^Efla sis tTjvSe trjv TtoXw info some certain city, only
by reference to the known o Suva; but 65s is used precisely so among the
Greeks, e. g. Plutarch Symp. 1, 6. t^vSs t^v <^av a certain day.

The plural of the demonstrative pronoun tavta sometimes refers in
Greek to a single object, and therefore, strictly speaking, stands for toiifo
(Plat. Apol. p." 19. D. Phxd. 70. D. see Schilfer ad Dion. p. 80. comp.
also Jacobs ad Achill. Tat. p. 524. Stallbaurn ad Plit. Apol. p. 19. D.
Bernhardy 282.) f This is the case in the N. T. 3 John. 4. (where, in

* In Rom. ii. 3. an extended vocative is thrown in between rtiro and the clause
beginning with on.

t Fritzsche Question. Lucian p. 12G. limits this observation thus: plur. poni de
mm re tantum modo sic, si neque ulla emergat umbiguilas et aut universe, non de.
finite qnis loquatur, aut una res plurium vi sit pratdita.

1 36 PART T1IIKD. ON THE USE OF THE PRONOUH.

some Codd. it is changed into tav-tiji), John xv. 17. (see Tholuck in loc.},
Luke xii. 4. but, perhaps not John xix. 36. see Von Hengel Annotut. p.
85. On the other hand the well known xal tuvta idque can be reckoned
here (Heb. xi. 12.). In 1 Cor. vi. 11. xal faijt'a I/WES yj-ts and such a set,
tails farina homines, the -gav-ta, may have secondarily a sense expressive
of contempt (Bernhardy 281). Yet this perhaps was far from the mean-

ing of the Apostle, and lavta often relates to a series of predicates: of
such kind, ex hoc genere fuistis. Kypke and Pott on this passage have
a medley of remarks.

Liicke in 1 John v. 20. (comp. ctlso Theolog. Studien II. p. 147.), be-
lieves there is a prozeugma of the demonstrative pronoun: ov-t6$ Is'tw 6
ato^tvos S-EOJ, scat, (avtii) fy WTJ atwi/toj is of itself not impossible, but as I
think, unnecessary.

24. Use of the Relative Pronoun.

1. According to attraction (comp. Herm. ad Viger. p. 889. Bernhardy
299.)* the relative pronoun, which is required to be in the accusative by
the governing verb, is so attracted by the oblique case of the preceding
noun, with which it is logically connected (like a principal and secondary
clause), that it takes the same case. This peculiarity, which imparts to
the discourse more internal connection, and greater euphony, was already
familiar to the LXX., and is found regularly in the N. T. e. g. Luke ii.

20. zjtl jtaatv otj rjxovaiv, John ii. 22. litieTtsvaav ^9 xdyu 9 eujtcv, Acts iii.

21. 25. x. 39. vii. 17. xxii. 10. Jas. ii. 5. 1 Pet. iv. 11. John vii. 31.
xv. 20. xvii. 5. xxi. 10. Luke v. 9. Mt. xviii. 19. 2 Cor. i. 4. Tit. iii. 6.
Rev. xviii. 6. etc. (where the comma before the relative is to be omitted
in the text, 7, 1.). Jude 15. rtegi jtdvtav tuv egyuv aaef3fia$ cvvtuv S>v

merits special notice. Comp. Zeph. 3: 11. -tZ>v Ttrtt]8sv(jid'tu>v
ij I pi. Instances however are found where this usage of
the language is neglected, Heb. viii. 2. t^s axqvris t^ d^^H/^j, tf t'rt^Sw
6 xi5gtos,and according to good Codd. in 4cts vii. 16. Tit. iii. 5., comp. be-
sides, the variations John xvii. 11. Mr. xiii. 19. See Bornemann ad
Xenoph. Anab. p. 30. Pflugk ad Eurip. Med. 753. This attraction
does not occur at all in Matt., in Mr. but once, without var. vii. 13.

Eph. i. 6. T'ijj ^ccgtT'of, ^5 l^ogtVwcfsv (var. Iv <jj) iv. 1.
Jx?t^)?T > 6 2 Cor. i. 4. 6ta t^ rtagax^attos, $5 rtagaxa.hovp,a, seem not to
fall under the above rule, but the <fi$ to stand for jj. But these passages
may be explained by the well known phrases, xtycsiv xahelv, tagaxivjuv
tagaxateiv, %dgw xagitovv, dydrtijv ayartav ( 32. 2.), and by the equally

* Comp. Krttger in sein. Untersuch.a.d. GebietederM. Sprachlelire. III.

24. USE 01? THE KE1ATIVE I'RONOUJV. 137

known passive construction. See Gieseler inRosenm. Repert. II. 124.)*
Also Acts xxiv. 21. ^wwjj ?$ tjc^ato, lorrcij, etc. ^j is probably used for ft.
(Mt. xxvii. 50. Mr. i. 26. Rev. vi. 10.). (Comp. Boissonade ad Nicet.
p. 33.), but $>w",7 signifies word, call, exclamation, so that the construc-
tion is reduced to the phrase $wp xgd%et,v, which, it is true, is unusual,
but not impossible. Comp. Isa. vi. 4. cfwwjj ij$ ixsxgayov. Krliger as
above 274. shows that the attraction may also affect the dative relat.
Comp. Heinichen ad Euseb. II. p. 98.

2. The contrary sometimes occurs, viz. that the noun, to which the
relative refers, is attracted into the construction of relative clauses, and
takes the case of the relative: (a) So that the noun precedes the relative:
1 Cor. X. 16. I'O-T' agiiov ov xhwpcv, ov%i xoivuvua "tov (ju^at'of, Mt. xxi. 42.
ov artsBoxL/Aaaav, OVT'OJ lyswjS-E, JLuke xii. 48. jtavtL w iSo&j rtohv,
fytySriae'tat Ttag' av-tov, 1 Pet. ii. 7. (Septuag.), perhaps also Luke
i. 72. pvqa^rlvao Sia^rfxtis aytaj av-tov 6 g x ov ov 0>y,oas rt^oj 'Apgadft (dif-
ferently Klinol), but perhaps not Acts x. 36. (see Gieseler 126. Krliger
224. (6) So that, by its position, it is incorporated with the relative
clause: Mr. vi. 16. 6V Jyw drtexifydfoaa ^I^dw^v, ov-t6$ sett,, Philem. 10.

also Rom. vi. 17. v7tT ( xovaa'tE si? 6V rtageooOqtfe tvrtov 5t5a^j: the last

may be analyzed st$ -tvTt. 8t,S. 6V Ttag., accusative following the passive (a
similar attraction, by which the ace. of the more remote object is affect-
ed, see in Demosth. Mid. p. 385. C. 8ixqv apa povKopsvoi, hapsiv, <Z
iTts&avtQ gaavv ovta, where uii/ for a, i. e. lv oTj belonging to
or as others choose (recently also Bornemann and Riickert): v
(z'qi) f'UTtw SiS. si$ ov 7tag., as the construction vxaxovsiv twi^ is only usual
in Paul. Even Acts xxi. 16, fyovtis itae? <Z ^svta^/^ev Mvda^vi,, etc. some
interpret by attraction: ay. rtaga Mvda^va ftag' |EJ/., yet see 31, 2.
Parallels with both the cited passages are found, () Ilippocr. morb.

4, 11. T'as jt'/iya$ a$ coi/o^tatfa, aaJT'aj *io tfco j itat't, etc. Lycias bon. Arist. p.

649. JElian. Anim. 3, 13. Herod. 2, 106. Soph. Electr. 653. Aristoph.
Pint. 200., the well known passage of Virgil (JEn. 1,577. Urbem quam
statuo, vestra est. Terent. Eunuch. 4, 3. 11. comp. Wetsten 1. 468.
(0) Xenoph. Anab. 1, 9. 19. ?' T'tva 0^9^ xatatixtvdZovta qs d'g^ot, a;wgaf
(xugav, fa d^oi,), Soph. (Ed. 6. 907. Eurip. Orest. 63. and Electr. 860.
comp. Liv. 9, 2. Terent. Andr. prol. 3. See Matth. II. 1054.

Under (6) comes also Rom. iv. 17. xcweWfi ov faiaievoe etov, where,
however, not a nominative or accusat., but a dative is affected by attrac-
tion. That is always an abuse of the attraction become so common, al-

* And so perhaps also Aristoph. Plut. 1044. T <iW lyi T ifc 6
t On flvax!t!v E? S especially in Joseph, see Kypke Observatt.

138 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE PRONOUN".

though some examples of the kind occur, Kr tiger 247. (Xen. Cyrop. 5, 4,
t>9. ^'yetfw -tH>v lavtov -tuv Tfs rtia-fuv, oij ^Satfo, xai wv (i. e. vovtuv oij)
irt^aret, rtoXXouj).

An incorporation of the noun with the relative clause, without change of
case, is found: Mt. xxiv. 44. ft tiga ov Soxeo-ts, 6 6f -row di/^gwTtov egxttai,
Mt. vii. 2. i v 9 pe-fgy Hftgsive fis-t^ij^as'fat, V/MV, John xi. 6. Oil Mr.
xv. 12. see Fritzscho. Cump. Bernhardy 5302.

Attraction with an omission of the word, which occasions it, see (a)
with interposition of a preposition, Heb. v. 8. fyta^sv d<j>' 5>v tfrfo&g, i. e.
arto tovtuv, a (tor) tag (Demosth. in Energ. p. 6S4. B. ayaraxr^aaa
i'<j>' oTj tyw srttrt6i>$st,v, Plat. Cratyl. p. 386. A. ^Esop^/a/>. 74, 2. Xen.
Annb. 1, 9. 25. Arrian. _47e.r. 4, 10. 3. Lysias II. p. 242. ed. Auger.)
1 Cor. vii. 1.; (i) without a preposition, Rom. xv. IS. o-O -rox^ffw xaXstV
ft wv ov xatsigyaadtO) etc. (Soph. Philoct. 1227. ffid!. Jf. 855.). About
an attraction with adverbs of place, see 23. 2. and Kriiger 302.

3. The relative seems to be used for the interrogative in a direct ques :
tion, Mt. xxvi. 50. Ifcuga, $' S (i. e. 1^1 tl Aristoph. Lysistr. 1103.) Ttdgsi.
This is an abuse of the declining Greek (Schafer ad Demosth. V. p. 285.),
which Lobsten ad Phryn. p. 57. has proved in reference to other rela-
tive pronouns (Plat. Alcib.pr. 110. C.); and it will not seem very strange
when we reflect on the similar use of the words qui and quis. Good
prose writers offer no instances of it (in Plat. Men. p. 74. D. il has been
substituted by modern editors, as appears, without authority of the
manuscripts, comp. Plat. Rep. 8. p. 559. see Stallbaum). But it is not
necessary, for this reason, to suppose an aposiopesis in the above pas-
sages, nor with Fritzsche to consider the sentence an exclamation: vetus
sodalis f ad qualem rem perpetrandam ades! By means of the question,
Jesus could very well direct the attention of Judas to the baseness of
his purpose.

NOTE 1. Sometimes the relative pronoun takes the gender and number
of the folio-wing noun, which is a predicate in the relative clause annexed
fur the sake of explanation (6V cm) (a kind of attraction, comp. Her-
mann ad Vig. p. 708. Heindorf ad Plat. Phssdr. p. 279.): e. g. Mr. xv.

16. T-^J ouTi^S) 6 late, rtgattugiov, Gal. iii. 16. tq STte^^o.'ti 6ov, off so'Tft
Eplies. i. J4. Ttvsvpa, 6'j sativ afoafiuvi 1 Tim. iii. 15. sv olxy
lativ ixx^ata ^sov, Phil. i. 28. Kphes. iii. 13. On the other
hand, Ephcs. i. 23. t^ txxhyaiq. fois so-ti to tjui^ua av-tov, 1 Cor. iv. 17.
(Col. iii. 14. the Codd. vacillate). On Mt. xxvii. 33. and similar pas-
sages, see Fritzsche ad Mattli. p. 812. On Heb. ix. 9. the interpreters
are even yet divided in opinion. See Kiinul in loc. This seems to be
the case more particularly, where the noun of the relative clause is ap-
prehended as the leading subject, and therefore takes place in relation to
particular names of things, which in the leading clause had been repre-
sented under a general name (Mr. 15. 1 Tim. 3. comp. Pausan. 2, 13.
4.), especially as to persons (Gal. 3. comp. Cic. Sext. 42. animal, QUEM

24. USE OP THE RELATIVE PRONOUN. 139

vocamus hominem): or where the relative should have been a neuter used
absolutely (Eph. 3.). On the contrary, the relative retains the gender
of the noun in the leading clause, where the secondary clause contains a
circumstantial elucidation (camp. Bremi on Nep. Thrasyb. 2.). See
Kriiger 90., and for the Latin, Zumpt's Gram. 372. Kritz ad Sallust.
I.

NOTE 2. It is peculiar to Paul, sometimes to connect two, three and
more clauses by means of the relat. pronoun, even although it refer to
different subjects: Col. i. 24. xxviii. 29. Eph. iii. 11. 12.

NOTE 3. The neuter 3 before a whole clause in the sonse of in respect
to, etc. (as in Latin quod) is found in Rom. vi. 10. 3 &! y, ly *$ Oeq, Gal.
ii. 20. 8 & vvv & lv aagxi, h ttiatsi fw etc. Comp. Matin 11. 1053.

25. Use of the Interrogative Pronoun, and of the Indefinite

1. The interrogative pronoun tl^ ti is usual, not only in the indirect
question and after verbs signifying to know, to inquire into, etc., whilst
Ss *<$, 8, iti, never occur in the N. T. (Mt. xx. 22. John x. 6. Luk. xxiii.
34. Acts xxi. 33. Rom. viii. 26. Comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. 1, 1. 6. 1, 3. 17.
Memor. 1, 6. 4.) but also, (especially *(,') in cases where the Greeks
would have used S^t,, so that the interrogative seems to be reduced to the
German was (in Eng. what. Trs.) Mt. x. 19. So^as-nat, vplv -- tl
xaTuJrfEtfs quod dicatis Luk. xvii. 8. l-to^aaov, tfd Etv?j<5, para quod
comedam (not quid comedam, which in Latin can scarcely be said in this
connection.) The construction in Mr. vi. 36. -ei ^dy^aiv ovx szovat, (Mt.
xv. 32.), constitutes the transition to this. With but little change of
meaning, the passage might be read fat, $oywtfc 6vx s%ov , as in the Latin both
non habent quid comedant, and non habent QUOD comedant, are correct,
(Ramshorn Gr. p. 368); in the latter, TL%tw and habere express the sim-
ple meaning of having or possessing (that, which they might eat, they
have not), in the former, the idea of inquiry is implied (wherefore
habeo quid must sometimes be translated by J know, what), inquiring
what they shall eat, they have nothing (to eat). Similar Xen. Cyrop.
6, 1. 48. ovx e'^co ii psigov et'rfw. On Mr. xiv. 36. see Fritzsche. (The
relative and interrogative are connected in 1 Tim. i. 7. ^ voovv-tes, ufas
a teyovai, pq-ee rtz^l tivuv Siapspuiovvtao non intelligentes nee QUOD dicunt
nee QUID asserant. Comp. Stallbaum ad Plat. Rep. I. p. 248. II. p. 261.).

Schleussner, Haab (p. 82.) and others add here many examples of an
entirely different kind, () where ji s retains its meaning as an interroga-

140 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE PRONOUNS.

tive pronoun, and in Lat. must be translated by quis or quid: Mt. vii. 9.
fit latut, t VJJLUV ow^-gwrtos etc. quis est inter vus homo etc. Mt. xii. 11.
(See Fritzsche in luc.) Luk. xiv. 5. xi. 5. (&) Where -rtj is not the in-
terrogative, but equivalent to aliquis: I Cor. vii. IS. Tts^if^^^vo^ tls
isctaj^, ^ jjttrtrtaajko, has any one been called having been circumcised,
(I suppose the case), let him not become uncircurnrised, Jas. v. 13. xaxo-
rta^st, ti$, Ttgocm^t'o^w. It is not accurate to represent tic, here as stand-
ing for t tfij. In Jas. iii. 13. we must punctuate with Pott, Schott and
others: ^1$ 00^65 -- ev vpiv', Sftfa^w etc., and Acts xiii. 25. tuvd ps

vrt.ovoEd'ts si/vatj ovx tipi gyw-*

Where only two persons or things are spoken of, ?<,'$ sometimes stands
for the more precise jtottgos: Mt. ix. 5. -ti yag larw siixortuttgov; Mt. xxi.
31. -tig sx -tuv Svo Irtoiqas; Luk. vii. 42. xxii. 27. Phil. i. 22. In the
same way among Greek writers, Stullbaurn ad Phileb. p. 168., who are
not so exact in their distinction between *i$ and Tt^dr^oj, as the Romans
in respect to their quis and liter; although exceptions are not wanting
even among them.

It ought not to be affirmed that, in formulas like Luk. xv. 16. titiij
lavta, John vi. 9. Acts xvii. 20., the sing, of the interrog. is used for the
plural, the former question (i. e. by tl. Trs.) embraces the plurality in a.
general way: what (of what kind) are these things (hence also quid sibi
volunt], while -tlva, la-ti etc. (Com;?. Heb. v. 12.) refers to it more
definitely, quse (qualia) sunt, comp. Stallbawm ad Plat. Euthyplir. 101.

In the N. T. and in the Septuagint iVa "tl,for what, why, often occurs
as an interrogative: e. g. Mt. ix. 4. i'va >el vpsts tv^vpsiaSe rtovqgd; xxvii.
46. Luk. xiii. 7. It is used elliptically for iVa -tl yfvrjfat (after the prseter.
ya'i/ot-r'o) see Hermann ad Vig. p. 847. and is frequently found in the Greek
writers, especially of the later time, Plat. Apol. p. 26. D. Aristoph.
Eccles. 718. Arrian. Epict. 1, 24. (Comp. Gieseler 132.) so likewise in
the Septuagint.

2. The indefinite pronoun 1^$, ^l is used, (a) with substantives, to soften
their meaning, Xen. Cyrop. 8, 1. 16. tovtovs ^ysttfo J uxga-tsiq awi jj afttxiq
% uxeketq, uittlvai, out of a certain (a kind of) weakness or injustice etc.,
and hence where a too bold or unusual trope has been employed, Jas. i.
18. drtagzi] tft? qusedam (quasi) primitiss. Buttmann ed. Rob. p. 123. 77.
p. 351. 127. 4. (Z) with numerals, when the precise number is not
signified, but only an approximation to it: Acts xxiii. 23. Svo twas about
two, xix. 14. See Schafer ad Demosth. III. 269. Matth. II. 1079.
(c) with adjectives of quality and quantity, for rhetorical effect: Heb. x.
27. $oj3ta tft? sxSixfiats terfibilis qu&dam, a very dreadful punishment
(comp. Diod. Sic. 5, 39. iWrtovd? I'tj/Stoj, Liban. vit. p. 3. Sgtfivs *tj eu$
^Eschin. Dial. 3, 17. Xenoph. Cyr. 1, 6. 14. 6,4. 7. Heliod.

* Yet I would altogether reject the usual viva, for 5Vnv, comp. Callim. epigr. 30.
ete-j8a%aii> Tt? TTohhout; wJs no,} Zfe <pigsi, Soph. Elcctr. 1167. ti S' la-^tq aXyo? , <jt g o j
TI TOUT' eiTTiwv Kyg6~j; Wf in Plat. rep. 7. p. 537. B.

$ 25. USE OP THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN, &C. 141

2, 23. 99. Lucian. dial. mort. 5, 1. Plutarch Cic. p. 784. Phoc. c. 13.
Comp. Boissonnade ad Nicet. p. 268.), Acts viii. 9. ^lya? tfij like some-
thing very great (of a man, Xenoph. Ephes. 3, 2. Athen. IV. 21.). In all
these cases tlf is the emphatic a, which we have also in German : that
was a joy (a great joy), that is a man (an able man). (There is the em-
phatic a, in Eng. also. Trs.). In Latin, quidam corresponds with this,
and aliquis, where no substantive or adjective is to be specifically dis-
tinguished, e. g. aliquem esse Cic. Att. 3, 15. (rtaj <ti$ does not occur in
the N. T. la 1 Gor. ix. 22., some would substitute it for jtdvt^ Tn/as,
according to certain authorities, Boissonade ad JEunap. p. 127., but un-
necessarily, and without critical probability, ?? m John xi. 49. could be
emphatically used.).

The neuter <ti aliquid, in Mt. xx. 20. might be taken emphatically for
aliquid magni, but probably is not to be. See Fritzsche on this verse. In
1 Cor. iii. 7. Gal. ii. 7., however, it must be considered in the phrase
elval -tt (Lat. aliquid esse). The emphasis here lies in the connection
of the passage (comp. Herm. ad Vig. 730.) and consequently it is of a
rhetorical nature. See Bernhardy p. 440. on the emphatic use of *,'$, tl.

26. Hebraisms in expressing some Pronouns.

1. Instead of the pronouns ovSsls, ^Stij, oi> (^) - - rtag or

are sometimes found in the N. T. after the manner of the Hebrew
(Leusden diall. p. 107. Vorst Hebr. p. 529. Gesen. Lehrgeb. 831.), yet
so that the verb is immediately connected with the negative: e. g. Mt.
XXIV. 22. ovx av <jw^ rfatfa oragt, Rom. iii. 20. E| Igyuv vop.01 ov Stxatco^-
tfffae, rtarfa cragf , Ephes. V. 5. rfaj rto^oj -- oiix l%si xJi^ovo^av, 1 John
ii. 21. rtav favSoslx tvp faq^eias ovx eati, John iii. 15. i'va rtaj 6 jiurtfVMV

t? avtbv M aTtofojtut,, 1 Cor. i. 29. Ephes. iv. 29. Comp. also Acts x. 14.
ov8rto<tE e$oyov rtav xouov, Rev. vii. 1. etc. (Judith xii. 20. Sus. 27. On
the other hand ov *as (^ ^aj), immediately in succession (like non omnis)
signifies, not every one (only some}; 1 Cor. xv. 39. otf rtatfa ff ag! ^ oArf
(ja^i, Mt. vii. 21. ov Ttaj 6 Tis'yov' XVIE, XVIE, siafteveetut, sis ^ v pasaatav
AM.' a rtoitv, not every one, who calls me Lord, but [among those ivlw do so),
only he who doeth, etc.,* not the mere addressing me as Lord fits him to
enter the kingdom of heaven, but, etc., Acts x. 41. So also in the plural

^ * I cannot approve Fritzsche's interpretation (see Prasliminar p. 72.) which connects
oi with the verb, and makes the sense, no one icho says; the Herrsagen, Lord-saying,
18

142 PART THIRD. ON THE USE OF THE PRONOUN.

non omnes Mt. xix. 11. Rom. ix. 6. x. 16. This distinction is
founded in the nature of the thing: ov, in the former passages, qualifies
the meaning of the verb by negation (something is negatively declared
in reference to rtaj: Ephes. v. 5. not inherit the kingdom shall every
fornicator, the not inherit refers to every fornicator, i. e. no fornicator
shall inherit it, comp. 1 John ii. 21.)*; but in the latter, the meaning of
rtaj. This mode of expression is, on the whole, rare in the N. T., while
the LXX.-, as translators, have it on every page. (What Georgi Vindic.
p. 317., quotes to prove this construction pure Greek, is altogether inad-
missible; na$ in his quotations always belongs to the noun in the signifi-
cation of whole or full (jtaaa dvayxq). In Plat, Phsed. p. 91. E., which
Weiske de pleonasm, p. 59.f adduces as weighty, jtnvte$ or is manifestly
all not, but only some),

In Mt. x. 29. is ??/ If- o&tuv ov rteaeZtat,, vel unum non (in contrast with
Svo'. two for one farthing and one., not even etc.), Luk. xii. 6. Mt. v. 18.
This construction is also found among the Greeks, Dion. Hall. comp. verb.
18. i/iia.v ovx av tvgot, -r'tj tfaXtSa etc., Antiq. II. p. 980. pia ? ov xate^siriffo
(according to Schafer's emendation), Plutarch Gracch. 9. see Schafer
ad hunc loc. and ad Dionys. compos, p. 247. Erfurdt ad Soph. Antiq.
p. 121. From the Hebrew compare Exod. x. 19. Isa. xxxiv. 16. This
can be denominated neither a Grsecism nor a Hebraism; usually a greater
emphasis is intended, than is expressed by ovoti$, which, although mean-
ing the same, by its frequent recurrence has become less emphatic.:}:

Ijiik. i. 37. ovx aowutqasi, rtag a ^9 jtav /i^a, nothing, no thing (comp.
131 and in the Greek frtoj.). The passage is probably taken from Genesis
xviii. 14. Septuag. Mt. xv. 23. ovx aftsx^t; uv-tfi juiyoi/ is very simple: he
answered her not a word (the era here is not needed, as we likewise do
not emphasize the article #.).|| The Greeks could also say so, and the
formula is not an Hebraism because it occurs in 1 Kings xviii. 21.
See 66. 8.

(the one who says Lord) is by no means excluded by the second member

but the TTOIETV TO Bi\nfj.a, rov var^of ftou is a further and better recognition of Jesus

as Lord.

* Gesen. has merely introduced thia linguical phenomenon, without much concern
about its explanation; on the other hand Ewald (p. 657.) has at least rightly appre-
hended it. See Drusius ad Gal. ii. 16. and Beza on Rom. iii. 20. What Gesen. in-
tends by the difference between ov nets and /& 7r2?, is not very clear to me.

t The words are: WOTEJOV ouv, <}>, Travreif rou? efATrgoirQev Aop/ouj ou aTroSe^EirSH, r> TOU?
/WEV, TOW? y ov; if Schleusner would prove nonomnis to be equivalent to nullus by Cic.
Rose. Ame.r. 27. ep. ad Famil. 2, 12. he cannot have well examined the passage.

t Therefore also cuJe EIJ are taken together (Mt. xxvii. 14.) oifr! i=V I^A ne unum
quidem v. (John i. 3. Rorn. iii. 10. Herm. ad Vig. 467.)

|| Nor, because eij is in other places expressed (Mt. xxi. 24. l^tarna-a vpais xdyu Xoyov
t va), will any one accustomed to grammatical distinctions, require tva in the above
passage.

26. HEBRAISMS IN EXPRESSING SOME PRONOUNS. 143

2. The one, the other is expressed: (a) In distributive sentences, some-
times by Tj xal slj Mt. xx. 21. xxvii. 38. xvii. 4. Mr. x. 37. John

xx. 12. Gal. iy. 22. (<5 Tj - - 6 <-Tj Mt. xxiv. 40. on the other hand in the
parallel passage Luk. xvii. 34. 6 u$ 6 fV^oj, comp. 6^? o
Luk. xvi. 13. xviii. 10. ^Esop. 119. de Fur. So in the Hebrew
Exod. xvii. 12. Lev. xii. 8. xv. 15. 1 Sam. x. 3.), for which the Greeks
use j [ilv, tj 8s, see Fischer ad Leusden diall. p. 35. (what Georgi
Vind. p. 159. and Schvvarz Comment, p. 421. quote, are mor) properly
enumerations or additions of the units of one sum, e. g. of eight, one
one one etc.) (b) In reciprocal sentences 1 Cor. iv. 6. iva /ny si s vrteg
*t ov svbs $vat,ovo$E one above the other, 1 Thess. v. 11. This would
be rather an Aramseism (Hoffmann Grammat. Syr. p. 330.), although
not contrary to Greek syntax, Herod, iv. 50. V Ttgoj l-v avnpdh%ew, Lucian.
conscr. hist. c. 2. wj ovi> sv, $nalv, J v i rtagajSatotV. Comp. also the for-
mula IV <w>' svos (Ast. ad Plat. Polit. p. 339. Bernhardy ad Dionys.
Perieg. p. 853.) and Kypke II. 339.

The Hebrew construction: the man to his friend is conformed to the
Septuag. Gen. xi. 3. xiii. 11. Judg. vi. 29., but is not found in the N. T.,
comp. however Heb. viii. 11. according to the Vulgate ov ^ StSdj-uaw
sxaitos Tibv 7i\v\<3inv win/ov from Jerem. Septuag.

About the Hebraistic circumlocution of the pronoun every by the
repetition of the noun, e. g. fyw'go w*s'ga, see Chap. V. 58. 1.

CHAPTER III.

USE OF THE NOUN.

27. Number and Gender of Nouns.

1. A NOUN singular with the article ( 17, 1.) is very frequently used
as a collective of the whole class of things or persons, to which it refers
(see Glass I. p. 56. Gesen. p. 447. Stuart's Heb. Gr. 437.): e. g. Jas.
II. 6. ip e l s fittpdaats tbv rtta%6v, V. 6. tyovetante tvv Stxutov (where,
with several Fathers, Grotius and others, Christ is not to be understood),
1 Pet. iv. 18.

, c 6, a s s X0l a ^ us xo

,', Rom. xiv. 1. Comp. Zumpt. Latin Grammar p. 329. By this

144 PART THIRD. USE OF THE NOUN.

means the representation is more concentrated, so that the mind is not
withdrawn by the multitude expressed in the plural, from the idea which
ought to be most immediately before it.

The singular for the plural might appear to be used in Luk. xxiv. 5.

xhivovatav (yvvaixuv) ^o ft g 6 j a ft ov as tfojv yijv, where indeed some
Codd. have T^ itgoaurtu- But the former occurs in all languages, where
distribution is expressed. Com/?, also 1 Cor. vi. 19. *<> opa vpZ>v and
Eurip. Med. 1117. aZpu *' jj ^j3p TJ'^C IEXVUV, Cyd. 223. ./Elian Anim.
5, 4. ovopa, uv-tuv ^Escfiin. Ctesiph. p. 436. 47. xaxoi tv\v -^z^v, 1 Mace.
i. 44. Not very different is Rev. vi. 11. xal 186^ avtoi$ ato^y hevxq
(according to the best Codd.) a white robe was given to them i.e. to each
one of them, comp. xiii. 1. and Polyb. 3, 49. 12. tov$ itteLa-tovs a^yt t
xal rtgb$ tfovrfotj vrfoSltec. xogpfoas, also Testam. patriarch, p. 565. Fabric.
a dv$gartov$ Iv

2. On the other hand, the plural (masc. or fern.) is often used, where
the predicate relates to only one subject, although the writer designs to
express the thought in a general way: e. g. Mt. xxvii. 44. xai ol ^otal
-- Ave tiav avtov the thieves railed at him (properly only one, comp.
Luk. xxiii. 39., unless, which perhaps is preferable, we admit a difference
in the account, as must be done in respect to Mt, xxvi. 8., and John xii.
4.); Mt. ii. 20. tfE^wjxatft oi ^Tiovvffs tfy tyvxq v *v rfot&'oi; (properly only
Herod the great is meant) comp. Exod. iv. 19. Mt. ix. 8. $6t;aaav -tov &bv
>tbv 86vtu t^ovdiav ^otavTfijv z'otj av^^wrtotj (properly only Jesus had
shovvn it). See ^Eschyl. Prom. 67. Eurip. Hec. 403. JEschin. adv.
Timarch. 21. and Bremi in loc. Person, ad Eurip. Phsen. p. 36. Reisig.
Conjc.ct. in Aristoph. p. 58. and C. L. Roth, grammaticse qusest. suse e
C. Tacito Norimb. 1829. 4. 1. Some have also taken here the difficult
passage 1 Cor. xv. 29. <5t, f3arttt,6 pivot, vrteg-iuv vexguv, and have under-
stood by ot vsxgol Christ, which would be in itself according to the usage
of the language.

In the passages John vi. 45. Acts xiii. 4. i v t ol $ jtg 0^^ a <,$ and
Mt. xxiv. 26. ISov (6 Xgiotos) tv -t o I j tupeiois, the plural is most proba-
bly to be so interpreted; Iv if. tnpti. stands in contrast with j-v <t^ ^9,
and means, lie is in the chambers (not just in a particular one); l v *. jtg.
is a quotation in general, as: in the Pentateuch (comp. Acts vii. 42), in
the Epistles of Paid, etc., when we either cannot exactly, or do not wish
to mention the section. The Heb. usage, according to Gesen. Lehrgeb.
p. 665., does not materially differ, and no reflecting person will assert
that the plural, in these cases, stands for the singular.

Mt. xxi. 7. sTtsxaBtaav i-rtdvc* uiiituv also, is probably not exact: they
set him upon them (properly only on one of them), as we say, e. g. he
sprang from the horses, although only from one of the horses before the
wagon. The oi>tfu>j' in this passage, may indeed, with Euthym. Zigab.

27. NUMBER AND GENDEK OF NOUNS. 145

and others, be referred to ta /a*ta, yet both ittwu afauv should be
referred to one thing (tqv ovov xvi tm> ttuMv). On Acts xvi. 16., which
does not belong here, see Kiinol.

In 1 Cor. xvi. 3., the plural IrfuwoMw is improperly taken for the sin-
gular. (See Heumann in Zoc.); even if this plural can be thus used of one
letter (seeSchafer adPlut. V. p. 446. Grot, ad I Mace. xii. 19. Comp.
Fabric. Cod. Apocr. N. T. p. 915.), yet here certainly the words Si
Irtwroxiv are to be connected with rfs>4- w , and the sending of several
letters to different persons is not unusual.

The Dual does not occur in the N. T.; the plural is found in its stead
in Rev. xii. 14. xaigbv xai xuigovs (two years) xai vjpiav xatgov (as an
imitation of mj; two years, Dan. vii. 25.); but only in this particular
connection can xaigovs be used for two years, as otherwise in contrast with
it would denote simply years.

3. Some nouns, which express a singular idea, are found uniformly in
the plural, because the (external) object which they denote, consists of
several parts : e. g. ot aluvss, the world, the universe, Heb. i. 2. comp.
D'n^tyj avatoiai xai Svgpai, Mt. viii. 11. (the region or countries of
East and West); ot ovgwoi (the Jews imagined several heavens one
above the other) 2 Cor. xii. 2. See Wetst. in loc. <ta 8&d Mt. xxvi.
64. Acts ii. 25. (the whole right side of the body, not only the right
hand), oi xoMot, Luk. xvi. 23. (Pausan. 6, 1. 2. JElian V. H. 13, 31.)
Comp. also the phrase in John i. 13. s| at [A d if a v sysvwJStytfow (in
reference to both parents, Eurip. Jo. 693. or 705.). Then there are some
names of feasts (generally of several days) used only in the plural, e. g.
ta tyxaiviu, yeveaia, alvpa (Saturnalia, Lupercalia), so also names of cities,
'A^jji/at, nai-aga, *atrtrtot, in which the plural is to be explained his-
torically. About dgyvgca money, see Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 608. tfci ipfaia,
is sometimes used, where only the mantle, overcoat can be meant (not
in Mr. xxiii. 5., with Schleussner) Mt. xxvii. 31. John xiii. 4. 12.
Acts xviii. 6. (Mt. xxiv. 18. comp. Mr. xiii. 16.) for the general expres-
sion clothing, dress, then directly for overcoat in distinct antithesis with
wtkv John xix. 23. Abstract nouns in the plural denote the various ex-
pressions, demonstrations, developements, forms of the quality signified
by the singular, e. g. Jas. ii. 1. rtgoawrtoTw^tat, 1 Pet. ii. 1. vrtoxtfaeis,
scaT'ca.aJiKw, fyOovoi, 2 Cor. i. 3. olxTtigpol. See Jacobs in A.ct. philol.
monac. I. p. 154. Heinichen ad Euseb. H. E. III. p. 18. Bernhardy
p. 62. Kritz. ad Sallust Catil. I. p. 76.

Ta itga yga/tjuowa 2 Tim. iii. 15. and ol y^ofcw, to denote the O. Test.
scarcely need to be noticed. The plural edppwta, for *6 adppatov Mt.
xii. 1. Luk. iv. 16. is perhaps merely an imitation of the Aramaean form
Nnatf. See Rob. Gr. and Eng. Lex. under this head. But it may also
fall in with the analogy of the appellation of feasts.

146 PART THIRD . USE OF THE NOUN.

A Hebraistic pluralis excellentice or majestat., some, as Glassius I. p.
59. Haab. p. 59., would find in the following passages, but incorrectly:
Heb. ix. 23. x^iii'totii voiai$ (of Christ's death as a sacrifice), John ix.

3. Igya^eov (a 'strikingly important work of God), Heb. vii. 6. (a'rtoyysTit'at
(the important promise), 2 Cor. xii. 1. 7. ajtoxa^v^stf (a glorious revela-
tion). In all these passages the plural suits very well, inasmuch as the
writers express them generally, or really point to a historical plurality
(Heb. vii. 6".) On the other hand in Heb. ix. 2. 3. ayia and aytci dyuov
to express the holy, and the most holy of the temple at Jerusalem, might
be reckoned a pluralis excellentiss, if the accentuation dyt'a and ayia dyt'wv
were adopted, with Erasmus and others; (comp. Ssi^aia, Sstfuu'wv Soph.
JElectr, 849.) However, although ^6 aytov and i>6 aytoi/ -guv ayiuv (Ex.
xxvi. 33. Numb. iv. 4.) comp. Joseph. Antiq. 3, 6. 4. occur in the
Pentateuch with the signification above, yet in 1 Kings viii. 6. the most
holy is expressed by td ay to, tuv aytuv. With this may be compared the
Latin penetralia, adyta (Virg. JEn. 2, 296.) See Stuart Heb. Gr. 437. 2.

As to Phil. ii. 6. ^6 slvai laa ^9, where laa is used adverbially, comp.
the usage of the Greek language Iliad. 5. 71. Odyss. 1, 432. 15, 519.
JE\. V. H. 8, 38. Thuc. 3. 14. Philostr. Apoll. 8, 26. Himer. oratt. 20.

4. Soph. Oed. Tyr. 1182. See Reisig ad Oed. Col. 526. Rob. Gr. and
Eng. Lex. at 1005.

4. The neuter both singular and plural is sometimes found, where
2Jersons are signified, but the writer would express his meaning in a
general way: 2 Thess. ii. 6. ^6 xa-tezov oiScws (comp. ver. 7. 6 scatfl^cov),
1 Cor. i. 27. 28. -to, |Uga, tf ao^sv^, T'a flou^i/j^ili/a/ (on the contrary
tfoiif cfo^ovj), Heb. yii.._,7; ^6 ehattov vrtb tov x^L^Tlovo^ evhoysi'fat,, John vi.
37. 1 John V. 4. Com,]). Thuc. 3, 11. tq, x^d-fiata srti tovs vrtoSeECrtsgovs
%vvejt<rjyov, Poppo ad Thuc. I. p. 104. Seidler ad Eurip. Trod. p. 61.
In Heb. vii. 18. ovSev is to be taken as a real neuter. John iii. 6. may also
be understood of a generation of the flesh merely (an animal generation).

5. The neuter seems to be used for the feminine in Mr. xii. 28.

tgwi 1 ^ Ttdvtctv Evtohri (according to the oldest Codd. for
But jtdvtuv, besides its relation to the noun in gender, stands for the ge-
neral omnium (rerum), comp. Lucian. Piscat. p. 583. c. 13. pla, rtdvtuv
yjys 0.^^/75 ^aotjo^t'a (according to the usual reading, rtdvtas), Thuc. 4.
52. tfaj tfE a^aj TtoUtj xat, rtdvt cov fidhtci'ta l^v v Av*av8gov, see d'Orville
ad Chariton. p. 549. Person ad Eurip. Phcen. 121. Fritzsche ad Mar.
I. c. On the other hand we cannot say with d'Orville ad Char, in Acts
ix. 37. hovaavtss avi! Y\V H^ijxav that hovaavtss stands for hovaaacM, because
women were accustomed to wash the dead. The writer heie speaks al-
together generally and impersonally: man wusch und legte (Ger.). (The
Ger. man here conveys an impersonal sense which cannot be exactly ex-
pressed in English. We can only say, She was washed, etc. or the wash-

27. NUMBER AND GENDER OF NOUNS. 147

ing and laying out were done. Trs.) Had Luke with rigid exactness
considered this custom, he would have expressed himself more circum-
stantially. Comp. Luke xxii. 58. (Mt. xxvi. 71.) and Xen. Mem. 2, 7.

2. .tivvE'faj'h/vSaow dSsX^on/ -it xai aSshfyiSab xai a/vE^tal roaavtao, &GT!

tlvui iv ty oixiq, teaaagaxaiSi-xa Z'QIJJ %'vgov$ fourteen among the
free (free men), where the masc. is used, although under the free (as
it seems) we must include women.

The masculine is not used for the fern, in the Septuag. Gen. xxiii. 3.

Aj3gaa/A aitb -t ov v s x ov av ^ ov 4. 0<x4/co -t 6 v v x g 6 v

, although the reference is to Sarah, or in Hist. Susan. 62. Ertoivjaav
ov 'f^ort.ov 7tovri^voavTfo ^9 rt^cfi/'ov, although Susanna is meant.
In the first case we also say, he buried his dead (similar Soph. Antig.

830. q>9L[Av(}> (vulg. q>Gt,/j.va") t'otj iao9sol$ eyxhtjgu ha%eiv ^sya), and the

corpse is always in Greek 6 vsxgos, never feminine. See Hermann ad
Soph. Antig. p. 114. 170.

NOTE 1. In Rom. xi. 4. a quotation from the 0. T. 1 Kings xix. 18.
stands the fern, y Baax (Zeph. i. 4. Hos. ii. 8.), not perhaps with con-
tempt indicating feminine qualities, as the feminine forms of idols in
Arabic and Rabbinical writings are used (?), see Gesen. in Rosenmuller's
Repertor. I. p. 139. and Tholuck in lot:.; but Paul, as he quoted from
memory, might easily write ^ Ba'ca, which he had sometimes read in the
Septuag. (yet the Codd. vary), in this place, although the Septuag. itself
has tfcp BattTt. Rlickert on this passage, as elsewhere, is wanting in valu-
able remarks. After all it is of no moment, whether Baal was called
male or female.

NOTE 2. When a noun of any gender is considered in a material sense
merely as a word, it is well known that it takes the neuter article, Gal.
iv. 25. *6 v Aya the (word) Hagar. On the other hand the fern, may
seem to be used for the neut. in Rev. ix. 12. xi. 14. ^ ewot ; but here pro-
bably some word like etifys or tfcaawtwgta was before the writer's mind.

28. Use of Cases in general.

I. The meaning of Gr. cases (Herm. de emend, rat. I. 137. sq. Bern-
hardy p. 74. J. A. Hartung iib. die cas. etc. Erl'angen. 1831. 8vo.) was
generally easy to be understood by foreigners; and the Jews themselves,
if not by terminations, yet clearly enough expressed the usual relations
of case; especially did the genitive relation in the Aramaean approach
more nearly to that of the Occidental language. It was more difficult
to apprehend as the Greeks did, the oblique cases in all their extended

148 PART THIRD. USE OF THE NOUN.

and manifold applications; such a use also was not conformable to the
plain and expressive mode of speech which prevailed among the Orien-
talists. Hence, where the Greeks employed a case only, we often find
in the N. T. a preposition, after the manner of the Eastern languages,
6. g. SiSovui lx, sa&sw drto for fitSovat, ea$tsw tfwoj, COmp. 30.
Aaj3t EIJ j3affM.!a, Acts xiii. 22. <rii$ lyxahstiec xa.'ta txtex-twv $sov for
Rom. viii. 33.) As the Byzant. would say: ayavaxtstv

This use of the preposition is a peculiarity of the ancient simplicity,
and therefore occurs not only in the older poets, as Homer, but also in
prose writers, as Lucian; see Jacob qusest. Lucian. p. 11.

2. Properly speaking there is no enallage casmim, no putting of one
case for another; but perhaps sometimes in the same connection two dif-
ferent cases may be used with equal propriety, if the relation can be ap-
prehended in a twofold manner, e. g. jtgoaxwtiv twt, to manifest reverence
to one, and jte,o<sx. two, to revere one, xa&Z>s jtoi^v -two, and <twi (Philo
Act. Thorn. 38.), IVo^oj tun, and twos (Fritzsche ad Mt. p. 223.),* Ttto?-
wos (of something) and -gwt (with, by means of something); also
t ft and */of (as recordari rei and rent), in the former case, with
ace., I consider the remembering as including only this object; with the
gen., the remembering of a thing (remembering something) is the me-
mory of a totality, in which the several parts are embraced. It cannot
therefore be said that the dat. or-acc. is used for the genit., or vice versa,
but logically both cases are equally proper, and it is necessary only to
observe which construction has become the more common one, or whe-
ther one of them is preferred in the later language, as

3. Each case, as such, stands in a necessary connection with the sen-
tence to which it belongs; yet there are also found cases absolute, i. e.
such as are not interwoven in the grammatical structure of the sentence,
but only belong to it logically: the nominative is most frequently so used,

as Acts vii. 40. 6 MwoUctoJj ovtfoj --- ovx olSafisii, 'tl ytyovsv ovi'w (Xen.

(Econ. 1, 14.), Rev. iii. 12. 6 vt,xZv, Ttowjtfw awtov o^v^ov, etc. The
nominative here, is sometimes intentionally placed first as the principal
object, on which the following sentence depends (as the nom. otherwise in
Luke xiii. 4.),f therefore of a rhetorical nature, at other times is to be ex-

* The distinction made between these two constructions by Schafer ad Demosth.
V. p. 323. is not proved out of the N. T. Comp. Matth. II. 850.

t An idea expressed in an oblique case, becomes obscured by this dependent sense,
whilst the nominative as the case of the subject, attracts special attention.

28. USE OP CASES IN GENEBAt. 149

plained as the result of negligence, and consequently as anacolutkon,
since the writer had either not yet completed the following structure in
his own mind, or led away from the nom. by the intervention of several
words, changed it (comp. Mt. x. 32. xii. 36. Mr. ix. 20.)* Acts xx. 3. John
vii. 38. 1 John ii. 27. So often in the Greek writers (Xen. (Econ. 12, 8.
Anal. 7, 6. 37. Cyrop. 4, 5. 37. 5, 4. 34. Mem. 2, 6. 36. 3, 1. 2. Thuc.
4, 73. Dio. Chrys. 9. 124. Philostr. Apoll. 7. 16.) Matth. II. 776. See
especially Hemsterh. and Lehmann ad Lucian. III. p. 428. Heindorf ad
Plat. Theset. p. 389. ad Plat. Cratyl. p. 68. Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 145.
Schafer ad Eurip. Orest. p. 127. Boissonade ad Nic. p. 97. Sibelis ad
Pausan. 1. p. 85. Bernhardy p. 68. On the other hand the so called
ace. absolute, and much more the gen. and dat. can be reduced to the
primary design of these cases (Herm. ad Viger. p. 847), and therefore,
in consequence of a similar anacoluthon, are but seldom to be considered
as really absolute (comp. e. g. Schafer ad Demosth. V. p, 314. Index ad
Menander. p. 656.) comp. 32, 7. See E. Wentzel de genitivis and
dat. absol. Vratisl. 1828. 8vo.

Designations of time sometimes added to a sentence, but not of the
same construction, are to be taken for nom. absolute, Luke ix. 28. tys-
vatfo [iBta, tow a,oyoDj itovi!ov$, uaEt^jiiEgae. ojctfw, Lucian dial, meretr.
1, 4. oil yag Iwgcwcctr, rto^-uj yjSq zgvs o-vtov. See below 64, 1. About
a hypallage in adjectives, see p. 65.

29. Use of the Nominative and Vocative.

1. The nominative with the article used as a vocative, is equally fre-
quent among the Greeks and Hebrews. (Fischer ad Wdlerlll. 1. 319.
Markland ad Eurip. Iphig. Aul. 446. Boissonnade ad Nicet. p. 240.).
In the N.T. we find several examples of such a nomin., n:>t only in im-
perative addresses, which was probably its original use, (Heindorf ad

Plat. Pro/, p. 460. Bernhardy 67.), Mr. ix.25. #6 ttvsvfta fb foajuw

Eya 001 Irtn-a'otftt, Luk. viii. 54. ^ rtats, lyeigou, Mr. v. 41. Ephes. vi. 1.,
but also in acclamations Mt. xxvii. 29. Mr. x. 47. John viii. 10. Luk.
xii. 32., even in prayers Mt. xi. 26. Luk. xviii. 11. In respect to John
xx. 28., interpreters are not agreed, whether to take the nom. for voc.

* What Frit7.sche quotes from the Antholog. Pal. 11. 488. xiyi f al-rlv l^v rt
(j.w $&tra.t, entirely accords with this.
19

150 PART TIIIUD. USE OP THE NOUN.

as an address or only an exclamation. .Each one's dogmatical views
affect his judgment. The vocative however is used more frequently,
partly in proper addresses Mt. xv. 28. Mr. xv. 18. Acts xi. 7. xxi. 20.
xxiii. 11. xxv. 26. Rom. ii. 1., partly in questions Jas. ii. 20. Rom. ix.
20., partly in exclamations Mt. xvii. 17. Luk. xxiv. 25. Rom. xi. 33.,
sometimes with, sometimes without w.

In Luk. xii. 20. aifyguv (for a$%ov} is to be used according to the best
Codd. as an exclamation: Fool, in the same night, etc.

2. The nominative (nomin. tituli} is employed to express particular
appellations not only in such cases as Rev. vi. 8. ovopa a-ui'9 6 dv at o $,
viii. 11. (comp. Demosth. adv. Macart. p. 669. B.), but also where the
construction seems to require another case, John xiii. 13.
StSacfKa^oj, and perhaps also Luk. xix. 29. st? to ogos tb
'ETidKaj; (Fritzsche ad Mr- p. 795.) comp. Malala Chronogr. 18. p. 482.
Nieb. lv fS> foyopsvcp 'Avyovatsav, 10. p. 247.* On the other hand
Acts i. 12. djto o^otj? tov xahovpwov l^atw^oj. Comp. I Sam. ix. 9.
tbv ri^offr^^v Ixd^Et, 6 h a 6 $ Iprtgoe&v o/STtlrfwvf, and Lob. ad Pliryn.
p. 517. Matth. II. 772.

When any one's name is introduced by means of oj/o^atfc, it never de-
pends on ovo^., but takes the case of the preceding noun; in the nomina-
tive e. g. Luk. i. 5. Acts viii. 9. x. 1. xiii. 6., in the dative Acts xxvii. 1.
txatovtdgz'Yj ov6/.Mt(, 'idvhtcp (xxviii. 7.), in the accusative Acts ix. 12.
avdga dvopa-tt, 'Avaviav, xviii. 2. About a similar usage of the language
see Jacobs adJEil'mn. Anim. II. p. 296.

NOTE 1. The ace. with sis in the formula slvai, or yivtaOat '$ ?&, has
been incorrectly represented as a Hebrew circumlocution for the nomin.
(Leusden diall. p. 132.) Most of the examples adduced are either
quotations from the O. T., or established formulas derived from it (Mt.
xix. 5. 1 Cor. vi. 16. Ephes. v. 31. Heb. viii. 10.); moreover it was
overlooked that ywtaOat d '$ it abire (mutari) in aliquid, Acts v. 36. John
xvi. 20. Rev. viii. 11. could be said in Greek, as in Germ. (Georgi Vind.
337. Schwarz Comment. 285.), and that, in the Hebrew slvat, slftt,, h did

* In all editions l\aiS>v stands as above. I cannot, with Fritzsohe, consider this
accentu. as decidedly wrong-. Luke, intending- his gospel for foreigners, might per-
hnps, tlic first time lie mentioned it, call the Mount of Olives sufficiently known in
Palestine, the so called Mount of Olives, but the expression TJ^O? TO S{. TO Xsy. IXaiSv
would be resolved into TO Xey. ogo? ex. which is called Mount of Olives, and the
article before Ix. could be very well dispensed with. Perhaps the Syr. has read eXaiSv,
it translates as above.

f So even T/JV livflf&jTTOTojtoj <*>&)vw Thcodorct. IV. 1304., T>JV 9 s a <; irt>o:rnyo%iciv III.
241. IV. 454., in which cases the Romans always use the genit. (which the moderns
have overlooked).

29. USE OF THE NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVJ-!. 151

not properly express the norn., but corresponded with the Germ, zu et-
was (dieneri) for something (Heb. viii. 10. 1 Cor. xiv. 22.). In 1 Cor.
iv. 3. Efioi eislhdxtirtovla'tuv means, it belongs to me to the least, the most
unimportant degree (I consider it of no moment): Acts xix. 27. sis ovSsv
Koyii&jjvat, is similar: it is to be reckoned for nothing (Sap. ix. 6.). In
Luk. ii. 34. XM^M si$ rttuaw, the preposition denotes the destination, the
end, and is not contrary to the analogy of the Greek ( 32, 4.) comp.
jEsop. 24, 2. s I j /tEtfoya aot, <Lq>&iav a o p a t and the Lat. auxilio esse
(Zumpt. Gr. p. 549.). See Rob. Gr. and Eng. Lex. at the word E^.

NOTE 2. A nominative of exclamation occurs (bat on Luk. xii. 20.

see above) Phil. iii. 18. 19. rtohhoi yag rtngijta-tovaw, oi>$ 7toM.dxij s'jisyov

tfo-uj t^goiif -tov a-tavgov tfcw X, a>v "to tftTioj aTtcaXsta, oo t'a E it i y i t, a

tygovovvts j, Mr. xii. 3840. (Sherte-te arto tuv yga/j./J.a'tfijv, t<Zv

xal atfjtatf/iO'us peat, rt^toT'oa:a-f ta$ oo jca-r'ecf^io
a J otsciaj T'COV ^^gwv ,0'D'i'ot %f24' ol 'i' a( ' rfsgtcfcJo
t it a .

30. Use of the Genitive.

1. The genitive as a case dependent, (logically viewed),* is most
naturally connected with a noun as its governing word; but, as the idea
of dependence is a very extensive one, is also found in the N. T. in a
manifold sense. (Comp. Schafer ad Eurip. Orest. 48.). Besides the
usual cases, we note: (a) the genitive of the object after nouns which
signify a spiritual or corporeal activity (thought, feeling, word, deed) :
e. g. Mt. xiii. 18. rtaga/Sofoj -toy tftft,goi>T'oj, parable of the sower, Luk. vi.
7. xa-tyyogtu av-fov, accusation against him, Acts iv. 9. nvsgysaiduvOgcartov
(Thuc. i. 129.), John vii. 13. xx. 19. $6p os 'louSaiwv of the Jews (Eurip.
Andr. 1060.), 1 Cor. i. 18. jityoj tov gtavgov, John xvii.2. &waia. adays
cagxoj over, Rom. x. 2. ^05 eov zeal for God. (Comp. John. ii. 17.
Septuag.) Rom. xiii. 3. Mt. x. 1. xiv. 1. Luk. vi. 12. Hebr. ii. 15. vii. 1.
(Numb. xxvi. 9. Job. xxi. 4. Obad. 12. Sir. iii. 14. Sap. viii. 3. 1 Mace,
xiii. 14.), Markland ad Eurip. Suppl. v. 838. d'Orville ad Char. p. 498.
Schafer ad Soph. II. p. 300. Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 72. Stallbaum ad
Plat. Apol. p. 29. Rep. II. p. 201. Pflugk ad Eurip. Jlndrom. p. 13.
Therefore sometimes oyo'rfq tot $ ov, tov Xg^ov, love to God, to Christ
(I John ii. 5. 15. John v. 42., but probably not Rom. viii. 35. v. 5. 2
Cor. v. 14.), and always ? 6,6o f &ov or xv ^m, (Acts ix. 81. 2 Cor. v. 11.
vn. 1. Ephes. v.21.), ^'^^ ^ $eov or Xg ttf *o (Mr. xi. 22. Rom. iii. 22

* Hcrm. ad Vig. p. 875. Gcmlivi proprium est id irulicare, cvjus quid aliquo quo-
cunque modo accidens est. Comp, de emend, rat. p. 139.

152 PART THIRD. USE OP THE NOUN.

Gal. ii. 16. Hi. 22. Ephes. iii. 12. Phil, iii.9. Jas. ii. 1. Rev.xiv.12. Phil. i.
27. 'TVaxojJ tov Xg. 2 Cor. x. 5. also belongs here and li^vt] tov Phil.
iv. 7. according to the parallel passage Rom. v. i. must be understood of
the peace with God; otherwise l^vtj Xg. Col. iii. 15., if this is the cor-
rect reading, see Bilhr. on this verse. About a similar use of the person
pron. see above, 22. note 3.

Whether in the formula fixxyyljuov tfov X^^fov, the genitive is subjec-
tive, the gospel preached BY Christ, or objective, the gospel CONCERNING
Christ, is perhaps uncertain; I prefer the latter, because in some pas-
sages we have the full phrase tvayy&iov T?OV Qsov &egi tov vLov wOtov, e. g.
Rom. i. 3., of which the former may be an abridgement; comp. also <uoyy-
juoj/ T^J jSatrtjiEtaj fov 9sov Mt. iv. 23. ix. 35. In respect to Col. ii. 18. inter-
preters are not agreed, whether in egyaxsla ivyy&uv the genit. is to be
considered objective or subjective. The former is to be preferred: wor-
ship of angels, angel-service, comp. Clem. Strom. 6. p. 669. Ogyaxeiu
tuv uatguv. Heydenreich makes unnecessary difficulty on 2 Tim. i. 12.;
in 1 Tim. iv. 1. Sat.uoiawi; is certainly the objective gen., as in Heb. vi. 2.
/3atKtyiwi> Sisals, if the latter be taken for the governing noun; see be-
low, note 2. In James ii. 4. xgvtai Stahoyiapuv tiovqguv we have the
genitive of the quality, Judges -of a bad character.

2. The genitive is also used, (&) of relations of dependence still more
remote (comp. Jacob, ad Lucian Alex. p. 108. Bernhardy 160.) We
notice (1) the genitive which indicates relations only external, as of place
or time: e. g. Mt. x. 5. 686? s^vuv the way to the heathen, comp. John xx.
7. Heb. ix. 8. Mt. i. 11. 12. pstotxscita, BapvhZ>vo$ the cai'rying away to
Babylon (Gen. iii. 24. % 656$ tov ti^ou -tfy ^wijj, Orph. 197. (200.) 1&1
ahoov A^si-voio ad expeditionem in Axinum 141. (144.) v6ato$ olxoto domum
r edit us comp. Schafer Melet. p. 90. Seidler ad Eurip. Electr. 161.
Spohn ad Isocr. Paneg. p. 2. Buttmann ad Soph. Philoct. p. 67.); John
vii. 35. <fj Siaartogd tuv Exx^wv the dispersion (the dispersed, scattered)
among the Greeks; Mr. viii. 27. els -ta$ xupas Kaiaagetat tfj$ 3?&trtrtQv in
the villages round Cassarea Philippi, which lay on her territory (Jes. xvii.
2.), Col. i. 20. afyia i-oij atavgov blood of the cross i. e. blood shed on the
cross, 1 Pet. i. 2. fiavtutpos alpafos, purification by blood, 2 Cor. xi. 26.
xivSwot, Ttot'a/tw'i' dangers on rivers (soon after xivSwot, Iv tfoXft, EV ^a^aacf^
etc.) comp. Heliod. 2, 4. 65. xtvSwoi, Sahuea uv (See Stuart Heb. Gram.
424.). Designations of time : Rom. ii, 5. yjpiga, o^yjjj day of divine
wrath (on which the wrath of God will show itself by punishment), Jud.
ver. 6. Kgttfij jttsya^s v}^^ the judgment at the great day, Ileb. vi. 1.
o tys O%TI$ -toil 'Xgiatov Tidyoj, the Christian instruction given to you in the
beginning. An external (of place) relation is also implied in xe^d/j-iov
Mr. xiv. 13., comp. Jer. xlviii. 52. xigdpiov olvov, Soph. Electr.

30. USE OP THE GENITIVE. 153

758. %u%x6$ otfoSov (see Schafer ad Longi. Pastor, p. 386.), Dion. Hal.
IV. 2028, 4. daqdMov, xai titoays dyysta, Theophr. Char. 17. Diog. L.
6, 1. 4. 7, 1. 3. Athen. I. p. 177. 1 Sam. x. 3.

On the other hand Acts xxii. 3. Tagrfo? ^j Kat.*iaj ancf also xiii. 13.
xxvii. 5. Luk. iv. 26., are to be reduced to the simple genitive relation:
Tarsus of Cilicia, belonging to the province of Cilicia. Such a geo-
graphical designation has been established among the Greeks, Diod. iSic.
1, 4. 17, 64. "Xen. Hell. 1,2. 12. Diog. L. 8,1. 3. See Ellendt. ad
Arrian. Alex. I. .151. Ramshorn Lat. Grammat. I. 169.

(&) Internal relations yet more remote are expressed by the genitive,
especially in the writings of John and Paul, as John v. 29. dvdtfi'arfts tu^j
the resurrection of life, i. e. the resurrection to life (comp. genit. of de-
sign, Theodoret. IV. 1140, Isguavvris ^stgoiWa to priesthood], Mr. i. 4.
jSajtf njjtia pEtuvotas baptism of repentance, i. e. which obligates to re-
pentance, Rom. vii. 2. j/o'pjj tov dv%6$ laio of the husband, i. e. which
determines the relation to. the husband, (comp. Demosth. Mid. 10. o 4 fa
jSxa'jS^f v6po$ the law of damage), Rom. vii. 24. o^pa, Oavdtov body of death,
i. e. body which, if we be subjected to its power, (the cm^f), leads to
death, vi. 6. gw^a ivijj apagtius body of sin, i. e. body in which sin exists
(to which it cleaves), very like <jw;u<? tfijs aagxos Col. i. 22. body in which
depravity has its dwelling-place. See Rom. viii. 36. Ephes. iv. 18.

In Luke xii. 9. *o aqpstov 'Iww is nothing else than the sign which
once was displayed in Jonas, now to be repeated in the person of Christ.
Jude ver. 11. also is to be so interpreted; but in John xix. 14. rtagaaxsvri tov
rtda%a means, not the day of preparation for the Passover, but simply
the rest-day of the passover, which belongs to the passover. In Eph.
iii. 1. 2 Tim. i. 8. Philem. i. 9. Seapios Xgiatov a prisoner of Christ,
i. e. whom Christ (the cause of Chr.) has brought into bondage and re-
tained there,* and Jas. ii. 5. ol 7tta%oi, -tov xoapov, the poor of the world,
i. e. who, in -relation to the world, are poor, poor in earthly goods: but
we are not therefore to suppose xoa^o; itself to mean earthly goods.
John vi. 45. SiSax'toi lov sov, instructed of God, i. e. about God as Mt.
xxv. 34. ol svhoyyifisvoi, t!ov rfatgoj, the blessed of the Father, i. e. by the
Father; Mt. xi. 11. Luke vii. 28. present no difficulty. Acts xxii. 3.
depends on x. axgipsiuv. In Heb. iii. 3. some take the genit.

OiXOV

* As Philem. 13. fos-pol TW wayy. bonds, which the Gospel has brought. Others,
for Christ's sake. The genit. is so translated frequently, but without reason. Heb.
xiii. 13. TOV o'vEtJieyxov Xgic-ToD <f> ? ovTE ? : the reproach which Christ once bore, (also) is
bearing. So also 2 Cor. i. 5. m^urnvu -ra vuMfM. rov x e . E J ? faZs, the sufferings,
which Christ had to endure, viz. from the enemies of divine truth, come rencwedly
and abundantly on us; unless here and in Col. i. 24. the sufferings, the deep distresses
of Christ, are those which he endured in the church, his body. Comp. Btthr. on Col.
i. 24. Schulthess Neaesle Thcol. Annal. 1829. I. 470. See Liiclce Prow, in loc.
(Gfltting. 1833. 4to.) p. 12. Comp. 2 Thcss. iii. 5.

154 PART THIRD. USE OF THE NOUN.

as belonging to -tifirjv, to greater honor of the house, (i. e. in, with the
house), not to be entirely rejected, but in this author improbable, and not re-
quired by the context. VVahl I. 571, apprehends the genit. in 1 Pet. iii. 21.
awEiSyattos ayuGrjs fTtEgwi^a si j Otov in a peculiar way, thus, a promise
with a good conscience in relation to God. Even although we should not ob-
ject to this interpretation of the genitive, yet awstd- dyafl. sis 6ov,.is not
a cheerful persuasion (of forgiveness of sin), Ijtsguit* is arbitrarily trans-
lated promise, and 8S avaat. is not connected with awsid. ya0., but with
CWE(.. The common interpretation, of Pott and others, seems to me
faultless. 'ErtF^QT'ttK can signify stipulari, but Irtsgataadat, is necessarily
promittere, as also the Glossaries teach. The answer to the question
proposed at the baptism would be here the principal subject; iTtEgoi^ua
would be altogether without meaning (the proposed question was not that
which brings felicity), or must be taken passively and derived from trie-
gwdcsOai,, promiftere. More simply, and in accordance with biblical
usage, we must translate: the inquiry of a good conscience (one resolved
to be good) after God, i. e. the turning towards God, seeking him: as to
srtf-g. i,'j *. inquiring after something, comp. 2 Sam. xi. 7. The latest in-,
terpreter, Steiger, has contributed nothing important to the elucidation
of this passage. There is a difficulty about the genitives, Heb. vi. 3.
j3arti't,rf i utui> SiSa^j, which are usually taken for Si$. rtsgt Part*, even
by Kiinol, here a very harsh trajection; to separate StS. from jSarti'. as
Schulz has done, is to put asunder the two things ^ari-t. and trtiBsa. xs^.
which in practice are intimately connected: we should rather adopt this
arrangement, 5oS., part*., litiQ. etc. The 81,8. jSart-r 1 . the doctrine of bap-
tisms, in distinction from the legal and traditional lustrations of the Jews,
is perhaps the Christian baptisms, which were the end of the Christian
instruction. About the genit. apposit. see 48.

3. The genitive of kindred is usually considered a genitive with ellip-
sis, as Mttg(,'a 'laxw/Sou, 'louSaj 'laxwj3ou; but as the genitive is the case of
dependence, and indeed every relation of kindred is a kind of dependence,
nothing essential to the sense is wanting (Herm. de ellips. p. 120.); only,
what the genitive expresses altogether in a general way, is left to the
reader to define more minutely according to the relations of the history.
Most frequently the genitive requires son or daughter to be supplied, as
Mt. iv. 21. John vi. 71. xxi. 2. 15. Acts xiii. 22,; yet w-tyg in Luke
xxiv. 10. Mr. xvi. 1. xv. 47. comp. Mt. xxvii. 56. Mr. xv. 40. (,-Elian.
V. H. 13. 30. ^ 'A?iE|ai/oi) x. ^r l 'tr l ^], Ttatfijg Acts vii. 16. E^iog toy
(comp. Gen. xxxiii. 19.; similar Steph. Byzant. Acu'Scaa: ^ rfdjuj
AatSa^ot; T'OIJ Ixdgov), yw/j, Mt. i. 6. IK tv\$ T?OV 'Qvguov (Eurip. Or.
1719.), aSsA^oj probably Luke vi. 16. Acts i. 13. on account of Jud. 1.,
where the same apostle seems to be mentioned. (Comp. Alciphr. epp.
2, 2. Ti/toxga^j o M'/^oScogou *. dStXcfdj)*. See Bos ellips. ed. Schii-
fer on these words. Boissonade ad Philostr. Her. p. 307.

* The objections of Jcssicn to this supposition (de autlient. cp. Jud. p. 21.), which
De Welte (Einleit ins N. T. 353.) repeats, are specious, but arc founded on a uiisap-

30. USB OF THE GENITIVE. 155

Oi X^oj?s 1 Cor. i. 11. are accordingly the friends of Cliloe, as Rom.
xvi. 10. oi 'AgKWoj3oua,ot>. History must furnish a more certain illustra-
tion. Perhaps we ought, with most interpreters, to understand the in-
mates of 'the families of these persons. Others make it the slaves.
Yet see Valckenajr on the passage.

NOTE 1. It is not unusual, especially in the writings of Paul, to find
three genitives connected, one of which grammatically governs the other.
In such cases, however, one stands usually for an adjective, 2 Cor. iv. 4.

>tbv tyujiapov -tov stiayysfaov ifyjs Sofys 'tov X^tffi'oi), Ephes. i. 6. sis srtawov

xxi. 6. Heb. v. 12. 2 Pet. iii. 3. Fphes. i. 19. iv. 13. (Comp. Kriiger
ad-Xen. Anab. 2, 5. 38. Bornemann ad Xenoph. Apol. p. 44.). In
Rev. xiv. 10. xix. 15. ow>j tov vpov must be connected: wine ofivrath,
wine of inflammation according to an O, T. conception. Four genitives
see Rev. xiv. 8. ix tov olvov <tov $vpov tfijj itogvsias 0-111%, xvi. 19. xviii.
12. xix. 15. (Judith ix. 8. x. 3. xiii. IS.).

NOTE 2. The genitive is sometimes separated by another word from
its governing noun, especially in the epistles of Paul:-e. g. Phil. ii. 10.
i!va rtav yovv xd/^^ IrtovgavLuv xai Irttyt-lt&v xai scatfa^ocuov (the genitives
expletive of jtiiv yovv being separated from it), 1 Tim. iii. 6. i'va py sis
xgipa efArtsay ttov 8taj3d?iou (probably for the sake of emphasis), Heb. viii. 5.
Otherwise in Rev. vii. 17. where, however, the reading is not estab-
lished. In 1 Thess. ii. 13. Ephes. ii. 3. another construction was hardly
possible. See Jacob ad Lucian Tox. p. 46. Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex.
I. p. 241.

NOTE 3. Two genitives of different relations (the one of a person and
the other of a thing) are seldom connected with one noun, e. g. Acts v.
32. trusts ta/Asv ati-tov (XgKjtfoii) /j,ugT!vgs tui> fand-tcw tovtav (where, how-
ever some good Cocld. have omitted avtov), Phil. ii. 30. ^6 vpuv vatsgyfia,
ifr/s ^sti'oaj^ytaj, 2 1 et. ill. 2. 1^5 >tuv artoaTtohuv ^/.lur svtohijs ifov xvguov,

Heb. vi. 1. xiii. 7. Rev. iii. 10. comp. Thuc. 3, 12. ^ v sxswuv ^eM.^tnv

tuv tig JHJMS $<<v<l>v, VI. 18. jj Nixiov I'uJv ^.dycoj' urtgwy/.ioavvtj, Plat. Legg. 3.

p. 690. 1>. -t^v iov vo/j,ov sxovttev dg%V]v, rep. 1. p. 329. A. -z'aj >fuv oixsiuv
axi/'rfEtj I'D!) ytjgtoj, Herod. 6, 2. if^v 'leaviov t^v yytfioviiiv i!ov Ttgoj Aa-
rto%sf.if)v, Diog, L. 3, 25. and very strained Plat. Apol. 32. pftoi-
tqs tyvxys tvv tortov tov sv&vSs. See Ast ad Plat. Polit. p. 329.

ad Legg. p. 84. Herm. ad Soph. Ajac. 54. 611. Schafer ad Soph. I. p.

228. Buttmann ad Demosth. Mid. p. 17. and ad Philoctat. v. 751.

Fritzsche Qusest. Lucian. p. 111. Bernhardy 162. Matth. II. 864.
^In a different way two genitives are connected in John vi. 1. ^ od-^actaa

i-ijs raTnTiai'aj, i-iyj Tt/3 gtaSoj, the sea of Gattilee, of Tiberias. The lat-

ter name occurs alone in John xxi. i. Perhaps 'John added the more

prehension of the nature of the genitive. Even ^.aQntiit is sometimes to be supplied
before a genitive. Sec Bos Mips, on this word.

156 PART THIRD. USE OF THE NOUN.

definite to the more general name for the benefit of foreigners (comp.
Pausan. 5, 7. 3.). Beza on the passage diners. Kiinol's conjecture,
that the words -g. Ti|3. are a gloss, is hcxsty. But the interpretation of
Paulus: von Tiberias aus, near by Tiberias, if not opposed to the G reek
(see 30. 8.), is at least to the N. T. prose, which in such cases prefers
the more perspicuous mode of expression by means of the preposition, to
the case alone. Ttj3. cannot depend on the axo in

NOTE 4. Where the genitive stands before the governing noun, it be-
longs (a) either to two nominatives at the same time, Acts iii. 7. av-tov
at J3a<ji$ xai tfa a^uga, or (6) a certain emphasis is implied in it (Stall-
bauna ad Plat. Protag. p. 118.) e. g, 1 Cor. iii. 9. ^zov ya iaptv aw-

egyoi/', ^EOIJ yfcsgytov, ^tsov ouxoSoftrj fifftfE (xiii. 14.), Acts xiii. 23. tfoitfOD
(Aaj3i)8) 6 ^-soj arto tfov tf7t^ J uar'oj -- J'ya.ye jwai'i^a 'iqtsovv, Jas. i. 26. iZ
tftj -- T'OVT'OU ndtata, % ^tjoxsia, Heb. x. 36. Ephes. ii. 8. which has
frequently its foundation in a positive antithesis, Phil. ii. 25. tov avoTf^a-
tfKO't'qv jttou, v ft. w v Si- artoti'tohov xal yettfoi'^yoj' tfijff X s ^ a S <"-oi>, Heb. Vll. 12.
1 Pet. iii. 21. Mt. i. 18. Ephes. ii. 10. vi- 9. Gal. iii. 15. iv. 28. 1 Cor.
vi. 15. ix. 11. Rom. iii. 29. xiii. 4. Mostly, however, the genitive con-
tains the principal idea, Rom. xi. 13. s^-viw attoatohos, Apostle of the Gen-
tiles, 1 Tim. vi. 17. (rti rthovtov narfoo'tyi'ti, about riches, which are perish-
able, Heb. vi. 16. 2 Pet. ii. 14. Tit. i. 7. It is not probable that the
precedence of the genitive is attributable to philological peculiarities of
a particular author (Gersdorf 296.), which, however, is not in itself im-
possible, as some deprive even emphatic expressions of much of their
emphasis.

NOTE 5. According to Kiinb'l, Wahl, and others, jtegl with ace. in
Mr. iv. 19. ^ jtsgi tfa iwtttu srtidvpiu, is a circumlocution of the genitive.
But although Mark could have written ^ t^v toiftuv IjtiQ., yet the former
mode is not only more distinct, but leaves to rtagi its proper signification,
cupiditates quse circa reliqua (rel. res) versantur (Heliad. JEth. 1, 23. 45.
ETttJhyu'o. rtsgl tyv Xa^tx^Ettw;, Aristot. Rhet. 2, 12. at rtegl to ffw^tta trtt-
Svplat,), just as in John xv. 22. It is somewhat different when in Greek
writers Ttegl with ace. is used for a circumlocution of the genitive of the
object, to which some quality or property is attributed, e. g. Diod. Sic.
11, 89. 37 rtegt, tfo tggov dgx.cuo't'ns, ibid. #6 rtsgl T'oij xgUTfrjgiis tSuojiia. (comp.
Schafer ad Julian p. VI. and ad Dion. comp. p. 23.) Sext. Emp. 2, 2.
tfo rtegi ttv^^v xaTiTtoj is of a different nature. The passage quoted by
Wahl JElian. 2, 10. does accordingly not belong here, Xen. Cyrop. 5,
3. 21. no fts^i cum ace. is found. Interpreters find a similar circumlo-
cution of the gen. by EX in 2 Cor. via. 7. tfi i| fytwv ayarfj?; but it means,
amor qui a vobis pronciscitur, and more exact than ify vpuv aya?t^, which
could have also the meaning of in vas. So Time. 2, 92. ^ urtb <tuv
' Aa^r^vaii^v f3oij^ta, Dion. Hal. IV. p. 2235, 13. 7io"kov ex <t(av rtagowtav
xwycias ?ysov, Plat. rep. 2. p. 363. A. ^aj 7t o/ui'jjis EvSoxi^csstft Arrian.
Indie. 29, 5. Plutarch. Cic. p. 783. Polyaen. 5, 11. Diod. Sic. 5, 39. 1,
8. Exc. Vat. p. 117. Lucian. consecr. hist. 40. Arrian. Alex. 1, 17. 12.
Comp. Jacobs ad Athen. p. 321. and ad Anthol. Pal. I. 1. p. 159. Scha-
fer ad Soph. Ajac. p. 228. Ellcndt ad Arrian Mex. I. p. 329. With

30. USE OF THE GENITIVE. 157

this can be compared Acts xxiii. 21. iffy urtb aov wayyefaav. Also Rom.
xi. 27. ^ rfag' pv 8iayxq demands the same interpretation. See Fritz-
sche ad Mr. p. 182. In none of these places is there .an unmeaning
circumlocution. The circumlocution of the genit. by means of lv (see
Koppe ad Eplies. p. 60.), as instances of which Eph. ii. 21. Tit. iii. 5.
1 Cor. ii. 7. 2 Pet. ii. 7. are quoted, will not be so accounted by an at-
tentive reader. In the passages commonly adduced, xata with its case
is not to be considered exactly a circumlocution for the genitive. In
Rom. ix. 11. ^ KaT 1 ' Ixhoyriv rfgotfmj means, the purpose which takes place
in consequence of election; in xi. 21. O i xatu q>vat,v xhdSot, are the branches
according to nature, i. e. natural branches. Yet see above 22, 2.
More suitable instances are found in the Greek writers, e. g. Diocl. Sic.
1, 65. % xatu t^v a^xn v a-rto^Ecrtj, the putting down of the government
(properly in respect to the government), 17, 60. 4, 13. Exc. Vat. p. 103.
Matth. II, 866. About i3ayy. xa-tu Mcw^. etc. see Fritzsche (comp. in-
stances in the nova biblioth. Lubec. II. p. 105.). In 1 Pet. i. 11. T a
sis XgKjfov rfaj^itatfa is incorrectly taken for va Xgtowoi! rta$y-
juowa (v. 1.); it is (similar to the jtt^l jq$ sis -fytaj ^ag^os, ver. 10.) suf-
ferings destined for him. It is different, when the genit. depending on
a noun is expressed by the interposition of a prepositition, because the
verb prefers this interposition, e. g. xowavia, vpov s t $ -to svayytuov, Phil.
i. 5. ETtsgwT^a s 1$ $s6v (after God), 1 Pet. iii. 31. Comp. 2 Sam. xi.

7. 7tgWT'aj> El

4. The same form of direct dependence takes place in the connection of
the genit. with verbal adjectives and participles, which then are used ad-
jectively, as 1 Cor. ii. 13. Sibuxtoi TtvEvpaTfos ayLov %6yot, } 2 Pet. ii. 14. xag-
diav yeyv/*vaa/*Evi>iv rt^Eoi/ffiaj (according to good Codd.) comp. Iliad. 5, 6.

^a^OU^EJ/OJ WJCECWOtO, Soph. Jll. 794. ^Ol'OJ 9J7t(X1 > ^8J/^, 1331. ^t\COV ViXO>[J:VO$

and especially with 1 Cor. Soph. EL 343. xeivqs StSa^^a, and with 2 Pet. Phi-
lostr. Her. 2, 15. ^a^ai'-z'^j oiirtw ysyv^.vaa(j,Evot,, 3, 1. Nltf^oga rtohtptov TtoXTitov
ysyvftvagpEvov, 10, 1. (jo^taj ^8^ yeyvfiva,6[AEvov, see Boissonade ad Philostr,
Her. p. 451. According to this the two following passages are easily
interpreted: Heb, iii. 12. xatfia, jtovqgn drtttfi-taj a heart wicked (in re-
spect to] of unbelief (a wicked, namely unbelieving heart) like xagSta,
Tiovri^lajv drtkattas exovffa; similar Plat. Jiyol. 32. a/Ar t yavov av elrj evSaipo-
*J(Xf. See Wex. ad Antig. I. 162. on the active and pass, signification
of verbals. See Monk, ad Eurip. Alcest. 752. Matth. II. 811. Jas. i.
13. ttTta'^atftfoj xaxuv, which most of the interpreters translate: untempt-
ed by sin (comp. Soph. Antig. 847. o^ai^aj $&*, JSschyl. Theb. 877.
xaxuv fazvpovos, Eurip. Hippol. 962.); Schulthess on the other hand:
unexperienced in sin. The parallelism with ,te*go is unfavorable to
the latter interpretation. The active rendering of the ^Ethiopian, not
tempting to sin, is still more objectionable, on account of the genitive

both because the following rt Sl ga s g cw*6 s otMva, would be tau-

20

158 PART TII11U). USE OF THE NOUN-

tological (as moreover the Apostle by 8s must have intended to express
something different from urtsigugtoi), and because aiitLg. does not occur
in an active sense, as Schulthess thinks. The genitive has very differ-
ent uses, at least in the poets and writers who in their style exhibit a
poetical or rhetorical coloring: drfat'g. xax&v might as well be rendered,
not tempting in respect to sin, as Soph. Ai. 1405. ^ovtie^v QG'MV Ittixaigos
suitable for holy washings, or Herod. 1, 196. rtugdwot, ydpuv wgatac. ripe
for marriage.

According to the above analogy Paul might have written in 1 Thess.
i. 4. dSehtyol, jjyacftftciEi'oc. (tfov) 0soi); but he construed the ^yacty. as a
participle, and therefore with #6 Qsov, comp. Acts x. 41. The Pauline
xfaitol 'l^tfoij Xgicrtov, Rom. i. 6. cannot be brought under the foregoing
rule; according to another view of the jex^j entertained by the Apostles
it means: called of God, who are of Christ, belonging to Christ.

5. In consequence of its fundamental signification, the genitive became
among the Greeks, the case of partition and of separation; and as these
two are nearly related, they often passed into each other in various forms.
As the case partitive it appears sometimes in the subject, as Xen. Anab.
3, 5. 16. ojtoifs -- tfrtftticttvto xai ertipu,'yvva&ai afyuv iff rteps ixsivovs xal
s x B i v u'v rtoj avtovs, and of them with those, of those with them to
mingle, (i. e. some of them), Thuc. 1, 115. more frequently in the pre-
dicate with all verbs and adjectives, which, either from their nature or
in a particular connection, affect not the whole object but only a part of
it, as happdvsiv %e<>g6$, by ^ ie hand, laoiew twos, to eat of something*
rthvjgovv -twos, to fill with something, xhBrt-tetv tw6$, to steal of something,
(Diod. Sic. 4, 24.). Here the N. T. usage is conformed to the Greek.
The partitive genit. appears in the subject only in Acts xxi. 16. awfaGov
xai tuv paGq'tuv, for which (also by the Greeks) IMSS tuv or at least lx
tuv were most commonty employed (Mt. xxiii. 34. Luke xxi. 16. John
xvi. 17.). But the N. T. authors have generally used the partit. genit.
in the predicate. With this case are connected: 1. (a.} Words which
signify to have a part, to partalce of, as xowwos 1 Cor. x. 18. 1 Pet. v.
1., nvti%u,v 1 Cor. ix. 10. x. 21. Heb. v. 13., xMigovopos Rom. iv. 13.
Heb. i. 2., x^nl^ Mt. vi. 32. 2 Cor. iii. 1. But xowuvslv takes also

the dative of the thing, 1 Tim. v. 22. Rom. xv. 27. 1 Pet. iv. 13. and in

* It is strange that even Monk ad Eurip. Alccst. 855. would supply JUEJO? TI in
such cases.

t Although many of the Codd. in Luke xi. 8. have oa-ov %g?i, we can thence infer
as little as from the construction %thew tt (Matth. II. 834.), that %%. also governs
the ace. in the signification of witting, asking, as Kiinol does.

30. USE OP THE GENITIVE. 159

a peculiar construction el f , Phil. iv. 15.
sis hoyov Sotfawf, etc. comp. Plat. rep. 5. p. 452. E. 'Swarf
tottt -tq 4ov apjjEKoj yevov$ xowwvvjtsai, si? cirtavt a to, g y * ne dative
of the thing occurs sometimes in Greek writers (Poppo ad Time. III.
II. p. 77. comp. the construction xoww twt, twt,, Galen, protrept. 2.), and
is perhaps to be interpreted by the idea of participation, which is im-
plied in xotv I Tim. V. 22. pyjSe xowvvet, apu^iai,; dMotfgtatj, i- 6. ^Sev
eoi xai tats d'uwv afta^-t. xoivbv eatu. p-EtEzsw is once construed by the
interposition of lx I Cor. x. 17. lx tov Ivoj agtov ps-tszopev' I know
of no instance in the Greek writers. (6) Words which signify plenty,
fulness,* want, emptiness, as &cts v. 28. jtErtMigAxate rfv 'lagoucfav/^ rfs
Sioaxvjs vpw (ii. 28. xix. 29.), John ii. 7. yepLauts tfaj iS^'a? i'Satfoj, Mt.
xxii. 10. ex^a^ 6 ya^ avuxsipEvw, John i. 14. rttoj^s a;a^6^os, Jas. i. 5.
ft, T'tj v^wv xai-'ytET-at tfo^t'aj (see Matthias ad Eurip. Hippol. 323.), comp.
Acts xxvii. 38. Luke xv. 17. xxii. 35. Rom. iii. 23. Such verbs as are
only seldom connected with artb (Luke xv. 16. ErttSvpec yeptaai rfv xoc-
hiav av-fov drtb t <Zv xsgutkuv, XV1.-21.), or with EX (%og?d. lx Rev.
xix. 21. )f. About vatsgsiv uitb Heb. xii. 15. see Bohrne in loc., yet
comp. Sir. 7, 34. ^ va-fEget, arto xhubov'Ttw. 1 Cor. i. 7. va-ts-
^Etcr^at &V [wiSsvi ^ttgJtfjuai-t needs no explanation. (c) Verbs signify-
ing to smell of, to breathe of something, which are related to the
former, e. g. MEEK Aristoph. Eq. 437. In the N. T. but once, figura-
tively, Acts ix. 1. tpTiviw art E 01/175 xaL q>6vov, as if he breathed of threa-
tenings and slaughter, comp. jtvEEtv ^ov^a^og Heliod. Mill. 1,2. other-
wise fyovov jtvEovtEt Theocr. 22, 82. Ovpbv sxrtvsuv Eurip. Bacch. 620.,
where these verbs are used transitively: to breathe murder, wrath, to
breathe out. Both constructions are correctly conceived. 2. Transitive
verbs, in all those cases where the action relates not to the entire object, but
only to a part of it. Here belong especially () the verbs of giving something
Rev. ii. 17. Swuw a*i'9 lov pcivva (where some Codd. correct it into

* nxouo-io? with the genit. belongs here, Eurip. Jo. 593. Orest. 388. But in the
N. T. the preposit. Iv is always used, Eph. ii. 4. w\. Iv IXEEI, Jas. ii. 5. Comp. wXoy-
ve?v, G. g. wXotm'^Es-flai Iv TIVI, 1 Tim. vi. 18. 1 Cor. i. 5.

t As to wxi9uvBv aTro, Athen. 13. p. 509. see Schweighauser Add. et Cor rig. p.
478. Mt. xxiii. 25. ea-wflev yk^wrvi ! ajwaj/Jfc not a^iaia.q, as it is spoken of the
dishes, is probably to be interpreted thus, their contents were acquired by robbery, etc.
Luke on the contrary, xi. 39. transfers the being full of robbery and injustice to the
Pharisees themselves, and therefore writes J/E^EI a, j v a y n ? with the genitive alone.
In John xii. 3. also, h olnict Iir\nfia9n turns oir/(*?f , the 1 TH? OCT. is not a substitute for
the mere genitive, but denotes that from which the fulness proceeds: was filled by
means of the odor.

160 PART THIRD* USE OF THE NOUN.

i v a rtb -t gv /.idwa,, and where also Bretschneider supplies
*,* comp. Gen. xxx. 14.; (i) Verbs of enjoying, like itgoahappavEaSai,
tfo<f7s, Acts xxvii. 36. yivt&uL twos, Mt. xvi. 28. Luke ix. 27. xiv. 24.;
(e) Verbs of seizing, touching, taking hold of-f, as Mr. ix. 27. x^a^aas
avibv tr\$ zf>%6$, by the hand, Acts iii. 7. Ezeck. vii. 3. (comp. Eurip.
Hec. 1166. Xen. Jlnab. I, 6. 10. Plutarch Apophth. p. 180. Lucian.
Pise. 12.), Mr. v. 30. ^a^o i-wv t^atLw, see yet ajt^sa^at,, Mr. i. 41. vi.
56. Luke xxii. 51. '(Gen. xxxix. 12. Judith xiii. 7. Job. i. 19.), iTtaa^-
j3cwsoa& Mt. xiv. 31. Mr. viii. 23. Luke ix. 47. Acts xxiii. 19. (also
tropically Luke xx. 20. 26.), ^yyaVw Heb. xii. 20., x^Hv Luke viii.
54. Heb. vi. 18. (on the other hand xgatsiv twa Mt. xiv. 3. xviii. 28.
Mr. iii. 21. of the seizing, apprehending of the whole person, Polyb. 8,
20. 8., so also rfaa/tj3. -two, Acts ix. 27. xvi. 19.), purttsw i'Scwos Luke
xvi. 24. Bernhardy 168. (part-tew els /*s'gw ./Elian. V. H. 14, 39.). This
construction, however, is generally not as frequent in the N. T. as in the
Greek writers. Not only, because many such verbs ^ govern the accu-
sative (where properly the genitive should have been used), as yEvsa^at,
John ii. 9. Heb. vi. 5., but especially verbs of eating, communicating, ta-
king from, which are sometimes connected with drfo, e. g. Luke xxiv. 42.
sjtsftuxav aintip ---- drib /AEhcaaiov xygiov, Mt. XV. 27. Mr. VII. 28. tftt
xvvugiu la&st, urtb tfuiv tyv%luv tfuiv rtuibLizv (comp. TD v3X and fyayeiv arto
Fabric. Pseudepigr. II. 706. Luke xxii. 18. Acts v. 2. xal svoa&aa-to dab
tijs tftjtwjfj John xxi. 10. Ivsyxate ajtb Tfuv o-fyagiav, Mr. Xli. 2. tVa
artb tfov xagrtov tfov apciEhuvos, Acts ii. 17. x%u artb tfov rtVvpai;6$
sometimes with EX John iv. 14. Sj av rtiy EX T'OU i'Sai'os||, 1 John iv.

13. Ix ^oiJ rtvevpa'tos avtov Se8<AXv v^fuv, Luke XXli. 16. 1 Cor. IX. 7.

13. xi. 28. The following are incorrectly assigned to this head: Heb.
xiii. 10. fyayetv sx ^vaiaaTf^'ov de victima comedere, for ^DcrtaijT'^^. is
there altar: to live from the altar, i. e. to eat the flesh of the offered
victims. In the Greek, comp. Plat. rep. 3. p. 395. C. 10. p. 606. B.
Apol. p. 31. B.

* This passage illustrates the distinction between the genit. and accus., as xJ
Sdxrca ^jtyov Aev>wv follows. Comp. Heliod. 2,23. 100. iwEppe'^ouv o /wiv TOU ti^a-ruf
o JE xa.i oTvov*

t Here we might also place the construction of the middle civ E^ea-dat with the
genit.

{ <j>ttj/E~v and ItrQiEtv, signifying to eat up, to devour, take the ace. of the object
(Mt. xii. 4. Rev. x. 10.). And they even govern this case when the food which one
takes is only generally expressed; e. g. TO (taw* E<pa,yov, John vi. 58. Mt. xv. 2. Mr.
i. 6. 1 Cor. x. 3. Comp. Diog. L. 6, 2. 6.

|| Otherwise 1 Cor. x. 4. emvov I K mtv/tariM/; KoXou0ouVwf wE-r^a?, where Flatt's in-
terpretation is erroneous.

30. USE OF THE GENITIVE. 161

The genitive with tvy%dvw (ertrtvyzavsw), which occurs exclusively in
the N. T. (about the accusative see Herm. ad Vig p. 760. Bernhardy
176.) Luk. xx. 35. Acts xxiv. 3. xxvii. 3., must perhaps be interpreted
originally according to the above rule; yet it is used even where the whole
object is meant. The ancient writers construe xtygovopstv (to participate
of a thing) almost always with the genitive (Kypke II. ''681,); in the later
authors and the N. T. the accusative of the thing is connected with it
Mt. v. 5. xix. 29. Gal. v. 21. (Polyb. 15, 22. Alciphr. 1, 39.) see Lob. ad
Phryn. p. 129. Matth. II. 802. Aoy^axsw/ takes the accusative (except
Acts i. 17.) in 2 Pet. i. 1. iao-tipov ypiv haxovai, ttlatw (where jtlatis is not
the faith in an ideal sense, of which every Christian partakes by means
of his conviction, but the subjective faith, which belongs to these Christians)
Matth. II. 801. On the other hand the genitive is found in Luk. i. 9.
comp. Brunk ad Soph. Elect?-. 364. Jacobs Anthol. Pal. III. p. 803.

6. To designate separation and distance the genitive is frequently
used by the Greeks, e. g. ehov^sgovv twos to deliver from something,
scM;aM>j irto^cogstv, rtwvscv, StafyEgew ttvo$, see Matth. II. 829. 845.-
Bernhardy 179., although in such cases proper prepositions also are used.
The N. T. construes with the genitive only fAstagta^tjvat, Luk. xvi. 4.,
astoi.zew 1 Tim. i. 6., algsw to break loose from Mr. ii. 21., ftuvsa^ao 1
Pet. iv. 1., xuMsw Acts xxvii. 43. (comp. Xen. Cyrop. 2, 4. 23. Jlnab.

I, 6. 2. Polyb. 2, 52. 8.), Sta^^ew Mt. x. 31. 1 Cor. xv. 41. (Xen.
Cyrop. 8, 2. 21. Comp. Kriiger ad Dionys. Hal. p. 462.) On the other
hand the interposition of a preposition occurs, (a) constantly with the
verbs of delivering, being free (Matth. II. 665. Bernhardy 181.) comp.

a, ft 6 Luk. xiii. 16. 1 Cor. vii. 27, (Plat. Phced. p. 65. A.), fam-
rfo Rom. vi. 18. 22. viii. 2. 21. (Thuc. 2, 71., also with ix Matth.

II. 830.), fr&ea&u drto Mt. vi. 13. Luk. xi. 4., with l Luk. i. 74. Rom.
vii. 24.; aAgsw 3*6 Rom. v. 9. and more frequently with sx James v. 20.
Heb. v. 7.; ton-go w drto Tit. ii. 14. (TWEW twos Fabric. Pseudepigr. 1. 710.);
xaSagbs and xa^agigtw drfo Joseph. Antt. 9, 45. Acts xx. 26. 2 Cor. vii.
1. (Tob. iii. 14. Diod. Sic. 1, 24. Demost. in Near. p. 528. C., with |*
Appiari Lyr. 59.), &$*& a#6 Mt. xxvii. 4. 24. (JD 'pj) see Krebs Obs.
73. similar JIOVSM/ a^o (to wash, to cleanse of) Acts xvi. 33. Rev. i. 5.;
(6) with the genitive in dvartwea^at sx tZv xoitw Rev. xiv. 13. rtavadtu
tvjv y^aaav dyto xaxov 1 Pet. iii. 10. (Soph. Electr. 231. 987. Eurip. Hec.
911. Thuc. vii. 73.) On Sia^w a ri 6 Gal. ii. 6. see Winer's Comment.
xa&ew is construed with d/to in Rom. viii. 35. 1 Cor. vii. 10. Heb. vii.
26. Plat. Pksed. p. 67. C. (Comp. Polyb. 5, 111. 2.).

Here belongs also xtfrttew (t$ &*6 twos Luk. xix. 42., instead of which
the Greeks say xgvrttsw -two, tt. It is properly a constructio pregnans
(comp. also Septuag. Gen. iv. 13. xviii. 17. 1 Sam. iii. 18.). In the same

162 PART THIRD. USE OP THE NOUN.

manner the verbs to remain behind something, to which perhaps 2 Pet.
iii. 9. ov peaSvvM xvgio;. * jj $ srtayyshias might be reduced (o{\ jS^aSvf
sett, tys 7tayy?u'a?). Otherwise Wahl I. 138. Yet Syr. has erfayy. con-
nected with /3aS. However xvg- t^ s^ayy. can be construed together,
as many do interpret it.

7. To the signification of the genitive may be reduced more or less
clearly, (a) verbs of sense, especially axovsw twos to hear some one
(properly to hear from some one] Mt..xvii. 5. Luk. ii. 46. John iii. 29.
or to hear something (to hear of something) John v. 25. Luk. xv. 25.
John vi. 60., see Engelhardt ad Plat- Lach. p. 43. Buttmann ad Philoct.
p. 61. (&) verbs of desiring, as Ijn^v^lv 1 Tim. iii. 1. Mt. v. 28., 6gs-
yscr^at 1 Tim. iii. 1. Ileb. xi. 16., where we use also the genitive. The
desire is that into which the several things are incorporated and received.
On the contrary ETtiGvpuv ti relates to the thing desired as the single
object to which the IjnQv^lv is directed. Here belongs 8t,^qv twos- Yet
this verb in a fig. sense is also connected with the ace. (^aotjo^Jav 5(4"
Epist. Socr. p. 53. Allat., $E$Z>V $6vov 8t^. Anthol. 4, 9.), comp. Mt.
v. 6. St^uvtEt foxcuoavvqv. In the Septuag. Ex. xvii. 3. this verb is
connected with the dative. The difference between the two construc-
tions is clear; St-4/. ^aocfo^t'ttj means, to thirst after philosophy, but 3i<4/.
fyMotiofyiav represents philosophy as an undivided thing, which we wish to
possess, (c) Verbs of remembering, thinking of, (thinking, thought is a
whole, into which the several things are received; to think of a thing
means, to receive that thing as a part into thinking, the thought), Luk.
xvii. 32. /j.vrj/AOvsvs'ts tfj/j ywatxbf Acotf, Lull. i. 72. p,v/jsd^vai, Sta^aj^j Acts
xi. 16. 2 Pet. iii. 2. etc. Yet ava/^t,/j,v^ax. in Heb. x. 32. and Mr. xiv.
72. (according to good authorities), and pwipov. govern often the accusa-
tive (Matth. II. 820.), however more in the signification to have present
in the mind, to keep in memory (Bernhardy 177), Mt. xvi. 9. 1 Thess.
ii. 9. Rev. xviii. 5. Verbs of remembering, making mention of, are never
found in the N. T. with the genitive; ^vrj^ov ttsgi Heb. xi. 22. comes
nearest to it (comp. pvaaQai, rtsgd Herod. 1, 36. Xen. Cyrop. 1, 6. 12.
Tob. 4, 1.), elsewhere as transitives Mt. xvi. 9. 1 Thess. ii. 9. 1 Cor.
iv. 17. 2 Cor. vii. 15. Rev. xviii. 5. (d) Verbs signifying to concern
oneself about something, to care for, and to neglect, as sri^av^dvsa^ao
Heb. vi. 10. xiii. 2. 16. (Bernhardy 181.), bvivaa^tai Philem. ver. 20., aw-
taa/j-pdvEGSat, Luk. i. 54. 1 Tim. vi. 2. (Plutarch psedag. 10. Xen.
Cyrop. 2, 3. 6., ^Et'Sctf^cu. Acts xx. 29. 1 Cor. vii. 28., Iriin^sa^at, Luk.
x. 34. 1 Tim. iii. 5., yt&ci 1 Cor. ix. 9. Acts xviii. 17. The latter is
used also with ttfgt! Mt. xxii. 16. John x. 13. xii. 6. (Herod 6, 101. Xen.
Hier. 9, 10. comp. Strang in the Archiv. of John II. III. 400.), so as

80. USE OP THE GENITIVE. 163

. c. accus. Phil. iii. 14. (e) Alopcu to ask or beg of, some one
with a genit. of the person Mt. ix. 38. Acts xxvi. 3. 2 Cor. v. 20. etc.
(/) Kcwtfaa&u to boast of something Rom. xi. 18. Jas. ii. 13. (comp. to
acquire glory from something). On the other hand the construction
Irtww two, *wo S , (comp. Matth II. 682. Poppo ad Time. III. I. p. 661.)
does not occur in the N. T. (as Bornemann says, Schol. in Luc. p. 98.),
for in Luk. xvi. 8. t^s dowlas is certainly to be connected with olxovopos
and the object of Irtawsw is expressed in the sentence 6V t ^ovi^s ertofytsv-
See remark on this phrase (Sintenis) in Leipz. Lit. Zcit. 1833. 1. 1135.
(P-) Verbs of ruling over something as xvgisvew (i. e. xv^ov twos swat)
Rom. xiv. 9: 2 Cor. i. 24. (Xen. Mem. 3, 5. 11.) av&vtsiv 1 Tim ii.
12. xnfaatwtMvevsw Jas. ii. 6., av^vrtattvew Acts xviii. 12. (7t) Verbs of
accusing of a crime etc. Acts xix. 40. xwovvevopw EyxaTietu^en atdasus
Luk. xxiii. 14. Acts xxv. 11. (yet Acts xxiii. 29. also ttetf twos'is found)
Matth. II. 849.

The genitive with the above verbs is not so frequent and forcible in
the N. T. as among the Greeks, e. g. vrtaxovsw twos, which occurs in
Thuc. 2, 62. and even sometimes is found in the Septuag. Jud. ii. 17.
(according to analogy from axovsw} Matth. II. 841., never occurs in the
N. T., but nxovsw tivC (as in Xen. Cyro-p. 4, 5. 19. 8, 1. 18.). Also
|3affaEi;*M> twos is not found (Herod. 1, 206.), but sit twos Mt. ii. 22. Rev.
v. 10. or siii two/ Luk. i. 33. 19. xiv. 27. (comp. agzj-c^ae. lv t> 1 Sam.
ix. 17. x. 1.)

Verbs of buying and selling have the genitive of the price. (Matth. II.
843. Bernhardy 177.), Mt. x. 29. oi>%i 8vo atgovOCu daaugiov jtuteitat,,
xxvi. 9. qSvvuto tovto ttga&ivai, rtoMioi, xx. 13. 1 Cor. vi. 20. Rev. vi. 6.
comp. Deut. ii. 6. (on the other hand Mt. xxvii. 7. fyyogaaav s| avtuv viz.
agyvgiuv, Acts i. 18. comp. Palasph. 46, 3. 4.) comp. Mt. xx. 2. Accord-
ing to the construction with i x , this genitive might be reduced to the
idea of proceeding from., as that which is bought for a price, goes forth
as it were to us for the price paid. But as this construction, the only
one of the kind, proves nothing for the native Greek conception of this
relation, it is perhaps more simple (as Hermann ad Viger 878. does in
a similar construction) to derive ft from such connections of nouns as
[ivpbv TtoMuoti, i%0vss Suu>i> uaaagiuv (fish of, for two Assar.).

The use of dpi with the genit., which otherwise must be explained by
the omission of a preposition, is very clearly reducible to the primary
idea of this case. It is much more common in Gr. prose than in the
N. T. Here may be noted, () The genitive partitive 1 Tim. i. 20.,
which frequently represents a genitive of a party (plur. masc.). (6) The
genitive of possession, both of the person 1 Cor. iii. 21. rtdvtu vpw eativ,
vi. 19. ovx eats savttiv you do not belong to yourselves, 2 Cor. x. 7.
XgttfT'o^ elvat (similar 1 Cor. i. 12. of heads of parties), in another man-
ner ov% vpuv Edtt, yvuvat etc. it belongs not to you, it is not your business;

and also of the thing, 1 Thess. v. 5. 8. ovx saph wxtbsovSe sxotos

ovtes) we are not of the right, do not belong to the right.

164 PART THIRD. USE OP THE NOUN.

See Matth. II. 783. (c) The genitive (sing, abstrct.) of a quality or
property, which some one possesses, in manifold constructions, Luk. ix.
55. oi'ov ttvsvpavos eats vfitcs, 1 Cor. xiv. 33. ovx l<Mw dxatfaBtfacaaj 6
^Eoy, Heb. X. 39. o^st? ovx ICI/AEV vftog'fo^s -- aMia Ttttftfswj etc. Also
with the concrete genitive Mr. v. 42. y V

8. The genitive of time and place, without direct dependence denoted
by a single word, is used to designate a general statement (Herm. ad
Vig. p. 879. Hartung p. 32.), e. g. J3sch. Prom. 723. hatus %igbs <uq-
go-tsxtovEs okxovat, #aM>]3sj to the left hand, (Herod. 5, 77.), Xen. Ephes.
5, 13. sxeivqs -tys yptgO'S n thut day, Philost. Her. 9, 3. ^E^WJ/OJ des Win-
ters, i. e. during the winter, Thuc. 3, 104. (Matth. II. 857.). In this
case the N. T. writers almost uniformly employ a preposition; such a
genitive is found only in some established formulas, as wxitos by night
(more distinct in 1 Mace. vi. 20.), Luke xviii. 12. tov aappd-tov on the

Sabbath, Xxiv. 1. og^-gou jSo&toj, V. 19. p.rj svgovtes, rtoia$ (oSov) stjsvayxw-

<sw otiiov by which way (xix. 4.) Gal. vi. 17. toil KOMOV (comp. the Ger-
man: des weitern.).

Rev. xvi. 7. fjxovaa tov dvaiaaitygiov keyovtos does not belong here, /
heard speaking out of the altar, (comp. Soph. El. 78. Herm. ad Soph.
OEd. R. p. 34. Buttm. ad Philoct. p. 115. Bernhardy 137.), but accord-
ing to analogous passages, ver. 5 and vi. 3. 5. is to be rendered, 1 heard
the altar speaking, and this is perhaps to be attributed to the strangely
mysterious complexion of this vision. The other reading, fa.
s x toi> OvaiaaTf. to'y. is a manifest interpolation.

NOTE. The genitive absolute which often occurs in the N. T. in his-
torical style, is not in a proper sense absolute, but is referable to the geni-
tive as a case designating time (comp. Hartung p. 31.), and therefore
similar to the ablat. absolute in Latin, but there it is used with a more
extensive reference, viz. to indicate case and condition, which is also im-
plied in the genitive. It remains only to be remarked that it sometimes
occurs, where, on account of the following verb, we should have expected
a different case, Luke xvii. 12. h;sg%o/jivov avtov -- ajt^vtyjcssv av-tci,

XXli. 10. 53. xviii. 40. syyttjavi'os aik'tni ejtijgatijaev awtov Mr. xi. 27. Acts

iv. 1. xxi. 17. This is common also with the Greeks, partly because in
the beginning of the sentence the writer had not thought of the principal
verb, and partly because the regular construction would render the ex-
pression heavy, comp. Herod. 4, 3. Thuc. 1, 114. Isocr. big. p. 834.
Polyb. 4, 49. 1. Plutarch II. p. 845. Paus. 6, 3. 6. Xen. Ephes. 4, 5.
Heliod. JEtli. 2. 30. 113. Xen. Anab. 2, 4. 24. Memor. 4, 8. Schiifer ad
Apollon. Rh. II. p. 171. ad Dem. II. p. 202. Poppo ad Time. I. 2. p.
119. Siebelis ad Pausan. II. p. 8. As exceptions we find genitives ab-
solute, where the subject of the leading clause (nominat.) is the same
with that in the dependent clause, Mt. i. 18. jui^stf ti&st'ctys i^j ^^65 CWJT'OV
ite,iv g} avvh$tv avtov$, svg&y Iv yowi'gi fi'^oucfa, where

30. USE OF THE GENITIVE. 165

the writer probably had in his mind another arrangement of the sentence.
In Greek such instances are rare; yet see Xenoph. Cyrop. 6, 1. 37.
PJato Gorg. p. 565. C. comp. Poppo ad Thuc. I. 119. Jacobs ad Philostr.
p. 670. From the Septuag. are to be noticed Gen. xliv. 4. Exod. iv.
21. xiv. 18. comp. Epiphan. vit. p. 326. 340. 346. (in the second volume
of the Opp. Epiphan. ed. Colon.)

31. Of the Dative.

1. The dative in connection with verbs (transit, and neut.) usually de-
notes the object to which the action relates, without however passing
over to it or directly affecting it, as opowvv */&, to liken to something,*
|aWW0at i-n/t, to look with wonder on, to be <:mazed af, 1 Pet. iv. 12.
(Thuc. 4, 85.), n,Ee,wv(Lv 4wt, to "care for something, Mt. vi. 25., rtgoaxv-
vskv iftvt, to pay reverence to some one, Mt. ii. 8. 11., yovvrts-telv tw Mt.
xvii. 14. (Rom. xiv. 11.), opohoyatv tivt,, Heb. xiii. 15. to praise, 0^07,0-
yfttf^at, also Rom. xiv. 11.; ^^sa^taL tivi, to cast reproaches on some one,
Heb. viii. 8. (Diog. L. 1, 2. Diod. Sic. 4, 47.), so also ertrtipav twt, Mt.
xvii. 18. xix. 13. comp. yet Rom. xiii. 2. 2 Cor. ii. 12. Heb. v. 2. Luke
xii. 21. In such a dative the idea of advantage or disadvantage (the
dat. commodi and incommodi) is sometimes more prominently presented,
as John iii. 26. 9 ev fis/j.a'tv^xo,^, to whom thou hast borne testimony,
viz. favorable, honorable (Luke iv. 22. Rom. x. 2. comp. Xen. Mem. 1,
2. 21.), on the other hand, Mt. xxiii. 31. fi^tv^l-ts aaon'otj, you witness
against yourselves, Jas. v. 3. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 13. Rom. xiv. 6. Luke
i. 55. (comp. Ps. xcviii. 3. ^vtja^vai, Ixlouj tfiW) Heb. vi. 6.

usually takes the dative of the person, Luke iv. 18.
1 Pet. iv. 6. Rom. i. 15., almost without exception where an ace. of the
object follows (Luke i. 19. ii. 10. Acts viii. 35. xvii. 18. 1 Cor. xv. 1.),
as in Greek writers, see Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 268. As to luoyym'f.
i-u/a, see 32. 1. See Rob. Gr. and Eng. Lex. at this word.

In Matthew. Mark, and Paul, rtgoaxweiv (to revere and adore} always
governs the dative (Mt. iv. 10. is a quotation from vi. 13.), in the other
writers, however, sometimes the dative (John ix. 38. Acts vii. 43. Heb.
i. 6. Rev. iv. 10. vii. 11.), sometimes the accusative (Luke iv. F. xxiv.
52. Rev. xiii. 4. xiv. 11. yow5?t6*v two, is similar, Mr. i. 40. x. 17. (and

* Of the words of similarity or equality, only 5'^oioj (like similis) is construed with
the genit. by the Greeks (Matth. II. 873.), which is then to be considered as an ad.
jcctive qualifying fyioi., without reference to its signification. In the N. T. this con-
struction occurs only in John viii. 55., without var.
21

166 PART THIRD. USE OP THE NOUN.

two, sometimes, Matth. II. 886.). The dative after
is only peculiar to the later Greek language, Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 463
Comp. L. Bos. Exercitatt. pldlol, p. 1. Kypke Observ. I. p. 7. Instead
of x^o^at, with chit, occurs once var. 1 Cor. vii. 31. in good Codd. x&a-
cu ti, (tbv x6(sp,ov) as Xen. flier. 11, 11. which is, according to Matthiii,
not a grammaticum vithtm.

To the signification tofolloiu, to go after a thing, a-toi^lv., Phil. iii. 16.
and jtagevtaQat, 089, 1 Sam. xv. 20. Tob. iv. 5. may be referred; and to
this is related the fig. rtogtveaOat,, Acts ix. 31. rtogsvo/ttvoi, 4^ (pope? xai -ty
rtagaxhriGu, xiv. 16. (comp, 2 Sam. xvi. 11. ?to^. aTt^.d-t'T/i't, Prov. xxviii.
26. 7to. ffotjx,'a, 1 Mace. vi. 23. etc.), but jto^sv. iv rather refers to things
sensible, external. So jts^iita-tfiv toig insert, Acts ii. 21. 2 Cor. xii. 18.
Gal. v. 16., by which Rom. xiii. 13. Tt^tria-eslv -- pcw^otj xai jurats-
(Fabric. Paeudep. II. 627.) receives more light.

The direction of the action is also indicated by the dative in 2 Cor.
xii. 19. V(MV drtohoyovps^a, (comp. 2 Cor. ix. 2. Acts xxiv. 5. Matth. II.
887.), so also in the formula SiahsysaSai two, Acts xvii. 2. xviii. 19.

Matth. II. 905. Luke xviii. 31. jtdvta -too jey^a^Eva -- i 1 9 woj Hov

aig. Vulg. qi(3S scripta sunt de filio hominis. So Kiinol. rgdtyeodai
ewt, would then be properly rendered thus, to be described for some one,
in reference to some one. Others, as Piscator, Schott, Stolz, refer the
dative to i-t^sff^tf. omnia horn, filio evenient. About fy-ttdsQai, >evt, in-
stead of tfwos, 2 Pet. ii. 19. see Kypke in loc. He quotes there Joseph.
Antt. 13, 15. 1, 19. (after Haverc. 13, 8. 1. and 1, 19. 5.).

2. It is evident from these examples that the dative can be represented
by sis (Engelhardt ad Plat. Menex. p. 260.)* and 7t^6?, just as the geni-
tive by Ix and ario (Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 558.). Therefore in many
passages instead of the dative, one of those prepositions is used. So we
can say, as is well known, not only xs'y"" iwi and cf^oj -twa (this is al-
most the exclusive use in Matthew and Mark (see Schulz Parab. of the
Steward p. 38.), but also svzsctOat, #9, Acts xxvi. 29. (Xen. Cyrop. 5, 2.
12. Demosth. adv. Conon. p. 729. C. Xen. Ephes. 4, 3. Max. Tyr. 11.
p. 115.) and evzsaOat ri^bs 6e6i>, 2 Cor. xiii. 7. (Xen. Mem. 1, 3. 2.),
^EvSsG^ai -tivi (Acts v. 4. Ps. xviii. 49 Ixxviii. 36.; not among the
Greek writers), and 4/s^S. rf^oj twa, to lie to some one, Xen. Anab. 1,
3. 5. Demosth. c. Cttllipp. p. 711. B. evSoxslv ei<; ?ivu, Mt. xii. 18. 2 Pet.
i. 17. and >twt, by the Greeks, /j,d%G$o.<, tivL) Xen. Anab. 4, 5. 12. and
ytgoj tfwa, John vi. 52. II. 17, 98. jto^s^i^v -tivt, and rt^dj two,, Isocr.
Paneg. c. 34., in the N. T. jtoxs^. xutd or ^td >tivo^ Rev. xii. 7. xiii. 4.
The construction with the prepositions was perhaps natural to the N. T.

* In modern Greek the ace. witli EI? is very frequently a circumlocution for the
dutive, even in its simplest relations, e. g. \kyw slj TOV <j>iXov pov, dico amico meo, Lii-
demann Lchrb. 90.

31. OF THE DATIVE. 167

authors by means of the more expressive and perspicuous usage of their
native tongue, and therefore we find tls for the dativus commodi an in-
commodi, e. g. Acts xxiv. 17. Ifoqpoavvqs Ttoirjdav els 'to s^vos pov, Luke
vii. 30. -evjv jSouJwJv tav &ov ySstyaav si? tavtovs, to their disadvantage (as
sis signifies also contra). Yet have the interpreters taken this view of
many passages, where the true internal idea of sis is very clearly disco-
verable. and no one could suppose the dative to be more regular, e. g. Mt.
xx. 1. (see Wahl) luaSoopat, sis *v fyttshZva, as in German: to hire into
the vineyard (*$ ap*. would be for the vineyard], Mr. viii. 19. *ovs jtevte
agtfovj sxAtttfa st$ * oi)j jtevtaxrfx- broken among the (or and distributed
among the), xiii. 10. sif tfa s^vy xfgvx&jvat,, proclaimed among the nations,
as a message brought 1o the nations (comp. 1 Thess. ii. 9. 1 Pet. i. 25.
.Luke xxiv. 47. and Pausan. 8, 5. 8. dbj Is aTtavfaj sf^yys'x^ ^o tfotyw^a) .
In Mt. v. 22. vo%o$ sis ify ysswav is unquestionably to be considered an
instance of bract^ology: guilty (liable) to the gehenna, viz. to come to,
to be cast into. In 2 Pet. iv. 10. els dM.rfiovs expresses the adverbial
meaning invicem, by turns, but the sis here is not very strange, as
it is very commonly used for in usum alici/jus, comp. Xen. Anab. 1,
2. 27. '3, 3. 19. The passage in 1 Pet. i. 10. jtsgi -tys sis v/*as %dgt,to$,
Pott should not have referred to this rule, as it is altogether regular, and
the Apostle could not have written tfjj j v ft.lv %dg. Finally, in the fol-
fowing formulas the preposition cannot be at all supposed to supply the
place of the dative, ti^M/ioj rfg6$, 1 Tim. iv. 8. 2 Tim. iii. 16. (with sl^
Xenoph. Oec. 5, 11. comp. ^^^05 ^65 Sap. 13. 11.), si&ti'oj ei$, Luke
xiv. 35. ix. 62. (Dion. Hal. de Thuc. 55. 3. m. ^^6?, Polyb. 26, 5. 6.
Diod. Sic. 5. 37. as useful, fitted for something, could be expressed only
thus, whilst for the person to whom something is useful, the dative must
be employed.

The phrase jtia-ttvew ft? or Irtt -two, (Acts ix. 42. xxii. 19.) in the
Christian usage, expresses more than itweevew -twi (credere, confidere
alicui) and is probably to be taken as a pregnant expression: believing
to join oneself to another, to avow one'sself a friend to some one. Schulz
in his essay has not been free from prejudice.* nagaSiSdvat sis is not
merely TtagaStS. -twi, but expresses rather the sense, to give into the power,
to deliver in Mt. x. 17., and therefore with odvuios Mt. x. 21. 2 Cor. iv.
11. Gti^s Mt. xxiv. 9. axaOa^aia Rom. i. 24. comp. Xen. Hell. 1, 7. 3.

In other relations the simple dative is expressed by svwyttoi; Acts vi. 5.
lv<orttoi> itavtb$ v ov rthr t 6ovs (Gen. xxxiv. 18. xli. 37. 2 Sam. iii.

* Tlia-Ttvetv Iv X^IO-TW would mean the same, but this formula is not certainly con-
firmed by Mr. i. 15. see Fritzsche in loc. (comp. .Tor. xii. 6. Dan. vi. 23.). Nor is the
construction WIO-TEUEIV wgof or EI'J TIV proved to be genuine Greek by ft irgot Tiva
(Scluvarts! Comment, p. 1102.).

168 PART THIRD. USE OF THE NOUN.

36.) comp. 1 John iii. 22. Luke iv. 7. Rev. xv. 4. This mode of ex-
pression, as indeed almost the preposit. sv^rttov itself ('JB 1 ?), belongs to
the Hebrew complexion of the language.

That the dative can exactly represent rtgbs and sis with the ace. has
been recently denied by Bornemann in Rosenmuller''s Repertor. II. p.
253. and in the New Crit. Journ. of Theolog. Lit. VI. p. 146. (comp.
also ad Anab. p. 23.). It is true, the examples quoted by Fritzsche
(Conject. I. p. 42.) out of the Gr. poets do not prove the rule as to prose;
the N. T. passages also can be otherwise understood: Acts ii. 33. v. 31.
i-jj Ssiioi can mean, by (his) right hand, Rev. ii. 16. aoi is only the dat.
incommodi, even Acts xxi. 16. might (with Beza) be translated addu-
centes secitm, apud quern hospitaremur Mnasonem, so that Mvaawt, de-
pending on ayovtfEj would be interwoven with the relative clause. But
the latter interpretation is not probable (see Bengel's Nov. Archiv. III.
p. 176.), and Jude xi. 18. *%$ yJj M. is probably only an interpolation.
According to Bornemann's more recent suggestion (Scholia in Luc. p.
177.) in Acts the attraction could be thus analyzed, ayovtss (fipas) itu^a,
'M.vdatavd i-wa -- rta/3 3> Ifviddu^iEi'. (As to aysw rtagd twa, COmp. Herod.
1, 86. 3, 15.). However this is not exactly the easiest. The construc-
tion 8yew I'wt, to bring to some one may be unusual in Attic prose, but
in the later prose writers constructions precisely similar are found, as
tyottav jwt, Philostr. Soph. 2, 20. (Wittenbach ad Plutarch. Mor. IV. p.
S39.) %xetv twt, Plutarch. JEm. Paull. 12, 4. 16, 1., even (with the da-
tive of the thing) ^EO^CM ty rtotet, Fabric. Pscudep. II. 594., also irfoSs-
xsa^rat, -ty olxlq, to receive into the house, Lucian. Asin. 39., Stappawew ty
y>7, to, towards the earth, Theodoret. H. E. 5, 36. With Acts xxi. 16.
comp. especially Xen. Ephes. 3, 6. p. 63. Tto-ttgov tfyofiw 'Aj3^ox6^ and
Epiph. Vit. p. 340. D. jj'yoysv av-tbv ASavnaicp f^ jtartrtu. See also Bern-
hardy 95. Held, ad Plutarch. JEm. Paull. p. 200.

Luke ii. 41. Ijtoe.&vovto j 'I^. 4 % sogty is not, to the f east, but
on account of the feast, see below. On the other hand, Mr. xiv. 53. evvsg-
%ovtai uv-tc* convenerant eum, and John xi. 33. 1-0115 awehOovitas aiity
*Iov8a,iov; might belong here. Yet I believe that the dative in these cases
is to be considered as depending on awshd., they came together with him,
with her, i. e. assembled at his, at her house.

The construction is still different from the above, when the dative is
connected with verbs of coming in a sense not relating to matter or space.
as Acts xxi. 31. dvsps $a<ytj tip %aidg%G>, comp* esltam ihm dieKunde,
(and in English, a report came to him. Trs.). Similar phrases are un-
doubtedly frequent in Gr. writers, Plutarch Brut. 27. fitM.ovfi,
v[xsv dyy^JUa rts^l ttjf ^4^^^, Vit, Pomp. 13.
[lev fodev dyys^ta.

31. OF THE DATIVE. 169

3. Still more extended is the use of the dative for all those things, in
which and in respect to which something lakes place: (a) To designate
that to which a general predicate is to be limited: (comp. Bernhardy 84.),
e.g. 1 Cor. xiv. 20. ^ rfaiSt'a yivsa^s tfacj fygsatv, aMu ty xaxia,
vyrtM^fts, children in understanding children in respect to the wick-
edness (Plat. Acib. pr. p. 122. C.), Rom. iv. 20. JvsSwa/tw^ ty
lie became strong in faith, Phil. ii. 7. a % y p a <t i w^s^eis w?
comp.. Acts vii. 51. xx. 22. Rev. iv. 3. 1 Cor. vii. 34. Hebr. v. 11. xii.
3. Gal. i. 22. Mt. xi. 29. Acts xiv. 8. xvi. 5. (comp. Dion. Hal. ed. Kru-
ger p. 169.), xviii. 2. Col. ii. 5. Ephes. iv. 18. 23.

So the dative is to be explained in Phil. iii. 5. Tttgifo^ oxi-ow^iEgoj, for
. cannot be connected as nominative with oxt., as the same abstract
for concrete is used only in a collective sense, never of one circum-
cised person.

The formulas aito^avstv ty ajuagi'u* (Rom. vi. 2. Gal. ii. 19. Col. iii.
3.), ctrai'otiffa& ^9 1/0/49, Rom. vii. 4. vexgbv slvai ty djiiag. (Rom. VI. 11.)
are in opposition to gyjv -tivt (^9 $e>) Rom. vi. 10. and signify: to have
died (dead) to sin, to the law (for the sin) comp. Rom. vii. 4. and drfo

yV6<j^cu ty d/iag-i'. 1 Pet. ii. 24. Rom. vi. 20. s%sv^s^ot nty Stxawavi'V] is

in 'opposition to Sovhovs^cu ty 8ix. (ver. 18. comp. 19. 20.). Stolz is cor-
rect as to the sense: free from the service of righteousness. See Riick-
ert in loc. I dare not with Bill roth interpret the dative *fy jtiafet sw/i'
xa-te by in respect to in 2 Cor. i. 24. The phrase rather means, you
have stood by the faith, maintained it.

(&) To express the rule or law according to which any thing is done:
Acts xv. 1. fttv p} ri^s^vc!^ts ^9 s$v s t, Mcoiirffwj, comp. Xenoph. Cyrop.
1, 24. (on the contrary, xvii. 2. xatv, to si^bg and more frequently xata

e^oj), 2 Pet. i. 21. ov <ya ^cV/J 1 waT'6 av^gurtujv tfv%q rto-ts rtgofy'/j'fsta,

Tob. iii. 3. 2 Mace. vi. 1. Sext. Emp. 2, 6. Strabo 15. 715. Kindred
to this is the dative expressing an accordance in judgment, as Plat.
Phcedr. p. 101. D. aoi, diu^otj fiyt$>wv ^ SiafpuvEl, Soph. (Ed. C. 1446.
So in the formulas Acts vii. 20. uatiios 1-9 ^9, 2 Cor. x. 4. Swu-tu ^9
^59 (whore Wetsten's arrangement of the words is improbable), comp.
Wyttenbaeh on Plat. Phced. Matth, II. 877., where however the in-
stances quoted are almost exclusively those with wj tyol, Erfordt ad
Soph. (Ed. R. 615. Somewhat different is 1 Cor. ix. 21. ^ &, avo/ioj
Bcc?, dM? twopo; Xgw* 9 (to the lawless 1 was lawless, but therefore) not
a lawless for God, in respect to God, but here perhaps the genitive is
preferable, on the authority of good Codd., comp. Xen. Mem. 1,1. a|tof
Owd-tov t% Ttoxst, and Herbst in loc. (c) The occasion or cause, Rom.
xi. 20. <fvf artiti-tia t%t.xhuG$i]aav on account of unbelief, comp. v. 30.
ty t'ovi'wj' drtt^Ha, Gal. vi. 12. See Diog. Lxrt. 2, 6. 14. Xen.

170 PART THIRD. USE OF THE NOUN.

Anab. 4, 6. 8. Heliod. JElli. 1, 12. 33. Pausan. 3, 7. 3. Joseph. Antt.
17, 6. 1. comp. Ast ad Plat, Polit. p. 392. Goller ad Time. p. 157. 184.
Wex ad Soph. Antig. I. 161. Matth. II. 894. Bernhardy 102.

The dative in Rev. viii. 4. ai/cj3^ 6 xartvo$ i&v Ov^oa/j-d^av it ai $ ft go $-
s v%ut j tuv dyt'wv is more singular, and the conjectures in reference to it
are various. The simplest translation is the following: the smolce of the
incense (of the angels) for the prayers ascended, i. e. the ascending
smoke referred to the prayers, should accompany them and render them
more acceptable. (See Ewald at this verse.}. Those who supplied avv
had the same apprehension. The translation inter preces sanctorum is
by no means allowable.

To designate duration of time the dative is employed only in Luke
viii. 29. ytoM-ots %%6vot,s awygitdxai, avtov during (since) a long time, Acts
viii. II. John ii. 20. (John xiv. 9. var.), comp. pax^c? %govc>, Soph. Trach.
599. More usual is the dative of time, as Luke xii. 20. -r'aii 1 ^ tfj wx-ti,
Mt. xvi. 21. Acts xxi. 26. Mr. vi. 21.

4. From this lax signification of the dative we easily pass over to its
use for the ablative, and the examples adduced in 3. (c) may very easily
be reckoned under this head. More nearly belong here the cases in
which the dative designates the mode or manner (Bernhardy 100.), 1 Cor.
xi. 5. rfgotfao^Ojiiw? uxataxohvrt'tq* ty xtfpa.'ky, with uncovered head, comp.
Col. ii. 11., and those in which it expresses the means (casus instru-
mentalis], e. g. 1 Cor. ix. 7. Ws Gtgatsvstat, tSt'ot? o^coWotj riots, by means
of his own expenditures, John xxi. 8. ^9 ja.oia^ faOov (Mr. vi. 32.),
although in Mt. xiv. 13. Acts xxnii. 11. (Diod. Sic. 19, 54.) we find lv
TtTicuG). In regard to spiritual things this case is used to denote the disposi-
tion of mind under which and in which anything is done, 2 Cor. i. 15. tav-fy
t^i tietfoi'&ioat, pov7ib/.iqv rtgb$ vf.iag &eiv, Rom. iv. 20. COmp. Thuc. 6, 33.
out of, with pride, 6gy# in anger, Eurip. Bacch. 51.

The ablative will also be recognized in the construction
tvt,, Rom, i. 29. 2 Cor. vii. 4. (Eurip. Here. fur. 372. comp.

i, Eurip. Bacch. 18.). But in Eph. iii. 19. its with ace. does not
stand for the ablative; it rather signifies, to be filled up to fulness, etc.

Where the efficient and the instrumental cause are clistingu shed, the
former is expressed by the ablative, and the latter by Std, Eph. ii. 7. *%
xugrft tots cfEtfwcjjtiEi'ot Sia tys tfuji'Ewj, comp. Rom. iii. 24. Matth. II. 891.
In Mt. xiii. 14. dm^^poij^at uvtot f fy tf/jo^^T'i/'tt, I should not be wil-
ling to translate the dative of the person, by means of them. To them
the prophecy is fulfilled, i. e. in them, in reference to them it is fulfilled.
So, those who insert lv-ov sal. Yet it would not be contrary to gram-
matical principles to interpret the person, dat. by, through, by means of,
see Matth. II. 890. Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. II. p. 423.

31. OP THE DATIVE. 171

5. From the examples cited under 3. (a) and 4. a relation between
the Gr. dat. and the prepos. lv is manifest, and therefore both modes of
expression occur in many clauses, e. g. vyiaLvsw t% riia^si and ev ty
rtie-ttt, Tit. i. 13., Siafyegtw ev tvi to be different in something 1 Cor. xv.
41. (comp. Dion. Hal. ep. p. 225. ed. Kriiger, and Soph. QSd. R. 1112.)
also partrigs&tM, vSatt (with water) and lv vSa-tt, (in water) see Matth.
II. 891. But if N. T. interpreters take iv merely for the sign of the
dative (see especially Bretschneider Lex. I. p. 408. comp. Blomfield ad
JEschyl. Agam. 1425. ad Eurip. Med. p. 628.), in those cases when the
proper dative (not ablat.) is required, it is out of place, and cannot be
justified even in appearance by the Hebrew idiom. Most of the passages
are altogether irrelevant; Acts iv. 12.- SeSopsvov sv aj&gwrfoif is certainly
the same as given (established) among men comp. 2 Cor. viii. 1.*, I
Cor. ix. 15. iV oiVw ^tvy-tat, tv su-oi, must be translated: that it should be
so done with me, Gal. i. 16. ajtoxuhv^nt, # 6 v vlbv avtov iv l^oi to reveal

in me (sv ^9 jivtv^a^L ftou), 1 John iv. 9, i^o-vs^Otj % aydrtri tov Gsov I v

q/Aiv, the love of God revealed itself in us, which is evidently different
from: to reveal himself to us. 1 Cor. xiv. 11.6 hahuv lv spot pdgpagos with
me, for me, according to my opinion (meojudicio, comp, Jacobs ad Athen.
p. 183. Doderlein ad (Ed. Col. p. 529. Wex. ad Soph. Antiq. ver. 549.)
The phrase rts^acsevstv ev tivt does not belong here. 1 Cor. ii. 6. aofyiuv
Kohovpsv BV *oi$ T/steiois signifies: among or by, before (coram see Plat.
Symp. p. 29. ed. Stallbaum, Demosth. adv. Conon. p. 728.) to the per-
fect we teach wisdom (i. e. if we have to do with perfect), as also Iley-
denreich acknowledged (comp. Judith vi. 2.), 2 Cor. iv. 3. sv T'otj drtox-
hvpevots lati xxaMv/j,/j.vov Baumgarten has interpreted correctly in the
principal point : is hidden in (among, by) those, who go to perdition.
About opohoystv Hv twt see Fritzsche on Mt. x. 32. Acts xiii. 15. and
Col. ii. 13. present no difficulty, John xiv. 30. l v I pal signifies on me, the
dative could not be employed here at all (see Tholuck), Ephes. i. 20.
tvsgyrfitv iv X^ttfT 1 ^ is quite regular : (power) which he proved in Christ,
vim, quam declaravit in Christo (i. e. by his resurrection), and the inter-
pretation ofKoppe:/or Christ, is entirely superfluous : Mt. xvii. 12.
eTto^aav ev a-ur 1 ^ o'cra ^sK^aav (Mr. ix. 13. Irtoivjaav 00)^9) signifies: they
acted, executed on him, comp. Mr. xiv. 6. John xiv. 30. Luk. xxiii. 31.
(Gen. xl. 14. Judith vii. 24. Finally, I do not apprehend how the i v *.
iixxh. in 1 Cor, vi. 4. tfoij I^OV^EVI^^VOV^ iv Tty sxxhqtiia, tovtovs xa^ts^s^s could
be taken for <?

* So also Diog. L.' 1, 8. 5. ti IO-TIV 1 v dvfl^woif ay ad iv -re Hal $a.Z\ov, where the Latin
translat. is, quidnam cssel HOMJNIUUS bonum etc. Comp. Fabric. 1'seudepigr. I. 628.
- i v Tof? l%6go~; etvrcav, Arrian. Epict. 1, 18. 8.

172 PART THIRD. USE OF THE NOUN.

6. The dative (instead of the genitive with vrtb, rfa^detc.) is construed
with passives Mt. v. 21. S'/J/JE^ tots dg^cwoij (comp. Fritzsche in Zoc. and
Strabo 17, 806. <ij slgyiai, titl Lucian Pise. 7. 22. wtfrtf^ poi iv tols /*~
rt%oa$v sidyotj f/3/^j? Procop. hist. arc. 16.), Luk. xxiii. 15. ovSsv a&ov
StMidtov edTfi rtsrtgaypzvov o/utq (although in the latter passage a var. occurs),
xxiv. 35. But Acts xvi. 9. w<j>^ 6'go^a ^9 ILavhcp means, became visible
to Mm (1 Tim. iii. 16.), 2 Pet. iii. 14. ajtovSaaats aiartfaoi, aw* -ige-
0iji>ac should probably be translated: to him (in his judgment) to be found
as etc. Jas. iii. 7. <efy $>vtfsi tf# w0garttj"j7 signifies more ; &y ^ ie human
nature (ingeniis hominum). This use of the dative occurs also in Greek
prose, especially after past participles, comp. Isocr. Panath. p. 401.
Arrian. Alex. 7. p. 456. Demosth. adv. Conon. p. 731. B. Dion. Hal. 11.
p. 70. Diog. L. 8, 1. 5. Philostr. Her. 4, 2. (About Acts vii. 12. see
Kiinol in loc.. Jas: iii. 18. tol$ jtowvaw is probably the dative, Heb. iv.
2. 6 Xoyoj (trf 6vyxEXga[Avo$ jig rtttfi'Efc -totj axovtiaatv indicates
rather the subject in whom (by whom) the ^ avyxsxg. ty ulam took place.)

NOTE 1. The dative is worthy of notice in Col. ii. 14. ffcas^a? ^6

%t-t,g6yga.$ov -rots gdy.uatfi,, which the interpreters almost uniformly
interpret S^v sv T'OIJ fioy^. quod constabat-placitismos. according toEphcs.
ii. 15. nov VQJJ.OV ifuv ivT'oXcov iv fioyjtictrft xat'ctgy/jcraj. But in the latter the
connection of the words | v Sdyjtiatf^ with the preceding noun is difficult,
because it must properly signify -ebv or -z-wv Jv Soypaat. And in the former,
Paul could only have written ^sigdyg.i'o sv totsSoypaat,, in conformity with
the sense above. A new interpretation has recently been offered by
Theile, in Winer's Exeget. Studien. I. 183. In Ephes. ii. 15. he under-
stands HMV Ivtohuv and ev Sdy^acrt to be two terms more particularly cha-
racterizing the v6/jt.o$, the former of which is connected with it by the
genitive only, the latter by a preposition: the law of commandments in
ordinances. Although there cannot be much objection to this variation
of the expression, yet the omission of the article is unaccounted for, since,
if Paul had written -tov VO/AOV t<Zv tvtohuv tf6v iv Soy., the evtohai and Sdy-
<watfa would have been characterized as terms qualifying j/6/noj. But
when this interpreter proceeds to say " the appositive iv S6y/*. then refers
as well to vopov as to tvio^ds", iv Sdy^. is no more a qualifying term be-
longing only to VQ/JI.OS (like the genit. ei/i-ojiwv), as was just before supposed,
and we have a second new attempt at interpretation. Properly then it
could be read neither <tbv nor -t^v h Sdy^., since in the former case the sWo-
?iaJ and in the latter the j/d^oj would be excluded. But even if the apostle
had designed to express himself so dubiously, for which certainly there
was not the least occasion (for if the Soypa-ta, be connected with the ^d^oj,
they must also belong to the evtaKoA^ and if predicate of the kv-fof,., they
must also per se belong to the j/d^oj), the Gr. Grammar would not have
permitted such dubiety, and Paul in writing the thought must, as re-
marked above, have adopted either tb v iv <Sdy. or t&v iv fidy. Finally, if
Col. ii. 14. be translated by Theile, the hand-writing (bond] against us

31. OP THE DATIVE. 173

by means of his ordinances he has blotted out, this sentence, designedly
arranged in an equivocal way, must have been expressed thus, ifoJi. to %<.%
tb x. fa. tfotj Soy^aca. Independently of Ephes. ii. 15. Col. ii. 14. may per-
haps be construed tb x. fa. #ip., tot $ fioy^a. S tjv vrtsvavt. (as some punctuate
Acts i. 2. tfotj dstotft 1 ., Stqc riv. ay. ovg IfaA,.). As to Ephes,, in view of the
whole, there remains only the twofold possibility, either to connect lv Sdy^.
grammatically with xatagyrjaa;, or to consider it ( 19, 2.) as a phrase
in apposition with the preceding, without any grammatical connection.
In the latter case tov vo^ov ifav Ivtoh. constitute one idea; in the former
Sdy/tai'a would either refer to the Christian doctrine of faith (which would
sustain the same relation to li/tfoW as rficrtfts to i'pyocj), or must be trans-
lated with Harless: he has abolished the law of commandments in ordi-
nances (as to the ordinances). Aoy/uxfa for Christian doctrines is certainly
not conformable to N. T. usage, and I therefore give up that interpreta-
tion maintained in the third edition of this book, although adopted by
Holzhausen. .According to the view of Harless, I would expect the
article to I j Soy/A., as a specific part of a particular law is here spoken
of. . I now unite with the first mentioned interpreter (see also Meier in
his Comment.'). But in Col. ii. 14. tol$ Soypaai, seems to me a limitation
afterwards introduced, which Paul, not wishing it to be strikingly promi-
nent, just annexed to the leading idea: the hand-writing against ws-(viz,)
by ordinances.

NOTE 2. Substantives derived from verbs governing the dative, some-
times take this case instead of the usual genitive, as 2 Cor. ix. 12. lv
xupiirtiat, tS> ^EGJ (not ver. 11.) see Stallbaum ad Plat Enthyphr. p. 101.
ad. rep. I. p. 372. Ast ad Plat. Polit. p. 451. ad Plat. Legg. p. 36. Bern-
hardy p. 92. Matth. II. 883. Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 63. Coinp. to sl^al a.vt
Luk. iv. 16. Acts xvii. 2. (Plat. Legg. 2, 4. p. 658. extr. 1-6 ij^oj falv)*
and sfpoj to f-vtfdptSpov t xvptq 1 Cor. vii. 35. Another case in Luk. vii.
12. vlbs fiovoyzvqs ty pftfpt a son, who was for the mother the only begotten
(therefore not properly for the genitive, comp. Tob. iii. 15. ^ovoyev^ t
tiwtgi Judg. xi. 34. 1 Chron. iii. 1.), with which the genitive of kindred
(Buttm. ad Philoct. p. 102. Boissonade ad NIC. p. 271. Ast ad Plat. Polit.
p. 451. 519., also ad Plat. Legg. p. 9.) is not to be interchanged. About

Rom. IV. 12. see 64. III. 1. - Mt. XXVli. 7. ijyopaaav tbv aypbv -- tj

tafyriv toif ^svotf as a burying place for the strangers (tuv l&vw here
might be apprehended otherwise, although not essentially different. f).
1 Cor. vii. 28. the dative belongs to the verb of the sentence. The dative
and genitive are equally correct in formulas, like Luk. v. 20. a$>!ov*a* (jot,
(COD) at apag-eiat,, vii. 48. and the Codd. vacillate in such passages.

NOTE 3. What Kiinol on Mt. viii. 1. has remarked, that datives absolute
sometimes stand for genitives absol.,as xatfajSaWo fatq for

* In Scliulthess theol. Annal. 1828. II. p. 338. Mr. iii. 28. T i ^^r^ara. TO^ vlo~<;
avflfww. is referred to this head without much probability.

t The citations of Georgi Vind. p. 234, are useless: for there the dat. depends
either on the verb of the sentence, or there is no dat. at all, but the plur. of the pos.,..
scssivc o-of, I(MS etc.
22

174 PART THIRD. USE OF THE NOUN.

and Mt. xxi. 23. IkOovtt, owk'o}, is in general correct (Fischer ad Well. III.
a p. 391. Heupel ad Mr. p. 79., yet this usage results as naturally from
the nature of the dative, as the gen. absol. from the nature of the genit.
see Bernhardy 82.), but cannot well be applied to the quoted passages, as
xatapdvti, ehOovti are here connected with dxohovQetv, and therefore not
absolute cases, although it cannot be denied that the author could also
have written xatapdvto$ owfo-D ^xo^ovO^aav ati-tcp o%hot, tfoMiot, comp. Mt.
viii. 23. 28. ix. 27. Mr. v. 2. The only peculiarity in this construction
is, that awt> is repeated, because several words intervene between the
dat. of the particip. and the governing verb. In the passages quoted
by Kypke I. p. 47. from Pausan. and Joseph, either the participle only
has a pronoun, or the pronoun is placed next to the verb (Joseph. Ann.
8, 13. 4.), and therefore they prove nothing as to the main point. The
datives in Acts xxii. 6. 17. are not real datives absol.

NOTE 4. Two datives, one of a person, and the other (interpretive, more
precisely defining) of a thing, are found in 2 Cor. xii. 7. EcSo^ pn ax6ho<ty *%
crapxt, there was given to me a thorn in theflesli (Exod. iv. 9. Gen. xlvii.
24.) comp. Lob. ad Ajac. p. 308. Reisig ad Soph. (Edip. Col. 266.
Elmsley ad Eurip. Bacch. p. 49. 80. ed. Lips. Bornemann ad Xen.
Conviv. p. 214. Schiifer ad Soph. II. p. 348. Jacobs ad Ac/till. Tat.
p. 811. Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 278. (see also Pausan. 7, 5. 9, 5. The
two datives in Ephes. iii. 5. Rom. "vii. 25. are of a different kind.

NOTES. In 2 Cor. vi. 14. ^ yivsaQs sTttgogvyovvtss artttft'otj is a
very striking dative, where some supply avv, and others think it im-
plied in the dative itself. But although the dative must sometimes be
rendered by with (Reiz ad Ludan. VI. p. 599. Bip. Matth. II. 907.
comp. Polyren. 8, 28. also Judith iii. 1.), this is an entirely different case.
The apostle seems to have expressed himself concisely, and to have
adapted the dative rather to the thought than to the language; he evi-
dently meant to say, p; yiv. 'i-teg- xal oiVwj bpo^vyovvtss (tfi)oy.) artGcftfotj,
be not put into a strange yoke, i. e. not into the same yoke with the un-
believing.

32. Of the Accusative.

1. As the genitive is most clearly recognised in its dependence on
a noun, so the accusative is properly the immediate case of the verb.
In its use to express the nearest and proper object of a verb transitive, it
is found with entire regularity in the N. T. Some verbs denoting affec-
tions of the mind, which in other languages are neuter, according to the
genius of the Gr. language are treated as more or less decidedly tran-
sitive. 'Ejiv therefore occurs always with the accusative, (Mt. ix. 27.

32. OF THE ACCUSATIVE. 175

xvii. 15. Mr. x. 47. Rom. xi. 32. comp. Plat. Symp. p. 173. C.), oix-
tslgstv the only time it occurs, (Rom. ix. 15. comp. Xen. Cyrop. 5, 4.
32. Lucian. Abdic. 6.) Comp. also xiateiv (to weep over) Mt. ii. 18. (at
other times with erti) see Wetsten w /oc. Irtettf^uvsff^ot mostly, Mr. viii.
38. Luk. ix. 26. Rom. i. 16. 2 Tim. i. 8. Heb. xi. 16. comp. Eurip. /<?.
353. The latter has once E^' Rom. vi. 21., et^ayzvi^o^at, always, except
that once it governs the genitive. Mt. xviii. 27. see 33. 'Aaspsfo (like
aSixsiv) is taken as a transitive Jude 15. tw egyuv aasfisias av-tuv, &>v (i. e.
oi) tjaspqoav which they did in an ungodly way, comp. Zeph. 3, 11. TW

STtrttjStviJioi'tav aov, <Zv jJtfljS^tfas atj Ipe (otherwise dtfsjSfiV -it Plat. Legg.

12. 1. p. 941. A. see Matth. If. 923.) and 6>viW Jas. v. 12. ^ dpvvete
info* -tor ovg av6 v (obtestari c&lum) comp. Xen. Cyrop. 5, 4. 3 1. Hero-
dian 2, 10. 3. (as neuter 6p/. xa*a i-woj Heb. vi. 13. 16. Amos viii. 14.
Zeph. i. 5. Isa. xlv. 23. Schafer ad Long. Past. p. 353. or sv twi, Mt.
v. 34. Rev. x. 6. Jer. v. 27. Ps. Ixii. 10. (to swear by}.

takes the ace. of the person Mt. xxvii. 39. Luk. xxiii. 39.
Acts xix. 37. Rev. xiii. 6. (like xax&s hsyew, xaxohoystv two, Diod. Sic.
Exc. Vat. p. 66.), but also EIJ -tmo, Luk. xii. 10., perhaps lv tivi 2 Pet.
ii. 12. (in the Greek writers also jtegi twos Isocr. permut. p. 736.), Similar
bvfiSi&w -two, to reproach some one, as a transitive verb Mt. v. 11.
(Septuag. comp. Rom. xv. 3.), a form of expression which occurs only
in the later writers, Schiifer ad Plutarch V. p. 347. More certainly
xa-tagciaSai, two, belongs to them (^Esop. 1.) Mt. v. 44. Jas. iii. 9.
'Tpgigsw is used Luk. xi. 25. with ace., as in Lucian. Pise. c. 6. Xen.
Hell. 2, 4. 17. (Matth. II. 917.) On the other hand xuhus ftotslv is found
with the dative of the person Mt. v. 44. Luk. vi. 27. according to the
better Codd. (Acts xvi. 28. ^.tjbev rtgdt;^ geavtq xaxbv is of another kind
and frequent in the Greek writers Lys. acciis. Agor. 41. Isocr. Vig. p.
357.), so ev rtoieiv according to many authorities. The Greek prose prefers
here the accusative. Comp. Hiblioth. Brcm. nova. I. 277. On the other
hand ttoielv -two, to treat some one thus and so occurs also in the N. T.
Mt. xxvii. 22. Comp. Aristoph. Nub. 257. EnrtogsvcaOat, two, 2 Pet. ii. 3.
is an unusual, and as the signification of the verb here is doubtful, an ob-
scure construction. 'Eprtogsvi-aOat, to trade (to buy and sell, the latter
more frequently, as in German, (and so to trade in Eng. more frequently
means to sell, Trs.) is most commonly connected with the ace. of the
thing e. g. ehmov spit. (Hos. xii. 1.) to trade (in) oil, then figuratively
aotyiav IjUTtog. to trade (in) wisdom (to use wisdom as an article of com-
merce.) Themist. 23. p. 289., as in Lat. cauponari sapientiam, there-
fore gjiirfog. I-TJI; uigow/ tvjv fov (sapa-tog (Joseph. Antt. 4, 68.) formositatem
cauponari of harlots, comp. Athen. 13. p. 569. Generally it refers to
something which we transfer to another for a profit. With a little different
construction Philo in Place, p. 984. (II. p. 536. eel Mang.) Iveitotevei-o
-t'/iv hyOiriv tH>v Stxaatuv he profited by the forgetfulness of the judges.
The ace. of the person appears in Ezek. xxvii. 21. a/.u>nvf xal xgtovs lv
of; f/.irto^evoi"tai a s , thus: in winch articles they make a profitable trade

176 PART THIRD. USE OF THE NOUN.

(with) you, make a profit (out of) you. Therefore in 2 Pet. ii. 3. Stolz
is probably correct: they will try to make gain of you, will make
a profit out of you. Others: lucrabuntur vos, as if we said, they will
buy you.

Baaxalvsivfascinare Gal. iii. 1. is also construed with the ace. In the
signification invidere it has the dative (Philostr. epp. 13.), Lob. p. 463.,
yet the old grammarians themselves do not agree entirely about the dif-
ference of the construction, see Wetsten. II. 221. liagnwstv, which in the,
Greek usually governs the dative of the person (jEscbin. dial. 2, 13.
Polyb. 5, 4. 7.), has the accusative in Acts xxvii. 22. The reverse is found
in Rev. ii. 14. SiSdexsw <twt, (var.) as in some later writers, see Sch'afer
ad Plutarch. V. p. 22.

'Euoyy(=7a'f<j0a&, which originally (comp. Lob. ad Phryn. p. 268.) re-
quires the dative of the person (Luk. iv. 18. Rom. i. xv. Gal. iv. 13.
1 Pet. iv. 6.), in the N. T., where like the German predigen (to preach) it
did not need an accusative of the thing, takes also the accusative of the
person (Luk. iii. 18. Acts viii. 25. 40. xiv. 21. xvi. 10. (1 Pet. i. 12.).
Even in the signification Isstum nuncium off err e (nuncio allato exhilarare)
-uayy^. occurs with an accusative of the person. Euseb. Const. 3, 26.

<3?u>.atfcracu, to beware of, governs the ace. in Acts xxi. 25. 2 Tim. iv.
15. (as often among the Greeks Xen. Mem. 2, 2. 14.) Lucian. asin. 4.
])iod. Sic. xx. 26.), on the other hand in Luk. xii. 15. drib follows, a
construction which is not foreign to the Greeks (Xen. Cyrop. 2, 3. 9.).
In a similar way q>oj3usdai, to fear in relation to, to fear something for
myself, is usually connected with the ace., but sometimes with drto (to
fear for, sibi ab olio timere)^ e. g. Mt. x. 28. ^ $oj3tef^ &7tb tuv drtox-ts-

vovtuiv I'D <3u>/.ia ^o/S^jy-z's 8s f.iaM*ov 'tbv 8wd(j.vov etc. The Greeks

say $o/3. oirto tftwj or TH,VI, yet comp. $6j3os drfo I'tvoj Xen. Cyrop. 3, 3. 53.
6, 3. 27. 4>oj3ei<3$ai, arib is an imitation of the Hebrew p or 'J3D NT (Jer.
i. 8.) After this analogy faErtetv d/to ( pragnanter) is construed in Mr.
viii. 15. xii. 38., on the contrary Phil. iii. 2. j3hertt--ts ^v xatatopyv etc.
see the concision, have an eye to it (j3ju7t> ti to beware of something, can
receive no support from qvhdaastiGai, >ti, as the middle is here necessary).
To beware, of is a derived signification. 'EvtgBrtscOau revereri has always
the ace. of the person Mt. xxi. 37. Heb. xii. 9., as in Gr. prose writers
since Plutarch. In the ancient authors Ixii^rt' tfwoj to concern oneself
about somebody, to take an interest in one, (to mind some one).

3><i>yiv governs the accusative in 1 Cor. vi. 18. 2 Tim. ii. 22. in a
tropical signification (tof.ee a vice, i. e. to avoid it), yet once 1 Cor. x.
14. ^Eijysi'a drib 1-7/5 atSw^oxat'gsittj. This latter construction is very com-
mon in the N. T. and fysvytw owo twos either means to f,ee away from
some one in a different sense (John x. 5. Rev. ix. 6. Mr. xiv. 52. Jas.
iv. 7.) or (including the .result of the fleeing) to escape from some one,
Mt. xxiii. 33. ^svyi-w uitb occurs among the Greeks only in a strictly local
signification, Xen. Cyrop. 7, 2. 4. Mem. 2, 6. 31. Polyb. 26, 5. 2.

The accusative of the place to which, after verbs of motion, when once
the prepositions had become established, was confined more to Gr. poetry,
(Matth. II. 747.) and in accordance with the character of the N. T.

32. OF THE ACCUSATIVE. 177

language we shall, in such cases, expect only the construction with prepo-
sitions : even Acts xxvii. 2. n^ovet itteiv tov$ xuta ify Aaiav toitovs is

not an exception; it must be translated, to sail by the places along^the

cted

coast of Asia, in which meaning ttfoiv (a real transitive) is connect
with the ace. by the best authors. (The parallels of Wahl Xen. Hel.
4, 8. 6. Polyb. 3, 4. 10. only establish the phrase Tttetv t^v

2. Nouns are frequently placed in the ace. after, verbs when they have
a kindred signification, as they express the meaning of the verb sub-
stantively, and are really implied in it; yet always where the signification
of the verb is to be extended (IJerm. ad Soph. Pliiloct. 281.) either as in
Luk. viii. 5. >tov ajtelgat, -tbv Grto^ov uvTtov, ii. 8. q>vhdt}aovt$ fyvhaxas
ty s wxto j ,*' 1 Pet. iii. 14., or by means of an adjective John vii. 24.
i r^v Stxuiuv xQiGw xgivsTfe, 1 Tim. i. 18. i'va, at^a'ttvyi j^v xnhyjv
atgattiav, Mr. iv. 41. E$op<q&i<iav $6j3ov peyav, 1 Tim. vi. 12. Rev. xvii. 6.
This is also very frequent in the Greek, see Fischer ad Well. III. I. p.
422. Ast ad Plat. Polit. p. 316. Matth. II. 744. 910. 941. Bernhardy
106. comp. Xen. Mem. 1. 5. 6. Sovhsvitv Sovhetav o'tSS^ua? rj-ttov uiazgdv
Herod. 5, 119. /j.d%rjv epazeaavfo laxvgqv (magnam pugnavimus pugnam
Terent. Adelph. 5, 3. 57.), Plat. Apol. p. 28. B. toaovtov ayti^Ss-u/ta
rfaf, p. 367. A. pvsg'yffeiv tfqv /afyc'tfV^v Evsgyactiav, Alciphr. 2, 3.
pov Ttacfa? Sf^tfftj, Lysias 1. Theomnest. 30. l^ov ^a^v^aavfsg -f^v
a<i> triv fiagtfvguav and 27. rto^oi; 6t xai a'x^ouj xivSvvovs jaf^' vpuv txiv8v~
a>i)cr, Eurip. Iphig. A. 1190. foljo^e^a &el-w vjv tie Salatf^at^^cwv, Demosth.
c. Neser. p. 517. adv. Polycl. p. 707. C. Lucian. asm. 11. Arrian Alex.
7. 11. See yet Georgi Vind. 199. Wetsten II. 321. (On the oriental
languages comp. Gesen. Lehrgeb. 1810.) The passive construction occurs
ill Rev. xvi. 9. exavf^a'tta^gav oL wSgurtot, xavpa [tsya,. Oil the other
hand the connection with such a conjugate noun (one of kindred meaning)
alone, like /^a^v^av ftagtvgtiv, appears in the N. T. only by an interpo-
sition of relative clauses Johnv. 32. fy pagtvgia, $v /iagix rt ^ > 0/ " ^ r -
iii. 28. Heb. viii. 10. This connection is common in Heb., sometimes
with, and sometimes without intensity of meaning (Ewald 590.), as also
in Greek (e. g. y&cota y^w Soph. Antig. 551., ya^ous lyapav Herod. 4,
145. j Ovaias Ovovta, Arrian. Jllex. 2, 16. comp. also Tto^uoi/ TtoXs^tv
Pausan. 7. 16. 5.

* Yet in Xen. Anal. 3, G. 10. wo find also <pv\<rretv <j>yXxi f . But in this phrase
(fuXctKaj is an extension of tlie meaning of the verb, as it denotes not only the abstr.
of <f>iAtt<rs-Eiv, but the concrete idea the watches. Then we must exclude from the
above rule formulas such as <rrot(ta.lwv TTOI'^VHV, aTroo-TEXXeiv tt-iroyrfawq (Demosth.)-

178 PAET THIRD. USE OF THE NOUN.

Kindred to this construction is Ssgew (rttyyai) rtoM,d$, oXt'yaj, which
then takes also an ace. of the person, (comp. Luke xii. 47.) Buttmann
ed. Rob. p. 360. 131. 3.

3. Instead of the ace. of the object, we find in many cases a preposi-
tion, lv (3), as is supposed, after the Hebrew usage; but the passages on
closer inspection show the preposition to have its proper force: (a) Acts
XV. 7. 6 deaf EV ^jU-t v fiEftlfatfo Sia -tov tfi'd/ttai'os jU.oi> dxovaat to, sOvy, etc.
is not to be compared with 3 TlD, but lv vmlv properly signifies: among
us (the Apostles), both from the fact that Peter is just after used in the sing.,
and also from a consideration of the to, lOvy: God has made choice among
us, that by me the heathen should be taught the right way. See also
Olshausen in loc. About the Hebrew 3 TO, which the LXX. some-
times translate Ixkly. lv 1 Sam. xvi. 9. 1 Kings viii. 16. 1 Chron. xxviii.
4. Neh. ix. 7., even the interpretation of which Gesenius did not think
necessary, see Ewald Gr. 605. (&) o^oysZV lv Mt. x. 32. Luke xii. 8. to
give a confession on some one, i. e. (according to another construction)
about some one. Otherwise Bengel. The Hebrew hy min Ps. xxxii. 5.
has not entirely the same signification.

4. Two accusatives occur, (a) one of a person and the other of a thing
uniformly after verbs of dressing and undressing, John xix. 2. Mt. xxvii.
28. Mr. xv. 17., of giving to drink Mr. ix. 41. 1 Cor. iii. 2.*, of anoint-
ing Heb. i. 9. Rev. iii. 18., of loading Luke xi. 46., of persuading Acts
xix. 8. xxviii. 23. 2 Cor. v. 11., of adjuring (by] Acts xix. 13. 1 Thess.
v. 27. also avaptinwYitixew 1 Cor. iv. 17. John xiv. 26. (Xen. Cyrop. 3, 3.
37. Herod, vi. 140., on the other hand ava^v- two, twos Xen. Cyrop. 6,
4. 13.). On the contrary siidyycju^ <*<*& is only in Acts xiii. 32. con-
structed with a double ace. (Rev. x. 7. a variation is found), comp. He-
liod. 2, 10. 75. Alciph. 3, 12. Eus. H. E. 3, 4.; instead of x^vittfiv two,
it, the connection x^vrttsw it, arto twos is in Col. i. 26. Luke xviii. 34. at
least indicated; SiSdaxsw is connected once with V twt of the person in
Rev. ii. 14. (as if it were to instruct on some one}, but not in a very well
established reading.']' Others and better Codd. have sS^Saaxe 1-9

iv Num. xi. 4. Dcut. viii. 16. belongs also to this class, of which construc-
tion there is a specimen in 1 Cor. xiii.. 3., comp. Schwarz Comment Gr. p. 1441. and
on 1 Cor. especially, Fabric. Pseudep. II. 566.

t This construction is not certainly proved to be Hebrew by 2 Chron. xvii. 9.
nT.n*3 TD^, as this probably means to teach in Judah. Perhaps in Acts vii. 22.
i'jrathuSu vrdtrti c-ofi'a is not to be taken for ^racrav c-o^iav (comp. Diod. Sic. 1, 91.), but
as expressing 1 by the dat. the means of instruction, whilst swaiS. <rra,?a.v <ro<f>i'av would
be edoctus e.st (inslitutus ad) sapientirtm. However, camp. Pint. Hep. 5. p. 406, D.

32. OP THE ACCUSATIVE. 179

comp. Philo. Apocr. N. T. I. p. 656. (i "V-h Job. 21. 22.). With
aitsiv Tiiva, tf& (Mt. vii. 0. Luke xi. 11.) is found also afostv tit, rtagd twos
Mt. xx. 20. Jas. i. 5. (Xen. Anab. 1, 316.), as with 'Iguitav tfwa *& Mr.
iv. 10. John xvi. 5. also igutav two, sttgt two$ frequently occurs in Luke
iv. 38. ix. 45. (also in John xvii. 9. 20. comp. Herod. 1, 32.). Finally
7tgtj8aM,<jcx6 is construed once in Rev. xvii. 4. (if the reading be genu-
ine) with the dative, like 1 Kings i. 1. xi. 29., but with a> iii. 5. iv. 4.

The ace. of a pronoun and adjective, whic.h follows certain verbs to-
gether with an ace. of the person (as phdrtisw Luke iv. 35. Ayshsiv Gal.
v. 2., abixelv Acts xxv. 10. Gal. iv. 12.) is reducible essentially to the
same law, Buttmann ed. Rob. p. 361. 131. 7. Matth. II. 939.; only
the construction with two accusatives here stops at the first step. We
also say: to ask one, something, but not therefore, to ask one, a book.
I would also refer here Mt. xxvii. 44.

(&) An ace. of the subject and of the predicate (exegetical) John vi.
15. L'va 7t065jtfcotfn' avtov puathea, Acts XX. 28. v{tas H&sto srtwxortos, Heb.

i. 2. ov e^tjXE xhygovopov, Jas. V. 10. vrtoSsiynu ^dj3sfe-'f^s xaxorta$tas

tovs rfo<j>-/jtfaj Rom. iii. 25. Jas. ii. 5. Acts v. 31. The accusative of
the predicate sometimes follows the preposition sis Acts xiii. 22. tfysigsv
cwtfotj tfbv Aa/3tS sis j3atf.Xa, vii. 21. dveSgett^ato va^bv av?>n sis
viov himself as son, xiii. 47. This is a Hebrew construction (Ewald
Gram. 603.) and is often imitated Isa. xlix. 6. 2 Kings iv. 1. Judith v.
11. Gen. xliii. 18. 1 Sam. xv. 11. What is quoted from the Greek as
parallel differs, as the ei s of the destination, Herod. 1, 34. rtdvtss
tolat, xgEovtai as rtohfpov, Eurip. Troad. 1207. o-u yag sis xdhhog T!V%O,S
Satpuv SiSuai,, Alciphr. 3, 28. To the latter mode of expression may
be reduced Heb. iv. 8. and perhaps Acts vii. 53. ehdpets *bv vopov s I s
8 i a * a y a ? dyys'jtuv, ye received the law for or as the or dering of an-
gels, see Bengel in loc. In Phil. iv. 16. the construction $ t^ v x ^Laa>
luoo irtep^u-ts is an entirely different conception from t^v %g. t u. ex., and
therefore belongs not here.

5. Verbs which in the active take two ace., one of a person the other
of a thing, in the passive retain the latter, e. g. 1 Thess. ii. 15.
a j t ,8 1 S d x $ ^ 1 E . So also in the constructions Luke xii. 47.
dllyas (comp. 8!g l fw i rt^yas), Mr. X. 38. tb ^d^^^a
iuu, pMttHtSjviu Rev. xvi. 9. (comp. Lucian. Tox. 61. Dion. Hal.
IV. p. 2162, 8.). The same takes place also in verbs which in the ac-
tive govern a dative of the pers. together with an ace. of the thing, as
in the passive they are considered causal verbs: Gal. ii. 7. rf^wi^cu
fb e-flayy&coi/ (from rttdtevvt twL ft,, passiv. rttaifsvoftaA ii) 1 Cor. ix. 7.

180 PART THIRD. USE OF THE NOUN.

see Fischer ad Well. III. I. p. 487. Matth. II. 946. the analogy of which
rtsgtxetpat, follows: Acts XXviii. 20. -t^v v&vfav tw-ttiv rtEglxetpat (from
Squats 7ts%lxrtaL pot) Heb. v. 2. D'Orville ad Cliarit. p. 240. 'Matth. II.
947. Then the ace. with the passive generally designates the remote
object, viz. that part of the subject affected by the signification of the
verb: 1 Tim. vi. 5. ify$ag(tvoi, vbv vow (from Sto$&t.. iiwl tbv vovv}
2 Tim. iii. 8. John xi. 44. SfSf-^eW tfcnjj rtdSaj xai tovs *af, Phil. i. 11.
TtETtfl.i^OjWfJ'ot xa^jibv S&xcuotf., 2 Cor. 111. 18. j^v av-frfv elxova/ fjt,Tfa/j,o^ov-
fjt,s8a, Heb. x. 22., comp. Valckenser ad Herod. 7, 29. Hartung on the
cases 61.

6. Hence it became usual to express in the ace. case (even without the
passive construction) the remote object added to a verb or noun as a more
exact expletive, as Jud. vii. 7. mbv opoiov tfoikoc.? t

2 Tim. iii. 8. .Luke IX. 14. xarfassTaWtffi av-tovs x & i 3 i a j dva
(in rows to fifty) comp. Jer. xxx. 14. 1 Sam. xx. 17., Mr. vi. 39.
sv cw&tfot j avaxhivat, rtdvta$, tivpftoaiu avprtoeia (in several companies),
in all which cases the ace. was apprehended in a certain relation to the
verb of the sentence, Bernhardy 108. comp. Herm. ad Soph. (Ed. C.
1402. (The last two of the examples above are only an extension of
the construction with two accusatives). This ace. is used to designate
qualities, properties, or relations still more extensively (Bernhardy 117.)
Acts xviii. 3. axrivortowi itvjv te%v<qv (Lucian. Asin. 43. J3gatli. 2,

26.), John vi. 10. averteaov ot avSgf; tbv ag&pbv cbtfa rtfivi'axKJ^tXtot (ttS

to, in number'), comp, Isocr. de big. p. 842. and many others, Lob. ad
Pliryn. p. 364. Hence also for specifications of time in different con-
structions, Acts X. 3. uSsv lv ugdfta'ti' wtJat wcw lvv&-ti]v T'^
etc. Rev. iii. 3. (Herod. 2, 2.) Luke xxii. 41. xxiii. 56. ^6

John V. 5. rp> <ti$ dV^wytoj xt> tQMxovta xal oxTtu sty H%av Iv
(Bernhardy p. 116.,- on the He], see Ewald Gr. 591.; the
same use exists in Eng. Trs.)j and finally merely as adv. John viii. 25.
tip agxriv. See Hermann ad Vig. p. 880. In this way the accusative
is connected with the dat., and therefore both cases occur in many for-
mulas, e. g. ^o yvos Herodian. 1, 8. 2. Diod. Sic. 1, 4. and foj yl^et Mr.
vii. 26. Acts iv. 36. Plutarch. Demoath. p. 889. B. (as with tbv ug
occurs -tu dgi,^i$) Bernhardy 118., comp. Luke xxiv. 25. /SgaSst
jsa^Si/a, Dion. Hal. de Lys. 7. p. 243. Lips.; on the other hand,
tbv vow. See Wetsten. I. 826.

Rev. xviii. 17. 6'tfoc ify Odhaaaav tydovtat does not cotue under this
rule. In this phrase #a/u is to be taken as the immediate object (comp.
Boissonade ad Pkiloslr. p. 452.), like yr/v iqydZtaOat, Pausan. 6, 10. 1.

32. OF THE ACCUSATIVE. 181

Mt. iv. 15. bSbv dahdeays (from Isa.) is very peculiar: it is translated
by or near the way. Passages like 1 Sam. vi. 9. It, 6Sbv ogtav OA>T;^ Tto-
gsvCBtat,, Exod. xiii. 18. do not justify this case here in connection with
vocatives. Nor do I believe that the LXX. have extended this use of
the ace. so far beyond all the proper limits of prose (comp. Bernhardy
p. 114.), but with Fritzsche regard 68bv 0ca. in the Septuag. as a gloss
from Symmachus.

7. The ace. in some places is taken to be absolute, where, on closer
inspection, we may discover the grammatical reason of the ace. in the
structure of the sentence. So in Rom. viii. 3. <? 6 uSvva.'tov -tov

vofiov -- 6 -05 Tfbv laui'ot) vtbv jts^ag xa-ftxgws H^v dju.agi'iav is

evidently, according to the proper sense, equivalent to <tb aSwaitov *oij
yofiov 7tou7<Jv 6 ^-0$, ftefj.^at -- xai xataxgiv&Vt etc. En Acts XXVI. 3.
the ace. yvaa^v ovta is certainly to be considered an anacoluthon, which
with the addition of participles is frequent, see 64. II. 2., comp. Eph.
i. 18., where also Koppe incorrectly finds an ace. absolute. In Luke
Xxiv. 46. t'Sat rtaOsiv -tbv XguJT'ov -- xal xqgvxOqvai, crfl ^9 ovof^aTtt, av-tov
(iffdvoiav -- &g%dfjievov a.jtb 'itgovaah'/ifj, the ace. (in the construct.
of ace. with infin.) is grammatically clear, and the dg%dptvov only added in
a loose respect: beginning (viz. the x^vaauv), or impersonally it being
begim, comp. Herod. 3. 91. Yet see Kypke I. 344. As to Rev. i. 20.
see Evvald in loc. Finally, in Rev. xxi. 17. l^ltg^tfE -to T'E^OJ -t^ ^oXfwj
exattbv T'stftfag. rt'/i%Z>v, i^r^^ov avOgurtov, etc. the last words are a loose ap-
position to the clause fywVg. I'D tf^oj, etc. comp. Matth. II. 916. More-
over, comp. Matth. ad Eurip. Med. p. 501. Sprachl. II. 955. (As to
an ace. apposit. and an anacoluth. in the ace. of partic. see below, and on
the casus absol. comp. A. Wannowski Syntaxeos anomal. Gr.-pars de
constr., qu. die. absol. Lips. 1835. 8vo. See Stuart N. T. Gr. 108.

33. Connection between a Verb (neuter} and its dependent Noun by

means of Prepositions.

Many verbs, especially those which signify an affection of the mind,
are connected with their predicate by the interposition of a prepo-
sition : and in this the N. T. usage is sometimes conformable to the
Greek, sometimes exhibits more of the Hebrew oriental usage. The
following classification may be offered: () Verbs of rejoicing or griev-
ing, which by the Greeks are often construed with the dative alone (in the
23

182 PART THIKD. USE OF THE NOUN.

N. T. only wl&w ty l^jtiSc, Rom. xii. 12. in this way,) have mostly the
prep. Irtl after them (camp. Wurm ad Dinarch. p. 40.) x a^st,v Mt. xviii.
13. Luke i. 14. Acts xv. 31. 1 Cor. xiii. 6. Rev. xi. 10. (comp. Xen.
Cyrop. 8, 4. 12. Diod. Sic. 19. 55. Isocr. permut. p. 738. Arrian. Ind.
35.), i)$ga/0c Rev. xviii. 20., avM.vrtst,a^at, Mr. iii. 5. (Xen. Mem. 3, 9.
8.). but sometimes also lv (hvrttiv lv Jacobs ad Achill. Tat. p. 814.), as
zcugsiv Luke x. 20. Phil. i. 18. (Col. i. 24.), tvtygaiv Acts vii. 41., ayax-
/uaa^cu 1 Pet. i. 6. (1), on the other hand ayaMsa^ao Ijtt Xen. Mem. 2, 6.
35. 3, 5. 15. Of the verbs to be angry dyavaxtsiv with jts^l (to be angry
071 account of some one) Mt. xx. 24. Mr. x. 41., but (like ayavax-tsiv Inl
Lucian. Abdic. Q. Aylithon. p. 267.) dgytgeaSai, liti tivi Rev. xii. 17.
comp. Joseph, bell.jud. 3, 9. 8. (in the Septu. even d^y^sa^at, iv *. Judg.
2, 14.). The opposite wSoxslv is according to the Hebrew 3 f3 n, and the
LXX. constructed it with lv (to have pleasure in), it may either be
used of persons Mt. iii. 17. Luke iii. 22. 1 Cor. x. 5. or of things
2 Thess. ii. 12. (comp. also ^e'^tv lv Deut. xxi. 14. 1 Sam. xviii. 22.
Col. ii. 18.); in the Greek the dative would be sufficient (yet comp. Po-
lyb. 2, 12. 3.): agxtia^ai which usually takes the dative (Luke iii. 14.
Heb. xiii. 5.) is once in 3 John 10. connected with Ijtv. (6) Verbs sig-
nifying to wonder, to be amazed, are followed by Irti with a dative; so
a"jt*.dstv Mr. xii. 17. Luke iv. 22. xx. 26. Acts xiii. 12., ixft^aasa^ta.!,
Mt. xxii. 33. Mr. i. 22. xi. 18. Luke iv. 32. Acts xiii. 12., which is also
frequent among the Greeks. According to another construction Sia is
used, to wonder on account of a thing, Mr. vi. 6., as JElian. V. II. 12,

6. 14, 36. ^tav^oi^civ liva, Sid ii. But $avp. iv tq %govi$siv Luke i. 21.

can signify by his remaining, yet comp. Sir. 11, 31. About
tivi see above 31. 1. (c) Verbs signifying to have pity
are usually connected within either with the accus. Mt. xiv. 14. xv. 32. Mr.
viii. 2. ix. 22. or with the dat. Mr. vi. 34. Luke vii. 13. (Isocr. permut. p.
778.), and only once with 7tt& Mt. ix. 36.; ttes-la^ai is used as a transitive,
see 32. 1. (rf) Verbs signifying to conf.de in, to trust, to hope, to boast,
are constructed with tttl, fa, stj, as jtc-rto^a titl avi Mr. x. 24. Luke xi.
22. 2 Cor. i. 9. (Agath. 209, 5. 306, 20.), fal ft Mt. xxvii. 43., with lv
Phil. iii. 3. 2 Thess. iii. 4.; Ttw-tevsw erti -tivi Rom. ix. 33. 1 Pet. ii. 6.
Septu. (about it\.<rtvvsiv el$ or lai two, to believe in some one, see above
31. 2.) s*.rt% stv irti with dat. Rom. xv. 12. Phil. iv. 10. (Polyb. 1,
82. 6.), with accus. 1 Tim. v. 5. 1 Pet. iii. 5., ds John v. 45. 2 Cor. 1.
10. (Herodian. 7. 10. Joseph, bell jud. 6, 2. 1., ^ J' ? ^ 6TO t^rfij Piut.
Galba. c. 19.), fa I Cor. xv. 19. (comp. Xen. Cyrop. 1, 4. 25. Mem. 4,
2. 28. Polyb. 1, 59. 2. t^rtiba, %stv lv 7?.), jcau^dc&ou I'rtt tivi Rom. V. 2.
(Diod. Sic. 16, 17., similar o(jtivvj/or^at Diog. L. 2, 8. 4. Isocr. big. p.

33. CONNECTION BETWEEN A VEKB AND NOUN, &C. 183

840. and qvawvaSao Diog. L. 6, 2. 4., more frequently *> Rom. ii. 17.
23. 1 Cor. iii. 21. Gal. vi. 13. (Jerem. ix. 22. Ps. cxlix. 5.) (e) Of verbs
of sinning, transgressing, apagtavsw alone takes the object sinned against,
with the prepos. ets Mt. xviii. 15. Luke xvii. 3. 1 Cor. vi. 18.^ comp.
Herod. 1, 138. Isocr. permut. p. 750. JEgin. p. 920. 931. M. Anton. 7.
26., comp. Wetsten. I. 443., on the other hand apagrtdv rfgoj tw Joseph.
Jlntt. 14, 15. 2., jttgi, two, Isocr. permut. 754. a^aet. two 1 San?, xiv. 33.
1 Kings viii. 31. 33. Judg. x. 10. (f} The verbs a.Qtaxt-iv to please, and
Qavyvat, to appear, take after them the Hellenistic preposition Iv^Tttov in-
stead of the dative of the person to whom something is pleasing or ap-

pears, Acts vi. 5. ijgsGEV 6 Tioyoj Evtortiov rtavtb{ toy rthr^ovs (Judg. X. 5.
xiv. 7. Deut. 1. 23.) Luke XXIV. 11. etydvygav evuruov a-uiW u>fft T^goj to,
gr]/j,atu. 'Agsaxstv occurs also with Ivuvtiov tiv. in the Septu. Num.
xxx vi. 6. Gen. xxxiv. 18.

It is properly a redundancy when verbs signifying to follow are con-
strued with the prep. psta. or avv (comp. comitari cum aliquo in Latin in-
scriptions), Rev. vi. 8. xiv. 13. see Wetsten. N. T. I. 717. Lob. ad
Phryn. p. 354. Meineke p. 259. Schilfer ad Demosth. V. 590. Goller
ad Thuc. II. p. 299. Wurm ad D inarch, p. 15. Hebraistic is
6rt Jtfw -twos ("inx) Mt. x. 38. 1 Kings xix. 30. Isa. 45. 14.

34. Use of the Adjective.

1. A neuter adjective (particip.) in the singular (more rarely in the
plural) followed by a noun in the genit. is frequently equivalent to an ab-
stract noun, especially, when the language had no corresponding noun
(Wyss. dialectal, p. 80.): Phil. iii. 8. to vrie^ X ov rfs yi/wtfcwj, Heb. vii.
18. -to (-f'/js IvtofJ^s) uovvutov XM o*cd(j)/\.ej, 1 Cor. i..25. -to /.lugbv -tov $sov

to ao&ve ; tov $eov, comp. Rom. ii. 4. ix. 22. Phil. iv. 5. Heb. vi. 17. 2 Cor.
iv. 17. viii. 8. An instance of the plural is found in Rom. i. 20. to,
ov 6sov, where the reference is to the following: yj ts ouSioj 8ijj'a-

xa

T6 ooxi^ov t^s ftiatEus in 1 Pet. i. 7. does not belong here, as SQXI/.UOV
is itself a noun, comp. Fritzsche in loc., and Jas. i. 3. in his Prsslim.
p. 44. An adj. Soxifjuos does not exist.

^ Rom. i. 19. to yvuatbv tov GSOV is not the same as ^ yvuais t. 0., but
either that of God which is known (to man) or that of (in) God- which
can be known. The latter signification of the ^aefog, which Tlioluck
doubts, see Soph. (Ed. R. 362. Plat. rep. 7. p. 517. C. Aristot. Metaph.

184 PART THIRD. USE OF THE NOUN.

4. (5) p. 70. comp. Schulthess Theol. Annal. 1829. p. 976. Reiche has
by no means refuted this interpretation, but thinks that interpreters have
made the distance between these two possible models of apprehending
the subject much wider than it really is.

The above usage, which arises directly from the nature of the neuter,
is not foreign to the Greek; especially have the later prose writers adopt-
ed it from the technical language of philosophy. The examples collected
by Georgi (Hierocr. I. p. 39,), however, must be well sifted. The fol-
lowing are real parallels: Demosth. Phil. 1. p. 20. A. ^6 ^uv
and de fals. leg. p. 213. A. -to dtf<{>a;Uj avtijt, Thtic. 1, 68. rb
Ttox.t-r'si'as, 2, 71. ^6 a<j^i/$ t!^ yi/ii/^j, Galen, protrept. 2. 1-6
atfT'afov, Heliod. 2, 15. 83. -to vrttgpaMov tijs a/untyf, Philostr. Apoll. 7,
12. Diod. Sic. 19, 55. Diog. L. 9, 11. 4. Lucian. Pise. 252. This
construction with participles is especially peculiar to Thucid. (and the
Byzantines). Comp. Ellendt. ad Arrian. Alex. I. p. 253. JSiebuhr. ind.
ad Dexip., Eunap. and Malch.

2. That which should be signified by means of an adjective as the
qualifying term, is sometimes not so expressed, but with a change of
construction, by a noun; and (a) so that the principal noun is in the ge-
nitive: 1 Tim. vi. 17. ^ fortixsvat, srcl rthovtov aSrfiofqtt, not to trust to
the uncertainty of riches, i. e. to riches, which are uncertain, Rom. vi.
4. L'va ^jitetj sv xaivatrj'ti, wijs, TtE^tTtttT'^rftow.Ef , vii. 6. 2 Thess. ii. II.
This construction, however, is not arbitrary, but aims at a greater pro-
minence of the chief thing represented, which, expressed by an adjective,
would stand rather in the back ground. It is therefore more of a rheto-
rical than grammatical nature. Comp. Zumpt Lat. Gramm. p. 554.
and instances from the Greek in Held ad Plutarch. Timol. p. 368.

Correctly speaking, only those passages can be reckoned here, in which
the noun, followed by a genit. is connected with a verb, which most na-
turally belongs to the noun in the genit. and characterizes it as the prin-
cipal noun (as ingemuit corvi stupor]. Passages like the following are
therefore to be excluded: Col. ii. 5. jSxI^wv ^6 a-tse,^^ 1-17$ jta*su>s, 2 Cor.

iv. 7. iva, yj vrtsgpohrj 'ttjg vvd(j.t$ y -toy ^-soij, Gal. ii. 14. of^rOTtoStiv rtgoj

ify dtoj^-Etcw Tfov svayiyshiovi Heb. ix. 2. ^ ytgo0sc(tj "tZv agituv means, the
setting out of the loaves (shew bread), and 1 Pet. i. 2. ayiaapbs 7tvvfj.a-
*os, as a single glance at the context will show, is not synonomous with
rtvvf*.a aytov. Finally, the phrase happdvEW tyv lrto.yyel.iav tov rivsv/jia-fog
Acts ii. 33. Gal. iii. 14. signifies to receive the promise of the Spirit,
which takes place when the promised good itself is received (xo}.uto6at,
-f^v IrfayyfJu'ajO, when the promise is fulfilled.

(&) More frequently so that the noun expressing the property or qua-
lity (mostly of the soul) is in the genitive: Luke iv. 22. xdyot i^j %dgrto$,
Luke xvi. 8. olxovopos ify dStxi'aj, Col. i. 13. it,6j -tv\$ aydrtys, Luke xviii.
6. xgnr^j tijs aStxtaj, Rev. xiii. 3. ^ ri^y^ iov ^tavdifov a deadly wound,
Rom. i. 26. rtd$y afi/nlat, 2 Pet. ii. 10. In prose this construction is

34. USE OF THE ADJECTIVE. 185

Hebrew (and in this language the result not only of a want of adjectives
Ewald 572., but also of the more perspicuous or explicit manner of the
Oriental languages), but in more elevated style, examples of it exist in
the Greek, see Erfurdt ad Soph. (Ed. R. 826. Herm. ad Vig. p. 887.
891. Comp. Pfochen diatr. p. 29. Those quoted by Georgi Vind.
p. 214. are almost all useless.*

If in such a case there be added a personal pronoun in the genit., in
translating, it is construed as belonging to the general idea: Heb. i. 3.
?> /jjjjUa-r't fijs dwdptws av-tov by his powerful word, Rev. iii. 10. xiii. 3.
Still further it is contended (e. g. Vorst Hebraism, p. 570. Storr. Observ.
p. 234.), that when two nouns connected express one idea, the demonstr.
pron. grammatically agrees with the noun governed: e. g. Acts v. 20. ta
prifjia-ta tys fw^j tfonJi'flfj instead of tavta these words of life, xiii. 26.
o 7.670? T^S crwi'jfgtas tfavi'^f this doctrine of salvation, Rom. vii. 24. l
tov ffwjua.T'of tov SavoLTtov tovtov, comp. the Peschito. But this canon
(which even Bengel follows) is not genuine. In Rom. 7. tov'tQv might
have been construed with oca^a-fcs by Paul himself; but it would not be
without meaning connected with eava-tov, since as the Apostle had fre-
quently mentioned Odva-to$ (ver. 10. sq.), he might easily refer back to
that, see Kollner in loc.; in Acts xiii. 23. aw fa 'l^crovj had already
been mentioned; 6 Xoyoj >t. out. # is therefore, the doctrine of this
(by the mediation of Christ) salvation; in Acts 5. the pron. refers to the
salvation which the Apostles were then proclaiming. The LXX. have
not translated so incorrectly the phrase 1333 'VStf Isa. ii. 20. which ne-
cessity demanded, but which is much more natural as the two words are
essentially one, comp. Isa. ii. 20. <ta pSia.v'ypata awtov -fa agyvga, Deut. i.
41. TO, axEvri T'O, Tto^E^ujca avtov. It cannot be readily seen how Luke
and Paul in so plain sentences could have fallen upon a construction so
irregular. What Georgi Vind. p. 204. and Munthe obs. ad Actsv. 20. have
quoted from the Greek, on near inspection loses all its value (Fritzsche
Exc. 1. ad Mr. p. 771.)

NOTE 1. That the Hebraism (Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 661. Vorst He-
braism, p. 282.) of a neuter adjective expressed by the feminine, is found
in Luk. xi. 33. dfx^vri^v tier/at, is rather absurd; xgvrt-tvi existed already
as a noun in Gr. usage signifying, a covered place or alley, a subterra-
neous cavern, a vault, and is there very suitable. See Matthaei in loc.
small ed. On the other hand Mt. xxi. 42. (Mr. xii. 11.) Ttaga xvgiov
Ijfvffo avtq (fov'to), xal ka-tl Savf-iag-ty (^atyiaffT'o)') is a quotation from
Ps. cxviii. 22., and this occurs also elsewhere in the Septuag.

* The gcnit. of the matter does not belong here, \lBtv x^io?, e. g. among the Greeks
was just equivalent to, a ram out of stone, and only in conformity with the Lat. could
an adject, be required. In Phil. iv. 18. also l f(J ti suaSiaj (comp. Aristot. Rhct. 1, 11.)
is the pleasant emanation of a sweet odor, and not put exactly for EJWSf. It is now
generally conceded by the best interpreters that 1 Cor. x. 16. TO TTOT^IOV TW? el^oylay
and Rom. i. 4. 7rvEu'/xa aj/nwa-uvnf arc to be interpreted by the above canon. Comp.
Olass. T. 26.

186 PART THIRD. USE OF THE NOUN.

NOTE 2. Instead of concrete adjectives, which would be taken sub-
stantively, in conformity with Hebrew usage we 6nd nouns with via? or
texvov, which, according to the lively perceptions of the oriental inhabit-
ants, denote the most intimate connection with (dependence on) something,
(Vorst Hebraism, p. 467. 19.): e. g. VLOI artB^uas Kphes. ii. 2. (children
of disobedience, born as it were from the artsi&ia, raised, attached to her
like to a mother), tsxva, ^wrdj Ephes. v. 8., itexva, vitaxoijs 1 Pet. i. 14.,
tkxvo, o^f Ephes. ii. 3., ttxvu xa-tdgas 2 Pet. ii. 14. (1 Kings ii. 26. 1
Sam. xix. 29. Deut. xxv. 2.) The phrases ftai&s$ iatguv, Svanr t vtw
(espec. in Lucian.) quoted by Wahl. Clan. II. p. 985. are more similar to
the viol tuvavOgujtuv. Neither Schwarz nor Georgi has proved that
rtatj or fsxvov in Gr, prose is connected with an abstract noun, as in the
examples above. For examples from the ecclesiastical writers see
Epiphan. Opp. I. p. 380. E. oc. viol

NOTE 3. Ephes. vi. 12. ^a rtvev/j-attxa tv^ Ttoi^'aj is a peculiarity, for
which only Gregor. Nyssen. II. p. 28. has to, Ttvevpdi'a, for the Syr.
translates according to the sense. The Gr. usage, which interpreters
here adduce (see Koppe in loc.) jta^Osvixoi, for it&ejBtvoi Odyss. a,. 39.,
is only found in poets in the better ages; but occurs in the Byzantine
writers, e. g. fy trtTttxy foi fy irtrtos (in Ducas p. 18. and generally, tfa
Scu/toKta, which originally was an adj. and in the later Gr. used substan-
tively as Scw'/tovEs, presents an appropriate analogy); a genitive depending
on it, e. g. I'd, oaifiovta -t^ alg-j, would not therefore bo strange. But
in Fph. as above, the abstract seems to have been designedly chosen as
antithetical to ytgoj aT^ua xai adgxu, not with sensual antagonists, but with
spiritual you maintain the conflict.

35. Connection of the Adjective with the Noun.

1. Of the rule, that adjectives agree in gender and number with the
nouns which they qualify, there occur exceptions both in Gr. writers, and
in the N. T. (in the latter seldom), where the adjectives are accommo-
dated to the sense, and not to the grammatical character of the nouns.

(a) In respect to gender the following passages may be noticed: Rev.

xix. 14. tftt <5T'gaT'sv l ttaz'a, tfa Iv ovgavu s vSs 8v psvoi ^v a LVOV "Ktvxov etc.

(as Xen. Mem. 2, 2. 3. at jtoteits %ovffj, Xen. Cyrop. 1, 2. 12.,

yet more bold, Aristid. Tom. I. p. 267. cxtr. Jebb. aptMM seal

fxai?gu$V lUEyi/tft'tov Tto^fcor, x aho v v tl wv >ii wj atJi'O'uj), iv. 8.

wa Tilyov-z-vj. Ephes. iv. 17. (ii. 11. does not belong here), 1

Cor. XII. 2. Also Rev. XI. 15. tyivovtn (Jiwrac /.isyaXat ev 1*9 ovgai'co, X

35. CONNECTION OP THE ADJECTIVE WITH THE NOUN. 187

y ov 4 s s , where celestial beings themselves, to whom the voices belonged,
were in the mind.

2 John iv. belongs here only remotely, Ixdgviv, otit Evgyxu ex tiZv it i x-
v 10 v aov rtBgt>rtutiovvtia$ tv

(6) In respect to number. With collective nouns the adjective is often
in the plural : e. g. Luk. xix. 37. artw tib n % tj o j tiuv p.a$ritiuv %a,i -
g o v it j, (Diod. Sic. 11, 25. xvxwav rt^jj^S &? OAitirjv xatiurttiapevovs 5, 43.
Xen. Hell. 2, 3. 55. Xen. Ephes. 1, 3.), Actsiii. 11. tjwISgo^E Tta? 6 >.a6s
-- <' x $ a/i/3 o t , comp. John xii. 12. Luk. ii. 13. (Philoctr. Apoll.
2, 12.) Acts v. 16. (xxi. 36. if we prefer xgdgovties with good Codd.),
Rev. vii. 9. xix. 1. (Judith vi. 18.) Luk. xxiii. 1. var. On the other
hand in Rev. iii. 9. TW a,ey. is not to be taken as an epithet of
but partitively, sing, and plur. connected, see Mr. viii. 1.

ovtio; xal ^ l%ovt<&v til ^aycotft comp. Diod. Sic. xiv. 78. tiov rtto^ovj ovv-
tigxovtio$ -- xo.1 tiovs pia^rov; rtgotegov artartovvtuv Virg. JEn, 2, 63.

undiqite msendi studio Trojanajuventus circumfusa I?UIT CEKTANTQUE
illudere capto. See Poppo ad Time. I. p. 102. Bornemann ad Xen. Apol.
p. 36. ad JLnal). p. 354. Jacobs ad Anthol. Pal. III. 811. Palairet
observ. p. 201. Herm. ad Lucian. consecr. hist. p. 301. Ast ad Plat,
Legg. p. 103.

The occurrence of two different genders in Rev. xiv. 19. is worthy
of remark, Rev. xiv. 19. efiafov etj ti % v x^ v 6 v tiov ^vpov tov sov * 6v
psyuv (x^wj is sometimes also of the masculine gender, Septuagint
Gen. xxx. 37. 42. Vatic. $eeLobeck adPliryn. p. 188. Buttm. ausfulirl.
Gramm. p. 151.) Acts xi. 28. 71^6^ psyav, fjtiis etc. would be similar as
Cod. Laudianus has, yet see. Kiinul in loc. Parallels with such va-
riations of gender cannot be looked for in Gr. authors. I should not
be disposed to relieve the apocalypse of this harshness.* Phil. ii. 1- s i
ti i $ cirti.dy%ru xai olxtiip.oi, as the best Codd. have, and Matthlii prefers,
is very singular. It may perhaps be a lapsus pennss, as & tits and I't tic,
occur three times in the immediately preceding passage.

2. If a preceding adjective belong to two or more nouns of different
genders, it must be repeated before each, e. g. Jas. i. 17. Ttatfa 86015
aya?) xai rtav Sw^ia tithe tor, Mr. xiii. 1 . rtotiartoi Xt'^oj xai rtotiartai olxo-
cro^cu', Acts iv. 7. BV rfoMx Svvdfin t] Iv rioLcp ovoputit, 1 Cor. xiii. 2. 1 Pet.
ii. 1. (3 Esr. iii. 5.) comp. Aristot. Nicom. 7, 9. in. Plutarch. Vitt. p.
389. etc. The contrary see in Luk. x. 1. *2$ ftacsav rtohw xo.1 tioxov, comp.

* Lflckc (Apokal. I. p. 22, r >.} would in this passage cither read TOU ^ya.\ov with one
codex (perhaps a correction), or consider it a construe, ad senstim,a.s the writer thought
only of the Qvp. rou Si. with the TOV fj.iya.v. The latter, us Liicke confesses, is very far-
fetched. Sec Matlh. kl. AUSJJ. p. 63.

188 PART THIRD. USE OF THE NOUN.

Diod Sic. i, 4. ^a noM,^ xaxorta$Eia$ xal xwSvvuv Plutarch. Mor. p. 993.
If the nouns be of the same gender, or if a difference of gender can-
not be designated by different terminations in the adjective, the adjective
is usually connected only with the first, Acts ii. 43. Mt. iv. 24. xiii. 32.
ix. 35. xxii. 33. Mr. ii. 15. Ephes. i. 21.

The following epithet is repeated with both nouns, Rev. xxi. 1. ovgavbv
xawov xai yv^v xawqv. In Heb. ix. 9. Swga tfs xai tfiw'cu the first predicate
ji7 Swdptvat, relates only to the latter noun as the principal (bloody offer-
ings, sin offerings). Comp. Iliad II. 136. at, vipe-tegai ?' aih6%ot, xai v^riia,
tixva, flail ivi fisydgots TtotftSiyjitfraC"

The plural of an adj. belonging to two nouns might seem to occur in
1 Pet. Jgjlfi. 18. oii tyQagfois agyvgicp % xgvaicp EhwtguQw'tE, but the f Gagt. must
be considered the principal word, agy. and %vg. rather as expletives: not
by corruptible things, silver or gold.

NOTE. About the supposed Hypallage in respect to the connection of
an adjective with its noun in Luk viii. 32. 2 Cor. iii. 7., see Appendix.
Of a different nature are the solecisms occurring in Rev., as to which
comp. Winer's JExeget. Sfudien. I. p. 154. They give to the style the
appearance of more harshness, but may be explained as anacoluthon and
mingling of two constructions, or in another way, which should always
have been adopted, rather than ascribe either to the ignorance of the
writer, who has displayed a knowledge of grammatical rules in. other
much more difficult constructions. Examples analogous to most of these
are found in Greek writers; but they are not of so frequent occurrence
as in the apocalypse. The following may be noticed. Rev. ii. 20. is
probably to be construed thus: 6Vo d$ts -t^v ywaixd aov 'l^ffa/isx* $ hsyovau
la/ui^i- ttgotyTJiftv xgi Stddaxet, xai rthava etc. who representing herself as a
2)rophetess, teaches and seduces etc. Rev. viii. 9. may be explained as
a union of two constructions artQave f6 -eejiiov tH>v x-t w put '^v tuv iv

i" a I'^ov-ra 4"uf (namely the two methods of expression
-to t^l't. -- ituv l^Qvt^v *(iv%- and urtt^avE ta x'tidfU-a'tOt T'OO e%ovta

^6 -t^lnov are connected in one sentence); vii. 9. aSov, xai

to'Kvf -- I g "t W "t E ivu>Ttt,QV tfOV ^pOVOV -- Tt E g V

1 e j3hq p. EVOV s (where the writer connecting in his mind the ISov with
the nominat., and the EiSov with the ace. rtt^ftsfi., mingled the two con-
structions, comp. Judith x. 7. Stallbaum ad Plat. Euthyplir. p. 32.)

In Rev. V. 11. 12. ^xovaa fyavTiv dyya^co^ --- xai qv o dgt^os av-twv /nu-

^taSsj /xugiaScov Tilyovi'es* the last is not connected with ^u^tdgay but
(apprehending the words xai r t v ---- ^.ve,. as a parenthesis) to ayyE^ot as
if the writer had begun: ^uv^v Irt^av d'yya^ot etc. (Similar in Thuc. 7,

42. T'OIJ Sv^axoufflotj -- xat'ttrt^f tj ovx

* In the Septuag. the partioip. xiyw (XEJ/OVTB;) is often used without regard to gram-
matical constructions: Gen. xiv. 1. Ij/Ewflo fipa. xu^'ou -- Xeyw, xxxviii. 13. xlv. 1C.
xxii. 20. Exod. v. 14. Josh. x. 17. 1 Sam. xv. 12. Judg. xvi. 2. corresponding with
the Heb. IftN 1 ?. But it can be explained as a confusio duar. slructur. See Exfg,
Stud. 156.

35. CONNECTION OF THE ADJECTIVE WITH THE NOUN. 189

6 e w v 1 B f , Achill. Tat. 6, 12. rCi^at^tov favta tlvai dot, Soxst, --
avdgn totovfov 7iaj3 ov a a Plat. Plldsd. C. 29. p. 81. A. otixovv oiVca p.sv
%ovaa cis -to bpoiov ai/fy "to asiSss dTtEg%E"tat, to $ELOV ite --- , o I a <J> i x o-

t. xata T?UV /AEfivynEvuv, wj aXj^wj tbv hocrtbv xgovov p-cto, &EUV S t a-
y OD era (for Scayoucr^.) More striking is Rev. iii. 12. to ovopu tys o?iw$
fov Osov pov, ?%$ xawvis 'ifg- ,^xai'aj3ai'voD(ja I'oii ovg. --- xal to
ovopci ^ov TO xaivov (where ^ xafaji3> etc., as it cannot be taken for the
nominal, litu/i, rnusJ perhaps be considered a parenthesis, as if it were
for oiiV^ lativ % xara|3.), and xiv. 12. 56s v^o^ovr\ tuv dyt'wv iativ' oi ty-
e, o v v t E s va$ Evtohas etc. is a sudden transition to a new sentence, as
e. g. Jas. iii. 8. t^v y/.wtfcfai/ o-uSstj bvvatav d^^wcfwj' Sa^acfat, a
xaxbv, pEaty iov

3. T\vo adjectives without a copulative are connected with a noun in
1 Pet. i. 18. EX tfjs natnias v^v dvaatgofyijt sai'^o*afa5orot;. The adjec-
tives here are not of the same order, but the one directly qualifies the
noun, constituting with it one idea, the other is an epithet of this idea
made up of the noun and adjective: your vain-service received from the
fathers (good-for-nothing service); John xii. 3. pvgov vdgSov atatixijs o-
^urt'iitov, where i/agSoj mat ix^ (a mercantile designation of a particular
kind of nard ointment in great demand) takes the adj. #o;u>r. costly. See
in general Dissen ad Pindar, ed. Goth. p. 303. Herm ad Eurip. Hec.
p. 54. Comp. Kritz. ad Salhtst. Jug. p. 172. Matth. II. 998. and Jen.
Lit. Zeit. 1812. No. 160.

36, Of the Comparative of Adjectives.*

1. Instead of the comparative the positive occurs, (a) with ^ the par-

tide of comparison, e. g. Mt. xviii. 8. xa%6v aoL Ittw sioE^siv

Xuhbv vj xv'Kov, YI Svo %ciga$ E%ovta, etc. Mr. ix. 43. 45. This me-
thod of expression is found several times in the Greek writers, comp.
Aristot. probl. 29, 6. rca^axa-ta^x^v al0%gbv dftoats^aat, i*,ixov y ?foXi)
oavEiadpsvov Herod. 9, 26. .ZEsop. 134. de Fur., with adv. Pluta/ch.
Jrelop.4:. rovtovs dv ag^-wj xai 8t,xaiius rtgoaayogsvaEie Gwd^ovta^ xai avafga*
rayons }} Exstvovs, Diod. Sic. 11,11., (in Lat. comp. Plaut. Rud. 4, 4. 70.
tacita BONA est mulier semper quam loquens,} see Heupel ad Mr. p. 249.

* Comp. G. W. Nitzsch de comparativis Grceca lingua modis, in his ed. of Plat,
/o. Lips. 1822. Svo.
24

190 PART TI1IKD. USE OF THE NOUN.

d'Orville ad Charit. p. 539. Boissonade ad Martini Prod. p. 78. Kpyke
I. 89., and is there perhaps, with Fritzsche ad Mt. p. 574., originally to
be explained by the fact that the writers had at first no comparison in mind
(otherwise Herm. de ellips. p. 185. and ad Vig. p. 884. and Schafer ind.
ad jEsop. p. 138. comp. to it Held ad Plutarch. Timol. p. 317.). This
use of the positive occurs more frequently in the Septu. (Gen. xlix. 12.
Ps. cxviii. 8. Hos. ii. 7. Jon. iv. 3. Lam. iv. 9.), so that jj corresponds
entirely to the Hebrew "JO.* From the Apocrypha comp. Tob. xii. 8.
xaJibv "to Ttoiqaao l^stj^oavv^r v\ Sqaavgiaai #gt>tftoy, iii. 6. Sir. xxii. 15. In
all such passages ^OM.QV is usually supplied.

The use of ^ is bolder, but not materially different, Luke xv. 7.

7tt ivi dju.agTi<AG) /j.s'tavoovvtt, 77 erti Ivvsv^xovfafvi'sa Stjcatotj. Comp.
Gen. xxxviii. 26. Ssiijeauotfat a^ag vj ~y.

Luke xviii. 14. read thus xutefiq ovto$ SsSixaLu^vo^ y> sxstvos would
be perfectly consistent with the above usage; but the better Codd. read
*? yag (see also Matthiii's small ed. on-this passage] which has no parallel.
Yet the sentence, according to Hermann's theory, which Bornemann fol-
lows, might be rendered: this one went away justified or (went) then
the other, etc.? The yae, must, as in other cases, be added to the interro-
gation (also to fj Xen. Cyrop. 8, 3. 40. Soph. Electr. 1214.) to strengthen
it. Perhaps rjrtcg (which is equivalent to % in John xii. 43., comp. Lu-
cian. Pise. 20.) would be a natural correction.

la.fM', q to express malle is entirely analogous: e. g. 1 Cor. xiv. 19.

Ttsvte /.oyouj Xa^tfat ^sXw, ^ /tn^t'ouj Ttoyouj, etc. So Al'l'ian Epict. 3, 1.
and jSovxo^at j Herod. 3. 40. Plutarch. Alex. 7. Sull. 3. and Polyb. 13,
5. 3. Yet this usage is more extended, e. g. (Ast ad Plat. rep. p. 388.)
Lys. ornt. de affect, tyrann. 1. fy-tovat. xEgScu'vEU' ^ 01,11015 rtt^tv, etc. see
Kypke II. 228. Nitzsch 71. Wetsten. 1. 781, Luke xvii. 2. kuaitstei av-
tS> -- ^ satins ei est, etc. (comp. Tob. iii. 6. vi. 12. xai xa^xsi, xa/3tV,
jEsop. 121. de Fur.]. All grammarians supply here

2. (Z>) The positive sometimes occurs with jtae,& after it and preceding
the word which denotes the object compared, Luke xiii. 2. apagtohoc,
oij raxtXaoouj (where indeed it must be remembered that
wants the comparative degree) sinful above all the Galileans,

1, e. surpassing all in sinfulness. comp. Exod. xviii. 11. Num. xii. 3. Neh.
vii. 2. Judith xiii. 18., from the Greek writers Dion. Hal. ep. ad Pomp.

2, 3. axgiprfS tfe xai hErttrj rta fyvtwovv s-tEgav Sidhextov, Philostr. Apoll.

3, 19. rtuga rtdvtas 'A^atoijj ftsyaj. (So vrtte, often in the Septu. e. g.
1 Sam. i. 8. xv. 28. 2 Sam. xiii. 15. comp. Schwarz Commentar. p. 1353.

* The Septuag. seem to prefer forming the Heb. comparative either as above, or
by UTTEJ and <rea.%a,', yet the Gr. form is not rare.

36. OF THE COMPARATIVE OF ADJECTIVES. 191

The same preposition stands after the comparative (see Herm. ad Vig.

p. 862.) Luke iii. 13. stta'oi/ rtaga tfo Sia-tEtaypsvov for tfoti State? 1 ' COmp.
Hob. ix. 23. xgsi't-toat, "^valuis rtaga. tfoMLJT'aj, xi. 4. jthtlova vatav "A/3/\, rta^a
KdlV rtgoff^syxs, xii. 24. and TllUC. 1, 23. nluxvoT'E^at rta^a fa Ix tov rt&v
v /.ivY}/j.ovsv6[iva. Similar in Heb. i. 4. toaovtcp xgstt-tov, 60<p Sta^o^w-
jtag' av-tovs xexhygovopyxEV oco^tca. JtlSt SO !>;* in Luke XVI. 8. $go-

i> ?t g tfoij waii? tfo-D ^wtfoy, Heb. iv. 12., comp. Judg. xi. 25.
xv. 2. xviii. 26. Ps. xix. 10. (Gen. xxxvii. 4. ^ast avrov Jx adv-f^v tav
vluv avtov is allied to the Hebrew comparative signification.). In Mr.
vii. 36. oGov ait-to; uwtol$ SisatfsM^S'to, paWov Xegt.aao'tsgov txygvcfaov, o a o v
stands properly not for the comparative 6ff<p /aa^ov, but it must be trans-
lated: the more he forbade them, they proclaimed it the more (than be-
fore). See Fritzsche in loc.

3. The comparative is sometimes used, when the object of comparison
is not expressly indicated, which must then be learned from the context,
Reiz de accent, inclin, p. 54. Ast ad Plat. Polit. p. 418. 538. Stallbaum
ad Pldleb. p. 120. and ad rep. I. 238. Matth. II. 1021. (The compa-
ritive for the mere positive is not found in the N. T.): e. g. in Acts xvii.
21. xsyaiv it, xai axovtw xawotegov, the comparative denotes that they
wished to hear something newer (than that which was considered new
when just spoken). Among the Greeks too the comparative (commonly
va>T?eov) had become established in the question "Is there any news?"
and abundantly proves that eagerness for news which has been attributed
to the Athenians, (comp. Theoph. char. 8, 1. Herod. 1, 27. Eurip. Orest.
1327. Aristoph. Av. 254. Lucian. Asin. 41. Plutarch, gen. Socr. p. 587.
594. Diod. Sic. Exc. Vat. p. 24. Plat. Euthyphr. 1. See Stallbaum in loc.
and ad Plat. Protag. p. 23. Acts xxv. 10. wj xal av xdhfaov KTtiyiv^axs^
is, better than I can tell it to thee, or than you seem desirous of knowing
it (Lucian. Pise. 20. upewov av olo^a, tfatJi'a), comp. 2 Tim. i. 18.; 2 Cor.
vii. 7. wcr? 1 ? WE uaM.oi< ^ag'/ftfat must be translated: that I rejoiced still
more (than before on the mere arrival of Titus ver. 6.). Phil. i. 12.
6V6 ^a xdTf' tjUE fiahhov stj rtgoxort'/iv T'OV i)ayy. thfov^sv MORE (rather)
for the promotion (than, what was to be feared, for the hindrance) of the
Gospel. Acts xxvii. 13. aaoov Ttu^iyovto ^v Kgjjfijw they sailed nearer
to Crete (than they had resolved before ver. 8.). John xiii. 27. 6 rtotstj
7to^ae.v *d%(,ov, more quickly than you appear willing to do, see Liicke
in loc. (Senec. Agamn. 965. CITIUS interea mihi edissere, libi sit gnatus.)
In 1 Tim. iii. 14. I^Tti-'fetv s^eiv Ttgdj as tdztov most translate -r'a^toj/ as
positive, some as if it were -eawta,. The words read thus: this I write
unto you, hoping (although I hope) earlier, sooner to come to you (viz.
than my letter arrives, comp. ver. 15.); Heb. xiii. 19. that I might be
sooner (than would be done without your prayer) restored to you, xiii.

192 PART THIRD. USE OP THE NOUN.

2:3. if he come sooner (than I depart). About Mr. ix. 42. see Fritzache
in loc. 2 Pet. i. 19. see Ullmann on the second epistle of Peter p. 88.
(against Pott). Acts xviii. 26. 2 Cor. ii. 4. Phil. ii. 8. can be easily
understood.

In Mt. xviii. 1. (Mr. ix. 34. Luke. ix. 46. xxii. 24.) and 1 Cor. xiii.
13. the comparative seems to be proper, for in both places there is a
comparison between two things: psiZuv nov-ttw fy wyditv} signifies greater
compared with the two others, jtiatts and %.jti$, (fifyiant] might
imply that rclatis and Iritis were different in themselves as to value; -tit
aga ^tL^v Istlv ev ty /Setaa. does not mean, who is (among us) THE
greatest (psyiatoi) as if three or four degrees of rank were thought of
among the twelve, (see Ramshorn Lat. Gr. p. 316.) but who is greater,
viz. than the others taken together (their chief, leader as it were, so that
the eleven are all subordinate in an equal degree to that pfigav). Here
might belong also Mt. xi. 11. o 5s iMxgotcgos lv ty paaiteia * o^. i. e.
6 pixgo-ttgos tuv U-M.W, he who occupies some lower place in the kingdom
of heaven, comp. Diog. L. 6,1. 4. Igwi^Etj ni paxugt, w -t e e, ov sv
dj/^gcartotj, e'^jf, VTtv%ovvtn arto^avsiv, Bauer Glossar. T/ieodoret. p. 455.
Boissonade ad Philostr. p. 491. (see Ramshorn's Lat. Gram. p. 311.
Virg. scelere ANTE ALIAS immanior OJINES, Gell. 1, 25.)* Others,
according to the example of the Greek Fathers, prefer the interpunction
o Se i^xe,., tv Ttfi j3aa. t. ov%. fieu^. OVT'OU eatw the smaller (lower, viz. I,
Jesus) is greater in the. kingdom of heaven than he. This interpretation
appears to me not without constraint, especially if EV yew. yw. should
relate to men in general. Moreover Jesus could not at that time
(when, it is true, he had not yet opened the kingdom of Messiah, but
for which he was already making preparation, already acted) subject
himself to John in so remarkable a manner, (for he was at the baptism
publicly announced as the Messiah); and of the ruler of the kingdom of
Heaven it could not well be said l v ty /3atf. t. ov%. pug. iatl (even if we
allow much to the laws of the Parallelism. The translation condito reg-
no messiano is uncertain.

There is no difficulty in passages where the compar. is connected with
rtdvtuv'. e. g. Mt. xiii. 32. 8 ptxgo-tsgov tatt, itdv-tw ^wv ctrtg/.<.dtuiv, Mr.
iv. 32. jtdvtav tfiov JVa^avtov /HE^WJ', John x. 29. 1 Cor. xv. 19., as the
compar. here retains its sense; and the genitive itdvuuv is the reason
why such a sentence may also be translated superlatively. This mode
of expression exists among the Greeks, especially the later, e. g. Dio
Chrysost. 3. p. 108. 44. dnavr'cov rtLOavdt-esgos, Liban. III. p. 17. artavtuv
di'ortcot'fgoj', Athen. III. 15. itdvtutv xagrtuv u>$ju, i u.wi'ga, see Jacobs An-
thol. Pal. III. p. 247. Demosth. falsa leg. p. 246. Sext. Emp. 11, 43.

NOTE 1. The comparative is often strengthened by HO.M.OV. e. g. Mr.
VH. 36. fid'M.ov rtEgiaao-tsgov ix^vddov) Phil. i. 23. stoM.9 paM-ov x

* In 2 Cor. xii. 15. there is a mutual relation between the two comparatives, and
the passage must be translated, even if I, the more I love you, be loved the less by you.
Schott incorrectly: etsi, quum magno vos amore complectar, etc.

36. OP THE COMPARATIVE OF ADJECTIVES. 193

Monk ad Eurip. flippol. p. 62. ed. Lips. Weiske Pleon. p. 153. Wyt-
tenbach ad Pint. Mor. I. p. 238. Ast ad Plat. Plixdr. p. 395. and ad
Plat. Legg. p. 44. Matth. ad Eurip. Hec. 374. Sprachl. II. 1022.
Wetsten. II. 265. Boissonade ad Aristasnet. p. 430. In Latin comp.
Ciceto Pis. 14. milii quavis fuga POTIUS, quam ulla provincia esse.t
OPTATIOR. Intensity is also given to the comparative by the addition of
lift (like noch in <ier. and yet or still in Eng. Trs.) Heb. vii. 15. tte-
giaaotegov t-ft,, Phil. i. 9. Iti paMov xai paM-ov (Xen. Cyrop. 3, 2. 18.
Achill. Tat. 6, 13. Dion. Hal. IV. p. 2228, 6.). This use of If 6 is very
common among the Greeks, Xen. Mem. 1, 5. 6. l-ti lyxgatsa'ttgov, 2, 1.
27. sfi Tto^v Jj/fi/tofsgos, Cyrop. 5, 4. 20. JVt &d*tw, Ana6. 1,9. 10. Dion.
Jd. T/n/c. 25, 2. Finally mo^u 2 Cor. viii. 22. Xen. A/em. 2, 10. 2.,
comp. Abresch lection. Aristsen. p. 283.

NOTE 2. About the construction Acts iv. 22. Ifwv y<ig
tfa^axoi-T'a, xxiv. 11. jtkeimis siai jttot ^'gou 8xaSi5o see Lobeck d Phryn.
p. 410. The Latin also corresponds here. Terent. Adelph. 2, 1. 45.
PLUS QUINGENTOS coLAPHos iNFREGiT milii. Comp. Held ad Plutarch.
JEmil. Paull. p. 261.

NOTE 3. In Acts xvii. 22. xaita rtavtu wj Sttft8at i u.oi'tf'r'gO'uj
fytaj 8fugu, the <i>j seems not to belong to the compar. as an intensive
particle, but ought probably to be translated: in all respects (as if at every
step) 1 loole upon you as more religious persons (than the rest are, viz.
<XJIJIMJ/\ It would appear from v. 22. that 0<=ugtv was designedly chosen,
and Getoghv wj, although it be unusual, cannot be considered unauthorized.
Others find here a mingling of two constructions; ws SCKJ. aorra and
viz.

NOTE 4. n^wfoj Acts i. 1. Heb. viii. 7. and the adverb rtgifov stand
sometimes for rtgor^o?, ttgotsgovi it occurs with the genitive: itgutov
vpuv John xv. 18., ^^tS^oj pov John i. xv v .30. But such a pre-
cision cannot be found in the best Greek prose writers, see Gataker de
stylo N. T. c. 25. Jacobs ad JEliun. Anim. II. p. 38. the Greek is in
this much more free than the Latin, in which primus for prior, and quis
for uter is considered as almost a fault. The decision about Luke ii. 2.
must rest on historical grounds, but the interpretation by rtgorsga (tov)
qyepovevov-tos K.vgtjvi>ov (toy ^ysp-ovivsiv etc.) is grammatically incorrect, as
will be apparent to any one possessed of the least knowledge and sense
of linguistic propriety.

4. In comparisons, there is sometimes a comparison of one part not with
the corresponding part, but with the whole (Bernhardy 432.): e. g. John. v.
36. pagtvgluv jtttt'fu fou 'iwdwov a testimony greater than John, i. e. than
that of John, like Herod. 2, 134. jtv^aftiSa xai of o$ drtsKeijtefo jioxiwv Ihdaaa,
nov rttt-j-^os, i. e. than that of his father. There is not here a proper
ellipsis, as the ancient grammarians maintained, since had the speaker
conceived the sentence as in German, it would mean fijj *oi> I., fijj

194 PART THIRD. USE OF THE NOUN.

it is better here to suppose a conciseness of expression quite
conformable to the genius of the Gr. language, which frequently occurs
not only in proper comparatives (Herm. ad Vig. p. 717. Schafer Melet.
p. 57. 127. Matth. II. 1010., but also in other comparative clauses,
Fritzsche Conjectan. I. p. 1. and ad Mr. p. 147. In Latin comp. Juven.
3, 74. sermo promptus et ISAEO TORRENTIOR, in Hebrew Isa. Ivi. 3. (3
Esr. lli. 5.) Mt. V. 20. iav ^ ctsgiatiEvay V/AUV % Sixaioivvrj rthziov tfuv
ygappateuv etc. is also thus explained without any forced construction.
Jesus could speak of a Swccuotf. ^g., as their conduct would prove this de-
claration, and was so regarded by the people. On the contrary 1 Cor.
i. '25. -to j ucogoj' T!QV 9sov cJoijHOT'E^or ?w avOgu>jttw means, without the usual
(distorted) interpretation (see Pott, Heydenreich and Flatt in Zoc.), the
foolishness of God is wiser than men (are), i. e. what seems foolishness
in the designs of God, is not only wisdom, but outshines all (the wisdom
of) men, men in their wisdom.

1 Cor. xii. 23. Si Soxovpcv a^i/j-oifE^a uvac tov a <A /* a 1? o $ belongs not
to the passages in which the genit. of the thing compared depends on the
comparatives,- the gen. here is rather to be taken in connection with :
which (members) of the body.

37. Of the Superlative.

1. Instead of the superlative, we find once, in elevated style, the positive
with a noun denoting the class of objects Luk. i. 28. E-fooyo^t'i^ av tv ywait-iv
blessed art thou among women. This is very much like a Heb. construction
(Gesen. Lehrg. p. 692. StuarCsHeb.Gr. 455.) which would be expressed,
among women thou art the only one, who can be called blessed, the blessing
of others comes not into comparison with thine, therefore with rhetorical
emphasis: highly blessed. This is not foreign to the Gr. poets, although
the passages quoted by Kiinol as parallel are not exactly so; e. g. Eurip.
Alcest. 473. $&a ywawuv and Monk in loc. Aristoph. Ran. 1081, w
tj^c-fXt,' dj'Sgwj/, more yet Find. Nem. 3, 76. daatfoj lix-us lv Ttoi-avotj see
Dissen. in loc. III. p. 378. comp. also Himer. Orat. 15, 4. o^ yswatot
T'cdv Ttovuv and Jacobs ad JElian. anim. II. 400. Otherwise Mt. xxii.
36. ftoia Ivtofc/j psydhvi lv ^9 1*6^9, see Fritzsche in loc. In Luke x.

* Only if several such parallel clauses follow one another the article is omitted in
the last. Plat Gorg. 10. n rcav --- , TO. S 1 ' ex, -rfc n., dX\' oun ix rZ>v &>y*. Comp. Siebclis
ad Pausan. IV. p. 291.

37. OF THE SUPERLATIVE. 195

42. however the positive is not used for the superlative,
i,'5a If aafjatfo means here: she lias chosen the GOOD part (in reference to
the kingdom of heaven : that which alone deserves this name) : Mt. v.
19. oj S' av rtoirjay -- ovi'os jue'yaj x^^aeTfao will be called GREAT, not
exactly the greatest.

2. Only the following instances of the Heb. mode of expressing the
superlative, as D'lShp trip, D'tuj; nay, occur in the N. T. Heb. ix. 3. ayta
aytw Ike most holy place (which however, as it had acquired a fixed de-
nomination, scarcely belongs here), Rev. xix. 16. paaitevs jSactalcov, xvgws
xve,luv the highest Iting (comp. 1 Tim. vi. 15. But no one of these phrases
is a genuine Hebraism: in the Gr. poets we find such repetition of adjec-
tives (used substantively) Soph. Electr. 849. Ssaata Ssaao'cov, (Ed. R.
446. d'/j/>3?tf' a/3/!uJtfwi', Soph. Philoct. 65. see Bernhardy 154. Wex. ad
Antig. I. 316. The construction fiaathevs paaawv is very simple and
even more emphatic than psytstos paa., comp. ^Eschyl. Suppl. 524. aval
avdxtuv see Georgi Vind. p. 327. and nova biblioth. Lubec. II. 111. As
to the similar ol diwz/fj nZ>v aiuvuv see the passages in the concordance.

3. The so called superlatives by circumlocution,* in imitation of the
Hebrew, are generally either, (a) figurative expressions, which occur in
all languages (and belong for interpretation to the N. T. Rhetoric), or, (b]
cases which have no relation to the superlative e. g. (a) Heb. iv. 12. <5 ju>'yoj

ov ?o/*ioT'soj vrtsg ftadav pd%uiuv Si, g -topov, Mt.xvii. 20. lav
Ttioitiv wf xoxxov tf cvdrt E w j the least faith, Mt. iv. 16. xa^^v'o^ iv
xai a x 1,5, a,v d* ov in the darkest shadow. Comp. yet Mt. xxviii.
3. Rev. i. 14. xviii. 5. (Z>) Col. ii. 19. o/iit^s foi &ov not glorious, ex-
traordinary increase, but increase of God, which pleases God. (See
Stuart's N. T. Gr. p. 183.), (Dens non probat quod vis augmentum sed
quod ad caput, Christum, dirigitur. Calvin.), 2 Cor. i. 12. Jvdmxo'^z-t xai
il^ix^wti^ OBOV, not perfects inceritij, but sincerity valued as such by God
(comp. Sixatoevvti etav Rom. iii. 21.) Rev. xxi. 11. lt x auew t^v 86fav -tov
^aov, not high splendor, but probably the splendor of God, see Ewald in
loc. I Thess. iv. 16. tfaa^yf ov, not great (see Bengel in loc.} or far
sounding trumpet (adMirf ^v^ /teya'^s Mt. xxiv. 31., but trumpet of
God, i. e. trumpet which sounds at the command of God (laxa.^ efajtvyg
1 Cor. xv. 52.) Rev. xv. 2. xt ^ at * v $ EO y to the praise of God, comp.
1 Chron. xvi. 42. In Acts vii. 20. aetslos * Q > expresses not so much
the superlative, as intensity of meaning, and is best translated thus, beau-

_ * See especially Pasoris Gram. p. 298. The Heb. mode of expression SlIJ f?nj
is found in the later Gr. poets, see Boisson. ad NIC. p. 134. 383. comp. in Seplu. Ex.
i. U .rpfa ,*%. Not very different is ?, JVcv in Heb. x. 37. a little little (Hernu
ad Vig, p. 726.) see also Scpluag. Isa. xxvi. 20.

196 PART THIRD. USE OP THE NOUN.

tiful before God (in his judgment), i. e. exceedingly beautiful, admodum
formosus, (camp. 2 Cor. x. 4. and Sturz. Zonarss glossse sacras Part II.
Grimmae. 1820. 4to. p. 12.). Precisely so are DTi 1 ?^ 1 ? and nifT 'JD 1 ? used
in Heb. (Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 695.) comp. Gen. x. 9. Jon. iii. 3. (Sep-
tuagint rfouj ^EyaTw? 1-9 $*$) see Fischer Proluss. p. 231., only the use of
the dal. is not in itself to be considered as a Hebraism, comp. Heindorf
ad Plat. Soph. p. 236. Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 479. A different inter-
pretation (acceptus Deo} of the Syriac, of some of the Fathers, and of
some late commentators, as Fischer has shown, is opposed to Greek
usage. The conjecture of Hammond and Junius: daisies *% 6sa, formo-
aspectu, is superficial.

Jas. v. 11. T-E'^OJ xvgtov is not, glorious end, but the end, which the
Lord purposed. See 30. 1.

It is an error in Haab, when he says (p. 162.) that X^KJ-T-OJ with an-
other noun only gives intensity to it, e. g. 2 Cor. xi. 10. Rom. ix. 1.
ahqOeia XgttfT'oi), lv X^tcrfcj unquestionable truth. Others would render
Col. ii. 18. e^<sxst,a tuv ayyljieoj; cultus perfectissimus, comp. 2 Sam. xiv.
20.

38. Of Numerals.

1 . For the ordinal Ttgwtfoj the cardinal stj is used in enumerating the
days of the week: e. g. Mt. xxviii. 1. sis pl,av <t&v rfa/SjSatfwr, Mr. xvi.
2. rtgwt tv$ (i K* j ua/3j3a^j;, comp. John xx. 19. Acts xx. 7. Luk. xxiv.
1. What is quoted from Gr. writers as analogous, only proves the use
of ftj in the first member of a division or enumeration, where Savi'fgoj
or aMoj follows : so Herod. 4, 161. Thuc. 4, 115. Herodian. 6, 5. 1.
(Georgi Vindic. p. 54.) In those cases ?$ is as little used for rtgwfoj as
tmus for primus in Lat., where alter, tertius etc. follow, (comp. Rev. ix.
12. with xi. 14.); in the passage of Herodian 7, 11. 18. ; retains its
true signification unus, and perhaps also in Pausan. 7, 20. 1. where Sylb.
translates una. The above use of the numeral is Hebraistic (Gesen.
Lehrgeb. p. 701. Stuart's Heb. Gr. 465., on the Talmud see Wetsten
I. 544., but in the Septuag. comp. Exod. iv. 2. Ezra x. 16. Num. i. 1.
18.) and only finds a parallel in Greek in compound numbers, as si 5 xai
tgii]xo<rtb$ (Herod. 5, 89.) one (notjlrsl) and thirty.

2. A more concise use of the ordinal occurs 2 Pet. ii. 5., oySoov NWE
-- $v7ia|e NoaJi as the eighth, i. e. with seven others. In the same
manner Plutarch. Pelop. p. 284. j otxtnv 8a>8e xatos xatfe^iar, Athen.

38. OF NUMERALS. 197

II. p. 246. Schweigh., Appian. Pun. p. 12. 2 Mace. v. 27. comp. also
Schafer ad Plutarch. V. 57. and ad Demosth. I. p. 812. The Greeks
add generally wtbs, see Wetsten II. 704. Kypke II. 442.

3. When the cardinals are repeated they denote distribution, as Mr.
vi. 7. vo dvo rj^a-fo drtoatsMew he sent two and two, in pairs. For this
the Greeks say xa-tu or dm Svo, the latter of which occurs in the text
Luke x. 1., and in Mr. vi. 7. the Cod. D. has it as a correction. The
former is Hebraistic (see Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 703. Stuart 176". 9. comp.
Gen. vii. 3. 9.) and the simplest mode of expressing distributives. The
Syriac translates dm Svo by repeating the numeral, e. g. Mr. vi. 40. Yet
somewhat similar expressions are found among the Greek poets, e. g.
jEschyl. Pers* 915. pvgta pv^a, i. e. xa-ta,

The following formulas are peculiar: do/a sis sxaovoj Rev. xxi. 21. and
sTj xa.e' fTj or xaOus Mr. xiv. 19. John viii. 9., 6 xuO* <!$ Rom. xii. 5. for
which the Greeks use xaO' Va observing the government, see Herm. ad
Vig. p. 858. Yet comp. d? rtag' cTj Leo Tact. 7, 83. and from later
writers in Wetsten I. p. 627. also Intpt. ad Lucian. Soloec. 9. The pre-
position in these formulas takes the place only of the adverb. Differ-
ently Db'derlein Pr. de brachylogia serin, Gr. et Lat. p. 10. Erlang.
1831. 4to.

4. The rule that in compound numbers, when the smaller precede, xa.1
is usually interposed, but when the greater, is omitted (Buttm. ed. Rob.
p. 114. 70. 4. Matth. I. 339.) must not be received too positively: ex-
ceptions occur in the N. T., e. g. John v. 5. tgidxovta xal dxtu accord-
ing to the best authorities, Luke xiii. 4. 16, 8txu xul oxtfw Ity Gal. iii.'
17. There are at least some Codd. in other passages which prove the
addition of xal, e. g. Rev. iv. 4. 10. xix. 4. Luke xiii. 11. In the Gr.
writers we sometimes find similar instances Herod. 8. 1. elxoai xa,i

5. If 7taj/co be connected with a cardinal to express above, more than,
it does not govern it in the gen., but the cardinal takes the case required
by the verb of the sentence: e. g. Mr. xiv. 5. rtga^cu tTtaV
Sijva^ocoj/ ( 30. 7. note), 1 Cor. XV. 6. w(J^ 7tcu>w risvfaxooioi? d
Just so (without grammatical rule) occur among the Greeks s
(Thuc. 6, 95.), Tt^oj; (Pausan. 8, 21. 1.), ttt^i (Zorim. 2, 30.), els or l s
(Appian. Civil. 2, 96., comp. Sturz Lexic. Xcn. II. 68.), ^ x ^ (^Eschin.
fals. leg. 37. ed. Bremi), irtsg (Jos. Antt. 18, 1. 5.), see Lobeck ad
Phrynich. p. 410. Gieseler p. 139. Sommer in the allgem. Schulzeit.
1831. p. 963. Constructions in the Latin like occisis AD hotninum mil-
lilnis qvatitor Cros. Bell. Gall. 2, 33. are sufficiently known from the
historians.

198 PART THIRD. TJSE OF THE VERB.

NOTE 1. We need not remark, that the neuters Ssv-tsgov, tfaov sig-
nify the second and third time. Sometimes -tovto is connected with them,
e. . -tlnov * OVT: o ^Ojttcn 2 Cor. xiii. 1. this is the third time I come,

g
or / come now the third time, comp. Herodot. 5, 78. tstugitov ? o v * o

NOTE 2. Instead of the numeral adverb s^-taxis the cardinal is once
used in Mt. xviii. 23. in the formula j38o^xovtdx^ Iowa seventy times
seven (times), comp. Septuagint Gen. iv. 24. and yiw Ps. cxix. 164. in-
stead of D'DjJi) Jttttf, see Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 703. The former would
properly mean, seventy times (and) seven, thence seventy seven times,
which does not suit in the passage above. That i'wj eritfa cannot be con-
strued together, but $ IjSSo^. the preceding i'wj t^-taxis shows.

CHAPTER IV.

USE OF THE VERB.

39. Of the Active and Middle Voice.

1. ACTIVE transitive verbs are sometimes so related to their subjects,
tbat they assume the appearance of neuter or reflexive verbs: e. g. Acts
xxvii. 43. o.Ttop/ji^avi'as throwing (themselves) into the sea (comp. Kilnol
in Zoc.), Mr. iv. 37. ?<* xv^a-ta E ?t J3 a >\, a. a a/ stj ^b rttolov (see Reitz ad
Lucian. VI. p. 591. Bip.] t Mr. iv. 29. o-fav TtagaS^ xagrtdj when
the fruit offers itself, i. e. is there, 1 Pet. ii. 23. (see beloiv 66, 4.,
comp. Jas. xi. 19., similar StSomi for 8t8. sawtov Eurip. Phasn. 21. Ar-
rian Indie. 5. Thuc. 4, 108., Erii8iS6vat, Vig. p. 132., tvfoSovai Lucian.
Philops. c. 15., see Jacobs ad Philostr. p. 363. Tta^sw Heindorf ad
Plat. Gorg. p. 33. Ast ad Polit. p. 470. Wyttenbach ad Plutarch. Mor.
I. p. 405. Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 138.). This usage of the language has
almost become established in many verbs, as pdweiv Acts xxvii. 14., xfa-
Heb. xi. 34. Luke ix. 12. 1 Pet. iii. 11., rfT'^c'^ttv Acts vii. 42., vitte,-
eminere (Rom. xiii. 1. 1 Pet. ii. 13.), atit-zav (abesse and sufficiere
Mr. xiv. 41.) Ttaga'ysn;, artEvSuv, comp. Bos. Ellips. p. 127. Viger. p. 179.
Poppo ad Time. I. p. 186. From the later language belongs here ai>|a-
VBW Mt. vi. 28. Luke i. 80. John iii. 30. (much more frequent than
avt-dvs&ai,) see Wetsten. I. 335. Kypke I. 39. This, as is well known,
occurs in Latin, German, and English. There is in neither a real el-

39. OF THE ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICE. 199

lipsis of the reflex, pronoun; the verb expresses the action merely, with-
out an object: er stunt ins meer, he throws (himself) into the sea (he
makes the motion of throwing into the sea), he turns back, etc. where,
as no object is expressed, the reader must refer the action to the sub-
ject. (Other examples in Eng. I turn, sink, shake, etc. Trs.) Comp.
Bernhardy p. 339.

John xiii. 2. toy Siapohov J3 s j3^ x6t 05 sis vqv xagSiav does not be-
long here, where the verb j3<m.iv signifies instillare, suggerere, see Kyp-
ke in loc. The verb ia^^c, and its compounds divides its tenses between
a transitive and intransitive signification (to place or cause to stand, and
to stand], Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 226. 107. II. 1. In respect to the sim-
ple verb in the N. T., it is only to be remarked that the aor. 1 pass.
sgfdOilv Mr. iii. 24. Acts xvii. 22., and fut. 1 * 'a<9-/jc?o ^at Mt. xii. 25. 46.
Rom. xiv. 4. are used intransitively for to place one's self, to stand; of the
compound Siia^fit, the aor 1 act. is s:> used in Acts xxvii. 28.

In such verbs the transition from the reflexive to the passive meaning
was very easy. 1 Pet. ii. 6. jtsgtsztt iv tfi y^a<j?^ continetur, comp. Jo-
seph. Antt. 11, 4. 7. povho/taii yevBisQcLi Ttdvtu, xaOwj iv avty (c-TtKj-j'oX'^)
jtEgtEZEt. Besides, see Krebs Obs. 193.

By means of an ellipsis the 3. pers. sing, of the active (transit, or neu-
ter) becomes impersonal: e. g. vei phtit, pgovta, where 6 ZE-UJ is to be
supplied. Out of the N. T. may be reckoned here, () 1 Cor. xv. 52.

oaXrftVst yag, it Will blow (viz. v[ ffa^setyf or o Gahrtiyx't'ys}, as we Say in

German es lilutel, it rings: similar Xen. Cyrop. 5, 3. 44. fylxa S'av <Zga,
jj rtogsvsa^Mt,, ay pav si 1-9 xEgai'c, (viz. he who is accustomed to blow the

horn), and 4, 5. 42. >tr[V ayogdv 't^v ovaav tv ^9 OT'^a^07ta69 x^gTjIai'w (o

x'/jguf). Comp. Shiifer ad Demosth. III. 106. Herm. ad Vig. p. 869.
Elnisley ad Eurip. HeracL p. 131. (b) Ar'yst, Ephes. v. 14. Gal. iii. 16.
jua^T'^Et Heb. vii. 17., qytiv 1 Cor. vi. 16., Jewish formulas of quoting,
to which originally ^ ya<j} or jtvsvpa, was to be supplied.

2. The fundamental idea of the middle voice, which had escaped the
earlier philologists,* has been luminously and precisely developed by
the modern (Herm. de emend, rat. p. 178. Matth. 491. Buttm. ed. Rob.
p. 141. 89. 1. and p. 373. 135. Bernhardy 342.). It consists in this,
that the middle form refers the action back to the subject, or, to express
it grammatico-technically, it is reflexive. But this reflexive meaning
generally appears under a two-fold modification, both of which will be
proved by instances out of the N. T.f

Former philologists have allowed too many middles; many of them
may be correctly considered passive on account of the constant use of

* See L. Raster De vero vsu verb. med. ap. Gr. and J. Clerici Diss. de verb, Gr.
Med. Comp. Poppo Progr. de Gr. verb, med., etc. Rec. v. Melhorn and Sommer in
Jahns Jahrb. 1831. J. H. Kistemaker in Class. Journal, No. 44. (1827.) 45. (1821.)

t See S. F. Dresigii Comm. de verb. med. N. T. etc. ed. J. F. Fischer.

200 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

the aor pass*, since the pass, in Gr. as in Lat. can be used reflexively. So
KwtofMM, lyiigo/Aai,, 8iaxovet,a^at,, dyW^scr^at, pe$v(ixE0$<M are certainly to be
considered passive and not middle, as in Latin moveri, etc. Here belong
still more evidently dgyso^ai, (a.ppetitn ferri} ,j36axopai, pascor, also aia%vv-
tij^at. Comp. Rost's preface to the third edition of his Greek Lexicon
p. 9. and Gr. Gram. p. 274. Sommer.

The first, simplest, and certainly original modification consists in this,
that the subject of the Verb is the nearest, proper, and immediate object
of the action denoted by the transitive verb: e. g. hovopat, I wash myself
(virtto/jiut, John ix. 15.), dndyxo^i I hang myself, comp. xa&opat, Luke
xxii. 30., xgvrttopat, John viii. 59., avtitdaaopat,, ExSartavdopcu (2 Cor. xii.
15.)*. In this way the middle often assumes the appearance of a new,
simply intransitive signification, which in Lat., Ger. and Eng. is ex-
pressed by a special word:"e. g. rfa/uw ich mache aufhoren (I cause to
cease], rtuvopat I cause myself to cease, i. e. I cease, I stop; &7to^vof.iai,
solvo me, i. e. discedo, 1 depart, xoi^d^ I make to sleep, xot/.ido/j.av I go to
sleep, I fall asleep, 7tfeo/.iat, I persuade myself, i. e. / believe, etc. This
new signification is in a very few cases transitive, e. g. artodtgefyopai I turn
myself away (from some one), i. e. I reject (Heb. xii. 25.); then the middle
can take a proper object in the accusative case, e. g.

The case is different, where the accusative of the object after the
middle expresses something which is found in or on the subject (property,
dress, weapon, etc.), e. g. Rom. ix. 17. 6rtwj EvSei^^nt fv aoi ify SvvapLv
pov 1 show myself on thee, viz. my poiver (ivSsixw^t, is always so used in
the N. T. and in the Greek authors EjtiSsLxvvpi,, Engelhardt ad Plat. Lack.
p. 9.; on the other hand it occurs actively in Heb. vi. 17. (where Cod.
A. has the middle), Acts xvii. 58. ari^svfo -to, l^d-tia av-tuv. In both
passages the pronoun is superfluous and the Greeks generally do not use
it (so also Mr. vii. 3.).

3. The middle sometimes stands in a more remote or nearer relation
to the subject, when in connection with an ace. object it denotes an action
by which the subject effects something on itself, for itself, of or from it-
self, e. g. aiteu I asJc, aitov/Aat, ii 1 ask something for myself, drtoxdtST'o^at,
to cut off from one's self (the member) Gal. v. 12., xsi^o/j.ac, sibi tondere
(caput.) Actsxviii. 18., WrfT'o^cu. sibi lavare (manus.) Mr. vii. 3., s'fayoga^o-
P.M to buy for one's selfEph. v. 1 6., rif^utotov^ail gain for myself Acts xx.
28. 1 Tim. iii. 13., xopio/j,ai, mild reporto 1 Pet. i. 9., voaq>i%o/j.a(, I put aside
for myself , i. e. I defraud, Kcwa^i^opw MIHI paro Mt. xxi. 16. (Sep-

* Observation must teach which verbs express the reflexive sense by the middle
voice. In many it seems to be always denoted by the addit. of the reflex, pron. Mt.
viii. 4. John viii. 92. See Krister dc verb. med. p. 56. Poppo as above p. 2. not.

39. OF THE ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICE. 201

tuag.), ^ttftaTVopu sibi servare, observare Mt. xix. 20., drfo^acftfo^cu SIBI
abstergere Luke x. 11., s^ato^at, 2 Thess. iii. 14. to mark /or one's
se/y, rfgorfxasut^at to call to one's self Acts v. 40., atcrxaXattf^at o call in to
one's self (into the house] Acts x. 23. Comp. also d^w^c'o^at to push from
one's self, artoxglvop. I give a reply from me, i. e. I reply, answer,- finally
the oft misunderstood n^oies-to Rom. iii. 35. Here also the middle may
sometimes be translated by a new, independent verb, e. g. ^ua.aivcyiat /
observe (one) /or myself , for my good, i.e. I am on my guard before him
2 Tim. iv. 15., at8<yiat liaise to myself, select for myself, i. e. I prefer
Heb. xi. 25., voa^ofiao I intercept, embezzle.

According to this 2 Cor. iii. 18. yp^s jtavtss -- c^v &6!-av
xutoTiTt^opivoi, could also be interpreted: as if it were sibi intueri, to
contemplate for oneself the glory of the Lord (as in a mirror). The use
of the middle xatahappavsaSat, in relation to the mind (to apprehend, to ex-
perience) receives light from the above. Comp. Rost Gramm: p. 558. No-
body will think that dvatfetaSai exponere Acts xxv. 24. Gal. ii. 2. Eisner.
Observ, II. 175. is used for

4. In this twofold reflexion the middle frequently denotes an action
which is performed either by the order of the subject, or with his per-
mission. This in Lat. is usually expressed by curare, in Ger. by the
auxiliary verb (sicli) lassen, (in Eng. by the addition of to cause, to per-
mit, etc. Trs.) (comp. Sommer in Seebode Krit. Biblioth. 1828. II. p.
733.): e. g. &i,xeZaa<, to permit myself to be injured 1 Cor. vi. 7., drfo-
yfa'^Eo^ac. to allow myself to be enlisted, enrolled Luke ii. 1. comp. a|ot>-
tfia^ff^at. 1 Cor. vi. 12., J3arti'<^cr^at etc. Instances of mid. verbs, which
in this case also take a new, appropriate, and transitive meaning, are :
Savt^o^ae. Mt. v. 42. pecuniam mutuo dandam sibi curare, i. e. muttiam
sumere, to cause money to be lent to one's self, to borrow, /<j0 ^a(, Mt.
xx. 1. to let one's self hire something, to hire, to lease.

In some middle verbs a reciprocal meaning is connected with the re-
flexive, e. g. /SouTidifc^at to consult among themselves John xii. 10., ffvv -
i-tesc&at to agree with one another John ix. 22., rtagaxtastc^at, to console
one another 2 Cor. xiii. 11. It remains very doubtful whether with
Bengel and others in the O. T. quotation Rom*, iii. 4. the middle x i vea .
at, should be taken (for to judge}.

5. Although the signification of the middle is thus distinct and pecu-
liar, yet in practice, even of the best Gr. authors, its forms often slide
into those of the passive; and not only in tenses for which the middle has
no precise form (prses. imperf., perf. and pluperf. Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 373.
135.), but also in some where they have a passive sense, as the fut.

202 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

(Monk ad Eurip. Hippol. p. 169. ed. Lips. d'Orville ad Char. p. 624.
Boissonade ad Eunap. p. 336. Poppo ad Thuc. I. I. p. 192. Stallbaum.
ad Plat. Crit. 16. and rep. II. p. 230. Isocrat. Areopag. ed. Benseler
p. 229. Wex ad Jlntig. 1. 133. Kiihner Gram. II. 19.)*, the aorist which is
not so frequent, and, especially in prose, almost doubtful (d'Orville ad Char.
p. 358. Abresch ad Aristsen. p. 178. Matth. II. 1107. and ad Eurip.
Hel. 42., comp. Schiifer ad Gnom. 166. Lob. p. 320. This usage is
found in the N. T. Gal. V. 11. bfy&ov xo.i UTtoxo-fyovtat, ol waG-taTtovv'tlts
fytaj, yet the middle here affords a very good sense (see Winer's Comment.
on this passage), 1 Cor. x. 2. xai rtavtes Epart-tiaavto, which can signify:
they all permitted themselves to be baptized, see Bill roth in loc.; in
2 Cor. v. 4. the passive is not necessary. Acts xv. 22. IxXela/tlwuj,
even if connected with aVS^aj, would not be equivalent to Ixtezeevtas (see
Kiinol in loc. Schwarz Com. p. 499.), but would retain the signification
of the middle: who allowed themselves to be chonn, who accepted the
mission (with their own consent). 'Ex/u^OsWaj would be: who have been
chosen, without their consent. But Exhe%apvov$ is probably to be referred
to ctTtotfi'ox.of, and jtgsapvtsgoi,, and to be translated, after they had chosen
men from among themselves^ see Eisner Observatt. I. p. 429.

Pasor (Gram. Sacr. p. 150.) reckons here many other examples, in
which however the middle signification is very apparent, e. g. a
6ai Luk. ii. 5., scatgaaflcu 1 Cor. xi. 6., oTtu'tfaoOat 1 Pet. iv. 1. etc.

6. Among the Greeks the active sometimes occurs where we should
expect the middle (Poppo ad Thuc. I. I. 185. Lucian ad Xen. Ephes.
p. 233. Buttm. ad Soph. Philoct. p. 161. Siebelis ad Pans an. I. p. 5.
Kiihner Gramm. II. 16.). From the N. T. 2 Cor. xi. 20. ti$ fyiaj
xa-faSov^ot if one subject you to himself, is improperly assigned to this
place (Gal. ii. 4.) The apostle designs merely to say: if he subject you
(to the Mosaic law and perhaps also to himself). The same may be said
of the active uTtuitovtsw in Luk. xii. 20. Yet jtottlv is sometimes found
where the Greeks would have used itoMitsOat, (Kuster p. 37. 67. Dresig.
p. 401.), e. g. avvui*.oat,uv rtoislv Acts xxiii. 13. (Polyb. 1, 70. 6. Herodian.
7, 4. 7.), novviv rtotst'v John xiv. 23. var. (Thuc. 1, 131. and Poppo in /oc.),
Ephes. iii. ll.f> so also evgicsxtiv in the meaning of consequi for

* Sommer supposes (he flit. mcd. to have been originally passive, and then pre-
ferred, because of its convenionce, to the fut. pass.

t The mid. of irotw seldom occurs in the N. T. (almost exclusively confined to
Luke and Paul), but always so that the mid. sense can be easily recognised. As the
Lexicons do not usually distinguish the mid. and act. I shall here quote the formulas
of the midd. Acts i. 1. xxvii. 18. Rom. i. 4. Ephes. i. 16. 1 Thess, i. 2. Philem. 4.
3 Pet. i. 15. 2 Pet, i, 20, Jude 3. Phill. i. 4. (1 Tim. ii. 1.) Rom. xv. 26. Ephes. iv.
1 G. lie!., i. .'!.

39. ON THE ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICE. 203

see Fritzsche ad Mt. p. 390.* Sometimes an exchange is made
between the middle and active, Luk. xv. 6. eoyxafai (with many authori-
ties) tfoiij $&oi5f, ver. 9. avyxutei'tat, tfdj <j>aa?.f It depended here on the
author, whether he would say, he catted them together to himself, or in
general, he catted them together; the latter would be perfectly intelligible.
Comp. Jas. iv. 2. See Matth. II. 10964 We must form the same opinion
about aitslv, and allow also that it is quite natural for a foreigner, not
familiar with the national usus loquendi, to pay little attention to nice
distinctions. In Acts xxviii. 3. xaOdrt-ifu as an active peculiar to the later
language (Passow) stands for the middle.

In cases like Mt. xxvi. 65. Sw'/i^ts *d l^dina aA'tov, Acts xiv. 14. the
Greeks could also have said Sw'p/jjjlafo fa Ipd-tia: Yet the former is not
unusual.

On the other hand the middle is found with loin-i 2 Cor. v. 18. 19.
John xix. 24. (Sca^ttfai'tfo laufotj, where in Mt. xxvii. 35. only Sn^agJ-
aavro is found) comp. Xen. Cyrop. 1, 4. 13. 2, 1. 30. and with lawebv in-
stead of the active with laai-ebv (Plat. Protag .p. 349. A.) Tit. ii. 7. aewvtbv
Ttagf^d^Evos tvrtov, but the middle was so established in practice, in the
signification of to exhibit one's self, that the writer selected it even where
(on account of tvriov) was added. Comp. Xen. Cyrop. 8, 1. 39.
j/Sa tawtbv rtagei%E'to. For other examples of the
middle with lavi-p, tav-tbv see Bornemann ad Xen. Anal), p. 76. Bernhardy
347. Mehlhorn as above, 36. Poppo ad Time. I. I. 189. comp. also
Epiphan. I. p. 380. ortfaadpsvos sav-tbv. ^Erti8t,og6ova$at, in Tit. i. 5. is
used for the active, as a similar use occurs especially in the later writers.
Schiifer ad Plutarch. V. p. 101. The passages Ephes. v. 13. rfai/ *6

(see also Wahl under this word) and Ephes. i. 23.
}?M]gov(jtivov, are also reckoned here, but in the former
occurs just before in a passive sense, and the apostle connects
the $a,vsovpt;vov so immediately with tyavtgovtai, that the former must be
taken in the same sense, as Riickert and Harless in loc. have interpreted.
In Ephes. i. 23. rc^ ov . might be taken passively (as Holzhausen has re-

* In John v. 5. we cannot say that 2 x y stands for l^ Wi -; fyinb ^dtv. is rather
cquiv. to i^etv aa-BevZ;.

t So xttratepBfag-Bat vrfatv and xTaX*t^reic wfatv comp. Sclivveiffhauscr Lexic.
Pdyl. p. 330.

t Here may be reckoned those actives which are connected with the reflex, pron.,
for which the midd. arc also in a reflexive sense, as Phil ii. 8. Mt. xviii. 4. comp. 2
Cor. xii. 21. (Wetsten. II. 271.) 1 Cor. ix. 19. J ] ln xxi. 18. 1 Tim. iv. 7. But in all
these cases the reflex pron. is used in antithesis, and in John xxi. 18. c. g. the mid.
would be improper.

204 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

cently done), but then, as llarless has shown, <eq, rtdvtu lv rtatft would pre-
sent a difficulty. I therefore consider ft^^ovsOat, to be middle (Xen.
Hell. 5, 4. 56. 6, 2. 23.), which, if the words refer to God, who of him-
self, by his power, fills the universe, is very appropriate. In Acts xix.
24. TtagsixEto tfotj tfa^vitfcus igyaeftcw avx ohiyvjv, comp. With XVI. 16. the
middle sense of this verb must not be strenuously contended for (Dresig.
p. 100.); both that and the active are allowable, although Tt^E^nv egyu-
aiav alone were sufficient. Comp. Kuster p. 58. Schweighausen Lexic.
Herod. II. 185. Rost, Gram. p. 558.

The distinction between the act. and mid. appears in the use of the
verb svtgytlv, the act. of which Paul has used of a personal energy, and
the mid. of an impersonal (Col. i. 29. 2 Thess. ii. 7.), whence 1 Thess.
ii. 13. 65 is not to be referred to 6io$ but to a,oyoj.

7. From the middle verbs we must distinguish the deponent, which,
with a passive or middle form, have an act. or neut. signification, and
either want the active form entirely (in prose), or in accordance with
usage have its signification,*' as Svva&ai, 8u>geZoai, yiyvsa^at,

etc. Of them we may remark, (a) That al-
though they mostly have the aor. in the middle form (deponentia media],
yet not a few use instead of it, the aor. pass, (deponentia passiva), as
StaXlyatf^ttt., /SoijXeo^ou, Swac^cw, tfrtXay^vt^aa^at, jutojiidflf^at etc. (i) Some-
times the aorist or the perf. pass, is used with a passive signification to-
gether with the aorist (perfect) middle, as l^a'a^v Mt. vi. 1. Mr. xvi. 11.
(Time. iii. 38.), comp. Poppo ad Thuc. III. I. 594., together with l^aaua-
fjtijv I saw, ia^j/Mt. viii. 13. Luk. vi. 17. (Isa. liii. 5.), ta^at Mr. v. 29.
(on the otherhand iaod/.ifjv actively) frequently faoyiaSqv (comp. Herod. 3,
95. Xen. Cyrop. 3,133.), isap^i'^l voj Luk. xiv. 19.,s^va^rriv 2 Tim. iv. 17.,
txapfo&ivi 1 Cor. ii. 12. Phil. i. 29. (perf. Herod. 8. 5.). (c) The future
passive from xoy^o^at with a passive signification is found in Rom. ii. 26.
just so la^asifa,!, Mt. viii. 8. tt^apv^rfo^at Luk xii. 9. Even the present
of the first verb is used passively in Rom. iv. 5. (rf) The perf. pass.
fl'pyarfjucu. is sometimes used actively 2 John 8. (Demosth. adv. Conon.
p. 728. Xen. Mem. 2, 6. 6. Lucian. fugit. 2.), sometimes passively
John iii. 21. (Xen. Mem. 3, 10. 9. Plat. rep. 8. p. 566. A.) Matth. II.
1108. See in general Buttm. pp. 373-377. 135. 137. Bernhardy 341.,
but especially Poppo in the programme above mentioned.

* Only among the later writers is the active of Ay^aiW^ai found, sec Passow. But
of Jif t~<rda,i we find the active in Pindar. Ol. 6, 131. In the N. T. even euctyyttifa, as
often in the Scptuag.

39. Or THE ACTIVE AND MIDDLE VOICE. 205

That among the verbs usually considered deponent there are many to
to be taken as middle, Rost Gramm. p. 276. and Mehlhorn p. 39., have
remarked. This is acknowledged in respect to tiohrftvsaOai. But xtfao-
jua& I acquire to myself, dywi/i^o/tat (comp. Rost p. 557), j3t,d$sci6at,, psya-
hav%ei<iOa<>> and perhaps &e%o/j.at, ds^afo^at are also to be so regarded, as
the reflexive sense is more or less perceptible in them. 'Va-ttpstadai, in the
N. T. appears only in an active meaning. MatVo^at, must, as among the
Greeks, be taken passively, Sommer p. 36.

40. Of the Passive Voice.

1. If a verb governing the dat. of the person in the active, be put into the
passive voice, the personal noun becomes the subject: e. g. Gal. ii. 7.
i'D j uae. to svayyehiov, i. e. de'sitavEVftsvov J'^co -to avayy. (active tfta
Rom. iii. 2. fai IvHstevSynav (the Jews verse 1.) ta xo'yta tov $sov, 1 Cor.
ix. 17. dixovopickv tsfWtcri'fv^at (where Pott solves the construction accord-
ing to the old manner by xata) comp. Diog. Laert. 7, 1. 29.

Iv Ilgya^9 J3(,j3^io^rix^v, Polyb. 3, 69. 1. rtsitwt vuptvos tr^v rtohw

xxxi. 26. 7. Herod. 7, 9. 7. Polyaen. 2, 36. Strabo 17. p. 797.,
see Wesseling ad Diod. Sic. 19, 58. and Wetsten. on Rom. iii. 2. Also
in the signification to believe some one (jtwtsvi-w tiv) the passive
tsvopai, means / am believed in, e. g. Polyb. 8, 19. Iji
tots Tagavtivot,;, Xen. Anab. 7, 6. 33. Isocr. Trapez. p. 874. Demosth.
c. Callip. p. 720. (Otherwise 1 Tim. iii. 16. srtt,<rtsv&j (Xg^i-oj) v xocr^^,
which cannot be reduced to TtttftEVEw XgtOT'cS, but requires the formula
TtwesvEiv Xgttfi'oj/, as in 2 Thess. i. 10. sftte-ffv^ri ^ pagtvgiov fy/u.uv is refer-
able to jiiirtevEtv ft, in 1 John iv. 16.) The following passages also belong
here, Acts xxi. 3. avafyavevi?E$ f^v Kvrtgov, as it became visible to them, i. e.
wafyavsiaav t^oj/r'as it^v K. having Cyprus pointed out, being shewn it, see
Rob. Gr. and Eng. Lex. at dya^atVw, Heb. xi. 2. lv tav-ty Ipa.gtvg'q&jaa.v
o'i ft<spv'tt-e j oi (/j-agivgEtv *ivt) Acts xvi. 2.; so also Hebr. viii. 5. xa^wj
wi/ff^j (Mt. ii. 12. 22.) and Mt. xi. 5. (JLuk. vii. 23.)
o v(vyyEhiovtat,, the latter passages, because (he construction t>ay-
(see Fritzsche d Mt. p. 395.) and xzwuniZEiv -tivi (Jo-
seph. Antt. 10, 1. 3. 11, 8. 4.) is the usual one.

In Rom. vi. 17. V^XOV^TIE l fj 6V rtapsSo^f i-iJnlov St'Sa^s this

construction is perhaps an attraction (instead of v^x. els *v*v 8i8.,
ov rtapsSoG. i. e. rtapaSodhfu l%fe), yet see above, 24, 2.

Heb. vii. 11. 6 Xa6$ lyt' awty (tE{M6vvy) vf.vofn.oO^vi'to may be derived from
-tivc. the people received the law founded on the priesthood,
26

206 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VEKB.

comp. viii. 6. The parallels with vopoeetsiv tiva, (tfi) adduced from the
Septuag. belong not here; as the verb in this construction always signi-
fies, to lead some one lawfully, e. g. Ps. cxviii. 33. vopoQsfyictov pe tv\v
o86v ^ov St.xMtofj.d'tidv tfou, Ps. XXIV. 9. j/o^to0T'^cif t afiaptdvoyit&s Iv 689.
The regular construction of the passive is found in J)eut. xvii. 10. 600.
av

2. In the N. T. the aor. 1. pass, is used for the aor. 1. mid. in many
verbs, which, among the ancient Greeks, have that tense in the middle
signification, as (prevailing), ajtexpi&i Luke xxii. 68. especially in
Partic. drtoxpt^stj Mt. xvi. 2. xvii. 11. Aor. middle Mr. xiv. 61. Luk.
xxiii. 9. comp. Exod. xix. 1.* for artsxpivuTto, dtfoxpu/a^Evojf, see Lob. p.
108. Sturz. dial. Alex. p. 148. In the same manner &t,txpi&j Mt. xxi. 21.
Rom. iv. 20. Mr. xi. 23. HpoasxoMrftii Acts v. 36., IvtSwapAQii Rom. iv.
2L'., taysetraO^fs 1 Pet. v. 6. Jas. iv. 10. regarded in the N. T. as aor.
pass, for middle, are probably real passives according to the Gr. usage,
as in Lat. servari, delcctari can be employed for servare se, de.lectare se
conformably to the German, amp. Host G tmm. p. 555. 5614. The
same opinion is to be entertained about the aor. 2. xa.ian&.a.yfau I Cor.
vii. 11. 2 Cor. v. 20. and the fut. tf

Ephes. i. 11. IxkyguOvipev (see Hailess in ljc.) and Acts xvii. 4.
ard evidently passive.

3. That the perf. (see Poppo ad Xen. Cyrop. p. 360. Matth. II. p.
1097.) and pluperf. pass, have the signification of the middle, (comp.
39. 5.) will not seern surprising, after the recent investigations of the
formerly so called perf. mid. (Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 143. 89. 5. 6.) Acts
xiii. 2. (elf] 8 rtgosxExhy/j-ci.!, aito-us wliereunto I have called them to me ,
Acts xvi. 10. rtgoax&q-tat, ^uaj 6 xvg(,o$ vayyshlaaa$at, ail-r'ovj the Lord has
called us to himself, etc. (comp. Exod. iii. 18. v. 3.), xxv. 12. KaJaraga.
iTtixix^oai thou hast referred thyself to Csesar (appealed unto him),
Rom. iv. 21. 6 Ertr/yyEVi'ai,, 5wowd$ la-tt xai Ttot^oat (o ^aoj) Heb. xii. 26.,
Acts xiii. 46. ovVw Iv-t&aMat, 6 xvgw$ John ix. 22. awe'tt&swto ol *Iov-
Stttot, 1 Pet. iv. 3. 7ttso^'D 1 iu'i'oi)s iv dffsXyei'cus (1 Sam. xiv. 17. 2 Kings
v. 25. Hiob. xxx. 28. etc.).

* In the Septuag-int 2 Cliron. x. 9. Ezek. xx. 3. the future passive anox.^^^ is
used in the sense of to answer.

f Tlie form aweu^lSf occurs in manuscripts of Xen. Anab. 2, 1. 22. It is of fre-
quent occurrence in the writers after Alexander's tirnc.

t The aorists middle of such verbs are commonly used only with the accusative
according to 39. 2. So as-ofiav means me servavi (scrvatus sum), on the other hand
ls-caa-a.iA.-nv TO FwfAa. signifies corpus mcum (mihi) servavi,

40. OP THE PASSIVE VOICE. 207

On the contrary 1 Pet. iv. 1. vtttiwtai, a/tapi-taj, which is usually trans-
lated peccare desiit, comp. Xen. Cyrop. 3, 1. 18., can also be taken pas-
sively: he lias rest from sin, is preserved from it, see Kypke in loc.
Phil. iii. 12. does not come under this head. According to Poppo's theory
(as the act. occurs in the intransit. signification) otowevpai, Acts xxiii. 1.
could be considered deponent. Yet see above p. 205. Kataxsxputat,
Rom. xiv. 23. is unquestionably passive in the sense of the Apostle, and
not middle, as Wahl I. 340. deems it.

The perf. passive for the perf. active is supposed to occur Acts xx. 13.
a v o IlaiiTtos Stai's^ayjusvos and 2 Pet. i. 3. r^f

ov-tu yap %v (o IlaiiTtos)
^wj -- fk a^s g^v SsSuprnievyis (comp. Vig. p. 216., Jen.sii lectt.
Lucian. p. 247.). But in the first passage Scar 1 , has the middle signifi-
cation (like Polysen. 6, 1. 5. Jos. Antt. 4, 2. o.; for so had he appoint-
ed; and in 2 Pet. i. 2. o'ccurs the deponent Swglo/tat*. Comp. Poppo ad
Time. I. I. p. 179.

NOTE 1. The fut. pass, is used very peculiarly in Acts xxvi. 16. slf
I'otJt'o w^j/j' (jot, ispo^Etpi/'craa^oK,' C?E vyiripE^tjv xai ^.dpTfvjja, >t> -gf sides, wv tfs
o$^iy ao^aL GOI, where according to the parallelism it might be ren-
dered (comp. Stolz):. ivhich you have seen, and which I shall cause you
to see, so that ofj^oo^cu would be taken in a causative sense (see Db'der-
lein ad Soph, ffidip. Col. p. 492. Bornem. 289.). The other interpre-
tation, which in general Schott, Kiinb'l and Heinricks adopt, de quibus
tibi porro apparebo, would on the whole, suit the context better, and
compared with the former, is the more simple one. About the attrac-
tion of iZv and , see 24, 2.

NOTE 2. As many verbs which were neuter in the earlier Gr. became
transitive in the Hellenistic language (see Lexic. under paOqitevetv, dpiap-
jSfufitv, comp. Olear. slyl. p. 308. Biihr ad Ctes. p. 132.), interpreters
apprehend the passive occasionally as equivalent to the Heb. Hophal, in
a causal sense. But there is no certain or even probable instance. Gal.
iv. 9. /ywWsj ^8oi' paM.ov fit yvtotf^evi'Ej vit avtoi>, the antithesis re-
quires us to interpret, knowing God, or rather known by God (recognized)
see Winer's Commentary on the passage^ 1 Cor. viii. 3. l <t^ ayarta ibv
EOV, oiii'oj syj/wofi'at vjt av-tov is not to be translated according to
Erasmus, Beza, Nosselt, Pott, Heidenreich and others: is veram intelli-
gentiam consecntus est, but the meaning is: he who imagines himself to
Jenotv something, (where therefore a yvwutj tyvaiovaa takes place) such a one
has not yet known anything, as he ought to Imoiu; but if any one loves
God (comp. the preceding words ^ dyarf^ ofooS.) he (has not only
known, as he ought to know, but) is known of him (God), (is even an
object of the highest and truest knowledge, namely of the divine); in
1 Cor. Xli i. 12. agft, yiniffxw i x jtitgovj, -to-te 8s t 3 7t(-yfwcrou<xt,

xa

* Marklarid (Explic. veil. aliq. loc. etc.) reckons here the passage in Acts xiii. 48.
celebrated in the controversy about predestination, which he punctuates thus: K. I^V-
TEua-av, o's-oi ?<r*v rsra-y^im, EI? {>^v ctltav. and translates: etjidem professi sunt, quotquot
(tempns, diem} constituerant, in vitam elernam. This interpretation can never be
adopted by iinprejndicfid fxegesigts. v

208 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

irteyi/wrf^v. the latter certainly relates to the knowledge of God,
and Nosselt has already given the sense thus: there we shall know every-
thing (not ix ittlgouj, not as it were lv aiWy^ai't), just as perfectly as God
knows us*. That yivuaxsw signifies cognoscere facer e, edocere, has not
yet been proved from the Greek of the Bible, and Pott was probably not
satisfied himself when he cited John v. 42. Rom. ii. 18. But this mean-
ing is found in the passage of Demosth. cor. p. 345. C. quoted by Ste-
phanus ill ThcSUlir. w^o^oy^xs vvv y' v/j,a$ vTia^x^w syrcotfjulvovj E/AS
fjisv TieysM/ oirtfg tys rtatfgi/'Sos, OJVT!QV 6 vrtsg Qfairtrtov, analogous to which

the recent editors of Steph. had nothing to adduce.

41. Of the Tenses.

1. In respect to the tenses of the verb, the grammarians and interpre-
ters of the N. T., even many of the most recent not excepted, have made
the greatest mistakesf. The tenses are generally used in the same
manner as in the Greek writers:}:, for the aorist denotes simply the past
time (the momentary in the past time, merely the being done), and is
usually the narrative tense; the imperfect and pluperfect refer always to
subordinate events, which stand in a connection as to time with the chief
event (as relative tenses); the perfect connects the past time with the
present (Matth. II. 1116.). No one of these tenses, properly and strictly
taken, can be used for another, as the commentators would have us be-
lieve||; but where an exchange seems to take place (com/5. Georgi Vind.
252. Hierocrit, I. p. 58.), it is either mere appearance, and a sufficient
reason (especially rhetorical) may be discovered, why this and no other
tense is used, or it is to be accounted for by a certain inexactitude, pecu-
liar to the popular language, which did not conceive and express the re-
lation of time in all its force. The latter takes place especially in the
exchange (or connection) of such tenses, e. g. of the preterites, as de-
note a chief relation of time.

* Phil. iii. 13. has a similar union of the active and passive.

t Occasioned in part by parallel sentences, which were supposed to be entirely con-
formed to grammatical rules. The abuse of the parallelism in exegesis should be at
once exposed. *

t Comp. Herm. de emend, rat. p. 180. L. G. Dissen. de temp, el mod. verb. Grccc.
Go'tt. 1808. 4to. A. zum Felde de enall. press, temp, in S. S. ws, Kel. 1711. Georgi
Vind. 252.

II How incorrect it is to reckon the enallage temporum as Hebraism, Gcsenius
(Lehrgeb. p. 760.) and still more radically Ewald (Krit. Gr. 523.) have shewn.

41. OF THE TENSES. 209

2. The present is therefore used () only apparently for the future
(Abresch in observ. misc. III. I. 150.), where the writer would denote a
yet future action as one, which certainly will take place, which is already
resolved upon and unalterably fixed (Pfochen dialr. 31. Bernhardy 371.),
or which follows according to an established rule, as in Latin, German,
and Eng., e. g. Mt. xxvi. 2. olSnts-, 6V& /uatfa Svo ^u^aj Vo rtatf^a ytj/si'at
(that (he passover is) xal o vlbs tov <w>g. rt a g a S i 8 o 4 a c, sl$ to ajavgu-
&jvm (is delivered, which is established as a divine decree), John xiv. 3.

iav jiop u^9 rtdhiv s g %o pa (, xul liaeo&fyopw (John xxi. 23.), Mt. XVII.

11. 'H;ua$ ju.6v eg % E * a * jt&tov (was a sentence of the Jewish Christo-
logy) xal artoxatae'tya(, rtdvta,, comp. John vii. 42. Luke xii. 54. 6Vo/
ISqts tity vityBfajv uvattt'M.ovaav arto Svapuv, sv&us ^ays-fa fyijSgoj s g % E # o t
(a law of the weather founded on experience is spoken of!); as Jesus uses
the formula egwtnt &gu 6V s John iv. 21. xvi. 2., hence perhaps also the
Jewish o Egxopwos use ^ f tne Messiah. The formula in John xii. 26.
xiv. 3. xvii. 24. vii. 34. oriov dpi ly<l> (not a^t, as some read, Matth. II.
1137.) with a future succeeding can be reckoned here, if it is not pre-
ferred rather to interpret: where I am, where I have my (real) abode.
It would be incorrect to substitute in these passages the fut. for the more
appropriate present. Comp. on the Greek, Poppo ad Thuc. 1. 1. p. 153.
Viger. p. 211.; on the Latin Ramshorn p. 401. The present is used in
other passages of that which will happen just now, which some one is
about to do, for which he has already made preparations (Herm. ad Vig.
p. 746. and ad Soph. (Ed. Col. 91. Bekker Specim. Philostr. p. 73.);
e. g. John x. 32. Sia rtolov avtuv Hgyov ^d^fs (IE (they had already
taken the stones), comp. Odyss. 16, 442., John xiii. 6. xvgie, av pov vLrt-
*(.{ tfoiij itoSas (he had already taken the position of one who washes),
xiii. 27.*, xvi. 17. (vjtdyu) xvii. 11. xxi. 3. Acts ii. 6. 2 Cor. xiii. 1.
Mt. xxiii. 34. See Held ad Plutarch. Timol. p. 335.

Many passages, however, are incorrectly reckoned here. In John iii.
36. the thought loses some of its strength, if l%et be taken for i'fst,, the
idea of m in John not only allows, but almost requires the present.
''E^atv >ji/ (wcii/. could also be said very well of him, who does not yet
enjoy the eternal life, bm who possesses it in certain hope as a good be-
longing to himf. So Fritzsche has correctly interpreted John v. 26.
Mt. v. 46., but Mt. iii. 10. cannot be taken with him as a general sen-

* "o TroieTj, woiVov Taj^iov quod (jam) /acts, quo jam occupatus cs, id (fac) perfice
ocius. Comp. Arrian. Epict. 4, 9. mist, S. now 3, 23. and Senec. benef. 2, 5. fac,
si quid fads. See Wctsten. 1. 931. What is here commanded, lies not in the im-
per.it. but in the subjoined adverb.

t The Apost. here very correctly distinguishes the fut. from the prais. in the fol-
lowing OlM O^ETCtl <B>)V.

210 PART THIRD. USE OP THE VERB.

tence: every tree^ which brings not forth good fruit, is heivn down (is
usually hewn down). These .words are connected by ovv with q at-ivi?
rtgb; triv [jkav T!UV Ssvdgav xEctat, and require a particular interpretation,
with respect to the before named 8ev5ga: the axe is already laid unto
the root of the trees: therefore every tree, etc. is (will be) certainly hewn
down, i. e. from the circumstance, that the axe is already laid to the tree,
it may be concluded, what will be the lot of the bad trees. The pas-
sage in 1 Cor. xv. 35. ytwj Eyeigovtai, ol vEx^ol does not refer to the
resurrection of the dead as a fact (of the time to come), but as a dogma.
How does the resurrection of the dead (according to thy doctrine) take
place? Comp. v. 42. So also we can say, eternal felicity has degrees, the
punishments of the damned are eternal, etc. About Mt. ii. 4. see Fritz-
sche. In Mt. vii. 8. the prses. (of that, which usually is done) is con-
nected with the future. In a parallelism the pra3s. stands in Mt. xxiv.
40. 6fTj rtagahuiApdvEtat,, etc., but in Luke xvii. 34. the fut. Tj
Tta^aJi^^^iJtfai'at, . In the former place the fact introduced by the
future (Haovtat,) is conceived of as present (comp. Rev. xi. 9.), in the lat-
ter it is represented in all its parts as future.

(b~) It is used for the aorisl in lively narrations as a historical tense
(Longin. c. 25. Matth. II. 1135., comp. Zumpt. Lot. Gram. p. 431.).
John i. 29. ^ srtavgiov J3ft,a jts t* xai htjE i (v. 32. xai ( wa^T'v^cfv);

1. 44. sv^axEi <J?t?arf7toj> xat, Keys i (before ^sT^ffE!/), comp. v. 46.; ix. 13.
ayov tf c. v av-tbv 7toj tfot)? <ag(,<jcu'oi)j, Acts x. 11. So often in the Apoca-
lyptic visions, ccmp. Rev. viii. 11. xii. 2. The prses. in Mt. ii. 13. ava-

%u>g'i>]tidvT!uv aiJT'tjj/, iov ayysXoj xv^lov fy&Lve'tut xa-t ovag, etc. 6X-

presses very characteristically in a series of past events the suddenness
of the appearance.

The pres. is therefore frequently interchanged with the preterite in the
same sentence, e. g. Mr. ii. 4. iv. 33. v. 15. 19. vi. 1. 30. Luk. xxiii.
12. Rev. xvi. 21. xix. 3. John i.- 42. 43. 44. v. 14. xi. 29. xviii. 28.
xix. 9. xx. 6. 14. 19. 26. xxi. 9. Similar instances, see Xen. Hellen.

2, 1. 15. Cyrop. 1, 6. 14. 4, 6. 4. 10. 5, 4. 3. Ayes. 2, 17-20. Thuc.
2, 68. Pausan. 1. 17. 4. 9, 6. 1. Dion. Hal. IV. 2113. Achill. Tat. 4,
4. p. 85. ed. Jacobs Xen. Ephcs. 5, 12. p. 113. comp. Abresch ad
Aristsen. p. 11. Heindorf ad Plat. III. p. 143. Ast ad Plat. Phsedr. p.
335. Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. II. p. 68.

(c) Sometimes the present includes a preterite, viz. when a state is
denoted by the verb, which began earlier, but still continues (or one
which is from eternity to eternity. Trs.): e. g. John viii. 58. ^lv

syw s I p i (comp. Jer. i. 5. rtgb fov /.IE rthaaai as BV

<jf) xv. 27. see Viger p. 213. Acts xxv. 11. si ^EV
aSixu xal u^iov ^tavat'ov 7trtak%d ti might be also reckoned here.
See Bernliardy p. 370. Mafth. II. 1 1 37. In John viii. 14. the nor. stands

41. OF THE TENSES. 211

first, and then the present olSa, rt6$sj> qh^ov --- vpsls Ss ovx ol

In 1 John iii. 5. the sinlessness of Jesus is considered as present in be-
lief (see Liicke in Zoc.), but ovSh Oavd-tov u&av fj Ssa/^uv rt g d a a E t, Acts
xxvi. 31. refers not to his past life, but to his general conduct: this man
(a silly fanatic) does nothing evil. See Bengel in Zoc., Kiinol is wrong.
Recent interpreters have admitted that Ejifcupp- in Heb. ii. 16. cannot
bo taken as a p raster. (Georgi Vind. 25. Palair. 479.). Bengel properly
translates xoipuveat I Cor. xi. 80. obdormiunt; later interpreters all as
praeter. About rtagdys'ta.t, 1 John ii. 8. see Liicke in Comment, as in his
translation the praeterite is expressed. In John 6. ii. no reasonable in-
terpreter will allow even the possibility that la-el stands for iji>, comp. John
i. 15. All the better interpreters correctly translate awLa-ttiat, Rorn. v.
8. as present.

The present in dependent clauses might seem to stand for the imperf.,
as John ii. 9. ovx $S&, rto^fv I an iv, iv. 1. rjxovaav ol 3>agt,csaiot,, 8-gt, 'iqaovs
-- 7t o i e i xo.1 ]3 a rttf I/'^EC, Mr. V. 14. e^tjy^ov I8si,v, ii e a -t i <to ysyovoj,
viii. 23. Efltygwi-a auto ir, si ft j3 a, s rt i (also jSxsrtEts), xii. 41. xv. 47.
John v. 13. 15. vi. 5. 24. Luk. vii. 37. xix. 3. Acts iv. 13. ix. 26. x. 18.
xii. 3. Heb. xi. 8. 13., although in most passages of this kind, sometimes
more and sometimes fewer of .the Codd. have a preterite. But this is
regular Gr. construction (see Viger. p. 214. comp. beloiv 42, 4.), pro-
perly consisting of a mingling of the oratio recta and obliqua (Person
ad Euri'p. Orcst. p. 36. Lips.)*, comp. Long. Past. 1, 10. 1, 13. The
imp. or aor. in these places might have expressed, that what was inquired
about or heard, had already happened before the inquiry or hearing,
comp. John ix. 8. ot Qsagovwtss avtov to rtgo-tsgov, o-ii tfoxjaoj yjv> Luk. viii.
53. Mt. xxvii. 18. Acts iv. 13.

3. The imperfect is used as in Gr. prose (Bernhardy 372.) to denote,
() an action which was going on at the same time with another action
(Bremi ad Demostli. p. 19.), e.g. Luk. xiv. 17. Hhe-ys --S7ts x ^v, 7tt>s *aj
lfTisyovz-o as they (then) selected, xxiv. 32. ^ xagSta ^wv
iv <tj/.uv wj s %. d h s i, fyfilv Iv ty 6S, vi. 19. John v. 16. xii. 6.
(b) a continued or repeated, customary past action (Matlh. II. 1117.
1133.), John iii. 22. i x li> Sis-tgipe pet' avtuv xal % $ d jt T; >, I E v . Rom.
XV. 22. I v s x o jt -t 6 (A Y\ v ^a 7to^7,a tov lheiv, 1 Cor. X. 4. s jtivov
ydg Ix ttvEvpat. artohov$ov6ijs rtstfgaj (where the Ijtiov denotes only the
past and now completed action, but the faivov its continuance during the
march through the desert), xiii. 11. 6V s J?>-/?K vfaios as long as I was
young, Acts xiii. 11. rtegioyaj/ i^ M % ^a 7 ^ 7 o^ Mt. xiii. 34. x^V
tta<k$ohjis ovx IhdKet, (during his office as teacher), comp. Luk. viii. 31.
41. xvii. 28. xxiv. 14. 27. vi. 23. v. IS. Rev. i. 9. Mr. i. 31. xiv. 12.

* See Buttrnann Gr. cd. Rob. 137. and ad Philocl. p. 129. on the still more ex-
tended use of the present in parenthetical clauses, for a preterite.

212 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

John v. 18. viii. 6. xi. 5. xiii. 23. xii. 2. Acts vi. 1. xxii. 11. viii. 17.
ix. 20. xxvi. 1. 1 Cor. xiii. 11. etc. So also Xen. Anal}. 1, 2. 18. 4, 5.
18. 5, 4. 24. 6, 3. 3. Mem. 1, 1. 5. Apol. Socr. 14. Isocr. ii. witi. p.
349. B. (c) an action begun, but not finished (Schafer ad Demosth. I.
'337. ad Plutarch. IV. p. 398. Poppo ad Time. III. I. 646. Englehardt

ad Plat. Menex. p. 282.), Luk. i. 59. Ixdhow avtb Zazagiav (the

mother objects and he is called John), Mt. iii. 14. 6 Ss 'iwaw^j Stsxuhvsv
uvtov comp. ver. 15. Similar in Herodot. 1, 68. Xen. Mem. 1, 2. 29-

I, 3. 4. Thuc. 2, 5. 1. Demosth. Mid. 23. Xen. Anab. 4, 5. 19. Pausan.
5, 9. 4. Eurip. Here. fur. 531. comp. Held ad Plutarch. Timol. p. 837.
note. Heb. xii. 17. (rfgotfl$sgi-j>) does not belong here, but probably Gal.
i. 13. might be so regarded, if we translate rtogeetv to destroy, yet see
Winer's Comment, in loc. (d) sometimes for the aor. in narration, when
the events are related as if the narrator had been present. The narra-
tion thus becomes more perspicuous than it would be if expressed in the
merely historical aor.: Acts xvi. 22. ex&svov fjapS&w (comp. Jacobs ad
Achill. Tat. p. 620.) they commanded ("whilst I was present) etc. This is
therefore reducible to note 1. Comp. Herm. ad Soph. (Ed. Col. p. 76. ad
Soph. Ajac. p. 139. Poppo Thuc. 1. 1. p. 155. Ellendt ad Arrian. I. 225.
Matth. II. 1138. Bernhardy 373. Kiihner Gramm. II. 73. It is unne-
cessary to suppose this tense used for the pluperfect in any passage
(comp. Poppo as above. Bornemann ad Xen. rfnab. p. 5. Acta Monac.

II. p. 179. Kriiger ad Dion, histor. p. 304.), in Acts iv. 13. eOav^ov
srtsyivocixov IE ai)T'oi>f, 6V& evv -t<$ Iqtiov ijaav, they were amazed, and
knew (roused to more attentive observation even by their wonder), that
they, etc.

In many passages the Codd. vacillate between the imperf. and aor.,
e. g. Mr. vi. 12. John viii. 8. Acts vii. 31., as in Gr. writers also the
forms of these tenses have been frequently interchanged (comp. Boisson-
riade ad Eunap. p. 431. ad Philostr. Her. p. 530.), and sometimes differ
very little in meaning, Schafer ad Plut. IV. p. 346. Siebelis ad Pausan.
IV. p. 290. It often depends on the writer, whether he conceive the action
as momentary, or as continued, Kiihner II. 74., and so especially in the
later Greek, the imperf. of verbs signifying to say, to go, to send, is often
used where the aor. seemed to be required. Poppo ad Thuc. III. I. p.
570. Held ad Plutarch. Tim. p. 484. comp. Mr. vii. 17. x. 17. (iv. 10.
where Fritzsche has received the imperf. into the text) Luk. viii. 9.
Acts ii. 6.

The imperf. and aor. occur together, yet with the wonted distinction,

see Luk. viii. 23. xa'tE^ XatXa-^ xal cr-uwrt^goako xal txwSvvsvov,

Jas. ii. 22. comp. Thuc. 7, 20. 44. Xen. Anab. 5, 5. 24.*. Reisig ad Soph.

t Particularly instructive is the passage Diod. Sic. Exc. Vat. p. 25. 9. a Kj. //.IT i-
TT E (M. it E T o In T. EAXaSo? T. E?r. <ro>}>. TrgiwT. jM,eTe7rE(U.^To Sitfcu 2oX<wv, etc.

41. OP THE TENSES. 213

(Ed. Col. p. 254. Stallbaum ad Plat. Phsed. p. 29. Jacobs ad Jlnthol.
Pal. p. 118. 329. 734. Jacob, ad Lucian. Tox. p. 53. Ellendt ad Arrian.
Alex. II. p 67.

The imperf. might seem to be used for the present (yet see Mehlhorir
ad Anacr. p. 235.) in Col. iii. 18. vrtotdaaEGds tfotj avSgdaw, we* av^x s v ,
iv xvgtcp ut par est. But it must be translated, ut oportebat, as it should
be, as it behoved (already before) see Matth. II. 1138. It was not ne-
cessary for the apostle to say, that it must be so; on the other hand, by
the use of the imperfect he could convey an appropriate hint, that it had
not been so with them (at all times). See 52, 2. About Mt. xxvii. 54.
see Fritzsche. The imperfect in Acts iv. 13. John ix. 8. is explained
under 2. (c) p. 211.

4, The perfect is used in entire conformity with the rules of the lan-
guage, when time past is placed in relation to the present, i. e. when
something past is intended to be designated as just now completed, so
that the result of the action is conceived of as permanent. Particularly
instructive are the following instances: Luk. xiii. 2. Soxette, out ol Taht-
7.CMO& oiiT'ot a.jttagi'tt^ot yta^a rtdvitaf -- fysvovto, 6V t z'ota.'UT'a liertovQutiiv,
that these Galileans were sinners because they have suffered, i. e. not
that they suffered merely once in time past (that would be the aor.), but
that the consequences of that suffering (death) are still manifest : iv. 6.
6V t Ifiol rtagaSE'Sotfat. (tj s%ov<sia), i. e. / am in possession of it after
it has been transferred to me, commissam habeo potestatem; the aor.
would be, it was transferred to me, which would leave it uncertain, whether
it still remained in my possession; v. 32. ovx s^^vda xa^iaat, Stxaiovs
I am not there (on the earth), in order to etc. (aor. foeov I came not, was
not sent) comp. vii. 20. 50., Gal. ii. 7. TtBrtta-tsvpai, 1*6 Ivwyyefaov concre-
ditum mihi habeo etc. (his apostolic office continues) Acts viii. 14. Mr.
x. 40. xi. 21. xvi. 4. iii. 26. John xii. 7. xiii. 12.*, xv. 24. xix. 22. 30.
xx. 21. Rom. iii. 21. v. 2. ix. 6. 1 Cor. vii. 14. xiv. 34. Col. iii. 3. Heb.
i. 4. iii. 3. x. 14. xii. 2. vi. 14. ix.26. 1 John v. 10. 3 John v. xii. Therefore
in citations of the prophecies of the O. T. very often yeypnrttui, or xsxp^d-
tuttai Heb. viii. 5. On 1 John v. 10 see Liicke. The perf. and aor. are
found connected in Luk. vii. 16. rtpo^?-^ ^lya? fy/jyspi-cu Iv ^Iv, xai fata-
xtyuTia o 0oj 4ov ha.bv awtov he has arisen (therefore is here), and God
visited etc. (the latter narrative, and Irtstxevti?. refers to something as being
completed in the act of arising) ix. 8. iv. 18. Heb. ii. 14. to*;
xsxotxavqxs cfapxoj xai ae/taiX, xal a-ufoj ^ e <t e % E -guv
Cor. xv. 4. sti, e<en m (a now finished act) xa i 6V 6 l y jyegi-ot

, vi mmima, uftfv, where the completed action srt^a, (in the symbolical
sense) is indicated as ojierativc at the present time.
27

o

214 PA.KT THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

^sga (continues in its effects in the new life of Jesus) Acts xxi. 8. John
xiii. 3. 1 John i. 1. 2 Pet. ii. 17. (comp. Plut. II. 208. C. Xen. Cyrop.
8, 5. 23.) Col. i. 16. is also characteristic, 6Vt ev owfio x * L a 9 y fa

rtavtfa (the act of creation) -- -to. 7t(Wai' avtov xai sl$ av-fbv s x if I 6 -

* a t (a dogmatical view of the finished and now existing creation). The
perfect (instead of the aor.) is found only once in narration, Rev. v. 7.
vjhOs xai s I ft,?7<3>f tf6 /3ij3?uoj; (without var.). So in a purely aorist meaning
in the later writers Schiifer ad Demostli. I. p. 468. Wyttenbach ad Plut.
Mor. I. 412. Index to Pctr. Patric. ed. Bonn. A. p. 647. Bernhardy
379. Less striking is 2 Cor. xi. 25. t'xajSoj/, l^aSia^rjv -- lM$da6tiv
, vv%$rjp,cgov tv 'fat j3i>^9 rtsrtoiqxa, Heb. xi. 28. rtia-ttt, rt E
x s -to Ttacf^a xa!> tf'/jf Ttgorf^utfw tov at'juai'oj (aor. precede and fol-
low). In such enumerations of single facts it was indifferent whether
the aor. or perf. was used: they are equally admissible, as, I was stoned,
I suffered shipwreck, I have passed a day.

The perfect is used for the present, () only in as far as by the former
is signified an action or state, which having commenced in past time ex-
tends into the present (Herm. ad Viger. 748.); e. g. John xx. 29. 6V*
liigcwcaj pe, rtsrtuatEvxa;, where the origin of a belief still continu-
ing is indicated, xi. 27.; John v. 45. IjtMTEvsT's Muaajj, t t 'j 6V tj^rtixaife,
in whom you have trusted (have placed your trust) and still trust (in quo
repositam habetis spem vest-rum). Similar 2 Cor. i. 10. ei$ 6V qhrtlxa,-
pev (Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 377. 137. 2. marg. note). About Jw
John ix. 37. see beloio note. 2 Tim. iv. 8. tfyartyxotss tv\v
a/utfoaj, who have begun to love and therefore now love. The plu-
perfect of such verbs then has naturally the sense of the imperfect,
Luke xvi. 20. John i. 34. xayu Iwgoxa xai pspagtvgqxu does not
belong here: the latter perfect seems to express, that the testimony of
John about Christ is to be regarded as finished, firmly established in its
authority: I have seen and have testified, i. e. let it be and remain testi-
fied (Thuc.. 2, 45.). The present would be less forcible. The perfects
in Ileb. vii. 6. (9.) are essentially conformed to this, for there evidently
more than one fact is related. (6) To express after clauses with tl,
lav (and fut. or aor.), cm action yet to come, which is conceived by the
mind as just about to occur, and so contemplated even as past,* as Soph.

Electr. 690. EI rtahaia^sis rttfui^ua ^avaaipov rttcfal, t$vqxa dyo Philoct.

75. and Liv. si talcs animas habebitis, vidimus, comp. Viger. p. 214.

* There is not in the N. T. a clear example of the prophetic perfect of the Hebrew
(Gcsen. Lchrgeb. 7G4. Stuart's Heb. Gr. 503. c.) which the LXX. usually translate
by the fut. It is analogous to this when the augurs begin with the fut. and proceed
with the aor., Iliad 4, 158. Find. Pyt/i. 4, 56. Isthm. 5, 5] . see Bockh not. crit. p. 462.

41. OP THE TENSES. 215

Poppo ad Thuc. I. I. p. 156. Ast. ad Plat. Polit. p. 470. Herm. ad
Aristoph. Nub. p. 175. Matthias ad Eurip. Med. p. 512. and Gr. II.
1125. From the N. T. see Rom. xiv. 23. 6 Siaxgwopsvos, lav $ay)?,
x a i a x B x e, t * & < > he is condemned, the sentence of condemnation has
been pronounced and remains against him, he has fallen under the con-
demnation. Otherwise John v. 24. /.istafiifiqxsv lx tov davdtov fi$ Tf^v
l^v. here the reference is not to a future fact, but to one really past
(see 1 John iii. 14. comp. Liicke Comment. II. p. 42.). About Johnxvii.
10. see Liicke and Tholuck. John xiv. 7. xal art 1 agtt, yiyvaaxe-ts a.v-tov
xal eagdxate avtbv must be translated with Sto\z:fro?n now ye know him
and have seen him, not with Kiinol: eum max accuratius cognoscetis et
quasi oculis videbitis, comp. Demosth. adv. Lacrit. p. 597. A. a

6V ^jtms ov-fE yt,yvu>axo/.t,EV oi>^ Iwgaxa/ju.si'*

In Jas. V. 2. 6 rfhovitos vfn^v a i a ^ ft s , xai to, Ipa-tia, V/AWV tf??T'oj3gi'a ytyo-
VBV the perf, is not used for the present or fut. (Schott vacillates between
the two), but the case contemplated by the Apostles in tahaiTtae;. vpuv -t.
srtegzop. was conceived of as already present, and hence the afasiv of
riches as already past. It comes near to the prophetic perfect. AlSwxa
John xvii. 22. does not mean tribuam (Sohott); Christ considered his life
as already past, the disciples as having already taken his place. Asdoxa
instead of 8i,8u[.u, has not much authority, although in itself considered
not incorrect.

That the perfect is used for the pluperfect also (which is not impossi-
ble), Haab p. 95. would prove by John xii. 7. et$ ^v ^ttEgcw r'oij \vta,$iv.a-
pov te-tr^yxtv awto : but this proof is insufficient, since here -fs-f^. is to
be apprehended as a genuine perfect, because Jesus would figuratively
represent this unction as that which prepared him for the grave.

That the perfect (and aor.) of many verbs has, by established usage,
the signification of the present, is well known, and this is accounted for
by their radical meaning: e. g. xixtyp. I possess,* from x-tdopai, I ac-
quire; olSu I know, from 8io I see; sa-ttjxu I stand, from la t vim I place,
properly I have placed myself (therefore 2 Thess. ii. 2. Eviatvjxsv y ^% a
tov Xg. comp. Palair. on this passage, Rom. ix. 19. t s Av^tsa-fv/xs who re-
sists him, 2 Tim. iv. 6. Iqto-tyxe. The pluperfect of such verbs naturally
take then the place of the imperf. e. g. slo-fyixfcaav Mr. xii. 46. $& M < John
ii. 9, f Also xsxgayu from x^eiv has 'the signification of the present

* This verb is occasionally translated incorrectly in the N. T. by to possess, in other
tenses than the perfect. Luk. xviii. 12. of all which I acquire (Stolz.) qua mihi redeunt,
xxi. 19. by perseverance acquire or you will acquire your souls, they will thc*n first
become your real, inalienable property; see Koppe 1 Thess. iv. 4, YetwTS/wai seems to
mean possideo in ^Esop. 142, 2. As to xoi/xSvrai 1 Cor. xi. 30., which is usually taken
for KEKoi'jWtivTcti, see above, 2. c.

t I see no good reason for taking W E( y John xx. 9. for plusquam perf. as Tholuck

does. camp. L'iicke in to:. .

216 PAllT THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

(John i. 15.) seeButtm. 137. Bernhardy 279. and eapaxa means sometimes
I see (it has come to my sight) John ix. 37. (xiv. 7.) 1 John iv, 20.
On the other hand the present faa denotes the having come, the being
there (Matth. II. 1136. Kiihner II. 64.) see John ii. 4. iv. 47. 1 John v.
20., as (jjcBo can be sometimes translated by audisse, (Xen. Anab. 5,
5. 8. Mem. 3, 5. 9. Philostr. Apott. 2, 8. see Jacobs Jlnthol. III. p. 311.
Heindorf ad Plat. Gorg. p. 503. Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 9.), which how-
ever only takes place, when the hearing continues in its effect, as we also
say: 1 hear that you are sick. The Greek also must say axqxoa, to express
the completion of the hearing in past time. (So rtwOdvopai 1 learn, I hear,
Domosth. c. Calipp. p. 719. C. etc.). 'Ams'^w Mt. vi. 2. v. 16. can be trans-
lated by accepisse, but is properly as in German weghaben, to have
away (to have it altogether safe), Wyttenbach ad Plutarch. MOT. II.
p. 124. Palair. p. 25. About ufaxslv see Bremi ad Lys. p. 23. Matth.
II. 1137.

5. The aorist is used, (a) in narration for the pluperfect (Poppo ad
Thuc. I. I. p. 157. Jacob ad Lucian. Toxar. p. 98. and ad Lucian.
$lex. p. 106. Kiihner Gram. II. 79,), viz. if an earlier circumstance is
referred to, e. g. John xviii. 24. a E a t s t,%s v avtw o "Awaj (comp.
Kiinol and Liicke on this passage) Mt. xiv. 3. 4. (see Fritzsche in
loc.) xxvi. 48. and in relative clauses Acts i. 2. evtethdnsvos tol$ &ito-
fftfoTtotj, oiij ItskE'faT'o, ix. 35. John xi. 30. iv. 45. 46. xiii. 12. xix.
23. Luke xix. 15. xxiv. 1. (as those in which the pluperf. but seldom
occurs, Bernhardy 380.). This use depends on the fact that the writer
conceived the action merely as a past one, without respect to another
past action.

Haab p. 95. (com/?. Pasor. p. 235.) has here cited, very uncritically,
many other examples, in which the aorist is rather used in its original
sense, or there lies at the bottom a somewhat different account of one
Evangelist, which must not be arbitrarily reconciled with that of the
others: e. g. John xviii. 12. gw&afiov nov 'iqaovv. According to the other
Evangelists (Mt, xxvi. 50. Mr. xiv. 46.) the seizure and binding of Jesus
took place prior to the stroke of Peter's sword; but John may well be
supposed to represent the matter, as if, at the very moment when the
guard were seizing Jesus, Peter had struck in between them with the
sword. On Mr. xxvii. 37. xai fTtEOqxuv srtdi>w T^J jfe^atojj oti-tov tqv o,lt:L~
av avtov yeygappEvijv, which Haab has rendered, they had put up, etc.,
De Wette (as before") very correctly remarks, " according to the nature
of the thing it certainly should be pluperfect, but if we regard the words
merely, it is simply preterite, for the narrator has no respect to the order
of time here. That he does not accurately observe the order of events,
is apparent from this, that, after he had represented the soldiers as sitting
down to watch Jesus, he introduces in ver. 38. the crucifixion of the two
thieves, tfotfe (ftavgovvtai x. i. x. Shall we place this also in the pluperf.?"
Mr. iii. 16. tTteOyxt ivjj 'SVjuon, nmua TlEtgnv is not to bo ronclernd by im-

41. OP THE TENSES. 217

posuerat, for Mark had not previously related the fact; and it must not
be supplied thus from John i. 43. In Acts vii. 5. ISuxw is not to be
taken for pluperfect, as the antithesis shews: he gave not-- but promised,
nor is it necessary so to interpret Acts iv. 4. viii. 2. xx. 12.* See
Fritzsche on Mr. xvi. 1.

That the aor. stands for the perfect, cannot be certainly proved by a
single passage: for Luke i. 1. trtsioqittg rtoM-oi sTttze^^ao'V o%s xdpot,
in the narrative style is really to be translated, as many undertook it
so I also believed. Also Luke ii. 48. fexvov, ti sTto^aa? sgijifovfisv SB.
Apparent passages would perhaps be Luke xiv. 18. dygbv tfyogaaa, 19.

svyij }3otoj> qyogaaa, etc. Phil. iii. 12. ov% oft, vjSvj \a|3ov J rjSij it tit ths tea fiat)

John xvii. 4. Eyw us I Solatia Irti tfijs yjjjj 1*6 I'gyov E-r'aXEi/'offa, etc. But here
the action is generally exhibited as occupying only one point of the past,
as simply gone by (in the passage from Luke above, as opposed to a pre-
sent action, I bought a field, a yoke of oxen, etc.), and in Phil, above,
the fkapov appears especially to denote the arriving at the mark, the *-
T'sXEt. 'ihe consequences of it. Also in Rom. xiv. 9. Rev. ii. 8. (Wahl
I. 683.) the aorists are only narrative, as in John xii. 43. see Matthai
in loc. About Mt. xi. 17. see Fritzsche, Heb. xi. 16. is self-evident.
As to the Greek writers, comp. Bb'ckh ad Pind. III. p. 185. Schtifer
ad Eurip. Phosn. p. 15. Matth. II. 1118. It depends often on the
author, which of the two tenses he will use, comp. Xen. Mem. 1, 6.
14. Lucian. dial. mart. 24, 1. Dion. Hal. IV. 2320. Alcyphr. 3, 46.
(Sometimes the Codd. vacillate, as well of Greek authors, see e. g.
Jacobs ad Ac/till. Tat. p. 434. 566., as of the N. T., between aorist
and perfect, e. g. 1 Cor. ix. 15., comp. also Rom. vi. 4.)f. Both tenses
are clearly distinguished, Mr. xv. 44. l^av^aafv, el ydr/ * & ^v ^ x e (that
he was already dead) , 45. s^^tiasv av-tov, si rtd^at, urte^vvEv (whether
he had been long dead). Comp. Lucian d. dear. 19, 1. xai 6pu>; a$w-
rt x ia a $ avtbv xuL v svixijxaf. In parallel passages the perfect Luke
v. 32. and aor. Mt. ix. 13. appear according to their proper difference.

(6) The aor. is used only apparently for the future, (Herm. ad Vig. p.
746. comp. above 4, &.) e. g. John xv. 6. lav py TIJ peLvy iv E>OI), E'^JI^^
| wj 1*0 x%.ijiA.n in such case (if that shall have happened) it is cast away,
not it will be cast away (the not abiding has this immediate consequence:
whoever has separated himself from Christ, is like a branch cut off and
cast away, which belongs no more from that moment to the fruit-bearing
vine), comp. Herm. de emend, p. 192. and ad Vig. 746. Rev. x. 7.
tb fivatvigiov, in the mouth of the angel foretelling futurity, means:

* Marldand (Explic. vctt. alig. loc. Leipz. p. 326.) improperly reckons here Mt.
xxviii. 17. 01 &E eSlffv ao-av, camp. Valckencer. annot. crit. p. 350.

t In Mt. xxi. 20. if vr& f be taken as an exclamation quam^ s^^avrat ought to be
used instead of ef^v9, as in Mr. xi. 21. in good Codd., but the latter passage is not
altogether parallel, and the former should probably be translated: how did the Jig tree
wither so quicUy? They wish an explanation of the way in which what they saw had
happened. Therefore the disciples refer to the fact of the famv., not the result.

218 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

then is the mystery finished. Comp. Eurip. Med. 78. ajtu^o^a^ ag' si
xaxbv rtgoaoiaopEv viov TtaActKji, Plat. Gorg. p. 484. A. Kiihner Gram. II.
78. John xvii. 18. artta-tu^a, is, I sent them out (which was already
done in the election of the Apostles); l^a-tfj in Mr. iii. 21. means in the
sense of the present insanit, comp. verse 22.; 2 Thess. i. 10. by no means
belongs here; Jud. 14. is literally a quotation from Enoch, and ought to
be judged according to the context in that passage. In Luke xiv. 18.
it is astonishing that Kiinol should take ^ydgaoa for the future, see
above p. 217.

1. The aor. seems not to express customary action in the N. T. either
in Mt. xxiii. 2. (comp. Heb. viii. 1.) or in xi. 19. (comp. Schafer ad De-
mosth. I. p. 247. Wex ad Antig. I. p. 326. Rost Gram. p. 572. Kiihner
II. 76.). In Luke i. 51. the psya&sin of (ilod (ver. 49.) are designated
as things already performed, only we must not take the parallel members
too rigidly in a historical sense. 'Ovx a^xs /j-e povov o rta^g John viii.
28. means properly: the Father left me not alone (on the earth), i. e. in
addition to sending me, he has promised me his constant aid. In Mr.
xv. 6. the imperf. urt&vzv is found, which here is undoubtedly to be taken
in its appropriate sense, as xae" 1 EO^V follows; it is unnecessary that tdl,-
Safjsv in John ii. 27. be so construed, as iljucKe does; Heb. x. 6. is a lite-
ral citation from Ps. xl/. and refers to the fact of Christ's sl^x- J *
XOG^OV. In Heb. i. 9./(Septuag.) the reason of the following 6ia -tovto
*z<>oe OB o 616$ lies in qyartqaas 8ixai,oavvi]v, both properly aorists. Jas. i.
11. avsffihtv 6 Tj^toj ovv tip xavauvt, xai* e^vjgavs Ttbv zogtov, etc.
comp. I Pet. i. 24.) might be reckoned here, as Piscator does, if the
quick succession of the events be not rather expressed by the aor.: the
sun rose, and (immediately) it withered (Herm. ad Vig. p. 746. Borne-
mann ad Xen. Apol. p. 53.), hardly has the sun arisen, before it has with-
ered. Passages such as Ephes. v. 29. form the transition to that use of the
aorist, which easily arises from the fundamental signification of this tense
(Herm. de emend, rat. 187. In Jas. i. 24. xatsvoyasv lavtbv xai ajts^ffl^s
xai v$ea>s lrtE%.d$e'to ortotoj Tjv neither the aorist nor the perf. is used for
the present; but the case mentioned ver. 23. by way of example is taken
as a fact, and the Apostle continues in the narrative.

2. Pott will take 1 Cor. ix. 20. ayaj/d^v tots 'louScwotf cbj '

unnecessarily for the present. The apostle relates what he did hitherto.
Hermann in 1 Cor. iv. 18. is mistaken, and also many interpreters in
Jas. ii. 6. ^iu,a.oo.fs (which even Gebser translates as the present).
The aorist ISo^da^ in John xv. 8. is not to be taken merely for the
present with Tholuck. The meaning is : herein (then) God is glorified,
if you bear much fruit, see above, John xv. 6. In Mt. iii. 17. (xii. 18.
xvii. 5. 2 Pet. i. 17.) and in the Sepluagint the aorist evSoxyaa is to be
taken according to the observation of Herm. ad Vig. p. 746. 209. and
similarly to vriei^^a (Vig. p. 212.): the good opinion is established in
me, therefore my affection for him is distinguishing. Other passages
where modern translators rr-ncler the aorist by the present (e, g, Rom,

41. OF THE TENSES. 219

x. 3. xi. 31. 1 Ccr. vii. 28. see Schott) are sufficiently plain. Kiinol on
John iii. 33. is guilty of the same negligence.

'Eya4a of the verb ygdfytw is used for ya$ ia epistles, of that which
the writer is just writing, as in Latin scripsi, 1 Cor. v. 11. Philem. xix.
21. 1 John ii. 14. 21. (similar tVtf^o, Acts xxiii. 30. avsrte^a Philem.
12., comp. Alciphr. 3, 30. 41. and jpovkyfrjv 2 John xii.; on 1 John ii.
13. see Liicke, yet y^a^w is more frequent 1 John ii. 8. xii. 13. 1 Cor.
iv. 14. xiv. 37. 2 Cor. xiii. 10. etc.), and therefore also the aorist in the
earlier epistles 1 Cor. v. 9. (see Pott in loc.) 2 Cor. ii. 3. 4. 3 John 9.
The Greek writers do not ohserve carefully that use of the aorist for
the present, comp. Diog. Laert. 7, 1.8. (on the contrary Isocr. Demonic.
in. Plutarch. II. p. 37. C.). See Wyttenbach ad Pint. Moral. I. p.
231. Lips.

3. Nor is the aorist used de conatu* (Kiinol) Mr. ix. 17. ^v<yxo,
tbv vibv p-ov. The words mean : / brought my son to you (and present
him to you). Kiinol himself has seen that John xi. 44. Jf^s is not
to be interpreted in such a manner and Tholuck is right in not mention-
ing that interpretation at all.

6. The future']' expresses, especially in questions, not always mere
futurity, but sometimes that which shall or can happen (ethic possibility),
and thus corresponds with the Latin subjunctive, Herm. ad Vig. p. 747.
and ad Soph. EL 992. Matth. II. 1172. Jacob, ad Lucian. Tox. p. 134.
But in consequence of the great similarity of the future and the subjunct.
aorist, and the vacillation of manuscripts also, all the passages are not sure.
From the N. T. comp. Luk. iii. 10. >ti ovv rtoiqaopsv what shall we do
then 1 (if the reading jtoi^auftev is not here to be preferred), xxii. 49.
rCaTfd^oftev Iv /j.a%aga shall we Smite, etc. Rom. X. 14. rtio$ ovv ETttxoM.EtJovi'at
how then can they call? etc. (without var.) iii. 6. (Plat. Lys. p. 210. tl ovv

ay ^ijrfOjiiE^a Lucian. Tox. 47. rtwj ovv -- z^aops^u -to'is rtagovtiC). On
the other hand in Mt. vii. 24. o^otwcrw retains the simple signification of the
future, and in Rom. xv. 18. the future, as such, seems to be stronger. In
Rom. v. 7. also the future must not be weakened, for something is de-
clared, which will not easily happen in all future time. Rom. vi. 2. l^i-
(isvov^Bv >ty djuagT'tqi (var. rt<,/.iEvtop!:v) properly: shall we persevere in sin?
is spoken of that which is in fact to be feared (shall we be iviUingetc. would
be a more bitter expression). Similar is the following rfw? IV t Ifoopev, and

* Schafer ad Pint. IV. 398. is opposed to Herm. ad Soph. Ajac. 1105., comp, Herm.
ad Ipheg. Taur. p. 109.

t The 3. fut. passive which occurs once in Luke xix. 40. xEKga^o^at stands for the
1 fut. which in this verb is unusual, and has not the meaning- which in other cases
belongs to that form. Matth. II. 1118.

220 PAHT THIRD. USE OF THE VEKB.

verse 15. -tl ovv', ana^^so^Ev etc. John vi. 5. rto&v ayogdaopsv agfovj means:
whence shall we buy bread (as the buying is necessary), Mt. vii. 16. con-
tains not a prescription (you shall), but simply indicates that which the
time to come will show: by their fruits you will know them (in the
course of your observation.) In Rom. vi. 14. the future seems to be
essential to the argument of the apostle, comp. beloiv 44. 3. (On
formulas like &EI,S l-toinaao^v, where the subjunctive could also be used,
see 42. 4.)

Without reason and contrary to the nature of the future, Kiinol, as
Storr, would interpret John xvi. 23. iv EXEWVJ tfi yp^y l/ ovx EgutyriEtE
ovSsv non opus erit, ut me interrogetis. The future here is very well
chosen.

Some will take the future for the preterite in Rev. iv. 9. otav S^aovao
ifa cfcoa Sdiav t'qj xa^7jjU.r^j trto tfoii ^govoi) -- rt s <so<vvt m ol slxoat
tfltftfa^Ej rfgtfj3<i>i'Egoj etc., but it must be translated : when the beasts
(during the vision) will give glory -- v. 10. will fall down. Zeune
ad Viger, p. 212. will prove by Rom. iii. 30. trtsirisg sts 6 EO$, Sj bt,xat,u-
o E t, rtEgrtopriv EX rfiTffT'Ecoj, that the future is also used for the pres. and
Jaspis and JStolz so translate, comp. Gal. ii. 16. But the Stxaiova^at, is
represented here either as something which will first take place at the
judgment bar (the more so, as it is properly accomplished at the en-
trance into the heavenly felicity), or as something, which, first begun on
a small part of mankind, will continue to take place in the manner indi-
dicated. In Luk. i. 37. dSwa^ast is used in an O. T. memento of that,
which does not belong to a definite time, but which will be always so,
Theocr. 27, 9. see Herm. de emend, rat. p. 197. In 1 Cor xv. 29. Hey-
denreich has correctly interpreted the fut. rio^aovaiv (for which F. G.

Of a merely supposed, possible case (Bernhardy 377.) the future occurs

111 JaS. 11. 10. oo'T'tf ohov Tibv vofj-ov i! vj^'fja E ti , ft it a i a t, SE EV svit ysyoVE

Ttdvtav EVO%O<;, ivhosoever should keep the whole law (comp. Mt. v. 39. 41.)
Here belong also the formula fgi-t m dicet i. e. dicat aliquis 1 Cor. xv.
35. Jas ii. 18. and Igeis ovv Rom. ix. 19. xi. 19., although, only con-
sidered as Greek, it properly means : 1 anticipate, I foresee, that some
one says (objects). On the other hand interrogative clauses, like Luke
xi. 5. <ti j e| vp,Z>v ifse. fyihov xoJi rio g s v a a # ft t rtgof nvtbv usaovvxtiov, can-
not come under the above rule; if the interrogative form be taken away,
the mere future remains : none of you will at midnight go to his friend
(such an importunity will never occur). About the future for the im-
perative see 44. 3. The future never occurs for the genuine optative;
in Rom. xvi. 20. Phil. iii. 15. iv. 7. 19. Mt. xvi. 22. only the significa-
tion of the future can be admitted. See Ewald on Hebreiu tenses, trans-
lated by Prof. Stuart, in Bib. Repos. Vol. XI. N. 29. p. 131.

41. OF THE TENSES. 221

NOTE. The connection of different tenses by xal (Poppo ad Tkuc. 1. 1.
274. Reisig. ad (Ed. Col 419. Jacobs ad Achill. Tat. p. 700. Stall-
baura ad Euthyphr. p. 59.), which has been already proved by instances
above, is partly founded in this, that sometimes, when writing not very
accurately, several tenses can be used without a difference in the sense,
partly it is intentional (Heb. ii. 14. 1 Cor. xv. 4. x. 4.). The former
may perhaps take place in the Revelation, e. g. iii. 3. xi. 10. xii. 4. xvi.
21. xvii. 16.; the tenses used here are in none of these passages incorrect,
and if something extraordinary were found in this connection (as e. g.
Eichhorn Einl. ins N. T. II. 378.), it would only manifest a defective
knowledge of the Greek language. See Winer's exeget. Studien, 1. 147.

42. Of the Use of the Indicative, Subjunctive and Optative.*

1. These three modes are so distinguished that the indicative indicates
that which is real, the subjunctive and optative that which is possible,"^
and the subjunctive that which is objectively possible (its reality depend-
ing on external circumstances), the optative that which is subjectively
possible (simply conceived by the mind) Hermann emend, rat. I. p. 205.
ad Vig. 900. de particula av p. 764 In important distinctions the N. T.
writers use these modes with perfect propriety; but the optat. (as also
among the later Greeks, who did not aim at a refined style) fell into dis-
use, even more than in Josephus, and was supplied by the subjunctive in
certain constructions. ||

(a) In independent sentences.

2. The use of the indicative in independent sentences is in the
Greek very simple, and therefore in regard to the N. T. we have to re-
mark only two things: (a) the imperf. indicat. is used sometimes, as in
Latin, where we would use the subjunctive (i. e. conditionally], e. g. Mr.
xiv. xahov viv (wiSi si ovx lyevv/icrrj it were, it would have been good for him

* Comp. K. H. A. Lipsius Com. de mod. usu in N. T. P. T. Lips. 1827. 8vo.

t The signification of the tenses is not properly speaking varied in the subjunctive
and optative. For the proper distinction between the pros, and aor. in these modes
sec Herm. ad Vig. p. 747. and as an illustration of it Mr. iv. 26.

\ Apcrtum cst, in indicative vcritatem facti ut exploraiam respici, in conjunctiva
ram sumi experientia comprobandam, in optativo veritatis rationem haberi nullam sed
cogitationem tantummod. indicari. Herm. de part. v p. 77.

|| The modern Gr. has entirely abandoned the optat., and it is still doubtful how far
the ancient popular language used it. It often occurs that the people avoid certain
forms and constructions, which evince refinement.
28

222 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

(literally, it was"), satius erat, 2 Pet. ii. 21. jcgstivoj/ jj v
xsvat, -tv\v obv tys Sixcuoow^s (Xen. Mem. 2,7. 10. Jlnab. 7,7. 40. Lucian.
Pise. p. US. Tom. III. Bip., Aristoph. Nub. 1213. Diog. L. 1, 2. 17.),
Acts xxii. 22. oti yag * a 7? x a i> atftfcu/ Irjv he should not have lived (i. e.
have died long ago), non debebat or debuerit vivere, 2 Cor. xii. 11. lyci
w<j> thov vtf vpuv avvi<rtaaai, debebam commendari (and 1 Cor. v. 10.
var. see Winer's Terit. Jour. d. Theol. VI. 471.) ?5 tfs jSatetv you should
have, etc. (2 Cor. ii. 3. Acts xxvii. 21.), Mt. xxvi. 9. ijSvvaito tovito rtga,-
Syvai, etc. Comp. Matth II. 1138. Stallbaum ad Plat. Symp. p. 74.
The Greek and Roman here only expresses what, independently of any
condition, was good, what must or must not be done, and leaves the reader
to apprehend the sense by connecting this expression with what is done
or not done. The German and Eng. expresses the same thing by com-
mencing with the subjunc. itself. Both modes therefore are rightly con-
ceived, but av in these cases must not be supposed to be omitted, as all
these sentences, in the mind of Greeks, refer the conception to a condition
on which something would have been good or must have been done. See
Herm. partic. av 12. Kiihner Gram. II. 557. 'Epovhopyv is to be some-
what differently interpreted, vellem (without civ), e. g. Acts xxv. 22. Jj3o-
kopyv xal cwtfos toy dvQgartov axovGai I also could wish to hear the man
(having my curiosity excited by the account, (but circumstances forbid.
Trs.) Himer. 14, 17. Arrian. Epict. 1, 19. 18. Lucian. abdic. 1. Char. 6.
There is denoted here, not a wish which had previously existed (volebam),
but one still present in the speaker's heart, which however is not directly
expressed (/3ov5i'o/M volo), because this can only be done, when the per-
formance depends on the will alone (1 Tim. ii. 8. 1 Cor. xvi. 7. Rom. i.
13. xvi. 19.), nor by means of tjSoMeytw av, since this involves the oppo-
site, but I will not, Herm. de partic. aiv p. 66. nor yet by Ipowjiot^jjv av
(Xen. (Econ. 6, 12.) vclim, I also may or should wish (the possibility be-
ing implied. Trs.), but by the indie, imperf.: / wished, where the still
remaining wish, only through modesty or urbanity, is represented as one
which existed previously: (Kiihner Gram. II. 68. considers the formula
hypothetical: I would (if it were permitted). Com.p. Matth. II. 1154. So
also probably Rom. ix. 3. ^ v X-oi* 1 "] v Y*C wtf$ yw wd^fta EWCM ajtb tov
X^tcfoij vjtsg TW aSektyuv pov vellem ego, I could wish, etc., where Kb'H-
ner very strangely requires ^vxo^v av or svxoi^v av, and Gal. iv. 20.
See Winer's Comment, on this passage. (Otherwise 2 Cor. i. 15. Philem.
13. 14., where the aorists are really historical, also 2 John 12.
comp. 41. 6. note.)

In John iv. 4. t'Ssi is to be taken as a genuine imperf. indie, of some-
thing real. On the contrary in Heb. ix. 26. l^et s8et> avtbv

42. OP THE USE OF THE INDICATIVE, &C. 223

an/, we should expect av, because something is expressed, which it is
supposed ought to have been done. But the Codd. have it not, and it
may be omitted just as we say in German: denn (sonst), wenn jenes der
Zweck ware, musste er b'fters leiden, since (otherwise), if that had been
the design, he must often have suffered (comp. Herm. ad Eurip. Bacch.
p. 152. Bernhardy 390., see 43. 2.). The indicatives in Rom. xi. 6.
1 Cor. v. 10. after ijtti (alioquin) are usually translated subjunctively;
but the simple meaning of the former is: then grace is no more grace (viz.
if any one be blessed on account of his works), and the latter, then you
must go out of the world; tifyefasts miisstet (as some authorities have)
would mean, you ought, it would be necessary, which Pott and Heyden-
reich did not consider. See Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 162. Stallbaum ad
Euthyphr. p. 57.

In 1 Cor. vii. 7. Qihto rtdvtas avB^rtov^ iivat wj x a I IpvArtbv, fllxco
does not stand for elxot^c or ^e^ov as Pott supposes. He really has this
wish, because therein he contemplates only the advantage, which would
thus result to men (Christians), not its practicability. To express the
latter, he must have said: I would or could wish, velim or vellem.
Baumgarten has correctly apprehended this passage.

3. (Z) In direct questions, the indie, present sometimes occurs where
in Latin the subjunctive, in Ger. the auxiliary sollcn, and in Eng. shall is
used, e. g. John XU 47. tt, Ttoiov/^sv', otfc. 005*05 o av^-gcoTtoj rtoiMM cf^/cma ftoislj
quid faciamus? what shall we do? what can we do? Lucian. Pise. 10. Al-
ciphr. 2, 1 1. By the indie, however is here expressed, that there is no doubt
some thing ought to be done, as we also say: was thun wir? what do we?
in a more strengthened and distinct form: what shall IKK do? See on this
indicative present Heindorf ad Plat. Gorg. p. 109. and ad Theaet. p.
449. Stallbaum ad Plat. rep. I. p. 141. Bernhardy 396. The Greeks
go still farther, and even say Ttivo^v drink we, i. e. we will drink, Jacobs
ad Achill. Tat. p. 559., of which perhaps Gal. vi. 10. IgyaZopsOu to
ayaffov, as good Codd. have, and Lachman prints, may afford an instance.
The interchange of the indie, and subjunc. by transcribers, hovvevez 1 , oc-
curs too often lo enable us to determine certainly in such cases. Comp.
41. 2. on John xxi. 3.

The passage in 1 Cor. x. 22. jj itagaZtfiovfisv tov xvgiov, perhaps means
or do we provoke God? Is it the nature of our conduct to excite the wrath
of God? rt.aga. does not express what shall be done, is yet to be done,
but what is being done. It is very apparent that sxxaxovpsv 2 Cor. iv. 1.
is not to be taken subjunctively. On the use of the indie, fut. for the
subjunc. see 41, 6.

There is no difficulty about the indicatives in Jas. v. 13. xuxoit&eei
tos ev V/.UV, -- a a 9 s v s ? I'c.j a'i> vpiv, where the case is presented as
real: one among you suffers one among you is weak, Demosth. cor.
p. 351. C. The preterite itself is so used by the Greeks, Matth. II. 1 155.

224 PART THIRD. USE OP THE VERB.

The indie, is not for the subj. in Rom. viii. 24. o faerttt, tl$, tl xal %rti-
E i ; of that which it is customary to do, and is really done; not taken
interrogatively it means: what one sees, he no more hopes for. So, ver.
25. el, 6 oi> phertopw, s-hrtl^ofjiev, 81 vrto/Atvyf OirtsxSsxofjkeOa, (then) we
hope in patience, not as Koppe and Stolz translate, let us then be sted-
fast in hope. Finally, it is altogether incorrect, when some (even Kiinol)
occasionally interpret the indie, by mag, may. Heb. vii. 13. does not
in the least require this, and v. 4. ov% t-awtqt tig happdvtt, Tfrjv -ftf^v is spo-
ken of the legal priests: the author in the whole section had not in his
mind such as might intrude into the office. We also would say in re-
spect to that which is a law or custom: no one receives an office in the
state otherwise than by his qualifications.

4. The subjunctive is used in independent clauses, (a) where encourage-
ment or exhortation (subj. adhortativus] is expressed (Matth. II. 1169.):
John xiv. 31. sysigaa^re, uyupsv ivtfevefev let US go, 1 Cor. XV. 32.
<f> a y w jit 5 v xal 7t iu/At v, avgiov yag &rtovriaxo[A.Bv, John xix. 24. hd%a>[j,v
t cuv'tov, Phil. iii. 15. otfot &vv tfa^ftoc., 'tov'to tygovufisv, 1 ihess. v. 6.
Atv xal vrffltoptv, Jas. IV. 13. <sr^e^ov xal avgiov 7togsv6u>/ii$a, si; tfiyv-
Ss trjv ito%w xal Tioi^a^fv, etc. (but where good Codd. have the fut., as also
in many other passages, e. g. 1 Cor. xiv. 15., in this case however rfgocj-
ivfiOjitat is more appropriate, Heb. vi. 3., see 41, 5.) Luke viii. 2*<J.
(&) In deliberative questions (when there is doubt), subjunct. deliberativus
(Matth. II. 1170. Bernhardy 396. Kiihner Gram. II. 102.), as Mr. xii.
14. Swpev jj [ivi Supsv: shall we give, or shall we not give? Here belongs
also the subjunctive in formulas like Luke ix. 54. ^E'TISIS slriu^sv rtv% xatu-
Privav &ftb z'oi) ov^avov', (Herm. de ellips. p. 183.)* will you, shall we say?
comp. Kurip. Phosn. 729. jSoi&ft T'^artw^at 8^ 3 68ovj d^xaj -two,?, Xen. Mem.
2, 1. 1. povfat, tfKOTtwufi/, Lucian. dial. mort. 20, 3. 27, 9. See yet Mt. vii.
4. d'cfjfj x|3a?uo ^6 Ka^oj, etc. and 1 Cor. iv. 21. "Iva is incorrectly supplied
in such cases. In other passages the better Codd. have the future: e. g.
Mt. xiii. 28. ^i'?ttj ovv arts'tSovfts avM.E%0f.isv avid ', Mt. XXvi. 17. rtov ^ '-
TIJIJ 8tot,[Adaof.iv rfot qayew to rtda%u; com.p. the parallel passages, Mr. xiv.
12. Luke xxii. 9., where at least there is much critical testimony for the
fut.; the vulgar text has generally the subjunctive. Lob. ad Phryn. p.
734. and Fritzsche ad Matth. p. 465. 761. have proved that the fut.
indie, in this formula, although not frequent (Lucian. Navig. 26. Epi-
phan. Opp. II. p. 348. -eL rtgoatdaaeit Socrw), does however occur: comp.
Valckenaer ad Hippol. 782., see Exod. xxv. 40. 6'^a
etc.

* Tittmann (Synon. II. p. 49.) and Bretschneider (Lexic. II. 555.) have not re-
garded this remark of Hermann. It is singular too that Lehmann ad Lucian, III.
p. 466. would supply O'TTW; before the subjunc.

42. OP THE USE OP THE INDICATIVE, &C. 125

The reading of Luke xxiii. 31. is not very well established, si Iv *<
( ^y < ? fv^ Ttavtfa/ ftotovdtv, Iv tit? 1^9 ft yli^tfat (al. yEV^tfEtfcur); wflClt shall
be done with the dry? That of Mt. xxvi. 54. on the other hand is criti-
cally certain, jt^s jtMiguOuaw al ygatyat,, Iww shall the Scriptures be ful-
filled? and tha,t of xxiii. 33. rtw$ <j>i5y^e, how will you do in order to
escape? In the latter passage the subjunc. deliberat. is extended be-
yond its proper limits; the fut. or even optat. (how could you, etc.) would
seem to be required. See Fritzsche in loc., and Bernhardy p. 396.
Comp. Odyss. 4, 299. w pot, yw ds&bs, >tl vv pov /wjxtfftfa ysvytat,, Aristoph.
Nub. 438. rtot tt,$ $iV??; Soph. (Ed. Col. 167. rtol ti$ fygovtiSos H^y (3
pers. of the subj. deliberativus, the first person of which occurs verse 311.)
Arrian. Epict. 3, 22. In Luke xi. 5. the fut. indie, and subj. are connected.
See Matth. II. 1171. Herm. de partic. dv p. 87. Stallbaum ad Plat. Phi-
leb. p. 26. ad Phsed. p. 202. Bornemann ad Luc. p. 147.

A learned controversy has been carried on between Fritzsche (L. L.
Zeit. 1824. p. 2316. and neu. lent. Journ. V. p. 3.) and Bornemann (new.
Jcrit. Journ. VI. p. 130.) about Jas. iv. 15. lav 6 xv%io$ B^ay xaL Zyauptv
(^(jo^Ev) xai rtoiYjaia/Aw (rtot7jcfO|U.8v) Tfovtfo fy sxslvo. The former would be-
gin the second clause (that expressing the result) at xai rtoifoopev, adopt-
ing the indie, as the preferable reading; the latter at xai ^G^EV, retain-
ing also rtoirigutfisv, subj. The former of course translates: if the Lord
will and we live, we shall do this or that; the latter, if it please God,
let us seelc our support and do this or that. Every one feels that the ex-
pression, " if God will, we will (to) live," contains something unsuitable;
Bornemann himself felt this, and therefore translated, we will use life!
But this interpretation seems to me unnatural, and not consistent with
Scriptural usage. Rat in the beginning of the apodosis can occasion no
surprise (Rom. viii. 17.), although among the passages cited from the
Septuag. in Bretschneider's Lexic. I. p. 612., .not a single one affords
satisfactory evidence. I must agree with Fritzsche on this point; yet he
should not have affirmed that jto^o^sv has many more authorities than
f'/jrfo^cv. The critical authorities are nearly equal, only rfot'/jcjo^Ej/ (but
not ^tfo^sv) has been quoted (by JDermout) from the Cod. Meerm. The
reading Hav 6 xvg. O^ay, xai ^tfOjiisv xai Ttot^rfo^Ej/, is therefore defensi-
ble. Perhaps we ought not to suppose an apodosis in the words, but that
the Apostle means, our assertions should be always conditional, not po-
sitive: if God will, if we live, if we do this or that.

5. It is unnecessary to remark that the optative stands in independent
sentences, Acts i. 20. ^ lljtiaxortiiv ajv-tov 7,aj3 o & iVsgo? (where however
some good Codd. have hapt-tto}, Acts viii. 20. ^6 agyvgiov aov avv aol sly
tl$ ttTtio^Etai', Rom. xv. 5. 2 Tim. ii. 7. iv. 14. (in both passages good
Codd. have the future), Philem. 20. Jyw aov dvaipyv, 1 Pet. i. 2.
2 Pet. i. 2. 2 Cor. ix. 10.

(&) Use of these three Modes in dependent clauses.

1. The particles of design (L' va and oVtcoj; about ^ see below 57.),
are very naturally construed with the subj. and optative (according to the

226 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

___ __ _ _ __ __ ___ ..-r.-i __ __ -_ - . -_ -...-_.--_.--__ ___ _*-_ _.-_!-.-._ ___ __________

above remarked difference between the two modes), as every design is
directed to the time to come, therefore to something which is yet for the
first time to be effected. They could take the indicative, as long as the
author thinks correctly, only in the future tense, (a) The subj. is found
with these particles in the N. T. (a) after the present: e. g. Mt. vi. 2.
-- OTtwj 5o|atf^toffc/ vrtb tfwj> dj^gwrtwv, 2 Tim. ii. 4. ovSst!$
s [trt?i.Exei?at tfatj tov j3i/oi> rtgciyjU.oWEo'acj, iVa tf tfi'gttT'o^oyiyattvi'c
a g e tf tl 5 10. rtuwga vTio/j,va, Iva, xal ainfoi tfuitf^gtaj *!> ##</, COtnp. 1
Tim. i. 18. v. 21. Mr. iv. 21. Phi!, i. 9. Rom. xi. 25. 1 John i. 3. Luke
viii. 12. Mt. vi. 5. Heb. ix. 15. The subj. denotes here (Herm. ad Vig.
p. 848.) that which is objectively possible, that which is conceived of as
a consequence really about to happen, that which is in fact and directly
intended. (/3) After the imperat. and future, I Tim. iv. 15. Iv -tov-

i'va tfoi) <q rtgoxortri fyavigd, ft, Mt. ii. 8. artayye&atf pot,, ortwj

^otfxiJj'Tjcrw ai?^, vii. 1. xiv. 15. Acts viii. 19. Luke x. 2.
1 John ii. 28.; John V. 20. [isiQova tfowtav SsJIst avtcp t'gya, iVa v/JtfZf ^aii"
jiidfi-'c'a; Phil. i. 26., also after subj. adhortat. Luke xxix. 14. Rom. iii.
8., which is in conformity with the above and according to the rule, see
Herm. ad Vig* p. 848. (y.) also after the preterite, where it denotes the
real past time,* these particles govern the subj., and in some places a
reason may be apprehended for the use of this mode instea.d of the opta-
tive (Herm. ad Vig- p. 789. Matth. II. 1143. f In the following pas-
sages the subj. might denote either an action which itself continues or at
least in its consequences r or one which frequently returns (Herm. ad Vig.
p. 848. and ad Eurip. Hecub. p. 7. Heindorf ad Plat. Protag. 29.
Stallbaum ad Plat. Grit. p. 103. Ast ad Plat. legg. p. 93. Kiihner
Gramm. II. 485.),' 1 Tim. i. 16. fosvj&jv, Iva Iv E^ol rtgotfoj IvSet^i/i'ae
'jfytf. X^&tftfoj i^y rtatJttv (A,a>xgov[iia,V) V. 20. 01)5 TtagsSwjea T'fti o'ai'af^, L'va
rta iS EV^T oJ <j e. jtt.17 pKijafyTjiAsiv, Tit. i. 5. xcrttfartov tie Iv Kg^T^, iVa fa XsJ-
ftov-ta e ii tSto^^co tf ^, ii. 14. 05 co55j/ sawtbv rtigl qpuv, tVa ^.ur'gwff^i'at ^aj,
Rom. vi. 4. awtTtotyqiAtv OM&I'^, iW -- xat ^ets fV xa.ivo't'rj't t ^w^; rt c g c.-
jtai'iytfcoju.Ei/, 1 John iii. 5. s'^aw^cojty, tVa *aj a ( nagi'i'as fyuwi/ a^, V. 8.
<J)aj/e^^, i-Va >, i; tf ^ ta ^ya fov 6taj3o7iou, V. 13. T'a-ui'a t'y^a4'a' V/AW, Ivo,
s I S Vf -t , V. 20. 6 woj T'OU ^Eoi sj'scEt, pcail Ss'ScoxM' ^pz' Stavotttv, iVtt y t yi/ w <y-

x w ju, E v TO?/ dx^u'ov, comp. Luke i. 4. John i. 31. xvii. 2. 1 Pet. ii. 14.
(Plat. Crit. p. 43. B. rep. 9. p. 472. C. Legg. 2. p. 653. D. Xen. Mem.
1, 1. 8. jElian. V. H. 12, 30.). In other places e. g. Acts v. 26. ^'

* For where a perfect in sense stands for a present, Iva. or ovue with subjunctive
cannot be strange. John vi. 38. Luke xvi. 26. Acts ix. 17.

f Wex has presented many other cases in the epist. crit. ad Gescnium. (Lips. 1831.
4to.) p. 22.

42. OP THE USE OF THE INDICATIVE, &C. 227

, 'rv-w " 1 "" "> '*i. fl ~*t '

dVOi u.ri JC i ft rf w <> v , IX. <&i. ti,f tfovfo EA^M'eJEt', iv tt -~ ~ a y a n fj
the subj. may denote a designed effect o/ which the speaker had not the
least doubt that it would take place, comp. Mr. viii. 6. ISt'Sou tfotf fia^tfats

wvtov fan Ttagc&wrft (that they should , what they could by no means

refuse) xii. 2. 13. Acts xvii. 5. (The optative would express a design
of an uncertain result. Matth. II. 1182, 1184.) Mt. xix. 13. rtgoaij-.

\ $'' ' "" ' o - i ~ TVTr Y 1 '3

rtaiSla, Iva a^ytai* uvtwv are perhaps to be interpreted on the ground
that the Greeks often quote in narration the precise words of another,
and therefore in the same modes, which he would have used (Heindorf
ad Plat. Protag. p. 504. Poppo ad Xen. Cyrop. p. 189. Thuc. 1. 1. 141.
Matth. II. 996.) So here: that he may lay his hands instead of should
lay. Comp. John xviii. 28. Mr. xii. 14. Acts xxv. 26. See jet Heindorf
ad Plat. Protag. 502. Bremi ad Lys. exc. I. p. 435. Bernhardy 401.
But as the optative in such a (very frequent) construction never occurs in
the N. T., we can by no means expect in the sacred writers that nice
distinction; they seem rather unconsciously to have avoided the optative,
which becomes more rare in the later language, and in that of conversation
perhaps never corresponded with the rules of the Attic written language,
even in such passages where a more cultivated sense of linguical pro-
priety certainly would have preferred the optative, (e. g. John iii. 16. iv.
8. vii. 32. Mt. xii. 10. Luke xix. 4. vi. 7. 2 Cor. viii. 6. Heb. ii. 14. xi.
35.) Plutarch in the above construction usually employs the subj., and in
the Hellenistic language it is predominantly the mode, as each page of the
Septuagint, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, etc. shows. (Comp. Thilo Act.
Thorn, p. 47.) (ft) The indicat. fut. (after the pres. and perf. comp.
Herm. ad Vig. p. 849.) follows these particles. Rev. xxii. 14. (.taxd^oi ol

ftoiowfef tfaj svj!o?\.ai$ o/ui'ou (others TiKwovtss T?a$ tf'j'o/Vttf OVI'WT'), L'vOi "t o/ 1>

ty l%ovat,& ouT 1 we, etc. (the subj. immediately follows) John xvii. 2. HSuxas

a-ui'ip %ovaiav ivu 8 w 6 E t, o/utftM (al. Scitf^), comp. the var.

Rev. vi. 2. xiii. 16. 1 Cor. xiii. 3. 1 Pet. iii. 1. John xv. 8. Luke xxii.
30. (on the other hand in the O. T. quotation Ephes. vi. 3. the construc-
tion proceeds directly with lay and is therefore not to be considered as de-
pendent on iva; the var. ti<xvaaT^<j& in Mr. xii. 19. can be explained in
the same manner.) With 67tw S this construction is frequent in the Greek
writers, Theophr. Char. 22. Isocr. perm. 746. Demosth. Mid. c. 25.
Soph. Philoct. 55. comp. Bornemann ad Xen. Anab. p. 498. Matth II.
1187. Kiihner II. 489. and the future then usually indicates a permanent
state, whilst the aorist subj. is used of something quickly passing by.
Elmsley ad Eurip. JBacch. p. 165. considers this construction with i'va
correct, see on the contrary Herm. ad Soph. (Ed. Col. 155. and de

228 PART THIKD. USE OP THE VERB.

partic. &v p. 134. The later (Hellenistic) writers and Fathers (Epiphan.
II. 332. B.) offer such instances, see Thilo ad Act. Thorn, p. 61. comp.
Schafer ad Demosth. IV. 273. This mode however is not very certain
in the N. T., especially since the forms of the indicat. and subj. could easily
be changed according to the Itacism. (c) The twice occurring connec-
tion of L'va with the indicat. pres. I Cor. iv. 6. wa'pyj $va t, ova^e
(where the transcribers changed it sometimes into $v<3t,oia$e, sometimes
into tyvai/iaa^s), and Gal. iv. 17. ^xoi ow i^aj iva avtovs Zyhov it E
is singular; for the indicat. pres. after a particle of design seems to be il-
logical. Therefore Fritzsche ad Matth. p. 836. has recently affirmed,
that iVa is in both passages not the conjunction, but the adverb ubi. Ac-
cording to this the meaning of the words 1 Cor. iv. 6. would be: ubi (i. e.
qua in conditione) minime alter in alterius detrimentum extollitur, Gal.
iv. 17. sejungere vos volunt (a mea Pauli societate) quo in statu (i. e. ubi
estis a me abalienati) illos studiose appetitis. But if perhaps the adverb
tvu might occur in prose in the signification of qua in conditione, quo in
statu, then the pres. would be strange in both passages, and in 1 Cor. we
should besides rather expect ov for ^. I believe, that the above con-
nection of the conjunc. tVa with the indie, pres. must be considered as an
abuse of the later time*, although the passage in Jlcta Ignat. ed. Ittig. p.
358. proves nothing certainly, since urtohovtou could be taken for the
Attic future, but in Geopon 10, 48. 3. Ilimer. 15, 3. Malala. Chron.
12. p. 300. ed. Bonn, the indicat. might easily have been written for the
subjunctive. In Fabric. Pseudep. I. 684. we find EtioSovtui.'l It is pos-
sible, that in these latter passages the present is the original tense; but
this does not prove, that in Paul this solecism occurs, especially as the
subj. forms might be so easily placed here. (Valckenaer on 1 Cor. as
above confounds the indicat. pres. with Iva and indicat. future perf., and
his observation is therefore entirely useless.)

Where L'va is followed by the optative (after the present), as Ephes. iii.

16. xdi&rttA tfa ywatfa pov rtgoj -tov rtatiga T!OV xvgwv tVa S w tj <v/.uv etc.

(where however some good Codd. read <jj) and i. 16. L'va properly is not
the particle of design, but the clause, which it begins, expresses the
object of the desire and prayer (that he may give] and the optative as
the modus optandi is used for the same reason, see Harless on Ephes. i.
16. Even the optative is used after i'va that, where it depends on a clause
expressing a wish, Soph. Philoct. 324. and Jli. 1217. See Herm. on the
last passage and Wex epist. crit. p. 33.

* The modern Gr. e. g. in the Ort/wd. Confcs. uniformly places the indie, praes.
after va. or ha va..

t In Xen. Alhen. 1, 11. "va. Ka.(/.Qa.vtav (M.I rtgu.vrei (which Sturz in Lex. Xen. quotes)
lias long since been changed into Xa/w^vo'jWEv W^TTEI. See Schneider in loc.

42. OP THE USE OF THE INDICATIVE, &C. 229

2. In hypothetical sentences the construction is fourfold, (Herm. ad
Vig. p. 8320*, () a simple condition: if thy friend comes, give him my
love (the admission is here, that he will come). In this case \i with the
indie, is used. (&) A condition with the admission of an objective, pos-
sibility (where experience will decide whether it will be real): if thy
friend should come (I know not whether he will, time will determine).
Here lav (si av) with the subjunctive is proper, (c) A condition with the
admission of a subjective possibility (credibility) : if thy friend should
come, I should be pleased to salute him (his coming is conceivable and
credible). Here we have it with the optat. (d) A condition with the
belief that it is not a reality : if God were unrighteous, he would spare
the guilty (but he is not). Here we have d first with the indicative
imperf., next with the aor., in the apodosis one of the two tenses. See
Stallbaurrr ad Plat. Euthyphr. p. 51. f

There is entire regularity in the application of these principles in the
N. T. (a) Simple condition (a) Mt. xix. 10. el oiVwj sanlv^ alntu HOV
av$gu>rtov -- ov rfiyi^lgst ya^jjcrac, 1 Cor. vi. 2. ix. 17. Rom. viii. 25.
Col. ii. 5. (pres. follows pres.), Mt. xix. 17. si &;(; slgs^slv sis tyv l^v,
#fal<tov -gas IvHohds) viii. 31. xxvii. 42. John vii. 4. 1 Cor. vii. 9. 2 Cor.
xiii. 5. (pres. follows imperf); Rom. viii. 11. si HO rtvsvpa HO\>
Iijtiovv olxtii ev V}MV, ofyEtgaj -- ^wortoo^cfst xai, to, ^vrjHa tfw^itai'a
Mt. xvii. 4. Acts xix. 39. John v. 47. (pres. follows future); 1 Cor. xv.
16. slvexgoi ovx systgovHai, ovoe Xgwnbs tyrjysgsHai, if the dead do not arise
(I suppose this case), then also Christ has not arisen, 2 Pet. ii. 20. comp.
Rom. iv. 14. (pres. follows perf.) comp. Demosth. ep. 3, p. 114. B.; Mt.
XII. 26. ft <5 aaHavas -tov gatavciv axj3a7.7.et e^>' sa/wtbv s[isgiavi COmp. verse 28.
Luk. xi. 20. (the pres. follows the aorist) comp. Orig. de die domin. p. 3. Jani

t Se 'toy egycw art%st{ els ^ f \v sx'x^tjd^av SE ovx ei>se^Xfl> ovSsv sxegSvjaaf. (j(3) Acts
XVI. 15. t xsxgtxuts /A,S TtiGivpi "tfji xvgiqi elvat, slss^etovtES --- (isivaite (per-
fect follows the imperat.), 2 Cor. v. 16. d xa l i-yvvxa.it.sv xatu gdgxaXgia-
tbv, &MM vvv ovx IV t yw^axo^sv (perf. follows the present comp. Demosth.
c. Pantsen. p. 639. A.), John xi. 12. el xexoifujtw cw^tfEfat, (the perfect
follows the fat.), Rom. vi. 5.; 2 Cor. ii. 5. l' HIS teTwrtyxev, ovx a>

* See also Herm. ad Soph. Antig. 706. ad Soph. (Ed. 6. 1445. ad Eurip. Bacch.
200. Klossman de rat. et usu enuntiator. hypothet. ling. Gr. Vratisl. 1830. In many
cases we may suppose that either h or g*v could be used. Euclid uses la.v with subj.
where future experience is not necessary in order to decide. 'EJ and eav are properly
connected in 1 Cor. vii. 36. Rev. ii. 5.

t Herm. ad Vig. p. 819. skilfully unfolds the reason why preterites are used in such
cases. Sec Bernhardy p. 376,

29

230 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

(perf. follows the perfect), (y) Rom. xv. 27. si
txoivavriaav fa ^57, dfyslhovat, etc., 1 John iv. 11. (aor. follows the
present); John xvih. 23. si xaxias J^aJi^ua, /jia^v^tjaov Ttsgd tov xuxov', Rom-
xi. 17. 18. Col. iii. 1. Philem. 18. (aor. follows the imperf.) ; John xiii,
32. si o -s6j sSo^da^f-/i Iv o.<wti$, xai 6 -o; Sofatfat av-tov Iv lafi'ip, XV. 20.
(aor. follows the fut.). (6) Mt. xxvi. 33. ft itdv-ts s axavSafaa^a ovtat, Iv
ooi, fiyw ovStrtotE axuvSafaaSyaopat, (fut. follows the fut.), as Isocr. Orchid,
p. 280. Porphyr. abstin. 1, 24.); Jas. ii. 11. si oi> ^otyavcrats, fyovsvosis Ss,
ya'yoraj rtagapdtqs vopov (future follows the perfect). This construction
with the fut. is most like that with tuv, but : if they shall be angry at
you is more definite than to say: if they should be angry etc. In the
latter, it is uncertain whether they will be angry or not, in the former, it
is admitted that they will be (Christ has assured his disciples of this),
comp. Herm. ad Vig. p. 900. With Jas. ii. 11. comp. Rom. ii. 25., where
in the first member (the protasis) the subjunctive is found with lav.

(&) 'Edv with subjunc., where an objective possibility with a prospect of
decision is expressed , therefore always referring to something future ( I lerm.
ad Vig. p. 833.): John vii. 17. sdv 'tie, ^shy -to ^aV/^a avtov Ttoidv, yvw-

etc., JVIt. XXviii. 14. ta,v dxovG^rfi 'tov'to srti T'O-U ^yfjttdvoj, 4^uct rtfttfo-

avtbv. The apodosis usually contains a future (Mt. v. 13. Rom.
ii. 26. 1 Cor. viii. 10. 1 Tim. ii. 15.) or imperat. (John vii. 37. Mt.
v. 23. x. 13. xviii. 27. Rom. xii. 20. xiii. 4.), more rarely the pre-
sent, and this either in the sense of the future or of something permanent,
Mt. xviii. 13. 2 Cor. v. 1. or in general clauses, Mr. iii. 27. 1 Cor. ix
16. John viii. 16. 54. Acts xv. 1. Rom. vii. 2. (Lucian. dial. mart. 6, 0.
Diog. L. 6, 2. 6. 10, 31. 41.). Perfects in the apodosis return to the
signification of the present, Rom. ii. 25. vii. 2. (On Rom. xiv. 23. and
John xv. 6. see 41, 3.). The aorist occurs in the apodosis 1 Cor. vii.
28. lav 8s xai yjj^s, v% ^'jua^faj. Comp. Matth. II. 1203. The sub-
junctive, which depends on tav, may be the subjunct. pres. or aor., the
latter is translated in the Latin mostly by the futur. exact.

(c) El with optat. of a subjective possibility (Herm. de partic. av p.
97.): 1 Pet. iii. 14. at xai ita,G%on;i Sea Sixaioo'vvriv, puxd^w even if ye
should suffer (which is very possible, and may be feared), comp. Ktihner
II. 552. Matth. II. 1207. Otherwise only in parenthetical clauses, 1 Cor.
xv. 37. tfjiiEt'gfts yvpvbv xoxxov, I c T! v % o i (if it should so happen,
which is conceivable), altov, Lucian. 14, 10. Amor. 42. Toxar. 4., see
Jacob on the latter passage and Wets, on 1 Cor. 15.), 1 Pet. iii. 17.
xgu't'tov aya^ortotoijj/raf, el -fXot #0 ^aTn^ta tov eov, rtatj^an' (Codd. ^g-
jist,), comp. Isocr. ad NicocL p. 52., Acts xxvii. 39. It occurs once af-
ter the preterite, Acts xxiv. 19. o$ a'Set Ijti aov rtagaww xai xutyyogsiv,

42. OF THE USE OF THE INDICATIVE, &C. 231

4i *<, Hzot,*v rto<r pe. In Mr. xiv. 35. Acts xx. 16. the optat. might
have been expected, yet the indie, is sometimes used even by Gr. writers
in orat. obliqua, (and that not only in established formulas, like it
JOTT'C above), JEl. V. H, 12, 40. Exygv%&] ^9 a-tga-torteScp, el tf&j H%Et
ex ifov Xodartov, iva 9 paoitei rtutv. Comp. Engelhardt ad Plat. Apol.
l>. 156. See below, note 5. (After lav in orat. obliqua no one will ex-
pect the optat. in the N. T. Acts ix. 2. John ix. 22. xi. 57. Buttm.;
comp. Herm. ad Vig. p. 820.
Instances under (d] see in 43.

The N. T. text presents but few exceptions to these principles, and
those generally found in but a small number of Codd.; () fa is twice con-
nected with the subjunctive in Rev. xi. 5. si -tt$ av-tovs S-ea.?/ dStxriatu
(Griesbach ^I^i,), Luke ix. 13. E l /.i^i rfogEt&fi'vtfej ^"s ayo^artw^sv (also
dyogacroju.j>)*, 1 Cor. xiv. 5. Zx-tos si p f /i 8i.^/.i^vcvv] (Sie^^Evsvet,} except in
case he interpret.f This mode would not be admitted in the Attics for a
long time, but is now pretty generally received, see Herm. ad Aj. 491. and
de partic. av p. 96. Poppo ad Cyrop. p. 209. and Emendanda, ad Matth.
Gram. Frankf. a. O. 1732.) p. 17. Bremi ad JEschin. 1. p. 171. Wex
ad Antig. II. 187. It is frequent in the later prose writers (Jacobs ad
Achill. Tat. p. 68L, ad Athcn. p. 146. Locella ad Xen. Epkes. p. 185.
Jacob ad Lucian. Tax. p. 53. Schiifer Ind. ad JEwp. p. 131.), especially
in the Hellenistic writings (Thilo. ad Acta Thorn, p. 23.), as almost
regularly in the Apostolic and Basilic canons (from the Septuagint, comp.
Gen. iii. 4.). The distinction between h with the subjunct. and with the
indie. (Kuhner Gram. II. 550. Herm. de partic. av p. 96.) is not perhaps
of much value. See Matth. II. 1210. and Rost Gram. 613. (6) lav
takes the indie, not only present or fut. (according to the authority of
manuscripts) Rom xiv. 8. lav drtoSvyixopfv, *$ xvgi<p ajto^v. (so A. I). F.
G.), Gal. i. 8. with the indicat. fut. John viii. 36. IQ.V 6 vib$ -ujuas E^EU^E-
goffft, .Luke xi. 12. Jdv altqasi, &6v A. D. L. (comp. Matth. II. 1212.
Schafer index ad JEsop. p. 131. Philo. ad a eta Thorn, p. 23. Fabric.
Psendepigr. I. 678. 687. several times, Exod. viii. 21. Malalas 5. p. 130,
Nieb. Can.tac.uz. 1, 6. p. 30. 1, 54. p. 273. Basilic. I. p. 175.), in all which
passages an error might easily occur in writing, although the future is
not strikingly similar to the subjunctive (and also in Lys. Alcib. 13: de
affect, tyr. 4. it occurs, comp. Poppo, ad Time, II. IV. 250.), but even
the preterite in John v. 15. lav oidapsv without variation, even if the
preterite be properly preterite in signification John xxii. 3. Theo-
doret. III. p. 267, Malalas 4. p. 71. (see Jacobs in Act, Monac, I. p,

* But this is probably; if we shall not buy any tiling, the mode depending on ej, as
at other times after the formula SCTTEJ el a,v, Matth. II. 1205.

t In 1 Thess. v. 10. the rec. text, with all better Codd. lias I'vu, sirs ^n-yo^iv she
Had., a-pa. <ruv au-rS f<r,MEi', where (after a preter. in the leading member) a more ex-
act writer would have placed the optat. in both cases, comp. Xcn. Anab. 2, 1. 14.
However, I'va. stands here with subj. according to the observation on p. 225, and the
subjunc, in the subordinate clause is adapted to thin,

232 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

147., coinp. Hase ad Leon. Diac. p. 143. Herm. ad Vig. 820. Schafer
ad Bastii ep. crit. p. 26. Poppo ad Thuc. III. I. 313. III. II. 172.*.

Sometimes sav and si are connected in two parallel clauses: A.cts v. 38.
39. I a, v 07 if; av^rgartav <YJ jSovto) av'tt] $ -to egyov Hov'to, xaitahvSqtiS'tai, (if it
should be of men, which the result will show), si 8s lx oftov Itft'tv, ov 8v-
vaa^ts xatfaT/uffat CHJ-TO (if it is from God}, Luke xiii. 9. xav juev rtonfu^ xag-
riov' si 8s p^ys Ixxotyis sifructus tulerit, sin minus (si nonfert)
etc. (Plat. rep. 7. p, 540. D.), Gal. i. 8. see Herm. ad Vig. p. 832. Jacob
ad Lucian. Tox. p. 143. Matth. II. 1208. Comp. Xen. Cyrop. 4, 1. 15.
Herod. 3, 36. Plat. Phsed. 42. Isocr. Orchid. 44. Evag. p. 462. Lucian.
dial. mart. 6, 3. Dio. Chrys. or. 69. p. 621. In most passages of this
kind, si or lav might as well be repeated, although the selection of
the one or the other of them depends on a differently conceived relation,
see Fritzsche conject. I. p. 25. 'Et and edv are distinguished in the same
Sentence John xiii. 17. I gav'ta, olSa-ts ^axa^oL tats, sav rtoiqts oiJT'a if
you know if you do.

3. Particles of time naturally govern the indie, preter. (and pres. his-
tor.), 1. If they express in narration a definite event in past time, e. g.
(as, while, etc.) IjteC Luke vii. 1., oVe Mt. vii. 28. ix. 25. Mr. xi. 1.
xiv. 12. Luke iv. 25. 1 Cor. xiii. 11., wf Mt. xxviii. 9. Luke i. 23.
vii. 12. Acts xvi. 4. John iv. 40. oTtoff Luke vi. 3. So also awj and
swj oi>t Mt. i. 25. ii. 9. Acts vii. 18. xxi. 26. Matth. II. 1197. 2.
If they indicate a future fact (when, as soon as, until) they take the
indicative, (a) when they refer to a fact distinctly conceived, John

iv. 21. e^ftfcu. ui^a, 6Vfi rtgocSxvvqas'tE ^9 rtatfgi,', Luke xvii. 22.

Itevaovtai, iy/ttgai, Q-HE Irii^vfi^as'ts, John v. 25. ix. 5. xvi. 25., see Herm.
ad Vig. p. 913. The pres. indicat. occurs several times after ew? for the
fut. indicat. ( 41, 2.) John xxi. 22. Luke xix. 13. 1 Tim. iv. 13. w $
K^o/iat (like i<os ertdvsiaw Plut. Lycurg. c. 29.$. Of a different kind is
the pres. indicat. after 6V<-. It occurs in general statements John ix.

* In ancient writers the correction is usually made (see Bernhardy ad Dionys. p.
851.), to some extent without the authority of MSS. (Aristot. Anim. 7, 4. p. 210.
Sylb.). Yet Bekker Dinarch. c. Philolol, 2. has lav e!\$s.

t This formula (our until that} is not peculiar to the later prose writers (Wahl I.
678.), but only so when it occurs without av', Herod. 2, 143. has efi? ov a.ir'^^a.v, and
Xen. Anal). 1, 7. 6. /wE^gif o5, 5. 4. 16. and Plutarch often; more complete fte^t rou-
rou, tS>t ou, Palncph, 4.

t In the sense of so long as, tea/; has the indie, of some fact, as is natural, John ix.
4. xxii. 35. Heb. iii. 23. (Athen. 8. p. 336. Plat. Phccd. p. 89. C. Xen. Cyrop. 1, 6. 9.
7, 2. 7. See Buttm. ed. Rob. 146. 3.). The same mood is found in Mt. v. 25. after
the imperat., where the subjunctive was to be looked for, as there is reference to only
a possible case. But this proposition contains a general statement, in which the par-
ticular case is included as possessing 1 a present reality. In Luke xvii. 8. $ia,xovi poi,
seat <f>aj/a> xaj itda (the better Codd. omit Sv) the subjunct. is used of an indefinite, un-
certain fut. time.

42. OF THE USE OP THE INDICATIVE, &C. 233

4. g%f!!ai> vv% OTft (i 6. ev ij) ovSeif 8<vvo/t(M sgydQsaSat/, Meb. IX. 17., see
Herm. as above 913. 914. But, (&) when the future fact is only an (ob-
jective) possibility, which however it is thought will take place under
certain circumstances, the subjunctive is used with the particles com-
pounded of av, viz. '6-tav, Ertav, fyixu av, etc. See 43. The same oc-
curs, if the particles express duration or repetition in future time (6V cw,
av} or a point of time within which something must be done
civ), Matth. II. 1199. Yet in the latter case the subjunctive is
found with only sag, ej ov, a%gt,, as frequently in the later Gr. writers,
Mt. xiv. 32. xa&aats w, z-'wj rtgotievllunat, until I shall have prayed, 2
Pet. i. 19. xo&u$ rtotaiVs rfgotfe^ovi'ss -- i'coj ov ^/u.ga Sia-vyday, Luke xiii.
8. aij>j avtriv xai tfoin'o -to sVoj, wj 6Vou axa^u* rtegi avtqv, xii. 50. XV. 4.
xxiv. 49. xxi, 24. xxii. 16. (Heb. x. 13.) 2 Thess. ii. 7. Gal. iii. 19.
Ephes. iv. 13. Comp. jtelv % Luke xxii. 24. See Plutarch. Cat. min.
59. a#cf ov fyjv ect%dt'qv ^v^v tfqs rtatfgt'Soj s^s^sy^ufisv, CsSS. 7. ix.i%^<; av
xa-jfarto^s/.i^^ Ka^atvaf, ^Esch. dial. 2, 1. Lob. ad Phryn. p. 14. Stall-
baum ad Plat. Phileb. p. 61. Bornemann ad Xen. Anab. p. 114. Held
ad Plutarch. Timol. p. 369. Jacobs ad Achill. Tat. p. 568. The clear
distinction which Herm. de part, av p. 109. makes, by a comparison of
the passages with t'cuj av 43, 5. might vanish again in respect to the
N. T. as easily as it finds a foundation in the above passages. In Rev.
xx. 5. ol howiol ovx efyaav, cos T'EXacj^ -ra %fat,n Ity means not, until
were accomplished (narratively), but concisely expressed: they (became
not revived), remained and still remain dead, until the thousand years
shall be completed. 3, The optative (without div) occurs but once in the
N. T. after a particle of time in orat. obliq. Acts xxv. 16. oi>x ec

a i i<!,ta'&o,l -two, dV^coytoj' tj a7tio7.tai/, it g I v rj 6 xa
rtgoatortov l%oi ^oijj xatf^yogou? (others ?^, still others s%si,, comp.
Xen. Cyrop. 1, 4. 23.). See Herm. ad Vig. p. 790. Matth. II. 1200.
In other places the subjunct. stands where the optative should be expected
Mt. xiv. 22. Acts xxiii. 12. xiv. 21. Mr. vi. 45. ix. 9. Rev. vi. 11. Luke
ii. 26., which may be explained in part by an interchange of the orat.
recta and obliqua, see beloiv n. 5. Comp. to Mt. xiv. 22. Thuc. 1, 137.
fyjv dtf^aTiEtow Hi/at jU^Seva sxpqvai, x T'TJ? J/EWJ, jwl^gt, ytXotJj y s v^i "t a i , Al-
ciphr. 3, 64. Poppo Thuc. I. I. 142.

Luke xiii. 35. ?$ av </}%<$, 6Va s I rt q 4 s cannot well be translated quo dix-
eritis. The future indicat. might be expected instead of the subjunct.
(Diod. Sic. Exc. Vatic, p. 103, 31. Lips.); but the subjunct. occurs, in
as much as tirttlv is conceived of as dependent on ^'|^ which is uncertain,
and therefore itself relates to an uncertain futurity. This might be called
attractio temporis, as we often say in German : wenn ich wusste, ob er
besiisse (besitzt], if I Imc.w whether he would possess (possesses). Comp.

234 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

on fas with subjunct. Jacobs ad JEthal. Pal. III. p. 100. and in Act.
Monac. I. It. 147.

4. (a) The indicative is connected in indirect discourse with interroga-
tives (and relatives), where some reality or fact is designated, although
in the chief clause there may be either a pres. or preterit. (Diog. L. 2, 8. 4.
Vig. p. 505. Stallbaum ad Plat. Euthyphr. p. 46.), Acts xx. 18. IrtiataaSe
yevonqv (lie really had been with him), 1 Thess. i. 9.
ortoiav EIJ oSov d%ofjt,ev Ttgoj v/J-a$ (Xen. Cyt'Op. 4, 1. 23.
Lucia.n.fugit. 6.), John ix. 21. rfw$ vvv |3 K i it i , avx olSa^ev, x. 6. ovx
syvueav ifiva yjv a ixa^et w/ia/ ii was (what it signified) iii. 8. vii. 27., 1
Tim. iii. 15. Col. iv. 6. Ephes. i. 18. 1 Cor. iii. 10. Acts iv. 19. v. 8.
xix. 2. xv. 36. Luke xxiii. 6. 1 Pet. ii. 11. John ix. 25., where it had
been affirmed about the apagit wa.6i/ swat: whether he is a sinner (not may

be}; John ix. 15. ^dmw avtbv 7ts dvejS^E^sv, Mr. xv. 44. Acts

xii. 18. The Latin language in such cases uses the subjunct., according
to a different apprehension of the relation of the sentence. The tense
of the direct question is confounded with the indirect in Acts x. 18.
ft "Stfiov ev^rdSe ^evl^s'tat, COinp. Plat. Apol. 6. tj-togovv,
a.s'y Et, e.g. Plutarch. 11.208. B. 220. F. 221. C. 230. T. 231.
C. F. Polyb. 1, 60. 6. 4, 69. 3. Diog. L. 2, 12. 5. 6, 2. 6. 2, 8. 4. Liban.
oratt. p. 119. B., and very often, yea almost uniformly in the Greek.

(b) The subjunctive occurs, where an objective possibility, something
which may or can be done, is to be expressed: Mt. viii. 20. 6 wbs tov
ai&. ovx HXSL, rtov <e^v xs^a^v xhivy where he can lay down, ubi re-
ponat (Plat. Hipp. mai. p. 166. sympos. p. 216. C. rep. 2. p. 368. B.
Xen. Anab. 1,7. 7. 2, 4. 19. Alciphr. 1, 19.) Rom. viii. 26. tl ngoa-
ewlwfte^a xa$b Sst, ovx oJSa/tEv, how we shall pray, Mt. x. 19. vi.
25. Luke xii. 5. 11. Mr. vi. 36. xiii. 11. Fleb. viii. 2. Comp. Stallbaum
ad Plat. Phsed. p. 202. ad rep. I. p. 72. Xen. Mem. 2,1.21. Cyrop.
1, 4. 13. Isocr. Paneg. c. 41. Also after the preterite Acts iv. 21. j u ? -
Sev evgdaxovtss -to rtu$ x oX a tf o v if a c avtovg, Luke xix. 48. Mr. iii. 6.

av/j-povfaov iitoiovv oTtwj o.v-tov drtoTvEcwcjfr (xi. 18., according to the

bestCodd., xiii. 11. xiv. 1. 40.), where the optative might have been used
(Lucian. dial. dear. 17, 1. 25, 1. Kiihner II. 103.), the subjunct. is
found, in as much as there is a reference to the direct question, which
they asked one another: rfwj avtbv drtoh<su>/jiv (subjunct. deliberat. comp.
Thuc. 2, 52. 3, 107.) Herm. ad Vig. p. 905. Werferi/i Act. Monac. I.
p. 230. In Phil. iii. 12. gtwxw, xal pca^a^ajQw (seeing, trying, axojtuv]
whether 1 can reach it, the subjunctive is not striking comp. Eurip.
Androm. 44.

42. OF THE USE OF THE INDICATIVE, &C. 235

In such cases the future indicat. can be used for the subjunct. (because
of the affinity of the two forms: Phil. i. 22. ft, atgyaopai, (with-
out variation) ov yog(,', what I shall choose, see Demosth. funebr. p.
152, B. Herodian. 5, 4. 16. Jacob, ad Lucian. Toxar. p. 151. In 1
Cor. vii. 34. some good. Codd. have a^savj and Mr. ix. 6. Fritzsche has

printed hajjjay- In Mr. iii. 2. jta^^ovv avion, d $gartEvasi> means:

whether he will (would) heal, and the future is necessary, as in 1 Cor.
vii. 16. See Stalibaum ad Plat. Gorg. p. 249.

(c) The optative is used of a subjective possibility, therefore after a
preterite, when the conception of some one is to be expressed, Luke

Xxii. 23. oj'gtcwT'o avQiyfEiv Ttgoj i-avtovs, to tfis aga e I v\ s| avituv who he

might be, i. e. whom they must take to be the one, i. 29. iii. 15. viii. 9. xv.
26. xviii. 36. Acts xxv. 20. comp. Xen. Cyrop. 1, 4. 6. Anab. 1, 8. 15.
Diog. Laert. 7, 1. 3. Herod. 1. 46. 3, 28. 64. Herm. as above 742. See

yet Acts XVli. 27. ejtoiqas ztav t$vo$ lytEiv tbv $sbv, fi' agaye

^^a^asiav, if perhaps they might feel after etc. Acts xxvii. 12. See
Matth. II. 1213.

Acts xxi. 33. KTtvv^dvsfo, tftj aiv si vj xui, til eati* jteftot^xi^^ explains
precisely the distinction of the modes in dependent clauses after Wj
etc. That the prisoner had committed some crime, was certain (was a
fact), or the centurion supposed it to be certain, but as to who the prisoner
may be, there were many possibilities. Comp. Xen. Epfies. v. 12. ET?E$(W-
pdxEi,, twig fs ij a av xaL tC j3 o v % o t v if o , Stallbaum ad Plat. Euthyphr.
p. 107. Jacob ad Lucian. Tox. p. 139. and Dio. Chrys. 35. p. 429. p. 9.
Heliod. Mtli. 1, 25. 46. 2, 15. 81. Poly sen. 9, 25.

The formula o$lt; t<ttw 6'j or ti$ ianv 05 (of the same meaning) is
always and correctly followed by the indicat., even if the tense be future,
e. g. Mt. x. 26. ovdsv sate* xBxa&v/A/AEvov, S ovx urtoxahv^yaE'tat, there is
nothing, which shall not be manifest (although the Romans would say :
nihil est, quod non manifestum futurum sit) xxiv. 2. 1 Cor. iv. 7. vi. 5.
Phil. ii. 20. Actsxix. 35. Heb. xii. 7. comp. Viger. p. 196. Bern hardy
390. The subjunct. is found connected but once with the indicat. in

Luke Vlll. 17. ooi yag atftft xgVTt'tbv, o ov tyavt^bv yEV/i<SE'ta>i,, ovds artoxgvfyov,
6 ov yvcotf^rfET'ai/ xal ti$ tyavsgov e'^.^^ , but where B. L. have 6 oi) jttij yvcorf-

^ xai slsfy. s^y. The example quoted from Josephus Antt. 13, 6. by
Lobeck ad PhrynicJi. p. 736. is not very certain. As to the significa-
tion of this subjunctive, see below, 43. 3. (&).

In John vii. 35. the fut. indicat. is correct: itov otjtfoj ^inkst rtogEVEaa,i,
(jtlywi;), 6Vo ^s^f ov% Ev^ao^Ev av-tbv', where will this one go, (saying), that
we shall not find him? In ov% evgya. the words pronounced by him are re-
peated in the tense and mode of the direct discourse. Acts. vii. 40. (A.
T. Citat.) is also correct, jtoitjaov ypiv SEOVS, ol ?i % o rt o % s v a ov * at
foZv qui antecedant (see Matth II. 1145.) Phil. ii. 20. comp. Demosth.
adv. Polycl. p. 711. B. Plat. Gorg. p. 513. A.

The fut. indicat. after si or si aga is also worthy of remark in cases
like Acts viii. 22. Ss^^fa tov EOV, si aiga a$i-/i<}E'tai dot, ^ Erttvota tq$
xwgSt'aj aov, Mr. xi. 13. vjh^ev, si ago, tv^est -fi v aii-ty he went to it,

236 PART THIKD. USE OF THE VERB.

(to see) whether he could perhaps find etc. (in Latin si forte -- in-
veniret}. The words are here expressed as the direct, speaker would
express them : I will approach and see, whether I shall find etc. The
future indicative after nVtoj Rom. i. 10., is of another kind, but un-
doubtedly correct.

In Ephes. v. 15. the subjunct. or future would be expected in the words
fihErte-ts, Ttoj owcc/3wj rtegtrtateitE, see, how you walk circumspectly,
i. e. not how you now walk, but will walk, com/?. Arist. Rhet. ad Alex.
c. 23. p. 194. c. 26. p. 195. Sylb. By transposing the words, /foa'rt. &xg.
rt^s fteg. the indicative would be according to rule, but for this we have
not the authority of the manuscripts. Perhaps it is a concise expression
for: see, how you walk, viz. with precaution (you must walk). 1 Cor. iii.
10. quoted by Holzhausen, is not parallel with the above.

5. The optative does not extend any farther in the orat. obliqua, and
instances of the words of another quoted obliquely are generally rare
in the N. T. When this takes place, the indicat. is found, either because the
expletive clause, where the optative should be expected, is pronounced in
the person of the narrator Luk. viii. 47. Mt. xviii. 25. Mr. v. 29. ix. 9.
Acts x. 17. xxii. 24., or because by the mingling of two constructions
the mode of the orat. recta is used for the orat. obliqua (which perhaps
was especially common in the language of conversation), Mt. xvii. 10.
>tC ov v ol ygo.ju./xai'Ets Xsyoutfw, 6V& 'HTiocw S s i/ e^tstv rie^iov, Luke XVI11. 9.
strts xai rto$ tfway i?ov$ Ttlrtot^oVaj sty Iwwtot, j, oVt/ I cf i S&3cou>ot (Matth. II.
1222.), Acts xii. 18. rjv tfa^a^oj ovx 6/Uyoj -- tft aga o Tle-tgog E y I v E tf o .
Similar among the Attics, but mostly in cii'cumlocutory sentences., Isocr.
Trapez. p. 860. Demosth. c. Phorm. p. 586. adv. Polycl. p. 710. 711.
Lys. csed* Eratosth. 19. Xen. Cyrop. 2, 4. 3. 3, 2. 27. 4, 5. 36. Among
the later M\\xa. V. H. 11, 9. Diog. L. 2, 5. 15. 2, 8. 4. Diop. Hal. IV.
p. 2243,7. Philostr. Her. 5, 2. Pausan. 6, 9. 1. See Heindorf ad Plat.
Soph. p. 439. Matth. II. 1224. Bernhardy 389.

In the same manner the subjunctive must be explained in Acts xxiii.
21. EvsSgEVovat* yag awtbv dLVSg?? -- ol'trwef dvs^rs^d'fuyav eavfov; ^foe
tyoysiv [AVjitE Tttsiv, i'lo; ov uvthuaiv avtov (on the contrary Xen. Cyrop.
5, 3. 53. 6 KIJ^OJ rtogve<j$at, sxthsvsv ^ffv^wj, i'coj ayy6/\,oj s h $ o i ). In
orat. recta they would have said: ov $ ayd^E^a etc. wj ov avEhupev usque
dum sustulerimus. Comp. Xen. Hell. 2, 1, 24. AvaavSgos -- Ixstevaev
ETtsa^M z'otj A&jvo,ioti$' IrtEbSav SE x jB u> ff t , xa-fi/Sovfa^ 6 ii rtoiovaw. A
future indicat. for the subjunct. is found in Rev. vi. 11., if the reading be
correct.

NOTE 1. The particle of consequence wufa is usually connected with
the infinitive (and in such a sense the infinitive alone may be used); the
finite verb is however found not only where wc^f begins a new clause (in

42. OP THE USE OF THE INDICATIVE, &C. 237

the meaning of itaque) partly in the indicat. Mt. xii. 12. xix. 6. xxiiii.
31. Rom. vii. 4. xiii. 2. 1 Cor. xi. 27. xiv. 22. 2 Cor. iv. 12. v. 16.
Gal. iii. 9. iv. 7. 1 Thess. iv. 18. 1 Pet. iv. 19., partly in the subjunct.
1 Cor. v. 8. and imperat. 1 Cor. iii. 21. x. 12. Phil. ii. 12. Jas. i. 19.,
but also where the clause with ^a-ts is a necessary supplement of the
preceding clause John iii. 16. ovVaj riydrttjatv 6 $<>$ -tbv xoapov, ucrtz --
eSaxev Gal. ii. 13. The latter is also very usual in the Greek writers.
"flffi-s is found so with a finite verb after cwVw in Herod. 6, 83. Isocr.
Areop. p. 343. 354. de big. p. 838. JEgin. p. 922. Evag. 476. Lysias
pro Mantith 2. and pro mil. 17. Xen. Cyrop. 1, 4. 15. 2, 2. 10. Diog.
L. 9, 11. 7., after stj -tooovtov Isocr. de Vig. p. 836. Comp. Schafer ad
Plutarch. V. p. 248. The better writers may certainly adhere to the
distinction so skilfully developed by Titlmann Syn. JV. T. II. p. 70. on
the passage Xen. Mem. 1, 3. 5. See also Rost Gramm. p. 651. Kiihner
II. 563.

NOTE 2. "o$koj> (W^E^OV) is in the N. T. as well as in later Greek
writers taken entirely as a particle and connected with the indicative,
(a) with the preter. aor. 1 Cor. iv. 8. o<j>j-a.oi> E^aei^svctaitE would
that you had become rulers, imperfect 2 Cor. xi. 1. S^ov avst% pov
pixgov would that you could have a little patience with me, of a past action
extending to the present time, (Z) with the future Gal. v. 12. On this con-
struction of o$%ov comp. Arrian. Epict. 2, 18. 6'^^oV tftj psta tavtq$ Ixoi-
pn'&n > Gregor. oral. 28. (Exod. xvi. 3. Numb. xiv. 2. xx. 3.) Once ac-
customed to dfyfhov as a particle, the former connection was just as cor-
rectly conceived as the imperf. or aor. indicat. after sl^s, Matth. II. 1161.,
but the construction with the future took the place of the optative. In
Gal. v. 12. a variation occurs, by which however no better construction
is gained. (In Rev. iii. 5. some Codd. have o^ejuw 4fo? slys, others
according to Wetsten. ^j, according to Griesb. fa. Both give an equal-
ly good sense. I know of no instance where the subjunct. is used after
a particle of wishing).

43. Of the Conjunction av with the three Modes.*

1. The particle ov, which imparts to the expression the idea of some-
thing dependent on circumstances, and consequently conditional and for-
tuitous (Herm. ad Vig. p. 901. 818. 816.), stands either in a dependent
or independent clause with one of the three modes: yet its use in the
N. T. (as among the laier writers) is not nearly so free and various as in

* Comp. on the use of the particle the following monographs. Poppo Pr. de usu
parlic av apud Grczcos. Francf. a. V. 1816. 4to. (also in Seebode's miscell. crit. I. 1.)
Reisig. de vi et usu a.v particula: ed. Aristoph. Nub. (Lips. 1820. 8vo.) p. 97 140. 1
have chiefly followed Hermann's theory, Buttmann and Thierch (Acta Monac. II. p.
101.) deviate somewhat from this.
30

238 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

the Gr. Attic writings.* In an independent and simple sentence it occurs
in the N. T., (a) with the aorist, to indicate that something would have
been done on a certain condition (which is added by the mind as a hypo-
thetical clause derived from the context) Matth. II. 1154., as Luke xix,
23. Siatfi/' oiix fi'Stoxaj to agyvguov pov trti <tv\v tgdrtsgav, xai i-yw eh$uv aw
av li'rtgaia atii'd : I would have received it with interest (if the former
O agy. Irtl tfjv tfgart. had been done). Not very different from this
is the parallel passage, Mt. xxv. 27. USst, as fSateZv ^6 agyvgwv pov rotg
fgooTtf^iVcus, xai It^Oiv syu sxo^i^dfjitjv av I'D sfnov avv tfoxcp, and Heb. X. 2.
ittsi ovx av Irtavaavto rtgoafysgoftivat, (Xen. Anab, 4, 2. 10. Arrian. Epict,
3, 22. Diog. L. 2, 8. 4.) The remark of Valckenaer on the latter pas-
sage is foreign to the subject. Comp. Septuagint Gen. xxvi. 10. Job
iii. 10. 13. Matth. II. 1154. (&) With the optative (where the subjective
possibility is made dependent on a condition), Acts ii. 12. hsyovtes *i dV
e Ji o t, -toT-nto slvat; what can this mean 1 (viz. if some one can explain
it), xvii. 18. >el av ^sxot 6 tfTts^oTioyoj oiji'os heysiv; (if indeed his words
have a meaning-). Comp. Odyss. 21, 259. Xen. Cyrop. 1, 4. 12. Diog.
L. 2, 2. 4. see Herm. ad Vig. p. 727. On Acts via. 13. see below, 2,
The phrase in Acts xxvi. 29. fv^ai^v ai> 1-9 esc> (I could iv ell pray to
God] is thought not to be good Greek (Bornemann in Roscnm. Repertor*
II. 292. comp. ad Anab. p. 361.); but it is the well known construction
touched upon by Matth. II. 1163. (as in ^av^oi^v aV), and the optat. here
has by no means the force of wishing, as it cannot be properly trans-
lated: I would beseech God. The same formula (parallel with /So-uWjtwp
olv) in Dio. Cass. 36. 10., and a^lati 1 ' ai> tftj Xen. Hip-parch. 8, 6., ibj av
Jyco sii^aLy-riv see Diog. L. 2, 8. 4. Philostr. Jlpoll. 9, 11. Similar dlccatratf*'
w Libaw. oratt. p. 200. B.

Without a mode (Herm. de partic. av 4, 4.) av occurs (according to
most manuscripts) in 1 Cor. vii. 5. ^ o-Tioa^i^tl-fs dx^xouj, tl pq -ti o.v
(viz. ysvoffo] ex avfjityMov except perhaps with mutual consent. Stolz
has not expressed the particle.

2. After conditional clauses with si, in the apodosis we find av with
the indie, to denote the hypothetical reality (Valckenssr ad Lulce xvii. 6.),
(a) with the imperfect (commonly), to express: I would do it, Luke vii.
39. o-utfoj si riy Ttgo^'/jT'^s, syt'vwtfKsv av, etc. if he were a prophet, he
would understand, xvii. 6. John v. 46. (viii. 19.) viii. 42. ix. 41. xv. 19.

* In the Scptuagr. av occurs proportionally as often as in the N. T., (as Bretschneider
Lexic. I. 65. observed); viz. in hypothetical sentences it is generally found, when it
ought to be. It is sometimes also connected with the optat. Gen. xix. 18. xxxiii. 10.
xliv. 8.

43. OF THE CONJUNCTION V WITH THE THKEE MODES. 239

xviii. 36. Gal. i. 10. Heb. viii. 4. 1 Cor. xi. 31. On Mt. xxiii. 30. see
Fritzsche (imperf. in the conditional clause), Heb. iv. 8. el ya% av-tovs
'Ijfffoiij xatertavasv, ovx av jtsgi axji^j Ikdtet, if Jesus (Joshua) had brought
them to rest, it would not be spoken of another (in the words quoted in the
preceding verse .), Gal. iii. 21. (conditional clause with aor.). (b] With
the aor. to express: I would have done it, Mt. xi. 21. si tysvov-to --
rtoMot j> (itftvoqctav if they had been done many would have repented
(in the received text Ttdhat, civ, long since they would, etc. TVs.), cowip.
verse 23. 1 Cor. ii. 8. Rom. ix. 29. Septuag. (in the conditional clause
the aor. also); John xiv. 28. el tfyajtatts pe, ezdgqts av if ye loved me, ye
would have rejoiced I John xviii. 30. Acts xviii. 14. (imperf. in the con-
ditional clause); Mt. xii. 7. d eyvoxe^s -- ovx av xateSixdaate if you
had known, etc. ye would not have condemned (pluperfect in conditional
clause, comp. Demosth. c, Pantsen. p. 624. B.'Liban. Oratt. p. T17. C.).
Instead of the aor. in this case the pluperf. also occurs in John ii. 19.
ft yaav s't ^iu>v, pspsvqxsiaav av p.& VJ/AUV mansisscnt (atque adeo mane-
rent), John xi. 21. (ver. 32. aor.) xiv. 7. (Diog. L. 3, 26. ./Esop. 31,1.
Lucian. fugit. 1. Plutarch. II. p. 184. D. comp. Herm. de partic. av p.
50.). See Herm. ad Vig. p. 900. and de partic. av 1. cap. 10. The
translators of the N. T. have either been ignorant of this difference
of the tenses or have left it unobserved; even Stolz has often violated
the rule.

In conditional clauses jjv John xi. 21. 32. is unquestionably to be taken
for the aor. (as often in narration). In Mt. xxiii. 30. rj^ea is regular
imperf., see Fritzsche in loc. In Mr. xiii. 20. el ^ xvgws exohopuae
oiix av sau>0y rfarfa adgt;, the aor. is in neither case used for the imperf.,
but the sense is: Had not the Lord shortened those days (in his purpose),
all flesh would have been lost (even now considered as lost). A little

different Plat. Gorg. p. 447. E. el stvyxavsv u>v vrtoSq/.tdtuv dq[i.t.ovgyb$,

arttxglva-to av Svjttov cot, he would answer you, see Heindorf in loc., comp.
Stallbaum ad Plat. Euthyphr. p. 81. and Matth. II. 11^-9. Also Heb! xi.
!>. el /.lev exEwtjs e/Avyi/Aovevov -- sl%ov av xaigbv avaxdf.itycM both tenses are

right: if they meant that they would have. The author conceives of
the speakers as present, as l^avL^ovtuv ver. 14. and ogtyovtai, ver. 16. in
pres. tense show. Comp. Stallbaum ad Plat. Gorg. p. 101.

The example quoted above from Acts viii. 31. is to be taken as a hypo-
thetical construction, jtu>; av Swoi^v, etc. since not interrogatively it
would be: ovx av Swai^v, comp. Xen. Apol. Q. qv <u<j0avcoacu %eig<AV yty-
av Jyco tVt av

In the apodosis, especially with the imperf., av may be omitted (see
Herm. ad Eurip. Hcc. 1087. ad Soph. Elect, p. 132. Bremi Exc. 4.
ad Lys. p. 439. Mehlhorn ad Anacr. p. 236. Matth. II. 1153.), and
in the later Greek is quite frequently, without intending the empha-

240 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

sis, which originally belongs to this construction (without av}, Kiihner
Gram. II. 556.* The several examples may be thus arranged, (a) Im-
perf. in the prodosis, imperf. in the apodosis, John ix. 33. si prj yy
o-Dtfoj rtaga Qsov, ovx qovva'ta itoitiv ovoiv were he not from God, he could
do nothing, Diog. Laert. 2, 5. 9. Lycurg. Leocr. 8. Plat. Sympos. p. 198.
C. Gorg. p. 514. C. The Codd. vacillate in respect to av in John viii.
39., and here, if originally written by the author, it may have been lost
afterward in the vvv. Rom. vii. 7. belongs here also. (&) Aorist in the
prodosis, imperf. in the apodosis, Johnxv. 22. si py foQov afiagitiav ovx
ftxv if I had not come, they would not have had sin; comp. Diog. Laert.
2, 5. 6. (e) Pluperf. in the conditional, imperf. in the leading clause,
John xix. 11. ovx ?%$ %ovaiav ovSep-uav xut;' Ifiov, el fuj jjv cot SsSofi&vov
uvuOEv thou couldst not have had if it had not been given to thee, Acts
xxvi. 32. (Judg. viii. 19.).

In 2 Cor. xi. 4. many manuscripts read d <5 Ig^o^f-voj O.M.OV 'lyaovv xy-
evaat-i -- xahus qvuxeaee which is to be translated: if he preached, ye
would tolerate, etc. (But Cod. B. has o.vX0&, and Lachmann has so
printed it). Here xrgv<s<Sv might naturally have been looked for, but
the writer, as many words intervene, could easily have fallen into such
an anacoluthon (i|vt. as if he had written txyg. instead of proceeding
with dv#. after having written xygvaasi}', or in order not to offend the
Corinthians, he changed the harsh ave%. into the hypothetical and there-
fore milder yviX"> whence av should be much more expected, as the first
member is not adapted to the hypothetical period. Similar Diog. L. 2,
8. 4. el tfov'to tyavhov e a T! tv , ovx av sv -fatj tfiji' -wv logfatf tylvE'to.
The passage in Demosth. c. Near. p. 815. A. is of a different kind.
(That in Rom. iv. 2. I%E<, xavx^^a stands not for L%SV av, as Riickert pre-
fers, an attentive reader will easily discover by the argument of Paul, and
Roller among recent interpreters has rightly controverted this opinion).

Vater makes a singular remark on Acts xviii. 14. fl ptv yv dSox^a ft

iy yjffStov^y^a Ttovrj^bv, xatfa, ^.oyoi/ av ^vsdxo^v V/AWV, VIZ.: SsSplUS Oflliiti-

tur av, quod tamen hie svpplere necesse non est, etc. As av stands in the
apodosis without a variation marked by Vater, we are almost ready to
believe that he could have desired --- av in the prodosis! (Herm. ad
Vig. p. 828. Poppo ad Cyrop. 1, 6. 10.). It scarcely need be said, that
the text is entirely regular.

3. In relative clauses after 6V, o'tftftj, 6'croj, Sitov, etc. at> stands, (a) with
the indicat., when something certain or real is spoken of, which however
is not limited to a definite period, but happens as often as an opportu-
nity presents itself (Herm. ad Vig. p. 818.), Mr. vi. 56. ortov w>

* Similar sentences occur in the Lat. as Flor. 4, 1. PERACTUM ERA.T bellum sine
sanguine, si Pompeium opprimere (Ccesar) poluisset, Hor. Od. 2, 17, 27. Liv. 34, S9.
Tac. An-nal. 3, 14. Virg. Mn. 11, 111. See Znmpt Gr, p. 447.

43. OF THE CONJUNCTION av WITH THE THREE MODES. 241

wherever he entered, ubicunque intrabat, 6aot av tf n -t o v ?
as many of them as each time touched him, Acts ii. 45. iv. 35. 1 Cor.
xii. 2. In all these cases in the preterite, as Gen. ii. 19. Lev. v. 3.
and also in the Gr. writers, Herod. 3, 150. Lucian. dial. mart. 9, 2. and
Demon. 10. (Jlgath. 32, 12. 117, 12. 287, 13.) Herm. de par tic. av p.
26. The prsss. indie. (Herm. ad Vig. p. 817.) which occurs in the text
of Luke viii. 18. x. 8. John v. 19. has not much external evidence to
support it, and in Mr. xi. 24. the subjunct. has been inserted by Fritzsche
from Codd. Also in Theodoret V. 1048. xa-t must be written.

In Mt. xiv. 36. stands 6'cjoe, ^avfo, la^vjaav for the parallel 6'tjot av vJTt-
eaacagovto in Mr. vi. 56. Either is correct, accordingly as the au-
thor did or did not apprehend the fact as one in every respect certain.
The former is to be translated: all who (as many as) touched him.

(Z) It is used with the subjunct., when something objectively possible
is spoken of, which, however, is not definitely conceived of as certain,
(a) in the aorist (most frequently) of that which is thought of as yet
future, as perhaps happening in the future, where the Romans use the
future exact, e. g. Mt. x. 11. t 'j ^ '& v rfojui/ % xd,^v slashes into
whatever city you may enter (in quamcunque urbem, si quam in urbem)*,
xxi. 22. oaa av ai-trjatite quacunque petieritis, xii. 32. x. 33. Mr. ix. 18.
xiv. 9. Acts ii. 39. iii. 22. 23. viii. 19. Rom. x. 13. xvi. 2. Jas. iv. 4.
1 John iv. 15. Rev. xiii. 15. Comp. examples from Gr. writers, Borne-
mann Schol. ad Luc. p. 65. Gen. ii. 17. iii. 5. xi. 6. xxi. 6. 12. xxii. 2.
xxvi. 2. Isa. vii. 10. xi. 11. The fut. for the subjunct. see in Judg. x.
18. xi. 24. Isa. xiii. 15. Malch. hist. p. 238. ed. Bonn. Matth. II. 1220.
(j3) in the pres. to denote a possible, customary, or continued action, Gal.
v. 17. I'va iw?, a av ^ehy-ite, ifainfa ttot,ijite (what you may perhaps de-

sire), Col. iii. 17. rtav 6, -ti av TtoiijtE, 1 TheSS. ii. 7. ibj av tgofybs a3\,rt<w,

etc. Luke ix. 46. John v. 19. 1 Cor. xvi. 2. Col. iii. 17. See Hqrm.
de part, av p. 113. ad Vig. p. 817.

In some Codd. the subjunct. occurs after 6'tf^j without w in Jas. ii. 10.
o'tftftj ya 6W ifbv ropov * >? g J a y , rt t a I ay 8s ev hi (the most of them
have the future here), and Luke viii. 17. ov yag lam -- artox^ov, 8
ov yvuia&iat'tai, xai els fyavegov 7. y (see above p. 235). This reading
is in itself not to be rejected; it would give this sense : quod in lucem
venire nequeat, see Herm. ad Vig. p. 740.; indeed & v could by no means
stand here. On the subjunct. after relat. without v, which occurs often
in the Attic writers, see Schlifer ad Demosth. I. p. 657. Poppo observ.
p. 143. Jen. Lilt. Zeit. 1816. April, No. 69. and ad Cyrop. p. 129. 209.

* 'Ei; nv TTO'XIV Ei{EX0.m would be: in quam urbem ingrcssi fucritis (a city definitely
conceived of as that into which they would enter).

242 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

Herm. depart, as above. Kiihner Gramm. II. 519. 522. Rost. Gramm.
632. Also in Mt. xviii. 4. 6'tftft.j ovv tfartswooty tavtov is found, but here
with Fritzsche the av can be supplied from ver. 4. (as Xen. Mem. 1, 6.
13. Matth. II. 1220.), see Herm. ad Soph. Electr. v. 790. Kriiger ad
Jlnab. 1, 5. 2. Bremi ad JEsch. p. 410. Goth.

4. In an indirect question av is used with the optative (after preterite)
Luke i. 62. evevsvov f> rtartgl, to T!I av I X o t xahsoa^ai, avfov how he
might perhaps wish Mm to be named (if he had a desire for it; -ti .|xot
etc. would mean : how he would wish him named], Acts v. 24. x. 17.
xxi. 33. (see above 42. 5.) John xiii. 24. Luke ix. 46. xviii. 36. (van);
vi. 11. Sb&dhovv Ttgos d^to^ouj, ti av itotyasiav tS> 'l^crooj what they could
well do with Jesus (pondering in a doubting state of mind the different
possibilities) comp. Septuagint Gen. xxiii. 15.

5. After the particles of time & occurs with the subjunct. following, to
express an action objectively possible, as a case which may occur, but the
precise time of whose occurrence is uncertain. Thus () 6Vav Mt. xv.
2. vijttovtM tfaj #fta$, 6Vai> d'^tfoy I a t w a i when (as often as) they eat,
John viii. 44. 1 Cor. iii. 4. Luke xi. 36. xvii. 10. 6V<w Ttotjjfj^i'
TilyEtfe, w/iera yew /mue done (shall have done), Mt. xxi. 40. Stav %%.
xvgt,o$ tC Tio^Bi quando venerit. So usually with the subjunct. aor.

j.i .' for the Latin fut. exact.JVIr. viii. 38. Rom. xi. 27. John iv. 25. xvi. 13.

-' -'': . /^

Acts xxiii. 35. 1 Cor. xvi. 3. 1 John ii. 28. also Heb. i. 6. (as Bohme

>.--

^ I and Wahl have already hinted)*, whilst the subjunct. pres. mostly ex-
presses an action which is often repeated Matth. II. 1195. Similar fylxa,
aiv 2 Cor. iii. 16. oaax^ av 1 Cor. xi. 25. 26. wj av as soon as 1 Cor. xi.
34. Phil. ii. 23. (i) The conjunction until that, as j'wj dVf Mt. x. 11.

" Ixsl [Ativa-tf, wj ai' i|'/j/\,^r' Jas. v. 7. Luke ix. 27. d'^tj ov av 1 Cor.

xv. 25. Rev. ii. 25. (Gen. xxiv. 14. 19. Isa. vi. 11. xxvi. 20. xxx. 17.)
Yet even in this case av is often omitted, see 42, 3. 2. (&).

The future after 6Vai/ in Rev. iv. 9. 6Yai< 8 w a ov a i -to, "u>a Sdf cu>

jtfaovwtat, ot iixoat, ttaaages etc. is certainly used for the subjunct. quando
dederint (comp. 42. 5.), as Iliad. 20, 335. d;u,' di/a^u^(jat,, 6' n s XEV
u|iij:5v/]<jac, a-u-f^. Other Codd. have Swsc or Suxjcotfo Luke xi. 2. xiii. 28.
In Mt. x. 19. most of the authorities favor the subjunctive. The indicative
pres. after o-tav in Rom. ii. 14. is very uncertain, on the other hand
several good Codd. have this mode in Mt. xi. 25. In the better Greek

* K&nOl, regardless of time and mode, translates: orav v-sayLyv TOV VJ^OTOTOXOV cum
primogcnitum introducit.

t In Exocl xv. 16. in the vulgar text we find E'HJJ with subjunc. and ew? a-v in parallel
clauses.

43. OF THE CONJUNCTION av WITH THE THREE MODES. 243

writers it is no where established (Jacobs AnthcL Pal. III. p. 61. ad
Achill. Tat. p. 452. Matth. II. 1197.; also in Diod. Sic. Exc. Vat. p.
100. 1. the indicat. can easily be corrected*, but in the later writers
(comp. Exod. i. 16.) we must admit it (Jacobs in Acta Monac. I. p. 146.
Schafer ind. ad Msop. p. 149.) It is supposed, on external grounds, that
it was unknown to the N. T. writers. More striking still appears this
conjunction with the indicative prater, in narrative style Mr. iii. 11. *&

rtvsvpata otav avfbv E'^EW^EI, rfgoffE'rtwti'Ev, whenever they saw

him (quandocvnqKe), without variation. The Gr. writers would probably
have used here (6V E, oitotnv with) the optative, Herrn. ad Vig. p. 790.f,
but the indicat. there can be explained as well as in otsoi, civ vjrttovto see
above 3. a. Comp. Gen. xxxi. 16. xxxviii. 9. Exod. xvi. 3. xvii. 11. (and
lyjvLxa av Gen. xxx. 42. Exod. xxxiii. 8. xxxiv. 34. xl. 36. and sdv Judg. vi.
3., where also a frequently repeated past action is denoted), but also
Polyb. iv. 32. 5. xiii. 7. 10. (see Schweighauser on the last passage)
comp. Poppo ad Thuc. III. I. p. 3134

6. The particle of design 6'7tcoj with av, denotes a purpose the accom-
plishment of which is doubtful or depends on circumstances, ut sit, si sit,
(see Herm. ad Eurip. Baccli. 593. 1232., de par tic. av p. 120.) ut si fieri
possit, comp. Isocr. ep. 8. p. 1016. Xen. Cyrop. 5, 2. 21. Plat. Gorg.
p. 481. A. see Heindorf ad Plat. Pitted, p. 15.|| In the N. T. it can
be applied to the two following passages which belong here (Acts xv. 17.
Rom. iii. 6. are O. T. quotationsIT, and in Mt. vi. 5. Fritzsche has re-
jected av with many authorities): Luke ii. 35. so that, in this case (if this
happen), Acts iii. 19. Even here it depends frequently on the writer,
whether he will denote the condition, conceived in his mind, by the mode
of expression itself, or speak definitely (without av), because he appre-
hends the condition as certainly going on to fulfilment (Herm. departic.
av p. 121.) In Acts iii. 19. oVtuj av is considered by some as referring to
time: cum venerint. As Kiiriol thinks, this would not be wrong as far as
the subjunct. is concerned, for 6Vtj, as well as other particles of time,
especially the kindred wj can be connected with av and the subjunct.,
where an indefinite point of time is to be denoted : qitandocunque vene-
rint. But the sense, which arises in this way, is not very appropriate,
see Tiltmann Synon. N. T. II. 63.

* As to Odyss. 10, 410. see PassowW. B. II. 392.

t Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 801. would write 6V iv, to indicate that av here belongs to a
verb in the sense of always, comp. Schafer ad De.inosth. III. 192.

t The LXX. have o>f av with the indicat. praet. where a definite past action is spoken
of, as Exod. xxvii. 30. j v 2X0EV 'lax&jS etc.

|| Bengal has already given this interpretation in the chief point ad Rom. iii. 4. and
ad Luke ii. 35.

IT Comp. Septung. Gen. xii. 13. xviii. 19. 1. 20.

244 PA.HT THIRD. USE OP THE VEKB.

In the N. T. av after conjunctions never occurs with the optative, once
with the infinitive 2 Cor. x. 9. tW ^ 86f w wj av sx$o J3 <= I v fyta?, which
is probably to be resolved into w$ av x<j>oj3ot)u tip. tamquam qui velim vos
terrere, comp. Plat. Crit. p. 44. B. TtoM-ots S6|co u>j 0,^,^00,1^1. Accord-
ing to Bretschneider wj av stands here for &aav quasi.

In the N. T. text after relatives lav often stands (as in the Septuagint
and Apocrypha see Thilo ad Acta Thorn, p. 8., sometimes in the Byzan-
tines, e. g. Malala 5. p. 94.) according to the best authorities for av: Mt.
v. 19. (not vii. 9.) viii. 19. x. 14. 42. xi. 27. xvi. 19. Luke xviii. 17.
Acts vii. 7. (in John only once, xv. 7. and even that is not very certain),
as also frequently in the Codd. of Gr., even of Attic writers. The modern
philologists uniformly write av (see Schtifer ad Julian, p. V. Herm. ad
Vig. p. 833. Bremi ad Lys. p. 126.; Jacobs ad Athen. p. 88. judges more
mildly, but see id. in Lection. Stob. p. 45. and ad Achill. Tat. p. 831.
comp. also Valckenaer ad 1 Cor. vi. 18.) The editors of the N. T. have
not yet ventured to do this, and lav for V might have been a peculiarity of
the later (if not already of the earlier) popular language, somewhat as
the German etwan in relative clauses: was etwan geschehen sollte, (when,
something occurs, as it should be). The generalizing of the relative
clause by tftj, added to 6j, (00*1$) is analogous.

44. Of the Imperative.

1. It is not singular that the imperative should sometimes express the
mild permissive sense (which the Romans commonly denote by the sub-
junc. Ramshorn 415.), and we may reckon here from the N. T.: 1 Cor.
vii. 15. et 6 arttcrtfoj xugigftut,, #cogc<j0co lie may separate himself (sepa-
ret se, non impedio), 1 Cor. xiv. 38. si tig d-post, aynoa^co if any one
knows not (will not know), let him be ignorant (to his own disadvantage
per me licet.) But interpreters of the N. T. have much abused these
possible uses of the imperat., as in most of the passages ranged under
this head, this mode has its genuine sense: John xiii. 27. S rtoitis, jtoi^aov
Tfdxtov see Liicke in loc. and Chrysost., Mt. viii. 32. (where Jesus speaks
as the sovereign of the daBmons, comp. the preceding artoatohov), which
cannot be weakened by the abuse of the parallel Luke viii. 32. rtagtxdhow
avtov, iva I it i * e ^ % , xai srtEtgS'ktv', 1 Cor. xi. 6. if a woman cover
not herself, let her also be shaven, i. e. it follows necessarily that she also
be shaven, the one requires the other, as in Gr. writers also the im-
perative can often be expressed by must, comp. Matth. II. 1158.

44. OF THE IMPERATIVE. 245

In Ephes. iv. 26. (a quot. from Ps. iv. 5.) dgy^toOs xai
the former imperative is to be interpreted permissively: be angry (I can-
not prevent it), only do not sin, be angry without your (therein) sinning
(comp. Markland ad Eurip. Suppl. v. 557.) see Theudoret in lot: Anger
(at that which is unchristian) cannot be avoided, (even Christ was angry
with the Pharisees and hypocrites), but it must not degenerate into sin.
How the latter happens, the apostle intimates in the following words.
Harless, who p. 432 rejects this interpretation, gives p. 435. one not es-
sentially different, only more verbose.*" It is doubtful whether Mt. xxvi.
45. xaOsvSe-ti- -tbhoirtbv belongs here. Kypke, Krebs, Knapp and others
take the words interrogatively: do ye sleep on yet? Thus considered, the
usage of the language would scarcely justify the tb xoirtoi/. To deem it
irony, with others, is inconsistent with the spirit of Jesus at tha: moment.
Strengthened and calmed by repeated prayer, he returns the third time
to his sleeping disciples; peace of mind induces mildness, and mildness,
in my apprehension, excludes even the slightest sarcasm. I should there-
fore translate: sleep then for the rest of the time, mid take rest. Jesus
is composed and calm, needs not the disciples feels not alone, although
they sleep. But scarcely has he uttered these words, when he sees the
traitor approach; hence the iov rjyyixsv etc., which he seems to address
to himself, then to the disciples lysigeaOe (which words Kiinol has entirely
misapprehended).

In Mt. xxiii. 32. the permissive use of the imperat., after what Fritz-
sche has remarked, seems to me unquestionable. Despairing of his con-
temporaries, Christ says: now then Jill up the measure (of the sin^ of
your fathers, I sue no reason for supposing irony here. Is Rev. xxii.
11. also to be understood ironically?

2. When two imperat. are connected by xai, the former sometimes ex-
presses the condition (the supposition) under which the action denoted
by the latter will take place (Matth. II. 1159.)f, e. g. Bar. 2, 21. x ^i-

va-fs tbv tlpbv xai gydaaa& ^9 pao&et, xai xa&aa-ti- srti -t^v yjjj/, Epiph.
11. p. 368. e%s tfovj -t. Oeov Xoy. xa-t. ^v%^; aov xai %fiav /oj t%

"Erttijxxwn;, in the N. T. John vii. 52. Igtvuyaov xai ISe, ccmp. in Latin
the well-known divide et impera^.. But this construction is not cho-
sen without reason in the N. T., Igtvvqaov x. 18s expresses a stronger
thought: search and see (convince thyself), search and you must ar-
rive at the conclusion; the iSetv is not a mere possible consequence, but
so necessarily connected with tgswav, that a command to search is at the
same time a command to see, comp. Fritzsche ad Mt. p. 187. 1 Tim.

* If Paul disapproved of every species of anger, he could not have mentioned its
existence among Christians without expressing disapprobation, and even with silent
approbation.

+ Bornemann's quotations ad Luc. xxiv. 39. are of a different nature.

I This cannot be considered a real Hebraism, see Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 776. Ewald
Kril. Gr. p. 653.

31

PART THIRD. USE OF THE VEUB.

vi. 12. dycoj/J^oj/ <tbv xahbv dywra tf^s rttTcfT'fcoj, litfaapov t^j Uitwuov
(where the asyntleton is not without effect) is simply to be translated;
fight the good fight of faith, take hold of (in and by this fight) eternal
life. The l^aa^. tq$ ^w/jj is not here represented (which it might be)
as a consequence of the fight, but as the matter of the strife, and trt&anp.
means not to attain, to obtain. In 1 Cor. xv. 34. the same thought
seems to be expressed by the two imperatives (once tropically, again
literally).

Constructions like John ii. 19. hvcso.'tE tbv vabv tovt'ov, xa.1 sv

yfw u,v-t6v, Jas. iv. 7. avfid'f'^-ts 1*9 6101,30^.9. xw> ^fufEtfai aty
Kph. v. 14. dvatffa tx TUV vexguv, xo.t, Irtifyavaat, GOI o XgtaToj, can be cer-
tainly explained in the same way as two imperatives connected by xai:
if you resist the evil, then will, etc.: but this needs no grammatical re-
mark, as such a use of the imperat. is altogether conformable to rule,
and this lax connection of the two clauses is authorized in German also
(and in Eng. TVs.) Comp. Lucian. adv. ind. c. 29. ^oo^ jcot'ga'aj I-OI^OD?
Ijtiaxf^ft xaL o4-i) dial. deor. 2, 2. tvgv^pa j3atve xai 04/ft, see Fritzsche
as above. It is entirely incorrect, when modern interpreters take the-
imperat. in John ii. 19. xx. 22. for the exact future, appealing to the Heb.
in such passages as Gen. xx. 7. xlv. 18. (Glass Philol. sacr. I. p. 280.).
Inasmuch as the command extends into the future, the future tense, as a
general designation of future time may be substituted for the imperat.,
but the special form of the imperat. cannot, on the other hand, stand for
the more general (the fut.). This would occasion confusion of language,
and the practice alluded to above, like many others, is the result of the
secluded study, not of a careful observation of human language. Ols-
hausen has rightly interpreted John xx. 22. in opposition to Tholuck
(and Klinb'l). On Luke xxi. 19. see Bornemann tichol. p. 129.

3, In Gr. usage the fut. is a milder mode of expressing commands and
incitements than the imperat. (Matin. II. 1122. Bernbardy 378., comp.
Sinlenis ad Pint. Themist. p. 175.) Accordingly some will also inter-
pret Mt. v. 48. saea^s ovi> -t>/mj t&sioi: you ivill therefore (I expect it of
you) be perfect, comp. Xen. Cyr. 8, 3. 47.*. But this requirement, an
imitation of the words in Lev. xi. 46., might be designedly used as the
future for the imperf. But in the O. T. passages containing legal re-
quirements (comp. the quotations in Ml. v. 21. Ads vii. 37. xxiii. 5.
Rom. vii. 7. xiii. 9., comp. also Heb. xii. 20., Fiitzsche ad Mr. p. 524.).,
the future is rather stronger than the imperat.: thou wilt not kill (where
the not killing is represented as a future fact, and consequently unaltera-
ble), i. e. thou shall not kill. The imperat. is in itself as capable of be-
ing used in a milder sense (rather beseeching or advising) and in a severe

* On the Lat., see Ramshorn Gram. p. 421.

44. OF THE IMPERATIVE. 247

one (commanding) as the future, and this will be denoted by the tone of
voice. Take away this stone, may mean, either I beseech, or I com-
mand you to do it. You will take away this stone, is also either a com-
mand or a request, accordingly as it is expressed authoritatively or con.
fidingly.* It is not to be forgotten that the fut. is always used in He-
brew, not the imperat., and it seems as if the fut. might have been gener-
ally used in a more intensive sense among the Hebrews than the impe-
rat. See Ewald Jcrit. Gram. p. 531. (See Bib. Rep. No. 29. p. 131.).

See Tholuck on Rom. vi. 14. which has been incorrectly reckoned
here. The immediately following words, ov yae, tats vttb vopov aw,'
%a.$tv, in view of the doctrine of Paul, ought to have prevented
from being taken imperatively. See also Kollner in loc. The fut.
ver. 15. is manifestly related to this

4. The use of Iva with the aor. to express a command, exhortation, or
wish, may be regarded as equivalent to the imperat., and a circumlocu-

tion for it: 'iva, thOiliv IrtuQris I'd? #tga.j, Eph. V. 33. <yj yvv/i i'va ^oS^T'cu T!QV

Va (as also in Germ.: dass aber die Frau den Mann furchte, let the
wife fear the husband}, perhaps also 2 Cor. viii. 7., and Gieseler (in
Rosenm. Repert. II. 145.) thus explains the more extended usage of
John, as in John i. 8. ovx vjv ixsivos ^6 <j>u>s, aM.' iVa ^^-tv^a^ but he should
bear witness to it, ix. 3. 13. 18., etc. But an ellipsis of a verb always
lies at the foundation of this construction, as among the Greeks before
oVtcuj (Lucian dial. dear. 20, 2. ari^s ovv xaL oVttoj ^'//^oa.ajti^-z'E -t> 8t,xaa-
ty a.1 vevtxqpEvat, etc., Eurip. Cycl. 591. Aristoph. Nub. 824. Xenoph.
Cyrop. 1, 3. 18. 1, 7. 3. Demosth. Mid. 59. a.). So Mr. v. 23.

xahst, avTfbv rto^Xa Xywi/* o-ti, to Ovyd-tgiov /iou Eff^ai'wj "i^C iva, ehOuv' t
avtfi fas xelgas, viz. I entreat thee (possibly itagaxahu as or Ssop.ni, as} or,
as Fritzsche will, from ver. 22.: ^w vcni, 2 Cor. viii. 7. as ye abound,
etc. aim at this, that ye become distinguished (hoc eliain agite, ut).
Gal. ii. 10. is not peculiar, see Winer's comment, in loc. The passages
of this sort in John must be so explained: John i. 8. he was not himself
the light of the world, but appeared (faow ver. 7.) that he might bear
witness, ix. 3. neither this man nor his parents have sinned, but this
happened that might be manifest etc., (comp. 1 John ii. 19.), xiii. 18.
I speak not of you all, I know those whom 1 have chosen, but (to one
my words will apply) that might be fulfilled etc., comp. John xv. 25.

* In Gr. also in questions Vig. p. 453. (wilt thou not allow me?) the fut. is taken
as stronger than the imperat. See Rost Gram. 639. Stallbaum ad Plat. Sympos. p. 18.
Comp. Frankc de parlir.. nr.g. t. p. 23,

248 PART THIRD. USE OP THE VERB.

Mr. xiv. 49., see Frilzsche ad Mt. p. 840.* Stolz translates the above
passage incorrectly: in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, one
lifted up, etc. On 1 Tim. i. 3. see 64. II. 1. Only iW is here pecu-
liar to the N.T. usage: the Greeks use 6'jtwj instead, yet see. Epictet. 23.
ar rttfa^ov xgiveaQa* tfs 6&<fl (o 0oj) iVtt xai tovtov fv^uuif vrtoxgivvi, Arrian.
Epict. 4, 1. 41. There may be reckoned here, (a) Lva with the indie.
instead of the irnperat. among the Byzantines, e. g. Malalas 13. p. 334.
it Q&t-ts (is fiaa&fVEiv v/.iZ>v, Iva rtdvitss Xgiaitiavoi tats, 16. p. 404.
(&) the use of the subjunc. for the fut. in the declining Greek language.
See Hase ad Leon. Dtac. p. 291.

5. The distinction between the imperat. aor. and pres. is generally
observed in the N. T. (Herm. de emend, rat. p. 219. and ad Vig. 746.
comp. H. Schmid de imperativi temporib. in ling. Grs&c. Viteb. 1833.
4to.). () The imper. aor. denotes an action either quickly completed
(transient), and which will be immediately commenced (Ast ad Plat.
Polit. p. 518. Schafer ad Demost, IV. p. 488.) or an action to be per-
formed but once, as Mr. ii. 9. agov aov tbv xgdpfiatov, i. ^l.-
i. 44. asuwtbv 8t|oj> t'qj itgsi, iii. 5. Ixitwov -f^v %sl%d aov, vi. 11. e
tbv %ovv, ix. 43. artoxo^ov a'UT'tjv, John ii. 7. 8. yEjtu'ocWs r'ttj I 05gittj vSttT'05
etc., xiii. 27. rtotqaov T?d%t,ov, xiv. 8. Ssi^ov ^lv -tbv rtatsga, Acts i. 24.
6V fls^afco, xii. 8. jit gip ahov tto Ip-d^tov 0ov, 1 Cor. xvi. 11. jt^o~
av-tbv iv tigqv'y, Acts xxiii. 23. f-totfidaa-te atgaTitotas Siaxoaiovs
without delay make ready for marching (Mr. xiv. 15.). Besides Mr.
ix. 22. x. 21. xiii. 28. xiv. 36. 44. xv. 30. Luke xx. 23. xxiii. 21. John
ii. 8. 16. iv. 35. vi. 10. xi. 39. 44. xiii. 29. xviii. 11. 31. xx. 27. xxi. 6.
Acts iii. 4. vii. 33. ix. 11. x. 5. xvi. 9. xxi. 39. xxii. 13. 1 Cor. xv. 34.
xvi. 1. Ephes. vi. 13. 17. Tit. iii. 13. Philem. 17. Jas. ii. 13. iii. 13.
1 Pet. iv. 1. (6) The imperat. pres. denotes an action being now done, or
continuing. or often repeated, e. g. Rom. xi. 20. ^ v-^qKofygovti, (which thou
doest just now), xii. 20. iav ittiva. 6 J^^oj aov, 4 co ,. J s avtov, xiii. 3.
$o/3f cr^ctt -tviy l^waLuv', -to aya^of ii o I e c. , Jas. 11. 12. o-iiVw Xa-
xo.1 ov'tu itoieZTtt, wj Sta vopov iXfu^s^i/'ttj etc., V. 12. py dfivvete, 1 Tim.
iv. 7. tfovj )3|3ij^ovj xa,l -yga^Sfts jitv^ouj Tta^atT'ou, COmp. Jas. iv. 11. "2 Pet.
iii. 17. 1 Tim. iv. 11. 13. v. 7. IP. 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. vi. 4. John i. 44. vii. 24. xxi. 16. Mr. viii. 15. ix. 7. 39. xiii.
11. xiv. 38. So sometimes the imperat. pres. and aor. are connected in

* In Rev. xiv. 13, also iW avawauerwvTtti may be taken as Ewald does: thnj shall
rest, properly, it is done, so that they may rest.

44. OF THE IMPERATIVE. 249

these different relations, e. g. John ii. 16. agate tavta evtev&v, py
rioi si t E fbv olxov tov rtatgoj (.lov olxov tprtogiov, 1 Cor. XV. 34. t x v y '
3?at Stxeu'coj xal ^ apagt civets, COmp. Plat. rep. 9. p. 572. D. j
toiwv itafav -- VEOV viov iv toi$ tovtov av tf$-t}t> tEt^a^Evov. Ti/'^/tt.
Tt'^et tolvvv xal td avta exE^va rtsgt avtbv yiyvo^Eva (Matth. II. 1128.)
Lucian. dial. mart. 10, 14. xal av ajt6$ov t^v
xai, EXE I'dtir'a, Eurip. Hippol. 473.

6. This distinction is not always observed, and especially does the im-
perat. aor. seem to be used, where the imp. present would have been
most natural. This may be accounted for, if we reflect that it often de-
pends entirely on the writer, whether he will indicate the action as hap-
pening in a point of time, and momentary, or as only commencing, or as
continuing. So ^va-gs Iv IpoL John xv. 4. Acts xvi. 15. etc. (with ^EVEIS
Luke ix. 4. 1 John ii. 28., /.IEVE 2 Tim. iii. 14. ^svi-tu 1 Cor. vii. 24. etc.),

1 John v. 21. ^v^.aiai'fi Eawtovs drcb tfcoj/ slSaKuv (similar 1 Tim. vi. 20.

2 Tim. i. 12., on the contrary 2 Pet. iii. 17. 2 Tim. iv. 15.), Heb. iii. 1.

-tbv artoO'tohov xal ag%(,Ega -t^ o^ioxoyt'aj qfAuv, Mr. xvi. 15.
sij tbv xodfjiov aitavta xir}gv% a--t E to evayyehiov, John xiv. 15.

ta{ Sjiidj tti^aats, comp. 1 Cor. vi. 20. 2 Tim. i. 8. ii. 3. iv.
3. Jas. v. 7. 1 Pet. i. 13. ii. 2. v. 2. The imperat. pres. and aor. of the
same verb are thus connected in Rom. vi. 13. xv. 11. Where the text.
rec. has the imperat. aor. in many passages, the Codd. vacillate, e. g.
Rom. xvi. 17., as also in the Codd. of Gr. authors, these two forms are
often interchanged, Elmsley ad Eurip. Med. $&. 222.

On the imperat. pres. after ^, see 60, 1.

The imperat. perf. is used only where it is intended to express an ac-
tion fully completed, and extending in its effects to the present time, as
Mr. iv. 39. jt$i{M<so, see Matth. II. 1126. Herm. de emend, rat. p. 218.

45. Of the Infinitive.*

1. The infinitive (the absolute or indefinite expression of the signifi-
cation of the verb), placed in immediate grammatical construction with
another verb (finite), is to be taken either as its object or subject. As

* K. E. A. Schmidt on the inftn. Prenzlau, 1823. Svo. M. Schmidt idem. 1826. Svo.
Eichhoff idem. 1833. Svo. Mehlhorn Allg. Lit. Zeit. 1833. Ergzbl. n. 110.

250 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

subject (Matth. II. 1239.), e. g. in Mt. xii. 10. si l&ati, tali; <ya/3/3a<ji
gatt ev si, v is it permitted to heal on the Sabbath (is the healing, etc.
allowed?), xv. 26. ovx tati xa&bv hafiuv tov agtov tuv texvuv, 1 Thess. iv
3. fotn'o sott ^s^fia -tov $BOV ajt%eaat dyto T^J rtogretaj (where 6
dyiatfjMoj vpuv precedes, which could have been expressed also by an in-
finitive, Ml. xix. 10. Luke xviii. 25. Ephes. v. 12. Jas. i. 27. Acts xxv.
27. Rom. xiii. 5. I Cor. vii. 26. Heb. ix. 27. If in such cases the in-
finitive itself has also a subject, it may be either a noun, adjective or
participle, and is usually in the ace., grammatically belonging to the in-
finitive, e. g. Mt. xvii. 4. xahov lanv VII*.<LS w6~ slvai that we. should be here

is etc., XViii. 8. xa&ov W eafw eias^eiv stj tv[v wjj/ 2 coXoi/ vj xvhhov ,

Heb. iv. 6. xiii. 9. John xviii. 14. 1 Cor. xi. 13. 1 Pet. ii. 15. Acts xxv.
27. xv. 22. Comp. Matthias ad Enrip. Med. p. 526. Yet, according to
attraction frequently occurring in Gr. writers, the limiting noun may be
in the dat., if the word in the leading clause to which it relates be in the

dative, as in 2 Pet. ii. 21. xgsi-t'fov vjv auto i j ^ STteyvuxEvav -trfv o8bv
tfvjg Stxatoavvijv ij e rt iyv ov a t>v ETtttfi'fgs^at, Acts XV. 25. (Var.) COmp.
Thuc. 2, 87. Philostr. ApolL 2,28. Demosth./tme&r. p. 153. A. 156. A.
Xenoph. Hier. 10, 2. Matth. II. 1249. Bernhardy 359.

It may be further observed that, (a) The infinit. in this case has some-
times the article, viz. where it is intended to render the signification of
the verb more strikingly prominent by giving it a substantive form (Matth.
II. 1256.), e. g. 1 Cor. vii. 26. xahbv di'^gcarfG) ^6 ovtfa? fti/at, Gal. iv.
18. xahov to ZyKova^at, Iv xoaoi jtdveote the being zealous in that which is
virtuous is etc., Rom. vii. 18. xiv. 21., comp. 2 Cor. vii. 11. Phil. i. 21.
29. and Xen. Mem. 1,2. 1. Diod. Sic. 5, 29. 1. 93.: in 1 Thess. iv. 6.
such an infinit. with the article, is connected with others which have no
article.*' (b] Where the subject is to be particularly specified, instead of
the infinit. we find (as to the sense) a complete clause with ta.v, at, ;w,
Mr. xiv. 21. xa&ov qv <xi;f<J>, fl ovx tytwyOi], 1 Cor. vii. 8. xahbv a-UT'otj
la-ftv, lav fiflwxsiv wj jcayw, John XVI. 7. nv^s^et, vplv) 'iva Jy" drteKdv>'
As to L'va, see below, 9., comp. Luke xvii. 7. This is in part the general
character of the later popular language, which prefers circumstantiality,
in part is owing to th > Hellenistic complexion of the language. Yet
similar constructions occur in Gr. authors, Isocr. Nicocl. p. 40. 46.

2. The infinitive denotes the object (predicate), where it makes up the
necessary complement of the meaning of the verb, not only after efasw,
SvvaaOat-, tfTtouSa^W, etc., but also after verbs signifying to trust, io hope
(I hope to come, etc.), to say, to affirm (I affirm to have been there).

* What Lipsius (Krit. Bibliotlt. 3. Jalirg. 1. B. p. 238.) has remarked on the in fin.
with and without the artic. is apparent from the general statement, that the infinit.
without the artic. fulfils the office of a verb, with the artic. that of a noun.

45. OF THU INFINITIVE. 251

The regular usage needs not to be proved out of the N. T., and therefore

1 shall only remark, (a) If the infinitive in such cases has its own proper
subject different from that of the principal verb, it is put with all its
qualifying words in the accus. (ace. with infin.), 1 Tim. ii. 8.
ttgoatvxsaOat, tovs ai/S^aj, 2 Pet. i. 15. 1 Cor. vii. 10., Acts xiv. 19.
oavta wv-tbv ts^vavai. Yet a complete clause is more frequently formed
with iW after verbs, to beseech) to command, etc. (see n. 9.), with 6Vt af.
ter verbs to say, to believe, Mt. xx. 10. Acts xix. 26. xxi. 29. Rom. iv.
9. viii. 18., after l%jtl%u> always in the N. T. On the other hand if the
infinit. and the principal verb have the same subject, the epithets are put
in the nominative, Rom. xv. 24. sXTtt^w 8iu}togi-v6pEvo$ ^daaadai v^ttj,

2 Cor. x. 2. Sfopat tb /*% ftaguv $appy0a,i, (Philostr. ApolL 2, 23.) Rom.
i. 22. 2 Pet. iii. 14., which is an attraction, comp. Kriiger Grammat.
Untersuch. III. p. 328. The subject is not repeated in this construction.
The ace. with infinitive can also be used in that case (although this is not
frequent), Phil. iii. 13. iyw epavtov oi> hoyiZofiat xarea^^lvat, Luke xx. 20.
vjioxgwoptvovs, tavtovs tlvat,, perhaps also Ephes. iv. 22. (where, accord-
ing to my opinion, arto$ea$at vp.a$ depends on edid%&]Te'), comp. Xen.
Cyrop. 5, 1. 20. vo^i^oifit yag Ipawtbv ioixivat,, etc., 1, 4. 4. (comp. Poppo)
Anab. 7, 1. 30. Mem. 2, 6. 35. Diod. Sic. 1, 50. Philoctr. ApolL 1, 12.
see Kriiger as above p. 3yO. Yet in that place this construction is per-
haps chosen on account of the antithesis (see Plat. Sympos. c. 3. and
Stallbaum in Zoc., comp. Kriiger as above p. 386.) or for the sake of per-
spicuity: I believe not, that I myself already, etc. The later writers
also construe thus where there is no contrast, comp. Heinechen ad Euseb.
H. E. 1. p. 118. (Plat. Prolog. 346. B.). (6) After the verbs to say (to
affirm}, to believe, the infinitive sometimes expresses, not that of which
some one affirms, that it is, but that which ought to be (inasmuch as the
idea of advising, demanding, or commanding, is rather implied in these
verbs, see Elmsley ad Soph. (Ed. T. p. 80. Matth. II. 1230.), e. g.
Acts xxi. 21. a,lywi/, P.VI ttsgitfpvsw a.vi!ov$ to, tsxva, he said, they ought
not to circumcise their children (he commanded them, not to circumcise
their children), comp. Diog. L. 8, 2. 6., Acts xv. 24. heyovtss jts^-es^vs^-
cu xai tygelv tbv kdycw, affirming, they ought to permit themselves to be
circumcised, etc., xxi. 4. ?> ncuA^ exsyov jtwj wufiuiviiv sl$ e lo<j. they said
to Paul, that he should not go (advised Paul not to go), etc. If the
clause should be resolved into a direct address, the imperat. would be
used here, ^ jttgttepvstE ta tixva, -fytwi/. Comp. on this infinitive (which
modern writers interpret by supplying Belv) Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 753.
Buttm. ad Demosth. Mid. p. 131. Engelhardt ad Plat. Lach. p. 81.
Jen. Litt. Zeit. 1816. No. 231., Bernharcly 371. Bahr in Creuzer

252 PAKf fiitRto. USE OF THE vfiufl.

Melet. Ill- p. 88. In the N. T. however too many passages are
referred to this head, Rom. xiv. 2. 8; psv T^atBvn qayetv jtavtu means:
the one has the confidence to eat, and the may. (the liberty) is implied
in the rttatevsiv. In Rom. ii. 21. and Eph. iv. 22. the verbs to pro-
claim and to be instructed, on which the infinitives depend, denote ac-
cording to their nature, that which is (and must be believed) as well as
that which shall be (shall be done), and we say in the same manner:
they preached not to steal, you have been taught to give up. Acts x.
22. x^tinafi^sa^M is found, which almost always is used of an instructing
oracle, of divine counsel. Finally, if after the verb to beseech the in-
finitive must be translated by may, it lies already in the signification of
these verbs in the particular context, 2 Cor. x. 2. Sso^at *6 JMJ jtngiav a/5-
ffiaat, *ij ftcrtoi&itsai, xiii. 7.* (c) The article is used before an infinitive
of the object to make it a substantive and render it more strikingly pro-
minent, Rom. xiv. 13. Acts iv. 18. Luke vii. 21. 1 Cor. iv. 6. 2 Cor.
ii. 1. (comp. above p. 97.) viii. 10. Phil. iv. 10. (Herm. ad Soph. Ajac.
114.), especially in the beginning of sentences (Thuc. 2, 53. Xen. Mem.
4, 3. 1.) 1 Cor. xiv 39. to jutM-tv y^ooais /MJ xu>Kveje (comp. Soph. Phi-
loct. 1241. 6j ae xuhvasi, to Sgav); in Phil. ii. 6. ov% dgrfoy/iov ^y^rfcWo
t o f I v a. i laa, s the article with the infinit. forms the subject to the
predicate agrtaypbv, COmp. Thuc. 2, 87. ov%i 8t,xaiaj> e%si, itexp.agai'V -t 6
ixfyofiyvat,, and Bernhardy 316.

The infinitive (in Luke most frequent) after sysveto, is especially to
be remarked, as in Mr. ii. 23. ly'tvsto rtagartogtvfaSai aiitov accidit, ut
transiret, Acts xvi. 16. lyev. rtuiblaxriv tiv& -- artavetjaat vjplv, xix. 1.
sysv. Iluvhov St,sh$6vta -- h$iiv e?s v E<JiEtfov, xxi. 1. 5. xxii. 6. xxvii. 44.
xxii. 8. 17. iv. 5. ix. 3. 32. 37. 43. xi. 26. xiv. 1. Luke iii. 21. vi. 1. 6.
xvi. 22. f Here the clause with the infinitive must be considered as the
subject of 6yfi/i'o, as after swifty (see immediately below] and in Lat. after
sequwn est, apertum est, etc. (Zumpt Gram. 505.): it happened (that)
Jesus went through, etc., literally, the passing along of Jesus happened}.
The construction therefore is correctly conceived in the Greek, although
the frequent use of lyivt-ta with the infin. instead of the historical tense
of the verb is an imitation of the Hebrew *JT1. In the Greek crwl/%
tlvai xogwovaw is grammatically parallel, Diod. Sic. 1, 50.

* In 2 Cor. ii. 7. %a.fto-a.tr&at KM 7rjaaXeV are not to be understood of that which
is done, but of thai which should be done. Here Mv is not to be supplied, but the
clause with luavov continues to have an effect upon these infinitives: the reproach is
sufficient in order that on the contrary you now forgive him, etc.

t The same construction is followed in Acts xxii. 17. lyji/sro ^,01 iiTwrgl^avn eij
'lejsy;. -- yivia-Qai ptlv Ijto-Taogi, where the infinit. might as well have depended on
fjioi uTros-Tf. (accidit mihi), and perhaps would, if the writer had not been led off from
the construction begun by the intervention of a genit. absol.

45. Of THE HVFlWlTIVJi. 253

3, 22. 39. Demosth. adv. Palycl. p. 709. and many others, especially in
Polyb. (also 2 Mace. iii. 2), also once in Acts xxi. 35., see the germ
of this construction in Theogn. 6539. jto"M.ax<, y<,'yj>tfat svgtov gy' av-
$MV, with which Mt. xviii. 13. best corresponds.

The use of the ace. with infin. is not proportionally frequent in the N.
T.: a clause with 6Vt is more common (see Wahl II. 19.), after the man-
ner of the later (popular) language, which expands the contracted con-
structions and prefers more circumstantiality and definiteness. Hence in
Latin ut where the (more ancient) language used the ace. with infin., and
especially quod after verba se.ntle.ndi and dicendi, which becomes more
frequent in the epoch of the declining Latin language (principally in the
provinces out of Italy). The more concise construction in German er
sagte, ich sey zu sp'dt gelcommen (he said, I had come too late] is more
extended in the language of the common people: he said, that I had come
too late. It must not be overlooked in regard to the N. T. that, after
verbs of speaking, the very words of the speaker are quoted, (see Wahl.
II. 18.), according to the perspicuous mode of representation which
characterizes the oriental idiom.

3. The infin. (without respect to the grammatical relation of the ob-
ject) can be added to several words or whole clauses for the sake of more
precision (where we say to, in order to) and forms in that case very lax
constructions (a) Luke viii. 8. s%u>v Z>*a ax ov B t, v , 1 Cor. ix. 5.

t^ovaiav yvvaixa rtsgtaystv*, 2 Tim. i. 12. SwttT'os yv tyjv rtaga^jjjc^v pov
a,afat, 1 Pet. iv. 3. agxstb$ 6 z^ovos tov jStou xutgydaaaai, (like a
with infin.), Heb. iv. 1. vi. 10. Luke ii. 1. 1 Cor. vii. 39. 1 Pet. i. 5.
Acts xiv. 5. comp. Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 117. Matth. II. 1237. Bern-
hardy p. 361. Infinitive with the accusative of the subject Rom. xiii.
11. wa qpds ^897 l| vrtvov sys^yjvac COmp. Soph. Ajac. 245. (241.).
(&) Mr. vii. 4. a Tta^&ajSov x^attlv which they have agreed to observe, Mt.
xxvii. 34. eSuxav av-tcp rttslv o|oj (comp. Apollod. 1, 1. 6. Thuc. 4, 36.
Isocr. Trapez. p. 862. Lucian. Jlsin. 43. Necyom. 12. Diog. L. 2, 6. 7.)
(c) Heb. V. 5. ov% tavtov l6t-aae ysv^vat, agzugEa, Col. iv. 6. (5 Ao'yo?

vpuv caatfj, qgfvpevos, s i i v a, i ?twj dti i^waj etc. to Icnow or that

you know, Rev. xvi. 9. ov (tsitsvmjaw Sovvai, ai>t$ S6%av, 2 Cor. ix. 5. hi
rtgolTi^ocrt tj v/taj xai itgoxaTtag-tiauat, -fbv 7tg03cai > ^yy^ / u,'^i' tvhoyiav vpZ>v
tavtqv stotpqv el vac, etc. that the same might be ready. This
subjoined infin. is used most frequently of the design or object (in order

* Tou is not to be supplied here (Haitinger in Act. Monac. III. 301.); it is properly
used when the infinit. is epexegetical. This twofold construction is represented
somewhat differently by Matth. II. 1235. So in Lat. Cic. Tusc. 1, 41. tempvs est
ABIRE, comp. Ramshorn p. 423., otherwise abeundi. See Stallbaum ad Plat. Phil. p.
213. ad Euthyphr. p. 107. (As in Luke i. 9. we have !^. ro5 6 V ^^ so in De-
mosth. c. Neacr. p. 517. C.
32

254 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

to) Mt. ii. 2. foSopsv rtgoaxwijaat. cM&*9 in order to adore him, I Cor. i. 17.
x. 7. Mt. xi. 7. xx. 28. Luke i. 17. John iv. 15. Col. i. 22. (Plat. Phsed.
p. 96. A.) Mr.iii. 14. Heb. ix. 24. Actsv. 31. John xiii. 24. vsvei, tovty
^fiuv n. * v e a a t (comp. Diod. Sic. 20, 69.) also belongs here, and
in Rev. xxii. 12. the infill. ajtoSovvat, is according to the sense connected
with I'gzcytcM. #ee Matth. II. 1234. Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. I. p. 259.
Held ad Plut. Timol. p. 410. Such a relation is sometimes more clearly
designated by fiats before the infinit. Luke ix. 52. Mt. xxvii. 1., which
particle, e. g. in Mt. x. 1. was necessary for a more pliant construction.
On Mr. xxvii. 1., where the interpretation of Fritzsche is very forced,
comp. Strabo 6, p. 324. and Schafer ad Bos. Ellips. p. 784. ad Soph.
(Ed. Col. p. 525. Matth. II. 1232. In the Byzantines especially fiats
is very common instead of the mere infin. e. g. Malala p. 385. epovhsvaato
fiatt E3cj3to?bjvoM, tvjv rtsv^Egav p. 545. Comp. also Heinichen ind. ad Euseb.
III. p. 545. Euseb. H. E. 3, 28. offers a parallel with Luke: issk&iv riots Iv
pahavsitp fiats hovaaa^ai,. This extended application of the particle in the
later language should be rather recognised in the N. T. than to suppose
it an involved construction. (After the verbs to go, to send the participle
(fut.) is more frequently used by the Greek writers).

Among the Greeks the use of an epexegetical infinit. is yet more ex-
tended, and often very loosely connected with the sentence, see Schafer
ad Soph. II. 324 ad Eurip. Med. 121. Jacob, ad Lucian. Toxar. p.
116. Held ad Pint. JEm. Paul. p. 185. Matth. II. 1235. Such a lax
infin. is found only a few times in the N. T. Acts xv. 10. ti rtsigdgets

tbv $sbv it t, si v at, , vybv irtL tbv tgd%qhov tuv p.a^tuv, and with" the
art. Phil. iv. 10. oti vjotj jtots avt^dhsts to vrtsg E /& o v fygovstv}
this infin. must be resolved by fiats, see Herm. ad Soph. Ajac. 114.,
ad Philoct. p. 223. If we read in 1 Thess. iii. 3. with the better
Codd. to pqSeva, cra<,W<jat, the infin. is probably to be considered depend-
ent on rtagaxahsant, and as an expletive of jts^l tvjs rti,atco$: in order to
encourage you, that no one waver, i. e. should waver, see Matth. II. 1262.
"flats with infin. in a clause expressing design, end, needs little re-
mark, as the infin. in such a case is properly epexegetical and can also
be used without fiats. Herm. ad Vig. p. 998. On fiats with indicat.
see 42. note 1. "% with infin. (except the formula wjfVtoj sirtt-w Heb.
vii. 29. see Matth. II. 1265.) is found only in Acts xx. 24. oi>Ssvbs hoyov

Ttoiovpai, OVOE %%o t^v \vxn v t j - ov ^ i ^- v spavtcp, wj z'sfl.stwffac tbv Sgo-

pov (JLOV psta #aga$, where Stolz had no need to insert a negative. In
Heb. iii. 11. iv. 8. an O. T. quotation (where "V2J$ corresponds) it occurs
with the indicative (in the signification so that, therefore] ; but in both
passages it might without this parallel mean as, and this signification is to
be received in Mr. iv. 27.

4. The infinitive rendered decidedly a noun by means of the article, is
also found in the oblique cases, and in the N. T. (more frequently than

45. OP THE INFINITIVE. 255

in the Gr. writers) it usually appears as a genitive, (a) dependent on
nouns, and verbs, which also elsewhere govern this case : 1 Cor. ix. 6.
ovx Hzopsv l^ovaiav toy [iq tgyotff 0at; 1 Pet. iv. 17. 6 xaigbs tov affaff^at
tfo xglpa etc., Acts xiv. 9. jtitMw %et, fov cfw^iji/tu, XX. 3. ljiv'foyv^[irj i!ov
, Luke xxiv. 25. jSgaSsts -ty xagSux. -tov rtrt-tivBtv, Acts xxiii. 15.
vstelv (Septuagint Ezek. xxi. 11. 1 Mace. v. 39.); Luke i.
9. ha%s -tov Svfudant, (I Sam. xiv. 47.) 2 Cor. i. 8. <Za<ts Itajtc^^Sjvat

i/ta? xat,' 4 o v jjj>, 1 Cor. xvi. 4. lq.v q Sfeiov tov xaps rtogsvtaSat, if it be

worth while for me to go. Comp. 1 Cor. x. 13. Acts xv. 23. xxiii. 15. Luke
xxii. 6. Phil. iii. 21. 2 Cor. viii. 11. Rom. vii. 3. xv. 23. Heb. v. 12.
(Septuag. Gen. xix. 20. Ruth ii. 10. Neh. x. 29. Judith ix. 14.). Pas-
sages from Greek writers see in Georgi Vind. p. 325. Matth. II. 1256,
(They frequently insert several words between the article and the infin.,
which is not done in the N. T. because of the simplicity of its diction,
Demosth. funebr. p. 153. A. 154. C.) Comp. above, 3. note. Sometimes
the Codd. vacillate between the infinitive with and without lov, Rev.
xiv. 15.

Here belong also Luke i. 57. ltt^li<sQtj 6 zg v s *v * s xv si v avtyv, ii.
22. comp. Septuagint Gen. xxv. 24. xlvii. 29., as the writer conceived
of the genitive as directly dependent on %g6vo$. In the Hebrew it is.
somewhat different, viz. infinit. with ^ see Ewald 621.

(5) In reference to whole clauses, in order to express design (see
Valcken. ad Eurip. Hippol. 48. Ast ad Plat. legg. 1, 56. Schafer ad
Demosth. II. 161. V. 378. Ellendt ad Jlrrian. Alex. 1. p. 338. Matth.
II. 1256.) where the ancient philologists supply svexa or #agn/: Acts xxvi.
18. dvoij-at, d<j>0atytoi)f uv-tZv -t o a5 eTtia-tge-fyai, artb axotovs tj <j>wf, XVJii. 10.
ovSci; IrttOqtiETtat (Sot, ? o v xaxuaat as, Mr. iv. 3. t^KOsv o artsigtov t o v

tfrtetgao (where only two Codd. omit the article), Luke xxii. 31. If^ffowo
fytctj tfoii awiaaui ibj tbv aitov, Heb. X. 7. I8ov rjxa -- -tov rtoLqaaii, 1 Cor.
x. 13., with the negation Rom. vi. 6. Iva, xatagyi]d>fl to aufji.n *%$ d^agi'taf,
t ov pyx * (, qUO minus') Sovksvsw ty a^a^tia, Acts xxi. 12. Jas. V. 17.
Luke xxiv. 29. Acts x. 30. Ephes iii. 17. Col. iv. 6. Heb. xi. 5. This
mode of construction is particularly common in the writings of Luke and
Paul. But Gr. prose writers also, especially since the time of Demosth.,
afford a multitude of parallel examples, and this use of the genit. results
so manifestly from the primary idea of this case itself (Bernhardy Synt.
174.), that neither ellipsis nor Hebraism can be found in it. Comp. Xen.

Cyrop. 1, 6. 40. -gov Se ^5' evTevOsv 5x<j>i;y<:w, axojtov? ttov yiyvopevov xad-

t'tf^j. Plat. Gorg. p. 457. E. $oj3oi/tot ovv Sce^x^v, as, ^ /** i,*adpys
ov rte;bs T'O rt^ayjua fyCKove ixovvtn hsysiv, ^ot) xar'a^avfj ysrsueat, etc. 1, 3. 9.

256 TAUT THIRD. USE OP THE VERB.

Strabo 25. 717. Demosth. Phorm. p. 603. B. Isocr. JEgin. p. 932. Plato
Gorg. p. 457. E. Thuc. 1, 23. Heliod. JEih. 2, 8. 88. 1, 24. 46. Dion.
Hal. IV. 2109. Arrian. Mex. 2, 21. 3, 25. 4. and 28. 12. Liban. oratt.
p. 120. B.

The infinit. of design is found also in Phil. x. 4., where -fov yvwj/at is
connected with verse 8., and is a resumption of the thought there ex-
pressed. (In the Septuagint this infinit. occurs in the same way, comp.
Gen. xxxv. 16. xxxviii. 9. xliii. 17. Judg. v. 16. ix. 15. 52. x. 1. xi. 12.
xv. 12. xvi. 5. xix. 3. 8. 15. xx. 4. Ruth i. 1. 7. ii. 15. iv. 10. Neh.
i. 6. 1 Sam. iii. 28. ix. 13. 14. xv. 27. 1 Kings xiii. 17. Judith xv. 8.
1 Mace. iii. 20. 39. 52. v. 9. 20. 48. vi. 15. 26. Joel iii. 12.). In-
finitives with and without tov are connected in Luke ii. 23.

The use of the infinit. with tov after verbs signifying to be distant

from, to detain, to hinder, is different, and, nearly allied to the genitive

sense, is to be referred to (a) above, as these verbs are naturally and

regularly followed by the genit.ofa noun: Rom.xv. 22. Ivsxottitopqv *ov

i-^tflv, Luke iv. 42. xal fi%ov airtbv t ooj py rtogevEaSat (comp. Isocr. Cp. 7.

&7te%st,v * ov tiva$ o.fiox'tBivBiv, Xen. Mem,. 2, 1. 16.), Actsx. 47. ^*t -eb
oi'Scog xuft-vcso.1 Svvattai tf.j *tov /.i^ part? la^vai, Z'OVT'OUJ, xiv. 18. jitdft.ij xa-fs-
rtavacw T'OVJ o^Xouj rov /.ly &VEIV av-fotj (comp. rtavsw ttivd lYvoj and
infinitive with toy Diod. Sic. 3, 33. Phalar. ep. 35., also qav%d$t,v
slv JVIalalas 17. p. 417.), XX. 17. ov ya^ vrteatsiKdpriv tfoaJ
vp-etv rtaaav ii\v j3ov^.rjv i?ov $eov (comp. ver. 20.), 1 Pet. iii. 10.
t^v y^uitftfav (Mrtov drto xaxov xai xt&i] OfVTfov tov ju^ ^a^sao SoTiov, Luke
xxiv. 16. (Sus. 9. Gen. xxix. 35. 3 Esr. ii. 24. v. 69. 70. Act. Thorn.
19. Protev. Jac. 2. a.). Perhaps also q>svysw and sxtyevysw tov ftotrjaat,
would be best so interpreted (like tysvysw twos), Xen. Anab. 1, 3. a.,
comp. Bernhardy p. 356.

In Rom. i. 24. rtageSuxsv aAitovs o Osbs -- sij uxaQaQGiav <tov oli'^a^Eff-
Oai -fa (jtd^iai'a aAifuv Iv tawtois, the infinit. depends immediately on the
noun axadaga., and the omission of -gyjv before axaO. is not singular (xv.
23. 1 Cor. ix. 6.); the genit. denotes that in which the dxaO. consisted:
commisit impuritati, tali, qitse cernebatar in cet. (with which Thuc. 7. 42.
may be compared). So also Rom. viii. 12. as Fritzsche ad Matfh. p.
844. has shewn. Finally, in Luke i. 73. tov Sovvac, is most naturally
connected with

It soon became usual to employ this construction in a looser sense, not
only (a) after verbs of (beseeching)*, commanding (which is parallel to
xstevttv Iva), concluding, in which instrumental design is implied: Acts
xv. 20. xgt/Vw Irfitfi'EtTicu. o-utfcHj tov artl^fcrflai to send to them the com-
mand to withhold themselves, Luke iv. 10. toi$ dyylT-otj avtov Ivtsteitac
jtt-%1 aov lov Sta^nXa'la^, (otherwise Fritzsche ad Matt. p. 847.) I Cor. vii.
37. (where it is harsh to consider the words xal tovio avtov as an in-

* Comp. Malalas Cfiron. 14, p. 357. Mfa.ro "AvywrrA T. ^-i^., TOW XT eQsl'v
i7 T. u.y. rtTTcus, 18. p. 4G1,

45. OF THE INFINITIVE. 257

termediate clause, and make toy t^. dependent on itoixr.), Acts xxvii. 1.
comp. Ruth ii. 9. 1 Kings i. 35. 1 Mace. iii. 31. v. 2. ix. 69. Malal.
Chron. 17. p. 422. 18. p. 440. 458. Ducas p. 201. 217. 339. Fabric.
Pseudepigr. I. 707. Vit. Epiph. p. 346. (&) but also for epexegesis,
where an infinit. with or without fats could be used, and the signification
of the genitive is lost in the mingling of the result and the design. So
very frequently in the Septuagv (h with the infinit. denotes both design
and result; of E^ with the infinit. see afterwards'). From the N. T. comp.
Acts vii. 19. ovtfoj xui!a(ioq>i,<sd[*svos -- txaxuds T'O-UJ rtcrtegas fyftuv -t o v
fxOs-tu T'a |3g$^ etc., (where it would be very forced to take <tov
tiv for a genit. partit.), yet more barbarous iii. 12. u>$ tiEitoiyxoai *ov
avtov (1 Kings xvi. 19.). In ! ,*,hese passages I cannot approve
of Fritzsche's interpretation (ad Matt. p. ,846.), for on this plan many
passages of the Septuag. either could not be interpreted at all, or in a
very forced manner. The following may be compared: Jos. xxii. 26.
slrtapev rtoiqdat, oiVw "t ov oixoSopqaat,, 1 Kings xiii. 16. oi> ^ ovvctpat,
f ov E rt. t,o t e,k 4-at (1 Mace. vi. 27.), xvi. 19. vitle, tuv apagniuv avgov,
Ztv Irtoitjde tfov jto^aat, #0 rtovqgov ete. Vlii. 16. yfkBsv ercl -trjv xagSiav
tov otxoSoftjjaat,, Judith xiii. 12. sartovSasav t!ov xataprjvat, xiii. 20.
aoi, aifa 6 Osos tj v-tyog o,iu>viov 'toy erttaxetyaaOai tf sv dya^otj, 1 MaGC. vi.
59. gfyaiopEv awTtois -f ov rtogtvsaOai, I'otj vojiit^otj, Ruth i. 16. [X.YI a,rt<wi!q-
<jai pot, tfov xa-tafartsiv as, Joel ii. 21. a^wsyaMwE xvgio$ T'OOJ

How manifold the use of the infinit. with tov is in the Septuag. may
be seen by the following passages, which can be easily classified, and
shew, some more and some less clearly, the relation denoted by the geni-
tive: Gen. xxvii. 1. xxxi. 20. xxxiv. 17. xxxvi. 7. xxxvii. 18. xxxix. 10.
Exod. ii. 18. vii. 14. viii. 29. ix. 17. xiv. 5. Jos. xxiii. 13. Judg. ii. 17.
21. 22. viii. 1. ix. 24. 37. xii. 6. xviii. 9. xxi. 3. 7. 1 Sam. vii. 8. xii.
23. xiv. 34. xv. 26. 1 Kings ii. 3. iii. 11. xii. 24. 3 Est. i. 33. iv. 41.
v. 67. Judith ii. 13. v. 4. vii. 13. Ruth i. 12. 18. iii. 3. iv. 4. vii. 15.
Ps. xxvi. 13. So also Philo ad Act. Thorn, p. 10. Such an infinit. in
the Byzantines is not unfrequent, e. g. Malalas 18. 452. 18. 491. comp.
index to Ducas pag. 639., where p.- 320. even occurs si jSouXsi-at tot
si vat, $>c\oj, Comp. p. 189., and p. 203. SwoWcu tov avtaTtox^t^vat,. In
this use of the *ot) must be acknowledged an excess of the declining
(Hellenistic) Greek, unless we prefer to explain it as an involved con-
struction. This mode of speech seems to have become with the Hellen-
ists an imitation of the infinit. with ^ in its numerous relations; and as
happens in customary, established forms, they no more conceived it in
the sense of the genitive.* It is besides analogous to the manner of the

* In ^Esop. 172. de Fur. occurs 2j(MXXv, a^j, T < Kur ^ fai wtnv, where Schttfer,
adverting only to the use of the genit. infin. in 4, (b), would reject the TW.

258 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

Byzantines, who place XatE before the infinitive after such verbs as dray-
xd^Ew, jSouJK-wdflat, SOXEW etc., see Index to Malalas ed. Bonn.*

In Rev. Xll. 7. iyevsto rtd/u^woj EV t<$ ovgavq -- Mt^cw^ xal ol ayy&ot,
ojv-tov tov recks fiy a at (where others have the connection Irtox.l^aat),
the construction is one which I cannot explain, unless 6 M^. xal ol ayy.
avtbv is to be considered an unapt parenthesis, which rendered it neces-
sary for the author again to supply the tysv mo^os and the phrase tov
Tim. I think Fritzsche's interpretation (ad Mutth JExc. 2. p. 944.) arti-
ficial, and it is certainly very difficult with Liicke (Einleit in d. Offen-
bar. Joh. p. 216.), from syEvsto to supply syevovto (appeared, came] to
6 Mt#. etc. In Acts x. 25. the tov is probably to be rejected, as in many
good Codd. However lysvEto tov flai^9siv would be a verbatim transla-
tion of the Heb. Nn 1 ? TH, see Gesen. Lehrgeb. Yet as the LXX.
themselves do not translate this phrase so literally, it is much less to be
expected in Luke. In Luke xvii. 1. avEvfaxtov latt tov ^ E^OE^V to,
crxaj'SaXa some Codd. omit the tov- If genuine, the genitive probably
proceeds from the idea of distance or exclusion, which is implied in wiv-
8sxt. Camp. p. 256.

5. The dative of the infinit. indicates the cause (which idea already
belongs to this case, see 31, 3. c.) Matth. II. 1258. Schafer ad De-
fflOSth.li. 163. 2 Cor. li. 12. ovx E<s%9]xa V.VEOW tf^ ftVEv/Aaiti p.ov i? 9 /^rj
tv^tiv Tltov, comp. Xen. Cyrop. 4, 5. 9. Demosth.ywne&r. p. 156. B.
ep. 4. p. 1 19. B. Achill. Tat. 5, 24. Lucian. Abdic. 5. Diog. Laert. 10, 17.
Himer. 4, 2. Joseph. Antt. 14, 10. 1. Agath. 5, 16. This infinit. in
1 Thess. iii. 3. must be taken as implying the design, t p^S I va or on'
v E a at, lv tfats Qhifysat, in order that no one be shaken, as if for the not
being shaken (Schott in loc.), which is subordinate to the tj T'O ert^gigat
and therefore not again expressed in this form. In Gr. however no such
dat. infinit. occurs, and it ought probably to be read as good Codd. have
it, to wS. cran'. See above, 3.

6. In oblique cases the infinit. is often connected with prepositions, es-
pecially in historical style (in the N. T. rather more frequently than in
Gr. authors), in which case the article is never omitted. f Mt. xiii. 25.
lv tip xuOEvSEw tovs tti/egwrfoDs during the sleeping of the people (whilst
the people slept) Gal. iv. 18., Luke i. 8. Acts viii. 6. lv ^9 axovsw during
the hearing, i. e. as, because they heard (Xen. Mem. 2, 1. 15.), Acts iii.
26. Ivhoyovvta, <fytoV lv ^9 urtootB$w etc. by the turning away; 1 Cor.

* The Greeks themselves could apprehend this infin. as a genitive after such verbs
as Juva^ccti, 8i\a, etc. in as much as the action expressed by the infinit. is dependent on
the principal verb, as a part of the whole.

t Comp. Theodoret. III. 424. ano KUS&VW TO nopa, IV. 851. na^a, o-yj/xX<&W0<. It
occurs sometimes in the Greek prose writers (Bernhardy 353. Kuhner II. 352.).

45. OF THE INFINITIVE. 259

x. 6. e I j T-O w tlvat, ^ck Irtrtvwitas xuxZv in order that you may not be,
(Xen. Cyrop. 1, 4. 5. Anab. 8, 20.); 2 Cor. vii. 3. lv tots xagSlnts ypuv
sate ttj *6 ewarto6<wstv etc. even to dying with you, so that I would die
with you; 2 Cor. viii. 6. 2y *6 itagaxaheaat <yf*.as Titov so that we besought
Titus (properly, to the beseeching etc. comp. Xen. Anab. 7, 8. 20.)*,
Heb. xi. 3.; Heb. ii. 16. $ to, jtdvtos tov tyv through the whole life, Phil,
i. 7. S i a -to e%sw jua sv ty xagSt'a -u/tas because I have you etc. Acts viii. 11.
xviii. 2. Heb. vii. 23. (Xen. Cyrop. 1, 4. 5. Jlfem. 2, 1. 11. Strabo 11,
525. Polyb. 2, 5. 2.); Jas. iv. 15. d / 1 1 tov heysw vpas instead of your
saying (Xen. Apol. 8.); Mt. vi. 8. jt g 6 -r'at) v^iaj at-i^erat before you ask
Luke ii. 21.;Mt. vi. 1. rtg6$ nbeEaOtjvata^-fo^inordertobeseenoft
2 Cor. iii. 13. 1 Thess. ii. 9., ^atfa, with ace. Mt. xxvi. 32. pttu tb
difvcu /*. a/for wiy rising (resurrection), when 1 shall have been raised,
Luke xii. 5. Mr. i. 14. (Herodian. 2, 9. 6. 3, 5. 12.; slvexsv *ov ^owetgw-
erjvni, -t^v artovSqv vpuv 2 Cor. vii. 12.) Thuc. 1, 45. Demosth. fun. p.
516. A. B. Herod. 3. 32.

By Paul, design is very frequently expressed by the infinit. with jt^os
or df, although the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in such cases
prefers a nom. derivat. See Schulz on Epist. to Heb. p. 146.

The infinit. with jt&v or itglv % (Reitz ad Lucian. IV. 501. ed. Lehrn.)
may be considered as a nominal infinit., for John iv. 49. xa-tdpyOt, ttgiv
drtoOavslv -to rtatSiov jttou is equivalent to rt%b toy artoO. etc. This particle
is used not only of a future event (Matth. II. 1200.) Mt. xxvi. 34. (Acts
ii. 20.), but also of a past (Xen. Cyrop. 3, 3. 60. Anab. 1, 4. 13. Herodi.
1, 10. 15.) in connection with preterites Mt. i. 18. Acts vii. 2. John viii.
58., yet it stands with infinit. aorist. As to rtgiv % comp. Herod. 2, 2.
4, 167. ^El. V. H. 10, 16.

7. The infinit. is used for the imperat. except in antiquated and epic
style (therefore in prayers Bremi ad Demosth. p. 230. comp. also the
ancient formula of salutation xaJL^sw in oracles Herm. ad Vig. p. 743.
Siebelis ad Pausan. 9, 18. 4. and in laws Ast ad Plat. legg. p. 71.), in
prose (designedly) only in vivacious, impassioned style, or one which is
imperative (see Herm. ad Soph. (Ed. T. 1057. Poppo ad Thuc. 1. 1. p.
146. ad Cyrop. p. 309. Sehafer ad Demosth. III. 530.; more frequently
in Plat, see Heindorf ad Plat. Lys. p. 21. Ast ad Polit. p. 552. Bern-
hardy p. 358.). In most of those passages in the N. T., where the use
of the infinit. for the imperat. has been considered too much extended
(Georgi Hierocr. 1. 1. 8. adduces entirely inappropriate examples), the-

* The rendering of the infin. with e'f by so that cannot be objectionable, as ait is
employed in expressing both the design and the result. Comp. Eurip. Bacch. 1161.
Trac. 1219.

260 1'A.KT THIRD. USE OF THE VJittB.

form taken for infinitive is the optative 1 Thess. iii. 11. 2 Thess. iii. 5.
ii. 17. 1 Pet. v. 10. 2 Cor. ix. 10. (var.); in other places however the
right construction was overlooked by the interpreters. In Rom. xii. 15.
there is a variation in the structure (see verses 9. 10. - 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.)
comp. Arrian. Alex. 4, 20. 5., and the infinit. is used no more for the
imperat. than ver. 7. 6 BtSdaxwnom. for SiSaaxa'Kiav. Luke ix. 3. the
zituvas #"'5 as this negation shows, is not parallel with p,ij8ev aUg
(then it ought to be p^Ss #.), but with pfoe aj3S. etc., and the writer
has mingled two different constructions, see Bornemann in loc. comp-
64. III. 1. He could also write in the preceding elite mgbs av-

rfoiij nySsv al^sw sis -t. 68., (wits pdjiSov J&EIV to take nothing for the

way, to have neither staff nor etc. (as also in the parallel passage Mr.
vi. 8. a variation of the structure is to be seen). And in such addresses
consisting of several members, (also in Arrian. Alex.} the imperat. and
infinit. are immediately connected, e. g. 4, 20. 5. av vvv p.a&us'ta, $vhn-
| o v tip &^xn v ' " 5 }? av Se ft a g a S ov va i 5, 23. 12. see Ellendt
ad Arrian. Alex. I. 167. (Jacobs ad Jlchill. Tat. p. 799.). In Rev.
x. 9. Sovvat, depends on a-lyco? (commanding), as in Col. iv. 6. elSevat, on
ygtvpevos, see above, 3. Phil. iii. 16. ttj^v sis o J^aofa/tsv, tf<p
of if o i % s t v may be quoted here with more propriety; the infinit.
would not be inappropriate in a precise and powerful admonition (Apos-
tolic command), and could be justified here as well as sometimes in Plato.
I consider this interpretation of the passage, and my own (Gram. Excurs.
p. 115.) preferable to that of Fritzsche (dissertatt in epp. ad Corinth.
II. p. 92.).

8. The well known distinction between the infinit. pres. and aor., as
well as the infinit. aor. and fut. (Herm. ad Vig. p. 771.) is very evidently
observed in the N. T. The infinit. aor. is used : (a) in the narrative
style after a preterite, on which it depends (according to the parity of the
tenses which is particularly observed by the Greeks, see Schafer ad
Demosth. III. p. 432. Stallbaum ad Pldleb. p. 86. and ad Phaed. p. 32.),

e. g. Mr. li. 4. p/q Swdpsvot, rtgoaEyyiaut, o/uT'qi drteetiEyaaav, V. 3.

ovSeis ySviia-to ani"tbv Sqtsai, Luke xviii. 13. ovx rj^ts^sv ovS'e tfoiij o^atytouj
sis tov ov^avbv sitagai, John vi. 21. 1 Thess. ii. 19. Mt. i. 19. viii. 11.
29. xiv. 23. xviii. 23. xxiii. 37. xxvi. 40. Luke xv. 28. vi. 48. xiv. 30.
Acts xxv. 7. xvii. 3. xxviii. 15. This is entirely correct and needs no
illustrations from the Greek writers. The infinit. present, however, some-
times occurs, John xvi. 19.). The infinit. aor. is regularly connected
with the imperat. in Mt. viii. 22. a$s s tovsvsxgovs ^dJ^at ^ov? eavfuv
verse 31. xiv. 28. Mr. vii. 27. (b) Where a (quickly) passing

45. OF THE INFINITIVE. 261

action is to be expressed (Herm. ad Vig. p. 771.), after each tense: e. g.
Mr. xiv. 31. edv (is Sty Ovvurto^avtlv dot,, XV. 31. eawtbv ov Svva^ac ffwcrat,
Mt. xix. 3. si ^tatw <wart9 artohvacH nty ywalxa, (it is but one act) Mt.
v. 13. sis ovSsv iexvs fat, si M fay&jvat, i'fw Comp. John iii. 4. v. 10.
11. 37. ix. 27. xii. 21. Acts iv. 16. Rev. ii. 21. 1 Cor. xv. 53. 8 Cor.
x. 12. xii. 4. 1 Thess. ii. 8. Ephes. iii. 18. Here belongs also John v.
44. (itiatsvew means to exercise faith, to become a believer), (c) After
the verbs, to hope, to promise, to command, to desire, etc. the Greeks
frequently use the infinitive aor. (Lob. ad Phryn. p. 751. Poppo ad Xen.
Cyrop. p. 153. Ast ad Theophr. charact. p. 50. Jacobs adAchill. Tat.
p. 525. 719. Kiihner Gr. II. 81., especially Schlosser vindic. N. T.
locor. adv. Marcland. Harab. 1742. 4to. p. 20.), where the action is to
be denoted merely as finished or as quickly passing by (Herm. ad Soph.
ad Ajac. p. 160. Stallbaum ad Plat. Phileb. p. 158. and ad Phsed. p.
56.), whilst the infinit. pres. expresses something which just now happens
or continues, but the infinit. fut. (with verbs to hope, to promise), some-
thing future which will happen at some uncertain distance of time (Held
ad Pint. Timol. p. 215. comp. Stallbaum ad Plat. Crit. p. 138.). On
the difference between the infinit. fut. and pres. after such verbs see also
Pflugk ad Eurip. Herod, p. 54. 'Ex^tf a in the N. T. always takes the
infin. aor., and, as it frequently depends on the author, to apprehend the
subject one way or another, there can be no difficulty about examples,
.Luke VI. 34. rtag' uv sMilstis artohapsiv, Phil. ii. 23. tfovitov !fl
w$ av aitiSu etc. verse 19., 2 John ver. 12. Ijwttgco y i/l
3 John ver. 14. Acts xxvi. 7. Rom. xv. 24. 1 Cor. xvi. 7.* Also
^at is usually connected with infin. aor. Mr. xiv. 11. sTtwytfaaito
cp Sovvcu, Acts 11. 30. 6'gx9 u>|U.otfi> a/ft? 9 6 Jteoj EX xugrtov >q$ dafyvos awitov
litl tov g6vov, Acts iii. 18. On the contrary see infinit. fut. Heb.
iii. 18. The infinit, pres. is frequently used after x&svsw of an action
which must happen immediately or which continues, Acts xvi. 22. l x i-
favov ^ajSSi'^EH/, xxiii. 35. ExEhsvas ojviibv Iv f^ 7t^ati > co^t / 9 tyvhdct rf d^tat, XXV.

21. xxvii. 43. etc. Yet comp. infinit. aor. viii. 18. Acts viii. 38. xxv.
6. (only in the narrative style).

According to this the infinit. aor. after sVot^os and iv ^0^9 e%w (of the
future time) is to be explained 2 Cor. x. 6. xii. 14. 1 Pet. i. 5. Acts xxi.
13., which is more frequent than the infin. present. It is rare in the
Greek writers, yet comp. Dion. Hal. 8, 17. Joseph. Antt. 12, 4. 2. 6, 9.

* An infin. per. is found after ixm' in 2 Cor. v. 11. ixmf --- we^ve^a-dai, where
ia not used exactly for vop.ito, but denotes a trusting which first needs con-
firmation : but the perfect infinitive after the preceding 7TE<j>tfVEg<ifyAE0tt requires no
elucidation.
33

262 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

2.) ngiv and it^lv % in the historical style or to express the future exact
are always connected with the infinit. aor., see Herm. ad Eurip. Med.
p. 313. comp. above No. 6. note.

In Rom. xv. 9. -to, l^vy vtteg iheovs So'tdaai -tbv &bv the infinit. aor.
is properly an infinit. preterite, depending on xsyw ver. 8. and to be con-
nected with yeysvvjoctai verse 8., as viteg E&. relates to vrte^ dvw^cJaj. To
interpret it by the omission of Sew is inadmissible.

The infinit. pres. is generally used where an action is to be expressed
which is just now taking place or one which (in itself or in its conse-
quences) is permanent, or which is frequently repeated: e. g. John ix. 4.
Iju, SEC Egya^Ecf^ao -to, e'gya -tov rte/.i^avt6s ps, vii. 17. lav 'tis ^to? *o ^aTi^ia
av-tov rtoitiv, xvi. 12. OTJ Svvaa$ puatdasw agti, Acts xvi. 21. xix. 33. Gal.
vi. 13. Luke xiv. 30. 1 Cor. xv. 25. Tit. i. 11. Phil. i. 12. 1 Tim. ii.
8. John i. 33. iii. 30. Hence in general propositions Luke xvi. 13.
oi>8eis olxs-tijs Svva-tai Svai xvguoig Sovhtvsiv, Mr. ii. 19. Acts V. 29. Mt.
xii. 2. 10. Jas. iii. 10. The infinit. pres. is connected with verbs of be-
lieving, where something is to be expressed, which has already taken
place or which has at least already begun. (Herm. ad Soph, (Ed. C. 91.)
1 Cor. vii. 36. Phil. i. 17. (16). See Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 204.

If this difference is not always observed where it might be expected,
it is to be explained by the fact, that in many cases it depends entirely
on the author, whether he will represent an action as permanent or as
transitory and only occupying a point of the past (comp. Luke xiv. 28.
^tAttj/ rtvgyov oixoSopqaai, where merely the action of building is denoted,
xix. 5. Mt. xxii. 17.) and that in such cases every author is not sufficiently
careful. Hence infinitives aor. and pres. are sometimes used in parallel
passages in the same relation Mt. xxiv. 24. comp. Mr, xiii. 22. Mt. xiii.
3. comp. Luke viii. 5., as even in the better Greek writers, e. g. Xen.

Cyrop. 1, 4. 1. si -tt, -tov J3aaiheu$ Seoivto tfov$ rtala$, sxshsvov 'tov "Kvgov
ff^cu C$KJC* 6 SE Kiigoj, 6 1't cSeowr'o, avitov ol 7tcu8j, Tt
d't'teaSati 6, 1, 45. jJV E^E' Eatr^j ft E /.(, 4 a L , 46. e
rtiprtsiv, 2, 4, 10. ovj av 'tis fiovhri'tai aya^oij tfuvEgyoii; rtoo Eotf^ac
ovs SE 8jj T'WV si j T!OV 7io%.sfjiov i^ycov rfo i ^ a a a a i tig jQoiAotT'o <svv-

Igyovs itga$vp.os (coinp. Poppo in Zoc.), Demosth. adv. Timocr. p. 466.

A. JIMJ E^siva.1 "kvcai (.it/Seva (vopov) T'OT'E l^eivai ^i; E i v. Coinp. Al'l'ian.

Alex. 5, 2. 3. arid 6. A visible distinction between the infinit. pres. and
aor. in parallel sentences takes place e. g. in Xen. Cyrop. 5, 1.2. 3.
Mem. 1, 1. 14. Herod. 6, 117. etc. see Matth. II. 944. From the N.
1. COmp. Mt. XIV. 22. qvdyxaas tfouj ^a^^z'aj e p j3 jj v a i tl$ T!Q
(quickly passing by) X ai Tt^odysiv (permanent) $vtbv etc.

45. OF THE INFINITIVE. 263

The infinit. aor. (as that which expresses the least precision) is used
more frequently than the infinit. pres. where the selection of the infinitive
is indifferent, especially after H X u> possum (see Herm. ad Eitrip. Suppl.
p. 12. proef.) Swap., Swat 6$ >, &u etc. The infinit. aor. and pres,
are often interchanged in the Codd. of the Greek authors, see Xen. Cyrop.
1, 2. 9. 2, 2. 13. Arrian. Alex. 4, 6. 1. Elmsley ad Eitrip. Med. 904.
941. Comp. also in the N. T. John x. 21. Acts xvi. 7. 1 Cor. xiv. 35.
1 Thess. ii. 12.

The use of the infinit. aor. after a hypothetical clause is also thus
explained: John xxi. 25. iL-fiva, tuv ygatyytat, xa^t' IV, ovSs avtbv olfiat, tbv
x6a/j.ov XU^YICHM non comprehensurwn esse, where some would unnecessa-
rily supply av, comp. Isocr. Trapez. p. 862. Demosth. adv. Timoth. p.
702. A. Thuc. 7, 23. Plat. Protag. p. 316. C. (in some of these sen-
tences, it is true, si with the optative precedes). The expression (with-
out av] contains more confidence, see Stallbaum ad Plat. Protag. p. 43.
comp. Losener Obs. p. 162. The infinit. fut. (also without av, comp.
Herm. de partic. w p. 187.) is not strange in such a construction, Isocr.
ep. 3.

The verb 'MEW with the infinit. is among the Greek writers most

frequently connected with the infinit. fut. (comp. Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex.
II. p. 206.), more rarelv with the infinit. pres. (comp. Dion. Hal. IV. p.
2226, 8. Arrian. Alex.'l, 20. 13. 5, 21. 1. and Kriiger Dion. p. 498.),
which, however, as the idea of futurity is already implied in ^E'MEU/, is
not very strange, and is analogous to the construction of ^rti'^iv; and
still more rarely with the infinit. aor. (Isocr. adv. Callim. p. 908. Pausan.
'4, 18. 2. 8, 28. 3. Some ancient grammarians, however, think the last
construction not to be Greek, or at least not Attic, e. g. Phrynich. p.
336., but the contrary is sufficiently proved by a number of undoubted
examples from Bb'ckh ad Find. Olymp. 8, 32. Elmsley ad Eitrip. Heracl.
p. 117. Bremi ad Lys. p. 446. and especially from Lobeck ad Phryn.
p. 745., comp. also Herm. ad Soph. Ajac. p. 149. In the N. T. after
/UE'M.EH' we most frequently find () the infinit. pres. (in the evangelists
always), (&) sometimes the infinit. aor., mostly of transitory actions, as in
Rev. iii. 2. /.i&hti, drto^avclv, iii. 16. p. s^saat, xii. 4. p. tsxsiv, Gal. iii. 23.
fj.eM.ovctav Tcianiv artoxaXv^^vat, comp. Rom. viii. 18. (contrary 1 Pet. v.
1.); (c) more rarely the infinit. fut., viz. in Acts xi. 28. ju^ov /.isyav ^E'TI-
%it,v EOE0^at, xxiv. 15. wdcrtaabv /A&hsiv easa^at, vsxguv, Acts XXvii. 10.
(contrary Acts xxiv. 25., this reading vacillates).

The infinit. perfect frequently occurs in narrative style, where a com-
pleted action is to be denoted, the consequences of which however still

remain, e. g. Acts XVI. 27. s/.iEM(.ev zawtbv dvaigsiv, VO/J,L,%UV Ixrtsfysvytvat,

they had fled, and therefore now away, xxvii. 13. Solai^s?

xsxgattjxsvai, they would have (already) executed their pur-
pose (and would find themselves therefore in the possession of the advan-
tages), Acts xxvi. 32. xxvii. 9. Rom. xv. 9. 2 Pet. ii. 21. On 2 Cor.
v. 11. see p. 201. marg. note.

264 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

9. That the N. T. writers sometimes use tW, where according to the
rules of the Greek book language the mere infinitive ought to be expect-
ed, is rightly acknowledged by the older biblical philologists, but deci-
dedly contradicted by Fritzsche (Exc. 1. ad Matth.}. It is certain that i'va
(a) retains its signification that after verbs expressing to command, e. g.
Mt. iv. 3. eljts, i'v'a ol hfeoi ovtoi a^ot, ywwtM speak (a powerful word)
that these stones become bread (Luk. iv. 3.), Luke x. 40. sifts avty, W pot
-avvavtM.dpq'tai, Mr. 5. 43. Sitattsfaatfo cuutfot j rtoMia, W ^Sstj yv<p e.ov'fo he
strictly charged them (not to say any thing), that no one should know it,
Mr. iii. 9. eljte tot $ ^a^fou j avtov, ivo> rthoidgiw rtgotfxagtfig'jj a-utfip he gave
orders to his disciples, that a small ship should be ready for him. In
these passages it is possible to suppose the clause with W the^design (not
the object) of. the command, for something can be added to the command
as its proper object, e. g. he commanded his disciples to go to a fisher-
man, to seek a fisherman, or Luke x. 40. command her to leave thee
now, to return to the domestic duties, that etc. But this is more difficult
to translate after verbs of beseeching or wishing, Mt. xiv. 36.

i'va povov a^wtat, tov xgaartsSov, they begged him, in order that they
might touch will appear harsh to every one. And for what did they beg
him? certainly for nothing else, than that he would permit them to touch.
Here therefore the object of the request is expressed in the clause with i'm,
not its design; otherwise a particular emphasis must be laid on the verb to
beg, as in German: Ibeg (I condescend to beg you), in order that you do it.
But this is neither applicable to the former nor to the following passages, Mr.
v. 18. the one who had been possessed with the devil besought him, (with the
design) thathemight be with him, vii. 32. they besought him, (in order") that
he would put his hand upon him, viii. 22. they besought him, (in order] that
he might touch him } Luke viii. 31. they besought him, (in order] that he
would not command him. After ttagaxah* the object of the request is here
most naturally expected, and such an unusual method of expression as, ac-
cording to the above translation of Luke, must be chosen, would be very
striking, especially in this accumulation of the construction. Why not
take the clause with iVa simply as the object of the request? Because this
usage does not occur in the Greek writers? But could not the later lan-
guage, especially the Hellenistic, make use of many a particle in a man-
ner which is foreign to the better prose writers? and is it not precisely
one peculiarity of the popular language, to expand by means of particles
that, which is expressed more concisely by the infinitive?* Yet in wri-

* The concise Tacitus however prefers the infinit. alone, luzc minora RELINQUERE
hortalur, where others construct with ut.

45. OP THE INFINITIVE. 265

ters of the xo^ the Sva is found thus weakened after verbs of beseech-
ing, as in Dion. Hal. I. p. 215. Sefae&ai, tqs Suycw^os tys afc epsM-ov Sva
pe rtgoj avrfv ayayot, ^' P' 666t x7*l -- lys'vgtfo xal Stasis -- '<! v a
pivy etc. Chant. 3, 1. rfagexa&et Kafaftoijv Sva avt? tt^oae^g (see Schafer
Melet. p. 121. comp. from Hellenists 3 Esr. iv. 46. Joseph. Antt. 11, 8.
4. 12, 3. 1. 14, 9. 4. Porphyr. de Styge p. 230. ed. Schott, Ignat. ad
Philad. p. 379. Fabric. Pseudep. I. 673. II. 705. Act. Thorn. 10. 24.-
26., on 6'rtwj see below note], also after verbs of commanding, see Herm.
ad Orph. p. 814., comp. Leo Phil. Avithol. Epigr. I. I. p. 3. tltts xauy-
"V*?? xa,TtEgov$.Sva ^gaj synt^y, Basilic. I. p. 147. xstevEiv L'va, E0rti$EW
Sva,' (3 Esr. vi. 31. 1 Kings v. 17. Malalas 10. p. 264. Ac*. T/tom. p. 33.),
and of demanding, asldng (a&ovv Sva Demosth. Schafer II. p. 279. 8.).
Must we interpret here also so constrainedly, in order to preserve to the
Sva the signification of that? (&) So g'a,su/ Sva would also simply be: to
desire (wish) that* comp. Arrian. Epict. 1, 18. 14. Macar. horn. 32, 11.
If in Mt. vii. 12. 6'tra av S&etE Iva rto(,Z><sw V(MV means, to desire with the
design, that they may do it, it cannot be conceived, why $&ftv Iva has
not become so common a phrase in the language, that $stew may be al-
ways so construed. And shall Mr. vi. 25. 0kto JVa (tot, 89? -t^v xs^aK^v
'luavfov mean, I will, in order that you give me? What then here is the
object of the willing? Is it that she may receive the head of John? Mr.
ix. 30. ovx tfOEtev L'va *tj y-vcp cannot be translated: he willed not, in order
that any one should know. That no one should know is the object of his
willing. Comp. Acts XXVii. 42, jSor^ lylvsi'o, Iva #oi>$ Sacr^caraj artox^si-
vaxsi', John IX. 22. ovvs^&Qivfo ol 'lovSatot, 'i v a -- drtoffui/aywyoj ylj/ij-
tat, and, as a single specimen of such construction among the Greeks:
Teles ap. Stob. serm. 95. p. 524. Eva yivq-tai Zsv; ETtidv^aft,. TLotelv i'va
John xi. 37. Col. iv. 16. also belongs here. Yet if the L'va cannot be
rendered simply by damit, in order that, so that, but a phrase must first
be introduced into the sentence by artificial interpretation, which will
render Iva tolerable, it is questionable in narrators so plain as the Evan-
gelists. Or finally, (c) Is the interpretation of Mt. x. 25. agxe-ebv 4$
/taSjjtfjji, Sva yli^tfat. wj 6 ScSaffxcaoj a/ufoi) satis sit discipulo non superare
magistrum, ut ei possit par esse redditus, easy and appropriate? In John
IV. 34. spbv Pgupa, EdTfiv, Sva rtotw ^6 Oaky pa itov rie^avtog ps is the Sva,

* Hence the modern Gr. derived its circumlocution of the infin. fllx va. y^co or
iw for j/fa<f>Eiv, yja^aj. A few passages from the Orthod. Confess, will shew the
extensive application of the particle vi in mod. Gr. p. 20. (ed. Normann.) wjlwsi vb
wrevupev (p. 24. 30.), p. 36. \eysrai vi utromZ, p. 43. tyo&etro va. JeuXeuu (he hesitated,
comp. Mt. i. 20.), p. 113. ni*nop~ v Je^flS, etc.

266 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

really rendered correctly by the translation, meus victus hoc continetur
studio, ut Dei satisfaciam voluntati? Then a^ovSd^f w L'va would be the
usual and most simple construction. I also very much fear that the re-
solution of Mt. xviii. 6. av^s^si, avtcji, L'va xgepaady (j,vho$ ovwo? xal

xaTtaTtovtbOdi] etc. into av^- a. xgs/.<,aa6ir]vao /^vhov ov. L'va xa-cartovt.
etc. (by attraction) will be generally pronounced strained. See also Luke
xvii. 2. 1 Cor. iv. 2. 3. The unprejudiced, in all these formulas, will
acknowledge that the clause with iva, denotes what, among the Greeks
would have been expressed by the infinit. (Matth. II. 1238.), and among
the Latins (especially of the silver age) by seqiium est ut, mos est ut, ex-
pedit ut, where the mere infinit. (instead of the subject) would be suffi-
cient, see Ramshora p. 546. Accordingly we should not be inclined to

apprehend John i. 29. ov gyw ovx sipi discos 'ivo, X,iS<jw avtov tfov tpavta

otherwise than <Za^e hvaai, would be used by the Greeks (Matth. II. 1238.),
comp. also Mt. viii. 8. ovx slpi ixavb$ 'iva fiov vrto ir\v atsytjv slsehOys where
the interpretation: non sum ego idoneus, UT QUIDCIUAM: AGAS EO CONSILIO,
ut in meam te domum conferas, is certainly strained. Moreover this mode
of expression and the infinit. construction are sometimes united 1 Cor. ix.

15. xahbv ya poi /.lahhov artoOavsiv, q T'O xav^^ia jitou iva, I'lj xsvaay, where

it can easily be seen what induced the Apostle to change the construction.
My view (and Titmann's also Synon. II. p. 46.) in general is this, that
where the moi'e concise language used the infinit. alone, the later wri-
ters, in accordance with the above mentioned inclination to diffuse the
condensed style, formed the sentence with Iva. This particle was ori-
ginally adopted (Sso^at Iva, xs^evui Iva, etc.), because the infinitive denoted
something designed (in Latin volo ut, impero ut, etc.). therefore the iva
of design, which in the earlier Gr. had respect only to a design referring
to a past action (I call to thee, in order that thou mayest see), was felt to
be proper. Thus far we can trace it in the native Greek writers.
Foreigners (and perhaps the people) extended the use of i'va still further
(o|toj 'iva, a^xei 'iva), although here also the general idea,, jit for the pur-
pose, sufficient for the purpose was possible. How iVa as particle of de-
sign is not entirely lost in these constructions, Fritzsche has skilfully
proved; but he ought not to have denied, that the N. T. authors used that
construction as equivalent to the infinit, nor should the 'iva eo consilio ut
be required in the old language. The modern Greek, going still further,
forms every infinit. with v d , but it must be remembered that many cor-
ruptions of it were certainly common much earlier in the popular lan-
guage. How much the latter had already declined in the second century
Lob. Phrynich, especially p. 15. etc., shews. Finally, the infinit. with

45. OF THE INFINITIVE. 267

after verbs like arteia^ao $vvaa$at, xstevstv in the Byzantine writers
is evidently parallel, (see e. g. B. index ad Ducas ed. Bonn. p. 639.).

What Wyttenbach ad Plutarch. Mor. I. 409. quotes from the Greek
writers, to prove this lax usage of iva, is not all appropriate. In rfai'^EM/
Iva, the verb is not considered as having its complement in the clause with
iva (by persuasion to effect that), but as independent: to speak persua-
sively to some one, in order that; >tl ^ot toiovto awiyas, iva toiavtaif /*e
xohaxevays qSovals means: what hast Ihou perceived so muck in me, in or-
der to flatter, i. e. concisely: what could induce you to flatter me. In
Adv. Colot. p. 1115. A. that is attributed to the writer as design, which
is properly only the result, as we also say: in what desert did he write
his booJf so that you could not receive it? Liban. decl. 17. p. 472. no
slave is bad in order that he may be condemned. "Iva not used for wj
after intensives (so bad, that], but of the design connected with the jto-
vY}e,lu of the slaves. These passages are not exactly parallel with the
above quoted N. T. constructions, but they show the gradual transition
to them. The construction 6'^a, art w j does not belong here, as 6?twj is
usually differently explained (Matth. II. 1231.) after verbs of beseeching,
commanding, etc. (Mt. viii. 34. ix. 38. Luke vii. 3. x. 2. xi. 37. etc.) in
which connection it is not uncommon in Greek (comp. Schafer ad De-
mosth. III. p. 416. Held ad Plutarch. Timol. p. 439.) See Titm. Sy-
non. II. p. 59.

The usage (principally in John), by which L'va is placed after a demon-
strative which gives prominence to what follows, merits especial remark:
1 John IV. 17. ev tf o v if <f> tt'tgKBiiA'tai fy aydrt'/}, Iva rtajjpqalav szuftev,
where the Greek would say: lv t5> jtap/j. sxeiv ^as, John xv. 8. Luke i.
43. rto&v jitot tfoutfo, Iva 'A^ for 1*6 l%$ftv tf'/j 1 ' A l< 5 Jhn xvii. 3. (Herm.
de part, av here takes also the. clause with Iva for infinit.) Different is
John viii. 56. ^yoAMatfowo L'v a I 8 y (not he rejoiced, in order to see, but)
he rejoiced, that he should see, which, although the idea of the design is
implied in Lva, would not be expressed in the Greek with Iva, alone, for a
Greek would not have understood the formula at all in that sense. (The
construction in John is also usually reckoned here fafavSsv fy <Zga, fan
So|acf^, xii. 23. xiii. 1. xvi. 32. Yet here the ft-a shows something of
the design: the time is at hand, in order that, i. e. which is destined for
the purpose, that etc. By the Greeks however the infinitive Jj^ji,. ^ <Zg a
(toy) Sotaa^i/cn., perhaps wcr^s So|. would have been used in the same
sense.*)

According to some interpreters (Beza, Grotius, Homberg etc.) 6V t with
the finite verb for the infinit. occurs in Rom. ix. 6. ov% olov Si- 6* i
fxrtsrt-tuxsv o ?ioyoj <tov e.ov fieri non potest, ut etc. But such a circum-
locution of the infinit. could not be proved even by Hellenistic writers,
and besides oiov i-s (in prose) ought to be expected (comp. Wetst. II. 65.),
and therefore perhaps should be read oToV t e St (^Elian. V. H. 4, 17.) The
interposed 5 prevents otov 6V t from being taken as a pleonastic expression,

* The subjunctive will not allow that I'm in this ease be taken for where (Hoogev.
particul. I. p. 525.); else we must suppose the subj. aor. to be exactly equivalent to the
fut. (Lob. ad Phryn, p. 723.) See Tittmann Synon. p. 49.

268 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

like wj 6Vt (or olov ws, (2jrt in later writers, see Lob. ad Phryn. p. 427.)
It was perhaps a brachyological formula (common in the popular lan-
guage), like many formed with olo$ : o-u toiov 8s (tatt, or xlyw) olov, fat,
non tale vero (est) dico, quale (hoc est) excidisse verbum div. Fritzsche
(Sendschreiben an Tholuck p. 58.) has directed attention to the o v % '
o I o v , which frequently occurs and is explained by Herm. ad Vig- p.
788. ov -e ol ov olov. He renders it : the thing is not of such a kind,
that, i. e. it is not at all to be supposed that (ov totovtov oti). But the
Greeks add the finite verb immediately after the formula: ov% olov paS^st,
Athen. 6. 244. and no one of Fritzsche's three attempts to interpret 6Vt
is satisfactory. I believe this 6Vt analogous to that which immediately
precedes quoted words.

NOTE 1. It might appear, as if the infinit. act. were sometimes used
instead of the infinit. pass, (comp, d'Orville ad Char. p. 526. ), e. g. 1
Thess. iv. 9. ytsgt tf?s <J>i7v.a?i.$</'oi{ ov #gEMM> J&stfs yga$tf vp.iv (Heb.
V. 12.), COmp. V. 1. ov zguav e%st vpiv ygdtysaSai,: (Heb. vi. 6.) but

both are equally correct (actively, you need not, to write to you, i.e. that I
write to you, as if the meaning were: you render the writing unnecessary),
see Elmsley ad Eurip. Heracl. p. 151. Lips. Bornemann adXen. Conmv.
p. 54. Jacobs ad Philistr. Imagg. p. 620. Matth. II. 1245. especially
Theodoret. II. 1528. IV. 566.

NOTE 2. "Qt'ti occurs with the infinit. Acts xxvii. 10. .0<5 6Vt
' tftffu, which is a mingling of two constructions, JHEM-EI

vv and oVt jwax^se, sasa^at, 6 mov$. So especially after verba sen-
tiendi et dicendi Herrn. ad Vig. p. 898. Schafer ad Bast. Epist. erit.
p. 37. Heindorf ad Plat. Phsed. p. 30. Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 479.
Wyttenb. ad Plutarch. Moral. 1. p. 54. Boissonnade ad Philostr. p. 284.
Fritzsche qussst. Lucian. p. 172.

NOTE 3. A trace of the Hebrew infinit. absolute is found in Rev. ii.
23. artoxteva, Iv a v d -t 9 (comp. Gen. xl. 15. xliii. 2. 1. 24. Exod. iii.
16. xi. 1. xv. 26. xviii. 18. xxi. 20. xxii. 16. xxiii. 24. Zeph. i. 2. How
the LXX. otherwise express it, see below, 46. n. 7.

46. Of the Participle.

The participle, representing the verbal idea in an adjective form, re-
mains in the N. T. language a participle, and in no place stands for the
infinitive, and still less for the finite verb., as exegesists have supposed.
It was taken for the infinit. subject, and object, in the well known for-
mulas (cT) Acts V. 42. oi>% srtuvovto idaxovt$, Actsxii. 16. Irtepws xgovuv,
Luke vii. 45. 2 Pet. ii. 10. 2 Thess. iii. 13. Rev. iv. 8. (6) Johnxi. 17.

46. OF THE PARTICIPLE. 269

avtbv %ovfa, Mr. xvi. 5. Acts ii. 11. vii. 12. Heb. xi. 24. But
rationally considered either participle or infinit. may be used in these
passages,- the German chose the latter, and for the most part the Latin;
the former was preferred by the Greek (and generally by the Eng. Trs.)
and this usage rests on a nice distinction, which was foreign to the feeling
of other nations. Otx Ittavovto SiSdaxovtes means: teaching or as those
who taught they did not cease*, t-vgov wutbv e%ovna I found him having,
as one who has. The participle here always expresses an action or a
state, which already exists, and is not first introduced by the principal
verb, see Herrn. ad Vig. p. 769. Matth. II. 1228. Bernhardy p. 477.
Besides comp. in respect to (a) 1 Cor. xiv. 18. s-i^agiOT'w tS> -s itw-twv
vpuv IAOM.OV yfoofforatj x a a. w v , that I can speak (as one who speaks) comp.
Herod. 9. 79. ; Acts xvi. 34. jJyaMuactatfo tt ex ta * sv x &$ TfS>, 59 (comp.
Eurip. Hipp. 7, 8. Soph. Phil. 879. Plut. Camill. p. 527.); Rom. vii.
13. does not belong here, see Riickert in loc. In respect to (&) Luke viii.

46. lyutyvav Svva/Aw e f sh^ov oav (similar Thuc. 1,25. yv6wte$ ove-

piav afylaiv &rtb Kogxvgas Ttifjuagtav ov a av , Xen. Cyro'p. 1, 4. 7. Dion. Hal
IV. 2238, 11., see Monk ad Eurip. Hepp. 304. and ad Alcest. 152.
Acts XXIV. 10. lx rtoMcoj/ ftfwv o v i! a <ss x^vtvp ^9 s^vst, -towtKi iVtttftfa/tfi/oj.
(On the contrary Luke iv. 41. vfisiauv *bv 'K^id'gbv avtbv slvat,, where a
Greek prose writer perhaps would also have used the participle, comp.
Mehlhorn Allgem. litt. Zeit. 1833. No. 110.; see Elmsley ad Eurip. Med.
580.), 2 John ver. 7. ol py ofJ.o^oyovvfs^'K^ta'fbv t^xoptvov at? tbv xotipoV) COmp.
1 John iv. 2.f On verbs of speaking, with the participle see Matth. II.
1289. Jacobs ad JElian. anim. II. 109. The Greek prose writers also
so use the verb dKj^wEo&at, e. g. Xen. Cyrop. 3, 2. 16. cuff^iW^s^' av aoc

[iq artoSiSovtss, 5, 1. 20. aiaxvvopai hsyuv Diog. Laert. 6, 1. 4. 6,

2. 6. Liban. oratt. p. 525. B. Yet here we see how correctly the par-
ticiple is chosen in these last passages: an infinit. is also connected with
this verb by Gr. writers, but the two constructions are essentially dif-
ferent (they occur together with jtwOwo^at, see Ellendt ad Arrian.
Alex. I. 145.) see Poppo ad Xen. Cyrop. p. 286. The participle is only
used when some one is already doing something (or has done), of which
he is ashamed (in the moment of the action), but the infinitive where the
shame of something yet to be done (but not yet really done) is to be de-

* Krflger (Unt. aus. d. Geb. d. Lat. SpracJil. III. p. 356. 404.) considers this use of
the partic. in the nominative as attraction, which is not materially different. Comp.
Herm. de emend, rat. p. 146.

t Hier. Wolf has already shown that those passages quoted (even by Matth. II.
1289.) as parallel out of Isocr. Paneg. c. 8., are not so in reality. Comp. Baiter in loc.
34

270 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

noted (comp. e. g. Isocr. ad Philipp. p. 224.). Luke (xvi. 3.) observing
this distinction wrote correctly: Ixarteiv aiaxvvo[j,o.u to beg 1 am ashamed;
had the speaker been already a beggar, it ought to have been written:
comp. Sus. ver. 11. 2 Kings viii. 22.

which is also several times construed with the participle of
the object (Luke iv. 23. Acts ii. 11. comp. with the last passage Xen.
Mem. 2, 4. 1.), is often followed by 6V t, once also by the accusative with
infinit. 1 Cor. xi. 18. axov<*cs%t,an.a'tuvvfj.ivvrtdg%i'v('vrtdg%ov'ta), comp.
Xen. Cyrop. 1, 3. 1. 4, 16. The construction in Ephes. iv. 21. 22.
differs stye qxovaa'ts --- arto$saat> v[t.as T!QV rtahuibv uvSgurtov that
you ought to put off, see 45. 2.

The use of the participle explained in the above is much more fre-
quent among the Greeks (even the prose writers) than in the N. T., see
Jacobs Anthol. III. 235. and ad Achill. Tat. p. 828. Monk ad Eurip.
Nicest. 773. ad Eurip. Hippol. 304. Ast ad Plat. Polit. p. 500. Schiifer
ad Eurip. Hec. p. 31., yet the construction of jtatW^cu with the infinit.
is disapproved even by ancient grammarians, although incorrectly, see
Schafer ad Apoll. Rhod. II. p. 223. Ast ad Theophr. Char, p" 223.
"Ag^sff^cw, which among the Greeks is often followed by the participle
(Xen. Cyrop. 8, 7. 26. 8, 2. Herod. 6, 75.), in the N. T. always takes
the infinitive, xaTuoj riou-iv occurs on the contrary with the participle, 2
Pet. i. 19. 9 xa^Zs rfotati'a Tt^offa^oj/i'i-s, 3 John ver. 6. Phil. iv. 14. Acts
x. 33. Similar Plat. Symp. p. 174. E. and sv jtoislv Plat. Phsed. p. 60.
C. Herod. 5. 24. 26. Also in 1 Tim. V. 13. apa 8s xal agyal pava.vova(,
ftgitg%6f*.t;vai the participle is by almost all interpreters taken for
infinit.: they learn (they accustom themselves) to walk about idle, etc.,
which gives a suitable sense. But where the participle is connected
with pav., this verb is used in the signification, to perceive, to under-
stand, to observe, of that which is already taking place, Herod. 3, 1.
(see Valckenaer in loc.}, Soph. JUnfig. 533. JEsch. Prom. 62. Aristot.
Polit. 8, 6. Pindar. Pytli. 8, 15. Lucian. dial. deor. 16, 2. On the
other hand the signification to learn, occurs with the infinit. in 1 Tim. v.
4. The former construction then would have been abusively extended
beyond rational grounds. But agyai [*,av$. might rather be connected
and rtegitgz. be taken as the proper participle (whilst they walk about) ;
the former would be concise language, as sometimes with an adjective
(e. g. Sibdaxnv cfo^oj'), which does not include the idea of time and mode,
like the participle.

Such a verb is once construed with an adjective in Acts xxvii. 33.
Tteciaa.gssxaiSexci't'qv Gynz^ov q/Asgav jtgotfSoxwi'i'sj, a a i 3 o i (ovtsi) 5ia~
ithsifS)- comp. Xen. Cyrop. 1, 5. 10. avayuvKntos Siatshel. Hell. 2, 3.
25. Isocr. Paneg. p. 53. D. ' 'Avdrcwvaw l%tw also appears like avartcwea^at,
with the participle Rev. iv. 8.

In 1 Tim. i. 12. some incorrectly take the participle for the infinit. in
the words: Ttta-tov pi ^y^csa-to $fiEvo$ atj Siaxovtw the meaning is: he
esteemed me faithful, whilst he appointed me to the service (by this very
thing he proved that he thought me faithful).

46. OP THE PARTICIPLE. 271

_ \ _

2. Still less can the participle be arbitrarily used for the finite verb
(see Herm. ad Vig. 768. 774. Bremi in den philoL Beytr'tigen a. d.
Schweitz I. 172. Bornemann ad Xen. Conviv. p. 146. and Schol. in
Luc. p. 183. Doderlein ad Soph. (Ed. Col. p. 593. Bernhardy p. 470.),
as interpreters of the N. T. affirm of many passages. But without
respect to the occasional omission of the verb slvai which sometimes occurs
(in the better Greeks rarely, and as to the Byzantines see ind. to Malal.
ed. Bonn. p. 797.) see Herm. as above, 768, Matth. II. 1303. Siebelis ad
Pausan. III. p. 106. Fritzsche dissertatt. in Corinth. II. p. 43.), in such
cases there either is a real finite verb preceding or following with which
the participle is connected (where however we must not be misled by
the common interpunction of the text), or an anacoluthon, as the writer
has lost sight of the construction with which he began. () In 2 Cor.
iv. 13. e%ovi?$ must be connected with the following ^la-tfvo^v: ai we
have we also trust (so correctly Schott); in 2 Pet. ii. 1. it appears as
if xai agvovfisvof should be connected with ^EuSoStS.. even denying
their Lord, and sTtdyov-tss artwTi. is then: who bring, etc. In Rom. v.
II. faAqjcal xavzupevos is not so parallel with au^ao^a, that we ought to
expect xa.v%ufj,$a (var.), but the meaning seems to be: but we shall not
only be saved (simply and in fact), but whilst we, so that we etc., 2 Cor.
viii. 20. trtsMapevot, is according to the sense connected with owsyts^ausv;
Heb. vi. 8. Ixtytgovau stands not for sxtyegtc, but this participle corres-
ponds with Ttiovaa, and tix-tavaa, in ver. 7, and to dS6xc.(*,o$ and jcafaga? i<yyv$
an la-tl must be supplied; 2 Pet. iii. 5. (swuatZau is a proper participle
(epithet.), and the antecedent fa refers also to fy yfa 2 Cor. viii. 3. 4. the
verb to av^ai^e-tot, is the following sSaxav (iwtovs) ver. 5., the apostle
corrects himself: voluntarily -- or they rather gave themselves;
Heb. vii. 2. ^^ v . must be connected with Metier, ver, 1., as ,<5 o vvo .vg.
and 9 >g are parentheses, and the principal verb of the clause follows
after all the predicates ver. 3. pi vst tegevs etc. ; Ephes v. 21. fao-evaa.
is certainly connected like the other participles ver. 19. 20. with the
principal verb rthygovaSai, Iv jtv. and is not to be taken for imperative with
Koppe, Flatt and others. The following ver. 22. flows from the iniotf.
dMijjxois. In 1 Pet. v. 7. also the participles are such that they may be
joined very well to the preceding imperat. ver. 6. (6) Acts xxiv. 5. be-
gins with the participle s^6vts S tv av8ga, and ver. 6. ought to have been
continued: Ix^a^aa^sv avtbv; but instead of this the author joins this
principal verb to the inserted relative clause s s *al -- Ixs^aas; 2 Pet.
i. 17. hapuv ya% rtaga, ^sov etc. the construction is interrupted by the
parenthetical clauses 3,^ -- eiSoxqaa, and the apostle continues ver.

18. X a tav-tvv tv avv vel instead of, as he intended to say,

272 FART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

ii%e t(i,vt;' i!r}v ^u>vr\v dxovovtus or in something similar (see Frilzsche
Diss. in 2 Cor. II. p. 44.); 2 Cor. v. 6. <|5/j<nWsj after several in-
serted clauses is resumed in the ^a^ov^sv Ss ver. 8.; 2 Cor. vii. 5.
ax^xBv aivsatv y ffagf VJJJLMV, <xA?o tv rtuvti $h t, f3o ft v o t, et;tasv
etc., the. ^f^a (from ^ <ydgf fypuv) can be supplied (Herm. ad
Vig. p. 768.), but an anacoluthon may also be adopted (Fritzsche Diss.
in 2 Cor. II. p. 49.), as if Paul had written in the preceding: ovSspiav
uvsaw effxtjxaiiEv *?? oaigxi VJ/AWV. 2 Cor. v. 12. afyogpriv StSov-tes must be
taken participially, but the preceding clause be apprehended as if it' read:
ov ydg ygdfyopsv tfovt'a rid^iv i-avtov$ tfwttfi'ai/ovi'ES. Comp. yet 1 Pet. ii. 12.
and Hottinger in loc.\ on Gal. iii. 5. see Winer's comment., on Heb. viii
10. appendix 62.

Also in Rom. iii. 23. rtwilst -- vattgovvtat tfjjj 86$qs -fov sov, Sixaiov-
psvot, oEj' etc. the participle cannot stand for the finite verb, but the
Apostle, as his words testify, has conceived of the connection thus: and
they came short of the glory of God, whilst (as) they are justified gra-
ciously. But whether Paul would not have written more perspicuously
and perhaps more correctly with the finite verb, is a question, which lies
beyond the Grammar; only the idea could hardly have been joined with
d?tjid, as Tholuck prefers.

1 Cor. ni. 19. 6 Sgatftfo/tsvoj fouj 0o$oi>j EV ly Tiavov^y^ o/l'tuv is a quo-
tation from the O. T., which does not form a complete sentence, but
only contains the words adapted to the Apostle's purpose, comp. Heb. i. 7.
What the Apostle quoted incompletely, we must not endeavor to render
plain by the addition of itti. On 1 Pet. i. 14. see Fritzsche Conject. I.
p. 41. The participle ^ avax^p-^f^o^svot can be taken as dependent on
EkTtt'tfatfE, or as I prefer, be connected with yj^^ji'E ver. 15. In pro-
verbs also, as in 2 Pet. ii. 22. xvuv s'rtttftfg^aj Irft to ISiov If^cyia, the par-
ticiple is not to be changed into the finite verb, although Stolz has done
so. The words read thus: a dog, ivho returns to his own vomit, as if
spoken Sewtixus in reference to a common case, as in German, e.g.
a scabby sheep! (in Eng. a blade sheep. Trs.), when a wicked man be-
comes notable among the good.

Luke and Paul (and still more the author of the Epistle to the He-
brews)* prefer the participial construction, and Paul accumulates partici-
ples on participles, comp. 1 Thess. ii. 14. 2 Tim. i. 9. Tit. ii. 13. 2 Cor.
iv. 810.

3. The connection of two or more participles in different relations, co-
ordinate and subordinate, with one principal verb, is particularly frequent
in the historical style; (a) not only so that one participle precedes the
finite verb, and the other follows: Luke iv. 35. p i^av avtb *6 Saipovtw
tit fnieov l^rf^sv ait av-tov, wSt-v phd^av avfbv throwing him down (after
he had thrown him down) the demon went out from him, not doing him

* On the authorship of the Ep. to the Heb. see Stuart's Comm. on Hebrews 32. TRS.

46. OF THE PARTICIPLE. 273

any harm, x. 30. Acts xiv. 19. xvi. 23. Heb. x. 12. Mr. vi. 2. (Lucian.
Philops 24. and Peregr. 25.); but, (&) more frequently in immediate
succession without a copula: Mt. xxviii. 2. oyys^os xv&ov xatfajSas J|
rtgo<S%$uv &7tsxv^taE tbv hi^ov etc. Acts V. 5. djcovwj/ 'Avaviag tfo-Ds

I'OVtfODJ, TtEtfldV {f^uts, LullC ix. 16. A,0.j3coJ> T'OVf TtivtB UgTfOVS ,

4a$ t-l$ tbv ovgavbv EvTioy^tfev, xvi. 23. vii. 36. xxiii. 48. Acts xiv. 14.
xv. 24. xxi. 2. xxv. 6. Mt. i. 41. ii. 28. v. 2527. viii. 6. Col. i. 3. *fi-
xagLGtoviAsv rfgocfE'u^OiitE'coj dxovaavees, whilst we pray, as we have
heard, Heb. xi. 7. xii. 1. 2 Cor. v. 3. Luke ii. 12. Philem. ver. 5. (Gers-
dorf I. 506.) etc. Nothing is more frequent among the Greeks, comp.
Xen. Hell. 1, 6. 8. Strabo 3. 165. Polyaen. 5, 33. 4. Lucian. .Asm. 18.
Alex. 19. Xen. Ephes. 3, 5. Alciphr. 3, 43. Plat. rep. 2. p. 366. A. Gorg.
p. 471. B., Liban. Vit. p. 32. Arrian. Alex. 3, 30. 7. see Heindorf ad
Plat. Protag. p. 562. Stallbaum ad Plat..Phileb. 32. and ad Plat.
Eulhyphr. p. 27. ad Apol. p. 46. Boissonade ad Aristsenet p. 257. Jacob
ad Lucian. Toxar. p. 43. Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. II. p. 322. and
others. (In several passages the Codd. have more or less the copula
xai, as in Acts ix. 10. Mr. xiv. 22.)

The historical style of the N. T. does not use the participle so fre-
quently nor so variously as Greek historical v/riters; it rather adopts
simple sentences (especially those connected by the oft-recurring xai) and
avoids the more elaborated periods, in which the Greeks abounded.

4. The participle pres. (with the article) is frequently used as a noun
and then excludes all specification of time, Ephes. iv. 28. 6 x^s** uv w
xett, xterttttu not for <5 xhs^as (as some Codd. have), but: let the thief
steal no more, Gal. i. 23. 6 Suoxw ^s our (former) persecutor, Mt.
xxvu. 40. o xatahvav tov vabv the destroyer of the temple (in imagination)
Rev. xv. 2. ot vtxuvti-s ex i-ooj ^gfcon (which Eichhorn Einl. N. T. II.
378. quotes as strange!) xx. 10. Rom. iv. 4. Luke i. 35. 1 Thess. i.
10. v. 24. 1 Pet. i. 17. Jas. v. 11. Heb. vii. 12. (perhaps also Luke
xi. 52.), comp. Soph. Electr. 200. 6 *ou*a n^daa^v, Antig. 239.
o'tftftj qv o Swv, Pausan. 9, 25. 5. 6rtota eattv avtais xal -ty
5gci^ va , Diog. L. 1, 5. 5. j3ga8s'w S iyxw'gei foij rtga**o/J-
(faciendis), Demosth. adv. Timoth. p. 701. C. Strab. 15. p. 713. Ar-
rian. Alex. 5, 7. 12. See Herm. ad Vig. 771., Poppo ad Time. 1. 1. p.
152. Schilfer ad Eurip. Orest. p. 70. ad Demosth. V. p. 120. 127. ad
poet. gnom. p. 228. Seidler ad Iphig. Taur. ver. 1272. Bremi ad De-
mosth. p. 72. Bornemann ad Luc. p. 10. Jacob ad Lucian. Alex. p. 22.
(The particip. aor. of past time is used otherwise in John i. 33. v. 29.
Acts ix. 21., comp. Eurip. Electr. 335. ol < v fa* tixovtss -ffischyl.

274 PART THIRD. USE OP THE VERB.

Pers. 243. Aristoph. Eccl. 1118.). Where the pres. partic. is used
adjectively, it excludes the designation of time, Heb. vii. 8. Z>SE SExdnas
ditoQ vya xovt a 5 oivdgurtoi, hanfidvovaw dying (mortal) men, 1 Pet. i. 7.
comp. Schafer ad Plutarch. V. 211.

5. Where the present participle is a real participle, it is restricted to
the limits of the present (and imperf.), and cannot represent any time
whatever. In all passages thus falsely interpreted the partic. pres. is
therefore, either (a) a genuine present, or (&) imperfect, or (c) it ex-
presses what will be forthwith commenced or has been already begun.
As to (a) comp, Jas. iii. 6. q y^wcfcra xaJk'cTT'ai'afr <J>^oyi,'ouaa tor tgo%bv
z^j yavEtfswj xai fyhoyiQopsvtj vrtb -z^s yssw^f qua incenditur, see Th^ele in
loc. On 2 John ver. 7. l^op. see Liicke in loc. It cannot be taken
with Bengel for the participle imperf. by referring to 3 John ver. 3.
(&) Acts xxi. 16. avvrp^ov -- ayovtf e$, XXV. 3. 7io.Qsxa.hovv ojvtbv aitov-
%dgw etc. Rev. XV. 1. 6. slSov dyy&ovg Irttfa, e%ovta,s rthyyas (the
tfotj Irttfa dyylxoty ver. 7. defines more exactly), comp. 1 Pet. i. 11.
iii. 5. Acts iv. 21. Heb. xi. 21. (c) Mt. xxvi. 28. at pa to
x%w6fii:vov } Luke xxu. 19. SiSofAsvov, 1 Cor. xi. 24.

not: which will be shed, will be given etc. (at some time, partici-
ple fut.) but: which is "being shed (on the point of being shed), the reso-
lution to shed which is fixed, Mt. vi. 30. fiaMopsvov denotes, which (to-
morrow} is thrown, a usual and certain fate (of the grass).

According to this all the other passages are to be explained, where it
is believed that the participle pres. must be taken for the future. In
Rom. xv. 25. it expresses the design, which they are on the eve of ac-
complishing, and have already begun to realize (so frequently in the Gr.
after HgxsoOat,, artotrt&foa^at,, see MatthiaB ad Eurip. Suppl. 153. Bockh
ad Find. Pyth. 1, 52. 4, 106. Monk ad Eurip. flippol. 592. Schafer ad
Plut. IV. p. 391.), comp. Acts xxi. 2. sv^ovesf Ttholov Startsguv sis
oivlxqv (Xen. Ephes. 3, 6. in.); it was just sailing, Acts xv. 27. arfsu-
tdhxapsv ^lovdav xal 2<-'ftow ~~~ urtayysKhov'tas tto, av-ta means (as
those who announce) with the same message (Polyb. 28. 10. 7. Demosth.
c. Dionys. p. 739. C. Plat. Phssd. c. 65. comp. Bernhardy p. 370.).
Also in Acts xxiii. 3. xgivuv is used of that wliic.li already is, or is done,
without respect to time: as a legal judge over me, 2 Pet. ii. 4. TtagsSuxsv
s if xgtaw t^ovpiivovs is properly he delivered them over as those who (now)
are kept, 1 Pet. i. 9. dyawudo^s -- xo^o^svoi, etc. whilst you receive,
i. e. as those who are destined to receive (others as e. g. Steiger, from
doctrinal views, contend for the present here). The future might have
been rather expected in 2 Pet. ii. 9. aixov$ tis ^i^av xgiaeus xohaQopivovs
It is however not necessary, as the idea of futurity is already

* Cod. D. has here aTmyyeXouvra?, which is evidently a correction, as in MSS. of
Gr. writers in similar passages the partic. fut. is often substituted for the part. pres.

46. OF THE PARTICIPLE. 275

implied in t^slv $ ^/tsg . and to express the sentence by an infinitive
construction, could not seem strange to any one: aSixovs tngei (watfe) xo-
M,ea> (*o3uise&at). In the N. T. the participle of the fut. is mostly con-
nected with the aorist of a verb signifying to go, where a design then
present is to be expressed, Acts viii. 27. xxii. 5. xxiv. 11. 17. xxv. 13.,
here the participle pres. would not have been exact, and might easily
have produced misunderstanding.

Acts xxi. 3. exslas tjv to rtholov drto^og/z 1 ^O/AEVOV -fbv yopov cannot be
translated with Valckenser and others: co nams merces EXPOSITURA ERAT,
but it means: thither the ship unloaded her cargo, i. e. concisely for:
thither the ship sailed, to unload her cargo (unless txsioe be taken for
txei : there the ship unloaded her cargo, narrative). Comp. Bornemann
Schol. p. 176.

In Mr. viii. 11. x. 2. fiftgagovtss is not in order to try, but trying,

whilst they tried. Heb. xiii. 13. alsg^wjUE^o. -ebv bviibitspov aviov

$ s g o v t s f , as in Latin egrediamur ferentes, i. e. egrediamur et fera-
mus, where the participle fut. would have separated the (fi^tw very far
from the l^xsa^ui. Comp. Herm. ad Vig. p. 771.

In 2 Pet. iii. 11. tovtuv jtdvtav nvopevuv means as now all these things
are dissolved, i. e. are in their nature destined to be dissolved; the lot of
dissolution as it were inheres already in these things; a/u^ffcytsWy would
express only the mere future: as the dissolution will once take place.
1 Pet. i. 7. xgvalov lov drtoMwyilvou is also to be translated: gold that per-
ishes, perishable gold, comp. 1 Cor. ii. 6. The Apostolic (Pauline) oi
artoMwpevot, oi aaloftsvot (substantively see 4.) denotes: those who perish
etc. not merely in time to come, but already now, as they reject the faith
and so become liable to eternal death.

As the participle pres. also takes the place of a participle imperf., it is
frequently used in narrative style of that which was being done, at the
time of another event: Acts vii. 26. xviii. 5. Hcb. xii. 22. Luke v. 18.
Therefore of permanent states in Acts xix. 24. 1 Pet. iii. 5.; wv, con-
nected with a preterite, is also the participle imperf. e. g. i. 49. v. 13. xi.
31. 49. xxi. 11. Acts vii. 2. xi. 1. xviii. 24. 2 Cor. viii. 9. But in John
iii. 13. &v (see Liicke and Olshausen in loc.) means who (essentially) is
in heaven, who belongs to heaven; it is scarcely to be doubted that uv in
John i. 18. is to be translated as the present; John ix. 25. 6V t tfu<j>x6j uv
agT-e. jSta'rttt means however: as I am a blind man (from my childhood)*.

In Rev. vii. 2. slSov ayys^ov avafiaivowta (which Eichhorri very

strangely took for a soloecism) I saw him ascend (whilst he was ascend-
ing) is also found a participle imperf. and entirely in its place, as some-
thing is designated which is not on the point of being completed. On
the contrary in Rev. xiv. 13. ajto^axovifss is unquestionably the parti-
ciple pres.

6. The distinction between the participle aor. and perf. (Rost Gr. 579.)
is also observed in the N. T.; the former is used of an action performed

* ".fiv is connected with the principal verb of the sentence in the pres. tense, but
by wgo'rejov is rendered rather a partic. imperf., aa Lucian. dial, mar. 13, 2. S

Trgmgov wy.

276 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

once (Acts ix. 21. Rom. viii. 11. xi. 22. xvi. 22.), the latter of an action
now past, but still operative at the present time, Acts xxii. 3. ly

st> Tagc^p, avai! $ga/j,/j,Evo$ SE Iv tjj rtofat,
etc. (all acts, whose effects yet remain), 1 Pet. i. 23.
ii. 4. John xix. 35. Heb. ii. 9. Acts xv. 5. Mt. xxvii. 37. 1 Cor. xv. 54.*
In narrative 'style the participle perf. is frequently to be translated as plu-
perfect, John xiii. 2. Rev. ix. 1. Acts xviii. 2. xxviii. 11., but (comp.
41, 5.) the participle aor. is much oftener so used, Mt. ii. 13. xxii. 25.
Acts v. 10. xiii. 51.

It is supposed that the participle perf, pass, is sometimes used in the
N. T. after the manner of the Hebrew and Aramean for the participle
fut. pass, or an adjective with the addition otwurdig (worthy), e. g. Gal.
ii. 11. 6V e. xu-tsyvutj jnei/oj qv, because he was worthy of reproach (tadelns-
wilrdig^ had deserved reproach (Koppe, Flatt). But the Heb. usage
of the language (Ewald krit. Gramm. 538.) must not be transferred di-
rectly to the Greek; xatsyv. can only be taken in the same sense as
laudatus for laudandus (one who is praised, and hence, as may be con-
cluded, also praiseworthy) as worthy of reproach, a case by no means
adapted to the above passage. The ground taken by Flatt, that Paul
would not have reproached Peter publicly, if the latter had not appeared
worthy of reproach, is ridiculous, and it would be strange indeed if the
Apostle, having so much at stake in this apprehension of it, should have
written so inappropriately. See Winer's Comment, and Usteri in loc.
In Jude 12. the participle aor. lxgiu>ivfa, stands not for eradicanda;
Stolz here has already translated correctly.

The participle aor. never stands for the participle fut., not even in
Heb. ii. 10. John xi. 2. (where the event long since past, which he first
relates in chapter 12. is before the mind of the writer as past). On the
other hand the participle aor. is sometimes (in connection with a future)
to be translated by the fut. exact., Mr. xiii. 13. 6 8k vrtopetvas i$ i-l^os
oiVof tfto^rfftfat, he who will have endured. But it is as in the German
and Eng.: he who has endured to the end, will be saved; the designation
of future tense is contained in aa^a., vrto^iv^ indicates something en-
tirely past at the period in which the au^a. takes place. Comp. Acts
xxiv. 25. Luke xxiii. 16. Rom.xv. 28. 2 Tim. iv. 8. etc. Lysias in Andoc.
18. Herm. ad Vig. p. 774. and ad Eurip. Jon. 713. Matthias ad Eurip.
Hipp. ver. 304. Participle perf. and aor. connected in parallel mem-
bers, see in 1 John v. 18. (Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. I. 129.).

In Mr. xvi. 2. dvatsfaavtos "tov i]tiov some improperly take the parti-
ciple aor. for the pres., and translate, to suit the parallel passages Luke
xxiv. 1. John xx. 1., oriente sole. See on the contrary Fritzsche in loc.

In some passages the Codd, vacillate between the participle pres. and

* In an O. T. quot. 1 Pet. ii. 10. we find in close connection the partic. perf. fas-
vfAtvit and partic. aor. IAEJI^EVTE?, the latter referring to the fact of the divine mercy
flowing out towards them. On the connection of part. perf. and pres. in Col. ii. 7.
sec Bengel and Bahr in loc.

46. OF THE PARTICIPLE. 277

aor., as in Rev. xviii. 18. Mr. vi. 2. In both places however the parti-
ciple pres. even externally seems more correct, the participal aor. looks
like a correction.

7. It is well known that the participles govern the case of their verbs
(comp.Mt. xxvii. 40. Heb. xii. 10. Gal. i. 23. Phil. ii. 26. Luke viii. S.
xxi. 4.). But when used substantively, they sometimes (viz. in estab-
lished meanings) take the genitive, e. g. 1 Cor. vii. 85. stgoj tfo vpZ>v avp-
$sgov (comp. Demosth. cor. p. 234. to, jtuxga avpfyEgovtu *%$ rtdfocoj) see
Schafer ad Gregor. Corinth, p. 139. Held ad Plutarch. JEmil. p. 252.

8. In O. T. quotations a participle is sometimes connected with some
person of the same verb: Acts vii. 34. iSuv slSov from Exod. 3. (comp.
Arrian. Bid. 4, 15. Lucian. dial. mar. 4, 3.) Hebr. vi. 14. sfaoyZv tfao-

xal rt%y$vvw nhy^vvM tfs (from Gen. 22.), Mt. xiii. 14. /tol-
hety'te (from Isa. 6.). This connection is very frequent in the
Septuagint, and is a transfer to the Greek of the Hebrew infinit. abso-
lute, which however the LXX. might have already found in the Greek,
for that construction not only exists in poets, but also in prose writers
(e. g. Herod. 5, 95. fysvyav sxfy&vysi, Plat. Lach. p. 185. D. aKojtov^svoi
axortovpsv), see Lobeck ad Soph. Ajac. p. 370. Matth. II. 1301. (Georgi
Vind. p. 196. has mingled dissimilarities), as also in the Fathers, e. g.
Euseb. H. E. 6, 45. The participle originally includes an emphasis,
which may have been afterwards weakened. This emphasis is percepti-
ble in the three passages above mentioned: long (and with pain) have I
observed, I will bless thee richly, with eyes you shall see, etc. (From
the Septuag. comp. Judg. i. 28. iv. 0. vii. 14. xi. 25. xv. 16. Gen. xviii.
18. xxvi. 28. xxxvii. 8. 10. xliii. 6. Exod. iii. 7. 1 Sam. xviii. 28. Ruth
ii. 16. 1 Mace. v. 40.).

Here belongs also Ephes. v. 5. jov^o late yiyvcaaxovtss, comp. Isa.
xlii. (xlix.) 22. Every one must see that 1 Pet. i. 10. 12. Acts v. 4.
does not come under this canon. It is surprising that Kiinol quotes Heb.
x. 37. o Eg%6psvo$ rj^st, (it is true he omits the article) as an instance of
the above usage, (comment, in ep. ad Heb. p. 198.).

9. The participles pres. are frequently found (in the historical books)
connected with the verb swat, (viz. with yv or %aav, yet also with the in-
finit. Luke xii. 1. and fut.), sometimes instead of the corresponding per-
son of the finite verb (Aristot. Metaph. 4, 7. Bernhardy 334.), as in Mr.

xiil. 25. ol dtftfsgf j toy ovgavov e a ovt at, TtlTtTtovtzs (where tiatev^'/i-

aovtaf, immediately follows), Luke v. 1. Acts ii. 2., sometimes, as it seems,
to express that which is permanent (rather a state than an action), and
35

278 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

which could be expressed, but with less linguistic propriety, by the form
of the imperfect,* (comp. Beza ad Mt. vii. 29.), Mt. xv. 43. % Ttg
-t^v paafoeiav tov &ov (comp. Luke xxiii. 51.), Luke xxiv. 32.
fy/j-wv xaiofiivq v\v tv ypiv, Acts Vlll. 28. qv T'E vrtoaTtgsfyuv xal
tov a^ytafoj av-tov, x. 24. Mr. ix. 4. xiv. 54. Luke iv. 31. v. 10. vi.
12. xxi. 24. xxiv. 13. Mt. vii. 29. Acts i. 10. ii. 42. viii. 13. Hence
used of that which is customary in Mr. ii. 18. qsav oi ^a^at "iwawov

vtjaievovtes (they were accustomed to fast). In another place ztvut,

is not the mere auxiliary verb, Mr. x. 32. jjaav iv t% <5<p dvapaivovtss sis
5 If.o<j. they were on the way, traveling towards Jerusalem, v. 5. 11.
(Herm. ad Soph. Philoct. p. 219.) i. 4. ii. 6. Luke ii. 8. xxiv. 53. John
i. 28. Mr. xiv. 4. ^adv *wss ayavaxtovvtss, there were some (present) who
were angry, or the participle has acquired more the nature of an adjec-
tive Mt. xix. 22. yjv l%av xtripaitu he was wealthy, ix. 36. Luke i. 20.
xii. 6. The participle not dependent immediately on flvat occurs also in
Luke vii. 8. syto cw^wrtoj sl^ -taaao^svof (Lucian. dial. mar. 6, 2.).
The idea of the verb was perhaps also sometimes diffused into the parti-
ciple and the substant. verb,f to render it more prominent in the aspect
of a noun, 2 Cor. v. 19. (I Cor. xiv. 9.). Such a use of the participle
is not foreign to the Greeks, comp. Eurip. Here. fur. 312. si psv a^evbv-
ttov T!U>V |U.wi> (Sga^id^cov fjv tftj c' v j3 g i a v , Uerodian. 1, 3. 5. x gatf $j -
era? qv tfotj iirtKois (where Ttgocf^yayE^o precedes), Xen. Anab. 2, 2. 13.
yjv 97 ff^gaf^yta ovSsv aM.o Swa/Aevq, Lucian. Eunuch. 2. Sixaatai 4 1 ?? '
govvtss 7i<sav oi agus-toi, Herod. 5, 99. see Reiz ad Lucian. VI. p. 537.
Lehm. Couriers ad Lucian. Asin. p. 219. Jacob qusest. Lucia?i. p. 12.
Ast ad Plat. Polit. p. 597. Boissonade ad Philostr. 660. Nicet. p. 81.
Eisner Obs. II. 173. Matth. II. 1302. In later writers (e. g. Agath.
1^6, 7. 135, 5. 175, 14. 279, 7.) and in the Septuag. it is found fre-
quently, although to the latter the Hebrew seldom offers an occasion for
this construction.

10. The solution of the participles in translating (Kuhner Gr. 369.)
always depends on the connection. The following passages may serve
as instances: Acts v. 4. oi);^ [two? aoi S^EVE did it not remain thine, while
it (unsold) remained? (Xen. Mem. 1,4. 14. 2, 3. 9. Plat. Symp. p. 208.
D. comp. Schafer Melet. p. 57.), iv. 21.

* The popular language expands concise modes of speech for the sake of perspi-
cuity or expressiveness, see 45. 2. note.

t Comp. Kuhner II. 40. See Soph. Aj. 588. (A* wjotouj.^*? ye'yjj. I think Mat-
thia's explanation of these words incorrect.

46. OF THE PARTICIPLE. 279

etc, because they found not, 1 Thess. iii. 5. (Xen. Mem. 1, 2. 22. Lu-
cian. dial. mort. 27. 8.); Heb. viii. 4. oi>& a,v Sjv IE^EVS ovtuv *Z>v tcglcov
iZ>v rtZoa^ovtM xata, tbv vofiov * SZga, as the priests are there, who
etc. Rom. vii. 3. jov prj etvat, av-f^v fiot,%uhi8a yEvo^sv^v avSgi efsgcj), if (in
case that) she has taken another husband, 1 Tim. iii. 10. iv. 4. vi. 8.
2 Pet. i. 4. 8. (Plutarch. JEmil. 17.); John xii. 37. toaavi;a avtov atj-
peia, rteTtotqxotos epjigoo&v avtuv, ovx Tti<tfevoi> els avtov although he had
done so many miracles, xxi. 11. Luke xviii. 7. Rom. i. 32. Philem. ver.
8. Jas. iii. 4. 1 Pet. ii. 19. 1 Tim. i. 7. 1 Cor. ix. 19. comp. Xen. Mem.
3, 10. 13. Plat. Hipp. maj. p. 285. A. Philostr. Apoll. 2, 25. Lucian.
dial. mort. 26, 1. (In this meaning xairtsg occurs with the participle in
Phil. iii. 4. Heb. v. 8. vii. 5. 2 Pet. i. 12. see Xen. Cyrop. 4, 5. 32.
Diod. Sic. 3, 7. 17, 39., comp. Matth. II. 1313.).

NOTE 1. By the participle an action is sometimes supposed to be ex-
pressed, which follows the one denoted by the finite verb (Bii.hr in
Creuzer Melet. III. p. 50.) In the N. T. there exists no certain example,
Luke iv. 15. sSiSaexsv 6 o f a $6f, s v o j vito rtdvtuv means: he
taught praised by all, whilst he was praised by all (during the time he

was teaching) Jas. ii. 9. el 8e Tt^ogurioJ^Ttsl'fE, afiagtiav EgyasO$s ehsyzo-

jttj/oj irto -tav vopov etc. so you sin, whilst (as] you are convinced (as
TtzoatortoMirttovveti). The opinion of Gebhart is incorrect. The use of
the participle aor. in narrative style, remarked by Herm. ad Vig. p. 772.
takes place in Acts xix. 29. u^pr/adv t 6[Ao$v[iabv ?tj ^6 sa-tgov, ewag-
rtaadvtts rd'Cov xai 'Agiatagzov not AFTER they had violently carried them
off, but WHILST they carried them off with them, or AND they carried them
off, Luke i. 9. On Rom. iii. 23. 24. See above, 2.

NOTE 2. Two finite verbs are sometimes so closely connected by xai,
that the former is logically to be taken as a participle, e. g. Mt. xviii.

21. rtorfaxtj a./ta^T'^rfst st ep-s 6 aSsX^dj fiov xai a^rfo ai3i'cj, i. e. afia^-f'^aavtd
tfa a5afc,$. This division of one (logical) sentence into two grammatical
ones is a peculiarity of the oriental language and occurs frequently Mt.
xviii. 21. Rom. vi. 17.

47. Connection of the Subject and Predicate.

1. The predicate is sometimes connected with the subject, not accord-
ing to the grammatical form of the latter, but according to the sense,
instances of which are found in the best Greek writers (see Wurm ad
Dinarch. p. 82. We remark (a) in reference to number: the collective

280 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

nouns singular are followed by the plur. of the predicate, John vii. 49.
o o^oj ODT'OJ -- Irttxatdga'tot slat, Mt. X.xi. 8. <5 rtheicf'tos o%ho$
eOtfgatiav tfa i^aTfia, 1 Cor. XVI- 15. olSa-ts Tfrjv olxi&v Stf$owtt, 6Vt
i'tfaiai' Buwtovs, Mt. iii. 6. Luke ix. 12. xix. 37. xxiii. 9. Rev. xviii.
4. Mr. iii. 7. and Heupel in loc. ix. 15. (3 Esr. v. 59. 1 Sam. ii. 33.
xii. 18. 19. 1 Kings iii. 2. Judg. ii. 20.) cpmp. Herod. 9, 23. <Sj rf$& -to
rtTWj&oj EjSfjSo^tfaj'. Philostr. Her. p. 709. <5 atga-tos dSvpotqauv Plutarch.
Mar. p. 418. (<5 rffgatfos -- aw^d^av ./Elian. Anim. 5, 54. Thuc. 1,
20. 4, 128. see Wyttenbach ad Julian, oratt. p. 192. Reitz. ad Litcian.
VI. p. 533. Lehm. Jacobs ad M chill. Tat. p. 446. Kriiger ad Dion.
Hal. p. 234. Poppo ad Thuc. III. I. p. 529. Ellendt. ad Arrian. Jllex.
I. 105. In the N. T., however, the construction with the sing, verb is
much more prevalent. Sing, and plur. predicates are connected in John
vi. 2. 57 x o 7, o v $ s i o^xoj 7to7/i>ff 6V t I w g co i/ , Luke i. 21. John
xii. 9. Acts xv. 12. comp. Arrian. Alex. 1, 10. 5.

Here perhaps also belongs 1 Tim. ii. 15. gu^asifat, (ywj?) 8ia
tfsxvoyovias, EO.V [isivatiiv EV rtidtsi, xal aydrty, as yvwri refers to women in
general, see Bengel in loc. It is more difficult, with some interpreters
(e. g. Schott, Heydenreich) to refer /.uuvaasv to texvu, which is to be sup-
plied from the word tsxvoyovLu.

Those passages, where the predicate in plur. is connected with exaatos
are not quite of this kind, for John xvi. 32. t'j/ artogrtia&j-te sxars'tos sis *<*
1 8 m means properly 50 that you be scattered, viz. every one etc. 'ixo.<rtos
for more definiteness being placed after, Acts ii. 6. xi. 29. Rev. xx. 13.
Comp. jElian. Anim. 3, 24. Wesseling ad Diod. Sic. II. p. 105. Brunk
ad Aristoph. Plut. 784. Jacobs ad dchill. Tat. p. 622. Besides see 1

Cor. IV. 6. iva i^j 15 vrtsg T?OV Ij-'os 91) tf i ov tf xatfui tiov s-tegov.

A distributive use of the sing, occurs in Acts ii. 3. u^^aav avtois
iafiegi,6/Asvoii yTiwCftfcit wrfft rtv^bg, excise, as tie E$> i!va> txatiiiov avfSiv. The
reverse see in Xen. Cyrop. 6, 3. 4. and Poppo in loc. The reading
exd&anv is evidently a correction, yet the ancient translators should not
be quoted as authorities in its favor, for they were accustomed always
to harmonise such incongruities in the style. Heindorf ad Protag. p.
499. arid Jacobs ad JEilian. Anim. II. p. 100. have collected very in-
structive (although not always analagous) instances of such a transition
from the plural to the singular of the verb.

(&) In respect to gender the following would be considered as con-
structio ad sensum Luke x. 13. si lv Ti;g9 lyhovto al SwdpEis --- Ttcaae,
av lv adxxq> xui tfrtoSrp xa^rvj/uevoi, fjieiiBvoirjaav, if we adopt this reading
with ABL and other Codd. On the contrary where the predicate ad-
jective in the neuter is added to a masculine or feminine, the former must
be taken rather as independent (Ast ad Plat. Polit. p. 413. Herm. ad
Vig. p. 697.), 2 Cor. ii. 6. I x av 6 v ^9 tfotwi^ ^ iTU-td^o* w-tvi this correc-

47. CONNECTION OF THE SUBJECT AND PREDICATE. 281

Hon is to such a man (something) sufficient, also Mt. vi. 34., where
Fritzsche's arrangement does not seem to me natural. Comp. Georgi.
Hierocr. I. p. 51. Wetsten. I. p. 337. Kypke obs. I. p. 40. Fischer
ad Well. III. a. p. 310. Elmsley ad Eurip. Med. p, 237. ed. Lips.
Held ad Pint. Timol. p. 367. Kiihner Gr. II. 45. A few instances from
the Greeks may suffice : Herod. 3, 36. ao$6v &E % ^o^e^. Plutarch
puer. educ. 4. 4 $v6i$ S/vsv ^a^rfswj -tvqhov* Xen. Hier. 6, 9. 6 rtfaspos
$oj3go'j' Plutarch. Caes. 57. tovto S' >tjv o^o%oyov^vt} P.EV -tvgcwvis- Plat.
Hipp. maj. p. 284. A. Conviv. p. 176. D. Lucian. Philops. 7. Diog.
L. 1, 7. 4. Plutarch, mt. Camill. p. 521. Julian. Anim. 2, 10. Dio.
Chrys. 40. p. 494. In Latin comp; Ovid Amor. 1, 9. 4. Cic. off. 1, 4.
Virg. .n. 4, 569. Stat. T/ie&. 2, 399.

Of another kind but worthy of remark is 1 Pet. ii. 19.
comp. nov-to Itrtw wdpvyists Demosth. and Schafer Appar. V. p. 289.
Herm. ad Lucian. conscr. hist. p. 305.

When a predicate is connected with two or more subjects, (a) if it be-
gin the clause, it is placed either (a) in the plural (when the writer had
already a complete conception of all the subjects) Luke viii. 19. jtags-
y EV ov i? o 7toj ojv'tbv tf p-fo^ xal ol aSs^ot a-ufoi), Acts iv. 27. V. 24. Mr.
x. 35. John xxi. 2., or (j3) in the singular, if the subjects can be thought
of separately 1 Tim. vi. 4. If &v ylyv E tf a & $>ovoj, l^ic, etc. (as if it
were ylv $ 6 v . , yfo. Hgis etc.), or if only one subject, the principal, was
uppermost in the mind of the writer, John ii. 2. IxKrj^ xal 6 'l^tfoiif xai
vt paSytai avtov, John xviii. 15. xx. 3. Philem. ver. 24. (var.) Demosth.
c. Pantsen. p. 625. A. Thuc. 1, 47. Plat. Theag. p. 124. E. Arrian.
Alex. 3. 26. Pausan. 2, 9.- 2. Strabo 10. 436. see Viger p. 194. d'Or-
ville ad Char. p. 497. Yet another construction in John iv. 12. X ai
a/utfos If avfoi; srtis XOA o<, viol a-utfou xal tid ^gljUjUai'a av-tov, Mt. xii. 3. John
ii. 12. xaTtsfiq el $ Ka^;. uvtos xal yj {vq-tyg OAitfav xal oi aS&fyoi etc. Luke vi. 3.
orfotfa srisivaGsv uvtbs xal ot ^E*' wv-tov oi/i'ej, xxii. 14. viii. 22. Acts XXvi.
30. Rev. xxi. 22. So also in the second person Acts xi. 14, Iv otj tfw^rf*? av
xal rtu$ 6 olxo$ tfoi;. Although this occurs frequently in the Hebrew (Gesen.
Lehrgeb. 722. Stuart's Heb. Gr. 487. 488.), yet this simple construction
is by no means a Hebraism; we find it also frequently in the Greek writers,
see Matthiae ad Eurip. Iphig. A. 875. and Fritzsche conject. I. p. 25.
Mr. p. 70. 420.) comp. Plat. Conviv. p. 173. A. !> V wteoj * e xal ot (ad
%oesvtai,, Crit. p. 50. E. dovho$, av>t6s * xal ot sol rtgoyovot,, Aristoph. Av.
890. arts^' d^)' vHiZiv xal av xai to, a-fs^a'ta, Alciphr. 1, 24. (b] If the
predicate follow, it is in the plural, e. g. Luke ii. 48. 6 itwtfa eov xd.yu
tf, Acts XV. 35. llanos xai Eagvdpas Stefgtpov 'A-

282 PART THIRD. USE OP THE VERB.

tfto^eogi, comp. Jud. ver. 7. opposite 2 Pet. iii. 10. With subjects of dif-
ferent genders the predicate takes the masculine comp. Jas. ii. 15.

A mingling of these two constructions takes place in Luke ii. 33. %v
'lwcftj<j> xo.1 p>?tf?g avtov av ft a o v n s $ Similar Acts v. 29.

The predicate in the singular follows two nouns sing, connected by %
(or rather disconnected), in Mr. xii. 25. rtdaa, 7t6;us ^ olxia ov a * a
jry B * at,, xviii. 8. 1 Cor. xiv. 24. 1 Tim. v. 16., on the contrary
comp. Jas. ii. 15. lav a8ek$o$ fy aSshfyri yupvol vrtdg%uot>. The Greeks in
such cases usually employed the plural of the verb, comp. Porson ad Eur.
Hecub. p. 12. Lips. Schafer Melet. p. 24. (just as after aMoj OM.Q etc.
see Jacobs ad Philostr. p. 377.) The distinction which Matth. adEurip.
Hec. 84. Sprachlehre II. 768. laid down, is at least not to be seen in
the N. T.

3. Plural neuters take verbs in the singular (see Eernhardy p. 418.
and Kiihner Gram. II. 49.) Yet plural verbs are connected with neuters,
(a) when they denote animated beings, especially persons (in the better
authors almost uniformly, Porson Addend, ad Etirip. Hec. 1149. Herm.
ad Vig. p. 711. 737.): Mt. xii. 21. < dvopatt owfo-u s$vy k^ttiovcii, (Rev.

xi. 18.) Mr. 5. 13. e%%.$6vta 4 a rt, v v /t a, -f a 1 1 a J & o v 5 Jas.

ii. 19. if a Schif^ovvoi rttiatfsvovat, xal rpgCGtiovat,, Rev. xi. 18.
xvi. 14. I a i ya rti/fu/iaftt 8atju.ovtwv, (on the contrary Luke iv. 41.
viii. 30. 38. xiii. 19. 1 John iii. 10. iv. 1. Mr. iii. 11. iv. 4. viii. 28.,
but almost nowhere without variation), John x. 8. ovx tf x ov <jav cwkwv
* a rt^ojSatfa (ver. 27. var.) Luke xii. 30. (var.) Jas. ii. 19., comp.
Xen. Cyrop. 2, 3. 9. * ^w JrtttfT'avr'ttt Thuc. 1, 58. Eurip Hec. 1149.
Bacch. 674. Arrian. Alex. 3, 28. 11. 5, 17. 12. Sing, and plural are

Connected in John X. 27. tfa 7to/3aT'a tfa ^ta r 1 ^ ^uyjjj ^OD a o v t

xat axo^o^ovtft ^ot, 1 Cor. X. 11. comp. 1 Sam. ix. 12. ajtsxgi&j -ta
xat, ^t'yovtftv, Iliad 2, 135. xat, By 5o{iga oeV/jtfs VEWV at ajta^tfa
The sing, alone stands 1 John iii. 10. / ^OUT^ Qavsgd eati if a
ov xui to, 'ttxva, fov Scafiohov, even with the interposition of a numeral
Luke viii. 2. d<j>' j Sa^ovia tTfta s'leTufJt/i&f*, cowzp. yet vi. 20. Mr. xiv.
27. (Septuagint). (&) Occasionally, when they denote inanimate objects
(even although the writer could not well have had in his mind another noun
masc. or fern., see Herm. ad Vig. 711. ad Soph. Electr. p. 67. Poppo
Thucid. I. I. p. 97. and ad Cyrop. p. 116. Stallbaum ad Plat. rep. I.
p. 82. II. 67. Schneider ad Plat. rep. I. p. 93. Yet see Bornemann
ad Xen. Mem. 2, 2. 7.), if the reference be manifestly to a numerical
plurality (Kiihner II. 50.) Rev. i. 19. 5 s'fiaj xal a t-lei (yet imme-
diately after a jitsMst yfcWflat), Luke xxiv. 11. John xix. 31. The
iatter occurs in Gr. prose writers, as is generally supposed (although the

47. CONNECTION OP THE SUBJECT AND PREDICATE. 283

Codd. vary considerably), comp. Xen. Mem. 4, 3. 12. Cyrop. 7, 1. 2.
(also perhaps 2, 2. 2. according to good Codd.) Palairot p. 357. Reitz.
ad Lucian. VII. p. 483. Bip. Herm. ad Soph. Electr. 430. Ast ad Plat.
Legg. p. 46. Zell ad Aristot. Ethic. Nicom. p. 4. 209. Bremi exc. 10.
ad Lys. p. 448. Jacobs ad Philostr. Imog. p. 236. Held ad Pint. JEm.
Pautt. p. 280. Ellendt prsef. ad Jlrrian. I. p. 31., but chiefly among the
later Greeks (Agath. 4, .5. 9, 15. 26, 9. 28, 1. 32, 6. 39, 10. 42, 6. etc.
Thilo Apocr. 1. 182.). Jacob's proposal (ad Mien. p. 228., comp. also
Heindorf ad Cratyl. p. 137.), to amend such passages by substituting the
singular, is probably now recalled even by this learned man, although
where Codd. offer the sing., it might be preferred in the better writers,
with Boissonnade ad Eunap. p. 420. 601. Plur. and sing, occur in close
connection in 2 Pet. iii. 10. e-foixEla MJ v\a ovt t -- to, sv
xait axatja ctfat, comp. John xix. 31 .

About Luke ix. 28., where some would construe Eyeveto -- WCTE&
egat oxtfuj (comp. Matth. II. 765.) see append. 64. I. 1.
It cannot seem strange, that the imperat. ays, which is almost a mere
interjection, is connected with a plural subject, Jas. iv. 13. aye vvv ot
hsyovtss, and v. 1. aye vvv oc tthovctiot,. This occurs frequently in
Greek prose writers, e. g. Xen. Cyrop. 4, 2. 47. 5, 3. 4. Dion. Hal. 7.
p. 456. comp. Aberti observatt. on Jas. iv. ] 3. Palairet observatt. p. 502.
Wetsten. N. T. II. 676. $g is also so construed, Herm. oratt. 17, 6.

NOTE. Instances of the Hebrew Beth essentise (Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 838.
Stuart's Heb. Gr. 547.) were supposed to be found in Mr. v. 25. yvvq *<,<;

ovda sv p-utfEt (Ujiiatfos, Rev. i. 10. syevo^v Iv rtvfvfji.a'td Iv -ty xvgiaxy ^/isga
(Glass. I. p. 31.), Ephes. V. 9. 6 xagrtb$ 'tov^^'to^lv Tidav^ dya^wcfi;^ (Hart-
mann linguist. Einleit. p. 384.) and John ix. 30. Iv tov-ta> ^tav^aatov latt,
(Schleusner see under Iv}. But in the first passage elvat Iv e,. is, to be in the
(state) of the issue of blood, in the second yivsa^at, iv rivBvjj.att, Iv to be present
somewhere in spirit, in the third flvai, ev is equivalent to contineri, posi-
tum esse in (see the interpretation), in the last we can very appropri-
ately translate: herein this is marvellous etc. Gesenius has also incor-
rectly urged this construction upon the Latin and Greek writers; for
slvat, sv <yo$otj, in magnis viris (habendum) esse, certainly does not belong
here, as the connection is very natural and is to be translated: to belong
to the number of them. A Beth essenlise could only express s v and in,
if it signified v <y o $> , in sapienti viro, i. e. 0oij>6j. But this is incor-
rect, and generally the Beth essentiss is a mere fiction of empiric gram.
marians,* see Winer's edition of Simonis p. 109. and Fritzsche ad Mr.
p. 291. The instances quoted by Haab (p. 337.) are evidently inap-
propriate.

* Comp. Julian. V. H. 10, 11. a,m8a.mv Iv .a,\ I a- tit with the entirely misun-
derstood Kin y"O Exod. xxxii. 22. Can this too stand for KaXo'v io-m 1

284 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

48. Apposition.

An apposition refers sometimes not only to single words but also to
whole clauses (Erfurdt ad Soph. (Ed. R. 602. Monk, ad Eurip. Alcest.
7. Matth. ad Eurip. Phoen. 223. Sprachl. II. 803. Stallbaum ad Plat.
Gorg. p. 228.), and (a) the nouns, thus in apposition, according to the
conformation of the clause in the accusative or nominative, can frequently
be resolved, in an independent clause, by the accusative Rom. xii. 1. HQ.-
rta^atftfipcw tfa cfwjtta-i'a v/tuv vai,av wcrav, aytcw, svdgstrtov #9
riv hatgeiuv, i.e. rj stftt, Xoy. T.ai'g. Old est Cultus etc. (tO
connect jtagaatijant, xafgEt'ow/, as modern interpreters do, is harsh), 1 Tim.
11. 6. 6 Sovs lawtbv dvfi^vt^ov iirtsg rtav-ttov, * 6 pa % t?<v g t>ov xaie,ol$ i)5Jocj
(comp. Sueton. Calig. 16. decretum est, lit dies, -- Parilia vocaretur,
VELUT ARGUMENTUM Tursus conditse urbis, Cust. 4, 7. 13. repente ab-
ductse ccslo nubes condidere solem, INGENS sestu fastigatis AUXILIUM),
2 Thess. i. 5. comp. Eurip. Orest. 1103. Androm. 291. fur. 59. 417.
Plat. Gorg. p. 507. E., about the Latin, see Rarnshorn 296. Bengel in-
correctly transfers this usage to Ephes. i. 23. tfo rfx^cojcta etc. (&) A
participle in the nominat. relates to a whole clause, Mr. vii. 19. xal sis
ttbv d^ffigwva ixriogevefat*, x a^ta^i^ov ftav-fa fa j3^w i u,tti'ar tuhich (viz. the
sis * a^-) makes all meats pure, see Fritzsche in loc.

On the apposition added to a whole clause in Mr. xii. 40. Phil. iii. 18.
see 62. Also in Rev. xxi. 17. pi-t^ov di^gwrtou is a lax apposition to
<go t'si'^of etc.

2. Sometimes the word, which expresses the apposition, is not added
to its noun in the same case, but in the genitive: e. g. 2 Cor. v. 5. tov
afyapZiva 4 ov rtvv/jt,ai;o$ the spirit as a pledge (Ephes. i. 14.), per-
haps also Rom. viii. 23. <g^v aria^xn v * ^ rt v E ^ 't* <*>* $ e%ovt$ the spirit
as the first fruits, as if of the heavenly harvest, which sometime shall
follow, Rom. iv. 11. atj^slov l^afis Ttt^itvpiis (where some authorities
as a correction have rf^ctfo^v), Acts iv. 22. 1 Pet. iii. 7. Col. iii. 24.
Rom. viii. 21. 2 Cor. v. 1. Heb. vi. 1. xii. 11., perhaps also Ephes. iv.
9. to, xatwtsga, (^^} rfs yijs (=1^X51 r\i n nnn) into the lower parts, viz.
(to) the earth, or which the earth forms (comp. Isa. xxxiv. 14. sis *b
i'^oj -eov ovguvov Acts ii. 19.). This method of expression, which
from the nature of the genit. is easily explained, (the sign of the circum-
cision, which consisted in the circumcision), occurs frequently both in
Greek and in Hebrew (Gesen. Lehrgelt. 666. Stuart's Heb. Gr. 422.),
although most of the instances collected by Bauer Philol, Thuc. Paull.

48. APPOSITION. 285

p. 31. may be doubted. In Latin comp. besides the similar instances
iirbs Romse, flitvius Euphratis* (Ramshorn Gr. 103.), also Cic. off.
2, 5. collectis ceteris causis, eluvionis, pestilentise, vastitatis rel. (i. e.
quse consistunt in eluv., pestilentia, etc.) t

3. The apposition stands before the (personal) noun Tit. i. 3.

-t ov cfw-r'^oj jjpuv eov, i.e. of God, who is our Saviour, 1 Tim.
ii. 3. 2 Tim. i. 10. Luke i. 26, 2 Pet. i. 11. ii. 20. 1 Pet. v. 8. 1 Cor.
xi. 3. 2 Cor. xii. 7. comp. Lucian. Somn. 18. ^tlcyphr. 3, 41. Paus. 1,
10. 5. But here the office (of Saviour) is the chief idea in the writer's
mind, and the proper noun is added for more distinctness, as frequently
in Latin, Suet. Galb. 4. adoptatus a noverca sua Livia, Liv. 27, 1. comp.
Suet. VitelL 1. Liv. 10, 35. The position of the words should there-
fore be retained in the translation.

4. About the grammatical annexion of the apposition, we remark:
(a) The apposition in the plural is connected with the substantive in sin-

gular, 1 John V. 16. xal Swtfst, avtq ^w^v, tfotj apagtavovtit, fty rtgoj ^aj/ar'oi'.

The aiitc,, as is clear from si t^ in the beginning of the verse, is distri-
butive and hence to be taken as a collective, comp. Matth. If. 749.
(6) The apposition is separated from the substantive by an intervening

clause, Jas. I. 7. [.^ otEO^-co 6 aV^gWTtoj lxstvo$, 6Vt-7,^4 <I>a ^ ^i rtaga T!OV xv

gt'ou, avvje, Si^v^o^. axa-fdata-tos etc., we say: he who is a double-hearled
man, comp. also 2 Pet. ii. 6. (c) The apposition appears in construc-
tions with a relative clause, 1 John ii. 25. av-f^ aatlv fy trtayysfaa, ty uv-

T'OJ fnUyyyEtXai'o 'q\jnv i <y\v ^ai^v i 1 v\v alaviov, Phil. ill. 18., COmp.
Plat. PJised. p. 66. TOT'S ^j.dv tatao ov s7i^v/A.ov^.Ev -- ^o^tffcoj, Hipp.
fllCfj. p. 281. C. oL ytaXacot exelvot,', wj/ dvo/.tafa ^fyaXa ^sye-fat, -- Tli't'taxov

xal BJowtfoj, fyaivovtai, artf.%6/j.vot,, rep. 3. p. 402. C. Lucian. Eunuch.
4. (Gen. xl. 5. Judith vi. 15.) see Wolf ad Demosth. Lept. 315. Stall-
baum ad Plat. Apol. p. 92. ad Protag. p. 15. Kriiger Grammat. Unter*
such. III. 203.

An abstract noun can be placed in apposition with a concrete: 1 John

1V _.'.1'^' dTtegftifa tov vibv av-tov I % a a p. 6 v rttgl fun/ d,ua^T'tuj)/ ^awv, 2 Cor.
viu. 23. Jus. v. 10. The product is placed in apposition with the instru-
ment, Col. iii. 5. The apposition is joined to the subject included in (he
verb 1 Pet. v. 1. 7tagaxca<L (cyw) 6 av[i7teo$vtE%os xat, jiia'gruj etc. (It is
well understood that an apposition can take place with a personal pronoun
as well as with a noun, e. g. Ephes. i. 19. t i s fa s ^ ^ rtw * 6 i ov *oj, 1 Pet.
11. 7. Bornemanu ad Luc. p. 114. has gathered instances from the Greeks.)

* Comp. in the later Latin vocabulum sileniium for vocabuhim silentii.
36

286 PART THIRD. USE OF THE VERB.

A particular clause is chosen instead of an apposition in Jas. iii. 8.
yhiiaaav ov8si$ 8vva,-tat, dv^tg. Sa ( uaaat* axa-td(3%ftov xaxbv, /Asa?'/] lov
fyogov. So also Rev. i. 5. drto 'l^<joo) Xg., 6 pdg'tvs <5 rtia-tog etc. 2 Cor. xi.
2o. %ugL$ TCOV rta^sxT'ojj 57 ETtltrtuffT'oKJi/j ju-ot) ^ xtt^' wt av, YI /^f^u/Avoi might
pei haps be thus explained. But the harshness can be avoided, if only an
anacoluthon be adopted: independently of that which took place addi-
tionally (by which the series ver. 23 27. is broken off,} my daily being
overrun (with ecclesiastical business).

NOTE 1. An apposition must be adopted in many passages, especially
in Paul and Luke, where the interpreters have not always recognised
it, e. g. Rom. viii. 23. wo^Ecft/'av d7tx%6/.ivoij tfrjv drtoKv~?gto(fiv T'OU crcB|tta-
T'OJ vfiitiV for govif ed-fo tfrfv dytoT,., Ephes. i. 7. sv cji e%o/.t,sv tfyjv a/toTi.'UT'^iofftv
-~~ tip afyfGbv T!(av rtagart'ttv/Ad'twv, comp. ii. 5. Col. i. 14. Luke ii. 30. 32.
Rom. ix. 16. 1 Cor. xi. 10. Heb. xxii. 32. Knapp scripla. var. H. p. 390.
Yet see Mr. viii. 8. ^gow TiB^mssv^ioj K'^.aaiJ.d-tuv Irti'a c(rtug(/'5aj they took
up of the remnants seven baskets, and 1 Pet. ii. 5. xai av-toi, ibj xt'&ot uv-
tfEj oixo8afji:ia$e oi xo s rtv EV p. built as (for) a spiritual building.
According to the reading which follows, there would be an apposition in
the last words of JVlt. xvi. 13. ^Iva, p,s hsyovatv oi aj/^-gcoTtot suxxi, <t bv vibv
t ov uv$gurtov,see Bornemann ad Luc. p. LII. and Olshausen in loc.
I think it scarcely justifiable to omit the ^ almost exclusively on the au-
thority of the translations. The Dutch critics particularly have fre-
quently taken offence at such appositions and hastily changed them, see
Bornemann diss. de glossem. N. T. cap. 5. preceding his Schol. in Luc.
(The predicate annexed by means of els is referable to apposition, e. g.
Acts vii. 21. dli/f ^l^atfo aii-fbv iavt>y atj vibv, see p. 179. comp. Xen. Anab.
4, 5. 24. rtafoovi; fig Sas/tbv j3arfM T'g$o j uj/oj, on the contrary Arrian.
Alex. 1, 26. 5. I'oijj VtrtoiJs oi)j Saapbv |3atrsXfc ^Vga^Ej', see Ellendt in loc.}

NOTE 2. Conciseness of expression, connected with apposition, is found
in 2 Cor. VI. 13.: t qv av * vjv avti/ma^iav Tthu-tvv^ytE xai, vpsi j for
dvtt,/Ma&a, see Fritzsche diss. in 2 Cor. II. p. 113.

NOTE 3. 1 Pet. iii. 21. is peculiar So i'Saix, S xaL ^aj aveUvitov vvv
tfcsf si /SaTtftrfitia, where the 6' is more precisely defined by (WiV.: the water,
but not the same, out of which the Noachites were saved, but an antitype
of it; the avuLt. however takes jSarfrf. as an expletive, viz. the water of
baptism. The reading 9 is certainly only a corruption of copyists.

49. Impersonate.

In the N. T., verbs are used impersonally in the third person plural :
John xv. 6. xx. 2. Mr. x. 13. Mt. vii. 16. Luke xii. 20. 48. see Fischer
ad Wetter II. 1.347.

49. IMPEBSONALS. 287

The third pers. sing, also in % Cor. x. 10. 6-ti at laia-to^ai, $1701,
j3aftat; the ^al ($aai is evidently a corruption) is likewise used imper-
sonally among the Greeks, as in the (-ierh.an: heisst es, it is said, see
Bos ad Schiifer p. 92. Wolf ad Demosth. Le.pt. p. 288. Wyttenbach
ad Plut. Moral. II. p. 105. Boissonnade ad Eunap. p. 418. (similar in
Latin inquit, ait, see Ramshorn Gramm. p. 383.) John vii. 51. ^ 6 vopo$
xgwst, tbv av^gurtov, ear pr; a x ov ay rtag' avtov jt^otsgov xo.1 yvcp is Or a
different kind. The only subject is here wanting of which axovsiv and
yiyvaaxtiv in (his connection can be predicated, 6 xgtf/js, nee Rildiger ad
Demosth. Olynth. p. 129. and below 64. In Heb. x. 38. X ai lav vrtoa-
i etc. is not conceived of impersonally, but from the preceding 6
the general av^gwrtoj is to.be supplied. In none of these passages
is there either Hebraism or Aramaeism (yet comp. Gesen. Lehrgeb. p.
797. Stuart's Heb. Gr. 500. Winer's Chaldean Gramm. p. 102.
Haab. p. 288.)

1 John v. 16. oUfijrfst xal SCOPES avt$ gco^v must be translated: let him
pray, and lie (GoD, as chief subject, comp. ver. 14. axovso fyfiuv) WILL
GIVE him life; unless, although a little harsh, we interpret with Schott
and Stolz: and he (he who prays) will thereby acquire for himself eternal
life, comp. Jas. v. 20. The formula of quotation ji!y Heb. i. 7. 2 Cor.
vi. 2. Gal. iii. 16., tyqal Heb. viii. 5., pag'tvgti Heb. vii. 17. (rabb. "1D1X1,
see Surenhus. /3 t, /3 a, . x a t a h % . p. 1 1.) is to be taken as originally an
ellipsis, Ttlyst 6 ^oj, to rtvi-vpa, *y ya$i}, 1 Tim. V. 18. John xix. 36.

CHAPTER V.

USE OF THE PARTICLES. .

50. Of the Particles in general.

1. ALTHOUGH simple sentences and compound can be formed by means
of the flexions of the noun and verb already syntactically explained (the
former particularly by the so extensive use of cases in the Greek, the
latter by the infinit., participle etc.), still those flexions with the great
variety of the relations, from which sentences simple and compound
originate, are not in themselves sufficient. The language has therefore
besides a great treasury of particles, which render possible the formation
of all imaginable sentences and the expression of all their conceivable mu-
tual relations. As is well known, they are divided into prepositions, ad-

288 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLES.

verbs and conjunctions, although grammarians have not yet been able to
agree as to the precise limits of these three species; comp. especially
Herm. de emend rat. p. 149.

The interjections are no words, but sounds, and generally lie beyond
the boundaries of syntax and grammar.

2. Without intending to settle the discussion of the grammarians on
the distinction between these three species of particles, I remark thus
much: (I) that the classification ought not to be made according to the
words but their signification, as it lias been long since acknowledged that,
e. g. prepositions frequently take the nature of adverbs and the reverse
(Herm. de emend, rat. p. 161.) ; (2) that all the particles serve either
only for the completion of a single clause, and have no influence beyond
it, or are intended to connect one clause to another. The latter are justly
called conjunctions; and if in the grammar we regard rather the language
(thought in words) than the (mere) thought, we may reckon here the
comparative particles wj (wjrtsg), the particles of time (Jrfst, oVs, oriole etc.),
the negative particles of design ^ etc., in as much as they are also con-
junctions, so that these particles according to their nature belong to two
classes, the adverbs and conjunctions. To complete the structure of a
simple sentence, the adverbs and prepositions are used, the latter of
which express only relations (of the substantives), the former inherent
attributes (of the qualifying words, consequently of the adjectives and
verbs, in as much as the latter are equivalent to a copula and an attributive
term), see especially Herm. as above, 152.

An entirely satisfactory classification of the particles will perhaps never
be effected, as empirics in the language do not pursue exactly the same
course with those who adopt the rational mode of representation. Va-
rious good explanations of the relation of. the particles to the formation
of sentences are found in Grotefend Gntndzuge einc.rneuen Satztheorie.
Hannover 1827. 8vo. Kriiger Eroster. der grammat. Eintheih und
grammat. Verhdttn. der Scitze. Frankf. a. M. 1826. 8vo. Comp. Werner
in d. neuen Jahrb.fiir. Philol. 1834. 1. p. 85.

3. The N. T. language partakes only in part of the great riches of the
Greek particles, as they exist in the refined Attic language; and that not
only because the (later) popular language of the Greek was not so free
in the use of the particles, but also because the N. T authors, trans-
ferring the Jewish coloring to their representations (p. 35.), did not feel
themselves confined to the nicer shades in the relations of sentences. But
in the nature of the thing, they could least dispense with the prepositions,
most easily with the conjunctions in their variety. The N. T. Grammar,

50. OF THE PARTICLES IN GENERAL. 289

if it would not encroach on the field of lexicography, must not under-
take to develope all the ramified significations of the several particles,
but must rather distinctly specify all the forms of thought which the
particles are used to designate, and in each case show how far the N. T.
authors express them by using the abundance of the Greek particles. It
will thus endeavor, according to the existing state of the N. T. lexico-
graphy and exegesis, to develope in its fundamental traits the organism
of the significations in the principal particles, and will powerfully lift its
warning voice against the arbitrary adoption of a so called enallage of
the particles.

The doctrine of the Greek particles even to the present time has
not been exhausted, either empirically (particularly with respect to
the different epochs of the language) or rationally. The works of
Mt. Devarius (latest edition by Reusmann, Lips. 1798. 8vo.) and II.
Hoogeveen(Amsterd. 1769. II. 4., extract by Schiitz. Lips. 1806.8vo.)do
not answer any more, especially as they entirely exclude the prepositions.
On the other hand I. A. Hurtung's Le/ire v. d. Par/ikeln der griech Spr.
Erlang. 1832. II. 8. merits approbation. There is yet wanting a lexi-
con of the particles of the Septuagint and the Apocrypha for the biblical
system of particles, as the concordances and Schleusner also in his
thesaitr philol. have entirely excluded these words. Tittmann's treatise
on the N. T. particles de mu particular. N. T. Cop. 1. 2. Lips. 1831.
II. 4., also in his Synonym. N. T. II. p. 42.) has been interrupted by
the death of this skillful and learned man.

51. Of the Prepositions in general*, and those construed with the

genitive in particular.

1. The prepositions correspond with the cases of the language. Hence
each one, according to its signification, is connected with a certain case,
whose fundamental signification is equivalent to the fundamental meanino-
of the preposition. Prepositions are employed where the cases do not
suffice for the designation of a relation (for these relations are very va-
rious), and sometimes also where a case would have answered, but on
account of the variety of its uses, was in view of the speaker not suffi-

*Comp Hcrm. de emend, rat. p. 161. B. G. Wciske de proposition, gr. comment.
Gor he. ] 809. K. G. Scbmicl quasi, gram, de praposit. gr. Bsrol. 1 829. Svo. Bernhnrdy
p. US. Sec on the several prcpos, Rob. Gr. and Eng. Lex. It was not my intention
in the above seet.on (us has been supposed by some) to exhaust the subject, but only
to show how the principal uses of the prepositions are derived simply and naturally
from the primary ones.

290 PART THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLES.

ciently definite for his purpose. In the N. T. prepositions are propor-
tionally used more frequently than in the Greek prose writers, because
the apostles were not so familiar with the cases in their extended appli-
cations, as cultivated native Greeks; and besides the inhabitants of the
east prefer the more perspicuous representation, whence the Hebrew
Aramean language expresses by prepositions almost all relations denoted
in Greek by the case alone.

SJ. In treating of the prepositions, it is important in the first place
clearly and distinctly to apprehend the radical or primary signification,
from which the others emanate like beams from a central sun, and to
refer these radiated meanings of the prepositions to it, (i. e. to render
it manifest how, in the mind of the speaker (writer), the transition to
such change of meanings was effected); secondly to point out the case
which, from its nature, follows a preposition generally or in a particular
circle of significations (Bernhardy Allg. SpracJd. I. 164.) and by the
aid of this knowledge to circumscribe its derived meanings. The
former will set in a proper light the interchange of the prepositions
among themselves, which in the N. T. was considered altogether
arbitrary; the latter must be done without any fondness for subtleties,
and with the prefatory acknowledgment that several different cases can
be connected with a preposition according to the individual, and the
more or less clear apprehension of a relation (especially psychological)
comp. Herm. emend, rat. p. 163. In respect to the N. T. language, it
remains only to be observed, how far the later, especially the popular
language, of the Greeks extended the prepositions, abolished nicer dis-
tinctions, and even abused them, and how constant is the reference to the
Heb. Aramean, which delights in prepositions, and denotes many relations
differently from the Greek (comp. e. g. dpoaao lv ?'&, urtax'ttivtw lv

On all these points N. T. philology has done very little; indeed the
earlier Lexicographers (even Schleusner) and Exegesists did not even
feel the necessity of such investigation of these exceedingly important
particles, on which the correct sense of whole passages so often depends,
attributed to each preposition almost every signification which might
seem desirable in a superficially examined context (see Tittm. de Scrip-
tor. N. T. diligentia Gram. p. 12. Synn. I. p. 207.), and referred to the
Hebrews for at least the appearance of justification. Alas! that the Heb.
prepositions should have been treated so empirically even to the present
time, as through the simplicity of the language they admit a more psy-
chological investigation. It has recently been attempted (Kwald krit. Gr.
598. comp. Winer's Exeget. Studien I. 27. and d. neu. Simonis vnd. d.
f'mz. Ansg.), and thus has this Heb. bulwark of empirical indolence

51. OF THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL. 291

been removed from N. T. exegesists. And really it is time to relinquish
this absurd enallage of prepositions, which has introduced so much arbi-
trariness into interpretation (see among others the interpretations of
2 Pet. i. 17.) and to return to rational philological principles. In respect
to the relation of the Gr. and Heb. linguistic elements in the use of the
preposition, it must not be overlooked, (1.) That many a term of expres-
sion familiar to the N. T. writers from their mother tongue has a parallel
in the multiplicity of prepositions in the poets and later prose writers;
(2.) That although in the more prominent Hebraizing writers (especially
in the Apocalypse) the interpretation is intimately connected with the
Hebrew, the Gr. prepositions, with which the Apostles, acquired an abun-
dance of special relations to be expressed in language, must not there-
fore be referred to the I!eb. prepositions, without distinction in all the
books, since, as close observation will evince, the Apostles had become
accustomed to conceive the prepositional relations in the Greek manner;
(8.) That, especially in Paul (and John), a use of many prepositions for-
eign to the Greeks (e. g. of sv) stands in close relation to the dogmatical
language, and belongs to the complexion of the Apostolical (Christian)
diction.

3. In each preposition, the proper and the derived significations are
to be carefully distinguished. The former always refer immediately to
local relations (Bernhardi I. 290.), which, if contemplated by a nation
in greater multifariousness, must consequently result in a multiplicity of
prepositions. There are but two simply local relations, that of rest and
that of motion (or also direction, which is contemplated more or less as
a motion). The latter is partly motion towards (whither), partly motion
out of (whence). The dative answers to the idea of rest, the ace. to
motion towards, the genit. to motion from out of.

Local designations, with correspondent prepositions are, (a) of rest: in
tv,tilh,by,bythesideofrtagu, upon tjtl, above, over faEg, below, un-
der (foo), among, between (with) ^a, before ^6, behind M *a, around
(d^O rte& (&) of (direction) motion to a place: to, into s i f , towards,
against xatd, unto *&, thereon, upon irti, near by, along side rt aga, un-
der, thereunder vrt6; (e) of (direction') motion from a place : out ofl x ,
from too, from under irto, down from xafa, from near by rfaga. A CC J
through, relating to place, comes under the last class, instead of which
the Hebrew says, like the German sometimes, out, e. g. to go out of
the door.

4. Language first treats of the idea of time after the type of local re-
lations, and therefore temporal significations are attributed to most of the
prepositions. Then follows the transition to internal, purely psychologi-
cal relations, which every nation conceives of under a more or less ex-
ternal type; and hence arises a great difference of languages in this re-

292 I'AHT THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLES.

spect. Thus while the Greek says hafaiv itt-^l tftj/oj, the Latin dicere DE
aliqua re, the Hebrew 3 "131, and the German frequently to speak (iiber)
over something, (and the Eng. of, about, and also over, to talk over.
Trs.). The first conceives of the object as the central point, which the
speaker as it were encompasses (to speak around something); the Latin
as a whole, of which the speaker communicates (to the hearer) some-
thing (de as it were to speak off something from the thing); the Hebrew
as the basis of the speaking (to speak on something); the German as
something lying before, over which the speech spreads itself (for iiber
(over) in this connection governs the accusative. Ka^a could also be
taken thus in the formula yjyetj/ xatd twos, or as analogous to the Latin
de (de aliqiio).

The idea of the origin and hence of the cause ia that most simply be-
longing to the prepositions from, out (dyto, vito, rtagd, EX], of the occasion
and hence of the motive to Ttgoj, ct? (e. g. on the report), srci with dat.
and Sta with accus. (on account of), Ijtl in this case relates to the idea of
the basis, on which something rests, whence we also say grund (ground]
for ratio (reason}; Stu is connected with the idea of means; this idea, of
means, mediation, belongs to 3ia with genit. (see below). The design
and aim (or end) are expressed by the prepositions, liti with dat., stj,
rtgoj with accus.; the condition by I ml with dat., as we say also with a
like transition: to speaJe properly (auf upon) for, on condition of a re-
ward. The object which gives rise to an emotion of the mind, is deno-
ted by Ijtl with gen., as we also say: sich freuen iiber (to rejoice over),
stolz sein ATJF (to be proud on, in Eng. to pride himself on). What is
said, in respect to the object, is considered either as similar to something
resting (hovering) on or over the object, therefore ^tyuv Irtl tivi, loqui
super re, to speak over (see above), or according to another conception, is
expressed by rtsgL. The norm, rule or laic is indicated either by (nach) af-
ter, according to (rt%6$, xa-td) or out of (ex): by the former, inasmuch as the
rule is thought of as something, according to which a thing must be re-
gulated; by the latter, because the law, that which regulates, is contem-
plated as that from which the thing regulated proceeds.

5. In certain cases prepositions can certainly be used /or each other;
those, however, must not be so regarded, where an internal psychological
relation is equally well denoted by several prepositions (loqui de re and
super re, lijv x and art 6 twos Xen. Mem. 1, 2. 14., also litl tint,
and rtt^i tuv afiagtuZv, !a;/\.y<j-at artb and ex

* The same relation is expressed in different languages even by opposite preposi-
tions, because it was viewed in different aspects, as the Ger. and Eng. sny on and

51. OF THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL. 293

Properly speaking, there would in such cases be no enallage of preposi-
tions, if the prepositions most frequently thus used be considered as the
type. On the other hand it is possible that, especially in local relations,
the more extensive preposition is used for the more contracted one, as it
appears not to be always necessary to speak with entire precision (comp.
he comes from the house, he goes to the house), and the author through
negligence may have used the more indefinite for the more definite. The
interchange of the preposition is only apparent, where it is used prseg-
nanter, i. e. if it induces at the same time a second relation, the ante-
cedent or consequent of that which it properly expresses: e. g. xutoixt-lv
fi$ -t^v rtohiv, t%0at Iv ty yfi, or Luke ix. 61. drfotfafatf^at tols tig
'ffov olxov jU.ot) ; tVai> vrtb vofiov.

An arbitrary interchange of the prepositions one for another (of which
the N. T. commentaries are full, and which was sustained in part by the
abuse of the parallelism, especially of the evangelists) would never have
been thought of, if it had been more customary to consider the languages
as living means of communication. It is absurd to believe, that any one
could have said he travels to JEgypt for he travels in JEgypt (? for v)>
or to him is all, for from him is all. It is even not quite indifferent
whether through, by, is denoted by Sta or Iv. The latter is not very
suitable before names of persons (sv Xgc.^, iv Kugt'9, is not exactly the
same as Siu Xg.), and the Latin language also usually places per before
names of persons, and uses the ablative of things. Close observation
generally proves how correctly the N. T. authors have used the kindred
prepositions, and that we should honor them as well as ourselves by ac-
knowledging every where their accuracy.

In cases where two prepositions can be used equally well of the same
relation, perhaps the selection of the one in the N. T. belongs to the
complexion of the Hellenistic language. The philologist at least must
reflect on this as possible. But Planck (articuli nonnulli Lex. nov. in
N. T. Gutting. 1824. 4to. p. 14.) errs when he thinks dyo? rtgos ft
(Ephes. iv. 29.) not to be as good Greek as j n. The former construction
occurs more frequently, e. g. Theophr. hist, plant. 4, 3. 1. 7. 9, 13. 3.
Xen. Mem. 4, 6. 10. see Schneider ad Plat. rep. II. 278.

When internal relations are to be expressed two cases (as Ijtl with the
genit. or accus.) may with equal correctness follow prepositions, which
under different significations govern different cases. In the N. T. this
was frequently but incorrectly applied to (., see below, 51. i. (d) comp.
53. (c). On the contrary purely external ideas do not permit such in-
terchange in attentive authors; only the latest writers, viz. the Byzantines,
take this liberty, and confound them e. g. pitd with the gen. and accus.,

also TO, where the Heb., Gr. and Lat. say A dextra. The same language also some-
times expresses a relation (especially internal) by opposite prepositions, as we say,
on condition, and under the condition
87

294 FART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

. . . . . _i

see ind. to Malala ed. Bonn, and this word^ comp. also Schafer ind, ad
JEsop. p. 136.

Prepositions with the Genitive.

(a) *A vt i , locally towards (opposite) denotes, when transferred to a
different relation, that one object is placed over against another, hence
is given for it, instead of it, or takes its place, and consequently governs
the genitive, as this is the case of the going out from and separating:
6. g. 1 Cor. xi. 15. ^ scop? a v 4 i rtsgifiohaiov SsSoTfac, (-tfi yvvaixt) instead
of a covering (to serve her as a covering comp, Lucian. Philops. 22.),
Heb. xii. 16. oj uvtl /Sgwfffuj jtua? arteSoto fa rtgufo-toxtu avtov, Mt.
v. 38. 6^a7i/t6v dv if i dySahpov (eye for eye), Heb. xii. 2. d v -t i t^s
rtgojcEijumys wvTtq #agaj vrisptwe atav^bv (FOE the joy that was set before
him, placing the death of the cross against this). Mt. xx. 28.

frjy tytijtfriv avtov 'kut^ov avfl TtoTiXwj/, Mt. xvii. 27. sxtivov
/?wv 8b$ OAi'fol $ uv -e i E p o v xai a o v (to free us from our obligations to
the tax-gatherer), ii. 22. 'Ag^axaoj paathEvtt uvtl 'H^wSou, in the room
of Herod, comp. Herod. 1, 108. Xen. Anab, 1, 1.'4. Witsten. in loc.
Therefore dvei, is exclusively the preposition of the price, for which
something is bought or sold (for which the merchandise is given or re-
ceived); hence, and indeed from the general signification OVER against
(comp. the Latin oZ>.) may be explained the transition to a causal relation
di' &>v properly (as a recompense) therefore, that, because in Luke i. 20.
(Wetsten. and Raphael in loc.}, more general wti tovtov in Ephes. v,
31. (Septuagint) therefore (for this} comp. Pausan. 10, 38. 5. With a
peculiar construction, but having reference to the fundamental significa-
tion, this preposition occurs in John i. 6. Ihdfiopev #agu> uvti

x a e, t * o f grace over grace (Theogn. Lent. 344. di/i-' aviuv <Waj Xen.
Mem. 1, 2. 64.) comp. Wetsten. in loc., -properly grace against (for}
grace, in the place of grace, grace again, therefore uninterrupted, always
renewed grace. 'Trtlg is kindred.

(b) 'Art6j sx, rtagtt, vrt6 all express that which the genitive denotes, viz.
the idea of going oitt (proceeding) of one object from another, yet with
a well-founded difference, in as much as the relation which the two objects
are conceived of as sustaining to each other may be nearer or more re-
mote, more intimate or more general. 'EX undoubtedly denotes the most
intimate lx, vtto a less intimate, and rtaga (de chez moi D^o) and drt6* a
yet more remote. The reason of the interchange of these prepositions,

* The distinction between awo and ex. is recognized in Luke ii. 4. and in John xi.
1. (see Lttcke in loc.) they are connected with equivalent meanings.

51. OF THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL.

295

at least of d*6 and i, as also drto, inti, rfagd, is that this kind of relation
is apprehended sometimes more sometimes less precisely (see above 5.).

For the distinction between the prepositions <xrf6, rtaga,, vrtb it may
further be observed: if the proceeding from something is thought of in
general, (wto is used; if distinctly conceived of as from something per-
sonal 7tau or irto is required. If the personal object is only denoted as
active in a general way rtagd is used, but if it is represented as the
properly effective, productive principle, vrtb is selected, and consequently
is the regular preposition after passives.

n a g a is properly used in relation to such objects as come from the
immediate vicinity (neighborhood] of another: e.g. Mr. xiv. 43. 'lovSaj

rfagaytWac., xal jUsf' 'aAfov o^oj rfoivijj it a get. *uv ag%t,gEav from

the high priests (with whom, around whom they were as servants com/?.
Lucian Philops. 5. Demosth. adv. Polycl. p. 710.), Mr. xii. 2. fan Ttaga
twv ysaeyuv jio/Sfl drto tov xagrtot a part of the produce (of the vineyard),
which was in the hands of the vintners, John xvi. 27. 6V& lyw ytagql tov
sov ItifaSov (comp. i. 1. 6 Tioyoj tjv jtgoj Tfbv $ebi<) xv. 26. Ephes. vi. 8.
Acts ii. 33. etc. Tropically with verbs signifying to inquire Mt. ii.
4. 16. Mr. viii. 11., to learn 2 Tim. iii. 14. Acts xxiv. 8. (Xen. Cyrop.
1, 3. 15. 2, 2. 2.), in as much as the subject to be learned etc. is con-
ceived of as existing in some one's (mental) power (more lax d?t6 Mr. xv.
45. Gal. iii. 2. Col. i. 7., more expressive lx twos Xen. CEc. 13, 6.).
d is sometimes connected with passives, Acts xxii. 30. xa^yo^sltai,
tfwv 'louScuwv. So especially in later writers (Bast ep. crit* p. 156.
235. Ellendt. Arrian. Alex. II. 172.). Luke however could not well
in that place say v jt 6 t. 'lovS. (they had not yet entered a complaint),
as it relates to the occasion of the dissatisfaction of the Jews with Paul,
therefore to that of which he was accused on the part of the Jews. So
also Mt. xxi. 42. 7ta xvgiov sylvsto avtq (Septuagint) signifies,yrom
God (divinitus, by means existing in the power of God) this proceeded.
In John i. 6. sy^s-to aj^gwrtoj ajted'ta^svos rtagu sov the last words do
not relate to the fact of the mission (of him whom God had sent), but
means: he appeared as one (sent) out from God (and consequently) as
being there.

It is a very correct remark (Viger 580.), confirmed also in the N, T.,
that rtc^a with the genitive in prose is usually connnected only with words,
which denote animated beings. But in no passage of the N. T. is it
used with the genit. expressly for rfa^a with the dat. (Bretshneider II.
210.), as it certainly occurs in the Greek writers (Erfurdtjad Soph.
Antig. 955. Schafer ad Dion. comp. p. 118. Held ad Plutarch. Timol.
p. 427.) In sv^iaxsiv 2 Tim. i. 18. the idea of acquiring is also implied;
Mr. v. 26. is evidently attraction (see append.}, but Mr. iii. 21. the ol

296 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

are probably his relations (who descended from him) see
Fritzsche in loc. Luke xii. 48. by no means belongs here, as Wahl was
inclined to believe. On a circumlocution of the genitive by Ttaga see 30.
note 5. It is very apparent that to, rfag' vpuv in Phil. iv. 18., *& ytag'
oAi-tuv Luke x. 7. are not merely equivalent to * fyiwv (vpetega) av-tuv ',
in both cases verbs of receiving are connected with this formula (receiving
that which comes from you, i. e. your presents, eating that which is offered,
served up by (from) them).

v Ex is used originally in reference to such objects, as come forth out
of the interior (the circumference, the limits) of another jfrowz within (the
opposite of tj Luke x. 7. xvii. 24. Herod. 4, 15. 10. JSschin. dial. 3,
11.) Luke vi. 42. H%j5a%s ttjv SOXQV IK toy d^aAfiov (it was Vi'$ o^.), Mt.

viii, 28. EJS ttZtv i^vf}p.iuv $-sg%6/ABVoi, Mt. i. 16. 1% %$ (Magtaj) lysw^J?
'l5?0oi;j, comp. Mt. i. 18. (where Iv ya<jtfgi! l%iw lx tov tivtv/ji. ay. is an im-
itation of &V y. 1%1-w J| avSgos), 1 Cor. xi. 8.; concisely in Luke v. 3.
ISiSotdxsv lx tw itholoi) out of the ship (speaking from within it). The
use of this preposition to denote the matter out of which any thing is
made is allied to this. Mt. xxvii. 29. Rom. ix. 21. comp. Herod. 8, 4.
27. Ellendt ad Arrian Alex. I. 150. and also its partitive use: dV^wrfoj
lx fwj' *agttfattov 1 John iv. 13. 2 John ver. 4. t| uvtuv artoxt woven, John
xvi. 17. e^rtov IK -t^v pa&jitiZv (tivi-i), Rev. ii. 10. Mt. xxiii. 34. 1 John
iv. 13. 2 John ver. 4. (instead of which the genitive alone is mostly used
by the Greeks), and finally, its use to express the condition, state out of
which some one comes Acts i. 25. Rev. vii. 14. (or brachyologically of
that out of which somethin is undertaken 2 Cor. ii. 4. l

Sometimes lx also stands in a local sense with less accuracy for de,
down from: Acts xxviii. 4. xs^d^vov lx tfjs %Mgos> Herod, 4, 10. Xen.
Mem. 3, 10. 13. Odyss. 8, 67, (unless it there means: out of the hand),
Acts xxvii. 29. or instead of from* H'eb. xiii. 10. $aydv lx tov Svama-
from the altar; even of the mere direction from Mt. xx. 21. V
Jj lx S&MV etc., where we say at (on) the right, but the
Latin also a dextra (comp. the Hebrew ID). In such designations it is
indifferent whether the going out be from the object to be determined (to
ourselves), or from ourselves to the object to be determined. The Greeks
have chosen the former, the Germans the latter comp. Goller ad Time,
8, 33. In a temporal sense lx is used of the beginning of a certain

* Luke xxi. 18. (Acts xxvii. 34.) xxiii. 7. Mr. xi. 8., where Bretschneider translates
from, do not belong here. We must not forget that two languages may represent a rela-
tion differently and yet both correctly, e. g. Rom. iii. 12. lyeffivai s % VTTVOV to arise
FROM (out of) sleep. In Rev. vi. 14. 1 y. was probably chosen designedly, as the
tains stand fast in the earth.

OF THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL. 29*

period of time: since, from Mt. xix. 20. John vi. 66. Acts ix. 33.*; the
Greek says here out of, according to a lively perception, as he does not
(as we do) conceive of time as a point from which the account begins,
but as something expanded out of which something grows or extends
itself (as ig ^lg ft i| %*w s etc.). Transferred to internal relations this
preposition denotes every source and cause~\, out of which something
emanates: Acts xix. 25. Rom. x. 17. 2 Cor. Hi. 5., as specimens of which
signification the following constructions may be especially remarked: Rev.
viii. 11. &?to$vqa*skv Ix tuv vSdtw, (Dio. Cass. p. 239, 27.) Rev. xv. 2.
vixav ex twos (victoriam ferre EX aliguo Liv. 8, 8. extr.), Luke xii. 15.
Q $ x __ & w ,j avTfov la-tw Ix tiwv vrtuQKovtuv (1 Cor. IX. 14. Ix tov
etiaytl&Cov Zyv), Rom. i. 4. O^KJ^EVI'OS iilov EOV a| dvatft'arfswj vsrtgwv (source
of proof and conviction) comp. Jas. ii. 18., Luke xvi. 9. Ttowjcratfa la/utfots
tfoaj papuva *??$ dSwet'ajj with the person:}: 2 Cor. ii. 2. Kortovpsvos
x), John vii. 22. o-ux J* T'OOJ Miovcrc'wj sa-tiv (<5 Tisgti'ojw^), Rom. xiii. 3.
ertawov | owJi 1 ^? (e|owtftas), John X. 42. rtoTaa xati.u sgya,' sSEi^avfilv J x
satgospav. I Cor. vii. 7. John iii. 25. vi. 35. (mostly so of Kings,
magistrates etc. Xen. Anab. 1, 1. 6. Herod. 1,69. 121. 2, 151. Polyb.
15, 4. 7.). 'Ex is used particularly of the state of mind, the feeling from
which something originates 1 Tim. i. 5. 1 Thess. ii. 3. Mr. xii. 30.
(Xen. Anab. 7, 7. 43. g x *ijs tyuxw $hs n v Arrian. Epict. 3, 22. 18.
Aristoph. Nub. 86.), then of the occasion Rev. xvi. 21. l^aa^^aav tbv
i-bv ix tvfi cj^yjj (Lucian Asin. 46. Demosth. adv. Conon. p. 727. B.),
of that from which a judgment is deduced Mt. xii. (33.) 37. see Kypke
in loc. Xen. Cyrop. 2, 3. 6. .ZEsop. 93, 4. (in German according to
another transition: to judge something by, according to, comp. i v 1 John
v. 2. iii. 19.) and hence of the rule or law 2 Cor. viii. 11. The price
is also sometimes denoted by Ix Mt. xxvii. 7. tfyogaaav If avt<Zv (dgyu^'wv)
dygov (Palseph. 46, 3.), in as much as the possession results to us from
the money (given for it), comp. Mt. xx. 2. (where there is conciseness of

* The passages from the N. T. quoted by Wahl II. 455. in favor of the signification
statimpost do not prove it. Luke xi. 6. is to stop/rom his journey, xii. 36. to return
from tlie wedding, John iv. 6. to be wearied from or by his journey, 2 Cor. iv. G. to
shine out of darkness etc. In many of these passages statim post (immediately after)
would be unsuitable, in others it would specify the point of time, where the writer
only thought of the von her (wherefrom, whence), wn-aus (out of, out from) of the
thing. In Heb. xi. 35. the preposition has no reference to time.

t See Held ad Pint. Tim. p. 331. on the affinity between en, and Sia.

t This use of the preposition is very extended, especially in Herod, see Schweig-
hatis. Lex. Herod, p. 192. Comp. also ^EI. V. H. 7, I. Diog. ti. 1, 2. 6. Philostr.
Soph. 2, 12. and Sturz Lex, Xen. II. p. 88.

298 PART THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLE.

expression). On gf J'gycov swat, and Gal. iii. 10. see Winer's comment, in
loc. The formula slvat, lx I-H/OJ partakes of the entire variety of this
preposition, comp. e. g. 1 Cor. xii. 15. 6Vt ovx slpi %sig, otix slpl E x tov
cFtVatfoj; we say on the contrary: belong TO the body.

'T ft 6 is originally used in relation to objects which proceed from the
under part of another object (nrwo): e. g. Herod. Theog. 669. ZEV$
vrtb #0oi>6$ VJXE etc. Pausan. 10, 12. 1. vitb axqvijs rtegav under the
tent (see Bernhardy p. 268.); then usually with passives, to designate the
subject from which the action proceeds, in whose power it was to do or
to omit it, also with neuter verbs of a passive signification, 1 Cor. x. 9.

vrtb TlZiV b'fysav arttAhoj'-to, Rev. vi. 8. artoxiisivcM vrib <twv 6wguuv, Mt.

xvii. 12. 1 Thess. ii. 14. 2 Cor. xi. 24. comp. Lucian. m. Peregr. c. 19,
Xen. Cyrop. 1, 6. 45. Anab. 7, 2. 22. Lysias in Theomnest. 4. Pausan.
9, 7. 2. Plat. Apol. p. 17. A. Soph. Philoct. 334. Philostr. Apoll. 1, 28.
(Polysen. 5, 2. 15.) Person ad Eur. Med. p. 97. The powers, which
had produced the death and destruction, were considered here as efficient
agents, equivalent to being put to death by, destroyed by etc.; but if artb
had been used, they would only have been that, from which a conse-
quence followed. In the former passage, the active construction the ser-
pents destroyed etc. might be substituted, in the latter it would be inad-
missible. Comp. the parallels Mt. xvi. 21. with xvii. 12. and Mr. v. 26.,
and phdrt'tEaQut, artb it. different from vitb ^. Xen. Cyrop. 5,, 3. 30. .ZEs-
chin. dial. 2, 12. See Engelhardt ad Plat. Apol. p. 174. Lehmann ad
Lucian- VIII. p. 450. II. p. 23. Schulz vom Abendmal p. 218. (Bret-
schneider should not have translated this vftb by per, as it never denotes
the mere means or instrument like $M. In scientific definitions the in-
accuracy of the popular language must be avoided).*

'Artb is related to objects which, having been previously on, at (not in),
tvith another object, are now separated from it (therefore the opposite of
srti wi'.h ace. Diog. L. 1, 1. 3.): e. g. Mt. xxviii, 2. ajtsxv^as ibv tieov

aria rrj$ Ovga$, Mt. xiv. 29. xat!u$a.s a rib toy rthoiov, as W6 say: to be On

(not in) the ship, from on board, Acts ix. 3. Tts^^a-f^a^sv avtbv <j>wj drcb
>tov ovgavov down from heaven (xx. 9. Xen. Cyrop. 3, 3. 60. ^Eschin. dial.
1, 4.), Mt. iii. 16. avipt] artb tov vSutos up from the water (not out of),
Luke xxii. 45. avaa-tdg art 6 1% fi^oasvx^s (after the conclusion of the
prayer, in which to this time he had been engaged), Luke vi. 13. lxte%-
ajtb twv p.cLQij'tuv SwSsxa tivclve, luho hitherto had been among the

* In 2 Pet. i. 17. <fnav. eve%d. aiira rot. VTTO T?? (*tya.K. $0%. the signification (unter~)
from under, in company with is unnecessary (Wahl II. 597.)- Luther is more cor,
rect, whilst a voice came to him from (but of) the divine majesty.

31. OF THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL. 290

(more exact ex >t. jua0.), comp. Mt. vii. 16. John xxi. 10. Ac-
cordingly as this fundamental meaning is applied artb is (a) the preposition
of separation and of being separated, Mt. vii. 23. drfo^co^att'E ait
Luke xxiv. 31. a^avfoj sysysfo art' wutfwv, Rev. xviii. 14. (comp. also a
jefurttfeM; drfo Mt. xi. 25. Luke ix. 45., icffltW drfo Mr. vii. 28. Mt. xv.
27., the prasgnant formulas Luke vi. 17. Col. ii. 20. Rom. ix t 3. 2 Gor.
xi. 3. etc.), and consequently also of distance John xxi. 8. (Rev. xii. 14.
comp. Xem Anab. 3, 3. 9. Soph. (Ed. Col. 900.). (b] Of originating
and proceeding from something in any respect, viz. the source Acts ix.
13. artjxoa drib rfoMtwv (1 John i. 3.), the matter Ml. iii. 14. comp. Lu-
cian. dial. deor. 7, 4. (hence also Luke viii. 3. S^axovslv djto ituv irfag-
#6Wv taking the gift from their means, Xen. Anab. 5, 1. 12. comp. Rev.
xviii. 15. and JEschin. dial. 2, 36.), the descent or derivation (out of a
people or country), as of the dwelling-place, of the sect, Mt. xxi. 11.
xxvii. 57. Acts ii. 5. John xi. 1. xii. 21. Acts xv. 5. (Polyb. 5, 70. 8.
Plut. Brut. c. 2. Herod. 8, 114.), concretely of the author or possessor,
from whom something proceeds Acts xxiii. 21. <t^ v arib aov ETtay/sMiio*
(see above 30. 5.) Rom. xiii. 1. ov yag latw ft-ovaiu si ^ drib Osov, 1 John
ii. 20. iv. 21.; Mt. xvi. 21. rtadiiv drib tuv TtgEepwfsgtov (Lucian. dial.
deor. 6, 5. Plat. Phssd. p. 83. B.), Mt. xii. 38. Gal. i. 1. 1 Cor. iv. 5.
Col. iii. 24. (yet never, where the possessor is to be conceived of as im-
mediately efficient, instead of Ttaga, see Schulz v. Abendmal p. 215.)*,
seldom and perhaps never, after passive verbs for the more definite

* When O.TTO stands after verbs of receiving, borrowing etc. it denotes merely and
only generally the whence, wlierefrom: Mt. xvii. 25. a, wo TI'V. Aa^iS. re\n ; the Aa^-
SO.VOVTS? are kings, whilst itaga. would denote the immediate going out from (in this
passage, if publicans were spoken of). In Xa^, 1 ?. na^a. r., the TI? is conceived of as
active (as giving or offering), in Xa^/3. 0.710 T., only as the possessor. In 3 John ver.
7. /wiiSiv Xtt|w(3. wag a -r5v IQv. would be written, if the writer had intended to say that
the E'flvw would have given a thank offering. Col. iii. 24. a it 3 av^iou avo\{,^,. T. avttt-
Tro'S. it will go out from the Lord, but vra^a. xug. the Lord will (immediately) render
it to you. On the other hand the w ? a in John x. 18. ra.vrnv -niv IvroXw e\a@. va.^
T. warj. is used correctly. So in 1 Cor. xi. 23. wage\. ivo rov KV<>. is right (of or
from Hie Lord I have received, not the Lord himself has imparted it to me), and wagi,
which some Codd. have, is undoubtedly to be attributed to transcribers, see Schulz as
above 215. comp. N. Theol Annal. 1818. II. p. 820.

t The. readings of (Rom. xiii. 1.) Mr. viii. 31. differ, and Fritzsche adopts M. In
Gr. authors ^l and inl are often interchanged by transcribers (Bast, ad Greg. Cor
ed. Schafer p. 794. 833. Schafer Melet. p. 22. 83. Schweigh. Sex. Polyb. p. 69. etc.)!
and so in Luke ix. 22. xvii. 25. fat may be written. ' A ^ for M after passives is fre-
quent in the later writers (especially the Byzant. e. g. Ind. to Malal. cd. Bonn), with
the more ancient rare, sec Poppo ad Thuc. III. I. 158. Bernhardy Synt. 224.

300 I>AHT THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

Jas. i. 13. Luke vi. 18.* and abstractly of the efficient power, whence'
it can be translated T>y or through Acts xx. 9. Rev. ix. 18., of the cause
and motive, Mt. xiv. 26. 0,7*6 tov $dj3ou exgn$av from or through fear^
Luke xxi. 26. xxii. 45. xxiv. 41. Acts xii. 14. Plutarch. Lysand. 23.
Viger. p. 581., of the (objective) reason (the why or wherefore], Acts
xxii. 11. ovx EvspKsrtov drfo t^j Sof^j <tov tyatog on account of (for} the
glory (the not seeing had its reason in the glory), Luke xix. 3. xxiv. 41.
John xxi. 6. see Kypke in loc. (according to some, also Heb. v. 7.) comp.
Held ad Plutar. Tim. p. 314. (Judith ii. 20. Gen. xxxvi. 7. Herod. 2,
64.). Acts xvi. 33. is a praegnans constr. l^ovstv drfo *MV rtx^ywv he
washed and cleansed them from, of the stripes, i. e. of the blood, with
which they were sprinkled in consequence of the stripes (Kypke incor-
rectly, propter vuln.}. Mt. vii. 16. is easily interpretedijfirowi the fruits
(object.) will the knowledge be derived (differently Luke xxi. 30. d^ 1 lour
tuv ywuxtxsite 2 Cor. x. 7.j where the subjective source of the knowledge
is denoted). The signification of time, since Mt. i. 17. Rom. i. 20. etc<
(Wahl 1. 112. Robi Gr. and Eng. Lex. at 0,^6 II.) presents little dif-
ficulty, as we also, in such cases say from (von] see above I x.

According to Schteussner and Kiinol <xyt6 also signifies (1.) in,
xv. 38. tbv urtotrtavta art' avtuv drib na^iWaf, who had departed from
them in Pamphylia. But it is apparent that it means: who had left them
(going forth) from Pamphylia.. This is very different from lv II. in
Pamph., which would mean that Mark remained in Pamphylia, having
separated from Paul, comp. xiii. 13. It is strange that Schleussner
should refer here also the expression art' ugxWi ^ ovgavov ! (2.) de,
concerning, Acts xvii. 2. Swjilystfo envois drto -guv yga^wv, this however is
by no means equivalent to jts^i t^v y^. 5 but signifies: setting out (in
his discourses) from the holy Scriptures, taking occasion from the Scrip-
tures (Schulz Abendmal p. 218.), or taking his proofs out of them, (as in
the Eng. Bible, he reasoned with them out of the Scriptures. TVs.),
comp. Epiphan. Opp. II. p. 340. D. see Acts xxviii. 23. Nor is the sig-
nification de supported by Herod. 4, 53. 198. (Schweighiluser ' Lexic.
Herod, p. 77.). (3.) per, through, Acts xi. 19. gtatfTtagsWej ajtb

* In this passage afro Qsou it^a^o^tn is properly, I am tempted of (from) God, and
is more general than uwo 0. wsig., i. e. Seo? wEiga^Ei fte. The following words vet^et^st
JE auroj ouS 1 . only shew that the Apostle at the same time thinks of an immediate
temptation by God (comp. Herm. ad Soph. (Ed. Col. 1531.). On Mt. xi. 19. see Fritz-
sche in loc. and Lehm. ad Lucian. VI. 544. 2 Cor. vii. 13. and Heb. xi. 12. (var.)
do not belong here. In Rev. xii. G. ano 6-ov is divinitus (dei leneficio). In Acts x*
17. the 01 o7rscrraXjWEV3( a. TTO TW K.ogv, according to the vulg. are those sent out from
him and consequently those being there (vre\tea-9a.t avro Ttvot), whilst &iria-r. biro (as
some Codd. have) would be: those whom lie had sent. (These two prepositions arc
connected in a manifestly different sense Luke v. 15. Rom. xiii. 1., comp- Euseb. Hi
E. 2, 6. p. 115. Heinichen.).

51. OF THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL. 301

j but this is properly, on account of the persecution. (4.) modo,
instar, like, 2 Tim. i. 3. ajtb^oyov^v. But it is properly from my an-
cestors (Polyb. , 55. 9.), with the sentiments inherited from them. In
respect to such passages as John xi. 18. Rev. xiv. 20. see Appendix
65. 4.

(c) 'A p, $ I does not occur in the N. T.

(d) He 6 before, of place, Acts v. 23. Jas. v. 9. (also Acts xiv. 13.
comp. Heliod. JEihiop. 1, 11* 30.), oftener of time (also in the expres-
sion neo xaiov before the time Mt. 8. 29.), then also of precedence or
preeminence Jas. v. 12. ago jtavtw ante omnia 1 Pet. iv. 8. (Xen. Mem.
2, 5. 3. Herodian. 5, 4. 2.). No one at this day will translate with
Schleusner, John x. 8. by loco, vice, in the room of, although this mean-
ing naturally belongs to this preposition, Xen. Cyrop. 8, 8. 4.

(e) Htgi. The fundamental signification is apparent from the con-
struction of this preposition with the dative. There it denotes the idea
of surrounding, enclosing on several or on all sides (kindred with aptyl),
hence different from ttagn, which expresses only, that one thing is near
to (at the side of) another. Tlfgi, connected with the genitive, occurs in
prose writers almost exclusively in a transferred (tropical) signification
(on the contrary comp. Odyss. 5, 68.)* of the object, which is the central
point of an action, about or around which as it were an action is execu-
ted, to fight about something, to hear, to know of (about) something (1
Cor. xii. 1. 1 Thess. iv. 13.), to speak of, and corresponds with the Latin
de. It governs the genitive, however, because the action at (he same
time goes out from the central point (hence to speak of something).
This primary signification can be recognized, even where it must be
translated by: in respect to, in regard to, on account of (for), e. g. John

XI. 19. Iva rtagapv^riawtaii av-fa^ rt.fgi 'fov aSehyov av-tuv Mt. iv. 6.

dyyf'koij fj/i'fXEtT'OK, ri g i aov, Mt. i. 44. rtgoeevsyxs it f e, & "fov

crou, a, 1 Pet. iii. 18. rtsgl d^a^fta? erta^s, Acts viii. 15.

rtegi aviuv, John xvii. 9. Col. i. 3. (Porphyr. de styge p. 230. ed. Schott).f

Brother, purification, sin, are the objects in respect to, on account of

which there is consolation, sacrifice, suffering. The same signification

* Locella ad Xen. Ephcs. shews however that the local signification about is not
without example in the later prose writers. Comp. SchJLfer ad Dion. Hal. p. 351.
And so the WE oS Acts xxv. 18. (which Heinrichs and KtinOl have not noticed) can
be connected with o-raBevref.

t In his Observatt. human. 5, 20. To pray (WEJI) for one is indefinite (ltti ? rtvo;
more definite), and therefore the precise object of the prayer is sometimes expressed
by an additional clause (Acts viii. 15.). This however does not often occur, as itym-
iv%. Ttsti r. is usually to pray for one (1 Thess. v. 25. Heb. xiii. 18.) in a general
sense, nij/ and u?rjf are distinguished in Dio. Cass. p. 528. 28.
38

302 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

in Rom. viii. 3. ytsgt upag-ttas, which should not have been taken as one
idea sin offering. Hence it is found in the beginning of a period (Hip-
pocr. Aphor. 2, 3. Plat. Phsedr. p. 250. C., comp. Stallbaum ad Plat,
rep. II. 157.) 1 Cor. xvi. 1. jt a e. I *% Tioyiaj etc. quod ad pecimias atti-
net (as to], although these words are grammatically connected with w$rt
he-taj-a. Sometimes rf^ seems to denote beyond, above, more than,
therefore prse, as e. g. in the passage of Homer jtsgi rtdvtuv epitevM <&-
sicov (Passow Lexic. II. 558. Robinson's Lex. p. 645. So it is taken
3 John ver. 2. rtegi jtdvtuv wzopai <JE etc. above all tilings etc. Liicke
quotes as proof a passage from Dion. Hal. 6. p. 375., but the impossibi-
lity of connecting rtegl rtdvtav with the following infinitives seems to me
not very evidently shown, see Bengel in loc.

CO n C s The original signification, which agrees with the funda-
mental idea of the genitive, from something hither, is evident from in-
stances like I'D rtoiovpsvov rtgbs tfiuv AaxEai>[*.ovtu>v Herod. 7, 209., rtdaxoptv
rto$ avf^f Alciphr. 1, 20. (Bernhardy p. 264.) and slvat ^oj tfwoj to be
on the side of some one (dependent on him), comp. ad Herenn. 2, 27. AB
reofacere. In the N. T. it occurs only in Acts xxvii. 34. with the gen-
itive: -tov-tb yag rtgoj tfiyj tjustsgas tfu'tijgias vrtdgxsi, tends, pertains to our
salvation, properly, like E re nostra est, it goes out from our salvation,
therefore answering to it, comp. Heinichen ind. ad Euseb. III. p. 534.
and the phrase rt^oj -twos ftvat, to be profitable for (to) some one, Plat.
Gorg. p. 459. C. Lob. ad Phryn. p. 10. Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. I. p.
265. Stebelis ad Pausan. 8, 50. 5. (In many of its uses this preposition
is parallel with the Hebrew ID, and Gesenius might thus have explained
many passages misunderstood by him).

(g) 'E^tt. The primary signification, which might justify the geni-
tive after this prepos. is in most cases obscure, yet comp. Luke iv. 29.
ogouj, *V ov ^ TtoJus avtuv cpjcoSo'^tfo upon which (and out from which) it
was built (Diod. Sic. 3, 47. Dio Cass. p. 1251.). "Erti usually implies
position, on, upon, above a place (the object in this position may be con-
ceived of as reposing, or as moving to and fro) Mt. ix. 2. 6. xxiv. 30.
Luke xxii. 21. Acts v. 15. viii. 28. xii. 21. (also Luke xxii. 30. you eat
on (at] my table, i. e. the provisions standing on my table),* hence par-
ticularly of shores or coasts John xxi. 1. fai tys $a\daat]$ near the sea,
on the sea shoi'e (Polyd. 1, 44. 4. comp. Xen. Jlnab. 4, 3. 28. and the
Hebrew by Septuagint 2 Kings ii. 7. Dan. viii. 2.), then of elevated, high
objects, (on the upper part of) which something is, e. g. upon the cross

* Here belongs Mt. xiv.25. OTjiwuTsiV lit\ ; 0x. to walk on the sea, comp. Lucian.
Philops. 13. /3aJ'fttV l<j>* uJa-roj,

51. OP THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL. 803

Acts v. 30. John xix. 19. (cornp. also vi. 2.). The signification by, near,
which our N. T. lexicons give, cannot be satisfactorily proved. Luke
xx. 40. tortos must be understood of a mountain, Mt. xxi. 19. sjti t%$ 6Soi
signifies on the way, as we also say, Acts xx. 9. Ijtl t. SvgtSos on the
window; John vi. 21. to rtholov lysvtto fai t^ yijs is meant of ship land-
ing, and Ejti relates to the rising shore. The transitions (tropical mean-
ings) are very clear. It is used, (a) of government and inspection over
etc. Mt. ii. 22. paattevstv etti, 'lovSatoj, Rev. xi. 6. Acts viii. 27. tlva.i trtl
rfacrtfj *w yofjjf, vi. 3. xii. 20. (comp. Polyb. 1, 34. 1. 2, 65. 9. Reitz ad
Lucian. torn. VI. p. 448. Bip. Held ad Plutarch. TimoL p. 388.).
(6) Of the object spoken of or about Gal. iii. 16. ou \iysi wj liti rto\-
TICOV as about many, (speaking of, about many) comp. s crib ere, disserere
SUPER re and Sext. Emp. adv. Matth. 2, 24. 6, 25. Heindorf ad Plat.
Charm, p. 62. Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 114. Bernhardy p. 248. (c) Of
the presence: before chiefly of judges, councils etc. (where we say: to
bring up before (a court) see 53. 1.) Mt. xxviii. 14. Acts xxiii. 30. xxiv.
20. xxv. 10. (irti >tov j3ripa-to$, comp. Lysias. 1. in Theomnest. 15.) 1 Cor.
vi. 1. (comp. Ael. V. H. 8, 2. Lucian. catapl.^16, Dio. Cass. p. 825.),
then in general 1 Tim. v. 19. Ijtl pagivguv before witnesses (Xen. Hell.
6, 5. 41. vectig. 3, 14. Lucian. Philops. 22.), also 2 Cor. vii. 14. (be-
fore, i. e. in the presence of Titus) see Wetsten. I. 443. 562. Sch'afer
Melet. p. 105. (d) Hence with proper names of persons, of the time of
the reign of some one Acts xi. 28. 7ti KhavSiov under (during the reign
of) Claudius, Mr. ii. 26. (see Raphel and Fritzsche in loc.} Luke iii. 2.
comp. Herod. 1, 15. ^Eschin dial. 3, 4. Xen. Cyrop. 8, 4. 5. (Bremi ad
Demosth. p. 165. Schweighauser Lexic. Herod. I. p. 243. Sturz Lcxic.
ad Dion. Cass. p. 148.), also only of the life time (especially of influen-
tial persons) Luke ii. 27. i^i Euaaaiov (comp. Alciphr. 1, 5. Ijtl -tuv rtgo-
yoi/av, ^Esop. 14, 2.), then with nouns expressing the state of things, and
events, Mt. i. 11. Irii T% ps-toixsatas Ba|3. at the time of the exile; finally
of time simply 2 Pet. iii. 3. 1^ taxa-tov j^v ^s^v on the last of the days
Heb. i. 1. 1 Pet. i. 20. comp. Num. xxiv. 14. Gen. xlix. 1. (Polyb. 1,
15. 12. Isocr. Paneg. c. 44.), and generally of that to which another
thing is joined Rom. i. 20. sjtl >e<av rtgoasvzuv jttou in connection with (in)
my prayer also mentioning you, including you in my prayer. A little
different is Mr. xii. 26. | rt t toy pdiov on (in connection with) the bush,
i. e. (concisely) at (in) the passage, where the bush is treated of. 5 E*t
in a local sense is sometimes also connected with verbs of direction or
motion towards (to, thither, towards, upon, to}: Mt. xxvi. 12. pa%ovoa, to
srii tov ffuyicwos over, upon the body, John xxi. 11. sfaxvae -to
I rtl T'ijjyijj towards, to the land, Acts x. 11. oxsvo$ ti ~

304 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PA.TRICLE.

rti -e q s <yi}$ descending to the earth. Comp. Sturz Lexic*
Xen. p. 253. Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. I. p. 53. 339. About litl with
accus. see Herm. ad Eurip. Alcest. p. 85. and Rob. Lex. at the word.

(ti) Mt-tu is properly in the midst of, among, hence with (mit, Ger.),
first of the vicinity and accompaniment Mt. xvi. 27. Mr. xiv. 17. (even
of lifeless objects, e. g. of weapons Mt. xxvi. 47. John xviii. 3. xix. 40.
comp. Demosth. c. Pantan. p. 628. C. Herodi. 5, 6. 19.), of the society
Mt. xxvi. 58.; but then of being together with something, either locally
Luke xxiv. 29. or ethically (therefore of the party Mt. xii. 30. and hence
of the assistance and the co-operation, stvat, petd iiv, Mt. xxviii. 20. Acts
vii. 9.), finally of the state of mind with which an action is performed
Acts xvii. 11. fSlfai'tfo tbv hoyov fis-fa rtaiays rtgo^vpias, 2 Cor. Vti. 15. Mt.
xiii. 20. (Eurip. Hippol. 205. Soph. (Ed. Col. 1632. Alciphr. 3, 38.
Aristot. magn. Mor. 2, 6. Demosth. adv. Timocr. p. 467. B. Herodi. 1,
5. 19.). Ms-to, does not properly denote the instrument as such (Kypke
observ. I. 143.) (Mt. xxiv. 31. John xviii. 3., it is used of that which
some one carries with him, 1 Tim. iv. 14. ^ET'ol Irt&taeus tuv %figuv sig-
nifies, with imposition of hands, together with the doing of the action),
yet in Luke xvii. 15. peta (jxowjj /teyaa.^; So%d%tw there is an approach to
this signification (certainly not different from ^vy p.. or iv $wi/^ j.) and
Acts xiii. 17. (by means of, Polyb. 1, 49. 1. Hippocr. de arte 15. Lucian
Philops. 8., as <svv, at least in poets, Bernhardy p. 214.). On Mt. xxvii.
66. see Fritzsche. It does not signify after; peta Siuypuv in Mr. x. 30.
means (in the midst of) in connection with persecutions (the parallel pas-
sages from the Septuagint and Pseudepigr. quoted by Brelschneider prove
nothing), Mr. ix. 24. ps-go, Saxgvw, with, or amid tears (Herodi. 1, 16.
10.) comp. peta xivSvvw with or amid dangers Thuc. 1, 18. Plat. Apol.
p. 32. B. JEsop. 111,3. Kiinol also in Mt. xii. 41. translates ^a with
the genitive incorrectly by contra. The signification with is as appro-
priate here as elsewhere (see Bengel in Zoc.): avSgts Nirzuii'on. araatf^cfov-
tfat Iv ty x^Cau p e 1 a -t^ ysvsat Ttow-tvis xai xataxgwovaw ajv^r^v signifies:
the Ninevites will appear at the last judgment WITH this generation (i. e.
as true witnesses against them), as Grotius rightly interpreted. The in-
terpretation of Fritzsche: they will rise with them from the dead, adds
to these words a superfluous thought (which is selfevident). (The geni-
tive with this preposition is very easily explained, as that which is found
in some one's company or vicinity, is in a certain respect dependent on
him.

(i) A&a. The primary signification is through, throughout (comp.
Schvvarz Comment, p. 323.). It can be easily understood how this pre-
position governs the genitive also, for in a local sense the idea of the

51. OP THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL. 305

going out from is always connected with that of going through (hence
the Hebr. and Arab. TD is the only prepos. for the local through, comp.
also Fabric. Cod. pseudepigr. I. p. 191. Ix^wyt-iv 81 aiuvo$ and Mt. iv. 4.
from Deut. viii. 3. comp. Klihner II. 281.), e. g. Luke iv. 30. avtb$ 6V
i-7iwi> Sta julcrou oAtuv ErfogsvEi'o (Herodi. 2, 1. 3.), 1 Cor. iii. 15. ctu^yas-

Jij 6"ia Ttugdjj also Rom. XV. 28. artetevaoftat 81 v p w v fi$
i. e. through your city, and Acts xiii. 49. Sutyege-to 6 710705 SI
nn$ from one boundary to the other (throughout Odyss. 12, 335.
Plat. Symp. p. 220. B.) 2 Cor. viii. 18. There is an easy transition
from this primary signification (as in all languages) to that of the (ani-
mate or inanimate) instrument, as something through which the effect
as it were proceeds (comp. especially 1 Pet. i. 7.), something which lies
between the volition and the effect, e. g. 3 John ver. 13. ov ^.w y^dfysiv
Sia ju&ow/of xai xa%dtj.ov 2 John ver. 12. (Plut. vit. Solon, p. 87.), 1 Cor.
vi. 14. ^a? iffysgft 8 to, tfijj Sira/tEuj avtfov, Rom. iii. 25. t^aa-tr^Lov Sta
tys TtJffT'Ews, x. 17. Luke viii. 4. atVtE Sea fta^ajSoT^f, Rom. ii. 12. 2 Cor.
vi. 7. Acts xv. 27. 1 Cor. xiv. 9.; Hebr. xiii. 22. 5ta j3ga#Ewv erttaifsfaa
iiiuv paucis (like Alciphr. 3, 71. and Sia pgaxwedtav Demosth. c. Pantan.
p. 624. C. fito, [Aaxgotsguv Isocr. Paneg. 30. comp. Wetsten. II. 697.),*-
of personal instruments 1 Cor. iii. 5. Sidxovoi, Si Zv Irtia-tevaa'tE, Hebr. iii.
16. ot l%iJovtEs ef Atyvnit'ot) Sia Moiicrf'wj. This construction is found also
in 2 Tim. ii. 2. Sta rfoM.uv /j.a^v^v inter venientibus multis testibus,
through the mediation of many witnesses, and even Rom. i. 8. tvxa^af^
z'cp ^9 jitoi) Sta 'l^ffoi) X^. yjttQ rtdvfw iju.tov, as also Hebr. vii. 9. Sia
Aj3gaa^ xai Atvi, SsSaxaT'wT'at, through Abraham, i. e. in the person of
Abraham as the representative of the whole Israelitish nation, Levi also
was tithed. At<i occurs however not frequently in the signification of the
primary or first cause, author, 1 Cor. i. 9. Rom. i. 5., and might appear
synonymous with vxb or rfa^a, but even in this case it does not denote the
author as such, i. e. as the one from whom something proceeds, but rather
the person through whose exertion or benevolence etc. something is given
to another (where it remains undetermined whether it comes- from him
directly or indirectly).* Many passages are incorrectly referred hither.
John i. 3. 17. the per of mediate agency, efficient cause, is justified by
the doctrine of the a.dyos, comp. Orig. on John Tom. 2, 6. (p. 108. Lorn-
matzsch), Rom. xi. 36. this meaning is necessary on account of the pre-

* Even granting that J<i were identical with into, it would not follow that in (vo>oj)
-Eif 3V a-yy&tav Gal. iii. 19. the angels are represented as the authors of the Mos.
laws (as Shulthess constantly maintains). Stronger and different reasons must be
given for departing from the simple interpretation: through angels (by the ministry
of angels').

306 PART THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLE.

positions lx and sis', on Gal. iii. 19. see Winer's comment. Acts ii. 43.
xiii. 38. are selfevident. About 1 Pet. ii. 14. see Steiger. The Si a of
the slate in which something is done can also be referred to the idea of
mediation, e. g. t vjto^ov^ Rom. viii. 25. iv. 11. Gal. v. 13. Hebr. xii.
1. 2 Cor. ii. 4., 2 Cor. v. 7. Sia tft'tjT'twj vttgitfatovpEv, and with another
construction Rom. iv. 11. ol GitrtEvwm Si axgofiva-tias in the state of un-
circumcision, as (although) uncircumcised. In a laxer sense Sia is used
of the equipments of some one, and of the circums:ances and relations
under which he does something, e. g. 1 John v. 6. Ix^wv 81 i>'5ai'oj xai
a' / ua?'oj he appeared by (through) water and blood, Hebr. ix. 12. Rom.
ii. 27. <j tbv Sta ygdpnutos xal Tts^i-fo^ Gta^ajSatfjp oi-r'a by (with) letter
and circumcision, i. e. although you were in the possession of a written
law etc., xiv. 20. 6 Sia Ggoaxonpatos sa&uv, who eats with offence (giving
offence) Markland ad Lys. p. 329. Reisk. vol. 5. Used of the time, Sia
signifies (a) during (i. e. throughout a length of time) Hebr. ii. 15. (Xen.
Cyrop. 2, 1. 19. Mem. 1, 2. 61.), also when a thing is done only some-
times within this period of time Acts i. 3. v. 19. (for the more lax use no
instances are found in the written language of the Greeks, Fritzsche
Pragr. in ep. ad Gal. I. p. 8.). (&) After, e. g. St,' ltZ>v jtteiovw Acts
xxiv. 17. properly iNTERJECTispZwn'fo/s annis, many years having elapsed,
i. e. after many years have gone by (see Herod. 3, 157. S i a % 1 1* un> ^1-
ga$ bsxa, Isocr. perm. p. 746. Perizon. ad JElian. p. 921. ed. Gronov.
Blomfield ad Mscli. Pers. 1006. Wetsten. I. 525. 558.) and Gal. ii. 1.
comp. Herod. 6, 118. Aristot. anim. 8, 15. Polyb. 22, 26. 22. Geopom.
14, 26. 2. Lucian. Tear. 24. also Septuag. Deut. ix. 11.; Mr. ii. 1. St,'
qpse.&v after (some) days, comp. Sta, %g6vov Plat. Euthyd. 6. Xen. Cyrop.
1, 4. 28. Lys. caed. Eratosth. 12. Polyb. 1, 66. 8. (Raphel, Kypke
and Fritzsche in loc.].

As significations incorrectly assigned to'Sta we have: (a) in with the
accusative Acts iii. 16. rtiatts fy Si, aitov, which, because in other passages
?aWtj ftj aviov occurs, is not to be interpreted in the same manner
(Schleussner translated contrary to the Latin language: Jtducia in IPSUM
posita], Schott is correct: jiducia per eum (in nobis] effuta, cnjus auc-
tor et causa est ille, comp. 1 Pet. i. 21. Hebr. ix. 11. Sta T'^J psiova$
xal -t she tots gas axyvvjs, which Schleussner translates intravit prsestantius

templum (so also the Syriac). But it means intravit PER, viz. Itj

fa oyto. ver. 12. This local signification is not to be proved by genuine
Greek formulas, like SM t&ovs to the end (i. e. perseveringly) (b) cum

1 Cor. XVI. 3. o$$ f.av Soxt/.iarf^i'E, S i Ertw-tohuv tov-tovs ^^4" urtsviyxe Iv

etc., where gt' stturt. must be translated by means of letters, i. e. so that
I recommend them by letters (as the Syriac). The Apostle means at
the same time, it is true, that they should talce these letters with them;
but the idea of the preposition is properly retained. (c) ad, 2 Pet.

51. OF THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL. 307

5 1 a Sdtijs xai ags-tijs qui nos ad religionem Christianam adduxit
eo consiLio, ut consequereminifelicitatem etc.; more correctly: by means
of glory and power, so that in this calling the divine power and majesty
were manifested (ver. 4. comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9.) see Alberti in loc. (d] prop-
ter, on account o/for Sin with the accusative: 2 Cor. ix. 13. S* expresses
rather the occasion, or by means of which the So^dgsw takes place, on
the contrary, the following erti tfi vrto-tayfi over, i. e. on account of the
obedience. 1 Cor. i. 21. ovx syren 6 xoo^og 5 to. tf^j aoq>ia$ iibv ^ebv
may very well signify: by means of their (applauded ver. 20.) wisdom,
although the interpretation of others might also be received: on account
of (mere) wisdom, if it be taken thus, by the existence of wisdom (see
above). Rom. viii. 3. is plain; on Rom. viii. 37. see Tholuck. Rom.
vii. 4. savu'tiCit]'tE tq v6/.icj> 8 ta -tov <rw j uow'o X^crtfot; receives light from
ver. 1 3.: you are dead to the law, through (by means of) the (cruci-
fied) body of Christ (with Christ you are dead to the law). Much less
is 5ta T 1 ^? ywatxoj 1 Cor. xi. 12. used for fiia tip ywuixa, (which would
introduce a new thought), as it is evidently parallel to tx *ov ai>Sg6$; the
difference of the prepositions Ix and St, however, is certainly clear to
every reader, who has a sense for such things. In 2 Cor. viii. 8. Sta
tvis fff'f. artovSijs belongs to Sox^d^scv. In Hebr. xiii. 15. only Kiinol
translates 1 avtov propter eum; Schulz and Bb'hrne are here correct.
(The translation per used in oaths Rom. xii. 1. xv. 30. 1 Cor. i. 10.
(properly by something) is questionable with me, as a proper verb of
swearing never seems to be connected with it; jtae,axa\slv Siu is proba-
bly: to admonish by means of, i. e. by referring to etc.).

(k] Kafa. Its primary signification is down, i. e. down from, upon
(de, comp. xdm], Xen. Anab. 4, 2. 17. d^djusvot xatd t^ jtEtgas, 1, 5. 8.
t&xsw xa-r'd jtgavovs yqhofyov, Herod. 8, 53. Dio Cass. p. 15. 91., so e. g.
Mt. viii. 32. ^1705 rtaaa fy dye'^ x a T! oc -tov x^^vov (Dio Chrys. 6. p.
99. jElian. V. H. 8, 14.), Mr. xiv. 3. xa -te%si,v avtov xata -n^ xs^a^tjf
(holding the bottle of nard over the head, comp. ApoIIod. 2, 7. 6.), 1 Cor.
xi. 4. Next it is used of the surface, over (through] which something
extends, it is therefore essentially different from the local i v (with which
it is interchanged by modern writers, comp. Ellendt ad Arnan. Alex. I.
p. 355.), Luke iv. 14. xa ^ SMJS *v rtsg^ogow, Acts ix. 31. 42. comp. Ar-
.rian Alex. 5, 7. 2. Indie. 13. 6. Tropically it is used of a hostile direc-
tion against something Mt. x. 35. Acts vi. 13. 1 Cor. xv. 15. Rom. viii.
33. (the opposite of i*^ Rom. xi. 2, Coll. viii. 34.) and from this signi-
fication is the usual preposition, but it seems most properly, like the Ger-
man gegen, to express only the daraufios (towards], whilst fai like con-
tra in the local signification includes the hostile. In oaths Mt. xxvi. 63.
Hebr. vi. 13. (not 1 Cor. xv. 15.) * a *d ^ (Schafer ad Long. p. 353.
Bernhardy p. 238.) means probably: down from God, as if calling down
God as witness or avenger. Otherwise Kunol II. 284.

(I) 'V^ signifies in a local sense the being over (uber] a place (pro-

308 TART THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLE.

perly without direct contact Xen. Mem. 3, 8. 9. 6 TJ'TUOJ tov
qpuv x&i tftov tittyuv rtogsvopsvos, Herodi. 2, 6. 17.), therefore. also in ge-
ographical language to lie over (above) something, imminere urbi Xen.
Anab. 1, 10. 12. Thuc. 1, 137. (see Dissen ad Find. p. 431.). It oc-
curs in the N. T. only in a tropical sense:* (1) mostly nearly related to
the local signification 1 Cor. iv. 6. W py *Tj vit<-% ~to\> svb$ fyvatovo^t-
puffed up one above the other, so that he elevates himself above the other;
also with the local signification, (2) for the advantage of, for some one
(to die, to suffer, to pray, to speak, to exert one's self etc. see Benseler
ad Isocr. Areopag. p. 164.), John x. 15. xi. 50. Rom. v. 6. Luke xxii.

19. 2 Cor. v. 21. Hebr. v. 1. vii. 25., originally so that we bend over
him, protecting and warding off (comp. ^a^acr^ae, vrtl^ -twos Xen. Cyrop.
2, 1. 21. Isocr. Paneg. 14. ArtoOviqaxF. vrtlg i-woj Anab. 7, 4. 9. Eurip.
Alcest, 701. 711. erttfithsi/acHM, xlyacv vite^ ifivof Xen. Cyrop. 1, 6. 12. 2,
1. 12. ^Eschin. dial. 1, 8.), also slvat, vrt twos to be for some one, pro-
perly protecting, Mr. ix. 40. Rom. viii. 81. In most cases one who acts
for the good of another, takes his place, hence vitsg is sometimes pre-
cisely similar to avtl instead, loco (see especially Eurip. Alcest. 700.)
Philem. ver. 13. (Thuc. 1, 141. Polyb. 3, 67. 7. (3) Of the object of,
about which something is said or written etc., Rom. ix. 27. (see Plutarch.
Brut. 1. Mar. 3. Plat. Apol. p. 39. E. Arrian. Mex. 6, 2. 6. Arrian.
Epict. I, 19. 26. Polyb. I, 14. 1. ^Elian. anim. 11, 20. Buttmann ad
Demosth. Mid. p. 188.), or of which some one boasts 2 Cor. vii. 4. ix. 2.
(comp. in Latin super, in Hebrew hy ; kindred is also BE aliqua re loqui,
(see under rtegi); hence in a general sense in respect to a thing, e. g. 2
Cor. i. 7. 8. 2 Thess. ii. 1. (comp. Xen. Cyrop. 7, 1. 17. vrtsg -tivo$ a/3-
fiftv to be of good courage in respect to some one}. Related to this the
causal signification, on account of, for the sake of (Hebrew Sy, comp.
the Latin gratia, and even the German fitr (for), which in such passages
is frequently suitable, and offers another combination of meanings) 1 Cor.
xii. 8. Rom. xv. 8. (Philostr. Apoll. 1, 35. Xen. Jlnob. 1, 7. 3.), also
John xi. 4. rta -gyjs 86^ nov Stov for, for the sake of the glory of God,
GLORIJE DIVINJE illustmndse CATJSSA, 3 John ver. 7., and, in another con-
struction, Philww. ii. 13. f6s la-tw <5 !i/agycav vrtsg tf^j avSoxtas accord-
ing to (after) his goodness, properly because he is good."\ In 2 Cor. v.

20. v rt e e, Xgirftfoii rtgGj3cva[x,v StofAs^ta v rt. g Xgttfi'oii, v rt s g is pro-

* Unless 1 Cor. xv. 29. Qwrifya-Qcti vitl^ rS>v VEXJWV be translated: to permit them-
selves to be baptized over the dead. The interpretation depends on archology.

t Bretschneider rather strangely translates: ultra (desiderium nostrum}, comparing
it with Lam. iv. 7. Img Xiflou;, without any reference to the case: and Markland ad
Eurip. Suppl. ] 125. propter.

51. OF THE PREPOSITIONS IN GENERAL. 309

^ ^ t^

bably in both cases for, i. e. in the name of Christ (as in his stead or
place), comp. Polyb. 21, 14. 9. 28, 16. 4. see above 2. at the end
Others take the second viti-e, as in formulas of affirmation (Bernhardy p.
244., but he certainly interprets it incorrectly) by Christ, PER Christum.

52. Prepositions with the Dative.

(a) 'Ev. This preposition in its local sense (see Spohn ad Nicrph.
Blemmid. p. 29.) relates (1) To something extended, within the limits
of which something takes place, and here signifies under different aspects,
(a) in or (of surfaces and heights) on Mt. xxiv. 40. Iv *> aygqj, xxi. 32.
Lukevii. 32. xix. 36. Rev. iii. 21'. John iv. 20. (where in many-formu-
las s-ai is used with more precision); (js) among (which however expresses
essentially the same idea) Acts ii. 29. iv. 34. Mt. xi. 11. 1 Cor. v. 1.,
hence of companionship Luke xiv. 31. lv Ssxa zifadaw a^av-t^at,, Jude
ver. 14. (Neh. xiii. 2. 1 Sam. i. 24. Jas. xxii. 8. 1 Mace. i. 17.) and
generally of that with which some one is dressed (clothed, armed) Mt.
vii. 15, Mr. xii. 38. John xx. 12. (Lilian. V. H. ix. 34. Herod. 2, 159.
Callim. Dian. 241. Matth. II. 1340.) or with which he is provided Heb.
ix. 25. EtjIg^Ei-at iv afyux-rt, 1 Cor. iv. 21. (1 Kings i. 25. Xen. Cyrop.
2, 3. 14.) comp. Ilerm. ad Vig. p. 856. Krebs Obs. p. 26. (<y) in a
more extended sense by, at, on (*aga), xa&i&w or Zwai iv bs&ti iivos at
the right hand, Heb. i. 3. viii. 1. Dio. Cass. p. 216. 850. (in the Greek
writers much more frequently Xen. Anab. 1, 4. 6. v ty ^caaV^ 4, 5.
22. Cyrop. 7, 1. 45. Isocr. Panath. p. 646. and ad Philipp. p. 216.
Diod. Sic. 4, 78. 17, 10. Polyb. 2, 66. 2. comp. Lehm.interpretat. on Lu-
cian. VI. p. 640. Jacob, ad Lucian. Alex. p. 123.*). On the other
hand in John x. 23. and Luke ii. 7. iv certainly means in, perhaps also
viii. 20., where yao$vhax. denotes the treasury as a portion of space, and

* Wahl incorrectly brings under this head the formula pimv Iv TJVI (frequent in
John) and Col. iii. 8. Ephes. iii. 9. In Heb. ix. 4. EV ? could only be translated
JUXTA quam by an archaeological expedient. When the local lv is connected with per-
sonal names, it denotes rather among than with (e. g. accompany a number etc.) In
1 Pet. v. 2. TO Iv ii^i'v Ttoipvlov may be translated with Pott: the flock which 'is in your
place (comp. to R om . xv . 28.). ol tl EV Ipn may possibly be connected with -inip&nn
(quantum in volis est, as much as in you lies, according to your ability), or ro Iv vp~v
mtpviov might be translated: the church entrusted to you, as eftai, neTo-dcu IV rm means,,
to trust, to lean on some one.
39

310 PART Till KO. USE OF THE 1'AUTICLES.

Luke xiii. 4., as we say in Siloarn, because the fountains were surrounded
with buildings. On Mt. xxvii. 5. (Kypke) see Fritzsche in loc. (5) co-
rum in the presence of, before (Isocr. Arc/iid. 3, p. 276. Lysias pro mil.
11. Arrian. Epict. 3, 22. 8. Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 285. Bii.hr in Creuzer
Melet. III. p. 46.), which however is not used in 1 Tim. iv. 15. But 1
Cor. ii. 6. xiv. 11. are referable to this sense, see above 31, 5. (comp.
Demosth. adv. Boeot. p. 636. A. Polyb. 17, 6. 1. 5, 29. 6.), perhaps also
1 Cor. vi. 2. iv v^lv x&vetai, 6 XOG/J.O; (iv vfuv is frequently used by orators
for cor am vobis, judicibus, see Kypke in loc.), just as Iv 6'$atyiotj twos
before some one's eyes, see Palairet and Klsner adMt. xxi. 4.2., which
formula however is used in this passage of the Septuag. in a tropical
sense. (2.) The transition to temporal relations is simple, where we are
accustomed to say either in or on, Mt. xii. 2. John ii. 33. (of feasts),
or at, (with the noun denoting an event, 1 Pet. i. 7. Mt. xxii. 28.), also
1 Cor. xv. 52. iv ty lo%di?iy tfaXciiyyt at the last trumpet (as soon as it
sounds), and with the infinit. of verbs Luke ix. 36. xvii. 11. Mt. xiii. 25.
Where it signifies within, (VVex ad Soph. *An1ig. p. 167.) John ii. 19.
the Ger. (and to some extent the Eng.) in suffices (Herod. 2, 29.) and it
is then evidently different from 8ia, for Iv tgisw fypsgais does not mean,
that the duration of three days shall be employed in something, but only
that something shall be done within the limits of that time, consequently
before these three days transpire. Comp. yet Iv 9 ichilst, during John ii.
7. (Rom. ii. 1.?) Thuc. vi. 55., iv olj during which Luke xii. 1. With
the temporal signification is most directly connected the iv of assurance,
certitude Heb. vi. 18. Iv olj aSuratfov tyvcsaaSan $sbv wherein, at the
taking place of these two assertions etc,; of the condition Luke viii. 43.
Rom. iv. 10. Phil. iv. 11. (see Eisner in loc. Kiihner II. 274.), of the
internal state Luke iv. 36. 1 Tim. ii. 2. 2 Cor. viii. 2. especially of the
heart (comp. formulas like ai> dya?^, Iv aycaiuarfft Luke i. 44. Ephes. i.
4.), so also of the occupation 1 Tim. iv. 15. (Xen. Cyrop. 3, 1. 1. Soph.
(Ed. R. 570. Plato Phaed. p. 59. A. and Stallbaum in loc.}.

3. The psychological relations, or tropical meanings are more various,
and here we see the advance of the later language and the Hebrew com-
plexion. 'EJ/ is not only used of that in which something else is contained
and exists intellectually (consistit) 1 Pet. iii. 4. Ephes. iv. 3. but espe-
cially, (a) of the object on which a mental power acts 1 Cor. iv. 6. jua^e
ev fyit.lv learn in or % us (by fixing the mincl on us, Trs.) John xiii. 35.
Iv -r'our'9 yvwtfOKT'at (Luke xxiv. 35.), 1 John ii. 5. iii. 19. 1 Thess. v. 12.

1 Cor. ix. 15. (Xen. Cyrop. 1, 6. 41.) Rom. i. 9. 9 hatgivi* EI> ^9

etc. Acts iv. 2. xcrtayy&heiv tv ^9 'iqaov "trpi dvutifaarf etc., hence

52. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE. 311

also Savpafciv Iv nvi Luke i. 21. to wonder as it were on something (in

Ger., according to another apprehension, iiber (over), in Eng. at some-

thing) etc. Even 1 John ii. 8. can be reckoned here (&) of the rule,

the measure to which something is referred, according to which it is

judged, comp. the Hebrew 3) 1 Tim. i. 18. iva 0'tga'tsvv] tva-vtais (itgotyij-

gtitws) tip xo&rjv trtgatEtav according to them, comp. also Heb. iv. 11. x.

10. (Thuc. 1, 77.); of the judgment Mt. vii. 2. l v 5 xgipa'tt, xgwa-t&

(Isocr. paneg. c. 10.), on the contrary in 1 Cor. xiv. 1 1. h lpo according

to my judgment properly means: with me (in me, in my opinion) comp.

Wex ad Jlnlig. p. 187. Eretshneider and Wahl reckon here too many

passages: Ephes. iv. 16. Rom. i. 24. Phil. ii. 7. (in the similitude) Ipis

used of the condition, 1 Thess. iv. 15. can be translated: this I say to

you in the word of the Lord i. e. as a constituent part of the divine

doctrine. Formulas like jtsiito.n-iv Iv <so$iu do riot represent the ao&a as

a norm, according to which, but as a spiritual property, in which we

walk, (c) Of the external cause or occasion Acts vii. 29. l^vysv iv tcj>

Tidyp tavtip on (at) this word (by this word) Xen. equestr. 9, 11., hence

sometimes of the reason Mt. vi. 7. Iv -ty TtawKoyiy, avtuv slsaxov&qaov-tat,

for, or because of their much speaking (properly with their much speak-

ing) 2 Cor. ix. 4. comp. ./Elian, anim. 11, 31. Dio. Cass. 25. p. 5. and

Iv tov-tcp John xvi. 30.*, sv 9 Heb. ii. 18. (in the Greek usually 1$' $)

therefore whilst, properly like quse cum ita sint, only denoting that which

is obvious and admitted (comp. Thuc. 8, 86.). But that which is admitted

is in many languages referred to the ground,- in the Latin propfer signi-

fies properly near, in German well (while) is properly a particle of time

(during). 'EV is never connected with proper names in the signification

of propter (see Winer's comment, ad Gal. i. 24. comp. Exod. xiv. 4.)f,

* In Acts xxiv. 16. Iv TOU'TW is not to be connected with aa-xZ. In Heb. vi. 17. Ivy
certainly means qua in re. Rom. ii. 1. may be translated dum or with the vulg. IN
O-Uojudicas etc., in Rom. viii. 3. the latter meaning is appropriate. In 1 Cor. xv. 22-
Luke x. 20. Iv TOUTW on therefore (in this rejoice) that, comp. Phil. i. 18. I know of
no clear example of Iv TOUT-CO, Iv Z therefore, because. Those quoted by Sturz Lex. Xen.
II. p. 162. admit of a different signification. In Xen. Anab. 1, 3.1., a passage
reckoned here by Kypke 11. p. 194., the better editors read ITT} TOUT?. Plat. rep. 5. p.
455., where Ast interprets Iv J propterea quod can be translated otherwise, see Stall-
baum in loc. In Heb. ii. 18. the signification in how far for Iv y, which can be proved
(see Bcrnhardy p. 311.) is not inappropriate,

t In 2 Cor. xiii. 4. a^vov^v Iv 5 T? T is to be taken, as often Iv x^ta-ry, of a com-
munion witli Christ, of the relation of ,i m , ' XJ.TTW" (comp. Phil. iv. 2. 'Ephcs. vi. 1,
1 Cor. xv. 18.). The apostle is not Aa-flsvfc/or Christ's sake, but in Christ i. e. in the
(apostol.) participation with Chr. (who in a certain respect was i,S^.). A state re-
suiting from the E 7m ev X g. is concisely expressed, as also the & and JtWv .Tiw are
referable to tho communion with Chr. (<rwv).

312 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

and too many passages are generally numbered here, as Ephes. iii. 13.
1 Cor. xv. 19. John viii. 21. Jas. i. 25. 2 Cor. vi. 12. (d) of the in-
strument and means not only (as in the better Greek prose writers see
Btittmann ad Philoct. p. 69. Bockh ad Find. III. p. 487. Jacobs ad
Athen. p. 357. Poppo ad Cyrcp. p. 195. and the uncritical collections
by Schwarz comment, p. 476. Georgi Vind. 153.), where in (or on) is
also appropriate, as xaiew EV itv^l Rev. xvii. 6. comp. 1 Mace. v. 44. vi.
31. (Sjjcfat sv Ssapop Xen. Anab. 4, 3. 8. Thuc. iv. 113. Judg. xv. 13.
xvi. 7. 3 Esr. i. 38. see Heindorf ad Plat. Cratyl p. 71., xahvrtTHtv Iv
ipa-ticp ^El. anim. 11, 15.). (f.B'f^lv Iv ptl^ Mt. vii. 2., ahist,v Iv ahatt,
Mt. v. 13. (Judg. vi. 34.) Rev. vii. 14. Jas iii. 9., but where in the Greek
writers the mere dative would be used, Rev. vi. 8. d^oxifstvat, sv ftopfyniq
Luke xxii. 49. Rev. xiv. 15. x^dlsiv Iv ^Eyca^ $wj/^, 2 Pet. ii. 16. Mt.
vii. 6. (comp. Judg. iv. 16. xv. 15. xx. 16. 48. 1 Kings xii. 18. 1 Mace.
iv. 15. Jos. x. 35. Exod. xiv. 21. xvi. 3. xvii. 5. 13. xix. 13. Gen. xli.
36. xlviii. 22. Neh. i. 10. Judith ii. 17. 19. v. 9. vi. 4. vii. 27. Exod.
i. 50.) yet see Aristot. Probl. 30. 5. p. 218. Sylb. Himer. 4, 16. Hippocr.
Aphof. 2, 36.* With names of persons Mt. ix. 34. Acts xvii. 31. and
perhaps Heb. iv. 7. (not John xvii. 10. Acts xvii. 28. )f comp. Gen. xxxii.
20. Judith xvi. 1. Thuc. 7, 8. Demosth. Timocr. p. 466. A. andMatth.
II. 1341. The formula o^o^ou, Iv >n,vi can also be reckoned here Mt. v.
34. see Fritzsche in loc., still it is perhaps more simply (to swear) by (on)
something. (e] Hebraistically of the price Rev. v. 9. ayogdgew iv *<$
alpati (Lam. v. 4. Eccl. ii. 22.). The value of the thing bought is con-
tained in the price (with which the tx of the price corresponds).

* Many passages which might be reckoned here out of Gr. authors, will also bear
a different interpretation, as dav Iv o<fflaX. Lucian. Phalar. 1, 5. etc.

t AEWa<rn*ai EvauToi; is certainly more than- Si" ai/rv. He would be glorified
through or by them, even if they adopted some plan or other tending to his glory: but
in them, only in as far as they glorify him with their persons, by immediate personal
agency. So to live IN God, to be IN God, seems to me to express the being in, the sub-
sisting with much more intimately (as if rooted in) than can possibly be done by &a.
Although Jia be interchanged with Iv Col. i. 16., it proves not the perfect identity of
these prepositions, but at most only that the more lax can be used for the more precise.
Where EV and Sid are connected in one sentence, SU refers to external means, whilst
tv relates to that which is effected in or on a person, as if adhering to him Ephes. i.
7. iv ta (X.) 1%0/uiev T. awoXuT. S a T. Si/aar. O.VTOU, iii. 6. Even when impersonal
things are spoken of, the distinction between EV (of an internal, psychological state or
power) and fta (of means) is apparent, as 1 Pet. i. 5. TOUS I v bvvciftet Bsou ^ov^ovf^ivovs
Jia Wi's-Tiwf see Stciger in loc., 1, 22. Iv T? uvrctxojT T. x0. Ji msv{*a.ro<;. Comp.
M;.Uli. IT. 892.

52. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE DATIVE.

Yet the most recent lexicographers have extravagantly augmented the
signification of these prepositions, or have incorrectly applied to the N.
T. their real significations. Thus the signification in respect to in Luke
xvi. 15. Acts xv. 7. is very shallow, and entirely false in 1 Cor. iii. 18.
ix. 15. xiv. 11. In Tit. iii. 5. h is not used of the finis or consilium,
but egyo, Iv Sixatoavvvj are works done with the disposition of a Stxaios, 2
Pet. ii. 13. is self-apparent; on Luke i. 17. 1 Cor. vii. 15. see below. In
Mr. ix. 50. dgqvsvste iv aMqiMts erga is unnecessary, as we also say :
among (yourselves] one another. Still more inadmissible are the follow-
ing significations: (a] ex, Heb. xiii. 9. Iv ol$ ovx w^a/j^ffav ot rts^jtaifyj-
aavfes UNDE nihil commodi perceperunt (comp. w$EX.tcjat drfo ^schin.
dial. 2, 11.) The preposition denotes the advantage, which would have
been founded on it or inhered in it, Xen. Athen. rep. 1, 3. Demosth. c.
Pant sen. p. 631. A. In Mt. i. 20. to I v av-tfi yswivfeiv is, that which has
been conceived in her (Stolz), ywuxsxsw iv 1 John ii. 5. (Xen. Cyrop. 1,
6. 41.) to know something by (according to another conception yn>. Ix,
arto etc. see above] (&) post, Mt. iii. 1. Iv -tuls ^Igcwj Ix&lvau; at about
that time (a vague Hebrew designation of time), Mr. xiii. 24. svex. t. ^.
(ts-fa, trjv Sht'fyw at that time (in those days) after etc. ^. used not only of
the duration of the ^fo^tj), Luke xii. 1. iv oTj belongs to erttaw. *. /*vg.
during the time that they were assembling etc. comp. iv tov-tS, interim
Xen. Cyrop. 1, 3. 17.. 3, 2. 12. (c) pro, loco Rom. xi. 17. Ivsxsv-
tfgo'cr^j Iv aimots (xhdSots) grafted on the branches (which were in part
cut off) (d) pro, in commodum, 1 Thess. v. 12. ^o-uj xortiuvtas Iv vfj.lv
who labor on (among) you (your illumination and improvement), (e} with,
Heinrichs reckons here 1 Tim. ii. 2. Siaysiv Iv ndcy avof/Sat'ot, ! ! Acts xx.
32. does not belong here; & v ^ytacj^otj means among (with) those who
are sanctified. Acts vii. 14. ^tsxa^&a^o -tbv jtcrttga avtov 'laxup xo.1
rtdgav iriv tfojyyli/staj' J v 4^a:afcj l|3So|it. (where Bretschneider also interprets
with] probably means: consisting in (of) seventy souls. So a is used
Deut. x. 22., but I know of no instance in the Greek. Fritzsche's in-
terpretation of these words (ad Mr. p. 604.) appears to me too far-
fetched. On Luke xiv. 81. see above i. 6.; Ephes. vi. 2. rjt<, 5 igti v ivto^
7twf?7 ev trfayyfju'a certainly signifies not only : annexa, addita promis-
sione, but : which is a chief commandment in the promise, i. e. even on
this promise is grounded the * e, <a * y . Gal. iii. 8. (O. T. quotation) needs
no explanation, (/) of, by, Ephes. iv. 21. e fy e i v a vt$ ISt&dzfrite, if in- .
deed you are taught in him, is clearly connected with the following
dtto$o$a6 etc., therefore equivalent to, according to the communion with
Christ, as those who believe in Christ. Bengel in loc. is not very good.
Phil. ii. 5. is translated correctly by Stolz, On Rom. xi. 2. ev 'H^'a see
Reiche. About & for d$ see 54. 4.

(ft) Sa>v with is distinguished from ^fd properly as it indicates a
nearer and closer connection or conjunction (Acts ii. 14.), hence it is
especially used of a spiritual (psychological) communion, e. g. of believers
with Christ Col. iii. 3. 1 Thess. v. 10., of that spiritually possessed, im-
ported to one 1 Cor. xv. 10. $ x d^ s tov $ f0 i % ff1 v l^oi. Comp. also <^

314 PART THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLES.

(9 and Gal. iii. 9. avv ^9 rtustop 'AjS^aa^, which is incorrectly translated:
like the believing Abraham. It. is ivith the believing Abraham, viz. who
first and as the pattern of others received this blessing of God. Hvv
therefore expresses in this case not similarity but communion, Col. ii. 13.
It is transferred to a more loose connection in 2 Cor. viii. 19. (with the
contribution, comp. Xen. Cyrop. 3, 3. 54. Pausan. 8, 43. 3.) and Luke
xxiv. 21. avv rtuat fovfot-s f^i-f^v favfyv fynsgav ayst ff^sgov as if, in ttd-
dition to all this is yet, that etc.

(c) 'Erft. The primary meaning is that which Schleussner gives under
17.: upon, over (above) in the local sense: Mt. xiv. 11. qvsx&i y xtfyahri
IjtL Tt.Lva.xi, Mr. ii. 4. vi. 39., also John iv. 6. ITU, ffi ntyyjyj Rev. ix. 14.
On Ephes. iv. 26. see Harless in lac. (Xen. Anal). 1, 2. 8. 5, 3. 2.
Isocr. Paneg. c. 40. Dio. Cass. 177. 30. see above, 51. () some-
times on, at, by John v. 2. Acts iii. 10. 11. Mt. xxiv. 33. also of per-
sons Acts v. 35. rtgdaasw ft, litl twt, to do something on one (to do
on, to) comp. Sgdi/ ft, IttL f. JE\. anim. 11, 11., even loith, of place, (apud)
Acts xxviii. 14. and of time Heb. ix. 26. fat, owf&elq, fuv alavuv sub
finem mundi, and in another construction Heb. ix. 26. 15. tt>v l*L
fy rtgcity Sta^-sixy TCa^ajSaasuv with (under) the first dispensation (during
the continuance of the first dispensation), hence of the present time Heb.
x. 28. Irti tfgtoft pugtvat, with, by (before) three ivitnesses, adhibitis testi-
bus. It is used of that which is immediately (temporally connected
with, in Xen. Cyrop. 2, 3. 7. aveatq I*' aiifcj $gai5?ittj immediately after
(Appian. Civ. 5, 3. Pausan 7. 25. 0. Dio. Cass. p. 325. 519. Themist.
4. p. 66. camp. Wurm ad Dinarch. p. 39. Ellendt ad Jlrrian. Alex.
I. p. 30. and with precaution Lb'sner obs. p. 76.), according to which
Acts xi. 19. drto T^J ;u'4 w ? fys ysvo^v^ trti ~%T;t$av<p is interpreted (see
Alberti in loc.), unless irti rather signify about (on account of ) or against
Matthai in Zoc.). Tropically sriL is used (a] of superintendence Luke
xii. 44. comp. Xen. Cyrop. 6, 3. 28. (as otherwise with the genitive Lob.
ad Phryn. p. 474.). (ft) of addition to something already existing (accu-
mulated) Mt.xxv. 20. aMaTtevfe tdKavz'aextgdqaa Irt' avtfotj, Lukexvi.26.
erti rtacrt fovtoig besides all this (in addition to all this) Lucian. conscr.
hist. 31. (comp. Wetsten. and Kypke in Zoc.), Ephes. vi. 16. ; hence John
iv. 27. tut fovfcp faSov oi pa&itai on iliis i. e. when this was done the disciples
came, Phil. i. 3. s^^a^trffui ^9 erti Ttdavj ^ pvetq V/AUV i. e. with me grati-
tude to God is always joined to the pvsLa, -fyt. (c) of that, upon which some
other object rests, as on its basis, not only gjjvsjt* a^tc? Mt. iv. 4. (as if to
base life on bread, comp. sustenfare vitani) see Kypke in Joe., and after
verbs expressing the affections and emotions avp.d? > i-iv,a.yo,KMS,v, ^.vTtela^at,
sitL tivi Luke i. 47. xix. 41. Mr. iii. 5. xii. 17. Mt. vii. 28. 2 Cor. vii.

52. PKEl'OSITIONS WITH THE DATINE. 315

13. (Plat. Mem. 1 Sympos. p. 217. Isocr. Paneg. 22. Lucian Philops.

14. Alciphr. 3, 33. Pctlseph. 1, 8. see 34. 6., as also svxagtot 'tlv 1x1
to give thanks over (for) something 1 Cor. i. 4. Polyb. xviii. 26. 4.); but
particularly () of the supposition and condition (Xen. Symp. 1, 5. Diod.
Sic. 2, 24. Lucian. conscr. hist. 38. see Schvvarz. comment, p. 528.
Bremi ad Demosth. p. 205.) ?t' twiSt, upon, in hope 1 Cor. ix. 10.
(^Esop 21, 1., lit 1 Initial Dio. Cass. p. 1003.), where we speak according
to the same view of the subject; in the Latin sub conditione, which we
also imitate, under the condition, comp. Heb. ix. 17. l?ti vsxgol; upon,
over the dead i. e. when death has taken place (in case of death). (3) of
the motive of action Luke v. 5. 1x1 ? /j^a-fo aov #avwco to Sixtvov upon
(at) thy word, induced by thy word, Acts iii. 16. liti tfi rtie*e<,,for,for
sake of the faith, Mt. xix. 9. Heb. xi. 4. 1 Cor. viii. 11., comp. Xen.
Mtm. 3, 14. 2. Cyrop. 1, 3. 16. 4, 5. 14. Herod. 1, 137. Lucian.
Hermot. 80. Dio. Chrys. 29. p. 293.; hence *<j>' on account o/Phil. iv.
10. (Diod. Sic. 19, 98. Diog. L. 2, 12. 5. Itf * Dio. Cass. 43, 95.),
because 2 Cor. v. 4. Rom. v. 12. (on this account that as J| ov since,
properly from the time that) see Raphel in loc. (%$' o{j for quam ob rem in
Petr. Patric. p. 127. ed. Bonn.). On the other hand 2 Cor. xii. 21. ^-
navodv rfo *% axa^a^aia, signifies : to repent of the uncleanness i. e.
brachyologically, to repent of the uncleanness and to become better.
(y) of the subject of discourse John xii. 16. l v cwh-i yEyga^i/a, Rev. xxii.
16. x. 11. (Pausan. 3, 13. 3.). On Acts iv. 17. see note. (8) Of the
end, object, and result 1 Thess. iv. 7. oi>x Ixdteasv Irti axa^aia unto un-
cleanness, Gal. v. 13. (as xo.-h.slv lul Isvia Xen. Anab. 7, 6. 3. and simi-
larities see Sintenis ad Plutarch. Them. p. 147.) 2 Tim. ii. 14. comp.
Xen. JLnab. 5, 7. 34. Mem. 2, 3. 19. Plat. rep. 3. p. 389. B. Diod. Sic.
2, 24. Arrian. Alex. 1, 26. 6. 2, 18. 9. Diog. L. 1,7. 2. comp. ind. ad
Dio. Cass. ed. Sturz. p. 148., hence icj,' 9/0?- what, wherefore Mt. xxvi.
50.* (Phil. iii. 12.) see Boissonade ad Philostr. p. 370. Bremi ad De-
mosth. p. 92. ( e ) of the norm, model or standard, Luke i. 59.

after the name (Neh. vii. 63.).

Where siti in the local sense is connected with a verb of direction or
motion (Mt. ix. 16. John viii. 7.), the delay to act and the state of rest
are indicated at the same time.

(rf) Ha^a with i. e. properly near, near by, at the side of. Then more
generally with or without respect to a local relation (of things and per-

* The Greeks would say instead of this if S', T( ( O v if ) n ^ comp . Acliill. Tat. 8,
Eurip. Bacch. 454. Raphel. in loc.

816 PART TH1HD, USE OF THE PAKTIC'LE.

Sons), Mt. Xxii. 25. ^aav rtag' ^lv aSs^oi, Rev. ii. 13. 05 a
rtag' ypiv, especially of the possession, mostly of the properties of the
soul, Rom. ii. 11. pv ydg sen stgoourtohr^ia ctaga ^E^ (comp. Demosth.
cor. p. c352. A. si Istt, tfag' spoi t^ epGeigta), and of the judgment, opinion,
Rom. xii. 16. ^ ywea^s tygovipot, stag' lautfots with yourselves i. e. in your
view, Acts xxvi. 8. 1 Cor. iii. 19. (Herod. 1, 33. 36. Eurip. Bacch.
399. Elec.tr. 737,). So also in 2 Pet. ii. 11. ov^egovat. xat' amiZv tfc^a
xugo'w (with him, as judge) phdafytjfMv xe,i<siv-> where some incorrectly trans-
late before. That jg with dative denotes the direction whither, is not
proved by Luke ix. 47. and much less by Luke xix. 7. and in the last
passage cfo^a, a^a^f^^ avSgi must either be connected with xa-t a&vaai, or,
if it be construed with siavf&e may be compared with the German em*
treten beijemand, to enter, to stop with (at the house) of some one.

(e) ngos has the same primary signification. It is however used more
generally: with, at, in (immediate) vicinity, e. g. John xviii. 16. xx. 12.
Mr. v. 11. No proofs are needed from the Greek writers; for Miinster's
remark symbol, ad intptat. ev.Joan. p. 31. is incorrect. So also Rev. i.
13. tsfgn-^wctytlvoj tfgos tfotj jwaffi'otj lo)vr t v furnished with a girdle at the
breast (Xen. Cyrop. 7, 1. 33.). Luke xix. 37. cyy^oj/fos jj'fy o?g6j ty xaia,-
/3arf 'fov o^orj tfwi' &at,wv must be translated : as he was already near by
(to) etc. (llgos with the dative occurs much more frequently in the
Septuagint than in the N. T.).

(f) Hsgi and v&b do not occur in the N. T. with the dative.

53. Prepositions with the Accusative.

(a) Etj. (a) In the local sense it is not only in with the accusative,
into and through into (Luke x. 36. Acts iv. 17. also Mr. xiii. 14. sista
ogj? as we say: into the mountains'), but also to, towards Mr. iii. 7. (Polyb-
2, 28. 1.) Mt. xxi. 1. comp. ver. 2. John xi. 38. xx. 1. Luke vi. 20. Rev.
x. 5. Acts ix. 2. (of the motion and mere direction ^Eschin. dial. 2, 2.),
upon (like ImC) Mt. xxvii. 30. xxviii. 16. Mr. xi. 9. John xi. 32. Acts
xxvi. 14. Rev. ix. 3. Where sl$ is connected with names of persons, it
cannot well be rendered to (^6? or w$) 2 Cor, ix. 5., but among, into the
midst of Acts xx. 29. xxii. 21. Luke xi. 49. Rom. v. 12. Rev. xvi. 2.
(then sometimes nearly equivalent to the dative Luke xxiv. 47. see above
31, 2.), once to some one (into his house) Acts xvi. 40. sl^^ov el$ t^v

iav (according to many Codd.) comp. Lys. oral. 2. in Strabo 17. p>

53. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 317

796. Fischer ad Well. III. II. p. 150. and Valckenaer in lie. (6) In
relation to time it expresses partly the term of time, to, tip to which Acts
iv. 3. (Herodian 3, 5. 2.) or until which John xiii. 1. 2 Tim. i. 12.,
partly duration of time (for, like *,') Luke xii. 19. tig tfo?aa titj (Xen.
Mem. 3, 6. 13.). (c) Eig transferred to internal relations (or in a tropical
sense) is used of every object, aim, hence (a) of the measure (Bernhardy
p. 218.), to which something rises 2 Cor. x. 13. els -to, apstga, iv. 17.
(]3) of the state into which something passes Acts ii. 20. Rev. xi. 16.
lleb. vi. 6. (y) of the result Rom. x. 10. (' iii. 14.) 1 Cor. xi. 16. sis
to x^l-ttov awsgzsaSs- (6) of the direction of the affections 1 Pet. iv. 9.
^aw|i'06 elf dwujTiovj, Rom. xii. 16. Mt. xxvi. 10. 3 John ver. 5. 2 Cor.
x. 1. (erg(i'), Luke xii. 10. (contra'), to which also Col. i. 20. dtfoxoz-av
juiT'T'EU' 'fc.clgavtov is reduced (comp. Sia^df^Eiv agog-twa Demosth. ep. 3.
p. 114.); of the direction of the intellect (the thoughts JE1. ^,25. Aaj3i8
Tiayft E:"S avtcv aiming at h'm (dicere in dVqurm comp. Kypke in loc.),
Ephes. v. 32. Heb. vii. 14.*, of the desire Phil. i. 23., of the will in
general, hence of the occasion Mt. xii. 4 1. elf to x^^y/^a 'iwj/a ' (on
occasion of) Ihe preaching xviii. 20., of the aim and purpose Luke v. 4.
Acts ii. 38. vii. 5. Rom. v. 21. ix. 21. Heb. x. 21. (EJ j wherefore Col.
i. 29. comp. I Pet. ii. 8., atj tl Mt. xxvi. 8.). Hence the following
phrases can be explained swigs iv, aia-tEvsw dgiwa as also the passages,
where slg, connected with personal words, signifies for Rom. x. 12. xv.
16. 2 Cor. viii. 6. 1 Cor. xvi. 1. etc. (also allied to the dative see' bove)
and finally the looser connections, in which slg is translated in reference
to, in respect to (Bernhardy p. 220) Acts xxv. 20. Rom. iv. 20. (of
things Xen. Mem. 3, 5. 1.), Luke xii. 21. Ephes. iv. 15. 2 Cor. xi. 10.
(of persons). The objectivs and subjective determination sometimes
cannot be separated Heb. iv. 16. Luke ii. 34. The followine- siVnifica-

1 o O

tions must be dispensed with: sub (Rom. xi. 22. . e i s retains the signifi-
cation z?i/o, unto, as dvyxehi,(,v sis can be said just as well as v6 Gal. iii.
22.), with (of the instrument), Acts xix. 3. 6 tj *6 'iwa'vj/ou /3aa*irf/ta (!j3art-
tiaSypsv) is a direct answer to the question: ei$ ti O w j3a7tft'<j^fs; the
answer properly should have been into that, in which Jj/m bapt'zed.
Therefore the expression is concise or rather not precise. Nor does this
preposition properly signify coram Acts xxii. r 30. (see Kiinol) comp.
Heindorf ad Plat. Prolog. 471. Stallbaum ail Plat. Sijmp. p. 43. but
srtijaav (avtbv) tig nvtovg means: they placed him among them (sis
That ls ever signifies as much as Si* is a mere fiction, and sis

tls'ls^ffo\vy.a. Mt. v. 35, is referable essentially to the same signification.
See Fritzsche t?i loc.

40

318 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PAKTICLtf.

in Acts vii. 53. signifies most simply: into, at the disposition of
angels, which indeed ultimately means: in consequence of, conformably
to such arrangements, unless the interpretation given in 32, 4. be pre-
ferred. On etj for lv (and consequently also on Ephes. iii. 16.) see 54.

(&) 'Ava occurs in the N. T. only in the phrases &va peaov, ava ^o$,
and presents no difficulties.

(c) Aia with the accus. is the preposition of the ground or reason
(ratio), not of the design (not even in 1 Cor. vii. 2., as Wahl affirms),
and corresponds withjfor, on account of (also John vii. 43. x. 19. xv. 3.)
or, where the internal motive of action is meant, out of, through, Mt.
xxvii. IS. 8 c,u q>$6vov out of envy (Diod. Sic. 19. 54. Sta -gyv jtgoj tfovj jji'ir
Wxotas &EOV, Aristot. Rhet. 2, 13. Demosth. &dv. Conon. p. 730. C.).
On Rom. iii. 25., which passage Reiche has misunderstood, see Bengel.
Hebr. v. 12. 5id tbv %gbvov is for the time, according to the time (during
which you have enjoyed Christian instruction), not as Shulz translates:
after so long time. Sometimes Sid with the accus. is used of the means
(reason or motive and means are very nearly related, and Std even in a
local sense is by poets sometimes connected with the accus., see Bern-
hardy p. 236.), John vi. 57. xa'yw w 810, tbv ita-tega, just as Longi Pastor.
2. p. 62. Schafer Std rdj W^aj elyae Aristoph. Pint. 470. Thuc. 6, 57.
^Eschin. dial. 1, 2. comp. Wyttenbach ad Pint. Mor. II. p. 2. Lips. Sin-
tenis ad Plutarch Themist. p. 121. Hebr. v. 14. vi. 7. does not belong
here, and perhaps not Rev. xii. 11. svtxyeav 5id to al^a, comp. vii. 14.
and the immediately following xai ovx i}ydrt?]Gav -t^v ^v^v etc. On Rom.
viii. 11. (where the reading vacillates but little) see Bengel and Reiche
in loc. (comp. iv. 25.). Bretschneider reckons here too many passages
Rom. xv. 15. Hebr. ii. 9. v. 12. Rev. iv. 11., where, with a more pre-
cise view, on account of, for sake of, will be found very appropriate.
Also in Rom. viii. 20. this might be the case; 1 John ii. 12. is correctly
translated by Liicke. Gal. iv. 13. 81 aatvsi,av t^ cagxb$ is not exactly.
to be taken of the condition (>, da&veuai), but signifies because of a weak-
ness, on occasion of a weakness, see Flatt in loc.

(d~) Kara. The primary local signification is (a) down upon (down,
comp. ^Eschin dial. 3, 19.) down &y, through, over, Xen. Cyrop. 6, 2.
22.; Luke viii. 39. attv^s xo^t b^v ify aohiv, Luke xv. 14. TU^OJ xata
throughout the land (over the whole land) viii. 39. Acts v. 15.
xatd id; Ttha-tfias, through the streets, along the streets, viii. 36.
(Xen. Anab. 4, 6. 11.) Luke xiii. 22. ix. 6. Acts xxvii. 2. (Raphel in
Also Acts XXVI. 3. *d xaid roiif 'lovfiaiovs t>? xai ^fr^a-fa the

* Kara in a local sense is not synonymous with Iv, as KiinCl ad Acts xi. 1. and'

53. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 319

customs prevailing throughout (among) the Jews.* (b] On thither, fur-
ward Phil. iii. 14., towards, to Luke x. 32. (^Esop. 88, 4. Xen. Cyrop.
8, 5. 17.) x. 3. Acts xvi. 7., also of the mere direction (geographical
situation) Acts xxvii. 12. (ii. 10.) Xen. Anab. 7, 2. 1. K<x?d it%o<su>it6v
e-wos means towards the face of some one, i. e. before some one's eyes
Luke ii. 31. Also Rom. viii. 27. xa-ta &bv tvtvyxdvsiv signifies not (as
to the place) apud deum, but properly towards God (ower), before God
(others according to the mind of God, see below}. The use of this pre-
position in regard to time is connected with this, as in Acts xvi. 25. xafa
to /AEaovvxniov towards midnight, and in Mt. i. 20. xat' ovag during the
dream (Herodian. 2, 7. 6. Alciphr. 3, 59., xa?aq>Z>f by day, daylight Xen.
Cyrop. 3, 3. 25.) Hebr. ix. 9.; iii. 8. (Septuag.) xata trjv fyfAsgav tov
rttigaGpov in the day etc. Accordingly it is used of place and time in a
distributive sense (originally perhaps with the plur. as xata <t>v?M by tribes,
in the way of tribes Mt. xxiv. 7., xata *6rtov$ Acts xxii. 19., xa?a 8vo
two by two, by pairs 1 Cor. xiv. 27.), then very often with nouns sing.
Acts xv. 21. xata jtfaiv from city to city (Diod. Sic. 19, 77. Plutarch.
Clcoin. 25. Palaepli. 52, 7. Heliod. JEth. 10, 1.), xa -e' lavtov yearly
Heb. ix. 25. (Xen. Cyrop. 8, 6. 16., xatu pyva Xen. tfnab. I, 9. 17.
Dio Cass. 750. 74.), X a*' r}^av daily, Acts ii. 46. (Herm. ad Vig. p.
860. f Kara tropically is used of every thing towards which something
is directed, partly in a general sense, in respect to Rom. ix. 5. (tb xatq,
tfagtfa) 1 Pet. iv. 14. Acts iii. 22. (xata, rtdvtu in every respect'), also Rom.
xi. 28., partly in a particular sense, (a) Of the norm, model and measure
or standard Luke ii. 22. xa ta v6pov according to the law (Acts xxvi. 5.
Luke ii. 29. perhaps also John ii. fi.) Mt. ix. 29. xa-ta t^v itl<STHv vpuv
according to your faith, as you deserve Mt. ii. 16. *a?a zgovov, accord-
ing to the time, hence of similarity Hebr. viii. 8. ovves^au> Sia-

^xriv xmv^v, ov xa-td j^v SMX^J?*^, qv i^o^cfa etc.; also with names of
persons xa-td two, according to (after) the mind of some one Col. ii. 8.

Walil I. 800. affirm: KO.TO, riv no\iv means through the city, xafl' oJov along the road,
on the road, as on a line. Even KT' otxov is used as 1 v T o IK ca according to a differ-
ent representation (as at the house differs from in the house). Kara has usurped the
place of Iv in many phrases where the latter might have stood.

* Hence flows the signification with, among, as Acts xvii. 28. o! xa9' i,a ? TroiW.
Kari with a pers. pron. especially in the later writers became a circumlocution for
the possess, pron. See Husc ad Leon. Diac. p. 230.

t Kafl' eavrb of one's self is usually referred to this usage (see Passovv), but impro-
perly, as the formula is not distributive. It properly means in respect to, as to one's
self, whereby something is limited to a single object, therefore of one's self, adv.

seorsim.

320 TART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

Rom. xv. 5. Ephes. ii. 2., and of the will 2 Cor. xi. 17. comp. Stallbaum
ad Plat. Gorg, p. 91., or according to his example Gal. iv. 28. xara
'iflaa* after the manner of Isaac, ad cxcmplum Isaaci, 1 Pet. i. 15. (Lu-
cian. Pise. 6, 12. Eunuch. 13. Dio Cass. 376. 59. comp. Kypke and
Wetst. on Gal. as above}. Of writers : tb xata, Mat$cii,ov wayy&tov
the gospel (the evangelical history) as Matth. wrote it down (according
to the apprehension and representation of Mt.). On tlvai xata adgxa,
xatu vtvivfji.a Rom. viii. 5. see Riickert in loc. More common is the
(Pauline) formula xat'* dv$%uGov offer, according to the manner of man
(in different contexts) Gal. iii. 15. 1 Cor. ix. 8. Rom. iii. 5. Gal. i. 11.
(Winer's comment.}. Comp. Rom. iv. 4. xata %aw according to the
manner of grace. (6) Of the occasion, which is very nearly related to
the former, Mt. xix. 3. dc?otoj<jo j^v ywalxo, xatu atfav altiav for every
cause (Kypke in loc., comp. Pausan. 5, 10. 26, 18. 27, 1. 3, 8. 43, 1.),
Acts. iii. 17. xa-tu ayvoiuv Isfgafai'E in consequence of ignorance (Raphel
in loc.}, Phil. iv. 11. ov% oft, xa,^ vstke^siv ^'yw out of wait (because
that I suffer want) comp. Diog. L. 6, 1. 4. Arrian. Al. 1, 17. 13. (c) Of
the destination, purpose, 2 Tim. i. 1. Tit. i. 1. (for, to") and the (neces-
sary) consequence 2 Cor. xi. 21. xat* atL^v Tilyw to shftmr. (Herod. 2,
152. Thuc. 6, 31.). The signification cum must be dispensed with, al-
though X.MO. may sometimes be translated with. Rom. x. 2. ^oj ^ot)
aM,' oil xaf" 1 7tiyva(Hv zeal but not according to knowledge, i. e. as it
shows itself in consequence of knowledge, Hebr. xi. 13. xa-tn itla-tw arts-
$avov etc. signifies: it was according to faith (the nature of faith) that
they died, without receiving etc. (for before ^ hafiovtEs the comma must
be omitted),

(e) 'Trt^ with the accus. signifies, over, beyond (Herod. 4, 188.) and
does not occur in the N. T. in the local signification, but always tropi-
cally: Acts XXvi. 13. $w itgMoi(*.$a,v vjile, 'f'ip '^O'p.Jt^o'tr^a, iov vfiiov,

Mt. x. 24. oi> x Imn, pa&ri'tris vrtle, -fov SiSdaxohov, x. 37. Luke xvi. 8. (Ms-
chin, dial. 3, 6. Isocr. pancg. 47.), 2 Cor. i. 8. (Epict. 31. 37.). In
2 Cor. xii. 13. ti yd% ta-tw, o vj-t-er^'tB vrtsg *as ^ocrtaj sxx^aiag, the
v it e e, only apparently means infra, the conception here is just of the re-
verse (as the verb ^1:^0.1 expresses that): beyond, more than. Comp.
Philem. ver. 16. OVXETH, w$ oi>hov, aM,' vjtse, Sovhov, more than a servant.

(f) Ms-fa with the accus. indicates motion into the midst of something
(towards the middle) Iliad. 2, 376., then motion after, but signifies yet
more frequently (of a state of repose) behind (pasf)'Heb. ix. 3. In the
N. T. it occurs besides only relating to time, after, even Mt. xxvii. 63.,
where the popular expression can present no difficulty, see Krebs observ.
p. 87.; the well known formula ^ E ^' ^go-v interdiu must not be referred

53. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 321

hither for interpretation, see Bernhardy p. 254. See Fritzscbe in loc.
against Kiinol, who translates Mt. i. 12. peta -tip ptotx<sia.v Ba/3. tern-
pore exilii.

n a a. The primary meaning is: near, along a line, space, e. g.

o rtaga yijv, near the land, along the shore (Xen. Anab. 6, 2. 1.
Cyrop. 1, 6. 43. PJutarch. If. p. 621. D.) Mt. 4. 18. ttt^ntafuv rtaga, t^v

dha<saav side etc. walking along the. sea shore, by the sea (Xen.

Jinab. 1, 2. 24. 6, 2. 18.) Mt. xiii. 4., then of a point (of space) Acts
iy. 35. Itfeow rtagtt tfovs Tt6Sa$ >tu>v artoatoh. near by their feet, at their
feet, Mt. xv. 30.; Mt. xv. 29. fa^rs rtaga t^v oa. he came near to the sea
(to the shore of the sea) Acts xvi. 13. comp. Held ad Plut. Titnol, p.
356. Hence with verbs of resting near, by, Mt. xiii. 1. xx. 30. Luke
v. 1. xviii, 35. Acts x. 6. 32. comp. Heb. xi. 11. (&lciphr. 3, 27. Xen.
Anab. 7, 2. 11. 3, 5. 1. Pausan. 1, 38. 9. JEsop. 44, 1.) Hartung on the
cusus p. 83. Again rtaga denotes that something is not thrown to the
mark, but near by if, hence (according to the words subjoined, sometimes
beyond Rom. xii. 3. sometimes beside (except, save) 2 Cor. xi. 24. rtw-
tfajctj Ttsaaagdxovtu rtaga ^Lav (comp. Heb. ii. 7. Septuag.), and tropically
in the former sense, (a) Luke xiii. 2. apa*totoi Ttcn^a rtdvtas (beyond,
more than all, see vase;}, Heb. i. 9. Luke iii. 18. (Dio Cass. 152. 16.)
Rom. xiv. 5. (so also aM,oj ytaga 1 Cor. iii. 11. comp. Stallbaum ad Phi-
leb. p. 51.). (b) Against Acts xviii. 13. rtaga v6/.tov, Rom. i. 26. rtaga
$vGiv (prseter naturam), Rom. xvi. 17. Hebr. xi. 11. as we say: to trans-
gress the law (comp. Xen.. Mem. 1, 1. 18. Anab. 6, 6. 28. 2, 5. 41.
Lycias 1. Theomnest. 4. Polyb. 9, 16. 2. Lucian. Demon. 49. Philostr.
Apoll. 1, 38.). (c) Rom. i. 25. rfago. *bv xtLawta with a, passing by of
the creator (instead of the creator), riaga occurs once of the reason
1 Cor. xii. 15. rtaga tovto, therefore, properly with all this, as this is so
(Plutarch. Camill. 28. Dio Cass. p. 171. 96. Liban. oratt. p. 119. D.
Lucian. Paras. 12.). In Latin propter (from prope, comp. propterflu-
men} became the usual causal preposition (Vig. p. 862. V. Fritzsche
qusest. Lucian. p. 124.).

(A) IT 6 5 to, towards with verbs of motion or mere direction (Acts
ix. 40. Ephes. iii. 14.). Sometimes the signification of the accusative
is not very clear and *& means by Mr. iv. 1. (^65 1^, diM<saa.v ^v] xi. 4.
especially with names of persons Mt. xxvi. 55. John i. 1. 1 Cor. xvi. 6.
see Fritzsche &d Mr. p. 201. (Rom. iv. 2. it means towards, before, and
in Acts v. 10. xiii. 31. xxii. 15. the signification of the direction is very
apparent). The Lat. ad unites both significations. The phrases relating
to time are vindicated on the first glance, e. g. rt & s xat?itv at, for a season,
Luke viii. 13. Hebr. xii. 10. and ^o? i^^v tozvards evening Luke xxiv.

322 PART THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLE.

29. Wetst. I. p. 826. (comp. above iiti): Transferred (tropically)
denotes the end, or mark, to which something (consciously or unconscious-
ly) tends 2 Pet. iii. 16. -- atgfihovai.v rtgoj fqv i8iav avtuv clrtwtotav,
Hebr. ix. 12. John xi. 4., but especially the direction of the mind to
something, xi. 4. e. g. Hebr. i. 7. rfoj -rouj ayy&ovs ^'y" z ' n reference to
(in speaking to refer to them), Luke xx. 19. Rom. xx. 21. (as dicere in
aliquem, comp. Plutarch, de si ap. Delph. c. 21. Xen. Mem. 4, 2. 15.),
also Ephes. iii. 4., particularly () the disposition towards some one, erga
and contra Luke xxiii. 12. 1 Thess. v. 1 4. 2 Cor. iv. 2. vii. 12. (ft) the
design (direction of the will) 1 Cor. x. 11. Mt. vi. 1. Hebr. vi. 11. and
the purpose Acts iii. 10. xxvli. 12. 2 Cor. xi. 8. 1 Pet. iv. 12., hence
rts if ^ for what (quo consilio) John xiii. 28. comp. Soph. Ajac. 40.
(e) the reason (direction of the judgment) on account of which Mt. xix.
8. (Polyb. 5, 27. 4. 38, 3. 10.) (d) the rule or model after which some
one regulates himself, according to Luke xii. 47. Gal. ii. 14. 2 Cor. v.
10. Lucian. conscr. hist. 38. Plat. Apol. p. 40. E. JSschin. dial. 3, 17.,
and hence also the measure, standard by (according to) which a compa-
rison is made Rom. viii. 18. ovx a%ia fa Tta,$r] pa-fa fov vvt- xaigov rtgoj fvjv
fiEMoucav 66|av drfoxcaD-j^'/jvcu compared with, as if laid on, applied to the
standard (Thuc. 6, 31. Plat. Hipp. maj. 2S1. D. Isocr. de big. p. 842.
Demosth. ep. 4. p. 119. A. comp. Wolf ad Leptin. p. 251. Jacobs ad
JElian. Anim. II. 340.).

It is acknowledged by Bretschneider and Wahl that in formulas like
Sto.T'i&sff^ai, SiaSyxyv rtgo$ -twa, Siaxgivea^rat, rtgoj tfim, flgvjvqv l%iv Ttgoj i 1 .
(Rom. v. 1.) etc. the signification cum cannot be adopted (comp. Albert!
observ. p. 303.) but the simple towards, with. Schleussrier's interpre-
tation of the formula iv%ta$at, Tt^oj ;M" precar.i a deo only merits notice
as a striking instance of the most unlimited empiricism. Also in Hebr.
iv. 13. rf^oj 6V ^un/ 6 a.o'yoj, the preposition expresses the direction, arid
Kiinb'l's remark: Ttgoj signifies cum is without value (comp. Eisner
in Zoc.).

(i) Hsgl around, about first of place Mr. iii. 4. ol

who were silting around him, iii. 8. Mt. iii. 4. Luke xiii. 8. and of
time Mr. vi. 48. Ttsgi tstagttiv (fv^axv\v about the fourth watch (circa in
Latin), Acts xxii. 6., then also of the object, about which an action is
exerted Acts xix. 25. ot itee,i fa foiavta egydtat, (Xen. vectig. 4, 28.),
also Luke x. 40. (Lucian. adv. indoct. 6.), therefore it signifies some-
times in respect to. Tit. ii. 7. 1 Tim. i. 19. 2 Tim. iii. 8. (Xen.
Mem. 4, 3. 2. Isocr. Evag. 4. errorem, CIRCA liter as habuit, etc.
by Plin. and Quintil.). Comp. above p. 156. and Ast ad Plat. legg.
p. 37., but especially the Glossar. Theodoret. p. 317. The phrase

53. PREPOSITIONS WITH THE ACCUSATIVE. 323

tbv liav^ov Paul and his companions Acts xiii. 13.*, as oi

Xen. Anab. 7, 4. 16. oi rtetf Kwgcwta Xen. Mem. 3, 5. 10, a
construction which in the later writers denotes also the principal person
alone (Herm. ad Vig. p. 698.) is worthy of remark. So according to
most of the interpreters John xi. 19. at ttegi Md^av x. Ma^av, comp.
Liicke in loc. See Malth. II. 1364. Bernhardy 263. Instances (but
without a minute distinction) are also given by Palairet p. 253. Wetsfen. I.
915. Schwarz Comment, p. 1074. Schweighauser Lexic. Polyb. p. 463.

(k) e Trt6 originally of place, under (with motion) Mt. v. 15. tfesva.!,
fab tbv juofoov, viii. 8. (Plutarch. Thes. 3.), with verbs of rest, especially
of a surface under which something extends itself, Luke xvii. 24. Acts
ii. 5. 1 Cor. x. 1. (Herod. 2, 127. Lucian. d. dear. 8, 2. Plut. Themist.
26. JSsop. 36, 3. Plutarch. II. p. 225.); tropically, of the power, to
which some one is subjected (Boissonade ad Nic. p. 56. Xen. Cyrop. 8,
8. 5.) Rom. vii. 14. rtsrtgapsvos vitb -tyv apagtiav, also with ffcj/cu (to be
given under} Mt. viii. 9. Gal. iv. 2. iii. 10. 1 Cor. x. 1. It is used of
time in Acts v. 21. vttb *bv o^ov (wider, at, near, toicards) as often
among the Greeks (e. g. vrtb vvxta, i>rtb it^v lu, vrtb -t^v sartsgav, v^ yptgav
see Alberti observ. p. 224. Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. 1. p. 146. Schweig-
hauser Lexic. Polyb. p. 633.) and among the Romans sub.

(1) Etti of place, over, throughout (over a surface) Mt. xxvii. 45.
6x6to$ fysve-to trti rtaaav ifvjv y^jv, xiv. 19. avaxhi$r[vai, irtl tov$ %6g-tovs, XIV.
26. Acts vii. 11. xvii. 26-; over, towards (coming from above or below
Xen. Cyrop. 3, 1. 4.), over, upon Mt. xxiv. 16. fai ta o^, Acts x. 9.,
down upon Mt, x. 29., upon John xiii. 25. trtiitljt'e-tw Irti *b UT'^OJ on the
bosom (John xxi. 20.), unto, up before (a high tribunal) Mt. x. 18. Luke
xii. 11., unto (to go, to strive, etc.) Mr. v. 21. (see Fritzsche in loc.)
Luke xv. 4. Xen. Cyrop. 1, 6. 39. Kypke in loc.'f, rarely the mere to
Acts i. 21. By this primary signification the following constructions are
easily explained: Acts x. 10. erteotv stt" av-tbv exa-taais, Acts v. 28. Jytoya-

yeiv Irti -fwi to aTjUa dr^gaTtoi) t 1 ., i. 26. sjteatv 6 xX^oj ertl Mai'^ia.t 1 etc.

The Ger. auf is very similar in its almost universal application (only in
Mt. xxvii. 29. tjti^xav xa\o,y.ov litl trjv 8e|tav we would say into the
hand, but better Codd. read here Iv ty 8f|., and the vulgate cannot be
justified by Rev. xx. 1.). 'Eril is only apparently connected with verbs

i is also thus used by the Greeks, but ire$ in prose more frequently. That
ol 7rs ? f -rSv na^Xov denotes not only the companions of Paul, but includes'also himself,
arises from the comprehensiveness of the preposition; we?? expresses that which en-
compasses, therefore embraces Paul as surrounded, enclosed by his friends. In Mr.
iv. 10. Luke xxii. 49. ol -n^l has its local signification.
t 'EfXE^at EOT' TIVJ is peculiar (after something') i. e . to go out to catch something.

324 PART THIRD. USB OF THE PARTICLE.

of resting Mt. xiii. 2. 6 b'^oj Irti tov cUytcaoj/ cltitrixsi stood (had placed
themselves) on the shore, xviii. 12. comp. Odyss. 11, 577. Of Mt. xix.
23. xo^tidfs^E 7ti SuSsxu $ovov$, Acts x. 17. xi. 11. we explain in the
same way as si$ in similar cases, see 54, 4. Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex.
II. p. 91.^" (2) of time, for during which something extends Luke iv.
25. litt, eVj/ */ for three years, Acts xiii. 31. xix. 10. (Hebr. xi. 30.)
comp. Herod. 6, 101. 3, 59. Xen. Cyrop. 6, 2. 34. Strabo 9. p. 401. Dio
Cass. p. 252., of the point of time, upon, at which, about which some-
thing is done Acts iii. 1. see Alberti in loc. (3) Tropically it means
(a) of the number, up to which something amounts, Rev. xxi. 16. 1*1
otaSiovs SuSsxa ^ataSwi/, where we can also say to (Herod. 4. 198. Xen.
Cyrop. 7, 5. 8. Polyb. 4, 39. 4.) (6) of superintendence and power over
Rev. xiii. 7. i|oi'<jta erti rtaauv tyvhyv, Heb. ii. 7. x. 21. comp. Luke ii.
8. xii. 14. (and paaifovi-iv trti two, Luke i. 33. comp. Malal. 5. p.
143.) (c) of the direction of the mind, heart, hence, towards, against,
erga and contra, Luke vi. 35. Mt. x. 21. 2 Cor. x. 2. Sturz ind. to Dio
Cass. p. 151. (in this relation we say sometimes over, Mt. xiv. 14. Rom.
ix. 23. 1 Cor. vii. 36. 1 Pet. iii. 12.); hence to confide, to hope in Mt.
xxvii. 43. 2 Cor. ii. 3. 1 Pet. i. 13. (rZ) of the direction of thought and
speech (Mr. ix. 12.) Hebr. vii. 13., of the v.-ill, hence of the design and
purpose Luke xxiii. 48. Mt. iii. 7. Xen. Mem. 2, 3. 13. (Fischer ind.
ad Palseph. under Irti], also where purpose and consequence are con-
nected Hebr. xii. 10. On jttatbs fai tt> Mt. xxv. 21. see Fritzsche in loc.

54. Interchange, accumulation and repetition of the Prepositions.

1. The same preposition stands in the same leading clause or in pa-
rallel passages (especially of synopsis) with different cases in different
relations: Heb. ii. 10. 8 .' Sv to, rtdvtu xaL 6V oo> to, rtdvta, Rev. xiv. 6.
More remotely belongs here Heb. xi. 29. SiB^av i^v levQeo.v ddhaaaav
wj Sid %ya,$, where the ace. depends on the Siu in compos,, but out of
composition is followed by the genit. (comp. Jos. xxiv. 17. o-D j itngfado-
Si,' aiitfwi'. This nice distinction of different cases sometimes almost

* Jas. v. 14. TT !oa-iv%a.<rQtua-a,v lir alrov may mean: let them pray (iiber bin, implying
motion) over him (folding the hands over him in the attitude of prayer) comp. Acts
xix. 13. or down upon him (blessings), or even (itber iJim, as a state of rest) over him
(being in that position), as Inl with ace. often occurs where a dative or genit. would
be proper.

54. INTEKCHANGE, &C. OF THE PREPOSITIONS. 325

entirely disappears in practice: Mt. xxiv. 2. oi> w
Mr. xiii. 2. ov w dfeflfl xtooj I rt * Ju 9 (eoarap. Jos. v. 15. in one sentence
I?' 9 vw Saftixas In:' aWoi), Gen. xxxix. 5.). So the Greeks say dmpat-
vv tot *ois *. and tot tfwv Srtrtuv (see Bornemann ad Xen. Symp. p.
272.) quite as frequently (Septuag. even with the dat. Joel ii. 9.). In
Rev. xiv. 9. we find a,a^/3aWt to ^agay^ua erti t ov petartov avtfoi) % srti

oAtmi (xiii. 1. John iv. 13.). Comp. also Polyb. 6, 7. 2.
vjto totovtots, then in 10, 25. 1. tgafysis xai jtatSEvdEis
Kj\.la8goi. /See Jacobs ad Anthol. III. p. 194. 286. Bernhardy p.
200. Such apparent indifference as to the case occurs most frequently
with tot, Mt. xix. 28. 6Vcw xuGtay -- lit I e^ovov Sofys oii'oi), *ao<jcr0
xat i^ftj irtt SwSf^a 0g o v ov j , COmp. shrtiZstv IriC <twi and tfwa 1 Pet. i.
13., rtertoiOtvat, srti twi and -two. 2 Cor. ii. 3. Mt. XXVli. 43., xorttEadai sjti
Rev. i. 7. and lui twt xviii. 9.; e-fiygatv. srii twa Rev. xviii. 20., then
iv Erti twt, o srii tov xortuvos Acts xii. 20, and o erti tai$ ti,gxv<St> Xen.
Cyrop. 2, 4. 25. See Lob. ad Phryn. p. 474., xaTfaatijaai Imi fijs
KEtttj Luke xii. 42. and ver. 44. lal nols vtfd%%ov<3<,v. Further about
of aim with the genit. see Bremi ad jtEschin. p. 412., with dat. an v d ace.
Stallbaum ad Plat. Gorg. p. 59., about rtag with genit. instead of dat.
Schafer ad Dion. p. 118., on snl with dat. and ace. Schneider ad Plat.
I. p. 74., on jttgl with genit. and dat. in the sense of for, on account of,
Schafer ad Long. p. 337. It is therefore not correct to pronounce the
construction inaccordant with the Greek, in some cases which cannot be
referred to exact Gr. parallels .(Luke i. 59. John xii. 16. etc.). At least
all these constructions are of such a nature that the cases used can be
very well conceived of in connection with prepositions; yet the N. T. au-
thors never write ettl KJwwiStco or KjionJStoy for irtl KhwvSiov, nor connect
erii of condition with genit. and ace. (camp. Exod viii. 3. xii. 7. Gen.
xlix. 26. Diog. L. 2, 8. 4.).

2. The two different prepositions in one sentence Philem. ver. 5. &xov~

uv aov tfrfv aydrtyv xai rtfy rtiatiw, t}v e'^ftj rt g 6 j tiov xvgtov 'itja. xai sis
rtdvtas tov$ ayuov$ can be readily explained, when we reflect that the
words rtgoj *. xvg. according to the sense are to be referred to jti<s<tw,
and etj ri. ay. to dya^j/, which chiasmus should seem strange to no one,
comp. Plat. Legg. 9. p. 868. B. (see Ast Animadv. p. 16.), Horat. Serm.
1, 3. 51. and interpreters on the passage. If some Codd. have ls in the
first place, it is only a correction, occasioned by the effort to render the
expression consistent, and from having observed that ttttois jj els X^cr-
iin> always occurs in the N. T. But rtte-ew l%w rt& two, is an unques-
tionable reading and is found at least in Epiphan. Opp. II. p. 335. D.
41

326 FA.KT THIRD. USE OF THE PATRICLE.

No remark is necessary on 2 Cor. x. 3. and Rom. iv. 18. Billroth has
recently expressed the truth as to 2 Cor. iii. 11. and 2 Cor. xiii. 3. On
the other hand in 1 Thess. ii. 6. ovte l^ovvees I wOgartuv S6%av ovts
a$' vpuv OUT'S am' cfa&uv the two prepositions are entirely synonymous,
comp. Pausan. 7, 7. 1. at # rtohspav xal art 6 jyjs v6<sov avju$ogai>', Isocr.
Evag. p. 207. and permut. 738. Arrian. #Zea-. 2, 18. Diod. Sic. 5, 30.
Schafer ad Gnom. p. 203. and ad Soph. I. 248. Bornemann ad Xen.
Mem. p. 45. Kiihner 6?r. II. 319. Nor is there any more difference
between the two prepositions in 2 John. 2. ify a^dstav tyv ptvovaav E v
fylv xal pse* fyfiuv Keftfat, John xi. 1. Rom. iii. 25. 26. and Exod. vi. 4.
ev ij (yjf) xal rtagcpxyiaav lrt' ow^f. And in John XJ. 1. the preposit. drto
might also have been used with tyj$ XQJU^J. Comp. yet 1 John iii. 24.

3. Prepositions of kindred meaning are interchanged in the evan-
gelists, and likewise in parallel passages generally; e. g. Mt. xxvi. 28.
(Mr. xiv, 24.) cu^a *6 ttegi rtoMZv exxwopavov, then in Luke xxii. 20.
to v tttg TtoTiTt. ex%., Mt. XXiv. 16. tysvyetatsav I rti * og^ (wp, WJ)07Z the

mount.) comp, Palseph. 1, 10., but Mr. xiii. 14. $wy. 1 5 -to, Key (into
the mount.), John x. 32. 8 i a rioiov avt^v e^yov 7it0ais*l pe} ver. 33.
xahov egyov oi> ^lOa^Ojtta'v cf, Heb. Vli. 2. scat Sfxdtiqv art 6 rtawt
J Aj3^aa/t, ver. 4. $ xa Sexdit^v 'Aj3^. eSwxsv I x tuiv Q.xo$n,vi<*v. Here
belongs also Heb. xi. 2. I v i to,\>i<^ (ify jtiatBi) ipagi!vgq&iaaa> ot rtgstipintegot,,
ver. 39. rtdvtss na^v^^sve^ S t a *ijfs rtt'sT'sKis (in faith i. e. wi instructi
fide), the formula rto^ftf^at. ytsgt or vrtsg *wos, the phrases /o az/^er or
die rtsgt or irtsg apagtiw (the former on account of, the latter /br sin),
which the apostles used interchangably comp. Winer's comment, on Gal.
p. 32. Pott interprets 1 Pet. iii. 18. itt-gi d^ogi'iwv (which is not alto-
gether established on critical grounds) rather strangely by vrts
(Modern interpreters would correct Eurip. Alcest. 180. where ov
A s g i occurs instead of the more usual vrt> see Monk in loc., but there
is no sufficient reason for it).

In parallel phrases we find the preposition now inserted then omitted,
e.g. 1 Pet. iv. 1. Ttafldi/tfoj vrtsg vjpuv aa^xC and immediately after
6 Tto&wv Iv aagxo Acts i. 5. xi. 16. fiaiftiltw vSuiti,, in the gospels
paTtT 1 . EV va if t,, Mt. iii. 11. Mr. i. 8. The sense is not affected here
by this difference, but the two were originally conceived of differently,
rtdax- fv augxt means, to suffer in the flesh, (body, ita,<f%* aagx. to suffei\
by means of the body, ftuTtt. h vSaft to baptize in water (immersing),
. vS. to baptize with water. There is no difference in sense here

* Sometimes the reading vacillates between v<rre% and vegt, as Gal. i. 4., and often
in Gr. writers see Schafer ad Dcmost/t. III. 273. 333. Bornem. ad Xen- Mem. p. 281.

54. INTERCHANGE, &C. OP THE PREPOSITIONS. 327

or in most other passages, yet we must not suppose the one to be put for
the other, as Pott explains aagxi in 1 Pet. by V ctagxi, as if the dative of
itself were not entirely correct. Comp. Ephes. ii. 1. vsxgol totj rfagowt-fw-
ittacft, but Col. ii. 13. vsxgol lv tfotj rtagart*., where one is not to be ex-
plained by the other, but each is in itself right.

The same preposition with the same case in immediate succession, yet
in a different relation is not uncommon in Paul's style : Col. ii. 7. rte-

Iv OJVT!^ (ytJtfffj.) lv 6'ifoagKJtfMf, 1 ThesS. iii. 7. jtagExh'qd'qfJi.Ev <J>'
etc. comp. Ephes. vi. 19. 1 Pet. v. 12. 1 Cor. i. v.

4. The prepositions Iv and si$ especially (see Sturz Lex. Xen. II. p. 68.
166.) were believed to be interchanged in the N. T. without any dis-
tinction (Glossii Philol. Sacra ed. Dathe I. 412.). The former in con-
formity with Heb. usage, when connected with verbs of motion or direc-
tion, was supposed to denote in with ace., as Mt. x. 16. lyw artoa-feM^a
wj TtgojSafa I v ^Icftp foixcov, John V. 4. ayytftoj xuttzpabVEv Iv tfoj xo-
Luke vii. 17. %fa6ev 6 Ttoyoj i v 0^7 ty 'lovSaiq, Mr. V. 30. I v
rtti(Sitga$ss) Rom. V. 5. jj ayufrj tov -sov \xxs.xwtQ,i s v tfat j jcag-
uv (Mt. vi. 4. Rev. i. 9. belongs not here, and in Rev. xi. 11. the
reading is uncertain); the latter, with verbs of rest, in with abl. e. g.
Mt. ii. 23. xwt<pxii<iev els rfdiuV Nagagst, Mr. ii. 1. el i olxov G?l, John
i. 18. o u>v s i $ tfoy xohrtov tov rt&ilgQSj John IX. 7. vi,<fya(, elg t^v xoXuu-
Pq8ga.v.- In respect (a) to Iv, the Greeks also (even Homer) are accus-
tomed to construe it with verbs of motion; the better writers so that with
the motion, they at the same time conceive of the result, the rest (so with
the Heb. i), and expressed it by a conciseness peculiar to this people, e g.
Thuc. iv. 42. l v Aurtgaxiq, - - d^etfov, Julian. V. H. 4, 18. xvefaOs
mai-wi/ ev StKs7u'<?, i. G. he came and remained in Sicily, Pausan. 3, 15.
3. &0oWa 01,^6^ lv Srfa'g^, 6, 20. 4. 7, 4. 3. Demosth. Androt. 17.
Alciphr. 2, 3. p. 324. Bergl., Xen. Eplies. 2, 12. Arrian. Epict. 1, 11.
32. 2, 20. 23. Lucian. Sacrif. 1. Dio. Cass. 1288. 23. comp. Heindorf
ad Plat. Soph. p. 427. Poppo ad Thuc. 1. 1. 178. Schafer ad Demosth.
III. p. 505. To this use of i v may be applied Mt. x. 16. Luke xxiii.
42. and perhaps to John v. 4. Yet here we can also translate: in the
lath, especially if it was built over and around (but the words are cer-
tainly spurious). The interchange of ,l ? with lv in all the other passages,
is only apparent; Luke vii. 17. means: it went out, spread itself over
throughout the whole country, Mr. v. 30. he turned himself about in the
crowd, Mt. xtv. 3. & VM i v ^ v ^. ax ^ j s exactly conceived as "the Latin
ponere in loco (instead of which we say pon ere in locum according to
different, but at the same time correct apprehension). Comp. John iii. 35.
I v ty X e^i afaov 2 Cor. viii. 16. So Mt. xxvi. 23. a lt-

328 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

lq lie who dips in the dish, which is as correct as our
into the dish comp. JEsop 124, 1. As other passages like Mt. xxvii. 5.
Luke v. 10. are easily explained see Bornemann in Rosenm. Repertor.
II. 237.* (6) More strange still are the passages adduced in favor of
sis for Ii/. But sis with verbs of rest also occurs frequently among the
Greeks, and then the idea of the (preceding) motion is originally included
according to the above mentioned breviloquence (Heindorf ad Plat.
Prolag. p. 407. Ada Monac. 1. p. 64. II. p. 47. Schiifer ad Demosth.
I. p. 194. Bernhardy p. 215. Hcrm. ad Soph. Ajac. 80. Hartung on the
cases p. 08.), e. g. Iliad 15. 275. tit fydvtj sis b86v, Xen. Cyrop. 1, 2. 4.
sis tfdj savtuv #wgaj fjearftfot fovfav jtagsiGw, ./Elian. V. H. 7, 8.

si? 'Ex/Sa-rara drt>ew< (Acts xxi. 13.), Died. Sic. 5, 84.
wi/ 15 rfaj j/ijrfouj. (The connection of 15 with verbs like Z'^H/,
of which Georgi alone Hierocrit. I. p. 35. quotes instances
1 Pet. v. 12. 2 Cor. iii. 15. John xix. 13. is of a different kind, sec
Buttmann ad Demosth. Mid. p. 175. Schweighiiuser Lexic. Herod. I. p.
282. Valckenaer ad Herod. 8, 71. Poppo ad Time. III. I. p. 059.
Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 558.). According to this the following passages
are to be explained: Mr. ii. 1., where we also say: he has gone into the
house i. e. he has gone into the house and is now there (Herod. 1, 21.
Arrian. Alex. 4, 22. 3. Pausan. 10. 4. and Siebelis in loc. Liv. 37, 18.
Petron. Sat. 30.), xii. 10. Luke xi. 7.; Acts viii. 40. QfatrMot,
sis "AW*OZ/ Philip was found carried TO Azotus (comp. ver. 39.
xvguov J' ft a a B nbv 3?(,?i,.) Diod. Sic. II. p. 581. comp. Esth. 1, 5. Thilo
Apocr. I. p. 034., vii. 4. l$ fy vps-is vvv xa-taixet'ts (Luciaii. T. VI. p. 131.
Xen. Jlnab. 1, 2. 24. Xen. Ephes. 2, 12. Theodoret. Opp. I. 594.), also
perhaps Acts XVlii. 21. Sso fie tf^v so^^v *wv g%o/j,vriv rtOL^aac sis 'ifgoci.,
yet there is occasion to suspect the genuineness of this word, see Kiinol
in loc. Acts xii. 19. is correctly apprehended by Stolz Acts xx. 14. and
viii. 20. need no remark. Acts xix. 22. *jtea% %g6vov sis tv\v 'Aaiw is per-
haps not to be taken merely in the local sense: he remained in Asia, but
he remained for the sake of Asia, in order to labour there. In Mt. ii.
23. sis yio\w belongs to ^wv (see Fritzsche in loc. comp. Gen. xxxi. 33.).
In Acts iv. 5. avvax^vai, cwDt'uii' T'O-U? $.%Qvi!as -- eis 'ififotf. Beza's in-
terpretation is the only admissible one. And, as Jerusalem is the scene
of the whole narration, and each reader knew that the Synedriurn sat in
Jerusalem, what a thought would it be to say: the Syne.drium was as-
sembled in Jerusalem! ! John i. 18. o wj/ ti's tbv XQMOV is referable to

* Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. I. i>. 247, has correctly explained these passages where
lias been taken for EIJ.

54. INTERCHANGE, &C. OF THE PROPOSITIONS. 329

the external (local) signification: who is found (lying) on the bosom,
against the bosom (comp. in Lat. in aurcm, oculum dormire Terent.). Mr.
xiii. 9. xal at? away, might perhaps be connected with the preceding
TtagaS. unless we rather prefer to read with Fritzsche xai lv ttu$ <jway.
In John ix. 7. sl$ *%> xokvppfagav as to the sense, is connected with v'rfays
comp. ver. 11. go down into the pool, ivash thyself in it (comp. Luke
xxi. 37.) see Liicke in loc., although virffsa^at sis vSog in itself considered
is as correct as Alciphr. 3, 43. hovad/Asvot, st$ z'o /3aa.ewoy and Cato R. R.
156, 5. in aquam maccrare. According to this Mr. ii. 9. is also clear
(Fritzsche in loc.}. See Beyer de prseposs. h et si; in N. T. permuta-
tione. Lips. 824. 4to.

5. If we now turn to some passages of the N. T. epistles, where these
prepositions, especially h for sis, are supposed to be interchanged in a
tropical signification (comp. also Riickert on Gal. i. 6.), no one will doubt
with Bretschneider, as to 2 Tim. iii. 16. Heb. iii. 12. 2 Pet. ii. 13. In
Phil. i. 9. I'va ay<wt7 -- rts^isdfvvj iv Irtiyvuast the signification is: in
cognitione, but the end is first expressed by ^j ^6 Sox^d^siv. So also
Philem. ver. 6. oVtwj fy xowavia, tfq$ ftidifEOS oov iVsgy^j ysviptati v tTttyva-
cft, where d$ could be expected neither on general grounds, nor according
to Paul's doctrine of faith becoming efficacious. In 1 Cor. vii. 15. lv
fl^vyj XEX^XEV fy/Aus o &$ there is the same breviloquence (comp. Col.
iii. 15.), as above with verbs of material motion (the sig. is the perma-
nent state, in which the xhijtoi shall persevere; the perfect here must not
be overlooked) comp. 1 Thess. iv. 7.*, Ephes. iv. 4. (unless sv pi
here means: in one hope). Rom. ii. 5. ^oav^Eis tiewty o^^v lv
dgyris ivrath, which will show itself in the day of wrath. On the other
hand Jas. v. 5. sv ^e,o, afyayqs may very well signify : in the day of
slaughter i. e. yet in the last moments, which are allowed to you). In
Rom. i. 24. sis axu$aga. belongs to na^^x^v and lv tuts irftS-. is: in their
lusts. In Rom. v. 5. we must have respect to the signification of the
perfect (Bernhardy 208. Euhner II. 316.). In 1 Thess. iii. 13. i v .^
7tagou<jM, like the preceding s^jt^oa^sv T?OV ., according to the sense, must
rather be connected with d^a^rti-oDj than with a-t^Ct-at, instead of f tj to
oz^f . v p . tfttj xagS., tojf slVat, fi/icjttTtT 1 . tv tfi rtag. 1 John iv. 9. can be
translated therein the love of God manifested itself in us,- I should not
make lv fylv immediately dependent on 70*17, as in that case ,; i v

* Yet7n v might hero be used of the condition, and bof (lie stale: lie lias not called
you (to the heavenly inheritance) on condition of unclcanness, but in solidification, i. e.
as those who should live in the slate of sanctific.alion.

330 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

would be used. Differently 2 Cor. viii. 7. ify || v^v lv y^lv fydrty see
Bengel in loc. No remark is needed on 2 Cor. i. 22. giSoW lv ta,i$
Finally sis is not used for sv in Rom. vi. 22. e'zsi-s tov xa^nbv
yioKtyioj', as the better interpreters have already acknowledged.
In Ephes. iii. 16. xgwtawvaSat, sis tov eat* av^tgartov signifies to become
strong for, in relation to the inner man. It is on the whole improbable,
that the apostles, with a clear conception of doctrinal relations, to confuse
the reader, should have used iv for eis or vice versa, thus producing con-
fusion in the reader's mind. They at least could write sis as easily as
those interpreters, who wish to introduce this preposition.

The arbitrary interchange of these prepositions is not sustained by an
appeal to Suidas or because sis and lv are sometimes interchanged in
parallel passages, as in Mt. xxi. 8. comp. Mr. xi. 8.; Mr. i. 6. d^tjSca-
havtes ttjtt^&jStoftftfgoi; lv fifi ^ahdtitiy, Mt. IV. 18. j3aM. <XjU$t/3a.. tl j tvjv a-
haaaw, the former means: they threw the net around in the sea, the lat-
ter: they threw it into the sea; different periods, or parts of their occu-
pation are expressed. In Rom. v. 21. ejSaaifavaev fy <*jwgtfta lv -tipSuvd-
tf9 means in death, which actually befel the man; on the other hand V
<q %dgi{ paeifavdy slf fw^v atwvtoj; signifies unto life, which is yet to come,
as a result which is to follow is here denoted. It seems ridiculous to use
sbftigftv Hv if m for sis -fiva. It cannot however be denied, that the rule
according to which EIJ is connected with verbs of rest, as vice versa lv
with verbs of motion, is overlooked by the more careless writers of the
later period, and hence lv and elf are used promiscuously, and even the
use of lv with verbs of motion begins to prevail see Leo Diac. ed Hase
p. XII. Niebuhr ind. ad Agath., also the indie, on Malal. and Me-
nandr. hist. ed. Bonn.; and the modern Greeks have retained but one of
these prepositions. Comp. (Rev. xi. 11. var.) Fabric. Pseudepigr. 1. 629.
II. 598. Cod. Apocr. I. p. 125. Theodoret. opp. II. 466. 804. II. 869.
Epiphan. haer. 46, 5. Pseudepiph. mt. proph. p. 241. 248. 332. 334. 340.
341. Basilic. I. p. 150. III. p. 496. Act. Tom. 32. and the Septuag.
in many passages. In the N. T. there are no instances more striking than
those which occur in the ancient writers of the

6. It is peculiar to Paul, to use different prepositions in reference to
one object, so that connected they shall define the idea in all its aspects
e. g. Gal. i. 1. Ilai&oj ariocri'oTioff ovx art' ai^guTtav ov8s &' av^guTtov, a,M.a
SM 'fyoroiJ Xgttff ov xal &ov jtatgos etc. i. e. in no respect an apostle called
by human authority (not from men as the ultimate authority, not by a
man as mediator) Rom. iii. 22. Stxtuoevvtj tov Sta, cstWfoj 'i^tfou Xg. elf
rtdvtas xai s rt i ridvfas l - e - it is fully communicated to all believers (it
is manifested unto all and over all), see the Syriac (Bengel in loc. after
the old interpreters is rather forced in his exegesis; Riickert unadvised)
xi. 36. f| ojvifov xai d&' antitov xai els avtbv to, rtdvia, i. 6. the world in every

respect stands related to God, it is out of him, because he has created it,
through him, as he sustains it in being, to him, because he is the central

54. INTERCHANGE, &C. OP THE PREPOSITIONS. 331

point, to which every thing in the world is referable, Col. i. 16. i
Ix'fiOctn tartdviia I'd Tidvila 8 t> ' avtov xal el $ avtfov fWttftfat 1. e.
the world stands in necessary and manifold relation to Christ (in him and
through him as the mediating a.dyoj, for him as the tfw^ and xvgios in
the most extensive sense), Ephes. iv. 6. Tj 5-eoj xal jtat^ rtdvtuv b I Til
jtavtw xal 8 t>a jtdvtw xal s v rtaaw fjfuv, i. e. God is the father and God
of all in every possible relation, over all (ruling, protecting), through all
(acting), in all (dwelling, filling all with his spirit), 2 Pet. iii. 5. yjj 1 1
vSatos xal St," v8ato$ awsatiZaa *$ SEOV jtdy^ out of water (as the matter in
which it was enclosed) and through water i. e. by the effect of the water,
which partly retired into the lower places, partly constituted the heaven
of clouds. Differently Semler. Somewhat different 1 Cor. viii. 6. Rom.
i. 17. 2 Cor. iii. 11. where the different prepositions connected refer to
different subjects, and their signification in the several places must be
derived from the context. We only observe, that in 1 Cor. viii. 6. the ds
ovtbv is explained very arbitrarily by Pott, who takes the dg for the He-
brew 3, this possibly for SM and then obtains in els avtbv a synonism of
f avtov, This instance may teach us whither this presumptuous He-
braism in the N. T. and the unprecise apprehension of the particles leads.
In this way any thing can be made out of any thing. Comp. 1 Cor. xii.
8. 9 HEV 8 i a tiov liVEVfia^os SiSotai ?idyo$ cfo^taj, aMup 8s ftdyoj yvwtffWf
* atf a tfo a/utfb rivsiifia, Itfogp 8e jil<tfi$ I v ^9 a-fo^ rtvsvp* etc. and Bengel
in loc. The following parallels from the Greeks may be remarked:
Heliod. 2, 25. ago $ rtdvtav xai sjti, rta.<Hv, Philostr. Apoll. 3, 25. tfoi>s
e it i ^aTiaT'i'^ tie Kai E v ^a^af'r 1 ^, Acta Ignat. p. 368. Si' o v xal p E *
ooi *9 ttaitgl % Sofa, Isocr. de Mg. p. 846. to, pV vfy" 1 vpuv, *a 8e
/*^ v fiuv , >ga SB St' v p a j , T'dS' <i> rt s g -u/twy. Other passages
see Wetsten. II. p. 77.

7. If two or more nouns follow in immediate succession, which are
dependent on one preposition, it must be repeated, when the nouns denote
things, which must be conceived of as severally independent (for the
Latin, see Kritz ad Salust. I. p. 226. Zumpl. Gramm. p. 601.), as in Luke
XXiv. 27. agl-dpsvos artb Mocfawj xal g,rtb rtdvtfav TtZ>v rt^o^uv, 1 Thess. i. 5.
xal sv8vvdft.fi, xal li> rtvEvpain, dyiq, xai EV ri^o^ia rioM^j (according to most
authorities), Luke xiii. 29. drib dva^o^v xal Svcs^v xai drto J3o^a xal votw
(where the four regions of the heavens are divided into two correspond-
ing parts, the Codd. however vacillate much in the latter passage), John
xx. 2.*, hence almost always, where two nouns are connected by xal xal

* On this passage Bengel remarks: ex prceposit. rcpctita colligi poiest, non una
fuissc utrumque discipulum.

332 PART THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLE.

(Bremi ad Lys. p. 3.) or * xai (in such case) Acts xxvi. 29. xai lv 6X179
xai EV rioMip (which could not both occur at the same time), comp. Xen.
Hier. 1, 5. (Soph. Track. 379.), Phil. i. 7. h t tfotj Sea/Aols pov xai lv
tyi artohoyiu etc. (comp. Diod. Sic. 19, 86. 20, 15. Pausan. 4, 8. 2.)*, or
where they are separated by J, dw.a, xai ov, Rom. iv. 10. ovx EV rtsgrtoufi,
aM,' EV dxgojSocftftqi, Acts viii. 34. 1 Cor. vi. 1. xiv. 6. 2 Cor. ix. 7. 1 Thess.
i. 8. Ephes. vi. 12. comp. Pausan. 7, 10. 1. Alciphr. 1, 31. Demosth. adv.
Timocr. p. 483. A. On the contrary, John iv. 23. l v rivsv^a-ti xai
J (one principal idea), Luke xxi. 26. d?t6 $oj3ou xai agosSoxtas tuv

Acts xv. 22. xvi. 2. xvii. 9. 15. (comp. Xen. Cyrop. 1, 2. 7.
Aristot. Eth. Nic. 7, 11. in Time. 3, 72. 2, 83. Pausan. 10, 20. 2.),

Acts XXviii. 23. ajto tie 'foil VO/J.QV Moufflcoj xal "tuv rtgofyytuv, XXV. 23. Xen.
Hell. 1, 1.3. Here however it mostly depends on the subjective view
of the author; and strict attention to this point is found in but few. The
omission of the preposition prevails generally in the Gr. prose (Bernhardy
p. 201.), also in the N. T., especially in Luke; but the Greeks carry it
farther than the N. T. writers, as they frequently or usually omit the
prepos. not only before substantives simply connected (Bornemann ad
Xen. conviv. p. 159.), but also before oaxa or % (Schofer ad Demosth. V.
569. 760. ad Plutarch. IV. 291.), before appositions (Stallbaum ad Plat.
Gorg. p. 112. 247. comp. Bornemann Schol. in Luc. p. 173.), in com-
parative clauses (see immediately below), and in answers (Stallbaum ad
Plat. Sympos. p. 104. ad Gorg. p. 38. ad rep. I. 237.). In the N. T.
on the other hand, the following passages are striking, Acts xxvi. 18.
ErtitiitgE'fycM artb tfjcdtfouj stf $toj xai tfijjj l^outftaj tfoi) tfcWava Irti tlbv $EOV
(without variation) and Acts vii. 37. Hebr. vii. 27., but comp. Aristot.
Eth. Nicom. 10, 9. 1. jiB^l tf tfovtfuv xai -tuv agtfwi>, eVt Ss xai <J>t?u'aj etc.
(see Zell ad Aristot. Eth. p. 442.) Lysias 1. in Theomnest. 7. Thuc. 1,
141. Dion. Hal. IV. p. 2223, 1. Diojg. Lrort. procem. 6. Strabo 16, 778.
Diod. Sic. 5, 31. Dio Chrys. 23. p. 277.

The repetition of the prepos. before each of a series of nouns, as Eph.
vi. 12. dhha rt e, o $ faj dg#aj, ft g 6 j T'OIJ l|outftaj, Ji g b $ tfoij xoa^ox^.
rtgbs *, rtvsvp. etc., 1 Thess. i. 5., is of a rhetorical nature, serves to
render the several ideas more prominent, and constitutes a species of
polysyndeton. See Bauer Rhetor. Paul. I. p. 484. comp. Dissen ad
Find. p. 519.

The preposition connected with the immediately preceding noun, is not
usually repeated before the relative by the Greeks, Plat. legg. 10. p. 909.
artb T 1 ^? ^/ctegafj ^ j av o Jicti^e, avtiuv ofyhy 'Hv^v Sixqv, 12. p. 955. v

* See Sommer in d. Jahrl. f. Pkilol. 131. p. 408. on the different cases in which
the prepos. is repeated after n *aj. Comp. Slallbaum ad PJdleb. p. 156.

54. INTEKCHANGE, &C. OF THE PREPOSITIONS. 833

olj av 07i/j7, 2. p. 659. ex tavtov Maputos, ovrt e 'foil? ^to-u
XeWo etc. Piat. P^rf. 21. JLpoZ. 27. Gorg. p. 453. E. Thuc. 1, 28;
Pausan. 9, 39. 4. Dion. Hal. 1, 69. Xen. conviv. 4. 1. Anab. 5, 7. 17.
Hiero. 1, 11. comp. Bremi ad Lys. p. 201. Schafer ad tfoy/t. III. p.
317. ad Dion. comp. p.' 425. JWefef. p. 124. ad Demosth. II. p. 200.
Heller ad So/?7i. (Ed.C. p. 420. Ast arf Plat. Legg. p. 108. Wurm. ad
Dinarch. p. 93. Frankhanel ad Demosth. Jindrot. p. 77. Bernhardy p.
203; So in the N. T. Acts xiii. 38. drtb rtdv-tav, &v oiix qSwrjetj-te --
k , Sixmo-vtai, xiii. 2. afyoglaats sis *o t^yov, 6 rtgoaxsxhripai, ajv-
Luke i. 25., on the contrary in John iv. 53. tv Ixfiwy vfj w, lv vj
Acts vii. 4. comp. Demosth. adv. Timoth. p. 705. B. lv -rot's a^ovotj,
oTj yly^artrat I'jjv *tyJj/ tfuu/ (jHaTiuJi/ 6$EtXcoi't Aristot. dlnim,. 5, 30. Plat.
p. 257. D. Diog. L. 8, 2. 11. Heinichen atZ Eustb. II. 252. On
the Latin, see Ramshorn p. 378. Beier ad Cic. offic. I. p. 123. (If the
principal nouns and relatives are separated by several words, the Greeks
prefer to repeat the preposit. Herod. 1, 47. Xen. Vectig. 4, 13. Dio
Chrys. 17, 247. Lucian Necyom. 9.). The preposition of the parallel
sentence is seldom repeated by the Greeks before the comparative &$jtFg,
see Schafer ad Julian, or. p. 19. Engelhardt ad Plat. Eulhyphr. p. 91.
Stallbaum ad Plat. Phsed. p. 58. ad Plat. Protag. p, 102. Held ad Plu-
tarch. A. Paull. p. 124. Yet in the N. T. it is always repeated in com-
parative sentences, Acts xi. 15. Heb. iv. 10. Rom. v. 19. 2 Cor. yiii. 7.
Philem. 14. (Gal..iii. 16.).

In Gr. writers, especially poets, a preposition belonging to two nouns
occurs, only before the second, Herm. ad Vig. p. 852. Schafer ad Soph..
II. p. 318. Monk ad Eurip. Alcesf. 114. Wex ad Antig. I. 158. his in-
terpret. of Anac. 9, 22. Kiihner Gr. II. 320. An instance of this was
believed to exist in Phil. ii. 22. (corny. Heinichen ad Euseb. II. 252.)
6Vc, <2j jta-t^l tzxvov, avv Ipoi rSovtevasv etc., but this is rather a change
of structure, and Paul says avv Ipoi, recollecting that he could not well
say >ot tdovb., as a child serving his father, he has served with me etc.
See 'the counter remarks of Bernhardy p. 202.

NOTE 1. It belongs especially to the later Greek to connect preposit.
with adverbs of time and place, either so that the preposition modifies
the signification of the adverb, as owo ^ot Acts xxviii. 23., fab 'iteguat
2 Cor. viii. 10. ix. 2., Art' a^ Mt. xxvi. 29., drf6 *d*a Mt. iv. 17. xxvi.
16. lxTtcM.o.1 2 Pet. ii. 3. iii. 5., also Hu,7toa$ev, or so that the preposi-
tion retained its full force, but, because weakened by frequent use, as-
sumed the adverb to give additional strength (comp. in Ger. oben auf
dem^ Dache, and in Eng. up on the roof, down wider the water. TVs.),
as vrtoxd-tu, vjtegdvu. Under the former description come vitt&.lo.v (2
Cor. xi. 5. xii. 11., as faee patotov in Suid.) and numerals, as ><rta$
Kom. vi. 10. (analog, to l sa 'rto|, T^OJ a*a Malal. Citron. 7. p. 178.),
1*1 *p s Acts x. 16. xi. 10. (Polyb. 3. 28.; but in the passages quoted by
Kypke 11. 48. the similar l v *&, which Herod. 1, 86. Xenoph. Cyrop.
7, 1. 4. also have). Many of these compounds are found only in writers
subsequent to Alexander's time, and then only in Scholiasts, Lob. ad
Phryn. p. 46. comp. Kiihner Gr. II. 315.,<some, as d*6 *<^ (for which
42

332 I'ART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

(Bremi ad Lys. p. 3.) or us xal (in such case) Acts xxvi. 29. xal Iv
xal EV Aon.? (which could not both occur at the same time), comp. Xen.
Hier. 1, 5. (Soph. Tracli- 379.), Phil. i. 7. w ts fot? Sscr^otj juov xal lv
ty artctfioyMj etc. (comp. Diod. Sic. 19, 86. 20, 15. Pausan. 4, 8. 2.)*, or
where they are separated by J, d?ad, xal ov, Rom. iv. 10. ovx lv rtsgrtopfi,
aw? EV cMsgojSotftf^, Acts viii. 34. 1 Cor. vi. 1. xiv. 6. 2 Cor. ix. 7. 1 Thess.
i. 8. Ephes. vi. 12. comp. Pausan. 7, 10. 1. Alciphr. 1, 31. Demosth. adv.
Timocr. p. 483. A. On the contrary, John iv. 23. l v rtvEvpatc xal
SKJ (one principal idea), Luke xxi. 26. drfo $6pov xal &%o$oxias tuv
%o[t,Evw, Acts xv. 22. xvi. 2. xvii. 9. 15. (comp. Xen. Cyrop. 1, 2. 7.
Aristot. Eth. Nic. 7, 11. in Time. 3, 72. 2, 83. Pausan. 10, 20. 2.),
Acts XXVlii. 23. drfd is tov v6pov Moufff wj xal tuv rtgofytjtuv, XXV. 23. Xen.
Hell. I, 1.3. Here however it mostly depends on the subjective view
of the author; and strict attention to this point is found in but few. The
omission of the preposition prevails generally in the Gr. prose (Bernhardy
p. 201.), also in the N. T., especially in Luke; but the Greeks carry it
farther than the N. T. writers, as they frequently or usually omit the
prepos. not only before substantives simply connected (Bornemann ad
Xen. conviv. p. 159.), but also before d;ud or % (Schiifer ad Demosth. V.
569. 760. ad Plutarch. IV. 291.), before appositions (Stallbaum ad Plat.
Gorg. p. 112. 247. comp. Bornemann Schol. in Luc. p. 173.), in com-
parative clauses (see immediately below), and in answers (Stallbaum ad
Plat. Sympos. p. 104. ad Gorg. p. 38. ad rep. I. 237.). In the N. T.
on the other hand, the following passages are striking, Acts xxvi. 18.
67tKji > gl4<t artb tixotfovs sis $wf xal tf-jjj sQovtiias tov aufava Irtl <tov $te6v
(without variation) and Acts vii. 37. Hebr. vii. 27., but comp. Aristot.
Eth. Nicom. 10, 9. 1. ittQl tie tfovfcov xal tfcoz/ dgT"wv, etc Se xal ^tTttaj etc.

(see Zell ad Aristot. Eth. p. 442.) Lysias 1. in Theomnest. 7. Thuc. 1,
141. Dion. Hal. IV. p. 2223, 1. Dibg. Lsert. proccm. 6. Strabo 16, 778.
Diod. Sic. 5, 31. Dio Chrys. 23. p. 277.

The repetition of the prepos. before each of a series of nouns, as Eph.
vi. 12. d^d ri g b $ *dj dg^dj, rt g 6 5 tfotj I Ifoutft'aj, it g 6 j T'OIIJ xoa^ox^.
ri e, b j I'd rtvtvp. etc., 1 Thess. i. 5., is of a rhetorical nature, serves to
render the several ideas more prominent, and constitutes a species of
polysyndeton. See Bauer Rhetor. Paul. I. p. 484. comp. Dissen ad
Find. p. 519.

The preposition connected with the immediately preceding noun, is not
usually repeated before the relative by the Greeks, Plat. legg. 10. p. 909.
drto t'sjs W E 'c a ?J n 5 uv o Tiaiv\e, aviiuv o<j>^ ^^v Sbxyv, 12. p. 955. E

* See Sommer in d. Jalirlt. f. PJdloi. 1831. p. 408. on the different cases in which
the prepos. is repeated after v& nul. Comp. Stullbaum ad Phileb. p. 156.

54. INTERCHANGE, &C. OP THE PREPOSITIONS. 333

olj av cdlto?, 2. p. 659. sx itav'tov oi'o^aT'oj, ovrtsg tfo-uj kovs
taWo etc. Pi'at. Phaed. 21. ApoZ. 27. Gorg. p. 453. E. Thuc. 1, 28.
Pausan. 9, 39. 4. Dion. Hal. 1, 69. Xen. conviv. 4. 1. Anab. 5, 7. 17.
Hiero. 1, 11. comp. Bremi ad Lys. p. 201. Schafer orf tfopA. III. p.
317. ad Dion. comp. p: 425. .Me/ef. p. 124. ad Demosth. II. p. 200.
Heller ad Sopfc. ffid. C. p. 420. Ast arf Plat. Legg. p. 108. Wurm. ad
Dinarch. p. 93. Frankhancl ad Demosth. Jlndrot. p. 77. Bernhardy p.
203. So in the N. T. Acts xiii. 38. drfo rtavtav, Jjj> ovx ^Sw^dtji/s --
Oijvat,, Stxaiovtat, xiii. 2. dltjjogJffa-z'E sij to tyoi>, 6 jtgoaxsxMjftat, av-
Luke i. 25., on the contrary in John iv. 53. iv Ixeivy ty wa, t v y
, Acts vii. 4. comp. Demosth. <Z. Timoth. p. 705. B. lj/ i-otj #govoij,
oTj -yly^onl'r'at 1*^1; -fi^v tuv ^taTtuJi/ o^EtXoj', Arist.ot. Jlnim. 5, 30. Plat.
p. 257. D. Diog. L. 8, 2. 11. Heinichen ad Eustb. II. 252. On
the Latin, see Ramshorn p. 378. Beier ad Cic. offic. I. p. 123. (If the
principal nouns and relatives are separated by several words, the Greeks
prefer to repeat the preposit. Herod. 1, 47. Xen. Vectig. 4, 13. Dio
Chrys. 17, 247. Lucian Necyom. 9.). The preposition of the parallel
sentence is seldom repeated by the Greeks before the comparative wj^f^,
see Schafer ad Julian, or. p. 19. Engelhardt ad Plat. Eulhyphr. p. 91.
Stallbaum ad Plat. Phsed. p. 58. ad Plat. Protag. p. 102. Held ad Plu-
tarch. A. Paull. p. 124. Yet in the N. T. it is always repeated in com-
parative sentences, Acts xi. 15. Heb. iv. 10. Rom. v. 19. 2 Cor. yiii. 7.
Philem. 14. (Gal. in." 16.).

In Gr. writers, especially poets, a preposition belonging to two nouns
occurs only before the second, Herm. ad Vig. p. 852. Schafer ad Soph..
II. p. 318. Monk ad Eurip. Alcesf. 114. Wex ad Antig. I. 158. his in-
terpret. of Anac. 9, 22. Kiihner Gr. II. 320. An instance of this was
believed to exist in Phil. ii. 22. (comp. Heinichen ad Euseb. II. 252.)
6Vc, w? rta-tgi Tfsxvov, avv J^ot s&ovfovaev etc., but this is rather a change
of structure, and Paul says avt> Ipoi, recollecting that he could not well
say >ot ISoiSa.., as a child serving his father, he has served with me etc.
See the counter remarks of Bernhardy p. 202.

NOTE 1. It belongs especially to the later Greek to connect preposit.
with adverbs of time and place, either so that the preposition modifies
the signification of the adverb, as a^o * Acts xxviii. 23., d?t6 rteevat,
2 Cor. viii. 10. ix. 2., M a^ Mt. xxvi. 29., d?t6 *<5* 8 Mt. iv. 17. xxvi.
16. Ixito&ai, 2 Pet. ii. 3. iii. 5., also lari^oa^sv, or so that the preposi-
tion retained its full force, but, because weakened by frequent use, as-
sumed the adverb to give additional strength (comp. in Ger. oben auf
cZm Dache, and in Eng. up on the roof, down under the water. TVs.),
as vrtoxdtu, vjteguvu. Under the former description come fate^l (2
Cor. xi. 5. xn. 11., as ^^ ^SM.OV in Suid.) and numerals, as fya.jta.*
Kom. vi 10. (analog, to i sa ^ | t ^ f &fta % Malal. Chron. 7. p. 178.),
tei t& Acts x. 16. xi. 10. (Polyb. 3. 28.; but in the passages quoted by
Kypke 11. 48. the similar Iv *&, which Herod. 1, 86. Xenoph. Cyrop.
7, 1. 4. also have). Many of these compounds are found only in writers
subsequent to Alexander's time, and then only in Scholiasts, Lob. ad
Phryn. p. 46. comp. Kiihner Gr. II. 315., isome, as d*& rt i^ t (for which
42

334 PA.RT THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLES.

or exrtsgvat,), do not occur even there. Comp. Septuag.
1 Sam. xii. 20. and Thilo ad Act. Thorn, p. 25.

NOTE 2. The ancient use of the (single) prepositions without a case
for adverbs, with some limitation, has been retained in the prose of all
times, see Eernhardy p. 196. But a single instance of it is found in the
N. T. in 2 Cor. xi. 23. Stdxovot, Xgiirtov slot', vrteg lyo I yet more.
What Kypke in loc. quotes is not all similar. Such prepositions in prose
are commonly supported by , ye (^t-ta 8s is particularly frequent). The
rt^os thereto, e. g. Demosth. 1. in Aphob. p. 556. A. may be best com-
pared- with this passage. (Bengel supposes vitse, in Eph. iii. 20. to be so
used, where however the position of the words would be too artificial for
Paul, and would become tautological.

55. Use of the Prepositions for Circumlocutions.

1. Where prepositions with nouns serve for a circumlocution of ad-
verbs or adjectives, the possibility of such a use must be shown from the
primary meaning of the preposition, lest a mere empirical treatment lead
to error. It may therefore be remarked (#) t with a genitive, where
it is equivalent to. an adverb, usually denotes a frame of mind, which is
considered as somewhat intermediate, Heb. xii. 1. 8u' vitofAovys (en-
duringly, assiduously} tgsxupfv tbv ri^oxsi/M-vov '/iv-lv ayuu'a, Rom. viii.
25. 8C vrtopevris aftsx8(%6^ea etc., comp. Xen. Cyrop. 3, 1. 18. Si a^o-
avvys imprudently, St 1 s-iaajSsias timidly, cautiously, Dion. Hal. 1360. 8.
see Pflugk ad Eurip. Hel. p. 41. Otherwise Heb. xiii. 22. Sti j3ea%&u>v
\7iiaTtti\a vfj.lv briefly (but properly, by means of few words, paucis), see
above 51. (i). Aid jSga^'oj also occurs, see Sturz ind. ad Dion. Cass.
p. 90.' (5) 15 expresses a degree or grade, up to which something rises,
Luke xii. 11. sis * rtuvt&ss to the full, to perfection (./Elian. V. H. 7, 2.

12, 2.); yet this can scarcely be called a periphrasis of the adverb.
(c) 'Ex is used especially of the scale, standard or rule (secunduvn), as
in IK i!wv VOUM secundum leges, legibus convenienter (as if observing the
precept), thence e| laoT^-tos according to equality, equally, 2 Cor. viii.

13. lx fiSTf^ov proportionately John iii. 34. comp. '| aStxov unjustly, Xen.
Cyrop. 8, 8. 18. i| laov Herod. 7. 135. EX ftgoaqxovtw Thuc. 3. 67. see
Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 267. Bernhardy p. ii30. It is connected also with
the source or origin if avdyx^ Heb. vii. 12. comp. Dio Cass. p. 316.
(proceeding from necessity, i. e. a necessary way). In the formulas ot
ex rftWawj Gal. iii. 7., ot sx rffftT'o^s Acts X. 45., 6 e| wav-tias Tit. ii. 8.,

55. USE OF THE PREPOSITIONS FOR CIRCUMLOCUTIONS. 335

ol & l^sLo,$ Rom. ii. 8. and similar ones, lx expresses dependence and
consequently possession: those of faith, those belonging to or possessing
faith, equivalent to standing on the side of the faith, comp. Polyb. 10, 10.
Thuc. 8. 92. Mr. xi. 20. lx ^v from the roots, radidtus, expresses
altogether a material relation. More difficult is the temporal ix rgi-eov
Mt. xxvi. 44. and similar expressions (see Wahl I. 455. Robinson p. 242.)
We say on the contrary, to the third. Perhaps the Greek formula is
connected with the public races: from the third (the third time entered)
starting place. (d) 'Ev. The cases in which lv with a substantive can
be apprehended as an adverb, like iv dhrj^sia, lv sxtsvEiq Mt. xxii. 16.
Mr. xiv. 1. Col. iv. 5. Rev. xviii. 2. (lv SCxij Plat. Crat. 32., lv tu%t<,
Thuc. I, 90., h xdgrft, 1)iod. Sic. 3, 28. 3.) are the more easily explain-
ed, as we also can generally say in with the corresponding noun; the
nouns mostly denote abstract ideas, especially properties, with which the
possessor effects something. The use of this preposition with a noun for
an adjective, like ?yo 10. lv Sixaioevvq etc. is just as easily understood.

2. (e) 'Erft is often connected with the genit. of abstracts, which
denote either a property, with which some one acts thus or so (*' aSstas
with fearlessness], or an objective idea, with which something corres-
ponds, Mr. xii. 32. Ijt' a^esiaf, consistently with the truth, truly (Dio.
Cass. p. 699. 727.). This preposition with the dative expresses the basis
on which something as it were rests, Acts ii. 26. ^ <sdg%(iov xa-faaxyjvuxsst,
irt' IhrtiSt, with, in confidence (in God), therefore securely, quietly. The
formulas liti *6 avto, i<j>' 6'croj/, Irti rtohv present no difficulties. (/") Katfd.
The formula in 2 Cor. viii. 2. ^ xata /3aouj n-t^^La is to be translated
poverty reaching to the depths, the deepest poverty, (comp. Strabo 9, 419.);
the parallel passage Xen. Cyrop. 4, 6. 5'. quoted by Wahl I. p. 797. is
not applicable, 6 xata, yjjj terra conditus. The adverbial idea xa^ faov
is rather properly, throughout the whole (in nniversiim), on the whole, as
xat'.a with the genitive is sometimes so used. Where xat-a with the
accus. of a noun, like xaS s^ovaiav, xata, yvwtfw, is a circumlocution for
an adverb, it is self-evident, see Schiifer ad Long. p. 330. (comp. xata,
Xen. Cyrop. 4, 2. 15. xcma *d%os Dio. Cass. p. 84. 310., xa-td -tu
v Herod. 7, 76., xatd ^6 avBTtio-fr^iov ^Eschin. dial. 3, 16., xatd TO
o^Bov Herod. 7, 143.). See Bernhardy p. 241. (c) n^6j with accus. e. g.
Jas. iv. 5. rfgos q?$6vov invidiose, comp. jt^bg o^v Soph. El. 372. -(properly
according to envy, according to wrath],

On the circumlocution of certain cases, especially of the genit., by
prepositions, as lx, xa-fa, see above, p. 155.

336 I'AKT THIRD. USJE OF THE PARTICLE.

56. Construction of Verbs compounded with Prepositions.

1. Here we can certainly speak only of those compound verbs, in
which the signification of the preposition is neither obscured (e. g.
drtoSlfcjc&at, artoxgivi-aat, artovriaxt,v), nor constitutes, with the significa-
tion of the verb, one general idea (pstaSiSovai, to communicate, agodyuv
two, prseire aliquvm, to precede some one, aGoSexatoiv ft to tithe some-
t/dng}, or in adverbial way imparts intensity to it (imtfytstv, Swtsfoiv,
ovvt&Ew}, but where it retains its independence as a preposition, so that,
besides the objective case of ihe transitive verb, it takes another noun
dependent on itself, as ixj3aM.au>, to throw out, dvatysgew, to carry tip, etc.

The full import of compound verbs in the N. T., and the extent to
which they can assume place of simple verbs, has not yet been sufficiently
investigated on rational principles, yet comp. C. F. Fritzsche, Fischer's
and Piadtts remarks on the importance of the Greek prepositions in
compound verbs etc. Lips. 1809. 8vo. Tittmann de vi prtepositionum in
verb-is compos, in N. T. rede dijudicandis. Lips. 1814. 4to., also in
Synonym. N. T. I. p. 217., J. Von Voorst de usi" verborum cum prsepo-
sitionibus compositorum in N. T. Leid. 1818. 2 Spec. 8., Theol. Anal.
1809. II. 474.^ (Brunck ad Aristoph. Nub. 987. Zell ad Aristotcl.
Ethic, p. 388.) Stallbaum ad Plat. Gorg. p. 154.). Translators and
interpreters of the N. T. seem to emulate each other in depreciating the
compound verbs, (comp. e. g. SeyfFarth de indole ep. ad Hebr. p. 92.
In order to limit this arbitrariness I have offered a new investigation of
the subject: de verbar. c. prseposs. compositor, in N. T. usu Part I. II.
Lips. 1834-35. 4to. (As to the Greek comp. Cattier Gazophylac. 10.
p. 60. (ed. Abresch) C. F. Hachenberg de signiftcat. prsspositionum
Grsecarum in compositis. Trai. a. Rli. 1771. 8vo.).

2. In this case, the method of constructing the noun with the verb is
threefold: () The preposition, with which the verb is compounded, is
repeated before the noun, e. g. Mt. vii. 23. arto%ugEitE dx' Ipov, Hebr.
iii. 16. oL E%&$OVT!SS t-| 'Atyvrttfov see Bornemann ad Xen. Conviv. p. 219.
and Winer's second progr. tic verb, cornpp. p. 7.; (&) Another preposition
essentially equivalent is used: e. g. Mt. xiv. 19. di/a/35u-'4a$ ei$ tbv oi>gn-
vov, Mr. xv. 46. rtgoacxfaMe hi^ov I Til 'frjv n)cu>; (c) That case is con-
nected with the verb, without the interposition of a preposition, which
according to its signification is adapted to the verb, and which therefore
the preposition usually governs, e. g. Mr. iii. 10. zrtijtiriTH-iv aikw, Luke
xv. 2. tivvEe&M avfois etc. So the genitive with compounds of 0^6, xa-ta
(towards), neb the accus. with compounds of jts^l (Mt. iv. 23. Acts ix. 3).

3. Observation of the usus loquendi must teach, which of the methods
of construction is the most regular; sometimes two or all three occur

56. CONSTRUCTION OF VEUBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 337

together (comp. srtipa.'j&sw, also parallel passages like Mt. xxvii. 60. Mr.
xv. 46. John ix. 6. 11. Acts xv. 20.29.). Jt must not however be
overlooked, that in this case a distinction has often become established
in the usage of the language. No one will account it indifferent, whether
with the compounds of sj the noun be construed by the interposition of
the preposition aj or rtgbs*', so sxttijt-geiv in its proper meaning is con-
nected with tx, but in a tropical one (like spe excidere) with the genitive
alone (Gal. v. 4. 2 Pet. iii. 17. Philostr. Apoll. 1, 36., yet see Diod.
Sic. 17, 47.) f"; so rtgostytgew of persons, means: qfferre alicui aliqvid,
but rtgosfyegeiv ITU ta.$ awayuyds, to bring be/ore the authority of the
synagogue Luke xii. 114 Comp. it^o^vy^^aL tiv<, adire aliquem and
rtgoae%. rtgbs -tbv ~Xe,iatov 1 Pet. ii. 4., i<j>Kjtfawx(, -tivl Acts iv. 1., but litl
* v\v oixiav xi. 11. Comp. Winer's 2 Progr. de verb, compp. p. 10.

4. The particulars as to the usus loquendi of the N. T. are the fol-
lowing: (1) After verbs compounded with arf6, (a) &jtb is mostly repeated
(comp. Erfurdt ad Soph. (Ed. R. p. 225): so after drfs#<ra* (where a
personal noun follows) Mr. i. 42. Luke i. 38. ii. 15. Rev. xviii. 14.
(Lucian. salt. 81.),. after anonifffsiv Acts ix. 18. (in an external sense,
comp. Herod. 3, 130. Polyb. 11, 21. 3. Schweighauser; in the tropical
signification it occurs not in the N. T.), dtianqfu desistere a Acts v. 38.
Luke ii. 37. xiii. 27. 2 Cor. xii. 8. (Polyb. 1, 16. 3.) on the contrary
1 Tim. iv. 1. drto^owi&ff^ao 1 Thess. ii. 17., ajioojtaa^at Luke xxii. 41.
Acts xxi. 1. (Polyb. 1, 84. 1. Dion. Hal. Judic. Time. 28, 5.), after &$ -
&?stv Mt. xxv. 32., drfojSawew Luke v. 2. (Polyb. 23, 11. 4.), dttox^v
Mt. vii. 23. Luke ix. 39., S^a^sle^at, Luke x. 42., dWga^at Mt. ix. 15.
faaMMftto&u Luke xii. 58. Acts xtx. 12., drtoxfiSawsw Ephes. iii. 9. Col.
i. 26. (Herod. 3, 130.), once also after the tropical Avio^axetv Col. ii.
20., which otherwise, conceived as one idea, to die o/\ is construed with
the dative, see below. (b) iia^a (with personal nouns) follows dtfoxo/i^o-
vtw Luke vi. 34. comp. Diod. Sic. 13, 31. Lucian. Pise. 7. (fab with the
signification to decrease in power Polyb. 22, 26. 8. (c) The genitive is
connected with dao^vycw 2 Pet. i. 4. (comp. on the other hand 2 Pet. ii.
18. 20.), droM.ofgidw Ephes. ii. 12. iv. 18. (Polyb. 3, 77. 7.), d^i^r tlu
(deficere ) 1 Tim. iv. 1. (Polyb. 2, 39. 7. 14, 12. 3.). (d) The dative

i tit in prose is commonly used in a local sense, B l s tiva t vna. or vm of de.
sires, thoughts etc. Demosth. Aristocr. p. 446. Dio Cass, I. p. 56. Herodi. 8, 8. 4.
On tltifXfrSu see Winer's 2. Progr. de verb, compp. p. 11. "

f In Gr. writers tef x , y fl alstinere usually takes the genitive after it; but in the
N. T. awo is sometimes found connected with it Acts xv. 20. 1 Thess. iv. 3. v. 22.

t Comp. Polyb. 8, 6. 5. 3, 46. 8. ffe a ? r f I* r w ^o^^ro, but (tropically)
9, 20. 5. <7rg oa-agTciv TroX. TIV. T y

338 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLES.

with a&oSwyaxew to die away from a thing Gal ii. 19. Rom. vi. 2. (the
dative in Rom. vi. 10. must be differently apprehended); similar ataoyi-
t>caat, -r'atj d/iaf*. 1 Pet. ii. 24. (2) The compounds with am,, where
this preposition expresses the local up to () are construed with ri$, where
the local point is denoted (whither) to which the action is directed, e. g.
avafiaivew to travel up Luke xix. 28. Mr. x. 32. (Herod. 9, 113.) or to
ascend, to go up (on a mountain etc.) Mt. v. 1. xiv. 13. Mr. iii. 13.
(Herodi. 1, 12. 16. Dio Cass. p. 914., avafititii-iv Mt. xiv. 19. (Mr. vii.
34. Luke ix. 16.) Acts xxii. 13., dj/ayav Mt. iv. 1. Luke ii. 22. Acts xx.

3. (Herodi. vii. 10. 15.), ava^a^dv^a^at, Mr. xvi. 19., dva^vstEiv Luke
xiv. 10., dvatyfgsw Mt. xvii. 1. Luke xxiv. 51., dm^u^v Mt. ii, 14. iv.
12. etc., di/lg;t<fai. John vi. 3. Gal. i. 18. (&) ngoj follows if the object
of the motion is a person, as avajSavWiv *g6j tbv aa-ti^u John xx. 17., dva,-
xdprttsw Mt. ii- 12., avarteprtsiv Luke xxiii. 7. also, artc Luke X. 6. (ava-

comp. Diod. Sic. 3. 17.), or the dative alone Luke xxii. 11.
twi. (c) Where the object of the action is an eminence or
surface, on which the motion terminates, liti is connected with these verbs
(Polyb. 8, 31. 1. di>a^lgtj> Hxi ^^v dyoeav to the ?narJcet, the reverse, dt/a-
pawew Irii iffy olxUv (home) according to the Latin ascendere Polyb. 10.

4. 6.); so avapipdgEw &rd tbv aiyiahov Mt. xiii. 48. (Xen. Cyrop. 4, 2. 28.
Polyb. 7, 17. 9.), Iril \b ISwv xtijvos Luke x. 34. (Palseph. 1, 9. Xen.
Cyrop. 4, 5. 16.) dvaxXtvao^tti titi T'O-UJ %di!ov$ Mt. xiv. 19. dvartlrtiitw Ijtl
jf^v y^v Mt. XV. 35. or Ijtl ^ijs y^s Mr. viii. 6., avafiawew Irtl to SU/AU Luke
v. 19., Iftl avxofiogsav xix. 4. (comp. Xen. Cyrop. 4, 1. 7. 6, 4. 4. Herod.
4, 62. Lys. accus. Jllcib. 10. Pausan. 6, 4. 6.), dvafysgEtv liti to %vhov up
to the icood (cross) 1 Pet. ii. 24.* (3) The verbs compounded with uvti
govern regularly the dative Luke xiii. 17. John xix. 12. Mt. vii. 2. etc.,
yet see Heb. xii. 4. avfayavi^a^a.t: rtgbs t\, (comp. ver. 13. ^ ^s avtbv dv-
T-aoyta); similar uv-ttxixtlaSav yfgoj rtuv Polyb. 2, 66. 3. Dio Cass. p. 204.
and 777. (4) Verbs with ix are sometimes construed with this preposi-
tion itself (where the coming- out is to be precisely denoted), sometimes
only with drfo or ?tagd (where the direction whence or out of the vicinity
is to be expressed), so fxpaMew ix Mt. xiii. 52. John ii. 15. 3 John ver.
3. etc. and artb Mt. vii. 4., SXXMM attb 1 Pet. iii. 11. Rom. vi. 17., Ix-

ex Rom. xi. 24. (Diod. Sic. 16, 24.), exhiyea^at, John xv. 19. l x -
sx Mt. xv. 11. 18. Rev. ix. 18. (Polyb. 6, 58. 4.) and drfo Mr.
vii. 15. or ftagu John xv. 26., Ixfywysw Ix Acts xix. 16., sfaigEw and l%ai-
gtiv Ix 1 Cor. v. 2. Acts xxvi. 17., %gzea$ut, Ix Mt. ii. 6. Acts vii. 3.
etc. (Herod. 9, 12.) or Ttaga Luke ii. 1. The connection with the geni-

* Without a preposit. avagalvw iirirw Dion. Hal. 2252, 7. Pausan. 10, 19.

56. CONSTRUCTION OF VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 339

live alone is rare, locally only with l^xt-a^ut, Mt. x. 14. (and even there
not very well established, { see the variations, comp. however I
v6; Jacobs ad Philoslr. p. 718.), but tropically constantly with s
(as spe excidere) Gal. v. 4. 2 Pet. iii. 17. (with lx Herod. 3, 14. Dio
Cass. p. 1041. 1104.). Finally, lx$svytw even in a physical sense is con-
nected with the accusative, 2 Cor. xi. 33. sxfytvyeiv -fas xtl^d? tftvoj, comp*
Herod. 6, 40. (5) The verbs compared with sv have a very simple con-
struction. Where they denote a direction to (towards) something, they
are connected with sis; where they express a rest in or on a place, with
>, e. g. i/tj3aM/M> ti$ Mt. viii. 23. xiv. 22. John vi. 17. (Herod. 2, 29.),
iHpdM.Etv d$ Luke sii. 5. (Dio Cass. p. 288.), Eppdrt-tEw a$ Mr. xiv. 20.
(with sv to dip in the dish, Mt. xxvi. 23.), Ififasiteiv ^ Mt. vi. 26. Acts
i. 11., spttirt'tEw sis Luke x. 36. (Herod. 7, 43. Lucian. Herm. 59.)
1 Tim. iii. 6., Eprttvtw stj Mt. xxvi. 67. xxvii. 30., on the contrary Jj^-
pslv iv 2 Cor. v. 6., ivomslv h 2 Cor. vi. 16. Col. iii. 16. (with accus.
Herod. 2, 178.), iv^ysiv iv Phil. ii. 13. Ephes. i. 20. etc., IppevEiv iv
Heb. viii. 9., syygdfysw V 2 Cor. iii. 2. (like lyyhvfyi-w Iv Herod. 2, 4.),
eyxwt^ew Iv Rom. xi. 17. (si; xi. 24.). The construction with the da-
tive in both significations is not very rare, comp. spfaeittiv twL (person)
Mr. x. 21. 27. Luke xxii. 61. John i. 36. (Polyb. 15, 28. 3.), e
twL Mr. x. 34. xiv. 65. xv. 19., lyxsvtgi&w -eivi Rom. xi. 24.;
to riot in something, by the Greeks is connected only with the dative
(e. g. Diod Sic. 19, 71.), but in 2 Pet. ii. 13. & is repeated. (6) The
compounds with a$ are connected still more simply, as fi$dytiv,
gcvsoflcu,, Eisfyigiw, fi,sg%00ai,, viz. in all cases with a repetition of
comp. Herm. on Eurip. Jo. p. 98. and Winer's 2. Progr. de verbis compp.
p. 13. (7) Verbs compounded with exi are divided between the con-
struction with a repetition of lui (more rarely with Hi) and that with the
dative alone, yet many of them have both modes of expression at the
same time: Evhfi&M.Eiv sit (into something) or fal n (on, at something)
Mr. iv. 37. xiv. 46. Luke v. 36., with the dat. of the person also in
1 Cor. vii. 35. Mr. xi. 7. Acts iv. 3. (Polyb. 3, 2. 8. 3, 5. 5.),* j^p-
vuv gcit or sis Acts xxi. 6. xx. 18. (Mt. xxi. 5.), also with a local dative
Acts xxvii. 2. (Polyb. 1, 5. 2. Diod. Sic. 16, 66.), E ^^^ W i t ' Luke
i. 48. Jas. ii. 13., Ivaxelaeai E^.-gtvt, John xi. 38., with dat. of pers. also
in 1 Cor. ix. 16. lataiafsw io t t Luke i. 12. Acts x. 10., or fat iwi
Acts xiii. 16., or with dat. of pers. Mt. iii. 10, Acts xx. 10. (Polyb. 1,

24. 4.), Irtiftitttew ~ett ti I Pet. V. 7., Wiflewu Irti 4<, Mr. IV. 21. Mt.

* On ImBti&w rnv ^a, \vi rim and -nvi, see Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 637. In a ma-
terial sense Polyuon. 5,. 2. 12. vttf,' wi\ti

340 PART THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLE.

I

xxiii. 4. Acts ix. 17. etc., or with the dat. mostly of the person Luke
xxiii. 36. Mr. vii. 32. Acts ix. 12. 1 Tim. v. 22. etc., seldom of the thing
John xix. 2.; eTt^xsadat liti *i Luke i. 35. Acts viii. 24. xiii. 40. or with
dat. of the thing Luke xxi. 26., ijtalgsw sxi or j n John xiii. 18. Luke
xviii. 13., trtoixodopitv 7to' Tft 1 Cor. iii. 12, or tivt, Eph. ii. 20., but also
lv Col. ii. 7., iTtiSetv liti *& Acts iv. 29., liti^w with dat. of thing Phil.
i. 17. ffyixvslaOai ji'j tfiva 2 Cor. x. 14., etydhhtaOat, Irti two, Acts xix. .16.
On the contrary with lv are construed: Irttygdq stv 2 Cor. iii. 2. comp.
Palaeph. 47, 5. (differently Num. xvii. 2. Prov,. vii. 3.), with dat. alone
Irtifyairsiv and Irtityavsw, when followed by a personal noun or pronoun
Ephes. v. 14. Luke i. 79. (comp. Gen. xxxv. 7.), as also litifyi^uv in the
signification to add one thing to another Phil. i. 17.; sftiaxia^iv governs
sometimes the dative of the person Acts v. 15. and probably Mr. ix. 7.
(to become to some one a protecting shade, comp. Ps. xc. 4.), sometimes
the accus. Mt. xvii. 5. Luke ix. 34. (to overshadow), to envelop as a tran-
sitive). In the Septuag. Ps. cxxxix. 8. Exod. xl. 32. is also found trtiax.
ejti two,- (8) There are only a few compounds with Std, in which the
preposition is especially prominent: in the N. T. comp. Luke vi. 1. 8ta-
TtogEvtoSat, 8ta ffrfog^awv (but also in Acts xvi. 14. StaTtog. rfoteij, still in
the sense of abire) ancl the pragnant Siaa^siv St? ai'Scwoj 1 Pet. iii. 20.
(9) The compounds with xata, which denote an action tending down to a
local point, take axb or Ix where the terminus a quo is to be expressed,
e. g. xatapaivsw attb toy ovgavov Luke ix. 54. 1 Thess. iv. 16., xa-tap. EX
-f. ov. John iii. 13. vi. 41. but 1*1, <-tj or rfgd? according to the different
contents^ where the terminus ad quern is to be denoted Luke xxii. 44.
Acts vii. 15. xiv. 11.; on the contrary xa$ya$ai, xa^stv, xa-ta^^svat, IV
eivi means to put down on a place etc.; xa-tr t yo^lv to accuse is usually
construed with the genit. of the person, inasmuch as the signification of
xa-ta is before the mind; once occurs xa-tyyo^tlv ft, xatd twos Luke xxiii.
14.' and in a similar manner eyxatelv xutd I'n'oj, Rom. viii. 33. comp.
Soph. Philoct. 328. (10) Verbs compounded with yta^d take artb or jtaga
before the object,yhwa which they proceed (yet see 51. p. 295.), e. g.
jtagahappdvEiv ajtb twos 1 Cor. xi. 23. and rfoga -g. 2 Thess. iii. 6 (11)
Of the compounds with ^6 only Ttgorfogsvfcr^at in Luke i. 76. occurs with
a repetition of the preposition: ftgortogevay rtgb rtgoaurtov xvglov (Deut. ix.
3. Ps. Ixxxviii. 35.), in the Septuag. also with lvaiti.ov Ps. Ixxxiv. 14.
xcvi. 5. and HfjMgos&v Gen. xxxii. 16. Isa. Iviii. 8. See above 2.
(12) The compounds with 7t^6s repeat this preposition, where the local
to, at, before is to be expressed, e. g. n^tf.in.'tuv ?t^6j *o{jj rt68a$
Mt. vii. 25. comp. Dio Cass, p. 932. and 1275. (also rt^ojrfwt*. -tots
in Diod. Sic. 17, 13.) rtgotfi'&aai nigo? foij rtatcgas Acts xiii. 36., also

56. CONSTRUCTION OF VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 341

oj iv\y ywaixu to attach one's self to Mr. x. 7. Ephes. v.
81. Then again they occur with tui'. nzotfi&vat, srti n^v faxiav Mt.
vi. 27. The dative occurs thus less frequently, e. g. TCgossgx- " Heb.
xii. 22., rtgosrtirttstv olxla. Mt. vii. 25. (Xen. eq. 7, 6. Philostr. Apoll.
5, 21.); this case, on the other hand, is always used where the object
approached is a person, e. g. jtgosrtirt-gstv twi (to fall down before some
one] Mr. iii. 11. v. 33. Acts xvi. 29., itgo&egsw twi (Philostr. Apoll.
5, 22.), rtoj#ffl$oMr' two.to approach some one, or where the approach
must be taken even in a tropical sense, e. g. Ttgojaysn; 1-9 E$ to lead to
God 1 Pet. iii. 18., TtgosxoMider^at -tort, to become attached to, Actsv. 36.
(Mt. ix. 5.), cow/?, n^opx* *wl Heb. vii. 13. Acts xvi. 14.

Mt. vi. 6. 1 Cor. xi. 13. jtgotffeevat, 5u>yoi/ tivl Heb. xii. 19.

tfi sxx^aia Acts ii. 41. If the idea of rest (rtgoj -twC) is implied
in the verb, then cither the dative is connected with it, as jt^o^ivsw
iwi Acts xi. 23. 1 Tim. v. 5., jtgoseSgsvsw 1 Cor. ix. 13. (Polyb. 8, 9.
11. 38, 5. 9.), rtfosxagre^Etv Mr. iii. 9. Col. iv. 2. Rom. xii. 12. comp.
Polyb. 1, 55. 4. 1, 59. 12. Diod. Sic. 20, 48., or (with reference only to
place) the preposition Iv, e.g. rtgospsveiv iv 'E<j>!0p 1 Tim. i. 3. (13) The
compounds with avv but seldom repeat this preposition Col. ii. 13. (avfa-
or instead of it jus-rd Mt. xxv. 19. (ownigEiv), 2 Cor. viii. 18.
Mt. XX. 2. (avutyuvsiv), xvii. 3. (avM.aheiv), Acts i. 26. (gvy-
'; they are most frequently construed with the dative, in-
stances of which occur on almost every page, and among the Greeks
this construction is almost the exclusive one.

57. Conjunctions.

1. In all languages sentences are placed either in near relation and
connected by means of the simple copula, or are linked together accord-
ing to their appropriate logical relations by a special linguical bond, as
relative, participial constructions, or still more evidently, special conjunc-
tions. The former takes place, and indeed necessarily, not only when
two sentences are to be designated as of equal force and equally inde-
pendent (God is wise and loves the good), but is frequently adopted in
sentences which are to be conceived of in an immediately opposite rela-
tion (of dependence), and whose intimate connection could or should be
effected by one of the above mentioned modes. It is a peculiarity of the
43 f

340 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

xxiii. 4. Acts ix. 17. etc., or with the dat. mostly of the person Luke
xxiii. 36. Mr. vii. 32. Acts ix. 12. 1 Tim. v. 22. etc., seldom of the thing
John xix. 2.; EHegxeaeat, litl ti Luke i. 35. Acts viii. 24. xiii. 40. or with
dat. of the thing Luke xxi. 26., sytalgtw lui or V *< John xiii. 18. Luke
xviii. 13., ErtoixoSopuv iiti Tft 1 Cor. iii. 12. or tin, Eph. ii. 20., but also
ev Col. ii, 7., trtiSslv Ifti! n Acts iv. 29., irii^ew with dat. of thing Phil.
i. 17. sfyixveladai sis *""* ^ Cor. x. 14., ftydhhtaOat, \rtl two, Acts xix. .16.
On the contrary with Iv are construed: Irtiygdfysw 2 Cor. iii. 2. comp.
Palseph. 47, 5. (differently Num. xvii. 2. Prov,. vii. 3.), with dat. alone
frtityaivi-iv and IrtLtyavsiv, when followed by a personal noun or pronoun
Ephes. v. 14. Luke i. 79. (comp. Gen. xxxv. 7.), as also Irii^i^iv in the
signification to add one thing to another Phil. i. 17.; Ijtioxia^sw governs
sometimes the dative of the person Acts v. 15. and probably Mr. ix. 7.
(to become to some one a protecting shade, comp, Ps. xc. 4.), sometimes
the accus. Mt. xvii. 5. Luke ix. 34. (to overshadoit), to envelop as a tran-
sitive). In the Septuag. Ps. cxxxix. 8. Exod. xl. 32. is also found Irfnj*.
f.-tfr twa- (8) There are only a few compounds with 3td, in which the
preposition is especially prominent: in the N. T. comp. Luke vi. 1. Sia-
rtogweaSat, Scot ffrfog^uwv (but also in Acts xvi. 14. Startog. rtofotj, still in
the sense of abire) and the pregnant Staa^eiv Si i'SaToj 1 Pet. iii. 20.
(9) The compounds with xata, which denote an action tending down to a
local point, take artb or Ix where the terminus a quo is to be expressed,
6. g. xatafiaivsiv drto tov ovgavov Luke ix. 54. 1 TllCSS. iv. 16., xatfajS. l x
<t. ov. John iii. 13. vi. 41. but lai, tl; or rtgoj according to the different
contents, where the terminus ad quern is to be denoted Luke xxii. 44.
Acts vii. 15. xiv. 11.; on the contrary xa$ija$at,, xa&gsw, xa-tativat,v
-ttvt means to put down on a place etc.; xa-fr^o^lv to accuse is usually
construed with the genit. of the person, inasmuch as the signification of
xata is before the mind; once occurs xatyyogBtv -ti xatd -ftvoj Luke xxiii.
14. and in a similar manner iyxatelv xa-td nivo$, Rom. viii. 33. comp.
Soph. Philoct. 328. (10) Verbs compounded with rfaga take drto or rtaga
before the objec^/rowi which they proceed (yet see 51. p. 295.), e. g.
rtazahappdvsw axb twos 1 Cor. xi. 23. and rtaga it. 2 Thess. iii. 6 (11)
Of the compounds with iteo only rtgortogsvea^ai, in Luke i. 76. occurs with
a repetition of the preposition: ne,ort,o^v<sy rtgb Ttgoaurtov xvgtov (Deut. ix.
3. Ps. Ixxxviii. 35.), in the Septuag. also with Ivart.ov Ps. Ixxxiv. 14.
xcvi. 5. and eftjtgoaSev Gen. xxxii. 16. Isa. Iviii. 8. See above 2.
(12) The compounds with ^6j repeat this preposition, where the local
to, at, before is to be expressed, e. g. it^o^ri'tsi
Mt. vii. 25. comp. Dio Cass. p. 932. and 1275. (also
in Diod. Sic. 17, 13.) rtgotfi'&oSai rtgbs tov$ rtar^ctj Acts xiii. 36., also

56. CONSTRUCTION OF VERBS COMPOUNDED WITH PREPOSITIONS. 341

to attach one's self to Mr. x. 7. Ephes. v.
31. Then again they occur with J/tt : rtgost&tvat, eiti tv\y faixiuv Mt.
vi. 27. The dative occurs thus less frequently, e. g. n^o^^x- ogst, Heb.
xii. 22., TtgojTttWstv olxiq Mt. vii. 25. (Xen. eq. 7, 6. Philostr. ApolL
5, 21.); this case, on the other hand, is always used where the object
approached is a person, e. g. jtgo$rtirt*tet,v twi (to fall down before some
one) Mr. iii. 11. v. 33. Acts xvi. 29., itgostysgew twi (Philostr. ApolL
5, 22.), ftgosegxtaSu* ^M t approach some one, or where the approach
must be taken even in a tropical sense, e. g. jtgosdyeH> ^9 ^9 to lead to
God 1 Pet. iii. 18., itgosxoM.aa$ai tw to become attached to, Acts v. 36.
(Mt. ix. 5.), com/;. jt^sx^v -tivi Heb. vii. 13. Acts xvi. 14.

Mt. vi. 6. 1 Cor. xi. 13. jtgostfeevat, a.dyoi/ ttvi Heb. xii. 19.

fjj ixxMjaity Acts ii. 41. If the idea of rest (rfgdj tfm,) is implied
in the verb, then cither the dative is connected with it, as Ttgosplveiv
ttvi Acts xi. 23. 1 Tim. v. 5., rt^ofsS^sveiv I Cor. ix. 13. (Polyb. 8, 9.
11. 38, 5. 9.), Ttgosxagtegelv Mr. iii. 9. Col. iv. 2. Rom. xii. 12. com/?.
Polyb. 1, 55. 4. 1, 59. 12. Diod. Sic. 20, 48., or (with reference only to
place) the preposition Iv, e. g. ^o^lveiv sv '$1*9 1 Tim. i. 3. (13) The
compounds with ovv but seldom repeat this preposition Col. ii. 13. (tfuco-
ortotelv) or instead of it ^ftd Mt. xxv. 19. (evvaigtw), 2 Cor. viii. 18.
(avfijte[t.rit,v) Mt. xx. 2. (evfitytovslv), xvii. 3. (av'M.atelv), Acts i. 26. (wy-
xatajftttyigew'); they are most frequently construed with the dative, in-
stances of which occur on almost every page, and among the Greeks
this construction is almost the exclusive one.

57. Conjunctions.

1. In all languages sentences are placed either in near relation and
connected by means of the simple copula, or are linked together accord-
ing to their appropriate logical relations by a special linguical bond, as
relative, participial constructions, or still more evidently, special conjunc-
tions. The former takes place, and indeed necessarily, not only when
two sentences are to be designated as of equal force and equally inde-
pendent (God is wise and loves the good), but is frequently adopted in
sentences which are to be conceived of in an immediately opposite rela-
tion (of dependence), and whose intimate connection could or should be
effected by one of the above mentioned modes. It is a peculiarity of the
43

342 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

Heb. language to string together like sentences merely by a copula, not
only in historical style (Mt. xii. 1.), where the chronological relation.of
the several facts (principal and subordinate) is mostly denoted by the
mere succession of the events, but even where a properly logical relation
of the sentences exists, (they speak in my name and I have not sent them.,

1. e. although I have not etc.; who hath first given to him, and he hath
recompensed again, i. e. that he might etc. Rom. xi. 85. from Job xli.

2. Mt. xxvi. 53.; Heb. xii. 9. shall we not submit ourselves and live,
i. e. in order to live, comp. Malala Chronogs. 2. p. 39. 6'ffftj exfaevas xai
ixavdvi i] p.vaegu xafato} T^J rogyovoj), and the Heb. lang. has but few spe-
cial conjunctions. This all pervading complexion of the linguical ex-
pression so deeply rooted in the genius of a people is easily transferred
to the foreign language which they undertake to speak or write. We
cannot therefore wonder that the use of the copula xai is more frequent
and extended in the N. T. than in Gr. prose writers, although by no
means so often used as in the O. T. It is also more apparent in the na-
tive Palestine Apostles (Matthew, Peter, etc.) than in the Hellenistic
writers (Paul, James, Luke and John). Nor must it be forgotten that
the ancient poetical language of the Greeks is in many respects allied in
its simplicity to the oriental mode of expression (see marg. note * p. 24.),
and had many ways of using xai similar to the Hebrew (Hellenistic).

2. As xai in historical style appears as a simple copula (although,
when merely relating facts in connection, we (the Germans) would use
da, darauf, and we, in Eng. as, then, afterwards etc.*, it is only neces-
sary to speak of the substitution of xai for more definite conjunctions
denoting a logical relation of dependence. It must be remembered how-
ever that the particle, although employed in many ways, yet (a) has but
two primary ideas even in the N. T. viz. and and also (both included in
the Lat. et], the latter of which is equivalent to the Ger. sogar selbst,
even so, even (the Lat. vel), Luke ix. 5. Heb. vii. 4. see Fritzsche ad
Mt. p. 422. Jacob, ad Lucian. Jllex. p. 50. (&) In most cases, where

* Where xa< does not connect a subsequent to a precedent fact, but annexes to the
specification of time the fact which occurred in that time (Mr. xv. 25. Hv 1 o5f TJ/TD
xi Es-raufaxrav avrov, Acts v. 7. Luke xix. 43.), and therefore seems to supply -the
place of O'TE, it is not to be considered a decided Hebraism (comp. Plat. Syinp. p. 220
C. WD iiv (ternfAfigi* xa.1 avB^tutfot jiVflttvovro, Arrian. Alex. 6, 9. 8. Xen. Anab. 1, 8. 8.
Thuc. 1 , 50. see Stallb. ad Plat. Symp. p. 155. Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. I. p. 299. Palairet
Obs. p. 211. Kypke I. 311. Eisner I. 218.) but belongs in general to the simple style,
see Schftfer ad Plut. IV. p. 367. comp. Herm. ad Eurip. Iphig. Taur. p. 31. Hoogeveeri
doctr. partic. I. 535.

57. CONJUNCTIONS. 343

xai according to our apprehension is more than a simple copula, und
(and) is sufficient, without any obscurity of the sense, and the translator
who would not injure the complexion of the language must retain this
particle, whilst the interpreter exchanges it for a special conjunction, in
accordance with the genius of the cultivated languages, (c) The use of
xal in these cases is not attributable to an entire misapprehension of the
proper relation of sentences; it is rather to be supposed that the accent or
tone in the old (especially simple) languages rendered many things clear,
which we (having the reader in view while writing) express by the struc-
ture of the sentence. We too enunciate the sentence: I have saved thee
from death, and thou hast betrayed me, differently from this: / come to
thee and bring my friend with me (John iii. 14. 32. viii. 20. 49. xi. 8.
Mt. vi. 26. x. 29. 1 Cor. v. 2. Heb. iii. 9. Septuag. Rev. ii. 2. comp.
Eurip. Here. fur. 508.). So the voice must certainly be raised on xal,
where it signifies et quidem 1 Cor. ii. 2. only Christ and him as cru-
cified (Matth. II. 1481.). (d] Sometimes the copula itself has more
power than a special conjunction. Do this and thou shalt live (Mt. vii.
7. viii. 8. ix. 18. Luke vi. 37'. comp. Fritzsche ad Mt. p. 187.),* the
trumpet will sound and the dead rise, is a more concentrated and power-
ful expression than, if thou doest this, thou shall live, when the trumpet
shall sound, the dead will arise. Rhetorical reasons (which however
ought not to be unnecessarily observed) have often been unnoticed in
respect to the N. T.

This is not the place fully to unfold the use of xai in the N. T. Oar
lexicons have not satisfactorily solved the problem, and even the latest
of them have exhibited by far too many significations of this particle.
We only remark, (a] xai in questions (Mr. x. 26. xii. 37. Luke x. 29.
see Stallbaum ad Plat. Entyphr. p. 13. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 54. Kypke
observ. 1. 263. Eisner I. 154. Losner observ. p. 80.) and answers (Xen.
Mem. 3, 8. 4.) is reduced to the signification and. And what did he ?
we- also say in an abrupt, concise (Mr. x. 26.) or indignant question
(comp. Mr. iv. 13. 1 Cor. v. 2.). The same occurs in (hasty) exulta-
tions Mr. ix. 5. On the contrary in the N. T. xa i does not stand before
imperatives in an inciting signification (lloogeveen as above I. 538.). All
the passages quoted by ^V'ahl I. 776. and Britsclmeider I. 611. are of a
different kind. On Mt. xxiii. 32. see Fritzsche. In Luke xii. 29. x *i
signifies also or and (therefore), xx. 31. simply and; so also Mr. xi.
29. Ephes. iv. 26. 1 Cor. xi. 6. it is also, (b) K for the adversative
out is found almost confined to the lucid historical style John vii. 20. Mr.
xii. 12. (xairi does not belong here, as by the negative just the opposite
is expressed). Most of the examples out of the epistles are inadmissible.
(Rom. i. 1.3. 1 Thess,. ii. 18. 1 Cor. xvi. 9. 1 John iii. 2.). Acts x.
4$. John VIM. 40. -are of a rhetorical nature. ( c ) The epexegetical or
expletive xa i namely (see Herm. ad Philoet. 1408. Bremi ad Demosth.

344 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

p. 179. Comp. Fritzsche qusest. Lucian. p. 9. Jacob, ad Lucian. Alex.
p. 33.) is best expressed by only and (and indeed"), John i. 16. out of
his fulness we have all received, namely (and indeed) grace upon grace,
1 Cor. iii. 5. But this signification has been assigned in too many pas-
sages (even by Wahl. I. 773.). Stolz translates xai in Mt. xiii. 41. cor-
rectly by and. On Mt. xxi. 5. see Fritzsche, on Acts xxiii. 6. Rom. i. 5.
see Winer's Progr. de Hypollage etc. p. 22. 28.; in Mr. xi. 28. the read-
ing is not fixed; Fritzsche prefers 17 ; in Mt. xvii. 2. xai ?Xayu4 is and
(in consequence of it), comp. also Luke xvi. 19.; in Mt. iii. 5. the two
names geographically considered certainly denote different things. In
the formulas 8eb$ xai rtaf^g (Knapp Script. I. 470.) xai is simple and (at
the same time], not namely. We cannot however attribute to the N. T.
the more widely extended poetical usage (Herm. ad Vig. p. 836.)
(d) The signification especially may be questioned, even where, to a
general expression something special is added, which was already em-
braced in the former, see Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 11. Bornemann ad Luc.
p. 78. Yet on the other hand, where species precede, xai is sometimes
placed immediately before the generic word, which includes the former

Mt. XXVI. 59. ol ag%t,sgifS xai oi rtgCf/3i;T'6got xai -to avvsSgiov ohov

and (to express it in a word) the whole sanhedrim (not so Mt. xiii. 8.)
See Fritzsche ad Matt. p. 786. ad Mr. p. 562. comp. Fritzsche qitsest.
Lucian. p. 67. Stall baum ad Plat. Gorg. p. 83. and ad rep. II. 212.
It is also found at the conclusion of an entire exposition 1 Cor. v. 13.
Heb. iii. 19. (e) Where xai means also it is sometimes translated even,
yea, Heb. vii. 26. 1'otoiji'oj ydg jjptv xai tj/gEjttv ag%t,sgsvs, 6'<j>j etc. (if the
particle is genuine) for such a high priest was proper even for us, 1 Pet.
ii. 8. John viii. 25. Heb. vi. 7. 2 Tim. i. 12. Herm. ad Vig. p. 835.
(xai yag nam etiam Rom. xi. 1. comp. Sintenis prssf. ad Plutarch.
Themistocl. p. 55.).

3. The connection of co-ordinate sentences is effected by xai (rs), and
the disjunction (mutual exclusion) by ^'. Both these relations can be
expressed not only by means of a simple connection, but also in the form
of correlation (xai xai, J ^). The latter appears most intimately re-
lated to comparative clauses, (wj [tiajttg, *a0w$] ofa^s \xal~\ ).

The connection by te in the N. T. is almost exclusively limited to
Luke, Paul, and the author of the epistle to the Hebrews; this particle is
only found twice in Mt., in John but once, and in Mr. in the received
text not at all. On the distinction between ts and xai see the different
views of philologists Herm. ad Vig. p. 833. ad Eurip. Med. p. 331.
Hand de pardcula ts, Jena 1823. 2 Progr. 4. Bernhardy p. 482. Som-
merzn den neuen Jahrbiichernfiir PhiloL 1831. III. p. 400., to which
our modern lexicographers have paid almost no attention. It seems in
general to be evident that, in the more refined prose, xai was chosen,
where the idea and clauses were conceived of as tending the same way
and therefore were simply to be connected, but that <t s was used where
this was not the case, but something additional was to be expressed, so

57. CONJUNCTIONS. 345

that xat, was connective, -us annexive. It does not follow however that
the latter annexes an idea of less weight, comp. Iliad. 1, 5. (it depends
rather on the nature of the ideas themselves, whether they are of more
or less weight; yet according to its nature, <ts, like que, will generally add
something inferior), nor is this the case in the prose of the N. T., for
that which is added by ts is often the more prominent. See Zumpt Lett.
Gramm. 333. A. Grotefend ausfuhrl. Lett. Gramm. II. 168. [The
immediate connection of -e s xai (in one clause) Acts xix. 27. xxi. 28. is
doubtful, see Bornemann in Rosenm. Rep. II. 239. We might read e,
which frequently is interchanged with ts (see Elmsley ind. ad Eurip.
Med. under 6 p. 415. ad Eurip. Bacch. 457. Schiifer ad Dionys. p.
228.), notwithstanding I do not consider it necessary,- tfe xai may in both
passages signify ecce etiam. In Acts xix. 27. the first X ai (aM,a xai) is
also etiam, and -HE merely adds the clause [ASM.SW xa^aie;., which, however,
as it contains something more important; is made prominent by etiam,
adeo. Acts xxi. 28. must be translated : and yet (besides) he leads also
(even) Greeks into the temple. The better prose writers may have
avoided such a concurrence of these particles, but in the N. T. there is
no sufficient reason for rejecting them, as they are in themselves con-
sidered not impossible. On -es and 8s as correspondent particles, where
the latter introduces an antithesis, e. g. Acts xxii. 28. and the Chiliarch

answered Paul on the other hand said, seeStallbaum ad Plat. Phileb.

p. 36. and rep. II. 350. Herm. ad Eurip. Med. p. 362. Bornemann ad
Xen. Mem. p. 42. TE yag Rom. vii. 7. is : for indeed see Herm. ad
Soph. Track, p. 176.]

"H is not used in the N. T. for xai, nor xai for ^, but cases occur
where both particles can be used with equal correctness (Poppo ad Thuc.
III. II. 146.). Where dissimilar things are connected by xai:, they are
connected together only as several things, and not specifically as different
or opposite. In Mt. vii. 10. xai sdv introduces a second case to which
the speaker 'proceeds. Luke xii. 2. is to be completed thus: xai ovSsv
xgvjttov. Mt. xii. 27. Schott correctly translates porro. In Mt. xii. 37.
or in such a structure of the sentence would not be appropriate, nor in
Rom. xiv. 7. % for xai was urged on dogmatical grounds in 1 Cor. xi.

27. oj of ed^iy -tov ug-tov *ovtov yj rtivy -to rtotygiov tov xvgiov, but not to

mention that there some good Codd. have xai:, % can be very well ex-
plained, without giving any support to the catholic dogma of the commu-
nio sub una, see Bengel and Baumgarten in loc.* But if they would
refer % to a real distinction in the administration of the sacrament, the
consequence (the subject linguically considered) would be such as the
catholic interpreters would scarcely be willing to admit, namely, the possi-
bility of communion even with the cup only! In Mt. v. 17. Ephes. v. 3.
Acts i. 7. % is evidently taken for xai only because the genuine signification
would appear not to be required. If finally A and xai appear in parallel
passages (Mt. xxi. 23. Mt. xi. 28. Luke xx. 2.), the relation is differ-

* Even in our mode of communion it is conceivable that one may receive the bread
with devotion, but the wine with sensual, perhaps sinful distraction. We might also
say : whoever receives the bread OK the wine unworthily.

346 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

ently conceived of by different writers. It would be a manifest abuse
of the parallelism thus to attempt to prove the two particles as synony-
mous. Besides they are frequently interchanged by transcribers (John
viii. 14. 1 Cor. xi. 27. xiii. 1.) Comp. Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 275. Jacob.
ad Lucian. Alex. p. 11. Where % occurs twice in succession, the second
(in Luke and Paul) is sometimes followed by xai Luke xviii. 11. Rom.
ii. 15. 2 Cor. i. 13. (Xen. Cyrop. 3, 1. 11.), either or also.

Instead of wj (xot^uf) ovVj, wj xai also occurs: Mt. vi. 10. wj
iv ovgav>, xal sftl tvjs yjj?, as in heaven, also on the earth, John x. 15.
xiii. 33. Acts vii. 51. see Fritzsche ad Mt. p. 266. and Bornemann schol.
in Luc. p. 71. On the other hand, no one will expect o-uVioj in Mr. vi.
43. with Bretschneider.

4. Contrasted sentences are most similar to the co-ordinate, partly in
the simple adversative form (8s, &MM; p.ev 8s), partly in the conces-
sive construction (pi-vioi, 6'^wj). On the other hand, an internal relation
of subordination is prominent: (a) in conclusive sentences (ovv, d'ga, tol-
vw, stronger 816, tfotyagow), (&) in the causal sentences (oti, Stotfi, yag,
more illustrative than the inductive <!bj, xowj, xa^otft), (c) in conditional
clauses (cJ, elrtsg, lav). On the latter, see 42, 2.

'AM,d and Sa -differ in general like sed and autem (see Zumpt. 348.
note); the former is adversative (originating from d'jaoj, Schafer ad Plu-
tarch. V. 104.), and expresses the proper and exact opposite, and is ex-
clusively distinctive; the latter (a weakened form of Si}) while used for
antithesis, is at the same time a connective, indicating consecutiveness.
With a preceding negation ovx aMia not but is used, but also ov
SE not but (but perhaps, rather], e. g. Acts xii. 9. 14. Heb. iv. 13.
vi. 12. (Thuc. 1, 125. 4, 86. comp. Hartung Partic. I. 171.). On the
two particles I would especially remark: (a) O.M.U is used generally, where
a series of thoughts is abrupted or interrupted either by an objection
(Rorn. x. 19. 1 Cor. xv. 35. comp. Xen. Mem. 1, 2. 9. 4, 2. 16. Cyrop.
1, 3. 11. 1, 6. 9.) or by a correction (Mr. xiv. 36.) or by a question
(Mt. xi. 8.) or by an incitement and command (Acts x. 20. xxvi. 16. Mt.
ix. 18. Mr. ix. 22. Luke vii. 7. comp. Xen. Cyrop. 1, 5. 13. 2, 2. 4.
5, 5. 24. Arrian. Alex. 5, 26. see Palairet p. 298. Krebs p. 208.) comp.
also John viii. 26. and Liicke in loc. On Mr. xi. 8. (where according
to Kypke and Klinb'l d^a shall be used for ^) see especially Fritzsche.
In Hebr. iii. 16. also, dMid has the signification of the correction, dxa,'
ov TtcWff etc. but (what do 1 ask yet?) not all etc., comp. Luke xvii. 8.
In the apodosis (especially after particles of condition or time) it tends
to give more prominence: Rom. vi. 5. si av^v-eot, ysyovapev *$ o^tono^a-rc
'fov $avdi?ov atv-fov, (ix,^,d xai tf^j dj/acfi'atffWf tuo^E^-a, 1 Cor. iv. 15. 2 Cor.
iv. 16. xi. 6. (comp. Lucian. pise. 24. .ffllian. Anim. 11, 31. Xen. Cyrop.
4, 3. 14. see Kypke II. 197. Bremi ad Lys. p. 372. Niebuhr. ind. ad
Agath. p. 409.) and rests properly on the mingling of two constructions.
The aM.d in the answer to a negative question needs no explanation, e. g.
John vii. 48. ^ -tit Ix TUV a^xovfuv Irtiatsvafv tls avtov vj Ix twv

57. CONJUNCTIONS. 347

etc., and 1 Cor. x. 20, (see Schweighauser ad
Jirrian. Epict. II. II. p. 839. Raphel. ad I Cor. as above. Acts xix. 2.
is sufficiently clear. 'Asaa psv ovv Phil. iii. 8. is imo vero. 'AM.O, oc-
curs in Rom. v. 14. 15. twice in succession in different relations; in 1
Cor. vi. 11. it is repeated several times with emphasis in the same rela-
tion. (&) As often stands where something new is added (therefore some-
thing different from the preceding, although not strictly opposite, Herm.
ad Vig. 843., also 2 Cor. vi. 14.; wherefore xai and 8s in the synoptics
are sometimes parallel), especially if it is an elucidation (Mt. xxiii. 5.
Rom. iii. 22. ix. 30. John vi. 10. ix. 14. Mr. v. 13. xv. 25. 1 Cor. xv.
56. Gal. ii. 2. Ephes. v. 32. comp. Hoogeveen as above 1. 247.), where also
Phil. ii. 8. may be reckoned, are a correction, 1 Cor. i. 16.; hence also
after a parenthesis, and generally where the interrupted series of thoughts
is resumed (Herm. ad Vig. p. 844.) 2 Cor. x. 2. (see Winer's Progr. in
Zoc.), also perhaps 2 Cor. v. 8. comp. Plat. Phssd. p. 80. D. Xen. .flnab.
7, 2. 18. Pausan. 3, 14. 1. On 8s in the apodosis, see 64. 2. In Jud.
ver. 8. 8s is used twice in succession in the same signification. The
antithetical psv Ss as to the N. T. can require no remark. In 1 Cor.
xiv. 17. oM.a is used for Ss, as sometimes by the Greeks (Iliad. 2, 703.
Xen. Oec. 3, 6. Kai 8s (in the same sentence) signifies but, also Mt.
xxvi. 18. Hebr. ix. 21. John xv. 27. 1 John i. 3. and presents no diffi-
culty, see Liicke in Zoc. Hoogeveen I. 259. Schafer ad Long. p. 349.
Ellendt ad Arrian. Jllex. I. p. 137.

The antithesis with yet, notwithstanding, is very seldom expressed in
the N. T. John uses most frequently pivtoii where others would have
placed merely 8k; he has also once written the strengthened form 6/uo$
psvtot (xii. 42.). Otherwise psveot, occurs twice in Paul. Kao sometimes
takes the place of this conjunction (Hebr. iii. 9., not John x. 12., as Kii-
nol prefers), in Acts xiv. 17. xcwWye stands more for although, quan-
quam. n^" IS however, meanwhile (interim} Phil. iv. 14., or is used
to signify the advance to something new, see Fritzsche ad Mt. p. 789.
Iltojv <waa is not found in the N. T. The correlation although still is

expressed by si X ai O.M.U Col. ii. 5. si yag X ai -fy aagxl artsiiM, d?ad tfp
rivsvpatt, ovv vplv sipi, by si xai ys Luke xviii. 4.; yet si xai stands
often for when, even (referring to the whole clause and without emphasis),
whilst xai si means: even, even if (with emphasis) see Hartung partic.
I. 139. (differently Herm. ad Vig. p. 830.). Kai with 8s following in a
second clause does not signify in John xvii. 25. although (as it frequent-
ly can be translated if connected with the participle), and this meaning
adopted by Tholuck is very incorrectly proved by iii. 32. xiv. 30. Rev.
iii. 1. (yet}. This particle seems to connect suddenly a thought rushing
into the mind and oppressing it, righteous Father (that lot ver. 24. you
would have granted to all) and - the world did not know thee (blindly
rejected the offered salvation). See Liicke in Zoc. against Meyer's in-
appropriate interpretation.

Ovv igitur is the usual particle of conclusion, whose relation can be
easily explained from the context in which it occnrs (e. g. Mt. xxvi. 54.
xxvu. 22.). It is also used as the German nun (now], very often in the
mere continuation of the narration, John iv. 28. xiii. 6. comp. Schafer
ad Plutarch. IV. p. 425., besides, especially after a parenthesis, in order

348 PART THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLE.

to resume the thought (Heindorf. ad Plat. Lysid. p. 52. Bornemann ad
Xen. Mem. p. 285. Jacob ad Lucian. Alex. p. 42.) John vi. 24. xix. 24.
1 Cor. viii. 4. xi. 20. Mr. iii. 31., see Raphel in loc. and Palairet p. 393.
or in proceeding to explain (even by examples) Rom. xii. 20. 'Aga ergo,
accordingly, therefore, as a proper particle of conclusion, particularly
used in conclusions from a strange affirmation (comp. 1 Cor. v. 10. xv.
14. and Stallbaum ad Plat. rep. I. 92. Hoogeveen doctrina particul. I.
109., hence in the application of biblical quotations Rom. x. 17.), occurs
most frequently in Paul, Mt. vii. 20. Rom. viii. 1. Gal. iv. 31. and stands
often in the apodosis (after conditional clauses) Mt. xii. 28. Gal. ii. 21.
1 Cor. xv. 14. Hebr. xii. 8. (Xen. Cyrop. 1, 3. 2. 8, 4. 7.). "Aga wv
connected and in the beginning of clauses (see on the contrary Herm. ad
Vig. p. 821.) therefore noio (where d'ga is conclusive and ovv continues
the discourse, comp. Hoogeveen doctr. part. I. 129. II. 1002.) is a fa-
vorite combination of Paul, Rom. v. 18. vii. 3. viii. 12. I know of no
instances of this connection in the Greek; in Plat. rep. 5. p. 462. A. the
more recent texts read (interrogatively) ag' oiij', comp. Schneider in loc.
Paul and Luke use St6 the most frequently; toivw and tfotyagow are rare.
'Oi-t corresponds with the Latin quod, and is sometimes made more
prominent by a preceding 8cd -tovto (propterea quod]. Now and then it
is used concisely Luke xi. 18. if Satan be divided against himself, how
shall his kingdom stand? (I bring this before your mind), because you
say, by Beelzebub etc. comp. iv. 43. (i. 35.'/) Bornemann ad Luc. p. 6.
Paul and Luke most frequently use the contracted Siott, (later Greek).
As to yqlg it is to be observed: (a) it is used for the introduction of ex-
planatory clauses and (therefore also) of parenthesis Mr. v. 42. xvi. 14.
1 Cor. xvi. 5. Ephes. vi. 1. (6) It occurs in emphatic questions (like
nurri) Mt. xxvii. 23. John vii. 41. Acts xix. 35. (Kypke I. 138. Krebs p.
72. 230. Fritzsche ad Mt. 807.) and in answers John ix. 30. 1 Cor. ix.
9. 10. Acts viii. 31. comp. Buttmann ad Philoct. 756. Both depend on
the vivacity of the speaker, who in the former case passes over the I do
not know, in the latter the simple affirmation or negation, Herm. ad Vig.
p. 827. Bremi ad Lys. p. 291. Bornemann ad Luc. p. 146. (c) Every
beginner knows that it occurs very frequently where an intermediate
clause is omitted ( Hoogeveen doctr. particul. I. 183.) comp. Acts xxi.
13. Why then do you weep so? for I am ready to allow myself not only
to be bound etc. viz. you do wrong by it; 1 Cor. iv. 9. might I also reign
with you? I have a reason to desire it, for it seems as 'if God had ap-
pointed to us the Apostles the loivest place, see yet Acts iv. 27. Mt. ii. 2.
xxii. 28. (xxiii. 17.) Wahl I. 217. Bretschneider I. 230. It is harsher
according to our feeling, but it is not uncommon even with prose writers
(Herodot. see Kiihner II. 453.). in the flow of thought to place <yag with
the causal sentence before that which is to be proved by it; see Matthise
ad Eurip. Phcsn. p. 371. Stallbaum ad Plat. Phsed. p. 207. Fritzsche
diss. in Corinth. II. p. 18.;* Fritzsche as above applies this observation
to 2 Cor. ix. 1. entirely without necessity, as this verse stands in an evi-

* Herm. ad. Eurip. Ipliig. Taur. p. 70. s&pe in ratione reddenda invertunl Greed
ordinem sententiarum, caussam prcemittentes: quo genere loquendi s&pissime usus est
Herodotus. Comp. Hoogeveen I. 252.

57. CONJUNCTIONS. 849

dent connection with viii. 24. In 1 Cor. iv. 4. a conciseness of expres-
sion takes place, where the proof, which yag indicates (as Baumgarten
already said), lies in the second clause ovx iv tovty SiStx. as if the Apos-
tle had written: for although 1 am conscious of nothing (bad), / do not
consider myself on that account guiltless; if it is not more simple to in-
terpret: I do not judge myself (I could do so), for I am conscious of no-
thing, but I do not for that reason believe myself guiltless. (d) Tu% oc-
curs several times in succession in different relations in Rom. v. 6. 7.
Jas. i. 6. 7. ii. 10. iv. 14. 1 Cor. ix. 16 18., see Engelhardt ad Plat.
Apol. p. 225. Fritzsche qusest. Lucian. p. 18<3. Kaw$ and wj add ra-
ther illustrations than proper arguments, and are equivalent to the Latin
quoniam, quippe, siquidem. On wj (2 Tim. i. 3. Gal. vi. 10. see Winer's
comment., Mt. vi. 12. see Fritzsche) comp. Ast ad Plat. Polit. p. 336.
Stallbaum ad Plat, sympos. p. 135. Lehmann ad Lucian. I. p. 457. III.
p. 425.

5. The most intimate relation of subordination takes place in the
objective clauses, which, expressing the object of the principal clause as
a perception, judgment or end, only express its logical predicate and
hence properly supply the place of the objective ease in a simple sen-
tence (Thiersch Gr. Gramm. p. 605.): / see, that this is good; I say,
that he is rich; I go, in order that I salute. The conjunctions 6Vt or &$
answer for the first and second case, for the third Iva, oVtcoj (wj); but in
the second the more extended infinit. construction (accus. with infinit.)
sometimes occurs in the N. T. also ( 45, 2. p. 253.); in the first case
occasionally after another phrase a participial construction ( 46. 1. p.
269.) and in the second the mere infinit. ( 45, 2. p. 251.)

"Ore, is the proper particle of the object, like quod and that (which, have
the same origin with 6Vt); wj after verbs signifying to know, to say etc.
signifies that, how, how that, (ut), Acts x. 28. irftWa<js, wj u&pitov ia-
tw dvSgt, 'IOD&M'P, V ou know, how (that] it is not allowed to a Jew. The
two conjunctions therefore, used in objective clauses, originate in a dif-
ferent view of the speaker, but agree in sense. "O^wj, like ut (quo) has
become a conjunction, although properly an adverb, (how, how that, comp.
Luke xxiv. 20.). "Ira originally seems to be a pronoun: w$ for so, so
that, occurs in the N. T. only in the formula w ff I'^o? dittlv Heb. vii.
9. [How Sva is used in the N. T. also for the mere infinitive, see & 45,
9. p. 264.]. *

6. The regular use of these newly coined conjunctions for the several

relations of sentences would be given up, if the N. T. writers, as exe-

gesists have done to this time, really put one conjunction for the other,

and & with them were often equivalent to Y a, 7 ^ to ow, iva to

44

348 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

to resume the thought (Heindorf. ad Plat. Lysid. p. 52. Bornemann ad
Xen. Mem. p. 285. Jacob ad Lucian. Alex. p. 42.) John vi. 24. xix. 24.
1 Cor. viii. 4. xi. 20. Mr. iii. 31., see Raphel in loc. and Palairet p. 398.
or in proceeding to explain (even by examples) Rom. xii. 20, 'AC* ergo,
accordingly, therefore, as a proper particle of conclusion, particularly
used in conclusions from a strange affirmation (comp. 1 Cor. v. 10. xv.
14. and Stallbaum ad Plat. rep. I. 92, Hoogeveen doctrina particul. I.
109., hence in the application of biblical quotations Rom. x. 17.), occurs
most frequently in Paul, Mt. vii. 20. Rom. viii. 1. Gal. iv. 31. and stands
often in the apodosis (after conditional clauses) Mt. xii. 28. Gal. ii. 21.
1 Cor. xv. 14. Hebr. xii. 8. (Xen. Cyrop. 1, 3. 2. 8, 4. 7.). "Ago, ovv
connected and in the beginning of clauses (see on the contrary Herm. ad
Vig. p. 821.) therefore now (where d'ga is conclusive and ovv continues
the discourse, comp. Hoogeveen doctr. part. I. 129. II. 1002.) is a fa-
vorite combination of Paul, Rom. v. 18. vii. 3. viii. 12. I know of no
instances of this connection in the Greek; in Plat. rep. 5. p. 462. A. the
more recent texts read (interrogatively) ag' ovv, comp. Schneider in loc.
Paul and Luke use gio the most frequently; toLwv and ^otyagow are rare.
'Otft corresponds with the Latin quod, and is sometimes made more
prominent by a preceding Sid -tovto (proptcrea quod}. Now and then it
is used concisely Luke xi. 18. if Satan be divided against himself, how
shall his kingdom stand? (I bring this before your mind), because you
say, by Beelzebub etc. comp. iv. 43. (i. 35.'/) Bornemann ad Luc. p. 6.
Paul and Luke most frequently use the contracted Siott (later Greek).
As to yqlg it is to be observed: (a) it is used for the introduction of ex-
planatory clauses and (therefore also) of parenthesis Mr. v. 42. xvi. 14.
1 Cor. xvi. 5. Ephes. vi. 1. (6) It occurs in emphatic questions (like
numj Mt. xxvii. 23. John vii. 41. Acts xix. 35. (Kypke I. 138. Krebs p.
72. 230. Fritzsche ad Mt. 807.) and in answers John ix. 30. 1 Cor. ix.
9. 10. Acts viii. 31. comp. Buttmann ad Philoct. 756. Both depend on
the vivacity of the speaker, who in the former case passes over the / do
not know, in the latter the simple affirmation or negation, Herm. ad Vig.
p. 827. Bremi ad Lys. p. 291. Bornemann ad Luc. p. 146. (c) Every
beginner knows that it occurs very frequently where an intermediate
clause is omitted (Hoogeveen. doctr. particul. I. 183.) comp. Acts xxi.
13. Why then do you weep so? for I am ready to allow myself not only
to be bound etc. viz. you do wrong by it; 1 Cor. iv. 9. might I also reign
icith you? I have a reason to desire it, for it seems as if God had ap-
pointed to us the Apostles the lowest place, see yet Acts iv. 27. Mt. ii. 2.
xxii. 28. (xxiii. 17.) Wahl I. 217. Bretschneider I. 230. It is harsher
according to our feeling, but it is not uncommon even with prose writers
(Herodot. see Kiihner II. 453.). in the flow of thought to place ya with
the causal sentence before that which is to be proved by it; see Matthias
ad Eurip. Phozn. p. 371. Stallbaum ad Pla.t. Phssd. p. 207. Fritzsche
diss. in Corinth. II. p. 18.;* Fritzsche as above applies this observation
to 2 Cor. ix. 1. entirely without necessity, as this verse stands in an evi-

* Herm. ad. Eurip. IpMg. Taur. p. 70. secpe in rationc reddenda invertunt Grccci
ordinem sententiarum, caussam prfcinittentes: quo genere loquendi scepissime usus est
Herodotus. Comp. Hoogeveen I. 252.

57. CONJUNCTIONS. 349

dent connection with viii. 24. In 1 Cor. iv. 4. a conciseness of expres-
sion takes place, where the proof, which ydg indicates (as Baumgarten
already said), lies in the second clause ovx ev tov'tcp StStx. as if the Apos-
tle had written: for although 1 am conscious of nothing (bad), I do not
consider myself on that account guiltless; if it is not more simple to in-
terpret: I do not judge myself (I could do so), for I am conscious of no-
thing, but I do not for that reason believe myself guiltless. (d) Tag oc-
curs several times in succession in different relations in Rom. v. 6. 7.
Jas. i. 6. 7. ii. 10. iv. 14. 1 Cor. ix. 16 18., see Engelhardt ad Plat.
Apol. p. 225. Fritzsche qusest. Lucian. p. 188. Ka^wj and wj add ra-
ther illustrations than proper arguments, and are equivalent to the Latin
quoniam, quippe, siquidem. On wj (2 Tim. i. 3. Gal. vi. 10. see Winer's
comment,, Mt. vi. 12. see Fritzsche) comp. Ast ad Plat. Polit. p. 336.
Stallbaum ad Plat, sympos. p. 135. Lehmann ad Lucian. I. p. 457. III.
p. 425.

5. The most intimate relation of subordination takes place in the
objective clauses, which, expressing the object of the principal clause as
a perception, judgment or end, only express its logical predicate and
hence properly supply the place of the objective case in a simple sen-
tence (Thiersch Gr. Gramm. p. 605.): I see, that this is good; I say,
that he is rich; I go, in order that I salute. The conjunctions 6V t or wj
answer for the first and second case, for the third iVa, 6rtu$ (wj); but in
the second the more extended infinit. construction (accus. with infinit.)
sometimes occurs in the N. T. also ( 45, 2. p. 253.); in the first case
occasionally after another phrase a participial construction ( 46. 1. p.
269.) and in the second the mere infinit. ( 45, 2. p. 251.)

"On is the proper particle of the object, like quod and that (which have
the same origin with 6Ve.); s after verbs signifying to know, to say etc.
signifies that, how, how that, (ui), Acts x. 28. ljtei(a.a$s, & f a&epveov le-
tt,v dvSgt, 'low8ai/9, you know, how (that) it is not allowed to a Jew. The
two conjunctions therefore, used in objective clauses, originate in a dif-
ferent view of the speaker, but agree in sense. "Orfwj, like ut (quo) has
become a conjunction, although properly an adverb, (how, how that, comp.
Luke xxiv. 20.). "Iva, originally seems to be a pronoun: d> s for so, so
that, occurs in the N. T. only in the formula wj g^os dTtslv Heb. vii.
9. [How i'va is used in the N. T. also for the mere infinitive, see & 45,
9. p. 264.]. *

6. The regular use of these newly coined conjunctions for the several

relations of sentences would be given up, if the N. T. writers, as exe-

gesists have done to this time, really put one conjunction for the other,

and & with them were often equivalent to y ig, ^ to ow, va to &<t<e e

44

350 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

etc.* But such permutation is generally only apparent, founded partly
on the fact that, sometimes the relation between two sentences in general
can be conceived of more simply; the specific logical connection with a
particular sentence however then originates from an individual (rational)
view of the writer, and one therefore not familiar to the reader, partly
on a conciseness of expression foreign to the genius of our language.
Where the apostles write SE they have always in some way conceived of
a but; and it is the duty of the interpreter exactly to represent this con-
nection of thought, and not to dream of a substitution of perhaps directly
opposite conjunctions, for mere convenience sake. Then how absurd
were it to bejieve that the apostles really wrote for or since where they
intended to write but, and but where they should have written for! Any
child can distinguish such relations. How weak must they have been, to
put the almost opposite therefore instead of for or then! None but in-
terpreters unaccustomed to think of the language as a living one, or
wishing to avoid the trouble of reflection, could so imagine: and it is no
honor to Biblical exegesis that such principles have for so long a time
met with approbation. Related things are always closely connected in
the human mind. If therefore a conjunction is used in an apparently
foreign sense, we must endeavor first of all to show how the writer in
his thoughts may have slid from the radical to the unusual signification.
But even this was not thought of, for had it been seriously reflected on,
this chimera would have vanished into smoke. In proportion as the
permutation of the conjunctions is represented as unlimited, will they be
weakened, and consequently even the forcible particles /or, but would be
often almost redundant or mere particles of transition"]"; but what empty
fiction this is ! No such thing occurs in human speech, and difficult
would it be to find any one in all Germany, who would say for or but,
where only and or no connecting particle at all was required. Yet I
shall put to the test the common view in several of the most specious
examples adduced by interpreters.

<* then does not stand (a) for yo^: in 1 Cor. xv. 10. d?aa rttgicsao-

Ttavfwr t-xorti&aa is the antithesis to ^ #aK aw-cov ov
was not vain, but had in and through me abundant effects

* See Winer's Prog, conjunc. in N. T. accuratius explicandar. caussa et exempla.
E-rlang. 1826. 4to. It is surprising to see what liberties some commentators take
with the Apostle, as if he had known nothing about the Gr. language, and how they
suggest in almost numberless instances that he ought to have used a different con-
junction from the one found in the text!

i Tholuck, Rom. viii. 6'. inconsiderately takes yag for the mere particle of transition.

57. CONJUNCTIONS. 351

(&) for therefore, consequently: Rom. v. 14. it is but (nevertheless) au-
tem, vii. 7. but (sed), the opposite of what was expressed by /MJ yei/otto;
in 2 Cor. viii. 7. dw,a probably means mo (correcting), I besought Titus
that he. would complete this favor among you^ the more so (this was my
design) that you might distinguish yourselves. Bengel otherwise. Stolz
has not translated the d^o, at all ! In Ephes. v. 24. the comparison be-
tween the husband and Christ ver. 23. is exhibited in the way of argu-
ment: but as the church (conformably to this relation) is subject to Christ,
SO etc. aM/ wtfrtE^ tj sxxJtfjti. 'ffavif'n T!Y] xftyo!)Jn, tcp XgtUT'cji, vjtoitaOGeitat,
ovtu xai etc. Whoever observes the sentence oiitfco xai al yw, will
expect an illative particle. I cannot perceive here with Riickert an ab-
rupt argument, nor the weaker Ss to be requisite. On Gal. ii. 14. Baum-
garten is right. See above 4. p. 346. about Acts x. 20. (Eisner in
Zoc.) (c) for h [HI Mr. ix. 8. see Fritzsche in Zoc., and as to Mt. xx. 23.
Raphel. Alberti and Fritz, in Zoc. (<Z) for the simple copula: Rom. v.
15. is a connection, but represents not merely the equality ver. 12. of
human sin and divine grace, the divine grace was yet much greater see
Riickert in Zoc. In Rom. x. IS. dw,a lays the foundation of an objection

which the apostle himself makes. 1 Cor. ii. 9. which no one knew

but, as it has been written, we proclaim things unknown (e) for

sane, profecto, truly, indeed neither in John viii. 26. see above, nor xvi.
2. see Liicke. In the latter it is imo, which indicates an ellipsis (Acts
xix. 2.) Rom. vi. 5. where d;ua stands in the apodosis of the sentence,

/ 1 '

does not belong here.

As is nowhere, (a) therefore, now: in Acts vi. 2. 8s connects a new
fact with a preceding one; in 1 Cor. xi. 28. 8s means rather in contrast
with ver. 27. dvosa>s laeistv, in 1 Cor. viii. 9. a supplementary elucida-
tion is introduced : but therewith ye must see to it, that not etc. Ephes.
ii. 4. and 1 John iv. 18. are too plain to require remark; in Rom. viii. 8.
Bengel had already recognised the Ss as s^-tatixov, and Tholuck has not
duly weighed the context (b) for Poppo Thuc. II. p. 291. itid. ad Xen.
Cyrop. and Bornemann ind. ad Xen. Anab., see also Herm. ad Vig. p.
843. Schafer ad Demosth. II. 128. V. p. 541. Lehmann ad Lucian. I.
p. 197. Wex ad Antig. I. 300.): in Mr. xvL 8. e t X s bs is a mere illus-
tration: in the words ^ojSoiWo ya the reason of i^d^oj and exataats is
exhibited:* in John vi. 10. % v Ss %6^o s etc. constitutes an additional ex-
planation, see above Luke xxiii. 17.; 1 Thess. ii. 16. fyeaae 8s make an
antithesis to the whole preceding description of the Jews: but (as a re-
compense for all this) the punishment is near; in Mt. xxiii. 5. sacwwouoc, 8s
etc. are an immediate deduction from Ttdv-ta ta Jfgya aufiv ttotovat, rto$ 1-6
QsaGqvat', in 1 Tim. iii. 5. si 8s -tig etc. means, if on the other hand one
etc.; 1 Cor. iv. 7. who gave to thee a superiority? but what hast thou,
that thou hast not received ? i. e. but if thou appealest to the preemi-
nence which thou possessest, I ask, hast thou not received it? On 1 Cor.
iv. 9. (Kypke) see above, in fo s ; s Ss 2 Cor. x. 3. is the immediate an-

* The two conjunc. ft and -y^ are nearly allied in the secondary signification of
namely. A new sentence to be added is annexed by J 1 , by y i ? one which as inter-
pretive confirms what precedes. See Herm. ad Vig. p. 843.

352 PART THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLE.

tithesis of Paul in contrast with ?&$ tZ>v tawfovs awiatavovtuv ver. 12.;
in 1 Cor. x. 11. lygatyy Ss offers a more direct illustration of the -tvTtot,
ewefiawov IxsCvoif', in 2 Cor. i. 21. Paul draws a contrast between what
he had wrought ver. 18. and what God had effected: /, says he, have
always endeavored to be consistent and veracious in my course: BUT he
who has given to me this settled conviction, is God; in 1 Cor. xv. 13.
ii Sa ai/aoi'acjtj vtxguv etc. 8s has an adversative sense; the negative sense
only can be taken from the question rtw$ tiyovei iivst, fat aj/accz 1 . vt-xguv
ovx ta'tlv', if Christ have risen, then is the resurrection of the dead cer-
tain; BUT if there be no resurrection of the dead, then even Christ has
not risen. One is a necessary basis and support of the other. Wahl has
improperly reckoned Mt. xxiii. 5. here (c) for the mere copula or par-
ticle of transition: Mt. xxi. 3. is: the Lord has need of them, but forth-
with will they be allowed to go, i. e. these words will not be without
effect, they will rather at once etc. In Acts xxiv. 17. the illustration is
carried on farther by the 8k; in 1 Cor. xiv. 1. Sa is but (also): but the
SIUXEW t'/iv dydftqv shall not therefore hinder you from fy^ovv *& itv.', Luke
xii. 50. and Acts xxiii. 10. are sufficiently plain.

Ta is incorrectly taken: () for but (Markland ad Eurip. Suppl. v. 8.
Elmsley ad Eurip. Med. 121. see on the contrary Herm. ad Vig. p. 844.
Bremi neues krit. Journal IX. p. 533.): 2 Cor. xii. 20. 1 say all this for
your edification (and I have reason for it), for 1 fear etc.; in Rom. iv.
13. the clause with yag proves the last words Iv ax^vefCo, jtiat suf
TOV rtutgbf etc.; in Rom. v. 6. the last y points to the fact by which the
love of God (ver. 5.) manifested itself, the death of Christ for sinners;
but the second ya shows farther, how such a death of the innocent for
the guilty manifests infinite love 1 Cor. v. 3. do you feel no grief? (I
say: you) for /(as to myself) have already concluded etc. Pott takes
y<x here for alias ! ! On 1 Cor. iv. 9. see 4. note. 2 Cor. xii. 6. 1 shall
not boast of myself (I could do it), for if I should boast of myself, 1
should not be foolish. 2 Cor. viii. 13. is clear to every one, yet see Bill-
roth in loc. In Phil. iii. 20. faZv yag etc. stands in direct relation to at,
z-a Itiiysiu $gov., they, who pursue earthly things (and therefore do not
belong to us), for we have in heaven etc. In John v. 4. (see Palair. in
loc.) yag is intended to prove the Ix8xpw">v -ti\v -fov oiSai'oj xiv^ew. On
Rom. viii. 6. see Riickert. 2 Tim. ii. 7. is plain enough, see Hoogeveen
1. 204. (&) for therefore, now: In Luke xii. 58. the remark of Bengel
affords some light: yag ssepe ponitur, ubi propositionem excipit tracta-
tio. In 1 Cor. xi. 26. the si$ t^v l^v avdpvyaw explains ver. 25.; in
Rom. ii. 28. the parenthesis is to be supplied: but that is right uihich I
have quoted ver. 26. 27., for that which is external makes not the true
Jew. In Acts viii. 39. the words litogvuftQ ydg evidently contain the
reason why the eunuch no more saw Philip, comp. Hoogeveen I. 204.;
in Heb. ii. 8. yd% connects the explanation derived from the passage quoted
in ver. 6. 7. with ver. 5. (e) For although; John iv. 44. (see Kiinol),
where Liicke has explained correctly, (d) For on the contrary: 2 Pet.
i. 9. Ss might have been used, if it were intended to say: but (on the
contrary) to whomsoever these (virtues) are wanting etc.. With ydg the
clause explains the preceding ovx agyovs -- 'Xgwtov s atyvuawfor (that
I am right, you see from this) to whomsoever these are wanting, he is

57. CONJUNCTIONS. 353

blind. (e) For d;a' 6'ju.wj notwithstanding: 2 Cor. xii. 1. however to
boast of myself (xi. 22.) is of no use to me; for I will now come to
visions and revelations of the Lord. Paul there places in contrast the
boasting (the boasting of his merits), and the boasting of the divine dis-
tinctions conferred on him. He will exult in the latter ver. 5., and there-
fore the sense is: yet the boasting of one's self is of no use, for now I
shall come to an object of boasting, which excludes and renders super-
fluous all self -boasting. Otherwise JSosselt, who however also retains
the signification of for. (f) For the mere copula: in Horn. iii. 2. ?gi-
tov P.EV >yag begins the proof of jto^v xa-ta tfavta tgortov. Acts ix. 11. in-
quire at the house of Judas for Saul of Tarsus (you will find him there,
and ready to hear you), for he is praying now, and he saw a vision
(which prepared him for you) comp. Bengel in loc. In Acts xvii. 28.
a civ ydg ysi/oj is a verbatim quotation from Aratus, where <yd can also be
taken as a reason of xwrieSat, tlvai, lv -^9 -fo. On Acts xxi. 13. see 4.
In Acts iv. 12. the clause ov-ts ydg ovopd l^iv contains the more precise
developement and consequently the reason of lv O,M.K> ovSsvi y uu^ta. In
Acts xiii. 27. the connection can be supplied with Bengel, Limborch and
others, thus: to you, ye Jews, this word of salvation is. directed, for those
of Jerusalem have rejected this Saviour. But it is also possible that
Paul intended to continue thus: for he is manifested as the Messiah pro-
claimed to our fathers corny, ver. 29. 32. The argument has lost its ex-
ternal bond of union by means of the narration of the events. In no case
is ydg a mere particle of transition as Kiinb'l says. In 2 Cor. iii. 9. the
thought seems to me to be continued in the words si yag ^ Siaxov. etc. in
respect to its proof, as Siaxavlu t^ Sixaioavvqs expresses something more
definite than Siaxovia *ov rtvevp-aitos: when already the ministration of

death was glorious hoio shall not the service of the spirit be more

glorious? This must be evident to every one, for the ministration of
justification is more glorious than that of condemnation. Fritzsche's
interpretation diss. Corinth. I. p. 18. I think is too artificial. After the
words tov 'i^ffoo) X^. $i ysvsatf oi>Vw5 ?jv in Mt. i. 18. the account begins
with jae, namely (Hoogeveen I. 187.) and Raphel, Palairet and others on
this passage are in error.

Ovv is incorrectly taken (a) for but: In Acts ii. 30. rtgo$. ovt> S>*ax- is
connected simply as a conclusion with the preceding clause: David has
died and been buried. He therefore in his character as a prophet, in-
tended the resurrection of Christ in those words, which he seems to pro-
nounce of himself. In Acts viii. 4. ^ v corresponds with 8e ver. 5. and
Luke by means of ovv proceeds in the narration of that, which effected
those scenes in Jerusalem. Acts xxvi. 22. is not an antithesis to ver. 21.,
but Paul concludes, looking over his apostolical life up to the time of this
captivity: so / stand ivith the help of God to this, day etc. Also Ktinol
m his commentary p. 805. translates correctly igitur; but according to
the index ow is supposed to signify here scd, tamen! Rom. xi. 19. means:
now you will say Paul could also have written ^ djuii, as however the
instance is taken from the figure which precedes and appears as an appli-
cation of it (on the part of the objector) <$ was entirely in its place.
Similar is Rom. ix. 19 xi. 1. Mt. xxvii. 22. < ^ v ^^ ^^ v wliat
shall I do with Jesus? (as you have decided in favor of Barnabas). Rom

354 PART THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLE.

x. 14. the explanation or application of of the passage quoted ver. 13.
begins with ovv. On Mt. x. 26. xii. 12. xvii. 10. xxvi. 54. see Fritzsche.
(b) Instead of for, in Mt. x. 32. rfaj ovv oa*i$ is not the proof of the clause
rtoMuv (rtgav$iav SIOK|>T'E <fyitj but a resumption and continuation of the
principal idea ver. 27. xq^vt-atE etc. xai ^ $opsias. Otherwise Fritzsche
in loc. 1 Cor. iii. 5. tCs ovv eat* navho$ etc. who now is Paul (to enter
into your party names). In 1 Cor. vii. 26. ovv introduces the yvw^,
which the apostle intended to give ver. 25. Rom. vi. 4. is a farther ex-
planation of that which is indicated in the words ver. 3. s ls tbv avatov
spurt*. In 1 Cor. xi. 20. <swtgxl*" vv etc. relates to the principal thought
awsgX' vnuv sv etc. ver. 18., which was abrupt ver. 19. (c) For a mere
copula or as entirely superfluous : Rom. xv. 17. is easily explained by
looking back to ver. 15. 16. On Mt. vii. 12. see Fritzsche. [The
ridiculous affirmation of Palairet, as if in Mt. xii. 12. ovv was equivalent
to av is not worth a reply].

Of these four conjunctions Si- and ovv are most intimately related, and
hence passages are found where either of them can be used equally well,
although in the mere continuation of discourse (narration) they are not
properly the same. Instead of, Jesus came into the region of Tiberias
and found there two fishermen, who etc. BUT he spoke to them etc. We
can also say: Jesus came NOW he spake to them. The sense is little
affected by it, but notwithstanding, the two are conceived a little differ-
ently. In the first case 1 connect with the coming and finding, the speak-
ing as something new; in the latter the thought is this : he spolce* now
(under the circumstances) to them. If a narrator here use &?, it cannot
be affirmed that he should have used ovv, nor vice versa. The synoptic
passages therefore must not be foisted into that enallage conjunct, (as
perhaps yq.% and os Luke xiii. 35. comp. Mt. xxiii. 39.). Yet even if in
such cases Se and ovv are pretty similar, it does not follow that they ought
to be interchanged in all, even their more accurate significations. But
it is apparent that ya and djad are particles so distinct as not to be placed
indifferently for each other, nor even to be superfluous.

"Oft, is (a) not equivalent to Std therefore (as the Hebrew *3 is some-
times explained, but incorrectly; see Winer's Simonis on that word) ;
John viii. 44. and John iii. 14. are well interpreted by Lucke. In Luke
vii. 47. only the and papal polemic could misunderstand the 6V&, see Kiinol
iit loc. This particle does also not stand in Mr. ix. 11. for Std -ft, where
Schott and Stolz so consider it, (Palairet observ. p. 125. Alberti observ. p.
51. Krebs observ. 50. Scweightiuser Lexic. Herod. II. 161.). The first
6Vt is probably the particle which in other cases precedes the directly quo-
ted remarks, and only expresses the question impliedly in the words: they
asked him saying: the Pharisees affirm etc., how can this be reconciled?
Fritzsche prefers however with very little authority ti ovv, which is cer-
tainly a correction of transcribers. Mr. ix. 28. all the better Codd. read
Sta ti, as Mt. xvii. 19. Fritzsche prefers 6V t otd ti. In the quotation
from Plutarch by Kypke I. 178. 6Vt is not strange in indirect questions.
(6) Nor to 6Va: in John xii. 18. 6Vc. in relation to Siu -novto is because.
The same meaning will be recognised by an attentive reader in 1 John iii.
9. 1 Cor. iii. 13. is also to be so translated. That 6Vt and 6Vs are often in-
terchanged by transcribers is known to every one, see Schafer ad Greg.

57. CONJUNCTIONS. 355

Cor. p. 491. Schneider ad Plat. rep. I. p. 393. Siebelis ad Pausan. p. 259.,
and so doubtless in the Septuag., wherever fat seems to mean when or as,
we ought to read ots (even 1 Kings viii. 37.), as editions have it, on the au-
thority of good MSS. in all the passages cited by Pott on 1 Cor. iii. 13. The
ho.c pro Ulo (6Ve) sumsisse sufficerit of this interpreter is therefore not
enough, (c) The following significations are very easy, as (wj) in 1 Cor.
v. 6. (see Schulz in Zoc.); but in Heb. viii. 10. (yet see Bohme; Schultz
has not translated the particle at all); profecto, truly, indeed; in Mt. xxvi.
74. 6V t means' that and is connected with dpvvew, in John vii. 12. it
stands before the direct subject of remark, as frequently. Rom. xiv. 11.
(from Isa. xlv. 23.) expresses this meaning: I swear by my life, that etc.
On 1 John iii. 20. see Liicke. In opposition to the assertion that 6Vt is
equivalent to 6'j, which is founded on Mt. v. 45. see Fritzsche in loc.
(and in relation to the so explained "3, Winer's Simon, at this word].

"iva is supposed to be often used in the N. T. Ixpatixut, therefore of
real consequence, as sometimes in Greek writers, see Hoogeveen doctr.
particul. I. 524. the interpretation of Lucian. Nigr. 30. Weiske ad
Xen. Anab. 7, 3. 28. camp, also Evvald ad Apoc. p. 233. If this were
even generally possible (although the diminished force of Iva in the later
Greek yields no support to this, see 45, 9. p. 264 268.), yet no one
will deny that interpreters have made unlimited use of this canon, and
are guilty of great exaggeration. The entire signification was first de-
nied by Lehmann ad Lucian. Tom. I. p. 71., then by Fritzsche Exc. 1.
ad Matth. and (Beyer) im neuen Krit. Journ. IV. 418., comp. also
Liicke comment, on John II. 174. Steudel wrote against Beyer in Ben-
gel's neue?nArgiv. IV. 504. and Tittman Synon. II. p. 35. declared him-
self for Iva Ixfiatixov. The former interpreters above all overlooked the
fact that Iva was frequently to be judged of after the Hebrew teleology,
which confounds worldly consequences with divine designs and counsels,
or rather represents each important result as ordered and intended by
God, (comp. e. g. Exod. xi. 9. Isa. ix. 10. see Baumgarten Crusius bibl.
Tlieol. p. 272. Tholuck interpret, on Romans p. 395.),* and that there-
fore, in the language of the Scriptures, 'iva can be frequently used, when,
according to our view of the divine government, we should have used
bats. Other passages were not sufficiently compared, or it would have
become evident that iva was correct according to the common mode of
thinking. In other passages it was not taken into view that, sometimes
on rhetorical grounds, in order that is used, which is a kind of hyperbole
(e. g. so then 1 must go thither, in order to bring on sickness! comp. Isa.
xxxvi. 12. Lev. iii. 10. Plin. Paneg. 6, 2. so then I have built the house,
in order to see it burnt down!), or finally, that iva expresses only the ne-
cessary consequence (founded on the regular course of nature and of life),
which he, who does something, designs as if unconsciously, (comp. Liicke
on John II. 540.). Passing' such instances as are self-evident to an at-

* It is too much to say that the Hebrew throughout interchanges design and con.
sequence (Unger de parab. p. 173.). This is in some sense true in respect to their
religious views. But they recognise the distinction between in order that and so
that, as \s manifest from their having a form to denote the latter.

356 PA.KT TIIIUD. USE OF THE 1* ARTICLE.

tentive reader (like 1 Pet. i. 7., where .Pott merely from habit takes
for iStfi-t), we select the following, in which the better interpreters appre-
hended i'va for de eventU. Mr. xi. 25. a^ists el <tt, e%e-t xa-td twos, i'va
xai 6 Ttatf^g vp.Z>v d^ vplv etc. signifies: in order by this means to be-
come worthy of the divine forgiveness. Luke ix. 45. the (divine) de-
sign is expressed in 'iva, that they should not at that time apprehend it
(otherwise they might have been at a loss to know what to think of Je-
sus). Luke xiv. 10. is to be understood in respect to the application:
be humble, in order that you may be counted worthy of his kingdom.
Without humility you cannot enter into the kingdom. Only imagine
JitftfE, and it will be apparent that it is not even appropriate to the exter-
nal conformation. Luke xvi. 9. presents nothing singular. Mr. iv. 12.
Jesus applies an O. T. prophecy, and in this the teleological language
cannot be misapprehended. See Fritzsche and Ohlshausen in loc. John
iv. 36. he that reapeth etc. (this is so ordered) in order that. Liicke
differs somewhat. In John v. 20. the design of the rfa^'is expressed
too 'distinctly to be misunderstood. John ix. 2. is to be explained by the
Jewish teleology, in which the disciples in their national exaggeration
participated. Severe corporeal evils can only be punishments of sin
coming from God: who by his sin has induced the righteous judgment of
God to cause this man to be born blind? see Liicke in loc. On John ix.
39. and vii. 23. see Liicke, and it is indeed astonishing how Steudel could
give such weight to the latter passage. Tholuck interprets John x. 17.
more correctly than Liicke. John xi. 15. Va Tttafsvatj-ts is to be added
as an explanation to 81? v/taj: I rejoice for your sake, that I was not there,
for your sake, viz. in order that you believe, i. e. you cannot now avoid
believing. In John xix. 28. iVa signifies in order that; iva, tfsju fy y^a^
may be connected either with rtdvta ijSt] usis^. as Luther does, or with
the following -t&st as Liicke prefers. John xvi. 24. L'va, points to the giver
(krj-be&e). Rom. xi. 31. the design of uiti$ovvt$ is not meant, but the
determination of God, which was connected with this unbelief, comp.
ver. 32., to give them salvation for mercy's sake (not as merited). Their
unbelief is connected with the plan of God etc., see also De Wette in loc.
and on Rom. i. 11. v. 20. The same teleological view is evidently ap-
plied in John xii. 40. an O.- T. quotation. In Rom. xv. 32. i'va iv zagal,
&>w etc. is connected with the immediately preceding: in order that (if
my business be successfully finished) / may come cheerfully to you.
2 Cor. i. 9. Schott translates correctly ne; in v. 4. the meaning is evident,
and it is incomprehensible how Stolz could translate so that. So also
ix. 8. In 1 Cor. v. 5. the d$ bfo$gov -tij$ aagxog shows how a design
relating to the itvsvfia may be connected with rtagaSovrai, ^9 Satava, in-
terpret this as you please, and tVa means without contradiction in order
that. 1 Cor. vii. 29. is correctly translated by Billroth.

On Gal. v. 17. see Winer's comment. On I Pet. iv. 13. where Pott
supposes an expattxbv, see Bengel. In respect to Ephes. vi. 3. no one
will doubt that iV is in the Mosaic law -gsMxbv* But could not the Apos-
tle use the same motive? 1 Cor. xiv. 13. o hahuv y^acr^ rtgo$v%a$a,
let him pray (in the Church) not to show his xdgiapa
wo/, but with the purpose, with the design, to interpret the prayer.
See Billroth in loc. Chrysost. differs. 1 John i. 4. needs no explana-

57. CONJUNCTION. 357

tion. 1 John iii. 1. the sense is: what proofs of the love of God were
necessary, in order that it come, to this, that etc. In all those proofs of
love, God had the design that we etc. Rev. viii. 12. I'va, expresses the
design of the Ta^sc^ac. of the sun etc., for Ttijfj'tt. does not signify, as
many believe, the darkening of the heavenly bodies themselves, but is
the O. T. H3H used of the offended Deity, see Ewald in loc. Rev. ix.
20. in iva py the result is hot expressed, but the design of the pEtavoetv:
they did not reform themselves, in order that they might no longer serve
demons etc. The discovery that they served mere demons and idols of
wood, ought to have brought them to the ps-edvoia, in order to escape so
dishonorable a service. On Rev. xxii. 14. see Ew.ald. The passages
in which Bretschneider I. 590. prefers to translate, ne eveniat ut, belong
to the signification of thej^naZ cause. So also the formula itjf^v^v wa
Iva John xii. 23. the hour has (according to the divine counsel) come,
therefore is present, that I etc. See above p. 267. John v. 40. tW be-
longs to Bh&w itejbs (* On John xv. 16. see Tholuck and Liicke. Luke
xi. 50. can have the meaning: they kill and persecute the prophets, in
order that, i. e. the blind s.trive even in their blindness after this end,
they take pains to bring destruction upon themselves, comp. Mt. xxiii. 34.
and Fritzsche and Olshausen in loc. 2 Cor. vii. 9. you are brought into
grief for this reason, in order that a severer punishment might be avert-
ed from you. 2 Cor. xiii. 3. between ov% iVa probably ^'jiw, derived
from svxo(.iat,, is to be added my purpose is not, that etc. On Rom. v.
20. Augustine is correct, comp. De Wette. Rom. iii. 19. I see no occa-
sion for taking, with Schott, Tholuck, Rlickert and others, Va as ixpa,-
fixov. De Wette is correct on this passage. 2 Cor. i. 17. Iva retains
its proper signification in the interpretation which must be preferred to
every other: or do I resolve what I resolve, according to thejlesh, in or-
der that (with the intention, that) yea with me (unchangeably) be yea, and
the nay, nay (i. e. only to show that I am consistent). It cannot be
doubted that the formula iVa (Srfws) ya^gu^jj etc., which was for some
time translated by ita ut, has the stronger meaning, in order that might
be fulfilled, in the mouth (as of the Jewish teachers, so) of Jesus and of
the Apostles (having referenpe to an event which had already occurred},
comp. Olshausen on Mt. i. 22. They did not indeed mean by it that
God had permitted an event to occur, or had incited men to an unavoida-
ble course of action, with the design, in order that, the promises might
be fulfilled (Tittman Synon. II. 44.); but the meaning was: God has
predicted that this should be done; therefore, as the divine prophecies
are true, it could not but occur. That which intervenes, God foreknew
that men would so act, and on this foreknowledge, which however did
not make men machines, these prophecies were founded; but the Jews,
from whom this formula is derived, did not apprehend this with scientific
accuracy.* Mr. iv. 12. also must be reduced to that formula: every
thing is spoken to them in parables, in order that they may see and yet

* Bengel Mt. i. 22. says, " notari eventum non modo talem, qui formula cuipiam
veteri responded, sed plane talem, qui PROFTER VERITATEM DIVINAM NON POTDERIT NON
SUBSEQUI ineuntc N. TV'
45

358 PART THIRD. USE OF THE 1' ARTICLE.

not understand etc. for: in order that the saying might be fulfilled (Isa.
vi. 8.): they will see and yet not perceive etc. We also are accustomed
to interweave such quotations with our discourse, if they are supposed
to be known. The general impossibility of understanding such parables
Jesus cannot intend to affirm (for then it would have been strange for
him to speak in parables); but that, to him who did not understand this
so plain parable the words of the prophet were applicable: he sees and
does not understand, and that there would be such men, was predicted.

In the incorrect language of the Apocalypse xiii. 13. 'iva, stands once,
as it seems, for time, w?, after an adjective, which includes the idea of
intensity: magna miracula, i. e. tarn magna, ut etc. This would be at
least as tolerable as 6V& after an intensive, comp. Ducas g. p. 34. 28. p.
182. Theod. H. E. 2, 6. p. 847. ed. Hal. and Winer's Ertang. Pfingst-
progr. 1830. p. 11. Yet it is not necessary to adopt the same in John
v. 20. and 1 John i. 9. In. the latter passage the words read thus: he is
faithful and just, so as to forgive us (in the purpose of forgiving) comp.
the German: er ist scharfsinnig, urn einzuseken. Here belong also the
passages quoted by Tittmann (Synon. II. 39.) out o Mr. Anton. 11, 3.
Justin. M. p. 504. Bengel (on Apoc.} is correct when he says, " ft/a
frequens Joanni particula,- in omnibus suis libris non nisi semel, evang.
iii. 16. &sts posuit," but we must not understand that John makes no dis-
tinction between Ivo, and fats, 'ftufa occurs no more frequently in his
writings, partly because of their doctrinal character, partly from his ex-
pressing the consequence by a different construction.

In Rev. xiv. 13. W, is not to be taken for 6V e. as if it depended on ju-
ys&.; artodvqixovctf, is rather to be supplied from artoOvqaxovte$. Ewald
differs. In Mr. ix. 12. also, rfwj yly^anltfae. Irtl 4bv <i>i>bv i. dvOg., lv<jj
jtoxha, rtdOy xai e%ov8fvi>)fi, this particle is taken in the same way (see
Schott and Stolz). Bengel has already given the correct interpretation,
and no one can be led astray by the passage of Soph. Aj. 379. ov% 6gaj,
'iv tl XO.KOV, quoted by Palairet Obs. p. 127., where tVa is the adverb.
("Ortcoj is to be taken for 6Vt, wj in Xen. Cyrop. 3, 3. 20. 8, 7. 20. See
Poppo in loc.}.

"Ortwj in order that, is wrongly taken for itaut (even Bretschneider II.
p. 163. Tittmann Synon. II. p. 55. 59.). Luke ii. 35. needs not to be
judged of by the Hebrew teleology (science of Jinal causes"), in order to
see the propriety and force of the conjunction. Acts iii. 19. is clear, if
we understand drtootefay tbv Xg. as referring to the opening of the king-
dom of heaven, as ver. 21. requires, see Olshausen in loc. Mt. xxiii.
35. means: you have reached such a point of infatuation, that the full
wrath of God will finally fall upon your heads for all your murders of
the innocent. Mt. ii. 23. xiii. 35. needs no more elucidation, and in
Mt. v. 16. 45. Luke xv. 26. only philological levity can find a 6'rtco? ex-
j3ati%bv. Philem. ver. 6. is to be connected with ver. 4.: I remember you in
my prayer, in order that etc. The latest interpreter of this Epistle
should not have approved Heinrich's flat explanation.. 1 Pet. ii. 9. can
be misunderstood by no observant person, and has been rightly appre-
hended by Pott and Schott. In respect to the sentence in Heb. ii. 9.
there is so much that is clear in ver. 9. and 10. that it is surprising to

57. CONJUNCTIONS. 359

find interpreters still adhering to the interpretation itaut. As to 6'

0J7. see before.

as a comparative particle is in the N. T. only as, like, not so (for

), as Pott might have learned from Bengel in 1 Pet. iii. 6. Eretsch-
neider II. 643. considers this meaning at least possible in Heb. iii. 11.
iv. 3. (a quot. from the Septuag.) and recommends that w? be written.
But on the one hand <Sj in prose writers (except Ionic.) seldom occurs
(Heindorf and Stallbaum ad Plat. Protag. c. 15.), on the other w? (as
above) can be translated that (so that), in which sense it is sometimes
construed with the indie, even by good Gr. writers (Herod. 1, 163. 2,
135. comp. p. 254.) See Fritzsche on Mr. xiii. 34. and similar passages.

58. Adverbs.

1. The more indispensable adverbs are, for precisely defining words
expressing qualities or- properties, the more easily can we understand
why the N. T. authors, although far behind the Gr. prose writers in the
use of conjunctions, in some good degree appropriated to themselves the
wealth of the Gr. language in adverbs entensive. But in the intensive
(i. e. in respect to the nicer shades of meaning, which are effected by
means of many simple adverbs or adverbial phrases) they betrayed the
foreigner, to whom these nicer shades are not familiar. The derivative
(adjective) adverbs are more numerous in the N. T., as the later Greek
had adopted adverbial forms from not a few adjectives, not before known,
and received into ordinary prose others which had been before only used
in poetry: comp. dxai^ s (Sir. 32. 5.), wa&w (2 Mace. xiv. 42.), wo^co?
(2 Mace. viii. 16.), drtotfojtioj (since Polyb.), sx-tsviZs (comp. also Lob. ad
Phryn. p. 311.), 1*0^05 (for which the Attic at least said If stotpov), lv-
tfvjKw? (since Polyb.), eazdtcis (comp. Lob. as above, p. 389.), sva^a-fus
(Arrian. Epict. 1, 12. 21.), XfV ^ Arrian. Epict. 2, 17. 6. (i^x^vov) bib-
lical lOvixus. The designation of the adverbial idea by the neut. adjective,
which is more frequent in the later Gr. writers, does not, in the N. T.,
surpass the limits established by the ancient prose, comp. jtgutov,
ov, jt^of^ov and to rtgotsgov, rthtjaiov, tovvavtlov, Tta%v, rtvxvd, i'tfo,
(tf^a), for which generally no adverbial form existed. In the use of the
oblique cases of adjectives with or without prepositions (elliptically or other-
wise) for adverbs, the N. T. diction presents nothing special: comp. x^,
rtdvty, xatupwas, xaS isiw, l^q., xaOo^ov, sis xsvov and the signification of the
words under the article. For xa ta ixovw Philem. ver. 1 4.

360 PART THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLE.

is more common in Greek (but comp. Septuag. Num. xv. 3.). On the
other hand, in conformity with the national complexion of the Hebrew
Arama. language, abstract nouns with prepos. for the genuine existing
adverbial forms are more frequent in the N. T. than among the Greeks:
e. g. s v dMjQskq, Mt. xxii. 16. ^' djw^flsios-Luke xxii. 59. (for d^eij), BV
Swaioavvvj Acts xvii. 31. for Svxaius see above 55. The circumlocution
of the adverb daily (xuQ* tj^av or to xo.Q'' ^Ugcw, usual also in the N.
T.) by fjs'gqi xal 4/wg? 2 Cor. iv. 16. would be altogether singular for the
N. T. comp. DV DV see Vorst Hebr. p. 307. Ewald Krit Gr. p. 638.
But Paul probably wrote thus designedly: day after day, to express the
Constant process of the avaxawovaGat,, whilst xaQ* fipEgav miaxatvovifo,!,
might be taken in another sense also. Mr. vi. 39.

<sv pit 6 a to, a v p it 6 <j t a catervutin}, ver. 40. avs
t,ai areolatim, (only in a local sense) are analagous, Exod. viii. 15.
see 38. 3. That Georgi Vindic. p. 340. has collected, is heterogeneous.

Where the simple accus. of a noun is used adverbially, it proceeds
from a conciseness of style (Herm. ad Viger. p. 880.). Here belongs
tyv d^xn v throughout (Vig. p. 723.), which is to be apprehended similarly
to John viii. 25. (see the careful discussion of Liicke in Zoc.) and axpqv
in the later Gr. for sii Mt. xv. 16. see Lob. ad Phryn. p. 123. Lukeix.
14. also xataxhivats avtovs xfaatas ava rtsv-trixovta may be translated ad-
verbially catervatim, comp. the passages quoted above Mr. vi. 39. 40.

2. The adverbial meaning is taken correctly as that of the adject., and
connected with a noun as an epithet (Matth. II. 1000. Kiihner II. 382.),
not only where a predicate (logical) really belongs to a noun (not to a
verb) although in Ger. and Eng. the adverb is used,* but when the rela-
tion to the noun is more conducive to perspicuity: Acts xiv. 10.
srti tfoiij rtoa$ dov d g 6 j, Mr. iv. 28. avtopd-tiri yag fy yyj x
(where but one MS. allows av-topd-ttoi), Acts xii. 10. ^Vtj (rtito^) o.v-t o-
jit a -f TJ tfvoixfy wrtois (where there is no var.) comp. fliad. 5, 749. John
viii. 7. o dva^agi'^T'oj Vjwwv it g w i o j -tbv hiOov rt' ov'ty j3a^.T i w (when the
Codd. as often in Gr. authors, vary) let him as the first throw the stone
(rtgutov might also mean let him first throw, and lead us to expect an
afterwards}^, Luke xxi. 34. p^jto-fE aiq>vk8io$ $' i^

* In John iv. 18. TOUTO aX0= tfymttt thou hast spoken this as (sometliing) true, where-
as T. aXoflftj; elf. ( as Kttnbl supposes) would be equivocal. Comp. John viii. 7.

t Comp. Brcnii Exc. 2. ad Lys. p. 449. Mehlhorn de adject, pro adverbio positor. rat.
et usu. Zumpt Lat. Gr. 682. 686. Kritz ad Sail. I. 125. II. p. 131. 216. Eichhorn
(Einl. ins N. T. II. p. 161.) incorrectly applies the above canon to John xiii. 34,
Kawiv 8/Ji/t*, which he thinks may mean: anew (xtv5j) / give you the com.

58. ADVERBS. 361

(var. o,l$vi&i<*s}, Rom. x. 19. rfwi-os (others ri^-tov), McoiicrJs As'yst,
1 Tim. ii. 13. John. xx. 4. Acts xxviii. 8 tv* e^a.1 o t fo$o/*v tit Ho-
*to*ovf, comp. yet 1 Cor. ix. 17. In these adjectives this use among the
Greeks is frequent, yea almost established (comp. as to avtofiatos Herodot.
2, 66. 8. 138. Diod. Sic. 1, 8. Lucian. Necyom. 1. Arrian. Alex. 7, 4. 8.
Xen. Anab. 5, 7. 3. 4, 3. 8. Cyrop. 1, 4. 13. Wetst. I. 569., as to **<*
Xen. Anab. 2, 3. 19. Cyrop. 1, 4. 2. Pausan. 6, 4. 2. as to SED-T^. Xen.
Cyrop. 5, 2. 2. Herod. 6, 106. Arrian. Alex. 2,6. 3. 5, 22. 4. Wetst. II.
654. nifyviSios Thuc. 8, 28.), yet not seldom otherwise, comp. Xen. Cyrop.
5, 3. 55. o/ui'of Tfagfftaui'ui' I'ov I'rtrtov -- yf v x 5 xtWt^saT'o etc. 6, 1. 45.
sv olS, oti a a ft E v o $ av 3to$ aivSga drtaM,ay?7C(f tfat (2 Mace. X. 33.
Pfiugk ad Eurip. Hel. p. 48.), 7,5.49. elta/vta rt^o^u/toj aoi <ji)M.aj3o6ju.6,
Cyrop. 4,2. 11. J jioiJ o to t, sitV^s, Dio Chrysost. 40. p. 495. ttvxvoi
ftaSiZovtss, fsocr. ep. 8. ^s^sui-wv v7ti<sx6{Mj v i com P' Palair. p. 214.
Valckenaer ad Herod. 8, 130. Ellendt ad Arrian. Alex. I. 156.

To what extent it can be said that adjectives are used for adverbs is
manifest from the preceding. But it is incorrect to suppose that adverbs
are used for adjectives (see Ast ad Plat. Polit. p. 371. Reitz ad Lucian.
Tom. VII. p. 537.), Mt. i. 18. ^ ysvssis oiVwj %v, xix. 10. si oiVaj la-ttv
fy &ntia -tov av$gd>rtov, Rom. iv. 18. oaiVwj t'flt'at ^o tfrtfg/ia tfov, 1 Pet. ii. 15.
1 Thess. ii. 13. etc.; Rom. ix. 20. -el pe srioi^aas ovVu$. In all these places
ttvat, is not the mere copula (as in ow*^, Ttoiov-to se-ti), but it expresses the
idea, to be situated, to exist, comparatum esse. Comp. Liicke on John vi.
55. var. Bremi ad JEschin. Ctesipk. p. 278. Goller ad Thuc. I. 455.
Bernhardy p. 337. Herm. ad Soph. Antig. 633. Wex ad Antig. I. 206.
Mehlhorn in d.-Allg. Lit. Zdt. 1833. Ergzbl. No. 108. On the Latin
Kritz ad Sallust. Cat. p. 306. 1 Cor. iv. 17. is not conformed (Wahl I.
772.) to the usage of <ij, xou>j mentioned by Lob. ad Phryn. p. '426.
Schiifer ad Soph. (Ed. C. 1124., where sco&wj -- SiSdaxa may be con-
sidered as an explanatory clause to tfaj oSoi,$ pov, nor John vi. 58. where
the brachyology might be thus employed: not in the manner (of the
heavenly food) as (that, which) your fathers enjoyed, the manna was re-
garded as a food coming from heaven.

3. The adverbial idea of intensity is frequently expressed by the ad-
dition to the verb of a participle of the same verb (see 46. 7.) as a
kindred noun in the dative (ablative) : Luke xxii. 15. Irt&vrfq, IrteSvwe*
I ardently longed for, John iii. 29. xa & X ai^i impense Ixtatur, Acts iv.
17. ArtEaiJ drtsa^cfw^^a we will strenuously forbid, Acts v. 28. O v rfc^ay.

Acts xxiii. 14. dvaso*t & V e$fataa ev we

mandmcnt. But to authorize this John must have written vat, riv ivrox* xa^v
J/J. No one at all skilled would substitute the adv. for the adj. where the latter con-
etruction gives an essentially different sense.

362 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

have solemnly promised., comp. Jas. v. 17. also Mt. xv. 4.
tdty .(from Exod. xxi. 15.). This mode of expression occurs frequently
in the Septuag. and there corresponds with the Heb. infinit. absolut.,
comp. Isa. vi. 9. (Mt. xiii. 14.) Ixvi. 10. Jer. xlvi. 5. Lament, i. 8. 1
Sam. xii. 25. xiv. 39. (comp. Vorst Heb. p. 624.), but is also frequently
found in Greek writers, see Schwarz Conm. p. 49. Schafer ad Soph. II.
p. 313. Ast ad Plut. Epinom. p. 586. Comp. e. g. Plat. Symp. p. 195.
B. tyEvyav tyvyfi to y^gajj Phsedr. p. 265. D. /*,oi tyaivsitav it 9 fisv abba,
itmSiq, jtsftala^at, Soph. (Ed. R. 65. vtivtp wSovta seeErfurdtzn 7oe.,
JE\. v . H. 8, 15.

Passages in which the dat. of the noun is connected with an adject.
(or other qualifying phrase) are not to be confounded with these, as iWj

jitEytUi'ats tftjuatg ftftpftfcw, ^JUIOVT'W <tv^ vo/AitZopsviy ^rjf^ia (Schwarz OS

above}. These phrases are to be explained in conformity with 32. 2.
comp. Xen. Anab. 4, 5. 33. TEschyl. Prom. 392. Horn. hymn, in Merc.
572. Demosth. in Besot, p. 639. A. ra/t^ yeya/t^xws is very dif-
ferent from this usage; it is as if wedded by marriage, i. e. living in law-
ful wedlock, as yapsteBat, alone also expresses concubinage. I would
even except Xen. Jindb. 4, 6. 25. ol iti-Maa'tai Sgopu ? B e ov, as S^o^oj
is a particular kind of running: the running which is called trotting.
On Soph. (Ed. Col. 1625. (1621.) see Hermann in loc.

4. The Greeks are accustomed to apprehend certain adverbial ideas
as verbal, and then the word which should be most directly qualified by
them is made to depend on it in the form of an infinit. or participle (Matth.
II. 1279.) Heb. xiii. 2. a, a e 6 v *w$ fm<jcu>* j they (remaining unknown ,.
to themselves as hosts) were unconsciously hosts (see Wetst. in loc.
comp. Joseph, bell. jud. 3, 7. 3.), Acts xii. 16. litipsv* xgovuv he re-
mained unrevealed (John viii. 7. comp. Losner Observ. p. 203.), Mr.
xiv. 8. jtgoEhafis jUDgi'tfou.' antevertit ungere, he anointed them before-
hand (for $aj/ with infinit. see Wyttenbach ad Juliani orat. p. 181.
comp. rapere occupat Horat Od. 2, 12. 28.), Mt. vi. 5. ^hovat, Ttgogsv-
c they pray cheerfully (love to pray), comp. Julian. V. H. 14, 37.
to, ayatyiatfa. 6gav (see Wetst. and Fritzsche in loc.} comp. Luke
xxiii. 12. It has lately been questioned whether 0&w also in a finite
mood were used to express the adverbs, cheerfully, willingly, freely
(sponte): that the particip. 6&av occurs in this way is well known, comp.
JEschyl. Chceph. 791. Lys. orat. 18, 2.). John viii. 44. -mj sTafliywaj
tbv rta-tgbs v^v Os^st s rtouiv is properly translated: according to the
lusts of your father ye will, ye are determined, ye have to do the pur-
pose etc., either in general (your propensities instigated you to it, to fol-
low the lusts of Satan), or because you therefore went about to kill me

58. ADVERBS. 363

(ver. 40.). The interpretation of John vi. 21. given by Kiinb'l and others
is only necessary when it is attempted to reconcile the account of -this
Evangelist with that of Matthew and Mark, for which there is no occa-
sion. So much must be acknowledged, that fa&ov rtoiqaai, they were in-
clined to do, can in a certain context (where it is manifest that there was
riot mere volition, without subsequent action) also signify: they did toil-
lingly, they loved to do, e. g. Isocr. c. Callim. p. 914. o 8vaTfvx^aaayjs
tys jto^swj rtgoxwSweveov vpuv q^sKqaav who were inclined to thrust
themselves into danger for you (and who have shown this willingness
by the act), who wittingly threw themselves into danger for you (Xen.
Cyrop. 1, 1. 3.). The formula fe&ovai noislv, where the pure volition
is denoted, signifies according to the nature of the thing: they do it cheer-
fully (Demosth. OL I. p. 151. Bremi: otav-^lv vrt dWaj f
avU'fvj xai ftaol tfaitfa av/Afysgsti -- xal av^riQVBiv xal fysgiw *
xal pivuv f$s'%ov0 iv o aigarfot) or they do it voluntarily (Xen. Hier,
7, 9. 6Vaj/ uvofguirtot, civSga qytjau/tsvob Lxavbv a'tztya.vuGi -- xai Sca-
gsiaSat I e A, w a t), comp. Stallbaum ad Plat. Symp. p. 56. and ad Gors;.
p. 36. Ast ad Plat. legg. p. 28. According to this, Luke xx. 46. >(Z>v
&%ovtu>v ttegt.rta'tsiv Iv attiKals (Mr. xii. 38.) who are inclined to go
about, i. e. who go about voluntarily, would not be against the Gr. lan-
guage (although the Greeks would rather prefer to say: ?w $>tfioiWttv

but this construction is perhaps to be reduced to the Hebraistic

-ft delectari re.

5. The apprehension of the adverbial idea as a verbal idea is still more
extended in the Heb., as it places it not only in a grammatical construc-
tion with the verbal idea (which shows that both are essentially connect-
ed), nW? '-pi i. e. he sent again, which is imitated Luke xx. 11. ^oj-
&s*o rf >4cu (on the contrary Mr. xii. 4. * tt o moju, ^H"0> Acts xii.
3. ; rfoj>T'o avi&apeiv xal lis-g^ov he took Peter also prisoner (so also fre-
quently in the Septuag. with the infinit. pass. Judg. xiii. 21.; on Mr. xiv.
25. var. see Fritzsche), but also connects the two verbs as finite by and:
he does much and iveeps (Ewald 631.).* The latter is preserved in par-
ticular forms through all periods of the language, whilst in other cases
this method of expression (like l v aj s> in verbs) evidently passes into
the other, so that it predominates. In the N. T. were supposed to be
found more simple instances of the former, as Rom. x. 20.

The LXX. have translated verbatim but few of these Hebrew constructions,
e. g. Judg xm. 10. 1 Sam. xvii. 48. xxv. 42. P s . cvi. 13. Dan. x. 18. comp. Gen. xxvi.
18. xxx. 31. Job xix. 3. Hos. i. 6. Ps . xxxU j. 3. The Hebrew form p< , is rendered
once by the particip. m the Septuag. Gen. xxxviii. 5.

364 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

he speaks out boldly, Luke vi. 48, saxa-^s xai, ipd$vve he digged deep,
Col. ii. 5. #iw'gwv xai jfolrtai' gladly seeing, to see with joy etc. Comp.
Bengel. But (a) in many passages here adduced this method of inter-
pretation is altogether inadmissible, as 2 Cor. ix. 9. eexogrtiaw, ISoxs tots
jitwjaw, which is to be translated: he scattered, he gave to the poor (Ps.
cxii. 9. (j3) In other passages it is unnecessary, as in Luke vi. 48. he
digged and deepened, i. e. and made still deeper. John viii. 59. ixgvpij
xai ftip&Bv fx tov legov he hid himself and went away, i. e. either went
out of their sight, became invisible (so that a miraculous atyavrtpbs of
Christ was referred to), or he hid himself and went (soon after) away.
The narrator could very well apprehend in conjunction to and connect by
xai two facts which happen not precisely at the same time, but which
occur in quick succession. The former is perhaps to be preferred with
Bengel, as more correspondent with the character of this Evangelist.
Acts xv. 16. uvaat^to stands neither in the Septuagint nor in the Heb.
(Amos ix. 11.) and perhaps in the sense of the Apostle who quotes: 1
will (myself) turn again (to him) (as also 3-lty, in many O. T. passages,
must be apprehended, e. g. Jer. xii. 15. DTlDJVU D-l^tf I will turn back
myself [to them; in antithesis to the turning away of Jehovah] and have
mercy on them; Septuag. dvaa-tge^u xai l^aa avtovs), as the iterum is
already implied in the compound avotxoSof^ao, dvogw<rw. Also Mt. xviii.
3. iav fiy (JtfgcKjJflJtfs xai yevij0$e etc. and Acts vii. 42. sa-tgeityev o ^EOJ xai
TtagsSuxe this verb appears independent, to turn one's self, but this means
in these passages according to the sense to turn away. Rom. as above
corresponds more with the Latin audet dicere, in which phrase the idea
of the former verb is not thought of as a secondary idea. De Wette
translates well: he is so bold and says (to say). (y) In Col. as above
xai jSto'rtov is probably an epexegesis of #<tt'gui> subjoined by the Apostle,
and xai can be translated by namely. With another construction Paul
might write: rejoicing in your order etc. which I (in spirit) see.* As
the rejoicing is an idea dependent on faejtuv, it would be unnatural to
place it before the principal idea, where it is expressed as independent
by the finite verb;f nor can this method of expression be justified by the
Hebrew, on careful consideration.^: Hence I cannot see that Jas. iv. 2.

* In the passage of Joseph, bell. Ind. 3, 10. 2. quoted by Wetstein, the Codd. have
yttt^ta xai fasiriuv or 0\sviav alone.

t The adverb, which by its form is determined to belong to the verb, may precede
it: otherwise, where the adverbial idea is Dramatically independent, this can only be
expressed by placing it after the principal verb.

t Heb. verbs, which, preceding another finite verb, are taken adverbially, express
either an independently conceived idea, as Job xix. 3., or a general one, rendered
more definite by a special verbal sense.

58. ADVERBS. 365

xai gijtovte can signify: you are zealous (deadly) even to death.
The passage would be at once clear by reading $$oveiite. But as it is,
we must translate with Stolz: you kill and you desire. Such an expres-
sion might indeed not seem too harsh to men whom James could reproach
as in iv. 4. v. 4. 6. Rev. iii. 19. is of another kind, and each of the two
verbal ideas is to be -apprehended by itself.

To-translate Luke i. 68. EfCsaxs^aTfo xai irto^at xi5i > grfM etc. with Wahl
I. 606.: kindly he redeemed, would totally destroy the O. T. complexion
of the passage. The IDS is an independent act which precedes the spe-
cial signs of grace.

6. As prepositions without a case are sometimes used adverbially (see
54. note 2. p. 334), so adverbs (especially of place and time), and still
more commonly, are used in connection with cases, like apt, which in
the later Greek almost became a preposition (apa ati'ots Mt. xiii. 29. like
<svv a-utfotj, cornp. Lucian. t/3sm. 41, 45. Polyb. 4, 48.) see Matern de adv.
gr.^quibus dat. jungi potest. Lissa, 1833. 4to., ewj of time and place (see
Wahl I. 678., for which the Greeks say d^i or pezgh r in a local sense i'wj
ttj, Irtt, yet comp. Diod. Sic. 1, 27. ws uxsavov), also with names of persons
(for to Luke iv. 42. Acts ix. 38. comp. Lament, iii. 39.), ^co^'j (John xv. 5.
separated from me, ^ ptvovess " spot ver - 4., comp. Xen. Cyrop. 6, 1.7.
Polyb. 3, 103., then very often without and except, see Wahl I. 662.), a^-
aiov with the genit. John iv. 5., as in the Septuag. comp. Xen. Cyrop. 7, 4.
23. jEschin. dial. 3, 3. (among the Greeks also with the dative, on the other
hand jta^ari^aiov in Phil. ii. 27. with the dative (Codd. vacillate here
very little), e'yyij with the genit. John iii. 33. vi. 19. xi. 18. and dat.
Acts ix. 38. xxvii. 8., J>^o^,, with genit., drtiau (this only Hellenistic),
ortta&v with the genit. Several of them are so frequently connected
with a case, that they may be used directly as prepositions, as the adver-
bial signification of W j, ^agtj, aizgo, (.d x ^i is very remarkably diminished,
and entirely disappears in oivsv (in the N. T.).

Here may also belong Phil. ii. 15. ^W y v^j crxojua?, which perhaps
according to good Codd. and as the more rare is to be preferred.

In general the connection of adverbs with the genit. in the N. T. lan-
guage appears very simple, when compared with the constructions in the
Greek of all ages, see Bernhardy p. 157.

Connections with i ? 3& t , '^ ^^^ &, ff 6'rtou etc. (Wahl I. 680.) are
it is true very frequent in later prose writers (from the Septuag. comp.
EWJ *o* JNeh. 11. 16., s ^Voj, i' M5 o-D Gen. xxvi. 13.), yet were several
established in earlier writers.

7. The adverbs of place (especially by means of a contraction Herm.
ad Vig. p. 788. ad Soph. Antig. 517. Wex ad Antig. I. 107. Krtiger
46

364 PART THIRD. USJB OF THE PARTICLE.

he speaks out boldly, Luke vi. 48. soxaty xai ipcfevve he digged deep,
Col. ii. 5. %aiguv xai jSxartwv gladly seeing, to see with joy etc. Comp.
Bengel. But (a) in many passages here adduced this method of inter-
pretation is altogether inadmissible, as 2 Cor. ix. 9. laxogjtiasv, ISuxe tois
Tttvqaw, which is to be translated: he scattered, he gave to the poor (Ps.
cxii. 9. (j3) In other passages it is unnecessary, as in Luke vi. 48. he
digged and deepened, i. e. and made still deeper. John viii. 59. sxgvpt]
xai ^vjT^sv EX T!OV tsgov he hid himself and went away, i. e. either went
out of their sight, became invisible (so that a miraculous d^cwKtyios of
Christ was referred to), or he hid himself and went (soon after) away.
The narrator could very well apprehend in conjunction to and connect by
xai two facts which happen not precisely at the same time, but which
occur in quick succession. The former is perhaps to be preferred with
Bengel, as more correspondent with the character of this Evangelist.
Acts xv. 16. avaatgs^u stands neither in the Septuagint nor in the Heb.
(Amos ix. 11.) and perhaps in the sense of the Apostle who quotes: 1
will (myself) turn again (to him) (as also Ulty, in many O. T. passages,
must be apprehended, e. g. Jer. xii. 15. DTlDmt D-lt^x Iioill turn back
myself [to them; in antithesis to the turning away of Jehovah] and have
mercy on them; Septuag. dvaat^u xai Jfojjcfo avnov$), as the iterum is
already implied in the compound owoixoSo^ao, dj/o^^waw. Also Mt. xviii.
3. lav furl tftf g a $ J * xai, ytMfcf^E etc. and Acts vii. 42. Ea-fgs-tyev 6 soj xat
ftagtSaxe this verb appears independent, to turn one's self, but this means
in these passages according to the sense to turn away. Rom. as above
corresponds more with the Latin audet dicere, in which phrase the idea
of the former verb is not thought of as a secondary idea. De Wette
translates well: he is so bold and says (to say). (y) In Col. as above
xai pkirtw is probably an epexegesis of XM&V subjoined by the Apostle,
and xai can be translated by namely. With another construction Paul
might write: rejoicing in your order etc. which I (in spirit) see.* As
the rejoicing is an idea dependent on fasytav, it would be unnatural to
place it before the principal idea, where it is expressed as independent
by the finite verb;f nor can this method of expression be justified by the
Hebrew, on careful consideration.^: Hence I cannot see that Jas. iv. 2.

* In the passage of Joseph, bell. Ind. 3, 10. 2. quoted by Wetstein, the Codd. have
Xctlgw xai fatittav or &Kttttuv alone.

t The adverb, which by its form is determined to belong- to the verb, may precede
it: otherwise, where the adverbial idea is gramatically independent, this can only be
expressed by placing it after the principal verb.

t Heb. verbs, which, preceding another finite verb, are taken adverbially, express
either an independently conceived idea, as Job xix. 3,, or a general one, rendered
more definite by a special verbal sense.

58. ADVERBS. 365

xai fyhovte can signify: you are zealous (deadly) even to death.
The passage would be at once clear by reading f^oj/s^e. But as it is,
we must translate with Stolz: you kill and you desire. Such an expres-
sion might indeed not seem too harsh to men whom James could reproach
as in iv. 4. v. 4. 6. Rev. iii. 19. is of another kind, and each of the two
verbal ideas is to be -apprehended by itself.

To-translate Luke i. 68. ertEttxtyato xal t-rtoir/ai- ?*.vt<*aw etc. with Wahl
I. 606.: kindly he redeemed, would totally destroy the O. T. complexion
of the passage. The Ip3 is an independent act which precedes the spe-
cial signs of grace.

6. As prepositions without a case are sometimes used adverbially (see
54. note 2. p. 334), so adverbs (especially of place and time), and still
more commonly, are used in connection with cases, like a^a, which in
the later Greek almost became a preposition (a^a allots Mt. xiii. 29. like
avv avtoi;, cornp. Lucian. jSsin. 41, 45. Polyb. 4, 48.) see Matern de adv.
gr.,quibus dat.jungi potest. Lissa, 1838. 4to., co 5 of time and place (see
Wahl I. 678., for which the Greeks say a%%<, or pix^ or in a local sense |f
ij, a'rtt, yet comp. Diod. Sic. 1, 27. 105 Axsuvov), also with names of persons
(for to Luke iv. 42. Acts ix. 38. comp. Lament, iii. 39.), #(,'? (John xv. 5.
separated from me, y.^ plvovtss Iv spoi vcr. 4., comp. Xen. Cyrop. 6, 1. 7.
Polyb. 3, 103., then very often without and except, see Wahl I. 662.), rt ^-
tstov with thegenit. John iv. 5., as in the Septuag. comp. Xen. Cyrop. 7, 4.
23. jEschin. dial. 3, 3. (among the Greeks also with the dative, on the other
hand rtagartMjalov in Phil. ii. 27. with the dative (Codd. vacillate here
very little), l yy j,j with the genit. John iii. 33. vi. 19. xi. 18. and dat.
Acts ix. 38. xxvii. 8., I^oer&j; with genit., 6*^10 (this only Hellenistic),
orfce&ev with the genit. Several of them are so frequently connected
with a case, that they may be used directly as prepositions, as the adver-
bial signification of wf , %agis, a%gt,, /.is%gi is very remarkably diminished,
and entirely disappears in avtv (in the N. T.).

Here may also belong Phil. ii. 15. ^ aov y vf ag tfxojuaj, which perhaps
according to good Codd. and as the more rare is to be preferred.

In general the connection of adverbs with the genit. in the N. T. lan-
guage appears very simple, when compared with the constructions in the
Greek of all ages, see Bernhardy p. 157.

Connections with i'coj fa t , fa s ^8, j- ttj Sftm) etc . (Wahl I. 680.) are
it is true, very frequent in later prose writers (from the Septuag. comp.
Wf rite IN eh. 11. 16., MS ^Voj, WJ o{; Gen. xxvi. 13.), vet were several

"

. .)
established in earlier writers.

7. The adverbs of place (especially by means of a contraction Herm.
ad Vig. p. 788. ad Soph. Antig. 517. Wex ad Anlig. I. 107. Kriiger

46

366 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

grammat. Unterstich. III. 306.), even in other than relative clauses
(23, 2.), are interchanged with one another in good prose writers, viz.
those of rest are connected with verbs of motion, where at the same time
an abiding in the place is to be expressed, Herm. as above, Bernhardy
350. (see above on lv 54, 4.) comp. Mt. ii. 22. xvii. 20. Xxviii. 16.
Heb. vi. 20. The later writers use ixst then directly for exstas, itov and
bitov for jtol and ortot, ov for whither. So also the Septuag. and even the

N. T., e. g. John xviii. 3. 6 'lovSaj egajstfat Ixsl pita q><wZ>v xai ^Ojttrta-

Sov (Arrian. Epict. 3, 26.) Rom. xv. 24. vtf vpwv ri^oTts^^vai, Ixsl (to
Spain) John vii. 35. iii. 8. (jto&v sg%si;o.t, xai xov vrtdyst) viii. 14. Luke
xxiv. 28. Jas. iii. 4. Rev. xiv. 4. This is an abuse, which can be easily
explained in the language of conversation (in = and h^aSs, tvtavSoi the
significations hie and hue are yet earlier implied) and ought not to be
denied in the language of the N. T.* As to other adverbs of place !'d
stands not only for within (ZvSov never occurs in the N. T.) John xx. 26.
Acts v. 23., but also ixeias for Ixst Acts xxii. 5. a|v xai; *ovs IxstgE
ovtas (see Wetst. in loc., comp. especially ot Ixtlat oixtovtes Hippocr. vict.
san. 2, 2. p. 35. and the index to Agathias, Menander and Malala ed.
Bonn.). On the other hand, Acts xiv. 26. o&v ^<*av rtagaSESo^sW -ty
%dgn?t, an attraction (or pregnans constr.) cannot be mistaken, see 63.
(Hemsterhuis's emendation fcouv is altogether inadmissible). On the
similar usage of the language of the later prose writers -with that of the
N. T., see Lobeck's collections ad Phryn. p. 43. 128. Thilo ad Act.
Thorn, p. 9. Besides, comp. Wurm ad Dinar ch. p. 35. Buttmann ad
Philoct. p. 107. Stallbaum ad Eutyphr. p. 95.f Kuhner II. 239. Har-
tung on casus p. 85. also Kypke and Eisner on Mt. ii. 22.

59. Of the Negative Particles.

1. The Greek language, as is well known, has two classes of negatives
ov, OIJT'S, ovxs-to etc., and ^ p?tf 5 pfxltft. The distinction between the
two has been very fully exhibited by Hermann ad Viger. p. 802. comp.
Matth. II. 1437. Ov stands when the intention is to represent something
exactly and directly (as a reality), ^ where it is represented only as

* In Mt. xxvi. 36. Luke xii. 17. 18. !xe~ and ov certainly mean: there, where.
t Such forms as nti, wo?, and EKET, EXEIC-E could be easily interchanged by transcri-
bers, as is often the case in Gr. MSS. sec Schafer ad Eurip. lice. 1062.

59. OP THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 367

conceived of (according to the idea in the mind) ; the former is the ob-
" ' jective, the latter the subjective negation*. This distinction is strictly
observed in the N. T.f, as will be clear (a) from an examination of a few
passages where both negations occur. John iii. 18. 6 jtiaTtsvuv els wvtbv ov
xgivetat,, 6 8e nrj ttweevwv yjSi>i xtx^ntat, 6V& pr} jtsrticrtsvxsv etc. (Herm. (IS
above 805.); x%wea$at, is rendered really negative by oi> i. e. it is said
that a judgment does not take place in reality; but rttatsvuv is rendered
negative by p? only in idea, for 6 ^ itust- signifies: whoever believes nof,
if some one does not believe (6 o-u ritatsvuv, would indicate a certain per-
son, who did not believe); hence also 6Vt JIM} TtErtitftf., because only a case
is supposed quia non crediderit. 1 John v. 10. 6 ^ TttcrfEiW ^9 ^9
tysvaitqv Ttsiiolir)XV avtbv, oft, o v rtsrtla'tsvxev stj <tv\v fia^v^iav etc. is not
contradictory. The apostle in the last words goes rapidly over from the
mere case as merely conceived (o ^ Ttt-rfi 1 .) to the fact (there were in
reality such) Mr. xii. 14. sf jtftft xijvaov 8ovvut> } o v ; SW/AEV, % p.^ SW^EV;
where in the first case the tribute is spoken of as something existing,
which was to be given or refused (ov Sovvat- to refuse, Herm. ad Vig. p.
887.), and in the second only a conception is expressed: shall we give
etc. (according to your judgment). Comp. Herm. ad Vig. p. 804. on
flristoph. Thesmoph. 19. and Stallbaum ad Plat. rep. II. p. 270. 2 Cor.
X. 14. o<u yag, wj py EfyMvovptvoc, si$ vjttaj, vrtsgex-ttuvopsv iairfou; we do not
act superciliously (objectively negative), as if we had not reached unto
you, a mere idea; in reality it is different, comp. 1 Cor. ix. 26. Rom.
xi. 21. atyag o ^EOJ tfcov xatta fyvtiw xhdSuv ovx E^strfttT'ca, ju. ^ rt to j ov8s aov
tyMastat, so (is it to be feared] that he would also not spare thee. The
apostle has here properly in mind the (categoric) judgment: so he will
also not spare you, and the construction with ^rfwj is only a milder ex-
pression, implying that perhaps the ovSe aov QelSstac might not be realized
(Rev. ix. 4.) comp. Plat Phsed. 76. B. ^ojSofyiao, ^ a$i,ov

* Comp. Anton Progr. de discrim. part, ol et fjA. Bremi Qbs. ad Dem. Olynth. p. 94.
L. Richter de usu et discr. particular, ol el fj&. F. Franke de partic. negantib. lingua
Gr. 1832-33. 2 comment. 4. Herm. ad Soph. (Ed. R. 568. ad Ajac. 76. Elmsley ad
Eurip. Med. p. 155. Schaf. Mclet. p. 91. ad Dem. I. p. 225. 465. 587. 591. II. p. 266. 327.
481. 492. 568. III. 288. 299. IV. p. 258. V. 730. Stallb. ad Plat. Phatd. p. 34. 144.
see Franke I. p. 7. on non and haud in Lat. Ne generally corresponds with fjtn (comp.
ut ne, I'va. lUJj, whilst ut non is equivalent to ^rs ov, nisi el pn etc.). The correspond-
ence between ^ and ^ (Ewald 530.) is not so complete; it is not exactly applicable
to the more intimate relations.

t This observance of the distinction between these negatives by the N. T. writers
arose from their sense of propriety acquired by intercourse with those who spoke
Greek. Plutarch, and Lucian. have interchanged these negatives. Comp. Ellendt
prof, ad Arr. I. p. 24. on ?TI [w for SVi ov.

368 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

* ' "jj dv^gwrfcoi/ ovSe is d|uos oioj tfs. *ov#o rtovqgai, p. 84. B.
jiwj $oj3^J7 ortuij ^' o v 8e v si't oiSa^oii 77, SC Matth. II. 1439.
1 John V. 16. ECU' T'IJ iSy tbv aBshfybv avtov dp.a^ifdvov'ifa a^a^Tliav py
etc. --- rtdda aoixia apagtila sctti xai edifhv djiia^T'Ja o i>
(in the former place ^ in consequence of the subjective obser-
vation dependent on fy, in the latter ov because an objectively binding
principle is expressed, a real doctrinal idea established). John vi. 64.
If V/AWV tfwsjj ot ov rtiiGtevovGw' ^Stt yag 6 I^aovf, fives fiaiv oi py

in the former, something real, in the latter, a conception (of
those) who perhaps would not believe, qui. essent, qui non exederent.
Comp. yet Rom. v. 13. John xv. 24. Acts x. 14. 1 John v. 12. Heb.
iv. 2. 15* But what these passages prove, results also (6) from those
in which pjj occurs alone: Mt. xxii. 25. ^ l%w aiii^u a$vjxs -t^v yvvuixa,
avtov T'W dSs^w av^oi, where the /wj t^wi/ is spoken of in reference to the
law, which prescribed it, (lav ti$ djto^dv^ ^ l'^v etc. ver. 24.): as one
who had not he left behind etc. (legally in the people's view), Mr. xii.
20. occurs as part of a narrative otix a$qxe artEg/*a', Col. i. 23. yj ertt-
fiEvsts ty jils-tEi --- xai pi] fjiftaxivovpsvoi &7tb tys IjiTt., when the not
being shaken (in a sentence beginning with 'ys) is represented as a con-
dition, consequently as only conceived in the mind. 2 Thess. i. 8. 8t-
Sov-tog txSiixqdw -zfocs JK.IJ Et8offt. QEOV xai ^otj ft vj vrtaxovovat tcj> svayy. IS
here expressed in general terms: such as know not God, whoever they
may be, and there are always such (therefore a conception) comp. ii. 12.
Rom. xiv. 21. xahbv -to py ^ayslv xgea (it is good, if one eat not; ?6 ov
. would be : the not eating, the abstaining from flesh, where the ov
. expresses something objective, a real existing custom. Rom. xv. 1.
6$&oju,V 8s fyfifif --- xai fiy ea/vtot$ dgedxew (xv. 3. xai yag 6 X^uJfoj
oi>^ lflwr'9 ^scfv). Of course it naturally belongs to the optat., where
it expresses a pure wish (Frank. I. p. 27.) Mr. xi. 14. p^xe-f i lx
sis tor aiuva ptj S st s xagrtbv tydyat (yet some Codd. here read

Ov is also found as an objective negation in connection with nouns,
whose meaning is in fact taken away by it or rendered the opposite, as
Rom x. 19. rta^affyjuoo'tt vpas lit' ovx H 8 v e t above a no-people 1 Pet. ii.
10. (both quotat. from 0. T.), comp. Thuc. 1, 137. *J ov Sidhvats the not
breaking <yf, (the bridge had not in reality been broken down), 5, 50.
^ ovx l^ovaia, Eurip. Hippol. 196. Sturz ind. ad Dion. Cass. p. 245.

* In the following 1 passages of Gr. authors ou and (M stand in the same sentence
with more or less evident distinction, e. g. Sext. Emp..adv. Malth. 1, 3. 68. 2, 110.
Hypotyp. 3, 1. 2. Lucian. Tyrann. 15. Demosth. c. Callicl. p. 736. 13. pro Phorm. p.
604. A. Lucian. dial. mart. lb', 2. adv. indoct. 5. Xen. Cyrop. 2, 4. 27. Strab. 3, 138.
15, 712. Joseph. Antt. 16, 9. 3. Orig. c. Marc. p. 26. Wetst. etc.

59.. OP THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 369

See Franke as above I. p. 9. on the difference between this and the

con-

nection of the noun with py (^^ Std^vaii). , n n n

The accented ri is found as no in Mtt. v. 37. (Jas. v. 12. 2 Cor. i.
17.), especially in the answer to a question Mt. xin. 29. John i. 21.
comp. Jlartung II. 88.

2. The most frequent cases in which ^ is found, may be thus classified,
' (a) with infinitives, not only those depending on verbs of speaking, de-

claring, thinking or desiring, as Mt. ii. 12. v. 34. xxii. 23. Luke ii. 26.
xx. 7. Acts iv. 18. v.28. xv. 19. 38. xix. 31. xxi. 4. xxvii. 21. Rom. ii.
22. xiii. 3. 2 Cor. ii. 1. etc., but with every infinit. as the mode of de-
pendence (Rom. xv. 1.), even if it express some fact (Kiihner II. 407.,
comp. e. g. Athen. I. p. 166. Schwelgh.), because the act denoted by the
infinit. seems always to exist in such constructions, not as objective (in
narration), but as the internal conception of some one (of the narrator);
also where the infinitive with the article becomes a noun (Herodi. 3, 9.
12.) 2 Cor. ii. 12. Jas. iv. 2. (resolved into 6V t oi>x olTtdaQs) Rom. xiv.
13. Luke viii. 6. see especially Matth. It. 1442.
As to JMJ with the imperat. see 60. 1.

3. (&) With participles pr/ stands, (a) where the reference is not to
particular persons, but to an entire class; Mt. xii. 30. <5 pq wv fist* epov
he who is not with me, i. e. whoever belongs to those men, whom I 'have
before my mind, si quis non stet a meis partibus Herm. ad Vig. p. 803.
(6 ovx &v pEt* fpov would be, a certain individual actually not with him),

Rom. xiv. 3. 6 loOitov ilbv py ladiovtu Ttrj f;oi>0fi/E&T'w, XOA 6 py tadiuv -tbv
faOiovfa pr\ xgwE-tu, xiii. 19. jtwebf uxovovtos -- xai pq avviivto$, John
xv. 2. xii. 48. Rom. x. 20. 2 Thess. i. 8. Mr. iii. 10. xxv. 29. fab tov
p v) xvfot xai S e'ajst ugOfoftat, si quis opibus minus valeat, ab eo etc.
comp. also Luke iii. 11. vi. 49. 1 Cor. vii. 37. xi. 29. Jas. iv. 17. John
x. 1. 2 John 7. also belongs here, ftoKKol rthdvot, slsfoOov y -tbv xbapov oL
M fytitoyovvtEs 'l^tfow X^. The words do not mean, many deceivers,
who do not acknowledge (ol oi>x 6^0^,.), but many deceivers, who (as such,
as all deceivers) do not confess etc, quicunquenonprvfitentur. (|3) When
indeed the reference is to particular persons, to whom however some
property is attributed only conditionally or by a conception of the mind:
Luke XI. 24. 6VoM> -- e^eyJOy - Stl^si'at Si avvSgav tfOTtiav Qqilovv avd-
jtaaxfw, x-af p^ siigiaxov hsyst, if he finds it not, Rom. viii. 4. Iva ^6 St-
xniupa -fov vopov 7t^w0iJ Iv V^MV fotj py xatu adgxa, rtEgirtartovtSw if we be
not as they who walk etc. (in a clause expressing the final cause) Luke
xii. 47. Mt. xxii. 24. Gal. vi. 9. 1 Cor. x. 33. ,tdvta rtwtw a

370 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

to Upawtov avpfysgov I try to please all (ideal) as one, who, in as
mucfl as I etc., John vii. 15. jtuf o-utfoj y^d^atfa olSs p^ ps/jLadtjx^', ds
he has not yet learned (as we know him as one who has not etc.) comp.
Philostr. Apoll. 3, 23. S$ xai ygd$st ju.^ fna,6<liv ygd^atfa, 1 Cor. iv. 18. wj
pvj lg%ofjtevov Sepoy rtgbs ijitaj, l^vaiMd^adv fwaj as if I were not coming
(ideal), vii. 29. wy py e%oi/>tss as if they had not, 2 Cor. vi. 10. Heb. iv.
15. ovx %opsv agxiEgea p $ Swdpsvov who could not (in the Lat. also the
subj. is the mode used for what is only conceived, qui nonpossit}. Phil.
i. 28. py jftvgopnvov stands in a clause with IVa, and therefore is to be
taken subjectively, 2 Cor. v. 19. ix. 5. xii. 21.; in Mt. xviii. 25. pyUxov-
tfoj airfoii artoSovvat ixshsvclev avtov 6 xvgo$ av-tov Tt^uQqvui etc. the first
words express a reality: as he had not. '. But in this construction they
are to be closely connected with EX&.: he commanded, because that one
hud not, because he had heard or it was reported to him, that that one
had not etc., hence considering that, that one had not etc. So also
Luke ii. 45. xxiv. 23. Acts xvii. 6. xxvii. 7. 20. 1 Cor. vii. 37. 1 Cor.
ix. 21. lysvopyv tols av6poi*s w? avopo$, [ty Jiv dVo^oj 0^9 etc. must also be
reduced to the idea of the apostle, which accompanied that course :
although (according to my belief, my conviction) not without law to God.
1 Cor. i. 28. slf^elaT'o 6 ^soj fa /* 17 oi/tfa, iVa fa ovta xafayiji?'^, where I'd
, ovx ovta would signify (Herm. ad Vig. p. 887.) that which does not exist
(as one negative idea), but r'd py bvta means: which were viewed, sup~
posed as such, as that which might not be; the bvta as a conception
merely, is denied, not really spoken of that which does not exist. (Xen.
Anab, 4, 4. 15. ^ ovta and ovx bvta in the same sense). In 2 Cor. iv.
18. ^d IMJ j3?ifn:. is antithetical to i-d pteftopsvu and not *d ov pteit. (Heb.
xi. 1.). The latter would be that, which actually is not seen, but tu p)
|3jiErt. expresses the mere idea quse haud cernuntur, invisibilia (whatever
cannot be seen). Also in 2 Cor. v. 21. -tbv pfj yvovtu apagtiav vrtsg rj^v
srtoiqfc the ^ y/. refers to the idea of him, who makes him
-tov ov yvovta would be objectively, equivalent to -tbv a
Comp. yet 3 John ver. 10. Ephes. ii. 12. In Luke vii. 30. ol
tvjv povhqv "foil Gsov 9J$Ei?qtiav tj savtovs, py J3art'ti,cf$sv'ts vrt
IVYJ stands not for ov. Luke would have written oil partita^, in his own
person, purely narrative: they did not permit to be baptised (refused the
baptism) and so rejected it etc.; -py paitt!i,a$. refers to the idea of the
Pharisees: they rejected the will of God by this, that they wished not
to know any thing of the baptism, as if ju'yoj/rfes ^ paTttia&jvai,' With
their rejection of the baptism they (the blinded) connected no other
meaning than this etc.

59. OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 371

with participles is a real and unqualified negative:* Phil. iii. 3.

$ itffrort, *l rtMi5/*o** 0*9 MZEVovies *a* oix Iv aa^xi

(the discourse is of an altogether definite and real course of
life, we who trust not etc.), 1 Pet. ii. 10. i^s - - ot ov x . ^*W, jw

SB IfeqtfJytfc;, Gal. IV. 8. *fce ovx EiSotES 0ov ifiovteurtrfs etc. Heb. XI. 65.
frafiov ywwxEj - - aMux, OE i*iy*rtawofytfw ov rfgoofclapsw **p> &rtcM*S<-
aw (not accepting, i. e. rejecting), Acts vii. 5. 1 Cor. iv. 14. 2 Cor. iv.
8. Col. ii. 19. Gal. iv. 27., comp. Strabo 17. p. 796. 822. Diod. Sic. 19,
97. Philostr. dpoll. 7, 32. ^Elian. V. H. 10, 11. Lucian. Philops. 5.
Pere<*r. 34. In 1 Pet. i. 8. two negatives are connected: ov ovx hoo-
tfEj o/ynrtutE, sis ov ogtft pn ogwvtfsj fturtsvovess OE dyaMudtfflz etc., the ovx
itS. expresses the negative idea (personally) unknown, the ^ 3$. means:
although ye see not, referring to the idea of the person addressed: be-
lieving ye rejoice, and the idea that you do not see him, prevents you not,
(Just so in one leading clause in Lucian. adv. indoct. 5. ov and are
connected with particles, xai 6 xvpsgvav ovx stSwj xai Irtrtevew pr;
T'ijxws etc.). In Rom. i. 28. we find jta^Scoxsv di>*ois 6 0oj sl$
vovv, rtoMiv * o jit^ xae^xov^a, but in Ephes. V. 3. rtogvsia xal rtarfa.

dxaOa^Cta p.t] ovopaltoOa sv vpiv } jvT'gartsXta, * otix uvqxovt a.

The latter is to be rendered, which are the unseemly things (which a
Christian must put away), which actions are unsuitable (as also some
Codd. have: 3 ovx av^xsv)', in the former passage the infinit. construction
has introduced the subjective negation, face re quse (si quse) essent inde-
cora, comp. 1 Tim. v. 13. 1 Cor. vii. 37. Rom. iv. 19. xal py aadtvjj-
0aj ty ttia^et ov xatwoqae -tb Iwitov tfuijtta etc. he regarded not his body,
quippe qui non esset imbecilis (since he was one who was not weak); the
former is an affirmation, the latter, his not being weak in faith, only a
conception of the mind, which is presented in negation (ovx uaewyaas
would be: strong in faith). According to another construction it might
also mean: ovx ijadsvijaev uxs-fs xaT?avoqaai> etc. comp. Heb. xi. 8. Heb.
vii. 6. on the contrary, 6 OE jij yEVEaTtoyovjw.ET'oj e| o/vtuv SsSsxa^uxs ibv
Aj3^aa/tt is perhaps to be explained by the fact that the Greeks, especially
in contrasts (comp. ver. 5.), where they wished to express a very strong
negation, used ^ (by which means even the idea or conception of a thing
is negated) Herm. ad Soph. Antig. 691.

It is natural (see Matth. II. 1218.), that in general as with these ne-
gations (Herm. ad Vig. p. 803. 804.), so especially in their connection
with participles, it sometimes depends on the manner in which the author
himself conceives the subject. Yet there seem really to be some pas-
sages in the N. T. where ^ is used, logically considered, for ov. So
Acts ix. 9. Jjv -fyuegow tfgsi$ fiy jS^ETtwj/ xui ovx e.$ayt-v olos Irtisv (comp. Luke
xiii. 11. and Epiphan. Opp. II. p. 368. A. tjv SE 6 jSotftj^ij ^^ Svvdps-
v o 5 Tictfiijtfai) . The (JLVI fa. (not seeing) is conceived entirely as a reality,
and ov jita'rtwv (i. e. blind) would have been regularly the same as ovx
spteris, the participle effects no change in the conception of the thing.
Hence we must suppose the language by degrees to have connected the

* The difference between o5 and ^ with particip. is well illustrated in Plat. Phad.
p. 63. B. SiJi'xouv av a In ayavctttrSiv wjuste facerem ego, qui non indignor, W/H. av fAn
. (Olymp.) injustc facerem si non indignarcr. Comp. Joseph. Antt. 16, 7. 5.

372 . PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

W with the participle, as obliquus modus, where according to the sense
ov was required, (see above of the infinit.), a rather grammatical than
logical mode of expression. Schafer ad Demosth. III. p. 395. in scriptis
cadentis grsecitatis vix credas, quoties participialis constructio non ov
etc., ut oportebat, sed ^ etc. adsciscat, comp. ad Plutarch. V. p. 6. Held
ad Plutarch. Timol. p. 457. With this may be compared Anthol. Pal. I.
p. 396. Ev^tdSs xslp-at, Tagtfsvj ^37 jrjfJ-a/S ai^rs SE ftrjS' 6 rfatf^g. See Jacobs
ad Jlnthol, Pal. III. p. 244. B'ahr in Creuzer Melet. III. p. 20. Schafer
ad Eurip. Med. 811. ed. Person. As to the later writers, see Thilo
Act. Thorn, p. 28.

That in Tit. i. 7. py is connected with all the nouns expressing quali-
ties, and not ov, is to be explained by the difference of the two particles;
the words 8si ttbv Irtlaxoitov avsyxty'tov ftvat, [ttj ov^a^, ^ 6gy&ft,oz>
etc. define exactly the qualities which a bishop must possess, they ex-
press the idea of a well qualified bishop.

4. (c) After 85 &v, oa-tts 3#, 3<joj aw, negation is expressed by ^, because
these relatives always imply only the supposition of a thing, whose re-
ality is not distinctly affirmed. Acts iii. 23. rtaja $vxn> fas " V*l uxv-
Gy, Luke ix. 5. 6'tfot &v prj'Blfiwtajt, fyiaj, Rev. xiii. 15. Luke viii. 18. x.
10. "Of alone (Herm. ad Vig. p. 803.) is seldom connected with py in
the N. T., Tit. i. 11. StSdaxovtts a py Sat) what they should not (merely
a mental conception), 2 Pet. i. 9. y ^.^ Ti^c-tt, tavta, -tv^o^ lam if
there be one with whom, with whom always, Col. ii. 18. ^ eugaxev
f j wj3o,T'vuj/ (comp. Philostr. J3poll. 7, 27. Ex. ix. 21.), where however
the reading varies, some respectable authorities omitting the negative
altogether, and others having ovx. If the negative was written by Paul
it must have been ^, not o-O, because it is spoken as of something sup-
posed, of a conceived subject (pySsls xatapgajHtve-fu*). The thought might
also be thus varied: sdv t<,$ QEhy v/Aa$ xa-ta,pgaj3VW O&av -- , a ^iw) <ag.,
where the propriety of the p) is perceptible.

Yet ov often follows 05, where ^ was naturally expected, because
something only as supposed or conceived of seems to be expressed (Lip-
sius de modis p. 14.), as Mt. xxiv. 2. ov ^ afytQfi >Se xo'Ooj l^tt hldov, 8$
ov xata%v9ri(SET!ai. But ^ is not necessary here, either on rational
grounds (that clause is, according to the sense, just as strongly negative
as if it were said: no stone will remain on another, which will not be
throivn down, ouSsif ov xowca.), or because of an established usus loquendi.
Comp. further in the N. T. Mt. x. 26. ovotv IOTH xfxa^^v^Evov, o ovx
UTtoxo.'h.vfyQriaE'tui, Luke viii. 17. o-u yag EtJft xgvrt'tbv, o ov fyavtgbv yjj")Jtf-
Tfat, xii. 2., out of the Greek, Eurip. Hel. 509. dwjg ya^ ov S tf <ZSs --
6V ov 5wtft pogdv, Lucian. sacrif. 1. ovx- ol8a, si tftj 6Ww xaf^^j
, otf^ij ov yEhdaEta, Soph. (Ed. R. 374. ovSsts oj ov %i> tfwi/ 5' ovi-
td%a. So even in the construe, with optat. Isocr. Evagor. p. 191.
e<stw, Stfi-tj ovx av AlttxiSof rtgox^ivEisv, also p. 199. Plutarch Jlpophth.
Lac. p. 196. Nearest to this is the formula fi'j lativ 05 ov praes. indie.

59. OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 373

Acts xix. 35. Hebr. xii. 7. comp. Dion, compos. 11. ed. Schafer p. 120.
which, according to the sense, is equivalent to ovSeis satw, oj ov (for which

Strabo 6. p. 286. has ovSev /*!$<>$ wv^ sot, S py tvyzdvst), on the

other hand D8s erfrfw, oj ov with the preterite is so unwonted that in this
construction no one would use ^. Lucian. Tox. 22. Asin. 49. Xen.
Anab. 4, 5. 31. Thuc. 3, 81. Dio Chrys. p. 450. Liban. oratt. p. 117.
comp. Heindorf ad Plat. Pkssd. p. 233.

5. (d) In conditional clauses with si and lav John xv. 24. xviii. 30.
Mt. v. 20. xii. 29. Rom. x. 15., so also after particles of design, like
iW, 6'rfwj Ephes. ii. 9. Col. ii. 4. Acts viii. 24. 1 Cor. i. 29. 1 Thess. iv.
13. Heb. xii. 3. as each condition and design is some conception of the
mind. Yet d ov is found also in the Greek writers as well as in the N.
T., and indeed in the latter more frequently than with the former, Herm.
ad Eurip. Med. p. 344. and ad Soph. (Ed. Col. 596. B'ahr in Creuzer's
Melet. III. p. 21. Bremi ad Lys. p. 111. Schafer ad Plut. IV. p. 396.
Mehlhorn ad Anacr. p. 139. According to Hermann (ad Vig. p. 831.)
el ov occurs in the Greek where ov arctissime conjungi cum verbo aliquo
sequentl debet ita, ut cum hoc verbo conjunction imam nationem consti-
tuat. This rule is certainly incorrect if we take it to mean: ov in si ov
ought to be always connected with the verb of the clause. That by the
verbum aliquod sequens only a word of the sentence is meant,* is evident
from passages of Attic writers (Matin. II. 1440.), as Lys. in Agor. 62.
el psv o v jtoM,ot (i. e. oto'yot) yoav, although the connection of ov with the
verb of the clause may be the common one, comp. also Aristot. Topic.
8,7. 1. Bip. and Held ad Plutarch. Timol. p. 357. and so the following
passages have nothing striking, Mt. xxvi. 42. Luke xiv. 26. xvi. 31.
1 Cor. vii. 9. Rom. viii. 9. 2 Thess. iii. 10. 1 Tim. iii. fl. Hebr. xii. 25.
comp. also si ovosv 1 Cor. xii. 11. etc., on the other hand Lipsius (de
modor. in N. T. usu p. 26.) quotes a number of other passages which
contradict the above canon, or at least appear to contradict it, and ob-
serves correctly, that el ^ in the N. T. stands almost exclusively for
nisi. We divide them into four classes: (a) Luke xii. 26. el ovSs ehd-
xurtov Svva&e, tft rtrgi tuv ^otrtwi/ pegipvd'te is not to be taken into ac-
count, for el is here only apparently conditional, but in fact equivalent to
srtsi. It may be translated: if (as is manifest from what has been men-
tioned before), i. e. as you effected not even the least etc. (therefore al-
ways eavpdfr si ov, comp. Kiihner II. 406.). So also Rom. xi. 21. John

* Schafer ad Demosth. III. p. 288. ov poni licet, quando negatio refertur ad sequen-
tem vocem cum eaque sic coalescit, unam ut ambae notionem efficiant; p* ponitur, quan-
do negatio perlinet ad^particulam conditionalem.
47

372 . PART THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLE.

py with the participle, as obliquus modus, where according to the sense
av was required, (see above of the infinit.), a rather grammatical than
logical mode of expression. Schafer ad Demosth. III. p. 395. in scriptis
cadentis grsscitatis vix credas, quoties parlicipialis construct non ov
etc., ut oportebat, sed py etc. adsciscat, comp. ad Plutarch. V. p. 6. Held
ad Plutarch. Timol. p. 457. With this may be compared Anthol. Pal. I.
p. 396. EVc*d8 xslpat, Tagtfa-uj fivj y^/waj al$s 8s pt]8' 6 rfai'^g. See Jacobs
ad Anthol. Pal. III. p. 244. Bilhr in Creuzer Melet. III. p. 20. Schafer
ad Eurip. Med. 811. ed. Porson. As to the later writers, see Thilo
Act. Thorn, p. 28.

That in Tit. i. 7. ^ is connected with all the nouns expressing quali-
ties, and not ov, is to be explained by the difference of the two particles;
the words Set tfbv \jtLaxortov wtyxTtfj-tov ftrat, -- pr/ a/VotdSt], pr} ogyihov
etc. define exactly the qualities which a bishop must possess, they ex-
press the idea of a well qualified bishop.

4. (c) After 8$ civ, 6'crtft? av, Scroj cw>, negation is expressed by py, because
these relatives always imply only the supposition of a thing, whose re-
ality is not distinctly affirmed. Acts iii. 23. rfaja ^v%^, ^Vt? av py axov-
tr^, Luke ix. 5. 6<rot av pr/'S^uvfaA vpa$, Rev. xiii. 15. Luke viii. 18. x.
10. "Of alone (Herm. ad Vig. p. 803.) is seldom connected with py in
the N. T., Tit. i. 11. Siodaxovtss a py 8sl what they should not (merely
a mental conception), 2 Pet. i. 9. 9 yg pq Ttdgscrtt, tavta, tfi^oj loti, if
there be one with whom, with whom always, Col. ii. 18. 3, ptj s^axsv
f>j3ttT'vcov (comp. Philostr. Jlpoll. 7, 27. Ex. ix. 21.), where however
the reading varies, some respectable authorities omitting the negative
altogether, and others having ovx. If the negative was written by Paul
it must have been ^MJ, not ov, because it is spoken as of something sup-
posed, of a conceived subject (^osls ^afa/S^a/SfDfVco). The thought might
also be thus varied: Idv tfij 9s^ vpas xaTtafSgapfVEW Oehav -- , a
, where the propriety of the ^ is perceptible.

Yet o-u often follows Sf, where /J was naturally expected, because
something only as supposed or conceived of seems to be expressed (Lip-
sius de modis p. 14.), as Mt. xxiv. 2. ov py afycefi <ZSe *.lGo$ I*!; tieov, o$
ov Ko.T'aX'ufoJffsi'cu. But pvi is not necessary here, either on rational
grounds (that clause is, according to the sense, just as strongly negative
as if it were said: no stone will remain on another, which will not be
thrown down, ovosis ov xafca.), or because of an established usus loquendi.
Comp. further in the N. T. Mt. x. 26. ovStv ioin> xsxahhvpsvov, o ovx
aftoxa%v^>drjaE'tai, Luke viii. 17. ov yag atftffr xgvrttbv, o ov fyavs^ov yiwqas-

tat,, xii. 2., out of the Greek, Eurip. Hel. 509. dw? ydg ov SEK <Z8s --
oj -- ov Swfft J3o^av, Lucian. sacrif. 1. ovx ol8a, si ^if ovtu xa-ftj^f
otftftf ov yfhdaE-ta, Soph. (Ed. R. 374. ovSatj oj ov%o tfwv S' OVEI-
td%a. So even in the construe, with optat. Isocr. Evagor. p. 191.
<rtw, otfi'tf ovx av Aluxt8o$ rtgoxgtvsiEv, also p. 199. Plutarch jlpophth.
Lac. p. 196. Nearest to this is the formula tl$ lafiv oj ov praes. indie.

59. OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 373

Acts xix. 35. Hebr. xii. 7. comp. Dion, compos. 11. ed. Schafer p. 120.
which, according to the sense, is equivalent to ovSsis e<sitw, Ss ov (for which

Strabo 6. p. 286. has ovSsv ^os ouu^j iotfw, 0^5} tfuy^om), on the

other hand ovSstls eatw, 6V ov with the preterite is so unwonted that in this
construction no one would use ^M?. Lucian. Tox. 22. Asin. 49. Xen.
Anab. 4, 5. 31. Thuc. 3, 81. Dio Chrys. p. 450. Liban. oratt. p. 117.
comp. Heindorf ad Plat. Phsed. p. 233.

5. (d) In conditional clauses with si and lav John xv. 24. xviii. 30.
Mt. v. 20. xii. 29. Rom. x. 15., so also after particles of design, like
iVct, 6'rtoj Ephes. ii. 9. Col. ii. 4. Acts viii. 24. 1 Cor. i. 29. 1 Thess. iv.
13. Heb. xii. 3. as each condition and design is some conception of the
mind. Yet si ov is found also in the Greek writers as well as in the N.
T., and indeed in the latter more frequently than with the former, Herm.
ad Eurip. Med. p. 344. and ad Soph. (Ed. Col. 596. Bahr in Creuzer's
Melet. III. p. 21. Bremi ad Lys, p. 111. Schafer ad Pint. IV. p. 396.
Mehlhorn ad Anacr. p. 139. According to Hermann (ad Vig. p. 831.)
si ov occurs in the Greek where ov arctissime conjungi cum verbo aliquo
sequenti debet ita, ut cum hoc verbo conjunctwn unam nationem consti-
tuat. This rule is certainly incorrect if we take it to mean: ov in si oi>
ought to be always connected with the verb of the clause. That by the
verbum aliquod sequens only a word of the sentence is meant,* is evident
from passages of Attic writers (Matth. II. 1440.), as Lys. in Agor. 62.
si (lev o v itoM.oi, (i. e. oJtt'yot) ijtfcw, although the connection of ov with the
verb of the clause may be the common one, comp. also Aristot. Topic.
8, 7. 1. Bip. and Held ad Plutarch. Timol. p. 357. and so the following
passages have nothing striking, Mt. xxvi. 42. Luke xiv. 26. xvi. 31.
1 Cor. vii. 9. Rom. viii. 9. 2 Thess. iii. 10. 1 Tim. iii. 5. Hebr. xii. 25.
comp. also si ovSsv 1 Cor. xii. 11. etc., on the other hand Lipsius (de
modor. in N. T. usu p. 26.) quotes a number of other passages which
contradict the above canon, or at least appear to contradict it, and ob-
serves correctly, that si ^ in the N. T. stands almost exclusively for
nisi. We divide them into four classes: (a) Luke xii. 26. si ov8s !*,<-
xidtov Svvaoots, til rtfgi tfwv Aoirtwv p.sgipvd'ts is not to be taken into ac-
count, for si is here only apparently conditional, but in fact equivalent to
Irtti. It may be translated: if (as is manifest from what has been men-
tioned before), i. e. as you effected not even the least etc. (therefore al-
ways 0ai>/*aw si ov, comp. Kiihner II. 406.). So also Rom. xi. 21. John

* Schafer ad DemostL III. p. 288. ov poni licet, quando negatio refertur ad sequen-
tem vocem cum eaque sic coalescit, unam ut ambae notionem pfficiant; fjw ponitur, quan-
do negatio perlinet adparticulam conditionalem.
47

374 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

x. 35., comp. Soph. (Ed. Col. 596. si G&ovtt-s'y oi)8s aoi fysvysw xabov
si, quum le volunt recipere, ne tibi quidem decorum est exsulem esse, and
JEschm. Bp. 8. si SE ov8e avv sxsivq 8t,syvtoxa$ i&svat etc., Sext. Erapir.
adv. Mattli. 7, 434. si ov 8 ' avtb fovto ^Sat etc. ^Esop. 23, '2. see Bern-
hardy p. 386. (&) In harmony with the above canon, properly consi-
dered, is not only 1 Cor. xi. 6. si ydg ov xataxabvrt'te'tat, yvvrj, xal xstgda-
6a>ifa woman enter uncovered, she should also be shorn; but also John
X. 37. si ov rtotw I'd f'gya T'OV rtcw'goj p,ov, p} rttatisvE'ts /tot' si Se rfouo, xav
spot jwoj jtKrtEvri'fE, noi$ tfgyotj rtttftf sweats if I do not the works of my Fa*
ther (therefore withhold from you the proofs of my divine mission) if
however I do them etc. comp. Lys. accus. Jlgor. 76. lav 'psv ovv ^daxtj
3>gvvt,%ov artox't sivat,, tfoiStfcoi/ lAEpvqaOE lav 8* oi> $>atfj?, sgEaOs avtbv etc.
if however he deny it, Sext. Ernpir. adv. Math. 2, 111. si ptv y^^atd
e%ei, si 8e ovx f^st etc. if hoivever he be without 9, 176. si psv ov

fyavhov Ecrtii -to 9st,ov si 8e t'^Et, sOtai/ tffc toy OEOV xgsl't'tov (Judg.

ix. 20. Judith v. 21. comp. also Clem. Alex, psedag. 3, 12. Orig. de die
dom. p. 3. Jani). Perhaps no exception could even be taken against
1 Cor xv. 13. si avdataai'S vsxguv ovx J'tfi't if the resurrection of the dead
is a nothing etc. (c) Where the clause with si ov only render negative
the idea which in the parallel sentences is expressed affirmatively, and
ov is not to be taken in connection with a word of the sentence in a (con-
trasted) sense (ov Sartavav q>sia9at,), but must be taken by itself: 1 Cor.
ix. 2. si aM.ot$ ovx sl/jil drforft'oT.oj, aKKays vpiv slpt SI ttliis non SUM apOS-
tolus, vobis certe SUM. But in such contrasts later writers at least use
si ov, e. g. Sext. Empir. adv. Math. 12, 5. si pv ayaav <ST!W, sv
i^iuv lysviqcssifat,, si Ss ovx "tGittiV aya^ov, foot, xaxov Etitw, ^
xaxov sd'tiv ovTfs ayaOov td'ttv, Diog. Laert. 2, 5. 16. si, /AEV yag 4i 'tutv rlgoti-
ovtuv hs%Eiav, Sio^utaovfai, si S'oi), OVOEV rtgoj ^aj, where the sense is not,
but if they conceal it, but, if they do not say what is proper, comp. jEsop.
7, 4. Basilic. II. p. 525. and Poppo ad Xen. Anab. p. 358. and fdv Diog.
L. 1, 8. 5. Basilic. I. p. 175. Macar. Jiomil. 1, 10. Here belongs also
Luke xi. 8. if he ivould not give it to him induced by friendship to rise,
yet he will give etc. (rf) Where ov expresses only the negation ex-
isting in itself, although there is no affirmative parallel clause with the
same idea: Jas. ii. 11. si ov ftot^fvtjstj (with relation to the preceding,^
jttot^svcf^s), <3>ovii<jt,j Ss, ysyovaf TtagajSatf^j vopov, if you do not commit
adultery, but murder.* 1 Cor. xvi. 22. si tftj ov q>&si -tbv xv^iov faa
avd^spa is doubtful (see Baumgarten and Heydenreich in loc.}, but the
translation: if any one hates the Lord, would not express the meaning of

* Equiv. to el ov fJtct^iviuv r), <f>ov6uwv SI. Comp. Time. 1, 32. si JMM xar. x. etc.

59. OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 375

the Apostle. 2 John ver. 10. m sgweni, rtgbs vpu$ xal tavttjv tqv 6V
8a,%tj)> ov $ i, where the conditional particle may have escaped from the
mind of the writer in consequence of the numerous intervening words.
Hence for the later prose writers, who use si ov (as the stronger and more
expressive) more frequently than the ancient (who employed it seldom),
we must apprehend the rule thus (comp. also Anton. Progr.p. 9.): where
not in a conditional clause is emphatic,* el oi> is used (as in the Latin si
NON), but where if not stands without emphasis of the negative, t-l py,
as in the Latin nisi (comp. JSsop. 7, 4.) If you do not commit adultery
(in relation to the pyj ^o^.); if any one love not the Lord (as he ought);
if I do not the works of my Father, but if I do them etc.; if thou art
not Christ (John i. 25. comp. ver. 20.). The emphasis is produced by
an evident (John x. 37. 1 Cor. ix. 2.) or by a concealed antithesis (1 Cor.
xvi. 22.). But it follows necessarily that ov then denies only one part of
the conditional clause, not the conditional clause itself. It cannot always
be reduced to one conception with the negated idea. (Aristid. orat. 1, 56.
ei ovSsv't a.%t, -toy 8wgo ft^o^xd^aav is worthy of notice. In Macar.
horn. 4, 5. si py and si ov occur in the same sentence. The Byzant.
have el ov, ? S' ov for l Ss pq, e. g. Due. p. 321. 342. comp. Jacobs ad
Achill. Tat. p. 948.).

"Slats stands with ov where merely the actual consequence is to be ex-
pressed, consequently where a finite verb follows, Gal. iv. 7. && ovx si
ftofoo; etc. Mt. xix. 6. 1 Cor. Hi. 7. (Xen. Ages. 1, 3. Hell. 4, 6. 8.
Isocr. Trap. p. 862. Nicocl. p. 60. Diog. L. 2, 8. 4.), among the Greeks
also where an infinit. follows, Plat. Apol. p. 26. D. _"Qafe pq on the
other hand originally embraced the conception of the consequence, see
Engelhardt ad Plat. Euthyphr. p. 135. ad Apol. p. 219. Hartung II.
118. In the N. T. tiats py stands uniformly with the infinit. even in
historical style, Mr. ii. 2. iii. 20. Only 2 Cor. iii. 7. is affected by the
conditional clause.

That py must be used in prohibitions is clear. Comp. 1 Pet. v. 2.
Tioipdva'tE tolvvpiv rtolpviov -- sjttaxojtovvtsf py uvayxaatZis, dM? sxov-
eitaf, py atax^oxs^Sus etc. John xiii. 9. Col. iii. 2. Jas. i. 22. Ephes. v.
15. vi. 6. Similarly with the subjunctive of exhortation (used impera-
tively) supplied from the preceding clause, Rom. xiii. 13. ^a^p&vus * -
girtatriaapsv, py (itt,rtu-ttiaapv) xvpo^ xai psOais, py xoitnis etc.

After the conjunction sjtsi since, because, we regularly find ov etc
comp. Heb. x. 2. Yet in Heb. ix. 17. we read t0 fl i* vsx 601 '

,

iazvet, Sts % 6 SiaBlptvos, which only Bohme amon^ the
interpreters has observed and explained: /^ rto * 8 here seems to neatS the

* Mehlhorn gives the following rule: uli simplicity ncgatio affirmation* ita appo-
natur, ut negandt part, voce sit acuenda, semper ol poni, ubi contra verbum voce im.
primis notandum rf esse debere. Comp. Popp. ad Xen. Anab. as above.

376 PART THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLE.

idea of the ia^vsiv; consequently that it should in general express a
stronger negation than ovriott- Yet Bohme's translation of pjrtoi'a by
nondum is false; it means never, not once (Heliod. 2, 19.). Perhaps too
the writer has used ^jto-es because he spoke generally, not of a particu-
lar will or testament. The subjective negation, however, often occurs
with srisi in the later authors, e. g. Philostr. ApolL 1, 41. ov '

ys

7, 16. ejtei pySEv zgijefov tfotj slvac drtoharvovat,, ^avd'tov ^L%ovtM, Plu-
tarch. MoralL p. 969. Aristid. or. 1, 27. Lucian. Hermot. 21, 47. vera
hist. 1,4.2, 82. and in many of these passages JMJ is justified, inasmuch
as the clause with sjtei, expresses a mere conception.

6. A continued negation is effected by the compounds ov8s (w8e) and
ft-fas)' The difference between the two is frequently spoken of by
the modern philology, but has not yet been developed with perfect clear-
ness and in all its relations, see Herm. ad Eurip. Med. p. 330. (also in
his opusc. III.) and ad Philoct. p. 140. comp. Hand departic. HE dissert.
2. p. 9. Engelhardt ad Plat. Lach. p. 69. Franke Com. II. p. 5. Wex
ad Antig. II. 156. That ovSI and ovts are parallel with the conjunc-
tions 8e and JE, and must be explained from their signification,, is un-
doubted, and accordingly it follows that ovts, pqtf are adjunctives, ovSs,
nySe disjunctives, i. e. the latter join a negation to a negation, the former
divide the single negation into parts (which are naturally antithetical),
e. g. Mt. vii. 6. ^ Suts -to ciywv t'otj xwl, /AySs /SaTi^tfe tovs /AagyagitasClC.
give not nor throw (two different things are here forbidden), Mt. vi.
26. ov artstgovaiv ov8e &gt>'ov0ti> oi>8s owdyovaw etc. they sow not and they
reap not, and they gather not; on the other hand, Mt. xii. 32. ovx &$e-
^crsfao oDi 1 ^ oiii'E v tfovtfto ^9 aluivi, oii^f Iv 1*9 (Ashhovti,, pardon will not
be imparted, neither in this world nor in the future (the only negation
d$. is divided into two parts as to time); Luke ix. 3. wSsvaZgets sl$
uSov ^it^tfE ^ajSSov ftoJ.T'E rtvfguv pyjife d'gi'ov just's agyvgiov. The follow-
ing are usually correspondent: (a) ov ovSe Mt. v. 15. vi. 28. vii. 18.
Luke vi. 44. John xiii. 16. xiv. 17. Acts ix. 9. Rom. ii. 28.; ^ [MJJ&E
Mt. vi. 25. x. 14. xxiii. 9. Mr. xiii. 15. Luke xvii. 23. John iv. 15. Acts
iv. 18. Rom. vi. 12. 2 Cor. iv. 2. 1 Tim. i. 4.; ou oiSI ov8s Mt. xii.
19. John i. 13.; ^ ^Ss wSe Luke xiv. 12. Rom. xiv. 21. Col. ii.
21. (6) ov oiifs ov-ts Mt. xii. 32., ^ p^ts pfas Jas. v. 12.
1 Tim. i. 7. Mt. v. 34., but yet more frequent and without a single ne-
gation preceding, Mt. xi. 18. q-i&B 'iwam?? /tt^tfE la&uv ^tfs jtivw,
Acts xxiii. 12.; Mt. vi. 20. oriov outs afc ovte /Sguiutj d^an'^t, xxii.
30. Luke xiv. 35. John v. 37. viii. 19. ix. 3. Acts xv. 10. xxiv. 12. xxv.
8. Rom. viii. 38. (oil** used ten times) 1 Cor. xi. 11. 1 Thess. ii. 5.
Accordingly oii-r-f, w^s point uniformly to another OV*E, f**rte. (as -r 1 * us

59. OP THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 377

are correspondent), but oi>8e and ^St are connected with a preceding ou,
p}.* And with this correlation it avails equally, whether the negated
things are only single words (ideas) or whole sentences, since the former
always resolve themselves into a sentence, e. g. Mt. x. 9. p) x^aijedE
agyvgov [tySe %ahrtov, 2 Pet. i. 8. ovx agyovf ovSe axdgjiovs xa~
etc. (1 John iii. 18. Mt. xxii. 29. xxiv. 20. xxv. 13.). The
other form of negation could have been used in that passage, if Mt. had
written: pqSi-v xiifo. py** ze^vabv pips agy. etc. Moreover the compari-
son of Mt. x. 9. with Luke ix. 3. is particularly instructive as to the dis-
tinction between ov8e and oiii's.

Hence it farther follows, (a) That <n>5 ov&f, /w^ol JK^&S in the
sense of neither nor (without a single negation preceding) cannot refer
to one another (about Thuc. 1, 142. see Poppo in loc. and as to Xen.
Andb. 3, 1. 27. his index to Anal. p. 535.), but where one negation is
subjoined to another, the former is expressed by oi>, f^, the latter lays the
foundation for the antithetical disjunctive Sef . Mr. viii. 26. pyj8s It; -e^v
X&P.VIV ds&Qys fit} S s strips tivi etc. (as Lachmann still reads) is incor-
rect, as the great variation of the MSS. leads us to suspect; it would be
corrected most simply thus, ^ ti$ t^y x.', yet see Fritzsche in loc. It is
somewhat different, where the former oi>8s connects the sentence to the
preceding as e. g. is the case in ov8s yag Gal. i. 12. o v 8 e y<* g tyw nuga,
wOg. 7tagl7taj3ov aitfo ov 8s aStSa^fl^t/ (yet see below on this passage),
or where vi>8t means ne quidem, (6) That, as o^a and ^i-e always
represent two members of a partition as co-ordinate, ^E cannot be per-
mitted in Mr. iii. 20. &tft ^ SvvaaOat, nq t e agtov $aysn> (see Scholz in
loc.}, since ^ ^ay. is here dependent on Svvaa^M. As the words now are,
they would give only the" sewse: that they neither had power, nor etc.
(the ny for ^fs). The sense however is manifest: that they could not
so much as eat, and therefore ^8s ought to be written as the better Codd.
have it, see Fritzsche in loc. This Lachmann has done, but Scholz has
not. Mr. v. 3. ov8s afoixsiaw Luke xii. 26. oi>8s l^a^atov Svvaes is also
necessarily to be written so (see Doderlein Progr. de brachyl. serm. Gr.
p. 17.), and Luke xx. 36., where ov8k yag urtoSwetvlti Svvavtat, (as good
Codd. have) is not parallel with the preceding sentence oiii'e, ovte but is a
proof of it: neque enim. Comp. yet Mt. v. 36. Scholz in all these pas-
sages' permitted the old mistakes to be printed again, (c) As oii^ rite
negate members of partition, these however are precisely exclusive of

* "OUTE o5 y s (Franke II. p. 14. Hart. Practik. I. 194.) does not occur in the
N. T. On Luke xx. 36. (var.).

t On ovte and H*WE after affirmative clauses see Engelhardt ad Plat. Lach. p. 64
Franke p. 6. 8.

378 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

each other or antithetical; the reading of some Codd. in Mr. xiv. 68.
ovt olba oiitfe srtiatapai, (as Lachmann also has) cannot be established:
neque novi neque scio with an almost identical signification of these
words cannot be said. Comp. Franke II. p. 13. Schafer ad Demosth,
III. 449. Griesbach has received into the text oi>x otfia ovSe iriiata^ai.
(d) After o, ovts can follow, if the former is to be taken for oiVa see
Herm. as above p. 333. against Elmsley adEurip. Med. 4. 5. ad Soph.
(Ed. T. 817. comp. Franke II. p. 27. Hartung. purtic. I. 199. and so
we can retain in Rev. ix. 21. ovfe. On the other hand this correlation
will not be found in Rev. v. 4. ov 8 s I j d|tos svgfeq dvoit-ai, to pifaiov
oiitfe fasrtftv avtb. OOSf which is found at least in one Codd. is rather to
be preferred, as in xx. 4., according to more authorities. Otherwise the
author would probably have written: ovSeis al|. jig. ovts amf at to j3tjS7aoj>
oi># s jSxsrtsw. No more can ^ ^fa be allowed in Ephes. iv. 27. The
best MSS. have the correspondent ^8, as Lachmann has adopted into
the text. In Rev. xii. 8. also ovSe seems to me the more correct, yet
Knapp has not accepted it. In John i. 25. however, si av ov x si o Xgnr-
tfof 6 v -t s 'Kfoiay o v t E o rtgo$q-tti$ the substitution of ovSs (after some
Codd.) is unnecessary. In Rev. v. 3. ovSsif^vvaTfo Iv tipovgwcp oiSe itti
tyfi yvj$ vrtoxuta #Jj y^j avol^at to j3t|3^i/'ov ov 8 j87i7tW avto the relation

of the negations is correct: no one neither on the earth, neither to

open, neither (not so much as) to look on it. Comp. Schneider ad Plat,
rep. 3. p. 252.

It is difficult to say whether nyis, ovte can follow p,y8e, ov8s or not. It
is thought not by nearly all the later philologists see Matth. II. 1446.
(Engelhardt as above p. 70. Lehmann ad Lucian. III. p. 615. Franke
II. 18. etc.), because when the stronger ovSe precedes, the weaker oiVs
cannot follow. (Bornem. ad Xen. Andb. p. 26. and Hand de part. p.
13. admit it). Yet there are found in editions of Gr. writers not a few
passages, where ov8e follows ovtt (Thuc. 3, 48. see Poppo in loc., Lu-
cian. dial. mort. 26, 2. Catapl. 15. Plat, charm, p. 171. B. Aristot.
Physiogn. 6. p. 153.); these however are generally corrected on the
authority of more or less Codd. That oiVs and ufae cannot be parallel
with ov$s or /.iq&i- may be a rule, although the reasons adduced seem to
me not satisfactory; where however these particles have no relation to
oiiSs (and iMjSs) as conjunctions, I consider it correct. Consequently it
is applicable in the two following cases : (a) Where oifo signifies ne
quidem, or connects the negative clause, to which the 8e refers, with a
preceding one. In Gal. i. xii. ov 8s y ?yw rtag&upov d v t b ovts
i8t,8dx^ijv we would follow the vulgate by translating: nam ne ego quidem
(Xen. Anab. 2, 4. 19.) vie. for even I have not received and not learned,

59. OP THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 379

or neque enim ego (Xen. Anab. 7, 7. 11. for oi ya ? ) accepi didicique (ve)
comp. Hoogeveen doct r. particul. II. p. 980. Without negation Jyw Se
rta&. a. IStfdx^v tt would be correct, as ria^a^. and SiSacrx. are not
synonymous. Comp. Plat. Charm, p. 171. B. Horn, in Cerer. 22.
(6) Where avis, ufae follow oiSf, pqft they are not coordinate but sub-
ordinate, e. g. / harbor no enmity, and I labor not against the plans of
others and not against their enterprises. Xen. Mem. 2, 2. 11. W S' eitsts-
$at, wSe *&<&< W*E tfi-gowijy? W*E aM.j> a^oi/ft. The second negation
(oiSe) is here to be divided into two members (for xai <wVs oiVf) comp.
Held ad Plutarch. Timol. p. 433. Kiihner II. 440. According to this,
Acts xxiii. 8. py M avdataaw, /it 37 SI ayyaTiov (p,9]8s stvat pfos ayysfc.)
iu, 77 * rfvEv/tta would be tolerable and would be favored by the immediately
following *( aptyoi? s%a. (See Hoogeveen de partic. I. 751.). The
sentence would be more simple with ^51 rtv. or as the better Codd. have
/Mji-a dyy. and the latter is therefore to be preferred. In 1 Thess. ii. 3.
ovx sVTaowfs ovSk i(j cwec&agcfMxj oi>8s Iv 6h<j> seems to me more appro-
priate on account of the connected ideas (the better Codd. have it so)
and I believe that in the second case exact writers for the sake of perspi-
cuity would say ^ for ovVs (Rom. ix. 11.).

In 1 Cor. iii. 2. we must read without hesitation AM*? ov 8s tVt vw 8v-
vna (comp. Acts. xix. 2. Lucian. Hermot. 7. consecr. hist. 33. and
Fritzsche on Mr. p. 157.), as Thess. ii. 2. stj no ^ T'a^Eoj era^Ev^vat
p.t]8s ^goEtff^at ^f Sta ftvevpnuos etc. (see Lachmann), 2 Thess. iii. 8.
oi8 is correct. Luke vii. 9. xii. 27. Acts xvi. 21. Griesbach has cor-
rectly oiSf, which must also be written in Acts iv. 12. In Jas. iii. 12.
the new editions (Lachmann also) have ovts ahvxbv ybvxv rtoiyaat, {iSug,
which can only be supported by supposing that James had in his mind as
the prodosis oiVe Svvatai avxvj Ixataj rtoi^oat etc. which indeed is very
harsh ; otherwise ovSs must be read, as some Codd. have.

There is nothing remarkable in passages like Luke x. 4. ^ paatdgsts
pahdvtwv, pvi rtqgav pySs vrtoSyfia-tu (where some good Codd. have pj also
in the last clause), Mt. x. 9. ^ x-f^ayjeQs zgvabv ^^Sg agyvgov ^^Sfi
Xahxbv stf ^dj (fuvag vftuv, firi rtrig&v EIJ 6S6v, [tySt 8vo ^ti'wj'aj, lAtjSs
vrioSirifjLa'fa etc.

It may be further remarked by the way, that the distinction between
ov8e, fuySe and xai ov, xai ^97, which Engelhardt (ad Plat. Lack. p. 65.)
and still more accurately Franke (II. p. 8.) have pointed out (viz. xai ov,
xai py after affirmative sentences, and not, yet not], as it seems to exist
in the nature of things, is recognised also in the N. T. comp. xai oi John
v. 43. vi. 17. vii. 36. Acts xvi. 7. 2 Cor. xiii. 10., xai M Jas. i. 5. iv.
17. 1 Pet. ii. 16. iii. 6. Heb. xiii. 17.

As passages from Gr. writers especially illustrative of the difference
between ov8s and oiVs, see Isocr. Areop. p. 345. oi, x cU/c^caaj ovSs dtdx-
tfaj ov * 0garti5<w oi'i 1 cogyt'agov etc. permut. p. 750. wjff nySsva /ttot yto-
ttjjS' EV o^tya^'a ^178' Iv S^ox^aifia p-yte $fe w pyts dSixCav

380 PART THIRD. .USE OP THE PARTICLE.

t,, Herod. 6, 9. Isocr. ep. 8. p. 1016. Xen. Ages. 1, 4. Demosth.
adv. Timocr. p. 481. B. Plat. Parmen. p. 150.

In two parallel passages oiVs (^e) are sometimes followed, not by a
negative, but by a simple copula (xai or tfa), e. g. John iv. 11. ovts
oWtoftna %EI$, xai <tb qgsag eon fia9v, as in Lat. nee haustrum habes et
puteus etc., 3 John 10., comp. Arrian. Alex. 4, 7. 6. ly w o tit's -t^v
tfavTtijv tfi/tcogt.'aj' B^tftfou arfatpco -- xai vrtaxdiyvai
etc. Pausan. 1,6. 5. A^^gtoj OVJE rtavtdrtaatv
tfijj #wgaj, x a t tftraj tfcov AiytrtT'&wi' ^.o^tfos 8ta$0atgaj', .Lucian. dial, mar*

14, 1. (Stallbaum af/ PZa. Protag. p. 20. *E is more frequent, Jacobitz
ad Lucian. Tox. c. 25. Stallbaum ad Phileb. 31. ETartung Partik. 1.
193.). On the other hand, in Jas. iii. 14. the second negation should be
omitted, or if retained affects rather the annexed sentence: ^ xataxav-
#acf0E scat ^B-uStaOE xatu 1v\$ d^flaias. So also 2 Cor. xii. 21. Mt. xiii.

15. Mr. iv. 12. John xii. 40. Acts xviii. 27.; comp. Sext. Emp. adv.
Matth. 2, 20. Diod. Sic. 2, 48. JSlian. anim. 5, 21. Gataker JLdvers.
miscell. 2, 2. p. 268. Jacobs ad AnthoL Pal. p. 697. and ad JElian. anim.
II. p. 182. Boissonade ad Nicet. p. 390. Many interpreters supposed
they found the contrary in Ephes. iv. 26. o^L^sa^at, xal py apagtdvfte
for p<fj 6^y. xai (^) o/ia^tf. So among the Greeks (even in prose) O i)8a
or ovts frequently stands in the second member of a sentence, and must
then be attributed to the first also; see Schafer ad Bos. Ellips. p. 777.
Herm. ad Soph. Ajac. 239. 616. Doderlein de brachylog. p. 5. This,
however, which for the prose of the N. T. is very incongruous, in the
former passage is unnecessary, see 44, 1.

E SE Hebr. ix. 12. scarcely needs a remark, as ov Sa occurs
so very often.

7. The rule is frequently given that sentences with a single negation,
followed by awd, or where ov forms the antithesis to a preceding affir-
mative sentence (Mt. ix. 13.) are not always (as e. g. Mr. v. 39.) to be
taken as entirely negative, but (in consequence of an Hebraism, which,
however, exists also in Greek prose writers) must be translated: hot so
much as (non tarn, quam, ov toaov'tov, oaov Heliod. JEth. 10, 3. Xen.
Ephes. 5, 11., ov% OVT'OS, w$ Dio Chrys. 8. p. 130., o<D jiaMoj/ *)' Xen. Hel.
7, 1.), or not only, but also (non solum, sed), comp. Blackwall Aiict.
class, sacr. p. 62. Glass. I. p. 418. Wetst. and Kypke ad Mt. ix. 13.
Haabp. 145. Bos. Ellips. p. 772. Valckenaer Opusc. II. p. 190. ad
Dion. Hal. 4, 2121. 10. Jacobs Anthol. Pal. III. p. 69. prxf.*; e. g.

* Nee et often occurs in Lat. comp. Held ad Cces. bell. civ. 3, 28.

59. OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 381

Acts v. 4. oi>x tywau m$garfoc$, aMu s$ not so much to man (the Apos-
tle Peter), as to God himself etc.; 1 Thess. iv. 8. oi> dv^urtov d^et, dv
i.d tbvSebv rejects not so much a man (the Apostle Paul) as God. But
to be more particular, (a) the unconditional negation, in those passages
from the N. T. which are drawn hither, is either directly intended, as
can be seen by a careful examination of the context: Mt. ix. 13. l^sov
E'JUO xal otf ^ixjt'ow, where Jesus, with the words of the prophet (Hos. vi.
6.), wills that benevolence (the affection) be put really in the place of
sacrifices (mere symbols), comp. the following oi> yd% fo^ov xatiaat, 8 1 -
/ia^roXoiij, John vii. 16. yj Jj?J SiSaxy oi>x sOtiv iprj, &M.d
s, where Jesus speaks of the origin of his doctrine (ver.
15. 17. 18.): lite doctrine which you talee to be mine (as coming from
me), has its origin not from me, but from God himself (it is called by
Jesus ^ spq SiS. in reference to the opinion of the Jews), John vi. 27.
!gya(j^s uvj tqv figuaw tr t v drtoWupiwqv, aXXa ti^v j3gwtf' tip psvovaav tit
3jj/ aiav., <tjv 6 t6$ tov dv^gctrtov vp.lv Swcrst, where Jesus blames
the conduct of the people who had come to him as the Messiah, and where
the thought: eat not common food so much as rather heavenly etc. (Kii-
nol) would be without sense. (We confess our inability to discover the
senselessness of Kiinol's translation. TVs.). Liicke has translated these
words correctly. In 1 Cor. vii. 10. Paul makes a distinction between
the precepts of the Lord and Ms own, as in ver. 12. inverting the order,
where he alludes to the declaration of Christ in Mt. v. 32. The modern
interpreters are correct. As to 1 Cor. xiv. 22. comp. 23. there can be
no doubt; see Heydenreich in loc. comp. Ephes. vi. 12. 1 Cor. x. 24.
Heb. xiii. 9. 2 Cor. vii. 9. (6) or in other passages, on rhetorical grounds,
the unconditional negative is used for the conditional (relative), not in
order really (logically) to destroy the first idea, but to direct the atten-
tion undividedly to the second, so that the first may be almost absorbed
by the second. 1 Thess. iv. 8.: he rejects not man but God.* He cer-
tainly also rejects the Apostle, who proclaimed the divine truth, but here
the design is to bring prominently before the mind the thought that, pro-
perly speaking, it is God, as the true source of those tidings, who is re-
jected. The power of the thought is at once weakened, if translated:
he rejects not so much man as God. Such a translation is no better than
if, e. g. an asyndeton (which is also of a rhetorical kind) were adulte-
rated by the introduction of a copula. Hence I believe, that oi>x dud,

* Comp. Demosth. in Energ. p. 684. B. bynfipfa Mgtv$M oj* ipj (he was him-
self also really injured) A. \ x' i VT ft v (rijv tfwxiiv) n. T . Siy*. T. ^tfafjumv etc., JEuop.
148,2. oti cry pi XoiJojEi?, aXX 1 oTrufy. etc.

48

382 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PAKTICLE.

where it signifies non tarn, quam, according to the logical sense, belongs
to the rhetorical department and must therefore be retained in the trans-
lation (as is done by all better translators). The speaker has intention-
ally chosen this negative, and the formula is not therefore to be consi-
dered mainly grammatically. Whether any particular case be of this na-
ture is not to be determined by the feeling of the interpreter (no reason-
able man would think of so affirming), but by the context, and the nature
of the connected ideas. According to this, we must interpret the fol- ,
lowing passages: Mt. X. 20. ov% fytj Idts oi JlaXotWaj, a,M.a to ttvevpa,
fov rfatfgos -Ujttwv, Mr. IX. 37. oj acw Efts 8f f J?tftt!-, ovx Ips S^ST'CU, aM.a <tbv arto-
d /j.s, 1 Cor. XV. 10. rif^maoifs^ov avt^v jtawtuv ixorttatfa' ovx ayw ok,
fov $tov <y ovv l^uotj John xii. 44. o rttotsvuv f tj IHE ov jtia-tBvti,
stj fov jtsfj-^avta j*, Acts v. 4. 1 Thess. iv. 8. Luke x. 20.
I am in doubt about 1 Cor. i. 17. ovx drteatsME pe 'Xgiatbt j3arttft>, M.
svayyEfaZs-oSat. That Paul was allowed to baptize, and that he really
baptized, is known. But it was not the purpose of his (miraculous) call-
ing. 1 am therefore inclined to reckon this passage under the first class
(see also Billroth in Zoc.), and agree with the skilful Bengel: quo quis
mittitur, id agere DEBET. Comp. Luke xiv. 12. and Bornemann in loc.

Where (ov) ^ dwu* xai are related, as Phil. ii. 4. ^ i-
xaai!o$ axoTtovvtss, ahha xai -fa J^lgwv Exasfoj, the original plan of the
period was in ov d^a, but the xai was supplied, when the writer ar-
rived at the second member, for the purpose of softening the expression.
Similar passages are not rare among the Greek writers, see Fritzsche
Exc. 2. ad Mr. p. 788. (on the Latin non sed etiam, see Ramshorn p.
535.). The reverse takes place in ov povov d?aa (without xai^ see
Lehmann ad Lutian. II. p. 551.) where the writer drops the /toi/ov, and
instead of a thought parallel with the former, proceeds with one more
exalted (which generally includes the other), see Stallbaum ad Plat.
Sympos. p. 115. and Fritzsche as above p. 786. So Acts xix. 26. 6Vt ov
povov E<J>'tfou, a'M.a o%obv itdaqs tf'/js 'Atfo'as d na-u^oj QVT!O; rtsiaas /tftsa'ti'ioev
Ixavbv oz^ov, that he not only at Ej)hesus, but in all Asia, where it should
properly be: but ALSO in other places, comp. John v. 6. ovx Iv * i'Sat'o
povov, dxx' Iv ^9 ai'5. xo.1 ^9 a^a.-r't.* Fritzsche, having erased xai, also
reckons here John xii. 9. But there is little authority of the manu-
scripts for this omission, and D., where xal is wanting, omits also povov.
1 Tim. v. 23. pyxsift, vogottotst,, aM? ot'i/9 6Jity9 ^w must be translated:
be no more a drinker of water (bo^ono-cuv, comp. Herod. 2, 71. Mien.
1. p. 168.), but use a little wine; io^on. differs from v8ug ttivstv and
means to be a drinker of water, i. e. to use water as the usual and ex-
clusive drink. He who drinks a little wine, naturally ceases to be a
drinker of water in this sense, and no. [i6vov needs to be supplied.

* In Phil, ii.,12. stands ou /t*o'w, 4xx TroXXw fxSxxoy, see Fritzsche as above p. 776.
On the Lat. non solum (niodo) sed, see Ramsh. p. 536. Kritz ad Sail. Cat. p. 80.

59. OP THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 388

8. If two negatives are connected in one principal clause, they either
(a) destroy each other, Acts iv. 20. oi> Swdfti^a^tls, a tlSopev xal ijxovaa-
P.EV, i*,*) xatoiV nonpossumus non dicere, i.e. we must proclaim (comp.

Aristoph. ran. 42. ov?^ pa, -t^v AiJ^fga Svvaftat, M y&av), 1 Cor. Xll. 15.

oi> ;tatt -tovto ovx tatw Ix lov crw/taf-oj therefore it is still of the body
(belongs to it). The particles of negation, in the former passage, belong
to different verbs (first vvaa$at, is negated and afterward AotfiEtV); see
the Syriac; in the latter, ovx ta-tiv forms one idea, which is negated by
the former ov. Comp. Mt. xxv. 9. and 61, 3. Or (&).they all reduce
themselves (and this is rather more frequent) to one negation, and (ori-
ginally) only serve to give to it more definiteness, and to render the clause
in all its parts negative; John xv. 5. #wgi j Ip-iv o v Svva^s jtouiv ovSsv
non poteslis facere quidquam, i. e. nihil potestis facere, 2 Cor. xi. 8.
Tta^wv -- o* xwt fvdgxqaa ovv6$, 1 Cor. Vlll. 2. Mt. l. 44. V. 37.
xv. 4. Luke iv. 2. viii. 43. xx. 40. John vi. 63. ix. 33. Acts viii. 39.
xxv. 24. Rom. xiii. 8. 1 John i. 5. So also (comp. in Septuag. Hos. iy. 4.
see Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 107.) where the ideas every, always, every time,
every where, are added to the negative sentence as a necessary or rhetorical
enlargement (Bockh nott. ad Find. p. 418.), or where the negation is
divided into parts, Mt. xii. 32. ovx d^s^astm avtf$ ovits EV tov'tcp t<Z
atwn ovt E Iv *9 pEKKovtt. In this way there may be a series of negations
in a sentence: Luke xxiii. 53. ov ovx qv ovotitto oiSstj xsipEvos (comp.
jElian. amm. 11, 31. wj ovo'ErtwTto'fE ovSsva ovbsv aoixyaas, Plat. Parmen.
p. 166. A. 6Vt I'aM.a -tu>v p, 1 ^ ovtov ovSsvi ovoapij ovSa^iuiy ovSs/Aiav xowuvlav
H X ei, Lysias pro Mantith 10. Xen. Anab. 2, 4. 23. Plat. Phil. p. 19. B.)
see Wyttenbach ad Plat. Plised. p. 199. Ast ad Plat. Polit. p. 541.
Boissonade ad Philostr. Her. p. 446. and ad Nicet. p. 243., especially
He ran. ad Soph. Anlig. p. 13.

In 1 Cor. vi. 10. after several preceding partitive members (aits, ov
oi, ov) the negation, for the sake of distinctness, is repeated once more
with the predicate paafoetav $EOV ov xfajgovopriaovac. Yet good Codd.
omit it. In Rev. XXI. 4. oiVs rtsi^oj ovte x%ovy<f} OVT!E rt6vo$ ovx la-tut, 1-tt,
the ov might undoubtedly be omitted. ^Eschin. Ctes. 23. oiSI ys 5
rfoMjgoj ovx uv ttotE ysvot-to fi^orfiqt ytoj-^oj is most like it, comp. Plat.
rep. 4. p. 426. Herm. ad Soph. Antig. as above. On the contrary ovx
ftftfat sV. oiiVe Ttlv^oj etc. would be entirely according to rule.

A.bout the pleonastic ^ after verbs, which imply the idea of negation,
see 67. 1.

NOTE. El forms a peculiar kind of negation in formulas of swearing
by means of an aposiopesis of the apodosis Mr. viii. 12. Apfy w'yw v^v,
si So^Jasi'cM fy ysvEa, -nav-ty a^slov i. e. no sign will be given; Heb. iii.

11. IV. 3. w^iorfa, si tisstevaovtui sis ify xafdrtavaiv uou. This is an

384 PA.KT THIKD. USE OP THE PARTICLE.

imitation of the Hebrew DX, and as the apodosisa formula of imprecation
must always be supplied in the latter place: then I will not be Jehovah;
in places where men speak: so let God punish me (comp. 1 Sarn. Hi.. 17.),
so shall I not live etc. Ewald lent. GV. 661. {comp. Aristoph. Equit.
698. Jqti/ prj or' jc$ay ovBsrtaff /Stuaopat. Cic. Fam. 9, 15. 7. MORIAR, si
hdbeo.

'Eav is so used Neh. xiii. 25. Septuag. No instance of lav py (affirma-
tively) is found in the N. T. (comp. Ezek. xvii. 19.), and most incon-
siderately has Haab p. 226. reckoned here the passages Mr. x. 30. 2
Thess. ii. 3. To this mode of expression Wahl (Clav. I. p. 212. first ed.)
refers Mr. iv. 22. ov ya.g la-ti xgvrt-fbv, S lav py $avEt<>^ and supposes
that adv is here merely for ov as in the Septuag. (Judg. v. 8. 2 Kings iii.
14. Proverb, xxvii. 24. Jes. xxii. 24. Cant. ii. 7.)*. But Slav py $av.
means: which shall not in some way become manifest, quod non aliqua
ratione, etc. Wahl in his second ed. has correctly omitted this remark.

60. Construction of the Negative Particles.

1. The negative py ne } with its compounds, stands in independent sen-
tences, to express a negative wish or a warning, and is construed,
(a) with the optat. (aor.) in the former case (Franke I. p. 27.): e. g. in
the oft-recurring py yli/owo, Luke xx. 16. Rom. ix. 14. Gal. ii. 17. 2
Tim. iv. 16. So also the compound negative according to the text rec.
(and Lachm.) Mr. xi. 14. prixsttsx aov sis fbvaluva pqSfis xagrtbv $ayot,
never again may any one etc. Yet here the subjunctive <j>oy}?, which
other Codd. offer, is more appropriate to Christ (6) when it expresses
a warning (a) sometimes with the imperat. pres. (usually where some-
thing permanent or which some one is already doing, is to be indicated),
Mt. vi. 19. pvj ^tjdav^STtE iiptv, vii. 1. py xgwffs, John V. 14. pyxeft*
apdgtavs, comp. John xiv. 1. xix. 21. Mr. xiii. 7. 11. Rom. xi. 18. Ephes.
iv. 28. Mt. xxiv. 6.f 17. 1 Tim. v. 23. (0) sometimes with the sub-
junctive aor. (when that is to be expressed which is transient or which
in general is not to be begun), Luke vi. 29. ajto tov aigovt6$ gov to tpd-
tftov xal tbv %ttva pq xwTtvtfjyj, Mt. X. 34. py vopiayts, 6Vt ^WetC., Mt.

* Of these passage?, Isa. xx. 24. 2 Kings iii. 14. contain an oath; Cant. ii. 7. is an
aposiopesis (if ye awake for me --- I shall reward you) ; Prov. xxvii. 24. (23) con-
tains no lv; Judg. v. 8.: if a spear or lance had been seen, at that time among the
40,000.

f Here we must place a comma after O^TE, as H. Stephens has correctly remarked.
If o'fSTSjUtj be connected, then we must read Sons-Qe instead of floeurfle.

69. CONSTRUCTION OP THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 385

vi. 13. Luke xvii. 23. So in prohibitions Mr. x. 19. Mt. vi. 7. Col. ii.
21., where the action itself (even only once done) is interdicted, not that
which is customary or permanent. The subjunctive present follows /J
in the received text Heb. iii. 15. Septuag. ^ axtoigvvijtf and several
times in the var. e. g. Jas. v. 9. But the construction is no where in the
least certain. On the Greek writers see Schafer ad poet. gnom. p. 156.
158. Jacobs ad Anthol. III. p. 735* Comp. Herm. de prseceptis Jitticis-
tar. p. 4. ad Vig. p. 807. Bernhardy p. 393. Franke I. p. 29.

In Rom. xiii. 8. the imperative is connected with ^
dfysfaftE: for to take o$sfa> as indicat. is inconsistent with the subjective
negations. Reiche's adverse remarks are a singular compound of obscu-
rity and half truth. And if he meant that, in some of the passages quoted
by Wetstein, the subjective negations were used in the same manner, he
is very much mistaken, for there the infinitive or a participle occurs,
which, as is well known, requires ny. On oi with indicat. fut., partly in
the O. T, passages from the law, as Mt. v. 21. oi $ovEvasi>$, comp. xix. 18.
Acts xxiii. 5. agxovtoi toy baov aov ovx *ftj xaxu>$, Rom. xiii. 9. ov jttot-
xevaets etc., comp. vii. 7., partly in the N. T. style itself Mt. vi. 5. ovx
say tiarttg ot vrtoxgrtai, where ^ with the imperat. should be expected,
comp. xliv. 3. Similar Xen. Hell. 2, 3. 34. see Herm. ad Vig. 802.
Locella ad Xen. Ephes. p. 204.

Where the third person is connected with py in the interdicting sense
(as often in laws, see Franke as above p. 32.), the imperat. (in the N. T.
always) is used, not the subjunctive (nam, si ^ rtovqay diceremus, tan-
tummodo metum nostrum, non eliam voluntatem significaremus, Herm.
ad Soph. Ajac. p. 163.), and imperat. pres. where some one is already
doing something, imp. aor., where one must continue to abstain in time
to come from that which he is not now doing: Rom. vi. 12. ^ ow jSaot-
teuEtfto ^ afia^-tia Iv tfqj ^vy'tcp vpuv tJw^ai-t, xiv. 16. 1 Cor. vii. 12. 13.
Col. ii. 16. 1 Tim. vi. 2. Jas. i. 7. 1 Pet. iv. 15. 2 Pet. iii. 8., on the
contrary Mt. vi. 3. ^ yj/wi-o % agurtsgd aov etc., xxiv. 18. ^ s-jtm-t^ortu)
dftiau, Mr. xiii. 15. ^ xatapdtu soj t^ olx. (also Mt. xxiv. 17., according
to good Codd., where the vulgate has xai-a/JaM/Ei-o.). Comp. Xen. Cyrop.
7, 5. 73. 8, 7. 26. jEschin. Ctes. p. 282. C. Kiihner II. 113. [No in-
stances from the Septuagint are needed here; if they were, many besides
Deut. xxxiii. 6. and 1 Sam. xvii. 32. can be found, as Josh. vii. 3. 1
Sam. xxv. 25.].

If a dehortation is to be expressed in the first person (plur.), rf governs
the subjunctive, either pres. or aor. with the distinction just mentioned,

* Franke I. p. 33. Prasentis conjunctivum Jiaud usquam videris ab antiquiorib. scrip.
lorib. in vetando positurn. Comp. Herm. ad Soph. Aj. p. ]63.

386 PART THIRD. USE OP, THE PARTICLE.

e. g. John xix. 24. py exlaupsv, on the contrary 1 Johniii. 18. p
P.I-V a.oy<j> (which some did), Rom. xiv. 13. 1 Cor. x. 8. In Gal. v. 26.
the manuscripts vacillate: some have ^ yva^a xcvoSof ot (so the received
text) others ysvcfyw^a. The better adopt the former (also Lachmann) and
the apostle may intend to mention a fault, which already prevailed in the
churches, as what precedes also renders probable.

2. In dependent clauses ^ (pyxus, ^rio-fe etc.) is found : (a) in the
signification in order that not (for which iVa ^ is more usual) with the
subjunctive after pres. and imperf. 1 Cor. ix. 27. vrtwrtta^o pov to aZ>pn
-- ^Ttwj -- dSoxipos ysvupai, 2 Cor. it. 7. xii. 6. Mt. v. 25. vii.
6. xv. 32. Luke xii. 58.; with the optat. after the preterite, Acts xxvii.
42. tfwv atgatiutCJv |3ovto} tyli'ST'o, Iva, T'OVJ SEff/uwT'aj artoxttwucSt, /wj tfij ex-
xovujufSijffaj 8 i a^iyo t , but here also good Codd. have Stafvy^, as Lach-
mann has received (see above p. 226. Bernhardy p. 401.). The same
mode occurs in the O. T. quotation Mt. xiii. 15. Acts xxviii. 27., where
however it is more unquestionable, as a permanent result is designed.
The indicat. fut. Mr. iv. 12. (in an 0. T. quotation) ^no-es Ijtiatgs^uKSi,
xat a^e^^a st at, (according to the better Codd.) is not necessarily to
be considered as also dependent on ^rf. see p. 227., but so considered
would be very appropriate, see Fritzsche in loc. The former is the case
with Idaopat, Acts xxviii. 27. (var.) comp. Luke xiv. 8. 9. (b) for, that
not that not perhaps after Sga, fastis or tjJojSotJ^at etc. (Herm. ad Vig. p.
795.). In this connection follows, (a) the indicative, where the suppo-
sition (fear) is expressed that something is taking place, will take place,
or has taken place: indicat. pres. Luke xi. 35. axortu, py tb <j>wj tfo EJ> aoL
ax6no$ ketlv (Herm. ad Soph. Ajac. 272. ^ lati verentis quidem est
ne quid nunc sit. sed indicanlis simul, putare se ita esse, ut verelur}:
indicat. fut. Col. ii. 8.'j3?iln;T', pj I'tj fyiaj sat at, 6 crMaycaywi' ne futu-
rus sit, ne existat, qui etc. Heb. iii. 12. (Plat. Cratyl. p. 393. C. Acliill.
Tat. p. 837. Jacobs Xen. Cyrop. 4, 1. 18. comp. Stallbaum ad Plat.
rep. I. 336.); indicat. preter. Gal. iv. 11. $o/3o{ytc fytoV, ^Tt^s sixy XE-
xortltoxa (may have labored), see Herm. ad Eurip. Med. p. 356.
Poppo Time. 1. 1. p. 135. Stallbaum ad Plat. Menon. p. 98. comp. Thuc.
3, 53. Diog. L. 6, 1. 4. Lucian. Pise. 15. Heliod. JEtli. 1, 10. 3. (Job
i. 4.) (p) subjunctive, where the object of a mere fear, which may per-
haps be realized, is denoted: subjunctive pres. Heb. xii. 15. (is an O. T.
passage) Ijt^wnovvt^ --- ^ -ftj fn^a rtixglas lvo%^y (Herm. ad
Soph. Ajac. 272. ^ ^ verentis est, ne quid nunc sit, simulque nescire se
utrum sit nee ne significantis), usually subjunctive aor. of something to
come : Mt. xxiv. 4. faeries, py m vfj.a$ Ttxar^cJ^ 2 Cor. xi. 3. q>oj3ov/j,at,,

6)0. CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 387

- 4$0} to, voytMta &p&i>, xii. 10. Luke xxi. 8. Acts xxx. 40.
1 Cor. x. 12. viii. 9. The same mood is usual in narration after the
preterite Acts xxiii. 10. xxvii. 17. 29., as afterwords of fearing even in
the best Gr. prose writers, Xen. Anab. 1, 8. 24. Kigoj Ssioas, ,107
ysvo/Mvoj xartaxoty >tb 'Esi^vaxov, Cyrop. 4, 5. 48. rtofcuv fyofiov ypiv
%ste, M ifi rtdOqtE, Lysias cssd. Erato sth. 44. 6 lyw SsStwj /w^f
ertEdvpovv av-fdv cwtojieVat comp. also Herodi. 4, 1. 3. 6, 1. 11. see Matth.
II. 1189. Bornemann ad Xen. Sympos. p. 70.

Here belong also the elliptical sentences, as Mt. xxv. 9. nyjtaife ovx
a^xsay rip.lv xai vpiv that it may not be. sufficient, i. e. it is to be feared
that -it may not suffice (where some Codd. read ngxBtsei, which would suit
very well). Rom. xi. 21. si o 06j *wv xai'd $vow xXafioi/ ovx l^eiaa-eo,
OVOE aov tysiasKM (more confirmed than tyeiayeat) if God has not

spared, (I fear and presume) that he perhaps will not spare thee, comp.
Septuag. 'Gen. xxiv. 39. The interpretation of Fritzsche (conjectan. in
JN. T. Spec. 1. p. 49.) num forte (tibi parcel?) ne tibi quidem parcel, ap-
pears therefore to me, neither necessary nor natural.

Fritzsche (Conj. 1. note on p. 50.) has found the translation of Gal.
11. 2. avEfiqv -- dvsOEfir]V -- ^jtioj si{ xsvbv * g I tf sS^aftov, ne ope-
ram meam luderem aut lusissem, defective in two respects, because then
instead of i-gl^a (after a preterite) the optat. was to have been expected,-
the indicat. sSgapov here would express, what the Apostle could not intend
to say, that he may have labored in vain. The hesitation therefore on
account of ^l^w vanishes entirely as far as the N. T. is concerned (even
the subjunc. pres. is admissible), as Paul speaks of the Apostolic dili-
gence, which yet continues (see above p. 226.); the preter. indie. i'Sga-
joi/, however, would be pardonable on the supposition that Paul had ex-
pressed the whole sentence in that mode which he would have used if he
spoke the words affirmatively: lest I perhaps run, or have run (for might
run, or might have run) comp. above p. 227. In order to remove all
difficulty, l-'ritzsche believed that the sentence should be taken interro-
gatively: docui Hierosolymis cloctrinam divinam. Numfrustra operam
meam in evangelium insumo aut insumsi? The artificialness of this in-
terpretation is evident, and Fritzsche himself has therefore not adverted
to it (Progr.I. in ep. ad Gal. p. 18.), but, finding the subjunc. pres. alto-
gether regular, translated the pret: ne forte frustra CUCURIUSSEM (which
might easily be admitted, if I had not shewn forth my doctrine . . . in
Jerusalem). Comp. Matth. II. 1184. This is allowable; yet I do not
think the above supposition refuted. Lest I perhaps have run, Paul
could very well say, if he only in some measure feared that this might
have happened (and that he did thus fear, Fritzsche grants): ^^ is
not fjir; or iVa JMJ.

See Fritzsche on Mr. xiv. 1. where J^ou, is established.

In 1 Thess. iii. 5. ^jtwj is counected with both indie, and subjunc.
-erttp^a, as 1-6 yvwi/at t^v rtlotiv vpuv, ^rfcoj Ettsi'^attEv ijtiaj 6 jtsigdfav
xal EIJ xsvov yswitut, 6 xortos ifjpZv, I sent to inquire of your faith,
(fearing) lest perhaps the tempter have tempted you, and my labor might
be fruitless. The different modes are here justifiable. The temptation

388 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

might already have taken place; that, however, the labor of the Apostle
would thereby be in vain, depended on the consequence of the tempta-
tion, and might be imminent.

NOTE. After verbs of fearing, only /?, ufaus follow, not l VOl ^; there-
fore in Acts v. 26. iVa py faeaoQugiv cannot be connected, as it is by most
interpreters, with lyopovvto <tbv xaov, but is rather dependent on rjywytv
uirtovs ov fit-to, jSt'aj, and the words $oj3. ya -tbv Jux- must be taken as
parenthetical.

3. The intensive ov pj (used of that which in no way is, or can hap-

pen),* is construed sometimes, and indeed most usually, with the subjunc.

aor., sometimes with subj. pres. (Stallbaum ad Plat. rep. I. p. 51.), some-

times with indie, fut. see Ast ad Plat. Polit. p. 365. Stallbaum ad Plat.

rep. II. p. 36. Matth. II. 1173. Herm. ad Soph. (Ed. Col. 853. por-

trays the difference between the subjunctive aor. and the future indicat.

(which only occur in the N. T.) thus: conjunctiva aor. locus est out in

eo, quod jam actum est, aut in re incerti temporis sed semel vel brevi

temporis momenta agenda; futuri vero usus, quern ipsa verbi forma non-

nisi in rebus futur. versari ostendit, ad ea pertinet, quse aut diuturniora

aliquando eventura indicare volumnus aut non aliquo quocunque sed re-

motiore aliquo tempore dicimus futura esse. The discussion on the ex-

istence of this distinction is made more difficult by the vacillation of the

manuscripts, some of which, in many places, have the future, others the

aor. subj. The subjunctives are established in Mt. v. 18. 20. 26. x. 23.

xviii. 3. xxiii. 39. Mr. xiii. 2. xix. 30. Luke vi. 37. xii. 59. xiii. 35.

xviiL 17. 30. xxi. 18. John viii. 51. x. 28. xi. 26. 56. 2 Pet. i. 10.

1 Thess. iv. 15. According to the authority of manuscripts the subjunc-

tives prevail in Mt. x. 42. arto^o^ xvi. 28. ytvawtat, (Mr. ix. 1.), Mt.

xxvi. 35. a^a^tfw^at (Mr. xiv. 31.) Mr. ix. 41. ajtoieay,' x\i. 18.

.Luke ix. 27. yEvawtai, John vi. 35. rtEwday, 814^^, viii. 52.

xiii. 8. vitys, Rom. Jv. 8. ^.oylo^ai, Gal. v. 16. tsbeaqts; the subjunctive

and future are at least equivalent in Mr. xiv. 31. Luke x. 19. (Septuag.)

xviii. 7. John viii. 12. x. 5. xiii. 8. 38. Mt. xv. 5. 1 Thess. v. 3. Hebr.

x. 17. Rev. xv. 4.;f the future in Luke xxii. 34. has most in its favor.

* It is probably to be understood elliptically: w pn irtmo-y for oo SsSbixa (*h tr., see

Ast ad Plat. Polit. p. 365. Matth. ad Eurip. Hippol. p. 24. Sprachl. II. p. 1174. Herm.
ad Soph. (Ed. C. 1028. Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. II. p. 36. Otherwise Schafer ad De-
mosth. IV. 218. The connective oiSi pn (xal cl ^Jis found only in Rev. vii. 16. in
the N. T.; oftener in the Septuag. Ex. xxii. 21. xxiii. 13. Josh, xxiii. 7.

t A fut. may occur in transcribing, in consequence of a preceding or succeeding
fut, as John viii. 12. oi> ^ negnra.'rnffti xx' E|EI, x. 5.

60. CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEGATIVE PARTICLES. 389

Hence the subjunctive is unquestionably predominant in the N. T. (comp.
Lob. ad Phryn. p. 722.), and it must be restored in Luke xxii. 34.
The canon of Hermann, on the whole, cannot be applied to the N. T.;
for, although some passages may be explained according to it, others are
opposed, and the aor. is chosen, where the future ought to be expected,
as, e. g. 1 Thess. iv. 15. 6V& typels ol fwi/tfES oi Tit^E^rio^vod sis tv\v rtagov
alav nov xvgtov ov IMJ ^acfw/tav tovs xotfMff^ive^ where the precise point of
time is before the mind: just on the day of the return of Christ,' and
Hebr. viii. 11., where, in the ov M 8i5d%uaw, there is allusion to a cer-
tain time (the period of Messiah, ver. 10.), and something permanent is
denoted, comp.- Rev. xxi. 25. The subj. generally in the later writers
is very common in the sense of the future, comp. Lob. as above p. 723.
Philo ad Act. Thorn, p. 57.

The observation of Dawes, who disregards the difference in the sense
of the aor. and fut. in this construction, but in respect to the former only
suffers the aor. 1. act. (and midd.) in the Greek text, is generally disal-
lowed (see.Matth. II. 1175. Stallbaum ad Plat. rep. II. 343. on the con-
trary Bernhardy p. 402.) and cannot be applied to the N, T.; here aor.

I. is as frequent as aor. 2., even of verbs, which had the form of aor. 2.
in common use (var. see Rev. xviii. 14.).

In Mt. xvi. 22. oi /m) eat m stands without var. in the signification
(absif) hoc tibi ne accidat. According to the text of several editions
the pres. indicat. once follows 01) ^17, namely, John iv. 48. lav ^ 6<yjp.sia
xal tegd-to, ISt/itE, ov w rttMevs-ts, even in one Cod. Rev. iii. 12. has the
optative: ov ^ !&&ot. The latter is certainly only a mistake in writing,
resulting from not being heard correctly (differently Soph. Philo ct. 611.
and Schtlfer in loc., comp. id. ad Demosth. II. p. 321.), the former,
however, was perhaps intended to be rtiotevtite, for the subj. pres. so oc-
curs in the Greek writers, e. g. Soph. (Ed. Col. 1028. ov$ oi> ^ jto-te
%u>ga$ fyvyovtss -frfi S' e rtev x>v<t at, ^EOOJ (according- to Herm. and others),
Xen. Cyrop. 8, 1. 5. Anab. 2, 2. 12. 4, 8. 13. (see Herm. ad Eurip.
Med. Elmsl. p. 390. Stallbaum ad Plat. Polit. p. 51. Ast ad Plat. Polit.
p. 365.), as in John iv. 48. after a conditional clause with tdv Xen. Hier.

II, 15. adv tov$ fi/Tiouj xgatvis sv rtotZtv, ov py dot Svvwtut, dvtsxetv oi jto'KB-
iLttoi. llKJi'svff^T'E, however, is marked as prevalent in the Codd. (only
one Cod. has JUG* watts).- Herm. as above expressly denies that the in-
dicat. pres. can follow ov /^.

This intensive ov w occurs sometimes in a dependent clause, not only
in relative, Mt. xvi. 28. Luke xviii. 30. Acts xiii. 41., but also in objec-
tive clauses with Stt Mt. xxvi. 29. John xi. 56. tl 8 * lv 6Vt o,

tl 8 * fylv, 6Vt oi,

ea,^ sig trp> so^v; what think you? that he will not come to the feast?
and in a direct question with * t ' ff in Rev. xv. 4. * t 'j ov rf $o/3^ <j ; comp.
withthese passages Xen. Cyrop. 8,1.5. <t ov * eiSb z> *'

etc. (Soph. Philocl. 611.), comp. Neh. ii. 3.
8i<i *!, ov pii ysvijtai, rtovijgov etc. On ov ^ with the subjunctive or fut.
in an interrogative sentence without an interrogative pronoun, see 61, 3.
49

390 PART THIRD. USE OP THE PARTICLE.

61. Of the Interrogative Particles.

1. Interrogative sentences in the N. T., which do not begin with an
interrogative pronoun or a special interrogative adverb (like Ttwj, rtov
etc.) are usually expressed (a) without a particle, if they are direct;
sometimes however si, contrary to the usage of the Greek book language,
precedes questions, by which the inquirer only intimates his uncertainty,
without indicating the expectation of a reply. (6) If indirect, they are
always introduced by si. In the direct double interrogation jtotsgov */
occurs only once John vii. 17.; in all other cases the first question is
without an interrogative particle Luke xx. 4. Mr. iii. 14. Gal. i. 10. iii.
2. Rom. ii. 4. comp. Bos Ellips. p. 759. Besides ^ is sometimes used
for or, perhaps, if there is an ellipsis of the first question, which, how-
ever, is to be supplied out of the immediately preceding words.

2. The following instances only can be quoted, (a) of si in the direct
question: Luke xiii. 23. sljts T&J avtfcp, xvgis, si dhiyoi, ot a^o^voi', Luke
xxii. 49. sljisv atir'qj' xvgts, si rtafd^o/Asv sv jtta^atga; Acts i. 6. Irt^gwtfaj'

aaiT'oj' hsyovfs j, xvgis, si artoxaSwtdvsi'S "t^v jSatftJiEKW etc. (Gen. Xvii.

17. xliii. 6. Job v. 5. 1 Kings xiii. 14. 2 Kings xx. 20. Ruth i. 9.).
This is an abuse of the particle, originally derived from a mingling of
two constructions (Bornemann p. 235. comp. V. Fritzsche qusest. Lu-
cian. p. 141.), but, as it occurs, contains scarcely a trace of this origin.
The application of this explanation to the above passage, where a voca-
tive introduces the direct question, is at least very harsh. Stallbaum ad
Phileb, p. 117. (on the contrary Matth. II. 1214.) affirms that, in Greek
writers, si sometimes occurs in direct questions (Hoogeveen doctr. partic.
I. 327.), but Bornemann ad Xen. Apol. p. 39. comp. Herm. ad Lucian.
consecr. hist. p. 221. and Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 328. denies it in respect
to the Attic language. In the passage, Odyss. 1, 158., quoted by Zeune
ad Viger. p. 506., jj was long since substituted; in Plat. rep. 5. p. 478.
D. all good Codd. have svtb$ for si, and in Aristoph. Nub. 483. (Palairet
observatt. p. 60.) si does not signify num, but an in an indirect question.
So Demosth. c. Callicl p. 735. B. Comp. Dio. Crys. p. 299. D. ^
<xM.o v^iv jtgoseita&v, eTteojsMtv % StsTuz&j', where the answer immediately
follows. Schneider, on the authority of MSS., retains the si even in
Plat. rep. 4. p. 440. E., which modern writers have changed into %, bu-t
explains this use of the particle in an (apparently) direct question by
ellipsis. In the later language, with which alone we have here to do,
especially in the popular, the si could be used for the designation of di-

61. OP THE INTERROGATIVE PARTICLES. 391

rect questions, as well as an among the later Romans in a direct simple
question. (&) % is used for or perhaps? e. g. Mt. xx. 15. $fru tatty -1-9
eazdt<p Sovvat j xal ao!,' % oiix l&a<tl pot rfowjtfat. Here the one question
is not expressed, e.. g. art thou satisfied with it, or Luke xiv. 31. xv. 8.
Rom. vii. 1. xi. 2. 1 Cor. xiv. 36. 2 Cor. xiii. 5. comp. Xen. Mem. 2, 3.
14. Cyrop. 1, 3. 18. and see Lehmann ad Lucian. Tom. II. 331. See
Freund's Lexicon I. 263. on a similar use of the Latin an.

The interrogative ag corresponds usually with the Latin num after
which a negative answer is to be expected (Herm. ad Vig. p. 821.). So
Luke xviii. 8. a g a sv^ast, -e^v tiiatw Ixi ^j y^j; and agaye, Acts viii. 30.
COfnp. Xen. JMem. 3, 8. 3. agays, E^IJ, Igwfaj jii,t' tt olSa rtiigstfoi) aya&oV;
O-UPC f'ywy', 1^. Kiihner II. 577. shows how agayt is properly the same
as ag, comp. Herm. prsef. ad (Ed. Col. p. 16. (In Gal. ii. 17. ago, seems
to be used for nonne, as sometimes among the Greeks [Schafer Melet.
p. 89. Stallbaum ad Plat. rep. II. 223.], better however a'ga, as ago, does
not occur at all in Paul).

The relative forms orfcoj, ortdtfE, ortov etc. (Buttm. ed Rob. 116. 4. )
for the indirect question (and speech) correspond with the interrogatives
rtwj, riots, jtov etc., which are appropriated to the direct question. But
even the Attic writers do not always observe this difference (Kiihner II.
583., Herm. ad Soph. Jlntig. p. 80. Poppo indie, ad Xen. Cyrop. under
ri w ? and jt ov), the later neglect it frequently. In the N. T. the inter-
rogative forms prevail also for the indirect style (rto&v John vii. 27.,
rtov Mt. viii. 20. John iii. 8.; on rtw? see Wahl II. 429.); ortov is in the
N. T. more properly relative.

3. In negative interrogative sentences we find, (a) usually ov for nonne
where an affirmative answer should follow, Mt. vii. 22. ov *$ 0co dvopati,
rtgoq>t]tvaa[ii.i-v, have we not etc. Jas. ii. 5. Mt. xiii. 27. Luke xii. 6.
Heb. iii. 16. John vii. 25., sometimes where the inquirer himself con-
siders the thing as denied, Acts xiii. 10. oi, Ttavay Scaatgtyav tas 6Sovs
xvglov i-ay s^Etaj; wilt thou not desist etc.? The different emphasis de-
notes the different tendency of the qr,3stions: will you NOT desist? equiva-
lent to non desines? but WILL you not desist? equivalent to nonne desines.
The ov here negates the verb (non desinere as much as pergere), see
Franke I. p. 15. Comp. Luke xvii. 18. ot x $g a in Acts xxi. 38. means
non igitur, art thou not then (as I supposed, but as I see now denied)
that JKgyptian ? (nonne, as the vulgate translates, in connection with
.however, would rather be og' ov or abxwv see Herm. ad Vig. p. 793.).
(b) M>7 (nfos) occurs where a negative answer is supposed or expected,
(Franke as above 18.): Mt. vii. 9. ^ ^o* l^^^^heidllnot give
(I will not hope it, it is impossible) etc., Rom. ix. 20. xi. 1. 1 Cor. viii.
8. Mt. viii. 16. Mr. iv. 21. Acts x. 47. Both interrogatives are (accord-
ing to the above distinction) connected in Luke vi. 39. ftjt

392 PART THIRD. USE OF THE PARTICLE.

tfixj^os 'tvfy'b.bv odyyeiv', ov%l a/A^oTfE^oi, stj |3owoi> risaovvtai- Moj how-
ever sometimes occurs, where the inclination exists to believe that which
the question appears to deny (Herm. ad Vig. p. 787. Heindorf ad Plat.
Protag. p. 312.) John iv. 33. ^ -ti$ yvsyxEv a/itc? ^aystyj-vm, 22. Mt.
xii. 23. xxvi. 22. Luke iii. 15. In all these cases the context is deci-
dedly for this view. Some will find the same in Jas. iii. 14. si Zfoov
rttxgbv %? -- ju. rj xa'taxarvxaa'^uti xai ^svSets^s xaitd, tfTjj fa-q^Ei/a/fr but m-
correctly. The sense is: do not boast of yourself (of your wisdom ver.
13.) against the truth. Where ^ ov appears in questions, oi belongs to
the verb of the clause and ^ alone expresses the question, Rom. x. 18.
JMJ ovx qxovaavi have they heard the tidings? ver. 19. 1 Cor. ix. 4. 5. xi.
22. comp. Judg. xiv. 3. Jer. viii. 4. Ignat. ad Trail. 5. Xen. Mem. 4,
2. 12. Plat. Men. p. 89. C. On the contrary oi> p? is only a strength-
ening of the simple negation: John xviii. 11. ov /M.^ rtlu> ow-to', shall I not
drink it? (comp. Mt. xxvi. 29.) Luke xviii. 7. see 60, 3.

Acts vii. 42. ^ afydyia xai $vaias rtgoatjvEyxatE pot, sty tfefftfag. Iv ty
f^/tw, (from Amos) have you (have you perhaps) offered to me in the
desert etc.? the discourse continues xai WE^., because the question con-
tains the idea: you have not offered me any sacrifice during 40 years and
(even) you have etc. Differently Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 66. The passage
of Amos itself is not yet satisfactorily interpreted. In Mt. vii. 9. tl$ le-tw
E| ijitwy <wgtt7toj, ov lav alif^dy o itdj avtov agfov, (MI Xt^oy IrttSaast, oJvtcpi
two questions are mingled: who is there among you who would give?
and if a man should be asked, would he give? (would he perhaps give) ?
Comp. Luke xi. 11. and Bornemann in loc.

NOTE. John xviii. 37. ovxow Baaitevs si av would signify: art thou not
then a king? nonneigitur rex es? so that the inquirer has in mind an affir-
mative answer (after the words of Jesus % paatteia, tf E^ etc.); on the other
hand oiixovv (as editions have) jSacr- si av would mean: thou art then (yet)
a king, so thou art a king (perhaps with an ironical insinuation, see Bremi
ad Demosth. p. 238.) with or without question (Xen. Cyrop. 2, 4. 15.
5, 2. 26. 29.). The particle receives the latter signification, therefore,
then (without negation), because this ovxovv was originally conceived of
interrogatively: thou art a king, is it not so? see Herm. ad Vig. p. 793.
I believe the interrogative form, in the mouth of the inquiring judge,
more suitable and Liicke has also so interpreted. At all events oiixovv
cannot signify non igitur, as Kiihnol and Bretschneider prefer, for then
it ought to be written separately ovx

APPENDIX.

62. Paronomasia and Play upon Words.*

1. The paronomasia, which consisis in the connection of similarly
sounding words, and belongs to the partial attachment of oriental writers
(Verschuir diss. philol. exeg. p. 172.), especially in the Pauline epistles,
and seems sometimes to have been unpremeditated, sometimes intended
by the writer for the purpose of giving to the style a cheerful vivacity,
or to the thought more emphasis: Mt. xxiv. 7. Luke xxi. 11. < M/tot
xal juj^ot saovt&t, (comp. the German Hunger und Kummer), Hesiod. opp.
226. Jer. xxvii. 6. Septuag. sv jUjitqj xal Iv^ot^o irtiaxtyo/tai.av'tovs, xxxii.
24. see Valckenaer in loc.; Acts xvii. 25. 017 v xai Ttvo^v (comp. the
German leben and welen, and similarities Baiter ad Isocr. Paneg. p. 117.)
Heb. v. 8. 1! pa^i-v d<j>' <Zv Jrta^a (comp. Herod. 1, 207.) see Wetsten.
and Valcken. in loc. So in a series of words the paronomasiacal are
arranged together: Rom. i. 29. Ttogveta, jtovy&tt, -- $dvov, $6vov ---
aawEifovs, ngev^etovs (see Wetsten. in loc.). In other passages words of
the same derivation are arranged together: 1 Cor. ii. 13. l v

Ttvtvfii.a.'tixols rivsv^a-tuxa ovyxgwovfes. 2 Cor. viii. 22.
OrtovSaiov. IX. 8. lv itavtl rtavto'tf rtuaav wviagxsiuv. X. 12.
stwtov; /.letgovvtss (Xen. Mcni. 3, 12. 6. Svaxohia, xal
rtohhdx 05 rtoM.oi$ --- iprtirtttovaw, 4, 4. 4. fto^Xwy jtoM,dxt$ vrto j^v
Mpfvtov, Anab. 2, 5. 7- it a v i ^ yag rt a v * a Vois ^EOIJ lirfo^a

jt a v >t a x % rtdvi! v>v laov ot &oi xgatovai,, Plat. Cratyl. p. 336. D.
see Kruger ad Xen. Anal. 1, 9. 2. Boissonnade ad Nicet. 243.), Mt.
xxi. 41. xuxovs xax<Z$ artoheost, wifovs (Demosth. Med. p. 413. B.

^av/tdf tj, si xaxbs xaxuf dnioJtg, Aristoph. Pint. 65. 418. Diog.

* See Glass. Philol. sacr. I. p. 13351342. Chr. 13. Micliaelis de. paranomas. sacr.
Hal. 1737. 4to. J. F. B6ttclicr do paranom. finilimisque ei figurls Paulo Ap, fre-
quentaiis. Lips, 1823. 8vo.

394 APPENDIX.

L. 2, 8. 4. Alciphr. 3, 10. comp. ^schyl. Pers. 1042. Plaut. Aulular.
1, I. 3. and Schilfer ad Soph. Electr. 742. Fortsch de locis Lysise p.
44. Doderlein Progr. de brack, p. 8. To produce a paronomasia, wri-
ters sometimes employ rare or unusual words, or forms of words (Gese-

hius Lehrgeb. p. 858.) e. g. Gal. v. 7. jtEfet&at y rtsta povii (see

Winer's Comment, in Zoe.) comp. Schiller Wallenstein's Lager scene 8.
die Bisthiimer sind verwandelt in Wiistthiimer, die Abteien sind nun
Raubteien. The words tfi faafeslq, ^ itsfeeaSa,!, however are not well
established.

2. The quibble (or play upon words] is indeed kindred to the parono-
masia, but is distinguished from it by adding to the consideration of the
sound of the words that of their signification (it is therefore usually an-
tithetical): e. g. Rom. V. 19. tiajtig 5i tfijs rta^axo^ g T'OOJ EV&S dv^ga-
ftov d^tagi'oXot xatEa-tdSij/jav oi jttiM^oi' oaftfw xai 810, v ft a,x o jj ; -t Ov s vb $
Si/'xatot xa-r'cMJT'a^tfovi'ai. Phil. iii. 3. ]3?i7tT' tf q $ x a "t at o p<y]V, y/tsls
ydg Itsusv 07 rt E g t -t o /* q (Diog. JL. 6, 2. 4. tyy TLvxhsiSov a % o X, r; v Hheye %o-
hr/v, j^v 8e nhdtavos Sca-r'^tjS^v xa^ai'^cjSjJv.) iii. 12. 2 Cor. iv.

8. artogov/Asvot, &M*, ovx 1 1 a rC o-g o<v [t, s v o i, . 2 Thess. iii. 11. ^Ssv
egya%o[ji,Evov$, aXXa 7tE^t^ya|o^,lj/ouf (comp. Diod. Sic. 6, 2.
6. and Seidler ad JEurip. Troad. p. 11.). 2 Cor. v. 4. a>' $ ov e&opsv
fxSvtfacf^at, a^ ETtEvSviJatjQat. Acts viii. 30. d^a ys y c v o tf -
x E t $ , S dvayivwflxstj; cowip. Rom. iii. 3. Gal. iv. 17. 1 Cor. iii. 17.
vi. 2. xi. 29. 31. xiv. 10. 2 Cor. v. 21. x. 3. 3 John vii. 8. In Philem. ver.
20. the allusion to the name of the slave 'o^rf^oj in dvaipqv is more ob-
scure.* The same remark applies here, which was made above in respect
to rare words, and perhaps also to Gal. v. 12. comp. Winer's comment,
in loc. and Terent. Hecyr. proL 1. 2. ORATOR ad vos venio ornatu pYo-
logi, sinite EXORATOR sim.

We should naturally presume that the native Gr. writers would not
be wanting in paranomasia and quibbles; and accordingly examples have
been collected by Eisner in Diss. II. Paul, et Jesuias inter se comparati
(Vratisl. 1821. 4to.) p. 24. From Achill. Tat. 5. p. 331. SvstvxZ
fisv EV otj vtv%u, Zenob. Centur. 4, 12. t ^iJi'^o, y ^txca, Strabo

9, 402. fydaxsw sxsivov; avv s a at fift-egas, vvxtug 8s litiOsaOat., Plat.
Phsed. 74. o^tdi'^Oftoj <ts xai 6 J u-OT'go^oj yivsaOai, Diod. Sic. II, 57.
5o|aj 7tagaSo|toj SiaaeduaGat/, Max. Tyr. 37. p. 433. 6'rag ov^* vrtag

* An example in which only the signification of the word is had in view see Philem.

ver.ll. a^fno-rov, tWJg eu^na-rov. Still more concealed is the quibble in 1 Cor.

i. 23. having- a reference to the Heb. words ^D^D, Slii'D'D, ^30, h^iff (see Glass.
Philol. I. p. 1339.).

62. PARONOMASIA AND PLAY UPON WORDS. 395

wj Sofat aV two dygoijcotflgcdv fwitftfaj jtoTiu/, ThllC. 2, 62. jtwj ^ovy/tatt povov,
'djixa *& xortafygovfaatt, (Rom. xii. 3.), ^Eschin. Ctesiph. 78. Lys. in
Philon. 17. Xen. Anab." 5, 8. 21. Plat. Polit. 9, 6. p. 268. and 10, 12. p.
303. Ast Phsed. p. 83. D. Diod. Sic. Exc. Vat. p. 27. 5. Diog. L. 2, 8. 4.
6, 2. 4. 5, 1. 11. see Buttmann ad Soph. Philoct. p. 150. From the
apocrypha of the O. T. and the Fathers, camp, especially Septuag. Dan. xiii.
54. 55. slitbv, vrtb >tl StvSgov cte$ avtoiis -- vrtb a%ivov. EtVtE SI Aavt^
-- <S % i 6 s t, at (iBGov. 58. 59. sijttv' vrtb rt %l v o v . H^rte 5s Acwtjyft. --
try pofityaiw ex.uv ft g L a a i as peaov (comp. Africani ep. ad Orig. de
hist. Susan, p. 220. ed. Wetsten.), 3 Esr. iv. 62. av s a t.v xal cifyeaw.
Sap. 14, 5. ^a\Etj JIM? ay<* ^^ac, tfa tf^j rfo^i'aj aov eg yet. Macar. hom. 2. tfo
ev ^tlgoj q ju.^,oj rtda%t,.

63. Attraction.

By attraction two parts of speech logically (really) connected are con-
nected also grammatically (formally), so that a word (or group of words),
which properly belongs only to one of them, is grammatically related to
the other also, hence to both parts (to the one logically, to the other
grammatically) (He'rm. p. 889. Kriiger p. 39.), as: URBEM, quam statuo,
vestra est, where urbs properly belongs to vestra (for there are two
clauses: urbs vestra est, and quam statuo), but is attracted by the rela-
tive clause, and construed with, it, so that it belongs at the same time to
both clauses, logically to vestra, grammatically to quam statuo, see
Buttm. ed. Rob. 151. 4. Herm. ad Vig. p. 889. especially Kriiger
gramm. Untersuch. vol. 3. (Ruddimanni institutt. gr. Lat. ed. Stallbaum
II. p. 385.). The great variety of this form of speech, which we find
in the Greek, does not exist in the N. T., but even here many cases of
attraction occur, which were not recognised as such by earlier interpre-
ters, and threw at least many an obstacle in the way (see e. g. Bowyer
conjectur. I. 147.). They may be arranged thus: (1) A relative agrees:
(a) in gender (and number) with the predicate instead of the subject
Mr. xv. 16. T-^J avhrjs, o <!*<> tt%artuiov, 1 Tim. iii. 15. Iv olxc* ^toi), tf-
tts 60* iv sxxteaiu, see 24,3. note 1. comp. also Rom. ix. 24. 00)5
(axsvvi a'xlovs precedes) xai txdteaev .^aj. (I) Or its case is attracted by
the noun, to which it relates, instead of being governed by the verb of
its own clause, John ii. 22. faiatevgav t? juiy 9 , 5 (for ) f l rtsv & >fy so it,
see 24, 1.* (2) A. word of the principal clause is grammatically con-

* In Eph. ii. 10. of? is scarcely an attraction for a,.

396 APl'JENDIX.

strued with the subordinate one, 1 Cor. x. 16. * 6v # oj/ Sv

o$%i jeowion'tt tfov rfw/u.aT'oj etc. John VI. 29. iva ritdT/svO^E sig ov

tev EXEtvos, see 24, 2. or at the same time incorporated with it: (a) Mr

vi. 16. 6V lyut artsxqtyofataa 'iwaw^f, OVT'OJ seittvj see 24, 2. comp

Mt. vii. 9. (&) 1 John ii. 25. a-ui 1 ^ eativ q srfoyyaXta, ^v owtfoj J

^fttv T 1 ^ % u qv * v[ v v,l &v vov, instead of w^ as apposition to a

?ua, see 48, 4. c. Luther has also so'apprehended Phil. iii. 18. Comp.

Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 329. Stallbaum ad Plat. rep. I. p. 216. II. p. 146.

Kiihner II. 515.* (c) Mt. x. 25. agxstbv * /ta^fjji, fan,

flitoov) xal 6 Soi^oj wj o xvgtiO$ avtov for at r'9

w? o sextos. (3) A word of the subordinate member is transfer-
red to the leading one, and grammatically conformed to it: (a) 1 Cor.
xvi, 15. oi'ScWa t9jj> olxtav Stfe^owa, oft \dttlv artag;^ tfijj 'A^aiaj. This
occurs very frequently, Mr. xi. 32. xii. 34. 2 Cor. xii. 3. xiii. 5. Acts
iii. 10. iv. 13. ix. 20. xiii. 32. xvi. 3. xxvi. 5. 1 Cor. xv. 12. 1 Thess.
ii. 1. John iv. 35. v. 42. viii. 54. (Arrian. Alex. 7, 15. 7.) xi. 31. Rev.
xvii. 8. (Gen. i. 4. 1 Mace. xiii. 53. 2 Mace. ii. 1. 1 Kings xi. 28.);
Luke iv. 34. Mr. i. 24. olSd as, <ti$ si (see Heupel and Fritzsche in Zoc.),
Luke xix. 3. iSsiv tbv 'l^cfow, tl$ eati, comp. Schafer ind. ad JEsoj). p.
127., John vii. 27. tovtov olSupev, jtoQsv lo-tiv (Kypke in Zoc.),
Acts XV. 36. Iftodx^l*s9a, *oi)j aSaJi^ovs -- rtwj s%ovat, (Achill. Tat. 1,
19. Theophr. Char. 21.); Col. iv. 17. posits n^v Siuxovlw, CVa

Rev. iii. 9. TtoMjcrw oii'o'ijf, 'iva ^fcofft etc., Gal. vi. 1.
xat oi) TtjigoijCijs, Gal. iv. II. ^ojSoiJ^tat. v^as, ft^Ttoj tx^ xsxortiaxa,

(comp. Diod. Sic. 4, 40. I'D!/ aBehfybv EvhapEiadai, (t^itQis --
fi ]3atft7,t-'q!., Soph. ffifZ. 12. 760. SsSoix* spav-ebv -- (ty rtowS a/yav

t, Thuc. iii. 53. Ignat. ep. ad Rom. 2. q>of3ovpat, tvj

yavj, see Kriiger p. 164.). See especially J. A. Lehmann de
grsec. ling, transpos. (Danz. 1832. 4to.) p. 18. seqq.f On the Heb.
see Gesen. Lehrgeb. p. 854. (6) Rom. i. 22. fydaxovtes swat a o $ o i,
efUAgdv&qaav, 2 Pet. ii. 21. x^l't'tov v\v (Mnfot? jW? irtEyvtoxsvai, -- ^ I it v -
y v o v a iv triKj^e'^ao etc. 46, 1. Kiihner II. 355. This attraction is
omitted Acts xv. 22. 25. (see Eisner Observ. I. p. 428.) xxvi. 20. Heb.
ii. 10. 1 Pet. iv. 3. Luke. i. 74. comp. Bremi ad JEscldn. fals. leg. p.
196. (c) Acts xvi. 34. sjyaJi^.corfai'o rtsflUrftfsDKwf tf$ ^9, 1 Cor.
xiv. 18. Ei^agtfftfip *9 -<p jtawtw V/AWV paM-ov y^wtfcfatj fl,aA.wj>, see 46. 1.

* In Rev. xvii. 8, Qteitntiuv either belongs to'the relative clause (for ^XEWOVTEJ) or
the writer had in view a genit. absolute.

t It may however be doubted whether these cases fall under attraction. The oi&*
av-rov is a complete sentence in itself, more particularly defined by o-ri vlo$ etc.

63. ATTKACTIOIV. 397

(4) An appositive word, which should be construed with the governed
noun, is attracted by the governing noun, Luke xx. 27. twss -t^v SaSSw
xnltov o I uvfthEyovtes avdataaiv ^ slvai (where a.vtth. .belongs pro-
perly to the genit. SaSSo^x.). I know of no exactly correspondent in-
stance (even that which is quoted by Bornemann Thuc. 1, 110. is not
quite analogous), but a similar one in Corn. Nep. 2, 7. illorum urbem ut
propugnaculum OPPOSITUM esse barbaris.(5') One local preposition is
implied in another (Herm. ad Vig. p. 891.) Luke xi. 13. 6 rcaf^ o If
o v g av o v Sd>aei> rtvsvfjio, Hyiov for o evovgavc* Sw<jt ie i o v g a, v o v
Tiv> ay. Col. iv. 16. -t^v EX AooStxst'aj irtctfT'otojj' I'va, xai vpsls avayvute, (not
the letter written from Laodicea, but) the letter written to Laodicea and
brought from Laodicea, Luke ix. 61. xvi. 26., perhaps also Mr. v. 26.
Sartavtjanau tfa rfa^' Iat;i 1 ^j itdvta (otherwise Fritzsche in Zoc.) and
Heb. xiii. 24. aattd^ovtat, i/uas & (* n; 6 ^^5 'ir'aT.taj (i. e. ot Iv -ty Itafa'),
which however may also signify: those from Italy, the Italian Christians
(who were with the writer). Schulz (ep. ad Heb. p. 17.) need not have
found in these words such a decided critical argument, comp. Phil. iv. 22.
In the Greek such an implication very frequently occurs, comp. Xen.
Cyrop. 7, 2. 5. agrtu^siv -to, Ix -tZ>v oixiuv, Pausan. 4, 13. 1.
^j, Demosth. Phil. 3. p. 46. A. z-oiij Ix
|s|3aXj', Thuc. 2, 80. dSvvd-tuv ovtav |vj

Axagvdvw (for fwv litl ^aXaffo^ Axagv> arfo ^a>-. ii)jU.|3.) 3, 5. 7,
70. Plat. Apol. p. 32. B., Demosth. adv. Timocr. p. 483. B. Lucian.
Eunuch. 12. Polyb. 70, 8. Xen. Ephes. 1, 10. Isocr. ep. 7. p. 1012.
Theophr. Char. 2. (from the Septuagint, e. g. Judith viii. 17. Sus. 26.),
see Fischer ad Plat. Phsed. p. 318. Ast ad Theophr. Char. p. 61. Poppp
Thuc. I. I. p. 176. III. II. p. 389. Schilfer ud Demosth. 'IV . p. 119.
Herm. ad Soph. Electr. 135. Baiter ad Isocr. Paneg. p. 110. Kriiger
311. The before mentioned attraction of adverbs of place is of the same
nature with this species of attraction, see 58. 7. Kiihner II. 319.
(6) A member which belongs to the principal clause is transferred to one
thrown in between (parenthetically): Rom. iii. 8. -el In iyw
scgnxtytai, J xai f^rj, xa#w? J3hacsq>i][t,ov[ie0n xai xaduf fyadi -fives
o-e i 7t o t, $ a < [n, B v ta xaxa, L'va etc., where the Apostle should have
made the xoisiv XO.XQ, etc. depend on xai jtwj, but, misled by the parenthe-
sis, subjoins it immediately to jis'yetv. This often occurs among the
Greeks, see Erfurdt ad Soph. Antig. 732. Herm. ad Vig. p. 743. Krii-
ger as above 457. Matth. II. 1255. and as to the Lat. Beier ad Cic.
Offic. I. p. 50. Ramshorn Lat. Gr. p. 704. A. Grotefend copious Gram.
II. 462. (7) Two questions in immediate succession and predicated of
the same subject are converted into one, Acts xi. 17. iy St *i$
50

398 APPENDIX.

tor Osov ; but I, who was I? Was I powerful enough to
hinder God? Comp. Cic. N. I). 1, 27. quid censes, si ratio esset in bel-
luis, non suo quasque generi plurimum tributuras fuisse? See Schafer
ad Soph- II. p. 335. As to such passages as Mr. xv. 24. tit tL agi}, see
66, 7. See Kiihner II. 588. for still different complications of inter-
rogative sentences in the way of attraction.

I consider Luke i. 73. as an attraction, ^vrjaOyivai, Sia^x^s dyt'aj
6 e, x o v (for ogxov] Sv wooers etc. Others resolve it into a double con-
struction of the ^wffffajrat. 2 Pet. ii. 12. w oij uyvoovai fihaafyrHiovv'tss is
probably to be resolved thus: ev tfoutfoij, <* dyj/oooj^, phua$. A similar
construction occurs at least in Hist. Drac. 10. j37ux<j<3>. st'j *wa, comp.
3 spn 2 Sam. xxiii. 9., aSSp Isa. viii. 21. (3 Esr. i. 49. pvxtvigilsw lv twi
may be perhaps also compared, see on the contrary 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6.),
although wyvoeiv lv twi in later writers is not without instances, see Fa-
bricii Pseudepigr. II. 717.

64. Parenthesis, Anacoluthon and Oratio Variata.

The construction with which a sentence began is sometimes, especially
in Paul, interrupted as the sentence proceeds, either so that the writer
resumes it again after a longer or shorter insertion, or, laying it aside,
introduces a new construction in its place.

I. 1. Parenthetical insertions,* by which the grammatical connection
of a sentence is interrupted for some time, are very frequent. Relative
clauses are sometimes mistaken for them, and by this error the applica-
tion of parenthetical marks in the N. T. text has been exceedingly ex-
tended, e. g. 2 Pet. iii. 9. Acts iv. 36. John xxi. 20. (Schott). Still
less should appositional clauses be placed in parenthesis, as Mr. xv. 21.
John vi. 22. xv. 26. xix. 38. Acts ix. 17. Heb. ix. 11. x. 20. Ephes. i.
21., or those which occasion no interruption of the sense, Heb. v. 13.
Only those clauses can be regarded as real parentheses, which either,
(a) are introduced by the narrator into the discourse of another; or,
(&) where one and the same person speaks, inserted in the middle of an-

* C. Wolle Comm. de parenthcsi sac. J. F. Hirst Diss. dc parenth. etc. A. B. Spitz-
ncr Comm. philol. de parenth. etc. J. G. Lindner Comm. I. II. de par. Johan. Comp.
Clcrici ars Crit. vol. 2. p. 144. Lips. Keil Lehrb. der Hermen. p. 58. Griesb. Tiermen.
Varies, p. 99.

64. PARENTHESIS, ANACOLUTHOtf AND ORATIO VARIATA. 399

other sentence without an immediately connective word (like 6V,
etc.), thus breaking it up. It is natural, as it is the fact, that such inter-
ruptions should occur much less frequently in the historical books than in
the epistles, especially of Paul. In the former they flow from the en-
deavor to facilitate the apprehension of the reader, while in the epistles
they result from a greater and quicker mental action of the writer, on
whom thought after thought obtrudes itself; and here consequently they
sometimes possess rhetorical effect. However, as interpreters have too
hastily adopted parentheses in the epistles, we must distinguish in the
following remarks between those which are real and those only apparent.
In the historical books an explanation or remark of the narrator is freely
introduced as a parenthesis in the midst of the discourse of the speaker,
as Mt. ix. 6. -tots Kt-yst, >t ttagahwttxv (Mr. ii. 10. Luke v. 24.) John i.
39. jjaj3j3t (o ftlyEfat egptji/svopsvov StSdaxuhs} riov pevstsi COinp. John
iv. 9. ix. 7. Mr. iii. 30. see Fritzsehe ad Mr. p. 110. Sometimes such
glosses embrace longer sentences, as Mr. i. 22. comp. Fritzsehe in loc.
Other small parenthetical clauses in the narration itself, which annex a
circumstance, are found in Mr. vii. 26. axovaaau y<ig ywi? -- 7tgo$!rt<rs
tfov$ rtoSas avtov (vjv 8e <YJ ywij TLMt.ijvis, 'Svgofyowi'Xbaaa I'qj yli/jt) xni,
, cwtov, xv. 42. Luke xxiii. 51. John i. 14. vi. 23. xi. 2. xix. 23. 31.
Acts i. 15. xii. 3. xiii. 8. Temporal designations especially are often
inserted without any connection: Luke ix. 28. sysvEto psta, ttovs
T'ovi'ouf, wjcfc $7 jit g a & oxtfcg, xai rfagafl,a|3wj' etc., Acts V. 7.
wj wgw> i-gtwj/ Statfrf^jita, xaL fy yw<)? etc. (comp. with the former,
Lucian. dial, meretr. 1,4. ov yag lago^a, rto^vj oJ'S^ ajgwoj, awtov etc. Isocr.
ad Philipp. p. 216., with the latter, Diod. 'Sic. 3, 14., Schafer ad De-
moslh. V. p. 368. and the Lat. nudius tertius). In Mr. v. 13. on the
other hand, no parenthesis is needed, jjaav 8e etc. constitute with xal iit-
viyovto a clause which continues and carries out the narration. Nor in
John ii. 9. do I find any interruption of the construction (and Schulz also
has recently erased the marks of parenthesis), or at most only ot 8s Std-
xovot, -- tf6 i'Stog could be included in brackets. In John xix. 5. all
proceeds rightly, for the change of subject proves not the necessity of
parenthesis. The parenthetical hooks seem unnecessary in Mt. xvi. 26.
xxi. 4. (although Schulz has introduced them in both passages), as also
in Luke iii. 4. John vi. 6. xi. 30. xxx. 51. xviii. 6. (where Schulz has
very properly removed the brackets) Acts viii. 16. comp. xxvi. 5. The
proposition of Ziegler (in Gabler's Journ. theolog. Lit. I. p. 155.) to
include in parenthesis the words from xa t y av to\ vm , x ^ v , Acts v. 12.
has not been well received by editors. Those editors also who, in ver.
1215., suppose something spurious, have drawn their conclusions too

400 APPENDIX.

hastily. The words dots xata ta$ rthatsias txtytgetv -tovs aa&vets are very
well connected with ver. 14.; it is easily understood why they brought out
the sick into the streets, from the facts that they highly esteemed the
Apostles, and that the number of the believers was augmented. Indeed
those words are connected more appropriately with ver. 14. than with
ver. 11. Shall the jtokha ayftEtn xal tsga-ta (lv f 9 71, a 9) merely be
the preceding events, which effected the uoitE ixtytgtiv etc.? If this be
adopted, the perspicuity of the narration would be sacrificed. And what
else would those rto?ad aqptia have been than miracles of healing? That
therefore which is only summarily expressed in ver. 11. is repeated in
another connection in the words &$t xatu etc., in order to be related
more particularly (verses 15. 16.). In Acts x. 36. tbv xoyov is well con-
nected with ver. 37., the words ovto$ etc., as an independent clause, ex-
pressing a leading thought, which Peter could not connect by a relative,
constitute a parenthesis, and the speaker, after this interruption, con-
tinues ver. 35. by means of an extension of the thought.

In Rev. xxi. 11. xai <5 ^wcr*^ -- x^va-to-'^.L^ovti can also be taken as
a parenthesis, if in ver. 12. the reading I'^outrdv t be genuine.

2. Among the epistles those of Paul abound most in parenthetical
insertions, especially scriptural passages introduced for illustration or
proof. Smaller parentheses Rom. iv. 11. vii. 1. 1 Cor. vii. 11. 2 Cor.
viii. 3. xi. 21. xii. 2. Col. iv. 10. 1 Tim. ii. 7. Rev. ii. 9. Heb. x. 7.,
introduced with yag 1 Cor. xvi. 5. 2 Cor. v. 7. vi. 2. Gal. ii. 8. Ephes.
v. 9. Heb. vii. 11. 20. Jas. iv. 14., with o*t 2 Thess. i. 10. see Schott
in loc.* On the other hand Ephes. ii. 11. ot htyopsvot, -- xsigottovq'tov
is only in apposition with fa. e^vy Iv augxi, and '6ti is repeated ver. 12.,
because so many words follow the first 6'*t (comp. Ephes. i. 13. Col. ii.
13. Cic. Orat. 2, 58.). Many interpreters find a parenthesis of three
verses in Rom. ii. 13 15., where the words ver. 16. sv ^/ulfa 6Vf xgwec
etc. appear to be connected with x^^ovtat, ver. 12. Tholuck and
Riickert have recently declared themselves against this view of the pas-
sage, and in fact such a long parenthesis consisting of several clauses
without any external re-annexation of the abrupted principal sentence is
not very probable, nor does it readily appear why the apostle should bring
in three verses below the proposition Iv yfiega etc., which is not necessary
to ver. 12., and finally ver. 16. -to. xepn-ta, -tuv dv9%. seems to stand in much
closer connection with ver. 15. than with ver. 12., as in ver. 17. the

* In Jas. ii. 18. tp~ TI; is parenthetical and a/ixi ou wtV-riv belong together. See
Schulthess in loc.

64. PARENTHESIS, ANACOLUTHON AND ORATIO VARIATA. 401

apostle passes from the Gentiles, about whom he had begun to speak in
ver. 14., to the Jews. It would therefore be unnatural that ver. 16. re-
lating to the Jews and Gentiles should be interposed. As all harshness
cannot be taken away from these passages, it seems to me better to con-
nect ver. 16. with 15. ol'twes l-vSeixvvvifai etc., than by supposing a pa-
renthesis to destroy the connection. There will thus be a logical bond
of union at least, which Paul has only not expressed with grammatical
exactness. Whilst he was writing ofawe j IvSetxv., the moral life was
doubtless present to his mind, but when he reached the end of ver. 15.
he took up the thought of the future judgment, already in his mind in
ver. 12. and 1. (that the Gentiles have -to sgyov vopov ev tais xa^S. y%v,it~
tfov will be most decidedly proved at the judgment of the world), without
however indicating the change in his thoughts by a change of construction.
Comp- Calvin's, Bengel's and de Wette's remarks. On Rom. iii< 8. see
above, 63. 6. p. There is really no parenthesis in Rom. xiii. 11., where
Knapp has already erased the parenthetical brackets. This he should have
done in 1 Cor. ii. 8., where Stolz has properly translated without parenthe-
sis, and in v. 4., where Pott incorrectly supposes lv tf 6v6/*. Xgm-tov and
evv fy Swdpsc'Kgia'tov to express the same sense. Nor in vi. 16. do I see
any reason for considering enovtnt, yug [titw as a parenthetical inser-
tion, since the eati ver. 17. need not be apprehended as dependent on o^t.
Stolz has here also adopted the more simple mode, while Knapp and Lach-
mann have introduced the parenthetical hooks. This has also been done in
xv. 41. by the latest editors. Why has not Knapp done the same in 2 Cor.
i. 12., as there the words ovx iv ao$. etc. have nothing characteristic of
parenthesis? 2 Cor. iii. 14.-17. is a digression, but not a parenthesis.

So in 1 Cor. viii. 1.-3. ^ yvue^s *' fooO and 2 Cor. xv. 9. Ephes.

i. 21. there is no trace of parenthesis, ihe vrtsgdvu rtdgqs ag x qg etc. is a
fuller explanation of iv tois Ertovgaviois, and because of the length of the
sentence we ought not arbitrarily to put in parenthesis an expletive mem-
ber. I would only put in parenthesis the words *owj vpets in Col.

iii. 13. for uvexopevot, etc. is only exegetical of the preceding names of
virtues. So Steiger but not Lachmann. Many interpreters (even Bengel,
Mosheim und Schott) in 1 Tim. i. consider ver. 5.-17. as one parenthe-
sis. But this is entirely unnatural. The apodosis cannot begin with iva,
(Piscator, Flatt) nor, with Heydenreich (Denkschrift des theol. Seminars
in Herbron 1820.), can we take *o&i2,j as a particle of transition to be
translated^ in 2 Cor. v. 19. is not such an one), or apprehend *>
petviu as imper.; but certainly an anacoluthon here was the reason of

Paul's writing xa ^ rta&xfaeaa, MaxsS., o{,Vu XM vvv rfa?axa*.w, free

etc. Whilst he introduces the object of *a ax . immediately in the pro-

402 APPENDIX.

dosis, the apodosis escapes him entirely. Heb. x. 29. 71:009
xsigovos dltw^^fat Vtjtto^'aj etc. originated properly from the mingling of
two constructions: rtocsa SoxMte za^.aicco^ijvac, t'tju.. and Xatg. a^^affai
tft^tw^'aj, Ttdtfo) SoaatfE; a mark of parenthesis seems here to be very un-
necessary. Comp. Aristoph. Acharn. 12. rfwj rovf' tastes -tov Soxsis f^v
xagSiav', and on this and similar parenthesis see Valckenaer ad Eurip.
Hippol. p. 446. Toup emendatt. in Suid. III. p. 85. (more known is
the parenthesis SoxZ> poi see Jacobs ad ArMll. Tat. p. 436. or rfw$ Soxsi?
Pflugk ad Eurip. Hec. p. 99.). Here belongs also 2 Cor. x. 10. al
SrttfftfoTuu', tyyat,, /Social, etc. Schafer ad Plutarch. V. p. 31. In Tit. i.
'2. the construction continues without interruption, arid only the different
clauses, the one of which originates from the other, have induced many
editors (but not Lachmann) to put xa-ta jiianv $sbv ver. 3. in pa-
renthesis. If it be considered an indispensable aid to the reader, I would
rather put the words from tfv ETtyyy to $sov into parenthesis, since, if be-
gun with xata, the following words are thrown out of all connection with
artdtftfokof etc. without reason, fn 2 Cor, xiii. 4. Knapp has already di-
vided the words more according to the sense, and Vater has followed the
same interpunction. Rom. i. 2.-6. are only relative clauses, which
usually refer to the leading one, not genuine parentheses. In Ephes ii.
1. there is a double relative clause, in consequence of which the apostle
was obliged ver. 4. (not first ver. 5. according to Schott) to resume the
preceding words xal vfias ovtas vsxgovs etc. and consequently the inter-
rupted sentence.

In Ephes. in. 1. the predicate is not to be found in 6 5lff/oj, as there
would be no article, if it meant ego Paulus mnculis detineor; the sensn,
I am the prisoner of Christ (xaS |o^i/) is scarcely to be adopted. It
is simplest, according to Theodoret's previous suggestion, to suppose in
T'OVT'OU %dgw ver. 14. the resumption of the thought which had been
broken off at ver. 1. With much less probability others connect iv. 1.
with i. 1., as then the 6 Slu^toj appears to refer back to Jyw 6 SEU/A- Comp.
Cramer's translation^ of the epist. to the Ephes. p. 71., who has quoted
and put to the test other suppositions, and Harless in loc.

II. Anacolutha,* or sentences in which one member does not gram-
matically harmonize with the other, whilst the writer, either led away
by the intervention of a construction begun, or attached to a particular

* See Buttm. ed. Rob. p. 446. 151. II. Herm. Excurs. ad Vig. p. 8D2. Poppo
Time. I. I. p. 360. Ktihner II. 616. F. VV. Engelhardt Anacol. Plat. spec. 1. 1834.
Gernhard ad Cic. de off. p. 441. Matth. de anacol. ap. Cic. in Wolf Analect. Lit. III.
p. 1. F. N. T. Fritzschc conject. spec. I. p. 33. 1825.

64. 1'AKENTHESIS, ANACOLUTHON AND OKATIO VARIATA. 403

mode of expression, arranges the close of his sentence otherwise than
the commencement required.* Such anacolutha are most to be expected
from active minds, occupied more with the thoughts than the grammatical
expression, and consequently they occur numerously in the epistles of the
apostle Paul. I remark the following: Acts xx. 3.

etc.,' comp. the anacoluthon quoted by Herm. ad Vig. p. 892. in
Plat. legg. 3. p. 686, D. urtofihtyas rtgb$ -tovfov tibv atohov, ov rti^i ScaJUyd-
fif^a, 8o% poi rtdyxahos strew, Plat. Apol. p. 21. C. Lucian. Astrol. c. 3.
(so after with 1/Sofe following)"}". More striking are the anacolutha in
periods of less length^:, Acts xix. 34. Irttyvovtss, 6Vo 'louSatos lain,, ^wj/^
iyeveto fjtia EX jtdvtuv (for Ifyuivqaav urtwtsi), Mr. IX. 20. tSuiv (6 rfatj) tvufov,
svS^wj tfo Ttvvfji.u lortdgu$sv aitfoi/ (for vitb -tov jtv. EtfTtagatftfatfo), with which
Fritzsche compares Jlntlwl. Pal. 11. 488. xdyw a' ai*6v tfiwv, *6
fac, see also Plat. legg. 6. p. 769. C.; Luke xi. 11. <gtva, II
o v cfa^fga ati'^Oft 6 vibf S^'fov, py hi^ov irtiSwast avi 1 ^ for scat

Sovi the question: wz'ZZ he give? supposed on the other hand the
protasis: a father asked by his son for bread, comp. Mt. vii. 9.; Acts xxiii.
30. pijwSstatis 5* M ot rt&/3oifl.Js (*^j) ris tbv avSga IJI.SM.EW easa^at, where the
discourse should have been continued with p.eM<.ov<sii$ Ha-, whilst ^S^JISM/
could have been used, if the clause had begun: pijwisdv'tav ejtifiovivqv* In
other places the author has entirely dropped the construction with which
he began, and introduced a new construction with the resumption of the
principal noun, so that often the end of the sentence is to be found only
in the sense (Xen. Cyrop. 4, 2. 3. ivvovfesves$ y old ft 7td<s%ovaw --
tvv(jK>v(ji.voi,s e8o%v ovVois etc. Cic. Fin. 2, 10.) John. vi. 22.
o O^?LOJ ISav, o-fi (a^Xa 8s qh$s rtboidgta, -- "), of s ovv B I 8 s v
o 6' 2 a, 05 etc., to interpret which passage historically is not here in place.
Gal. 11. 6. a/rtb Ss <tZiV Soxovvftav tlvai tit, ortoioi riots ~/i6a*v, ovSiv fiot Sia,-
$11 f.ioi yag oi Soxovvi!$ ovSw rtgoswesvto, where the apostle should
have proceeded in the passive construction, but was disturbed in it by the
parenthesis. See Winer's Comment, and Usteri in loc. Gal. ii. 4. 5. Sid
Ss tfoij TtwgEicraxr'O'Uf fysv$a8&$ovs -- otj o-uSe rt^oj w^av sl^afusv ty vrto-

*ayjj ( etc., where the parenthesis inserted in ver. 4. has occasioned the

* Anacolutha are partly intentional, partly unintentional. To the former belong
those which rest on rhetorical reasons, see Stallb. ad Plat Gorg. p. 221. Kubner
as above,

t In Lat. comp. Hirt. bell. Afric. 25. dum hac itajierent, HEX JUBA, cognitis , NON
EST VISUM etc. Plin. cpist. 10, 34.

t One of the most striking is that quoted by Kypke II. 104. Ilippocr. morl). vulg.

5, 1. Sv'HXi'S 1 ! >; TOV KDTraigou yuvn WU^ETO; eT^ev avrnv

404 APPENDIX.

anacoluthon. The apostle could either write: on account of the false
brethren (to please them) I would not permit Titus to be circum-
cised, or: I wished not by any means to indulge the false brethren (in this
respect); he has here mingled both constructions. The parts of a sen-
tence formed by anacoluthon are more remote from each other in the
following passages. In Rom. ii. 17. sqq., verses 17. 20. constitute the
prodosis, ver. 21. begins the apodosis. Whilst Paul carries the thought,
in the protasis with which he begins, through several clauses, he forgets
the el ver. 17., and, annexing the apodosis ver. 21., he passes over to
another construction by means of wv, which gives rise to the anacoluthon.
The reading iSn ver. 17. is certainly a correction of those, who were not
able to apprehend the anacoluthon: but Flatt's translation of si by pro-
fecto needs no replication, like many other things found in his exegetical
lectures. Yet in respect to ovv, the explanation of the passage as anaco-
luthon seems not yet to be complete. The simple apodosis, which Paul
had in mind, was perhaps: so you must yourself also act lawfully. But
he extends this thought, as he proceeds antithetically, referring the words
8i,8doxuv, xygdtHtuv, pSthvaaopivos to the contents of the protasis*, 2 Pet.
ii. 4. the protasis si ydg <5 Jteoj dyyexwv apagi?. ovx stysiaa-to etc. has no
grammatical apodosis. The apostle intended to say: much less will he
spare these false teachers. But as one instance of divine punishment
after another occurs to him (ver. 4. 8.), he returns first in ver. 9., with
a changed construction, to the thought, which should form the apodosis.
On 2 Thess. ii. 3. see Koppe. In Rom. v. 12. to these words && 8t'
svb$ a{/ygwrtov % apag-gin at? tbv xoapov ftj7??t we should have expected as
apodosis oiVw Sla fov svof Xgttftfov fy #($ xal 8ta tyv %dgw vj urj* By
the explanation of slffodsv % d^afi 1 . xal 6 edvatos in ver. 12. 14. the
regular construction is interrupted (although in 6'$ actfc tvitos toy psxhovtos
there is an intimation of the antithesis), and besides the apostle remem-
bers that not only a simple parallel could be drawn between Christ and

Adam (w?7t oiVwj), but that more numerous and more exalted

benefits flow from Christ than from Adam, and hence the epanorthosis
in rfoMK? i*,aM.ov, as Calvin perceived. The construction is resumed with

the words d?a' oi>% w$ -to Ttagarfi'ctyta etc. and in si ya diteOwov the

contents of the protasis ver. 12. are briefly recapitulated, then in ver. 8.
Paul sums up the double parallel (equality and inequality) in a final re-
sult. The most striking anacoluthon would be Rom. ix. 23. Passing

* A similar one see in Xeru Cyrop. 6, 2. 9. where litei ! ?x0ov etc, 12. is re-
sumed in the words <j ov v favra, woutrw o crri>a.r, r. K. and consequently connected
with the apodosis.

64. PARENTHESIS, ANACOLUTHON AND OEATIO VARIATA. 405

by the ungrammatical interpretation of Storr and Flatt, who believe I
yrwf. to be the future (what has not been allowed in the N. T.!), and of
many others, who are not more tolerable, I remark only that Tholuck
construes the sentence as if the meaning were xat $&av yvugtaat, tbv rthov-
tov jovtovs xai i/taj fxahyaev, so that ver. 23. according to the
sense is entirely parallel with ver. 24. (;v yj>. = ^Ixcov ti8st|., a rtgoy
toCp, = XaTftigTHGH", ov$ xai txdh- = tfvyxev)> But not to say, that then
the xal before ixfa- must either be omitted entirely, or be construed, con-
trary to the position of the words, with fans, such a great confusion of
clauses is improbable, as we cannot conceive what could have induced the
apostle so entirely to lose the construction. I am therefore inclined, with
many old interpreters, to connect the x ai L'va directly with jjvfyxev : If
God intending to show his wrath -- bore with all long-suffering the
Vessels of his wrath, even with the design to exhibit the riches etc.
(now an aposiopesis: what then, what shall we say to it?]. The patient
bearing with the axsvy o^j is not only contemplated as an evidence of
his paxgoQ., but also as occasioned by the intention to bring to light the
riches of his glory, which he had designed for the axwri Ixeovj. The sud-
den and immediate destruction of the axfvti dgyijf (here: of the unbelieving
Jews) would have been entirely just: but God bore with them patiently
(in this way mollifying his justice by goodness), thus evincing at the
same time the intention and the consequence, that the greatness of his
mercy towards the gxevtj iheovs would (by means of the antithesis) become
very obvious. As ver. 22. is no ow, hence it is not probably a continua-
tion of the thought expressed in verses 20. 21. That God was entirely
free to impart the tokens of his grace, had been sufficiently expressed.
The creature cannot effectually resist his creator, that is enough. But,
continues Paul, God is even not so severe as he might be, without having
any thing to fear from the reproach of men. De Wette differs some-
what. But Fritzsche makes the sentence xai, L'va yvu^ay dependent on
xorfqg'ttafj.Etin : si vero Deus -- sustinuit instrumenta irai etiam ob id
interitui prseparata, ut manifestamfaceret vim sumwse suas misericordiss
Us instrumentis qusz beare decreverat ? (Conject. I. p. 29. Letters to
Tholucle p. 56.). But thoughts so severe seem to me not to be presented
in this entire section; it is manifestly not required, and the interpreter is
not bound to give yet more intensity to a deduction already without this
driven to the utmost. In 1 John i. 1. the subordinate clause of a sen-
tence which the apostle had in mind, seems to me to begin with rtegi fov
xoyov *qs fco^j, which should perhaps be followed by ^d^o^v vfuv. By
the mention of ^ John is led to the thought in ver. 2., and after this
interruption, repeats in ver. 3. the principal statements of ver. 1. S l
51

406 APPENDIX.

xai dxyxoapsv and then proceeds with a change of construction:
-fyuv. On Acts x. 36. and Tim. i. 5. *See I. 2. of this .,
on Mt. xxv. 14. Fritzsche in loc.

In some other passages, where interpreters have supposed they found
an anacoluthon, I cannot discover it. Rom. vii. 21. Evgiaxo ago, tbv vb-
pov tfci shove ii ipol Tiotttv 1 b xahbv, 6V t sfioi to xaxbv rtaguxertat,, accord-
ing to Fritzsche (Conject. p. 50.) is to be constructed out of i-vg. agntov

vopov 1-9 Osh. Ttagaxeltieat, (per id, quod mihi malum adjacet]

and 6V t Ipoo 6sh' Tta^axsttai,. But what necessity is there here for

adopting so unnatural a confusio duar. strudur., and thereby deriving it
as a rule from so heavy an infinit. sentence as ^9 Qshovti, ef^oi rtoisw -to
xahbv to xaxbv rtaguxuaOatl The repetition of the ^oi? But even if
Knapp's explanation be followed, this is by no means tolerable, as the
former s^ol seems to be excluded from the leading member by the follow-
ing 6V t. In Latin invenio legem mihi facienti, i. e. honestum, turpe mihi
adjacere,- would not be striking. (See Schulthess' opinion in Theol.
Anna!. 1829. II. 998.). To this may be added, that -tbv vopov merely
for the law of human nature would be rather obscurely expressed before
ver. 23. To me it always seems easiest to apprehend the words thus:
svg ag% fbv vo[iov, ^9 Osh* oVc. Efioi ttb xax. rtag., SO that -gbv vop. re-
fers to the clause beginning with 6Vt; this particle, however, has suffer-
ed an easy trajection if the dat. t> flljt. be not supposed to depend directly
on vg>, invenio home normam mihi hbnestum facturo, ut etc. So re-'
cently Kollner and De Wette. Still less clearly is there a mingling of
two constructions in Heb. viii. 9. The sv ypEgq, irt&apopsvov pov -tys
%eieps av-!f<Zv may be an uncommon expression, but this circumstantiality
is not in itself incorrect : and the Hebrew (for it is a quotat. from Jer.
xxxi. 32.) DT3 'pvnn Df'3, has given, so to speak, a certain authority
for it. The participle was probably preferred to the infinit. for the sake
of greater perspicuity. Opinions vary about Rom. i. 26. 27., because
the reading vacillates between o^otwy Ss xai and fywt'wj *e xai, see Fritz-
sche in N. Theol. Journ. V. p. 6. The external evidence seems to pre-
ponderate in favor of fyi. os xai, and Bornemann (N. Theol. Journ. VI.
145. as Laclunann also) has adopted it without hesitation, and attempted
to justify it by the frequency with which this formula occurs in the N. T.
(Mt. xxvi. 35. xxvii. 41. Mr. xv. 31. Luke v. 10. x. 32. 1 Cor. vii. 3.
Jas. ii. 25. also among the Greeks, Diod. Sic. 17, 111.). But in these
passages there is no t preceding, nor are they adequate; but comp. Plat.

SympoS. 186. E. yj ts ovv iutgix'/i > $ a v tf <o $ 8s xai yvp.vaatiix'fi

etc. Fritzsche has quoted this passage on p. 11. as above. The former
reading is supported by the best Codd., and it would be in itself suitable
(which Fritzsche denies) as the Apostle wishes to bring out more clearly
what the Ufasves did (he thereby keeps back ver. 27., sharply reproving
the crime). It is now a question whether either of the two readings, or
both together, occasion an anacohithon? That with fyi. * xai appears to
me as little so as in Lat. nam UTfeminas - - - ET similiter etiam mares;
if, on the other hand, we read 6^.. Sa xai the natural sequence is broken,

as in Lat. etfeminse similiter VERO etiam mares. In Heb. iii. 15.

the author sets out with the Scriptural words /

64. PARENTHESIS, ANACOLUTHON AND ORATIO VARIATA. 407

iuv, and of course there is no anacoluthon. In 2 Cor. viii. 5. avOaigs-
L is undoubtedly to be connected with kavtovs HSuxav ver. 5. Jas. ii. 2.
presents no anacoluth., ver. 4. xal ov etc. can only be taken interroga-
tively, see Schulthess; it is therefore unnecessary to omit xai, (which cer-
tainly has many authorities against it), see Kottinger.

*

2. The preceding anacolutha are of such a kind that they may occur
in every language, but in the Greek there exist some particular species
of anacoluth. which must be mentioned: (a) If the construction proceed
with participles, the latter removed to a distance from the governing
verb, sometimes appear in an irregular case (see Viger. p. 337.), e. g.
Ephes. IV. 2. TtagaxoAuJ v[jt,as -- jte^fta^ffao -- av E % o ft s v o t dhhrfhtav
EJ> aydrty, cfrtouSa^oj/i'ss etc. (as if Paul had written, walk worthily
etc.), iii. 17. xatotxqaai, tov "Kfytstov sv fal$ scagSt'tuj, <u^u>v tv aydrttj g(,a-
Col. iii. 16. o Ttdyoj fov Xgitfi'O'ij evotxei-fc* sv is fit v TtTioutfuoj, Iv
s xal vovetstovvtss lautfoiSj, 2 Cor. ix. 10. xi. 13.
xal ithtj^vvat -fbv djto^ov vpuv -- vpuv Iv riavtl
i6fj,Evot, etc. comp. ver. 13. (Xen. Cyrop. 1, 4. 26.) Acts xv.
22. edot-i- tols artocfT'oTioj.f ygd^uvti- etc. (comp. Lys. in Eratosth. 7.
ovv aifotf wcfrtsg riETtotfjxo'fB^, and AntipJwnt. xa^t^y-
i" p. 613. Reiske l ! 6o|sv ovv 'ajv-t^j jSouT.OjU.lv^ psMiov at vat /usi'd 8flrivov
Sovvai, , tal g Kkutf at^MjaY^af r^ j tovtov wtgbf iirto^sccus oi^a biaxovovaa-,
Thuc. 3, 36. 4, 108. Himer. 12, 2. comp. Engelhardt ad Plat. Jlpol. p.
160.), Col. 11. 2. tVa Tta^axXij^-iootj' at jsagStac. aiii'wv, Co) ^a |3 i j3 a a^-l v it E 5
(according to the best Codd.) *V a^dity. Comp. generally Markland acZ
Z7/s. p. 364. ed. Reiske. Buttmann ad Philoctet. p. 110. Seidler ad Eu-
rip. Iphig. T. 1072. Kiihner II. 377. also Sta'llbaum ad Plat, Apol. p,
135. ad Sympos. p. 33. Anacolutha of this kind are to be considered only
in part as intentional. The ideas expressed by the casus recti of the par-
'ticiples are made in this manner more prominent, whilst the casus obli-
qui would throw them back into the body of the sentence and so repre-
sent them as secondary ideas. It is easily explicable that, after formulas
like Mofe pot, where Jy is logically the subject, the discourse should pro-
ceed thus, as it is appropriate to the conception. Kiihner II. 377.

(6) After a participle the construction is frequently changed into the
finite verb, which then also takes 5, as in Col. C26. rtx^iaot tbv 7,6jov

* I think this arrangement preferable to that of Griesbach, Knnpp and Lachmann,
who construe !#,. with IWt ifi^., both because I see no rhetorical reason, nor any
occasion for a trajcction of the IW, and because, agreeably to the context, the particip.
seem to me to belong rather to what precedes. Bengel favors, and Harless adopts
the interpretation in the text.

408 APPENDIX.

-Ol5, I'D (MitS'tT^lOV T'O (XTtOXEXg'UW.JH.Ij'OJ' ttrtO 4(aV (UQVcol'

5f f'j)ttf^w^5j for S tap or vwL 8s tyuvEgu&v (comp. Xen. Cyrop.
2, 3. 17. ii I. 5, 4. 29. 8, 2. 24.) Col. i. 21. #<w i/tay riots cWo?

scat f^gou j -r 1 ^ 8iavoia Iv tfotj sgyotj tfoif rtoj/^^otj, j/wt 5e d
tv ^9 auyiatft T^J oagxoj avT'ot), comp. Xen. .Mewl. 3, 7. 8. ai

SOI), t EXEH/OVf /J(x5(-C0j %ElgOVlAKVO$ tfOvfOtS 8 E /M]&Eva TfgOTtOV 0161. SlIVlJff

rtgoufi'E^Jji'cu, Herod. 6, 25. Isocr. permut. 26. Pausan. 4, 136.
Buttmann ad Demosth, Mid. p. 149. Herm. ad Soph. Electr. p. 153.
Without fig this transition takes place, Ephes. i. 20.
ijv vr t gyi]<3EV fa ^9 X^KJT'^J iyst^a$ aiii'ov
2 Cor. v. 9. John v. 44, On 2 John ver. 2., see below III. 1. The
effort after an easier structure of the clause or the desire to give promi-
nence to the second thought is frequently the occasion of this kind of
anacoluthon. Heh. viii. 10. (from the 0. T.) is also to be thus explain-
ed: avV^ ^ 5io^-^^5 i$v Sta^tJeyitu tfoj oi'xoj Itfga^X. S tS o ii f vopovs fiov
ti$ -t^v Siavotav avifiav xai trtl xagia$ o/V'tuv i ft ly g d^ w av ? o v $ Those
who translate xa,i before Jytty^. etiam (like Bohme) are constrained and not
supported by x. 16. Kiihnol supplies with Stfioiij the verb tl^l or fuo^at,
as was to be expected. Comp. yet Schiifer ad Demosth. II. p. 75. V.
437. 573. ad Eurip. Med. ed. Person p. 115. ad Plutarch. IV. p. 323,
and Kriiger ad Dion. Hal. p. 233. In such passages the participle is
sometimes found in the Codd., e. g. Ephes. i. 20. In 2 Cor. v. 6. ap-
ftovvtEt ovv itdvtoTit Safipovpsi' Se al EvSoxovpsv offer a kindred anaco-
luthon, where Paul, after several parentheses, repeated the a/j/jowtfj,
which he intended to construe with evSox., in the form of the finite verb.

An anacoluthon in a construction commenced with a participle is found
in Heb. Vll. 2. rtgutov p,ev Eg/At]Vv6fj,Evo$ jSaoiXfuj Stxaioevvqs, sTtfiita, 8s xai
/JaortAeij So^jtt, 6 fff^t paoihsvs Eigqvys, where it should have been JfTtEitfa
Ss (J^i/c.) xai j3ffa,. sl^v., for the.tttle jSatfiXs^j Sax^ to be interpreted,
had been already mentioned in ver. 1.

(e) A sentence which had begun with 6V&) concludes with the infinit,
(and subj. ace.) as if the particle had not been used at all, Acts xxvii. 10.
0togw, 6 i 1 t, jHEtfa a>'/3gtos xai rto^j-ij ^ta$ ~ JU-S^^ECV e a 6 6 at fav
rthovv COinp. Plat. Gorg. p. 453. B. Jyw ya^ EV I'tf^' 6*0, wj Jjuavfot; n!t0w,

zi'rtfg xao Ijtte EIJ/OH jov-efav s'va, Plat. Plissd. p. 63. C. Xen. Hell.

2, 2. 2. Cyrop. 1, 6. 18. see aioue, 45. note 2. In ^Elian. V. H. 12,
39. the construction in q>a<ji SE/uga^w is the reverse, it began as the ace.
with infinit., but terminated, as if fai had preceded, in julyo i^gom. Simi-
lar Plant. Trucul. 2, 2. 63. We may compare with this John viii. 54.
S ijUEtj juyfff 6't'i 0oj i^twv stf^t, (where it might have been Oebvvp. ttvui).

(d) The verb of the sentence is not adapted, according to rule, to the

64. PARENTHESIS, ANACOLUTHO1V AND ORATIO VARIATA. 409

nominal, or ace. placed at the beginning of the sentence: 1 John ii. 27.

xai v/jisis #0 xgiapo, 8 Ihdfie-fs art* UVT!OV sv vfntv ptvEi and you the

anointing, which abides in you. Luke xxi. 6. tavta a dtugEite, Ihev-
aovtat, *7ftgac Iv a?s ovx d^sd^as'fat xJfloj Irti ju'0<jj etc. that, which you (here)
sec, the days will come, in which (to the last stone will it be destroyed)
no stone (thereof) ivill remain on another. 2 Cor. xii. 17. ^ i- u/ j>
arteatahxa rtgoj ijuas, oV avtov srthsovsx't'qao, ijuaj; for, have /sent or
used one of those which I sent etc. in order to rob you? Rom. viii. 3. -f 6

a v v a it o v fov vopov, iv 9 tjaOivec 6 9fb$ fbv eawtov vlbv rtefi^as

wfsxgws t'tpt npagitiav \v -t^ <sagxi what to the law was impossible

God, sending his own son, judged the sin in the flesh, instead of,

that God did and judged, see 28. 3. Comp. Thuc. 6. 22. JSlian V. H.
7, 1. Kiihner II. 156. A. Wannowski Syntax, anomal. gr. pars, de con-
struct, absol. deque anacol. hue pertinentib. Lips. 1835. 8vo.

Many, including also Olshausen, have found an ace. absol. in Acts x.
36. tbv Tidyov 6V ujteatsite tfot$ vtoi;$ 'lagcufa. etc. and this commentator
would annex these words to the preceding Sex-fbf avtci lati, which he
allows belong most directly to the children of Israel. Independently of
all other considerations, the following words would then have no proper
grammatical connection. I prefer to begin a new sentence with tbv a,d-
juw, and to explain the accus. by anacoluthon, see above, I. 1.

An anacoluthon especially proper to the N.T. is found where the writer
carries out the sentence, not in his own words, but in those of a quotation
from the O. T., e. g. Rom. XV. 3. xai yecg o XgttfT'of ov% savtcj) qgsatv, aM,a,
xaOu$ ylygarttfcu, ot ovfti&iapoi, *wv ovsiSt^ovrf^v de trterteaev lit 1 Ips (instead
of, but, to please God, he endured the bitterest reproaches}^ ver. 21. comp.
1 Cor. ii. 9. Yet see below, 66, 6.

(e) The use of psv without a subsequent parallel clause (rendered
prominent by means of the correlative 8k] belongs also to the history of
the anacoluthon. This parallel member of the sentence is then either
easily supplied out of the one with ^ v and is in this way included in it,
as Heb. vi. 16. avQ^aitoi psv ya xa-ta, Toij fieuovo$ dfivvovat, men swear by
the greater, but God can only swear by himself, comp. ver. 13. (Plat.
Protag. 334. A.), Col. ii. 23. aftva salt, Xoyov pj-v e%ovta cfo^'aj EV 0aJio-
6^axficf, xai etc. which indeed have an appearance of wisdom, but yet
in fact there is no wisdom (Xen. Anab. 1, 2. 1.) Rom. x. 1. (comp. Xen.
Hier. I, 7. 7, 4. Plat. Phsed. p. 58. A. Xen. Mem. 3, 12. 1. Aristoph.
Pax. 13. See Stallbaum ad Plat. Crit. p. 105. Held ad Plut. A. Paull.
p. 123.)*, or the construction is entirely interrupted, and the parallel or

* The corresponding member is sometimes omitted on rhetorical grounds. This
occasion of anacoluthon must not be overlooked by the interpreter.

410 APPENDIX.

correspondent clause must be derived by the reader from the subsequent
one, e. g. Acts l. 1. <tbv PEV rtguitov hoyov Ejtoiijsd^Ev Tie(i TtW'tuiv -- WE-
KfaQq. Now the writer should proceed: but from this point of time (from
the ascension) I shall now recount in the second part of my work; he
allows himself however through the mention of the apostles at the same
time to advert to the appearance of Christ after his resurrection, and
immediately embraces in it the more extended narrative. Rom. vii. 12.
totftfa 6 HEV vouo$ aytoj XOA q Evtohrj ayia xat Sixain xai ayafljj, the law indeed
is holy and the commandment holy etc., but rny flesh which presents the
u$W to sin, is unholy and corrupt. Paul exhibits these thoughts in
another mode in ver. 13. comp. Rom. i. 8. iii. "2. 1 Cor. xi. 18. (here
see especially Tt^-tov ^v below] Heb. ix. 1. 2 Cor. xii. 12. (see Billroth
in Zoc.) Acts iii. 13. xxvi. 4. xix. 4. (in the last sentences pav has been
omitted on very little authority). The following are examples from Gr.
writers: Eurip. Orest. 8. Xen. Cyrop. 2, 1. 4. 4, 5. 50. Mem. 1, 2. 2.

2, 6. 3. Dion, compos. 22., comp. Matth. II. 1488. Herm. ad Vig. p.
839. Reisig. ad Soph. (Ed. Col. p. 398. Locella ad Xen. Eph. p. 225.
Reitz. ad Lucian. Tom. VII. p. 578. Bip. etc. (In the passages Luke
viii. 5. John xi. 6. xix. 32. Jas. iii. 17. the corresponding particle is not
entirely omitted; only sometimes s^uta, stands for Ss (Heindorf ad Phsed.
p. 133. Schafer Melet. p. 61.) sometimes xal, and it is well known that
the Greeks often placed [J.EV -- Urieita, pev -- xat, psv tie in corre-
lation with each other, comp. Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 230. Matthiae ad
Eurip. Orest. 24. Baiter ind. ad Isocr. paneg. p. 133. Goller ad Thuc.
I. p.j320. The clause with 8s is sometimes rather remote 2 Cor. ix. 1.

3. or in expression not altogether correspondent Gal. iv. 24. 26. comp.
also Rom. xi. 13.

Rom. i. 8. rtgu-tov /AW v%agia-tu etc. is to be taken as an anacoluthon; .
the apostle had in mind a Ssvtegov or si fa,, which however inconsequence
of an altered representation does not follow.* The words of Wytten-
bach (ad Plutarchi Mor. I. p. 47. ed. Lips.) must here be introduced:
si solum posuisset jt^tov, poterat accipi pro MAXIME ANTE OMNIA (so
almost all interpreters understood it) : nunc quum psv addidit, videtur
voluisse alia subjungere, turn sui oblitus esse. Comp. also Plat. Crit. 12.
Isocr. Areop. p. 344. Xen. Mem. 1, 1. 2. Schafer ad Demosth- IV. 142.
Pott (ad 1 Cor. ii. 15.) very incorrectly affirms /j.s v here to be pleonastic;
yet he seems to place other passages where no follows under the head
of pleonasm. In 1 Cor. xi. 18. jt g u> * o v /AEV yag <fDi'fg;<Yt'j/i> v^v etc.
is probably referable to tTisi-ta Ss in ver. 20., and Paul would properly
write: first of all I hear that there are schisms among you, but then, that

* Bengel finds the corresponding Si in ver.. 13., but this is immediately connected
with the preceding verse.

64. PARENTHESIS, ANACOLUTHON AND ORATIO VARIATA. 411

disorders exist at the Lord's supper. As to Rom. iii. 2. Tholuck is
right.

In Mat. viii. 21. IrtitgE^ov poi re e, w * o v art&Qsiv xai dd^cM etc. there
is nothing to correspond with rtgw-tw, but we also say: lass mlch zuerst
(erst] fortg. let me first (beforehand) go and bury, in which every one
easily apprehends the sense according to the context: thereafter will I
come again (and join myself to thee). It would be absurd with Palairet
p. 126. to consider rtguttov redundant.

A similar anacoluthon sometimes takes place with xai as with i*,ev,
where it should be repeated (as well, as also]. So in 1 Cor. vii. 38.
&ai!E xctl 6 lxya(4,(av xahtJs rtotat, 6 Ss fi^exya/^iluv x^isdov jtocst the clause

is properly begun so, that xal 6 pfj xcawj jt. should have followed.

But Paul while he would write this, corrects himself and uses the com-
parative where the adversative particle must appear more suitable. The
-to Ss which occurs so often among the Greeks may be compared with
this, Stallbaum ad Plat. rep. I. 123. Matth. II. 1502.

HI. 1. The o ratio variata (varied construction] differs from the ana-
coluthon (Jacob, ad Luciun. Mex. p. 22. Bremi ad JEschin. II. p. 7.
Matth II. 632.). It consists in the adoption of a twofold (synonymous)
construction, either of which is complete in itself. It is employed by
accurate writers when the preceding construction would be either heavy,
indefinite, or unsuitable to the thought (Engelhardt ad Plat Menex. p.

254.) Rom. XII. 1.2. rtagaxc&w <u/j.ag rtagaatqaai,' XM [Ay <Svff%i]-

(nat tgs a 9 1 p E i a p. o g $ ov er 6 E (where Reich judges more cor-
rectly about the var. orat. than Tholuck), 1 Cor. xiv. 1. QrftovtE -to.

a, poM.ov 81 tVa rtgotyyt Evijt * (where Paul might have written
COmp, ver. 5. Ephes. V. 27. iVa rfagaffi'^tf^ ewtq VSo|o

pi] szovtiav artihov 0,7,^,' i v a yj ayc'a xai, oi|itw^oj. Mr. xii. 38.

'WV SsXovi'cov Iv crtoXais rtEgirta-tstv xai dorTtatfjCtot/j (ug'rtdQsijOat] Iv

ts etc. John viii. 53. ^77 av JKE^WJ/ si tov 7tatg6$ JJ/AMV 'A/S^aa^,

xai ol rtgo^i'at nrtsda.vov, where, to correspond with the preceding
question, it would be, xai t w v it e, o t y if w v oZ-twEg arts9. 1 Cor. vii. 13.
yuj'jj, fa if ^t avSgu ariia-jfov xai autfoj ewsvSoxei (xal avvsvSoxovvta) oixsiv
pet aif^j, ftfj d^tli'a avtov. Phil ii. 22. oft., wj rtaitgi JEXVOV, ovv e p o I
ISovhsvcisv 'f tb evwyyEfaov (Bengel in loc. continue loquitur partim ut de
filio partim ut de collega ef. iii. 17.) that he, as a son to a father, has
served with me (me in the apostolic office, for which I am more fit).
Ivom. XH. 6. e%ovitsf xa^g/^a-fa xata, tqv %aigw E tVs jteo^titeLav xatd
tvp> avahoyiw <eq$ rfo's^Ewj, dts Siaxoviav tv ty Siaxoviq, site o S t 8 a a x w v
(SkSaaxatiav] Iv ty oiSuaxa&iq. Etts o rta^axa^v (ria^dx^Otv) Iv *fi rtagaxhy-
(SEi, Col. i. 6. John v. 44. Ephes. v. 33. Acts xx. 17. 2 Cor. vi. 9. Phil,
i. 23. Heb. ix. 7. Rom. iv. 12. (JElian anim. 2. 42.) xii. 14. See Borne-
mann on Luke ix. 1. The construction hero is evidently intentionally

412 APPENDIX.

changed, in order to exhibit the thought more strikingly and expressively
than would be done by a single construction, 2 John 2. Sia ify a^deiav
gyv ftsvovdav iv q/J-iv, xal p,sd fyfiwv itftfai' stj "tbv aiuva. The OTttt Vttr. is
united with ellipsis in 2 Cor. viii. 23. and Mr. vi. 8. jta^yysi^sv avtols,

i v a, /AtjSsv alguaiv slf oobv aM,' vrtoSESepsvovs aavouhtu (sc.

livat) xal py zvSvaaaQat, Svo zttuvas see Fritzsche in loc. (Many
examples can be gathered from Gr. authors. So Pausan. 1, 19. 5. tov
Nt'tfow ftsyatfat 0i)yc'Ega sgaadijvat M.UVO xal wf ujtsxetgs tfclj tfgt'^aj tov
Tta-r'gds, 5, 1. 2. 8, 22. JIclaavgo$ 8s avtbv o Ka/itgsiJS ajtoxil stvat I'dgo
o{> tytjgivi aM,a wj <fy6ty 9 x^oTtahiav ixSt,u>%eiev dui'aj. Thuc. 8. 78. Xen.
2, 7. 8. Hell. 2, 3. 19. J.na&. 2, 5. 5. Pausan. 10. 1. Heliod. JEth. 1.
6. On Mr. xii. 38. cornp. Lys. caeci. Eratosth. 21. From the Sep*
tuagint belong here Gen. xxxi. 33. xxxv. 3. Judg. xvi. 24. Judith xv. 4.
3 Esr. iv. 48. viii. 22. 80. Neh. x. 30.)

We may also reckon here Acts xx. 34. yu/wffjcET'f, 6Vt nals xgEltws pov
xai I'otj ovoi (ist Ifiov vrttige't'qaav al %EtgfS avta,t tllttt to the WttntS
of myself and of those with me or for me and those who were with me,

1 John iii. 24. I v -tov-tc) ywJxfxoftsv, 6V& , J x T'OIJ rtvevfJ.ai!Q$, ov

yptv USaxev. Nothing can be said with certainty about Jude ver. 16,
The simplest solution would be, to take Savpdlovtss Tt^oa^ria, as equiva-
lent to tb a-tofjia, av-tuv TuxXft vrtsgoyxu, so that the author returned to the
former construction (riogsvopt-voL). lie might, however, have conceived
of ^au/t. Ttgoaarta, in a closer connection with jMKs'iv vitegoyxu and used
^au^ta^. because f6 s-iofio, aintuv Xco,t was equivalent with KM-.OVGI.

In the Apocalypse, where slov xal ISov precede, the nominal, and ac-
cusat. are sometimes connected, as in xiv. 14. ti&ov xai ISov VS^S^TJ
h e v x ty xai liil T'IJV va^>. x a^r\i*>tv ov auovov vi> av^gurtov, e%wv etc.

vii. 9. slSov xal idov o %%o $ I ff * w 1" e 5 rt s g i fi e fiby pe-

v o v s This desperate construction can be explained on the supposition
that the author, who in the beginning had correctly used the nominal.,
in continuing to write, thought of the tlSov, and then made the nouns de-
pendent on it.* This occurs once after I8ol> alone, Rev. iv. 2. Idov govoj

exEttfo xal o xa^^iEVOj qv xai tgtj xvxKo^sv xai srti tfoiij

Sgovovs ~ 7f^(T|3DT'go i uj xa$qpivov$, as if elSov had preceded.
Very striking also is the variation of the structure in Rev. xxi. 10. USstte
poi'itqv TtoX.tv xafapabvovaav s%oveav xai 6 $co<j-
tvie, ai>tvj<; Sfiows e%ovcsa (as very good Codd. have).

The transition from the oratio obliqua to recta and vice versa (in the
Greek prose writers very frequent) merits especial notice (d'Orville ad
Charit. p. 89. and 347., Heindorf ad Protagor. p. 510. Matthias ad Eu-
rip. Pho?.n. 1155. Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 160. Held ad Plutarch. TimoL
p. 451. Bornemann ad Xen. Mem. p. 253. Fritzsche ad Marc. p. 212.)

* Kindred to this are those instances in Greek, where two different cases depend on
one verb, both of which, however, may be governed by it. See Lob. ad Soph. Ajac.
716. Matth. ad Eurip. Suppl. 86. Sprachl. II. 632:

64. PARENTHESIS, ANACOLUTHON AND ORATIO VARIATA. 4l3

Actsxxiii. 23. 24. tirtW EVotjUacfoWa -- x-tv[vvi tie rtagaatrjtiaii- Luke V. 14.
ftaeqyy&ev dwtq [n.ySevi sirtslv, ciM,a att&^tuv Sti,%ov. (Xen. Hell. 2, 1. 25.).
Acts xxiii. 22. artEhvae -tw vsaviav rtaayya.aj ^tj^BvL ixhahijaaW) ottt favta
evsfydvtous rtgos ps> comp. Xen. Anab..\) 3. 14. and the passages from
Josephus in Kypke I. 229. (also Mr. vi. 9., if xal py evdvayaSs be read).
Mr. xi. 32. eav elrtopsv, If ovgavov, egil' 8iati ovv ovx 7tKft > i5<jats ajvTtcp',
aJiR,' E dv slftapsv, f| dj^wrfwv, efyopovv'tu tbv huov (where the nar-
rator proceeds with his own words). See John x. 36. xiii. 29.* With Acts
i. 4. comp* Lysias in Diagit. 12. erteiSy e awfoSoptvi rjgs-to avtbv
rto-te tyv%r]V %uv d|tot rts^i -tuv rtaiSav tot.uv't'

S' t'jttoj etc. (Geopon. 1, 12. 6.).

A transition from the singular to the plural, and vice versa, occurs in
Rom. xii. 16.20. 1 Cor. iv. 6. Gal. iv. 7. vi. 1. Luke v. 4. see Schweigh.
ad Arrinn. Epict. II. I. p. 94. 278. Matthias ad Eurip. Orest. p. 111.
Sch'afer ad Demosth. IV. p. 106.

A heterogeneous connection of several words is found in Rev. i. 6.
srtoiyasv ^itaj j8 a a t,% E i av tsgsts ^9 ^9, where the chief noun is an
abstract, and that in apposition a concrete. Similar ^Eschin. in Timarch.
5. tfdjv tvgdwav xal ifuv oa,tya#i.wj>j see Bremi ad JEschin* Clesiph. 25.
Also comp. CSBS bell. civ. 3, 32. erat plena LICTORUM et IMPERIORUM
provincia, Petron. 43, 3. 38.

NOTE. It belongs to the simplicity of the N. T. style, that sometimes
one sentence is dissolved into two, which are connected by xal, Rom. vi.
17. %dgt,$ ^9 ^9} otft jji's Sou^ofc tfijj tt l uoig'j'ia5, vrtyxovtiaits Se etc. (for which
could be said ovtes Tints 8ovhoi t. djit. vjtqx- EX xagSia^j Luke xxiv. 18.
i) jttdvoj rtagoixei j 'ijgovtraTi.. xai ovx t'yvcos, where, in a style which easily
adopts the participial construction, <sv ^01/0$ jtagoixuv 'if . ovx tyi/coj would
be more correct, Mt. xi. 25. See Fritzsche ad Mt. p. 287. 413. Gesen.
on Isa. v. 4., and comp. what Buttmann has observed of sentences con-
nected together by /ASP and 8. On parataxis in general, see Kiihner
II. 415.

65. Irregular Position of Words and Sentences. Negligence in re-
spect to Single Words.

1. The succession of the several words of a sentence depends in gene-
ral on the order in which the ideas rise in the mind, and the mutual re-

Mt. xvi. 11. (according to Griesbach's reading) belongs here, inasmuch as in the
words w S o(e%. etc. the very words of Jesus' expostulation (ver. 6.) are repeated. We
recognise also an instance of breviloquence, as Jesus would say SVt ou
wav 5e, Trgofep^. etc.
52

412 APPENDIX.

changed, in order to exhibit the thought more strikingly and expressively
than would be done by a single construction, 2 John 2. SLa t^v a-^eEiav
ttjv pivavaav iv qiMv, xal (itO 1 yp&v iataf, si$ tbv aluva. The orat VCtf* is
united with ellipsis in. 2 Cor. viii. 23. and Mr. vi. 8. jtagTjyy"^ avtol$,

of a priSev algwaw ttj oSbv atA <ujto8s8s[tiSvovf aavodhia (sc

ievai) xai py I v$v a a a Q at 8vo %n!uva$ see Fritzsche in loc. (Many
examples can be gathered from Gr. authors. So Pausan. 1, 19. 5. -gov
Nt'ffoti xlyftfae. OvyaHsga tgatiQijvac, MtVw xal wj arttxeigs ta$ *?&%&$ ttov
rtatfgoj, 5, 1. 2. 8, 22. Tltloavo^os Sf avitov o Ka^a^E'Uj ajtoxtflvai tag ogviOas
oi> tyyaiv, aM-a w$ ^o^ xgotdhiov exotu&iBv avtdf. TllUC. 8. 78. Xen. Mem*
2, 7. 8. //eZZ. 2, 3. 19. ^lna&. 2, 5. 5. Pausan. 10. 1. Heliod. JEth. 1.
6. On Mr. xii. 38. cornp. Lys. caed. Eratosth. 21. From the Sep*
tuagint belong here Gen. xxxi. 33. xxxv. 3. Judg. xvi. 24. Judith xv. 4.
3 Esr. iv. 48. viii. 22. 80. Neh. x. 30.)

We may also reckon here Acts xx. 34. ywuaxets, fat, tals %tliM$ fwv
xai tfofrj ovai ju-sr' Ipov vrttigettjaav at %sigss avitut that to the Wants
of myself and of those with me or for me and those who were with me,

1 John 111. 24. V TtOV-tCp yiVi^UXO^V, OTtd , EX TfOV 5t*l)JaT'flJ, OlJ

fyldv I'Swxsv. Nothing can be said with certainty about Jude ver. 16*
The simplest solution would be, to take ^av/Jid^ovtsg Tt^oa^jta as equiva-
lent to to ffT > o 1 wtt cw'tuv Katel vittgoyxa, so that the author returned to the
former construction (rtogsvopsvot,). He might, however, have conceived
of $a,vp. rtgoaurta in a closer connection with xw^iV vitfigoyxa, and used
avtAd. because to a-topa avtuv ^.a^sl was equivalent with'jLaJiouefi.

In the Apocalypse, where siSov xai ISov precede, the nominat. and ac-
cusat. are sometimes connected, as in xiv. 14. tl&ov xai ISov ve^e^y
h s v x ty xai trti tviv vefy' x a^-j; /&f v ov ouoi/ov vt<Z> dy^wrtou, %%K>V etc.
vn. 9. siSov xai ioov o %.ho j J a tf w <t j it f^t/Sf/S^jy^l-
vouj. This desperate construction can be explained on the supposition
that the author, who in the beginning had correctly used the nominal.,
in continuing to write, thought of the slSov, and then made the nouns de-
pendent on it.* This occurs once after Ioov alone, Rev. iv. 2. idov

ilxtnfo xai o xa^iy/itEVOf iqv xal Zgt,$ xvx'Ko'&tv xai srti

Sgovovs rt g s a |3 v 1 1 g ov 5 xufrifiivovsi as if sl&ov had preceded.
Very striking also is the variation of the structure- in Rev. xxi. 10. Mat

jttot 'it<qit Tto^iv x at a|3 alv ov a av e%ovaav xal o

t?f avtys o^oto? E % o D tf a (as very good Codd. have).

The transition from the oratio obliqua to recta and vice versa (in the
Greek prose writers very frequent) merits especial notice (d'Orville ad
Charit. p. 89. and 347., Heindorf ad Protagor. p. 510. Matthias ad Eu-
rip. Phcen. 1155. Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 160. Held ad Plutarch. Timot.
p. 451. Bornemann ad Xen. Mem. p. 253. Fritzsche ad Marc. p. 212.)

* Kindred to this are those instances in Greek, where two different cases depend on
one verb, both of which, however, may be governed by it. See Lob, ad Soph. Ajac.
716. Matth. ad Eurip. Suppl. 86. Sprachl. II.

64. PARENTHESIS, ANACOLUTHON AND ORATIO VARIATA. 4l3

Actsxxiii. 23. 24. tkitsv' ito^daa-fE x-t ^MI tie rtagaa'tijo'at,. Luke v. 14.
ttafijyiyiMv aftfiji ftqScvi sirtslv, aJMa arttti^uv Ssi%ov. (Xen. Hell. 2, 1. 25.).
Acts XXlii. 22. attefrvae Hov vsavlav rtagayysl'h.as pySevi Hxha'tyaat,, oft, fotita
*v$dviaas rtgos ps, comp. Xen. Anab..\, 3. 14. and the passages from
Josephus in Kypke I. 229. (also Mr. vi. 9., if X ai ^ svSvaqoSe be read).
Mr. XI. 32. sow tlji^^v, *| ove^avov, egel' diatl ovv ovx trtHStsvoatf avt^j
Mi' Jdv slrtapfv, l oi^wrfwj/, l^o/So^j/tfa tf 6 > haov (where the nar-
rator proceeds with his own words). See John x. 36. xiii. 29.* With Acts
i. 4. comp. Lysias in Diagit, 12. EjteiS^ Se avvfaSoptv, tfgeTto av-tbv
ttiva riotfe tyvxyv s^wi/ &%ioi rtigi T'WV Ttai/'dcoy tfocavT 1 ^ ^^<J^a4 } aSf^^tj psv
<tov rtafgos, rta^g 8' s/to? etc. (Geopon. 1, 12. 6.).

A transition from the singular to the plural, and vice versa, occurs in
Rom. xii. 16. 20. 1 Cor. iv. 6. Gal. iv. 7. vi. 1. Luke v. 4. see Schweigh.
ad Arrinn. Epict. II. I. p. 94. 278. Matthia3 ad Eurip. Orest. p. 111.
Schafer ad Demosth. IV. p. 106.

A heterogeneous connection of several words is found in Rev. i. 6.
srtoitiasv ^waj /Satft^Et'pn' is g el 5 1?$ ^$j where the chief noun is an
abstract, and that in apposition a concrete. Similar ^Eschin. in Timarch.
5. -eCJv tvgcivvuv xai I'tov oTiiya^wj/, see Bremi ad JEschin. Ctesiph. 25.
Also comp. Cses bell. civ. 3, 32. erat plena LICTORUM et IMPERIOKUM
provincia^ Petron. 43, 3. 38.

NOTE, ft belongs to the simplicity of the N. T. style, that sometimes
one sentence is dissolved into two, which are connected by xai, Rom. vi.
17. ^agtj i"9 e^<J>, oi't ijtfs Soviet i 1 ^? a.jWagt'tas, vrt-yjxovaaitE Ss etc. (for which
could be said ovtss riots SOMOC t. dju,. vrtqx. ex xagSuxs)* Luke xxiv. 18.
<sv jttoj/oj rtagoixsi j 'isgovcioM.. xai ovx syvcos, where, in a style which easily
adopts the participial construction, av jitoj/oj Tta%ot,xuv '!(. ovx eyvis would
be more correct, Mt. xi. 25. See Fritzsche ad Mt. p. 287. 413. Gesen.
on Isa. v. 4., and comp. what Buttmann has observed of sentences con-
nected together by psi/ and Se. On parataxis in general, see Kiihner
II. 415.

65. Irregular Position of Words and Sentences. Negligence in re-
spect to Single Words.

1. The succession of the several words of a sentence depends in gene-
ral on the order in which the ideas rise in the mind, and the mutual re-

Mt. xvi. 11, (according to Griesbach's reading) belongs here, inasmuch as in the
words wjofE^. etc. the very words of Jesus' expostulation (ver. 6.) are repeated. We

recognise also an instance of breviloquence, as Jesus would say CTJ ol

~v, ttmv $!, TTfojl^. etc.
52

414 APPENDIX.

lation which the several parts of a sentence (as groups of words) sustain
to each other. The latter requires that we place regularly, in imme-
diate connection, the adjective with its, noun, the adverb with its verb or
adjective, the genitive with its governing noun, the preposition with its
case, and the words forming an antithesis. In many cases, however, the
connection of a clause with what precedes, the greater emphasis (rheto-
rically) which is to be laid on a word, and more or less euphony, will
determine the position of the words, although emphasis does not demand
that the emphatic word be placed in the beginning. It may even stand
at the end of a clause (see e. g. Jacob ad Lucian. Alex. p. 74. Kiihner
II. 625.), but always there, where its relative position in the whole
sentence will render it most prominent. An intended connection with
what precedes requires, e. g. that a relative pronoun, even in an oblique
case, usually begin the sentence etc. The laws of the succession of thought
and rhetorical considerations therefore determine the position of words;
and although they allow great play to the activity of the writer's mind,
and never will be felt by him to be obstacles, yet commonly the arrange-
ment of the words for the sake of logical and rhetorical effect, is only
in a small measure so habitual with an author that it could be received
as a principal element in the characteristics of his style (see Klihner II.
622. Zumpt Gr. p. 626.).

2. The position of the words in the N. T. is in the main points subject
to the same rules which the Greek prose writers follow (for these rules
are only partially national); yet it may be observed that it is, (a) more
free and manifold in the didactic writings, especially of Paul, than in the
historical books, as these rhetorical reasons have more concurrent weight;
(6) that, especially in the narrative style, a too wide separation of the
principal parts of the sentence, subject and verb, ought to be avoided:
and, according to the Hebrew mode of expression, the verb must be
placed near to the subject, and if the subject be a modified one, only the
principal subject precedes the verb, while the modifications follow, so
that the attention is not kept too long in suspense. The relative clauses,
if possible, are so located that they occur first after the completion of the
leading clause. Gersdorf in his work has remarked many peculiarities
of some of the N. T. authors, in respect to the position of the words, but
after a more minute investigation, it is found, (a) that he has not suf-
ficiently taken into view the several influences on which the order and
succession of the words usually depend; (Z>) that, believing it might be-
come habitual with a writer, e. g. to place the adverb before or after the
verb, he has proposed a critical process, and in part followed it, which

65. IRREGULAR POSITION OF WORDS, &C. 415

smells too much of pedantry. More rationally treated, it would be of
great service in verbal criticism.

It is not indifferent whether we write to rivs-v^a toy $EOV or to
to tov . comp. above p. 112. and without article, rtv. EOV or ^eov nv>
The N. T. passages must be examined individually, according to the
characteristics of their style. Without such consideration in the use of
the Codd. (and even of the old translations and the Fathers) for ever to
impose on an author one and the same position of words, is empirical pe-
dantry. If the adjective is usually placed thus: ^jSoj ^s'yaj, I'gyov oya-
0?, this is very natural; the reverse would produce either a prominence
of the adjective idea, which may originate with many authors in an an-
tithesis usual to them (xahu sgya mostly in Paul), or its precedence lies
in the nature of the adjective idea, as aMoj, sTj, iStoj etc. It cannot be
strange that aV^wrfoj ovto; occurs frequently for ovto$ o ai^gcortoj, as the
latter implies an emphasis on the pronoun (this man, no other), which
only takes place where it is spoken bsixtix^g or with intensit)'. It is by
no means decided that the latter position prevails in John (Gersdorf 444.),
and in the places where it occurs, the reason for this, arrangement of words
is apparent. On tav-ta rtdvta and rtdvta tavta, see above p. 100. No atten-
tive reader will consider it an arbitrary deviation from the usual position:
17 ttofas sxElvvj, if narrators, where they wish to subjoin something relating
to time, say: lv Ixsivatg IMS yiiegats etc. And of what use are remarks like
this: rtdfav, sxsfesv etc. sometimes precede, sometimes follow. Finally,
I do not conceive how Gersdorf in Mt. xiii. 27. xv. 20. (p. 335.) could
so misapprehend the right position of the adjective as to be even inclined
to correct. If in Mt. xv. 34. jtououj agtovt s^sts ; oi 8s slrtov' Into, xal
d^t'ya te^uSia occurs, but in Mr. viii. 7. xai, slxv Ix^vSict 65u'ya, the op-
positional contrast of l^tfa there required the 6^'ya to be placed before
ix^vSia, whilst here loaves and fishes are antithetical: they had also a
small supply of fishes. It will not seem strange to any one who studies
the language with attention that Luke writes x&vov ovx oxJyqr, and
Paul 1 Tim. v. 23. 0^9 ojayoj. In John v. 22. f^v xguatv rtdaav SsSuxe
*9 vl$, rtuaav is very properly placed before . (he gave it to him not
in parts, but wholly), comp. Mt. ix. 35. Luke vii. 35. 1 Cor. x. 1. Acts
xvii. 21. Nothing need be remarked on the precedence of an emphatic
word (John iv. 24. ix. 31. xiii. 6. 1 Cor. xii. 22. xv. 44. xiv. 2. Luke
ix. 20. xii. 30. xvi. 11. Rom. vii. 2. 3. Heb. x. 30.) See below 3.

3. The position of words in the N. T. has usually been noticed only
where single members of a sentence appear separated from those words
to which they logically belong: e. g. 1 Thess. ii. 13. rt<xgcaa{3<Wss

rta,f? fytZv <tov sov, Or 1 Pet. ii. 7. i,/.uv ovv <y ^17 I'DIJ rt<,

Rom. xi. 13., and this merely was called trrtjection.* But those

* See Abrescli ad Aristanct. p. 218. Wolf ad Demos. Lcpt, p. 300. Rcitz ad Lu-
dan. VII. p. 448. Kriiger ad Dion. Hal. p. 139. 318. Engelhardt ad Euthyphr. p.
123. Winer's Gram. Excurs. p. 174.

416 APPENDIX.

passages ought to be distinguished, (a) where the striking order of the
words has a rhetorical reason, and is therefore designed, as in 1 Pet. ii.
7. where the rtiGt evovat,v is postponed to the end, because here the con-
dition: as faithful^ if ice are faithful, is more prominent,* comp. 1 John
v. 16. John xiii. 14. 1 Cor. v. 7., also Heb. vii. 4. 9 xai St-xd-tyv Apgad/*
sSuxev Ix *wi> axgo$iviut>, b ttutgbdgxqsito whom Abraham the patri-
arch gave even the tenth. In 2 Cor. ii. 4. ov% L'va a/urti^jji'c, d;ua t^v
dydrttjv i'va yvuts an antithesis is evident, as Rom. xi. 31. Acts xix. 4.
Gal. ii. 10. (Cic. div. 1, 4. mil. 2. fin.} Mr. ii. 28. tiots xvgios to-tw 6
vtoj toy dj^ioTtou xai fov aaj3j3d-rov, John vii. 3?. So also Heb. X. 27.
xal rtvgb; ^\os IG&EW juc-M.oz/T'o? tfovj vrttvajvt'iov$ the epithet of tiv% is more
strikingly prominent, than if it were inserted between the genit. and gov-
erning noun, and in Xli. 25. si yag Ixzivot, ovx efyvyov, ifbv s Tii yi)S 7tat-
%,YJ (1,0,1; LQovtu, ftoJv^cp /ACM.OV V[AM$ oi -fbv art ovgavwv artoa-tgeipo-
a more emphatic accent is laid on the antithetical Irti y^j, than if it
should be read together with x^C"* see 1 C r - ii. 11. 2 Cor. vi. 16.

1 Pet. ii. 16. Heb. vi. 19. Jude ver. 18. Acts vii. 56. 1 Tim. iii. 6. John
xviii. 17. (every where transpositions of the genitive). Rom. viii. 18.
and Gal. iii. 23. pt-M.ovaa precedes, because the future is opposed to the
present; in ^a'xx. therefore lies. the principal idea, which is afterwards
completed by artoxaKvty&jvat,. Similar Held ad Plutarch. Timol. p. 420.
Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 17. si ^ EX a at! a w$ Ipt^asv b xvgt,o$, 'ixuatov wj
xsxhyxev d ro$ etc. Rom. xii. 3. (&) In some places a more precise
definition is annexed, which occurred to the writer after the sentence had
been arranged, A.cts xxii. 9. ^o HEV ^>ws s^tsdaavto, Tfrjv 8s fywqv ovx yjxov-
dav Tfov httihovv'tos ^ttot, Acts iv. 83. fisyaT^y Svvdfieb drteBLftovv "to jucig-
tvQwv ol artoti fo?iot tf vj j cJi'atfi'atffwj I ov xv C,L ov 'l^tfoiJ, Heb. xii.
11. John iv. 39. vi. 66. xii. 11. 1 Cor. x. 27. Luke xix. 47. 1 Pet. i. 13.

2 Pet. iii. 2. comp. Arrian Alex. 3, 23. 1. i-ov? v7tohEt,$Evi!a$ tv <ty Stcofet
*^J tftf^atftas-. (c) fn other places the trajection is only apparent :
Heb. XI. 82. irtfaeltyei ydg /AE Sti/jyovpevov b xgovos rtagt F s 8 e u v )
~Ba$dx * xai 'Sap^uv etc., which could not be written otherwise, as a
whole series of names follows, to which in ver. 33. a relative clause is
to be attached, Jas. v. 10. Heb. vi. 1. 2. (cZ) An effort to throw unem-
phatic words into the shade is evident, Heb. iv. 11. tVa ^ iv #9

EGiy etc. So perhaps in 1 Cor. v. 1. &a-tE
%ew (that the wife one of his father has, verbatim
as to position. Trs.], Luke xviii. 18. Also in Heb. ix. 16. 6Vtou

* Comp. Demosth. fals. leg, p. 204, C. slftl relvvv o xa,ryt>wv 1% a.%xns lyw rovr toy .

TCUTWV S 1 ' OU^EIJ 1/M.OU.

65. IRREGULAR POSITION OP WORDS, &C. 417

foc tov Sta^sptvov, any other position of the
last word would diminish the force of the principal thought

avdyxq .

We remark also a contrast (see above a) in 1 Cor. ii. 11.
olSw av^gQrtojj i 1 a if. ov av^gartov; antithesis in Luke iii. 14.
xai % p B c $ <el, rtoiYiaopiv ', (comp. ver. 12.) ix. 20. xvi. 12. xxiii. 31.
John ix. 17. xxi. 21. 2 Cor. ii. 16. where the interrogative uniformly
follows. On the other hand the adjectives ytocoj, rtotfartos, jj/uzo?, as em-
phatic, precede, Gersdorf I. 410. (On the contiguity of similar or equal
words, like xuxovs xa,xu$ drto^scrst., see 62. 1. corny. Kiihner II. 628.)

4. (e) Sometimes, however, single words are transposed in consequence
of inattention, or rather because the ancients, having only reflecting
readers in view, were free from careful precision; and this frequently oc-
curred among the Greek prose writers, with certain adverbs (Stallbaum
ad Plat. Phced. p. 123.), to which every reader, according to the sense,
gives the right position, even if the writer has not arranged them with
logical exactness. So with <m Isocr. Paneg. 14. Sint&eaav xotvr t v ^v
rt6%w rtag%ovt; xai tfot j dSwcoiyilvot/ j nsi tfwv 'Ex&jjvttj/ irtafivvovaav, Xen. CEc.
19, 19. Thuc. ii. 43. (see Kriiger ad Dion. p. 252. Schafer ad Demosth.
II. 234.); so also with rtoM*.dxc$ Stallbaum ad Plat. re.p. I. 93., with JVc
Rom. v. 6. tVt Xgttfit'oj ov-ttov faun ua^rsviZv (for l-ti ovf. ^. da^.), comp
Eurip. Orest. 416. 499. and Poppo Thuc. I. I. p. 300. III. II. 664.
So, finally, with o^coj 1 Cor. xiv. 7. 6 ju w $ if a a,3>v%a fywriv Sibdvla for to,
,-fyv%a, ojtiQj etc. and Gal. iii. 15. 6^wj av^guirtov Xxvgu>i*,vyv
&$ST?E<; for o^t. oi>5ftj a^itst (comp. Bengel and Winer's
comment, in loc.}, Herm. ad Soph. Ajac. 15. Dosderlein ad Soph. (Ed. C.
p. 396. Pflugk ad Eurip. Androm. p. 10. (In other places 6>Q? points
to an omitted clause, see Poppo Observ. p. 207.).*

Even the trajection of a negation is not very rare with the Greeks;
but then there is either a concealed antithesis, e. g. Plat. Crit. p. 47. D.
rtei^o/tsvot, pri ty tfu>J> Irta'Covtav S6%y, L&gg- 12. p. 943. A. Xen. Mem. 3,
9. 6. Galen temper. 1, 3. comp. Kiihner II. 628. Sintenis ad Plut. The-
mist. p. 2., or the negation precedes the whole clause, instead of being
added to the word which is negated, as in Acts vii. 48. aM? ov x 6 v^~
lv xtigortoiqifois xatolxsi, comp. Xen. Ephes. 3, 8. fai p YI ^6 ^>ag-
Stavatfi/to ^, Plat. Apol. p. 35. D. (GEcumen I. p. 230.). Many
interpreters, as Piscator, Koppe, Storr, Tholuck, Reiche, find a trans-

* We may reckon here tWeaf in passages like Mr. i. 10. v. 36. ix. 15. In ii. 8.
and v. 30., however, ejeiws belongs to the participles. See Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 19.
for passages out of Greek authors.

418 APPENDIX.

position of the negation in Rom. iii. 9. -tl ovv] rtgoEzops^a; ov itdvtus
i. e. not in the. leant, not at all (rtavtus ov}. This apprehension is possi-
ble in that formula, at least ovosv jtavt^ is found in Herod. 7, 57. 5, 34.
as also ov ridw for not in the least, Demosth. OL 2. 21. (ov Ttdvtas even
Epiph. Jissr. 38, 6.), ov 6'?t,wj also Porphyr. abstin. 1, 14. and the con-
text of the Pauline passage seems to favor, even to require this under-
standing of the passage, see Reiche and De Wette in loc. On the other

band, 1 Cor. V. 10. Ky^a^a v/.dv pq Ovvava/jti'yvvryOat rtogvot,;, xai ov

rtdvtas >toi$ rto^vuit tov xoapov tfoiWou is to be translated: I wrote, to you to
have no intercourse with fornicalors, not (I wrote, I meant) alto-
gether (in universum) with the fornicators of this world (since then ye
must go out of the world), but only with the licentious church members.
Heb. xi. 3. $1$ ^o ^ lx tyuwoptvuv tfa /S^ETtd^iEi'a ysyovsrat is usually reck-
oned here, but Schulz correctly translates: that, therefore, what can be
seen, yet has not been understood from what appears or exists, comp.
Bengel in loc- What is denied is, the lx fyaivopsvuv no, fihsftofisvn ysyoj/s-
vat,, and the negative is wilh entire regularity placed before this clause.
The transposition of the negative referred to in 2 Mace. vii. 28. 6V& ovx
t| ovfuv Irioitiasv avta 6 0edj is uncertain, as only the Cod. Alex, has it so.
2 Cor. iii. 4. 5. TtertouOqaw exopsv, ov^ oft ixavoi ssftiv etc. cannot be ex-
plained by or't ov% (jwj) etc. It must rather be translated: this persua-
sion (the chief) have we, not because we are able of ourselves, but be-
cause our ability is of God (O,M.' 6Vt ^ txavoV^s ^wv lx tov OEOV. Finally,
I cannot with Schott and others translate 2 Cor. xiii. 7. oi>% L'vo, ypels 86x~
c^tot, (jjttvtoju-sv, dwS i'va v^eis f6 xuhbv rtotij-r'e, ne ego debeam (Jesu legatus)
comprobari, serf ut etc., as if the negative referred to the verb $av.
The Apostle would rather say: // is only my desire that you be good,
not that I may exhibit myself in the fulness of my Apostolical power
I shall cheerfully be a6xt,/j.o$ (see the following), if you only be 86xt,/j.oi,.
With this interpretation ^av^/j.ev is in its proper place. Billroth differs.
See Reiche on Rom. iv. 12. Liicke on 1 John iv. 10. Stolz has correct-
ly explained 1 Cor. xv. 51., which Flatt and Heyclenreich translate im-
properly. See Billroth in loc.

To this category belongs the hyperbaton 2 Tim. ii. 6. -tov xojt^vfa
yEugyov 5ft Tt^oitfoy 'fuiv xagrt^v ps'taTt.ap.jBdvsw* The Apostle intends not
to say: the laborious husbandman must first (Schott: prsecipuK) partake
of the fruits, but: the husbandman, who would partake of the fruits,
must first labor, as Stolz translates,- the ne&Qv belongs then to xort. It
would be expressed more clearly thus: tov -tuv xagx. ps-eat*. G&ovta yswg-
yov Sft jigutov xortiuv* In respect to the above hyperbaton, comp. Xen.
Cyr. 1, 3. 15. f> vbc rt^cofoj rtar 1 ^ ft-fayp.tva rtotft, i. R. o abg rfai 1 , Ttgwi'os

65. IRREGULAR POSITION OF WOKDS, &C. 419

it. In order to get round the hyperbaton Grotius takes ytgwi'ov for
demum, which is not admissible. Heydenreich passes over this passage
too lightly. Other hyperbata of a striking character, see in Thuc. 3, 26.
Xen. Cyrop. 2, 1.5. Plat. Crit. p. 50. E. Demosth. Olynth. p. 30.

The trajection in Acts i. 2. Sid rtvevpatos ayiov ovs st-shst-ato (comp.
Plat. Apol. p. 19. D. Stallbaum ad Plat. rep. I. p. 109.), which Kiinol,
Vater and Olshausen (after Scaliger) have recently adopted, would pos-
sess little probability, since only the sv-tsM.. 8ia jtv ay. could be of ac-
count to Luke (for the subsequent contents of the Acts), but the exhsy.
Sta. -f. rtv- would fall within the compass of the Evangel, and could not
be first described here; the general reference in ov$ Hsa.it., most imme-
diately applicable to the Apostles, is not without meaning, as they, in
consequence of that election, became qualified for the commissions Sid
tov rtv., see Valck. in loc. Acts V. 35. rtgo$s%T? zawtois Ijtl tot*; avOga-
rtoi$ tl fj.EM.sts ttgdoai-iv may very properly be translated: take heed to
yourselves on account of these men, what ye would do, 1*1 can be thus
connected with ite,o%iw avf$, even although it really occur in not a
single passage. Others refer the Irti -t- a. to jtga,<3<stiv, because the phrase
rtgatf. 'ti erci twt, is not unusual, see Kiinol.

There is more semblance of probability in Acts xxvii. 39. where xoV
riov <tiva xut'evoovv i'^oyr'a alyia&bv, is supposed to Stand for aty. e%bvi?n xoh-
jtov -ftvd, but Grotius has already remarked: non frustra hoc additur,
sunt eniin sinus quidam marts, qui litus non habent, sed prseruptis rupi-
bus cinguntur (Stolz: which- had a landing}. Besides the aiy. Hzovtu
must be closely connected with the relative clause sis Sv etc. : which had
a shore, at which they resolved to land. i. e. a shore of such a kind as to
induce in them this resolution. That trajection would be unwarrantable
in so simple a sentence.

John xii. 1. rt^o l| fypBguv toy !to.a%a, six days before the passover, and

XI. 18. r^v %] 'BsQo.via a'yyuj tuv 'l^offota^w w? drtb (Sfabiuv SsxajtevtE about

fifteen stadia from it (comp. xxi. 8. Rev. xiv. 20.) must be considered
as having become an established trajection and genuine even to the case.
If the prepositions were in the proper place (before itdaza and 'iigoaoh.)
it would mean in the former : ?| ^a'^a^ rfgotf. *., in the latter 5j a-tab.
SEX. arid 'ifgocr. (Luke xxiv. 13.). But probably among Greeks it arose
from another view, and in definitions of place they were accustomed to
say drt6 tffaStwv SEX. (properly, situated there, where the fifteen stadia
terminate, at the end of the fifteen stadia}, as in Lat. e. g. Liv. 24, 46.
FaHus cum A QTJINGENTIS FERE PASSIBUS castra posuisset, Ramshorn p.
273. Were it necessary further to define the location of the speaker,
this would be put in the genitive with this formula. So also in definitions
of time, as it was customary to say: ^6 ?g fyts'gSv before six days, this
formula was retained also when it was necessary to designate a point of
time referring to this definition or division, therefore *g6 I| fye&v fov
rtdaza. Both these modes of expression (as to time and place) are fre-
quent enough in the later Gr. comp. ^Elian. Anim. 11, 19. ^6 rievts
^sgiv tov aQavMsOyvai, t^v 'EM'XJJV, Xen. Ephes. 3, 3. Geopon. 12, 31. 1.
Achill. Tat. 7, 14. (and Jacobs in loc.} Epiph. Opp. II. p. 248., Strabo

420 APPENDIX.

15. p. 715. xaTtahvpfiv arS^aj rtEVtexaiSsxa, drib cftfaSuov flxodi
Plutarch. Philop. 4. vjv oygoj aifqi xaXoj artb rftfafiuoj/ sZxotit, tfj-ij
Joseph. ^LwW. 8. 13, 9. see Schafer ad Long. p. 129. Such formulas
were constructed also with peta, (in reference to time), as ps-toi
slxoaw sty tfwi' T^wl'xwv see Schiifer ad Bos. Ellips. p. 553.

5. Certain particles in Gr. have a more or less definite position, accord-
ing to the importance which attaches to them in the sentence. Msv (/*
vovvys), ovv, Si-, ydg, ys, t'oLwv, <i'ga (the last not even at the commencement
of a subordinate clause Xen. Cyrop. 1, 3. 2. 8, 4. 7.) should not stand in
the beginning of a sentence. In most cases this rule is observed in the
N. T., and 8s, ydg, ovv have sometimes the second, sometimes the third,
sometimes also the fourth place (although the Codd. do not generally
harmonize); the third and fourth especially when words which belong
together should not be put asunder, as Gal. Hi. 22. 7tg6 tov 8s IhOsw, Mt.
xxvi. 11. tovs rttu%ovs y a g (as at least Frilzsche has taken into the text)
Mr. i. 38. Luke xv. 17. $ savtbv 8s IhOuv, vi. 23. etc., Acts xxvii. 14. ps^

ov jitiKv fie j3a7l etc., 1 John ii. 2. ov rtsgl itZ>v 9]i*i!guv 8s povov, 1 Cor.
Vlll. 4. 7tgd ^j j3^wtfcoj ovv tfuv i<M.oOv'i!<&V' ) 2 Cor. X. 1. oj xa-fa rCg6$co-
jtov pev tarteivbg John xvi. 9. comp. about 8s (Herod. 8, 68. ./Elian.
Anim. 7, 27. Isocr. ad Philipp. p. 202. Diod. Sic. 11, 11. Thuc. 1, 6.
70. Athen. I. p. 174. Schweigh. Jlrrian. Alex. 2, 2. 2. Xen. eq. 11, 8.
Lucian. Eunuch. 4. dial. mart. 5, 1. Strabo 17. p. 808.) Herm. ad
Orph. p. 820. Boissonade ad Aristsenet. p. 687. Poppo Thuc. 1. I. p.
302. III. I. p. 71. Stallb. ad Phileb. p. 90. Person and Schiifer ad Eu-
rip. Orest. p. 60. Bornemann ad Xen. Conviv. p. 69. and ad Anab. 3,
2. 7., as to yag Wunder ad Soph. Philoct. 218. Schiifer Melet. crit. p.
76. Fritzsche qusest. Lucian. p. 100., as to ^v Bornem, ad Xen. Conviv.
p. 61. Herm. ad Orph. as above. Kriiger Dion. p. 314. a^a on the
other hand (see Herm. ad Soph. Jlntig. 628.) is often contrary to the
usage of the Greeks, placed in ihejirst clause, as 2 Cor. v. 15. Gal. ii.
17. 21. v. 11. 2 Thess. ii. 15. Rom. viii. 12. etc. (comp. however, Xen.
Ephes. i. 11. and the later authors generally), as alsodg' ovv Rom. v. 18.
vii. 3. Ephes. ii. 19. Msvovvys begins a period in Luke xi. 28. Rom. ix.
20. x. 18. See Lob. ad Phryn. p. 342. and likewise toivw Heb. xiii. 13.;
the latter is very seldom found at the beginning of a sentence in good
writers, yet see Lob. ad Phryn. 1. c.

Moreover psv is regularly placed after the word to which it belongs.*
Some exceptions to this exist, however; Acts xxii. 3. 'yw

* If several words are grammatically connected (tsv may stand after the first, as
Luke x. 2. o jwsv flE^s-jMo'c, Acts xiv. 12. TOV fjt-iv Bf va/3av, Heb. xii. 11. So Lysias pe-
eun.publ. 3.lv(jt,evouv T TTOXE^WW. Bornem. ad Xen. Conv. p. 61. On ya.% after the
artic. see Erfurdt ad Soph. Antig. 686.

65. IKBEGUIiAK POSITION OF WORDS, <&C. 421

v

etc-, (for Jyto E. dt. *I. yE-ysyj'. JHEV etc.), Tit. i.' 15. TtcM/i'a /tev
Otj, tfots 3s ne/jHaapevoLs xai artietot,$ OV$EV xaQngav for
. jtW'taxaQ. etc. or riantfc* /^sv xaO* ~ oiiSsvM xaQ,./'t. /H 1 Cor. il.
15. comp. Xeri. Jfem. 2, 1. 6/3, 9. 8. uElian.' j4m?n. 2, 31. ; , Diog. L.
6, 2. 6. Herm. ad Soph. (Ed. R. 436. Bernhardy rf Z>idw. Perierg. p.
626. 'Hartung Partik. II. 415. ;

T belongs properly after that word which is parallel or correlative
with another Acts xiv. 1 . . 'louSat'wv T'E xai -.'EM^WV 'rt.ovo rt^Soj, ix. 2. ,xx. .
21. xxvi. 3. But it is frequently inserted earlier Acts xxvi. 22. (Elinsley
ad Eurip. Herod. 622.) and stands especially after a preposition or
article Acts x. 39. ii ! . 33. xxviii. 23. John ii. 15. etc. in which case it
is sometimes prominent as belonging in common to the two correspondent
members of the sentence Phil. i. 7. lv tfE ids Ssa^oHf pov xai ^ arfoxoyi-'cj;
xai, jSsjSatQtfst etc. Acts, xxv; 23. xiv. 5. Comp. Plat. Legg. .7. p. 796. 1).
sts '* Ttohrtuav xai iSlovs 01x01)5, Thuc. 4, 13. and the collection of ex-
amples by Elmsley (also Joseph. Antt. 17, 6. 2.). See especially Sommer
in John's Jahrbuch 1831. III. 401. So can ys be placed after ari article
or monosyllabic particle, Rom. viii. 32. 2 Cor. v. 3. Ephes. iii. 2.
comp, . Xen. Mem. 1,2. 27. 3, 12. 7. 4, 2. 22. :Diod. Sic. 5, 40., see,
Matthise ad Eurip. Iphig. Anl. 498. :.

r Many interpreters, e. g. Schott, find a trajection of xai (even} in Heb.
i yii. 4. 9 xai SExaf^v AjS^aaj* HSuxsv for 9 Ssx. xai, A/3..K8.- But the em-
phasis here is laid precisely on the giving* of the tenth, arid Schulz and
Stolz have translated correctly.

6. Trajection has been imposed ^>er MW on the sentences in Acts xxiv.
22., where Beza, Grotius, and others punctuate thus: ^jjsu!, ax^<ste-
gov stSwj fw ?t^t I'ijs oSooi, Etrtw, oT i ai> etc. arid translate : Felix, quando
accuratius cognovero, inquit, etLypias hue venerit etc.; butl'ee
Kiinol in Zoc., comp. Bornemann \in Rosenm. Repert. II. 281.,- 2 Cor.

viii. 10. oiVti'Ej ov povov -zfo Ttoiyaat uKhu xai to ^sXEtv rtgOEMjgtttffSa djto
jrtsgucrt (see the Syriac), wheresan inversion was adopted: non vellesolum
ea fdcere incepistis (Grotius, Schulz, Schott, Stolz) on account of what
follows in ver. 11.: ^ jtgovpi,<i, -tov ^eAsw. Incorrectly. In ver. lo.
&st,v is much more than TCOMW ; it denotes the being willing (to give
voluntarily) comp. viii. 3. (Isocr. adv. Callim. p. 914); in ver. 11. how-
ever the whole emphasis of the thought lies on Int^^lv. The beginning,
yea even the beginning willingly ($ ri^. *<& &w') does not suffice, you

* On this subject see W. Kahler satura duplex de ver. ct Jicl. text. sac. traject, ex
Evangg.ct Act. Ap. 1728. E. Wassenbergh. de transpos. salul. etc. 1786.
53

420 APPENDIX.

15. p. 715. xttfa7i,a|3tv aj'Sgaj rtevgsxaiStxa arto aifaSiuv flxoat,
Plutarch. Philop. 4. yjv dygoj aitf^ xaXoj drto a-gaoh'uv MXOGI,

Joseph. .Anitf. 8. 13, 9. see Schafer rf Long. p. 129. Such formulas
were constructed also with IUET'O. (in reference to time), as jtisi'd
xai elxoaiv s-gtj tfuiv Tgwl'xwv see Schafer ad jBos. Ellips. p. 553.

5. Certain particles in Gr. have a more or less definite position, accord-
ing to the importance which attaches to them in the sentence. Msv (/
vovvye), ovr, SE, ydg, ys, -goivw, ago, (the last not even at the commencement
of a subordinate clause Xen. Cyrop. 1, 3. 2, 8, 4. 7.) should not stand in
the beginning of a sentence. In most cases this rule is observed in the
N. T ., and 8s, ydg, ovv have sometimes the second, sometimes the third,
sometimes also the fourth place (although the Codd. do not generally
harmonize); the third and fourth especially when words which belong
together should not be put asunder, as Gal. iii. 22. jtgb -tov Ss IhOtlv, Mt.
xxvi. 11. ?ov$ Ttfw^oojj y a g (as at least Fritzsche has taken into the text)
Mr. i. 38. Luke xv. 17. si$ lavtov 8s IhOuv, \>i.23.etc., Acts xxvii. 14. pst'

oi> TtoTii 5s i/3aXa etc., 1 John ii. 2. ov rtgl T'WV fas tie guv 8s fiiovov, 1 Cor.
Vlii. 4. rttgi rijj jSgwtffcoj ovv T'coi/ elStohoOvtiov, 2 Cor. X. 1. oj xata

rtov PEV -gaiteivvs John xvi. 9. comp. about 8s (Herod. 8, 68.
Anim. 7, 27. Isocr. ad Philipp. p. 202. Diod. Sic. 11, 11. Thuc. 1, 6.
70. Athen. I. p. 174. Schweigh. Arrian. Alex. 2, 2. 2. Xen. eq. 11, 8.
Lucian. Eunuch. 4. dial. mart. 5. 1. Strabo 17. p. 808.) Herm. ad
Orph. p. 820. Boissonade ad Aristasnet. p. 687. Poppo Thuc. 1. I. p.
302. III. I. p. 71. Stallb. ad Phileb. p. 00. Person and Schiifer ad Eu-
rip. Orest. p. 60. Bornemann ad Xen. Conviv. p. 69. and ad Anab. 3,
2. 7., as to yag Wunder arf Soph. Philoct. 218. Schafer 7!fe/c'/. crit. p.
76. Fritzsche quaest. Lucian. p. 100., as to ^sv Bornem, ad Xen. Conviv.
p. 61. Herm. d Orph. as above. Kriiger Dion. p. 314. ago, on the
other hand (see Herm. ad Sopk. Jlntig. 62S.) is often contrary to the
usage of the Greeks, placed in ihe first clause, as 2 Cor. v. 15. Gal. ii.
17. 21. v. 11. 2 Thess. ii. 15. Rom. viii. 12. etc. (comp. however, Xen.
Ephes. i. 11. and the later authors generally), as alsodg' ovv Rom. v. 18.
vii. 3. Ephes. ii. 19. Msvovvye begins a period in Luke xi. 28. Rom. ix.
20. x. 18. See Lob. ad Pliryn. p. 342. and likewise -goiwv Heb. xiii. 13.;
the latter is very seldom found at the beginning of a sentence in good
writers, yet see Lob. ad Phryn. 1. c.

Moreover /AEV is regularly placed after the word to which it belongs.*
Some exceptions to this exist, however; Acts xxii. 3. syw

* If several words are grammatically connected /MEV may stand after the first, as
Luke x. 2. o psv Beg is-poi;, Acts xiv. 12. TOV ^WEK BJ nii3av, Heb. xii. 11. So Lysias pe-
can. publ. 3. ev (AEv ovv Tea m\ip.tf}. Bornem. ad Xen. Conv. p. 61. On yo.% after the
artic. sec Erf'urdt ad Soph, Antig. 686.

65. IRREGULAR POSITION OF WOBDS, &C. 421

Iv Tago$ T^J KtXwa'as, dva'fsQ^a/.if.iEvo^ 8s sv
etc. (for <yw . a. 'l. ysysyv- (J.EV etc.), Tit. i. 15. rtuvta
#015 jca(?agotj, tfotj 5s (*,/.ii,a,(j/Aevot,; xal arfiWotf oiSfJ' xaOagQV for -fotj
xaQag. Ttaj/tfa xa0. etc. or rtavr'a /^sv xa#. -- ovSfj'.^ xa5. tf. ,11. 1 Cor. 11.
15. comp. Xen. Mem. 2, 1. 6. '8, 9. S. ./Elian. Anim, 2, 31. Diog. L.
6, 2. 6. Herm. ad Soph. (Ed. R. 436. Bernhardy ad Dion- Perierg. p.
626. Hartung Partik. II. 415.

Tf belongs properly after that word which is parallel or correlative
with another Acts xiv. 1. 'lov&aiuv ts ai 'FATWJVWV rto^-u rt^floj, ix. 2. xx.
21. xxvi. 3. But it is frequently inserted earlier Acts xxvi. 22. (Elmsley
ad Eurip. Herod. 622.) and stands especially after a preposition or
article Acts x. 39. ii. 33. xxviii. 23. John ii. 15. etc. in which case it
is sometimes prominent as belonging in common to the two correspondent
members of the sentence Phil. i. 7. Iv tie tfots S^ot? pov xai ty drfo^oyt'a
xai j3Ef3aKatfft etc. Acts. xxv. 23. xiv. 5. Comp. Plat. Lcgg. 7. p. 796. D.
tj -ts Ttohitsiav xai I8iov$ otxoiij, Thuc. 4, 13. and the collection of ex-
amples by Elmsley (also Joseph. Antt. 17, 6. 2.). See especially Sommer
in John's Jahrbuch 1831. III. 401. So can JE be placed after an article
or monosyllabic particle, Rom. viii. 32. 2 Cor. v. 3. Ephes. iii. 2.
comp. Xen. Mem. 1, 2. 27. 3, 12. 7. 4, 2. 22. Diod. Sic. 5, 40., see
Matthise ad Eurip. Ipldg. Anl. 498.

Many interpreters, e. g. Schott, find a trajection of xal (even} in Heb.
vii. 4. < xal SEXOU!^ Apgaafji, HSioxi-v for 9 Ssx. xai, Apg. s. But the em-
phasis here is laid precisely on the giving of the tenth, and Schulz and
Stolz have translated correctly.

6. Trajection has been imposed per vim on the sentences in Acts xxiv.
22., where Beza, Grotius, and others punctuate thus: 6 <&ijju!, ax^^aia-
gov eiSws tfqi rtEgd -t^c, oSoii, EtTtwj/, oiav etc. and translate : Felix, quando
accuratius ^ cognovero, inquit, et Lysias hue venerit etc.; but see
Kiinb'l in Zoc., comp. Bornemann in Rosenm. Repert. II. 281.; 2 Cor.
Vlll. 10. ol'-twss ov povov 'to Tiot^aai o,X?ia xal -to ^thsiv rtgoV'/[g%a09s artb
rttgvai (see the Syriac), where an inversion was adopted: non vellesolum
ea facere incepistis (Grotius, Schulz, Schott, Stolz) on account of what
follows in ver. 11.: ty rtgo^up'a i^oii ^Ijtsty. Incorrectly. In ver. 10.
$&sw is much more than rtoisiv ', it denotes the being willing (to give
voluntarily) comp. viii. 3. (Isocr. adv. Cattim. p. 914); in ver. 11. how-
ever the whole emphasis of the thought lies on faveeteiv. The beginning^
yea even the beginning willingly (%rtgo$. *oJJ $fasiv) does not suffice, you

* On this subject see W. Kahler satura duplex de ver. ct Jicl. text. sac. traject. ex
Evangg. ct Act. Ap. 1728. E. Wassenbergh. dc transyos. salul. etc. 1786.
53

422 APPENDIX.

must finish the good deed. The apostle twice uses
not ctotjtV in antithesis to s'5un> as mere volition. An inversion for otr
fiovov -to $faw d/u.a xai, /to ctot^rfat would be more than harsh and in Paul
intolerable; besides ^6 S&EW ^oEv^ac^t, you have begun to will, would
be without an appropriate sense. In the chief point Beza, Heumann and
Bauer agree with me (Log. Paull. p. 334.). I deem it unnecessary to
adopt a trajection in 2 John ver. 6. although Knapp and Liicke affirm it.
On John xi. 15. see 57. p. 356.

Where in the arrangement of single sentences, the dependent clauses
are placed before the principal e. g. those expressing the final cause Mt.
xvii. 27. Acts xxiv. 4., relative clauses Mr. xi. 23. Luke vii. 43. John
iii. 11., the reason is manifest to every attentive reader. Comp. Kiihner
II. 626.

7. In some passages there is a degree of negligence in respect to single
words, especially pronouns, which however renders the interpretation
neither difficult nor uncertain, when attentively viewed in connection
with the context, e. g. Acts iv. 7. where avtoiis does not relate to those
mentioned in ver. 4. but to avtovs in ver. 2., x. 7. where 0^1-9 does not
relate to Simon ver. 6., but to Cornelius ver. 1., as some manuscripts
indicate, which read 1-9 Kogj^Mp (a manifest gloss), Luke v. 17.; Acts
vii. 24. tsowafaj -jfbv Atyi;ci'i'tov refers to tfn/a aSixoviAEvov) in which the
sense: ill treated (by an ^Egyptian) is implied. In Gal. i. 23. povov
axovovC$ TJaav the idea of the members of the church as, included in this
particip. masc. must be taken from tfat $ Ixx^aua^ comp. Gal. ii. 2. Such
constructions ad sensum frequently occur. On wtos see 22. 3. In
respect to the rapid change of the subject, another kind of negligence is
to be remarked in Luke xix. iv. ^oS^a^v
(Zux%at/o$)) i!va IS'y] av'tbv ( I^tfouv), 61" t ajsan^f
comp. xvii. 2. xiv. 5. xv. 15. (Mr. ix. 20.) Acts vi. 6. Judith v. 8. In
the Greek prose writers this transition from one subject to another is fre-
quent: Herod. VI. 30. 6Sa (Histiacus) ovi! av triads xaxbv ovSev, box&tiv a'jwod,
atiqxe (Darius) ^ av uvtc> ify ai'tfyv, Dernosth. c. Phorm. p. 587. Wolf.
o$ ovx HtyaGXEv o-uVe fa g'/j i tia.T'a s^T's^attf^ao 'tovttov (Phormion), ouVs tfo

oo'ov ttrtaa^^aVao (Lampis) Plutarch. Pdplic. compar. 5.

(Poplicola), otfa 86wta ayacJ^T'oj' yp> vixytiai/' xai yag "tov
(Porsena) etc., vit. Lysand. 24. oi^o S' oi>Sev i^cfai'o (Agesil)

tiOV tiOhf/AOV' (M.U toy KgOJ/Oll St&etOVli J O/ttfaTf hVGV ( LySand.) si J l t'T[V '.

etc. Ages. 40. <t^v fiatifadav A^^iSa^ioj - Ttaga'kajSa, xai (sc.

Artax. It), toy xgoitdipov tfv%uv xnitkfla'hQv tfbv dV8fa, xai

etc. Lysias caed. Eratosth. 10. L'va> tbv im^w afcy (*o

65. IRREGULAR POSITION OF WORDS, &C. 423

xai [MI |3o$ (ib tf<uS.). Poppo Observ. in Thuc. p. 189. Biihr. in
Creuzer Melet. III. p. 36. Schafer ad Demosth. IV. p, 214. and ad
Plutarch. IV. p. 281. 331. V. 86. 295. Stallbaum ad Plat. Gorg. p.
215. On the Hebrew comp. Gesen. 803.

A little negligence in the construction occui's also in Acts xxvii. 22.
aoj3ox^ 4^3^? ovStfiCa scrtat, | i^wv, jt?w}i> t'oiJ rtJiot'oi), which verbally would
signify: there will not happen any loss of life, but of the ship, for: there
will be no loss of life, only a loss of the ship. More remarkable still
would be the passage Gal. i. 19. iVsgov iw artotftfo^iov ovx sl'Sov, st py
''idxtofiov -ebv aSskfybv tfoi xvgiov, if we translate with Fritzsche (Comment,
in Matth. p. 482.): alium apostolum non vidi, sed vidi Jacobum etc.; so
that only siSov ought to be repeated with 'lax.; yet see Winer's comment.
and Usteri in loc. Similar to this would be the well known use of ajao?,
not only in Homer, e. g. Odyss. 2, 412. ^tf^ ' l/toi ovVt ftstiv-eM ov6'
aiuat, fytcoat i. e. T/etf others, namely the female servants (comp. Thiersch
Gr. p. 588.), but also in prose writers, e. g. Plato Gorg. 473. C. svSat,-
(lovi^o^Evo^vyib tfwv rtofatuv xo.1 *tov axxwv flvcov <z/M/ /0 the others, namely
strangers, Xen. Anab. 5, 2. 31. 5, 4. 25. ol tiohepiot, up.ov y rtdvtes ysvo-
[Atvob t/Acixovito xat, s^fjxov-f t^ov tois daMoi>$' xai dtXXa Sogatfo. ~tx,ovt<;
comp. Ehnsley ad Eurip. Med. p. 128. Lips. Jacobs ad\&then. p. 22.
Kriiger ad Dion. p. 139. Bornernann ad Anab. p. 47. Poppo ad Cyrop.
p. 186. Fritzsche Qusest. Liician. p. 54. Zell ad Aristot. Ethic, p. 62.
Identical with this is the use of zVsgoj in Luke namely xxiii. 32. ^yovfo
e xac 'i t! s^ot, Svo xasc oii^yo & aw ovufrp uva,ige$7ji>ao, where, as expressed,
it appears as if Jesus were called also ^a^o^yoj, and x. 1. avtSsij-sv 6 xv-
^005 xo.1 e * s g ov $ spSoptixov'td. Comp. Thuc. 4, 6. 7. In the above
use of 4 (1% in Gal. i. 19., Rev. xxi. 27. is similar, ou ^ lt,aei.y --

rtav xoivbv xal rtotovv fiSthvynu -- ei /*/[ ol yEy^an/j.svoc, EV tcj> fiifaicp

*5?$ ^w^j, where the ysyga^. are not to be included in the Ttav xowbv. The
sense is rather: no profane thing shall enter in, only those who arc, in-
scribed etc. shall enter. Comp. 1 Kings iii. 18. ovx Hatw oi>ei$

An instance of a negligent reference would also exist in 1 Tim. ii. 15.,
if to lav pslvwiiv sv jtiatsi, the word tixvu were supplied from the preceding
ffxvoyovLas see 47. 1. This is not to be hastily rejected; Plat, Legg.
10. p. 886. D. is similar, where ysvopi-vot, is referred io'&oyoviav, as if &z v
ylvEtfcf stood there, see Zell ad Aristot. Ethic, p. 209. Poppo ad Xen.
Cyrop. p. 29. 160. Kiister (Reisig) ad Xen. CEcon. p. 247. Comp. also
iCor. vii. 36.

About the Chiasmus in Philem. ver. 5. <sov tqv (lyurtyv xo.

bv xve,iov xal sis duvtus t'oiij aytot's see above, p. 325

Luke xxiv. 27. d^a^i'oj axb Mcoctt'ws xao drto rtOLvtav tu
8t,tZpr t Vvev a-u^otj Jy tfacratj *aty y^a^atj to, tit^i aviov is peculiar. It can
hardly be supposed, here that other books of the 0. T. were contrasted
with Moses and the prophets, to which Jesus referred; nor with Kiinol,
that Jesus first quoted the prophets, and then proceeded to interpret them

424 APPENDIX.

(.see Van Hengel Annotat. p. 104.), but Luke rather intended to say :
Jesus beginning with (from) Moses ran over all the prophets. But having
ado in mind, he annexes adv-fss ^o^av in the genitive. Allied to this
is Acts iii. 24. tfdwt$ oL tfgofyfeat dab Srt^oiijjTi, xai fuv xa^te^f oeoi skato?-
<sav xai xat'/iyyt&av .etc. Luke could have written: all the prophets Samuel
(as the first) and the succeeding 1 (one after another) all etc. or, all the
prophets from Samuel, as many of them etc. As the words now stand, they
evidently contain a tautology. The division which Casaubon and a host
of interpreters (also Valckenaer) adopt, ~t^ v X o^. oaoi, Jjiafc,., does not
essentially improve the passage. Still it remains all the prophets since
Samuel, and then, as if not already included in these, all those who fol-
lowed Samuel and prophesied. The interpretation which Hengel (as
above, p. 103.) gives, supplying i'wj 'icocuwu (Mt. xi. 13.) is arbitrary, and
presents only the inappropriate thought: since Samuel and the succeeding

prophets down to John, whilst we expect to see two distinct points

of this series mentioned. Hengel in this way also first realized the

brachyology of Luke: ag^f-u^at. d6 105, (explained below).

A defective relation of the qualifying term to the noun, which ought
to regulate its grammatical form, exists in many passages of the N. T.,
not only in Acts v. '20. to. /y/Jjuowo, * jj$ GM?S -favf^s (for tuvta), Rom. vii. 1
24. see above, p. 185., but also (Bauer Philol. Thucid. Paul. p. 263.),
Ephes. ii. 2. iii. 2. 2 Cor. iii. 7. Luke viii. 32. This species of hy-
pallage (comp. Glass. Philol. Sac. I. p. 652.) is confirmed by many
examples out of ancient authors. In a long sentence, where many
relations are united, such an irregularity would be possible, especially in
an inexperienced writer. Among the poets passages might be found,
which, without such an assumption may be explained, as only an involved
construction, comp. Lob. ad Soph. Ajac. 7. Herm, ad Vig. p. 889. ad
Soph. Philoct. p. 202. Kriiger grammat. Untersuch. III. p. 37. But
in prose the instances are very rare (PoppoThuc. 1. 1. p. 161. Bornemann
ad Anab. p. 206. Heinichen ad Euseb. II. 175.), in the N. T. not one
is certain. On Ephes. iii. 2. and others see Winer's progr. de Hyppallage
and Hendiadyi in N. T. libris. Erlang. 1824. 4to. p. 15. and Harless in
loc.', Ephes. ii. 2., where the apostle might very easily deviate from this
right construction, avsvpa is the spirit reigning in worldly men and se-
ducing them, of which Satan is contemplated as lord and<sovereign, Meier
in loc. Riickert is here again unadvised. Heinichen ad Euseb. II. p.
99. perseveres in the hypallage. In 2 Cor* iii. 7. si q Staxovta tov
sv ygdppaaw s v * s T? v rt a p tvy Iv Xt^ot^Paul in contrast with

vEvju.j might have said more simply: ^ Siax. tov y^a^az'
ov h X(&<HS, but he annexes to the idea of (Mosaic) law, a definition im-

65. IKREGULAR POSITION OF WORDS, &C. 425

portant to him, and so the symmetry is disturbed. The present arrange-
ment of the words however is not incorrect. The ministration of death
foy Moses was so far lv ju'tfot? Ivtetvtt., as it consisted in tiie introduction
of laws threatening and imposing death on the people, and the adminis-
tration of them among the people. The letter of the law contained the
service which men were required to perform. Tac. Jlnnal. 14, 16. may
be grammatically compared with this passage. In Heb. ix. 10.
fisva certainly stands not for litixsiphois, but is parallel with p
and the neuter was chosen, because both 8^a xal $vaio.t, are understood
here. In Luke xxii. 20. to vrise, vpuv x%vv6fj.evov might be construed
with ev 7-9 al'paft, but as the words now stand, they have no relation to
the apposition or a part of the apposition EV ?> cu^u.., but to the subjected
tiotygiov, where the author thought of the blood which the wine repre-
sented. This irregularity is evidently o a logical not of a grammatical
kind. Yet Schulthess (on the Lord's Supper p. 155.) had no need to be
excited about it. Heb. vi. 1. Kiihnol has rejected the hypallage received
by Palairet and others. (In John i. 14. 'it^y gys xdgitosetc. this predi-
cate is grammatically connected with the principal verbs tysvEto and la-
x7>v<*<SEv, and XOA E$saa- etc. is to be taken parenthetically).

Kindred with hypallage is the antiplosis, which some find in Heb. ix.
2. (Kiihnol also) jt^sai; agtw for ag* o& rtgo^stfcwj (comp. on this singu-
lar figure Herm. ad Vig. p./888. ad Soph. Electr. p. 8. BlomfieW ad
JEschyl. Agamemn. 148. 1360. Wyttenbach ad Plixd. p. 232. Poppo
Tkuc, I. I. p. 161. 558.) perhaps like Plotin. Enn. 2, 1. ^ \ ib )3oi5^/ta
tov ajtott-Ktafiatos for Tt^of to tov fiovhyiMt 05 ttrtofX,ECjua, or Plat. Legg. 8.
p. 649. aSixq/Aa'ta tuv lyx\rni.a,tuv for iyxto^wa-Fa dStxij/^ai'cov. But
in the above passage from the N. T. we may simply translate: the putting,.
on of the loaves (the holy practice of setting out the loaves). Valckenaer
takes ^ t^a,7i&l. xal qrtgod* agt. foi' ^ t^drt,. tuv ^rcov fijj rt^oQ. Just the
reverse of this occurs in Rom. ix. 31. where some interpret S(,vxavv6/*ov
Sixaiaavvifs as Sixaioavvyv v6pov see Reiche in loc. (As to other incon-
gruities of this kind comp. the learned Exc. 1. in 'Fritzsche's Comment,
in Marc. p. 759. sq.).

426 APPENDIX.

66. Ellipsis,* Brcmloquence, Aposiopesis, Asyndeton.

I. Hermann (de ellips. et pleonas. in Wolfs Mus. antiq. stud. Vol I.
Fasc. I. p. 97-T-235. and ad Vig. p. 867.) first attempted to rectify and
fix with accuracy the incorrect and various notions of ellipsis (and ple-
onasm) which generally prevailed until very recently, and had been in-
troduced by the uncritical collections of L. Bos and his followers, as
well as of the N. T. philologists (com/?. Haab. p. 276.). I shall take
Hermann principally as my guide in this representation, which however
is only designed to point out the various classes of the ellipsis, as Haas
and Haab have already accumulated a mass of examples.

1. Ellipsis (excluding Aposiopesis} consists in the omission of a
word, the idea of which although not expressed, is present in the thought.
A word to be supplied by the mind, can only be omitted when there is
an indubitable intimation of the omission in what is expressed, by means
of the special structure of the sentence, or in consequence of a conven-
tional usage. In conformity with the essential elements of a simple
sentence, these several omissions might also be arranged under three
heads: viz. ellipsis of the subject, of the predicate, and of the copula
(Herm. ad Vig. p. 868..). A real and complete ellipsis of the predicate
however, does not and cannot well occur (Herm. p. 870.) as the predi-
cates of a sentence are so various that the speaker can leave it to the
reader to supply this part of the sentence. Only the former therefore
of the first two kinds of ellipsis remains.

The case in which a word or a form of words is to be derived from
what precedes or follows (Glass. I. p. 632.), cannot well be called ellipsis,
as here the word is not really omitted but only obscurely expressed
(Herm. p. 867. Poppo Thuc. I. I. p. 282.) : e. g. (a) 2 Cor. i. 6. 6 JVe
^tjSd^E^a,, vrti-g trjs vpuv autr&as SC. ^/So^e^-a (v. 13. vii. 12.), 1 John
li. 19. Jf 9Kiuv if'/^^ov, aM, ovx ijaav i ; | fyituv' si yug -- /A/AKVY)X(,aav civ

-- aM,' (viz. i^^tov) iva $avww<Hv; Rom. viii. 4. xi. 6. 16. xiii. 1.
al SE ovaao sc. l^ovalat, (which the best authorities omit):):. (Z>) Mr. xiv.
29. si rtdvt$ (Jxai'SaTiKJ^tfoj'T'cu, dxx' ovx syw ((jxai/SaTttcf^tfo^at.). Implies.

* See F. A. Wolf de agnitione ellips. in interpret, lib. sac. Comm. I-XI. Lips.
18001808. 4to., rather uncritical. Bauer Pldlol. Time. Paull. p. 162. Bloch on
ellips. in Epist. Paul.

t Lamb. Bos. Ellips. Gr. C. B. Michaelis Hal. 1765. Svo. c. prior, editor, suisque
observatt. ed. G. H. Schafer Lips. 1808. ed. Oxford 1813. Comp. Fischer ad Welter
III. I. p. 119. III. II. p. 29.

t Some refer here 1 John iii. 20. But a transcriber may have written on twice by
mistake, or the author himself, as in Ephes. ii. 11. See Fritzschc 3. Progr. ad Gal. p. 5.

66, ELLIPSIS, BKEVILOQUENCE, APOSIOPJESIS ASYNDETON, 427

V. 24. wjrtfg '/i exxhyata vrto'toiaGE'ta.i, ^9 X^toVoij ov-tu> -
avdgdcsw (oiTtoi'atJaaa^wcyoM/). 2 Tim. i. 5. ^Vtj Evyxqasv iv tfij ^ua^^ crou
- rtfiTtEKJjitat SE, 6Vt xat V soi (hoixsi}, 1 Cor. ix. 25 XJ. 1. 16. 2 Cor.
ii. 10. Rom. ix. 32. xiv. 23. Luke vii. 43. John viii. 16. xiii. 9. xv. 4.
Heb. xii. 25. Rev. xiv. 23. Mt. xx. 23. xxvi. 5.; Johnix. 3. tifyjpug-etv
i!va T'uiJiXoj yewfjjtoj; -- ovTfs ovi'oj yj/j.ng'tsv, GiitfE aM,' (sc.
tfu^oj Jysvv^^) iVa (jxwfgw^, Rev. xix. 10. sjtsaov --
oiij'z'9' 3C(X ' hEyst pot,' 6 a> (^ ^ SC. rtgo$xvvriG't}$* (c) 1 Cor. Vll. 19.
oiiSev ffftftj xat 07 a,xoj3utf-?'M* oiiSc'i' etftfn', aW\.d T^jjtfij svi'o^wv $iov
Ephes. iv. 29. It is very often necessary in the Greek writers to supply
an affirmative from a preceding negative see Stallbaum ad Plat. AyoL
p. 78. ad Sympos. p. 80. On the Latin corny. Kritz. ad Sallust. II.
573. ((Z) Mr. XV. 8. o o^oj yigZato aitstG^at, xa^-wj dst srtoiet, avi'Dtj 5C.
ttoitlv, xiv. 8. 2 Cor. iii. 13. xa.1 oi> xa^urtsg Muiitfjjij si'i'^ac xahv[j.(J.a Irti, -to
jtgo<507tcoj> lowtoii 5C. 'f^sfj.sv a-aX. artt ^6 rtg. ^twv.* Comp. Jacob, fltf/ Z/W-

cian. Jllex. p. 109. flere probably belongs also 1 John iii. 12., where
after ot> simply M^EV (ttoiupi-v} may be supplied. f (e) In Mr. xii. 5. xul

rto'M.ovs aXXouj, tfo-uj ^ttsv Segowfe j, I'ot)? fis artoxtfsivovttg, 3 finite verb must

be derived from these two participles, which will comprehend both, per-
haps maltreat (comp. Fritzsche Diss. II. ad 2 Cor. p. 45.). Rom. xiv.
21. xahbv tfo py tya/ysiv xgsu ft,7]s rtmv olvov, fj-^Ss sv > o aStTuJioj aov rtgo$'
xbrtti-i etc., after the second (.i^Se the general rtgdaasw, jtotsiv is to be
supplied. Heb. X. 6. 8. ohoxavtu/j.atu xal rtsgi a^agi^'as ovx svSoxqaas the
general idea vaiai, is to be transferred from o%ax. to xs^l ap. Comp.
Kiihner II. 37. In all these cases the necessity of a supplement lies in
the incompleteness of a clause (both grammatically and logically), not
so in John via. 15. v/.ist,$ xa-tu tqv augxa xgtvfts, 1-yw ov x^t'tw ov8sva, where
rather oi)8ha so completes the second clause that there is no occasion to
supply any thing: you judge according to the flesh, but I judge no one
(not only no one after the flesh, but no one in general). To supply xatd
augxa from what precedes, could only be justified by the inappropriateness
of the thought without it. This however 1 am not able to discover, and
Olshausen and Liicke also have given up that mode of interpretation.
It is especially frequent after Se ^ or si 8e ^ ye (Mt. vi. 1. Luke x. 6.
xiii. 9. 2 Cor. si. 16. comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 503. C. Plised. p. 63. D.
Roogaveenpartic.gr. I. 345.) and after the formula (common with Paul)
ov HOVQV be ( a^a xo.i~) to supply a preceding word or formula: e. g.
Rom. V. 3. oi3 povov E (sc. xav^^aEjt i%7tlfo tys 8o|'^j ver. 2.), d?a.a scai)
xau^w^E^a etc. v. 11. xatahhahEV'fs; ca^tfd^E^a -- , o<u t uovov SE (xa-fa,h~
KayEvtss ofw^of.), d?ixa xal xav%c!>p,vot,, viii. 23. 2 Cor. viii. 19. Some-
thing more remote seems to be omitted in Rom. ix. 10. oi> povov &s, awn
xat, 'PepExxu etc. It is easily however supplied from ver. 9. (not only)
Sarah received a divine promise in respect, to her son, but also Rebecca,
who wag at the time the proper mother of two legitimate sons. Fritzsche
Sendschreiben p. 98. differs a little. In the Greek comp. Diog. L. 9, 7.

* This may bo considered as a kind of attraction, see Krflger p. 72., who quotes
many similar examples, as Xen. Cyrop. 4, 1. 3. Thuc. 1, 82. 3, 67.
f For the particle of comparison see Dcmosth. Mid. p. 415. A. el y^ at woX. Jr.,
etc. not on account of a polit. crime, nor as Arisloph,

428 APPENDIX.

7. rt'evtuxotitobs tfovXoWoij I'l^^i/ac, p $7 p,6 v ov s, da^o, xat

Lucian. vit, auct. 7. ov ft6vov, d?ad xni yjv ^rvgagsov avtov IrtKyr^cf^Sj rtohv rtt,a-

*ots%<p x^y *" xvvZv (Kypke obs. II. 165. Hoogeveen partic. II. 956.).

Among the ancients the formula ov povov ye -- dxxd is analogous, e. g.

Plat. PhsScL p. 107. B. ov povov y', e^ o Swagew'jfs (se. drtifft'tai' cte 6ft
*#8M> rtsgo tftji' slgrj/tevuv), aM.a tfav-r'a tfs si" Xsystj etc. MienO p. 71 . B. Legg.

VI. p. 752. A. see Heindorf and Stallbaum arf P/a. Phsed. as above.
The clause is expressed (by repetition) after ov fj.6vov 8s in 2 Cor. vii. 7.

The use of xciv also in the signification of vel certe is to be referred to an
omission, e. g. Mr. vi. 56. fan xuv -toy xgaa&sSov - n^wtat- Properly
li'va a^Havtat av^ov, xav T'OV xg. ufywtai, 2 Cor. XI. 16.

Still less is it an ellipsis, if in the same principal clause a word expressed
'only once is to be supplied twice (in different forms): Acts xvii. 2.
'#6 Etw^oj tf< nav^-9 eisyh^e rto$ avii'ovj (llav?i.oj). Comp. Rom. ii. 28.

2. The simple copula eVft is really omitted most frequently (37 comp.
'Stallbaum ad Plat. rep. 1. 133.), because it naturally flows from the connec-
tion of the subject and the predicate (Matth. II. 769.) Heb. v. 13. jtoi$ 6 ps-
i!%i*jv yaXaxfoir artft^oj (ictti} hoyav 8ixaioavvr t ^ Rom. X. 1. xi. 15. 16.
2 Cor. i. 21. Heb. xiii. 4., especially in questions Luke iv. 36. Acts x.
21. Rom. iii. 1. viii. 27. (comp. Kritz ad Sallust. I. 251.), but princi-
pally in certain established formulas Jas. i. 12. paxagoos cwjg, 6's etc. (Mt.
v. 3. 6. 7. 10. xiii. 16. Luke i. 45. Rom. iv. 8. xiv. 22.),* for in the
latter as well as in the former brevity and conciseness are in place, comp.
Vig. p. 236. Etfft in Rom. xi. 6. (Schafer Mdet. p. 43.) or^ Rev. xv.
4. (Plat. Gorg. p. 487. D.) or Icrfco Rom. xii. 9. (in exclamations Luke
i. 28. Mt. xxi. 9. comp. Iliad. 13, 95. Soph. CEd. C.) are not so fre-
quently omitted. The form to be supplied in all N. T. passages, is dis-
coverable without any difficulty from the context (it is frequently more
difficult in the Greek writers Schaf. Mel. p. 43. 114.), yet the inter-
preters have too often supplied an ellipsis of the substantive verb, and
in this way have changed many participles into finite verbs, comp- 46, 2.

Even where ^-tl is more than a mere copula, and expresses the proper
to exist, it is often omitted, Rom. xi. 11. 1-9 avtuv rtagarttufia'to fy 00*97-
gta t'otf HSvEtsw, 1 Cor. xv. 21. gi' di^gartov 6 ^amtfoj (exists) Mr. v. 9.
Mt. xxvii. 4. Heb. x. 18. Rom. iv. 13.

Etvat. or ytVstf^at. suffices in most passages, where usually a more spe-
cial verb is supplied, Heb. vi. 8. $ ?b tf&oj sis XOAXUV, 1 Cor. vi. 13. *&
J xot^t'a xal % xoihia fotj jSgci^afft, Acts X. 15. tyavri rtdhiv sx Sev-
ovtov (Mt. iii. 17.). The preposition before the predicate or

* To this is to be referred also the elliptic use of I'va. vi (sec Herm. ad Vig. p. 847.
above p. 140.) and ti o-n Mr. ii, 16. Acts. v. 4. (comp. riyiyovw,3ri John xiv. 22.) sec
Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 60.

66. ELLIPSIS, BKEVZLOQUJENCE, AJPOSIOPESIS, ASYNDETON. 429

the case itself indicates, what verbal idea should be assumed: (whose final
destiny) leads to burning, tends to, it is coming upon etc. As in the
last passage eysveito is evidently sufficient, so in the first two, according
to the simplicity of the style, nothing perhaps need be supplied but the pro-
per form of the verb, subst. (in 1 Cor. ttgoeyxst, would be more definite).
In like manner 1 Cor. v, 12. ni ydg ^oe. xai -tov$ ? x^lvsw; see Herm.
de Ellips. p. 111. 128. Bos Ellips. p. 599. comp. the Latin hoc nihil
ad me, quid hoc ad me Kritz ad Sallust. It. p. 146. In John xxi. 21.
also ovtos 8e nl', the sa^at (y^'yosT'cu) suffices, the connection leads to the
future. On the other hand, in Acts ix. 6. o xvgt,o$ ^6? aiitbv, sifts (ver.
15. _) is easily supplied, which is indicated in ^6j av-tov (Lilian. V. H. 1,
16. var.). In Rom. iv. 9. o iiaxagiOfjibs ewtfoj Iril -t^v Ttt^iiiop.^ *J xai Irti Tf^v
uxgopvstiav; the sense is clearly: does it refer to etc. Yet jtljtm, must
not be supplied with Theophylact, but rather Keys-tat, (Fritzsche Send-
Schr. p. 27.). In V. 18. wj 81 tvb$ ftagurt-iuif.ia-tos sis rtdvta$ di^gwrtouj jj
xatdxgtpa, drta/3^ impers. is to be supplied: res cessit, abiit in etc.
The general verb ttotslv must be added in Phil. ii. 3. L'va to ai>tb Q

T!II\V o.v't'ffv wyarttjv e%ovtts dv/^^vxot, -to sv fygovovvtss, fAtjSev xa-t d igo

ri xvodo%iav (rtoiovv-tts), unless q>govovvttf be repeated. On the other
hand, in Luke xxii. 26. fytsts Se ov% oiiVwj -we must not supply jtoislts
with Kiinol, but either sasa^e or only letl, see Bornemann in loc. In
dal. 11. 9. Sfftdj I'Sttxav sfioi xal BagvajSa scotvwj/taj, L'va vj[jiei$ psr sis *
&vi], avtoi 8s 815 tyv Tts^fgo^v, as (he proclaimers of the gospel are spoken
of, svayyehlci>i*v, svayyehiZavtat, or as Fritzsche prefers (but which is
less specific) 'fto^sv^^tv, ttogsv^uat, etc. are easily supplied. (I would
not, however, call this omission an aposiopesis).

3. The subject is entirely omitted only (a) where it is self-evident, be-
cause the predicate, according to the nature of the case or a conventional
usage of the language, can only be affirmed of one (certain) subject, e. <>-.
^ov-tOf (6 Zsvi), oaKrillsi, b craArfiyxtfjJf, cw/ayvwustfow, (Demosth. Mid. p. 386.
B.) so. scriba, see above 49. Comp. Kiihner II. 36. The formula of
quotation xlyet, from the language of the Jews, in Heb. i. 7., sl^xs iv. 4.,
Wat via. 5., ^a^v^t vii. 17., viz. ^ y^a^, or ?b rivsvpu, which amouts to the
same, may also be reckoned here. (6) Where a passage is quoted, whose
subject the knowledge of any one will easily supply. John vi. 31. ^ w
ix tov ov^avov J'5 W5SEV afarots ^oys? v , sc. b ^ 6j. (Comp. also the interpret,
on Col. i. 19.). On 1 Tim. iii. 16. see immediately, and on Mt. v. 38.
below 5.

Where the third person is used impersonally, as John xx. 2. Sew tb v
vov sx tot wpfiw (comp. 49.) there is no omission, since the people
54

430 APPENDIX.

Or men are properly implied in the third pers. plur., see also Luke xii. 20.
and Bornemann in loc. Just so with the genit. absol., as Luke viii. 20.
ajtyyy&i] a/focp, ^syovtw (comp. 1 Kings xvi. 16. 1 Chron. xvii. 24.),
i. e. whilst they said, comp. Thuc. 1, 3. Xen. Cyrop. 3, 3. 54. Diog. L.
6, 2. 6. Theophr. Char. 30. Doderlein ad Soph. (Ed. Col. p. 393.
Valckenser ad Herod, p. 414. Schiifer ad Demosth. V. p. 301. Acts
vii. 23. also dj/l/Se fat -t^v xagSlav- atitov is spoken impersonally, it came
to mind, venit in mentem.

In 1 Tim. iii. 16. according to the reading gj, the subject would be
entirely wanting to the following relative clause, if, as later interpreters
do, we did not begin the apodosis with s8t,x. But that is not advisa-
ble on account of the parallelism ; more probably all the members
here are equal, and were derived by the Apostle from a hymn (as they
existed already in the Apostolic Church). The subject, with which all
were familiar, is for this reason the more suppressed, as he here only in-
troduces the predicates, which involve the pvattigiov.

To (a) belongs also Heb. xi. 12. Sib xal d$' i-vb$ iysw^tfcw, where the
word children (in ftituro] is easily supplied by the rnind, as it was
already implied and contained in yswaadat, (comp. Gen. x. 21.). See
Bornemann SchoL p. 84. on Luke xvi. 4.

4. It frequently happens also that only a part of the subject or predi-
cate is expressed, and the omission is to be supplied from what is given:
(a) Acts xxi. 16. ewfaQov xal -guv /j,u6?]T!uv (ttves) comp. 30. 5.
Heindorf ad Plat. Gorg. p. 148. V. Fritzsche qusest. Lucian. p. 201.;
John iv. 35. 6V& e-tt, ^s^ga^j/os'lui-t (6 #gdi>oj).Xen. Hell. 2, 3. 9. Rft. vi.
3. p.rj yva-r'w 37 dgtrffsga <jou, eL rtotEt <fj ii-id aov, viz. %Bie,, which is so often
omitted in the formula Iv Ss^iS,, fat, 1% fofcaj etc. (b) Luke xi. 49.
if aajt'wv artox-tsvovao (tfrnij) xxi. 16. John xxi. 10. see below (a).

Luke XII. 47. 48. J xslvo; 6 Sovhos Sa^tja-r'at TtoXXaj o^tyaj

comp. 2 Cor. xi. 24. The idea of stripes is contained in Ssgfiv, and
therefore rf^yaj is easily supplied. (The ellipsis often occurs among
Gr. writers, Xen. Jlnub. 5, 8. 12. -tovtov dvtxgayov ib? oTn-'yaj rtaiastsv^
Ml. V. H. 10, 21. jttoKJt'tyoijtft, TtoXKaig, Aristoph. Nub. 971. Liban. 4. p.
862. comp. Jacobs ad Achill. Tat. p. 737. Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 433.
Valckenasr ad Luc. 1, c. and on something similar Bos under cuxtttfui);
Mt. xxiii. 15. rtegidye-te j^v Bahaaaav xal -t ^v %qgav (y^) the conti-
nent (comp. Kypke in loc.) Jas. iii. 11. nfoi, % ri^yy ix tijs a.vrfs 6^?
jS^vst i? 6 yhvxv xav tt 6 rtixgbv (v8ug).

In this way nouns are usually omitted in particular formulas or in spe-
cial contexts, and only the adjectives or qualifying terms inserted, which
of themselves point to the noun, comp. Bernhardy p. 183.: Mt. xxvii. 8.
s o s r^j tf^sgoj' (fyifgaj Rom. xi. 8.) Jas. iv. 14. ovx Irtia^asdE tb tf^j
avgiov (comp. Mt. vi. 34. Acts iv. 3. 5.), Acts xxi. 1. ^^ E|^ j on the

66. ELLIPSIS, BREVILOQUENCE, APOSIOPESIS, ASYNDETON. 431

following day (Luke vii. 11. similar ty Exofasvyj Luke xiii. 33. and ty 1*1-
ovtiy Acts xvi. 11. see Bos under ^%a)j Luke xix. 4. sxsivris s^ssae 8ieg%ftj-
60,0, (viz. 68ov, comp. Luke v. 19. iii. 5. and Lucian. dial. mort. 10, 13.
svOilav exsivtjv rtgo'Covtes, Pausan. 8, 23. 2. in Lat. reeifl ?>e),* Mt. x. 42.
oj ow rtoi-trffl -- rtotfaiov fyvjegov (vSatoi) Epictet. 29., as we say: a
glass of red, a bottle of brown, (so esgpbv sc. i'Sw^ Aristoph. Nub. 1040.
Arrian. Epict. 3, 22.), John xx. 12. eeugM Svo dyye^ouj EV Kt-vxol j in
white clothing, garments Rev. xviii. 12. 16. (Mt. xi. 8. numerous autho-
rities connect with it fyiatft'ots) comp. Septu. Ex. xxxiii 4. Arrian. Epictet.
3, 22, lv xoxxivoks rtsgirtatuv and Wetst. I. 381. 958. Bos p. 204., Acts

XXVii. 40. srCcigavTfss Hov ag"teftov<t -t y 7tvsova<fl (avga) COinp. Lucian.

Hermot. 28. (similar 1-9 itvkavtn sc. <wl/tp Lucian. Char. 3.), Heb. xiii.
22. ca j3ga%euv f'y^a^a, a.s panels, brevi scripsi (Lysias pro Man-
tith. 9. Lucian. Tox. 56. Wetst. II. 445.) and 1 Pet. v. 12. St
a (Stdl rtXEtovcoi/ Isocr. Panath. p. 644.).

In Luke xvii. 24. ^ dtfi'gaTt^ ^ aa-tgdrt. lx t. bit 1

, #<oa?, ^w^ac are easily supplied (Septu. Job xviii. 4. Prov. viii.
28.). See Bos Ellips. p. 560.

The ellipsis by long usage has become established in these formulas
and for that reason is familiar to those acquainted with the usage, espe-
cially in certain contexts (comp. in Ger. er setzte rothen vor, er sass zur
rechten, erfuhr mit sechsen etc., in Eng. he sat on the right, he drove a
coach and six etc.). Other omissions are more specific, e. g. TtgofioT! ixy
(rivhy Neh. iii. 1.) John v. 2. (as in Philadelphia we say, Go to Chesmit
(street), yet comp. Bos under rtvhq. As to si$ aSor Acts ii. 27. 30.
comp. Bos under

To (a) belongs also (Herm. p. 107.) 2 Cor. viii. 15. <5 t 6 rtohv ovx
8rt?Lwoiff> xai o -fa ohiyov ovx foa-ttovrjis (from Ex. xvi. 18.), where s^cov
can be supplied. The later authors ofte'n exhibit this mode of expression
(artic. with an ace.), e. g. Lucian. Catapl. 4. 6 r6 ^ov, bis ace. 9. 6 -t^v
or^tyya (Bernhardy p. 119.), and it has therefore become as firmly estab-
lished in this, as in the above formulas, see Bos Ellips. p. 166.

In Kom. Xlll. 7. artoSofs Ttatfc. tfaj o'pciTi.as, -top T!QV tyo^ov, <tav fyogov etc.

the simplest mode of supplying the omission is by drtoSiSomt xe.tevovti

1. 6. dl-fOllVTtl.

In the proverb 2 Pet. ii. 22. v$ kovaanevy i$ xv^a^a pogfiogov the verb
is included in the sl s and we readily supply Ertia-t^asu from what pre-
cedes. But in proverbs, where the expression is necessarily brief, par-

* Many adverbial forms originated in an ellipsis of 3&5j, as tfw, xa,r' l&Uv, &<p' %<
(Acts xxiv. 11.), ^ W 5 ,1*1*5 (Luke xiv. 18.) Comp. Hcrm. de Ellips. p. lib. ad Vig.
p. 872. Bernhardy p. 185.

432 APPENDIX.

ticular verbs (by common consent) are without hesitation omitted, comp.
fortuna fortes and Bernhardy p. 351. Grotefend. ausf.Lat. Gr. II. 397.
Zumpt. Lett. Gr. p. 610.

In 1 Pet. ii. 23. rtageiov I'M xgivovtt, Si^adwj many supply x^Laiv
out of xglvove't,, which is not impossible; but probably TtagcS., as often, is
here to be taken in a reflexive sense: he delivered himself (his affairs)
to him that juitgeth righteously. (Mt. xxiii. 9. fta-tlga, ^ xatiaqte
v(.iu>v irtt, tqs yjjj, upon the earth call not (any one) your father, i. e. use
not the appellation our father on the earth, among and of men, is not to
be taken as an ellipsis).

5. Sometimes we meet with an ellipsis of both subject and predicate
in one sentence. Gal. V. 13. pavov urj ify stevdsgiav si$ d^>o^f^r]v f^ ao.xi
(xa-tezq-es, Gagahdpti'ts, GBcum. aviox^atjads}. The subject is manifest
from the preceding ix^-^i'e, and that part of the predicate belonging to
the copuja (xa,-t%ovt$ jj* Herm. ad Vig. 870.) is easily supplied out of
the si; ayogpriv, comp. Jacobs ad Philostr. p. 525. Mt. xxvi. 5. ^ BV ty
sogtfi sc. tovto yt-vBGdu (Mr. xiv. 2.). In 2 Cor. ix. 6, tov-to SE, a.fyo
(Gal. iii. 17. 1 Thess. iv. 15.) or ^/u (1 Cor. vii. 29. xv. 50.) Bos El-
lips. p. 632., or even jioy<scr0 is probably to be supplied, as in the for-
mula oii^ oii'c -- aMui, according to the context the verb xlyw or oiw,
sKo^aa is wanting 2 Cor. i. 24. Phil. iv. 17. 2 Thess. iii. 2. (Xen.
Mem. 2. 9. 8. comp. ^ 6Vt for ^ ta'yw 6Vt. Xen, Cyrop. 8, 1. 28. jEsch.
Ctesiph. 167., and on a similar, use of o-u# 6#ws Ast ad Plat. Polit. p.
608. Herm. ad Vig. p. 788.).

In Rom. ix. 16. ago. ovv ov T?OV B&ovtos otife tov -t^xwtQc, etc., where it
is sufficient to supply 60ft, the subject of this impersonally expressed
sentence (it depends not on him that willeth, comes not on the willing) is
to be derived from the context, viz. the attainment of the divine mercy.
Similar to this is Rom. iv. 16. St,a lov-to ex rtia-tsus, Iva xuta %a.gw where-
fore of faith springs that of which I speak, viz. (iff*;) ^ icJoyysJtta or ^
x^orOjWta, ver. 13. 14. See above 2. on Rom. v. 18.

In Mt. V. 38. 6(J>0atyt6i/ uvtl dfyQaKpov xal oftovtu av-tl oSovtog the subject
and part of the predicate are wanting, although there is a hint of the
latter in the avti. The words are derived from Ex. xxi. 24., where fiii-
ems precedes. In such well known expressions, familiar to every one,
and almost become proverbial a verb might well be dispensed with, which,
otherwise could not be at all omitted. See under 3. 6.*

6. Whole sentences are sometimes omitted by ellipsis (Herm. p. 113.
ad Vig. 870.). Rom. xi. 21. si ya 6 flsoj T?UV xatfufyvtftv xhdSav ovx !<J>sc'-

sc. 8sSot,xa or oafs, which however is im-

* Similar to this ace. in laws, is that common to all langunge?, in commands or
requirements, e. g. ir&~ *o<f>v/ttv, see Bos Ellips. 601.

66. ELLIPSIS, BREVILOUUENCE, APOSIOPESIS, ASYNDETON. 433

plied in the ^cjuj, Mt. xxv. 9. See Fritzsche inloc. and Bos under
rtstv. In Luke xvi. 8. it is not so well to supply q>qai or e$q, as to sup-
pose it included in Irtyvtaev, in v. 14. however the oral, indir. passes over
suddenly to the directa. "E^^ etc. is omitted in Gr. prose only where
either a <5 SI, ol 8s affords an intimation of the person speaking (./Elian.
V. H. 9, 29. Ani?n. 1, 6.), or the thought of the sentence itself indicates
that some one (or other) speaks, as often in dialogue. The ellipsis (e^vj
6 0o$) has been incorrectly applied to Mt. xxiii. 94. by Van Hengel
(Annot. p. 8.), see Fritzsche in Zoc. But in Mt. xvi. 7. <,&Qyi%ovto lv
lautfots TtsyovT'Es, 6 -e c agtfouj ovx thdpopsv it is much more suitable to sup-
ply before ott the simple sentence favtn xayst, than to suppose 6V& to be
the particle introducing the oratio recta. In John v. 6. 7. the answer:
uvO^uTtov oi>x fc'^o, L'ra -- jSaju^ /we etj -t^v xohv/*pr { Qguv is not immediately
adapted to the question #&$ oiyc^j yEvets&at,', we easily suppose here, cer-
tainly, but (I cannot accomplish my wish). That assurance is omitted,
partly because it is apparent of itself, partly because the speaker, full of
his wish, at the same time hastens to mention the hindrances. That an
entire clause is often omitted before ydg has been already remarked above
p. 348. (In John i. 8. faesv can be supplied out of ver. 7.).

In citations from the O.T. there is sometimes the omission of a whole
sentence, 1 Cor. i. 31. iva, sca^wj yEygajt-tai, o XO,VZU>(J(.EVO$ lv xvgicp xav%da-
0w. After L'va, we can here supply yev^at or jt\^u>ey, as in ii. 9. lysvuto
after aM.a. Comp. Rom. xv. 20. and above 64. 2. d.

7. There is almost an innumerable host, of spurious ellipses, which
have originated chiefly in an ignorance of the nature of the several parts
of speech, especially of the cases and the neuter. Recent commentators
still retain a long list of them, so that in this respect Hermann (de ellips.
p. 196.) has correctly called the scriptural books cereosflecti quorundam
(multorum) artibus. A complete refutation of the whole series of ellipses
would be waste of time; we can merely once for all warn the younger
exegists against L. Bos and his followers. In fact greater pedantry and
more manifest deficiency in philological tact have scarcely been evinced
in any other branch of philology. We distinguish two classes of ficti-
tious ellipses.

(a) Ellipsis of Nouns. ( a ) With every personal adjective standing
alone, as dyajt^T'oj, faa&v, ot nla9(,ot, they supplied avQ^no^, avyg or even
a more definite word, e. g. with the last adj., fcrfjuw, overlooking the fact
that personality (or the subject) is already signified in these words them-
selves, as in Ger. der Uebermiitkige, der Fromme etc. (and in Eng. the
arrogant, the devout. TRS.) and that the proud expresses as much of the

434 AP1M3NDIX.

substantive idea as the tree or the prosperity. With other adjectives
also, like % a^/*oj, to tegbv, tb ciyiov, they would supply yjj (see Bos under
this word, and Sturz index ad Dion- Casa. p. 361.), 5^a etc., as these
words from long usage might have become nouns, like the desert (where
we do not supply country), the holy.* See Kiihner II. 118. (j3)'With
the neuter of the article and the abstract adjectives, as *o saadsv, to, tav
9sov, tb tqs tai)0Gaj, -to xowov,'lx rtavtl etc. rtgay^a was supposed to be
omitted, as with t& sd Luke vi. 30. zgripata,, and with 8k dTuyav, a,oyi>.
But nothing is gained by this, as the idea of the indefinite and general
belongs to the neuter. In La.t. there is nothing to ba supplied in hoc est
laudabile etc. (as negotiwn is but seldom suitable) comp. Herm. ad Vig.
p. 871. (y) In the formula slvai twos (genit. of pers. and thing) they
would supply a noun on which the genit. may depend, as Luke ix. 55.
oi'ot) TtJ'6'UjUtti'oj (tsxva) 0ts ijitffcs, 1 r J llGSS. V. 8. yjfts^as (viol,) ovtsft COmp.
ver. 5., but this is not required, as elvai twos contains in itself the geni-
tive sense: to be dependent on one, to belong to one etc. So also in
phrases such as 3 A;\.!t<w5gos ^ihljtrtov or 6 &i,tirtjtov there is no omission,
Kiihner II. 118. The genit. here merely expresses the relation of de-
pendence (Herm. p. 120.). That the relation of son is usually meant,
lies in the nature of the case (comp. Lindner's Joseph, Patterson's
James),- but, where an acquaintance with the family relations may be
supposed, the father, brother, servant of some one may be thus denoted
comp. France's Polignac, Prussia's Bliicher) see 30. 3. (5) After verbs

like iysvaa.ada.1, J^rtTnyfljJvat (John vi. 12. see Kiinol), avaxd/.t,Tttf.v, xgovew,

ya j ,ti> etc. they suppose the case of the object, as of jS^w^o. or
dvga, ywy to be omitted , comp. Bos p. 70. 120. 197. 323.
Haab p. 291. ; but these nouns naturally or from long usage are included
in the meaning of the verbs (food in tasting, door in knocking, wife in
marrying etc.) Herm. ad Vig. p. 367., and therefore only apparently
omitted. Comp. sttrtiOevat, (^etga) twl Acts xviii. 10., %sw to be rich
Mt. xiii. 12. (where it is usual to supply ooJutas or ^^/woi'a); aigew to lift
Acts xxvii. 13. where ayxvgav is supplied, Siogvaauv Mt. vi. 19. where
is supplied (comp. the German einbrechen, to break into],
isxsiv Luke xiv. 7. Acts iii. 5.), which in the usage of the lan-
guage is as complete as advertere or attendere, although originally ?tgo-
0e%.--ebv vovv was used; lvs%iv -tivi (%6%ov Herod. 1, 118.) Mr. vi. 19. see
Fritzsche in foe., Sidysiv (vitam) agere 1 Tim. ii. 2. (Xen. Cyr. I, 2. 2.
8, 3. 50. Diod. Sic. 1, 8. Eurip. Rhes. 982.) and tefowtnv (as in German
enden, finish) without /3toj (in Latin we also say merely finire Tat. An-

* Here belong Acts xi.v. 3G. TO JIOOTTJ?, Rev. xiii. 12. TO

66. ELLIPSIS, BEEVILOQUENCE, APOSIOPESIS, ASYNDETON. 435

nal, 6, 51. 9.; the more extensive formula Sidyeiv, tefavtav $iov only sel-
dom occurs); ovppdM,t,v Acts iv. 15. (where neither joyous, nor with
Schleusner and Kiinb'l from Eurip. Phcen. 710. fiovtevpata must be sup-
plied);. drtoatti&ew and rtEprtsw, where sometimes IrtwtoKriv, sometimes
dyy&ovg etc. was supplied (Mt. ii. 16. xiv. 10. Luke vii. 19.), but it is
spoken generally and indefinitely, as in German: er schicJcte hin und bat
sick aus etc. he sent and begged (comp. Thuc. 4, 72. the Latin mittere
and the Hebrew nW), Ttgo&Egew to sacrifice (as in Latin offere) Hebr.
v. 3.; atgwvsiv Acts ix. 34. M&GOV asam-ec? sterne libi, namely, which is
self-evident, the bed, couch, (xkivyv or xgdppatov is supplied, see Valcke-
naer and Kiinol; just as if in Latin sterne tibi would only be completed
by the addition of stratum!}; similar etot,p,d<>iv -twi Luke ix. 52., viz.
tf^v tmW Philem. ver. 22.; axdrttsw Luke xiii. 8., where the discourse
is of gardening: until I have dug about it (digged up), i. e. the soil;
Gi>M*.appdvet,v Luke i. 31., as in German and Latin empfangen (conceive)
concipere (without artegpa), similar iv jaa-t^l e%sw; xahslv invitare, like
to invite I Cor. x. 27. (Xen. Cyrop. 2, 3. 23. 8, 4. 1. Mem. 2, 9. 4.
Wetsten I. 4fi9.); Ttgo/Sa/as^ Luke xxi. 30. of trees, as we say: hervor-
treiben (to shoot forth) or only treiben to shoot (leaves). On Mr. xiv. 72.
see Fritzsche in loc. (E) To the third persons of verbs used imperson-
ally, AV^gwjtoo or the participles of these verbs, or nouns derived from
them, were supplied, as truwu'yourft, viz. a'j^gwrtoc, or ol avXhtyovtEs (Haab
p. 285.), but there the plural already expresses generality, and it is self-
evident that none gather but those who gather.

With many nouns adjectives are very incorrectly supplied, which either
cannot be reasonably omitted at all, or, on close inspection, will be found
to be properly included in these nouns. Thus it is ridiculous with xata,
xaigbv to supply iStov in John v. 4.; that noun in itself denotes OPPORTU-
NITAS, tempus opportunum. No more is there an omission in Rev. vi.
11. avartavsaSat, tVo %ovov (if this, as it seems, is the right reading).
The German also says: dm zeit ruhen, to rest a time, a while, without
ellipsis (time not conceived of metaphysically, but as apart of time, space
of time), and this is frequent in the Greek, e. g. Heliodor. 2, 31. 7, 3.
Diog. L. 1, 8. 4. Polyb. 15, 28. Xen. Ephes. 1, 10. 5, 7. Lucian. amor.
33., comp. Wasse and Duker ad Thuc. 2, 18. Jacobs ad Achill. Tat. p.
440.,* and fit,' fat^v in Mr. ii. 1. after (some) days, as ^/algaj DVD 1
(some) days Gen. xl, 4. Similar Luke xviii. 4. irtl %&vov, where rt oaAv
is incorrectly supplied. In Rom. xi. 1. it is unnecessary, with Tholuck
and Reiche, to supply artavta or faov to ^ ^d>aafo 6 $sb s tbv Xaoi/ a^^o-D.
That God has not rejected his people as such Paul shows, both because

* In Mt. xv. 23. there is no need to supply IW with Xo'yer, as the singular itself in-
dicates unity. Similar Lucian. Hermot. 81. ***, a (one) talent, Eunuch. 6.
av one day. Comp. Luke vii. 7. ewe

436 APPENDIX.

only a part rejected Christ ver. 17., and because a general conversion- of
the Jews was approaching ver. 25. 1 Cor. vi. 20. ^yogaa^E ydg -etp/qs
simply means: you are bought with a price. That it was a high price,
is supposed to be known, and the suppression of such an adjective is here
not without effect, just as we say: that is a man that has cost me some-
thing, and correspondently in Ger. It is altogether inadmissible to take
the formula yXwercfatj hateiv Acts x. 46. 1 Cor. xiv. 2. for -yju gia^otj
Tica., since a comparison of the passages in which y^wac^ hahfiv occurs,
shows that different languages are not meant. But on the supposition of
this being the sense, there is no need to supply any thing, for, if in this 1
formula yjiwcrcra denote language, the plural yxwffcnwf ?ica> to speak in
languages, would indicate that more than one, i. e. different languages'
were meant.* More appropriate examples would be found in Acts v. 29.
6 nli'gos XOA ol artofftfoJUH, i. e. ol aMxu (kotrtoi) art. (comp. Theodoret. 111.
p. 223. see Schafer ad Soph. II. 314.), Mr. x. 41. dxovaavtes ol 8txa vjg%-
avfo ayavuxTttiv rtsgi 'laxwjSooj xal 'loawou (where indeed some authorities
add ?>67tot). But in such passages there is an intentional prominence of
one of the class as the chief or leader (as we say: an officer with ten
soldiers, although the officer is also a soldier), and it is supposed to be
well known that he properly belongs to the class. In the Greek that
mode of expression is established, comp. Aristoph. Nub. 412. l v 'A^-
rat'ocj xal "Extoftft-, Plat, Prolog, p. 310. D. w ZFV xai cOt, see Ast ad
Theophr. Char. p. 120. Stallbaum ad Plat. Protag. p. 25. On Eurip.
Med. 1141., by which Elmsley will prove this usage of the language,
see Herm. ad Med. p. 392. ed. Lips., besides Locella ad Xen. Ephes.
p. 208.

The pronoun Euwtbv was usually supplied to all transitive verbs, taken
intransitively, as atgeqeiv, ttagaoi,86vat>, uvahvsiv etc. But either' nothing
is to be supplied, as: the wavea struck upon t/te ship (where only the act
of the breaking is compared with that of the striking), or they have by
long usage become intransitive.

(b) Ellipsis of the particles. Herm. ad Vig. p. 875. correctly says:
nulla in re tnagis plusque errari qttam in ellipsi jmrlicularum solet.
The ignorance of the fundamental ideas of philosophical grammar evinced
by the ancient philologists (not only the biblical) on this point is almost
inconceivable; (a) Prepositions, avtl was supplied after verbs of buying
and selling, dbto after verbs of delivering and detaining, i& with the genit.
of time, (John xviii. 13.) and in the signification of for, on account of with
<tl cur, quare (Mr. xii. 15.), etj with the infinit. consilii etc. (but the infinit.
with a preposition is only used with the interposition of the article), I*
with verbs of plenty (John ii. 7. Mt. xxii. 10.) and with the genit. par-
titive, Iv with the dative of time (Rom. xvi. 25.), of place (Luke ix. 12
Mt. xii. 1.), of instrument, (Mr. vi. 32.) etc., Ttaga with axovstv -twos (of

* &atva,~f cannot be arbitrarily supplied. It must first be shewn that y\oy.
had become a common formula for y\. vat.

66. ELLIPSIS, BREVILOQUENCB, APOSIOFESIS, ASYlJDfiTON* 437

some one), iWxa not only with the verbs to be angry > to accuse t etc. t with
the infinit. with #<n5, but especially in passages like Jude ver. 11. fito-
&ov %e%v(>tianv for reward (comp. Lucian. Philopseud. c. 1. *ivo$ dyo-
01; tovto jtotovaw', Jos. Antt. 18, 2. 4.), Ijtl with the genit. after verbs
of governing (Rom. vi. 14.) and with the genit. absolute, as 'H^w&w
jSafftTisvoi^roj, xaf a with many accusatives, which do not express the im-
mediate object, after verbs and nouns, besides generally, where afl accu-
sative would not be understood; met with the genitive of verbs of remem-
bering, for geting^ caring for (Mt. xviii. 27. 1 Cor. ix, 9.) etc. It is now
generally conceded by the better grammarians, that in all these instances
the simple case has already the signification which the prepositions are
intended to express (see Herm. p. 136. ad Vig. p. 875.) ($) Conjunc-
tions and Adverbs; ^a/aoi- was supplied before ^ in passages like 1 Cor.
xiv. 9. la,w TtBvtE Xoyovj XaX^tfttt % /tugiorj Xoyouj Iv y^wflff^, but 8K6
36, 1.; iVa, in the formula Mt. xx. 32. tl ^faste rtovqew <fyuj>; but see 42,
4. The supplying of at in direct questions deserves no refutation (Mt.
xi. 3. 1 Cor. xi. 13.). 'Edi> is supposed to be omitted frequently, e< g.
1 Cor. vii. 21. Soi&oj Ixjwj^j w not, /AsTieVw.' But it is manifest that
nothing is to be supplied in such passages: as a slave art thou called, let
it not trouble thee, represents the merely possible case, by the vivacity
of the discourse, as real, comp. Herm. de ellips. p. 279 So also 1 Cor.
vii. 18. 27. Jas. v. 13. where Pott supplies iav, Rom, xiii. 3., where a
mark of interrogation is not very necessary (which Lachmann inserts)
and Rom. xiv. 22. see Bernhardy p. 385. Mr. xv. 9. does not belong
here; where the same interpreter of 1 Pet. i. 8. supposes an ellipsis of lav.
In opposition to Kiihnol, who would supply w$ in Mt. xii. 49. see Fritzsche^

II. Jlposiopesis, or omission of a clause or part of a clause, in conse-
quence of a peculiar excitement of the mind (of anger comp. Stallbaum
ad Pint. Apol. p. 35., of grief, of fear, etc.), where the gesticulation of
the speaker indicates what is wanting (Herm. p. 103.), occurs, besides
in formulas of oaths ( 59. note, p. 383.) in which it has become usual,
after conditional sentences also in the following passages: Luke xix. 42.
fi eyvwj, xai av, xaiye ^u.gqi 0oi) tfa/ui 1 ^, <tb, rfgos sigyvqv aov if even thou

knewest, what makes for thy peace! sc. how good that would be (for

thee), XXll. 42. stai'sg, si ]3oi;7iEt rtagsVEyxtuv tfb ftotqgiov z'oiJi'o art' Jjwoii' rtTujv
e ^ c Acts XX111. 9. ovSsv xaxov sv^axopsv Iv ^9 uv$ga>rtcp tovitcp' si 8e rtVEVpa,
ehahyasv atftfw ^ ayyEXoj we find no evil in this man; but if a spirit
has spoken to him or an angel (which the Pharisees express with doubt-
ful gesticulations) viz, the thing is of importance, or, we must take care,
Others apprehend the words interrogatively (Stolz, Fritzsche) but if
55

488 APPENDIX.

- has spoken? how then? what must then be done? See Fritzsehe
Conject.I. p. 30. The addition /j ^sojua^w^Ei/ in some Codd. is certainly
a gloss. Comp. -Rom. ix. 22. (see above,' p. 405.) John vi. 62. see Lticke

in loc. and Mr. vii. 11. vpsis hsysts' lew firtvj av^cortoj tfcj st atfgt ? tfff
py-tgl' xogfiav Slav *| fjuov wifEto^s' scat ouxftft a^ists etc., where
as an apodosis is to be supplied from ver. 10.: if/im he is not guilty of the
violation of the -t ipa,v tbv nan ega etc. see Krebs in loe. A.posiopesis
after conditional clauses is also among the Greeks very frequent (comp,
e. g. Plat. Sympos. p. 220. D. see also Ex. xxxii. 32. Dan. Hi. 15. .
Zach. vi. 15. Ka'ster Erlciut. d. heil. Schrift p. 97.), but usually where
two conditional clauses are parallel, the apodosis is expressed after the
first (Poppo ad Xen. Cyrop. p. 256. Stallbaum ad Plat. Gorg. p. 197. ) y
whilst the speaker hastens to the second, as' the principal clause, Plat.
Protag. p. 325. D. lav JASV sxtav rtEi^ftjtai' si 8s /.irj i-v&uvovaw arfftXatf
xal ft^yats, rep. 9. p. 575. D. ovxovv idv-juev Ixovtss vrtslxuxlW lav Se fjiyj
etc. Thuc. iii. 3. So Luke xiii. 9. xav psv riolvia^ xa^itov' si SE jtt^ye, tj
to pexkov Ixxotyn owfojv if it bearfruit well, then it may there remain,' but
if not, cut it down (although here also afys? a/Di^v may be supplied from the
preceding). On the omission of the whole hypothetical sentence to be sup-
plied from the preceding, after si Se ^ or si 8s ^ys see above, p. 427.

"Oga fw? in Rev. xix. 10. might also be considered as. an aposiopesis r
with which the dehortatory formulas ^ tavta Eurip. 30, 1225. /} <sv y'
etc. especially frequent in tragedians, may be compared. 'Yet see
above, p. 427.

A reticence is perhaps to be adopted in 2 Cor. vii. 12. d'ga si xal ey^a^w
vpiv, where Billroth supplies %ahsrt6v t<,. Paul designedly omits the- word,
because the subject is painful to him.

III. Breviloauence (brachyology) (see Doderlein 'Progr. debrachyl.
serm. gr. etLat. 1831.) is also different from ellipsis. By the omission of
intermediate words, it brings into closer union the parts of a clause, or
connected clauses. The following cases are embraced in it : (a) Rom.
xi. 18. fl Se xataxuv%aaut,, ov av fiji/ fiiav jSatfi'a^Eis, dM.a ^ friQa as but
if thou -- know or consider, that not thou etc. 1 Cor. xi. 16. Be-
tween the prodosis and apodosis, le^t, or Sca?oou can be easily supplied, as
in Latin frequently scito (comp. Clem. Corinth. 1, 55.). *Mt. ix. 6. W
Se ziSyte O'ft, tt;Qveiav s%sc> o v'ib<; if, av8g> (tfotfe Jtlyet 1^9 rta^aJiui'ta;^)
lys^stj a^oy aov ^v,x^v^v, where the words, added by the narrator, might
also be omitted: in order that you may know rise and fake etc. i. e.
the sick shall immediately rise at my command, I command thee there-
fore etc. (the constructions so frequently occurring in the orators are

66. ELLIPSIS, BREVILOQUENCE, APOSIOPESIS, ASYNDETON. 439

analogous with this, as Demosth. cor. 329. C. Zva.itowvv slS^e, ott, a/u^os
jttot jwa^i/gft JiajSun' ava/yvu^t -to <fyyq>i.<jij,a 6'7ioj>, see Kypke and Fritzsche
in Zoc.); John xiv. 31. ix, 36. xai tl$ loti, xvgiE, tva jtigtsvaa sl$
sc. I wish to know it, so that etc. i. 22. 1 John v. 9. si ^
tiuv 'dv^u>riav 7,a/x.j3avo/*v, ^ inug-tvgia tov $eov psLQt&v etftiv, we may sup-

pose that, the testimony of God etc., or thus must ive the rather adopt the
testimony of God, which etc.

A breviloquence similar to those in clauses with Iva, takes place, where
by dM,' i'va an event is referred to prophetical announcements John xv. 25.
xiii. 18. Mr. xiv. 49. 1 Cor. ii. 9. Yet in these passages that which is
wanting can be usually supplied from the preceding see Fritzsche Exe.
I. ad ML p. 841. comp. above 6. '

(.&.)_ Phil. iii. 14. ayw sftcwtbv oi> ^.oyCQopat, xailsi^^svat, sv 8e, xoWo. 0x6-
jcw etc. for BV Ss rtotu, xata, axort. gtwxw, comp. Liv. 35, 11. in eos
seimpetumfacturum et nihilprius (facturum], quamflammam teetis injec-
turum. 2 Cor. vi. 13. & q v Se aii'^v dv'ft/.i.t.a^iav fOMTi'vv^rj'gt
xai vpsls for *6 fie avtb 6 sativ avf^La^ia, etc. see Fritzsche diss. in 2
Corinth. II. p. 115. On the accusative comp. Herm. p. 168. (c) Two
questions are united in one clause Mr. xv. 24. fig tL ugy see Fritzsche
inloc., Luke xix. 15.'^i'j -el Ste rt^aypaisvaato, which is often done with
interrogative adverbs by the Greeks see Herm. ad Soph. Ajac. 1164.
Sehafer ad Demosth. V. p. 764. Bernhardy p. 444. Fritzsche Conject.
I. add. to p. 36., Pflugk ad Eurip. Heracl. p. 66. (Heinichen ad Euseb.
I. 189.)j on the Latin see Grotefend ausfuhrl. Gramm. II. 96. Kritz ad
Sallust. I. p. 211. Luke xvi. 2. -tC T'OOJ^O uxovu rtegl aov means, what is that
I hear of thee, and not, what i. e. why do I hear that of thee, see Borne-
mann in loc. Mr. ii. 24. may be reckoned here also, although ?<; there
can signify why. Comp. above 63, 7. Less striking is 1 Cor. vi. 11.

i tan-to, */$ ij-tt and such (ejus farinse) were you in part, where the
is added to soften the raii'a iji's. (cZ) Acts i. 1. <Zv ^fa-ro c 'lijaov$
>te xal SiSdaxew akx.^ fa v}i^e,o,^ i. e. what Jesus began to do and
teach and so continued until the day, somewhat like Luke xxiii. 5. SiSda.-
x&v xa^ 1 6^,575 tys 'louSatas, dg|ajtij/os ajtb i?q$ raXt5Lataj i'wj coSs beginning
from Galilee and continuing unto here, and Acts i. 22. Mt. xx. 8. Strabo
12. p. 541. The last passages however could also be very well construed
with Fritzsche: SiSdaxav j Sf, d^la^. d^b *. Tcaa- (Lucian. Somn.
15.). On the contrary the affirmation of Valckenaer and Kuhnol that
in Acts i. 1. a^%ea^ai is pleonastic, is a mere subterfuge. Comp. yet 2
Pet. iii. 4. Brachyology occurs with especial frequency,' (e} In the so
called constructio prssgnans, as 2 Tim. iv. 18. .tfwtfs* >

440 APPENDIX.

will save me into Ids kingdom i. e. will save, transporting me etc. Acts
xxiii. 24. 1 Pet. iii. .20. (Xen. Anab.2, 3. 11. Herod. 7, 230. Polyb.
8. 1.1)> 2 Tim. H. 26. dM>}j4co<ft.3/ ** tfij/Ji'oiJ Staj3<fa.oi> rtayJSos, Actsvi 37.
artta-tyae ^aa;lxwov ortMjw avtfoij, xx. 30. Yet see xxiii. 11. Luke iv. 38.
xviii. 3. Gal. v. 4. Rom. (xv. 28.) xvi. 20. 2 Cor. x. 5. xi. 3., perhaps also
Rom. vi. 7. ix. 3. and according to some Heb. v. 7. see Kiihnol in loc. (Ps.
xxii. 22. Job. xxxv. 13.), more certainly Mr. vii. 4.* This kind of con-
ciseness occurs often in Greek prose writers comp. Markland ad Eurip.
Suppl.1205. StalftaumadPlat.EutJiyphr. p. 60. PoppoThuc.L 1. 292.;
on the Heb. see Ewald p. 620. Phrases like x^vrftsw or x^sisiv it, uxo
*ivo$ (1 John iii. 17.), ct,o$cM.ig0$ai fov$ TtdSaj tj fb^vhov (Acts xvi. 24.)
originate also from a prsegnans, which we however scarcely feel (to con-
ceal from, to lock against). Yet see Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 322. comp.
also 54, 4. (f ) In the Zeugma I Cor. iii. 2. ya* vpH; fitottaa, ov
j3gw/M., where jrfoV. only suits yaxa; for ^^w^a the meaning of to eat is to
be taken from this verb; Luke i. 64. , OW/SQ;^ ^6 ofd^a uvtov xal ty
yfcwtf/<ja avtov, where properly 'ix.i5^ (comp. Mr. vii. 35.) is to be supplied
to, the latter (as some few authorities have) see RaphaeU'/i Zoc.; in 1 Tim.
iv. 3. xiifavovTi QV yctfjt'ft'V, owt#s0rat /Sgco/tafcov, for the latter infinit., xshev-
wtu>v (or with Mattli. Schol. El^yov^svw) must be taken from xuh. (as if
it were xstevtw jw^. Comp. Soph. (Ed. R. 242. Eurip. Phssn. 1223.
Plat. rep. 2. p. 374. B. (yet see Stallbaum in /oc.), Protag. p. 327. C.
So sometimes among the Greeks the directly opposite is to be taken out
of the first verb for the second member of the sentence, Kiihner II.
604- This is applied to Jas. i. 9. 10. where tujtswovaSa (or ataxwse^o)
must then be supplied with 6 8s rthoveios. But this is unnecessary, and
the thought is more beautiful when xav%dau> is assumed also for the
second member, see Winer's Observ. in ep. Jas. p. 6. On 1 Cor. vii. 19.
see above 66, 1, For examples of Zeugma in Greek and Latin see
d'Orville ad Charit. p. 440. Wyttenbacn ad Pint. Mora],. I. 189. ed.
Lips. Schafer ad Dion. p. 105. Engelhardt ad Plat. Apol. p. 221. Bremi
Exc, 3. ad Lys. Fritzsche qusest. Lucian. p. 132. (g) In. comparisons
(Jacobs Anthol. Pal. III. p. 63. 494. ad Achill. Tat. p. 747. Fritzsche
ad Mr. p. 147.), i. e. with the comparative comp. 36, 4. and in con-
structions with adjectives of likeness, e. g. Rev. xiii. 11. et^s xs^a-fa Svo
op 01 igWcp (properly veviov xegaat) ix. 10. ovgsis after opol., as Iliad. .
JL7, 51. xoiid* Xa^Vftffftv bpolw,] 2 Pet. i. 1.

* To refer the Snirrta-ft. to the articles brought from market (as Kiihnol does)
seems a thought unsuitable to the context. That would be a matter of course from
thje Jajys of cleanliness, and not likely to be one of the requisitions of the Pharisees,

66. ELLIPSIS, BREVILOQUENCE, APOSIOPESIS, ASYNDETON. 441

(for tctotf. jig- ypnv rtfctftfEt). Comp. Xen. Cyrop. 5, 1. 3.

8&#E tfiyv iu^Ttt, 6, 1. 50. a^a-Fa EX tfoii irtrtt-xov tfov savitov
(i. 6. tfoif .ItfEtvoii), Iliad 1, 163. ov filv sot ytotfE loov fc#co ylpaj (l. e.
?<rov tf 09) Matth. II. 1016. This brachyology in comparisons is how-
ever still more various in the Greek writers, see Xen. Cyrop. 5, 4. 6.
2, 1. 15. Hier. 1,3. 8. Diod. Sic. 3, 18. Philostr. Apoll. 4, 15. Diori.
Hal. Tom. I. p. 111. Schafer ad Apollon. Rhod.Il. p. 164. Melet. p<
57. adDemosth. III. 463. Stallbaum ad PZaf. Protag. p. 153. ad rep.
1. p. 134. also Heinichen adEuseb, II. 154.

1 John 11. 2. O^T'OJ tTtttO^oj Etfi'i; Ttfgc fun' d / itagT l t.cof ^i^.wv, ov
Sf p6vov, dji^a xat jtte,i 6hov toy xoapov, where greater symmetry
would require ^E^ T'COV ^ov xotfju, 1 . Perhaps also Luke xiii. 1. wv ^o a^a
Ili^ai'oj I'/tc|s ^si'tt tfcof ^-Dorouu/ avtuv (for ^tti-^a z'ot) ai'patos tuv.^r.'l] be-
longs here.

(A) A word, which should -form a clause of its own, is without reserve
added to another: Mr. vii. 19. sis d^ESgwj/a txriogsvEtat, and xa^aglgov
jtdvta to, /3^w;ttt^a, see above 48. 1. (&), y Tim. ii. 14. Stapag-tvgo/tEvos
-- jiwj koyoju.a^EM', EIJ ottSiv ^goJfftjM.oj/, not to quarrel about words,
which is not profitable, to no purpose, I Tim.'ii. 6. Kindred with this
is the proleptical use of the adjectiva effectus (in a kind of apposition),
as Soph. (Ed. Col. 1202. >tuv GUV aSEgxtuv 6 1 .p*'zw I'^T'W / U.SVOJ for
wotff ysrsff^ofr adsgx-ta, see ^chafer ad Gregor. Cor. p. 533. and ind. p.
1047. ad Demosth. I. 239. V. 641. Erfurdt ad Soph. Antig. 786. Lo-
beck ad Soph. Ajac. p. 299. Ast ad Plat. Legg. p. 150. ad Plat. Polit.
p. 592. Heller ad Soph. (Ed. C. p. 522. Frilzsche qiieest. Lucian. p.
39.57. PRugkadEurip.HeracL p. 60. Ahlemeyer Pr. uber die dichter
Prolepsis des Adject. Paderborn, 1827, 4to. : Here may be ranked Mt.
xii. 13. (ft X si%} ajtoxa,T!Eo>ea&i iyt^j (Bornemann Schol. ad Luc. p. 39.
Stallbaum ad Plat. Protag. p. 76. Winer's Simonis p. 262.), Rom. i.

& a v v * 5 owJ*wi xagStu, 2 Cor. IV. 4. 6
T-WJ/ ajtHa-fuv, 1 Thess. Hi. 13. tff^t'lat, z'aj
*ot) 5 etc. Phil. iii. 21. ^ao^^cw-tW, fo oijua -- Utuv avp-
v *9 <5G>i*.a,t<, etc. (where Codd. after ^pJv, add ECJ -r6 yswo^ot
Yet this apprehension is, in respect to Rom. i. and 2 Cor. iv.,
not without doubt. In the former passage much less is implied in fotvi-
*o s , as it seems, than in tf*o* 8 <c, (which Flattfelt), but in 2 Cor. Paul
probably thinks of the illumination emanating from the faith generally
exercised' on Christ. Because they turned away from Christ, but refused
him, the illumination would not be imparted to them.

Among the first mentioned instances belongs also Luke xxiv. 47.
ita&tiv '

442 APPENDIX.

, - a | a psv ov urtb 'lEgouaaft^/ui, where the participle
(as often ^fw, rtagov Yig. p. 329.) is used absolutely and impersonally;
whilst (so that) it is begun, comp. Herod. 3, 91. djto 5e nogsiS^ov it6uo$
Orgfa/ti>ov dyto tfctvf ^ /%& 'Aiyvrttov 7tvtr l xQvta xai z'gMj-
#ocra tfajiewtfa <j>ogo$ ^v, see J. L, Schlosser mndicat. N. T. locor. quor.
integritatem-, J. Markland suspectam reddere non dubitavit (Hamb.
1732, 4to.) p. 18. This English philologist preferred to read a^fo^Vwy
(ad Lysiam p. 653. Reiske.).

A sort of breviloquence occurs also in Acts i. 21. ev rtawtl #powp s iv 9
xul l%vftf) zv i cj> ' q /A a $ o Kiptoj 'l^tfoij instead of eisfadu $' ^/taj
fls a^' dy,uuii>. But- such verbosity would be ^intolerable to every
writer, cow,/p. Eurip. Phcen. 536. Jj otajous jts^es xai, J |^E and
Valckenaer ire Zoc. ^ee also' Poppo Time. I. I. p. 289. .

In the words xai qfists [tdp-evpis rtdvtiav, >v sftoivjaw , ov xai (accord-
ing to the best Codd.) avtihw xpe^doavfsg Irtl, %v*.av Acts x. 39. there
might be a brachyology, in case the sense were: we are witnesses of all
that he did, of this also, that they put him to death. But such an omis-
sion is not necessary. Moreover, in my opinion, xai here means etiam,
the signification tamen (Kuhnol) being, in this connection, precarious.

IV. Very different from the ellipsis is. Asyndeton,* which, like apo-
siopesis, rests on a rhetorical reason (Longin. c. 19.) and therefore is
properly included under the rhetorical figures, see Glassii Philol. sacr.
I. 512. Bauer. Rhetor. Paull. II. p. 591. - It occurs, as its nature de-
mands, more frequently in the epistles of the N. T. than in the historical
books, but it has not always been exhibited in a proper light by inter-
preters. We distinguish the following cases, comp. Bernhardy p. 448.
Kiihner II. 459. The connecting particles are wanting: (a) In enu-
merations, divisions, gradations (see Reiz and, Lehmann ad Lucian v.
hist. 2. 35.)^ where by repeating the copula the style would be cumber-
some. Heb. xi. 37. sKiOdaOqaav, rtpi,0Gtisa,v, rtipdaG'-/]aav, iv fyovcp
etc. 1 Tim. iv. 13. 7tpos%s ?vj owayi'wffEC, ty Tta/jaxV/jctst,
Rom. li. 19. 7tjtot0aj i 1 E asa/wtbv oS^yov suvat, tvfy'h.uv, ^wj T'WV BV
oxo-fst,, rtat>8tvtriv afypovuv, St>Sdaxahov viiitluv etc., COmp. Mr. xvi. 17. Rom.
i. 29. 1 Cor. iii. 12. iv. 8. xiii. 4-S. xiv. 26. 1 Thess. v. 14. 1 Pet.
ii. 17. v. 10. 2 Tim. iii. 2. iv. 2. 7. Tit. ii. 4. Phil. iii. 5. 2 Cor. vii. 2.
Jas. v. 6. etc. Similar Dernosth. Phil. 4. p. 54. A. adv. Pantsen. p.
626. A. Plat. Gorg. p. 503. E. 517. D Polit. 10. p. 598. C. Heliod.
JEtli. 1, 5. Lucian. dial. mort. 26, 2. (Z) In antithetical, contrasted
clauses, where, by its omission, the antithetical ideas are ,presented'in
more striking contrast: 1 Cor. xv. 43. 44. artslptTtai Iv <Wt,tua, lystptfat
tv Sof^j cJTtstpST'oH' Iv atiGivsiCt, iystpf^'at' Iv Svvdfitl, artettp. cJtojUtt tyv%tixov> lystp.

* See Dissen. 2. Excurs. to Find. Herm.in Jain's Jahrb, 1831. 1. 54. Ramshorn
p. 514, Nolde Concord, partic. p. 313.

66. ELLIPSIS, BREVILOQUENCE, APOSIOPESIS, ASYNDETON. 443

Jas. i. 19. rta,; avQptortos tfa^if tig #6 axovaai, |3pa8vj sZj
tb aajwjffat, comp. Ephes. ,ii. 8. Mr. ii. 27. 1 Cor. iii. '2. vii. 12.* John

11. 10. iv. 22., Rom.. xv. 2.; 2 Tim. iv. 12. Ifiia^et, etixaipas axatpwj
(like nvSguvyvvaixwv Anstoph. rK. 157. or nolens polens, ultra citro see
TSeier-ad-Cic'. offic.I.'p- 185- liritz ad Sallust.. I. 55. 11.323. Schafer
ad 'Bos .ellips. p. 756.) Reisig. ad Soph. (Ed. Col. p. 324. Heller ad
CEd. Col. p. 507. Stallba'um ad Plat. Crit. p. 144. ad' Plat. Protag.
p, 52. (Kritz ac? Sallust. I. p. 309.). So also in parallelisms of, the
sense Acts XXV. 12. Kaoffapa erttxsxtyaat,, Eric Kattfapa riopsvay, COmp. f
Eurip. Iphigi Aul. 464. and Mr. xvi. 6. (<?) Especially when the rea-
son of a sentence or proposition is subjoined, Rev. xxii. 10. ^ a$payisy$
foij'^oyo'Uj t 1 ^? rtpo^'z'siaj T'otJ /3tj3^tOD I'oiJ'foV 6 xatpo; lyyvy etftfW} John XIX.

12. 1 Cor. vii. 4. 15. 2 .Cor. xii. 11. Rev. xvi. 6. In such cases only a
6Vt or yap need be supplied in the mind, in order to feel. how much the
expression is weakened, comp. Lys. in Nicomach. 23. JEschin. Ctesiph.
48. (Kritz. ad Sallust. L 184.).

Interpreters would connect whole sentences written ttffwSsVw? with the
preceding members, by inserting particles, overlooking the rhetorical
effect produced by the omission of the conjunction, e. g. 1 Cor. iii. 17.
vii. 23. Jas. v. 3. See Pott in loc.

67. Pleonasm.^

1. Pleonasm, the opposite of ellipsis, is the insertion of a word which
denotes an idea already expressed in the sentence, and consequently su-
perfluous (redundant)^:. Originally there are no pleonasms in human
speech, but they take their rise either from an expression having lost
something of its import by continued use (siozo$ S.uwr comp. Herm. ad
Horn. hymn. Cera*. 362.) or from an emphatic repetition of the same
idea having become weakened in the course of time (jtca.w <><,<;, wj ola

* In such cases asyndeton is unnecessary, comp. Col. ii. 8. see Frilzsche ad Mr.
p. 31.

t Fischer, ad Waller III. 1. p. 269. B. Weiske Pleonasm, etc. 1807. Herm. in Mus.
Ant. Stud. 1. 196. ad Vig. p. 883. Poppo Thuc. I. I. p. 197. Glass. PUlol sac. I. p.
641. Bauer PUlol Thuc. Pault. p. 202. Tzschucke de serm J. Chr. p. 270. Haab. p.
324. I. H. Mail Diss. de pleon. ling. gr. etc.

t Glass. Flacii Clams Script, sacr, II. 4. p. 224. Winer's 1. Progr. de verb, com-
pos, p. 7,

444 APPENDIX.

etc.). The pleonasms are usually found in the predicate, very seldom in
the subject, which, on account of its importance, is usually pronounced
distinctly and without any unnecessary addition, perhaps never in the
copula, which by its simplicity excludes the pleonasm, see. Herm. as above,
p. 199. Jn the N. T. must be considered as genuine pleonasms : (a)
artb paxpfeev Mt. xxvi. 58. Mr. v. 6. xv. 40. Rev. xviii. 10. 15. 7. (comp,
Scliol. in Eurip. Hec. p. 923. see Wetsten. 1. 524.), drfo ava$sv Mt. xxvii.
51. Mr. xv. 38. (comp. arc' wgwo^sv Iliad 8, 365. etc. lx 8vap6$sv Nicet*
Anal. 18, 3. 359. D., lx rtaiSo&v or vijrtwfcv Malalas 18. p. 429. '5. p,
117. and Orig. Marcion. p. 181. ed. Wetst. see Lob. ad Pkryn. p. 46.
Dissen. ad find. III. p. 379. Boissonnade ad Nic. Eugen. p. 276.),
tVtEtT'a justfa tovto John xi. 7. (see Wetst. and Kypke in loc. Poppo ad
Thuc. III. I. p. 343. III. II. p. 38.). Comp. on similar things Jacobs
qusest. Lucian. p. 10. and ad Lucian. Alex. p. 41. Wurm. atZDinarch.
p. 66.; (&) jtpoSpa/Auv sprtpoa^rsv Luke xix. 4* (see Wetst. in Zoc.),l#j3ax-
JUM/ if John ix. 34., Izdysw ; |o Luke xxiv. 50. (Bornemann Sckol. p.
166.), rtajuy avuxdptttEw Acts xviii. 21. (see Kiihnb'l in Zoc.), rtdhw c/a-
xawigtw Heb. vi. 6. (see Weiske as above, 142. Wolf ad Demosth. Lept,
p. 235. Jacobs ad JElian. Anim. 1, 17. Bornemann ad Xen. Conviv.
p. 186. Kritz ad Sallust. 1. p. 88., also Winer's 2.- progr. de verb.

COmpOS, p. 20.) ortDtJw axohQv&iv Mt. X, 38., rfztoiSSaSoj/ &$siv 4 a % u 4

2 Tim. iv. 9.; (c) Luke xxii. 11. sputs ^9 otxoSsa-jto-ey tq$
o i x i 5 (see Bornemann in loc. comp. Odyss. 14, 101. sv^v avjSoaia, also
Demosth. Spud. p. 649. B. artatSoj appsVwv yt a. i S o v ), Rom. ix. 29. wj
rdjtiopjja' w p Q t w y} p v , 2 Cor. viii. 24. -f^v ev8si>^iv -tys wyditqs

svSst'lacj^E (comp. Plat. Zf^g 1 . 12, 13.), Rev. ix. 7. # o ^ o t -

<u/ttti'a z'wi' axpi-'Swj' o /.i o o-a, crfrtoij, 1 Pet. 111. 17. Luke li. 36. stpoj3 -
sv ^e'pcus yt o TuT- a T j, perhaps also Rom. viii. 19. Comp. Plat.

. 6,764.D. Erto^fTi.^'fdf T'ijs ^Ept I'aii'c'a srtc/tfXEtaj, 1 1 . p. 920.

B. a yiipoi'pOTtojv ^ec T'tva tcy^tipow rtpoj z'o ftpotfpsrtBiv x&xovs

^ac, Xen. Cyrop. 8,2.5. avdyxq tfovHov xai apiota

Tiowt'j', Diod. Sic. 5, 39. (From the Septuag. comp. v
1 Sam. ix. 11. xttfa^pvcrow #pvtfa Exod. xxv. 13. favS
v 4uS)J Exod. xx. 16.). Here belongs also the (uncurrent) construc-
tion of the verbs to take for something, to regard as, with wj e. g. Mt, xiv.
5. tl%ov aviibv to? rtpo^'/j'r'^v, 1 Cor. IV. 1. hoyi^s cf^cu wj vrttipstyV) COtnp* 3 3$n
Job. xix. 11. (but about vopl%i-iv wj see Stallbaum arfPhileb. p. 180,); for in
the verb the idea ,of the comparison of an individual with a whole class
is already implied.

We must discriminate between the above mentioned usage and the
case in which the word pleonastic-ally added is more particularly defined

67. PLEONASM. 44 5

or completed in its meaning by a qualifying term, as Sixaiuv
xewsiv John vii. 24. (. 32. 2.), xata.%%v3ovv zgvalcp xa6 0-^9 kx. XXV.
11., o otjcoyEvjJj tf^f olxia$ a o v Gen. xvii. 13. Deut. vii. 13., irtortoStoj/
*wv rtofiwi/ tfov Luke xx. 43. jfb gild with pure gold is more specific
than to gild with gold, the pleonasmt here being scarcely more palpable.
It may be farther remarked in particular: '() The pleonasm of ^
after verbs of denying occurs very frequently: e. g. 1 John ii. 22.
<5 agvovpevos, 6Vt 'is/tfouj ovx tWtv o Xgitftfoj, Luke XX. 27. dj/T'tTi.Eyoi/i'ff, ^
sij/at dra<jtfatfu>, Heb. xii. 19. (comp. Xen. Cyrop. 2, 2. 20. Anab. 2, 5.
29. Isocr. Trapes, p. 360. Demosth. c. P/wrm. p. 586. Thuc. 8, 1.),
and after verbs of hindering and withdrawing one's self Luke iv. 42.
Acts xx. 27. 1 Pet. iii. 10. Gal. v. 7. cowip. Thuc. 5, 25. Plat. PtoZ.
p. 117. C. Demosth. adv. Phsenipp. p. 654. B. see Vier. p. 459. 811.
Albert! Observ, p. 470. Thilo ad Act. Thorn, p. 10. Weiske Pleon. p.
154. Buttm. Exc. II. in Mid. p. 142. Wex ad Soph. Antig. p. 140.
(b) A pleonastic negation is found in the formula Ixtbi si ^: 1 Cor.

xiv. 5. /Ast^uv o rtgofyiy-tsvuv J o XttXdiv yXiitfcJatj, EKT'OS si /AVJ 8t,eg[j.v]vsvv] except

if he add an interpretation, xv. 2. 1 Tim. v. 19. This use of txtb; si)
^ and others of the same kind (as Tt^v si ^} has been illustrated by
Lob. ad Phryn. p. 459. com/;. Ast ad Theophr. p. 54. Jacobs ad Achill,
Tat. p. 869. Dciderlein ad (Ed. Col. p. 352. In si Ss pq y,on the other
hand, which seems to mean but if yet, otherwise (after a negative sen-
tence) Mt. vi. 1. ix. 17. 2 Cor. xi. 16., the negation, according to the
primary conception of the formula, was not considered pleonastic, see
Fritzsche ad Mt. p. 255. (c) After particles of comparison xal is often
superfluous: 1 Cor. vii. 7. tfc'xco riavta.^ avOgu>rtov$ c-Zvat, wj x a I lf.io.wtov,
Acts xi. 17. is similar. Xen. Cyr. 4, 21. Exguveo av-tois ol ' 'Aaov^oi &$itte,
x a I ot AaxsSai/^oviot, T'otj Sxf^tVatj. See Poppo ind. ad Xen. Cyrop. and
Anab. What Palairet Observ. p. 391. quotes from Dio. Cassius differs
from this. (rf) A pleonasm of a peculiar character is found in 1 Cor.
xv. 5. w$0i7 K^$a, situ tfotftScoSsiKa. Ol StiS., having become the
usual denomination of the apostolic college, is here used like triumviri,
decemviri, which were employed even although it was not intended to
intimate that the complete number was present. Gen. xiii. 13., which
Baumgarten quotes, offers no elucidation, comp. Petron. Sat. 2. Pindarics
NOVEMQUE lyrici. Some Codd. and veisions have s'vSsxa in the passage
of 1 Cor., an alteration which would be manifestly incorrect, as Thomas
was not present at this appearing of Christ. (c) The Hebraistic formula
rtgo gosGj7tou ^a 1 ?, which originally appertained to the external appear-
ance (of men), by degrees became equivalent to ^b alone, and so was
used of time Acts xiii. 24. comp. Septuag. Numb. xix. 4. drft'vam tov
rf^ojwtou %$ Gxqvvis, Jos. XVlii. 16. xata rt. vdrCys, Ps. xxxiv. 6. x. Tie,.
wepov etc. (/) In 2 Cor. xi. 21. the particles d>s o-ti seem to be pleon-
astically united, and in a causal sense in 2 Cor. v. 19. So Isocr. orat.
argum. p. 362. Lang, xa-t^jo^vv airtov, 6 5 otfc, xo-wd Sat^ovta fi&EgEt,
Xen. Hell. 3, 2. 14. Theodoret ep. p. 1294. comp. Thilo ad Act. Thorn.
p. 10. Wetsten. II. 192. Similarly 3 S Vo by the Byzantines e. g. Ducas
8. p. 31. 22. p. 127. In 2 Thess ii. 2. however the two conjunctions
are to be taken separately (w S making the thought subjective, see below
6.). Thus would Billroth also explain 2 Cor. xi. 21. (eft On such phrases
56

444 APPENDIX.

etc.). Tfhe pleonasms are usually found in ttygredicitte, very Seldom in
toe subject, whlc^

distinctly and without v any unhecesgary additiohj, perhaps liever in /the
copula, which ; bV its simplicity ex
p. 199i^. J^
d&i^axpo&vM^
Schoti
51.
Anal.

117.' and OngV Mar^

Dissen.; qd j?n#. : IMrVp. 379. Boissotinade- ctd!;! $ic?']ugen* : p.^27'6.),
'IrCerta psia ^
"Thuc. III. I. p. 343. IIL II. p. 38;V. -Comp. oh similar things Jacob*

; . ' - . '', " " > .'*'' ': ''.-/'; -. . i' 1 . . '"','. '- -.;--.' .-.': . . .''.; \ '..; ., ,, i ,C3 ,., '- 1. ' . -, . L , .

qusest^ Lucian. p; 10. and ad JJtician. Alqx*^ 4iv;Wurm. a^pinarchr
p. 66.; ($) ftpofyapuv 'I'^rfpbtf^f i/ ; JCiuke xix. 4* ;|S'ee';Wetsti^'..'7dc-) , Isi'jSa^-
^fiv, '! John ix 34;, fiayity fi|, Luke xiiy. 50^(Bdrhe,manh' Scfiol* p.
166*}, : irtuhw.fouxdp#$w/ Acts' ji.viii. /'^IVr^se&^-KiihnSl^Tt^Zdc^^'^a^y'av.oir 1
xac^Etv Heb r vi/6. !(seg Weiske^^^a

p. 235. Jacobs drf tdSlian. Anim. IV -It*. BorneiTiann c? Xen. Gonviv.
p. 186. JCritz ad Sailust. -l-. 1 ^p.;/'$8V v <^lso v Wiher-:S:'''2;''|!|rp^r < ;'!rfe ijerJ.

* '..''!- onf V i " ' V ' i ' '- "*"** 'Tl/T* ! " ' O O* '"''' ' f fii"' '' '" " ' " ' ' ~' i c. 1 ' '"*'"' ^ f

CQ7ftpOS p <oU) QTt&tfu) &%(JKov&bv iVi.t^X* uOj tf.rt o a) o-,a tf ,o v. c^rfatv -tf ft y fi t<>

' :--'- ''-'' r ' ' ''.''-- ' . '''-',."- ' .">'..''" ' . ' ; . J *'-' j >T '"" ' ' ' -' ' ' , ' ' '

2 Tim. iv. 9.; (c) Luke ,xxii; li.y ipuf* .^9 o ; ? * p^sV tf^ o tytyj

olxL $ (see^^ ^^Bprnemann inloc. comp. Odyss. 14, ri'Oi*- tfiiwv ^i>j3ou,'.alsb

Demosthv Spud, pV 649.^ B; /aniatSoj arp/jsVwj' ji a v t S ; co v ), Rom. ix. 29. wj

rojttop^a* /t b t w ^ ^ p t'v,) 2 'Gbr. viii. '24. -gyv ,s ,S s 1 1 t.v ;

~ i v S D.| a <? ; (comp. Plat. legg. 12, 13.), Rev* ix. 7.

$) H Oi.'t.a fuv ckxpti8iM>, .o'fto CN<*. cTtrfotj, 1 Pet. iii. 17. /Luke 'ii.' 36. j

viYitttpcMt .jt-.QhK'uZ, j, perhaps also Rom. viii. !19. CompS Plat.
j". 6,764. D. E rt : o /ti ft- 37 1" -. -*ijj rtfpl z'diJTfa ijtcjitfT.staf, 11. p. '920.

B- > ' ' ' : '' ' ' . '\ '.''.' '':\ '.v '.: 'V- ','-,'. ''v-.. _]''.' J ' '' ,-i ''.'-.''
. ft Til po t? p O ft to V %<> ViVO, Ctf^DpOM/:7lpOJ-TO JT. p V fi E n E ti V t X

Xen> Cyropt .8, 2.v5. uvayxy 7 r 1 1'oii'pi' ai apttfi'a-

tftj), Diodi -Sic; 5, 39. : (From the Septuag.' ctinip. v%
1 Sam. ix. ll^Ka'i'a^/ivoow xpytftp Exod.v. XXvM3. favSonaptv

%sv8q Exod. xx. 16.). Here belongs ialso the; (uncurrent) construc-
tion of the verbs to take for something, to regard dSj ^ with wj e. g. Bit. xiy.

p. (/^oi' d'ut'oj/ wj ?j!po^j'z l 5ji | j 1 Oor. IV. 1. ft.d'Vt/'jEff^oic wj viiinoi'SiftV} COflflp. 3 Jti/H

Job; xix. 11. (but about vo^il^v w? see Stallbaum arfPhileb. p. 180.); for in
the verb the idea .of the comparison of an individual _with a whole class
is already implied. .

We must discriminate between the s above ^mentioned usage and the
case in which the word pleonastic ally added is more particularly defined

67. PLEONASM. 445

or completed in its meaning by a qualifying term, as S c, x a L a v
xelvtw John vii. 24. (. 32. 2.), xa.taxgvaovv %gvai<p xaQ ag<$ Ex. xxv.
11., <5 ot#oyj>i;ij tf^j oixtas aov Gen. xvii. 13. Deut. vii. 13., vrtottoStov
tZ>v rtoSuv a o v Luke xx. 43. To gild with pure gold is more specific
than to gild with gold, the pleonasmt here being scarcely more palpable.
It may be farther remarked in particular: (a) The pleonasm of p)
after verbs of denying occurs very frequently: e. g. 1 John ii. 22.
6 agvovpsvos, 6V 6 'l7<joiij ovx eo-gtv 6 XgKJtfoj, Luke XX. 27. avt&tyovtss, py
slvat, avda-taatv, Heb. xii. 19. (comp. Xen. Cyrop. 2, 2. 20. Anab. 2, 5.
29. Isocr. Trapez. p. 360. Demosth. c. Phorm. p. 586. Thuc. 8, 1.),
and after verbs of hindering and withdrawing one's self Luke iv. 42.
Acts xx. 27. 1 Pet. iii. 10. Gal. v. 7. comp, Thuc. 5, 25. Plat. Phced.
p. 117. C. Demosth. adv. Phsenipp. p. 654. B. see Viger. p. 459. 811.
Albert! Observ. p. 470. Thilo ad Art. Thorn, p. 10. Weiske Pleon. p.
154. Buttm. Exc. II. in Mid. p. 142. Wex ad Soph. Antig. p. 140.
(6) A pleonastic negation is found in the formula Ixtbt st pj: 1 Cor.
xiv. 5. fisl^utv 6 Ttgexj^tffvwv >J 6 hahHiv yft,wcj(u$j ixtos at 11*17 StEgju^vEinj except
if he add an interpretation, xv. 2. 1 Tim. v. 19. This use of extb; si
ny and others of the same kind (as nt^v el py) has been illustrated by
Lob. ad Phryn. p. 459. comp. Ast ad Theophr. p. 54. Jacobs ad Achill.
Tat. p. 869. Doderlein ad (Ed. Col. p. 352. In si Si- ^ yt,on the other
hand, which seems to mean but if yet, otherwise (after a negative sen-
tence) Mt. vi. 1. ix. 17. 2 Cor. xi. 16., the negation, according to the
primary conception of the formula, was not considered pleonastic, see
Fritzsche ad Mt. p. 255. (c) After particles of comparison xal is often
superfluous: 1 Cor. vii. 7. fa'jico rtdvtas avO^urtovs clvai wj x a i Ifinvfov,
Acts xi. 17. is similar. Xen. Cyr. 4, 21. exguvto av-tois ol ^Aaav^oi &s7tt
x a L ot, Aax8at,p6vt,ot, tot $ 'Sxi^L-ta^. See Poppo ind. ad Xen. Cyrop. and
Anab. What Palairet Observ. p. 391. quotes from Dio. Cassius differs
from this. (d] A pleonasm of a peculiar character is found in 1 Cor.
xv. 5. coij)0?7 K^, etVa tfotjSwSsaia. Ol Su>8., having become the
usual denomination of the apostolic college, is here used like triumviri,
decemviri, which were employed even although it was not intended to
intimate that the complete number was present. Gen. xlii. 13., which
Baumgarten quotes, offers no elucidation, comp. Petron. Sat. 2. Pindarus
NOVEMQUE lyrici. Some Codd. and versions have ilvSsxa in the passage
of 1 Cor., an alteration which would be manifestly incorrect, as Thomas
was not present at this appearing of Christ. (e) The Hebraistic formula
ft^b Ggosartov ^3il, which originally appertained to the external appear-
ance (of men), by degrees became equivalent to ^6 alone, and so was
used of time Acts xiii. 24. comp. Septuag. Numb. xix. 4. ajtevavti f<n)

rtgosurtov ^ axyvys, Jos. XVlii. 16. xuta, rte,. vartvis, Ps. XXXIV. 6. x. Tie,.

wipov etc. (/) In 2 Cor. xi. 21. the particles wj 6V i seem to be pleon-
astically united, and in a causal sense in 2 Cor. v. 19. So Isocr. orat.
argum. p. 362. Lang, xatyytgovv avtov, w 5 6V t xawd Sat^ona sl&eet,
Xen. Hell. 3, 2. 14. Theodoret ep. p. 1294. comp. Thilo ad Act. Thorn.
p. 10. Wetsten. II. 192. Similarly ^ Svn by the Byzantines e. g. Ducas
8. p. 31. 22. p. 127. In 2 Thess ii. 2. however the two conjunctions
are to be taken separately (t> s making the thought subjective, see below
6.). Thus would Billroth also explain 2 Cor. xi. 21 .far) On such phrases
56

446 APPENDIX.

as Acts xxvii. 20. st sg ty g st * o tfarfa ekto'?, Rom. viii. 22. taaa
av a tevdtsei, comp. Winer's 2. Progr. cle verb, compos, p. 21.

2. By far the greater number of pleonasms quoted by the older
Biblical philologists, are not really such, but fall under one of the classes
established by Hermann p. 204. and ad Vig. p. 885. (a) To re-
dundancy, circumstantiality and periphrasis (comp. Poppo Thuc. I. I.
204.), which belong especially to the oriental languages and were the
result of an aim at almost intuitive clearness, they are referable: (a) If
the customary or necessary instrument with which something is done, is
signified, Acts xv. 23. ygd^avtss SK* #f=c,go j av-tw (they intended to hand
over) xi. 30., iii. 18. rtgoscaT^yyf-ME Std atopa-tos rtdvtav Tfuv rt^o^-
tuv, xv. 7. Luke i. 70. Schafer ad Soph. Aj. p. 233.*; (0) the action,
which naturally precedes another: Mt. viii. 3. i x if e i v a j tip x^ a
ad-toy, Mt. xiv. 31. xxvi. 51. (different Luke xxiv. 50. comp.
. V. H. 12. 22.), John vi. 5. I jt a,g a s *vs o^akpovs xal snad-
(different Mt. xvii. 8. Luke vi. 20. xvi. 23. xviii. 13.), Mt. xiv. 33.
oi sv 1*9 TtWtp lhav't$ ftgoatxvvqGav aimip (different Mt. viii. 7. ix. 18.
Luke xii. 37.), Acts viii. 35. dj/odfaj 6 Qfifartrtos -to (Ji'd^ua. avtov xai agta-
pi-vos arid <tjj$ ygufyiis ^av-t^ fvayye^iaa-fo etc. (see Fritzsche ad Mt. p. 199.).
Comp. Fischer de vitiis lexic. p. 223.; (y) when a word is expressly
used, which we are accustomed to consider already included in another:
Acts iii. 3. ^coi-oi- tye'yiJi.oavvifjv % a |3 t v (see Wetsten in loc. and Boisson-
nade ad Eunap. p. 459.), Mr. i. 7. Ttoi^co^tts y ev s a^ai, a^tEtj d^goo-
Ttwv (Mt. iv. 19. without ym'ff^at) comp. Exod. xxiii. 15. Demosth. ep.
3. p. 114. B. ^ xal *oi)j ttj'ttto^iji'ous avextfovs rtotsiv Soxst ytvatf^at?
(S) when in the course of the narrative the Hebraistic xal IJEVS^O is in-
troduced before single facts: Mt. vii. 28. xal sysve-to, Sts cfwa-flxstfEv --
sfyrtrfaaovto, for which a Greek would say, scat, 6Va or 6V f SI awst. etc.f ;
(E] when words, which are found in the preceding clause and could be
easily supplied by the mind, are repeated, Rev. ix. 2. jJVoif-e ^ 6 $ a
tfijf a]3i;cftfou, xat avspij xartvoj x T'OI) q> g ntf o $, XIV. 2. John ii. 12. xii.
3. 1 John il. 16.; Mr. X. 16. ivayxa&iGdpEvos aiJi'a, tfiOsis fas
irt' a via, ^oyst a-u i 1 a (comp. 22. 1.) Rev. ix. 21. xvi. 18.
Athen. 5, 21. E^CVE^O xay T'otj -- /Sa^avE^'otj, 6Vs Sqfioituv <^v -t a> fi a

* Rom. x. 15. oc TTO'^E ? rS/v evayy. etc. is not to be reckoned hero, withFIatt. The
arrival, the approach itself is not a superfluous idea.

t This is always the case, when some designation of time is added to the principal
clause, and then the principal verb is annexed either by xal (see Fritzsche ad Mt. p.
341.) Mt. ix. 10. Luke v. 1. 12., or more frequently without a copula, Mt. xi. 1. xiii.
53. xix. 1. xxvi. 1. Luke i. 8. 41. ii. 1. vi. 12. In Luke most frequent.

67. PLEONASM. 447

have to, rterthriza/tEva. Tob. 2, 10. Longi Pastor 2, 3. Xen. Mem. 2,
10. 3. see Jacob. adLudan- Alex. p. 117. Poppo ad Thuc. III. II. p. 23.
In all these passages, the words taken as pleonastic express ideas, which
had not been distinctly and independently set forth in the same sentence,
yet belonged to the completion of the entire series of ideas. Without
these words the sentence would be intelligible, with them it is not re-
dundant.

The use of the participles dmata,; and hapuv may be referred to
as in Mt. ix. 9. d VUG tut yxo^ov^tjasv avt$, Mr. ii. 14. (similar to the
Hebr. Dp 1 !); Acts xvi. 3. a-ajSwj/ (Ttpo&ov) rtsgietspsv avtbv (comp.
Xen. Ephes. 3, 4. 6 5e avtbv hapuv uyec rtgb$ t^v 'Av&av, see Locella
ad Xen. Ephes. p. 141.). Even if there, as in Luke i. 39. Mt. xxvii. 48.
avaata$ and ^a)3. were not necessary, these participles are by no means
superfluous in other passages, which the interpreters, especially Schleuss-
ner and Kiinb'l, arrange under the same canon. So in Mt. xxvi. 62.
uv 0,0 1 a; o a^tagav? elrtsv avtq is manifestly: he arose with indignation,
he got up (from his seat), Mr. i. 35. rtgui' Hwv%ov fauv dvaatds atj/x^e
the German expresses: er machte sich auf, brack auf (he set off, ivent
away), which no one will consider as a pleonasm (Xen. Ephes. 2, 12.);
Acts V. 17. avna-faf ds o ag%tttv$ xat, rtdvtEg -- fft^a^aav Qrftov
means: they arose, after having a long time looked on passively. Luke
xv. 18. aj/atf-z 1 a j rto^tvtfo.wcw Ttgoj tbv rtare'^a /nov immediately I will etc.
In general too many participles are ascribed to the verbosity of the N.
T. authors, and although opinions may now and then vacillate, still many
of them expressed ideas, which, without them, would have been missed.

So 1 Cor. vi. 15. d'gaj ovv tfa (iaV/7 toy XgitftfoiJ rtociyrfQ rtogi'^j jttf^ (see
Bengel in IOC.) 1 Pet. iii. 19. ^o^ fa (pVKaxy Ttvsv^ad rto^evltreis txy-

gv%sv, Luke xii. 37. 7ta^s^<i>v Staxov/jtfEt. aifotj signifies, approaching he
will serve them, and is even according to our feelings more perspicuously
and vivaciously expressed, than without rta^c-^. (in ./Elian. 2, 30. I do
not consider the Ttag^. superfluous). Comp. Schiifer ad Soph. 1. 253.
278. II. 314. adDemosth. II. 623. Pflugk ad Eurip. Hcl. p. 134. Matlh.
II. 1300. In Luke i. 31. cruM^?? * v yaa^^l xat, nk^y vibv there is not
mere verbosity to be found; the high importance of the intended favor is
expressed by the prominence of the several circumstances. So perhaps
also John xxi. 13.

With Acts iii. 3. (under <y) may be compared Acts xi. 22. It-artsatt&Ev
Bagi/aj3av St,s^^ti/ wj Avtio%ia$ (where the old translations omit the
infinit. as useless, but certainly found it), which properly means: they
sent him off with the commission, that he sliould go to etc. On the
contrary I cannot find a mere verbosity with Palairet (p. 204.) in Luke
xx. 35. ol E xai'alico^a'vT'Es -fov aitovoj EXEWOV T! v % E I v . The T?v%tv ex-
presses something which is not yet implied in xafat-iotfc&at, and the for-
mula is thus complete and clear. Comp. Domosth. cor. p. 328. B. xat 1
uv-tb tovto altos slf.it Irtaivov tv%ELv and Bos Excrcit. p. 48. Bor-
nemann Schol. p. 125. (Bahr in Creutzer's Meht. HI. p. 48. has col-
lected other examples from Gr. authors, but they are not all appropos.)

Phrases like those in Mt. xi. 5. ti not-uts Movm tov ft^ov, Acts xxi.

448 APPENDIX.

13. it, rtoititf xhulovtes xai GvvQQvit'tov'tBS pov ify xagSiav, seem to be cir-
cumlocutory, circumstantial expressions for ti TIBET'S, x^uUts. But, what
do ye loosing properly means, what is your intention therein, quid hoc
sibi vult; the rtoislv therefore is not the general expression, to do, which
is already implied in every special verb, and the <el a/usff what do ye loose
is rather to be looked upon as a concise phrase, than the formula above
as pleonastic or verbose.

(b) Emphasis is intended by a repetition of the same words, not only
in passages full of feeling, as Mt. xxv. 11. xvgn, xvgte, avot,t-ov rjfj.lv
(Ps. xciv. 3.), Mt. xxiii. 37. John ix. 21. six. 6. Luke viii. 24. Acts ix.
4.; 1 Cor. VI. 11. ahha actshovaaods, aXXo, yyidaOy'te, dflA* IStxaiuO^-fs etc.
xiv. 24. 31. Phil. Hi. 2. 2 Cor. vii. 2. 11., but even in didactic discourse
Col. i. 28. vovOs-tovvts; rtdvtta avSgortoi/ xai SiSdaxovfss Ttdvta, avQg.
1 Cor. x.l. sqq. oi jtatsges fj^v fi d v 3 E 5 vita t^v vsfyskijv tjaav, xai rt d v -t c $
"trji; Oahdaaqs Sifadov, xai rtdvtes ij <tbv Mcocfjji' tfSartTtitiavto xai
jtdvf f j to av-tb /Sgco^ua rtvtvfji' efyayov- xai it dv ties -to avt'6 riofna rtv- Irtiov

d^x' ovx Iv r'otj TtXftdtftv av-tiav v86xt]<Sav 6 0soj. C'oinp, John i. 10.

xix. 10. Mt. xii. 30. Rom. vii. 11. xi. 32. 1 Cor. xiii. 11. 2 Cor. xi. 26.

Phil. iv. 8. So in such passages as Mt. v. 19. 8$ ' av Tto^ay ov-

<t o 5 ^tlyaj x^9rjdTfat, or Jas. i. 27. QgyGxeia xadaga av -g 57 ICJT'II',

IttiaxstfteoOat- etc., o-ufoj serves to give prominence to the predicate, see
23. 3. In 1 John i. 1. also 8 sugdxapw t ol j 6<j> d ah pal ? ^wv (Luke
ii. 20.) the instrument of the seeing is not uselessly added, for to see with
the eyes intimates the certainty of the perception (Hesiod. Theog. 701.
scut. 335. see Bremi ad JEscei.n. I. 124.). The address in Acts i. 11.
avfi$ raT-aatoo (ii. 14. iii. 12. v. 35.) like aVg$ 'AOqvaiot, with Greek
speakers, is more effective and honorable than the mere Tea. would be:
Galilean men! A thought intended to be strongly expressed is often ex-
hibited both affirmatively and negatively in parallel members (parallel-
ismus antitheticus): John i. 20. Wjaojioy^rfs xai ovx ^vrjaa^o, Eph. v. 15.
pvj wf <i'tfo<j>ot a^ wj ao^oi, ver. 17. 1 John ii. 27. John i. 3. Luke i. 20.
Acts xviii. 9. 1 Pet. v. 2. 1 Tim. ii. 7. 1 John ii. 4. Heb. x. 37. (Sep-
tuag.) comp. Demosth. fals. leg. p. 200. C. $gacr<3 xai ovx a^o^gv^o^at.,
Lys. Orat, 3. p. 49. ^v^ftai xai ovx d^S-jJ ^syst, ^Elian. anim. 2, 43.
ovx agvovvtat, ot dVJ^arfot, aM? vfiohoyovcH,, Soph. Antig. 453. see Maii o&-
senatt. sacr. lib. H. p. 77. Kypke I. 350. Poppo ad Thuc. 1. 1. p. 204.
Herm. ad Med, ed. Elmsley p. 361. and ad Soph. CKd. Col. p. 41. ad
Philoct. p. 44. Jacob qussst. Lucian. p. 19. Boissonnade ad Eunap. p.
164.

(c) The following passages must be explained by a mingling of two
constructions: Luke ii. 21. 6V& tT

67. PLEONASM. 449

1-6 ovopu (for lrt%ri<s$. xai ex*., or 6Vf lrtji,}Je& IxtySq}, Luke ii. 27. lv

4$ eiwyaystv x a, & otvi'of JSIfatfo, Vll. 12. wj Sa tfyyias fy riv^ tfifs rtd-
jisws, * a i, i5oi>, gl-xoii%si?o t&vqxus etc. (Herm. < Fi^. p. 886.).*
On this also properly rests the use of 6V t before the precise words of au-
thors introduced into the narrative, Mt. xiii. 11. Luke xix. 7. 9. Acts
v. 25.

A pleonastic expression was often found in passages, where synonyms
seem to be connected with each other, to express one principal idea (as
often in Deinosth. see Schufer Appar. I. p. 209. 320. 756. Bremi ad
JEschin. I. p. 79. Lucian. Alex. ed. Jacob p. 24. Poppo ad Time. III. I.
p. 619. Schiifer ad Plutarch. IV. p. 387. V. 106.). Paul, however, from
whom especially such instances are selected, is not accustomed to con-
nect real synonyms (not even in Rom. xiv. 21. 1 Tim. ii. 1. v. 5.). A
careful study of the Greek, and especially of the Apostolic language,
will not allow such a supposition, one that would very much lessen the
beauty and force of Apostolic salutations, #at,j, t'?.soj xai eigyvij. Nor
does the phrase -iyi6j ogyys Rev. xvi. 19., rtsKayof tvjs ^-apiao^? Mt. xviii.
6. contain a pleonasm. Wetsten has already translated the latter cor-
rectly ssquor maris. n&ayos signifies the surface (of the sea), and is
also thus used of the surface of the water of a river, see Schvvarz Com-
ment, p. 1067. f The parallelism of clauses, which is now and then pro-
minent in the N. T. (2 Pet. ii. 3. Rom. ix. 2. Heb. xi. 17. Jas. iv. 9.
Mt. x. 26. John vi. 35. Luke i. 46.) has nothing to do with pleonasms.

It cannot be called a pleonasm (Heinichen ad Euseb. II. p. 186.), if
a more specific word is added as an expletive of one more general, e. g.
2 Cor. 11. 16. ol; /.isv dafty ^avd-tov sis dvaT!ov, otj 8s dapr) %<At;$ ttj ^wjj'j',
comp. Jacob qusest. Lucian. p. 22., for as the expletive expresses some-
thing more definite, it adds to the sentence something (in some sense)
new. In the above passage, however, the savor of death unto death,
the savor of life unto life, might not only be connected for the sake of
distinctness, but also to render the ideas death, life prominent in their
entire weight (savor of death, which, according to its nature, can bring
nothing but death), at the same time with an intimation of the proper
sense ( w j) aiwvtoj, av. ailuu/), which is tropically denoted in o^ co-,}?.
Comp. yet 2 Tim. ii. 10. Sta tfoitfo rtuvtu vriQ^iv^ S c, d t'O'us SX^EX-
* ooj 5 , iva, xai av-toi, etc. (which passage was misunderstood by Heyden-

reich), Mr. xii. 23. viii. 4. (8* I* 1 Ig^u'as) x. 30. xiii. 29. (6Ve

y y v ? "es-tiv I rt t! "u a t j) v. 11. xiv. 80., also i. 13., if the reading
sxtl h fvf l^i^cp is right, Luke iv. 23. Acts xiii. 11. (Bornemann Schol.
p. 34. Fritzsche ad Mr. p. 22.) see above p. 444.). The more special
word is intended either to recall anew to the mind of the reader that

* In many other passages not is explained pleonastically. On Jap. iv. 15. see p.
125.; on Rom. iii. 7. Tholuck in loc.\ on John xvii. 25. Lilcke. K.al deserves more
attention by N. T. Lexicographers,

t See Tittmann de Synon. N. T. Lib. I. Lips. 1829. 8vo. Borncm. Diss. de Glos-
sem. N. T. p. 29.

450 APPENDIX.

which might have been forgotten, or it is added as an improvement of
the preceding expression. The accumulation of predicates 1 John i. 1.
will appear pleonastic to no one, who ponders the Apostle's design.

3. A pleonasm of whole sentences is not conceivable. If a sentence
is expressed twice, with but little variation, the writer always intends to
render a thought very prominent, and to present it in different points of
view. So 2 Cor. xii. 7. -ty vrttgpoh'f] i'toi> ajtoxa^v^sav iv a, py vrtEgut-
^w^cw, 186$?] ,uot axoho^i tVa ^IMJ jsoTiaiJx^, tj/a. ^inj -i> ri E gat gco p at

Rev. ii. 5. si 8s /.ty (f.iei?avoei$), g%opai, eot, tfa%v lav pri ^atfa-

v o j <j vi $ (comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 514. A. fjpw Itttzeigqirsov latl S*o>-

rttvsw, wj psMitSTtovs o/utfous tfoiij rtoTatfaj jtoiovv-faf UVEV yolg Srj ? o v -

* o a) , w$ sv jots sprtgots^rsv svgtaxofAEV ovSev o<J>?i.o$ e a v p, q x ah ^

x a y a 6 r /i % Stdvota^ z'wv p x TO 6 v if w v etc. Stallbaum ad Plat.

A.pol. p. 23.] 1 John ii. 27. tbf <fo avtb zgl>a(.ia StSdaxsti vftus xal^

Ktt-wj IStSa^nv v^ajj psvMife li> av-tq (see Lilcke in Zoc.). See
yet 1 Cor. vii. 26. Tob vii. 20. Comp. on this mode of expression Herm.
ad Eurip. Bacch. 1060. ad Soph. Antig. 691. ad Philoct. 269. 454.
Reisig. conject. Arutopli. p. 314. Heindorf ad Phsed. p. 52. ad Cic.
Nat.^Dcor. 1, 10. Schafar ad Demosth. V. 762. Matth. II. 636. p.
1311. 2. cd. Of a different kind is Rev. ii. 13. olSa to, J'^ya aov xal Ttov
xa-totxtls, ortov 6 ^govoj T'OV cfafa^a, where ortou o -g. is immediately added
for explanation of xov xatoix. 1 Cor. xiv. 6. and 2 Cor. vii. 8. do not

belong here, and in 1 Cor. i. 22. the clause sTteiSri xai 'lovSatot

jwcogJav is evidently not only a varied repetition of the prodosis c-rtsiS^ ydg

'fbv ^8oj', but has also associated with it an essential thought from

the apodosis (^UEIJ Se xr t g- % sa^^v^^. [tagtav, COmp. Sta ^j ^ww-

^taj toy xqgvy{iaito$ etc.). Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 16. Mt. v. 18. is doubtful,
inasmuch as the jtdv-ta in the last clause may refer either to the law (see
Olshausen), or, with Fritzsche, be interpreted generally: donee omnia
(quae mente finger e qitcas) cvencrint,

4. It is an observation current even among modern commentators,
that many verbs in the N. T., viz. a%%saat,, boxsiv, S-l^sn', to^av, Svvaa-
^at often occur pleonastically. Kiinol (ad Lulte i. 1.) even reckons
among them irttarstgEiv, comp. Weiske Pleon. under these words. The
whole canon rests on an error, (a) As to Luke i. 1. in the words srtEtS^ris^
rtohhou I rt s % s igr t <i av a,va,td!;a,a$at, Si^yy-jiv etc. the \jii%sie,. is no more
without a special meaning than in Latin (tggredi, in aggressits sum scri-
bere (although philologists are even divided on this point, see Herbst ad
Xen. Mem. p. 38., on the contrary Heindorf ad Plat. Soph. p. 459.).

67. PLEONASM. 451

The Vulgate translates: multi conati sunt, and Luther, perhaps better:
because many have endeavored. So in all the passages quoted by Kiinb'l
from the Greek. (b) So also -tohpw signifies to undertake something, in
relation to difficult or important affairs, sitstinere Rom. v. 7. 1 Cor. vi. 1.
John xxi. 12. means simply audere, to dare. No interpreter ought to
have been led astray by what Markland says ad Lys. p. 159. ed. Taylor.
(c) On Soxsiv comp. Fritzsche ad Mt. iii. 9.; in 1 Cor. x. 12. 6 SoxZv
ztitdvab evidently signifies he who thinks (hopes] to stand, comp. Gal. vi.
3. (as most interpreters apprehend it), Mr. x. 42. oi Soxovvtss o,%siv -tZ>v
l^vwv are those who are considered the conquerors of the nations, who
are acknowledged as such (similar Gal. ii. 9. Hist. Susan, ver. 5. Joseph.
Antt. 19, 6. 3.; the parallel passage Mt. xx. 25. has only ol a%ovt$).
Luke xxii. 24. 'tie, avtwv Soxsl swat, fisigov quis videatur hob ere (habitu-
rus esse} principatum, of him of whom it must be judged, that he has
the preference (over all the others); it is yet future arid therefore only the
object of a supposed judgment. 1 Cor. xi. 16. si 41$ Soxsl $i\6veixos swat,
if any one seems to be contentious, or, if one loves to be contentious.
Luke viii. 18. 8 oxu e%ew what he believes himself to possess. On
1 Cor. iii. 18. vii. 40. xiv. 37. Heb. iv. 1. (where Bohme takes Soxsl for
elegantius, Kiinol is more correct) no remarks are needed. The paral-
lels from Greek authors, quoted as pleonasms by Palairet, Kypke,
Valckenser (I. 87.), Schleussner, Dindorf ad Heb. iv. 1., Kiinol and
others, on careful consideration will be found inappropriate, as e. g. Jo-
seph. Antt. 2, 6. 10. is evident to any attentive reader. Comp. in gene-
ral Bornemann Schol. p. 52. (d] Fritzsche ad Mt. p. 539. has more
correctly interpreted in most passages, where d'g^ao^at is taken pleonas-
tically.* It is entirely incorrect to use that verb in Luke xii. 45. xxi.
28. as redundant. In John xiii. 5. also it retains its signification, already
Llicke felt. Kiinul quotes acts xi. 15. as a reason why a^aa^at, y,a^slv
ought to be taken as equivalent with jiaAstV: ex x. 43. patet, Pctrumjam
midta de religione Christiana disseruisse etc. But XgxsaScu -ka^lv de-
notes only the beginning of the discourse, which for this very reason was
not jet finished (Paul intended to speak on x. 44. It i ;u?unWo? tov n.).
It cannot, however, be conceived why this beginning should refer only
to the first six or eight verses. Besides it must not be forgotten that
Acts xi. in an address the i v tq clgt-aont, ps ^o^dv is stronger: scarcely
had I spoken a few words, when etc. 2 Cor. iii. 1. is clear without
farther remark. (e) As to !a, M / in John v. 35. comp. Liicke in loc.~

* J. D. Michaelis in Nov. Miscel. Lips. IV. p. 45. has written against the pleon-
asm of SOKETV, in these passages and elsewhere.

452 Ai'l'EIVDIX.

2 Tim. iii. 12. is still more evident, rtdvtes ol S-shovt s j v<yaj3wj <>? sv
X6rftf9 where Hermann insists that ^&. is to be omitted in the transla-
tion. But the words have the meaning: all who resolve to live piously,
who declare this fturpose. Heb. xiii. 18. is sufficiently clear (even Storr
here translates rightly). John vii. 17. also has already been correctly
apprehended by Kiinol. 1 Cor. x. 27. xal $sh-t s rtogsvsaSai, is: and
you resolve, purpose to go. See Fritzsche in loc. against Kiinol, who
has taken SvvaaStu, in Mt. ix. 15. pleonastically. No one will be misled
by a like observation oa Luke xvi. 2. and John vii. 7.

Among nouns l^ov especially, if followed by a genit., has sometimes
been taken as a pleonasm (Boissonade ad Nicet. p. 59.), e. g. Rom ii. 15.
sgyov vofiov, Ephes. iv. 12. 1 Thess. i. 3. (see Koppe), see on the contrary
Tholuck and Reiche on Rom. ii. 15. In 1 Thess. i. 3. the parallelism
of the le,yov tys rtCaiteos with xojtog tqs ayast^s will not permit us to take
that word pleonastically. Flatt is correct about Ephes iv. 12. Even
from the Greek writers no examples can be quoted to prove a pleonasm
of i^yoi/. In Polyeen 1, 18. K^OV tov xoyt'ou is certainly the object of the
oracle, the l^yov which was prophesied in the oracle, in Diog. Lasrt.prasm
TO <tjjs ftXoccxjitaj Igyov denotes the business of philosophising, the opera-
tion of philosophising. (In Lat. comp. virtutis opus Curt. 8, 14., prodi-
tionis opus Petron. fragm. 28, 5.). ''Egyoi/ cannot be compared with
2>Jjua, and even that, connected with a genitive, is not properly pleonas-
tic, see Passow under this word. Wahl has already shown the correct in-
terpretation of oi/o/ta (in which a pleonasm was frequently supposed, see
Kiinol on John p. 133. under Mt. i. 21. see Fritzsche in loc-}, see also Wi-
ner's Simonis Lex. Hebr. under Dt#. This word merits a more accurate
treatment on the part of our Lexicographers. (See Matth. II. 965. on
a periphrastical use of ovopa in Greek poets).

5. According to the opinion of almost all interpreters a quasi half ple-
onasm is implied in the use of xahBia^ai for tlvat, (Monk ad Eurip. Hip-
pol. p. 2. Blornfield ad JEsch. Pers. p. 128. Grrev. lection. Hesiod. p. 20.)
in which at the same time a Hebraism is to be supposed (snp^ esse).
But already Bretschneider (Lex. man. I. p. 543.) has corrected and says,
sum,fi,o sc. ex aliorum sententia. On NipJ see Winer's Simonis Lex. p.
867. In the N. T. are reckoned here especially Mt. v. 9. xix. 21. 13.
Mr. xi. 17. Luke i. 76. ii. 23. xv. 19. 1 Cor. xv. 9. Heb. iii. 13. 1 John
iii. 1. Jas. ii. 23. But nowhere does xa^sla^ai. mean any thing else than
^o be called, i. e. either to bear the name, as Jas. ii. 23., even in contrast
with slvai 1 Cor. xv. 9. (even to have only the name of an Apostle)
Luke xv. 19., to be publicly distinguished as something, to be generally
known (the being so in the belief of others) also Rom. ix. 26. It is
still more remarkable that Wahl (1st ed. of his Clavis} would also re-
duce 6j/o/ta<;<u in Rom. xv. 20. 1 Cor. v. 1. Ephes. i. 21. iii. 15. v. 3.

67. PLEONASM. 453

to a mere esse (it is every where used even with emphasis, and by that
apprehension the passages are considerably weakened) and that many
interpreters even translate Heb. xi. 18. sv laaax Kto^tfstfat' <fou crrff'g/ua:
existet tibi posteritas (Schulz also very inexactly: tJiou wilt receive pos-
terity). 'Eugtrfxscr^ac is supposed to be often used for tlva.1 (see Pott ad
1 Cor. iv. 2.) like the Hebrew ND;i (comp. Index to Malalas ed. Bonn,
under the word}. It however is always so distinguished from slvai, that
the latter denotes the nature of a thing in itself, but the former only so
far as this quality in a subject is discovered and known. Mt. i. 18. tv-
ge&j Iv yaa't^l %ovaa, it was discovered (it showed itself] that she was
pregnant (% v Iv y. e%. could have been said at an earlier period of her
preg.), Luke xvii. 18. ov% sv^s^qctav vrtoa-teifyavtsi; Sovvat S6%av tq -aqi si
pri o dMoyswJf otftfoj,- have none been found (can none be seen} who re-
turned? Acts viii. 40. &tMrtrtos 5e evgl&i etj ^A^u-fov Philip was found
(comp. rtvsvfw, xvguov jjgTtaas <tav <a. ver. 39.) in Asdod (properly trans-
ported to Asdod, by the ftvevpu xvgiov which conveyed him away), where
there must be a great deal of superficialness to overlook the propriety of

EVgHjXtlV* IvOm. Vli. 10. EVgE$7] fJ.Olf tj EJ/tfOto) 27 tj ^O^l/ a/Sift] fi{ ^dvOiTOV it

was discovered by me (by his own experience ver. 8-10.), that the pre-
cept unto life had become as to me a precept unto death, Gal. ii. 17. si

EvgeSrifiBv xal cwtfoi) d|iiagtfw7io&' if we our selves should be found

as sinners (before God and man), 1 Cor. iv. 2. Rev. xii. 8. oi>Ss tortos
Eigs^y avfwv tVi. sv *9 oigaixp their place could no more, be found (could
not be pointed out) in heaven, as we say, every trace was extinguished
(comp. Rev. xvi. 20. xviii. 2i. xx. 11.), 1 Pet. ii. 22. ov8e E-ugl^ 8<&.o$ Iv
<t ato/Acrfc, avtov no deception could be found, or pointed out in his
words, non deprehendebatur fraudulenta locutus (comp. Rev. xiv. 5.).
Phil. ii. 7. Luther has translated correctly. On NtfDJ comp. Winer's
Simonis Lex. p. 575. The Greek parallels, quoted by Palairet, Kypke
and others, do not prove any thing. Philetas Stob. Serm. 237. Ei^l-
^ uvuv evidently denotes: he was found dead,- in Antonin. 9. p. 269.
also Evglaxopai, retains its true signification, to be found. Ilierocl. in
carm. Pythag. a^xy c-^v tZv ags-r'iov ^ fygovqdis wglaxs-tat means: pmden-
tia virtutum principium esse deprehenditur, i. e. it is found by the re-
flecting man that etc., Eurip. Iphig. Taw. 777. (766.) xov csoT 1 ' ovS? ev-
^jtiE^a, ubi tandem esse deprehendimur (deprehensi sumus)? whither is
it found that we have wandered. Joseph. Anil. 17, (not 7.) 5. 8. sv^ax.
refers to those before whom Herod intended to avoid that evil appear-
ance. Comp. Diod. Sic. 3, 39. 19, 94. Athen. I. p. 331. Schweighaiiser
Alciphr. 1, 30. With Ignat. ad Rom. ii. Ac-y^ac, X ^^MVOV and
a& stand in opposition to each other.
57

454 APPENDIX.

6. Among the particles, wj especially has often been taken pleonas-
tically, as 2 Pet. i. 3. &>$ jtavtu fyplv 1*^5 la$ Suva/tEwj av-tov 8e~
Sagijpsvqs. But ws connected with the participle in the construction of
genit. absol., expresses an opinion, a conviction, and here gives to the
idea of the verb the character of subjectiveness. Therefore in connection
with ver. 50. it must be translated : convinced (considering), that the
divine power has given us all things etc. qyovpsvoi, 6Vt % e. Svv. --
SeSu^at, comp. (Acts xxvii. 30.) Xen. Cyrop. 3, 3. 4. wj sl^vtjs ovatjs
because there is peace, 3, 1. 9. wj tfdto^jj fgovvtos, convinced that I tell
the truth, comp. 6, 1. 37. Anab. 3, 21. 3. Mem. 1, 6. 5. Strabo 9. p.
401. Xen. Ephes. 4, 2. Dion. Hal. 9. p. 1925. see Ast ad Plat. Polit.
p. 320. Lossner Obs. p. 483. In the Greek writers also the accus.
absolut. is connected with this particle e. g. Xen. Cyrop. 1,4. 21. Anab.
1,2. 19. With the dative see in Acts iii. 12. 'iij in Rom. xv. 15. con-
nected with the participle in casu recto expresses the design: w
v in memoriam revocaturus. See Passow II. 1492.

In Rom. ix. 32. 6Vt ovx lx rfi/rftfEcoj, wi/ wj If sgyw vopov, lx riCa-i. de-
notes the objective norm, w$ 1% egywv the merely ideal Mt. vii. 29. iji/
StSatfxtjJ 1 ti> j IfovaLav E^COJ/, John i. 14. So^av wj [.tovoys vci>$ rtagql T^OU rtar'^of,
2 Cor. xiii. 7. are reducible to a comparison, Zifre one, wAo etc. glory,
like that of an only begotten (must be), and this particle signifies not
revera (as Schleussner wishes), although this idea, according to the sense,
is implied in the comparison (entirely so, exactly so, as, i. e. the true, the
perfect glory of the son of God etc.). See 2 Cor. ii. 17. and Billroth
in loc.

In wj srti Acts xvii. 14. the former word is not properly superfluous;
wj with a preposition of direction (lai, rt^o?, j) either expresses the
definite purpose to take a certain direction or also the mere pretence, or
acting as if one would take a direction, comp. Kiihner II. 280. Beza,
Grotius and others have taken it in the latter sense, but the former in-
terpretation is the more simple. As parallels comp. Thuc. 5, 3. 6, 61.
Xen. Anab. 1, 9. 23. 7, 7. 55. Cyrop. 7, 1. 27. Diocl. Sic. 14, 102.
Polyb.'S, 70. 3. Arrian. Alex. 2, 17. 2. 3, 18. 14. Heliod. ^Eth. 1, 12.
35. It is difficult to understand how wj e ril can signify usque ad (Kiihnol).

OiiYwj is also supposed to be redundant in John iv. 6. (Kiihnol): 6 'l^croij
xsxortiaxus t tqs otSortofJas exa^sfo o-u'tfcoj. But the adverb frequently
stands thus after a participle, to indicate the repetition of the participial
lAo.'Si, fatigued he sat down so (in the condition of fatigue). Xen. Anab.
4, 5. 29. Cyrop. 5, 2. 6. 7, 5. 71. Arrian. Mex. 5, 27. 13. Ellendt. ad
Arrian. Alex. I. p. 4.

With this is connected the use of oiVcos in the beginning of the apo-
dosis after hypothetical or temporal prodoses (Xen. Cyrop. 8, 1. 3. 2, 1.
1. Anab. 3, 2. 31.), which is not without emphasis in 1 Thess iv. 14.
(Rev. xi. 5. oiiVoj is perhaps hoc modo see Ewald in loc.}.

67. PLEONASM. 455

7. Palairet (p. 305.) after Glass, finds a half pleonasm of a particle in
Acts xiii. 34. p q x s n t, nexhowta- vrtoati^fyew sis Siufy^ogdv, where ^xiTii,
is supposed to be used for the simple ^ (as Christ had not already once
gone into corruption). The words however are either to be apprehended
thus: lie will no more (not once more) be put into the tomb and then be
given over to putrefaction (so that eii, as after jtuhw and rursits, only
affects one part of the verb), or the formula l$ fao$ogav vrtoatg., without
reference to its proper signification, is only used of being burled, comp.
Bengel. The former as the more simple is preferred by Olshausen. The
passage in Ml. V. H. 12, 52. proves nothing; ^jcaVt means there: not
farther (than before) comp. John xxi. 6. Bretschneider Lexic. II. p.
183. 1st. ed. at o ft x & 1 1 *, has incorrectly applied the above, at least in
reference to the epistles of Paul. In Rom. vii. 17. wvl Sa ovxtti lyw
xatfsgya^ojiot otvi'o, a/a vj a/tagi'ta, is: but now, after having made
this observation, I do the evil no more, i. e. I cannot consider myself any
more as the primary cause of it, comp. ver. 20.,- xi. 6. l g zagttt,, ovxsft,
It Egycov, if by grace, then (it is done) no more (farther) by works, i. e.
the latter idea is destroyed by the former, it can now no more take place;
2 Cor. i. 23. Stolz has translated correctly, see Baumgarten in loc.
On Gal. ii. 20. iii. 18. comp. Winer's Comment. Rom. iv. 13. 15. in
conformity with the above is self-evident. In John iv. 42. ovxltft, is
elucidated by ver. 29. Xen. Anab. 1, 10. 12. cannot be quoted as con-
firmation of such a use of otixstt, still less Xen. Ephes. 1, 13. or Pausan.
8, 28. 2. In the recent editions, the latter passage is punctuated after
el* sVci. Comp. Sext. Emp. adv. Matth. 2. 47. Poly sen. 3, 9, 29. Arrian.
Epict. 3, 22. In JUlian. Anim. 4, 3. 27, 36. also Jacobs avows that
paulo majors cum vi is used for the single negation.

68. Verse in the New Testament.

1. The Greek verses or parts of verses which occur in the N. T. are
either quotations from the Greek poets, intentionally introduced as such,
or merely incorporated with the prose. May it be, that they were com-
mon poetical sentences of departed poets, or, which is more frequently
the case, that they fell involuntarily from the author, as sometimes hap-

* On cvif<a for w see Boissonade ad PMlosir. Her. p. 502, Jacobs ad Philostr. Imagg.
357. ad JElian t Anim. II. p. 250.

456

APPENDIX.

pens to good prose writers?* The apostle Paul has only introduced
poetical quotations three limes in his writings,
(a) Acts xvii. 28. Half of a Hexameter.

yag xnt, ysvo$
Comp. Arat. Phsenom. 5., where the end of the verse is: o 8k rj

), therefore a spondee occurs in the fifth foot
(&) 1 Cor. xv. 33. an iamb, trimeter acatalect. (senarius).

OfU

xat,

where spondees, as is often the case, are introduced in the odd feet, first
and third. The passage is from the comic Menander and according to
H. Stephanus out of his Thais (see Men&ndt.fragm, ed. Meinecke p. 75.).
(c) Tit. i. 12. a whole Hexameter.

a si

tfi'cu, xaxa

from Epimenides of Crete. See J. Hoffmann de Paulo Jlp. scripturas
prof anas ter allegante. Tubing. 1770. 4to. Kosegarten depoetar. iffatis
grxcor, in N. T.., also in his Reden and Schrift. v. Mohnike 3. B.

2. To the second of the above classesf belong, (a) The universally
acknowledged Hexameter Jas. i. 17.

aya

tiav 6co

-ft

heiov

(where in the second foot 015 could be long in the Arsis) see inter-
preters in loc. Schulthess attempted to arrange this passage in two
metrical verses, but the rhythm was harsh, and the use of poetical words
by James, does not authorize us to versify them, and reduce them to this
form by means of violent changes and transpositions.

Genuine Hexameter Rhythm occurs Heb. xii. 13. in the words:

xai tfgo%t, aj og Oaf tiot, 0730. tit tfoij
(&) Pentameter measure is found in Heb. xii. 26.

ov ^

^

tijv

W 0a

^ODCfE fO

fE.

* Comp. Quintil. Inslit. 9, 4. 52. Fabric. Bibliolli, Lai. ed. Ernesti. II. p. 389.
Nolten Antibarb. under the word versus., Jacob, ad Lucian. Alex, p. 52. Classical
Journ. No. 45. p. 40.

t We have only selected complete sentences. Parts of sentences containing a
Rhythm see in Class. Journ. No. 45. p. 46,

68. VERSE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

457

The rhythm however is not flowing on account of the succession of spon-
dees in the first part of the line, and the brevity (or succession of short
syllables) at the close of the verse is by no means grateful.

(c) The words i-s fgdpqvos egxEtai in John iv. 35. have the

rhythm of a trimeter acatalect. (senar. iamb.), if they be disposed thus:

the first foot an anapaest. As to #w for xal o see Buttmann ed. Rob. p.
61. 29. note 7. 1 Cor. v. 6. may thus be reduced to the same
measure :

7 o'Kov

The tribrach in the first foot presents no difficulty. The spondee also
in the fifth is unobjectionable, as in the odd feet, first, third, fifth, spon-
dees are common with the best poets.

REGISTER

OF

PASSAGES OF THE N. T. CRITICALLY ILLUSTRATED.

PAGE. PAGE, PAGE.

latt.

i.

18.

164

Matt.

viii.

1.

173

Matt

. xiv.

25.

302

453

"

viii.

8.

266

cc

xiv.

36.

264

i.

20.

313

cc

viii.

11.

145

240

a

i.

22.

357

"

viii.

12.

92

cc

XV.

23.

142

it

ii.

3.

100

cc

viii.

21.

411

te

xvi.

11.

413

tt

ii.

5.

120

cc

viii.

32.

244

it

xvi.

13.

286

it

ii.

6.

99

tt

viii.

34.

100

it

xvi.

26.

112

it

ii.

16.

101

tt

ix.

4.

140

it

xvii.

12.

171

it

ii.

20.

144

tt

ix.

5.

140

it

xvii.

18.

123

tt

iii.

10.

100

tt

ix.

6.

438

tt

xvii.

25.

299

209

It

ix.

8.

144

it

xviii.

1.

192

it

iii.

12.

127

tl

ix.

13.

381

cc

xviii.

4.

45

it

iii.

16.

129

tt

ix.

16.

315

242

tt

iv.

1.

91

tt

ix.

35.

101

cc

xviii.

6.

266

it

iv.

15.

181

tl

X.

5.

152

cc

xviii.

8.

189

it

iv.

16.

195

tl

x.

9.

377

cc

xviii.

22.

198

tt

iv.

18.

330

tl

X.

13.

227

cc

xviii.

25.

370

it

iv.

24.

101

It

X.

17.

167

It

xix.

13.

227

tt

V.

18.

450

cc

X.

20.

382

It

XX.

20.

141

"

V.

19.

195

"

X.

25.

265

It

XX.

25.

94

"

V.

20.

194

cc

X.

26.

235

It

xxi.

2.

132

tt

V.

22.

101

1C

X.

28.

74

It

xxi.

3.

352

167

cc

X.

29.

141

tl

xxi.

7.

124

te

V.

25.

232

163

144

it

V.

28.

162

cc

X.

32.

354

cc

xxi.

20.

217

tt

V.

38.

432

"

xi.

11.

192

cc

xxi.

31.

140

tt

V.

48.

246

cc

xi.

54.

91

cc

xxi.

41.

124

"

vi.

4.

134

cc

xii.

1.

145

cc

xxi.

42.

185

cc

vi.

5.

362

cc

xii.

5.

427

cc

xxii.

25.

368

cc

vi.

25.

133

u

xii.

9.

126

cc

xxiii.

5.

351

cc

vi.

26.

343

cc

xii.

10.

250

cc

xxiii.

9.

432

cc

vi.

29.

100

1C

xii.

24.

108

cc

xxiii.

25.

152

<c

vii.

2.

138

cc

xii.

30.

369

cc

xxiii.

31.

165

"

vii.

7.

343

cc

xii.

41.

91

cc

xxiii.

32.

245

u

vii.

8.

210

304

cc

xxiii.

33.

225

"

vii.

9.

392

cc

xiii.

14.

170

cc

xxiii.

35.

358

"

vii.

16.

220

cc

xiii.

32.

101

cc

xxiii.

37.

129

tl

vii.

21.

141

"

xiv.

22.

233

cc

xxiv.

2.

372

460

HEGISTER OP PASSAGES OP THE N. T.

PAGE.

PAGE.

PAGE.

Matt.

xx iv.

12.

92

Mark

V,

25.

283

Mark

xiv.

22.

95

u

xxiv.

26.

144

a

V.

26.

295

(

xiv.

47.

96

u

xxiy.

40.

210

tt

vi.

3.

97

(C

xiv.

53.

168

a

XXV.

9.

387

vi.

8.

412

11

xiv.

66.

125

XXV.

34.

153

(C

vi.

25.

265

it

xiv.

68.

378

(C

xx vi.

8.

144

u

vi.

36.

139

(I

XV.

1.

109

a

xxvi.

27.

90

a

vi.

37.

129

11

XV.

6.

218

<c

xxvi.

33.

30

a

vi.

41.

125

C(

XV.

8.

427

a

xxvi.

44.

335

u

vii.

4.

253

(C

XV.

21.

104

a

xxvi.

45.

245

<t

vii.

12.

265

(C

XV.

23.

142

<c

xxvi.

50.

133

K

vii.

15.

97

xvi.

2.

276

a

xxvi.

54.

225

(C

vii.

19.

284

<(

xvi.

8.

351

a

xxvi.

64.

145

it

vii.

32.

264

a

xxvi.

67.

119

(C

vii.

36.

191

Luke

i.

1.

217

CC

xxvii.

7.

173

tt

viii.

1.

187

c

i.

9.

253

(C

xxvii.

37.

216

a

viii.

3.

77

(

i.

17.

126

a

xxvii.

40.

273

(C

viii.

8.

286

(4

i.

21.

311

(

xxvii.

44.

144

viii.

11.

275

u

i.

24.

78

179

a

viii.

12.

383

it

i.

28.

194

(C

xxvii.

46.

140

a

viii.

22.

127

u

i.

37.

142

cc

xxvii.

63.

320

264

220

a

xxviii.

17.

119

viii.

26.

377

((

i.

51.

218

217

u

viii.

31.

299

u

i.

57.

255

a

ix.

11.

354

u

i.

62.

242

Mark

i.

4.

153

u

ix.

12.

358

cc

i.

68.

365

u

i.

6.

330

a

ix.

17.

219

ti

i.

73.

256

CC

i.

7.

90

a

ix.

30.

265

398

i.

34.

125

a

ix.

37.

382

a

ii.

2.

193

cc

ii.

11.

243

cc

X.

2.

275

a

ii.

22.

126

cc

ii.

16.

110

(

X.

46.

125

ii.

34.

151

u

ii.

18.

125

xi.

1.

125

a

ii.

35.

243

u

ii.

23.

252

<c

xi.

5.

447

u

ii.

36.

117

(C

ii.

27.

125

a

xi.

13.

235

u

ii.

41.

168

a

iii.

9.

264

xi.

25.

356

<c

ii.

48.

217

<(

iii.

11.

243

((

xi.

32.

413

(C

iii.

1.

117

iii.

16.

216

(t

xii.

5.

427

u

iii.

10.

219

a

iii.

20.

377

(i

xii.

7.

97

u

iv.

6.

213

(C

iii.

21.

218

u

xii.

14.

367

cc

iv.

10.

256

295

u

xii.

20.

368

a

iv.

15.

279

a

iii.

24.

125

(C

xii.

26.

303

a

iv.

16.

145

(C

iii.

28.

173

<c

xii.

28.

146

u

iv.

35.

272

iv.

12.

357

(C

xii.

38.

411

(C

iv.

20.

90

iv.

19.

156

a

xiii.

9.

329

(C

v.

14.

126

C

iv.

22.

334

a

xiii.

13.

276

u

v.

17.

126

a

V.

3.

377

<i

xiii.

20.

239

u

V.

32.

2L3

V.

9.

125

xiii.

27.

124

(C

vi.

18.

300

a

V.

13.

399

a

xiv.

3.

85

u

vi.

38.

102

cc

V.

18.

264

307

u

vi.

48.

364

Ci

V.

23.

247

a

xiv.

13.

152

a

vii.

12.

173

CKITICALLY ILLUS'fKATKD. 461

Luke vii

. 16.

PAGE.

213

Luke xiii,

. 28.

PACK.

92

Luke

xxiv,

.27.

PACK.

423

cc

vii

. 30.

370

^ cc

xiii,

. 35.

233

cc

xxiv

. 46.

181

cc

vii. 44;

100

cc

xiv

. 10.

66

John

i

. 1.

105

cc

viii.

. 17.

225

356

3S&-

'

-

241

cc

xiv,

. 18.

217

cc

i,

. 6.

284

viii,

. 31.

264

218

285

CC

ix,

. 3.

260

cc

xv. 7.

190

cc

i.

8.

247

cc-

ix,

. 13.

231

cc

XV,

. 16.

140

(C

i.

13.

145

cc

ix.

, 14.

360

cc

xvi. 3.

270

il

* i.

14.

45-|

<c

ix. 16.

90

cc

xvi. 8.

160

(C

i.

16.

344

cc

ix.

,22.

299

cc

xvi. 18.

105

cc

i.

18.

275

cc

ix.

, 28.

149

cc

xvii.

1.

258

328

cc

ix.

45.

356

cc

xvii.

7.

66

cc

i.

27.

266

"

X.

1.

178

cc

xvii.

8.

129

cc

i.

34.

214

cc

X.

7.

296

cc

xvii.

18.

453

cc

i.

48.

129

cc

X.

19.

215

u

xvii.

25.

299

ii

ii.

9.

399

cc

X.

20.

382

cc

xvii.

24.

210

cc

ii.

14.

90

<c

X.

23.

130

cc

xviii.

4.

190

cc

ii.

25.

95

"

X.

24,

130

cc

xviii.

9.

94

cc

iii.

6.

146

cc

X.

29.

111

cc

xviii.

12.

164

cc

iii.

10.

95

cc

X.

42.

194

cc

xviii.

14.

190

cc

iii.

13.

275

cc

xi.

4.

101

cc

xviii.

15.

91

It

iii.

14.

91

cc

xi.

6.

297

cc

xviii.

31.

166

cc

iii.

18.

367

cc

-xi.

8.

158

cc

xviii.

34.

126

cc

iii.

26.

165

374

cc

xix.

2.

134

cc

iii.

36.

209

cc

xi.

11.

403

cc

xix.

4.

422

cc

iv.

1.

124

cc

xi.

13.

397

cc

xix.

7.

316

cc

iv.

4.

222

cc

xi.

17.

125

cc

xix.

29.

150

cc

iv.

6.

297

cc

xi.

24.

369

cc

xix.

37.

316

454

cc

xi.

33.

185

cc

xix.

40.

219

cc

iv.

11.

380

cc

xi.

35.

386

cc

xix.

42.

437

cc

iv.

18.

360

cc

xi.

39.

123

cc

xix.

48.

77

cc

iv.

34.

265

cc

xi.

50.

357

cc

XX.

27.

397

cc

iv.

35.

457

cc

xii.

4.

136

cc

XX.

36.

377

(C

iv.

37.

97

cc

xii.

2.

345

cc

XX.

42.

102

cc

iv.

43.

90

cc

xii.

9.

153

cc

XX.

46.

363

cc

iv.

48.

389

cc

xii.

12.

113

cc

xxi.

6.

409

cc

V.

2.

211

cc

xii.

20.

150

<c

xxi.

21.

126

cc

V.

4.

327

202

cc

xxii.

20.

425

cc

V.

5.

203

cc

xii.

26.

373

cc

xxii.

23.

235

cc

V.

24.

215

11

xii.

36.

297

cc

xxii.

24.

451

cc

V.

29.

153

cc

xii.

37.

447

cc

xxii.

42.

437

c.-

V.

32.

93

cc

xii.

54.

94

cc

xxiii.

31.

225

Cc

v.

36.

80

cc

xii.

58.

352

cc

xxiii.

32.

423

193

cc

xiii.

2.

190

cc

xxiii.

45.

112

cc

V.

44.

262

213

cc

xxiii.

51.

126

CC

V.

45.

214

cc

xiii.

4.

101

cc

xxiv.

5.

144

cc

vi.

1.

155

cc

xiii.

7.

140

CC

xxiv.

10.

112

11

vi.

3.

91

c<

xiii.

9.

438

it

xxiv.

18.

413

11

vi.

!).

140

58

462 REGISTER OF PASSAGES OF THE N. T.

PAGE.

PAGE.

PAGE.

John

vi.

21.

363

John

xi.

21.

239

John

xix.

25.

112

tc

vi.

27.

402

u

xi.

32.

239

cc

xix.

28.

356

<c

vi.

22.

381

cc

xi.

33.

168

cc

xix.

39.

77

ct

vi.

29.

134

cc

xi.

44.

219

cc

XX.

2.

331

It

vi.

45.

144

tl

xi.

47.

223

cc

XX.

3.

403

153

It

xi.

49.

141

cc

XX.

9.

215

cc

vi.

57.

318

It

xi.

56.

389

cc

XX.

15.

126

cc

vi.

58.

361

a

xii.

1.

419

cc

XX.

22.

246

cc

vi.

64.

368

cc

xii.

3.

85

cc

XX.

28.

149

cc

vii.

15.

370

150

cc

XX.

29.

214

cc

vii.

16.

381

189

cc

xxi.

22.

129

(

vii.

21.

55

tt

xii.

7.

215

cc

xxi.

25.

263

cc

vii.

24.

90

cc

xii.

9.

382

Acts

i.

1.

193

cc

vii.

34.

49

cc

xii.

23.

267

410

209

cc

xii.

26.

209

439

CC

vii.

35.

235

cc

xii.

44.

382

cc

i.

2.

419

152

cc

xiii.

1.

267

cc

i.

5.

135

(C

vii.

36.

49

cc

xiii.

2.

105

327

a

vii.

45.

133

199

cc

i.

11.

448

((

vii.

51.

287

cc

xiii.

5.

90

cc

i.

13.

154

cc

vii.

52.

245

cc

xiii.

18.

247

cc

i.

21.

442

viii.

7.

315

cc

xiii.

24.

254

cc

ii.

3.

280

360

cc

xiii.

27.

191

cc

ii.

25.

144

cc

viii.

15.

427

209

cc

ii.

30.

353

((

viii.

25.

360

cc

xiii.

34.

360

cc

ii.

33.

184

cc

viii.

28.

218

cc

xiv.

3.

209

cc

ii.

36.

100

(

viii.

29.

218

cc

xiv.

7.

215

cc

ii.

47.

93

a

viii.

44.

97

cc

XV.

2.

54

cc

iii.

12.

129

118

cc

XV.

6.

217

cc

iii.

16.

306

362

cc

XV.

8.

218

cc

iii.

19.

241

cc

viii.

54.

408

cc

XV.

17.

136

cc

iii.

24.

424

a

viii.

55.

165

cc

XV.

20.

339

cc

iii.

26.

114

ct

viii.

56.

267

c;

XV.

22.

156

cc

iii.

13.

133

a

viii.

59.

364

cc

XV.

26.

122

cc

iv.

5.

126

cc

ix.

2.

356

cc

xvi.

2.

351

328

ix.

3.

146

CC

xvi.

23.

220

cc

iv.

7.

422

a

ix.

7.

329

cc

xvi.

32.

267

cc

iv.

11.

132

<c

ix.

25.

275

280

cc

iv.

12.

171

cc

ix.

30.

289

cc

xvii.

4.

217

cc

iv.

13.

212

a

ix.

36.

439

cc

xvii.

18.

218

cc

iv.

20.

383

X.

8.

301

cc

xvii.

22.

215

cc

iv.

22.

284

cc

X.

18.

299

cc

xvii.

24.

209

cc

v.

4.

278

cc

X.

29.

125

cc

xvii.

25.

347

382

a

X.

32.

209

cc

xviii.

11.

392

cc

V.

7.

399

n

X.

37.

374

cc

xviii.

12.

216

, cc

V.

12.

399

it

xi.

1.

326

cc

xviii.

27.

392

cc

V.

20.

185

it

xi.

2.

276

cc

xix.

5.

399

cc

V.

21.

323

cc

xi.

15.

356

cc

xix.

6.

110

cc

V.

26.

388

a

xi.

18.

419

cc

xix.

14.

153

cc

V.

29.

436

CRITICALLY ILLUSTRATED.

463

PAGE.

PAGE.

PACK.

Acts

V,

. 32.

155

Acts

xii.

21.

123

Acts

xix. 38.

50

tt

V.

, 35.

419

tt

xiii.

2.

206

a

XX.

, 3.

403

V.

37.

90

it

xiii.

4.

144

XX,

, 13.

207

" vi. 9.

111

n

xiii.

9.

121

tt

XX.

, 34.

412

vii.

5.

217

it

xiii.

10.

391

tt

xxi.

3.

205

tt

vii.

10.

117

ti

xiii.

13.

323

275

"

vii.

14.

313

it

xiii.

25.

140

ti

xxi.

8.

114

vii.

20.

195

it

xiii.

26.

185

ti

xxi.

13.

447

it

vii.

22.

178

K

xiii.

27.

353

11

xxi.

16.

137

tt

vii.

24.

422

ti

xiii.

32.

178

168

tt

vii.

38.

192

a

xiii.

34.

455

it

xxi.

28.

345

a

vii.

42.

392

it

xiii.

48.

207

it

xxi.

31.

168

vii.

48.

417

ti

xiii.

49.

305

ti

xxi.

33.

225

vii.

53.

179

a

xiv.

17.

347

n

xxi.

36.

187

318

it

xiv.

26.

366

tt

xxi.

38.

90

ct

viii.

4.

353

n

XV.

7.

178

391

C(

viii.

9.

141

it

XV.

16.

364

tt

xxii.

3.

153

tc

viii.

15.

105

it

XV.

22.

202

ti

xxii.

5.

122

tc

viii.

22.

235

ti

XV.

27.

274

"

xxii.

17.

252

(C

viii.

26.

133

it

XV.

36.

123

tt

xxii.

18.

116

(C

viii.

27.

92

it

XV.

38.

300

"

xxii.

19.

167

CC

viii.

31.

239

(C

xvi.

9.

172

tc

xxii.

22.

222

"

viii.

40,

102

(C

xvi.

16.

145

tt

xxii.

30.

295

453

li

xvi.

21.

379

tt

xxiii.

1.

100

<c

ix.

1.

159

It

xvi.

22.

212

tt

xxiii.

3.

100

tt

ix.

2.

121

It

xvi.

33.

300

274

"

ix.

7.

90

it

xvi.

34.

269

tt

xxiii.

8.

379

<c

ix.

9.

371

It

xvii.

1.

91

tt

xxiii.

9.

437

(t

ix.

11.

353

It .

xvii.

2.

300

tt

xxiii.

21.

157

"

ix.

37.

146

428

226

<c

ix.

42.

167

It

xvii.

4.

206

CC

xxiii.

23.

140

u

X.

7.

125

It

xvii.

14.

454

tt

xxiii.

27.

114

422

It

xvii.

16.

122

tc

xxiii.

30.

403

(

X.

17.

300

It

xvii.

20.

140

tt

xxiv.

5.

271

(f

X.

22.

252

tl

xvii.

21.

191

ct

xxiv.

10.

269

a

X.

25.

258

Cl

xvii.

22.

193

(C

xxiv.

16.

311

ti

X.

32.

117

It

xvii.

28.

120

CC

xxiv.

17.

306

tt

X.

36.

399

456

't

xxiv.

21.

137

409

It

xviii.

14.

240

CC

xxiv.

22.

421

ti

X.

39.

422

tl

xviii.

20.

133

<t

XXV.

10.

191

ti

X.

41.

141

tt

xix.

3.

317

tt

XXV.

11.

210

it

xi.

1.

319

CC

xix.

13.

324

tt

XXV.

12.

206

"

xi.

13.

91

tc

xix.

22.

328

ct

XXV.

13.

117

"

xi.

15.

451

tt

xix.

24.

204

CC

XXV.

21.

129

tt

xi.

16.

326

tc

xix.

26.

332

(C

XXV.

22.

222

ti

xi.

17.

397

tt

xix.

27.

151

CC

xxvi.

3.

181

ti

XL.

19.

300

345

318

it

xi.

22.

447

tt

xix.

29.

279

CC

xxvi.

7.

85

it

XL.

28.

187

(t

xix.

34.

403

tc

xxvi.

16.

207

464

KKOISTEJl OF 1'ASSAGES OF THE JV. T.

PAGE.

PAGE.

PAGE.

Acts

xxvi.

18.

118

Rom.

iv.

11.

284

Rom.

viii.

12.

256

a

xxvi.

22.

353

1C

iv.

17.

137

a

viii.

14.

105

a

xxvK

23.

84

11

iv.

19.

371

it

viii.

18.

322

ii

xxvi.

24.

92

tl

V.

3.

427

it

viii.

18.

416

a

xxvi.

29.

238

ll

V.

5.

121

ti

viii.

20.

318

n

xxvi.

31.

211

tt

V.

6.

352

it

viii.

21.

284

it

xxvii.

2.

177

ll

V.

7.

95

ii

viii.

23.

294

u

xxvii.

10.

268

219

it

viii.

24.

224

408

ll

V.

11.

271

it

viii.

25.

224

ii

xxvii.

13.

191

ll

V.

12.

101

it

viii.

27.

319

tl

xxvii.

14.

126

125

it

ix.

3.

222

u

xxvii.

22.

423

404

it

ix.

4.

91

u

xxvii.

33.

271

tt

V.

14.

351

ii

ix.

6.

267

C(

xxvii.

34.

302

ll

V.

15.

92

ii

ix.

8.

99

ii

xxvii.

38.

91

ll

V.

18.

429

it

ix.

10.

96

xxvii.

39.

419

ll

V.

19.

92

427

(C

xxvii.

42.

386

tt

V.

21.

330

ii

ix.

11.

157

Rom.

i.

2.

402

n

V.

23.

404

it

ix.

16.

432

tl

i.

4.

185

ll

V.

25.

329

it

ix-

21.

102

it

i.

5.

305

ll

vi.

2.

169

ii

ix.

23.

404

1C

i.

6.

158

ll

vi.

6.

153

it

ix.

29.

444

11

i.

8.

305

11

vi.

10.

139

it

ix.

32.

454

410

169

ii

X.

1.

409

li

i.

17.

115

ll

vi.

14.

247

ii

X.

2.

320

ll

i.

19.

183

ll

vi.

17.

137

it

x.

15.

446

It

i.

20.

183

205

it

X.

18.

351

It

i.

24.

256

ll

vi.

20.

169

it

X.

20.

363

329

ll

vi.

21.

123

it

xi.

4.

147

ll

i.

26.

408

ll

vi.

22.

330

it

xi.

6.

223

(C

i.

27.

406

t<

vii.

2.

153

455

it

i.

30.

50

tl

vii.

4.

307

ii

xi.

19.

353

tl

ii.

1.

311

169

it

xi.

21.

367

It

ii.

5.

329

tl

vii.

6.

133

387

a

ii.

9.

132

it

vii.

7.

240

it

xi.

27.

157

it

ii.

13.

400

351

ii

xi.

31.

356

n

ii.

14.

242

ll

vii.

10.

453

it

xi.

36.

91

it

ii.

17.

404

ll

vii.

12.

410

330

it

ii.

21.

252

ll

vii.

13.

269

ii

xii.

1,2.

411

it

ii.

26.

125

ll

vii.

17.

455

307

it

ii.

27.

113

ll

vii.

21.

406

it

xii.

6.

411

ii

ii.

28.

352

ll

vii.

24.

153

ti

xii.

5.

92

tt

iii.

4.

201

185

ii

xii.

15.

260

tl

iii.

8.

397

It

viii.

1.

115

it

xiii.

1.

299

u

iii,

9.

418

ll

viii.

2.

116

ii

xiii.

8.

385

It

iii.

22.

330

ll

viii.

3.

181

ii

xiii.

11.

401

It

iii.

23.

272

302

it

xiii.

13.

166

ll

iii.

30.

220

311

ii

xiv.

2.

119

ll

iv.

2.

240

ll

viii.

6.

350

ii

xiv.

8.

231

(I

iv.

9.

429

te

viii.

9.

105

ii

xiv.

21.

368

CRITICALLY ILLUSTRATED.

465

PACK.

PAGE.

PAGE.

Rom.

xiv. 23.

215

1 Cor.

vii. 2.

130

1 Cor.

xii. 23.

194

cc

xv. 3.

409

cc

vii. 5.

238

cc

xiii. 3.

178

cc

xv. 9.

262

cc

vii. 7.

223

cc

xiii. 12.

207

cc

xv. 18.

219

445

it

xiii. 13.

192

li

XV. 25.

274

cc

vii. 10.

381

cc

xiv. 1.

352

cc

xv. 30.

307

cc

vii. 13.

411

cc

xiv. 1.

411

cc

xv. 32.

356

cc

vii. 15.

244

(f

xiv. 5.

231

a

xvi. 10.

155

cc

vii. 18.

140

445

1C

xvi. 27.

91

cc

vii. 21.

437

It

xiv. 11.

171

1 Cor.

i. 8.

133

cc

vii. 26.

354

cc

xiv. 13.

356

<(

i. 9.

305

cc

vii. 28.

173

cc

xiv. 38.

244

. 10.

307

cc

vii. 31.

166

cc

xv. 5.

445

1C

. 11.

155

cc

vii. 37.

256

cc

xv. 8.

91

It

. 17.

382

cc

vii. 38.

411

;c

xv. 10.

350

u

. 21.

307

cc

viii. 3.

207

382

'(

. 22.

450

cc

viii. 6.

331

cc

xv. 13.

352

Cc

. 23.

394

cc

viii. 9.

351

cc

374

1C

i. 25.

194

cc

viii. 11.

315

cc

xv. 29.

144

<c

i. 28.

370

cc

ix. 2.

374

308

<c

ii. 6.

171

cc

ix. 11.

170

cc

xv. 33.

42

<c

ii. 9.

351

cc

ix. 13.

93

456

cc

ii. 15.

410

cc

ix. 15.

171

cc

xv. 34.

246

C(

iii. 2.

379

cc

ix. 20.

218

cc

xv. 35.

210

(C

iii. 5.

354

cc

ix. 21.

370

cc

xv. 39.

141

cc

iii. 7.

141

cc

ix. 22.

141

(C

xv. 41.

401

iii. 14.

49

cc

x. 2.

202

cc

xv. 52.

199

cc

iii. 19.

272

cc

x. 3.

113

cc

xvi. 1.

302

It

iv. 3.

151

cc

x. 4.

160

cc

xvi. 3.

145

cc

iv. 4.

349

cc

x. 9.

124

306

cc

iv. 5.

90

cc

x. 10.

91

cc

xvi. 22.

375

iv. 6.

228

cc

x. 16.

185

2 Cor.

i. 4.

136

cc

iv. 7.

351

cc

x. 17.

92

cc

i. 5.

153

cc

iv. 8.

237

cc

x. 22.

223

cc

i. 12.

195

cc

iv. 9.

348

cc

x. 33.

369

cc

i. 17.

91

351

cc

xi. 5.

170

357

cc

iv. 11.

171

cc

xi. 6.

244

cc

i. 21.

352

cc

iv. 17.

361

374

cc

i. 24.

169

cc

iv. 18.

370

cc

xi. 12.

307

cc

ii. 7.

252

<c

v. 3.

352

cc

xi. 16.

451

cc

ii. 16.

449

cc

v. 5.

356

cc

xi. 18.

418

cc

ii. 17.

92

cc

v. 6.

457

cc

xi. 20.

354

cc

iii. 4.

418

cc

v. 10.

223

cc

xi. 23.

299

cc

iii. 5.

418

418

cc

xi. 26.

352

cc

iii. 6.

74

cc

vi. 10.

383

cc

xi. 27.

345

(C

iii. 7.

424

cc

vi. 11.

136

cc

xi. 28.

351

cc

iii. 9.

353

cc

vi. 15.

447

cc

xi. 30.

211

cc

iii. 17.

125

cc

vi. 16.

401

cc

xii. 3.

105

cc

iii. 18.

201

cc

vi. 19.

144

cc

xii. 15.

321

cc

iv. 1.

223

163

384

cc

iv. 2.

76

466

REGISTER OP PASSAGES OF THE N. T.

rAGE.

PAGE.

PAGE.

2 Cor.

iv. 3.

171

2 Cor.

xi. 28.

286

Gal.

V. 11.

202

>.<.

iv. 4.

441

cc

. xi. 29.

130

cc

v. 12.

237

cc

iv. 6.

297

cc

xii. 1.

146

cc

v. 13.

432

cc

iv. 13.

271

cc

xii. 2.

145

cc

v. 26.

386

cc

iv. 16.

360

cc

xii. 6.

352

cc

vi. 1.

396

cc

iv. 17.

361

cc

xii. 7.

146

cc

vi. 10.

223

cc

iv. 18.

370

450

Ephes.

i. 6.

136

cc

V. 1.

284

cc

xii. 13.

320

cc

i. 7.

312

cc

v. 4.

202

cc

xii. 15.

132

cc

i. 11.

206

cc

v. 5.

284

192

cc

i. 12.

114

"

v. 6.

272

cc

xii. 17.

409

Ci

i. 15.

130

408

cc

xii. 19.

166

cc

i. 16.

228

cc

V. 11.

261

cc

xii. 20.

352

cc

i. 17.

129

"

v. 12.

272

cc

xii. 21.

315

cc

i. 18.

116

v. 20.

308

cc

xiii. 3.

357

cc

i. 20.

171

cc

v. 21.

370

CC

xiii. 4.

311

cc

i. 21.

402

cc

vi. 13.

286

402

IS

i. 23.

203

439

cc

xiii. 7.

418

cc

ii. 1.

402

cc

vi. 14.

174

454

cc

ii. 2.

186

cc

vii. 5.

272

Gal.

i. 1.

330

423

cc

vii. 7.

191

cc

i. 4.

113

cc

ii. 7.

116

cc

vii. 9.

357

cc

i. 5.

91

cc

ii. 15.

172

cc

viii. 2.

335

cc

i. 7.

93

cc

iii. 1.

153

cc

viii. 3.

271

"

i. 12.

378

402

406

cc

i. 13.

212

cc

iii. 8.

62

cc

viii. 7.

156

u

i. 16.

171

cc

iii. 16.

228

247

cc

i. 19.

423

330

351

cc

ii. 2.

387

cc

iii. 17.

407

"

viii. 10.

421

cc

ii. 4.

4'*3

cc

iii. 18.

124

cc

viii. 15.

431

cc

ii. 5.

403

cc

iii. 19.

170

cc

viii. 20.

271

cc

ii. 6.

403

cc

iii. 20.

334

cc

viii. 23.

412

cc

ii. 7.

141

CC

iii. 21.

91

(C

ix. 1.

410

cc

ii. 9.

429

cc

iv. 1.

136

cc

ix. 3.

410

cc

ii. 11.

276

cc

iv. 2.

407

cc

ix. 6.

432

cc

ii. 19.

169

cc

iv. 6.

331

cc

ix. 9.

364

cc

iii. 9.

314

cc

iv. 9.

284

cc

ix. 10.

407

cc

iii. 12.

115

cc

iv. 10.

102

cc

ix. 13.

307

cc

iii. 14.

184

cc

iv. 13.

155

cc

x. 7.

163

cc

iii. 12.

335

cc

iv. 21.

313

cc

x. 9.

244

cc

iii. 20.

95

cc

iv. 22.

251

cc

x. 10.

287

cc

iii. 22.

317

cc

,iv. 26.

245

cc

x. 13.

351

cc

iii. 23.

416

cc

iv. 27.

378

cc

x. 14.

307

cc

iv. 9.

207

cc

v. 3.

371

xi. 1.

237

cc

iv. 11.

396

cc

v. 5.

142

cc

xi. 4.

240

cc

iv. 17.

228

cc

v. 9.

283

cc

xi. 20.

202

cc

iv. 19. '

122

cc

v. 12.

126

cc

xi. 21.

445

cc

iv. 20.

222

cc

v. 13.

203

cc

xi. 23.

334

cc

iv. 24.

410

cc

v. 14.

246

cc

xi. 26.

152

cc

iv. 25.

147

cc

v. 15.

236

CRITICALLY ILLUSTKATED.

467

PAGE.

PAGE.

TAGE.

Ephes.

V.

, 21.

271

Col.

ii.

5.

364

1 Tim.

iii. 1.

162

" v. 26.

117

cc

ii.

8-

93

cc

iii.

. 2.

96

cc

V.

, 27.

411

cc

ii.

14.

172

cc

iii. 12.

16

cc

V.

, 32.

129

cc

ii.

18.

152

cc

iii. 14.

191

cc

vi. 2.

213

cc

'ii.

19.

195

cc

iii.

16.

205

"

vi.

3.

356

cc

ii.

23.

409

cc

iv.

1.

152

cc

vi. 5.

117

cc

iii.

3.

169

cc

iv.

3.

440

cc

vi.

12.

186

cc

iii.

8.

121

cc

V.

4.

270*

cc

vi.

16.

114

(C

iii.

13.

401

cc

V.

13.

270

Phil.

i.

, 9.

329

<c

iii.

15.

1&2

cc

V.

13.

270

It

i.

12.

191

cc

iii.

16.

407

cc

V.

23.

382

cc

i.

14.

116

<c

iii.

18.

213

C(

vi.

3.

5J

cc

i.

22.

235

cc

iii.

24.

284

cc

vi.

5.

87

cc

i.

30.

102

cc

iv.

7.

116

cc

vi.

8.

67

cc

ii.

1.

187

cc

iv.

16.

121

cc

vi.

12.

246

cc

ii.

3.

429

397

cc

vi.

17.

156

cc

ii. 4.

382

1 Thess.

i.

1.

116

184

cc

ii.

6.

146

cc

i.

3.

452

2 Tim.

i.

8.

153 -

cc

ii.

7.

311

cc

i.

4.

158

cc

i.

18.

295 <

<c

ii.

9.

119

CC

ii.

3.

379

cc

ii.

2.

305

(C

ii.

15.

365

cc

ii.

6.

326

cc

ii.

6.

418

cc

ii.

22.

333

cc

ii.

8.

86

cc

ii.

14.

441

cc

ii.

30.

81

cc

ii.

13.

204

cc

ii.

26.

440

(C

iii.

2.

176

cc

ii.

16.

351

cc

iii.

6.

84

cc

iii.

3.

370

cc

iii.

3.

254

cc

iii.

12.

452

c

iii.

5.

169

cc

iii.

5.

387

C(

iii.

13.

452

cc

iii.

10.

256

cc

iii.

13.

329

cc

iv.

8.

214

cc

iii.

12.

207

cc

iv.

7.

329

cc

iv.

18.

91

217

c;

iv.

8.

381

Tit.

i.

2.

402

cc

iii.

14.

439

382

cc

i.

3.

285

cc

iii.

16.

260

cc

iv.

9.

268

cc

i.

5.

203

"

iii.

18.

151

cc

iv.

15.

389

cc

i.

6.

96

cc

iii.

20.

123

cc

iv.

16.

116

cc

i.

7.

371

352

cc

v.

2.

118

cc

i.

11.

372

cc

iv.

7.

152

cc

v.

5.

163

cc

i.

12.

130

"

iv.

10.

254

cc

v.

8.

163

cc

ii.

7.

203 -

cc

iv.

16.

179

cc

v.

10.

231

cc

ii.

13.

111

cc

iv.

18.

185

2 Thess.

i.

8.

368

cc

iii.

5.

313

cc

iv.

20.

91

cc

i.

12.

311

Philem.

i.

1.

153

Col.

i.

4.

115

cc

ii.

2.

379

cc

i.

2.

308

cc

i.

6.

116

cc

iii.

8.

379

cc

i.

5.

325

cc

i.

16.

94

cc

iii.

14.

92

cc

i.

6.

329

331

1 Tim.

i.

2.

116

358

cc

i.

21.

407

cc

i.

5.

401

c:

i.

9.

153

cc

i.

22.

153

cc

i.

7.

139

cc

i.

11.

394

cc

i.

23.

368

cc

i.

12.

270

cc

i.

13.

153

cc

i.

24.

153

cc

ii.

6.

284

308

cc

i.

26.

407

cc

ii.

8.

62

cc

i. 20.

394

cc

ii.

2.

407

cc

ii. 15.

280

Heb.

i.

2.

145

<T

I,/.

22

468 REGISTER OP PASSAGES OF THE N. T.

7

PAGE.

PAGE.

PAGE.

Heb.

i. 3.

185

Heb.

ix. 16.

416

Jas.

ii. 10.

220

"

i. 6.

242

cc

ix. 17.

375

241

i. 9.

218

cc

ix. 23.

146

cc

ii. 11.

230

cc

ii. 8.

352

cc

ix. 26.

222

cc

ii. 14.

90

cc

ii. 9.

358

cc

x. 6.

218,4

?'*)"

ii. 18.

-4t 'I { '/

ii. 10.

324

cc

x. 8.

427

"/cc

ii. 20.

91 "^ 1

cc

ii. 16.

211

cc

x. 10.

117

cc

ii. 25.

91

c

ii. 18.

311

cc

x. 27.

416

cc

ii. 26.

91

cc

iii. 3.

153

cc

x. 29.

402

94

cc

iii. 11.

383

cc

x. 34.

132

cc

iii. 7.

172

c<

iii. 12.

157

cc

x. 37.

277

<c

iii. 11.

430

"

iii. 15.

406

cc

x. 38.

287

cc

iii. 12.

379

cc

iv. 2.

172

cc

xi. 1.

55

cc

iii. 13.

116

cc

iv. 3.

383

cc

xi. 2.

205

140

cc

iv. 8.

179

cc

xi. 8.

371

cc

iii. 14.

392

cc

iv. 13.

126.

. *>'"

xi. 12.

430

cc

iii. 18.

172

322"

%''"

xi. 13.

320

cc

iv- \JJ. '

364, '

cc

v. 4.

224

CC

xi. 15.

239

cc

iv. 57

335 '

cc

v. 7.

440

cc

xi. 16.

162

cc

iv. 13.

96

"

v. 11.

94

cc

xi. 18.

453

135

cc

v. 12. v

.218

CC

xi. 28.

91

cc

iv. 15.

224

cc

v. 14>

'318

126

cc

v. 2.

215

cc

vi. 1.

284

cc

xi. 29.

324

cc

v. 9.

385

CC

vi. 2.

154

cc

xi. 32.

416

1C

v. 11.

196

cc

vi. 7.

318

cc

xi. 35.

297

cc

v. 13.

140

cc

vi. 8.

271

cc

xii. 11.

284

223

cc

vi. 16.

409

cc

xii. 13.

456

cc

v. 14.

324

cc

vi. 17.

311

cc

xii. 17.

212

1 Pet.

i. 2.

184

cc

vii. 2.

271

(C

xii. 26.

456

cc

i. 5.

312

cc

vii. 4.

416

cc

xiii. 2.

362

cc

i. 7.

118

cc

vii. 6.

146

cc

xiii. 9.

313

cc

183

'N?. H "*

371

Ci

xiii. 10.

160

cc

i. 8.

371

vii. 9.

305

cc

xiii. 13.

153

cc

i. 9.

274

vii. 11.

205

(C

xiii. 19.

191

cc

i. 10.

167

cc

vii. 13.

224

"

xiii. 20.

113

cc ,

i. 11.

,.157 /. ..

cc

vii. 18.

14j| (

<>

xiii. 24.

397

cc

i. 14.

^272 '

it

vii. 27.

130

Jas.

i. 2.

100

cc

i. 15.

100

cc

viii. 9.

406

cc

i. 9.

440

cc

i. 18.

189

cc

viii. 10.

408

cc

i. 11.

218

188

c

viii. 11.

143

cc

i. 13.

157

cc

ii. 6.

199

399

300

cc

ii. 7.

415

cc

ix. 2, 3.

146

cc

i. 17.

456

cc

ii. 9.

358

<c

ix. 2.

184

cc

i. 18.

140

cc

ii. 10.

276

425

cc

i. 24.

218

cc

ii. 19.

281

u

ix. 4.

133

cc

ii. 1.

145

cc

ii. 22.

453

309

cc

ii. 2.

407

cc

ii. 23.

432

ix. 9.

188

iC

ii. 4.

152

cc

ii. 24.

127

cc

ix. 10.

425

cc

ii. 5.

153

cc

ii. 25.

132

c<

ix. 11.

306

It

ii. 9.

279

cc

iii. 1.

67

CRITICALLY ILLUSTRATED.

409

PAGE.

PAGE.

PACT:.

1 Pet.

iii.

6.

359

1 John

iii.

12.

427

Rev.

vi.

11.

144

"

iii.

7.

284

tt

iii.

20.

426

tt

vii.

2.

275

n

iii.

14.

126

iii.

24.

412

"

vii.

9.

188

230

it

iv.

9.

171

412

"

iii.

18.

326

329

(

vii.

11.

70

it

iii.

19.

447

it

v.

10.

367

"

viii.

4.

170

it

iii.

21.

1542

\S <jtt

v.

15.

231

"

viii.

9.

188

it

iv.

1.

207'

v.

16.

287

tt

viii.

11.

98

326

368

tt

viii.

12.

357

it

iv.

9.

167

"

v.

20.

113

it

ix.

2.

446

it

iv.

11.

91

132

it

ix.

10.

440

<

iv.

14.

112

136

it

ix.

12.

147

it

v.

10.

114

2 John

i.

2.

412

n

ix.

20.

357

it

v.

7.

271

tt

i.

4.

187

it

ix.

21.

124

2 Pet.

i.

1.

161

i.

6.

422

378

tt

i.

3.

207

"

i.

7.

274

X.

7.

217

306

369

ii

X.

9.

260

"

i.

5.

123

<(

i.

10.

375

it

xi.

5.

231

"

i.

9.

352

3 John

i.

2.

302

ti

xi.

14.

147

CC

i.

17.

298

tt

i.

4.

135

ti

xi.

15.

186

271

<t

i.

7.

299

it

xii.

7.

258

(1

ii.

1.

271

Jude

i.

4.

111

ii

xii.

8.

378

tt

ii.

3.

176

tt

i.

11.

437

453

tt

ii.

4.

274

<(

i.

12.

276

ii

xii.

11.

318

404

tt

i.

14.

218

it

xii.

14.

145

It

ii.

5.

196

"

i.

15.

175

ii

xiii.

11.

440

It

ii.

9.

274

"

i.

16.

412

it

xiii.

13.

358

It

ii.

12.

398

Rev.

i.

4.

61

tt

xiv.

10.

155

It

ii.

19.

166

it

i.

5.

357

a

xiv.

12.

189

"

ii.

22.

272

it

i.

6.

413

it

xiv.

13.

358

431

"

i.

10.

283

it

xiv.

14.

412

"

iii.

1.

123

<(

ii.

5.

450

it

xiv.

19.

187

It

iii.

2.

155

ii.

13.

450

it

xvi.

7.

164

"

iii.

5.

271

ti

ii.

16.

132

it

xvii.

8.

396

331

"

ii.

17.

159

it

xvii.

16.

122

It

iii.

9.

162

ii.

20.

188

it

xviii.

7.

180

tl

iii.

11.

275

(C

iii.

5.

237

ti

xviii.

14.

132

It

iii.

14.

172

It

iii.

9.

187

ti

xviii.

17.

180

It

iii.

16.

J22

tt

iii.

12.

189

ii

xix.

13.

98

1 John

i.

1.

405

11

iii.

16.

358

it

xix.

15.

155

448

It

iii.

19.

365

n

XX.

4.

90

ct

i.

9.

358

11

iv.

2.

412

it

XX.

5.

233

tt

ii.

2.

441

"

iv.

9.

220

it

xxi.

4.

383

It

ii.

19.

426

11

iv.

11.

91

it

xxi.

10.

412

11

ii.

21.

285

"

v.

3.

378

tt

xxi.

11.

195

It

ii.

27.

21.8

v.

4.

373

400

409

tt

v.

11.

188

it

XX.

17.

181

It

iii.

1.

357

It

V.

13.

91

it

xxi.

27.

423

tt

iii.

5.

211

tt

vi.

8.

98

tt

xxii.

12.

254

59